Talk:The Songs Lennon and McCartney Gave Away

In The Songs Lennon and McCartney Gave Away, it states that Lennon and McCartney were "especially prolific in the late 1950s."

In actual fact, in all available sources, only a very few songs are said to have been written by them before 1960. McCartney wrote the music for "When I'm 64," but not the words, in the 50s. McCartney may have written "I'll Follow the Sun" in the 50s. Lennon probably wrote "Hello Little Girl" in the 50s.

That's a total of 2 1/2 songs. If anyone else knows of any others, I doubt the total will reach double digits. That is not "unusually prolific," or even "prolific," by any definition.

The reverter recently added four so-called "sources," three of which I don't have at hand. The one I could check said nothing whatsoever about how many songs they wrote before 1960. As for the other 3 sources: after a lifetime of Beatles study, I am certain they do not reliably cite any "especially prolific" songwriting occurring before 1960, or even very much songwriting at all beyond the 2 1/2 songs I've mentioned. (In fact, L&M had barely written FIFTEEN songs, if that many, before 1963 -- nineteen-SIXTY-THREE! -- as far as can be known.)

The statement that they "were especially prolific in the late 1950s" is flat-out false and should be removed.63.17.87.147 (talk) 04:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I wrote above: "The reverter recently added four so-called "sources," three of which I don't have at hand. The one I could check said nothing whatsoever about how many songs they wrote before 1960." Via Google books, I've been able to check one of the three remaining so-called "sources." It says NOTHING about them being "prolific" or even about them writing much at all. It refers ONLY to a McCartney-HARRISON song, "In Spite of All The Danger" (which was never covered by anybody, much less included in "the Songs L/M Gave Away".) Again, the simple fact is: L/M did NOT write many songs in the late 50s -- a few at most. To the extent they did write songs, it is NOT relevant to the article. Please: Remove this factually incorrect statement about them being "especially prolific in the late 50s."63.17.59.32 (talk) 06:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

If anyone disagrees with the above, please name (say) nine songs attributed to Lennon or McCartney prior to 1/1/1960 in any source. You can't. WHY? Because they weren't "prolific" -- MUCH LESS "especially prolific" -- prior to 1963. SOURCES PLEASE? 63.17.59.32 (talk) 07:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The composite of all the sources indicates that Lennon and McCartney wrote quite a number of songs in the late 50s. They started writing when they were 15, and made their agreement for joint writing credit at about that time (which requires sources, including the ones you removed). McCartney (the younger of the two) was 15 in 1957. They weren't famous then and didn't have the recording contract, but that doesn't negate the fact that they wrote the songs when they said they wrote them. The fact that you don't have access to sources does not mean that the information contained in them is incorrect. Neither I nor anyone is required to pander to your demands by naming any specific songs. There are others besides the ones you name (e.g., One After 909); I just added a very reliable source (an authorized biography of The Beatles) stating that they wrote about 100 songs in 1958 alone; even though unnecessary because the information was already sourced, I added the new source in good faith. Just because you personally don't have any of their recordings made before 1960 does not change the reality that they wrote more than two or three songs before then. This is well-sourced information. Please move on. If you remove properly source information again, that is considered vandalism and can result in a block from editing. Cresix (talk) 16:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Is it a fact that Lennon and/or McCartney were prolific songwriters in the 1950s?

Very few songs are known to have been written by Lennon and/or McCartney prior to 1962. Very, very few are known to have been written by either of them prior to January 1st, 1960 ("Hello Little Girl," "I'll Follow the Sun," the instrumental "Cry For a Shadow," and the music -- not lyrics -- for "When I'm 64" are the most likely; perhaps two or three others#. Bragging, they both may have CLAIMED to have been prolific in the 1950s, but in the absence of evidence this is a self-sourced statement no more reliable than Bob Dylan's 1962 claim that he'd been in a traveling circus. #He wasn't, but the newspapers of the time said he was, based on his word, so ... should we include "Dylan was in a traveling circus in the 1950s" in the Dylan article?# Please give sources, specifying exactly what the source says "on point", to support the statement "Lennon and McCartney were prolific songwriters in the 1950s." Please name songs they were known to have written prior to 1/1/1960. Then, please evaluate whether the totality of the evidence supports this statement as factual, or whether it is too unreliable to be included in WP.63.17.82.166 (talk) 03:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)— 63.17.82.166 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Editors should refer to my comments in the above section. A very reliable source, the only authorized biography of The Beatles, indicates that Lennon-McCartney wrote about 100 songs in 1958 alone. By any standard that is prolific. No one is required to name all the songs prior to 1960 to justify this information. The Beatles were not famous and did not have a recording contract when these songs were written, but that does not negate the fact that they wrote the songs then. Some of those songs were recorded later, or parts of them integrated into other songs. Anon 63.17, editing with a dynamic IP all located in Chantilly, Virginia, USA, has edit warred this issue repeatedly despite clear and very good sourcing. Cresix (talk) 15:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't know why this issue is so heated! It's barely even relevant to the article. However...

I have read an awful lot about the Beatles, and I am unaware that they were prolific writers in the 50s. It is sadly a limitation of book ownership, when the sources are printed ones. So far from what I've seen, only Hunter Davis appears to state 100 songs - and to be honest, it doesn't ring true. Hunter Davis may have made a generalisation in stating 1950s, when he just meant early days. Compare for example Ian MacDOnald's comments, "Lennon and McCartney wrote a substantial number of songs between 1957 and 1962... some sources claim up to two hundred - but since no list of titles has ever been published, it is impossible to verify this. Mark Lewisohn refers to twenty early Lennon-McCartney titles."

So what hard evidence is there? I think "Like Dreamers Do" dates to 1957, in addition to the ones noted above. "Love Me Do" goes back to 1958. The Quarrymen performed seven originals including "Thinking of Linking" and "In Spite of all the Danger". If we add up all those known, we get to less than a couple of dozen.

While this doesn't prove they did not write hundreds more, it doesn't suggest as much - whatever is asserted by writers. The evidence is not convincing at all. Early Hamburg recordings don't show a wealth of originals either. Why not just say they wrote a good number of songs, or something like that. It's not worth warring over! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.192.78 (talk) 20:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC) — 86.182.192.78 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The "hard evidence" is the only authorized biography of The Beatles. That is more than sufficient, and better than the personal opinion of everyone who may express that opinion on this talk page. A lot of things don't "ring true" to me, such as a few atoms having enough energy to destroy an entire city, but it is well sourced so I don't challenge it. And beyond opinions, just look at the logic of this: They were musical geniuses. They didn't suddenly become that way on January 1, 1960. They spent lots of time together in the late 50s. The myopic lens that some people can't seem to remove from their face is that when someone is not famous and does not have a recording contract until the 60s, then no one has heard of the hundreds of songs that they wrote before that, unless that is explained by a reliable source, and an authorized biography is as reliable as it gets short of Paul McCartney saying something otherwise. And BTW anon 86, I gave a direct quote in the citation from the book about the number of songs written in 1958. I'm sure I'm not the only person in the world who has the book. Ask around. Cresix (talk) 22:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this point is an essential in this article. However, there are other sources that support the contention that Lennon and McCartney were writing a fair amount in the late 1950s. The early songs they wrote were probably poor in quality and essentially derivative. But write them they did. It was part of their apprenticeship as composers. In addition to both Lennon and McCartney referring in interviews to the exercise book in which they wrote their lyrics there is also evidence from the liner notes written by Tony Barrow to their 1963 E.P. "The Beatles Hits". As their appointed press officer, he presumably gleaned his information from Lennon and McCartney. There is always the possibility of exaggeration - but - purely for what it is worth - consider these extracts from the liner notes:

The four numbers on this EP have been selected from The Lennon & McCartney Songbook. If that description sounds a trifle pompous perhaps I may suggest you preserve this sleeve for ten years, exhume it from your collection somewhere around the middle of 1973 and write me a very nasty letter if the pop people of the 70's aren't talking with respect about at least two of these titles as "early examples of modern beat standards taken from The Lennon & McCartney Songbook.

P.S. In case you still doubt my opening paragraph prophesy, you should know that Messrs. Lennon & McCartney have written enough songs to keep them in singles and albums from now until 1973 even if their composing talent were to wither and die in the immediate future! Source: http://www.beatlesbible.com/1963/09/06/uk-release-the-beatles-hits-ep/

This E.P. liner note was written in July/August 1963. At a time when it was commonplace for pop artists to release 4 singles a year. The Beatles had already established that both sides of their singles would be written by Lennon & McCartney. They were also preparing to have their second album of the year released. And based on that first album, which had a mixture of originals and covers - the reasonable calculation could be that Barrow anticipated a similar ratio. 8 originals to 6 covers on the then-standard 14 songs on a UK LP.

Do the math. 1964 thru 1972 is 9 years. 9 years x 4 singles per year = 36 singles. Two songs per single and that is 72 songs. 9 years x 2 albums a year - 18 albums. Say 50% of the 14 songs on each album were by Lennon & McCartney. That would be 18 albums x 7 songs = 126 songs. Assume that - like the recent "PPM" album - some of those 7 or 8 songs per album might be tracks released as singles. Call it 100 album tracks not released as singles. Now we have a total of 72 songs from singles and 100 album tracks. A grand total of 172 songs.

We can speculate that Lennon & McCartney probably exaggerated to Barrow about having 150-200 unreleased songs in their "songbook" as of August 1963. We can speculate that Barrow fabricated the notion. Or it may simply be that there really were a large number of very primitive songs they'd written. The quality of those songs would almost certainly not rival their later songs. But if that contemporary (1963) source was accurate there were 150-200 songs written as of August 1963. Given Lennon and McCartney's references to writing songs in their early days, it is reasonable to assume that there was a degree of prolificacy between July 1957 (when they first met) and July/August 1963 (when Barrow made his assertion.

Confirming that Lennon & McCartney did write multiple songs in the late 1950s - but doubting that it was such a vast number as 150-200 - and actually citing McCartney as having confessed to making exaggerated claims about the number of songs - see this text written by Bill Harry: (Source: http://triumphpc.com/mersey-beat/beatles/lennon-mccartney.shtml)

The two decided to collaborate on writing songs soon after they met. Paul had played John a number he'd composed called 'I Lost My Little Girl' which inspired them to try writing as a team. It was during the school holidays in 1957, prior to John enrolling at Liverpool College of Art, that they began meeting to compose songs, mainly at Paul's home in Forthlin Road. When terms began and Paul returned to Liverpool Institute and John began his studies at the Art College, they would both take time off school to meet up at Paul's house, while his father was away at work. They also met to discuss their ideas in the Art College canteen or Life Rooms.

Their Forthlin Road sessions usually lasted for three hours and took place between 2 o clock and 5 o clock, before Paul's father, Jim, returned home from work.

They used to write their lyrics down in an exercise book and Paul recalled that the first number they wrote was called 'Too Bad About Sorrows', followed by 'Just Fun'. Another number written around that time was 'Love Me Do', of which Paul was to say "it was completely co-written. It might have been my original idea but some of them were really 50-50s, and I think that one was."

Paul was to admit that the two of them exaggerated the number of songs they wrote during that early period. They even informed me at Mersey Beat that they'd written around 100 songs together during that time when it was actually less than 20

They only wrote down the words as they couldn't write music and their theory was that if they couldn't remember the tune the next day then it couldn't have been very good.

As I said, I don't think this point is crucial to the article. Make of this info what you will. Davidpatrick (talk) 05:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm a journalist myself, and I would never put any faith in comments made in sleeve notes. The record sleeve is a promotional thing, not a factual document which could be relied on. Also, it doesn't distinguish between pre- and post-1960 songs.

Hunter Davis is more authoritative, but he seems to have tossed the remark in without substantiating it. It could be true. It was probably sourced from comments made by Lennon or McCartney, but there are plenty of examples of both making dodgy statements. I remember Lennon claimed to have written one song while sagging off from school, whereas in fact it was written circa 1960 so he'd have been well past school age. (Can't remember off the top of my head which one it was).

Hunter Davis will have been used as source material by other authors. So the claim gets repeated. I think, if we want to be factual, we need to treat the matter with caution.

This has inspired me to try and get a list together of known 1950s compositions. It won't go in this article, but may fit somewhere on Wiki or elsewhere. It's quite interesting.

A couple of last points - the atomic reaction analogy is not meaningful as there is independent observable evidence that it is true - not just a claim of such. This is the difference between empirical science and speculation. And I would think that Mark Lewishon, although not "authorised" as such, is at least as reliable a source as Hunter Davis, who did not research the matter in depth. Lewisohn says twenty - so the authorities differ between each other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.192.78 (talk) 10:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to Davidpatrick for at least providing something that can be considered sources. Those sources point to issues of quality of songs, and possibly less than 100 songs, but are not persuasive that they didn't write a lot of songs prior to 1960, especially since the Davies book can be considered authoritative. It should have no effect on use of the phrase "prolific writers in the late 1950s and early 1960s" (inclusive of parts of both decades) in the article. And again anon 86, expressing your personal opinions is fine here, but without a reliable source to back up your opinions, they are meaningless in terms of content in the article. I could speculate that I "heard" or "read" from somewhere that I can't remember well enough to cite a source that they wrote a thousand songs in 1958, but that doesn't make it true. Additionally, your claim to be a journalist has no bearing on the content of an article. I could claim to be a schoolmate of John Lennon and personally watched them write hundreds of songs, but that doesn't make it true. Cresix (talk) 15:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why you repeat the idea that I am trying to push my opinion (I don't particularly have one!), but you seem to be the only one pushing opinion here - namely the opinion that Hunter Davis must be correct, regardless of a lack of substantiating evidence. What I am trying to get across is that just because somebody writes something down, doesn't make it true. As you point out, anyone can claim anything.

Yes, Hunter Davis's book was authorised, but that doesn't place it beyond dispute. A statement like this needs to be substantiated, or at least plausible, if it is to be accepted as historical fact. Hunter Davis did not conduct research into the subject of their early writing, so where does he get his info from? Do you know? Does he give a source? No. And is there a book in existence without a single error? No.

Incidentally, I also gave authoritative sources, namely Ian MacDonald who I quoted above, and Mark Lewisohn. They differ from Hunter Davis. That's not my opinion - it's just a fact. There is a question mark over the matter. If, as it seems, you want to base your entire case on the one comment in Davis's book, then I think you are misunderstaning what it means to be an authorised biography. It just means the group consented to his writing it and co-operated with him, and he hung out with them for a bit. It doesn't mean everything inside if factually correct. Far more in-depth and reliable research has been done by Lewisohn and others.

The guys who know/knew are the Beatles themselves. Is there any direct source whatsoever from any of them, indicating they were highly prolific before 1960? Again, the answer is no. But you don't seem interested in the facts! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.68.160 (talk) 15:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Provide the serious and reliable evidence besides your opinion that Davies is factually incorrect. An otherwise reliable source is only challenged by another reliable source, not your opinion, that contradicts it. Davidpatrick provided sources that raise some questions, but overall don't challenge the fact that L&M wrote more than a song or two before 1960. You have nothing to challenge Davies except your opinion. Wikipedia's content is based on reliable sources, not your opinion. Cresix (talk) 15:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Walter Everett: "The Beatles as Musicians: The Quarrymen through Rubber Soul", is meticuluously researched. See p24: "McCartney says, 'When we started the Beatles, John & I sat down and wrote about fifty songs, out of which I think "Love Me Do" was the only one that got published."

Note McCartney's glaring error re: "Love Me Do" being the only one (so much for his memory being accurate!), and the fact that the quote gives only half as many as the Hunter Davies quote you provided.

The same book continues, "An early 1962 article in Mersey Beat claims that 'John and Paul of the Beatles have written over 70 original songs'."

This is two years on from the 1950s by the way, and we still aren't close to a hundred!

Everett (not me) considers these estimates as too high. Same book continues, "These estimates - fifty and seventy - can have significance only if they are taken to include the many abandoned fragments and unfinished works that never received titles... In the period before 1961, thirteen songs and instrumental pieces that were ever to reach some stage of completion are thought probable to have been begun."

How can you say Hunter Davies is reliable when other researchers give contradictory tallies? I'll refer again to Ian MacDonald, who makes a good point about the reliability of the tallies (and he makes it, not me): "Some sources claim up to two hundred [between 1957 and 1962] but since no list of titles has ever been published, it's impossible to verify this." (3rd edition, p77)

It is not encycopedic to use one quote as fact when other reliable sources question and contradict it. I rest my case there, except to point out that whether any of the figures in the air consititute "prolific" is a value judgement. "Prolific" compared to what? 86.184.68.160 (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

We're not talking about what was published, and we're certainly not talking about what was published in the late 50s or early 60s. "Abandoned fragments and unfinished works that never received titles" says nothing about what did get placed into other songs or modified but remained largely complete songs. An example is "One After 909", written in the 50s but not recorded until much later in the 60s; but specific examples are not necessary. We have sources disputing whether it was 50, 100, or more than 100. None of that negates the phrase "prolific writers in the late 1950s and early 1960s", inclusive of parts of both decades; no statements about song quality; no statements about fragments that may or may not have been used later. Thanks for resting your case, because you essentially have no case to change the current wording. Cresix (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

If I may "unrest" my case for a moment then - here's some more from Everett. (Notice how detailed his work is compared with Hunter Davies.) Page 26: "Counting generously, this classification of compositions and fragments possibly begun before 1963 totals forty eight items (forty two of which may have origins predating the March 1962 claim of 'seventy'). Undoubtedly many other potential pieces, of which all trace seems to have been lost, were begun and developed during this period, but there was certainly no proliferation of finished Lennon-McCartney compositions before the first twelve weeks of 1963."

Is a confirmed tally of 48, plus potentially others unknown, between 1957 and 1963 especially prolific for songriters, and according to who? 86.184.68.160 (talk) 17:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)— 86.184.68.160 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The problem with depending on Hunter Davies on this topic is that by his own admission he did comparatively little research for his 1968 biography outside of his interviews of principals. And he relied on the accuracy of the memories of the group members. By way of example his original 1968 edition listed the date of John and Paul's first meeting as 15 June 1956 - based on what he'd been told by John and Paul. It wasn't till years later that the correct date of 7 July 1957 was brought into the public awareness. Davies refers to this in his 2001 biography of The Quarrymen.

Can you imagine had there been the internet and Wikipedia in those days? The Beatles Wiki article would almost certainly have listed that erroneous date - citing the Davies biography. Other members of the Quarrymen who knew the date and year to be incorrect might have wished to correct the record on Wikkipedia but would have been prohibited because that would be original research. Any editor who tried to challenge the date as wrong would have been faced with the citation of Davies information from the authorized biography. It is a sobering reminder to us Wikipedians that while we must of course abide by sources that verify what we write - those sources can be incorrect. And yet Wikipedia must stick with what is verified - irrespective of if it is actually accurate. We cannot use original research even when we personally know that the cited source is incorrect. We have to find a respected source that verifies what we know to be true. And even then it can and probably will be challenged by those who are convinced by the citation of what we know to be erroneous information.

As to the number of songs that were written by Lennon & McCartney in the 1950s, an accurate number is unlikely to be agreed upon Even the songs written known to have been written in those days were given a copyright year based on when Dick James copyrighted the songs not on the year actually written. Why don't we settle for text that does not distinguish between the 50s and early 60s and refer to prolific (which they certainly became by 1963) without the word "especially" preceding "Prolific".

So: Lennon & McCartney started writing songs together in the late 1950s and by 1963 were prolific composers who wrote songs for the Beatles and also for other artists. Davidpatrick (talk) 18:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I made the change, although I wonder now whether SPAs will now find something to dispute in the indisputable. Thanks Davidpatrick for providing a desperately needed voice of reason. Cresix (talk) 18:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

As this issue has been agreeably settled, I was wondering if the number of songs was a reference to the "songs in the cupboard" Jane Asher threw out that Paul has talked about? The reason I ask is the debate reminded of this comment Paul had made and would explain, in part, why there are no titles of songs to be found? The edit is quite acceptable and I do not seek to change it nor "open an old wound". Thoughts?THX1136 (talk) 15:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Not a reissue of the 1971 version?

The track-lists and the title seem sufficiently different for this not to be considered a reissue. See here for details.—Aquegg (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)