VeggieBoards banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

McCartney and Lennon

4K views 51 replies 19 participants last post by  Scorpius 
#1 ·
I was listening to a lot of Paul McCartney's solo material lately. As successful as he was he just didn't have close to the success that the Beatles had as a band. It's also safe to say most Beatles fans would agree that his material wasn't up to the quality of the Beatles material either. McCartney just didn't have the same success without Lennon helping him. How much of the Beatles' success should be attributed to McCartney? How much of the Beatles' success should be attributed to Lennon?
 
#2 ·
Are you talking about artistic success or popular success? McCartney without Lennon I think did pretty well on his own with regards to popularity, but without Lennon, his music abilities definitely suffered. He NEEDED Lennon to make his contributions as great as they were.

As to how much of the Beatles' success depended on either one, I would say they each contributed half and half, as I suggested above.
 
#3 ·
As solo artists, I think Lennon far exceeded Paul McCartney. If he were around today, I think he would of been our messiah.
BUT, as Beatles, they made an untouchable duo, and the bands incredible, unfathomable success could not have been achieved without both their contributions.
 
#5 ·
It's 12% McCartney, 16,2% Lennon, and 71,8% Paulie Mc-****ing-Courtney, Paul McCartney's hyper-aggressive and dyslexic side personality who comes forth when Paul McCartney falls asleep, and is actually responsible for all the greatest Beatles songs. For example, the melodies in Yesterday came about when Paulie Mc-****ing-Courtney was whistling at the same time as beating Ringo with a chair and spitting on him, and Lennon wrote down the melodies in the whistling.
 
#7 ·
Dylan > Harrison > Ringo > Lennon > McCartney.

Seriously, the Beatles ain't 'it' for me. I don't get the love of their music...
 
#9 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by rainforests1 View Post

How much of the Beatles' success should be attributed to McCartney? How much of the Beatles' success should be attributed to Lennon?
Well that's certainly a million-dollar question....

I think the success of the Beatles as a band could be attributed to more people/factors than Lennon and McCartney alone.

I also think their solo work was fabulous in its own non-Beatles way.
The White Album paved the way for the band member's future solo work, as the album was recorded at the tail-end of the band's existence, when a huge rift was placed between the fab four. Its one of my favorite albums by the band.
 
#10 ·
The Beatles would've been even better if both of those self-involved egomaniacs had listened to George more.


Sing along everybody!


All we are saying, is give George a chance!
All we are saying, is give George a chance!
All we are saying, is give George a chance!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh James xVx View Post

Well I like Ringo.

What?

I ain't ashamed.
 
#12 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kappa View Post

Dylan > Harrison > Ringo > Lennon > McCartney.

Seriously, the Beatles ain't 'it' for me. I don't get the love of their music...
I assume you're talking about Bob Dylan? While I can understand a person feeling the Beatles were overrated, at least I could tolerate their music. Dylan had one of the worst voices of any pop star ever, and it just ruined his music for me.
 
#13 ·
If John and Paul had not collaborated, I doubt we would ever have heard of either of them.
 
#15 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by rainforests1 View Post

I assume you're talking about Bob Dylan? While I can understand a person feeling the Beatles were overrated, at least I could tolerate their music. Dylan had one of the worst voices of any pop star ever, and it just ruined his music for me.
Dylan is a *pop star*? Snort.

There are beautiful voices and pretty voices and voices with character. I would pick the latter over either of the former any day.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Capstan View Post

If John and Paul had not collaborated, I doubt we would ever have heard of either of them.
Yes - the Beatles are a prime example of the whole being greater than the sum of its parts. (They are by no means unusual in that.)
 
#20 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegan Wannabe View Post

Hey, to each his/her own.

I hate the Stones, people don't take too kindly to that either.
Meh, I think that people don't understand how unimportant musical tastes are. Especially young people. I mean, we're talking about music, not the death penalty.
 
#22 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by sequoia View Post

Meh, I think that people don't understand how unimportant musical tastes are. Especially young people. I mean, we're talking about music, not the death penalty.
I think music is healing and therapeutic. I personally feel that people with great passion for music live happier lives. They are more expressive, emotionally balanced, creative people. I haven't actually proved this theory, but it sounds logical (to me).


*I should read posts more carefully...you said musical TASTES. Woops.
 
#23 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegan Wannabe View Post

I think music is healing and therapeutic. I personally feel that people with great passion for music live happier lives. They are more expressive, emotionally balanced, creative people. I haven't actually proved this theory, but it sounds logical (to me).


*I should read posts more carefully...you said musical TASTES. Woops.
Lol, yeah. I would NEVER say that music itself is unimportant
 
#24 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by sequoia View Post

They're boring. I know, I should be over in the "State Your Unpopular Opinions" thread.
By themselves, they ARE pretty boring; together, they did some interesting stuff. They were sort of like a cold front and a warm front colliding, producing dramatic weather.
 
#25 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by rainforests1 View Post

I was listening to a lot of Paul McCartney's solo material lately. As successful as he was he just didn't have close to the success that the Beatles had as a band. It's also safe to say most Beatles fans would agree that his material wasn't up to the quality of the Beatles material either. McCartney just didn't have the same success without Lennon helping him. How much of the Beatles' success should be attributed to McCartney? How much of the Beatles' success should be attributed to Lennon?
The Beatles are my all-time favorite band ever, so there'll be no objectiveness from me anytime they're the topic.


for me, it's impossible to say how much of the Beatles success could be attributed to either John or Paul.
Lennon & McCartney were an awesome team and what they accomplished together could never be duplicated by them as solo artists. that's not to say that as solo artists, they weren't/aren't awesome...it's just that together, be it song-writing skills or vocal harmonies, they were amazing. and with George and Ringo completing the group, they were pure magic...FAB FOUR FOREVER!

i could just rhapsodize away forever about them so i'll stop now. for this post at least.


 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top