At Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 08:37:24 Sam wrote:

>I think I would have put both Macca and Lennon on the list if I thought I 
>could do so without getting my house burned down. Together they were beyond 
>brilliant because they tempered each other's weaknesses, but apart neither 
>would ever have made a mark on the music culture. John was a self-indulgent 
>pseudo-intellectual wanker at heart, but Paul mitigated that by putting 
>some fun into his work. Paul, for his part, never had any impulse more 
>complicated that "hey, let's make some 12 year-olds scream," but John 
>introduced some actual substance into the mix. 1 + 1 = 1,000,000. Then they 
>go their separate ways and reveal their true selves. For Lennon, it was 
>standing around and treating a fraud like Yoko seriously, and for Paul it 
>was "Coming Up."

Personally, I've always seen Lennon's decline as being the sell-out -- play 
"Plastic Ono Band"...and then play "Double Fantasy". You've got a guy who 
went from passion to fashion...."Double" was as milk-toast as anything Billy 
Joel or Elton was releasing at that time.

Whereas McCartney always remained true to his attempt at satisfying the 
commercial world. He never delved any deeper than what could be comfortably 
syphoned off for pop radio. The fact that radio stopped biting beyond 'Off 
The Ground' may have less to due with McCartney losing his muse (which he 
has), and everything to do with the fact that his brand of saccharine just 
stopped appealing to the masses.

I guess my point is that McCartney never changed his DNA....and Lennon did.

Jaimie Vernon,
President, Bullseye Records
http://www.bullseyecanada.com
Author, Canadian Pop Music Encyclopedia
http://www.canoe.ca/JamMusicPopEncycloPages