ppemberton

Whenever a rock star dies young, their iconic status automatically swells by 89 percent.

No, make that 152 percent.

No – make that one thousand percent!

Elvis, Bob Marley, Jim Morrison, Janis Joplin, Lisa “Left Eye” Lopes  – they were all way more popular after their deaths.

Okay, maybe Left Eye is a little out of her league there. But you get the idea – if you want to be a huge rock star, then die.

The more tragic your death, the more your legend grows. And that’s where John Lennon comes in.

Now, don’t get me wrong here: John Lennon was a musical genius. He gave us “I’m So Tired,” “Strawberry Fields Forever,” “Woman” and a gazillion other great songs. And, yes, Paul McCartney would not have been so great were it not for his partnership with John. But for my money, Paul McCartney was the best Beatle.

I base my argument on three key points:

1. Paul was a more rounded musician
2. Paul was a more diverse song writer
3. Paul had more innovative ideas
4. Paul wrote and sang more of the Beatles’s best songs.

Let me elaborate:

1. More rounded musician

Of course, all the Beatles were great musicians, who could play multiple instruments. But Paul was hands-down the best.

Inspired by producer/Fifth Beatle George Martin, he was always willing to pick up some odd instrument. And somehow he figured out how to play them.

On “For No One,” he played clavichord. On “A Day in the Life,” he helped conduct a 40-person orchestra (his idea, by the way.) He can play bass, piano, guitar, drums, flugelhorn, melodica, glockenspiel, and autoharp – half of which I’ve never even heard of.

2. Musical influences

John Lennon was a very observant writer. Once he saw a poster about a circus, so he wrote “Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite.” Another time he read a newspaper story that inspired the lyrics for “A Day in the Life.” And “Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds” came about when his son Julian showed him a picture he had drawn.

That’s great stuff – creating music from everyday things. But McCartney songs show deeper, more culturally diverse influences that lend him a better variety in writing.

“When I’m Sixty-Four” was a nod to Vaudeville. “Rocky Racoon” channeled the Old West. “Golden Slumbers” was based on a 17th Century poem, while “Michelle” draws from French culture. And “Got To Get You Into My Life” was Paul’s attempt to write a soulful Stax tune.

If you read more about McCartney’s influences, you’ll see how he was inspired by jazz, classical and soul.

3. Innovative ideas

While John is often seen at the genius of the band, the greatest concepts were Paul’s ideas.

It was Paul who came up with the alter ego Sgt. Pepper band. And it was Paul who decided to use a medley on “Abbey Road,” which was, in my mind, the band’s best album.

4. Best songs

Again, Lennon gave us lots of great songs. But Paul gave us more of the big ones that have come to define the Beatles. To name a few: “Yesterday,” “Hey Jude,” “Helter Skelter.” And those are just the better-known ones. When you factor “Honey Pie,” “She Came in Through the Bathroom Window,”  “Eleanor Rigby” and loads of others into it, man . . . hard to argue he’s not the top Beatle.

Danny

Hard to argue?  I think not.

While it’s true that Paul was and is a talented musician, the appeal of the Beatles isn’t in the musicianship.  For the most part, the songs of the Beatles aren’t that musically difficult, they’re just superbly well written and performed.  That may be what helps them stand the test of time.

John was the soul of the Beatles - he started the band and led it.  He wrote or co-wrote a vast number of their songs and as Pat’s already pointed out, the man was a genius, especially when it came to writing.  He was a true visionary whose message of peace and love still resonates 27 years after his death.  I’m not going to go quite as far as John himself did and compare him to Jesus, but you have to admit, his legacy is an important and impressive one.

The problem I find with Paul is that post-Beatles, he made some pretty disastrous choices that, to me, tarnish his reputation almost irreparably.  First, he allowed Michael Jackson to outbid him for the rights to the Beatles catalog – an unforgivable act from both parties.  Then he married that money-grubbing hussy without a prenuptial agreement allowing her to steal half his money when they later divorced.  Not smart, Paul.

The BBC’s list of the 100 Greatest Britons lists John Lennon at #8, with Paul trailing in a still respectable #19 spot.  George Harrison places #62, while poor Ringo doesn’t even get a mention.  That list was compiled using votes from the British public, and is quite an interesting read.

I’d contest that Pat’s last two points are entirely subjective.  Sure, you can say that Paul had more innovative ideas and that he wrote the best Beatles songs, but just saying that doesn’t make it true.  I’d argue that John wins in both those categories; virtually everything the man did was innovative in some way, especially late and post-Beatles.  OK, so he started swaying towards the bizarre every time he listened to that whacko Yoko, but you can’t argue that he wasn’t being innovative.

As for Pat’s final point, Paul did write a lot of great songs, but he also wrote “We All Stand Together” and “Ebony and Ivory”, both of which are regarded by many as some of the worst songs ever written.  Now I know Pat, your utter devotion to both Paul and Stevie probably means that that statement has driven you into a fit of uncontrollable rage, but face it, that song is awful.

As for your point that John’s legacy is inflated by his untimely death, remember that Paul died in 1966 and was replaced with a look/sound-alike, surely then he gets the best of both worlds yet still remains less popular than John.