Mike Posted February 23, 2009 Report Posted February 23, 2009 ..be it over simplified, I'll be the first to admit... that John Lennon was a non-fiction lyricist while Paul McCartney is a fictional lyricist?
Epiphany Posted February 23, 2009 Report Posted February 23, 2009 I don't think so, but it's very fair to say that they were both lyricists.
LeeBB Posted February 23, 2009 Report Posted February 23, 2009 Well, I'm not really sure what you're getting at, but if anything I would say that Lennon is more fanciful and McCartney more, umm, mundane/ordinary/simple/direct. So maybe that's the opposite of what you were saying ;-) LBB
Shawna Posted February 24, 2009 Report Posted February 24, 2009 I have to agree with Lee. I have no idea what you're getting at.
Charlie Clown Posted February 25, 2009 Report Posted February 25, 2009 (edited) Well, they're both fictional lyricists in that neither of them is setting documentary texts to music, they are both making up their lyrics. So the simple answr is no, you can't say that about them. If you mean are Lennon's more grounded in reality - no - when Lennon gets political he tends to operate in some fanciful utopia rather than any real politics (cf the pie in the sky nonsense that is Imagine and Revolution or the soppy romanticism of Woman). McCartney often does frivolous lyrics as well (Frog Chorus, Pipes Of Peace, O-Bla-Di-O-Bla-Da) but his tend to be deliberately chidlish or childlike, whereas Lennon's seem to be intended seriously even though they are just as daft. Edited February 25, 2009 by Guest
Ombre Vivante Posted February 26, 2009 Report Posted February 26, 2009 Well, they're both fictional lyricists in that neither of them is setting documentary texts to music, they are both making up their lyrics. So the simple answr is no, you can't say that about them. If you mean are Lennon's more grounded in reality - no - when Lennon gets political he tends to operate in some fanciful utopia rather than any real politics (cf the pie in the sky nonsense that is Imagine and Revolution or the soppy romanticism of Woman). McCartney often does frivolous lyrics as well (Frog Chorus, Pipes Of Peace, O-Bla-Di-O-Bla-Da) but his tend to be deliberately chidlish or childlike, whereas Lennon's seem to be intended seriously even though they are just as daft. That was perfectly summed up
Charlie Clown Posted February 26, 2009 Report Posted February 26, 2009 Ayethangyoo. It's one of my favourite subjects to rant about this thing that Lennon was in some way superior to McCartney because he was like, y'kmnow, more serious maaaan. Utter rubbish. I'm not saying that that was what the original post was saying but it strays into that area.
Uncle Joe Posted February 26, 2009 Report Posted February 26, 2009 Perhaps it's because Lennon was usually perceived as being more political (which some people equate with being more serious) while McCartney was perceived as being more of a romantic. Though, some of their songs would cause a flip-flop in those perceptions. Suffice it to say that they were each great songwriters for their era and perhaps for any era. Time seems to bear that out.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now