John Lennon vs. Paul McCartney

[RobertScorpio]

Really needed each other to reach that 'next level', worked best when they collaborated. John had more edge to him, along with the manic personality, while Paul was better with the music, and the 'marketability' of the material. Together, probably the best songwriting duo out there. Amazing how much they did in only 7 years. And they spent most of it reinventing themselves, they didn't just find a niche and ride it out. Kept pushing things, changing what they were doing, etc.

I know its weird..but I have always made this equation...

Lennon is to Nimoy
as Shatner is to McCartney

Rob

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.

I like both Leno and Obrien, but I can't stand Letterman. I went to a taping of Dave's show back in the mid 90s and he seemed rather rude.

I went to a taping of Lenos about five years ago? And he came out before the show, talked to the crowd..seemed really friendly.

I went to a taping of Conan's tonight show the second week after he took over. He was really nice, but the stress he was feeling was very evident. I don't think NBC was really behind him all the way...

By the way, I was able to go to all of these tapings due to my have being in the miltary. We get passes all the time. They're free, but they are preffered seats so we get to sit near the front..

Rob

 

[label]

My vote goes to Lennon slightly over McCartney as Lennon wrote more provocative/experimental stuff while McCartney wrote more of the poppy stuff.

I love both and the Beatles wouldn't be the Beatles without both, but my absolute favorites were written by Lennon.

(Also, way prefer Letterman to the human chin. I love O'brien and especially love Craig Ferguson)

 

[scottydog]

I wonder what kind of career Lennon would have had if he hadn't been killed. Double Fantasy was somewhat of a disappointment, and I wonder if he would have been able to regain his edge. He had found happiness, but did that happiness undermine his creativity?

Paul has actually done some of his best work since the mid 1990s, but his CDs haven't sold all that well and so few people know it.

 

[D Man]

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.

Love love love LOVE that book. I've read it a thousand times, or rather opened to a random page and started reading a thousand times. Utterly fascinating.

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?

In the Anthology videos, I think there's a bit where Ringo is talking about how much he loved working on the White Album...in the background, "Back in the USSR" is playing, which is one of two songs recorded while Ringo had temporarily quit the band. Pretty stupid editing if you know what was going on at that point.

 

[Steve67]

Barely Coherent Thoughts, Sorry...

John Lennon was my hero during my high school days. The Beatles got me through that particular Hell. I was, and remain, a huge Lennon fan. However, after many years away from their music--they inspired me to explore other forms of music--I recently returned to their work and love it still. In fact, it's better now than ever.

Now whom do I prefer these days: Lennon or McCartney?

When I heard the backwards guitar solo in "Tomorrow Never Knows", I was blown away. When I hear the brilliantly sad lyrics of "Eleanor Rigby", I'm choked with emotion. In fact, the 1960s Beatles cartoon did a great music "video" of the latter and it really nailed the atmosphere of the song, at least as I saw it in my own mind.

I feel that I appreciate both men's work equally, at least in the Beatles period. So different and both wonderful.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

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.

Love love love LOVE that book. I've read it a thousand times, or rather opened to a random page and started reading a thousand times. Utterly fascinating.

I had the second edition, and wore it out. Which was a good thing; the third edition covers the Anthologys.

Tons of fascinating material in that book. I don't always agree with MacDonald, but Revolution in the Head always makes me think.

The other vital Beatles book would, at least in my opinion, be Mark Lewisohn's The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions. As much as I enjoy the Anthology companion book, it needs to be tempered with other sources like Philip Norman's Shout! or Bob Spitz's The Beatles. And I'm eagerly anticipating Lewisohn's upcoming biography of the Beatles.

And Mark Shipper's Paperback Writer. Can't go wrong with that one.

In the Anthology videos, I think there's a bit where Ringo is talking about how much he loved working on the White Album...in the background, "Back in the USSR" is playing, which is one of two songs recorded while Ringo had temporarily quit the band. Pretty stupid editing if you know what was going on at that point.

Beatles Rock Band does the same thing; Ringo is shown onscreen drumming for that song, when in reality it was Paul on the drumkit.

 

[Zachary Smith]

I wonder what kind of career Lennon would have had if he hadn't been killed. Double Fantasy was somewhat of a disappointment, and I wonder if he would have been able to regain his edge. He had found happiness, but did that happiness undermine his creativity?

Paul has actually done some of his best work since the mid 1990s, but his CDs haven't sold all that well and so few people know it.

Lennon purposefully watered down "Double Fantasy" because he feared that, at least in the public's mind, he'd gone too far overboard in some of his earlier work with the strong political statements and some of the more experimental sounding music. It was his first album in five years and he wanted it to be accessible to as many people as possible, i.e. he didn't want it to "flop".

I've read several interviews where he relates his insecurities, whether it's the fear he was seen as a "has-been" or was "too loony" or "eccentric" for the mainstream. He STILL had his edge--listen to "Serve Yourself" on Youtube sometime, done in fair proximity to the Double Fantasy sessions--he just wanted to ease back into the game with Double Fantasy before pissing off anyone anew. Plus, I think he HAD found a new appreciation for home and family at that stage in his life.

 

[ITL]

Pretty stupid editing if you know what was going on at that point.

On a similar note, I'm forever noticing discrepancies between the photos/footage and the narration on Beatles documentaries. The subject will be - for example - the early Hamburg period, but a photo will be shown from a year or so later. Haircuts, clothes, guitars, personnel, location...all slightly different at different times.

It's not a real issue, of course - but the fact that I notice it at all shows how much of a geek I am. I suspect many contributors to this thread are exactly the same...



On topic: Depends what mood I'm in and what song I'm listening to.

 

[Kirby]

Paul has actually done some of his best work since the mid 1990s, but his CDs haven't sold all that well and so few people know it.

I agree, and Flaming Pie is one of my favorite albums. I believe it was the first album that he did after Linda died and had a different energy to it.
Although his last album, Songs in the backyard? or something like that, the one released through Starbucks was pretty bad. I listened to it once and didn't bother with it again.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Paul was real good at telling storys and painting pictures. John was good at wordplay and imagery. Take Penny Lane and Strawberry Fields Forever. At the end of Penny Lane you feel like you've just walked down the street and meet a bunch of old friends and aquaintences. Strawberry Fields, while named for a real place, is more about a state of mind. I used to put Strawberry Fields when I was feeling a bit out of sorts. Somehow it helped me get my head together. A Paul song is like talking things over with a good friend. A John song is about the stuff that goes through your head when you're alone. Yeah there are songs where the opposite is true, but thats how I tend to generalize it.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

I agree, and Flaming Pie is one of my favorite albums. I believe it was the first album that he did after Linda died and had a different energy to it.

No, Flaming Pie was the last album before Linda's death. Run Devil Run was the album he made after Linda died, which was covers and 50's-style rockabilly.

Although his last album, Songs in the backyard? or something like that, the one released through Starbucks was pretty bad. I listened to it once and didn't bother with it again.

You're conflating a couple.

Chaos and Creation in the Backyard was his 2005 album. (Or maybe it was 2006.) I know people who absolutely love it. I thought it was pretty dreadful, myself. It's boring and samey.

He followed that with Memory Almost Full, which was his album from Starbucks' Hear label. That one's a lot of fun.

His most recent album, released under his electronica pseudonym The Fireman, is Electric Arguments, and it's one of McCartney's best albums. (And don't let the eletronica thing scare you off; it's unlike any of the other Fireman albums, it's very listenable, it's very melodic, and it has lyrics. McCartney reportedly now wishes he'd released it as himself.)

He's planning another album with his backing touring band, who have now been together since 2001's Driving Rain, so longer than Wings and a few years shy of the Beatles. (And the line-up has actually been more stable than Wings.)

 

[TheMurph]

Tough question.

Based on pure musical talent it would probably be Paul with his versatility on many different instruments.

Creativity would probably be edged by John.

Together they were an unmatched musical power tandem. Unfortunately once they split both took a nosedive in their music and I find myself enjoying a lot of George's stuff more than John and Paul's solo stuff. Though Paul has been mounting a crazy comeback and is making up for a lot of his earlier musical missteps.

 

[Kirby]

I agree, and Flaming Pie is one of my favorite albums. I believe it was the first album that he did after Linda died and had a different energy to it.

No, Flaming Pie was the last album before Linda's death. Run Devil Run was the album he made after Linda died, which was covers and 50's-style rockabilly.

Although his last album, Songs in the backyard? or something like that, the one released through Starbucks was pretty bad. I listened to it once and didn't bother with it again.

You're conflating a couple.

Chaos and Creation in the Backyard was his 2005 album. (Or maybe it was 2006.) I know people who absolutely love it. I thought it was pretty dreadful, myself. It's boring and samey.

He followed that with Memory Almost Full, which was his album from Starbucks' Hear label. That one's a lot of fun.

Thanks Allyn I stand corrected on several counts

I still love Flaming Pie, and Run Devil Run was ok, but I've never been a big fan of cover albums.

Chaos and Creation in the Backyard was the one I was thinking of in my original post. Bad album.

Memory Almost Full... I guess I saw it in Starbucks, but I never pulled the trigger on it. I'll have to check it out now.

 

[Electric Coleslaw]

I thought Chaos and Creation was a better album than Memory Almost Full was a bit weaker. But I like them both. The first one he did without his band, the second had them on it. His band sucks. They may be competent at playing his songs live in concerts but it takes a special talent to actually create new music. They ain't got it. And his drummer has all the drumming subtlety of a blacksmith. This band was very prominent on Driving Rain (2001) which is a very poor album. This was the one where McCartney is playing the 9/11 benefit concert and decides to showcase two crappy new songs from his new album instead of playing Beatles tunes. You were there to make people happy in dark times Paul, not plug your new album. But that was one aspect of McCartney that Lennon always envied. His ability to make the smart move in promoting himself. When Paul announced the breakup of the Beatles just to promote his new debut album, Lennon later admitted to being more pissed that he didn't do that himself.

 

[mrcoaster]

Beatles Rock Band does the same thing; Ringo is shown onscreen drumming for that song, when in reality it was Paul on the drumkit.

Harmonix talked about things like this in the making of the game. They were trying to make a game celebrating the Beatles, and didn't want to start getting into things like "Paul played the drums there" and "Ringo and John weren't even there for that one" and "Well that one has Yoko on it," etc.

The people who care about things like that already know the information and minutiae. If you buy all the DLC, you end up playing some songs that weren't actually played at Shea or Budokan in those respective places, but that is part of balancing the game's venue setlists, etc. It isn't about the hardcore tidbits of info when playing the game.

 

[indranee]

in terms of music, I liked both (post-Beatles; one can't really separate the two when the Beatles were together) when I was younger. But the older I get, the more I can't listen to Paul's stuff. It's a problem because I think he's talented. But these days he comes across as sort of.... lost.

John was always relevant. The most politically aware, he'd have always been relevant. When he died, amidst all the weeping, I remember thinking... now we'll never know what he THINKS of stuff. he's just... gone. it was a crushing feeling of loss. I never knew him, but the air felt empty around me on December 9th, 1980. and I was a only kid.

now THAT'S being influential.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

Chaos and Creation in the Backyard was the one I was thinking of in my original post. Bad album.

I've never "gotten" Chaos and Creation. I've listened to it many times, and when it's done I remember none of it. In fact, I'm listening to it right now, and now that it's in it's striking me as familiar, but nothing's catching me.

Memory Almost Full... I guess I saw it in Starbucks, but I never pulled the trigger on it. I'll have to check it out now.

There's some very catchy stuff on "Memory Almost Full." I adore "Vintage Clothes." The really interesting song is "The End of the End"; it's McCartney musing on his own funeral.

I thought Chaos and Creation was a better album than Memory Almost Full was a bit weaker. But I like them both. The first one he did without his band, the second had them on it.

McCartney is one of the best multi-instrumentalists in the music industry. I'm absolutely amazed at his work on McCartney; that's entirely McCartney. There are people who have argued, in total seriousness, that Ringo Starr was the second-best drummer in the Beatles.

His band sucks. This band was very prominent on Driving Rain (2001) which is a very poor album. This was the one where McCartney is playing the 9/11 benefit concert and decides to showcase two crappy new songs from his new album instead of playing Beatles tunes. You were there to make people happy in dark times Paul, not plug your new album.

"Freedom" is defensible; he wrote it as a reaction to the 9/11 attacks. The song is atrocious, but there is a reason for it.

And, "From a Lover to a Friend" is also defensible; it's about his then-burgeoning relationship with Heather Mills. (I tend to think it's one of McCartney's best songs.)

I saw McCartney live in Philly in early 2002, and his setlist was half Beatles, a third Wings, and the rest was taken from Driving Rain, "Freedom," and, gag me now, "Vanilla Sky." McCartney has written some fantastic movie themes, like "Live and Let Die," "Spies Like Us," and "Young Boy" (the Robin Williams/Billy Crystal movie Father's Day). In recent years, he's written some absolute tripe for movies. "Vanilla Sky" is a fantastic movie, if you like phildickian mindfucks, but the song is bland. It smacks of weed, actually.

Anyway, McCartney's concert setlist in 2002 pretended that the 80s and 90s didn't happen in his career, except there's a lot of really good music from that period. His latest tours have started to sample from that period.

 

[scottydog]

IMHO, Paul's Chaos and Creation has four truly great songs but is surrounded but some bad and mediocre ones. This is typical of all the post-Beatle solo albums of Paul, John, and George. But I'll take four great songs -- they're a gift.

I believe that John's Walls and Bridges and Mind Games also has some great stuff on it. Those 2 albums are, again, uneven and disappointing in spots. But there are some truly inspiring songs to be found.

 

[john titor]

Paul Mc Cartney wins by a mile for one reason, Wings. Wings wrote some incredible songs.

 

[Deckerd]

Paul McCartney was recently reported as saying that the songwriting team would have been more accurately called "McCartney and Lennon". It didn't go down well so I think he subsequently diluted his statement.

I think McCartney wrote his best stuff when he was young. Wings was OK but very lightweight. Since then he's progressively become a boring old fart.

What I remember