Now, back to the original question... Lennon and McCartney wrote as a team, as their styles contrasted each other so nicely, and I believe that with the two of them, they created something far greater than either one of them could (or ever did) produce in a solo career - they balanced each other perfectly. I like Paul's post-Beatles stuff better than John's for the most part, though.
Yes, they are the yin and the yang when working perfectly together - however, it's pretty well documented that in later years the joint writing credits were something of a joke, since some of that time they were barely speaking! Also I personally resent the 'dead rock star' syndrome where Lennon has assumed a far greater standing than McCartney in the popular mind, and Paul's input in the Beatles is getting more and more run down contrasted with Lennon's- where Macca is starting to be rewritten as an anodyne jester. I resent this equally with Kurt Cobain who has achieved a status way beyond the pretty good songs that he wrote (eek - is this post a recipe for my harmony and peace of mind I wonder?? - probably not!!)
Back on topic though, I think comparing Strawberry Fields with Penny Lane is fruitful - I believe Paul wrote Penny Lane as a kind of 'response' when he heard Strawberry Fields. The competitive streak certainly fuelled creativity.
Anyway - in a vain attempt to skip out of the impending crossfire..... Penny Lane is obviously equally if not more a work of genius than strawberry fields is it not!!??
Cancel my subscription to the Ressurection
Send my credentials to the house of detention
I'm not about to argue who's "better" but I'm always a fan of something like this thread that is meant to give Paul his due because I think he gets shortchanged a lot.
Here's an aspect of the Lennon/McCartney songwriting partnership that nobody ever really seems to analyze: how one contributes to the other's songs. Consider......
Paul's contributions to John's songs:
*A Day in the Life - The middle section and the idea to use the orchestra.
*Strawberry Field Forever - Plays the mellotron intro.
*Tomorrow Never Knows - Created the tape loops
*The Ballad of John & Yoko - Plays piano, bass, and drums despite hating Yoko.
While "A Day in the Life" and "Tomorrow Never Knows" would surly be great songs with out these contributions from Paul (as evidenced by the early takes on the Anthology), it's what Paul brought to these songs that made them so innovative and ground-breaking.
John's contributions to Paul's songs:
*Mother Nature's Son - Suggested the use of a brass band
*Helter Skelter - Plays a wonderfully chaotic saxophone toward the end.
*Hey Jude - Suggested keeping in a line that Paul was going to omit.
*Yellow Submarine - The swooshing water sounds and captain-talk during the bridge.
Not to discredit John because these are all great contributions, but they're not as important (in my opinion) as the Paul contributions I listed. It's just odd how something like "Tomorrow Never Knows" is "A John song" when the song's chief "selling point" is a Paul idea.
I often wonder if Paul would be looked at differently by his critics if "Let It Be" and "The Long and Winding Road" were "Paul McCartney" songs rather than "Beatles" songs. As great a song as "Imagine" is, if John released it with the Beatles, it may be looked at now as "just another great Beatles song." But it stands out because it's his own. I think that if "Let It Be" could have been the same for Paul if it appeared on a solo album rather than with the Beatles. As a Beatles record, it's just another great Beatles song. But if it was a solo song, I think critics at the time would say "Wow, I didn't think Paul had it in him."
I agree; musically, McCartney is more talented. They seemed to have equal talent for lyric writing though...both brilliant. But melodically, all McCartney.
I'm not about to argue who's "better" but I'm always a fan of something like this thread that is meant to give Paul his due because I think he gets shortchanged a lot.
Here's an aspect of the Lennon/McCartney songwriting partnership that nobody ever really seems to analyze: how one contributes to the other's songs. Consider......
Paul's contributions to John's songs:
*A Day in the Life - The middle section and the idea to use the orchestra.
*Strawberry Field Forever - Plays the mellotron intro.
*Tomorrow Never Knows - Created the tape loops
*The Ballad of John & Yoko - Plays piano, bass, and drums despite hating Yoko.
While "A Day in the Life" and "Tomorrow Never Knows" would surly be great songs with out these contributions from Paul (as evidenced by the early takes on the Anthology), it's what Paul brought to these songs that made them so innovative and ground-breaking.
John's contributions to Paul's songs:
*Mother Nature's Son - Suggested the use of a brass band
*Helter Skelter - Plays a wonderfully chaotic saxophone toward the end.
*Hey Jude - Suggested keeping in a line that Paul was going to omit.
*Yellow Submarine - The swooshing water sounds and captain-talk during the bridge.
Not to discredit John because these are all great contributions, but they're not as important (in my opinion) as the Paul contributions I listed. It's just odd how something like "Tomorrow Never Knows" is "A John song" when the song's chief "selling point" is a Paul idea.
I often wonder if Paul would be looked at differently by his critics if "Let It Be" and "The Long and Winding Road" were "Paul McCartney" songs rather than "Beatles" songs. As great a song as "Imagine" is, if John released it with the Beatles, it may be looked at now as "just another great Beatles song." But it stands out because it's his own. I think that if "Let It Be" could have been the same for Paul if it appeared on a solo album rather than with the Beatles. As a Beatles record, it's just another great Beatles song. But if it was a solo song, I think critics at the time would say "Wow, I didn't think Paul had it in him."
Liked this post a lot - both convincing and educative!!
Cancel my subscription to the Ressurection
Send my credentials to the house of detention
Ringo's the real talent of the group. Everyone should know that by now.
I'm just going to assume this was said in sarcasm, but I think Ringo and his significance to the Beatles is highly underrated. Think about early Beatles - Ringo stands out, more than any other Beatle, as the one who gave the Beatles' sound it's propelling force, done through powerful and consistent drumming. As a song-writer, I thought Ringo was lacking, but I personally believe what he contributed to the Beatles' sound was necessary for their on-going success.
This is very very true actually - the whole 'ramshackle' sound of the debut - Saw her standing there as a prime example - is a lot down to the drumming (and bass)
Cancel my subscription to the Ressurection
Send my credentials to the house of detention
I agree; musically, McCartney is more talented. They seemed to have equal talent for lyric writing though...both brilliant. But melodically, all McCartney.
There's a hell of a lot of substance in Band on the Run! - Substance with gorgeous melody
Cancel my subscription to the Ressurection
Send my credentials to the house of detention
Lets just settle it like this: The Beatles were the greatest band in the history of music.
Shows: 6.27.08 Hartford, CT/5.15.10 Hartford, CT/6.18.2011 Hartford, CT (EV Solo)/10.19.13 Brooklyn/10.25.13 Hartford
"Becoming a Bruce fan is like hitting puberty as a musical fan. It's inevitable." - dcfaithful
Lets just settle it like this: The Beatles were the greatest band in the history of music.
Whilst not everyone would agree, I would pity the person trying to argue AGAINST that statement.
It is true that in the ten years that they were active, no band can ever come close to the evolution the beatles went through across all their albums, and how closely this is linked to the development of pop, rock and even 'indie' styles of music. My friend says to me 'they already did it all!!'. Whilst I don't fully agree - if someone released taxman or dear prudence, or get back, today - it would immediately set the stations and the dancefloors alight. Incredible how music made 40 odd years ago can sound so contemporary. It hardly bears thinking about - and hard to have a discussion about the beatles music and influence - where do you begin!!??
Cancel my subscription to the Ressurection
Send my credentials to the house of detention
Lets just settle it like this: The Beatles were the greatest band in the history of music.
Whilst not everyone would agree, I would pity the person trying to argue AGAINST that statement.
It is true that in the ten years that they were active, no band can ever come close to the evolution the beatles went through across all their albums, and how closely this is linked to the development of pop, rock and even 'indie' styles of music. My friend says to me 'they already did it all!!'. Whilst I don't fully agree - if someone released taxman or dear prudence, or get back, today - it would immediately set the stations and the dancefloors alight. Incredible how music made 40 odd years ago can sound so contemporary. It hardly bears thinking about - and hard to have a discussion about the beatles music and influence - where do you begin!!??
Yeah. No one greater than them.
Shows: 6.27.08 Hartford, CT/5.15.10 Hartford, CT/6.18.2011 Hartford, CT (EV Solo)/10.19.13 Brooklyn/10.25.13 Hartford
"Becoming a Bruce fan is like hitting puberty as a musical fan. It's inevitable." - dcfaithful
I'm not about to argue who's "better" but I'm always a fan of something like this thread that is meant to give Paul his due because I think he gets shortchanged a lot.
Here's an aspect of the Lennon/McCartney songwriting partnership that nobody ever really seems to analyze: how one contributes to the other's songs. Consider......
Paul's contributions to John's songs:
*A Day in the Life - The middle section and the idea to use the orchestra.
*Strawberry Field Forever - Plays the mellotron intro.
*Tomorrow Never Knows - Created the tape loops
*The Ballad of John & Yoko - Plays piano, bass, and drums despite hating Yoko.
While "A Day in the Life" and "Tomorrow Never Knows" would surly be great songs with out these contributions from Paul (as evidenced by the early takes on the Anthology), it's what Paul brought to these songs that made them so innovative and ground-breaking.
John's contributions to Paul's songs:
*Mother Nature's Son - Suggested the use of a brass band
*Helter Skelter - Plays a wonderfully chaotic saxophone toward the end.
*Hey Jude - Suggested keeping in a line that Paul was going to omit.
*Yellow Submarine - The swooshing water sounds and captain-talk during the bridge.
Not to discredit John because these are all great contributions, but they're not as important (in my opinion) as the Paul contributions I listed. It's just odd how something like "Tomorrow Never Knows" is "A John song" when the song's chief "selling point" is a Paul idea.
I often wonder if Paul would be looked at differently by his critics if "Let It Be" and "The Long and Winding Road" were "Paul McCartney" songs rather than "Beatles" songs. As great a song as "Imagine" is, if John released it with the Beatles, it may be looked at now as "just another great Beatles song." But it stands out because it's his own. I think that if "Let It Be" could have been the same for Paul if it appeared on a solo album rather than with the Beatles. As a Beatles record, it's just another great Beatles song. But if it was a solo song, I think critics at the time would say "Wow, I didn't think Paul had it in him."
Liked this post a lot - both convincing and educative!!
Hey thanks. Yeah...I've been defending Paul and his silly love songs for years.
Paul's contributions to John's songs:
*A Day in the Life - The middle section and the idea to use the orchestra.
*Strawberry Field Forever - Plays the mellotron intro.
*Tomorrow Never Knows - Created the tape loops
*The Ballad of John & Yoko - Plays piano, bass, and drums despite hating Yoko.
While "A Day in the Life" and "Tomorrow Never Knows" would surly be great songs with out these contributions from Paul (as evidenced by the early takes on the Anthology), it's what Paul brought to these songs that made them so innovative and ground-breaking.
John's contributions to Paul's songs:
*Mother Nature's Son - Suggested the use of a brass band
*Helter Skelter - Plays a wonderfully chaotic saxophone toward the end.
*Hey Jude - Suggested keeping in a line that Paul was going to omit.
*Yellow Submarine - The swooshing water sounds and captain-talk during the bridge.
I've thought of this before too. It seems like John got a lot more help from Paul on his songs, but Paul didn't need much, if any, help on his own songs (Yesterday, Hey Jude, Let it Be, Blackbird). Most people think Ticket to Ride is a John song, but according to Paul it was a joint effort. He said they wrote it together in a 3 hour songwriting session. He said the idea of the song started with John, but in the end it was 60/40. But John said in an interview that Paul's contribution was how Ringo played the drums. It was as though he didn't want to give Paul credit for anything. Paul even heped John with Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds. The "newspaper taxis" bit was written by Paul. I'm pretty sure he also helped write Norwegian Wood, which is also thought of as a "John song". And really, what would Come Together be like without that McCartney bass line?
Another habit says it's in love with you
Another habit says its long overdue
Another habit like an unwanted friend
I'm so happy with my righteous self
Comments
Yes, they are the yin and the yang when working perfectly together - however, it's pretty well documented that in later years the joint writing credits were something of a joke, since some of that time they were barely speaking! Also I personally resent the 'dead rock star' syndrome where Lennon has assumed a far greater standing than McCartney in the popular mind, and Paul's input in the Beatles is getting more and more run down contrasted with Lennon's- where Macca is starting to be rewritten as an anodyne jester. I resent this equally with Kurt Cobain who has achieved a status way beyond the pretty good songs that he wrote (eek - is this post a recipe for my harmony and peace of mind I wonder?? - probably not!!)
Back on topic though, I think comparing Strawberry Fields with Penny Lane is fruitful - I believe Paul wrote Penny Lane as a kind of 'response' when he heard Strawberry Fields. The competitive streak certainly fuelled creativity.
Anyway - in a vain attempt to skip out of the impending crossfire..... Penny Lane is obviously equally if not more a work of genius than strawberry fields is it not!!??
Send my credentials to the house of detention
Here's an aspect of the Lennon/McCartney songwriting partnership that nobody ever really seems to analyze: how one contributes to the other's songs. Consider......
Paul's contributions to John's songs:
*A Day in the Life - The middle section and the idea to use the orchestra.
*Strawberry Field Forever - Plays the mellotron intro.
*Tomorrow Never Knows - Created the tape loops
*The Ballad of John & Yoko - Plays piano, bass, and drums despite hating Yoko.
While "A Day in the Life" and "Tomorrow Never Knows" would surly be great songs with out these contributions from Paul (as evidenced by the early takes on the Anthology), it's what Paul brought to these songs that made them so innovative and ground-breaking.
John's contributions to Paul's songs:
*Mother Nature's Son - Suggested the use of a brass band
*Helter Skelter - Plays a wonderfully chaotic saxophone toward the end.
*Hey Jude - Suggested keeping in a line that Paul was going to omit.
*Yellow Submarine - The swooshing water sounds and captain-talk during the bridge.
Not to discredit John because these are all great contributions, but they're not as important (in my opinion) as the Paul contributions I listed. It's just odd how something like "Tomorrow Never Knows" is "A John song" when the song's chief "selling point" is a Paul idea.
I often wonder if Paul would be looked at differently by his critics if "Let It Be" and "The Long and Winding Road" were "Paul McCartney" songs rather than "Beatles" songs. As great a song as "Imagine" is, if John released it with the Beatles, it may be looked at now as "just another great Beatles song." But it stands out because it's his own. I think that if "Let It Be" could have been the same for Paul if it appeared on a solo album rather than with the Beatles. As a Beatles record, it's just another great Beatles song. But if it was a solo song, I think critics at the time would say "Wow, I didn't think Paul had it in him."
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
I agree; musically, McCartney is more talented. They seemed to have equal talent for lyric writing though...both brilliant. But melodically, all McCartney.
Liked this post a lot - both convincing and educative!!
Send my credentials to the house of detention
This is very very true actually - the whole 'ramshackle' sound of the debut - Saw her standing there as a prime example - is a lot down to the drumming (and bass)
Send my credentials to the house of detention
There's a hell of a lot of substance in Band on the Run! - Substance with gorgeous melody
Send my credentials to the house of detention
"Becoming a Bruce fan is like hitting puberty as a musical fan. It's inevitable." - dcfaithful
Whilst not everyone would agree, I would pity the person trying to argue AGAINST that statement.
It is true that in the ten years that they were active, no band can ever come close to the evolution the beatles went through across all their albums, and how closely this is linked to the development of pop, rock and even 'indie' styles of music. My friend says to me 'they already did it all!!'. Whilst I don't fully agree - if someone released taxman or dear prudence, or get back, today - it would immediately set the stations and the dancefloors alight. Incredible how music made 40 odd years ago can sound so contemporary. It hardly bears thinking about - and hard to have a discussion about the beatles music and influence - where do you begin!!??
Send my credentials to the house of detention
Yeah. No one greater than them.
"Becoming a Bruce fan is like hitting puberty as a musical fan. It's inevitable." - dcfaithful
Hey thanks. Yeah...I've been defending Paul and his silly love songs for years.
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
I've thought of this before too. It seems like John got a lot more help from Paul on his songs, but Paul didn't need much, if any, help on his own songs (Yesterday, Hey Jude, Let it Be, Blackbird). Most people think Ticket to Ride is a John song, but according to Paul it was a joint effort. He said they wrote it together in a 3 hour songwriting session. He said the idea of the song started with John, but in the end it was 60/40. But John said in an interview that Paul's contribution was how Ringo played the drums. It was as though he didn't want to give Paul credit for anything. Paul even heped John with Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds. The "newspaper taxis" bit was written by Paul. I'm pretty sure he also helped write Norwegian Wood, which is also thought of as a "John song". And really, what would Come Together be like without that McCartney bass line?
Another habit says its long overdue
Another habit like an unwanted friend
I'm so happy with my righteous self