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 [email protected].
