2007-02-10 09:43:57 · 31 answers · asked by MaryBeth 7 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Music
'ben b'--I am American,and we have no word 'daft'.I think it means stupid.
My mom used to say,'If you have nothing nice to say,say nothing at all.'
Try to keep that in mind.
2007-02-10 09:49:57 · update #1
I love them both but just imagine if there was no lennon, its not easy if you try xxxxxxxxxxx
2007-02-10 13:23:26 · answer #1 · answered by tricia l 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Definitely John Lennon. It may not have been as popular as Paul McCartney, but I don't think John cared about being popular. Paul sang better and was better looking, but John was a true rebel in every sense of the word. His music always came straight from the heart, and he lived with a lot of emotional pain since his parents abandoned him when he was a child. I think he had more depth than McCartney (who had a very happy childhood) because of that. I love Paul McCartney too, I respect his work and social activism, but his music seems "bubble gummy" when I compare it to Lennon. It's pretty corny, but I cry when I hear John's song "Beautiful Boy"--it reminds me of some sad memories in my life.
2007-02-10 18:03:17 · answer #2 · answered by majnun99 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Even though they both had obvious talent.....I think John Lennon was better at maintaining a solo career, i also believe he had the better voice. Unlike Paul McCartney, John was actually consistent and stuck to being solo, whereas Paul, was always trying form another band, i believe he would have been better off becoming a manager.
2007-02-10 17:51:55 · answer #3 · answered by Mintjulip 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
LOL Lennon or McCartney, lets see The frog course and mull of Kyntyre Vs Imagine and give peace a chance. I think their solo carers showed where the talent lay
2007-02-10 17:47:32 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
I think Paul McCartney's had a more successful career, both financially and in longevity, but I think the quality of John Lennon's music in his solo career is better.
2007-02-10 17:54:21 · answer #5 · answered by BigJake418 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Lennon. In his short lived solo career made a few good tunes. McCartney has still to find one. (Although the frog chorus was quite good in it's day.) It's a shame that they split 'cos together they were great. My heart goes out to Macca now because it really does seem that money can't buy you love.
2007-02-10 17:53:25 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Listen here sunshine, you really can't compare with John being dead for all these years.
I remember the days when we use to pay half a crown (12 1/2p) at the Grosvenor on the Wirral to see the Silver Beatles. Their pay for a nights performance was just £2.50 That's 10 shillings each and 10 for their old black Ford Thames van.
2007-02-10 18:03:43 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Ben B,s answer is right sunshine, and "daft" is not derogatory, would stupid have been better? ask your mum that one, Lennon all the way, we know the americans seen him as a threat, but his heart was in the right place, power to the people!!!!! regards,
2007-02-10 17:59:46 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
But for tragic circumstances, I believe that Lennon would have easily have "out sold" McCartney.
2007-02-10 20:21:17 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
John Lennon, definitely.
2007-02-10 17:47:38 · answer #10 · answered by Kira 3 · 5⤊ 0⤋
I've seen McCartney and I'm only 16 so I've not had the chance to see Lennon but I found McCartney to be very entertaining.
2007-02-10 17:52:03 · answer #11 · answered by Zachary 3 · 3⤊ 3⤋