Paul vs John

Which One?


  • Total voters
    17

Luger

Rabbi of Platinum Nation
Banned
Joined
Jun 15, 2013
Messages
19,656
Reaction score
7
I'm totally for John.
He had the gloomy parts.
Just look at We can work it out



Paul all happy.
He even kind of ruined A Day The Life


Amazing meaningful song and he went with fooking combing his hair

He did Helter Skelter, though. That was amazing.

Can we get a poll?

Paul also did well with this song

 
Last edited:
Fav songs are ticket to ride and we can work it out. Both primarily done by John. I prefers Pauls voice though.
 
Fav songs are ticket to ride and we can work it out. Both primarily done by John. I prefers Pauls voice though.
Paul had the clean vocals.
John wrote all the good melodies, though
 
Paul's songs were silly love songs for the most part. Not to say they weren't good but John was the more creative writer.
Absolutely.
Paul had his moments.
Especially on the white album.
Blackbird



Really good.
Also Helter Skelter

 
It's almost impossible for me to answer because they are very different. Paul's songs often were stories about people and places and generally were more upbeat. They also usually had better melodies with more intervals and pitch changes. John usually wrote melodies that were almost monotonous, and his best lyrics were witty and very personal, dealing with real things like drugs, sex and politics.

I bet if I were to list my ten favorite Beatles songs I'd end up with 4 from each and then a few that were actually co-written by both of them.
 
I prefer John's Beatles stuff as well as his solo stuff to Pauls.

But thats not to say I don't like Paul.
 
I prefer John's Beatles stuff as well as his solo stuff to Pauls.

But thats not to say I don't like Paul.
John's solo career had its moments.
For the most part, it was not too great
 
No love for George's songs? Gotta love "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" and "Something"
 
I remember reading once that after a drug fuelled retreat they went on for inspiration the first songs they wrote afterwards were Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da (Paul) and Happiness is a Warm Gun (John).

Always thought that was telling.
 
John's solo career had its moments.
For the most part, it was not too great

Going to have to disagree there. Plastic Ono Band album is solid beginning to end



And his 1975 Rock N Roll album is a great tribute to the songs that got him into music in the first place



Then there are the singles like Jealous Guy, Woman, Watching the Wheels, Instant Karma, etc....
 
Mother was pretty cool.
Working Class Hero and so on. Pretty solid album
 
I used to always say John but no longer do. I know it's not cool to prefer Paul though.
He is the more talented by far, perhaps the greatest rock musician of all time. Apart from probably around 3 of 4 songs of his solo stuff i don't have anything else from that period, so i'm not an obsessed fan.
Of course i do have Beatle music and i love the songs of both of them when they were in the band. John used to try and ridicule Paul and say his music is for grannies, however if you look at his catalogue you'll see he is great at so many styles.
Also we would not of gotten Abbey Road and Let It Be without Paul insisting that they record those lps as the other weren't keen at all and he talked them into it.

John was jealous of Paul, Don't get me wrong i love a lot of his solo work, some real classic among it. But as a pure musician Paul is miles ahead. I suppose it depends how you are judging them, whats the criteria?
Also John didn't seem that nice of a person at times when it came to females. Nothing to do with the music of course, but it has influenced my opinion of him.
I still recall the exact moment news of his death hit the airways, i was very sad and cried quite a bit, so i did like him.
Still everyone has faults don't they?[except me of course.]
 
I used to always say John but no longer do. I know it's not cool to prefer Paul though.
He is the more talented by far, perhaps the greatest rock musician of all time. Apart from probably around 3 of 4 songs of his solo stuff i don't have anything else from that period, so i'm not an obsessed fan.
Of course i do have Beatle music and i love the songs of both of them when they were in the band. John used to try and ridicule Paul and say his music is for grannies, however if you look at his catalogue you'll see he is great at so many styles.
Also we would not of gotten Abbey Road and Let It Be without Paul insisting that they record those lps as the other weren't keen at all and he talked them into it.

John was jealous of Paul, Don't get me wrong i love a lot of his solo work, some real classic among it. But as a pure musician Paul is miles ahead. I suppose it depends how you are judging them, whats the criteria?
Also John didn't seem that nice of a person at times when it came to females. Nothing to do with the music of course, but it has influenced my opinion of him.
I still recall the exact moment news of his death hit the airways, i was very sad and cried quite a bit, so i did like him.
Still everyone has faults don't they?[except me of course.]

Agreed 100% (ok, maybe 90%)

Though I actually like John's style better, Paul was a better musician, a better singer, AND more important to the Beatles. If it was up to John, the Beatles would have folded after Epstein died.

Paul was also the one that came up with the idea behind Sgt Pepper. He pretty much squeezed the last 4-5 albums out of the group. Of course these are their best.

John was funkier and darker. But Paul's melody-making in ballads is just untouchable. Hey Jude, Yesterday, Let it Be, And I Love Her, Golden Slumbers, For No One, Martha My Dear, etc.
 
Paul was the better musician, was a bit more professional, and had more of a knack for the business side of things. When someone asked John if Ringo was the best drummer alive, he said "Ringo isn't even the best drummer in the Beatles", as Paul was a very capable drummer. Paul was so good that when they needed a bassist, he switched from guitar to bass and ended up writing amazing bass lines (like Rain, wonderful stuff) and being famous for that, even though he was primarily a guitarist. He wrote some great melodies, too. Some of the best love songs came from Paul. John had a problem remembering lyrics and chords in the beginning, and was jealous that Paul was so good (they were only 15/16 when they met.) but Paul taught John some stuff.

John was more of a revolutionary; he wrote more open ended lyrics, and wasn't as much of a cliche. He sort of opened the door for the "introspective, contradictory" rock star, one minute being a lazy asshole, the next being incredibly kind hearted and hard working. He had the better sense of humor between the two, and would bring that "Beatle wit" that made them so loveable in interviews. He had a much more distinctive voice, and wrote songs that were way ahead of their time, like Tomorrow Never Knows, Across the Universe, Yer Blues, etc. He was known as the druggie of the band, but he had only taken LSD a few times - it was Paul who became a life long stoner, and kept taking LSD for years after the rest of the band quit. John did have a problem with heroin for a bit, but quit. I think John was the prototypical rocker who paved the way for grunge, and did things long before guys like Cobain were born.

Paul obviously had the longer career, but John is still considered one of the biggest rock and roll icons and legends to this day, with a fraction of the career that Paul had.

I'll go with John on this one, but it's still close - they both brought their own style to the band, and both would have been nothing without the other. The Lennon/McCartney brand is still the greatest songwriting partnership of all time, IMO. Overall, the Beatles were a monster, though - they were so good, that even George started writing number 1 hits and became an amazing songwriter in his own right. All of the talent of Lennon/McCartney rubbed off on him over those years. Both wrote songs for other bands - David Bowie's first #1 hit (Fame) was co-written by John Lennon, as well as "Whatever Gets you Thru the Night" being a major hit for Elton John.
 
John was cutting-edge with The Beatles, and when he went solo he was less poppy and more soulful than Paul. One vote for John. Pretty advanced stuff for 1966.
http://musicpleer.cc/#!fbbf64d2ca09ebe6e4bf530a34876d5d

True, though when it comes to cutting-edge, nothing compares to Tomorrow Never Knows.

I still can't get over how anyone could have thought of that in 1966. They were about 3 decades ahead of their time.
 
Back
Top