John Lennon, Paul McCartney?

Question

i've seen a lot of questions like, who's better, john lennon or paul mccartney?...
i say, why the comparation, john lennon was great, maybe one of the top 5 best songwriters ever... but, does that means paul is not good?? i dont think so, he is great, he has a great career, that show us he is great... its also not true that paul has a better voice... can you imagine paul singing jealous guy, or imagine?? do you think it'll sounds good?? i don't.
the have a different style, even though i like much better john lennon doesnt mean he is way a better musician than paul...

I would like to know your opinion.

Answer 1

I have always thought Paul was the better artist. I was a true Beatlemanian to the hilt-- I collected bubblegum cards and dolls etc., listened to the Top 20 each week with Bruce Morrow,
http://www.radiohof.org/discjockey/brucemorrow.html
cut out news clippings and made scrapbooks all in the name of Beatlemania. When I look back even then I did not have the same admiration for John Lennon as I did for Paul! John Lennon was ditsy, arrogant, very radical and so full of drugs it was a wonder he could stand at times. I realize the others were high most of the time too but not quite like him. John had very weird notions about life. It showed itself when he dumped his lovely wife Cynthia for Yoko and practically disowned Julian.
http://beatles.ncf.ca/cynthia2.html
It came out in the lyrics to his tunes also. Don't get me wrong. He was a musical genius of sorts. however, he did not channel that talent in the best directions.Come on. He was the world's biggest "Do whatever You Want" advocate no matter who you hurt.
Paul was REAL. John ?--you be the judge..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQsZI_oqSlY&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJBvLTT4en8

Here is an article about John's encounters with The FBI--

http://www.slate.com/id/2157256/entry/0/fr/rss/

Answer 2

It really is a tough question. Paul is still writing good music, Jenny Wren is a great song. John Lennon was an amazing person that seemed to glow. He exuded confidence and love, but wasn't saccharine with it. He was also more subjective about his music, which Paul tends to stray from. Towards the end of his life John Lennon was writing biographical songs "Jealous Guy" and that is why I'm going to pick him. He let the world see into his life, through his eyes, but managed to stay a true and respected artist. He was just an amazing person.

Answer 3

In my opinion, John was infact better than Paul. Paul is a great artist as well. So was George Harrison. Christ, even Ringo could sing pretty well and he wrote a couple decent songs that the Beatles did. I never have really liked Paul for the reason that he is, well...quite greedy. Music basically died with John. Some 80's music is good, but most is s hit...along with the 90s music and todays especially.

In short, I really believe that no one can compare to John Lennon.

To carson: by the way...George Harrison loved God.

Answer 4

Lennon. McCartney wrote great songs, and some were thematically quite serious, but he never wrote about anything transcendent. Lennon experimented more in form and in content than McCartney - politics, spirituality, surrealism, etc. were all present in Lennon's works, but absent in McCartney's.

Answer 5

John seemed to be more inwardly focused. if his songs were adored by millions, that fulfilled a distinct part of his persona but not his very meaning--imho.

Paul, on the other hand, cares MUCH more about public appeal and earning scratch. i've seen paul and he delights in getting approval to boost his mega-ego.

personally, i prefer John. he had the big f-u to society.

Answer 6

...I think Paul was lots more creative than John ever was; just listen to Paul's solo efforts vs John's solo efforts....Paul's were much better.
...My complaints with all of them - they were druggies, they were anti-Christ, and they were anti-Christianity.

Answer 7

i dont kno anything about john lennon or paul mccartney, but i ♥jesse mccartney!!!