Quote
Richard from Canada
I guess Lennon gets kudos for speaking his mind but I still think that Paul made the Beatles what they were - the best ever. John alone couldn't have done it, nor Paul alone, but I think together, with Paul providing the main spark of creative energy, that made it all 'come together'. John's solo material was mostly bad - and poorly produced as well.

Paul definitely, he had the musical nouse. The music hall roots from his family background, he talked about it in The Times on Sunday.

Paul made great inventive music with ease, John made great music but only because he was up against Paul.

Paul also polished up John's stuff as well, the vocal harmony on "Come Together" right at the end of their partnership, the fantastic bass.. Paul added the sparkle.

If Paul wasn't there I doubt John would have been so bothered.

Paul's problem was that he needed someone to stop him being "twee". John did that.

John was lazier than Paul. Ringo talked about Paul driving them nuts always wanting to be in the studio (Paul lived around the corner from Abbey Road), the other three would travel in together (complaining).



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-01-31 16:59 by GravityBoy.

The Beatles are the F-ing Carpenters compared to the Stones. Go listen to Midnight Rambler Twinkie John. What song of yours did that copy???

The Sergeant Pepper era Beatles owe more to the production of George Martin than to any "genius" of the mop-tops. They were too busy chasing maharajas to come up with anything other than small drips and drabs of songs that were masterfully sewn together by Martin's electronic craftmanship.

Today, Sergeant Pepper sounds more like a collection of campy novelty tunes - it sounds very dated.

That is simply not true by the time of Revolver, and especially on Pepper. The Beatles had clear visions of what the music should sound like and were exerting more and more control in the studio. They would often describe what they wanted and then Martin would try. And often it was The Beatles that came up with the goods.

As for The Beatles writing twinkies, yeah, listen to Happiness is a Warm Gun. Distinct three part song. Also I Want You, heavy blues with a progressive ending.

Paul has written some of the best and worst songs ever.

Eleanor Rigby and then he actually puts out Silly Love Songs which is his granny sh-t side.

I read an interview with John from around 1970 and I thought he came over as a bit of an arrogant as-. really, especially talking about how he was a Genius.

John wrote some great songs but they were not all good either.

It's only Rock and Roll anyway.

Lennon wrote his great SGT. PEPPER songs wandering around his house. That's talent. Paul had written his songs, called John up and said, "We're heading into the studio in ten days." So John, under that pressure, wrote his songs inspired by: 1) a circus poster (MR. KITE); 2) A TV commercial (GOOD MORNING); 3) The newspaper (A DAY IN THE LIFE); 4) His son's drawing (LUCY).

John mentions Let It Bleed (I think he means that the title was stolen from Let It Be). Didn't LIB release Dec. 5 1969 and Let It Be in march or may 1970?

JumpingKentFlash

Quote
JumpingKentFlash
John mentions Let It Bleed (I think he means that the title was stolen from Let It Be). Didn't LIB release Dec. 5 1969 and Let It Be in march or may 1970?

Yes I believe you are correct...and certainly the albums aren't remotely similar.

I believe they intended it to be a jab at the Beatles, knowing they're project was delayed.

Wasn't there some speculation as well, that 'A Bigger Bang' came as a 'response' to 'How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb'.

I always thought the bed bug uptown was Lennon

Hey I was a wacky kid

John Lennon's first two solo albums were brilliant, the first as a singular cathartic experience of raw rock and roll. The second a pop gem with rough edges. After that he seemed to have gotten tired of it all. He'd proven everything. Paul had his great album, Band On The Run, and a few great singles. Really, it's a wash as to who had the better solo career. George petered out after his first two solo records. His greatest critical success was in a group structure, again, with the Wilburys.

I believe the Lennon interview was actually done as a promo for his 1970 solo record. At that time the Rolling Stones had not quite conquered the world. It would take Sticky Fingers in '71 and Hot Rocks in '72 to put them in the stratosphere. When I bought the 'Lennon Remembers' book in '71 I was 16, and I still could sense a whiff of jealousy. I felt there was something about the Stones that was really sexy to John, something he found himself not quite able to express. Why he felt the need to minimize Mick is beyond me. I guess Lennon was greedy for the entire spotlight. But fans don't think that way. They like both groups, for different reasons.

I don't think the Stones have ever been disrespectful of the Beatles music. On the contrary I think they've always expressed a certain awe at their songwriting ability. In Lennon's last interview, in Playboy 1980, he was still jabbing at the Stones. It actually minimized Lennon. Complicated git.

the only one that sounds jealous is lennon,the beatles were a great band,but beggars banquet,and exile shits on anything the fag four could of ever dreamed of.

I like how he refers to Mick being angry in his old age when he was only 27 at the time.

backstreet boy...your use of derivative offensive language is more a reflection on your jealousy and ignorance.

Quote
Blueranger
As for his not so kind words on McCartney and Jagger, they have been taken out of context ever since this interview and used by critics who wants to pan them. In all later interviews he had nothing but good things to say about them.

Well, not in all later interviews. From Lennon's last one in Playboy 1980:

"You know, they're congratulating the Stones on being together 112 years. Whoooopee! At least Charlie and Bill still got their families. In the Eighties, they'll be asking, "Why are those guys still together? Can't they hack it on their own? Why do they have to be surrounded by a gang? Is the little leader scared somebody's gonna knife him in the back?" That's gonna be the question. That's-a-gonna be the question! ... They will be showing pictures of the guy with lipstick wriggling his ass and the four guys with the evil black make-up on their eyes trying to look raunchy. That's gonna be the joke in the future."

Lennon had opinions and wasn't afraid to express them. And he had some distance to the mannered world of popular music. Jagger has probably done more than a thousand interviews and hasn't said anything worth remembering.

I heard Malcolm McDowell on NPR. He said, "I was in a Manhattan apartment with Mick Jagger that stood across from the Dakota building where John Lennon lived. And Mick looked out the window at the Dakota and said, `That's where the governor lives,' meaning John Lennon. And I couldn't have agreed more."

Me neither!

Another thread used as a backdoor to discuss the Beatles. Boring repeated themes. Please confine to a Beatles website. Ob la di ob la da etc.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
JumpingKentFlash
John mentions Let It Bleed (I think he means that the title was stolen from Let It Be). Didn't LIB release Dec. 5 1969 and Let It Be in march or may 1970?

Yes I believe you are correct...and certainly the albums aren't remotely similar.

I believe they intended it to be a jab at the Beatles, knowing they're project was delayed.

Although it was not released until March 1970, the song "Let It Be" was recorded in January 1969, and was already available on bootlegs of the unreleased Get Back album before Let It Bleed was released.

I must admit I never noticed the Satanic-Beggars-Bleed covers in that relation, JL has a point

Well I've never been to Spain...but I kinda like the Beatle...but not much. Without the adulation of some, or person friendship of others, why would anyone like Lennon, the pompous, nasty prick he was?

Quote
Title5Take1
I heard Malcolm McDowell on NPR. He said, "I was in a Manhattan apartment with Mick Jagger that stood across from the Dakota building where John Lennon lived. And Mick looked out the window at the Dakota and said, `That's where the governor lives,' meaning John Lennon. And I couldn't have agreed more."

Guess he meant Yoko Ono.

Phil Good that is real good (and true!)

Early Beatles had an edge to them and very good songs and later Beatles wander off into stupid Walrus and Silver Hammer crap

I don't like Pepper at all, I think it's dreamy and self indulgent.

I stay with the Beatles up to Revolver and their Dylan influence and then come back for Let It Be especially Get Back when they were getting back to a few Rock basics.

I think Paul has the better later songs and John has some great early songs.

Walrus, Benefit of Mr Kite and the rest of Pepper, Magical Mystery, Most of the White album, I don't like much.

Rocky Raccoon, not great at all.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-01 14:36 by howled.

John may have been the only "intellectual" of the Beatles, but I liked The Beatles for their music and couldn't care less about their deep thoughts apart from their music.

Quote
treaclefingers
Wasn't there some speculation as well, that 'A Bigger Bang' came as a 'response' to 'How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb'.

Makes no sense, especially when the 'biggest bang' is just a theory that never seems to hold up and has nothing to do with atomic bombs. That and that scientists are stuck in this belief that everything has a beginning and an end.

Quote
howled
Early Beatles had an edge to them and very good songs and later Beatles wander off into stupid Walrus and Silver Hammer crap

I don't like Pepper at all, I think it's dreamy and self indulgent.

Good for you. However Sgt. Pepper is one of the most influential albums ever so...

And as for Beatles wandering off into "stupid Walrus and Silver Hammer crap" what about She's a Rainbow and crap like that by the "bad boy" Stones???

Nothing against The Stones obviously but both bands have written their share of drivel.

I also think Lennon was a bit jealous of Jagger because Mick was everything Lennon wasn't allowed to be.

Quote
Stoneage
Lennon had opinions and wasn't afraid to express them. And he had some distance to the mannered world of popular music. Jagger has probably done more than a thousand interviews and hasn't said anything worth remembering.

sorta like your post, huh.

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues

Quote
treaclefingers
Wasn't there some speculation as well, that 'A Bigger Bang' came as a 'response' to 'How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb'.

Makes no sense, especially when the 'biggest bang' is just a theory that never seems to hold up and has nothing to do with atomic bombs. That and that scientists are stuck in this belief that everything has a beginning and an end.

don't shoot the messenger