12 July 2011
I would say paul has written some of the best and well known songs of all time. But I feel like Johns might have been a little different, seeing all that he went through when he was a boy. And then theres George. Totally underrated. Maybe we would have seen some more great stuff from him if Paul and John would let it happen. They are all great
Beacause you are new… I think that must be the MOST AWESOMEST POST EVA!!!
I do what i can
12 July 2011
Also, John and Paul were two different people song writing wise. towards the end at least. Like a day in the life. Johns part is all dark and what ever then paul's is "woke up, got out of bed.." so we kind of get the best of both worlds. when i say best i mean it. I fricken love both of them
19 September 2010
They really weren't. Helper Skelter is very close to Monkey, Good Night and Golden Slumbers, Bathroom Window and PPam, and others all sound similar, and no combo was written by the same person.
9 July 2011
Well, I think that even though Paul's writing was much more tune-based, while John's was very lyrical, they were both such excellent songwriters that there was a lot of overlap in the style of their music. There are completely extreme examples for both songwriters, but often the songs they write are so good in both a lyrical and musical sense that they can sound similar… Does that make sense? I think I've started talking in circles…
20 January 2012
I haven't read the entire discussion yet so forgive me if I repeat things that have previously been said.
This question is hard because it depends on my mood. Lyrically Lennon all the way but Paul's melodies are amazing. Although, early on Lennon dominated in that department. I love George because we saw him grow as a songwriter.
It's funny because before I even became a Beatles fan I knew about Lennon/McCartney and I was surprised to see how there was a battle between them (and the fans at that). Early on John, imo, wrote the better songs. I find myself listening more to his songs when I listen to the earlier albums than Pauls. What I find interesting is that on those album you can hear Paul slowly starting to perfect what he became really great at….making great pop/number 1 songs. Paul soon could write songs that stuck with you long afterwards whereas John's songs begin to make you think but didn't POP out at you as much. All the while George is in the background becoming really good and sometimes he managed to make some of the best songs on the album.
If I were going for quality over quantity I'd pick George.
If I were to pick whose songs I general seem to listen to more and enjoy I'd say Paul.
If I were to go for whose songs were ridiculous creative and lyrically great I'd go John.
I guess I said all that to say I can't pick! Paul has more catchy and easy to listen to songs as John, but some of John's songs are incredible. The songs they wrote together are gold and you can tell how they influenced the other. I think it's cool listening to their greatest hits albums…like '1' where it starts off mostly Lennon and ends with McCartney but the one Lennon song that pops up usually blows the last 2 McCartney songs out of the park. Depends on my mood I suppose. They worked great together and I wish more songwriters/artists could find a partner as equally good as them and duke it out because friendly competition makes better music….which makes the fans happier.
Also Ringo has 2 songs with The Beatles. One awful and the other great so he cancels out
26 March 2012
I can't answer this question. The best songwriter in the Beatles is "Lennon-McCartney". To argue which of them is better is to devalue the fact that they were as good as they were because they worked together. That said, I feel John's lyrics were better, and Paul was the superior musician and singer.
7 November 2010
Ben Ramon said
The best songwriter in the Beatles is "Lennon-McCartney".
Yeah, basically. When I think about the fact that my top three Beatles songs were primarily written by John (Happiness Is A Warm Gun, Across The Universe, A Day In The Life) and I have more of John's solo work than Paul or any of the others, it makes me kind of want to say John.
But they brought out the best in each other, and they both needed that kind of partnership / rivalry when writing to produce the amazing work that they did.
"When I cannot sing my heart, I can only speak my mind."
16 February 2011
I think John's songs are inseparable with his performances. Songs like "Happiness is a warm gun", "9#" or "I'll be back"; you can try to copy his singing style but it won't work out. Most of the melodies he has written aren't very "hummable", or melodic, like most of Paul's output; it may deem them harder to memorize for some people but more importantly, harder to reproduce since the beauty of them (in my opinion) is the way John arranges his songs, sings his lyrics. And I do think he was a talented lyricist. His and Paul's opinion couldn't be much more different on the matter; "I write lyrics to match the melody, after all, it's rock and roll, not high-class poetry" (not exact quote) where as John felt there should be no clear division between literature and song writing, and he clearly put a lot of thought into most of his songs, if not all.
So what I'm trying to say is, where as Paul outdid John in technical terms and sheer amount ( of course, since he was… is given more time than John), John excelled in putting thoughts and emotions into music and has moved a lot people. However, you don't see John's songs as often as Paul's on score books, hear them on the radio (except for Imagine) and most of the "super famous" Beatles songs are written by Paul.
Most Users Ever Online: 597
Currently Browsing this Page:
mr. Sun king coming together: 6972
Egroeg Evoli: 1630
Von Bontee: 1397
Guest Posters: 87
Newest Members: ThomRoxeb1, Mary Gaspard Mcmillan, Im.meena, aengorn7, Upsiditus
Moderators: Joe (2707), skye (2295), Ellie (1), Zig (2769), mithveaen (4675)
Administrators: Joe (2707)