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?
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.
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.
Both. I find it odd that some of McCartney's biggest hits were collaberations with other popular singers. Take a few of them away and it makes him even less successful.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
A forum community dedicated to vegetarian, vegans, and vegetable enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about agriculture, preparation, cooking, recipes, scales, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!