Print

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

[An Apple Beatle]

...

Its seems you're making a better first impression than I.  

Stop being so competitive! lol
Welcome, enjoy your comments. Some well considered posts that has woken this thread up from it's malaise.

[eroz0]

I didn't know that writing successful anti-war protest songs were "irrelevant" to a songwriter's 'musical talents' (this thread's topic)...  thanx for telling me that, now I know."

I didn't use 'Give Peace a Chance' to prove Lennon's "superiority" over McCartney. Nope, I used it to emphasize the massive influence the song generated to a nation at war. Yeah, the same war in which England didn't participate, even though the US and Australia came to England's aid in two previous world wars. That's why the song means more to Americans and Australians.

The fact that they are anti-war protest songs is irrelevant. What matters is the quality of the song not the subject. A good love song is as much proof of someone's musical talent as a good anti-war song. As I've said before this thread is about musical talent not political influence.

Oh yeah, this might be interesting... does anybody know if McCartney recorded the nursery rhyme 'Mary Had A Little Lamb' (which I assume is 'relevant' to McCartney's musical talents) around the same time as the Vietnam war was raging?

And there you go again trying to diminish McCartney's talent based on the subject of his songs. How does recording a nursery rhyme while the Vietnam war was going affect his musical talent? And does the fact that John recorded "Oh Yoko!" during that period makes him less of a musician?

[Joost]

I didn't use 'Give Peace a Chance' to prove Lennon's "superiority" over McCartney. Nope, I used it to emphasize the massive influence the song generated to a nation at war.

I like GPAC, it's a catchy song, but you're giving it way to much credit if you think that it actually changed anything. 'Give Peace A Chance' was just a catchy slogan for people who already agreed with the song's lyrics to begin with.

[An Apple Beatle]

Yeah, the same war in which England didn't participate, even though the US and Australia came to England's aid in two previous world wars. That's why the song means more to Americans and Australians.


easy... Justin  

Leave it out mate...That's a bit of a sweeping statement to rub some backs up. I could elaborate further but for fear of wasting time and positive energy I'll leave it.....Can I have my $20 now please.

[cassNJ]

I didn't mean to sound harsh, Justin.  I actually enjoy reading your posts, but I do think you're one of those "John vs Paul" people who sees them locked in an eternal battle for superiority.  That may be how how they themselves viewed it, but us fans, being the beneficiaries of their both of their bodies of work, don't have to carry on with the feud.  Maybe I'm being overly-sensitive about your criticisms of McCartney, but it comes from seeing so much personal hostility toward him in various Beatles forums.  Of course you can be critical of his work, but when you call his stuff "fodder for the masses" it is rather insulting not just to him but to those of us who enjoy his music.   If you take the personal element out of it, you can critique to your heart's content and no one should fault you for it.

I'm not a kiwi or an aussie, btw, but I love people from that part of the world, especially because they tend to be online when I am 

[Joost]

That 'catchy slogan' was very inspirational... the Vietnam War was ended because everyday people around the world (mainly in America and Australia) protested in their tens of thousands to bring their soldiers home. It was a political war, neither America nor Australia were under any direct threat themselves.

I'm not sure how you envision GPAC actually changing anything...

Guy sits in front of the TV. The news is on and it's about the war in Vietnam. He yells at his TV. 'Go Uncle Sam, nuke those commie bastards!'. Then he turns on the radio. A song comes on and it's called 'Give Peace A Chance'. He hears it and thinks to himself, 'Wait a minute... We could give peace a chance? Is that an option? I never thought of that! Great idea! Yeah, let's give peace a chance!'.

 

(Cool conversation so far, by the way. It's great if people can disagree and argue about things without any hostility.)

[tkitna]

...

Oh, and yeah...

I was gonna post about George and Ringo...
but seeing as I like even the 'limited' Paul McCartney heaps better than both of those other two talentless hangers-on...

I'm all for posting about George and Ringo. I realize they cant hang with Paul and John in the music talent category, but I still think Ringo's last 5 album run was one of the strongest runs i've ever heard.

You know what, now that I think about it, George was a better guitar player than John, probably not as good as a piano player, better bass player, but didnt write as good as songs although he had the best solo album of all of them and I prefer his solo career to Johns. I'm on the fence now.

[breedofrandy]

...

Oh, and yeah...

I was gonna post about George and Ringo...
but seeing as I like even the 'limited' Paul McCartney heaps better than both of those other two talentless hangers-on...

I might just keep my mouth shut to try improve my popularity rating.




Just kiddin... easy...  lol...    

that's sad. 

[fendertele]

that's sad. 

But true 

[BlueMeanie]

Your point taken, Joost...  I too don't think Lennon's anti-war stance, nor Give Peace A Chance, changed anybody's mind about the Vietnam war. But what it might have done (and most likely did) was, inspire the silent majority (already against the war) to participate in the demonstrations. Those massive demos weren't just a bunch misguided kids high on grass... mothers/fathers/grand-parents/WWW 1 & II vets participated... many marching in a demo for the first time in their lives.

I think Lennon's influence at that time is wildly overstated. The CIA certainly overestimated the level at which Lennon could inspire the masses. There were more 'dangerous' people around to 'deal with' at that time. Whenever I see Lennon listed as an activist it grates with me. Whichever way you choose to look at it, he dropped the whole thing like a lead balloon when it no longer suited him or his record sales. Personally I think his attempt to make an Imagine vol 2 in Mind Games a semi-disaster. It shows no creativity or development, but a man trying to recapture past glories, while his old sparring partner rides high with his other band.

McCartney, on the other hand, has been eclectic and prolific to the nth degree. One may not like everything he's done, but there's so much of it that you could hardly critisise him for that.

I'm not a massive fan of any solo Beatles, but if pushed I don't know how I could not stand up for McCartney as the superior musician, in almost every way.

Great conversation by the way, it's a credit to the forum. You just don't get this stuff on other Beatles forums.

[Kevin]

Swap the first two around if the music is not to be judged by it's commercial successes nor by chart rankings...

I think you'll find no one has.

[cassNJ]

I hate to get off the subject, but...

BlueMeanie, I would agree with you to some extent that Lennon's influence during his political years is overstated.   But that's because he was like any of the other rock and folk artists that were getting involved with the anti-war movement.  I think the movement would have happened regardless of any chants of "Give Peace a Chance" or any of the other protest songs circulating then.  They were a rallying point; every movement likes a good musical theme.  But the real motivation of the anti-war movement was the decision by the young draft-age men (I can't remember if women were being drafted but I'm pretty sure they weren't) that they didn't want to die for a war that they didn't believe in.   That's why today's anti-war movement is so much less passionate.  Not because we don't have a Lennon stirring things up but because nobody's being forced to participate in the war.  Unless you count our tax dollars.  So it's no diss to Lennon to say his role in the movement is overstated.  He did win a lot of admiration from those who agreed with his politics, but his status as peace activist/martyr/saint extraordinaire largely happened after he died.

To bring this back on topic, I don't think his anti-war activities are a factor when we're discussing his music.  I'll agree with Justin that he was probably the most influential Beatle in general, but I don't think that's true music-wise.

[Kevin]

Better vote I guess.

1. McCartney - superior musician, excellent vocal, Lennon's equal as a songwriter. And his all round versatlity (his classical, film stuff seems to be well regarded) and his very competent production credits.
2. Lennon - Ok musician, great voice that faded, McCartney's equal as a songwriter. As a producer I'm not a big fan of the sound he gets. Very tinny and lacks punch. His journeys into the avante garde have always struck me as more about Yoko than him. I don't care for the genre and so can't judge their quality.
3. George
4. Ringo.

I think the musicianship, vocal ability, production is pretty much objective. The proof is there.
Songwriting is subjective. As Beatles, overall I prefer McCartneys work but my favourite Beatle songs are John's (Day In The Life, Walrus), but they were both capable of knocking out the occassional stinker (Maxwells Silver Hammer, Good Morning, Good Morning.)
As solo artists I don't care for any of them. POB was a work of greatness by Lennon but that was it (Mind Games and Walls And Bridges are plain dreary). Band On The Run is brilliant (but Speed of Sound and Back to the Egg suck) But All Things Must Pass is incredible (33 1/3 and Extra Texture are dull, dull, dull.)

[Joost]

Swap the first two around if the music is not to be judged by it's commercial successes nor by chart rankings...
but by it's power/influence and if it's considered to be, and proven to be, more inspirational.

If you're trying to say that John was more charismatic, I'll have to give you that. But I'm not sure if that has a lot to do with musical talent.

[BlueMeanie]

If you're trying to say that John was more charismatic, I'll have to give you that. But I'm not sure if that has a lot to do with musical talent.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with musical talent. Ringo was probably the most charismatic of the four, but he's probably at the bottom of most people's lists. Ever heard Van Morrison interviewed? It's painful I'll tell you, but the man is probably the greatest white soul singer to ever walk the planet. In my humble opinion, of course. Here's my list then:

1. Paul. Unquestionably for me, the best all round musician in The Beatles. His vocal range far exceeds John's, and he was probably the best guitarist.

2. John. Purely based on his work within The Beatles as I don't rate his solo work apart from POB, Imagine, and a few early singles. John had a great rock n roll voice, but I think was quite limited otherwise.

3. George. George became a far better musician as time wore on, though I think, as I always have, that he only developed his slide style to counter his mediocre lead playing. Made 2 out of my 5 top solo albums. A fairly weak voice with little range.

4. Ringo. A terrifically underrated and influential drummer. Made some good solo work early on, including my favourite solo single.

Like Kevin says, it's all subjective, and looking back at an old thread I see that 6 out of my top ten Beatles songs are John's. Though I think there'd only be the one in a top ten solo list.

[Joost]

Ringo was probably the most charismatic of the four

Ringo was the most likeable Beatle, but in my humble opinion John was easily the most charismatic one.

[tkitna]

Made 2 out of my 5 top solo albums. A fairly weak voice with little range.

What are they Paul? I'm taking for granted that 'ATMP', but i'm curious what the 2nd one would be.

[breedofrandy]

Ringo was the most likeable Beatle.

YEAH! 

[Bobber]

1. McCartney - superior musician, excellent vocal, Lennon's equal as a songwriter. And his all round versatlity

I always found it unbelievable that he recorded Yesterday, I've Just Seen Her Face and I'm Down on the same day.

[Andy Smith]

I always found it unbelievable that he recorded Yesterday, I've Just Seen Her Face and I'm Down on the same day.

yeah, just shows how diverse he was and still is. from the love song acoustic of yesterday to the rouncous blast
of rock with I'm Down.