|
Post by stavros on May 10, 2015 15:23:29 GMT -5
The Beatles had three of the strongest songwriters in the history of popular music. There were times when their output was the absolute cream of modern music and times when it was not so good. The Lennon/McCartney partnership was it it's strongest during the early years when their output was directed towards the singles. But I've always felt John was at his "power pop" peak right up until Rubber Soul. John had become a more introspective writer by then. Yet Rubber Soul was perhaps even more of a peak in his career as his writing matured. Revolver marks a small drop in quality, to me, for John. George is finding his way but comes in with the excellent Taxman. I think this is the album where Paul shines The Pepper/Magical Mystery period is often considered the Beatles peak and the Lennon/McCartney partnership is still hanging in there. But Paul is beginning to overshadow John in output by the end of their "experimental" phase. However John also pens arguably the most interesting Beatles tracks of the era "Strawberry Field Forever" and "I Am the Walrus". George is a little off par during all of this period as a songwriter and perhaps still feeling his way. As the late Beatles period looms John is back on form again on the White Album.However by the time of Let it Be and Abbey Road, Paul is the driving force and even George is competing with John on Abbey Road. It is certainly George's peak as a songwriter whilst with the Beatles. After the Beatles split George is superb during his ATMP period having been able to build up a catalog of songs. It was both his artistic and commercial peak. John's "Imagine" is often judged as his last great album even though I think he comes back in 1980 with some great songs relevant to that time. Sadly we never get to hear what he may have done after that period. But SINYC is seen as a particularly low point in Lennon's career perhaps the lowest? Paul's early solo albums were, for a long time, judged as the absolute pits and his lowest point as a songwriter. He didn't reach a solo commercial peak until the mid 1970s with "Band on the Run", "Venus and Mar"s and "Speed of Sound". Even though I personally think each of those albums represent diminishing returns in quality. (And I know JSD will have something to say about RRS and Wild Life!). Paul's 1980s output is perhaps still too harshly judged. But other than "Tug of War" which hasn't aged too well (IMHO) he stumbled through the 80s trying to remain popular with a number of duets and a misjudged movie. He didn't really get much critical praise until the 80s were nearly over with "Flowers in the Dirt". Perhaps he reached his last song writing peak with "Flaming Pie"? Because then he bombed with "Driving Rain". His output following that has been solid. It probably meets fans expectations and the odd track might even exceed them but I am not as fond as some are for "Chaos and Creation" to be considered another high in Paul's career. His last album "New" works well as an album but is hardly a career peak in his writing. George seemed to be running out of steam with each record release after ATMP. Even though some of his late 70s tracks are rather good. But then surprise, surprise he bounces back with "Cloud Nine" , with a modern commercial sound and a nod to his Beatles past as he hogs the limelight again. After that he became a Wilbury, a Beatle again for a while and then left us, literally, with "Brainwashed". Which I think is a fine album and perhaps his 3rd best after ATMP and Cloud Nine. Despite writing all those paragraphs I've hardly covered the topic in any detail. I am sure some of you will disagree. So please do! When do you think each songwriter reached their purple period and their worst period?
|
|
|
Post by Panther on May 10, 2015 18:03:26 GMT -5
I agree that John's general peak was 1962 to 1964. From "Ask Me Why" through "I'm a Loser" he is on fire in terms of being prolific, in terms of vocals, in terms of songwriting quality. Indeed, he does dominate the Beatles in this period. Even though Paul is already a more 'sophisticated' writer of harmony and melody ("And I Love Her", etc.), John is the better writer in this period as befits his status as unofficial group leader.
I don't think John lost anything in terms of ability after that, but he just got a little lazier and complacent and meanwhile Paul got stronger. John had a rebirth of sorts with the India trip in early 1968, and suddenly he was back to writing at a very productive rate (probably because he was sober for the first time in years and also started thinking about Yoko, etc.), whereas for a few years prior he'd been prodded by Paul/Epstein into writing to order for albums to meet a deadline.
I also agree that Revolver is the key moment when Paul steps up to bat and hits a game-winning grand-slam. Frankly, his songs on this record make the album. His contributions tower over John's 4 or 5 songs and George's 3. Next, Sgt. Pepper is also dominated by Paul, as are the singles from 1966 through 1970.
George's 'Don't Bother Me' is a gem that he didn't think much of. His two songs on Help! are highly melodic, much the equal in tunefulness of Lennon/McCartney's songs here, but just a little insubstantial and sometimes awkward. Revolver finds him growing in ambition, and also he hits the "Indian period" here in which he stays for a couple of years, meaning he was never going to challenge L&M for hits. But he starts writing rock'n'roll again with The White Album and Old Brown Shoe, and then the songs start flowing from him for a few years. 1968 to 1972 is his peak as a writer.
John did come up with a very impressive batch of songs in 1980, but bear in mind it was more a case of him 'crafting' carefully again, which he hadn't done for years, more than it was a case of his full genius flowering again. A lot of the 1980 songs had been partially written in 1976 and 1977. He was just spending more time being careful with his songwriting.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on May 10, 2015 20:20:13 GMT -5
I'm sort of the opposite on this. I think John's pre-'66 music, barring a song here and there, is old fashioned and does not hold up after '66 at all. Paul's songs were the ones that were the future of Rock and Roll (which was Pop music at the time to my ear).
But Revolver was John and George's show. Paul, with his flower child pop songs, was out of step and odd man out. You can't really argue that Eleanor Rigby wasn't a pop masterpiece, but to me it does not bare too many repeat listens. The art that John and George were making was both innovative, intelligent and entertaining. It rocked. For No One was Paul's only great track.
Aside from the title track on Sgt Pepper, John's contributions were the best on that album.
The White Album on through the end, I see John and Paul as equal, Paul being a little more prolific but John scoring at the top.
The John vs Paul vs George during the solo years is what made them fall from the top. I'll stay away from that this time.
[Added Comment: Paul contribution in the studio is not considered here.]
|
|
|
Post by Panther on May 10, 2015 23:45:42 GMT -5
I find fans often have different opinions on Revolver, and this thread shows that again. For me, it's clearly an album where Paul shines stronger than the other 2 writers. Not to say I don't like John and George's songs, but I've never much cared for "Dr. Robert" and the LP-version of "And Your Bird Can Sing" is just so-so. "I Want to Tell You" is one of only a couple of Beatles songs I find boring (though I'm apparently the only person who thinks "Love You To" is one of George's best). "She Said, She Said" and "I'm Only Sleeping" are solid cuts, but they're hardly Grade-A Lennon. Melodically they're kind of weak by Beatles' standards, and I don't think they compare to his earlier songs like "A Hard Day's Night" or "No Reply" that, for me, are a lot more vital.
By contrast, every single song Paul contributed to Revolver is a classic: 'Eleanor Rigby' (international #1, widely seen as a classic, studied at universities, Leiber & Stoller said it was The Beatles' greatest ever song); 'Here, There and Everywhere' (one of most admired Beatles songs by "proper" musicians due to its harmonic sophistication, now a standard, Lennon named it as one of Paul's greatest); 'Good Day Sunshine' (standard, would have been a #1 hit); 'For No One' (Paul's most lyrically sophisticated song to date... maybe ever?); 'Got To Get you into my Life' (a Beatle song most black-Americans know thanks to Earth, Wind, And Fire's hit cover in the 70s... also now approaching 'standard' status). You can probably add 'Yellow Submarine', which, if you're going to write a children's song, is as good as it gets (also an international #1 hit).
|
|
|
Post by coachbk on May 11, 2015 12:06:31 GMT -5
My favorite period for John in terms of quality is 1965-67. I agree that the quantity in 66-67 dropped off a bit from 63-65. So maybe 65 is John's best year in terms of combining quantity and quality. I'm in the camp on REVOLVER that John, Paul, and George were all great on that album (and Ringo gets to sing a hit too!). For quality 66 is Paul's best year. I don't go along with conventional wisdom that THE WHITE ALBUM was a "comeback" for John, because I don't think he ever went away. He did have a higher quantity of songs, but I don't see a jump in quality. (though he still has many fine songs on THE WHITE ALBUM as do Paul and George). George hits his Beatles peak in 68-69. i'll discuss solo later.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on May 11, 2015 17:53:03 GMT -5
Again, I agree that the difference with John between 1962-1964/65 and 1968 is more quantity than quality. Needless to say he wrote his share of classic stuff between 1965 and 1967! But I think in 1965-1967, he just seems kind of lazy and less productive. He was driving the engine in 1962, 1963, 1964 (check out how he dominates 'A Hard Day's Night'), with or without Paul's partnership. But I think his 1965-1967 songs got a lot of help, and were sort of written to order in a lot of cases.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on May 15, 2015 15:16:38 GMT -5
I thought the Beatles career as songwriters was one continuous peak. From "Love Me Do" until "The End."
Their solo careers were more hit-or-miss.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on May 15, 2015 21:30:30 GMT -5
I thought the Beatles career as songwriters was one continuous peak. From "Love Me Do" until "The End." Their solo careers were more hit-or-miss. That's true. Perhaps the OP didn't really mean "trough", as such -- just a little less 'on the ball'. I am 100% certain that a John/Paul balance was entirely necessary for The Beatles' success and endurance. Paul was the contender in 1962-1965, and then he starts to dominate more in 1966, and from 1967-1969 he's largely driving the plane, with John still the co-pilot. The Beatles ended after 1969 because it was obvious to them all that John was no longer spiritually present in the group. John's presence (and even participation in the studio) is rather less on Abbey Road. Then, George's emergence as a great and prolific songwriter further shifted the Lennon/McCartney dominance off-balance, which is to say The Beatles were off balance. So it ended, as it needed to.
|
|
|
Post by stavros on May 16, 2015 8:24:19 GMT -5
I thought the Beatles career as songwriters was one continuous peak. From "Love Me Do" until "The End." Their solo careers were more hit-or-miss. Yes that's certainly one way of interpreting it. Looked at as a whole the collection of songs is as fine a body of work as you'll find by any band. The angle I was coming from was more one of comparing John, Paul and George with each other as songwriters or even with their own individual work. But I'll leave it open to interpretation. You might want to look at who was the dominant writer at any one time within and without the Beatles. You could base it on song quality or quantity or both. Or you may want to compare John's solo work against his work in the Beatles or "Mind Games" against "Imagine".
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on May 16, 2015 23:26:02 GMT -5
I think John once compared the evolution of the Lennon/McCartney songwriting career as starting out with the excitement of first love, and then the peak of passion that a love affair comes to, and then ending with the emotional depth that comes from a long-term relationship.
Maybe you could say that each phase had a different kind of peak.
But yeah, you could look at some of the stuff, like say "Bungaloo Bill," as a little bit of a trough.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on May 16, 2015 23:31:29 GMT -5
I always credit Lennon for always at least ASPIRING to one peak after another.
After the incredible peak of Beatlemania, followed by the even more incredible peak of Sgt Pepper, there are stories of Lennon going into the studio to record the White Album and telling George Martin: "That Sgt Pepper crap was the worst shit of all time. I want our next record to be more raw and real than anything we've ever done."
Never resting on his laurels. Always aspiring towards a new peak. To me thats one of the most amazing and bizarre traits of John Lennon.
|
|
|
Post by stavros on May 17, 2015 15:56:11 GMT -5
I think John once compared the evolution of the Lennon/McCartney songwriting career as starting out with the excitement of first love, and then the peak of passion that a love affair comes to, and then ending with the emotional depth that comes from a long-term relationship. Maybe you could say that each phase had a different kind of peak. But yeah, you could look at some of the stuff, like say "Bungaloo Bill," as a little bit of a trough. I think that analogy is about the Lennon/McCartney partnership is a great one. As for "Bungalow Bill". Taken out of context from the White Album then I can see exactly what you mean. But I always saw it as a sort of fun, comedy piece for those who listen to the album as a continuous piece of work. The type of song and characterisation was more the sort of thing Paul would do (although John also penned Mean Mr. Mustard and Polythene Pam around this time). It's a bit like how people slam Paul's "Frog Chorus" whilst never mentioning "Yellow Submarine".
|
|
|
Post by stavros on May 17, 2015 16:11:30 GMT -5
I always credit Lennon for always at least ASPIRING to one peak after another. After the incredible peak of Beatlemania, followed by the even more incredible peak of Sgt Pepper, there are stories of Lennon going into the studio to record the White Album and telling George Martin: "That Sgt Pepper crap was the worst shit of all time. I want our next record to be more raw and real than anything we've ever done." Never resting on his laurels. Always aspiring towards a new peak. To me thats one of the most amazing and bizarre traits of John Lennon. Yes I believe George Martin spoke to John in the late 1970s and John expressed his dissatisfaction for the imperfections in the Beatles songs. I'm paraphrasing but George Martin said something like "What, even Strawberry Fields" and John looked down his glasses at him and said "...especially Strawberry Fields". Although I believe George Martin also said Paul had a much clearer musical idea of how he wanted a track to sound and perfect it whereas John would be a lot less clear and get bored easily if things didn't sound right after a few takes. Perhaps that was the difference. Paul would continue to work on a track until it was as good as it could possibly get in his mind whereas John always felt if it wasn't right after a few takes then it was time to move on and work on something new?
|
|
|
Post by ElDorado on May 19, 2015 21:00:34 GMT -5
I always credit Lennon for always at least ASPIRING to one peak after another. After the incredible peak of Beatlemania, followed by the even more incredible peak of Sgt Pepper, there are stories of Lennon going into the studio to record the White Album and telling George Martin: "That Sgt Pepper crap was the worst shit of all time. I want our next record to be more raw and real than anything we've ever done." Never resting on his laurels. Always aspiring towards a new peak. To me thats one of the most amazing and bizarre traits of John Lennon. Yes I believe George Martin spoke to John in the late 1970s and John expressed his dissatisfaction for the imperfections in the Beatles songs. I'm paraphrasing but George Martin said something like "What, even Strawberry Fields" and John looked down his glasses at him and said "...especially Strawberry Fields". Although I believe George Martin also said Paul had a much clearer musical idea of how he wanted a track to sound and perfect it whereas John would be a lot less clear and get bored easily if things didn't sound right after a few takes. Perhaps that was the difference. Paul would continue to work on a track until it was as good as it could possibly get in his mind whereas John always felt if it wasn't right after a few takes then it was time to move on and work on something new? I think that's a very plausible description of the difference in their approach to songwriting which supports why they were so complimentary to each othet.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on May 20, 2015 23:58:53 GMT -5
In Geoff Emerick's book he tells the story of Lennon listening to Martin's mix of "Strawberry Fields" for the firstt time. Like everyone else Lennon couldn't spot the point where Martin spliced the two takes together. Lennon listened to it over and over, and exclaimed "THATS BRILLIANT!" after every listen.
Then later, in the book about the Double Fantasy" sessions Lennon tells one of the musicians that he always wanted to re- record "Strawberry Fields." Felt he never got it right and regretted he took a "psychedelic" approach.
Lennon. Ha ha!
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on May 21, 2015 10:41:37 GMT -5
In Geoff Emerick's book he tells the story of Lennon listening to Martin's mix of "Strawberry Fields" for the firstt time. Like everyone else Lennon couldn't spot the point where Martin spliced the two takes together. Lennon listened to it over and over, and exclaimed "THATS BRILLIANT!" after every listen. Then later, in the book about the Double Fantasy" sessions Lennon tells one of the musicians that he always wanted to re- record "Strawberry Fields." Felt he never got it right and regretted he took a "psychedelic" approach. Lennon. Ha ha! John changed his mind more often than his shirts.
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on May 21, 2015 15:48:52 GMT -5
In Geoff Emerick's book he tells the story of Lennon listening to Martin's mix of "Strawberry Fields" for the firstt time. Like everyone else Lennon couldn't spot the point where Martin spliced the two takes together. Lennon listened to it over and over, and exclaimed "THATS BRILLIANT!" after every listen. Then later, in the book about the Double Fantasy" sessions Lennon tells one of the musicians that he always wanted to re- record "Strawberry Fields." Felt he never got it right and regretted he took a "psychedelic" approach. Lennon. Ha ha! John changed his mind more often than his shirts. It's a shame he's not still alive so we could test that via the scientific method.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on May 21, 2015 17:31:21 GMT -5
Paul did so well re-recording Beatle songs.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on May 22, 2015 18:38:15 GMT -5
Paul did so well re-recording Beatle songs. ?
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on May 22, 2015 20:43:43 GMT -5
Paul did so well re-recording Beatle songs. ?Sarcasm. The Beatle remakes on Broadstreet pretty much got slammed.
|
|