John says Fabs 'sidemen for Paul'
-
chingnchime
- Member
- Posts: 302
- Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 10:54 am
John says Fabs 'sidemen for Paul'
He should be so lucky. I don't know if John was capable of being a sideman for Paul, except for chewing gum and strumming along. There is one exception-the guitar solo Lennon did on YOU CAN'T DO THAT. Aside from that, his other efforts were compositional, which of course were sometimes brilliant 'flip side' contributions to Paul's efforts. No question they were a great writing team, but in the latest article printed on John's Beatles memories, he claimed to Rolling Stone mag that the Fabs were fed up w/ being sidemen for Paul. I expect some discussion on this...
-
jerrymac51
- New member
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2003 8:46 am
I'm amazed that the Beatles even got a record contract with a no-talent like Lennon.
If you consider the rythem part in ALL MY LOVIN' strumming, my hats off to you. I would venture to say that Lennon's guitar work is tremendously underrated, and that he set the standard for rythem guitar playing just as McFartney (I did that just to yank yer chain) set the standard for bass playing.
While Lennon's guitar work was not virtuoso, it was almost always perfect. Think of the intracate work he did on JULIA or DEAR PRUDDIE. I WANT YOU is a great example relatively simple guitar playing but it fits perfectly. I mean, Alvin Lee could have played a more complex solo with 10X the amount of notes, but I don't think it would have fit the song any better. There would have just been too many notes.
The one thing about Lennon's guitar work that should be noted is that he knew exactly what he was doing. You watch the early clips, Harrison didn't always play his solos the same way they were recorded. Someone here mentioned that about I SAW HER STANDING THERE. OTH, Lennon never took shortcuts, he always played his part the same way. Watch him playing ALL MY LOVIN' on Sullivan, he could have played it safe and played a less complex rythem part, but he's there going a 1000 miles an hour.
I believe that Lennon worked harder because he felt he wasn't as good a guitarist as the others. He learned his parts and practiced them until he had it perfected. Harrision, OTH, was more of an improvisor and would play something different every take and then choose the take he liked best (LET IT BE for example). If my take is right, Lennon would actually make the BETTER side-man.
Having exhausted the guitar playing issue, You mention nothing about Lennon's ability to do back-up vocals for McFartney (Oooops, I did it again). So besides strummin' & chewin', back-up vocals would be a good qualification for a sideman. As I recall, John & Paul were pretty successful backing each other up.
But most important, Lennon is the only person with enough stature to tell McCartney (got it right this time) not to do ******* like MARY HAD A LITTLE LAMB.
But anyway, disregard everything I just said 'cos it doesn't matter. Lenno was speaking figuatively, not literally. Sir Paulie always had this complex about Lennon being the leader, the genius, the intelligent Beatle. Paulie wanted to show the world HE was the talent, and the movie LET IT BE was his vehicle. John was losing interest, on the sideline in a cast, more interested in Yoko than the Beatles. The ugliness really manifested itself with Paulie berating George's guitar playing in I GOT A FEELING and George responding by saying I'll play what you want me to play or I won't play if you don't want me to play. Paul was behaving badly in front of the cameras (and by extension in front of the whole world) and John wasn't there (in spirit) to reign him in. George bought Billy Preston in hoping that people would be on their best behaviour in front of him, and it worked. If George hadn't bought Preston in, the Beatles might have imploded right then & there on film.
What John was saying that the was no more working together at the end, it was Paul telling the other three what to do. Part of the blame 25% goes to Lennon for abdicating his role in the band (as stated before he was the only one with stature enough to stand up to Paulie), 25% of the blame also goes to Lennon for dragging Yoko into the studio, and 50% of the blame goes to Paul because he did act like a jerk. Paul knew the band was on it's last legs, and he was using the film to promote himself at the others expense.
Anyway, that's my opinion for what it's worth.
jerrymac (with the help of)
Emperor Joseph II
Don McLean
Stephen Stills
If you consider the rythem part in ALL MY LOVIN' strumming, my hats off to you. I would venture to say that Lennon's guitar work is tremendously underrated, and that he set the standard for rythem guitar playing just as McFartney (I did that just to yank yer chain) set the standard for bass playing.
While Lennon's guitar work was not virtuoso, it was almost always perfect. Think of the intracate work he did on JULIA or DEAR PRUDDIE. I WANT YOU is a great example relatively simple guitar playing but it fits perfectly. I mean, Alvin Lee could have played a more complex solo with 10X the amount of notes, but I don't think it would have fit the song any better. There would have just been too many notes.
The one thing about Lennon's guitar work that should be noted is that he knew exactly what he was doing. You watch the early clips, Harrison didn't always play his solos the same way they were recorded. Someone here mentioned that about I SAW HER STANDING THERE. OTH, Lennon never took shortcuts, he always played his part the same way. Watch him playing ALL MY LOVIN' on Sullivan, he could have played it safe and played a less complex rythem part, but he's there going a 1000 miles an hour.
I believe that Lennon worked harder because he felt he wasn't as good a guitarist as the others. He learned his parts and practiced them until he had it perfected. Harrision, OTH, was more of an improvisor and would play something different every take and then choose the take he liked best (LET IT BE for example). If my take is right, Lennon would actually make the BETTER side-man.
Having exhausted the guitar playing issue, You mention nothing about Lennon's ability to do back-up vocals for McFartney (Oooops, I did it again). So besides strummin' & chewin', back-up vocals would be a good qualification for a sideman. As I recall, John & Paul were pretty successful backing each other up.
But most important, Lennon is the only person with enough stature to tell McCartney (got it right this time) not to do ******* like MARY HAD A LITTLE LAMB.
But anyway, disregard everything I just said 'cos it doesn't matter. Lenno was speaking figuatively, not literally. Sir Paulie always had this complex about Lennon being the leader, the genius, the intelligent Beatle. Paulie wanted to show the world HE was the talent, and the movie LET IT BE was his vehicle. John was losing interest, on the sideline in a cast, more interested in Yoko than the Beatles. The ugliness really manifested itself with Paulie berating George's guitar playing in I GOT A FEELING and George responding by saying I'll play what you want me to play or I won't play if you don't want me to play. Paul was behaving badly in front of the cameras (and by extension in front of the whole world) and John wasn't there (in spirit) to reign him in. George bought Billy Preston in hoping that people would be on their best behaviour in front of him, and it worked. If George hadn't bought Preston in, the Beatles might have imploded right then & there on film.
What John was saying that the was no more working together at the end, it was Paul telling the other three what to do. Part of the blame 25% goes to Lennon for abdicating his role in the band (as stated before he was the only one with stature enough to stand up to Paulie), 25% of the blame also goes to Lennon for dragging Yoko into the studio, and 50% of the blame goes to Paul because he did act like a jerk. Paul knew the band was on it's last legs, and he was using the film to promote himself at the others expense.
Anyway, that's my opinion for what it's worth.
jerrymac (with the help of)
Emperor Joseph II
Don McLean
Stephen Stills
I always thought Paul McCartney got a really bad, and undeserved, rap for being "pushy" after Brian Epstein died. It seems like he was the only one who was the least bit interested in actually creating new music or new records. George was "navel gazing", John was indifferent and Ringo was, well, Ringo - no more or less a creative force than he'd been before.
If left up to John, would we have had Revolution 10, 12 and 47 in addition to number 9?
When no one else is interested in leading (as seems to be the case) it's hard to blame the one person who does want to lead the way. As for George and Let It Be - I always thought he came across as "pouty" with his whatever pleases you comment. I mean, be fair. Paul was the only one that seemed interested in ANYTHING at that point.
What I would like to have seen happen, if I had my trusty time machine, would have been for each of them to go away and do a solo album - get The Beatles restrictions out of their system - and then come back together.
On the other hand, as John said, we've still got the records.
If left up to John, would we have had Revolution 10, 12 and 47 in addition to number 9?
When no one else is interested in leading (as seems to be the case) it's hard to blame the one person who does want to lead the way. As for George and Let It Be - I always thought he came across as "pouty" with his whatever pleases you comment. I mean, be fair. Paul was the only one that seemed interested in ANYTHING at that point.
What I would like to have seen happen, if I had my trusty time machine, would have been for each of them to go away and do a solo album - get The Beatles restrictions out of their system - and then come back together.
On the other hand, as John said, we've still got the records.
-
jerrymac51
- New member
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2003 8:46 am
>>>Alvin Lee could have played a more complex solo with 10X the amount of notes, but I don't think it would have fit the song any better. There would have just been too many notes.
yup, well said. I've NEVER been impressed by lightning fast leads.... instead of playing something that fits into the song (like the Beatles always did) some guitarists are just hell bent on trying to impress people with their fast fingers. To hell with that.... someone like Clapton or BB King will play 1/1000th the amount of notes but these are the leads you will remember, not those speed-metal circus acts.
yup, well said. I've NEVER been impressed by lightning fast leads.... instead of playing something that fits into the song (like the Beatles always did) some guitarists are just hell bent on trying to impress people with their fast fingers. To hell with that.... someone like Clapton or BB King will play 1/1000th the amount of notes but these are the leads you will remember, not those speed-metal circus acts.
“The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it.” ....H. L. Mencken
-
chingnchime
- Member
- Posts: 302
- Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 10:54 am
Dear fairymac ( I did that just to yank yer chain)Yes, John played his rhythm (note the correct spelling)parts satisfactorily,though i don't think he did anything McCartney or Harrison couldn't do.
I agree w/ Harley that Paul has been somewhat unjustly painted as the bad guy. People always bring up his misbehaving in LET IT BE, but next time you watch it, notice that Paul is actually pretty subtle, almost whispering his directives to George. What happened behind the scenes nobody knows- he could've been a raging as*hole, or somebody that was just trying to hold his 'family' together.
I agree w/ Harley that Paul has been somewhat unjustly painted as the bad guy. People always bring up his misbehaving in LET IT BE, but next time you watch it, notice that Paul is actually pretty subtle, almost whispering his directives to George. What happened behind the scenes nobody knows- he could've been a raging as*hole, or somebody that was just trying to hold his 'family' together.
-
studiotwosession
- Advanced Member
- Posts: 2215
- Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 1:36 pm
>>his other efforts were compositional<< Well, there are the leads in Get Back. The bass on Helter Skelter. The lead in Honey Pie, which Macca himself said no one could have done better. Plus as been said, the rhythm work in All My Lovin'. As for the great finger picking on the White Album songs mentioned above, that is John, too. Though Paul has said Donovan taught him that whilst they were in India. As a guitarist, Donovan is underrated as well.
This is off the record
They (The Beatles) were all great musicians in their own way, with their own influences..but talk about the whole being more than the sum of it's parts is right on when it comes to the Beatles! BTW, I saw Donovan last night in Portland (front row) of a 500 seat theatre. What s showman! He's still got that (so recognizable from "Hail Atlantis")voice! Try to catch his show if you get a chance.
I think the "Obla-Di-Obla_da" anecdote sums up Lennon's talent and contributions to the Beatles very well:
Macca and George Martin had spent hours and hours trying to come up with an intro to the song, with no satisfactory results. Suddenly Lennon barges into the studio, somewhat drunkenly. He hears the playback of the song they are working on..."Wot's this piece of **** you are working on, then?" They explain they are having no luck coming up with an intro. Lennon sits down at the piano and says "here's the f**king intro!" and out of nowhere pounds on the piano the opening phrase of the song...it was perfect, and they used it!
Macca and George Martin had spent hours and hours trying to come up with an intro to the song, with no satisfactory results. Suddenly Lennon barges into the studio, somewhat drunkenly. He hears the playback of the song they are working on..."Wot's this piece of **** you are working on, then?" They explain they are having no luck coming up with an intro. Lennon sits down at the piano and says "here's the f**king intro!" and out of nowhere pounds on the piano the opening phrase of the song...it was perfect, and they used it!
I get sooo tired of people trotting out that part of "Let It Be" where George says "i'll play what you want or won't play at all" etc, as proof of the rancor between them all. Look at the footage...Paul calmly is suggesting to George a part he hears in his head, and George calmly but firmly says his famous lines. People make as if they were about to start *****-slapping eachother....gimme a break. They were all cranky and tired, not in their usual environment, playing early in the morning (musicians almost always prefer playing at night)... sure there were some deep-seated resentments, but people just like to imagine every slight or frown holds some deep meaning to the breakup... anyone who's ever been in a band will tell you this kind of petty sniping is part and parcel of the job. George's main thing was that he'd been playing and hanging out with Dylan and The Band, in an organic, loose creative environment, and it bummed him out to be back with the Beatles and their old patterns, and being told what to play...not exactly earth-shattering deep psychological stuff. Paul had to be a bit overbearing to make up for the inevitable indifference that started to show...but that was nothing new either. He was the impetus for Sgt. Pepper and MM Tour... Lennon was complaining about "Paul saying...OK, fellows, we're going to start recording a new album, and I had to suddenly write a stack of songs...." that right there shows you the lack of motivation that crept in the band much earlier. George was deeply into his Indian stuff at the time too.. the band could easily have fizzled out much earlier if Paul hadn't took on the cheerleading role. People put way too much weight on Paul's controlling personality as a factor that broke them up...mainly because John and George slagged him badly in interviews at the time....but that was mostly just exaggerated purging, IMO...who doesn't say bad stuff when they are ****** off, and then regret it later? I think any resentments that lingered on thru the 70's and beyond were due to continuing business disagreements...these guys still had to deal with eachother, after all, even after the break-up.
To say that John was really suited to be nothing more than a sideman because his guitar playing was poor is revisionist and historically incorrect. John and Paul as much as I dislike Maccas phony I'm a showman banter, needed each other and they were a catalyst to each others compositions, especially in the early days of their career. Don't forget, in those early days, Lennons simple motivational speeches spurred them to greatness.
John: "Where are we going lads? All: "To the top"
No early Beatle success, no White Album etc and also no McCartney self indulgent solo album like his current offering.
I confess once again. I am not a Macca fan.
John: "Where are we going lads? All: "To the top"
No early Beatle success, no White Album etc and also no McCartney self indulgent solo album like his current offering.
I confess once again. I am not a Macca fan.
“We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” - Albert Einstein
"You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother" - Albert Einstein
"You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother" - Albert Einstein
Well fellas I think we have to face the fact that the image we got of the Beatles via Brian was not the real thing.
We saw four guys who dressed in nice suits and who talked politely to each other and probably helped little old ladies across the street.
In reality they were somewhat arugementive but almost knew all of the time that it was like and agrumentive married couple and was in fun.
We can take comments out of context such as John saying when George says how do you want this part played and John says picture the fingers going.
If this had a been real personal attacks most of them would have been missing a few teeth by then. Some people have and odd sense of humor and Brian simply covered it all up to make the well dressed and mannered lads. We heard little sippents of stage banter but thats as far as we got to go.
This goes way back. Listen to the backup on Paperback Writer. They had fun sometimes, the fun got outa hand, and Brian would cut those things. Once Brian was gone the only thing that stopped them from carrying on with each other was the presence of some out side vistor.
Like Clapton or Preston. Then they were the Beatles in the suits again. But it was still those unsuited guys who created their sound in the first place. A bit of the outrageous rock and rollers.
We saw four guys who dressed in nice suits and who talked politely to each other and probably helped little old ladies across the street.
In reality they were somewhat arugementive but almost knew all of the time that it was like and agrumentive married couple and was in fun.
We can take comments out of context such as John saying when George says how do you want this part played and John says picture the fingers going.
If this had a been real personal attacks most of them would have been missing a few teeth by then. Some people have and odd sense of humor and Brian simply covered it all up to make the well dressed and mannered lads. We heard little sippents of stage banter but thats as far as we got to go.
This goes way back. Listen to the backup on Paperback Writer. They had fun sometimes, the fun got outa hand, and Brian would cut those things. Once Brian was gone the only thing that stopped them from carrying on with each other was the presence of some out side vistor.
Like Clapton or Preston. Then they were the Beatles in the suits again. But it was still those unsuited guys who created their sound in the first place. A bit of the outrageous rock and rollers.