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

Generally speaking, I would say that Lennon continued to evolve as an artist after the breakup of the Beatles, and McCartney really did not. That first McCartney solo album was interesting and a bit weird, and at that point I thought he had the makings of a worthwhile solo career. But after that he regressed, if anything. I don't think his buying public really wanted him to move forward, they were (and always have been) very comfortable with Paul just being lovable old Paul. I have never owned any of Paul's CD's, but if I was inclined to get one it would be that first solo album from 1970. It was weird, but it worked somehow. But the photo of Paul picking his nose was a misfire.

 

My point is how can you make a judgement on who had the better solo career when one is ten years long and the other is still ongoing, Macca kind of has a head start unless Lennon is producing music from the grave! they can not be compared and why should they? its not like we are comparing their work within The Beatles, its not like they are Lennon-McCartney any more!

 

I remember watching a Paul McCartney concert once, the one
where Dave Gilmour was on guitar. I couldn't believe how bad this
was, every song sounded exactly the same. Anyway, I didn't see
the need to listen to any of his other stuff after that. I had a listen
to Chaos and Creation and that was just as bad.
Apart from this, though, I've always found Paul's voice to be very annoying
compared to John's. This fact ruins a lot of Beatles albums for me,
especially Revolver. Anyway, I think both artists dropped their game when
they left the Beatles, a good collaboration will always make two (or three)
excellent song writers into one great songwriter.

 

Not snobby and very in touch with reality. What's lackluster is every Macca album after BOTR.

I'm talking about PM's poor sales on every album since Linda died.

That's exactly what I said, maybe another album or two, all one has to do is view the TV interview's he did just prior to his death where he makes it very clear. And we all know he was working on new tracks.

saying that adds no credibility to your argument, these people are wiser than that and will go watch the interview's.

Well of course, you're anti-Lennon/pro-Macca, Boo, At least I consider BOTR a work of genius, I'm no anti-Any Beatle, it's just that McCartney is vegetables while Lennon is meat.
Maybe you should start you own thread, you could title it
Just my opinion – Paul McCartney had a way better quality solo career than Lennon I'll promise if I responded to you the way you did to me, on that thread, I would have consequences to face. On that thread the post would be called threadcrapping, but you don't have to worry about that on this thread.

 

I appreciate both solo careers equally. But something about Lennon has always spoken to me.

There's a greater digestibility to Paul's songs. And yes, John's musical output was scattered, uneven, and less focused. However, John's music has always felt a bit more demanding/challenging, and therefore slightly more rewarding/satisfying. I would even say John's best (Imagine and Plastic Ono Band) almost dwarfs Paul's best for me.

As for pop songwriting prowess, I might even place John's songs from Double Fantasy against Paul's best solo efforts. I'm surprised (stunned) how well Double Fantasy has aged: Woman, Watching the Wheels, Starting Over, Beautiful Boy, I'm Losing You -- this is fairly powerful and mature pop.

 

I've kinda stayed out of this, but it seems to boil down to this:

You can prove Paul has more hits than Lennon - so according to the Guinness Book? Paul's the most successful songwriter ever.

But the rest is up to the listener...

I'm a Paul fan. He's the first guy that got me heavy into music. It was his solo album (not The Beatles) that got me into him ("Flowers in the Dirt").

Before being able to distinguish who did what in The Beatles, my favorite songs were mostly all Paul's as I found out a little later.

I liked Lennon, always have, but in no way did John "speak to me" the way Paul... (or Randy Newman or Elton John) did.

I think all of Lennon's proper studio albums are worth having, they just aren't as good as Paul's to ME. Just to me.

Again, I like Lennon, but I'm such a major fan that he doesn't compare. The only Beatles album where I think he had the better song was "Yellow Submarine" for his song, "Hey, Bulldog".

My favorite Lennon album is "Walls and Bridges" - it's commercial, quirky, and fun at the same time.

Is it a better album in the "proper" sense than "McCartney II"? Yeah, probably.

But as a whole, McCartney did not just have better "quality" than Lennon - he's got some of the best music of all time on his solo albums (in addition to his work with The Beatles - his DNA did not change in - part of what bugs me about these threads is the whole "solo" discussion - was "Honey Pie" not more solo than "Live and Let Die"???)

I see Paul and Lennon's work as one long flowing body... from the late '50s to today (or sadly, in Lennon's case, around the early '80s when the proper studio stuff stopped coming out).

I love them both as artists, but Paul is the MAN to me. His home-like quality on "Ram" though not as smooth as the excellent "#9 Dream" still works for me more.

I love Paul's ditties, his bombastic "1985" stuff, and almost everything he does. Because it's him.

I can see how someone can love "Beef Jerky" just as much as I love "Great Day".

So what is quality? The fact that Paul can make a little acoustic number so good is quality to me.

He doesn't have to put out "Band on the Run" every time to STILL put out quality.

I love so many Lennon songs like, "Watching the Wheels", but all in all, I like Paul's work so much more that there is no comparison. Funny how almost every poster has a "there's no comparison" opinion... and a different answer. So be it.

Paul's got the best quality music of anyone in general. Not just compared to Lennon... compared to anyone!

Jeff

 

Here is mine:

JL/POB vs McCartney
Imagine vs Ram
Sometime in NYC vs Wild Life
Mind Games vs Red Rose Speedway
Walls and Bridges vs Band on the Run
Rock 'n' Roll vs Venus and Mars
Double Fantasy vs McCartney II

5-2 in favour of Lennon.

 

Rock and Roll over Venus and Mars? I prefer Lennon, but the "R&R" album is terrible. The outtakes on side one of "Menlove Ave" are better than that entire album. Too many great songs on "V&M" to say an album of poorly recorded covers is better. I like Lennon, but let's give credit where credit is due. All IMHO.

 

To each his own.

 

Yup. I'll take "Walls and Bridges" over "Venus and Mars", but "Menlove Ave" over "Rock and Roll".

 

Both The Russian Album and Run Devil Run are miles better than R&R.
Paul had the better solo career too.

 

Hey, welcome to the forum, Caper. A good friend of mine just moved back to the Cape

 

After reading the entire thread, I'm curious what the results would be if this was a poll. I like Lennon's solo work the best, but I don't think Lennon's solo output is far superior.

 

Me too.... and I prefer the hauntingly melodic "No.9 Dream" over "Listen to What the Man Said."

 

I love a lot of both John and Paul's work but McCartney wins by far in terms of overall solo work quality.

John had some brilliant moments but the vast majority of them came, in my opinion, during the 1969-1971 period. Beyond that a few flashes of greatness here and there, but to me he was a man who after that had really lost his edge and drive to make music - and you can hear it in the music. He had other concerns and pursuits at any given time after IMAGINE (first politics, the alcohol, then reconciliation with Yoko and then cozy domesticity and some semblance of a "normal" life - albeit in the Dakota overlooking Central Park! - the latter long overdue).

I think it's possible John was headed back to regaining a real inner drive to make music, borne out of happiness and wisdom rather than pain as had been the driving force throughout his Beatles years, and it would have been wonderful had it happened, but DOUBLE FANTASY is only a hint of what might have been and not a classic record by any means.

But anyway, all that is very much unlike Paul who, say what you will about him, has clearly been driven and compelled to make music at essentially all times, no matter what else is going down in his life or anyone else's concurrently. Sometimes he has hit it with great stuff, sometimes not, but in terms of sheer quantity of excellent material, no contest, and he has been no more inconsistent than John was - it's just that John's body of work is so comparatively small.

 

Thanx for the welcome PW!

 

I love "# 9 Dream". I'm glad Phil Spector didn't get his mits on that one. My favorite "V&M" (and McCartney) song is the underrated (as it never appeared on a comp) "Love in Song".

 

I like No. 9 Dream and LOVE Listen to What the Man Said.

Here's a good opportunity in fact to talk about how Lennon gets lionized and McCartney drubbed for doing similar things.

What the hell is No 9. Dream really? The lyrics are mostly incomprehensible and the few things that you can make out are very lightweight when you get down to it...laughably in fact. There's a facade of something "deep" going on but it's essentially a pleasant, dreamy diversion of a tune, very much like...what McCartney supposedly does.

And while Listen to What the Man Said is lyrically pretty bouncy and light, I agree, the underlying message is quite clear and, interestingly enough, not so much different than what John said in All You Need is Love some years earlier - and it's a message that is quite timeless, unlike John's mumblings about "the spirit dance unfolding." Musically, Listen to What the Man Said certainly digs in a lot harder than No. 9 Dream, with a little bit of New Orleans flavor and charm. That "the wonder of it all, baby" soaring out at the end is a lot more moving to me than hearing John and (presumably) May Pang's backwards whisperings to each other.

Anyway had to get that off my chest...and I can certainly respect anyone's opinion who disagrees.

Oh and I DO have to agree on the other hand that overall WALLS AND BRIDGES is a stronger LP than VENUS AND MARS. I'm just talking those two particular songs being no contest in favor of McCartney for me, but on the whole VENUS AND MARS I find to be the most overrated of Macca's albums. Very, very slim pickings when you get down to it - Love in Song, Listen to What the Man Said, Treat Her Gently, and maybe Letting Go and Magneto and Titanium Man are about it for me. The title track (and reprise) and Rock Show are totally postured and insipid, and the band tunes are very weak.

WALLS AND BRIDGES on the other hand has some excellent tunes, but the thick glossy production weights it down some. I like most of the "unfinished" versions of the tunes from the LP that were released in the Lennon box miles better than the finished versions, you can really hear his awesome voice in particular, still in fine form, shine through without all the reverb and layers.

 

Mine is "Treat Her Gently" but none comes close to the sublime beauty of "No.9 Dream."

 

Favorite McCartney songs or song from "Venus and Mars"?

It probably won't get much mention, but my favorite non-Wings album is "Driving Rain".

 

No. 9 Dream is beautiful indeed.

 

My Favorite Non-Wings Macca Album is Flaming Pie, hands Down.
My Favorite Track from Venus and Mars is ...You Gave me the Answer....well Rockshow...Then ...You Gave me the Answer.

 

A post like this can get you suspended from here.

If you say it is your all time favorite McCartney song it may get you banned

It reminds me of that "white album" song.

 

Banned! lol

Sorry I suppose English Tea or Baby's Request are off limits too?