Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by saborlord123, Nov 11, 2019.
that would be John...
Reading this thread, and had exactly the same thought.
When you listen to early Paul, he is a bit 'how ya doin'. Something like 'Love Me Do'.
More so in the lower range, he sounds not quite in control of his voice.
John early on, just sounding great right off of the first album.
Fast forward to the mid 60's, and Paul has a handful of voices and understood his voice prowess.
The same guy that does Yesterday, does Lady Madonna, Helter Skelter and Let it Be.
I think Paul had the better range and ability to adapt it.
For me it's John by a mile. He has such a unique voice. I believe every word when he sings. He sounds like he means it. And that early stuff is awesome. Anna, This Boy... so many...
John and Paul had near identical ranges. Lennon had a wonderful low end to his baritone voice, but he could also get up there and could make a seamless transition to falsetto. McCartney didn’t get down as low as Lennon, but could get a couple of steps above John’s top note in natural voices. Lennon had a great falsetto, McCartney not as much so.
John had near perfect pitch, his recorded voice almost never was pitchy. McCartney could get quite pitchy, especially after smoking the doobies. Doobies can do that to some. I’m a singer and doing it stoned is not a good idea. ( yes I expect to get crucified on this one! Christ you know it ain’t easy!)
Paul was a wonderful mimic, Little Richard and Elvis completely in his wheelhouse. As someone else noted, Paul’s voice always sounded like he was playing a character when he sang. John always sounded like he meant every single word he sang.
John had a completely original voice, and when he pushed it, I believe he had the most sincere and musical rasp to his voice in rock.
They were both outstanding harmony singers, but Paul created more interesting and compelling parts. Some of John’s songs would not have been as great without McCartney’s harmonies. Ticket To Ride and Don’t Let Me Down are great examples.
both of them lost something on their singing fastballs after they stopped touring. A rockers voice is always best when it’s been gigging.
all in all, John is my pick, but they were both pretty damn good.
I'm not sure how to explain it, but George's voice can hit me in a way that John and Paul's can't. It's very innocent, warm, and sincere. It never sounds calculated to me, whereas especially in the later years John's does, even if it's not to the same degree as Paul.
Paul was more versatile and had possibly better technique but Lennon had the emotion and soul and was a complete original, no one else sounded like him.
So yea, John.
Who used multiple accounts to vote for Paul?
Geez, this forum and its unabated love of any-and-all things Paul McCartney
Paul had more range (though check out "You're Gonna Lose That Girl" to see how high John could go) but I can't believe that many really think that Paul had a better voice than John (especially in terms of rock).
There was a poll many years ago (no, I no longer have a reference for it) where they asked recording engineers:
If you could record one voice, who's would it be.
Their overwhelming choice was John Lennon.
John‘s voice communicates better for me, more emotive.
"The result isn't what I want so obviously there's something wrong!!"
Some people prefer John's voice, some people prefer Paul's voice. Your expectation does not dictate anyone else's preferences.
This poll and thread are ridiculous. The answer is Ringo and we all know it!
It is great to see that this poll is going in the correct direction.
What, Paul's leading a poll by a measly 40 votes and you've got to criticize the whole forum for it? Ridiculous. Paul's a great singer, should be no surprise that he is preferred by many people. They're ALL great singers IMO, even Ringo does a great job on his infrequent leads. If anyone's really being given short shrift here it's George. But it's silly how people are seemingly offended that John isn't just running away with the poll, as if it's just so obvious that he's so superior. John, Paul and George are very well-matched in singing ability and tone, and if it were any other way the Beatles would have been far less than they were.
lol it's called personal opinion. Why do you think the recording engineer's opinion is any more valid than the forums? They preferred John, other people preferred Paul.
It is not a conspiracy that slightly a few people more on one forum prefer one of the greatest singers of the last century over the other.
Separate names with a comma.