Do we have to assault John Lennon to laud Paul McCartney?
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.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Brad Laidman
Thought I'd throw this out there to let you guys know I love Macca too. Has anyone heard the demo of "My Brave Face" with both Elvis and Paul singing, it's fantastic as is the released version.
27 - Cristina
I agree with you, Carol. I do think the author of the article endend up doing what he said we shouldn't do.
As for the degree of colaboration in the Lennon/McCartney partnership, I agree with the person who said that they colaborated with each other all the time, and not just at the beggining. And it went way further than just editing. Sometimes it was that (which was important, of course), but they did sit down and wite together as far as 1967, at least. By any accounts, that's how they wrote With a Little Help from my Friends.
And I just don't like it when people say Paul is good at writing "pop" songs, because, considering the quality of pop music nowadays, it sounds like comparing him with the likes of Britney Spears.
He's (and always has been) one of the best (if not the best) at writing practically any kind of songs.
28 - Carol Cleveland
Christina--
Not only did they collaborate while they were still "The Beatles", but Paul was still checking the lyrics with John (in his head) while writing a song for Flaming Pie. Paul will probably always check the lyrics with John in his head.
I think that if people started listening to the music that both men made, they would discover that a) they admired *each other's* work, and b) their "solo" efforts were influenced positively by the long period of close collaboration. I think John wished he could write melodies more like Paul's, and he succeeded, and Paul wished he could write lyrics more like John's, and he succeeded. An artistic collaboration is not, after all, a football game, it is something entirely different, and ... messier to score.
29 - Brad Laidman
Give Paul some credit for having a sense of humor too. Writing Silly Love Songs in response to the typical criticism of his work by John was brilliant.
30 - Alessandro
I think the author did a good job at attempting to be fair in the face of an article he disagreed with. But even if you try, you always have a sentimental favorite. No crime in this.
I'm only 35 so The Beatles came to me way past their days. However, their essence and aura did not escape me. I am not tied into the McCartney/Lennon/Lennon/McCartney thing. It doesn't interest me. It's probably a generational thing.
One poster mentioned it's a lyric versus melody thing - that's probably closer to the truth. But not enough for me.
I just accept them for what they were and what they created. The criticism and romanticism for either of them is excessive - the John Lennon as some peace emissary tends to be annoying. And the McCartney as shallow just as much.
We weren't there and we will never know the intricate dynamics of their relationship to each other and The Beatles - to say nothing of Harrison and Starr.
The Beatles ARE....that's good enough for me.
31 - stanz Man
rock on macca and lennon lovers everywhere !!!! the magic lives on !!!
32 - Juan Bodniza
Lennon or Mccartney ? What about both?
The truth is their music was good but never as amazing as when they were beatles.
ALSO, Why is it always LennonMccartney?
The Beatles were nothing before Ringo joined the band. And Georges guitar parts couldnt be done better in 100 years.
33 - Colin Ricketts
Crikey Brad, excellently long piece and well done for dismissing some of the original article - Working Class Hero a silly hate song? Please...
You may well be well aware of Ian Macdonald's masterful Revoloution in the Head - which every Beatle fan should read, and which was a major step change in the Macca reputation (certainly in the UK press), from a simplistic John = troubled genius, artist V Paul = showbiz craftsman, artiste.
I think there is something in that simplistic view, by the way, but for years Macca was unfairly traduced as shallow (and you're right that his 80s work didn't help). . . By the way, KT Tunstall has just done a rewrite job on Blackbird with a song on her new album called, I think, White Bird with a Black Tail, and will soon be able to buy a country estate I should imagine.
34 - Aussie Dave
McCartney a political lightweight? I think not - what about 'Give Ireland Back To The Irish', written at a time when things were really bad in the early '70's between the British Govt. and Irish Republicans. After that track was banned by the BBC, Paul had the good humour to record a musically hip version of 'Mary Had A Little Lamb '! There's irony for you! Maybe he should write a song called 'Give Iraq Back To The Iraqis' - someone has to bring an end to the senseless killing since Bush & Co. paid a visit when they hadn't been invited.
Peace & Love
35 - Doc
So much controversy so many years later. You got to love it. They were equals. One needed the other, period, or they would not of made it the way they did. That being said their egos prevented someone who was their equal to shine just as bright. The less insecure and most underappreciated songwriter of all. GEORGE HARRISON !
36 - Mark Saleski
i've never been able to identify with this "who's better" sort of thing, as if choosing sides somehow confers a concrete score ("john: 96, paul: 89!!").
it's like saying that Beefheart's Trout Mask Replica is "better" than The Who's Quadrophenia. a waste of time, is what that discussion is.
37 - Brad Laidman
Well, I sort of agree that it's hard to compare two great works, but you agree that Quadrophenia is better than It's Hard don't you?
38 - Mark Saleski
no, i don't. i just don't think that way.
39 - Brad Laidman
It's a tough question, and if someone loves a piece of work even after you've discussed it - the conversation needs to end, but I enjoy the conversation. The attempt to describe why we think something is of superior quality is a noble one. Then again, have I had an infinite number of "He sucks," "No he doesn't" silly arguments. Who hasn't :).
40 - Mark Saleski
yeah, i mean, take Trout Mask as an example. to my brain, the recording positively explodes with all sorts of textures, rhythms, and odd juxtapositions of things. i love every crazy second of it.
on the other hand, i can totally see why some folks just can't stand it.
41 - Brad Laidman
Yeah, there are some things I don't get, where I admit I haven't put a lot of time into it (Frank Zappa). Even John Coltrane, I love him up to the free jazz stuff, and then it gets complicated. I'm mostly talking pop though, and the critical view of that seems to ebb and flow. Look at the Bee Gees rep. Then those Yacht Rock guys started mocking soft rock, and suddenly people are professing a real love for The Pina Colata Song. It's crazy, but it's fun. Gives us something to talk about.
42 - Lissa Parker
I don't have anything particularly cerebral to say about all this. My comment is, gadzooks, it's 2007 and many Beatles fans still feel the need to debate the merits of Lennon's and McCartney's creativity, and defend one over against the other? Wha--?? They were both brilliant, everybody! Get over it! And I agree: I think that, had John lived, he, too, would be writing his own song clunkers as an aging codger. No different. I'm just glad that I've been here during their, and the Beatles, lifetimes. What a great musical time to be alive!
43 - Brad Laidman
Well, it does go to their quality. I suppose there were Freddy and the Dreamers vs. Gerry and the Pacemakers debates, but they waned with time. Ferry cross the Mersey rules tho!
44 - JC Mosquito
I love Coltrane more after the free jazz stuff started.
Quadrophenia is a little better than It's Hard, but neither of them's as good as Who's Next.
Apples are better than oranges.
Naaaaaah - I'm kidding of course - but sometimes it's convenient to lay out a reference point to et the discussionstarted.
45 - Mark Saleski
a carrot is as close as a rabbit gets to a diamond.
so there!
46 - HUTCH
Great article, and great reader feedback. I'd have to say that I am a bigger Lennon fan, but I really liked Paul's "Chaos", and thought "Memory" was even better. I though George's last album was brilliant too. I'd love to hear what John would be putting out were he stilll with us.
I think if we put the question to Paul himself, he'd admit he's the biggest Lennon fan of all.
47 - Lissa Parker
I would also like to add: I remember reading, maybe in the Anthology if not also elsewhere -- and I think that Paul may have actually said this -- that John and Paul were like mirror images of one another. That could speak to their creative similarities and differences, too. It's easy to forget that John could write heartfelt lyrics and beautiful melodies, and Paul, rockin' melodies and in-your-face lyrics. Were those their primary strengths? Maybe not. But they could still do both successfully. So I would say it's more like comparing an Apple-orange to an Orange-apple. "Penny Lane"/"Strawberry Fields Forever" is a great example of them using their creative strengths to describe their growing-up-in-Liverpool memories. Don't these songs complement and balance one another in a striking way?
48 - Stanz Man
well said Lisa ..I have always said it is a poor writer who has to knock someone in order to bulid someone else up ..and don't get me started on these goons here who are writing on who they think is the "Greater Artist" or :"Lesser Artist" those kind of ignorant statements ALWAYS come from non-creative minds.. now don't get me going on what I think of critics who sit on their fat arses and point their talentless fingers at everyone ...ugh !!!!
49 - John McCartney
Wow...the ever present Lennon/McCartney debate. Will it ever cease? Probably not. Let me start by saying both men are, without doubt, incredible geniuses. The body of work they have left behind (in a considerably short amount of time, mind you) will probably never be matched by any other band/artist in the foreseeable future (certainly not in my lifetime).
With regard to who is better? It's difficult to say. In terms of raw talent, you would have to say Lennon. Although McCartney would proclaim he taught himself to play music, which for the most part is true, he did have lessons (even during his tenure as a Beatle) and his dad was a musician, therefore, he clearly had the advantage of being exposed to the formal (technical?) side of musical performance/creation. This is probably why he was better at writing melodies that were catchy and popular. Lennon, with little or no formal training, did not have this advantage, thus his talents were more raw in nature.
Many try to put a tangible slant on the debate by looking at the numbers. If you consider number 1 hits (which tend to be more catchy/popular) McCartney's compositions have the edge by a considerable margin. The Beatles 1 album. which contains their 27 number 1 hits, is comprised of 3 Lennon/McCartney compositions, 14 primarily McCartney compositions, 9 primarily Lennon compositions, and 1 Harrison composition. In terms of total compositions, however, Lennon has the edge by an appreciable amount. In their catalog of songs, there are 13 Lennon/McCartney songs, 78 mainly Lennon songs, 67 mainly McCartney songs, 22 Harrsion songs, 2 Starr songs, and 2 credited to all four. While these facts are certainly interesting, they really do not answer the question of who is better. If you think about it, success (i.e. #1 hits) in popular music (pop music, if you will) is not really a true measure of an artist's gifts/abilities. Just look at Britney Spears...y'all.
Some argue, in McCartney's favor, that the debate can be settled by looking at their performance as solo artists. While McCartney certainly had more commercial success, in terms of number 1 hits, his albums were mostly dismal. In fact, most of his solo albums would only produce 1 or 2 good songs with the rest being lackluster. Lennon, on the other hand, usually (although he did have a few stinkers as well) produced albums that had a majority of songs that were good. Someone commented that Lennon's "Double Fantasy" was not a very good album. I would agree with this, but not because of his tracks. Yoko's contributions (with a voice I would liken to the sound of someone running their fingernails down a chalkboard) is what ruined an otherwise good album. Take the Lennon tracks from "Double Fantasy" and combine them with the Lennon tracks from "Milk and Honey" and you have one hell of an album.
Where does all this leave us with regard to the answer to the debate? Well, in my opinion, it's really too close to call. I guess it really comes down to personal preference. If I was pressed, however, I guess I would have to say it was 50.5% Lennon, 49.5% McCartney. But I might change my mind tomorrow as it can easily go the other way.
50 - Lissa Parker
Whoa, Stanz Man. I appreciate your agreement with my last posting. I don't agree, however, with your disparaging remarks about the other folks posting here or about critics. In my time, I have heard plenty of ignorant comments coming from creative minds, too. (Ignorance is highly democratic...) So I vote for keeping things in a more respectful zone here when offering opinions and critiques of others' opinions. There are plenty of ways to disagree without putting others down. Didn't you yourself say, "...it is a poor writer who has to knock someone in order to build someone else up"?
51 - stanz Man
yes lisa , you are right i went a little maxwell silver hammer sorry !!
52 - The Haze
Lennon / McCartney....we(the music lovers)were there.need I say more?
53 - LUNA PEN PINWHEEL
"LET IT BE; WAS NOT THE BEATLES FINAL ALBUM.
ABBEY ROAD WAS RECORDED SEVERAL MOPNTHS AFTER THE COMPLETION OF LET IT BE.
54 - sirguitarist
At age 50, I grew up with the Beatles and then (1964) through even now have found that I can love and appreciate them all either individually or collectively through different phases of my life, or different moods. The debate is interesting at times, but also tiresome at others. For the most part I enjoyed this article as I feel McCartney has taken a lot more unfair scrutiny than deserved, and this article though unintentionally slipping off track once or twice in making the point, did a good job of stating that unfairness. Right now I have been diving more into the George Harrison catalog (wasn't it great to see the revival of the Traveling Wilburys albums?), and "even" (I say with tongue in cheek) Ringo has been on my stereo again with the release of the hits CD. One day we may see the tired expression "apples and oranges" actually universally changed to "that's like comparing Lennon and McCartney!" I think most will agree that with the Fabs the "whole was greater than the sum of its parts" but I am glad all four continued making music at all after the group was no more. A great time in the history of music to be alive, wouldn't you say?
55 - alessandro
Clarence was the 5th Beatle who penned "She has a ticket to ride and the bitch don't care." Long live Clarence.
56 - Earl E.Byrd
The Beatles were always the sum of their individual personalities. There was a chemistry amongst the members that was irreplaceable after the break-up of the group.
All of the Beatles struggled, at one point or another, with their solo careers. John and Paul, as the chief songwriters of the Beatles, suffered because they didn't work with each other. When John and Paul wrote separately in the Beatles Years, they had a healthy competition going which spurred them on to write better songs. Each was cognizant of the fact that the other would frankly critique their work. In the '70's and beyond neither John nor Paul had a writing partner would could tell them they were full of crap. It always helps to have someone around you to tell you you're full of crap.
57 - Brad Laidman
Let It Be wasn't recorded last but it was the last release.
58 - Brad Laidman
Clarence: Paul still uses Afro-Sheen because of me!
59 - Lissa Parker
If John had lived, I'm confident that he and Paul would have eventually re-upped as at-least-occasional songwriting partners ... to see if they "still had it," if nothing else. Can you imagine what they might have conjured up, with so much more life experience under their belts? (Yeah, sadly, we'll never know.) Also, Earl: I agree with you. John and Paul both needed a partner who could frankly tell them when they were "full of crap." It takes a superstar rock icon who's a childhood friend & fellow creative kid to tell another superstar rock icon the unvarnished truth. Nowadays, who's going to tell Paul McCartney when he's writing crap? Ringo? Bob Dylan? Mick Jagger? Oops, I forgot -- we can always count on Yoko...
60 - Brian Mannix
I think McCartneys best work is when he's finished with a song, and says to himself, what would John think? Freedom was an embarrasemnt, I think he wrote it on the way the show. He is hands down the most talented writer and musician period. Paul is also human, and I believe that he is just as nervous as anyone else when they do something new, Always wondering if its good enough. He has such a reputation to keep up with. When I told him that I liked "Chaos" his eyes lit up and a wide smile came on his face, he looked so, how shall I say, "Human", like with a sigh of relief. But lets not forget, the top five greatest beatles songs, George owns of them. "Something" as Sinatra says is the greatest love song ever written.
61 - Brian Mannix
I think McCartneys best work is when he's finished with a song, and says to himself, what would John think? Freedom was an embarrasemnt, I think he wrote it on the way the show. He is hands down the most talented writer and musician period. Paul is also human, and I believe that he is just as nervous as anyone else when they do something new, Always wondering if its good enough. He has such a reputation to keep up with. When I told him that I liked "Chaos" his eyes lit up and a wide smile came on his face, he looked so, how shall I say, "Human", like with a sigh of relief. But lets not forget, the top five greatest beatles songs, George owns of them. "Something" as Sinatra says is the greatest love song ever written.
62 - johnozed
Walls and Bridges is a GREAT lennon album. As Band on the Run is a GREAT macca album.
63 - stanz Man
haha that comment about lennon having raw talent therefor being greater and mccartney being lesser because he was 'learned' was such hogwash I actually had to laugh out loud... such "pull the wool over your eyes" nonsense .so then if that is true, who would have taught Lennon how to play? well McCartney, of course ...and that in a nutshell says it all (and we are still allowed to like/love them both ok? ) now thank you and goodnight !!!!!
64 - sean schoenke
Paul's solo career is stellar. Now that his catologue is available on I-tunes, people will revisit and hear again the great melodies that makes him the greatest composer of all time. John's art on the other hand had the genius of making people think deeply about finding the truth. But both John and Paul could cross styles and create serious or silly loves songs.
65 - Kelly
Paul was better with John than without John.
John was better with Paul than without Paul.
66 - girl
Dear Brad, You begin your article by saying that it's an old and sad story about Lennon vs. McCartney instead of celebrating the great songwriting team, etc. BUT you end up doing the same thing by comparing Lennon to McCartney with McCartney coming out slightly unfavorably in your article while the Kyle article makes Paul come out on top, and John looks like a nothing. Will this ever stop? For instance you say that 'Strawberry Fields' is so much more brilliant than 'Penney Lane', making it seem like no one should even think that it would be 'Penny Lane'. WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE? I skimmed the comments but I can't figure out why so many people haven't noticed that both of them were geniouses. They were a musical muse. So talented and so creative and that should be celebrated. 'Penny Lane' and 'Strawberry Fields' are both wonderful. A Day in the Life is brilliant, but so is 'Eleanor Rigby'. 'In My Life' was a 50/50. Paul/music John/lyrics. But what does that prove? That they were both brilliant? Hey no kidding! Who cares who contributed what and whose songs were better? If you went song by song you will find that they are even. Thats why they were together. I love them both.
67 - Brad Laidman
I do admit I sort of fell into the same trap - although my point is that we shouldn't have to trash one to laud the other - the pro Mac slant of the National Review article I was commenting on forced me defend John. They're both great.
68 - gmatt44
It appears more and more to me as I get older that the Lennon - McCartney writng "team" was more a competition than a collaboration ie who could come up with the next great song - sure they may have shared ideas but it was the competitive nature of both men that made their songwriting great and behind this we had George knowing he had to come up with something good to make it on an album. It was competiton not collaboration that made the Beatles great - IMHO.
69 - JC Mosquito
In other words, capitalism at its finest. If only those 60s conservatives who accused the Beatles of beign left wing pinko commmie hippies only knew...
70 - girl
I understand what you meant now Braid. And sorry for spelling your name wrong. I admit I always feel that I have to defend the one who is being attacked. Usually it's Paul because as so many commenters have stated here, he has been in the maddening position of being misunderstood by people who just don't know the facts. As one commenter has said, if you are a true fan of both guys, you need to read McCartney's book. It is essential reading for true hardcore fans. I'd also like to say that I agree with "Stanzman". Just scroll up and you will see that he says it all. I remember when 'Double Fantasy' came out. In the two weeks before Lennon's death the album WAS panned. That is absolutely fact. Everyone thought this much awaited album was a big disappointment. It certainly was not recieved as his greatest. Not even close. 'John Lennon Plastic Ono Band'(his first) was his best, and 'Imagine' was second best. Also, a lot of people love 'Walls and Bridges'. Other than that, he had some good singles but that certainly doesn't make him better than Paul. Paul had the lovely 'McCartney' and 'Ram'and both of these albums sound a lot better today than they did then. (Great melodies and nice guitar playing) He also had 'Band on the Run'. So they each had three strong albums in the 70's. By saying John was better, people are remembering the tragedy and believing things that they've read. Listen to the music and read 'Revolution in the Head'by Ian Macdonald. And most importantly know who wrote what and who contributed what. One commenter said that he/she often sees that John gets credit for songs or contributions that Paul made. This upsets me because I am hardcore and very knowledgable. Yes, 'A Day in the Life' is every bit a Paul song as a John song. The beautiful haunting melody is John's but the avant gaurdism is Paul's. My son and I sat down one day and hummed Beatle melodies to each other to try and figure out who wrote what. According to Ian Macdonald, John's melodies were vertical and Paul's, horizontal with octave leaps. My son plays a musical instrument and reads music so he could easily hear their unique contributions. So Macdonald was right, the melody to 'In My Life' was Paul's. He remembers correctly that he wrote it and he's not lying. Also 'Every Little Thing' has always been attributed to Paul but it's really a 50/50. Paul wrote the chorus or "middle eight" and John wrote the rest. One of the most beautiful and underated songs in the entire catalogue. Perfect proof that they were both brilliant melodists. Lyrics? John has always been praised for writing better lyrics but again listen to the music and read McCartney's book of poetry,'Blackbird Singing'. Paul is a poet in the traditional sense. Heavily influenced by Ginsburg, Keroac,Thomas,Frost,Eliot and Lewis Carrol. His song lyrics are too. Listen to 'Strawberry Fields' and 'Penny lane'. While I like the melody of 'Strawberry Fields' better, I think the lyrics of both songs are abstract poetry at it's best. Once again proving that both guys were brilliant lyricists AND melodists. As a Beatle fan I can't even imagine liking one more than the other. When people say that John was better are they forgetting songs like 'Eleanor Rigby'? John contributed nothing to that song. I'm not knocking him. I wouldn't do that. I'm just saying that people should inform themselves about this music if they are going to comment. 'Eleanor Rigby' is a piece of poetry with a haunting melody. That doesn't make Paul better than John, just equal. I think that is what Paul has been trying to say. Not that he was better but that he and John were equal partners. It obviously bothers him that some people might not think so. It would bother me if I were in his shoes. He's taken a lot of s*** over the years and it was not deserved. Sorry for going on so long but this is a very interesting topic! Anyone reading this, I implore you to please read 'Revolution in the Head' by Ian Macdonald and Many Years From Now' by Barry Miles. I've read hundreds of Beatle books but those are two that are essential. And play their music for your kids. Keep their music alive for generations. My teenage sons love them and they told me that a lot of high school kids do. That is special. Oh and don't forget, George was wonderful too.
71 - girl
To add to my comment. John's melodies were HORIZONTAL and Paul's VERTICAL with octave leaps. My mistake. Also your name is Brad and I said "Braid". Sorry!
72 - Brad Laidman
I actually wasn't going to buy this Bob Spitz Beatles book but I just found it for $6 and I've had my head stuck in it the last couple days. I've learned a couple of things. I didn't know paul got his girlfriend pregnant at the same time as John and she miscarried.
Another good post on Paul girl. I just can't help my fascination with John - the rogue who changed thing. Actually, this new book makes Paul seem a little more bawdy than I've heard previously.
I had always only heard about Paul doing 20 flight rock the first time he met John, this book says he did like 5 songs in a row!
Live and learn.
I also recently read the book Lennon Remembered and it seemed to indicate that post Beatles - John tried to help George and Ringo, but knew that Paul was fine on his own.
Like John said - If I ask Paul to join the band I'll have to compete with him, but he's really good!
73 - Paul Lennon
stanz Man:
You are absolutely correct!! It is TRUE!! Paul did teach John how to play the guitar "proper", as it were. If you remember your Beatle history (as I'm sure you do) John's only musical instruction (pre-Paul) came in the form of a somewhat free-spirited (to put it mildly) mother who taught him some chords on the banjo. From what has been reported, however, she was far from an accomplished musician. Having acknowledged this, how does this (in a nutshell) say it all? You do realize that many students of any endeavor often wind up having more talent than their teachers, don't you? Talk about laughing out loud.
I'm not keeping anyone from liking/loving both of them, ok? Where do I leave the impression I don't like Paul? If you look at my closing statements, I clearly state it could go either way. In fact, I'll take it a step further and state none of the Beatles were great technical musicians, except for Paul. My arguments were not an attempt to make him the "lesser" I was merely pointing out that his technical merits, by definition, would tend to leave him out of the RAW category. That's not to say he is not genius (which I pointed out in my opening comments) in his own right.
There are many in the Lennon/McCartney debate who take up sides (no shite...it's a debate) and some who display an obvious allegiance in the guise of neutrality, like yourself. Now thank you and good day!!!!
74 - Paul Lennon
And by the way....while both songs are pretty much shite, "Power to the People" is legions better than "Freedom". Combine this with the fact that "Power" is hampered by a very prominent Yoko presence and you can see why it was shite. One aspect of the debate that is seldom addressed is the fact that Lennon was SEVERELY handicapped by his partner in the solo years. While Linda was certainly no American Idol, at least she provided some decent background vocals, and McCartney was clever enough to keep her in the lower end of the mix, rather than featuring her like Lennon did Yoko.
75 - Brad Laidman
Back off boogaloo,
I said, back off boogaloo,
I said, back off boogaloo, boo
I can't believe I actually started this :)
Everyone stop watching Let it Be and turn on Yellow Submarine!
So Richards or Jagger?