Log In
Register
11.07am
18 April 2013
Offline
Ahhh Girl said
I don’t have time to check them all, but see Joe’s blog post about I Don’t Want To Spoil The Party . Are they even sure who wrote what?
Wikipedia differs.
"If you're ever in the shit, grab my tit.” —Paul McCartney
11.21am
12 May 2015
Offline Ahhh Girl said
I don’t think even all the members of *this forum* can tell you all the “John” songs and “Paul” songs. What will it be like many years hence?
90% of the time they would probably be right though.
8.30pm
20 January 2016
Offline 
Lennon was martyrized and sanctified, but he still nonetheless one of the greatest songwriters.
This is mostly just whining on Paul’s part. He always makes reactive comments when his ego is in question.
Paul is very talented, but John simply had better lyrics, vocals, intellect, creativity, singles, penchant for risk-taking and overall historical impact (assassination or not).
5.47am
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline Derek_Francis said
Lennon was martyrized and sanctified, but he still nonetheless one of the greatest songwriters.This is mostly just whining on Paul’s part. He always makes reactive comments when his ego is in question.
Paul is very talented, but John simply had better lyrics, vocals, intellect, creativity, singles, penchant for risk-taking and overall historical impact (assassination or not).
Its not simple because there are ample excellent examples of “lyrics, vocals, intellect, creativity, singles, penchant for risk-taking” from Paul that equal what John did.
The following people thank meanmistermustard for this post:
Mademoiselle Kitty >^..^<, O Boogie"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
7.27am
20 January 2016
Offline Paul has delivered those qualities in spades on numerous occasions: Hey Jude , Eleanor Rigby , Yesterday , The Long And Winding Road , Helter Skelter and more. But I would say John has done those things more often and more consistently. The early Beatles hits? Mostly Lennon. The psychadelic era? Mostly Lennon. Many of Paul’s songs were play-it-safe soft-pop/rock ballads.
If John is remembered more than Paul, it’s not simply because of an assassination. All four of them were legend in their own right, but there’s a strong case for John being most inventive member.
7.52am
8 January 2015
Offline
I think that people who are inclined to be negative about Paul will read interviews like that in a certain way, I certainly don’t understand some points of view on it, I thought it was a pretty good wrap-up of someone doing damn well for 73. He was asked the questions and he responded, he can’t win if you don’t like that. I do think the revisionism is silly but it’s clear that Paul is sensitive about meeting expectations, it’s something that drives him, and he clearly feels comparisons are more negative than they are. And I don’t think making comparisons between John and Paul are at all helpful, they were very different songwriters who happened to be in the same band. I’m not always on Paul’s side of things historically or musically, but I still respect his talent and his prolific ability.
I must say I was dismayed at some of the things written in this thread. May I respectfully remind forumsters that the really good talents can’t all be renaissance men/women who are all things to all people at all times and that you can disagree with their point of view as an outsider without cruelty and vitriol.
The following people thank ewe2 for this post:
Beatlebug, O Boogie, Mademoiselle Kitty >^..^<I'm like Necko only I'm a bassist ukulele guitar synthesizer kazoo penguin and also everyone. Or is everyone me? Now I'm a confused bassist ukulele guitar synthesizer kazoo penguin everyone who is definitely not @Joe. This has been true for 2016 & 2017 
but I may have to get more specific in the future.
8.21am
1 November 2013
Offline 
I think casual fans or people who don’t know much about the Beatles would be a better gauge about if the Beatles got buried under John since casual fans and people who don’t know much make up majority of people.
The following people thank Starr Shine? for this post:
Beatlebug
12.08pm
27 April 2015
Offline Paul & John were evenly matched. The fact that John chose Paul as his writing partner in spite of the age difference (which I’ve heard was a big deal when they were teenagers) itself is a testament to Paul’s talents. Paul’s intelligent and smart, not some soppy lad who just wrote sentimental ballads.
John was outrageous, but Paul was sassy, too. Look at the way he handled the LSD interview. I can’t think of anyone who could’ve handled that as smartly as he did.
But Paul is right though, at least, partly. When people die young, they’re sort of remembered that way – young & fresh. Their faults are overlooked. And when it’s sudden, which in most cases it is, there are so many unanswered questions and the what ifs that makes them all the more interesting. Most of the people who died young have been martyred – Freddie Mercury, Princess Diana, Kurt Cobain, and have been thought of as higher than the people around them (families, band mates, etc). Even a little dirt here and there wouldn’t tarnish their legacy. I guess that’s why most people think of John and George as the coolest Beatles (considering George died relatively young as well), and are far more willing to forgive them, even though both of them were far away from being saints.
As the song goes, “Not all die young to save the spark”.
The following people thank O Boogie for this post:
Expert Textpert, Mademoiselle Kitty >^..^<, Beatlebug, Merch
For tomorrow may rain, so I'll follow the Sun
12.28pm
27 April 2015
Offline Annadog40 said
I think casual fans or people who don’t know much about the Beatles would be a better gauge about if the Beatles got buried under John since casual fans and people who don’t know much make up majority of people.
I can’t say I’m a casual fan now, but I didn’t really know much about the Beatles not very long ago. I didn’t even know what they looked like, or that they ever had short (relatively) hair. But I did know John Lennon was part of that band. And he was the only one Beatle I could name. But I’m not from USA or UK, perhaps that’s why. Even then, I can’t really believe that I was that ignorant. Sheesh!
The following people thank O Boogie for this post:
Starr Shine?
For tomorrow may rain, so I'll follow the Sun
2.57am
27 March 2015
Offline
I will try to tread lightly (though, in my defence, the Dutch are a very blunt people) in voicing the opinion I am about to share.
Whenever I read something to the extent of ‘Paul is very talented, but John….’, all kinds of alarm bells immediately go off in my head. I don’t believe I’ve ever come across a fair or objective opinion that started with such a phrase.
Is it any wonder Paul gets defensive sometimes, when so many people still think of John as THE Beatle [sic]? Can anyone blame him for standing up for himself, or for having hurt feelings sometimes? He’s just a human being like you and I, so he’ll have emotions like the rest of us, as well. Anyway, I digress.
Something stood out to me in the post I got that ^^ quote from. Well, several things did, but there was one thing in particular. Tastes differ, but it an objective assessment of each of the Fabs’ qualities show that Paul, not John, was the better vocalist. That doesn’t mean people have to like his voice or his vocals the best, but at least acknowledge the fact that he was the better singer.
Anyway, many of the qualities attributed to the Beatles are subjective at best, and largely preconceived. It pains me to see that serious Beatles fans still feel the need to be divisive. John experimented, therefore the others did not. Paul wrote granny songs, therefore the others did not. George was a great guitarist, therefore the others were not. Ringo was just happy to be there, therefore the others were not. When will people learn to see that not only are they mistaken, but also that the Beatles can’t be chopped up like that? And as much as I hate to say it, it’s often the John/George fans that have a negative opinion of Paul and, to a lesser extent, Ringo than vice versa. And when Paul, or one of his fans speaks up and goes, ‘hang on, that’s not quite how it was,’ the old claims of ‘revisionism’, ‘ego-tripping’, or ‘being an overt fan of Paul’ are used to discredit the argument.
I have my favourite (obviously….DUH!), but yet I see the Beatles as four equally large pieces, which fit into one box. Not just any box, but one unlike any other box in the world. However, though the shape of the box is just right, the pieces can’t be put side by side in it. The only way to fit them all in, is to make a part of each overlap a part of the others. They all overlap in the middle. Take away one piece, and the box can no longer be filled. That, to me, is the Beatles. The only real difference between them is the colour of each of their pieces. Some prefer red, others like blue, but together they make purple and some people prefer that.
+
+
+
=
That’s my story, and I’m sticking to it.
The following people thank Mademoiselle Kitty >^..^< for this post:
Beatlebug, Ahhh Girl, MerchFormerly Known As JPM-Fangirl --
2016
'Out There' - 07-06-2015 - Ziggo Dome Amsterdam -- 'One On One' - 12-06-2016 - Pinkpop Festival Landgraaf
3.15am
24 March 2014
Offline JPM-Fangirl said
Tastes differ, but it an objective assessment of each of the Fabs’ qualities show that Paul, not John, was the better vocalist. That doesn’t mean people have to like his voice or his vocals the best, but at least acknowledge the fact that he was the better singer.
according to your tastes, i guess.
"I Need You by George Harrison"
5.29am
27 March 2015
Offline Actually no, that’s not an opinion. That’s fact. Whose voice you prefer is personal, and I can fully understand why some people prefer John’s voice. But looking at their vocal prowess, Paul is objectively better.
But hey, I’m sick of bickering over it, really.
The following people thank Mademoiselle Kitty >^..^< for this post:
pepperlandFormerly Known As JPM-Fangirl -- 2016
'Out There' - 07-06-2015 - Ziggo Dome Amsterdam -- 'One On One' - 12-06-2016 - Pinkpop Festival Landgraaf
6.13am
27 April 2015
Offline I don’t think this huge divide would’ve existed if it wasn’t John who had championed it in the first place with that god awful “Lennon remembers” interview when he was raging against everything Beatles. I think a lot of John fans who come up with the Lennon is better argument, or some of the more casual fans who do that let John’s comments cloud their judgment. I’m a John fan, but some of the comments against Paul are just mind boggling considering it isn’t John Lennon and The Beatles, but just The Beatles.
The following people thank O Boogie for this post:
Mademoiselle Kitty >^..^<, Beatlebug
For tomorrow may rain, so I'll follow the Sun
7.12am
24 March 2014
Offline JPM-Fangirl said
That’s fact. looking at their vocal prowess Paul is objectively better.
Who and how did measure that thing?? I think both have great vocal prowess, what does make one’s be better than another’s??
"I Need You by George Harrison"
7.28am
1 November 2013
Offline I think it was by vocal range.
The following people thank Starr Shine? for this post:
Beatlebug8.18am
Moderators
15 February 2015
Offline @O Boogie said
<snippety snap> I guess that’s why most people think of John and George as the coolest Beatles (considering George died relatively young as well), and are far more willing to forgive them, even though both of them were far away from being saints.
<snip>
Ahhh, but George is the coolest Beatle. 
Just kidding, I agree with you and @Mademoiselle Kitty >^..^< up there, very valid points. And @Shamrock Womlbs, I think she means Paul’s voice is ‘better’ as considered by vocal range, versatility (just listen to WDWDIITR and then I Will ), and possibly stamina as well. I’m not quite satisfied with the word choice, but I can’t think of anything… er… better 
either. 
The following people thank Beatlebug for this post:
Mademoiselle Kitty >^..^<([{BRACKETS!}])
New to Forumpool? You can introduce yourself here.
If you love The Beatles Bible, and you have adblock, don't forget to white-list this site! 
9.14am
27 March 2015
Offline That’s precisely what I meant, @Beatlebug. Vocal range, versatility, flexibility, stamina (endurance?), possibly even accuracy.
I recall a ‘No Reply ‘ outtake, in which John says, ‘I can’t even get up to the light now.’ That high note was within his range, but he couldn’t get there within the context of the song, so he ended up taking the low harmony, and Paul did the high one. And then there’s of course the second ‘Any Time At All ‘, same thing, really.
Another thing I rather liked is the harmony in ‘Act Naturally ‘. The casual listener might think it’s all Ringo, when in fact it’s Paul doing the harmony, changing his voice and accent to sound like Ringo. They could all change their voices to a degree, of course. George doesn’t sound George-ish at all in Not Guilty , and I still can’t be 100% sure which bit was John’s and which Paul’s in You Know My Name. But let’s face it: the man of a thousand voices is Paul.
it just saddens me that some people won’t even grant him that…
The following people thank Mademoiselle Kitty >^..^< for this post:
BeatlebugFormerly Known As JPM-Fangirl -- 2016
'Out There' - 07-06-2015 - Ziggo Dome Amsterdam -- 'One On One' - 12-06-2016 - Pinkpop Festival Landgraaf
10.26am
18 April 2013
Offline I can tell the difference between Paul and John in You Know My Name.
"If you're ever in the shit, grab my tit.” —Paul McCartney
11.02am
27 March 2015
Offline So can I, ET, but the last bit in particular is very hard to tell. It’s taken me a while to suss that one out, and though I’m 90% sure, I probably wouldn’t bet on it.
Formerly Known As JPM-Fangirl -- 2016
'Out There' - 07-06-2015 - Ziggo Dome Amsterdam -- 'One On One' - 12-06-2016 - Pinkpop Festival Landgraaf
2.07pm
24 March 2014
Offline Expert Textpert said
I can tell the difference between Paul and John in You Know My Name.
so do i.
Anyway. I’d just like to say that having a huge/wide vocal range only makes your vocal range huge/wide. No more no less. No better no worse. Only wider.
Paul has a huge vocal range? Of course he did.
Technique is what makes the diffeence between to singers (violin players, cello players, piano players...), and honestly not john nor paul has any technique at all.
So technically it'd be a tie.
Versatility: Paul has 3 different kind of voices (mainly) . His yesterday voice, his Long Tall Sally thing, and his Oh Darling/Helter Skelter one . Which all of them are great,
my favourite is the Oh darling one, terrific. John has his A Day In The Life voice, his Twist And Shout shoutin' thing, and his screamer I want you.../Mother thing. But they both
oscillated between their middle-rocker/ballad range .Talking about ballads This Boy comes to mind as an example of versatility. In the middle eight John's voice goes high and expressive and melodic ,
while in the verses it's calmed but also melodic and charming
(isn't this versatility?)...About failing takes, John nailed Twist And Shout at first take and with a cold while Paul took a few more takes to get his Oh Darling.
But i wouldn't ever say that John was better than Paul just because of that.
So saying Paul was better because his vocal range was wider it's incorrect.
I think technically there is no better/worse thing, only a matter of choice and personal taste.
But this could go on this way forever, and i'm way too out of topic so... sorry for the derail.
"I Need You by George Harrison"
4 Guest(s)