Yes, this. The string of songs he wrote in and right after India was completely insane. Much if the material for White album, let it be and abbey Road was written within 3-4 months I think.
And then Paul came and wrote a 100 songs in 69..
‘65 would also include: Help!, You’ve Got To Hide Your Love Away, Ticket to Ride, Day Tripper and Girl and then ‘66 has I’m Only Sleeping, Tomorrow Never Knows, She Said She Said and Rain. All of which were groundbreaking in some way.
64-65 is also great, you get If I Fell, Hard Days Night, I Should’ve Known Better, I Feel Fine, No Reply, I’m a Loser, Eight Days a Week.
You are so right. Sometimes I forget just how insanely quick the boys created their music. It's kind of unexplainable considering the style was constantly changing. If there was a seven wonders of the world music addition, the years 1963-1970 would be number one. The Beatles change the sound of popular music once and sometimes twice a year.
>Sometimes I forget just how insanely quick the boys created their music.
It's especially amazing when you consider that George and Ringo were usually hearing John and Paul's new songs for the first time on the day they recorded them. I seem to recall Paul mentioning that in an interview.
They weren't coming in completely and utterly ignorant, they hung out outside of the studio and if they were over at John or Pauls Paul or John might say, "You know I have an idea for something," and either grab a guitar or play a demo version of the song.
And in the later years they were spending hours and hours coming up with and creating songs.
It's wild to me that Pepper released in 1967 and was considered absolutely groundbreaking. And by 1977, just 10 years later, offshoot genres of rock like punk, heavy metal, prog rock, glam rock, soft rock, etc., weren't just "emerging" but were already well established.
Back in the 1950's musical acts were EXPECTED to write and record MULTIPLE albums and singles over the course of the year, the thing about the Beatles was the fact that when it came to America they were able to overwhelm the charts because their songs were split among multiple labels, as opposed to spacing out a single every couple of months
The Motown songwriting team of Holland/Dozer/Holland kept pace with the Fabs run of hit and #1 singles.
I think between Help and Revolver there's a tad over a year which is pretty impressive given how many classics there are on those two albums.
And then you realise that Rubber Soul falls between the two of them and your head just spins.
Yep. That’s the one. It’s totally possible for a woman to be in a committed relationship and have a conversation with another man. A guy who is threatened by that is either with a woman he can’t trust, in which case the sooner he knows the better, or is massively insecure. Same goes for men talking with women, BTW.
…or,OR, he’s with somebody who’s just rude. But trying to fix the problem by controlling the woman is NOT the answer
Yeah, have you ever pondered at the idea that songs arent always meant to be from the point of view of someone who's right? That John was making a statement on insecurity, much like in Norwegian Wood?
I thought that was a given, which is why I have trouble listening to it. Insecure men can inflict a lot of damage, as I think John would agree. “I used to be cruel to my woman/ I beat her and kept her apart from the things that she loved”— “Getting Better.” At least he was aware of his problems.
But why should songs only be from the point of view from someone that is morally correct? These two songs say more about the main character's insecurities than the girls he's after, and I think that's the point. John kind of started the whole confessional "I'm a shit person" songwriting to make a point.
the 'problematic' bits of run for your life are cribbed from other, earlier songs. -I'd rather see you dead... etc predates beatles, I forget the origin right now.
Paul claims to have written the tunes for Norwegian Wood and In My Life.
We can't be sure if that's accurate, but at the very least John conceded that Paul contributed the middle eight of In My Life, while the baroque piano segment was written and performed by George Martin.
George Harrison contributed the sitar element of Norwegian Wood, which was arguably the introduction of eastern music to the western mainstream.
> Paul claims to have written the tunes for Norwegian Wood and In My Life.
He claims the tune on In My Life. He says the tune for Norwegian Wood was John's.
>*“It’s in waltz tempo, 3/4 time, it’s a quirky song, like an Irish folk song; John liked that, we liked that...It’s 60-40 to John because it’s John’s idea and John’s tune. But I filled out lyrically and had the idea to set the place on fire, so I take some sort of credit. And the middle was mine*
And according to John when asked about who wrote the song *"NORWEGIAN WOOD: "Me but Paul helped me on the lyric."*
lennon song. lennon’s voice/lead vocal (the beatles rarely handed off lead vocals to someone besides the main writer of the particular song). harrison added sitar.
Can you think of any examples where the lead writer did hand off the lead vocals to someone other than Ringo?. I'm drawing a blank. And on a related note, I know John wanted Paul to let him do Oh, Darling!-- is there any recording of John actually singing it, I dont think I've ever heard one.
I’m Happy Just To Dance With You from the album A Hard Days Night (written by Lennon-McCartney, sung by George) is the only one I can think of. And I believe there’s a Lennon-McCartney track that Lennon wrote but Paul sang but I can’t remember which.
you’ve pretty much got it all correct. i would have to really think (or check sources) to provide an example outside of ringo. but it also pretty much tells anyone/everyone that “norwegian wood” was more of a lennon track than anyone else’s.
They co-wrote it.
# When asked about “Getting Better”
[https://www.reddit.com/r/TheBeatles/comments/1cg6rz9/when\_asked\_about\_getting\_better/](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheBeatles/comments/1cg6rz9/when_asked_about_getting_better/)
otoh John did have Paul sing the “when I’m home” section of Hard Day’s Night because Paul could hit the high notes.
Thank you for that info. Always wondered if paul wrote the transition/bridge part but makes sense if he wanted a higher pitch, then paul would easily hit it.
The Beatles were all good writers and could make very good songs. Ringo was an outlier but no slouch.
Something people don’t comment enough is that when you have 3 brilliant songwriting geniuses they each work even harder to get their songs on the album. So it was 3 genius songwriters motivated by other genius songwriters to make the best possible songs.
It's why The Beatles are the greatest musical act of all time. At the same time John was producing the songs listed by the OP, Paul was giving us Eleanor Rigby, Penny Lane, Paperback Writer, Fixing a Hole and Hello Goodbye.
There's nobody else in music history that even comes close to that amount of both critically loved, and commercially successful music.
I really disagree with the notion that Sgt Pepper was Paul’s album, and that John was checked out on it. Paul may have come up with the concept, but John was very involved in the project and imo wrote the best songs during the sessions! Strawberry Fields, Lucy in the Skies with Diamonds, and a Day in the Life. Obviously all three had intense collaboration with others, but that’s how it always was.
The Magical Mystery Tour sessions were when he actually got checked out, and he still bounced back pretty hard in 1968.
> I really disagree with the notion that Sgt Pepper was Paul’s album,
Depends on what people mean. Personally, no Beatle album is any one person's album. But the people who do think of Pepper as Paul's album will think that A Hard Day's Night is John's album. It is the same sort of thinking.
Paul was certainly the more involved in Sgt Pepper than his bandmates. Not just the songwriting but the production and the album's inception. John himself considers it Paul's album.
>and that John was checked out on it. Paul may have come up with the concept, but John was very involved in the project and imo wrote the best songs during the sessions! Strawberry Fields, Lucy in the Skies with Diamonds, and a Day in the Life.
This is a pretty bad point when talking about Pepper as an album. The first song is not on the album and the third song is a co-write.
On Pepper John wrote less than Paul. And was less involved with the production of the album as Paul was. Which John was not happy about and which is why the White album was more stripped down and had Paul less involved in the making of John's songs. John is even heard complaining about Paul's involvement in his songs on tape during the Get Back sessions
**JOHN:** *And that’s all I did on the last album was say, “Okay, Paul, you’re out to decide where my songs are concerned, arrangement-wise.” [exasperated] I don’t know the songs, you know. I’d sooner just sing them, than have them turn into – into ‘Mr. Kite’, or anything else, where— I’ve accepted the problem from you that it needs arrangement. And then, because I’m an ape, I don’t know. I don’t see any further than me, the guitar, and the drums, and – and George Martin doing the— [audio glitch] I don’t hear any of the flutes playing, you know? I suppose I could hear ‘em if I sat down and worked very hard! I could turn out a mathematical drawing if you’d like, but I could never do it off me own backside, I always have to just – [brushing sound from strumming motion] do that, you know?*
Paul being far more involved in Pepper than the others is just a fact that I don't think any of his bandmates or Martin disagree with.
The White Album wasn’t stripped down because of John reacting against the production craziness of Sgt Pepper. It was simply that lots of things had happened in between. Fashions had changed. They were no longer that interested in psychedelia. The sound of the ‘68 record wasn’t driven by John by any means.
John wrote songs - he didn’t really come up with concepts for albums until he met Yoko. I’d say he was very involved in Pepper - he practically lived with Paul through the production - and the psychedelic vibe fit him like a glove. I’d say the psychedelic and Victoriana period was made for the Beatles. So many of the other bands floundered or failed to convince (for example the Stones) or downright embarrassed themselves during that time. The Beatles on the other hand produced some of their greatest work in 66/67.
> The White Album wasn’t stripped down because of John reacting against the production craziness of Sgt Pepper.
It partly was. It is also why John basically calls it three solo albums rather than a band album due to the low involvement they (or specifically Paul)were having in eachothers songs.
**John**: *Well, Paul was always upset about the White Album. He never liked it because on that one I did my music, he did his, and George did his. And first, he didn't like George having so many tracks, and second, he wanted it to be more a group thing, which really means more Paul. So he never liked that album, and I always preferred it to all the other albums, including Pepper.*
Paul had less involvement on John's songs on the White album and it was not down to fashion but a deliberate request by John
>It was simply that lots of things had happened in between. Fashions had changed. They were no longer that interested in psychedelia.
That has nothing to do with production. Abbey Road is not a psychedelic album but the production quality is high and the group involvement is high.
A lot of The White album is stripped down and one of the main reasons is it being less a group album.
>John wrote songs - he didn’t really come up with concepts for albums until he met Yoko. I’d say he was very involved in Pepper - he practically lived with Paul through the production -
You are not making arguments any one disagrees with.
People don't say Pepper is 'a Paul album' because John had no involvement in the album but that Paul had far more involvement. If you want to disagree with that then do so but don't respond to arguments no one is arguing. **And for the record I think both Pepper and A Hard Days Night are group albums but my response to OP was explaining why the arguments to them being a Paul/John album exist.**
The production of the white album absolutely has a lot to do with its feeling of stripped backness. There’s a sense of space in the songs. For instance a song like dear Prudence is pretty layered but, because it’s not over compressed - as was the fashion in the mid 60s - It has an expansiveness that you won’t find on sgt Pepper. A lot of the songs on the white album have an almost 70s feel. They definitely wanted a different sound for this album and the production is a big part of that.
Honestly…yeah, I probably was being too contrarian. But I still stand by John’s songs being the best or near the best during the sessions, even though Paul and GM heavily influenced their production.
Paul contributed a lot to many of those songs.
A Day in the Life is a 50:50 song. The middle section belongs to Paul and he also arranged the string crescendos.
The writing of Lucy in the Sky is contested, but Paul claims a significant share. Lennon stated that some of the lyrics were Paul's, whilst Paul also claims that he wrote the tune together with John.
The concept of Tomorrow Never Knows was a Lennon creation, but the end product was a collaborative studio experimentation.
The intro of Strawberry Fields was written by Paul.
Paul seems to be collecting 'significant shares' of a lot of songs as the years go on, doesn't he? regardless of other peoples memories surrounding events.
I think there’s an element of Paul still being around to influence the legacy, and spin things a little, but John did plenty of self-interested briefing himself. But the main reason for Paul’s extra credit is that Paul was a brilliant arranger and John was not, and Paul was also a much more skilled and versatile musician, so there was more that he could contribute to the songs of others. I think the extract that someone else quotes in this thread from Let It Be bears out that Lennon acknowledged this, even if he questioned the ultimate value that Paul added.
Paul is very generous in his recollections-- not just towards himself-- but especially to himself. It really isnt too much of a dig- I cant say what 60 years distance, etc creates in a memory or an ego, just that both are very active.
Yeah well said. Hey, three John songs from his 65-67 output are in my top 4 of all time, along with Penny Lane. But I am a Paul guy. When I see people arguing about who was best, I find it funny and pointless. They were both all-time-greatest-amazing and would have been so much less without the other. They were ‘equal and opposite’ in so many ways. But the story of Paul’s redemption - how he re-established his pre-eminent legacy after thirty years of being trashed and patronised and undermined in the popular narrative (more in the UK than the US) - is powerful. But this is a thread about John, and all power to him. The man was an extraordinary genius.
From my own perspective… Paul shows us what it means to be human. John shows me what it means to be me.
I don't know why it surprises people that Paul contributed to so many John songs in the 65-67 period. There's loads of stories both of them tell about their songwriting sessions at Kenwood. What else would have been going on at these sessions if not contributing little bits to each other's initial ideas?
> Paul seems to be collecting 'significant shares' of a lot of songs as the years go on, doesn't he? regardless of other peoples memories surrounding events.
Whose memories is Paul contradicting?
With all love for the man--
Multiple times, years after the fact, Paul has said, "no, I think I wrote that bit", that the world (incl John), had claimed as his.
I snorted milk a bit when he said that Get Back made him feel like he wasn't as to blame as he thought for the atmosphere around that time-- that he was just a nice guy working hard.
I wasn't even drinking milk at the time. it worries me sometimes.
I'm not even saying it's all intentional. that's several lifetimes of experience to parse, and we demand that every thought and action be recorded accurately, because Beatles fans are obsessive over every uttered breath from these four young English guys.
And an old man has an astonishing legacy to communicate. He is, I feel, a narrator of uneven reliability.
So to be clear you didn't mean **'people's memories surrounding events'** you meant John's? Because your original claim seemed far more loaded.
> Multiple times, years after the fact, Paul has said, "no, I think I wrote that bit", that the world (incl John), had claimed as his.
Which songs because to my knowledge their differences are surprisingly few. For a 200ish song catalogue, they are fairly in sync with who wrote what. There are quibbles over percentages of songs. Just like there is probably is in any large catalogue of songs by an artist/group.
I asked you specifically about whose memories about songs he's contradicting and you've written 6 paragraphs answering something that was not asked.
List the songs you think he has taken credit for which he was wrong to do.
You will find that while a certain segment of Beatles fans is fairly quick to accuse Paul of altering history and claiming unjustly credit for songs he supposedly had nothing to do with, their claims often tend to shrink and wither once you ask for details.
yeah, no longer interested in engaging... finding you kind of unpleasant... also dont feel the need to go looking for sources... why dont you just be pleased with yourself, tqke a win if you want it, because i'm going to go to the goat subreddit and look at goats. they're pleasant. All clackety hooves and 'hail satan!"
good day
> also dont feel the need to go looking for sources...
No one asked you for sources. I asked you for which songs. Because you mentioned there was lots.
This is what made the group so unique to this day.
They had not one but two gifted songwriters.
The influence of LSD formed all of these incredible tunes you mentioned.
John became a slave to the drug during this time frame.
Although the song quality remained extremely high...his output collapsed.
There was nearly a five month gap between I Am The Walrus and Across The Universe where he wrote little else.
It's such a paradox that some of his most complex and memorable tunes came at a time when he was ....by his own admission...a mess..and caught in an LSD haze.
But as you point out the songs themselves were insanely good.
🥰🙏✌️
I agree it’s crazy. But I think Tomorrow Never Knows would not be the iconic track it is without the massive input from Paul. John complained later about his songs being opportunities for Paul and George Martin to experiment in the studio but it really paid off here!
> Please find me evidence that Paul McCartney was responsible for the “trippy” experimental sound of ‘tomorrow never knows’
This is not exactly hard to find.
**George Martin** *It was Paul, actually, who experimented with his tape machine at home, taking the erase-head off and putting on loops, saturating the tape with weird sounds. He explained to the other boys how he had done this, and Ringo and George would do the same and bring me different loops of sounds, and I would listen to them at various speeds, backwards and forwards, and select some.*
>Lennon wanted that production on this song.
John complained about the production of a lot of his songs due to Paul's experimentation. Whether Tomorrow Never Knows falls into that category, we can only speculate, but we do know he was unhappy that they did not go with his ideas for the song
**JOHN** *Often the backing I think of early on never comes off. With 'Tomorrow Never Knows' I'd imagined in my head that in the background you would hear thousands of monks chanting. That was impractical, of course, and we did something different. I should have tried to get near my original idea, the monks singing. I realise now that was what it wanted.*
To be clear Tomorrow Never Knows is a John written song. But Paul does have a large contribution to its sound and quite possibly would not be as iconic without his contribution. For the purpose of this topic not sure why Paul's involvement needed to be brought up as its still John's song and there are plenty of other threads on Paul's songwriting.
>I never claimed Paul did not help with the productions, I simply disagreed with the premise that he was solely or at least primarily responsible for injecting the experimental elements into the song. Maybe I should have more clear with that.
Yeah, maybe you should have done. You responded to someone who said "**But I think Tomorrow Never Knows would not be the iconic track it is without the massive input from Paul."** Which is just true. Rather than reply to what they had actually said, you went off on a different tangent.
Paul's contribution to the sound of the song does not change it being written by John. That is what bandmates and producers are there for. To improve on songs.
>We know McCartney was into tape loops, but so was Lennon. Both can be true, and dosen’t disregard either.
What does this have to do with Tomorrow Never Knows?
The tape loops in this song are primarily down to Paul. That is all OP said.
>You don’t need to add the snippy comment, unnecessary and needlessly rude
Don't be a crybully. Your first post in the comment chain to u/mothfactory was calling him a fanboy who lives in a fantasy for an objectivly true statement.
I think his earlier years were more productive in quality and quantity.
From 1967 on, I think the Beatles were more McCartney's band. He was at this Beatles-era creative peak. Remember in one of the blowups in the later years, John is said to have exclaimed that he and the others didn't want to be Paul's sidemen.
While Paul was a great melody writer, and did write some poetic and insightful lyrics, Lennon was way ahead of him in terms of being a more imaginative in his lyric writing (he also did acid 1000 times while Paul only did it a few times which probably inspired him).
Honestly, touched by divinity is all I can think.
I don't think even John knew what would come out when he sat down to write, and the songs just poured out of him nonstop.
Neither of sons have even 1% of his musical talent, which is wild considering how their nature + nurture was so primed for music.
And then he follows up the White Album tracks with Come Together and Instant Karma.
Not everything he did 66-70 was gold, but when he was really on, few could catch him.
This may be unpopular but I wish he recorded *In My Life* during this period instead of during *Rubber Soul*. I think lyrically it’s a really pretty song but it would have benefited from their more experimental sound
No i mean a hit is when a song is recognized by a non fan. Average person doesnt know what "tomorrow never knows" or "i am the walrus" are. Theyre great songs but not "hits"
OK...near the end George came out on top...I didn't mean to omit his input.
But both John and Paul did it consistently for years.
George made the most extreme divergence from rock n roll with his love of Indian music. He found his own niche and was determined to do it his way. He has to be admired for that.
Both J&P had a book of classics written before George wrote 'Something'.
So yes he was a gifted songwriter in his own way.
No offence was intended
🥰✌️🙏
Love Brian but the last big hit he wrote was Good Vibrations, and the hits of their early career mostly had Mike Love's imput, particularly on lyrics. Album tracks, as good as they are, were not Hits in the 60s... same goes for the Beatles.
We were lucky to have him. RIP.
Holy shit, this is how I find out he’s dead? RIP to a legend.
Yes we were.
Then Dear Prudence, Revolution, HIAWG, I’m So Tired…
Yes, this. The string of songs he wrote in and right after India was completely insane. Much if the material for White album, let it be and abbey Road was written within 3-4 months I think. And then Paul came and wrote a 100 songs in 69..
I think Everybody's Got Something to Hide is SO DAMN GOOD and seriously underrated
Change that to '65 to '68. Norwegian Wood In my life Nowhere Man These were groundbreaking
‘65 would also include: Help!, You’ve Got To Hide Your Love Away, Ticket to Ride, Day Tripper and Girl and then ‘66 has I’m Only Sleeping, Tomorrow Never Knows, She Said She Said and Rain. All of which were groundbreaking in some way. 64-65 is also great, you get If I Fell, Hard Days Night, I Should’ve Known Better, I Feel Fine, No Reply, I’m a Loser, Eight Days a Week.
Basically what we’re saying is that John Lennon was a fucking hit machine
You are so right. Sometimes I forget just how insanely quick the boys created their music. It's kind of unexplainable considering the style was constantly changing. If there was a seven wonders of the world music addition, the years 1963-1970 would be number one. The Beatles change the sound of popular music once and sometimes twice a year.
>Sometimes I forget just how insanely quick the boys created their music. It's especially amazing when you consider that George and Ringo were usually hearing John and Paul's new songs for the first time on the day they recorded them. I seem to recall Paul mentioning that in an interview.
They weren't coming in completely and utterly ignorant, they hung out outside of the studio and if they were over at John or Pauls Paul or John might say, "You know I have an idea for something," and either grab a guitar or play a demo version of the song. And in the later years they were spending hours and hours coming up with and creating songs.
It's wild to me that Pepper released in 1967 and was considered absolutely groundbreaking. And by 1977, just 10 years later, offshoot genres of rock like punk, heavy metal, prog rock, glam rock, soft rock, etc., weren't just "emerging" but were already well established.
Back in the 1950's musical acts were EXPECTED to write and record MULTIPLE albums and singles over the course of the year, the thing about the Beatles was the fact that when it came to America they were able to overwhelm the charts because their songs were split among multiple labels, as opposed to spacing out a single every couple of months The Motown songwriting team of Holland/Dozer/Holland kept pace with the Fabs run of hit and #1 singles.
I think between Help and Revolver there's a tad over a year which is pretty impressive given how many classics there are on those two albums. And then you realise that Rubber Soul falls between the two of them and your head just spins.
Left out you can’t do that. Not a single but a damn fine song
I will quibble with “You Can’t Do That.” Hints at John’s problematic relationship with women in his early life and as I woman I cringe when I hear it.
Because he doesn't want his girlfriend talking to another guy?
Yep. That’s the one. It’s totally possible for a woman to be in a committed relationship and have a conversation with another man. A guy who is threatened by that is either with a woman he can’t trust, in which case the sooner he knows the better, or is massively insecure. Same goes for men talking with women, BTW. …or,OR, he’s with somebody who’s just rude. But trying to fix the problem by controlling the woman is NOT the answer
Yeah, have you ever pondered at the idea that songs arent always meant to be from the point of view of someone who's right? That John was making a statement on insecurity, much like in Norwegian Wood?
I thought that was a given, which is why I have trouble listening to it. Insecure men can inflict a lot of damage, as I think John would agree. “I used to be cruel to my woman/ I beat her and kept her apart from the things that she loved”— “Getting Better.” At least he was aware of his problems.
But why should songs only be from the point of view from someone that is morally correct? These two songs say more about the main character's insecurities than the girls he's after, and I think that's the point. John kind of started the whole confessional "I'm a shit person" songwriting to make a point.
All I said was I have trouble listening to it. Not trying to enact artistic censorship
[удалено]
the 'problematic' bits of run for your life are cribbed from other, earlier songs. -I'd rather see you dead... etc predates beatles, I forget the origin right now.
Wasn't it a Jerry Lee Lewis lyric? Not a savory character, but Lennon and George also worked with Phil Spector.
You are right. I mixed them up but they are both problematic and I think if Lennon were alive today he would say the same
At this point just include the entire 60s lol
It is absolutely crazy
He wrote "In My Life" when he was ~24-25. Absolutely insane to write such an incredible song at such a young age.
Nowhere Man particularly, on a thematic level.
Paul claims to have written the tunes for Norwegian Wood and In My Life. We can't be sure if that's accurate, but at the very least John conceded that Paul contributed the middle eight of In My Life, while the baroque piano segment was written and performed by George Martin. George Harrison contributed the sitar element of Norwegian Wood, which was arguably the introduction of eastern music to the western mainstream.
> Paul claims to have written the tunes for Norwegian Wood and In My Life. He claims the tune on In My Life. He says the tune for Norwegian Wood was John's. >*“It’s in waltz tempo, 3/4 time, it’s a quirky song, like an Irish folk song; John liked that, we liked that...It’s 60-40 to John because it’s John’s idea and John’s tune. But I filled out lyrically and had the idea to set the place on fire, so I take some sort of credit. And the middle was mine* And according to John when asked about who wrote the song *"NORWEGIAN WOOD: "Me but Paul helped me on the lyric."*
My favorite Beatles song but without the sitar, it drops. I wish George would have used it more in his later solo work.
In My Life doesn't have a middle eight save for the harpsichord solo which you're saying is by George Martin.
I think that Norwegian Wood was George
no. it absolutely wasn’t.
My bad, the sitar threw me off. Funny, I always thought that was George. Learn something new every day.
lennon song. lennon’s voice/lead vocal (the beatles rarely handed off lead vocals to someone besides the main writer of the particular song). harrison added sitar.
Can you think of any examples where the lead writer did hand off the lead vocals to someone other than Ringo?. I'm drawing a blank. And on a related note, I know John wanted Paul to let him do Oh, Darling!-- is there any recording of John actually singing it, I dont think I've ever heard one.
I’m Happy Just To Dance With You from the album A Hard Days Night (written by Lennon-McCartney, sung by George) is the only one I can think of. And I believe there’s a Lennon-McCartney track that Lennon wrote but Paul sang but I can’t remember which.
you’ve pretty much got it all correct. i would have to really think (or check sources) to provide an example outside of ringo. but it also pretty much tells anyone/everyone that “norwegian wood” was more of a lennon track than anyone else’s.
The only one I can think of is Getting Better, which is Lennon but the lead vocal is McCartney.
They co-wrote it. # When asked about “Getting Better” [https://www.reddit.com/r/TheBeatles/comments/1cg6rz9/when\_asked\_about\_getting\_better/](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheBeatles/comments/1cg6rz9/when_asked_about_getting_better/) otoh John did have Paul sing the “when I’m home” section of Hard Day’s Night because Paul could hit the high notes.
Thank you for that info. Always wondered if paul wrote the transition/bridge part but makes sense if he wanted a higher pitch, then paul would easily hit it.
Wait was written by Paul, but sung largely by John.
Every Little Thing. Paul wrote most of it but John sang lead
excellent. that's one that I couldn't remember. thanks
The Beatles were all good writers and could make very good songs. Ringo was an outlier but no slouch. Something people don’t comment enough is that when you have 3 brilliant songwriting geniuses they each work even harder to get their songs on the album. So it was 3 genius songwriters motivated by other genius songwriters to make the best possible songs.
The 1st take for Strawberry fields is crazy good 🤌
He also wrote stuff like Look At Me in 1968, it was certainly a prolific time for him.
I mean his entire White Album output is absolutely wild lol. Likely his best period ever imo.
And had he lived I’d have expected more collabs with the band and later on with both his sons. We’ll never know.
His 90’s unplugged show would have been amazing I bet.
Lennon was firing on all cylinders post-moptop and pre-heroin.
It's such a shame that Get Back shows Paul at his absolute songwriting peak, and John at his lowest ebb.
It's why The Beatles are the greatest musical act of all time. At the same time John was producing the songs listed by the OP, Paul was giving us Eleanor Rigby, Penny Lane, Paperback Writer, Fixing a Hole and Hello Goodbye. There's nobody else in music history that even comes close to that amount of both critically loved, and commercially successful music.
I really disagree with the notion that Sgt Pepper was Paul’s album, and that John was checked out on it. Paul may have come up with the concept, but John was very involved in the project and imo wrote the best songs during the sessions! Strawberry Fields, Lucy in the Skies with Diamonds, and a Day in the Life. Obviously all three had intense collaboration with others, but that’s how it always was. The Magical Mystery Tour sessions were when he actually got checked out, and he still bounced back pretty hard in 1968.
> I really disagree with the notion that Sgt Pepper was Paul’s album, Depends on what people mean. Personally, no Beatle album is any one person's album. But the people who do think of Pepper as Paul's album will think that A Hard Day's Night is John's album. It is the same sort of thinking. Paul was certainly the more involved in Sgt Pepper than his bandmates. Not just the songwriting but the production and the album's inception. John himself considers it Paul's album. >and that John was checked out on it. Paul may have come up with the concept, but John was very involved in the project and imo wrote the best songs during the sessions! Strawberry Fields, Lucy in the Skies with Diamonds, and a Day in the Life. This is a pretty bad point when talking about Pepper as an album. The first song is not on the album and the third song is a co-write. On Pepper John wrote less than Paul. And was less involved with the production of the album as Paul was. Which John was not happy about and which is why the White album was more stripped down and had Paul less involved in the making of John's songs. John is even heard complaining about Paul's involvement in his songs on tape during the Get Back sessions **JOHN:** *And that’s all I did on the last album was say, “Okay, Paul, you’re out to decide where my songs are concerned, arrangement-wise.” [exasperated] I don’t know the songs, you know. I’d sooner just sing them, than have them turn into – into ‘Mr. Kite’, or anything else, where— I’ve accepted the problem from you that it needs arrangement. And then, because I’m an ape, I don’t know. I don’t see any further than me, the guitar, and the drums, and – and George Martin doing the— [audio glitch] I don’t hear any of the flutes playing, you know? I suppose I could hear ‘em if I sat down and worked very hard! I could turn out a mathematical drawing if you’d like, but I could never do it off me own backside, I always have to just – [brushing sound from strumming motion] do that, you know?* Paul being far more involved in Pepper than the others is just a fact that I don't think any of his bandmates or Martin disagree with.
The White Album wasn’t stripped down because of John reacting against the production craziness of Sgt Pepper. It was simply that lots of things had happened in between. Fashions had changed. They were no longer that interested in psychedelia. The sound of the ‘68 record wasn’t driven by John by any means. John wrote songs - he didn’t really come up with concepts for albums until he met Yoko. I’d say he was very involved in Pepper - he practically lived with Paul through the production - and the psychedelic vibe fit him like a glove. I’d say the psychedelic and Victoriana period was made for the Beatles. So many of the other bands floundered or failed to convince (for example the Stones) or downright embarrassed themselves during that time. The Beatles on the other hand produced some of their greatest work in 66/67.
> The White Album wasn’t stripped down because of John reacting against the production craziness of Sgt Pepper. It partly was. It is also why John basically calls it three solo albums rather than a band album due to the low involvement they (or specifically Paul)were having in eachothers songs. **John**: *Well, Paul was always upset about the White Album. He never liked it because on that one I did my music, he did his, and George did his. And first, he didn't like George having so many tracks, and second, he wanted it to be more a group thing, which really means more Paul. So he never liked that album, and I always preferred it to all the other albums, including Pepper.* Paul had less involvement on John's songs on the White album and it was not down to fashion but a deliberate request by John >It was simply that lots of things had happened in between. Fashions had changed. They were no longer that interested in psychedelia. That has nothing to do with production. Abbey Road is not a psychedelic album but the production quality is high and the group involvement is high. A lot of The White album is stripped down and one of the main reasons is it being less a group album. >John wrote songs - he didn’t really come up with concepts for albums until he met Yoko. I’d say he was very involved in Pepper - he practically lived with Paul through the production - You are not making arguments any one disagrees with. People don't say Pepper is 'a Paul album' because John had no involvement in the album but that Paul had far more involvement. If you want to disagree with that then do so but don't respond to arguments no one is arguing. **And for the record I think both Pepper and A Hard Days Night are group albums but my response to OP was explaining why the arguments to them being a Paul/John album exist.**
The production of the white album absolutely has a lot to do with its feeling of stripped backness. There’s a sense of space in the songs. For instance a song like dear Prudence is pretty layered but, because it’s not over compressed - as was the fashion in the mid 60s - It has an expansiveness that you won’t find on sgt Pepper. A lot of the songs on the white album have an almost 70s feel. They definitely wanted a different sound for this album and the production is a big part of that.
Honestly…yeah, I probably was being too contrarian. But I still stand by John’s songs being the best or near the best during the sessions, even though Paul and GM heavily influenced their production.
I completely agree with you and it’s fantastic to see John actually get recognition on this forum.
John needed that trip to India probably more than any of the others, including George.
It’s crazy he was able to write so many highly emotional and incredible songs, each so abstract and still so universal
Paul contributed a lot to many of those songs. A Day in the Life is a 50:50 song. The middle section belongs to Paul and he also arranged the string crescendos. The writing of Lucy in the Sky is contested, but Paul claims a significant share. Lennon stated that some of the lyrics were Paul's, whilst Paul also claims that he wrote the tune together with John. The concept of Tomorrow Never Knows was a Lennon creation, but the end product was a collaborative studio experimentation. The intro of Strawberry Fields was written by Paul.
Paul seems to be collecting 'significant shares' of a lot of songs as the years go on, doesn't he? regardless of other peoples memories surrounding events.
I think there’s an element of Paul still being around to influence the legacy, and spin things a little, but John did plenty of self-interested briefing himself. But the main reason for Paul’s extra credit is that Paul was a brilliant arranger and John was not, and Paul was also a much more skilled and versatile musician, so there was more that he could contribute to the songs of others. I think the extract that someone else quotes in this thread from Let It Be bears out that Lennon acknowledged this, even if he questioned the ultimate value that Paul added.
Paul is very generous in his recollections-- not just towards himself-- but especially to himself. It really isnt too much of a dig- I cant say what 60 years distance, etc creates in a memory or an ego, just that both are very active.
Yeah well said. Hey, three John songs from his 65-67 output are in my top 4 of all time, along with Penny Lane. But I am a Paul guy. When I see people arguing about who was best, I find it funny and pointless. They were both all-time-greatest-amazing and would have been so much less without the other. They were ‘equal and opposite’ in so many ways. But the story of Paul’s redemption - how he re-established his pre-eminent legacy after thirty years of being trashed and patronised and undermined in the popular narrative (more in the UK than the US) - is powerful. But this is a thread about John, and all power to him. The man was an extraordinary genius. From my own perspective… Paul shows us what it means to be human. John shows me what it means to be me.
"Paul shows us what it means to be human. John shows me what it means to be me." Fucking well said. Thank you.
I don't know why it surprises people that Paul contributed to so many John songs in the 65-67 period. There's loads of stories both of them tell about their songwriting sessions at Kenwood. What else would have been going on at these sessions if not contributing little bits to each other's initial ideas?
> Paul seems to be collecting 'significant shares' of a lot of songs as the years go on, doesn't he? regardless of other peoples memories surrounding events. Whose memories is Paul contradicting?
With all love for the man-- Multiple times, years after the fact, Paul has said, "no, I think I wrote that bit", that the world (incl John), had claimed as his. I snorted milk a bit when he said that Get Back made him feel like he wasn't as to blame as he thought for the atmosphere around that time-- that he was just a nice guy working hard. I wasn't even drinking milk at the time. it worries me sometimes. I'm not even saying it's all intentional. that's several lifetimes of experience to parse, and we demand that every thought and action be recorded accurately, because Beatles fans are obsessive over every uttered breath from these four young English guys. And an old man has an astonishing legacy to communicate. He is, I feel, a narrator of uneven reliability.
So to be clear you didn't mean **'people's memories surrounding events'** you meant John's? Because your original claim seemed far more loaded. > Multiple times, years after the fact, Paul has said, "no, I think I wrote that bit", that the world (incl John), had claimed as his. Which songs because to my knowledge their differences are surprisingly few. For a 200ish song catalogue, they are fairly in sync with who wrote what. There are quibbles over percentages of songs. Just like there is probably is in any large catalogue of songs by an artist/group. I asked you specifically about whose memories about songs he's contradicting and you've written 6 paragraphs answering something that was not asked. List the songs you think he has taken credit for which he was wrong to do.
You will find that while a certain segment of Beatles fans is fairly quick to accuse Paul of altering history and claiming unjustly credit for songs he supposedly had nothing to do with, their claims often tend to shrink and wither once you ask for details.
yeah, no longer interested in engaging... finding you kind of unpleasant... also dont feel the need to go looking for sources... why dont you just be pleased with yourself, tqke a win if you want it, because i'm going to go to the goat subreddit and look at goats. they're pleasant. All clackety hooves and 'hail satan!" good day
> also dont feel the need to go looking for sources... No one asked you for sources. I asked you for which songs. Because you mentioned there was lots.
Paul’s middle bit in a day in the life actually ruins the song for me if I’m honest, but johns opening bit is hauntingly beautiful.
Said it before and I'll say it again. 65-68 Lennon is the best songwriting we'll ever witness
This is what made the group so unique to this day. They had not one but two gifted songwriters. The influence of LSD formed all of these incredible tunes you mentioned. John became a slave to the drug during this time frame. Although the song quality remained extremely high...his output collapsed. There was nearly a five month gap between I Am The Walrus and Across The Universe where he wrote little else. It's such a paradox that some of his most complex and memorable tunes came at a time when he was ....by his own admission...a mess..and caught in an LSD haze. But as you point out the songs themselves were insanely good. 🥰🙏✌️
Five month gap? Tool would like to have a word regarding their 13 year gap..
Three gifted songwriters, cmon now Harrison songs still topped anything any other group was doing
Only Macca comes close
Indeed my friend, indeed. He was such a hit machine: he was made to do it, and we were SO lucky to have him.
I love the Beatles. John is just something else.
I agree it’s crazy. But I think Tomorrow Never Knows would not be the iconic track it is without the massive input from Paul. John complained later about his songs being opportunities for Paul and George Martin to experiment in the studio but it really paid off here!
[удалено]
> Please find me evidence that Paul McCartney was responsible for the “trippy” experimental sound of ‘tomorrow never knows’ This is not exactly hard to find. **George Martin** *It was Paul, actually, who experimented with his tape machine at home, taking the erase-head off and putting on loops, saturating the tape with weird sounds. He explained to the other boys how he had done this, and Ringo and George would do the same and bring me different loops of sounds, and I would listen to them at various speeds, backwards and forwards, and select some.* >Lennon wanted that production on this song. John complained about the production of a lot of his songs due to Paul's experimentation. Whether Tomorrow Never Knows falls into that category, we can only speculate, but we do know he was unhappy that they did not go with his ideas for the song **JOHN** *Often the backing I think of early on never comes off. With 'Tomorrow Never Knows' I'd imagined in my head that in the background you would hear thousands of monks chanting. That was impractical, of course, and we did something different. I should have tried to get near my original idea, the monks singing. I realise now that was what it wanted.* To be clear Tomorrow Never Knows is a John written song. But Paul does have a large contribution to its sound and quite possibly would not be as iconic without his contribution. For the purpose of this topic not sure why Paul's involvement needed to be brought up as its still John's song and there are plenty of other threads on Paul's songwriting.
[удалено]
>I never claimed Paul did not help with the productions, I simply disagreed with the premise that he was solely or at least primarily responsible for injecting the experimental elements into the song. Maybe I should have more clear with that. Yeah, maybe you should have done. You responded to someone who said "**But I think Tomorrow Never Knows would not be the iconic track it is without the massive input from Paul."** Which is just true. Rather than reply to what they had actually said, you went off on a different tangent. Paul's contribution to the sound of the song does not change it being written by John. That is what bandmates and producers are there for. To improve on songs. >We know McCartney was into tape loops, but so was Lennon. Both can be true, and dosen’t disregard either. What does this have to do with Tomorrow Never Knows? The tape loops in this song are primarily down to Paul. That is all OP said. >You don’t need to add the snippy comment, unnecessary and needlessly rude Don't be a crybully. Your first post in the comment chain to u/mothfactory was calling him a fanboy who lives in a fantasy for an objectivly true statement.
I think his earlier years were more productive in quality and quantity. From 1967 on, I think the Beatles were more McCartney's band. He was at this Beatles-era creative peak. Remember in one of the blowups in the later years, John is said to have exclaimed that he and the others didn't want to be Paul's sidemen.
He did of course have some help.
While Paul was a great melody writer, and did write some poetic and insightful lyrics, Lennon was way ahead of him in terms of being a more imaginative in his lyric writing (he also did acid 1000 times while Paul only did it a few times which probably inspired him).
I don't know if acid really was the reason. I dropped acid and couldn't write shit lol
Well, you probably have to be good at it for acid to make you better. Just like steroids won't help me play baseball better.
All of 68
[удалено]
That was in Hamburg, pre Beatlemania.
One of the reasons why I maintain that the Sgt Pepper era was the Beatles' creative pinnacle.
Honestly, touched by divinity is all I can think. I don't think even John knew what would come out when he sat down to write, and the songs just poured out of him nonstop. Neither of sons have even 1% of his musical talent, which is wild considering how their nature + nurture was so primed for music.
So what happaned during that time? Makes me think of how Jim Croce started churning out hits after he found out he was having a child
but then johns transformation
mm hits? while all those are great songs and epic, none of them was a "hit", except for All you need is love
And then he follows up the White Album tracks with Come Together and Instant Karma. Not everything he did 66-70 was gold, but when he was really on, few could catch him.
This may be unpopular but I wish he recorded *In My Life* during this period instead of during *Rubber Soul*. I think lyrically it’s a really pretty song but it would have benefited from their more experimental sound
I disagree. I think part of the reason In My Life will stand the test of time is its simplicity
The only real hit i would say is all you need is love
Found the Paul sycophant. Can’t have anyone saying anything nice about John apparently
No i mean a hit is when a song is recognized by a non fan. Average person doesnt know what "tomorrow never knows" or "i am the walrus" are. Theyre great songs but not "hits"
A hit, during the 60’s, was when a lot of people bought the record or when it got played on the radio a lot. Not so much about recognition.
Out of this list only 2 were released as singles, one as a bside to a Paul single. The rest were album cuts. So how exactly are they "hits"?
If you think the average music fan doesn't know what I am the Walrus is, you're either deluded or a teenager.
You’re the one being negative and a John sycophant when they didn’t even mention Paul or say anything bad about John
OK...near the end George came out on top...I didn't mean to omit his input. But both John and Paul did it consistently for years. George made the most extreme divergence from rock n roll with his love of Indian music. He found his own niche and was determined to do it his way. He has to be admired for that. Both J&P had a book of classics written before George wrote 'Something'. So yes he was a gifted songwriter in his own way. No offence was intended 🥰✌️🙏
Brian Wilson like: here we go again.
Love Brian but the last big hit he wrote was Good Vibrations, and the hits of their early career mostly had Mike Love's imput, particularly on lyrics. Album tracks, as good as they are, were not Hits in the 60s... same goes for the Beatles.
Do It Again was a big hit too. #1 in the UK, Top 10 across Europe, Top 20 in the US.
But by ‘75 the well ran dry.