I love John Lennon, but I really think Paul wins head to head. Freshman Year Albums: Please Please Me, With The Beatles, Hard Days Night, Beatles For Sale Edge: John Lennon The hits are a 50/50 split, they were writing together for the most part in this phase. But stuff like "All I've Got To Do" and "Tell Me Why" and "Please Please Me" were really really inventive, those were John's. John was sober (ish) and on top of his game. The advances and innovations were his, moreso than Paul, and his songs were more confident. "Can't Buy Me Love" and "All My Loving" are good Paul one from this era, but the attitude of the Beatles - hugely tuneful, melodic, funny, and perfectly 'don't really give a crap' - were John's. He was consistent. And they were still doing covers at this point, a huge John advantage. The Beatles "Rock and Roll Music" runs circles around Chuck Berry's, as great as he is. Sophomore Year Albums: Help, Rubber Soul, Revolver Edge: Paul McCartney It starts close - Help is sort of their one disappointing album anyway, to me - but Paul pulls slightly ahead here. "Yesterday" is his breakthrough, more confidence-wise than quality-wise. It's fine, but it was his first big innovation to the band that no one else could have done. Rubber Soul and Revolver are probably the Beatles at the peak of their collaborative music powers, but you have to think Paul wins these by a hair. His 'filler' is stuff like "You Wont See Me" and "For No One", and he has no misses at all. John has some of his best work here - "In My Life," "She Said She Said" and "Norweigian Wood", but he has clunkers too ("Run For Your Life", "Dr. Robert"). The innovations and playful songs ("Eleanor Rigby," "Yellow Submarine,") lean to Paul as well. Paul by a hair here. Junior Year: Albums: Sgt. Pepper, Magical Mystery Tour, White Album Edge: Paul Not even close; Paul dominates. The crazy ideas were his ("Sgt. Pepper", the all-white cover) the hits and album tracks are nearly flawless and of equal quality ("Hey Jude", "Fool On The Hill," "Getting Better" "Back in the USSR" "Martha My Dear"). John has his incredible moments ("Day In the Life" "Everybody's Got Something To Hide" "Revolution" "Strawberry Fields") but is largely checked out and hugely inconsistent ("Benefit of Mr. Kite", "Revolution 9" we could do without) - Paul is dominating the creative direction of the band at this point, John is along for the ride and increasingly cranky. He pulls back to respectability with the White Album, he is terrific there, if increasingly apt to launch grenades at the groups artistic output (Yoko, electronic music, etc) Senior Year: Albums: Let It Be, Abbey Road Edge: Paul John's songs are good ("Come Together," "Across the Universe") but Paul's streak, though winding down, is still in effect - "Let It Be", "She Came In Through The Bathroom Window", "Two of Us"). They are essentially closing up shop, but Paul holds them together with the side 2 medleys on Abbey Road. The best song of their senior year is "Ballad of John and Yoko" - recorded exclusively by John and Paul, with Paul on drums, piano, bass, and kick-ass backing vocals - and show how compatible they are musically even when barely speaking personally. It also shows how much they needed each other. Their solo careers were fine. Together they were invincible. But I think Paul's 1966-1969 streak is unsurpassed in pop music by anyone ever. The success rate has got be in the 90% range, the quantity of songs, the development and increasing sophistication of his writing and playing, the diversity of styles, all within a 2.5 year window - is staggering. A completely disproportionate amount of enduring and meaningful pop music was written by Paul in that era. Paul was not the coolest Beatle. He is not even in the top 2 coolest Beatles. But he was the best.
Paul is without question the superior musician. As songwriters they are both at the top of my list but I'll give the edge to paul. He's the better songwriter while John is the better lyricist. Paul has one of my favorites voices as well, though johns is very unique. It's like picking between children.
The OP asked 2 different things in his poll and first post. Paul was the more naturally gifted musician, the first time they met John was so impressed with Paul's guitar playing that John asked Paul to join his Liverpool skiffle group, The Quarrymen. Since Paul was so gifted John at first was against asking him into the band since it might challenge John's leadership of the band. But John finally decided to make the band stronger and let Paul in. And the rest is history. John, however, was the one who treated his music like art and used it better to illustrate what he was thinking about or what was on his mind, Paul tended to fit words around the music he created alot of the times. John's music seemed more personal and introspective, more daring, more colorful, more experimental, more honest then Paul's, who was no slouch in his music. Paul never wrote songs like God, Imagine, Mother; just like John (who said it himself) would never think about writing Maxwell's Silver Hammer, When I'm 64, Obla-Di Obla-Da... Paul didn't like that John was considered the more avant-garde of the 2 in public opinion. But I tend to agree with that sentiment.
I think that's the thing with John fans and Paul fans. Paul makes hits that people will love for generations. John makes art that will change some people's lives, others wont get it (which is why he also have more "clunkers" since he experiments more). This is why though both are great and we can appreciate all that they do, there wont be a clear winner. Some people likes Chocolate and others like Vanilla. Personally, I remember just sitting in a chair listening to "imagine" on repeat for hours after 9/11, or "in my life" on repeat while looking at pictures of the past etc.
Agree with others about the high level of Paul as a musician. I saw him live for the first time earlier this year and I was literally blown away with how talented he is and how much he can still rock given that he's 67 now. Listening to The Beatles catalog though, I am much fonder of John as a lyricist and vocalist. I think they were absolutely perfect for each other and that is why they formed the greatest band ever.
John (and his family, too) was quite an ass both during their marriage and through their divorce. wiki linkage
I agree. I think that John wrote differently, early versus latter Beatles. Once the Beatles had made it, John figured he could whatever he pleased and did. IIRC, if were not for Paul's sheer will, the last two Beatles albums would never had been recorded and released at all. FWIW, I have always thought that "Help" was one of the perfect pop songs (so I am not a Paul-only fan).
Good post, generally I agree. After 9/11 I listened to Give Peace A Chance 1 zillion times I think, it was therapeutic for some reason. BUT. I disagree with the simplification - not yours' in particular, but that of many - that John was the artist and Paul was the craftsman; that John experimented while Paul's music was well executed but somehow a lower level of sophistication, that Paul was tuneful while John was lyrical. I think it is unfair to both Paul's artistic successes and John's under-appreciated craftsmanship. Revolver for instance: Side One has George's Taxman and the introduction to his Indian English hybrid songs Love You To. Paul contributes Yellow Submarine (sung by Ringo), Here There and Everywhere and Eleanor Rigby. John has She Said She Said and I'm Only Sleeping. This is arguably their most progressive, collaborative and dazzling album side. I actually think the weakest link is Paul's Here There and Everywhere. But in terms of 'art v. craft,' to me, this is where their 'weakside' talents (if you will) - Paul's art and John's craft - get wrongly categorized as such. "I'm Only Sleeping" has an incredible feel, but it's strength are the bridge melody, the harmony, minor key to major key verses... to me, this just the work of a songwriting witch. That disillusioned, detatched acoustic guitar driven voice, thats not new - it had been used by Bob Dylan and John Lennon himself many times before. What makes that song stand out - other than George's trippy backwards guitar solo - are things like melody, harmony and production. It's an achievement, but not because of experimentation, but because of just straight up skill. It's his mid-Beatles version of a 100 MPH fastball. Same basic thing for She Said She Said - its great, Ringo is presposterously good, but its a melodic rock and roll song. It's trippy, but not many steps beyond I Feel Fine or Day Tripper in terms of art. Again, what makes that song superior to its predecessors are melody, lyrics, harmony, and - as always - a remarkable middle-eight. To me, that is craft more than art. Contrast that to Paul. Here There and Everywhere is fine, not my favorite, a little saccharine. But Eleanor Rigby is an impressionistic bulls-eye: the novel arrangement, the use of strings, the subject matter (loneliness, aging, religion), the non-linear lyrics. This is a huge leap beyond "Yesterday" or anything anyone had done to date in pop. "Yellow Submarine" has become its own industry, and is hard to look at objectively, but I can not imagine putting on a record by the worlds most respected band and hearing that song for the first time. A kids song, sung by Ringo, but it totally works. Completely infectious, weirdly believable, a complete complete gamble. Total curveball, it could have ruined their whole album. But its perfect. That one is Paul's. It's not to degrade John at all - its just that I think they were a wash craftmanship wise during their Beatle years. John does this amazing thing, for those who play a little guitar - he takes an established chord pattern, like a 50's doo-wop chord progression - but flips one of the standard chords with some mondo-bizarro blue-as-hell sad chord, and makes something totally eerie and tart yet warm with it. It's different every time (Across the Universe, Happiness Is A Warm Gun, etc). And I think "Dont Let Me Down" is a true songwriting victory, again, the middle-eight and the sad guitar call-and-responses. And I think Pauls craftsmanship can be overrated - he has tricks; Let it Be and Hey Jude are nothing original compositionally (still, based on familiar three chord patterns with embellishments). But in the case of Hey Jude, there's another huge gamble - making it 7 minutes, the last four of which being a collective chant-singing of a lyric-less tune. Again, we're all overfamiliar with it. But that's a huge artistic risk, taking what may be his masterpiece (the first part) and augmenting it with a colossal fade out. But, the risk works, because they just - as always - pull it off. To me, that is hugely artistic. All of them were witches. George and Ringo too. But I think alot of the "Paul = musician // John = artist" business is a result of their solo careers, not their beatles work. John himself espoused this theory after the breakup, and ridiculed Paul with it; I think it was transparent insecurity from John Lennon, but whatever- it actually worked. Also, their two best solo albums fall neatly into this category - Band on the Run is tuneful and slick, John's "Plastic Ono Bad" is raw and pained. Both, to me, are great. But they fit that schematic pretty perfectly, and I think it clouds judgment looking backwards. One last thing - one very very cool thing about the Beatles Rubber Soul and beyond, is that they almost come out on each album appearing to be a different band. Like the same team playing a different sport on each album - Sgt. Pepper / Magical Mystery Tour are the same band more or less, but they look and sound very different (yet equally masterful) each time they took the field. THAT part, I think, was Paul. He was reflecting what was going on with his crowd and the band, he did not invent it, but he did mastermind how to reflect it. The band concept stuff - that John would later ridicule as pretense - is to me, a very very deft and artistic way of changing the expectations of the audience, keeping them off balance, and giving all of their music a totally fresh feel every album, every year, every six months. Paul was very meticulous about that. John could have given a crap, especially towards the end, when he was self destructively trying to sabotage the band. But I think Paul was very very in tune with how to communicate with the masses, using musical art, given the tools at the Beatles disposal. To me, that stuff is rarely recognized, and is the definition of a successful artist.
QFT. Lots of people feel this way, and in certain instances its undeniable, but I think that CB's post points out that much of their most creative period was in some ways dominated by Paul's lesser known creativity and sense of art. I still am in agreement with giving Lennon the creative nod (as much for his voice as for his lyrics and song writing)... to an extent, but the overall comparison leans Paul's way, especially when given his creative due that is often downplayed next to someone of Lennon's artistic ability. As a pure musician, which is how OP finished, John wasn't even close in playing or vocally. Style or risktaking? yes. Talent and discipline? no. That said, I think it was no accident that Paul was focused on being a Musician Singer Songwriter, while John was more and more focused on being an artist. I guess most of it has been covered, but I thought the comparison of the above quotes/posts was interesting and postworthy.
I like Lennon's voice better -but I think McCartney was a better song writer -- they certainly made a great team, which is the most important thing.
Very nice posts, my friend, and I agree for the most part. On the barest level, Paul was a way better musician - he could play every instrument on an album better than the others. John ruled the early days like you said and even thought I disagree with some of your specific song takes (for example I think Mr Kite was a success for John...although I like the demo version better before it got too overworked) Paul was more consistent with both song success and innovations for songs and the band. I think it was Yoko who colored the perception of Paul being the more simplistic one - she has the famous quote where she recounts John wondering why his songs were not covered as much as Paul's and she says something disparaging about how his songs were easier and had simple rhymes "june with spoon" or something like that. She made all sorts of public comments about her opinion of Paul but did it in a way that attributed her thoughts to John, as well. Also, peopla want to romanticize. Paul was always a happier personality whereas John's earlier public image (mop top boy very similar to Paul)morphed into the brooder/thinker/activist. Paul was a thinker and inventer, too. There is a short program where Paul gives a mini-concert and history lesson inside the Abbey Road studio from a few years ago that is good stuff, by the way.
