Lennon Blasts McCartney
The amateur historian in me loves this story ; the Beatles admirer in me hates it.
There was a real conflict between John and Paul, this ( only now released ) interview makes clear. Yoko Ono continues the argument all these years later ( more detail here )
If Paul was high-handed, if he and the other two hassled John about Yoko, that's sad, as respects their personal lives.
Artistically speaking, it's a different story. The Beatles were three good musicians with different styles, who, when teamed up with a bloke from the neighborhood, became the best band in the world ( sorry Mick ).
And Yoko messed that up.
Any time John spent in the studio with the talentless Yoko meant less time spent with the Beatles. I suppose the Beatles could have invited her to join the band, but to what benefit? Her horrific screeching would have more than cancelled out any benefit from John's continued presence.
So John spent more time in the studio with Yoko, and the band broke up.
But sorry, Yoko, Paul was the better songwriter. John's " Strawberry Fields Forever " and " Imagine " are ok, but McCartney's body of work ( " Yesterday ", " Hey Jude ", " Let It Be " ) are simply better. And McCartney never embarrassed himself with laughable stuff like " Woman is the Nigger of the World " and the other agitprop songs about how great Angela Davis was etc.
But the John-Paul argument should not even be necessary. The Beatles, more than any rock group I know, were a group where the whole was vastly greater than the sum of its parts. Lennon, Harrison, or McCartney alone were good. Ringo alone, no big deal. But the four Beatles together were the best band of their era or of any era.
Yoko Ono made Lennon happy, so give her credit for that. But she, herself a laughable musician, is in no position to judge which of the Beatles were better. She discredits herself by continuing the pointless conflict between Lennon and McCartney all these years later. Let it be.
There was a real conflict between John and Paul, this ( only now released ) interview makes clear. Yoko Ono continues the argument all these years later ( more detail here )
If Paul was high-handed, if he and the other two hassled John about Yoko, that's sad, as respects their personal lives.
Artistically speaking, it's a different story. The Beatles were three good musicians with different styles, who, when teamed up with a bloke from the neighborhood, became the best band in the world ( sorry Mick ).
And Yoko messed that up.
Any time John spent in the studio with the talentless Yoko meant less time spent with the Beatles. I suppose the Beatles could have invited her to join the band, but to what benefit? Her horrific screeching would have more than cancelled out any benefit from John's continued presence.
So John spent more time in the studio with Yoko, and the band broke up.
But sorry, Yoko, Paul was the better songwriter. John's " Strawberry Fields Forever " and " Imagine " are ok, but McCartney's body of work ( " Yesterday ", " Hey Jude ", " Let It Be " ) are simply better. And McCartney never embarrassed himself with laughable stuff like " Woman is the Nigger of the World " and the other agitprop songs about how great Angela Davis was etc.
But the John-Paul argument should not even be necessary. The Beatles, more than any rock group I know, were a group where the whole was vastly greater than the sum of its parts. Lennon, Harrison, or McCartney alone were good. Ringo alone, no big deal. But the four Beatles together were the best band of their era or of any era.
Yoko Ono made Lennon happy, so give her credit for that. But she, herself a laughable musician, is in no position to judge which of the Beatles were better. She discredits herself by continuing the pointless conflict between Lennon and McCartney all these years later. Let it be.
