Actually, on second thought, John’s answer would depend on whether you got him on an arrogant “the Stones were trash, McCartney makes Musak, nobody can touch me” day, or on a self-flagellation “all those songs I wrote were garbage” day.
Notice how 95% of the actors chose Lennon without hesitation but among musicians it's more evenly split and they struggle with the answer. I'd like to see a retally with just musicians.
Of course because Lennon was also an icon of the 68' protest. He still has this rebel image which can be appealing. Musically, and even in terms of creativity I lean towards Paul.
@@framgz6467 I agree with the first part but creatively Lennon takes the cake for me and im a musician. The man pushed the boundaries of what music can sound like
I think because as actors, Lennon is a much more influence on character, if that makes any sense? I would say Dylan over either, but you know. McCartney was amazing too obviously.
s42stars There is literally one who says that. Nobody who isn’t bringing their own strange bias to the table could deny the fact that a great number of the respondents gave the answer of “Lennon” as if it was somehow obvious, whereas almost nobody answered “McCartney” in the same way.
Both were geniuses. If McCartney died in 1980, he would be deemed a God now. He was a musical monster. His work on the White Album is amazing. The bass playing on Dear Prudence, his musical rollercoaster song Martha My Dear, and much more.
McCartney is doubtless more talented in overall musical terms, but - for me - not in terms of 'deep' songwriting talent. I think Lennon had more original, artistically-striking tracks, with much better-crafted and impactful lyrics than the bulk of McCartney's stuff. Lennon's stuff makes up the majority of my favourites, along with several Harrison tracks. Alongside some truly original, ground-breaking tracks, McCartney wrote a lot of 'pastiche' type tracks like When I'm 64, Back in the USSR, Honey Pie etc., or lightweight but commercially very successful stuff like Hello Goodbye or Get Back (all of which I love, by the way). This type of track is brilliant in its own way - such tracks give levity and flow to the Beatles albums, and without them most Beatles albums would have been much less enjoyable; they'd have been too spikey, too intense. And Sgt Pepper and Abbey Road, in particular, both benefit massively from McCartney's unique symphonic arranging and concept album imagination.
Yeah, and the other thing that bothered me was the ones who said Paul McCartney as if they had to apologize for it, and their friends were surprised by their choice. It's as if that nasty song of John's (with some particularly nasty lines contributed by Yoko) pushing an airhead image onto Paul, or calling it muzak, was believed! John himself said he was just a jealous guy. He was jealous that Paul had gotten off to such a great solo start even though it had been JOHN who'd thought he was SO much better than the Beatles that he needed to go solo. And up til then his projects with Yoko screaming and grunting and yelling platitudes had not been embraced by the public -- aw.
@@charwest9449 And his marriage to Linda was a million times more healthy and supportive (both ways) than Lennon's relationship. McCartney lived the life Lennon was desperate to project.
@@vonholland64 Paul is the greatest composer in popular music. You can really separate them from the Beatles catalog, Paul's songs vocally and musically were better. Lennon was a better songwriter
No way. He was still writing great songs before he died. His solo catalog is way better then Paul. Plus, if you can make a song with Yoko listenable, that proves it!!
@@GuyOnTheInternet53 Brian Wilson is the greatest composer in popular music, and was the direct influence for Paul during the mid 60s, You need to listen to Pet Sounds and the unfinished Smile sessions. Makes Sgt Pepper look tame. On the other side, Lennon's muse was no doubt Dylan in terms of writing. Dylan is the greatest songwriter of modern times, Wilson the best composer. What the Beatles did is something less quantifiable in that sense, to me. They took it and brushed it off, while making the whole world see the beauty under it.
seriously like i’m sorry Paul was better at vocals and song writer intrumentals but they feel pressured into saying lennon because he’s past away and the song Imagine
They could have had every single music artist, actor or actress on this documentary and it would have been a knife-edge vote between the two Beatles legends. Both of them are legends. Period.
Probably. Lennon got cannonized after his death and declared more important than all the other three Beatles put together. It's a version of the story that some diehard fans defend to this day, but I feel the tide is slowly turning.
Midori Faria If Lennon were still alive, he would have even more votes. As a soloist there is no comparison with anyone. As a Beatle, the different was small.
Genius is a big word that gets thrown around too casually these days. If they were only 5 geniuses in 20st century music, 2 of them would be Lennon and McCartney. We love them both. Having said that, McCartney was always better. And having said that, the fact that these 2 geniuses met each other in the 50s and formed a band is a miracle that will never happen again in this timeline.
Lennon is like the “cool” answer or whatever, but McCartney was absolutely the driving factor in that group. The guys in the band have even said it themselves.
I dont think so..Paul said.."I definitely did look up to John. We all looked up to John. He was older and he was very much the leader; he was the quickest wit and the smartest."
@@emanmercado2380 that was early on when the band started. Paul was definitely the workaholic in the group though. He became the defacto manager after Brian Epstein died and the others came to resent him for it. Someone had to though.
+Deecky Rizzo But Paul also did brilliant lyrics, like on Yesterday, Junk, Another Day, Pipes of Peace, Ebony and Ivory, The End of the End, and many others...
+Deecky Rizzo Lennon sure wrote a lot of mediocre lyrics for someone who was supposedly great at lyrics. "But when you want money for people with minds that hate/All I can tell is brother you have to wait." So he was anti-hate, then. Watch out Ray Davies.
Joseph Scott Pfff... i'm going to agree all the way with you, Ray Davies is my favorite songwriter ever, he is the most complete songwriter: beautiful melodies, outstanding lyrics, a huge diversity of themes (not just love or peace), amazing inventiveness and versatility.
Simply not true. Imagine, Woman, Jealous Guy, Just like Starting Over, Give Peace a Chance, Watching the Wheels, Mind Games, Power to the People, Working Class Hero vs one sweet lord. Harrison was a very good songwriter. Lennon and McCartney were brilliant.
@@eziospaghettiauditore8369 his isnt the worst tho i personally prefer his solo stuff too Pauls and Ringos but each album john made with maybe the exception of his tracks on double fantasy youd have maybe 5 shit songs,5 average songs and 2 or 3 great songs. His tracks on Double fantasy and possibly walls and Bridges were pretty strong snd consistent in my opinion tho and also maybe walls and bridges
That is almost impossible to answer, for me. McCartney was the more technically gifted, and could play more instruments better. Lennon was wittier, had more soul and aching in his voice. Paul had a far greater range. Paul's songs were great, but he had some corny stuff, too. Lennon wrote deeper, more thought provoking lyrics but he did stray a bit to the too weird some. So all in all, they were a perfect duo, complimenting each other perfectly. Like the whole opposites attract type thing.
Exactly. But since McCartney wrote the music to You Never Give Me Your Money, which is basically the ultimate prog song, he kind of gets the upper hand, doesn't he ?
@@JoaoGabriel-lk9cv only made possible because of the tape looping effects Paul created. It's still more relatively repetitive and shallow compared to the Abbey Road album and all albums after Revolver all directed by Paul.
@@eziospaghettiauditore8369 there’s no tape loops on Strawberry Fields Forever. It’s a 100% Lennon song. If you think it’s is repetitive, it’s your opinion, but it’s one of the greatest songs ever. And no, Paul DIDN’T direct all albums after Revolver, since it was a collaborative effort of the band. If you think Paul “directed” the White Album, for example, you’re crazy. He didn’t direct Abbey Road either. I think you’re reading too much fake news
@@JoaoGabriel-lk9cv he did direct them all since he was the only one to convince the boys to continue after 1967 lol. He came up with Magical Mystery Tour and Sergeant Pepper themes. And he most certainly did direct the entire Abbey Road album lol. allthatsinteresting.com/why-paul-mccartney-better-than-john-lennon There absolutely ARE tape loops in the SFF idiot. Have you heard of a mellotron? www.beatlesbible.com/songs/strawberry-fields-forever/ Respond with verified artist quotes not your opinion pls. Gotta love the oh you think it's repetitive but its a masterpiece and a masterpiece can't be repetitive just because argument.
@@eziospaghettiauditore8369 I know Paul did convince them to do MMT and Let It Be, but to convince them to record songs is different from directing albums. He came with the MMT and SP themes, so? Those are album openers. He didn’t direct Abbey Road. George Martin, John and Him made up the medley, and that’s it. Abbey road was a group effort. Paul didn’t even want the A side of the album to happen. John wanted it, and Paul wanted the medley, so they kept both. And there AREN’T tape loops in SFF. A mellotron isn’t tape loops. Mellotron is a piano-like instrument, which can reproduce sounds, but it’s not tape loops. Not at all. There is tape loops in Tomorrow Never Knows, for example. Do your research before calling me an idiot, idiot. And say what you think is right, but strawberry fields is a masterpiece. You think it’s repetitive and it’s YOUR opinions, but the song is regarded as a milestone in the Beatles music, and in music history. You’re just a blind fanboy of Paul.
100% McCartney: Versatile as a musician and songwriter, best pianist of the Beatles, vocal range, one of the best bassist in history, great guitarist, the mind behind Sgt. Pepper's and all of the best Beatles' albums. I love John though, but I love more the Lennon-McCartney team.
Lennon easily. Only thing Mccartney had was better instrumentalist. Lennon was the better songwriter, he did the psychedelic sound better, his music was more in depth, and he was the one who inspired the group to dabble in psychedelics which changed their sound forever
desoxido Within the Beatles, the different was small (but Lennon's genius remains unique): as a solo, McCartney is just "Another day"...Lennon solo...is always and remains Lennon.
@@altar964 Lennon, by far, mostly because he was more compelling. He had a more interesting voice, and more in-depth and unique subject matter in his songs. And he had an intuitive way of melody writing that produced some very unique and pleasing to the ear results. Still, without McCartney's and George Martin's contributions to his songs, they would not have been near as good.
If you like story songs sung in a pretty voice, it's Paul. If you like conceptual songs sung in a unique, smoky interesting voice, it's John. John, for me.
I wonder how the votes would have looked had you had the interviewees write down their answers and put them in a pail. I got the feeling from watching this that there were a lot people saying "Lennon," simply because they felt they should for the sake of seeming cool or deep. And there were a lot of the McCartney supporters who seemed almost embarrassed to be saying it. "Silly Love Songs" was Paul's way of acknowledging how he is perceived.
Exactly! It's "edgy" to pick John or George as "the best Beatle". But you know what? Paul got sick on tour once. The show got cancelled because without him, they couldn't go on. John got sick that year too. They played several shows without him. John needed Paul**, but few people are willing to see that. ** Paul needed John too. He did a lot better than John when they no longer had each other, though.
Weirdo Reborn I didn't ask what it meant. Harrison made music into the 90s. Even if you compare their output from the 70s, Paul wins. Harrison was close, though.
The greatness of John Lennon´s music as i see it: -The increasing tension. For example I Should Have Known Better. Before Lennon, all pop music structure was AABA, where the tension decreased in the middle part B. But with Lennon the tension from the verse continued in the middle part. Besides that, in this song it is not only a key change in the transition to the middle part, it is even a little key change in it. The increasing tension was what first characterized The Beatles. The first single where the verse lacked this increasing tension was Can´t Buy Me Love. (But the chorus is OK). I didn´t know then it was a McCartney composition. - Other ways of increase the tension by Lennon is to pack together several little songs. Happiness Is A Warm Gun consists of three or four songs, and Bring On The Lucie consists of three songs. -All You Need Is Love has another way: First talking, then repeating half singing, then singing, and finally the climax in chorus. -The melody does not changes, but the background. For example in Strawberry Fields Forever and in Julia the singing melody uses the same notes, but instead the accompaniment changes! Listen to Puccini. He got tired of his sang melodies in Boheme and in Tosca he composed a lot where the sang melodies are often on the same notes, but the background changes instead. The effect can be stronger. -Octave Leap. For example, in the middle part of Please Please Me, Lennon makes an octave run in “…it´s so hard to reason with YOU…”, the climax of the song. George Martin didn´t understand the quality in that. In his orchestration of it in Off The Beatle Track, Martin excludes the octave, the most important bit of the song! -Verse and resolve. Typical for Lennon is a melody followed by a resolve, for example in No Reply “…I saw the light!”…and in Girl “girl! girl!…”. Lennon said that “a good song must have climax and resolve”. -Only one chord. In Tomorrow Never Knows there is only one chord, or bass note, an innovation in pop music. In the Middle Ages it was common with that bordun note, an unchanged bass note. When Lennon played the song the first time for George Martin, Martin didn´t like it. -Whole-tone scale. Most scales have both whole step and half steps between the notes in an octave. In the verse in Norwegian Wood, there is most whole steps, and that´s like the impressionists, for example Debussy. It sounds very clean. -Church Modes. A Hard Day´s Night is written in the mixolydian mode, an ancient vocal scale, preserved in British, Irish and American folk song. -If you play the beginning of Please Please Me slowly, you can hear the similarities with the Westminster bells ringing. When Lennon was a little boy, he loved visiting the divine services. Afterwards he used to improvise anthem music. Westminster bells could unconsciously have inspired him to the beginning of Please Please Me. There is also anthem music in the beginning of All You Need Is Love: “love love love…”. -The lamentation second. A little half step up in the scale. And that´s to indicate a pain. In All You Need Is Love Lennon sings the refrain twice unchanged and then suddenly the third time, rises a little, a very expressive and important step up. That step up started in the baroque epoch, and was called The lamentation second. When Lennon played it the first time to George Martin, Martin didn´t like it. He leaned towards McCartney and muttered: “It´s certainly repetitive”. -From darkness to light. Happiness Is a Warm Gun starts with a little melancholy, and ends with enthusiasm.-In the middle part of I Am The Walrus the darkness switches over to light: “sitting in an English garden…”. And the transition from the chaos and darkness in Revolution 9 to the light in Good Night. That is very typical in Wagner´s music. I think that temperamentally the two were similar. And I think Wagner would have loved the arrangement in Glass Onion. -Suggestive and hypnotic music. With small intervals between the notes in combination with some dissonance chord, Lennon can create a suggestive and hypnotic feeling in for example Across The Universe. It is more like Wagner than pop music. -Few notes. With few, but effective notes, Lennon can create more feeling than McCartney with all his notes, for example in If I Fell and Love. -A melody sang three times, in succession, with just a little change every time. When you hear it you can get frustrated or desperate not getting out from the melody. That we have in the middle part in I Call Your Name and in the middle part in And Your Bird Can Sing. And at the same time the melodies are stick together with a countermelody at the guitar. Rather hypnotic -Melodies without joint. Innovation. When repeating the verse melody in Any Time At All, the first note is the same note as the last note in the first verse: “…there is nothing I won´t DO if need a shoulder to cry on…” -The accompaniment doesn´t follow the vocal line. In the middle part of Hey Bulldog, the piano doesn´t follow the singer. An innovation in pop music. The first one was Schumann in his songs. -The first rap song. The talking in the end of Hey Bulldog. -The most excellent and lovely melodies: The middle part of Bad to Me, the middle part of This Boy, the middle part of Yes it Is and the middle part of Nobody Loves You.
brilliant evaluation. it is sad mcca fans think that the ones preferring lennon prefers him just because of being cool or his tragic death. I cannot say maybe he is better musician, but i can say without a quesstion that he is a way better artist. and his voice especially early days was more touching. Interestingly I always loved lennon songs more than mcca songs in the beatles albums. he was the soul, rebel, insecure, fun, trouble, child, adult, all conflicted stuff of beatles. and i believe what makes him a true artist is this.
Most of those things also apply to Harrison and McCartney. McCartney was and is the master of putting many little songs together to make it one big one. Listen to You Never Give Me Your Money, The End, Uncle Albert (Admiral Halsey), Band On The Run, Despite Repeated Warnings, Hunt Me Down/Naked/C-Link.... He also used church modes (in Eleanor Rigby for example). George was the one to really master classical indian composition techniques and put those one-chord-but-cool-melody stuff into Blue Jay Way and It's all too much. McCarntney used this technique in his solo for Taxman. It think they all were true masters, and which one you choose is a matter of taste, sympathy and prioritization.
But they all worked together the arrangements. For example, the changing of tempo in "We can work it out" was George's ideia, as well as the citar part in "Norwegian Wood" and the riff of "And I love her".
Yesterday I was listening to Ram, today it’s Plastic Ono Band. Tomorrow it’ll be Wings (nineteen hundred and eighty five y’all !). And so on. I love them both.
If George Harrison had only released All Things Must Pass and then retired, he would definitely be tied with Paul and John. If he had released All Things Must Pass and then got fatally shot, people would pick him as the best Beatle. But since he made a bunch of lame albums, his talent for songwriting has been severely overlooked. He is my favorite Beatle but John Lennon made several very decent albums in a short time before he died, which makes it look like he could have kept making good music without burning out like George did. I think that Paul has made the best career for himself and has released more decent albums over the years. Ringo is completely out of the question because he only has a few decent songs and not really any good albums, unfortunately. But All Things Must Pass takes the cake for the best post-Beatles album, in my opinion. Beautiful lyrics, guitar work, VOCAL work, which is always very overlooked with Harrison. Beautiful music.
No channel Musician there are a few duds in Harrison’s albums, but I think he didn’t exactly fizzle out. He made some of his best music with the traveling wilburys in my opinion
This is pretty damn ambitious! I used to go diehard Lennon, but now I'm a total McCartney fanboy, so I was rooting for him all the way and surprised how many people chose him. Paul's solo career is just so fantastically weird...from the electronic experimentation that is "McCartney II" to the beautiful simplicity of "Chaos and Creation in the Backyard" to his collaborations with Elvis Costello in the late 80s and early 90s to the terrific homespun fun of "Ram." Just amazing. John was amazing in his own right but McCartney still wins for me.
Subjective taste aside McCartney easily has the widest range of sound you're right electronic to acoustic to something in between his album sound like nothing other before especially ram which I would put as influential as Pet Sounds and Sgt pepper
The reason for the Harrison song was two fold: It kept it fair by not being a McCartney or Lennon tune. AND, more importantly, I didn't want to get in trouble for copyright and my friend's band happened to do an amazing cover of the song, so I used that
Walter Holden People who are NOT musicians do not see the whole picture " George had "moments" and those moments seldom came without the help of John , Paul , Martin or even Clapton. Yes one of my favorite Beatles song is "I need you" "Taxman" is another & of course "Something" but historically George NEVER brought in a completed song . Ironic that the first original Beatle song ever recorded was written by George "Crying for a Shadow"
Cry For a Shadow was a Harrison/Lennon composition and not necessarily in that order. George bypassed the other talents in the band by his cultural influence alone (at first). Here Comes the Sun was the lyrical marvel ahead of Something because he actually did have help with that one. In fact, John taught him a nice way of filling in the spaces with things that don't necessarily fit until the right words would eventually come along. John and Paul fell into a certain formula as songwriters, which John eventually strayed from, but George never met that formula. Beyond all, his influence sat with the cultural change. Within the band, he WAS the cultural change.
I began listening to Wings and McCartney's solo stuff, and I am blown away by some of it. Ram, Band On The Run and Wings At The Speed Of Sound are all worthy of being in the Beatles' back catalogue.
Lennon but only because of his mind-bending songs. Strawberry Fields, I am the Walrus, A Day in the Life, Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, Mr Kite, Tomorrow Never Knows, Across the Universe. These are truly works of art that invite you to explore A Dreamworld you've enever been to before, where you might even learn a little bit about yourself. And that's why it's Lennon. I also love his nonsense writing like on Come Together.
Very well said, those are my Lennon favorites, I play all these songs like daily, lol. However, I been studying Macca's work and... oh, boy, dude is a freaking musical genius, he owns it. I love Lennon but nowadays I admire Macca more as a musician the more I learn to play their songs (I'm a freak for Harisongs as well BTW).
therubbersouls I think more people would go for Paul if John was still alive. His track record was already more inconsistent than Paul’s by 1980. I think he would’ve gotten more inconsistent and tarnished his reputation by this point.
Lennon: A Day In The Life, Tomorrow Never Knows, Strawberry Fields Forever, Nowhere Man, Norwegian Wood, Girl, Happiness Is a Warm Gun, Dear Prudence, Come Together, I Want You, Because, In My Life, I'm The Walrus, Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds, Hey Bulldog, Across The Universe, If I Fell, No Reply, Help, I'm Only Sleeping, Don't Let Me Down... Holy Shit
McCartney co wrote both In My Life and A Day in the Life. Without the incredible bassline he wrote for Come Together it's just a run of the mill Chuck Berry knock off (see also the extraordinary bassline and guitar solo on George's otherwise mediocre Taxman) Most of the recording tequniques that made Strawberry Fields Forever so groundbreaking were Paul's idea (Lennon was never happy with the finished song as a result) Tomorrow Never Knows? Same story, those tape loops were McCartney not Lennon. To top off all the amazing contributions he made that transformed "John songs" he also wrote Here, There and Everywhere, For No One, Eleanor Rigby, Got to Get You Into My Life, I've Just Seen A Face, Helter Skelter, Penny Lane, Blackbird, I Will, Oh Darling, She's Leaving Home, Golden Slumbers, Martha My Dear, You Never Give Me Your Money, Hey Jude, Let it Be, Get Back, The Fool on the Hill, With A Little Help From My Friends. Holy Shit.
@@sunny70299 Dude, In My Life was almost entirely John. A Day In the Life was 60% John so it's fair to point out Macca's contributions. Also, I suggest you read about SFF and Tomorrow Never Knows because you quite far off when you say that Paul came up with the arrangements and that it was all his idea.
@@CJA-jf8db Suzy is right. Macca was involved much in any John's basic material in studio while he was mostly doing his stuff without much contribution otherside. He was arranger and mastermind alongside Martin behind almost all the songs from their catalogue.
@@sunny70299ALL songs that dont hold a candle to Lennon's Catalogue lmfao, Yes, it's undeniable that Paul crafted The sonic magic of these songs, but because Lennon said How he wanted his songs to be at McCartney's Hand on finding a solid form to make Lennon's Sharp Rock And Roll Introspective Poetry in music.
More like 80-20. And I could do without the ‘woke up and got the bus’ part. I could not do without the opening chords of that song, beware of what comes thereafter.
It would be nothing without the crescendo - McCartney's massive contribution. Not George Martin - he only wrote it down in order to explain it to the orchestra.
I was glad to see George get some shout-outs. Tough question, but I would say without hesitation: LENNON! But how lucky are we that it was Lennon AND McCartney.
There’s a LOT more than melody and lyrics to songwriting. There’s something called ORIGINALITY, FLOW, STYLE, RHYTHM, HARMONY, CHORD PROGRESSIONS, DELIVERY, etc...
@@hw343434 yeah no most of what you just described is blanketed underneath melody something Lennon couldn't do by himself as proven by his solo output being not even as commercially successful as Paul. Hitting the same four and five chords in the same exact pattern with no dynamism in the melody whatsoever while always meandering the song back to Yoko gets old really fast Are you 14?
I agree. I am remembering that Lennon was only which was quoted in book, because of his politic ativism in Vietnam War. If it happened, it was because it became a cultural icon. His fame exceeded the world of music. In matter of fact, he wasn't only a celebrity, a singer.He was more than that.
McCartney. I saw this man live here in Brazil, and I can tell you guys, He's not real! A 72 year old man singing, jumping like that and with so charisma and so gentle, I mean, the performance is so poweful, strong, intense, the way he plays, the way he still feels his songs and get so emotional. He's the most genius in the music industry in the universe, seriously.
Porque você viu McCartney? Isso não é argumento, pois não dá para ver Lennon. A verdade é que enquanto ambos eram vivos jamais alguém faria essa pergunta, o mundo inteiro acharia uma covardia em relação a Paulo, não havia como compará-lo ao que Lennon era como artista e como ícone. Hoje comparam. Isso diz muito mais sobre o nosso tempo do que sobre os dois.
Se Lennon estivesse vivo hoje duvido muito que ele teria metade do sucesso que Paul teve e ainda tem como musicista e performer. E quando digo sucesso englobo a determinação, talento, vontade incansável que o Paul tem e sempre teve desde os Beatles. Todos sabem que se não fosse pelo espírito de liderança do Paul, muita coisa não iria pra frente. E depois de mais de 50 anos o cara conseguir ser assim, é fora do normal. John foi um mito, uma lenda. O cara era muito humano, inseguro e sonhador, acredito que sim ele revolucionou a música, os jovens, a política, o que ele fez Paul jamais se enquadraria, os dois tinham alvos completamente distintos, então acaba ficando meio injusto compara-los. Mas a musicalidade que o Paul tem e sempre teve é muito transcendental, Não me leve a mal, só a minha opinião, mas pra mim Lennon foi um revolucionário, um ícone que confortou o coração de muitos e os deu esperança, igual a ele nunca terá igual, mas Paul sempre foi o músico, o artista, o cara que independente da sua profissão você olha e almeja chegar num patamar daquele, patamar que exigiu muita dedicação, talento, boa vontade e carinho pela música e pelos fãs. Quando penso em sucesso, em uma pessoa bem sucedida, não consigo pensar em outro ser humano, pra mim é sempre o Paul. :)
michael corleone Paul é legal, mas não acho que seja maior que Lennon, só isso. Aliás tenho certeza. Como você tem do oposto, e afinal os dois são gigantes.
You can't deny that Lennon had the greater cultural impact and legacy. Imagine?! Come on. HOWEVER, I've always just like McCartney more. His voice is very sweet and I think his overall vocal talent was the best of all the Beatles. Obviously without John, George and Ringo, we wouldn't be having this 'debate,' but it's kind of a silly debate to have in the first place. Like I said, Lennon played, probably, the BIGGEST role in the Beatles success, with the raw emotion from his vocals to his legendary songwriting skills, but I personally just always liked Paul more. Not for any particular reason, other than the connection I made with his performances from an early age and so now as an adult, he's just my favorite.
+msanm5 First of all the fact that I happened to like Paul a tiny bit more doesn't mean I'm ignorant. I'm both into the Beatles and their solo work, I love John and Paul with all my heart. In my opinion Lennon was a better lyricist, I like his lyrics a lot more. But personally I think McCartney was a better musician and he is the king of melodies. His vocals were again in my opinion better, he could sing in a loooot of different ways and had a bit bigger vocal range. (just think about Helter Skelter, Here There and Everywhere, Oh Darling, Drive My Car, Heart of the Country or Monkberry Moon Delight) However this doesn't mean that I don't like John's tunes or his vocals which were amazing or Paul's lyrics. Also John wrote some beautiful ballads and Paul some badass rock songs but that's another story..
rebel98 Lennon is WITHOUT A DOUBT the best singer in the band. Singing is not only vocal range. Paul could never sing Twist and Shout, Dizzy Miss Lizzy, Yer Blues, Across The Universe, A Day In The Life, etc...like Lennon did. Lennon´s voice is UNIQUE and magical. McCartney´s voice was more conventional. Lennon was also a better rock composer and had better psychedelic songs than McCartney. McCartney was better at making ballads.
+msanm5 Yes and so what? John could never sing Long Tall Sally, I Will, Yesterday, She's a Woman, Back in the USSR or And I Love Her like Paul did.. Maybe John had a bit more unique voice, but saying that Paul's voice was conventional is foolish and ridiculous... I agree John could write better psychedelic songs yes. But what Paul did (and still does sometimes) with the instruments is extraordinary. Just listen to his bass lines man...He is a musical genius, music is in his veins, it's his life. To John music was never as important as it was to Paul. Also you're saying that oh yeah but McCartney just wrote better ballads. As if writing a great ballad isn't hard to do.
rebel98 If Lennon can sing Twist and Shout the way he did, of couse he can sing Long Tall Sally, I Will, Shes A Woman or any song you mentioned. Lol, you´re a funny kid. Twist and Shout is harder than any of those songs you mentioned. Lennon sang Twist and Shout better than McCartney sang Long Tall Sally. No debate. Like I said, Lennon was a better Rock and Psychedelic composer, and McCartney was better at making classic ballads. Both are for me the greatest songwriters of the last century, and my all time favorites.
I might disagree, but I like when someone like Ed Sheeran gives a bit of insight. Come Together is his favourite song. Fair enough. Love the Counting Crow's "analysis". I have a feeling that most of the responders just say the name. The fact that there seems to be a 70% preference towards Lennon is just a bit... "wrong" in my opinion because it shouldn't be this exaggerated if you really know the Beatles. Shows how most of the answers are biased. I wish I could hear something more articulate.
Are you fucking serious? Lennon wrote the international anthem for peace and love according to Carter. McCartney is one of the many run-of-the-mill singers that mainly wrote boy-girl love songs with no depth. He was the conservative convetional superficial materialistic pretty boy, Lennon himself called McCartney conservative, and I suspect that most people who like him have those qualities more so than the people who like Lennon. Lennon, as one of the people in the video said, was a rugged rebel and fighter for love that broke all the rules. Lennon v. McCartney is not even close in terms of global influence on politics and humanity. McCartney is merely just a musician and entertainer. Lennon was much more than that. Much more political, super liberal and open minded enough to marry an Asian woman. Fought for peace and love and cared about the working class more than any celebrity/singer/entertainer ever.
The answer has to be biased because the question is designed to be like that .If 70% of the people answer Lennon is because they like Lennon more than McCarney ....it would be like asking you which one do you like Coke or Pepsi and 70% of the people answer coke and you claim that is bias Well that’s what people like
@@larryabecid2819 Well, at least you gave your opinion providing some substance. This is what was missing in the answers, and I was complaining only about that. I also suspect that using words like "fucking" and offending people you don't know anything about over a Lennon-McCartney debate makes you feel tough and cool. Good for you. So much for supporting the guy who wrote the anthem of world peace. Ah, the irony.
As Sir George Martin said: "McCartney for the music and Lennon for lyrics" McCartney was a better musician/melodist/composer than Lennon; and I think that Lennon's lyrics were a little bit deeper. And a the end of the Beatles, McCartney became the leader of the group. "Sergent Peppers" concept?: McCartney. "The Magical Mestery" Tour Project?: McCartney. "Yellow Submarine" Project?: McCartney After in Solo it's not easy to say. Lennon composed between 1970 and 1975 (when Sean was born) and carried on in 1980 before his murder. And McCartney still composes a lot of good songs today (at the moment he is recording in Abbey Road new songs for a new album...again...) What about Pete Best? (....Sorry....)
McCartney was certainly the better musician, and in general he wrote the more musically sophisticated, harmonically complex songs. But the thing about Lennon & McCartney as songwriters was that they could both do what the other could do...if they put their mind to it. Lennon wrote some of the most beautiful Beatles melodies and, with songs like Julia and Because, he also wrote some of the most harmonically complex music The Beatles ever recorded. Similarly, Macca out-rocked Lennon with songs like Helter Skelter. Both were geniuses.
I dont think McCartney could match Lennon's rock songs, so no. Helter Skelter was a good innovation, but is very repetitive. The best Rock songs in Beatles are Lennon songs.
msanm5 Helter Skelter exemplifies The Beatles' genius. Who else at that time would combine blistering hard rock with elements of avant garde jazz and even musique concrete? In fact, who has even done it since?
saxfreak01 Im talking about the quality of the songs, and not so much in terms of innovation. You can make an innovative song that would still be not very enjoyable. I'm not saying Helter Skelter is not enjoyable, but it doesnt have the quality that other Beatle Rock songs have. Lennon's ''She Said She Said, Help, Revolution, Come Together, Happiness Is A Warm Gun, Yer Blues, I Want You, Polythene Pam, Dizzy Miss Lizzy(Cover), Day Tripper, etc'' are unmatched. Now Paul has REALLY great rock songs. But on this area, Lennon wins. No, you dont have to start naming Paul rock songs now.
Having grown up listening to the Beatles, and being inspired to play guitar by them, my opinions have changed over the years. Initially George was my favorite due to his quiet personality and his talent with the guitar. He was an incredibly under-rated guitar player. Then at some point I leaned towards Lennon due to his spirit and songwriting ability. Over the years, and after doing much research into the inner-workings of the Beatles, my opinion now is that Paul was the driving force behind the Beatles. George Martin once said that John initially was the leader, but nothing happened without Paul's approval. Even John said that his band was going nowhere until Paul joined the band. John was motivated by money, having once said when Brian Epstein told him he wanted the band to drop the leather look in favor of more traditional suits and ties, "I will wear a TooToo if you pay me". Clearly once John was rich beyond his expectations, his work ethic suffered. Money was no longer the motivator and the quality of his songwriting declined with some exceptions. His "Rock and Roll" album was clearly made just to get a record to market. Paul on the other hand was clearly motivated by his work, and that has been proven when you examine the body of his work over the years. His first solo album is remarkable, and to think it was made on a 4 track in is home. Amazing. "Maybe I'm Amazed" is a classic. There will never be another Beatles. Lennon WITH McCartney is where their finest work was achieved. And we are the better for it.
+Don't Call Me Lenny! In all the recent decades, Paul McCartney and George Martin are the ones who were alive, they tell THEIR side of the story. So they manipulate ignorant people like yourself. Lennon was AS influential as Paul or more.
Stupid Question.There is no one or the other they both owned there songs so well , even Ringo. It was a time and the moment .only Joe cocker bettered one of there songs .Congratulations to them lucky buggers..
'quality of his songwriting declined with some exceptions' you sure about that??lol lennon revolutionised music with his solo work..imagine,women,instant karma,watching the wheels??
Jashan Jotu actually he didn’t, people wasn’t paying attention to his music, the only #1 he had while he was alive was “whatever get’s you thru the night”, and while he was cooking bread Paul was fulfilling the same stadiums he did with the Beatles, but now with Wings, he was one of the starters of the disco sound with Silly love songs and one of the fathers of electronic music with McCartney II, so if anyone was changing the music on the 70s it was Paul.
Really good answer. The title tracks of Pepper and Mystery Tour are both by McCartney. Oh! Darling is by McCartney. You Never Give Me Your Money - McCartney. All would have been worthy Lennon type songs. 2 of their strongest songs to me are A Day in the Life and Baby Your A Rich Man, collaborations between the 2 of them. Unfortunately, a lot of McCartney fans seem to ignore the brilliant music hall touch McCartney has eg Martha my dear. Instead they go for his Brian Wilson-like songs eg Penny Lane. They should be bigging up more rocking or quirky stuff like The Fool on the Hill to support McCartney's range.
Right, Paul didnt introduce John to experimental music. And Paul didnt create the beginning of Strawberry fields. And Paul didnt create the classic basslines to lots of Johns songs. Paul also didnt create the middle eight to a day in the life.Paul was also a more proficient musician. John was the most creative my arse.
LENNON, his voice, his style, how original he was, his fashion, everything. Lennon is the best musician that has ever existed, not the most skilled one, but the way he'd express his emotions through her songs is just amazing, that makes him the best, besides, he was The Beatles.
I totally agree with you about Lennon's skills and how amazing he was!! But I think he wasn't the best, because that's the brilliant part of the Beatles: without a single one of them, the band would miss a fundamental point hahah. As Ringo says, peace and love 🌺🐢✌☮
I always prefer Lennon's songs in the Beatles and Lennon's solo songs. McCartney is so talented and perfect in every way but Lennon had that "something", that rawness, that grasping for truth (unattainable), that vulnerability.... Huge admiration for McCartney but Lennon speaks to my heart. However, that Lennon/McCartney duo was perfection.
I think George Martin got it right..."people think John was a 'word' person and Paul was a 'music' person, but that is too simple to be true...Pal could write some great lyrics and John could write some great music - he couldn't put a cigarette paper between them, they truly were both sides of the same coin" It is bit like asking who is greater...Federer or Nadal, or Nicklaus or Tiger Woods.
Easy for me. Paul McCartney. Paul is the King of Melody. So many exquisitely beautiful melodies. And he was much more diverse. From "I Will" to "Helter Skelter" "Eleanor Rigby" to "Why Don't We Do It In The Road" "The Night Before" to "I've Got A Feeling" Yeah, man, it's McCartney
When I was in college, it was Lennon for me - I thought his music was so cutting edge. Now that I'm in my 40's, it's McCartney for me. I can really appreciate Paul as a beautiful song writer AND a really good human being. Together, they were above and beyond! Even George and Ringo were better that 95% of the musicians commenting on this AND there were some VERY good musicians commenting here too!
The truth is they were at their best when they were together and could bounce ideas off each other. If you look at the decade as a whole following the breakup of The Beatles, it's clear both of them suffered artisically after the split, in terms of the overall quality and quantity of the songs they were writing.
My two cents: Paul wrote many brilliant songs, was by far the most gifted in an all-round musical sense - but John had a deeper creativity. It was John's creative spark that spawned the really ground-breaking tracks that kicked off their greatest albums: e.g. Ticket to Ride, Norwegian Wood, Tomorrow Never Knows, Strawberry Fields Forever, A Day in the Life. However, it was often Paul who made the biggest musical contribution in taking these tracks to their amazing final form - e.g. witness how A Day in the Life or Tomorrow Never Knows grew from John's bare demos. Impossible - and pointless - to say who was 'best'. Let's just rejoice in the fact that they found each other, and that their talents were so spookily complementary.
Paul was the better musician (exceptionally renowned in the bass world and even the guitar world) and the more dynamic songwriter who also had the more successful career after The Beatles split (though Lennon's was tragically cut short). The dude wrote Helter Skelter AND Hey Jude. He could write a catchy little pop tune like Paperback Writer and then pull Live and Let Die out of nowhere. Plus (in my opinion) he just outright had a better and more recognizable singing voice. A lot of people let the scale tip towards Lennon (or just outright choose him) because he died and was a controversial media figure. I'm trying to avoid subconsciously giving points to Lennon because of his tragedy, because that honestly shouldn't matter.
newt0830 They all peer reviewed their own songs. The same could be said about all of Lennon's stuff in the Beatles too. The point is, who was the one fundamentally responsible? And that is where people say "This is (whomever's) song." And Paul asked for John's approval for Hey Jude because it was about John's son who was going though a lot of issues because John and his wife were getting divorced, so it was close to home and he wanted to be sure he was ok with it.
newt0830 John didn't help Paul on Helter Skelter, or at least according to Lennon. John said to Playboy in 1980 and to Hit Parader, that Helter Skelter is Paul's completely. John 1980: "That's Paul completely. All that (Charles) Manson stuff was built 'round George's song about pigs and this one... Paul's song about an English fairground. It has nothing to do with anything, and least of all to do with me."
John Lennon was the better songwriter(words&music)/artists. Both were practically at the same level..the thing that annoys me is when people say that Paul is clearly a better musician. You´re stupid.
msanm5 Paul is a phenomenally renowned bass player of great influence. Lennon does not share this among guitarists, Harrison does though. I mean YOU just said Lennon was better and then said they were practically the same. I just said he was better, not clearly better, I acknowledge it's close but Paul was more versatile and better at his own instrument in the Beatles, John was a better guitar player though.
The interesting thing to me was in viewing an in-depth video doc about their relationship, at the end it showed a piece of paper from one of John's sessions with a psychologist where there were listed various people in his life, and he was asked to respond next to each with one word. For Elton John it said, nice; for Howard Cosell: ham; for Yoko: lover; for David Bowie: thin; for Ringo: friend; for John(himself): great; for George: lost; and for Paul: extraordinary. So we can glean who John would have chosen from that I guess.
@@hw343434 he didn't lead those albums. He did make some of the best songs but those albums were not directed by him and if Paul McCartney had not convinced him he would not have made any more music with the Beatles after Revolver. “After Brian [Epstein, the band’s manager] died … Paul took over and supposedly led us you know.”
@@hw343434 two good songs Happiness is a Warm Gun and Dear Prudence both having melodic and studio input from McCartney do not compare with back to the USSR I will Blackbird and Honey Pie which were all written entirely by McCartney. Revolver is Paul again making Tomorrow Never Knows the Revolutionary song it is melodically with his introduction of tape Loops to pop music. Edit: grammar
@@eziospaghettiauditore8369 relax, even McCartney considered John’s songs on the white album better as did every other Beatle. “Julia”, “Revolution 9”, “I’m so Tired”, “Happiness is a Warm Gun”, “Dear Prudence”, “Revolution”, it’s not a debate
@@hw343434 it is a debate since I'm pretty sure everyone knows blackbird and most don't know the others You have some data where McCartney actually says that? I think Julia and Dear Prudence are monotonous and primitive simple the only thing that keeps me engaged with Dear Prudence are the vocal effects near the end Revolution 1 is trash and preachy without the fast-paced tempo and feedback thanks to Pauls input I'm so tired is slow and melodically simple and repetitive as well so it's not on the same level as back to the USSR or Blackbird even Edit: grammar
I love them all, but John Lennon's vocal gets me going! Listen to 'Ticket To Ride' and 'I Should've Known Better" and 'Help" for the earlier stuff. For the later John Lennon listen to 'Instant Karma', Revolution", 'Come Together' and 'Woman".
Paul McCartney was the first one to make profound poetry with Yesterday It's not as elaborate as in my life but it's far more ambiguous John left little to the imagination or personal interpretation with most of his songs
@@hw343434 I mean maybe the subtlety of "I believe in yesterday" is lost on you What is this yesterday anyways is he just regretting what happened previously or wishful thinking of how he want things to be now? We don't need elaborate complex metaphors every line to have something be moving. Like Lennon made anything more lyrically or melodically personal and moving as proven by Yesterday being the most covered song in history. If a twelve-year-old can make a song as good as yesterday with as clever lyrics I'm sure you can too right?
@@theotherbeatle707 elaborate really isn't a good description of in my life it's not really poetry at all It's oddly surface-level and blatant for a John lyric
Paul was always focused on human emotion over everything else The Human Experience. He has the widest range of songs addressing human struggle yesterday let it be another day and too many people
Love how it's a Harrison song playing in the background the whole way through ...
Danny Burke Which song is it?
Forget it, got it hahaha
@@davidponce9187 what is it?
@@johnbriancatedrilla4028 While My Guitar Gently Weeps
@@davidponce9187 while my guitar gently weeps
Without Lennon, no McCartney.
Without McCartney, no Lennon.
Without both no Harrison.
Without Ringo, no Beatles.
bring this guy a very very cold beer
The Beatles existed before they knew George Martin. But wothout George Martin they would not be the Beatles we know.
give this user a biscuit
can I have a custard cream please.
without ringo,its okay :v
"Lennon or McCartney" *George Harrison song plays in the background*
Hey I'm subscribed to your channel, I loves the latest vid
Do a VR sing George Harrison song🙏🙏
Let's sing a song in the comments
George is the superior beatle after all
Wazzup, Gabzito!
Its not Lennon OR McCartney... It’s Lennon AND McCartney.
Never ever heard that take
Nah.
damn right!
@dick hole enterprises Lol!
No McCartney, no Lennon 🤷♀️ sorry not sorry!
- Lennon or McCartney? - No, actually we're just good friends!
OMG, I remember watching that!
marion samson McCartney:Everyone stomp your feet on floor! (*Lennon stomps his feet on the floor*)
wtf dis the best comment??
Wow, I am impressed with that reference. That is from a Hard Days night the movie, right?
Right.
During the 50s it was very important to chose between Lenin or McCarthy.
Manucho Noya Quintana during the 50s 😂
It’s Lennon and it’s 60’s
@@happymonky0079 I think he's saying something else bud, I believe he's just trying to make a joke referring to something else.
Nice very nice
@@taylortripp8598 He is referring to the guy at 6:31 haha
“Ringo.”
“Really?”
“No.”
Poor Ringo
You can't have The Beatles without each part.
I can't be the only one who was hoping to see Paul McCartney get asked this.
I tried like a million times to interview him and always got denied.
Oh so that explains the bias.
Ringo, more like! that would've been UA-cam having an orgasm
taliwakka27 not really,everybody seems to be not interested to Beatles
I was hoping Billy Joel
What's the more important element in water? H or 0 ?
;-)) Very good
Louis Iacona Who's asking about water? they're asking about H or O. Water comes to mind, but it doesn't need to.
H...there's 2 of them...
there 2 of them
thats not how chemistry works...... h2 is still not water
It's like saying your mom or dad
Paul McCharmley definitely)))
@@mikhailyakovlev7219 Nah George Parrisol all the way.
the who man what about Ringo Stone?
But John will ALWAYS be your daddy ;)
neither.
"McCartney only writes silly love songs"
*Writes Helter Skelter"
Was about a roller coaster 🎢
@@vonholland64Sliding board...
John : "Paul" ... Paul : "John"
John would say lennon with shure
Paul: John
John: John
once i heard "the sound you make is muzak to my ears"
@@joaosiqueira9935 Not true
Actually, on second thought, John’s answer would depend on whether you got him on an arrogant “the Stones were trash, McCartney makes Musak, nobody can touch me” day, or on a self-flagellation “all those songs I wrote were garbage” day.
Q: Lennon or McCartney
A: Yes
Shoutout to the people who picked Harrison
yeah 100%
Lennon or McCartney?
-
-
-
-
Mclennon definitely
Ain’t that the dude from Superbad 🤔?
Unf. Yas.
Lemon.
McCarthy.
4:07 Best! haha
McCharmly
hahahaha
Notice how 95% of the actors chose Lennon without hesitation but among musicians it's more evenly split and they struggle with the answer. I'd like to see a retally with just musicians.
Of course because Lennon was also an icon of the 68' protest. He still has this rebel image which can be appealing. Musically, and even in terms of creativity I lean towards Paul.
@@framgz6467 I totally agree.
@@framgz6467 I agree with the first part but creatively Lennon takes the cake for me and im a musician. The man pushed the boundaries of what music can sound like
I think because as actors, Lennon is a much more influence on character, if that makes any sense? I would say Dylan over either, but you know. McCartney was amazing too obviously.
Actors are fickle like Lennon.
I am a bit surprised to see so many of these guys say "of course" Lennon. Dude you are not comparing Bieber vs Lennon. lol.
Can Cecen Well said!
Can Cecen there are a lot of people who say “without questions McCartney” as well.You are ignoring that cos you are such a biased mccartney fan.
@@s42stars82
Facts
s42stars There is literally one who says that. Nobody who isn’t bringing their own strange bias to the table could deny the fact that a great number of the respondents gave the answer of “Lennon” as if it was somehow obvious, whereas almost nobody answered “McCartney” in the same way.
@@fromchomleystreet without Lennon AND McCartney they're wouldn't be groundbreaking creations like Tomorrow Never Knows or A day In the LIfe.
Paul:
Great musician, good lyricist.
John:
Great lyricist, good musician.
Paul is a great lyricist wdym
@@christiancevallos9820
Yeah, that's just semantics of word power. I just wanted simplicity there.
Jonathan Meddis ah ok
John Lennon the greatest rock star and songwriter ever.
Paul Mccartney the greatest musician ever.
I agree completely. Paul is easily the better musician as he could play so many instruments but Johns lyrics were so much better than Paul’s.
Both were geniuses. If McCartney died in 1980, he would be deemed a God now. He was a musical monster. His work on the White Album is amazing. The bass playing on Dear Prudence, his musical rollercoaster song Martha My Dear, and much more.
Paul is an absolute genius. And you mentioning Paul on dear prudence.. how bout his drumming on that song too? Another reason hes so amazing.
I always thought McCartney was more talented. but recently I compiled a list of my favorite Beatles songs, and almost all of them are by Lennon
He has the more experimental and unique songs imo. Paul has more songs i dislike. But i still love him and george 😂
McCartney is doubtless more talented in overall musical terms, but - for me - not in terms of 'deep' songwriting talent.
I think Lennon had more original, artistically-striking tracks, with much better-crafted and impactful lyrics than the bulk of McCartney's stuff. Lennon's stuff makes up the majority of my favourites, along with several Harrison tracks.
Alongside some truly original, ground-breaking tracks, McCartney wrote a lot of 'pastiche' type tracks like When I'm 64, Back in the USSR, Honey Pie etc., or lightweight but commercially very successful stuff like Hello Goodbye or Get Back (all of which I love, by the way). This type of track is brilliant in its own way - such tracks give levity and flow to the Beatles albums, and without them most Beatles albums would have been much less enjoyable; they'd have been too spikey, too intense. And Sgt Pepper and Abbey Road, in particular, both benefit massively from McCartney's unique symphonic arranging and concept album imagination.
McCartney. The best comment was "try to write Eleanor Rigby". Paul did.
Try to write ''Strawberry Fields Forever''
msanm5 That's the point. Impossible to choose one.
Fer Abra Funny, since you easily chose Paul in your comment.
That's the point of the experiment.
And he wrote it 1966 the year after he wrote "Yesterday" and the year before Sgt. Pepper's LHCB.
The correct answer is: YES.
The band yes?
Yeah, Close To The Edge was amazing
@@styx22 i have it on cd, the first cd i bought whit my own money from selling popcorns whit my dad lol
Best answer everr
The only thing that bothers me about this is the folks that chose Lennon and said it in a way like it was the most obvious thing in the world.
It's like they thought they were being so cool, all about image. Annoying.
Yeah, and the other thing that bothered me was the ones who said Paul McCartney as if they had to apologize for it, and their friends were surprised by their choice. It's as if that nasty song of John's (with some particularly nasty lines contributed by Yoko) pushing an airhead image onto Paul, or calling it muzak, was believed! John himself said he was just a jealous guy. He was jealous that Paul had gotten off to such a great solo start even though it had been JOHN who'd thought he was SO much better than the Beatles that he needed to go solo. And up til then his projects with Yoko screaming and grunting and yelling platitudes had not been embraced by the public -- aw.
@@charwest9449 And his marriage to Linda was a million times more healthy and supportive (both ways) than Lennon's relationship. McCartney lived the life Lennon was desperate to project.
It is the most obvious thing in the world
@@pedrocf6852 Absolutely clueless
Me sitting here waiting for someone to say "McLennon" 😌
BEST reply.
They did at 22:15
lennon's death influenced a lot of these opinions
James McLaren not too me. Paul is. Pop writer that benefitted from John the genius.
@@vonholland64 Paul is the greatest composer in popular music. You can really separate them from the Beatles catalog, Paul's songs vocally and musically were better. Lennon was a better songwriter
No way. He was still writing great songs before he died. His solo catalog is way better then Paul. Plus, if you can make a song with Yoko listenable, that proves it!!
@@johnmorrison2179 I don't agree Paul had way more hits in his solo career, only thing that comes to mind with Lennon was imagine
@@GuyOnTheInternet53 Brian Wilson is the greatest composer in popular music, and was the direct influence for Paul during the mid 60s, You need to listen to Pet Sounds and the unfinished Smile sessions. Makes Sgt Pepper look tame.
On the other side, Lennon's muse was no doubt Dylan in terms of writing. Dylan is the greatest songwriter of modern times, Wilson the best composer. What the Beatles did is something less quantifiable in that sense, to me. They took it and brushed it off, while making the whole world see the beauty under it.
SPOILER ALERT!!!!
-
-
-
-
Some people choose Lennon
Others choose McCartney
Some choose harrison
None choose Starr
HENDRIX
Why do people think they have to say lennon
Because John was edgy and Paul was poppy.
Because he's dead
Because died fyrom what he believed in and McCartney "just" wrote better songs
seriously like i’m sorry Paul was better at vocals and song writer intrumentals but they feel pressured into saying lennon because he’s past away and the song Imagine
Because McCartney is a wet flannel and Lennon was cool
They could have had every single music artist, actor or actress on this documentary and it would have been a knife-edge vote between the two Beatles legends. Both of them are legends. Period.
Lennon got more votes, but I ask myself if these results would be different if he were still alive...
Probably. Lennon got cannonized after his death and declared more important than all the other three Beatles put together. It's a version of the story that some diehard fans defend to this day, but I feel the tide is slowly turning.
Midori Faria If Lennon were still alive, he would have even more votes. As a soloist there is no comparison with anyone. As a Beatle, the different was small.
@@altar964 If Lennon was still alive, he'd probably have been canceled by now four times.
@@Nachmittag You Really think so? 🤣😂🤣
@@altar964 Hey, I love John, but the man had a big mouth.
Genius is a big word that gets thrown around too casually these days. If they were only 5 geniuses in 20st century music, 2 of them would be Lennon and McCartney. We love them both. Having said that, McCartney was always better. And having said that, the fact that these 2 geniuses met each other in the 50s and formed a band is a miracle that will never happen again in this timeline.
Lennon is like the “cool” answer or whatever, but McCartney was absolutely the driving factor in that group. The guys in the band have even said it themselves.
I dont think so..Paul said.."I definitely did look up to John. We all looked up to John. He was older and he was very much the leader; he was the quickest wit and the smartest."
@@emanmercado2380 Such nonsense. John wasn't even adult enough to raise Julian.
@@mrlarvuxWell that paul's statement is clearly not about raising the child dude. Dont mix your personal about john to just music and the band.
@@emanmercado2380 Well, then what about that quote being in the context of the early days?
@@emanmercado2380 that was early on when the band started. Paul was definitely the workaholic in the group though. He became the defacto manager after Brian Epstein died and the others came to resent him for it. Someone had to though.
Lyrics: Lennon. Melody: McCartney.
+Deecky Rizzo But Paul also did brilliant lyrics, like on Yesterday, Junk, Another Day, Pipes of Peace, Ebony and Ivory, The End of the End, and many others...
Matheus Lamha And John did beautiful melodies too... but i'm sure you know what i mean.
+Deecky Rizzo Lennon sure wrote a lot of mediocre lyrics for someone who was supposedly great at lyrics. "But when you want money for people with minds that hate/All I can tell is brother you have to wait." So he was anti-hate, then. Watch out Ray Davies.
Joseph Scott Pfff... i'm going to agree all the way with you, Ray Davies is my favorite songwriter ever, he is the most complete songwriter: beautiful melodies, outstanding lyrics, a huge diversity of themes (not just love or peace), amazing inventiveness and versatility.
+Matheus Lamha he can write great lyrics - but come on, ebony and ivory is lyrically the worst thing that's ever happened
George Harrison
Christian Cummings I’m with you 100%. Harrison had the best solo career by far. Lennon had a subpar soli
Simply not true. Imagine, Woman, Jealous Guy, Just like Starting Over, Give Peace a Chance, Watching the Wheels, Mind Games, Power to the People, Working Class Hero vs one sweet lord.
Harrison was a very good songwriter. Lennon and McCartney were brilliant.
@@herodot2 nope Georges whole first album is brilliant from start to finish. His final album that was released postumously was also brilliant
@@ferdiahunt9899 I agree Lennon solo stuff is terrible
@@eziospaghettiauditore8369 his isnt the worst tho i personally prefer his solo stuff too Pauls and Ringos but each album john made with maybe the exception of his tracks on double fantasy youd have maybe 5 shit songs,5 average songs and 2 or 3 great songs. His tracks on Double fantasy and possibly walls and Bridges were pretty strong snd consistent in my opinion tho and also maybe walls and bridges
To me it's both. Without John there's no Paul and vice versa. They always had their best material when working together.
That is almost impossible to answer, for me. McCartney was the more technically gifted, and could play more instruments better. Lennon was wittier, had more soul and aching in his voice. Paul had a far greater range. Paul's songs were great, but he had some corny stuff, too. Lennon wrote deeper, more thought provoking lyrics but he did stray a bit to the too weird some. So all in all, they were a perfect duo, complimenting each other perfectly. Like the whole opposites attract type thing.
jnixa1010 Exactly what I was thinking
jnixa1010 Yep. Love them both separately and would choose Paul if I had to man, together, they were something else completely. Unstoppable forces.
Exactly. But since McCartney wrote the music to You Never Give Me Your Money, which is basically the ultimate prog song, he kind of gets the upper hand, doesn't he ?
Clem West Not to mention Eleanor Rigby. The best pop song ever.
McCartney. Abbey Road Medley does it for me.
John. Strawberry Fields alone doest it for me.
@@JoaoGabriel-lk9cv only made possible because of the tape looping effects Paul created. It's still more relatively repetitive and shallow compared to the Abbey Road album and all albums after Revolver all directed by Paul.
@@eziospaghettiauditore8369 there’s no tape loops on Strawberry Fields Forever. It’s a 100% Lennon song. If you think it’s is repetitive, it’s your opinion, but it’s one of the greatest songs ever. And no, Paul DIDN’T direct all albums after Revolver, since it was a collaborative effort of the band. If you think Paul “directed” the White Album, for example, you’re crazy. He didn’t direct Abbey Road either. I think you’re reading too much fake news
@@JoaoGabriel-lk9cv he did direct them all since he was the only one to convince the boys to continue after 1967 lol.
He came up with Magical Mystery Tour and Sergeant Pepper themes.
And he most certainly did direct the entire Abbey Road album lol.
allthatsinteresting.com/why-paul-mccartney-better-than-john-lennon
There absolutely ARE tape loops in the SFF idiot. Have you heard of a mellotron?
www.beatlesbible.com/songs/strawberry-fields-forever/
Respond with verified artist quotes not your opinion pls.
Gotta love the oh you think it's repetitive but its a masterpiece and a masterpiece can't be repetitive just because argument.
@@eziospaghettiauditore8369 I know Paul did convince them to do MMT and Let It Be, but to convince them to record songs is different from directing albums. He came with the MMT and SP themes, so? Those are album openers. He didn’t direct Abbey Road. George Martin, John and Him made up the medley, and that’s it. Abbey road was a group effort. Paul didn’t even want the A side of the album to happen. John wanted it, and Paul wanted the medley, so they kept both. And there AREN’T tape loops in SFF. A mellotron isn’t tape loops. Mellotron is a piano-like instrument, which can reproduce sounds, but it’s not tape loops. Not at all. There is tape loops in Tomorrow Never Knows, for example. Do your research before calling me an idiot, idiot. And say what you think is right, but strawberry fields is a masterpiece. You think it’s repetitive and it’s YOUR opinions, but the song is regarded as a milestone in the Beatles music, and in music history. You’re just a blind fanboy of Paul.
Video about Lennon or McCartney
Uses a Harrison song as backround music.
damn right I did
No bias
Exactly... and my friends made a sweet recording of it so it was free
I think it's right, in order to be impartial
100% McCartney: Versatile as a musician and songwriter, best pianist of the Beatles, vocal range, one of the best bassist in history, great guitarist, the mind behind Sgt. Pepper's and all of the best Beatles' albums. I love John though, but I love more the Lennon-McCartney team.
Lennon easily. Only thing Mccartney had was better instrumentalist. Lennon was the better songwriter, he did the psychedelic sound better, his music was more in depth, and he was the one who inspired the group to dabble in psychedelics which changed their sound forever
desoxido Within the Beatles, the different was small (but Lennon's genius remains unique): as a solo, McCartney is just "Another day"...Lennon solo...is always and remains Lennon.
@@altar964 Lennon, by far, mostly because he was more compelling. He had a more interesting voice, and more in-depth and unique subject matter in his songs. And he had an intuitive way of melody writing that produced some very unique and pleasing to the ear results. Still, without McCartney's and George Martin's contributions to his songs, they would not have been near as good.
If you like story songs sung in a pretty voice, it's Paul. If you like conceptual songs sung in a unique, smoky interesting voice, it's John. John, for me.
I wonder how the votes would have looked had you had the interviewees write down their answers and put them in a pail. I got the feeling from watching this that there were a lot people saying "Lennon," simply because they felt they should for the sake of seeming cool or deep. And there were a lot of the McCartney supporters who seemed almost embarrassed to be saying it. "Silly Love Songs" was Paul's way of acknowledging how he is perceived.
Perfectly said. Perfect.
Exactly! It's "edgy" to pick John or George as "the best Beatle". But you know what? Paul got sick on tour once. The show got cancelled because without him, they couldn't go on. John got sick that year too. They played several shows without him. John needed Paul**, but few people are willing to see that.
** Paul needed John too. He did a lot better than John when they no longer had each other, though.
This ^^^^^
McCartney is far and wide the most talented member of the Beatles and honestly had the best solo career.
No shit, Harisson and Lennon are dead...
Joris van Dijk WTf does that matter?
Haut Strange It means they haven't been active , touring and still releasing new albums unlike Paul
Weirdo Reborn I didn't ask what it meant. Harrison made music into the 90s. Even if you compare their output from the 70s, Paul wins. Harrison was close, though.
Haut Strange That's your opinion ..... I'm more fond of John and George's solo albums
The greatness of John Lennon´s music as i see it:
-The increasing tension. For example I Should Have Known Better. Before Lennon, all pop music structure was AABA, where the tension decreased in the middle part B. But with Lennon the tension from the verse continued in the middle part. Besides that, in this song it is not only a key change in the transition to the middle part, it is even a little key change in it. The increasing tension was what first characterized The Beatles. The first single where the verse lacked this increasing tension was Can´t Buy Me Love. (But the chorus is OK). I didn´t know then it was a McCartney composition. - Other ways of increase the tension by Lennon is to pack together several little songs. Happiness Is A Warm Gun consists of three or four songs, and Bring On The Lucie consists of three songs. -All You Need Is Love has another way: First talking, then repeating half singing, then singing, and finally the climax in chorus.
-The melody does not changes, but the background. For example in Strawberry Fields Forever and in Julia the singing melody uses the same notes, but instead the accompaniment changes! Listen to Puccini. He got tired of his sang melodies in Boheme and in Tosca he composed a lot where the sang melodies are often on the same notes, but the background changes instead. The effect can be stronger.
-Octave Leap. For example, in the middle part of Please Please Me, Lennon makes an octave run in “…it´s so hard to reason with YOU…”, the climax of the song. George Martin didn´t understand the quality in that. In his orchestration of it in Off The Beatle Track, Martin excludes the octave, the most important bit of the song!
-Verse and resolve. Typical for Lennon is a melody followed by a resolve, for example in No Reply “…I saw the light!”…and in Girl “girl! girl!…”. Lennon said that “a good song must have climax and resolve”.
-Only one chord. In Tomorrow Never Knows there is only one chord, or bass note, an innovation in pop music. In the Middle Ages it was common with that bordun note, an unchanged bass note. When Lennon played the song the first time for George Martin, Martin didn´t like it.
-Whole-tone scale. Most scales have both whole step and half steps between the notes in an octave. In the verse in Norwegian Wood, there is most whole steps, and that´s like the impressionists, for example Debussy. It sounds very clean.
-Church Modes. A Hard Day´s Night is written in the mixolydian mode, an ancient vocal scale, preserved in British, Irish and American folk song. -If you play the beginning of Please Please Me slowly, you can hear the similarities with the Westminster bells ringing. When Lennon was a little boy, he loved visiting the divine services. Afterwards he used to improvise anthem music. Westminster bells could unconsciously have inspired him to the beginning of Please Please Me. There is also anthem music in the beginning of All You Need Is Love: “love love love…”.
-The lamentation second. A little half step up in the scale. And that´s to indicate a pain. In All You Need Is Love Lennon sings the refrain twice unchanged and then suddenly the third time, rises a little, a very expressive and important step up. That step up started in the baroque epoch, and was called The lamentation second. When Lennon played it the first time to George Martin, Martin didn´t like it. He leaned towards McCartney and muttered: “It´s certainly repetitive”.
-From darkness to light. Happiness Is a Warm Gun starts with a little melancholy, and ends with enthusiasm.-In the middle part of I Am The Walrus the darkness switches over to light: “sitting in an English garden…”. And the transition from the chaos and darkness in Revolution 9 to the light in Good Night. That is very typical in Wagner´s music. I think that temperamentally the two were similar. And I think Wagner would have loved the arrangement in Glass Onion.
-Suggestive and hypnotic music. With small intervals between the notes in combination with some dissonance chord, Lennon can create a suggestive and hypnotic feeling in for example Across The Universe. It is more like Wagner than pop music.
-Few notes. With few, but effective notes, Lennon can create more feeling than McCartney with all his notes, for example in If I Fell and Love.
-A melody sang three times, in succession, with just a little change every time. When you hear it you can get frustrated or desperate not getting out from the melody. That we have in the middle part in I Call Your Name and in the middle part in And Your Bird Can Sing. And at the same time the melodies are stick together with a countermelody at the guitar. Rather hypnotic -Melodies without joint. Innovation. When repeating the verse melody in Any Time At All, the first note is the same note as the last note in the first verse: “…there is nothing I won´t DO if need a shoulder to cry on…”
-The accompaniment doesn´t follow the vocal line. In the middle part of Hey Bulldog, the piano doesn´t follow the singer. An innovation in pop music. The first one was Schumann in his songs.
-The first rap song. The talking in the end of Hey Bulldog.
-The most excellent and lovely melodies: The middle part of Bad to Me, the middle part of This Boy, the middle part of Yes it Is and the middle part of Nobody Loves You.
brilliant evaluation. it is sad mcca fans think that the ones preferring lennon prefers him just because of being cool or his tragic death. I cannot say maybe he is better musician, but i can say without a quesstion that he is a way better artist. and his voice especially early days was more touching. Interestingly I always loved lennon songs more than mcca songs in the beatles albums.
he was the soul, rebel, insecure, fun, trouble, child, adult, all conflicted stuff of beatles. and i believe what makes him a true artist is this.
Most of those things also apply to Harrison and McCartney. McCartney was and is the master of putting many little songs together to make it one big one. Listen to You Never Give Me Your Money, The End, Uncle Albert (Admiral Halsey), Band On The Run, Despite Repeated Warnings, Hunt Me Down/Naked/C-Link.... He also used church modes (in Eleanor Rigby for example). George was the one to really master classical indian composition techniques and put those one-chord-but-cool-melody stuff into Blue Jay Way and It's all too much. McCarntney used this technique in his solo for Taxman.
It think they all were true masters, and which one you choose is a matter of taste, sympathy and prioritization.
Short reply
But they all worked together the arrangements. For example, the changing of tempo in "We can work it out" was George's ideia, as well as the citar part in "Norwegian Wood" and the riff of "And I love her".
Yes, that´s right.
Yesterday I was listening to Ram, today it’s Plastic Ono Band. Tomorrow it’ll be Wings (nineteen hundred and eighty five y’all !). And so on. I love them both.
Team Harrison
LanceAlot Ent. Harrison is the best solo artist out of the three. Coolest guy also
yed
If George Harrison had only released All Things Must Pass and then retired, he would definitely be tied with Paul and John. If he had released All Things Must Pass and then got fatally shot, people would pick him as the best Beatle. But since he made a bunch of lame albums, his talent for songwriting has been severely overlooked. He is my favorite Beatle but John Lennon made several very decent albums in a short time before he died, which makes it look like he could have kept making good music without burning out like George did. I think that Paul has made the best career for himself and has released more decent albums over the years. Ringo is completely out of the question because he only has a few decent songs and not really any good albums, unfortunately. But All Things Must Pass takes the cake for the best post-Beatles album, in my opinion. Beautiful lyrics, guitar work, VOCAL work, which is always very overlooked with Harrison. Beautiful music.
No channel Musician there are a few duds in Harrison’s albums, but I think he didn’t exactly fizzle out. He made some of his best music with the traveling wilburys in my opinion
i´m here
This is pretty damn ambitious! I used to go diehard Lennon, but now I'm a total McCartney fanboy, so I was rooting for him all the way and surprised how many people chose him. Paul's solo career is just so fantastically weird...from the electronic experimentation that is "McCartney II" to the beautiful simplicity of "Chaos and Creation in the Backyard" to his collaborations with Elvis Costello in the late 80s and early 90s to the terrific homespun fun of "Ram." Just amazing. John was amazing in his own right but McCartney still wins for me.
Subjective taste aside McCartney easily has the widest range of sound you're right electronic to acoustic to something in between his album sound like nothing other before especially ram which I would put as influential as Pet Sounds and Sgt pepper
The reason for the Harrison song was two fold: It kept it fair by not being a McCartney or Lennon tune. AND, more importantly, I didn't want to get in trouble for copyright and my friend's band happened to do an amazing cover of the song, so I used that
Which is funny because Harrison gets my vote.
Which is also funny because Eric Clapton played on that track!
MetrazolElectricity George was not in their league
Walter Holden People who are NOT musicians do not see the whole picture " George had "moments" and those moments seldom came without the help of John , Paul , Martin or even Clapton. Yes one of my favorite Beatles song is "I need you" "Taxman" is another & of course "Something" but historically George NEVER brought in a completed song . Ironic that the first original Beatle song ever recorded was written by George "Crying for a Shadow"
Cry For a Shadow was a Harrison/Lennon composition and not necessarily in that order. George bypassed the other talents in the band by his cultural influence alone (at first). Here Comes the Sun was the lyrical marvel ahead of Something because he actually did have help with that one. In fact, John taught him a nice way of filling in the spaces with things that don't necessarily fit until the right words would eventually come along. John and Paul fell into a certain formula as songwriters, which John eventually strayed from, but George never met that formula. Beyond all, his influence sat with the cultural change. Within the band, he WAS the cultural change.
John Lennon the All Time Influencer of Rock/Pop Music. Paul McCartney the All Time Pop SuperStar. Both incredible and incredibly complementary
Yes in deed, Lennon !!+
How about McLennon🤔
No Warped Records __________ how about Mcdonalds
Yes
Gohan Definitivo dude imagine we make a fast food out of that name
Imagine going to McDonalds and be like,
"Can I get a mclennon?"
Like for George Harrison (RIP) 👼 💯
Lennon or McCartney?
Harrison.
I'd personally pick Led Zeppelin between the two
Starr
7:32 "the living one" lol. That answer really made me laugh
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
Damn it you spoiled it idiot i wanted to find out on my own. Thanks jerk
young mula I did that on purpose. Thanks for letting me know it worked.
i dont know who said oasis, but whoever did should be impaled on a very hot stick.
Adam Hans Stephen Hawking did
Adam Hans Lars Ulrich said oasis lol because he's a....never mind I don't feel like getting bashed right now lol
I began listening to Wings and McCartney's solo stuff, and I am blown away by some of it. Ram, Band On The Run and Wings At The Speed Of Sound are all worthy of being in the Beatles' back catalogue.
I don't know about speed of sound Band on the Run is great but Ram is where Paul just Unleashed his creative juices
Harrison quietly
Lennon but only because of his mind-bending songs. Strawberry Fields, I am the Walrus, A Day in the Life, Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, Mr Kite, Tomorrow Never Knows, Across the Universe. These are truly works of art that invite you to explore A Dreamworld you've enever been to before, where you might even learn a little bit about yourself. And that's why it's Lennon. I also love his nonsense writing like on Come Together.
Yes, Lennon !!!
Very well said, those are my Lennon favorites, I play all these songs like daily, lol. However, I been studying Macca's work and... oh, boy, dude is a freaking musical genius, he owns it. I love Lennon but nowadays I admire Macca more as a musician the more I learn to play their songs (I'm a freak for Harisongs as well BTW).
Exactly, thanks.
If Lennon was alive the answers would be a lot different.
therubbersouls he’d be even greater
There’d be no question.
I think so
therubbersouls I think more people would go for Paul if John was still alive. His track record was already more inconsistent than Paul’s by 1980. I think he would’ve gotten more inconsistent and tarnished his reputation by this point.
therubbersouls no.
Somebody said Oasis...lmao.
"somebody" thats metallicas drummer lars ulrich
I love how Jakob Dylan just flatly says, "I'm not answering that."
Lennon: A Day In The Life, Tomorrow Never Knows, Strawberry Fields Forever, Nowhere Man, Norwegian Wood, Girl, Happiness Is a Warm Gun, Dear Prudence, Come Together, I Want You, Because, In My Life, I'm The Walrus, Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds, Hey Bulldog, Across The Universe, If I Fell, No Reply, Help, I'm Only Sleeping, Don't Let Me Down... Holy Shit
McCartney co wrote both In My Life and A Day in the Life. Without the incredible bassline he wrote for Come Together it's just a run of the mill Chuck Berry knock off (see also the extraordinary bassline and guitar solo on George's otherwise mediocre Taxman)
Most of the recording tequniques that made Strawberry Fields Forever so groundbreaking were Paul's idea (Lennon was never happy with the finished song as a result) Tomorrow Never Knows? Same story, those tape loops were McCartney not Lennon.
To top off all the amazing contributions he made that transformed "John songs" he also wrote Here, There and Everywhere, For No One, Eleanor Rigby, Got to Get You Into My Life, I've Just Seen A Face, Helter Skelter, Penny Lane, Blackbird, I Will, Oh Darling, She's Leaving Home, Golden Slumbers, Martha My Dear, You Never Give Me Your Money, Hey Jude, Let it Be, Get Back, The Fool on the Hill, With A Little Help From My Friends. Holy Shit.
@@sunny70299 Dude, In My Life was almost entirely John. A Day In the Life was 60% John so it's fair to point out Macca's contributions. Also, I suggest you read about SFF and Tomorrow Never Knows because you quite far off when you say that Paul came up with the arrangements and that it was all his idea.
@@CJA-jf8db Suzy is right. Macca was involved much in any John's basic material in studio while he was mostly doing his stuff without much contribution otherside. He was arranger and mastermind alongside Martin behind almost all the songs from their catalogue.
@@sunny70299ALL songs that dont hold a candle to Lennon's Catalogue lmfao, Yes, it's undeniable that Paul crafted The sonic magic of these songs, but because Lennon said How he wanted his songs to be at McCartney's Hand on finding a solid form to make Lennon's Sharp Rock And Roll Introspective Poetry in music.
@@CJA-jf8db you are the one who needs to read up
Everyone is forgetting that A Day In The Life is Lennon AND McCartney
Yeah but Lennon is the reason it's the best
Taintless Productions actually i prefer the mccartney verse
70% Lennon, 30% McCartney
More like 80-20. And I could do without the ‘woke up and got the bus’ part. I could not do without the opening chords of that song, beware of what comes thereafter.
It would be nothing without the crescendo - McCartney's massive contribution. Not George Martin - he only wrote it down in order to explain it to the orchestra.
Lol why they compare? Lennon/Mccartney is the best singer songwriter duo to ever exist.
Why not? Comparisons don't necessarily make one bad. They had a real contrast in their styles. Great comparison in my mind.
Because McCartney is more successful and more clearly influential
I was glad to see George get some shout-outs. Tough question, but I would say without hesitation: LENNON! But how lucky are we that it was Lennon AND McCartney.
The counting Crows guy put it perfectly. Melody over Lyrics any day
Seriously. The working title for yesterday was "scrambled eggs"
Yup
There’s a LOT more than melody and lyrics to songwriting. There’s something called ORIGINALITY, FLOW, STYLE, RHYTHM, HARMONY, CHORD PROGRESSIONS, DELIVERY, etc...
@@hw343434 yeah no most of what you just described is blanketed underneath melody something Lennon couldn't do by himself as proven by his solo output being not even as commercially successful as Paul.
Hitting the same four and five chords in the same exact pattern with no dynamism in the melody whatsoever while always meandering the song back to Yoko gets old really fast
Are you 14?
@@hw343434 and if you know so much contrary wisdom how come you haven't made any commercial or critically-acclaimed songs?
John Roderick sums it up : Paul was the musical Genius , Lennon was a cultural phenomenon...
Nobody can sing like John Lennon
James Rinaudo No One can sing like paul
I agree. I am remembering that Lennon was only which was quoted in book, because of his politic ativism in Vietnam War. If it happened, it was because it became a cultural icon. His fame exceeded the world of music.
In matter of fact, he wasn't only a celebrity, a singer.He was more than that.
@@jamesrinaudo1013 yeah yoko did ...
Except John was a songwriting Genius
McCartney, for me. Love the guy.
McCartney. I saw this man live here in Brazil, and I can tell you guys, He's not real! A 72 year old man singing, jumping like that and with so charisma and so gentle, I mean, the performance is so poweful, strong, intense, the way he plays, the way he still feels his songs and get so emotional. He's the most genius in the music industry in the universe, seriously.
Porque você viu McCartney? Isso não é argumento, pois não dá para ver Lennon. A verdade é que enquanto ambos eram vivos jamais alguém faria essa pergunta, o mundo inteiro acharia uma covardia em relação a Paulo, não havia como compará-lo ao que Lennon era como artista e como ícone. Hoje comparam. Isso diz muito mais sobre o nosso tempo do que sobre os dois.
Se Lennon estivesse vivo hoje duvido muito que ele teria metade do sucesso que Paul teve e ainda tem como musicista e performer. E quando digo sucesso englobo a determinação, talento, vontade incansável que o Paul tem e sempre teve desde os Beatles. Todos sabem que se não fosse pelo espírito de liderança do Paul, muita coisa não iria pra frente. E depois de mais de 50 anos o cara conseguir ser assim, é fora do normal. John foi um mito, uma lenda. O cara era muito humano, inseguro e sonhador, acredito que sim ele revolucionou a música, os jovens, a política, o que ele fez Paul jamais se enquadraria, os dois tinham alvos completamente distintos, então acaba ficando meio injusto compara-los. Mas a musicalidade que o Paul tem e sempre teve é muito transcendental, Não me leve a mal, só a minha opinião, mas pra mim Lennon foi um revolucionário, um ícone que confortou o coração de muitos e os deu esperança, igual a ele nunca terá igual, mas Paul sempre foi o músico, o artista, o cara que independente da sua profissão você olha e almeja chegar num patamar daquele, patamar que exigiu muita dedicação, talento, boa vontade e carinho pela música e pelos fãs. Quando penso em sucesso, em uma pessoa bem sucedida, não consigo pensar em outro ser humano, pra mim é sempre o Paul. :)
michael corleone Paul é legal, mas não acho que seja maior que Lennon, só isso. Aliás tenho certeza. Como você tem do oposto, e afinal os dois são gigantes.
I can tell some of them never actually heard lennon or mccartney music
Yep and it’s so sad... “isn’t a pity”?
@@englishtea9094 "Isn't it a shame"
You can't deny that Lennon had the greater cultural impact and legacy. Imagine?! Come on. HOWEVER, I've always just like McCartney more. His voice is very sweet and I think his overall vocal talent was the best of all the Beatles. Obviously without John, George and Ringo, we wouldn't be having this 'debate,' but it's kind of a silly debate to have in the first place. Like I said, Lennon played, probably, the BIGGEST role in the Beatles success, with the raw emotion from his vocals to his legendary songwriting skills, but I personally just always liked Paul more. Not for any particular reason, other than the connection I made with his performances from an early age and so now as an adult, he's just my favorite.
err Helter Skelter? Let It Be? Yesterday. McCartney's cultural impact are so wide it's bit confusing..
Nah I would argue McCartney. He took over the Beatles in 1967-1970 and that was practically when they made there greatest albums.
Totally agree!
I don't know why you say Lennon I say McCartney
This is a beautiful comment
Good job
Wow 😂👏👏👏👏
Hello, Hello
Interviewer: "Lennon or McCartney"
Me: The Beatles
Interviewer: You have to choose either-
Me: *The Beatles*
- You need to choose one
-Ah, okay, the living one
Politically: John Lennon
Musically: Paul McCartney
Personality: George Harrison
Drummer:Ringo Starr
Octopusly : Ringo
Umbrella: Ringo
antics: Ringo
Submarine: Ringo
Ive been a Beatles fan since the Ed Sullivan Show. It was Lennon then and its Lennon today.
lyrics : lennon
melody, voice : mccartney
that's why what they did together was extraordinary
You´re just a McCartney fan, you´re an ignorant.
Lennon has the best voice, and better Rock songs. McCartney had better ballads.
+msanm5 First of all the fact that I happened to like Paul a tiny bit more doesn't mean I'm ignorant.
I'm both into the Beatles and their solo work, I love John and Paul with all my heart.
In my opinion Lennon was a better lyricist, I like his lyrics a lot more. But personally I think McCartney was a better musician and he is the king of melodies. His vocals were again in my opinion better, he could sing in a loooot of different ways and had a bit bigger vocal range. (just think about Helter Skelter, Here There and Everywhere, Oh Darling, Drive My Car, Heart of the Country or Monkberry Moon Delight)
However this doesn't mean that I don't like John's tunes or his vocals which were amazing or Paul's lyrics.
Also John wrote some beautiful ballads and Paul some badass rock songs but that's another story..
rebel98 Lennon is WITHOUT A DOUBT the best singer in the band. Singing is not only vocal range.
Paul could never sing Twist and Shout, Dizzy Miss Lizzy, Yer Blues, Across The Universe, A Day In The Life, etc...like Lennon did.
Lennon´s voice is UNIQUE and magical. McCartney´s voice was more conventional.
Lennon was also a better rock composer and had better psychedelic songs than McCartney.
McCartney was better at making ballads.
+msanm5 Yes and so what? John could never sing Long Tall Sally, I Will, Yesterday, She's a Woman, Back in the USSR or And I Love Her like Paul did.. Maybe John had a bit more unique voice, but saying that Paul's voice was conventional is foolish and ridiculous...
I agree John could write better psychedelic songs yes. But what Paul did (and still does sometimes) with the instruments is extraordinary. Just listen to his bass lines man...He is a musical genius, music is in his veins, it's his life. To John music was never as important as it was to Paul.
Also you're saying that oh yeah but McCartney just wrote better ballads. As if writing a great ballad isn't hard to do.
rebel98 If Lennon can sing Twist and Shout the way he did, of couse he can sing Long Tall Sally, I Will, Shes A Woman or any song you mentioned.
Lol, you´re a funny kid.
Twist and Shout is harder than any of those songs you mentioned.
Lennon sang Twist and Shout better than McCartney sang Long Tall Sally. No debate.
Like I said, Lennon was a better Rock and Psychedelic composer, and McCartney was better at making classic ballads.
Both are for me the greatest songwriters of the last century, and my all time favorites.
I might disagree, but I like when someone like Ed Sheeran gives a bit of insight. Come Together is his favourite song. Fair enough. Love the Counting Crow's "analysis". I have a feeling that most of the responders just say the name. The fact that there seems to be a 70% preference towards Lennon is just a bit... "wrong" in my opinion because it shouldn't be this exaggerated if you really know the Beatles. Shows how most of the answers are biased. I wish I could hear something more articulate.
I completely agree.
Are you fucking serious? Lennon wrote the international anthem for peace and love according to Carter. McCartney is one of the many run-of-the-mill singers that mainly wrote boy-girl love songs with no depth. He was the conservative convetional superficial materialistic pretty boy, Lennon himself called McCartney conservative, and I suspect that most people who like him have those qualities more so than the people who like Lennon.
Lennon, as one of the people in the video said, was a rugged rebel and fighter for love that broke all the rules.
Lennon v. McCartney is not even close in terms of global influence on politics and humanity. McCartney is merely just a musician and entertainer. Lennon was much more than that. Much more political, super liberal and open minded enough to marry an Asian woman. Fought for peace and love and cared about the working class more than any celebrity/singer/entertainer ever.
The answer has to be biased because the question is designed to be like that .If 70% of the people answer Lennon is because they like Lennon more than McCarney ....it would be like asking you which one do you like Coke or Pepsi and 70% of the people answer coke and you claim that is bias Well that’s what people like
Larry Abecid I agree 100 %
@@larryabecid2819 Well, at least you gave your opinion providing some substance. This is what was missing in the answers, and I was complaining only about that. I also suspect that using words like "fucking" and offending people you don't know anything about over a Lennon-McCartney debate makes you feel tough and cool. Good for you. So much for supporting the guy who wrote the anthem of world peace. Ah, the irony.
As Sir George Martin said:
"McCartney for the music and Lennon for lyrics"
McCartney was a better musician/melodist/composer than Lennon; and I think that Lennon's lyrics were a little bit deeper. And a the end of the Beatles, McCartney became the leader of the group. "Sergent Peppers" concept?: McCartney. "The Magical Mestery" Tour Project?: McCartney. "Yellow Submarine" Project?: McCartney
After in Solo it's not easy to say. Lennon composed between 1970 and 1975 (when Sean was born) and carried on in 1980 before his murder. And McCartney still composes a lot of good songs today (at the moment he is recording in Abbey Road new songs for a new album...again...)
What about Pete Best? (....Sorry....)
McCartney was certainly the better musician, and in general he wrote the more musically sophisticated, harmonically complex songs. But the thing about Lennon & McCartney as songwriters was that they could both do what the other could do...if they put their mind to it. Lennon wrote some of the most beautiful Beatles melodies and, with songs like Julia and Because, he also wrote some of the most harmonically complex music The Beatles ever recorded. Similarly, Macca out-rocked Lennon with songs like Helter Skelter. Both were geniuses.
jajaja but John was more of a Rockstar than Paul.
I dont think McCartney could match Lennon's rock songs, so no.
Helter Skelter was a good innovation, but is very repetitive. The best Rock songs in Beatles are Lennon songs.
msanm5 Helter Skelter exemplifies The Beatles' genius. Who else at that time would combine blistering hard rock with elements of avant garde jazz and even musique concrete? In fact, who has even done it since?
saxfreak01 Im talking about the quality of the songs, and not so much in terms of innovation.
You can make an innovative song that would still be not very enjoyable.
I'm not saying Helter Skelter is not enjoyable, but it doesnt have the quality that other Beatle Rock songs have.
Lennon's ''She Said She Said, Help, Revolution, Come Together, Happiness Is A Warm Gun, Yer Blues, I Want You, Polythene Pam, Dizzy Miss Lizzy(Cover), Day Tripper, etc'' are unmatched.
Now Paul has REALLY great rock songs. But on this area, Lennon wins.
No, you dont have to start naming Paul rock songs now.
Having grown up listening to the Beatles, and being inspired to play guitar by them, my opinions have changed over the years. Initially George was my favorite due to his quiet personality and his talent with the guitar. He was an incredibly under-rated guitar player. Then at some point I leaned towards Lennon due to his spirit and songwriting ability. Over the years, and after doing much research into the inner-workings of the Beatles, my opinion now is that Paul was the driving force behind the Beatles. George Martin once said that John initially was the leader, but nothing happened without Paul's approval. Even John said that his band was going nowhere until Paul joined the band. John was motivated by money, having once said when Brian Epstein told him he wanted the band to drop the leather look in favor of more traditional suits and ties, "I will wear a TooToo if you pay me". Clearly once John was rich beyond his expectations, his work ethic suffered. Money was no longer the motivator and the quality of his songwriting declined with some exceptions. His "Rock and Roll" album was clearly made just to get a record to market. Paul on the other hand was clearly motivated by his work, and that has been proven when you examine the body of his work over the years. His first solo album is remarkable, and to think it was made on a 4 track in is home. Amazing. "Maybe I'm Amazed" is a classic. There will never be another Beatles. Lennon WITH McCartney is where their finest work was achieved. And we are the better for it.
+Don't Call Me Lenny! In all the recent decades, Paul McCartney and George Martin are the ones who were alive, they tell THEIR side of the story.
So they manipulate ignorant people like yourself. Lennon was AS influential as Paul or more.
Stupid Question.There is no one or the other they both owned there songs so well , even Ringo.
It was a time and the moment .only Joe cocker bettered one of there songs .Congratulations to them lucky buggers..
'quality of his songwriting declined with some exceptions'
you sure about that??lol lennon revolutionised music with his solo work..imagine,women,instant karma,watching the wheels??
Jashan Jotu actually he didn’t, people wasn’t paying attention to his music, the only #1 he had while he was alive was “whatever get’s you thru the night”, and while he was cooking bread Paul was fulfilling the same stadiums he did with the Beatles, but now with Wings, he was one of the starters of the disco sound with Silly love songs and one of the fathers of electronic music with McCartney II, so if anyone was changing the music on the 70s it was Paul.
NicoSlash2011 so if he didn't had any no.1 that doesn't mean that his songs were bad
The correct answer is, "McCartney, when he's trying to impress Lennon."
This guy knows
how?:) or why?
Really good answer. The title tracks of Pepper and Mystery Tour are both by McCartney. Oh! Darling is by McCartney. You Never Give Me Your Money - McCartney. All would have been worthy Lennon type songs. 2 of their strongest songs to me are A Day in the Life and Baby Your A Rich Man, collaborations between the 2 of them. Unfortunately, a lot of McCartney fans seem to ignore the brilliant music hall touch McCartney has eg Martha my dear. Instead they go for his Brian Wilson-like songs eg Penny Lane. They should be bigging up more rocking or quirky stuff like The Fool on the Hill to support McCartney's range.
Alan McClure you got it man!
Right, Paul didnt introduce John to experimental music. And Paul didnt create the beginning of Strawberry fields. And Paul didnt create the classic basslines to lots of Johns songs. Paul also didnt create the middle eight to a day in the life.Paul was also a more proficient musician. John was the most creative my arse.
LENNON, his voice, his style, how original he was, his fashion, everything. Lennon is the best musician that has ever existed, not the most skilled one, but the way he'd express his emotions through her songs is just amazing, that makes him the best, besides, he was The Beatles.
I totally agree with you about Lennon's skills and how amazing he was!! But I think he wasn't the best, because that's the brilliant part of the Beatles: without a single one of them, the band would miss a fundamental point hahah. As Ringo says, peace and love 🌺🐢✌☮
@@luizacalixto4524 what a nice comment! I agree with you! Be well!
John Lennon is The Beatles esence
Didn't make as many good or dynamic or complex or experimental songs though
@@eziospaghettiauditore8369 Are you saying that John Lennon didn't create the most complex, dinamic, perfect and dificult songs of The Beatles?
I always prefer Lennon's songs in the Beatles and Lennon's solo songs. McCartney is so talented and perfect in every way but Lennon had that "something", that rawness, that grasping for truth (unattainable), that vulnerability.... Huge admiration for McCartney but Lennon speaks to my heart. However, that Lennon/McCartney duo was perfection.
Probably all of us who chose Lennon have some psychological problems haha
Exactly how I feel.
I think George Martin got it right..."people think John was a 'word' person and Paul was a 'music' person, but that is too simple to be true...Pal could write some great lyrics and John could write some great music - he couldn't put a cigarette paper between them, they truly were both sides of the same coin" It is bit like asking who is greater...Federer or Nadal, or Nicklaus or Tiger Woods.
Ahaha well actually it's Federer, Nadal or Djokovic
Exactly!
John never wrote great music by himself
@@eziospaghettiauditore8369 so Imagine and Strawberry fields Forever are crap?
@@daniilmedvedev3647 no....Djokovich is George Harrison
Easy for me.
Paul McCartney.
Paul is the King of Melody. So many exquisitely beautiful melodies. And he was much more diverse.
From "I Will" to "Helter Skelter"
"Eleanor Rigby" to "Why Don't We Do It In The Road"
"The Night Before" to "I've Got A Feeling"
Yeah, man, it's McCartney
When I was in college, it was Lennon for me - I thought his music was so cutting edge. Now that I'm in my 40's, it's McCartney for me. I can really appreciate Paul as a beautiful song writer AND a really good human being. Together, they were above and beyond! Even George and Ringo were better that 95% of the musicians commenting on this AND there were some VERY good musicians commenting here too!
The truth is they were at their best when they were together and could bounce ideas off each other. If you look at the decade as a whole following the breakup of The Beatles, it's clear both of them suffered artisically after the split, in terms of the overall quality and quantity of the songs they were writing.
tbh McCartney suffered a lot...john not much
1. Lennon
2. McCartney
3. Bob Dylan
4. Neil Young
5. Marvin Gaye
(I had to give you props on your profile pic.)
They all made at least some good music post Beatles but All Things Must Pass best of all
yo dawg True!
Actually I prefer the Lennon material like "Warm Gun", "I'm So Tired", "In My life" & "You Know My Name" ect. that has no involvement from Paul.
I hate the people who said neither.
IKR
People who said neither has no balls!
Ok then . Who do you prefer?
@@nasskhan4543 lennon
How kind.
McCartney!! I love Lennon, but i adore McCartney!
My two cents: Paul wrote many brilliant songs, was by far the most gifted in an all-round musical sense - but John had a deeper creativity. It was John's creative spark that spawned the really ground-breaking tracks that kicked off their greatest albums: e.g. Ticket to Ride, Norwegian Wood, Tomorrow Never Knows, Strawberry Fields Forever, A Day in the Life. However, it was often Paul who made the biggest musical contribution in taking these tracks to their amazing final form - e.g. witness how A Day in the Life or Tomorrow Never Knows grew from John's bare demos.
Impossible - and pointless - to say who was 'best'. Let's just rejoice in the fact that they found each other, and that their talents were so spookily complementary.
Paul was the better musician (exceptionally renowned in the bass world and even the guitar world) and the more dynamic songwriter who also had the more successful career after The Beatles split (though Lennon's was tragically cut short). The dude wrote Helter Skelter AND Hey Jude. He could write a catchy little pop tune like Paperback Writer and then pull Live and Let Die out of nowhere. Plus (in my opinion) he just outright had a better and more recognizable singing voice. A lot of people let the scale tip towards Lennon (or just outright choose him) because he died and was a controversial media figure. I'm trying to avoid subconsciously giving points to Lennon because of his tragedy, because that honestly shouldn't matter.
john helped write paperback writer, helter skelter and paul admitted that hey jude was recorded AFTER john approved it
newt0830 They all peer reviewed their own songs. The same could be said about all of Lennon's stuff in the Beatles too. The point is, who was the one fundamentally responsible? And that is where people say "This is (whomever's) song." And Paul asked for John's approval for Hey Jude because it was about John's son who was going though a lot of issues because John and his wife were getting divorced, so it was close to home and he wanted to be sure he was ok with it.
newt0830 John didn't help Paul on Helter Skelter, or at least according to Lennon. John said to Playboy in 1980 and to Hit Parader, that Helter Skelter is Paul's completely.
John 1980: "That's Paul completely. All that (Charles) Manson stuff was built 'round George's song about pigs and this one... Paul's song about an English fairground. It has nothing to do with anything, and least of all to do with me."
John Lennon was the better songwriter(words&music)/artists. Both were practically at the same level..the thing that annoys me is when people say that Paul is clearly a better musician.
You´re stupid.
msanm5 Paul is a phenomenally renowned bass player of great influence. Lennon does not share this among guitarists, Harrison does though. I mean YOU just said Lennon was better and then said they were practically the same. I just said he was better, not clearly better, I acknowledge it's close but Paul was more versatile and better at his own instrument in the Beatles, John was a better guitar player though.
Sheeran: Lennon
Alex turner : Lennon
The interesting thing to me was in viewing an in-depth video doc about their relationship, at the end it showed a piece of paper from one of John's sessions with a psychologist where there were listed various people in his life, and he was asked to respond next to each with one word. For Elton John it said, nice; for Howard Cosell: ham; for Yoko: lover; for David Bowie: thin; for Ringo: friend; for John(himself): great; for George: lost; and for Paul: extraordinary. So we can glean who John would have chosen from that I guess.
oh what doc is that?
@@caitie226 Lennon/McCartney the Last Dance 1979-1980. It's part of a five part series (or something like that)
Awww, some of those answers are so lovely.
McCartney would also choose John so 🤷🏽♂️
Wow that’s great stuff. Kind of sad that he said “Lost” for George Harrison. I wonder why.
McCartney for the ears, Lennon for the brain, Harrison for the soul, and Ringo for the heart.
best thing I´ve ever read about these guys
🙄
What an amazingly difficult choice!
McCartney.
I look, sound, act, and write like Lennon, but McCartney is amazing and is such a better person/musician
yo may look,act (and maybe) sound like lennon but i guarntee you dont write like him lol
You should start a look alike cocer band
Julian Lennon is better than John.
Paul is almost entirely responsible for all of their most ambitious projects even though Lennon contributed some of the best songs.
Wrong. “White Album” and “Revolver”, John led those albums, perhaps the 2 greatest
@@hw343434 he didn't lead those albums.
He did make some of the best songs but those albums were not directed by him and if Paul McCartney had not convinced him he would not have made any more music with the Beatles after Revolver.
“After Brian [Epstein, the band’s manager] died … Paul took over and supposedly led us you know.”
@@hw343434 two good songs Happiness is a Warm Gun and Dear Prudence both having melodic and studio input from McCartney do not compare with back to the USSR I will Blackbird and Honey Pie which were all written entirely by McCartney.
Revolver is Paul again making Tomorrow Never Knows the Revolutionary song it is melodically with his introduction of tape Loops to pop music.
Edit: grammar
@@eziospaghettiauditore8369 relax, even McCartney considered John’s songs on the white album better as did every other Beatle. “Julia”, “Revolution 9”, “I’m so Tired”, “Happiness is a Warm Gun”, “Dear Prudence”, “Revolution”, it’s not a debate
@@hw343434 it is a debate since I'm pretty sure everyone knows blackbird and most don't know the others
You have some data where McCartney actually says that? I think Julia and Dear Prudence are monotonous and primitive simple the only thing that keeps me engaged with Dear Prudence are the vocal effects near the end
Revolution 1 is trash and preachy without the fast-paced tempo and feedback thanks to Pauls input
I'm so tired is slow and melodically simple and repetitive as well so it's not on the same level as back to the USSR or Blackbird even
Edit: grammar
Duritz had the greatest explanation why it’s McCartney.
I love them all, but John Lennon's vocal gets me going! Listen to 'Ticket To Ride' and 'I Should've Known Better" and 'Help" for the earlier stuff. For the later John Lennon listen to 'Instant Karma', Revolution", 'Come Together' and 'Woman".
+leonardoboy2 His voice is unique..the best singer of the band
I Want to Hold Your Hand and This Boy.
Listen to "WOMAN" by Paul McCartney a very YOUNG Paul McCartney recorded by Peter & Gordon. Probably the BEST song of The brit invasion
Out of the group his voice is my favourite
Macca was the best singer of the band, and Lennon was the voice.
Food or Water?
Scott Andrew Brass haha so true
What's your favorite part of the plane - the engine or the wings?
Paul draws you in with the catchiness, John makes you stay and teaches you poetry, George cleans up your psyche and Ringo glues them all together.
Paul McCartney was the first one to make profound poetry with Yesterday
It's not as elaborate as in my life but it's far more ambiguous John left little to the imagination or personal interpretation with most of his songs
@@theotherbeatle707 yesterday profound poetry? Lol for a twelve year old perhaps. I like the song but to call it poetry is almost ignorant really
@@hw343434 I mean maybe the subtlety of "I believe in yesterday" is lost on you
What is this yesterday anyways is he just regretting what happened previously or wishful thinking of how he want things to be now?
We don't need elaborate complex metaphors every line to have something be moving.
Like Lennon made anything more lyrically or melodically personal and moving as proven by Yesterday being the most covered song in history.
If a twelve-year-old can make a song as good as yesterday with as clever lyrics I'm sure you can too right?
@@theotherbeatle707 elaborate really isn't a good description of in my life it's not really poetry at all It's oddly surface-level and blatant for a John lyric
Paul was always focused on human emotion over everything else The Human Experience. He has the widest range of songs addressing human struggle yesterday let it be another day and too many people
If someone asked me, I would say Harrison, but between the two, McCartney all the way.