Lennon or Mccartney?

[jeffersonstreet]

ive been listening to a lot of the beatles lately and am sure that there are a lot of fans on this board. the big debate among beatles fans is who your preference is, Lennon or Mccartney.

so who is it?

i have always been a Mccartney man. i know that it is much less popular to be a Mccartney fan than Lennon (especially in musician circles), but i cant help it. Paul's style is much more storytelling and that is what i have always enjoyed most. he creates incredible worlds with complex melodies. of course, lennon wrote some amazing songs, but overall, i feel like mccartney's are more thoughtout, in my very humble opinion.

they were/are both incredible songwriters so i am not saying trying to downplay lennons talent or anything. it is like comparing the height of one of the twin towers to the other, one was slightly taller, but they were both huge.

 

[zaire]

equal

 

[musicPhan#41]

i can't really say who i like better in the beatles. but as for solo careers, i think McCartney was better. i bought the Legend:Best of Lennon, and i was somewhat dissapointed.

ideally, mccartney + lennon = great team

but solo, i like mccartney's songwriting and voice a teets better.

 

[Nienor]

I like Lennon better

 

[missygirl852000]

My vote goes to McCarney. He was pretty awesome and his songs were great.

 

[blackwasp]

i can't really say who i like better in the beatles. but as for solo careers, i think McCartney was better. i bought the Legend:Best of Lennon, and i was somewhat dissapointed.

ideally, mccartney + lennon = great team

but solo, i like mccartney's songwriting and voice a teets better.

I agree, but Harrison can't be overlooked either.

 

[philN]

I think they both put out some decent songs. However, McCartney had a longer solo career in which to make mistakes. So, while McCartney has far more mediocre songs overall than Lennon, I think that if Lennon had lived longer, he would have put out his share of mediocre music as well. I think McCartney wins this one for still being relevant after all these years.

I agree, but Harrison can't be overlooked either.

Harrison has some very impressive solo stuff. Stuff that is often overlooked. That man was a genius with the guitar and he wrote some fantastic songs.

But we all know that when it comes to the Beatles solo careers, Ringo is where it's at.

 

[OrthodoxServant86]

I voted Lennon, all the way . Not, however, to the detriment of Paul, as it is indeed true their best music came through collaborative efforts. I just find that Lennon is much more focused on textured, engaging and remarkably artistic music/lyrics (a la I am the Walrus, Dear Prudence, Strawberry Fields, etc.) whereas Paul's domain is more in the catchy tune and charming ditty (a la Hello, Goodbye, Get Back, Hey Jude). To notice the difference and how their styles harmonized so wonderfully, one need only look at what is arguably the Beatles' most triumphant work; A Day In the Life.

As far as solo careers go, allow me to draw this distinction between the two; Paul is much more of a greatest hits songsmith while John's music is best understood in the context of album and society at the time of composition.

Peace,

-Justin

 

[meebs]

Macartny

 

[jeffersonstreet]

okay, so here is one of the reasons that i am partial to paul:

when i listen to 'let it be' i dont hear a catholic song or just a 'catchy tune' as one might write it off as. 'let it be' was quite contrary to what the beatles represented at the time and that, to me, is profound. lennon was saying things that were about 'revolution' and going against things. he had also started his relationship with yoko. i feel like 'let it be' was pauls way of saying 'lets please focus on being friends again and let these extreme views go for a bit for the sake of our friendship ... lets just let things be and become friends again.' maybe it was even a source of revenge. thats just what i hear. i can just see john cringing when he played that song because it went against everything that was getting into (revolution/eastern religion) and paul was talking about 'western religion' and letting things just be because they will be worked out and calling that wisdom.

also pauls 'hey jude' was admittedly written to johns son whom john had basically abandoned which kind of falls in line with paul writing songs contrary to johns views and living style. i just feel like paul was much more honest, but also created incredible worlds with more complex, thoughtout and interesting structures.

john was driven by emotion and what felt good and right in a song, which totally has its place, but it seems that paul thought out the lyrics that he wrote down. when paul wrote 'hey jude' and played it for john and sang the lyrics 'the answer that you need is on your shoulder' he told john that he was going to change that line because it doesnt make any sense and john told him not to, saying that it was his favorite line because 'i dont know what it means and you dont know what it means, but WE know what it means' (thats according to what paul said in an interview) .... although there is definitely value to that type of thinking and songwriting, it isnt a type of writing that i enjoy because it is a bit more thoughtless than really thinking the line through until it does make sense or writing another line that is more thoughtful.

also, john, in the documentory 'imagine', told a hippie like fellow that was kind of stalking him on his property that some of the songs he wrote (one in particular that the fellow was focused on) were just throwing words together and seeing if they made sense in the end ... that just isnt as interesting to me as someone thinking completely through their songs. its kind of like, if the universe was just made in one big bang, it isnt as beautiful as if someone made it all happen for a reason and thought it all through. does that make sense?

i could go on for days. john definitely had his incredible moments, but i feel like he often sacrificed artistry for experimentation, whereas, paul has definitely fallen short at times, but it was thought out and given time and consideration.

 

[feline]

As far as Beatles songs, I prefer the Paul tunes. But I love John's solo stuff.

 

[OldSchoolEverything]

Same for me. A lot of Christians complain about John Lennon so it's kind of controversial when I say I really liked him (even though I wasn't born yet but oh well).

 

[cjedick]

I think it's rather impossible to compare the two musically and make a judgment on who is better, since music is so subjective. Everyone just has to choose based on personal opinion. And I like John.

 

[blackwasp]

I think it's rather impossible to compare the two musically and make a judgment on who is better, since music is so subjective. Everyone just has to choose based on personal opinion. And I like John.

Reps.

 

[g4goddess]

aww. there's no vote for Ringo?

 

[Moros]

I never liked Lennon's voice.

 

[Diane_Windsor]

I think it's rather impossible to compare the two musically and make a judgment on who is better, since music is so subjective. Everyone just has to choose based on personal opinion.

Though I really dislike some of his political/activist leanings I prefer Macca over Lennon. However, Harrison was the most musically talented Beatle and his solo music trumps that of Lennon and McCartney put together IMO.

DIANE

 

[Buckeye]

McCartney pretty much sucked post Beatles. Whether with Wings or solo his stuff wasn't up to snuff.

 

[blackwasp]

Harrison was the most musically talented Beatle and his solo music trumps that of Lennon and McCartney put together IMO.

I think that All Things Must Pass was the best post-Beatles album by one of the four, but I'm not sure about Harrison being more talented than McCartney. He was truely one of the best bassists of all time.

 

[symphonyb]

I love them both.Going to see McCartney soon but have always loved Johns music a bit more.Gone too soon.