..yes, yes...we KNOW Paul's a musical genius...and John....?????
I love you Paul. I do. You are very sweet and accommodating..and charming as Hell!..and cute and sexy..even in your older years....And Talented???? OMG!!! Can you write a song!!..and your melodies are just beautiful..rich and commercially "proper". You really are "AM" radio's dream.
..but I am SICK of hearing how much better you are at writing than John..and how, in contrast, they make him sound like he can barely put two notes together.
A quote I just read:
In The Beatles as Musicians, Walter Everett points out Lennon and McCartney's contrasting motivations and approaches to composition: "McCartney may be said to have constantly developed-as a means to entertain-a focused musical talent with an ear for counterpoint and other aspects of craft in the demonstration of a universally agreed-upon common language that he did much to enrich. Conversely, Lennon's mature music is best appreciated as the daring product of a largely unconscious, searching but undisciplined artistic sensibility."
Meh. Honestly. Read that, again.
So we have Paul, who is touted as being the musician who "constantly developed" as an artist..and that his gifts "did much to enrich" the art of music as a universal language as a whole.
But on the other hand, we have John, who's "only" contribution is that his music is "best appreciated" as something "daring" but "undisciplined" in its approach. :/
Paul did have a much easier time conveying musical ideas than John..and was also more naturally gifted because of it. It came harder to John, and some perceive that as making him the lesser musician which I don't think is fair. Everyone perceives music differently..and connects with it and interprets it in their own very subjective way..and creating it is no different. It may have taken Paul five minutes to write a song vs. John's five hours (I'm not saying this is at all true; I'm just speaking theoretically)...but does that make him a horrible musician? If you didn't have a comparison, would you even go there? Just because an apple isn't an orange, doesn't mean it isn't a fruit.
I've heard people say Ringo was a shit drummer..and yet just as many say that he had such an impact and influence upon them it isn't funny.
These four very talented men who changed the shape of music worldwide..and are considered the most popular band ever, need to be appreciated just as much for their individual talents as for their collective ones. I know I'm guilty as sin of not knowing John's solo works as much as Paul's..but that's just laziness and not wanting to run into "ambushed" screeching. That said, what I have heard of John's solo efforts speaks to the raw beauty of his talent. No, he's not as "refined" as Paul in his "execution"..but that makes him no less talented; just talented in a different way.
I wish these critics could see that primitive, "untamed" musical ability is just as significant and "valid" as polished and "precise" musical ability. There's room for both kinds..and it's that contrast between John and Paul which really made their music what it was to begin with.
So you critics out there..listen up..'cause the kid with the box of crayons might not have the best technique or means of expression at his fingertips, but he's no less an artist than the kid with the fancy paintbrush and palette of many colors. It's all in how you look at it..and to me, either way, it's art, pure and simple..
It's art. So let it be, already. Just let it be.
..but I am SICK of hearing how much better you are at writing than John..and how, in contrast, they make him sound like he can barely put two notes together.
A quote I just read:
In The Beatles as Musicians, Walter Everett points out Lennon and McCartney's contrasting motivations and approaches to composition: "McCartney may be said to have constantly developed-as a means to entertain-a focused musical talent with an ear for counterpoint and other aspects of craft in the demonstration of a universally agreed-upon common language that he did much to enrich. Conversely, Lennon's mature music is best appreciated as the daring product of a largely unconscious, searching but undisciplined artistic sensibility."
Meh. Honestly. Read that, again.
So we have Paul, who is touted as being the musician who "constantly developed" as an artist..and that his gifts "did much to enrich" the art of music as a universal language as a whole.
But on the other hand, we have John, who's "only" contribution is that his music is "best appreciated" as something "daring" but "undisciplined" in its approach. :/
Paul did have a much easier time conveying musical ideas than John..and was also more naturally gifted because of it. It came harder to John, and some perceive that as making him the lesser musician which I don't think is fair. Everyone perceives music differently..and connects with it and interprets it in their own very subjective way..and creating it is no different. It may have taken Paul five minutes to write a song vs. John's five hours (I'm not saying this is at all true; I'm just speaking theoretically)...but does that make him a horrible musician? If you didn't have a comparison, would you even go there? Just because an apple isn't an orange, doesn't mean it isn't a fruit.
I've heard people say Ringo was a shit drummer..and yet just as many say that he had such an impact and influence upon them it isn't funny.
These four very talented men who changed the shape of music worldwide..and are considered the most popular band ever, need to be appreciated just as much for their individual talents as for their collective ones. I know I'm guilty as sin of not knowing John's solo works as much as Paul's..but that's just laziness and not wanting to run into "ambushed" screeching. That said, what I have heard of John's solo efforts speaks to the raw beauty of his talent. No, he's not as "refined" as Paul in his "execution"..but that makes him no less talented; just talented in a different way.
I wish these critics could see that primitive, "untamed" musical ability is just as significant and "valid" as polished and "precise" musical ability. There's room for both kinds..and it's that contrast between John and Paul which really made their music what it was to begin with.
So you critics out there..listen up..'cause the kid with the box of crayons might not have the best technique or means of expression at his fingertips, but he's no less an artist than the kid with the fancy paintbrush and palette of many colors. It's all in how you look at it..and to me, either way, it's art, pure and simple..
It's art. So let it be, already. Just let it be.