Home

Major differences between Paul & John

107 views

8 posts

Last post 01/02/2019

Posted by Nancy R

      Original post

      https://metalheadzone.com/major-differences-between-john-lennon-and-paul-mccartney-from-the-beatles/

        "The name Lennon can refer to one of several individuals or groups: Anglicized from Irish Ó Leannáin (“descendant of Lover ( leannán )”) and from Ó Lionáin (“descendant of Blackbird (Lonán)”).

        • Region of origin: Ireland
        • Meaning: "Cloak"; "blackbird"; "lover"
        • Language(s): Irish Gaelic
        • Variant(s): MacLennon, O'Lennon, O'Lennan,"
        •  
        •  
        •  
        •  
        •  
        •  
        •  
        •  
        •  
        •  
        •  
        •  
        •  
        •  
        •  

          "McCartney name meaning

          Last name: McCartney. This notable surname is an Anglicized form of the Old Scottish Gaelic "MacArtain" or the Irish "MacCartaine". The Gaelic prefix "mac" means "son of", and "Artain" is a diminutive of the Old Celtic byname "Art", bear, hero. Traditionally, Gaelic family names are taken from the heads of tribes or from some illustrious warrior."

            Why can't this writer appreciate them both, while now favoring Paul's music more for its usually optimistic upbeat nature; why does he have to put down Lennon in order to praise Paul.  I'm glad Lennon did what he wanted, especially considering what happened to him. They brought different qualities to the party sometime but they were two different people, of course. The writer agreed that McCartney can rock and Lennon music can be mellow. 

            John's singing voice sounded sarcastic, I thought, which went better with his cynical political rockers than with his love songs. His vocals were very distinctive and he did sound like he meant it, was sincere, nevertheless.

            To simplify, Paul's vocals were sugar and John's were spice. They complemented each other nicely, provided balance. George's and Ringo's vocals sound ponderdous, heavy, Liverpudlian which is great, too. George sounds more heavy handed in his singing than Ringo.

              SusyLuvsPaul wrote:

              Why can't this writer appreciate them both, while now favoring Paul's music more for its usually optimistic upbeat nature; why does he have to put down Lennon in order to praise Paul.  I'm glad Lennon did what he wanted, especially considering what happened to him. They brought different qualities to the party sometime but they were two different people, of course. The writer agreed that McCartney can rock and Lennon music can be mellow. 

              John's singing voice sounded sarcastic, I thought, which went better with his cynical political rockers than with his love songs. His vocals were very distinctive and he did sound like he meant it, was sincere, nevertheless.

              To simplify, Paul's vocals were sugar and John's were spice. They complemented each other nicely, provided balance. George's and Ringo's vocals sound ponderdous, heavy, Liverpudlian which is great, too. George sounds more heavy handed in his singing than Ringo.

              He’s entitled to his opinion. 🤷🏻‍♀️

                Of course, and I have a right to mine. I wuz just shootin' da breeze. This wasn't a doctoral dissertation (wink, wink) or the final word on the subject ya know

                  Nancy R wrote:

                  https://metalheadzone.com/major-differences-between-john-lennon-and-paul-mccartney-from-the-beatles/

                  Differences is what made them such good songwriting partners .

                    Yankeefan2 wrote:

                    Nancy R wrote:

                    https://metalheadzone.com/major-differences-between-john-lennon-and-paul-mccartney-from-the-beatles/

                    Differences is what made them such good songwriting partners .

                    I agree!