Paul McCartney or John Lennon... Which Beatle was the better songwriter?

[natedoppler]

I have always thought Paul was a much better songwriter, but when I shared this opinion with other musicians I have been met with much resistance.

 

I think McCartney seems to have more control over his instrument and is technically a better musician than John, however, John was always the cool one of the two and tended to write more groundbreaking or progressive songs. Paul also wrote music that was sweeter and more structurally complex in nature with more chords and sections, while John's songs usually were darker, simpler in structure, and might have more improvisation.

 

Opinions? Questions? Can anyone confirm this or deny this analysis?

 

 

TJ of Doppler

www.dopplerband.com

Powered by www.BandVista.com

 

"I know when I started I would have been happy to sound like the Beatles or Joe Tex or whoever. You want to sound like most bands, you want to sound like their records and that's how you learn your chops."

 

- Jon Anderson of Yes

[deepblue]

I think its true that Paul was a much better musician then John, but as far as song writing goes I think its about

50/50. They both were gifted, and also had some tunes that made me scratch my head.

Hello- Goodbye comes to mind. That was a number 1 hit, yet made no sense whatsoever. But its still a catchy tune and I crank it up if it comes on the radio. On Johns side what about "number 9, number 9, number 9?"

Wasnt that a piece of work? lol....still I love it all.

 

They complimented each other perfectly, thats why it worked.

[Thundergod]

Paul is way better... Jhono is one of the most overestimated musicians in all history. Without Paul that band wouldnt have gotten out of johns bathroom...

 

Most musicians will tell you Jhon is better because they dont know better than that: the media will always bouch for john as he was controversial ... lets see what happens when Paul passes away (hope that doesnt happen in a while).

 

As musicians this is how I would put the Beatles

 

Paul (he has the record on most albums sold worlwide... that has to amount for something...)

George (very underrated musician, most people believe his career was limited only to working with the beatles).

John

Ringo (as noted by the beatles, he wasnt even the best drummer IN the band...)

[GavinGuitar]

They complimented each other perfectly' date=' thats why it worked.[/quote']

 

I think that sums it up pretty well. I think based just on craftsmanship Paul would win - seems like he could write a great pop song in his sleep. But John brought some edge, experimentation, and some more thought-provoking lyrics that made for a good combination.

 

Of course that is generally speaking (Paul had several rocking songs and John several straightforward poppy ones).

[deepblue]

Well said Thundergod.

 

John was ready to pack it in, in the fall of 1966. It was always Paul who pushed a pleaded with him to carry on.

Look at what happened after that?

Sgt. Pepper

Magical Mystery tour

The Beatles (White album)

Abbey Road

 

As a fan, these albums are my "reach for" albums.

 

On a side note...I had a chance to stay in room 1742 at the Queen Elizabeth hotel in Montreal. Thats the room where John & Yoko did their bed in, in 1969 and recorded "Give Peace a Chance" I was over the moon untill I was told the price!!!...I dont know if the prices have changed, but it was over $1000 a night!..You got a free pair of jammies and the same breakfast that J & Y ate while there, but im sorry....a tad too steep for me. If anyone here wants to give it a whirl let me know...take some pics too. I believe its called the Fairmont now, not the QE.

[L5Larry]

I've also always been in the McCartney camp myself. I think McCartney songs in general were more melodic, although I think the Beatles had more "hits" with Lennon songs.

 

Part of the John/Paul debate should also take into account their Beatles era and post-Beatle solo work. As deepblue said, they complimented each other as a team, but even the "team" concept of their songwriting is debatable. They way I understand it is they may have been a team in the early years, but during the mid and late years they worked pretty much independently.

 

And look what happened between 1970 and 1980, Paul took off for the stratosphere with Wings with hit songs and album sales. Besides "Imagine", it seems John just sat in his apartment playing that white piano.

 

If John had not been assasinated, I still don't think he would have been able to keep up with what McCartney has done in the last 35 years.

 

On a related side note, there's a great book out by the recording engineer Geoff Emerick. I think it is called something like "My life recording the music of the Beatles". He was behind the board, and sitting beside George Martin, for all the mid to late Beatles recording sessions. It's a fascinating read, not only from a technical standpoint, but also on the study of human behavior. A must read for any musician/Beatles fan.

[albertjohn]

 

I think that sums it up pretty well. I think based just on craftsmanship Paul would win - seems like he could write a great pop song in his sleep. But John brought some edge' date=' experimentation, and some more thought-provoking lyrics that made for a good combination.

 

Of course that is generally speaking (Paul had several rocking songs and John several straightforward poppy ones).

 

[/quote']

 

+1. Whoever wrote Blackbird, 'nuff said.

[TheLiveSoundGuy]

{snip}

Most musicians will tell you Jhon is better because they dont know better than that:{snip}

 

Now Thunder' date=' while I have nothing but the highest respect for your opinion, (and I hope you know that) the above statement makes me wonder just how it is that [b']you [/b]know, better than most musicians?

 

As for me...I think Paul was a better musician, as I believe him to be more emotional (therefore a better writer,) while John always struck me as more intellectual. IMHO

 

Having said that, I myself, am more of a Lennon fan. Always was, always will be.

[Taylor Player]

Personally, I don't think it would have been as good a band without all four of them. Paul & John fed off each other in the early years and likely didn't really like each other much toward the end. Paul in my opinion wrote more bubble gum stuff and John was more edgy in his music. To make the Beatles work, they needed both styles.

 

Still to this day, my favorite beatle is Harrison... His "All things must pass" album, put out after the Beatles is a must have.

 

Drummers will tell you that Ringo actually was a very good drummer and had a very unique way of playing that is not that easy to copy.

[jefleppard]

+1 on the l5larry opinion. i'll look for that book. thanks.

the popular nietzschean theory says that the whole (beatles, in this case) is greater than the sum of its parts, but the value or relevance of each part are not neccessarily equal to each other. true, the beatles each brought an individual and unique quality to the table but it became clear after the band's demise, who was (boy, you're gonna ....) carrying the most weigh for the longest time. paul's respectable contribution to popsicology (my own word, use it if you like) continued well into the 70's and he only became laughable toward the 80's when the tank began to run dry and his megalomania kicked in and the best of him, (much like garth's chris gaines whatever that was) resulting in an unfortunate series of unlikely pairings with michael jackson et al....

the doggone girl is mine? yeesh.

john grabbed everyone's heart. he really was a working class hero because he was successful and still spoke the rebel's truth. was he a fake or a phony that deserved to be gunned down by a would-be catcher in the rye like MDC who sought to save us all from the hypocrisy of our idols? hardly, if duality was a crime that could be policed and punished by everyday citizens, then the papers (the daily martyr?) would need to devote special sections to murder/suicides......

paul was the best. john buried him and he still out did everyone else.

[cookieman15061]

Early on it was john that drove the band. He was the undisputed leader of the band and clearly his songs at this point say '63 to '65 were more emotionally complex than anything Paul was contributing (P.S. I Love You, I Saw Her Standing There, And I Love Her). Great songs no doubt, but pretty straight forward in the I miss you/ I need You/ I love you style of songwriting. To me John's songs alway had a dark cynical undercurrent running through them. If I Fell, Ticket to Ride, Norwegian Wood, and Girl all on the surface great pop songs and yet upon deeper investigation we are subject to real emotions that the singer is feeling- fear of loss/ anger/ revenge/ envy.

 

It was really only after John became bored and apathetic and more into LSD that Paul really takes charge. Showing up at Johns front door with his 5 songs for next album already written and forcing John to clear the fog and get to work. Its true early on they wrote together out of convinence. Being stuck between gigs in cars, vans, and hotel rooms made partners out of these two. More often though one would write a couple verses or have an idea and present it to the other and they would both finish it off. We Can Work It Out being a great example of this. Paul singing the positive verse and title while John sings on the "life is very short" middle eight.

 

I've always been amazed at the quality and growth of there work in seven short years together.

 

Solo -pretty darn good

Together- the best ever

[MikeRom]

Apart, McCartney for sure but together there's none better! I always preferred Johns voice to Pauls tho, way more rockNroll -

[Thundergod]

 

Now Thunder' date=' while I have nothing but the highest respect for your opinion, (and I hope you know that) the above statement makes me wonder just how it is that [b']you [/b]know, better than most musicians?

 

 

Simply put? I dont! :D (I'm not really that much into the beatles)

 

I based my comment (and it is only my oppinion which I shared with you guys) in the fact that most hit songs were written by john (werent they?) and those are the songs the majority of hardcore betales fans I know like the least... most beatles fans I know like paul's songs more...

 

My comment was also directed at this: there are lots of folks that claim to be beatles fans (as with any other band) but really arent, and most of the time that type of "fan" just knows what he gets from the media...

 

I think we are all tired of all that "Slash is the best guitar player in the world, and I am a big fan, I know how to play all HIS guitar hero songs", my comment was meant that way: there are lots of "fans" that only know john, because he gets most the media coverage (even now).

 

And I know this is for another thread, but can you believe I made a comment about how I dislike that GH thing while watching a Lynyrd Skynyrd song (free bird) on youtube, and this guy goes up and replies to my comment with "if you hate guitar hero what are you doing watching songs from the game and commenting on them? Get a life".

 

I was totally WTFed... really.

 

 

 

Sorry if my comment pissed any of you guys off! It wasnt meant too...

[hi13ts]

My, my, it seems as though everyone is a McCartney fan here. I'm happy to say that I am too. McCartney is definately the best musician in the Beatles, and he was also the "hit-writer". John's songs were more sophisticated and appreciated by music aficianados and the progressive scene. I didn't really think much of George until he formed the Traveling Wilburys with other super musicians.

[NeoConMan]

McCartney fan here.

All my favorite Beatles songs were pretty much his, and his solo work was awesome with Wings.

Lennon was an idealist hippie agitator who smoked too much dope - surrounded by syncophants.

 

Lennon - "I just took a sh!t, look at this..."

Lennon's crowd of hangers-on - "That's BEAUTIFUL! Let's put it in an exhibit with Yoko's masterpieces!"

 

Of course I exaggerate, but that was always my impression and he did nothing to invalidate it.

I have absolutely no Lennon music in my house.

 

A very good friend of mine disagrees.

He has literally thousands of dollars of nice Lennon memorabilia, and will never give McCartney his due.

 

To each their own.

 

I'll qualify this by saying McCartney hasn't put out a decent song in over twenty years either.

Sad, for a man of his talent.

[deepblue]

I honestly think that every artist has only so many rabbits to pull out of his/her hat.

Once the ideas start to get stale its time to pack it in. The Beatles called it quits at the perfect time.

 

I feel if a guy like Hendrix were still alive, hed be an old time novelties act. Hed have dried up long ago.

The reason hes a legend is because he died in his prime.

Look at Clapton.....Hed be the first to admit that his chops just arent there anymore.

I saw him a few years back in Toronto...Tired old slowhand getting slower.

I still respect him for what he has done for the blues and rock n roll, but hes lost the touch.

[cookieman15061]

My' date=' my, it seems as though everyone is a McCartney fan here. I'm happy to say that I am too. McCartney is definately the best musician in the Beatles, and he was also the "hit-writer". John's songs were more sophisticated and appreciated by music aficianados and the progressive scene. I didn't really think much of George until he formed the Traveling Wilburys with other super musicians. [/quote']

 

please please me, hard days night, help, ticket to ride, I feel fine, nowhere man, strawberry fields, all you need is love, revolution = all hits, all John. Both could right a great song when inspired and both were/are more gifted than all of us.

[TommyK]

Not sure you can tell, since most everything they wrote was attributed to "Lennon / McCartney", per agreement in the early days of "The Beatles".

[deepblue]

Not sure you can tell' date=' since most everything they wrote was attributed to "Lennon / McCartney", per agreement in the early days of "The Beatles".[/quote']

 

Its well documented who wrote what. I think they just kept it Lennon/McCartney for old time sake.

[Thundergod]

Wasnt it then changed to McCartney/Lennon?

[Thundergod]

Lennon was an idealist hippie agitator who smoked too much dope - surrounded by syncophants.

 

Lennon - "I just took a sh!t' date=' look at this..."

Lennon's crowd of hangers-on - "That's BEAUTIFUL! Let's put it in an exhibit with Yoko's masterpieces!"

 

[/quote']

 

 

 

Im sorry Lennon fans, but I have to agree 100% with that statement.

[L5Larry]

Wasnt it then changed to McCartney/Lennon?

 

I think Paul tried to have the listing changed on the songs HE wrote, but Yoko struck again and threatened to sue him. I'm not sure how, or if, it all worked out.

 

As difficult as it was for the four Beatles to make business decisions amongst themselves, now Paul and Ringo have to deal with Yoko and Olivia. Actually, it might be easier.

[cookieman15061]

Wasnt it then changed to McCartney/Lennon?

 

 

Never! Yoko won't allow it even on yesterday which is Paul without the other 3 playing at all

[cookieman15061]

 

 

 

Im sorry Lennon fans' date=' but I have to agree 100% with that statement.[/quote']

yeah john was the only one that did that in the 60s and 70s

[cookieman15061]

I'm not in agreement with Lennons politics at all (although I'm all for peace) buts its pretty easy for me to seperate that from his music. The guy wrote In My Life (my all time fav beatle song) and that gets him a free pass in my book.