Just my opinion – John Lennon had a way better quality solo career than McCartney

Wrong. One look at "Anthology," or at "Let it Be Naked," for that matter, confirms that an ambitious and aggressive man still insecure about his musical legacy got his way in precendence over a dead man and his widow.

Non sequitur. Read your dictionary.

 

No, I get what he's saying.

There's more quality in McCartney's output simply because there's more material available to have good quality; mathematically speaking, when you have talent as equal as Lennon/McCartney, 10-12 years of one and 35 of the other means that Paul's going to have more quality work than John.

We know maccafan thinks that the majority of Paul's work is great, so what he's saying makes perfect sense to him.
I'd rather look at it more objectively and say Paul's solo work is simply hit or miss, where all the hits are great - I'll take that, anyday.

 

Which is why some of us went with the apples-to-apples comparisons - that's the only logical way to compare their solo work...

 

The fun way is just compare their 1970-1980 periods.

Lennon vs. Wings.

 

I thought they all had to sign on? It was still an ill-conceived project. I wish they would've taken the opportunity to simply release one of the Glyn Johns compilations with the original cover. If there was a beef about takes, they could've easily swapped takes. Too late for that now.

Regarding who was the driving force behind the Beatles, I think it breaks down along these lines:

1962: John
1963: John
1964: John
1965: 70% John, 30% Paul
1966: 50% John, 50% Paul
1967: 25% John, 75% Paul
1968: 40% John, 60% Paul
1969: Paul

 

I won't pummel you either, but Macca gets my vote as well.

 

You could say that all of the members post Beatles work is hit or miss, it's just that in McCartneys case it's more hit than miss.

Daved64, Lennon himself said that his depression started as early as the song Help!

I'll take a rocking Wings band over a non rocking Lennon anyday!

 

Very clever. I agree that by 1969, Lennon was simply contibuting to Paul's projects. But his contributions were great, IMO, as were George's.

 

Lennon is the more meaningful and challenging artist to me, based on POB, Imagine, and Mind Games (and I'm fond of Rock and Roll). I was really quite disappointed by Double Fantasy. Don't hit me, but I liked Yoko's contributions on that album more than John's - but then I've always had the hots for Yoko.

McCartney, on the other hand, has been a strange balm to my increasingly perturbed soul. He has always made pretty songs and pretty sounds, and I find myself listening to him much more than Lennon to bring my blood pressure down.

Man, do I feel old.

 

The sound he makes is music to my ears. He must have learned something in all those years.

 

Music, not Muzak?

 

Like them both, but no comparison...Paul wins hand down!

 

1967: JL's contributions included "Strawberry Fields Forever," "Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds," "A Day In The Life," "Being For The Benefit Of Mr. Kite," "All You Need Is Love" and "I Am The Walrus." No one in pop music could match that for sheer inventiveness, innovation and creativity, and Paul McCartney certainly didn't, unless you actually believe "Penny Lane," "She's Leaving Home," "When I'm Sixty-Four," "The Fool On The Hill" and "Hello Goodbye" equal JL's contributions, a notion that would seem to me ludicrous. A fine output, to be sure, but 1967 was John Lennon's Year.

1968: Probably about equal. Both men recorded an Lp's worth of material, factoring in singles sides and WHITE.

1969: Probably 75/25 Paul, but let's not forget "Don't Let Me Down" and "Come Together"(probably best to forget "Ballad Of John & Yoko"...)

 

I slightly prefer McCartney's work with the Beatles, but both were amazing. I slightly prefer Lennon's solo work, but both were a huge disappointment for me. I don't even have a compilation of either's solo work, much less a regular album in my collection of 1,000 audio discs. A compilation of both might be of interest at some point but I have no sense of urgency as only a handful of songs by either are interesting to me. The worst album by the Beatles beats the best album by either solo artist by a long shot for me.

Chris

 

Two diffrent artists that went in two diffrent directions. Which is Better ,is who you are compelled to who wrote to your soul ,so for YOU its John. I tend to agree

 

First, I would like to say that this is the only civilized discussion I've ever read on this topic and that is refreshing. Second, I think it is indisputable that Paul's work from '76-'79 was more acclaimed than John's. Other than that it's all open for debate.

 

I feel Paul was and is the workaholic. I don't think Paul ever took a break during The Beatles. He always strived to do more it seems, if you look back through those years with John, George and Ringo.

As far as a solo career is concerned there is no doubt Paul wins hands down. He was first to have a solo album out,
He was always touring as well as in the studio.

In my own humble opinion, it boils down to only one thing as far as who's career is better though and that's only because of John's death.

It would have been great to have heard more of John after "Double Fantasy". I do believe that at some point in time if everyone was alive there would have been The Beatles Reunion we would have all been looking for hearing and seeing.

At least it's fun to think this after all these years !!

 

Band On The Run was pretty good. I love John's work. Of course John always was the one more about quality instead of quanity. As far as Macca, he has his fanbase, not big enough to secure top selling position's but when you're that rich you can release as many albums as you like, few artist's have that luxury. Heck I know people who have bought every album he's ever released and in many cases only listened to some of them once, but they love having them and would fight you over them. John would have retired, I believe, shortly after Double Fantasy had he lived, maybe a couple of more albums. He made it quite clear in interviews during the DF days that he only writes about where he and Yoko are at, at that time, and if more came then he would sing about it and that's it.

 

I don't know about that. I assume you've read his comments about Mind Games. Its "rock and roll at different speeds" and "its just an album". Those were contemporary comments, not revisionism in 1980. He knew he put out an average album (for him). Also, John was more into quickly recording and moving on rather than getting the perfect take. McCartney wanted take after take until it was just right. I think their overall quality control was about the same.

 

Oh, please! What a snobby statement - and one completely at odds with reality. John didn't produce a great amount of "quality" work in his solo period. "Some Time in NYC" is quality"? "Mind Games"? "Rock and Roll"? Even his "Double Fantasy" work was lackluster.

And during the first half of the Seventies, John put out just as much "quantity" as Paul. Obviously Paul did more during 1976-1979, but that's because John took a long break from recording, not because he was working so hard to make great albums...

What in the world are you talking about here?

He was recording another album when he died! What an odd statement - and another that seems to have no basis in fact.
Gotta give a big :thumbsdn: to this bizarre, badly biased post...

 

What's the point of THIS post? Yes, hands down - McCartney has made much better music from 1981 to date than John. Your point?

 

Mmk, let's make this simple:

vs.

 

How do you figure? Between late 1979 and the fall of 1989, McCartney didn't tour AT ALL. He then failed to tour between late 1993 and spring 2002. Jimmy Buffett is "always touring". Macca has spent LOOOONG periods off the road...

 

The Lennon cover is better. Otherwise - what's your point?