Who had the more successful solo career, Lennon or McCartney?!


Question: Successful in the broadest sense...critically, musically, in terms of legacy and enduring popularity. Obviously Lennon only had ten years to achieve what he did after the Beatles, while Paul has had thirty and counting. But who has achieved more? (Confession: I LIKE Mull of Kintyre, and I don't like Imagine.)


Answers: Successful in the broadest sense...critically, musically, in terms of legacy and enduring popularity. Obviously Lennon only had ten years to achieve what he did after the Beatles, while Paul has had thirty and counting. But who has achieved more? (Confession: I LIKE Mull of Kintyre, and I don't like Imagine.)

Paul McCartney has been commercially more successful since he obviously had more time than Lennon and released much more material. John Lennon's first few albums were successful, but personally after Imagine I found much of his solo work disappointing. I think that is largely due to the fact that it his material from the 70's didn't age well and now it sounds dated. Had he had the chance I think he had the talent to have produced better work later on in his career. Unfortunately though we will never know. Lennon's legacy and popularity, however, I think will always overshadow McCartney's.

well...and being a huge if not biggest beatle fan ever..i cant believe im saying this..but..id have to say mccartney...hes still alive

McCartney -- he did have Wings (and I'm trying not to think about Linda).

WTF man...

Are you really asking this? This is so freaking obvious... what do you think?

Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. McCartney has always gone for the "Silly Love songs". John was after Social Issues,. As well as his own personal situation with Yoko. John's death, cut short a potentially great career. And I believe showed Paul to be the much better Song Writer.

Paul was more successful...much more!

But we all have our preferences.

The fact is...Lennon/McCartney was the most successful writing partnership of all time.

Shall we leave it at that?

they both wrote top songs we must just not choose between the two let history tell us

I think McCartney, hes has more number one songs, more number one albums and he did it longer even before Lennon died because Lennon took 5 years off to raise his son. Creatively, Lennon probaly took more chances, at least early on, but McCartney was at his creative peak around the time Lennon quit, so its very close in that regard. And McCartney always seemed more accessible, while Lennon had a tendency to be a little colder, and perhaps a bit too dark.After all, how many artists have done songs describing what it feels like to go through withdrawal from heroin? While Paul did much more light hearted stuff. Personally, I like some of Lennons early work, and yes, I like Imagine, but Ive always enjoyed McCartneys way with a melody, and I do have a great fondness for Mull of Kintyre. So, overall, I have to give the edge to Paul.

mccartney.

but lennon was much better than mccartney.

McCartney

McCartney of course............have been a follower since the Beatles first appeared on the Ed Sullivan show back in the early 60's. I have been a John Lennon fan from the get go but Paul McCartney definitely had the more successful solo career.....Let's not forget that John Lennon was more political and all of his songs really had a message.....both are musical geniuses.
Paul's "Band on the Run" cd was a classic I truly love to this day!

Well, Paul didn't get shot, so... I say Paul.

John was definitely much better, though. And I think for his time spent, he was more successful and vital than Paul could ever be, and has certainly left more of a legacy than Paul will. However, Paul is a live and has become the elder-statesman of rock, so...

john didn't work from 1975-1980 so it's not even ten years he was active for.
truth is he recorded some rubbish,as did macca.i think john needed paul more than paul needed john commercially speaking
john's first album was a pioneering work,very dark.quite unlike anything before it.

one week before his death his new album wasn't really going very well at all in terms of chart sales.putting yoko on it wasn't the best of ideas if he wanted pop hits.
but then,john didn't care much about pop hits by this time.
he was just enjoying working again.

I liked Johns Music after the Beatles best ,I wasent too keen on Wings ,Dident like the Man though,very full of himself , , Woman was my Favorite of his

No way to really get this right because, both were hugely successful in different ways.
Paul continues to rack up hits and sales. He ranks as 1 of the all time top selling solo artists in rock history even without any credit for his Beatles years. Though I'm not as big of a fan of his later years, his body of work is still impressive and many are excellent. Besides, Yesterday was a really solo deal. As a singer-song writer, he is one of the all-time greats.
John got the tortured soul-artist thing down much better than Paul. But I do think his songs are meaningful and lasting. You may not like Imagine, Instant Karma, Give Peace a Chance, or Starting Over(which I find ironic in it's timing), but they do resonate to part of you that's different than the usual song.
But no matter how you try to think of what they did solo, I'm sure that if there is a Rock'n'Roll heaven, they will be playing together not apart.

paul mccartney

lennon was over hyped and best career move he made was taking the bullet.

macca has done much better sales wise just lacks the respect.

best beatle was george.. imo



The answer content post by the user, if contains the copyright content please contact us, we will immediately remove it.
Copyright © 2007 enter-qa.com -   Contact us

Entertainment Categories