McCartney Sabotaged Lennons Songs?

[electracoyote]

This much I agree with whole-heartedly. I'm very much a fan of the Beatles, together and on their own. They've all done some great work, and some that's not so great. The interviews that John Lennon gave in the early 70's are really indicative of where his own mindset was at the time rather than any thoughtful examination of the musical output of McCartney on his own songs.

"Across the universe" and "Strawberry Fields" stand pretty damn well on their own, bass parts or not. The songs didn't really need Paul to play crazy bass parts. "Across the universe" didn't really need that. And "Strawberry Fields" works with the bowed upright parts that come in later in the song.

As for Lennon songs where the bass parts are amazing? How about "I want you (she's so heavy)" or "Come together"? Those songs are perfect examples of McCartney settling in to his role as the Beatles bassist and coming up with absolutely amazing parts.

This statement by John Lennon is crap. It's his post-Beatles bluster which he really did not grow out of until the late 70's. At one point he even said that he should have sang "Why don't we do it in the road", even though it was Paul's song. You have to qualify a lot of his statements as coming from a guy who may have been a music superstar, but had some serious bouts of insecurity.

But on a more positive note, some of his solo catalog has been remastered and was just released the other day. I was expecting more from the remastering of Imagine, but I have been pleasantly surprised by the newly stripped down version of Double Fantasy.

Great post, spot on.

I think a lot of people, musicians, fans, and casual audiophiles alike, would be surprised to find Lennon thought his songs were compromised or "sabotaged." I never would have thought that way. I think many of the tracks in question are genius in every respect, from their creation straight through to the performances and studio treatments.

 

[Alex E]

I am a huge Beatles fan. Not to start a flame war or anything but I have always been of the opinioin that Paul McCartney would have been a star without John Lennon but the converse would not have been true. Both were clearly better than the sum of their individual parts but I always found Lennon to be less talented than PM. That is not to say that Lennon was talentless but next to McCartney, few musicians look like stars. He's so well rounded...bass player, pop vocalist, songwriter, personality.

As for his personality (at least what has been on display), Lennon always seemed petty, childish and the kind of guy I probably wouldn't want to spend time with. So, I guess this comment doesn't surprise me.

I'm sorry to the JL fans out there...all opinion, of course...

Interesting post. I agree with parts. Paul is hands-down the better musician. From what I've read, even when John was angry right after the split, I think he would have agreed with that.
From a song-writing perspective, I think they were quite close, in that they could both write huge hits. Singing-wise, both were great, so that's a flip of the coin.

The two areas I don't think Paul quite measured up to John were confidence and lyrics. His lyrics were strong in the Beatles because John Lennon was the only person in the world, probably, who could tell Paul that his lyrics were bad and to rewrite them.

Both might have made it without the other. We'll never know, but John Lennon was a tower of confidence. I think if Paul was more confident and made himself write good lyrics, he would have dominated the 70s more than he did.

 

[electracoyote]

The two areas I don't think Paul quite measured up to John were confidence and lyrics. His lyrics were strong in the Beatles because John Lennon was the only person in the world, probably, who could tell Paul that his lyrics were bad and to rewrite them.

While I agree that Lennon was the stronger lyricist, I'm not sure how much time he spent critical of Paul's lyrics or encouraging re-writes. Not only did John count on Paul for bridges (music and lyrics) on some of the early material, I think he actually encouraged some of Paul's sillier lines.

For example, when Paul first played "Hey Jude" for John, it wasn't quite ready lyrically. When Paul sang the line "...the movement you need is on your shoulder," he quickly looked at John and said, "That's just a throw away line, I'll be changing that."

John gave Paul a serious look and said, "You won't you know. That's brilliant."

Paul countered, "No, it doesn't really mean anything."

John replied, "I know what it means," and gave Paul a wink.

The line remained.

Despite Paul's confidence as a musician, he (and the rest of the group) always looked up to John and sought his approval. John was the undisputed leader right from the start and retained that kind of respect almost right to the end of The Beatles.

 

[PatO]

I don't really like the debate of which of the 2 (macca or lennon) is the greater genius, in my opinion, the Beatles all together is genius, but none of them alone is a genius. Their solo careers are proof of this; nothing that's been done by any of the 4 Beatles AFTER the Beatles is genius, whereas everything the Beatles have maid is genius.

+1

they were (still are) the greatest band in rock history.

 

[ShoeManiac]

Great post, spot on.

I think a lot of people, musicians, fans, and casual audiophiles alike, would be surprised to find Lennon thought his songs were compromised or "sabotaged." I never would have thought that way. I think many of the tracks in question are genius in every respect, from their creation straight through to the performances and studio treatments.

Thanks. I mean, how can you REALLY take that kind of statement seriously? Listen to "Rain". Listen to "Lucy in the sky with diamonds". Listen to "Lovely Rita". Listen to the bass lines in any of these songs and then ask yourself if you can really take the comment from John Lennon that sparked this particular thread seriously at all.

The fact is that on almost any of the post 1967 material McCartney is laying down amazing parts on every one of the Beatles songs. If he took a backseat in terms of bass parts on any tunes, it was really on his own songs.

 

[Hobbayne]

There was a book out about 4 years ago called "Recording The Beatles" http://www.recordingthebeatles.com Which although is expensive (£60 in England, $100 USA) answered a lot of questions I had, Ive been a Beatle fan for nearly 30 years now, and till I read some of this book I didnt know that George played bass on "She Said She Said, Honey Pie, Maxwells Silver Hammer and Golden Slumbers, Carry That Weight!"

 

[Ric5]

[Link Removed

 

[Mr. Mig]

Lennon had alot of animosity twords Macca at the time. I myself don't think he would still feel that way if he was still with us today.

 

[Ric5]

Link Removed

 

[Ferret]

Paul taught himself to read music and play piano, then he taught the others.

Not like its a big deal but I believe Paul cannot read music

 

[Mike M.]

Had to have been sour grapes at the time. In the Playboy interview right before his death, John had high praise for Pauls bass playing. Even said "Paul's got to be the most underrated bass player around."

 

[benjammin420]

Not like its a big deal but I believe Paul cannot read music

He can't, or at least couldn't then. The song Golden Slumbers is actually an old standard, Paul used to see the sheet music on his fathers piano, and he loved the lyrics, because he couldnt read the sheet, he composed his own tune for it. And thank god for that, Ive never heard the original Golden Slumbers but Im sure Pauls is better

 

[Deluge Of Sound]

Tens of millions, including myself, would disagree with you.

Is that the best you've got?
Really?

 

[fish552]

Great thread! I respect/love hearing everyone's input and I learned a few things along the way about the greatest band ever.

 

[esa372]

All I know is I get schooled every time I sit down to learn me some Paul lines!

+1000

Every time I sit down to learn Paul's bass lines note for note, I always end up looking at the CD player and saying "wow!"

I'm in this club, too.

 

[dminer]

I believe that it was in the Rolling Stone Interview where Lennon stood up for the Beatles as well...he compared it to beating up your little brother or something like that...(it's ok for me to dis them but don't you dare) I think it was from something Jagger had said about the Beatles being passe. I also love his statement about inter-band bickering...after being together constantly for 10+ years it's hard not to get on each others nerves...especially when you're the undisputed top band in the world...his quote was something like "It's you, it's your tamborine that's making my life a misery." It's been a few years since I read the interview so none of the above is probably word for word but the meaning is the same.

What really gets me is this notion going around by younger folks that The Beatles were "The First Boy Band" ugh...I heard it on Pawn Stars the other night and I've heard it before. Comparing them to InSink sp? or any of those other manufactured boy groups form the 90's is so wrong on so many levels and I'm sure I don't need to tell anyone here why.
Paul did play some great bass lines on lot's of Lennon songs...too many to list.
But, when Lennon went solo with the first Plastic Ono band album he brought in Klaus Voorman and the bass is certainly much more basic/simpler and it fits well. Klaus is IMO a very underated bass player.

 

[JimmyM]

anyone who calls the beatles a boy band in my presence will get a foot to the groin.

 

[Korladis]

People call the Beatles "the first boy band"? Who are these people, and what sort of drugs are they on? Where can I get some?

The early stuff may sound really light now, but that's what rock and roll was at the time. In fact, their sound was innovative for the genre.

Boy bands are usually put together by record company execs. The Beatles were a group of young, working class musicians who got together and formed a band in their hometown of Liverpool. And they all did play.

A boy band wouldn't write anything like "I am the Walrus," or "Come Together" or "Revolution" or "I Want You/She's so Heavy." No boy band has ever been such an enormous influence on rock music, either.

Those who'd call them a boy band fully deserve Jimmy's foot to their groin.

 

[dougjwray]

Some things:

~ Sign me up for the foot in the groin to the "boy band" revisionists. I'll wear my steel-toed boots.

~ The Playboy interview took place immediately before Lennon was murdered. Not in the early '70s. I believe it was printed in the January 1981 issue.

~ Paul doesn't read music.

~ Paul was the best, most versatile player, and the most prolific writer (and the smoothest singer) in the band. But, for one thing, Lennon knew how to fingerpick a guitar, which McCartney has never learned. And, in addition to guitar, he did play harmonica and piano, and naturally, always added exactly the right touch to make a song. I remember reading about how Paul's "Obla-Di, Obla-Da" was sitting there, flat, until Lennon sat down at the piano and made it come alive.

~ As someone said, Lennon was a complicated guy. He could be very jealous, spiteful, even sadistic, but also express great tenderness in his music (e.g. "Julia"). Ringo has said that he thought John was a lovely guy underneath it all. Remember that John had significant problems growing up (never knew his father, felt abandoned by his mother, witnessed her death at the hands of a drunk driver when he was 15 and just getting to know her). Also, by the time of the White Album, he was in love with Yoko Ono as well as using heroin, and he was losing interest in the Beatles. Paul was the one who was determined to keep things together, and, from what I understand, his obsessiveness started to become more than a bit annoying, to both Lennon and Harrison. I think Lennon tried to have it both ways by exerting comparatively very little effort on the band by that time, and then turning around and complaining about Paul being the taskmaster who (paradoxically) did an offhand job on John's songs. I think it was Geoff Emerick (or maybe George Martin) who said that John liked to work very quickly, and then lost interest, while Paul would, indeed, stay late to make sure that everything sounded good.

~ Lennon often expressed his preference for '50s-style rock and roll, yet he created some of the most visionary Beatles songs. Contrary to popular opinion, he also created some of the most beautiful Beatles melodies ("Norwegian Wood", "A Day in the Life", "If I Fell", the aforementioned "Julia", "Girl", "In My Life", etc., etc.). He also had a way of discovering some amazing, fresh chord progressions and modulations that, to me, equalled Paul's more polished, Mozart-like mastery of music.

~ What can you say? They were the greatest band and the most fascinating combination of musicians.

 

[PatO]

back on the original topic that Paul purposefully sabotaged John's songs... well Come Together is possibly the best known Beatle bass line and its on a John song.

Also, those pics of george playing bass just made my day.