Lennon vs McCartney

frogcheese

John Lennon

From the poll it is pretty split opinion, I don't think either of them would have made it without The Beatles. I think McCartney is the better known of the two but personally I don't think he was the better of the two. I'd choose Lennon everytime.

philstar

frogcheese wrote: »

From the poll it is pretty split opinion, I don't think either of them would have made it without The Beatles. I think McCartney is the better known of the two but personally I don't think he was the better of the two. I'd choose Lennon everytime.

oh i think McCartney would have, he had the talent and charisma

as a matter of fact in the early days he confided in Brian Epstein that if the Beatles didn't make it he wanted to pursue a solo career

Lennon on the other hand would have pursued a career in literature/playwright

kunst nugget

John Lennon

frogcheese wrote: »

I think McCartney is the better known of the two

???

taylorconor95

John Lennon

frogcheese wrote: »

I think McCartney is the better known of the two

No he wasn't!

Terrontress

John Lennon

What I find interesting is that Paul always seemed to look beyond the band.

Yesterday was a solo song as was For No One. Why don't we do it in the road was Paul and Ringo. Eleanor Rigby had Beatles vocals only. She's Leaving Home. I'm sure there are more. For John all I can think of where he didn't use the band as a rock and roll band was Julia.

I also believe that Paul coming of age was much more evident whereas I don't think John had the same awakening. Hard Days Night has John squarely as number 1. McCartney wrote only 3 songs, and George effectively made And I Love Her with his nylon guitar. Beatles For Sale is karaoke, Lennon edges it on Help but by the time Rubber Soul and Revolver come round I think that Paul has become one of the world's greatest composers and bassists. The vocal harmonies on Paul tracks from then on are sublime. He also was able to mix up styles, songs with humour such as Honey Pie.

I'm sure Lennon's descent in to heroin misuse, claiming he was Jesus etc, did not help his musical output.

Anyway, until 65 or so I think John had it but thereafter it was Paul as a performer, songwriter, arranger, lyricist.

Rothko

Terrontress wrote: »

I'm sure Lennon's descent in to heroin misuse, claiming he was Jesus etc, did not help his musical output.

When did he ever claim he was Jesus?

Rigsby

John Lennon

Suas11 wrote: »

When did he ever claim he was Jesus?

I dont think he actually claimed to be Jesus, but to be as popular as him.

Terrontress

John Lennon

Rigsby wrote: »

Suas11 wrote: »

When did he ever claim he was Jesus?

I dont think he actually claimed to be Jesus, but to be as popular as him.

No, I read that he convened a band meeting toward the end to claim to the others that he was Jesus.

Here are some references:

http://articles.absoluteelsewhere.net/Articles/my_friend_john_davies.html

Next morning, Pete contacted Apple to arrange an emergency board meeting. All four Beatles turned up, plus Neil Aspinall (once the Beatles’ roadie, later Apple’s managing director) and Derek Taylor, their press officer. “Right,“ said John, sitting behind his desk. “I’ve something very important to tell you all. I am...Jesus Christ. I have come back again. This is my thing.“

The Beatles looked rather stunned, but said nothing. “It was totally surreal,“ says Pete. “But nobody cross-examined him. No plans were made to announce the Messiah’s arrival. There was a bit of muttering, then silence, till somebody suggested the meeting was adjourned for lunch. “In the restaurant over lunch a man came up to John and said: ’Really nice to meet you, how are you?’ ’Actually,’ said John, ’I’m Jesus Christ.’ ’Oh, really,’ said the man. ’Well, I liked your last record.’ “

http://www.johnlennon.it/pdf/uncut_pg42.pdf


That's what I could come up with on a quick search. I think I might have read it in the Paul McCartney biography by Miles.

It's not really important that he said it but I think it's accepted that Jihn went a bit further down the drug road than Paul and his creativity must have suffered as a result.

taylorconor95

John Lennon

Wow that's not surprising. The poll closed 50/50

philstar

both would be pleased

Rigsby

John Lennon

philstar wrote: »

both would be pleased

Lennon is beyond caring, and I doubt if Macca could care less at this stage of his career.

Snickers Man

kunst nugget wrote: »

You guess wrong. I have 2 kids and it's still a crock of poo.

I have to say, speaking also as a father of two, you're right. Mind you, McCartney did choose it as one of his Desert Isiand Discs. Indeed as the one he couldn't be without.

No accounting for taste, is there?

rubadub

delbertgrady wrote: »

The perception - mentioned earlier - that Lennon is the "cool" Beatle is also a key factor here. You often see people wearing John Lennon t-shirts (usually the famous New York photo) - how many do you ever see wearing Paul McCartney ones?

I think its a memorial thing too, if he was still alive I doubt half as many would be wearing his t-shirt -though being dead/shot could be seen as part of the 'coolness'. If it was McCartney who was shot some might prefer him -many people grew up in the 80's subjected to stuff they hate from artists like Bowie, Rod Stewart, Elton John, Queen. Lennon may have went on to produce muck people hated.

The graphic of his face looks better suited to a tshirt, I doubt you would see the 'cool kids' getting Che Guevara tshirts or tattoos if he had a cute babyface like McCartney.

delbertgrady

John Lennon

rubadub wrote: »

If it was McCartney who was shot some might prefer him -many people grew up in the 80's subjected to stuff they hate from artists like Bowie, Rod Stewart, Elton John, Queen. Lennon may have went on to produce muck people hated.

I'd argue that Lennon had already produced a lot of muck by the time he died anyway. As others have remarked, Plastic Ono Band and Imagine are terrific, but the batting average on his remaining solo albums is pretty low.
My interpretation of your post is that you're citing David Bowie, Rod Stewart, Elton John and Queen as examples of acts who, if you like, "embarrassed themselves" in the 1980s, as opposed to their more "credible" seventies output.
I'd argue a case for Elton and Queen (and Bowie to a lesser extent), but I would agree that Lennon certainly never had the chance to end up like McCartney, putting out garbage like Press To Play and Off the Ground to an indifferent audience.

eviltimeban

Terrontress wrote: »

No, I read that he convened a band meeting toward the end to claim to the others that he was Jesus.

Here are some references:

http://articles.absoluteelsewhere.net/Articles/my_friend_john_davies.html

Funniest thing about that story was that Lennon wanted tell the press, but McCartney requested time "to reflect on the announcement", as he knew in a couple of days Lennon would realise he wasn't, in fact, Jesus!

Terrontress

John Lennon

eviltimeban wrote: »

Terrontress wrote: »

No, I read that he convened a band meeting toward the end to claim to the others that he was Jesus.

Here are some references:

http://articles.absoluteelsewhere.net/Articles/my_friend_john_davies.html

Funniest thing about that story was that Lennon wanted tell the press, but McCartney requested time "to reflect on the announcement", as he knew in a couple of days Lennon would realise he wasn't, in fact, Jesus!

After Lennon's previous quotes about Jesus, I'm not surprised McCartney asked him to keep it quiet.