Home

Paul a better Beatle than John(?)

165 views

17 posts

Last post about 13 hours ago

Posted by Beatles4Ever&Ever

      Original post

      https://allthatsinteresting.com/why-paul-mccartney-better-than-john-lennon

        Easy answer:   No... he wasn't.  Who keeps coming up with all this claptrap anyway???

          Beatles4Ever&Ever wrote:

          Easy answer:   No... he wasn't.  Who keeps coming up with all this claptrap anyway???

          Did you even read the article? 🙄

            Nancy R wrote:

            https://allthatsinteresting.com/why-paul-mccartney-better-than-john-lennon

            The writer makes a compelling case that McCartney was essential to the group's later years. I just wish these people would do it without having to put John down. It always turns into a comparison thing. But the creative juices which drove the band forward were from all four. It wasn't just Paul. Even Paul has said that. I'm glad some of the comments had a little more perspective. 

              LOL!!! Stupid thread. It's like saying, "Which is more important, the left hand or the right hand?" lol

                Yeah, he was more proficient in those ways the article specified, actually, I think. And he certainly loved and enjoyed being a big music star more than the other Fabs, and was much more outgoing and vivacious, a "people person." More suited to that.  Could be so charming. I saw Oprah interview him Nov. '97 on her show, in an online vid,  on which he certainly displayed those attributes. He had them post-Fab as well. And still does.  Just my opinion. 

                  Nancy R wrote:

                  Beatles4Ever&Ever wrote:

                  Easy answer:   No... he wasn't.  Who keeps coming up with all this claptrap anyway???

                  Did you even read the article? 🙄

                  I don't need to read it.  The title tells me all I need to know. This nonsense comes up far too often.  It's generated to cause controversy and it's useless.  totally useless.  

                    Beatles4Ever&Ever wrote:

                    Nancy R wrote:
                    Beatles4Ever&Ever wrote:

                    Easy answer:   No... he wasn't.  Who keeps coming up with all this claptrap anyway???

                    Did you even read the article? 🙄

                    I don't need to read it.  The title tells me all I need to know. This nonsense comes up far too often.  It's generated to cause controversy and it's useless.  totally useless.  

                    Well, maybe if you’d be a bit more open-minded before you summarily dismissed it, you’d see the author made some valid points. He wasn’t knocking John, in fact he said he dominated musically up to 1966. 

                      Beatles4Ever&Ever wrote:

                      Nancy R wrote:
                      Beatles4Ever&Ever wrote:

                      Easy answer:   No... he wasn't.  Who keeps coming up with all this claptrap anyway???

                      Did you even read the article? 🙄

                      I don't need to read it.  The title tells me all I need to know. This nonsense comes up far too often.  It's generated to cause controversy and it's useless.  totally useless.  

                      EXACTLY!!! Where do they get these antagonist fruit cakes?

                        NO WAY! Its not fair to compare John to Paul or say who is better, John or Paul? These two different personalities/elements out of four different personalities/elements brewed genius'! No one has ever been better than the other, it took all four to create The Beatles! If one of the four would have never existed, the Beatles would have never existed. It had to be John, Paul, George and Ringo or The Beatles would have never existed. 

                          jl4761 wrote:

                          NO WAY! Its not fair to compare John to Paul or say who is better, John or Paul? These two different personalities/elements out of four different personalities/elements brewed genius'! No one has ever been better than the other, it took all four to create The Beatles! If one of the four would have never existed, the Beatles would have never existed. It had to be John, Paul, George and Ringo or The Beatles would have never existed. 

                          Nobody is disputing that. You guys are over-reacting. If you would just take the time to read the article you’d get it. 

                            This article reminds me of a debate at high school.

                            We didn't have mass debating at high school.... hee hee.... but debates were not huge in the Australian school scheme. 

                            But when we did (on that rare occasion), we were pulled something out of a hat, and we had to argue a cause, whether we believed it or not. I recall having to argue something I disagreed with, but found a way to come up with an argument for.

                            I could argue Paul was the best. I could argue John was the best. I love them both equally, but if I was forced to be in a debate arguing either, I could do it.

                            Either way, I love both of those guys. And I refuse to have to make a choice.

                            Interesting article, though. As were the comments in the article. But like I say, I love both.

                              toris wrote:

                              This article reminds me of a debate at high school.

                              We didn't have mass debating at high school.... hee hee.... but debates were not huge in the Australian school scheme. 

                              But when we did (on that rare occasion), we were pulled something out of a hat, and we had to argue a cause, whether we believed it or not. I recall having to argue something I disagreed with, but found a way to come up with an argument for.

                              I could argue Paul was the best. I could argue John was the best. I love them both equally, but if I was forced to be in a debate arguing either, I could do it.

                              Either way, I love both of those guys. And I refuse to have to make a choice.

                              Interesting article, though. As were the comments in the article. But like I say, I love both.

                              Ditto, Toris. You phrased it well. And like Nancy said, the article was pretty reasonable, asserting John dominated until 1966, while Paul took over, pretty much, after Eppy's untimely, tragic demise.  I saw in another Beatles site some argued "the Beatles didn't have a lead guitarist." I had always thought George was. He seemed to play guitar the best, and would play stunning lead guitar bits. Ringo had his chance to shine with a lot of teenybopper vintage mags calling him the "most popular" Beatle in the U.S. The Fabs required all parts to make the spectacular whole. I still can't help but think Paul sported the most natural showmanship, had the most charisma. He wanted to please. I don't get a great deal of pleasure from "The John and Yoko Show" and Paul said he didn't, back then, when asked. Their social activism stunts were important to an extent, but not all that much fun. Yoko pulled the strings with the performance art showcases. I always have wondered what all Lennon would have done had he never met her. Some of the "Double Fantasy" songs are good. But she barged in on their creative process in the recording studio and caused some disruption, towards the end of The Beatles, made some unnecessary waves.  The other Fab paramours didn't intrude on those music sessions. Paul still managed to be very perky and upbeat and quite spirited on the piano working on his brilliant "Let It Be" song and "The Long and Winding Road" song is beautiful too.

                               

                                SusyLuvsPaul wrote:

                                toris wrote:

                                This article reminds me of a debate at high school.

                                We didn't have mass debating at high school.... hee hee.... but debates were not huge in the Australian school scheme. 

                                But when we did (on that rare occasion), we were pulled something out of a hat, and we had to argue a cause, whether we believed it or not. I recall having to argue something I disagreed with, but found a way to come up with an argument for.

                                I could argue Paul was the best. I could argue John was the best. I love them both equally, but if I was forced to be in a debate arguing either, I could do it.

                                Either way, I love both of those guys. And I refuse to have to make a choice.

                                Interesting article, though. As were the comments in the article. But like I say, I love both.

                                Ditto, Toris. You phrased it well. And like Nancy said, the article was pretty reasonable, asserting John dominated until 1966, while Paul took over, pretty much, after Eppy's untimely, tragic demise.  I saw in another Beatles site some argued "the Beatles didn't have a lead guitarist." I had always thought George was. He seemed to play guitar the best, and would play stunning lead guitar bits. Ringo had his chance to shine with a lot of teenybopper vintage mags calling him the "most popular" Beatle in the U.S. The Fabs required all parts to make the spectacular whole. I still can't help but think Paul sported the most natural showmanship, had the most charisma. He wanted to please. I don't get a great deal of pleasure from "The John and Yoko Show" and Paul said he didn't, back then, when asked. Their social activism stunts were important to an extent, but not all that much fun. Yoko pulled the strings with the performance art showcases. I always have wondered what all Lennon would have done had he never met her. Some of the "Double Fantasy" songs are good. But she barged in on their creative process in the recording studio and caused some disruption, towards the end of The Beatles, made some unnecessary waves.  The other Fab paramours didn't intrude on those music sessions. Paul still managed to be very perky and upbeat and quite spirited on the piano working on his brilliant "Let It Be" song and "The Long and Winding Road" song is beautiful too.

                                 

                                I agree Susy. And I never knew until many years later that Paul had played lead guitar on Taxman and Good Morning Good Morning. Even with While My Guitar Gently Weeps, it was a awhile before it was revealed that it was Eric Clapton on lead. 

                                  Paul can be great on lead guitar, too ! Along with playing a variety of instruments (smiley face)

                                    Nancy R wrote:

                                    https://allthatsinteresting.com/why-paul-mccartney-better-than-john-lennon

                                    The only thing you can really prove is that McCartney is the better musician. He has been recognized as one of the greatest bass players in rock and roll and the diversity of instruments he can play is just amazing. After that, it is all a matter of opinion.

                                      Nancy R wrote:

                                      Beatles4Ever&Ever wrote:
                                      Nancy R wrote:
                                      Beatles4Ever&Ever wrote:

                                      Easy answer:   No... he wasn't.  Who keeps coming up with all this claptrap anyway???

                                      Did you even read the article? 🙄

                                      I don't need to read it.  The title tells me all I need to know. This nonsense comes up far too often.  It's generated to cause controversy and it's useless.  totally useless.  

                                      valid points.Well, maybe if you’d be a bit more open-minded before you summarily dismissed it, you’d see theauthor made some He wasn’t knocking John, in fact he said he dominated musicao 1966. 

                                      Well, it's somebody's opinion, not necessarily my lack of having an open mind.  Paul may have been "in charge" of the singles after Brian died and did what and all he could to keep the group together.  But we don't know the precise workings of the band; neither does the author.  Only John, Paul, George and Ringo know that.  It's about selling books or whatever.  Because someone writes something doesn't make it fact.