Anatomy of two geniuses...
Christ..the boys are always being compared..and it's a damn shame, isn't it?
I saw an article last night from someone who dared to pose the question of who was more talented, John or Paul? I think on the surface it would be far too easy to say Paul. Paul got more Beatle "A" sides, and his solo career far eclipsed John's. It saddens me that this is so, but I have to face facts...and besides, I wouldn't be honoring John if I didn't because he knew it, too, and it hurt him.
But that said..I was thinking a bit deeper about this and I came to the conclusion that the "fault" doesn't lie in deciding who's "better", but in comparisons, themselves. Anytime you decide to pit one person against another, you negate their individuality..and that's a disservice to them. John's brain worked differently then Paul's..his approach to music was different. It's unfair to then say one was the better musician of the two if one of the two could not process, for whatever reason, his musicality in the same way as the other.
I hope that made sense.
John seemed to always feel things very deeply..and write from a certain place in his soul that may have required more effort on his part. In contrast, it always seemed like Paul didn't have to reach as deeply or work as hard as John to come up with something "substantial" It's the difference between reaching up to grab something and climbing ten flights of stairs. John, it would seem, had to go to certain depths in his soul to get to that place that allowed him to create..and that "journey" took "longer" then Paul's..and therein lies the difference. Paul never had to walk that far to get to his "destination" whereas John did. He had to go deeper, because his "makeup" didn't allow for anything less..and as such it meant that he had to make sacrifices...in order to honor his being..and that meant giving up things like "commerciality".....and "A" sides.
To me this is the genius of John: His courage to be himself through his music...and fearlessly go to that place that not many people are daring or willing to go.
But this rant isn't just about John. No, no..it's just as much about Paul...for in this very same article, the author had the audacity to say that Paul had only "a couple of hits" as a solo artist, and insinuated that basically his post-Beatle work was crap. :-O
Nice, huh? :/
Listen, if I didn't hear Paul saturate the AM dial growing up in the 70's, I must have had my little head buried up my ass..and like his solo stuff or not, I am hard-pressed to figure out why someone would make it sound like his work was meaningless drivel.
Maybe you don't care for his style..okay. He's too buoyant or superficial for you, perhaps..but..can you think of many artists who can so easily create catchy, melodic riffs and "hooks"?..or turn something as silly as "Let 'em In" into a top ten hit? I remember when the song came out in '76. My mother turned and commented to us youngin's, "Paul just made a million dollars with this"...and she was right. The song is as lyrically uninspiring as you can get..and I'm sure John heard it and had a "field day" thinking, "WTF, Macca???"..yet..in the end, Paul came out the clear winner, didn't he?...managing to hit the top 3 spot in both the US and UK charts with something that sounds like someone with OCD issues who can't stop obsessing over their guests.
..and that is the genius of Paul.
I wish people would see that John and Paul both had something to offer to the world in their own unique way, and that their genius, one more "visible", the other more "subtle", speaks just as much to their individual "makeup" as it does to their innate talent. Paul couldn't help but write the catchy "fluff" that some love to loathe, making him undoubtedly the most successful solo Beatle ever.... and John couldn't help but to retreat into the core of his soul to create pockets of musical pain so raw and beautiful in their honesty that a commercialized music industry could only shrink back in "disdain". Two musical geniuses, who together balanced each other out, creating a body of work that is nothing short of brilliant.
That's genius for you...and there's nothing better than that.
I saw an article last night from someone who dared to pose the question of who was more talented, John or Paul? I think on the surface it would be far too easy to say Paul. Paul got more Beatle "A" sides, and his solo career far eclipsed John's. It saddens me that this is so, but I have to face facts...and besides, I wouldn't be honoring John if I didn't because he knew it, too, and it hurt him.
But that said..I was thinking a bit deeper about this and I came to the conclusion that the "fault" doesn't lie in deciding who's "better", but in comparisons, themselves. Anytime you decide to pit one person against another, you negate their individuality..and that's a disservice to them. John's brain worked differently then Paul's..his approach to music was different. It's unfair to then say one was the better musician of the two if one of the two could not process, for whatever reason, his musicality in the same way as the other.
I hope that made sense.
John seemed to always feel things very deeply..and write from a certain place in his soul that may have required more effort on his part. In contrast, it always seemed like Paul didn't have to reach as deeply or work as hard as John to come up with something "substantial" It's the difference between reaching up to grab something and climbing ten flights of stairs. John, it would seem, had to go to certain depths in his soul to get to that place that allowed him to create..and that "journey" took "longer" then Paul's..and therein lies the difference. Paul never had to walk that far to get to his "destination" whereas John did. He had to go deeper, because his "makeup" didn't allow for anything less..and as such it meant that he had to make sacrifices...in order to honor his being..and that meant giving up things like "commerciality".....and "A" sides.
To me this is the genius of John: His courage to be himself through his music...and fearlessly go to that place that not many people are daring or willing to go.
But this rant isn't just about John. No, no..it's just as much about Paul...for in this very same article, the author had the audacity to say that Paul had only "a couple of hits" as a solo artist, and insinuated that basically his post-Beatle work was crap. :-O
Nice, huh? :/
Listen, if I didn't hear Paul saturate the AM dial growing up in the 70's, I must have had my little head buried up my ass..and like his solo stuff or not, I am hard-pressed to figure out why someone would make it sound like his work was meaningless drivel.
Maybe you don't care for his style..okay. He's too buoyant or superficial for you, perhaps..but..can you think of many artists who can so easily create catchy, melodic riffs and "hooks"?..or turn something as silly as "Let 'em In" into a top ten hit? I remember when the song came out in '76. My mother turned and commented to us youngin's, "Paul just made a million dollars with this"...and she was right. The song is as lyrically uninspiring as you can get..and I'm sure John heard it and had a "field day" thinking, "WTF, Macca???"..yet..in the end, Paul came out the clear winner, didn't he?...managing to hit the top 3 spot in both the US and UK charts with something that sounds like someone with OCD issues who can't stop obsessing over their guests.
..and that is the genius of Paul.
I wish people would see that John and Paul both had something to offer to the world in their own unique way, and that their genius, one more "visible", the other more "subtle", speaks just as much to their individual "makeup" as it does to their innate talent. Paul couldn't help but write the catchy "fluff" that some love to loathe, making him undoubtedly the most successful solo Beatle ever.... and John couldn't help but to retreat into the core of his soul to create pockets of musical pain so raw and beautiful in their honesty that a commercialized music industry could only shrink back in "disdain". Two musical geniuses, who together balanced each other out, creating a body of work that is nothing short of brilliant.
That's genius for you...and there's nothing better than that.