Log In
Register
1.59pm
4 December 2010
Offline
kedame said:
GniknuS said:
But John wrote most of those songs in India before he officially got together with Yoko. I'm not sure I understand your comment Sun King .
Yoko inspired John and made him a better songwriter so I have no issue with her.I don't want to make you mad, and I am definitely not trying to be confrontational, but why do you think Yoko made John a better songwriter? I personally think his best material is the middle period, though my favorite song by him is Happiness Is A Warm Gun . I think he was way more consistent with good/great songs in the early/mid-Beatles years. It's just my opinion.
I agree that the quality of John's songs were at a peak in 65-67, but Yoko gave him a new lease of life for a couple of years, when he wrote Plastic Ono Bad and Imagine .
Till There Was You said:
I'm indecisive about Yoko. If it weren't for her, like I said, he wouldn't have matured. But since she came around, there was trouble in the band. And hat's not to disregard the fact that there was already trouble in the band. I think she had no bussiness in the band's recording sessions. It wasn't her band, and it caused more problems. But there was something about her that John's loved.
Paul brought his girlfriend along to sessions too, which just inflamed the situation. I think he was jealous that John had found a new partner, then tried to make John jealous and just made the White Album sessions painful.
Till There Was You said:
I think that John was more consistent in the early years, while Paul was in the later years. It shows if Help !, A Hard Day's Night, and Please Please Me were John songs, while MMT, Let It Be , Yellow Submarine and Sgt. Pepper were Paul songs.
Well noticed. Just one point, though- Hard Day's Night was the title of the album because Lester wanted to name the film that, and Sgt. Pepper and MMT were the titles of the album because they had a concept behind them.
GniknuS said:
The interesting question would be, had Paul not pushed the group so much in '67, could things have progressed naturally and would John have eventually came up with some material? We saw in '68 the HUGE number of songs John wrote which was largely due to him having the time and space to write. So if Paul would have given him more time in '67, is it possible that the group could have stayed together longer because I think it's an undeniable fact that Paul taking over was a giant turning point in the ultimate demise of the group.
But at the same time I can see Paul's perspective from the sense of what was he supposed to do, not come out with those songs?
I think they'd have been worse off without Paul, but maybe they should have tried to find a manager to replace Brian who they all liked.
I told her I didn’t
5.41pm
20 December 2010
Offline Both Lennon & McCartney were a match made in heaven. You have the optimistic versus the pessimistic and even though they both didn't write all the songs together, they had each other to bounce off ideas. Then throw George into the mix and the set up was perfect.
I have always liked Lennon's songs the most probably due to the fact that he let George have the freedom to be creative with his guitar parts and solos as opposed to McCartney usually having his own ideas of how he wanted the guitar parts to sound. He was more controlling as opposed to Lennon being more open minded to creativity.
John and George always spoke their minds and laid the cards on the table being bold and to the point with their feelings where as Paul always played the game. It seems that if you don't play the game of life, you will be the subject of a lot of criticism.
Popularity has always been based on how much you stay in the public's eye, how much music you put out that people like and how the media sees you.
The further one travels, the less one knows
11.04pm
1 May 2010
Offline John peak as a songwriter was ’65, imo, but he was really lagging in ’67. Compare the White Album and POB material to Good Morning Good Morning and Mr. Kite. So Yoko came along and inspired him and he became a better songwriter because of it, that’s all I meant. Maybe he would have regained his form without her and obviously I’m not saying that he didn’t write a few unbelievable songs in ’67, but I think Yoko saved John because he was “going through murder.”
I sat on a rug, biding my time, drinking her wine
11.14pm
19 September 2010
Offline The Walrus said:
Paul brought his girlfriend along to sessions too, which just inflamed the situation. I think he was jealous that John had found a new partner, then tried to make John jealous and just made the White Album sessions painful.
For two weeks, not for 2 years!! But, and this is key, McCartney saved John in 1957 after Julia 's death. Without Paul, John never would have wrote Day In The Life, Walrus, Fields, Warm Gun, etc. I still say Paul.
As if it matters how a man falls down.'
'When the fall's all that's left, it matters a great deal.
11.33pm
1 May 2010
Offline
I dunno. I say Ringo. 
(Sorry)
Here comes the sun….. Scoobie-doobie……
Something in the way she moves…..attracts me like a cauliflower…
Bop. Bop, cat bop. Go, Johnny, Go.
Beware of Darkness…
1.37am
1 May 2010
Offline Come on Sun King , you can’t possibly be suggesting that Paul is responsible for John writing those songs. For every thought that went through his head? For every lyric he wrote? Without John, would Paul ever have matured as a songwriter? Would he have progressed from Love Me Do to Eleanor Rigby ? You can’t give one credit for what the other did.
John put it best, none of the Beatles would have made it by themselves. John didn’t have enough girl appeal, Paul wasn’t strong enough, George was too quiet and Ringo was just the drummer. They all needed each other.
Still, The Inner Light brought up some great points, John and George were more willing to put themselves out there than Paul. John, in particular, pushed the limits of music to places it had not been before, that’s what makes the Beatles the Beatles! They made music that no one else makes, and while they all helped, it was always John’s songs that had the most edge. I’ve always wondered why Paul didn’t have any really experimental songs, did he not want to take the risk? So that’s why I’d say John, he took those risks and made songs that no one could possibly duplicate.
I sat on a rug, biding my time, drinking her wine
1.46am
19 September 2010
Offline That’s not what I said. What I said was if Paul hadn’t saved John from his PTSD after Julia ‘s death, John wouldn’t have returned to music, and started the trail to Walrus.
As if it matters how a man falls down.'
'When the fall's all that's left, it matters a great deal.
1.46am
9 June 2010
Offline 
GniknuS said:
John put it best, none of the Beatles would have made it by themselves. John didn't have enough girl appeal, Paul wasn't strong enough, George was too quiet and Ringo was just the drummer. They all needed each other.
John, in particular, pushed the limits of music to places it had not been before, that's what makes the Beatles the Beatles! It was always John's songs that had the most edge.
I've always wondered why Paul didn't have any really experimental songs, did he not want to take the risk?
1. John? Not enough girl appeal?
HAHAHAHAHAHA
2. Well, I don't think that's quite true. Sure, they pushed the limits of music past the edge, but I don't think that John was always the most edgy. Paul came up with the tape loop idea. Paul came up with the orchestra and link in “A Day In The Life .” Wasn't “Carnival Of Light ” Paul's idea? People always like to think of Paul as the “softie” and John as the experimental hard rocker. But that's not true. I don't like the whole sidekick thing. Paul was not John's sidekick.
3. *cough*”Wild Honey Pie “*cough*
Finally, I think that John meant that before they wouldn't make it by themselves. I mean, look at their solo careers. If it was true that they couldn't make it by themselves, they would have faded into obscurity after the breakup and made no good music at all. But Paul still has a successful career as a solo musician. Maybe the Beatles was a growing experience for all four. Once you've been in the greatest group of all time, you kind of keep the awesomeness. 😀
If I seem to act unkind, it's only me, it's not my mind that is confusing things.
2.02am
19 September 2010
Offline As a fan who really changes his mind often, to say that John was the edgy one, the experimental one, the cool one, the leader, so to speak, is bull. I have all of John’s solo work, and a fair sample (10 studio, 1 live, 1 compilation) of McCartney’s, it reeks of uninformedness to claim either one was vastly superior. As someone who loves all 4 (MMM should also appreciate this), I can’t say anything more then current feelings. This will change. I am on a Paul kick, but even if I was on a John one, I realise that John was not that far from McCartney in talent. I’ll put it differently. Is John Bonham much better then Kieth Moon? Of course not. It’s the same thing. They’re close, no matter what side you’re supporting.
As if it matters how a man falls down.'
'When the fall's all that's left, it matters a great deal.
2.10am
9 June 2010
Offline By the way, I checked out Beatle Rant, and I can understand why it's no longer active. It seems like an unhappier community. Also, I couldn't find the “balanced viewpoints” or “good reasons from all four sides” there. I found a lot more anti-(insert Beatle here) than pro-(insert Beatle here) rants.
If I seem to act unkind, it's only me, it's not my mind that is confusing things.
2.19am
19 September 2010
Offline This might not belong here, but I think the thing that makes this so great is the love. I mean, Paulsbass has called memoir for something major, and I still love him (he was right. I’m not bagging him). Same with most others. Even if we disagree, it gets fixed. Need any more proof? See how we rallied after JFKin60. We love each other. And a thing like Beatle Rant is not a forum I would ever join. NEVER. I vaguely remember having some issue with Kedame, but I was fine with her in 5 hours. And that was because we werent on at the same time. My point is, we are like a family, and a place like Beatle Rant wasn’t, or at least not a nice one.
As if it matters how a man falls down.'
'When the fall's all that's left, it matters a great deal.
2.22am
9 June 2010
Offline I totally agree with that. The only threads that don't have at-your-throat arguing are the ones that state the obvious and everyone agrees with.
(I did enjoy one person's point that the Beatles “were always That Band My Parents Like, until I listened to the White Album and they became Where Have You Been All My Life? while my parents stood by and nodded.”)
If I seem to act unkind, it's only me, it's not my mind that is confusing things.
2.28am
1 May 2010
Offline Well John was more experimental, I really don’t think there’s a question about that. I didn’t say he was the “experimental one” because that implies that Paul wasn’t experimental, but a quick treck through the catalogue makes it obvious.
As a musician, I can tell you that it’s much much more about style than it is technique, both Bonham and Moon were much more technically proficient than Ringo, but no way would I take either over Ringo because I dig Ringo’s style.
So that’s why we have differences of opinion, it certainly doesn’t make you “uninformed” if you like one style over the other.
I think we’re being respectful here so no one should get unhappy over a little debate.
I sat on a rug, biding my time, drinking her wine
2.34am
9 June 2010
Offline GniknuS said:
Well John was more experimental, I really don't think there's a question about that.
Paul came up with the tape loops in “Tomorrow Never Knows .”
Paul came up with the whole Sgt. Pepper idea. (Even if it sort of crashed and burned.)
Paul came up with the orchestration and arrangement in “A Day In The Life .” (The idea, I mean.)
Paul came up with “Wild Honey Pie .” (Not nearly my favorite, but still.)
Your move.
If I seem to act unkind, it's only me, it's not my mind that is confusing things.
2.40am
19 September 2010
Offline Gnik, obviously you aren’t reading all my posts fully. I never called a John fan, or anyone else I disagree with, “uninformed.” I said to claim that there is a significant level of difference in skill is to be uninformed as to all the elements that either of them have to offer. Stop twisting my words, Gniknus, and follow your own advice about decorum. Your move.
(Also, Paul created the first free-form sound collage.)
As if it matters how a man falls down.'
'When the fall's all that's left, it matters a great deal.
4.00am
23 January 2011
Offline MeanMrsMustard said:
By the way, I checked out Beatle Rant, and I can understand why it’s no longer active. It seems like an unhappier community. Also, I couldn’t find the “balanced viewpoints” or “good reasons from all four sides” there. I found a lot more anti-(insert Beatle here) than pro-(insert Beatle here) rants.
Yeah, but they all make good points about why they like/dislike their favorite Beatle. That’s why they’re called rants. They had some pretty good discussions going, I think. Usually everyone was pretty content to agree to disagree after some arguing. I found it a pretty interesting premise to anonymously air the viewpoints you have on the Beatles that may not be quite so popular, instead of just saying, “If you don't worship the ground w, x, y, or z walks on YOU ARE NOT A FAN!” A lot of those people over there were really knowledgeable on Beatle-history, and some of them made a lot of interesting posts in the comments. I never posted there because I am a newish fan, and that community is old. However, just because they argued a little doesn't mean they didn't make up. Forgive me for my fondness of a community that is “not cool.” Maybe I shouldn't have mentioned it. And Sun King …I only disliked you for like, a minute. We're cool. 
"You can manicure a cat but can you caticure a man?"
John Lennon- Skywriting by Word of Mouth
4.11am
19 March 2011
Offline I think Paul was cleaner than John for the longest amount of time. And I’m not saying he did some risky things–drugs in general are a no-no in my book. Plus, the paternity issues. Random sex with random people does cause that. Not to mention setting condoms on fire. But I think Gniknus is trying to say that while John was trying to sound like a hundred chanting Tibetan monks, Paul was still singing “Good Day Sunshine “.
“Carnival Of Light “, if I am correct, was, like, a thirteen minute take (done in twenty minutes) avant-garde-ish song. George didn’t like it, and I’m sure John never did. There’s only two copies of the song: Paul’s, and one that is lost in America (or something). Paul wanted it to be on Anthology, but George didn’t, so it wasn’t.
I salute the lady who screamed "I love you Paul!" at a tribute band's concert.
4.26am
1 May 2010
Offline *sitting eating cookies enjoying the chat* I wish I could say something very insightful to this very good discussion. But the thing is.. I just can't. I love both John and Paul, and I react differently to them. When I feel like kick someone's ass, I play John. But then again, I have Helter Skelter . When I want to giggle over love, I play Paul. But then, I have If I Fell .
My point is that we have different opinions and as you say guys, we really care for each other. So please, don't write something if you're angry or mad. Again, peace and love.
*notices the cookies are empty. Mhhh it's time for a mango* Darn it this forum makes me hungry!!! 
Here comes the sun….. Scoobie-doobie……
Something in the way she moves…..attracts me like a cauliflower…
Bop. Bop, cat bop. Go, Johnny, Go.
Beware of Darkness…
4.50am
9 June 2010
Offline Till There Was You said:
But I think GniknuS is trying to say that while John was trying to sound like a hundred chanting Tibetan monks, Paul was still singing “Good Day Sunshine “.
But he wasn't just still singing “Good Day Sunshine .” He was making tape loops by removing the thing that stops the tape.
People seem to ignore this all the time, but Paul got into the avant-garde earlier than John did.
If I seem to act unkind, it's only me, it's not my mind that is confusing things.
5.00am
1 May 2010
Offline I have to agree into something : Paul was avant-gard as early as John was. If he didn't want to follow that path, was maybe because he was a bit more conscious about what people wanted to hear. While John didn't care much about what fans expected from them. I'm not saying Paul didn't take risks. I'm just saying he was more aware of what it was commercial… maybe?
Ok I'm just saying nonsense. 
Here comes the sun….. Scoobie-doobie……
Something in the way she moves…..attracts me like a cauliflower…
Bop. Bop, cat bop. Go, Johnny, Go.
Beware of Darkness…
