How Do You Think The Beatles Would Have Fared If The Song Writing Team Had Been McCartney Harrison

The Gryphon

New Member
In the very early days of The Beatles , the songs were not just Lennon/McCartney or Lennon or McCartney....there is a documented Harrison McCartney song or two.....how do you think The Beatles would have fared if this had been the main song writing team.....how would they have differed and how might their music have evolved?
 
For a change let's turn this one around, how does The Gryphon think The Beatles would have fared if this had been the main songwriting team.....how would they have differed and how might their music have evolved?
 
Can't see how that would help ...this is a discussion about what might have been ...not what was.
I don't know, it might just be me, but AK does not seem to be the place to discuss "how life might have been if..." We tend to talk about tangible specifics, like refoaming speakers, rebuilding vintage amplifiers, and "what are you listening to now?"
 
I don't know, it might just be me, but AK does not seem to be the place to discuss "how life might have been if..." We tend to talk about tangible specifics, like refoaming speakers, rebuilding vintage amplifiers, and "what are you listening to now?"

I'm all for going off on tangents but the topics need to be of interests. Lately some of the questions that keep popping up are terribly boring with no real substance. My opinion only FWIW.
 
In this case you must talk about "what was"

John and Paul never gave George his "due" They treated him as a "kid" and not a accomplished song writer. Sure, they thru him a bone every once in awhile. Evident by the "few" songs they "let' him record and make it onto the LP's.

So, to even think what "might have been" is pretty far fetched, but hey, one can always... "Imagine"....

Personally, I don't think John and Paul really cared for George's taste/style of music (after the Fab Four early years.)

.
 
IMHO George and John were the "teeth" of The Beatles and pretty much invented the "Beat Sound". Putting George with Paul would reduce George to the status of a session man and you'd be left with Wings.
 
So why not answer the question if it's that interesting? Hey I said it was only my opinion. And to answer the question I don't think Harrison was the equal of McCartney or Lennon as a songwriter so I think as a group the Beatles would have suffered.

Beat me to it . You answered.
 
I suppose this is a group that gelled successfully until the collaboration just stopped working. The solo efforts afterward show where their minds were without having to submit to the group conciousness. Harrison's creativeness comes out with his projects, McCartney's sunny cheerfulness in his, Lennon's brooding social conciousness in his, and Starkey's puckish non self conciousness attitude and humour in his.
 
I don't think Harrison was well enough developed as a songwriter (until '68 or so) to make a strong contribution to a songwriting partnership. Lennon and McCartney were equals and could balance each other out. McCartney/Harrison would have been one sided. And Harrison might not have developed as well being in a non-equal partnership vs being left alone to develop at his own pace. Just IMO.
 
To me, to ask this question, is like asking, what would The Beatles have sounded like if Ringo had played lead guitar, or if Carole King had written all their tunes. McCartney and Harrison didn't become a songwriting team, because Lennon and McCartney were the strongest and most prolific writers. There wouldn't be a Beatles if Lennon and McCartney weren't the songwriters they were. Harrison wrote a few gems of course, especially later on. But it wasn't like George had a store of great tunes that were ignored by Lennon and McCartney. When he came along with one that was really good, The Beatles recorded it. This is in no ways a slight toward George Harrison, whose lead guitar, vocals, and occasional compositions, were a key ingredient in what made The Beatles, The Beatles.
 
It would not have worked.

The Lennon-McCartney partnership- which only lasted until around 1966 or 1967- did not operate like other songwriting teams such as Hunter/Garcia or John/Taupin.; i.e. One guy wrote the music, the other the lyrics.

John & Paul most often started out on their own and would bring the "finished product" to one another. Then one would make suggestions and the song would be tweaked. Or they brought bit pieces and fragments to one another and combined them- A Day in the Life being a prime example. Perhaps an unconventional method, but it clearly worked.

They differed from George in that they were much more prolific. They had a lot more material floating around to play with. George wrote some damn good tunes, but he had entered open competition with them, he would have failed to keep up. Kind of like Weir & Barlow trying to match Hunter & Garcia.
 
Back
Top Bottom