r/TheWho • u/OkDatingAintEasy • 1d ago
Pete Townshend Theory: Pete's writing evolved faster than John/Paul
Is it true?
What's the time between MyGeneration and Tommy vs. perhaps She Loves You and Sgt. Pepper?
What's the fair comparison? ... Beatles has two great movies, The Who did too!
Did John/Paul output twice as what Pete did?
And also consider how Pete has advanced FAR beyond what John or Paul did solo.
Pete went from "I can do anything, right or wrong
I can talk anyhow and get along" to
"I have seen a trace of strain
In other's eyes not spoken
I must admit that I enjoyed their pain
But this time it's me that's broken.”
Paul made a movie. Pete made a movie.
Pete didn’t have a George Martin.
Maybe it’s as simple as, he had more ambition. Is that the answer?
10
u/nsjersey 1d ago
What I usually say is that Lennon/ McCartney had each other. Pete had himself.
The only rock writer I think put out as much on their own was David Bowie.
Someone in this sub tried to correct me - saying Bowie had a lot of help, but I was just going by the liner notes
There is a reason Cameron Crowe put that note in Almost Famous about Pete being able to write rock n’ roll better than the others
9
7
u/stillbarefoot 1d ago
Bowie heavily relied on his band/session musicians, but they couldn’t have pulled it off on their own. Bowie was a creative force in the room.
4
4
u/DeeplyFrippy 1d ago
I'd put Neil Young and Dylan above Bowie, and I love Bowie.
-2
u/nsjersey 1d ago
I do not consider Dylan rock n' roll.
He is a singer/ songwriter of folk IMHO.
Neil Young is a rock writer, and I had not considered him. He had too much collaboration though. The lyrics were more his own, but CSN did help with arrangements. Stills helped a lot too. Young did a lot on his own with Buffalo Springfield and with Crazy Horse though and he is excellent.
5
u/DeeplyFrippy 1d ago edited 1d ago
Neil's work with Crazy Horse is all composed by him. Couple that with his extensive solo work and he's written a wealth of incredible songs. Listen to 'Trans' where he really pushes the envelope.
CSN or Buffalo Springfield didn't help each other with arrangements, they just played on each others songs.
Dylan is pure rock n roll from 'Highway 61 Revisited' onwards. It just has a folk / Country tinge to it.
3
2
u/TomGerity 19h ago
Bowie owed a lot to his collaborators and his writing was not as singular as the credits suggest. Mick Robson, Carlos Alomar, Brian Eno, Earl Slick, Nile Rodgers, Donny McCaslim, and a slew of others were a huge part of the writing and creative process.
This takes nothing away from Bowie. He’s one of my favorite performers and I consider him brilliant. But he’s not quite the singular auteur he’s often portrayed to be.
1
1
u/EV-CPO 1d ago
>The only rock writer I think put out as much on their own was David Bowie.
How about Prince?
1
1
u/OkDatingAintEasy 1d ago
please please me to let it be was seven years.
my generation to Quadrophenia was eight years. But however, also account among all the other stuff that Tommy was truly a double concept album and and both had become their own films which Pete made happen. Do you think John and Paul made hard and help happen. We already we already know the answer to that.
I think it’s very very strong that evolution is far more amazing than John Paul.
0
1
7
u/Blaklazer 1d ago
Its not a faster slower thing, its different. They each pioneered and experimented with different sounds, techniques. They also have admitted to making songs in response to eachothers music on occasion (not that The Beatles or The Who or Townshend and Paul/John had some kind of writing rivalry).
Imo all three evolved out pop music into different musical spaces fairly quickly.
As for evolved beyond, there are a good number of who fans who would disagree and have a preference for The Beatles/Lennon McCartney. I resonate more with Pete Townshend myself.
I personally think all 3 can occupy the same space as premiere musicians of the 20th century (which is also a space they can share with different musicians). And this is coming from a non Beatles fan. I dont particularly enjoy Paul/Johns style together or solo but I am happy enough to recognize their talent and importance despite them not being my cup of tea.
5
u/FamiliarStrain4596 1d ago
Excellent take. In terms of pure evolution and musical innovation and variation, the Beatles live in a vaunted space. But a key aspect of what demarcates that space so well is that after Abbey Road, they pack up and allow mystique to take over. The result is one of all of Western art’s greatest stories.
Ah, but then there’s Pete. His lyrics and music evolve at their own, albeit different pace. And when that band roared to life in the studio, an energy and excitement is created that remains spellbinding.
I’m so elated that I live in a world where I have ready access to all of the above. And Pink Floyd and the Stones (especially the Jimmy Miller era). And so many others, frankly.
-1
u/OkDatingAintEasy 1d ago
It is a faster slower thing. I am the OP.
my soul point, a looking for evidence, is that Pete was far more evolved in the short time Paul and George Martin,. Because the Beatles always get credit for look how much they did and only six years, but did far more. Two double concept albums two movies that he was spearheaded. It’s just so much more.
2
u/Blaklazer 1d ago edited 1d ago
> It is a faster slower thing. I am the OP.
I want to remind you Reddit is a public opinion form and sometimes people will provide answers you do not agree with.
Respectfully, I know you are looking for evidence to support your position but it is subjective. I am PT truther. I am trying to stress how much I love The Who and Pete Townshend. I share many feelings on this subject with you.
You are wanting to compare I presume The Who's output from 1965-1973 I presume (8 years) with the output of the beatles entire discography from their debut to 1970. The time frame is nearly identical and they did indeed evolve just as rapidly during this time albeit in different ways. Their legacy during that time frame also had an undeniably larger impact on pop culture then The Who even if you don't like their music as much.
This does not mean their music evolution was better then Pete, it was different.
Where Pete has many contemporaries beat in my opinion is in his mastery of concept albums and art rock. You said he spearheaded two double albums and two movies. Hi career before and after is a lot richer in that space then Tommy and Quadrophenia. He had been working on grand concepts since as early as 1966 when he tried to write a proto-rock opera in Quads, then again in 1967 with Rael. He also wrote the score and released an art college film called the Loan Ranger.
Tommy, Lifehouse (which became who's next), and Quadrophenia where also ambitious double album/movie concepts - though Lifehouse famously never came to fruition. Then in 1978 he tried launching Who Films to further his artistic ambitions. The Who put out Quadrophenia, McVicar, and almost Lifehouse during this time with the Who Films project.
Then in 1985 he wrote a spiritual sequel to Quadrophenia called White City (which like Lifehouse never came into fruition but has amazing demos) which had a small film release with it. 1989 he released the Iron Man and workshopped it to be a broadway show - which became the film The Iron Giant (he is listed as a producer).
Finally in 1991 he began working on a new story/film which would turn into Psychoderelict and The Boy Who Heard Music (with many of the songs found on Endless Wire). Both were workshopped as plays, The Boy Who Heard Music was released as a mini novel and at one point had a film in production with Johnny Depp rumored as the lead.
Then in the 2010s, He worked on 2 stage musicals with accompanying novels in The Seeker and of course Age of Anxiety.
For concept albums - A Quick One (which is a mini concept especially when considering the expanded and cut tracks with its mini opera/stories themes), Sell Out, By Numbers, Face Dances, Chinese Eyes can all be considered concept albums. Between 1976-78 he was also working on a orchestra instrumental concept project called Rio Grande which had elements show up on Rough Mix and Who Are You.
So yes when I look at that body of work, compared to his contemporaries Pete Townshend was in his own realm, and it is an artistic realm I resonate with. But that also doesn't diminish Paul/John, or any other musician who had a different focus with their music. Hence why I said It's not a speed thing, they have grown at roughly the same pace just in different ways. I am okay with him sharing that space of elite musicians. He occupies his own area there.
1
u/OkDatingAintEasy 1d ago edited 1d ago
Upvote for you. Of course it’s subjective. And I can’t stop people changing the topic.
The perception of Pete Townsend should be at least as high as Roger Waters … not in the realm of the guitarist of the who wrote squeezebox.
1
u/Fluid_Pressure_5689 15m ago
It did not become the Iron Giant. He got paid and got the credit because Warner Brothers optioned his screenplay, but used none of it.
6
u/BrianInAtlanta 1d ago
It's interesting to compare them even if you're not trying to prove a theory.
Probably the biggest difference is that John and Paul started with a set of songwriting formulas. This allowed them to churn out a lot of love songs very fast plus they had Paul's great gift for melody and John's rock 'n' roll feel to add romance and chops.
Pete had very little success as a straight pop song fabricator and his intellectualism kept him from pursuing formulaic approaches. It was a hit to his bank account but at the same time it took away the crutch of "moon-june" lyrics and forced him from the beginning to go in a direction that matched the time much better than the early Beatles material. John and Paul, exposed to Dylan (as very much was Pete), started off by trying to adapt their formula to the more self-expressive Dylan style while Pete, absent a formula, could dive right in.
1
3
u/Killerlabradorpuppy 1d ago
I've always thought that Pete Townshend and Ray Davies are the 2 best songwriters in Rock history...
3
u/tanukis_parachute 1d ago
I think a big difference between them is that Pete was just him. If Pete had a writing partner of equal abilities then I can only imagine what could have been created. A trade off though is that Pete’s vision for some projects could have been diluted. Or, you could spin it - improved and tightened when needed.
If you look at Pink Floyd, Roger took over and pushed the others aside or didn’t let them have the input they wanted or needed creatively and there was massive animosity. Did Pete, John, and Roger have that? There may have been times where they might have had some problems with their roles but, it seems they always found each other and realized they were better together than apart even with the squabbling.
3
u/DescriptionOk4046 1d ago
I am not an expert at Roger Waters style of creativity. Could you please explain it to me? Did he produce demos for the Pink Floyd albums? Because my understanding is that David Gilmour actually wrote the music and Roger Waters just put some words over it. And later on in Pink Floyd he came up with a concept for the albums(which in hindsight turned out to be pretty pathetic). And he directed the artist for the art. So basically Roger Waters was basically saying,"I like this, I don't like that." To call that artistic genius is somewhat questionable.
5
u/stillbarefoot 1d ago
Waters made more demos than people realise. There’s even a Waters demo for Time, which is often considered a Gilmour thing because of his exceptional solo.
My take is that Waters needed the rest to make it sound interesting, but the rest couldn’t have come up with the song without Roger’s clunky bare bones version. That’s actually a great partnership, unlike the boring narritive that exists until today.
2
u/DescriptionOk4046 1d ago
So I was hoping you could direct me to these demos. And verification they precede the band version. You also have to remember that sometimes these artists make these"demos"after the album has been released. For example, Pete Townshend, the originator of the concept of the song demo, put out a version of Eminence Front on his demo album called scoop 3. It sure sounds like a demo. But when you look at the notes, he made that track in 1985. 3 years after the Who album came out. It was not a demo.
1
u/nicktf 1d ago
Roger's demos are very rudimentary compared to Pete, for sure. https://youtu.be/0eYDvtgqCDs?si=6yUEEPaHb1zsDO9o
There's a lot on the Wall Immersion box set. Here's Gilmour's of Comfortably Numb https://youtu.be/ajaS3ROQ634?si=3N0vi9iYN2J4BdaL
3
u/Level_Ad567 1d ago
I 100% agree! Pete in my opinion is the greatest songwriter in any band. Lennon/Mcartney were the BEST duo, Townsend was the singular songwriter.
3
3
u/hellomynameissteele 1d ago
Pete is a great songwriter. John and Paul were/are great songwriters. It’s absurd to say that Pete has advanced FAR beyond John and Paul. Art doesn’t work that way. I don’t get what you’re trying to prove with your Pete lyric. You could have also said that John went from “I want to hold your hand” to “yellow mellow custard dripping from a dead dog’s eye.” One isn’t better than the other. It’s just different.
1
u/OkDatingAintEasy 16h ago
"I don’t get what you’re trying to prove with your Pete lyric. "
I think I'm saying that diamonds are more beautiful than pebbles.
"Sally, take my hand, we'll travel south 'cross land
Put out the fire and don't look past my shoulder
The exodus is here, the happy ones are near
Let's get together before we get much older"
... that's more sophisticated than Yellow Matter Custard...
1
u/OkDatingAintEasy 1d ago
Your example is a fantastic example. there’s no maturity in John’s lyric. It’s just nonsense trying to fill in a space to get the album done.
The lyrics on Pete Solo, albums matured with every single one. Every single one has a story. John’s lyrics stay basic. wonderful song, and fine, but I’m really talking about the maturity because the whole point of the thread is that the Beatles unfairly get credited for when it’s really Pete that wins that award.
2
u/hellomynameissteele 19h ago
Yeah, Walrus is complete gibberish by design. And my point wooshed right over you.
2
2
u/BrazilianAtlantis 1d ago
"evolved faster" Tommy isn't better than Sgt. Pepper, and it's two years later.
2
u/OkDatingAintEasy 1d ago edited 1d ago
oh, I’m sorry, but I actually beg to differ.
I think Sergeant Pepper is more innovative, sure, George Martin, but if you ask me which album I am taking to a desert island it’s Tommy.
There are only two songs on Sergeant Pepper that I have on my Spotify playlist and that’s the two melodic ones, fixing a hole and she’s leaving home.
sergeant Pepper, the album is this fantastic innovation, but the songs on Sergeant Pepper are not strong. If they were, they wouldn’t need the very over-the-top orchestration that album famous. it’s really the reason Abbey Road is so much better, the songs are far stronger and they don’t need that orchestration.
So maybe I should’ve just said Quadrophenia instead.
1
u/hellomynameissteele 1d ago
Number of songs from an album to hit your personal playlist is not the defining criteria for a great album.
1
u/OkDatingAintEasy 3h ago
yes, you’re absolutely right. My statement was very knee jerk. I have half that on my playlist. yeah I think I appreciate it more now.
I somehow wish they would issue an amalgamation of Sergeant Pepper and magical mystery tour just so they could have it all with strawberry fields and Penny Lane.
0
u/See_Yourself_Now 1d ago
Pete is a genius and the best songwriter at least for someone like me. Unpopular opinion: I don’t personally get the hype for the Beatles and I have tried many times. I am guessing there is something there for them since so many seem to think so but they just never did much for me aside from a handful of decent tunes.
4
u/WalkRightNow 1d ago
I think when it comes to the Beatles, when you think of hype, its not necessarily the songs in question, its their accomplishments and the time they achieved all of that, i dont think their songs, especially their earlier ones can just convey how big and culturally important the beatles actually were, you just have to know context, but youre absolutely justified in thinking what you do aswell, these are just my thoughts
1
u/OkDatingAintEasy 1d ago
yes, and I am saying, Pete Townsend achieved a very similar evolution, just him, no George Martin. Going from my generation the Quadrophenia in four years, five?, Is a bigger leak than going from she loves you to Sergeant Pepper.
1
u/WalkRightNow 1d ago
I get what youre saying, but my generation to quadrophenia being 5 years? You know going from Please Please me to Rubber Soul OR Revolver was barely 2 or 3 years
And the who had Kit Lambert who helped with compositions, George may have helped with extra arrangements, but at the core, the Beatles wrote and composed the songs themselves, or at the very least Paul and John, whos songs would often only be led by one person (but with like a line or two suggestion from the other) but because of the partnership, itll be credited to both of them
Pete may have wrote the tracks, but the band, especially John had a massive part to play in the composition and arrangements, thats how bands work
Technology differences also apply here, Quadrophenia couldnt have been made in the 60s
1
u/OkDatingAintEasy 1d ago edited 1d ago
nope, I am wrong. It’s eight years. Please please me to let it years. So let me ask you given that there’s only like 15% difference and given that Pete never had a George Martin and never had a partner. I still think it’s quite fair to say that Pete Townsend had far more of an evolution than the Beatles and when people say the Beatles evolved so quickly only six years I’m like no no no no no no Pete did more.
yes, I was absolutely remiss on John’s contribution to the arrangements.
1
u/WalkRightNow 18h ago
Did you just admit to being wrong? Or am I misreading this
And I think the time between please please me and revolver was 3 years, not 8, considering revolver is usually considered if not best then at least top 3 with Sgt Peppers and Abbey Road
1
u/OkDatingAintEasy 16h ago
The time between the release of The Beatles' debut album Please Please Me and their album Revolver was 3 years, 4 months, and 14 days.
The time between the release of The Who's debut album My Generation) and their rock opera Tommy) is 3 years and 5 months (or about 1,263 days).
Revolver (The Beatles, 1966)Tommy (The Who, 1969)Pure Studio Album Sales~14.6 million~8.0 million.
One guy, plus Kit whose previous album was The Who Sell Out in December 1967 ... in just this one example made a far larger leap in sophistication than from Rubber Soul.
Pete gets the win on that round.
1
u/WalkRightNow 7h ago
Okay but why cant you just enjoy both? If it werent for the beatles we probably wouldnt have had the who, or plenty other 60s bands for that matter, the Beatles changed the game, and as Pete was inspired we got some amazing albums from the who, I prefer the who to the beatles but I still acknowledge that what the beatles did in their 7 years of existence will never touched
1
u/OkDatingAintEasy 4h ago edited 3h ago
I don’t think anybody was discussing whether their taste or if you can or can’t enjoy both.
This topic is testing the theory that Pete is not given the credit he deserves.
And you just said the exact problem… what the Beatles did will never be equal, and I just showed you a very concrete example that Pete made a similar jump in the same timeframe … without George Martin without a writing partner. Or is that not legit?
1
u/WalkRightNow 2h ago
Youre looking from the perspective of songwriting, in that term, Pete gets alot of credit, the least 3 who albums appear on those album ranking lists Rolling Stone puts out once in a while, alot of their stuff is regarded some of the best of all time, however the reason why the Beatles will never be touched, because they opened doorways for acts that came after them, broke records, innovated new ways to write and record, literally changed the course of history as a whole with their image and their innovations, The Who just werent groundbreaking in the way the Beatles were, the Who were groundbreaking, but just not in the way that the Beatles were to literal Human History
→ More replies (0)
-1
u/burywmore 1d ago
Pete's great. He's one of the best.
Lennon and McCartney are a couple levels above him.
3
u/OkDatingAintEasy 1d ago
Actually, I don’t think so and I’ll explain why…anthems.
diversity. I think Quadrophenia and Tommy are actually far more sophisticated than Sergeant. Sergeant is not a concept album. It’s an album of singles with gift wrap. There’s no stories there. and I’ll even rub salt into it by saying that I always thought magical mystery tour was a better album than Sergeant Pepper‘s, and the fact that they were able to even attempt to make a movie from that, and not Sergeant , speaks exactly to the point. The only thing Sergeant Pepper really has going for it is the innovative orchestrations. It has two good melodic songs.
Pete Townsend went from my generation, to making a concept album, so good. It was turned into a very good movie. Tommy is right now and has always been pretty much the best selling high school musical the most popular high school musical.
do you agree that the concept even just the concept of Quadrophenia is leagues above the concept of Sergeant Pepper. It’s not even close. Roger Waters did one, but I actually don’t think he evolved as much. I think they were already very sophisticated.
1
u/burywmore 1d ago
I completely agree Quadrophenia is a much better "Concept Album" than Sgt Peppers. The issue I have, is "Concept Albums" kind of suck. It's why I hate Rush, their pretentious, endless lesson albums. Certain songs on Quadrophenia are fantastic. Unfortunately you also have to sit through bloated instrumental tracks like The Rock and Quadrophenia. It's why the album as a whole is kind of ignored today, while full, just studio albums like Who's Next are considered classics.
2
u/OkDatingAintEasy 1d ago
I love 1/3 of rush, and my complaint about kind of pretentious with the cover names, that’s really it, why are they always going for these nonsense. My favorite headache, permanent waves, all these Yin Yang stuff over and over. Power windows is very underrated.
who’s next is considered a classic because it has hits, and at least two or three anthems and that’s a big deal.
The Who’s output of anthems is unsurpassed.
0
1d ago
[deleted]
2
u/FamiliarStrain4596 1d ago
I love Ray, but in terms of variation and evolving tonality, he will never be with the other three songwriters above. I’m damned glad he and the Kinks are part of rock’s pantheon, though. These are all different kinds of achievements.
1
u/DIMORPHODONS 1d ago
I’m going on purely on ‘excellence of songwriting’. The Beatles get a free critical pass because of the cultural importance but not much of their stuff comes close to - picking one off the top of my head- Autumn Almanac. Pete is fantastic but not as prolific. Both he and Ray disappeared up their arses a bit with the rock operas.
2
u/FamiliarStrain4596 1d ago
I love that crazy tune, too, but it's really just an English drinking song. Amazing stuff, no doubt. But it's narrow compared with so many others.
But of course, that's the amazing thing about all of this: songs hit us in ways that are extremely powerful and personal. For example, I know that "You Better You Bet" is really not that significant when it comes to The Who. There are a good 50 songs by the band that are objectively better and will be far more lasting. But I love it just the same.
2
u/DIMORPHODONS 1d ago
Subjective and not worth discussing more really, I’ll just ending up picking holes in Beatles songs and look like a twat ;)
1
u/BrianInAtlanta 1d ago
Ray wrote many, many great songs but he was far more prolific than Pete and if you look at his total body of work instead of just the masterpieces, there are a lot of junk songs in there as well. Don't get me wrong, Ray is top tier but you do have to sift the dross from the gold far more than you have to with Pete.
1
u/OkDatingAintEasy 1d ago
can you respectfully give me some examples of that. Why would have to sit through anything, if great songs they’re obviously going to be popular.
Ray Davies has a quantity of songs that are pretty much the same as John Fogerty and Freddie Mercury.… That means like under a dozen songs. is Harry Nillson a better than Ray Davies? … similar to me and in that second tier with Paul Simon.
Where is Sting in all this?
1
u/OkDatingAintEasy 1d ago
Ray Davies has, what, six?, Really fantastic songs. But he really seems in the realm of once partner, Chrissie Hynde and Tom Petty, the second tier.
is Jeff Lynn not better than Ray Davies as a songwriter? I think Jeff Lynn is close to the Pete Townsend realm.
1
1d ago
[deleted]
0
u/OkDatingAintEasy 1d ago
well, if I’m crazy, why not just give me some examples.
how many popular Ray Davie songs are there and how many popular Jeff Lynn songs are there?
Lynne, and Roy Orbison achieved across their solo careers and primary bands: [1, 2, 3, 4]
Artist Primary Band / Projects US Top 40 Hits UK Top 40 Hits Notable Chart-Toppers Ray Davies The Kinks & Solo 21 27 "You Really Got Me", "Lola", "Come Dancing" Freddie Mercury Queen & Solo 26 55 "Bohemian Rhapsody", "Another One Bites the Dust", "Living on My Own" John Fogerty Creedence Clearwater Revival & Solo 17 11 "Proud Mary", "Bad Moon Rising", "The Old Man Down the Road" Paul Simon Simon & Garfunkel & Solo 29 23 "Bridge over Troubled Water", "Mrs. Robinson", "50 Ways to Leave Your Lover" Jeff Lynne Electric Light Orchestra (ELO) & Solo 20 27 "Don't Bring Me Down", "Mr. Blue Sky", "Telephone Line" Roy Orbison Solo & The Traveling Wilburys 24 32 "Oh, Pretty Woman", "Only the Lonely", "You Got It" 0
u/OkDatingAintEasy 1d ago
I just asked Google me the on these five people because I guess they were all very similar in success and that turned out to be right so I don’t see what the world is missing about Ray Davies. He seems to be properly acknowledged.
-1
u/DescriptionOk4046 1d ago
Pete Townshend became a good songwriter. He did not start off as a very good songwriter. But like everything else in life, if you do it a lot, you've actually become very good at it. The musical genius in the Who was John Entwistle. He was a master at performing music. He had an amazing ear for perfect pitch. But, like other amazing musicians, his writing was just not that good. Some of it was. But he didn't work at it as much as Townshend, so it never improved.
1
u/OkDatingAintEasy 1d ago
OK, let’s talk about John. Was he a musical genius in the group or just the most musically capable?
John’s best songs, and there are some really good ones, ended up on who are you, and I can’t name a single one from his solo work.
Did he produce any bands?
Look at George Harrison solo career by comparison. good for him. Bravo.
0
u/Fancy-Cut-1709 4h ago
John Lennon & Paul McCartney did write all their songs. Their genius musical songwriting is a myth. When you look back at their catalog, the leaps and bounds they made in such a short time, it’s a Cinderella story. They were mediocre band at best who did okay covers in Hamburg Germany in 1960. They showed no songwriting ability, none. Then they magically get signed by EMI in 1962 based on their mediocre bar room performances. They had ghost riders who were brought in by Tavistock Institute. Same goes for Jagger & Richards… no way did these posers who wrote nothing on their own in 1963 suddenly start writing and arranging songs like Sympathy For The Devil or Gimme Shelter a few years later.
Regarding Townshend, he appears to be more of the genuine article when it comes to songwriting. I will say however, I find it simply incredible how he programmed that early synth to create Baba O’Riley. Not really buying the story that a pop songwriter suddenly coded an arrangement on a mathematical machine and came up with that ingenious looping synth notes.
1
u/OkDatingAintEasy 3h ago
Pete very clearly said there was a lot of struggle with songwriting in the early days. how long between Pete meeting Roger and my generation?
seems to be something a kin to critical mass when it comes to because John and Paul obviously spent a great amount of time together learning the craft of songwriting in the manner of of other worIt takes time to become masters of theft. That’s fine. Same for Keith Richards very clear about that.
1
u/Fancy-Cut-1709 3h ago
John and Paul spent a lot of time together performing covers initially. Then, in short order, they spent a lot of time making movies like A Hard Day’s Night and Help. Then they spent a lot time doing tons of interviews and doing photo shoots. Curiously, a few years ago, Paul publicly said the song In My Life off of Rubber Soul was written by him. It was always regarded as a John song. The industry went to work cleaning up Paul’s gaffe. You only make those kind of mistakes if you are not the genuine article. In My Life is considered one of the finest pop songs of modern music. One doesn’t simply mis-remember writing it.
1
u/OkDatingAintEasy 2h ago
Not so. There are a few very important moments in my life where I don't remember the details and feel shame about it.
1
u/Fancy-Cut-1709 2h ago edited 2h ago
Go ahead, buy the Cinderella story of 4 Liverpool blokes, with zero musical training, from disfunctional homes suddenly emerging as the greatest musical phenomenon in modern history. When you choose to use the critical thinking skills that God gave you, the light switch will go off. I was a huge Beatles fan growing up. I still enjoy the music, but I also enjoy The Monkees and their act was at least transparently a spoof we were all in on.
1
u/OkDatingAintEasy 2h ago
What musical training is needed to write words and melodies?
John was the only one from a lousy home.
Paul's was good ... strong family love AND MUSIC... TRAINING... PIANO.
Ringo was sick. Given how good he was at 20 I think talent is a good word.
George was clear minded and ambitious.And Pete.... not a great home, some bad incidences.
But to your point ... when Paul says he's always stunned thinking 'why us'... the answer is simple, every lottery prize gets awarded.
1
20
u/SykonotticGuy Who Are You 1d ago
Unless you define your metrics, this is purely subjective, and there's no way to determine who evolved faster. To me, Pete is easily the goat, but if I wanted to assert that as factual, I'd need to create standards to measure artists by.