Who Wrote the Beatle Songs

by Todd M Compton

  George Martin has also said about the same thing:

  Rolling Stone: It’s sad that the end of their touring meant the end of their collaborative songwriting. Martin: Well, they never really wrote songs together . . . John and Paul never sat down and said, ‘Let’s write a song.’ John would write the germ of something and say, ‘I’m having trouble with the middle eight, what do you think?’ Paul would say, ‘Try this.’ But it was fairly soon after we started recording that they started really going their own ways in songwriting, and just helping out occasionally with the odd lyric. [6]

  Thus the idea that John and Paul were equal collaborators on all their songs (or even on a majority of their songs) can be definitively rejected. Sometimes they wrote songs entirely separately; sometimes one was the main writer for a song, and the other provided “finishing” collaboration; sometimes they simply polished each other’s songs in a minor way. But except for the thirteen or so songs written with nearly equal collaboration, either Paul or John dominated on any specific song, or wrote the song separately.

  Those who accept this fundamental misapprehension of Lennon-McCartney creativity — which I call the “magical synergy” theory of Beatles creativity — will misunderstand both the Beatles and the Beatles after the breakup. Paul and John often wrote separately on many widely admired and popular Beatles songs, with no collaboration at all, and so this “magical synergy” (on an all-or-nothing level) was never present. Instead of Lennon or McCartney dependent on collaboration, then, actually we had two superior writers, generally writing alone, and sometimes helping to put finishing touches on each other’s songs. We might define the process of composition of many of the Beatle songs as writing (almost always alone; the music and the beginnings of lyrics are usually done here); then editing/finishing (often on lyrics, though there were musical contributions as well). [7] Thus on many songs, there was no collaboration at all on the music of the song; there was only minor collaborative work on lyrics.

  We should not underestimate either side of the song’s creation: writing (alone), and editing; though the writing is obviously most important, the editing was also there. Thus John could say, “We both had our fingers in each other’s pies.” [8] In other words, there was separate ownership of songs, but the other Beatle served a final editing function — no more mysterious than an editor working through a manuscript with a novelist before publication. McCartney can say, “For ten years together he [John] took my songs apart, he was paranoiac about my songs. We had great screaming sessions about them.” [9] The songs are Paul’s; but he and John would fight about the editing/finishing process (which, in the case of Paul’s songs, probably centered primarily on lyrics).

  The Other Pole: “We Never Wrote Together”

  A second level of misapprehension concerning the “Lennon-McCartney” attribution is to overemphasize how much John and Paul wrote alone. When the Beatles began to break up, John said that he was so tired of the “Lennon-McCartney” label and the Beatle image (and the misapprehension that he and Paul had written all their songs in “full” collaboration) that he claimed that he and Paul had written just about all their songs separately.

  He agreed that there was “full” collaboration in the early Beatles period: “We wrote a lot of stuff together, one-on-one, eyeball to eyeball . . . In those days we really used to absolutely write like that-both playing into each other’s noses. We spent hours and hours and hours.” [10] But by the time of the White Album, he stated in May 1970, he and Paul were mostly going their own way:

  Rolling Stone: When did the Beatles break up? Lennon: The Beatles’ white album. Listen — all you experts listen, none of you can hear. Every track is an individual track — there isn’t any Beatle music on it . . . it was John and the band, Paul and the band, George and the band, like that. [11]

  However, John later admitted that he had previously overemphasized separate authorship of songs because he was tired of the idea of Lennon-McCartney co-authorship. However, he says, the truth was that he and Paul wrote “a lot of stuff together, one-on-one.” [12]

  McCartney also correctly counters this second misapprehension:

  John and I gradually started to write stuff together. Which didn’t mean that we wrote everything together. We’d kind of write 80% together and the other 20% for me were things like ‘Yesterday’ and for John things like ‘Strawberry Fields’ that he’d write mainly on his own. [13]

  In other words, Paul was saying that 80% of the Beatle songs were written with “full” or “finishing”/“supportive” collaboration (with “finishing” collaboration including, substantial help in finishing songs, or lyric and musical edits). Only 20% of the songs were written entirely apart. Paul, in individual discussions of songs, agreed that in the “supportive” collaborations one writer dominated, often writing the music and the beginnings of the lyric before bringing it to the other writer. However, in discussing individual songs in interviews since the breakup, he has often served as a corrective to John’s post-breakup emphasis on “full” individual authorship of many specific songs. Even if one writer dominated on a specific song, Paul affirmed, he often remembered some collaboration, helping to finish a song, an important addition or lyrics or music. I believe he has been fairly even-handed in these interview attributions. Sometimes he stated that he contributed to a song that was mainly John’s, but at other times he has emphasized the importance of John’s contributions to songs that were mainly his own.

  I believe John’s generalization on songwriting in the White Album, while not precisely accurate, reflects a general truth. “Full” collaboration between the Beatles was infrequent on that record, and even “finishing” collaboration was less common than in previous albums.

  And, as can be seen from the catalogue, John is correct in stating that most of the “full” collaboration (writing songs together from the ground up) happened in the early Beatles period. Of the twelve songs with significant collaboration listed above, all were written before 1966, and nine of the twelve were written in 1963. Two were written in 1964, and one in 1965. Full collaboration became more and more infrequent as the Beatles continued their career, and even “supportive” collaboration gradually decreased.

  Thus, after we reject the two main misapprehensions about the Lennon-McCartney authorship — (1) that they were always “full” collaborators, with no individual authorship or even domination of songs and (2) that after the early Beatles albums, Paul and John wrote all or the great majority of their songs separately — we can arrive at what I believe is the correct view: a minority of the “Lennon-McCartney” songs (say, about twelve of them) were written in “full” or “nearly full” collaboration. Another minority of the “Lennon-McCartney” songs (say about 20 percent of them) were written wholly apart. The great majority of the “Lennon-McCartney” songs were written with supportive or finishing collaboration. One writer dominated, often writing the substantial framework of the song, and the other writer helped finish it, often making limited edits.

  Thus, many of the Beatles’ great songs are the result of independence, rather than “magical synergy.” And the songs that would logically represent such magical synergy, their full-bore collaborations, are found mostly in the Beatles’ early albums and singles.

  The Beatles: Performance and Songwriting

  Another popular misconception about the Beatles is that they were great because they had great chemistry as a performing and recording band. While the Beatles were great musicians, and did have great live chemistry, this was not their essential greatness. The Beatles were never solo virtuosos as, for example, Jimmy Hendrix or Eric Clapton were. Their performances would never have been as electric without their songwriting, their original material. Their career would have been entirely different if they had been a cover band only. Some might reasonably argue that their greatness was a combination of their original material and their performances. However, if their performances had dominated, it’s probable that they wouldn’t
have stopped live performance beginning in the Revolver -Sgt. Pepper era. Thus emphasis on the Beatles as instrumentalists and vocalists, and on the recording of their songs, does not get at the heart of their creativity. Their performances interpreted and supported the remarkable songwriting. (On the other hand, you can’t make an absolute demarcation of songwriting from performance and recording in the studio. Often songs were finished in the studio. Often musical counter-melodies were thought of and added in the studio. Avant-garde music, an important part of the Beatles’ music from Revolver on, was often developed in the studio. In classical music, scoring a piece is part of composition, though the final part that chiefly “interprets” music that has already been composed.) The Beatles’ recording and their performances as musicians were obviously important, but songwriting was at the heart of their creativity and artistic accomplishment. [14]

  Some critics regard the Beatles as essentially performers, and essentially a performance rock group. Such a view is a fundamental misunderstanding of Paul, John and George as songwriters. In the beginning of their career, George Martin wanted them to sing “How Do You Do It,” a song written by someone else, for their first single; instead they convinced him to let them sing one of their own songs. The number of songs that John and Paul wrote for other groups in their early days of success shows how seriously they took their songwriting identity. They were fundamentally different from performers like Elvis, who interpreted the songs other people wrote, and often sang songs selected by his handlers.

  Lyrics and Music

  Clearing aside popular myths of the Beatles, and realistically understanding how the songs of the Beatles were written, allows us to look at the individual songwriting gifts and tendencies of McCartney and Lennon. While it is valid to look at the union of music and lyric in song, it is also necessary to judge them separately. This will allow us to look at complex triumphs and failures in the various Beatle songs — there are mediocre, hackneyed words in some early Beatle songs and original, enthralling music. Later, there were some Beatles songs with brilliant, original lyrics and repetitive, limited melodies. Understanding how each Beatle song was written allows us to assess the individual accomplishments of McCartney and Lennon, in music or in word.

  Some critics and fans will focus on lyrics; others on music. But taking a song apart and understanding who wrote which parts of it is necessary to judge the accomplishments of the two chief Beatle songwriters.

  Friends, Mothers and Roadies: “Communal” Songwriting in the Beatles Circle

  Viewing lyrics and music separately gives insight into one of the most striking aspects of the Beatles’ songwriting: its communal nature. Not only did the Beatles collaborate on each others’ songs, but many Beatles insiders, from Mal Evans to Derek Taylor to Donovan, added to them. Mal Evans contributed to “Sgt. Pepper’s”; Donovan to “Yellow Submarine” and “Julia.” Jan Vaughan, the wife of Paul’s boyhood friend Ivan, came up with the French words to “Michelle” at Paul’s request. Derek Taylor added phrases to Harrison and Lennon songs, such as “Savoy Truffle” and “Happiness is a Warm Gun.” George Harrison’s mother added the classic line, “What they need’s a damn good whacking” to “Piggies.”

  Some might interpret this as one of the most remarkable and controversial insights that this book offers. In one sense, I think this phenomenon is important, and has been under-emphasized. This inner circle deserves some credit for what they contributed to the Beatle legacy. (Hiding the contributions of this inner circle is one more false assumption that the straitjacket label “Lennon-McCartney” has promoted.)

  Nevertheless, in another way, this phenomenon gives valuable insight into Paul and John as songwriters, how they wrote songs. First of all, this kind of communal collaboration was rarely a musical contribution. It took place after the music and the beginnings of the lyric were in place. John or Paul would need to write another verse, or fill in a line, in the lyrics. So they’d sit down with whoever was available and brainstorm.

  They would never do this with the music. Paul would never sit down with Mal Evans and work out the melody to, for instance, “Eleanor Rigby.” On the other hand, one can imagine Paul sitting down with Evans or other friends and filling in the lyrics to a missing verse on the song. Or he could take a funny phrase from his friend Jimmy Scott and use it as the title for a song, as in “Ob-la-di, Ob-la-da.”

  Thus, finalizing lyrics with Beatle insiders was a verbal contribution, rarely (to the best of my knowledge) a musical collaboration. Finishing up lyrics, adding a phrase or two to a song, especially after the main lyrics were in place, was very supportive collaboration.

  For example, Paul collaborated with Jan Vaughan to produce the French lines to “Michelle.” But she has never written other songs. She was not a musician. The same point can be made about Mal Evans and Derek Taylor. Though they deserve credit for their contributions to lyrics in a few songs, they did not help with the music of the Beatles.

  Another example of this is “Eleanor Rigby,” widely accepted (correctly) as mainly a Paul song. Nevertheless, according to John, Paul brought the song to the studio with the lyrics unfinished, and turned to the people who just happened to be there to help him complete them. “We were sitting around with Mal Evans and Neil Aspinall, so [Paul] said to us, ‘Hey, you guys, finish up the lyrics.’” John says that he, offended, then took Paul aside and the two of them put the actual finishing touches to the song’s words. However, George Martin disagrees: “Neil and Mal and I were coming up with suggestions” for the missing lyrics, he said. It is possible that Ringo, George Martin, Neil Aspinall, Mal Evans, and Pete Shotton contributed to the lyrics of the song. This is a stark contrast to the control Paul exercised in the smallest details of the music to his songs.

  And it is certain that the music in “Eleanor Rigby” is completely by Paul. He was also responsible for the basic story of the song and the first verse. He collaborated with John and possibly other Beatles and Beatle insiders on the rest of the lyrics.

  The Beatles’ Progress: Collaboration and Artistic

  Development

  If we accept that the great majority of the Beatle songs were written or substantially started by John or Paul separately, we suddenly have a view of the Beatles’ creativity that is radically different from generally accepted perceptions. We can at least substantially reject the over-simplified “magical synergy” theory of their songwriting creativity, replacing it with a perspective based on “individual creativity, sometimes followed by finishing collaboration.”

  While the Lennon-McCartney collaboration was important, the individual songwriting aesthetics of Paul and John in the Beatles is more important. First, the songs that were full collaborations were characteristic of the early Beatle period. Even from 1963 to 1966, most of the songs were mainly by Paul or John. Paul once said that the “Lennon-McCartney” label was created to soften the competition between the two writers as they competed for the A-side of singles. [15] But competition would have tended to isolate the two writers. Strong collaboration and strong competition are mutually exclusive. Interestingly, Martin ascribes the tension between Lennon and McCartney to the fact that they composed separately. “They did love each other very much . . . But the tension was there mostly because they never really collaborated. They were never Rodgers and Hart. They were always songwriters who helped each other out with little bits and pieces.” [16]

  And as the Beatles progressed, full collaboration decreased. Proponents of the magical synergy theory would have to argue that the songs should have decreased in quality as Paul and John wrote more and more separately, with only occasional supportive collaboration. However, critical consensus polls put Sgt. Pepper , Revolver , the White Album, Abbey Road and Rubber Soul at the peak of the Beatles’ accomplishment. For example, in a Rolling Stone top 500 albums poll in 2003, Sgt. Pepper was ranked number 1, Revolver was 3, Rubber Soul was 5, the White Album was 10, and Abbey Road was 14. Much further down the list, at 39, was an
early album, Please Please Me .

  A Rolling Stone readers poll in 2002 is fairly similar: Revolver was 1, Sgt. Pepper was 3, the White Album was 5, Abbey Road was 6, and Rubber Soul was 23. [17]

  Such polls have no authority, but they do provide a temporary snapshot of collective critical taste. Judging by this rough consensus, the early Beatles albums, when there was more full collaboration, cannot measure up to the later Beatles albums, when full collaboration had dwindled, and individual songwriting, often with full individual authorship of songs, had largely replaced it. The conclusion is inescapable: As Paul and John gained in creative maturity, they wrote more and more apart.

  Rock and Ballad, Music and Lyric: McCartney and

  Lennon as Individual Songwriters

  When we have achieved informed, balanced views of which songs were fully or mainly written by either Paul or John, we can reach clearer conclusions concerning their individual creativity, their individual styles and aesthetic interests. As was discussed in the introduction, after the Beatles breakup, the feud between Paul and John made the Beatles and their songwriting a partisan phenomenon. In interviews, John and Paul took jabs at each other, and John in particular often attacked Paul’s songs. He characterized himself as writing music that was part of the counter-culture, while Paul was writing music that appealed to the masses, the bourgeoisie. John wrote hard-edged rock, while Paul wrote sentimental ballads. John’s songs were serious, while Paul’s were light. John referred to some songs by Paul as “granny music,” appealing to a former generation. John’s songs often expressed pessimism in a serious way, while Paul’s were shallowly optimistic. For example, John, in 1980, said that Paul “provided a lightness . . . where I would always go for the sadness and the 9th and the discords.” [18]