I forgot to mention , why is Ray Davies always missing from these lists? True the Kinks were more esoteric and less pop friendly over the years, but there's no denying his writing ability!
Choosing the greatest song writer is like Marmite. The 2 Pauls, John, Bob, Mick and Keith and so many others are all brilliant. Just enjoy the music they have given us.
Without a doubt. Lennon might have been the grit and the dark, cynical spice in The Beatles but McCartney had an other-wordly understanding of melody and harmony that was way out of Lennon's league. They both wrote some timeless songs though.
And Paul used his musicality to enhance every John/George song to another level. They did the same with his songs but not to the same level or as often What would Tomorrow Never Knows be without the tape loops Paul found out how to make and spearheaded on the song? What if LITSWD didn’t have the lowrey organ, WMGGW the piano intro, or SFF it’s mellotron. What if Come Together was still a 50s rock song too similar to Chuck Berry’s song? Paul transformed it with his idea to slow it down, make it swampy, add his bass, and his piano. Paul was the best producer John ever had as he took a very active role in producing and arranging John’s songs
While I was never a big McCartney fan, I remember listening to the 'Wingspan' compilation for the first time, and being blown away by the fact that he could write in so many different voices and styles. Paul Simon has the same gift. While Lennon might have been a lesser songwriter overall, anyone who can pen songs like 'No Reply', 'In My Life', 'Girl', 'Rain', Tomorrow Never Knows', 'A Day in The Life', 'Dear Prudence', 'Happiness is A Warm Gun', and 'Across The Universe' is still pretty damned brilliant!
I think this boils down to McCartney and Paul Simon being more “musicianly” in the sense of having a greater instinct for melody, harmony, etc. In that sense, you can see why Paul Simon puts McCartney alongside people like Gershwin. I would put Brian Wilson in this category as well. I think this is why George Martin found it a bit easier to work with McCartney. To me, Lennon and Dylan are more about being directly expressive, and having imaginative things to say. They were the most “out there” with some of their ideas and themes. That’s not to say that McCartney or Paul Simon weren’t imaginative or that Lennon or Dylan didn’t write some great tunes. There are people who claim Paul McCartney is a bit shallow and doesn’t often put a lot of himself into his work. I suppose it’s a valid view, although I love the work of all these guys so I’m not trying to denigrate any of them. - Phil
Paul McCartney’s overall musicality and melodic genius is peerless, however his lyric writing can be very patchy (particularly in the 70s and 80s where stoned silliness and unchecked drafts hampered a lot of his work).
This is all very subjective, of course. Personally, I feel that all three of these gentlemen wrote songs of equal quality from time to time, but Macca certainly wins in sheer numbers of immortal songs written. And he also wins in terms of sheer variety of musical styles used. Dylan may have been a great influence on him (briefly, at least) but Macca far surpassed him, in my opinion. Just as he surpassed mostly everyone. Dylan is a great songwriter but a godlike lyricist. Macca is the reverse of that. And Lennon a bit of both. The important thing, however, is Macca's influence on the Beatles. I mean, without his input, the others would've been perfectly happy to play the old rock 'n roll numbers they played at the Cavern., to this day. Macca's unbelievable talents and ambition is what dragged the others along with him to the top of the poppermost.
I appreciate both Dylan and Lennon and acknowledge their immeasurable impact on music over the last 60 yrs. That being said, I'm firmly in the McCartney camp. His songs might be more poppy and not have the same social consciousness as Dylan's and Lennon's songs, but PM's songs are simply more accessible, in my pinion. According to Beatles producer George Martin, Lennon was always a bit jealous of McCartney, with John allegedly noting (somewhat bitterly) that "Nobody is going to be walking down the street whistling 'I am the Walrus' " or words to that effect. Thanks, Barry.
Do you have a source for that quote? I have never come across it before. I Am the Walrus is one of my favourite Beatles songs. As for accessibility, how about mainly Lennon penned songs such as Ticket to Ride, Help!, Norwegian Wood and In My Life? I am sure the bitterly jealous John can console himself in the afterlife with those.
@@candelise this is where the joint song writing credit of Lennon/McCartney gets murky. Impossible to know. I think they both contributed to a lot of the songs written by 'each other'. I usually assume the songs John or Paul sang lead on, they mainly came up with but there are of course exceptions. Yellow Submarine and Help from my friends of course, Paul mainly wrote but were sung by Ringo.
I read an account once (I don’t remember which book) about Paul Simon sitting in on one of the Double Fantasy sessions, and Lennon ended up kicking him out because Simon kept coming in sooner than John wanted him to. As he exited the studio, Simon was quoted as saying: “I know he’s John Lennon, but I’m Paul Simon!” So he may be a little butt-hurt towards John. That, and the fact that Lennon called him a “dwarf”. As to the question at hand; Paul McCartney and John Lennon are like chocolate and peanut butter. They’re both pretty good on their own, but they’re much better together. In this case, McCartney would be the chocolate, and Lennon, the peanut butter. I’ve never really been as big a fan of Paul’s solo work as I was of John’s, but Paul’s a consummate musician. He can play anything (even upside down if he has to) and his facility with melody doesn’t even need to be mentioned. But for the most part, his lyrics are naff and his songs tend to be sweet and trite. On the other hand; Lennon’s compositional skills may not have been as nuanced and complex as Paul’s, but they were solid numbers, and his lyrics MEANT something. That doesn’t mean they were always brilliant, but at least they were honest and substantive. At the end of the day, you can subsist on peanut butter for a lot longer than you can on chocolate. I don’t think that really answers the question, but I think it’s too subjective to have a definitive answer.
It is nice to hear you applaud the work of Paul Simon. It IS hard to rank the "best" sometimes - degrees of greatness which are difficult to measure. Regardless, Sir Paul McCartney's work is undeniably elite and deserves to be considered at the very top.
There are so many factors you could consider like Paul McCartney has had a lot more time to add to his catalogue. It’s not all on equal ground. You cannot deny his success or why he has had that success. I think he brought the most musically to the Beatles but the 4 of them were a once in a lifetime or once in several hundred years or more phenomenon. It will actually, likely never happen again. McCartney has written some garbage but the number of incredible songs is stunning. Some of his later stuff, I think, is right up there with his best. The Memory Almost Full album was solid overall and “That Was Me” was, in my opinion one of his finest vocal performances. One thing that I disagree with is the tendency to paint Lennon as the harder edged of the two and Paul as the softy. These guys both had it all. They both had beautiful falsettos and both could scream well & then a hell of a lot in between! With Ringo and George thrown in, they were truly a 4 headed monster! I can’t really choose and don’t really want to. I heard “Strawberry Fields” the other day and it’s not only one of my favorite songs, it is truly a masterpiece! I could listen to that and “Jet” every day and never get tired of them…. I’m not choosing. I’ll take it all.
John Lennon wrote some songs that are among my favorites (so did Paul), but if someone said I had to choose him or Paul to listen to for two hours it would be Paul.
I would say that Lennon and Paul were pretty evenly matched. Of course at times each would outclass the other. As for being better than Bob Dylan I would have to disagree. Dylan is more of a heartfelt writer and his melody's carry a more universal nature.
Lennon referred to Simon on at least one occasion as “The Dwarf” which might be informing Simon’s opinion of Lennon. I believe that once you get to their level, they are all outstanding and it really becomes a matter of personal taste. What is is it about a particular musician more than another that resonates with you? You will never see the likes of those four men ever again.
@Supremor-tj9dv Absolutely. When you get to the upper echelon of great songwriters it all comes down to taste. It's ludicrous to say one is better than the other. Besides, how do you measure greatness in a songwriter. Is it by their amount of hits? Is it based on the structure of their compositions? It's something that is impossible to gauge and is up to the listeners taste.
Very interesting, I think its beyond discussion that Paul should be in the top tier as he wrote songs of the very best quality and variety with the ability to play so many instruments to an astonishing level of skill. I would argue that Lennon & McCartney together should be top tier but Paul should be there as a solo artist but john maybe not. What I would also say is while I think Paul is the supreme songwriter John had one single attribute that nobody had in that he wrote songs like I am the walrus, day in the life and strawberry fields that were so unique to John that I think at moments he had the ability to write top notch songs that NOBODY else could write but Paul wrote consistently brilliant songs from the early Beatles to now so consistency wise he has to be the best because he could do it with or without John, John wrote some brilliant solo songs but not as good as Pauls (with a few exceptions) and nowhere near as many. Great video
Ranking music, singers, writers, etc is something that we often do, and doing it is alright, if one keeps in mind that it is a worthless as a measurement. I reject it, (until I do it again).
Lennon makes me break down and cry or raise my fist in anger or muse about what life is about...every time. Paul is an amazing musician and a wondrous melody maker...but he never squeezed my heart or got me thinking about humanity...I make an exception for 'eleanor rigby' At his best he makes me happy in a summer sing-a long way. He will be remembered as the greatest musical Beatle and one of the greatest songwriters no doubt but as you said, he lacks the immediacy of Lennon.
How do you explain that Paul`s daughter Stella did a DNA test where it turned out that she was a close relative to Paul McCartney`s brother, father, and mother, if her father is not Paul McCartney? Did they clone Paul before he died in that car crash??
My vote goes indeed to Paul Simon for the intelligence,pathos and all-round...er.. roundedness of his art.Dylan certainly a close run on the lyrical front (Hurricane for one) but the beauty of Simons melodic tendencies is all conquering imho.
I like Nick Cave’s story where Simon sent him a copy of ‘Seven Psalms’ before it came out. Cave responded positively but with a few caveats and hasn’t heard from Simon since. 🤔
I don't think Sir Paul's post Beatle work stands up so well on its own. He was better with his chum. It's interesting that it often takes two to form really wonderful music - The Beatles, the Stones, Simon and Garfunkel, Zeppelin, - like a holdover from classical music where one fellow handles the musical composition and the other the libretto. I think the results are better from this kind of collaboration. Dylan was a great lyricist but rhythmically and melodically etc. he was fairly uninspiring. It is is also amazing that someone like Ian Anderson who writes incredibly complex and satisfying music combined with thoughtful and beautiful lyrics always is not even on someone like Simons radar. Thanks for the post.
Off topic, perhaps, but please, please, please have a listen to Automatic Shoes. One man band playing classic art rock, with lots of T.Rex covers (his cover of Bolan's A Daye Laye, had me in floods of tears). He has the most beautiful voice and also an excellent guitar player. You should also check out his other project Atari Ferrari. It's been many years (and I have 64 of them) since I've seen a performer with so much presence. He reminds me of a young Bowie. I have to admit, I'm totally obsessed. This man deserves fame and fortune.
No. McCartney may be a better melody writer but Lennon was a better wordsmith. Paul often used placeholder lyrics and sometimes didn't bother to replace them with better ones. He's also the better musician, one of those naturally gifted types that can play anything and he studied classical music with George Martin. Lennon was too lazy. When playing a Beatles album it's always Lennon's songs I most look forward to hearing and he also wrote his share of great melodies.
No one’s better than Dylan. Macca v Lennon? The former, without doubt. Shame he can’t sing. While we’re at it, a word for the greatest songwriter these isles have ever produced: Shane McGowan.
Lennon cruelly once referred to Paul Simon as 'the singing dwarf'. These geniuses can get a little tetchy when they sense a near rival. The antipathy between Simon & Dylan reminds me of Orson Welles' dissing of Hitchcock: "there is an icy calculation in his work that puts me off". Ouch! Happily we can appreciate them all without resorting to their petty jibes...
I have always considered Paul McCartney the complete package as he is a great musician, a fine songwriter, and a terrific vocalist which has been so wide-ranging. In my opinion Paul is an artist who may only come around maybe every two to three hundred years!!
McCartney was prone to writing some really treacly sappy songs. I cannot justify many of his songs, especially since the 1970s. A true hit or miss songwriter.
@@goplad1 No, sappy doesn't mean bad, it means very sentimental. Songwriting is not about the theme of the lyrics, but about the whole construction of a song. McCartney has written lyrics of all kinds, ALL KINDS.
Paul is the complete package because of the reasons you listed but also because he is a great producer and arranger. He was the secondary producer and arranger for the Beatles and just as important as Martin in those roles
I love your intense dedication/ noncluelessness. My own opinion/ onion different but no matter. Funny, but all you mentioned inc Brian Wilson were all inspired by and became what they were.
It all depends on whom you prefer. I am not a fan of Dylan, can’t take his singing, so I don’t know a lot of his work, as I tend to turn the radio channel when his songs are played. Paul vs John? Both are great, but if I have to pick I’ll take Lennon. Both of them would be in my top tier along with Gordon Lightfoot, Joni Mitchell, Simon, Buffy Sainte-Marie and a personal favorite, John Kay of Steppenwolf
For me, the triteness of many of McCartney's lyrics does not qualify him for the top tier. Great ear for melody, but not the equal of Dylan, or even Neil Young (possibly the only one who's managed to keep his 'fire burning' throughout an entire career).
I find it hard to take seriously a statement regarding the best song writers which only briefly touched on the great names of the past. Personally I don't think Paul McCartney, Paul Simon, Bob Dylan, or John Lennon could write better structured songs than Cole Porter, (McCartney's favourite song writer), George Gershwin, Sammy Cahn, Irving Berlin, Rogers and Hart etc. Maybe some distinction should be noted that McCartney and his contemporaries came from the self taught rock and roll era of singer song writers. But such a debate which only included those since the 1950's to me has no credibility.
I applaud you. I agree with you 100%. The great American songwriters you mentioned and many others from that era are among the most gifted songwriters of the twentieth century. When juxtaposed with the pop music songwriters of the '60s (including the Beatles) it becomes apparent that the gift of writing truly creative lyrics was lost along the way. There were exceptions such as Dylan, who was more whimsical in his poetry, and Paul Simon, who had a gift similar to Dylan. There is no arguing that Lennon and McCartney were gifted pop songwriters but to suggest they were the greatest of the twentieth century falls flat and can easily be challenged.
It's not an easy call and it's not that cut and dry. I like I'll follow the Sun, Penny Lane and Hello Goodbye,but John penned In My Life, Dear Prudence, Nowhere Man,You've got to hide your love away.. John was an insane wit-very quick with words.Paul wrote a lot of songs that people haven't heard of much like Woman (for Peter and Gordon) and Suicide (a snippet appears on his first post-Beatles album). I like Paul's work too.
I used to think that Lennon was a better songwriter but the older I get I am now appreciating McCartneys earlier albums like Ram and Red Rose Speedway. Also the Wings albums like London Town, Venus & Mars….albums which I really ignored years ago.
I admit that my opinion of McCartney's songwriting was irrevocably prejudiced by being subjected to my sisters playing the Wings "Band on the Run" and "Venus and Mars" albums incessantly when I was a kid, which are both remarkable collections of the most stupid and inane songs ever written.
Yeah I especially can't stand that 'Band On The Run' song and so overplayed too. 'Let Me Roll It' and 'Helen Wheels' are other stinkers. 'Listen To What The Man Said' though I think is quite good, one of his best.
Hard to disagree. I’d say Macca helped John a lot and John provided some edge to some of Paul’s songs. Both wrote some dross after the split, some good stuff in there too of course. Any mention of Elton and Bernie?
I haven't heard many songs passed his solo album McCartney that I enjoyed. Musical genius if he says so. I have 36 of Dylan's albums from his inception. John: #9 Dream? Imagine? Cold Turkey? Instant Karma? Mind Games? I consider those as works of genius In His Own Write. But George Harrison kicked both of their asses with All Things Must Pass. I like Paul Simon's works. Love many of them but of entertainers opinions, I usually pass on them.
I couldn't agree with you more. McCartney is a fine lyricist but lacks the depth of Lennon's most heartfelt songs. McCartney mostly wrote pop ditties that were easy on the ear but not necessarily deep in the well. Dylan is arguably the most creative lyricist of all. He is in a league all his own. Neither Lennon or McCartney can touch him as far as poetry is concerned.
I would put Lennon McCartney and Dylan all on the top tier. Also Brian Wilson and Paul Simon. As to Dylan's childish and disrespectful snickering, well, it was childish and disrespectful. I like Dylan and regard him as a great artist, but, to be honest, I've listened to S & G probably 50 times more than Dylan. They just have a more appealing sound.
No one can argue with Paul Simon but I think most of those mentioned were superb craftsmen. The only one who transcended the form though was Dylan. I think he went beyond the song format into lyrical modernism and genuinely shifted the possibility of what could be said in the genre of popular song. They were all supremely gifted artists but perhaps the only true genius was Bob. Thanks Barry.
Personally I've never been a fan of Paul Simon, whereas my other half has always had a deep affinity for his music and other melodic performers of that genre. I always put it down to male/female split. Likewise, I'm sure there are many more female fans of McCartney, whereas Lennon's fan base would be largely male.
Nope. Both he and John wrote their best songs together or in competition with one another. The Beat,especially were always greater than the sum of their parts. And Dylan is a different kind of writer altogether.
@@goplad1 "Quality" is the most vague concept ever, be more specific. Why Porter has more quality? If you don't do that, you're simply wrong. It's difficult to compare Porter to McCartney, cause they lived in different contexts. Porter was a composer, McCartney is an all rounder multi-talented multimedia artist.
We agree that it's too subjective to classify songwriters in this way. But if I had to, I think I would put McCartney on top, indeed. And Bob Dylan at the top too, but more particularly as an author and poet (above other good authors like Leonard Cohen, Jim Morrison, Peter Gabriel, Jon Anderson or Roger Waters). His Nobel Prize is deserved in my opinion. But when it comes to musical composition specifically, I wouldn't put him on Macca's level. Paul McCartney has these two talents combined: music and lyrics, like Paul Simon and even Elton John.. John Lennon created magnificent songs, it's undeniable (I'm very fan), but less numerous, like flashes, and musically more subtle than Dylan but less than the two Pauls in my opinion. Another criterion is the era of their genius. All of these guys had their era of creative genius, but not necessarily spanning their entire careers. So it's hard to classify them. John Lennon would have lived longer, I think he would have gradually favored writing books (as Jim Morrison surely would have), but he probably wouldn't have had a creative musical longevity comparable to what we note from the two Pauls. Musically, we have Stevie Wonder, also...
I would wholeheartedly disagree with that statement. Paul wasn't the greatest songwriter in the Beatles let alone everyone else. Picking the greatest of anything is pointless and relative in my opinion considering there are so many brilliant singer songwriters but to suggest that McCartney is a better songwriter than John Lennon is just ridiculous. You could really only start to make this comparison up to John's death. Longevity is one thing going for Paul but as someone who has seen him, I was there for the Beatles songs primarily. I have a few of his solo albums but none of those could be considered anything as good as the Beatles. Then of course you have all the other great songwriters being dismissed with such a flippant comment.
In my opinion, if John Lennon and Paul McCartney had never met Paul would still have been a famous songwriter while John would have remained obscure. However, It was their combination that made The Beatles the most successful and influential group of the rock era.
I'll take Lennon's songs over McCartney's every time. Paul was known to take more time in writing & recording his songs and could be described as the "craftsman", blah, blah, blah, in comparison to John's method of working, but nonetheless John's stuff for me was always better. Even if you go album by album (Beatles) John's songs in my opinion always bested Paul's. Sgt Pepper may have been Paul's baby but John wrote the two best songs on that album: Lucy and A Day In The Life. As far as their solo careers go, I still take John over Paul. I could never relate to Paul's solo material as I did John's, who's songs were down to earth and raw. This of course is my take on the subject just as it is Simon's. I do agree though that it does sound like he has a bone to pick with both Dylan and Lennon. Lennon, Dylan, Waters and Bowie I would say are all better songwriters than him and I couldn't care less how many awards he has won, that's just drivel. Plenty of great musicians and songwriters have never won grammys.
That's an interesting addition to the discussion. I love John Prine and he's one of the great American storytellers in song. I'd never put him up there with the Beatles, Dylan or Paul Simon though. John was a song-poet of the ordinary and the everyday, but I'd say it was his gift of expression rather than musical or lyrical craftsmanship. I'd put Hank Williams into the same category. They both belong in any discussion of the greatest songwriters of the era.
I agree with Paul Simon.....Paul McCartney was superior to most in terms of songcraft and melody. His Beatles, solo and Wings work demonstrates that. I wonder in which tier Neil Young would land on Paul Simon's list!?
I think it's difficult comparing writers from the Rock era with those who came before. Irving Berlin, the Gershwins, Cole Porter, etc. were trained professionals who followed certain musical rules and wrote sophisticated lyrics dealing most often with romance and equally sophisticated melodies. The rock era were untrained, self-taught musicians (for the most part), who didn't know the rules or simply broke them. Dylan showed that a popular song didn't have to be about romance.
Bob Dylan was only in AWE of Paul and not John, based on Paul's overall unbelievable musicianship as well. I've always liked Paul over John, but I'm a bassplayer toot But Dylan's opinion actually does give some relative placement from his standpoint... Might imply Dylan had awe at something Paul had perhaps he is envious of.
Bob Dylan? Why would Bob Dylan even be mentioned in a song writing conversation with McCartney. No one is close to McCartney, and Dylan is at least 30 people down the list that starts after McCartney.
It's a difficult call. However I do think McCartney is the better song writer, based on the fact that he not only reinvented himself with Wing's he has produced several classic solo albums. I was really taken with Egypt Station. If you can check out his book(s) lyrics.
Best on clay, Nadal. Best on grass, Federer. Best on hard court Djokovic. Greatest cultural importance, Dylan. Best craftsman, Simon. Greatest innovator and most influential on songwriters, Laura Nyro. These for the modern era. Greatest of all time, Irving Berlin, culturally and for his incredible writing facility.
@@candelise Tremendous. For example, the recent mega hit Drivers Licence by Olivia Rodrigo is based on Nyro's You Don't Love Me When I Cry, right down to the ding at the start of each song. Also, the recent hit Runner by indie pop group Tennis references 3 Nyro songs: He's a Runner, Beads of Sweat, and Stoned Soul Picnic, as well as Nyro's cover of Gonna Take a Miracle.
@@lupcokotevski2907 That is interesting. I do wonder how long it will take for Laura to be the common musical reference point especially since an artist like, for example,Joni Mitchell admitted looking up to her in the early days and taking some direction from her.
@@candelise I think her music would need to be in a big movie, TV series or computer game for her to be better known amongst the general public. As it it, I also think that most of the big stars of the past, including Joni, will fade as younger generations find their own current day stars, and the impact of AI music is still unknown. Film, TV and stage has prolonged the fame of some like Queen, ABBA, and recently Kate Bush.
Kinda funny. Simon, Dylan & Cohen I consider to be the best songwriters of all time. As far as Lennon and McCartney go, John was the better lyricist and Paul had the gift of melody. Neither of them were as good with lyrics as the above guys. For me the Beatles and Dylan are the bread and butter of my musical tastes. The White Album and Blood on the Tracks are my two favourite albums of all time. 🤘😳🤘
I think he wrote some great stuff but also a lot of schmaltzy nonsense too. I'm a fan of Tom Waits, Richard Thompson and Nick Cave when it comes to songwriters. I prefer imagery and atmosphere over catchy ditties
Paul Simon is correct: Eleanor rigby, Here, there and everywhere, for no one, got to get you into my life, she’s leaving home, yesterday, penny lane, fool on the hill, getting better, blackbird, I will, mother natures son, long and winding road, let it be, get back, you never give me your money, golden slumbers, maybe I’m amazed, another day, live and let die, uncle Albert, band on the run, 1985, calico skies, juniors farm, Tug of war etc etc.
Well, McC was half of the greatest song-writing duo ever - so Simon has a debatable point. Mind you, he did pen When I'm Sixty-Four, Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da, Maxwell's Silver Hammer, Yellow Submarine, Mary Had a Little Lamb, Frog Chorus, Fuh You... And BOTR is his only excellent album. So probably not.
I agree totally. I remember reading in Revolution in the Head that MacDonald points to Macca's frequent lapses into bad taste, and in that statement, he put his finger on why I've never been a fan. However, for some reason I love Honey Pie.
Yellow Sub was half-written by Lennon as recently proven and proven back in 1967. I find most of Band On The Run awful...though I like the last track. If that's his best album then he doesn't rate in this discussion at all. Lennon? I'm with Bryan Ferry, I like all his work...nearly. Someone mentioned Justin Hayward, yes very good and 3 other good songwriters in that band. This songwriting thread ignores the fact that many of the best songs were written by duos and even teams. The process lends itself to collaboration sometimes with music and lyrics demarcated. So we have Richards & Jagger, Elton and Bernie, the Gibb brothers, Wilson-Love, Leiber-Stoller, Bacharach-David, U2, the Doors as well as John & Paul and many more. Bryan Ferry no slouch either.
This conformistic way of thinking suggests (to somebody who never heard those tracks) that When I'm Sixty Four and Maxwell Silver Hammer are prime example of a criminal human polluting the world with negative thinking and annoying noise, making everyone sad and angry. The truth is that those tracks proves that McCartney is able to write lots of kinds of music and lyrics. It is so difficult to say: "I'm not into retro music and funny lyrics or anything that devietes from a supposedly serious and accepted standard"?
Love Paul and all the Rock songwriters BUT No Jaeger/Richard, Page/Plant, Roger Waters, Moody Blues or Pete Townsend makes this list and groupings bogus for me and many others, Paul Simon comes from a different place than me for popular music, I'm all about Rock, not American Standards. Time for some Quadrophenia, some really great songwriting.
McCartney is just overflowing with melodic genius. But I always found Lennon more interesting harmonically. I can’t say who is better. Though I would add Elvis Costello to any “pantheon” list.
John Lennon probably will stay in the upper song writers with Paul McCartney because of his album Imagine. That seems to be the giant. A famous painter or architect or Scientist are known for "one" thing they created amongst others. Lennon's early songs surpassed Paul's a little and the later songs, Paul surpassed John more. The solo works Paul has got stronger in time. Not all albums or single material are instant makers. Some lay dormant for decades in Paul's huge catalogue of platinum works. And it may be difficult to know what McCartney final "prized" work really truly is, because he has a multitude of hit songs and big selling albums. Is his work on the Beatles the best works of his whole career ? Probably, yes. But, his solo career is so diverse and incredible. I think the solo McCartney I II III might be his prized solo works. Bob Dylan is also one of the best. I don't really think Paul Simon is in the second tier of great song writers. Probably third tier, in my opinion. He does have a handful of great ones, which are as good as they come. But, the Beatles have so many more. Bob Dylan also many phenomenal songs. McCartney, then Lennon, then Dylan. Then the writers of big groups like Pink Floyd and Led Zep over Paul Simon by a mile. That's my take.
Yeah, I vote for McCartney, although it might be Pete Townshend if he were more productive. Pete’s output has been unimpressive since 1993 whereas McCartney had a renaissance beginning in 1997 that hasn’t really stopped yet.
I get and appreciate the point you are making, but you are taking a very strong number from Lennon and comparing it to two very weak numebrs by Dylan and McCartney. Let's not forget Dylan also wrote 'Tangled up in Blue' 'like a rolling Stone' and 'Mr Tamboreen Man' and McCartney also wrote 'Let it Be', 'Elenor Rigby' and the gorgeous 'Maybe I'm Amazed'
Pauls best work was written when he had John as a writing partner. His solo work is, for the most part, absolutely dreadful. I know its not fair to take Johns best song and compare it to Pauls worst, but The Frog Chorus, Spies Like Us, Silly Love Songs Mull of Kintyre etc, is typical of Pauls output. He has a knack for nursery rhyme pop songs, but without the rest of the band to rein in his inherent twee-ness, he put out some of the worst songs of the 1970's I listed It Ain't me Babe by Dylan because I think it's one of his best, and used it to illustrate the point that McCartney has no business being mentioned in the same breath as those two.@@classicalbum
@@tussk. "Dreadful" is an opinion, not a fact. I can say that Lennon was even more dreadful and what can you do about it? Nothing. You see, Paul is a highly successful multi-instrumentalist, singer, composer, producer, painter, poet, screenwriter, photographer, actor, book writer, session man, etc... Lennon was more of a normie musician instead. Talent and ability are objective. Now, these are FACTS, and facts doesn't care about your taste in music. Historically speaking, the only one who really is close to McCartney is Prince. The guy in the video talks specifically about the act of "songwriting", so it's fair to compare McCartney to Dylan and Lennon. But if we had talked about who is the best "musician in general", Dylan and Lennon would have no businness being mentioned with McCartney. The first two are very good musicians, McCartney is the ultimate complete package. P.S. except for some songs especially in the early years, McCartney and Lennon were never writing partners. You are living under a rock.
People are misquoting Dylan, he said McCartney had the greatest sense of melody, which he does. But Lennon talent was originally and complexity. Paul was a better writer of pop song. They wrote together for years so complemented each other. Dylan was the greatest writer, but he didn’t have the same sense of melody. One is James Joyce, the other is the American Songbook. When Paul went solo, too much of his material was pop muzic. He needed Lennon to keep from from pulp. Lennon needed Paul for melody. It seemed Lennon and Paul Simon had a rivalry, so it in no surprise he underestimated him.
There is no way Paul McCartney is on the same level as Bob Dylan for song writing, It's laughable to think that he is Yes he produces beautiful melodies, but Bob Dylan is the greatest creator of songs ever
Personally I think PM is the greatest popular music song writer ever to leave. Of course Dylan, Simon and Lennon are up there. Springsteen, Joel, Ray Davies, Pete Townsend, Mercury should also be up there IMHO.
I forgot to mention , why is Ray Davies always missing from these lists? True the Kinks were more esoteric and less pop friendly over the years, but there's no denying his writing ability!
Choosing the greatest song writer is like Marmite. The 2 Pauls, John, Bob, Mick and Keith and so many others are all brilliant. Just enjoy the music they have given us.
Without a doubt. Lennon might have been the grit and the dark, cynical spice in The Beatles but McCartney had an other-wordly understanding of melody and harmony that was way out of Lennon's league. They both wrote some timeless songs though.
Well-stated.
agreed
And Paul used his musicality to enhance every John/George song to another level. They did the same with his songs but not to the same level or as often
What would Tomorrow Never Knows be without the tape loops Paul found out how to make and spearheaded on the song?
What if LITSWD didn’t have the lowrey organ, WMGGW the piano intro, or SFF it’s mellotron. What if Come Together was still a 50s rock song too similar to Chuck Berry’s song? Paul transformed it with his idea to slow it down, make it swampy, add his bass, and his piano. Paul was the best producer John ever had as he took a very active role in producing and arranging John’s songs
exactly@@ewest14
mighty mccartney. indeed. most interesting and eclectic songwriter/singer...EVER.
While I was never a big McCartney fan, I remember listening to the 'Wingspan' compilation for the first time, and being blown away by the fact that he could write in so many different voices and styles. Paul Simon has the same gift. While Lennon might have been a lesser songwriter overall, anyone who can pen songs like 'No Reply', 'In My Life', 'Girl', 'Rain', Tomorrow Never Knows', 'A Day in The Life', 'Dear Prudence', 'Happiness is A Warm Gun', and 'Across The Universe' is still pretty damned brilliant!
I agree with PS, PMC is the greatest songwriter of all time imo
Ditto.
I think this boils down to McCartney and Paul Simon being more “musicianly” in the sense of having a greater instinct for melody, harmony, etc. In that sense, you can see why Paul Simon puts McCartney alongside people like Gershwin. I would put Brian Wilson in this category as well. I think this is why George Martin found it a bit easier to work with McCartney.
To me, Lennon and Dylan are more about being directly expressive, and having imaginative things to say. They were the most “out there” with some of their ideas and themes.
That’s not to say that McCartney or Paul Simon weren’t imaginative or that Lennon or Dylan didn’t write some great tunes.
There are people who claim Paul McCartney is a bit shallow and doesn’t often put a lot of himself into his work. I suppose it’s a valid view, although I love the work of all these guys so I’m not trying to denigrate any of them.
- Phil
Paul McCartney’s overall musicality and melodic genius is peerless, however his lyric writing can be very patchy (particularly in the 70s and 80s where stoned silliness and unchecked drafts hampered a lot of his work).
Without shodow of a doubt! Most important cultural figure in his century if not history
This is all very subjective, of course. Personally, I feel that all three of these gentlemen wrote songs of equal quality from time to time,
but Macca certainly wins in sheer numbers of immortal songs written. And he also wins in terms of sheer variety of musical styles used.
Dylan may have been a great influence on him (briefly, at least) but Macca far surpassed him, in my opinion. Just as he surpassed mostly everyone.
Dylan is a great songwriter but a godlike lyricist. Macca is the reverse of that. And Lennon a bit of both.
The important thing, however, is Macca's influence on the Beatles. I mean, without his input, the others would've been perfectly happy
to play the old rock 'n roll numbers they played at the Cavern., to this day.
Macca's unbelievable talents and ambition is what dragged the others along with him to the top of the poppermost.
Nope. Top tier is Dylan and Lennon. Next tier is McCartney. The tier after that is Simon. They’re all great. Ymmv.
I appreciate both Dylan and Lennon and acknowledge their immeasurable impact on music over the last 60 yrs. That being said, I'm firmly in the McCartney camp. His songs might be more poppy and not have the same social consciousness as Dylan's and Lennon's songs, but PM's songs are simply more accessible, in my pinion. According to Beatles producer George Martin, Lennon was always a bit jealous of McCartney, with John allegedly noting (somewhat bitterly) that "Nobody is going to be walking down the street whistling 'I am the Walrus' " or words to that effect. Thanks, Barry.
Do you have a source for that quote? I have never come across it before. I Am the Walrus is one of my favourite Beatles songs. As for accessibility, how about mainly Lennon penned songs such as Ticket to Ride, Help!, Norwegian Wood and In My Life? I am sure the bitterly jealous John can console himself in the afterlife with those.
@@jimmycampbell78Apparently some of Norwegian Wood was written by Paul.
Paul has started rewriting history somewhat recently.
@@candelise this is where the joint song writing credit of Lennon/McCartney gets murky. Impossible to know. I think they both contributed to a lot of the songs written by 'each other'. I usually assume the songs John or Paul sang lead on, they mainly came up with but there are of course exceptions. Yellow Submarine and Help from my friends of course, Paul mainly wrote but were sung by Ringo.
@@jimmycampbell78 Actually, John wrote Yellow Submarine!
I read an account once (I don’t remember which book) about Paul Simon sitting in on one of the Double Fantasy sessions, and Lennon ended up kicking him out because Simon kept coming in sooner than John wanted him to. As he exited the studio, Simon was quoted as saying: “I know he’s John Lennon, but I’m Paul Simon!”
So he may be a little butt-hurt towards John. That, and the fact that Lennon called him a “dwarf”.
As to the question at hand; Paul McCartney and John Lennon are like chocolate and peanut butter. They’re both pretty good on their own, but they’re much better together. In this case, McCartney would be the chocolate, and Lennon, the peanut butter.
I’ve never really been as big a fan of Paul’s solo work as I was of John’s, but Paul’s a consummate musician. He can play anything (even upside down if he has to) and his facility with melody doesn’t even need to be mentioned. But for the most part, his lyrics are naff and his songs tend to be sweet and trite. On the other hand; Lennon’s compositional skills may not have been as nuanced and complex as Paul’s, but they were solid numbers, and his lyrics MEANT something. That doesn’t mean they were always brilliant, but at least they were honest and substantive.
At the end of the day, you can subsist on peanut butter for a lot longer than you can on chocolate. I don’t think that really answers the question, but I think it’s too subjective to have a definitive answer.
I heard about that. Paul Simon wrote a song about JL called the Great Johnny Ace.
A songwriter that hasn’t been mentioned here in the comments yet: Justin Hayward of The Moody Blues. Like McCartney, he is a master of melody.
Abstract genius Lowell George isn't celebrated enough...
Hear hear! Hayward was the soul and emotion of the Moody Blues.
and Jeff Lynne
@siroswaldfortitude5346 oh, please...
Hayward could give Billy,er,Paul songwriting lessons.
It is nice to hear you applaud the work of Paul Simon. It IS hard to rank the "best" sometimes - degrees of greatness which are difficult to measure. Regardless, Sir Paul McCartney's work is undeniably elite and deserves to be considered at the very top.
"Undeniably elite?" He'll be remembered hundreds of years from now on par with Mozart just on melody alone.
There are so many factors you could consider like Paul McCartney has had a lot more time to add to his catalogue. It’s not all on equal ground. You cannot deny his success or why he has had that success. I think he brought the most musically to the Beatles but the 4 of them were a once in a lifetime or once in several hundred years or more phenomenon. It will actually, likely never happen again. McCartney has written some garbage but the number of incredible songs is stunning. Some of his later stuff, I think, is right up there with his best. The Memory Almost Full album was solid overall and “That Was Me” was, in my opinion one of his finest vocal performances. One thing that I disagree with is the tendency to paint Lennon as the harder edged of the two and Paul as the softy. These guys both had it all. They both had beautiful falsettos and both could scream well & then a hell of a lot in between! With Ringo and George thrown in, they were truly a 4 headed monster! I can’t really choose and don’t really want to. I heard “Strawberry Fields” the other day and it’s not only one of my favorite songs, it is truly a masterpiece! I could listen to that and “Jet” every day and never get tired of them…. I’m not choosing. I’ll take it all.
Artists deserve to be judged on their best work, not their worst. That helps Paul a lot.
Unless you listen to temporary secretary or Wonderful Christmastime.
John Lennon wrote some songs that are among my favorites (so did Paul), but if someone said I had to choose him or Paul to listen to for two hours it would be Paul.
I would say that Lennon and Paul were pretty evenly matched. Of course at times each would outclass the other. As for being better than Bob Dylan I would have to disagree. Dylan is more of a heartfelt writer and his melody's carry a more universal nature.
Lennon referred to Simon on at least one occasion as “The Dwarf” which might be informing Simon’s opinion of Lennon. I believe that once you get to their level, they are all outstanding and it really becomes a matter of personal taste. What is is it about a particular musician more than another that resonates with you? You will never see the likes of those four men ever again.
@Supremor-tj9dv Absolutely. When you get to the upper echelon of great songwriters it all comes down to taste. It's ludicrous to say one is better than the other. Besides, how do you measure greatness in a songwriter. Is it by their amount of hits? Is it based on the structure of their compositions?
It's something that is impossible to gauge and is up to the listeners taste.
Well presented video as usual. Found the discussion very interesting and thought provoking. And just for information I agree with Paul Simon.
Very interesting, I think its beyond discussion that Paul should be in the top tier as he wrote songs of the very best quality and variety with the ability to play so many instruments to an astonishing level of skill. I would argue that Lennon & McCartney together should be top tier but Paul should be there as a solo artist but john maybe not. What I would also say is while I think Paul is the supreme songwriter John had one single attribute that nobody had in that he wrote songs like I am the walrus, day in the life and strawberry fields that were so unique to John that I think at moments he had the ability to write top notch songs that NOBODY else could write but Paul wrote consistently brilliant songs from the early Beatles to now so consistency wise he has to be the best because he could do it with or without John, John wrote some brilliant solo songs but not as good as Pauls (with a few exceptions) and nowhere near as many. Great video
Ranking music, singers, writers, etc is something that we often do, and doing it is alright, if one keeps in mind that it is a worthless as a measurement. I reject it, (until I do it again).
Lennon makes me break down and cry or raise my fist in anger or muse about what life is about...every time. Paul is an amazing musician and a wondrous melody maker...but he never squeezed my heart or got me thinking about humanity...I make an exception for 'eleanor rigby' At his best he makes me happy in a summer sing-a long way. He will be remembered as the greatest musical Beatle and one of the greatest songwriters no doubt but as you said, he lacks the immediacy of Lennon.
I wish I could pin your comment
@@anguineus_vir Thank you.
James Paul McCartney died in car crash on September 11 1966 and was replaced by William (Billy). This is the truth no matter what.
Correct.
How do you explain that Paul`s daughter Stella did a DNA test where it turned out that she was a close relative to Paul McCartney`s brother, father, and mother, if her father is not Paul McCartney? Did they clone Paul before he died in that car crash??
Another great video. Funny, trying to figure out the relationship between Lennon & McCartney's styles never gets old.
So true!
I agree with Simon, honestly
My vote goes indeed to Paul Simon for the intelligence,pathos and all-round...er.. roundedness of his art.Dylan certainly a close run on the lyrical front (Hurricane for one) but the beauty of Simons melodic tendencies is all conquering imho.
I like Nick Cave’s story where Simon sent him a copy of ‘Seven Psalms’ before it came out. Cave responded positively but with a few caveats and hasn’t heard from Simon since. 🤔
I don't think Sir Paul's post Beatle work stands up so well on its own. He was better with his chum. It's interesting that it often takes two to form really wonderful music - The Beatles, the Stones, Simon and Garfunkel, Zeppelin, - like a holdover from classical music where one fellow handles the musical composition and the other the libretto. I think the results are better from this kind of collaboration. Dylan was a great lyricist but rhythmically and melodically etc. he was fairly uninspiring. It is is also amazing that someone like Ian Anderson who writes incredibly complex and satisfying music combined with thoughtful and beautiful lyrics always is not even on someone like Simons radar. Thanks for the post.
I’d add a third Paul, that being Weller, to the list of all time greats.
Off topic, perhaps, but please, please, please have a listen to Automatic Shoes. One man band playing classic art rock, with lots of T.Rex covers (his cover of Bolan's A Daye Laye, had me in floods of tears). He has the most beautiful voice and also an excellent guitar player. You should also check out his other project Atari Ferrari. It's been many years (and I have 64 of them) since I've seen a performer with so much presence. He reminds me of a young Bowie. I have to admit, I'm totally obsessed. This man deserves fame and fortune.
No. McCartney may be a better melody writer but Lennon was a better wordsmith. Paul often used placeholder lyrics and sometimes didn't bother to replace them with better ones. He's also the better musician, one of those naturally gifted types that can play anything and he studied classical music with George Martin. Lennon was too lazy.
When playing a Beatles album it's always Lennon's songs I most look forward to hearing and he also wrote his share of great melodies.
No one’s better than Dylan. Macca v Lennon? The former, without doubt. Shame he can’t sing. While we’re at it, a word for the greatest songwriter these isles have ever produced: Shane McGowan.
Lennon cruelly once referred to Paul Simon as 'the singing dwarf'. These geniuses can get a little tetchy when they sense a near rival. The antipathy between Simon & Dylan reminds me of Orson Welles' dissing of Hitchcock: "there is an icy calculation in his work that puts me off". Ouch! Happily we can appreciate them all without resorting to their petty jibes...
Or petty contests
John Lennon was often a jerk.
A brilliant artist but all too plausibly human...
Macca a better songwriter then Dylan, sure, better then Johnny….NFW!
Excellent. I tend to agree with everything. However I think Paul Simon is the equal of either Beatle
I have always considered Paul McCartney the complete package as he is a great musician, a fine songwriter, and a terrific vocalist which has been so wide-ranging. In my opinion Paul is an artist who may only come around maybe every two to three hundred years!!
McCartney was prone to writing some really treacly sappy songs. I cannot justify many of his songs, especially since the 1970s. A true hit or miss songwriter.
@@goplad1
No, sappy doesn't mean bad, it means very sentimental. Songwriting is not about the theme of the lyrics, but about the whole construction of a song. McCartney has written lyrics of all kinds, ALL KINDS.
Paul is the complete package because of the reasons you listed but also because he is a great producer and arranger. He was the secondary producer and arranger for the Beatles and just as important as Martin in those roles
@@ewest14
Agree.
Macca wrote some decent songs but best song v best song, I’d go with Lennon and Dylan over our Paul!
I'd argue Paul Simon himself is top tier. An incredible songwriter. Way too many greats he wrote even bother beginning to list them
For me John is the greatest singer song writer of all time,,,
Did Joni Mitchell get a mention?
I love your intense dedication/ noncluelessness. My own opinion/ onion different but no matter. Funny, but all you mentioned inc Brian Wilson were all inspired by and became what they were.
not my opinion
It all depends on whom you prefer. I am not a fan of Dylan, can’t take his singing, so I don’t know a lot of his work, as I tend to turn the radio channel when his songs are played. Paul vs John? Both are great, but if I have to pick I’ll take Lennon. Both of them would be in my top tier along with Gordon Lightfoot, Joni Mitchell, Simon, Buffy Sainte-Marie and a personal favorite, John Kay of Steppenwolf
For me, the triteness of many of McCartney's lyrics does not qualify him for the top tier. Great ear for melody, but not the equal of Dylan, or even Neil Young (possibly the only one who's managed to keep his 'fire burning' throughout an entire career).
Of course all these dudes are great songwriters …
Don’t forget Neil and Joni….
I find it hard to take seriously a statement regarding the best song writers which only briefly touched on the great names of the past. Personally I don't think Paul McCartney, Paul Simon, Bob Dylan, or John Lennon could write better structured songs than Cole Porter, (McCartney's favourite song writer), George Gershwin, Sammy Cahn, Irving Berlin, Rogers and Hart etc. Maybe some distinction should be noted that McCartney and his contemporaries came from the self taught rock and roll era of singer song writers. But such a debate which only included those since the 1950's to me has no credibility.
Good point
I applaud you. I agree with you 100%. The great American songwriters you mentioned and many others from that era are among the most gifted songwriters of the twentieth century. When juxtaposed with the pop music songwriters of the '60s (including the Beatles) it becomes apparent that the gift of writing truly creative lyrics was lost along the way. There were exceptions such as Dylan, who was more whimsical in his poetry, and Paul Simon, who had a gift similar to Dylan. There is no arguing that Lennon and McCartney were gifted pop songwriters but to suggest they were the greatest of the twentieth century falls flat and can easily be challenged.
@@goplad1 :)
Irving Berlin and Cole Porter might have something to say about this...
It's not an easy call and it's not that cut and dry. I like I'll follow the Sun, Penny Lane and Hello Goodbye,but John penned In My Life, Dear Prudence, Nowhere Man,You've got to hide your love away.. John was an insane wit-very quick with words.Paul wrote a lot of songs that people haven't heard of much like Woman (for Peter and Gordon) and Suicide (a snippet appears on his first post-Beatles album). I like Paul's work too.
I used to think that Lennon was a better songwriter but the older I get I am now appreciating McCartneys earlier albums like Ram and Red Rose Speedway. Also the Wings albums like London Town, Venus & Mars….albums which I really ignored years ago.
I think I would prefer to say that somebody is ‘a writer of more songs that I like’ rather than ‘a better songwriter’
It's musical preference and not necessarily fact....music is a not sport.
I admit that my opinion of McCartney's songwriting was irrevocably prejudiced by being subjected to my sisters playing the Wings "Band on the Run" and "Venus and Mars" albums incessantly when I was a kid, which are both remarkable collections of the most stupid and inane songs ever written.
Yeah I especially can't stand that 'Band On The Run' song and so overplayed too. 'Let Me Roll It' and 'Helen Wheels' are other stinkers. 'Listen To What The Man Said' though I think is quite good, one of his best.
Hard to disagree. I’d say Macca helped John a lot and John provided some edge to some of Paul’s songs. Both wrote some dross after the split, some good stuff in there too of course. Any mention of Elton and Bernie?
I’d have Lennon, McCartney, Dylan & McCartney all in the same top tier together as songwriters.
I dunno, does it matter which of them was "better" when what they did together was transcendentally good?
Of course. Next
I haven't heard many songs passed his solo album McCartney that I enjoyed. Musical genius if he says so. I have 36 of Dylan's albums from his inception. John: #9 Dream? Imagine? Cold Turkey? Instant Karma? Mind Games? I consider those as works of genius In His Own Write. But George Harrison kicked both of their asses with All Things Must Pass. I like Paul Simon's works. Love many of them but of entertainers opinions, I usually pass on them.
Bob is the better wordsmith
Paul is the best at melody
John brings the best emotion
I couldn't agree with you more. McCartney is a fine lyricist but lacks the depth of Lennon's most heartfelt songs. McCartney mostly wrote pop ditties that were easy on the ear but not necessarily deep in the well. Dylan is arguably the most creative lyricist of all. He is in a league all his own. Neither Lennon or McCartney can touch him as far as poetry is concerned.
I would put Lennon McCartney and Dylan all on the top tier. Also Brian Wilson and Paul Simon. As to Dylan's childish and disrespectful snickering, well, it was childish and disrespectful. I like Dylan and regard him as a great artist, but, to be honest, I've listened to S & G probably 50 times more than Dylan. They just have a more appealing sound.
No one can argue with Paul Simon but I think most of those mentioned were superb craftsmen. The only one who transcended the form though was Dylan. I think he went beyond the song format into lyrical modernism and genuinely shifted the possibility of what could be said in the genre of popular song. They were all supremely gifted artists but perhaps the only true genius was Bob. Thanks Barry.
Personally I've never been a fan of Paul Simon, whereas my other half has always had a deep affinity for his music and other melodic performers of that genre. I always put it down to male/female split. Likewise, I'm sure there are many more female fans of McCartney, whereas Lennon's fan base would be largely male.
Nope. Both he and John wrote their best songs together or in competition with one another. The Beat,especially were always greater than the sum of their parts. And Dylan is a different kind of writer altogether.
McCartney is the Cole Porter of our time.
Sorry but McCartney is no Cole Porter. When it comes to quality and craftmanship Porter has it all over McCartney.
@@goplad1
"Quality" is the most vague concept ever, be more specific. Why Porter has more quality? If you don't do that, you're simply wrong.
It's difficult to compare Porter to McCartney, cause they lived in different contexts. Porter was a composer, McCartney is an all rounder multi-talented multimedia artist.
We agree that it's too subjective to classify songwriters in this way.
But if I had to, I think I would put McCartney on top, indeed.
And Bob Dylan at the top too, but more particularly as an author and poet (above other good authors like Leonard Cohen, Jim Morrison, Peter Gabriel, Jon Anderson or Roger Waters). His Nobel Prize is deserved in my opinion.
But when it comes to musical composition specifically, I wouldn't put him on Macca's level.
Paul McCartney has these two talents combined: music and lyrics, like Paul Simon and even Elton John..
John Lennon created magnificent songs, it's undeniable (I'm very fan), but less numerous, like flashes, and musically more subtle than Dylan but less than the two Pauls in my opinion.
Another criterion is the era of their genius. All of these guys had their era of creative genius, but not necessarily spanning their entire careers. So it's hard to classify them.
John Lennon would have lived longer, I think he would have gradually favored writing books (as Jim Morrison surely would have), but he probably wouldn't have had a creative musical longevity comparable to what we note from the two Pauls.
Musically, we have Stevie Wonder, also...
I agree with PS.
I would wholeheartedly disagree with that statement. Paul wasn't the greatest songwriter in the Beatles let alone everyone else.
Picking the greatest of anything is pointless and relative in my opinion considering there are so many brilliant singer songwriters but to suggest that McCartney is a better songwriter than John Lennon is just ridiculous. You could really only start to make this comparison up to John's death.
Longevity is one thing going for Paul but as someone who has seen him, I was there for the Beatles songs primarily. I have a few of his solo albums but none of those could be considered anything as good as the Beatles.
Then of course you have all the other great songwriters being dismissed with such a flippant comment.
Yes, you do understand this is Paul Simon's ranking, not mine
@@classicalbum That's fair enough, I wasn't having a go at you. Paul Simon is entitled to his opinion, I can't agree with him on that.
In my opinion, if John Lennon and Paul McCartney had never met Paul would still have been a famous songwriter while John would have remained obscure. However, It was their combination that made The Beatles the most successful and influential group of the rock era.
I'll take Lennon's songs over McCartney's every time. Paul was known to take more time in writing & recording his songs and could be described as the "craftsman", blah, blah, blah, in comparison to John's method of working, but nonetheless John's stuff for me was always better. Even if you go album by album (Beatles) John's songs in my opinion always bested Paul's. Sgt Pepper may have been Paul's baby but John wrote the two best songs on that album: Lucy and A Day In The Life. As far as their solo careers go, I still take John over Paul. I could never relate to Paul's solo material as I did John's, who's songs were down to earth and raw.
This of course is my take on the subject just as it is Simon's. I do agree though that it does sound like he has a bone to pick with both Dylan and Lennon. Lennon, Dylan, Waters and Bowie I would say are all better songwriters than him and I couldn't care less how many awards he has won, that's just drivel. Plenty of great musicians and songwriters have never won grammys.
Interesting…no mention of Neil Young
IMO John Prine should get a mention among great songwriters
That's an interesting addition to the discussion. I love John Prine and he's one of the great American storytellers in song. I'd never put him up there with the Beatles, Dylan or Paul Simon though. John was a song-poet of the ordinary and the everyday, but I'd say it was his gift of expression rather than musical or lyrical craftsmanship. I'd put Hank Williams into the same category. They both belong in any discussion of the greatest songwriters of the era.
I agree with Paul Simon.....Paul McCartney was superior to most in terms of songcraft and melody. His Beatles, solo and Wings work demonstrates that. I wonder in which tier Neil Young would land on Paul Simon's list!?
its hard to say whos the better songsmith out of all the above with mccartney he had the nack of writing catchy melody
I think it's difficult comparing writers from the Rock era with those who came before. Irving Berlin, the Gershwins, Cole Porter, etc. were trained professionals who followed certain musical rules and wrote sophisticated lyrics dealing most often with romance and equally sophisticated melodies. The rock era were untrained, self-taught musicians (for the most part), who didn't know the rules or simply broke them. Dylan showed that a popular song didn't have to be about romance.
I think John and Paul really where equals and for what it’s worth I think Paul Simon is up there with them along with Brian Wilson.
Bob Dylan was only in AWE of Paul and not John, based on Paul's overall unbelievable musicianship as well. I've always liked Paul over John, but I'm a bassplayer toot But Dylan's opinion actually does give some relative placement from his standpoint... Might imply Dylan had awe at something Paul had perhaps he is envious of.
Curious as to where you would put Billy Joel in all this?
I would put him in the top 20 but not in this company
Even Bob Dylan said he was in awe of McCartney, I would say he’s the greatest musician of all time not just songwriter.
Bob Dylan? Why would Bob Dylan even be mentioned in a song writing conversation with McCartney. No one is close to McCartney, and Dylan is at least 30 people down the list that starts after McCartney.
Pound for pound,yep👍
It's a difficult call. However I do think McCartney is the better song writer, based on the fact that he not only reinvented himself with Wing's he has produced several classic solo albums. I was really taken with Egypt Station. If you can check out his book(s) lyrics.
Best on clay, Nadal. Best on grass, Federer. Best on hard court Djokovic. Greatest cultural importance, Dylan. Best craftsman, Simon. Greatest innovator and most influential on songwriters, Laura Nyro. These for the modern era. Greatest of all time, Irving Berlin, culturally and for his incredible writing facility.
I wondered if Laura Nyro would come up in this discussion. Her influence is like a silent power.
@@candelise Tremendous. For example, the recent mega hit Drivers Licence by Olivia Rodrigo is based on Nyro's You Don't Love Me When I Cry, right down to the ding at the start of each song. Also, the recent hit Runner by indie pop group Tennis references 3 Nyro songs: He's a Runner, Beads of Sweat, and Stoned Soul Picnic, as well as Nyro's cover of Gonna Take a Miracle.
@@lupcokotevski2907 That is interesting. I do wonder how long it will take for Laura to be the common musical reference point especially since an artist like, for example,Joni Mitchell admitted looking up to her in the early days and taking some direction from her.
So under-rated and never mentioned in these discussions. A wonderful talent and so overlooked.@@candelise
@@candelise I think her music would need to be in a big movie, TV series or computer game for her to be better known amongst the general public. As it it, I also think that most of the big stars of the past, including Joni, will fade as younger generations find their own current day stars, and the impact of AI music is still unknown. Film, TV and stage has prolonged the fame of some like Queen, ABBA, and recently Kate Bush.
Paul Simon is correct
Correct!
Agreed.
McCartney was best in The Beatles! His solo career , for the most part misses Lennons Thought On his songs
He would know.
Kinda funny.
Simon, Dylan & Cohen I consider to be the best songwriters of all time.
As far as Lennon and McCartney go, John was the better lyricist and Paul had the gift of melody. Neither of them were as good with lyrics as the above guys.
For me the Beatles and Dylan are the bread and butter of my musical tastes.
The White Album and Blood on the Tracks are my two favourite albums of all time.
🤘😳🤘
I think he wrote some great stuff but also a lot of schmaltzy nonsense too.
I'm a fan of Tom Waits, Richard Thompson and Nick Cave when it comes to songwriters. I prefer imagery and atmosphere over catchy ditties
Paul Simon is correct: Eleanor rigby, Here, there and everywhere, for no one, got to get you into my life, she’s leaving home, yesterday, penny lane, fool on the hill, getting better, blackbird, I will, mother natures son, long and winding road, let it be, get back, you never give me your money, golden slumbers, maybe I’m amazed, another day, live and let die, uncle Albert, band on the run, 1985, calico skies, juniors farm, Tug of war etc etc.
Well, McC was half of the greatest song-writing duo ever - so Simon has a debatable point. Mind you, he did pen When I'm Sixty-Four, Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da, Maxwell's Silver Hammer, Yellow Submarine, Mary Had a Little Lamb, Frog Chorus, Fuh You... And BOTR is his only excellent album. So probably not.
BOTR? His only excellent album? May i ask..... Have you listened to all of his post Beatles albums?
I agree totally. I remember reading in Revolution in the Head that MacDonald points to Macca's frequent lapses into bad taste, and in that statement, he put his finger on why I've never been a fan. However, for some reason I love Honey Pie.
Yellow Sub was half-written by Lennon as recently proven and proven back in 1967. I find most of Band On The Run awful...though I like the last track. If that's his best album then he doesn't rate in this discussion at all. Lennon? I'm with Bryan Ferry, I like all his work...nearly. Someone mentioned Justin Hayward, yes very good and 3 other good songwriters in that band.
This songwriting thread ignores the fact that many of the best songs were written by duos and even teams. The process lends itself to collaboration sometimes with music and lyrics demarcated. So we have Richards & Jagger, Elton and Bernie, the Gibb brothers, Wilson-Love, Leiber-Stoller, Bacharach-David, U2, the Doors as well as John & Paul and many more. Bryan Ferry no slouch either.
This conformistic way of thinking suggests (to somebody who never heard those tracks) that When I'm Sixty Four and Maxwell Silver Hammer are prime example of a criminal human polluting the world with negative thinking and annoying noise, making everyone sad and angry. The truth is that those tracks proves that McCartney is able to write lots of kinds of music and lyrics. It is so difficult to say: "I'm not into retro music and funny lyrics or anything that devietes from a supposedly serious and accepted standard"?
Hi, in my opinion the best songwriter is Ray Davies!
Love Paul and all the Rock songwriters BUT No Jaeger/Richard, Page/Plant, Roger Waters, Moody Blues or Pete Townsend makes this list and groupings bogus for me and many others, Paul Simon comes from a different place than me for popular music, I'm all about Rock, not American Standards. Time for some Quadrophenia, some really great songwriting.
And David Bowie too !!!
Now who's being provocative
Despite his greatness, Bowie wasn't quite in that league.
As a rock writer he's top tier but as a wordsmith he's not quite there.
Bowie is an epic songwriter. His songs stay in my head, even the lesser ones. Sons of the silent age. Amazing. Hahaha
McCartney is just overflowing with melodic genius. But I always found Lennon more interesting harmonically. I can’t say who is better. Though I would add Elvis Costello to any “pantheon” list.
John Lennon probably will stay in the upper song writers with Paul McCartney because of his album Imagine. That seems to be the giant. A famous painter or architect or Scientist are known for "one" thing they created amongst others. Lennon's early songs surpassed Paul's a little and the later songs, Paul surpassed John more. The solo works Paul has got stronger in time. Not all albums or single material are instant makers. Some lay dormant for decades in Paul's huge catalogue of platinum works. And it may be difficult to know what McCartney final "prized" work really truly is, because he has a multitude of hit songs and big selling albums. Is his work on the Beatles the best works of his whole career ? Probably, yes. But, his solo career is so diverse and incredible. I think the solo McCartney I II III might be his prized solo works. Bob Dylan is also one of the best. I don't really think Paul Simon is in the second tier of great song writers. Probably third tier, in my opinion. He does have a handful of great ones, which are as good as they come. But, the Beatles have so many more. Bob Dylan also many phenomenal songs. McCartney, then Lennon, then Dylan. Then the writers of big groups like Pink Floyd and Led Zep over Paul Simon by a mile. That's my take.
Yeah, I vote for McCartney, although it might be Pete Townshend if he were more productive. Pete’s output has been unimpressive since 1993 whereas McCartney had a renaissance beginning in 1997 that hasn’t really stopped yet.
You're the one from 2000 is arguably his best album.
the word should be different not better
John wrote Instant Karma, Bob wrote It Ain't Me Babe, Paul wrote The Frog Chorus. Nuff said.
I get and appreciate the point you are making, but you are taking a very strong number from Lennon and comparing it to two very weak numebrs by Dylan and McCartney. Let's not forget Dylan also wrote 'Tangled up in Blue' 'like a rolling Stone' and 'Mr Tamboreen Man' and McCartney also wrote 'Let it Be', 'Elenor Rigby' and the gorgeous 'Maybe I'm Amazed'
Pauls best work was written when he had John as a writing partner. His solo work is, for the most part, absolutely dreadful. I know its not fair to take Johns best song and compare it to Pauls worst, but The Frog Chorus, Spies Like Us, Silly Love Songs Mull of Kintyre etc, is typical of Pauls output. He has a knack for nursery rhyme pop songs, but without the rest of the band to rein in his inherent twee-ness, he put out some of the worst songs of the 1970's
I listed It Ain't me Babe by Dylan because I think it's one of his best, and used it to illustrate the point that McCartney has no business being mentioned in the same breath as those two.@@classicalbum
@@tussk.
"Dreadful" is an opinion, not a fact. I can say that Lennon was even more dreadful and what can you do about it? Nothing. You see, Paul is a highly successful multi-instrumentalist, singer, composer, producer, painter, poet, screenwriter, photographer, actor, book writer, session man, etc... Lennon was more of a normie musician instead. Talent and ability are objective. Now, these are FACTS, and facts doesn't care about your taste in music. Historically speaking, the only one who really is close to McCartney is Prince.
The guy in the video talks specifically about the act of "songwriting", so it's fair to compare McCartney to Dylan and Lennon. But if we had talked about who is the best "musician in general", Dylan and Lennon would have no businness being mentioned with McCartney. The first two are very good musicians, McCartney is the ultimate complete package.
P.S. except for some songs especially in the early years, McCartney and Lennon were never writing partners. You are living under a rock.
you can buy nappy rash cream in most grocers.@@Gabriel_707
People are misquoting Dylan, he said McCartney had the greatest sense of melody, which he does. But Lennon talent was originally and complexity. Paul was a better writer of pop song. They wrote together for years so complemented each other. Dylan was the greatest writer, but he didn’t have the same sense of melody. One is James Joyce, the other is the American Songbook. When Paul went solo, too much of his material was pop muzic. He needed Lennon to keep from from pulp. Lennon needed Paul for melody. It seemed Lennon and Paul Simon had a rivalry, so it in no surprise he underestimated him.
There is no way Paul McCartney is on the same level as Bob Dylan for song writing, It's laughable to think that he is Yes he produces beautiful melodies, but Bob Dylan is the greatest creator of songs ever
He is !!!
Personally I think PM is the greatest popular music song writer ever to leave. Of course Dylan, Simon and Lennon are up there. Springsteen, Joel, Ray Davies, Pete Townsend, Mercury should also be up there IMHO.