"John is in fact the leader of the group" - Paul McCartney, 10/28/62

It's also important to note that when we're looking at recollections of events, more credence should be given to things said closest to when the events actually occurred. There's lots of examples of Beatle memories fading or becoming distorted over time (two notable ones being Paul's shifting account of how he wrote "Helter Skelter," and Paul, George, and Ringo's failure to remember their jam with Elvis). With that in mind, the account in this clip of who wrote what is likely more accurate than John's recollections in 1980 or Paul's in the 90s or later. John came in with the verse, Paul the chorus.

 

IMHO, McCartney was on par with Lennon as a songwriter prior to the time of the White Album. I'd say they were about even when Revolver was issued.

 

Not the source I originally had read (because I don't remember which of the forty or so Beatle books I've read which mentioned it), and the source I cite below is mostly Just Some Other Guy On The Internet who is quoting the Philip Norman book, but something along those lines:

 

its LENNON then MCCARTNEY (Lennon/McCartney), does that not indicate who was the leader and driving force at the very least until the late sixties or the song credits would read McCartney/Lennon

 

Except when Paul said John was the leader the song credits were McCartney/Lennon

 

I just read the last 4 pages, & see in part, this has morphed into possible Beatles reunions, as well as who was the leader.

A couple things worth mentioning before I forget.

Something never followed up on, or even heavily discussed. According to Jack Douglas & others ( I think ) Paul & John had an actual songwriting session at the Dakota, during gthe Dakota years... Paul turned up for a 2nd "session" but was turned away, & Lennon was not informed McCartney had showed up.

That's kind of a bombshell, nobody ever discusses that, or tries to connect the dots. A Len/Mac songwriting session took place, pre-planned, it happened.

Well the obvious question, what was the song (s) did somebody flick on a tape recorder, what happened to it, what was it, did it ever surface on a Paul, John, Ringo, Beatles recording. What was the likely purpose of the session, why no follow up ?

Next, I think, recently, within the last few years, Ringo responding to a question about McCartney reversing the writing credits to McCartney/Lennon on some solo release, McCartney publicly complaining about Yoko, saying if John were alive, there would be no problem getting what he wanted.

Ringo responded, Paul was wrong, he shouldn't have done that & then "emphasis for this thread" Ringo said

" IT WAS JOHN'S BAND"

In the playboy interviews Lennon said, paraphrasing. ( Everybody thinks Paul was king Beatle, they are wrong, it was me. I was King Beatle)

 

FACT: anything Paul did he seeked and needed approval from John, even in the 1970's he never stopped chasing John for encouragement, Paul just needed that 'big brother' relationship, John didn't, its obvious John was the stronger person and leader in The Beatles romance and Paul was the giver !!

 

I know it's beside the point you're making here, but even given that it was John's band, the songs on which Paul reversed the credits were Paul's songs! (I'm sure everyone here knows they published everything either of them wrote during the Beatles years credited to both of them, even if one of them wrote the song entirely on his own with no input from the other one.) I don't see how anyone - including Ringo - can blame him for wanting to put his name first on songs he wrote mostly or entirely himself.

John did refer to Paul as his "brother" at least once, shortly before he died. Someone asked him if "Coming Up" (Paul's then current single) had surprised him, and he answered, "Would your brother surprise you?"

 

Said it before and I'll say it again- if you take all of Paul's White Album tracks, you pretty much have the prototype for Ram. All of Lennon's, well it might not make the most coherent album necessarily but if it was solo record it'd undoubtedly be considered his masterpiece.

Again following John's lead. Lennon derided the boat idea as being with "a boatload of mental deficients" or something along those lines. But, man, when George spits out his "It's completely insane...it's very expensive!" line you can just imagine the steam pouring out of his ears- certainly you can hear the outright scorn for the idea in his voice. And, yeah, it was a dumb idea...in January of 1969 The Beatles weren't going any further than the Apple rooftop and I'm sure that deep down McCartney knew it.

 

The reason Ringo made those remarks about McCartney being wrong on reversing the song credits for that live album, or whatever album it was.

It wasn't that McCartney might not have a legitimate gripe about reversing the credits of certain songs. The point Ringo was making, is that McCartney didin't get any permission, or approval, or negotiate it beforehand. He just used an obscure contractual clause that allowed him to do it on a live record, which then caused the uproar & bad vibes.

 

You didn't listen all the way through did you? Where John remembers he'd written a song beginning "In the town where I was born.. " and Paul added the chorus? You really ought to try to listen to the full thing where the composers themselves talk about it within twelve months of writing it rather than your own faulty supposition and grand pronouncements of 'fingerprints'.

 

But that's not the case. There are many quotes from observers at the time who say that Paul and John made decisions together and John repeatedly would look to Paul, and Paul to John, for confirmation.

And then there's this quote that John said to Hunter Davies. It's actually about Stuart but, significantly, John also mentions Paul: "I depended on him (Stuart) to tell me the truth, the way I do with Paul today. ” - John Lennon.

Paul seemed to need John's encouragement but then John also seemed to need Paul's.

 

I think it was Ringo first cause I couldn't believe he finally said something! LOL But it was one after the other quickly and with both of them on board, George agreed. Oh that's true about George at the Imagine sessions. I read that supposedly at one point during "How Do You Sleep?", George reels in John a bit who was writing lyrics more bitter than the finalized ones we hear but I'm not sure if that's true. Other than that they looked like best friends the whole time. And geez George was good on that. He deserved more than session fees for a lot of his work-not sure what he was paid. Yes I think so too about George got used to John being the leader for the first half of their career.

 

-----------
Johnny Moondog-or for the Macca fans here, maybe I should say Paulie Moondog LOL- I think it's a stretch to think Paul was the leader in the 1950's and early 1960's. At some point they were equal but definitely not before 1965. The output is outstandingly John's even though at times he needed Paul. There's just too many songs that Lennon wrote totally alone with minimal contribution from Paul. In the hits category, again John just dominates like Paul dominates in the latter half with plenty of exceptions in each half. But really it's John's personality that made him the leader, especially early on and Paul and George joined John's band.

But forget that, what's this about Jack Douglas saying John and Paul were at a recording session in 1980? I have never ever read anything about that. Really? Man, I'm dying to know your source-did you read that somewhere or was it told to you? If it happened I'm sure more people would be referencing it but maybe I'm totally wrong. I defer to you on these things but then I'd also like you wonder why it's not discussed more.

 

You must be the only person in the world who thinks that Lennon wrote 50% of Yellow Submarine. It is clear that I have heard all the audio that you posted as The Beatles comments are towards the end. From your perspective every Lennon McCartney song is 50-50. That is not true. There are plenty of interviews of Paul and John where it is made clear that this is a Paul song in the main. For goodness sake, check out multiple sources instead of misinterpreting the one source that you keep harking back to.

 

I would not attempt to assign a specific percentage credit to each guy, but it is clear from the audio interview linked upthread that Lennon came up with the melody for the verses while McCartney came up with the melody for the chorus. This contradicts what McCartney later said to Barry Miles ("the chorus, melody and verses are mine") but it is very likely the truth, since a recollection offered within a year of the song's composition is far more likely to be accurate than one offered several decades later. Thus, it seems Lennon had a larger role in the composition of the song than either Lennon or McCartney recalled in interviews years later.

We don't know who wrote which lyrics, aside from the fact that Lennon wrote the opening line and Donovan wrote the "sky of blue, sea of green" line. Lennon says he "helped with" the lyrics, so he must have made some other contributions, but it's likely the bulk of the lyrics are from McCartney. Still, if Lennon wrote the melody for the verses as well as some of the lyrics, it's not accurate to say his contributions were "minimal" as you suggested earlier in this thread.

 

I disagree based on the evidence. In 66, The Beatles would have been keen to show their songwriting partnership as more than it was. In truth, Lennon or McCartney had their own songs which were put through the Beatles filter. I stand by the claim that Both McCartney and Lennon made which is that Yellow Submarine is very much a Paul song, giving Paul slightly more songwriting credit than Lennon on Revolver. This is the start of McCartney becoming the more dominant force in The Beatles.

 

My impression is only John could have gotten the Beatles together again. He could have warmed the other three into that idea if he had really fancied the project.

He was the only one who could have really been accepted playing some leadership role by the others.

 

So spot-on. It bears repeating.

I had no idea that John had the melody of the verses for Yellow Submarine. I'll be damned. I always thought that it was a Paul song. Paul himself seems to take the bulk of the credit in Anthology, IIRC.

 

I agree with nikh33. Lennon's comment toward the end of the contemporary interview completely backs it up and McCartney agreed (McCartney probably wanted more credit since the chorus/title was his idea). It's two songs, joined, 50/50 a la I've Got A Feeling. The melody of the verses is a sizable contribution.

 

For me it was always John > Paul from 62-65 w/ Paul's great moments being much better than John's, though fewer in number

While it was Paul > John from 67-70 w/ a bit of a role reversal where Paul gave us more great songs, but John's best moments were far superior.

1966 was a magical Beatle year that divides the two eras. In this year, the both of them were on equal footing (I might give a slight edge to Paul, but John was still firing on all cylinders). Even the single/b-sides were both equally great here. George, of course, just kept getting better as time went on.

It was in 65 where I'd say Paul starting taking more charge, musically, & in 67, with Sgt Pepper, became the defacto leader with Johns interest in the group falling more & more. Really, though, they were a team, and a tight one at that. Not just John & Paul, but the group along with Martin, really lead the Beatles together. Some members more vital than others, but all with a say in the matter.

 

While Paul did his own "experiments" he didn't try to get them included on Beatles albums though; I seem to recall him commenting on that's why he opposed the inclusion of Rev 9.

 

The direct statements of Lennon and McCartney are the only evidence we have, and the primary piece of evidence is that 1967 audio clip, since it's a recollection made nearest to the time of the actual writing of the song. But you seem to be suggesting that in this clip Lennon is inaccurately claiming credit for writing the melody of the verses (in order to facilitate an illusion that they collaborated more than they really did) and that McCartney is standing idly by while he does so, not correcting him as he takes more credit that he deserves. That seems an unfounded leap to make, and one that is not based on any evidence. Given the offhand manner in which Lennon recalls writing the verse, it seems unlikely to me he's lying. And in other interviews from the same time period, Lennon and McCartney are both quite honest about the fact that they wrote songs independently at times. And in the 70s Lennon went in the opposite direction, going out of his way to diminish the amount they collaborated (IIRC, in the 1970 Rolling Stone interview he inaccurately claims that they didn't cowrite any songs after 1967).

It seems far more likely to me that Lennon's memories in 1980 and particularly McCartney's in the 90s had faded and grown distorted. That is hardly an unusual thing, particularly in McCartney's case given the amount of weed he smoked in the intervening years. As I noted above, McCartney's recollections about the composition of "Helter Skelter" provide a notable example of how facts can get confused and altered over time:

Here's what he said in a 1968 interview:
"Umm, that came about just 'cuz I'd read a review of a record which said, 'And this group really got us wild, there's echo on everything, they're screaming their heads off.' And I just remember thinking, 'Oh, it'd be great to do one. Pity they've done it. Must be great-- really screaming record.' And then I heard their record and it was quite straight, and it was very sort of sophisticated. It wasn't rough and screaming and tape echo at all. So I thought, 'Oh well, we'll do one like that, then.' And I had this song called 'Helter Skelter' which is just a ridiculous song. So we did it like that, 'cuz I like noise."

And here's what he said in the Anthology in 1995:
"I was in Scotland and I read in Melody Maker that Pete Townshend had said: 'We've just made the raunchiest, loudest, most ridiculous rock 'n' roll record you've ever heard.' I never actually found out what track it was that The Who had made, but that got me going; just hearing him talk about it. So I said to the guys, 'I think we should do a song like that; something really wild.' And I wrote Helter Skelter."

The 1968 account is the accurate one. There is no Pete Townshend interview that fits his 1995 description, yet there is a Chris Welch record review of "I Can See For Miles" in the October 14, 1967 issue of Melody Maker which describes the song as "a marathon epic of swearing cymbals and cursing guitars marks the return of The Who as a major freakout force." So here we have an example of McCartney's memories being notably inaccurate in the 90s. And of course another big example is the failure of McCartney, Harrison, and Starr to recall their jam session with Elvis.

It seems clear that "Yellow Submarine" is not "a Paul song." It's a song for which Paul had the primary inspiration and was the driving force, but it's also a collaboration in which Lennon wrote the melody for the verses and contributed some of the lyrics.

 

Let's review then.
I posted an actual recording of the two composers discussing how they wrote it.
You vaguely suggest 'looking it up', 'finding' evidence but don't link to anything.
So, your claim is utter nonsense.
Yellow Submarine, no matter how much you hate the notion, is a genuine co-write.

 

Hahaha this is amazing. Actual audio of John and Paul talking about it isn't enough. Kinda reminds me of the footage of John singing "She Loves You" during "All You Need Is Love" and people claiming it's Paul.