Podcast: Play in new window | Download
In which my returning guest and I discuss this: what if The Beatles’ songwriting credits were more accurately apportioned to reflect actual significant contributions from not-credited bandmates? Their recording career began with a singular “McCartney-Harrison” credit for “In Spite of All The Danger” – one can make the case (and we do) that their career was book-ended by “I Me Mine,” which might rightfully have borne the same credit.
Anyway, as always, it leads down many rabbit holes…
Interesting podcast that might need a sequel at some stage! (As a side note, I’d love to hear a podcast where the intersect between Phil Spector and The Beatles (and even The Rolling Stones) is examined in detail: getting time to chat in depth with Andrew Loog Oldham could make for another interesting podcast!!).
Some thoughts to share:
(i) The copyright for And I Love Her is now being administered partly by MPL Communications (with a Paul McCartney, John Lennon credit!): I wonder if Paul is passing on a share of royalties to George’s estate? I think it might be possible if Paul is openly saying nowadays that George wrote the guitar motif for the track (coupled with the fact that Olivia and Dhani wouldn’t be shy about doing George’s bidding for him),
(ii) The story about Mal Evans being promised royalties for some songwriting contributions in the SPLHCB era is an interesting one that should be explored: it would be an unfortunate thing if the promise was made (with paperwork to back it up) but it wasn’t fulfilled for the usual reason of monetary greed,
(iii) The credits for “12 Bar Original” were given a four way split (I’m guessing) as the track was considered more of an impromptu group improvisation (instead of a structured composition) by the time the Anthology was being put together.
John wasn’t around in ’94 to argue that he might have been the driving force behind the track. Yoko wasn’t with John in ’65 to have a clue if he wrote the track (or not) and so she couldn’t do his bidding for him. George, Paul, Ringo and George Martin probably forgot the details of the recording (and I’m guessing that it might even be possible that the full set of paperwork needed for Northern Songs, Dick James et cetera to assign a copyright for the track may not have been filled out in ’65 (despite acetates being made))! The lack of paperwork might explain why Northern Songs didn’t get to administer the quarter shares of both John and Paul when the track was eventually published.
So, the four way split is close to being fair but probably should have been made into a five way split to include George Martin (as he was a co-performer on the track), if the eventual consensus reached was that the track was the result of collective improvisational composing.
Interesting podcast that might need a sequel at some stage! (As a side note, I’d love to hear a podcast where the intersect between Phil Spector and The Beatles (and even The Rolling Stones) is examined in detail: getting time to chat in depth with Andrew Loog Oldham could make for another interesting podcast!!).
Some thoughts to share:
(i) The copyright for And I Love Her is now being administered partly by MPL Communications (with a Paul McCartney, John Lennon credit!): I wonder if Paul is passing on a share of royalties to George’s estate? I think it might be possible if Paul is openly saying nowadays that George wrote the guitar motif for the track (coupled with the fact that Olivia and Dhani wouldn’t be shy about doing George’s bidding for him),
(ii) The story about Mal Evans being promised royalties for some songwriting contributions in the SPLHCB era is an interesting one that should be explored: it would be an unfortunate thing if the promise was made (with paperwork to back it up) but it wasn’t fulfilled for the usual reason of monetary greed,
(iii) The credits for “12 Bar Original” were given a four way split (I’m guessing) as the track was considered more of an impromptu group improvisation (instead of a structured composition) by the time the Anthology was being put together.
John wasn’t around in ’94 to argue that he might have been the driving force behind the track. Yoko wasn’t with John in ’65 to have a clue if he wrote the track (or not) and so she couldn’t do his bidding for him. George, Paul, Ringo and George Martin probably forgot the details of the recording (and I’m guessing that it might even be possible that the full set of paperwork needed for Northern Songs, Dick James et cetera to assign a copyright for the track may not have been filled out in ’65 (despite acetates being made))! The lack of paperwork might explain why Northern Songs didn’t get to administer the quarter shares of both John and Paul when the track was eventually published.
So, the four way split is close to being fair but probably should have been made into a five way split to include George Martin (as he was a co-performer on the track), if the eventual consensus reached was that the track was the result of collective improvisational composing.
Incredible topic for this episode! I have been waiting for this for a long time. In bands it can get very dicey but I actually don’t like “Band credit”..you know that 99.9% of songs are written by 1 or 2 guys an example being U2..the distribution of money via publishing is another story entirely. Who gets their name on a song should definitely be as ACCURATE as possible. George Harrison should defintely have gotten his name on And I Love Her and Eleanor Rigby as co-writer . I am all for any particular substancial change or contribution to a melody or lyric resulting in a songwriting credit. However a LOT of things like putting a certain beat to a song or playing a guitar solo come under Arrangement not songwriting. For instance even on Ticket To Ride you could do it without drums at all and it is still the song! So you have to be exact on the definition of creating a song or songwriting. A song can be played in any key or and tempo. A lot of what you are saying is arrangement not songwriting. But a lot of changes should be made to credits to make them accurate. No Lennon on Yesterday and no McCartney on Give Peace a chance those are ludicrous examples of incorrect credit.
Incredible topic for this episode! I have been waiting for this for a long time. In bands it can get very dicey but I actually don’t like “Band credit”..you know that 99.9% of songs are written by 1 or 2 guys an example being U2..the distribution of money via publishing is another story entirely. Who gets their name on a song should definitely be as ACCURATE as possible. George Harrison should defintely have gotten his name on And I Love Her and Eleanor Rigby as co-writer . I am all for any particular substancial change or contribution to a melody or lyric resulting in a songwriting credit. However a LOT of things like putting a certain beat to a song or playing a guitar solo come under Arrangement not songwriting. For instance even on Ticket To Ride you could do it without drums at all and it is still the song! So you have to be exact on the definition of creating a song or songwriting. A song can be played in any key or and tempo. A lot of what you are saying is arrangement not songwriting. But a lot of changes should be made to credits to make them accurate. No Lennon on Yesterday and no McCartney on Give Peace a chance those are ludicrous examples of incorrect credit.
We live in a time where we want uniformity of achievement-our society demands it for some odd reason right now. There are no geniuses we are told, everyone is equally capable etc. And I see this theme repeatedly in the discussion of Harrison in regards to Lennon and McCartney. We are trying to “flatten the curve” as in narrow the gap we see between Lennon and McCartney and then Harrison.
This is revisionism that will lead nowhere. In 100 years time – Lennon and McCartney will be viewed as song writing geniuses whether we like it or not and Harrison will be viewed as a good contributor. Don’t get me wrong – when I first heard Long, Long, Long it sent shivers down my spine. Beautiful, beautiful song, so too Something…same outcome, but we are comparing him to Lennon and McCartney. They are in a different field.
There are about 200 Lennon/McCartney songs if you include Commonwealth, I’m In Love etc…all the unreleased stuff, and about 20 or so Harrison songs. You can’t rewrite history. By the way, I am not a big fan of All Things Must Pass (the song). It is ok, but I really don’t think it is the genius composition you guys rave on about.
Mark, I’d say you’re oversensitive for some reason to the conversations in the larger culture about egalitarianism (or flattening the curve as you call it). Whether or not those discussions have a positive or negative impact on society we could argue about for days, but I didn’t hear anything along those lines in this podcast episode or any past ones either. No one argued Harrison ought to be seen as equal to Lennon/McCartney. The simple point is that we all tend to buy into the Lennon/McCartney co-writing team as a story or a framing that obscures more nuanced truths. Any fan knows that John and Paul got a little help from their friends, and it’s worth looking at that in a careful way. The episode did a great job at that. (About the episode, my only question is why didn’t the other George (Martin) enter into the discussion more often.)
In so many areas of human achievement, the lone genius story sure gets overplayed with all its distortions. It’s fair to look at things through a different lens once in a while (like we could look more often at the role a “scene” plays in the great leaps forward in arts and in sciences). Sure, society goes to ridiculous places by giving all kids a trophy just for showing up, and whatnot. Don’t let that trap you into howling about “revisionism” all the time. Always question the way history was written (and rewritten).
Hi Tom, you raise some pertinent points. However, I get the feeling based on listening to previous episodes of S-A-T-B that the Harrison barrow is one that is firmly being pushed.
The episodes on the Let It Be sessions are largely discussions on how Harrison was unfairly sidelined. His music not taken seriously etc. However, just before I replied to you I had various late Beatles songs come up randomly on You Tube. One of them was “Suicide” by Paul. To me, despite the weird lyrics, the music pops. It has cheek, bounce, and a journey, yet that wasn’t chosen for selection on the albums either. Was Paul hardly done by?
Before that I listened to “Isn’t it a Pity”. The music in this for me is repetitive, (much like Not Guilty), it is laborious and for me a song that doesn’t deliver. It is heartfelt, you can hear that, but people still want a varied melody.
The fact is that McCartney has had 32 or thereabouts Number 1 singles in the USA. I believe Harrison has had 4 or 5 or thereabouts. As much as we would like to diminish McCartney and Lennon’s genius, the facts seem to get in the way of that desire. Harrison was great, we all love him, but sometimes life isn’t fair, and geniuses do exist.
Well, Mark, you and I are in agreement that John and Paul are in the genius realm, and George is not. So there’s that.
I don’t share your sense that Robert R or his guests argue that Lennon and McCartney ought to be diminished and Harrison ranked as their equal. The podcast DOES point that Lennon himself suggested that any album after Abbey Road ought to have 4 tracks by Paul, 4 by John, 4 by George. And the podcast brings up many other facts that suggest Harrison got the short-end of the stick. Sometimes Robert and company are quick to point out George’s own flaws and and limitations as a man and as an artist. Here’s the thing: One can agree George was shafted in important ways without necessarily thinking that George was as gifted as John and Paul.
We live in a time where we want uniformity of achievement-our society demands it for some odd reason right now. There are no geniuses we are told, everyone is equally capable etc. And I see this theme repeatedly in the discussion of Harrison in regards to Lennon and McCartney. We are trying to “flatten the curve” as in narrow the gap we see between Lennon and McCartney and then Harrison.
This is revisionism that will lead nowhere. In 100 years time – Lennon and McCartney will be viewed as song writing geniuses whether we like it or not and Harrison will be viewed as a good contributor. Don’t get me wrong – when I first heard Long, Long, Long it sent shivers down my spine. Beautiful, beautiful song, so too Something…same outcome, but we are comparing him to Lennon and McCartney. They are in a different field.
There are about 200 Lennon/McCartney songs if you include Commonwealth, I’m In Love etc…all the unreleased stuff, and about 20 or so Harrison songs. You can’t rewrite history. By the way, I am not a big fan of All Things Must Pass (the song). It is ok, but I really don’t think it is the genius composition you guys rave on about.
Mark, I’d say you’re oversensitive for some reason to the conversations in the larger culture about egalitarianism (or flattening the curve as you call it). Whether or not those discussions have a positive or negative impact on society we could argue about for days, but I didn’t hear anything along those lines in this podcast episode or any past ones either. No one argued Harrison ought to be seen as equal to Lennon/McCartney. The simple point is that we all tend to buy into the Lennon/McCartney co-writing team as a story or a framing that obscures more nuanced truths. Any fan knows that John and Paul got a little help from their friends, and it’s worth looking at that in a careful way. The episode did a great job at that. (About the episode, my only question is why didn’t the other George (Martin) enter into the discussion more often.)
In so many areas of human achievement, the lone genius story sure gets overplayed with all its distortions. It’s fair to look at things through a different lens once in a while (like we could look more often at the role a “scene” plays in the great leaps forward in arts and in sciences). Sure, society goes to ridiculous places by giving all kids a trophy just for showing up, and whatnot. Don’t let that trap you into howling about “revisionism” all the time. Always question the way history was written (and rewritten).
Hi Tom, you raise some pertinent points. However, I get the feeling based on listening to previous episodes of S-A-T-B that the Harrison barrow is one that is firmly being pushed.
The episodes on the Let It Be sessions are largely discussions on how Harrison was unfairly sidelined. His music not taken seriously etc. However, just before I replied to you I had various late Beatles songs come up randomly on You Tube. One of them was “Suicide” by Paul. To me, despite the weird lyrics, the music pops. It has cheek, bounce, and a journey, yet that wasn’t chosen for selection on the albums either. Was Paul hardly done by?
Before that I listened to “Isn’t it a Pity”. The music in this for me is repetitive, (much like Not Guilty), it is laborious and for me a song that doesn’t deliver. It is heartfelt, you can hear that, but people still want a varied melody.
The fact is that McCartney has had 32 or thereabouts Number 1 singles in the USA. I believe Harrison has had 4 or 5 or thereabouts. As much as we would like to diminish McCartney and Lennon’s genius, the facts seem to get in the way of that desire. Harrison was great, we all love him, but sometimes life isn’t fair, and geniuses do exist.
Well, Mark, you and I are in agreement that John and Paul are in the genius realm, and George is not. So there’s that.
I don’t share your sense that Robert R or his guests argue that Lennon and McCartney ought to be diminished and Harrison ranked as their equal. The podcast DOES point that Lennon himself suggested that any album after Abbey Road ought to have 4 tracks by Paul, 4 by John, 4 by George. And the podcast brings up many other facts that suggest Harrison got the short-end of the stick. Sometimes Robert and company are quick to point out George’s own flaws and and limitations as a man and as an artist. Here’s the thing: One can agree George was shafted in important ways without necessarily thinking that George was as gifted as John and Paul.
Very enjoyable show!
Very enjoyable show!
While I understand the intent of this conversation is to shed light on the significant contributions of others to some of the Beatles’ collective output, much of what is discussed is arrangement and performance — not songwriting. Songwriting is melody and chords, plus lyrics (if there are any). And even then, a change to the melody (as in vocal runs), the chords (as in major to minor, or adding a 7th), and/or the words (“And I Love Her/Him”) do not qualify as “songwriting.” If that were the case then every jazz improvised version of every song ever played would qualify for a songwriting credit. These aspects are acknowledged as arrangement and performance: Joe Cocker did not rewrite “With a Little Help from My Friends” by changing the time signature from 4/4 to 3/4 — that is “arrangement.” A song can be recognized (by those familiar with it) regardless of the style in which it is played: pop, country, reggae, jazz, disco, etc. Same goes for the instrumentation and the speed. Vocal harmony and orchestration are also features of arrangement and performance; they are not songwriting.
While I understand the intent of this conversation is to shed light on the significant contributions of others to some of the Beatles’ collective output, much of what is discussed is arrangement and performance — not songwriting. Songwriting is melody and chords, plus lyrics (if there are any). And even then, a change to the melody (as in vocal runs), the chords (as in major to minor, or adding a 7th), and/or the words (“And I Love Her/Him”) do not qualify as “songwriting.” If that were the case then every jazz improvised version of every song ever played would qualify for a songwriting credit. These aspects are acknowledged as arrangement and performance: Joe Cocker did not rewrite “With a Little Help from My Friends” by changing the time signature from 4/4 to 3/4 — that is “arrangement.” A song can be recognized (by those familiar with it) regardless of the style in which it is played: pop, country, reggae, jazz, disco, etc. Same goes for the instrumentation and the speed. Vocal harmony and orchestration are also features of arrangement and performance; they are not songwriting.