McCartney Blames Lennon

I believe it was in the Anthology where Paul talks about how close he and John had gotten again right before John’s death and they were seriously talking about getting back together again. Don’t know if it would have happened though, because I think they just assumed George and Ringo would and weren’t really including them in the talk.
I think Ringo would have. He played on several of their solo albums. I think George was pretty much done with it by then. Who knows what might have been?
 
I love the Beatles but the more I read, the more I believe John just wasn't a very good dude.

I mean, if the way he treated his first wife and their son wasn't enough for you...

Yeah, George had started writing and was growing increasingly frustrated that more of his stuff wasn't getting onto the records. Saw an interview with McCartney in which he was very sympathetic to that and said he understand why George was upset because "he was really starting to come up with the goods."
There were a lot of recordings where he and John both recorded solos and they would mix down the one not chosen for the album. Some of those showed up in later anthologies. If you listen closely you can also hear some or George's solos that weren't used bleed over onto the other tracks, hiding in the background. He was a WAY better guitarist than John.
I disagree with this. He has remained very musically active and relevant. ****, he just had a new album out this year. If he's rehashing the good old days, it's only because people keep asking him about it.

Somebody above made a crack about the Beatles "not being very good at their instruments." Which is nonsense. Paul is one of the handful of the best rock bassists of all-time, and George was an underrated lead guitarist who was helped and influenced by some of the guitar pantheon. Ringo wasn't flashy, but he was incredibly dependable, steady, and came up with memorable patterns and fills that matched the songs.

John, however... might as well been playing a kazoo in comparison...

Not trying to hate on John here. Great songwriter. Just not much of a guitarist.
 
A reason Paul got slapped w/ blame was referenced in the article - when he says he got "tired of hiding (the break-up)." Lennon had informally departed in September '69 ... Paul hastened finality and ruffled in-band feathers by releasing his solo debut, about a month prior to "Let it Be." It was seen as selfish timing in some circles. Adding to the fire was a self-interview included with his solo LP, Q&A including questions something like "Q: Do you expect to work with The Beatles again? A: No."

In RS interview w/ Lennon in '71, he flat out admitted he left, the "I want a divorce" aspect.

I'm summarizing most of that from memory, a few details may be slightly different.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: MeanDean
I mean, if the way he treated his first wife and their son wasn't enough for you...



Somebody above made a crack about the Beatles "not being very good at their instruments." Which is nonsense. Paul is one of the handful of the best rock bassists of all-time, and George was an underrated lead guitarist who was helped and influenced by some of the guitar pantheon. Ringo wasn't flashy, but he was incredibly dependable, steady, and came up with memorable patterns and fills that matched the songs.

John, however... might as well been playing a kazoo in comparison...

Not trying to hate on John here. Great songwriter. Just not much of a guitarist.
I've said this before on here but my brother, who is a bassist, has always said that McCartney was the first to play the bass as a true instrument, rather than a glorified member of the percussion section.
 
I mean, if the way he treated his first wife and their son wasn't enough for you...



Somebody above made a crack about the Beatles "not being very good at their instruments." Which is nonsense. Paul is one of the handful of the best rock bassists of all-time, and George was an underrated lead guitarist who was helped and influenced by some of the guitar pantheon. Ringo wasn't flashy, but he was incredibly dependable, steady, and came up with memorable patterns and fills that matched the songs.

John, however... might as well been playing a kazoo in comparison...

Not trying to hate on John here. Great songwriter. Just not much of a guitarist.
And Paul didn’t even want to play bass. He had to because they needed a bassist. Fun fact, Paul is left handed but their bassist that quit was right handed, so he had to learn how to play with the strings upside down.
 
Last edited:
I've said this before on here but my brother, who is a bassist, has always said that McCartney was the first to play the bass as a true instrument, rather than a glorified member of the percussion section.

Before Paul, bass was just where you stuck the worst guitarist in the group to hide him.

Putting your best guitarist on bass might have been the greatest Beatles innovation of them all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ruxCYtable
I mean, if the way he treated his first wife and their son wasn't enough for you...



Somebody above made a crack about the Beatles "not being very good at their instruments." Which is nonsense. Paul is one of the handful of the best rock bassists of all-time, and George was an underrated lead guitarist who was helped and influenced by some of the guitar pantheon. Ringo wasn't flashy, but he was incredibly dependable, steady, and came up with memorable patterns and fills that matched the songs.

John, however... might as well been playing a kazoo in comparison...

Not trying to hate on John here. Great songwriter. Just not much of a guitarist.

they maybe couldn't out pick a lot of guys on the guitar, but as for coming up with extremely creative guitar lines, the Beatles were aces. Other people couldn't do what they did in their time. They could copy, or be influenced or inspired, but no one could create hooks and melodies like the Beatles.
 
i won’t link it here because the language is really over the top and definitely not safe for work or most public places. When you get a chance though, go to YouTube and search “Bill Burr Yoko Ono” it’s amazing. It’s him describing a clip of John Lennon playing with Chuck Berry and how Yoko butted herself into that by doing her scream thing.

If you haven’t seen it, it’s worth it just to see the expression on Chuck Berry’s face when Yoko joins in. This is just a 45 second clip that shows you Chuck’s reaction:

 
If you haven’t seen it, it’s worth it just to see the expression on Chuck Berry’s face when Yoko joins in. This is just a 45 second clip that shows you Chuck’s reaction:


The video where Bill Burr rips on Yoko was my first exposure to him. I have since become a big fan and saw him live at Red Rocks 10 days ago.
 
I mean, if the way he treated his first wife and their son wasn't enough for you...



Somebody above made a crack about the Beatles "not being very good at their instruments." Which is nonsense. Paul is one of the handful of the best rock bassists of all-time, and George was an underrated lead guitarist who was helped and influenced by some of the guitar pantheon. Ringo wasn't flashy, but he was incredibly dependable, steady, and came up with memorable patterns and fills that matched the songs.

John, however... might as well been playing a kazoo in comparison...

Not trying to hate on John here. Great songwriter. Just not much of a guitarist.
None of them were amazing at their instrument. Paul yes changed how bass was recorded and used but people really need to look at current day artists if they think the Beatles were turning heads with technical prowess.
 
Most of my knowledge of The Beatles come from the Simpsons and comedians and Late Night TV, but I always thought this was the case.
 
Thank god the Beatles broke up and we have all the amazing solo music from John and George.

I'll agree with George. Have never been a big beatles fan. Not dislike, just indifferent. From what little I have listened to over the radio it would seem the talent was Paul and George.
 
I actually liked the earlier Beatles music more (ducks). Even though, I do think, the later music was better quality, I just preferred the early stuff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MeanDean
Certainly the mystery behind the Beatles drives them. 60 years later the debate continues! Their stories are bigger than their music at times. They were innovative at the time and I think Paul needed John more than John needed Paul - they were best together.

George and Ringo were helped by their association with the band. They were good, but I don’t know if they would have made it if they would have started from scratch. When Ringo got sick and missed a leg of a tour, he thought the band wouldn’t have him back. That tells you about what he thought of his own abilities. I think they all have great stories and contributed to music in general. I don’t really care who split the band up. Who cares now?
 
I think Lennon was more creative and imaginative than McCartney. When McCartney wrote Hey, Jude he told Lennon the line "The movement you need is on your shoulder" was a placeholder and he was going to replace it. Lennon responded, "Why? It's the best line in the entire song." Lennon was right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cyclones500

Help Support Us

Become a patron