|
Post by fathermckenzie on Sept 19, 2009 18:13:12 GMT
Ringo was the greatest songwriter.... haha! No; Paul and John were equally talented writers. And George became beter and better... It must have been very frustrating for poor George, to be in a band with 2 gigantic talents...
|
|
bradwest96
And That's A Start
And in the end...
Posts: 11
|
Post by bradwest96 on Sept 29, 2009 21:08:16 GMT
Although both songwriters are incredibly different, I'd go with John, although Paul is an extremely close second. Paul was definitely more diverse, but perhaps a jack of all trades, master of none. Paul could write a quirky love song like "Honey Pie" and then start penning a hard rocker like "Helter Skelter" right after. But John could write truer and more mind-blowing lyrics. Especially after the split in 1970, John was writing lyrics that just weren't typical of that time period. As for Paul, his post-Beatles stuff was rather hit and miss. Songs like "Maybe I'm Amazed" and even "Band on the Run" are indeed great tunes, however a lot of his other stuff seems a lot less meaningful compared to John's. However when the band was together, some of Paul's songs are enough to match John's (hell, even George's "Here Comes the Sun" and "Something" are fantastic), but overall, John is just leagues above Paul in songwriting. Paul was clearly the better musician, and also more diverse, however just can't write as great as John could.
|
|
|
Post by hihopes1964 on Nov 16, 2009 18:14:53 GMT
I voted for Paul simply because 7 of my top 10 beatles songs are written by him.
But I don't actually believe that. I believe that - amazingly - both John Lennon and Paul McCartney were as good as each other. That's what amazing about the Beatles; two genius' in one group!
John writes "Strawberry Fields Forever" and Paul comes out with "Penny Lane". Paul writes "Paperback Writer" and John hits back with "Rain". John writes the crazy, genius "I Am the Walrus" and Paul writes my favourite song of all time - "Hello Goodbye". What an incredible team.
|
|
|
Post by buybeatles on Jan 2, 2010 17:15:47 GMT
What a daft question! The only thing for sure is that it certainly wasn't Ringo
|
|
elementrypenguin
I'll Be On My Way
Living is Easy with eyes closed...
Posts: 155
|
Post by elementrypenguin on Jan 5, 2010 21:29:51 GMT
It Don't Know Why You Guys Hate Ringo. Yeah,He Was The Weakest Songwriter,But I'd Choose Don't Pass Me By Or Octopus's Garden Over Honey Pie Or You're Mother Should Know Any Day.
|
|
|
Post by wooperman on May 25, 2011 4:57:07 GMT
Hello!, In case yall didn't notice, all of the songs were written by both, Lennon/McCartney. Wake up peopls.
|
|
|
Post by mrmustard on May 25, 2011 12:44:05 GMT
Hello!, In case yall didn't notice, all of the songs were written by both, Lennon/McCartney. Wake up peopls. Could you elaborate on your ridiculous statement? This is an excellent topic and you need to wake up!
|
|
|
Post by yerblues1234 on Jun 26, 2011 4:34:46 GMT
|
|
tkitna
I'll Be On My Way
Posts: 214
|
Post by tkitna on Jun 27, 2011 4:38:24 GMT
great question. the answer is tied up with what makes them a unique, unrepeatably great band. almost all succesful bands have a single frontman/woman who usually has the strongest creative gift. they dominate the group, and are the charismatic frontperson. with John and Paul what made them so special was that they were two exceptionally good songwriters, in the same band, with perfectly complementary yet different approaches. rather like a succesful marriage of opposites. fire and water, and together, they were more than the sum of their parts. for a golden period, they drew out each other's genius, and damped down each others weaknesses, in perfect balance. Paul was the better in terms of being a classic, fantastic tunesmith, capable of writing eternal standards like 'yesterday'. that song sounds like it has been around forever. as if somebody had to write it. john's aren't like that. Paul's various parodies of old music hall styles etc i think show how he was much more about writing classic songs (and boy did he. in my opinion, macca is the greatest songwriter of the 20th century, and one of the greatest singers). his weakness? when unchecked, his songwriting can get a bit mawkish. Paul mostly stuck to the rulebook of songwriting, but mastered it wonderfully.
John came from another planet. I think that he was the one more responsible for actually defining the way modern pop songwriting sounds. the original punk rocker. His weakness? laziness and a fondness for drugs (although they helped him in moderation), and a muse that was often a bit too untamed for its own good (i would go a step further and say that i suspect he had bipolar disorder, something that afflicts many very creative people). John pissed on the book of classic songwriting, and then hurled it out of the window.it's interesting if you listen to their 70s solo stuff, how much their different weaknesses come to the foreground, without their 'other half' to say 'that's fookin crap that, la'. I used to slightly favour macca as top beatle, but listen to that series of gobsmacking songs that john delivered just before he decided he'd rather remain mashed off his tits on drugs: Help! (my all-time fave beatles track) Ticket To Ride (one of his own personal faves. he felt that there was something new about the heavy, slow beat. and he was right). I'm Only Sleeping (an amazingly laid back groove) I Feel Fine His melodies are beautifully economical, almost monotonal. punk-like, in some ways. very simple, yet sad and affecting. pure pop. timeless. very direct, very solid. not clever-clever, but just right for the most economical delivery of words backed by drum, bass, and guitar. a true artist, he despised frilliness. it's just struck me that paul's songs were often too beautiful as pure melodies for the rest of the band to even play on them (Eleanor, blackbird, yesterday). yet how many of john's were like that? the vocal, lyric and melody line are always designed to take their place perfectly in the ensemble of the band, minimal as a bassline. SO: Paul for his timeless melodies the milkman can whistle. John for his revolutionary contribution to pop and rock music. In other words...er....it's a draw. I think this was a brilliant post. Made me think about things in a few different directions.
|
|
|
Post by mrslemke on Jun 27, 2011 23:16:19 GMT
Well, I like alot more of John's solo stuff than Pauls solo stuff, so I'm going to say John
|
|
thiswan
And That's A Start
Posts: 22
|
Post by thiswan on Jun 29, 2011 8:20:53 GMT
I'd say up to Revolver John after that Paul. and George was in the frame just before they broke up
|
|
|
Post by mrmustard on Jun 29, 2011 11:47:05 GMT
I'd say up to Revolver John after that Paul. and George was in the frame just before they broke up I would say John was more prolific and dominant in terms of songwriting up to Revolver and then likewise Paul became more prolific and dominant from Revolver onwards. However, arguably, John wrote some of his best songs from Revolver onwards (e.g. I Am The Walrus, Strawberry Fields) and arguably Paul wrote some of his best songs up to Revolver (e.g. Yesterday, All My Loving). I whole heartedly agree with you that George was in the frame just before the break up. Although this theory is based on two songs (Something and Here Comes The Sun) you have to take into account the All Things Must Pass album. A lot of which was met with total disinterest by John and Paul when George presented them for The Beatles.
|
|
|
Post by robert123 on Jun 30, 2011 13:39:31 GMT
Paul is a great musician but John was the soul of the Beatles
|
|
|
Post by kokomo0020 on Jul 9, 2011 4:15:56 GMT
Why isn't Ringo a choice here?
|
|
|
Post by mrmustard on Jul 9, 2011 10:04:35 GMT
Why isn't Ringo a choice here? Beacuse he aint writ no songs in the class of Lennon, Harrison and McCartney.
|
|
|
Post by kokomo0020 on Jul 11, 2011 17:18:45 GMT
Why isn't Ringo a choice here? Beacuse he aint writ no songs in the class of Lennon, Harrison and McCartney. At least Octopus's Garden is better than Good Morning Good Morning.
|
|
|
Post by mrmustard on Jul 11, 2011 22:22:31 GMT
At least Octopus's Garden is better than Good Morning Good Morning. Bollocks!!!
|
|
|
Post by The End on Jul 12, 2011 13:40:40 GMT
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
henryj
For A Number Of Things
Posts: 792
|
Post by henryj on Jul 31, 2011 3:10:40 GMT
As a Beatle, it's a tie. But since the question did not specify such, I voted for John based on his solo work. John was one of the most powerful songwriters ever and continued to be so after the Beatles broke up. And his stuff seems to age better than Paul's.
His early solo stuff was fueled by the Beatle breakup, and after he got over that he came up with "Beautiful Boy" about his son Sean. So, considering solo material, my vote was for John.
|
|
savoy
And That's A Start
Posts: 2
|
Post by savoy on Feb 20, 2012 4:22:21 GMT
I think they were both brillant. Of course , each one did it differently. I think Paul was more of the total musician, writer and composer. John wrote some great songs after the Beatles. Paul had a talent for knowing how to verse the song. How to use what sounds and instruments, as only a true composer would know. I really can't choose. I loved em both! John's first solo album was just awesome!!!
|
|