The Beatles

I would have to say...between Revolver and The White Album.

-AC

Originally posted by Punkyhermy
Elaborate.
🤨

I personally like Abbey Road the best.

Lennon or McCartney? I pick Lennon.

i adore mccartney. i appreciate lennon.

Lennon was clearly the better songwriter, in my opinion, as evidenced by McCartney writing utter shit on his own.

-AC

Originally posted by Punkyhermy
i adore mccartney. i appreciate lennon.

It's an anglophile thing, Bardock.

-AC

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, well, Lennon was better.

Its not based on any kind of a rating scale. 😬

And Lennon was better at writing words, Paul always was the more melodious one. in every sense of the word.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It's an anglophile thing, Bardock.

-AC

you talk so much shit its not even funny. have you ever heard yourself?
😕

Originally posted by Punkyhermy
Its not based on any kind of a rating scale. 😬

And Lennon was better at writing words, Paul always was the more melodious one. in every sense of the word.

McCartney appealed to the masses, but he wasn't as good as Lennon. His stuff is mostly feel good pop.

Originally posted by Punkyhermy
Its not based on any kind of a rating scale. 😬

And Lennon was better at writing words, Paul always was the more melodious one. in every sense of the word.

Yeah, cos he did as good without Lennon, didn't he?

Originally posted by Punkyhermy
you talk so much shit its not even funny. have you ever heard yourself?

I'm not talking shit. Your unnatural affinity for almost anything British and stereotypically British, including the much cliched band The Beatles, is quite irritating.

So we're trading vices.

-AC

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeha, no, Lennon made the better songs, better music, better lyrics. He was just better.

McCartney appealed to the masses, but he wasn't as good as Lennon. His stuff is mostly feel good pop.

that which of the two distinct styles are "better" is an opinion and irrelevant.

they were both musically capable differently. their partnership produced the best stuff.

Originally posted by Punkyhermy
that which of the two distinct styles are "better" is an opinion and irrelevant.

they were both musically capable differently. their partnership produced the best stuff.

So why do you see McCartney as the better one and say such things as:

"Paul always was the more melodious one. in every sense of the word.".

That can mean you are either saying he did more in the partnership, or that his solo music is better, which would be rather silly, whilst still subjective.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Yeah, cos he did as good without Lennon, didn't he?

I'm not talking shit. Your unnatural affinity for almost anything British and stereotypically British, including the much cliched band The Beatles, is quite irritating.

So we're trading vices.

-AC

mhmm. he did.👆

🙄

Also, you do know that i hand pick any and all things to devour as my entertainment only after i'm absoluetly sure they are brit affiliated.
😱 👆

are you bull-f.ucking-shitting me?

and how inappropriate to pick the beatles of all things as an example too. they have long since departed from solely entertaining the listeners of radios in those dull constricted brit neighborhoods.

Originally posted by Punkyhermy
mhmm. he did.👆

🙄

Wings as good as The Beatles?

Solo McCartney as good as The Beatles?

I entirely respect that it's all opinion, but before I form my final opinion on your opinion, I'm asking these questions.

Originally posted by Punkyhermy
Also, you do know that i hand pick any and all things to devour as my entertainment only after i'm absoluetly sure they are brit affiliated.
😱 👆

Wouldn't surprise me. You take oddly great offense for someone who doesn't do that.

Originally posted by Punkyhermy
are you bull-f.ucking-shitting me?

and how inappropriate to pick the beatles of all things as an example too. they have long since departed from solely entertaining the listeners of radios in those dull constricted brit neighborhoods.

Yeah, now they entertain anglophiles with no real grip on musical history or appreciation, who far from actually appreciating the very good band that they were, prefer to give one half of the legendary partnership misplaced credit for no reason.

You never offer anything besides lovehearts and McCartney fangirlism to this thread, my issues with this are not baseless, pumpkin.

-AC

I prefer Harrison over McCartney and Lennon. Harrison > McCartney > Lennon.

Originally posted by Punkyhermy
that which of the two distinct styles are "better" is an opinion and irrelevant.

they were both musically capable differently. their partnership produced the best stuff.

Indeed. Well said.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeha, no, Lennon made the better songs, better music, better lyrics. He was just better.

McCartney appealed to the masses, but he wasn't as good as Lennon. His stuff is mostly feel good pop.

Somewhat true.

Let me clarify...and what you said Bardock is not far off by any stretch so please do not feel I'm attacking your statement.

McCartney was the $business$ man....while he made good music/songs, he made such so that it would sell/apeal to the general public.

Lennon was a storyteller...a poet, a musician, a revolutionary, a politician who just happened to be inside the body of a good musician.

When you get the amalgam of all that is good from both sides, the end result of what you get is, music that sells, is easily likeable, and tells a story. The combination was truly awesome.

Originally posted by Nellinator
I prefer Harrison over McCartney and Lennon. Harrison > McCartney > Lennon.

Harrison > Lennon > McCartney

more like it

Originally posted by Bardock42
Harrison > Lennon > McCartney

more like it