Paul Mc Cartney and John Lennon have written so many songs.The words are just like poetry. They were so prolific too. Of course, George Harrisson also
penned a few songs.
Paul Mc Cartney and John Lennon have written so many songs.The words are just like poetry. They were so prolific too. Of course, George Harrisson also
penned a few songs.
Also thinking about the Who as poets-and how they were inspires/influenced.
For example- "Baba O'Riley" by the Who and TS ELIOT.
McCartney is so-so at writing lyrics. Lennon was the brilliant one.
Edit: Also, while the Beatles undoubtley created fantastic, seminal music, I'm not sure all of their lyrics could stand on their own as poems. Perhaps some, like Julia, for instance.
Julia is ok as a song-it is more melancholylike "I'm so tired"and "cry baby cry."
In my year Eight class, we studied Eleanor Rigby as if it were a poem.
Naked except for a cigarette, you let your mind drift and forget your disbelief. Feel the chill down your back and the flutter of wings through dandelion fields, and forget the pull of gravity in a night without stars.
I lack eloquence and commitment to my arguments. They are half baked, and I will begin passionately, and then abandon them.
My brother worships Lennon. Does becoming dead increase the mystique of lyricism? It is a thought. The Beatles are who they are because of this chemistry combination. It befuddles me how one is given the 'gift' in a way the other is not. I don't understand. Do the silent dead shine while the living are left to blunder in their humaness so we cannot build them into something in our minds eye? Perhaps, had Lennon lived, he would be a paedophile. How would we feel about him then? It is something to ponder. That is all.
This is a critique often applied to singer/songwriters like Kurt Cobain, Jim Morrison, Hendrix, etc. I cannot think that this can be applied to the Beatles. Lennon lived to 40, and by this time the Beatles had been defunct for quite some time. Whether Lennon would have continued to write music of the same quality beyond his assassination is a matter of speculation, but it is a fact that his reputation as a songwriter was firmly established before he died. "Imagine" and "Instant Karma" are fine songs, perhaps fantastic songs (especially the former), but Lennon could have written nothing except for the Beatles to establish his immortality.Originally Posted by Delta40
Speaking of the Beatles chemistry, it definitely was a case where three of the greatest songwriters of the era just happened to be in the same musical group. However when I speak of their chemistry, I use the word "chemistry" loosely. The Beatles' internal conflicts are well known - The White Album features almost no collaboration whatsoever; each member simply wrote songs and either asked for the other members to play instruments or simply played all the instruments by themselves.
And on that note, Paul McCartney. McCartney's reputation is firmly established and he is still living. I prefer Lennon and Harrison to Paul, but not because they're dead.
You could be right. And in the end....it is a matter of opinion. I'm the same age as Lennon was when he died. It really is a unGodlike state. He himself said, 'They're just words.' I believe him. They held less meaning to him than to the rest of the world. Imagine that.
Across the Universe
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ko19oussVGQ
Great song, one of Lennon's personal favourites, you could say that the language is poetic in the traditional sense too.
when you die there is a certain legacy about you. you think of all the great stuff jimi hendrix could've done if his career wasn't so short. the whole "what could've been" concept.
the beatles broke up in 1970, and if they were still together by some miracle today people would see them as washups, and not give them the praise they deserve. They will suffer the same fate as artists like Bob Dylan, where you look back and be like "they used to be good".
that being said, the beatles are one of my favorite bands, and honestly i think their words are good, but most of the art of the beatles comes from their music. in rock music, lyrics are kind of just spontaneous and sometimes that is the brilliance of it, but the art is different and (in my opinion) better than poetry because it focuses not just on the song as a song, but in how the words SOUND and FEEL when played with the music.
Last edited by Mathor; 03-10-2009 at 10:40 AM.
I'm losing all those stupid games
That I swore I'd never play
I always think of The Waste Land whenever I hear Desolation Row
The first song George Harrison wrote for the Beatles was Taxman. Lennon helped him with some of it.
tomorrow never knows.
actually he started writing songs for the beatles on their second album.
on With The Beatles he wrote "Don't Bother Me"
on Help he wrote "I Need You" and "You Like Me Too Much"
on Rubber Soul he wrote "Think For Yourself" and "If I Needed Someone"
then he released taxman on Revolver, but he wrote two other songs on that album as well, so to say taxman was his first song just isn't true. And during this time period Harrison also recorded a lot of B-sides that didn't end up making it to albums. George Harrison wrote a LOT of songs, Lennon and McCartney would rarely put those songs on the albums though.
George Harrison was given around two songs on each Beatles album, all of which were completely written by George with the exception of Taxman where Lennon provided a couple lyrics.
Last edited by Mathor; 03-12-2009 at 03:58 AM.
I'm losing all those stupid games
That I swore I'd never play
Led Zeppelin also has some very poetic songs. Ten Years Gone is my personal favorite.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
