|
Post by TTTM on Jan 10, 2004 19:35:15 GMT
Is it just me or do these songs sound really simalar? Sing the following out loud:
It's Only Love:"I get high when I see you go by....butterflies"
Mr. Kite: "For the Benefit of Mr. Kite, there will be a show tonight on trampoline"...."butterflies"
You see? Doesn't the word "butterflies" fit right in to Mr. Kite? It's almost like they're the same song!
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Jan 11, 2004 7:59:48 GMT
No offense to Lenon fans-----I just think that john, without Paul, did not have the "melodic gifts" that Paul had. John was great at concepts, lyrics, ironies, insights, originality, inventive musical accompaniments, and hard down rock when it came to it. John chose unusual chords and harmonies to fit his intriguing topics (What is that solo song of his---"I should have let it go"----Mr Kite, Starwberry Fields, I am the Walrus, Lucy in the Sky--have wonderfully offbeat harmonic schemes.
But Paul had the sense of (1) form, consiseness (2) COMPELLING melody, (3) ensemble playing (told everybody what figures to play on the songs he wrote, he figured them out in advance of the recording sessions).
So, Lennon sometimes, meolodically, is not so inventive. The way he starts "I'm Still Sleeping" with repeated high E's is like the repeated high "E"s in the verse of I am the Walrus. Paul would have come up with different tunes, I think. But no matter. Sleeping and walrus ae still 2 great songs...........
|
|
|
Post by TTTM on Jan 11, 2004 8:12:42 GMT
Yeah, that's why the Beatles were such a geat band: John was great at lyrics, Paul was great at memorable tunes, George always gave one of his perfect guitar solos, and without Ringo.....well, Ringo is just Ringo! Combine all those talents, and you get Magic. Not the Sigfreid & Roy crap. You get the [glow=red,2,300]real thing.[/glow]
|
|
|
Post by IanSingleton777 on Jan 22, 2004 13:51:03 GMT
No offense to Lenon fans-----I just think that john, without Paul, did not have the "melodic gifts" that Paul had. John was great at concepts, lyrics, ironies, insights, originality, inventive musical accompaniments, and hard down rock when it came to it. John chose unusual chords and harmonies to fit his intriguing topics (What is that solo song of his---"I should have let it go"----Mr Kite, Starwberry Fields, I am the Walrus, Lucy in the Sky--have wonderfully offbeat harmonic schemes. But Paul had the sense of (1) form, consiseness (2) COMPELLING melody, (3) ensemble playing (told everybody what figures to play on the songs he wrote, he figured them out in advance of the recording sessions). So, Lennon sometimes, meolodically, is not so inventive. The way he starts "I'm Still Sleeping" with repeated high E's is like the repeated high "E"s in the verse of I am the Walrus. Paul would have come up with different tunes, I think. But no matter. Sleeping and walrus ae still 2 great songs........... While this is a matter of personal opinion, I disagree completely. Paul's weak lyrics and redundantly basic melody lines displayed within an at best mediocre solo catalog painfully proves, to me at least, that he was NOT the brains of The Beatles. Truth be told, all but about TWO of his solo offerings were panned and savagely skewered by multitudes of music critics. Lennon did stumble into stagnation and mild unoriginality around the 'Mind Games' period. But his intellectual powers and lyrical strengths STILL to this day intimidates Paul, who we see made it a point to heavily EDIT OUT key Lennonisms (and tunes) from the banal new 'Let It Be: Naked." My favorite McCartney brain fart is how, in nearly every song, he runs out of 'moon/june' rhymes and deteriorates into just singing "la, laa, la la" to the K-mart melodies. UCK!
|
|
|
Post by IanSingleton777 on Jan 22, 2004 13:53:44 GMT
And, as an addendum, just listening to that wonderful, magical LENNON voice on the haunting chorus of 'It's Only Love' sends shivers down my spine. I agree with George Martin: John had the greatest rock voice in history.
|
|
|
Post by Rojopa on Jan 22, 2004 14:50:35 GMT
I'm in agreement with Flaming Pie. The individual parts make the whole. That's why John and Paul were so successful: they colloberated with each other when writing their songs. And that's what made them great!
|
|
|
Post by Rojopa on Jan 22, 2004 14:57:55 GMT
Ian,
That's because he is not Paul. And he never did have Paul's talent.
There comes a time in everyones life when they should just fade away into the background. Faul's time was awhile ago but he never took it. How much longer will we have to suffer through listening to his nasal voice?
|
|
|
Post by IanSingleton777 on Jan 22, 2004 15:43:28 GMT
Ian, That's because he is not Paul. And he never did have Paul's talent. There comes a time in everyones life when they should just fade away into the background. Faul's time was awhile ago but he never took it. How much longer will we have to suffer through listening to his nasal voice? LOL, I hear ya! Ever consider...just NOT LISTENING? Also, you are correct, the four members were the ultimate magic. None of them matched the genius in their solo careers. Paul should have retired after the 1976 'Wings Over America' period. He's now a fossil completely unrelevant to contempory music industry. And actually, quite annoying.
|
|
|
Post by IanSingleton777 on Jan 22, 2004 15:46:24 GMT
Ian, That's because he is not Paul. And he never did have Paul's talent. quote] Thank God; Lennon, IMO was exponentially superior to Paul in every way. Paul's apex was 'Elainor Rigby.'
|
|
|
Post by SilverBeatle on Jan 22, 2004 16:48:01 GMT
While we're on the subject, according to John Lennon:
"Any Time At All" was a re-writing of "It Won't Be Long" "Paperback Writer" was a re-writing of " Day Tripper" "Yes It Is" was a re-writing of "This Boy" "Get Back" was a re-writing of "Lady Madonna"
As a songwriter myself I can attest that we are all guilty of rehashing ideas. Is almost subconscious until someone points out you have just re-written something.
In terms of Lennon/McCartney, I also agree the whole was much superior to the parts. Each had their moments in solo work but neither consistently delivered the goods year after year.
One of Pauls biggest solo problems in my opinion is he felt the need to release every thing he's ever written. Without the guidance of Lennon to tell him what was or wasn't crap he was bound to fall off the table a bit. Lennon seemed to have a bit more reserve with his solo work but I believe he also went into hibernation a bit for a time which may account for less stuff getting released.
The bottom fell out for me with Paul with that horrible "Simply Having A Wonderful Xmastime" song. I think he repeats that title phrase 20x to fade out the song. Enough to ruin one's Holiday. Bah Humbug! ;D
|
|
|
Post by fixingahole on Jan 22, 2004 17:56:25 GMT
And don't forget "My Sweet Lord" was a rewriting of "He's So Fine!"
I like this post, almost nobody said PID on it. Refreshing!
|
|
|
Post by IanSingleton777 on Jan 22, 2004 18:10:21 GMT
The bottom fell out for me with Paul with that horrible "Simply Having A Wonderful Xmastime" song. I think he repeats that title phrase 20x to fade out the song. Enough to ruin one's Holiday. Bah Humbug! ;D LOL; my point exactly. "Simply having...a mad cow/brain dead Xmas time..." Ha ha.
|
|
|
Post by fixingahole on Jan 22, 2004 18:13:28 GMT
Though in fairness, J & Y's "Happy Xmas War Is Over" was no masterpiece. Must be hard to write a good christmas tune. The Beatles tried, "Christmas Time Is Here Again." How many of you were whistling that one last year?
|
|
|
Post by IanSingleton777 on Jan 22, 2004 18:23:58 GMT
Though in fairness, J & Y's "Happy Xmas War Is Over" was no masterpiece. Must be hard to write a good christmas tune. The Beatles tried, "Christmas Time Is Here Again." How many of you were whistling that one last year? As a matter of fact, I very much dig the Beatles 'Christmas time is here again,' especially the massive full-length version. Truth be told, I listen to the entire 'fan club' messages collection just about every Xmas. It's cool and the late 60's surreal stories are funny and trippy.
|
|
|
Post by SilverBeatle on Jan 22, 2004 18:24:12 GMT
I would take "Happy Xmas War Is Over" over Paul's ditty, but that's just me ;D
Speaking of Xmas tunes, my all-time favorite Beatle Xmas song is one I'm not even sure of the title of. Maybe someone can help me...it's a piano-only number with all the Beatles sharing vocals at various times. I know it goes "Everywhere It's Christmas at the end of every year!" and the list various cites (Tokyo, London, Hong Kong). I believe it's off one of their many Xmas fan club records. Is the title "Everywhere It's Christmas?" Anyone?
|
|
|
Post by IanSingleton777 on Jan 22, 2004 18:26:36 GMT
I would take "Happy Xmas War Is Over" over Paul's ditty, but that's just me ;D Speaking of Xmas tunes, my all-time favorite Beatle Xmas song is one I'm not even sure of the title of. Maybe someone can help me...it's a piano-only number with all the Beatles sharing vocals at various times. I know it goes "Everywhere It's Christmas at the end of every year!" and the list various cites (Tokyo, London, Hong Kong). I believe it's off one of their many Xmas fan club records. Is the title "Everywhere It's Christmas?" Anyone? Good show! Yep, it's from the annual Xmas fan club messages!
|
|
|
Post by fixingahole on Jan 22, 2004 18:36:45 GMT
Yep, catchy little number. I think it was called, uh, Everywhere it's Christmas.
And Ian, I listen to my Xmas disc every year too, but didn't last year, dunno why.
I love the part where Ringo says "Merry Christmas" over and over, speeds up and slows down to reveal him saying "Magic Christian - just a plug for the film, folks."
|
|
|
Post by SilverBeatle on Jan 22, 2004 18:44:52 GMT
No...REALLY? (heavy, heavy sarcasm)
Just looking for a confirmation. Figured that was the title but, uh, thought I'd ask for fear of Beatlemaniacs attacking me if I, uh, got it wrong. ;D
|
|
|
Post by IanSingleton777 on Jan 22, 2004 18:50:28 GMT
Yep, catchy little number. I think it was called, uh, Everywhere it's Christmas. And Ian, I listen to my Xmas disc every year too, but didn't last year, dunno why. I love the part where Ringo says "Merry Christmas" over and over, speeds up and slows down to reveal him saying "Magic Christian - just a plug for the film, folks." I like the bizarre little story, I think from '66 but not sure, when lennon and paul are portraying characters, suppose to walk to the store in winter, and lennon says the way they'll remember the items to purchase is "you say matches, I'll say candles..." then they go back and forth, "matches?" "Candles." Matches??" "Candles." Just a quiet little crazy charming moment...they were obviously stoned.
|
|
|
Post by LordChinfist on Jan 23, 2004 1:29:07 GMT
Ian, That's because he is not Paul. And he never did have Paul's talent. quote] Thank God; Lennon, IMO was exponentially superior to Paul in every way. Paul's apex was 'Elainor Rigby.' I can see how you say that John was superior to Paul, but I have to say my favorite Beatle's songs may be Paul's. Not really referring to the "acclaimed" Eleanor Rigby or Yesterday, but the songs I enjoy listening to the most are You Won't See Me, I'm Looking Through You, The Night Before, Another Girl, What You're Doing, Things We Said Today, All My Loving, That Means a Lot, and the anthology version of Got To Get You Into My Life. Of course I love a lot of John's material as well. I suppose it depends on the day as to who I want to listen to. But on a lot of days the Paul songs I mentioned just get me into that Beatle mood. I can't say if those songs are musically or lyrically better than John's, but there is something about those songs that have the most staying power with me and I never get sick of them.
|
|
|
Post by PaulBearer on Jan 23, 2004 2:02:19 GMT
That Means a Lot? I've never heard of this song.
One of my favourites wrriten by Paul (I assume) is It's For You sung by Cilla Black. Such a beautifully haunting song. I think that's what Paul had in his songs, I kind of a haunting quality only it isn't quite that if you know what I mean - an underlying blues sound that somehow touches you deep down inside.
|
|
|
Post by fixingahole on Jan 23, 2004 2:25:30 GMT
Or how about "Step Inside Love," also for Cilla. Really nice tune and Elvis does a great version of it on a B-side. And isn't it curious that they would be giving away Paul songs if there weren't going to be anymore?
Sorry, couldn't resist *smile*
|
|
|
Post by LordChinfist on Jan 23, 2004 2:43:41 GMT
That Means a Lot? I've never heard of this song. One of my favourites wrriten by Paul (I assume) is []It's For You [/i] sung by Cilla Black. Such a beautifully haunting song. I think that's what Paul had in his songs, I kind of a haunting quality only it isn't quite that if you know what I mean - an underlying blues sound that somehow touches you deep down inside.[/quote] That Means A Lot is on Beatles Anthology 2. My guess is that a lot of people would not consider it to be one of his better songs, but because it was unreleased for so many years, it was like a new Beatle song to me when I heard it and I fell in love with it. I believe it has that haunting quality you were referring to. According to the liner notes, it was recorded in 1965 for the Help! movie, but they decided not to release it for themselves. John said "We thought we'd give it to somebody who could sing it well." They gave it to PJ Proby and it reached 24 on the charts. If you are a huge fan of Beatles music like I am, I recommend the Beatles anthology CD's if you do not already have them, particularly 2 and 3 (although 1 has a couple good songs on it also). The earlier takes and alternate versions provide a fresh feel for the songs, at least to me. Did Paul write a lot of songs for Cilla Black? On Anthology 3, he sings one that was written for her called Step Inside Love. I'm not sure if I have ever heard It's For You. I think know what you mean about the haunting quality, sort of like in The Night Before and Things We Said Today, if we are on the same page.
|
|
|
Post by IanSingleton777 on Jan 23, 2004 5:34:02 GMT
I can see how you say that John was superior to Paul, but I have to say my favorite Beatle's songs may be Paul's. Not really referring to the "acclaimed" Eleanor Rigby or Yesterday, but the songs I enjoy listening to the most are You Won't See Me, I'm Looking Through You, The Night Before, Another Girl, What You're Doing, Things We Said Today, All My Loving, That Means a Lot, and the anthology version of Got To Get You Into My Life. Of course I love a lot of John's material as well. I suppose it depends on the day as to who I want to listen to. But on a lot of days the Paul songs I mentioned just get me into that Beatle mood. I can't say if those songs are musically or lyrically better than John's, but there is something about those songs that have the most staying power with me and I never get sick of them. Well, of course. All those paul songs you mentioned, (with the exception of 'that means alot') have excellent melodies which will live forever. I personally enjoy them all. But for me, on a personal level, I have concluded that Lennon was much more deeper intellectually, and in the way he succeeded with communicating the feeling and atmosphere created in the songs. He sang it all because he meant it; lived it; believed in it. He knew in his heart that music was the highest form of communication between people. And he connected not only on a global basis, but along with Paul, Ringo, and george, he changed the world for the better. We shall never see anything even remotely like it in our lifetime. And that is sad.
|
|
|
Post by IanSingleton777 on Jan 23, 2004 5:39:09 GMT
To clarify, I find that "That means alot" is a throwaway tune, with soppy 'moon/june' rhymes and simplistic melody. It just wasn't up to Beatles high standards.
To make amends, I really always dug "Come and Get it" which was given to Badfinger; it rocks and is the quintessenal pop #1 hit.
|
|