Why did John dominate the Hard Day's Night album?
-
So I expect you don?t like John?s seventies interviews because they are the product of revisionist history too. He basically rewrote Beatles History (changing his views and comments drastically in many cases) several times in the seventies (with his polemic Rolling Stone Interview, Hit Parader and Playboy Interview). Why Paul didn?t talk about The Beatles songs in the seventies?. First because, unlike John, he didn?t want to talk extensively about The Beatles, he wanted to talk about first and foremost about Wings. And, at that time, even if the critics hated the band, Wings was one the most successful groups of the world. Unlike Lennon, nobody asked to do an interview song by song . In 1984, when Playboy Magazine invited Paul to talk about The Beatles songs, he did it, but the interview was much shorter than Lennon?s. Third, he probably didn?t want to start another media battle after the recent Beatles Breakup war. I said in an earlier post: In the seventies, Paul was very busy promoting and selling millions of records, defending Wings of the critics and conquering the world again. He only saw the real need of set the record straight about his contributions to The Beatles songs? when Lennon died. Why? Because immediately after John was shot, everybody began to write books taking Lennon`s version of the Beatles history as the only one, ?the truth? (even if his comments sometimes don?t match or left many doubts and questions) and declaring Lennon as the only and true genius of the band. So understandably, Paul finally gave his version and defended his contributions to the band. It doesn?t matter if some rabid Lennon?s fans call him a liar or an opportunist, McCartney?s decision to reveal his version (IMHO, it?s not flawless but more consistent, credible and detailed than Lennon?s) put him again in the same league as Lennon in The Beatles history and public perception. And I think is fair, because Paul was as important as John for the success of the band. In 1988, William Holding wrote in his book Beatlesongs, in which he gave inaccurate percentages to indicate the authorship of The Beatles songs, ? It should be noted that Lennon?s total was helped by his many interviews in which he noted his contributions in writing parts of songs. McCartney has been less revealing ( more modest?) and many of his contributions to Lennon songs are not known?. Paul noticed that, and eventually get tired of people like you, the kind of fans and ?Beatles experts? who take John?s version of the history as the one and only true, so he decided to finally let know his side of the history in the book Many Years From Now. PAUL: I'd like to say this is just as I remember it, if it hurts anyone or any families of anyone who've got a different memory of it. Let me say first off, before you read this book even, that I loved John. Lest it be seen that I'm trying to do my own kind of revisionism, I'd like to register the fact that John was great, he was absolutely wonderful and I did love him. I was very happy to work with him and I'm still a fan to this day. So this is merely my opinion. I'm not trying to take anything away from him. All I'm saying is that I have my side of the affair as well, hence this book. When George Harrison wrote his life story I Me Mine, he hardly mentioned John. In my case I wouldn't want to leave him out. John and I were two of the luckiest people in the twentieth century to have found each other. The partnership, the mix, was incredible. We both had submerged qualities that we each saw and knew. I had to be the bastard as well as the nice melodic one and John had to have a warm and loving side for me to stand him all those years. John and I would never have stood each other for that length of time had we been just one-dimensional. PAUL: A body of work was produced that I don't believe he alone could have produced, or I alone could have produced. It was only me that sat in those hotel rooms, in his house in the attic; it wasn't Yoko, it wasn't Sean, it wasn't Julian, it wasn't George, it wasn't Mimi, it wasn't Ringo, it wasn't Miles. It was me that sat in those rooms, seeing him in all his moods and all his little things, seeing him not being able to write a song, and having me help, seeing me not able to write a song and him help me. The truth of the matter is, John and I were kind of equal. It really did pan itself out about equal. That's one of the amazing things about it. People can say, 'Oh, well, it wasn't Paul, it was John, or it wasn't John it was Paul,' but I who was there know that's not true, the other Beatles know mat's not true. So much of it was team effort, joint effort, there really was so much of it. Paul took it shit from everybody, even George Martin: Confusion over Paul's work in the Beatles sometimes extends to the Inner Circle. Paul even had to assure George Martin that he had co-written 'Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds'. 'I remember going to John's house and him showing me Julian's drawing [from school], and John saying: "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds. Good title, eh?" And we wrote it: it's John and me doing something like a Lewis Carroll. Now, John will have told George Martin that he had this great new song. He won't have told him: "Hey, yesterday Paul came to my house and we wrote it together." You don't. You just say: "I've got this new one." George would say: "Super, John, it's lovely." And he would assume it's John's song. In a recent book by George [Martin] it very nearly went down as one of John's solo compositions. So I find myself these days trying to fight for some of the credit, particularly because John's died in such crazy circumstances.' ( excerpt from the book Yesterday and Today by Ray Coleman). This happened before Many Years from Now . Controversial, but doesn?t mean false. In Lennon?s Playboy and Hit Parader interviews you can count in one hand the songs in which John mentioned any help from Paul in his songs. But on the other hand, John said he helped Paul in a lot of songs. That?s not only controversial but surely inexact and unfair too. You really think that McCartney only helped John in five or six songs? In the book Many years from now, Paul?s finally revealed his contributions to John?s songs, because Lennon never did. Many John?s fans obviously didn?t like that, but doesn?t mean that McCartney is not telling the true. At least, Paul was there, they don?t. It?s ok if you believe more in John?s version, but any of us were there. Paul was there, John was there, we can only speculate what really happened. John Lennon said to Playboy: ?it?s easier to say what I gave to him than what he gave to me. And he?d say the same.? And That?s true. But what is sad is many people (mostly John?s fans like you) don?t understand that. They want to think that Paul is making up the history and exaggerating his contributions to The Beatles songs. In the book Many Years From Now, Paul is telling his side of the story (like John did it in the Playboy Interviews), because Lennon never really wanted or cared to talk about Paul?s contributions to his songs. Both versions , Paul?s and John?s, surely are imperfect, but both versions should have the same respect.
-
eusse:
So I expect you don?t like John?s seventies interviews because they are the product of revisionist history too. He basically rewrote Beatles History (changing his views and comments drastically in many cases) several times in the seventies (with his polemic Rolling Stone Interview, Hit Parader and Playboy Interview). Why Paul didn?t talk about The Beatles songs in the seventies?. First because, unlike John, he didn?t want to talk extensively about The Beatles, he wanted to talk about first and foremost about Wings. And, at that time, even if the critics hated the band, Wings was one the most successful groups of the world. Unlike Lennon, nobody asked to do an interview song by song . In 1984, when Playboy Magazine invited Paul to talk about The Beatles songs, he did it, but the interview was much shorter than Lennon?s. Third, he probably didn?t want to start another media battle after the recent Beatles Breakup war. I said in an earlier post: In the seventies, Paul was very busy promoting and selling millions of records, defending Wings of the critics and conquering the world again. He only saw the real need of set the record straight about his contributions to The Beatles songs? when Lennon died. Why? Because immediately after John was shot, everybody began to write books taking Lennon`s version of the Beatles history as the only one, ?the truth? (even if his comments sometimes don?t match or left many doubts and questions) and declaring Lennon as the only and true genius of the band. So understandably, Paul finally gave his version and defended his contributions to the band. It doesn?t matter if some rabid Lennon?s fans call him a liar or an opportunist, McCartney?s decision to reveal his version (IMHO, it?s not flawless but more consistent, credible and detailed than Lennon?s) put him again in the same league as Lennon in The Beatles history and public perception. And I think is fair, because Paul was as important as John for the success of the band. In 1988, William Holding wrote in his book Beatlesongs, in which he gave inaccurate percentages to indicate the authorship of The Beatles songs, ? It should be noted that Lennon?s total was helped by his many interviews in which he noted his contributions in writing parts of songs. McCartney has been less revealing ( more modest?) and many of his contributions to Lennon songs are not known?. Paul noticed that, and eventually get tired of people like you, the kind of fans and ?Beatles experts? who take John?s version of the history as the one and only true, so he decided to finally let know his side of the history in the book Many Years From Now. PAUL: I'd like to say this is just as I remember it, if it hurts anyone or any families of anyone who've got a different memory of it. Let me say first off, before you read this book even, that I loved John. Lest it be seen that I'm trying to do my own kind of revisionism, I'd like to register the fact that John was great, he was absolutely wonderful and I did love him. I was very happy to work with him and I'm still a fan to this day. So this is merely my opinion. I'm not trying to take anything away from him. All I'm saying is that I have my side of the affair as well, hence this book. When George Harrison wrote his life story I Me Mine, he hardly mentioned John. In my case I wouldn't want to leave him out. John and I were two of the luckiest people in the twentieth century to have found each other. The partnership, the mix, was incredible. We both had submerged qualities that we each saw and knew. I had to be the b**tard as well as the nice melodic one and John had to have a warm and loving side for me to stand him all those years. John and I would never have stood each other for that length of time had we been just one-dimensional. PAUL: A body of work was produced that I don't believe he alone could have produced, or I alone could have produced. It was only me that sat in those hotel rooms, in his house in the attic; it wasn't Yoko, it wasn't Sean, it wasn't Julian, it wasn't George, it wasn't Mimi, it wasn't Ringo, it wasn't Miles. It was me that sat in those rooms, seeing him in all his moods and all his little things, seeing him not being able to write a song, and having me help, seeing me not able to write a song and him help me. The truth of the matter is, John and I were kind of equal. It really did pan itself out about equal. That's one of the amazing things about it. People can say, 'Oh, well, it wasn't Paul, it was John, or it wasn't John it was Paul,' but I who was there know that's not true, the other Beatles know mat's not true. So much of it was team effort, joint effort, there really was so much of it. Paul took it s**t from everybody, even George Martin: Confusion over Paul's work in the Beatles sometimes extends to the Inner Circle. Paul even had to assure George Martin that he had co-written 'Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds'. 'I remember going to John's house and him showing me Julian's drawing [from school], and John saying: "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds. Good title, eh?" And we wrote it: it's John and me doing something like a Lewis Carroll. Now, John will have told George Martin that he had this great new song. He won't have told him: "Hey, yesterday Paul came to my house and we wrote it together." You don't. You just say: "I've got this new one." George would say: "Super, John, it's lovely." And he would assume it's John's song. In a recent book by George [Martin] it very nearly went down as one of John's solo compositions. So I find myself these days trying to fight for some of the credit, particularly because John's died in such crazy circumstances.' ( excerpt from the book Yesterday and Today by Ray Coleman). This happened before Many Years from Now . Controversial, but doesn?t mean false. In Lennon?s Playboy and Hit Parader interviews you can count in one hand the songs in which John mentioned any help from Paul in his songs. But on the other hand, John said he helped Paul in a lot of songs. That?s not only controversial but surely inexact and unfair too. You really think that McCartney only helped John in five or six songs? In the book Many years from now, Paul?s finally revealed his contributions to John?s songs, because Lennon never did. Many John?s fans obviously didn?t like that, but doesn?t mean that McCartney is not telling the true. At least, Paul was there, they don?t. It?s ok if you believe more in John?s version, but any of us were there. Paul was there, John was there, we can only speculate what really happened. John Lennon said to Playboy: ?it?s easier to say what I gave to him than what he gave to me. And he?d say the same.? And That?s true. But what is sad is many people (mostly John?s fans like you) don?t understand that. They want to think that Paul is making up the history and exaggerating his contributions to The Beatles songs. In the book Many Years From Now, Paul is telling his side of the story (like John did it in the Playboy Interviews), because Lennon never really want or care to talk about Paul?s contributions to his songs. Both versions , Paul?s and John?s, surely are imperfect, but both versions should have the same respect.
Ok.
-
I'd love to have heard Paul sing "Nobody I Know" and "I Don't Want to See You Again." And "Step Inside Love," which can be heard but not very clearly on a bad video with him singing it. I wouldn't mind having heard him sing "Those Were the Days" which he would have done with great enthusiasm and conviction... The hits given to Peter and Gordon would not have fit in on the "Hard Days Night" album.
-
"A Hard Day's Night" album seemed dominated by Lennon 'cause Lennon was just so damn good at what he did, especially during that period--but Paul was catching up to him real fast And, later on, seemed to dominate, himself
-
eusse:
So I expect you don?t like John?s seventies interviews because they are the product of revisionist history too. He basically rewrote Beatles History (changing his views and comments drastically in many cases) several times in the seventies (with his polemic Rolling Stone Interview, Hit Parader and Playboy Interview). Why Paul didn?t talk about The Beatles songs in the seventies?. First because, unlike John, he didn?t want to talk extensively about The Beatles, he wanted to talk about first and foremost about Wings. And, at that time, even if the critics hated the band, Wings was one the most successful groups of the world. Unlike Lennon, nobody asked to do an interview song by song . In 1984, when Playboy Magazine invited Paul to talk about The Beatles songs, he did it, but the interview was much shorter than Lennon?s. Third, he probably didn?t want to start another media battle after the recent Beatles Breakup war. I said in an earlier post: In the seventies, Paul was very busy promoting and selling millions of records, defending Wings of the critics and conquering the world again. He only saw the real need of set the record straight about his contributions to The Beatles songs? when Lennon died. Why? Because immediately after John was shot, everybody began to write books taking Lennon`s version of the Beatles history as the only one, ?the truth? (even if his comments sometimes don?t match or left many doubts and questions) and declaring Lennon as the only and true genius of the band. So understandably, Paul finally gave his version and defended his contributions to the band. It doesn?t matter if some rabid Lennon?s fans call him a liar or an opportunist, McCartney?s decision to reveal his version (IMHO, it?s not flawless but more consistent, credible and detailed than Lennon?s) put him again in the same league as Lennon in The Beatles history and public perception. And I think is fair, because Paul was as important as John for the success of the band. In 1988, William Holding wrote in his book Beatlesongs, in which he gave inaccurate percentages to indicate the authorship of The Beatles songs, ? It should be noted that Lennon?s total was helped by his many interviews in which he noted his contributions in writing parts of songs. McCartney has been less revealing ( more modest?) and many of his contributions to Lennon songs are not known?. Paul noticed that, and eventually get tired of people like you, the kind of fans and ?Beatles experts? who take John?s version of the history as the one and only true, so he decided to finally let know his side of the history in the book Many Years From Now. PAUL: I'd like to say this is just as I remember it, if it hurts anyone or any families of anyone who've got a different memory of it. Let me say first off, before you read this book even, that I loved John. Lest it be seen that I'm trying to do my own kind of revisionism, I'd like to register the fact that John was great, he was absolutely wonderful and I did love him. I was very happy to work with him and I'm still a fan to this day. So this is merely my opinion. I'm not trying to take anything away from him. All I'm saying is that I have my side of the affair as well, hence this book. When George Harrison wrote his life story I Me Mine, he hardly mentioned John. In my case I wouldn't want to leave him out. John and I were two of the luckiest people in the twentieth century to have found each other. The partnership, the mix, was incredible. We both had submerged qualities that we each saw and knew. I had to be the b**tard as well as the nice melodic one and John had to have a warm and loving side for me to stand him all those years. John and I would never have stood each other for that length of time had we been just one-dimensional. PAUL: A body of work was produced that I don't believe he alone could have produced, or I alone could have produced. It was only me that sat in those hotel rooms, in his house in the attic; it wasn't Yoko, it wasn't Sean, it wasn't Julian, it wasn't George, it wasn't Mimi, it wasn't Ringo, it wasn't Miles. It was me that sat in those rooms, seeing him in all his moods and all his little things, seeing him not being able to write a song, and having me help, seeing me not able to write a song and him help me. The truth of the matter is, John and I were kind of equal. It really did pan itself out about equal. That's one of the amazing things about it. People can say, 'Oh, well, it wasn't Paul, it was John, or it wasn't John it was Paul,' but I who was there know that's not true, the other Beatles know mat's not true. So much of it was team effort, joint effort, there really was so much of it. Paul took it s**t from everybody, even George Martin: Confusion over Paul's work in the Beatles sometimes extends to the Inner Circle. Paul even had to assure George Martin that he had co-written 'Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds'. 'I remember going to John's house and him showing me Julian's drawing [from school], and John saying: "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds. Good title, eh?" And we wrote it: it's John and me doing something like a Lewis Carroll. Now, John will have told George Martin that he had this great new song. He won't have told him: "Hey, yesterday Paul came to my house and we wrote it together." You don't. You just say: "I've got this new one." George would say: "Super, John, it's lovely." And he would assume it's John's song. In a recent book by George [Martin] it very nearly went down as one of John's solo compositions. So I find myself these days trying to fight for some of the credit, particularly because John's died in such crazy circumstances.' ( excerpt from the book Yesterday and Today by Ray Coleman). This happened before Many Years from Now . Controversial, but doesn?t mean false. In Lennon?s Playboy and Hit Parader interviews you can count in one hand the songs in which John mentioned any help from Paul in his songs. But on the other hand, John said he helped Paul in a lot of songs. That?s not only controversial but surely inexact and unfair too. You really think that McCartney only helped John in five or six songs? In the book Many years from now, Paul?s finally revealed his contributions to John?s songs, because Lennon never did. Many John?s fans obviously didn?t like that, but doesn?t mean that McCartney is not telling the true. At least, Paul was there, they don?t. It?s ok if you believe more in John?s version, but any of us were there. Paul was there, John was there, we can only speculate what really happened. John Lennon said to Playboy: ?it?s easier to say what I gave to him than what he gave to me. And he?d say the same.? And That?s true. But what is sad is many people (mostly John?s fans like you) don?t understand that. They want to think that Paul is making up the history and exaggerating his contributions to The Beatles songs. In the book Many Years From Now, Paul is telling his side of the story (like John did it in the Playboy Interviews), because Lennon never really wanted or cared to talk about Paul?s contributions to his songs. Both versions , Paul?s and John?s, surely are imperfect, but both versions should have the same respect.
TLTR
-
RMartinez:
Again, he said it once John was gone. He never said that in 1974. Why not? I'm not into revisionist history.
Agreed.
-
RMartinez:
Well, I can come up with a bunch of quotes where Paul is saying something different than what has been said before in his favor. Mr. Kite is one example. I don't believe he had a thing to do with writing that. But now he says he did. Whatever. John helped on Eight Days a Week. But it was mainly a Paul song. Paul helped on Help! But it is mainly a John song. So Paul lost more than John in having Help! be the movie title song. For my part, I am extremely skeptical of Paul's new takes on who wrote what. They all seem to "correct" his being more involved with John's songs than the other direction. Which would not hold up in court. If I heard him say, "John may have helped on Yesterday" or "John actually wrote a verse of Let It Be" then I might take it to heart. But slowly, he keeps coming up with insights that, in fact, he helped write songs that have always been considered John songs. I raise my eyebrow to that. I'm not buying it. Especially since Paul is the author of some of the most amazing songs of this era. How much glory does one person need? HE even said that a few years ago when asked about the small royalty payment he gets for Yesterday. Add to that John is not even around to say anything. I doubt Paul would be saying these things if John was still around.
He has to stick his bib into almost everything.
-
For me, the answer is simple. John was the dominant force in the group, he was more prolific than Paul and his songwriting was stronger. Even on the next album (Beatles For Sale), John trumps Paul's efforts. Paul doesn't really come in to his own until Revolver. By Pepper the situation starts to become the opposite as John gets into drugs more heavily. By 1969, a whole lot of issues befell John (Yoko, divorce, heroin, car accident, peace campaigning, Beatle apathy) and his songwriting really dropped away, whilst Paul was in the ascendency. And I for one believe the songs they "gave away" in 1963/64 weren't up to standard to be considered for release on a Beatle record. From A Window, Love Of The Loved, Bad To Me etc are just formulaic throwaways and were more about pushing their publishing.
-
moptops:
RMartinez:
Again, he said it once John was gone. He never said that in 1974. Why not? I'm not into revisionist history.
Agreed.
McCartney-Lennon anyone?
-
moptops:
eusse:
So I expect you don?t like John?s seventies interviews because they are the product of revisionist history too. He basically rewrote Beatles History (changing his views and comments drastically in many cases) several times in the seventies (with his polemic Rolling Stone Interview, Hit Parader and Playboy Interview). Why Paul didn?t talk about The Beatles songs in the seventies?. First because, unlike John, he didn?t want to talk extensively about The Beatles, he wanted to talk about first and foremost about Wings. And, at that time, even if the critics hated the band, Wings was one the most successful groups of the world. Unlike Lennon, nobody asked to do an interview song by song . In 1984, when Playboy Magazine invited Paul to talk about The Beatles songs, he did it, but the interview was much shorter than Lennon?s. Third, he probably didn?t want to start another media battle after the recent Beatles Breakup war. I said in an earlier post: In the seventies, Paul was very busy promoting and selling millions of records, defending Wings of the critics and conquering the world again. He only saw the real need of set the record straight about his contributions to The Beatles songs? when Lennon died. Why? Because immediately after John was shot, everybody began to write books taking Lennon`s version of the Beatles history as the only one, ?the truth? (even if his comments sometimes don?t match or left many doubts and questions) and declaring Lennon as the only and true genius of the band. So understandably, Paul finally gave his version and defended his contributions to the band. It doesn?t matter if some rabid Lennon?s fans call him a liar or an opportunist, McCartney?s decision to reveal his version (IMHO, it?s not flawless but more consistent, credible and detailed than Lennon?s) put him again in the same league as Lennon in The Beatles history and public perception. And I think is fair, because Paul was as important as John for the success of the band. In 1988, William Holding wrote in his book Beatlesongs, in which he gave inaccurate percentages to indicate the authorship of The Beatles songs, ? It should be noted that Lennon?s total was helped by his many interviews in which he noted his contributions in writing parts of songs. McCartney has been less revealing ( more modest?) and many of his contributions to Lennon songs are not known?. Paul noticed that, and eventually get tired of people like you, the kind of fans and ?Beatles experts? who take John?s version of the history as the one and only true, so he decided to finally let know his side of the history in the book Many Years From Now. PAUL: I'd like to say this is just as I remember it, if it hurts anyone or any families of anyone who've got a different memory of it. Let me say first off, before you read this book even, that I loved John. Lest it be seen that I'm trying to do my own kind of revisionism, I'd like to register the fact that John was great, he was absolutely wonderful and I did love him. I was very happy to work with him and I'm still a fan to this day. So this is merely my opinion. I'm not trying to take anything away from him. All I'm saying is that I have my side of the affair as well, hence this book. When George Harrison wrote his life story I Me Mine, he hardly mentioned John. In my case I wouldn't want to leave him out. John and I were two of the luckiest people in the twentieth century to have found each other. The partnership, the mix, was incredible. We both had submerged qualities that we each saw and knew. I had to be the b**tard as well as the nice melodic one and John had to have a warm and loving side for me to stand him all those years. John and I would never have stood each other for that length of time had we been just one-dimensional. PAUL: A body of work was produced that I don't believe he alone could have produced, or I alone could have produced. It was only me that sat in those hotel rooms, in his house in the attic; it wasn't Yoko, it wasn't Sean, it wasn't Julian, it wasn't George, it wasn't Mimi, it wasn't Ringo, it wasn't Miles. It was me that sat in those rooms, seeing him in all his moods and all his little things, seeing him not being able to write a song, and having me help, seeing me not able to write a song and him help me. The truth of the matter is, John and I were kind of equal. It really did pan itself out about equal. That's one of the amazing things about it. People can say, 'Oh, well, it wasn't Paul, it was John, or it wasn't John it was Paul,' but I who was there know that's not true, the other Beatles know mat's not true. So much of it was team effort, joint effort, there really was so much of it. Paul took it s**t from everybody, even George Martin: Confusion over Paul's work in the Beatles sometimes extends to the Inner Circle. Paul even had to assure George Martin that he had co-written 'Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds'. 'I remember going to John's house and him showing me Julian's drawing [from school], and John saying: "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds. Good title, eh?" And we wrote it: it's John and me doing something like a Lewis Carroll. Now, John will have told George Martin that he had this great new song. He won't have told him: "Hey, yesterday Paul came to my house and we wrote it together." You don't. You just say: "I've got this new one." George would say: "Super, John, it's lovely." And he would assume it's John's song. In a recent book by George [Martin] it very nearly went down as one of John's solo compositions. So I find myself these days trying to fight for some of the credit, particularly because John's died in such crazy circumstances.' ( excerpt from the book Yesterday and Today by Ray Coleman). This happened before Many Years from Now . Controversial, but doesn?t mean false. In Lennon?s Playboy and Hit Parader interviews you can count in one hand the songs in which John mentioned any help from Paul in his songs. But on the other hand, John said he helped Paul in a lot of songs. That?s not only controversial but surely inexact and unfair too. You really think that McCartney only helped John in five or six songs? In the book Many years from now, Paul?s finally revealed his contributions to John?s songs, because Lennon never did. Many John?s fans obviously didn?t like that, but doesn?t mean that McCartney is not telling the true. At least, Paul was there, they don?t. It?s ok if you believe more in John?s version, but any of us were there. Paul was there, John was there, we can only speculate what really happened. John Lennon said to Playboy: ?it?s easier to say what I gave to him than what he gave to me. And he?d say the same.? And That?s true. But what is sad is many people (mostly John?s fans like you) don?t understand that. They want to think that Paul is making up the history and exaggerating his contributions to The Beatles songs. In the book Many Years From Now, Paul is telling his side of the story (like John did it in the Playboy Interviews), because Lennon never really wanted or cared to talk about Paul?s contributions to his songs. Both versions , Paul?s and John?s, surely are imperfect, but both versions should have the same respect.
TLTR
I had to google that! The first definition was the acronym of some Australian thing (Teaching and Learning Technology Resource)!!
-
Michelley:
RMartinez:
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 said something similar to this a while back and was jumped all over for it. But facts are facts. John dominated this LP. John and Paul were obviously very creative and even competitive, but I think another factor to consider is the Beatles were essentially John's band. Paul was not a co-leader, though he certainly exerted his influence on the group. As talented and as good looking as Paul was, he was second in command to John, whose charisma, raw talent, and sensitivity could never be overshadowed by Paul. Please note. This is in NO WAY a criticism of Paul, just a fact that John was running the show up until around 1967. Then things started shifting when Brian Epstein died and John started to focus his attention in the direction of Yoko. But it was only because John left open a power vacuum that Paul was able to start dominating in the Beatles. Even then John was able to rise up and produce amazing pieces like I Am The Walrus, Don't Let Me Down, Come Together, and so many other songs. One could also argue when John was in charge, it was a much more harmonious and smoother running ship than when Paul started to direct things.
John was certainly NOT "running the show up until around 1967." He didn't make the band decisions alone. He AND Paul consulted each other constantly. Many many Beatles books and John himself have said that. Sure, John was the charismatic leader of George and Ringo, who did pretty much whatever John decided. But Paul often went his own way -- refusing to move to Weybridge when John and the others did, refusing to do acid when John and the others did. Paul refused, in short, to be treated like one of John's followers. He was John's equal. If John was the leader of George and Ringo, then in many ways, Paul was the leader of John -- i.e., the one often influencing John and controlling things behind the scenes, the one John found impossible to control. Even when John thought he'd made a decision -- like refusing to record I Want to Hold Your Hand in German -- it was Paul who found a way to talk John into doing it. And so they recorded it in German. And as the Beatles first engineer, Norm Smith, was widely quoted as saying, Paul was the leader in the studio from the very beginning. He was the band's musical director and, as Norm Smith said, usually had most of the musical ideas. The leadership of the band in the early years was a very complicated partnership between John and Paul. And so long as they were getting along, the band ran smoothly. When they stopped getting along, the band dynamic didn't work. As for why A Hard Day's Night has so many John songs, Paul was clearly enjoying his social life in London with Jane Asher and not spending as much time writing songs as John was. I'm not sure there's much more to it than that. Paul was out and about in London, seeing and being seen. Personally I think John's dominance on AHDN is the big weakness of the album. Side 1 of AHDN is perfection. But Side 2 drags with way too many "John" songs that all sound the same. That's why Paul's Things We Said Today is the most memorable song on Side 2, which could have used another Paul song or a George song for more diversity that is a hallmark of the best Beatles albums.
You bring up some good points, Michelley I also have read many people who knew the Beatles say similar things regarding Paul being "the leader" behind the scenes. I think it was in one of Harry Benson's books (he was their photographer) that he said something to the effect: John publically seemed like the leader, but John looked to Paul when making decisions (I guess he means they made them together). In his opinion, Paul was more "the leader" IMO, I see them both as leaders, just in different ways. They both relied on one another when working together or making decisions. I see them as a team.
-
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."
Reading that line (I bolded) reminds me of something George said about getting Ringo settled in the Beatles. I forget where I read it, but I remember George saying that to help get Ringo settled into the band he had Ringo share a room with Paul, while he shared one with John when they were at hotels. I guess, George thought if Paul and Ringo didn't hit it off, there'd be a problem.
-
eusse:
RMartinez:
From 1970 to 1980, Lennon made claims of authorship and described the best he could who did what. He was human, so mistakes could be made. I don't remember McCartney contradicting Lennon at any point back then or taking issue. I am skeptical of any claims now that McCartney makes that radically challenge what we know. For starters, Lennon is long gone and cannot respond, so that is quite unfair. Second, why is Lennon's memory unreliable, but Paul's is not? He was taking the same drugs at the time, and marijuana use is known to cloud one's memory and thinking. I sometimes get the feeling Paul wants to rewrite history. He would have more credibility had he been saying these things in 1972 or 1975. Why would Lennon claim to write the middle part of And I Love Her if he didn't? McCartney now says he didn't. But I don't believe it.
Paul made these comments in 1994 in the book Many years from now ( published In 1997).Why he accepted to make that project? To let people know his version, after Lennon died, everybody took John's version as gospel( even when his memories are in many cases contradictory). Paul didnt answer John comments in the 70 s, because probably it wasn't the right time, he didn't want to start another media battle with John and he was very reluctant to talk about The Beatles, he was busy making Wings big. Ps: John claimed many things that weren't true and changed his memories frequently. For example, he said he wrote Norwegian wood and Day tripper alone. In early seventies interviews he accepted that Paul helped a lot in both songs- he even said that the middle eight of Norwegian Wood was Paul's- but in his last interview with Playboy he was enfatic that both songs were completely his. He also said that he wrote the 70 percent of the lyrics of Eleanor Rigby . Pete Shotton who was present when Paul showed the song to John and the others Beatles, said that John's contribution was virtually nil. McCartney also said, clearly upset, to Hunter Davies in 1981 (in a private conversation that later appered in 1985 version of his book The Beatles) "I saw somewhere that he says (John) he helped on Eleanor Rigby. Yeah. About half a line. He also forgot completely that I wrote the tune for In My Life. That was my tune. But perhaps he just made a mistake on that.?. Is ok if you don't believe in Paul, is your opinion. But is a fact, that in the seventies, Paul was very busy promoting and selling millions of records, defending Wings of the critics and conquering the world again. He only saw the real need of set the record straight about his contributions to The Beatles songs? when Lennon died. Why? Because immediately after John was shot, everybody began to write books taking Lennon`s version of the Beatles history as the only one, ?the truth? (even if his comments sometimes don?t match or left many doubts and questions) and declaring Lennon as the only and true genius of the band. So understandably, Paul finally gave his version and defended his contributions to the band. It doesn?t matter if some rabid Lennon?s fans call him a liar or an opportunist, McCartney?s decision to reveal his version (IMHO, it?s not flawless but more consistent, credible and detailed than Lennon?s) put him again in the same league as Lennon in The Beatles history and public perception. And I think is fair, because Paul was as important as John for the success of the band.
-
Pretty sad how some fans can't accept that John Lennon was the lead Beatle up until 1967. Thankfully, Beatle historians are preserving this truth. Come on folks, it's not an attack on Paul or anything! He certainly was a major force in the Beatles along with John. Oh, and George and Ringo had something to do with it all. But nonsense like "Paul really ran things behind the scenes" is just fan dribble that is not true and is not supported by anyone, except maybe Paul himself. Paul certainly is an artistic force and has a strong personality. But it literally was second to John's in so many ways. The ONLY reason Paul was able to take the driver's seat in 1967 was because John lost interest and was dabbling in other things and Yoko. It was only because John ALLOWED it. Even during Let It Be, Paul and the others feared John. I doubt John ever feared Paul.
-
RMartinez:
Pretty sad how some fans can't accept that John Lennon was the lead Beatle up until 1967. Thankfully, Beatle historians are preserving this truth. Come on folks, it's not an attack on Paul or anything! He certainly was a major force in the Beatles along with John. Oh, and George and Ringo had something to do with it all. But nonsense like "Paul really ran things behind the scenes" is just fan dribble that is not true and is not supported by anyone, except maybe Paul himself. Paul certainly is an artistic force and has a strong personality. But it literally was second to John's in so many ways. The ONLY reason Paul was able to take the driver's seat in 1967 was because John lost interest and was dabbling in other things and Yoko. It was only because John ALLOWED it. Even during Let It Be, Paul and the others feared John. I doubt John ever feared Paul.
I would only put the split at Rubber Soul (John up to that point) and Revolver (Paul from that point on). Obviously doesn't hold in every single case. Both did great songs before and after Rubber Soul and Revolver.
-
edcrawf:
RMartinez:
Pretty sad how some fans can't accept that John Lennon was the lead Beatle up until 1967. Thankfully, Beatle historians are preserving this truth. Come on folks, it's not an attack on Paul or anything! He certainly was a major force in the Beatles along with John. Oh, and George and Ringo had something to do with it all. But nonsense like "Paul really ran things behind the scenes" is just fan dribble that is not true and is not supported by anyone, except maybe Paul himself. Paul certainly is an artistic force and has a strong personality. But it literally was second to John's in so many ways. The ONLY reason Paul was able to take the driver's seat in 1967 was because John lost interest and was dabbling in other things and Yoko. It was only because John ALLOWED it. Even during Let It Be, Paul and the others feared John. I doubt John ever feared Paul.
I would only put the split at Rubber Soul (John up to that point) and Revolver (Paul from that point on). Obviously doesn't hold in every single case. Both did great songs before and after Rubber Soul and Revolver.
True.
-
edcrawf:
RMartinez:
Pretty sad how some fans can't accept that John Lennon was the lead Beatle up until 1967. Thankfully, Beatle historians are preserving this truth. Come on folks, it's not an attack on Paul or anything! He certainly was a major force in the Beatles along with John. Oh, and George and Ringo had something to do with it all. But nonsense like "Paul really ran things behind the scenes" is just fan dribble that is not true and is not supported by anyone, except maybe Paul himself. Paul certainly is an artistic force and has a strong personality. But it literally was second to John's in so many ways. The ONLY reason Paul was able to take the driver's seat in 1967 was because John lost interest and was dabbling in other things and Yoko. It was only because John ALLOWED it. Even during Let It Be, Paul and the others feared John. I doubt John ever feared Paul.
I would only put the split at Rubber Soul (John up to that point) and Revolver (Paul from that point on). Obviously doesn't hold in every single case. Both did great songs before and after Rubber Soul and Revolver.
I would agree. I would say 'Yesterday' was the true turning point. It gave Paul a ton of confidence & probably scared John into being more innovative.
-
JoeySmith:
edcrawf:
RMartinez:
Pretty sad how some fans can't accept that John Lennon was the lead Beatle up until 1967. Thankfully, Beatle historians are preserving this truth. Come on folks, it's not an attack on Paul or anything! He certainly was a major force in the Beatles along with John. Oh, and George and Ringo had something to do with it all. But nonsense like "Paul really ran things behind the scenes" is just fan dribble that is not true and is not supported by anyone, except maybe Paul himself. Paul certainly is an artistic force and has a strong personality. But it literally was second to John's in so many ways. The ONLY reason Paul was able to take the driver's seat in 1967 was because John lost interest and was dabbling in other things and Yoko. It was only because John ALLOWED it. Even during Let It Be, Paul and the others feared John. I doubt John ever feared Paul.
I would only put the split at Rubber Soul (John up to that point) and Revolver (Paul from that point on). Obviously doesn't hold in every single case. Both did great songs before and after Rubber Soul and Revolver.
I would agree. I would say 'Yesterday' was the true turning point. It gave Paul a ton of confidence & probably scared John into being more innovative.
Just like Tomorrow Never Knows and Strawberry Fields scared Paul into going into new territory. I am not convinced the word "scared" is the right word. More like motivated or inspired. I doubt either got scared when hearing the other's innovative and excellent songs.
-
RMartinez:
JoeySmith:
edcrawf:
RMartinez:
Pretty sad how some fans can't accept that John Lennon was the lead Beatle up until 1967. Thankfully, Beatle historians are preserving this truth. Come on folks, it's not an attack on Paul or anything! He certainly was a major force in the Beatles along with John. Oh, and George and Ringo had something to do with it all. But nonsense like "Paul really ran things behind the scenes" is just fan dribble that is not true and is not supported by anyone, except maybe Paul himself. Paul certainly is an artistic force and has a strong personality. But it literally was second to John's in so many ways. The ONLY reason Paul was able to take the driver's seat in 1967 was because John lost interest and was dabbling in other things and Yoko. It was only because John ALLOWED it. Even during Let It Be, Paul and the others feared John. I doubt John ever feared Paul.
I would only put the split at Rubber Soul (John up to that point) and Revolver (Paul from that point on). Obviously doesn't hold in every single case. Both did great songs before and after Rubber Soul and Revolver.
I would agree. I would say 'Yesterday' was the true turning point. It gave Paul a ton of confidence & probably scared John into being more innovative.
Just like Tomorrow Never Knows and Strawberry Fields scared Paul into going into new territory. I am not convinced the word "scared" is the right word. More like motivated or inspired. I doubt either got scared when hearing the other's innovative and excellent songs.
Exactly. Motivated.
-
A superficial reason, but that's when John looked his sexiest, his most handsome. He looked like a man (but didn't act grown up, not very!) while the other Fabs looked like boys (Paul, like a "pretty boy"). You think?