Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Jugband_Blues

Lennon or McCartney

Recommended Posts

This is pretty much like the "Waters or Gilmour" thread, only with, you guessed it, Lennon and McCartney. I've tried to figure which is better, but it's been impossible. So, I decided to ask all of you. There could've been a thread like this before, (it's hard to believe there wasn't) but I was unable to find it. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both were sensational, and better as part of a team. Here are my thoughts:

Lennon: Creative, Unpredictable, Fearless, Impulsive, Brilliant.

McCartney: Lyrical, Reliable, Nostalgic, Legendary.

I prefer Lennon.

By the way, Lennon::Stevie Nicks, McCartney::Christine McVie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Post deleted by Tony Danza's secretary

eeeewaaaaah?

I would say Lennon, which is partly judged by his solo career, which I liked more, and partly judged because of what I know to be his influence in the Beatles. From what I know about the Beatles, Lennon was responsible for most of the psychadelic songs, which I liked more. I don't have a ton of knowledge on the Beatles though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

McCartney is a bright musican. And also a Sir, and a money lover, and the muzak-maker Lennon sung about ("How do you sleep") since he left the Beatles. And George Martin is another genius.

John Lennon was the soul, the flame, the spirit, the everything of the Beatles.

kultur1040995612b.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In terms of their contributions to The Beatles, I don't think there is much to choose between Lennon and McCartney. They both wrote a great many brilliant songs and they both wrote a few clunkers. In terms of their solo material, I much prefer the music of Paul McCartney (even though he gave the world such musical atrocities as Say, Say, Say and Ebony And Ivory). Even great composers have off days.

:happybanana:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, we did have this thread about 9 months ago. To paraphrase my opinion from that thread:

Each had shared writing/arranging gifts (both lyrical and both musical genius) that encouraged, inspired AND enhanced the other's. While sharing similar enivironmental exposure as youth allowed for common grounding, both had enough differences in personality type and personal style enfolding counterbalance to their combined efforts.

While each were prolific and enjoyed a degree of success apart from the other post-Beatles, by virture of the strength of their individual genius, neither alone could effect the enduring magic that permeated the music they produced through shared resources.

While Beatles, though they usually wrote solo, they still relied on one another as critic, collaborator, competitor and completer for each song they added to the band's portfolio. The nuances of the other was almost always found in the music of each. One of the best illustrations of this completion process is on "Getting Better." Paul was just not completely happy with it after he shared his initial song with John. John suggested adding the words, "It can't get any worse." That small addition made the song come to life and it was recorded. There was Paul's optimism tempered by John's cynicism and the result was a song nearly everyone could relate to in some way.

Add to their creative virtuosity, the musical influence of George Harrison, the binding affected by Ringo and the freedom awarded by their producer George Martin, in addition to the true love they all had for one another (until near the end of the band's life) and you have a songwriting duo whose collaboration exceeded the total of their individual input.

One could not have been better than the other .... one WAS the other's best part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still can´t find a single McCartney´s song which I like... maybe his first and second album solo had bright tracks, but for me he´s just as good as Phil Collins...

Don´t hit me!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, there´s definitely some good songs on his first and second albums... some of them were supposed to be on Beatles albums, like "Junk", "Teddy Boy" or "Maybe I´m amazed"... I remember those titles in the magazines when they were talking about the next Beatle record, which finally was "Let it Be" (though recorded before "Abbey Road") and then they skipped songs and some went into the McCa´s solo album...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You´re right, even Ringo had a great song, "It don´t come easy"... that confirms the theory that claims they should have not split that soon! :: ::

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really listen to any of the solo stuff, but based on listening to the Beatles as a band, I'd agree that they all brought something different to the band.

It seems to me that John was more difficult to work with (not like I was there or anything); how he openly spoke against some of Paul's songs, restricted George to only 2 songs per album, went so far as to suggest replacing George with Eric (Clapton)... But then he was also the rock n' roll of the group.

I can't decide, but if I had to, at this point, I'd have to go with Paul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that John was more difficult to work with (not like I was there or anything); how he openly spoke against some of Paul's songs, restricted George to only 2 songs per album, went so far as to suggest replacing George with Eric (Clapton)... But then he was also the rock n' roll of the group.

John Lennon really insulted Paul, but that was after the split... he then told many things he never had said during the Beatles time. He was really upset about how Paul dismembered the band when he (John) was trying to quit for two years. Kinda like "Hey, it was my idea...!" He didn´t say a word because he and the others wanted to agree before taking any step, and Paul seemed to be the one who wanted to go on with the Beatles... Paul also choosed the release of "Let it Be" to release his first solo album, which was commercially bad, and they didn´t agree on having Allen Klein (Paul proposed Linda´s father, and then proved he was right...) or Phil Spector producing "Let it Be" (Paul wanted George Martin)

All this bitterness showed only when Paul announced Beatles split... then came all kind of statements and even the open insulting John´s songs ("How do you sleep"), and the record with John holding a pig by the ears as a response to the "Ram" cover, etc.

I didn´t know John wanted Eric Clapton to replace George Harrison...

You can see some of this bad vibes in the"Let it Be" movie...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really hate this question . To me, they are equally essential if you consider whether or not The Beatles would be as successful minus either one ( Same for The Stones , with Mick and Keith , IMO ) . Solo-wise , we see what essentially different philosophies each had ( Yin and Yang , really ) , With John writing both idealistic and bluesy, harder reality stuff , while Paul , the eternal optomist, who wanted that to come through in his songs , wrote cheerful and playful pop tunes, mainly . He has often said he thought this was music's main role -- to make people happy.

With all due respect to John , he does have the 'advantage' of being dead ( and horribly so, making him even a little more 'untouchable' ) and somewhat martyred -- no longer having to answer for "What went wrong with The Beatles ?", nor continue to put out works that none of us could say for sure would be any good . In this respect , I think Paul is much maligned, often having to play second- fiddle to a dead rock 'hero ' , and I feel sorry for him sometimes , especially when this topic is raised .

So I'll sit comfortably on the fence , as I think that is the fair place to be on this topic .' Band On The Run' is a great album , don't you think ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was joking Edna :laughing:

But you're right. I like John the best too, but I certainly don't dislike Paul, he's great as well just like George and Ringo. They're the Beatles!

I agree with what Kevin said about Paul often getting the short end of the stick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...