|
Post by nicole21290 on Dec 23, 2014 1:53:28 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. This language used - 'supporter', 'beaten', etc, just perpetuates the myth that one has to CHOOSE, to take sides. Nearly everyone measures success differently, and has a different view on the quality of music. Dear Friend was mentioned upthread, for example, and that happens to be my favourite track off of Wild Life, especially the demo of it. And again, above, Mind Games is being ranked - as though it's unanimously agreed upon - as 'rubbish'. Which I disagree with. And that's cool - everybody has different tastes in music, and a different way of ranking what they like. I think John had a pretty good solo career in the 70s, overall. Do I find it a bit patchy, and some of the production/melodies lacking? Sure. Do I think his artistry trumps any disappointments I might have? Absolutely. I don't particularly LIKE listening to POB or much of Imagine, but it's clear to see their inherent value, whether from the perspective of the time of looking back on them decades later. I also think Paul had a pretty good solo career in the 70s, overall. I look and expect different things from him, however. I (GENERALLY) don't look for angsty navel-gazing in Paul's work, and I (GENERALLY) don't look for finely crafted suites in John's. Do I find some of Paul's work a bit patchy, and some of the lyrics lacking? Sure. Do I think his music trumps any disappointments I might have? Absolutely.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Dec 23, 2014 2:31:53 GMT -5
This language used - 'supporter', 'beaten', etc, just perpetuates the myth that one has to CHOOSE, to take sides. You're absolutely right. I say "beaten" in the sense of the spirit of this thread. It's not a word I like to use. I personally have no 'preference' among John, Paul, or George, as solo musicians or as contributors to the Beatles' success. (I do prefer Ringo's solo work much less, but that stands to reason since he's not primarily a singer or songwriter.)
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Dec 23, 2014 7:24:14 GMT -5
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. You're mistaken to suggest that I'm complaining that Paul gets more "air time", and that is in no way what I'm talking about here. Of course Paul has more material and John has been dead for 34 years so there's more regular talk about McCartney ... but that's not what I'm protesting. I plainly see Macca Mad Hatters marginalizing John, putting down his "sharp" personality, and seriously downplaying his solo career. Like I said, some of these people have revealed themselves to be in their 20's, so they really have no frame of reference of John Lennon as being an active "player" when he was alive. They have only grown up with Paul, and have collected every new album, and gone to all his concerts... and to them, Paul is "The Beatles". Now, these are my honest feelings and impressions from what I've witnessed. That has not been my observation. Even you, Nicole, are always in the "Paulie Can Do No Wrong" camp, while it's so easy and natural to criticize John. I'm glad you at least acknowledged that the Macca Maniacs are more "rabid" there. Like I said earlier, when JSD used to refer to uncompromising 'Mad Hatters', I had not felt this myself, except for possibly RTP here at this board. However, I have come across what seems like scores and scores of RTP's at Hoffman's. Be that as it may, there is a difference when you've actually experienced John in real time. You just said that "John is an 'icon' and 'legend' in a much different way than Paul", but that only reinforces my point... I recall when John was not viewed as this "Dead Iconic Legend", but rather as a very real guy.
|
|
|
Post by nicole21290 on Dec 23, 2014 8:25:27 GMT -5
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. You're mistaken to suggest that I'm complaining that Paul gets more "air time", and that is in no way what I'm talking about here. Of course Paul has more material and John has been dead for 34 years so there's more regular talk about McCartney ... but that's not what I'm protesting. I plainly see Macca Mad Hatters marginalizing John, putting down his "sharp" personality, and seriously downplaying his solo career. Like I said, some of these people have revealed themselves to be in their 20's, so they really have no frame of reference of John Lennon as being an active "player" when he was alive. They have only grown up with Paul, and have collected every new album, and gone to all his concerts... and to them, Paul is "The Beatles". Now, these are my honest feelings and impressions from what I've witnessed. Alright then. I accept you must see things differently than me, perhaps. There are SOME McCartney fans who will take any opportunity to do John down, and I find that very annoying. However, it's a very, very small number compared to those who love and admire him. In my several years reading there, anyway. I think some of this stems from a change in the evaluation of both Lennon and McCartney's solo work - there does tend to be a trend (amongst certain areas of the internet and even music press) towards equalising their careers somewhat. Paul's albums are sometimes now seen as 'underrated' and some of John's are seen as 'overrated'. I think some of it has to do with younger people evaluating said albums without context of the time, as well as a difference in what they're used to and enjoy production-wise, content-wise, etc. I LOVE John's personality. Most of the time. It's extremely mecurial and can be frustrating but it's altogether charming, inviting, eloquent and open. I think those qualities are to be admired, and I don't think I've ever said otherwise. To me, neither of them IS 'The Beatles' and John was easily more known to me growing up, regardless of the whole Paul-being-alive thing. Perhaps it's different in America where Paul has actually toured since 1993. Three year old me missed his last concert here. And I totally respect those impressions and feelings, so I'm sorry if it doesn't come across like that. Fair enough. I've been reading there since 2010 and have actually read all the archived material since the early 2000s, and I can't say I've noticed any concerted effort by Paul fans to undermine John, really. Probably my own 'bias' speaking, I guess, most would say. I have NEVER said 'Paulie' (WHY the feminising of his name like that!?) can do no wrong. Yes, I seek to examine WHY he has said and done the things he has done, to explain why. I don't think I've ever been presented with a factual 'wrongdoing' and just pretended it didn't occur, though. Paul is bossy, controlling, managing, freezes people out, impatient, has said things in the press which are regretful and insensitive, etc. See? I can list his faults. It's not difficult; he's brought them up himself at times. I also don't think I have some bad habit of denigrating or criticising John, to be honest. Being defensive of Paul isn't the same as insulting John. I DO often jump in when HDYS is being passed off as 'harmless' but I don't remember easily and naturally consistently criticising John. Apologies if I do, though. I love the man and his music, don't get me wrong. Of course there's a difference, but it doesn't make a newer fan's opinion any less valid. A fan CAN enjoy Chaos & Creation more than Plastic Ono Band. A fan CAN enjoy Mind Games more than Band on the Run. Why not? Perhaps the majority don't agree with that fan's view, but it doesn't make it wrong. I mean, I WISH I'd been around when John was a very real guy but I wasn't. I can't change that. I WISH I'd been around and knew The Beatles before George died but I wasn't. Can't change that either. My favouritism towards Paul has nothing to do with when I was born, and everything to do with the type of music I enjoy, the voice I connect with, and the personality I identify with, more than anything else, tbh. I never seen Paul as a legend until digging deeper. When I first discovered The Beatles and started reading stuff online my primary impression of Paul from comments and forums was 'OMG Frog Song!!! Crappy Christmas song!!!! Dyes his hair!!! Croaks his songs!!! Does he ever stop playing Hey Jude!? What a girly, wimpy, soppy pansy!!! The dude is so bitter about Lennon being better!!!' etc.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Dec 23, 2014 9:18:57 GMT -5
Here's my take. No one had an easy time. Also, there was no adjective to choose between the two, as in "better, more talented, better singer, better lyricist, better musician, etc." I doesn't surprise me that Lennon would come out with more votes, but I bet if people were given a list of things upon which to judge, I think it would begin to look like this:
Better singer - John More versatile - Paul Better musician - Paul Cooler - John Bluesier - John Better melodicist - Paul Better producer/arranger - Paul Better lyricist - John . . .
What I wrote are just examples, not meant to be definitive. I just wanted to make the point that those people who think John is better than Paul or that they prefer John over Paul would give much different answers if it was broken down. Then, when totals were added at the end, there just might be a different result.
As I said at the top, the fact that it was really hard for most of them to answer the question is telling.
I wonder what a Dylan/Lennon, or Dylan/McCartney choice would look like.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Dec 24, 2014 7:06:35 GMT -5
When I started this thread, I was thinking it would become a John vs Paul thread. I thought the comments would be more along the line of "I can't believe Dave Grohl said John. After all the time he's spent with Paul lately..."
|
|