On Demand
John vs. Paul
Friday, April 04, 2008
Who was the best Beatle after all? What is the worst song that each of them wrote? Joining us for a Lennon and McCartney debate: Mark Rozzo, freelance music writer and editor at Men's Vogue, and David Samuels, contributor at Harper's magazine and the New Yorker. Plus, we take your calls.
Weigh in: Are you a "John" person? Or a "Paul" person? Why?
- About this program
- Staff Bios »
- Contact Us »
- Latest Episode
- Internship
- Tapes and Transcripts
- Show Archive »
Features & Series
Podcast
Stay up to date.
Subscribe to the Podcast
Soundcheck Blog
Go behind the scenes!
Find out what John Schaefer and the Soundcheck staff have to say about recent segments on the show. Plus, watch videos from in-studio performances.
More
Comments
Refresh
It's before the show airs, but, I must tell you, George Harrison is the Beattle I most admire.
If you study George properly, and you see the network of relationships he developed in the musical world, then you might come to the same conclusion.
Spend some time with George Harrison's "Concert for Bangladesh", and then the "Concert for George" organized by Eric Clapton, and you get into some of George's "friends".
For example, to wrap up a few in one sentence,look at The Traveling Wilburys, which included Roy Orbison, Tom Petty and Jeff Lynne of ELO and Bob Dylan.
Then, there are: Clapton, with whom George shared more than music; Leon Russell: Billy Preston. And, of course, Ravi Shankar.
So, I will try to hear the show, or get the podcast, but George gets my vote.
Hari Krisha
>>RSM
I always liked Mal Evans the best. The way he plays anvil on "Maxwell's Silver Hammer"; who can top that?
I love the Beatles and they were a group and Lennon and McCartney fed off each other and needed each other to be as great as they were. That said - I am a Lennon man all the way.
Here is my summary: compare John's "Happy Christmas (War is Over)" with Paul's "Wonderful Christmas." Nothing wrong with the latter song but it is just a simple feel good toe-tapper, corny and nice. The former is a just a phenomenal song, nice to listen to and popular but very thought provoking and radical at the same time.
Here is another nice summary of John v. Paul: "A Day in the Life." Compare John's "I read the news today oh boy..." vs. Paul's "Woke up, fell out of bed..." Both sound good but John is just profound and thought provoking and sad and celebratory - just intense. Whereas Paul is merely nice and pop-py.
I could not pick a favorite John song b/c they are too numerous. Off the top of my head I think of Help, Ticket to Ride, Tomorrow Never Knows, Strawberry Fields, All You Need is Love, Across the Universe, Don't Let Me Down, Happy Christmas, Imagine, God, etc.
Favorite Paul song: "I've Got a Feeling." That's Paul, right? Also, the Sgt. Pepper's song itself is great, as is Blackbird, Let it Be, Hey Jude, and of course Yesterday.
I concur with Richard: George was the best. In the end, it's a moot point because Ringo is going to outlive them all. Well, perhaps not musically, but certainly in a physical sense.
The correct answer is: John. But not for the reason you might think. John was the best Beatle because Paul made him so. When John was strung out, Paul held the music together (because he was easily the best musician in the group and the most progressive thinker in terms of studio production, etc.). When John's creativity turned inward and threatened to become self-indulgent, Paul added some pop leavening. For proof, look at John's career post-Beatles: eccentric and uneven, with songs that ranged from pathetic to brilliant. (As opposed to Paul's post-Beatles songs, with ranged from limp to very limp.)
The Beatles were more than the sum of their parts. John made Paul's songs rock. Paul made John's songs... intelligible, I guess. But my favorite Beatles songs have always been John's.
Chris O-
On the contrary, "A Day in the Life" actually shows the real yin-yang nature of the relationship--which is why deciding "who was better" is a pointless exercise. I think w/out the Paul section of that song (admittedly, a trifle), it would have merely been a very good John song (something akin to "Across the Universe"). But pulling those two disparate sections together with the brilliant, chaotic ascending orchestra section(sorry, Paul's idea!) makes it one of their greatest works.
Chris,
You say "On the contrary" but I basically agree with what you are saying.
Below is a link to a nice piece on the making of A Day in the Life from the Anthology movie if you have 8 minutes...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPrMntwZ2M0
Thanks for the link, Chris O. I hadn't seen this in a long time.
This comparison is a bit silly - what made the Beatles great was the *synergy* between the two - they needed each other. Without Paul, John's first post-Beatle records were self-consciously difficult, indulgent and self-referential. Likewise Paul came out with things like "Silly Love Songs" and his jaw-droppingly awful 911 song.
McCartney's several excellent tunes written with Elvis Costello (So Like Candy, Veronica) further prove he benefits from having an acerbic foil onhand.
It's the melody! Who cares about the depth of the lyric? A good example is "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds".....means nothing in the end...just words. No drugs as assumed....just a kid's vision.
I vote for George.
The magic of The Beatles was exactly that--some kind of inexplicable synergy between four people ,their music and the times. Analysis falls short of the spark. that said-because of John's manic brilliance Paul always gets short shrift in this debate-which is a gross over-simplification. Purely as a playing musician his contributions are immense-think of his harmonies on "If I Fell","Nowhere Man" , "Norwegian Wood","Something", etc. -his bass lines on "Don't Let Me Down", "A Day in the Life", "Paperback Writer" and on & on.
John may have written the lion's share of "Ticket to Ride" --but Paul arranged it.
As for solo years--Paul's discipline is revealed in his continuing production of music of varying quality-but some of it nevertless still brilliant(for those who still listen). Jobn's brilliance is revealed sporadically--but without the anchor of Paul and his bandmates he often meandered aimlessly.Still-love em both and wouldn't want to imagine this world without Beatles.
George Harrison gets my vote.
It's Keith Richards.
What, he wasn't a Beatle? No shit.
The Stones rule, dude!
Is it true that John and Paul collaborated in a distinct way, dividing songs into the main part of the song and the bridge. Most Beatle's songs I can think of do have a distinctly different main part of the song from the bridge. In songs that start out as John songs, they switch to Paul songs during the bridge. And the opposite is true. Is this a documented aspect of their collaborative style?
George Harrison ...
... and agree that Richard M's post makes the case quite convincingly.
But why do we have to choose?
I'm with John Schaeffer. Of the early songs that are clearly the work of one Beatle or the other (according to BeatleSongs by William Dowdling), the greatest are all Lennon -- If I Fell, I Feel Fine, A Hard Day's Night, I Should Have Known Better, and Yes It Is. Later, you've got Ticket to Ride, She Said She Said, And Your Bird Can Sing, Strawberry Fields, Across the Universe. And I would submit that I Feel Fine is the most glorious rock song of all time. Lennon had an edge and depth. McCartney's head was and is full of wonderful melodies, but he meeded John for more, except for masterpieces like Yesterday, Hey Jude and Let It Be.
I'm a John fan. I agree they were greater than the sum of their parts in the Beatles (they needed each other to be as great as they were - including George and Ringo!!), but I love John's work more after the Beatles. Wings may have some rockin' tunes, but Plastic Ono Band... I mean, come on! He was a musical genius. It's very sad he died so young.
As far as Mariah Carey soon topping the singles charts goes: William F Buckley might have been right when he said he'd rather be governed by the first 2,000 people in the telephone book than the 2,000 members of Harvard's faculty, but boy, CULTURAL democracy in much scarier!
My favorite's always been John by the way...though Ringo wins the self-deprecating, sense of humor category.
Ringo is one of the greatest drummers in rock history. Anyone who says otherwise is a heretic.
John's greatest song: Imagine
Paul's greatest song: Yesterday
Therein lies their difference.
John vs Paul is largely a debate of art vs. craft - not to imply an hierarchy between the two.
paul has musical range, but no emotional range: john has a deeply authentic and convincing emotional range.
evolved adults agree
I'd have to go George Harrison. Both John and Paul's catalogs have highpoints that are fully offset by mounds and mounds of pretentious drivel.
In fact, y'know what? Screw The Beatles. I'm sick of this argument. I'm sick of 90 percent of their songs. All hail Mariah Carey (or something).
Also, how can anyone still like Paul? He passed away more than 40 years ago!
What's the matter with you, man. That's McCartney doing all the screaming at the end of "Hey Jude". Sheesh...
Remember when Paul decided that he hadn't received enough fame, credit or notoriety (?) and reversed the Lennon/McCartney moniker on that putrid live album a few years back? That was classy. As far as post-Beatles output, four words: ALL THINGS MUST PASS. The ultimate order, if pressed: 1. John 2. George 3. Paul 4. Lucky Ringo.
Do we actually know who wrote the Lennon/McCartney collaborations?
As a kid, I strangely liked George... But as intense as John was, I have to credit John and Paul as inseparable as night and day. Never in their solo work were they as powerful - Paul the melodic and John the thought provoking. Sadly the most important takeaway from this show is that Mariah Carey is the new #2???? What direction is the world heading! My god.
Paul-Best Musician
John-Most Intellctual and Poetic
George-Most Romantic and Mystical
Ringo-Most fun
By far I vote John. I will not argue this. Paul is still doing what he always did --copying styles, making cute little ditty-pop tunes and putting out pop schlock songs. Read what George Martin states about John and you will see why he was over the top. Both were way too talented to stay together as writers and friends; it really was like oil and water mixed together...eventually they divide.
john and paul were crap by themselves. they needed each other's strengths to be good musicians.
george on the other hand did very well on his own. he is the best post-beatle.
RINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! not only the best beatle, but arguably the most charismatic & definitely the better musician.
George was under represented while in the beatles. as evidenced by the tripple album released just after the beatles' breakup and the treatment georgeMartin
gave him on the recent Love release
What a pointless debate. Neither of these acheived their greatness without the other. The alchemy of the group INCLUDING George and Ringo built each song you've mentioned so far. John and Paul inspired each other and competed with each other to bring out the best in each other.
I vote for George. All Things Must Pass. Need I say more.
My eight year old daughter has been obsessed with the Beatles for half of her life. On most days I have to answer her question:"Who is you favorite Beatle today?" Usually I answer George. She has explained to me that John is much more mysterious and interesting than Paul. As a child Paul was it for me... beautiful melodies and so on.... My child has given me a real appreciation for John, that I don't think I would have come to alone.......
I do like the idea that one could be partial to a particular Beatle depending on the sort of day it is.
PLS!!! Keith Moon
Don't forget George Martin -- where would they be without him?
The debate will rage on without resolution. Suffice it to say that we're all lucky that that two complementary musical geniuses found each other in an unlikely British port city and gave us all some of the best music we'll ever hear.
It depends, of course what your mind set is. I think John was a bit more avant garde and and took chances (ie: Instant Karma "we all shine on" or #9 Dream). John was a bit more 'progressive', maybe. On the other hand, Paul was a master tunesmith, working within the form, although sometimes NOT to great advantage (ie: some post-Wings material).
It depends on your own mind set, if you are a progressive, risk taker, John might be your man. If you like Tin Pan Alley safety, Paul might be your man. Sad day 12/8/80; the passing of George - sad day. It's like our youth slipping away w/ no control.
What about George Martin? (I'm a girl btw) Where would they be w/out him?
I think they're such a supergroup b/c it was a rare melding of unique talents.
This is a ridiculous debate, imho.
From Wikipedia on Ringo: 'Many drummers list Starr as an influence, including Max Weinberg of the E Street Band, Dave Grohl of Nirvana/Foo Fighters, Danny Carey of Tool, Liberty DeVitto of Billy Joel's band, Phil Collins, Mike Portnoy from Dream Theater and others.[24] According to Collins, "Starr is vastly underrated. The drum fills on the song "A Day in the Life" are very complex things. You could take a great drummer today and say, 'I want it like that.' He wouldn't know what to do."'
George! George, George, George! Also, he's by far the cutest.
Always has been George!
"Don't women get involved?" Well, George is and was the only one who turns me on. And I think "Happy Christmas" is a desperately annoying song.
Despite his love of Little Richard rock n roll, I think the majority of Paul's tunes are written in the style of 1890-1920 style of pop songs. Penny Lane is only the most obvious example. But, any non-rock Paul song is extremely old fashion.
John
Post Beatles:
Plastic Ono
Imagine (the album)
Incredible works
Who's the best Beatle? Ray Davies from The Kinks, that's who. No Yoko, no Linda (thank God), no comparison.
Yes we must give a nod to that other George for sure: George Martin.
For me, Happiness is a Warm Gun does it. It is John all the way.
I'm female and John was my hero. Anyone in their teens who saw Hard Days Night had to be hooked on John for ever. Best songs, best acerbic comments etc.......
As far as Drummers... Ringo may not have been the best drummer in the Beatles... but he was by FAR the best drummer FOR the Beatles...
on Best Beatle...
My take is Paul... he is the most musical, musciany, and most diverse before and after
Okay, guys, here are my two cents:
I agree wholeheartedly that George matured in ways that John never got the chance to, that Paul--sentimental being that he is--couldn't and that Ringo would never conceive of.
About Ringo's drumming: it's a well known secret that another drummer was brought in to overdub Ringo's tracks . . . but he's a good enough rock drummer in a very narrow range . . .
I hate contests of who's better or bigger or stronger. Maybe because I'm a woman. But the music they made together, to me, was the strongest . . .
Mark Lewisohn's Beatles session review found that less than a dozen sessions brokedown to issues with Ringo. Many more mistakes came from the other three. So much for Paul being the most professional musician!
I'm a Paul fan. The John-with-Yoko phase - he just took himself too seriously. Paul was fun and poppy. Yay, Paul.
As a woman, I noticed that you framed this conversation from the beginning as the Beatles representing the different ages of MEN. I wondered where I fit into that. But now that you ask to hear from women, my preference has fluctuated from George to John. Paul I always thought was too sappy (and too cute). Both John and George as songwriters were far more sophisticated in terms of political thought and human experience. "Tomorrow Never Knows" - early Lennon - brilliant.
Murray the 'K' !!!!
Mike Portnoy from Dream Theater?
My world was once almost totally comprised of Catholic school and the Beatles. Until 5th grade Paul was my favorite (cuteness factor) and then I graduated to John and stuck with him.. I liked his songs better. As of the "Let It Be" film which I saw the week it came out and cried through every frame, knowing it was over, and surprisingly converted to a George fan. . . which stuck.
Hi guys,
I'm a hands down Paul fan. I love John too. But I feel there is a clear difference in songwriting. Paul to me writes from a "happier" place with more upbeat tunes. Perhaps I'm drawn to him because I'm a drummer in a local NYC girl band, America's Sweetheart.
As far as Ringo being the best drummer...I wouldn't agree with that although he is an amazing songwriting drummer from whom I've learn a great deal from.
Thanks for the excellent topic!
Rock on,
Sweetheart Trish
One more after thought:
Paul's first post-Beatle album was lovely, a celebration of intimate, daily life . . . I'm talking about the album with the cherries on the cover and "Junk" and "Why Don't We Do It In the Road" --but you can hear in it where he's going, off into sentimentality that is almost unredeemable.
John's "Working Class Hero" album also had its strengths, in its starkness and attempt to explore his own intimate life. I think he gets a bad rap for dedicating himself as he does to Yoko. I can't help wondering if a woman who did the same would be so criticized. And--can't help it--I love "Woman" and his song to Sean ("Beautiful, Beautiful Boy"). But no, they're not as great as Beatles music.
So George, for me, may be the one . . . You've mentioned some of his post-Beatle work. Throw "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" on your praise-worthy list of his compositions, too.
The real argument isn't John vs. Paul, it's Beatles or Stones. The answer is so CLEARLY BEATLES, but I know so many Stones fans who just don't get it.
George was my favorite of the Beatles, and he continued to be inspiring musically and otherwise after the group broke up. As to the John-Paul debate, I leaned toward John though I had always thought of Paul as being the melody guy. If Ken, above, is correct, though, and John is the craftsman behind If I Fell, I Should Have Known Better, and And Your Bird Can Sing—some of the most beautiful and powerful songs I've ever heard—then I have a renewed admiration for John, the melody-maker.
John said that Paul's music was "muzak to my ears" and that is exactly how I feel. Paul never got over being the cute one....his bubbly, moon-eyed style got silly as he grew older. John expressed the heart of many issues that I was working through as I matured....Imagine, So This is Christmas, for instance. Double Fantasy dealt with infidelity, parenthood, etc. I still miss John. I often wonder how he would have dealt with growing older. Cool and insightful, like Dennis Hopper, I'm guessing.
Across the Universe, Tomorrow Never Knows - those two are enough to bring John to the forefront. Paul is integral but he is not the hard-driving verbose soul of the Beatles if that is what you look for when listening.
If this topic is to be looked at through the lens of the aging male and maturity then it is important to consider John's many attempts to reach out from inside and outside the framework of song-writing in his life as far as his audience is concerned. The job of the mature male artist should be to add to the equation of humanity as a whole, not merely comfort or placate us with pretty love songs. I think John tried his best to do that. I don't think Paul was ever comfortable or confident acting on that level.
That being said, some of Paul's rhythms are fantastic and he is an amazing musician and an amazing Beatle.
I guess this is more post-Beatles talk, but I have to concur with the first guy to post: just look at the ways in which George grew and what he did with the sitar, etc. Then think of John and Yoko's interminable Christmas song and...Wings. I rest my case.
I'm very impressed by the young John, who at the height of youthful fame and fortune, penned tunes such as Loser and Help. He is exposing his vulnerabilities as an artist, as a person, cutting through the facade.
"I'm a loser and I'm not what I appear to be."
"When I was younger so much younger than today
I never needed anybody's help in any way
Now I find those days are gone
I'm not so self-assured..."
Plus the songs just rock even if he was saying dadadadoodadadoo ddadaododdaodoada.
i said on john's show I had a crush on paul as a teen but i really had a crush on all the rollingstones. It took me awhile to warm up to the mop tops with that shaking their heads and all. but i finally gave in and have loved them ever since. but individually not so much. PS my husband whose fav is George is forcing me to a Ringo "as he calls himself - the greatest rock n' roll drummer in the world" Starr concert in June. Nostalgia rules!!!!!!!
I am gratified that the fans of George let us know of their opinions.
George cost me some money. After buying the Concert for Bangaldesh and the Concert for George I have bought:
The Traveling Wilburys Vols. 1 & 2
Leon Russell "Retrospective"
ELO (Jeff Lynne) "All the World Over" and "Flashback"
Tom Petty "Full Moon Fever"
Eric Clapton "Crossroads"
Gary Brooker two tracks "Old Brown Shoe" and "Whiter Shade of Pale"
>>RSM
This guy John Schaefer has it right. He ought to have his own show. It's a futile exercise to try to determine who was the better Beatle. John wrote incredible stuff like IN MY Life and Paul wrote incredible stuff like Gotta Get You Into My Life. Close your eyes and listen to Penny Lane and it's a mini movie in your head. And for every Paul song like Paperback Writer and Baby You Can Drive My Car you have a John song like I"m So TIred or And Your Bird Can Sing. George did write a few great ones (remember that George wrote Sinatra's favorite Lennon McCartney song) but in terms of shear volume of great music he's not in their league.
Paul and John were the ones that carved out new territory. (AND keep in mind that they evolved from She Loves You and I want to Hold Your Hand on Ed Sullivan in 64 to Strawberry Fields and A Day In The life in 67. Three years). As far as the Rolling Stones go- they followed The Beatles lead at every turn- first they woke up to the idea of writing their own music AFTER Lennon and McCartney wrote I Wanna Be Your Man for the Stones and then ever after- from country music to horns and strings and studio production the Stones always absorbed the Beatles advances. And yeah, The Stones rule.... with people who use the word "dude".
The real question to ponder is how good Paul have been so good with The Baeatles and so dreadful on his own. There is a topic for discussion.
John was the brains of the band; Paul was the heart of the band; George was the soul of the band; and Ringo was the drummer.
John: father politician; Paul: mother priest; George: child craftsman; Ringo: child clown.
One thing we can all agree on: If Yoko Ono married Bono and then Sonny Bono, she would be known as Yoko Ono Bono Bono.
Ah, the Fab Four--has there ever been a greater engine for human joy and jubilation? Viva the Beatles!
Quick and to the point... Paul.
We should judge them not by their best songs but by their worst songs, and of all of them the one with the most worst worstest songs is John (e.g. Dear Yoko, Freeda People, etc.) , so Paul wins.
All 4 Beatles charmed me with
their irreverence for authority as
much as with their music...Len-
non was my favorite Beatle (the
funniest?), but George Harrison
was my favorite ex-Beatle, no
question!
All 4 Beatles charmed me with
their complete irreverence for
authority as much as with their
music - John was the funniest.
Lennon was my favorite Beatle,
but George Harrison was totally
my favorite ex-Beatle !!
Oh, yeah, I loved Paul when he was
singing PaperBack Writer, Get Back,
I've Got A Feeling, and all the high
harmony parts, but John always
rocked, whether playing second
guitar, singing harmony or singing
lead on his songs, giving the
band an edge that could only have
come from him. But, in agreement
with several other comments, the
best album they never made was
George's All Things Must Pass. It's
amazing to listen to all the songs
that never made it on to any of the
Beatles' albums! A disclaimer: to
my ears, Tomorrow Never Knows
and Strawberry Fields are amazing
pop music, throw in George's With-
in You Without You, and other
listeners can have Let It Be, Mi-
chelle, Long and Winding Road,
etc.
Hey, any one know where to find that demo version of All things Must Pass?
SOUNDCHECK SAYS: We pulled that from a Beatles Anthology CD.
paul's worst: temporary secretary.
That George Harrison "All Things Must Pass" demo is available on the Beatles Anthology set.
Worst Paul Beatles Song: "Yesterday" that IS muzak; can't cotton to it's being included (above) alongside with two of his indeed many masterpieces "Let It Be," and "Hey Jude." Along with these two full-out spirituals, all his urgent make-you-burst-with-feeling-of-being-alive and want to dance pop songs are also masterpieces. And "I'm Down" is a brilliant combo of blues standard AND doo-wop.
John's worst Beatles song: there isn't one.
Of John's many masterpieces the only two that come close to that same stand-alone building mini-opera feel that "Hey Jude" and "Let It Be" there's "Helter Skelter"(which is a bit of a cheat with so few lyrics),"Sexy Sadie"--"In My Life" is the closest to this and "All You Need is Love." "Help" as a pop song was brilliant--a catchy cry of desperation: the incongruity and sheer musical greatness of the result. They were both geniuses in the Beatles.
Whoops--"Strawberry Fields" should also be included as mini-operas (as another post reminded me!). George also scored in both arenas: pop brilliance ("Don't Bother Me")and building mini-whole-experiences--"Here Comes the Sun,""While My Guitar Gently Weeps," "Something."
Best band there ever was and ever will be.
Paul all the way.
Someone above wrote that their favourite John songs are: "Help, Ticket to Ride, Tomorrow Never Knows, Strawberry Fields, All You Need is Love, Across the Universe, Don't Let Me Down, Happy Christmas, Imagine"... And then named "Yesterday" as Paul's best song.
What about: When I'm 64, Michelle, Can't Buy Me Love, When I saw her standing there, Fixing a Hole, Drive My Car, Helter Skelter, and the entire 2nd half of Abbey Road. ?? All Paul, all brilliant.
Not only that, but I often hear people give the nod to John based on his solo career. I disagree. Paul's solo stuff is better than John's. Much better than the uncreative "Imagine" or "Jealous Guy".
At any rate, the Beatles are the best. The debate is fun, but unnecessary. I think that we can all agree that the Beatles rule. Excuse me, I'm off to listen to more Beatles...
ALSO, there is a LOT of misconceptions about who's songs are who's. To Sarah: Helter Skelter was PAUL, not John.
Check out the site:
http://www.myrsten.nu/worldnet/beatlesongs.htm
to see who wrote what. It may influence to join the Paul camp over time... :)
PS - Even I love Paul, I agree that "Hey Jude", "Let it Be" and "The Long and Winding Road" are lame. He still had better songs overall...
Leave a Comment
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Back to EpisodeEmail addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. WNYC reserves the right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the WNYC.org Comment Guidelines before posting.