McCartney Sabotaged Lennons Songs?

[PatO]

Some things:


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.

maybe true, but it was Paul that quit. So even with all the possible Yoko bashing, Paul was the one that broke up the Beatles.

 

[guitardefector]

John Lennon was a musical genius as was/is Paul. But as a dad he totally sucked.

 

[dougjwray]

maybe true, but it was Paul that quit. So even with all the possible Yoko bashing, Paul was the one that broke up the Beatles.

True. He made it official.

 

[guitardefector]

Right on! And I seem to recall Linda at his side everywhere on the Let It Be sessions?? So, really, who broke who up?

 

[electracoyote]

Most of your post was pretty good, but we need to shed some light on a couple of things:

But, for one thing, Lennon knew how to fingerpick a guitar, which McCartney has never learned.

Really? "Blackbird," "Mother Nature's Son," and many others show not only fingerpicking skills, but of a very specific nature that is hard to duplicate.

in addition to guitar, he (Lennon) did play harmonica and piano, and naturally, always added exactly the right touch to make a song.

Calling Lennon a better piano player than McCartney, and implying McCartney could not have played that piano part in "Obladi," is highly debatable. I'd love to hear Lennon try "Martha My Dear." My guess is he couldn't even come close.

 

[dougjwray]

It's way too long a story to go into here.

After Brian Epstein died, Paul wanted Linda's brother to manage them. John wanted Allen Klein. After John met Yoko and fell in love, he lost interest in the old gang (i.e. the other Beatles). George felt neglected and pushed aside as a songwriter. Paul might have been getting sick of shouldering the burden (writing the music, trying to perfect it in the studio, and generally whipping the other guys into shape). Everyone in the world thought Ringo had an acting career waiting for him.

I think it was a combination of all these things.

 

[mccartneyman]

Lennon made no secret in interviews of his dislike for playing bass; he clearly didn't try very hard. (If anything is "sabotage," it's Lennon's Long and Winding Road bass part, though the Beatles made a rule not to overdub on the Let It Be sessions, so maybe that's the explanation for its lameness.) Perhaps he was worried that if he displayed any competence at playing the bass, he'd get "stuck" with bass chores more often. The shortest list ever would be "John Lennon's Most Inventive Bass Lines."

I actually think John's "LAWR" bass part works well for the song. DOn't think the Fender Bass VI sounds that good, though.

 

[dougjwray]

Most of your post was pretty good, but we need to shed some light on a couple of things:



Really? "Blackbird," "Mother Nature's Son," and many others show not only fingerpicking skills, but of a very specific nature that is hard to duplicate.



Calling Lennon a better piano player than McCartney, and implying McCartney could not have played that piano part in "Obladi," is highly debatable. I'd love to hear Lennon try "Martha My Dear." My guess is he couldn't even come close.

In McCartney's own autobiography, he says that Donovan taught John how to properly fingerpick when they were in India. He maintains that he can fake it, doing it his own way, but that the classic way might be a useful thing for him to sit down and master, some day. (Later, I can post his exact quote, if you'd like.)
As far as "Obladi", I never said that McCartney *could not* have played it-- only that Lennon *did* play it. He thought up and executed the part, which made the song. Not a technique issue, a creative, get-it-done issue. No, my guess is that Lennon never had the inclination to master "Martha My Dear" style piano. In the same autobiography, Paul mentions that playing it was hard, for himself, and that he wrote it as a "parlor piece", i.e. specifically to show off piano skill. It's hard for me to imagine Lennon doing anything with that as the motivation.

 

[BulbousMoses]

maybe true, but it was Paul that quit. So even with all the possible Yoko bashing, Paul was the one that broke up the Beatles.

As an aside, I've always wondered how things would have gone if Brian Epstein had not died.

 

[PatO]

As an aside, I've always wondered how things would have gone if Brian Epsein had not died.

agreed. I also wonder what could have happened after the Paul/John make up went down. I have a bootleg of them jamming together with Stevie Wonder in Cali in 74, and its awesome.....

 

[Korladis]

You guys say "broke up the Beatles" like it's a bad thing. I'm glad they called it quits. I'd much rather bands I like break up rather than watching them enter a slow decline over the years.

 

[trunkshope6]

totally agree. mcartney and lennon were is a classic duo,but even if john was still alive rip, i think paul still would of been the bigger star with the wings and such.

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...

 

[PatO]

You guys say "broke up the Beatles" like it's a bad thing. I'm glad they called it quits. I'd much rather bands I like break up rather than watching them enter a slow decline over the years.

ie: Weezer. Pinkerton was a long time ago....

 

[electracoyote]

In McCartney's own autobiography, he says that Donovan taught John how to properly fingerpick when they were in India. He maintains that he can fake it, doing it his own way, but that the classic way might be a useful thing for him to sit down and master, some day. (Later, I can post his exact quote, if you'd like.)
As far as "Obladi", I never said that McCartney *could not* have played it-- only that Lennon *did* play it. He thought up and executed the part, which made the song. Not a technique issue, a creative, get-it-done issue. No, my guess is that Lennon never had the inclination to master "Martha My Dear" style piano. In the same autobiography, Paul mentions that playing it was hard, for himself, and that he wrote it as a "parlor piece", i.e. specifically to show off piano skill. It's hard for me to imagine Lennon doing anything with that as the motivation.

Regarding the fingerpicking, you at first said Paul could not. Now you admit he can, but it is somehow not "classic," whatever that term implies. As someone who plays and teaches fingerstyle folk and blues guitar, I can assure you there is no one "right" and one "wrong" way to fingerpick a guitar. I think I hear you saying you prefer John's fingerpicking style over Paul's, which is fair enough. But Paul's fingerpicking is very effective in its own right. "Blackbird" and several others will attest to that.

As far as the get-it-done aspect, there are many examples of the other Beatles having better things to do, and McCartney being in the studio trying to "get things done" on his own. Again, I'm not sure how John's motivation to play the piano part on "Obladi" points to superior musicianship or motivation.

Also, I have always wondered if Paul could read music, even on a beginner, rudimentary level. I know his father was a musician, and Paul's first formal instrument was trumpet. I also know Paul took some piano lessons as a Beatle, though I doubt it was very formal, and I doubt he ever used standard notation as a Beatle (that's what they had George Martin for, among other things).

Still, I've always suspected he had/has some rudimentary reading skills. Has he flatly denied that in the autobiography?

 

[electracoyote]

It's way too long a story to go into here.

After Brian Epstein died, Paul wanted Linda's brother to manage them. John wanted Allen Klein. After John met Yoko and fell in love, he lost interest in the old gang (i.e. the other Beatles). George felt neglected and pushed aside as a songwriter. Paul might have been getting sick of shouldering the burden (writing the music, trying to perfect it in the studio, and generally whipping the other guys into shape). Everyone in the world thought Ringo had an acting career waiting for him.

I think it was a combination of all these things.

Well said, all very fact-based and definite contributors to the break up.

Also, I think they just got tired of working together, being together, being Beatles. They had been stuck together in studios, planes, hotel rooms, and on stages all around the world in one of the hottest pressure cookers imaginable. They handled it well, being young and full of piss and vinegar, but they grew up fast and each eventually wanted his own identity and decision-making power independant of the other three mop tops.

It's interesting, when you're in a band and everyone is happy and getting along, you tend to accept and make concessions for each other. You tolerate each others quirks, idiosyncracies, hobbies, girlfriends, wives, kids, dogs, etc. Then, when you start to get tired of each other, you lose tolerance for each other's individuality, and when you get sick of each other, you lose tolerance for everything about each other.

That's why when you hear it's because of Yoko, or Linda, or this manager versus that, or anything else, just take it with a grain of salt.

They grew apart the way old couples sometimes do.

 

[tifftunes]

interesting read. Now I've got to dig up my Beatles albums again ...

Ironically, The Beatles are the only inhabitants on my iPod...

Does anyone actually use iPods anymore?

 

[tifftunes]

maybe true, but it was Paul that quit. So even with all the possible Yoko bashing, Paul was the one that broke up the Beatles.

Paul was the last Beatle to quit... Though he did make it final, and used it to promote his solo effort...

Harrison wanted to quit during their first US tour! He proclaimed The Beatles the "performing fleas" in an interview upon their return to England from this first visit!

Ringo had only been in the band a scant 2.5 years by this time... But the other 3 had been together for 6+ years, depending upon who's account you read... And they paid their dues heavily...

John wanted to quit in '66... He worked in the film "How I Won The War" (bit part) and enjoyed doing something else for a change. But before Lennon wanted to quit (in '66), they had to go through hell together. The Beatles truly owe their initial success to Lennon. He'd say, "where are we going boys?" To which they'd answer, "to the topper-most of the popper-most, Johnny!! Not only did they do that inn spades, but the whole industry grew with them, and because of them. That is aivery difficult thing to measure 40 some years later.

After Epstein died, the band began to fall apart... Macca tried to hold it together... The other 3 resented him for that... Lennon, particularly after he took up with Yoko, got lost in heroin, LSD, etc... That made him particularly difficult to deal with...

Try to remember that Rock and Roll music as a genre was brand new in about 1953-ish - more toward blues and rock-a-billy... It peaked with Elvis and a few others in about '58 when Elvis went into the Army... And by 1960 was all but gone... Three years later, The Beatles hit!!! And wow did they ever HIT BIG!!

No matter what is said about history, it is written in stone (though the truth may seem buried). There is no possible way to understand, in retrospect, how much this band of 4 effected, affected, and literally changed the world! If I hadn't lived through it myself, I wouldn't believe it!! The Beatles dominated in every aspect of their career. By the very nature of fame, it also isolated them... They further exacerbated their isolation by choosing to "hide" in the studio, and not perform publicly anymore. You know from history that Sir J Paul McCartney adores his adoration, and performing. So, this change was not a good thing for him...


And to this day I have not spoken, and will not speak the name of the "hired gun" who murdered John Lennon... And I won't go any further on that subject, though it could fill a thousand pages...

.

Happy 70th Birthday, Johnny!!!

 

[robgo]

The Beatles were a great band, and who cares if we like Paul or we like John or whatever. Personally, I can't stand Paul: from what I've read it's pretty obvious he screwed the others over and was only interested in his own ego; but why anyone would be interested in my opinion, I don't know - just enjoy the music!

 

[dougjwray]

Regarding the fingerpicking, you at first said Paul could not. Now you admit he can, but it is somehow not "classic," whatever that term implies. As someone who plays and teaches fingerstyle folk and blues guitar, I can assure you there is no one "right" and one "wrong" way to fingerpick a guitar. I think I hear you saying you prefer John's fingerpicking style over Paul's, which is fair enough. But Paul's fingerpicking is very effective in its own right. "Blackbird" and several others will attest to that.

As far as the get-it-done aspect, there are many examples of the other Beatles having better things to do, and McCartney being in the studio trying to "get things done" on his own. Again, I'm not sure how John's motivation to play the piano part on "Obladi" points to superior musicianship or motivation.

Also, I have always wondered if Paul could read music, even on a beginner, rudimentary level. I know his father was a musician, and Paul's first formal instrument was trumpet. I also know Paul took some piano lessons as a Beatle, though I doubt it was very formal, and I doubt he ever used standard notation as a Beatle (that's what they had George Martin for, among other things).

Still, I've always suspected he had/has some rudimentary reading skills. Has he flatly denied that in the autobiography?

Here are the passages from the book.
"Paul McCartney, Many Years From Now" by Barry Miles.
New York: Henry Holt & Co., c1997.

I couldn't find the passage where he talks about not reading music, but I did find a pretty conclusive YouTube clip where he discusses it. See below.

Ob-la-di Ob-la-da:

"John got very bored working on 'Ob-La-di Ob-La-Da', a song which he disliked intensely and which seemed to him to take too long. Even though outside musicians had been brought in to play a brass arrangement, Paul was not satisfied with the version they made and insisted on starting over again. The next day he began again from scratch but eventually decided the first remake was the best, featuring as it did John's loud blue-beat piano.
It has been said that this track was the cause of much acrimony but Paul has a different recollection:
Paul: 'I remember being in the studio with George and Ringo, struggling with an acoustic version of the song. John was late for the session but when he arrived he bounced in, apologising, in a very good mood. He sat down at the piano and instantly played the blue-beat-style intro. We were very pleased with his fresh attitude. It turned us on and turned the whole song around. He and I worked hard on the vocals and I remember the two of us in the studio having a whale of a time.'" (p. 492)

Fingerpicking:

"Donovan: 'Some afternoons we would gather at one of our pads and play the acoustic guitars we had all brought with us [to India]. Paul Horn, the American flute wizard, was there. John was keen to learn the finger-style guitar I played and he was a good student. Paul already had a smattering of finger style. George preferred his Chet Atkins style. John wrote "Julia" and "Dear Prudence" based on the picking I taught him.
"Paul: 'The interesting thing for me on "Julia" is the finger-picking style. He learned to finger-pick off Donovan or Gypsy Dave. John said it was Gypsy Dave but the two of them were fairly inseparable and they both would have known it, and if they were both sitting down picking, then who is to know? It was a folk picking style, and he was the only one in the band who could ever do it properly. I made my own variation. Once you can do it, it's really very handy, it's a useful style. Actually, I should learn it, never too late. That was John's song about his mum, folk finger-pick style, and a very good song.'" (p. 421)

Reading ability:

 

[Stick_Player]

Ringo also claims that Paul came back to the studio after they had all left on occasion and re-did his drum parts.

What? I thought Bernard Purdie replaced Ringo's drum tracks. Purdie has said so, himself!