I always get the impression that Lennon was ungrateful for what he had and I just find him a bit annoying whenever I read about him or watch interviews.
McCartney seems more dignified and he was the better songwriter.
© DrownedinSound.com | From the Archive - Truck Nine: Five bands you cannot miss
2
tru pop fax there. saw him on sunday and during the *world's first ever* performance of A DAY IN THE LIFE he buggered up the words! lennon from beyond the grave that was...
Me too.
It was amaaaaaaaaazin.
He always had trouble remembering his own lyrics
but he was so lyrically brilliant he'd just make up new ones on the spot.
No
You're wrong
Bye!
Though
I'm Only Sleeping is one of my favourite Beatles songs.
fuck off
Why was Lennon better?
coz he's cool
and cool points beats anything else.
(actually i agree with the original statement)
he wrote better songs
(i dont think i need to put IMO?)
which ones then?
Because he's dead now.
no one wants to admit it
because lennon was the cooler more avant garde of the two but paul's songs kick john's on a more often that not basis.
So what you're saying is
McCartney was the Barat to Lennon's Doherty.
Its actually a good comparison.
I know
hi.
paul mccartney and john lennon were equally as good as each other. they both complemented each other very well - see: their solo careers. they needed each other.
read this:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Revolution-Head-Beatles-Records-Sixties/dp/1844138283
yeah
yeah yeah.
best book ever written about them. or indeed any band.
Paul's autobiog is good.
Ermm Paul never wrote an autobiography..
877
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/410PX84S3KL._SS500_.jpg
Although it says 'Barry Miles', its from Paul's pov.
Macca >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Lennon
McCartney:
- Came up with Sgt Pepper
- Persuaded the others to stay together when Epstein died
- Came up with MMT
- Came up with the medley on Abbey Road
- Didn't want them to sign with Allen Klein. Lennon did, to undermine Paul's 'authority'. Klein then fucked them over.
- Is the strength of every album post-Revolver
Lennon:
- Wrote the best songs: Tomorrow Never Knows, Norweigan Wood, I Am The Walrus, Strawberry Field
- Was the best in the early days
- Was fairly 'experimental'
But
- Married Yoko
- Got involved with all that Peace bullshit
- Wanted to split the Beatles up
- Slagged Macca's songs off
- Tried to steal credit for Macca's songs
- Got Phil Spector and Allen Klein involved
They both needed eachother to work properly, I think. Although they each wrote some alright songs separately, they were the best partnership.
Lennon gets more credit because he died, he did all the peace stuff, he slagged Jesus off and people see him as the experimental one, because he did tripe like Revolution 9.
is it really
possible though to separate McCartney's abilities and talents from his massive ego, and his cuntishness?
lennons ego was much bigger
and yes, it is
he's only like he is cos he's a bit old and a bit detached from what he was in the 60's.
its what happens when you've spent you're whole adultlife with everyone saying how amazing you are
I think a LOT of Paul McCartney.
What has he done really?
He left the biggest band in the world, and went on to do completely what he wanted as opposed to what was cool at the time. I respect him for that. It made him millions, which he had criminally missed out on with The Beatles.
He's had SO many opportunities to bombard us into feeling guilty about people starving to death, like the rest of the rockstar brigade, but relatively (especially relating to Lennon), he's kept a very very low profile.
He's been public about being a vegetarian, which again is something I respect. His main issue is with animal cruelty etc. which again, is good.
He's always done what he felt like doing. Look at people like The Who, who blatantly tried to change with the times - and failed.
All the shit he got from Lennon too. Between 70 and say 78/79, Lennon continually damned him publicly. I respect his obliviousness to all the shit directed at him and I think he's the best which is basically why I write so much about himlol.
good post
McCartney's post Beatle out put is better than John Lennon's yes
But the argument in this thread is about who between Lennon McCartney lent the most to the writing DUO and that just can't be argued- if you minus either one out of the equation then -BEATLES FAIL! end of argument
John was insecure about being abandoned as a child
Therefore he tended cleave to omnipresent assholes. He was always looking for mommy and daddy. His relationship with Paul (I think) resembled a sibling rivalry. But it was a band decision to go with Klien, the only dissenter was Paul (who wanted to go with one of Linda's relatives) and it was Klien's decision to go with Spector who amazingly didn't fuck up "Let It Be". But ultimately it was MACCA who sued the others to dissolve the band partnership. Paul told the press that the Beatles were splitting up without even telling John, George or Ringo. For months after PAUL'S announcement the other Beatles (JOHN included) denied it- until PAUL filed legal documents to beg the court to make it official. It was Paul who released a solo project first- even before "Let It Be" came out although John was the first Beatle to record a song and give himself solo credit for "cold turkey"- which he wrote but wasn't allowed (thankfully) to put on Abbey Road.
John's marriage to Yoko and his insistence that she be involved in the Beatles creative process was unforgivable and really kind of weird and stupid. Everybody had problems with that (Yoko too). But it happend.
I think if Brian Epstien had lived the Beatles might have survived a little while longer but it was inevitable that the writing team split up to do their own things- ultimately a bad decision.
One thing that hasn't been discussed in this argument is John Lennon's amazing "word" writing abilities- the man had a real gift for playing with the English language.
i certainly think the people who think Lennon was easily the better are misguided.
McCartney gets a bad press but wrote some amazing songs and Lennon, whilst writng some excellent songs, also wrote as much dross as anyone in the Beatles.
I agree with wrightylew that Lennon's death (and obviously the fact this meant he didn't have a chance to release bad music in the 80s in the way McCartney did) has skewd people's opinions somewhat.
imagine the shit lennon would be coming out with now?
no pun intended
Unless he suddenly realised how irritating it all was,
he'd probably definitely be in the Geldof Gang.
Still though, I'd so much rather him be alive. I'd probably give my legs to see him and Paul.
i think its best that it never happens
as it wont.
i hate
the guts of the both of them.
How cool,
controversial, and frankly refreshing.
I'm just going to go with songs...
(because quite frankly I haven't studied their personal lives as much as some who've replied already)
...and I prefer Lennon's songs to McCartney's. I just feel when listening to the Beatles songs written by Lennon that they're more substantial than McCartney's, whose are generally, with exceptions, more lightweight pop (but nevertheless brilliant). And this continues into their solo careers, though I don't think either solo career was particularly brilliant. And I definitely think neither was infallible, either in The Beatles or solo.
they're both hippies
i vote for lemmy
The thing is, McCartney wasn't shot dead...
that's why he ain't looked on as fondly. Sorry, but it's true.
Where Lennon drove the Beatles' early career, McCartney drove the latter part of their career.
Lennon wrote the better songs, nothing else matters
I can't stick McCartney's Beatles songs for the most part. He's the reason why I can never enjoy a whole Beatles album.
What Is Life > Any Beatles song
George Harrison > Paul McCartney > John Lennon.
In all seriousness I prefer Pauls sounds. His latest album was very very horrible though.
Harrison wrote some CHOONS
as Edith Bowman would say... This may help people decide.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Beatles_songs
^this
"Something" is one of my favourite songs ever
Paul played it on Sunday :O
I don't like it, but I LOVED that.
I don't agree with a lot of that list.
To be honest, no-one will ever have an educated opinion on who wrote what apart from the band and those close to them.
To say certain songs were written TOTALLY alone is subjective in itself. They all rehearsed them together and so its likely everyone put something in.
Just looking at that...
I change my mind. Lennon wrote a lot of the songs that have the greatest effect on me, but he seems to have been primarily behind the ones I hate the most.
some of that list
contradicts with my understanding of things. has the familar Lennon biases. bit misleading to simply state that Tomorrow Never Knows is a 'Lennon song', for example, when McCartney came up with the loops and even suggested the drumbeat. i don't think people love that song because of Lennon's basic idea. likewise A Day In The Life isn't the huge deal it is because of Lennon's obvious bit, great as it is. it's a huge deal because McCartney went 'i want to turn you on' and went to George Martin with a mad orchestral idea. etcetera. in general it seems that McCartney contributed more to the 'Lennon songs' than Lennon did to 'his'. this may have been because Paul was more fussy about his own stuff or whatever but it should still be born in mind.
Its all about Ringo anyway
Ringo is rubbish
i think
that mccartney was the better songwriter/musician/singer but that he needed lennon to tell him when his ideas were just crap. With lennon gone he was given free reign to make shit with singing frogs and bagpipes. McCartney was a genius, but Lennon needed to be there to say 'Paul, singing frogs? Big no.'
Spot on.
But at the same time, I think Lennon owes a lot to McCartney for planing down his songs to make them as perfect as they are today. In My Life for instance.
Tomorrow Never Knows is the best example though. If you listen to early demos of it, its slow, boring, quiet, tame, droney, like a raga piece but without the brilliance. Paul added all the sounds, apparently, and spent yonks trying to get it good.
"Tomorrow Never Knows" is the WORST example
There wernt no "planing" done on that song by anyone least of all Paul McCartney. That song has been layered and added too probably more than any other Beatle song. The credit on THAT song should read "Lennon Martin" not "Lennon McCartney">
Gay! Gay! Fucking Gay!
I wonder what "crap" Lennon ideas Paul McCartney saved the Beatles and us from having to endure? The ONLY crap ideas John ever had were the ones he cooked up with Yoko Ono and the worst of those (like Bag One and Bag In) were pretty cool in retrospect- although still very tongue in cheek.
When I saw him t'other day,
he was like "right I'd like you to welcome a VERY special guest..." I think me and the majority of the crowd were hoping for Ringo.
"MR DAVE GROHL".
I liked the way he introduced Blackbird
Not Dave Grohl.
McCartney did write
most of the most popular, although not my favorite, Beatles songs including Blackbird, Hey Jude, and Let It Be. I'm not sure who I like more, I'm just saying that counts for something.
everyone loves Blackbird
and I think tis a good song but never really "clicked" for me
But
Hey Jude and Let it Be are two of the worst songs ever written.
McCartney was responsible for the 2nd side of Abbey Road
so there is really no contest between him and Lennon.
And how can you say Lennon wrote all the better songs when McCartney wrote "You never give me your money"?
I haven't viewed your profile but I'll guess you are about 17
If you deleted Lennon's input on Abbey Road, you can kiss Come Together and I Wan't You (she's so heavy) goodbye-which would kind of wreck that album. I'm not foolish to say therefore Lennon wins cause we be talkin magic here people. The contribution made by all four Beatles and George Martin plus Alan Parsons was somekind of assistant on Abbey Road; all those people working together made that album. Even Ringo's drumming was pretty cool on Abbey Roast.
I think this argument is missing one vital thing:
Mull of Kintyre.
The greatest song ever written. Hence, Macca ftw.
If Paul read this thread he'd say yer all full of shit
Lennon McCartney was amazing! Their writing union outshines their individual outputs- far and away. As to who lent the most to that union I can only say that the proposition is ridiculous. It's like when Mozart was told that his music had too many notes- OK, which ones to take out? What Beatle song needed a little less John or more John or more George or less Paul or whatever. Lennon McCartney is untouchable, it's bigger than any one Beatle could or will ever be.
huh- "less Paul" , I love it
: )
It's definitely missing
The frog song
and the masterwork that is
Temporary secretary
McCartney was the better musician, imo.
McCartney may have been the best
but George always seemed like the nicest guy to me. Someone you could probably sit down and have a pint with. Plus All Things Must Pass pretty much pisses on anything Lennon or McCartney did post Beatles (regardless of probably everyone elses opinions) ;)
Isn't there room for
both of them somewhere in our hairy little hearts?
NO YOU HAVE TO CHOOSE
It's the Internet Law.
Joe - www.anewbandaday.com
paul ftw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWg4PTNNamw
Also, LOL:
marvy1118 (1 day ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply
"Macca" is a nickname used in Britain (according to Wikipedia) for any name that starts with "Mc" or "Mac." They call "McDonald's" "Maccas."
Macca
if Lennon's so good why is he dead?
Anyway, Abbey Road medley. I'm not the first to say it, but thats why Paul is my favourite. That and the not being a preachy cunt.
Temporary Secretary
> anything Lennon ever did solo. Well...ok...maybe not - I just have a soft spot for that song is all.
you're not even a preach cunt
you're just a cunt
wait
you are an ignorant cunt
sorry
I much prefer McCartney
Though as has been widely discussed here The Beatles would've been nothing it wasn't for the two of them together. Not just bouncing ideas off each other, but also the element of competition. They both wanted to out do each other and it pushed them on.
Thus when they went solo they no longer had the quality control and the competitive drive so released a fair whack of drivel. In fact I read that Lennon did some of his best stuff when he heard a good McCartney song on the radio.
That said, I've always felt that Lennon was a bit of a cunt and McCartney has carried himself with far more grace
"Thanks for the muzac, the only thing you did was yesterday" Classy John.
Lennon is the better songwriter.
You only have to compare both parties songs regarding The Troubles for proof. Lennon's "Sunday Bloody Sunday" and "The Luck Of The Irish" are thoughtful, vitriolic and incredibly forthright. McCartney's "Give Ireland Back To The Irish", on the other hand, is very basic, almost to the point of being flippant.
Not that I'm attacking McCartney in any way - obviously he is a genius, and has written some of the greatest songs of all time - but Lennon will always be the better songwriter to me.
i think
that lennon is the better song wrighter but seems a bit like a *** but beatles best stuff is when paul & John contrubute to the song. Harrason i think had the best solo carare tho mind ironicly (the least talented) Ringo is the one which currently has the better life (lennon Harison Dead pauls divorece Ringo still wrighting pub songs!)
that is total
bollocks.
Lennon seems that way because he is being honest McCatney is a politician and that why you think what you do.
jesus..................
Ringo was best
I don't need to back it up with an arguement.
And he looks like Yasser Arafat.
Joe - www.anewbandaday.com
I'D LIKE TO BE
UNDER THE SEA
IN AN OCTOPUS'S GARDEN IN THE SHADE
ha ha ha ha
x 1,000,000,000,000,000
if either one of them were on fire...
..id only piss on them for the sake of it, not to put out the flames.
lennon was a hippy lefty twat with mediocre talent and mccartney is possibly the most horrible moneygrabbing cunt in the history of music.
you told this joke yesterday
it's still not funny, sonny.