Suppose the Beatles had never gotten together, but pursued their own individual singing/songwriting careers. Which (of Lennon and McCartney) would have had the more successful career?
I think for the most part, Lennon’s talent was in his writing both music and lyrics that spoke to the time. McCartney, both lyrically and musically, leaned toward the pop. For those reasons, I call it a draw.
Lennon was perhaps too lazy to have made the effort without the competition from the ambitious McCartney to spur him on. I think Macca would have had some kind of successful career in music regardless, and I say that as more of a Lennon fan. With that much talent and drive he couldn’t fail.
I heard about ten times more of Lennon’s solo music after he died than before he did.
Paul would have been the more successful.
Lennon was considered the more innovative, experimental risk-taker. Paul was the melodic popster. Both of these are gross oversimplifications. Both were innovative. Both were superb pop craftsmen.
That said, Lennon’s solo work was generally considered more influential and “important,” Paul’s the more commercial and pop. This impression was born out in how quickly John was inducted into the HoF as a solo artist (just as an example) relative to McCartney (5 years sooner), and in how many records Paul sold as a solo artist (and how many hits he had) relative to Lennon. Again, an oversimplification–we’d have to consider, for example, how prolific McCartney was.
So, I’d guess Paul would sell more records, but Lennon would be more a critic’s darling, though both would be successful in both. IMO, they are (were) both geniuses, possessing stunning talent individually that combined to produce something even greater than the sum of its parts. That these two guys–the greatest pop / rock songwriters ever–lived in the same neighborhood and ended up in the same band is so improbable that I chuckle at it. It’s as if Beethoven grew up in the apartment over Mozart’s. So, thank God this is all just speculation, and the perfect storm that was the Beatles emerged as it did.
I think Lennon’s struggles in his early personal life (dealing with his mother) would have contributed to him going off track in the 60s if it weren’t for the “distraction” of the Beatles. Being a part of a group and then having a manager, I think, gave him the ability to concentrate on his songwriting.
Paul was more well-off and “centered” and would have been able to pursue a “proper” career in music.
Basically I agree with Usram.
Lennon was very driven before and in the early days of the Beatles, so I’m confused by some of the comments. In the early Beatles, Lennon was the leader, the one driving them to reach the “toppermost of the poppermost,” a person extremely focused on achieving success. Not sure where people have gotten a different impression.
Maybe, but he sooned tired of the success. He spent a lot of time in the mid-sixties sitting around at home doing almost nothing, and ISTR he even described himself as the laziest person in the world. Meanwhile, McCartney was buzzing round the London music and social scene and was always very active.
In the mid-60’s? Like around the time he wrote most of the stuff on Hard Day’s Night and Beatles For Sale? The period of time when Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt. Pepper, Magical Mystery Tour and the *White Album * were released? I think you’re thinking of after the Beatles, from like '75 to '80. Lennon certainly became more disengaged as the Beatles progressed, delegating the leadership to Paul (for a number of reasons, lack of interest and heroin use among them), but to describe his input during any phase of the 60’s as “doing almost nothing” is, well, not right.
No, I’m thinking of the '65 to '68 period, when he went through long spells of torpor in between albums and touring. I was reading his own words the other day, him describing a several-month period during that time when he basically lay on a couch watching TV and getting high. I think when you’re John Lennon, it doesn’t take very long to write a song.
The period I described covers '65 to '68. As it relates to pop music production, it would be difficult to describe Lennon as on the sidelines.
I’m only relating what Lennon said himself. I didn’t say he did nothing at all in the mid-sixties, I said there were periods when he did nothing, unlike McCartney who was always busy (well, I guess he took time off sometimes, but he never sat around for months on end smoking dope).
Again, as it relates to his participation in pop music, Lennon’s contribution in the mid-60’s was absolutely mind boggling. Whether or not that period likewise included periods of pot-smoke-enshrouded couch potato’ing for months at a time does not lend credence to the notion that Lennon’s “laziness” would preclude a body of work that would wow the critics and sell lots and lots of records. Because it did. Which was my point.
Right. To hear George Martin say it, Paul, when the Beatles were still together,
was the more innovative, applying various avant-garde techniques to the recordings,
while John was more of a straight-ahead rock and roller. The book A Day in the Life
details a lot of that kind of stuff very well. Now yeah in their solo careers Paul let
himself drift into maudlin sentimentality (what John called “granny music”), which
tends to color what we think of him when they were together. Long story short it
isn’t quite as simple as "John=genius, Paul=“popster”) as Stratocaster himself notes
above.
Well, I’m not judge of what will or won’t work in the world. I’m still puzzling out how reality TV is popular.
But I like McCartney’s music much better then Lennon’s.
I don’t know that either would have been particularly successful as a solo artist, or even as THE dominant figure in a band.
Oh, each certainly could and would have written great songs and made great records without the other. But neither could have become a superstar as a solo artist. John didn’t have the looks, Paul didn’t have the charisma, and neither was a dynamic live performer.
Neither could ever have become anywhere near as popular as the Beatles turned out to be. At best, I see each having a few pop hits in Britain, and remaining relative unknowns everywhere else.
I think Paul probaby would have had more commercial success, but they would each have done pretty well for themselves- I think critics would have loved them both, and John in particular would have gotten a lot of respect from other songwriters.