|
|
Post by strat-0 on Sept 22, 2005 20:49:02 GMT -5
That adds up to the .7 I was going to ask about.
|
|
|
|
Post by maarts on Sept 23, 2005 7:01:13 GMT -5
So Lennon did write more Beatles-songs than McCartney?
Gentlemen, the pot should at least be shared then!
|
|
|
|
Post by Kensterberg on Oct 28, 2005 12:45:19 GMT -5
Hey Phil! I found it! On the second page of the Influential Music boards ... I didn't even realize that there was a second page of IM! OK, lots of exclamation points, and I don't know if Phil will see this or not, but at least now it should be back on the first page, making it easier for him to find. BTW, the Beatles own the Stones. No contest.  |
|
|
|
Post by luke on Oct 28, 2005 12:50:42 GMT -5
Dude. I had no fucking clue there were multiple pages on these things. Found, like, twenty threads I would have been posting on all this time.
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Oct 28, 2005 13:24:38 GMT -5
WOAH ! Thanks Ken !!
No wonder I couldn't find the damn board !
Here's the thing I wanted to post...
Who was better - Lennon or McCartney?
Alex Kapranos
Wednesday October 12, 2005
The Guardian
Ono slams McCartney. How dreary. I don't mean the comments by Yoko Ono at the Q awards on Monday night, but the way that they have been pounced upon, like discarded kebab wrappers, by the dogs of cheap controversy. There's no meat, but the smell has provoked frothing and yelping. The most shockingly revelatory words Ono said were, "John was very human. In the middle of the night he would say, 'They always cover Paul's songs, they never cover mine'." Wow. John Lennon: the magnificent, seemingly invincible, beautifully arrogant, terrifyingly talented, joint-greatest songwriter of the 20th century was human.
Like the rest of us, he kept himself awake at night with angst-ridden moments of self-doubt. It is one of the most life-affirming statements I have heard for years. If he felt that way, then why should any of the rest of us worry about feeling that way too?
As Ono went on, "I said to him, 'Well you know, you're a good songwriter, but it's not just moon-June-or-spoon songs that you write. You're a good singer and most musicians are probably a little bit nervous about covering your songs,' before going off to make him a cup of tea." Well, the "June-spoon-moon" stuff is irrelevant. They are the words of a lover consoling the human being most precious to them. It was Ono telling the husband she adored that it didn't matter if people didn't want to cover his songs as much as McCartney's, as his work had such phenomenal worth.
The irony is that, while Yoko was whispering soothingly in John's troubled ear, Linda was probably whispering into Paul's, telling him that it didn't matter that some of those critics considered Lennon's work to have a greater artistic merit. It didn't matter because his work had such phenomenal worth. It's true that Two Virgins was considered unlistenable by some people, and that Ob-la-di Ob-la-da was considered to be childish by others, but it's irrelevant. Both songwriters had flaws which tempered their overwhelming talent.
When I received a text message telling me about the "Latest Great Lennon-McCartney Debate", I was watching A Hard Day's Night on DVD with our bassist, Bob Hardy. Apart from the obvious conclusion that Ringo Starr was always the coolest Beatle, we were simply in awe of those amazing songs and the charismatic figures that changed pop music in a way that nobody else ever could.
We weren't arguing about whether Can't Buy Me Love or A Hard Day's Night were better songs. McCartney probably wrote the former and Lennon probably wrote the latter, but who cares? What made the Beatles greater than any other group was their unique dynamic. You don't listen for one member or another, but for the combination.
The idea that these supposedly inflammatory comments are reigniting some form of Lennon-McCartney rivalry is perverse. It is rooted in the mistaken presumption that any rivalry between the two appeared when Ono came on the scene. It was always there. It's what they thrived upon; simple competition, trying to outdo each other with better songs. Like the best of group dynamics, theirs was based upon a sweet combination of collaboration and jealousy.
There is no debate. Lennon and McCartney (or McCartney and Lennon, if you prefer) were the greatest songwriters of the 20th century. Ringo was the coolest Beatle. John Lennon was human like the rest of us. The end.
• Alex Kapranos is the lead singer with Franz Ferdinand
|
|
|
|
Post by Kensterberg on Oct 28, 2005 13:28:38 GMT -5
Wow, great write-up there ... makes me (a little) more willing to spring for at least one FF album. Yeah, the Beatles were definitely more than the sum of their (extremely talented) parts. And they were human.
But Bob Dylan was the greatest songwriter of the 20th century. Lennon/McCartney are right behind.
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Oct 28, 2005 13:32:41 GMT -5
But Bob Dylan was the greatest songwriter of the 20th century.
Agreed !!
Add Frank Zappa in the third spot
and you got the perfect trifecta ... ;D ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Oct 28, 2005 14:42:31 GMT -5
Ringo was the coolest Beatle.
My muscular buttocks he is!
|
|
JACkory
Struggling Artist
Posts: 167
|
Post by JACkory on Oct 28, 2005 16:48:12 GMT -5
That was an excellent article. Thanks, Phil, for pasting it here.
The Lennon-McCartney songwriting feud, as far as I know, is not so much concerned with who wrote the BETTER songs (or whose songs got covered more or whose had more "artistic merit", as if such a subjective point could ever be proven)...it's about getting and giving credit where credit is due.
And McCartney is in the right about this one...Yoko has been extremely petty in not agreeing to Paul's requests...
I mean, all Paul wants is for the songs that he wrote to be credited "McCartney-Lennon" instead of "Lennon-McCartney". That's not too much to ask, and yet Ono refuses.
McCartney has every right to be pissed, because as far as I'm concerned it would'nt be too much to ask that Lennon's name be dropped completely from such all-Paul fare as "Yesterday", "Eleanor Rigby", "Hey Jude", et. al.
Truth be told, John would probably prefer that his name be removed from songs like "Ob-La-Di Ob-La-Da", which he slagged viciously while he was still alive.
I've never been one of those people who blame Yoko for the Beatles' break-up and have never really had a problem with her (although I can't stand her attempts at being a recording artist)...but this greedy possessiveness of the "Lennon/McCartney" label is out of line and one has to wonder if it's spurred by financial issues or if this is just Ono's way of getting back at Paul for still being alive.
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Nov 6, 2005 9:57:08 GMT -5
Stumbled upon this(great IMO)article about Paul and John different writing styles and the influences they worked with ... Baroque and folk and ... John Lennon Some folk and classical elements in the songs of John Lennon by Ger Tillekens -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paul McCartney was the one who imported all those elements of the French chanson, of British folk, of Tin Pan Ally, and of classical music into the Beatles' songs. John Lennon on the other hand was the protagonist of pure rock and roll and rhythm and blues. So goes the simple myth that has wrapped itself tightly around the two musicians, responsible for the majority of the Beatles' greatest compositions. As most myths this one too is not true, as is shown by the fact that in the late sixties and early seventies — the alleged period of Lennon's return to his rock and roll roots — he actually did put some clear folk melodies and classical elements into his songs. Here Ger Tillekens discusses the examples of "Because" and "Happy Xmas". Complete essay can(should!)be read here ... www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/VOLUME01/Baroque_Folk_Lennon.html |
|
|
|
Post by loudaab on Feb 25, 2007 21:07:37 GMT -5
I can't stand the Beatles. Something about them strikes me the wrong way. Even when i was trying the first time to get into them, when i was about 16 or 17, i just couldn't get it. I was primarily interested in Lennon's tough persona, then Ringo's drumming, then probably McCartney and finally George. Perhaps that's it: i can't stand Harrison's brand of wispy mysticism?! If i were to reduce it to a basic tenet, i'd say that the Beatles represent chokingly artificial and stilted songwriting values for me. I MUCH much prefer the Stones' octane-fueled, raw, high-energy music. I just don't like that whole artistic premise of (mostly McCartney-led) creating High Temples of unyielding Musical Statements. And i know which one wins out for me: give me sloppier (by comparison) Stones, Stooges, 1965 Dylan any day. The stones were rip-off artists. I really cant thing of ONE thing they did that was original. The Beatles on the other hand were innovative, originators, creative. And when it comes down to it, their "story" is infinately more interesting that the Rolling Stones story. I once calculated that if there was a biopic about the Stones there would be 7 moderately interesting scenes and the rest would have to be filled with music-video type of schlock... I could list the 7 interesting scenes--if anyone were really interested... |
|
|
|
Post by skvorisdeadsorta on Feb 25, 2007 22:55:48 GMT -5
Ok.....I disagree with you big time on that. In fact, if you knew anything about the Stones, you'd know that their private lives would make a very long and interesting biopic.
|
|
|
|
Post by wayved on Feb 27, 2007 0:37:52 GMT -5
P.E.W.-EVERYONE in music steals, lifts or is "inspired by" other artists. The stones lifted but so what? Hear me out.
have you heard "Street Fighting Man" (just the SOUND of that song is enough) or "Have You Seen Your Mother Baby Standing In the Shadow" (dont miss out--its crazy!) OR "Some Things Just Stick In Your Mind" (an outtake--supposedly but it works just as well as one of their "hits" from me) by the Stones? Unoriginal? STREET FIGHTING MAN? WHAT? Sure it may have been lifted from somewhere but that lo fidelity sound in the beginning.....No other artist n London, Decca Abcko WHATEVER was doing that back then. Listen to those three songs. If that does not change your mind that the Stones were unoriginal well good luck and you just do not like the rolling stones. fine.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kensterberg on Feb 27, 2007 0:45:49 GMT -5
Sure the Stones stole a bunch of stuff (and IMHO they weren't as good as the Who), but in addition to the cuts that wayved just mentioned, I'd add (at least) two more:
Sympathy for the Devil and Gimme Shelter.
No one had ever come up with something like either one of these before. For that matter, with the Jumping Jack Flash single, Keef boiled and reduced blues and Chuck Berry flavored rock riffs down to their most primal essence, and created something totally different off his own. You want to talk about the origins of the modern lo-fi sound? try starting with what the Stones were doing in 1968.
The Stones were far from the most original band of the rock era, or even among their peers, but they were hardly "just" rip-off artists. They came up with their own sound, distinct from their influences, and were in turn copied by thousands of other bands (including the US's own J.Geils Band, who on a good night were at least the equal of their inspiration).
|
|
|
|
Post by Kensterberg on Feb 27, 2007 0:48:02 GMT -5
And FWIW, I'd much rather see a biopic about the Stones than the Beatles. I mean, you've got drugs, sex, and death in swinging London, and that's BEFORE we even get to Altamont ... much less the seventies!
|
|
