5 ms·

Their pace of output - along with the quality - is still (to me) astounding decades later. June-Oct '68 they produce the white album, then... 2 months later, s

Their pace of output - along with the quality - is still (to me) astounding decades later. June-Oct '68 they produce the white album, then... 2 months later, start the get back project, with a goal of writing/recording an album in just a few weeks. There must have been a feeling of what we'd call 'burnout' today, but they just kept pumping out non-stop work for... almost 7 years. It's telling that none of them kept up this pace in their solo years, though I think McCartney might have except for the large tours in between. He's put out about an album every 2 years for the past 50 years.

TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
All the biogs say the same thing - some of the classics were written in hours. They'd jam, make a few changes, maybe argue a bit, and boom - done. Bands are like chaotic attractors. An unstable system is more creative (energetic) than a stable system. If a band is just unstable enough it will produce some amazing work before the inevitable breakup. The amazing work is a result of harmony and passionate dissent in unstable equilibrium. Sooner or later the dissent wins - but perhaps this is both more inevitable and less sad than we think it is.
- Supermancho 5y ago
  The Police were supposedly the same way. They would go in, pump out a fully mixed song that would go on the album, go home.
mabub24 5y ago
There's an article from the New Yorker recently on the doc, and it touches on how Paul especially was almost a workaholic. He eats, sleeps, and dreams, songwriting and can't help himself. Apparently they'd finish songs, and go off for a break. Then the very next day Paul would phone them and say, "right, I got some material. Let's get recording." Ringo made it sound inspiring, and pretty exhausting to interact with.
coliveira 5y ago
This is less astonishing than most people think. I have watched interviews with several popular composers, and almost all of them say they wrote their best songs in just a few minutes. The difference of the Beatles is that they maintained for years this industrial-like machine of music creation and promotion.
- Intermernet 5y ago
  That difference is the astonishing bit.
  - lowercased 5y ago
    Exactly. It was really the combination of two or three talented people feeding off each others' creativity. John/Paul each 'only' had to write 3-5 songs per album, with George filling in some extras. I'm not saying it's easy to write 3-5 good songs, but they had a knack already. One person trying to write 12-14 good songs per album is facing an impossibility - and we can see that with their solo albums. Most of them have a handful of good/great songs, and then... relative filler. Each Beatle album getting the 'best' of a group of talented writers was the magic sauce, imo. But even then, the pace was still... insane. Tour in the 1965 summer time, come back to UK, start writing an album in October, work for a month, and put out Rubber Soul, nearly all of which was written and recorded in that single month. That is possibly the most creative/productive single month in their career.
    - dogman144 5y ago
      Based on the quality of songs on All Things Must Pass, George could have filled in a few more songs. A widely accepted theory is Paul/John limited him a fair bit.
      - GlobalFrog 5y ago
        Actually, I had heard before that George first wasn't satisfied with his own songs and he wanted them to be as good as the John/Paul ones before they appear on their records, which he managed beautifully: in a way, it was the same kind of motivation that was between John and Paul that existed also between he and Paul/John, which helped him progress. I had heard also that as he was singing some of the songs, he told the others that he wanted to sing his own.
mixmastamyk 5y ago
Yes, and they were one of the first to play their own material. Most until then used external songwriters, and a lot still do. The lads were three and a half great writers and played well together. The rest is history.

TheOtherHobbes 5y ago

All the biogs say the same thing - some of the classics were written in hours. They'd jam, make a few changes, maybe argue a bit, and boom - done. Bands are like chaotic attractors. An unstable system is more creative (energetic) than a stable system. If a band is just unstable enough it will produce some amazing work before the inevitable breakup. The amazing work is a result of harmony and passionate dissent in unstable equilibrium. Sooner or later the dissent wins - but perhaps this is both more inevitable and less sad than we think it is.

Supermancho 5y ago
The Police were supposedly the same way. They would go in, pump out a fully mixed song that would go on the album, go home.

mabub24 5y ago

There's an article from the New Yorker recently on the doc, and it touches on how Paul especially was almost a workaholic. He eats, sleeps, and dreams, songwriting and can't help himself. Apparently they'd finish songs, and go off for a break. Then the very next day Paul would phone them and say, "right, I got some material. Let's get recording." Ringo made it sound inspiring, and pretty exhausting to interact with.

coliveira 5y ago

This is less astonishing than most people think. I have watched interviews with several popular composers, and almost all of them say they wrote their best songs in just a few minutes. The difference of the Beatles is that they maintained for years this industrial-like machine of music creation and promotion.

Intermernet 5y ago
That difference is the astonishing bit.
- lowercased 5y ago
  Exactly. It was really the combination of two or three talented people feeding off each others' creativity. John/Paul each 'only' had to write 3-5 songs per album, with George filling in some extras. I'm not saying it's easy to write 3-5 good songs, but they had a knack already. One person trying to write 12-14 good songs per album is facing an impossibility - and we can see that with their solo albums. Most of them have a handful of good/great songs, and then... relative filler. Each Beatle album getting the 'best' of a group of talented writers was the magic sauce, imo. But even then, the pace was still... insane. Tour in the 1965 summer time, come back to UK, start writing an album in October, work for a month, and put out Rubber Soul, nearly all of which was written and recorded in that single month. That is possibly the most creative/productive single month in their career.
  - dogman144 5y ago
    Based on the quality of songs on All Things Must Pass, George could have filled in a few more songs. A widely accepted theory is Paul/John limited him a fair bit.
    - GlobalFrog 5y ago
      Actually, I had heard before that George first wasn't satisfied with his own songs and he wanted them to be as good as the John/Paul ones before they appear on their records, which he managed beautifully: in a way, it was the same kind of motivation that was between John and Paul that existed also between he and Paul/John, which helped him progress. I had heard also that as he was singing some of the songs, he told the others that he wanted to sing his own.

mixmastamyk 5y ago

Yes, and they were one of the first to play their own material. Most until then used external songwriters, and a lot still do. The lads were three and a half great writers and played well together. The rest is history.