Paul McCartney or John Lennon ??

G

gothicgal122

New member
the beatles were such a liked band/ loved band back in the day, and still have a big fan base now.. so i'm just wonder after the break up and john did his own thing and paul did his own thing.. which in your own opinions did better.. not looking at what the whole world thinks.. or who sold more whatever.. just in your thoughts...
thanks you



I personally think john is the best.. i love him.. and his music was about peace and love.. war.. he put alot of work into the meanings of his music.. up until he died.. i'm even going to go out of my place and say i think true rock n' roll died when he got shot.. :o( so sad.. anyways.. he is a amazing his music has more meaning to me then anything eles.. :o)
 
John owns Paul anyday.
His music was much better in my opinion.
Working Class Hero is great and Imagine of course.
As well his stuff with the plastic ono band.
Twas all good
 
apparently you haven't heard " In An Octopus's Garden ". Absolute garbage.
I prefer the Rolling Stones anyday as they are a straight ahead rock and roll band, whereas the Beatles relied on studio tricks
 
i nevre liekd paul either.. he seemed to always try and take all of the atention.. and took more cerdit then he should have.. because he really was not that great in my eyes..
 
maybe it is a very invalid point. but its just my opinion on that fact that i think john was more famous and for much better reason and still would be just as famous if he wasn't dead..
 
Oh, come on!!!You've got to be kidding me!!!Just "Imagine" that someone would create a thread as commonsense/stupid as this!!!:laughing: Well, I guess I'll cut you some slack because this is a thread dedicated to many different kinRAB of peoples opinions.:crazy:
Honestly, John Lennon is, was and forever will be the best when compared to Paul!!!John Lennon was always a great songwriter and his music has already stood the test of time many years after he died.Even though he died and Paul hasn't, it is still clear that John Lennon is on top, atleast I.M.O.Even "giving" Paul all that time to possibly surpass John Lennon as a great songwriter, he has failed.I don't mean failed as in a way of disrespect to Paul, though...
...Paul has been a great musician as well!!!He only has failed in the way that he never has and never will be as brilliant a musician and songwriter as John Lennon was and still is!!!:bringit: Also, another good point to bring up is that John Lennon was great with The Beatles as well as solo!!!Paul was pretty good with The Beatles, but he's had many rocky points in his solo career...
...You go up, you go down...You do good, you do bad, period!!!;)
 
Uh, Paul did act like the leader of the band.
Please dont tell me that because he was the bass player he was just some unknown who stayed in the background.

And please, don't correct my grammar.
Or spelling.
I have a lit teacher for that.
 
Well, atleast he didn't "ruin" The Beatles, ya see?He was great with The Beatles while other banRAB might be judged differently by their (our) own opinions!!!I'd still have to say that any Beatle fan has to somewhat like him and respect him for his contribution to (atleast) that band (Beatles)!!!
 
this thread isn't about your favorite beatle its about who do you respect and who do YOU think had the biggest impact with you or whoever else... the question is simple and about only the TWO john & paul.. not george or ringo.. its simple who did better in your opinions.. out of the TWO not four.. grr!

john i know had the biggest impact. before he even died he was loved by so many, he was a musical god in his own right, long before his death. don't make me spam damnit!
 
That's a funny thing for the reason that the bass players are usually known as the last musicians to "lead" a band!!!

Although there are very few exceptions like Geddy Lee (Rush) and Lemmy Kilmister (Motorhead), the bass player's importance/job to the band is usually to "fill in the hole" with the other musicians, ya know?
 
Back
Top