John or Paul?

[Peter-Carlin]

In the course of writing about the Beatles these last few years I spent a lot of time considering one of the fundamental questions for rock fans: Is it possible to say, for certain, which of the group's songwriters was, in fact, the most significant creative force? 

You could debate the issue for years, and thus people have done exactly that. Certainly John has had a bit of an edge these last 28.5 years, given his status as a rock 'n' roll martyr. Another bonus for him: If you're dead you're not making music and/or saying things to aggravate your fans. Which Paul has done prodigiously.

So forget all that and think only of the key Beatles years, the 13 years between the time Paul joined the Quarrymen in 1956 and the last real Beatles session in 1969. (barring "I Me Mine" overdubs in early '70 and the "Anthology" sessions in the 90's) and try to figure what was more important: John's conceptual derring-do; his commitment to rock-as-subversive-force-and-therapeutic-forum or Paul's ravenous musicality; his pop-songcraft-meets-experimental-weirdness?

I have my opinion. So do you. 

[Paul_Hochman]

I have to go with John. I think his songwriting ran a bit deeper than Paul's. He took bigger chances if you will.

[Jon_B]

Yeah I also think John was a better writer than Paul.  Though Paul was a better singer.  But my favorite Beatles songs are the ones George wrote.  I think George's solo work is the best out of all the post-Beatles stuff too.  

Message Edited by Jon_B on 08-12-2009 06:34 AM

[dulcinea3]

It's so difficult to choose.  I think that John's work was more meaningful and important, but Paul did great ballads and rock'n'roll, too, although he tended to be more pop and commercial.  On the other hand, I think that Paul was the one who originally got into experimental techniques, such as tape looping, and brought them into the group, where John picked them up and ran with them.  Personally, I think that John was the best singer in the group.

[Peter-Carlin]

What intrigues me about their relationship are the many paradoxes: That John wrote terrific, often very sentimental ballads ("Good Night," etc.), while Paul could also write blistering, and subversive rock tunes. ("Helter Skelter") Also, so many of the group's wildest, most experimental moments (electronic noise, backwards tapes, collage-style loops) came from Paul, not from John. And yet Paul's pop sensibility often leavened John's wilder impulses. What made the group so endlessly intriguing, and terrific, was how these opposing ideas meshed. 

In terms of voices, again, it's all over the map. John had a fantastic rock voice, no doubt. But listen to Paul on "Long Tall Sally," as powerful as an air raid siren, just on the brink of losing it altogether. That whole song is epic in its power and wildness. Like a hurricane in a bottle, a blistering experience, and only 1:58. Wow. 

[dulcinea3]

Yes, I suppose that perhaps Paul has a voice that is more suited to the hard-driving rock songs like you mention, Helter Skelter, Back in the USSR, etc.  And it was he who learned that howl from Little Richard.  Although it was John, I believe, who had the moments referred to as something like 'torn flesh' in Twist and Shout, so he could do it, too.  Overall, I think that John had a much more expressive voice, capable of more subtle differences in tone (although, again, there are certainly examples where Paul sings affectingly, for example Here, There and Everywhere).  I once read a really enjoyable book about their music, Tell Me Why, that analyzes every song - instrumentally and vocally.  I listened to each song as I read the analysis, which was quite a fun project.  One thing that the author repeatedly mentions in reference to John is that he would sing falsetto notes in moments expressive of particular emotion, so that's something that I always notice now.

Tell Me Why 

 

[Jon_B]

Wasn't it Paul who sang that really high part in A Day in the Life?  That's one of my favorite vocal lines in the Beatles catalogue.

[Peter-Carlin]

Another interesting side note: I just interviewed Brian Wilson about his favorite Beatles album, "Rubber Soul," and for a guy who seems to share the most in common with Paul (born two days apart; played bass; freakish ability to write melodies; wrote a lot of sweet-natured love songs; sang the high parts; etc) his most favorite tunes on that album? All John songs. And don't get me wrong: Brian really and truly loves Paul's work, too. But still. 

[Zandokahn]

I've been a Paul man for many years: He is the greatest bassist this side of Charlie MIngus. Even on John songs he brings the heat, how good would Rain be without Paul's bass? Or the opening of Come Together? Paul made John songs better, even when they were fighting. I don't think that is the case so much the other way around. I could be wrong about this, but I think that the suite in Abbey Road was also a Paul solution. There's a feeling that John was so experimental, but so much of their orchestral expansion was Paul -- Eleanor Rigby, asking George Martin about piccolo flutes, etc. Recently, I've noticed that I like the early John songs better. But those were the collaborative days, weren't they, when it's hard to know who wrote what. Given all this, plus the Hey Jude,  Let It Be, and, ahem, Yesterday, the Sgt. Pepper concept, I'm still going with Paul.

[Peter-Carlin]

I of course agree, and think (and write, in that book headed your way) that Paul gets short-shrift in the innovative radical department, largely because he's such a paradoxical mix of hat-and-cane showman and freaky artist. He contains multitudes, from "Helter Skelter" to "Silly Love Songs" to "Electric Arguments" to his note-for-note recitations of greatest hits he performs (with precisely the same explosion cues for 'Live and Let Die' that he's used for like 35 years). He's capable of spectacular artistry and astonishing show-folk kitsch, often on the same day. I prefer the former, of course, though some of the latter has its charms (e.g., 'Silly Love Songs,' which has a very cool opening bit and then a hell of a catchy tune AND a wonderfully recorded/produced musical track). But it's also worth noting that Paul can be his own worst enemy when he talks, either breezing past his artistry, or else arguing for it so bitterly he sounds like a phony. And he ain't.

[Rob2009]

I would go for John I think. Though I love most of Pauls songs. However, John I think is the genius writer among the beatles, evidence by the deep meanings of his songs - hope you'd agree with me

[ultimate_rick]

I am going to go with both. Because they both had great songs its hard to chose one. And because the Beatles wouldn't have been the Beatles without John or Paul.

[Peter-Carlin]

I think Ultimate Rick is ultimately right. It was the chemistry, folks. How they complemented one another; how they competed with one another. Paul opened John's musical imagination; John compelled Paul to open his intellectual imagination. They were opposite sides of the same coin. Together they were everything. Apart they were nearly as much. But not quite. 

[Deanne51]

As a musican, Paul is not a phony.  As a person, I think he has become just that.  Or perhaps he was a phony all along ,and has only revealed himself as such in recent years.   For the purposes of this discussion there is no point in explaining the reasons for my opinion, but I did want to disagree with your closing statement. 

Paul prompts an obscene amount of hagiography, and there has never been a "warts-and-all" bio written about him.  In fact, he ignored a book proposal from a well-known Beatles expert when that expert made it clear that he would pull no punches were he to write Paul's biography, and guess what we ended up with?  The stringent control and in-your-face spin of Many Years From Now.  I was impressed by your mention of the repetitive schtick of Paul's live performances.  He's an incredibly creative talent, and yet he has fallen into such predictable patterns.  It's truly baffling.  I'm encouraged that your book may break the Sir-Paul-as-British-National-Treasure mold, and will be interested in seeing just how objective and truthful it turns out to be..

Neither John nor Paul was ever as good individually as they were as a team.  Call it chemistry or whatever, as with the Beatles as a group, the whole was greater than the sum of the parts.   The competition that existed between John and Paul resulted in great music.  The competition that Paul seemingly feels with John's memory, however, has resulted in some unfortunate revisionist history from Paul that can only diminish the Beatles legacy in the long run.  I wish he could see that.

[Peter-Carlin]

Deanne - I'm not sure which Beatle expert you're talking about. I know that a few very jagged, and ultimately kind of trashy, books on the guy have emerged over the years. Geoffrey Giuliano in particular ("Blackbird") strikes me as being a disappointing writer, with no discernible interest in the music and a fascination for dark and ugly stories, many of which seem to be taken out of context, at best. My sense as a person and a writer is that everyone has their darker moments, you could write a really trashy bio about me, for instance, featuring all kinds of gruesome behavior. And if you framed it right (e.g., without including or giving short shrift to the part where I raise my children, hold jobs, do lots of situps and don't always eat that many M&M's) then you get a much more accurate picture.

Paul's a complicated guy. He's done good stuff and bad stuff, made great records and terrible records, and so on. It's also worth noting that he's lived his entire adult life under the brightest spotlight in the history of pop culture, and yet maintained a fairly solid grasp to reality. Raised his kids in a relatively cozy, five-bedroom house, instead of a vast manse or rock star-style castle. The kids went to public school, stayed out of the tabloids. Many of his friends, collaborators, bandmates and ex-bandmates really love the guy, even after disagreements, etc. Sure, he's got his vices and foibles. Anyone who has been the coolest person in virtually any room he's entered since 1962 would, too. But consider the context.

[EarlSiclair]

I think that for me the question is not who was better, but what would they have been without each other. They complemented their music and often sought out each others advice. When Paul got stuck on Obla-Di-Obla-Da after many many takes, John finished the song in 15 minutes.

John was not afraid to call a song by Paul a bunch of crap if he really felt that it was. And they would work together to create a better song Look at all of the collaboration on Revolver and Rubber Soul, both written in the same year. One of the two started around October 15 and in stores by Christmas that year! It takes two people who can anticipate what the other was trying to say. And of course they had George Martin with his musical training to help.

Paul was the better musician of the two by far, but I think that without John's edginess, the music would not be any where near as good. John could pull Paul back to the Rock and Roll or R&B sound where there roots were.

[Peter-Carlin]

I think you nailed it there, Earl. It's the back-and-forth, the yin-and-yang, the implicit (nay, explicit) competition to outdo one another, again and again. The paradoxical thing is that what inspired their unified greatness also led to their destruction. And so it goes, I guess. It would have been lovely if they had found a way to stay together. But maybe if they were easygoing, accommodating people they would never have been that great to begin with.

[Grant1960]

Paul is getting quite a bit of criticism here for the things he has said but I think everyone would agree that John talked a lot more trash than the rest of the Beatles put together.  I think Paul has made a great effort to further the legacy of the Beatles through his words and music since the Beatles and deserves more credit for paying honor to the group.  During the period, I think Paul commanded the Beatles music in a way that was more serious and versatile than John and therefore gets my vote.  Paul was on fire throughout the Beatles era and I think he passed John in song produciton quantity if not quallity as well.  In addition to the screamers, Paul wrote better ballads such as She's Leaving Home, Eleanor Rigby, Yesterday.  Paul took Johns songs, added the middle eight, and made them better many times over such as in A Day In the Life - Paul's Bridge on that song gave it a lot more appeal.  Yes, Paul was and is a tremendous Bassist, as evident in Something, Lovely Rita and I Want You.  Paul's acoustic guitar work is masterful in Blackbird and Mother Nature's Son, as well as in his solos in Taxman and Good Morning, Good Morning.  Turn the stereo all the way to one side and listen to Paul's phrasing of his vocals on SGT Pepper.  He has a very nuanced approach in applying his English accent to many of those songs such as When I'm Sixty-Four.   What are all these deeper songs so many people are alluding to that John wrote?  Personally, I don't look to songwriters for philosophy.  I love the beauty of the melody and in that regard I think Paul wins out.  I loved Johns political lyrics in Revolution and I think Julia is as pretty a ballad as there ever was, but they are not so overshadowing that I would rate John a better songwriter than Paul.  Specifics please.

[dulcinea3]

---

Grant1960 wrote:

...What are all these deeper songs so many people are alluding to that John wrote?  Personally, I don't look to songwriters for philosophy.  I love the beauty of the melody and in that regard I think Paul wins out.  I loved Johns political lyrics in Revolution and I think Julia is as pretty a ballad as there ever was, but they are not so overshadowing that I would rate John a better songwriter than Paul.  Specifics please.

---

Off the top of my head, a couple of early ones that come to mind are Nowhere Man and Help.

[toothdoc1996]

Agreed...John Lennon's songs were edgier and more experimental.  McCartney had flashes of brilliance but some of the stuff he put out with the Beatles sounds downright corny (ie "All Together Now", "Obladi Oblada")