There was from a musically formal standpoint no ‘collaborative effort’ , as such, between the four members of the Beatles band,. from 1962-1970.
those naturally talented musicians
Lennon vs. McCartney: Who was the more creative composer of this duo?
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.
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.
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? 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.
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.
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.