Paul Mccartney vs. John Lennon (Solo Careers)

[Newguy562]

I'm sure Paul had more hits and had more of a mainstream sound but who would you say had a better career from 1970-1980? As far as a body of work not just singles.
I know many people rank praise Lennon more than Sir Paul ..As far as Beatles songs go i always favored Lennon's contributions over Paul's.. but when i checked out the solo years i preferred Paul's work.

[Cabinessenceking]

I also looked throught my Beatles catalogue and found out that 3/4 good songs were John's, just my preference I guess. I think Plastic Ono Band is a masterpiece on terms of creating such powerful songs with strong messages while minimizing production (ironic that Spector was in on this one right?) His mid 70's music is slightly lacking perhaps? but he showed he was still a master of music when he did Double Fantasy.

Wings was a good band, but John Lennon had messages in his music, Paul had tunes with no messages.
To put it this way, John Lennon was a person of massive interest and had he not been killed he would most likely entered politics and perhaps become Prime Minister of the UK (yes i just asked for a personal message ban me now) 

Paul was none of this. He was a successful musician and fantastic songwriter, but does not have the same meaning to people the way John did (and still does!)

[cablegeddon]

I also looked throught my Beatles catalogue and found out that 3/4 good songs were John's, just my preference I guess. I think Plastic Ono Band is a masterpiece on terms of creating such powerful songs with strong messages while minimizing production (ironic that Spector was in on this one right?) His mid 70's music is slightly lacking perhaps? but he showed he was still a master of music when he did Double Fantasy.

Wings was a good band, but John Lennon had messages in his music, Paul had tunes with no messages.
To put it this way, John Lennon was a person of massive interest and had he not been killed he would most likely entered politics and perhaps become Prime Minister of the UK (yes i just asked for a personal message ban me now) 

Paul was none of this. He was a successful musician and fantastic songwriter, but does not have the same meaning to people the way John did (and still does!)

I think it goes both ways. I remember listening to a couple of interviews with John Lennon and the jounalists were giving him a hard time. So he was ridiculed for his political involvement too.

[hypehat]

It depends on my mood - Macca solo records up until, IDK, McCartney II are inexplicably great. They shouldn't be, but they're extremely well-written, well-produced songs about absolutely nothing. And that vapidness gets to me some times, but if you're a guy who doesn't pay mind to lyrics so much I can see the appeal. Amazing melodies, arrangements, production, etc.

Lennon, on the other hand, has Songs about Things. I guess Macca doesn't have a Plastic Ono Band in his canon, but then Macca also doesn't have a record which misses the mark so far as Sometime In New York City. Or records which sound so bad as Double Fantasy (songwritings passable, but I prefer the demos from around that time). Or are as boring as Mind Games. Lennon is more about peaks and troughs - Macca doesn't have records as good as Walls & Bridges, Imagine or POB, but in the 70's (the only way this is fair) he doesn't sink as low as Lennon did.

[I. Spaceman]

McCartney, very easily. Who gives a poop if songs have messages or not? Don't bore us, get to the chorus.

[EgoHanger1966]

Macca.

[Dead Parrot]

.

Wings was a good band, but John Lennon had messages in his music, Paul had tunes with no messages.
To put it this way, John Lennon was a person of massive interest and had he not been killed he would most likely entered politics and perhaps become Prime Minister of the UK (yes i just asked for a personal message ban me now) 

TBH, I think the reason that the Sometime In New York City album is such a stinker, is because the message became more important than the music. The fact that "The Luck Of The Irish" may be just about the single most patronising protest song ever written doesn't help much either.

[hypehat]

.

Wings was a good band, but John Lennon had messages in his music, Paul had tunes with no messages.
To put it this way, John Lennon was a person of massive interest and had he not been killed he would most likely entered politics and perhaps become Prime Minister of the UK (yes i just asked for a personal message ban me now) 

TBH, I think the reason that the Sometime In New York City album is such a stinker, is because the message became more important than the music. The fact that "The Luck Of The Irish" may be just about the single most patronising protest song ever written doesn't help much either.

That and the production is so ass it makes it essentially unlistenable. It sounds fucking terrible.

[Dead Parrot]

That and the production is so ass it makes it essentially unlistenable. It sounds f*cking terrible.

Well, yes there is that too.
None of the post Imagine Lennon albums have got great production on them. Walls & Bridges in particular has some fantastic songs on it, but is horribly overproduced. I do tend to prefer the demo versions of many of the later Lennon material to the finished versions.

[hypehat]

I'm fond of Walls and Bridges sound, but then I like that 70's LA thing. Crack session dudes and so on. It's slick, but it is inexplicable catnip to me.


In terms of production.... Mind Games sounds boring (apart from the title track, which is magic) Walls and Bridges sounds cool, Rock and Roll sounds amazing, and Double Fantasy sounds way 80's. But then, even the 'Stripped Down' version makes me just want to listen to the original mix, so I guess that's not my problem with it I think the problem with the mix is that it ain't 'overdone', it's rather too much on effects and things. The actual arrangements are fine.

[Ron]

I'm sure Paul had more hits and had more of a mainstream sound but who would you say had a better career from 1970-1980? As far as a body of work not just singles.
I know many people rank praise Lennon more than Sir Paul ..As far as Beatles songs go i always favored Lennon's contributions over Paul's.. but when i checked out the solo years i preferred Paul's work.

What you COULD do (it's just an option I'm presenting you with) is stop trying to rank everything that ever happened in the history of pop music, and stop trying to put it all in little boxes with a lid on it.........

and just listen to Paul McCartney, AND John Lennon's albums. 

[I. Spaceman]

I'm sure Paul had more hits and had more of a mainstream sound but who would you say had a better career from 1970-1980? As far as a body of work not just singles.
I know many people rank praise Lennon more than Sir Paul ..As far as Beatles songs go i always favored Lennon's contributions over Paul's.. but when i checked out the solo years i preferred Paul's work.

What you COULD do (it's just an option I'm presenting you with) is stop trying to rank everything that ever happened in the history of pop music, and stop trying to put it all in little boxes with a lid on it.........

and just listen to Paul McCartney, AND John Lennon's albums. 

Yeah............................YEAH!

[Newguy562]

I'm sure Paul had more hits and had more of a mainstream sound but who would you say had a better career from 1970-1980? As far as a body of work not just singles.
I know many people rank praise Lennon more than Sir Paul ..As far as Beatles songs go i always favored Lennon's contributions over Paul's.. but when i checked out the solo years i preferred Paul's work.

What you COULD do (it's just an option I'm presenting you with) is stop trying to rank everything that ever happened in the history of pop music, and stop trying to put it all in little boxes with a lid on it.........

and just listen to Paul McCartney, AND John Lennon's albums. 

stop telling me what i COULD do

[18thofMay]

Imagine

[Chocolate Shake Man]

I have been obsessed with The Beatles since I was about three years old, and they have remained my favourite band since - so, nearly thirty years now. I only say that in order to say that the great thing about the band and its members solo work is that they really allow you to change your mind. So when I was a kid I was a huge fan of Paul's stuff in The Beatles but in my teenage years, I was more drawn to John. By my late teenage years I was obsessed with John's Beatle stuff and his solo stuff. I had largely written off Macca. In my 20s, I re-gained my appreciation for Paul's Beatle work and this led me to re-investigate his solo material - and, for many albums, listen to it for the first time.

Since my late 20s, I have been preferring Paul's solo stuff. There is a lot of variety there. I think too that John seemed to be more self-conscious about being a serious artist and, consequently, there isn't that much "play" on his albums. In that sense, I go against the generalization that John was riskier than Paul. It seems to me that Paul was taking greater risks with songs like "Oo You," "Ram On," "Monkberry Moon Delight," "Mary Had A Little Lamb," "Single Pigeon," etc. In fact, and quite surprisingly, the John album that I dig the most right now is Mind Games. Not saying it's the best one - but I find that I can re-listen to POB, Imagine, or W&B too often. I recognize that the songs on Imagine are fantastic but despite how great they are, I can get bored with them after awhile. And I really have to be in the right mood to get into POB and W&B (again, that's probably why they were such big albums for me in high school...). At the moment, I can still re-listen to Paul's stuff all the time.

But who knows? Ask me again in ten years and I may have a completely different story.

[Ron]

I'm sure Paul had more hits and had more of a mainstream sound but who would you say had a better career from 1970-1980? As far as a body of work not just singles.
I know many people rank praise Lennon more than Sir Paul ..As far as Beatles songs go i always favored Lennon's contributions over Paul's.. but when i checked out the solo years i preferred Paul's work.

What you COULD do (it's just an option I'm presenting you with) is stop trying to rank everything that ever happened in the history of pop music, and stop trying to put it all in little boxes with a lid on it.........

and just listen to Paul McCartney, AND John Lennon's albums. 

stop telling me what i COULD do

Stop telling me what i COULD do

[Newguy562]

I'm sure Paul had more hits and had more of a mainstream sound but who would you say had a better career from 1970-1980? As far as a body of work not just singles.
I know many people rank praise Lennon more than Sir Paul ..As far as Beatles songs go i always favored Lennon's contributions over Paul's.. but when i checked out the solo years i preferred Paul's work.

What you COULD do (it's just an option I'm presenting you with) is stop trying to rank everything that ever happened in the history of pop music, and stop trying to put it all in little boxes with a lid on it.........

and just listen to Paul McCartney, AND John Lennon's albums. 

stop telling me what i COULD do

Stop telling me what i COULD do

[RadBooley]

I'm sure Paul had more hits and had more of a mainstream sound but who would you say had a better career from 1970-1980? As far as a body of work not just singles.
I know many people rank praise Lennon more than Sir Paul ..As far as Beatles songs go i always favored Lennon's contributions over Paul's.. but when i checked out the solo years i preferred Paul's work.

What you COULD do (it's just an option I'm presenting you with) is stop trying to rank everything that ever happened in the history of pop music, and stop trying to put it all in little boxes with a lid on it.........

and just listen to Paul McCartney, AND John Lennon's albums. 

stop telling me what i COULD do

Stop telling me what i COULD do

Oh hey, welcome to my world.

[Newguy562]

I was wondering to any of you guys remember this song ? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdUbkUpUzH8

[I. Spaceman]

Yeah, that's a great song. Love the bass.

[pixletwin]

I prefer Lennon, but I will say this: McCartney was (is) a far better producer.

[Newguy562]

Yeah, that's a great song. Love the bass.

the bass is the only part john admitted that he liked :/ such a bitter yet talented man.

[MBE]

Imho of course kust going by the seventies John had three good albums (POB, Imagine, Walls) to Paul's six (McCartney, Ram, Band On The Run, Venus, Over America, Back To The Egg). I would rate John a lot higher if I never had the displeasure of hearing Yoko sing.

[pixletwin]

Imho of course kust going by the seventies John had three good albums (POB, Imagine, Walls) to Paul's six (McCartney, Ram, Band On The Run, Venus, Over America, Back To The Egg). I would rate John a lot higher if I never had the displeasure of hearing Yoko sing.

Don't forget that the second half of the 70's saw no record releases from John. So if you are comparing albums you have to be guided by a 1970 - 1974 standard. So while you have POB, Imagine, and Walls from John that would only give you McCartney, Ram, and Band on the Run. Nose to nose, these two were. I do think McCartney II is a better (and far more adventurous) album than Double Fantasy though.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Imho of course kust going by the seventies John had three good albums (POB, Imagine, Walls) to Paul's six (McCartney, Ram, Band On The Run, Venus, Over America, Back To The Egg). I would rate John a lot higher if I never had the displeasure of hearing Yoko sing.

Don't forget that the second half of the 70's saw no record releases from John. So if you are comparing albums you have to be guided by a 1970 - 1974 standard. So while you have POB, Imagine, and Walls from John that would only give you McCartney, Ram, and Band on the Run. Nose to nose, these two were. I do think McCartney II is a better (and far more adventurous) album than Double Fantasy though.

I thought about mentioning this but I also noticed that, even percentage wise, McCartney still scores higher for Mike, than Lennon.