|
Post by debjorgo on Dec 16, 2014 20:10:56 GMT -5
|
|
kc
Beatle Freak
Posts: 1,085
|
Post by kc on Dec 16, 2014 21:32:32 GMT -5
I can respect the points of views of the various musicians featured here, but why should so many actors be involved in this? It seems to me that their opinions are no more relevant than yours or mine.
Just for the record, I rate Lennon and McCartney about even for the Beatles' years. Solo is different. I give the nod to John for maintaining (IMO) a higher average quality of work post-Beatles. On the other hand, since the dissolution I favour Paul overall because of the vast amount of material he has presented, across several genres, plenty of which is good.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Dec 16, 2014 23:11:01 GMT -5
This guy wrapped the results up for us. Johnny for the win.
Maurício Amendola
1 day ago
John Lennon – 282 Paul McCartney – 196 No answer – 50 George Harrison – 15 Ringo Starr – 4 Jimi Hendrix – 1 Lou Reed – 1 Keith Richards – 1 Oasis – 1
Early Beatles - Paul Middle period - John White album - Tie Let it Be/Abbey Road - Paul Solo - Paul - album for album
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Dec 17, 2014 0:10:18 GMT -5
Hey, my new heroes The Avett Brothers were quickly asked and Scott Avett, I believe, said "Lennon!" I hear that the Macca Mad Hatters are seething mad at this video!
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Dec 17, 2014 5:40:01 GMT -5
I am very happy that other people have their opinions, whatever they are, and I have mine, whatever it is. The one does not have a bearing on the other, and vice versa.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Dec 17, 2014 11:24:13 GMT -5
I am very happy that other people have their opinions, whatever they are, and I have mine, whatever it is. The one does not have a bearing on the other, and vice versa. But this video proves one thing: John > Paul!
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Dec 17, 2014 17:29:52 GMT -5
Whatever.
|
|
|
Post by stavros on Dec 17, 2014 17:53:39 GMT -5
Surely that was Oasis vectis? Anyway these arguments are trivial and meaningless because the equation (John + Paul) > (John or Paul) proves it.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Dec 17, 2014 18:59:28 GMT -5
I am very happy that other people have their opinions, whatever they are, and I have mine, whatever it is. The one does not have a bearing on the other, and vice versa. But this video proves one thing: John > Paul! Wasn't that you a while back, John, talking about how John was the most highly praised, most loved Beatle after his death but that now it is Paul. Paul still tours. Paul's still getting new fans. Lennon was getting left behind. I guess this shows the "John is Dead" thing was just a hoax. Or, I guess, like your Postulate, your keep John's memory alive campaign worked to change things as they were.
|
|
|
Post by coachbk on Dec 18, 2014 23:40:00 GMT -5
I am very happy that other people have their opinions, whatever they are, and I have mine, whatever it is. The one does not have a bearing on the other, and vice versa. But this video proves one thing: John > Paul! no it doesn't And if the answers were the opposite it wouldn't prove Paul>John
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Dec 19, 2014 0:29:18 GMT -5
But this video proves one thing: John > Paul! no it doesn't And if the answers were the opposite it wouldn't prove Paul>John Not to worry, I was just joking. But I am glad that John Lennon has not been forgotten by the artist types!
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Dec 19, 2014 0:44:05 GMT -5
I never knew John Lydon had ever met Paul. I know how he use to always slag Paul, but to hear him say he liked Paul sort of shocked me. Anyone know when this meeting took place?
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Dec 19, 2014 6:44:14 GMT -5
But I am glad that John Lennon has not been forgotten by the artist types! That's for sure. But it's still a shame that John Lennon has been so forgotten and/or marginalized by rabid Macca Mad Hatters.
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on Dec 19, 2014 13:16:51 GMT -5
I never knew John Lydon had ever met Paul. I know how he use to always slag Paul, but to hear him say he liked Paul sort of shocked me. Anyone know when this meeting took place? I'm sure I've seen or read another interview with John Lydon where he talks more about meeting Paul. He says the same thing. Once he's in a situation where he doesn't have to do the 'thumbs aloft' public business he was a nice fella. I'd love them to collaborate.
|
|
|
Post by nicole21290 on Dec 20, 2014 23:27:59 GMT -5
But I am glad that John Lennon has not been forgotten by the artist types! That's for sure. But it's still a shame that John Lennon has been so forgotten and/or marginalized by rabid Macca Mad Hatters. For heaven's sake. Must you denigrate fans with that ridiculous title?! One can be an extremely obsessive Paul McCartney fan, while still enjoying lots of John's music, interviews, etc, and accepting that others will have different opinions that may not accord with one's own. I like a good Alice in Wonderland reference, but seeing this one gets tiresome after a certain point, especially because as much as I scour the internet, I have trouble finding these insane and large hordes of people who apparently favour Paul and completely marginalise and forget John...
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Dec 21, 2014 0:01:19 GMT -5
I really think The Beatles are John Lennon & (whomever). To put it another way, The Beatles are John Lennon. The Quarrymen and The Beatles were John Lennon's gangs of friends.
The commercial success of The Beatles is probably more down to Paul than to John, in general (first original tunes to catch publishers' ears, to impress George Martin, and to go on the first A- and B-sides were all Paul's, as were more than half the #1 hits).
But the essence of the group -- the thing that makes The Beatles the Beatles -- is John Lennon. That's why, once his energy for it started seriously dissipating in 1969, the group was finished. _____________________
So, if the question is whether or not Lennon or McCartney was more 'The Beatles', my answer is definitely John. There was never going to be any "Beatles" without John, but there still would have a been a Beatles without Paul. _____________________
However, the open question of "Lennon or McCartney" (removed of Beatle context) is impossible. I take both.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Dec 21, 2014 9:49:54 GMT -5
I really think The Beatles are John Lennon & (whomever). To put it another way, The Beatles are John Lennon. The Quarrymen and The Beatles were John Lennon's gangs of friends. The commercial success of The Beatles is probably more down to Paul than to John, in general (first original tunes to catch publishers' ears, to impress George Martin, and to go on the first A- and B-sides were all Paul's, as were more than half the #1 hits). But the essence of the group -- the thing that makes The Beatles the Beatles -- is John Lennon. That's why, once his energy for it started seriously dissipating in 1969, the group was finished. _____________________ So, if the question is whether or not Lennon or McCartney was more 'The Beatles', my answer is definitely John. There was never going to be any "Beatles" without John, but there still would have a been a Beatles without Paul. _____________________ However, the open question of "Lennon or McCartney" (removed of Beatle context) is impossible. I take both. Okay, I get it. If a Paul fan said something like this, he would be a Macca Mad Hatter. What do you call them when a Lennon fan says something like this?
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on Dec 21, 2014 14:28:02 GMT -5
What do you call them when a Lennon fan says something like this? Right.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Dec 21, 2014 15:03:52 GMT -5
What do you call them when a Lennon fan says something like this? Right. I set 'em up,...
|
|
|
Post by winstonoboogie on Dec 21, 2014 17:14:27 GMT -5
...and I knock 'em down! Oh, yes.. a name....how about.......
Lennon Looneys?
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Dec 21, 2014 17:57:22 GMT -5
I'm not particularly a John Lennon fan, by the way. As I said, if the question in the video is put to me, I have no answer because I only take them both!
I merely point out John's more central role as the catalyst in the Quarrymen and The Beatles.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Dec 21, 2014 19:11:39 GMT -5
That's for sure. But it's still a shame that John Lennon has been so forgotten and/or marginalized by rabid Macca Mad Hatters. For heaven's sake. Must you denigrate fans with that ridiculous title?! One can be an extremely obsessive Paul McCartney fan, while still enjoying lots of John's music, interviews, etc, and accepting that others will have different opinions that may not accord with one's own. I like a good Alice in Wonderland reference, but seeing this one gets tiresome after a certain point, especially because as much as I scour the internet, I have trouble finding these insane and large hordes of people who apparently favour Paul and completely marginalise and forget John... They're all over the Steve Hoffman Forums -- are you serious? It's virtually impossible to find a Lennon supporter there, but the Macca Maniacs know no bounds in minimizing John every chance they get. I thought JSD was exaggerating about the Macca Mad Hatters when he first started calling them that, but not anymore! Many of them I see weren't even alive when Lennon was (like yourself), which explains much in some cases. They only got to grow up with Paul.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Dec 21, 2014 19:13:17 GMT -5
...and I knock 'em down! Oh, yes.. a name....how about....... Lennon Looneys? Not anymore! That's so 1980 - 1990 !
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Dec 21, 2014 19:17:27 GMT -5
I don't think either one of them would have made it without the other, certainly not hitting the big time like they did. John was the one early on out hustling, getting a band together, getting dates. John would have pissed the wrong person off; without Paul there to smooth it over. It was Paul's late hours and John determined to keep up, the mythic competitive nature of their partnership.
I think Paul songs during the early Beatle's period were much better, although I can't argue with the popularity of John's songs at the time. The middle period, I give to John. Late period to both. John's solo records almost made me quit the Beatles all together. Paul was definitely the element that kept the Beatles alive in the '70s.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Dec 21, 2014 19:32:04 GMT -5
For heaven's sake. Must you denigrate fans with that ridiculous title?! One can be an extremely obsessive Paul McCartney fan, while still enjoying lots of John's music, interviews, etc, and accepting that others will have different opinions that may not accord with one's own. I like a good Alice in Wonderland reference, but seeing this one gets tiresome after a certain point, especially because as much as I scour the internet, I have trouble finding these insane and large hordes of people who apparently favour Paul and completely marginalise and forget John... They're all over the Steve Hoffman Forums -- are you serious? It's virtually impossible to find a Lennon supporter there, but the Macca Maniacs know no bounds in minimizing John every chance they get. I thought JSD was exaggerating about the Macca Mad Hatters when he first started calling them that, but not anymore! Many of them I see weren't even alive when Lennon was (like yourself), which explains much in some cases. They only got to grow up with Paul. Who cares about Steve Hoffman's Forum? I thought we were on the premiere/ultimate board - Steve Marinucci's Forum. Maybe we are on the wrong forum Nicole. I can't believe they are as slanted toward Paul as some of the statements I've read here towards John. I've been to Hoffman's board. It just seems a little hinky over there. I never did log in.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Dec 22, 2014 0:40:54 GMT -5
John's solo records almost made me quit the Beatles all together. Paul was definitely the element that kept the Beatles alive in the '70s. Uhhh... what...?
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Dec 22, 2014 4:46:56 GMT -5
Who won???
|
|
|
Post by nicole21290 on Dec 22, 2014 21:41:21 GMT -5
For heaven's sake. Must you denigrate fans with that ridiculous title?! One can be an extremely obsessive Paul McCartney fan, while still enjoying lots of John's music, interviews, etc, and accepting that others will have different opinions that may not accord with one's own. I like a good Alice in Wonderland reference, but seeing this one gets tiresome after a certain point, especially because as much as I scour the internet, I have trouble finding these insane and large hordes of people who apparently favour Paul and completely marginalise and forget John... They're all over the Steve Hoffman Forums -- are you serious? It's virtually impossible to find a Lennon supporter there, but the Macca Maniacs know no bounds in minimizing John every chance they get. I thought JSD was exaggerating about the Macca Mad Hatters when he first started calling them that, but not anymore! Many of them I see weren't even alive when Lennon was (like yourself), which explains much in some cases. They only got to grow up with Paul. Oh, come on. They are not. Just because people respect and like Paul and wish to discuss his music doesn't make them 'mad'. The primary reason there is SO much more discussion about Paul is because, surprise surprise, there is so much more material to talk about - he's still a working musicians with decades more music than Lennon. Focusing more on Paul, therefore, is not a slight to John, just a natural reflection of how things are. There are LOTS of Lennon 'supporters' there just as there are plenty of Paul 'supporters'. Some of the time, I think the Paul supporters are perhaps more 'rabid' than one is used to on other places in the internet but that doesn't mean their points are invalid or that they also don't love John. I mean, anywhere on the internet, you'll find people who are WAY over the top in their like or dislike of one of The Beatles, but Hoffman's forum is NOT filled with hordes of Macca worshippers who leap at the first chance to denigrate John and his music. Oh, how terrible! So you believe that had I been born earlier than 1990 and been around in the 70s, my understanding would be so much better and, naturally, I wouldn't have this tendency to like Paul more than John? It couldn't possibly be a judgment I made after listening to the entire band and solo discographies, and reading lots of books? I've never seen Paul live, he's not on my TV a lot, it's not like you see Paul McCartney T-shirts in shops or his new music on the radio or anything. I didn't grow up with John OR Paul. I barely knew who they were before I reached the age of 19, and probably knew who Ringo was more than Paul or John. I actually knew FAR more about John than Paul before I became a fan - he's an 'icon' and 'legend' in a much different way to Paul, and I was well aware of some of his 70s anthems, before I'd even heard of 'Revolver' let alone 'RAM'... They're all over the Steve Hoffman Forums -- are you serious? It's virtually impossible to find a Lennon supporter there, but the Macca Maniacs know no bounds in minimizing John every chance they get. I thought JSD was exaggerating about the Macca Mad Hatters when he first started calling them that, but not anymore! Many of them I see weren't even alive when Lennon was (like yourself), which explains much in some cases. They only got to grow up with Paul. Who cares about Steve Hoffman's Forum? I thought we were on the premiere/ultimate board - Steve Marinucci's Forum. Maybe we are on the wrong forum Nicole. I can't believe they are as slanted toward Paul as some of the statements I've read here towards John. I've been to Hoffman's board. It just seems a little hinky over there. I never did log in. I do. I like to frequent a wide range of forums, if possible - gives one a more rounded view on the band and on fans, I believe. While I love this board, Hoffman's gives me the chance to just simply have more content and discussion to read on a daily basis, especially as it deals with other bands I enjoy as well. I belong and participate on both forums. I joined Hoffman's in 2010, same as this one, I believe. It often is a bit too 'technical' for my own preferences, but there's no doubt been some interesting discussions there over the years.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Dec 22, 2014 22:43:34 GMT -5
John's solo records almost made me quit the Beatles all together. Paul was definitely the element that kept the Beatles alive in the '70s. Uhhh... what...? Okay, in fairness, it was the Red Rose Speedway/Living in the Material World/Mind Games trilogy. I'd loved McCartney. It had gotten played pretty heavily and my sister bought it along with Let it Be. They were almost like one double album. Paul at his best. My sister had bought the singles from All Things Must Pass. The album cost too much for her budget. These were songs the radio was playing pretty heavily. Great stuff. I hadn't heard Plastic Ono. It hadn't been played at all on the radio. Ram was pretty rocking in spots. My sister bought it. Imagine was good but I Don't Want to be a Soldier? We all hate war, but Johnny, that song is hell. It's one of those "It's not any good but it's long" songs. How Do You Sleep? was interesting, but the song was boring once you got passed the lyrics. Suddenly when you picked your favorite Beatle, you had to hate the others. Sister bought. Like JSD, I loved Mumbo. That's what I wanted. The link at the end of the album was Hendrix good. I Am Your Singer was embarrassing, but a guilty pleasure. Don't tell anyone, but I liked it. What I didn't like were the title track and Dear Friend. Slow, boring and long. My sister bought. I'd seen the One on One. There was nothing that made me want to talk my sister into getting Sometime in New York City. No radio airplay. I was just starting to buy records myself and I'd gotten the trilogy mentioned above in a short time period. They were not at all what I wanted in music at the time (or now, really). I've grown to like them better with time, by in '73, I thought, I had it. There were too many great albums coming out. I was wasting my limited resourcing on solo Beatles. The Beatles as a band were just getting older and older as a memory. This was grass mowing money and I felt cheated. Paul, luckily, released Live and Let Die and Helen Wheels and I took a chance with Band on the Run. I couldn't afford the buy all the solo albums. I went with Paul. Of course through the years, I have bought them all (well most of Ringo's). But I lived through the '60, '70s and '80s and I'm a Paul fan first. John second. That's from knowing what they did, not because I only see Paul now.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Dec 23, 2014 0:09:14 GMT -5
One TO One. You're thinking of the porn-version. Here's what I know -- John recorded 6 studio LPs between 1970 and 1980 (slow pace then, but it'd be super-fast today). Two are brilliant, all-time classics, regularly receiving 4-to-5-star reviews ( Plastic Ono Band and Imagine) Two are very good, but short of classic status ( Walls & Bridges and Double Fantasy) Two are mostly rubbish, but in very opposite ways ( Some Time in New York City and Mind Games) While John's superfluous material and lack of career/life inspiration circa 1972 to early 1974 (and then post 1975 mini-retirement) are very notable and should be considered, the fact remains that he recorded 4 very good-to-great albums during 1970-1980. That's pretty good, and isn't beaten by Paul or George.
|
|