John or Paul?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
gherman

gherman

New Yorker
Joined
Sep 15, 2000
Messages
2,525
Location
Ann Arbor, MI, USA
I love both of them and Lennon was the coolest for me but Mcartney had a great voice and wrote the Beatles most memorable and biggest hits. So I think Paul was the better of the two.
 
Lennon by a mile for me. I realized a few years back that it took me so long to get into the Beatles because of my dislike of McCartney. I don't hate him, but I don't take him all that seriously, either. I wonder sometimes if Lennon were still alive what he'd think of him.

But me? I'll take the Stones over the Beatles any day. :shrug:
 
Lennon over McCartney for me. I have seen McCartney live though, twice. Puts on a good show. But overall, I'm a Lennon gal... So much so that the sign/banner I took to my U2 show last year said 'imagine' :shifty:
 
Paul hands down.

I really don't care about lyrics when someone can write a vocal melody so perfectly and beautifully as Paul can.
 
Both are amazing...

Lennon:

She Said She Said
In My Life
Come Together
Strawberry Fields Forever
I Am The Walrus
Across The Universe
Happiness Is A Warm Gun
Sexy Sadie
Tomorrow Never Knows

ect.ect.ect

McCartney:

Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band
Helter Skelter
I'm Looking Through You
Let It Be
Hey Jude
Back In The U.S.S.R.
Eleanor Rigby
Get Back
We Can Work It Out
Why Don't We Do It In The Road :drool: :wink:

ect.ect.ect

We can't forget George:

Something
Love You Too
Here Comes The Sun
While My Guitar Gently Weeps
(some of the best songs ever written)

When it comes down to it, based purely on incredible songs, who could ever live up to The Beatles?:drool: I personally can't pick my favorite Beatle. Lennon was best post-beatles, but before that they were a "four legged table." Yes, even ringo from what I've researced about the band.
 
Last edited:
Actually I'm changing my vote to Ringo.
Nicest guy ever - and not bitter about the Beatles.
 
Honestly, both. You can't have one without the other. To go from Lennon to McCartney and back again on any Beatles album shows off how diverse they really were.

As for their solo work, both had some really amazing songs, and both had some stinkers. I think McCartney's solo stuff gets the short end of the stick, because while it's true he has way more clunkers than Lennon ever had, let's just remember how much more albums McCartney had as well. I'll bet anyone anything that if Lennon lived, he would have had his share of bad songs as he got older, too. Listen to some things on Double Fantasy and you'll get the idea of what direction he was headed in...Yoko Ono collaborations at their finest!
 
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. :wink:
 
As a singer? Paul
As a lyricist? John
As a musician? George
As a person? Ringo

Overall I prefer George over everyone else. :up:
 
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.
 
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.
 
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. :drool:
 
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.
 
FitzChivalry said:
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.
Click to expand...


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."
 
^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. :grumpy:

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. :grumpy:
 
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.)
 
Last edited:
Canadiens1160 said:
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.)
Click to expand...

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.
 
Couldnt care much for either of em really , not a beatles guy .
paul pulls of a amazing live show though.

tripping the live fantastic :drool:
 
ImOuttaControl said:



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."
Click to expand...

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':drool: . 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...
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

O
Better late than never “they” say…
Replies
1
Views
289
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
R
Help a MacPhisto out! - Night #2 (9/30) at the Sphere (pics and videos)
Replies
3
Views
747
Ralph_Sutter
R
N
Hello!
Replies
2
Views
825
Hewson
Hewson
C
Hello from the Twin Cities!
Replies
3
Views
780
trevgreg
trevgreg
Z
Hello!
Replies
3
Views
824
zoo skis
Z

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom