Im currently in an argument with a friend of mine in school.  We were talking about the Beatles and what he said really made no sense to me, I really couldnt believe someone would really say this, it really came to me as a surprise.

I usually try to look at everything with a bit of open mindedness but this was totally wrong.  What he was saying was that Paul McCartney held the Beatles back from their real potential and what they could've achieved if he hadnt been holding John and George back.(Ringo, he says, doesn't really count)

I said,"You couldn't be more wrong, in actuality, he was trying to push them to their best potential."

This is a thing that got me a bit, but I want you guys to assure me that Im right about what I know
Im 99.9% on this that hes wrong but what he said as proof that he was a setback was that Paul McCartney, the man himself, was quoted as saying that if the Beatles continued going on the path of avant garde and weird psychadelic music, he would quit the Beatles and go solo. That's why on the White Album they went back to their somewhat regular music.What!?

Then he went on bashing the musician himself as going solo that he was never really even that good and that the only reason he was ever popular was that he had the Beatles' past on him. Also He said that he never went anywhere different with his music after the Beatles and that he continued to write the same type of music.  

What I was saying was that if he was never that good then why did he sell so good?  He is a really big John Lennon fan (as I am, Im probably a biger John fan than Paul) and was saying that John was the mastermind of everything that the Beatles did weird.
Not true, actually wuite the opposite

Then i went to say that John wasnt all very popular after the Beatles, and I kind of said(which I pretty much believed) that a lot of John's music,not all, after the Beatles was kind of crappy.
  He said that its because im not open to his kind of music, but really Im into that kind of music that was says something meaningful.  In my opinion his music was sub par and the 70s record buyers would agree.

So then why was Paul more popular than John? because John was more avant garde and people are too stupid to appreciate his music, says he.
But, in actuality, Ive yet to hear a "weird" or "psychadelic" song from John after the beatles or at least not one comes to mind, and when I think of Pauls music, the I Can See weirder, crazier music than Johns solo stuff, so really, its alleally the opposite.

What do you guys think? Do You think he has a point?
Do You know if that quote is real?
Comment please

Quoted from Beatles

Im currently in an argument with a friend of mine in school.  We were talking about the Beatles and what he said really made no sense to me, I really couldnt believe someone would really say this, it really came to me as a surprise.

I usually try to look at everything with a bit of open mindedness but this was totally wrong.  What he was saying was that Paul McCartney held the Beatles back from their real potential and what they could've achieved if he hadnt been holding John and George back.(Ringo, he says, doesn't really count)

Held them back from their real potential? From what they could have achieved?? What potential would that be? What else could they possibly have achieved????? Good Lord. That just makes no sense.

Quoted from Sandra

Held them back from their real potential? From what they could have achieved?? What potential would that be? What else could they possibly have achieved????? Good Lord. That just makes no sense.

He meant that they couldve pushed the borders 0f psychadelia, and that George Harrison wanted to also then pursue more intricate guitar songs, and that paul was not letting him   Which is kind of untrue I think because he didnt pursue it all very much on his solo albums.

I think they explored psychedelia enough. They didn't need to become another Pink Floyd or Grateful Dead. They explored many genres and that's what made them great. They pushed the envelope in so many areas because they were all open to each others ideas. Including Paul. Plus they were mainly a pure, straight up rock and roll band. That's what they did best. They pushed themselves as far as they thought was necessary. I think if George had come up with something really outstanding in that area Paul would have been first on board to explore it. There's a misconception that he was some sort of ogre in the studio. He knew what he wanted on HIS stuff and could be demanding, but I don't think he impeded the others ability to express themselves. If they really believed in what they were doing I'm sure they would be just as forceful as Paul in getting it done.

Paul did'nt have that much power to hold them back . I think their musical output shows that  they were still very creative at the end , " Abbey Road " is full of invention and a lot of that is down to Paul.

Quoted from Beatles

I usually try to look at everything with a bit of open mindedness but this was totally wrong.  What he was saying was that Paul McCartney held the Beatles back from their real potential and what they could've achieved if he hadnt been holding John and George back.(Ringo, he says, doesn't really count)

Holding John back? My lord, I cant even imagine that. John was no pushover. George did have some songs that probably should have been recorded ('All Things Must Pass' album proves that), but what are you going to do. In light of the success of 'ATMP', the songs arent that diverse from each other that indicated George was heading to left field with his music. Regardless, George might have a small case for himself.

Quoted Text

This is a thing that got me a bit, but I want you guys to assure me that Im right about what I know
Im 99.9% on this that hes wrong but what he said as proof that he was a setback was that Paul McCartney, the man himself, was quoted as saying that if the Beatles continued going on the path of avant garde and weird psychadelic music, he would quit the Beatles and go solo. That's why on the White Album they went back to their somewhat regular music.What!?

Thats wrong. Paul did his best to hold that band together for years. Hell, John would have been happy to quit in 65' and he got so lazy later on that the band wouldnt have accomplished anything if Paul hadent been the slave driver that he was.

As for the White Album, most of the tunes were written seperately anyways and if there was ever an album that had diversity going for it, it would be the White Album. Sit down and see how many different types of music is present on that record. Classical, pop, rock, ragtime, psychedelic, raggae, etc,,,,. nobody was going to quit just because somebody wrote songs in a certain style.

Quoted Text

Then he went on bashing the musician himself as going solo that he was never really even that good and that the only reason he was ever popular was that he had the Beatles' past on him.

Then your friend is foolish.

Quoted Text

Also He said that he never went anywhere different with his music after the Beatles and that he continued to write the same type of music.

Dont get me started on Pauls solo career. Your buddy doesnt have the slightest clue as to what he's blabbing about.

Quoted Text

Then i went to say that John wasnt all very popular after the Beatles, and I kind of said(which I pretty much believed) that a lot of John's music,not all, after the Beatles was kind of crappy.

Well, you would be partially wrong in this statement. John was one of the most popular people on the planet even when he did take his break from recording. As for his music,,,thats subjective.

Quoted Text

In my opinion his music was sub par and the 70s record buyers would agree.

So your saying 'Plastic Ono Band', 'Imagine', 'Mind Games', and 'Walls and Bridges' were subpar? I really dont know what to say to this, but please dont include the rest of the population in your statement. Those are 4 great albums that are pretty much agreed upon by music fans all over the world.

Quoted Text

So then why was Paul more popular than John? because John was more avant garde and people are too stupid to appreciate his music, says he.

Because Paul kissed public a** forever and still does. He plays the boyscout role well. Also, John is more popular now anyways due to his death.

Quoted Text

But, in actuality, Ive yet to hear a "weird" or "psychadelic" song from John after the beatles or at least not one comes to mind, and when I think of Pauls music, the I Can See weirder, crazier music than Johns solo stuff, so really, its alleally the opposite.

Its all in what you like. There's no need to sit here and lsit tunes. Listen to them and enjoy. If you dont like it, move on to something else. I love Pauls solo stuff, but think 'McCartney 2' is some of the worst mess ever made. Some people like it though (not sure how).

Quoted Text

Do You know if that quote is real?
Comment please

I'd say no. Tell him to produce the source or call him a liar.

It sounds like your friend who is a "John is god and Paul is crap" fan. They usually never have their facts correct. If you guys talk about the beatles a lot in school and all he says is that crap then you should probably stop hanging out with him.

Quoted from tkitna

So your saying 'Plastic Ono Band', 'Imagine', 'Mind Games', and 'Walls and Bridges' were subpar? I really dont know what to say to this, but please dont include the rest of the population in your statement. Those are 4 great albums that are pretty much agreed upon by music fans all over the world.

You do make a good point, but the reason that I said that,(and still believe it, though  you could always prove me wrong) is that at that point it became John vs. Paul for me and my buddy, so I guess Im at fault for even mentioning what I think.
What I meant about the 70s record buying public was the fact that John only had one Platinum album(imagine), and If you count Double Fantasy as platinum then its 2(the reason that I say that is that it may have become platinum  after he died,'course I could be wrong!) and Paul had much better selling albums.  out of The albums that you said I  like them  and Imagine is a masterpiece, and Ive listened to them quite a bit, yet for me it really doesn't make it I try but I cant get much into it
and record buyers bought more of Pauls than Johns, he had more platinum, which was basically the point.

Anyways that part of my  firstpost shouldnt've even been included and thats diverting from the subject anyways.
( Im almost sure of the stats I said, but Of course feel free to check yourself if Im actually right, because Ive been wrong about many things before! )
And for the record, Im more of a John fan than a Paul fan, even though his solo stuff is better than Johns in my opinion.

Your friend has two choices.  Either  John was such a gutless, weak willed, easily led wimp that he would do whatever the Monster Paul McCArtney would tell him to - and later on his wife (so much for the John-as-outspoken-hero legend) and he's right or his assertions are wrong.
His choice really.

Quoted from Kevin

Your friend has two choices.  Either  John was such a gutless, weak willed, easily led wimp that he would do whatever the Monster Paul McCArtney would tell him to - and later on his wife (so much for the John-as-outspoken-hero legend) and he's right or his assertions are wrong.
His choice really.

Ah, the return of the good balanced argument. I've missed these little chats!!

Quoted from Kevin

Your friend has two choices.  Either  John was such a gutless, weak willed, easily led wimp that he would do whatever the Monster Paul McCArtney would tell him to - and later on his wife (so much for the John-as-outspoken-hero legend) and he's right or his assertions are wrong.
His choice really.

Well...either you're kidding or you are quite wrong in my opinion.

how could Paul have held them back??? They reached farther than anyone ever had done before! They practically went as far as there is! If Paul held them back, how did they do that? Your friend obviously doesnt know the full story

Quoted from Beatles

Well...either you're kidding or you are quite wrong in my opinion.

Another failed attempt at irony.
John and George had plenty of room for avante garde on their solo projects. What would you rather listern to; Two Virgins, Wonderwall or the White Album? Paul made his own tapes, he just had the good sense not to release them.
And the White Album was a return to more earthy rock because that was the general trend of the day. anbd that was always The Beatles genius - reflecting the mood of the moment.

Quoted from Beatles

You do make a good point, but the reason that I said that,(and still believe it, though  you could always prove me wrong) is that at that point it became John vs. Paul for me and my buddy, so I guess Im at fault for even mentioning what I think.
What I meant about the 70s record buying public was the fact that John only had one Platinum album(imagine), and If you count Double Fantasy as platinum then its 2(the reason that I say that is that it may have become platinum  after he died,'course I could be wrong!) and Paul had much better selling albums.  out of The albums that you said I  like them  and Imagine is a masterpiece, and Ive listened to them quite a bit, yet for me it really doesn't make it I try but I cant get much into it
and record buyers bought more of Pauls than Johns, he had more platinum, which was basically the point.

Anyways that part of my  firstpost shouldnt've even been included and thats diverting from the subject anyways.
( Im almost sure of the stats I said, but Of course feel free to check yourself if Im actually right, because Ive been wrong about many things before! )
And for the record, Im more of a John fan than a Paul fan, even though his solo stuff is better than Johns in my opinion.

Everybodys opinion in music is different. I hope I didnt offend by my prior post.

Anyways, it kind of makes sense that Paul had more commercial success than John as Paul wrote a lot of pop tunes. John always seemed deeper and more depressed in his music to me (which isnt a bad thing).