Lennon or McCartney video

When Lennon was sentimental it sounded real and passionate and not merely romantic. That's because of his vocal quality. But John being dead used to benefit his legacy but I think Paul being alive all these extra years, touring, interviewing and just being so present, has tended to over credit him in some areas to many. Lennon was at least perceived as deeper even before his death.

 

And yet John recorded way more during this period because Paul wasn't cranking them out as he did later. Even if we throw out the co writes from 62-65, John's good and great stuff far out numbers Paul's. It's not even close.

 

I notice many of the artists give this smug, dismissive tone when they say,"Lennon", as if you are some musically unaware rube if you felt otherwise. And also sad that so many that said "McCartney" gave their response in a lilting tone, almost as if they were emberassed to choose Paul over John.

 

Yeah, it's unfortunate on both counts. But there are plenty who are confident in their McCartney and others who are casual in their Lennon

 

The funny thing is there are so many reasons to pick either one. It really is a difficult question and my answer could change day to day.

That said, I've always been a Harrison guy.

 

Price.pittsburgh, you're entitled to your opinion, but I was addressing your totally untrue statement that McCartney didn't have the quality material in the early and mid 60s!

John Lennon wrote nothing that has surpassed the most covered song in POPULAR MUSIC HISTORY, the song Yesterday!

McCartney achieved this with ONE SONG!

Talk about quality!

 

And most of those covers of Yesterday happened within the two decades following the original. Imagine is far more recognizable today, especially among the youth and All You Need is Love and In My Life aren't far behind. And I clearly meant that from 62-65 Paul didn't have the same quantity of quality songs that he had later in the decade.

 

Yesterday also benefits from being under the Beatles Banner. While Imagine is John after The Beatles. (I don't believe Paul has a similarly covered post-Beatles classic).

It may be theorized that Lennon's death is what has made Imagine some sort of world anthem, but we'll never know for sure that it would not have been deemed as profound had John not been assassinated. We know that the dream of world peace transcends beyond the subject of John's death.
Andy Peebles mentioned that Imagine was the standout from John even in the December 6th 1980 BBC interview.

 

Oh now it's the quantity!

Yeah right?!

 

Look, I said that Paul grew and that had he had the quality of material in the early to mid 60s that he had in the latter 60s, then he would have recorded it. Because I followed that by saying it was even between he and John in 66-67 and he took the lead 68-69, I wrongly assumed you didn't know I was talking about quantity of great ones. Everyone else seems to be aware that he recorded a lot more songs and a lot more great ones from 66-69 than 62-65, except for you and I'm also sorry if I don't think "And I Love Her" or "I'm Down" to be on the same level as Let it Be, Hey Jude, Long and Winding Road, Blackbird, Golden Slumbers, You Never Give Me Your Money, Back in the USSR, Get Back, Penny Lane, Helter Skelter etc.

 

I think Paul had an edge in 67, especially considering he was the one that really spearheaded Sgt. Peppers & Magical Mystery Tour. 68 was pretty even I think. Lennon was much more productive that year than 67

 

I got ya but basically my point is the bulk of Paul classics are from 66-69

 

lennon. I cant even compare their work its so embedded in me. it comes down to his voice for me.
and you cant say Harrison! or Starr! there are rules to this game...we live in a society!

 

Yes, and it's always amusing to hear the ones who've barely achieved anything dismiss either or both John and Paul. I hope they squirm a bit when they watch themselves talk such rubbish! And if I'd been told 'one word answer, please' I'd be a bit miffed to see some of the others waffle on rather than just say the name. Interesting project, though.

 

What do you mean 'my bias'? I said that within the Beatles, I cannot seperate them and that they are equal. If you can't handle that, and if you can't handle the facts that I posted about Paul's contributions to John's songs, and John's contributions to Paul's songs, then it is you who is obviously bias.

 

For a serious answer i would pick Lennon, honestly. I just like his songs more, and his edgier use of dissonance and experimentation.

Nothing beats Strawberry Fields Forever, In My Life, I'm Only Sleeping, Being For The Benefit of Mr. Kite or I Want You (She's So Heavy)!

 

I think the only fair thing is to call it a draw.

 

Little known fact: They were both in the same band at one time, so you don't have to chose, you can have both, file under Beatles.

Or, as I said the last time we had the discussion about this very video, it's 'Lennon AND McCartney', not 'or'.

 

What a sweet video.
It's sort of moving to see people testify to their love (usually) for these figures whom they have mostly never met, but who mean a great deal to (many of) them.
Many of them, as you can see, have already invested themselves in the Beatles to the degree that they have wrestled with the mystery of their awesomeness and their occasional shortcomings and contradictions. It's really a display of love -- love for music and life, as embodied by the Beatles. Someone early in the vid says it's like being asked to choose between your parents: even if you can choose, you can't do it without regret for the slight you cast on the other.
Very sweet.

But, yeah, for me: McCartney.

 

In death Lennon has been exalted to levels of sainthood. I can't fault people for missing him but I can call folks on the rewriting of history. If you want to talk about these two in terms of their Beatles careers, well, there is a wonderful crossover point of 1966 were they were all hitting on all cylinders. Before that John may have had a slight upper hand, and after that Paul DEFINITELY had an upper hand.

Solo careers? Again, love John, but that solo work after Imagine gets ridiculously spotty and I can't bring myself to celebrate it as much as some folks would like to. I have to give it to McCartney on this one, 70s solo career alone (not gonna count 1981 and after due to the tragic event of 1980).

Having said all that, I play guitar in a band that does Beatles and solo Beatles catalog. We do things jammed out and heavier than traditional Beatles releases and I'll be honest - John's solo work DOES fit a bit better under our umbrella than Paul's. Some o that has to do with the fact that trying to sing Paul's parts without adjusting keys is a more-than-daunting task. But some of John's songs just have this really dark, heavy rock and roll thing that we're looking for with our sound. I can't find as many Paul songs like that. His are far more pop-oriented and not lending themselves to the darkness of John. THAT is where they should have realized they needed to work together forever, finding that middle ground for each other. Paul's songs are crafted better and produced FAR better than anything Lennon could even imagine. When not picking for the band, I'm a McCartney guy thru and thru. Not hard for me to admit for one second!

Both amazing. Both worthy of stacking up against ANY other composer in the rock and roll era and both probably coming out on top easily.

 

Actually, I've always liked that about you, supermd: you're obviously a McCartney fan, but you have a Lennon avatar. It seems nicely balanced, somehow.

 

Fine post, although I think you went too far with the last 7 words (i.e. easily on top of Townshend, Davies, Dylan, and Simon).

 

I think though the tide has sort of shifted in Paul's favor to many. Him being alive all these extra years, interviewing, touring and just being so visible during an internet and 24 hour TV age, has made it feel as if he was solely the force behind The Beatles. Even much of his average solo efforts have received a lot of revisionism. When he dies it will then be an all out Paul was King moment for a while and then probably even back out again. But the way John died and his age, certainly elevated his legacy throughout the pre common internet era. But John's iconic status was always going to be large beyond music, due to his political image.

 

I don't know. In many ways "Imagine" is just as sentimental as the most sentimental McCartney song you can think of, it's lyrics describing a literal "Utopia" ( in Latin, "nowhere", man) just as yearning as the most syrupy love song. But because of it's obvious political nature, it's thought of somehow more "serious."
Okay, it's better than McCartney's "Freedom", though.

 

By comparison Pipes of Peace is awesome but Paul naturally sounds already content. That's why the dramatic musical arrangement for the bridge and music break for Tug of War is more convincing.