Why did John dominate the Hard Day's Night album?
-
This thread has become childish and off-topic. John Lennon was the creator and the leader of The Beatles. It was also a four-way democracy. No attempt at revisionism will ever change that fact.
-
beatlesfanrandy:
This thread has become childish and off-topic. John Lennon was the creator and the leader of The Beatles. It was also a four-way democracy. No attempt at revisionism will ever change that fact.
Except that isn't a "fact." It's your interpretation. And what's childish is people who are completely unwilling to consider other equally valid interpretations without resorting to eye-rolling and defensive posts. The idea that John was the one and only leader of the Beatles is belied by countless examples of how John and Paul shared the decision making and how Paul was the musical director of the band in the studio. Taking the lead of a band in the studio -- you know, the place where a band actually creates music -- IS leadership.
-
Michelley:
beatlesfanrandy:
This thread has become childish and off-topic. John Lennon was the creator and the leader of The Beatles. It was also a four-way democracy. No attempt at revisionism will ever change that fact.
Except that isn't a "fact." It's your interpretation. And what's childish is people who are completely unwilling to consider other equally valid interpretations without resorting to eye-rolling and defensive posts. The idea that John was the one and only leader of the Beatles is belied by countless examples of how John and Paul shared the decision making and how Paul was the musical director of the band in the studio. Taking the lead of a band in the studio -- you know, the place where a band actually creates music -- IS leadership.
:
-
From The Beatles: All These Years Vol. 1, Tune In by Mark Lewisohn: Pg. 224 He noticed how John, the arty one, "looked and acted the leader from the start," and how he alone decided where they would play "while Paul and George hovered in the background silently agreeing." Pg. 690 Neil would often emphasize (sometimes finger-proddingly) that there was once essential key to understanding the Beatles' psychological constitution, as true in 1962 as it would be in the twenty-first century. He called it "the Chain." John brought in Paul, and Paul brought in George, and George brought in Ringo. John, Paul, George, and Ringo doesn't just trip nicely off the tongue, it was (is) a natural order, and connections of great intricacy wend within and without its links. It was vital the newcomer quickly acquire a sense of John Winston Lennon - the tempraments, crips and the exquisitely or brutally facetious humor. Actually, though, the leader of the gang viewed Ringo with some sense of awe. Mark also points to the unique relationship John and Paul had, at times equals who complimented each other musically and personality-wise. But nowhere is Paul ever written about as the leader with John being his second in command. Ever.
-
My view on who was the leader won't be earth-shattering, will be very predictable. No doubt it started as John's band. From its origin, in different incarnations, through the massive wave of Beatlemania. But in the last three to four to five years, it was John and Paul as equal leaders. Might've started turning with "Yesterday". They were both leaders from their post-"Beatlemania" days... and Paul, whether or not he was the spiritual leader, was the guiding light in their last 3-4 years. He was a true leader, took it on himself to steer the ship. John may have still thought he was the leader, but Paul was doing all the leading. And John seemed quite comfortable/complacent having that happen. No doubt, John became rather impassive.... well, I even discount that, cos he still had an ego. But Paul was the driver of John's bus. And I think John always knew Paul was his equal a long time before. A long, long time before. I think John was happy for Paul to be his co-leader. And knew he was. Probably at times considered himself to be his "follower". Either way, I love both of them. Equally.
-
toris:
My view on who was the leader won't be earth-shattering, will be very predictable. No doubt it started as John's band. From its origin, in different incarnations, through the massive wave of Beatlemania. But in the last three to four to five years, it was John and Paul as equal leaders. Might've started turning with "Yesterday". They were both leaders from their post-"Beatlemania" days... and Paul, whether or not he was the spiritual leader, was the guiding light in their last 3-4 years. He was a true leader, took it on himself to steer the ship. John may have still thought he was the leader, but Paul was doing all the leading. And John seemed quite comfortable/complacent having that happen. No doubt, John became rather impassive.... well, I even discount that, cos he still had an ego. But Paul was the driver of John's bus. And I think John always knew Paul was his equal a long time before. A long, long time before. I think John was happy for Paul to be his co-leader. And knew he was. Probably at times considered himself to be his "follower". Either way, I love both of them. Equally.
I agree. Paul did take over around Sgt. Pepper's/Magical Mystery Tour. But he did not wrestle the leadership role from John. Lennon was already with Yoko and doing drugs, which created a vacancy. Paul gladly filled in. But you are correct. John was not a passive player. Paul could not have started running the ship unless John let him. John had other interests. And Paul has a strong personality and loads of talent. That helped! It was a complicated dynamic. Even George and Ringo were very much involved in the Beatle machine. Hardly passive players. You couldn't be, if you were going to be in a band with John.
-
toris:
My view on who was the leader won't be earth-shattering, will be very predictable. No doubt it started as John's band. From its origin, in different incarnations, through the massive wave of Beatlemania. But in the last three to four to five years, it was John and Paul as equal leaders. Might've started turning with "Yesterday". They were both leaders from their post-"Beatlemania" days... and Paul, whether or not he was the spiritual leader, was the guiding light in their last 3-4 years. He was a true leader, took it on himself to steer the ship. John may have still thought he was the leader, but Paul was doing all the leading. And John seemed quite comfortable/complacent having that happen. No doubt, John became rather impassive.... well, I even discount that, cos he still had an ego. But Paul was the driver of John's bus. And I think John always knew Paul was his equal a long time before. A long, long time before. I think John was happy for Paul to be his co-leader. And knew he was. Probably at times considered himself to be his "follower". Either way, I love both of them. Equally.
-
In any event, I thought it was a great album!
-
John dominated AHDN cos he was a COOL MOFO.
-
moptops:
John dominated AHDN cos he was a COOL MOFO.
-
Maybe because Sir Paul didn't present more songs. All I know is that their schedule that time was incredibly hectic and they originally intended to record 14 songs but as they were about to record George's "You Know What To Do" Ringo felt ill with tonsillitis. And the song ended up on Anthology 1 in demo or rehearsal form.
-
From "The Beatles Lyrics" (2014), by their official biographer Hunter Davies - "Ten out of thirteen tracks were John songs - i.e. mainly written by him, and sung by him - an indication that he was still very much the leader, as he had been since the beginning."
-
Paul might have been taking it all in while not wanting to take the spotlight before he was ready.
-
We're not the only ones to have this discussion: http://abbeyrd.proboards.com/thread/4717/paul-says-john-leader-beatles Still lots of divergent opinions, but someone quotes Paul's "Many Years From Now" book where he says that John was the leader and Paul was always content to be second. (To me, that doesn't really explain "Magical Mystery Tour," but there you go.) Someone else says that in Geoff Emerick's book, he says that the first song recorded for any of their albums was a John song, and that set the tone for the whole record. I think the truth is more complicated, but interesting points anyway.
-
Yeah, a lot of interesting theories here.
-
JoeySmith:
John wrote 10.5 (John wrote the middle 8 of 'And I Love Her') of the 13 songs! Was Paul's skills not up to par yet? Was he too intimidated? For the most part, all the Beatles albums had a rough split between the two of them, expect this one.
I dont think it was intended to be that way. I remember reading somewhere Paul was at Jane's house or much living a his new love story. till 1966 Revolver, John has always written a couple of songs in albums more than Paul (remember with the Beatles) and this is I guess part of John's character to say "I'm the leader" which he was in a way. Paul's talent could not be overshadowed more by 1965, he was the more melodic, his songs reached every generation and his voice beauty and range was sometimes preferred on John's lovely voice. back to the point of the subject: if you are considering John wrote half of "And I love her" I will say George wrote the other half by his significant intro guitar. Paul left with nothing things does not count this way. Ahard days night's Paul middle 8 is much more obvious and stronger than John's input in "And I love her" that period the Lennon-McCartney composition relation was very strong. while I believe that Paul was busy (a bit) with his new love on this album, John would have never put the song in studio without Paul's review and touches. and vice versa. my personal opinion : "And I love her" "Can't buy me love" are the greatest songs on album.
-
Ammar:
JoeySmith:
John wrote 10.5 (John wrote the middle 8 of 'And I Love Her') of the 13 songs! Was Paul's skills not up to par yet? Was he too intimidated? For the most part, all the Beatles albums had a rough split between the two of them, expect this one.
I dont think it was intended to be that way. I remember reading somewhere Paul was at Jane's house or much living a his new love story. till 1966 Revolver, John has always written a couple of songs in albums more than Paul (remember with the Beatles) and this is I guess part of John's character to say "I'm the leader" which he was in a way. Paul's talent could not be overshadowed more by 1965, he was the more melodic, his songs reached every generation and his voice beauty and range was sometimes preferred on John's lovely voice. back to the point of the subject: if you are considering John wrote half of "And I love her" I will say George wrote the other half by his significant intro guitar. Paul left with nothing things does not count this way. Ahard days night's Paul middle 8 is much more obvious and stronger than John's input in "And I love her" that period the Lennon-McCartney composition relation was very strong. while I believe that Paul was busy (a bit) with his new love on this album, John would have never put the song in studio without Paul's review and touches. and vice versa. my personal opinion : "And I love her" "Can't buy me love" are the greatest songs on album.
Paul did not write the middle 8 of A Hard Days Night. John wrote the whole song, he just had Paul sing the middle part because Paul had a higher voice and could hit the notes easier. And I Love Her and Can't Buy Me Love are great songs. But so are A Hard Days Night, If I Fell, I Should Have Known Better, I'll Be Back, You Can't Do That, hell, John even wrote a song for George to sing: I'm Happy Just To Dance With You! He was BUSY!!
-
RMartinez:
Ammar:
JoeySmith:
John wrote 10.5 (John wrote the middle 8 of 'And I Love Her') of the 13 songs! Was Paul's skills not up to par yet? Was he too intimidated? For the most part, all the Beatles albums had a rough split between the two of them, expect this one.
I dont think it was intended to be that way. I remember reading somewhere Paul was at Jane's house or much living a his new love story. till 1966 Revolver, John has always written a couple of songs in albums more than Paul (remember with the Beatles) and this is I guess part of John's character to say "I'm the leader" which he was in a way. Paul's talent could not be overshadowed more by 1965, he was the more melodic, his songs reached every generation and his voice beauty and range was sometimes preferred on John's lovely voice. back to the point of the subject: if you are considering John wrote half of "And I love her" I will say George wrote the other half by his significant intro guitar. Paul left with nothing things does not count this way. Ahard days night's Paul middle 8 is much more obvious and stronger than John's input in "And I love her" that period the Lennon-McCartney composition relation was very strong. while I believe that Paul was busy (a bit) with his new love on this album, John would have never put the song in studio without Paul's review and touches. and vice versa. my personal opinion : "And I love her" "Can't buy me love" are the greatest songs on album.
Paul did not write the middle 8 of A Hard Days Night. John wrote the whole song, he just had Paul sing the middle part because Paul had a higher voice and could hit the notes easier. And I Love Her and Can't Buy Me Love are great songs. But so are A Hard Days Night, If I Fell, I Should Have Known Better, I'll Be Back, You Can't Do That, hell, John even wrote a song for George to sing: I'm Happy Just To Dance With You! He was BUSY!!
John's songs you mentioned are great and I love them. Again my own opinion "And I love her" "Can't buy me love" are the greatest songs on album.
-
Ammar:
John's songs you mentioned are great and I love them. Again my own opinion "And I love her" "Can't buy me love" are the greatest songs on album.
IMO the greatest are I Should Have Known Better and If I Fell. So to each his own.
-
Funny to think that if the lads stopped to quibble over who would get credited with what percentage of every note on every song, they might not have stuck together. But we like to have a go at trying to figure it all out.