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

While I'd respectfully disagree with the contention that "My Love," "Silly Love Songs," and "Let 'Em In" are "pap," I'd also disagree with the contention that this sort of material wouldn't have passed muster had Paul still been in the band. After all, "Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da" and "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" famously passed muster, John and George's protests over "granny music" notwithstanding.

 

You feel like telling us what McCartney tracks you DO like? I have a feeling the answer's somewhere between "not many" and "very few".

 

McCartney by a landslide.

Interestingly, not only did Yoko destroy The Beatles, but it's obvious she had a negative effect on John's solo career as evidenced by the fact that some of his best material was released during "The Lost Weekend" when he was boffing May Pang.

And as great as "Double Fantasy" is... it's still half atrocious Yoko stuff.

 

If you had asked me this question when I was 16, I would have picked John by a landslide. At 39, I've got to go with Paul. I don't mean that as a slight on anyone else's preference for John, just a reflection that my personal preference has changed over the years.

 

I still don't know why this is being debated? you can not compare who had the best career!

1. McCartney is still Making music, Lennon is Dead!
2. they were not Lennon/McCartney at that point, separate entities, now a discussion about the Beatle years.. fair enough!
3. It is all down to personal taste's and Opinion's!

 

I have NO Macca solo stuff, several John things.

But really, the 2 were a whole greater than the sum of its parts. They curbed each others' songrwiting excesses.

 

Yes, she held a gun to Paul's head and made him leave the group. That dastardly woman!

 

Actually, it was A BED bought at Harrod' s!

 

I really can't stand any of Lennon's solo stuff, but I love early Wings, and I always thought McCartney had a lot better singing voice, even though Lennon may have been more avant-garde and into the underground stuff.....

 

Well, Paul was WAY into the "underground stuff" while John was being a stodgy old fart in St John's Wood. This idea that John was some really groovy experimental guy is funny. Until Yoko woke him up, he was pretty darn non-underground.

 

Some of us like the Yoko stuff better...

 

She was Bjork before Bjork!

 

And while John made the extremely conventional "Double Fantasy", Paul recorded the messed-up weirdness of "McCartney II". In terms of the "experimental" sides, John has better PR than Paul but not more radical music...

 

You already posted this sentiment a few pages back - and it didn't make any more sense the second time...

 

I'm not familiar with all of their solo work, so I'm not here to comment on that. I just want to say, though, that I think the song Mind Games is one of the most intense recordings I've ever heard. Whenever I walk into the used LP/CD/book store I like and it's playing, I'm ALWAYS struck by how forcefully John sings what may seem to be simple cliches, and how his assuredness probably stemmed from the fact that he really felt these to be truths, absolutely unafraid that they might sound hokey a half decade after the summer of love.

 

I agree, I'd rather listen to Yoko screeching away than to hear Beatles obsessives debate and blather on endlessley, I for one am SO SICK OF THE BEATLES, please stop already, jesus!!!! :thumbsdn: (and I like the Beatles!)

 

Do you like their haircuts?

 

I totally agree with your sentiments. This useless comparison should be stopped now! I'm sick and tired of this.

 

Okay, let's stop now!

 

I'm the one that originally bumped this old post, so i get the last word. To me, if I compare their post-beatle hits, then I have to go with John. To my ears most of Paul's hits are ear candy, while Johns tend to be deeper and more meaningful. I'm generalizing here folks.

Now, when I compare their non-hits, Paul absolutely devastates John. To me, many of John's non hits are really hard to listen to, and often sound sloppy. Paul's deepest stuff is on his non hit material, and much of it is better than the hits to my ears. You can just buy one of John's greatest hits albums and be well served, but with Paul you need to pick up some of his great albums to really get him and his music.

So, in my book Paul wins overall, and he is the only one we still have around anyway. John will always be dearly missed, but Paul is hear to enjoy now, and I can't wait for his new album.

 

Well said Pepper

 

I think I know what you mean. If I were rank the best, let's say, 40 solo songs for each I think John's top 20 beat out Paul's top 20 but, I think Paul's 21-40 would be more interesting than John's.

 

You would disagree....

WHITE ALBUM was a unique beast: a lot of space to fill over two Lp's, so the usual 'quality control' wasn't in place, and much of the time, that gave us some fascinating stuff. "Ob-La-Di" may be annoying, but I don't think it's that bad(although why Arthur Conley covered is beyond me).

ABBEY ROAD's brilliance--such as it is, the most overrated of Beatles 'masterpieces'--can be found on Side 2. Side 1 has a few gems, but "Maxwell" isn't one of them, and that annoying synth has dated it badly.

Had AR been a 2-Lp set, I can well believe such muck as "Silly Love Songs" would have made the cut, by this time John and George were already looking beyond the Beatles. As McCARTNEY made clear, he wasn't ready to let go...which was good for us, because some of his best work(and a handful of some of his most worthless)can be found there.

 

I like this post and this was pretty much the overall point I was trying to make. Again these are all our own people's opinions I just wanted to see some discussion on it. There's no right or wrong answer.
I actually revisted McCartney and Band On the Run and it still did nothing for me. I'll go back to his Flaming Pie period onward.
Even w/ Lennon making a "half album" w/ Double Fantasy and the put together Milk And Honey I even think those 6 or so songs slay McCartney's best music (except for maybe some of the Flaming Pie-onwards material).

Somone posted up Wingspan vs. Lennon Legend. The 20 songs on Lennon Legend compared to Wingspan or All the Best, Lennon just had better quality songs in his much shorter solo career. Imagine vs. Band On the Run? Mind Games vs. Jet?, etc. To me it's no contest.
Again IMHO.

PS- I'm looking forward to Paul's new solo album as well. I hope his later career reninassance keeps going.

 

Who's to say if Lennon lived he would have made some more real classic songs that would balance this argument out! but McCartney has more songs so he is gonna win! The Eighties for Lennon may have produced his best especially as he was getting his life more in order.

Lennon was the kind of Artist who got involved in politics and his music became part of what he believed in at that time! McCartney is more inclined to make good songs about his personal experience's, although he has made a few political records i think this was because Lennon was doing it and he wanted to have his say too!

Their fore i think it very unfair to try and compare there solo careers, they were totally different musicians who complemented each other, one is neither better, and i would be saying this if Lennon was still alive, but the guy is dead and their fore its even more unfair to try and compare him to McCartney now! this discussion would be valid if the year was 1971, but its 2007 and i am sure McCartney would agree with me!