I don't understand why they need to be compared. In any case, Gershwin, Rogers and Hart, Jerome Kern, Cole Porter, etc. were better songwriters than Lennon and McCartney. It doesn't matter. Lennon and McCartney were great at what they did and the Beatles are still enjoyed.
I didn't start the comparison though. I only responded. However, you are the one making comparisons to Lennon and McCartney to Porter, Gershwin etc...
So I get why your moniker says I Am Not The Walrus. Lennon called it granny music, a little harsh, yes, but I am in that camp. But that was the greatest strength of the Beatles. So many "wells" they tapped into. There's always someone who loves something you don't, and that's okay by me. Rock on brother!
I regret the handle name. After having read plenty of comments, I decided to join due to a particular Beatles thread that turned nasty. This one is really fun. I was a huge Beatles fan as a kid and obviously still listen to them now and then (that's way up in my list of bad ones) and continue to enjoy them. In any case, I'm not about to say that Strawberry Fields is bad. I'm surprised at some of the songs Beatles fans hate.
A lot of people want to pigeonhole other people and groups. It's lead to some of the horrors of human history. Anyway, I agree with George Harrison. He didn't care for McCartney's rockers. He liked the more gentle melodic stuff.
For his own music, he tended to move in that direction. However he preferred playing with John, who wanted edgier music. George's solo on How Do You Sleep? is rough around the edges per John's request. His problem with Paul musically was always how Paul treated him. Where John would make suggestions, Paul heard the guitars in his head and wanted George to play that. Key point of contention during Get Back recordings, George said he didn't create like Clapton did. That if he wanted, get Clapton to play the guitar. John of course couldn't resist saying, "Well get Clapton" after George walked out. Then Paul said something to that as " That's no good". So John and Paul did what they and convinced George to return. I think the fruits of the walk out and reconciliation brought Abbey Road into reality. I can't imagine the Beatles stopping with what became Let It Be. Abbey Road although it came out first was superior to LIB.
George leaving the group is one of the best sequences in ' Get Back'. The other Fabs carry on but it's clear there's been a dynamic shift in their attitudes. They jam and play the fools and at the end of the day do a group huddle. They know they have to get George back and they're going to do whatever they have to to make that happen
Ever since I joined this forum, just over a year ago, I've been harping on about my dislike for Don't Pass Me By. I understand everyone has different tastes but I'm still staggered by how this song isn't at the top of the majorities list of most disliked Beatles song. As I, and a few others have noted, it does not have any redeeming features. Other weak Beatles songs do at least have redeeming features. If people say Revolution 9, you can say it was a groundbreaking experimental sound collage. If people say Honey Pie it can be countered that it's an expertly done 1930's pastiche, with clever lyrics. If people say Dig It, it can be excused as it's a snippet of a jam, not a proper song and mercifully short! (Plus as a Manchester United fan, the mention of Matt Busby elevates it!); Yes it Is has great harmony vocals; Hold Me Tight is an energetic slice of Beatlemania etc. When it comes to Don't Pass Me By, there is absolutely nothing to save it. I'm personally not a fan of country music as a genre, so admittedly that doesn't help. However, I love I'm a Loser and other country flavoured Beatles songs, because they're good or great songs. With Don't Pass Me By you've got a horrible tune, badly arranged, sloppily played, badly sung with the most embarrassingly poor lyrics. As if that wasn't enough, unless you love the sound of nails down a chalkboard, no one is going to enjoy that excruciating, ear piercing fiddle. Making excuses of cutting Ringo some slack or somehow it alledgedly fits the sprawling nature or strange sound of the White Album, doesn't cut it, in my view. If it's bad, it's just plain bad.
Question, guys; when a song is a parody or an homage, isnt it something the writer categorically sets out to do from the outset? I don’t think it’s consciously either as if Paul sat and thought “I’m going to write an homage/parody to this musical time period”. I just think he sat to write a song or had its’ idea pop into his head and whatever came out, came out.
Whether it's an homage or parody Paul in my opinion did a great job on this pre- rock and roll or period pieces type of songs.
1966 was the year UK celebrities ran for their lives as the whopping 95% supertax rate was imposed by Harold Wilsons Labour Government. Doesn't sound like a "fair share" to me.
Wow, after a struggle I guess mine is "This Boy". It sounds archaic, like something from the early fifties. Sure, there are repetitive or dreary tracks on every album - "Anna", "Hold Me Tight", "I'm Happy Just To Dance With You", "Mr Moonlight", "Tell Me What You See", "Run For Your Life", "Love You To", "She's Leaving Home", "Your Mother Should Know", "Wild Honey Pie", "Maggie May", "Oh Darling!" - but I have reasons to love every one of them anyway. Others that people cite as weak tracks: "You Know My Name" and "Revolution 9" I truly, deeply love.
I absolutely love it; always did…especially how it works on side four. But generally Paul truly had (has) a talent for creating well written, highly melodic new songs out of styles of music from the “deep, dark ages”. You Gave Me The Answer and Baby’s Request from Venus and Mars and Back To The Egg respectively are another couple of great examples (I think all three songs mentioned are better than the most well known, When I’m 64).
Some of the tracks you describe as dreary…wow! And to my ears, while This Boy clearly “takes” from the fifties, it’s worlds removed in my opinion.
I was fishing . . . I wanted to find the weakest track on each album, but as I said I love them all for one reason or another. when I play "Hold Me Tight" in the car I -BLAST- it with the bass turned all the way up.
Understood. Just to add a bit, I personally loathe fifties Doo Wop which is where This Boy is musically/rhythmically rooted. But that’s my very point; The Beatles infused such an updated, youthful freshness into it (vocals, instrumentation, their personalities, even) that the fifties never even remotely came to mind.
You play "Hold Me Tight" and you will get an idea of what their live sound was in 1962. Power, melody and interesting chord progressions.
Though it can never truly be known, I imagine that with Honey Pie, Paul sat down at a piano and tinkled the ivories for a while and came up with part of the tune that became Honey Pie. He then naturally could see the melody sounded 1930's. He then wrote some words befitting the tune. By the time they came to record it, he knew exactly the style it needed to be played, and even Lennon contributed with a correct period style guitar solo. I personally think pastiche type songs are something Paul is particularly adept at. I think it is something he probably sometimes decides to do from the outset. Sometimes, at the beginning, it is perhaps accidental. Another good example of a pastiche song, is Rocky Racoon. I imagine him strumming his guitar and it sounding very Western. From this, a silly little Cowboy tale, emerged from his furtile imagination. Personally, I'm not usually fond of this approach of McCartney's. These types of songs are usually low down the pecking order of Beatles songs, imo.
