Dec. 14, 2007

My Funky Easy 1-Question (Okay, 2) Sociological Survey

By Oronte

I can explain later (or not), but I’m quite serious. Please answer the following:

John or Paul, and why?

Comments

That is an enormous question. And a dangerous one — because most folks will be unaware that their answer will expose them in a way they might not realize.

To me, John represents the wild art — the hard ideals — the fighting youth. Paul represents open love — innocent playfulness and a naive joy. So you’re asking me to define myself by these categories.

And I’ll neatly sidestep your question and say that I am a Beatles Man. I can say that because what makes the Beatles who they are is this tension between John and Paul and what they represent.

I picture their music above them — as they move into the studio — each with their ideals coming together to work on a song. Each of them has these core traits and their music and lyrics are representative of these — yet both of them respect and worry about the thoughts of the other. So when they come together to merge these two clouds of music, ideals and personality traits in the collaborative creation of their music, there is a pushing/pulling, tearing/melding that takes place between those two personalities. And that the two of them were constantly aware of and driven and affected by this tension within their collaboration.

An example: Ob-La-Di Ob-La-Da is a very Paul song — in which a couple finds love and has children and success. The song has a springy happy melody (though in some of the alternate versions the awful clanging monstrosity of a style they tried is very interesting and should be consumed at times when your defenses are low). Yet there’s a small turn at the end that creates an almost sinister, artistic tension: when Paul suddenly switches the genders on our lovely couple and “Desmond stays at home and does his pretty face. And in the evening she’s a singer with the band.”

Knowing of many of the instances where John does this — know that there were many instances where John encouraged Paul to do retain more non-literal, contradictory lyrics (the shoulder lyric in Hey Jude is a good example, so is the “in/out” lyric in Revolution) — it makes sense to me that this is either a John addition or a Paul addition in the vein of John. I.E. Something that entered the creative process within Paul that came from the tension of “will John approve of this song.” Especially during the White Album when tensions were so high.

And what we get — for a single stanza — is a marriage of melody and sweetness with a mysterious and almost sinister experimentation. What we get is what made the Beatles what they were: John/Paul. Don’t get me wrong, the others contributed to this strange musical cloud, but I think John and Paul were doing a deeper thing when they agreed that all their songs should carry both their names.

And that is a little of why I say I am A Beatles Man — and not a Paul or John man. Because I do think that what makes me listen to them to this day, is something that comes from both of them — even when only a single one of them “wrote that song.”

A Beatles Man, Shouldn’t it be Paul or John, and why?, at 3:05 pm EST on December 14, 2007

Either-Or

I like to ask these better than I like to answer them. I’ve always thought I would like Paul better than John, but I imagined John to be the reason the Beatles have weight. I assume they were both essential to the body of music they produced, but if I have to pick one over the other, I’ll go for the extra-musical something that John offered up to the public. John’s pickled brain would fetch more dollars and interest than Paul’s would. He seems more intricately woven into the myth of the Sixties and Seventies, and he would be even if he were still alive.

Rory, at 3:05 pm EST on December 14, 2007

Paul

I used to say John, because he was more “artistic,” by which I meant his songs tended to be grittier, weirder, less poppily melodic.

But lately I’ve been learning to play the piano by way of a few Beatles songbooks, and what I’ve noticed is that, while John’s songs certainly are good — among our greatest rock and roll songs — there is a magic to the way Paul can wind a melody around the same chords everyone else is using and somehow transcend the earthbound in a way no one else has ever been able to duplicate.

To make a literary allusion, John is the “experimentalist” who cycles through various forms and is lauded for his great contrariness, while Paul is the great artist who is pigeonholed as a traditionalist, even while the work he does is the most organic of all, its wild followings after melody akin to the voice of singularity we ascribe to our greatest writers.

But better or best, anyway, is so much bullshit. They’re both great, they were great together, they were even better in collaboration with George Martin, and how come nobody ever talks about how good a songwriter George Harrison was, anyway?

Kyle Minor, at 3:05 pm EST on December 14, 2007

john

much narrower than the Pulp Fiction “Beatles or Elvis", but I’m guessing similar basis. I like John better. He comes off much more as the artist who embraces being an outsider. Paul is more the bard in the old sense- artistic, yes, but fully focused on the communication to the audience. I’d probably get along with him much more, but John’s the flame to my mothy aesthetics.

If we’re talking Catholicism, — John Paul the First and the Second both have their finer points.

jmcc, at 3:05 pm EST on December 14, 2007

Ringo.

I wonder if this is why my SAT scores weren’t higher? My answer was never on the form.

Why Ringo? First, he is the cutest. Seriously. Watch A Hard Day’s Night. Also, he has the most genuine smile, and he’s kind hearted and fun and doesn’t think too awfully much of himself. My hunch is that he was the secret ingredient that held The Beatles together for as long as they lasted.

LitPark, at 3:05 pm EST on December 14, 2007

John

‘Cause he’s more sensitive.

Pippin, at 3:05 pm EST on December 14, 2007

John or Paul

JohnPaul was cute back in the day and I hear Paul was the better musician but all I’m saying is...Imagine.

Aimee, at 3:05 pm EST on December 14, 2007

John.

The combination was an unstoppable powerhouse, but when that powerhouse was divided, only John could stand alone.

(Superficially speaking tho’, it’s Paul, baby. Oh yeah.)

CheveauxRouge, at 3:05 pm EST on December 14, 2007

Why should we have to choose between Jones’ names?

Roy Kesey, at 10:50 pm EST on December 14, 2007

John. Definitely. I like the depth to his lyrics. Paul is too bubblegum pop for me.

Michelle, at 10:50 pm EST on December 14, 2007

John!

John, for the accoutrements alone: Bajillions of t-shirts, postcards in front of the Statue of Liberty, memorial garden in Central Park, sunglasses, Yoko. What does Paul have?I assume you are referring to the apostles, and not the Beatles, of course.

Umilia, at 10:55 pm EST on December 14, 2007

Choosing between Paul and John is like choosing between milk and dark chocolate. I love them both. Each one is rich and lushious in its own way. John is dark, satisfying the soul, while Paul is milk, stimulating the body. Must I choose?

Carolyn Burns Bass, at 10:55 pm EST on December 14, 2007

George, but if he’s not available...

John. He’s the ironic wiseguy; Paul is too cute. John’s songs are refreshingly acerbic. Take, for instance, The Ballad of John and Yoko. There’s an honesty and realism in that song that’s not present, to my mind, in Paul’s writing.

I wonder if the Churm readership tends towards one more than the other, and what that says about us?

Dan, at 10:50 am EST on December 15, 2007

Tight race, but Paul wins by a no-Yoko.

Ikeboy, at 10:55 am EST on December 15, 2007

John—he is the walrus.

dallas, at 1:25 pm EST on December 15, 2007

That’s it, folks, let it all out.... Those of you merely reading, please jump on in here.

Oronte, at 5:15 pm EST on December 15, 2007

John, naturally. Or. I don’t know.

I forgot a few things I wanted to say:

1. John was more attractive. Great nose, that one.

2. Wings. WINGS? Paul. Come on.

3. George and Ringo were good friends with Peter Sellers, which backs up my George affection.

Jodi Faye, at 5:15 pm EST on December 15, 2007

If George is out...

Paul. Once John and Yoko teamed up, it was all about scoring attention. Paul has always seemed more genuine.

Kelsea, at 5:15 pm EST on December 15, 2007

Paul

I always felt like Paul had much more subtly than John.

Jon, at 5:15 pm EST on December 15, 2007

This question really dates us all, Churm, and as such, I don’t like it. But given the fact that photos from marriage #1 are floating around out there somewhere, I have to be honest: John.

Lee, at 6:25 pm EST on December 15, 2007

JOHN

has always been my favorite. I agree with Jodes. The nose! Yowza.

Anyhow, I like John’s music better and he’s always just been my fave.

Hawley Shoffner, at 6:25 pm EST on December 15, 2007

Why John?

So Sgt. Pepper took you by surprise You better see right through that mother’s eyes Those freaks was right when they said you was dead The one mistake you made was in your head Ah, how do you sleep? Ah, how do you sleep at night? You live with straights who tell you you was king Jump when your momma tell you anything The only thing you done was yesterday And since you’re gone you’re just another day Ah, how do you sleep? Ah, how do you sleep at night? Ah, how do you sleep? Ah, how do you sleep at night? A pretty face may last a year or two But pretty soon they’ll see what you can do The sound you make is muzak to my ears You must have learned something in all those years Ah, how do you sleep?Ah, how do you sleep at night?

*****As with everything else, John said it best.

Robin Slick, at 6:25 pm EST on December 15, 2007

John or Paul?

Tough one — but I choose Paul.

Sharon, at 6:30 pm EST on December 15, 2007

Why not yet?

Mostly, O. Churm, because — in truth — I never remember which is which. Not in terms of their pictures or anything, but who wrote what and when. I was about seventeen when I was first introduced to the Beatles, and that was not so long ago. I like the Beatles a lot, and have a CD or two kicking around now. In general, though, I have a hard time associating artists with songs, and sticking a couple of them in one musical group just gets confusing.

I plead ignorance. And maybe youth.

Christine, at 12:30 am EST on December 16, 2007

John or Paul

Comments here have been very thoughtful and inspiring. Overall, I would tend to agree with the first guy. It was the tension between their very different temperaments that made The Beatles so wonderful. Another example of this greater-than-the-sum-of-its-parts relationship would be the song, “Getting Better", with its rich, optimistic McCartney chorus, gently subverted by John’s backup vocal, “It can’t get any worse.” Classic!

As for the person who referred to John as the experimentalist, this isn’t quite true. During their psychedelic heyday, it was Paul who brought in most of the experimental ideas and really persuaded George Martin to pull out the stops in arranging their songs. Not to mention the unjustly maligned movie “Magical Mystery Tour” which was almost entirely the brainchild of Paul! And just listen to his bass playing on, for example, “Lovely Rita” — WOW! Granted, he became considerably more conservative in the ’70s, and probably made some very bad moves during the breakup. But come one, Jodi Faye, Wings did some fantastic music! True, most of it’s on “Band on the Run"...

And whoever disses Yoko needs to do some research. She was a very hip woman who suffered neglect and scorn throughout her career. I love her crazy, atonal records, but if you haven’t heard “Feeling the Space” or “Approximately Infinite Universe” you should check them out, totally beautiful! What she and John did together in the 70s was so radical. Whoever said they were just out for attention has missed the entire point. They had more media attention than they wanted, and used the spotlight in an exemplary manner, well-documented in that movie “John & Yoko Vs. The USA".

And of course I love George. The quiet one with abundant contradictions (spiritual striving + fast flashy cars)... He was a fantastic guitar player, all of his songs with the Beatles are marvelous, and most of his solo records have at least one or two memorable tunes. And he even wrote “Photograph” for poor Ringo, a great drummer and charming talent himself. But seriously, put either of them in another band, and you would not have anything like the Beatles ... although I suppose that’s taking us into the realm of insubstantial speculation.

With most other great bands of the era, it is quite obvious who the most prodigious talent was: Kinks — Ray. Beach Boys — Brian. Pink Floyd — Sid. The Move — Roy. The Free Design — Chris. The Byrds is a puzzle — they kept losing key members but still put out equally wonderful records. Anyway, I’ll stop now.

John and Paul both wrote great songs and had fascinating personalities. Probably I would rather have been friends with John, but would prefer to have musically collaborated with Paul, in his prime. (As if...)

Merry Christmas, all!

Neil Martinson, at 12:30 am EST on December 16, 2007

If we’re talking about their time with The Beatles, then for me it’s impossible to pick. As has been stated, both temperaments were so vital to the overall sound that in some songs to extract the John from the Paul or the Paul from the John would be destructive. And there are just some songs where I’ve thought it was Paul but it was John, and vice versa.

If we’re talking about their time after The Beatles, I side with John. Paul’s music is nice to listen to, but John’s resonates with me more. Maybe when I’m older I’ll look back and think differently, but my money’s still on John.

And if we’re talking about popes, it’s still John.

N.D., at 12:20 pm EST on December 16, 2007

When I was going through my Beatles/60s-retro phase at age 16 (back in the 80s, themselves now retro) I was all about Paul. My friend Sarah had John. It worked out nicely for us. Then, in my twenties, I proclaimed myself a Lennon-phile because when you’re in graduate school and under peer pressure from other 20-something intellectual types, it’s social suicide to favor Paul. Now, though, I find myself leaning back toward Paul, particularly after watching his Superbowl halftime performance in 2005. Seriously, he knocked the place down. He’s an amazing performer as well as a brilliant songwriter.

But let’s face it, they’re both legendary for good reason. Like bourbon vs. scotch, you can’t go wrong with either.

Jodee, at 4:20 pm EST on December 16, 2007

A timely question, OChurm, as I was listening to the Beatles when your question dropped in my inbox. I daresay Paul dominates most of my track selections, though my all-time fave Beatle song “And Your Bird Can Sing” definitely possesses that tension of which you speak. I could give you a B.S. reason why, but IMHO Paul simply wrote better melodies and was a better vocalist. I don’t pay much attention to the lyrics anyway, just as I don’t read Playboy for the articles.

Ahoona Dowser, at 5:00 am EST on December 17, 2007

Ginger

I used to be a Mary Ann guy, but as I’ve gotten older, it’s definitely Ginger.

Steve Miller, at 5:00 am EST on December 17, 2007

John has to be the top pick, he released a song, and a great song at that, 15 years after his death.

Aaron, at 8:55 am EST on December 17, 2007

John or Paul — No George?

I remember this question becoming arguments with girlfriends back in the day and there never was a clear answer.

John had the ‘music’ and Paul had the looks, so I chose George or Ringo because they were the underdogs — not cute enough next to Paul, and not musical/lyrical enough compared to John. George went on to do great stuff after the group dismantled — his own writing and work with the Traveling Wilburys.

But for this discussion, I would have to choose Paul — no Yoko.

Cindy, at 9:55 am EST on December 17, 2007

Definitely John. I could never vote against the writer of “Imagine".

Ikegirl, at 11:45 am EST on December 17, 2007

John

John by all means.Paul is great, but John rises higher when it comes to ellaborating on the human spirit and social commentaries.

Jack, Director of Communications, at 11:50 am EST on December 17, 2007

What?!?!?

John, Paul, no John, but wait its got to be Paul, yeah Paul, I’m sticking with Paul, but what about... yeah you’re right its John, no no you’ve got it all wrong now its definitely Paul and John is well, nooo its John right you are its John over Paul unless you...uhhuh yep its

Damn you Churm

Justin, at 12:35 pm EST on December 17, 2007

Leftbrained vs. Rightbrained

John was the poet, but Paul got the job done.

Patt, at 4:00 pm EST on December 17, 2007

Herman

Yeah, I’m voting Herman. Actually, all of the Hermits were outstanding.

Dinty, at 9:20 am EST on December 18, 2007

We can comprehend the nature of their greatness by recognizing the comparatively subtle difference in their roles in the fabric of the Beatles—if not in the larger realm of popular music and culture. On the one hand, Lennon was a pop-music visionary, a songwriter with the innate musical talent to breathe reality into his artistic revelations. He had the breadth of mind to render far-reaching observations about the human condition, to realize the inherent complexities of our existence even as he dared us to live deeply and embrace one another in community. On the other hand, McCartney was a pop-music virtuoso, a composer for the ages who concocted musical and lyrical images with exquisite ease. With the natural ability to play nearly any instrument—and often better than his contemporaries could ever dream—he was at home in virtually any musical style and gifted with the capacity for crafting rich, evocative melodies. John and Paul’s partnership wasn’t a marriage of opposites—it was a marriage made in heaven. And for the Beatles, it made all the difference.

Ken, at 10:50 am EST on December 18, 2007

John, definitely John

Because he was the true rebel, the true revolutionary. As much as I like some of Paul’s music (Blackbird is amazing), I cringe at the pop banality of much of Wings. John threw in his lot with the avante garde Ono, both knowing full well that this would make his art less commercial. John spoke out to the world against war, took a stand on things that matter. I still miss him.

queenofthejungle, at 11:10 am EST on December 18, 2007

Ono Oh Yes

I was tired of the Yoko Ono bashing about three seconds after it began way back when. an artist in her own right and a fitting companion in the arc of John Lennon’s career (not to mention his personal life).

Rory, at 11:40 am EST on December 18, 2007

Having missed out on Beatlemania by a few years and my sisters did also, I nonetheless spent a lot of time listening to them.

I would like Paul better as a person.

I do, however, enjoy John.

They are indisensible to each other. They were Lennon/McCartney.

Utahprof, at 2:55 pm EST on December 18, 2007

Road to Damascus

Yes it looks as if pop culture, even somewhat dated pop culture, does trump the Bible. Was that the purpose of the sociological experiment one wonders? Strangely enough I really did think of the biblical ex-tax man and the disciple first, even though I haven’t set foot in a church in many many years. And like those other two who used to sing, there’s something about the stridency of the self-reinventer I never quite trusted (that would be both Pauls).

Or here’s another context: I like John better, as a name; it’s mine in the real world.

Or why assume this question is about likes maybe it’s about dislikes. Paul, I don’t like for the sound of the word.

Maybe it’s not about likes or dislikes even at all.

Have I failed? I always fail tests. What species of monster made up such a thing?

Basemento, at 3:45 pm EST on December 18, 2007

Paul. Simple, effortless beauty can be just as “genius” as deep, tortured substance.

Chloe, at 9:20 pm EST on December 18, 2007

John or Paul

John. When I was small, I thought it was Paul (a Paul-like rhyme) because he was “cute,” but even then I knew John was fierce. Paul’s probably the better musician, but John... listen to “Girl” and tell me you’re not dizzy.

Jessica, at 9:25 pm EST on December 18, 2007

Paul, because is his letter to the Ephesians, he states, “Cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers;That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him.”

MisterBee, at 12:20 pm EST on December 19, 2007

Paul

Gotta go with Chloe’s comment on effortless beauty — but maybe John would have grown out of the tortured phase.

E, at 1:40 pm EST on December 19, 2007

Have to go with John

Tho’ Paul may have been the more attractive (not any longer—both Ringo and Paul look like older women these days, women who are not aging gracefully), he always seemed to be a bit of a sap. Then, too, there was that unfortunate Wings period—Oy!

John was the better poet. Better at commenting on and exposing life for what it was/is.

Travelgirl, at 2:30 pm EST on December 19, 2007

why just beatles/bible?

I happen to be a John Paul, and I usually refer to myself as John, so that’s what I would choose.

JP in ME, at 4:20 pm EST on December 19, 2007

Ringo!! Here’s why...

Ringo!!

John and Paul we all agree have/had an ocean of talent — but how many people in this world have great talent/genius and are never heard? Millions thru history. So talent is talent. But luck! That is what is truly a gift! A lucky person has the world. And nobody, my friend, had more luck than Ringo Starr. So Ringo shadows them all by recieving the greatest gift God can give, or has ever given anybody anywhere anytime.

John, Professor at Northwestern University, at 11:25 am EST on December 20, 2007

John or Pau and Why?

Yes. Because.

Pablo, at 12:20 pm EST on December 21, 2007

John Lennon.

Paul McCartneyis silly.

ball2000, Reverend Doctor at Home for the Non-criminally Solipsistic, at 10:30 am EST on December 24, 2007

choice

john means Yahweh is gracious paul means small or humblehow about neither?

diane, at 3:10 pm EST on December 24, 2007

I simply can’t

I will turn 28 this year. Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band was my first favorite album, played on every car ride with my father for what I recall being most of the first grade. I didn’t understand it the way I do now, but there was something so spectacular about the way sounds were put together that it didn’t matter. I know which songs were written by which Beatle, but to pick a favorite is a matter of time and head space.

I will probably more often say that John is my man; his songs drive my emotions more than Paul’s songs, and I’m a rather emotional person. Catch me on certain days and I’ll say George is my man because While My Guitar Gently Weeps was on and songs like that are too sad and pretty to be ignored. Paul wrote a lot of songs that I love, but I can’t think of any that sort of reach into my core and stick a little bolt of electricity into my brain and poke at my adrenal gland like some of John’s songs do. Then again, a lot of John’s songs can’t soothe my melancholy the way, say, Mother Nature’s Son can.

The thing about The Beatles though, for me, is that they were never as good alone as they were united. Yes, Imagine is one of the great songs of the last century. Yes, there are songs by Paul McCartney and Wings that I’ve had to listen to back to back several times in a row, just so I could gt the lyrics down for singing along in the car. Yes, George continued to release solid music for the rest of his career (with a couple of minor mis-steps along the way). And Ringo. Ringo was the best actor of the lot of them. They wouldn’t have been nearly as great without each other, if at all. I think they needed each other and the will to out-do the others in order to make the songs that were the soundtrack of my youth.

Marti, at 3:05 pm EST on January 2, 2008

John

Of course, the Beatles wouldn’t have been what they were without John and Paul, but John had more depth and scope than Paul and if the Beatles had not existed, he would have been the greater solo artist. Paul wrote lovely melodies, but John had the grit, the meat, the rebellion, the fire. And I guess the tortured soul too. Pity that he was finally coming to grips with all of life’s demons when he was killed. Double Fantasy was such insight into his life at the time. Now here’s Paul, still writing commercial love song ditties and chasing young women because he’s rich and can. John was and is still it for me.

Shari, at 10:40 am EST on January 11, 2008