quote:Originally posted by Gastro Boy
...deep down he feels that he was better and more talented than John and he wants people to come out and say it.
He was. We are.
Good try, Gaff. Entertaining it was, anyway.
Actually, no. IMO (not humble, lol), I do think John started out more artsy-fartsy than Paul, and his talent and presence dominated up until A Hard Day's Night. Then it was 50-50 up through Revolver, though Paul was coming up fast (and on the artsy-fartsy end too).
After that, Big John Fat Elvis Lennon had a family on the rocks, was allowing his talent to be ravaged by subsequent depression & stoney-headed indulgence, and began clearly losing his edge. His life was under a magnifying glass and he hated it, he wanted out. George too. That is all well documented and accessible info. Not to mention---no, wait, YES, MENTION---John was doubtless becoming intimidated by Paul's productivity.
From Sgt. Pepper on, Paul was rightfully dominating the limelight 2-to-John's-1. John's 1s were great, but his total was lagging. There may have been a slight close in the gap on The White Album and Abbey Road, but slight. That is, if you want to press the realistic issue during the Beatle years. I'd just as soon leave them be and say, "Hey, they were great as a group no matter who did what."
As far as the solo years, it's Paul all the way, even with his pappy-pap. For 5 years in the 70s John did NOTHING. The albums he did release had great moments of the old brilliance, but at times he was clearly lost. He was still vainly trying to shove Yoko down our throats with Double Fantasy (though his songs on it were pretty damn good).
And that's just the way it is. Paul wins, you lose, HA!