One "Difference" you didn't mention: Paul knew what he wanted most of the time, and how to find that sound for his music. John often didn't. He knew, in his head, how he wanted it to sound but couldn't verbalize it to anyone else. Paul was able to articulate either verbally or musically. One similarity... how they treated George. Like a kid brother at times, and not necessarily an equal. Not just musically, but with regards to his interests and his feelings.
Great convo! In the similarity column, I'd add the nugget from Tune In, that one person who knew John and Paul early in their collaboration described the pair as having a Leopold and Loeb type of focus. An eerie comparison, but shows how they shared a drive for success that was a bit over the top, to say the least. The Paul as a lazy or weak lyricist notion is interesting to me because it comes from John's angry interviews just after the break up of the band. So, John's really saying Paul's a lazy lyricist referring to the Beatles period, and John continues saying that through 1980. But, who among us would knock Paul's Beatles period lyrics? So, I think this notion was part of John setting the table on the Beatles myth. Paul may have announced the breakup of the band, but John could tell the world how to feel about Paul's contribution in the band, and a lot of that stuck. There's some great and some awful lyrics on Mind Games, but I wouldn't knock any of the lyrics on Red Rose Speedway or Band on the Run of the same year. Paul's lyrics are interesting, playful, memorable, and more personal than we knew at the time (as Ken points out that the recent lyric book helps in that department). There are fans that put down the "woh woh woh woh" in My Love as bad lyrics, and that is ridiculous to me. That's a hallmark of a gorgeous song. From the opening horn, to the dreamy melody, to the woh wohs, and signature guitar solo, the song has it all. Every piece is part of that masterpiece. Not a lazy choice in sight. I've made a conscious choice not to experience McCartney the way Lennon said we ought to. That was born of jealousy, anger, and hurt, but that's between those two guys and doesn't have to effect how us fans enjoy the music.
David, I think we can look at the artists they admired when it comes to their "lyrics". John loved Chuck Berry and Bob Dylan. Two artists known for their lyrics. Paul loved Little Richard and the Motown Artists who were putting out Pop song lyrics.
What? Paul loved Chuck Berry and Bob Dylan too. Paul and George got Dylan first and turned John on to him. John has disparaged Dylan too out of jealousy. He also insulted Paul Simon who is a close friend of Paul. John clearly had issues.
@@dan2050 When we look at songs that Paul and John cover, there's a lot of overlap for sure (Solo and Beatles). btw, everyone picked on Paul Simon including lennon and dylan and paul simon himself.
They were both master marketing men. John complimented Paul on his marketing skills, and everything John did in the early 70's with Yoko was a marketing campaign. Then, when John came back in 1980 he was a master at marketing being the house husband, bread baker and main parent. All true, but an excellent story also. Paul has been a master marketing man his whole career.
Grateful to Linda, Linda apparently went after Paul in rough weather dangerous terrain to find him when depressed in turbulent days of Beatles. In an interview, Paul talked about how much he loved "my girl and how dangerous for her and hcouldn't believe that she had gone through so much to find him" Yoko determined,also met Paul,first worked her way to John. In an interview, John and Yoko talk about the breakup. Dick Cavitt on RU-vid. George,too separate Important and interesting insight from them. Thank you
This was an interesting discussion. I do think John and Paul have much in common (as each of you stated) but I think the differences in their musical approach as well as their personalities was what made their combination so magical. That said they both made amazing music individually and I think they inspired each other . There is no question that some of John’s riffs were inspired by Paul like Beef Jerky (Let Me Roll it) I Don’t Wanna Face it (Coming Up) and Paul was inspired by John by doing his own oldies albums of both rockers (Back in the USSR, Run Devil Run and Kisses on the bottom). Great show…thanks
This is a subject that will bring up conversation for many decades to come and I appreciate everyone's opinion. I think that there is so much that people don't know about how The Beatles recorded and wrote material. I mean I never knew how much Macca had to do with Tomorrow Never Knows and I think that it wouldn't have turned out as it did without him, I think John would have run out of patience. Had Lennon not had an opinion Macca would have taken out a key line out of Hey Jude. I firmly believe that without either one The Beatles would not be in the history books like they are today, plain and simple. I think that had they stayed together the music would have been just as good as was when they were together. Off subject I also feel that without George and Ringo we would have missed out on some pretty cool things. The Beatles were one band that had to have the four members or nothing. I think that the expectations for Revolver will be very high, maybe nothing will be good enough or live up to the expectations. I'm hoping for the US picture sleeve 45 of Paperback Writer and Rain in mono.
I was just thinking about the fact that both John and Paul used their wives in their bands in the 1970's, and the fans and press hated them for it. I think they both did quite good as vocalists. I really like a few of Yoko's songs on "Sometime in New York City"; like "Angela" and "Sisters O Sisters". Just like I love a lot of the solo Paul songs with Linda doing background harmonies like "Long Haired Lady" and "I am Your Singer". Another difference you could talk about is that while they both lost their mothers at an early age John became very angry when his mother died, whereas Paul was inspired by his mother to become a workaholic and in that sense her death made him a better person and I think her work as a Midwife gave him respect for women which led to him writing many songs about women with a feminist lens. When people say that Paul is a weak lyricist I wish people would give examples. Because Paul has written songs with brilliant lyrics like "Another Day", "Eleanor Rigby", "For No One", "Tug of War". Are there a few here and there with weak lyrics like "To You"? Yeah but if there are a few songs like that amongst hundreds of songs with fantastic lyrics. Also we know that McCartney 2 is the album that inspired John to write again and that he must have loved "Bogey Music". I've always been surprised that John badmouthed "Back To The Egg" yet he loved "McCartney 2" because both those albums are experimental in nature. I love the fact that both of them did political protest songs. It's clear with Paul that he only did so when a certain issue really effected him deeply. I love the pro animal rights songs from the 90's.
There will definitely be a high resolution version of Revolver at least as a download as all the other remixed albums have come out in that way, as standard editions and super deluxe releases! It doesn't get mentioned at all but getting the high res versions of the super deluxe versions of the reissues is a cheaper option if you just want the music only. I do think it is about time the 2009 high res versions of the catalogue which were released on the USB Apple only were readily available, though they could do with an upgrade from 24/44 to 24/96!
Those two guys really needed each other. Maybe not in the early 70's. I think they needed to be able to express themselves. But, can you imagine Paul producing a John record and John producing a Paul record? Might have been contentious, but I think they would have brought out the best in one another. McCartney rarely knew what his best work was post-Band On The Run. John would have told him straight up....had they been on good terms. Isn't the one real thing that set the two of them apart their pre-Beatle home lives? Paul had a father who was there and good ol' family get togethers, right? If they could bond closer together having lost their mothers at a young age, I think the difference between them is their father situations. Probably made all the difference in the world - work ethic, warmth, etc.
I respectfully disagree with you, Chris. All the Beatles survived on their own, and I never felt that John needed Paul on his solo-records, or vice-versa. Look at all the success they had on their own, and John would have continued with more success had he lived longer. It was great to have the contrast between them in the Beatles, and it certainly made the music interesting, but they still made incredible music on their own, and Paul still does to this day. As far as telling Paul what his best music was, I don't think John judged his own music well. It's all subjective anyway.
I was just thinking yesterday what would have happened if John did as he originally planned and reunited with Paul on the "Venus and Mars" album in 75. Would the two of them have written songs together? Would they duet on Call me Back Again and Rock Show? How would he have worked together with Wings.
@@kenmichaelsradio748 I guess the general consensus is that John and Paul together ironed out each other's weaknesses as collaborators and that once apart overall the standards dropped! To me, there are too many variables involved to know whether had they carried on the music would've been better than what we have. I couldn't see the Beatles being such a dominant force in the 70s, plus musically finishing when they did was the perfect end for the band. Maybe Paul's copious use of marijuana has more to do with his erratic songwriting than John's absence. :)
@@jamesboyce4000 Well, we see things differently. I love the solo-music exactly as it was. Beatles songs go from good to great, and I feel that way about most of the solo-music. I don't really hear weaknesses in their songwriting. Some of their best work was when they were together, and for me, most of it from their solo-careers. If anything, John and Paul proved that they didn't need each other on their own. Perhaps I look at things differently because I'm American, and followed their chart success, which was greater here than any other country. But just based on my musical tastes, they continued to write strong material on their own, which to me is what matters the most.
@@kenmichaelsradio748 Like you Ken I'm a massive Paul fan and continue to buy his albums to this day but I do feel overall that his post-Beatle music is very variable in quality! I will add though that even today Paul keeps putting out some really good stuff and for an artist that's been around so long that is quite an achievement. I do question myself on whether I'm being too picky as I hurtle towards 60 but I think I can step back with more perspective now and look at his whole oeuvre', so far, and say I love a lot of it but there is plenty of wtf was he thinking moments too! :)
I liked the discussion on the upcoming Revolver set. I think adding a "US" Revolver to the box but I don't think that would happen. Years ago they redid the US albums on CD using the British mixes for the individual songs rather than the US ones. I also agree with Allan that I am ok with compressing the content to less cds rather than making multiple cds just to justify the cost! I will buy it because it is the Beatles rather than a solo immersion set which I have ignored. I still want people to remember the old quote from John that the Beatles were very concerned not to rip fans off by like releasing songs that were already available on singles or whatever ......and that there is no record of Paul saying it or agreeing with this idea...:)
Paul has said in many interviews that they did not want to cheat their fans by maiming them pay for something twice. At this point though, who are they cheating? We beg for more Beatles stuff 😄 Not their fault if we keep asking for it and buying it
@@loribreyfogle8853 I have never heard or read Paul say such a thing. He is into making money which is why you see all these things out there. Other artists are doing it too. They use their fans like a piggy bank.He knows when you put the Beatles stamp on it he can hear the cash registers going off. Since I am a Beatles collector I "have" to get some things. I ignore the solo stuff. Since this Revolver thing really isn't offering anything earth shattering there was no need to issue it for $130 across a number of CD's. It could have been done on 2 cd's and sold for $40. I will get it used or heavily discounted in a few months....If you think this is bad...wait until the "60th anniversary" cycle begins next year with "Please Please Me"!
For the first ten years after the Beatles breakup, and in some cases decades later, there was no clear answer to which part of the melody or lyric was written by John or Paul for many if not most of their songs, regardless of who sang lead. Now, with all the books and research and the benefit of later interviews it seems so obvious, but not then. Is there any better evidence of their similarity, at least musically, than that? Finishing each other's thoughts, completing each other's songs, communicating with a mere glance as seen in Get Back; their shared sense of humor, their common independent spirit - can anyone really doubt that the Nerk Twins were more similar than different?
I explain the differences between John and Paul's Beatles songs, differences which became especially visible from Revolver onward as they became a full-time studio band, as stemming mainly from a difference in their mentalities toward song making: John's Art College Student mentality vs. Paul's Working Musician mentality. John was more picky about song concepts than Paul was; he wouldn't bring any old song into the studio, and didn't like repeating song concepts. However, once he came into the studio with his song, he was less inclined to work on refining the song to a point of great complexity and perfection. The focus on the concept, and the rest was a necessity and not particularly interesting to him. Paul, on the other hand, brought numerous songs into the studio, paying less heed to the quality of the concepts themselves. Once in the studio, Paul put in all the time and effort required to elevate the ideas he had into perfectly produced songs. He seemed to love production and learning about production, wanting to become able to self-produce, whereas John opted to always remain dependent on others for producing his songs. I think this difference in mentalities explains quite well why despite their big differences in productivity during their full-time studio period, John ended up writing just as many (what eventually became) classics and anthems as Paul did during this period of the Beatles. Both approaches resulted in more or less the same number of great songs.
I'm not criticising John Lennon by saying this but you're not correct in saying Lennon did not repeat himself. This Boy, You're Going to Lose that Girl, Yes It Is and others are basically the same song. To some extent all bands repeat themselves. Lennon also frequently made use of the 12-bar blues progression in songs like You Can't Do That, I'll Cry Instead, Day Tripper, Yer Blues, Come Together, etc. etc. McCartney does as well but there's no evidence whatsoever that Lennon was picky at all. If anything Lennon was content to knock off a filler song or resurrect an oldie to pad out an LP. Examples of this can be found on almost every Beatles LP. There's way too much binary thinking when it comes to the Beatles. A good example would be Lennon's comment about Paul's 'Granny Music'...well what are the examples of this? About five songs, one of which is about a serial killer... I like the Beatles, you know the group rather than four individuals, and at this point, fifty years after they broke up, I really couldn't care who wrote how much of what song. As the era of the Beatles winds down as McCartney and Ringo face the inevitable, we are left with the era of the critic and the commentator, very few of which are worth listening to. Really, ask yourself what you've learned after watching hours and hours of podcasts re-hashing the same talking points. Very, very few can talk intelligently about the music, the melodic, harmonic, rhythmic aspects, the arrangements or the production side of things. Even someone as thorough as Mark Lewisohn comes completely unstuck when describing the Beatles music. Got a bit ranty there but you get the picture.
Paul was less overt than John in lyrics. Blackbird is an example of that. It's about civil rights. Too many people was about John. How do you sleep was John's response. Another example of Paul's less overt and John's more direct approach. I disagree that Paul didn't need a reunion towards the end. He would have jumped at the chance. John liked to play up to the working class image he spun in song. He wasn't working class though. He was in fact the posh Beatle. Mendips Woolton, Quarry Bank grammar school, holidays in Edinburgh a bookish culture are symbols of his middle class upbringing. John was the leader of the group. Paul tried to keep the band together by keeping it busy, especially after they stopped touring and after Brian's death. But it was John who formed the band led it and ended it. Within the working class in the UK there are subtle differences. Paul is what I would call respectable working class. His mother was a midwife his father a salesman, and they had some privileges up until his mother passed. They got good housing with his mother being an essential worker There's quite a difference between the working class backgrounds of Paul, George and Ringo. I think the artistic match between Paul and John was near perfect. What were the chances of two musical geniuses living not far from each other and their paths crossing. It's a divine act of nature. We are very fortunate to have witnessed this very unique song writing partnership which is a rare occurrence. There's been nothing else to match it in popular music.
Great topic, but what i'd like to know is, is Allan working on the second McCartney book and is it gonna take as long as Lewisohn's second volume lol. keep up the great work you three put into these posts most appreciated
Give me a break, such stereotyping , same old analysis. You're not being fair to paul, so tired of hearing you guys dissing Paul with the same old stuff. Lyrics vs melodies!
