Lennon Vs. McCartney: Who Wrote Each Of Their 27 #1 Hits?

By BrainFace on Jul 31, 2009 in Features

Another way to look at the John Vs. Paul battle that has been my muse this week: Who wrote more of their #1 hits? I’m going to focus on the 27 Beatles songs that reached #1 in either the US or the UK (in many cases their songs reached #1 in both.) It’ll be easy to find those 27 songs as this criteria is the theme of the Beatles 1 compilation.

01. “Love Me Do” – Mostly McCartney (Lennon wrote the bridge.)
02. “From Me to You” – Co-Written
03. “She Loves You” – Co-Written
04. “I Want to Hold Your Hand” – Co-Written
05. “Can’t Buy Me Love” – McCartney
06. “A Hard Day’s Night” – Lennon
07. “I Feel Fine” – Lennon
08. “Eight Days a Week” – Co-Written
09. “Ticket to Ride” – Mostly Lennon (McCartney claims co-written.)
10. “Help!” – Lennon
11. “Yesterday” – McCartney
12. “Day Tripper” – Co-Written
13. “We Can Work It Out” – Mostly McCartney (Lennon’s bridge.)
14. “Paperback Writer” – McCartney
15. “Yellow Submarine” – McCartney
16. “Eleanor Rigby” – McCartney
17. “Penny Lane” – McCartney
18. “All You Need Is Love” – Lennon
19. “Hello, Goodbye” – McCartney
20. “Lady Madonna” – McCartney
21. “Hey Jude” – McCartney
22. “Get Back” – McCartney
23. “The Ballad of John & Yoko” – Lennon
24. “Something” – Harrison
25. “Come Together” – Lennon
26. “Let It Be” – McCartney
27. “The Long and Winding Road” – McCartney

In all Paul wrote 14 of their 27 #1s. John wrote 7. They wrote 5 of them together. And George wrote the other one. By using this criteria Paul dominates much more than he did using the Last.FM most listened to songs method I used in the last post where Paul also came out on top but not by such a wide margin.

Become A MusicByDay.com Music Blogger.

118 Comment(s)

My 2 cents: A good argument could be made that “Ticket To Ride,” “Love Me Do,” & “We Can Work It Out” should all be listed as “cowritten” and if they were the totals would be 12 for Paul, 6 for John, and 8 for co-written.

—

Also I think it goes without saying that many of The Beatles greatest songs weren’t #1 hits (“I Am The Walrus,” “Strawberry Fields Forever,” “Dear Prudence,” “Here Comes The Sun,” & “While My Guitar Gently Weeps” are among those that jump out to me…)

Marvin Marks | Jul 31, 2009 | Reply
Why is this a “battle?” It’s always been my understanding that The Beatles were a group of 4, and not just 4 individuals. Lyrics were one part of their songs, the music another, and when it came down to production the 5th Beatle would do his part…

If you really want to compare them, compare their post-Beatles careers, or you could just… (wait for it, wait for it…) let it be.

Alishah Novin | Jul 31, 2009 | Reply
Lennon also wrote Girl, Rain and Across The Universe, and, as has already been mentioned, Walrus and Strawberry Fields.

But of course McCartney also wrote All My Loving, Michelle and Rita.

Another way to look at is who wrote the least duff or cheesey songs, and my guess is Lennon would win that one hands down.

Len Inmac-Cartney | Jul 31, 2009 | Reply
Alishah – I agree with you in principle. The Beatles as a group were as great as they were because of the collective (all four of them) .. they were greater than the sum of the parts.

But… This is just a bit of fun.

Len Inmac-Cartney – They both wrote a lot more great songs than just these #1 hits… Most of my favorite Beatles songs weren’t #1 hits in fact… My favorite album is The White Album and it didn’t have a #1 hit on it. This is just a look at who wrote more of their hits, nothing more.

The point is really to show how underrated Paul is… Way too many people dismiss him just because he doesn’t have the same “mystique” that Lennon has. I think that’s unfortunate. Whether you want to quibble or say shit like “who wrote the least duff songs” (Ringo?) … The point remains – Paul was a HUGE part of what made The Beatles great and he deserves credit for that.

BrainFace | Jul 31, 2009 | Reply
There’s another dimension to this — of the Beatles first 10 number 1 hits, with the exception of #5 Lennon wrote or co-wrote ALL of them. And then he basically just stopped. Stopped trying, stopped being able to, stopped caring, who the hell knows.

In any case, it’s all pretty much McCartney from there on out.

(I’m not saying Lennon didn’t write astonishing music throughout, just that it seems clear things shifted for him in terms of his wanting-to/needing-to/caring-to/remembering-how-to write “#1 hit songs”)

Jack | Jul 31, 2009 | Reply
Jack, that is an interesting point – Lennon was definitely more productive than McCartney early on… For the first few albums and singles he was writing more material – including more of the hits.

I do think it’s a bit of a complex issue… part of it is that Lennon stopped caring as much about writing “hit songs” – I think that’s true. I don’t think it’s an issue of him decreasing talent wise… Most of my favorite Lennon songs were written after that early period. In fact I’d say that a list of my own 27 favorite Beatles songs wouldn’t share that many songs in common with this list of 27 #1 hit Beatles songs… Maybe 5. Most of their best work isn’t on this list of #1 singles, I think.

BrainFace | Aug 1, 2009 | Reply
BrainFace, excellent list here. Anyone who actually knows the Beatles’ music knows Macca wasn’t underrated though. Lennon was the smart one, avant-garde one, socially conscious one. In My Life and Imagine (a post Beatles song of course)have some amazing lyrics. But the music was Paul, period. Did he get a little schmaltzy? Maybe. But Let It Be, Yesterday, Hey Jude, The Long and Winding Road, all Macca. Nine number one hits with Wings, not sure if Lennon had any post Beatles (at least in the US). Lennon left the world way too early and loved his music and thought he was great, but he also gets way too much credit for the Beatles. Particularly amongst the folks that liked his coolness and as you say, “mystique”. But in the end we come back to the music. And the music was Paul.

Still Amazed | Aug 23, 2009 | Reply
Lennon wrote the lonely people part in Eleanor Rigby. Why is that left out?

KB | Sep 18, 2009 | Reply
KB, according to everything I’ve read – that’s not the case.

Marvin Marks | Sep 18, 2009 | Reply
They were both great and honestly the two best in the group. George was very good, but paul and john may be the two greatest in one band of all time. I know John said Paul is the only musician that he thought was on his level and the only one he would ask for help with on a song. THey both had a ton of hits and no doubt their both in the top 5 of all time.

jim ross | Oct 8, 2009 | Reply
Lennon may have had fewer number 1 hits than McCartney but John after 1965 was writing music that was not for the masses, he was creating the blueprint for modern music. John’s songs were at the end and still are revolutionary in conception, arrangement and execution. Paul’s songs were more main stream. Not to discredit Paul, but John wrote what then and now are considered the most important songs, culturally and musically speaking, of the band. No doubt about that.

Sean | Oct 12, 2009 | Reply
“Yesterday” was not a single in the UK in the ’60s (but much later). The same for “Eight Days a Week” and “The Long and Winding Road”.

“Day Tripper” was made solely or mainly by John Lennon, depending on who you believe in; but it was not “co-written”. If so, “Can’t Buy Me Love”, “Paperback Writer”, “Yellow Submarine” and “Penny Lane” might be considered co-written efforts due to John’s little help; turning irrelevant the point of the intended comparison.

Finally, the authorship of “Eleanor Rigby” (as well as that of “In My Life”) was always a cause of debate between Lennon and McCartney. On one hand John claimed he wrote 70 per cent of the lyrics and helped round some music (with George Harrison contributing also); and on the other Paul declared he was the song’s only author. So it’s not clear if it’s a McCartney or a Lennon-McCartney composition.

Leonardo | Nov 13, 2009 | Reply
Leonardo – “Yesterday” was a #1 single in the US. This list is for songs that went to #1 in either the UK or the US (and of course, in many cases – both countries.)

As far as “Day Tripper” goes, I’ll probably grant you that one. It should be listed as Lennon.

But I think “Eleanor Rigby” is definitely a McCartney song. Lennon was actually against Father McKenzie and Eleanor Rigby “meeting” in the third verse… (he was overruled on that obviously.) There were various people who threw in some lyrical ideas on that song, but the music was Paul’s and the main lyrical theme was his. I don’t think it’s fair to say it’s anything but his song.

Marvin Marks | Nov 15, 2009 | Reply
I would revise this list as follows:
02. “From Me to You”
Not co-written, mainly John
08. “Eight Days a Week”
Not co-written, mainly John
09. “Ticket to Ride” – Mostly Lennon (McCartney claims co-written.)
Not co-written, mainly John
12. “Day Tripper”
Not co-written, mainly John
13. “We Can Work It Out”  Co-written

And why was Strawberry Fields not included? It was a double A-side.

Buster | Dec 9, 2009 | Reply
Buster —

“Strawberry Fields Forever” did not reach #1, “Penny Lane” did — that’s why SFF is not on the Beatles 1 compilation.

As far as your revisions – sounds like you’ve got a heavy case of Lennon bias.

Marvin Marks | Dec 9, 2009 | Reply
Marvin Marks — John tossed in the “lonely people” line after he heard a band member say it offhand. Paul’s song all the way but Lennon scored an assist, as with virtually every Lennon-McCartney composition before mid-White Album. It’s also clear that Paul’s solo songwriting fell apart after Venus & Mars and never recovered. He refused to release the record he did with Elvis Costello after getting his back up over media reports that he sorely needed a co-songwriter, which of course was the truth. A lot of great songs were discarded as a result.

Plus we really can’t be certain about the Lennon-McCartney songwriting allotment and balance because Paul’s a douchebag and he lies all the time about the Beatles. He even stole from his bandmates when he signed the Capitol deal.

Clubfoot | Dec 12, 2009 | Reply
Clubfoot, what’s clear to you may not be to other people. You’re confusing your opinion with fact.

And I really think it’s the other way around – it was McCartney who was giving assists on Lennon’s songs more so than Lennon on McCartney’s.

McCartney’s bass lines are a huge part of what makes Lennon songs like “Rain” and “Come Together” so great.

Marvin Marks | Dec 12, 2009 | Reply
You have to consider that in the Beatles days no album tracks were relesed as singles. I think it would be wise not to compare the two on the popularity of their singles, since the majority of their masterpieces were tucked neatly away inside those amazing vinals.

John Smith | Dec 23, 2009 | Reply
Well, forget about #1, what do they know? Paul was a hard worker, but some of his stuff is pure rubbish. George onl got a few songs, but some great ones.

John Lennon (great songs only)

A Day In the Life (Paul put a silly bridge on a serious song)
Dear Prudence
In My Life
Come Together
Across the universe
Cry baby cry
Don’t Let Me Down
Everybody’s Got Seomthing to Hide Except for Me and My Monkey
Free As a Bird
Girl
Happiness is a Warm Gun
He Said She Said
Tomorrow Never Knows
Help
I Want You
I’m So tired
I’m only sleeping
Sexy Sadie
Strawberry Fields
Sun King
Norweigan Wood
You Know My Name (only 1st min)

Paul doesn’t have half that many great songs in my opinion, and they still don’t compare. I like Wings, I like Paul, one of my all-time fav albums growing up was Wings at the Speed of Sound, but Lennon’s 5 yrs of work as a soloist, and his Beatles, is better than all of Paul’s even the 30 yrs after John Lennon was killed.

matt | Jan 15, 2010 | Reply
Clubfoot claims that McCartney “refused to release the record he did with Elvis Costello after getting his back up over media reports that he sorely needed a co-songwriter, which of course was the truth. A lot of great songs were discarded as a result.” But they DID release that album — FLOWERS IN THE DIRT — and several song collaborations were included on a subsequent album as well.

Vox | Jan 25, 2010 | Reply
“But of course McCartney also wrote All My Loving, Michelle and Rita.

Another way to look at is who wrote the least duff or cheesey songs, and my guess is Lennon would win that one hands down.”

Yeah, Helter Skelter is really cheesy and duff(it sounds more like one of the first headbangers actually), that’s Paul McCartney, his idea, his drive, heck even the totally different, slow version of it on Anthology is still cool and that’s not a headbanger, but it’s still heavy. So it’s a Two-fer – two cool songs for the price of one.

There are actually many “non duff”, “non cheesy” songs that Paul McCartney either wrote or co-wrote.

As for Ticket to Ride, I think musically Paul had something to do with it because he seems to have been a major influence on the drum, which even John admitted to(and the drums are a very distinctive part of the song) and lead guitar parts, he also plays lead guitar on the song. But I’d still give to it John.

As for a Day In the Life – Paul didn’t “put a silly bridge in”, John asked Paul for help and John obviously liked Paul’s idea, it wouldn’t have been there if he hadn’t. In fact that bridge is a major component of what makes the song stand out – funny everyone talks about John the realist but Paul’s section WAS the realistic part. It was dealing with the reality – the reality of living in the real world, which involves, for most of us, getting out of bed to the sound of an alarm clock, rushing to work often on mass transport to a job or school we probably aren’t too keen on and daydreaming. There isn’t anything silly about it. They purposely dampend Paul’s vocals to get that uber-real effect, the constrast between the “dreamy” of the echo of John’s vocal and the “reality” of Paul’s.

Also there is apparently actual footage of Paul helping John create “Don’t Let Me Down” during the Let It Be sessions, that is a “John song” that wouldn’t even have been if Paul hadn’t basically made it into a workable song.

Tomorrown Never Knows? Most of the tape loops are Paul’s, Paul had even taught John about the technique and how it could be used prior. Paul had a major effect on that song. Strawberry Fields? That was one of the songs that John accused Paul of sabotaging by “experimenting” on it – which, ironically considering John was complaining at the time, obviously means a lot of what that song turned out to be? Came from Paul. “Come Together” would have sounded like a very different song if not for Paul’s influence on it.

None of which makes them less John’s songs BUT the point is, a lot of the stuff in them that makes them “so cool” came from Paul.

As for Eleanor Rigby – there is an interview, which can be found on Youtube(might be a NY press conference, I can’t check now) from 1966 where interestingly enough, the topic of solo songs comes up and George, with John and Paul sitting right next to him, helpfully volunteers that Eleanor Rigby was basically a Paul solo song. And John not only doesn’t say anything against that he, snarkily, agrees(he makes a comment about drinking tea, as opposed to having anything to do with the song). And this was at a time when even though they were giving up touring(not that the reporters knew that) they were still close friends, were still essentially band oriented and presenting themselves as a band so for George to specifically point that out about Eleanor Rigby, with absolutely no prompting beyond a question about solo work says to me that whatever other contributions anyone might have had, lyrically or otherwise, they were very minor.

Point being, I really don’t think if John had had much of anything to do with Eleanor Rigby lyrics it would have been considered solely a Paul song, even if he was the one singing it. Yet they all clearly considered it very much a Paul song.

As for their solo work, I don’t think John’s songs are at all better. There are some individual John songs that better than some individual Paul songs and vice versa but I don’t see anything that was particularly about John’s stuff either. Paul has a lot of really good songs from the period of 70-80 while they were both alive and even stuff that was ahead of it’s time(there is stuff on McCartney II that predicts things that happened in ambient music and dance music 10 years later and “Coming Up” partly inspired John to get back in the studio) and Wings could really rock. Paul’s music regularly encompasses a far wider variety of genres.

Nona | Feb 1, 2010 | Reply
nona: I agree, thank you.

Just wonder…was it really Paul’s song that inspired John to get back in the studio or was it Paul’s being down.

yesamized | Feb 15, 2010 | Reply
It is generally ingnored by the Lennon-philes that McCartney was major player in almost all of Lennon’s songs. For example, the song that is considered the “definitive” Lennon song: “A Day in the Life”. Without the input of McCartney the song is nothing more than a nice acoustical tune. McCartney provided both bridges. He brought in and arranged the orchestration the bridges. The final note: his. The middle section: his. “i’d love to turn you on” HIS (according to Lennon in an interview). While McCartney would present virtually “finished” songs for recording, Lennon would offer unfinished songs and ideas that would be worked through by McCartney, Martin and the rest of the group. By the way, McCartney co-wrote Help.

talis4 | Mar 1, 2010 | Reply
Interesting note:

For “ticket to ride”, there is the comment in parenthesis “McCartney Claims Co-written”. Why isn’t this applied to the Lennon songs? Most of the crap in this list is taken directly from the Lennon interview with Rolling Stone where he essentially claims to be the living embodiment of jesus h. christ almighty.

talis4 | Mar 1, 2010 | Reply
Help! was a John Lennon song, Theres a demo about which dates back from John playing it at Kenwood. For Me Lennon produced the best lyrics of the two, McCartney produced the best melodies. I mean look at Hello Goodbye for example…

I don’t like to single out the best Beatle, There was 4 of them and they all contributed to what made the Beatles the greatest. I’m a much bigger fan of Lennon’s work as He is My favourite all time musician, He didnt write the cheesy hits that McCartney as forever released post Beatles, Even in the Beatles some of his work was cheesy remember Obla Di Obla Da, And Your Mother Should Know erghhh. In the early days Lennon absolutely dominated, Look at A Hard Day’s Night its practically a Lennon solo album, But from Revolver onwards He just seem to give up but at times still produced that brilliance he had in abudance, Lennon/McCartney were a team though were Lennon lacked McCartney had to fill the gap and vica versa, The only shame in this tale is Lennon was taken from us way way way too early, His first two solo albums for Me beat any post Beatle solo album of McCartney/Harrison/Starkey. Plastic Ono/Imagine are absolutely brilliant albums, All Things Must Pass is also a piece of genius from Harrison but McCartney well, Wing’s have never been My cup of tea, But I liked Ram and Chao’s and Creation in the Backyard are probably My two favourites of his but taking nothing away from the man He is as much a genius as Lennon, Lennon just had that something about him which sets him from the rest…

Matt Elwood | Apr 1, 2010 | Reply
And we have Lennon to thank for this list of selected songs…

Please Please Me
From Me To You
I Feel Fine
Ticket To Ride
If I Fell
Im A Loser
Help!
You’ve Got To Hide Your Love Away
Your Gonna Lose That Girl
Norwegian Wood (This Bird As Flown)
In My Life
Im Only Sleeping
Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds
I Am The Walrus
Strawberry Fields Forever
All You Need Is Love
Hey Bulldog
Revolution
Sexy Sadie
Come Together
Across The Universe

Matt Elwood | Apr 1, 2010 | Reply
and McCartney

Love Me Do
Can’t Buy Me Love
Yesterday
I’ll Follow The Sun
Im Looking Through You
Michelle
Eleanor Rigby (Apparently)
Got To Get You Into My Lif
Sgt Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band
Lovely Rita
Penny Lane
Hello Goodbye
Helter Skelter
I Will
Oh! Darling
Let It Be
Hey Jude

Matt Elwood | Apr 1, 2010 | Reply
I’ve tried to scour purely solo written efforts by the two.. I mean out of the songs I chose some will be co-written at some point but when they worked as team well We don’t even need to go there!
They were magic…

Matt Elwood | Apr 1, 2010 | Reply
lennon rules

paul h | Apr 2, 2010 | Reply
While Paul McCartney wrote some wonderful songs like Hey Jude and Live and Let die etc, he just isn’t in the same league overall.

Take ‘tomorrow never knows’ – this is literally 20 years ahead of its time. It has to be considered the first breakbeat ‘hardcore’ track ever created and this kind of music didn’t even become popular until the late 80s. Lennon lyrics are so personal that most feel like they’ve been written for each and every person. Jealous guy is probably the most honest song you could ever hear – you can actually feel the pain.

I believe that McCartney kept the Beatles ticking over with commercial hits but that it was Lennon that made them stand out as being so special.

Best 10 beatle tracks (in no particular order:
1)In my life (like a whole diary in one song)
2)Tomorrow never knows (first hardcore song)
3)A day in the life(speaks for itself)
4)Strawberry Fields forever(most groundbreaking
5)Eleaner Rigby (hauntingly brilliant)
6)All you need is love (song for a generation)
7)Come together (is there a funkier song?)
8)Revolution – heavy version (lyrics and power
9)Hey Jude (best singalong song)
10)Accross the universe (first greenpeace song)

paul h | Apr 2, 2010 | Reply
why were my last comments deleted?

Paul H | Apr 3, 2010 | Reply
can you explain what ‘your comment is awaiting moderation’ means? Please elaborate on what you mean by ‘moderation’ as I neither swore or was rude in the comments I made yesterday in this debate and yet they were taken off after ‘moderation’? Does ‘moderation’ mean that if you don’t agree with comments then you delete them?

Paul H | Apr 3, 2010 | Reply
Paul H – Your comments were not deleted – they were just held until I could see them.

The reason for moderation is spam. We get a lot of spam comments so I have to make sure that the commenter is making a real relevant comment before approving them.

Now that you have been approved you will be able to make more comments without this issue.

Also: I find it interesting that of your top five Beatles songs McCartney played a big part in four of them.

#1) “In My Life” – while Lennon claimed to have written most of the melody, McCartney also claimed to have written the melody and it definitely sounds more like a McCartney melody, many folks who have studied the song side with McCartney on that one.

#2) “Tomorrow Never Knows” – the tape loops that give the song so much of it’s unique sound were Paul’s idea.

#3) “A Day In The Life” – McCartney wrote the bridge and the “I’d love to turn you on” bits. Also the orchestral build up was his idea.

#4) “Strawberry Fields Forever” – I wouldn’t give Paul significant credit on this song, but George Martin and Geoff Emerick certainly had a lot to do with making it as great a recording as it is.

#5) “Eleanor Rigby” – Paul.

Marvin Marks | Apr 6, 2010 | Reply
Marvin Marks – “In My Life”: despite what people have “studied,” Lennon said in 1980 that he wrote the chord structure based on “If I Fell,” which as far as I know is not disputed as a Lennon song. Also, in the magazine “Hit Parader” in 1972 Lennon listed his contributions to Beatles songs; Macca reviewed the list at the time and noted only one comment, per “Hit Parader”–that he wrote the middle eight of “In My Life,” not the entire melody, as he now claims.

“Tomorrow Never Knows” — Geoff Emerick wrote that Lennon and Ringo came up with the initial loops for the song (first version heard on Anthology) and George Martin gives credit to all the Beatles for coming up with loops for the final version. In fact, Martin gave them instructions that the loops had to be in the key of the song.

“A Day in the Life” — Martin wrote in “All You Need Is Ears” that it was Lennon who came up with the idea of the musical crescendo.

“Eleanor Rigby” — depending upon what day you catch Paul, you’ll get a different origin of the song. Again, in “Hit Parader” 1972 Paul did NOT dispute Lennon’s claim that John wrote a good lot of the lyrics. It was only after Lennon’s death that the stories arose about Lennon’s role in the song as being insignificant.

Nate | Apr 9, 2010 | Reply
Paul obviously didn’t want to dispute with John via some magazines. He was hoping to rekindle their friendship and to discuss matters with John himself when the time was right. Unfortunetly this was not going to happen.

yesamized | Apr 11, 2010 | Reply
its nice to see no matter what we feel towards these beatles ( john and paul in paticular ) we loved all there music irreguardless . All the music wouldnt have been the same if one was without the other . i have been a beatles fan for 40 years and i dont care who wrote what …………………… i just care to listen !!!! there chemistry created the best of music .

kat777 | May 25, 2010 | Reply
Come Together is a complete rip-off of Chuck Berry’s “You Can’t Catch Me”
the thing that truly sets it apart is the incredible bass provided by McCartney.

talis4 | Jun 18, 2010 | Reply
Of course it’s all of them (less contribution from Ringo of course) that made the music, but Lennon’s mystique is not the only factor that leads many to believe him to be the greatest. Writing #1 hits doesn’t make one the best, and while I love many MANY McCartney songs, Lennon’s seem to have more meaning to them. Strawberry Fields…enough said.

SoaringMuse | Aug 3, 2010 | Reply
John: Band oriented. That is why he ask Paul to help him

Paul: he is more self-driven. He can live without John. Look at Yesterday, Hey Jude, Blackbird etc.

John wants Paul to be in a “band”. That is why he invited Paul. he wants Paul to be happy in the band. Its OK to perform your song alone Paul, as long as you are happy with your hits. Remember, it is about The Beatles. You cant be too selfish. This is not “Paul McCartney & The Beatles. This is about “The Beatles”. Who is more dominant, glamour and mainstream after 1965? It was Paul.

Huggybear | Aug 12, 2010 | Reply
I find this discussion very informative. How about songs like “I’ll Be Back” or “Run For Your Life” or “Any Time At All” or “You Can’t Do That” and “Ask Me Why”. It was my understanding that John wrote these songs also.
Any comment.
Hoop

Hoop | Aug 22, 2010 | Reply
Hoop – check this out ->

http://www.musicbyday.com/john-vs-paul-a-hard-days-night-1964/520/

There was one of these done for every Beatles album —>

they were tagged with “most valuable beatle”

http://www.musicbyday.com/tag/most-valuable-beatle/

Marvin Marks | Aug 23, 2010 | Reply
Alright, you got to be – I dont wanna use offencive words, so I’ll just say – RETARDED o put Macca over Lennon…
The reason: the year is 2010, and about 30% of Macca’s music, the “music hall”kinda stuff sounds terribly outdated(yeah, yeah I like Elinor Rigby)…
Lennon’s music (and lyrics) are aging like wine.
For example: Martha My Dear – Happiness is a Warm Gun
Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds(nice Paul bassline though) – When I’m 64
Penny Lane – Strawberry Fields Forever…

See, the difference between them, is that Macca is a fucking brilliant songwriter, but Lennon is an artist…

Of course, I love Paul too, I mean, every time I hear Mother Nature’s sun a tear comes to my eye, but when I hear Julia i shit myself ya know not in the same league…

PS: John’s songs are funnier to play…
PSS: Yeah, and me an him share a birthday , that’s why he’s my favourite, I actually don’t listen to The Beatles much… hohoho…
Smoke trees… Peace…

TH3Sinn3R | Aug 29, 2010 | Reply
I think subconsciously you all think that it’s cool to say Paul’s better beacouse most people think John’s better. It’s not your fault, it’s just that human psychology works that way, couse they try to make us all look and think the same and all… Ok, on the point:

John’s music ages like wine.
Paul’s music ages like… well not that good..

Their early stuff is equally good, but in their later years Paul made more “music hall” kinda stuff which I really don’t like.’
The Example – Penny Lane – Strawberry Fields Forever.

Number one hits don’t mean anything. Lady Gaga has many nuber one hits, Justin Bieber too heh..

Ok, I want to be cool too so… My favourite song on “A Hard Day’s Night” (mostly a Lennon album) is “Things We Said Today” – a Paul’s song – just love the Am-Em thing in the verse…

Btw why was my previous comment deleted? I mean I said “f*cking” but it was – “Paul’s a f*cking brilliant songwriter”…

TH3Sinn3R | Aug 30, 2010 | Reply
No Paul H, McCartney didn’t write the ‘I’d love to turn you on’ part of the song, If you ever see interviews of McCartney he states that was a joint effort. A Day In The Life is very much a Lennon song for Me, As is In My Life, And Melody and Piano was played by George Martin who constructed this along with Lennon research more. Eleanor Rigby I would give Paul but throughout the Beatles career Lennons songs have appealed more to Me, And IMO Lennon’s songs have aged better! A remarkable musician…

Matt Elwood | Sep 5, 2010 | Reply
McCartney as jumped onto saying He wrote this and He wrote that ever since Lennon died and is not here to defend himself. As I said McCartney’s songs are good but Lennon’s are the real deal…

Matt Elwood | Sep 5, 2010 | Reply
if your reason to like john better is for john being born on the same day ……then your retarded . john had more teeth in his songs and paul had majority . but to be honest for all they have accomplished it wouldnt be without each other ………. as good as they were after the beatles , they alone were never as good .

kat777 | Sep 10, 2010 | Reply
Paul begged Mal Evans to not claim a songwriting credit for Eleanor Rigby. The authorship of this song has had many claims to authorship. Mal Evans was rorted by Paul as he apparently wrote half the lyrics to the song. John Lennon claims to have written some of the lyrics also.

Tilemachos | Sep 18, 2010 | Reply
The argument that Paul had more A-sides and that therefore his work was superior to Lennon’s is questionable. Lennon’s B-sides were often as good or possibly superior to the A-sides. Can B-sides (or the lesser on double A-sides) like “Rain,” “I Am the Walrus,” “Don’t Let Me Down,” “Revolution,” “Strawberry Fields Forever,” “You Can’t Do That” and the primarily Lennon-written “Day Tripper” and “If I Fell” be so easily discounted?

Shakes | Sep 21, 2010 | Reply
to TH3Sinn3R

You’re totally off man. Songs you list as Lennon songs are Paul’s!

Martha My Dear – PAUL
Happiness is a Warm Gun – PAUL
Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds) – John
When I’m 64 – PAUL
Penny Lane – PAUL
Strawberry Fields Forever – John

It’s pretty much universal knowledge that these 4 songs are Paul’s. A bit of research would have helped you.

sillypooh | Oct 3, 2010 | Reply
In all honesty my favorite Paul song was “Get Back” because of its upbeat and the rhythm in the song. But to me, most of Pauls songs were more depressing to listen too. John challenged the band more because of his musical talent and pushed the bands limits. Thats why I give John the upperhand.
Also when the two were going through turmoil, John put out a disrespectful but to me great song with “How Do You Sleep” The musical talent of Lennon cannot be covered up. I could listen to Lennons music at anytime not only because of lyrics, its because of the music. The sound and beat of his music is more appealing to me than any of Pauls #1 Hits.

War Is Over Give Peace A Chance.
And Burn One Down For John

Unknown Artist | Oct 4, 2010 | Reply
Hey sillypooh – check “Happiness is a Warm Gun” again – that’s a Lennon song. I’m figuring you probably know that and just had a bit of a brainfart (it happens to all of us) but I like to clear up these kind of mistakes for anyone who may be reading the comments.

You are right on the rest of them.

Marvin Marks | Oct 6, 2010 | Reply
PLEASE !
Lennon wrote the most beautiful part’s in “Michelle” and some main parts in “Eleanor Rigby” !
Without Lennon’s contribution, “Yesterday” would not exist !!! Well, every Macca’s song is Lennon’s too !

André Veras | Nov 1, 2010 | Reply
Andre – What was Lennon’s contribution to “Yesterday”? Even Lennon himself never made any claims to contributing to that song. As far as “Eleanor Rigby” goes, John’s contributions were small on that one – he only added some lyrical ideas (and even then it appears he did not add many…)

I think you can make a much better argument about Paul’s musical contributions to John’s songs. Such as the extremely important bass parts in “Come Together” and “Dear Prudence” without Paul’s bass those songs wouldn’t be anywhere near as good.

Marvin Marks | Nov 2, 2010 | Reply
Marvin, great topic first of all. I’m an avid McCartney supporter just based on the fact that everyone does put Lennon on this pedestal.

Anything pre-1966 or so was largely co-written, it’s tough to argue who contributed to what because in the end it all evens out. Yesterday, All My Loving (not a single but a classic), and Help are the ones that stand out as being 99% McCartney or Lennon alone.

From Rubber Soul onward, then we can have a conversation, and it’s hard to argue against Paul. He dominated the 2nd half singles, and the 2nd half albums. Revolver and Pepper in particular, considered the height of their era, are largely dominated by Paul.

Whoever said Paul lies about the Beatles, are you crazy? Read Lennon interviews, he has completely different facts about each song as the years go on. There’s even one interview where he states “Yeah, I lied, I was bitter”.

Personally, I enjoy the songs that they co-wrote the most in the catalog. I enjoy the positive/negative spin they put on songs (Getting Better, We Can Work it Out, Day in the Life).

And I’ll argue that the line “Well she was just 17, and you know what I mean” is the greatest opening line to a song in the history of music.

Craig | Nov 9, 2010 | Reply
The Beatles don’t have cheesy songs.

Dirk Kennedy | Nov 21, 2010 | Reply
Lennon did have #1 songs after the Beatles.. He wrote whatever gets you through the night, he co wrote fame which was bowies first #1 song and he wrote just like starting over.. all #1 hits.. and elton johns version of lucy in the sky went to #1 in 74.. imagine wasnt a #1 song but really it was good as anything mac wrote

Forrest | Dec 5, 2010 | Reply
TH3Sinn3R You may be the singularly most stupid individual to ever comment on anything. In fact (dare I say it) you are a MORON. Your lack of knowledge is a bit embarrassing. There is a famous quote that looks like it was written just for you:

“Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt”

Let me assure you, th3sinn3r: you have removed all doubt.

talis4 | Dec 29, 2010 | Reply
Yes Clubfoot is wrong, the Elvis Costello / Paul album is Flowers in the Dirt. Paul didn’t falter after 1975, listen to “Coming Up” from 1980, or “My Brave Face” (the 90s) or Flaming Pie, and his most recent work is great too. Chaos and Creation, and Memory Almost Full both have a handful of Beatle level (or close) material. Paul is great.

John’s wonderful too. John’s solo work is my favorite, mostly because Walls and Bridges is (to me) as good as the best Beatles work.

david | Jan 8, 2011 | Reply
“Eleanor Rigby wearing a face that she keeps in a jar by the door”. Does that really sound like a Paul McCartney lyric? It’s John Lennon through and through. I will never believe that this is a Paul McCartney solo song. It’s definitly a co-write with Lennon.

Jamie | Feb 3, 2011 | Reply
What is the point of this debate? There is no substantive measure that can ‘prove’ that one was better than the other. Both were essential to the brilliance of the music – as were the contributions of the two Georges – Harrison’s guitar and Martin’s genius. Yes, Paul has written some crap, but John did as well. If Paul had died in tragic circumstances at a relatively young age instead we may well be discussing him in a different light today.

Scotty_B | Feb 5, 2011 | Reply
Without Paul or without John, The Beatles do not exist. AMHO, the only thing to say is that they are ex-aequo… they responded to each other and the power of the work of the Beatles is the result of these confrontations. Anyway, when we take in consideration the last works of Paul, Chaos and Creation in the Backyard and Memory Almost Full, it is evident that he is on another plan than the other ones pop stars (like MJ)…

Pierrick Mellerin | Feb 23, 2011 | Reply
If you haven’t seen nowhere boy and lennonyc check them out. They played and learned from eachother. They were like brothers, closer than most brothers ever get. Paul is a musical genius he can play any instrument and help Lennon learn guitar. They forged eachother, Harrison too. Without their life experiences and each we have no beatles and neither would had turned out as great.

That said Paul liked the pop #1 hits. Lennon didn’t care about all that. He was a revolutionary artist. Paul was a professional. John made songs to reach the people not the charts, his songs were very thruthful and beloved but critics treated him as a dog once yoko showed up. Love is blind but inspired him. He wasn’t scared to live and take a chance. Paul tried to take control, had a big ego, after Brian died but by than they all knew they were great in their own rights. Harrison’s all those yrs ago tells it great.

I like all three and they needed eachother to grow. It’s amazing to think how much they recorded between 64-69,70. You could see them helping eachother, they loved eachother and a fued is not what John wanted until he said the nestles were done, paul said let’s not tell people, we don’t tour, than Paul announced he was out. That pissed John off because he formed the band and took in a younger Paul and george when he was 17.

No other group can be compared, not the stones or anyone. It was a supergroup that stayed together and put out tons of music films all being followed under pressure with a four track.

I do like a lot of johns music the most after they grew to big to be one. It would be like having Dylan, Hendrix and Morrison in a group for yrs, but their mothers deaths and being together forged the best music. Screw the #1s most of their best songs werent #1 hits. John tried to help the USA with a tour which Nixon and the CIA stopped by threat of deportation. John was ahead of his time, got Sinclair released in 48 hrs. Wrote many greats not mentioned, foryour blues, yer blues, imagine, watching the wheels, mind games, cold turkey, working class hero… I love the ballad of John and yoko which was done when ringo and George were gone, John got Paul and recorded it. John wrote songs that relate to new generations and as mentioned his dirty grunge style music was way before it’s time. John lived a hard life and told the truth in music. I love the raw recordings of steel and glass, how do you sleep, and people always forget stuff like god, gimme some truth, glass onion how, I don’t wannna be, power to the people, ect which help the USA ny protest scene. He wanted to stop nixon and make a change in the world. He failed when the CIA bullied him and nixon won but he quit for 5 yrs, learned a lot about himself, his anger, and was planning on touring in 80-81 and going back to England. It’s a shame. He even was gonna meet Paul in New Orl, I think to make music and cancelledbecause yoko took him back that day from his Cali life of drunken despair.

It’s unfair to any of them to say who is better because they were really so close and learned and grew together that they like eachothers advise and needed eachother to become themselves. It’s a shame a religious freak shot John as he finally got together and seen he could male music, tour, and be a father all at the same time. Their will never be another John or Paul or george for that matter. George was an underrated guitarist/writer, Paul could do it all and was a perfectionist, John was a leader, writer, artist, underdog after yoko, and his songs are very true to him and not just a pop hit for money. He practiced what he preached “gimme some truth” . I dislike much of the disco pop era bs Paul did and how Paul is very arrogant. You would have thought Paul would had lead the george tribute show, but it was largely in part by Clapton. George wrote all those yrs ago for John but I never accepted the way paul didn’t contribute to a show for John, like for George. I am grateful we have Clapton to get artists together, play any style and pay tribute to the fallen icons, such as Stevie, George the crossroads shows.

R.I.P. Beatles forever. None of which could have succeeded alone without eachother first, the best long running supergroup who had their own songs white album on but needed eachothers help to be who they were/are.

Tom | Mar 29, 2011 | Reply
Happiness is a warm Gun is John’s but you’re right on the others. Martha my Dear is a brilliant underrated McCartney classic IMO. Paul was so diverse and experimental which is why I think he is the greatest ever, with John a close second. A lot of other great McCartney classics I don’t see being mentioned are You never give me your money(1 of the beatles greatest songs), I’ll follow the sun, Fool on the Hill, You won’t see me, Roccky racoon, Blackbird, Fixing a Hole, Two of us, What you’re doing, For No one, Here, there and Everywhere(Didn’t lennon once say this was his favorite beatles song?). I could go on and on. Certainly Lennon had his share of great songs too, but Paul’s list is slightly greater. I don’t buy into this John’s songs “had more teeeth”, “more meaningful”, “more avant-garde” or “revolutionary” BS. That is all opinion and I just guy on what is most pleasing to my ears. As for the solo years, Band on the Run certainly blows away any other beatle solo albums IMO and Paul definitely had the greatest success(Ram, venus and mars, speed of Sound, even back to the egg all good albums). Imagine is a great album but I think Plastic Ono is severely overrated. Walls and Bridges is decent as is Mind Games. Double fantasy has a few great songs but average on whole. Sometime in NYC and Rock and Roll are very forgettable.

Rodney | Apr 10, 2011 | Reply
I came up of a list of my own 100 greatest Beatle songs. It wasn’t easy as they have more than 100 great songs but the final tally was:

45- mainly Paul
37- mainly John
7- Lennon-McCartney co-written
10- Harrison
1- Starkey

Rodney | Apr 10, 2011 | Reply
From everything I have read, it bothered John a great deal that Paul was producing most of the hits from around 65-66 on and he was ecstatic when the Ballad of John and Yoko went to #1 as it broke a streak of macca #1′s. They were competetive in a mostly friendly kind of way. The Ballad of John and Yoko is a great song BTW. In My Life, Nowhere Man, Don’t let me Down, Starwberry fields, All you need is Love, Across the Universe, Norwegian Wood , And your bird can sing are some of my other Lennon faves. I don’t like to get into these debates because they are both fantastic, the 2 best ever IMO and who’s #1 is only a matter of opinion anyway. However it really bugs me when I see McCartney not getting the credit he deserves. At the very least, he was Lennon’s equal. JMO

Rodney | Apr 10, 2011 | Reply
Tom, I would have to disagree with some your points. First of all, John cared every bit as much as Paul about chart success. After the beatles broke up it was John who became the media darling while Paul was berated savagely by the critics. Also from all the interviews I’ve watched, John had by far the biggest ego of any of the 4 and I’m surprised at how down to earth Paul seems. I never saw any of the other beatles, besides John, bashing the releases of the others like he did to Paul’s work and George. George seems like the most down to earth out of all of them. Lastly Paul did write a song for John called Here Today, although not as good as George’s All Those years ago(which Paul played on). Paul was also the one who reached out to John to patch up their friendship by visiting him at the studio in LA and several times at the Dakota in NYC, only to get a luke warm reception.

I also don’t like it when someone takes a swipe like you did with your Paul’s “disco” comment. No not everything Paul/Wings did was great just as not everything John did solo was great either. That doesn’t take away from the many great songs they made IMO. BTW, John once said in an interview that he liked disco.

Rodney | Apr 10, 2011 | Reply
I’m pretty sure that every Beatles song was co-written since Paul always took John’s suggestions and viceversa

but the whole “composer thing” is about who came with the idea first…

“Eleanor rigby” was Paul’s idea…John said that he had written like 70% of it but then Donovan said that he heard it from Paul first

“We can work it out” was Macca’s…John came with suggestions for the middle eight

“Happiness is a warm gun” is entirely Lennon’s…Paul loved the song

“A day in the life” was John’s idea…but Paul contribution was too important not to mention it…since he provided the middle section of the song and the orchestral thing, so it ended up as a 50/50 song

anyway…I think Paul was a way better composer and singer than John, but together they were even better!! I hate that people relate the Beatles only to John’s image, John as an icon. yeah, it’s ok, he put the beatles together and gave the name to the band…but without the others it would have been nothing.

Mor | Apr 10, 2011 | Reply
All of these hits were written by George Martin. Only the very sophomoric, trivial songs that Lennon or McCartney themselves wrote, performed and recorded both before and after George Martin began writing and producing the Beatle material are truly their own. The rule of thumb is: if it’s a Beatle super-hit, it’s a George Martin song. Everything else is chaff, penned either by McCartney/Lennon in their unmistakably inept and unsophisticated (non)musical and (non)literary style, or penned independently by George Harrison who was more than likely never privy to the covert George Martin/Lennon-McCartney ghost-writing compact. The music will be there for all time for anyone to study and analyse stylistically, by the date of recording and by the presence or lack thereof of George Martin pulling all the artistic strings. Lennon & McCartney were, and always will be, nothing but marketing bogeys.

PeregrinePickle | Apr 18, 2011 | Reply
PeregrinePickle: It’s nice to see that there are insane baseless conspiracy theories in the world of music as well as in the world of politics (see nutjob “birthers”)

Marvin Marks | Apr 18, 2011 | Reply
I don’t know of any off hand. What is your take on the issue?

PeregrinePickle | Apr 18, 2011 | Reply
Walk the walk?

PeregrinePickle | Apr 20, 2011 | Reply
PP: I assume you’re trolling. Or crazy. Either way this isn’t really that interesting. Take it somewhere else.

Marvin Marks | Apr 21, 2011 | Reply
MM: I find your posing and lack of intellectual honesty amusing, but likewise quite uninteresting. I suggest you take it somewhere else, other than a public forum like this. You are quite a bore.

PeregrinePickle | Apr 22, 2011 | Reply
i love the beatles, and they revolutioned the 4 man band sort of say, I’ve never been a huge mccartney fan, i think his songs are mainstream pop/rock,

I think john was one of the most talented singer/song writers of all time, he wrote #1 hits in the early days before he started thinking outside the box, and started writing songs that he felt, not what the masses wanted to hear, but from the heart,

yes, paul is a great musician, but his songs are just too rinse/repeat,

But, i do think that yoko ruined john, she could carry a tune to the shithouse, and that’s on a good day,

al | Apr 29, 2011 | Reply
Why does this matter? Paul died in 1966. So the real question is how many songs did Bill Campbell actually write? And how many did Lennon write and give credit to Bill to keep the lie alive?

Just “imagine” if John weren’t assassinated for trying to tell the truth.

Hey Bulldog | May 13, 2011 | Reply
Hey Bulldog: … you’re joking/trolling right? … RIGHT?

The “Paul is Dead” thing really proves how crazy people are. They will believe anything.

Marvin Marks | May 14, 2011 | Reply
Lennon was a much more creative songwriter than McCartney, though McCartney wrote more polished pop songs. Lennon took more risks, and thus had some stinkers, though McCartney has more songs in total, and thus more stinkers.

sean | Jun 29, 2011 | Reply
John Lennon is a case study in self destruction. His internal anger, his personality affecting drug use and his relationship with the poster girl of a controlling mother figures; Yoko. Paul was not a saint but he was able to keep the monsters at bay.

It was Paul’s long term consistency in writing that gave us an extra few years of that wonderful Beatles sound.

Say what you will about Paul’s post Beatle career. But at least he had one. Paul was a force to be reckoned with after the Beatles broke up. The others just faded away.

rustin | Jun 30, 2011 | Reply
LSD was the reason why he stopped caring, he said it in an interview that LSD destroyed his ego, but then he did it again with Yoko and she got him through and helped him out of it

Frank | Jul 17, 2011 | Reply
@sean:

The Beatles themselves, and Paul McCartney and John Lennon in particular, were patent frauds who didn’t and couldn’t for the life of them written any of the Beatles’ song hits between 1962 and 1970. It was the brainchild and work exclusively of George Martin, the only one of them who possessed the musical knowledge and formal training and expertise, and of course the talent, to compose the songs that made the Beatles famous (read infamous for the sake of posterity). It does not take much formal demonstration or imagination at all to prove that Lennon & McCartney wrote in a completely different style from that of George Martin, and that neither before 1962 nor after 1970 were Lennon or McCartney ever able to write remotely comparable in caliber or style to George Martin’s great hits, ghostwritten for the Beatles, between 1962 and 1970.

PeregrinePickle | Jul 22, 2011 | Reply
PeregrinePickle – I don’t know why I’m humoring you but…

If what you say is true – why didn’t George Martin write Beatles quality material before or after The Beatles with other artists?

Your claim is preposterous with absolutely no proof to back it up.

Marvin Marks | Jul 23, 2011 | Reply
If you don’t really have a serious interest in this topic or in the truth about the Beatles, George Martin or the music that catapulted them to fame , I seriously suggest you try to acquire it, as the only preposterous thing about this interchange seems to be your palpably dogmatic and snarky attitude in responding. What is your purpose in maintaining a web page with a comments section? Is it only to hear exclusively what you want to hear or otherwise be offensively closed-minded and priggish when you don’t hear it? I guess I’m humouring you, aren’t I.

PeregrinePickle | Jul 23, 2011 | Reply
To answer your predictably rhetorical ‘non-question’, however, Sir George Martin very wisely and very shrewdly chose the Beatles as the perfect vehicle for the mass marketing of his popular songs, for which by the way he borrowed quite freely, unabashedly and recklessly from the immense corpus of early 20th century American popular song, even to the point of plagiarism. But that of course is another topic, of no less interest than the ‘Beatles’ song catalogue itself. Sir George Martin literally struck gold with the Beatles as his front band and should be commended and justifiably envied, if only for the unprecedented and wild success of his mass-marketing strategy, which was a stroke of genius.

PeregrinePickle | Jul 23, 2011 | Reply
My purpose in having a comments section is to discuss music with sane people who are interested in music – certainly dissenting (sane) opinions are very much encouraged. Music is a very subjective art – what is good to one person may be terrible to another. For example I’ve had people claim (maybe it’s even on this page – I’m too lazy to check right now) in comments that Beatles fans only like songs like “I Am The Walrus” because they are by The Beatles but that the people actually only like the poppy songs. Personally I think that’s a rather crazy belief… but I can kind of understand how someone can have it. Some people just have a very narrow definition of what “good music” is…

My point is that even while I consider this opinion to be quite dumb — I can at least understand how someone could have it. It’s conceivable.

On the other hand; your claim about George Martin writing all of The Beatles music is clearly absurd without any basis in fact. It’s as silly as the “Paul is Dead” thing.

In all of your responses you have not provided even the slightest proof for your claim. You have stated some subjective opinions about the quality of John & Paul’s solo music (and of course Paul worked with George Martin on some of his solo albums… For example Tug of War. If Martin was the key – how come Tug of War isn’t on par with Sgt. Pepper?) and made a baseless claim that John & Paul could not have written the music of The Beatles because they did not have technical music training (of course many great popular song writers did not) … it’s just… fucking stupid. Seriously. Your claim is ridiculous and we’re all dumber for having read it. And I’m an idiot for giving you the time of day. But.. I just can’t help myself. Crazy people like you interest me on some level.

There are crazy conspiracy theorists in all walks whether it be politics or music… people who can’t accept reality as it is so they have to create some alternate reality… I find it interesting… to a point. But eventually it becomes tiresome – like someone telling you all about their dreams.

~~~

So this comments section is not meant to engage in a comment war with a lunatic like yourself – but instead meant to debate with people interested in The Beatles music… I think there’s plenty of interesting stuff to talk about without going into some make believe nonsense conspiracy theories.

Marvin Marks | Jul 23, 2011 | Reply
MM:

You seem constitutionally incapable of sustaining a converstation making personally offensive remarks, or proferring pedestrian epithets or foul language, purely for effect apparently.

More importantly, you seem incapable of sustaining a rational dialogue. A case in point, your groundless statement above: “On the other hand; your claim about George Martin writing all of The Beatles music is clearly absurd without any basis in fact. It’s as silly as the “Paul is Dead” thing.”

Nowhere have I stated that George Martin wrote all of the Beatles’ music. I have stated that George Martin wrote the Beatles’ hits. I also stated that Lennon & McCartney, and of course George Harrison is included, wrote merely the chaff, the most trivial Beatle songs. Lennon & McCartney have no song whatsoever of any artistic or commercial worth ascribed to them before 1962, the year in which George Martin hands them their first ever hit. After 1970, they composed individually nothing that is in any artistic or esthetic sense at all comparable to the 1962-1970 hits written by George Martin for the group.

Please get to the point, which fundamentally is a matter for stylistic and structural analysis, and comparison, between what on the one hand, Lennon & McCartney were capable of writing and indeed did historically write both before and after their association (contractual relation) with George Martin, and on the other hand, the hit songs written of course by George Martin from 1962-1970, the musical and literary stylistic elements of which characterize and exclusively identify beyond any doubt that these were written by someone other than Paul McCartney, John Lennon or George Harrison.

PeregrinePickle | Jul 23, 2011 | Reply
Correction above:

You seem constitutionally incapable of sustaining a converstation without making personally offensive remarks, or proferring pedestrian epithets or foul language, purely for effect apparently.

PeregrinePickle | Jul 23, 2011 | Reply
It’s purely because I think your argument is ludicrous. Patently absurd.

Actually; you haven’t even really made an argument. You’ve made a crazy statement with no proof for that statement (and there is, of course, mountain loads of proof against it) … if you are going to make an outlandish claim that is so far outside of established fact you are going to have to have an extremely strong argument and extremely strong evidence to back it up. You have not made such an argument and there is no such evidence.

Marvin Marks | Jul 23, 2011 | Reply
There is strictly no need for any formal argument about what is plainly evident to see, but the evidence itself is of course the very music written as a team by Lennon & McCartney before 1962, which is without exception of the most paltry and inferior quality, and the music written individaully by Lennon and McCartney after 1970, likewise material of the most glaringly paltry and inferior kind.

Enter George Martin, from 1962-1970, and out of the blue we get a plethora, a non-stop succession of timeless Beatle hits that will most likely outlive this generation and many, many more to come, but which glaringly, oddly and inexplicably stop dead in their very tracks, most curiously and coincidentally at the very moment when George Martin and the ‘Beatles’ part their ways. It’s a plain fact that George Martin wrote the music we all know and love, not Paul McCartney or John Lennon or any combination of the two. This is not rocket science.

At present, I have more important priorities than debunking Sir Paul McCartney, Sir George Martin or the ‘Beatles’, for whatever it’s worth. If one needed a detailed stylistic and structural analysis of the music itself, one would necessarily have to pay for it in the form of a book written with the purpose of exposing the Beatles for what they really were. I have better fish to fry.

PeregrinePickle | Jul 24, 2011 | Reply
Complete and utter nonsense.

The Beatles were very young men who were only beginning to write music in 1962. To say that because they didn’t write great music when they are teenagers means they couldn’t have become great songwriters as adults is absurd.

And to say that they wrote nothing of any value after leaving The Beatles is a subjective statement with which I disagree. Some of their ’70s material is quite strong – as good as their Beatles work in some cases.

To claim that they couldn’t have written the music of The Beatles due to lack of formal training or some such nonsense is exactly that – nonsense. How about Irving Berlin who could only play in C on the piano yet wrote classic pop songs?

The Beatles may not have had a formal education in songwriting but they learned how to play hundreds of songs (covers) and they learned much about how songwriting works from the study of those songs.

Have you read The Beatles as Musicians (volume 1 & 2) ? I have. These books describe the progression of The Beatles (John Lennon & Paul McCartney) as songwriters in great detail.

…

Again – you’ve made nothing but circular arguments. You’ve stated as a fact that The Beatles couldn’t have written this music but you haven’t explained why that is the case.

You could similarly say “Bob Dylan didn’t really write the music of the 1960s because his 1970s and 1980s work isn’t as good… so it’s obvious that he didn’t write his work in the 1960s either!” … … yeah.. no. That’s not a good argument. You are ridiculous.

Marvin Marks | Jul 24, 2011 | Reply
Perhaps when you graduate from High School(?)…I might take you seriously. Try to do all your homework conscientiously and try not to engage in conversations that are way over your head, like this one. It’s quite unbecoming, even in adults, laddie.

PeregrinePickle | Jul 24, 2011 | Reply
I’m not too concerned with whether or not crazy conspiracy theorists take me “seriously.” In fact, I think I would be concerned if you did take me seriously.

You have still made absolutely no rational argument and provided absolutely no evidence for your outlandish claim.

When you make such a claim it is up to you to prove that you are right, not up to others to prove you are wrong.

You have cited circumstantial subjective “evidence” … similar such arguments could be made for just about every popular music songwriter as most of them had a period of writing hits prolifically and then the hits “dried up” … claiming that this proves that someone else wrote their hits is … just ridiculous. It makes no sense.

What you are claiming to be unusual is actually the rule rather than the exception.

Marvin Marks | Jul 24, 2011 | Reply
It’s also worth noting that Paul McCartney actually wrote 9 #1 US singles as a solo artist. You may claim (subjectively) that they are not as good as his Beatles hits (and in most cases I would agree) but objectively he has been quite successful as a solo songwriter (w/o George Martin.)

John Lennon wrote 7 top ten US singles as a solo artist (two #1s including “Imagine” which many people consider to be one of the greatest songs ever – by anyone)

George Harrison wrote 3 US #1s as a solo artist (including a co-writing credit on Ringo’s “Photograph.”

All told the Beatles wrote 14 #1 US singles as solo artists. Not quite the 20 they wrote together, but certainly proof that your claim that they couldn’t write a hit post-Beatles to be factually incorrect.

~~~

I could spend all day pointing out the absurdities in your claim — but I’m not sure where that would get us. You haven’t backed up your claim with anything of substance (just some circular conspiracy theorist type “reasoning.”)

Marvin Marks | Jul 24, 2011 | Reply
Peregine Pickle

George Martin is still alive and could speak for himself if he wanted. He has written much about Bealtes over the past several decades. What would be the motive for him to be silent on the issue?

George Martin wrote very little of the beatles actual music. He wrote mainly bridges and a few orchestral parts because thats where most of his music backround came.

Most of his influence came in the begining years. As John and Paul began to mature and become better songwriters his influence became minimal. (This has been well documented by many people close to the Beatles such as Emerick.)

Lennon’s music was fantastic. I agree with many of John’s ardent supporters. He was a ground breaking artist.

What you cant leave out though is the fact that Paul’s melodies were just superb. Have you ever listened to “Junk”? It sounds like something Mozart would have written.

The two together feeding off of each others strengths is why there will never be another band like the Beatles..

Bobby J | Jul 24, 2011 | Reply
Sir George Martin does not have any interest at all in owning up to his monumental fraud at this stage of the game, though I do warrant that he will never be able to up cover his tracks. His musical/literary fingerprints are literally all over the Beatles’ 1962-1970 hits’ catalogue. Likewise Lennon & McCartneys stylistic(?) (non)musical and (non)literary imprints are also readily recognizable in all of their trite, agonizingly trivial compositions both from pre-1962, during the Beatle years, and post-1970. The stylistic imprint and artistic style of a composer or a writer is an element that not even the genius of a George Martin can hope ever to cover up for long. All it needs is a little bit of time and effort to expend in carrying out the most cursory type of structural and linear analysis of the music itself, which is on record, to separate quite readily and definitively the ‘men’ (Martin) from the ‘boys’ (Lennon, McCartney and alas and alack Harrison) in the much touted but very little explored and formally ‘deconstructed’ Beatles’ song calogue. Perhaps there is someone out there with a little time on his/her hands, but first and foremost with a little interest in the field, who will finally carry out out the needed and long overdue musicological research into this extremely quaint and inexplicably overlooked topic. I myself most assuredly have better things to occupy my time than to expose this otherwise monumental, albeit absolutely transparent musical and commercial fraud. The research work itself is, however, mere child’s play if there is anyone so inclined and so motivated. If push comes to shove, I’m sure there’s lots of money in it.

PeregrinePickle | Jul 25, 2011 | Reply
You are so remarkably full of shit.

So you think it’s so obvious that The Beatles didn’t write certain songs and did write other songs (I wonder how you know what George Martin’s stylistic signature is when he never released any songs of his own?) yet so many others who have studied their music have never noticed? Are you just that much of a genius? Are they that uninformed? … Pretty fucking unlikely. Far more likely is that you’re a God Damn lunatic.

Walter Everett wrote “The Beatles as Musicians” series on The Beatles songwriting – he looked very closely at the songwriting of every Beatles song and yet he never found out this “obvious” fact that George Martin wrote their music and not Lennon/McCartney… who is Walter Everett? He was chair of the department of music theory at the University of Michigan. … what are your credentials exactly? I would love to have a debate between you and Mr. Everett here. Maybe he’ll find his name here somehow and join in! It’s possible eh…

And I somehow doubt you are as busy as you claim considering you seem to spend a decent amount of time sharing your crazy conspiracy theories in blog comments…

Marvin Marks | Jul 25, 2011 | Reply
-Yes, Sir George Martin’s stylistic signature is in every album that he produced for the Beatles and they contain, exclusively, the songs that made the Beatles famous. It is more than obvious to any impartial honest, rational and sane observer, with a set of healthy ears, that his stylistic signature is completely absent from every song or album Lennon & McCartney wrote or produced on their own, both pre-1962 and post-1970.

-Yes, I am a genius.

-Yes, they are uninformed.

-No, I don’t know who Walter Everett was. No offense to Walter Everett but I don’t care.

-My credentials are none of your business. Your lack of credentials are none of mine.

I do have time for more serious and or intelligent questions from anyone having the proper credentials

PeregrinePickle | Jul 26, 2011 | Reply
I didn’t like the Beatles very much until I recently downloaded their full albums, and realized that it was just all of Paul McCartney’s sappy and mostly boring singles that I had no reaction to. While he needs a good producer to smooth the edges, Lennon’s contributions are far, far superior. McCartney is a superficial and one-dimentional pop clown.

Craig Kielinski | Jul 29, 2011 | Reply
Sounds cruel, but if you would also be dispassionate and somewhat more rightful, you would also clearly see that John Lennon likewise was not only a patent superficial, one-dimensional artistic fraud and an impostor, but an egregiously selfish and hypocritical egomaniac. First and foremost he proved himself beyond a doubt to be a heartless, unloving, cruel, deadbeat father and a glaringly unkind human being to his first-born Julian, for his outright neglect; then only secondarily the notorious artistic and commercial fraud that he is, and always will be, along with Sir Paul McCartney. Neither of these buffoons deserve any credit in the least for writing any of the songs that made the Beatles famous, so don’t be reluctant or coy in condemning both of these egregious impostors for what little they’re worth. They don’t even deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as George Martin as anything but frightfully mediocre composers, responsible for the banal and utter trash that they individually composed and produced on their own, both before 1962 and after 1970, without the saving grace and benefit of the covert song-writing skills of George Martin. It was solely George Martin and absolutely no one else who single-handedly, diligently, brilliantly and discreetly laboured behind the scenes to created the legendary non-stop stream of Beatle hits that make up the 1962-1970 Beatle song catalogue, and which you belatedly and somewhat unadvisedly confess only now to have begun finally to be able to appreciate, in a very limited way.

PeregrinePickle | Jul 31, 2011 | Reply
PP – You’ve written so many insane comments here that it’s starting to break my wordpress.

I would like you to be more detailed in your assertions – since you are so sure of yourself, this should be no problem for you – can you tell me exactly which songs from The Beatles catalog that John Lennon & Paul McCartney actually wrote according to your theory (vs. the ones that George Martin wrote.)

Marvin Marks | Aug 1, 2011 | Reply
Not to be redundant, but I state in my prior comment:

…The rule of thumb is: if it’s a Beatle super-hit, it’s a George Martin song. Everything else is chaff, penned either by McCartney/Lennon in their unmistakably inept and unsophisticated (non)musical and (non)literary style, or penned independently by George Harrison who was more than likely never privy to the covert George Martin/Lennon-McCartney ghost-writing compact. The music will be there for all time for anyone to study and analyse stylistically, by the date of recording and by the presence or lack thereof of George Martin pulling all the artistic strings. Lennon & McCartney were, and always will be, nothing but marketing bogeys. …

Incidentally, I am a person with very well defined priorities and lack the time, the resources or the desire to waste them, in debunking a Sir George Martin, a Sir Paul McCartney, or the ‘Beatles’, or in making the effort required to prepare a rigorous, methodological, musicological kind of monograph or book setting forth a formal criticism with the detailed linear and structural musical/literary analysis, as well as the lengthy overall research, the formal work of correct and coherent demonstration and finally the editorial preparation of a final copy detailing fully:

1. not only the absolutely mutually exclusive musical/literary compositional writing styles of a sophisticated master composer and writer like George Martin, as compared to the trivial work of Lennon and McCartney who comparatively speaking were ‘absolutely’ incompetent song writers, but also, and perhaps more importantly for me, for all intents and purposes,
2. the detailed identification and demonstration of the sources themselves, the song compositions themselves belonging to the corpus of early 20th century American popular song, from which George Martin borrowed quite unabashedly, directly and recklessly, in finding sources and deriving from them the thematic musical/literary material that can directly be found and identified in the 1962-1970 Beatle hit-song catalogue that he wrote and produced for the group. This all of course is information that is not readily condensable into a wordpress space limit or that can be offered freely and without considertion, just for the mere asking. In the final analysis, my interest really lies elsewhere, however.

PeregrinePickle | Aug 1, 2011 | Reply
George Martin was also one of the individuals behind the Kennedy assassination and had him killed the same day as the release of With The Beatles to maximise international impact and had I Want To Hold Your Hand released in America a month later to have the biggest commercial impact on a grieving nation. A well calculated ray of light in the current American darkness.

America needed a traumatic event in order for the Beatles to make the impact they did. It had nothing to do with Cuba, the mob or the CIA! Martin and Brian Epstein both conspired this and hired Oswald (who was the lone gunman by the way) to do this deed, thus ensuring a money mega-maker in the biggest entertainment consumer in the world.

It’s very obvious to anybody with half a brain that this is what really took place!

Amadeus | Aug 2, 2011 | Reply
Interesting stuff here. Especially love the conspiracy theory that George Martin wrote all the Beatles best songs. …The proof apparently being that McCartney/Lennon didn’t match their output post-Beatles.

Well:
1-Every artist has a peak…that includes Mozart. There is nothing unusual about that.
2-Martin never came close to the 60s Beatles stuff without them in the room.
3-McCartney did quite well without Martin and was in fact one of the most successful artists of the 70s.

To the main topic, give me McCartney. I’m a fan of melody…the most important element of music (not politics). Not sure anyone has ever been on McCartney’s level with melody.

Paul was the best singer of the two, the best musician of the two, started writing songs before he met Lennon (who knows if John would have ever started writing if he hadn’t met Paul)…heck Paul had to teach John how to tune a guitar when they met.

According to Geoff Emerick, it was Paul who began to experiment first and was interested in avant-garde art prior to John. (Paul actually met Yoko before John did)

I also like the fact that Paul never lost his zest for performing live or writing music. He was the last holdout when they decided to become a studio band and the rooftop concert was his idea. Paul of course still tours…a true musician for life.

I see some politics (John was “assassinated”?) and emotion at play in the “Paul vs John” debate. Some are trying to suggest that John only stopped writing #1 hits because he didn’t want to. Truly he is being deified. John wanted to sell more records than Paul and was very honest about that in later interviews.

I will agree that Paul has a massive ego. That’s not a new thing nor an indication he had less talent. Mozart was even more ego-maniacal.

There is a tendency to label “dark” as superior to “light” in our nature for some reason. No matter how great a comedy film is, it will always lose to a great drama film….just because. Songwriters who write great upbeat music will be seen as automatically inferior to a songwriter who writes angry or depressing music….just because. There are many who just don’t understand why people love the music of ABBA so much. Melody is king in music. Politics won’t matter in 200 years.

And of course John is a great icon to liberal-minded people….so any person who leans that way will naturally put him on a pedestal. (I am irritated by both the right and left personally) There is a great desire by baby-boomers to believe the music of the 60s “changed the world”. …But everything that happened in the 60s politically was already in action before the 60s began….music is more a product of cultural trends than vice versa. If people aren’t ready to receive a type of music it will fail to become popular. Same thing happened with Nirvana in the 90s…people were ready for something new and Nirvana showed up at the right time.

Nothing improves an artist’s aura like dying young. Amy Winehouse is receiving that benefit as we speak. Paul made the mistake of living to be an old man.

Lastly, I suspect the fact that “the girls loved Paul” invites scorn from some corners. Males automatically downgrade things that females like. It’s a sexist tendency, but very real. Paul was “too good looking to be great”.

Bender | Aug 2, 2011 | Reply
I think you’re on to something, Amadeus, an earthshaking no-brainer indeed.

PeregrinePickle | Aug 2, 2011 | Reply
For those who want to debate PeregrinePickle’s conspiracy theory check out this new post I made: http://www.musicbyday.com/did-george-martin-write-the-beatles-hits/1320/

I’d like to keep the comments here more on topic (Lennon vs. McCartney) moving forward… really I need to do something about the site breaking when I get too many comments … or this one is headed towards the same fate as the Hollywood Undead post: http://www.musicbyday.com/hollywood-undead/10/

Marvin Marks | Aug 2, 2011 | Reply
exeunt omnes

PeregrinePickle | Aug 2, 2011 | Reply
PP – the reason your comment is being deleted here is because I don’t want the same comment on multiple pages.

It’s the exact same thing you posted over here: http://www.musicbyday.com/did-george-martin-write-the-beatles-hits/1320/ and I prefer it over there as I want this thread to be about Lennon vs. McCartney not about your insane George Martin wrote The Beatles songs BS.

When you copy/paste the same comment on multiple posts that’s a bit spammy.

Marvin Marks | Aug 3, 2011 | Reply
You might as well delete the other comment too, please do since one does not have the option or control here. Thank you.

PeregrinePickle | Aug 4, 2011 | Reply
When you post on other people’s websites it’s not really up to you. Make your own website if you want to control what goes on it. You have no right to post anything on my site; and certainly no right to copy/paste the same bullshit onto multiple places.

I was nice enough to give your bullshit theory its own post – you can comment there all you want. Or not.

Now back on topic: LENNON VS MCCARTNEY.

Marvin Marks | Aug 4, 2011 | Reply
Now back to DUMB AND DUMBER…or in the famous words of that wise man it’s “deja-vu all over again”. (Yogi Bear)

PeregrinePickle | Aug 4, 2011 | Reply
Jack,

I also noted how many more number one hits Paul wrote than John from Yesterday (#11 number one hit) and onwards. Paul wrote many more hits after those first ten as you stated. I think one thing overlooked might be the fact that Paul was two years younger and he did join “John’s” band. John dominated the Beatles early on, but it is interesting to see how much Paul and George (much later) matured and came in to their own writing style later than John. Nevertheless,the sum of their parts is and always will be greater than any individual efforts. I am still in awe of everything they did in such a short period. And to think that they all grew up within 5 miles of each other! I just came back from Liverpool and took a 3 hour Beatle tour — best tour I’ve ever taken.

Tommy G | Aug 26, 2011 | Reply
Both you, and Jack, have to be kidding of course…These 2 nincompoops were categorically and unequivocally incapable of writing their way out of a paper bag, indeed they never proved themselves in their entire professional careers when apart from George Martin musically capable of doing a single thing to the contrary, either before 1962 or after 1970. Never. They owe their very artistic existence and fame exclusively to George Martin, to his musical knowledge, his maturity, his expertise and his professional skill. Just try to imagine to what extremely limited, indeed unremarkable and modest degree of artistic or musical fame any of Lennon or McCartney’s trivial, incompetent, dinky songs or recordings from before 1962 and after 1970 could possibly or realistically entitle anyone or any group in the extremely competitive pop music industry both back then and now. Simply compare the utter trash written, produced or recorded by Lennon and McCartney both before 1962 and during their solo careers apart from George Martin, to the timeless stream of non-stop, continuous sensational hits written and produced by George Martin for the “Pre-Fab Four”, between 1962 and 1970. Ony then can you seriously or conceivably hope ever to talk at all of being in awe of a master songwriter and producer like George Martin but certainly not of ‘DUMB AND DUMBER’, that’s for sure.

PeregrinePickle | Aug 30, 2011 | Reply
Sean, thank you, It’s really weird when people discredit John. He was a brilliant genius. Paul is, too. But i don’t think people realize the contribution John has given to music.

Barti | Sep 8, 2011 | Reply
Barti, it is beyond a doubt that the only contribution that John Lennon or Paul McCartney have given to music is their vocal talent as members of the Beatles, from 1962-1970. Apart from this, as the utterly mediocre songwriters that they proved themselves conclusively to be absent George Martin’s patronage and creative musical genius, they were complete and utter musical non-entities arguably with perhaps as much creative talent as Richard (Ringo) Starkey, more or less so.

PeregrinePickle | Sep 10, 2011 | Reply
This is an interesting discussion. I would tend to agree that McCartney is viewed as the less edgy and original of the Lennon-McCartney songwriting team. But I think this is not a fair assessment, if one looks at the work itself.

As far as melody, Paul is a master (Yesterday, Michelle, Let It Be, Hey Jude, etc.), though Lennon also wrote lovely tunes such as “If I Fell” and “Because”, among others. As far as musicianship, it seems to me no question that Paul had the superior skills- his bass playing is renowned, and his ability on both guitar and piano more developed than John’s. He also was a more capable and versatile vocalist. But in the modern rock era, it’s not only about having talent in voice and instrument (Dylan comes to mind as one limited in these areas) but also about being able to convey emotion and put across one’s ideas. In this sense, Lennon was a real original and for many, he was a deeper artist than Paul.

PeregrinePickle’s nonsense about George Martin actually writing the Beatle’s hit songs is truly delusional. Martin himself has never claimed any such level of contribution. As has been pointed out, he offers zero evidence yet claims his absurd, idiotic theory is “obvious”. It’s only obvious to the other asylum members. He strikes me as either a troll deliberately trying to ruffle feathers, or as someone harboring a great deal of bitterness and self-involvement. Perhaps, in need of therapy. In any case, he can kiss my ass.

BeatlesFan | Sep 13, 2011 | Reply
1) ‘From me to you’, ‘Day Tripper’ are both mainly John

2) ‘Eleanor Rigby’ is all Paul or at least mainly so

3) In later interviews (incl. the 1972 one where he doesn’t play Jesus by the way), John is more self-deprecating on his contributions to the mainly-Paul songs whereas Paul consistently tries to ‘claim’ every assist as ‘co-writing’!

4) How exactly does Paul ‘dominate’ over John in the 1966-70 album era? Paul dominated Let it Be, Sgt Pepper’s and Abbey Road. John dominated Rubber Soul and White Album. And while Revolver had an equal no. of songs (5 each), John’s songs are better (though Macca typically claims John preferred Macca’s songs over his in an isolated incident in a hotel room which no else seemed to have been present at, as is usual in his statements)

The score in #1s would be 12-9 to Paul with 1 George’s and remaining being JP collaborations

But 12-9 when seen along with their album songs easily tilt it in favor of John IMO. Post ’65, someone rightly said Paul was the fulcrum churning out the hits while John was writing more cutting-edge material. This combo worked exceptionally well in that non-touring era of their music.

And I am as much a John fan as Marvin seems to be a Paul fan.

Kunal Sen | Sep 14, 2011 | Reply
The definitive list in Lennon’s playboy interview which appeared shortly after his death, i think April 1981

I just happen to have both for sale

hardraysnight | Sep 18, 2011 | Reply
I heard that Paul McCartney tried to take John Lennons name off the songs that either Paul wrote or that they wrote together? Is any of that true…I’ve been trying to find info. on the internet and can’t seem to find anything.

Thanks – Hopefully it’s just a rumor.

aurasoma | Oct 3, 2011 | Reply
I think it was just for a while that Paul wanted to reverse the Lennon & McCartney names on his own songs to McCartney & Lennon. I think it was sort of a passing comment from him but as soon as it “goes out”, it becomes something much more important than it really is and he took a little bit of flak over that idea.

Amadeus | Oct 5, 2011 | Reply