15. "RE: People have been saying this for 20 years now..." In response to In response to 12
>Anyway, McCartney solo>>>Lennon solo. > >However, in the Beatles, there's no doubt to me that Lennon >was better. It's correct that McCartney took over much on "Sgt >pepper" and "Abbey Road" but I don't really like those >records; too much genre-exercises and corniness from >McCartney. The songs that partially save those records-"Abbey >Road" in particular-are Lennon's contributions. And don't even >get me started on the White album-McCartney has at most like >4-5 good songs on there whereas the rest is just goofy. Lennon >on the other hand is *almost* consistently strong on that >record. > >And Lennon did most of the best singles as well and on the >only Beatles-albums I REALLY like-"Rubber Soul" and >"Revolver"-Lennon had more highlights.
well this is complete bullshit now isn't it.
how the fuck you say john had the hotter singles? paul ran the singles. r u kiddin me?
and i agree john definitely was leagues ahead of paul on rubber soul. but revolver is more even. yeah i'd prolly give john the nod, but paul had for no one, eleanor rigby, here & there & everywhere (another incredibly underrated song), and he also had AT LEAST 50-50 contribution on taxman and tomorrow never knows. just cuz george and john sang them songs doesn't mean it was their songs.
read the book REVOLUTION IN THE HEAD. it details every beatles recording ever. paul had a huge contribution into many songs that seem mainly to be john or george's work.