The best, most detailed deconstruction of each individual Beatles song is here: http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/awp-alphabet.shtml
So does nothing after 1980 count for Paul too? If not it's kind of unbalanced. Macca went on to write conduct classical pieces, avant stuff and almost 30 years more by volume. This likely leads him to be a better musician. Techinally. But Lennon was far and away the better artist. He was an artist first and a muscian second.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rj-4t9drUlM Lennon had much more intricate songs, but paul really knew how to make great songs out of simple chord progressions, along with his share of amazing ones too. Its just so hard to judge they both put out so much good ****. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ERnT1X9HPw
I wouldn't say that Paul had more simple songs. That is especially true of their solo work, where McCartney's songs have various time changes, complex parts etc.
I love this, first American Beatles concert. Ringo is king: at the end he is crazy. Paul on the third verse is rad: <object width="500" height="405"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/612806fJb_Q&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/612806fJb_Q&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="500" height="405"></embed></object>
I love this thread. SPM? Really Clutchfans... really? I'm wholly in the corner of John. Just compare their solo careers for a fair evaluation. Lennon put out way way more quality hits (not that thats the absolute measure of greatness). His music was Beatles quality. Paul... live and let die, his christmas song is often played, but it gets stuck in my head and annoys the hell out of me. He wasnt bad, but I could jam John Lennon all night long and not get bored. John had Imagine, Instant Karma, Just like Starting Over, Well Well Well, Jealous Guy, Mind Games, #9 dream, Whatever Gets You Through the Night, Woman, Beautiful Boy, Watching the Wheels, Mother, Nobody Told Me, Working Class Hero, Happy Christmas, Mucho Mungo, Give Peave a Chance... If you leave politics out of the equation, I wonder how Paul can even get a third of the votes. Personally John had a lot of problems. Like most great artists a very flawed human being. I can't see the Beatles being nearly what they were without John Lennon. I can't say the same about Paul. The two most talented Beatles are dead. As an aside, has anyone seen the video where someone interviewed ringo for some thomas the tank engine press thing and obviously had no idea who he was. she asked him what he did before thomas the tank engine? he was like "i was in a band." great example of situational irony. what did he do indeed.
If youhad not included a Thomas the Train reference, i would say you are insane. Feel free to apply you 'solo career' logic - which i do not apply to Beatles work, its a different story - to George being better than Paul. Maybe I'm Amazed and Band on the Run are not at Beatles level, but Mucho Mungo and #9 Dream are? Come on now. I can understand a John preference, but saying the Beatles would have been the Beatles w/o Paul Frigging McCartney ... John at his most spiteful would not have even accepted that. Look at the "1" CD - which I dont often suggest - and tell me what percentage of those are Paul. Also, my good man, Paul (and George Martin's, IMHO) contributions to John's masterpieces were enormous - In My Life, Strawberry Fields, Day in the Life, Ballad of John and Yoko, etc. Paul relied less on John than vice versa. Not entirely independent. But John;s huge artistic achievements have Paul all over them. I love John too. But that is an insane argument saved only by a Ringo / Thomas the Tank engine blast at the end.
This is an absolutely ridiculous statement. How could they have been anything near what they were when nearly half of their catalog was written by McCartney? The only one of the four that could be replaced without changing what the band became (at least musically), was Ringo.
