( or Ono) and gives it a slight country/rock rhythm
I've asked the "psychological" question: "Are you a Paul or a John Guy" in the tradition of classifying people into one of two groups (more than two just gets too complicated) to better understand them. My subjective classification is just that: subjective. It's not scientific, nor particularly accurate (although I like to think it simplifies the world for me), and can be harsh on those who may be Paul, or may be John guys, depending on the year, song, mood, etc. I admit I like some of John's solo works, such as his ode to his young son (Beautiful boy, here's Celine Dion's version), and some Paul songs, I'm sure, wouldn't stand the scrutiny of time - "which ones!" I ask.
Most people would see Lennon as the group leader. But, I think McCartney was the better musician (all-round, lyrics and melody). Lennon used his activist/political negativity to propel whatever creativity he may have had. Perhaps he was in deep competition with McCartney, and his wife Yoko Ono didn't help much - Beatles members have said that she was a major factor in the group's split. When he was not proving a political point, he came up with pretty (simple) songs like "Beautiful Boy," but like I've said, they are few and far between.
There is another more sophisticated (elitist?) classification that I silently monitor: "Are you a Mozart or a Beethoven Person?" Bach could enter the equation here, but both Mozart and Beethoven people tend to like Bach, whereas it is often a sacrilege for either to admit admiration for the opposite team.
I'm a Mozart person myself. I've written about Mozart:
The incredible thing about Mozart is how accessible he is, without losing any of his musical complexity. I think he does this by keeping his essential melody (often enchantingly beautiful) always within the listener's reach.
He bends and rotates the melody, without ever putting the fear into the listener that the melody would get lost in a myriad of incomprehensible notes. Each note, however distant and distinct from the original, makes perfect sense, and is as natural a progression as the air we breathe...
But, he never leads us far from the origin, and never teases us too much, although he loves to tease. His music may have some jest and playfulness in it, but it is, down to the simple piano sonatas, very serious. Each note was chosen with a certain aim, and is as precious as the next.Here's what I wrote about McCartney's 2005 album Chaos and Creation in the Backyard:
McCartney still has it in him to pull off those unexpected melody shifts, clever, even ingenious lyrics, and a certain charming optimism despite some of the dark moods of his songs.I see parallels between McCartney and Mozart, at least in their creative methods.
So, in the logic of my analogy here, Beatles songs are like Mozart's melodies. That is a high order to place on a pop song. But, Mozart was not the exclusive elitist classical music aficionados believe (hope?) he was. He was a popular musician, who used folk and popular influences to write some of his music.
McCartney keeps coming up with his delicate, deceptively simple, melodies after his bitter split from the Beatles. Here is an article which describes his acrimonious departure. Soon after, he released his solo album McCartney in 1970, which he re-issued with some bonus material in 2011. McCartney II was released just before McCartney's split from his band Wings, in 1980. There were no bands breaking up for Chaos and Creation in the Backyard, which came out in 2005.