John or Paul? - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Lemonade Stand > Lemonade Stand Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-14-2006, 11:54 AM   #16
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 63,731
Local Time: 10:02 PM
Can I vote for George? I can't choose any one Beatle as a favorite when they were The Beatles, but I think Lennon's solo work is kind of overrated, McCartney had some great songs but also too many clunkers, but George is just ... well, George. The older I get, the more I find myself becoming a George girl.
__________________

__________________
corianderstem is offline  
Old 06-14-2006, 01:07 PM   #17
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 11:02 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by the rockin edge
between those 2, John.


but i prefer George to both
Ditto.
__________________

__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 06-14-2006, 01:36 PM   #18
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Tiger Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: The Everglades
Posts: 4,740
Local Time: 02:02 AM
As a singer? Paul
As a lyricist? John
As a musician? George
As a person? Ringo

Overall I prefer George over everyone else.
__________________
Tiger Edge is offline  
Old 06-14-2006, 01:43 PM   #19
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,464
Local Time: 01:02 AM
lyrics = john
catchy/memorable songs/hooks that you can hum along to = paul
cultural importance = john

edge john
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
Old 06-14-2006, 01:58 PM   #20
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
FitzChivalry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: At the bottom of the ocean, in the deepest sea
Posts: 6,300
Local Time: 11:02 PM
No contest for me: It's John all the way.

I won't deny Paul's importance to The Beatles, and I do love some of his songs ("Rocky Racoon", "Helter Skelter", and pretty much all of "Abbey Road" are awesome), but Paul's "big Beatles hits" are just waaaaaaay too syrupy, safe and saccarine for my tastes.

I think John really pushed the boundaries of The Beatles and rock music at the time. I think he had real foresight and instinct for what "rock 'n roll" was/is/could be: risky, adventurous, not easily digestible, chaotic but passionate.

Everything I've ever heard, they all really pushed each other and challenged each other (kind of like some other tiny, obscure band I know of), but John Lennon, in my opinion, was definitely the best of the Fab Four.
__________________
FitzChivalry is offline  
Old 06-14-2006, 02:58 PM   #21
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,262
Local Time: 01:02 AM
Musically, Paul's obviously more talented. But Lennon's lyrics and vocals are what stick with you the longest as they're more emotionally involved since he's writing about his own life, whereas most of Paul's material has no starting point from his own reality.
__________________
BigMacPhisto is offline  
Old 06-14-2006, 03:10 PM   #22
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
TheQuiet1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N.Yorkshire UK
Posts: 3,816
Local Time: 07:02 AM
I think I'd have to go for Paul over John but like others have said, George more than holds his own against the two giants of the band. It's a shame he gets so overlooked. 'Something' is one of the greatest songs ever written.
__________________
TheQuiet1 is offline  
Old 06-14-2006, 03:15 PM   #23
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 295
Local Time: 06:02 AM
I'd go with Paul first, than George. Frankly, John's post-Revolver output didn't match his partners (though, to be fair, both Across the Universe and Julia are in my Beatles top 10, so he could produce gems when he was so inclined). But basically, after Yoko, his production waned. The two Beatles albums I return to frequently (Abbey and Sgt. Pepper) are McCartney DOMINATED affairs, with VERY VERY strong support from not John but GEORGE. I loved the Eastern-flavored songs, ala Within You Without You.

What can you say about Paul's output? The guy just cranked hit after hit, and the songs from Rubber Soul (where he really found his voice) through Abbey Road are timeless and each album contained a least one sure-fire stone-cold classic. Love Eleanor Rigby, Got To Get You Into My Life, and for an underrated gem, I'm Looking Through You.
__________________
Hawkfire is offline  
Old 06-14-2006, 03:32 PM   #24
Refugee
 
ImOuttaControl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Duluth, MN
Posts: 1,340
Local Time: 12:02 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by FitzChivalry
No contest for me: It's John all the way.

I think John really pushed the boundaries of The Beatles and rock music at the time. I think he had real foresight and instinct for what "rock 'n roll" was/is/could be: risky, adventurous, not easily digestible, chaotic but passionate.

Everything I've ever heard, they all really pushed each other and challenged each other (kind of like some other tiny, obscure band I know of), but John Lennon, in my opinion, was definitely the best of the Fab Four.

This is incorrect. I thought the same thing until I read the Beatles Anthology book ( a MUST have).

It was John that said that he was (paraphrasing)only interested in rock music. No concept albums, nothing fancy. Just put 14 good rocks songs on in any particular order and he'd be happy.

Paul is really given too little credit IMO. Through their own words, John even acknowledged that he didn't really care fore experimentation, that Paul was the one into the artsy fartsy stuff well before "Two Virgins" or "Revolution #9" or whatever. Paul was really the mastermind behind the whole concept of "Sgt. Pepper" and "Magical Mystery Tour" and all the craziness that those 2 albums had. It was Paul's idea to create the amazing 2nd half of Abbey Road. I am not denying that John was risky and creative; especially with songs like "Tomorrow Never Knows" or "Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds." What I am trying to say is that he sometimes gets deified a little too much. The Beatles worked on songs together and Lennon/McCartney co-wrote most songs up until the "White Album."
__________________
ImOuttaControl is offline  
Old 06-14-2006, 03:56 PM   #25
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Tiger Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: The Everglades
Posts: 4,740
Local Time: 02:02 AM
^I've actually read that Paul was really restricting on George. George had fantastic ideas on guitar solos and Paul and I think Brian Epstein used to cut him short. Paul would make him play exactly what he heard in his mind instead of letting George experiment. That and Paul was a perfectionist.

And I've read that Epstein regretting holding back George so much.

I still stand by my original statement that George was the leading force behind most of the Beatles songs musically. But without McCartney melodies/Lennon lyrics, they would have faded away. Or at least not have been as popular as they are now.

Sadly I don't think Ringo fits too much into the equation.
__________________
Tiger Edge is offline  
Old 06-14-2006, 05:29 PM   #26
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Canadiens1131's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,363
Local Time: 02:02 AM
All the arguments are valid, and John is a huge cultural icon, but stop for a second and peel it all away.

It's all about Paul's voice. From a warm mid-range that wraps you in a song, to crackling insanity a la Helter Skelter, I don't think it can be beat.

Listen, I love John's solo stuff too, but his vocals leave a lot to be desired unless they're typically layered in a few delay repeats. Also, he has syrupy clunkers and pointless tracks that can rival McCartney's - without the super-memorable hooks (Just Like Starting Over, Borrowed Time being 2 examples.)
__________________
Canadiens1131 is offline  
Old 06-14-2006, 06:27 PM   #27
New Yorker
 
gherman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Ann Arbor, MI, USA
Posts: 2,525
Local Time: 07:02 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Canadiens1160
All the arguments are valid, and John is a huge cultural icon, but stop for a second and peel it all away.

It's all about Paul's voice. From a warm mid-range that wraps you in a song, to crackling insanity a la Helter Skelter, I don't think it can be beat.

Listen, I love John's solo stuff too, but his vocals leave a lot to be desired unless they're typically layered in a few delay repeats. Also, he has syrupy clunkers and pointless tracks that can rival McCartney's - without the super-memorable hooks (Just Like Starting Over, Borrowed Time being 2 examples.)
You bring up somthing that has slowly become very aparent to me over the past year listening to the Beatles... Pauls voice. I can't get over how diverse and incredible it is. When I first heard him sing Kansas City I was hooked.
__________________
gherman is offline  
Old 06-14-2006, 06:49 PM   #28
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
vaz02's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: manchester
Posts: 7,447
Local Time: 06:02 AM
Couldnt care much for either of em really , not a beatles guy .
paul pulls of a amazing live show though.

tripping the live fantastic
__________________
vaz02 is offline  
Old 06-14-2006, 07:08 PM   #29
Refugee
 
dudeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,201
Local Time: 01:02 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by ImOuttaControl



This is incorrect. I thought the same thing until I read the Beatles Anthology book ( a MUST have).

It was John that said that he was (paraphrasing)only interested in rock music. No concept albums, nothing fancy. Just put 14 good rocks songs on in any particular order and he'd be happy.

Paul is really given too little credit IMO. Through their own words, John even acknowledged that he didn't really care fore experimentation, that Paul was the one into the artsy fartsy stuff well before "Two Virgins" or "Revolution #9" or whatever. Paul was really the mastermind behind the whole concept of "Sgt. Pepper" and "Magical Mystery Tour" and all the craziness that those 2 albums had. It was Paul's idea to create the amazing 2nd half of Abbey Road. I am not denying that John was risky and creative; especially with songs like "Tomorrow Never Knows" or "Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds." What I am trying to say is that he sometimes gets deified a little too much. The Beatles worked on songs together and Lennon/McCartney co-wrote most songs up until the "White Album."
well said. john lennon had the 'advantage' of dying young. we make icons out of many artists who die before their time (cobain, morrison, etc...). i don't really think john's post-beatles output was that good. for every 'instant karma' or 'watching the wheels' we got a 'cold turkey'. paul's post-beatles output was a little more to my tastes - 'band on the run' seems to be a forgotten giant. it won the grammy for album of the year when that might have meant something, and the title track an 'jet', 'live and let die', 'maybe i'm amazed' - all class tracks.
all that being said, the best post beatles album goes to george - 'all things must pass' . check out that title track and 'my sweet lord' and 'awaiting on the wall'. holy shit!
but i reckon this discussion is about BEATLES music, and as such, i'm gonna defend paul. it's not his fault he didn't get murdered. experimentation is crucial, but you still need a song. those make the best experiments. i'll take 'it's getting better' over 'being for the benefit of mr. kite' any day. when's the last time you put on 'sgt. peppers' because you just HAD to hear that tune? that's right. never.
people also always seem to minimize the greatness of early beatles records. when those dudes were really working together, they made some amazing shit happen. they redefined pop music, and wrote all the chord progressions bands are still futzing with today.
i read a paul biography a little while back called 'many years from now'. it's pretty good, focusing on the apple years and their songwriting process. paul contends that it was he who wrote the music for 'in my life'. i'm not sure what to make of this, but if you listen to the melody, how it's up and down and all over the place, it DOES sound more like a paul style melody - light and bouncy. john's melodies tended to be more raw and linear, fantastic for their own reasons. anyway, it's a silly, fun discussion. inevitably, we're blessed those 2 got together.

on an interesting and related note - i recently downloaded a recording session for harry nillsson in '74 - john was recording him, stevie wonder stopped in for a jam. so did paul (supposedly he was trying pretty hard to reach out to john at this time, john wasn't so interested). anyway, it's a bit of a let down, mostly john bossing people around in the studio, but bits are quite magical, as you can imagine...
__________________
dudeman is offline  
Old 06-14-2006, 07:27 PM   #30
Refugee
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: LA, California, USA
Posts: 1,349
Local Time: 06:02 AM
Well, Paul actually wrote more of my favorite Beatles songs then John; however, John's post-Beatles work >>>>>>>>>Paul's.
One word proves that last half of that sentence to be true: Wings.
__________________

__________________
blueyedpoet is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:02 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com