The John Lennon Peace, Love, and Appreciation Thread

[Moon Dawg]

 John was my first favorite of The Beatles but over the years I became a Paul backer as (to me) McCartney is clearly the more interesting musician. I still feel that John was the better lyricist, and yes he did have an edge. But Paul's music does more for more.

 John's solo stuff is hit and miss. I agree with the earlier comment about his production skills as well.

 Consider PLASTIC ONO BAND and IMAGINE. Although both are classics, what in the world happened to Lennon's sense of humor? And the God complex was a bit much. John was close to a great album with WALLS & BRIDGES but it needed maybe 2 more really good songs instead of "Ya Ya."

[Gabo]

Paul comes off as less interesting to me because it seemed clear he wanted to continuously remake Abbey Road and Sgt. Pepper throughout his career. All his music feels so tacky, superproduced. Besides the inconsequential Smiley Smiles of his career, McCartney 1 and 2.

[halblaineisgood]

.

[halblaineisgood]

.

[pixletwin]

On Beatles albums I prefer John's work. Paul is second and George is third.

For solo stuff I would still rank Lennon at #1, with George at #2, and Paul at #3. I liked Lennon's work the best for the longest time. He was just a more interesting singer/personality. His subject matters resonated more with me. I have found as I grow older that Paul's work and George's work (especially) has been increasing in favor, while my interest in Lennon has diminished somewhat. I would still put Lennon as #1 though.

[halblaineisgood]

.

[halblaineisgood]

.

[Gabo]

More listenable, but more affecting? Nah. McCartney solo is all showmanship. It's not even great pop.

[halblaineisgood]

.

[Gabo]

I'm sick of this Lennon vs. McCartney crap. I love them both. Of course most people on a Beach Boys forum are going to like McCartney more than Lennon... I started thread just to discuss how cool Lennon was. He's the man. 

[the captain]

Of course most people on a Beach Boys forum are going to like McCartney more than Lennon...

I guess I didn't tally it up, but I think this thread shows the opposite. Seems more Lennon backers.

But like you, I like them both. And obviously it's not necessary to choose one any more than it is necessary to choose one band over another. There's plenty of time to listen to and love plenty of things. At least hopefully there's plenty of time (I guess one never knows).

[halblaineisgood]

.

[halblaineisgood]

.

[alf wiedersehen]

Well, we clearly have different opinions on this (i.e. Pixletwin and Gabo being wrong), so I suppose we'll have to move on.

[pixletwin]

Well, we clearly have different opinions on this (i.e. Pixletwin and Gabo being wrong), so I suppose we'll have to move on.

Not sure if this is said jokingly or if you really believe that (I have seen stranger and stupider things on this site). 

[Gabo]

Another point about Lennon:

He also wrote almost all of the band's early hits until "Yesterday" and dominated the group until Revolver. He wrote 10 out of the 13 songs on A Hard Day's Night (my favorite early Beatles album). He was the most dominant personality in the band, and probably their most prolific writer even close to the end.

[bluesno1fann]

Have to admit I'm not really a fan of his work during the Lost Weekend, with very few exceptions.

[alf wiedersehen]

and probably their most prolific writer even close to the end.

No, Paul overtook him from Revolver onwards.
Perhaps you think Paul is trying to recreate Sgt. Peppers and Abbey Road because he's the most dominant force on those albums? Those records sound like his music because those records are his music.

[Niko]

The best Beatles music came out from Rubber Soul to Abbey Road. Those 5 albums and 1 double EP are some of the best ever made (and the greatest), and it is amazing to think how consistently excellent they were. For me, there are not many albums better than White Album or Abbey Road, which are the sum of the parts of each member. Even Ringo getting in there with Goodnight. I like the McCartney/George songs in there more than I like the Lennon ones, even if sh*t like Me and My Monkey does rock the house down. Lennon was always the rocker of the group.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

I have a couple of thoughts here.

To me, Lennon and McCartney are two of the greatest musicians of all time and to me talking about which one is better is to miss the point that there were few people (in my view) better than either of them.

However, I do have the view that after 1965, John had burned out and never quite recovered. In a roughly two year span, Lennon wrote or contributed a sizeable amount to: I Want to Hold Your Hand, This Boy, A Hard Day's Night, I Should Have Known Better, If I Fell,  I'll Cry Instead, You Can't Do That, I'll Be Back, I Feel Fine, I'm a Loser, Baby's in Black, I Don't Want to Spoil the Party, Ticket to Ride, Help!, You've Got To Hide Your Love Away, You're Gonna Lose That Girl, Day Tripper, Norwegian Wood, Nowhere Man, The Word, Girl, and In My Life. This is two years of creativity that I think is unparalleled in the history of pop music.

After 1965, he never quite captured that same magic. This is perhaps for several reasons. One might be his increased use of drugs. Another might be his ever growing disillusionment with the mainstream. But another important one is that he was probably quite seriously burned out after those years of creativity. And the simple fact of the matter is is that no one really captured that again so why is it so shocking that Lennon could keep up that pace of creativity.

This is not to say that he didn't still have incredible songs in him. 1967 was a fantastic year for Lennon when he wrote some of his all-time best material. Yet, at the same time, he didn't write nearly as much as he did during those peak years. And he did struggle with writing bona fide hit single material, even though he seemed to care about writing hit A-sides. Again, he could still do it, though one should wonder how far The Ballad of John and Yoko (which I think is a great song) would have gone up the charts had it been released as a solo Lennon track in 1971.

Also, I have to say that I don't particularly think that I value Lennon highly because his songs are more "real" -- I hear plenty of amateurs on youtube talking about personal stuff in their music and the songs are completely lousy. I think this all stems from the fact that we strive for an objective way to evaluate music and one way people do this is to so the more real it is, the better it is. It's harder (but more realistic, I think) to explain that there is just some ineffable quality that makes me enjoy a song. Where Lennon exceeds as a lyricist is his ability to express the kinds of things that people experience but would have never been able to articulate. At least, that's what he does for me. A song like In My Life, for example, becomes more and more relevant every day for me.

[Gabo]

In a roughly two year span, Lennon wrote or contributed a sizeable amount to: I Want to Hold Your Hand, This Boy, A Hard Day's Night, I Should Have Known Better, If I Fell,  I'll Cry Instead, You Can't Do That, I'll Be Back, I Feel Fine, I'm a Loser, Baby's in Black, I Don't Want to Spoil the Party, Ticket to Ride, Help!, You've Got To Hide Your Love Away, You're Gonna Lose That Girl, Day Tripper, Norwegian Wood, Nowhere Man, The Word, Girl, and In My Life. This is two years of creativity that I think is unparalleled in the history of pop music.

Lennon was responsible for the band's early success. His vocals and songwriting were at the forefront.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

In a roughly two year span, Lennon wrote or contributed a sizeable amount to: I Want to Hold Your Hand, This Boy, A Hard Day's Night, I Should Have Known Better, If I Fell,  I'll Cry Instead, You Can't Do That, I'll Be Back, I Feel Fine, I'm a Loser, Baby's in Black, I Don't Want to Spoil the Party, Ticket to Ride, Help!, You've Got To Hide Your Love Away, You're Gonna Lose That Girl, Day Tripper, Norwegian Wood, Nowhere Man, The Word, Girl, and In My Life. This is two years of creativity that I think is unparalleled in the history of pop music.

Lennon was responsible for the band's early success. His vocals and songwriting dominated the band.

He was the leader, unquestionably, but not solely responsible for their success. He played a big role in it, but the band's strength was always that they were more than the sum of their parts. They were a group who played incredibly well together and they developed their sound together. Lennon wasn't really responsible for The Beatles sound - that was something that mostly Lennon, McCartney, and Harrison developed together in Hamburg and then Ringo added a new element too when he was brought on board. This is significant because really no one really sounded like The Beatles when they dropped on the scene.

[pixletwin]

Rockandroll gets it right.

[Ron]

I think the more you listen, the more you realize that everybody in the band was instrumental in their success.  It's the same exact scenario with Nirvana.  It's easy to say Kurt was the genius, blah blah and I thought that too when I was a kid, but once you figure out how fucking BAD ASS Dave Grohl's drums were and what it added, and when you listen to the basslines on each song... you realize that it wasn't just the Kurt show, they were all talented and kicking ass.

Same thing with the Beatles.  Yes John was brilliant and was great at what he did, but check out Paul's bass on "I Saw Her Standing There".  Completely indispensable part of the band.  Ringo is so underrated it's criminal, everybody's been over that a million times.  Ringo was the guy they called in because they needed the best drummer they knew of.  George's talent has been well described over the years as well.


Another thing that doesn't get discussed much is that they were a Boy Band.  Much of their success was because of their legions of young female fans, who all had a seperate Beatle that they were in love with.  Ask any woman over 60 and she'll explain it to you.  Paul was the pretty one, John was the bad boy, Ringo was the goofy one, George was the mysterious one, etc.  Again, each Beatle played their part. 

[Ron]

Solo I'd have to give it to Paul, which is a little unfair to John since he only had 10 years.  To my ears, John seemed to be returning to his pop brilliance around the time he died, the last album had some great pop songs on it, which is what he was best at.  In the 80's he probably would have recorded some great sh*t but we'll never know. 

I was blown away the first time I heard the Wings double greatest hits album.  Fantastic music.