I consider myself more of a Paul person in the whole John vs. Paul debate over who had the better solo career. I think it has to do with Paul being more the music person and John being the lyrics person, crossed with my own belief that if the music is good the lyrics can pretty much be anything. Plenty of folks will disagree with this and that's fine; it's just my own belief. I've read books about the Beatles that openly take sides (critic Philip Norman is shamelessly pro-Lennon, while legendary engineer Geoff Emerick could barely stand his eccentricities and sides with Paul).
Nevertheless, John has a profound simplicity in his approach that can pop, especially on songs like "Imagine" and "Jealous Guy", when he gets the musical accompaniment just right. John doesn't need the "Rockestra" to make an impact, just a piano, and there's something to be said for that. Unfortunately, he also has a tendency to sandwich these profound moments with musically goofy and/or synthetic numbers. It's akin to Paul's tendency to have a song with great lyrics ("Maybe I'm Amazed") surrounded by songs with the trademark "WTF/Huh??" lyrics he is often known for writing. I will say that I'm strongly enough of a Paul person that listening to "How Can You Sleep" (a verrrrrry thinly disguised tirade by John against his old Beatle chum) makes me feel really uncomfortable.
All of this said, I've got quite a bit more Paul McCartney solo stuff than John Lennon solo stuff. In fact, this is the only solo album by John that I have, but I'm working to remedy that. I know there is plenty more from John to like out there even if his output (even accounting for lifespans) is considerably less.
No comments:
Post a Comment