# Rolling Stone: Beatles: John v. Paul



## Narval (Aug 27, 2010)

"Who was the foremost member ..."

What is a "foremost member?"


----------



## rJames (Aug 27, 2010)

I always thought that mc cartney was the smoother (and better) pop writer but have a feeling that he was pushed by john's edgier and more provocative, and illustrative writing. It was a marriage made in heaven.


----------



## Narval (Aug 27, 2010)

McCartney being a better songwriter than Lennon is like Frank Sinatra being a better singer than Freddie Mercury. But agree with the perfect marriage bit - 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qI_N_5D5-f8


----------



## Dave Connor (Aug 28, 2010)

As brilliant and enormously talented as Paul MacCartney is John Lennon is clearly the more unique of the two geniuses. Paul's roots are far more traceable but nothing explains I Am The Walrus or Rain or Nowhere Man or A Hard Days Night or I've Should Have Know Better or Help, And Your Bird Can Sing or even No Reply. Or almost everything on Rubber Soul or even their very early hits which Lennon often dominated. 

Lennon songs seem to spring from Lennon for the most part.

Consider their songs of the same period compared:

If I Fell: A stunning ballad with a modulating intro and a modulating bridge (that traverse a chord sequence Beethoven would have admired.)

And I Love Her: Paul's catchy ballad that sounds exactly like what it is: a youthful work done in a popular style that borders on a throw-away. Lots of talent there but not at all profound as is Lennon's ballad.

I Feel Fine: Ignoring Lennon's innovative guitar feedback this is a great Rock track with a perfect guitar riff and parts, great verse and classic Beatle bridge.

She's a Woman: Again very nice track but nowhere near as inventive with a sort of Rock oom-pa feel. Chorus goes nowhere etc.

Paper Back Writer: Paul's superlative Brian Wilson knockoff which is great but hardly ground breaking.

Rain: Lennon is announcing a whole new depth to a modern popular form of art. Both musically AND lyrically.

Help: Once again brilliant chord changes, innovative musical concept, anguished lyrics and vocals. Genius from start to finish AGAIN from this songwriter!

I'm Down: Paul's take on a sort of Elvis Rocker that's fun perhaps but not as good as it's predecessors. 

Paul matured and displayed his genius over and over no doubt but John Lennon's writing has an originality that really can't be found anywhere. Paul's music is far more of an amalgamation of previous music.


----------



## germancomponist (Aug 28, 2010)

Dave Connor @ Sat Aug 28 said:


> Paul matured and displayed his genius over and over no doubt but John Lennon's writing has an originality that really can't be found anywhere. Paul's music is far more of an amalgamation of previous music.



+1 for John


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 28, 2010)

Marriage. Neither would have been as good without the other.


----------



## SergeD (Aug 28, 2010)

Dave Connor @ Sat Aug 28 said:


> John Lennon's writing has an originality that really can't be found anywhere. Paul's music is far more of an amalgamation of previous music.



2 kinds of great composers. It's all about chemistry. What is Page without Plant ? What is Jagger without Richards ?

SergeD


----------



## Guy Bacos (Aug 28, 2010)

NYC Composer @ Sat Aug 28 said:


> Marriage. Neither would have been as good without the other.



Absolutely. The prof is that in each of their solo careers or wings, nothing compares to the sound of the Beatles.

The way I see the the difference between Paul and John, is that Paul has always taken advantage of what was around him and that's how he grew so much musically. 

John, was more the raw genius, taking chances, more rebelling. 

So both together and their contrast in vocals made it perfect.

I don't think I could pick one of the 2 being more talented than the other, they are so different in style and personality.


----------



## Narval (Aug 28, 2010)

Yes, _complementary_ I think is the right word for them, yin and yang, marriage. Also, looks like there was a sort of friendly competition between them, and sometimes they even imitated each other's style. For example here's Paul being "John" - 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLnVOyhqSi8


----------



## Dave Connor (Aug 28, 2010)

I don't disagree with the 'marriage' concept at all. In fact I wholeheartedly agree. I simply answered the thread question and named Lennon as the more _original_ of the two geniuses and a writer of greater depth for the most part both musically and lyrically (the latter issue never disputed to my knowledge.) 

I could go on and on about Paul MacCartney. As I said he matured and came up with Penny Lane, She's Leaving Home, Sergeant Pepper, Hey Jude and all that incredible stuff on The White Album and Abbey Road. The guy is a freak and I adore the fellow. 

The difference for me is that I am not completely baffled by Paul's compositions and from where they sprang. I love his writing and couldn't live without it. (Nor do I wish to separate any of the band members whom I consider to be four geniuses sent here from On High.) 

I just find myself stunned at John Lennon's sensibility, utter musical sophistication and total original genius. To me he is the most original writer in Rock History and beyond.


----------



## JohnG (Aug 28, 2010)

A bit like trying to work out who was the most important member of Monty Python.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Aug 28, 2010)

Dave Connor @ Sat Aug 28 said:


> I just find myself stunned at John Lennon's sensibility, utter musical sophistication and total original genius. To me he is the most original writer in Rock History and beyond.



Thanks for the clarification Dave. But once again, this sophistication seemed much less apparent without the united Beatles including Georges Martin. Just look at what he did after the Beatles as a solo artist, not that impressive, despite a few of great songs, Paul did much better as a solo artist during the 70s, even though John wasn't very active during that time.

Sometime I like to think some of the songs done after the Beatles if they were done by the Beatles how fantastic that could of been.


----------



## chrisr (Aug 28, 2010)

JohnG @ Sat Aug 28 said:


> A bit like trying to work out who was the most important member of Monty Python.



emphatically yes!.(... but it was Paul)


----------



## Narval (Aug 28, 2010)

Guy Bacos @ Sat Aug 28 said:


> Paul did much better as a solo artist during the 80s, even though John wasn't very active during that time.


Yeah, during the '80s Lennon was pretty much dead, he didn't survive the bullets. Sad sad story.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Aug 28, 2010)

Narval @ Sat Aug 28 said:


> Guy Bacos @ Sat Aug 28 said:
> 
> 
> > Paul did much better as a solo artist during the 80s, even though John wasn't very active during that time.
> ...



That should of said during the 70s of course. 

Paul just came to Montreal, about 10 days ago. I now regret not going, it was apparently an amazing 3 hour show!

Incredible, 50 years later, still doing it!


----------



## madbulk (Aug 28, 2010)

It really is pretty amazing. A few years ago when he did the SuperBowl halftime show, I fell off my chair. He still plays and sings REALLY well.


----------



## Narval (Aug 30, 2010)

What is your question?


----------



## bdr (Aug 30, 2010)

just wasn't sure what you were saying there?


----------



## Stephen Baysted (Aug 30, 2010)

George Martin.


----------



## Narval (Aug 30, 2010)

bdr,
rJames said he thinks McCartney to be a better songwriter than Lennon, 
to which I replied that 
some think Frank Sinatra to be a better singer than Freddie Mercury. 
Some think the contrary.
I think, when it comes to music, if you like it, then it's good.

"Everything is what you judge it to be." - Monimus of Syracuse


----------



## Mike Connelly (Aug 30, 2010)

Why waste time on this when there are much more significant questions to be answered.

Nigel Tufnel or David St. Hubbins?


----------



## bdr (Aug 30, 2010)

Narval @ Tue Aug 31 said:


> bdr,
> 
> I think, when it comes to music, if you like it, then it's good.
> 
> "Everything is what you judge it to be." - Monimus of Syracuse



very good clarification, thank you.


----------



## Dave Connor (Aug 30, 2010)

Mike Connelly @ Mon Aug 30 said:


> Why waste time on this when there are much more significant questions to be answered.



It's just fun in the end. I found myself thinking about it after a period of revisiting the Beatle recordings. Every time I was floored by a particular tune it always turned out to be a Lennon composition for the most part. So I made my own comparison long ago.

History will evaluate the Beatles every which way and no doubt the two main writers will be looked at both individually and as a team as are all collaborators in the arts.


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 30, 2010)

C M Dess @ Mon Aug 30 said:


> I don't like the beatles music. >8o I like their lyrics though. I wish the masses could understand the difference. They had no edge to me, bland sense of syncopation. But I can appreciate they inspired another generation of creators. I like a sound that has some crafty combative element to it. Like Prokofiev or Mozart or Hendrix. 8)
> 
> I don't think any of them could sing all that well either, texturally. It sounds like a person instead of an instrument in this way. Big turn off. I like a more polished vocal I guess, polished toward musical.



Please name 3 of your favorite vocalists?


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 31, 2010)

Interesting list. I like many of the people you mention. I could do without George Michael or Garth Brooks. Consider Ray Charles, Ella Fitzgerald, Aretha Franklin, Nat King Cole, Otis Redding, Sam Cooke, Marvin Gaye,Al Green, Don Henley, Nina Simone, Betty Carter, Robert Plant in his prime, Lucinda Williams, K.D Laing, Frank Sinatra, Mel Torme, well, I suppose the list is endless really.

How much of the Beatles have you listened to?


----------



## rayinstirling (Aug 31, 2010)

Normally I'm not an emotional person but this kills me everytime I listen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccCnL8hA ... re=related

BTW I'm not sorry going off in a tangent here.


----------

