Objectively, who has / had the better singing voice, Lennon or McCartney?

Lennon maybe had more street and swagger in his voice, and a really cool falsetto, but was more nasal, less chest.

-range
-power
-dynamics
-pitch accuracy
-control
-vibrato

But wait, what about...

-sonority
-tonal depth
-personality
-unrefined folksiness
-freedom
-guts & grunge

But wait, what about...

-personal appeal
-subjective impression
-uniqueness
-deliverence of social message
-whimsy
-timbre

I'm sorry, but I have unintentionally fused the subjective and objective, and now am rendered catatonic.

Thank you, and good night.

Paul was the better songwriter though, particularly during the last half of their existence :)

people don't swear off doubletracking 'cause they're "smug," they do it 'cause doubletracking vox usually sounds like ass

you are mad. this is one of the most common vocal recording techniques ever, and with good reason.

I would have too, up until about three years ago. Nowadays, I think that Paul singing showtunes is KICKASS.

Technically, Paul was clearly the better singer,
-- Geir Hongro (geirhon...), February 14th, 2006.

"Clearly." (I know, I know, the "barrister" ... )

Usually a sign of vocal skills.
on the other hand, you may also argue it is a sign his voice has less personality than Lennon's (which is easy to agree with)

Paul, with his breathtaking range and magpie skills, embraced the possibility of melody, without ever suggesting that he'd ever succumbed to the emotions he's singing about.

Does that mean Paul had the better voice or a higher, non-falsetto register? Or, does it mean that Paul knew how to use the voice he had to greater efficiency? Like craftsman, some artisans have more raw ability while other artisans have learned the craft a bit more. You see this in basketball; certain players are more gifted athletically but aren't as good as less athletic players who have developed their skills a bit more. I'm not saying either way. I think they enriched each other. I'm just tossing some questions out there.

Yes. He was a better musician too (bass, guitar, piano drums). About the only area in which John was his match was songwriting.

I think part of what's going on here is the choice of material. Paul did rock songs and could absolutely shred them (the old standbys for this argument are "Oh Darling" and "I'm Down"), but he rarely chose or wrote songs of anguish or insecurity. When people say that John sang with more honesty or realness they may well be conflating the choice of material with singing ability. John had, or was comfortable with sharing, more "issues," so you get things like "No Reply" etc.

Sometimes I wonder about this, though (I'm now getting very far off topic)...take a song like "For No One." Conventional wisdom is that Paul just sits down and writes this in a very detached way, as a novelist would - okay, we have these characters, this guy's been dumped, he's bummed about that, very tidy, time for tea. This fits with Paul's image as a generally sunny guy and a consummate songwriter, but I wonder whether a song like this came out of immediate personal experience. On-topic: would it make Paul's voice better if so?

When Paul goes, it'll be back to "Hey Jude" or "Let it Be" i.e. beatles stuff.

Also, I do expect "Maybe I'm Amazed" to get another lease on life when Paul passes away, but maybe that's just me.

The main reason McCartney's Beatlesongs are more often covered than John's are because of the singular greatness of John's voice. Any cover of John's songs will suffer from comparison on his vocal coparisons alone. On the other hand, think of the songs by others John covered and how he cut the originals to pieces (Twist & Shout, You Really Got A Hold On Me, Money, Rock & Roll Music) while Paul's covers are more karaoke-like vocal imitations (Little Richard on Long Tall Sally and Kansas City, or when he croons Taste Of Honey or Til There Was You).

McCartney was/is a good singer but so are a lot of people singing in wedding bands and in the shower.

Lennon was unique in ways that can't be quantified nor imitated. His voice is the single greatest reason the Beatles are as great as they are.

His voice is the single greatest reason the Beatles are as great as they are

I think the songwriting has a little to do with it.

McCartney = better voice
Lennon = better singer

sez I.

I said the "single greatest reason," not the only reason.

Lennon by a country mile.

Ringo by a kilometre.

wow, Paulie Cee. Brave words and i can't say i disagree one wit

Agreeing with many of the folks above, Paul was the better singer by far, and the best overall musician in the band.

"but he could completely own "This Boy" with his "I Will" voice. Or, say, the bridge of "I'll Be Back," with a little of his "Kansas City" type yell."

LOL. If McCartney had attempted to solo on either of those bridges (they were Lennon songs so why would he) they would have sounded so hokey and contrived both songs would have collapsed under the weight of his own forced emotion. Lennon vocally was always something that McCartney only rarely (if ever) attained. Lennon's voiced oozed sincerity. If he was black you'd call it soul.

Without a doubt, McCartney

The main difference between Paul McCartney and Barry Manilow is that Barry Manilow didn't meet John Lennon when he was 14.

What are the names of the best beatles b-sides, rarities or uncommon songs that I can soulseek? For instance Beatles - Everyone Had a Hard Year

Lennon's voiced oozed sincerity. If he was black you'd call it soul.

ban nude spock

Only in his world does "sincerity" "ooze"

I have to disagree with the description (1 1/2 years ago, now) of Paul's "apocalyptic" singing on Helter Skelter. Helter Skelter with Paul singing is one of the best Beatles songs. If John would've been the vocalist, it's chilling to think how good it would be. Paul manages to pull off the occasional scorching hard vocal "Oh Darling", but John brought an authenticity to his singing, where Paul always seemed to be imitating Little Richard or vaudeville.

I disagree - Paul definitely has his own style. Of course, he grew up and spent lots of his early career covering early rock artists, but eventually he developed a unique tone. I think his vocal performance on Hey Jude is a pretty good example.

And his vocal performance on Helter Skelter is out of this world. John probably would have done well, but Paul's performance is one of the most intense, nuanced, and memorable in the Beatles' catalogue.

Paul manages to pull off the occasional scorching hard vocal "Oh Darling"

"'Oh Darling' was a great one of Paul's that he didn't sing too well. I always thought that I could've done it better -- it was more my style than his. He wrote it, so what the hell, he's going to sing it. If he'd had any sense, he should have let me sing it." -- Lennon, from his 1980 Playboy interview

He (Paul) was a better musician too (bass, guitar, piano drums).

"Yeah, he's good at that stuff, you know. So is John Denver." -- Lennon Playboy 1980 again, on Paul's guitar playing

hahahahaha. That 1980 interview is worth reading annually.

on the other hand...

"Paul was one of the most innovative bass players that ever played bass, and half the stuff that's going on now is directly ripped off from his Beatles period. He was coy about his bass playing. He's an egomaniac about everything else, but his bass playing he was always a bit coy about. He is a great musician..." -- Lennon again

LOL. If McCartney had attempted to solo on either of those bridges (they were Lennon songs so why would he)

I really shouldn't bother responding to this sort of trollish post, but this part jumps out. They didn't solo on each other's bridges all the time but it wouldn't be unprecedented either - "We Can Work It Out" and "A Day In The Life" spring immediately to mind.

Altho to be fair those are both parts written by the person who sang them. So yeah, pretty rarely if ever did McCartney or Lennon write something and go "hey, you should totally sing this instead of me" unless they were talking to George or Ringo. But I think that's a shame! I'm happy to concede there are songs John would have done better than Paul, but I think the examples given so far are ehh (strongly suspect 1968-69 John incapable of singing Helter Skelter or Oh Darling), and anyway we're several hypothetical degrees away from the thread question..

(strongly suspect 1968-69 John incapable of singing Helter Skelter or Oh Darling)

He seemed to do just fine on Everybody's got something to hide except me and my monkey...

(strongly suspect 1968-69 John incapable of singing Helter Skelter or Oh Darling)

He seemed to do just fine on Everybody's got something to hide except me and my monkey...

...and I Want You

"'Oh Darling' was a great one of Paul's that he didn't sing too well. I always thought that I could've done it better -- it was more my style than his. He wrote it, so what the hell, he's going to sing it. If he'd had any sense, he should have let me sing it." -- Lennon, from his 1980 Playboy interview

this is horseshit and the John Denver thing is pure jealousy that makes Lennon look bad. The guy above who said McCartney was by far the best musician in the band is totally OTM

i think lennon carried around all sorts of jealousy, bitterness and anger, along with his immense fucking genius. he treats george harrison as a virtual nonentity in that playboy interview, as a result of a recent (at the time) perceived slight from george.

despite this, or maybe as a result of this, he's able to talk openly about his work and the beatles' work in a way that paul has always had a very difficult time doing. paul always sounds like he's reading from the official beatles FAQ when he addresses any of this stuff. lennon, for better or worse, was trying to actually TALK about it.

If he said that shit about Harrison, then that 1980 interview is even worse than I fear. John sucked without the Beatles.

fcc otm throughout thread

it's funny how personally ppl take the beatles. i swear i've seen ppl get actually MAD about how much john used to rip on paul. whereas i can't imagine even the biggest diehard stones fan giving a fuck if keith made fun of mick in an interview.

anyway as i recall those comments come off somewhat differently in the context of the interview(s), where lennon is often quite generous about both mccartney and harrison.

"oh! darling" always sounded like a total drag to me; i like paul's little richard impression but that song's pace is like nails on a chalkboard for me.

Oh! Darling is one of the Beatles worst songs, not even Paul's voice can save it. Mr Moonlight is better. That's a fucking awful song too, but John's "Misterrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr" at the beginning at least makes it listenable.

I prefer the Replacements version.

If he said that shit about Harrison, then that 1980 interview is even worse than I fear. John sucked without the Beatles

Actually, it's candid and touching. It's rare that you get any public figure confessing hurt, and he qualifies his dis ("I don't want to come off as an egomaniac..."). Besides, it really did seem like George had it coming: his book is a horror.

"I don't want to come off as an egomaniac..."

Bit late for that, Johnny

"whereas i can't imagine even the biggest diehard stones fan giving a fuck if keith made fun of mick in an interview."

Those guys have been making fools of themselves for so long (see, inter alia, '06 Super Bowl) that I would actually welcome something like that to make it seem like they actually gave a shit.

I think Mick is a joke with all that fan dancing.

I always did.

"I really shouldn't bother responding to this sort of trollish post, but this part jumps out. They didn't solo on each other's bridges all the time but it wouldn't be unprecedented either - "We Can Work It Out" and "A Day In The Life" spring immediately to mind."

Except that Paul wrote the bridge he sang on in "A Day In The Life, as did John in "We Can Work It Out."

You really shouldn't bother responding until you know what you're talkijng about.

And to those who keep bleating "McCartney was by far the best musician in the band" like it means something should realize that Bette Midler's or Liza Minelli's guitar player could probably cut McCartney to pieces. I guess they're better than Paul, eh?

http://www.japanator.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/serious_buisness_by_adomiel.jpg

"paul always sounds like he's reading from the official beatles FAQ when he addresses any of this stuff. lennon, for better or worse, was trying to actually TALK about it."

If only it were that bad. McCartney goes around these days claiming sole credit on any Beatle record he sang on, while saying he practically wrote all John's songs too.

Any day now he'll take credit for "Imagine" too...

And to those who keep bleating "McCartney was by far the best musician in the band" like it means something should realize that Bette Midler's or Liza Minelli's guitar player could probably cut McCartney to pieces. I guess they're better than Paul, eh?

Paul McCartney in not being the world's best guitarist shocka

I think most people seem to prefer Lennon voice but think McCartney is the better singer but there is not much in it, gets a bit difficult to judge because they sang diffrent songs

At the End of the day neither of them are great singers

The main reason McCartney's Beatlesongs are more often covered than John's are because of the singular greatness of John's voice. Any cover of John's songs will suffer from comparison on his vocal coparisons alone. On the other hand, think of the songs by others John covered and how he cut the originals to pieces (Twist & Shout, You Really Got A Hold On Me, Money, Rock & Roll Music) while Paul's covers are more karaoke-like vocal imitations (Little Richard on Long Tall Sally and Kansas City, or when he croons Taste Of Honey or Til There Was You).

McCartney was/is a good singer but so are a lot of people singing in wedding bands and in the shower.

Lennon was unique in ways that can't be quantified nor imitated. His voice is the single greatest reason the Beatles are as great as they are.

― Paulie Cee, Monday, September 3, 2007 1:16 PM (2 years ago) Bookmark

Agree with this.

it's not just the vocals though, Lennon was always throwing in weird time changes and turnarounds into his compositions

Why did you fools revive this thread when you know damn well Geir will be along soon?

Objectively I cant answer because I am not a musician. Subjectively I take Mc Cartney.