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

Interesting points above, re: leadership.

To quote Buffalo Springfield: 'Stephen is the leader - but we all are.'

 

Paul staged a 'psychedelic coup' with the Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band album and concept - the whole, 'we'll pretend we're another band' bit in which he was the leader of the Pepper band, aka, the Beatles. It was probably unconscious on his part, possibly, and it can be argued that it was a needed shift in their career at that time.

 

It all depends on how you define "leader."

In a group situation in which there is no clearly-defined (or imposed by external circumstances) leader, then whatever leadership there is becomes a function of personality dynamics. Lennon was one of those people who was a "natural leader"... he was clearly the alpha personality in that group. He saw himself as the leader, and the others did seek his approval and tended to defer to his judgment. He was never an absolute leader of course. The band was structured democratically and neither he nor anyone else was able to give orders to the others. But he was clearly the dominant personality in the group, and in that sense he was the leader throughout the entire course of their time together.

McCartney was the driving force behind many projects they did, particularly in the later years. I guess I'd question whether being a dominant idea person necessarily makes you the leader though. If we look at the Dave Clark Five for example: Dave was the unquestioned leader in every way. Yet he contributed very little in terms of ideas... that all came from the band, session musicians, or outside songwriters. Or look at The Move, wherein Carl Wayne was the leader despite the fact that Roy Wood wrote (almost) all the songs. Perhaps you could call McCartney the creative leader in the later years, but he was never a leader in terms of personality dynamics. Look at how the others react when he tries to tell them what to do (even gently) in Let it Be... he encounters mostly resistance and recalcitrance. As I noted above, you can't be a leader if those you are trying to lead do not acknowledge your authority. Whereas when Lennon showed enthusiasm for a project, the others tended to go along.

 

It was an over-generalization on my part. But you can't deny that John was the guy who was a little more out there on the edge...on the fine line between genius and insanity, perhaps.

 

There is a fine line
Between recklessness and courage
It's about time
You understood which road to take
It's a fine line
When your decision makes a difference
Get it wrong, you'll be making a big mistake

Come on brother
All is forgiven
We all cried when you were driven away
Come on brother
Everything is better
Everything is better
When you come home and stay...

 

Well,as you yourself said, it depends on how you define "leader" to start with...

The fact that Paul was leading the band from about 1967 was even talked about by John, and the tension that very situation created for John was probably the main reason for the band's break up.

 

Man, you haven't read the whole thread, have you?.

That's just reciting John's party line imo. Facts say otherwise.

 

Yes, which just goes to show...

I love the bass-playing on Something and don't think it overwhelms the song at all. If you want to listen to it specifically, it's very rewarding but it's not what I'd have called a 'grandstanding' performance. Yet George thought Paul was too 'busy' and preferred Willie Weeks.

Personally, I like busy bass-players, but that's just me.

 

Well, the others, John included, did go along with Paul's projects in all the late 60's. And other than in Get Back, they didn't seem reluctant either.

As for the others recognizing Paul's authority, they went along with Paul's ideas. Paul told Ringo and George what/how to play, and they did it (and the resentment about it seems mainly only a later period thing, Paul was doing that by 1964). There was even a recording from a I Want To Hold Your Hand (?) posted here precisely about this point, Paul giving directions in the studio, on a song co-written with John, and no resentment was noticeable...

I definitely agree that John had the most dominant sort of personality, and in that sense he was always the leader. But Paul was dominant in other ways as well, and that's simply a different way of leadership imo. Both very complementary, when the balance was right.

 

I believe this is a bit of a confusion? Hadn't Paul written a DIFFERENT baseline for the song, which George thought was too busy, so Paul went and wrote the baseline we know now?. I think I've even heard the other version on YT.

 

I think that in an interview in the 90's George calls the released bassline 'too busy' or something along those lines, unless I am mistaken? Does anyone else remember this?

 

I don't know, wasn't he talking about that other baseline?.

Not quite sure.

 

Which facts?

Do you actually think Paul was truly the leader? Did he push John aside? Did he launch a coup with the support of George and Ringo? Of course not.

Instead of masterminding new projects, John chose to assert his leadership by bringing Yoko into the studio and being a passive aggressive baby. But make no mistake - he was fully in control of the situation. Everyone else was tiptoeing around him and trying to please him. Why? He was still the boss. He got away with crap that no one else could have just because he was in charge.

 

Yawn. What facts? read the thread. I'm not about to quote everything.

And I've never said Paul was somehow really the leader and John wasn't.

 

Which facts?

Do you actually think Paul was truly the leader? Did he push John aside? Did he launch a coup with the support of George and Ringo? Of course not.

Instead of masterminding new projects, John chose to assert his leadership by bringing Yoko into the studio and being a passive aggressive baby. But make no mistake - he was fully in control of the situation. Everyone else was tiptoeing around him and trying to please him. Why? He was still the boss. He got away with crap that no one else could have just because he was in charge.

 

You're probably right. George's comments were made, I think, in 1973 and not specifically directed at Something. I would call McCarney's style 'busy' (rather similar to Jack Bruce's) but it never - to my ears -gets in the way.

 

The leader of the red album


The leader of the blue album

 

I have read the thread.

To summarize: there is no clear answer as to who was the leader of the Beatles, before and after 1967. There are different opinions, and some facts can be used (or twisted) to support various narratives. Still, there is no consensus because we can't even agree what constitutes a leader.

Am I doing this correctly?

But you're right - why bother having discussions on a forum when you can just yawn and act condescensingly instead.

 

It sure doesn't get in the way to my ears either!

Now that I think about it, I think I've only read Paul's comments about this, don't think I've seen any quote by George. If anyone has a quote by him, it'd be appreciated.

George did say in I think 1974, in the middle of his infamous "I wouldn't be in a band with Paul again" comment, that Paul was a "fine bass player".

 

My post was rude, so sorry about that. I do stand by the overall sentiment though...

 

John was the leader until Steve joined the band. Then Steve gave the reigns to Andy.

Please reference page 235 of Mark Lewisohn's book 'Alternative Beatles' Facts, Part 1.'

 

Like this thread is the final word. Please.

This forum is the McCartney fan club.

 

Not reading the whole thread, sorry. To me the flip point is Rubber Soul to Revolver. John is the one whose compositions AND vocals consistently knock it out of the park, on every album through Rubber Soul. On many of the albums, John simply writes more songs, and on the ones where the contributions are equal, Paul tends to write a couple of classics and a few throwaways (The Help album being a good example, IMO).

Suddenly, on Revolver, Paul is dominating the consistency of the songwriting. I don't hear it as 50/50. Now it is John who writes a couple of mindblowers, and some (very) enjoyable filler.

In 1967, Paul is dominating in terms of productivity, though on the fewer occasions that John bothers to write something.... it's usually pretty great. Paul feels like the leader and John comes off as a sleeping giant.

I think the White Album is the most balanced in terms of the quality of John and Paul's contributions.... but even there, John's material is sometimes (not always) merely succeeding on his performance commitment on some less-than-gold songwriting. (which is to say, I don't think "Glass Onion" or "Sexy Sadie" or even "I'm So Tired" are John's strongest compositions, but he sure does make them worth hearing anyway.)

 

Thank you, and apology accepted.

 

That 'wouldn't be in a band with' quote is usually given out of context: George was talking about musical compatibility, not personal compatibility (OK, he may have meant that, too, but he was too polite to say so!) and where he was at, music-wise, at that moment.