Who benefited most from the other: Lennon or McCartney? | Fab Forum

Introducing the inaugural Fab Forum February Fundraiser! Click here for more details.

Please consider registering
Guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —






— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 4 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

sp_Feed sp_TopicIcon
Who benefited most from the other: Lennon or McCartney?
No permission to create posts
18 August 2011
11.19pm
Avatar
Into the Sky with Diamonds
New York
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 1535
Member Since:
9 August 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Two geniuses, clearly.

So we're splitting hairs.

But I'm going with Lennon needing McCartney more.

True, McC. probably kicked his lyrics up a notch to keep pace with his buddy (nothing wrong with Yesterday or Eleanor Rigby or Penny Lane).

But first things first: without McC., Lennon probably lands in jail.

Without Lennon, McCartney would have been the Billy Joel of the 60s - not bad.

But mostly, if you look at Lennon's most original songs, they'd have gone nowhere without McCartney's production skills (+ the 2 Georges of course), not to mention the bass lines. 

The amazing harmonies are pure teamwork, but McC's the one weaving up and around Lennon as well as providing those super high notes.

Lennon is often credited as being more original. I would say that's 50-50

"Into the Sky with Diamonds" (the Beatles and the Race to the Moon – a history)
19 August 2011
1.05am
Avatar
mr. Sun king coming together
Nowhere Land
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 6980
Member Since:
19 September 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
"Into the Sky with Diamonds" said:

Two geniuses, clearly.

So we're splitting hairs.

But I'm going with Lennon needing McCartney more.

{Reasons were here}

You are so wrong in so many places I don't know where to start.

  1. Who was the only one ever to land in the slammer? Paul. How on earth was John saved by Paul? And when?
  2. That's just insane. A bassline means shit if you don't have a song to it.
  3. That's because his voice is higher.
  4. A Day In The Life? John started it. That's instantly more accurate then anything you said.
  5. Who fell into a huge depression without the other Beatle? Paul. Who put out his best 2 LP's in the first two LP's after the split? John. That right there proves it wasn't John. And, may I add, who wrote their "childhood anthem" (for lack of a better word) first? John.

Edit: I think it's Paul on John. If you can come up with better reasons, I'd love to see them.

As if it matters how a man falls down.'

'When the fall's all that's left, it matters a great deal.

19 August 2011
1.42am
Avatar
GniknuS
Rain? I don't mind
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 1332
Member Since:
1 May 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
19 August 2011
8.33am
Avatar
kedame
Miles above you
Candlestick Park
Forum Posts: 530
Member Since:
23 January 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I'll go with George Martin's response. "They needed each other like mad." That's all there is to it. They made beautiful music together that they couldn't have made apart. Without Paul, John might have still been playing banjo chords with the 6th string hanging by the time he was 20. Without John, Paul probably never would have given up the school life and his mother's dream of him becoming a teacher or doctor to become a musician. They met, and it was fate, and they were GREAT! I don't really like getting into these discussions because someone always ends up fighting. Don't we have enough, "Who's better, John or Paul? Or hey, what about poor George?" Also:

mr. Sun king coming together said:


  1. Who fell into a huge depression without the other Beatle? Paul. Who put out his best 2 LP's in the first two LP's after the split? John. That right there proves it wasn't John. And, may I add, who wrote their "childhood anthem" (for lack of a better word) first? John.
Sure, Paul fell into a depression without John and with the prospect of his beloved band going up in smoke…but he got over it. John may not have felt the reality of their friendship ending and the band splitting until later, but I guarantee you he felt it eventually. He seemed more depressed years after the split than any of the rest of them, at least to me. Maybe it had nothing to do with the rest of them, but he spent enough time dwelling on bashing and/or praising Paul and The Beatles in general to suggest that he wasn't as indifferent as he seemed. Also...dude, calm down just a little. (Not trying to be mean here, I promise I'm saying this with affection.) I don't think Into the sky was actually insulting John. It was only a little light opinion-giving, but your response seems sort of provocative. heart
"You can manicure a cat but can you caticure a man?" John Lennon- Skywriting by Word of Mouth
19 August 2011
1.17pm
Avatar
The Walrus
Working for the national health
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 1036
Member Since:
4 December 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I think Ringo needed the others the most. Okay, he was possibly better known than the Beatles before he joined them, but he was the one who fell furthest after the break up, and was going the way of Harry Nilsson and Keith Moon for a long time.

Then, George... his best work didn't have much help from John or Paul, and he was a better guitarist than either of them, but would he have had reason to work on his songwriting without being in a band with them, and would he have had reason to meet Bob Dylan more than fleetingly? I doubt both of those. Maybe he'd have ended up meeting Jimmy Page or something and joining the Yardbirds, but that's just totally speculative.

Paul wouldn't have had any reason to switch to bass, and his early songwriting was largely fueled by John. I don't think we'd have got "I Saw Her Standing There". I agree with someone above who said that he'd end up like Cliff Richard, which isn't an awful fate at all, but it is much worse than being a Beatle.

John already had a band, but by all accounts, they weren't very good, despite all their practising. I can see him toiling away for years and eventually becoming very good at his unorthodox guitar playing, but never writing an excellent song, never getting a recording contract and maybe becoming a member of Gerry and the Pacemakers, but I imagine he'd have fallen out with Gerry fairly quickly and gone back to mediocrity.

In order to be famous in the first place, I'd say Paul needed the others the least, then Ringo, then John, then George. Once the band split up, I'd make it George (who had Dylan and could then stand on his own two feet), then John (who had Yoko), then Paul (who had, erm, Wings), then Ringo.

And I neeeeeeeeed her all the time
19 August 2011
11.35pm
Avatar
GniknuS
Rain? I don't mind
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 1332
Member Since:
1 May 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

John was the first to admit that he always needed a sidekick, he says that he chose Paul as a partner and then he chose Yoko. I think John just needed someone to approve of what he was doing, it's hard as an artist to come up with something and think it's good without someone else there to sort of confirm it.

I think Paul needed a partner more from a competition aspect, they drove each other and also Brian Wilson, Dylan, Townsend, etc drove the Beatles to greater and greater heights. So I don't think Paul's stuff would have been quite as good without John, obviously, but who knows if John would have had the confidence to try to do anything without Paul.

But Paul also kept John in check, we saw the things he was capable of doing with Yoko two-virgins who just let him loose, but certainly Paul was a large help in cleaning up John's best work. Does anyone have that quote of Paul's where he's talking about John being a naughty schoolboy or something like that? I think I read it on this site somewhere...anyway, the gist is that John would take things to a certain level, his mind basically had no restraints, and if he got too far away, Paul would sort of reel him in. So from that perspective, John needed Paul more than Paul needed John.

But at the same time, without John's mind having the ability to take ideas to a certain level, there would have been no Beatles, period. So Paul needed John more to help drive the Beatles to being the greatest band of all time because John had a more innovative musical mind.

So there's no right or wrong answer, but certainly it's a fun subject to speculate about.

I sat on a rug, biding my time, drinking her wine
Forum Timezone: America/Chicago

Most Users Ever Online: 597

Currently Online: Annadog40, Merch, Randie
48 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

meanmistermustard: 17114

Ahhh Girl: 10713

Annadog40: 9675

Zig: 7531

parlance: 7092

mr. Sun king coming together: 6980

Mr. Kite: 6092

Silly Girl: 5720

trcanberra: 5526

Ron Nasty: 4917

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 87

Members: 3328

Moderators: 4

Admins: 2

Forum Stats:

Groups: 3

Forums: 42

Topics: 3814

Posts: 201680

Newest Members:

Stockholm1955, tomomi, ttn48griff, Beatles007, Edwardo

Moderators: Ahhh Girl: 10713, meanmistermustard: 17114, Zig: 7531, Joe: 4390

Administrators: Joe: 4390, Ellie: 3

Members Birthdays
sp_BirthdayIcon
Today: None
Upcoming: VeraChuckDave