Paul McCartney vs. Pete Townshend: Round Two

[Jefferson Davis <jdworks@execpc.com>]

>I wanted to also say that trying to compare The Beatles work (not just
>Paul...cause it's my opinion that without the rest of the group..his work was
>substandard and I also feel that Pete's solo work isn't as good as The Who's)
>with The Who is like saying Picasso was better than Michaelangelo...I mean
>both groups are worthy of being called the best that ever was......I've always
>been more attracted to the Beatles songs that Lennon wrote because he was more
>philosophical with his lyrics than Paul's...but what I was trying to say in my
>earlier post was that The Beatles had three styles of songs in their albums
>where as The Who's music was mostly Pete's style....so The Beatles albums were
>more versatile.  Also, I'm not embarrassed to say that I enjoy listening to
>Yesterday, Maybe I'm Amazed, Hey Jude,El Rigby, The Long and Winding Road.  I
>enjoy and appreciate artists that painted realistically as well as
>abstractly...I think it is ignorant to say that one is better than the
>other...so why compare Pete with Paul?

   Um, no argument from me, other than it is implied that when i say, "Pete
is better than Paul" that it is MY opinion, which is, in fact, true then. It
is ignorant to make that statement as an absolute truth. i also did say that
i LIKE Paul's stuff, generally. But i like it as pop music, nice melodies,
hummable, etc. "Maybe I'm Amazed", "Pipes of Peace", "Wanderlust", "Junior's
Farm", "Uncle Albert" etc. are my personal favorites of his post-Beatle
stuff (i like alot of the Beatles stuff, where you're right, he was part of
a mix that helped all three styles, four if you count Ringo's few writing
contributions). Pete's music is BETTER, in MY opinion, because it's more
thoughtful, philosophical, spiritual, loud, dangerous, whatever. It's more
artistic, to ME. Feel free to disagree, but that doesn't make me ignorant.

          peace&anarchy,  jeffree