A friend of mine just sent me an article from the August 27 issue of the National Review about Paul McCartney entitled "The Bard of Optimism," by Kyle Smith. The article falls into one of the sadder conflicts of modern music history, the seemingly inevitable John or Paul argument.
Lennon’s assassination in 1980 would sadly prove to be a staggering blow to McCartney’s musical reputation. Lennon, after five years of silence, had in Double Fantasy just released his strongest work in years. Meanwhile, McCartney was entering one of his tougher creative periods, which would see him release a number of shallow songs like "Press" and "Spies Like Us," as well as an ill thought re-recording of his previous Beatles material for the movie Give My Regards to Broadstreet. This period seemed to show an artist in decline.
The truth is that McCartney was thrown into an impossible situation, where he found himself and his reputation competing with a much loved, now martyred legend. John Lennon's death perhaps saved him from the decline even the greatest artists of the '60s like Bob Dylan found themselves in as they entered the third decade of their career. John Lennon would never write a great song again, but he also would never write a horrible one either.
The early innocence of the Beatles is what we want to remember. The one that saw John and Paul agree to credit all their song compositions as Lennon/McCartney even though they for the most part stopped writing as a real team very early in their careers. Nevertheless, the partnership remained healthy for a long time, both as a competition that spurred the two to produce great work, and as a sounding board.
This saw such musical moments as when Lennon muted the optimism of McCartney’s "We Can Work It Out," with a pessimistic bridge, and McCartney’s addition of the middle section of "A Day in the Life." It was the sort of musical partnership where even just a friendly reassurance - like the time Lennon assured McCartney, that the line “the movement you need is on your shoulder” in "Hey Jude" was indeed worth keeping - helped to make Lennon and McCartney the historic songwriting team they were.
Sadly, things got ugly.
The death of Brian Epstein left a void of leadership right at the time when Lennon met Yoko Ono. Lennon’s interest in the band began to flag, and McCartney’s perhaps understandable response was to try to take on a role of leadership, pushing the group into the disastrous Magical Mystery Tour project as well as earning the enmity of his three band mates, who suddenly felt like side men. You can see just how bad this got in the film Let It Be, where an enraged and fed up George Harrison tells McCartney acidly that he’ll play whatever Paul wants or indeed perhaps nothing at all.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Donald Gibson
I believe that McCartney requested (from Ono) that "Yesterday" be credited solely to himself (given that he was the only Beatle who wrote and performed on the track), for his poetry book, Blackbird Singing.
Yoko wasn't quite that generous.
2 - Glen Boyd
Interesting, if extremely long thesis Brad.
Personally I think this is the classic argument of apples vs. oranges. Both men were immensely talented, and I think it goes without saying that both men made their music as a team.
But again, the argument is somewhat moot. If you like a great pop tune, it doesn't get much better than Paul McCartney. On the other hand, if you like your social commentary with an acerbic twist of lemon, or I mean Lennon -- than John's your man.
Two sides of the same coin if you ask me.
-Glen
3 - Brad Laidman
Thanks for the comment Donald
Here is an article that discusses the minifeud.
"When the song ["Yesterday"] appeared on one of the Anthology releases that have mined Beatles music in recent years, McCartney asked Ono if the credits could be transposed. She refused. Ono recently told Rolling Stone magazine that she warned McCartney that he might be doing himself a disservice in switching the credits."
4 - Phil Auster
Paul reversed the credits on the live triple album Wings Over America (in 1976) and there was no fuss attall.
5 - Juan
Nothing touch the beatles as a group.
McCartney alone however, might be the best songwriter of all times.
6 - Michael J. West
Do we really need to tear down one great artist to boost another?
I think this is the central question of the whole thing. Smith's article seems to me like a knee-jerk overreaction to the usual tearing-down-and-lauding, which makes John Lennon a saint and visionary, and Paul McCartney a villain and hack.
It's all too easy to do; as you said, John's not around to decline as an artist, but it also means we tend to idealize him, without even trying. Even in your wonderfully thought-out article, Brad, you do it a little bit here:
By contrast, Lennon’s great strength was as a sloganeer and an organizer. "All You Need is Love," "Revolution," "Come Together," "Give Peace a Chance," "Imagine," "Gimme Some Truth," and "Instant Karma" are unmatched in their love, compassion and righteous anger.
This is basically true, but you also have to remember that when Lennon relied too heavily sloganeering, i.e. Sometime in New York City, the result was a ham-handed mess. In short, Lennon's political edge underestimated the importance of pop appeal in his music - which McCartney, despite his many creative gaffes, could NEVER be accused of.
Now I feel I'm going back in the opposite direction again. I think it's best, frankly, not to choose a favorite among the duo. They were equals, whether we like it or not, and neither was as good alone as they both were together.
7 - kc
DID NO ONE BUT ME READ McCARTNEY'S BOOK? They didn't quit writing as a team early on, but kept writing as a team for years, always at the least editing each other's songs. Lennon gave an interview to rolling stone in 1970 wherein he even later admitted he made a bunch of stuff up cause he was mad at maccartney. Read mccartney's book--please.
8 - Stephen O'Sullivan
I guess it goes with the territory. It's comparable to a football team having two great quarterbacks. It's a problem yes. But a problem of riches. The Beatles and thier fans bennefit no matter who is better. I think most true fans may have a favorite, but love the other three completely. Mine was always John. But if someone told me Paul was the greatest songwriter of all time, I would not disput it. My criticism of John would be his attitude towards great songs they wrote being "rubbish and throwaways". Sgt Pepper was "rubbish". What! Now Paul always came across to me as extremely self indulgent without directly saying it. He never met a stage, microphone, or camera he didn't like. I simply think both of thier inner insecureties came out in different ways. But I was very angry at Paul for the reversal of songwriter nonsense. We all know it was you Paul. Get over it!But having said that I love 'em. Love all four. Always have, Always will.
9 - Brad Laidman
I agree KC that they always continued to edit and add to each other's work. My point is that the days where they would sit in a room and create together ended early on.
10 - Jon Sobel
I like and agree with your evenhanded point of view - both were artists touched with greatness, who together added up to even more than the sum of those very excellent parts.
But I'd like to comment on your statement, "The last line about artists treating their work as a job makes my skin crawl." Smith was making a very valid point - when you're a songwriter, writing is, in fact, your job, and most successful songwriters treat it that way - they get up each day and go to work. Smith is using this as a way to praise McCartney, and rightly so, but he is doing so, probably unfairly, at the expense of Lennon.
11 - Brad Laidman
A valid point Jon, but to me an artist doesn't work 9-5, he flows with passion. Maybe, I have an overly romanticized view of the process, but I see the true giants as staying up all night until their fever is quenched. Paul famously woke up with Yesterday in his head. He didn't clock in and search for ideas. Then again many albums like A Hard Day's Night were produced out of need on the clock. Personally, I just hate the notion of creativity being boxed into yet another cubicle.
12 - Stanz Man
sorry but is everyone too young to remember the truth? Double Fantasy was a disaster rock fans HATED that album...I guess in the tragedy or the murder people forgot but when that came out Beatle fans were enraged at the sappy blah songs Iif you don't believe me do a google search on some of the review of the time ..even Joe Pope publisher of Bealtes fanzine Strawberry FF panned the LP ) ...sadly. Lennon was in decline since his first LP the brilliant PLASTIC ONO BAND..musically he did nothing of interest again and stuck with the same tired sound..for DOUBLE FANTASY he copped some of McCartney's sound to give himself some melodies (check out Woman next to Bluebird) ..in any case it was very sad John was killed , a horror... but it shouldn't warp who was obviously the more creative partner here...Joh states A DAY IN THE LIFE was mostly Lennon , but the AVANT GARDE section of the song (from the line "Id love to turn you on" with the orchestral swelling ) was ALL McCARTNEY ...so let's check up on these facts.. I find that people usually give lennon credit for mccartney songs . very frstrating and very 1984-ish ... I love Lennon and I love McCartney but let's be real here ..if we are going to compare FREEDOM a duff song lets compare it to POWER TO THE PEOPLE another awful piece of 'music" ...check out the facts first !
13 - stanz Man
I mean to add in my post PLEASE WHY CAN"T WE LIKE THEM BOTH???
In my music collection next to the Beatles cds I have Lennon and McCartney side by side as they should be .. they were brothers
14 - Jon Sobel
Brad, I think your romanticized point of view and the "job" aspect of art can safely coexist. You're right, there's a lot of inspiration, late nights, craziness involved in the job. But usually when there's an inspiration, that's only the beginning of the work - after that it has to be formed and shaped, and that's real work. IIRC, it was the melody of "Yesterday" that McCartney said he woke up with in his head. He first fit some nonsense words to the melody until he came up with artful lyrics to go with it, which took work.
15 - Daniel Morales
To the Beatles: "Thanks for the music!"
16 - Guido Sosi
I greatly admire the catalogues of both Paul McCartney and John Lennon. Their influence will be felt for a long time among songwriters. I think there was synergy between them when they were Beatles. They may have gained inspiration and motivation from each other.
17 - handyguy
I recently filled in some gaps in my Lennon and McCartney solo-careers music from iTunes. I had several Wings LPs years ago, but I hadn't heard a lot of those songs for a long time. I had also just recently bought the Capitol boxed sets of the first 8 US Beatles albums.
Quite a contrast. McCartney's songs as a Beatle are often brilliant and delightful. But two-thirds or more of the stuff on the "Wingspan" hits collection sounds very thin - minor and sometimes downright annoying or even awful.
Lennon's best songs, from both the Beatles period and the early solo albums, are equally wonderful in different ways. He shows amazing development as an artist. Of course he did hit a fallow period from 1972-79, returning with one last excellent album. But "Plastic Ono Band" and "Imagine" are still among the finest rock albums by anybody.
And although Lennon and McCartney occasionally contributed to each other's songs as Beatles, they really didn't work as a songwriting team after about 1965. All the '66-'69 songs have one primary songwriter, who nearly always is the lead vocalist.
18 - JC Mosquito
Sorry - I gotta agree with the workmanlike aspect of art - the perspiration that goes hand in hand with the inspiration. Or - the Craft that supports the Art. Not all songs are either/or, or even 50/50 - there's differing amounts that go into any one particular creation. However, when all's done, it has to sound as natural as breathing.
Paul vs. John? - We'll never know - I wonder how Lennon's art would have stood up after 27 extra years of writing? Would he have developed along lines similar to the alleged "workmanlike" style of Paul, or waited for the occasional visit from the Muse?
A can o' worms, just waiting to be opened - as are all things Beatle.
19 - Brad Laidman
One of my favorite quotes ever JC - Noel Gallagher of Oasis (a huge John fan) in response to a question on Paul's draught at the time said: If John Lennon were alive today he'd be writing shite like Biker Like and Icon too.
20 - zingzing
i would hope that lennon would have pulled a scott walker, putting out challenging pieces of art every decade or so... but i doubt it. lennon was a troubled man when he died, almost infantile. lets face it, his best work over the last 5 (or 8) years of his life was the job he did on yoko's "walking on thin ice," which he mixed the day he died. if i am not mistaken...
lennon had no clue how to live a normal life, and it didn't look like he was going to mature any time soon. if he hadn't died from being shot, i have little doubt that he would have survived crack-cocaine. he was aiming straight for overdose. (maybe i'm reading too much goldman... but i have no problem believing that lennon was a paranoid, childish drug addict over the last few years of his life.)
plus, his music took a distinct nosedive after 1971. it didn't have the creativity or the confidence of his earlier work. but no one can stay on top forever.
to the author--it's pretty obvious that you prefer lennon, who hardly needs defending from the nasty national review... and you're just as bad as the author of that piece... not that i disagree with you... but you must realize what you are doing.