The Beatles

[Deleted]

Come, let us discuss their brilliance.

Or, you know, talk about Linda J. Polley's freaky-ass website.

[lemons]

I love the Beatles! I'm going to one of the annual conventions next month. I do have unconvential opinions in the fandom, but I don't care. It's all about the music.

Someone said elsewhere that John had about over 100 lead vocal songs and Paul about 84. Is this number correct? I debated that with my family. I'm not talking about the joint vocal songs. The post on another board (not FT) was just talking about the songs where it was only one lead vocal. I would have thought Paul and John would have been more equal in this regard.

The figure doesn't seem to be correct.

[pariswhitney]

I haven't had a chance to count, but this website lists all of their songs under categories based on lead singer.

Songs-Sorted by Lead Singer

Edited to add: I gave in and counted: John 103, and Paul 84; although I haven't slept in 2 days and could be wrong.

[lemons]

That's a great link, ParisWhitney. Thanks.

The numbers didn't seem right at first unless you can view them in print as no one has time to count the tracks on their records/CDs. So it was nice to see them all organized on that site. I see they also included non released tracks like the songs from their (failed!) Decca audition.

[Deleted]

Ask Yahoo! dealt with the same question:

Turns out that Lennon sang 103 songs with the Beatles, while McCartney sang only 84. In addition, John is credited with lead but shared vocals with Paul 21 times, with Paul and George together eight times, and with George once. Paul is credited with lead but shared vocals with John on only four songs.

So basically, while John sang more leads, he was much more likely to share a lead vocal with Paul than vice versa, which is why it sounds like they were more even in the vocal stakes.

I think it goes back to the fact that Paul is more traditionally musically gifted than John. And I love John, but he was frickin' lazy. If you listen to the bootlegs, Paul frequently arranged John's songs and added touches that made the songs what they were. So John was more apt to sing harmony with John to kind of help John's songs, whereas John was not all that motivated to help with Paul's.

I thought Slate said it best:

But the bigger problem here is that Lennon is a rock star in search of an Answer—and that he blissfully finds his answer ("Yes is surrender") before the end of the first song on his album, leaving the listener with 10 more tracks to go....You need only listen to one or two of the songs on Mind Games to realize that the post-Beatles Lennon was, except for one or two brief spasms, virtually bereft of musical ideas. He cared more about the myth of John Lennon than he did about making music, a craft that he spent little time attempting to master, and which therefore deserted him when he needed it the most....Harrison's need for Lynne, like Lennon's need for Yoko Ono, in part reflects the musical dependence of both men on Paul McCartney—the one truly gifted musician in the Beatles, and the creator (along with his studio partner George Martin) of nearly all of the important advances in the Beatles sound.

[Deleted]

I have actually seen the Beatles at Maple Leaf Gardens, here in Toronto. They were here twice and I was lucky enough to see them both times. Of course, we couldn't hear anything... because of the screaming.

That's how old I am...

[ladymadonna]

I always saw John as the more gifted lyricist and Paul as the musical arranger, and somehow they managed to "come together" as the greatest songwriting duo ever. I don't really care too much for any of the Beatles' solo work, and yes, that includes My Sweet Lord. Paul's solo stuff is so saccharine, and except for "Maybe I'm Amazed"and perhaps "Mull of Kintyre", IMO, not so hot. OTOH, Jon had "Imagine", which was lyrically incredible, but I have heard much better musical versions. By that I mean people who have taken the original song and improved upon the musicality of it. Which all boils down to Lennon/McCartney being a SuperMusicalDuo. Which is why we all love the Beatles to this day. George was a musical force all on his own, and Ringo was the backbeat, but Lennon/McCartney were the heart of the Greatest!Band!Ever! JMHO.

[Deleted]

I completely agree with you, ladymadonna.... another good Beatles song, by the way...

Paul's romantic songs were my favourites... My Love, Maybe I'm Amazed, No More Lonely Nights and especially, Lovely Linda.

I know John was a huge talent but he was such a jerk to his oldest son, I can never completely forgive him.

[Deleted]

John's solo stuff wasn't that hot, IMO, lyrically. Again, because he was lazy. A lot of it is hippy-dippy cliche.

Paul can be lazy with his lyrics, but never the music. Also, I would argue that Paul's solo work being saccharine is a myth. Paul has far more rockers and up-tempto songs than John in the 70s, because Paul was writing with an eye for arena rock. I can't think of any John solo song that rocked harder than "Junior's Farm" or "Big Barn Bed" or "Live and Let Die." Even "Maybe I'm Amazed" has a much tougher rock sound than "Imagine," although they're both ballads.

[carrier76]

John's solo stuff wasn't that hot, IMO, lyrically. Again, because he was lazy. A lot of it is hippy-dippy cliche.

I agree. I would rate his solo stuff as third best, after George and Paul.

I totaly heart Paul. Live, he is super. And his '80s hits are like forgotten gems now, like the aforementioned "No More Lonely Nights," "Press," "Here Today," etc. I so love Paul.