ArtsEtc.
Battling Beatles: McCartney wins
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Steve Lampiris:
- 'In Our House' gets inside look at domestic violence (March 26, 2009)
- Cornell's latest CD makes you 'Scream' (March 11, 2009)
- Midwest quintet lacks 'spirit' (February 24, 2009)
- Battling Beatles: McCartney wins (February 9, 2009)
- The 'Boss' needs 'Work' (January 28, 2009)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
As far as songwriting goes, rock has always been about the duos: Page/Plant, Jagger/Richards, Gamble/Huff, Becker/Fagen — you get the idea. But perhaps the most important one is Lennon/McCartney. Easily the most recognized partnership in all of popular music, the duo crafted — in the most literal sense of the word — some of rock’s most beloved singles, albums and harmonies.
The sad truth, however, is the partnership was largely in name only. Any given song with the “Lennon/McCartney” tag might have been written by both but was probably written by one or the other. John and Paul struck up a deal early in their music careers agreeing both would get credit for each others’ compositions so they could equally share royalties.
It makes sense, then, that certain albums and songs by the Beatles appear to have a certain bipolar quality to them. This is due to the fact that the duo was akin to polar opposites with respect to songwriting: John was the brooding pessimist while Paul was the merry optimist. John is also usually seen as the more important Beatle, especially as a songwriter. And, if not the better one, certainly the more sophisticated. His cynical view and approach to songs is seen as “real.” Even Lennon himself, at least according to Yoko, used to wonder why McCartney’s work was more popular.
Which brings me to my point: The answer to Lennon’s query is because McCartney was the superior Beatle in terms of songwriting. There are many reasons for why this stands true, but since I have but limited space I shall only cover the most important ones. (Let me also preface this by saying that while many songs written by either John or Paul may have had assistance from the other, for the sake of simplicity I am assigning credit to the main composer.)
First, because McCartney was the positive one, he was more essential than Lennon. If you were to take an overview of their entire catalogue, you would have to conclude that the Beatles were never a band that set out to paint negative portraits of the reality around them. No, you listened to the Beatles because you wanted to feel better. For a band known by the lyric, “And, in the end, the love you take/ Is equal to the love you make,” it makes little sense for someone to find Lennon to be the superior Beatle here. Sure, Lennon wrote “All You Need is Love,” but the exception is just that — an exception. He might have been feeling good on account of one or more illicit drugs that particular day. Most of the time, Lennon saw a cloudy sky that didn’t fit in with the clear, blue sky of the Beatles.
And, because he was the positive one, McCartney’s songs were also more enjoyable purely on an aesthetic level. Take “Back in the U.S.S.R.,” for example. The opener to the Beatles’ finest hour (and a half), “Back” is a song that Lennon could never write because he was just so damn uptight. Many of his compositions convey a sense of his inability to let anything slide.
Even on the career microcosm that is The Beatles, where they tried anything and everything, Lennon still couldn’t write a song that wasn’t a chore to listen to. “Happiness is a Warm Gun” proves my point. A brilliant song, to be sure, but it is just so laborious to get through, especially when it is within minutes of McCartney’s “Back,” “Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da” and “Why Don’t We Do it in the Road?”
Second, returning to “Happiness,” Lennon is inferior to McCartney because the former wrote weird songs for the sake of being weird, while McCartney wrote songs that, while weird, made sense. I’m not counting Sgt. Pepper’s, as that’s the entire band’s fault for its monumental unlistenability. And it’s not even a real Beatles record. Aside from “Happiness,” Lennon is also well-known for songs like “Tomorrow Never Knows,” an utterly incoherent song, lyrically and musically. Compare that to McCartney’s “Yellow Submarine” from the same album: Yes, both are stupid, but at least “Yellow” is an actual song, not just some bizarre LSD-influenced, mismatched salmagundi devoid of any meaning beyond some post-hoc interpretational poppycock.
The saddest part is that early on Lennon wrote or co-wrote some of the best Beatles songs including “Help!” and “A Hard Day’s Night.” Why he chose to stray from writing classic pop songs is beyond me. Yes, it is great when an artist experiments and tries new things, but to suggest that the Lennon of 1964 was the same one of 1967 is to say that the Republican party of 1981 is the same as 2008.
Third, McCartney’s songs were cathartic, while Lennon’s output was like masturbating without the payoff. “Michelle,” “Let it Be,” and even “Every Little Thing” all display McCartney’s ability to write a pure song — that is to say, one that starts and ends in a logical fashion. The vast majority of Paul’s songs do not go off in seven different directions, grasping at tangential straws in a menial attempt to find a coherent idea as many of John’s compositions did — “I Am the Walrus,” quod erat demonstrandum.
Fourth, and finally, McCartney wrote “Hey Jude.” If I really have to explain this point, then you should have stopped reading hundreds of words ago.
For a band as wholly essential as the Beatles — and, really, is there any higher aspiration for a musical act? It would be nice to simply conclude that both John Lennon and Paul McCartney were equally talented as songwriters and, thus, equally as essential in rock history. But the truth is not so pretty: While Lennon was a genius in his own right, McCartney was just better in so many ways. Lennon wrote great songs, to be sure, but not as many as McCartney and not nearly as often, either.
Maybe the Beatles should have kept the original credit of “McCartney/Lennon.” It doesn’t flow as well, but at least it’s true.
Steve Lampiris graduated in 2008 with a degree in political science. If you agree with him or you think that even George was better than John, let him know by sending him an email at lampiris@wisc.edu.
10 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Herald Blogs
The Beat Goes On
Brother Ali makes an ‘Exclusive’ stop
Muckrakers
Report: Barrett to make decision by the end of the week
Extra Points
Top Classified Ads (view all)
HOUSES FOR Fall 2010. All houses are on W Dayton or N Bassett. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 bedrooms. All have parking. madisoncampusrentals.com
This is easily one of the poorest articles on the topic I have ever read. Though I happen to prefer Lennon, my distaste for the article has nothing to do with the author’s selection of McCartney as the superior Beatle. Instead, it is due to his points about Lennon’s inferiority being largely off-base. He writes about “All you need is love” being an exception to Lennon only writing negative songs. Quote: “Lennon saw a cloudy sky that didn’t fit in with the clear, blue sky of the Beatles.” Lennon wrote a song (Dear Prudence) with the lyrics “the sun is up, the sky is blue, it’s beautiful, and so are you”…if I had more time, I’d list other ‘positive’ songs, to show they are not the exception. Just because Paul wrote more happy songs than John does not mean John was lacking in that department.
Second, the author states that Lennon’s songs were a chore to listen to, especially compared to songs like “Ob-la-di, Ob-la-da”…this song is considered by many to be one of the worst Beatles songs ever, so it’s a pretty weak argument to make.
Finally (though I have many more problems that I will refrain from mentioning), the author says Sgt. Pepper’s has a “monumental unlistenability. And it’s not even a real Beatles record.” WHAT?! Has the author been living under a rock, unaware that this album is considered one of the greatest achievements in MUSIC (not just Beatles) history? It was the start of what would be the Beatles experimental years. It paved the way for what the Beatles would become. The songs are amazing, and fit very well with the overall style the band took on post-1967.
In sum, I would recommend never allowing the author to write an opinion piece, at least musically related, for the Herald again.
I love Paul’s songs for what they are; upbeat and poppy. Exactly what the article claims them to be. But Paul really doesn’t go much beyond that. John obviously could write the same kinds of songs, he just chose to move beyond that one genre. Writing songs about sorrow and revenge, and politically inspired songs doesnt make you a pessimist. Part of the reason the Beatles are considered on of the best bands ever is because they could relate to you in whatever mood you were in, largely due to John. In an era where lyrics has definitely taken a back seat in pop music, it’s easy to say Paul’s songs were better. But Paul lacked what John had in depth. You say Paul just stuck to a formula that worked? Have you heard “Ever present past?” He needs to try something else. The relevance of John Lennon’s work is like the republican party of 1860, whereas the relevance of this article is like the republican party of the past decade.
I want to thank the author of this opinion piece for picking at scabs. If you love the Beatles and like to engage in some light examination and analysis of who they were and how that related to the music they wrote, it’s a fun little diversion. Both men wrote some dreadful songs. While I think Ob-La-Di is catchy when played in context, it’s syrupy-sweet like root beer - you can only handle so much. I dread hearing Target commercials playing the worst Beatle song ever - Hello-Goodbye, clearly a Paul composition. You have to admit - if you write songs that are going to appeal to the mindless masses, you’re going to be hearing a lot of liquified fecal matter expressed in an explosive way. ColdPlay makes me nervous like that. Chris Martin’s lyrics border on childish couplet rhyme scheme more often than not - the sure sign of a lack of creative genius. In summary, the great Beatles evolved as they grew and their popularity increased. Paul is the first to admit he only ever wanted to have fun - that’s what his music reflects - the extrovert. If John was darker and brooding, it only reflects his inspiration that is based on self-reflection - the introvert. Which is the better Beatle is really a matter of taste and inclination. You say Toh-May-Toe, I say Toh-Mah-Toe.
Wow, “Happiness is a Warm Gun” and “Tomorrow Never Knows” are two of my favorite Beatles songs, possibly both in my top 5. I thought everyone liked these songs ,and I don’t really see how they’re weird. Are they weird because they’re psychedelic? Are they weird because they don’t constantly adhere to a four-chord structure?
What’s weird is that you can count on one hand the number of good songs that McCartney wrote after the group split, while Lennon and Harrison continued to put out great music.
Better arguments about musicians have been made in youtube video comments.
better articles have been written by 1st graders
I’ve never heard of someone trying to defend Paul McCartney with “Hey Jude” and “Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da,” arguably two of the worst Beatles songs ever. I’ve had intelligent discussions as to who was a better song writer, but this article had no valid or even mildly coherent points whatsoever. Just terrible, may God have mercy on your soul.
Wow, somebody got a big important job writing for the college paper and has confused “using latin at random” and “being a douche who uses obviously contrived contrarian statements” with being “edgy” and “controversial”??? This has certainly never happened before!
Way to be a boring stereotype Steve.
I am pleased to see all the valid points refuting this article’s premise that “McCartney was the superior Beatle in terms of songwriting.” I would like to add that the article’s last argument of “Lennon wrote great songs, to be sure, but not as many as McCartney and not nearly as often, either” warrants the question, who has ever claimed that quantity is a criteria for superior output in the arts?
If you think Hey Jude is a bad song, you need to lock yourself in a room and mix equal parts bleach and ammonia.