In defense of Paul McCartney

All cards on the table, I am a McCartney fan.

That’s not to say that I dislike John in the way. That’s not to say I swoon over Paul and fangirl over him. I’m not even calling Paul the best Beatle. But he is my favorite.

I used to hate The Beatles with a burning passion. Before the six grade, I knew absolutely nothing of the classical rock group. Unbelievable, I know; I lived under a rock. It wasn’t until I met my now–best friend during my sophomore year of high school (who happens to be one of the biggest Beatles fans I know), that I begun to warm up to them.

Flash forward a few years, upon discovering that “Hey Jude” was a Beatles song, I set out to find other Beatles songs I enjoyed, including “Hey Bulldog,” “She’s So Heavy,” and “I’m So Happy Just to Dance With You.” It wasn’t until I heard “Eleanor Rigby” that I got hooked. The lyrics spoke to me, the strings were stimulating and beautiful, and the vocals seemed to coo as a lullaby through the pink earbuds stuck in my ears. Wow, I thought. I never knew John had such an amazing voice.

Of course, I know now that it was in fact Paul that was singing, not John. This discovery didn’t hit me until over half a year later, and when it did, it was like a ton of bricks. It also made me realize just how much I loved Paul.

No one can deny John’s vocal talents. After all, he was the main writer and vocalist of my favorite Beatles song, “Help!”, and there isn’t a singer or Beatle alive that can come anywhere close to replicating his stellar performance on “Twist and Shout.” But where Lennon’s rash, sometimes nasal voice adds to songs of a special variety, Paul’s fuller, brighter vocals are smoother and light, contributing to an overall better and more adaptable sound that fits with a broader spectrum of styles.

But what about the other Beatles? Personally, I’ve never loved Ringo’s work, nor would I ever call him a good vocalist. I respect Harrison’s contributions — he single-handedly defined the tone of my favorite album, Rubber Soul. He also penned many other of their greatest numbers, including “Think for Yourself,” “Blue Jay Way,” and the famous hit, “While My Guitar Gently Weeps.” But the quantity of his work does not even begin to measure up to that of John and Paul’s.

But what of the two lead songwriters? To this day, my least favorite song by The Beatles is “All You Need is Love” — a Lennon/McCartney contribution by mainly Lennon. The song may have spread positivity, but that doesn’t make me enjoy it. It was my introduction to the band, and it was the reason I hated them for the first three years I knew about them.

But Lennon also wrote my favorite Beatles song, as previously noted. Not to mention, he also wrote some of my other all-time favorites like “Hey Bulldog” and “Being For the Benefit of Mr. Kite!” So just looking at who wrote my favorite or least favorite song isn’t the best method of going about trying to deduce who my favorite Beatle is.

So we must instead take a look at the bigger picture. My favorite example to use in this situation is that of (arguably) the greatest Beatles song of all time: “A Day in the Life,” where both Lennon and McCartney share the stage as lead vocalists and songwriters.

Taking a look at John’s verses, we are met with a melancholy tone and melody — reading the news about a boy who died in a car crash, watching a film about the end of a war, or pondering over the sudden appearance of 4,000 holes in Lancashire. Lyrical breaks last about a measure between stanza lines, but the pace picks up briefly before the last line, “I’d love to turn you on,” vibratos out.

Paul’s verse, however, is in stark contrast to John’s. Whereas the background orchestra for John was flowy and distant with layers and depth, Paul’s was distinct, simplistic, and spirited. The piano, especially, showed characteristics of a rabbit — bouncy and full of youth — similar to the energy we get from other McCartney numbers such as “Yellow Submarine” or “Martha My Dear.”

There is no question about it: John is most certainly the superior songwriter. His solo career was by far more successful than Paul’s, and his songs are philosophical yet simple enough that there is no need to seek for a deeper meaning — it is directly under the surface if you just take the time to lend an ear.

Paul’s writing style, on the other hand, is much more straightforward than his fellow comrade’s. We have the obvious example of the childish “Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da,” but this bubbly, single-layered style persists in his more serious, well-flushed-out creations including “Let it Be” and “Yesterday.” Neither of these songs are meaningless or stupid; rather, their melodic structures are more front-and-center than Lennon’s. The distinct melodies of his songs set a tone that is stronger and more obvious than those of Lennon’s, of whom focuses more on an over-arching mood. To put it simply, Paul’s melodies make obvious the purpose of the song, whereas Lennon’s tend to leave more to the imagination.

But while even I must don the title of superiority to Lennon, Paul still stands as my favorite Beatle. Returning back to my “A Day in the Life” analogy, I disliked the song when I initially heard it. Lennon’s voice was soft and so dull to my ears, and the drunken expression didn’t vibe with me enough to spend four minutes of my life to give it a chance. Now, as you can see, I praise it. Ad that is only because of Paul. If his verse had not existed in the final release, I would have continued to dislike it.

Paul is not the example. He is not the punching bag that comes up with the inferior number that makes Lennon seem like a god in comparison. No, McCartney is the sunshine to clear away the clouds and foggy air after the dreadful hours of an early Monday morning. Although I love “I Am the Walrus,” “Help!” and “Yer Blues,” Lennon is not what I need after a long, hard day’s night of school and social drama. I turn to music to make me happy, to eliminate the stress of my life, and Paul’s sing-song-y, happy-go-lucky personality is exactly what I need in those times. Not just his songs, but his personality in how he goes about his life suits my taste more than John’s does. Lennon may have called for peace, but he could be vicious in the way he went about his protests.

Paul, on the other hand, had a more pacifist, gentle approach towards others, whether that be towards the press, his fans, or those who were against him. He is the kind of person I strive to be; kind, considerate, and never too worn out to give someone a smile or offer up a hand. He blossoms with wit and charm, and he, not Lennon, is the Beatle that I would much rather associateas an idol or role-model in both my own writing and as a person. So yes, John Lennon is the better musician. But Paul will always be the best Beatle to me.