McCartney Blames Lennon

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.

For songwriting, I tend to think of their strengths being (1) John creative, "artsy," whimsical at times, confessional, direct; (2) Paul is showman first, entertainer, ambitious with his creative side. Certainly each has/had plenty of "the other parts," but that's my interpretation. And when they collaborated, strengths of one often enhanced the other.

They also were extremely competitive, wanting to impress the other one (at least it was that way in the early stages, they sort of drifted more into their own directions later).

Not to mention it helps to be excellent at songcraft and voices blending (along w/ George's contributions there).
 
George was ready to move on along with John, he was just the sort to struggle to instigate it.

George’s post breakup catalog has more great songs the other three combined…and even then the two classic ringo songs are actually George songs.
 
So? He's Paul McCartney. I'd be rehashing the good old days a lot too if I were him.

people complain no matter what

Paul constantly puts out new songs/albums and even works with young artists but I guess he can’t talk about being in the greatest band of all time
 
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 don’t think people brag him up as a guitarist.

Somehow he’s nderrated as a rock vocalist. Not an opera singer like Freddy Mercury but rock doesn’t need that.

The guy was a ridiculously soulful and emotionally intense vocalist.

it showed when they’d cover r&b songs early and it shows on solo album Plastic Ono Band that would be cutting edge 50 years later if it released today.
 
I don't know. John, Paul and George seemed to do pretty well on their own. I remember Harrison and McCartney songs from the 80's that were popular.

But who had the first number One hit solo? My man Ringo!
 
for the Beatles breakup.

But now McCartney is setting the record straight for good. “I didn’t instigate the split. That was our Johnny,” he has insisted in a candid and detailed interview to be broadcast later this month.

Recalling what he sees as the “most difficult period of my life”, McCartney, who celebrates his 80th birthday next summer, reveals he wanted the group to go on, especially as after just eight years together, they were still creating “pretty good stuff”. “Abbey Road, Let It Be, not bad,” he will argue in an upcoming episode of the new BBC Radio 4 interview series This Cultural Life. “This was my band, this was my job, this was my life, so I wanted it to continue.”

For all the great music he made, McCartney still seems a bit insecure in his legacy. Never seems to get enough adulation.

As for the breakup: (1) like most breakups, it's hardly so black and white; (2) Anyone who bothers to dig in the files will find McCartney's public statement that he was leaving the Beatles. And that was The End.
 
The Beatles were never really virtuosos at their instruments.
That is ridiculous.

I said they're a great band I just don't know if they can compete with the Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Blue Oyster Cult, Van Halen etc.
You may like those bands, but they don't hold a candle to the Beatles in terms of influence or songwriting.
 
Last edited:
That is ridiculous.


You make like those bands, but they don't hold a candle to the Beatles in terms of influence or songwriting.
They're just an example of what music became. I love many of the Beatles songs. Their writing was great, clearly. I just don't see them rocking as hard as music got.
 
Name a band that had 3 excellent song writers like the Beatles had. Most bands have one great writer and one good writer and the rest are just along for the ride. But the Beatles had 3 great song writers, all with varied interests that would take the music in all sorts of different directions.

John and Paul worked together to produce many of their song, bouncing ideas off of each other, and to them it was their band. Georgia was given one song of his own on each album and that was it. As his song writing talent started to emerge, I am sure he felt trapped by the rules that John and Paul had set out for him. He once described the two as "very pushy people." He was ready for it to end, when John pulled the plug.

Its a shame that they could not have gone off on their own and did their own thing, but still wanted to come back together to record in the future.

If you look at all the songs written by John and Paul they are all created Lennon/McCartney, the original agreement according to Paul was that the song writer that came up with the idea and wrote the majority of the song would have his name in the credit list first. After the death of John, Paul tried to get all the songs they wrote together rebadged that way, then Yoko throw a fit about it, he backed off, saying "he knows and John knew which songs each wrote," and that was good enough for him. Before his death, John did do an interview with Playboy, where John said he wanted to get it on record and they went song by song through their catalog and he said what part each had come up with. Some were totally together, some was just a word or a phrase given by the other, but the credit and the money would be split between them equally.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CyclonePigskin
They're just an example of what music became. I love many of the Beatles songs. Their writing was great, clearly. I just don't see them rocking as hard as music got.
I agree that popular and rock music evolved. Meanwhile, the Beatles disbanded.
 
Fleetwood Mac instantly comes to mind.
I'm not saying they're better than the Beatles.
Grateful Dead had at least 3 legendary songwriters, not the commercial success of the Beatles... But definitely prolific and part of the zeitgeist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cyguy9320
Grateful Dead had at least 3 legendary songwriters, not the commercial success of the Beatles... But definitely prolific and part of the zeitgeist.

Are you saying Phil is #3? Also, Jerry didn't write lyrics. I love the Dead, maybe more than the Beatles, but the Beatles they are not.
 
Probably because they weren’t hard rock. They were pop and then later leaving into acid rock.
Right but that music is what was popular then. The Beatles were only pop for the early years. They shaped rock towards what it became there's no doubt about that.
 
Probably because they weren’t hard rock. They were pop and then later leaving into acid rock.

They could have done whatever they wanted.

Paul wrote "Granny" songs as John called them and also unleashed Helter Skelter which to this day is a pretty heavy/dark song. If John wanted to front a hard rock band he had the vocals to do it.