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

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

Anxiety said:

but also like the brain,there's a side which tend to be more dominateng,whether its the left or the right side.and i'd say the in beatles,the paul's side is more dominating.

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:

elmariachi

Ringo.

both genius

Anxiety said:

I couldn't have said it better myself.
Well that's it for this topic

Next

Supernova said:

I-vo-ry and i-vo-ry, lived together in perfect harmony...

tA

Tribal Disorder

http://www.soundclick.com...rmusic.htm

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:

what a disgusting concoction!

John it is then!

I don't rate McCartney. Some say he died before Lennon, artistically that is. I tend to agree. Has he really done anything of note since the Beatles split? I'm struggling to think of anything!

rialb said:

YEAH BUT REMEMBER THIS PRINCE SITE

THAT MATTER LOT TO SOME PEOPLE

PANDURITO said:

PAUL SUCKS WHEN HE GOES SOLO.learn 2 accept different opinion kid!

PANDURITO

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:

I agree that each needed the other to realize his full genius. But to me John always looked forward while Paul looked backward. Paul's musical achievements such as Penny Lane & Yesterday were innovative for pop music, but they borrowed musically from the past.

John's musical achievments like Happiness is a Warm Gun or I Am the Walrus were not much like any music that anyone had ever heard. They may have lacked some of the beautiful melody of Paul's music, but they were more original. And his basic rock stuff, like the Ballad of John & Yoko or Revolution sounded more raw and convincing than Paul's (Paul was only able to achieve raw with a couple songs, like Helter Skelter, which is about a carnival ride--not too deep). John was able to write pop gems like Come Together, but he was able to get so far out as to write Revolution #9, which Paul never would have dreamt of.

As for solo stuff, John's music was quite stark, where Paul's had a more professional sound. But John had a more urgent message. He was on a mission of peace and self discovery, where Paul was simply trying to write some pretty songs.

To me, John was the greater artist, more fully expressing his soul with each song. Paul's music was a bit more effortless, but like Billy Joel or Elton John, it doesn't amount to that much. Paul might have more songs to sing along to, but he never made an album as compelling as Plastic Ono Band, an album more personal than any until perhaps In Utero almost 25 years later.

I actually think George was more of an artist than Paul as far as self expression & originality goes, though his catalog is just not as great as Paul's.

Still to go back to the first point, They were never as good without each other as they were with each other.

medoc2003 said:

As I was saying....

But you can't honestly say that the second side of Abbey Road wasn't experimental, and it's largely Paul's idea. And Lennon's "Come Together" doesn't cut as deep musically without Paul's slithering bassline. It just doesn't.

Sgt. Peppers was also largely Paul's idea, but Lennon had complaints about both. Not that I dig the latter album so much, but it's acclaim far outpaces any other album in rock history, and by extension some parrots who give it the same lip service seemingly just because it's by the Beatles.

Before anybody tries preaching to me about that album, SHUT UP. I'm well aware of WHY it carries its acclaim, that doesn't automatically make me like it as a whole. That being said, Lennon's "A Day In The Life" is the jewel of that disc.

All of this goes back to what some of us have been saying all along, see medoc2003's quote above.

Number23 said:

Lennon was a realist opposed to McCartney's idealism

Yeah, the lyrics to "Imagine" weren't completely idealistic at all.

`
[Edited 9/19/04 0:25am]

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:

Well...if you see the lyrics as promoting a new world supported Communist values then the picture in his head was pretty realistic, in my humble blah etc.

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.

jillybean said:

Well said.

COSIGN