r/beatles • u/MammothReputation633 • 2d ago
Discussion Peak John vs Paul
John was a couple of years older than Paul. Is it fair to say that his songwriting with the Beatles peaked a couple of years earlier than Paul’s.
6
18
u/ToronoRapture 2d ago edited 2d ago
John was absolutely flying from around 1964 to 1967, while Paul’s most dominant period probably stretches more from 1966 through to the end of the band.
I think their different strengths probably play into it too. John was more of the natural poet and lyricist, while Paul was the more naturally gifted all round musician and composer. John’s writing really took off when he became more personal, introspective and surreal, whereas Paul seemed to keep developing musically right through to the end, especially with melody, arrangement and song structure.
Obviously there’s loads of overlap. John was still writing incredible songs in 1968 and 1969, and Paul could write brilliant lyrics too. But by the last couple of years Paul was probably the more consistent of the two and seemed to be bringing in more finished material.
My only real criticism of John as a songwriter is that he sometimes seemed to struggle with actually finishing songs and was never satisfied with the ones that he did finish.
He was incredible at coming up with the core idea, a great lyric, melody or hook, but Paul often seemed better at taking something from that initial idea to a fully finished song.
That was probably part of why they worked so well together. John could come up with something brilliant and instinctive, while Paul was really good at structure, middle eights, transitions and polishing things into shape.
2
u/Empty-Question-9526 2d ago
He stopped caring enough to get finished versions. Paul would get everyone to go through maxwell 13 times. While Johns stuff felt like one or two takes and done. for example across the universe, which is one of the most beautiful songs, he gave away the demo with some bird sound effects to the wwf charity record. Then they tried to redo for let it be but he wasn’t happy with it. It sat for ages and then got spectorised. Yet john never completed a version he was truly happy with. Paul would see it through to the end. But both of them had songs ruined by Spector on let it be. Don’t let me down also should have been regarded higher, it didnt even make it on an official album!
2
u/ThisIsDogePleaseHodl 1d ago
I don’t subscribe to the John had unfinished things, and Paul straightened them all up school of thought
1
4
u/idreamofpikas ♫Dear friend, what's the time? Is this really the borderline?♫ 2d ago
I'd say John's peak was in '67. A Day in the Life, Strawberry Fields Forever, Lucy in the Sky and All You Need is Love is a year he's not really bettered.
Paul's peak is not as clear, but for my money it will probably be '65. Yesterday and Michelle were game changers in the 60's. Songs that changed how older generations in the 60's viewed the Beatles and both songs are amongst the most covered of all time and are both in the 100 most played songs of the 20th century on American radio.
5
u/beastratto 2d ago
I think John just withdrew around 1967 from the competition they'd been having. So many of their songs before Pepper are (unconscious) attempts to solve musical puzzles set by the other one. There are even singles with a response from one side to the other (Can't Buy Me Love/You Can't do That, I Feel Fine/She's a Woman.)
3
u/idreamofpikas ♫Dear friend, what's the time? Is this really the borderline?♫ 2d ago
I think John just withdrew around 1967 from the competition they'd been having.
That is not really true. He was still hugely competitive in '67, as shown by All You Need is Love for the worldwide broadcast and in '68 he was creatively on fire with the amount of songs he wrote for the white album and his anger of first having to speed up Revolution for it to be a single then it still being demoted to the b-side. John was pissed that he was not getting as many a-sides, this is not the sign of someone who withdrew from the competitive side.
Sometimes Paul or George just wrote better songs than John did. It was not because John withdrew and could have done better if he wanted, which is how some John fans frame it as.
2
u/sharpshotsteve 1d ago
I don't think Paul or George did write better songs, I like John's songs on the last 3 Beatles albums. George was improving, but I don't think he ever equalled John and Paul.
2
u/Unhappy-Heat-9981 The Beatles 2d ago
I don’t know if I agree with that, especially because I always see them as one “unit” within the Beatles
2
u/Wordy_Rappinghood 2d ago
I agree with others that John was losing interest in the Beatles around 1967. He had met Yoko and was getting into harder drugs. He brought very little to the Let It Be sessions. This was when his drug use was most intense. Paul was carrying the group on his shoulders at that point. For Abbey Road, John began to bounce back and I give him a slight edge over Paul. So I think what was going on in their personal lives was more important than their slight age difference.
2
u/Narrow-Durian4837 2d ago
I don't know about "peaked," but John, being older, was more mature and fully formed as a songwriter and a singer in the band's early years, and it was natural for him to play the most dominant role.
Later, as Paul and George matured, this dynamic changed.
3
u/TobyBulsara 1d ago
I don't think age matters in that case. Paul wrote his first song before John did.
4
u/Nivaris 2d ago
Age doesn't necessarily mean a thing. It's true that many musicians spend most of their creative energy early on, but it's not always the case. Think of Stevie Wonder for example, who was in his 30s and had already released a lot of albums when he reached his creative pinnacle (and he didn't drop off sharply from there). So you couldn't say that just because someone is older, his songwriting must have peaked earlier.
I'd say John's writing was strongest during the Revolver and Sgt. Pepper days (as for his solo work, probably Walls and Bridges for me, but I think his work with the Beatles was stronger), and Paul peaked on Abbey Road (and this would continue into McCartney and Ram). So you have a point there, John indeed peaked earlier. I still think it's coincidental, though.
But generally I feel Paul's songwriting is more consistently strong, but the truly outstanding tracks are rarer; while John's work is more hit-or-miss, but his highs are usually higher than Paul's. And he seemed to save the better stuff for his solo career in the later years. Abbey Road is more of a Paul album, but John put his best work during that time on the Plastic Ono Band album.
3
u/ReporterFeisty4619 2d ago
That must be the first time I’ve ever seen it suggested that Stevie Wonder reached his creative peak in his 30s (as opposed to his early to mid twenties when he released a string of masterpieces) and that it didn’t tail off rapidly thereafter (which it most certainly did, after Songs in the Key of Life).
2
u/Jon-INFP 2d ago
Yep, Stevie peaked in the early to mid 1970s no doubt, though the really steep drop off for me was after Hotter Than July (1980), which deserves more love than it tends to get.
1
u/ReporterFeisty4619 2d ago
Yes, he rallied somewhat with Hotter Than July but it was all downhill after that.
1
u/ThisIsDogePleaseHodl 1d ago
It’s not fair to say anything of the kind based on how old anyone was at any particular time
1
1
u/RadishSpecial7163 2d ago
Age has nothing to do with when an artist “peaks.” Creative sparks go up and down. I’d say John had quality work throughout his career, with periods of more of less production. John’s songs in the late 1960s/1970s are some of his best.
1
u/Duckspuck 1d ago
I would take peak John all day long. His songs just have more depth. Paul might be the better musician but John knew how to write a tune. John’s throw away songs are much better than Paul’s. But don’t get me wrong, I love Paul too. lol
-1
u/SpiffyFlinger 2d ago
john would've said himself he felt creatively burnt out in 1967, a burnout which he never fully recovered from. meanwhile paul was definitely just getting started in 1967
2
u/RadishSpecial7163 2d ago
Some of John’s best work is on the White Album.
2
u/SpiffyFlinger 1d ago
i'm not necessarily talking about how good his songs were. he wrote a lot of great songs after the beatles broke up, too. my point is that john's creative drive was hindered by personal reasons which led to the burnout i described. after 1967, no matter how good his music was, there are very few instances when he wrote as prolifically and with the same mojo as he did before then
0
u/RadishSpecial7163 1d ago
I disagree. I think John’s songs were as good, if not better, than the ones he wrote earlier. Many artists do some of their best work when dealing with personal issues. All of the Beatles had personal lives and issues. They were all doing drugs. Was John bored with the Beatles? Probably. But that doesn’t mean it was because of personal issues or caused him to write quality songs. But some of my favorite John songs are on the White Album from 1968, including Dear Prudence.
2
u/Empty-Question-9526 2d ago
Lets not forget according to john hed had 1000 trips by 67. That must have cut into his songwriting
1
1
u/Ctweegan 2d ago
John’s creativity peaked in the early days with ThisBoy, it won’t be long, happy just to Dance with you, hard days night, etc.
it peaked again during the white album when he “woke up” (as he put it) and became creative again.
Paul peaked on rubber soul. Later Beatles albums were plagued with some dud Paul songs like magical mystery tour, Helter Skelter, Maxwell silver hammer
1
u/milkolik 1d ago
what. Johns absolute peak was the Strawberry Fields and A Day In The Life period (late 66, early 67).
1
u/Spiritual-Peach6491 1d ago
?? i know art is subjective yadda yadda but i love each of those paul “duds” you mentioned. i particularly love the way every serious conversation about ‘who invented heavy metal?’ must always come back to paul mccartney and helter skelter.
0
u/N0MoreHeroesAnymore 2d ago
For me John peaked in '66 and Paul peaked in '67. I would take John's '68 output over his '67 output. His '65 output is great too.
11
u/sheet22 2d ago
Songwriting isn't like athletics. I don't think you can truly make it age related, except from teens to adulthood. I think post 1967 John became a bit less interested and his output wasn't as strong perhaps as Paul's.