No I'm not. He was the 'main writer' on a lot of Beatles songs that I love. Solo he was pretty awful really, which just shows me how much Paul, and George and Ringo, brought to the table for Lennon's songs, be that ideas, attitude, playing style, harmonies, whatever. Lennon on his own was, in my opinion, very average musically.
John always complained that he could never convey what he really wanted to hear in his songs. This was easy for Paul, for John not so much. Hence he complained often that he would love to re-record some of his songs like Lucy, Strawberry Fields or Walrus. Revolver rules so hard because John was still in the game and the daily acid he was ingesting hadn't really taken hold of him yet .A year later when they were finishing Pepper ,John had to rush write Good Morning... and Kite just to keep up with Paul. His indifference to writing all the time really shows all the way up to India, when suddenly all these new songs just fell out of him.
The band had two leaders, it is just that John was the more obvious one. The one the others actually looked up to. COLIN HANTON: Paul would have allowed John to feel that he was the boss anyway. Paul wouldn’t have gotten head to head with John, but Paul would have got his own way if you’d like, carefully, by maneuvering and perhaps letting John think it was his idea. I think that’s the way Paul was. When we are told about their first recording John Duff Lowe; I can well remember even at the rehearsal at his house in Forthlin Road, Paul was quite specific about how he wanted it played and what he wanted the piano to do. There was no question of improvising. We were told what we had to play. There was a lot of arranging going on even back then. And then there is how he treated Stu Astrid: Paul had every right to moan about Stuart. Stu really wasn’t interested in the band and he never practised the guitar. Paul, at eighteen, was a perfectionist. He just wanted the band to be great – but there was this Stuart bloke, just standing there, looking good, looking very, very cool. And that was good enough for John but it wasn’t good enough for Paul. Stu wouldn’t have stayed in the band. He was an artist and he would never have let the band get in the way of his painting. If the bass had been his first love and he’d wanted to learn, he would have practised and he’d have learnt very fast. But he just wasn’t interested. He was only interested in going up on to that stage and posing. Or How Norman Smith saw them in the studio "I don’t want to take anything away from anyone, but production of the Beatles was very simple, because it was ready-made. Paul was a very great influence in terms of the production, especially in terms of George Harrison’s guitar solos and Ringo’s drumming. The truth of the matter is that, to the best of my memory, Paul had a great hand in practically all of the songs that we did, and Ringo would generally ask him what he should do. After all, Paul was no mean drummer himself, and he did play drums on a couple of things. It was almost like we had one producer in the control room and another producer down in the studio. There is no doubt at all that Paul was the main musical force. He was also that in terms of production as well. A lot of the time George Martin didn’t really have to do the things he did because Paul McCartney was around and could have done them equally well… most of the ideas came from Paul". But in terms of actual leadership, who they looked up to, it was always John. He could tell them what to do and for a long time they'd go along with it, before they became more of a group as the band progressed. But Paul seems to have been a key factor in moulding the Quarrymen into the Beatles.
You simply can't be the main writer on a lot of great Beatles songs and be average musically. It's a contradiction in terms.
No it's not. He did nothing worth my time after The Beatles. It's my belief that he was massively propped up by the others, McCartney and Martin in particular. If you don't agree, well that's no concern of mine.
What he did after the Beatles is irrelevant to the point. And your belief about being "propped up" is nice, but a little lacking in factual evidence.
If you refer to idreamofpikas' post above, it's all there. I'm sure we've all known Lennon types - domineering, borderline bullies who have to try and exert their will over people to compensate for their own sense of inadequacy. Lennon wasn't the reason The Beatles were great. And I'm not invested either way - it's not like I'm related to either of them or anything, I just speak as I see it.
Pretty simple. Even if he was "musically average" after the Beatles, it doesn't mean he was "musically average" when he was with the Beatles. Lots of artists are great for a certain time period and not as great after that.
I don't know if I agree with that really... and I'm not one for pitting them against each other...why do people do that? They both were great...the best...together and solo. But at this point, Paul is definitely becoming extremely eclectic. John's songs, even as they become weirder, trippier, are still very much band songs. Whereas Paul's are beginning to sound sort of like Paul songs with a backing. Perhaps this started with Yesterday, but one is beginning to hear less of "The Beatles" band in his songs. Eleanor Rigby...no Beatles at all (other than backing vocals), Got To Get You...brass, and a bit of Beatley guitar in that one spot, Here, There, and Everywhere, backing vocals, but not much else from "the band", Good Day Sunshine, a sort of Paul piano ditty, For No One, another piano ditty.
Wow. You were clearly in the studio with them during the late 60's. Please tell us more "inside" stories!
You don't care what others have to say, but you think it matters what you have to say? And you are putting down John? "I'm sure we've all known Lennon types - domineering, borderline bullies who have to try and exert their will over people to compensate for their own sense of inadequacy." That's some irony. You must have made some great frickin music.
I've said this before, and I'll say it again, it never ceases to amaze me how many Beatle fans don't seem like Beatle fans at all.
Not necessarily true at all. One can create a beautiful melody with simply a good knowledge of chords and subsequently hand off the arrangements and "parts" to a good set of players. But maybe I'm not sure how you define "musically".
Yes, it's all about how you define musical ability. The definition I use includes writing music. The other poster acknowledges that Lennon was main writer on numerous Beatles classics, and yet calls him "musically average".
To me, musically means, does it sound good. There are millions of technical musicians who make music I'd just as soon not hear. If John were to sit with a guitar or a piano, and play Norwegian Wood or Imagine or Working Class Hero or God or Oh My Love, or an old 50s rock and roll tune, or Smokey Robinson, etc etc, it sounds as good as it gets, imo.
I think by "musically average" he specifically means instrumental ability in which case, I'd agree....but to what @stanleynohj points out, it's all about the overall sound.
John would probably agree, too. Though he played a lot of stuff I love...some great solos and riffs. The rhythm on All My Loving alone, can't argue with it. It makes the song. Who could do that better? Eddie Van Halen? Bleh.
Right, and then take the guitar in "She's So Heavy". That famous repeating loop probably doesn't take great skill to play, but it's riveting nonetheless.
John's guitar style and sound, especially in the beginning, really gave The Beatles an edge and an energy. Not to mention his vocal style.
I think it's more like they've held their own cherished theories for way too long and don't want to consider that there are as many different opinions are there are people that hold them. Beatle fans are no different than anyone else on this page. There are some very nice people and some real jerks that congregate here. Just as long as the person doesn't attack you personally, what's the big deal?
