Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Et Cetera, Et Cetera' started by Flashy, Jul 17, 2009.
Choose which you prefer (obviously they had to achieve together, but choose overall)
Lennon was the better talent and more down to earth. Tragic that he was removed from us, as, he undoubtedly would have given years more of wonderful music and lyrics.
McCartney has done very little musically or in any other way to impress me and has a voice which sounds like something is stuck in his throat. Seriously, his singing sucks.
Lennon, by a long shot... and for all the reasons that Northland has said.
Did you know that so far... three separate times in my life... I've been told that people think I'm John Lennon reincarnated? That's just weird.
I grew up with them. My first album was a Beatles album. I never got the one or the other. Combined they created some of the best music.
Why can't people leave it at that?
Lennon. Like Townsend, he was the main creator of the band's musical ideas
Lennon and Paul got famous by The Beatles. Both made new good songs on their own, but they function better in group.
imagine how excited your masseur the other night would have been had he known he was massaging John Lennon! :wink::biggrin1:
yes, very good point. Obviously, one could not have made the Beatles what they were without the other, but i am talking about in terms of pure musical talent etc.
Lennon did more afterwards of higher quality while solo...
but, if neither had ever joined the Beatles, who would likely have become a more famous musician (if either of them, since we do not know)
generally, since they wrote much "eyeball to eyeball" each contributed smaller, but sometimes crucial, amounts to the main compositions of the other.
McCartney was generally considered to be the more "romantic" writer, while Lennon the more "provocative".
they wrote together for 11 years...i found this quote by Lennon to be interesting
"you could say that he provided a lightness, an optimism, while I would always go for the sadness, the discords, a certain bluesy edge. There was a period when I thought I didn't write melodies, that Paul wrote those and I just wrote straight, shouting rock 'n' roll. But, of course, when I think of some of my own songs "In My Life" or some of the early stuff "This Boy" I was writing melody with the best of them....Then again, I'd be the one to figure out where to go with a song a story that Paul would start. In a lot of the songs, my stuff is the 'middle eight,' the bridge."
I agree with Flashy about the differences between them - McCartney would seem more classically musical, while Lennon was much more groundbreaking and revolutionary.
One of our old neighbours went to the same primary school as Lennon (in Woolton, Liverpool), but not at the same time, lol.
Agree. Lyrically, the stronger suit seemed Lennon, as they (his lyrics) usually were of stronger substance.
And while Lennon also had a gift of writing enduring music, McCartney (imo) seems better (and more productive) at "turning a tune" though his lyrics are too often (and perhaps deliberately so) flights of whimsy ("we're so sorry, Uncle Albert...")
In the end they both deserve equal merit, as individuals and as collaborators.
Both were great, but I think John was the more gifted.
I like The Beatles, but have always felt that their huge success was more about them capturing the zeitgeist than their actual musical ability. They were really new and lead the way during the birth of the teenager, particularly in the UK. If they'd arrived 10yrs later would they be as revered as they are now? I don't think so.
That said - It's always been Lennon for me, but I don't know if that's because he was brilliant, or because the tragedy of his death raised his status.
Paul was the better musician. He had a natural ear for melody and played bass like it was a lead ( think of the bass line in Something- Paul's bass line in that Harrison song made the entire piece )
Paul was also the more enthusiastic performer.
But John Lennon was the heart of the beatles.
McCartney kept things light and lovey...
And Harrison decided that he had the answer and tried to preach...
...but Lennon was asking questions.
Lennon's music was far more personal, and reflective, and honest.
In his music he made public his own struggles and self doubt, his own growth in the face of a changing world.
In that respect, Lennon's music better captures the emotional turmoil that we all went thru in the 60's and 70's.
He sang about the revolution we all experienced in the counter culture, the feminist movement, the disillusionment with war, and racism and status quo.
He exposed his personal pain and his personal joy and his personal arc of self discovery.
While McCartney wrote catchy tunes.
McCartney is a great musician.
Lennon was an artist.
I agree with Phil.
Great writing by Phil.
I ADORE both of them.
But for me it's McCartney. Because of the music.
So much of what he is musically just blows me away.
I appreciate Phil's take on it but I'd be inclined to suggest that perhaps a person who consistently produces memorable songs ("catchy tunes", even) may be an "artist" also.
Is one moreso an artist because he produces/produced cutting edge, meaningful and relevent lyrics set to (equally memorable) music? Is not the song "Let It Be" (known to be McCartney's, despite the credits on the album) a masterpiece? Or even the whimsically foolish "Admiral Halsey (Uncle Albert)"?
Their music is/was composed of both tune and lyric. Who's to say which counts the moreso in qualifying one as an "artist"?
Just my two cents.
As an artist I can answer that...
here's the difference...
McCartney produced a huge body of work, but in listening to all of it... I have no idea what the man is like.
He has left us no clear impression of himself, of what moves him, of what he believes.
Lennon, on the other hand, left an indelible impression of his true character, both the positive and negative aspects...
And beyond that, his body of work describes to us the arc of how he was changed by the world around him...
We come away from Lennon's work with an intimate understanding of the man.
That is why Lennon's death prompted such a vigil, whereas Harrison's did not
McCartney can bang out a great tune... but his most compelling work was done as a Beatle, with Lennon writing the edgy, emotional bridge.
Lennon would take a sappy love song and give it a twist, exposing the pain, the longing, or the despair inherent in love.
And it is clear in McCartney's post Beatles music how much influence Lennon had on McCartney's creative output, and vice versa.
McCartney's subsequent work lost most of its edge and nuance.
While Lennon's lost much of its musical polish and pop appeal, but Lennon never lost the deep emotional honesty.
I think there is no doubt they did their best work as a team, each driving the other in the areas in which they were weak and supporting each other with their strengths.
( McCartney and Lennon both have commented that, even in writing songs without the other's input, they were each striving to impress the other)
And I am not saying McCartney is not a talented musician working in the arts...
But the difference between Lennon's work and his is like the difference between Hemingway and John Grisham, like the difference between Picasso and Normal Rockwell.
When it comes to art, Rockwell was well loved, but Picasso defined what art was to become.
Grisham is poplar and widely read... but Hemingway defined the future of what great writing would be.
They both created musical art... but Lennon's was far more emotionally impactful... and that is what makes art great.
And Lennon's art extended outward from music, into poetry, cinema, protest and social activism.
I remember the billboard, all across america... War is Over if you want it
Where the fuck has McCartney been in moving a generation?
God how I wish Lennon had lived.... Iraq would never have been invaded with him to call on our consciences...
Hey Phil, believe me, I get what you're saying. And without getting too specific about my particulars maybe I have commonality to see it from your particular perspective.
I also know full well the sentiment and importance behind Lennon's music. Remember, I'm a "baby boomer" - was there to see the coming of the Beatles to America, the King and Kennedy assasinations, the Civil Rights movement, Vietnam, Kent State...was tie dyed bell bottomed and afroed..."after the gold rush" "go ask Alice" "what's going on" "say it loud" Lucy in the Sky and "are you experienced".
To be sure Lennon's music had a closer touch with the realities of the times (and in many ways, with our realities still). And yes his words and music gave voice to an era and a generation. Its social significance and cultural influence cannot be underestimated and it's not my argument to do so.
But to use your analogy to art, sometimes one wants to study the complexities of a Picasso or a Dali, and sometimes one can appreciate the serenity of a Rockwell even if of no earth shaking significance.
Sometimes one wants to shot from the rooftops. And sometimes one simply wants to "live a little, be a gypsy, get around."