PG Music Home Forums General Discussion Songwriting Why Paul McCartney’s intuition-led attitude to songwriting is worth taking onboard

I write songs exactly like Paul does, but he is _slightly_ (ahem) more successful with that than I am.
But in general, I think it's a pretty good approach to let the song guide where it wants to go.

Paul's ongoing revelations about nothing in particular, what he likes, what he thinks etc. suggest a very symbiotic relationship with the media: they need to keeps the Boomers happy and he needs relevance assurance. He was in a great band. In that band he wrote some truly appalling songs and pushed them down the road toward the mawkish & the music hall. John wrote some drivel too. Paul's solo career was based on the road he'd started along in the Beatles. John started of strongly but he ended it writing the mawkish domestic stuff Paul would've been jealous of.
Did Paul write intuitively? I would assume, like most songwriters, he did often enough, early enough but there's plenty of evidence to the contrary as well. In the end he seems to be, subsonically, singing the chorus of "Love Me Do" in every interview.

Re: Paul McCartney:
.
I've witnessed similar kind of song talent comparisons here also, especially with some of the much more local content. I guess I'm comparing Paul's success with other successes that are occasionally provided locally. I doubt that the jury is still deliberating.

Yet,"success", whatever data point or criterion you may base it upon, isn't germane to this discussion. A "jury" is any two people discussing the matter.
DC is a kind and forgiving fellow and he does point to a stellar pair of albums that, if they were the sum total of Sir Pyawl's output, would declare my assessments redundantb BUT the topic was "intuitive" writing - clear evidence that both L & M did otherwise is "out there" and the great revisionist's personal "stay back" behaviour at Abbey Road also suggests a much more calculating and fine detail focused writer.
That's not to say that you don't have a point, but more to suggest that point is, within the circumstances, pointless.

Hmmmmmm. I can't say that I truly understand some of the naysayer comments here about Paul McCartney's insights or his process.

I myself have a complete regurgitatory response to songs that sound like they came out of a songwriting workshop, or are too formulaic. I can't bear to listen to them.

On the other hand, Paul McCartney has written hundreds of songs that seem like they just came out of nowhere, but took flight on magical wings. It's just incredibly obvious that these songs were intuitive and summoned up by magic. Lady Madonna is but one example. It's just an absolutely phenomenal piece of intuitive genius from beginning to end.

So I really like this article myself and I found myself resonating with it on many levels. I've never been one to pay much attention to songwriting feedback or songwriting manuals or songwriting theories myself. They just bore the living hell out of me. I would rather be writing music with my eyes closed.

Firsty, let me say I am one of those that finds Macca's songs sublime. (I even find songs like 'Why can't we do it in the road' an interesting diversion.) I can say this because I like styles of music with very strong melodies and chord progressions that move outside of the diatonic - something The Beatles were inherently brilliant at. It's a generalisation, but today's I - V - vi - IV production formula is the antithesis of this. Melody has been forsaken for rhythmic, arranged production. The brilliant contemporary music is hidden and not often on the mainstream.

To some extent, my Brit background and age provide a fertile bed for The Beatles' music to be planted in. However, I wonder how much my favouring of their style of music allows me to exalt their songwriting to a level well above others? e.g. as a contrary, I am not a country music fan, so no matter how brilliant Garth Brooks is, I am never going to regard him highly. (Don't crucify me ) In reverse, I am sure this might be the case for a Garth Brooks fan as well. This is not discounting that McCartney (or Garth Brooks) has wide appeal.

Clearly, The Beatles were writing and recording at a time of extraordinary change in modern music and rode that wave all the way to the shore. While Lennon, McCartney and Harrison wrote some excellent songs post The Beatles, I can't quite say they hit the same high-water mark IMHO, but there are some good ones: Maybe I'm amazed; New; Every night; This never happened before. I wonder how much the cross-inspiration (competition?) between them drove them on. I have created some post-Beatles playlists combining the best of McCartney/Lennon/Harrison/Starr for each year from 1970 to 1980, and they still don't seem to match The Beatles' repertoire - at least from Rubber Soul onwards.

There would be nothing more *potentially* restrictive to a songwriter than the idea of a series of 'tools', techniques or tips. 'I'll just pull this songwriting screwdriver out of my bag.' However, there are many tutorials that describe the vast array of songwriting tips and maybe the vastness of the array means one doesn't over-rely on a narrow few, or the tool itself become sthe inspiration. I also understand why Sir Paul would want to stay away from a formulaic process. It could ruin the magic.

I think all songwriters stand on the shoulders of giants - meaning we are all building upon / being inspired by someone or something we have heard before. This is why I use BIAB - the many styles immediately take me out of my comfort zone to think of something I would never have. In one way, and understanding a little about Paul McCartney's upbringing and being immersed with Lennon and others from a young age, I can see how he may have been marinated in a very creative soup.

As a tangent, has anyone seen any analysis of songs Macca didn't write, but his talents brought those songs to perfection? e.g. I am thinking of his bass work on 'Something' or 'Hey bulldog'; his vocal harmony on 'Every little thing', 'Wait' or 'While my guitar gently weeps'.