• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Letter from Lennon to McCartney surfaces, and it's not pleasant at all.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sorcerer

Member
I've always disliked Paul, and this further cements that. He was always in it for the fame and the money, not for making art. When both John and George did solo works, it was clear that the real songwriting talent was in those two.

Regarding Paul, Sgt. Pepper disagrees with you.

As for those saying Ringo was as flashy and bombastic as George and Paul, lol. Its hard to be flashy and bombastic when you hardly wrote any songs. Not taking away from Ringo's talent, just saying.
Ringo was the dude who stepped into shit and rode it out. Remember he sort of quit during the White album because of insecurities and had to be called back.
 
I don't feel the need to take sides. The Beatles wouldn't have been the Beatles without any of the ingredients that made them what they were. The chemistry that existed because of their individual strengths AND flaws that brought their music to life was a singular event.
 
S

Steve.1981

Unconfirmed Member
This letter isn't really a surprise, they were childhood friends who conquered the world and literally lived in each other's pockets for the best part of a decade. It was inevitable that they would end up sick of the sight of each other, and that when the break-up came there would be nasty words spoken.

Lennon was notoriously awkward, sarcastic and even cruel to those closest to him. And he always considered himself the leader of the group, without actually wanting the hassle involved with the role.

Paul was sure of himself and what he wanted or needed to do, to the extent that he barely hesitated to sue the other 3 rather than have anything to do with Allen Klein (whose bullshit he saw through instantly). And he genuinely (through actions, not words) took on the leadership of the group after Brian Epstein died.

So yeah, they both had harsh words for each other for a good while after the fall-out. The way only people who were the best of friends can. The good news is that they made their peace with each other eventually.

As to who was the best; it's almost pointless to argue, they were all brilliant together, created magic and all missed each other's input when they went their separate ways.
 

JABEE

Member
While Lennon wasn't exactly a saint, I can forgive the tone of this letter seeing as it was written on the heels of an ugly breakup, with the need to defend his own lover, yet still ended it with a gesture of love towards both Paul & Linda.

Context is everything, people. And no one is perfect.
Also, Paul McCartney trying to bring in his future father-in-law as the new manager of the Beatles.
 
I don't feel the need to take sides. The Beatles wouldn't have been the Beatles without any of the ingredients that made them what they were. The chemistry that existed because of their individual strengths AND flaws that brought their music to life was a singular event.

yes, definitely, there was an alchemy there that turned even shit to gold.

I've always disliked Paul, and this further cements that. He was always in it for the fame and the money, not for making art. When both John and George did solo works, it was clear that the real songwriting talent was in those two.

i think Paul loved doing it for the work, he had a very strong work ethic, and thus was very demanding of the others. without this kind of controlling element they would have broken up in 1966 after touring. "Revolver" would be the last album, no "Sgt. Pepper", no "Strawberry Fields". Paul was instrumental in directing both those projects as well as other multimedia brand experiments (culminating in Apple records and spin off experimental media investments like "El Topo" and Yoko Ono's Beatles-DLC music career).

John came up with the band and the name and wrote most of the songs that got them big. then after the British Invasion and years of touring he got disillusioned with fame and pretty much quit the band mentally at that point. which is cool, his art got even crazier and more mind-expanding, but it also got very self indulgent at points, and a lot of people seem to object to that. i don't think John was a hypocrite. the criticism that he was singing about world peace and no possessions while being super rich is not very interesting and sort of like accusing Occupy Wall Street protesters for using iPhones. it does not matter how much money you have if you are in favor of peace. this is a good message, no? pretty cool that him and Yoko were a kind of media publicity stunt power couple a la maybe Kim and Kanye except the message being PEACE. rarely do pop stars focus on an anti-war message these days...

Regarding Paul, Sgt. Pepper disagrees with you.

As for those saying Ringo was as flashy and bombastic as George and Paul, lol. Its hard to be flashy and bombastic when you hardly wrote any songs. Not taking away from Ringo's talent, just saying.
Ringo was the dude who stepped into shit and rode it out. Remember he sort of quit during the White album because of insecurities and had to be called back.

Ringo was great because he was the most modest. he was the downtrodden, the loser, famously self-outcast in an emo starring sequence in A Hard Days Night. he was the oldest one in the band, and the one with the most disadvantaged upbringing (next to George, the two leads went to art school (Rolling Stones, The Who, David Byrne, Roxy Music)). Ringo's unpretentious-ness makes him just say "Oh we jammed it out!" to anything, whether it be Chuck Berry and Motown covers or a no-wave Yoko Ono motorik noise jam. Ringo is always dependable. this is good because of that beat. he may not be the best drummer (in the Beatles, Paul was considered the best) but his style is so good, his game is so tight, he is so in the pocket, it is a very distinctive glue that holds everything together. the outtakes of "Strawberry Fields Forever" are all testaments to his range and skills.

George is the famous dark horse. i love his songs. "Don't Bother Me". that is so great. so goth. George is the goth Beatle. "Here Comes the Sun" with that moog synth and indie rock arpeggios, it feels like this was a huge influence for R.E.M. "All Things Must Pass" is in the top 3 solo Beatle albums easily.

it took me a long time to realize this, but once i heard "Long Long Long" really loud in a car coming home from a full day of hanging out with friends. this song is astounding. it is so beautiful and spiritual. it sounds like being in a cathedral. it is very spooky and eerie. it feels like a K Records track or something. the end of it? scraping guitars and wailing? it feels like the Boredoms? apparently the ending was completely improvised: someone hit a chord on the organ that began to rattle a bottle that was sitting on the cabinet. everyone heard this and started adding harmonics and different sounds. it feels like Flying Saucer Attack?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom