Culture
17 Dec 10
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
18 Dec 10
Originally posted by divegeesterI have to agree. I never could greatly enjoy the pseudo-philosophy of Lennon. And he only got worse during the seventies. It is my unhumble opinion that the only reason he is considered a deep-thinking prophet today, rather than a spouter of shallow postcard mottos, is because he was murdered. McCartney, on the other hand, has never lost his enthusiasm for the music, real music. Granted, at times definitely cheesy music - but always music. He has made more lives more pleasant in actual fact than Lennon has with all his platitudes.
You choose...
I'm a McCartney person, for the melodies.
Richard
18 Dec 10
Originally posted by Shallow BlueI do agree with you, but comparing McCartney's music with Lennon's silly philosophising is not a fair exchange - what about Lennon's music? McCartney was definitely the music lover of the two in my opinion.
I have to agree. I never could greatly enjoy the pseudo-philosophy of Lennon. And he only got worse during the seventies. It is my unhumble opinion that the only reason he is considered a deep-thinking prophet today, rather than a spouter of shallow postcard mottos, is because he was murdered. McCartney, on the other hand, has never lost his enthusiasm ...[text shortened]... made more lives more pleasant in actual fact than Lennon has with all his platitudes.
Richard
18 Dec 10
1 edit
Originally posted by divegeesterLennon, McCartney wrote 'granny', songs! Favourite song, Hide your love away.
I do agree with you, but comparing McCartney's music with Lennon's silly philosophising is not a fair exchange - what about Lennon's music? McCartney was definitely the music lover of the two in my opinion.
19 Dec 10
Originally posted by divegeesterYes, clearly. It's no contest. McCartney's silly love songs pale in the shadow of Lennon's work, which embodies an integrity and an honesty so direct and visceral that it is almost painful to behold. McCartney is an expert craftsman, but Lennon is the true artist.
Clearly?
19 Dec 10
Lennon was a windbag all the way. Fewer worthless human beings have walked this earth. McCartney, cheesy or not, was the real soul of the Beatles artitistically speaking. He may have written granny songs, but these were masterfully crafted and devoid of silly philosophy, puerile platitudes, goofy lyrics and idiotic content.
19 Dec 10
Originally posted by mtthwVery true, however I do find McCartney's music more uplifting, more 'positive' in it's essence.
Let's face it, neither of them were anywhere near as good alone as they were together. Their strengths complemented each other.
I do have to also agree with the "visceral" comment by rwingett though - Lennon had an edge that McCartney lacked and as such he sometimes drifted into sentimentality.
19 Dec 10
1 edit
Originally posted by divegeesterI'd say McCartney was the one with the real musical talent, he could come up with a good tune if he tried, but as far as lyrics go I'd say Lennon is much more developed than McCartney. Regardless of whether one agrees with Lennon's simplistic philosophy and frivolous political preaching he at least wrote songs which conveyed more of a message. McCartney was a writer of pop songs, Lennon was more of a poet, if you doubt me just look at the lyrics of across the universe or strawberry fields.
You choose...
I'm a McCartney person, for the melodies.
But nevertheless they are both overrated, Dylan is truly better than both put together.
19 Dec 10
Originally posted by generalissimoLennon was a destructive force. His emanations came from a crazed, drug induced, stuporously inane mind spewing out so called "poetry". Any man abandoning his oldest child for a deranged quasi-artist like Yoko Ono is flawed beyond redemption. Nothing uplifting was ever penned by Lennon. Edgy art for edginess' sake is what Lennon did and with profound mediocrity, alacrity, simplicity bordering on mentally obtunded and evidenced a man too full of himself to write anything of value.
I'd say McCartney was the one with the real musical talent, he could come up with a good tune if he tried, but as far as lyrics go I'd say Lennon is much more developed than McCartney. Regardless of whether one agrees with Lennon's simplistic philosophy and frivolous political preaching he at least wrote songs which conveyed more of a message. McCartne ...[text shortened]... s.
But nevertheless they are both overrated, Dylan is truly better than both put together.