Paul wote or cowrote 98% of L-M songs
Cindy
wrote or co-wrote 98% of the lennon-McCartney songbook. In nearly every
case of every song he cites that he hand a hand in helping write most
songs attributed to John only.
uly...@mscomm.com
1. He was the only avant-garde member of the Beatles
2. He was the one who was into experimental art long before John was
3. He hung around the cool, hip people in Soho and London when John was
hanging with drug dealers and squares
4. He was reading Goethe, Proust, Nietzsche while John read comic books
(OK, a small exaggeration)
5. He had a hand in writing all of John's best songs, including Lucy in
the Sky, Strawberry Fields, Help and Norwegian Wood
_________________
The book was Paul's official attempt to refute the supposed claim that
John was the important Beatle and "Paul did nothing but book the
studio." Paul constantly claims that this theory has gained credence,
when it certainly hasn't. Anyone who is a Beatls fan understands that
Lennon without McCartney was a shadow of himself and Macca without John
was similarly a shadow of his former self.
Paul wants to be regarded as the genius and most influential member of
the band and it infuriates him that "'cause John's a martyr" he's not
accorded this "respect."
For a master diplomat and someone so great with the media, Paul has
miscalcuated dreadfully with refuting Beatles revisionist history. His
music stands up as a Beatle (obviously), and he should let the music
speak for itself.
donz5
donz5
uly...@mscomm.com wrote:
> 5. He had a hand in writing all of John's best songs, including Lucy in
> the Sky, Strawberry Fields, Help and Norwegian Wood
Let's see (index cites):
(1) Lucy (311-12): Paul [after discussing Julian's painting]: "John had
the title and he had the first verse. It started off very _Alice in
Wonderland_: 'Picture yourself in a boat, on a river...' It's very
Alice. Both of us had read the Alice books and always referred to them,
we were always talking about 'Jabberwocky' and we knew those more than
any other books, really. And when psychedelics came in, the heady
quality of them was perfect. So we just went along with it. I sat there
and wrote it with him: I offered 'cellophane flowers' and 'newspaper
taxis' and John replied with 'kaleidoscope eyes'. I remember which was
which because we traded words off each other, as we always did ... And
in our mind it was an Alice thing, which both of us loved."
Please explain how revisionist it was for Paul to provide detail to the
compositional process, one detail that even John confirms:
Rolling Stone, 1968:
Q: What about an image like 'newspaper taxis'?
John: That was a Paul line, I think. In a lot of them you'll get so
far. you've lumbered yourself with a set of images and it's an effort
to keep it up.
It's an acknowledgement that John reiterated two years later:
Rolling Stone, 1970:
Q. [discussion about the POB LP]: There were no 'newspaper taxis.'
John: Then I was consciously writing poetry, and that's self-conscious
poetry. Actually, that's Paul's line.
(2) SFF (306-07): Where in this passage, or anywhere else in the book,
does Paul claim co-authorship to this song? (Hint: he doesn't.)
(3) Help (193): The only reference to this song on this page, or
anywhere else in the book, is this, from Miles, not McCartney: "The
songs for _Help!,_ with the exception of the title song, were written
before the screenplay was finished."
That's it. There's no such co-authorship cite by Paul, as you claim.
(4) Norwegian Wood (270): "I came in [to John's music room in the attic
at Kenwood] and [John] had this first stanza, which was brilliant: 'I
once had a girl, or should I say, she once had me.' that was all he
had, no title, no nothing. I said, 'Oh yes, well, ha, we're there.' And
it wrote itself. Once you've got the great idea, they do tend to write
themselves, providing you know how to write songs.
"So I picked it up at the second verse, it's a story. It's him trying
to pull a bird, it was about an affair. John told _Playboy_ that he
hadn't the faintest idea where the title came from but I do. Peter
Asher had his room done out in wood, a lot of people were decorating
their places in wood. Norwegian wood. It was pine really, cheap pine.
But it's not as good a title, 'Cheap Pine', baby.
"So it was a little parody really on those kind of girls who when you'd
go to their flat there would be a lot of Norwegian wood. It was
completely imaginary from my point of view but in John's it was based
on an affair he had. This wasn't the decor of someone's house, we made
that up.
"So she makes him sleep in the bath and then finally in the last verse
I had this idea to set the Norwegian wood on fire as revenge, so we did
it very tongue in cheek. She led him on, then said, 'You'd better sleep
in the bath.' In our world the guy had to have some sort of revenge. It
could havge meant I lit a fire to keep myself warm, and wasn't the
decor of her house wonderful? But it didn't, it meant I burned the
fucking place down as an act of revenge, and then we left it there and
went into the instrumental.
[discussion on George's sitar snipped] "It's 60-40 to John because it's
John's idea and John's tune. But I filled out lyrically and had the
idea to set the place on fire, so I take some sort of credit. And the
middle eight was mine, those middle eights, John never had his middle
eights."
Again, please explain how wrong it was for Paul to provide detail here
that no one had known before? Some detail that, again, John
corroborates:
Rolling Stone, 1970:
John: I think on "Norwegian Wood" and "In My Life" Paul helped with the
middle eight, to give credit where credit is due.
While, in his 1980 Playboy interview (p. 188), John claimed,
"'Norwegian Wood' is my song completely," he earlier acknowledged, in
his Hit Parader interview from 1972: "Me, but Paul helped me on the
lyrics."
And Paul (_In His Own Words,_ p. 19 -- I think this is from a Rolling
Stone interview but not sure): "'Norwegian Wood,' that was mainly
John's."
In short, you cite four songs where Paul claimed co-authorship, but
there are actually only two, both of which Paul details what precisely
his contributions were. And his comment about John's lack of a middle
eight is confirmed by not only John's own words but also the known
history behind "A Day in the Life."
So I don't see what was so horribly wrong of Paul to detail what he did
with the two (not four) songs you cited. And I'd love to have you
substantiate your 98% claim.
abby again
"johnny b. love" <rez.sol...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1151599967.9...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> My group glommed onto Lennon more than McCartney for personality as
> well as musical/martyr reasons. His raw interviews are a huge part of
> it; there is no McCartney equivalent. His dissection of his family
> McCartney has had a nicer, more stable upbeat life it seems, but ,
> rightly or wrongly, that contributes to his image as a lightweight
> of work and sibling competition, McCartney did get sucker punched by
> the assassination. There he was working his ass off, touring, making
> hit records like a good boy while Lennon languished and bam. His ass
> still gets kicked in terms of greater dramatic statements.
> But he's the one who's alive, right? No one got sucker punched more
> than John Lennon.
Nice post.
I must have enjoyed McCartney more for the exact reason you didn't take to
him, plus, he was just so darn cute in the early 80's!
uly...@mscomm.com
the
Gladly. First, I didn't call Paul's attempts to make himself
avant-garde "revisionist." Please re-read my post. I said the Barry
Miles book was Paul's attempt to refute revisionist Beatle history
which claims John was the sole member of the Beatles with any merit.
Paul bent over backwards to a ludicrous degree in the book, extolling
his avant-garde leanings when the world had thought only John was the
"artist."
I'm aware that Paul contributed the minor lyrics to various John songs
that you pointed out. They are still John songs. Because John threw in
the middle 8 to Michelle and We Can Work It Out doesn't make them John
songs, they are forever Paul songs. In fairness, John did this as well,
claiming credit for much of the lyrics to Rigby, when this has been
refuted by others in a position to know the truth.
I'm not a "Lennon is great, Paul is crap" type of Beatle fan. I love
them both equally. But I feel that Paul has acted immaturely the past
10 years regarding the legacy of Lennon. I refute Paul's theory that
the whole world believes Lennon was the greater Beatle. Paul uses this
"theory" as a justification of his behavior. No one with two brain
cells to rub together believes Paul as a Beatle "just booked the
studio," to quote an oft-used Paul line.
pepperman
I agree with you many ways.
However, adding a bridge or a refrain (We Can Work It Out, A Day In The
LIfe, She's Leaving Home, Baby You're A Rich Man) to a song is a much
bigger contribution than adding a few lyrics.
Generally speaking they are all "Beatles"-songs to me, I just like to
know where and how they collaborated.
uly...@mscomm.com
not time for fussing and fighting" is leagues above Paul throwing in
"newspaper taxis" or the melotron intro to Strawberry Fields.
Paul claiming to have co-written Lucy in the Sky or Strawberry Fields
is ludicrous. Techinically it may be true, but everyone knows those are
John songs. When John threw in "it can't get no worse" to "Getting
Better," he never claimed he co-wrote the song. Or throwing in "I love
you, I love you, I love you" into Michelle didn't mean John co-wrote
it.
John threw in the line "and you know what I mean" into "I Saw Her
Standing There" and he never claimed it was anything but a Macca song.
But again, John was guilty of doing this on occasion, claiming he wrote
more of a Paul song than he really did. But he wasn't so annoyingly
persistent about it and shrill as Paul has been.
donz5
> Paul claiming to have co-written Lucy in the Sky or Strawberry Fields
> is ludicrous.
And, again, inaccurate. Nowhere did Paul claim to have "co-written"
Lucy -- he details the history of his involvement in it -- nor did he
claim _any_ composing credit for SFF.
I'll respond to your earlier post later. Work imposes right now. :)
Rocket Scientist
their memories of how their songs were written. I eat this stuff up
and still end up dying for more. I can't get enough of this stuff.
I believe John and Paul's versions more than someone else who writes a
tell-all book about what they know, heard or saw. And from what I can
tell, both John and Paul's version usually overlap quite nicely.
-H
abe slaney
Paul: "Once you've got the great idea, they do tend to write themselves,
providing you know how to write songs."
Aha. I was wondering why my songs don't write themselves.
thursday@9
Paul rarely ever talked about it. Why didn't Paul refute any claims to
the contrary. John answered these questions when asked, but it never
seemed to be a driving force for him to process through the media,
unlike the Paul of today. Now that John is dead, you can't go a year
without some McCartney interview popping up telling the world that
Yesterday is his song only, or that Paul wrote on more songs than what
may have originally been thought. As far as I'm concerned its 'Lennon
AND McCartney, that's it. I'm tired of hearing who wrote 'newspaper
taxi's', it seems so petty.
cromwell
"thursday@9" <high...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1151639702.7...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
From Paul McCartney's autobiography, in Barry Miles acknowledgements, it
say's the following,
"In the course of writing this book, Paul and I talked about every Lennon
and McCartney composition, including those recorded by groups other than the
Beatles, PAUL PURPOSELY DID NOT READ JOHN'S COMMENTS BEFOREHAND BUT IN ONLY
TWO CASES OUT OF MORE THAN EIGHTY SONGS WERE THERE A SERIOUS DISAGREEMENT
ABOUT WHOSE COMPOSITION IT WAS(my emphasis - GS)"(x)
I have read McCartney's book and I can tell you, that the claim at the top
of this thread - that he wrote 98% of the Lennon-McCartney compositions - is
pure invention.
The fact is, in terms of composition, especially in the later years, the
Lennon-McCartney tag was merely a copyright formula. For example, the
compositions for the White Album, were written on an individual basis.
The publication of Many Years From Now brought this particular debate to an
end.
Geoff.
Danny Caccavo
"thursday@9" <high...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"Sorry, I don't subscribe to your religion"
-dc
Danny Caccavo
uly...@mscomm.com wrote:
You may not be that kind of fan. But I once was (when I was younger and
more foolish) so perhaps that's why I'm actually quite sympathetic to
Pauls' point of view. It seems that in every new generation, there are
many who read and believe "Lennon Remembers" and for whom "How Do You
Sleep" and "POB" are the eqivalent of the 23rd psalm...
It just never stops. I think that throughout the '70s and well into the
80's, Paul was hoping it would just go away. But it didn't, and I feel
that not only is Paul justified in trying to set the record straight,
it's important that he does, for historical reasons. I'd hate to imagine
that 200 years from now we had "St. Lennon's Day" on October 9th (or
more likely, December 8th). In an earlier, non-informational age, that
could be a genuine possibility.
As far as I'm concerned, the Beatles were 50% Lennon, 50% McCartney, 25%
Harrison and 25% Ringo. Yep, that adds up to 150%, which is why no one
else comes close.
dc
Danny Caccavo
uly...@mscomm.com wrote:
I don't think it's shrill on Paul's part - it's defensive, which yes,
can seem annoying if you don't appreciate the history. When John did it,
it was usually boastful or coming from anger or resentment. But as was
pointed out, Lennon later referred to "Lennon Remembers" as "Lennon
Forgets."
To pick up where someone else was going, I do consider many of the later
songs to be collaborations, even if they were written independently -
because they were still within each others's sphere of influence. All
you have to do is check out their solo work after the divorce really
sunk in, or after the influeced songs ran dry. I remember thinking,
"geez, this is Lennon, why is this so embarassing" and "geez, this is
McCartney, why is this so shallow?" Some try to apply this to
McCartney's later work in The Beatles (Ob-La-Di Ob-La-Da, or Maxwell's
Silver hammer), but never seem to mention "Bungalow Bill" ...as far as
I'm concerned, there's nothing wrong with any of those songs. There was
room for all of that in The Beatles - or Tomorrow Never Knows, When i'm
64, Honey Pie - even Revolution #9 - and in fact, I think all of that
was an essential part of what they were.
I still like repeating this, being a recovering Star Trek geek. Ever see
"The Enemy Within" where the transporter splits Kirk in two? <g>. It's
not a total parallel, but the essential part was that each half couldn't
live without the other. And I guess for me, "Beatles" was living, in
comparison to (with some notable exceptions of course) both Lennon's and
McCartney's solo careers.
dc
Lookingglass
"Danny Caccavo" <dcaccav...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:dcaccavonojunk-31D...@news.west.earthlink.net...
<snip>
> As far as I'm concerned, the Beatles were 50% Lennon, 50% McCartney, 25%
> Harrison and 25% Ringo. Yep, that adds up to 150%, which is why no one
> else comes close.
>
> dc
...nicely said Danny... I couldn't have said it better.
dave (...tuned to a natural E...)
www.Shemakhan.com
thursday@9
Probably because it's a thingy, a fiendish evil thingy....or 'Stop
trying to drag things down to your own level, it's immature, son.
dlarsson
Good points made.
Although I would add some additional points:
1. No one ever said at any time (no book, no documentary, etc.)
either that Paul just "did nothing" or just "booked the studio"
so this was a false premise to write a book about in the first place.
2. John Lennon was not "a martyr" and he did not "become something"
because of his murder/death. This is another totally false premise.
Lennon had been on the very highest pedestal of the Rock-n-Roll
and popular culture scene all throughout the 1960s and most if his
adult life. He set where the top bar was in the 60s. His whole
look,
appearance, anti-establishment manner of talking & his singing were
all widely copied and emulated more so than any other member. In
many ways he was "the indentity" of the Beatles. He was always
percieved as the head Beatle, the "Beatles Leader", "the smart
Beatle,
and the most provocative one all throughout the 1960s (as his
music
and his public interviews also reveal).
He was also referred to and written about as a "genuis" much more
so during his life than either McCartney, Epstein, or Martin and
in 1970 he was awarded Britian's prestigous BBC "Man of the
Decade"
award (no other mere musician or performing artist of any kind has
ever won that). He was also recognized as a key voice & leader of
the
"peace movement" so much so that the Nixon Administration felt it was
strategically important to them to neutralize Lennon's plans of
creating
a series of new "Woodstock" style concerts.
So the idea that the guy who wrote "Strawberry Fields", "A Day In The
Life",
"I Am The Walrus", "All You Need Is Love", "Revolution", "Imagine",
etc.
just suddenly became 'somebody big' after his murder is the most
absurd
and ignorant dismissal of who Lennon was that could ever be
fabricated.
He was always regarded as the "substance"behind the Beatles and the
band-defining member in the group.
When Lennon died he was hardly placed on some new pedestal that he
hadn't already been on before. Conversely, he was attacked &
smeared by
Albert Goldman, had his diaries & other materials stolen by Fred
Seaman,
and faced a number disrespectful tabloid-style smears about his
personal life.
Back in the 1960s one writer referred to the Beatles after the
recording
of "All You Need Is Love" as: 'One giant, his sidekick, and two
other guys'.
It is really both absurd & bizarre then for McCartney to cry fowl
and
crocodile-tears when people today simply give Lennon his due
respect
as the Beatles most provocative member & cutting-edge songwriter
(which he obviously was). That was always true and you can hear
all
of that - right on the records.
McCartney might not like being in second place, but he was
in second place during the 1960s & 1970s in terms of the
question "who was the most artistic", "who was the most
cutting-edge". McCartney even seemed to bask in the
idea of being a "Silly Love Song" writer throughout the
1970s because it was quite profitable for him. He had
won the popularity contest. Then, after Lennon dies,
McCartney decides to change-up his whole image and
pirate from Lennon's work to try and convince people
that he was "Mr. Beatle" -- it is a crock of shit. If Lennon
were alive -- he'd never be making about 75% of the claims
that he's been making. In any event, McCartney did
confess that Lennon's "Playboy Interviews" account
of their songwriting was "very accurate". So, by that
admission we can take "Many Stories From My Ego"
and toss it in the trash where it belongs.
3. Lennon did write music that is every bit as good as his Beatle's
masterpeices by himself (without McCartney). "Imagine" is
one obvious example. "Happy-Christmas" is another example.
"#9 Dream", "Mind Games", "Instant Karma", "Beautiful Boy", etc.
"Woman" even sounds very similar to "If I Fell" to me.
And "Grow Old With Me" probably would have beeen another classic
had Lennon lived to arrange it & record it properly. In fact,
Lennon's
solo work has a timelessness and a power to it that rivals the
Beatles
impact. Songs like "Imagine", "Power To The People",
"Give Peace A Chance", "Happy Christmas", "Instant Karma"
are these icons that will live on throughout time and always hold
their
meaning and potentcy as social message-songs.
Lennon also made a point of not trying to gear his solo career
along
standard, commercial objectives. He wasn't trying to make
"Band On The Run", he was trying to make music that said
something.
He was more into self-discovery and music-activism .. a trend that
began
for him around 1966 and grow more apparant with each passing
year.
In my opinion, all that Lennon missed was the creative
production/arranging
embellisments of George Martin, but potency of his raw material
was rarely
the problem. I don't think Phil Specter was any damn good.
Martin knew
how to suggest, from experience, some new things to John and
broaden his
scope a little.
dlarsson
Good points made.
Although I would add some additional points:
1. No one ever said at any time (no book, no documentary, etc.)
either that Paul just "did nothing" or just "booked the studio"
so this was a false premise to write a book about in the first place.
2. John Lennon was not "a martyr" and he did not "become something"
because of his murder/death. This is another totally false premise.
Lennon had been on the very highest pedestal of the Rock-n-Roll
and popular culture scene all throughout the 1960s and most if his
adult life. He set where "the top-bar" was in the 1960s.
His whole look, appearance, anti-establishment manner of
talking & his singing were all widely copied and emulated more so
than any other member.
In many ways he was "the identity" of the Beatles. He was
always percieved as the head Beatle, the "Beatles Leader",
"the rebel", "the smart Beatle", "the funny wise-cracking"
one, and the most artistically provocative one all throughout
the 1960s (as both his music and his public interviews also reveal).
He was also referred to and written about as a "genuis" much more
so during his life than either McCartney, Epstein, or Martin and
in 1970 he was awarded Britian's prestigous
BBC "Man of the Decade" award
(no other mere musician or performing artist of any kind has
ever won that). He was also recognized as a key voice & leader
of the"peace movement" so much so that the Nixon Administration
felt it was strategically important to them to neutralize Lennon's
plans
of creating a series of new "Woodstock" style concerts.
So the idea that the guy who wrote "Strawberry Fields", "A Day In
The Life", "I Am The Walrus", "All You Need Is Love", "Revolution",
"Imagine", etc. just suddenly became 'somebody big' after his
murder
is the most absurd and ignorant dismissal of who Lennon was that
could ever be fabricated. He was always regarded as the
"substance"behind the Beatles and the band-defining member
in the group.
When Lennon died he was hardly placed on some new pedestal that he
hadn't already been on before. Conversely, he was attacked &
smeared by Albert Goldman, had his diaries & other materials
illegally stolen by Fred Seaman, and faced a number of
disrespectful
vindictive tabloid-style smears about his personal life.
But back in the 1960s one writer referred to the Beatles after the
recording of "All You Need Is Love" as: 'One giant, his sidekick,
and two other guys'.
It is really both absurd & bizarre then for McCartney to cry fowl
and crocodile-tears today when people simply give Lennon his
a trend that began for him around 1966 and grow more apparant
with each passing year.
In my opinion, all that Lennon missed was the creative
production/arranging embellisments of George Martin, but the
Dave Stewart
will see right from the beginning, look at 'Every Little Thing' (in
fact he produced so many catchy songs it would take too long to type
them all) to 'Long And Winding Road.'
When you ask people to think of Beatles songs they almost always think
of The Beatles in their early sixties singing 'All My Loving',
'Yesterday' or songs that were co-written. Lennon's songs may have been
stranger and more unique but were not necessarily better songs.
Lennon *was* the lead member of the band, but that was because it was
*his* band, not necessarily because he was always the best musically,
and in fact McCartney made better music in the later years of the band.
As for 'Many Years From Now', I don't know about anyone else but I find
it one of the most fascinating books I have ever read and I would much
rather read about McCartney up to his tricks in London than about John
and Yoko.
Let me add the usual disclaimer, even though I'm sick of saying it:
All members of the Beatles were very intelligent and both Lennon and
McCartney wrote excellent songs.
BlackMonk
"Dave Stewart" <stewa...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:1151889722.7...@j8g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Lennon *was* the lead member of the band, but that was because it was
> *his* band, not necessarily because he was always the best musically,
> and in fact McCartney made better music in the later years of the band.
No, IN OPINION McCartney made better music in the later years of the band.
Lizz Holmans
Oh, for Pete's sake, Tom, everything here except documented source
material is someone's opinion. Yer my best mate and I really love you,
man, but let's not go to extremes. I *never* use IMHO or any variants
on any post because it is blatantly obvious that what I write is my
opinion. Who else's opinion would it be? If it doesn't have a cite,
it's opinion.
Lizz 'a source is a source, of course, of course' Holmans
--
Rumpeta, rumpeta, rumpeta
dlarsson
> McCartney was much better at coming up with catchy melodies, as you
> will see right from the beginning, look at 'Every Little Thing' (in
> fact he produced so many catchy songs it would take too long to type
> them all) to 'Long And Winding Road.'
I don't think "Every Little Thing" was one of their strongest
songs here (it was never even a single). It was also co-written
by John anyway and Lennon has a prominent singing role on it.
I have no argument that McCartney had catchy melodies - but
he also had very little passion & musical tension in his songs
which Lennon had. As far as melodies go, songs like "Because",
"Girl", "Julia", "Lucy In The Sky", "If I Fell" were some of the most
musically sophisticated & complex melodies that the Beatles
ever produced . "Yesterday" is quite bland compared with "Girl".
Lennon also wrote the band's three-part harmony vehicles such
as: "This Boy", "Tell Me Why", "Help", "Yes It Is", "Nowhere Man",
"Because", etc. And if you look at things like guitar riffs
( "Day Tripper", "Revolution", "I Feel Fine", "Hey Bulldog", etc.)
and the complexity of chord changes: ("I Want You/She's So Heavy"
comes to mind) - Lennon's music clearly reflected the band's
cutting-edge material.
> When you ask people to think of Beatles songs they almost always think
> of The Beatles in their early sixties singing 'All My Loving',
> 'Yesterday' or songs that were co-written. Lennon's songs may have been
> stranger and more unique but were not necessarily better songs.
Well, they also think of "A Hard Day's Night", "Help", "Ticket To Ride"
"Day Tripper", "I Feel Fine" etc, as well. But if Lennon's songs were
less conventional and more provocative & unique then that originality
is itself something that he deserves credit for - right? So, when
people
discuss Lennon's originality, McCartney has no right to try and deny
that or to complain about it as being just a by-product of
"Lennon's death".
> Lennon *was* the lead member of the band, but that was because it was
> *his* band, not necessarily because he was always the best musically,
> and in fact McCartney made better music in the later years of the band.
McCartney made a lot of pure dopey vaudvillian schlock too .. like
"Maxwell Silver Hammer" & "Hello Goodbye" & "Lovely Rita Meter Maid"
songs about nothing .. at a time period where Rock Music had become
a very powerful medium with many artists making amazing sounds
and songs.
Just how does McCartney's little "ditties" here hold up along side
the great 60s songs like The Doors "Light My Fire" or Jimmy Hendrix
and all those Woodstock-era rock artists-? Lennon's music holds
up pretty well: ( "Revolution", "Because", "Come Together", etc. )
but McCartney's stuff just seems like soft-rock fluff by
comparison.
Even "The Long & Winding Road" is just a pop-tune that could
have just as easily been Barry Manilow or the Carpenters or
any other competent top-40 pop-crooner. There was not
much that much "Rock" in McCartney's roll during the later years.
His music was too commercial, too conventional, too safe,
and too lyrically-bland to represent the deep power and heights
that Rock music attained in the 1960s & early 70s.
BlackMonk
"Lizz Holmans" <di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7dtga29t9qnhk943s...@4ax.com...
And I have no problem with that except when someone says that their opinion
is fact.
BlackMonk
"dlarsson" <derek_...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Aaudncl8N-qwGjXZ...@comcast.com...
> > Lennon *was* the lead member of the band, but that was because it was
>> *his* band, not necessarily because he was always the best musically,
>> and in fact McCartney made better music in the later years of the band.
>
> McCartney made a lot of pure dopey vaudvillian schlock too .. like
> "Maxwell Silver Hammer" & "Hello Goodbye" & "Lovely Rita Meter Maid"
> songs about nothing .. at a time period where Rock Music had become
> a very powerful medium with many artists making amazing sounds
> and songs.
>
I suggest you listen to the lyrics again if you think they were about
nothing.
> Just how does McCartney's little "ditties" here hold up along side
> the great 60s songs like The Doors "Light My Fire" or Jimmy Hendrix
> and all those Woodstock-era rock artists-?
Pretty well, actually. Light My Fire was, lyrically, at least,
inconsquential and wasn't much more than a two chord vamp, since that kind
of thing matters to you when discussing Lennon's advanced chord changes.
Nice performance, though, and I do like Krieger's solo. He was doing things
that not too many other guitarists were around then.
And maybe it's not a good idea to bring up Jimi ("Foxy Lady," "Fire")
Hendrix right after criticising someone for writing songs "about nothing"
and "ditties." You should, at least, spell his name right.
Dave Stewart
> songs here (it was never even a single). It was also co-written
> by John anyway and Lennon has a prominent singing role on it.
Paul McCartney wrote most of 'Every Little Thing' in his music room at
Cavendish Avenue, he played it for Brian Epstein backstage. (Many Years
>From Now, pages 108, 174).
>
> I have no argument that McCartney had catchy melodies - but
> he also had very little passion & musical tension in his songs
> which Lennon had.
'She's Leaving Home' is filled with sadness, not to mention countless
other songs written mainly by McCartney during the Beatles, 'And I Love
Her', 'Blackbird', 'For No One', 'Here There And Everywhere', 'I've Got
A Feeling' (note it is McCartney's part that has the 'feeling', whereas
Lennon adds another section).
You make the mistake of assuming that a song has to be depressing or
sad to be emotional or to convey emotion. McCartney's songs are often
about optimism in hard times, young people in love, and uncertainty.
These are important and equally valid emotions.
"Yesterday" is quite bland compared with "Girl".
Nonsense. 'Girl' is not *half* the song 'Yesterday' is.
> McCartney has no right to try and deny
> that or to complain about it as being just a by-product of
> "Lennon's death".
McCartney has never come out and said that anything is a by-product of
Lennon death, he has never said that Lennon material was anything less
than excellent when it actually was. What he is concerned about is
people focusing only on Lennon because they know that Lennon can't
release any more records, meaning that what he did release goes from
being a mere back catalogue of great work to gold dust.
> McCartney made a lot of pure dopey vaudvillian schlock too .. like
> "Maxwell Silver Hammer" & "Hello Goodbye" & "Lovely Rita Meter Maid"
> songs about nothing .. at a time period where Rock Music had become
> a very powerful medium with many artists making amazing sounds
> and songs.
'Hello Goodbye' is a good 1960s, catchy song. What is wrong with the
vaudevillian songs? They had a bit of lightheartedness to the rock
albums, and before you go criticising McCartney on this, maybe you
should also have a go at Ray Davis from The Kinks and the many other
bands who wrote in this style at the time. You are mistaken to think
that the 1960s was only about rock music; it was a time of free
expression and McCartney exemplifies that.
>
> Just how does McCartney's little "ditties" here hold up along side
> the great 60s songs like The Doors "Light My Fire" or Jimmy Hendrix
> and all those Woodstock-era rock artists-? Lennon's music holds
> up pretty well: ( "Revolution", "Because", "Come Together", etc. )
> but McCartney's stuff just seems like soft-rock fluff by
> comparison.
Jimi Hendrix performed 'Sgt. Pepper' live only days after he heard it,
and that song was mainly written by McCartney LOL. Lennon's music does
hold up pretty well, but so does McCartney's, it's not soft-rock fluff
at all. There is no melody to Come Together, it's plodding and it
doesn't go anywhere. Revolution is a good song but also look at
Revolution #9, if that wasn't made by The Beatles no one would ever
have listened to it or bought it. 'Because' is not as good as
Harrison's 'Here Comes The Sun' and neither of them are as good as 'You
Never Give Me Your Money.'
> Even "The Long & Winding Road" is just a pop-tune that could
> have just as easily been Barry Manilow or the Carpenters or
> any other competent top-40 pop-crooner.
That's a plainly obvious neglect of how good a song 'Long And Winding
Road' is. It's an amazing song and I'm sorry, or we're ALL sorry, you
can't recognize that.
> There was not
> much that much "Rock" in McCartney's roll during the later years.
And what about Lennon's 'Rock And Roll' album, I don't think I need
expand on this any further.
BlackMonk
"poisoned rose" <closeupthe...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:XX0qg.126336$dW3....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> "BlackMonk" <Blac...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
>> Light My Fire was, lyrically, at least,
>> inconsquential and wasn't much more than a two chord vamp, since that
>> kind
>> of thing matters to you when discussing Lennon's advanced chord changes.
>
> such a common pair of chords. More jazz than rock, really....
>
The instrumental section struck me as a take on Miles Davis. I don't know if
he used that progression, though. I haven't listened heavily to Jazz in
ages.
> There are probably a couple of dozen Doors tracks I like better,
> though. Even on the same album, there are four or five tunes I
> prefer. Damn...how many bands opened their first album with a song
> as electrifying as "Break on Through"? I'd take that over "I Saw Her
> Standing There," even though I love that song too!
I always liked the first three songs on the second side, which I think are
usually considered to be the weak patch on the album.
BlackMonk
> "Yesterday" is quite bland compared with "Girl".
>
> Nonsense. 'Girl' is not *half* the song 'Yesterday' is.
>
Nonsense. Neither of them are all that good, but Girl has a more interesting
lyric.
>
> Jimi Hendrix performed 'Sgt. Pepper' live only days after he heard it,
> and that song was mainly written by McCartney LOL. Lennon's music does
> hold up pretty well, but so does McCartney's, it's not soft-rock fluff
> at all. There is no melody to Come Together, it's plodding and it
> doesn't go anywhere. Revolution is a good song but also look at
> Revolution #9, if that wasn't made by The Beatles no one would ever
> have listened to it or bought it.
Popularity is not a valid criterion for judging musical quality.
'Because' is not as good as
> Harrison's 'Here Comes The Sun' and neither of them are as good as 'You
> Never Give Me Your Money.'
>
You've got that all mixed up. Here Comes The Sun is not as good as You Never
Give Me Your Money and neither of them are as good as Because.
>> Even "The Long & Winding Road" is just a pop-tune that could
>> have just as easily been Barry Manilow or the Carpenters or
>> any other competent top-40 pop-crooner.
>
> That's a plainly obvious neglect of how good a song 'Long And Winding
> Road' is. It's an amazing song and I'm sorry, or we're ALL sorry, you
> can't recognize that.
>
Lousy lyric, though.
TAR
This is why I often use the words, "I think" or "I feel". I find it
annoying when others state something as a fact, even when I know that
it's only an opinion.
dlarsson
> Paul McCartney wrote most of 'Every Little Thing' in his music room at
> Cavendish Avenue, he played it for Brian Epstein backstage. (Many Years
>>From Now, pages 108, 174).
It was co-written however and John clearly has a prominent
singing role on the song ... which is a clue.
>> I have no argument that McCartney had catchy melodies - but
>> he also had very little passion & musical tension in his songs
>> which Lennon had.
> 'She's Leaving Home' is filled with sadness,
Note: Lennon added the "Parents" voices & lamenting
> You make the mistake of assuming that a song has to be depressing or
> sad to be emotional or to convey emotion.
No, that's an oversimplification. I am referring to musical
tension & release and "passion" in general. Most of
McCartney's music falls into the 'happy-go-lucky'
"do re me do fa la ti da" category and does not convey
much real passion or deep expression to it. His music is
also generally rooted on simple diatonic scales
( "do re me do fa la ti da" ) whereas Lennon's music
blended a fascinating mixture of melodic, dissonent,
and odd-rhythmic elements (as well as surrealism).
>> "Yesterday" is quite bland compared with "Girl".
> Nonsense. 'Girl' is not *half* the song 'Yesterday' is.
"Yesterday" was a big hit and very popular.
I am not arguing about it's commerical appeal.
My point is that "Girl" was a much more complex
and musically sophiscated melody from a musical
perspective -- which it's minor-scale based phrasing
and dual dissonent & melodic phrasing. "Because"
is also more musically complex that anything thing
I can think of from McCartney.
>> McCartney has no right to try and deny
>> that or to complain about it as being just a by-product of
>> "Lennon's death".
>
> McCartney has never come out and said that anything is a by-product of
> Lennon death, he has never said that Lennon material was anything less
> than excellent
I wish that were true. But McCartney has, in fact, given
several interviews where he openly & publically laments
the fact that Lennon received a lot of attention after his
death. You'll notice that McCartney also refused to participate
in the "Imagine" movie or any of the tribute concerts for
John Lennon (he did participate for George Harrison's tribute
concerts). He clearly resents any public attention being
shown for John Lennon and has practically campaigned
to re-make his image and to diminish Lennon's for 20 years.
And his clearly biased, one-sided revisionism
of the Beatles: "Many Years From Now" is entirely based
on the false premise that he was "the arty" one and
even though Lennon's music was "experimental" - Paul
deserves the credit for it. Simply put: It's bullshit-!
and coming from a man with far too much vanity and
self-aggrandizement than you'd think could ever be
possible given the horrific tragedy of Lennon's murder
and the loss of clearly one of the most influential people
of the 20th century.
Fact: Lennon went to Art School (not Paul)
Fact: Lennon painted and drew caricatures, cartoons
and wrote short-stories, poetry, and published books
(not Paul - at least not then)
Fact: Lennon's very best friend was Staurt Sutcliffe
the brilliant artist whose work sold for big money
Fact: Lennon was far more knowlegeable about Art,
about Artists than McCartney and he was far
more 'read-up' on Artists and he read recreationally
on Art, Religion, History, etc. and would talk
about these subjects - literally all the time.
Fact: Lennon's first wife was Art student: Cynthia Powell
Fact: Lennon's second wife was performance-Artist Yoko Ono
Fact: Lennon's music employed the use of surrealism and
other artistic devices - as well as experimentation
Fact: Lennon was obsessed by 'backwards sounds',
'tape loops', and other creative effects and it
was HIS MUSIC where those techniques were
sought out by him and used ( not Paul's music).
Fact: Lennon's music is, by far, the most "musically
experimental" in the band's catalog - with Harrison's
music being easily in SECOND PLACE (not Paul's ).
Fact: McCartney's music was clearly the most transparently
commerically-focused and geared towards AM-Radio
Fact: Just listen to the damn music .. it's obvious who was
the guru of "60s psychedelic music" .. and who
was a just a conventional-commerical songwriter.
Fact: Ask Astrid Kirchherr (Sutcliffe's girlfriend) who
was the "arty" Beatle-? or ask Ringo?
Quote: "People say that Paul was on the edge of
this, that, and the other, but the point is
John -was- the edge. And say what you
will, it was his band."
-Ringo Starr, Rolling Stone Magazine
Quote: "But I still like 'the Walrus', 'Strawberry Fields',
the 'LENNON things' the best. I miss THAT.
I miss that side of music."
-George Harrison, Musician Magazine
The truth is out there - and it is not to be found in
Macca's little self-propaganda, self-glorification book.
> What is wrong with the
> vaudevillian songs? They had a bit of lightheartedness to the rock
> albums,
Well, there is nothing "wrong" with any song really.
But, these songs are not what made the Beatles
an important band here or represent the 60s movement
or what serves as the best of 1960s music. These
are the throwaways of the Beatles repertoire.
People may like them, despite this, but they were
not what had made "The Beatles" the leaders of the
60s-shift and the social movement away from the status-quo.
> Lennon's music does
> hold up pretty well, but so does McCartney's, it's not soft-rock fluff
> at all.
It is quite soft .. for the most part (some exceptions)
especially for what was going on in Rock music during
it's zenith (1967 - 1970)
> 'Because' is not as good as Harrison's 'Here Comes The Sun'
> and neither of them are as good as 'You Never Give Me Your Money.'
They are all good songs and HCTS & Because are both great.
My point about "Because" was the musical complexity itself.
Sometimes people look at one Lennon song or another
and say - well that had "no melody" - but Lennon was
very diverse. He wrote some songs with soaring melodies
("Lucy In the Sky", "Because", etc.) and others where
the melody doesn't move much (deliberately) - but the
chords & whole music structure underneath the song
moves dramatically ("I am The Walrus", "Strawberry Fields").
>> There was not
>> much that much "Rock" in McCartney's roll during the later years.
> And what about Lennon's 'Rock And Roll' album, I don't think I need
> expand on this any further.
Phil Spector ruined that project - along with it coming during
the time of John's separation in his marriage and it was a
bad period for him. Had Lennon made that record in
in 1980, when his life was in order -- it would have been great.
thursday@9
poisoned rose wrote:
> "dlarsson" <derek_...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > As far as melodies go, songs like "Because",
> > "Girl", "Julia", "Lucy In The Sky", "If I Fell" were some of the most
> > musically sophisticated & complex melodies that the Beatles
> > ever produced . "Yesterday" is quite bland compared with "Girl".
> > Lennon also wrote the band's three-part harmony vehicles such
> > as: "This Boy", "Tell Me Why", "Help", "Yes It Is", "Nowhere Man",
> > "Because", etc. And if you look at things like guitar riffs
> > ( "Day Tripper", "Revolution", "I Feel Fine", "Hey Bulldog", etc.)
> > and the complexity of chord changes: ("I Want You/She's So Heavy"
> > comes to mind) - Lennon's music clearly reflected the band's
> > cutting-edge material.
>
> hopeless to even address, but one can certainly find McCartney tunes
> with sophisticated chord changes. Try "Penny Lane," "The Fool on the
> Hill," "The Long & Winding Road," "Blackbird," "Here There &
> Everywhere," "Martha My Dear," "Step Inside Love" (if that counts),
> "Michelle," "She's Leaving Home," "And I Love Her," "Honey Pie," "I
> Will"....
>
> And you were out to "smear" Lennon on these grounds, you could
> certainly assemble a biased list of Lennon songs with dull, ordinary
> chords. Heck, you even cited "This Boy, "Tell Me Why" and "Yes It
> Is" in this very post.
Here's the deal...along with Ray Davies, the music of Lennon &
McCartney were by far the best songs being written during the swingin'
sixties. You add some Harrison into the mix and you get a pretty potent
package known as the Beatles. Nothing will ever diminish the impact of
the Beatles as songwriters, not even when you add the songs Ringo wrote
into the mix.
Looking over this dissection of songs, from melodic to surreal, from
'Every Little Thing' to 'Walrus' just seems so f'ing petty.
It would appear that we all have our favorite songs, and closer to the
point, our favorite Beatle.
Lennon wrote his biography (in a way, his creative contribution)
through the alternative media of the time, Rolling Stone. Whether or
not his biography is correct, he did it while alive and while Macca was
alive. That meant, he talked openly about the Beatles in a way that no
other Beatle had done up to that point, and it should be noted,
continued to do so until his dying day. Paul did not pony up to the
table in the same way, for whatever reason, while Lennon was alive.
However, once Lennon was dead you could count on McCartney being in the
paper's whenever a new Macca record came out, talking about the old
days of the Beatles and his part in the creation of the songs.
Really, this is my only problem with Macca. I'm not even sure I doubt a
lot of his claims to the dual collaboration, or lack thereof, for me
it's all about his timing. He could've spoken to this or challenged it
repeatedly through the 70's, but to my knowledge, he never did. Can
anyone out there point to a reference book challenging my claim?
But really, comparing 'Girl' to 'Yesterday'? How about moving this
comparison up 10 to 15 years to their solo work and compare 'Woman' to
'Tomorrow'?
Now that's an ass kicking.
cromwell
> "cromwell" <ste...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > From Paul McCartney's autobiography, in Barry Miles acknowledgements, it
> > say's the following,
> >
> > "In the course of writing this book, Paul and I talked about every
Lennon
> > and McCartney composition, including those recorded by groups other than
the
> > Beatles, PAUL PURPOSELY DID NOT READ JOHN'S COMMENTS BEFOREHAND BUT IN
ONLY
> > TWO CASES OUT OF MORE THAN EIGHTY SONGS WERE THERE A SERIOUS
DISAGREEMENT
> > ABOUT WHOSE COMPOSITION IT WAS(my emphasis - GS)"(x)
>
Eleanor Rigby and A Day in the Life.
Geoff
cromwell
"cromwell" <ste...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:E-ydnVNXKv4EBTTZ...@bt.com...
Correction: Not A Day in the Life but In my Life. Sorry
Geoff.