Log In
Register
5.42am
1 May 2010
Offline
Ok, so with out trying to offend anyone, could we have a discussion about who was the best Beatle? I'm not in any way trying to disrespect George, or Ringo to a lesser degree, but clearly John and Paul were the reason why the Beatles were, well, the Beatles. So who was the better of the two?
I used to say John by a mile, but I've just really been into Paul's stuff lately. I like John's full career better, but Paul just wrote some incredible songs, especially when he really got creatively going. It's almost like two completely different stories, Paul had this huge creative burst and really ascended through the Beatles, whereas I feel like John went the opposite way. Not that his music wasn't incredible, but they switched roles in the band, so John had less stuff as he progressed through the Beatles with the exception of '68.
I sat on a rug, biding my time, drinking her wine
2.22pm
19 September 2010
Offline McCartney. He Basically saved John after Julia ‘s death in 1957, He Was the Force behind Their most Acclaimed Album, Pepper, and Was the Dimplomat who tried to keep the band alive as long as Possible, so I think Paul. But John’s a close two.
As if it matters how a man falls down.'
'When the fall's all that's left, it matters a great deal.
7.23pm
9 June 2010
Offline
Well, if it's a hotness contest, it's kind of obvious that John blew Paul away…
(Until he became Junkie John. :O And that beard…)
But I think that it doesn't matter who was cooler on his own. LennonMcCartney > Lennon+McCartney, if that makes sense. (I didn't use a hyphen because that looks like subtraction.)
If I seem to act unkind, it's only me, it's not my mind that is confusing things.
7.26pm
19 September 2010
Offline Just To Clarify, You Mean They were better together than individual? If So, I Agree.
As if it matters how a man falls down.'
'When the fall's all that's left, it matters a great deal.
7.27pm
9 June 2010
Offline Yeah. But I also mean if you added the individual talents together, it wouldn't come close to them combined.
If I seem to act unkind, it's only me, it's not my mind that is confusing things.
7.29pm
19 September 2010
Offline Also True. (Did you get the PM?)
As if it matters how a man falls down.'
'When the fall's all that's left, it matters a great deal.
9.38pm
1 May 2010
Offline It's really hard to say. I think both styles are different. Paul has always been a diplomat, John was more direct. But both knew what they wanted, how to get it, and they just did what they had to do to get it. So it's hard to say for me.
Here comes the sun….. Scoobie-doobie……
Something in the way she moves…..attracts me like a cauliflower…
Bop. Bop, cat bop. Go, Johnny, Go.
Beware of Darkness…
11.08pm
27 February 2010
Offline I don't see the “diplomat side” of Paul when he was bitching and bossing around George. Maybe he was diplomat with John, whom I suspect could eat Paul's head from one bite. John, in the other hand, was a piece of mofo himself, so, they're kind of equal. Maybe… No, John's was the less friendly of them.
Artistically, John was better, I have no doubt in my heart, but both of them are Übermusiker. Anyway, “LennonMcCartney > Lennon+McCartney” is a good formula, but I prefer this one better: JP=J+P/2
I'd like to say "thank you" on behalf of the group and ourselves and I hope we passed the audition.
John Lennon
11.57pm
4 December 2010
Offline Lennon+McCartney is so much better than Lennon/McCartney that is beggars belief. Yesterday – McCartney. Strawberry Fields Forever – Lennon. Hey Jude – McCartney. Tomorrow Never Knows – Lennon. Maybe I’m Amazed – McCartney. Mind Games – Lennon. I Am The Walrus , Blackbird , Helter Skelter , Julia , Revolution , Let It Be , In My Life , Nowhere Man , Get Back , Imagine , Penny Lane , Working Class Hero , For No One , Watching The Wheels – all written by only one of Lennon and McCartney. Together, they gave us A Day In The Life (even then, that’s two bits written individually and sandwiched together, and the Paul bit isn’t even good), just about Eleanor Rigby , and a load of songs that aren’t on that level. Maybe you could count the Abbey Road medley. They were better apart than together. Okay, without Lennon around McCartney wrote a whole load of awful songs (who told him The Back Seat Of My Car would be a great single?) and very few good ones, but Lennon was writing albums without filler, which the Beatles never made.
Anyway, on topic: Lennon.
*9*
I told her I didn’t
5.40am
1 May 2010
Offline Sorry I put the thread in the wrong place, I started this as a Lennon/Dylan debate, but decided that was unfair to Paul. No doubt that they were better together, even if they were writing seperately. Something truly magical and remarkable happened there, one would inspire the other, or maybe challenge the other, to write a song better than the other wrote and it was that brotherly competition that drove the Beatles to greatness. The cool thing about George on the other hand is that he was like the third guy that didn't really care about the competition aspect and just did his own thing.
I think John just covered so many styles during his career, I mean just look at his stuff on the White Album ! From the tenderness of Dear Prudence , Julia and Cry Baby Cry , to the bitterness of Glass Onion , Bungalow Bill, I'm So Tired and Yer Blues to the completely bizarre of Revolution 9 . But Paul just has so many good songs overall even if his range wasn't quite as expansive, although he certainly had the range to go from Helter Skelter to Mother Nature's Son.
There's just something about John that's so unique in that he completely immerses himself in his songs, he brings such a life to his song that I can't even really imagine what he must have been like on mic during some of those recordings like A Day In The Life , Strawberry Fields, Twist And Shout and so many others. Plus add in his incredible mind and creativity, I think it's funny when he talks about tracks like Walrus and Tomorrow Never Knows being so much better in his head than they actually turned out. Anyway I could go on and on, but I guess I'd definitevely say John.
I sat on a rug, biding my time, drinking her wine
8.36am
1 December 2009
Offline
John was better at starting songs, Paul was better at finishing them.
GEORGE: In fact, The Detroit Sound. JOHN: In fact, yes. GEORGE: In fact, yeah. Tamla-Motown artists are our favorites. The Miracles. JOHN: We like Marvin Gaye. GEORGE: The Impressions PAUL & GEORGE: Mary Wells. GEORGE: The Exciters. RINGO: Chuck Jackson. JOHN: To name but eighty.
12.37pm
19 September 2010
Offline Didn’t John Say He wrote a lot of the middle-8’s to Paul’s songs? John was my finisher, I mean, he finished Michelle , Love Me Do , And Others. The only opposite I can think of would be In My Life , but there might be others
As if it matters how a man falls down.'
'When the fall's all that's left, it matters a great deal.
5.10pm
1 May 2010
Offline Marcelo said:
I don't see the “diplomat side” of Paul when he was bitching and bossing around George. Maybe he was diplomat with John, whom I suspect could eat Paul's head from one bite. John, in the other hand, was a piece of mofo himself, so, they're kind of equal. Maybe… No, John's was the less friendly of them.
Talking business wise, Paul was more diplomatic. He was charming with press because he knew they were good for business. John was not that much. But both were true mofos. And yeah John could eat Paul's head without any problem, but he would die of indigestion. 
I have to say…. if we didn't know about their personalities, would our preferences change? I dunno. Paul's music is extraordinary, but I like John's honesty. Every time I listen to Mother I feel goosebumps. But I wake up every morning with a Paul song….
Damn, 9. 
Here comes the sun….. Scoobie-doobie……
Something in the way she moves…..attracts me like a cauliflower…
Bop. Bop, cat bop. Go, Johnny, Go.
Beware of Darkness…
8.41pm
19 September 2010
Offline mithveaen said:
Marcelo said:
I don't see the “diplomat side” of Paul when he was bitching and bossing around George. Maybe he was diplomat with John, whom I suspect could eat Paul's head from one bite. John, in the other hand, was a piece of mofo himself, so, they're kind of equal. Maybe… No, John's was the less friendly of them.
Talking business wise, Paul was more diplomatic. He was charming with press because he knew they were good for business. John was not that much. But both were true mofos. And yeah John could eat Paul's head without any problem, but he would die of indigestion.
I have to say…. if we didn't know about their personalities, would our preferences change? I dunno. Paul's music is extraordinary, but I like John's honesty. Every time I listen to Mother I feel goosebumps. But I wake up every morning with a Paul song….
Damn, 9.
Paul Only Bossed George Around To get Better Results For the Group.
*9*
As if it matters how a man falls down.'
'When the fall's all that's left, it matters a great deal.
9.09pm
25 November 2010
Offline 
ONLY?! You know when you're in high school or middle school and you think it's a really big deal to have a friend who is one grade or two ahead of you? Because oh, wow, they're *older*?
That so doesn't mean a thing when you are 26.
I can understand that Paul didn't want the Beatles to end, but he got a bit control freaky during the last couple of years, and I don't blame George so much for wanting to pack it in.
9.13pm
19 September 2010
Offline9.21pm
25 November 2010
Offline Yeah, but you shouldn't boss around people in the band you're in. It's one thing to reject an idea after you've heard it, and given it a fair shake.
It's another to outright reject something because it doesn't exactly fit with the song you have in your head. Bands should be collaborative efforts. Usually things go wrong when the media or a person in the band puts more weight on a member of a band, overlooking the rest of the members individually or the band itself as a whole. Maybe that echoey thing in Hey Jude wouldn't have sounded all right in the end, but Paul needed to remember that he was in The Beatles (with three others) not Paul McCartney and The Beatles.
9.27pm
19 September 2010
Offline He Gave It a Fair Shake, But It wasn't right. I congratulate Paul.
As if it matters how a man falls down.'
'When the fall's all that's left, it matters a great deal.
9.29pm
25 November 2010
Offline But didn't Paul basically say he said to him “No no no no. What was that? No!” That doesn't seem like a fair shake to me. And again, he was probably right, but diplomatic about it, not so much.
1.57am
1 May 2010
Offline Ok, so if a diplomat is defined as “a person who is tactful and skillful in managing delicate situations, handling people, etc”, Paul certainly was not a diplomat. Reading a lot of George's quotes from the Anthology book has given me a better perspective on what happened, at least from George's point of view. Basically, starting around Pepper, Paul would get an idea, go to the piano and play while everyone watched, except Ringo who kept time, and that was that. There was no real “band effort” given, Paul would get an entire song in his head and basically neglected any ideas or input given by anyone other than John. Now again, this is George saying that, but he appears to be the most honest and straightforward of the group so I'll take his view as being pretty close to the reality of what happened.
I think StarWisher said it best that age doesn't mean a thing when you are 26, and so George probably just didn't feel respected by Paul, which certainly isn't something that a diplomat would allow to happen. But Paul always viewed George as his little brother, so George was used to it. The real problem occurred when Yoko was brought in because John wanted her on equal footing with George in terms of her input in the band. George has said that after their “dental incident” John was the one he was closest to, so for John to disrespect him by bringing in this no talent hag, excuse my language, and make her input as valuable as his was the last straw.
I sat on a rug, biding my time, drinking her wine
1 Guest(s)