|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on May 30, 2012 9:00:56 GMT -5
You beat me to it, Nicole. The extent to which people have been prepared to tear McCartney a new one for things he said in that interview, which he didn't actually say, never fails to amaze me. Well he's just talking to himself. No, those questions were written by Peter Brown. My original statement stands: The public digs John made in Rolling Stone in Dec. 1970 is what provoked the whole public feud. Your excuse for John that he went after everyone not just Paul in the interview is lame. Does that mean what he said about Paul didn't count?
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on May 30, 2012 9:04:14 GMT -5
Just curious, does anyone know of the origination of Paul's digs on Ram ? What provoked them ? I know they were going through a court case etc but I can't find any negative comments about Paul from John that are public before RAM came out. Or were there things said in the court case that pissed Paul off and triggered the digs ? Paul was hurt because John wouldn't really talk with him. You forgot John's Rolling Stone interview in December 1970.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on May 30, 2012 9:13:23 GMT -5
You beat me to it, Nicole. The extent to which people have been prepared to tear McCartney a new one for things he said in that interview, which he didn't actually say, never fails to amaze me. So the self-interview was a brilliant move, eh? There are digs in there and they were meant to cut but just in Paul's oh so subtle way. Oh well, I am celebrating the re-release of Ram from the Paul era that some fans like to forget because he didn't meet their approval with his free-spirited, funky, family oriented music. Some only like their Paul beatled.
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on May 30, 2012 9:47:49 GMT -5
You beat me to it, Nicole. The extent to which people have been prepared to tear McCartney a new one for things he said in that interview, which he didn't actually say, never fails to amaze me. So the self-interview was a brilliant move, eh? There are digs in there and they were meant to cut but just in Paul's oh so subtle way. Oh well, I am celebrating the re-release of Ram from the Paul era that some fans like to forget because he didn't meet their approval with his free-spirited, funky, family oriented music. Some only like their Paul beatled. Yes there are some subtle digs in the interview. But let's go back to the source of this whole thing: John's insistence on foistering Allen Klein and his meddlesome and felonious ways on the group. Klein had already been convicted of a felony in NY when he showed up at their door in March 1969 begging for a job. Who hires a convicted felon to manage your business? When Paul saw through him and said so to the others, that should have been the end of it. By going ahead with Klein, they sealed the end of the group. It is clear at that point that they were no longer a group or the other three wouldn't have followed Klein like little lambs. It was a power grab for John. He felt he was losing control of the group, so he insists, even after Jagger warned them that they were suing the guy, that he was the man for him. Paul was knifed in the back by this action. Management is a fundamental part of that business and if you have an untrusworthy manager, you can get screwed royally as John, George and Ringo discovered for themselves about 3 years after Paul. Then they come in and change his music on LIB without his signoff. Then Klein acts as though he is representing Paul, putting his nasty ABKO logo on Paul's album, telling him when it will be released. Its no wonder Paul was miffed in April 1970 when he answered those questions. If it were me, I would not have been as nice as Paul was in that interview. What you thought was your friends of many years (brothers) just threw you under the bus. They didn't care a bit about your objections. And the amazing part is that Paul was proven right and still some people don't get it.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on May 30, 2012 12:32:43 GMT -5
Klein had already been convicted of a felony in NY when he showed up at their door in March 1969 begging for a job. Who hires a convicted felon to manage your business. Terrible choice. And certainly not as beneficial as hiring your own damn father-in-law. So what were the other three supposed to do, go with Paul's father-in-law? Hardly. John was knifed in the back by Paul when John agreed to keep his departure "hush hush" and then Paul took advantage of the situation and announced his leaving, to promote McCARTNEY. You mean you would have come right out and not been nice, like John did in ROLLING STONE and HOW DO YOU SLEEP, and which you always point out as a "bad thing"? Paul blew the brains out of The Beatles in the end. Get off the high horse. So are we going to talk about the New RAM release or not? With you and your sycophantic Paul ass-licking, it makes me want to buy RAM and throw it is the friggin' garbage at this point.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Frankie Crisp on May 30, 2012 12:35:42 GMT -5
I think the topic of the Ram deluxe box set has gone off the rails a bit but it's still an interesting discussion nonetheless. I hate to sound wishy-washy but I can see both sides of the equation when it comes to John and Paul taking digs at each other. Hindsight affords that luxury.
Some excellent points have been already made but here's my two cents worth...
Paul was the one member of The Beatles who wanted the group to continue and he did his best to rally the troops by scheduling recording sessions, films and possible concert dates. At the same time John was consumed with (by) Yoko and an ever increasing drug habit. His focus lay well beyond The Beatles and instead of allowing the group to dissolve, it imploded. Bringing Yoko (and her bed) into the recording sessions and having to endure her comments on certain songs must have been a bit rich. Especially in a domain that was considered sacrosanct and exclusive to the boys. John admitted in later years that he could have been a little more sensitive but as anyone can tell you, it’s often difficult to be wise and in love at the same time. There is no doubt that John hurt Paul when he asked for a divorce. The Beatles were after all, the only thing Paul ever knew or wanted. And then to top it off, John goes ballistic in his Rolling Stone interview by lambasting everyone so I can certainly understand Paul’s feelings. It’s clear that John was in terrible pain during this period and he was lashing out while trying to grab onto anything to find his way through the mess. His drug consumption was alarming in itself but then to watch him publically bare his soul through primal therapy was very uncomfortable.
At the same time I can understand John being hurt by Paul when he announced to the world that he was leaving The Beatles. John felt it was his band - he started it, he should end it but Paul stole his thunder. Unfortunately for Paul he was cast as the bad guy for years to come and was often dismissed as a lightweight. I also remember something about Paul buying shares into their music publishing without the knowledge of the others which created an inequity between him and John. The legal entanglements also created a terrible strain and it must have been gut wrenching for all of them.
And yet no matter how hard they tried to hurt each other, The Beatles love and respect for each other always endured. John once said in an interview that it was fine for him to criticize The Beatles but God help anyone else that would take his friends to task. That to me speaks volumes about the love and admiration he had for Paul, George and Ringo.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on May 30, 2012 12:42:29 GMT -5
Paul was hurt because John wouldn't really talk with him. You forgot John's Rolling Stone interview in December 1970. You're so full of crap, ReturnToGoldman. One moment you're saying if it was you who was pissed, you wouldn't be as nice as Paul in interviews and that it's so kind of Paul to be so easygoing.... but then you blast John for laying it all on the line. You're a Paul McCartney Fan, not a Beatles Fan... and you certainly despise John Lennon in virtually everything he ever thought or did.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on May 30, 2012 12:45:31 GMT -5
My original statement stands: The public digs John made in Rolling Stone in Dec. 1970 is what provoked the whole public feud. And meanwhile Paul treated John's woman Yoko like crap. Only Ringo and Maureen were cool, John later said. You're always going on about how Paulie was "hurt".... well, how about John? He was first devastated by the awful reception he and Yoko got from his "beast friends".
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on May 30, 2012 12:51:32 GMT -5
There is no doubt that John hurt Paul when he asked for a divorce. The Beatles were after all, the only thing Paul ever knew or wanted. And then to top it off, John goes ballistic in his Rolling Stone interview by lambasting everyone so I can certainly understand Paul’s feelings. First let's realize that John felt hurt and thrown under the bus by Paul's coldness to John's woman. I'll try a bit of reverse RTP here by saying that it was very nice of John to keep "hush hush" about his quitting the Beatles, for the good of the band. Lennon should have pulled the plug right there and let Paul have it. John began The Beatles - it was John's baby. And he was the one who said "I'm done, I want a divorce" -- NOT PAUL.
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on May 30, 2012 13:30:04 GMT -5
You forgot John's Rolling Stone interview in December 1970. You're so full of crap, ReturnToGoldman. One moment you're saying if it was you who was pissed, you wouldn't be as nice as Paul in interviews and that it's so kind of Paul to be so easygoing.... but then you blast John for laying it all on the line. You're a Paul McCartney Fan, not a Beatles Fan... and you certainly despise John Lennon in virtually everything he ever thought or did. If saying John didn't properly handle the situation regarding Klein and Paul is the worst thing I am saying, I don't think that merits me being called ReturnToGoldman. I was just answering a question someone posed about what started their public feud. As usual I get carried away. I didn't criticize John for it. It was how he legitimately felt. I was only pointing out that it lead to a public feud. In fact I would have not held back like Paul did. I would have had my side told in Rolling Stone in April 1970 to answer John. Instead what did Paul do except say that he loved and respected John in the "self-interview" and throw in one or two mild jabs "It (John and Yoko's pubilc presentation) doesn't give me any pleasure". He probably had the nude cover in mind. I don't know how you leap from that to saying I am not a Beatle fan and despise John. That is quite a leap.
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on May 30, 2012 13:38:42 GMT -5
Klein had already been convicted of a felony in NY when he showed up at their door in March 1969 begging for a job. Who hires a convicted felon to manage your business. Terrible choice. And certainly not as beneficial as hiring your own damn father-in-law. So what were the other three supposed to do, go with Paul's father-in-law? Hardly. John was knifed in the back by Paul when John agreed to keep his departure "hush hush" and then Paul took advantage of the situation and announced his leaving, to promote McCARTNEY. You mean you would have come right out and not been nice, like John did in ROLLING STONE and HOW DO YOU SLEEP, and which you always point out as a "bad thing"? Paul blew the brains out of The Beatles in the end. Get off the high horse. So are we going to talk about the New RAM release or not? With you and your sycophantic Paul ass-licking, it makes me want to buy RAM and throw it is the friggin' garbage at this point. I don't want anyone to get pissed off at Paul because of me. So I will back off. I don't intend to diminish your enjoyment of the re-release. As usual, I go off the deep end. I do think that they should have tried to agree (all four) on a manager before going forward. One final point--even Neil Aspinal said Paul never intended to have the group be managed by the Eastmans in the same sense that Brian Epstein managed them. It is in his Anthology interveiw. They were proposed to be legal representatives--as advisors. And he wasn't insistent that it be the Eastmans or no one.
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on May 30, 2012 13:47:16 GMT -5
My original statement stands: The public digs John made in Rolling Stone in Dec. 1970 is what provoked the whole public feud. And meanwhile Paul treated John's woman Yoko like crap. Only Ringo and Maureen were cool, John later said. You're always going on about how Paulie was "hurt".... well, how about John? He was first devastated by the awful reception he and Yoko got from his "beast friends". I'll give you Paul treated Yoko badly at first. There was really no excuse. But John could have handled the situation better as far as introducing her into the group setting. And John did admit Paul's treatment of Yoko soon improved. John didn't seem to be able to move past the initial problems. So I can see that being a reason for John to have some resentment of Paul, though Paul turned his additue around to accepting her. I had forgotten about that. John was not very forgiving, but maybe that would be hard to forgive. So some of the resentment was justified. But again, I was talking about the question of a public feud.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on May 30, 2012 14:13:00 GMT -5
And again it is being said that Paul announced he was leaving The Beatles/the group was breaking up. Nonononono!!!!!!!! That interView clearly left the door open - it did NOT announce the end of The Beatles. Anyone who says it did either can't read or else is incapable of simple comprehension.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on May 30, 2012 18:04:34 GMT -5
I'll give you Paul treated Yoko badly at first. There was really no excuse. But John could have handled the situation better as far as introducing her into the group setting.OK, but no "but....'s", please. Can't you ever just knock Paul and leave it alone without having to distribute some blame to John or others? OK, then I'll say it began with Paul publicly taking a little jab at John with his self-interview in earlier '70.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on May 30, 2012 18:06:38 GMT -5
I don't want anyone to get pissed off at Paul because of me. So I will back off. I don't intend to diminish your enjoyment of the re-release. As usual, I go off the deep end. Don't mind me even if I'm blowing off steam. You still have the right to voice your views, so don't back off. (even if it does get irritating ).
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on May 30, 2012 18:29:17 GMT -5
And again it is being said that Paul announced he was leaving The Beatles/the group was breaking up. Nonononono!!!!!!!! That interView clearly left the door open - it did NOT announce the end of The Beatles. Anyone who says it did either can't read or else is incapable of simple comprehension. But history shows the group ended at that point when Paul announced "his" breakup of the Beatles, if the door was being kept open then hell has frozen over .. Paul's actions following this interview are pretty self - explanatory unless you wanted Paul to spell it out.
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on May 30, 2012 22:50:50 GMT -5
Well he's just talking to himself. No, those questions were written by Peter Brown. My original statement stands: The public digs John made in Rolling Stone in Dec. 1970 is what provoked the whole public feud. Your excuse for John that he went after everyone not just Paul in the interview is lame. Does that mean what he said about Paul didn't count? But your original statement is just an opinion which has no weight behind it because Paul said he was sick of John and Yoko's antics. So in reality it was an unprovoked attack by Paul. Now before you start huffing and puffing I don't think there is anything wrong with that, as obviously Paul felt like that and this was his way of letting John know what he thought. At the same time Paul has to accept the consequences of his actions via John's response in How Do You Sleep? Finally, I am not sure what you're on about in terms of making excuses for John, if you can't comprehend that the 1970 interview was his way of demystifying the Beatles and use that as an excuse for Paul's unprovoked attack then that's your preregoative but you would be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on May 31, 2012 3:44:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on May 31, 2012 4:53:31 GMT -5
And again it is being said that Paul announced he was leaving The Beatles/the group was breaking up. Nonononono!!!!!!!! That interView clearly left the door open - it did NOT announce the end of The Beatles. Anyone who says it did either can't read or else is incapable of simple comprehension. But history shows the group ended at that point when Paul announced "his" breakup of the Beatles, if the door was being kept open then hell has frozen over .. Yes, history shows that the group ended at that point, but PAUL DID NOT ANNOUNCE THE BREAKUP. What do you think would have happened if the others had said, "OK, let's do another album?" They'd have done another album, that's what, despite Klein. By which you mean what? He released his solo alum - as had John and Ringo already - and then went off and had a neervous breakdown?
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on May 31, 2012 4:59:42 GMT -5
The Beatles did not break up because Paul said they had no plans to record together. His self-interview did not cause the breakup, it simply reflected the status quo at the time. And I'm still curious to know exactly how it was a slap in the face to John, especially give than the other 3 had - for the first time - gone against the working practice they'd had that any one member could veto a decision.
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on May 31, 2012 5:23:16 GMT -5
But history shows the group ended at that point when Paul announced "his" breakup of the Beatles, if the door was being kept open then hell has frozen over .. Yes, history shows that the group ended at that point, but PAUL DID NOT ANNOUNCE THE BREAKUP. What do you think would have happened if the others had said, "OK, let's do another album?" They'd have done another album, that's what, despite Klein. By which you mean what? He released his solo alum - as had John and Ringo already - and then went off and had a neervous breakdown? So it was just a coincidence that Paul does the self interview at the time the Beatles break-up was announced to the world ? That interview is held as the announcement of the breakup. Paul lists: "Personal differences, business differences, musical differences, but most of all because I have a better time with my family." This is what everyone considers the annoucement of the breakup, I don't understand what you're clinging on to. Paul then goes and sues the other three to dissolve the Beatles. It's pretty clear cut. If it wasn't then why was John so pissed with Paul for doing this ? Because he wanted to announce it to the world.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on May 31, 2012 5:34:46 GMT -5
"... but most of all because I have a better time with my family..." That is so disingenuous of Paul. He knew damn well he loved The Beatles first and foremost and had the best time making his Beatles music. Which is where he would have preferred to be, had the other three been more responsive.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on May 31, 2012 5:38:32 GMT -5
And I'm still curious to know exactly how it was a slap in the face to John, especially give than the other 3 had - for the first time - gone against the working practice they'd had that any one member could veto a decision. His wise-ass remark about John's work: "It doesn't give me any pleasure".
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on May 31, 2012 5:50:26 GMT -5
"... but most of all because I have a better time with my family..." That is so disingenuous of Paul. He knew damn well he loved The Beatles first and foremost and had the best time making his Beatles music. Which is where he would have preferred to be, had the other three been more responsive. I also think he knew that doing this interview to coincide with the McCartney release would upset the others, Klein, John and co. Ringo said that Paul would act like a spoilt child if he didn't get his way and this was a petulant act by Paul.
|
|
|
Post by coachbk on May 31, 2012 7:19:58 GMT -5
Paul's self interview was regrettable and a surprisingly bad PR move from someone who is normally so PR savvy.
I do think it was wrong of the others to want Paul to change the release date of MCCARTNEY though. Each of them had released solo albums previously.
I credit Ringo for being mature enough to say they should let Paul put out his album even after Paul treated him badly.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on May 31, 2012 9:43:42 GMT -5
LOL, being paired with RTP is a first for me! Ram on! Hey, speaking of recent reviews, one I read somewhere said that the song "Ram On" is a play on Paul's early stage name of Paul Ramon. Has anyone ever read that elsewhere? Sounds plausible but I had never heard of that!
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on May 31, 2012 14:42:45 GMT -5
And I'm still curious to know exactly how it was a slap in the face to John, especially give than the other 3 had - for the first time - gone against the working practice they'd had that any one member could veto a decision. His wise-ass remark about John's work: "It doesn't give me any pleasure". Remember he was asked in the context of John and Yoko. John hadn't realeased any albums of serious music at that time. He was referring to what John and Yoko were doing, not "John's work". I think he always loved John and adrmired his talent. In fact he says so in the interveiew. As I said, if I were in Paul's shoes at that time I wouldn't have been able to show the restraint he did.
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on May 31, 2012 14:44:47 GMT -5
"... but most of all because I have a better time with my family..." That is so disingenuous of Paul. He knew damn well he loved The Beatles first and foremost and had the best time making his Beatles music. Which is where he would have preferred to be, had the other three been more responsive. Of couse they loved each other like brothers, but they had a falling out at that point in time. So at that moment, it wasn't disingenuous. He was having a better time (ie. no conflict) with his family.
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on May 31, 2012 14:48:29 GMT -5
LOL, being paired with RTP is a first for me! Ram on! Hey, speaking of recent reviews, one I read somewhere said that the song "Ram On" is a play on Paul's early stage name of Paul Ramon. Has anyone ever read that elsewhere? Sounds plausible but I had never heard of that! Yes, I had heard of that some years ago. I think that was a great article. I loved the quote from Landau. Not only has his review of RAM become the nadir of rock writing, he has turned around 180 degrees on his opinion of the album. I also like that RS gave the package 4 1/2 stars out of 5. Hey what's a half star between friends. Ram On!
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on May 31, 2012 17:17:41 GMT -5
As I said, if I were in Paul's shoes at that time I wouldn't have been able to show the restraint he did. And as I responded (which I don't believe you've addressed) if you couldn't have held restraint, then you ought to understand john's lack of restraint with the RS interview. Just admit it ... if Paul shows restraint, you say it's good and you admire that. Had Paul been the one to do a savage RS interview, you would champion that and say Paul was justified as well. You go any way the wind blows when it comes to Paul. John sometimes showed restraint as well... in the RS interview he said how George insulted Yoko right to her face but - in John's words - " -- and I didn't hit him, I don't know why". John also showed amazing restraint in not announcing that it was he - John Lennon, Founder Of The Beatles - who decided to quit. He restrained himself and played "business as usual" to make everyone happy, including Paul.
|
|