|
Post by sayne on Apr 6, 2010 14:43:08 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but all this talk about boys and their mothers is starting to sound icky to me.
|
|
|
Post by coachbk on Apr 7, 2010 11:42:55 GMT -5
[/quote] And not to dispute McCartney's obvious talents as a chick magnet and balladeer, during the peak of Beatlemania when the chicks were squealing the loudest, the Beatles were indisputably Lennon's band (neither the other 3 Beatles or Brian Epstein would dispute this claim). "A Hard Day's Night" has been described as practically a "Lennon solo album." And when you look at the ratio of John to Paul songs during that period, there's probably some credence to that claim. Its quite possible McCartney might not have come into his own in that regard if he hadn't been able to follow Lennon's lead.[/quote]
I totally disagree with this post. I have read hundreds of books and articles about the Beatles and have NEVER heard A HARD DAYS NIGHT referred to as "practically a Lennon solo album. While it may contain more songs that are chiefly John's than Paul's, at least 3 ("Can't Buy Me Love", "Things We Said Today" and "And I Love Her") were mainly Paul's. And they worked quite closely together on their songs still at this time as well. And it is well documented that Paul was writing songs before John. But I don't want to get into a "Paul was better than John" or vice versa argument. The combination of the two was truly the best asset the Beatles had. Throw in George's development (and Ringo' beat and team spirit) and you have the greatest group ever. But back to the original premise, at least here in the USA, Paul was much more the one the girl's were attracted to and the prime singer of ballads.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Apr 7, 2010 12:26:54 GMT -5
I don't dispute anything you say, Coach. Lennon himself has described Paul as the one who had the most "girl power." Lennon was more of a guy's guy, the one the guys looked up to as a role model. Paul was so cute, had the baby-face and doe-eyes, could sing the lullabies with the best of them -- I think because of that, John got a bit over-shadowed and maybe people forgot what a teen idol he was back then, how much of a sex symbol he was to all the screaming Beatlemaniacs. He certainly had that Elvis Presley kind of rougish appeal. And hey, it was JOHN who Brian Epstein fell in love/lust with, not Paul.
The line about "Hard Day's Night" being "practically a Lennon solo album" was from a book I read that catalogued the recordings of every Beatles song, and as best they could tried to divvy up the credit of the McCartney/Lennon songs, giving 60% Lennon to 40% McCartney and so on, or like on "Yesterday" that was scored 100% McCartney and etc.
P.S. I think I might have confused the issue by using a line like "balladeer." With guys like Sinatra, Presley, Lennon, etc I was just referring to guys who sang a lot of songs about love, romance, sex, etc, and really got the chicks going in the process. Lennon was maybe a bit more of a rocker than Macca back then, but geez, look at the catalgoue of songs he wrote back then and I would opine the overwhelming majority of them were about love, romance, and sex. Thats all I was referring to.
|
|
|
Post by coachbk on Apr 8, 2010 11:06:08 GMT -5
Lennon certainly appealed to females, particularly those who show through his "tough guy" image and saw his vulnerability (such as his first wife Cynthia). His lack of a conventional mother (and father) no doubt played a big role in Lennon being the way he was. The 60% Lennon and 40% McCartney was based a lot on the ROLLING STONE "Lennon Remembers" article in 1971 in which an angry John Lennon denied much of the collaboration between he and Paul. Later, in the Playboy interviews shortly before his death, Lennon actually admitted that he lied in the earlier interview so perhaps a 55/45 split would be more accurate. And yes the early songs were primarily love and romance (and sex) so I agree on that point.
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on May 19, 2010 17:53:47 GMT -5
I would say Paul McCartney was more of a singer of love ballads than John Lennon (though John did do his share). I don't think of Sinatra as much of a singer of love ballads. Well, what I'm referring to specifically is pop singers who could really get the chicks squealing. And Sinatra was certainly the undisputed king of the "bobby soxer" set during his day. And not to dispute McCartney's obvious talents as a chick magnet and balladeer, during the peak of Beatlemania when the chicks were squealing the loudest, the Beatles were indisputably Lennon's band (neither the other 3 Beatles or Brian Epstein would dispute this claim). "A Hard Day's Night" has been described as practically a "Lennon solo album." And when you look at the ratio of John to Paul songs during that period, there's probably some credence to that claim. Its quite possible McCartney might not have come into his own in that regard if he hadn't been able to follow Lennon's lead. Don't get me started on the subject of the Beatles being Lennon's band. John was two years older and started a band before Paul (17 vs 15 years old) but the Quarrymen were a group of hapless, faceless, almost talentless nobodies who had played two gigs before Paul joined. They began when John got some money for his 16th birthday from his dentist uncle in October 1956. And one of those gigs was a relative's wedding. The church fete was the first real gig they ever had. Everyone to the man in the group said that when Paul joined they were no longer an amateur group of essentially non musicians with no direction. Paul gave them polish and professionalism and a goal to make it big. Before that the members had no idea about becoming professionals. The core group wouldn't even stay together for more that a couple of years. Before Paul came around John not only didn't know how to play guitar properly, he hadn't ever thought of writing songs. I wonder where that group would have gone without Paul. The Beatles were founded by John and Paul and they were co-leaders. Why do you think the early songs were published under McCartney/Lennon? It was only when John's ego was hurt that he insisted it be changed to Lennon/McCartney. That was the famous line when John said it sounds better to the ear and Paul said "to whose ear?". I don't care what Brian Epstein thought. He was not privy to their songwriting and studio work. He was just a homosexual in love with John. And John tried to use this leverage to his advantage but, in the end it was a false advantage. Paul brought George in which completely changed the dynamic and sound of the group. It was Paul who wanted Pete Best out more that anyone and Ringo in. John just went along with it. It was after all the bassist who had to deal with the drummer the most as the basis of the rhythm section. It was there that Pete underperformed. Paul shaped the group more than John. As for John dominating the songwriting in the early years, it is just not true. Yes John sang on more tracks than Paul, but often they were sometimes dreadful covers (Anna, Mr. Moonlight etc)or tracks that Paul had a large hand in writing (Little Child, From Me to You, She Loves You, I Want To Hold Your Hand, There's A Place, I'll Get You, Every Little Thing, Eight Days A Week etc.). And as for A Hard Day's Night being a solo album, that makes my blood boil when I hear it. Its the same thing that person on Breakfast With The Beatles on Sunday mornings on Sirius radio says. First of all that takes away from everything the others contributed. Secondly its not true. Let's take a close look: 1. A Hard Day's Night (Paul claims the bridge (when I'm home, everything seems to be right... in the Barry Miles book and disputes John's claim that the only reason Paul sang it was because of the high notes. Also the song was developed with John and Paul present to arrive at the final version) Score: John 70% / Paul 30% 2. I Should Have Known Better (both agree-note the high parts John sings--much higher than AHDN. Score: John 100% / Paul 0% 3. If I Fell (this is a co-written effort with emphasis on John who brought the idea in and they completed it together) Score: John 65% / Paul 35% 4. I'm Happy Just To Dance With You (this is disputed by Paul as not a John Lennon song but a complete collaboration. He even goes into great detail about the combination of chords and why neither he nor John sang it.) Score John 50% / Paul 50% 5. And I Love Her (Paul strongly disputes that John contributed the middle-eight. He concedes very little as I recall, perhaps a word or two, I have to re-check) Score: John 0% / Paul 100% 6. Tell Me Why Score: John 100% / Paul 0% 7. Can't Buy Me Love (both John and Paul agree on this) Score John 0% / Paul 100% 8. Any Time At All Score: John 100% / Paul 0% 9. I'll Cry Instead Score John 100% / Paul 0% 10. Things We Said Today Score John 0% / Paul 100% 11. When I Get Home Score: John 100% / Paul 0% 12. You Can't Do That Score: John 100% / Paul 0% 13. I'll Be Back (This song was co-written with emplasis on John who brough the idea unfinished to a songwriting session) Score: John 70% / Paul 30% And really not all of John's songs are the strongest. When I Get Home comes to mind immediately. The total score here is John 8.5 tracks / Paul 4.5 tracks That puts John ahead, but Paul makes it up with the next albums Beatles For Sale and Help! and possibly Rubber Soul. I have to check the Rubber Soul tally again but as I recall it was pretty close.
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on May 19, 2010 17:55:43 GMT -5
Lennon certainly appealed to females, particularly those who show through his "tough guy" image and saw his vulnerability (such as his first wife Cynthia). His lack of a conventional mother (and father) no doubt played a big role in Lennon being the way he was. The 60% Lennon and 40% McCartney was based a lot on the ROLLING STONE "Lennon Remembers" article in 1971 in which an angry John Lennon denied much of the collaboration between he and Paul. Later, in the Playboy interviews shortly before his death, Lennon actually admitted that he lied in the earlier interview so perhaps a 55/45 split would be more accurate. And yes the early songs were primarily love and romance (and sex) so I agree on that point. No its pretty much 50/50 when you look at the writing of Beatles songs. I will post the entire Beatles catalog and go through it soon song by song. I've done this based upon the latest information available and it comes out very close.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on May 20, 2010 13:15:34 GMT -5
The Beatles were founded by John and Paul and they were co-leaders. . Agree with just about everything you say, Pepperland except this one. John is the one who made the decision to let Paul join HIS band. Thats much different than "co-founders." John was the leader at every crucial juncture. John was the one who decided Brian Epstein would be their manager. John was the one who decided to go psychedelic. John is the one who changed the whole dynamics of the band by bringing in Yoko. John is the one who decided to bring in Klein. And John is the one who, as he put it: "I started the band, and I disbanded it." No slight on McCartney, one of the all-time greats. He certainly held his own as a co-partner and collaborater as the band developed, and even eclipsed Lennon in many ways.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on May 20, 2010 15:35:31 GMT -5
. . . 1. A Hard Day's Night Score: John 70% / Paul 30% 2. I Should Have Known Better Score: John 100% / Paul 0% 3. If I Fell Score: John 65% / Paul 35. . . My gosh, are we back to these stupid percentages again? Criminey! I've said this before and I'll say it again, A Hard Days Night was 72.3% John and 37.7% Paul. If I Fell was 64% John and 36% Paul. That's a fact!
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on May 20, 2010 17:56:35 GMT -5
The Beatles were founded by John and Paul and they were co-leaders. . Agree with just about everything you say, Pepperland except this one. John is the one who made the decision to let Paul join HIS band. Thats much different than "co-founders." John was the leader at every crucial juncture. John was the one who decided Brian Epstein would be their manager. John was the one who decided to go psychedelic. John is the one who changed the whole dynamics of the band by bringing in Yoko. John is the one who decided to bring in Klein. And John is the one who, as he put it: "I started the band, and I disbanded it." No slight on McCartney, one of the all-time greats. He certainly held his own as a co-partner and collaborater as the band developed, and even eclipsed Lennon in many ways. I conceed the Quarrymen were John's group. However, I don't concede that the Beatles were John's group. First of all, people get completely misled by the fact that in the early days John was more the spokesman for the group with the press and in interviews. However, that is a superficial view. In the studio it was Paul who was the ersatz producer and arranger. This has clearly come out in the most recent books including Geoff Emerick's book. George Martin could notate music, but he didn't come up with the arrangements. He notated the Yesterday arrangement, he didn't write it. Paul was sitting down next to him as that was developed. He didn't go off on his own. As for the psychedelic era, that was really introduced with the song Tomorrow Never Knows which was the first song recorded for Revolver in April, 1966. That was the first psychedelic song the Beatles recorded and it was Paul who created and engineered the tape loop effect used on that track which gave it its sound. This is from Wikipedia: McCartney supplied a bag of ¼ inch audio tape loops he had made at home after listening to Stockhausen's Gesang der Jünglinge. By disabling the erase head of a tape recorder and then spooling a continuous loop of tape through the machine while recording, the tape would constantly overdub itself, creating a saturation effect, a technique also used in musique concrète. The tape could also be induced to go faster and slower. The numerous tapes McCartney supplied were played on five individual BTR3 tape machines, and controlled by EMI technicians in studio two at Abbey Road on 7 April. The four Beatles controlled the faders of each machine while Martin varied the stereo panning. The tapes were made (like most of the other loops) by superimposition and acceleration (0:07) Martin explained that the finished mix of the tape loops could never be repeated because of the complex and random way in which they were laid over the music. The tape loops contained: A "seagull" or "American Indian" whooping effect (which was McCartney shouting/laughing). An orchestral chord of B flat major (from a Sibelius symphony) (0:19) A Mellotron Mk.II, played with the "flute" tape set (0:22) Another Mellotron played in 6/8 from B flat to C, using the "3 violins" tape set (0:38) A sitar-like ascending scalar phrase (actually played on an electric guitar, reversed and severely sped up), recorded with heavy saturation and acceleration (0:56) The guitar solo from The Beatles' "Taxman" was also superimposed onto the second half of the instrumental break. The solo was cut up, reversed and transposed down a tone. So in effect it was McCartney's guitar solo also. As for John deciding about Brian Epstein, that is incorrect. They had at least two meetings on the subject in December, 1961 in which all four (John, Paul, George and Pete Best) attended. They all agreed to sign with Brian. It wasn't a unilateral decision. You might be confused because John was the only one who had attained the age of majority (21 at that time in England) so it was his signature that was the only one that was legally binding. That is different from making the decision. Here is what Paul said about it: "We had been playing together a little while and we were starting to feel that we were getting good, but there comes a point in everybody's career when you think you need a little bit more than just being good. We needed someone to manage that goodness and push and give us a few clues as to how we might go a bit further. We agreed that Brian was that person. He had a theatrical flair. He knew a lot of people. So it became clear that he would be very good for us. We really just had to argue about how much we would give him. Do we give him 10 per cent or 15 or what? We did talk about that." This is from Paul McCartney on Brian Epstein by Woody Lifton. The quote from John about the end of the group is as follows: "I started the band, and I broke it up or it broke up itself". I know this because I have on vinyl the Oct. 1971 interview. I'm sorry sayne that we have to be reduced to percentages, but when someone says AHDN is a solo album, that is one way to illustrate it is wrong--to point out that even the writing wasn't. We can hear the performance--singing, playing--clearly was not a solo effort.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on May 20, 2010 18:11:24 GMT -5
Yeah, I'm well familiar with Paul's role in "Tomorrow Never Knows." Its also true that the "far out" stuff Lennon was doing on "Revolution #9" was the same stuff Paul had been doing years earlier, and Paul was the one who turned John on to the whole idea. McCartney certainly influenced Lennon as much as Lennon influenced McCartney. At least musically.
And please don't misinterpret me -- I'm not trying to down-play McCartney's role in the Beatles. But take the Beatles psychedelic era. Lennon wrote "Tomorrow Never Knows" after only his second or third acid trip. Meanwhile, Paul resisted LSD doggedly, didn't even try it until a year later, only succumbing to it because of John and George's insessant "peer pressure," as Macca put it. The point is, Macca would have most likely never jumped into psychedelia except for following Lennon's lead. Even as its also true that the concept behind two of those psychedelic albums -- "Sgt Pepper" and "Magical Mystery Tour" -- were Paul's. But I still feel he was primarily playing to Lennon's lead, trying to come up with something that would engage Lennon. At any rate, its indisputable that Lennon is the one who primarily supplied those albums with its psychedelic power.
I think Lennon ended up the "leader" of the Beatles for two reasons. 1.) Fred Seaman described John as a guy with "an insatiable need for new experiences." So Lennon was constantly jumping ahead of the others. And 2.) Lennon was a guy who always had to have his way. So Macca had no other choice but to go along with him. Which he basically did. Until the Klein thing led him in a direction that he refused to follow.
The bottom line, of course, is that the Beatles probably wouldn't have been anywhere near as great as they were without all four of them. Still, it'll always be fascinating to conjecture over who did what.
P.S. The Lennon quote I sited about "disbanding" the Beatles was from the Anthology book.
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on May 20, 2010 18:29:16 GMT -5
P.S. The Lennon quote I sited about "disbanding" the Beatles was from the Anthology book. I know that quote. Its very famous and I have the whole interview on vinyl. Unfortunately, the Anthology project did not include the entire quote. I conceed your quote could have been from another point in time. But the quotes are very similar and I don't think they are from differnent times. They are too similar.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on May 20, 2010 19:12:08 GMT -5
[As for John deciding about Brian Epstein, that is incorrect. They had at least two meetings on the subject in December, 1961 in which all four (John, Paul, George and Pete Best) attended. They all agreed to sign with Brian. It wasn't a unilateral decision. You might be confused because John was the only one who had attained the age of majority (21 at that time in England) so it was his signature that was the only one that was legally binding. That is different from making the decision. Here is what Paul said about it: "We had been playing together a little while and we were starting to feel that we were getting good, but there comes a point in everybody's career when you think you need a little bit more than just being good. We needed someone to manage that goodness and push and give us a few clues as to how we might go a bit further. We agreed that Brian was that person. He had a theatrical flair. He knew a lot of people. So it became clear that he would be very good for us. We really just had to argue about how much we would give him. Do we give him 10 per cent or 15 or what? We did talk about that." This is from Paul McCartney on Brian Epstein by Woody Lifton. . At the meeting where they decided to go with Epstein -- if I'm not mistaken it was the one where George was late because he was taking a bath, which enraged Epstein: "He's very late," said Epstein. "But very clean," said Paul, or something like that -- if I'm not mistaken it was Lennon who finally announced: "Okay Brian, manage us then." I'm sure the other 3 had input on the decision. But usually they seemed to decide to go along with what John wanted to do. McCartney himself conceeds that Lennon was much more wise and wordly than him back then -- the way he ingratiated himself to Epstein, Epstein was in love with John after all, and Lennon knew he was the one who had him wrapped around his finger. i.e. as with everyone else in Lennon's orbit, they did what Lennon wanted. I can't prove this, and I may be wrong, its just my hunch that Lennon was the driving force behind most of the stuff the Beatles did. Its like McCartney said; "We were all in love with John" and "we all competed for John's friendship." And this, too, almost everybody in Lennon's orbit, including Cynthia, was afraid of John much of the time. Afraid of incurring his wrath. Afraid he was going to overturn the whole Beatles apple cart. As May Pang put it: "I never saw anyone stand up to John" (except for one time, one person, Paul Simon oddly enough). Lennon, in my opinion, was a domineering, commanding presence. And the other Beatles mostly went along with him. Just my opinion, but who knows.
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on May 24, 2010 16:31:36 GMT -5
[As for John deciding about Brian Epstein, that is incorrect. They had at least two meetings on the subject in December, 1961 in which all four (John, Paul, George and Pete Best) attended. They all agreed to sign with Brian. It wasn't a unilateral decision. You might be confused because John was the only one who had attained the age of majority (21 at that time in England) so it was his signature that was the only one that was legally binding. That is different from making the decision. Here is what Paul said about it: "We had been playing together a little while and we were starting to feel that we were getting good, but there comes a point in everybody's career when you think you need a little bit more than just being good. We needed someone to manage that goodness and push and give us a few clues as to how we might go a bit further. We agreed that Brian was that person. He had a theatrical flair. He knew a lot of people. So it became clear that he would be very good for us. We really just had to argue about how much we would give him. Do we give him 10 per cent or 15 or what? We did talk about that." This is from Paul McCartney on Brian Epstein by Woody Lifton. . At the meeting where they decided to go with Epstein -- if I'm not mistaken it was the one where George was late because he was taking a bath, which enraged Epstein: "He's very late," said Epstein. "But very clean," said Paul, or something like that -- if I'm not mistaken it was Lennon who finally announced: "Okay Brian, manage us then." I'm sure the other 3 had input on the decision. But usually they seemed to decide to go along with what John wanted to do. McCartney himself conceeds that Lennon was much more wise and wordly than him back then -- the way he ingratiated himself to Epstein, Epstein was in love with John after all, and Lennon knew he was the one who had him wrapped around his finger. i.e. as with everyone else in Lennon's orbit, they did what Lennon wanted. I can't prove this, and I may be wrong, its just my hunch that Lennon was the driving force behind most of the stuff the Beatles did. Its like McCartney said; "We were all in love with John" and "we all competed for John's friendship." And this, too, almost everybody in Lennon's orbit, including Cynthia, was afraid of John much of the time. Afraid of incurring his wrath. Afraid he was going to overturn the whole Beatles apple cart. As May Pang put it: "I never saw anyone stand up to John" (except for one time, one person, Paul Simon oddly enough). Lennon, in my opinion, was a domineering, commanding presence. And the other Beatles mostly went along with him. Just my opinion, but who knows. Now you're talking about personality. I'm talking about where it counted--in the studio making music. There Paul was the dominant one.
|
|