I can sympathize with him. To have written and recorded a song as good as "Yesterday", for example, but to go down in history as apparent second writer to someone else on it can stick in the craw, even after close to 40 years.
yes, but we can still wish he would be bigger than that and would choose instead to bask in having been the primary collaborator with one of the greatest minds rock has produced. _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
on 12/18/02 12:48 PM, Kurt Gottschalk at ecstasymule@hotmail.com wrote:
I can sympathize with him. To have written and recorded a song as good as "Yesterday", for example, but to go down in history as apparent second writer to someone else on it can stick in the craw, even after close to 40 years.
yes, but we can still wish he would be bigger than that and would choose instead to bask in having been the primary collaborator with one of the greatest minds rock has produced.
Lennon -- who should have felt that way about Paul -- was less sanguine about it in many interviews. Despite what people say, McCartney is and was Lennon's equal. NEITHER managed the high points away from the other that they had together. sh
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002 20:48:28 +0000 "Kurt Gottschalk" wrote:
I can sympathize with him. To have written and recorded a song as good as "Yesterday", for example, but to go down in history as apparent second writer to someone else on it can stick in the craw, even after close to 40 years.
yes, but we can still wish he would be bigger than that and would choose instead to bask in having been the primary collaborator with one of the greatest minds rock has produced.
By saying that you claim that Lennon was a genius and McCartney just lucky to be around, right? I have seen practically everybody that I know starting like that (Lennon is a genius, and McCartney is a nice guy), to slowly move, with time and a less biased look at their common production, to a final judgement that makes the Beatles music larger than the sum of each (read: both equally important). Maybe some of your favorite songs are the "Lennon" ones, but I really think that considering McCartney as less than Lennon is something you might reconsider in a few years. McCartney was the collaborator of nobody and if that's the way you see the Beatles you are completely wrong. If you doubt that, the Lennon post-Beatles records should have been masterpieces. I won't comment on McCartney post-Beatles records since according to you he had nothing to prove :-). Patrice.
there was a great article about credits in Mojo (Lennon special edition) about two years ago. my impression was no one could adequately document or recall exactly who to credit primarly for most of the Lennon/Macca songs. in a way, this is fitting because it's the music that utlimately counts. --dk On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Patrice L. Roussel wrote:
By saying that you claim that Lennon was a genius and McCartney just lucky to be around, right? I have seen practically everybody that I know starting like that (Lennon is a genius, and McCartney is a nice guy), to slowly move, with time and a less biased look at their common production, to a final judgement that makes the Beatles music larger than the sum of each (read: both equally important).
Maybe some of your favorite songs are the "Lennon" ones, but I really think that considering McCartney as less than Lennon is something you might reconsider in a few years.
McCartney was the collaborator of nobody and if that's the way you see the Beatles you are completely wrong.
If you doubt that, the Lennon post-Beatles records should have been masterpieces. I won't comment on McCartney post-Beatles records since according to you he had nothing to prove :-).
Patrice.
participants (4)
-
Kurt Gottschalk -
Patrice L. Roussel -
skip Heller -
SUGAR in their vitamins?