Why did John dominate the Hard Day's Night album?
-
Nancy R:
^ That was extremely rude. I think Michelley made quite a few valid points.
Sure. Ok. Rude.
-
Michelley:
Nancy R:
^ That was extremely rude. I think Michelley made quite a few valid points.
Many Lennon fans wear blinders about him, and are so attached to this myth of him as "the leader" that they can't consider that the truth was far more complicated and subtle. Notice I didn't claim that John wasn't the leader. I simply showed that he wasn't the band's only leader. And in the case of the Beatles, the leadership of the band was collaborative, involving both John and Paul. They both led in different ways. They were both effective (and ineffective) in different ways. But neither one made any decision about the band without consulting the other. They were a team. A good example of Paul's influence, from the very beginning, can be seen in quotes from the Quarrymen (people like Rod Davis and Colin Hanton) who talk about how, sure, John was "the leader" but it wasn't until Paul joined the group that a band that had been purely about having fun became a career goal for John and Paul. It wasn't until Paul joined that the group got "professional." So you can cling to the notion of John as "the leader" but it was Paul who was the mover and shaker behind the scenes, and the person he most influenced was John. They were clearly co-leaders who played off each other to keep the band moving forward.
Yeah, but Paul fans don't have any blinders on. Right? Right! BTW, I am a Paul fan. But a REALISTIC one. John also influenced Paul. That might be hard to accept. But it is the truth.
-
RMartinez:
Michelley:
Nancy R:
^ That was extremely rude. I think Michelley made quite a few valid points.
Many Lennon fans wear blinders about him, and are so attached to this myth of him as "the leader" that they can't consider that the truth was far more complicated and subtle. Notice I didn't claim that John wasn't the leader. I simply showed that he wasn't the band's only leader. And in the case of the Beatles, the leadership of the band was collaborative, involving both John and Paul. They both led in different ways. They were both effective (and ineffective) in different ways. But neither one made any decision about the band without consulting the other. They were a team. A good example of Paul's influence, from the very beginning, can be seen in quotes from the Quarrymen (people like Rod Davis and Colin Hanton) who talk about how, sure, John was "the leader" but it wasn't until Paul joined the group that a band that had been purely about having fun became a career goal for John and Paul. It wasn't until Paul joined that the group got "professional." So you can cling to the notion of John as "the leader" but it was Paul who was the mover and shaker behind the scenes, and the person he most influenced was John. They were clearly co-leaders who played off each other to keep the band moving forward.
Yeah, but Paul fans don't have any blinders on. Right? Right! BTW, I am a Paul fan. But a REALISTIC one. John also influenced Paul. That might be hard to accept. But it is the truth.
Why are you so defensive? The rolled eyes? The dismissive "yeah sure" comments. That's no way to engage in a conversation. 1. Where did my post suggest that John didn't influence Paul? My whole point was that they SHARED leadership of the band. You were the one insisting that John was the one and only leader of the band until 1967 and that's just inaccurate. 2. Where did I say that Paul was the ONLY leader of the band? That clearly wasn't the case and I never said he was. I offered my theory, that I think is well supported by the facts, that John and Paul were both leaders, in different ways and in different styles. I think it's clear that John was the leader over George and Ringo, but John and Paul viewed each other as equals and, I argued, that Paul was often led (ie, influenced) John. I think the way John and Paul interacted, relied on each other, played off each other's strengths, competed with each other drove the band from the beginning. This idea that John was the leader and then Paul took over is mistaken. They very much shared leadership and then in 1967, Paul took over when John (facing personal, marital, drug problems) withdrew. Disagree all you want but dismissive comments and rolled-eyes emoticons aren't helping you make your case.
-
Michelley:
RMartinez:
Michelley:
Nancy R:
^ That was extremely rude. I think Michelley made quite a few valid points.
Many Lennon fans wear blinders about him, and are so attached to this myth of him as "the leader" that they can't consider that the truth was far more complicated and subtle. Notice I didn't claim that John wasn't the leader. I simply showed that he wasn't the band's only leader. And in the case of the Beatles, the leadership of the band was collaborative, involving both John and Paul. They both led in different ways. They were both effective (and ineffective) in different ways. But neither one made any decision about the band without consulting the other. They were a team. A good example of Paul's influence, from the very beginning, can be seen in quotes from the Quarrymen (people like Rod Davis and Colin Hanton) who talk about how, sure, John was "the leader" but it wasn't until Paul joined the group that a band that had been purely about having fun became a career goal for John and Paul. It wasn't until Paul joined that the group got "professional." So you can cling to the notion of John as "the leader" but it was Paul who was the mover and shaker behind the scenes, and the person he most influenced was John. They were clearly co-leaders who played off each other to keep the band moving forward.
Yeah, but Paul fans don't have any blinders on. Right? Right! BTW, I am a Paul fan. But a REALISTIC one. John also influenced Paul. That might be hard to accept. But it is the truth.
Why are you so defensive? The rolled eyes? The dismissive "yeah sure" comments. That's no way to engage in a conversation. 1. Where did my post suggest that John didn't influence Paul? My whole point was that they SHARED leadership of the band. You were the one insisting that John was the one and only leader of the band until 1967 and that's just inaccurate. 2. Where did I say that Paul was the ONLY leader of the band? That clearly wasn't the case and I never said he was. I offered my theory, that I think is well supported by the facts, that John and Paul were both leaders, in different ways and in different styles. I think it's clear that John was the leader over George and Ringo, but John and Paul viewed each other as equals and, I argued, that Paul was often led (ie, influenced) John. I think the way John and Paul interacted, relied on each other, played off each other's strengths, competed with each other drove the band from the beginning. This idea that John was the leader and then Paul took over is mistaken. They very much shared leadership and then in 1967, Paul took over when John (facing personal, marital, drug problems) withdrew. Disagree all you want but dismissive comments and rolled-eyes emoticons aren't helping you make your case.
I don't have to make a case. History speaks for itself. But just so I have this straight: according to you, from 1957 to 1966, Paul and John were equals who co-lead the Quarrymen, Johnny and the Moondogs, the Silver Beatles, and then the Beatles. Then, in 1967, Paul lead the Beatles. Got it.
-
RMartinez:
DrivinFan:
I'm not saying that Paul as the spokesperson was the "leader" of the group. It may have been John's group when Paul joined, but IMO once he did they were equal. Washington, D.C. video:
Well, in a sense so was George and Ringo....
NO WAY!!
-
RMartinez:
I don't have to make a case. History speaks for itself. But just so I have this straight: according to you, from 1957 to 1966, Paul and John were equals who co-lead the Quarrymen, Johnny and the Moondogs, the Silver Beatles, and then the Beatles. Then, in 1967, Paul lead the Beatles. Got it.
Anyone who knows anything about history knows it doesn't speak for itself, and interpretations change all the time. There was a time in the early 80s when people said things like "John Lennon WAS the Beatles" and now, thanks to plenty of Beatles research, we know that just wasn't true. I'm not so black-and-white as you seem to be on these matters. I don't think the partnership was always precisely 50-50. It was more of an ebb and flow between the two. But generally speaking the band was led by the odd partnership between John and Paul. John led by personality/bluster/aggression/charisma. Paul led by determination/charisma/confidence/diplomacy. John was the leader the others followed but Paul was the leader who got things done. One by one, Paul got the Quarryman he didn't think were good enough out of the band, and got George Harrison in. How much Paul was behind Stuart's departure and Pete Best's departure is still up for debate but the fact of the matter is, Paul didn't want either of them in the band and eventually they were gone. John wanted to stop touring long before 66, but the Beatles didn't stop touring until Paul was tired of it. John's style of leadership was, as Mark Lewisohn wrote in Tune in, often passive. He sat back and let things play out (like the feud between Stuart and Paul). And John had the charisma to keep George and Ringo in his circle. Paul didn't have to keep George and Ringo happy; all Paul had to do to get his way was convince John. If Paul convinced John, then George and Ringo came along with John. If Paul had managed to convince John to accept the Eastmans as the band's manager, then George and Ringo would have fallen in line and accepted them too. The whole dispute over Klein vs. Eastmans is a good example of the negative side of their shared leadership. (And of course Paul's neglect of George and Ringo would come back to haunt Paul later on.) John himself, in one of his 70s interviews, said things like "it was my band" but then he also said: "Me and Paul were the Beatles."
-
Michelley:
RMartinez:
I don't have to make a case. History speaks for itself. But just so I have this straight: according to you, from 1957 to 1966, Paul and John were equals who co-lead the Quarrymen, Johnny and the Moondogs, the Silver Beatles, and then the Beatles. Then, in 1967, Paul lead the Beatles. Got it.
Anyone who knows anything about history knows it doesn't speak for itself, and interpretations change all the time. There was a time in the early 80s when people said things like "John Lennon WAS the Beatles" and now, thanks to plenty of Beatles research, we know that just wasn't true. I'm not so black-and-white as you seem to be on these matters. I don't think the partnership was always precisely 50-50. It was more of an ebb and flow between the two. But generally speaking the band was led by the odd partnership between John and Paul. John led by personality/bluster/aggression/charisma. Paul led by determination/charisma/confidence/diplomacy. John was the leader the others followed but Paul was the leader who got things done. One by one, Paul got the Quarryman he didn't think were good enough out of the band, and got George Harrison in. How much Paul was behind Stuart's departure and Pete Best's departure is still up for debate but the fact of the matter is, Paul didn't want either of them in the band and eventually they were gone. John wanted to stop touring long before 66, but the Beatles didn't stop touring until Paul was tired of it. John's style of leadership was, as Mark Lewisohn wrote in Tune in, often passive. He sat back and let things play out (like the feud between Stuart and Paul). And John had the charisma to keep George and Ringo in his circle. Paul didn't have to keep George and Ringo happy; all Paul had to do to get his way was convince John. If Paul convinced John, then George and Ringo came along with John. If Paul had managed to convince John to accept the Eastmans as the band's manager, then George and Ringo would have fallen in line and accepted them too. The whole dispute over Klein vs. Eastmans is a good example of the negative side of their shared leadership. (And of course Paul's neglect of George and Ringo would come back to haunt Paul later on.) John himself, in one of his 70s interviews, said things like "it was my band" but then he also said: "Me and Paul were the Beatles."
-
John dominated on A Hard Day's Night because he was the leader of the Beatles at that time. And it is black and white!
-
RMartinez:
John dominated on A Hard Day's Night because he was the leader of the Beatles at that time. And it is black and white!
"There are none so blind as those who will not see." (I'm talking about you, in case that went over your head)
-
Nancy R:
RMartinez:
John dominated on A Hard Day's Night because he was the leader of the Beatles at that time. And it is black and white!
"There are none so blind as those who will not see." (I'm talking about you, in case that went over your head)
Lame. :
-
Michelley:
RMartinez:
I don't have to make a case. History speaks for itself. But just so I have this straight: according to you, from 1957 to 1966, Paul and John were equals who co-lead the Quarrymen, Johnny and the Moondogs, the Silver Beatles, and then the Beatles. Then, in 1967, Paul lead the Beatles. Got it.
Anyone who knows anything about history knows it doesn't speak for itself, and interpretations change all the time. There was a time in the early 80s when people said things like "John Lennon WAS the Beatles" and now, thanks to plenty of Beatles research, we know that just wasn't true. I'm not so black-and-white as you seem to be on these matters. I don't think the partnership was always precisely 50-50. It was more of an ebb and flow between the two. But generally speaking the band was led by the odd partnership between John and Paul. John led by personality/bluster/aggression/charisma. Paul led by determination/charisma/confidence/diplomacy. John was the leader the others followed but Paul was the leader who got things done. One by one, Paul got the Quarryman he didn't think were good enough out of the band, and got George Harrison in. How much Paul was behind Stuart's departure and Pete Best's departure is still up for debate but the fact of the matter is, Paul didn't want either of them in the band and eventually they were gone. John wanted to stop touring long before 66, but the Beatles didn't stop touring until Paul was tired of it. John's style of leadership was, as Mark Lewisohn wrote in Tune in, often passive. He sat back and let things play out (like the feud between Stuart and Paul). And John had the charisma to keep George and Ringo in his circle. Paul didn't have to keep George and Ringo happy; all Paul had to do to get his way was convince John. If Paul convinced John, then George and Ringo came along with John. If Paul had managed to convince John to accept the Eastmans as the band's manager, then George and Ringo would have fallen in line and accepted them too. The whole dispute over Klein vs. Eastmans is a good example of the negative side of their shared leadership. (And of course Paul's neglect of George and Ringo would come back to haunt Paul later on.) John himself, in one of his 70s interviews, said things like "it was my band" but then he also said: "Me and Paul were the Beatles."
John's style of leadership, as you point out, was sometimes passive. Yes, he would sit back and see what happened. But even you make the point HE WAS THE LEADER. The others followed. Yes, Paul exerted some influence, but the others did not follow him. Paul was always concerned, as you point out, with getting John to do what he wanted since he knew John was the leader, and he had to get John on board if he was going to get his way.
-
RMartinez:
John's style of leadership, as you point out, was sometimes passive. Yes, he would sit back and see what happened. But even you make the point HE WAS THE LEADER. The others followed. Yes, Paul exerted some influence, but the others did not follow him. Paul was always concerned, as you point out, with getting John to do what he wanted since he knew John was the leader, and he had to get John on board if he was going to get his way.
Which is why I said that John was the leader of George and Ringo, and Paul was the leader of John. Thanks for helping me make my case. Paul's strategy -- to influence the band by influencing John -- IS leadership. What does it matter if you're publicly seen as "the leader" when you're getting the band to do things your way behind the scenes? Paul didn't want to be seen as the leader. He just wanted to share power with John. And he did.
-
Michelley:
RMartinez:
John's style of leadership, as you point out, was sometimes passive. Yes, he would sit back and see what happened. But even you make the point HE WAS THE LEADER. The others followed. Yes, Paul exerted some influence, but the others did not follow him. Paul was always concerned, as you point out, with getting John to do what he wanted since he knew John was the leader, and he had to get John on board if he was going to get his way.
Which is why I said that John was the leader of George and Ringo, and Paul was the leader of John. Thanks for helping me make my case. Paul's strategy -- to influence the band by influencing John -- IS leadership. What does it matter if you're publicly seen as "the leader" when you're getting the band to do things your way behind the scenes? Paul didn't want to be seen as the leader. He just wanted to share power with John. And he did.
Your case is ridiculous. But keep believing that if it makes you feel better.
-
RMartinez:
Michelley:
RMartinez:
John's style of leadership, as you point out, was sometimes passive. Yes, he would sit back and see what happened. But even you make the point HE WAS THE LEADER. The others followed. Yes, Paul exerted some influence, but the others did not follow him. Paul was always concerned, as you point out, with getting John to do what he wanted since he knew John was the leader, and he had to get John on board if he was going to get his way.
Which is why I said that John was the leader of George and Ringo, and Paul was the leader of John. Thanks for helping me make my case. Paul's strategy -- to influence the band by influencing John -- IS leadership. What does it matter if you're publicly seen as "the leader" when you're getting the band to do things your way behind the scenes? Paul didn't want to be seen as the leader. He just wanted to share power with John. And he did.
Your case is ridiculous. But keep believing that if it makes you feel better.
And you really have no understanding of leadership. But keep John up on that pedestal if it makes you feel better.
-
Michelley:
RMartinez:
Michelley:
RMartinez:
John's style of leadership, as you point out, was sometimes passive. Yes, he would sit back and see what happened. But even you make the point HE WAS THE LEADER. The others followed. Yes, Paul exerted some influence, but the others did not follow him. Paul was always concerned, as you point out, with getting John to do what he wanted since he knew John was the leader, and he had to get John on board if he was going to get his way.
Which is why I said that John was the leader of George and Ringo, and Paul was the leader of John. Thanks for helping me make my case. Paul's strategy -- to influence the band by influencing John -- IS leadership. What does it matter if you're publicly seen as "the leader" when you're getting the band to do things your way behind the scenes? Paul didn't want to be seen as the leader. He just wanted to share power with John. And he did.
Your case is ridiculous. But keep believing that if it makes you feel better.
And you really have no understanding of leadership. But keep John up on that pedestal if it makes you feel better.
I just don't agree with you. Get over it.
-
RMartinez:
I just don't agree with you. Get over it.
Get over what? I don't care if you agree with me. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
-
RMartinez:
Nancy R:
RMartinez:
John dominated on A Hard Day's Night because he was the leader of the Beatles at that time. And it is black and white!
"There are none so blind as those who will not see." (I'm talking about you, in case that went over your head)
Lame. :
I know you are.
-
Nancy R:
RMartinez:
Nancy R:
RMartinez:
John dominated on A Hard Day's Night because he was the leader of the Beatles at that time. And it is black and white!
"There are none so blind as those who will not see." (I'm talking about you, in case that went over your head)
Lame. :
I know you are.
I know YOU are, but what am I???
-
RMartinez:
Nancy R:
RMartinez:
Nancy R:
RMartinez:
John dominated on A Hard Day's Night because he was the leader of the Beatles at that time. And it is black and white!
"There are none so blind as those who will not see." (I'm talking about you, in case that went over your head)
Lame. :
I know you are.
I know YOU are, but what am I???
At this point, very annoying.
-
Nancy R:
RMartinez:
Nancy R:
RMartinez:
Nancy R:
RMartinez:
John dominated on A Hard Day's Night because he was the leader of the Beatles at that time. And it is black and white!
"There are none so blind as those who will not see." (I'm talking about you, in case that went over your head)
Lame. :
I know you are.
I know YOU are, but what am I???
At this point, very annoying.