Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Culture Forum

Culture Forum

  1. 17 Dec '10 23:11
    You choose...

    I'm a McCartney person, for the melodies.
  2. 18 Dec '10 11:50
    Originally posted by divegeester
    You choose...

    I'm a McCartney person, for the melodies.
    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 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.

    Richard
  3. 18 Dec '10 12:55
    Both boring.
  4. Donation rwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    18 Dec '10 13:06
    Originally posted by divegeester
    You choose...

    I'm a McCartney person, for the melodies.
    Although McCartney is very good, Lennon clearly trumps him.
  5. 18 Dec '10 19:29
    George was as good or better than both of them.
  6. 18 Dec '10 20:21
    Originally posted by rwingett
    Although McCartney is very good, Lennon clearly trumps him.
    Clearly?
  7. 18 Dec '10 20:26
    Originally posted by Shallow Blue
    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
    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.
  8. 18 Dec '10 23:35 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by divegeester
    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.
    Lennon, McCartney wrote 'granny', songs! Favourite song, Hide your love away.
  9. Donation rwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    19 Dec '10 01:01
    Originally posted by divegeester
    Clearly?
    Yes, 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.
  10. 19 Dec '10 01:35
    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.
  11. 19 Dec '10 03:52
    If I were stranded on a desert island and had to choose which music to have with me, Lennon hands down.
  12. 19 Dec '10 10:34
    Let's face it, neither of them were anywhere near as good alone as they were together. Their strengths complemented each other.
  13. 19 Dec '10 17:35
    Originally posted by mtthw
    Let's face it, neither of them were anywhere near as good alone as they were together. Their strengths complemented each other.
    Very true, however I do find McCartney's music more uplifting, more 'positive' in it's essence.

    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.
  14. 19 Dec '10 20:14 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by divegeester
    You choose...

    I'm a McCartney person, for the melodies.
    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. 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.

    But nevertheless they are both overrated, Dylan is truly better than both put together.
  15. 19 Dec '10 23:45
    Originally posted by generalissimo
    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.
    Lennon 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.