John

My favourite couple of Beatle songs are from John, but over the body of work, I would says Paul was by far the better overall composer. Paul Wrote killer hooks and his lyrics make far more sense. Most of all, I think Paul shaped the overall output more.

I always think Paul is dismissed too quickly. John almost seems to receive dues simply for being dead or wacky, and Paul is often written off as being the "pop" side. Paul also gave us really important rock concepts like most of Sgt Pepper and the side 2 suite of Abbey Road. Some of Pauls tracks like Hey Jude, and Helter Skelter were also game changers.

On top that, he gave us wonderful tunes like Let It Be, Yesterday, Eleanor Rigby, Get Back, Penny Lane, Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da,Can’t Buy Me Love, Hello, Goodbye, The Long and Winding Road, Paperback Writer, Back in the USSR, Lady Madonna.

Then there is the solo work like Live and Let Die and Jet.

Yoko admitted Pauls ability to write so many good hits wound John up. I would wind anyone up. Paul is arguably the greatest songwriter of a generation.

John tried his hardest in the early years after the Beatles broke up to minimize Paul's contributions to his songwriting. Later on, he admitted that he had continued co-writing songs with Paul until at least the Sgt. Pepper period. Some of my favorite Beatles songs were actually co-written, including "In My Life," which we played at our wedding. I always thought that was purely a John song, but then I read an interview in which John acknowledged that Paul helped with the middle-eight. Paul claims he actually wrote all the music and John wrote the lyrics. We'll never know for sure, since we weren't there, but it would be typical of John to minimize Paul's contribution.

John was an amazing person, a gift to the planet as Stevie Wonder said recently, but Paul is an amazing person too, and as time passes we're going to discover that he's made a lot of great albums over the past few decades (albeit lots of filler as well). Paul doesn't just write silly love songs either. Listen to "Riding to Vanity Fair" on Chaos and Creation in the Backyard. That song isn't as blatantly mean as "How Do You Sleep?", but it's as cold and caustic in its own way as anything John wrote.

[Edited 4/25/11 3:00am]

SquirrelMeat said:

My favourite couple of Beatle songs are from John, but over the body of work, I would says Paul was by far the better overall composer. Paul Wrote killer hooks and his lyrics make far more sense. Most of all, I think Paul shaped the overall output more.

I think it's probably fair to say that early-mid period Beatles John was more dominant than Paul. Around late 1966 and into 1967 Paul clearly started to assert himself more and was probably the dominant one until the band split. I don't know why but around the time of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band John, for me at least, went into a bit of a slump as a songwriter. He still wrote some great songs circa 1967-1969 but not at the rate he previously did. I think it's probably fair to say that drugs had a negative impact on him during the last few years of the group.

rialb said:

SquirrelMeat said:

My favourite couple of Beatle songs are from John, but over the body of work, I would says Paul was by far the better overall composer. Paul Wrote killer hooks and his lyrics make far more sense. Most of all, I think Paul shaped the overall output more.

I think it's probably fair to say that early-mid period Beatles John was more dominant than Paul. Around late 1966 and into 1967 Paul clearly started to assert himself more and was probably the dominant one until the band split. I don't know why but around the time of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band John, for me at least, went into a bit of a slump as a songwriter. He still wrote some great songs circa 1967-1969 but not at the rate he previously did. I think it's probably fair to say that drugs had a negative impact on him during the last few years of the group.

That's exactly right. John's songwriting peak came during the trip to India, and he was still using songs from that period on Abbey Road. John himself was very dismissive of his later contributions to the Beatles, except for "Come Together."

[Edited 4/25/11 3:04am]

Wasn't John heavily into heroin in the final years of the Beatles anyways? Can explain how many of the songs were more Paul-esque.

How about Jimmy Nicol?

MickyDolenz said:

How about Jimmy Nicol?

That proves my point about how expendable poor old Ringo was!

rialb said:

That proves my point about how expendable poor old Ringo was!

B.B. King must like Ringo, because B has Ringo playing on one of his albums. Anyway Ringo was sick and the group already had shows scheduled, so Jimmy was there while Ringo recuperated. Ringo was also the 1st to quit the band and was asked to return, and also played on many of the other 3 solo albums, so he must be important.

Band on The Run, Tug of War, Chaos and Creation In The Backyard, Driving Rain, Flaming Pie, Flowers In The Dirt and Memory Almost Full are far superior to anything Lennon could muster.

I'm sorry but I think Ringo constantly gets dissed. I've seen his drum playing and can see WHY he's hired in the first place. That guy's MEAN on the fucking drums. True Pete Best was good at what he did, but they're hiring Ringo more than Pete. Speaks fuckin' volumes, don't it?!

Timmy84 said:

I'm sorry but I think Ringo constantly gets dissed. I've seen his drum playing and can see WHY he's hired in the first place. That guy's MEAN on the fucking drums. True Pete Best was good at what he did, but they're hiring Ringo more than Pete. Speaks fuckin' volumes, don't it?!

I like Ringo. I don't think the others could have put the All Starr bands together.

MickyDolenz said:

rialb said:

That proves my point about how expendable poor old Ringo was!

B.B. King must like Ringo, because B has Ringo playing on one of his albums. Anyway Ringo was sick and the group already had shows scheduled, so Jimmy was there while Ringo recuperated. Ringo was also the 1st to quit the band and was asked to return, and also played on many of the other 3 solo albums, so he must be important.

I'm sort of half kidding about Ringo but let's be realistic here. Of the four of them he was by far the least crucial. I'm not saying that he's a poor drummer but if he had never been a Beatle would he ever have issued a solo album or been considered as a lead vocalist? Impossible to say for certain but it seems extremely unlikely. To be fair he may have brought an "X" factor to the band and if you removed that things could have been very different but as a creative force and contributor I don't think he did anything that any other competent drummer couldn't have done.

I think the reason that he played on the others' solo albums and also the reason that they contributed to his albums is because he's a likeable fellow not necessarily because he is "important."

MickyDolenz said:

Timmy84 said:

I'm sorry but I think Ringo constantly gets dissed. I've seen his drum playing and can see WHY he's hired in the first place. That guy's MEAN on the fucking drums. True Pete Best was good at what he did, but they're hiring Ringo more than Pete. Speaks fuckin' volumes, don't it?!

I like Ringo. I don't think the others could have put the All Starr bands together.

Didn't George kind of do that with the Traveling Wilburys?

rialb said:

MickyDolenz said:

I like Ringo. I don't think the others could have put the All Starr bands together.

Didn't George kind of do that with the Traveling Wilburys?

His thing was doing a supergroup lol

rialb said:

MickyDolenz said:

I like Ringo. I don't think the others could have put the All Starr bands together.

Didn't George kind of do that with the Traveling Wilburys?

George avoided touring and doing concerts.

Timmy84 said:

I'm sorry but I think Ringo constantly gets dissed. I've seen his drum playing and can see WHY he's hired in the first place. That guy's MEAN on the fucking drums. True Pete Best was good at what he did, but they're hiring Ringo more than Pete. Speaks fuckin' volumes, don't it?!

I know right I was just watching A Hard Day’s Night and was like Ringo couldn’t get a break I know it’s a movie but smh it was not that far off

Identity said:

Band on The Run, Tug of War, Chaos and Creation In The Backyard, Driving Rain, Flaming Pie, Flowers In The Dirt and Memory Almost Full are far superior to anything Lennon could muster.

babybugz said:

Timmy84 said:

I'm sorry but I think Ringo constantly gets dissed. I've seen his drum playing and can see WHY he's hired in the first place. That guy's MEAN on the fucking drums. True Pete Best was good at what he did, but they're hiring Ringo more than Pete. Speaks fuckin' volumes, don't it?!

I know right I was just watching A Hard Day’s Night and was like Ringo couldn’t get a break I know it’s a movie but smh it was not that far off

It was like "ew Ringo get out of here" lol that was fucking sad.

AlexdeParis said:

Identity said:

Band on The Run, Tug of War, Chaos and Creation In The Backyard, Driving Rain, Flaming Pie, Flowers In The Dirt and Memory Almost Full are far superior to anything Lennon could muster.

I pretty much agree with that. Paul's stuff just seems a lot richer.

Paul. But George is a close second!

AlexdeParis said:

Identity said:

Band on The Run, Tug of War, Chaos and Creation In The Backyard, Driving Rain, Flaming Pie, Flowers In The Dirt and Memory Almost Full are far superior to anything Lennon could muster.

I think that Plastic Ono Band and Imagine are much better albums than anything Paul made but other than those two John's solo albums are fairly average. Sometime in New York City is deeply flawed. Mind Games and Walls and Bridges have some great songs but also too much filler. Rock 'n' Roll is what it is, a contractural obligation album featuring a less than stellar Lennon and Phil Spector at his most...eccentric. After that he didn't realease anything until Double Fantasy and the posthumous Milk and Honey. Whatever the merits of those last two albums I think it's fair to say that for most people the listening experience is somewhat marred by the inclusion of so many Yoko tracks.

All of that is a rather long way of saying that if you exclude John's first two proper solo albums his catalog is pretty underwhelming.

rialb said:

AlexdeParis said:

I think that Plastic Ono Band and Imagine are much better albums than anything Paul made but other than those two John's solo albums are fairly average. Sometime in New York City is deeply flawed. Mind Games and Walls and Bridges have some great songs but also too much filler. Rock 'n' Roll is what it is, a contractural obligation album featuring a less than stellar Lennon and Phil Spector at his most...eccentric. After that he didn't realease anything until Double Fantasy and the posthumous Milk and Honey. Whatever the merits of those last two albums I think it's fair to say that for most people the listening experience is somewhat marred by the inclusion of so many Yoko tracks.

All of that is a rather long way of saying that if you exclude John's first two proper solo albums his catalog is pretty underwhelming.

I agree with the majority of that (except I find Imagine a little overrated as an album). I can certainly see why someone would pick Paul. But to call all three of Paul's post-2000 albums "far superior" to the likes of Plastic Ono Band? I'm all for hyperbole, but that may be taking it to the extreme. He must not like Lennon much (if at all).

AlexdeParis said:

rialb said:

I think that Plastic Ono Band and Imagine are much better albums than anything Paul made but other than those two John's solo albums are fairly average. Sometime in New York City is deeply flawed. Mind Games and Walls and Bridges have some great songs but also too much filler. Rock 'n' Roll is what it is, a contractural obligation album featuring a less than stellar Lennon and Phil Spector at his most...eccentric. After that he didn't realease anything until Double Fantasy and the posthumous Milk and Honey. Whatever the merits of those last two albums I think it's fair to say that for most people the listening experience is somewhat marred by the inclusion of so many Yoko tracks.

All of that is a rather long way of saying that if you exclude John's first two proper solo albums his catalog is pretty underwhelming.

I agree with the majority of that (except I find Imagine a little overrated as an album). I can certainly see why someone would pick Paul. But to call all three of Paul's post-2000 albums "far superior" to the likes of Plastic Ono Band? I'm all for hyperbole, but that may be taking it to the extreme. He must not like Lennon much (if at all).

I think that Paul's albums since Flaming Pie are slightly overrated. He had fallen into a pretty big rut after Tug of War so when he finally started releasing good albums again it's only natural that people would praise them but, for me, they don't quite live up to the hype. I think pretty much the same thing about Bob Dylan's albums since Time Out of Mind.

Paul FTW.

Nobody as of yet has mentioned Paul's first two solo albums, McCartney, and RAM. Awesome albums, some of my favorite.

Dogsinthetrees said:

Nobody as of yet has mentioned Paul's first two solo albums, McCartney, and RAM. Awesome albums, some of my favorite.

MAYBE I'M AMAZED

Dogsinthetrees said:

Nobody as of yet has mentioned Paul's first two solo albums, McCartney, and RAM. Awesome albums, some of my favorite.

Great stuff.

Dogsinthetrees said:

Nobody as of yet has mentioned Paul's first two solo albums, McCartney, and RAM. Awesome albums, some of my favorite.

They are both probably my two favourites of his but I think they may be a bit too lowkey and homespun. I guess that was kind of the point but they really do sound like demos and probably would have benefited from more professional production.