John Lennon vs. Paul McCartney
- Thread starter scottydog
- Start date
RobertScorpio
Pariah
that sounds about right..LOL...George/Bones never getting the 'media attention' like Shatner/Nimoy...Scotty would be Ringo for reasons I wont go into..
Rob
They were much more powerful together than apart. Many times one would add a bridge or a middle to a song that really made it special. There are many examples but the "Life is very short.." part of We Can Work It Out was from John. Also, as they were competing for album space, it brought out the best in them. Despite the impression of Paul songs and John songs, I think most of them were actually a collaborative effort once they were in the studio. Lennon was always critical of McCartney's "granny" music but I think that was just because Lennon had had his fill of Sgt Pepper and wanted to return to straight rock and roll.
Looking at their solo careers really illustrates how the two contributed to songs and how they tempered each other. Lennon was always lazy in the studio and it showed with weak vocals and half-hearted arrangements. McCartney spent a lot of time on the details and would do take after take to get it right complete with several overdubs. Lennon could be too hard and biting, McCartney too soft with clunky lyrics. Lennon suffered with an overdose of Phil Spector, McCartney with a shitty backing band (Wings). McCartney songs were always better if he either played all the instruments himself or collaborated with a big name who didn't take his ego shit.
But like others here, I'm a big fan of Harrison's Beatle work. He complained that he didn't get a chance to showcase his work but he also acknowledged that he didn't try that hard. Once the Lennon\McCartney became such a huge brand it was probably very intimidating for him to suggest a song. But it is telling that Revolver opens with "Taxman". That couldn't have happened unless John and Paul really liked the song. (Although Paul probably voted for it because he played the guitar solo.)
Looking at their solo careers really illustrates how the two contributed to songs and how they tempered each other. Lennon was always lazy in the studio and it showed with weak vocals and half-hearted arrangements. McCartney spent a lot of time on the details and would do take after take to get it right complete with several overdubs. Lennon could be too hard and biting, McCartney too soft with clunky lyrics. Lennon suffered with an overdose of Phil Spector, McCartney with a shitty backing band (Wings). McCartney songs were always better if he either played all the instruments himself or collaborated with a big name who didn't take his ego shit.
But like others here, I'm a big fan of Harrison's Beatle work. He complained that he didn't get a chance to showcase his work but he also acknowledged that he didn't try that hard. Once the Lennon\McCartney became such a huge brand it was probably very intimidating for him to suggest a song. But it is telling that Revolver opens with "Taxman". That couldn't have happened unless John and Paul really liked the song. (Although Paul probably voted for it because he played the guitar solo.)
Really, neither did John or Paul. I find most of Paul's post-Beatles stuff to be almost un-listenable. John, well....Imagine, but that's about it. John and Paul complemented each other. George was the whole package.
I love John he was magic I even named my son after him.
However I met Paul a couple of years back walking through Regent's Park on his own and he was so humble and friendly, top bloke.
However I met Paul a couple of years back walking through Regent's Park on his own and he was so humble and friendly, top bloke.
John spoke to me in away Paul didn't when I was younger. And my slight resemblance to John used to help me get chicks. 
I'd go to Macca concerts wearing a Lennon T-Shirt.
So,there was a time I would have said John but these days I like both equally. Hell, I even like Yoko!
I'd go to Macca concerts wearing a Lennon T-Shirt. So,there was a time I would have said John but these days I like both equally. Hell, I even like Yoko!
Blasphemy! But seriously, Nerys, aren't you the one who used to have a quote from Imagine in your signature? Have you checked out my blog on Lennon?
Those of you who think Imagine was John's only good post-Beatle album need to listen to 1970's Plastic Ono Band. It is one of the remarkable album's I've ever heard.
I probably did. I've used a lot of Beatles related sigs and avs over the years. John always pops up as an avatar in December. I've used Strawberry Fields and Nutopia as locations too.
It's been said--and I think fairly so--that, while Lennon wanted to change the world, all McCartney really wanted to do was sing Silly Love Songs.
It really comes down to the difference between "talent" and "genius". Talent is having the ability and skill to do something in a polished and brilliant way that most others cannot and can only envy. Genius, on the other hand, is having the vision, ability and creative drive to do things that have never been done before in ways no one else has ever done them. McCartney was "talent". Lennon was "genius".
Harrison had a few brilliant moments but for the most part he spent nearly 30 years complaining about how he was held back by Lennon/McCartney for the seven or eight years they were in the band together. He did a few great things but in three DECADES afterward, he didn't approach a fraction of what Lennon or McCartney did separately or together. And it's not like he didn't have a platform to show his work from. Make no mistake, I wish George was still with us (though I'm a "John-fan" mainly) because he WAS a wild-card and you never knew when he might come up with something great. He did once in a while. Too often his ego got ahead of his talent and he thought people should like stuff BECAUSE he'd been "Beatle-George". Lennon and McCartney had huge egos too, but greater intrinsic talent and genius (especially in Lennon's case) to back up what they were doing.
John NEEDED Paul's polish to make the sale. Paul NEEDED John's vision and genius to make something worth buying. And, as John stated in one of his last interviews when asked about each Beatle's relative contribution to the band, "Let's just say John and Paul could have done the same thing easier with two different guys than George and Ringo."
It really comes down to the difference between "talent" and "genius". Talent is having the ability and skill to do something in a polished and brilliant way that most others cannot and can only envy. Genius, on the other hand, is having the vision, ability and creative drive to do things that have never been done before in ways no one else has ever done them. McCartney was "talent". Lennon was "genius".
Harrison had a few brilliant moments but for the most part he spent nearly 30 years complaining about how he was held back by Lennon/McCartney for the seven or eight years they were in the band together. He did a few great things but in three DECADES afterward, he didn't approach a fraction of what Lennon or McCartney did separately or together. And it's not like he didn't have a platform to show his work from. Make no mistake, I wish George was still with us (though I'm a "John-fan" mainly) because he WAS a wild-card and you never knew when he might come up with something great. He did once in a while. Too often his ego got ahead of his talent and he thought people should like stuff BECAUSE he'd been "Beatle-George". Lennon and McCartney had huge egos too, but greater intrinsic talent and genius (especially in Lennon's case) to back up what they were doing.
John NEEDED Paul's polish to make the sale. Paul NEEDED John's vision and genius to make something worth buying. And, as John stated in one of his last interviews when asked about each Beatle's relative contribution to the band, "Let's just say John and Paul could have done the same thing easier with two different guys than George and Ringo."
John was probably the better songwriter, but in terms of overall musical ability I would have to say Paul was superior.
Your first observation probably has more than a kernel of truth but is a slight oversimplification. John wrote his share of silly love songs. And Paul could occasionally rise above the love song to produce work of great depth.
They truly were two very different people and it's remarkable (and fortunate) that they stayed together as long as they did.
I think you're spot-on about John needing Paul's polish, and Paul needing John's smart edginess.
Paul was indeed the better musician -- he could play every instrument, and his vocal range was unmatched.
John was more of a dark poet, and his songwriting was strongly influenced by Bob Dylan. Paul occasionally showed signs that he could be a great lyricist, but he was content on making music that simply sounded good.
Two related links.
The first, a paper I wrote on Lennon for a Personality class in college: i am he as you are he as you are me.
The second, The Beatles: One More Album, a 45-minute documentary about the break-up of the Beatles, the creativity and styles of the four men, and what they might have done had they stayed together for another album. (My own take on such an album is this: "Hot As Sun.")
As far as Lennon vs. McCartney, the sum was greater than the whole of the parts. Lennon and McCartney both had highs post-1970 that rivalled anything they'd done in the Beatles (John, Plastic Ono Band; Paul, Band on the Run), but they also had lows that during the Beatle years they would never have tolerated (John, Sometime in New York City, Mind Games; Paul, McCartney II, Wings Wild Life). I think both men still needed the creative spark the other provided, which is why John and Yoko had such a prosperous relationship, and why McCartney has worked with people like Elvis Costello, David Gilmour, and many others. But the resulting work isn't the same.
I've found that while I like McCartney's solo work on a song-by-song basis, it can be a chore to listen to on an album by album basis. I may get bored with it. Or, in the case of Wingspan, I may get sick of it. With Lennon's work, the boredom doesn't strike, though I find it difficult to listen to Lennon's tracks from Double Fantasy at times; not for any reasons that have anything to do with his death, they're just not that interesting. (The Milk and Honey songs are more interesting. Hell, the Double Fantasy outtakes are more interesting. The version of "I'm Losing You" on wonsaponatime is so much better than the version on Double Fantasy.)
And for a fantastic book on the Beatles and their music, Ian MacDonald's Revolution in the Head. He analyzes each song musically, and places it within the cultural context of the 1960s.
The first, a paper I wrote on Lennon for a Personality class in college: i am he as you are he as you are me.
The second, The Beatles: One More Album, a 45-minute documentary about the break-up of the Beatles, the creativity and styles of the four men, and what they might have done had they stayed together for another album. (My own take on such an album is this: "Hot As Sun.")
As far as Lennon vs. McCartney, the sum was greater than the whole of the parts. Lennon and McCartney both had highs post-1970 that rivalled anything they'd done in the Beatles (John, Plastic Ono Band; Paul, Band on the Run), but they also had lows that during the Beatle years they would never have tolerated (John, Sometime in New York City, Mind Games; Paul, McCartney II, Wings Wild Life). I think both men still needed the creative spark the other provided, which is why John and Yoko had such a prosperous relationship, and why McCartney has worked with people like Elvis Costello, David Gilmour, and many others. But the resulting work isn't the same.
I've found that while I like McCartney's solo work on a song-by-song basis, it can be a chore to listen to on an album by album basis. I may get bored with it. Or, in the case of Wingspan, I may get sick of it. With Lennon's work, the boredom doesn't strike, though I find it difficult to listen to Lennon's tracks from Double Fantasy at times; not for any reasons that have anything to do with his death, they're just not that interesting. (The Milk and Honey songs are more interesting. Hell, the Double Fantasy outtakes are more interesting. The version of "I'm Losing You" on wonsaponatime is so much better than the version on Double Fantasy.)
And for a fantastic book on the Beatles and their music, Ian MacDonald's Revolution in the Head. He analyzes each song musically, and places it within the cultural context of the 1960s.
Well post-Beatles, John was just sitting watching the wheels go round and round and Paul wanted to fill the world with silly love songs (and what's wrong with that?).
I prefer George's solo stuff and listen to it more often that either Lennon or McCartney.
During the Beatles era, I loved While My Guitar Gently Weeps. Awesome song and I heard that John had a fit about that song and refused to play on it, so Eric Clapton sat in. Don't know if that's true of not.
I prefer George's solo stuff and listen to it more often that either Lennon or McCartney.
During the Beatles era, I loved While My Guitar Gently Weeps. Awesome song and I heard that John had a fit about that song and refused to play on it, so Eric Clapton sat in. Don't know if that's true of not.
I agree with you, Allyn, that John's Double Fantasy was a bit insipid. It's almost as if John started composing lightweight songs as soon as he conquered his inner demons. Paul never really had those inner demons and so he was much at home his entire career composing those silly love songs.
Kirby, I've never heard that John hated While My Guitar Gently Weeps. To me it's seems like its a song John would like, but I could be wrong.
George's best songs as a Beatle, IMHO, are (in order) Something, Here Comes the Sun, While My Guitar Gently Weeps, I Want To Tell You, If I Needed Someone, & Old Brown Shoe.
His best post-Beatle songs were, IMHO, All Things Must Pass and Your Love is Forever.
Unless, it was his own song, Lennon had kind of checked out during recording sessions at this point. He would sometimes be there for Paul's songs. I think Harrison had Clapton in just because he needed a great solo and he knew with a guest there, the other Beatles (especially John) would be on the best behaviour.
Although with all you hear about The White Album and the stress and strife that went with it. Ringo always says that he loved making that album and it was a lot of fun and very productive. So go figure?
RobertScorpio
Pariah
Yeah, that is strange...
And I love your avatar. I just got the ULTRAMAN DVD collection at wallmart, and Im having a blast watching it..
Rob
^I was stunned at how much I remembered those episodes after 30+ years!
As I remember it from watching The Beatles Anthology videos (a great watch by the way, highly recommended) Kirby has the story pretty much correct. George was shopping the song around to the other Beatles but nobody was very keen on it. So he played it for Eric who loved it, and when he went back to John and Paul and said that he could get Eric to play on it, of course everyone was keen on it then because they'd get to play with Eric. If not for Clapton it might have never even been on the album.
The part about the White Album is maybe the most interesting part of that video to me- lots of infighting going on. At one point Ringo even quit the band momentarily but was talked into coming back. Paul recorded some songs without John, John recorded some songs without Paul, but it was also a wildly creative period. Most Beatles fans probably already know this but did you know that it was only Ringo and Paul on "Why Don't We Do It In the Road"?
That's an analogy I've made myself, though I generally think Letterman/Leno* respectively is closer. Letterman/Lennon were way better, and had far greater artistic vision, and personality, but all that contributed to a cantankerousness that inhibited their careers. Leno/McCartney were better at making their acts commercial and had well-crafted nice-guy personas betrayed by some of their actions behind-the-scenes. That said, in either analogy, I think the level of talent is a lot more equitable between Lennon/McCartney than the other pairs we've mentioned.
Also, I think that each of the four Beatles were quite innovative. Paul, George, and Ringo had incredible chops on bass, guitar, and drums. Paul could tackle almost any other instrument as well, but he had a great style of melodic basslines. George had killer, soaring solos. And Ringo was just an incredibly precise and complex drummer that did exactly what was needed for a song. John had a quick and dirty style for guitar, and incredible presence as a singer.
* The Letterman/Leno dichotomy pointed to why I felt like Conan O'Brien was probably the most ideal host for The Tonight Show since Johnny Carson. His Leno-esque nice-guy persona is actually real because it's backed up with actions that support his staff, he's always has insightful information and time to instruct people on the world of television comedy and he's pretty gracious. But he's also got the originality, talent and vision of a Letterman.
Amazing that Paul was walking alone in a park. Is London that safe?
Similar threads
