BEATLES!WHO'S THE REAL GENIUS?PAUL OR JOHN?and WHO'S BETTER?

who's the real genius behind beatles's music?and who's better as a musician and vocalist?

i'd say PAUL!he sucks when he went solo,but i believe when he was still in beatles,he's the real genius,not john!paul was the dictator (in a good way) in beatles,he was the leader,not john.

as for better musician and vocalist:
PAUL is a better musician,a multi-instrumentalist.a bassist,a good piano player,a drummer,and a guitar player.while john sucks at his bass playing.(listen to long and winding road)

and PAUL is a better vocalist,he can sing and scream too!

OVERALL:PAUL is better than JOHN....IMO

"it's 2 o'clock in the mornin' and just can't sleep..."

both - they were like the right and left sides of each other's brains.

Anxiety said:

"it's 2 o'clock in the mornin' and just can't sleep..."

Like peanut butter needs jelly.

What about George ?!!!!!
Listen to ''All things must pass""

Here come the sun

It's all too much

Savoy truffle

You probably don't even know those or do you ?
[Edited 9/17/04 23:02pm]

elmariachi said:

You owe me $5. I caught the big fish....again

Ringo.

"Think inside out."

both genius

Anxiety said:

Supernova said:

This must be the oldest debate in pop.
Personally, it's Paul McCartney's voice which makes me feel queasy. To me, the majority of his songs are overtly twee, bland, and when trying too hard (Helter Skelter/Honey Pie) it comes across as counterfeit rock n' roll. It'd blow away in a strong breeze. And don;t start on about those 'walking' basslines...
Lennon was a realist opposed to McCartney's idealism and everyone accepts the friendship as the\most perfect yin/yang ever in popular music. While it lasted (and it's a minor miracle it endured as long as it did) it was beautiful.
Still, I would have absolutely nothing to day to someone who prefers McCartney over John Lennon. Unsavoury of character and a contradictory, cruel bastard he may have been, but he certainly rings a bell inside my twisted psyche.

McCartney. And I'd take his solo work any day over John's solo work- if only for the songs Another Day, Jet, Listen to What the Man Said, Live and Let Die, C Moon, Coming Up, and Goodnight Tonight....

not to mention his handful of great non-singles and b sides

John Lennon? Well, there is Imagine, Instant Karma, Whatever Gets You Through the Night, and a few songs from Double Fantasy... but the quality is somewhat lesser, imo....

I don't think either one of them was "dominant". Clearly, in the early days, John was the acknowledged leader and the dominant personality. Around Revolver it seemed like John was starting to slip. Then with Sgt. Pepper Paul became the dominant one and probably was until the end of the group. Of course John wrote many great songs from '67-'69 but it didn't really seem like all of his attention was on the Beatles. Paul seemed much more dedicated to the group. If you break it down to a song by song comparison I don't think one is better than the other. Both of them wrote many great songs and both had some duds.

Many others have made this observation but I think it is worth repeating. The union of Paul and John was genius. They made each other better. One of them would write a classic and it would push the other to come up with something even better.

Also, I don't think the fact that Paul was a multi-instrumentalist matters at all. Lenny Kravitz is a multi-instrumentalist. Would you call him a genius? Just because you can play different instruments does not mean that you are creative. Look at Bob Dylan. He's not a great musician but he is one of the best songwriters around.

Supernova said:

rialb said:

PANDURITO said:

elmariachi said:

PAUL!he sucks when he went solo

elmariachi

"it's 2 o'clock in the mornin' and just can't sleep..."

to me they were a perfect example of the whole being greater than the sum of the parts. paul would tend towards the more sentimental, pop, john towards a harder edge, more experimental side. john pushed paul, paul anchored john. neither contained the "genius" without the interaction of the other.

medoc2003 said:

medoc2003 said:

The Beatles wouldn't have been anything had they not had each other

That said, I'd take John's solo work over Paul's

Supernova said:

John was the more talented lyricist in my opinion. A real artist's artist, if you will. But I do prefer his Beatles work to his solo stuff in that I love to hear Paul harmonize with him. I like Paul's stuff too, don't get me wrong, but when I make a list of my favorite Beatles' tracks, it is full of John penned and fronted tunes (Across The Universe, A Day In The Life, Girl, Happiness Is A Warm Gun, I Am The Walrus, etc.).

I like Watching The Wheels and Give Peace A Chance, but they don't hold a candle to what those four blokes from Liverpool did as a group.

paul was the work force behind the band john always seemed up 4 a good time
I honestly think that john had the image the voice but not a great deal of talent

george's work like i me mine and here comes the sun,they're great songs.

"it's 2 o'clock in the mornin' and just can't sleep..."

jillybean said: