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

So basically, your response to the guy making this comment -- who was there in the studio day in and day out for six albums -- is: "So what does he know anyway?"

I don't know what George Martin said about this or if he said anything. But George Martin did say, when asked who was the best musician he'd ever worked with: "Paul McCartney. But no one ever believes me."

It really isn't a stretch to understand that McCartney's role was as the band's musical director. That doesn't mean that was the case in every single instance, or that no one ever had any ideas but him. It's just a general statement that happens to be true -- like saying John Lennon had the best rock and roll voice in the band. Another general statement that's not always but usually true.

 

If standout tracks are what you would/could use to sell an album...I think you'd be doing your job until Revolution 9. I think you'd be spending an awfully long time arguing about that one.

 

Oh I know it's not that loved as a track, especially amongst the more conservative types, and for many years I didn't rate it so highly as I do now. It's a wonderfully crafted piece of art. I like what Ian MacDonald and the well known music historian, Howard Goodall had to say about it.

 

This feels like an argument between 11 year olds about who's ball it is.

First of all it isin't really 5 Paul songs & 5 John songs. Unless you believe they wrote everything seperate, which I don't. Lennon claimed for example, that McCartney wrote the first verse to Eleanor Rigby, but the rest of the lyrics were mostly his. Likewise as the previous poster just said, it sounds to him like Lennon basically wrote the verses to Yellow Submarine ( including melody) & McCartney wrote the chorus more or less.

2nd putting cowriting aside it was 6 songs each, because Paperback Writer & Rain were both from the Revolver sessions. So it's not 5+5

3rd to answer your question, how could I possibly believe Doctor Robert is the equal of For No One. I believe you're more taken with melodic complexity or orchestrations, saying more complex melody="Better"

I love the work of both men & George Harrison as well. The single most astounding thing to me about the Beatles, is having three such incredible songwriters in one band. It truly defies belief to me.

I'm well aware of what some people say about McCartney's work on Revolver. I love McCartney's work on the album. I love Lennon's & Harrison's also. I haven't drunk the koolaid for Paul McCartney. Or John Lennon. But I love to listen to, admire, discuss all their work as a band & solo.

It's OK with me if you are partial to McCartney & think For No One is better than Doctor Robert, but you shouldn't imply people are deficient or mistaken if they don't agree with your assessment of Revolver or Lennon vs McCartney. I think they're both equally great, & think Lennon's material is just as good as McCartney's on Revolver. I would say Rigby may be the best track on the album, or tied with Tomorrow never knows.

 

It's beyond me how you understood I was saying that, when in fact I said the opposite:

I am aware that everyone has his own tastes, Someone may even like Act Naturally better than Strawberry Fields Forever. But we would agree that SFF is widely considered superior. Don't take that example literally, because I'm not comparing John's song in Revolver to Act Naturally, as I have said I love them all: Revolver is a masterpiece precisely because all the songs in it are excellent. But in this record Paul's material is stronger, and it's widely regarded as classic, while John's is not usually included among his best, with the exception of TNK.

I think this has a lot to do with John's fondness for LSD, and in fact this tendency accentuates in Sgt. Pepper, in which Paul dominates even more (although John provided the main body of the best song there, A Day in the Life).

To me, Rubber Soul is John's peak in the Beatles, and Revolver would be Paul's peak.

 

I have not said or implied that you or anyone is deficient or mistaken to feel that John's songs are superior. I did say it was common belief that Paul's songs are superior on that album and asked you how you arrived at your opinion. I'm not attacking your beliefs, I am merely curious at how you arrived at them. In the case of For No One vs. Doctor Robert, while I love Doctor Robert (especially the organ during the breaks), I believe that For No One is far superior musically AND lyrically. Not drinking any Kool-Aid here, I just think it's the better song.

 

Of course that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying Norm's recollections, perhaps said decades after the fact, may have skewed towards Paul being a secondary producer when reality MAY indicate that not be the case. IF George Martin said Paul McCartney was the best musician he ever worked with (and that could be very true) why didn't he say something like "Paul made my job easy back then, he acted as the de facto producer on the studio floor"! My best guess is that he never said it because it wasn't so. That ONE person part of the day in, day out scene makes such a declaration doesn't make it official, or fact. Put another way, if the quotes by Norm weren't available would you be arguing that Paul was the musical leader pre-1966? I'd be surprised if you answered in the affirmative.

Hey, Geoff Emerick said that they recorded Blackbird OUTDOORS and he was there. Not only was the song recorded INSIDE Studio two, the bird sounds were taken from a sound effects tape that engineer Stuart Eltham made years earlier. That's what I mean about memories. Emerick was quite sure they recorded Blackbird outside of Abbey Road. He was wrong. It doesn't mean others would have to overrule him to correct his mistake.

John once said that Hamburg represented the Beatles at their live best. Openly wishing that THOSE shows were recorded (obviously this was before the Star Club tapes surfaced). Well, the only source we have from those gigs would not support his memory. I'd say they peaked live in late 1963 through the Australian run in 1964. Recordings would support my opinion. Now, maybe the Star Club recordings just show a tired band fulfilling an old contract, but I don't hear the sharp harmonies or expert playing there, as heard on the Sweden 1963 shows, Washington DC 1964 or Australia (second half of 1964) or various live TV appearances. Memories can be quite tricky. Ron

 

Lennon was there!

 

Except that every available bootleg or outtake seems to back up that Paul was the dominant musical force when it came to recording----even pre-HELP!.
That doesn't diminish the contributions of everyone else at all.
My personal theory----most of the early tunes started with John's idea and then Paul ("I can't wait to get my hands on this") would shape it----so John was dominant at the drawing board stage (with exceptions, of course----but overall) and Paul was dominant at the recording stage-----suggesting tempos, phrasing (with exceptions like Drive My Car and And I Love Her where Harrison seemed to set the tone or feel for the tune). The imbalance began when Paul learned he could do it all on his own and write songs as strong as John's. While John had always relied on Paul's arranging skills, Paul was also learning, honing his own songwriting skills----this gave him an edge along with a better aptitude at playing guitar and piano. But the great thing about it was John still had his own unique style, phrasing, strong intellect, passion (sometimes Paul sounds like he's fakin' it {see Phil Spector's comments on the Long and Winding Road vocal}, never or rarely does John) which continued to make John equally vital to the band.

 

I hear a lot of John talking back to George M. in the early recordings, really most of the chatter is cut, but he speaks out quite a bit. He also does the occasional what was that, when someone screws up.

 

Sure, I'm not saying they all remained silent.......but in terms of giving direction......it's usually, not always, but pre-dominantly from what we have available----Paul.

 

You're picking out exceptions to try to disprove the rule. You can always find exceptions.

But that doesn't change the general perspective of the engineer who was there for 6 albums. I seriously cannot believe you're denying the perspective of the one guy (other than George Martin) who would know best. But whatever. "There is no doubt at all that Paul was the main musical force," said the Beatles engineer for six albums. Not an equivocal statement at all.

 

Turning away from the music a moment. As characters, John seems more like the Alpha male! However, an insecure and jealous one. I think Paul always looked up to him, a bit like an older brother. As soon as Paul became more dominant musically, it sowed a seed in the demise of the Beatles.....amongst many other pressure factors.
Had John wanted the band to get back together again, they would have all jumped on it, even George.

 

That bolded quote is probably closer to the truth. But Paul was NOT a de facto producer on the studio floor and he certainly could NOT do what George Martin could in those years. No question about that in my mind. Ron

 

Well Norm said Paul was. And Norm was there. So nothing personal here but I know whose views carry more weight with me.

 

They all had Alpha components. John, Paul and George each had incidents of beating someone up.
At the Cavern someone yelled out "Lennon is a queer". John put his glasses on, asked the crowd who said it and promptly administered a beating.
George assaulted a journalist or photographer in 1968 and I believe Paul is on record as saying he, Paul, punched up a journalist in the mid-70s-----but I can't seem to find these by googling.
Tony Barrow writes in detail about some horrible things John did to Brian (and verbally to Tony who writes he didn't fire back because Lennon was 'known to be good with his fists')-----shameful (not to mention his 'treatment of women as a youngster')-----it was a different era-----John seemed to repent to his credit.

 

George leads the Beatles. Just thought I'd add a change of pace. George brings Indian music to the Beatles, they all go to India, he records 3 Indian Beatles songs with minimal help. George brings Eric Clapton in to get While my Guitar.. on track. George brings Billy Preston in to get LIB sessions on track. I'm sure there are others.

 

Although I'm not big on Maxwell, Paul certainly thought it was top tier because he was offering it during the Jan 69 Let it Be sessions.
I consider Paul's Oh Darling top tier at least vocally and his string of half songs on side 2 pulls it from George dominance.

 

The Stuart-Paul fight of course. But also, according to Tune In, George punched Stuart in the face during their first touring experience (with Tommy Moore in 1960, i think) just to make sure Stuart knew the pecking order and that he (Stuart) was at the bottom (below George). George also threw that glass of water at a photographer in 64 or 65 when he, John, and Ringo were at some club in LA and Paul was spending quality time with Peggy Lipton. And we also know that Paul threw that bucket (and whatever gross stuff was in it) at the Life Magazine reporter in 1970 who hunted him down in Scotland. And John supposedly slapped a female reporter in the face after she asked him a question about whether he was cheating on his wife (he was; but certainly didn't want to be asked about that).

They were young men, after all, and young men sometimes do stupid things.

 

Apparently it belongs to all of them, they all seem eager to get it back...

 

Now I've heard stoires that they all punched Stu at 1 time, he looked friendly enough.

 

I love Bill Harry's comment about 'Lennon started in on me one time, but I'm from the street, I let him know, and he knocked it off'.

 

I liked the theory of Ian MacDonald of the turning point of who was the boss was June the 14th 1965 when The Beatles recorded I'm Down. I've Just Seen A Face and Paul recorded Yesterday; a great statement of his songwriting at the time and the versitality of his musicianship.
Up until 1964 there was no question who was the boss; especially the AHDN-album is (i.m.o.) the ultimate Lennon-as-leader-of-the-band with some great tunes of McCartney.

 

Yeah, I see that.
Which is what happens when I'm reading at work.
But you did claim TNKs was the best of John's which I still disagree with and like all his others on Revolver more

 

Beethoven came after Mozart