Red Mosquito

I think McCartney is an unsung hero. A musician and songwriter of the highest caliber. Even when he sucks, there is a whimsy to his music that I find appealing.

Lennon is a mediocre musician and an overrated songwriter. He would badmouth McCartney in the press for being "soft", all the while writing some of the most insufferable syrupy crap that you could "imagine". A total hypocrite. His first solo album is the only good thing he did after the Beatles IMO. He built a delicate house of cards around himself that he was a true "genius" and McCartney was a "joke" and it still stands to this day. The funny thing is that he knew damn well that McCartney could play circles around him on ANY instrument. Jealous much?

So how many "McCartney is Soft/Lennon was a Genius" fans do we have in this establishment?

Wendy Carlos's Twin wrote: So how many "McCartney is Soft/Lennon was a Genius" fans do we have in this establishment?

Right on Brother!

Team George

Another McCartney guy here. By a longshot, really.

Team George here too...

I do believe those two other guys worked better together....their solo careers dont quite interest me.

Wendy Carlos's Twin wrote:I think McCartney is an unsung hero. A musician and songwriter of the highest caliber. Even when he sucks, there is a whimsy to his music that I find appealing.

Lennon is a mediocre musician and an overrated songwriter. He would badmouth McCartney in the press for being "soft", all the while writing some of the most insufferable syrupy crap that you could "imagine". A total hypocrite. His first solo album is the only good thing he did after the Beatles IMO. He built a delicate house of cards around himself that he was a true "genius" and McCartney was a "joke" and it still stands to this day. The funny thing is that he knew damn well that McCartney could play circles around him on ANY instrument. Jealous much?

So how many "McCartney is Soft/Lennon was a Genius" fans do we have in this establishment?

This.

Wendy Carlos's Twin wrote:I think McCartney is an unsung hero.

I know what you mean, in that he's sometimes dismissed as the dorky, "poppy" Beatle, but it's important to remember that he's also one of the most successful and celebrated songwriters in modern music. I wouldn't call him an "unsung hero".

Paul was the best Beatle, but in my opinion George had the best solo album with "All Things Must Pass".

George didn't do much of worth after "All Things Must Pass" outside of a few random tracks. I wouldn't put him up against McCartney either.

A lot of genius that John is credited with was Paul all along.

Can't wait for whiskey to enter mcparadigm and mcparadigm to enter this thread.

I'll take mid-60's-Beatles Lennon (Norwegian Wood, Nowhere Man, Doctor Robert, You've Got to Hide Your Love Away, etc). His solo stuff is just okay IMO.

Mecca wrote:A lot of genius that John is credited with was Paul all along.

Can't wait for whiskey to enter mcparadigm and mcparadigm to enter this thread.

you make mcparadigm sound like a spirit

Unsung? He's been fucking knighted.

lennon ftw

Mecca wrote:Can't wait for whiskey to enter mcparadigm and mcparadigm to enter this thread.

watchin the wheels is the best non beatles song involving a beatle

o wait no, thats handle with care

McCartney is one of my favourite bass players and I don't really care much for the Beatles at all. The upper register playing is really great.

this is really what made me realize who my favorite beatle is

I see them as equally brilliant. I really don't see the need to tear down one to prop up the other. They both had strengths and weaknesses professionally and personally.

that's tough. as my knowledge of the band's politics grew and after having read various biographies and analysis' of the band's material, i'd say that McCartney was the better (i.e. most versatile) composer, of course he's the best musician of the Beatles (no contest here) but the OP somewhat managed to use as much bad faith as Lennon did circa How Do You Sleep?

i've been around many musicians and songwriters and found out that some of them, when talented, gifted even but not what you'd call musically astute, could create some impressively original stuff that would baffle "proper" musicians. Lennon would come up with those weird songs (Tomorrow Never Knows, She Said She Said, I'm Only Sleeping, Strawberry Fields Forever, Mr Kite, I Am the Walrus, Lucy in the Sky...) and the band (probably Paul and George Martin) tried to convey what was evoked in their surreal lyrics that are, like it or not, quite outstanding and groundbreaking compared to McCartney's which were much more down to earth (this isn't a bad thing in itself, in fact, his lyrics passed the test of time better than some of Lennon's imo). what i'm trying to say here is that Lennon was a natural artist with an original mind, an ok rock'n'roller that followed his muse in the weirdness of the times with instinct and an essential childlike naiveté, he was a guy that had an emotional palette in his vocal delivery that was unmatched in the Beatles and i think that he pushed McCartney forward, artistically speaking (even if McCartney would insist, after Lennon died, that he was the one being avant-garde and stuff, this wouldn't translate on his own songs that much - again, not a bad thing but more of this later). every quality Lennon had over McCartney while in the Beatles turned sour after the breakup. one of the most unintentionnally ironic moment in Lennon's solo output is the pacing on Imagine, most precisely the How Do You Sleep? --> How? combo. on the former, Lennon throws gallons of vitriol at McCartney, accusing him of being too soft among other things and on the next song, he's going completely MOR, trite and syrupy and inept. still i love Lennon - i think most of his musical shortcomings yielded awesomely inspired stuff (mostly while in the Beatles) and he still had some nice solo moments (Out of the Blue, Imagine, most of Plastic Ono Band, Meat City, I don't Wanna Be a Soldier, Watching the Wheels, Beautiful Boy...).

McCartney is the most complicated Beatle (i think i've read this somewhere). that guy could emulate just about everyone and better anything he came across. he has a mindblowing voice, an impressive talent on every instrument he played and an interresting knack for writing character inspired lyrics. i think he's got more soul (as in black soul music) than Lennon in his vocal delivery while sounding a bit less emotionally involved than his partner in his performances. he's also a formidable hitmaker which rules out the "unsung hero" theory - maybe he's been victim of some kind of ill-informed snobism but while he could be much better than almost anyone at times (the Big Medley on Abbey Road, the Ram album, Band on the Run, the Flaming Pie record...) the accusations of "schmaltzy" directed at him were pretty much legitimate too.

when i was younger i thought that Lennon was the best, by now i can't choose. they were much better as a unit and both of them had something that the other lacked but when i've been digging up the odd solo stuff i have been neglecting before, i found McCartney's to be way more solid than Lennon's mostly disappointing post-Beatles output. Paul would continue to move forward while Lennon seemed to stumble in the dark (incidentally, i think that John's "lost weekend" era sounded like a good premisce of what could come next but, alas for us, he went back with Yoko and things became tame and somewhat streamlined again). my go-to post-breakup albums:

1- Ram (a masterpiece, as good as any Beatles album)
2- Plastic Ono Band (an interresting u-turn - it's sad that his competitive nature made him pour some sugar on his future output)
3- All Things Must Pass (many great songs on this - not a fan of the Hare-Krishna fixation though)
4- Flaming Pie (written when Linda was pretty ill - it's McCartney at his most schizophrenic; half dark and solemn, half up-beat and enthusiastic)
5- Cloud Nine (top-notch song selection on this one, it suffers from the 80s production but it could have been much worse - i still like it pretty much)

Nice write-up, mastaflatch. I'm also a big fan of "Flaming Pie"--though aren't a lot of those songs from different eras? I'm pretty sure at least one of them dates as far back as 1986. In the liner notes, McCartney says the album was made from a kind of creative jones he had coming off the Beatles' "Anthology" project.

I'm no expert on Lennon's solo work--the greatest hits never did anything for me, so by and large I never investigated it beyond that. But based on what I've heard, for all his accusations of McCartney being a wimp, McCartney always had the better rocker's howl--if Lennon ever pulled off anything as manic as "Monkberry Moon Delight," I've never heard it. Within the scope of the Beatles, I think it's reasonable to say that they both contributed equally important albeit pretty different things--as a composer, though, McCartney easily surpasses the other Beatles in raw talent, and I'll take his solo stuff over Lennon's in a heartbeat. I think I like a few of his solo albums better than "All Things Must Pass" even, great as that record is.