John Lennon - greatest songwriter of all time? | Page 2 | Fab Forum | The Beatles Bible

In songwriting, you have to look at multiple aspects. Simply put:

1. The writing.

2. The music: notes, vocals, and chords

3. Genre.

4. Personal taste.

John’s writing is avant-garde–we can all agree on that. Even in his simpler songs, he’s ahead of his time. I like John’s style of writing because I can identify with it. There’s a lot of randomness in it and it’s more prose/imagery than story-telling. To John, that tells the story. It’s a lot of blunt honesty. This is what I prefer. I like to think that Paul is more of a storyteller and realist that grounds John. Without Paul’s writing, John’s would be more hodgepodge. However, I definitely prefer John’s solo career over Paul’s. However, I’m completely against the argument of upping or putting down Paul in order to exaggerate John’s merit.

John knew a lot of basic chords, but nothing more. He is a master of creating complex melodies above them–lots of accidentals. It’s skillfully done and not something a nonprofessional should know much about. But John does. Technically speaking, both Paul and George beat him with the chords and instrumentation. There are many songs like “Don’t Let Me Down ” and practically all of John’s solo songs having someone else make the instrumental arrangements. John only knew simple chords on piano and didn’t know how to create arrangements because let’s face it, he couldn’t do it. These certainly make the songs more interesting. However, as I’ve said a thousand times, I’m professionally trained but I value simple chords and introspective lyrics over musical ability because there is something personal and talented about writing something you care about that’s made from scratch. It’s hard for professional musicians to “create” anything original like what the Beatles did. As for vocals, John really managed to do well without reaching the high notes Paul did. <–Is rock defined by the notes you hit? That should be a debate. I love high notes, but I like what John did better.

For the genre, well … it’s sort of based off of him. John made rock what it is or at least rock n’ roll. But he also followed the rules–it’s clear he valued chromatic scales and good rhythm. He’s also shown to tamper in other genres but always keeping that wonderful mix. 

Your taste is your own. I think he’s the best–quality and quantity, they say. But there’s Paul, too–and a lot of other competing artists. It depends what you like. With music, whoever makes you feel the most is the best.