Paul's behavior got John mad

Discussions related to Paul as a Beatle.

Moderator: Mike

Re: Paul's behavior got John mad

Postby jjs » Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:48 pm

linclink wrote:For the record, George Martin regarding the orchestral climax in "A Day In The Life":
"Martin later described explaining his improvised score to the puzzled orchestra:

'What I did there was to write ... the lowest possible note for each of the instruments in the orchestra. At the end of the twenty-four bars, I wrote the highest note...near a chord of E major. Then I put a squiggly line right through the twenty-four bars, with reference points to tell them roughly what note they should have reached during each bar ... Of course, they all looked at me as though I were completely mad.' ". Blessings!!


I've read them all, my friend. George Martin was tasked with writing down the "score" so that the people in the orchestra would know what to play. I'm not sure why you're supplying this quote. If you're implying the orchestral climax was George Martin's idea, you're dead wrong. The idea was originated by Paul, and further developed by Paul and John.
JJS

Wip, wop, wim and wham... indeed!
jjs
Bronze member
Bronze member
 
Posts: 733
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 5:39 pm

Re: Paul's behavior got John mad

Postby linclink » Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:43 pm

jjs wrote:
linclink wrote:For the record, George Martin regarding the orchestral climax in "A Day In The Life":
"Martin later described explaining his improvised score to the puzzled orchestra:

'What I did there was to write ... the lowest possible note for each of the instruments in the orchestra. At the end of the twenty-four bars, I wrote the highest note...near a chord of E major. Then I put a squiggly line right through the twenty-four bars, with reference points to tell them roughly what note they should have reached during each bar ... Of course, they all looked at me as though I were completely mad.' ". Blessings!!


I've read them all, my friend. George Martin was tasked with writing down the "score" so that the people in the orchestra would know what to play. I'm not sure why you're supplying this quote. If you're implying the orchestral climax was George Martin's idea, you're dead wrong. The idea was originated by Paul, and further developed by Paul and John.

Actually just to clear the record here...I was supplying this quote about Martin's part in birthing the idea to shine a light on his part in the process. It's often seen as a pure Macca moment, sometimes with folks citing him as conducting & directing the orchestra as well. It was most certainly McCartney's idea for both the orchestra being there at all & for the dramatic climax as well...so that's not what I was implying, no. It was developed by everyone there, from the initial McCartney inspiration, and was realized with Martin, as usual, as the mid-wife.
I'm glad to have cleared this up, and with no mean Spirited intentions at all JJS, but I've continued to encounter your posts here & there & everywhere (& some other folks reactions to them as well) & I'll be glad to only have to interact with you to straighten things like this out. If I'm not quoting you, or engaging you in direct dialogue then it might be best to assume it doesn't have to do with you or your quotes in any direct way (tangential maybe, but I'll be direct if I'm being direct). Your welcome to your feelings & expressions, but as I've said before your personal vibration is no where I want to spend any of my time, and that hasn't changed. All the best to you on your path & journey though! Blessings!
Om Namah Shivaya !!!!
linclink
Silver member
Silver member
 
Posts: 1224
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 11:05 pm
Location: Canandaigua, New York, USA, Earth, Cosmos of Light & Love

Re: Paul's behavior got John mad

Postby jjs » Fri Apr 24, 2009 7:25 pm

linclink wrote:
jjs wrote:
linclink wrote:For the record, George Martin regarding the orchestral climax in "A Day In The Life":
"Martin later described explaining his improvised score to the puzzled orchestra:

'What I did there was to write ... the lowest possible note for each of the instruments in the orchestra. At the end of the twenty-four bars, I wrote the highest note...near a chord of E major. Then I put a squiggly line right through the twenty-four bars, with reference points to tell them roughly what note they should have reached during each bar ... Of course, they all looked at me as though I were completely mad.' ". Blessings!!


I've read them all, my friend. George Martin was tasked with writing down the "score" so that the people in the orchestra would know what to play. I'm not sure why you're supplying this quote. If you're implying the orchestral climax was George Martin's idea, you're dead wrong. The idea was originated by Paul, and further developed by Paul and John.

Actually just to clear the record here...I was supplying this quote about Martin's part in birthing the idea to shine a light on his part in the process. It's often seen as a pure Macca moment, sometimes with folks citing him as conducting & directing the orchestra as well. It was most certainly McCartney's idea for both the orchestra being there at all & for the dramatic climax as well...so that's not what I was implying, no. It was developed by everyone there, from the initial McCartney inspiration, and was realized with Martin, as usual, as the mid-wife.
I'm glad to have cleared this up, and with no mean Spirited intentions at all JJS, but I've continued to encounter your posts here & there & everywhere (& some other folks reactions to them as well) & I'll be glad to only have to interact with you to straighten things like this out. If I'm not quoting you, or engaging you in direct dialogue then it might be best to assume it doesn't have to do with you or your quotes in any direct way (tangential maybe, but I'll be direct if I'm being direct). Your welcome to your feelings & expressions, but as I've said before your personal vibration is no where I want to spend any of my time, and that hasn't changed. All the best to you on your path & journey though! Blessings!


The discussion is about the McCartney-inspired ornate and grandiose additions to what would otherwise be a simple, basic, straightforward pop/rock song... And how Paul's experimenting with this song (and others) might have been interpreted by Lennon at the time, and later, when things started to break down. Whether or not these additions enhance or detract from the song isn't the point, nor is who wrote the notes on the the paper for the orchestra. The idea was developed and executed by several involved people, including John... this has been discussed before and isn't being contested by anyone. I was unclear what YOUR point was, and how it's relevant.
JJS

Wip, wop, wim and wham... indeed!
jjs
Bronze member
Bronze member
 
Posts: 733
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 5:39 pm

Re: Paul's behavior got John mad

Postby Mini » Tue Jul 14, 2009 3:05 pm

jjs wrote:
Crisstti wrote:I think JJS has a good point.
It is strange, let's say, that the beatle that is supposed to be the experimental one complained that Paul was the one who wanted to experiment on his (John's) songs, even considering that as sabotaging. He certainly gives the impression that Paul was more willing to experiment and that much of the experimentation on John's songs might have been because of Paul.

As for changing opinions, we should note that this idea of John was one he kept since the early 70's until his death. He talked about it in the Playboy interview (saying that there was a period when he thought that maybe he was being paranoid). His opinion about it didn't really change much.

As for John liking mainstream guitar rock... I think the problem is with the use of the word "mainstream" (which seems to be a bad word...). John stated that he liked "straight forward rock and roll" (I believe those were his words, someone correct me if I'm wrong). And I would agree that that is mostly what he did in his solo career, in different ways. John didn't release an album as experimental as McCartney II. And his albums didn't have the variety that Paul's did.
Now, we should remember that John said that he liked "straight forward rock and roll" as opposed to the concept albums ideas that Paul liked (not to music that was more experimental), and that he seemed to dislike... though it seems to me that Plastic Ono Band is a concept album, pretty much.

And as for Paul not experimenting until the The Fireman albums... what about McCartney II?. And that one was with his own name. Though I don't think that it has anything to do with the argument that he has released those albums under a pseudonym. It's still the same person doing them, and the argument is about how experimental Paul and John are/were, so... The Fireman is still Paul experimenting.



There's more to it than just the points you bring up.

For example, people seem to have a narrow view of what "experimental" means. To some it means nothing more than making "music" from non-music. 45 minutes of non-musical sounds is "experimental", anything done with tape loops is "experimental", (even though most have no idea what "tape loops" really means.) 45 minutes of recorded body noises is "experimental."

But when you're talking about the Beatles as an "experimental" band, it's not because they released all of 3 songs with non-musical elements and/or tape loops. It's because they "experimented" with different sounds in the studio. By this I mean getting different sounds on vocals, drums, and instruments with all sorts of tricks and techniques. They helped redefine and expand what a "rock and roll" band could do. They "experimented" with different genres that was until then unheard of in a pop/rock band. They "experimented" with blending musical instruments from different genres and cultures into pop/rock music, also unheard of in a pop/rock band. They "experimented" with rearranging song structures in unusual ways for pop/rock music. And so on.

I think one of the reasons people now have a narrow view of what "experimental" means, is because all of the above has now been done and overdone to the point that it's now the norm. It's hard (or maybe impossible) for us to listen to "Revolver" or "Sgt. Pepper" in the context of it's time. It's easy to see how 'Revolution #9" can be called "experimental" because it's non-musical and has been far less frequently imitated. It's hard to see how "Sgt. Pepper" can be called "experimental" because it's been imitated in excess ever since.

As for Paul "experimenting" with John's songs...

If you listen to "A Day In the Life", and mentally remove the middle part and the orchestral climax, you basically have a straightforward, typical Lennon song... structurally and harmonically somewhat Like 'God'. McCartney came up with the orchestral climax idea (very "experimental", and very often credited to Lennon) and the idea to inject the "Woke Up..." part in the middle of the song.

Now the point isn't whether or not these additions made the song better, or whether John could have refused the additions if the wanted to. But these were McCartney's ideas, and one could argue that they were certainly risky ideas, and that he was never so bold with his own songs. If one was indeed paranoid, one could look at this song as a perfect example of Paul "subconscious sabotage"... "Experimenting" with John's otherwise simple and straightforward song it in risky ways that he wouldn't do to his own songs. John also had this complaint about Paul's treatment of "Across the Universe."

People see the evidence... They can read John's words about the kind of songs he preferred. They can also listen to his solo records and hear what kind of songs he chose to produce. They can listen to a song like 'A Day In The Life' and hear the simple, straightforward song underneath the elaborate, ornate decorations. They can learn the source of those ornate decorations. They can read John's complaint about how he didn't care for the way Paul "experimented" with his songs... but the whole thing falls apart in their tiny heads, because it's contrary to what they WANT to believe.

They see and hear the evidence, but OJ is innocent.



I think you're missing the point here. John is considered the experimental and edgy Beatle because Paul didn't have the guts to do these things on his own songs.
Mini
Jr. Member
Jr. Member
 
Posts: 171
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 10:45 pm
Location: Holland

Re: Paul's behavior got John mad

Postby jgkojak » Wed Jul 15, 2009 1:29 pm

I think you're missing the point here. John is considered the experimental and edgy Beatle because Paul didn't have the guts to do these things on his own songs.


The counter-argument is John didn't offer or organize his own input into the production of his own songs, so Paul took over. Note George often did have his own production ideas and stood up to Paul (famously in Let It Be). That's OK- that's the creative process. It seems John was lazy, and complained after the fact about his song's production values.

Also... what DID Paul offer John's songs:
Ticket To Ride: the drum pattern
Tomorrow Never Knows: tape loops
A Day In the Life: orchestra buildup
ComeTogether: amazing bass playing/arrangement
Everyone's talkin' 'bout the President
We all chip in for a bag of cement
User avatar
jgkojak
Supporter
Supporter
 
Posts: 1997
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 2:13 am
Location: Olathe, KS

Re: Paul's behavior got John mad

Postby Genuine_Indian_Guru » Wed Jul 15, 2009 5:50 pm

jgkojak wrote:
A Day In the Life: orchestra buildup


Orchestra build up yes...but let us not forget the bridge attached to the other side of that build up. :ymapplause:
I go back so far... I'm in front of me!
User avatar
Genuine_Indian_Guru
Supporter
Supporter
 
Posts: 3080
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 9:15 am
Location: Cape Breton Island - Canada

Re: Paul's behavior got John mad

Postby graecophilos88 » Mon Sep 07, 2009 3:43 pm

I think after all there WAS a rivalry. Paul is one ambitiuous little chap, he always has been.

I mean, I think he obviously enjoys being in the spotlight and I suspect he had the highest joy to show John up how good he could play and sing at the Woolton fete and all his self-penned songs.

Paul is so ambitious and he always tried to hide it somehow. I mean, where did he have the time to practice the drums, and at the end of the Beatles he could play better than any other Beatle.

I can imagine how John felt. John somtimes was unmotivated and unsure. Paul, at the other side, always seemed to come up easily with good tunes. Paul makes his career, writinga nd performing sound easy going whereas John always struggled with all these things.

Plus, I really believe John felt jealous about Paul's looks and popularity. And Paul seemed to have such a nice family, whereas John was not potent for a long time and had quarrels with Yoko.

So, I can fully see why one would get mad with Paul: He seemed to have everything, the talent, the looks, the fun, even his mother's death he could deal a lot better with than John...
graecophilos88
Jr. Member
Jr. Member
 
Posts: 105
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 5:11 pm

Previous

Return to Paul as a Beatle

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests