Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Andy Smith]

macca can be lazy on lyrics at times. think Dance Tonight!  

[fendertele]

macca can be lazy on lyrics at times. think Dance Tonight!  

a think he was lazy on the music department on that one aswell  

[jjs]

I don't think Paul is or was lazy lyrically or musically.  It's an accepted fact by the Beatles community that Paul is a perfectionist. Being lazy is contrary to being a perfectionist.

I have always felt that Paul's greatest strength is being able to create new, original musical ideas or concepts, and that his greatest his weakness is not being able to completely develop those musical ideas into a "finished" song.  

I think this is why the Lennon/McCartney songwriting partnership worked so well.  One's strength was the other's weakness, and vice-versa.

I use the song "Michelle" as an example. It's Paul originated. A beautiful song, original melody, an original theme. Lyrically, the verses are typical McCartney... incomplete, meandering, and pointless. The Lennon-supplied "I Love You, I Love You, I Love You, That's all I want to say." makes the point, and gives the song a strong sense of lyrical completeness. Songs that Paul writes himself almost always lack this element.

[BlueMeanie]

^^Good points. Eclecticism is what is is, I think. He's always wanted to do so many different things, but never really seems to focus 100% on any of them. It's why his lyrics wander - low boredom threshold. It also tends to lead you to do things you shouldn't sometimes. 'Give My Regards To Broad Street'? Thank god his 75% is as good, if not better, than most peoples' 100%.

[DaveRam]

It's an excellent point  " jjs " makes  BlueMeanie and a great example of Paul and John working together .

Welcome to the forum jjs (smile)

[Geoff]

I have always felt that Paul's greatest strength is being able to create new, original musical ideas or concepts, and that his greatest his weakness is not being able to completely develop those musical ideas into a "finished" song.  

He seems to need someone to sort him out or bounce ideas off of: think of that anecdote he's often told of John telling him to leave "the movement you need is on your shoulder" in "Hey Jude." Magical Mystery Tour suggests he grabs onto ideas and runs with them without really thinking them through, too. But BlueMeanie's right, and when I was listen to the radio (and this would have been as true in the sixties as it is now) I could wish that more people had Paul's 75%.

And welcome aboard, of course!  

[DaveRam]

You often get the impression Paul's like some mad artist throwing paint at a canvas , sometimes he comes up with a decent picture other times it's just  messy .
I think John and more recently Nigel Godrich were very good at getting him to focus his talent (smile)

[Geoff]

You often get the impression Paul's like some mad artist throwing paint at a canvas , sometimes he comes up with a decent picture other times it's just  messy .
I think John and more recently Nigel Godrich were very good at getting him to focus his talent (smile)

I've often wondered what Wings would have been like if Paul had kept George Martin as producer. There's an argument to be made that Paul really needed George Martin more than John Lennon in the seventies. That's not a knock on John; I think that by the end of the sixties they'd gone off in different directions and that their partnership had come to its end. But just imagine what Martin could have done for Wings, assuming that Paul was of a mind to take anyone's advice by then (perhaps a large assumption).

[Kevin]

I don't think Paul could ever have used Martin - it would have invited too many comparisons with The Beatles and he, like the others, was trying to carve out a new identity.
I think too it's a bit unfair to single Paul out as "needing someone." All their work suffered in the seventies and seems to have needed some kind of direction.

[Geoff]

I don't think Paul could ever have used Martin - it would have invited too many comparisons with The Beatles and he, like the others, was trying to carve out a new identity.

Very likely true and a bit unfortunate, I think. And I didn't mean to single out Paul - he was the subject at hand after all - and agree that all of them needed direction (or someone to push them a bit) after The Beatles.

[fendertele]

I don't think Paul is or was lazy lyrically or musically.  It's an accepted fact by the Beatles community that Paul is a perfectionist. Being lazy is contrary to being a perfectionist.

I have always felt that Paul's greatest strength is being able to create new, original musical ideas or concepts, and that his greatest his weakness is not being able to completely develop those musical ideas into a "finished" song.  

I think this is why the Lennon/McCartney songwriting partnership worked so well.  One's strength was the other's weakness, and vice-versa.

I use the song "Michelle" as an example. It's Paul originated. A beautiful song, original melody, an original theme. Lyrically, the verses are typical McCartney... incomplete, meandering, and pointless. The Lennon-supplied "I Love You, I Love You, I Love You, That's all I want to say." makes the point, and gives the song a strong sense of lyrical completeness. Songs that Paul writes himself almost always lack this element.

i agree with what youre saying but no matter how much time he put into Dance tonight or even with the help of lennon the song was destined to suck, it doesnt have anything good going for it imo.

[jjs]

I've often wondered what Wings would have been like if Paul had kept George Martin as producer. There's an argument to be made that Paul really needed George Martin more than John Lennon in the seventies. That's not a knock on John; I think that by the end of the sixties they'd gone off in different directions and that their partnership had come to its end. But just imagine what Martin could have done for Wings, assuming that Paul was of a mind to take anyone's advice by then (perhaps a large assumption).

Hello All, thanks for your nice welcome.

I've always wondered what kind of affect George Martin would have had on Wings.  

I've always been a big fan of a well-recorded, tight rhythm section. A lot of Wings Stuff has the Bass and Drums poorly EQed and way too low in the mix for my liking.  Also, I find there is often is a lack of consistency in sound from song to song (not to mention from album to album). I think a good producer could have made all the difference. I love Jack Douglas' work on John's songs on "Double Fantasy", and I think he would have worked well with Wings.

With a few exceptions, Paul jumps around from style to style and back again. No two Paul albums sound alike. Often the songs on the same album sound out of place with each other (Londontown, for example). I feel this is both a great strength and a great weakness in Paul's solo music. While it shows massive creativity and versatility, most people don't like wide jumps from genre to genre. A different producer might have helped here too, but I still think this tendency was best tempered by John and George, although they were sometimes unsuccessful in reigning Paul in.




 

[jjs]

I don't think Paul could ever have used Martin - it would have invited too many comparisons with The Beatles and he, like the others, was trying to carve out a new identity.
I think too it's a bit unfair to single Paul out as "needing someone." All their work suffered in the seventies and seems to have needed some kind of direction.

But he did...

George Martin produced "Tug of War", "Pipes of Peace" and "Give My Regards To Broad Street"

[jjs]

i agree with what youre saying but no matter how much time he put into Dance tonight or even with the help of lennon the song was destined to suck, it doesnt have anything good going for it imo.

I never said anything sucked. Why would I? That would be a bit juvenile, not to mention a thinly disguised insult to others who might like it.

Dance Tonight is what it is. I'm pretty sure that the intent was to write something simple and catchy to strum, not to compete with Penny Lane, Strawberry Fields Forever and Yesterday.  

[fendertele]

I never said anything sucked. Why would I? That would be a bit juvenile, not to mention a thinly disguised insult to others who might like it.

Dance Tonight is what it is. I'm pretty sure that the intent was to write something simple and catchy to strum, not to compete with Penny Lane, Strawberry Fields Forever and Yesterday.  

I never said you said it sucked, what i was saying is that i agree that sometimes if he has a good idea he needs someone like Lennon to bounce off of to make sure it doesnt go wrong.

But that Dance Tonight was never a good idea to start with, his intent may have been to write something thats easy to strum along to and is catchy ( Yesterday,Blackbird), but for me personally he failed this time as it may be easy to strum to but then so is a nursery rhyme.

That isn't a dig at anyone else's taste, everyone has there own opinions on here and if you're around long enough you will see we don't all like the same songs and some of us do tend to think a song or two by the Fab four does suck.

[Beatlemania31]

John

[aspinall_lover]

Hands down.............John.  If anyone could ever "play" and have a "punn" on the use of words, it was John.

[The_Beatles_90]

John Lennon for me. He has songs with the messages in my opinion. I always liked positive message and symbolic songs.

[Jane]

I think that in his solo work Paul lacked some depth in lyrics and diversity in music. He needed this pinch of salt and pepper to add to his product, which definitely John had always provided. And vice versa John needed Paul`s skills to add to his songs. Alas. I like Ram, Band on the Run, Venus and Mars. His later albums- Flaming Pie, for example, seems a bit monotonous to me.

[BlueMeanie]

Just so you know, we had two threads on the same subject started days apart, so I've merged them.