"Underappreciated Genius."
-
Beatlesfan94:
To put it bluntly, he isn't fully appreciated as a genius because he's still around. And I'm grateful that he's still making music. But Lennon is more often considered the musical genius - now anyways - is because he was taken away from us for no reason and the only thing we have is the music he left us. At least that's the way I see it. The worst part is that it's as if The Beatles is all he did and "Band on the Run" and songs of that sort just came out in some mysterious forgotten period of his career. Rarely is Paul ever the "ex-Wing". He's always the "ex-Beatle".
Let's not get carried away here. He's referred to most often as ex-Beatle (though one certainly does see Wings references) because the Beatles were by any measure vastly more important culturally than Wings or Paul's solo stuff. The '60s were a time of massive cultural change, and the Beatles were at the absolute center of it -- a rare and special confluence of this particular band of musicians coming along at a particular moment in the evolution of U.S. and European society. That sort of lightning just doesn't strike twice in a lifetime.
-
YES, THE FABS were the first 'super group' or 'super star group' or whatever you want to call it. buddy holly and the crickets were good but nowhere near the exalted status the beatles achieved. the beatles blazed the path, but nobody else burned up that path as sizzling hot as they burned
-
Been writing recently on the proposition that Paul may well be the best all 'round musician ever. If you look at his wide range of skills (writing, composing, singing, playing, arranging, and producing), I believe a very strong argument can be made, which I did this week at my blog place: http://rockguitardaily.blogspot.com/ My blog is always positive and about the love of guitar based music. Sorry to blatantly self promote, but if I didn't write it, I'd want to read it, and hope you will enjoy it. But, yeah,looking at all these facets, I believe my argument to be strong, and venture I'll receive little disagreement here, but it is a pretty valid point. cheers, tc
-
tony conley:
Been writing recently on the proposition that Paul may well be the best all 'round musician ever. If you look at his wide range of skills (writing, composing, singing, playing, arranging, and producing), I believe a very strong argument can be made, which I did this week at my blog place: http://rockguitardaily.blogspot.com/ My blog is always positive and about the love of guitar based music. Sorry to blatantly self promote, but if I didn't write it, I'd want to read it, and hope you will enjoy it. But, yeah,looking at all these facets, I believe my argument to be strong, and venture I'll receive little disagreement here, but it is a pretty valid point. cheers, tc
-
tony conley:
Been writing recently on the proposition that Paul may well be the best all 'round musician ever. If you look at his wide range of skills (writing, composing, singing, playing, arranging, and producing), I believe a very strong argument can be made, which I did this week at my blog place: http://rockguitardaily.blogspot.com/ My blog is always positive and about the love of guitar based music. Sorry to blatantly self promote, but if I didn't write it, I'd want to read it, and hope you will enjoy it. But, yeah,looking at all these facets, I believe my argument to be strong, and venture I'll receive little disagreement here, but it is a pretty valid point. cheers, tc
Well written article. Thank you.
-
Thanks, Tony! It's great to hear that coming from a musician. I was amazed with Paul's sweet accompaniment o the new Beatles songs done from John's demos. Free as a bird is amazing, the tender harmonies that don't take over John's lead vocal on it. As you say, a great team player despite his ability (tendency?) to dominate. You're right about how many different things he can do so well! When I compare his piano playing to my formally trained mom (first class honours on her grade eight exam, played with soul, to my ears) he easily matches up. Add in the element of his composing what he's playing and he's way beyond the norm. It's argueable whether or not those skills are properly recognised or not. There do seem to be writers, musicians, media people etc. who get it.
-
tony conley:
Been writing recently on the proposition that Paul may well be the best all 'round musician ever. If you look at his wide range of skills (writing, composing, singing, playing, arranging, and producing), I believe a very strong argument can be made, which I did this week at my blog place: http://rockguitardaily.blogspot.com/ My blog is always positive and about the love of guitar based music. Sorry to blatantly self promote, but if I didn't write it, I'd want to read it, and hope you will enjoy it. But, yeah,looking at all these facets, I believe my argument to be strong, and venture I'll receive little disagreement here, but it is a pretty valid point. cheers, tc
Great article, thanks for posting it. One thing I'll add (since you mentioned Paul as a 'team player' on songs by other members of the Beatles), I think John's 'Because' is transcended from just a run of the mill 'druggy' song to a brilliant piece of joy to the ears soley based on Paul's contributions to the harmonizing. Awesome is too much of an understatement in describing Paul's contribution is to that song.
-
rich n:
tony conley:
Been writing recently on the proposition that Paul may well be the best all 'round musician ever. If you look at his wide range of skills (writing, composing, singing, playing, arranging, and producing), I believe a very strong argument can be made, which I did this week at my blog place: http://rockguitardaily.blogspot.com/ My blog is always positive and about the love of guitar based music. Sorry to blatantly self promote, but if I didn't write it, I'd want to read it, and hope you will enjoy it. But, yeah,looking at all these facets, I believe my argument to be strong, and venture I'll receive little disagreement here, but it is a pretty valid point. cheers, tc
Great article, thanks for posting it. One thing I'll add (since you mentioned Paul as a 'team player' on songs by other members of the Beatles), I think John's 'Because' is transcended from just a run of the mill 'druggy' song to a brilliant piece of joy to the ears soley based on Paul's contributions to the harmonizing. Awesome is too much of an understatement in describing Paul's contribution is to that song.
I'm always amazed at Paul's magnificent contribution to George's, Something. The incredible bassline, the fabulous background vocsls. If isolated, it's a stunning glance at his skill as an accompaniest. There's example after example of this throughout the catalog. Why no one has written a book solely on McCartney's musicianship is beyond me. I'm not so interested in private lives and such. I used to run around with Denny Seiwell in Los Angeles, and Denny had endless great stories, but he always was most animated when speaking of Paul's musicianship. He played me his gold single of My Love once. Great, great guy. Swell drummer as well. We played blues/jazz at a place called Residuals once or twice.
-
tony conley:
Been writing recently on the proposition that Paul may well be the best all 'round musician ever. If you look at his wide range of skills (writing, composing, singing, playing, arranging, and producing), I believe a very strong argument can be made, which I did this week at my blog place: http://rockguitardaily.blogspot.com/ My blog is always positive and about the love of guitar based music. Sorry to blatantly self promote, but if I didn't write it, I'd want to read it, and hope you will enjoy it. But, yeah,looking at all these facets, I believe my argument to be strong, and venture I'll receive little disagreement here, but it is a pretty valid point. cheers, tc
Thanks for the great posts, tc, and welcome to the forum. Love your tagline, too!
-
I just "discovered" that there are isolated tracks out there from various Beatles songs(apparently there is a controversy over who sings the "aahhs" on A Day In The Life, I always assumed it was John but apparently some thing it sounds like Paul, with an echo and listening to the isolated track of the vocal track for a Day In the Life I can kind of see why(still not convinced but I can kind of get it) and we know Paul could "imitate" John's voice at times if he had so maybe that is what was going on. This is a slight point of contention between Geoff Emerick's book and that other guy, Ken something - because Geoff remembers Paul's vocal being dropped in before the aahhhs, whereas Ken says that never happened, there was no drop in, though he doesn't actually mention where Paul's vocal ends. But anyway, there is a vocal isolation track for "Ticket to Ride" and it's hard not to be impressed by Paul's harmony/backing vocal just listening to something like that - the notes he is hitting are so high. It was also interesting hearing a vocal isolation of his Back In The USSR vocal - he sounds great. But anyway, there was also a drum/bass isolation track for A Day In The Life and it's incredibly impressive. It really shows how much the bass and the drumming made that song - the instrumental track with the other non-orchestral instruments actually sounds "less" like a Day In the Life than the rhythm track does. Paul's bass playing really is amazing.
-
i think one of the strongest bits of evidence for paul being the superior to all his fellow beatles is the magic he could bring to the non mccartney songs. for example the bass lines to 'something' or 'come together'.or even the tape loops to 'strawberry fields'.what about his harmonies on 'dont let me down'.... the list goes on but you simply do not get the same input from 'john' for example on the 'paul' songs. im not critisizing the other beatles here,just stating fact.when you actually look at john or george doing a paul number like 'let it be' they actually look 'bored' and 'unimpressed'. there may be many reasons for this and i have no doubt paul could be very pushy and could at times be selfish with his song arrangements. perhaps the other beatles didnt have the same artistic license on his songs that he had on theirs? but there is no doubt that 'paul' was the 'glue' to the whole band.
-
lazydynamite88:
i think one of the strongest bits of evidence for paul being the superior to all his fellow beatles is the magic he could bring to the non mccartney songs. for example the bass lines to 'something' or 'come together'.or even the tape loops to 'strawberry fields'.what about his harmonies on 'dont let me down'.... the list goes on but you simply do not get the same input from 'john' for example on the 'paul' songs. im not critisizing the other beatles here,just stating fact.when you actually look at john or george doing a paul number like 'let it be' they actually look 'bored' and 'unimpressed'. there may be many reasons for this and i have no doubt paul could be very pushy and could at times be selfish with his song arrangements. perhaps the other beatles didnt have the same artistic license on his songs that he had on theirs? but there is no doubt that 'paul' was the 'glue' to the whole band.
That's why I would love to read a book that only discussed "the art/music" and not somuch about sneers , and boredom and such. That's the only problem I have with Geoff Emerick's book: that he comes off a bit the Paul apologist, and his lack of a relationship with George comes off rather snidely. Makes no one look good, and who cares if George took a long time tracking solos? Care, deliberation, note choices; some take longer to create than others. That's like complaining about the chef being meticulous - enjoy the great meal. More importantly, Look at the brilliant solo Paul played on Taxman. I can discuss Paul's great guitar work and willingness to pitch in without saying anything negative about anyone or anything. John played on very little of George's and Paul's later stuff because he really didn't have "the chops" to play through their more complex chord changes. His gifts were in other areas, certainly. I'm not gonna kick Lennon for not wanting to be a session guy. I believe it's possible to address the music without personal rancor, and that's speaking to existing books and articles, not these excellent posts.
-
tony conley:
lazydynamite88:
i think one of the strongest bits of evidence for paul being the superior to all his fellow beatles is the magic he could bring to the non mccartney songs. for example the bass lines to 'something' or 'come together'.or even the tape loops to 'strawberry fields'.what about his harmonies on 'dont let me down'.... the list goes on but you simply do not get the same input from 'john' for example on the 'paul' songs. im not critisizing the other beatles here,just stating fact.when you actually look at john or george doing a paul number like 'let it be' they actually look 'bored' and 'unimpressed'. there may be many reasons for this and i have no doubt paul could be very pushy and could at times be selfish with his song arrangements. perhaps the other beatles didnt have the same artistic license on his songs that he had on theirs? but there is no doubt that 'paul' was the 'glue' to the whole band.
That's why I would love to read a book that only discussed "the art/music" and not somuch about sneers , and boredom and such. That's the only problem I have with Geoff Emerick's book: that he comes off a bit the Paul apologist, and his lack of a relationship with George comes off rather snidely. Makes no one look good, and who cares if George took a long time tracking solos? Care, deliberation, note choices; some take longer to create than others. That's like complaining about the chef being meticulous - enjoy the great meal. More importantly, Look at the brilliant solo Paul played on Taxman. I can discuss Paul's great guitar work and willingness to pitch in without saying anything negative about anyone or anything. John played on very little of George's and Paul's later stuff because he really didn't have "the chops" to play through their more complex chord changes. His gifts were in other areas, certainly. I'm not gonna kick Lennon for not wanting to be a session guy. I believe it's possible to address the music without personal rancor, and that's speaking to existing books and articles, not these excellent posts.
I think in a later years interview with George, after the bitterness and resentment(in his case sometimes earned) had died down, he spoke about Paul's contributions to many of his songs in a positive light. Previously he'd made a few digs, because even I can admit neither Paul nor John really considered his stuff as seriously as they did their own and each others, and his focus was more on how hard he had to work to even get their attention, but in the end he seemed to think that when Paul did do the work he really gave his best to it and in the end it made those songs better songs.
-
Great blog Tony, so true about Paul, and especially regarding him as an accompaniest. he's so skilled and his sound is so polished in the studio, he gives anything he plays on that pro polish. I remember reading something where Lennon had joked to Harry Nilsson when the PussyCats sessions wrapped, ribbing him a bit, saying that the only thing that would make the record sound better was if Paul sang on it
-
high_wilusa:
I just "discovered" that there are isolated tracks out there from various Beatles songs(apparently there is a controversy over who sings the "aahhs" on A Day In The Life, I always assumed it was John but apparently some thing it sounds like Paul, with an echo and listening to the isolated track of the vocal track for a Day In the Life I can kind of see why(still not convinced but I can kind of get it) and we know Paul could "imitate" John's voice at times if he had so maybe that is what was going on. This is a slight point of contention between Geoff Emerick's book and that other guy, Ken something - because Geoff remembers Paul's vocal being dropped in before the aahhhs, whereas Ken says that never happened, there was no drop in, though he doesn't actually mention where Paul's vocal ends.
I never knew anything about this until I was playing Beatles Rock Band and saw John mouthing the "ahhh" part. Needless to say, I was pretty shocked because I always thought it was Paul. I found the isolated track and had a listen to it and am still convinced it's Paul. The beginning of the "ahhh" just screams Paul to me. Here's the link if anyone's interested..
-
BarbB:
high_wilusa:
I just "discovered" that there are isolated tracks out there from various Beatles songs(apparently there is a controversy over who sings the "aahhs" on A Day In The Life, I always assumed it was John but apparently some thing it sounds like Paul, with an echo and listening to the isolated track of the vocal track for a Day In the Life I can kind of see why(still not convinced but I can kind of get it) and we know Paul could "imitate" John's voice at times if he had so maybe that is what was going on. This is a slight point of contention between Geoff Emerick's book and that other guy, Ken something - because Geoff remembers Paul's vocal being dropped in before the aahhhs, whereas Ken says that never happened, there was no drop in, though he doesn't actually mention where Paul's vocal ends.
I never knew anything about this until I was playing Beatles Rock Band and saw John mouthing the "ahhh" part. Needless to say, I was pretty shocked because I always thought it was Paul. I found the isolated track and had a listen to it and am still convinced it's Paul. The beginning of the "ahhh" just screams Paul to me. Here's the link if anyone's interested..
Wow. I just love stuff like that. Incredibly instructive as well as interesting. So many people have the idea that songs are just recorded like they sound on the radio, and this type of thing is wonderful to show how records are (were) made. I wish bands were still as meticulous and creative in the studio. That's a great thing about The Beatles that got discussed in the brilliant book on what makes successes successful, Outliers. The fact that they put in the work. Their efforts are discussed at some length in the book,that pays specific attention to the fact that they spent countless hours honing their skills, which is as essential as any levelof talent. They're symbiotic. I'm endlessly fascinated by the art of recording. No one ever did it better, that much is for certain. Thanks for that, tc
-
tony conley:
BarbB:
high_wilusa:
I just "discovered" that there are isolated tracks out there from various Beatles songs(apparently there is a controversy over who sings the "aahhs" on A Day In The Life, I always assumed it was John but apparently some thing it sounds like Paul, with an echo and listening to the isolated track of the vocal track for a Day In the Life I can kind of see why(still not convinced but I can kind of get it) and we know Paul could "imitate" John's voice at times if he had so maybe that is what was going on. This is a slight point of contention between Geoff Emerick's book and that other guy, Ken something - because Geoff remembers Paul's vocal being dropped in before the aahhhs, whereas Ken says that never happened, there was no drop in, though he doesn't actually mention where Paul's vocal ends.
I never knew anything about this until I was playing Beatles Rock Band and saw John mouthing the "ahhh" part. Needless to say, I was pretty shocked because I always thought it was Paul. I found the isolated track and had a listen to it and am still convinced it's Paul. The beginning of the "ahhh" just screams Paul to me. Here's the link if anyone's interested..
Wow. I just love stuff like that. Incredibly instructive as well as interesting. So many people have the idea that songs are just recorded like they sound on the radio, and this type of thing is wonderful to show how records are (were) made. I wish bands were still as meticulous and creative in the studio. That's a great thing about The Beatles that got discussed in the brilliant book on what makes successes successful, Outliers. The fact that they put in the work. Their efforts are discussed at some length in the book,that pays specific attention to the fact that they spent countless hours honing their skills, which is as essential as any levelof talent. They're symbiotic. I'm endlessly fascinated by the art of recording. No one ever did it better, that much is for certain. Incidentally, it does sound like what Geoff Emerick described, that Paul had to get out before the Aaahhhs begin. Paul rushes, "and I went into a dream," a bit to my ears. Listen to how dry Paul's vocal is compared to the heavily effected aaaahhhhs, which are afloat with echo and reverbs. Thanks for that, tc
-
tony conley:
tony conley:
BarbB:
high_wilusa:
I just "discovered" that there are isolated tracks out there from various Beatles songs(apparently there is a controversy over who sings the "aahhs" on A Day In The Life, I always assumed it was John but apparently some thing it sounds like Paul, with an echo and listening to the isolated track of the vocal track for a Day In the Life I can kind of see why(still not convinced but I can kind of get it) and we know Paul could "imitate" John's voice at times if he had so maybe that is what was going on. This is a slight point of contention between Geoff Emerick's book and that other guy, Ken something - because Geoff remembers Paul's vocal being dropped in before the aahhhs, whereas Ken says that never happened, there was no drop in, though he doesn't actually mention where Paul's vocal ends.
I never knew anything about this until I was playing Beatles Rock Band and saw John mouthing the "ahhh" part. Needless to say, I was pretty shocked because I always thought it was Paul. I found the isolated track and had a listen to it and am still convinced it's Paul. The beginning of the "ahhh" just screams Paul to me. Here's the link if anyone's interested..
Wow. I just love stuff like that. Incredibly instructive as well as interesting. So many people have the idea that songs are just recorded like they sound on the radio, and this type of thing is wonderful to show how records are (were) made. I wish bands were still as meticulous and creative in the studio. That's a great thing about The Beatles that got discussed in the brilliant book on what makes successes successful, Outliers. The fact that they put in the work. Their efforts are discussed at some length in the book,that pays specific attention to the fact that they spent countless hours honing their skills, which is as essential as any levelof talent. They're symbiotic. I'm endlessly fascinated by the art of recording. No one ever did it better, that much is for certain. Incidentally, it does sound like what Geoff Emerick described, that Paul had to get out before the Aaahhhs begin. Paul rushes, "and I went into a dream," a bit to my ears. Listen to how dry Paul's vocal is compared to the heavily effected aaaahhhhs, which are afloat with echo and reverbs. Thanks for that, tc
True. But the beginning "ahhh" of Lovely Rita sounds identical, so could that be John as well?
-
tony conley:
tony conley:
BarbB:
high_wilusa:
I just "discovered" that there are isolated tracks out there from various Beatles songs(apparently there is a controversy over who sings the "aahhs" on A Day In The Life, I always assumed it was John but apparently some thing it sounds like Paul, with an echo and listening to the isolated track of the vocal track for a Day In the Life I can kind of see why(still not convinced but I can kind of get it) and we know Paul could "imitate" John's voice at times if he had so maybe that is what was going on. This is a slight point of contention between Geoff Emerick's book and that other guy, Ken something - because Geoff remembers Paul's vocal being dropped in before the aahhhs, whereas Ken says that never happened, there was no drop in, though he doesn't actually mention where Paul's vocal ends.
I never knew anything about this until I was playing Beatles Rock Band and saw John mouthing the "ahhh" part. Needless to say, I was pretty shocked because I always thought it was Paul. I found the isolated track and had a listen to it and am still convinced it's Paul. The beginning of the "ahhh" just screams Paul to me. Here's the link if anyone's interested..
Wow. I just love stuff like that. Incredibly instructive as well as interesting. So many people have the idea that songs are just recorded like they sound on the radio, and this type of thing is wonderful to show how records are (were) made. I wish bands were still as meticulous and creative in the studio. That's a great thing about The Beatles that got discussed in the brilliant book on what makes successes successful, Outliers. The fact that they put in the work. Their efforts are discussed at some length in the book,that pays specific attention to the fact that they spent countless hours honing their skills, which is as essential as any levelof talent. They're symbiotic. I'm endlessly fascinated by the art of recording. No one ever did it better, that much is for certain. Incidentally, it does sound like what Geoff Emerick described, that Paul had to get out before the Aaahhhs begin. Paul rushes, "and I went into a dream," a bit to my ears. Listen to how dry Paul's vocal is compared to the heavily effected aaaahhhhs, which are afloat with echo and reverbs. It's also great to hear paul laugh under his vocal at Lennon's pantings half way through. I also love hearing Paul count it in before his vocal. Great, great stuff. Thanks for that, tc
-
I always thought that Paul was self-taught on the piano, but somewhere I recently read that he had official lessons when he was young. Can anyone confirm?