Lennon vs. McCartney

With the recent news that the Beatles are coming out with their own version of Guitar Hero, I thought it would be fun to delve into the age old argument of who was better, John Lennon or Paul McCartney. Of course it's difficult to judge them just by their Beatles songs because at a certain point their songwriting partnership was in name only. So even though all Beatles songs written by Paul or John have both their names attached, the truth is, in later years, their co-writing credits were merely contractual. You could narrow the argument by accepting that the songs that John sang lead on (Come Together, Don't Let Me Down) were his and likewise the tunes that Paul sang (Let It Be, Get Back). But I think it's more interesting to look at their post Beatles careers to settle the matter. For the purpose of argument, we will restrict the discussion to the time period from 1970 (John's first post Beatles solo release) to 1984 when the last of John's singles hit the chart after his untimely death.

During this time Paul was the more prolific recording artist. He released (solo or with Wings) 13 albums during this stretch to John's 7. Paul also lapped John in top 40 hits 31 to 16. So on quantity it's Paul in a landslide. But we're not talking quantity we're talking quality and by this measure it's John--hands down. To illustrate the point I'm going to stick to the three C's. Collaborations, Christmas songs, and Cojones.

First, collaborations. Paul's most noted collaborations between 71-84 were with Stevie Wonder and Michael Jackson. And what you will find is that he brought out the worst in both of them. In Stevie's case, he and Paul got together to record the insipid, vapid ode to racial harmony, "Ebony and Ivory." The only time Stevie was less cool was on his mega hit "I Just Called To Say I Love You." Both Stevie and Paul have a tendency to lean towards saccharine sentimentality and together they not only breached the boundaries of bad taste but they both came off as simpletons. Really, just hum that damn song in your head and you may just start wishing for the south to rise again. However, as bad as "Ebony" is, "The Girl Is Mine" with Michael Jackson is even worse. I mean can you really picture these two guys getting in a twist over the same girl? And can you imagine a more cloying tune? "Girl" makes their other duet ("Say, Say, Say") seem downright revolutionary in comparison. When the truth is "Say" is nothing but a light pop throwaway. But at least it doesn't make you sick. "Ebony" and "Girl" are why your mom and dad tell you that too much sugar is bad for you when you're little.

Now John only had two major collaborations during his solo career but they were both better (in one case infinitely) than Paul's. The first was "Whatever Gets You Through The Night" with Elton John. While neither was at the peak of their powers on this track, it's a rollicking, highly engaging pop tune with a great twin vocal. But the real feather in John's cap is the legendary single he cut with David Bowie, "Fame." A song so good that it's one of two songs by white artists on the Soul Train box set. "Fame " has everything, edge, groove, and style. Put this up against "Ebony" or "Girl." I dare you.

Paul and John also recorded a hit Christmas song each as solo artists. Paul's holiday contribution is "Wonderful Christmas Time." One of the worst songs (forget Christmas) ever recorded by anyone. Every Christmas season when that song comes out the radio I genuinely feel physically ill. Take a look and listen and see if it's possible to hold your lunch. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9BZDpni56Y). On the other hand, we have John's "Happy Xmas (War Is Over). A topical , bracing Christmas tune that dared you to think of someone other than yourself or your immediate family. "Happy Xmas" is the template for all the socially conscious benefit songs you've heard since. Just imagine "Do they Know it's Christmas" or "We Are The World" without "Happy Xmas." Impossible. In short, Paul just wanted you to simply have a wonderful Christmas time where John wanted you to change the world.

Lastly, we come to the most important C, cojones. John's got 'em and Paul pretty much doesn't. Let's compare John's 10 best solo tracks to Paul's from 71-84.

John Lennon:__________________Paul McCartney:

1) Imagine____________________1) Band On The Run

2) Watching The Wheels__________2) Live And Let Die

3) Happy Xmas (War is Over)______3) Maybe I'm Amazed

4) Cold Turkey_________________4) Take It Away

5) Instant Karma_______________5) My Love

6) Mind Games_________________6) Jet

7) Give Peace A Chance____________7) Let 'Em In

8) Woman_____________________8) Coming Up

9) Just Like Starting Over__________9) Goodnight Tonight

10) Power To The People__________10) Helen Wheels

Now, to give Paul some credit, all 10 of those songs are at least good and his top three are genuinely great. But look at John's list. All 10 songs are unassailably great. Why is that you say? Cojones. John's top 10 songs are more immediate, edgier, and topical. Paul's top 10 is reliably tuneful but edgeless, (Live and Let Die accepted) and well, warm and fuzzy. So why was Paul so great with the Beatles but so pretty good after? Well, if John comes out of his songwriting room with "Come Together," Paul can't come back with"Silly Love Songs." No, he came back with "Helter Skelter." See John wasn't afraid to take chances (he married Yoko didn't he?) with either his sound or content. But Paul, he needs someone to push him. That's why some of his best later work was on his "Flowers and Dirt" album with Elvis Costello. You see, Elvis suffers no fools.

And neither did John Lennon.

Sumo-Pop
June 5, 2009