After the Beatles broke up Lennon still wrote some good stuff but McCartney's songs fell off a cliff.

I think the edge goes to Lennon because his lyrics often went deeper. Lennon wrote "poetry," McCartney wrote "song lyrics."

Except for the times when they totally reversed the whole thing. I wonder if it had anything to do with how much of and what type of drugs were consumed?

Jet? Live and Let Die? Coming Up?

Yay! A John vs. Paul debate!!!!

One thing you have to keep in mind, Carl, is that Macca turned out way more songs than Lennon did following the break-up. Sure, many of Paul's "Wings/Solo" stuff sucked, but so did a lot of John's "Plastic Ono Band/Solo" stuff. Paul's stuff only seemed to "fall off a cliff" (compared to Lennon) becaue there was so much more of it that sucked as a result of Paul's greater productivity.

For example: post Beatles I would submit that the 5 best songs by each man were as follows:

Macca- Maybe I'm Amazed, Band on the Run, Listen to What the Man Said, Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey, Live and Let Die.

Lennon-Mind Games, Imagine, Whatever Gets You Thru the Night, Working Class Hero, Jealous Guy.

After that, each man's catalogue plummets. But I'd give McCartney the edge over Lennon for best solo album with Band on the Run beating out either Plastic Ono Band (My fave Lennon album) or Imagine (generally the most popular Lennon album).

What we truly miss about Lennon though was his inventiveness. You knew that a McCartney song was going to be a ballad, or melodic, while lyrically pretty simple. You never knew what you were gonna get from Lennon. (I am the Walrus, Strawberry Fields, A Day in the Life, Revolution #9, Hey Bulldog). He kept you guessing.

Paul was/is a great singer, songwriter and musician (listen to those Beatle bass lines sometime!).

Lennon was a innovator. (Check out "What's the New Mary Jane" or his early use of backwards looping sound effects). While the innovations sometimes flopped (Rev. #9) they always kept the band on their toes, and I believe, helped bring out the best in Macca.

Ace,

On of my favorite videos of all time is the McCartney video for "Coming Up" (Off the McCartney II album for anyone who might want to look it up).

I still get a kick out of Paul showing up in the video as Buddy Holly and in his old Beatle Suit (circa 1964) with the Hoffner bass.

John Lennon was a great songwriter, but his writing was overly caught up in the topicality of the times. He never had Paul's gift for melody and Paul never had his gift for words but their combined gift for clever, gifted, prosady was truly rare for the crude rock music of the mid sixties. However, as documented in his biography, "The Lives of Lennon " he was exceptionally lazy, childish, ignorant, selfish, and self-centered even for the minions of the Sex Drugs and Rock 'n Roll generation. And as one of its chief proponents he advocated a degeneration that really took hold of it for a long time. Tragically, because of this lifestyle he lost out on much of life, as many of us did. As a songwriter myself (and one who grew up playing their music in bands at the time) I can say that though they did have some truly great moments, on the whole the music of the Lennon and Beatles ain't Mozart or Cole Porter. And though they deserve to be remembered as pioneers and great writers, their Iconic Stature among boomers reflects more the time warp self centered boomers live in, more than the real value of their music.

Them's fighting words 72V!

The Beatles did provide songs that transcend the "time warp self centered boomers live in", and as such they do in fact have as much, if not more value, than the songs of Cole Porter. (I would include Mozart here too, as his music was "popular music of it's time" but I will agree that the skills necessary to compose in the style Mozart did were not possessed by the Lads/George Martin.)

I mean songs like "Yesterday" and "Something" are timeless. I think Yesterday still holds the record for the most "cover" versions, and no less an icon than Frank Sinatra once declared "Something" the greatest love song ever written. Hell, for that matter "Hey Jude" was one of the songs picked by NASA for inclusion on the golden discs attached to the Voyager satellites as an example of Earth's music. Other songs, while of lesser stature, are similarly inportant: "All You Need is Love" was written and performed for a television audience of One Billion People, a record for the era and a milestone in satellite global communications.

http://www.footballfansfortruth.us/archives/000381.html

For me the Beatles peaked with Rubber Soul. Each album after that became progressively worse, and I find Lennon's solo work, particularly the turgid "Imagine", grating in extremis. I was still greatly saddened by his death, particularly since Yoko was left behind.

Nasty, but it needed to be said.

Lennon's solo work is execrable.

I dunno Kerry..while I agree that both Rubber Soul and Revolver represented the best period for the Beatles (yes, even surpassing Sgt. Pepper, although that album gets props for "A Day in the Life"), i wouldn't say that the albums got progressively worse after that. I think Abbey Road stands up there amongst their best work, and that was the last album they recorded.

The "Abbey Road" post above was mine....

To SenatorPhillabuster: Popularity does not good composition make, as can be attested to by the popularity of the little ditty "Happy Birthday." Yesterday is overly melodramatic no matter what Sinatra may have said. Take away the topicality and the dippy sentimentality of All you Need is Love and what have you got? Can a billion people be wrong? Of Course they can! "Something" truly is a work of great art, as are some of their others. But not much written by any rock songwriter of that era comes close to Porter (or many others of his time) in wit, style, wisdom and cleverness. The entrance of the singer/songwriter era meant that most were greats at neither, which left popular music in a relative decline. As for the Beatles compared to Mozart? Time has been the judge of his greatness. Does anyone really believe it shall be so kind to John Lennon? I hereby resign my commission as resident music at ACE until tommorrow, so have at me.

What Senator PhilABuster said about Lennon's propensity to surprise during The Beatles' career is absolutely correct; McCartney was a more gifted songwriter (Lennon could never have composed something as effortlessly melodic yet idiosyncratic as "Martha My Dear," for example, and "Blackbird" and "Yesterday" are two of the most perfect compact pop songs ever written in the modern era), but Lennon brought the excitement to the group.

When I think of their comparative representative contributions, I come up with "Strawberry Fields," "Everybody's Got Something To Hide Except Me And Monkey," "She Said She Said," "I Am The Walrus," "And Your Bird Can Sing," and "Tomorrow Never Knows" vs. "Martha My Dear," "Blackbird," "Yesterday," "Good Day Sunshine," "Penny Lane," and "You Never Give Me Your Money."

Those groups include both immortal songs and less essential ones, but both bring out the contrast between each songwriter: Lennon's stuff is effortlessly enthusiastic and exciting, making up in enthusiasm and experimentalism what it lacks in melody. It's a cliche that a lot of Serious Beatles Fans are at pains to dispute, but there's a good reason Lennon got the stereotype as the "rocker" and Macca caught the "composer/balladeer" label; Macca could sing a great Little Richard tune, but when it came to songwriting he was just more interested in the formal complexities and beauties of music. McCartney could write the occasional rocker, but with one exception ("I've Got A Feeling," whose middle section was a Lennon contribution) it always seemed either terribly forced ("Helter Skelter," which is noisy shit) or trapped in that brylcreemed over-stylization that always rang slightly false (I'm thinking about songs like "Oh! Darling" here).

That said, McCartney's solo career is far superior to Lennon's. Nobody's mentioned what I think is his finest accomplishment, which is Ram: an album which was dismissed upon its release but I came to without any prejudices and found to be a slightly downscale Abbey Road. Hell, I don't even mind Linda on that album, and I'd say that at least three songs there -- "Too Many People," "Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey," and the pocket symphony "The Back Seat Of My Car" -- are superior to anything Lennon came with after John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band.

72V:

Can a billion people be wrong? Sure. I concede that. However, if a billion people say 2+2=4 and you say it equals 5, then there is just, oh, a slight chance, that occasionally a billion people can be right too.

But that is neither here nor there, as I never made the argument that "popularity" was trhe measure of a good composition. However, when you consider the number of professional musicians (an audience that ought to be able to identify quality material) and you notice that that group has a peculiar affinity for a song like "Yesterday", that should alert you to the notion that there is something substantive there.

And "Something" is a great song. On that we agree. I merely threw out the Frank Sinatra quote, as he is a man that transcended the self absorbed boomers you lumped the Beatles into in your intial post.

In regards to "time will tell", I think we see time speaking already. Of all the acts of the 20th Century, only a handful have maintained near-universal acclaim (both critically and commercially): among these are Porter (although I would venture that if you asked 10 random people to name 3 of his songs they couldn't), Presley, Sinatra, and the Beatles.

I don't think it is fair to attempt to marginalize the type of music produced by the Beatles by comparing it to Mozart or Porter. It's like saying, ya know Babe Ruth hit a lot of homers, but he sure wasn't Hank Aaron.

I think the better question to ask is this: 300 years from now will people still be listening to the music produced by the artist?

Mozart: Yes. It is happening now.
Porter: Probably.
The Beatles: Probably. 40 years have passed since their invasion, and they still show no signs of their influence (see Oasis) or their appeal (see the chart success they have with reissues) fading.

Maybe, in your opinion, music has been "dumbed down" since the days of Mozart and Beethoven. I could make the same argument that music was dumbed down between Gershwin and Porter.

Are there other lyrics that you can sing to the tune of "Imagine", the way you can sing the lyrics of "Amazing Grace" to the Gilligan's Island theme?

Well, I guess I'm late to the party. I was going to address this to Ace, but I see we have a full-fledged BEATLES DISCUSSION going, so I'll address this to everyone. Whenever I get into a discussion about who the best songwriter in the Beatles was, I like to perform a little experiment. I'm dying to put in a caveat here, but it would tip you off to where I'm going. Here is your assignment:

1. Pick your ten favorite Beatles albums

2. Pick the song off each album that got the most airplay.

3. Pick the song that you personally most associate with each album.

3. Pick your favorite song from each album.

I realize that these categories may overlap, and any song might come up in one or more, or all three categories. Just play along. Please post your results.

Whoops, I guess I can't count.

Jeff B.

Thanks. And I agree with you about RAM. Even though it didnt draw great reviews at the time, it was full of great songs. (And for what it's worth, while the Lennon/McCartney "lets fight with each other thru our lyrics" feud was ongoing I think that "Too Many People" does a far better job of skewering John and Yoko than John's "How Do You Sleep" does off Imagine, if only because TMP is stronger for its indirect approach). In addition to the songs you mentioned, I always liked "Monkberry Moon Delight" too.

About my experiment: I've never really quantified the number of albums before, and ten seems like a lot, so just pick several, maybe six or seven. You'll be amazed.

Sorry, guys, the Beatles lost me when their drug use overpowered their talent, somewhere around "Yellow Submarine" time.

Later,
bbeck

Somewhere around "Yellow Submarine time?" Let's see...after that would be....oh yeah, "Abbey Road." Yeah, that really sucked.

Craig, why yes, "Abbey Road" DID, lol. IMO, a good album has more than just a couple of decent songs, and except for "Come Together" and "She's So Heavy," the rest of the album is crap.

But it would be interesting to know what combination of hallucinogens made these talented musicians turn out "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" and "Mean Mr. Mustard."

Later,
bbeck

TO PhilABUSTER: Obviously music has been dumbed down since classical music days for a lot of reasons. But to say it was dumbed down between Gershwin and Porter is just plain dumb in itself. And anyone who was as big in their time as they were will still be heard for a long time to come, as will Bob Dylans Like a Rolling Stone. Does that make this a great song worthy to be heard for the next 500 years? This is what I meant by self centered Boomers stuck in a time warp: there is a whole universe of great music out there that makes much of the Beatles look adolescent when they are compared to it. No one has even mentioned musicals, jazz, light or grand opera. Much of the Beatles music was downright silly but sounded great to rebellious white-punks-on-dope. This was actually a hard thing for me to swallow myself, because everyone feels the music of their youth in a subjective way they'll never feel any other. But as I expanded my listening to include everything I could possibly hear, it was a conclusion I could not escape. And to pretend that this just ain't so shows a lack of maturity or betrays an ignorance that is still all too typical among boomers for whom the music of THEIR particular adolesence must be the GREATEST of all time, or even among the greatest.

72V:

Wr are either going to have to agree to disagree, or I'm just going to have to come to the following conclusion:

You are nothing but a musical elitist/snob.

And, so to avoid being accused of gratutitous insults, here is how I have come to that conclusion. Read your own words:

"But as I expanded my listening to include everything I could possibly hear, it was a conclusion I could not escape. And to pretend that this just aint so shows a lack of maturity or betrays an ignorance that is still all too typical among boomers..."

Gee, I feel so privileged knowing that you are out there as sole arbiter of all that is musically worthwhile. In a discussion of Rock and Roll's place as a serious branch of music (which is what we have hijacked this Lennon-tribute thread into becoming) that is the quintessential Blue-state sentence.

After all, one could adapt your statement as the following : "Hey red-staters, you might think that Bush(Beatles) is a great President(Band) but, ya know, outside of his one great moment, the 9/11 reaction, (The Revolver Album) his administration has just been immature (rush to war/Ob la di, Ob la da!) or ignorant (tax cuts for the wealthy/I want to hold your Hand)!). Oh, and by the way, while you might think Bush is a great President, he doesnt measure nearly up to Washington, Jefferson (Mozart), or more contemporaneously, Teddy Roosevelt(Porter)" and the conxtext of the point you are trying to make still carries through..

First things first, The Beatles broke up before i was born! I am a Gen-Xer (technically) and not a Boomer. They are not the "music of my youth" in as much as any other band that happened to be played on the Classic Rock stations. Did I like them as a result of exposure to them? Yes. But the same can be said about any number of acts. Frankly, if you wanted to put acts that were topical for me and "my generation' (gratuitous Who reference) you would probably have groups like The Police, Blondie, Elvis Costello and the Attractions, Queen and the (Post-Tommy) Who into the mix.

If we adopt your approach, we essentially have to accept as a premise that NOTHING from the 1960's-2004 can be qualitatively as good as that which preceded it, especially if it was also popular! I disagree with this notion. I think that the Beatles happen to be the most important band of the last 44 years, that their importance is directly related to the quality of their work, and that their best songs measure up to the greats that preceded them. You apparently think that my opinion is "immature: or "ignorant". Fine. I don't recall specifically asking.

And the point that one could make an argument that music was dumbed down between Gershwin and Porter is valid. Gershwin's Rhapsody in Blue is much more complex (and to my ears) a much better composition than anything by Porter. Gershwin's "An American in Paris" probably is too. (By the way, both were originally considered Jazz pieces, so there is no sense in getting all huffy about us morons who failed to mention the off-genre music/musicians brought up by this discussion). In fact, I believe that Gershwin is a much better composer than Porter. You are free to disagree (I won't call you a moron) as these are subjective opinions.

I never claimed the Beatles were the GREATEST musicians/composers/songwriters of ALL TIME! Unlike you, however, I do not think that someone who wishes to make this argument can summarily be dismissed. As i wrote earlier in my baseball comparison, I think it is very difficult to compare music/musicians over 100's of years of adapting styles and audiences to determinatively say who falls where. (I am not hesitant to do so among artists/athletes who were contemporaries though: Mozart > Beethoven > Brahms > Wagner much like Beatles > Dylan >Stones > etc....)

My sole contention is that regular people/music critics/ future artists will be recalling the more important works of Lennon/McCartney in the same type of critically and culturally reverant style that they do the greats of earlier eras, such as Mozart, and as you do for Porter. Are they morons for doing so? In your opinion, yes. In one hundred years when we are all dead and the "next big thing" comes rolling down the track, who will critics likely ultimately refer to as their yardstick for measuring greatness:

Mozart: assuredly.
Porter: Doubtful. Few bother to do that now.
Lennon/McCartney: Probably the most cited source for contemporary comparison, and likely to remain so as their cultural relevance has not significantly decreased over time (which is an important factor).

And finally, I believe that a select few Beatles songs will be listened to 500 years from now, not because they happened to be songs by the Beatles, but because they are just damn good songs. As schmaltzy as it is "Yesterday" is one of those songs. "Something" will survive. "Let it Be" and "Across the Universe" might make it.

Lennon-McCartney as a team was greater than the products of the two once they went solo. It seems that is the case in a lot of songwriting, and in bands. We in America are always focused on the individual. And that makes us miss the fact that artistic collaboration and the '''Right mix" team effort eliminates individual weakness and stimulates creativity, energy, and syngergy.

And yes, 72 raisins, many of the Beatles songs will live on for a long, long time because they were simple - albeit with great lyrics and melody - and spoke to timeless themes.

What you said, Sen. Philabuster. It's impossible to say this song is better than that song because it is all subjective, it's whatever song strikes someone's fancy. Personally I like all the Beatles tunes (well, except for Revolution 9). And I'm not a boomer either.

Oh, and Something is a Harrison tune. He's got some damn fine songs as well.

TO PHILABUSTER: I wish I had the time to really go into this but I'll try again. I believe that very little from the mid sixties will be listened to in 500 years, but the Beatles will be among them, as some of their work deserves to be. My main point is that their is a central childishness and a dumbness to that whole period that does not even stand up today, and will certainly not stand the test of time. The topicality of the music, as expemlified by Dylans Like A Rolling Stone, the dumbness of "Louie, Louie" or Woolie Bully or the Rolling Stones' "Satisfaction" (which Rolling Stone Magazine recently voted one of the 20th centuries best songs!) the "Musicals" HAIR and OH! CALCUTTA don't stand up today, let alone in 500 years. And as compositions they are all quite amaturish. Popular music took a turn for the worse when amatuer singer/songwriters unschooled in music began to turn out 3 chord pop songs that appealed to a mass audience unsophisticated and vulnerable to mindless vulgarity and silly adolescent rebellion. Take away the vulgarity and the drug and rebellion messages and these songs have nothing left. And I say this as one who once reveled in it all! It was not a good mix for music or for listeners in many ways. But the universaul truths (and not all of it is just about "love" by any means) expressed by the great sonwriters from Stephen Foster, Gilbert and Sullivan, to Porter, Rogers and Hammerstien and Soundheim are timeless and unchanging. And the ways they were expressed are often second to none. Despite the simplicity of songs by Hank Williams and Ray Charles, they resonate in our souls because they express these truths so well that they actually speak to us. They are universally understood and loved and surely will be here in 500 years. As for whether Porter is played now (and he is) matters not. Even Bach was forgotten until he was reserected in the 1800's. But musicals like CAN CAN or West Side Story are timeless works of art that shall survive popular culture and shall certainly be here in 500 years long after most of the mid sixties music is gone forever.

You banned Dylan fans for a week, but you celebrate this unwashed lice infested maggot who gave us Yoko Ono?

Brian, Ace didn't ban Dylan fans. It was his bud Son of NIxon who did that.

about the beatles' greatness and timelessness:
during their time, they appealed to people from little girls to old men of many races and cultures. i was never there myself, but speaking to some of my mum's japanese friends and watching those old beatles videos, just showed me how fanatical the fab-four craze was, on a global scale. today, kids still listen to them (like me). songs like 'imagine' and 'yesterday' are so timeless they're constantly covered by other artists. oh yeah, they wrote AND performed their own music too. they invented mtv starting with 'a hard days night'. they invented mass rock-concerts. you really can't find anyone in the last 100 years coming even close. put it this way, think of the last time you had thousands of little girls like me scream our hearts out at our favorite boy-band singing (or even lip-synching) .. lately i've done so for linkin park, but according to some of my predecessors, n'sync, backstreet boys, or even new kids on the block (who many people credit to be the first real "boy band" - NOT!) now take that hysteria, multiply that ten-fold, and you got the elvis presley craze .. now take elvis and multiply that a million-fold, and you got beatlemania!!

lennon-mccartney comparison in general: people always make it out to be such a simple comparison. paul can also write great lyrics, and john can also write great melody. paul can also be very artsy, and john can also be very commercial. "who's better" is such a retorical question, it depends on what you're looking for. people who like the melodious, tuneful poppy hits shall prefer paul "most" of the time, those who like the deep, expressive, introspective tunes prefer john. personally, i prefer the latter, but that can vary daily, even hourly depending on my mood. it's a fact mccartney was the more naturally gifted musician, but lennon took music to areas no one even dreamed of. musicians 40 years later are STILL catching up to him. bands like oasis and radiohead try and succede to a point, but nowhere NEAR as cojently as lennon and mccartney's innovations. mccartney strikes your heart harder, but lennon pierces your SOUL. who can say which is "better"? again, what's your cup of tea?

lennon-mccartney solo comparison:
from stuff i've read, i always felt they both are greatly under-credited for their solo work. people say lennon basically had 'imagine', 'double fantasy' and that's about it, and mccartney's post-beatles tunes basically "fell off of a cliff".
i feel the truth really is, john wrote a decent volume of really brilliant stuff that rivaled, and in many cases exceded his beatles stuff, in his solo years, but also had an equal amount of REALLY terrible crapola as well. paul wrote tons and tons in his solo period. he probably more than quadrupled lennon's output and outputted more than all solo-beatles combined (mind you, john took a 5 year hiatus from music). most of paul's solo stuff is crap though, that's why you really don't hear that much of it on the radio despite the sheer volume he cranked out. but a decent portion of it is pretty good, but not "great" (like solo john). guess the way i'd summurize it is like this: if you take the top 10-20 best solo songs from each ex-beatle and stack them side-by-side, john's solo stuff is far superior. 'oh my love' ranks up there with paul's best love melodies. but if you did the same thing but with say, "50" tunes, solo-paul would be the hands-down winner. again, what's your cup of tea in praising - quality or quantity?

in conclusion:
it's a cliche in saying the beatles needed eachother and probably wouldn't have been anything individually if they had never met, competed and fed off one another, but it's a cliche for a reason.

Jet? Live and Let Die? Coming Up?
Correct, Mcartneys muzac fell off a cliff

Something was written by george harrison, not lennon or mccartney. So god knows why people keep mentioning something to macca's credit. call youself beatle fans??puh-lease.