Cowfingers Posted July 5, 2001 Share Posted July 5, 2001 its probably been asked a thousand times but on solo careers do you think lennon or mccartney produced better music? personally i think Pauls stuff pips it, though neither is a fraction on any beatles at all. Flaming Pie is ok though. -starfucker Visit my band : www.neonfleacircus.net or www.myspace.com/neonfleacircus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m2 Posted July 5, 2001 Share Posted July 5, 2001 Well John Lennon is the greatest of all time. And he had a way of making himself seem more heavy and more like an artist. Paul doesn't really have heavy stuff like "God", but I think his heaviness is more abstract and musical. He's put out a lot more, so there's more room for not so great stuff. But take a song like Uncle Albert. May seem like silly fruity song, but it's really interesting, the odd lyric, and the way he put together so many different musical bits like an abstract painting, and yet so accessible and tuneful. And, it was a hit! It's amazing to me that something like that could get in the top ten. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stanner Posted July 5, 2001 Share Posted July 5, 2001 "ringow-wea all out of 'naragansett'"! AMPSSOUNDBETTERLOUDER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tedster Posted July 5, 2001 Share Posted July 5, 2001 To me, the whole was greater than the sum of the parts...er, did I say that right? Well, they provided just enough temperament when they were together to soften each of the other's idiosyncrasies...but yet allow just enough to get through. Lennon at his most self indulgent tended to produce music that came across as just a bit angry (which is fine, but not necessarily all the time)...and McCartney way too sentimental or silly. I think someone else summed it up by saying their best stuff was written when each was trying to outdo the other. Checks and balances worked well there... "Cisco Kid, was a friend of mine" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calfee Jones Posted July 5, 2001 Share Posted July 5, 2001 Through the 70's and 80's it was always the hip view that Lennon was the "deep" one and McCartney was the "fluffy" one. But recently I have listened again to some of the late Beatles stuff and then solo albums, and I think McCartney deserves more credit than he's received. Some of his musical stuff is very creative and his use of themes both in music and lyrics is underrated, IMHO. - Calfee Jones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAZZ Posted July 5, 2001 Share Posted July 5, 2001 Lennon was THE MAN but, in addition to "Uncle Albert", listen to the BASS in PENNY LANE!!!!!!! http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/cool.gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
- Posted July 5, 2001 Share Posted July 5, 2001 I don't think there will ever be a definitive answer on this. Both Lennon and McCartney did incredibly brilliant and incredibly annoying things on their post-Beatles solo albums. Kind of like what Tedster said... Each of them were best when the other was there to balance the other person's musicially/artistically undesirable tendencies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chedrob Posted July 5, 2001 Share Posted July 5, 2001 I always thought of John Lennon as an artist and Paul McCartney as a musician. Lennon once said that McCartney wrote "songs about nothing" - but they were great songs. When they were together and put out a new album, McCartney would grab you with the snappy little pop tunes and, as you listened more, Lennon would solidify the hold with the depth of his material. It must have been a challenge for either one of them to keep up with the other. And then there was George Harrison - he had to become a great songwriter overnight just to be in the same band. It would be difficult for anyone to be compared to Lennon or McCartney as a songwriter And, I suppose for them, it is a comparison that will go on forever. They are both great "in their own write". Charley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tedster Posted July 5, 2001 Share Posted July 5, 2001 Yeah, Charlie... But Lennon had his share of snappy pop tunes. Although his mid to late Beatles stuff, as well as his early solo stuff, tended to be more cerebral, his later solo stuff ("Double Fantasy" for instance) and his early Beatles work (too numerous to mention) were overflowing with snappy pop tunes. The argument may go on forever about who was the better songwriter, but for me...Lennon/McCartney was "a better songwriter" than either Lennon or McCartney...for the most part. But, ultimately, I'll just put in a CD and enjoy it. And, BTW, Harrison's writing didn't exactly evolve overnight. It took him years. He was constantly thwarted in his efforts to get his songs on Beatles albums. He had some clunkers, or near clunkers, IMHO, but, they did evolve into some masterful moments. From an interview, "All Things Must Pass" was a collection of songs that should have been on Beatles albums, for a good part, but they were shot down by the other two. "Cisco Kid, was a friend of mine" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Botch. Posted July 5, 2001 Share Posted July 5, 2001 Tedster mentioned "checks and balances"; I've really taken an interest in seeing the individual outputs of duos that have gone their separate ways. Lennon could write the deep lyric, Paul the indelible melody. Donald Fagan's first solo album had the same wonderful jazz chords, but the acidic cynical lyrics were nowhere to be found until Walter Becker released "11 Tracks of Whack". Paul Simon's wonderful lyricism is always there on his solo records, but I miss that angelic tenor of Art Garfunkle. Don Henley's/Glen Fry's solo works are another example. Botch "Eccentric language often is symptomatic of peculiar thinking" - George Will www.puddlestone.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chedrob Posted July 5, 2001 Share Posted July 5, 2001 I aggree Tedster. Some of the great qualities of one were overshadowed by the other. McCartney has a "gift" for melody and Lennon wrote "songs the world will sing". They were different in their approaches, although there was a great deal of overlap, so I don't think we can say one was better than the other. I was reading something about John Lennon where he talked about his baby boomer audience. He said they were changing like he was changing and he was singing about his life - so it was like a conversation with his peers. He noted that at whatever stage he was at in his life, he had this huge audience moving along with him. He could say things (in song) like "this is how my relationship is going - how about yours" or, in the early days "these are my surrealistic experiences - what is it that you are doing?" I often wonder what he would be singing about now. Paul McCartney doesn't strike me as being quite that deep but when I watched a TV show about Wings a few weeks ago, I realized just how much impact those songs had on me. I could sing along with every one of them. He wrote great songs and, if all they are is songs, then that itself is a brilliant accomplishment. Charley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hippie Posted July 6, 2001 Share Posted July 6, 2001 I recently picked up "Wingspan", (Wings greatest hits), all remastered and all, it sounds great. It has a few heavies on there that may change the opinion of Paul being a "soppy balladeer". In two days, it won't matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m2 Posted July 6, 2001 Share Posted July 6, 2001 Maybe they were better when they were working together and trying to outdo each other. I think they still were trying to outdo each other, maybe more so, after they broke up. But on the other hand, they had to follow The Beatles, come up with a whole albums worth of material instead of just 5 or 6 songs, plus they had to sort of reinvent themselves, and not just redo Beatley stuff. I think a lot of their solo stuff is as good as The Beatles. If you put together the best songs from each of their first solo albums (George and Ringo, too), I think you'd have a fantastic Beatle album. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonafide Posted July 6, 2001 Share Posted July 6, 2001 I too saw the program about Paul, Linda and Wings. what a Journey!! It really gave me a new perspective into the Songs of Wings and how they came about. Certainly not an easy road for Paul and family. They showed him recording alot his ideas on 4 track, just overdubbing away. I have to laugh about it seeing all the creativity coming out of one man and what he was doing with just a 4 track. Straight into the deck!! I think Paul was certainly as deep as John, just not in such an obvious or profound way. Not as direct. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chip McDonald Posted July 6, 2001 Share Posted July 6, 2001 I loved Lennon's contributions to the music world, but McCartney's music seems more the Real Deal to me. McCartney's songs wit Wings - each one has that clever twist to it that's genius, if only the bass line. As far as being sappy is concerned - "Silly Love Songs" has some of the best and most genius bass playing in it, ever.... A great study of maturity and style, subtlety of genius. "My Love" - the major 7th that introduces the verse at the intro is brilliant, opening with that resolving vibe... leading into a brilliant diatonic progression incorporating (again) a wonderful bass line that ties the melodic contour together. Nothing "fancy", just genius whose antecedents are extreamly well concealed. The rawness of Lennon's stuff fit his mood perfectly, but it was a different thing than McCartney: much more traditonal R&R based. But then, out of blue comes "Imagine", or the brilliant inverted progression of "Free as a Bird", replete with genius modulations... great contrast to the the straight rock and roll of things like "The Ballad of John and Yoko". Both are genius, but I think Lennon had the edge lyrically and McCartney the musical edge. Which I think seperates the two's approach - I think McCartney probably comes up with a Typically Brilliant McCartney melody and thinks "that's good, I ah't to use that bit" where as Lennon probably came up with a Typically Brilliant Lennon line and thought "that's good, I think I'll make a song around that". They both have the excess headroom songwriting-horsepower wise that the end result is Great regardless of the initial impetus.... Man, it almost hurts to think about HOW MUCH great stuff they made/make. Definitely on the Bach/Beethoven/Mozart/Hendrix/Coltrane level. ------------------ New and Improved Music Soon: http://www.mp3.com/chipmcdonald Guitar Lessons in Augusta Georgia: www.chipmcdonald.com Eccentric blog: https://chipmcdonaldblog.blogspot.com/ / "big ass windbag" - Bruce Swedien Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chedrob Posted July 6, 2001 Share Posted July 6, 2001 Chip I like what you said about McCartney starting with the melody and Lennon starting with the lyrics. I notice Paul's melodies move around a lot - maybe even over a single chord "can you take me back where I came from, can you take me back". A lot of John's melodies are almost monotone with the chords changing behind them - Help, Lucy in the Sky, Julia etc. Charley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
- Posted July 6, 2001 Share Posted July 6, 2001 Originally posted by Chip McDonald: As far as being sappy is concerned - "Silly Love Songs" has some of the best and most genius bass playing in it, ever.... Has anybody here ever heard the Red House Painters version of "Silly Love Songs"? They kinda sucked out all the sappy stuff and turned it into something very different (not necessarily better, just different)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip OKeefe Posted July 6, 2001 Share Posted July 6, 2001 Originally posted by Calfee Jones: Through the 70's and 80's it was always the hip view that Lennon was the "deep" one and McCartney was the "fluffy" one. But recently I have listened again to some of the late Beatles stuff and then solo albums, and I think McCartney deserves more credit than he's received. Some of his musical stuff is very creative and his use of themes both in music and lyrics is underrated, IMHO. I agree with ya here. McCartney will get more credit when he's passed on... until then it's going to be unbalanced towards Lennon due to the circumstances of his tragic demise. And while I think Lennon was a genius, Macca is IMO a better musician and the equal as a writer overall. I'd also agree with the posts that state that they were at their best when they were pushing and competing with each other. Phil O'Keefe Sound Sanctuary Recording Riverside CA http://members.aol.com/ssanctuary/index.html pokeefe777@msn.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tedster Posted July 6, 2001 Share Posted July 6, 2001 Perhaps the Gilbert and Sullivan of our age...the mid to late 20th century. Gilbert and Sullivan had similar problems back in their day. They worked extremely well together, but fought a lot, broke up, and ended up writing separately. I believe one died well before the other in that partnership as well. However, history doesn't hand us much "Gilbert" stuff or "Sullivan" stuff, it hands us "Gilbert and Sullivan". The thing that totally amazes me is how a chance meeting at a church picnic of two random teenagers could trigger the whole Beatles thing. What were the odds of that happening, of two such talented minds meeting?? "Cisco Kid, was a friend of mine" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KJ Posted July 6, 2001 Share Posted July 6, 2001 I see the references to "Silly Love Songs" as being sappy, but I think people are missing the point. Paul was going for irony by making the song sappy. There was a virtual battle going on between Paul and John after the Beatles that included songs directed toward one another. "How Do You Sleep" by John being most notable. John himself derided Paul for his songs being sappy and shallow. "Silly Love Songs" was Paul's reply to John and his detractors and a brilliant argument in favor of pop songs. "Some people want to fill the world with silly love songs/ what's wrong with that, I'd like to know/ 'cause here I go again" It's like he's presenting an argument and proving his case. And the bass line... MY GOD what a work of genius! Paul shows that he is a true communicant of the Church of Jamerson. One of the first CD's I ever bought was "All The Best" and was blown away hearing "Silly Love Songs" after years of only hearing it on transistor AM radios and monaural phonograph players (remember those?) Lennon seemed to catch up to where Paul was coming from at the end. After years of being the rebel and trying to change the world (very noble causes) he had an epiphany after having his second son and staying home to raise him. He still wanted to change the world, but he realized that there was more to life than that and reflected it in his songs like "Nobody Told Me" and the brilliant "Watching the Wheels" which kind of updates "Revolution". John knew to change the world you had to start with yourself. Anyways, I'm rambling quite a bit, I missed most of John's work because I was just coming of age when he was murdered (13) and had grown up listening to AM radio, which played alot of Paul McCartney and pre-psychedelic Beatles, so I always appreciated Paul more, plus I play bass. I have to agree that both were geniuses and there best work was probably a result of their push-pull relationship with George Martin refereeing. ------------------ KJ ------------------- bari man low KJ ------------------- "50 million Elvis Presley fans can't be all wrong" - John Prine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.