Author |
Topic Search Topic Options
|
Roskisdyykkari
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 10 2007
Location: Finland
Status: Offline
Points: 133
|
Topic: Best Beatle Posted: April 15 2007 at 05:59 |
McCartney did some great rock songs, such as Helter Skelter, Magical Mystery Tour and of course Sgt. Pepper, but personally I prefer Lennon's more emotional and psychedelic songs, for example: Strawberry Fields Forever, A Day in the Life (well, it's mostly a Lennon-song), Lucy in the sky with diamonds etc. Paul's songs are usually just regular rockers, whereas Lennon did more progressive and complex songs. John Lennon was a true genius, and I admire him very much.
|
And the sand-castle virtues are all swept away
in the tidal destruction the moral melee.
|
 |
Guests
Forum Guest Group
|
Posted: March 24 2007 at 23:50 |
John Lennon has a few distinct advantages over his partner in "pop" geniusness (yeah it's not really a word). One, he always came across as the "artist" of the group. Even though in the mid 60s Paul was the one out on the London "art" scene exploring. Two, Lennon was deemed to be the "political" one. Yet, & I'm paraphrasing the great Rock N Roll writer Lester Bangs who said that he couldn't genuflect at the temple of Rock revolutionaries such as Lennon & Jagger. Why, well simply put, this oxymoronic term - Multi-millionaire socialist. John & Paul donated to their own causes, but John didn't exactly give it all away, eh ... John made "important" music. Yes, like Double Fantasy. John, like Paul had his share of solo success & failures. The fact that he pulled himself out of the game for five years while Paul went on does explain some of the perceived quality issues. If you put out 20 albums & the other guy puts out 10 & you both have the same success ratio, guess who has the most "stinkers. John was the humanist philosopher, the peacenik, all you need is love guy. Paul was the shallow, shill of a songwriter, who wrote silly love songs. Well now, how many saints go on a year & a half long weekend, gallivanting with a 20 something mistress, leaving your beloved wife back home. Are we including John's miserable treatment of his first wife & child in our judgment ? Do we accept the public face over the private reality that he had, as we all do, many failings ? Paul made no bones about his non-interest in stirring up trouble with his music. He put out an early solo single about Ireland ,got sl*gged for it ( how dare you Paul, you're the cute fluffy lightweight one!) then went & did what very few other musicians could match - write excellent songs; not all of them were, but then we don't sl*g the old blues guys who kept on going til their death despite the fact that resulting albums rarely had anything to match their reputation sealing classics. John & Paul both had egos. John & Paul both had their very human faults. John & Paul both had their moments of brilliance during their Beatle years & solo careers, along with low points. But in our "pop" culture, Lennon has attained the status of sainthood, while Paul had to live on under that shadow, so how can he win ? Oh well, it could be worse. He could've replaced Peter Gabriel in Genesis. Just look at the denigration the some will spew over that subject as if they're making "objective" statements instead of "subjective" judgements ...
Edited by pantacruelgruel - March 24 2007 at 23:53
|
 |
Moogtron III
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 26 2005
Location: Belgium
Status: Offline
Points: 10616
|
Posted: March 24 2007 at 19:34 |
Macca for me. Paul is close to being a musical genius.
|
 |
Arrrghus
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 21 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 5296
|
Posted: March 24 2007 at 17:31 |
Paul Lennon, or John McCartney. Take your pick.
|
|
 |
BroSpence
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 05 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 2614
|
Posted: March 24 2007 at 17:30 |
George, John, Ringo, Paul.
Paul kind of....sucks. I mean McCartney was an OK album, and Ram was good.
Overall though I do not like Paul.
|
 |
Man Erg
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: August 26 2004
Location: Isle of Lucy
Status: Offline
Points: 7456
|
Posted: March 24 2007 at 10:16 |
George.His studies on the sitar and eastern religion steered the group toward their psych sound and the rest as they say...
|
Do 'The Stanley' otherwise I'll thrash you with some rhubarb.
|
 |
Revan
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 02 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 540
|
Posted: March 24 2007 at 10:11 |
|
|
 |
sircosick
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 29 2007
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 1264
|
Posted: March 24 2007 at 01:12 |
McCartney, because of his talent as a bassist and (it's personally) for his style of composition.
|
 |
moodyxadi
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 01 2005
Location: Brazil
Status: Offline
Points: 417
|
Posted: January 30 2007 at 15:36 |
Post-Beatles - Lennon, of course. short and good albums, solid pop-rock songs with social sensibility. McCartney is a great melodymaker; Lennon is more crude, but in the end I prefer his works.
|
Bach, Ma, Bros, Déia, Dante.
|
 |
olzen
Forum Newbie
Joined: October 15 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 22
|
Posted: January 30 2007 at 10:55 |
John Lennon, due to his musical genius and great humour! They were all brilliant, but ever since I saw A Hard Day's Night, John has been one of my biggest idols!
|
"A vie, à mort et après." -Christian Vander
|
 |
FragileDT
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: June 20 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1485
|
Posted: January 29 2007 at 23:32 |
Wow, would have thought Lennon would be destroying in this thread. He is easily and without question, my favorite beatle. No comparison.
|
One likes to believe
In the freedom of music
But glittering prizes
And endless Compromises
Shatter the illusion
Of integrity
|
 |
Fassbinder
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: May 27 2006
Location: My world
Status: Offline
Points: 3497
|
Posted: January 27 2007 at 01:45 |
About some 20 years ago I'd say McCartney, definitely. But now I just can't stand his cheesy melodies. I'm judging on the base of post- Rubber Soul albums, i.e. when the songwriting became individual. Sorry, I simply don't like Pop. Therefore I can vote only for Lennon or Harrison. Both are great, but I prefer (slightly) Lennon, maybe, due to the fact that he is a little bit proggier than Harrison (after all, I'm in the ProgRock site, I can't not to speak/think in the terms of Prog).
|
 |
Chris H
Prog Reviewer
Joined: October 08 2006
Location: Charlotte, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 8191
|
Posted: January 26 2007 at 17:44 |
|
Beauty will save the world.
|
 |
progismylife
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 19 2006
Location: ibreathehelium
Status: Offline
Points: 15535
|
Posted: January 26 2007 at 17:42 |
It's all about Lennon. That guy was a genius!
|
 |
Daydreamyng
Forum Newbie
Joined: January 26 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 32
|
Posted: January 26 2007 at 17:37 |
I chose Paul.
I'm just a Fool on the Hill.
|
 |
Bern
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: September 22 2005
Location: Québec
Status: Offline
Points: 11746
|
Posted: April 28 2006 at 18:11 |
I've been told that I look like Lennon a zillion times so he's my favorite Beatle. This situation was once ridiculous. Strangers were shouting at me from across streets : HEY MAN! You look like Lennon!  (I don't even think I look like John Lennon)
|

RIP in bossa nova heaven.
|
 |
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
|
Posted: April 28 2006 at 17:59 |
George Martin.
Although Ringo's contribution shouldn't be overlooked - he revolutionised the way drums are played; Drummers hold their sticks the way Ringo did to this day.
Still, when Lennon was asked the question "Is Ringo the best drummer in the world?", his answer was "He's not even the best drummer in the Beatles". I have to say that I'm a big fan of Ringo's "less is more" style though.
No-one did more than Paul to change the way that the bass was used in Rock music, bringing it from mere accompaniment to a foreground instrument. It was Paul who introduced Lennon to the music of Stockhausen, resulting in the experimental tape stuff on "I'm Only Sleeping", "Tomorrow Never Knows", "Rain", "Revolution #9" etc.
Still, I dislike his Vaudeville tendencies and much prefer Lennon's darker sides - plus Lennon went off and recorded 3 albums worth of Stockhausen influenced experimental stuff with Yoko.
So, to play the game, I'll settle for Lennon - but really I think that Martin was the greatest musician of the lot; Witness the string arrangements in Eleanor Rigby and many others, not to mention his keyboard playing and high-brow qualifications.
But on the other hand, wasn't Pete the Best Beatle...?
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
 |
wolf0621
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 07 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 264
|
Posted: April 28 2006 at 16:41 |
Pete Best...No wait, Stu Sutcliffe...Well actually, Ringo...Right, can't be Ringo...The other 3 then, each for different reasons...
|
 |
Sibbe
Forum Groupie
Joined: March 31 2006
Location: Finland
Status: Offline
Points: 51
|
Posted: April 04 2006 at 17:10 |
One more vote for George Harrison. He wrote many of my favourite Beatles songs plus in my opinion his solo material was best of all four.
But I must admit that the one ex-Beatle solo album that I listen the most is Ringo's brilliant self titled album.
|
"I came here for a party and what do I get? Nothing. Not even ice cream."
|
 |
Bournestar
Forum Newbie
Joined: March 31 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 12
|
Posted: April 04 2006 at 16:04 |
Very difficult to call between them all, but I voted for Harrison. Only because of his solo work (I grew up listening to My Sweet Lord and While My Guitar Gently Weeps...) and because he was a Travelin' Wilbury.
|
 |
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.