Lennon vs McCartney

taylorconor95

Ok, so I decided to finally ask the question: Who was better, Lennon or McCartney?

While in the Beatles, I feel Lennon was the true leader of the band, as McCartney really was under it all a bassist (an awesome one) with an amazing voice. Lennon obviously also had an incredible voice and was pretty good on guitar as well. So I think from this aspect Lennon was a nose ahead, in my opinion anyway.

However, once they went solo, I think McCartney really took off. He played all the instruments in 'Maybe I'm Amazed' (Guitars, Piano, Organ, Drums, Vocals), and released what I would consider some of the most amazing albums of the 70's in McCartney I & II, Band on the Run and Ram, with Tug of War (oddly my personal favorite) in the early 80's. Lennon on the other hand released two good solo albums early, The 'Lennon/Plastic Ono' one and 'Imagine', but I think it ends there. 'Mind Games', 'Walls and Bridges' and 'Double Fantasy' weren't up to the mark if you ask me, although Double Fantasy had one or two good singles in it.

I know McCartney is often dismissed for writing soppy love songs, but Lennon's sharp wit come arrogance annoyed me too...

But what do you think? Who really was the most creative or musical one?

Rothko

I think I'd pick Lennon. Overall, I think he was the better songwriter and more creative. Also, I like his post-Beatles stuff more than McCartney's (although George Harrison's solo career is better than both). McCartney has a far better voice though and he is actually one of my favourite vocalists.

Bodhidharma

McCartney was the leader of the Beatles, as Lennon himself agreed. John was rhythm guitar so I dont think he influenced the sound as much as you'd imagine a lead guitar would over a bass. Also Paul was probably better at his instrument than John.

In saying all that I would vote for John, only just. He had more edge, his songs are slightly more to my taste.

Hannibal

John Lennon

McCartney's influence gets played down a lot because people want to believe that Lennon was the main man because he was more outspoken and cooler in some respects.

McCartney was more pop and Lennon was more rock. It's easy to tell who wrote what with The Beatles from say 1966 onwards.

In terms of their solo output I do feel that McCartney's was easily the better, Yoko Ono had way too much input on Lennon's material. I'd regard their two best to be Band on the Run and Imagine, i personally would prefer Band on the Run. I agree with the poster above about Harrison though, I think his solo stuff was more interesting.

Malice

I've added a poll just for the hell of it. I think the question could have been phrased a bit more accurately though. What's the criteria for "better". Do you mean better songwriter, better musician, better person or something else entirely?

delbertgrady

John Lennon

"People will always love John more, because John isn't here" - Yoko Ono

The general view often taken by critics is that Lennon was a better lyricist, but that McCartney had a natural gift for melody, which Lennon ultimately resented. McCartney was also a better musician than Lennon: while both were obviously capable of writing on guitar and piano, McCartney was also an accomplished bassist (Lennon was barely competent) and an above-average drummer, something he took to in the studio from 1968 onwards.

If it wasn't for McCartney, the Beatles would have imploded after Brian Epstein's death. Sure, he initiated a lot of folly, such as the Magical Mystery Tour debacle and the ill-fated Get Back project, but at least he was trying something. After Summer 1967, he was the only one steering them to keep functioning as a group. Without McCartney keeping the ship afloat, we'd have no White Album or - more crucially - no Abbey Road.

Ian MacDonald's seminal tome, Revolution in the Head, is a superb look at the Beatles' output and is particularly good in assessing the two sides to McCartney's writing, best exemplified by his comparing the (in his eyes) indefensible Maxwell's Silver Hammer to the peerless You Never Give Me Your Money and the "big medley" on side two of Abbey Road, which - despite the inclusion of Lennon material - is very much McCartney's baby.

There are effectively two sides to McCartney's writing. The naysayers all pounce on the "song and dance man" or the mawkish sentimentality, while the pro-Macca camp will refer to the musical complexities and peerless melodies (Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey, Band on the Run, Maybe I'm Amazed). I'm with the latter.
This awareness of the two facets of his writing is a crucial point, since whenever this debate starts, the anti-McCartney brigade always start referring to the songs that are easy to criticise (Mull of Kintyre and The Frog Chorus are usually top of the list) as some sort of "justification" that Lennon was more talented. This is a cynical attitude to take, and fails to accept that the majority of Lennon's post-Beatles output (the superb Plastic Ono Band and Imagine being the obvious exceptions) was well below par.

I do think there's a lot to be said for Yoko's comment that I quoted at the top. The perception - mentioned earlier - that Lennon is the "cool" Beatle is also a key factor here. You often see people wearing John Lennon t-shirts (usually the famous New York photo) - how many do you ever see wearing Paul McCartney ones?

Recommended reading: Fab - an Intimate Life of Paul McCartney by Howard Sounes

JimiTime

I think together they were a great foil for each other. Though they didn't write together much in the later years, they still had influence on each other and respected, while competing with each other. I do find myself drawn more to Lennons output in the Beatles, 'Happiness is a warm Gun' and 'I am the Walrus' being arguably my two faves. Macca though was phenomenal in so many aspects. His bass sound and licks are to me second to none. For example, 'Dear Prudence' is a fairly average song, add Macca's bass though, and I'm in musical heaven. Even on one of my favourite George tracks, 'While my Guitar Gently Weeps', his bass is just magical.

Solo, Lennon and McCartney had some great moments (Imagine, Plastic Ono Band, Band on the Run, McCartney 1), but again, I'd probably find myself drawn to the Lennon stuff more, though still loving Macca's stuff.

Also, something that bugs me in these things is the criticism of 'the Frog Song'. Give it context people It was a song written for children, specifically a childrens cartoon, and its a damn fins childrens song. I absolutely loved it as a kid, and tbh, it still has a place in my heart to this day:) Its not like it was offered as his follow up to Sgt Peppers.

All in all, I'm sitting on the fence. I'm drawn more to Lennons great songs than Macca's, but even on the Lennon stuff, Macca's bass is awesome, and in some cases, making the ordinary into the brilliant!

One thing I'm sure of though, Lennon was defo cooler, while Macca is like an embarrassing dad at times:) but who cares about that!

windingo

I do think John Lennon was better showman, but think McCartney did get more credit and is the better known one of the two..

kunst nugget

John Lennon

My guess is that an awful lot of people calling Lennon the cooler one obviously being pretty blinkered because he was just as capable of writing mawkish pieces of sh¡te as McCartney. Just Like Starting Over and Beautiful Boy being obvious examples and if you listen to the lyrics of Imagine it is such sentimental drivel. Lennon's legacy had the good fortune not to suffer the ignominy of the eighties.

Also, I do think that McCartney has tried to engage actively with his muse and legacy over the years rather than just coast along like the Stones. He's tried to experiment over the years, whether it's with the Fireman albums or even trying to shake it up a bit with having the likes of Nigel Godrich to produce one of his recent albums. How successful these have been is open to debate but I do applaud the effort. And I'm always going to rate McCartney over Lennon purely for Abbey Road.

JimiTime

kunst nugget wrote: »

My guess is that an awful lot of people calling Lennon the cooler one obviously being pretty blinkered because he was just as capable of writing mawkish pieces of sh¡te as McCartney. Just Like Starting Over and Beautiful Boy being obvious examples.

I'm guessing you are not a father. It all changes when you become one. All of a sudden, Beautiful Boy may as well be someone dicing onions on your chin!

kunst nugget

John Lennon

JimiTime wrote: »

I'm guessing you are not a father. It all changes when you become one. All of a sudden, Beautiful Boy may as well be someone dicing onions on your chin!

You guess wrong. I have 2 kids and it's still a crock of poo.

BrensBenz

Odd question really, a bit like “which is better: dogs or cats!”
We each will have a favourite but is he actually BETTER? Two VERY different talents which blended wonderfully together and produced excellent work later as individuals.
I was about seven when The Beatles first emerged and I thought the Sun shone out of the guy, standing by himself, chin raised, knees bending, strumming from the wrist. I was granted special permission to go to see A Hard Day’s Night at the local cinema and Wow! That scene in the baggage car, Lennon alone with an acoustic guitar, admittedly miming but….."he wrote the words; he wrote the music; he plays the guitar; he sings the words….and he’s only a kid!"
Later, I saw McCartney perform Yesterday live on Sunday Night at the Palladium and I thought “he wrote the words; he wrote the music; he plays the guitar; he sings the words….and he’s only a kid!”

Slightly off topic – apologies – but I’ve seen posts elsewhere asserting that The Beatles weren’t that great(?) Well, have a listen to what they replaced: the female singers in ridiculous evening dresses delivering endless renditions of “I could have dawnced all night” or males in dress suits, Brylcreem and sparkly shoes, limp-wristed, finger-clicking their way through “I could have dawnced all night”. OK, Elvis had created some cracks but we should be eternally grateful to The Beatles for finally ridding us of that dross.

Rigsby

John Lennon

BrensBenz wrote: »

Odd question really, a bit like “which is better: dogs or cats!”
We each will have a favourite but is he actually BETTER? Two VERY different talents which blended wonderfully together and produced excellent work later as individuals.[/COLOR

IMO, this is the only logical and fair answer to this thread. Yes, we all have our favourites, but the word "versus" has no (or should not have) a place in the discussion.

jonniebgood1

John Lennon

BrensBenz wrote: »

Odd question really, a bit like “which is better: dogs or cats!”
We each will have a favourite but is he actually BETTER? Two VERY different talents which blended wonderfully together and produced excellent work later as individuals.
I was about seven when The Beatles first emerged and I thought the Sun shone out of the guy, standing by himself, chin raised, knees bending, strumming from the wrist. I was granted special permission to go to see A Hard Day’s Night at the local cinema and Wow! That scene in the baggage car, Lennon alone with an acoustic guitar, admittedly miming but….."he wrote the words; he wrote the music; he plays the guitar; he sings the words….and he’s only a kid!"
Later, I saw McCartney perform Yesterday live on Sunday Night at the Palladium and I thought “he wrote the words; he wrote the music; he plays the guitar; he sings the words….and he’s only a kid!”

Slightly off topic – apologies – but I’ve seen posts elsewhere asserting that The Beatles weren’t that great(?) Well, have a listen to what they replaced: the female singers in ridiculous evening dresses delivering endless renditions of “I could have dawnced all night” or males in dress suits, Brylcreem and sparkly shoes, limp-wristed, finger-clicking their way through “I could have dawnced all night”. OK, Elvis had created some cracks but we should be eternally grateful to The Beatles for finally ridding us of that dross.

It's subjective.

oddman2

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

It's subjective.

Well (within the Beatles) while people may like songs which were written by one of them better, it may have been the combination of the two different personalities that drove them to write the songs they did, and therefore it's difficult to look at them as two separate artists and decide who is better. After all, they wrote (nominally anyway) as Lennon-McCartney, not as individuals.

I remember seeing a documentary in which McCartney said that he wrote Penny Lane (I think) as a reply to one of Lennon's songs, trying to imitate/out-do him, and he said the two of them would regularly do that.

Rothko

oddman2 wrote: »

I remember seeing a documentary in which McCartney said that he wrote Penny Lane (I think) as a reply to one of Lennon's songs, trying to imitate/out-do him, and he said the two of them would regularly do that.

Yeah, I think it was a response to Strawberry Fields Forever. That song was written about Lennon's memories of his childhood while Penny Lane was inspired by McCartney's own childhood.

taylorconor95

John Lennon

Quoting my original question, "Who really was the most creative or musical one?"

flyswatter

John Lennon

taylorconor95 wrote: »

Quoting my original question, "Who really was the most creative or musical one?"

I'd go for McCartney.

theholyghost

taylorconor95 wrote: »

Quoting my original question, "Who really was the most creative or musical one?"

I'm not a massive McCartney fan but I do think he is some sort of extra special talent, he's the Beethoven or Motzart of 20th century pop music. As a songwriter. Added to that you have an incredible performer, singer and instrumentalist.

Granted Lennon is probably cooler and has a lot going for him too but I think McCartney is actually THE songwriting talent of the 20th century.

Malice

taylorconor95 wrote: »

Quoting my original question, "Who really was the most creative or musical one?"

Just to be pedantic, your original question was actually

Who was better, Lennon or McCartney?

.

taylorconor95

John Lennon

Malice wrote: »

Just to be pedantic, your original question was actually
.

Yeah but there was a question in that question. Just like questionception

oddman2

Suas11 wrote: »

Yeah, I think it was a response to Strawberry Fields Forever. That song was written about Lennon's memories of his childhood while Penny Lane was inspired by McCartney's own childhood.

Yeah, that's the one, makes sense as well as they were released as a double A-side if I recall correctly.

taylorconor95 wrote: »

Quoting my original question, "Who really was the most creative or musical one?"

But that's a really difficult thing to quantify, questions don't always have a black-and-white answer, especially when it comes to music and art. I guess in terms of solo output I probably prefer McCartney, but within The Beatles I'd find it almost impossible to separate them.

Laurence_OC

Harrison.

philstar

taylorconor95 wrote: »

However, once they went solo, I think McCartney really took off. He played all the instruments in 'Maybe I'm Amazed' (Guitars, Piano, Organ, Drums, Vocals), and released what I would consider some of the most amazing albums of the 70's in McCartney I & II, Band on the Run and Ram, with Tug of War (oddly my personal favorite) in the early 80's. Lennon on the other hand released two good solo albums early, The 'Lennon/Plastic Ono' one and 'Imagine', but I think it ends there. 'Mind Games', 'Walls and Bridges' and 'Double Fantasy' weren't up to the mark if you ask me, although Double Fantasy had one or two good singles in it.

two good albums but what albums.......The john lennon plastic ono band album in particular is quite simply astonishing:eek:

no one and i mean no one has ever or will ever record an album as brutally honest and emotional as that, its in some ways uncomforable to listen to..but my god what a record ..pure genius imo

Technocentral

Contemporise dude, its 2012 not 1965, no one cares anymore.

Rothko

philstar wrote: »

no one and i mean no one has ever or will ever record an album as brutally honest and emotional as that, its in some ways uncomforable to listen to..but my god what a record ..pure genius imo

Listen to From A Basement On The Hill by Elliott Smith

taylorconor95

John Lennon

Technocentral wrote: »

Contemporise dude, its 2012 not 1965, no one cares anymore.

Well I sure rather listen to the Beatles and their respective solo music than the trash that rules the charts these days.

I was on the bus one day and some guy said to me "Why do you listen to them they're so old"... Just because its old doesn't mean its any less awesome.

The Beatles were the best band of all time

Due North

Technocentral wrote: »

Contemporise dude, its 2012 not 1965, no one cares anymore.

Yes they do care. Eventually all music fans go back to the Beatles, Stones and thats a fact.:cool:

Due North

taylorconor95 wrote: »

Well I sure rather listen to the Beatles and their respective solo music than the trash that rules the charts these days.

I was on the bus one day and some guy said to me "Why do you listen to them they're so old"... Just because its old doesn't mean its any less awesome.

The Beatles were the best band of all time

Ain't that the truth.:D:D:D

Stavro Mueller

John Lennon

John Lennon never got to grow old, record songs with frog choruses or marry a woman with one leg. So in that regard we're comparing apples and oranges. I can't help but think that if he had lived, his solo output would've dwindled and like Macca, would be remembered more for what he did years ago. Would he be a bit like Johnny Rotten these days? The curiously edgy/cuddly old man who scared grannies years ago?

philstar

cymbaline wrote: »

John Lennon never got to grow old,

its the best career move of all..die young and your legend is created

and Lennon had the ultimate tragic death...shot dead in New York city, its if it was meant to be really

there's been a deity around his memory ever since, that has in a way overshadowed mc'cartney

frogcheese

John Lennon

From the poll it is pretty split opinion, I don't think either of them would have made it without The Beatles. I think McCartney is the better known of the two but personally I don't think he was the better of the two. I'd choose Lennon everytime.

philstar

frogcheese wrote: »

From the poll it is pretty split opinion, I don't think either of them would have made it without The Beatles. I think McCartney is the better known of the two but personally I don't think he was the better of the two. I'd choose Lennon everytime.

oh i think McCartney would have, he had the talent and charisma

as a matter of fact in the early days he confided in Brian Epstein that if the Beatles didn't make it he wanted to pursue a solo career

Lennon on the other hand would have pursued a career in literature/playwright

kunst nugget

John Lennon

frogcheese wrote: »

I think McCartney is the better known of the two

???

taylorconor95

John Lennon

frogcheese wrote: »

I think McCartney is the better known of the two

No he wasn't!

Terrontress

John Lennon

What I find interesting is that Paul always seemed to look beyond the band.

Yesterday was a solo song as was For No One. Why don't we do it in the road was Paul and Ringo. Eleanor Rigby had Beatles vocals only. She's Leaving Home. I'm sure there are more. For John all I can think of where he didn't use the band as a rock and roll band was Julia.

I also believe that Paul coming of age was much more evident whereas I don't think John had the same awakening. Hard Days Night has John squarely as number 1. McCartney wrote only 3 songs, and George effectively made And I Love Her with his nylon guitar. Beatles For Sale is karaoke, Lennon edges it on Help but by the time Rubber Soul and Revolver come round I think that Paul has become one of the world's greatest composers and bassists. The vocal harmonies on Paul tracks from then on are sublime. He also was able to mix up styles, songs with humour such as Honey Pie.

I'm sure Lennon's descent in to heroin misuse, claiming he was Jesus etc, did not help his musical output.

Anyway, until 65 or so I think John had it but thereafter it was Paul as a performer, songwriter, arranger, lyricist.

Rothko

Terrontress wrote: »

I'm sure Lennon's descent in to heroin misuse, claiming he was Jesus etc, did not help his musical output.

When did he ever claim he was Jesus?

Rigsby

John Lennon

Suas11 wrote: »

When did he ever claim he was Jesus?

I dont think he actually claimed to be Jesus, but to be as popular as him.

Terrontress

John Lennon

Rigsby wrote: »

Suas11 wrote: »

When did he ever claim he was Jesus?

I dont think he actually claimed to be Jesus, but to be as popular as him.

No, I read that he convened a band meeting toward the end to claim to the others that he was Jesus.

Here are some references:

http://articles.absoluteelsewhere.net/Articles/my_friend_john_davies.html

Next morning, Pete contacted Apple to arrange an emergency board meeting. All four Beatles turned up, plus Neil Aspinall (once the Beatles’ roadie, later Apple’s managing director) and Derek Taylor, their press officer. “Right,“ said John, sitting behind his desk. “I’ve something very important to tell you all. I am...Jesus Christ. I have come back again. This is my thing.“

The Beatles looked rather stunned, but said nothing. “It was totally surreal,“ says Pete. “But nobody cross-examined him. No plans were made to announce the Messiah’s arrival. There was a bit of muttering, then silence, till somebody suggested the meeting was adjourned for lunch. “In the restaurant over lunch a man came up to John and said: ’Really nice to meet you, how are you?’ ’Actually,’ said John, ’I’m Jesus Christ.’ ’Oh, really,’ said the man. ’Well, I liked your last record.’ “

http://www.johnlennon.it/pdf/uncut_pg42.pdf


That's what I could come up with on a quick search. I think I might have read it in the Paul McCartney biography by Miles.

It's not really important that he said it but I think it's accepted that Jihn went a bit further down the drug road than Paul and his creativity must have suffered as a result.

taylorconor95

John Lennon

Wow that's not surprising. The poll closed 50/50

philstar

both would be pleased

Rigsby

John Lennon

philstar wrote: »

both would be pleased

Lennon is beyond caring, and I doubt if Macca could care less at this stage of his career.

Snickers Man

kunst nugget wrote: »

You guess wrong. I have 2 kids and it's still a crock of poo.

I have to say, speaking also as a father of two, you're right. Mind you, McCartney did choose it as one of his Desert Isiand Discs. Indeed as the one he couldn't be without.

No accounting for taste, is there?

rubadub

delbertgrady wrote: »

The perception - mentioned earlier - that Lennon is the "cool" Beatle is also a key factor here. You often see people wearing John Lennon t-shirts (usually the famous New York photo) - how many do you ever see wearing Paul McCartney ones?

I think its a memorial thing too, if he was still alive I doubt half as many would be wearing his t-shirt -though being dead/shot could be seen as part of the 'coolness'. If it was McCartney who was shot some might prefer him -many people grew up in the 80's subjected to stuff they hate from artists like Bowie, Rod Stewart, Elton John, Queen. Lennon may have went on to produce muck people hated.

The graphic of his face looks better suited to a tshirt, I doubt you would see the 'cool kids' getting Che Guevara tshirts or tattoos if he had a cute babyface like McCartney.

delbertgrady

John Lennon

rubadub wrote: »

If it was McCartney who was shot some might prefer him -many people grew up in the 80's subjected to stuff they hate from artists like Bowie, Rod Stewart, Elton John, Queen. Lennon may have went on to produce muck people hated.

I'd argue that Lennon had already produced a lot of muck by the time he died anyway. As others have remarked, Plastic Ono Band and Imagine are terrific, but the batting average on his remaining solo albums is pretty low.
My interpretation of your post is that you're citing David Bowie, Rod Stewart, Elton John and Queen as examples of acts who, if you like, "embarrassed themselves" in the 1980s, as opposed to their more "credible" seventies output.
I'd argue a case for Elton and Queen (and Bowie to a lesser extent), but I would agree that Lennon certainly never had the chance to end up like McCartney, putting out garbage like Press To Play and Off the Ground to an indifferent audience.

eviltimeban

Terrontress wrote: »

No, I read that he convened a band meeting toward the end to claim to the others that he was Jesus.

Here are some references:

http://articles.absoluteelsewhere.net/Articles/my_friend_john_davies.html

Funniest thing about that story was that Lennon wanted tell the press, but McCartney requested time "to reflect on the announcement", as he knew in a couple of days Lennon would realise he wasn't, in fact, Jesus!

Terrontress

John Lennon

eviltimeban wrote: »

Terrontress wrote: »

No, I read that he convened a band meeting toward the end to claim to the others that he was Jesus.

Here are some references:

http://articles.absoluteelsewhere.net/Articles/my_friend_john_davies.html

Funniest thing about that story was that Lennon wanted tell the press, but McCartney requested time "to reflect on the announcement", as he knew in a couple of days Lennon would realise he wasn't, in fact, Jesus!

After Lennon's previous quotes about Jesus, I'm not surprised McCartney asked him to keep it quiet.