The Music And Talent Of Paul McCartney
I have to admit that I dropped everything when this book arrived. As a music reviewer and music lover, I do enjoy a good discussion about almost any aspect of the subject. In fact two days ago I ran a radio program on the subject of the state of rock today. I do wish that I had known about Better Than Lennon last week because I most certainly would have invited John Cherry to my panel.
I have some very strong opinions on the subject of the Beatles, most of them run contrary to the mainstream. In a nutshell, as a band I would not entertain them in a woodshed. Sure they had the odd flash of brilliance but as the band merrily headed to the inevitable self destruction their music became increasingly erratic and self serving.
John Cherry is clearly a very big fan of the Beatles, and also the careers that the four musicians carved out for themselves after they went their separate ways. He poses the question of who was the better musician, John Lennon or Paul McCartney? It is clear that when you look at the Beatles the creative talents lay in Lennon and McCartney rather than Ringo Star and George Harrison.
Lennon and McCartney had very different styles, and it likely was this difference that in part led to the band splitting up. John Cherry also adds to the fuel by talking about Lennon’s increasing dependence on recreational pharmaceuticals that effectively blurred his vision of the future. His joining forces with Yoko Ono was also a seemingly detrimental move in forwarding his career. Ono’s inclusion on his solo albums did nothing to endear Lennon to fans or critics alike.
I enjoyed Better Than Lennon a great deal. Whereas I would have just gone out and subjectively approached the subject, John Cherry has done extensive research. Although the book is a scant 130 pages long, it contains a library of information. It is broken up into chapters that discuss specific time periods, and compares the relative output both in terms of volume and quality. Certainly both had sparks of brilliance and periods in the doldrums.
Both musicians clearly had writing talent, but I have to admit that I am very much in agreement with John Cherry, Paul McCartney wins hands down in this match. In my opinion he also kept better company! His collaboration with his wife Linda produced some of the very finest music of the time. Linda’s untimely death was a huge blow to the music world.
I also learned a great deal by reading this book, as I said at the beginning of the review I was not a huge fan of the band but really did not understand the intricacies of the relationship that these two people had. It was almost a war on the airwaves. Thinly veiled references of a less that supportive nature aimed at each other through the lyrics of songs.
Another aspect that I was not aware of were some of the other musicians that Paul McCartney has at one time or another collaborated with. One name in particular caught my eye, Elvis Costello. Man that guy gets around. He is one multi talented performer, for example did you know that he was great friends with Johnny Cash and his wife June Carter Cash? In fact on the tribute album that was released following June’s death he he sings Ring Of Fire.
Better Than Lennon is a must read book for any music lover, it is non judgmental and well reasoned. Oh, and the other reason I give it very high marks indeed is that Blogger News gets a mention 
You can order your copy of Better Than Lennon from Amazon, just click on the cover art above.
Simon Barrett
(4 votes, average: 4 out of 5)
Loading ...
32 users commented in " Book Review: Better Than Lennon by John Cherry "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackWhen Jimi Hendrix heard Sgt. peppers lonely hearts club band and put together his rendition of it, there was no doubt in my mind that Hendrix was the superior musician.
I agree with Simon about the Beatles, I have found some of their songs that I love, but I don’t get the tremendous popularity of the Beatles.
Better Than Lennon?
No way. Nobody can be better than Lennon.
Just joking. I will check this book. looks interesting.
hmmm! to me the book sounds a too subjective to be ‘well researched.’
mccartney’s talent is undeniable. some of his songs with the beatles (certainly not the saccharine ones with linda) are classics and will live almost forever. but, remember, mccartney was an indifferent performer (even before he lost his voice) visibly lacking the sinatra-esque perfectionism of lennon (which is why lennon used to shake in his boots before performances). also, without lennon’s edge, mccartney, more often than not, was syrupy and cutesy.
whatever else lennon was, he was a totally honest artist. its true he found true love with someone who never understood lennon’s or the beatles genius, not to this day. however, she has done wonders with keeping the great man’s legacy alive. for that i salute her. even mccartney realizes lennon’s genius today and pays tribute to him accordingly. while lennon needed paul’s brilliance as well, i believe, the last decades have proved that mccartney needed lennon more than vice versa.
plaintalk: the only true test is the test of time. even if there were to exist the masses listening to madonna 50 years hence (extremely unlikely), then she would have to be considered a great artist. although hendrix was truly great moving boundaries of sound, and a cult figure at that, his music was in the end limited in scope and i imagine will not be listened to much fifty years from now.
the real greats of course are bach, beethoven, mozart, et al, and i’m afraid also the beatles, like it or not.
the ‘is mccartney greater than lennon debate?’ is a device to sell newspapers (and even some blogs). the two together were pure magic, the one complimenting the other. paul is a real nice bloke who, except for brief periods when he was suffering from grave insecurity crises, has always bowed to lennon’s genius, even while stating that an angel lennon was definitely not.
beyond yesterday, hey jude, penny lane, can’t buy me love, i’m down, etc. where lennon’s influence was paplable, a not-insignificant portfolio of mccartney’s work is a bit sweet and sentimental, although compositionally brilliant as always.
one thing that is often missed is that whilst george martin was a hugely-gifted producer with great love for the beatles, he had one major flaw. bizarrely, he preferred paul’s singing to that of john’s and pushed for paul on single releases. later, this led to paul’s ‘takeover’ of the group, production of ‘magical mystery tour’ and the cooling off of george, ringo and john to paul’s pushiness eventually leading to the split. however, later on paul realized what had been going on and tried to make amends. he called upon john unannounced in new york a few times during this phase and tried to mend fences with both george and ringo as well.
“As a band I would not entertain them in a woodshed..!?”
With that statement, Simon Barrett proves himself a moron with no credibility to opine any further.
I do believe that McCartney is severely underrated as a songwriter and artist by many people, and without him, there would’ve been no Beatles, no Sgt. Pepper especially. However, I also believe that Lennon was the superior artist, and despite both their talents, the whole was greater than the sum of its parts- which is enormous.
I also believe that most of Lennon’s post-Beatles work blows away anything McCartney’s done other than “Maybe I’m Amazed,” “Band on the Run,” amd parts of the “Venus and Mars” album. Ah, had he lived…
Better than Lennon. What a dumb and pathetic portrayal and a waste of time, any idiot analysing the “music of “Sir” Paul is a dumb definition for a human being. Lennon was a genius and a very strong artist, which artist let alone the talent- less McCartney can compete with “WORKING CLASS HERO” THE DEFINTIVE LENNON” and his body of work he contributed as a artist. LISTEN TO THE ALBUM AND THEN COMMENT. THAT IS WHAT GENUIS STANDS FOR AND WHAT MUSIC IS ABOUT.
They must really have run out things to write about Lennon and the Beatles. John Cherry is a cheap writer and what a way to make money. I can see why he delved into the subject.
ONE question is why are Mark David Chapman, peter André, john cherry and people as such are alive when incredible human beings like Dr Martin Luther King, John Lennon, and Malcolm X die???????
I totally agree that Paul was the best Beatle, both as a songwriter and as a performer.
Lennon was the leader of the band for a short time while they were boys, and that’s because he was older. By the time “A Hard Day’s Night” came out they were at least equal, and from “Rubber Soul” and on McCartney was the force behind the band. Note that as he took the lead, their music became more sophisticated and complex.
To see how enormous Paul’s imprint on the band was, let’s take John views on their styles. He saw Paul as the light, the optimism in the group. He saw his contribution as darker, somber and cynical. But who sees the Beatles as dark and somber? I believe their positive outlook is one of the reasons they endure today, and that came from Paul.
John did very little after The Beatles broke up. he dried up for five years, and then he released the kind of record the was always beating on Paul for making.
As for him being an “honest artist” sorry, but the image of a multi-millionaire siting at his grand piano inside his huge mansion telling me to “imagine no possessions” makes me laugh. His preaching “Peace and Love” to the world, while he had none for his son disgusts me. But after his horrific murder, John has been leonized and elevated to an almost saintly state, where everything he did must be considered perfect.
I love the pre Yoko Lennon. But after he met her he became a humorless, hypocritical, self-important jerk.
Paul was miles ahead of John musically. He taught John to properly play a guitar, he made changes that made “come together” the song it is, he was responsible for Sgt Peppers and what is probably the best piece in modern music, Abbey Road side 2. And most of their biggest hits came from Paul.
I’m glad that people are finally waking up to Paul’s genius.
Paul was able to take charge of the Beatles because John was weak. He wasn’t even strong enough to stand up and quit. Paul had to end the Beatles as John talked about it but would not do it. John’s solo output was rather weak. Give Peace a Chance is one of the weakest songs ever written - catchy, but what are the lyrics beyond the title sung over and over? He might have had two good solo albums. His death made a lot of people think he was the genius - an he calimed to be a genius often enough. Even up until the end he would say the Beatles were ‘his’ band. Did he really believe that without Paul - and George and Ringo he would have made it? Paul’s songs are the ones that people know. They are the ones that are remembered after all this time. His recent solo albums are fantastic - fronm the mid 90s on. He deserves more respect and doesn’t get it simply because he is alive.
Paul McCartney was a better musician period. He could play all instruments, he had a greater gift for melody (he came up with the opening chords for Strawberry fields, and the basic melody for “in my life”)Lennon was a more interesting lyricist, but his greatest songs were made great by either McCartney’s suggestions, or producer George Martin’s arrangements, like the solo of in my life, or the brass and strings sections to strawberry fields, a day in the life, etc…
On the other hand I don’t understand why people hate on Give Peace a Chance. Writing anthems is hard goddammit, and that’s a good one among many Lennon Penned. Meanwhile, my favorite song from ANY musician is “Real Love” with John Lennon alone on the Piano, Haunting and surreal in its beauty and simplicity.
Well of course Paul McCartney is the most talented of the two. While John Lennon was a better lyricist, McCartney is without a doubt the best melodist and musician all around. How any instrument can the man play ? His solo carrer is also hugely underrated by critics who think it is so “cool” to dismiss his “silly loves songs”. Well I love his silly love songs and I’m glad more and more people finally recognize Paul’s talent.As for some Lennon fans (a minority thank god)who think it is to their duty to John to knock down Paul, well I think Lennon would have been the first one to give them a piece of his mind and defend his friend as he did just before that horrible day in December 1980. Now don’t get me wrong Lennon/MCartney is better than Lennon or McCartney, together they created magic, but I’ll choose Ram or Band on the Run any day over Imagine or Double Fantasy.
“beyond yesterday, hey jude, penny lane, can’t buy me love, i’m down, etc. where lennon’s influence was paplable, a not-insignificant portfolio of mccartney’s work is a bit sweet and sentimental, although compositionally brilliant as always.”
How was Lennon’s influence palatable on Hey Jude? That song is ALL McCartney except for John’s suggestion that Paul NOT change ONE line of the lyric. And Paul was a big fan of the type of music that influenced “I’m Down”, he was always into the screamers(the first day he met Lennon, when he was just 14, he sang him with two Little Richard numbers), seems to me “I’m Down” was more influenced by Paul’s love of that than John. Musically Lennon had very little to do with Penny Lane, he helped some on the lyrics. And Yesterday was all Paul, they even thought about releasing it as a Paul McCartney single(NOT on Paul’s suggestion) but Brian Epstein said no. I’m not saying John’s influence isn’t on Paul’s songs(Ob-la-di Ob-la-da would have been a better example) but you didn’t choose good ones.
Paul’s influence musically is ALL over Strawberry Fields(heck John even criticized him for it in later interviews, which is very ironic considering all the credit John gets for it to this day) and A Day In the Life - two songs considered to be among John’s best Beatles songs, it’s all over “Tomorrow Never Knows”(Paul was way into music concrete for months previous to that recording and contributed some of the most prominent tape loops, including the “seagull sounding one”, which is actually Paul laughing sped up), another one considered to be a John groundbreaker. It’s also all over “Come Together”. So it works both ways.
I always find it funny that if John adds a single lyric to a song of Paul’s it gets more credit than Paul does for musically influencing significant portions of a song of John’s.
And what is wrong with being sweet and sentimental, if compositionally brilliant? It’s not objectively better to rough or cynical - it’s just different.
Also would anyone call For No One sweet and sentimental? How about Eleanor Rigby(which, given it was lyrically mainly written “in public”, everyone who was involved, except John, remembered as John having virtually no involvement in, George and Ringo both gave more to it - sounded more to me like John wished he’d been involved)? A whole heck of a lot of Paul’s songs lyrically(including post-Beatles), were in fact rather sad or decidedly not sweet, maybe even rather mean(”I’m Looking Through You” anyone?:). Paul was perfectly capable of writing “non-sweet” songs without much or any input from John. Sometimes it pays to pay attention.
And Claire - alright, let’s represent for RAM! Love that album - it’s so eccentric and varied(and frankly I think “Too Many People” is a way better song than “How Do You Sleep?” so point to Paul on that one, imo). As for Silly Love Songs - imo that is the best answer to critics ever(”what’s wrong with that, I’d like to know…cause here I go…again….I love you”. LOL It’s a complex song with some terrific vocal arrangements and a fantastic base line.
Nona, great post, I totally agree with you, just let me point out one thing. You say, “I always find it funny that if John adds a single lyric to a song of Paul’s it gets more credit than Paul does for musically influencing significant portions of a song of John’s.” John didn’t even add that line. He just urged Paul NOT to change the like he had written.
As for the “Elenor Rigby” controversy, there is a video on Youtube of one of their press conferences. A reporter asks them if they don’t ever think about working solo, to which George replies “Paul wrote a song by himself, Elenor Rigby”. The others nod in agreement, even John. Funny that years later, without the others near, he tried to take credit for the song. It’s in tape that he had nothing to do with it.
[…] Cherry is the author of the just published Better Than Lennon, he poses the question of who was the better musician, who made the greater contribution to popular […]
“As for the “Elenor Rigby” controversy, there is a video on Youtube of one of their press conferences. A reporter asks them if they don’t ever think about working solo, to which George replies “Paul wrote a song by himself, Elenor Rigby”. The others nod in agreement, even John. Funny that years later, without the others near, he tried to take credit for the song. It’s in tape that he had nothing to do with it.”
No way?! I had no idea. I’ll have to track that down. Well there ya go. Especially at that time, when everything was still very “band” oriented(thus no releasing Yesterday as a McCartney single), if it was said it was his alone, it was likely to be true. Yet in later years, John tried to claim credit for 70 percent of the lyrics.
Guess John liked that Paul song so much he tried to claim more of it as his than he rated.
With regards to the “John gets more credit for adding a line” thing I was actually thinking of other songs - I have that old book that goes through all the Beatles songs and tells you who plays what instruments(it isn’t 100 percent accurate but that was where I first learned that Paul plays the solos on Taxman and Sgt Pepper, etc–it surprised me how many solos he plays, at the time I didn’t know he played any, plays the drums on Back in the USSR and Dear Prudence) and tries to rate the percentages each Beatle contributed to the writing of the songs.
It annoys me to no end that John consistently is given more credit in that book for tossing a couple lines into a lyric than Paul is for musical contributions, some of which signicantly affected the sound of a song and songs by their nature are a “sound” medium.
Nona, here’s the link to that interview. The words aren’t exactly what I quoted (I saw it quite a while ago) but they make clear that ER is all Paul.
Interviewer: Do any of you have plans to record on your own?”
John: “We do at home. We might”
George: “In fact, we have done it. Well, Elenor Rigby was Paul ON HIS OWN”
(John nods)
John: “We were Just drinking tea” (!!!!)
Could it be any more clear?
Here’s the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kb5ssBRXt9o&feature=related
LOL That is pretty darn clear.
And sounds about right - George and Ringo tossed in an idea each and John gave pretty much nothing.
Thank you so much for the link, it’s great. So glad to have that one.
Anna is spot on. But it was the Alchemy… thats why we are here now
So, john had little do with Eleanor Rigby?
So what!
John Lennon formed the Beatles and he named the band and he wrote their first big Hit — Please Please me. Also, John drove the band until Revolver, so by the time Paul took control the band was HUGE. Again, it shows they were both equals.
John Lennon was amazing and Paul McCartney was great too. John died in 1980 and Lennon STILL has more greater songs than Paul. Does that make sense? It shows Paul needed someone to censor his crap …
It’s your opinion that John has more great songs than Paul. I think a lot of John’s solo work is self-indulgent crap and musically not terribly interesting or pleasant to listen to. Not all of them, there is some great stuff too but Paul has a lot of great songs too.
John didn’t drive the band until Revolver, writing a few more songs is not the same thing as driving the band and out of their first 5 singles(this is all UK singles), one was McCartney(Love Me Do and very few first singles go straight to number, Love Me Do did very respectably, it got their foot in the door), Please, Please Me was from Lennon and their first # 1, the next three were co-written completely(From Me To You, She Loves You and I Wanna Hold Your Hand). So for the first year it was very equal.
Single number 6 was McCartney’s “Can’t Buy Me Love”. In the US, until Billboard changed how they counted–Can’t Buy Me Love held the record for biggest jump to #1 and it was the song that gave them all top five spots on the countdown(instead of 4 LOL).
Then yes the next four UK singles were John(A Hard Day’s Night, I Feel Fine, If I Fell and Help) but starting with 65’s Ticket to Ride which had some very strong contributions from Paul, including the lead guitar(which Paul played) and how Ringo played the drums, and Day Tripper, which was based on John’s starting point but otherwise co-written, Paul definitely started coming forward again. After those two songs came Paul’s Paperback Writer, Eleanor Rigby, etc.
From Paperback Writer on Paul had 8 of the next 11 singles, with Let It Be being the final single they released. John had 2(All You Need is Love, The Ballad of John and Yoko) and George had 1(the beautiful Something).
Nona and Anna you rock
A lot of opinions on this site. There are a few disorganized thinkers about Lennor OR McCartney. Neither were better than the other in simplest terms. The only way one could conclude a “better than” scenario would be to measure “the body of work”. Which still is not fair since John was taken from us. Which leaves us to compare the likes of lennon greats from Plastic Ono Band to Double Fantasy in comparison to McCartney I to McCartney II. We are talking from 1970 to 1980. Very different music on both sides, but equally great and equally, in my opinion, JUST AS GOOD AS ANY BEATLE TRACK. You have to ask what you are comparing and why? Lennon was more political and McCartney was more commercial in the big picture, but these were two different playing arenas. Both artists reversed those roles too. You have the commercial side of Imagine/Starting Over and Band On The Run/Silly Love Songs. Then the edgeier side of Bring on the Lucie/Well Well Well to Oh Woman Oh Why/Old Siam Sir. It’s all an equal perspective, just never a definative on either side. It never will be. Ask Yoko or Paul.
I will never ask Yoko..
but good point Scot..
still there are more things to add regarding the period John was in this life..:
John was more political…but…he became too political and reached a point of not making a good music from 1972, On the other hand Paul continued what the Beatles were doing, they were successful commercially , making serious, love, Rock music..
John did that well in the beginning on “Imagine” and “POB”
but he became hard to believe in his politic projects when he released “Sometime In Newyork” making political songs after newspaper columns, that what made him fail at that point..
his music waned from that time 1972.
Paul was lost at the time the Beatles Broke up… but he pulled himself together, his Musical talent arose and he made it all over again. great albums and singles 18 golden discs
by mid 70’s he was one of the most topping stars and very much in the public eye, breaking even Beatles record sales, while John retired on 1975 cause he simply couldn’t do good music, and when he returned in 1980, he was advised by critics not to , while his return was nothing political at all, a half album shared with yoko similar to BeeGees soft style.
the record wasn’t welcomed as expected, but his trajic death boosted the Records and even older records.
I think Paul side was better from 1970-1980.
[…] reviewed this book in very early January of this year (read it here) and greatly enjoyed it, while I am by no means a rabid Beatles fan I do enjoy a good heated […]
This topic is a non starter… Lennon would not have made it out of Liverpool if not for Mccartney’s musical talent and more importantly … DRIVE….
Lennon was a unique talent and brilliant, no doubt, but burned out after a couple of years and if it was’nt for Macca pushing him, he would have stayed at home and smoked hash all day !
I terms of sheer influence on the Beatles… it started out 60-40 John but ended up 70-30 Paul ! Paul was producing and arranging, holding down the low end with his bass, playing and singing more than half the songs, adding his harmony to all Johns songs, etc.
The only Pity is that the Beatles didnt let George run the band after Abbey road, I think they could have sustained if they could have just let go a bit.
the author is a poes
Both Lennon and McCartney were brilliant, but I prefer John’s songs. This doesn’t mean that some of Paul’s songs aren’t better than some of John’s, of course.
To me, the essential difference between both composers was that, on one hand, McCartney was (and still is) a master of melody craftmanship; capable of create a song in virtually any existing musical style; while, on the other hand, Lennon was a revolutionary composer that unconsciuosly created many new styles at the moment. Of course, there have been moments when Paul also had created some new things and others when John had proved he can perfectly copy existing styles too.
But remember that it was John who propelled The Beatles to national (British) stardom when he composed and arranged “Please, Please Me”; a song that officially was the debut on record of the style known as “Mersey Sound” or, simply, British beat. And nobody else could have created such innovatory songs like “Tomorrow Never Knows”, “Strawberry Fields Forever”, “Across the Universe” and, above all, “I Am the Walrus”. Pop music was never so fresh and new, so dare and bold.
Also, The Beatles couldn’t have been so popular without Paul’s brilliant melodies in the most-known songs of the band’s catalog; such as “Yesterday”, “Hey, Jude” or “Let It Be”. These beautiful songs were the perfect complement to the (then) strange songs that John made.
All my previous comment is about John and Paul in The Beatles. As solo artists, none had mantained the level of creativity they showed with the legendary band. Lennon made a pair of excellent albums and little more; and McCartney, still living and making good music, had the opportunity to made more good records than his former partner and in the 90’s onward had showed his ability to make musical works drastically apart from pop.
I just don’t get the whole ‘who was better’ debate. Lennon and McCartney were both geniuses, even though I personally prefer a lot of Paul’s solo work to John’s. Yes, both had their weak moments, but who hasn’t? Paul has made some terrific music in the last few years, and of course his live shows are magnificent. So while I love Lennon too, I think more people need to realise McCartney’s importance. We’re lucky to have him.
The argument that Paul had more A-sides and that therefore his work was superior to Lennon’s is questionable. Lennon’s B-sides were often as good or possibly superior to the A-sides. Can B-sides (or the lesser on double A-sides) like “Rain,” “I Am the Walrus,” “Don’t Let Me Down,” “Revolution,” “Strawberry Fields Forever,” “You Can’t Do That” and the primarily Lennon-written “Day Tripper” and “If I Fell” be so easily discounted?
I’m a die hard Lennon fan, his work with the Beatles and afterward could be completely separated into two different musical entities, and still be equally as brilliant. Having said that, having Paul and John at the helm, with George and Ringo writing every now and then, gave the Beatles something that no other band has had creatively.
Bottom line, without John, the Beatles would still have been a huge pop band, sold millions of albums, etc., but they wouldn’t be the Beatles.
“Bottom line, without John, the Beatles would still have been a huge pop band, sold millions of albums, etc., but they wouldn’t be the Beatles.”
Yes, but they wouldn’t have been the Beatles. And their personalities- especially John’s- is what really has made them all the more interesting these many years later.
I don’t like this debate because there’s no question Paul is the superior musician. I’m sure John would call that one himself. But even with all the musical prowess, that does not mean that you are a superior songwriter. I believe that Paul has written many beautiful, timeless songs. But John did as well, many times over. In fact, I would often read one or two of these statements about Paul’s songs being the “popular” ones or the ones people preferred and laugh. His songs, actually, were never my favorite. I am a Beatles fan for sure, but not everything they did has moved or changed my life. But just in the fact that collectively they had so many stunning songs they remain my favorite group.
Truthfully, I have always held that John’s songs were the ones that really touched me the most. I guess his voice, lyrics, and the delivery were all so ingenious that I can never forget those songs for the rest of my life.
Leave A Reply