Was McCartney better than Lennon?

The Waiting Trophy Man

kenny olav wrote:

John wrote In My Life - he said it himself in an interview.
Also, I don't think John ever wrote a bad song. But the The Long and Winding Road is the schmaltziest song ever put on a Beatles record.[/quote

Paul also said in an interview that he wrote the music to In My Life. Lennon never wrote a bad song? He wrote many, as a Beatle and as a solo artist - It's Only Love and Woman is the N of the world, to name a couple. I'm a huge Lennon fan, but he wasn't perfect.

Newch91

The Waiting Trophy Man wrote:

kenny olav wrote:

John wrote In My Life - he said it himself in an interview.
Also, I don't think John ever wrote a bad song. But the The Long and Winding Road is the schmaltziest song ever put on a Beatles record.[/quote

Paul also said in an interview that he wrote the music to In My Life. Lennon never wrote a bad song? He wrote many, as a Beatle and as a solo artist - It's Only Love and Woman is the N of the world, to name a couple. I'm a huge Lennon fan, but he wasn't perfect.

I love It's Only Love. Lennon may say it's a throw away song but I think it's a great song. I think every song is great.

tremors

The Waiting Trophy Man wrote:

Sgt. Pepper was mainly Pauls concept. His songs on Revolver are far superior to Johns. He wrote Yesterday, the most popular song in history; Hey Jude, the Beatles' biggest hit song; he wrote most of their hits, especially the latter half. Was Paul a better songwriter than John?

Yes, I think he was even better than Lennon - in the Beatles. his solo stuff was shit by comparison to Lennon's and he didn't die - both of which count against his legacy.

Harrison is completely underrated too - Paul and George RULE Abbey Road so bad it hurts, whereas Lennon was struggling to say much I think. Over the whole Beatles catalogue I would say I like McCartney's stuff about 20% more than I do Lennon's. Obviously there was such rivallry that each of their major influences as the band progressed were one another. Probably why they reached such dizzying heights!!

FinsburyParkCarrots

Lazy fuckers often cite Paul McCartney's Frog Chorus - clearly written for kids - when they want to attack his output. Paul never wrote a song as horrendous as this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAMR0JPXDHo

pandora

Each one, awesome individually and great together, truly no comparisons, they are all epic.

benjs

FenwayFaithful wrote:

Ringo's the real talent of the group. Everyone should know that by now.

I'm just going to assume this was said in sarcasm, but I think Ringo and his significance to the Beatles is highly underrated. Think about early Beatles - Ringo stands out, more than any other Beatle, as the one who gave the Beatles' sound it's propelling force, done through powerful and consistent drumming. As a song-writer, I thought Ringo was lacking, but I personally believe what he contributed to the Beatles' sound was necessary for their on-going success.

Now, back to the original question... Lennon and McCartney wrote as a team, as their styles contrasted each other so nicely, and I believe that with the two of them, they created something far greater than either one of them could (or ever did) produce in a solo career - they balanced each other perfectly. I like Paul's post-Beatles stuff better than John's for the most part, though.

josevolution

I don't know who was better but i def liked Lennon songs better for my taste ...

veddertown

The Beatles aren't supposed to be dissected in this way. They are the most perfect pop/rock group and were more instrumental in creating the link from the blues to the modern music we have now than any other band. The success wouldn't have been on the same scale if either Lennon or McCartney hadn't been in the band and they are just a one off who's legacy will live forever!! Look at the writing credits and almost every song says Lennon/McCartney! That's a seal of quality that tells everything you need to know about what you're listening to. They set a benchmark over 40 years ago that is still waiting to be beaten! Solo Lennon probably wins but not by much.

dcfaithful

Of course he is, he didn't get murdered.

:?

Too soon?

PS. I'll be leaving this thread now to avoid getting my ass verbally kicked.

kenny olav

The Waiting Trophy Man wrote:

kenny olav wrote:

John wrote In My Life - he said it himself in an interview.
Also, I don't think John ever wrote a bad song. But the The Long and Winding Road is the schmaltziest song ever put on a Beatles record.[/quote

Paul also said in an interview that he wrote the music to In My Life. Lennon never wrote a bad song? He wrote many, as a Beatle and as a solo artist - It's Only Love and Woman is the N of the world, to name a couple. I'm a huge Lennon fan, but he wasn't perfect.

I consulted Wikipedia (for what it's worth) and it told me this:

"In My Life" is a song by The Beatles written by John Lennon and Paul McCartney. The song originated with Lennon, and while McCartney contributed to the final version, the extent of his contribution is in dispute.

Composition
According to Lennon, the song's origins can be found when English journalist Kenneth Allsop made a remark that Lennon should write songs about his childhood.[3] Afterwards, Lennon wrote a song in the form of a long poem reminiscing on his childhood years. The original version of the lyrics was based on a bus route he used to take in Liverpool, naming various sites seen along the way, including Penny Lane and Strawberry Field.[4]

However, Lennon found it to be "ridiculous", calling it "the most boring sort of 'What I Did On My Holidays Bus Trip' song";[5] he reworked the words with Paul McCartney, replacing the specific memories with a generalized meditation on his past. "Very few lines" of the original version remained in the finished song.[4] According to Lennon's friend and biographer Peter Shotton, the lines "Some [friends] are dead and some are living/In my life I've loved them all" referred to Stuart Sutcliffe (who died in 1962) and to Shotton.[3]

Regarding authorship of the melody, Lennon's and McCartney's recollections differ. Referring to McCartney, Lennon said "his contribution melodically was the harmony and the middle-eight itself."[6][7] McCartney claimed he set Lennon's lyrics to music from beginning to end, taking inspiration for the melody from songs by Smokey Robinson and the Miracles.[8] "I liked 'In My Life'. Those were words that John wrote and I wrote the tune to it. That was a great one."[9] Of the disagreement, McCartney said, "I find it very gratifying that out of everything we wrote, we only appear to disagree over two songs",[8] the other being "Eleanor Rigby".

Interesting... let's say that one is truly a work of Lennon/McCartney.

And I still stand by my statement that Lennon never wrote a bad song, although some songs of his, like Woman, are certainly not great.

Sorry Fins, I like that Angela song!

tremors

benjs wrote:

Now, back to the original question... Lennon and McCartney wrote as a team, as their styles contrasted each other so nicely, and I believe that with the two of them, they created something far greater than either one of them could (or ever did) produce in a solo career - they balanced each other perfectly. I like Paul's post-Beatles stuff better than John's for the most part, though.

Yes, they are the yin and the yang when working perfectly together - however, it's pretty well documented that in later years the joint writing credits were something of a joke, since some of that time they were barely speaking! Also I personally resent the 'dead rock star' syndrome where Lennon has assumed a far greater standing than McCartney in the popular mind, and Paul's input in the Beatles is getting more and more run down contrasted with Lennon's- where Macca is starting to be rewritten as an anodyne jester. I resent this equally with Kurt Cobain who has achieved a status way beyond the pretty good songs that he wrote (eek - is this post a recipe for my harmony and peace of mind I wonder?? - probably not!!)

Back on topic though, I think comparing Strawberry Fields with Penny Lane is fruitful - I believe Paul wrote Penny Lane as a kind of 'response' when he heard Strawberry Fields. The competitive streak certainly fuelled creativity.

Anyway - in a vain attempt to skip out of the impending crossfire..... Penny Lane is obviously equally if not more a work of genius than strawberry fields is it not!!??

Ledbetterman10

I'm not about to argue who's "better" but I'm always a fan of something like this thread that is meant to give Paul his due because I think he gets shortchanged a lot.

Here's an aspect of the Lennon/McCartney songwriting partnership that nobody ever really seems to analyze: how one contributes to the other's songs. Consider......

Paul's contributions to John's songs:
*A Day in the Life - The middle section and the idea to use the orchestra.
*Strawberry Field Forever - Plays the mellotron intro.
*Tomorrow Never Knows - Created the tape loops
*The Ballad of John & Yoko - Plays piano, bass, and drums despite hating Yoko.

While "A Day in the Life" and "Tomorrow Never Knows" would surly be great songs with out these contributions from Paul (as evidenced by the early takes on the Anthology), it's what Paul brought to these songs that made them so innovative and ground-breaking.

John's contributions to Paul's songs:
*Mother Nature's Son - Suggested the use of a brass band
*Helter Skelter - Plays a wonderfully chaotic saxophone toward the end.
*Hey Jude - Suggested keeping in a line that Paul was going to omit.
*Yellow Submarine - The swooshing water sounds and captain-talk during the bridge.

Not to discredit John because these are all great contributions, but they're not as important (in my opinion) as the Paul contributions I listed. It's just odd how something like "Tomorrow Never Knows" is "A John song" when the song's chief "selling point" is a Paul idea.

I often wonder if Paul would be looked at differently by his critics if "Let It Be" and "The Long and Winding Road" were "Paul McCartney" songs rather than "Beatles" songs. As great a song as "Imagine" is, if John released it with the Beatles, it may be looked at now as "just another great Beatles song." But it stands out because it's his own. I think that if "Let It Be" could have been the same for Paul if it appeared on a solo album rather than with the Beatles. As a Beatles record, it's just another great Beatles song. But if it was a solo song, I think critics at the time would say "Wow, I didn't think Paul had it in him."

Jeanwah

Byrnzie wrote:

mookeywrench wrote:

Lennon had a knack for substance

McCartney had a knack for melody

In my book:

Substance > Melody

This pretty much sums it up.

I agree; musically, McCartney is more talented. They seemed to have equal talent for lyric writing though...both brilliant. But melodically, all McCartney.

tremors

Ledbetterman10 wrote:

I'm not about to argue who's "better" but I'm always a fan of something like this thread that is meant to give Paul his due because I think he gets shortchanged a lot.

Here's an aspect of the Lennon/McCartney songwriting partnership that nobody ever really seems to analyze: how one contributes to the other's songs. Consider......

Paul's contributions to John's songs:
*A Day in the Life - The middle section and the idea to use the orchestra.
*Strawberry Field Forever - Plays the mellotron intro.
*Tomorrow Never Knows - Created the tape loops
*The Ballad of John & Yoko - Plays piano, bass, and drums despite hating Yoko.

While "A Day in the Life" and "Tomorrow Never Knows" would surly be great songs with out these contributions from Paul (as evidenced by the early takes on the Anthology), it's what Paul brought to these songs that made them so innovative and ground-breaking.

John's contributions to Paul's songs:
*Mother Nature's Son - Suggested the use of a brass band
*Helter Skelter - Plays a wonderfully chaotic saxophone toward the end.
*Hey Jude - Suggested keeping in a line that Paul was going to omit.
*Yellow Submarine - The swooshing water sounds and captain-talk during the bridge.

Not to discredit John because these are all great contributions, but they're not as important (in my opinion) as the Paul contributions I listed. It's just odd how something like "Tomorrow Never Knows" is "A John song" when the song's chief "selling point" is a Paul idea.

I often wonder if Paul would be looked at differently by his critics if "Let It Be" and "The Long and Winding Road" were "Paul McCartney" songs rather than "Beatles" songs. As great a song as "Imagine" is, if John released it with the Beatles, it may be looked at now as "just another great Beatles song." But it stands out because it's his own. I think that if "Let It Be" could have been the same for Paul if it appeared on a solo album rather than with the Beatles. As a Beatles record, it's just another great Beatles song. But if it was a solo song, I think critics at the time would say "Wow, I didn't think Paul had it in him."

Liked this post a lot - both convincing and educative!!

tremors

benjs wrote:

FenwayFaithful wrote:

Ringo's the real talent of the group. Everyone should know that by now.

I'm just going to assume this was said in sarcasm, but I think Ringo and his significance to the Beatles is highly underrated. Think about early Beatles - Ringo stands out, more than any other Beatle, as the one who gave the Beatles' sound it's propelling force, done through powerful and consistent drumming. As a song-writer, I thought Ringo was lacking, but I personally believe what he contributed to the Beatles' sound was necessary for their on-going success.

This is very very true actually - the whole 'ramshackle' sound of the debut - Saw her standing there as a prime example - is a lot down to the drumming (and bass)

tremors

Jeanwah wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

mookeywrench wrote:

Lennon had a knack for substance

McCartney had a knack for melody

In my book:

Substance > Melody

This pretty much sums it up.

I agree; musically, McCartney is more talented. They seemed to have equal talent for lyric writing though...both brilliant. But melodically, all McCartney.

There's a hell of a lot of substance in Band on the Run! - Substance with gorgeous melody

Newch91

Lets just settle it like this: The Beatles were the greatest band in the history of music.

tremors

Newch91 wrote:

Lets just settle it like this: The Beatles were the greatest band in the history of music.

Whilst not everyone would agree, I would pity the person trying to argue AGAINST that statement.

It is true that in the ten years that they were active, no band can ever come close to the evolution the beatles went through across all their albums, and how closely this is linked to the development of pop, rock and even 'indie' styles of music. My friend says to me 'they already did it all!!'. Whilst I don't fully agree - if someone released taxman or dear prudence, or get back, today - it would immediately set the stations and the dancefloors alight. Incredible how music made 40 odd years ago can sound so contemporary. It hardly bears thinking about - and hard to have a discussion about the beatles music and influence - where do you begin!!??

BinauralJam

No, next question?

Newch91

tremors wrote:

Newch91 wrote:

Lets just settle it like this: The Beatles were the greatest band in the history of music.

Whilst not everyone would agree, I would pity the person trying to argue AGAINST that statement.

It is true that in the ten years that they were active, no band can ever come close to the evolution the beatles went through across all their albums, and how closely this is linked to the development of pop, rock and even 'indie' styles of music. My friend says to me 'they already did it all!!'. Whilst I don't fully agree - if someone released taxman or dear prudence, or get back, today - it would immediately set the stations and the dancefloors alight. Incredible how music made 40 odd years ago can sound so contemporary. It hardly bears thinking about - and hard to have a discussion about the beatles music and influence - where do you begin!!??

Yeah. No one greater than them.