Lennon VS. McCartney: The Battle Rages On Or Does It?

[jonesingjay]

The question that never goes way. Since they beginning of the Beatles, who do you think is better, Lennon or McCartney? A short 'documentery' addresses that subject.

Click to view

There are a lot of Lennon's. A few Harrison's thrown in there as well I'm happy to report.

Who do you prefer?

Comments

[gaffsie]

John's always been my favourite. I know he's done and said a lot of problematic shit in his (too short) life, but his music resonates with me most.

[jonesingjay]

looking at the beatles years. initially i preferred john's stuff. now, the more i listen to them i enjoy paul's stuff more. solo years. i listen to more of paul's stuff, but don't think what they did on their own was any great shakes. not that it was bad, but that beatles stuff can't be topped.

[mollybeakers]

I will go with George as well.

In my mind the other two can't be separate. And I will say no more. :)

JB

[jonesingjay]

go for it.

connect four!

i'm all ears (and also a lot of stomach).

[mollybeakers]

From a 62-66 Beatle music fanatic: It will always be the team of Lennon/McCartney. Too many don't compare early Beatles to what else was happening at the time they broke and were popular. It isn't the screaming girls that set them apart... it was the music. It sounds boring to a lot of modern ears because it is so drastically different from the 66-70 sound. But those records are what launched them into the stratosphere. AND it could all be performed live. LIVE!!!! Paul McCartney was correct: They were a great fucking band.

66-70, George. John and Paul were hardly cooperating with each other, so George gets the fave vote. Same for solo. I followed George's solo career more closely than the rest.

And too many laud 'political' John. But that's a separate rant to have another day. ;)

JB