Originally Posted by
phdhorn
Ray Coleman's Lennon Biography is pretty decent. Pretty much straight down the line, incredibly full of great info. From it and other sources we learn:
- John did have a number of life shocks (like his mom getting hit by a car and killed almost outside his house), but he actually had a pretty solid financial upbringing; his Aunt Mimi was fairly well off and John didn't want for much as a kid;
- Paul, while not dirt poor, was decidedly less financially well off than John; he, too lost his mother at an early age (I think he was 10 or so) and had his own set of shocks;
- Interestingly, John never seemed at first to be jealous of Paul; he knew instantly that Paul was the better all-around musician and had a better voice, yet he respected him and also admired how Paul apparently didn't defer or fawn to him in their first meetings... this was crucial to their collaborations.
- Paul had already had a reputation as a decent player around his section of Liverpool by age 15; John knew he was getting a prime free agent.
- Paul liked how John could do some rockabilly stuff and admired his wit.
So at first both boys entered into an easygoing relationship; John reserved his scathing put-downs with Paul while Paul found his easily-disinterested tendencies easy to put aside with John. Their early songwriting was truly collaborative - John would have a line, Paul would fill in a word (or vice-versa), Paul would have a melody line and John would tweak it... it was really Lennon/McCartney, very intertwined. And would remain so for the first 2-3 years.
For me the Beatles as I remember them most are the early Beatles (pre-1965). While Sgt. Pepper's and their later stuff is often sublime music, I am very thankful I was alive (though a pissant on an elephant) to see their U.S. debut and the atmosphere surrounding it. Although I barely remember it, there is nothing that comes close to it in my lifetime. The look, the sound, I don't know why but almost anyone who didn't experience it firsthand will not quite understand. I mean we had kids drawing pictures of them on schoolbooks, talking about them while riding bikes, it was just incredible. I can truly point to an almost exact paradigm shift of "old America" of the social themes of Depression and Gilded Age (and before) thought, and "contemporary, progressive" or a more zestful and progressive culture... I believe those of us in 1964 who saw the Beatles lived on, and recognize, this huge, colossal Time Fault Line. There is a way life was "before" and the way it was "after" all the way to now. And that was the moment. Right there. When the entire cultural perspective changed. I still don't know if they caused it or rode its wave. But it's right there. I distinctly remember a more rural, old-fashioned Andy Griffith world before the Beatles, then it all changed, and in nuclear proportions.
Understanding that, and the huge metamorphasis they went through in their 8 world-public years (then beyond as soloists), my lot falls with Paul for two reasons:
first, I liked his more subtle, melodic tunes... just how it sits with me... second, Paul had a presence that was just colossal to me.
None of this negates John - clearly he was the band's leader, order giver, and transitional figure into 60's rock. Once his song personality was established (by Rubber Soul I guess) his harder edge was distinctive. But I guess for me the Beatles are an image locked into my mind's eye and ear.... and for that Paul is just more my type of musician.
Reply With Quote
