Lennon or McCartney

[Mutant Rose]

Lennon if thats your cup of tea.

Paul is more of an ignorant mans music, often simple.

His new song makes me upset.

Lennon is a deeper man, his songs probably not as catchy or fun as Paul's but still i'd rather listen to "Working Class Hero" long before i listen to that new song where Paul walks through a house playing that goofy guitar with the ghosts running around.

I think maybe you have to have reached a certain age and or lived through a certain amount of stuff to like that "goofy guitar" Life isn't always serious, if often doesn't even make any bloody sese, but it is quite often beautiful in its own complicated screwed up kinda way. Perhaps Lennons great gift was showing us the beauty in the seriousness that the world had to offer and Puls gift the beauty in the common simple everyday moments.

[to the moon]

\Perhaps Lennons great gift was showing us the beauty in the seriousness that the world had to offer and Puls gift the beauty in the common simple everyday moments.

Very well put. And thats why they were great together.

Its a biased question, just because I absolutly love Lennon. Always have, always will.

I just feel like I think you said, if Lennon had made nearly the same amount of music as Paul and could still make today, theres no doubt in my mind this is a no brainer.

http://www.oldielyrics.com/p/paul_mccartney.html thats pauls list

http://www.oldielyrics.com/j/john_lennon.html johns

Imagine has to be one of the best ideas ever concieved just as a thought. Thats what I look for in my music.

Music like Pauls is needed in this world. I do not deny that. But whose better, I just think John was.

"Give Peace a Chance"

"Imagine"

"Jealous Guy"

"Watching the Wheels"

Those are just my kind of songs.

Although I do love

"Maybe I'm Amazed" I think thats one of the best love songs ever written.

But I never liked "Live and Let Die" I think thats a dumb song

Edited July 4, 2007 by to the moon

[Guest Ohdistortedsmile1789]

I tend to prefer Paul's songs.

[pain cake]

Lennon in his solo career created 2 of the undeniably greatest songs ever - Imagine and War is Over. War is over is about as widely played as White Christmas, sure it's not Lennon's version but it's Lennon. McCartney never created anything of that magnitude.

Edited July 4, 2007 by pain cake

[duff_mckagan21]

Paul McCartney.

duff21

[Bucketslash]

Lennon if thats your cup of tea.

Paul is more of an ignorant mans music, often simple.

His new song makes me upset.

Lennon is a deeper man, his songs probably not as catchy or fun as Paul's but still i'd rather listen to "Working Class Hero" long before i listen to that new song where Paul walks through a house playing that goofy guitar with the ghosts running around.

I'd like to challenge everyone who says imagine is the deepest song ever.....

reality check, Lennon, when he wrote that, WAS A MILLIONAIRE, even by those days standards, which is even more now. Fur coats and extra houses, if he really wanted to, he could've given many many millions to charities(ateast more than he ever gave) and still lived his lavish lifestyle.

And working class hero?Make me laugh, lennon hadn't been working class for 10+ years, he was farrrr out of touch with any idea of being a first hand working class hero

Paul wrote about what came rom his heart: Linda, Ireland(he lived, at the time there), comic books, the beatles break up(least he was subtle), even his jeep that he went cruising in.

[Kill_YourIdols]

i'll go with lennon

[JeanGenie]

Lennon if thats your cup of tea.

Paul is more of an ignorant mans music, often simple.

His new song makes me upset.

Lennon is a deeper man, his songs probably not as catchy or fun as Paul's but still i'd rather listen to "Working Class Hero" long before i listen to that new song where Paul walks through a house playing that goofy guitar with the ghosts running around.

are you for real? Maccas music is way more complex than Lennons. Lennon was limited to blues. his musical range wasn't exactly spread widely.

Edited July 4, 2007 by JeanGenie

[to the moon]

Lennon if thats your cup of tea.

Paul is more of an ignorant mans music, often simple.

His new song makes me upset.

Lennon is a deeper man, his songs probably not as catchy or fun as Paul's but still i'd rather listen to "Working Class Hero" long before i listen to that new song where Paul walks through a house playing that goofy guitar with the ghosts running around.

I'd like to challenge everyone who says imagine is the deepest song ever.....

reality check, Lennon, when he wrote that, WAS A MILLIONAIRE, even by those days standards, which is even more now. Fur coats and extra houses, if he really wanted to, he could've given many many millions to charities(ateast more than he ever gave) and still lived his lavish lifestyle.

And working class hero?Make me laugh, lennon hadn't been working class for 10+ years, he was farrrr out of touch with any idea of being a first hand working class hero

Paul wrote about what came rom his heart: Linda, Ireland(he lived, at the time there), comic books, the beatles break up(least he was subtle), even his jeep that he went cruising in.

Just because he was rich doesnt mean he didnt mean those songs. He is one of the all time biggest anti-war activest ever. They tried to deport him because of this. Your going to tell me "Give Peace a Chance" doesnt mean anything to him? He didnt come up with the idea of this song from his heart? Or "Beautiful Boy" that didnt come from his heart and soul either?

And working class hero isnt even all about being a working class hero. Its about alienation, and religion and how it can be bad.

And Imagine, you say he could of given more money to charitys and stuff (and i have absolutley not idea if he ever gave money) but the song isnt saying im going to give all my possesions up, so I can live better. Just read the name of the song. IMAGINE. Its just saying just IMAGINE if this would ever happen, because it NEVER will, but if it did it would be amazing.

You obviously know nothing of what John Lennon was even about, so I dont know why you would just hate on him for that. Its stupid for you to say what you said.

Paul did come from the heart. But John did too just as much. They just have different hearts.

My favorite Lennon clip to watch

Edited July 5, 2007 by to the moon

[IzzySixx]

mccartney is a better musician, lennon is a better songwriter.

plus mccartney was in wings...

[pain cake]

McCartney wrote the filler and the songs that made the albums good, Lennon wrote what made the albums great.

[ffrankwhite]

McCartney wrote the filler and the songs that made the albums good, Lennon wrote what made the albums great.

yeah, filler like yesterday, hey jude, two of us, fool on the hill, blackbird, back in the ussr. you gotta remember, even put to like the last two albums, the beatles repertoire was a collaborative effort. by boths admission pretty much a 50/50 thing.

[Chris Axl]

McCartney wrote the filler and the songs that made the albums good, Lennon wrote what made the albums great.

yeah, filler like yesterday, hey jude, two of us, fool on the hill, blackbird, back in the ussr. you gotta remember, even put to like the last two albums, the beatles repertoire was a collaborative effort. by boths admission pretty much a 50/50 thing.

jup, 50/50

cant belive you said Paul wrote the fillers!

[Zint]

Lennon if thats your cup of tea.

Paul is more of an ignorant mans music, often simple.

His new song makes me upset.

Lennon is a deeper man, his songs probably not as catchy or fun as Paul's but still i'd rather listen to "Working Class Hero" long before i listen to that new song where Paul walks through a house playing that goofy guitar with the ghosts running around.

are you for real? Maccas music is way more complex than Lennons. Lennon was limited to blues. his musical range wasn't exactly spread widely.

Yeah...Beautiful Boy,Imagine,Norwegian Wood (to name but a few) are just dripping the blues.

[JAC185]

i think its a case of Pauls whimsy is really cool in the context of the beatles because it adds light to Lennons seriousness. when seperated, seriousness can stand on it own, but whimsy starts to sound....flimsy to some.

You've pretty much nailed my views there Frank.

Paul's got great album songs. Perfect pop songs in some contexts. John seems to have just perfect all round songs in any contexts (for me, obviously) so this puts him slightly aheead in my books.

[UYIllusion]

McCartney wrote the filler and the songs that made the albums good, Lennon wrote what made the albums great.

yeah, filler like yesterday, hey jude, two of us, fool on the hill, blackbird, back in the ussr. you gotta remember, even put to like the last two albums, the beatles repertoire was a collaborative effort. by boths admission pretty much a 50/50 thing.

As much as I prefer Lennon over McCartney and really do not like any McCartney solo material, I would not call his Beatles material "filler".

[pain cake]

McCartney wrote the filler and the songs that made the albums good, Lennon wrote what made the albums great.

yeah, filler like yesterday, hey jude, two of us, fool on the hill, blackbird, back in the ussr. you gotta remember, even put to like the last two albums, the beatles repertoire was a collaborative effort. by boths admission pretty much a 50/50 thing.

As much as I prefer Lennon over McCartney and really do not like any McCartney solo material, I would not call his Beatles material "filler".

Allow me to explain myself, for example: Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band - McCartney's tracks like Sgt. Peppers, With a little help from my friends (Lennon and McCartney Collaboration that one) and When I'm Sixty-Four would alone make that a really good album, and also theres the songs that are nothing special like Fixing a Hole, Getting Better, She's Leaving Home and Lovely Rita. Then Lennon just kicked that album in the ass with Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite! Good Morning Good Morning and A Day in the Life. Thus when I said McCartney made albums good, but Lennon made them great.

Edited July 5, 2007 by pain cake

[ffrankwhite]

McCartney wrote the filler and the songs that made the albums good, Lennon wrote what made the albums great.

yeah, filler like yesterday, hey jude, two of us, fool on the hill, blackbird, back in the ussr. you gotta remember, even put to like the last two albums, the beatles repertoire was a collaborative effort. by boths admission pretty much a 50/50 thing.

As much as I prefer Lennon over McCartney and really do not like any McCartney solo material, I would not call his Beatles material "filler".

Allow me to explain myself, for example: Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band - McCartney's tracks like Sgt. Peppers, With a little help from my friends (Lennon and McCartney Collaboration that one) and When I'm Sixty-Four would alone make that a really good album, and also theres the songs that are nothing special like Fixing a Hole, Getting Better, She's Leaving Home and Lovely Rita. Then Lennon just kicked that album in the ass with Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite! Good Morning Good Morning and A Day in the Life. Thus when I said McCartney made albums good, but Lennon made them great.

see this is where you start to make to make a little less sense. where is the big difference in When I'm Sixty Four and Being For The Benefit Of Mr Kite? they both whimsical little no-meaning novelty tracks. the only difference really is the ingenuity musically the Mr Kite which was as a result of MCcartney and his involvement with Brian Gysion and William S Burroughs which prompted the beatles to utlise the "cut ups" technique popularised by the aforesaid artists. what makes Sgt Peppers less intelligent than say Lucy In The Sky? Sgt Peppers is actually more intelligent because there is a concept behind it whereas Lucy is just the exercising of intelligent wordplay on Johns part, very artistic, very imaginative but not a lot more than wordplay. A Day In The Life was about 60/40 Lennon anyway so accrediting that to him is unfair. Lennon did it the i read the news today verse and the i saw a film today and MCcartney did the post crescendo "woke up, got outta bed".and the songs you deem as "nothing special" are like the stand out tracks dude!!!!! Fixing A Hole? fuck me!!!! in how many ways is that brilliant and karmic and complete? She's Leaving Home, again, fucking brilliant!!! it such a sad touch, i think in many ways sadder than A Day In The Life, Getting Better is incredible, upbeat, a necessity among this bunch, a rockier upbeatness so as to not totally unbalance the album thematically, if any tracks were fodder on here it'd be good morning good morning which lennon wrote off the back of a cornflakes commercial and Lovely Rita which Paul wrote about the concept of parking meter maids, so thats one each. i think they BOTH made them great and Mccartney suffers a lot from a lot of people who take the face value thing that is popularly propagated that Lennon was the deep acerbic witted poet and Mccartney was the happy go lucky whimsical pretty boy with the knack of melody.

and the funniest part of ALL is, thats the exact image the british media pushed through the movie A Hard Days Night, i find it positively rib shattering that people are subscribing to these clever little imposed images to this day. they say record companies are bastards, what do you expect from them if you respond like you do? they're applying that same formula to boybands to this day because they know people eat them up, the smart edgy booky one, the pretty hey lets party have fun one, the loveable one, the moody one, ooooooh

[pain cake]

McCartney wrote the filler and the songs that made the albums good, Lennon wrote what made the albums great.

yeah, filler like yesterday, hey jude, two of us, fool on the hill, blackbird, back in the ussr. you gotta remember, even put to like the last two albums, the beatles repertoire was a collaborative effort. by boths admission pretty much a 50/50 thing.

As much as I prefer Lennon over McCartney and really do not like any McCartney solo material, I would not call his Beatles material "filler".

Allow me to explain myself, for example: Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band - McCartney's tracks like Sgt. Peppers, With a little help from my friends (Lennon and McCartney Collaboration that one) and When I'm Sixty-Four would alone make that a really good album, and also theres the songs that are nothing special like Fixing a Hole, Getting Better, She's Leaving Home and Lovely Rita. Then Lennon just kicked that album in the ass with Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite! Good Morning Good Morning and A Day in the Life. Thus when I said McCartney made albums good, but Lennon made them great.

see this is where you start to make to make a little less sense. where is the big difference in When I'm Sixty Four and Being For The Benefit Of Mr Kite? they both whimsical little no-meaning novelty tracks. the only difference really is the ingenuity musically the Mr Kite which was as a result of MCcartney and his involvement with Brian Gysion and William S Burroughs which prompted the beatles to utlise the "cut ups" technique popularised by the aforesaid artists. what makes Sgt Peppers less intelligent than say Lucy In The Sky? Sgt Peppers is actually more intelligent because there is a concept behind it whereas Lucy is just the exercising of intelligent wordplay on Johns part, very artistic, very imaginative but not a lot more than wordplay. A Day In The Life was about 60/40 Lennon anyway so accrediting that to him is unfair. Lennon did it the i read the news today verse and the i saw a film today and MCcartney did the post crescendo "woke up, got outta bed".and the songs you deem as "nothing special" are like the stand out tracks dude!!!!! Fixing A Hole? fuck me!!!! in how many ways is that brilliant and karmic and complete? She's Leaving Home, again, fucking brilliant!!! it such a sad touch, i think in many ways sadder than A Day In The Life, Getting Better is incredible, upbeat, a necessity among this bunch, a rockier upbeatness so as to not totally unbalance the album thematically, if any tracks were fodder on here it'd be good morning good morning which lennon wrote off the back of a cornflakes commercial and Lovely Rita which Paul wrote about the concept of parking meter maids, so thats one each. i think they BOTH made them great and Mccartney suffers a lot from a lot of people who take the face value thing that is popularly propagated that Lennon was the deep acerbic witted poet and Mccartney was the happy go lucky whimsical pretty boy with the knack of melody.

and the funniest part of ALL is, thats the exact image the british media pushed through the movie A Hard Days Night, i find it positively rib shattering that people are subscribing to these clever little imposed images to this day. they say record companies are bastards, what do you expect from them if you respond like you do? they're applying that same formula to boybands to this day because they know people eat them up, the smart edgy booky one, the pretty hey lets party have fun one, the loveable one, the moody one, ooooooh

You're obviously a smart, very literary guy, but I think you're overanalysing this a little. I don't make my opinion on a song according it's circumstances of beginning or original concept, I make it on how good the song is. The stand out tracks IMO on that album are Sgt. Peppers, With a Little Help from My Friends, Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds and A Day in the Life, where as there are 2 songs that IMO are complete garbage; Lovely Rita and She's leaving home (both McCartney songs), so as any conscious music lover I consider it filler. And that's my logic behind my statement about McCartney making the filler, cause there isn't one song that doesn't appeal to me that Lennon sang and wrote, where as there are plenty that McCartney did.

[ffrankwhite]

McCartney wrote the filler and the songs that made the albums good, Lennon wrote what made the albums great.

yeah, filler like yesterday, hey jude, two of us, fool on the hill, blackbird, back in the ussr. you gotta remember, even put to like the last two albums, the beatles repertoire was a collaborative effort. by boths admission pretty much a 50/50 thing.

As much as I prefer Lennon over McCartney and really do not like any McCartney solo material, I would not call his Beatles material "filler".

Allow me to explain myself, for example: Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band - McCartney's tracks like Sgt. Peppers, With a little help from my friends (Lennon and McCartney Collaboration that one) and When I'm Sixty-Four would alone make that a really good album, and also theres the songs that are nothing special like Fixing a Hole, Getting Better, She's Leaving Home and Lovely Rita. Then Lennon just kicked that album in the ass with Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite! Good Morning Good Morning and A Day in the Life. Thus when I said McCartney made albums good, but Lennon made them great.

see this is where you start to make to make a little less sense. where is the big difference in When I'm Sixty Four and Being For The Benefit Of Mr Kite? they both whimsical little no-meaning novelty tracks. the only difference really is the ingenuity musically the Mr Kite which was as a result of MCcartney and his involvement with Brian Gysion and William S Burroughs which prompted the beatles to utlise the "cut ups" technique popularised by the aforesaid artists. what makes Sgt Peppers less intelligent than say Lucy In The Sky? Sgt Peppers is actually more intelligent because there is a concept behind it whereas Lucy is just the exercising of intelligent wordplay on Johns part, very artistic, very imaginative but not a lot more than wordplay. A Day In The Life was about 60/40 Lennon anyway so accrediting that to him is unfair. Lennon did it the i read the news today verse and the i saw a film today and MCcartney did the post crescendo "woke up, got outta bed".and the songs you deem as "nothing special" are like the stand out tracks dude!!!!! Fixing A Hole? fuck me!!!! in how many ways is that brilliant and karmic and complete? She's Leaving Home, again, fucking brilliant!!! it such a sad touch, i think in many ways sadder than A Day In The Life, Getting Better is incredible, upbeat, a necessity among this bunch, a rockier upbeatness so as to not totally unbalance the album thematically, if any tracks were fodder on here it'd be good morning good morning which lennon wrote off the back of a cornflakes commercial and Lovely Rita which Paul wrote about the concept of parking meter maids, so thats one each. i think they BOTH made them great and Mccartney suffers a lot from a lot of people who take the face value thing that is popularly propagated that Lennon was the deep acerbic witted poet and Mccartney was the happy go lucky whimsical pretty boy with the knack of melody.

and the funniest part of ALL is, thats the exact image the british media pushed through the movie A Hard Days Night, i find it positively rib shattering that people are subscribing to these clever little imposed images to this day. they say record companies are bastards, what do you expect from them if you respond like you do? they're applying that same formula to boybands to this day because they know people eat them up, the smart edgy booky one, the pretty hey lets party have fun one, the loveable one, the moody one, ooooooh

You're obviously a smart, very literary guy, but I think you're overanalysing this a little. I don't make my opinion on a song according it's circumstances of beginning or original concept, I make it on how good the song is. The stand out tracks IMO on that album are Sgt. Peppers, With a Little Help from My Friends, Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds and A Day in the Life, where as there are 2 songs that IMO are complete garbage; Lovely Rita and She's leaving home (both McCartney songs), so as any conscious music lover I consider it filler. And that's my logic behind my statement about McCartney making the filler, cause there isn't one song that doesn't appeal to me that Lennon sang and wrote, where as there are plenty that McCartney did.

i guess it boils down to a preference thing and if you dont like Rita on a let go and rock level (despite the presence of these really smart little jibes in there) thats cool but really, dude, i beg of you, to consider She's Leaving Home one last time and try and understand a little context here. this song is so beautifully wonderfully original and chock-full of insight and perspective i feel it'd be a disservice on my part to the song to not elaborate a little. OK, we're talking love generation here, everyones all off on "tune in, drop out" the whole timothy leary trip, ok, kids, a VAST cross-section of a generation leaving to go live in the Haight or drop out on acid on command of these cultural drivers like the beatles or tim leary or jerry rubin or whoever ok but, point being, for the young generation this is all cool and fun and brilliant BUT...no one in the 60s stopped and wrote a song from the grown ups, the adults point of view and Paul did. listen to it, its a song about a girl who leaves home, from the parents perspective, hard working, presumably affluent parents from the lyrics talking about...their confusion basically. they thought they gave her everything but she left, she abandoned them. its so conceptually...perfect i think its one of the best songs on any album ever in so many ways. on the face of it its just a sad song but with every song, it has a context and when understood in that sense, its so beautiful and tragic and almost operatic in a way, in a stripped down way. parents talking about the age old plight of parents where they give their children everything but dont/can't comprehend that its THEIR everything, and their children can see a mile further y'know? a future of their own. only the tragedy is that that mile is just that. only a mile and not a lot further because look at that love generation. it fell apart, it fell apart at altamont, it fell apart when the beatles broke up, it fell apart when jimi janis and jim died, it all collapsed at once. see what that means? in their own way the adults were right and now, with time, its made that song grow more poigniant i think, that these parents work and worry and raise and sweat for their children to leave for dreams that, like all dreams, you soon wake up from. it speaks volumes and its testament to anyone who ever stuck their nose up at a mccartney track dude, i implore you, go back to it, listen to it, it has timeless qualities to it that measure up to the best of music, it REALLY does.

Mccartneys sheer insight, to write a song from that point of view is genius in itself, the point of view (of the parents) that at that point in history, was being marginalised. the tragedy, the eventual ringing true of that point of view and aside from that, just the centuries old confused heartbreak of parents not understanding why their children are different, when they were JUST as different to their own. it speaks of something eternal and conveys it in a graceful and understated way. i think its a perfect song but...opinions are opinions i guess.

[JeanGenie]

Lennon if thats your cup of tea.

Paul is more of an ignorant mans music, often simple.

His new song makes me upset.

Lennon is a deeper man, his songs probably not as catchy or fun as Paul's but still i'd rather listen to "Working Class Hero" long before i listen to that new song where Paul walks through a house playing that goofy guitar with the ghosts running around.

are you for real? Maccas music is way more complex than Lennons. Lennon was limited to blues. his musical range wasn't exactly spread widely.

Yeah...Beautiful Boy,Imagine,Norwegian Wood (to name but a few) are just dripping the blues.

well these are still plain songs man. I really like them but they're not complex or anything. not every song he made was a blues song, but qualitywise he never raised above the level of an ordinary blues song.

[ffrankwhite]

Lennon if thats your cup of tea.

Paul is more of an ignorant mans music, often simple.

His new song makes me upset.

Lennon is a deeper man, his songs probably not as catchy or fun as Paul's but still i'd rather listen to "Working Class Hero" long before i listen to that new song where Paul walks through a house playing that goofy guitar with the ghosts running around.

are you for real? Maccas music is way more complex than Lennons. Lennon was limited to blues. his musical range wasn't exactly spread widely.

Yeah...Beautiful Boy,Imagine,Norwegian Wood (to name but a few) are just dripping the blues.

well these are still plain songs man. I really like them but they're not complex or anything. not every song he made was a blues song, but qualitywise he never raised above the level of an ordinary blues song.

then again, if you've ever subscribed to the notion that music is nothing more than organised noise (which i do because think about it, a certain sequence of sounds in a certain order is music) then Two Virgins is the most experimental album of all time. its sub heading is after all Unfinished Music. hows that for raising the level?

Edited July 6, 2007 by ffrankwhite

[luciusfunk]

I think I prefer John in The Beatles and Paul solo. I'm listening to Sgt. Pepper right now and I love "A Day In The Life".

[GNRrocks3]

I'm probably gonna get shot, but I'm more of a harrison kinda guy......

No matter how good lennon and mccartney's songs were off each album(with the exception of don't bother me), harrison always had the highlights off each album. This is arguable on maybe let it be, (having to take on across the universe and the long and winding road) but otheriswe, on the white album, you can't beat while my guitar gently weeps, savoy truffle, among the rest. Something knocks off all the mccartney/lennon love songs in thier discography, and has the best solo harrison harrison ever played(why?because he didn't have john or paul telling him what to do). Like wise in his solo career, he had the first numberne hit out of all the beatles, had a solo career that wasn't plagued by yoko ono or suffering from weak lyrics(sorry paul, but saying "bip-bop" while origonal, isn't so great in retrospect), he had, All Things Must Pass,a monster of a triple album, (which, when stripped of the phil spector production, is even more of a masterpiece), living in the material world(again, an excellent follow up) a flurry of albums that were never downright aweful(coughwildlifewtfiswrongwithyoupaulcough), and then the killer Cloud 9, with the last #1 hit by a beatle, I Got My Mind Set On You. He had basically the world's first great carity concert, and when his signature slide work was added to "free as a bird" it sounded like a true triumphant return of the masters of music. Now, anyone who wants to argue this with me, first off, compare brainwashed to double fantasy. Or, if you like, nennon's milk and honey. Either way, much better work by harrison.

Now between john and Paul, it's paul.

Paul had, not only a better voice, a better sense of melodicism,(live and let die, carry that weight, jet, even small songs like venus and mars), and when he was into it, wrote better words, (mull of kintire, the long and winding road, too many people, back seat of my car). Paul had Ram, he had mccartney(underrated here), he'd been having a late career renissance(compare lennon's rock n' roll to run devil run, it's an easy win for mccartney), he had a near phenomenon with band on the run. Mull of kintire in and of itself proves paul can be political like lennon. Mccartney was even the bigger man, willing to come to lennon to work first. And again, Mccartney has never been plauged by Yoko Ono("Kiss kiss kiss")

Best Post Ever

I'm a huge Harrison fan myself, he never got the credit he deserved.

As much as I love John, Paul wins it for me.

I've never really gotten into Lennon's solo stuff, and I find Imagine to be overrated.

[JeanGenie]

Lennon if thats your cup of tea.

Paul is more of an ignorant mans music, often simple.

His new song makes me upset.g

Lennon is a deeper man, his songs probably not as catchy or fun as Paul's but still i'd rather listen to "Working Class Hero" long before i listen to that new song where Paul walks through a house playing that goofy guitar with the ghosts running around.

are you for real? Maccas music is way more complex than Lennons. Lennon was limited to blues. his musical range wasn't exactly spread widely.

Yeah...Beautiful Boy,Imagine,Norwegian Wood (to name but a few) are just dripping the blues.

well these are still plain songs man. I really like them but they're not complex or anything. not every song he made was a blues song, but qualitywise he never raised above the level of an ordinary blues song.

then again, if you've ever subscribed to the notion that music is nothing more than organised noise (which i do because think about it, a certain sequence of sounds in a certain order is music) then Two Virgins is the most experimental album of all time. its sub heading is after all Unfinished Music. hows that for raising the level?

I didn't want to point out, that music has to be complex to be good. some fellow forum member said that Macca was writing the simple songs while John was the one who wrote the more advanced song. In fact Lennons songs weren't that complex or anything compared to Macca. I really love Lennons music and even if it's simple that doesn't make the expirience of listening to it less valuable. I was just arguing against the statement " Lennon wrote more complex songs then Macca".