John Lennon’s Incredible Vanishing Act

john lennon books

First, let’s review what we do know:

Convinced by his mother, Julia Stanley Lennon, that he had “music in his bones” — music inherited from Julia’s instrumental acumen and his father, Fred’s, vocal gift— 16-year-old John Lennon founded a Liverpool skiffle group known as The Quarrymen. Hounded, indeed badgered, by young Lennon to practice regularly in a neighborhood air-raid shelter, the group developed. And as members proved unworthy or unwilling to work, John pitilessly culled them from his band.

In July 1957, Lennon made a most critical decision: despite a whispered voice warning that Paul McCartney was smart, charismatic, and unbelievably talented — indeed, a groundbreaker who posed a real threat to John’s leadership of The Quarrymen — John unselfishly decided to admit the newcomer to his group. Determined to hone a band that would someday be “bigger than Elvis,” John Lennon included McCartney, despite their strong individual bents toward self-preservation.

Almost immediately, McCartney began to assert his will, insisting that John audition one of McCartney’s mates from the Liverpool Institute, a 14-year-old lead guitarist named George Harrison. Extremely reluctant to admit “a kid” to his band, John nevertheless yielded to Paul’s insistence and not only auditioned Harrison but allowed the gifted youth to join his group.

In the years ahead, McCartney became a prime mover in The Quarrymen, The Silver Beatles, and The Beatles. He vigorously campaigned for Stu Sutcliffe’s removal from the band. And with Harrison as an ardent ally, McCartney pressed for Pete Best’s replacement by Ringo Starr. Almost from Day One, Lennon had to struggle to secure the reins of band leadership.

But lead John did. The first two Beatles hits were John’s, although Paul was recruited, at the last minute, to sing “Love Me Do” whilst John played the mouth organ. (“You can’t have a song known as, ‘Love me waaahh!” George Martin contended, forcing Paul to assume John’s lyrics, which were admittedly pitched too high for Macca.) As a swift follow-up, John wrote and sang The Beatles’ first #1, “Please Please Me.” And on the Please Please Me LP, John wrote 5 of the 14 songs, performed 3 of the cover songs, and co-authored/sang 2 songs with Paul.

Related: “The Cavern Club: Wednesday, Aug. 7, 1957”

This Lennon-dominated trend continued. John’s voice alone, without a note of accompaniment, opened The Beatles’ second LP, With the Beatles, on which John wrote and sang 4 of the 14 offerings and sang 3 of the cover songs. A Hard Day’s Night was almost a Lennon solo album, with 9 of the 13 songs on the soundtrack LP being John Lennon creations. Beatles for Sale also stayed true to that leaning. John wrote and sang 5 of the album’s country-and-western-themed offerings while belting out 2 of the cover songs and co-performing yet another cover with Paul.

But it wasn’t in musical creation alone that Lennon dominated The Beatles. In 1964, when Kansas City mogul, Charlie O. Finley, wanted The Beatles to play a concert in his town, Brian Epstein went directly to Lennon for a decision. And when, at last, John shrugged agreement to the performance, Finley approached John (and no one else) to beg The Beatles’ leader to add a few extra songs to the concert playlist. The decision rested solely on John.

Now…here’s what we might not know…

After John’s untimely death in 1980, the world subtly began to shade the narrative surrounding the colorful Scouser. In the 1980s, the practice of “lionizing Lennon” (as Bob Wooler used to say), transformed the hard-charging, leather-wearing, expletive-hurling rock ‘n roller into some odd variety of saint. For years, John was measured by “Imagine” instead of “Revolution.” And rarely was he pictured without his white suit, national health glasses, and an obligatory dove or two.

But saints, I fear, are hardly exciting in a world that craves the fast and furious; hence, the revised, milquetoast Lennon began to dwindle in popularity. And as the brash John Lennon of history became single-lined to a one-dimensional “Give Peace a Chance” caricature, he began to slip from public regard. One need only to listen to today’s various Beatles channels to assess the bleak aftermath.

Motoring to a Fest for Beatles fans, I tuned in to various stations supplying Beatles hits, and each hour was a replica of the last: there was one (rarely, two) Lennon-lead songs, one (or two) Harrison songs, several Ringo songs, and one oldies “song that inspired The Beatles.” The greater portion of the hour belonged squarely to Sir Paul McCartney. I was a bit taken aback. Because we were driving in the wee hours, my husband glibly suggested, “Maybe they save the John songs for prime time!” Yet on the daylight drive home, another four-hour listening session produced identical results. John was on the playlist…well…infrequently.

Over the next few months, I found that while I was out running each evening, the Beatles-streaming channels afforded a similar pattern. In a typical 5K jaunt, I could expect to hear from John exactly once.

But none of this was as eye-opening as what I discovered at the screening of the film, Yesterday. Being advised to see it on opening night, I was there in full Beatles regalia. I couldn’t wait to see John’s band “shine on.” The film was superb. But sadly, only three songs by John Lennon were played during the film: “Help!” “All You Need is Love,” and “In My Life.” “A Hard Days’ Night” was mentioned, but not performed. And a couple of songs that John co-wrote with Paul (such as “I Want to Hold Your Hand”) were offered up. But there was no “Norwegian Wood,” no “If I Fell,” no “This Boy,” no “Yes, It Is,” no “Julia,” no, “You’ve Got To Hide Your Love Away,” no…well, you get the drift. Yet, lest you despair, Lennon fans…


The filmmakers compensated for this musical oversight by featuring “John himself” in the film. But wait…what? Was “Yesterday’s” John Lennon the caustic, witty, brilliant, suffer-no-fools man from Liverpool? No, indeed.

Related: “‘Yesterday’: A World Without the Beatles?”

In fact, the Lennonesque character depicted in Yesterday was an exact opposite of John…an alter-ego existing in the alternative universe of the film. Part saint, part sailor, part crusty curmudgeon full of forgiveness and sage advice, the cleverly tweaked Lennon strolled about, dispensing politically correct advice to the lovelorn. And although it was great to “see him again,” the sanitized version of John bore very little resemblance to the razor-wit who lashed and spat and fought for what he believed.

I find this anti-John everywhere. He is someone borrowing John’s voice to spout opinions that John never endorsed. He is someone using John’s name to Tweet things John never said. To many today, he is a cardboard character, The Quintessential Peacemaker, quietly gobbling up the authentic Lennon, the real John who felt quite at home in the Garston Blood Baths, the brothels of Hamburg, and the stench and grit of The Cavern. Today’s John is artfully airbrushed into a “shite-r shade of pale.” And this changes truth — rewrites history. That is not only tragic…it is a genuine loss.

Fifty-plus years after the fact, I rejoice that Beatles music is still sung, celebrated, and beloved. I’m thrilled that Beatles fashion is still mimicked and Beatles wit, still admired! The Beatles are very much a part of our 2019 vernacular. But to keep The Beatles, The Beatles, we must keep remembering them all. And those memories must remain factual and accurate.

John Lennon (the actual John) had determination in his stride, a hunger for fame, and a burning desire to get to “the toppermost of the poppermost.” He admitted to “becoming a real bastard” to succeed as a Beatle. And he did almost anything to maintain leadership of his band. But most of all, John Lennon had a gift. He had music in his bones. And his music still deserves to be heard, today and tomorrow…always In My Life, and yes, just as if it were yesterday.

-Jude Southerland Kessler

Photo of John Lennon: Getty Images

Other Posts You Might Like

Jude Southerland Kessler is the leading expert on the life of John Lennon and the author of The John Lennon Series, a projected 9-volume expanded biography taking readers chronologically through John’s life. The first five volumes are out in print, plus a new audiobook version of "She Loves You" (Vol. 3). With a personal Lennon library of over 300 books, Kessler undertook seven trips to Liverpool, England to interview John Lennon’s childhood friends, early band members, art college mates, and business associates before embarking on writing the series, which is told in a narrative format and heavily documented. You can learn more about Jude's work at

48 comments on “John Lennon’s Incredible Vanishing Act

  1. Oscar Suarez

    While some might prefer one Beatle over another, the true fan hears four voices that make up the Greatest group in history. John will NEVER fade, his talent is to immense. The mere fact that he recognized Paul to be his equal, at such an early time in their career, only magnifies his greatness.
    John, Paul, George and Ringo. Called in that order for a reason.
    John was first, he took Paul as his partner, then Paul brought George, who in turn, brought Ringo.
    The Masers.

  2. Tim from Baltimore

    Interesting. I just checked the ipod and the Beatle songs I listen to all the time have a very few McCartney-penned tunes included. And I’d be far more likely to listen to Harrison’s “Wonderwall” album than any of the Wings efforts. But that’s what made the Beatles’ albums such anticipated treasures at the time of release: beautifully crafted chaos that veered from ditties your Mom and Dad could enjoy to boundary-breaking adventures in sound and vision.

    That range may explain the vanishing act. As the fans age and become their Moms and Dads, those ditties written by Sir Paul become more pleasing to have around … and the strident voice of love, art, and revolution becomes a reminder that the listener really hasn’t accomplished very much at all.

  3. Stella Valadez

    John, Paul, George and Ringo…in that order! John was a very unique and amazingly talented individual. He will always be remembered as the person that started the Beatles! His voice stands alone with so much feeling and love. He will always be the ‘frontman’ of the group! His voice and music will always live forever, even after we are all gone his music will still be heard and will never die!! We love you John 🎸

    • Bill burch

      I always thought “instant karma ” was a great and sad song by john … and turned out he saw the future for himself .

  4. I agree that Lennon’s acerbic wit is being airbrushed into a peace-making bed in, his Beatles offerings aren’t overlooked, in the States, at least.

    McCartney does get more play on The Beatles channel on Sirius. But to be fair— he’s alive— and records custom messages to fans. He has an unfair advantage. I do not believe John is overlooked in the hearts and minds of Beatle fans.

  5. I haven’t done the measurements you have, and I suspect (like Michael said above) that the playlists are tilting more towards the living Beatles. Also bear in mind that Lennon’s post-Beatle output, quantity wise, was comparatively erratic compared to the other 3 ex-Beatles. Similar statements could be made about other bands of that era (who started what, who wrote the most, etc.). That aside, you made a brilliant, spot-on assessment about the lionization of Lennon–perfectly stated and I’m in total agreement with it. I much prefer the “Revolution” Lennon to the “Imagine” Lennon. Parodies can be harsh, but a parody of “Imagine” I once heard went like this: “Imagine you’re a rich hippie, telling people what to do…” I respect “Imagine,” but “Revolution” and such songs were the ones that kicked me in the pants and made me want to make music.

  6. HappyRon Hill

    I think the image of Lennon decried in this article IS the Lennon I know, partly. He’s the guy who wrote Image and so many other songs of compassion and wisdom. He was also the tough problematic guy as well. My hope is that if he had been allowed to live longer he would have become the “aged Lennon” that the article doesn’t like. I’m certain that would have been a side of him. Of course, his demons very well may have killed him as well but someone who dedicated so much of his thoughts to self-improvement may very well have made it.
    Most people mellow with age no reason to think John wouldn’t have as well. We know he had mellowed by the time he died to some extent.

  7. Van Sabena

    Paul was NOT the prime mover of the Quarrymen, The Silver Beatles or even the Beatles before 1966 when John met Yoko. Furthermore, Stu wasn’t removed from the band by Paul, but rather he decided to stay in Hamburg to study art and be with his German girlfriend. Likewise, it wasn’t Paul with Harrison pressing for Pete Best’s replacement, it was George Martin who asked Brian Epstein to return for recording of “Love Me Do” with a different drummer.
    Speaking of “Love Me Do:” John and Paul sing it together, with John singing the lower part and Macca the higher harmony. (The song is not “pitched too high for Macca” since his voice was naturally higher than John’s.) Paul was not “forced to assume John’s lyrics;” Martin simply suggested Paul sings the melody by himself when John plays the harmonica, rather than John singing the song’s title and switching to harmonica before he could sing the word “do,” as they originally performed it.

    • Sanjay Diasehmai

      Thank you for these corrections. They were bugging me.

    • Giorgio Prager

      Thank you for these corrections. I, too, was surprised to read about a part being “pitched too high for Macca” Wha’?

    • Pete couldn’t find his butt with his hands. He did choose to stay, but undoubtedly was way out of his depth music speaking.

  8. Sanjay Diasehmai

    The relationship and dynamic between the four Fabs remains the most fascinating element for me. I don’t think either John or Paul could have become particularly successful without each other. The same goes for George and Ringo as the members who kept them all grounded. They all agreed they were greater than the sum of their parts. Yes, Paul was by far the most musically talented, but he was also the most competitive and without John’s edge, energy and songs he would never have risen to the height of his powers. Paul influenced John’s softer, more emotional side to emerge in certain songs. The Teddy Boy with a heart. People who knew them said that if three of them were in a room, they’d be charming and amusing, but when all four were present, there was an ineffable energy and presence that created a disarming buzz. Their chemistry was complex personally and musically, which is why they sounded like one unified instrument when they performed.

  9. Andrew McAlpine

    As talented as he is, I listen to Paul least of all.

    • Same. I tend to skip his songs when listening to the White Album, for instance.

  10. David Thomas

    I think McCartney is brilliant, but John was the heart and soul of The Beatles. Sanitizing John takes away from his sarcastic wit, and immense talent as a writer and performer. In New York, at least, he gets short shrift, especially, and sadly, on the radio (I’m looking at you, Ken Dashou)

  11. niusteve

    Great article Jude! Maybe I’m a bit obtuse, but I did not notice the lack of John songs in the movie, nor on the XM Beatles channel that I listen to daily. Great observation. I do agree with the sanitizing of John and thought Tim’s comment was well-taken. Though it is hard to know how John would have aged (I think we all haveour thoughts and preferences), it is fun to speculate. I did not feel that his portrayal in the movie was particularly “sanitized” – though as a fantasy, I thought that ending and the entire movie was enjoyable. Looking forward to seeing you this weekend at the Fest!

  12. The opinion of this writer with all due respect, are faulty.

    A few hours on a radio broadcast on any given day or couple of days or nights in some specific area and timezone on a given format and broadcast do not quantify the immense presence or apparent lack thereof of an artist such as JOHN WINSTON LENNON.

    Nor, can they define any artist nor art.
    It is unquantifiable.
    (Take note that the extraordinary artist VICENT WILLEM VAN GOGH never sold a single painting in his lifetime!)

    Yet, for decades, now, Van Gogh has been a milestone of talent rarely reached by any painters of todays standards.

    Nor, does one, arguably, somewhat weak film in pop culture on a given year reflect any such ultimate litmus test.

    If you want to get a more real perspective watch, A HARD DAYS NIGHT.

    Besides, how does one measure how many countless millions of The Beatle’s fans are listening at home, in their cars and earbuds and the like on their own mix tapes?

    It is also worth mentioning that many of The Beatles songs were sung in unison with Paul & John doing the lead vocals simultaneously.
    The were mixed so close that one could not discern either’s voice or personality. Then George Harrison would chime in as well with a harmony a third above or below Paul and John.

    There are now millions of music outlets out there now in 2019. This is a weak assumption that simply cannot hold water.

    Perspective is everything.

    One cannot make such judgement based on a road trip radio experience and a small film called Yesterday.

    This is an extremely myopic judgement.

    Moreover, time WILL have its way with us and all of our heroes and masters of all the arts.

    Eventually, no one will be playing any Beatle songs to any great degree anywhere!
    That will never alter the immense value of their their work and what it brought
    to the world at a point in eternity.

    I adore CLAUDE DEBUSSY but I virtually never hear Clair de lune.

    But, when I do it stops me in my tracks anywhere and everywhere.

    The beauty and depth of art, much like “LoVe”, simply cannot be measured.

    This same perspective holds true for the beauty and depth of the artist/songwriter, JOHN LENNON.

    ~Richard Orange* (Published singer/songwriter and immense fan of Paul McCartney, George Harrison, and John Lennon.
    Ringo Starr as well and a host of other artist/singer/songwriters.

  13. SugarDanny

    I was born right around when John Lennon was killed, and was raised on Beatles music. In the ’90s and early ’00s, I distinctly remember thinking how Lennon had the “good fortune,” from purely a fame perspective, of dying young. He didn’t suffer middle age, trying and failing, as McCartney (and many others) did, to stay relevant as the pop culture zeitgeist sailed by him. Lennon’s legacy was forever cemented, while it seemed McCartney spent a good two decades embarrassing himself. In my experience, nobody seemed to like Paul, and EVERYBODY loved John. I remember people even arguing that not only was McCartney’s solo output terrible, but his Beatles output was terrible as well… :/

    Now, McCartney has moved from middle aged to elderly, and the pendulum has swung yet again. People look to him as the old master, still packing venues and releasing music (generally to good reviews). As the age of rock is ending, McCartney is to be revered. Meanwhile, I know people born the generation after me that won’t even listen to a Lennon song because of his history of domestic violence… :/

    Eventually, things will even out. Both Lennon and McCartney will be looked at as the musical geniuses they are, on par with Mozart, Beethoven, and the other all-time greats.

    Oh, and fun fact! The most listened to Beatles song on Spotify (and it’s not even remotely close) is “Here Comes the Sun” by Harrison.

  14. John Lennon indeed was the driving force of The Fab Four and if not for him there wouldn’t have been any Beatles. Like Jude said, the 3rd UK album A Hard Day’s Night was almost a Lennon solo album in itself and it was through that album that I became a fan of The Beatles and of John Lennon in particular, with him as my favorite Beatle. My favorite songs are from that album (plus a cover song from Larry Williams not on that album but on a British released Extended Play as well as on a US Capitol album [which by itself was almost another Lennon solo album in spite of The Beatle name] released around that same time). I grew up wanting to be a Beatle like the John Lennon of 1962 to 1966 thanks in no small part to these early Beatle albums which were more than half “owned” by Booker Table, another of Lennon’s pseudonyms!

  15. I have been a Beatles fan since the beginning and John was my favorite. I loved his wit and his cheekiness. I also loved the vulnerability he expressed in his lyrics, which increasingly expressed emotions and situations below the surface of things. And the way he played with language (“Tight A$$”).His early solo albums were soul searing and very personal to me. I never took his political forays too seriously. Unfortunately, because John left us so soon, and was mostly out of the media for the last few years before his death, we are left with the “Martin Luther Lennon” phenomenon as described by Paul McCartney. Younger people only see that image and hear “Imagine” and “Give Peace a Chance” as his definitive work. I think part of the problem is that Paul is still around and still sings Beatles songs, but mostly limited to the ones he wrote. I listen to Pandora and notice that they play way too many Paul McCartney live songs from his many concerts. So this excludes most of Lennon’s Songs. Frankly, I prefer the original recordings to the live concert versions. Recently Pandora has loosened up and they are playing a wider range of Beatles songs, including “Not a Second Time.” “I’m a Loser”, etc. I saw Yesterday and while I found the surprise Lennon appearance heartstopping, the depiction was twee. Many times over the last nearly 40 years, I have wished JOL was here to grow old with us. I’m sure he’d have lots to say.

  16. Tim Wallace

    As Billy Joel wrote: “Give a moment or two to the angry young man, his fist in the air and his head in the sand.” ~ John Lennon has been deified by pop laity. And like any pop deity who has moved beyond this life, the laity will fight over the “true” interpretation of said life. John was a guy who wrote songs. I saw/heard him play in Madison Square Garden with Elton John in the early 70’s. Nice. The movie “Yesterday” merely offers a version of Lennon which may / may not have ever been, but which was only meant to provide a plot foil. Nothing more. You know, kinda like when “Socrates” shows up in Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure. Nothing more, nothing less. Next….

  17. Kevin Luby

    It seems like John was a much stronger songwriter in the early days but that Paul (and then George) developed. I suspect that part of the problem was that John developed his problems with drugs. Also, Paul was able to essentially produce his own songs while John had to rely upon George Martin to do that for his songs. Both John and Paul were great songwriters but Paul eventually eclipsed John.

    • Eric Janik

      I just point to two post- Beatles albums, Band on the Run and Plastic Ono Band, and say, this is why John and Paul could no longer work together. You can say Paul (and George) put out more good songs at a faster rate, but John that was a race that only existed in the minds of their fans. Well, maybe Paul was the competitive one, and maybe George was compensating for the years of having his songs ignored, but eventually each of these guys had to do whatever they wanted. Listening to Band on the Run, I think, what a masterpiece of pop songwriting and production. But it’s Plastic Ono Band, with all its frailties, that reaches out and touches me.

  18. Sheilah Da Silva

    I met them all in the 60s when I lived just up the road from abbey road studios. One day he was coming out as I walked past and it was just John and me and he was so nice to me. Happy to chat. Pleased that I liked the music. Not anxious to rush off.
    Ps. On other occasions Ringo was the same, friendly and talkative. George was shy and not talkative. Paul, not sure. Made no impression.

  19. You are wildly overrating John’s role. McCartney was by far the superior musician and by 1965 John was getting lazier and lazier. By 1968 McCartney was running the band, and when John sabotaged one of his songs, Paul ended the band. When John wanted to bring in Allen Klein, Paul fought him and won. John always THOUGHT it was his band – I decide when it starts, who’s in it, when it ends – but Paul gave the band its shape.

  20. David Dixon

    I have no problem ever with a biased post so long as that bias is stated clearly and up front. The reason Lennon seems to fade is because Lennon did fade. He didn’t stop having talent – half of the Double Fantasy album proves that – but from late 1965 on, he wasn’t the leader of The Beatles and he had begun to basically withdraw from any real decision making. Once Yoko came along, his interest in the band ended. He still wrote a number of great songs – almost all of which owed a debt to Paul for augmenting – and he squirreled away quite a few decent to above average one that helped fuel his first few post-Beatles albums. But from 1973 onward, for every great song John wrote, George wrote two – and Paul five – and I’m not talking about chart toppers. “#9 Dream” is a really good song – for John – but it’s no more than on a par with Paul’s “Mamunia” and doesn’t come close to approaching “Wanderlust”. I am not saying John wasn’t still capable of being great and I love a lot of John’s solo work, but Paul simply put out a lot more quality songs than John – and that’s even if you stop at the end of 1980 – so it makes a lot of sense that there’d be more Paul songs than John songs playing.

    • Michael Young

      1965🤣you mean 1968 when he lost interest,he was leader up til then and main singer

    • Eric Janik

      Maybe he lost interest, maybe he got lazy, maybe he just needed some space to work out his personal demons, which were many. Whatever was happening, he had a right to do it. Yeah, the songs of Paul and George seem to have longer legs these days, but that might owe more to fickle fans and uninspired setlist algorithms. Or maybe George Martin was right. I like to learn Paul’s songs because they’re so damned clever, but it’s John’s songs that reach deeper into my gut, and that works for me.

  21. Michelle Michaels

    Neither John nor Paul as “solo” artists could match the work they did when they were together. The Beatles were the magic. Consider; the best work of their lives took place while they were still in their twenties – the music that continues to live on nearly 60 years after the fact proves it.

  22. John was a sailor, wasn’t he? Or on his way to becoming one? (You know who else sails? Pete Townshend! Weird, right?) John Lennon – the man and his legacy – one big hot mess. I’ll love him forever, I don’t care. Yeah, the youngsters don’t seem to like him due to whatever unseemliness was in his past (is the half of it true?), and I’m not sure he would like the image that’s been bestowed upon him and actively stoked by his widow. Poor guy. Didn’t some guy estimate that John Lennon will be forgotten within 30 years based on the traffic of his Wikipedia page? I doubt it. He’ll be rediscovered by future hipsters.

  23. Paul was about synthesizing the past. John was a futurist. And “Plastic Ono Band” is one of the top five rock and roll albums of all time. That is all.

    • I have to disagree here. Paul was always more inclined to experiment as evidenced by his interest in incorporating classical elements into pop music, his forays into avant-garde and electronic music later on. John would have been happy if every song was Blue Suede Shoes. And I say this as someone who prefers Lennon over McCartney both musically and personality-wise.

  24. George Martin himself said he “couldn’t put a cigarette paper between them”, ie it’s too close to call, when asked who was the greater talent, John or Paul. Then he said that Paul’s songs, as a whole, probably had more long-term staying power. John himself joked about being on holiday in Spain post-Beatles and being approached by folks saying “you’re John Lennon!” And then they’d proceed to sing “Yesterday”.

    • I like that. Paul’s talent came from synthesis, intellectualism, and a wider musical background. From our perspective, Paul’s methods are more accessible. “Michelle” was about impressing a French girl with a chasson. “Yesterday” started out as “Scrambled Eggs.” John’s talent and drive were more visceral. And if he burned himself out or got lazy after ’65 (and I’d push that date out to ’67 or ’68), I’d say so what? He still did more in his third decade than most of us would do in a lifetime.

  25. There was a book written in the mid-1970s that said that John and Yoko were rivalling Dick (Burton) and Liz (Taylor) as the world’s most boring couple. His death really elevated his fame and papered over the flaws.

  26. John didn’t write Love Me Do. Yikes.

  27. Jesse Raye

    It’s an opinionof one. Generally I initially hear Beatle songs..have to take a moment to identify whom is singing lead.
    Easy to forget that John dropped out of the scene for many years…

  28. Steve Cleere

    Well, I’ll say this – it was an interesting article… I’m one of those four-some fans who really tries to appreciate the individual talents as well as the collective ‘whole ‘ which dominates any of the four -or two together -or.

    By virtue of my playlists (run on random), I don’t have Jude’s issue… but now, on outside media, I will give a closer listen. Of course, on my Breakfast With the Beatles playlist, I include all solo works, so, of course by prolific output, Sir Paul plays way more than anyone – but I don;t mind that actually – and if he gets the damn re-issues done, it will tilt the odds even more — but I am going to be more aware of the revisionist approach to Beatle legacy — Thanks! Steve

  29. Shocking old dichotomous approach of John vs Paul. It is unreal, To see The Beatles as four separate personalities and artists, is denying the synergy – the sound of The Beatles was the result of four young men, supported by a team of sound engineers lead by George Martin.
    Another point I wonder what the source is of Jude’s statement that with ‘Love Me Do’ George Martin and John forced “Paul to assume John’s lyrics, which were admittedly pitched too high for Macca”? Paul’s harmonies were always pitched higher than John’s. It took John Lennon until 1974 to develop a falsetto that could equal or outperform Macca’s higher pitch. still Pauls’ voice remains warmer whatever the pitch.

  30. Eric Janik

    I look at the working relationship between John and Paul as I see Ralph and Piggy in William Golding’s Lord of the Flies.

Leave a Reply (and please be kind!)