popular cult

I'd like to write a defense of Paul McCartney

On a beautiful Monday afternoon, with the sun shining and the temperature finally above 65 degress, it is nigh on impossible to resist the urge to open all the windows, roll a joint, and put Revolver on repeat as loud as is comfortable. So, when I got home from class, I did just that and then settled onto my bed with the fragile 1976 Rolling Stone Illustrated History of Rock and Roll that my professor had leant me, and began to read Lester Bangs' entry on the British Invasion and Greil Marcus' entry on the Beatles.

Greil Marcus' entry on The Beatles was of particular interest, as I am writing my American Studies thesis on Beatlemania in America 1964-1967. I've been doing a lot of research on this topic (e.g. reading a lot of silly, wonderful books about the Beatles) because it's more interesting than my classes, and I have noticed a disturbing trend. Paul McCartney, as Beatle, is being belittled in a totally undeserving way.

The death of John Lennon may be the worst thing that ever happened to the Beatles, not because it destroyed the possibility of a reunion, but because it has eclipsed the importance of the Beatles as a group. In all of the criticism and journalism and analysis that I have read that was published or written before the assasination of Lennon, he is not singled out as the primary Beatle, as he is now. Most of the Beatles' compositions have fallen to revisionist history that counts Lennon as the primary writer. The crit of pre-dead Lennon, he is viewed as much more of a group player. And in the writing that was published or appeared before the breakup, he is rarely anything other than slightly more introspective than Paul, and certainly not superior.

There are exceptions to the generalization I made above, but few. Which is why I'm so disturbed by the continued lampooning of Paul McCartney's worth. Has his post-Beatles stuff been vastly inferior to his work as a Beatle? Of course; you'd have to be deaf not to admit that. But as a Beatle, as the partner of John Lennon, Paul McCartney is not only his equal, but possibly his most important influence.

Paul McCartney was the only Beatles to have a true interest in musical virtuosity. While George Harrison was not only a fantastic guitar player, but also a deeply talented player of other string instruments like the sitar, and both Lennon and Ringo Starr were masters of the guitar and the drums, respectively, McCartney pushed beyond his own assigned instrument -- the bass -- and into the realms of piano, guitar, drums, various electronic keyboards, sound editing and orchestral scoring. Musically, McCartney was much more invested in music as art and form, which made his compositions sound a bit corny and old-fashioned. His musical curiosity, however, also bred the urge towards musical experimentation, and Paul was often the inspiration for many of their recording revolutions. He was one of the first to trule explore the possibility of multi-tracked vocals and was the writer of hundreds of delicate, intricate harmonies. He also was the first Beatle to experiment with found-sounds and tape splicing, and his early experiments were key to John's famous "innovation" of "Revolution 9." McCartney was also responsible for pushing Harrison's work to new heights, and his touch is what makes Harrison's three Revolver contributions ("Taxman," "Love You To," and "I Want To Tell You") so sublime.

Moreover, it is a baldface lie to say that, even in the bitter end, Lennon and McCartney weren't a writing team. Whoever wrote the original composition is irrelevant; master tapes, demos, and unused studio takes that have surfaced over the years has proven over and over again that once they were in the studio, Lennon and McCartney not only had free reign to pick over each others' songs, but actually encouraged the other to do exactly that. Even their most seperate compositions are covered with the fingerprints of their counterpart. That is why neither Lennon's nor McCartney's solo careers have satisfied their audiences. Their strengths are on display, as they always were, but now there is no partner to counteract their weaknesses. Lennon fell into the trap of idealism, egotism and self-promotion; his unyielding, often naive, philisophical stances are on full display without any of McCartney's softening touch, which leaves them hard and unappealing in large doses. And McCartney continues to struggle in the pit of showmanship that has tainted his unrivalved ear for melody and harmony with schlock-y, trite lyrics and ideas. He can be unbearable without Lennon there to sharpen up the edges.

Most Beatles scholars (if there are such things; it may be more correct to say "Most people who write books about the Beatles") agree that before John Lennon met Yoko Ono and Paul McCartney met Linda Eastmen, they had no other soulmates than each other. Their wives and girlfriends, whom they loved, didn't rank nearly as high as on their priority list than each other. They spent almost all their time together, they were in constant contact, and they were constantly writing and recording. Whatever one member took and interest in, they all took an interest in as well. They learned, lived and loved together. The core of this was Lennon and McCartney, songwriting team and inseperable unit. They wrote, lived and worked together as complete equals, two sides of the same coin. The equality of that partnership is deserved, and praise should be heaped upon the shoulders of both members.

posted by Sara @ 1:10 PM