JOHN vs PAUL Erin Weber Interview 02 |
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 вер 2024
- Erin Weber and I discuss the John vs. Paul "Who's the Genius" debate so prevalent in Beatles narratives. Erin points out the origins, the growth of and the futility of chasing this narrative.
Help support this channel and Erin Weber. Pop Goes the 60s is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, a program designed to earn advertising fees through advertising and linking. I thank you!
The Beatles & the Historians, An Analysis of Writings About the Fab Four
• BUY IT HERE! paperback book or Kindle edition: amzn.to/3EnQUFr
SUPPORT Pop Goes the 60s on PATREON: www.patreon.com/user?u=81879771
IMO, John and Paul complemented each perfectly, in song writing, friendship and being each other’s muse, perfect synergy, pure genius.
They really did. I couldn’t agree more.
A perfect example of a Bro-mance.
They were the epitome of twin flames; textbook platonic soulmates. They needed each other emotionally-even as a married man you still need your male confidante BFF.
Paul and John made each other better. They would not have been the strong artist they became without the other on the scene. They pushed each other to genius. They met for a reason. I love them both for different reasons. Had the pleasure to meet Paul and Linda in 1974 and take them on a private tour of the old Opry House. They were so nice and friendly. Still have the autographs in my Beatles collection.
Oh! I’m guessing this was when Wings were in Nashville to record the “Junior’s Farm” single. Amazing!
Hi Matt: I can't tell you how much I have enjoyed the 2 interviews with Erin Weber. Absolutely fascinating!!! I will definitely order her book. I am so pleased she took this direction in commentary. I taught English and Media Studies for 30 years here in London and her approach to the multifarious narratives that have evolved over the years
give so much room for thought and consideration. There is a great deal of information in both interviews that demand more than one viewing and I will certainly be viewing them again. I just wanted to write and let you know that you have really outdone yourself with conveying this very interesting material. Thank you!!! D
I appreciate the feedback, David and I'm sure Erin does too. I have one more interview with Erin that will be out in about a week. If you think about it, please use my link in the description to purchase your copy! Thank you, David!
@@popgoesthe60s52 Please discuss with Erin the Mark Lewisohn narrative! Saludos!
I have been watching these guys since 1963 and I always thought that John benefitted from Paul's much stronger work ethic as much as Paul benefitted from John's ability to very quickly create (his back to the wall). Also, the thing that made their sound so unique and enticing - the combination of their very different voices and timbres - also impacted their songs and their writing - two very different styles that just melted together perfectly. It was a match like a good marriage - opposites attract and also improve each person. If you watch the Get Back documentary as much as I have now (LOL) you get the best view ever of these guys...how when one was up the other was down, when one was forefront the other was background...the joy in their movements and the pain in their faces at times...it is a good glimpse, I think, of the relationship that we have all benefitted from. But like any great partnership...it could not exist as well separately so there really is no point in weighing the importance of either...
I agree the some of the "magic" comes from the blend of voices.
Excellent points, Mr. William and spot on.
William bill spot on comments
You nailed it
@@popgoesthe60s52 Definitely, in the Get Back clips I've seen, the voices really stand out as an incredible feature, raising everything to Beatle level.
I see a lot of this about George and Paul too maybe it existed before but it's now more visible because George has got a huge number of fans in the past couple of years. There's this constant argument of who is the greatest. The real big ego fight is between fans.
As with Paul and John, there is a synergy between Matt and Erin that lifts these discussions to another level. Thank you both for doing this!
Another great session with Ms. Weber! I agree that the history of the Beatles has been skewed over the years between John and Paul with John being favored even while he was still alive. I am glad you mentioned the Rolling Stone review of McCartney and how Jann Wenner had Griel Marcus retract Langdon Winner’s original (and favorable) review and replace with a more critical response. Other critics such as Robert Christgau have also taken the pro John anti Paul stance as well. Looking forward to your next discussion. Thanks Matt!
I always think of Beatles as an almost perfect musical unit; and, in my view, this fact begun with the arrival of Ringo Starr. It's true that, since the beginning, Paul and John were the main composers of the group, and a lot of compositions were composed by them like partners. It must be noted that George himself was the lead singer in some Lennon-McCartney's songs, like "Do you want to know a secret?" or "I'm happy just to dance with you". Finally, George became a great composer too, besides, always his songs had less space than John and Paul's in the recordings. But talking in the topic of best composer, based in the John's and Paul's own songs (or unless a bigger part of each one), in my opiniom, there's no way to compare, because their creativity is equivalent. But, if the matter is the further development as a full musical artist, then, in my view, it must give credit to Paul McCartney. Reasons: his early symphonic arrangements in compositions like "Yesterday"; "Eleanor Rigby" and "She's Leaving Home"; an entire motion picture soundtrack written by him already in 1966 ("The Family Way"); a production of a solo album in 1970, playing basically all the instruments and making almost the vocals' totality. These points, in my humble opinion, talk so much in favor of Paul. But, please, I'm not saying that John was not a genius and a wonderful artist too.
I think the music media for the most part has been heavily biased towards John Lennon and against Paul McCartney. They felt like they could identify more with Lennon, the anti-Establishment rebel versus McCartney the happy-go-lucky pop star who makes catchy songs that are mostly fluff. Lennon knew better and even when they were feuding, there was always respect for Paul McCartney. I kind of see them a bit like Martin and Lewis. Dean and Jerry feuded for a lot longer, but they reconciled and both spoke highly of the other. Jerry Lewis often talked about Dean’s facade which concealed a much more sensitive and deeper man than the public saw. I imagine the same could be said for John and Paul. We got a glimpse of that in “Get Back” where we see Paul nearly in tears. I’m sure the same could be said for Lennon who came across as confident yet had many insecurities. I truly believe John loved Paul as a brother and vice versa. Had Paul been shot, John would have been the first one on the plane to England.
"I truly believe John loved and hated Paul as a brother and vice versa." Fixed
I long ago grew tired of the interviews where a journalist or author would ask John or Paul who wrote what or what % was by one vs the other. Who really cares? They collaborated actively and passively with each other. They influenced each other continuously and had a friendly competition thing going all the time too. Plus in studio all four usually shared ideas on arrangement and sound no matter who “wrote” what. Plus, the Beatles did not become the phenomenal hit songwriting machine until all four members were finally in the band.
As someone born in northern England in 1958 and enraptured by The Beatles from "She Loves You" then to "Get Back" today I can say that this is the definitive Truth about John & Paul's relationship. Assertions of superiority for one over the other are fatuous, false, and futile, and malform their unitary.
You well point out, further, that taking *any* of the four out would in effect destroy the unique whole which is The Beatles.
I look forward to the delivery of your book from Amazon. My respects.
Born in 1958, love all the Beatles from a young child. It is fantastic that their music still delights the masses. The Beatles meet the test of time.
I've always looked at it as a battle over musical genre tastes more than John and Paul themselves. The generally warmer, love song oriented Paul vs the harder edge rock of John, although they both frequently stray away from those tags. I've also thought the magic of their compositions was how they would each bring those opposing styles into their collaborations. Kind of ironic that John's last hits were Woman and Starting Over, 2 pop oriented love songs (great songs IMHO) that John would've teased Paul about if he wrote them. :)
Here’s my choice of music to end this nonsense.
You’ll like this one , oh and the producer.
m.ua-cam.com/video/TsqZng4zNik/v-deo.html
Of course our opinions are important,
But not to each other.
TBH I entirely disagree, Paul was much more plastic in terms of his tastes and output in terms of John. Who else would have come up with "Helter Skelter" in that band? Paul was also the one who came up with a lot of the more "experimental" things associated with the Beatles during their psychedelic phase. He was the one who was listening to avante garde music during that period. The fact we attach Paul's name with more MOR output is, as alluded to in this interview, a product of revisionism and probably the fact Paul really does want to get on with people. My God, if it were me, I would have told Lennon to f*** off many times and had nothing to do with him after the BS he repeatedly pulled on his bandmates and others associated with the band over time.
Plastic Paul. Always a pretentious attempt at authenticity. John was the real deal. Like him or loath him , he came from a genuine place. With Paul there’s always that niggling “ oh I wonder what other people will think of this” His attitude is laid bare for all to see in his solo efforts. He could mingle with John and hide in the Beatles. Phoney.
You’ll be telling me Blackbird’s about the Civil rights movement next, yet know , like what Paul want’s everyone to believe because he’s so concerned about what you think about him. It’s about a bird in his back garden. He’s on record as saying this but when he got wind people thought he’d gone Lennon like in his subject matter he changed his story. Dig a bit deeper and there’s many fibs McCartney tell’s. I mean it took a load of music scientists to jog his memory and remind him that no Paulie you didn’t write In my Life.
This is very interesting to me just after finishing Get Back. I grew up after The Beatles broke up and my impression of John was based on these narratives. Sort of cynical and sanctimonious (with a savior complex) but after seeing Get Back, I saw a different side to John. Such a goofball (in the best way). The cute glances between Paul and John were so endearing. Makes me think it didn’t have to end so sour. I have a better impression of all of them. Also, Ringo’s drumming and George’s guitaring were so on-point!
A very interesting interview, Matt. It reminded me of a busker I saw while traveling in England (many years ago). The busker did Beatles songs but only John's. I didn't realize this until he sang "A Day in the Life" and cut out Paul's middle contribution. People are so funny.
As usual, keep up the great work Matt, especially in sharing the fascinating perspectives from Erin Weber.
Busker bigotry! I never knew that existed! I appreciate the comment, Dean.
I've seen many many bands/performers cut that part out. Some of the reasons were due to the difficulty of the transition, the contrast with John parts in terms of key change/rhythm change and "feel" being too great, or just not liking that middle part (it's not among Paul's better work, while the John part is among his better work). I skip it because it is too far removed from the flow of John's part for me and when you do a cover well it should be changed to suit the performers style and strengths, not a carbon copy of the original, (otherwise it would be just subpar radio) . Cheers!
The best thing I can say on why the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame comity had McCartney wait a few years after electing Lennon was them being petty. They should always be ashamed for not electing them as solo artist the same year.
AGREE!!! It was in such bad taste.
Sharing writing credit basically shows they were a team supporting each other.
I'm enjoying this series and Erin's very thoughtful and well researched responses!
Matt, excellent part 2. I didn't realize historiography was a field, so this is absolutely fascinating to me. Great video, as always!
Thank you, Mark!
All I can say is that all four members had very successful solo careers after the Beatles but none of them came close to matching the Beatles success they had (no other band has really).
You’re right it has sucked all the energy out of the room..but I think that McCartney is a better musician,singer and in the later years had more drive to keep things going.maybe you can give Lennon the lyrical edge on certain songs but overall it’s Paul
I think John was a genius songwriter and I would absolutely defend him tooth and nail if anyone said otherwise. But it hurts my heart deeply when people say Paul wasn’t good. To me he’s the entire package: genius songwriter, brilliant voice, multi-instrumentalist, production savvy, AND magnetic stage presence. I have yet to experience more joy and uplift from any other musician/artist, he is one of a kind every bit as much as John was. Contrary to popular opinion, you don’t have to be a “tortured” artist to be a genius artist.
It's easy to determine who is the genius - you just have to lay down the ground rules as to what makes a genius. It's a personal perspective and I could not give a rats ass about any of it. John and Paul were different flavors but did wonderful work together and solo not to mention George's excellent songwriting contribution. There's no competition here. I just enjoy their creative output. That works for me.
Such a fascinating interview. Erin is a great guest and I hope she comes back in the future.
Thanks, Jesse. I hope to have her back as well!
Great talks with Erin Weber here! Erin states that the "John vs. Paul" debate is a "colossal waste of time," and I understand that from an analytical point of view, but I have to believe that debate was pushed for financial reasons more than anything else. A lot of these authors, especially in the years following the breakup, and especially right after Lennon was murdered, knew that diving into that "debate" would sell books. Beatles fans are a weird lot in that many take on these perceived "friendships" with particular members of the group and then feel it's their place to defend/"protect"/praise a particular member at every turn. I think a lot of authors knew that by flaming these inane, meaningless debates, books would sell to those looking to shake their heads in a "Yeah, See!" agreement, and those angry fans wanting to read it just they could rip it apart and state how wrong it is. I think the Albert Goldman book cornered the market and sold bundles by taking this tack -- That is, do some great research but then extrapolate into the extreme and nonsensical.
A really great interview- thank you!
Paul’s Lyrics book is really good with lots of pictures that I have never seen. I bought it for $60.00. It is worth the money.
About 20 years ago (around 2002, I think) Yoko caused (I think) a bit of controversy in the John vs. Paul narrative, when she said (I think) in an interview that, in her opinion, John was the better songwriter then Paul. In terms of hit records, especially during the solo years of both, the record speaks for itself. Between 1970 to 1980, Paul had far more hit or successful singles/albums then John did. Personally, I like both as songwriters, but I tend to side slightly with John, because I really like songs which have an abundance of minor chords. George also used minor chords in many of his songs as well.
I am so glad to hear this! The magic was in the collaboration, right?
Excellent interview ! 👍
Matt - I love your videos in the Beatles. Thank you for sharing your knowledge with us!
Thanks for the comments, Janice! Much appreciated.
When you’re discussing Lennon Remembers - was it not originally an interview (in 2 parts, over two issues)
not conceived as a book - by nature a book is meant to be less ‘disposable’
than a bi-monthly publication.
As I remember, Lennon was furious when Wenner brought it out as a book. Of course they reconciled a while afterward (and Wenner continued to exploit the relationship imho)
Many people took those interviews to state facts regarding the The Beatles history. Let it be movie, Paul's interview saying he didn't see The Beatles working together again at that moment (that doesn't mean that maybe in 3 months they could be working together again) and those John's interviews were the bases to write a lot of books regarding that history and that's what I understood by "Lennon Remembers" history period.
Wenner is a master manipulator. And we all fell for it. At least in the beginning
It's easy to manipulate if you control the rock media.
It's like debating who is more responsible for the Patriots dynasty, Brady or Belichick? They needed each other. It's NOT that you don't have to choose. It's that you can't choose. They weren't individual entities. Paul was a genius. John was a genius. But the synergy created by Paul and John (and George & Ringo) was the true miracle. ✌
I guess for me is the million dollar question is "what did John really think"?? Lol But seriously! I've always heard that John pretty much "hated" a lot of his Beatles songs, and obviously didn't like Paul's "granny music". Yet the Get Back Doc, at least in those later years before they broke up, He still looked like he was having a good time, at times, with some of those songs. All of my favorite songs that I like from John from The Beatles, he didn't like Lol.
I have always believed that Paul and John’s writing partnership went on much longer than others have espoused, including George Martin. To me one of the big revelations of the Get Back Documentary is that it never changed. Only the access of one to the other changed. Pre-Yoko they had regular writing sessions at John’s house. The first shift from this was on Sgt Pepper and was more a product of their being constantly in the studio. We know that John was filming How I Won the War when he wrote Strawberry Fields. Paul was on safari. They had no access one to the other in this case and once they did, they were constantly in the studio, so their songwriting collaboration got folded into the recording sessions rather than formal meetings for writing alone. Then came India and Yoko and from that point on the personal access one on one was greatly impacted. What Get Back shows us however was the dynamic of each other’s input continued on the same way as it always had. We can well imagine the old Kenwood days just observing them at Twickingham as they mull over the lyrics for Get Back. Jann Wenner, I tend to think, fomented John’s anger at the time. He arranged a special screening of Let It Be for John in San Francisco prior to the interview, and while John’s complaint for anyone who has seen Let It Be that it favors Paul knows the complaint has merit, attributing it to Paul, rather than Lindsey-Hogg is preposterous. I saw nothing in the Get Back documentary that gives legitimacy to the idea that Paul held more sway with Lindsey-Hogg over the finished product. Likewise, John’s complaint as documented in Anthony Fawcett’s book, “If you look back on the Beatle albums, good or bad or whatever you think of ‘em, you’ll find that most times if anybody got extra time it’s you! For no other reason than you worked it that way…” is something I disproved one day to my own satisfaction by creating a database of songs both album and single to see who came out on top and found if anyone was favored it was John but by and large it balances itself out over their career. If Paul got more A-sides for the singles post Sgt. Pepper, it's just the luck of the draw. They chose those singles together assessing between them what the strongest song was, and it fairly assessed by both. John knew damned well that Hey Jude was better than Revolution for the A side. As to first person accounts, I’ve always taken both partners with a grain of salt on who did what or how much. John’s admission to Playboy that many of the songs were written eyeball to eyeball is as close a correct assessment as we will ever get. Lennon-McCartney is what the label says and should be the end of it. I personally love Paul’s recent discovery that he had input into Gimme Some Truth and had completely forgotten it.
All good points. Yes, the Get Back doc certainly showed John & Paul's collaboration in full force, which seemed not only inevitable, but unavoidable when they were working. I didn't realize the Let It Be showing was prior to the Jann Wenner interview, but that may have triggered some loss for Lennon by the time the interview happened. Lennon may have known by this time that he help kill the goose that laid the golden egg and more resentment came out. They also had plenty of opportunity to collaborate in India to the point where George chastised them for "writing the next album!" Thanks for the great comment.
@@popgoesthe60s52 Yes. They saw it before the interview. It's actually in the text: Wenner-I would like to ask a question about Paul and go through that. When we went and saw “Let It Be” in San Francisco, what was your feeling?
John-I felt sad, you know. Also I felt… that film was set-up by Paul for Paul. That is one of the main reasons the Beatles ended. I can’t speak for George, but I pretty damn well know we got fed up of being side-men for Paul.
This convinces me that Peter Jackson is correct when he says the Beatles memories about the sessions is based more on their memory of the finished film than what actually happened.
@@DAYHOMEONE Thank you for this. It all makes more sense now.
I always took the Wenner interview with a pinch of salt. John was clearly more affected by his upbringing and it affected his relationships with people around him. Hence his bottled up aggressive streak mostly verbal was always more likely to surface when being kicked especially by the ones he loved and respected.
Totally. Rock n' Roll its been said is born of adolescent & teenage angst, unresolved issues and anger in its purest form, once everythings distilled down. Certainly thats true in many cases though not all. Lennon to me always ragged, deliberately obtuse, pissed off. McCartney much more the "Pop Artist". Lineage including old British Dance Hall, in his DNA. Softer edge to Lennons rough, complimenting one another beautifully. Ying & Yang. I never rated them, one over the other including Ringo & George; to me always a "collective". Team. Group. Personality wise however & based on solo recording careers, writing, my favorite was & still is George. The quiet one. However, I also love McCartneys 1st few solo albums, odd track from albums thereafter. John Lennoins solo works however, with only a couple of exceptions, not diggin it. Never did contemporaneously, nor over the intervening decades despite giving it 2nd, 3rd, 6th & so on listens...... And THANKS MATT! Fabulous interview series as they all are, or just your videos one on one tracing whomever, whatever. CHEERS.
Also, it notable that John had just come out of "Primal Therapy" when that interview was done.
I see it as the Beatles having two hearts. John the spiritual heart paul the technical. You cant have one without the other
Its very interesting, because at some point in history, it seemed to me, that some artists were kind of bullied for not being left winged enough. As a musician I might tend to favorize what the notes and the sound "tells" me. A poem and a song is NOT the same thing to me. In my opinion lyrics are also colors, and they dont need only to be political statements.
Good interview
great content, thanks
Weird bassy sound through my speakers while listening to this. Perhaps bumping up against the mic?
Erin is fantastic too
Lennon had one of the most convincing speaking voices and manner ever. Understand how this literally puts people under a spell, and you'll understand cults and cult leaders.
It isn't a case of John versus Paul as they complemented each other perfectly. It's a case of one couldn't do without the other for that perfection to happen. That's what's missing from their solo works. They produced some fine solo works but could never match what they did together. I think both realised that.
I agree, but many fans insist that one is better than the other and they do it at the expense of the other. That's what this discussion is about.
Paul's personality grates on me more than anyone else in the Beatles so I'm not a fan but it should be about the songs not the personalities. They both put out great songs but my biggest complaint is this type of argument leaves out the contributions of George and Ringo which is a huge disservice to them.
All the fake music news from RS and everyone else over the years is sickening. Peter Jackson’s Get Back shows a spectacular band with normal highs and lows creating great music. My dad always said “don’t believe everything you read.”
Great debate here Matt top draw you are both correct writers over the years have built this up for me John n Paul were equal and awesome in there own right let’s however not overlook mr Harrison n Mr Starr which you both have not George was up there without doubt for me his two songs were the best on abbey road had the fabs continued George would have gone further truly believe that and so would ringo outstanding bowing Matt don’t forget the electric prunes bio when get time all the best for Christmas 🎄 sir.
She has got a LOT of nerve to accuse OTHER people of "confirmation bias" WOW. She's arguing the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin but acting like HER assessment is pure historical fact. This is childish. She insults all versions of Beatles history including Lennon's, yet her version seems to be that "Hard Day's Night" was a documentary and Ringo is as important as John. Even Ringo doesn't think he was as important as John. She's speaking from her heart, which is admirable, but she is dangerously off-base to insist that her emotions are historical fact. She should go watch Yellow Submarine over and over to live in the land she's trying to force on the rest of us. Look i was a cartoonist for decades and I know the attraction of wanting cartoons to be real. They are NOT REAL. Even in the Jackson documentary you see Paul admitting that fewer of the songs than ever were actually co-written by that point. When Lennon appeared with Elton John to perform "I Saw Her Standing There," he said before they played it that it wasn't written by him, it was written by his ex-partner. NOBODY including Lennon and McCartney EVER said that all their songs were co-written, so how DARE this girl born in 1980 make such a bizarre and dangerously revisonist statement? BECAUSE IT MAKES HER FEEL THE WARM FUZZIES??? Honestly, she's more guilty of all the shade she's throwing around, and I'm not going to watch part 3 of this interview.
Beatle flat earther alert!
@@popgoesthe60s52 Lame attempt at humor. I used to ghost-write for an Emmy-Award-winning Letterman writer, so maybe you can say Boomer Alert. Look, if she's going to name all other historians of the Beatles with cute names, then I'd like to call her revisionism, "The Participation Trophy" interpretation of Beatles history. Because if we rate their importance on a scale, then we're being "mean" to George and Ringo LOL.
BTW thank you for at least allowing me my say, even if you attempt to mock it afterward.
@@ScaryStoriesNYC The humor was unintentional.
@@ScaryStoriesNYC Comments are welcomed. But, if you put it in writing on my channel, be prepared to be answered in kind. By the way, I'm not a boomer.
I agree completely. The Beatles were John, Paul, George, and Ringo. I love their solo albums, but I love The Beatles albums more. They were all geniuses separately, but together they were even greater.
My opinion is that Paul was more of a muso and John didn't think of anything beyond himself. So Paul could write a scenario about a place- Penny Lane whereas John talks of himself in a place-Strawberry fields. His songs- I'm a Loser, Help, I'm So Tired mostly concern his state of mind, whereas Paul could imaginea world outside of himself. Paul could write big musical ideas; John's idea of rock music as he said was Wap bop a luma. Also Paul was more upbeat/positive whereas John is the cynic/skeptic. doesn't We can Work It Out delineate this? Paul states the conciliatory message and John gives the downbeat part. Paul as Don Quixote/ John as Sancho Panza- two sides of the coin.
I am so surprised, happily surprised to see a writer finally admitting most books about the Beatles are biased what a waste of time it is to create this battle of John versus Paul. This is something that I could never understand...Why people sort of feel so glad to try their best to destroy the magic of Lennon/McCartney. I do think they are also wasting their time in this pursue because nobody will be able to destroy the most important partnership in music of our time. But., gosh, they do try. It seems to me that after the split some people thought they also had to split. So they had to be John's fan only ignoring the others and even hating Paul. They had to be only George's fan and spreading John and Paul as dictators. And they even affirm George hated Paul totally. They get a kick out of it somehow. Most of these people regard Ringo as notthing...and yet, wiithout Ringo there would be no Beatles in my view. They are the only band where we can see how four people, with different personalities, would complete each other so well. They were the fab four. Not the fab one or two. As I am a fan since 1964 I can remember so well how much we loved all of them. We knew all their names. We'd sing we love you Beatles, we love you Ringo, we love you Paul, John and George. That was important in the Beatlemania because any other band was like that. It took me a time to learn the names of all Rolling Stones. And till today I don't know the name of all members of the Who. Some could leave and we would not notice. But any of the Beatles that would leave would be noticed and we would be in shock.
And now we can see people resuming their History mainly between John and Paul concentrating in this story they were not really partners. But they were. It is only they were not like ordinary composers. We can take David and Bacharah for instance...We know David was the lyriricst. Bacharah wrote the melodies. But the Beatles were so original that they had a different way of composing as both could write lyrics and melodies. So, sometimes John would change only some words. But Paul would present the song for him and asking for his approval or not. And would listen to his suggestions. To make things even more interesting George would collaborating too, as the riff in And I love her. And Ringo would contribute as well sometimes with the name for a song, like Tomorrow Never Knows. Anyway, they were indeed a team.
It also think these people seems not be satisfied only with their split. They want to split them also in the time they were together!
As for John Remembers...Thank you so much for talking about it. I heard the magazine wanted to release that interview when he was still alive and he refused. He got conscious he exaggerated and didn't want to perpetuate it. And yet as soon as he died it became John Remembers With the approval of Yoko Ono. If they had included the second interview for the same magazine it would be different. I thnk in that last interview he said he told lies the first time. He had a different view of Paul including saying he caused the same impact on him as Yoko some years later. He had very good words for Paul. But most people never remembers his second interview just a few days before he was killed.
So, I have to thank you again for talking about it and for interviewing Erin Weber who said exactly what I thnk about it. I thought I was alone. Good to know I am not alone on this subject. I got interested on her book, by the way,. I usually avoid the books about them for the reasons she pointed so clearly.
Great point about these people wanting to split up any of their togetherness. It takes a certain kind of person to go to the lengths they do to invent chaos that is not there. I think the clinical psychological term for this would be 'high on the neurotic spectrum.' Thanks for the substantive comment, Virginia.
I would also argue that it is very clear memory is fickle and Paul has said he can't remember who suggested what in some songs. Using the Get Back documentary on its own, you see all 4 Beatles suggesting, cords here, a lyric there, even just one word changes to songs that some fans did not realise came from another member of the band. We might know who came up with the base song on any album but we will never know the true influence of every Beatle on each others songs.
Matt, The Beatles as a Whole was always better than John, Paul ,George and Ringo as individual artists.
Agreed!
Thanks for another good one. I agree that the John vs. Paul debate amongst fans has taken the air out of the room and is a useless or even corrosive. The Beatles are a perfect example of the whole being greater than the sum of the parts. They were or are all talented individuals who collectively created sounds that still gives to millions tremendous joy more than 50 years after they were made. I don't think I am going out on a limb maintaining that they could not have made music as amazing apart from each other, as they did together. Please continue having Erin Weber on. I was wondering what take she had on Revolution in the Head by Ian MacDonald. Cheers.
Thank you for joining in Martin. I just started re-reading Revolution in the Head 2 nights ago. I'm surprised at the number of people who take McDonald's critiques personally, particularly with his discussion of individual songs. It seems that people miss his most important commentary which deals with the music industry, past and present, and as well as western civilization, which is a brilliant summary of the Beatles place in it. I plan to do a review of this book sometime soon, and I may consult Ms. Weber as well.
@@popgoesthe60s52 that sounds great. I think many people are more invested in the mythology than the music and they perceive an honest look at the gods they made as an attack on their faith. Let the scales from our eyes. I know I am gonna love the soundtrack.
Cheers.
Such a great discussion about the Beatles and historiography!
I cut my teeth on the Beatles. My parents bought every record. It was my mother's milk.
Never had a favorite, began to understand how George got sidelined, Ringo caricatured, Paul blamed, then John lionized.
I always saw Paul as more connected to a musical past (in the best way) and John more future oriented.
The one thing that I gleaned from Get Back and that reinforces my earliest memories is that each one of the 4 was indispensable. George and Ringo are right there in the creative process. It just doesn't happen without their energy.
If you recorded one of these discussions every week forever I wouldn’t lose interest ever! Another really great discussion. The Beatles were brothers and Paul and John were and always will be inextricably linked by their lived relationship no matter what they said to or about each other. No one will EVER know or understand how to write about that.
Lol- I've already seen this- but its worth watching. I'd like to hear More about the(so called) "clue for you all " Paul rumors. Yes I've read the book. I saw THE BEATLES 2nd Ed Sullivan TV appearance way back. Thank You!!
It's really cool how Weber described the LM collaboration as something that was forged at such an early age that they basically created a new entity. I wonder how much more could be accomplished in the world if our great thinkers were able to find their fusion twin early in life.
OMG- being born in 1970 makes me feel very ancient! I think the tiresome John/Paul "debate" is equivalent to the culture war narrative- people take a fixed position and then find evidence to support it. They both had amazing strengths, but working together they were able to critique & camouflage each other's weak spots.
Good analogy with the culture war. Unfortunately, these debates seem to be akin to opponents from two rival high school teams exerting effort toilet-papering each others houses.
Well said!
The fact that the argument exists is ridiculous. Neither McCartney or Lennon are 100% responsible for The Beatles. They're each 25% part of the band, which includes another 50% represented by George and Ringo. The Beatles weren't worried about credits or who done it. If anyone came up with a song, they all put in as much effort as possible as if the whole group wrote the song. They themselves said it during the Get Back Sessions. George, John and Ringo might've hated Paul's "fruity songs" like "Maxwell's Silver Hammer", but they put so much work to make it sound good that it's wrong to say that it was just a Paul song.
Some fan love to focus too much on one individual, when in fact we are talking about a band here, with 3 competent songwriters. Songs didn't sounds cool just because of one person, when you have 3 other members contributing. People need to watch videos that deconstruct Beatles songs where you can see input by each band members. Even then you will still unable to grasp the collaboration within the band in order to complete the songs.
A few comments here are obviously made by John Lennon fan, but to dismiss Paul, as someone who only have written a few good songs with John, seriously? Similar to how some people look down on George just because he contributed less songs as a Beatles. But I digress, some people will stick with their own version of truth and thats it.
Some people are unable to have an adult discussion on this topic and feel comfortable clinging to things they want to be true.
Love this series of interviews. Anytime Marc Bloch gets cited in a discussion of Beatles books, I'm in ;-)
BTW, on John vs. Paul, I think the Rosetta stone for their distinct songwriting styles lies in the timbres of their respective voices. Paul's voice is purer (like a sine wave in synths, if you've familiar w these) while John's voice had a rougher edge, more harmonics at odd intervals (like a saw wave), and I think each learned by 1965 to play to their strong suits (but both ignored these suits occasionally and wrote some of their best songs - eg, 'Helter Skelter' for Paul, 'Julia' by John. I think the final verdict on Paul v. John is genius is sui generis, and one of the privileges that comes with membership in the "Genius' club is they get to do whatever the f*&k they want, and more often than not they pull it off.
I originally at 9 years old, fell for the Double Fantasy album in 1980. Just like starting over, woman, watching the wheels, all led me directly Love me do. John, the boss beatle, led me there, and McCartney amazes me so much, he has totally robbed John of that original awe for me. They are different songwriters in how they view(ed) themselves in the world. I could never pick a favorite, even Harrison and Starkey are so vital, it is hard for me to have this discussion. All were so strong at what each did, not flashy, just rock solid, that it would be hard to imagine almost any song, without any one of the players involved.
The inquiry you pose at the beginning of the video is "Who is the genius of the two", John or Paul? I don't find historical methodology very helpful in answering this question. More useful may be analysis of criteria such as technical proficiency, creativity, originality, execution, melody, lyrics, inspiration or emotional depth... Now, all of those factors have inherent flaws, and some have limitations when applied to popular music. But I think it gets us closer to "who is the genius" of the two, or to go beyond the implied premise set out in the beginning (that one is genius, the other not), whether both are geniuses. At least these elements of "genius" better inform a conclusion than looking to a historical "source" like the Lennon Rolling Stone interview, which occupies much of this discussion.
I don't pose the question, "Who is the genius of the two." That is a debate that has arisen from Beatles narratives. I'm merely calling attention to it, and as Weber pointed out, the argument is pointless. The criteria you suggest is what people on either side of the issue use to prop up one side of a pointless argument.
@@popgoesthe60s52 Rewatch your video. Those are the exact words you use in the question. (0:31)
I think that the Get Back documentary footage pretty much clears up the argument of Paul vs. John. It became obvious--especially after hearing years of propaganda that John and Paul didn't work together like they did in their early years--that there was an immutable synergy that made their writing their writing. There is no way you can leave one or the other out of the picture save for a few pieces here and there, like Yesterday, Julia, Blackbird. Even in those cases, you might imagine that one was thinking of the other when they recorded the songs. Otherwise, each other's input with the other was an intractable fact. John's interviews, to my mind, weren't reliable. His character displayed a philosophical split within himself. He seemed like a guy who felt like he needed to have a philosophy of life but was never clear on what that should be. This is funnily evidenced in Revolution where he sings, "Don't you know that you can count me out...in." The song, to me, displays clearly his insecurity with his own philosophy. In the song 'God' he eschews spirituality altogether and in 'I Found Out' he tells everyone that 'there ain't no guru who can see through your eyes.' Yet, back in the early eighties, when I was living in Manhattan, I was involved in a mystical school that was located on 57th street. One day, there was all of this buzz there because John and Yoko bought one of their tee shirts. Yet, that mystical school did indeed have a guru. Why would they have even walked into the place if they were so anti-guru? He was split about what he believed and that can be seen all the way back from his early years on to his solo career. Another example would be his talking about art and how it MUST be personal and subjective or it's not art. He railed on Paul for writing songs about characters, yet John had his 'Mean Mr. Mustard,' 'Bungalow Bill' and others describing characters. I always take John's pronouncements about anything, with a grain of salt. One thing, I have to admit, annoyed me to no end, is how he talked about some of his masterpieces, many cited in the Rolling Stone interview, as pretty much dreck. He put down songs like 'She Said, She Said,' and others as if they were junk. This alone shows that he wasn't even a good judge of his own material. Much as I love John for his genius, his restless creativity and his brilliant punning ("Because" being a great example of that), he had his faults and he himself was always the first to admit that. God bless him and may he rest in peace. The Beatles were a blessing and a gift to the world.
You make a great point, Vinnie about John having a philosophical split within himself. Quite possibly the most fickle human to ever walk the face of the earth, he constantly gave fans contradictory information about himself. This made it difficult to sort out with his eventual canonization by many fans who see any negative comments on him as some sort of blasphemy. I could do a John vs John video which would lay out some of the things you bring up. Hey, there's and idea!
@@popgoesthe60s52 Hahaha! That's a GREAT idea, man. You should do it!
@@popgoesthe60s52 Yes!! I'd love to watch it!!
I love John and Paul. But John was pissed off at the time of the interview and had an axe to grind, which he did very publicly. Jann Wenner took advantage of the situation for multiple reasons probably. It gave the mag the illusion of heightened credibilty by backing the more serious more politically active Beatle. Paul rarely "fought back" in those days and was an easy target in that way. Stupid childish grievances playing out between two old friends in a very public forum. But you had the publication backing one side of the story which undoubtedly influenced public opinion in a big way against McCartney. It's such a shame. I saw through that nonsense pretty quickly as it unraveled.
Completely agree. Wenner went so far as to ask a reviewer on Rolling Stone to change a review of a McCartney album because it was too positive.
Paul fighting back would’ve only make it worse on him. It’s a crime that “Ram” didn’t get the good reviews it deserved because his trajectory may have been very different. It was obvious the media/critics were out to punish him any way they could, in fact I read some were appalled that Paul McCartney of all people got to do a Bond song instead of John Lennon and they were even more upset when “Live and Let Die” became a massive hit. Thank goodness, because that success gave Paul all the confidence he needed to finish “Band on the Run” in spite of the hardships he faced before they even started recording it. The man is absolutely resilient and does not give up, I definitely admire that.
As usual, excellent show! Erin is great! I added a few small comments below, but most everything has been said. I view this debate as silly or destructive IF liking one Beatle has to mean knocking the other(s). Paul has always been my favorite, but I am not even sure what that means given that my top favorite Beatles songs have just as many “Lennon compositions” as “McCartney compositions”. I will say that the Get Back film showed a John that truly touched my heart, which all my readings of and watching of interviews of John never did. I came away loving and respecting him as a person instead of a political symbol. And I came to love and respect his love for Yoko so much more than I had before. That to me is the biggest emotional impact of this film. Thanks Matt. Please keep up the great work!
A very good interview. She is a wise woman.
Matt, your channel is brilliant, even for the ones that we have almost all about has been writen or said about Beatles, the good and the bad, the deep serious historycal research and the easy shallow and careless ones. Bringing someone like Erin It is not about listening to what we want to hear but rather presenting a serious analysis of what has been said in the most impartial way possible. Even the discrepancies of John and Paul's statements. Old time fans who have read, listened and put a lot of thought about this, we know they both were aware of the power of their creative parntership and collaboration. As any other partnership, it might had disagreements and each other complaints. And maybe no other parternship or band in world music history grew so much so fast and suffered so much pressure, not needing to mention the special guy that John was and how that pressure affected him. If Peter Jackson has done something for us is to show a band working hard everyday, giving their best, dealing with their own problems and with their bandmates ones. But they didnt give up and they did what they could to make it as good as they could and they supported each other the way they could after all the craziness, the non stopping tours, the non stopping creative process and recording. if they had not been a real band till the end and that John and Paul partenrship wouldnt been there, we wouldnt have Let it be and Abbey Road. They did it as long as it made sense to them. Thanks for your channel, Matt. We need it
Thank you for watching, Pepe!
@@popgoesthe60s52 Thank you for your channel and your thoughtfulness
Yin and Yang. Two sides of the same coin. Two leaves from the same tree. And, yet, day and night, rain and shine. Black and white.
They both were musical geniuses . Paul was a hard working genius, John became a lazy genius. I blame Bob Dylan for that, with the reefer smoking. Really.
:)
Paul smoked reefer as much as John. He served prison time in Japan for possession. I think heroin is the drug you might be looking at to explain John's "laziness".
As with your previous videos I thoroughly enjoyed this especially as it’s discussing historical writings by various people on the Beatles.
Re John he was using cocaine and heroin in the period and both drugs can have very big impacts psychologically on the mind.
Cocaine turns a lot of people into ego maniacs who ignore anything that doesn’t fit their own self centred view. This I suspect was a big factor in John’s interviews and comments back then.
Heroin, even the low quality heroin, John and Yoko were snorting can also fog memories as much of the time the brain is not processing all of the information clearly so what John and Yoko may have perceived as being the ‘truth’ was an incomplete blurred memory of things.
Anyway I look forward to the next video and thanks to you both for your insights
Yes, the drugs must be taken into account. Thank you for the comment, Nige!
So happy you are doing this with Erin. So pleased there will be a third. (A caution, beware of your own biases as well- we all them). Quite obviously, John and Paul were in a power struggle as the Beatles ended and this power struggle and poor behavior spilled out into the public square with both John and Paul appealing for support for 'their side'. The split into Paul and John camps wasn't just a press thing- John and Paul were also asking for that. The result was a great sensationalist story which the press was more than happy to exploit. I think this is reason number one why Rolling Stone put so much behind promoting Lennon's interview. Reason number two was they had already named him 'man of the year' for 1969, so in any good guy/bad guy narrative , they were obviously going to back Lennon. They were a new Magazine and they staked their reputation on Lennon. It's shitty journalism that they picked sides, but I get why they did it- it was great at at selling copy. As to the politics of Lennon influencing Rolling Stones decision, I think that reason as a motivator was certainly on the list, but waayyyy down the list compared to a Magazine's desire to be sensationalist to sell magazines and to play good guy/bad guy because it would sell magazines. They had to pick the 'cool one' to support, they had already picked Lennon before the interview, they double downed after the interview. Lennon was always better copy than the other three. He is more candid and witty and doesn't shy from too many topics. Lennon is a better talker than the other three. His interviews are a great read. They are entertaining. That makes for a much better read. But it doesn't mean his story is any more accurate- unless his versions are consistent on an event, where someone else versions are inconsistent. McCartney's interview's until after Linda died were far more guarded, defensive and not as entertaining. What both often did is to walk into an interview with a narrative to promote and use as a shield. Which is beyond annoying. If you reread their interviews, you can see the talking points they are deciding to take. That said, the words are still important. The actions are far more important (for establishing the history of the events). Fortunately, both John and Paul got wise to the field day the press was having and stopped feeding the beast. Unfortunately, many half truths were already put into the publics mind.
Surely you can get more than one more interview from Erin. I'm finding listening to you young folk discuss history I lived through very fascinating.
keep up the good work.
I really don't see any substantive disagreements or inconsistencies when I read the various interviews holistically. To me it's very clear what John's perspective was (about Paul, about the Beatles, about his own music and the music he loved, etc.), and the same goes for Paul (though in his case there are many decades' more material and revisionism to sift through.) It all lines up. The substantive content of "Lennon Remembers" isn't at odds with that of his 1980 interviews, which were warmer and tempered by years of wisdom (and by the absence of lawsuits and hard feelings.) It's clear that John always thought Paul was an "extraordinary" talent with frequent lapses into cheesy superficiality. It's clear that John replaced Paul with Yoko as his most important creative partner in 1968 and that this was the core reason the Beatles broke up. Paul and John were always a marvelous combination of yin and yang -- this was the magneto of the Beatles, the thing that made them so great -- this combo of Paul and John, both likeminded and very different -- able to put "I'm so Tired" next to "Martha My Dear", thus creating an incomparable spectrum of musical and lyrical color within one band.
Well said. It's also worth noting that Lennon, in response to the magazine's request, did a breakdown of who wrote what in the Lennon/McCartney partnership for Hit Parader in 1971. Paul agreed with almost everything John said. I feel there is considerable value in interviews like this.
@@tombeyerlein3813 The problem was that the damage was done. Lot's of people still take that interview as a source. Of course John didn't mean it.
@@julessabio Not sure if we're talking about the same thing. I'm referring not to the 1970 "Lennon Remembers" interview in Rolling Stone, but of a who-wrote-what interview John did for the magazine Hit Parader the following year. It was a song-by-song breakdown. McCartney agreed with almost all of it, except (IIRC) Paul disputed John's claim that John wrote "about 70 percent" of the lyrics to Eleanor Rigby, and Paul claimed to have helped with the lyrics to In My Life. I still have that magazine, purchased hot off the news stands in 1971!
@@tombeyerlein3813 Yes, I understood that you meant that. Yes, I may be confusing. There's not much problem regarding who wrote what. As you said, they agreed in almost everything. There are manor discrepancies. The thing is that, although John was pissed off for the first article and that he tried to enmend that, lots of books have been written based on that interview. It's like the fake news. They stick there. That's why I said that the damage was done. Still I found people taking that interview as a source regarding songs or the legal issue, totally omitting what John thought about Klein a few years after that. Anyway, that's people problem who don't understand how history works, hahaha. I hope my English is clear. Sorry.
How has Get Back movie changed or crystalized her views? I remember in the 1970s and 1980s, books played up the separation between John and Paul. It was to the extent that when John says in Glass Onion that he is as close as can be with Paul, it sounded unbelievable to me. Yet watching their interactions in Get Back, I see it was true. And neither ever replaced the other.
The Beatles have been in my blood since I was an eight year old back in 1962 when I first heard, Love Me Do. The success of the Beatles cannot be considered, in my opinion, without the contribution of George Martin and the wonderful team of technicians who played such a remarkable role in allowing their talents to blossom.
I have always felt that George Martin was most deserving of the accolade of being the 5th Beatle.
She nailed it.
Juan Is Like Extra-Fine Dark Chocolate & Pablo Is Like The Highest Quality Milk Chocolate. Peace
I agree with most. John and Paul complimented and contrasted one another so completely, it was beautiful. But the roles of all the members changed once the group went off the road. It sort of became "every songwriter for himself," although a part of me wishes that George was welcomed in to the "Lennon-McCartney" camp as third co-writer. But, starting with SGT. PEPPER we realized that the workmanship of John and Paul had been mostly individual since RUBBER SOUL or so, maybe even earlier. It's at that point in early 1967 that Paul emerges as "the" genius. Not that John was anybody's slouch. Pound for pound, SGT. PEPPER was Paul's album, as is MAGICAL MYSTERY TOUR. The WHITE ALBUM is pretty much an even split. The scale on ABBEY ROAD gets tipped in Paul's favor, as it's side two that got most of the raves. Mathematically, LET IT BE is an even split, but the focal songs were Paul's. As it illustrated with the GET BACK documentary, Paul's expertise in the studio was to be ready to go with finished compositions and be ready for anything when it came to working with the others. Playing any instrument needed was also where Paul shined brilliantly. I guess I've never seen this as a "VS." scenario, more like each member, while climbing the ladder to fame as a unit, needed to break free to carry on.
Love Me Do, A Hard Day's Night, A Day in the Life and I've Got a Feeling are, to me, the core proof that, regardless of everything else, Lennon-McCartney was and IS the best partnership in music history..the RIGHT partnership.
The US isn’t just horribly divided over its politics but also on the “who is the better Beatle” debate - John or Paul!
It's natural.
How can anyone measure the relative value of any Beatle? For example - Lucy in the sky, "Look for the girl with the sun in her eyes And she's gone. " What happens next?
The simplest thing, Ringo drums Boom Boom Boom. It is a statement of finality. "Gone" is locked behind three locked doors. Or in "And I love her" ..just four notes from George that Paul raves about. Arguments about importance is about the same as arguing whether salt is important or not in a meal. There was one band. Not to put too fine a point on it, but who had the best two songs on the final album.. "Something" and "Here comes the sun", And in the "Get Back" doco, who was asking for help to finish?
Ringo replaced Pete best..like a Thai dinner you need, sweet, sour, spicy, bitter, salty. How can it be said that one ranks above the other when each element is essential?
"Paul was the worker", Ringo Starr
"We were both artists is school", Paul McCartney
Each one complimented the other.
The argument is moot however as liminally and subliminally, they all are influenced by each other, even now.
Questions like "who is more of a genius" are malformed to start with. Ironically, I think this is part of why they are so fruitful. Genius (in the creative sense) is a nebulous term we use to encompass an intangible essence of a creative person that seems to produce exceptional works again and again. It is not quantifiable, and therefore, not comparable. You could try to quantify the components that make up creative genius and then come up with some kind of aggregate metric, but besides being intractable, this would probably yield a pretty meaningless result. Even if John was x points higher than Paul or vice versa, it wouldn't really tell you anything.
This was a fantastic discussion. Thank you Erin and Matt.
Thank you one thousand times for these extraordinary and thoughtful presentations!! I will certainly purchase Erin's book. I think the key to understanding the Beatles is to understand John Lennon's fractured psyche. Whereas Brian Wilson withdrew from the public and drank, gained weight and slumped into a depression, John put his anger, resentment and deep deep conflicts out in the public for all to see. The awful statements in the RS interview were meant to tear and hurt, not just Paul, but Beatle fans worldwide. It's John's way of expressing his intense anger. Anger at his mum; anger at his dad; anger at his teachers and whomever ignored him as a child. To put it in perspective, I think of when my own mom would leave me with a baby sitter when I was 4-5. Upon her return I was always happy and so glad to see her. Imagine if that mother left and never came back? And what if you learned that the mom (and dad) had essentially engaged in new families and a new life that did not include you? For some children, such dislocation is accepted and they move on. In WW2 whole communities were wiped out and orphaned children adapted to their new lives, albeit not without regret, but generally without major psychological damage. Not so with John--he was sensitive and had an uncanny ability to "hear" a melody and integrate the same tune into a new arrangement. This sensitive boy, ignored by his auntie and teachers, grew into a fractured man.
Yes, I think you are on to something there with John's lifetime losses catching up with him. The drugs and unfinished primal therapy probably didn't help either. Plus this idea that from 1979-80 he miraculous figured it all out and vanquished his demons is preposterous. Hopefully we'll get more information on this topic in the future. Erin and I touch on this subject briefly in the part 3 of our discussion.
What is it with these silly practices of choosing favorites and/or ranking things? There's no need to pick one over the other,maybe we should try enjoying things without adding quantification or division.
Erin, you are the best!
John v Paul does equal a waste of time.
BTW Jann would qualify as a waste in my opinion.
They complemented each other. When John AND Paul becomes VS, its beside the point.
Another important Beatles author was Nicholas Schaffner. I believe he had the best selling of all time book on the Beatles, the Beatles forever. I don’t know how he fits because much of his books are about how he integrates his life into the history of the Beatles. And, for historical purposes he tended to write contemporary reports on them and did a little editorializing as possible.
The Beatles Forever by Nicolás Shaffner Great Book! 👍
I think Paul is more talented as a musician and singer, but even though Paul is my favorite beatle, I love John because he was very cool and I admire that he was a rebellious person who was not afraid to express himself.
Over-investing in this debate is a potential red flag, leading into the abyss. Their talents were mutually complimentary. But they also changed and there is no constant either.
John and Paul seem to have seen each other primarily as partners, and not as rivals. (Although of course there was a bit of that as well, but it seems to have been very good natured). Their talents were remarkably complementary, and they also seem to have collaborated much more than we'd been led to believe back in the day. If, for example, John would say "That was one of Paul's songs," what that meant was that Paul brought in the original idea, which they then developed together. And then they'd take it to the group and it would be worked over some more. Of course, some of the songs really were 100% one of them, but for the most part they not only collaborated, but were deeply invested in the others' songs coming out the best the could be.
Paul was pop, John was rock... Together they made musical art. More than the sum of their parts and all that.
Discussing who was better out of John and Paul is a bit like discussing which is the better wheel on a bicycle.
I think both guys were dynamic and talented performers who should never be competed against. They were different in their songwriting styles, but that's what maked them all very unique. Their should never be a John vs. Paul but we should embrace all the members of the Beatles equally and no one should upstage the other.
On a sad note Matt, I was shocked today when another icon of the 1960's passed away today. Michael Nesmith of the Monkees died from complications with heart failure at the age of 78. A truly talented musician, singer, guitarist, actor and all around good guy who's versatility in music genres switched from bubblegum pop, psychedelia, bluegrass and country, he was truly underrrated. Even though he was successful as a solo artist in the 1970's he would always find time to return to the group that made him famous. So RIP Michael Nesmith 1942-2021.
Mike wrote this beautiful song as a tribute to John called:I'll Remember You- RIP Papa Nez, Will Remember You.
Niether would have amounted to much without the stimulation provided by the other.
My 2 cents for what they're worth: while engaging the John v Paul debate with the intent of "winning" it is definitely a waste of time, the debate itself a fascinating subset of Beatle discourse because the response to these two distinct, complementary personalities has, at its worst, been so richly and vehemently oppositional. It has tended to bring out the worst in Beatles fans, even though the two figures at the center of the debate brought out the best in each other. I wonder how we can explain it. Tracing its appearance in the literature -- conducting a historiography of Beatle discourse -- is revealing of how the various strands of thought developed *in print*; but it doesn't explain why people latched on to one strand of thought or the other.
I may attempt to answer the question of 'Why people latch on to one strand" in a future video. Thanks for watching, Art.
@@popgoesthe60s52 Well, you know I'd watch it. And I have no doubt you'd do right by the topic. You're putting out some of the most in-depth, carefully observed, dare I say zen Beatle analysis out there. I have more to say about it all, of course, but for the moment, I'll just say I'm grateful for your contributions.
@@artdifuria2731 I am aiming at an audience like you, who wants in-depth discussion - particularly on the Beatles. Thanks again for the support.
Peter Doggett’s “You Never Give Me Your Money” cites the essay