JOHN MADE PAUL -- END OF STORY [Archive]

Tenbatsuzen

03-22-2007, 06:39 PM

mikeyboy

03-22-2007, 06:46 PM

Tenbatsuzen wrote: johnfromstateni wrote: That's what I said at the end of today's Free-FM show and I stand by it. John Lennon's poetry helped Paul McCartney write better songs from 1963 to 1969 than anything that Paul came up with on his own since then.*> *>What do YOU think? Can you point to any post-Beatles McCartney tune that is finer than any Lennon-McCartney song?  By that same corollary, are you saying John couldn't have written imagine without Yoko? That's not the same corollary.

booster11373

03-22-2007, 06:49 PM

Sometimes it just OK to just enjoy what you have and not try and break it down in to its separate partsI love the Beatles I look upon them as a unit and for thats enough

lleeder

03-22-2007, 06:49 PM

mikeyboy wrote: Tenbatsuzen wrote: johnfromstateni wrote: That's what I said at the end of today's Free-FM show and I stand by it. John Lennon's poetry helped Paul McCartney write better songs from 1963 to 1969 than anything that Paul came up with on his own since then.*> *>What do YOU think? Can you point to any post-Beatles McCartney tune that is finer than any Lennon-McCartney song?  By that same corollary, are you saying John couldn't have written imagine without Yoko? That's not the same corollary.Guys please use words we all understand. Whats a Carolla-ry?<img src="http://liquidsoapdispenser.com/adam/adam_carolla1.gif" border="0" width="216" height="293" />

cougarjake13

03-22-2007, 06:49 PM

i might have a coronary if a canary comes flying in the canopy  

SinA

03-22-2007, 06:50 PM

john couldn't have written "across the universe" without timothy leary.the world is a big place, but we all run into each other in intersecting non-linear paths.  no one man can take reponsibility for his own achievements, let alone the actions of others.  the beatles are john, paul, george, and ringo.  no other combination, addition, susbstitution or subtraction of members would have been the same.  maybe john bettered paul because he was driven by paul or competed with paul or lad a brotherly affection for paul and wanted to make him happy.furthermore, there is no way that anyone will ever no if a difference would have been any better or worse.  the world is as it is and you can speculate all you want, but it won't change reality.  jai guru deva om.  nothing's gonna change my world.

TheMojoPin

03-22-2007, 06:54 PM

johnfromstateni wrote: That's what I said at the end of today's Free-FM show and I stand by it.  John Lennon's poetry helped Paul McCartney write better songs from 1963 to 1969 than anything that Paul came up with on his own since then.*> *>What do YOU think? Can you point to any post-Beatles McCartney tune that is finer than any Lennon-McCartney song? What do you mean by "finer?"  Neither of them put out work better than their Beatles music.  If you're talking about stuff that's up there and is in the same ballpark, well: "Live & Let Die.""Band on the Run.""Jet.""Maybe I'm Amazed."Uhhhh...that's about it.  McCartney's post-Beatles work is pretty bad.  John's is much better, but even most of his doesnt stack up to the Beatles.  I think they both made each other better musicians and songwriters, but I don't think Lennon's poetry directly influenced all of Paul's Beatles work to the degree you're talking about.

Freakshow

03-22-2007, 06:56 PM

None of them are anything without Chuck Berry. End of Story.

Mike Teacher

03-22-2007, 07:06 PM

Freakshow wrote: None of them are anything without Chuck Berry. End of Story. Chuck would be nothing without his cousin, Marvin Berry.

johnfromstateni

03-22-2007, 07:07 PM

Freakshow wrote: None of them are anything without Chuck Berry. End of Story. well played, freeky. you get the cowbell so far.

johnfromstateni

03-22-2007, 07:14 PM

TheMojoPin wrote: johnfromstateni wrote: That's what I said at the end of today's Free-FM show and I stand by it.ÿ John Lennon's poetry helped Paul McCartney write better songs from 1963 to 1969 than anything that Paul came up with on his own since then.*> *>What do YOU think? Can you point to any post-Beatles McCartney tune that is finer than any Lennon-McCartney song? What do you mean by "finer?"  Neither of them put out work better than their Beatles music.ÿ If you're talking about stuff that's up there and is in the same ballpark, well:by finer, I mean better, and I am only comparing post-Beatles efforts. Observe: "Live & Let Die."  ÿ--ÿ The Dream Is Over is better."Band on the Run." -- Instant Kharma is better."Jet."  ÿ ÿÿ ÿÿ ÿ--ÿ ÿ ÿÿ ÿWell Well Well is better."Maybe I'm Amazed." -- Imagine is SO much better.Uhhhh...that's about it.ÿ McCartney's post-Beatles work is pretty bad.ÿ John's is much better, but even most of his doesnt stack up to the Beatles.ÿ I think they both made each other better musicians and songwriters, but I don't think Lennon's poetry directly influenced all of Paul's Beatles work to the degree you're talking about.ÿ George Martin has said many times that John Lennon would edit Paul's lyric, often flesh out his one- or two-line ideas, and more often than not would provide lyrics to Paul once Paul offered him a hook.

johnfromstateni

03-22-2007, 07:17 PM

Mike Teacher wrote: Freakshow wrote: None of them are anything without Chuck Berry. End of Story. Chuck would be nothing without his cousin, Marvin Berry. Ahh! Mike the Teacher!ÿ I posted this thread with you in mind.ÿ Please share your thoughts on this.

johnfromstateni

03-22-2007, 07:19 PM

booster11373 wrote: Sometimes it just OK to just enjoy what you have and not try and break it down in to its separate partsI love the Beatles I look upon them as a unit and for thats enough  Sure, sometimes. Just not THIS time :-) I love the Beatles too. But I'm an unabashed John prefer-er.ÿ I always found him to be less phony, misguided sometimes, but less phony, than Paul.

Tenbatsuzen

03-22-2007, 07:27 PM

Mike Teacher wrote: Freakshow wrote: None of them are anything without Chuck Berry. End of Story. Chuck would be nothing without his cousin, Marvin Berry. And Marvin Berry would be nothing without Calvin Klein.

TheGameHHH

03-22-2007, 07:47 PM

Tenbatsuzen wrote: Mike Teacher wrote: Freakshow wrote: None of them are anything without Chuck Berry. End of Story. Chuck would be nothing without his cousin, Marvin Berry. And Marvin Berry would be nothing without Calvin Klein. he's such a dreamboat....... in all seriousness both are fine artists, but i think every music fan can agree that if we broke it down john is better than paul.

FezPaul

03-22-2007, 08:13 PM

TheGameHHH wrote: Tenbatsuzen wrote: Mike Teacher wrote: Freakshow wrote: None of them are anything without Chuck Berry. End of Story. Chuck would be nothing without his cousin, Marvin Berry. And Marvin Berry would be nothing without Calvin Klein. he's such a dreamboat....... in all seriousness both are fine artists, but i think every music fan can agree that if we broke it down john is better than paul.  Better singer: PaulBetter musician: PaulBetter attention whore: John

TheMojoPin

03-22-2007, 08:27 PM

johnfromstateni wrote:  "Live & Let Die."   --  The Dream Is Over is better."Band on the Run." -- Instant Kharma is better."Jet."           --        Well Well Well is better."Maybe I'm Amazed." -- Imagine is SO much better.Uhhhh...that's about it.  McCartney's post-Beatles work is pretty bad.  John's is much better, but even most of his doesnt stack up to the Beatles.  I think they both made each other better musicians and songwriters, but I don't think Lennon's poetry directly influenced all of Paul's Beatles work to the degree you're talking about.  George Martin has said many times that John Lennon would edit Paul's lyric, often flesh out his one- or two-line ideas, and more often than not would provide lyrics to Paul once Paul offered him a hook.Why are you comparing those songs?  It's totally subjective.  They have nothing to do with each other...you might as well pick songs at random out of hat by either guy.  And I never said those songs were better than any Beatles song or John's solo work...I just said they were good.  And who is ever arguing that Paul's solo stuff is better than Lennon's?  I defy you to find someone who thinks that.What you described above is a colaborative process...both songwriters using their talents together to make something better than either of them could do on their own.  What's your point?  Do you know which songs that John helped Paul write the lyrics for, or are you just assuming it's all or most of them?

Tenbatsuzen

03-22-2007, 09:03 PM

John: YokoPaul: Super-Liberal Tree Hugger, One-Legged Gold Digging Whore. Push.

hedges

03-22-2007, 09:07 PM

[quote]<hr color="cococo" align="left">SinA wrote: john couldn't have written "across the universe" without timothy leary.

This may be true sinA, but I wouldn't discount the Pranksters.

TheMojoPin

03-22-2007, 09:10 PM

Tenbatsuzen wrote: John: YokoPaul: Super-Liberal Tree Hugger, One-Legged Gold Digging Whore. Push. How was John not a "super liberal," Mr. Forgetful?  If anything, he was much more hardcore liberal.  Paul just became a queer vegetarian.

ppanda

03-22-2007, 09:34 PM

lleeder wrote: mikeyboy wrote: Tenbatsuzen wrote: johnfromstateni wrote: That's what I said at the end of today's Free-FM show and I stand by it. John Lennon's poetry helped Paul McCartney write better songs from 1963 to 1969 than anything that Paul came up with on his own since then.*> *>What do YOU think? Can you point to any post-Beatles McCartney tune that is finer than any Lennon-McCartney song?  By that same corollary, are you saying John couldn't have written imagine without Yoko? That's not the same corollary.Guys please use words we all understand. Whats a Carolla-ry?<img src="http://liquidsoapdispenser.com/adam/adam_carolla1.gif" border="0" width="216" height="293" />OMG- I almost wet myself!!!!!! "clean up in aisle 5!!

hedges

03-22-2007, 09:46 PM

I like most of Lennon's solo stuff. I dislike most of McCartney's solo stuff. Put together, they put out some great stuff. Now whether it was Lennon puttin'out or McCarthey doing the same. It's all hogwash. It was great music, nonetheless. Lennon was genius and McCartney maybe less so. But the two of them wrote great songs. And it worked, for six or seven years.

razorboy

03-22-2007, 10:18 PM

By their own admission they were just trying to measure up to Pet Sounds, so...

A.J.

03-23-2007, 05:54 AM

razorboy wrote: By their own admission they were just trying to measure up to Pet Sounds, so... Excellent point (and not just because I'm a Brian Wilson freak).  Paul has stated that there was a healthy sense of creative competiton between The Beatles and The Beach Boys, The Beatles and The Stones to outdo each other.  Also, you can't ignore the influence of Bob Dylan on John and the influence of George Martin on the group as a whole.  Point being, there were a lot of factors at play that caused John and Paul to push themselves and each other to new creative heights.  And George Martin himself claimed it was unfair (correctly) that John gets all the credit for writing great lyrics while Paul gets all the credit for writing great music.John, Paul and even George had great post-Beatles moments.  It's hard to live up to the standard they set together as a group though.

BeerBandit

03-23-2007, 06:00 AM

Plain and simple.If you're a lyrics person, you like John.If you're a music person, you like Paul.If you're a song person, you love the Beatles. If you're a musical masterpiece person, you love Tool.

Dudeman

03-23-2007, 08:19 AM

he wrote all the music and lyrics, and played all of the instruments.  the others were just a front to keep the attention off him so he could continue to produce <img src="http://frazettaartgallery.com/ff/bio/1960/ringo_starr.jpeg" border="0" alt="r" title="r" width="300" height="313" />

A.J.

03-23-2007, 08:24 AM

Dudeman wrote: he wrote all the music and lyrics, and played all of the instruments.  the others were just a front to keep the attention off him so he could continue to produce <img src="http://frazettaartgallery.com/ff/bio/1960/ringo_starr.jpeg" border="0" alt="r" title="r" width="300" height="313" /> "GEAR!!"<img src="http://www.duffgardens.net/Framegrabs/BWG/Thumb_PDVD_221.jpg" border="0" width="580" height="387" />

johnfromstateni

03-23-2007, 09:01 AM

TheMojoPin wrote: johnfromstateni wrote:  "Live & Let Die."   --  The Dream Is Over is better."Band on the Run." -- Instant Kharma is better."Jet."           --        Well Well Well is better."Maybe I'm Amazed." -- Imagine is SO much better.Uhhhh...that's about it.  McCartney's post-Beatles work is pretty bad.  John's is much better, but even most of his doesnt stack up to the Beatles.  I think they both made each other better musicians and songwriters, but I don't think Lennon's poetry directly influenced all of Paul's Beatles work to the degree you're talking about.  George Martin has said many times that John Lennon would edit Paul's lyric, often flesh out his one- or two-line ideas, and more often than not would provide lyrics to Paul once Paul offered him a hook.Why are you comparing those songs?  It's totally subjective.  They have nothing to do with each other...you might as well pick songs at random out of hat by either guy.  And I never said those songs were better than any Beatles song or John's solo work...I just said they were good.  And who is ever arguing that Paul's solo stuff is better than Lennon's?  I defy you to find someone who thinks that.What you described above is a colaborative process...both songwriters using their talents together to make something better than either of them could do on their own.  What's your point?  Do you know which songs that John helped Paul write the lyrics for, or are you just assuming it's all or most of them? Why? WHY!??? You Ask WHY???? I'll TELL YOU WHY!!! To get you to post you rube!Mission accomplished.Now go get some cotton candy down the fuckin' midway :-)

SinA

03-23-2007, 09:05 AM

i WAS going to explain the beatles, but you all just wouldn't get it.

TheMojoPin

03-23-2007, 09:08 AM

A.J. wrote: Dudeman wrote: he wrote all the music and lyrics, and played all of the instruments.  the others were just a front to keep the attention off him so he could continue to produce <img src="http://frazettaartgallery.com/ff/bio/1960/ringo_starr.jpeg" border="0" alt="r" title="r" width="300" height="313" /> "GEAR!!"<img src="http://www.duffgardens.net/Framegrabs/BWG/Thumb_PDVD_221.jpg" border="0" width="580" height="387" />Awesome.Even though the Beatles all did the horrible trend of having guest stars play themselves (granted, early on in the series) that The Simpsons has done so horribly nonstop over the last 5-6 years, they all rocked it and were hysterical...and Ringo was the first!  The man's a trendsetter!

Dirtybird12

03-23-2007, 09:20 AM

<img src="http://www.rockphiles.com/all_images/Act_Images/PaulMcCartney/paulMcCartney-wings-bass.jpg" border="0" width="300" height="288" /> Paul lived. he wins. The man is a God.  Lennon was a narc

A.J.

03-23-2007, 09:58 AM

A.J. wrote: CircusFreak wrote:  Paul lived. <a href="http://www.geocities.com/sunsetstrip/3674/pid.html">Did he</a>?<a href="http://www.turnmeondeadman.net/IBP/Intro.php">See also</a>.

ralphbxny

03-23-2007, 10:36 AM

It's why the pope choose his name and put John before paul!Both popes did John Paul and John Paul II....its why god likes Lennon Better!!

epo

03-23-2007, 10:54 AM

Tenbatsuzen wrote: John: YokoPaul: Super-Liberal Tree Hugger, One-Legged Gold Digging Whore.Push. I think everyone forgets that Linda McCartney was a bigger bitch than Yoko.  Advantage:  John.

A.J.

03-23-2007, 10:57 AM

John ignored his son Julian from his first marriage.Paul adopted Heather, Linda's daughter from her first marriage.Advantage: Paul.

booster11373

03-23-2007, 11:02 AM

to quote another great man who was there when we needed him <img src="http://www.nndb.com/people/595/000025520/rodney-king.jpg" border="0" width="181" height="240" /> CANT WE ALL JUST GET ALONG  

This message was edited by booster11373 on 3-23-07 @ 3:02 PM

pennington

03-23-2007, 11:07 AM

Tenbatsuzen wrote: Mike Teacher wrote: Freakshow wrote: None of them are anything without Chuck Berry. End of Story. Chuck would be nothing without his cousin, Marvin Berry.And Marvin Berry would be nothing without Calvin Klein. And where would Calvin Klein be without the Libyans?

FezPaul

03-23-2007, 11:27 AM

epo wrote: Tenbatsuzen wrote: John: YokoPaul: Super-Liberal Tree Hugger, One-Legged Gold Digging Whore.Push. I think everyone forgets that Linda McCartney was a bigger bitch than Yoko.  Advantage:  John.Paul kept Linda's mic turned off. Advantage: Paul.

TheMojoPin

03-23-2007, 11:32 AM

FezPaul wrote: epo wrote: Tenbatsuzen wrote: John: YokoPaul: Super-Liberal Tree Hugger, One-Legged Gold Digging Whore.Push. I think everyone forgets that Linda McCartney was a bigger bitch than Yoko.  Advantage:  John.Paul kept Linda's mic turned off. Advantage: Paul.Yoko inspired "The Ballad of John & Yoko."Linda inspired "The Lovely Linda."Advantage waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay to John.

pennington

03-23-2007, 11:36 AM

TheMojoPin wrote: FezPaul wrote: epo wrote: Tenbatsuzen wrote: John: YokoPaul: Super-Liberal Tree Hugger, One-Legged Gold Digging Whore.Push. I think everyone forgets that Linda McCartney was a bigger bitch than Yoko.  Advantage:  John.Paul kept Linda's mic turned off. Advantage: Paul.Yoko inspired "The Ballad of John & Yoko."Linda inspired "The Lovely Linda."Advantage waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay to John.Yoko is still alive. Advantage: Paul

johnfromstateni

03-25-2007, 05:54 PM

Paul - Simply having a wonderful Christmas time.

John - Happy Christmas, War is Over.

Um, advantage John.

Swannee

03-25-2007, 06:05 PM

None of them are anything without Chuck Berry. End of Story.

Chuck Berry may have inspired them to play rock and roll, but it was Dylan that inspired John to write music that mattered. And whose to say who will eventually inspire Paul to do the same

keithy_19

03-26-2007, 07:16 PM

Chuck Berry may have inspired them to play rock and roll, but it was Dylan that inspired John to write music that mattered. And whose to say who will eventually inspire Paul to do the same

But Dylans voice makes me swallow razor blades.

razorboy

03-26-2007, 08:12 PM

But Dylans voice makes me swallow razor blades.

To me that is akin to saying that tom waits, louis armstrong, lou reed, van morison, billie holliday, ella fitzgerald, etc. should be discounted as good singers because of unusual vocal inflections. He is not a traditionally trained, classicly "good" singer, but I dare you to listen to Simple Twist of Fate, Angelina, or Love Minus Zero/No Limit, among others, and say that they are anything less than soulful and beautifull vocally, for the the songs that they are, and especially, in consideration of their content, lyrically and especially emotionally. I realize this strays a bit from topic, but I am a little defensive of Mr. Zimmerman. I also recognize a run-on sentence. No need to point it out.