Posted by Sugar Mouse on 09/20/82 11:28

"Andy F Batter" <uknewsgroups@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:q9WdnVff0qcTwd_enZ2dnUVZ8qudnZ2d@pipex.net...
>
> "Rolo Tomassi" <abc@def.co.kr> wrote in message
>
>> Why do the most talented of a pair always go first? (Eric Moorcombe
>> (&Wise), John Lennon (&McCartney))
>
> McCartney is every bit as talented as Lennon was... Maybe not so edgy, but
> in terms of musicianship he was better if anything I'd say.
>
Certainly in terms of composition, McCartney was the better of the pair,
although since he tended to write more conventional stuff, he was noticed
less.

If you sit down and listen to the Lennon catalouge, there is a lot of less
successful stuff in there, amongst a few really good stand out tracks.

I often think that, if the Beatles had never happened, Paul would still have
been a big success, John would not have been really noticed, and the world
would have been a lot poorer.

Nathan.

[Back to original message]