Re: Paul wote or cowrote 98% of L-M songs
- From: "dlarsson" <derek_larsson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 13:00:08 -0400
Paul McCartney wrote most of 'Every Little Thing' in his music room at
Cavendish Avenue, he played it for Brian Epstein backstage. (Many Years
From Now, pages 108, 174).
It was co-written however and John clearly has a prominent
singing role on the song ... which is a clue.
I have no argument that McCartney had catchy melodies - but
he also had very little passion & musical tension in his songs
which Lennon had.
'She's Leaving Home' is filled with sadness,
Note: Lennon added the "Parents" voices & lamenting
You make the mistake of assuming that a song has to be depressing or
sad to be emotional or to convey emotion.
No, that's an oversimplification. I am referring to musical
tension & release and "passion" in general. Most of
McCartney's music falls into the 'happy-go-lucky'
"do re me do fa la ti da" category and does not convey
much real passion or deep expression to it. His music is
also generally rooted on simple diatonic scales
( "do re me do fa la ti da" ) whereas Lennon's music
blended a fascinating mixture of melodic, dissonent,
and odd-rhythmic elements (as well as surrealism).
"Yesterday" is quite bland compared with "Girl".Nonsense. 'Girl' is not *half* the song 'Yesterday' is.
"Yesterday" was a big hit and very popular.
I am not arguing about it's commerical appeal.
My point is that "Girl" was a much more complex
and musically sophiscated melody from a musical
perspective -- which it's minor-scale based phrasing
and dual dissonent & melodic phrasing. "Because"
is also more musically complex that anything thing
I can think of from McCartney.
McCartney has no right to try and deny
that or to complain about it as being just a by-product of
McCartney has never come out and said that anything is a by-product of
Lennon death, he has never said that Lennon material was anything less
I wish that were true. But McCartney has, in fact, given
several interviews where he openly & publically laments
the fact that Lennon received a lot of attention after his
death. You'll notice that McCartney also refused to participate
in the "Imagine" movie or any of the tribute concerts for
John Lennon (he did participate for George Harrison's tribute
concerts). He clearly resents any public attention being
shown for John Lennon and has practically campaigned
to re-make his image and to diminish Lennon's for 20 years.
And his clearly biased, one-sided revisionism
of the Beatles: "Many Years From Now" is entirely based
on the false premise that he was "the arty" one and
even though Lennon's music was "experimental" - Paul
deserves the credit for it. Simply put: It's bullshit-!
and coming from a man with far too much vanity and
self-aggrandizement than you'd think could ever be
possible given the horrific tragedy of Lennon's murder
and the loss of clearly one of the most influential people
of the 20th century.
Fact: Lennon went to Art School (not Paul)
Fact: Lennon painted and drew caricatures, cartoons
and wrote short-stories, poetry, and published books
(not Paul - at least not then)
Fact: Lennon's very best friend was Staurt Sutcliffe
the brilliant artist whose work sold for big money
Fact: Lennon was far more knowlegeable about Art,
about Artists than McCartney and he was far
more 'read-up' on Artists and he read recreationally
on Art, Religion, History, etc. and would talk
about these subjects - literally all the time.
Fact: Lennon's first wife was Art student: Cynthia Powell
Fact: Lennon's second wife was performance-Artist Yoko Ono
Fact: Lennon's music employed the use of surrealism and
other artistic devices - as well as experimentation
Fact: Lennon was obsessed by 'backwards sounds',
'tape loops', and other creative effects and it
was HIS MUSIC where those techniques were
sought out by him and used ( not Paul's music).
Fact: Lennon's music is, by far, the most "musically
experimental" in the band's catalog - with Harrison's
music being easily in SECOND PLACE (not Paul's ).
Fact: McCartney's music was clearly the most transparently
commerically-focused and geared towards AM-Radio
Fact: Just listen to the damn music .. it's obvious who was
the guru of "60s psychedelic music" .. and who
was a just a conventional-commerical songwriter.
Fact: Ask Astrid Kirchherr (Sutcliffe's girlfriend) who
was the "arty" Beatle-? or ask Ringo?
Quote: "People say that Paul was on the edge of
this, that, and the other, but the point is
John -was- the edge. And say what you
will, it was his band."
-Ringo Starr, Rolling Stone Magazine
Quote: "But I still like 'the Walrus', 'Strawberry Fields',
the 'LENNON things' the best. I miss THAT.
I miss that side of music."
-George Harrison, Musician Magazine
The truth is out there - and it is not to be found in
Macca's little self-propaganda, self-glorification book.
What is wrong with the
vaudevillian songs? They had a bit of lightheartedness to the rock
Well, there is nothing "wrong" with any song really.
But, these songs are not what made the Beatles
an important band here or represent the 60s movement
or what serves as the best of 1960s music. These
are the throwaways of the Beatles repertoire.
People may like them, despite this, but they were
not what had made "The Beatles" the leaders of the
60s-shift and the social movement away from the status-quo.
Lennon's music does
hold up pretty well, but so does McCartney's, it's not soft-rock fluff
It is quite soft .. for the most part (some exceptions)
especially for what was going on in Rock music during
it's zenith (1967 - 1970)
'Because' is not as good as Harrison's 'Here Comes The Sun'
and neither of them are as good as 'You Never Give Me Your Money.'
They are all good songs and HCTS & Because are both great.
My point about "Because" was the musical complexity itself.
Sometimes people look at one Lennon song or another
and say - well that had "no melody" - but Lennon was
very diverse. He wrote some songs with soaring melodies
("Lucy In the Sky", "Because", etc.) and others where
the melody doesn't move much (deliberately) - but the
chords & whole music structure underneath the song
moves dramatically ("I am The Walrus", "Strawberry Fields").
There was not
much that much "Rock" in McCartney's roll during the later years.
And what about Lennon's 'Rock And Roll' album, I don't think I need
expand on this any further.
Phil Spector ruined that project - along with it coming during
the time of John's separation in his marriage and it was a
bad period for him. Had Lennon made that record in
in 1980, when his life was in order -- it would have been great.
- Prev by Date: Re: After Party for Love (article) / George Martin etc.
- Next by Date: Re: After Party for Love (article) / George Martin etc.
- Previous by thread: Re: Paul wote or cowrote 98% of L-M songs
- Next by thread: Re: Paul wote or cowrote 98% of L-M songs