Arguably the two greatest songwriting teams in history. Their songbooks are almost withouth question the most consistent ever. But...whose songbook is better. The contest would be take the 50 best songs of the respective "team" and go head to head. It would be interesting. Any thoughts?
Lennon/McCartney vs. Morrissey/Marr
- Thread starter ajrooney
- Start date
mspendl828
Banned
Unfair comparison.
The notion of Lennon-McCartney as a song writing team from 1964 onwards is, with a few exceptions, almost completley incorrect other than helping out with a middle 8 or the odd line of lyric, - they certainly never sat down "eyeball to eyball" to quote Lennon and wrote a song together after '64 - whereas the Morrissey-Marr partnership really was a songwriting team of equal contribution (putting aside arguments over who was more important or whatever) to what would be credited as 'Morrissey-Marr' tracks.
Ultimatly Lennon-McCartney really means Lennon or McCartney, while Morrissey-Marr means Morrissey and Marr so I would say its a unsound propostion.
The notion of Lennon-McCartney as a song writing team from 1964 onwards is, with a few exceptions, almost completley incorrect other than helping out with a middle 8 or the odd line of lyric, - they certainly never sat down "eyeball to eyball" to quote Lennon and wrote a song together after '64 - whereas the Morrissey-Marr partnership really was a songwriting team of equal contribution (putting aside arguments over who was more important or whatever) to what would be credited as 'Morrissey-Marr' tracks.
Ultimatly Lennon-McCartney really means Lennon or McCartney, while Morrissey-Marr means Morrissey and Marr so I would say its a unsound propostion.
Good point, but...Lennon and McCartney did continue to help eachother 'on a much smaller scale' after 1964. "A Day in the Life" for example was .6 by Lennon and .4 by McCartney. But yes, the "team" aspect of The Beatles was lost after 64/65. So to somewhat rephrase the question, team or not, whose songbook is better?
Amy
from the Ice Age to the dole age
I think it depends on what you value most in a song.
IMO, The Smiths had, for the most part, vastly superior lyrics (notable exceptions in the Beatles catalogue -"Across The Universe", "She Said She Said" and "Let It Be"), and more complex musical techniques.
However - Lennon-McCartney had the genius also to put timeless melodies with cliched, paper-thin lyrics and still make classic songs. They had far more cultural clout than the Smiths because of their time period and the social and musical revolutions of the 60's.
Pushed strongly for an answer I would say the Beatles have the better songbook; their impact and melodies will remembered in a 100 years. However, if I want to listen to music that speaks to me, I listen to the Smiths
. Morrissey is my icon and my hero, but against the Beatles there are few who stand a chance in terms of melody, consistency and impact.
IMO, The Smiths had, for the most part, vastly superior lyrics (notable exceptions in the Beatles catalogue -"Across The Universe", "She Said She Said" and "Let It Be"), and more complex musical techniques.
However - Lennon-McCartney had the genius also to put timeless melodies with cliched, paper-thin lyrics and still make classic songs. They had far more cultural clout than the Smiths because of their time period and the social and musical revolutions of the 60's.
Pushed strongly for an answer I would say the Beatles have the better songbook; their impact and melodies will remembered in a 100 years. However, if I want to listen to music that speaks to me, I listen to the Smiths
. Morrissey is my icon and my hero, but against the Beatles there are few who stand a chance in terms of melody, consistency and impact.
Oh my god. it's Robby!
spontaneously luminescent
in a fight?
she would win
she would win
Kumo
Banned
Lennon and McCartney could do it all on their own.
Morrissey can't write a lick of music. So hard to even start to compare.
George was the most talented anyway... His solo work was far more profound that the solo work of the others. Oddly enough it was Ringo's solo work that produced the most hits.
A better comparison would be Nancy Sinatra and Lee Hazelwood.
but even with this one Nancy did not contribute much to lyrics.
It's really hard to compare Moz to anyone, he just doesn't fit in any known profile. I guess that's why we all love him so much, and forgive him so quickly.
Kumo
Albion
Me
I pretty much agree, also on some so called Lennon & McCartney songs, George Harrison had contributed guitar fills without any songwriting credit.
DAnn Coulter
Banned
Danny
Senior Member
That pretty much happens in most bands though doesn't it? You don't get writing credits for just a guitar part, unless the band have got an arrangement to share the royalties.
The McCartney issue is one that is always hotly debated by fans. Yes, Lennon's songs are as a whole superior to Paul's. However, Paul wrote a lot of excellent songs; "For No One," "Hey Jude," Yesterday," "Eleanor Rigby," "I'm Looking Through You," "Blackbird," "All My Loving," "You Never Give Me Your Money," "Carry that weight/golden slumbers/the end," "Drive My Car," "Things We Said Today," "Hlter Skelter," "Penny Lane," and I'm just stopping there because I'm sick of quotation marks. But if you read books on The Beatles, it is clear that McCartney played a bigger role in the music than Lennon. Even on Lennon's songs, it was Paul who was staying with George Martin after the others left to arrange strings and re-work songs with Martin. While it has become slightly overrated, "Pepper" was so groundbreaking it was remarkable, and 75% of that album was written by McCartney and almost all of it was arranged my Martin and McCartney. McCartney was the orchestra director on Lennon's masterpiece, "A Day in the Life." While people complain about many of Paul's songs being too upbeat, in the early days, Lennon was the one who wanted to do the rockabily numbers.
I agree that Lennon sang the better songs, I just don't want Paul to get completley thrown under the bus here.
I agree that Lennon sang the better songs, I just don't want Paul to get completley thrown under the bus here.
Amy
from the Ice Age to the dole age
He won't be. He's a genius with melodies and instruments
it's just that his lyrics fall below par sometimes - I think occasionally he sounds as if he's just written a song in a time limit for the sake of it ("Biker Like An Icon", "Hope of Deliverance" fgs 
). I say that as one of his biggest fans.When Macca gets it right = it's classic.
When he gets it wrong = it's dreadful.
When he gets it "alright" (most of the time).. judge for yourselves
MickCable
Banned
It's actually McCartney's melodies I can't stand. I find them obvious and in many cases dreary. Take "Hey Jude" as an example, no matter how many times I am told it's a classic, I just can't see it. I find it completely awful in every way.
Its the part where everyone goes,
nah - nah - nah - na nah na nah
that made it a classic
lyrics to live by in my book!
MC
Oscar Wilde
Dead Writer
Jagger/Richards.
Much better comparison.
robbo12345
Mediocre Member
this is a really good question
And the answer would be "Lennon/McCartney"'s. I wasn't born until 1972, so I can't make this claim personally, but The Beatles were the voice of a generation and changed the entire genre of rock 'n' roll. The Smiths were also hugely influential, but on a much, much smaller scale. We here on the forum may feel that Morrissey was the voice of our generation, but The Smiths did not change the entire genre. Portions of it, sure. The Beatles incorporated many, many styles of music to create something unique; Marr's influences were much more restricted.
Similar threads
