|
This could be cool, but I'm not worried about it and I've always thought Paul had some tricks up his sleeve....
I mean you'd be surprised how many misconceptions there are about the beatles, that's why anyone who truly thinks they are whack are just misinformed.
Both paul and john were equals with experimenting/pop writing. Neither was less edgy or more poppy than the other, I'd just say Paul was more optimistic most of the time and john was more pessimistic in his lyrical style, and sensibilities.
Also they weren't the best of friends they were just a writing team, it was really John and Stuart (who passed in hamberg) who were the real good friends. Paul was happy when Stuart left the band.
That said.
I actually like the beatles in the first half of their career alittle better. But their ideas were much more unique in the second half and their songs became more experimental. You can't really compare the two careers and say one was b etter than the other, but I would definitely say they had more of the energy of a punk band in their early days, and they were really tight as a band. Imagine trying to play those songs on perfect rhythm when both you and the audience can't even hear what you're playing because of all the screams....
But yeah, the hamberg era beatles were the shit. They were a punk band. You can't argue how they lived lol.
|