Lennon/McCartney

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

You guys seem to be missing or somewhat ignoring one salient fact:

 

 

HE WAS A FUCKING BEATLE!!!

 

HE CHANGED THE WORLD!!! (At the very least the music world)

 

I cut him slack for that

[Guest Speed Racer]

I cut him slack for that

 

I hold him to a higher standard for that, myself.

[jakobnicholas]

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

 

 

 

I found this Paul quote:

 

PAUL 1988: "We knew we were good. People used to say to us, 'Do you think John and you are good songwriters?' and I'd say-- "Yeah it may sound conceited but it would be stupid of me to say 'No, I don't,' or 'Well, we're not bad' because we are good." Let's face it. If you were in my position, which was working with John Lennon, who was a great, great man-- It's like that film 'Little Big Man.' He says, 'We wasn't just playing Indians, we was LIVIN' Indians.' And that's what it was. I wasn't just talking about it, I was living it. I was actually working with the great John Lennon, and he with me. It was very exciting."

 

 

As a music fan, that's how I feel. We were lucky enough to get to hear THE John Lennon and THE Paul McCartney write together. Toss in Harrison, Starr and Martin and holy shit...it's like music fans won the lottery. We're fortunate they were able to crank out as many songs as the did before splitting.

[Hoodoo Man]

Great, great thread. It's because we're still having these impassioned discussions about The Beatles almost 40 years after the band's demise that I believe they are hands down the greatest rock band ever. I just don't think The Stones or Who or Kinks or any other band can elicit such passion.

 

Anyway, my $.02: In my earliest exposure to The Beatles, I was drawn to Paul. I liked his songs better. I liked his voice and his personality (later realizing that my personality is way more in line with John's which is why I probably didn't like him as much!). For me as a kid, John just seemed too weird. As I matured both emotionally and musically, I started to get drawn more to John. His songs come across as emotionally deeper and challenging. For me, the White album really separates the two. Coming off their more experimental endeavors, Lennon wanted to get back to speaking his mind through rock songs and McCartney wanted to venture into a softer, more pop-oriented field. This album, probably more than anything, makes me lean towards John.

 

Now having declared myself a John guy, I can't take anything away from Paul. His progression and musical growth is really easy to follow from Please, Please Me to Abbey Road. He still ranks as one of my favorite bassists ever. He really propelled The Beatles into the adventurous world of Sgt. Pepper/Magical Mystery/Yellow Sub. They wouldn't have been The Beatles without Paul.

 

Now I'm in the mood to listen to my Beatles collection.

[Moss]

Doesn't mean he had to release the crap, though. He could have released probably half as many post-Beatle albums, minus the duds, and still been wildly successful. That says to me he maybe didn't know they were crap when he wrote/released them, or he just wanted to get the product out. Eh, like I said, his public personality just bothers me, and releasing the crappy stuff is part of that persona.

 

I agree Paul could have done with some self editing, I think writing songs comes somewhat easy to him and some of his solo work comes across as just quickly dashed off. I guess I give him credit for not crumbling under the weight of his legacy and being willing to put something out there that he knows people are going to criticize. He certainly has not cranked out the solo material and he is obvioulsy not in it for the money at this point. He's a songwriter, that's what he does. Sometimes the stars align and you put something out people love, sometimes not. Robert Pollard, Paul Westerberg, Jay Farrar, etc... have all certainly released crap songs, does not make me think less of them.

 

But if the guy bugs you he bugs you, I can certainly understand that. I just have not seen him do much that bugs me. I saw a show (20/20 or something) that showed his tour crew crying at the end of the tour. They seemed to honestly love working for the guy. Things like that make me wonder what he does to piss people off.

[fortuleo]

I agree Paul could have done with some self editing, I think writing songs comes somewhat easy to him and some of his solo work comes across as just quickly dashed off. I guess I give him credit for not crumbling under the weight of his legacy and being willing to put something out there that he knows people are going to criticize. He certainly has not cranked out the solo material and he is obvioulsy not in it for the money at this point. He's a songwriter, that's what he does. Sometimes the stars align and you put something out people love, sometimes not. Robert Pollard, Paul Westerberg, Jay Farrar, etc... have all certainly released crap songs, does not make me think less of them.

 

But if the guy bugs you he bugs you, I can certainly understand that. I just have not seen him do much that bugs me. I saw a show (20/20 or something) that showed his tour crew crying at the end of the tour. They seemed to honestly love working for the guy. Things like that make me wonder what he does to piss people off.

I think he pisses people off because he plays music with monkeys, talks to astronauts during live performances or rides a bike on the Red Square (all seen on one of his DVD's). Those are the reasons I can understand. What I do not understand is when people insult him for dying his hair or because he writes songs for children, or because he married whomever, or because he likes tea. I mean, give him a break. As for the self editing… It's true, of course. But most of the time, even in the crappies songs he wrote there's one redeeming bass link or a ridiculously good melodic idea to make the transition between the bridge and the verse etc. I mean, I remember being SPEECHLESS when I first heard Hope of Deliverance (don't boo me please), just for the eh-eh-eh vocal line at the end of the first chorus. Pure genius.

[petemoss]

I think there's only disagreement on In My Life (McCartney says he wrote part of it) and Eleanor Rigby.

 

 

--Mike

 

Paul wrote the bridge to 'in my life'.

John claims to have written half of 'eleanor rigby', not sure what Paul has said about that though.

[Dude]

That's a brilliant song. I don't think there is anything corny about that at all - it's just got some humour to it - like The Bonzo Dog Band or something. He has definately written some corny songs though - which i like (silly love songs, and even wonderful christmas time). At some point, however, his corny songs just became 'corny' and nothing more.

 

I think a lot of music crits disagreed with you when the song came out, it was trounced at the time as was the Ram album. Personally, it's a whole lot of silliness, especially the various voices he does.

[Gobias Industries]

What about Ringo's 'Sentimental Journey'?

 

"Ringo" is probably Ringo's best. Also coincidentally the closest the Beatles came to being the Beatles since they broke up.

 

This thread has reinforced a suspicion I've had for forever: everyone loves to hate Paul McCartney.

[mpolak21]

Paul does have an irritating habit of coming up with amazing choruses or hooks like the "hands across the water" part of Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey or the chorus of Jet, and then filling out the rest of the song with lyrics bordering on the nonsensical that sometimes can ruin the song if you're trying to break it down. Ultimately though those hooks forgive a lot, but there certainly have a sense sometimes that McCartney's solo career could have towered over the other threes had he had a decent co-lyricist chipping in from time-to-time.

 

btw: I probably listen to McCartney, Paul's first solo album, more than anything else he's put out. Every Night and Maybe I'm Amazed are phenomenal.

 

--Mike

[Dude]

btw: I probably listen to McCartney, Paul's first solo album, more than anything else he's put out. Every Night and Maybe I'm Amazed are phenomenal.

 

--Mike

 

Yeah, I'll never grow tired of Every Night nor Maybe I'm Amazed.

[OOO]

I am a Paul guy through and through. I love him to death, especially all his silly stuff. I like that he is one of the greatest pop composers ever, but doesn't have to take himself seriously all the time.

[fortuleo]

It has finally become a McCartney thread ! It feels so good.

[Sir Stewart]

Paul wrote the bridge to 'in my life'.

Or, George Martin did.

[MattZ]

I once tried to start a grassroots movement to rename the "bass" the "Paul McCartnery" but it never got off the ground. We could try again, you know.

[Sparky speaks]

McCartney was sitting behind homeplate at the MFY game tonight with Jack Nicholson no less. I was expecting a Lakers game to break out. YES broadcasters were making references to him all night.

[junkiesmile]

I think a lot of music crits disagreed with you when the song came out, it was trounced at the time as was the Ram album. Personally, it's a whole lot of silliness, especially the various voices he does.

It may have been panned when it first came out but it is much more appreciated today. I personally perfer Paul's first two albums over any other Beatles solo effort.

[Moss]

The drummer in my band wants to borrow my Paul McCartney to play around with, he's trying to learn how to play it.

[mpolak21]

Or, George Martin did.

 

That solo is one of my favorite Beatle moments. In My Life was my class song, I graduated 39 years after it's release.

 

I once tried to start a grassroots movement to rename the "bass" the "Paul McCartnery" but it never got off the ground. We could try again, you know.

 

Paul would probably want to name it Brian Wilson.

 

--Mike

[caliber66]

I once tried to start a grassroots movement to rename the "bass" the "Paul McCartnery" but it never got off the ground. We could try again, you know.

I don't know why you would want to do that, considering Ringo wrote and played most of the Beatles' bass lines.

[jff]

I'm going to attempt to settle this John vs. Paul thing in a minute by comparing Paul's "Maybe I'm Amazed" and John's "Jealous Guy" as performed by Faces (box set, disc one versions).

 

Ok, I've now listened to both.

 

Tough call. Both are fantastic songs.

 

I think Faces version of "Maybe I'm Amazed" is better than Paul's version (better guitars, rocks more, nice vocal trade off between Rod Stewart and Ronnie Lane).

 

Faces version of "Jealous Guy" is not as good as John's (probably an equal if not better instrumental arrangement, but Rod Stewart chose to leave out a crucial note in the vocal melody, diminishing the emotional impact of the lyrics).

 

I guess this experiment could have used some sort of control. I'll call it a draw.

 

I still favor John over Paul. Paul is a better instrumentalist, but he's written some songs that I can't stand (The Long and Winding Road, for instance). I can't say the same for John. Despite that, my admiration for Paul's obvious melodic talent has grown over the last decade or so. He's clearly one of the most gifted melody writer in pop music history.

[remphish1]

McCartney was sitting behind homeplate at the MFY game tonight with Jack Nicholson no less. I was expecting a Lakers game to break out. YES broadcasters were making references to him all night.

 

I was at the game last night. unfortunatley I was hundreds of yards away still . Still cool seeing Sir Paul and Jack in the Bronx!

[Sir Stewart]

I'm going to attempt to settle this John vs. Paul thing

 

[Moss]

 

I think Faces version of "Maybe I'm Amazed" is better than Paul's version (better guitars, rocks more, nice vocal trade off between Rod Stewart and Ronnie Lane).

 

 

I enjoyed your analysis but you started to go off the rails right here.

[mpolak21]

As much shit as McCartney gets, Rod Stewart went way further off the track of respectability.

 

--Mike