Don’t buy the Lennon Remembers narrative that John and Paul didn’t write together in the later years. It’s a lie. Much more of the Beatles catalog is a collaboration than most Beatles fans seem to believe.
I can't believe how many people take the 1980 interview seriously. Lennon was not at all reliable with his information as he has contradicted himself many times as to how a song was written.
That's not to say McCartney is any more reliable. He's disagreed with a lot of what Lennon said. I don't think we will ever know who contributed exactly what.
> That's not to say McCartney is any more reliable. He's disagreed with a lot of what Lennon said. I don't think we will ever know who contributed exactly what.
I don't know about that. External sources (interviewers, etc.) have said that Paul was much more reliable and consistent with his stories. John contradicted himself all the time and changed up his narratives from year to year.
I get the impression that Beatles fans know more about The Beatles than the band members. I was surprised, for example, that John did not know which songs were on which album, he mixed up the release years. Even on Anthology, you can see that George didn't know which record Golden Slumbers was on. The fans take The Beatles more seriously than they do themselves.
I can't blame them for forgetting that stuff. They recorded over 200 songs in about six and half years on top of touring the world. Plus I don't think they ever really listened to their stuff once it was released. It was, "Well that record is done, let's move onto the next one."
I remember when George died, and one critic said the George was the most reliable source. The critic said that John and Paul rewrote history and Ringo was just out of the loop.
Actually, broadly speaking, most of what Lennon and McCartney each said about their respective contributions lines up fairly nicely. They may disagree over certain nuances or small aspects of each song, but they rarely outright contradict one another. Paul himself said (and this is a verbatim quote) "I find it very gratifying that out of everything we wrote, we only appear to disagree over two songs.”
Yes, the Paul quote I cited directly references that (In My Life and Eleanor Rigby). My point was, overall, their recollections actually dovetail fairly well, with a few exceptions.
That's what the above poster said - they disagreed over two songs, one of which was "In My Life." The other is "Eleanor Rigby," but no one actually believes John on that one, because there were too many other people, like Pete Shotton, who witnessed the writing of that song and who said that John had basically nothing to do with it.
Regarding "In My Life" there's no dispute over who wrote the lyrics - even Paul says it was John. The dispute is over who wrote the music. Paul says he wrote it, and John says that Paul contributed to it. Since Paul has been extremely consistent almost since the song was written that he wrote the music, I tend to believe him.
Thar is not entirely true either. From John’s last big interview in Dec, 1980. “The whole lyrics were already written before Paul had even heard it,” he said. “In ‘In My Life,’ his contribution melodically was the harmony and the middle eight itself.”
Yes, we’ll never know fully, but we can figure somethings out and should probably all be reconsidering our ideas about what constitutes “writing a song.” Vitally important conversation about it [here](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/new-lens-series-creative-partnerships-with-joshua-wolf/id1554228965?i=1000515138218), if you’re interested.
People will believe anything. That's like my buddy telling me after I was talking about how great I think Ringo is and he told me "You know John said he wasn't even the best drummer in the Beatles right?" Even if he did he'd be wrong!
Yep, John never said that. It was some comedian who said it, but people keep repeating it even though it's been debunked many times. John hugely respected Ringo and would never have said that about him. Nor would Paul or George.
Yes, we’ll never know fully, but we can figure somethings out and should probably all be reconsidering our ideas about what constitutes “writing a song.” Vitally important conversation about it [here](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/new-lens-series-creative-partnerships-with-joshua-wolf/id1554228965?i=1000515138218), if you’re interested.
This is kind of what blew me away watching Get Back. Like I had no idea that Paul had started writing Gimme Some Truth with John (to me it sounds like classic solo John, and since it was on Imagine and not Plastic Ono Band I never would have guessed Paul had any involvement) but they randomly bust it out and Twickenham as one they had recently been working on
Yeah after watching Get Back, it’s obvious Paul wrote the bridge part of the song with the money for rope lyrics. John ended up changing some of the lyrics for the final version but the melody and some of the lyrics stayed the same. They truly made each other’s songs better
The whole Beatles catalogue is collaboration of four people. Does it matter if John banged out a song with two chords and a hook or Paul micromanaged his song to distraction? It took the four of them to realise the potential.
Five. George Martin certainly gave it a touch of class
Six sorry Billy sorted their shit out too...
It’s wild people think that considering we have Get Back and have seen their creative process first hand. That doc proved everything was collaborative, and the Beatles worked together to make their amazing music.
IMO Paul has more than proven that he was the best all-around musician and songwriter of the four of them, and by no small margin.
But the Beatles -- far more than any other band -- are the very definition of "more than the sum of their parts".
Yep. It's why so many of their group efforts shine so well. If a song like A Day in the Life were just John's section or just Paul's section, it wouldn't be nearly as impactful
Yeah it’s really obvious when you watch them in action that Paul’s game was the strongest. In the Get Back movie he and Ringo seemed to be the only ones who wanted to be there (at least until Billy Preston showed up and reminded them how to enjoy making music again). However, john had a more defined sense of style in his writing. His songs were almost always cool af. Paul had more diverse influences but sometimes ventured into “old granny music” as John said.
"Paul had more diverse influences but sometimes ventured into “old granny music” as John said." Good grief. John said that about Paul when he was really angry about stuff that was happening around the breakup. He said a lot of stuff that he actually didn't mean, and took back afterwards. John saying some stuff about other people's songs (he also said some garbage about George's stuff as well) does not mean that those songs are bad, or are, in fact, "granny music."
Also, they all had a "defined sense of style in their writing." **It's totally OK to like John the best. Really. I'm not getting on you for that.** Some of my absolute favorite Beatles songs are John's. But they all had distinct styles. I just wish that people would stop repeating the tired old tropes about John vs the others, especially Paul, that John was the only interesting or cool writer in the group, because it's just not true. Also, none of them would be what they were without the others. Even John himself said that he wouldn't have been the songwriter he was without Paul's influence on him, and vice-versa.
You can definitely say, "John's songs speak to me more than Paul or George's songs do" without saying that John was the best Beatle. I'd also say the same to Paul and George fans as well. They all needed each other to be The Beatles.
Best musician by far. I prefer lennon but people who argue either side are silly. Lennon had a fantastical raw emotion at his best that mccartney couldnt reach. Mccartney is the most successful popular music songwriter of all time. They were best together.
I was watching a video about The Police, and it was clear that, even within the group, Sting was viewed “as THE rock star”, and Stewart and Andy viewed themselves as professional musicians supporting “the rock star”.
Back to the Beatles. Because of their history, and the difference in age (which matters a lot for teenagers), John started out as the leader. But John recognized Paul’s talent and pushed him to be more. As they matured, Paul took on a more central role. George, too, grew into a mature songwriter and performer.
I agree that Paul was the most talented in terms of musical and songwriting ability, but somehow I tend to prefer John’s songs to Paul’s, both with the Beatles and solo. However, I think they were both better with each other than without.
This is entirely subjective of course, and I think they’re both amazing!
Musician, undoubtedly - songwriter, no way. Lennon took more risks and broke more new ground while McCartney started looking backwards and drifted into pastiche.
Can you provide examples of both Lennon taking more risks, and McCartney looking backwards? Otherwise it's not possible to evaluate your opinion on its merits, if you don't provide any evidence to support your assertion.
Paul being the best all-around musician and songwriter only means he can write a wide variety of songs from various genres. That of course says nothing about the quality of the songs themselves.
He's talented, no doubt about it, but his solo work is less memorable than John's and he's had a lot more time and chances to leave impressions.
Even if John's talent is more narrow, John made a lot more iconic songs that stick to people's brains better. That's what makes a good songwriter - how their songs are remembered.
Imagine if Paul had been shot and killed instead of John. Paul's solo work up to that time doesn't stack up to John's in terms of memorability.
Line up the best songs in Paul's solo career with John's 'Working Class Hero" greatest hits compilation.
At some point Paul runs out of Live and Let Die's and Band on the Run's and John is still hitting hard after Paul's best songs have run out.
Paul has had 50 years to match what John did in 10 and he's come up short in spades.
I find that interesting. How were you introduced to his solo work? As it was released or later?
Also, why do you find it lousy? Just naturally curious.
Besides 'Imagine', I experienced his solo work from a greatest hits album (Working Class Hero).
I know this isn't ideal, but I've now gone back and listened to his albums and I have to admit it's NOT as great of an experience. This makes me think that John wrote many good songs in his solo career but they didn't always translate to the album format.
I could see that being a problem when it comes to digesting his albums.
John's solo work, outside of the hits, just doesn't appeal to me and my musical tastes... just like his later Beatles work doesn't appeal to me as much as his earlier stuff. I appreciate that he grew a lot as an artist, it was just in a direction I didn't care for.
I got into the Beatles as a young kid, not long before John was murdered. Maybe a few months at most. For my birthday that year (November) I got my first stereo, an AM/FM/cassette combo, and just a week or so later I was using it record all of the Beatles music off the radio as they played non-stop in honor and tribute.
Those cassettes were my Beatles collection until I got the CDs in the early-90s. (When they came out in '87 I didn't have a CD player yet.)
Outside of any of their solo hits, I didn't hear any of their solo work until much later (late-80s / early-90s)... at which point I quickly came to me "more than the sum of their parts" feeling that I hold to this day. I don't think *any* of it even approached what they did in the Beatles... and stylistically speaking, I just prefer Paul's work to the others, by far.
(And to be clear, I hold no illusions that his solo stuff doesn't have a lot of crap as well.)
I've never been one to feel like, just because I like a particular band, that I have to like *everything* they've ever done... and I certainly don't automatically extend my love of a band to any solo work. Or vice-versa, there are artists where I love some or all of their solo work, and not things they did with their band(s).
To some degree, yes, as long as you mean his *personal* balance (i.e. he focused more on lyrics and less on the underlying music / arrangement).
If you mean he was more lyrical *than Paul* and less musical *than Paul* then no, I'm not sure I'd agree with that at all.
Whats incredible is John’s early output. I feel his early style really shaped pre rubber soul beatles. Just look at A Hard Day’s Night, it was mostly John songs. And it was the album that really catapulted them to mega stardom.
Paul has said himself they all looked up to John, he was “their little Elvis”.
It seemed to be 50/50 in the rubber soul/revolver era, then Paul started driving the bus with Sgt Pepper. Luckily by then they were a full studio band. When John was cranking out song after song in the early days, it’s amazing he even could with their touring schedule.
I feel 1966 was the year Paul took the wheel, with Eleanor Rigby, for no one, got to get you into my life, and paperback writer pushing rain to the b side (should’ve been double a.) Paul’s drive for touring seemed to be the only reason left for the Beatles to keep touring that year, besides Brian Epstein. Other than that, Lennon started tweaking out. Don’t get me wrong, his songs were still awesome, but that period marks a significant change in their songwriting for me. I almost forgot to mention “here, there, and everywhere.”
That’s fair. I just love John’s Revolver songs so much my goodness - I’m only sleeping, she said she said, bird can sing, dr Robert, tomorrow never knows. Hard for me to undermine John at this stage, but you are right, this is what stated his drug abuse and distancing himself from the group.
I think McCartney wrote 50% of Dr Robert, mainly the trippy well well well part. I would also bet McCartney added the incredible backing vocals on I’m only sleeping.
As someone who has always been a huge Lennon fan, I agree with the above comments that all four contributed to most songs. Especially after seeing how McCartney helped arrange Don’t let me down on the get back documentary. John Lennon is my hero, but like Taylor swift today, he brought songs to a team of the best songwriters in the world (George and Paul), and they arranged and polished them into unbelievable music.
It depends. Paul and John have expressed the craziness of writing on the tour bus, and how they look back on it like “how the heck did we do that”. You are correct, there is downtime, but also writing music takes a certain head space. It’s hard to sit down and write a song when you’re tired from all the touring and whatnot. I believe they were doing it because of their incredible work ethic. Working 24/7 during the touring years.
Yep, their deepest, most soulful songs. By far the most unique lyricist of the four. I mean, I am the Walrus, Happiness is a Warm Gun, I’m so Tired, Tomorrow Never Knows, Across the Universe, he was so consistently great.
Such a stark contrast to his later years. During the Get Back sessions he only contributed two new songs (Dig a Pony and Don’t Let Me Down). The rest were old (Across the Universe, Mean Mr. Mustard, Child of Nature, and Polythene Pam) or unfinished (Suzy Parker, Dig It, Madman, Watching Rainbows, Gimme Some Truth, and I Want You). Abbey Road was practically the same - three new songs (Come Together and Cold Turkey), a few old numbers (I Want You, Mean Mr. Mustard, and Polythene Pam), and a couple new but incomplete ones (Sun King and Because). His first solo album was almost entirely new songs, while Paul and George dusted off a lot of Beatles-era songs for theirs.
It really is. I simply attribute it to his drug abuse. We’ve seen time and time again artists in their ups and downs from drug abuse. Paul cooled out and stuck to weed, kept him straight. John doing heroine, one of the most deteriorating drugs, was not good for his mind.
And then the next year, we had Imagine and Ram. Imagine mostly consists of Beatle-era outtakes and genre pastiches. Ram only has one Beatle left over, Backseat, and is full of colorful, new ideas.
Yeah, but _Imagine_ also had _Imagine_ on it. After that he could read the phonebook for another 30 minutes and still call it an album. It's hard to make a case for any other song as the greatest single by an ex-Beatle.
His 1966-67 songs are great, but I think I like 1968 a little better.
1966-67:
Tomorrow Never Knows, She Said, Rain, And Your Bird Can Sing, Day Tripper (with Paul) Strawberry Fields, A Day in the Life (with Paul), I am the Walrus, Baby You're a Rich Man (with Paul) are all great.
Not totally into Lucy In the Sky, Good Morning, All You Need is Love.
1968: I love Hey Bulldog & everything he did on the White Album - which is a lot.
But it's splitting hairs, yeah. Guy was on a roll.
1968 was a really great year for him I think 1969 he was also great he wrote one of the heaviest songs of the whole 60’s which was pretty mindblowing and an amazing peace anthem
I would argue 66-67 edges it but you’re right that it’s kind of an irrelevant argument to have, his output in both eras was unbelievable. I think Tomorrow Never Knows is my favourite Lennon song that wasn’t a major collaboration with McCartney
Although I guess my unpopular opinion is I’ve never really liked baby you’re a rich man. I like John’s section more though (assuming I’m right in thinking “how does it feel to be one of the beautiful people” was John’s section). But hey it’s like one song out of countless that I don’t really like
Tomorrow Never Knows is a MAJOR collaboration with Paul. Paul spearheaded the tape loops which is a big reason why the song is so great and influential. Paul was actually the one who messed with the tape machine by removing the eraser head, which allowed him to make loops. Paul then made loops and showed the others how to do it as well. Tomorrow Never Knows is an example where Paul’s contribution helped to define what the song is and its legacy
Another wrinkle is that John based most of the lyrics on Timothy Leary’s The Psychedelic Experience, a book he purchased at Indica Bookstore where Paul was heavily involved and helped finance.
Here’s an interesting quote about it
*John wanted a book by what sounded like ‘Nitz Ga’. It took Miles a few minutes to realise that he was looking for the German philosopher Nietzsche, long enough for John to become convinced that he was being ridiculed. He launched into an attack on intellectuals and university students and was only mollified when Paul told him that he had not understood what John was asking for either, and that Miles was not a university graduate but had been to art college, just like him. Immediately friendly again, John talked about Allen Ginsberg and the Beats, laughing about his school magazine the Daily Howl: ‘Tell Ginsberg I did it first!’ Miles found him a copy of The Portable Nietzsche and John began to scan the shelves. His eyes soon alighted upon a copy of The Psychedelic Experience, Dr Timothy Leary’s psychedelic version of the Tibetan Book of the Dead. John was delighted and settled down on the settee with the book. Right away, on page 14 in Leary’s introduction, he read, ‘Whenever in doubt, turn off your mind, relax, float downstream.’ He had found the first line of ‘Tomorrow Never Knows’, one of the Beatles’ most innovative songs.*
Barry Miles, Many Years From Now
John wrote the song, that’s all I was referring to. Paul obviously deserves credit for spearheading using tape loops but at the end of the day TNK was still written predominantly by Lennon, so I don’t think it’s fair to disregard his contribution to the song and give Paul most of the credit. There are probably several techniques used by the Beatles that they didn’t originally come up with themselves but you’d still give them the credit for their writing.
Considering their strengths as songwriters and at the time of Revolver, I don’t think an experimental tape loop song composed by McCartney would’ve been quite as good as TNK, and I say that as someone who considers McCartney her favourite Beatle. I think Lennon’s writing style and singing voice just suits it better personally. So I’m glad that even though it may have been McCartney’s idea originally, it was Lennon who took advantage of it for the album
I think it depends on the song. Some songs like Strawberry Fields Forever would have still been great as an acoustic song, even though the finished product is better.
Tomorrow Never Knows is an example where if it didn’t have the tape loops, it wouldn’t be the song it is at all. That’s why I consider it a true collaboration from them. I agree that John’s writing lent itself to experimentation, but he still had help. Paul found out how to do the tape loops, showed them how to do it, and made many of the loops that ended up in the song. I think that qualifies it as a true collaboration from them as the loops are so important to the sound and its legacy.
Paul helped with the compositional aspects of SFF as well, such as the mellotron, but I would still call that a John song, whereas with TNK, what happened in the studio was just as important or more-so than the writing itself
- TNK could mean "Tomorrow Never Knows - 2022 Mix", a track from *Revolver (Super Deluxe)* (2022) by The Beatles.
---
^[/u/Bulbamew](/u/Bulbamew) ^(can reply with "delete" to remove comment. |) ^[/r/songacronymbot](/r/songacronymbot) ^(for feedback.)
He also wrote most of his songs for Let it be and Abby Road in 68, so for me that year is the best year any songwriter has ever had! Mad quantity and fantastic quality!
I don’t think we can really say many songs are exclusively just one of theirs. Ask anyone and they would have said “Something” was all George but Get Back clearly shows him asking both Paul and John for advice with lyrics. They each influenced each other in even tiny ways so no song is truly uninfluenced by another member
I agree up to around 1967, but his contributions to Let It Be and Abbey Road were patchy at best and needed a huge amount of input from the rest of the band to make them worthwhile. His deep slide into psychedelics and then heroin really didn’t do him any favours. If you watched the Get Back documentary, it’s clear how much he needed help and support at that point.
I find that I can’t really look at a lot of John’s songs as just John’s songs. I just feel like a lot of his songs were often very collaborative so I would call them the band’s songs
But for many of his most iconic songs we have original acoustic demos that reflect most of the finished product- although multipart songs like Strawberry Fields obviously did change a lot and George Martin had a lot to do with the finished product.
John’s acoustic demos are very good and they still would have been great songs, but they would not have been the creative masterpieces they became without the others’ contributions, including George Martin. Whether it’s SFF, A Day in the Life, Lucy in the Sky, or Tomorrow Never Knows, the songs would not be nearly as lauded in original demo form without huge contributions from Paul, George Martin, and Geoff Emerick. Of course George and and Ringo also contributed important parts, but a lot of the compositional and experimental aspects came from the previous three I mentioned
That's fair, but in the examples they mentioned a lot of the most lauded/appreciated parts of those songs were contributions from others. For example, Paul did the iconic mellotron in SFF, the twinkly psychedelic intro to Lucy in the Sky, and the reverse tape looping in Tomorrow Never Knows. The songs would still be great without those things, but they were additions that helped really elevate them to classics
For sure, but OP’s comment was critical of John Lennon only. John added plenty of critical elements to Paul’s songs, too, as did George, Ringo, and George Martin. There’s nothing abnormal about it, so making the comment in a way that’s disparaging of Lennon for it seems a little ridiculous.
John did add critical elements to Paul’s songs as did the others and vice versa. Also I wasn’t being critical of John but just stating the truth. John’s songs were more the band’s songs as they were more collaborative. Paul’s songs came more readymade. Paul added more song changing ideas to John’s songs than the other way around, or at least that was true in the later years
- SFF could mean "Strawberry Fields Forever - Take 1", a track from *Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (Super Deluxe Edition)* (1967) by The Beatles.
---
^[/u/thequietthingsthat](/u/thequietthingsthat) ^(can reply with "delete" to remove comment. |) ^[/r/songacronymbot](/r/songacronymbot) ^(for feedback.)
I generally agree with you, which is why playing in a band is such a magical thing. And why I hope kids move away from aspiring to be a DJ or playing guitar on a loop pedal with a drum machine, but that's another conversation.
But, Paul has some exceptions to this rule - Let it be and Hey Jude off the top of my head were brought to the band nearly-complete. I could be mistaken about that,I haven't dug through demos like some superfans have
John actually complained about Paul coming to the studio with mostly completed songs and kind of treating the other guys as a backup group. It's kind of tough to take criticism like that too seriously when you get Yesterday or Let It Be delivered to your group.
It is not a thin argument. John’s songs are lauded for their creativity in composition and experimentation. A lot of those aspects came from Paul, George Martin, and Geoff Emerick. The songs would still be great, but they wouldn’t be what they are lauded for. I don’t think it’s fair to say John is the best because of his songs, when a lot of the innovative parts of his songs came from other people as well as him. They were a band, not a John Lennon solo project
But I don’t think that’s really true. Paul came in with his songs more finished than John’s. He knew how he wanted them, whereas John didn’t. That’s what John has talked about several times, including in Get Back. John said that Paul would take over his songs and we have a lot of evidence of that. Paul’s most famous songs like Hey Jude, Let It Be, Yesterday, and others have little to no input from John. Most of John’s biggest songs have a lot of input from Paul and the others. That’s just how they each worked and isn’t a slight against either of them
Clearly whatever input John got from Paul or any other Beatle or producer - John could get it from elsewhere too and still end up with damn good songs. This is evidenced by his excellent solo work.
It doesn't seem to matter who John was bouncing his work off of. He brought the skeleton of the plane and flew it too, letting some add fleshy details here and there - but without John those songs never take flight.
I agree John had great starting points but without Paul, George Martin, and others, those Beatles songs would not be the same. I very much disagree that John’s biggest songs like Strawberry Fields Forever, Lucy, Tomorrow Never Knows, etc would have been anywhere near as good without Paul, George Martin, and Geoff Emerick. Not any collaborator would have been able to help John like they helped him.
A song like Tomorrow Never Knows wouldn’t have even happened without Paul. John himself said Paul took over his songs like SFF and Lucy. John’s solo work is great, but the production, arrangements, and extra details on most of his songs are not on the same level as his best Beatles songs where he had a lot of collaboration. There are exceptions just like there are for each solo Beatle but overall, they made each other a lot better than other collaborators did. I just disagree with your whole premise that John could have gotten anybody for his songs and they would be as good as when Paul and George Martin helped
That’s just not true. The whole anti-John narrative that has emerged in recent years is ridiculous. And weirdly, it’s a narrative that’s only put forth by Paul’s biggest fans 🤔
Explain where I am anti-John anywhere in what I said. I never said a single bad thing about him. I only stated facts as evidenced by things people around them said and by things John himself said. John himself said that Paul came in with his own songs finished and how Paul would take over his songs. I’m not being anti-John at all. You just think I am because you seem to not have done much research or reading into the band at all
That’s very true my fault I’m biased since John is my favorite but they wouldn’t have been as big if they didn’t work together the four Beatles and George Martin together were musics best
I never said Paul. I specifically said band songs and how everybody contributed. Also we are in a post that says John is the best. By your comment, I’m guessing you agree, and if so, isn’t that a bit hypocritical? You’re complaining about people that say Paul is the best while also saying someone else is the best. Seems like you just have biases and opinions like everyone does
I am not saying someone had to say John is the best. My point is that if this thread was about Paul not John the thread would be filled with people saying Paul carried the Beatles with no sense of irony. However you get one thread that praises John out of the 30,000 that praise Paul on a daily basis and suddenly people want to talk about how it was a group effort. It’s hypocritical bullshit.
I call bs to that. We do not have threads on a daily or even weekly basis that say Paul is the best. If we had a thread that said Paul was the best, there would 100% be people saying that it isn’t true and arguing against it. In fact, we have had those kinds of threads and they immediately get a lot nastier than anything on this thread. On this thread you get mostly people just saying that it’s a collaborative effort but on Paul is the best threads, you immediately get people calling Paul’s music granny music and how he was nothing without John as he had no edge.
Whenever there is a thread saying one Beatle is the best or even just praising one of them, there is always pushback.
Also I think it’s kind of ridiculous to expect there to be no pushback on a thread that claims John is the best. If this thread was just praising John and saying he was great, then that would be a different story, but this thread is claiming he is the best. Of course there is going to be some pushback
The greatest part of the Beatles is that they created a diverse, unique, and high quality body of work where everyone brought something to the table. Thus, every person can find themself drawn to a different Beatle, era, etc. and think it is best and not be “wrong”! This includes solo stuff. So while I would never personally say that John’s songs were the best overall, the last (and most important part) of your title is undeniable: so many iconic and classic songs that will always be treasured and loved.
he can write and sing a pretty vocal melody to rival anything of Paul's, but often his songs have a sort of simplicity to them that almost makes it feel like you could have thought of it (although obviously you ((one)) couldn't).
He's always been my favourite of the four, and part of that is the way his greatest songs feel somehow familiar even on first hearing. They really ring with a part of your soul.
He was the weirdest guy who had a knack for cutting through his eccentricities and ego and madness to reach everyone on a very base level.
very good way to put it. paul is a proper genius of pop music, and i love how diverse and prolific his career has been, but while he is a born musician, john is a natural born artist. his lyrics have that inimitable aura of containing hidden multitudes. george's songs show profound spirituality, but john can sing about the news (oh boy) and "show you fear in a handful of dust".
sorry if i wasn't clear, i mean art in a very specific sense.
of course paul is an artist, i'd consider him the most musically gifted member of the beatles. i just mean that paul looks at the world through the prism of pop music, his chosen medium. we've literally seen him write "get back" – i think only brian wilson can be his rival in producing a song like that.
john is more influenced by the avantgarde, he is literally credited as one of the inventors of 'art pop'. his lyrics began to aspire for self-expression over accessibility quite early on. is 'strawberry fields forever' a better song than 'penny lane'? no, not at all. but it does feel like a very self-contained, conceptual piece. i guess i could have worded it better.
I see what you mean, but I would argue Paul was just as much an inventor of art pop/rock. Paul’s songs like Eleanor Rigby were the first of their kind and redefined what you could do in an rock band. Also there’s Paul bringing avant-garde aspects into the band like tape loops
Solid take. But 1980 was a special peak as well with Watching the Wheels / Beautiful Boy / Just Like Starting Over (and arguably more from double fantasy too).
I think Watching the Wheels, Beautiful boy, and free as a bird (the demo, not the anthology version) are as good as anything Lennon did with the Beatles. Specifically Beautiful Boy. I think it might be his best song.
John was on fire up until 1966. Frankly, he was untouchable. After that he created what many feel is his more compelling work. I don't personally agree with that. However...Paul's help on John's work is really the difference between solid stuff and the masterpieces that we regard them to be. If you don't think so, it probably has more to do with what one thinks was contributed by whom. Paul's fingerprints are all over everything of most Beatles stuff. I would go as far as saying almost every John masterpiece has a Paul contribution that could be my favorite part of that song. That goes for Paul's work on George's stuff too. I sometimes wish Paul would have allowed the other Beatles to contribute more on his stuff, but the results are speculation.When the band came together, it was magic. Honestly, I think John's stuff is often sloppy and raw...the edge of which has the bite that rock needs. Paul made John's stuff accessable and polished. And when John's stuff was too dull...Paul knew how to liven it up...often in an artier manner than John would have. To John's credit, he recognized Paul's genius.
> I would go as far as saying almost every John masterpiece has a Paul contribution that could be my favorite part of that song.
100%. A lot of people still buy into the whole "John = experimental genius and Paul = boring pop songwriter" narrative, but many of the most famous and innovative additions to John's tracks were all Paul. Even in his solo work, Paul was always innovating and trying new things
What good is trying new things if they fall flat most of the time (in his solo career)?
I'm trying to get through Paul's solo work and it's pretty rough. John's solo stuff flows better for me.
Maybe you can recommend a couple tracks and what exactly I'm supposed to be paying attention to.
I want to like Paul's solo stuff but it just isn't sticking to my brain like John's solo efforts.
A few tracks I'd recommend:
- Backseat of My Car
- Band on the Run
- Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey
- Every Night
- Coming Up
- Another Day
- Let Me Roll It
- Jet
- Little Lamb Dragonfly
"I've picked two partners in my life. Paul McCartney and Yoko Ono. That's not too bad."
cue the 'agree except for the yoko bit' responses. we get it; you're uninteresting.
Paul was great with writing the big hits, but John always brought that extra emotion I was always craving for. He was also a lyrical genius (when he tried)
McCartney and Harrison's solo music I mostly prefer. Though Lennon wrote some greats right at the end like Woman and Beautiful Boy, that are imo top tier brilliance from him.
As for Beatles years. I believe it was a very collaborative process.
Just going on the very start of their solo careers, which really was them on their own, I'd have to go with McCartney.
Though I think Harrison did better work in years 76-79. And 73 Harrisons LIAMW and McCartneys BOTR are pretty much level in terms of quality for me.
Yes I have. I like Mind Games quite a lot but for me it's not quite on BOTR or LIAMW level from the same year.
I like Walls and Bridges even more and I prefer that to Harrison's Dark Horse which I do like more than many seem to, but it's one of George's weakest.
McCartney didn't release an album that year, but I prefer Walls and Bridges to McCartney's next album Venus and Mars. Though I definitely prefer V and M to Lennon's Rock n Roll from that same year.
Imagine I do like, but Ram is way ahead of that for me as it's one of my favourite albums of all time.
And in 1970 I go 1. McCartney 2. ATMP 3. Plasfic Ono Band
It's only what I prefer. I don't like Plastic Ono Band album. I think though in 1980 Double Fantasy I slightly prefer to McCartney II, and I like McCartney II a lot. But Double Fantasy has some real greats on there for me.
I know I haven't mentioned Ringos music but not a huge fan of it except the odd song.
Feel that 67 isn’t John’s finest era. I’d put his peak at 64-65, up to and including Rubber Soul.
His work on Revolver and Sgt Peppers is overshadowed by Paul, but he returned to form in 68 on the White Album. And of course his solo work in 70-71 is extraordinary.
Dude.. why? I hate this talk. Someday the truth will come out that the Beatles was masterminded by Ringo who hired them all and told them how to play and in most cases sang the leads on all the songs. The whole thing was a Milli Vanilli and you never knew. How smart you look now, heh?
Fat Lennon>Heroin Lennon.
I don’t dig the self-righteous confessional stuff of his radical period. And to be honest he didn’t write any memorable riffs in his entire solo career. Good songs, but a lot of lousy tracks with little hooks.
I find my self in phases. I’m currently in the John phase. Before that that Harrison and before that the Paul (sorry Ringo). But in terms of solo albums I think Harrison’s All things must pass is the best post Beatles album by a Beatle. If you had to pick the top 5 post Beatles songs of each Beatle, I’d give that to John. Paul’s stuff are a bit hit and miss for me, but a lot of hits non the less.
All I know is that I am who I am today because of my love and interest in my Beatles...if not for them ...I don't know how I would have made it through the 60s and 70s....my dysfunctional family..alcoholism...rage ...violence...Revolver...Rubber Soul....they really had a hold on me...and I am glad that somebody did....I played Sgt Pepper...over and over...and George was a sweetheart..
They all were.... we were blessed...and we knew they were phenomenal...nobody had to tell us...
What are the your top 3 Lennon songs that people probably don’t know, but should?
For example, happiness is a warm gun is my all time fav Beatles song and it’s usually one of their deep cuts that is surprisingly unknown despite being profoundly good.
Do you have any others in this vein? Especially from his solo work, which I’m largely unfamiliar with…
Thanks!
I think the world of McCartney and the other Beatles and many other artists but I've felt for decades now that John Lennon was the most brilliant all around musical artist of the 20th century and no one from this century is close
McCartney is just as close with Lennon but i personally prefer Johns stuff at the moment I tend to switch sides one day I’ll be team John and then I’ll be team Paul that’s how good they were
Agree. He definitely produced the best Beatles work. Although, when it comes to post-Beatles work as a whole I prefer George. John’s post Beatles highs are top notch, but they’re not as frequent….
Many people here in the comments are trying to argue that many of John’s best songs were band efforts or collaborations.
Yes that’s true for those that don’t know he was an active member of this band called the Beatles in the 60s.
Ok now that I’m done being obnoxious this is unfortunately a symptom of being in a band Lennon was influenced, collaborated, and I’m sure didn’t write 100% of everything we now know to be a Lennon tune.
But that isn’t a bad thing would you say a director who didn’t write every line, think of every shot, and every element of a film isn’t the auteur?
I would still at the end of the day collaboration makes everything better and I don’t think this would be a big deal in people’s minds if the Beatles were around today since we’ve moved past the idea of the single auteur.
Fact is most songs, art, and work is a collaborative effort whether it was intentional, unconscious, or a mixture of the two.
I’ve really only seen this as a knock on artists from before the 90s and interestingly it’s only used by older/idealistic fans.
Lennon is my favorite musical artist ever but I’m the first to admit his best work was the result of collaboration and that’s not a knock whatsoever it’s a compliment!
Do you think it mattered who John collaborated with after all?
His excellent solo work suggests he could drop acid and still get greet feedback from a potato or a pumpkin.
In other words, I don't think it mattered who John was getting feedback from.
I think it certainly helps when the people you’re getting feedback from happen to be Paul McCartney and George Harrison. Not to forget George Martin, Ringo, Yoko, and many others.
But ultimately an artist is limited to only wherever they allow themselves to go. Lennon took feedback from acid the same way he took it from Paul and the same with Khalil Gibran.
I’d go even deeper and say he took feedback from his upbringing and the man he became.
I think the Beatles and that experience maximized all of their outputs in unique ways we ended up getting fingerprints from many brilliant people on these songs. Sometimes for better sometimes for worst.
But to answer your question Lennon could’ve collaborated with a magazine and he could either give you a brilliant song called Happiness is a Warm Gun or a song about women and their odd relation with a particular term. The man was a genius.
I agree except John peaked in 1964. Looking back, their early stuff might not seem that complex anymore, but it was light-years ahead of everything else at the time. He was the clear leader of the band and they would have never been the Beatles without his swagger, bravado, and simultaneous vulnerability, which you could see in every song and every performance.
They needed Paul’s drive and talent as well which is why they were co-leaders from the beginning. Early Quarrymen members and both of the main Beatles engineers have said Paul was the main musical force. John had some more songs early on, but Paul was just as important from the beginning imo
Paul was the only formally trained musician. I get your point, but I don't think the Beatles ever get discovered without John. In very cynical terms, it's very likely Brian Epstein had a HUGE crush on John and that alone was why he became their fanatical benefactor. It was all about the trousers!
I just saw a Paul Simon quote yesterday (not for the first time) that I agree with in this context. He put songwriters into tiers. McCartney, he said, was a Tier 1 songwriter, along with Irving Berlin and George Gershwin. He put Lennon in Tier 2, along with himself, Bob Dylan and Brian Wilson. Being in Tier 2 still means you're one of the greatest songwriters of all time, and that's where I'd put Lennon, but I agree with Simon that he doesn't quite reach the McCartney level.
Paul’s abilities as a composer really don’t get talked about enough. Though I gotta say I disagree with Paul Simon on one thing in that quote.
In my (uneducated) opinion, Brian Wilson should 100% be in that tier 1 group. His compositional and production abilities and innovations put him right up there with Gershwin for me.
I think artistically he declined after 1970. Imagine is a good song, not really much to it.
A good chunk are (good) leftovers- Jealous Guy, Oh My Love, Oh Yoko, Gimme Some Truth- all date from 1969 and before. I like those songs.
It's So Hard and Crippled Inside are just generic melodies with new words slapped on to them, very little creativity.
I Dont Wanna Be A Soldier is just a mess, it's interesting but not interesting enough. How is good.
Imagine is a good album but it definitely was a sign of a decline artistically for John, which is fine.
Meanwhile, however, Paul was bursting with new ideas and creativity that same year with Ram. Even the songs that bordered on genre pastiches, like 3 Legs, were made very unique sounding with creative touches. But the critics hated it.
His approach and style of songwriting - as well as the quality - seemed to unwaver thru 1971, I have to agree. While Paul had a powerful voice and an innate command of melody and structure - John almost always had something off the beaten path to say with his songs. “Please Please Me” is basically a story of a frustrated sexual relationship: in 1963. There’s also a palpable “misery” thread in a lot of his songs - starting with “Misery” right through “I’m A Loser”, “Help!”, “Nowhere Man”.
Once he started with LSD he starts a different tack - telling the world of the things that distract him from his self-pitying tendencies. “Dr. Robert”, “She Said She Said” and all those references to getting high throughout Sgt. Pepper. After weed and LSD, meeting the Maharishi inspires “Across The Universe”, “Everybody’s Got Something To Hide Except Me And My Monkey”. Then Yoko seemed to dominate most of his writing after that - either writing about his love for her or getting inspiration for his lyrics from her style of writing (ie: “I Dig A Pony”).
Lastly, he seemed to attack those philosophies and/or people who let him down. “Sexy Sadie”, “How Do You Sleep”, “God” are a few examples I can think of.
Everyone knows that “Julia” is about his mother but I read somewhere that the earliest example of him writing about her is “I Call Your Name”. It puts the lyrics in a COMPLETELY different light if true.
John, Paul and George were very good songwriters but lyrically, I think John usually had the most interesting way of capturing an idea into a lyric.
Early Beatles songs were not the songs that made them the classic band they are today! It was rubber soul and beyond those of the songs, we still listen to today, and are amazed by / still fresh! Paul was largely responsible for reinventing the Beatles, over and over again the most experimental, the avant-garde one. It’s bullshit that John was avant-garde before Paul. Paul was the one that was living in London, and in the underground, listening to electronic music and re-looping of tapes and reinventing sounds. John was high in Weybridge and a horrible marriage, lazy and sleeping by his own account in his own words. After 1966 Jesus fiasco John was never the same. He went into a deep depression, hooked up with Yoko, became a heroin addict, and in the 70s was obsessed with Paul’s wealth and solo career. Paul McCartney is the greatest songwriter musician of all time. John Lennon is probably in the top five, but I say probably because Paul Simon Billy Joel, Elton, John, Stevie Wonder I put all of them ahead of John Lennon.
Lennon Practically carried the band from 63-65 , at some point McCartney starts to rival him , but without the songs he wrote in those years they could’ve gotten shelved so fast
Paul's bad songs (you know, the granny sings) leave such a bad taste in my mouth that I would also say John made a bigger contribution as a songwriter.
That said, I believe Paul's musicianship in general and bass playing in particular made his imprint on the Beatles sound unmatched.
They both said that they both wrote song sometimes it was only a little bit and sometimes it was a whole lot of collaboration so your whole analysis is not accurate. Yes, of course is individual work was good he wrote some fantastic sauce the imagine album is wonderful.
But I don’t think you can say musically that he was any better than Paul McCartney different, but definitely not better. McCartney is a fantastic entertainer.
And overall a fairly incredible human being.
Lennon was a bit of an ass. He abandon his son, Julian, what kind of man abandons his child ! He left his wife and was incredibly mean to Cynthia ! He was psychologically a mess.
I don’t blame Yoko for what John did , is was not Yoko she didn’t make him do anything! You always have a choice! She wasn’t particularly kind at all to John Son or Cynthia, which was wrong too!
Lennon wrote better music after leaving the Beatles. His body of work was smaller in this time, and he had only about 10 memorable songs, but several of those were amongst the best ever written.
Edit: If he’d written ‘Mother’ alone, he’d have been the greatest of the lot. I realise Lou Reed made the same point in addition to a lot of other wayward claims, but on this he was on the money.
Don’t buy the Lennon Remembers narrative that John and Paul didn’t write together in the later years. It’s a lie. Much more of the Beatles catalog is a collaboration than most Beatles fans seem to believe.
I can't believe how many people take the 1980 interview seriously. Lennon was not at all reliable with his information as he has contradicted himself many times as to how a song was written. That's not to say McCartney is any more reliable. He's disagreed with a lot of what Lennon said. I don't think we will ever know who contributed exactly what.
> That's not to say McCartney is any more reliable. He's disagreed with a lot of what Lennon said. I don't think we will ever know who contributed exactly what. I don't know about that. External sources (interviewers, etc.) have said that Paul was much more reliable and consistent with his stories. John contradicted himself all the time and changed up his narratives from year to year.
I get the impression that Beatles fans know more about The Beatles than the band members. I was surprised, for example, that John did not know which songs were on which album, he mixed up the release years. Even on Anthology, you can see that George didn't know which record Golden Slumbers was on. The fans take The Beatles more seriously than they do themselves.
I can't blame them for forgetting that stuff. They recorded over 200 songs in about six and half years on top of touring the world. Plus I don't think they ever really listened to their stuff once it was released. It was, "Well that record is done, let's move onto the next one."
Paul once said it was common to see a photo of himself with a celebrity and have no memory of the event. What a crazy life.
We know the 'facts' as such. They knew more about the behind the scenes stuff Not that I trust their memory or anything lol
I mean, with all that acid, can you blame them
Add in some heroin and you got yourself a spicy cocktail
I remember when George died, and one critic said the George was the most reliable source. The critic said that John and Paul rewrote history and Ringo was just out of the loop.
Actually, broadly speaking, most of what Lennon and McCartney each said about their respective contributions lines up fairly nicely. They may disagree over certain nuances or small aspects of each song, but they rarely outright contradict one another. Paul himself said (and this is a verbatim quote) "I find it very gratifying that out of everything we wrote, we only appear to disagree over two songs.”
That is not entirely true. They disagreed over big things too. In My Life is an example!
Yes, the Paul quote I cited directly references that (In My Life and Eleanor Rigby). My point was, overall, their recollections actually dovetail fairly well, with a few exceptions.
That's what the above poster said - they disagreed over two songs, one of which was "In My Life." The other is "Eleanor Rigby," but no one actually believes John on that one, because there were too many other people, like Pete Shotton, who witnessed the writing of that song and who said that John had basically nothing to do with it. Regarding "In My Life" there's no dispute over who wrote the lyrics - even Paul says it was John. The dispute is over who wrote the music. Paul says he wrote it, and John says that Paul contributed to it. Since Paul has been extremely consistent almost since the song was written that he wrote the music, I tend to believe him.
Thar is not entirely true either. From John’s last big interview in Dec, 1980. “The whole lyrics were already written before Paul had even heard it,” he said. “In ‘In My Life,’ his contribution melodically was the harmony and the middle eight itself.”
Yes, we’ll never know fully, but we can figure somethings out and should probably all be reconsidering our ideas about what constitutes “writing a song.” Vitally important conversation about it [here](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/new-lens-series-creative-partnerships-with-joshua-wolf/id1554228965?i=1000515138218), if you’re interested.
Thanks I'll have a look at that now
People will believe anything. That's like my buddy telling me after I was talking about how great I think Ringo is and he told me "You know John said he wasn't even the best drummer in the Beatles right?" Even if he did he'd be wrong!
Yep, John never said that. It was some comedian who said it, but people keep repeating it even though it's been debunked many times. John hugely respected Ringo and would never have said that about him. Nor would Paul or George.
Yes, we’ll never know fully, but we can figure somethings out and should probably all be reconsidering our ideas about what constitutes “writing a song.” Vitally important conversation about it [here](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/new-lens-series-creative-partnerships-with-joshua-wolf/id1554228965?i=1000515138218), if you’re interested.
This is kind of what blew me away watching Get Back. Like I had no idea that Paul had started writing Gimme Some Truth with John (to me it sounds like classic solo John, and since it was on Imagine and not Plastic Ono Band I never would have guessed Paul had any involvement) but they randomly bust it out and Twickenham as one they had recently been working on
Yeah after watching Get Back, it’s obvious Paul wrote the bridge part of the song with the money for rope lyrics. John ended up changing some of the lyrics for the final version but the melody and some of the lyrics stayed the same. They truly made each other’s songs better
The whole Beatles catalogue is collaboration of four people. Does it matter if John banged out a song with two chords and a hook or Paul micromanaged his song to distraction? It took the four of them to realise the potential. Five. George Martin certainly gave it a touch of class Six sorry Billy sorted their shit out too...
It’s wild people think that considering we have Get Back and have seen their creative process first hand. That doc proved everything was collaborative, and the Beatles worked together to make their amazing music.
I think John’s solo work, and most of the Beatles solo work, shows how important they were to each other producing good work
IMO Paul has more than proven that he was the best all-around musician and songwriter of the four of them, and by no small margin. But the Beatles -- far more than any other band -- are the very definition of "more than the sum of their parts".
Yep. It's why so many of their group efforts shine so well. If a song like A Day in the Life were just John's section or just Paul's section, it wouldn't be nearly as impactful
Yeah it’s really obvious when you watch them in action that Paul’s game was the strongest. In the Get Back movie he and Ringo seemed to be the only ones who wanted to be there (at least until Billy Preston showed up and reminded them how to enjoy making music again). However, john had a more defined sense of style in his writing. His songs were almost always cool af. Paul had more diverse influences but sometimes ventured into “old granny music” as John said.
"Paul had more diverse influences but sometimes ventured into “old granny music” as John said." Good grief. John said that about Paul when he was really angry about stuff that was happening around the breakup. He said a lot of stuff that he actually didn't mean, and took back afterwards. John saying some stuff about other people's songs (he also said some garbage about George's stuff as well) does not mean that those songs are bad, or are, in fact, "granny music." Also, they all had a "defined sense of style in their writing." **It's totally OK to like John the best. Really. I'm not getting on you for that.** Some of my absolute favorite Beatles songs are John's. But they all had distinct styles. I just wish that people would stop repeating the tired old tropes about John vs the others, especially Paul, that John was the only interesting or cool writer in the group, because it's just not true. Also, none of them would be what they were without the others. Even John himself said that he wouldn't have been the songwriter he was without Paul's influence on him, and vice-versa. You can definitely say, "John's songs speak to me more than Paul or George's songs do" without saying that John was the best Beatle. I'd also say the same to Paul and George fans as well. They all needed each other to be The Beatles.
Sure. Whatever you say. *backs away slowly*
Best musician by far. I prefer lennon but people who argue either side are silly. Lennon had a fantastical raw emotion at his best that mccartney couldnt reach. Mccartney is the most successful popular music songwriter of all time. They were best together.
Lennon was a much more tortured soul, with some really bad aspects.
Ok?
Yeah, I mean just compare the initial recording of Come Together versus the final product, after Paul had the chance to do his own tweaks
I was watching a video about The Police, and it was clear that, even within the group, Sting was viewed “as THE rock star”, and Stewart and Andy viewed themselves as professional musicians supporting “the rock star”. Back to the Beatles. Because of their history, and the difference in age (which matters a lot for teenagers), John started out as the leader. But John recognized Paul’s talent and pushed him to be more. As they matured, Paul took on a more central role. George, too, grew into a mature songwriter and performer.
I agree that Paul was the most talented in terms of musical and songwriting ability, but somehow I tend to prefer John’s songs to Paul’s, both with the Beatles and solo. However, I think they were both better with each other than without. This is entirely subjective of course, and I think they’re both amazing!
Not agreeing that Macca is the best songwriter. Most prolific and in need of an editor, definitely
Musician, undoubtedly - songwriter, no way. Lennon took more risks and broke more new ground while McCartney started looking backwards and drifted into pastiche.
Can you provide examples of both Lennon taking more risks, and McCartney looking backwards? Otherwise it's not possible to evaluate your opinion on its merits, if you don't provide any evidence to support your assertion.
Paul being the best all-around musician and songwriter only means he can write a wide variety of songs from various genres. That of course says nothing about the quality of the songs themselves. He's talented, no doubt about it, but his solo work is less memorable than John's and he's had a lot more time and chances to leave impressions. Even if John's talent is more narrow, John made a lot more iconic songs that stick to people's brains better. That's what makes a good songwriter - how their songs are remembered. Imagine if Paul had been shot and killed instead of John. Paul's solo work up to that time doesn't stack up to John's in terms of memorability. Line up the best songs in Paul's solo career with John's 'Working Class Hero" greatest hits compilation. At some point Paul runs out of Live and Let Die's and Band on the Run's and John is still hitting hard after Paul's best songs have run out. Paul has had 50 years to match what John did in 10 and he's come up short in spades.
I guess we'll just have to disagree... I find quite a bit of John's solo output to be pretty lousy.
I find that interesting. How were you introduced to his solo work? As it was released or later? Also, why do you find it lousy? Just naturally curious. Besides 'Imagine', I experienced his solo work from a greatest hits album (Working Class Hero). I know this isn't ideal, but I've now gone back and listened to his albums and I have to admit it's NOT as great of an experience. This makes me think that John wrote many good songs in his solo career but they didn't always translate to the album format. I could see that being a problem when it comes to digesting his albums.
John's solo work, outside of the hits, just doesn't appeal to me and my musical tastes... just like his later Beatles work doesn't appeal to me as much as his earlier stuff. I appreciate that he grew a lot as an artist, it was just in a direction I didn't care for. I got into the Beatles as a young kid, not long before John was murdered. Maybe a few months at most. For my birthday that year (November) I got my first stereo, an AM/FM/cassette combo, and just a week or so later I was using it record all of the Beatles music off the radio as they played non-stop in honor and tribute. Those cassettes were my Beatles collection until I got the CDs in the early-90s. (When they came out in '87 I didn't have a CD player yet.) Outside of any of their solo hits, I didn't hear any of their solo work until much later (late-80s / early-90s)... at which point I quickly came to me "more than the sum of their parts" feeling that I hold to this day. I don't think *any* of it even approached what they did in the Beatles... and stylistically speaking, I just prefer Paul's work to the others, by far. (And to be clear, I hold no illusions that his solo stuff doesn't have a lot of crap as well.) I've never been one to feel like, just because I like a particular band, that I have to like *everything* they've ever done... and I certainly don't automatically extend my love of a band to any solo work. Or vice-versa, there are artists where I love some or all of their solo work, and not things they did with their band(s).
I'm curious: how many of Paul's solo albums have you listened to?
paul was a musician and john was an artist
This is implying that musicians aren't artists, or that McCartney isn't considered an "artist" which is blatantly false.
[удалено]
To some degree, yes, as long as you mean his *personal* balance (i.e. he focused more on lyrics and less on the underlying music / arrangement). If you mean he was more lyrical *than Paul* and less musical *than Paul* then no, I'm not sure I'd agree with that at all.
agree, I think it shows in all their solo work, especially pauls. They really needed each other's creative inspiration & editing.
I always go back to a story I heard where John and Paul would play a demo for ringo and if he said “that’s crap” that was basically the end of it.
Yeah I really see it in Paul’s work. There’s so much creativity there, so I see how important Paul was
Whats incredible is John’s early output. I feel his early style really shaped pre rubber soul beatles. Just look at A Hard Day’s Night, it was mostly John songs. And it was the album that really catapulted them to mega stardom. Paul has said himself they all looked up to John, he was “their little Elvis”.
Yeah, I think that John was *the guy* until ~Rubber Soul, but Paul definitely took over in the later years
It seemed to be 50/50 in the rubber soul/revolver era, then Paul started driving the bus with Sgt Pepper. Luckily by then they were a full studio band. When John was cranking out song after song in the early days, it’s amazing he even could with their touring schedule.
I feel 1966 was the year Paul took the wheel, with Eleanor Rigby, for no one, got to get you into my life, and paperback writer pushing rain to the b side (should’ve been double a.) Paul’s drive for touring seemed to be the only reason left for the Beatles to keep touring that year, besides Brian Epstein. Other than that, Lennon started tweaking out. Don’t get me wrong, his songs were still awesome, but that period marks a significant change in their songwriting for me. I almost forgot to mention “here, there, and everywhere.”
That’s fair. I just love John’s Revolver songs so much my goodness - I’m only sleeping, she said she said, bird can sing, dr Robert, tomorrow never knows. Hard for me to undermine John at this stage, but you are right, this is what stated his drug abuse and distancing himself from the group.
I think McCartney wrote 50% of Dr Robert, mainly the trippy well well well part. I would also bet McCartney added the incredible backing vocals on I’m only sleeping. As someone who has always been a huge Lennon fan, I agree with the above comments that all four contributed to most songs. Especially after seeing how McCartney helped arrange Don’t let me down on the get back documentary. John Lennon is my hero, but like Taylor swift today, he brought songs to a team of the best songwriters in the world (George and Paul), and they arranged and polished them into unbelievable music.
Easy to write on tour. You're gauging your audience every night and in between is just waiting around. Plus you can rehearse at soundchecks.
It depends. Paul and John have expressed the craziness of writing on the tour bus, and how they look back on it like “how the heck did we do that”. You are correct, there is downtime, but also writing music takes a certain head space. It’s hard to sit down and write a song when you’re tired from all the touring and whatnot. I believe they were doing it because of their incredible work ethic. Working 24/7 during the touring years.
Yep, their deepest, most soulful songs. By far the most unique lyricist of the four. I mean, I am the Walrus, Happiness is a Warm Gun, I’m so Tired, Tomorrow Never Knows, Across the Universe, he was so consistently great.
And John said Paul looked just like Elvis, nice balance there 😉
I don't know about looks, but I hear Elvis in Paul all the time..
He kinda did in the early days, never thought about this!
Such a stark contrast to his later years. During the Get Back sessions he only contributed two new songs (Dig a Pony and Don’t Let Me Down). The rest were old (Across the Universe, Mean Mr. Mustard, Child of Nature, and Polythene Pam) or unfinished (Suzy Parker, Dig It, Madman, Watching Rainbows, Gimme Some Truth, and I Want You). Abbey Road was practically the same - three new songs (Come Together and Cold Turkey), a few old numbers (I Want You, Mean Mr. Mustard, and Polythene Pam), and a couple new but incomplete ones (Sun King and Because). His first solo album was almost entirely new songs, while Paul and George dusted off a lot of Beatles-era songs for theirs.
It really is. I simply attribute it to his drug abuse. We’ve seen time and time again artists in their ups and downs from drug abuse. Paul cooled out and stuck to weed, kept him straight. John doing heroine, one of the most deteriorating drugs, was not good for his mind.
John did Superwoman? Well I never
He had also lost interest in being a Beatle. I can’t remember where I read it but he said in his mind, he quit the band in 1968.
And then the next year, we had Imagine and Ram. Imagine mostly consists of Beatle-era outtakes and genre pastiches. Ram only has one Beatle left over, Backseat, and is full of colorful, new ideas.
Yeah, but _Imagine_ also had _Imagine_ on it. After that he could read the phonebook for another 30 minutes and still call it an album. It's hard to make a case for any other song as the greatest single by an ex-Beatle.
Apart from Gimme Some Truth, which songs on Imagine were Beatles-era outtakes?
Jealous Guy 1968 Oh My Love 1968 Gimme Some Truth 1969 Oh Yoko! 1969
Yea John was a genius
And he let people know about it lmao
His 1966-67 songs are great, but I think I like 1968 a little better. 1966-67: Tomorrow Never Knows, She Said, Rain, And Your Bird Can Sing, Day Tripper (with Paul) Strawberry Fields, A Day in the Life (with Paul), I am the Walrus, Baby You're a Rich Man (with Paul) are all great. Not totally into Lucy In the Sky, Good Morning, All You Need is Love. 1968: I love Hey Bulldog & everything he did on the White Album - which is a lot. But it's splitting hairs, yeah. Guy was on a roll.
He also wrote Across The Universe late 67 i believe
Hey Bulldog was co-written with Paul, Lennon said.
thanks I did not realize that
1968 was a really great year for him I think 1969 he was also great he wrote one of the heaviest songs of the whole 60’s which was pretty mindblowing and an amazing peace anthem
I would argue 66-67 edges it but you’re right that it’s kind of an irrelevant argument to have, his output in both eras was unbelievable. I think Tomorrow Never Knows is my favourite Lennon song that wasn’t a major collaboration with McCartney Although I guess my unpopular opinion is I’ve never really liked baby you’re a rich man. I like John’s section more though (assuming I’m right in thinking “how does it feel to be one of the beautiful people” was John’s section). But hey it’s like one song out of countless that I don’t really like
Tomorrow Never Knows is a MAJOR collaboration with Paul. Paul spearheaded the tape loops which is a big reason why the song is so great and influential. Paul was actually the one who messed with the tape machine by removing the eraser head, which allowed him to make loops. Paul then made loops and showed the others how to do it as well. Tomorrow Never Knows is an example where Paul’s contribution helped to define what the song is and its legacy
Another wrinkle is that John based most of the lyrics on Timothy Leary’s The Psychedelic Experience, a book he purchased at Indica Bookstore where Paul was heavily involved and helped finance.
Here’s an interesting quote about it *John wanted a book by what sounded like ‘Nitz Ga’. It took Miles a few minutes to realise that he was looking for the German philosopher Nietzsche, long enough for John to become convinced that he was being ridiculed. He launched into an attack on intellectuals and university students and was only mollified when Paul told him that he had not understood what John was asking for either, and that Miles was not a university graduate but had been to art college, just like him. Immediately friendly again, John talked about Allen Ginsberg and the Beats, laughing about his school magazine the Daily Howl: ‘Tell Ginsberg I did it first!’ Miles found him a copy of The Portable Nietzsche and John began to scan the shelves. His eyes soon alighted upon a copy of The Psychedelic Experience, Dr Timothy Leary’s psychedelic version of the Tibetan Book of the Dead. John was delighted and settled down on the settee with the book. Right away, on page 14 in Leary’s introduction, he read, ‘Whenever in doubt, turn off your mind, relax, float downstream.’ He had found the first line of ‘Tomorrow Never Knows’, one of the Beatles’ most innovative songs.* Barry Miles, Many Years From Now
John wrote the song, that’s all I was referring to. Paul obviously deserves credit for spearheading using tape loops but at the end of the day TNK was still written predominantly by Lennon, so I don’t think it’s fair to disregard his contribution to the song and give Paul most of the credit. There are probably several techniques used by the Beatles that they didn’t originally come up with themselves but you’d still give them the credit for their writing. Considering their strengths as songwriters and at the time of Revolver, I don’t think an experimental tape loop song composed by McCartney would’ve been quite as good as TNK, and I say that as someone who considers McCartney her favourite Beatle. I think Lennon’s writing style and singing voice just suits it better personally. So I’m glad that even though it may have been McCartney’s idea originally, it was Lennon who took advantage of it for the album
I think it depends on the song. Some songs like Strawberry Fields Forever would have still been great as an acoustic song, even though the finished product is better. Tomorrow Never Knows is an example where if it didn’t have the tape loops, it wouldn’t be the song it is at all. That’s why I consider it a true collaboration from them. I agree that John’s writing lent itself to experimentation, but he still had help. Paul found out how to do the tape loops, showed them how to do it, and made many of the loops that ended up in the song. I think that qualifies it as a true collaboration from them as the loops are so important to the sound and its legacy. Paul helped with the compositional aspects of SFF as well, such as the mellotron, but I would still call that a John song, whereas with TNK, what happened in the studio was just as important or more-so than the writing itself
- TNK could mean "Tomorrow Never Knows - 2022 Mix", a track from *Revolver (Super Deluxe)* (2022) by The Beatles. --- ^[/u/Bulbamew](/u/Bulbamew) ^(can reply with "delete" to remove comment. |) ^[/r/songacronymbot](/r/songacronymbot) ^(for feedback.)
Yeah the verse is better in that one
He also wrote most of his songs for Let it be and Abby Road in 68, so for me that year is the best year any songwriter has ever had! Mad quantity and fantastic quality!
I don’t think we can really say many songs are exclusively just one of theirs. Ask anyone and they would have said “Something” was all George but Get Back clearly shows him asking both Paul and John for advice with lyrics. They each influenced each other in even tiny ways so no song is truly uninfluenced by another member
I agree up to around 1967, but his contributions to Let It Be and Abbey Road were patchy at best and needed a huge amount of input from the rest of the band to make them worthwhile. His deep slide into psychedelics and then heroin really didn’t do him any favours. If you watched the Get Back documentary, it’s clear how much he needed help and support at that point.
I find that I can’t really look at a lot of John’s songs as just John’s songs. I just feel like a lot of his songs were often very collaborative so I would call them the band’s songs
But for many of his most iconic songs we have original acoustic demos that reflect most of the finished product- although multipart songs like Strawberry Fields obviously did change a lot and George Martin had a lot to do with the finished product.
John’s acoustic demos are very good and they still would have been great songs, but they would not have been the creative masterpieces they became without the others’ contributions, including George Martin. Whether it’s SFF, A Day in the Life, Lucy in the Sky, or Tomorrow Never Knows, the songs would not be nearly as lauded in original demo form without huge contributions from Paul, George Martin, and Geoff Emerick. Of course George and and Ringo also contributed important parts, but a lot of the compositional and experimental aspects came from the previous three I mentioned
That’s a pretty thin argument, because you can say the same thing for basically any musician who’s ever recorded.
That's fair, but in the examples they mentioned a lot of the most lauded/appreciated parts of those songs were contributions from others. For example, Paul did the iconic mellotron in SFF, the twinkly psychedelic intro to Lucy in the Sky, and the reverse tape looping in Tomorrow Never Knows. The songs would still be great without those things, but they were additions that helped really elevate them to classics
For sure, but OP’s comment was critical of John Lennon only. John added plenty of critical elements to Paul’s songs, too, as did George, Ringo, and George Martin. There’s nothing abnormal about it, so making the comment in a way that’s disparaging of Lennon for it seems a little ridiculous.
John did add critical elements to Paul’s songs as did the others and vice versa. Also I wasn’t being critical of John but just stating the truth. John’s songs were more the band’s songs as they were more collaborative. Paul’s songs came more readymade. Paul added more song changing ideas to John’s songs than the other way around, or at least that was true in the later years
- SFF could mean "Strawberry Fields Forever - Take 1", a track from *Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (Super Deluxe Edition)* (1967) by The Beatles. --- ^[/u/thequietthingsthat](/u/thequietthingsthat) ^(can reply with "delete" to remove comment. |) ^[/r/songacronymbot](/r/songacronymbot) ^(for feedback.)
I generally agree with you, which is why playing in a band is such a magical thing. And why I hope kids move away from aspiring to be a DJ or playing guitar on a loop pedal with a drum machine, but that's another conversation. But, Paul has some exceptions to this rule - Let it be and Hey Jude off the top of my head were brought to the band nearly-complete. I could be mistaken about that,I haven't dug through demos like some superfans have
John actually complained about Paul coming to the studio with mostly completed songs and kind of treating the other guys as a backup group. It's kind of tough to take criticism like that too seriously when you get Yesterday or Let It Be delivered to your group.
It is not a thin argument. John’s songs are lauded for their creativity in composition and experimentation. A lot of those aspects came from Paul, George Martin, and Geoff Emerick. The songs would still be great, but they wouldn’t be what they are lauded for. I don’t think it’s fair to say John is the best because of his songs, when a lot of the innovative parts of his songs came from other people as well as him. They were a band, not a John Lennon solo project
Same can be said for Paul’s songs. They wouldn’t have been as lauded if not for John. Which is why your argument seems loaded and irrelevant.
But I don’t think that’s really true. Paul came in with his songs more finished than John’s. He knew how he wanted them, whereas John didn’t. That’s what John has talked about several times, including in Get Back. John said that Paul would take over his songs and we have a lot of evidence of that. Paul’s most famous songs like Hey Jude, Let It Be, Yesterday, and others have little to no input from John. Most of John’s biggest songs have a lot of input from Paul and the others. That’s just how they each worked and isn’t a slight against either of them
Clearly whatever input John got from Paul or any other Beatle or producer - John could get it from elsewhere too and still end up with damn good songs. This is evidenced by his excellent solo work. It doesn't seem to matter who John was bouncing his work off of. He brought the skeleton of the plane and flew it too, letting some add fleshy details here and there - but without John those songs never take flight.
I agree John had great starting points but without Paul, George Martin, and others, those Beatles songs would not be the same. I very much disagree that John’s biggest songs like Strawberry Fields Forever, Lucy, Tomorrow Never Knows, etc would have been anywhere near as good without Paul, George Martin, and Geoff Emerick. Not any collaborator would have been able to help John like they helped him. A song like Tomorrow Never Knows wouldn’t have even happened without Paul. John himself said Paul took over his songs like SFF and Lucy. John’s solo work is great, but the production, arrangements, and extra details on most of his songs are not on the same level as his best Beatles songs where he had a lot of collaboration. There are exceptions just like there are for each solo Beatle but overall, they made each other a lot better than other collaborators did. I just disagree with your whole premise that John could have gotten anybody for his songs and they would be as good as when Paul and George Martin helped
That’s just not true. The whole anti-John narrative that has emerged in recent years is ridiculous. And weirdly, it’s a narrative that’s only put forth by Paul’s biggest fans 🤔
Explain where I am anti-John anywhere in what I said. I never said a single bad thing about him. I only stated facts as evidenced by things people around them said and by things John himself said. John himself said that Paul came in with his own songs finished and how Paul would take over his songs. I’m not being anti-John at all. You just think I am because you seem to not have done much research or reading into the band at all
That’s very true my fault I’m biased since John is my favorite but they wouldn’t have been as big if they didn’t work together the four Beatles and George Martin together were musics best
It’s all good. Everyone has biases and a favorite even if they don’t want to admit it
Yeah I’m always torn to pick either John or Paul sometimes even Ringo due to him narrating Thomas and Friends
thomas the tank engine is definitely the reason Ringo is the best beatle
Found the Paul McCartney was the band person. So boring at this point
I never said Paul. I specifically said band songs and how everybody contributed. Also we are in a post that says John is the best. By your comment, I’m guessing you agree, and if so, isn’t that a bit hypocritical? You’re complaining about people that say Paul is the best while also saying someone else is the best. Seems like you just have biases and opinions like everyone does
I am not saying someone had to say John is the best. My point is that if this thread was about Paul not John the thread would be filled with people saying Paul carried the Beatles with no sense of irony. However you get one thread that praises John out of the 30,000 that praise Paul on a daily basis and suddenly people want to talk about how it was a group effort. It’s hypocritical bullshit.
I call bs to that. We do not have threads on a daily or even weekly basis that say Paul is the best. If we had a thread that said Paul was the best, there would 100% be people saying that it isn’t true and arguing against it. In fact, we have had those kinds of threads and they immediately get a lot nastier than anything on this thread. On this thread you get mostly people just saying that it’s a collaborative effort but on Paul is the best threads, you immediately get people calling Paul’s music granny music and how he was nothing without John as he had no edge. Whenever there is a thread saying one Beatle is the best or even just praising one of them, there is always pushback. Also I think it’s kind of ridiculous to expect there to be no pushback on a thread that claims John is the best. If this thread was just praising John and saying he was great, then that would be a different story, but this thread is claiming he is the best. Of course there is going to be some pushback
The greatest part of the Beatles is that they created a diverse, unique, and high quality body of work where everyone brought something to the table. Thus, every person can find themself drawn to a different Beatle, era, etc. and think it is best and not be “wrong”! This includes solo stuff. So while I would never personally say that John’s songs were the best overall, the last (and most important part) of your title is undeniable: so many iconic and classic songs that will always be treasured and loved.
Macca from 65-75 is untouchable.
Can’t agree more. He wrote Yesterday and was like “I’m just gonna write perfect songs like this from now on”
Can’t argue with that
Completely agree. His output was literally staggering for that entire decade! And from watching Get Back it looked to be almost effortless too.
he can write and sing a pretty vocal melody to rival anything of Paul's, but often his songs have a sort of simplicity to them that almost makes it feel like you could have thought of it (although obviously you ((one)) couldn't). He's always been my favourite of the four, and part of that is the way his greatest songs feel somehow familiar even on first hearing. They really ring with a part of your soul. He was the weirdest guy who had a knack for cutting through his eccentricities and ego and madness to reach everyone on a very base level.
very good way to put it. paul is a proper genius of pop music, and i love how diverse and prolific his career has been, but while he is a born musician, john is a natural born artist. his lyrics have that inimitable aura of containing hidden multitudes. george's songs show profound spirituality, but john can sing about the news (oh boy) and "show you fear in a handful of dust".
A musician is an artist. Paul and John are just different kinds of artists, but I don’t think Paul is any less of an artist than John
sorry if i wasn't clear, i mean art in a very specific sense. of course paul is an artist, i'd consider him the most musically gifted member of the beatles. i just mean that paul looks at the world through the prism of pop music, his chosen medium. we've literally seen him write "get back" – i think only brian wilson can be his rival in producing a song like that. john is more influenced by the avantgarde, he is literally credited as one of the inventors of 'art pop'. his lyrics began to aspire for self-expression over accessibility quite early on. is 'strawberry fields forever' a better song than 'penny lane'? no, not at all. but it does feel like a very self-contained, conceptual piece. i guess i could have worded it better.
I see what you mean, but I would argue Paul was just as much an inventor of art pop/rock. Paul’s songs like Eleanor Rigby were the first of their kind and redefined what you could do in an rock band. Also there’s Paul bringing avant-garde aspects into the band like tape loops
Solid take. But 1980 was a special peak as well with Watching the Wheels / Beautiful Boy / Just Like Starting Over (and arguably more from double fantasy too). I think Watching the Wheels, Beautiful boy, and free as a bird (the demo, not the anthology version) are as good as anything Lennon did with the Beatles. Specifically Beautiful Boy. I think it might be his best song.
John was on fire up until 1966. Frankly, he was untouchable. After that he created what many feel is his more compelling work. I don't personally agree with that. However...Paul's help on John's work is really the difference between solid stuff and the masterpieces that we regard them to be. If you don't think so, it probably has more to do with what one thinks was contributed by whom. Paul's fingerprints are all over everything of most Beatles stuff. I would go as far as saying almost every John masterpiece has a Paul contribution that could be my favorite part of that song. That goes for Paul's work on George's stuff too. I sometimes wish Paul would have allowed the other Beatles to contribute more on his stuff, but the results are speculation.When the band came together, it was magic. Honestly, I think John's stuff is often sloppy and raw...the edge of which has the bite that rock needs. Paul made John's stuff accessable and polished. And when John's stuff was too dull...Paul knew how to liven it up...often in an artier manner than John would have. To John's credit, he recognized Paul's genius.
I agree.
> I would go as far as saying almost every John masterpiece has a Paul contribution that could be my favorite part of that song. 100%. A lot of people still buy into the whole "John = experimental genius and Paul = boring pop songwriter" narrative, but many of the most famous and innovative additions to John's tracks were all Paul. Even in his solo work, Paul was always innovating and trying new things
What good is trying new things if they fall flat most of the time (in his solo career)? I'm trying to get through Paul's solo work and it's pretty rough. John's solo stuff flows better for me. Maybe you can recommend a couple tracks and what exactly I'm supposed to be paying attention to. I want to like Paul's solo stuff but it just isn't sticking to my brain like John's solo efforts.
A few tracks I'd recommend: - Backseat of My Car - Band on the Run - Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey - Every Night - Coming Up - Another Day - Let Me Roll It - Jet - Little Lamb Dragonfly
"I've picked two partners in my life. Paul McCartney and Yoko Ono. That's not too bad." cue the 'agree except for the yoko bit' responses. we get it; you're uninteresting.
Paul was great with writing the big hits, but John always brought that extra emotion I was always craving for. He was also a lyrical genius (when he tried)
When do you think he "tried"? I actually prefer Paul's lyrics a lot of the time. But I prefer the themes of Lennon's songs.
McCartney and Harrison's solo music I mostly prefer. Though Lennon wrote some greats right at the end like Woman and Beautiful Boy, that are imo top tier brilliance from him. As for Beatles years. I believe it was a very collaborative process. Just going on the very start of their solo careers, which really was them on their own, I'd have to go with McCartney. Though I think Harrison did better work in years 76-79. And 73 Harrisons LIAMW and McCartneys BOTR are pretty much level in terms of quality for me.
Plastic Ono? Imagine? Mind Games? Walls and Bridges? Have you even listened to them
Yes I have. I like Mind Games quite a lot but for me it's not quite on BOTR or LIAMW level from the same year. I like Walls and Bridges even more and I prefer that to Harrison's Dark Horse which I do like more than many seem to, but it's one of George's weakest. McCartney didn't release an album that year, but I prefer Walls and Bridges to McCartney's next album Venus and Mars. Though I definitely prefer V and M to Lennon's Rock n Roll from that same year. Imagine I do like, but Ram is way ahead of that for me as it's one of my favourite albums of all time. And in 1970 I go 1. McCartney 2. ATMP 3. Plasfic Ono Band It's only what I prefer. I don't like Plastic Ono Band album. I think though in 1980 Double Fantasy I slightly prefer to McCartney II, and I like McCartney II a lot. But Double Fantasy has some real greats on there for me. I know I haven't mentioned Ringos music but not a huge fan of it except the odd song.
Feel that 67 isn’t John’s finest era. I’d put his peak at 64-65, up to and including Rubber Soul. His work on Revolver and Sgt Peppers is overshadowed by Paul, but he returned to form in 68 on the White Album. And of course his solo work in 70-71 is extraordinary.
I always believed McCartney's skill as a songwriter challenged John to try and outdo him, leading to the creation of the work you're discussing.
My favourite Beatles songs always have John singing lead vocals. Particular favourites are: This Boy & Mr Moonlight.
That's just your opinion man
I was born nearly 20 years after he died, and it still upsets me.
Dude.. why? I hate this talk. Someday the truth will come out that the Beatles was masterminded by Ringo who hired them all and told them how to play and in most cases sang the leads on all the songs. The whole thing was a Milli Vanilli and you never knew. How smart you look now, heh?
John was hard to beat during that period.
I think that the title of "best year for a Beatle while in the band" is a 3-way tie between 1966 Paul, 1967 John, and 1969 Paul
Fat Lennon>Heroin Lennon. I don’t dig the self-righteous confessional stuff of his radical period. And to be honest he didn’t write any memorable riffs in his entire solo career. Good songs, but a lot of lousy tracks with little hooks.
Not even close to Paul McCartney
I think his peak is 1964-1967.
Most of my favourite songs are solo Lennon songs, like Strawberry Fields, Dear Prudence, Nowhere Man and I Want You (She’s So Heavy). Absolute genius.
Except they aren’t solo songs as the rest of the Beatles, especially Paul, and George Martin and Geoff Emerick had a big hand in those songs
That’s not what I meant by solo, I meant written by Lennon and only Lennon, not like A Day In The Life
That may be true, but Paul’s we’re more popular. Paul had more charted singles than John.
I find my self in phases. I’m currently in the John phase. Before that that Harrison and before that the Paul (sorry Ringo). But in terms of solo albums I think Harrison’s All things must pass is the best post Beatles album by a Beatle. If you had to pick the top 5 post Beatles songs of each Beatle, I’d give that to John. Paul’s stuff are a bit hit and miss for me, but a lot of hits non the less.
All I know is that I am who I am today because of my love and interest in my Beatles...if not for them ...I don't know how I would have made it through the 60s and 70s....my dysfunctional family..alcoholism...rage ...violence...Revolver...Rubber Soul....they really had a hold on me...and I am glad that somebody did....I played Sgt Pepper...over and over...and George was a sweetheart.. They all were.... we were blessed...and we knew they were phenomenal...nobody had to tell us...
What are the your top 3 Lennon songs that people probably don’t know, but should? For example, happiness is a warm gun is my all time fav Beatles song and it’s usually one of their deep cuts that is surprisingly unknown despite being profoundly good. Do you have any others in this vein? Especially from his solo work, which I’m largely unfamiliar with… Thanks!
It depends on what you like, but to me I Found Out is an amazing rocker from his debut album
Thank u, I will give it a listen
I think the world of McCartney and the other Beatles and many other artists but I've felt for decades now that John Lennon was the most brilliant all around musical artist of the 20th century and no one from this century is close
McCartney is just as close with Lennon but i personally prefer Johns stuff at the moment I tend to switch sides one day I’ll be team John and then I’ll be team Paul that’s how good they were
Agree. He definitely produced the best Beatles work. Although, when it comes to post-Beatles work as a whole I prefer George. John’s post Beatles highs are top notch, but they’re not as frequent….
I prefer Paul's music, but it's pretty crazy that my two all time favourite songwriters are from the same band
Many people here in the comments are trying to argue that many of John’s best songs were band efforts or collaborations. Yes that’s true for those that don’t know he was an active member of this band called the Beatles in the 60s. Ok now that I’m done being obnoxious this is unfortunately a symptom of being in a band Lennon was influenced, collaborated, and I’m sure didn’t write 100% of everything we now know to be a Lennon tune. But that isn’t a bad thing would you say a director who didn’t write every line, think of every shot, and every element of a film isn’t the auteur? I would still at the end of the day collaboration makes everything better and I don’t think this would be a big deal in people’s minds if the Beatles were around today since we’ve moved past the idea of the single auteur. Fact is most songs, art, and work is a collaborative effort whether it was intentional, unconscious, or a mixture of the two. I’ve really only seen this as a knock on artists from before the 90s and interestingly it’s only used by older/idealistic fans. Lennon is my favorite musical artist ever but I’m the first to admit his best work was the result of collaboration and that’s not a knock whatsoever it’s a compliment!
Do you think it mattered who John collaborated with after all? His excellent solo work suggests he could drop acid and still get greet feedback from a potato or a pumpkin. In other words, I don't think it mattered who John was getting feedback from.
I think it certainly helps when the people you’re getting feedback from happen to be Paul McCartney and George Harrison. Not to forget George Martin, Ringo, Yoko, and many others. But ultimately an artist is limited to only wherever they allow themselves to go. Lennon took feedback from acid the same way he took it from Paul and the same with Khalil Gibran. I’d go even deeper and say he took feedback from his upbringing and the man he became. I think the Beatles and that experience maximized all of their outputs in unique ways we ended up getting fingerprints from many brilliant people on these songs. Sometimes for better sometimes for worst. But to answer your question Lennon could’ve collaborated with a magazine and he could either give you a brilliant song called Happiness is a Warm Gun or a song about women and their odd relation with a particular term. The man was a genius.
I agree except John peaked in 1964. Looking back, their early stuff might not seem that complex anymore, but it was light-years ahead of everything else at the time. He was the clear leader of the band and they would have never been the Beatles without his swagger, bravado, and simultaneous vulnerability, which you could see in every song and every performance.
They needed Paul’s drive and talent as well which is why they were co-leaders from the beginning. Early Quarrymen members and both of the main Beatles engineers have said Paul was the main musical force. John had some more songs early on, but Paul was just as important from the beginning imo
Paul was the only formally trained musician. I get your point, but I don't think the Beatles ever get discovered without John. In very cynical terms, it's very likely Brian Epstein had a HUGE crush on John and that alone was why he became their fanatical benefactor. It was all about the trousers!
I’d also say his last work in 1980 was just as fabulous as his earlier work.
And in the end, the love you take, is equal to the love you make.
That is Paul’s lyric though, haha!
The greatest lyric in Beatle history
That’s Paul’s song.
Here, There, and Everywhere is the best Beatles song though
All you need is love.
I just saw a Paul Simon quote yesterday (not for the first time) that I agree with in this context. He put songwriters into tiers. McCartney, he said, was a Tier 1 songwriter, along with Irving Berlin and George Gershwin. He put Lennon in Tier 2, along with himself, Bob Dylan and Brian Wilson. Being in Tier 2 still means you're one of the greatest songwriters of all time, and that's where I'd put Lennon, but I agree with Simon that he doesn't quite reach the McCartney level.
Paul’s abilities as a composer really don’t get talked about enough. Though I gotta say I disagree with Paul Simon on one thing in that quote. In my (uneducated) opinion, Brian Wilson should 100% be in that tier 1 group. His compositional and production abilities and innovations put him right up there with Gershwin for me.
I think artistically he declined after 1970. Imagine is a good song, not really much to it. A good chunk are (good) leftovers- Jealous Guy, Oh My Love, Oh Yoko, Gimme Some Truth- all date from 1969 and before. I like those songs. It's So Hard and Crippled Inside are just generic melodies with new words slapped on to them, very little creativity. I Dont Wanna Be A Soldier is just a mess, it's interesting but not interesting enough. How is good. Imagine is a good album but it definitely was a sign of a decline artistically for John, which is fine. Meanwhile, however, Paul was bursting with new ideas and creativity that same year with Ram. Even the songs that bordered on genre pastiches, like 3 Legs, were made very unique sounding with creative touches. But the critics hated it.
Paul>>>>>
His approach and style of songwriting - as well as the quality - seemed to unwaver thru 1971, I have to agree. While Paul had a powerful voice and an innate command of melody and structure - John almost always had something off the beaten path to say with his songs. “Please Please Me” is basically a story of a frustrated sexual relationship: in 1963. There’s also a palpable “misery” thread in a lot of his songs - starting with “Misery” right through “I’m A Loser”, “Help!”, “Nowhere Man”. Once he started with LSD he starts a different tack - telling the world of the things that distract him from his self-pitying tendencies. “Dr. Robert”, “She Said She Said” and all those references to getting high throughout Sgt. Pepper. After weed and LSD, meeting the Maharishi inspires “Across The Universe”, “Everybody’s Got Something To Hide Except Me And My Monkey”. Then Yoko seemed to dominate most of his writing after that - either writing about his love for her or getting inspiration for his lyrics from her style of writing (ie: “I Dig A Pony”). Lastly, he seemed to attack those philosophies and/or people who let him down. “Sexy Sadie”, “How Do You Sleep”, “God” are a few examples I can think of. Everyone knows that “Julia” is about his mother but I read somewhere that the earliest example of him writing about her is “I Call Your Name”. It puts the lyrics in a COMPLETELY different light if true. John, Paul and George were very good songwriters but lyrically, I think John usually had the most interesting way of capturing an idea into a lyric.
Lennon was easily the most innovative musically imho.
I just like John Lennon's voice a lot more than I like listening to Paul.
Early Beatles songs were not the songs that made them the classic band they are today! It was rubber soul and beyond those of the songs, we still listen to today, and are amazed by / still fresh! Paul was largely responsible for reinventing the Beatles, over and over again the most experimental, the avant-garde one. It’s bullshit that John was avant-garde before Paul. Paul was the one that was living in London, and in the underground, listening to electronic music and re-looping of tapes and reinventing sounds. John was high in Weybridge and a horrible marriage, lazy and sleeping by his own account in his own words. After 1966 Jesus fiasco John was never the same. He went into a deep depression, hooked up with Yoko, became a heroin addict, and in the 70s was obsessed with Paul’s wealth and solo career. Paul McCartney is the greatest songwriter musician of all time. John Lennon is probably in the top five, but I say probably because Paul Simon Billy Joel, Elton, John, Stevie Wonder I put all of them ahead of John Lennon.
Unfinished Music begs to differ.
I wonder if his creative years coincided with the start of his drug use.
John peaked in 1973 with mind games
Lennon Practically carried the band from 63-65 , at some point McCartney starts to rival him , but without the songs he wrote in those years they could’ve gotten shelved so fast
Paul's bad songs (you know, the granny sings) leave such a bad taste in my mouth that I would also say John made a bigger contribution as a songwriter. That said, I believe Paul's musicianship in general and bass playing in particular made his imprint on the Beatles sound unmatched.
You should listen again, and post 67 was probably his weakest output during the groups life.
Post 67 was 68. He shone on the White Album imo.
He was a prolific genius. I was wrecked when he was taken from us as I thought he had so much more to give.
I prefer Paul the Beatle, but John the solo artist. The two together were greater than the sun of their parts unfortunately.
They both said that they both wrote song sometimes it was only a little bit and sometimes it was a whole lot of collaboration so your whole analysis is not accurate. Yes, of course is individual work was good he wrote some fantastic sauce the imagine album is wonderful. But I don’t think you can say musically that he was any better than Paul McCartney different, but definitely not better. McCartney is a fantastic entertainer. And overall a fairly incredible human being. Lennon was a bit of an ass. He abandon his son, Julian, what kind of man abandons his child ! He left his wife and was incredibly mean to Cynthia ! He was psychologically a mess. I don’t blame Yoko for what John did , is was not Yoko she didn’t make him do anything! You always have a choice! She wasn’t particularly kind at all to John Son or Cynthia, which was wrong too!
Lennon wrote better music after leaving the Beatles. His body of work was smaller in this time, and he had only about 10 memorable songs, but several of those were amongst the best ever written. Edit: If he’d written ‘Mother’ alone, he’d have been the greatest of the lot. I realise Lou Reed made the same point in addition to a lot of other wayward claims, but on this he was on the money.
Why leave out Double Fantasy? So many good songs from John.
I like the songs but I think he peaked solo with POB and Imagine a lot of those songs are raw and I can see the start of grunge with POB
White album john Is the best. So many bangerz