>>He was considerably more artistically experimental, or avant-garde if you want to use a euphemism, than a certain writing partner of his was in the mid-1960's. Aside from John's relatively short flirtation with avant-garde art (Revolution 9, Mary Jane, a few homemade records and movies) Paul's affair with the unusual has just carried over a few decades. <<
Macca has put forth this propaganda for years, perhaps because a certain writing partner of his, despite his house in the suburbs, conceived Strawberry Fields Forever, I am the Walrus, Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, and Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite.
Except Paul didn't write Medicine Jar. But if you look at Letting Go from the same album then I agree with you. For you McCartney fans who like McCartney II I would submit that it was an experimental album. He did a lot of things he had never done before.
What Paul has said about his own avantness of the mid-late 60's rings true IMO. I don't think John had a specific psychedelic vision for those songs from the outset-- sure, he took a lot of acid, but those songs just turned out that way they did with Paul and George Martin's input-- it's not exactly a productive drug. And Paul was more appreciative of what Syd Barrett and the Floyd were doing in the neighboring Abbey Road studio that John was, by all accounts. Strawberry Fields was originally just voice and guitar, and Lennon wasn't sure what direction to even take the song in prior to the overdubs, splicing, etc.-- and Paul contributed the cool mellotron part to boot (I have to think the SF video/film was more Paul too, since John wasn't into avant film then). John in 1980 said he wasn't happy with SF and wanted to re-record it, and he probably wouldn't have said that if the original version was what he heard in his head when he wrote the song (He compared it to Elton John's 'Your Song", and I think he didn't even intend for it to be a psycedelic extravaganza, but more of a personal, intimate song/confession.) Walrus was just a electric piano and voice demo before George Martin did all the wild overdubs. Mr. Kite was dismissed as garbage by John for most of the 70's, although he did originally give instructions for Martin to do his magic and make it sound like a genuine old circus-- not exactly avant, more of a vague request on John's part. John also said in a late interview he heard Lucy on the radio and he thought it sounded terrible. Many of the Beatle books say John complained that Paul was overly experimental with the songs John brought to the table during that period, and he somewhat resented that Paul was more 'careful' with his own songs. I also think Paul deserves a lot more credit for how Tomorrow Never Knows turned out (he suppled most of the tape loops he made at home). So, while I agree that these songs are Beatle highlights, it seems to me that that may be the case almost despite John's intentions. It doesn't seem like John really gave much of a whit about avantness for avantness' sake prior to Yoko's influence. Yes, Paul was against "Revolution 9" being on the white album, but I think that's mostly because he felt there were better songs that could have taken it's place (I agree), not that it was too wacky for his tastes. I think Paul simply felt that the more experimental stuff (tape loops, film, etc.) was a fun hobby but it didn't warrant being released as Beatle or Wings material. (He did make a new age album a few years back, I think, and he's done orchestral stuff, and I can't imagine John trying his hand at that)
Right on Jojo, "Carnival of Light" or some such title is the avant garde piece Mac did a year before Lennon got into the same stuff. I too have read J.L. bashing Paul and the others for experimenting on his (J.L.'s) pieces. Lennon said Macca "sabotaged" Strawberry Fields.
Someone sabotage one of my tunes that well, please!
While Lennon was "stuck" in the suburbs with Cynthia, Mac was man about town, fully taking advantage of his pop star status and hanging with some arty folks. I think Lennon was feeling sour grapes about this, so when he found Yoko, embraced and overindulged in the wacko artist thing to compensate.
Macca didn't call the press to witness his involvement in every little thing, didn't grow a beard and protest the war on TV, didn't write the song "John Sinclair", so the "propaganda" he put out might have been him feeling a little ovelooked and unrecognized for a side of him people didn't know existed.
Lennon had been called the arty, intellectual Beatle, and for a period in the mid '60's, Mac seemed to have taken that title from him. probably P.O.'d arty intellectual John.
As for propaganda, Johnandyoko get first prize. Most of J.L.'s post-Beatle interviews are Beatle (Macca)bashing affairs, his spin, which changed often it seems. A lot of people buy into the "John was the artist of the band" line.
It continues, Yoko and Elliot Mintz have a lot at stake keeping the stories alive, subtly molding the image of Lennon.
All interesting reads here. I am more partial to Lennon, but he has always come across as a very insecure individual to me. Insecure people, while introverted, often have a 'loud' extraverted side to them, thus you got some of Lennon's antics. Quite the opposite of McCartney. Lennon's insecurity often showed in his music, I'm A Loser, Help, Julia, and others. I think John often wanted to be someone else, a political activist, an artist, Bob Dylan and maybe even McCartney on occasion. He went through phases. He was reclusive, moody, occasionally jealous, often at a loss, but still very creative. I don't think he was ever satisfied with his work though, which is why he was always saying he disliked this song or that song he had done. I think this stayed with him except maybe towards the end of his life. Just my two centavos.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Music is too important to be left to professionals.
These are great posts. I agree that McCartney gets overly bashed for being too "straight" and is underappreciated for his experimentalism, unbridled musicality, and his ability to rock hard.
But I wouldn't go so far as to minimize Lennon's wild imagination and songwriting genius. From all I've read, Paul would not do so, either. Paul often comments about John's ability to pull the most amazing ideas out of left field, especially in a collaborative songwriting situation. Check out "We Can Work It Out" as an example--John's middle eight turned a great tune into a legendary one. I think Paul mentioned that John was "no slouch" when it came to songwriting.
They kept each other on their toes, that's for sure. They loved each other, but they were also jealous of each other and deeply competitive. Whenever one of them pulled off a brilliant one, the other followed suit immediately. And we all know that when they separated, their Special Powers declined...
I'm not sure if it matters who started what first, but the end result is what it is. John will always be seen as the avant-garde artist and Paul will always be seen as the straight and sweet composer. What strikes me is how they influenced each other in all aspects of life. Would John had gone off in that direction and taken it to the extreme that he had if Paul had not stuck his toe in first? Who knows. I think all of this is a good example of how in tune these two really were with each other. Perhaps we will never see a two composers like this again. Never say never, but I think it is unlikely.
I don't mean to hijack the already hijacked topic, but... I think Strawberry Fields Forever is an interesting example of John's insecurities, and how difficult and diffuse his artistic process could be.
The first take is pretty spare as an arrangement, wistful, and similar in tone some tracks on Revolver, such as Here There and Everywhere. John wasn't happy with what he heard, and wanted to try again.
The seventh take (and the basis for the first half of the single) is much fuller, but still not far removed from the Revolver sound. It's still a 'band' arrangement, with the addition of the Mellotron. John still wasn't happy with it.
Of course, the re-remake, with the cellos and the trumpets, is quite a bit more baroque and has little-to-no 'band' sound to it. John wasn't happy with this one, either.
John eventually suggested joining the two, and the rest is history. What's interesting is that he would later complain that the arrangement of SFF (and Lucy and Walrus, etc) was taken way out of hand, that it lost the feeling he was looking for, etc, when he himself seemed to desire and request further work and more complex arrangements. And then to turn around and blame Paul and George Martin, when all they were doing was trying to help someone who was apparently incapable of expressing his own artistic wishes.... well, that would be frustrating. He was also to later complain that his songs never got as much studio time as Paul's, and yet he never seemed inclined to ask for it, and when he did he blamed the result on someone else.
The bottom line is, as a song, Strawberry Fields Forever is genius. The arrangements of each version are wonderful in their own way. It's too bad John couldn't see that 1) Paul and George M. weren't trying to sabotage his vision, they were trying to help, and that 2) his songs were good enough to transcend the arrangement anyway.
But anyway, I like meyesight.com and I like Paul, and Wings, and McCartney II, and I think he was the Beatle most open-minded to different artistic approaches.
I think John's 1980 comments about wanting to re-do SFF mostly arose out of him playing around with a then-cutting edge synthesizer and marvelling over the sounds it could produce, and saying this was what he originally imagined for the song. Like a typical artist, he never really had much praise for his past work, always thinking his newest project was the real deal. Back in yuppie-infested 1980, the psychedelic era of the sixties was still rather an embarassment for people of that age group, and that may account in part for his general poo-pooing of Pepper-era material. John's late interviews betray his insecurity at being perceived as un-hip...an insecurity Paul may have been spared by his sheer popularity at that time.
I'm more partial to Lennon's compositions myself, but as mentioned by many, IMO it was the competitive dynamic between McCartney and Lennon that fueled their best efforts.
Lennon was a soul searcher, far more discontent. He had a lot of demons, probably more than McCartney. When he sang "Don't Let Me Down", you really could feel his pain and insecurity. That was Lennon's best quality - his ability to show his insecurity. He showed that "self -admission" early on in songs like "Help" but it was a big element of his songwriting from the White Album through Plastic Ono Band. Lennon blues.
McCartney on the otherhand, was/is undeniably talented and adventuresome is his own right. I think he's just a happier person and his songs reflect that. But the downside, for me, is that McCartney's usually don't "move" me as much because generally they lack the "hurt" that is the heart of so many Lennon compositions.
<< 
