Who's the better musician: John Lennon or Haydn?

Question

A friend asked me this question years ago. At the time, I think I said Haydn. But even to date, I don't have a definite answer. I know they're vastly different styles of music, but can one be called the "better musician?"

Answer 1

John Lennon.

Haydn was technically proficient, in a way that Lennon could never dream to be, but I think Lennon's melodies were more creative.

EDIT: Think of it this way - What if Lennon had been classically trained?

Answer 2

I'd have to go with Lennon, just to set myself apart from the norm. Haydn was a great composer, but Lennon made a broad social statement through his music and mannerisms. Most of Lennon's music was pleasant to the ears, also... which certainly didn't hurt matters.

Maybe a question about socio-political influence would have made me reference Lennon again, while a question about overall grasp of music composition & theory would have led me to choose Haydn.

Answer 3

impossible to respond to? no longer truly...i think of Lennon became the greater advantageous singer and songwriter (i will in ordinary terms take maximum of of Macca's stupid love songs..."Eleanor Rigby" is probably going one among the only socially suitable songs he's ever written). yet you're asking greater advantageous MUSICIAN...that must be McCartney, palms down. I advise, he's a multiinstrumentalist genius...off the suited of my head, Paul McCartney, Stephen Stills and Pete Townshend are the only people i recognize who've made impressive albums the place they performed each and all of the contraptions themselves. fairly Macca...i do no longer think of that's a twist of fate that his superb albums ("Band on the Run", "Tug Of conflict", "Flaming Pie") are those he made quite plenty singlehandedly. Lennon, on the different hand, became an impressive singer, yet basically a powerfuble (at superb) instrumentalist (which i'm beneficial he'd trust). His guitar enjoying isn't something specific (I daresay McCartney is even a miles better guitar participant than George Harrison...e.g. "Taxman"- that is Paul enjoying the solo) and his piano enjoying by no ability fails to ring a bell in me of a strugging first 3 hundred and sixty 5 days piano student ("think of"...my least regularly occurring Lennon song). What made John Lennon's song large became the musicians he performed with (Eric Clapton, Nicky Hopkins, Jim Keltner)...Lennon in simple terms variety of strummed alongside. What made the Lennon/McCartney songwriting group so large became how the areas made up greater advantageous than the sum. yet enable's no longer overlook that, if it wasn't for John Lennon, there would not be a Paul McCartney- he'd in simple terms be yet another working joe caught in Liverpool. Macca owes his finished profession to John Lennon (and that i think of deep down he's conscious it).

Answer 4

Music is much more than merely making sounds with instruments.... It's a form of communication.... my answer is John Lennon.

Answer 5

I like John Lennon better

Answer 6

John Lennon was a cultural icon.

He meant alot to hundreds of millions of people.

Haydn was a great composer,no doubt,but I feel Lennon expressed much more than just music.

Answer 7

I would say Lennon, John Lennon did not only does great works of "art" in the music industry, but he tried to make changes in the world not only by his music but also by the actions that he took and made. "Actions speak loud than words," and I think that John Lennon not only gave us all he had in his music but also in his life. Hope this helps!!!

Answer 8

Well , look at it like this - John would probably say Haydn, unless he was in a "Cheeky" mood. Then again...John was quoted as saying the Beatles at one point were bigger that Jesus Christ, so.....

Answer 9

My vote is for Haydn.

Answer 10

you cant compare John Lennon to anyone