-
Article: The Case For Paul McCartney
Dear Mona and Lisa,
A friend and I were discussing this article today:
https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2018/12/the-curmudgeon-the-case-for-paul-mccartney.htmlHe commented that, “I thought it an excellent article. But an argument as to the most “important” Beatle is absurd. As we (and many) have discussed before, they were the sum of their parts–even Ringo. They were at their best as a group, not a group of individuals–no matter how good The White Album is.”
I replied with, “I agree with you 100%. I do believe that Paul was a workaholic, which may have contributed to the huge output in such a short time, but they elevated each other. The four of them were at their best when they were together. Or, as Mona and Lisa say, ‘Paul’s solo albums are too much Paul, and John’s are too much John.’ I honestly think that sums it up better than everything I’ve ever read on the subject.”
I’d be curious to read your take on the article.
-
6 Replies
-
Interesting article that raises some good points. Some of which I personally agree with and some of which I don’t. While obviously there seem to be many people fascinated by these in-depth analyses, personally we don’t find ourselves going down these rabbit holes a lot. We’re more interested in the music they created and in what makes music great and beautiful rather than the personality/talent aspect behind successful bands and musicians or who was the bigger “genius”, though those discussion can be interesting.
The four of them undoubtedly had their unique things to bring to the table and the article depicts Paul’s strengths and their differences well. But as I said before, since I don’t think any of them came any close to the magic they created as the Beatles once they went solo (one of the points I disagree on with the author), I think it’s kinda obvious that the combination had much more of a role to play.
Paul wrote insanely beautiful melodies but I can’t think of more than a handful (if even) of his solo stuff that came even close to being in the same ballpark than what he did with the Beatles. Go figure.
What’s for sure is that unlike anyone else, together they left behind enough music, history, stories and aspects to their creative and personal lives on this planet to inspire and intrigue millions of people and many, many generations to come.
Thanks for sharing the article and your thoughts here. Best, Lisa
-
Great article Jung, even though it was heavily favoured towards Paul. I have to agree with Lisa that Paul’s greatest musical contributions were as a Beatle. I’ve always preferred John’s contributions myself but they both were certainly at their best with George and Ringo.
-
Hi Howard. While I would have loved to have asked this question, it was Joe’s question. Really interesting article.
Thanks Lisa for sharing your thoughts about the article so thoroughly, always enjoy them. I think yourself and most of your fans are in agreement about the Beatles being greater as the Fab 4 than the Solo 4. This article misses the mark by elevating Paul as the greater Beatle.
I hope Joe doesn’t mind, but I thought I’d throw in my 2 cents about the Beatles in my limited exposure with them from more of a layman’s perspective on the matter.
I think John Lennon and Paul McCartney’s personalities had the effect of pushing each other up, and when they broke up, they were not as effective as when they were together. Together they were greater than the sum of their individual parts.
Paul was this Mozart like song writing genius who looked up to the cooler, wilder and more mature John Lennon as a mentor/older brother like figure. In an interview I recall Paul describing John this way when they first met as youngsters. John probably helped Paul push his creative boundary beyond what he would ever achieve alone.
John Lennon I think saw a younger possibly technically stronger song writing equal in Paul. When John lashed out at Paul after their break up and called Paul “Musak”, I think it highlighted a sense of resentment and respect for Paul’s talent. I think Paul had the same effect of inspiring John to excel technically beyond what John would have achieved on his own as a song writer. Paul would have set some high benchmarks for John to have to exceed. When they went solo, neither ever rose to the heights they did as the Beatles.
I think Paul’s deep appreciation for John Lennon comes out in an interview where Paul recalls calling John after a long absence after the bands break up, and John is baking bread and they have this wonderful friendly conversation and how happy Paul was to be able to have had that conversation before John was killed.
-
Apologies to both you and Joe on getting that one wrong. I think your 2 cents worth is on the money.
I really do think that for MLT, it is all about the contribution of the Beatles as a whole and as Lisa alludes to, there is no value in them following everyones’ opinions down every rabbit hole!
-
I believe it is terribly subjective and, as such, depends on individual taste. There are things that Paul did which I believe were brilliant and things he did which are just fillers. Same goes for John. George was held back to his 1 or 2 songs per LP and by the White Album he showed he was a strong songwriter. I agree that individually they were never as good as they were collectively.
Personally I liked the Beatles’ songs from 1964 to Sgt. Peppers and then it skips to Abbey Road. I tend to like John’s music that was influenced by Dylan (from Help! to Revolver) more than his other periods. For Paul I liked his songs throughout the Beatles. George’s material grew over time and the triumvirate of While My Guitar Gently Weeps, Something, and Here Comes the Sun ranks with many of the Lennon-McCartney compositions. Now Ringo is a very unique drummer (a lefty on a right-handed kit) and many of his drum parts are hard to replicate and some were very imaginative (Day Tripper and Come Together). They all brought something to the group and we benefitted from it during those 6 or so years. Mike.
-
I thought that John had the most interesting and occasionally thought-provoking solo material, followed by George. Even Ringo had a few interesting tunes, but Paul’s stuff was, in my opinion, mostly tripe. I generally preferred John’s songs to Paul’s when they were in the Beatles, too. Totally subjective and I won’t argue with anyone for disagreeing with me. 🙂
The forum ‘MLT-FAQs’ is closed to new discussions and replies.
