Why is Paul criticized for writing mostly "silly love songs"? That's what I like about him

Paul wrote Martha My Dear so he's cool in my book.

>I would say Honey Pie is the worst track they ever put out.
What? Why? I love the chorus melody on that one. I'd listen to Honey Pie a million times before I put on something like Piggies.

>Honey Pie
>When Wild Honey Pie is right there on side 1

Ringo >>>> George > John >>>> Paul

Fuck i meant to say WILD Honey Pie.

To be fair Wild Honey Pie isn't really a song. It's more like an interlude to transition into Bungalow Bill.

>isn't really a song
?

It's an interlude/transition.
It's not meant to be judged as a real "song." It's a gag thrown in that I think works in the context of the album. I don't ever listen to it on its own, but I never skip it when I listen to the album.

>Why is Paul criticized for writing mostly "silly love songs"?
What's wrong with that? I need to know...

Not deep enough.

He stood in stark opposition to the overt political ideals of many 60s and 70s rock critics. They wanted anthems for the counterculture and Paul wasn't willing to pander to that, so they dickrode Lennon instead.

Pretty much this.

This. The original Rolling Stone review for his debut album was actually very positive, but Jann Wenner (editor of Rolling Stone) insisted that it be redone to be more negative because he blamed Paul for breaking up The Beatles.

SOurce? That's not cool

beatlebioreview.wordpress.com/2017/11/29/book-review-sticky-fingers-joe-hagans-biography-of-rolling-stone-editor-jann-wenner/

This is a very good piece on the Lennon/Wenner relationship. The entire blog (and the book The Beatles and the Historians) is great for learning just how much of the commonly known history of The Beatles is complete B.S. (Paul wasn’t some horrible tyrant during the Get Back sessions for example, he was constantly worried that he was taking too much control but given John’s uninvolvement felt he had no other choice, for example).
Honestly when it comes to the break up the more I read the more I’m convinced that Paul was 100% in the right and the other three really screwed him by trying to force the whole Klein thing on him, and that in general he gets unfairly shit on by people who don’t know better. He never wanted his in-laws to be the sole managers, he wanted them to split things with Klein to reach a compromise. He always put in a full effort when it came to anyone else’s songs, whereas John would oftentimes not even be present when they were recording George’s songs.

Ironically, given how much he talks about them today, it really wasn’t until 1989 with his return to touring and him playing a bunch of Beatles songs live for the first time that Paul really embraced his Beatle legacy. All throughout the 70s he was trying to create a new musical identity/sound for himself, a goal which he arguably accomplished with the Wings Over America tour. By 1989 his solo career had faltered in commercial success, so he began embracing his Beatle past a lot more, even pulling out the Hofner again.

Ah, so Rolling Stone has been shit ever since it's inception.

For no one
fool on the hill
your mother should know
rocky raccoon
you never give me your money

paul was the single greatest writer of pop music ever

john was second

I miss the Rick...

Attached: 1976.jpg (900x894, 275K)

youtube.com/watch?v=TMMiXjwhODU

"silly love songs"

paul wrote songs that resonated deep in the part of the human soul that rarely gets reached

I love this man

Attached: B8HshqNIEAA9g4J.jpg (476x700, 57K)

I’ve got nearly every album Paul has released. I’m only missing some of his more experimental stuff like Liverpool Sound Collage. His solo career is remarkably consistent, and he’s one of those artists whose entire discography is worth listening to. Even his bad albums like Pipes of Peace have at least three or so great songs on them, which isn’t something that I can say for the bad albums of John or George.
When Paul is bad, he’s still catchy and listenable. When he’s good, he’s untouchable.

How do you feel about Back to the Egg? I think it's his most underrated album.

I prefer John over Paul, but Paul wrote some amazing shit. These critics are clueless.

How do you like his latest album Egypt Station?

John's better imo.
Brian wilson gets second place for me
And Paul's third

I think it’s great, though I’d rank Red Rose Speedway, Band On The Run, Venus and Mars, and London Town above it as far as Wings albums go. BTTE is a great example of Paul’s genre-diversity too, since you’ve got everything from 1930s style music to new wave. Plus Winter Rose is a far better Christmasesque song that Wonderful Christmastime.

Paul brings the Beauty, John brings the Truth

Paul is the man, easily the best solo stuff too. Ram is better than the majority of Beatles albums desu

>His solo career is remarkably consistent
yeah, consistently shit

I think Paul has been on a roll since Flaming Pie, and that the work he’s done since then alone beats out the other solo careers of The Beatles. Very few of his contemporaries are still producing such high quality work. Bowie came the closest, but there was the ten year break between Reality and The Next Day, and then of course after Blackstar he died. Had he lived I think he would’ve continued to make great albums. Dylan had a good run but his last really great album was Love and Theft (Modern Times, Together Through Life, and Tempest were good but not great) and he’s been doing Sinatra covers for what, five years now?

As for Egypt Station I think it’s unfortunate that the weakest song by far (Fuh You) is also the most popular, which means people might write it off because of that. I Don’t Know, Dominoes, Despite Repeated Warnings, Hunt You Down/Naked/C-Link, and Nothing For Free (one of the Target bonus tracks) are some of the best material Paul’s ever written.

Honestly this. He good in the Beatles though

Also, if you wanna talk underrated McCartney, look at Press to Play. From what I’ve heard it actually got positive reviews when it was released but did poorly on the charts, and over the years its become known as Paul’s worst album.

I mean, if he releases something like Pretty Little Head as a single and it goes nowhere, so he releases Only Love Remains and gets a minor hit out of it, how is he supposed to escape his reputation as a lightweight? The lightweight material is what sells.

Paul's innate knowledge about dissonance, chromaticism, and harmonic phrasing would make him a great songwriter by itself, but his insane work ethic, use of cyclic form, unusual form and especially his use of the jam-mantra (look no further than Hey Jude), desire to keep pushing his own limits and a taste for the avant-garde brongs him to the top of pop songwriting.

Have you read The Unknown Paul McCartney by Ian Peel? Apparently it goes into detail about Paul’s avant-garde side. I really want to read it.

No, but I want to.

You're basically me
Based & redpilled

You'd think that people would've had enough of silly love songs
But I look around me and I see it isn't so

Bingo.

He’s the best natural musician in the band by a country mile. Apart from plastic ono band, Lennon’s solo albums sound lost without PM.

There's literally nothing wrong with it. If Paul were writing silly love songs while at the same time saying he was Bob Dylan-tier with his lyrics and political commentary then we'd have a problem.

You are mentally disabled if you think she said is a top 10 Beatles song

ha

I always thought GtGYIML and TNK flow perfectly into one another.
GtGYIML, carefree and lighthearted, being an ode to pot and TNK, psychedelics and experimental, being about an acid trip.

unrelated: fuck off jimmy dean. stop spamming your shitty ass ads

Why?

John is my favorite Beatle. I personally liked him best. As songwriters, Paul was prolific. And commercial. He wrote accessible pop -- silly love songs -- that made people feel good and brought in a lot of squares to check out The Beatles who might not have done so otherwise. Imagine The Beatles without Paul. You'd basically be looking at an all-serious-all-the-time band. A band kind of like a Byrdsy/Jefferson Airplaney hybrid with a touch of Pink Floyd. They would've soldiered on and been a very successful band with John and George doing the writing. But they would've lost their smile, their cheekiness. And that was a very important part of what made them The Beatles.

The Beatles secret weapon was their diverse strengths. There was literally something for everybody. You like acid rock? Check. You like old vaudeville tunes? Check. You like Dylanesque imagery? Check. You like love ballads? Check.

The Beatles checked ALL the boxes.

Attached: aaabb2.jpg (971x775, 551K)

>I miss the Rick...

The Rick had it all over the Hofner. It was a beefier sound, without getting too muddy on the one hand or too punchy/twangy (like a Peavey) on the other. My favorite bass sound.

John's musically experimental legacy is primarily in the MacLuhan-esque exploitation for its own sake of the indigenous quirks of the recording medium. Paul and George too were involved in all manner of tinkering in the studio with flanging, vari-speed, tape loops and whatnot, but I believe John is the one who made the really big gestures in this department. Strawberry Fields Forever, his part on A Day In The Life and I Am The Walrus may be among the best examples of this though the roots of it go back as far as "Yellow Submarine" and "Tomorrow Never Knows". And of course, it is John, after all, who in spite of all later retreat to good old rock 'n' roll would persist with offerings like "Revolution #9" and "What's The New Mary Jane".
As a relatively intuitive composer, John also made consistently effective use throughout his career of uneven phrase lengths, cross-cut switches between different meters, and unusual harmonic twists; the latter especially ironic in light of his conspicuous harmonic frugality in the early days. Paul is also consistently imaginative in the novel use of modal harmony and unusual modulations — take a look, for example at as early as song as "Things We Said Today" — but I don't think you find anything in Paul's work that flirts with tonal ambiguity in the extreme way that something like "I Am The Walrus" does.

It’s annoying as fuck and the songwriting just goes in circles

Personally, Lennon’s music was much deeper and introspective than McCartney. There is more to contemplate, to study and analyze with Lennon’s music. In terms of artistic value, Lennon cannot be matched by McCartney. Strawberry Fields, I am the Walrus, She Said She Said, the Revolutions, Tomorrow Never Knows. Those songs are some of the best from the Beatles if not the best. But Lennon’s work of quality is also limited. After Revolver his song contributions began to subside. He wasn’t the force as he was once was; and he may have been completely satisfied with it. Lennon was an artist more than a musician. He knew that—and he also knew how great McCartney was as a musician. I’d like to believe in his own sympathetic way, he cleared the path for McCartney’s gift to shine. But he also allowed for his band-mate to become the better songwriter of the band on this period.
tl;dr Lennon's highs were higher, but Paul was infinitely more consistent.

I love the song. It's not annoying at all; the melody is beautiful, the drums are amazing, the guitar is incredible. There's nothing to hate on it. It's probably my favorite song from them.
I

4001/4003 is my bassfu, followed by the Stingray. Absolutely amazing basses.

I think it's interesting how McCartney tended to keep his avant-garde side separate from The Beatles. He was involved with the whole underground scene in London, but apart from the tape loops in Tomorrow Never Knows, he tended to not let his interest in avant garde music carry over to The Beatles. Whereas Lennon was putting out stuff like Revolution 9 under The Beatles' name.

Nice

look at how fat John is LMAOOOOOO

christ just because something can be analysed doesn't make it better music. penny lane , eleanor rigby yesterday are infallible peaces of pop masterpieces that trump every Lennon song you listed

>personally
Read the first word.

>penny lane , eleanor rigby yesterday are infallible peaces of pop masterpieces that trump every Lennon song you listed
Nah

she said she said is literally shit. 1st 2 revolutions are just bluesy rock tracks with 9 being a literal joke. everything important about SFF and TNK was other people's work.i am the walrus is alright but obviously doesn't compare to any of mccartney's best

THE FACT THAT

Paul McCartney isn't considered the greatest musician of all time is a tragedy.

I think your opinion is shit :)
But there's no problem with it

Awful taste, Jesus Christ kek
The absolute state of Yea Forums. 4channel is the new reddit.

Attached: A0EA7945-5245-4FC2-8532-405D0A4280BD-3314-000003D03A768B20.png (134x152, 26K)

>she said she said is literally shit
Stopped reading there. Reminder that She Said She Said is Bernstein's favorite Beatles song.
this thread is full of non-musicians.

Attached: A0D5D165-9B2F-444D-A021-2099BD801FA5-7503-00000A23899539FD.jpg (552x556, 30K)

pls never post your garbage opinion again

I'm the biggest McCartney shill in this thread but She Said She Said is fucking incredible.

And that's why you should ignore Paulfags, everyone. Look at the absolute mind of this person.

Based

>Paul and George too were involved in all manner of tinkering in the studio with flanging, vari-speed, tape loops and whatnot, but I believe John is the one who made the really big gestures in this department.
I disagree with you there. I'll give you "Revolution 9" but John often took somewhat of a back seat when it came to arrangement. "Strawberry Fields Forever" and "Tomorrow Never Knows" is all Paul and George. John was very openly disappointed with both recordings, stating TNK sounded nothing like he wanted it to and in his final interview he claimed McCartney sabotaged SSF.
For "I Am The Walrus" John actually took initiative and implemented the ideas he wanted, but Geoff Emerick and George Martin did most of the actual work, as they had on "Being for the Benefit of Mr Kite".
I don't know who added the various STEED effects on "A Day in the Life" (likely Emerick) but the avant-garde elements such as the orchestral glissando were a combination of Paul and George Martin's ideas.

Epic r*dditor defending Fraud McCartney

literally the worst song on revolver except doctor robert. even fucking wingo is better singing is better.
and to think good day sunshine comes right after in the track list and blows it out of the water. john's repetitive writing cannot even stand up to mccareney on the same LP.

>Strawberry Fields Forever" and "Tomorrow Never Knows" is all Paul and George.
How so? Also, I recognized Paul's idea on TNK in the exact sentence you quoted.
>John was very openly disappointed
Source?
>the producers did the production
Sure! I never said the opposite.

While McCartney was trying to fuse rock and pop with classical music, Lennon always pushed in a different and more intriguing direction. If McCartney was writing soft-spoken romantic ballads, Lennon was doing more groundbreaking and eclectic stuff: frank honesty in ‘Norwegian Wood’ and ‘In My Life’, snarling cynicism in ‘I Am Only Sleeping’ and edge-of-the-seat invention in ‘Tomorrow Never Knows’.
It would also be a stretch to say that musical ingenuity and dedication were just gifts for McCartney to wield. Lennon has been unfairly called as a lazy genius when it actually is evident that in many of his most ambitious songs, he did everything to make it sound like how he wanted it to. ‘Being For The Benefit Of Mr. Kite’ sounds exactly as it was his vision, to capture the essence of the vaudeville of the Victorian era. Similarly, his ideas and little tweaks to songs by other Beatles were pretty much invaluable. A Lennon song could also be a lot of fun for the rest of the Beatles and pretty much everyone, including McCartney, has agreed to that.
I am not saying that McCartney is in any way inferior. In terms of sheer craft and rhythm and melody, the things that great music is remembered for, he will always be remembered. There is a lot more to Paul than just ‘Yesterday’ and you will marvel at how well he tells the grandest of stories, the most entertaining of fictions within the space of songs which last only less than five minutes. He was a great storyteller but while his songwriting and composition feel more attuned to musical sensibilities, Lennon’s process was improvised yet intuitive and refreshingly unconventional. He was the kind of songwriter who could write on even the most mundane or personal of things and still churn out great pieces that still sound lightyears ahead of their day.

WHEN I GET TO THE BOTTOM I GO BACK TO THE TOP OF THE SLIDE WHERE I STOP AND I TURN AND I GO FOR A RIDE TIL I GET TO THE BOTTOM AND I SEE YOU AGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIIIIN OH YEAH

...

>She Said She Said
>Bad
GTFO contrarian

Attached: amillionkeks.jpg (517x768, 180K)

Based but Bluepilled, just swap John and George and we're cool
Wild Honey Pie is 50 seconds long, get over it. Rocky Raccoon is far worse

>I prefer Paul over John
>my reputation is of an autistic retard because every single Paulfag on this board is an autistic retard
Fuck.

The fact that two of the greatest musical geniuses of all time were in the same band is nothing short of incredible.

>Muh Beach Boys is better than Beatles
cunt

But I don't think that.

Christgau was also personal friends with Lennon and Ono.

I suppose I would consider myself a Paulfag generally, but the people who shit on Lennon's contributions to The Beatles are retards.

Bluepilled, you're mentally disabled if you have to type 'you are' instead of 'you're' just to make sure you get it right

Sounds like Foreigner and that's not a compliment.

This.

>The Beatles secret weapon was their diverse strengths. There was literally something for everybody. You like acid rock? Check. You like old vaudeville tunes? Check. You like Dylanesque imagery? Check. You like love ballads? Check.

To be fair the Rolling Stones could also be pretty eclectic though mostly thanks to Mick Jagger since Keith would play nothing but boring blues jams if he had his way.

Christgau is a piece of shit. In a piece written shortly after Lennon's death he approvingly quoted his wife wishing Paul had been shot instead of John.

The two wrong Beatles died first

While true, it does nonetheless illustrate the rather incestuous relationship Lennon had with rock critics back then.

>Very few of his contemporaries are still producing such high quality work. Bowie came the closest, but there was the ten year break between Reality and The Next Day, and then of course after Blackstar he died. Had he lived I think he would’ve continued to make great albums. Dylan had a good run but his last really great album was Love and Theft (Modern Times, Together Through Life, and Tempest were good but not great) and he’s been doing Sinatra covers for what, five years now?

Neil Young hasn't really made anything good this side of the millenium either, mostly just complaining about whatever he saw on the evening news over two chords.

>Personally, Lennon’s music was much deeper and introspective than McCartney. There is more to contemplate, to study and analyze with Lennon’s music.

Really now? His beliefs are pretty much dudeweed tier.

Let's be honest, if you go person to person the lineup is stacked. There are fewer great drummers in that span of pop music of the 60's than Ringo, and the number of those who had Ringo's flexibility can be counted on one hand. And he's by far the worst - George by himself could've lead a good band on the level of The Zombies and Love. The fact that they weren't even close to being the centers of the songwriting shows just how good The Beatles were.

Not only lyrically, I speak, but even so, yes, I prefer John's stuff on this sense.

Sounds like projection. You’st be’ve really dumb ‘n insecure.

Anything Roger Waters has done recently also belongs in the trash.

Paul was the pothead of the beatles

This happens because Paulfags are mostly underage, I suppose?

^This. Anyone who didn't live up to their counterculture delusions got the short end of the stick. It was why they were left completely flustered by Self-Portrait when they expected Dylan to sing about the Kent State Shootings.

Paul and George dominate Strawberry Fields; Paul's mellotron, George's slide guitar, his dreamy guitar arpeggios, his descending swarmandal line, their storm of duo timpani that George Martin fades out and then back in. Not to mention George Martin's heavy brass orchestration. The backwards percussion and tape loops in the first part are also a carry over from Revolver and Rain when he was asked to add it to everything.

Here's the source from his final interview with Playboy:

>LENNON: The Beatles didn't make a good record of "Across The Universe ." I think subconsciously we -- I thought Paul subconsciously tried to destroy my great songs. We would play experimental games with my great pieces, like "Strawberry Fields," which I always felt was badly recorded. It worked, but it wasn't what it could have been. I allowed it, though. We would spend hours doing little, detailed cleaning up on Paul's songs, but when it came to mine -- especially a great song like "Strawberry Fields" or "Across The Universe " -- somehow an atmosphere of looseness and experimentation would come up.

>PLAYBOY:Sabotage?

>LENNON: Subconscious sabotage. I was too hurt. ... Paul will deny it, because he has a bland face and will say this doesn't exist. This is the kind of thing I'm talking about where I was always seeing what was going on and began to think, Well, maybe I'm paranoid. But it is not paranoid. It is the absolute truth. The same thing happened to "Across The Universe ." The song was never done properly. The words stand, luckily.

The man literally said Paul's experimentation ruined his songs

>Paul and George dominate Straberry Fields
Not really. I think the most fascinating thing on the song is the chord progression, by John, and also the lyrics, just like the main guitar play. He's just as important as everything. Why would you say otherwise?
>which I always felt it was bad recorded. It worked, but it wasn't what could have been
What's wrong with this? He just had another idea of recording that didn't happen. He wasn't disappointed with it.
>Paul experimentation ruins his songs
Not the songs, but the recording. You can see he was talking about the recording postures of the members. I fully understand him.

They did the same thing late on with punk.

John made some classical approaches to his songs. His inspiration for "Because" was evoked by hearing Yoko Ono play the "Adagio sostenuto" of Beethoven's Piano Sonata no. 14, Opus 27 no. 2 in C Sharp Minor (the Moonlight one). The affinity between the enveloping, arpeggiated C sharp minor triads, with the sudden shift to the flat supertonic, is, in the Lennon and Beethoven examples unmistakable.
It's no something very hard to identify, thought. The song does resemble the first movement of Beethoven's work in some harmonious aspects (especially the use of the Neapolitan or flat-II chord), its arpeggiated texture, and some aspects of the melodic rhythm. And of course, we can add, both compositions share the same key of C# minor.
But there's yet another possible source of inspiration: listen to the start of the "Second Movement" (Adagio Molto, Ubriachi Dormienti) of the Autumn section of the (Four) Seasons as composed by Antonio Vivaldi. Especially the harpsichord, used in some performances of this piece, highlights the striking resemblances of "Because" with this part of the "Four Seasons".

>which isn’t something that I can say for the bad albums of John or George.
...or Ringo. Everything after Goodnight Vienna just gets worse and worse until it becomes totally unlistenable.

If you want a very unusual example, you can safely say that George takes influence from Beethoven in Something with the gestures and form, especially in the ending.

This album is better than anything John has made

Attached: 8A98D3E7-A5A2-4753-82D9-A30358439944.jpg (715x707, 178K)

I just wanna fuh, YOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

I don't think Paul ever truly lost his touch as a songwriter, although by the 80s his particular style of songwriting was definitely out of fashion and not what contemporary audiences/radio programmers demanded.

I disagree, really. For me, Plastic Ono Band and Mind Games are both better than it.
But none of their albums are really amazing imo

Because we were talking about arrangement and not composition? Apart from the mellotron melody Paul wrote of course they're all John's

Back in the U.S. [Capitol, 2002]
The broad arena-rock of expert nonentities robs the Beatle songs that jam this tour merch of all quirk and precision. Yet the Beatle songs still dwarf the proofs of his solo existence, which get lamer as he gets older. Either way his relentless smiley smile cloys on contact. And when he whips up some now-the-fellas now-the-ladies on "Hey Jude," it is to cringe with dismay at the survival of a generation. D

Attached: christgau1med.jpg (400x266, 17K)

>Also, if you wanna talk underrated McCartney, look at Press to Play. From what I’ve heard it actually got positive reviews when it was released but did poorly on the charts, and over the years its become known as Paul’s worst album.

Like I mentioned, it wasn't a bad album at all, but not what sold in 1986.

I bought one 3 years ago, never going to buy another bass again

it's so deep, so warm, and I recognise it immediately when I her it, for example, in pretty much every song on Magical Mystery Tour

the epitome of bass, and Macc was/is still the most influential bass player around

>The broad arena-rock of expert nonentities robs the Beatle songs that jam this tour merch of all quirk and precision.
To be fair I'm not shocked that the Beatles' precision-crafted studio work wouldn't translate well into a live setting. I mean, they gave up live performances and became a studio band for a reason.

The period production does it no favors either, which applies to most of Paul's contemporaries.

The mellotron melody is also John's. This is pretty much not in the mainstream sense, but he started developing it in 1964. youtu.be/USxDXaGeQ3Q

Have McCartney and Christgau ever met?

Holy fuck, I never saw this footage before.

All of them--Dylan, Young, McCartney, Stephen Stills, Beach Boys, etc--made terrible-sounding albums in the 80s because their songwriting style didn't sync with the production techniques of the time the way a young, contemporary artist like Prince or Madonna did. Although live performances of those 80s albums, where you lost the studio tinsel, sounded much better and fit in just fine with their older material.

Don't think so.

Alright this is amazing

Every source I could find said Paul wrote it, but I've seen this footage before and it really is compelling evidence that it's John's.

Not really sure, I think it's more that fanatic fans will insist that only the person they are fans of made good music. I've seen Johnfags and Georgefags be just as bad.
Because is such a fantastic song, one of their very best imo.

The Stingray falls more comfortably in my hands, but the 4003 is iconic as all hell and has such a good tone.

oh sheeeeit

I bought a 4003S just because of Mecca. Will never need another bass again.

>Anything Roger Waters has done after Syd left also belongs in the trash.
ftfy

I think it's less that he didn't let it slip and more that it was just another part of his influences and he respected his influences too much to release any random experiment. The loops on TNK, for example, are infinitely more complex than the loops Lennon/Harrison make on I'm Only Sleeping, which are basically straightforward backwards loops. TNK's loops, on the other hand, come from Paul studying the tape recording technology itself and neither the loops themselves nor their arrangements are easily replicable. By the time he came into TNK, Paul had already done his experimenting and was just putting out the stuff he had already learned about faders and saturation.

>The loops on TNK, for example, are infinitely more complex than the loops Lennon/Harrison make on I'm Only Sleeping, which are basically straightforward backwards loops. TNK's loops, on the other hand, come from Paul studying the tape recording technology itself and neither the loops themselves nor their arrangements are easily replicable
Big bullshit. Paul just gave the the idea; the producers made it happen.

Paul George and John never made any loops, bro.

Not really.

Not correct

How so?

I like how this post is wrong on it's entirety

The other Beatles were also feeding the tapes into the machine, and literally handling the fades themselves.

Citation needed

ever since i first heard a day in the life i literally end the song when john's part ends. it's a 10/10 that way.

>its a 10/10 that way
I agree. But the end of the song, aswell as the orchestra, makes it a 11/10

>In Richard Witts's biography Nico: The Life & Lies of an Icon, she claims to have been in attendance at the private party Brian Epstein threw at his home on May 19 to preview the Beatles' Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band for the press. "There is a song I liked on Sgt. Pepper, called 'A Day in the Life,'" she states in the book. "It has a beautiful song and then this strange sound like John Cale would make (he told me it was an orchestra, actually) and then this stupid little pop song that spoils everything so far. I told this to Paul [McCartney], and I made a mistake, because the beautiful song was written by John Lennon and the stupid song was written by Paul. It can be embarrassing when you speak the truth."
Based Nico

McCartney encouraged the other Beatles to use the same effects and create their own loops.[23] After experimentation on their own, the various Beatles supplied a total of "30 or so" tape loops to Martin, who selected 16 for use on the song.[49] Each loop was about six seconds long.[49]

The overdubbing of the tape loops took place on 7 April.[38] The loops were played on BTR3 tape machines located in various studios of the Abbey Road building[50] and controlled by EMI technicians in Studio Three.[51] Each machine was monitored by one technician, who had to hold a pencil within each loop to maintain tension.[49] The four Beatles controlled the faders of the mixing console while Martin varied the stereo panning and Emerick watched the meters.[52][53] Eight of the tapes were used at one time, changed halfway through the song.[52] The tapes were made (like most of the other loops) by superimposition and acceleration.[54][55] According to Martin, the finished mix of the tape loops could not be repeated because of the complex and random way in which they were laid over the music.[9] Harrison similarly described the mix of loops as "spontaneous", given that each run-through might favour different sounds over another.[9]
A 7-inch reel of 14-inch-wide (6.4 mm) audio recording tape, which was the type used to create the song's tape loops

Five tape loops are prominent in the finished version of the song. According to author Ian MacDonald, writing in the 1990s, these loops contain the following:

A recording of McCartney's laughter, sped up to resemble the sound of a seagull (enters at 0:07)
An orchestral chord of B major (0:19)
A Mellotron on its flute setting (0:22)
A Mellotron strings sound, alternating between B and C in 6/8 time (0:38)
A sitar playing a rising scalar phrase, recorded with heavy saturation and sped up (0:56).[56]

>The loops were played on BTR3 tape machines located in various studios of the Abbey Road building[50] and controlled by EMI technicians in Studio Three.
Yes, thank you for proving my point. The producers made the loops how it is.

No, see
>After experimentation on their own, the various Beatles supplied a total of "30 or so" tape loops to Martin
And
>The four Beatles controlled the faders of the mixing console

Nice try though. Just admit you are an idiot and stop posting

what the fuck do you think Blackbird was about?

How Christgau manages to reconcile his love of the Beatles with his dislike of European music and punk/garage rock/black music obsession I can't imagine.

>that time Paul McCartney wrote and recorded a song that was literally about his fucking cock and was planning on including it on an album of unreleased/rare tracks from the '70s but after Lennon's death he lost interest in the album
>it's actually catchy as fuck and one of his best mid-70s songs

youtube.com/watch?v=0L3VpeMfi_M

youtu.be/w5mswZOxczY

Based and redpilled or cringe and bluepilled?

Is that really what it’s about?lmao

youtube.com/watch?v=BgfJobsRmWU
>Song that Paul wrote on the spot while jamming with his shitty live band he's been touring with since like 2000 is better than most modern rock bands entire discographies

STUDIO VERSION W H E N

HOLY shit. This is incredible.

>Love comes in, love comes out
>At the bottom, at the bottom of the waterspout
>Whoa whoa whoa, love comes in, love comes out
>At the bottom, at the bottom of the waterspout

>Only love can get you at it and in a minute
>You will find yourself swimming in it,
>Only love
>Catch you up today,
>Take your breath away
>Make you want to say what
>You're thinking of, it's only love
>Down at the bottom,
>Down at the bottom of the waterspout
>Love comes in, love comes out
>At the bottom, at the bottom of the waterspout

>Daddy couldn't stand it, said woody was a mad bandit
>And they were knocking each other out
>Whoa oh, till the little dancer came up with another answer
>When she took him to the waterspout

Peter Gabriel's Sledgehammer is similar with the music being catchy as fuck and the lyrics just being him describing his dick

Attached: 1505278956012.png (582x847, 1.04M)

>Why Don’t We Do It In The Road?
>Eat at Home
>Waterspout
>Press
>Nod Your Head
>Fuh You

Why does Paul like writing songs about fucking so much?

Cause here I go AGAIN ON MY OWN. GOING DOWN THE ONLY ROAD I'VE EVER... uh, never mind.

kek

Paul was the actual musical genius behind the Beatles the whole time.
>b-but muh john made tomorrow never knows! strawberry fields forever!
Wrong. For TNK, Paul innovated with the tape loops, Ringo came up with the beat, and Geoff Emerick had to hack together a new recording technique; John just lifted some lyrics from the Tibetan Book of the Dead and was extremely autistic about ensuring he sounded like a bunch of Tibetan monks or some shit.
For Strawberry Fields Forever, Paul wrote and played the iconic Mellotron part, George did the actual guitar and the Indian instruments, and Ringo did fucking excellent fills. John wrote some pretty great lyrics and subsequently left George Martin and the engineers to figure out how to execute his autistic idea of merging two completely different takes in two completely different tempos and keys. In 1967.
Speaking of the actual genius George Martin... For most Paul songs, George Martin's job was just to take what was already formed in Paul's head and bring it to the real world. That was what he did as far as arrangements. For Paul.
George Martin actually had to do work for the John songs, because Lennon was a lazy hack.
But, of course, Jann Wenner controlled the media narrative and pointed it in John's favor. It's thanks to him that all these distorted misconceptions of John being a genius and Paul being a granny hack even exist.
Paul McCartney = actual genius. George Harrison = outstanding. Ringo Starr = extraordinary. John Lennon = actual hack.

Attached: beaterbeatlebeaten.png (600x315, 176K)

>b-but muh john made tomorrow never knows! strawberry fields forever!

kek i thought this was going to be a Beatles version of the Harry Potter pasta at first

Norman Smith said that from the beginning Paul was the leader in the studio and that having him around was like having a second producer.

>genius behind sgt pepper
>genius behind abbey road medley
>first solo album has everything from power ballads to minimalism
>second solo album invents indie pop
>band on the run is perfect early 70s pop rock
>venus and mars is perfect stadium rock
>incredible live performer
>mccartney ii an underrated cult classic
>five octave range
>incredible live perfomer
>has a whole avant-garde side the public doesn’t know about

nothin personnel lennon

Attached: AB99225D-9515-415D-9D32-3A95ED8C8F60.jpg (980x653, 58K)

>Very few of his contemporaries are still producing such high quality work
Clapton gave up in 1975.

>>second solo album invents indie pop
Oh you mean Smiley Smile by The beach Boys

wow, bad taste

>tfw prefer lennon beatles songs to paul's but prefer paul solo to the beatles

Thank God that Mark David Chapman shot the dullest musician in the history of rock bands. Seriously each song by the boy singer and his pals from Liverpool Institute High School as they fight assorted wives has been indistinguishable from the others. Aside from the sexual imagery, his catalog’s only consistency has been its lack of excitement and ineffective use of audio effects, all to make music unmusical, to make drugs seem profound.

Perhaps the die was cast when Lennon vetoed the idea of McCartney's relatives managing the band; he made sure the band would never be an enduring act that would survive into the '70s?just ridiculously profitable cross-promotion for his solo career. The John Lennon catalog might be anti-Christian (or not), but it’s certainly the anti-Paul McCartney catalog in its refusal of wonder, beauty and excitement. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.

>a-at least Imagine was good though

"Ah-haaaa-aahhh!"
The writing is dreadful; the song was terrible. As I listened, I noticed that every time a call for peace was made, the musician acted instead by physically, verbally, and psychologically abusing his wife and children.

I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that John beat his wife. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. Lennon's mind is so governed by drugs and dead mothers that he has no other style of behaving. Later I read a lavish, loving review of John Lennon by the same Robert Christgau. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are listening to John Lennon at 11 or 12, then when they get older they will go on to listen to the Ramones." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you listen to John Lennon you are, in fact, trained to listen to the Ramones.

Attached: 1542757665907.jpg (1674x2886, 1.34M)

This is embarrassing.

New?

No. Why?

john lennon is a bit of a hack in that he wasnt a great guitarist or arranger compared with martin or paul

All Things Must Pass is better

Plastic Ono band is better than both

paul seems to have written all my favorite beatles songs, including that one

mick jagger can do more with his voice than paul or john. the stones dominated every subgenre they went into imo

kek is this for real

>the stones dominated every subgenre they went into
Except the blues.

not sure if dominated was the right word. also ignore their satanic majesties request. that was outdone by the beatles

Meaning, The Stones were a great rock band, perhaps the best. But they were inept at doing anything else. In contrast, The Beatles weren't a particularly great rock band, but they were more versatile and diverse than The Stones, and succeeded in it.

The Beatles never rocked as hard as Satisfaction, but the Stones could never pull off a Yesterday, Mr Kite or A Day in The Life.

True. I think the beatles are more diverse within their songs. No single stones song is more diverse than any of these, however I feel the albums have greater diversity.

They both went through their early stages, more suit and tie pop. once they went their separate ways, I think the betales made more complex music, but not necessarily as diverse across their albums.

They did plenty else other than rock n roll. Take a look at some girls, or exile on main street. I would never call exile a rock n roll album. At least its blue rock.

>Take a look at some girls, or exile on main street
I'd rather not

i really like paul's bit in the song.

it's sort of a wake up from the daze and depression... the subject composes himself enough to start his day in the life, but then his mind wanders again and that's where john finishes the song even stronger.

Attached: delet this.png (699x537, 541K)

>mick jagger can do more with his voice than paul or john
Yeah, he could imitate a broken bike horn, a dying dog, a rusty squeeze box, AND nails on a chalkboard! Now if only he could sing.

The Rolling Stones are actually the better band......

Attached: 1549856899023.png (399x322, 42K)

If you think one trick ponies are better

Exile is better than anything the beatles ever released

Better at being boring, yes.

Exile is a better double album that the white album

obligatory led zeppelin shill here

Attached: dalai.jpg (220x260, 18K)

Not really, no

Paul is literally the chad of the beatles and also the best, only johncels will disagree.

Attached: fucking based.jpg (800x609, 187K)

Are you really this commited to the beatles?

What do the Paul fans in this thread think of Get Enough?

>Woke up, fell out of bed
>Beat my wife across the head
>Found my way downstairs and drank a cup
>And looking up I noticed she was dead
>[heavy breathing]
>Put the corpse in the back
>Fled the scene in seconds flat

Call him granny now, Johnfags.

Attached: 1489465547650.jpg (1920x1080, 160K)

because it's pandering and pedastlizing... in a word (albeit a hyphenated compound word)?
beta-orbiter*
*as fuck

>literal granny song

John's your favorite Beatle if he wrote the songs you like the most.
Paul's your favorite Beatle if he wrote the songs you like the most.
It's that easy, that simple to understand.
If you shit on one's work just to "highlight" the other one's work, you are an underage faggot, and you're one of the reasons this board is shit.
This thread is the prime example of the autistic fanbase the Beatles has. That's why I usually filter Beatles threads, even if they're my favorite band: the discussion here is always garbage. Look at those replies ITT. If you don't find embarrassing, please get out of this board.

I think time takes time, the one with the Jellyfish guys, is Ringo's best album

youtube.com/watch?v=EDZmLCEfCIM

It blows my mind how long artists have ideas of songs for prior to composing them