Jump to content

Your preference as a songwriter; McCartney or Lennon?


Taylorman

Recommended Posts

  • Members

I guess this is somwhat of a repeat of what has been said, but I'll offer my opinion on the question as well.

1) the combination was really superb and special
2) i believe mccartney had the more natural gift of melody and harmony
3) ...and lennon could create more lyrically aggressive.

but of course lennon also wrote some world-loved melodies/harmonies and mccartney wrote some very memorable lyrics so....... there you go!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 93
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

Originally posted by Grubgoat

If I ever got married, I would have "Love" playing as the walk-down-the-aisle music, as an instrumental. Its Perfect.

 

 

I got married in September and we had two friends perform Love during the ceremony, voice and acoustic. Arranging that piano part for guitar turned out to be quite a job for my friend. It was really pretty amazing.

 

Anyway, for me it depends when you ask me- I'd probably have a different answer for you every time, which just shows you what a ridiculously good pair they were.

 

There's a great old book, which sadly I can't think of the name of, that goes through each song and talks about who wrote it and what the recording process was like. It uses quotes from all sorts of sources to approximate songwriting credit for each tune, i.e. Lennon .8 McCartney .2

 

The guy concludes that Lennon wrote slightly more of their songs. The interesting thing is that John was much more aggressive about pointing out his contributions, and in the mid sixties will be quoted saying, "oh, that was all Paul", and then by '70 quoted about the same song saying things like "I did the middle eight on that." Who knows if he was being honest, or his ego ended up exaggerating his share. Either way kind of an intersting way to follow the decline in the relationship... You also find out that several times they really hated something that the other one was doing for an album...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Originally posted by jt9057

Paul is a better songwriter. I heard stories that he'd come into the studio with his songs already arranged in his head.

 

 

I've heard this, but I've also heard that Paul had a hard time remembering lyrics. For example, Oh-bla-di, oh-bla-da...

 

Happy ever after in the market place

Molly lets the children lend a hand

Desmond stays at home and does his pretty face

In the evening she still sings it with the band

 

The rest of the Beatles decided later it sounded better that way, so they left it instead of trying to cut it again. He was probably pretty stoned, anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Originally posted by jt9057

Paul is a better songwriter. I heard stories that he'd come into the studio with his songs already arranged in his head. Lennon would come in with at the very most only his part. Ringo, George and Paul usually made up their own parts on John's songs.

 

 

That's interesting, but it could be that Lennon just viewed his band mates in a much more democratic fashion. Look how Paul has to stamp himself all over everything the Beatles did. For Example, Paul puts Backup vocals on almost everything George wrote, but John rarely seems to force his vocals on the George tracks.

 

I think John just trusted George & Ringo, whereas Paul didn't.

 

I recall Tony Levin mentioning how complete Lenon's songs were when he recorded with him on Double Fantasy.

 

Still, it is a difficult question, but I would say my very favorite Beatle songs are mid-60s Lennon stuff - Ticket To Ride, Nowhere Man, Help, etc. So Lennon it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Originally posted by zinzin



yeah: Lennon-Harrison!!


that would have been nice!

are there songs from this couple? don't think so, am i right?

 

 

The only Lennon-Harrison collaboration is an instrumental called "Cry for a Shadow", which you can hear on the first Beatles Anthology CD.

 

In my opinion, Lennon wrote better songs, but McCartney wrote better music. That's as specific as I can get.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Originally posted by PFB



That's interesting, but it could be that Lennon just viewed his band mates in a much more democratic fashion. Look how Paul has to stamp himself all over everything the Beatles did. For Example, Paul puts Backup vocals on almost everything George wrote, but John rarely seems to force his vocals on the George tracks.


I think John just trusted George & Ringo, whereas Paul didn't.


 

 

On the contrary, I've heard that Paul was much more open-minded with regard to the other members' contributions on his and other songs. I've never heard of Ringo, John or George complaining about him stuffing songs with ideas they weren't so enthusiastic about. And as for back-up vocals, you have to admit that on any song that Paul put backup vocals, they sounded amazing. They never sounded 'forced', and I've read of George raving about some of his harmonies on songs like 'Here Comes The Sun'. So John didn't put so many backup vocals on George's tracks. Maybe he just couldn't think up many harmony parts. Paul's songs themselves were always more vocal-filled than John's, if you noticed, in addition to being more melodic in general. Maybe he just had a lot of vocal ideas. It doesn't make him any less 'democratic' than John. I think everyone in that band trusted everyone else, simply because they all knew how good each one was at what he did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Originally posted by Sherinian gonnabe



On the contrary, I've heard that Paul was much more open-minded with regard to the other members' contributions on his and other songs. I've never heard of Ringo, John or George complaining about him stuffing songs with ideas they weren't so enthusiastic about. And as for back-up vocals, you have to admit that on any song that Paul put backup vocals, they sounded amazing. They never sounded 'forced', and I've read of George raving about some of his harmonies on songs like 'Here Comes The Sun'. So John didn't put so many backup vocals on George's tracks. Maybe he just couldn't think up many harmony parts. Paul's songs themselves were always more vocal-filled than John's, if you noticed, in addition to being more melodic in general. Maybe he just had a lot of vocal ideas. It doesn't make him any less 'democratic' than John. I think everyone in that band trusted everyone else, simply because they all knew how good each one was at what he did.

 

 

I know that John was very vocal about the way something should sound, though. If things didn't go the way they should, or if things weren't working, he often got very pissed off, especially in the later years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Originally posted by Sherinian gonnabe



On the contrary, I've heard that Paul was much more open-minded with regard to the other members' contributions on his and other songs. I've never heard of Ringo, John or George complaining about him stuffing songs with ideas they weren't so enthusiastic about. And as for back-up vocals, you have to admit that on any song that Paul put backup vocals, they sounded amazing. They never sounded 'forced', and I've read of George raving about some of his harmonies on songs like 'Here Comes The Sun'. So John didn't put so many backup vocals on George's tracks. Maybe he just couldn't think up many harmony parts. Paul's songs themselves were always more vocal-filled than John's, if you noticed, in addition to being more melodic in general. Maybe he just had a lot of vocal ideas. It doesn't make him any less 'democratic' than John. I think everyone in that band trusted everyone else, simply because they all knew how good each one was at what he did.

 

 

Paul did the drum solo in The End on Abbey Road, do you think he fully trusted Ringo?

 

And it may be just one or two incidents, but did you ever see the movie Let It Be, when George and Paul are fighting? Paul is clearly trying to tell George what he wants George to be doing.

 

And George played on Lennon's solo song "How Do You Sleep", which was a clear rip on Paul. I don't know if George was doing it for any other reason than to add his stamp on ripping of Paul.

 

Although I don't want to carried away here, they both are better than 99.5% of other songwriters. I think Paul's stuff carried the Beatles in the later years, especially Let It Be. But m choice for favorite Beatles stuff is mid-60's Lennon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Harrison's main complaint when with the Beatles was that the other two wouldn't collaborate with him or let his songs get any shake with the Beatles. John especially gave him crap about it.
The ones that he did get past committee are of a higher average quality, as a result, than Lennon-McCartney in my opinion. (Frank Sinatra feels "Something" is the best Beatles song ever)
I thinkthe reason John gets preferred lyrically is that he sang out of personal introspection more and Paul was happy to write songs about "characters" like Maxwell,Rita,Elenore Rigby,Mean Mister Mustard,etc. John occasionally used characters too as subjects of songs but even then they were based on real people in his life more like Bungalo Bill, Sexy Sade, Come Together (a song about Timothy Leary) Lennon was more comfortable writing in first person about himself and about darkness in himself where Paul was more the happy showman who liked keeping things light and non controversial. Paul was definitely the better musician technically, and an equal to John in writing a melody.But Paul was a lot less brave about experimenting.Really they complemented each other well and perhaps they were filling in gaps in each other's styleout of necessity. In the end like most things in art, to say one thing is better than other is impossible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Originally posted by guitarcapo

(Frank Sinatra feels "Something" is the best Beatles song ever)

 

 

Actually, he said it was the best Love song EVER written, and John Lennon agreed. That's a very good point, about Harrison's songs being that good because only the best got through. You could say, I guess, that that was yet another indicator of how good Lennon/McCartney's instincts were...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Originally posted by Grubgoat



Actually, he said it was the best Love song EVER written, and John Lennon agreed. That's a very good point, about Harrison's songs being that good because only the best got through. You could say, I guess, that that was yet another indicator of how good Lennon/McCartney's instincts were...

 

 

It's just too bad that he thanked Lennon/McCartney, the ignorant gangster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Originally posted by ClusterOne

Imagine isn't a beatles song, it's off John Lennon's first Solo album.

 

 

not to be a bitch, but...the song "Imagine" was from John Lennon's SECOND solo album, Imagine(1971)...his first solo album was Plastic Ono Band(1970).

 

ty,

Fork

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

John Lennon has all the interesting songs, with some exceptions.

Take Revolver for example, he only has two songs, but they are the only ones that really stand out on either side of the album. They kick ass, really get my mind moving. Paul's songs are tests in competency. He's from the Tin Pan Alley school of thought, except he can also smile for the camera and sing. He's talented enough to be able to try any style, including Lennon's from time to time, e.g. Helter Skelter, but it's always just an act with him.

Lennon's got the songs that aren't just exercises in ingenuity, but real trips of the conscious state. Abbey Road would have no balls without Lennon's songs on there, none. Same for the White Album.

When I was younger, and I didn't have as much of an album collection, I instinctively learned to appreciate all four members contributions to the band. Now, the way I see it, Paul had a lot of clinkers, lots and lots, George wasn't so great either but thank God he was limited. It really boiled down to John.

Where would Magical Mystery Tour be without the Eggman? Answer: nowhere, adrift on petty pop tunes such as Fool on the Hill and Penny Lane.

To be fair, at the time McCartney's unabashed pop sense provided a comforting medium between the angular world of Lennon's vision and our comfortable suburban homes. He put a daisy sticker on top of the whole production.

There are some McCartney songs I really do like though: Two of Us, Honey Pie, Back in the USSR, Birthday, Mean Mr Mustard, You Never Give Me Your Money, Maxwell Silver's Hammer, Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, When I'm 64, Lovely Rita, Yellow Submarine, I'm Looking Through You, Paperback Writer ... and that's about it!

I find an equal or greater number of his songs unlistenable now: Hello Goodbye, Your Mother Should Know, Ob La Di Bla Da, Why Don't We Do It In The Road, I Will, Martha My Dear, and other stuff like that.

Whereas Lennon's most random moments gave us much more inspired stuff, such as Happiness is a Warm Gun, She's So Heavy, Dig a Pony, Cry Baby Cry. Lennon really bites into the matter.

I prefer George's work to Paul's. Granted Paul can notch a pop hook, but George seems to deal in a more creative way with ideas, such as Within You Without You, which is possibly my favorite track of Peppers. The problem is that George wasn't quite as inspired/driven as Lennon. From the beginning to the end, George sounded like the reluctant rock musician.

There is rumour that Brian Jones and John Lennon were supposed to have started a band in the early 70s. Too bad it didn't happen. Maybe if Brian had lived.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Originally posted by eatsdrummachine

they are both equally unspectacular without one another. the beatles were awesome- including george martin's production (the 5th beatle). it's too bad they didn't make more records- abbey road still kicks 99.99% of the records coming out these days.



/johnny

 

 

I don't agree with the idea that they are both unspectacular, taken singly. John had an absolutely amazing solo album with the Ono Band, and a pretty good one with Imagine. Wings' Band on the Run is a good album too. If John had been sober and worked with a fixed rhythm section and George Martin throughout the 1970s, I think he would have been amazing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Originally posted by Vatican


Where would Magical Mystery Tour be without the Eggman? Answer: nowhere, adrift on petty pop tunes such as Fool on the Hill and Penny Lane.

 

Wow, I don't know how you can write off such great songs as 'Fool On The Hill' and 'Penny Lane'. Those are two of Paul's best lyrics I find, and they have typically brilliant Macca melodies and musical arrangements. I find 'I Am The Walrus' a good song but actually pretty overrated. A lot of people speak of it as John's finest hour, or one of his best ever songs. I see him as in a bit creative trough on MMT though. Paul was, but to a lesser extent, I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

As for Paul stuffing songs on the other Beatles that they didn't like.... I have one song to mention: Maxwell's Silver Hammer. John loathed that one, and resented all the time that was spent going over and over it in production. I think it stinks too except maybe for playing to a bunch of pre school kids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Well it's true that Maxwell was a song that worsened the rift in the Beatles. Ringo even left the studio he got so fed up with it.

Personally I think that all the effort was worth it in a way though, because the finished product, I think, is a great song. Just MHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...