21
   

Lennon vs. McCartney: Who was the more creative composer of this duo?

 
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Sep, 2011 01:21 pm
@ThePeregrinePickle,
Quote:
There was from a musically formal standpoint no ‘collaborative effort’ , as such, between the four members of the Beatles band,. from 1962-1970.

After reading this opening statement I divined that the poster was a classically trained musician with a huge chip on his shoulder concerning those naturally talented musicians who write massively popular songs without having the ability to write or read one musically formal note.

I hastened to my library to open my dog-eared copy of Mark Lewisohn's "The Complete Beatle's Recording Sessions" just to remind myself again...how the lads collaborated on original songs.

Here's a mini doc that puts Martin's contribution in its proper place:


DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Sep, 2011 01:38 pm
@panzade,
panzade wrote:
those naturally talented musicians

Didn't they work their asses off to become seasoned performers? Playing in strip clubs, traveling to Germany for gigs, and the like?
0 Replies
 
Ragman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Sep, 2011 01:52 pm
Wonder what color the sky is in your world?

Waiting for the spam ... Here comes the spam...singing
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Sun 11 Sep, 2011 02:55 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:
Lennon vs. McCartney: Who was the more creative composer of this duo?

If you're specifically asking about the better composer, and specifically about the songs attributed to Lennon/McCartney, I'd have to say McCartney. His music was so versatile when he was a Beatle. (Back in the USSR and Hey Jude and Here, There and Everywhere and Michelle and Eleanor Rigby and. . . .) I also like his way of letting his baselines take unexpected turns now and then, creating harmonies in the process that were surprising when they happened yet utterly plausible after the fact. (It really pays to have a bassist as band leader.)

But I prefer John's texts for the Beatles, and also prefer John's post-Beatles songs to Paul's. Indeed, I think Paul lost his musical way after the Beatles whereas John didn't.
0 Replies
 
ThePeregrinePickle
 
  0  
Reply Sun 11 Sep, 2011 02:59 pm
@Brandon9000,
Well, first of all Brandon9000, I don't rely on secondary sources or materials for information about the Beatles, but rather I go straight to the primary sources, which is the music itself, as a research material. And secondly, none of those types of books that you allude to contain anything in which I am really interested. What have you learned from them that bears directly on the topic in question? I venture to say absolutely nothing but subjective opinion and hearsay.

The only thing that really matters is the music, and it is the music itself that gives us the unequivocal objective information that Lennon and McCartney could not possibly have authored the Beatles' 1962-1970 due to the incontrovertible evidence pointing exactly to the contrary, namely, that the stylistic and structural characteristics of the extant compositions known to have been written by Lennon and McCartney from before 1962 and from after 1970, during the periods when Lennon and McCartney were not professionally associated with George Martin, is mutually exclusive or categorically incompatible with the stylistic and structural characteristics present in the Beatles' song hits from 1962-1970. This information points directly to George Martin as being the sole author of these 1962-1970 hit songs, which are the only songs on the basis of which George Martin and the Beatles under him were forever catapulted to instantaneous and unprecedented fame and fortune.

As to the topic that should really concern us - Lennon vs. McCartney: Who was the least creative composer of this duo? Definitely Paul, as the least competent of two comparatively incompetent and mediocre songwriters.
Brandon9000
 
  2  
Reply Sun 11 Sep, 2011 07:16 pm
@ThePeregrinePickle,
ThePeregrinePickle wrote:

Well, first of all Brandon9000, I don't rely on secondary sources or materials for information about the Beatles, but rather I go straight to the primary sources, which is the music itself, as a research material. And secondly, none of those types of books that you allude to contain anything in which I am really interested. What have you learned from them that bears directly on the topic in question? I venture to say absolutely nothing but subjective opinion and hearsay.

The only thing that really matters is the music, and it is the music itself that gives us the unequivocal objective information that Lennon and McCartney could not possibly have authored the Beatles' 1962-1970 due to the incontrovertible evidence pointing exactly to the contrary, namely, that the stylistic and structural characteristics of the extant compositions known to have been written by Lennon and McCartney from before 1962 and from after 1970, during the periods when Lennon and McCartney were not professionally associated with George Martin, is mutually exclusive or categorically incompatible with the stylistic and structural characteristics present in the Beatles' song hits from 1962-1970. This information points directly to George Martin as being the sole author of these 1962-1970 hit songs, which are the only songs on the basis of which George Martin and the Beatles under him were forever catapulted to instantaneous and unprecedented fame and fortune.

As to the topic that should really concern us - Lennon vs. McCartney: Who was the least creative composer of this duo? Definitely Paul, as the least competent of two comparatively incompetent and mediocre songwriters.

The history books and biographies are based on countless interviews, including those with George Martin, engineer Geoff Emerick, and many other people who were actually involved. I've read many of them as well as watched more than one hundred video interviews. Had Martin written a substantial portion of the Beatles' songs, Some of the biographies and histories would have some reference to it. I challenge you to find a single biography, or history book, or video or audio interview which substantiates your claim. If what you're saying were true, this would not be impossible. I am not interested in your claims of things coming to you in your mind. If you cannot produce a single valid source to support your opinion, then shut up and leave us alone.
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Mon 12 Sep, 2011 11:39 am
@dlowan,
dlowan wrote:
I find McCartney's too kind of schmalzy for me. because of that, I actually haven't listened to much of it, except what was played on the radio, while I actively bought and listened to Lennon's stuff...so I may be way too scathing of McCartney.


Since posting this I've been on a musical binge, multiplying my music collection by 8 and exploring a lot more.

And I can't help but agree with this. McCartney is obviously talented, and can write great melody, but his music has none of Lennon's soul, and emotional depth. When Lennon was going through therapy and released songs like "Mother" it showed a level of emotional exploration in music that I don't think McCartney is capable of.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Sep, 2011 05:40 pm
McCartney's music had the character of classic dance hall music. It may not be to everyone's taste, but he certain was (and past the age of 70 remains) a successful composer and performer. I greatly enjoyed George Harrison's last album and was dismayed that he died so young. Some of Lennon's stuff was great, and some of it sucked. I couldn't stand "Mother" and "Working Class Hero" which i considered self-indulgent. I liked Lennon best when he was smiply the rocker he always enjoyed being.
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Sep, 2011 06:45 pm
@Setanta,
I'm impressed by Paul's durability, too, even though I don't like his solo music.

I love some of harrison's solo work.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Sep, 2011 08:03 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:

dlowan wrote:
I find McCartney's too kind of schmalzy for me. because of that, I actually haven't listened to much of it, except what was played on the radio, while I actively bought and listened to Lennon's stuff...so I may be way too scathing of McCartney.


Since posting this I've been on a musical binge, multiplying my music collection by 8 and exploring a lot more.

And I can't help but agree with this. McCartney is obviously talented, and can write great melody, but his music has none of Lennon's soul, and emotional depth. When Lennon was going through therapy and released songs like "Mother" it showed a level of emotional exploration in music that I don't think McCartney is capable of.

Lennon was a very, very great composer, but in Paul's defense, let me mention that he was the sole author of "All My Loving," "Yesterday," "And I Love Her," "I'll Follow the Sun," "I'm Looking Through You," "I've Just Seen a Face," "Let it Be," "Blackbird," "A World Without Love" (Peter and Gordon), "Hey Jude," "P.S. I Love You," "Martha, My Dear" etc.
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Sep, 2011 08:53 pm
@Brandon9000,
I am not one to discredit Paul's achievements, but the more familiar I become with the duo the more convinced I am that John was the driving force behind this band from the start (staring from picking Paul to join him in a band, as opposed to vice versa). I don't believe a perfect balance exists anywhere, and there has to be one that had greater creative input and if I had to pick who I'd say it was John. However, I don't think that a greater talent may have walked aside him takes much at all away from Paul. He was no slouch and I think their collaboration was the better for it.
ThePeregrinePickle
 
  0  
Reply Mon 12 Sep, 2011 09:46 pm
@Brandon9000,
Lennon? A very, very great composer?.... I can't help but laugh at such naivete. Lennon was as a songwriter a complete non-entity as was, and still is to this very day, Paul McCartney. Were it not for George Martin they would literally be completely unknown. You really must get your heads out of the sand and see the facts for what they are. The songs written by McCartney and Lennon, absent the patronage and musical songwriting and producing genius of George Martin, are mediocre, silly, trite little songs of an atrocious musical and stylistic caliber. On the merits solely of the garbage that these two buffoons wrote during their post 1970 solo careers and the merits of the garbage that they wrote before 1962, the year in which George Martin writes and produces their first hit for the group, Lennon and McCartney would to this day be absolute nobodies. Please get real.
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Sep, 2011 09:49 pm
@ThePeregrinePickle,
Taste is like an asshole, everyone has their own. You are pretending this is objective fact we are dealing with when it's just your subjective opinion you are overselling.
ThePeregrinePickle
 
  0  
Reply Mon 12 Sep, 2011 10:13 pm
@Robert Gentel,
You obviously don't know what you are talking about from a musicological standpoint. The structural and stylistic characteristics of the music written by Lennon or McCartney during the time periods when they were not under the professional oversight and tutelage of George Martin, are categorically, objectively, not in the least subjectively, different from the structural and stylistic elements of the Beatles' hits written and produced by George Martin for the group from 1962-1970. First get your facts straight, then talk to your heart's content about the music of the 'Beatles', which was authored exclusively by George Martin, or about overselling if anything your own misinformed opinions.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Sep, 2011 10:23 pm
@ThePeregrinePickle,
ThePeregrinePickle wrote:

Lennon? A very, very great composer?.... I can't help but laugh at such naivete. Lennon was as a songwriter a complete non-entity as was, and still is to this very day, Paul McCartney. Were it not for George Martin they would literally be completely unknown. You really must get your heads out of the sand and see the facts for what they are. The songs written by McCartney and Lennon, absent the patronage and musical songwriting and producing genius of George Martin, are mediocre, silly, trite little songs of an atrocious musical and stylistic caliber. On the merits solely of the garbage that these two buffoons wrote during their post 1970 solo careers and the merits of the garbage that they wrote before 1962, the year in which George Martin writes and produces their first hit for the group, Lennon and McCartney would to this day be absolute nobodies. Please get real.

Please cite one valid source as you have been repeatedly asked to. Anyone can claim anything.
DrewDad
 
  3  
Reply Mon 12 Sep, 2011 10:25 pm
@ThePeregrinePickle,
It's like Gungasnake suddenly started discussing music....
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Sep, 2011 10:29 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:

I am not one to discredit Paul's achievements, but the more familiar I become with the duo the more convinced I am that John was the driving force behind this band from the start (staring from picking Paul to join him in a band, as opposed to vice versa). I don't believe a perfect balance exists anywhere, and there has to be one that had greater creative input and if I had to pick who I'd say it was John. However, I don't think that a greater talent may have walked aside him takes much at all away from Paul. He was no slouch and I think their collaboration was the better for it.

As you probably know, mutual friend Ivan Vaughan introduced Paul to John, when John's group, the Quarrymen, was appearing at the St. Peter's Church fete in Woolton in the summer of 1957. John and his mates were very impressed with Paul's ability with the guitar, and John instructed his bandmate and sidekick Pete Shotton to invite Paul to join the next time he saw him. George was Paul's friend from the school bus, and Paul asked John to let him join. John thought that George was simply too young, but George hung around the group and John finally relented after George played the song "Raunchy" for him on the upper deck of a bus.
0 Replies
 
ThePeregrinePickle
 
  0  
Reply Mon 12 Sep, 2011 11:05 pm
@Brandon9000,
Perhaps a repetition of my above comments would serve to help you to register the simple fact that the only valid source that exists is the extant music known to have been written by Lennon and McCartney on their own, during the periods in their musical careers when they were disassociated professionally from George Martin, namely the time periods dating from before 1962 and during Lennon and McCartney's solo songwriting periods after 1970. The music tells the tale far better than any secondary sources, much far better than any of the second-hand anecdotal and pseudo-biographical accounts that you seem evidently helplessly, hopeleslly, naively and totally dependent upon for your ideas and information. That literature abounds in individuals virtually with carte blanche to "claim anything" they can, as so you rightfully express it.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2011 04:37 am
@ThePeregrinePickle,
ThePeregrinePickle wrote:

Perhaps a repetition of my above comments would serve to help you to register the simple fact that the only valid source that exists is the extant music known to have been written by Lennon and McCartney on their own, during the periods in their musical careers when they were disassociated professionally from George Martin, namely the time periods dating from before 1962 and during Lennon and McCartney's solo songwriting periods after 1970. The music tells the tale far better than any secondary sources, much far better than any of the second-hand anecdotal and pseudo-biographical accounts that you seem evidently helplessly, hopeleslly, naively and totally dependent upon for your ideas and information. That literature abounds in individuals virtually with carte blanche to "claim anything" they can, as so you rightfully express it.

If it were true that the Beatles didn't write their music, at least one of the biographies or history books would make some sort of reference to it, but none of them do. No book or video interview with a principal supports your claim. I ask you again to cite one such source which supports your contention. Here's the truth, you'e a classic Web troll - someone who trolls a message board looking to stir something up and refuses to participate in fair discussion. If you claim not to be, furnish one book or interview with someone who was involved which supports your claim. Of course, you cannot.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2011 04:46 am
@dlowan,
I heard an inteview of McCartney on CBC before a recent North American concert tour he did. One of the things he said was that his goal was to give the people their money's worth. I can see that attitude going all the way back to their first tour in 1961 (Scotland, i believe, as the Silver Beatles). I know nothing of his personal life, and am not interested (i was never one of those celebrity ghouls who hangs on every bit of gossip). As a public performer, for those who like his music, he gives them all he's got. I respect him for that.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Rockhead's Music Thread - Discussion by Rockhead
What are you listening to right now? - Discussion by Craven de Kere
WA2K Radio is now on the air - Discussion by Letty
Just another music thread. - Discussion by msolga
Classical anyone? - Discussion by JPB
Ship Ahoy: The O'Jays - Discussion by edgarblythe
Evolutionary purpose of music. - Discussion by jackattack
An a2k experiment: What is our favorite song? - Discussion by Robert Gentel
THE DAY THE MUSIC DIED . . . - Discussion by Setanta
Has a Song Ever Made You Cry? - Discussion by Diest TKO
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/18/2019 at 10:03:41