The World's Fair : Sociology Survey: Please Take

Search

Profile

David Ng is Director of the Advanced Molecular Biology Laboratory at the University of British Columbia - this is a just a fancier way of calling himself a science teacher.

Benjamin Cohen is an Asst. Professor of Science, Tech., and Society at the University of Virginia. He studies the place of S & T in environmental history, policy, and ethics. He also writes other stuff.

Trying to find your way around this place? Like most expositions, we offer a map: Map of The World's Fair

"The world is full of light and life, and the true crime is not to be interested in it." A.S. Byatt

And so forth...

PUZZLE FANTASTICA #2

PUZZLE FANTASTICA #1

« A note from Santa about global warming. | Main | Fossil fuels default. HIV advances. »

Sociology Survey: Please Take

Category: Knoxville '82: Where Miscellany Thrive
Posted on: December 19, 2007 3:30 PM, by Benjamin Cohen

I'm taking this from past guest blogger Oronte Churm, who has asked the following over at his blog:

John or Paul, and why?

Later, we may diffract the query to ask if the John/Paul split maps onto the Stones/Beatles split.

Find more posts in: Humanities & Social Science Brain & Behavior

Comments

John, it's John. He had the spirit, the edge, the beauty. If you're making me choose, I choose John.

Posted by: allenmartin | December 19, 2007 3:59 PM

I'll copy the answer someone wrote over at the other blog:

1. John was more attractive. Great nose, that one.

2. Wings. WINGS? Paul. Come on.

Posted by: Donna Donna | December 19, 2007 4:24 PM

No question - JOHN. (All you have to do is look at the lame, miserable collection of "music" that is Paul McCartney's post-Beatles output to figure that out.) John Lennon was sexy, funny and scary-smart, and so much more. Paul was and is a lightweight, though as a Beatle he had his own charm - they all did.

Oh, and before you ask, Beatles over Stones.We loved the Beatles, like nothing before or since. No one LOVED the Stones like that. Ever. And only their early stuff was really that good, IMHO. The post-Brian Jones Stones were not my cup of tea.

Posted by: Flora | December 19, 2007 4:25 PM

Your answer is: John.

BUT, I argue that the sum of the parts is greater than the whole. In other words, John and Paul writing together, for whatever reason, were (are) better than anything the two wrote seperately.

Beatles Forever.

Posted by: J-Dog | December 19, 2007 4:32 PM

John could rock. And he could write great lyrics.

Paul had more "musical" sensibilities. And he had enormous flexibility in his singing voice(s).

But John could rock. And he could write great lyrics.

Posted by: bob koepp | December 19, 2007 4:42 PM

I'm pretty sure Ben would expect this reply, so I'll keep my identity anon. That's because I object to the (lalalala here comes the po-mo) false binary. False Binary, I'm yelling false binary.

The beauty of the music is in the relation between John and Paul. It makes no sense, no sense to judge them apart from one another. I take it that the question is about The Beatles years, so post-Beatles issues don't matter. Doesn't matter how lame Wings was. Doesn't mater how Yoko John's solo work was.

I reject the choice then. There is no "Paul" or "John." There is only PaulJohn. Or JohnPaul.

And George. I likes him too.

Posted by: Deleuze | December 20, 2007 9:22 AM

John. Hands-down. What "allenmartin" said. Nirvana over Pearl Jam too for the same reasons. And all the endless waterings-down of this same binary. [Although I agree in principle with Deleuze's tried and true po-mo "JohnPaul" argument, it's precisely those kind of endless roundabouts that sour me toward these discussions in the first place.] I'm -- like many others, I'd guess -- drawn to the people who (at least give the impression of) not saving anything for the trip back. There's inspiration there...that isn't always found in the safe, cutesy things. imo.

Posted by: Sue | December 20, 2007 1:21 PM