Who was actually the genius behind the beatles, and why was it mccartney and martin?

a bit of both

Can someone give examples of Martin's influence? They would write the songs and then he would help them make it sonically sound good?

eleanor rigby

Absolutely based.

>all by John
The thing is that they weren't "all by John". John was really just the ur-idea guy.
>Strawberry Fields Forever
Really, he just wrote the lyrics and played an acoustic guitar. Paul wrote and played the introductory Mellotron part, George did electric guitar and all those Indian instruments, Ringo (naturally) drummed, and Martin did the arrangements (arguably the most significant and interesting thing about the song). In fact, Martin not only did the arrangements but also accomplished the near-impossible task of stitching together two completely different takes at two completely different tempos in two completely different keys, a task which John, idea guy as he was, just dropped on Martin.
>I Am The Walrus
Sure, John wrote the lyrics, but the arrangement was Martin's work.
>A Day in the Life
John wrote the lyrics, but it was Paul's idea to have the orchestra, and it was Paul and Martin who conducted it. Can't forget Paul's contribution in the middle, either, which really defines the song. Or Ringo's superb fills.
The writing processes of the rest of the songs you mentioned aren't as well-documented, so I've left them out, but I seriously doubt John wrote all the parts to all of the songs. Pretty good lyrics, though.

>John had the best ideas; Martin executed them.
You said it, not me.
>implying McCartney doesn't have "knowledge of music" or "artistic visions that were forward thinking"
Now this is just intellectually dishonest.

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

>Paul wrote and played the introductory Mellotron part
Wrong. John had it in mind since 1964. Paul played it though.
>Paul's idea to have the orchestra
Where this meme comes from? It's John's idea.
>To fill the empty 24-bar middle section, Lennon's request to George Martin was that the orchestra should provide "a tremendous build-up, from nothing up to something absolutely like the end of the world".[42]

>the band's song isn't the work of 1 dude
Wow what a surprise! This happens with only a few songs, like Julia and Blackbird.

Bump

>Wrong. John had it in mind since 1964.
Read: John played descending notes one time in 1964. That's all there is in the video you're referring to.
>Where this meme comes from? It's John's idea.
web.archive.org/web/20080220071524/http://www.applecorp.com/aditl/notes3.htm
>It was Paul who decided upon the best way of filling the 24 bar gap in 'A Day In The Life': an orchestral build-up, with perhaps 90 musicians playing from a pre-selected low note to the highest their respective instruments could play.

Whatever George Martin is still nothing without the Beatles material to work with, have you heard his music separate from the Beatles? It's trash

All of his best work came from the energy of the Beatles

I'm not gonna pull your leg and say that I don't think Paul was mostly on the same level as John if not a perfect fair match couple of balanced songwriters, but to imply that the greatness of the Beatles can be pointed to just two members (plus George Martin) or even down to one member, as I've seen people do with Lennon by the way, is ridiculous.

Attached: paul drum.jpg (590x519, 65K)

>some descending notes
Yea, the mellotron intro's descending notes lol.
>waybackmachine
Maybe the text isn't available anymore because it was wrong?
The wiki source is still there.

>Yea, the mellotron intro's descending notes lol.
Three of the Mellotron intro's descending notes. (You'll note that, if you listen to the actual song, it does more than run through those three descending notes.)
There is nothing to suggest it's anything more than a coincidence, especially when there's evidence to the contrary:
>McCartney loved it. "His main contribution, as I remember, was coming up with the signature Mellotron flute intro," says Emerick.
independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/features/strawberry-fields-forever-the-making-of-a-masterpiece-426308.html
>Maybe the text isn't available anymore because it was wrong?
>grasping at straws this hard
This is also a "wiki source", by the way, as in the Wikipedia page cites it.

>There is nothing to suggest it's anything more than a coincidence
Literally the same descending notes lol.
>this is also a wiki source
Not the one that claims that Lennon had the orchestra idea, though.

>Literally the same descending notes.
Yes. That is a coincidence.
>Not the one that claims that Lennon had the orchestra idea, though.
To be specific, that quote doesn't say Lennon had the idea of the orchestra; it says he had an idea of what the orchestra should play.

Ram more than any other solo album sounds a lot like The Beatles, so one could argue that McCartney more than anyone else defined The Beatles’ sound, especially in the latter half of their career. Starting with Wild Life, Paul tried to develop a different style of songwriting to distance himself from The Beatles.

John and George seemed to wish to move away from that sound almost immediately, with Plastic Ono Band and All Things Must Pass.

Ok this needs to be settled ffs.

John was the visionary, but needed other people to produce for him (see his cheesy solo work for evidence of this, he was entirely reliant on others for "the sound"). His songs hold up best because he was the most innovative.

Paul was the most musically inclined from a classical perspective, and sometimes tried to imitate Brian Wilson. He dipped in and out of several ideas here and there but his default mode was sweet sounding melodies and innocent lyrics. In fairness, one thing which is understated is that he was John's producer as much as Martin was, e.g. on Rain. (see Howard Stern's Revolver interview)

George, besides the Indian stuff, wrote some good songs which don't seem to have had any thread running through them, though generally featured some nice guitar work - which makes sense given the fact he was the lead guitarist. His solo work has much more of an identity.

George Martin helped sparingly, e.g. in regards to guiding them on harmonies, and creating certain solos. His main importance was that he was receptive, but this went deeper than him. He allowed them to get away with artistic liberties which the higher-ups in the record label would not have agreed with

Ringo's songs were generally light-hearted, even childlike.

The Beatles have something for everyone due to having a personnel with a diverse set of influences, and it's as simple as that. The only reason they even became friends and bandmates in the first place is because they shared an indiscriminate taste in music, and curiosity towards it.

>see his cheesy solo work for evidence of this, he was entirely reliant on others for "the sound"

Can you elaborate on this? I agree that John’s solo work is missing something crucial, but I wouldn’t use cheesy to describe it.

>>McCartney
>>knowledge of music
>>artistic visions that were forward thinking
yes

I find it interesting that George Martin and Geoff Emerick, both heavily involved in the recording process, have a clear preference for Paul over the other three; while journalists and critics, who at the time arguably focused more on lyrics and whether the song said anything impactful, heavily favored John.

>tried to imitate Brian Wilson
other way around

Mccartney knew music a lot more and did a lot more interesting things.
John just played generic blues rock/pop with wacky filters

Classical composers tend to prefer John aswell, like Bernstein.

t. non musician

>Ram more than any other solo album sounds a lot like The Beatles,
This. Almost feels like he was saying Fuh You to John, showing that he literally never needed him

t. lennon asslicker
Lennon's shit, especially his solo shit, is not that special.

>Classical composers tend to prefer John aswell
such as? more than one example would be awesome.

Well, spector and let it be is probably an ever better example.

But songs like just starting over and woman, it just feels like that wasnt really John, it was someone else. Despite the bare bones of the song being decent. I find it sad he started off as a true classic rocker, even a pioneer of punk in my eyes, then fizzled into that.

t. illiterate non musician. Go back to r*ddit

Not him, but Alan W. Pollack is one that comes to my mind rn.

They didnt like John because he was lazy and sarcastic, simple as that...

I was lucky enough to be taken for an abbey road tour on my birthday, and I got to speak to Ken Townsend. From his account John was far more inquisitive as to what the studio could do. He wanted other people to do it for him, but he was more into "weird stuff"

Ram is probably Paul’s most personal album. In many ways it’s Paul’s Plastic Ono Band.

This is a really good review of it: only-solitaire.blogspot.com/2018/03/paul-mccartney-ram.html?m=1

>Alan W. Pollack
not a composer

Alan is a musicologist, though. I tend to believe that music theory students prefer John.

When did Pollack name his favorite Beatle? I like his analyses, but I don't remember him having a clear preference.

He clearly prefers John's songs over Paul's. Specially SFF, I Am The Walrus and A Day In The Life. You can see his preference on a lot of his songs' analysis, like She Said She Said and Good Morning Good Morning.

Martin was the PR genius and made them as famous as they are today. Musically I'd say non of them

Tbf George is really the unfortunate one in all of it. Poor guy. Emerick hated him and Paul and John didnt take him that seriously. Probably felt John usurped his friendship with Paul too.

He contributed a lot spontaneously. We can work It Out's waltz section was entirely his idea, and we wouldnt have the classic that is She Said She Said without him helping John finish writing it and playing bass on it (in spite of Johns total reluctance to help George with Taxman). George was fuckin based and a plucky guy

That was epstein's role, getting them famous. You dont seem to even know their positions
And actuallt Derek taylor was PR

Not clearly to me, he seems to like Paul's "granny music." He never seemed partial. Could you provide a quote?

>Johns total reluctance to help George with Taxman
Did John not like Taxman? Or was he just being a lazy prick?

He excused his behaviour by saying he enough on his own plate
But in my opinion he just didnt really give a fuck
Expected a lot from George but didnt pay it back very often
Only time I heard him acknowledge him as an equal or superior was when he said he lacked the talent to make musical connections like George did to Clapton because he was less talented

icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/triple.shtml
There's a lot of info here.
>To the extent that all three of the primary songwriting Beatles wrote some songs in the social/experiential mode, it is especially interesting to contrast John's personal approach and outlook with that of the others. What I can predict will emerge, hopefully without arbitrary "bashing" of the other two, is John's especial strength in this area.
>Next note 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. Our three songs, in fact, 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".
Next note 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.
I've quoted two, but there is more on this article. Really good article. Alan is the man.

Only tangentially related but I read the other day that George Martin apparently wanted to produce the Stranger for Billy Joel using studio musicians, but Billy wanted to keep his band together so he passed and went with Phil Ramone instead.

I wonder how a George Martin produced Billy Joel would have sounded and if it would have lent him more credibility against critics who practically shit on him during that era

George evidently liked John better than Paul in the end though so they must have had some friendship or good work relationship. Playing guitar on how do you sleep, which is the thinnest of veiled swipes at Paul, pretty much showed whose camp he was in

That just sounds like he's describing what makes John good, not that he prefers him to the others.

>Next note Finally (!) I'll admit that I've always had a "thing" for these three songs; beyond a point, even I won't try to hide it behind a smokescreen of bourgeois musicological cliches; well, not entirely.
>I can still remember where and when I heard each of them for the first time; "Strawberry Fields Forever", driving my parents car to school during my first semester of college; "A Day In The Life" at a reverential gathering of special friends one relaxed Friday evening after spring semester final exams for a first listen to the "Sgt Pepper" album; and "I Am The Walrus", the following fall semester, again on the way to school, this time for a harmony 103 class after which I tried with limited success to convey my muckle-mouthed excitement over this new music to the professor. These old-fart reminiscences in their particulars aside, the point is that these songs were equal parts catalyst and accompaniment for deep cultural and societal changes when they first appeared; the fact that this was coincident with a rite-of-passage-like time in my personal life increased their resonance for me by what seemed a thousand-fold.
>Ultimately, what's most amazing is that this music continues to fascinate me (maybe "us"?) on levels far beyond those of mere nostalgia for Youth. Not everything from that period which turned me on at the time has fared so well, you know; some things retain only nostalgic interest now, and others even come back to embarrass me into acknowledging the sophomoric and fickle nature of my passion at that tender and impressionable age.
>In the meanwhile, in spite of whatever supposed wisdom and maturity I may have earned over the intervening more-than-thirty years, John's three songs continue to teach, encourage, and challenge me.

Yeah, that sounds more definitive. I don't know why you didn't lead with that quote.

Yea I was dumb lol, I realized it immediately after I sent it.

Oh yea, his bitterness was strongest towards Paul. You can see from anthology and from them discussing the rooftop concert that he hates his bossiness. One thing John didnt have. John was a cool customer

Someone has to be the boss. Everyone hates the manager, but someone's got to keep it all together.

Paul was basically the one trying to keep them together as long as possible so to the three guys who are just totally fucking bored and allowed themselves to lose their passion of course Paul was going to seem bossy

I don't know jack shit lmao

pretty much

The Let it Be movie pretty much shows this I think. Paul enthusiastic, Ringo tired, John indifferent, George hyper sensitive to perceived criticism from Paul even though it probably wasn't intended to be

Two guys actually went through and listened to the entirety of the Get Back sessions and came to the conclusion that Paul wasn't actually some horrible tyrant but reluctantly became the leader because John was getting less and less involved.

beatlebioreview.wordpress.com/2018/07/19/get-back-the-beatles-let-it-be-disaster/

from what I understand he missed John very much and was just trying to do his own thing, John was the one that was really bitter towards Paul

I was just listening to the record Imagine today and was reminded of how legitimately mean-spirited the song How Can You Sleep? is which is directed towards Paul. I mean the lyrics just cut at Paul so hard, I would have been crushed if my friend wrote a song like that about me

>So Sgt. Pepper took you by surprise
>You better see through that mother's eyes
>Those freaks was right when they said you was dead

This second verse kills me, can't believe John would have the gall to say this shit just because Paul "became the leader of the band" after Epstein died.

>You live with straights who tell you you was king
>Jump when your momma tell you anything
>The only thing you done was "Yesterday"
>Now you're gone you're just another day

Cut throat

Meanwhile Paul wrote Dear Friend off of Wildlife which is arguably aimed towards John.

>Dear friend, throw the wine,
>I'm in love with a friend of mine

;( I crie evertime
>most personal
>not Memory Almost Full
>not Tug Of War (basically just mentioning this because of Here Today)
>Probably felt John usurped his friendship with Paul too.
I don't think George missed Paul, at least not in the 70s. He buddied up with John and even played guitar on How Can You Sleep? and other tracks on Imagine.

Fun fact, Ringo's album "Ringo Starr" actually has John, Paul, and George credited for either songwriting or musical performances on a track or two.

Didn't Paul arguably start the petty swipes between him and John with Too Many People though? It probably wasn't just one sided resentment

John freaked out because he thought Too Many People and Dear Boy were directed at him.
Too Many People had two lines towards John that weren't even that bad. Dear Boy is much more biting, but it's not about John, it's about Linda's ex-husband.
John really overreacted and just wanted to get into a fight I think.

The only lines in Too Many People that were actually about John and Yoko were:
>Too many people preaching practices
>Don't let them tell you what you want to be

>Too Many People
John read into that too much, he even thought Back Seat of My Car was about him and Yoko?! What a narcissistic freak. "We believe we can't be wrong" John once quoted this in an interview, I think, and said "Well I believe he CAN be wrong!" Makes me laugh.
He was being petty for sure. Ram's lyrics often seem so obviously whimsical and not about anything very based in reality.

However I can't deny this:
>"[John had] been doing a lot of preaching, and it got up my nose a little bit. In one song, I wrote, “Too many people preaching practices,” I think is the line. I mean, that was a little dig at John and Yoko."
- Paul McCartney, Playboy, 1984

>"I felt John and Yoko were telling everyone what to do. And I felt we didn’t need to be told what to do. The whole tenor of the Beatles thing had been, like, each to his own. Freedom. Suddenly it was “You should do this.” It was just a bit the wagging finger, and I was pissed off with it. So that one got to be a thing about them."
- Paul McCartney, Mojo, 2001
^

It's interesting that Eleanor Rigby is in Dorian of all things, really digs into the English Folk Ballad base.

I find it interesting that of Paul would blossom into a composer much later than John. Especially near the end, he was experimenting with concepts in form especially that John wasn't even dreaming.

I think I Know (I Know) is John's apology to Paul.

>I know what's coming down
And I know where it's coming from
And I know and I'm sorry (yes I am)
But I never could speak my mind

>And I know just how you feel
And I know now what I have done
And I know and I'm guilty (yes I am)
But I never could read your mind

>Today I love you more than yesterday

>And I know what's coming down
I can feel where it's coming from
And I know it's getting better (all the time)
As we share in each other's minds

If you dig deeper, you'll find that the narrative of Paul breaking up the band with his tyranny is so widespread because it was deliberately pushed by Jann Wenner, a massive Johnfag (probably in part because he wanted to fuck him). It was basically an actual media conspiracy: beatlebioreview.wordpress.com/2017/11/29/book-review-sticky-fingers-joe-hagans-biography-of-rolling-stone-editor-jann-wenner/
Wow, I knew that John did How Do You Sleep? in response to something Paul did, but I had no idea what it was in response to. Reading it now, though, I realize John must have probably actually been delusional or narcissistic to have taken those lyrics and responded like that. Christ.

John and Paul were equally important. On a semi-related note, John's guitar playing was severely underrated.

youtube.com/watch?v=Fb8YNfr9fFM&t=608s

Attached: JohnLennon-BobDylan02.jpg (600x400, 31K)

>a fellow beatlebioreview reader

Nice

Have you read what Paul said to Hunter Davies in 1981? It's incredibly candid and far better than the typical P.R. stuff he tends to do

heydullblog.com/biography/paul-and-hunter-davies-1981/

BASED

>“No one ever goes on about the times John hurt ME,” said Paul. “When he called my music Muzak. People keep on saying I hurt him, but where’s the examples, when did I do it? No one ever says. It’s just always the same, blaming me. Could I have hurt John MORE than anyone in the world? More than the person who ran down Julia in his car?

“We were always in competition. I wrote “Penny Lane,” so he wrote “Strawberry Fields.” That was how it was. But that was in compositions. I can’t understand why Yoko is saying this. The last time I spoke to her she was great. She told me she and John had just been playing one of my albums and had cried.”

>“Nobody knows how much I HELPED John. Me and Linda went to California and talked him out of his so-called lost weekend, when he was full of drugs. We told him to go back to Yoko, and not long after he did. I went all the way to L.A. to see the bastard. He never gave me an inch, but he took so many years and feet.

“He always suspected me. He accused me of scheming to buy over Northern Songs without telling him. I was thinking of something to invest in, and Peter Brown said what about Northern Songs, invest in yourself, so I bought a few shares, about 1,000 I think. John went mad, suspecting some plot. Then he bought some himself. He was always thinking I was cunning and devious. That’s my reputation, someone who’s charming, but a clever lad.

“It happened the other day at Ringo’s wedding. I was saying to Cilia [Black] that I liked Bobby [her husband]. That’s all I said. Bobby’s a nice bloke. Ah, but what do you REALLY think Paul? You don’t mean that, do you, you’re getting at something? I was being absolutely straight. But she couldn’t believe it. No one ever does. They think I’m calculating all the time.

Fuck Jann Wenner, fuck his shit magazine, and fuck that hacky organization of his that they call the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. He also wrote that very cruel article in 1967 basically denouncing the Beach Boys' entire career for even trying to compete with the Beatles even though in 1966 post-Pet Sounds he said that they were "years ahead of them".

So when a group is popular they're geniuses but they're hacks the next year when everyone else is already shitting on them. True to form coward.

John also even ended up hating him later as I recall

>he was experimenting with concepts in form especially that John wasn't even dreaming

Like what? I don't know music theory but this is interesting.

Those are two homely looking guys

Why do they look like 20 years older than they actually were at the time

interesting
also interesting
Not them, but I too don't understand where he's coming from. Even by the end John led songs were still pretty dang good, examples being She's So Heavy and I've Got A Feeling, though that one is truly a John/Paul tune.

John was going through his "fat elvis" phase.

Attached: Screen Shot 2019-03-20 at 8.43.01 PM.png (1466x676, 711K)

Rock journalism in the 70s overall was a shitshow of everyone tripping over themselves to show how hip they were. I've always liked that Zappa interview where he talks about how the old cigar smoking suit wearing record execs were actually way more open minded than the supposedly free thinking hippie types when it came to music.

youtu.be/KZazEM8cgt0

This one

I feel like Paulfags will be forever butthurt about the fact that John was a better songwriter.

Attached: 1519012937685.png (855x479, 590K)

>Zappa interview
Yeah he makes an excellent point

Having said that, I don't think he envisioned groups like Swans or Animal Collective ever having a big audience, but then again he didn't anticipate the internet either. Experimental music was underground by the 80s no doubt, but my assumption is that it saw perhaps its largest shock of interest and notoriety in the 2000s with some arguably experimental groups becoming very popular like Outkast and Gorrilaz.

in the case of dylan he had a crazy road schedule and ate meth pills like candy for awhile
made for some wild songwriting though

Music criticism as an "art form" was pretty much always a mistake. Even when it emerged in the 19th century it was clear that they were always clowns

During the Beatles: John>Paul>George>Ringo

After the Beatles: Paul>George>shit>John>Ringo

IMO during The Beatles would be John=Paul>George>Ringo

Solo is right though.

Here's a list of John songs that should make you reconsider your post
>Mother (Plastic Ono)
Excellent raw ballad, you can't call this shit!
>God (Plastic Ono)
John's best solo song maybe? Again this can't possibly be shit. It's a simple song but extremely well-written
>Oh My Love (Imagine)
Lovely ballad
>Oh Yoko! (Imagine)
Fun song to dance to, plus cute lyrics
>Mind Games (Mind Games)
Good tune, weird opener, sounds like a closer
>Bless You (Walls And Bridges)
Nice schmaltzy song
>#9 Dream (Walls And Bridges)
Catchy, kind of sounds like a George Harrison song strangely. One of John's few solo charting songs I believe.
>Beautiful Boy (Double Fantasy)
Touching song dedicated to Sean, I think the music is really serene and is John at his most delicate maybe.
>Woman (Double Fantasy)
Someone called this song cheesy earlier in the thread but I think it's a strong song. However I do like things that people call mushy or melodramatic or whatever so I don't know if my tastes are super trustworthy here.

Now that list IS basically the John Lennon solo material that I enjoy but I think that should clear up the idea that his solo material is straight up shit. It's a far cry from his material with The Beatles but give him a break.

Also "technically Beatles songs" Free As A Bird and Real Love are both quality songs written by John. Both were written in the 70s then many years later unearthed and recorded as "Beatles tracks" for the Anthology release.