Lennon/McCartney

[jakobnicholas]

There's so many stories and opinions on which songwriter did what on which Beatles songs. Most agree that Lennon was the superior lyricist and was "cooler" in his rock n' roll sensiblities. And most agree that Paul was technically a better musician and knew melodies and how to make a song sound great. Obviously, it was that combination that made their songs so damned great.

 

What I find interesting, and wonder about, is how much collaboration there was....especially on the later records. Most know how Paul helped make John's "Day in the Life" better, or how John helped Paul's "We Can Work it Out". But I think the perception of the Beatles has always been that it was John's band and he wrote the better music. Yet, I'm not sure how great some of Lennon's fantastic songs would have been were it not for Paul's contributions.

 

It's known that Lennon didn't like some of Paul's later songs and refused to play on them. Yet, when I hear Dear Prudence, Everybody's Got Something to Hide Except for Me and My Monkey, Come Together or I Want You, I can hear Paul all over the song. It SOUNDS like Paul is doing all he can to help make the songs great. I struggle to find examples where John does the same with Paul's songs.

 

Bottom line for me is that I'm grateful that they stayed together as long as they did, despite all the issues they developed. It's STAGGERING to me that, though they seemingly were sick to death of each other, they were able to make a record as brilliant as Abbey Road. Harrison's songs are jaw-dropping. Lennon isn't as prolific, but his songs are great. Starr's lone song is silly but very strong. And the Paul-dominated medley is the perfect ending for the Beatles music catalogue.

[caliber66]

But I think the perception of the Beatles has always been that it was John's band and he wrote the better music.

Huh?

[OOO]

I stopped reading after that line. I've never heard anyone say that until now.

[jff]

If it weren't for Lennon, McCartney would have sang "You can buy me golden rings" instead of "Baby you can drive my car".

 

Shudder.

[Sir Stewart]

Paul certainly seems like a more pleasant fellow than John.

[PopTodd]

It's known that Lennon didn't like some of Paul's later songs and refused to play on them. Yet, when I hear Dear Prudence, Everybody's Got Something to Hide Except for Me and My Monkey, Come Together or I Want You, I can hear Paul all over the song. It SOUNDS like Paul is doing all he can to help make the songs great. I struggle to find examples where John does the same with Paul's songs.

 

 

And most agree that Paul was technically a better musician and knew melodies and how to make a song sound great.

 

You answered your own question.

 

Also, try imagining any of those songs without Ringo or George.

Bottom line is, it took 4 to make The Beatles. NONE of them alone did anything even close to approaching what they did together. The closest we got to The Beatles from the various solo projects is:

George - All Things Must Pass

John - Imagine

Paul - Band on the Run

 

But even those amazing albums pale in comparison to even the weakest of The Beatles' offerings.

[Guest Speed Racer]

I would have loved to have a discussion about Lennon and McCartney in the context of the Beatles prior to December 1980. Now I can't think of the two of them without thinking of what a clown Paul has become, in my opinion, so I'm always likely to favor Lennon.

 

And I don't think it's that 'staggering' that a band would release such an amazing final album. I can think of a few albums, not least of all Anodyne or The Woods, that were awesome final releases.

[Winston Legthigh]

Now I can't think of the two of them without thinking of what a clown Paul has become, in my opinion, so I'm always likely to favor Lennon.

 

You didn't like Spies Like Us???

[Sir Stewart]

John's legacy of course has the advantage of John's being dead.

[fortuleo]

You didn't like Spies Like Us???

Things change. I'm 39. When I was younger, up until maybe the mid-90's, everybody, and I mean EVERYBODY thought Lennon was far superior in every aspect (music, lyrics, attitude, solo carreer etc.). Then it started to evolve and change. But it's a fact that 15 years ago, Ram was completely unknown except to maccamaniacs. Even All Things Must Pass was a largely forgotten album. What I mean is that it's no surprise some people still react as if they HAVE to plead McCartney's cause after all the bashing he got in those days. I remember reading an article in one of the most important french rock magazines in te 90's where an renowned writer attributed Helter Skelter to Lennon and Good Night to McCartney. I swear the god it's true. And don't mock the french too much. You could read the exact same kind of crap in british or american magazines. People just DIDN'T KNOW.

 

As for Lennon's help to make Paul's songs better, an obvious example would be his spectacular piano intro in Obladi Oblada. Right ?

[Sir Stewart]

As far as who-wrote-what, this site is pretty good as a database of interview quotes: http://www.beatlesinterviews.org/index2.html

I'd wager Analogman has a link or two regarding this question.

[Guest Runaway Jim]

John, Paul and George were all phenominal. I will never be able to pick one over the other.

[Moss]

It does seem like an easier sell to say you prefer John over Paul for some reason. Apparently it's not as "Cool" to prefer Paul.

 

I don't see how Paul has become a Clown at all.

 

John obviously helped Paul's music out, whether as much as the reverse? Who knows. All I know is John added some amazing harmonies to Hey Jude. It seemed like maybe Paul had his songs more fleshed out or at least knew what he wanted before it even got to the others. John was maybe a little more willing to experiment or change directions which Paul certainly could help with.

[jakobnicholas]

I stopped reading after that line. I've never heard anyone say that until now.

 

 

 

 

 

Really?!

 

Paul's songs were very popular, but it seems in the world of big-time music geeks (like myself) that Lennon was the cool and hip Beatle who made the more meaningful music. I know some who like John and his music better. To them, Paul was good, but not at the genius level of Lennon.

 

I don't agree with that nor do I really care.

 

I just find all the Lennon/McCartney history to be fascinating.

 

 

 

I read that it was Paul's idea to have each member have a jam-out right before "The End" on Abbey Road. Ringo had his lone drum solo, and McCartney, Lennon and Harrison each got a few guitar riffs.

 

Many of Paul's White Album songs are almost old-timey in sound. Yet it also has Helter Skeleter and Why Don't We Do It In The Road....2 songs that are totally in-your-face. Makes me wonder if hearing John's songs for the album made Paul put a little more rock into his songs. Likewise, maybe John's quiet and beautiful "Julia" was triggered from some of Paul's mellower songs.

 

"We Can Work if Out", to me, is maybe my favorite collaborative Beatles song...their contributions are obvious, and together, make a masterpiece.

[fortuleo]

John was maybe a little more willing to experiment or change directions which Paul certainly could help with.

Yet I remember John being quoted saying he resented the fact Paul did too much experiment on his songs, namely Strawberry Fields which he thought would have been better if more straightforward. My impression is Paul wanted to add stuff to the other's music, but wanted them to do as he told them on his own stuff. That's where he was a bit contradictory. Urging them to be a "band" and welcome his ideas on one part, but using them as sidemen on the other. The fact is he certainly had good reasons to act that way, at least musically, since all the Beatles output done in the years he dominated the band (more or less 66-69) is outstanding.

[jakobnicholas]

John's legacy of course has the advantage of John's being dead.

 

 

Yes. I agree.

 

What'd be Paul's legacy had he died after Band on the Run? Or even Back to the Egg?

[fortuleo]

Yes. I agree.

 

What'd be Paul's legacy had he died after Band on the Run? Or even Back to the Egg?

 

I disagree that John being dead helps his legacy. It used to be very true but it changed for at least three reasons. 1/ Paul started to make very strong music again since Flaming Pie. 2/ With time, the weakness of John's solo records, apart from the first singles and the first two albums, has become quite obvious to everyone. I mean, Walls & Bridges ??!!?? 3/ Paul still talks. It's been almost thirty years since John had his last say about the Beatles, who did what etc. With time, Paul's point of view has become the "official" truth.

[Dude]

As for Lennon's help to make Paul's songs better, an obvious example would be his spectacular piano intro in Obladi Oblada. Right ?

 

John plays the nifty guitar solos on Get Back (you can see him playing it in the Let it Be rooftop scene) as well as the jazzy little guitar solo on Honey Pie, too, which I always loved.

 

I highly recommend checking Beatlesongs out, it's a pretty definitive guide on who wrote what and who played on what based on interviews, etc.

 

 

http://www.amazon.com/Beatlesongs-William-J-Dowlding/dp/0671682296

 

The Mark Lewisohn book, The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions is also a must have:

 

 

http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Beatles-Recording-Sessions-1962-1970/dp/0600612074/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1251226330&sr=1-4

[Analogman]

As far as who-wrote-what, this site is pretty good as a database of interview quotes: http://www.beatlesinterviews.org/index2.html

I'd wager Analogman has a link or two regarding this question.

 

I have always thought that one could tell after listening to the songs, and studying the band for a while. I found some neat Beatles blogs the other day.

 

I think John will always be seen as the heavy sarcastic one, and Paul has the friendly happy go lucky one. I know he tries to change that, but I think those views are too ingrained in the public view of them to be changed.

 

I suppose a lot of it has to do with John's involvement in the War Resistance Movement, and the other sort of left-field things that he and Yoko did.

 

When people think of him, they think of the guy who wrote Gimme Some Truth, not as the guy who wrote Run for Your Life. Of course, that changed again, when he made Double Fantasy. What was it George said about John getting soft?

[Guest Speed Racer]

It does seem like an easier sell to say you prefer John over Paul for some reason. Apparently it's not as "Cool" to prefer Paul.

 

I don't see how Paul has become a Clown at all.

 

First, I think the second statement kind of addresses why the first statement is true for some people - I doubt I'm the only one who perceives his recent life as somewhat clownish.

 

Second, as I said, it's totally a matter of my own perception of him. I'll try to explain it, but the bottom line is whenever I see him/hear his post-Beatles music/read about him, I cringe a little bit. I can't stand 90% of his solo output - and he also had the unfortunate disadvantage to Lennon of having the opportunity to record music in the 80's, which unfortunately has the production quality of sounding as if it were recorded in the 80's. The rest of it, well, I just don't like the songs. His showman's personality turns me off, and while Lennon certainly had one too, that one didn't turn me off. I'm never a fan of pop collaborations, especially the elder/new-hot-thing dynamic, so that was a turn off. I thought the way he handled the divorce was tacky - not necessarily the divorce itself, or the fact that it was so high profile (neither of which can really be helped), but I think both of them did make a few things public they didn't need to. Picky and totally emotion-based, but that's my perrogative I guess.

 

I understand that Lennon was just as likely to take that path as McCartney has, but then I see the path Harrison chose and always like to think Lennon could have taken that road. He couldn't, of course - the stature of being George Harrison was smaller by just the right increment to allow him to keep a profile lower than Paul was (and John would likely be) afforded. But Paul loves being famous, making music and performing; I certainly can't judge him for that, but I don't have to like him for it.

[Synthesizer Patel]

I disagree that John being dead helps his legacy. It used to be very true but it changed for at least three reasons. 1/ Paul started to make very strong music again since Flaming Pie. 2/ With time, the weakness of John's solo records, apart from the first singles and the first two albums, has become quite obvious to everyone. I mean, Walls & Bridges ??!!?? 3/ Paul still talks. It's been almost thirty years since John had his last say about the Beatles, who did what etc. With time, Paul's point of view has become the "official" truth.

 

hmm. well, i don't think paul has made a good album in many many years (flowers in the dirt is alright - but nothing overly special - and that's where it ends as far as making goodish music is concerned). so when the general public discuss paul today, it's all about his public life. you'd be hard pressed to find anything cool or good about that. he's a figure of fun for marrying heather mills and turning up to the opening of a letter if he thinks it'll make him look cool. saying all this - i prefer paul in the beatles, and also prefer his solo career up until the mid to late 70s - eventhough plastic ono band wins out for favourite solo beatles album. if john lennon had not been shot the odds are he'd have died of some kind of drug abuse or other, gone shit like paul, or miracle or miracles had a few comebacks like bob dylan and still be capable of making good music - but the odds on the last one are pretty slim judging from the friends he hung around with when he was alive, and what yoko ono is like now.

[Sir Stewart]

It's funny too (might as well drudge up everything about them) that in regards to their wives, John talked a lot about love love love, but Paul really lived it.

[jff]

 

 

I think John will always be seen as the heavy sarcastic one, and Paul has the friendly happy go lucky one. I know he tries to change that, but I think those views are too ingrained in the public view of them to be changed.

 

 

 

That's probably true.

 

Without the benefit of looking through song lists:

 

Paul was stronger than John in terms of writing happy melodies. "Your Mother Should Know", "I've Just Seen a Face", "Got to Get you Into My Life", etc.

 

John was stronger than Paul in terms of writing darker songs and songs that lyrically skewed. "I'm So Tired", "Happiness is a Warm Gun", "Come Together", etc.

[Winston Legthigh]

Time magazine had an entertaining interesting article - I'm thinking it must have been in 94 - celebrating the 30th anniversary of their first trip to the U.S., saying that one's personality could be determined based on how you rank your preference of the fab four - much like a horoscope.

[Analogman]

Time magazine had an entertaining interesting article - I'm thinking it must have been in 94 - celebrating the 30th anniversary of their first trip to the U.S., saying that one's personality could be determined based on how you rank your preference of the fab four - much like a horoscope.

 

I think we did that here once. I prefer John's songs, but as I have said before, it took all four of them.