Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Crazy Diamond]

George, John, and Paul are tied.

I agree there's more to it than just the song writing and ideas; that's what gives it to John Lennon, I reckon. He wrote more songs that probed, that asked questions, that revealed himself, the artist. I sometimes wonder why Paul actually writes songs!

I'm in the "John Bus" on most things,

[Indica]

"Personally, I dont like Pauls lead guitar playing. I think his solos lack feel and creativity"

I dont know whether to agree or disagree with this statement.
Although his playing might not seem imaginative when compared to Hendrix or Clapton...I still think Mccartney has sound theory on his playing... e.g.  Mccartneys Epiphone Casino Lead work on Taxman is bloody amazing.

I realize that Sgt. Peppers veered off course, and MMT was considered a failure in the eyes of many beholders (mine included),

The film of MMT was considered a failure, not the music.

[Indica]

yeah, and reason they though Magical Mystery Tour was a failure, was becasue the Far-Right BBC aired it in black and White, and so half the gimmick of the concept was immediatley lost.
 everyone wanted a happy mop-top caper, and what they got was 4 men experimenting with film and having an appetite for drugs.

[Sadie4]

Well, as naturally talented I would say JOHN was, and not beacuse I love him madly, but because I think he could write a song just by seeing a TV commercial. Paul had to think more about the lyrics, maybe because he's more into it, maybe. JOHN could write a song naturally

[quote by=pc31 link=Blah.pl?b=cc,m=1092517016,s=3 date=1092522028]consider this lennon had more bouts with awesome grief than paul.john was raised in a broken home,had a shi tty dad ,no siblings in the home,lost his mother,
paul was brought up in a loving family with both parents[/quote]

Paul lost his mother first, and at a younger age than John.


That said, this is another 'best of' poll sort of idea that will never give a concensus.  John was a gifted 'natural' or 'primitive' musician (not talking songwriting here), Paul was obviously more polished and a bit more learned.

John was multi-instrumental as well, and self-taught.  They both really were good at what they did, but Paul would win hands down IF *ONLY* instrument playing ability was considered.  His was a natural gift as well, but he also had an ambition to do and learn more, John had no such burden.

[quote by=Joe_Karlosi link=Blah.pl?b=cc,m=1092517016,s=21 date=1092568003]
Do you really think so? I disagree there. Lennon's personal songwriting abilities got even stronger in his solo works.
[/quote]

We'll have to let the other part of your post go, as we'll not agree I think.

However, I must take you up on the above: POB and Imagine (+ associated singles from those years) were a recovery of sorts from Lennon's trough of Let It Be/Abbey Road. However, Imagine has a lot of journeyman song-writing (eg, It's So Hard, How, Oh Yoko)and from then on Lennon was on a slide (Sometime in NYC and Mind Games are largely disappointing for me, & Walls & Bridges a bit of a recovery but not really high standard.)

But do you REALLY think his personal songwriting abilities got stronger? I could list his Beatle work that far surpasses anything later: SFF, Walrus, Rain, Tomorrow Never Knows, Lucy, Kite, Good Morning, A Day in the Life, Across The Universe, Hey Bulldog, Come Together, I'm So Tired, Glass Onion, Prudence, Yer Blues, She Said, Only Sleeping, Norwegian Wood, Help, Girl, Hard Day's Night, ... His Beatle songs were much better as songs, as statements, as insights, ... you know!

[An Apple Beatle]

Hi all, been a wee while. Connection dodgy again. Just a quicky on this one. John by naturalness. Paul by sheer hard work and enthusiasm....(Very brief sweeping comment.) Speak ya'll soon.....I hope.

[Fab4]

Some Lennon quotes on this topic. If anyone is interested in it.  If not, just skip the post. I just thought it was interesting. Not that John was always 100% right or anything.

Talking about his solo stuff being as good as his Beatles stuff.

LENNON: "'Imagine,' 'Love' and those Plastic Ono Band songs stand up to any song that was written when I was a Beatle. Now, it may take you 20 or 30 years to appreciate that, but the fact is, if you check those songs out, you will see that it is as good as any f***ing stuff that was ever done"

Paul's ability.

LENNON: "I always had an easier time with lyrics, though Paul is quite a capable lyricist who doesn't think he is. So he doesn't go for it. Rather than face the problem, he would avoid it. 'Hey Jude' is a damn good set of lyrics. I made no contribution to the lyrics there. And a couple of lines he has come up with show indications of a good lyricist. But he just hasn't taken it anywhere. Still, in the early days, we didn't care about lyrics as long as the song had some vague theme... she loves you, he loves him, they all love each other. It was the hook, line and sound we were going for. That's still my attitude, but I can't leave lyrics alone. I have to make them make sense apart from the songs."

He does also say: LENNON: "'The Long and Winding Road' was the last gasp from him. Although I really haven't listened."

Just for fun, his thoughts on Ringo. Although it turns back to Paul towards the end.

PLAYBOY: "Let's move on to Ringo. What's your opinion of him musically?"

LENNON: "Ringo was a star in his own right in Liverpool before we even met. He was a professional drummer who sang and performed and had Ringo Starr-time and he was in one of the top groups in Britain but especially in Liverpool before we even had a drummer. So Ringo's talent would have come out one way or the other as something or other. I don't know what he would have ended up as, but whatever that spark is in Ringo that we all know but can't put our finger on... whether it is acting, drumming or singing I don't know... there is something in him that is projectable and he would have surfaced with or without the Beatles. Ringo is a damn good drummer. He is not technically good, but I think Ringo's drumming is underrated the same way Paul's bass playing is underrated. Paul was one of the most innovative bass players ever. And half the stuff that is going on now is directly ripped off from his Beatles period. He is an egomaniac about everything else about himself, but his bass playing he was always a bit coy about. I think Paul and Ringo stand up with any of the rock musicians. Not technically great... none of us are technical musicians. None of us could read music. None of us can write it. But as pure musicians, as inspired humans to make the noise, they are as good as anybody."

[Frightwolf]

Fab, that was a very great read, and I like the respect Lennon shows toward McCartney's abilities.  When was this interview conducted?

[Fab4]

1980 in Playboy.

[number14]

Yes i agree that paul is more musicly talented then lennon or harrison.
When he first joined the beatles, wasnt lennon surprised at how fast he could tune a guitar?

[quote by=number14 link=Blah.pl?b=cc,m=1092517016,s=32 date=1092612218]Yes i agree that paul is more musicly talented then lennon or harrison.
When he first joined the beatles, wasnt lennon surprised at how fast he could tune a guitar?[/quote]


It was the fact that Paul could TUNE a guitar! LOL  John wasn't even that aware.  He had the passion but not the chops.

He acquired them, obviously.

But do you REALLY think his personal songwriting abilities got stronger? I could list his Beatle work that far surpasses anything later:

Well, he didn't have The Beatles with him in his solo years, but his knack for writing personal songs with very introspective lyrics improved.

[Joost]

Paul is my favorite Beatle but I'm not sure he was actually the most naturally gifted/talented Beatle, since I also think he worked a lot harder than the others... John was very lazy, George wasn't very fanatic, and I think that Paul was just a total workaholic during the Beatles years.

For instance, those lists of songs without Ringo, songs without John, songs without Paul and songs without George I was talking about a few days ago: each list consists of 20-30 songs, except for Paul's... Besides solo songs like "Revolution 9" and "Julia" he missed just one song in the entire Beatles catalogue (can't remember which one right now)...

[Joost]

[quote by=Maria link=Blah.pl?b=cc,m=1092517016,s=13 date=1092534167]
ALL the musicians I know (about five, six perhaps) not only do play at least three instruments very well - they can pick up on how to play other instruments quite quickly. Please understand that I'm talking serious musicians here - not the average person who plays the guitar or piano for their own amusement, more or less. I repeat, I'm talking about musicians. Paul had this talent, and it is quite common - in my experience.[/quote]

I agree. I think there aren't many really talented musicians that can play just one instrument...

[Jonno]

Paul was the most naturally gifted Beatle. With the right training he could have been a classical composer. But writing music depends on two things - firstly talent, in other words the ability to operate in the musical medium. Secondly, inspiration - which is what seperates a genius from the thousands of people writing music. In this respect, John equalled and often eclipsed Paul. The Beatles weren't brilliant because of their "talent" - many people have a natural gift for music, although Paul was pretty exceptional. It's their tireless artistic inspiration that makes The Beatles so special.

[number14]

[quote by=misterchaz link=Blah.pl?b=cc,m=1092517016,s=33 date=1092619256]


It was the fact that Paul could TUNE a guitar! LOL

[Sondra]

I think they're pretty equal but in different ways. They each have very unique gifts and ablilities and I don't think you can analyze it to death and come out with a definitive answer on who's got more of this or less of that. But personally I don't think either one of them would have been as successful or legendary had they not hooked up with the other.