WildStyle said:

Paul just does not stack up to John vocally. John voice had a personality. It's hard to explain. But it's just more pleasing than Paul's voice.

No. "Good Girl Gone Bad.

DarlingDiana said:

Well to each their own, from a purely technical standpoint I think Paul had more power and range, and I also happen to prefer his voice better.

Perhaps I'm just falling into the same trap that I criticize others for doing, forming my opinion in direct contrast to the norm instead of just blindly conforming, but I just think it's a lazy, easy cliche for people to continually nominate John as the best of the Beatles. John was great, but I think he gets slightly overrated for a couple of reasons:

A.John was more overtly political, and I think generally was the better lyricist (out of John and Paul), therefore it's easier to see him as a "voice of a generation" and all that.

B.John was less commercial than Paul in his solo career so he wasn't seen as as much of a sellout, but he was slightly more commercial than George (up until Cloud 9 that is) so that his work didn't become ignored.

C.John stopped making music in the late 70s when popular music was entering a downward spiral with disco etc. and ALL the other 60s and early 70s artists where beginning to whore out to trends. John stopped releasing music in this era, therefore avoided diluting his legacy.

D.Finally and most obviously, he was the first to die, and therefore of course he's given the most respect because he didn't live past his prime (although I still think he was already slightly past his artistic prime even though Double Fantasy is a mostly great album).

I'm not saying I think Paul was absolutely "better" than John, but I think people forget that A. Paul was the most prolific, at least in the "mature" era of the Beatles B. Paul came up with most of the concept album ideas and was really the most dominant one in the mature era, for better or worse C. Paul was the most skilled multi-instrumentalist D. Paul actually did contribute a lot of the darker and edgier moments to the Beatles music and was far from always just "cute and whimsical"; see Elenor rigby, Helter Skelter, the sound collage in Tommorrow Never Knows, Why Don't We Do It in The Road etc. E.At least for me, Paul was the most melodic and many of the greater "epic" pieces of music the beatles did were all Paul: Hey Jude, You Never Give Me Your Money, the Abbey Road side 2 medley etc.

Yes Paul was less sophisticated a lyricist than John, yes none of his solo albums are quite as good as Plastic Ono Band (although I think Band on The Run is great), and yes he's done some idiotic things like switch the order of their names in the songwriting credits and I think Paul's egomaniacal domineering behavior was perhaps the major reason the Beatles broke up in the first place, but I still think he gets a bad rap and I think overall he and John were equals.

Best? No.
Very good? Yes.

Based on the UK tracklist, Tomorrow Never Knows & And Your Bird Can Sing do it for me.



tA

Tribal Disorder

http://www.soundclick.com...dID=182431

theAudience said:

Amazing how we messed up those early Beatles albums. The US version of Revolver is probably about 25 minutes long!

My feeling is, once you create an album as good as Revolver, there's really no better or worse, just different. There's room for as many albums that good as humanity can create.

But I'd never be able to say with confidence that What's Goin On is better than Revolver or vice versa. They're both masterpieces.

NDRU said:

Agreed.

The Best/Greatest usage is always a no-win scenario with these musical comparisons.


tA

Tribal Disorder

http://www.soundclick.com...dID=182431

theAudience said:

Exactly.

Unless someone has heard every album ever released, who can truly say which is the 'best'?

Personally, I prefer 'Pepper' (baroque, scared of Brian Wilson over-taking them pop), 'Let It Be' (oh yes, I just love the easy-going feel of this one) and 'Abbey Road' (along with Pepper, perhaps the Fabs' greatest gift to Prog) to 'Revolver', tho I do like 'Revolver'.

I DO love 'Tomorrow Never Knows' tho. A truly great track I wish were longer. And the best version of 'Got to Get You Into My Life' is obviously by EWF ).

Now, some random thoughts on the Fab Four -

As to the eternal 'John vs' Paul - Who Was the Best?' debate, I like John but tend to side with Paul. Post Beatles, and for obvious reasons, Paul has imo the deeper, richer solo discography, especially his obscure, ambient electronica album 'The Fireman: Rushes' (think Pink Floyd chillin with the Art of Noise by the river) and some of his classical stuff which is quite good (for a rock star who is not Frank Zappa ). Paul's also released a couple of fine recent albums that imo show he's still got 'it'.

Certain tracks aside (Instant Karma, Cold Turkey, No 9 Dream, Watching the Wheels, Nobody Told Me etc), I've never greatly dug Lennon's solo work; it all seems to lack the colour and madness of some of his best Beatles work; also, it's far too self-obsessed (and Yoko obsessed, but I'm not going into a Yoko debate) and out of touch with the real world he professed to care so much about. Imo he was rather politically naive throughout his career (like most rock stars then), and if you read about his life and his interviews, you end up thinking he had no real, lasting political convictions on anything; all his views on major issues seem to vary, depending on what mood he was in on the day of the interview . Not that substantial a figure other than a general desire for good ol' 'peace n' love' (most of the time, and only including him when he felt like it). But I'm being too harsh on the poor man ... I'll take 'In My Life' every time over the wretched 'Imagine' .

Were he alive today, I can easily imagine him havin a 'LennonBlog' and ranting about all the world's problems in a fairly simplistic, if entertaining way. And, to enter my Beatles alternate reality, had John lived on, imo, he and other Beatles would have reunited for a new (if disappointing) album (it would've been the Beatles, not Led Zeppelin, who were rubbish at Live Aid tho hopefully still with Ringo, not Phil Collins on drums), Lennon would have had a creative renaissance in the '90s and he wouldn't be married to Yoko by now.

Vocally, I'd say Lennon and McCartney were equal and I love to hear their Beatle harmonies, which are unique. On balance, I'd say John, was the better rock n' roll singer (one of the best rock 'screamers') Lyrically, I generally prefer Paul, as I like 'story songs' like 'She's Leaving Home', 'Fool on the Hill' etc, and the nice, thoughtful touches of apparent autobiographical colour in some of his recent songs.

Mind you, imo 'Strawberry Fields Forever' and 'Walrus' were probably the best things the Beatles ever did, so, like Lennon, I'll be contrary to the end.

And who remembers the great 'God, the Beatles were SO funky thread'? Those were the days ...

Great points, Miles. I generally side w/John, but can't really argue with any of what you said.

No.

novabrkr said:

I'm gonna say yes.
Just cuz I like guns 'n' shit.