McCartney vs. Lennon

worpswede · Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 11:28 am

It's a no brainer: Lennon for me. It goes without saying that Paul was indeed a brilliant songwriter/composer/bassist, but he really needed to feed off of John to come up with consistently great tunes.
Even at their worst, I'd take "Double Fantasy" over "London Town" or "Back To The Egg" any day of the week.

D. Phillips · Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 12:37 pm

While I'm not into picking one over the other (a nearly 20 year argument Jake and I have had), I do think Paul's gotten the shit end of the stick while John has been sainted. John put out some pretty shit records in his day too. The production on Walls & Bridges and Rock & Roll is unlistenable. You can blame Phil Spector, but John signed off on 'em. And John had his MOR moments too, something for which Paul is routinely bashed. And not every lyric of John's was a nugget of wisdom (please see "God Save Oz").

But they both had brilliant flashes in their post-Beatle years. Paul's Ram album is probably number two of the solo albums from all four Beatles, just behind Plastic Ono Band and barely edging out All Things Must Pass. That's quite something. Paul could get weird with the best of them in his day.

Now, some pimping. Go read my article on the last Beatles album that never was. It's a comp of the first two solo records from each Beatle to make up what I think would be what might have followed Abbey Road and Let it Be.

Jake · Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 1:22 pm

jaimoe0 · Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 1:38 pm

According to Blackshoestring's link, they both worked on "I Saw Her Standing There," surely the Beatles' finest moment, so it's a draw.

Jiggle Billy · Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 2:14 pm

jonas · Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 6:44 pm

I'm a RINGO man myself!

No, just kidding. Wanted to try it on for size. The thing about L&M is that much of their good stuff was written by the two of them, with one of them providing the demo and the other throwing in a bridge or lyric [in the late 70s I shoplifted a copy of Penthouse that had John Lennon's last interview...in it he went song by song describing who had contributed what...I'd love to find a copy of that now]. Yeah Paul provided more pop and John more of the dark moods, but both were great when working together.

Not completely different from the Strummer/Jones interaction, come to think of it.

miss carol · Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 7:40 pm

An argument can be made for either being the best. I will come down the middle to say they wrote their best work together, fighting each other. Tension wrote the best music and they brought out the best in each other despite themselves. Indeed, George Martin helped them create their best work.

George was the coolest because he liked his minor keys.

Ringo is, well, Ringo and few can top that, friends.

infectiousdisease · Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 7:50 pm

russ · Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 5:48 am

The day John Lennon was murdered he became Saint John, and that very same day Paul's star began to shine a lot less brighter simply because he was still living.

If it wasn't for Paul McCartney, the BEATLES output would not have been as volumuous as it is. He was the one who, toward the end of their career as Beatles, kept coming up with new ideas for albums. Sergeant Pepper was his idea. So was Magical Mystery Tour. Lennon was a heroin addict (along with Yoko) by the late 60's and was barely writing, but Paul's work ethich made him come off as a taskmaster. Lennon and Harrsion are on record as not wanting to get into the studio so often, but were always nudged in by McCartney.
Lennon & McCartney did have some great songs written together, and I like both of them equally because while in the Beatles I think they were artistic equals.
For every great Lennon song, there is a McCartney one just as good.
But since Lennon is a dead rock star icon, became Saint John, who died at 40 and never got old. He's like Mariyln Monroe and James Dean.

Now Paul is and old and has to live in Lennon's huge shadow.
It wonder if it bothers him?

Lennon did have a few great songs in the early to mid 70s like "Imagine", "Instant Karma","Mind Games" but he also had some severe misses.
I recently read the BEATLES SOLO CAREERS special issue of NME and it really puts a perspective on the 70s for all 4 Ex Beatles.

Sales don't neccesarily mean everything, McCartney kept putting out music throughout the 70s and out of all 4 Beatles, sold the most records in the 70s.
In my opinion put out some great solo stuff. "Maybe I'm Amazed"," My Love", Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey", "Jet", "let Em In" , "Live & Let Die", "Another Day" to name a few.

ok. time to go to work.

Thank you veddy mooch

Billy Green · Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 7:49 am Re: McCartney vs. Lennon

I agree that Paul has the unfortunate position of still being alive which isn't an ideal position for a rock legend, but to say Paul is "underrated" and "never given due credit"...c'mon! This is Paul McCartney, the man is fucking huge. I'd say he's perfectly rated and given a shitload of credit. Underrated people tend to not be able to charge in excess of $200 for a live show and have it sold out before the day is half over.

I think this notion of Paul not being appreciated is just a myth that exists around serious music fan crowds or something. This man is loved by all people and animals. If he's underrated, than I guess Elvis is too. And John Lennon. And I think that Jimi Hendrix was a pretty good guitar player too, I don't care what anyone says. And I don't know about you, but I'd have to say that Led Zeppelin is one of the better hard rock bands I've heard.