|
Post by stavros on Jul 3, 2015 16:47:17 GMT -5
Happy 4th of July Weekend to all of you colonials across the pond! Down with the British and all that. Paul has recently given a rather long interview to Esquire magazine. Here are some snippets but the full interview is available here: Esquire Magazine
|
|
|
Post by stavros on Jul 3, 2015 17:05:58 GMT -5
There is an interesting take on the song writing credits to Beatle songs
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2015 2:03:13 GMT -5
A good read..
|
|
|
Post by winstonoboogie on Jul 4, 2015 12:51:51 GMT -5
Yes! Thanks,stavros for posting that. It's interesting that Sir Paul (and I am a *major* Paul fan, so please don't get me wrong) with John being portrayed as The Beatle after his death all these years later!
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Jul 5, 2015 16:03:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by stavros on Jul 6, 2015 14:35:52 GMT -5
To be honest I think Paul is right about John not caring about how the writing credits were organized. The very early copies of Please Please Me show a McCartney/Lennon credit. Wings Over America too. The Beatles had split and John was very much still alive. John never seemed to comment so I guess he didn't care that much. In fact he (IMHO)was fairly accurate at apportioning who wrote what in his famous interview where he discussed each Beatles song. What has been noticeable since his death is that Paul has tried to counter what he sees as 'revisionism' by Yoko by doing exactly the same thing himself. Oh the irony.
|
|
|
Post by scousette on Jul 6, 2015 18:09:22 GMT -5
Thanks for the holiday greeting, stavros!
This new interview is fascinating.
|
|
|
Post by sallyg on Jul 6, 2015 18:45:40 GMT -5
Enjoyed the interview. Liked Paul's comments about the Queen and the interviewer saying that he's indirectly flirting with her.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jul 6, 2015 20:15:47 GMT -5
Enjoyed the interview. Liked Paul's comments about the Queen and the interviewer saying that he's indirectly flirting with her. I thought the Queen looked cute when she was a younger, too. And the fact that she knew auto mechanics and could fix a car made her even sexier.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jul 6, 2015 20:19:47 GMT -5
I thought those headlines were unfair. I didn't see the article igniting anything or being particular incendiary. I don't think he said anything bad about Yoko today. He was talking about how he felt THEN. I don't think he said much new here. It seemed to be mostly about the writers expectations, impressions, and taking aways.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Jul 6, 2015 20:40:55 GMT -5
I thought those headlines were unfair. I didn't see the article igniting anything or being particular incendiary. I don't think he said anything bad about Yoko today. He was talking about how he felt THEN. I don't think he said much new here. It seemed to be mostly about the writers expectations, impressions, and taking aways. Not as much a "bait and switch" but a stretch.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jul 6, 2015 22:37:04 GMT -5
Nice, Time has the following headline: Paul McCartney: John Lennon Was ‘Martyred,’ His Reputation is ‘Revisionism’ time.com/3946847/paul-mccartney-john-lennon-martyred/But not everyone is as delighted and accepting of Paul's constant whine and belittlement of John. From Gawker(thanks scousette!): gawker.com/paul-mccartney-still-haunted-by-the-ghost-of-john-lenno-1715947287And a clever call for peace from The Guardian who reminds us that Paul is flip-flopping again on this from his stated 2003 position when the better angels of his nature once again took control: www.theguardian.com/music/shortcuts/2015/jul/06/mccartney-lennon-paul-songwriting-credit-beatlesI don't know, lines like this bother me: "When John got shot, aside from the pure horror of it, the lingering thing was, OK, well now John’s a martyr. A JFK. So what happened was, I started to get frustrated because people started to say, 'Well, he was The Beatles.'” So with John's remains on some cold morgue table Paul is worried about self-legacy damage? Really!? How dare that John go and get murdered and be a martyr, be a JFK? BTW, is Paul calling JFK overrated as he is John Lennon? And when Paul does this "comedy" voice: "Like Yoko would appear in the press, and I’d read it, and it said [comedy Yoko accent], 'Paul did nothing! All he did was book the studio...'" that probably means a racist imitation that would offend all Japanese, probably in the voice Westerners used to do during WW II. I mean I just received my deluxe McCartney II Box and I was reminded of the song "Frozen Jap" with the inner jacket photos of Paul doing Japanese caricature faces. Funny stuff, yeah that is comedic. And the "co-Havadtoying" is a funny one too, you know Paul has been dying to use that for years. I will give Paul the benefit of the doubt and believe that he was tricked by a clever journalist into saying stupid things on revisionism and martyrdom because otherwise I would be forced to think that Macca and his Macca Mad Hatters are out to bury John Lennon's legacy and contributions once and for all.
|
|
|
Post by scousette on Jul 6, 2015 23:37:52 GMT -5
The "co-Havadtoying" remark was amusing. Paul really needs to let go of all of this crediting and acknowledgement neuroticism. FFS, he's Paul McCartney, reigning surviving Beatle, Mr. Wings, contributor to numerous projects, top-grossing live concert dude.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jul 7, 2015 1:21:58 GMT -5
"When John got shot, aside from the pure horror of it, the lingering thing was, OK, well now John’s a martyr. A JFK. So what happened was, I started to get frustrated because people started to say, 'Well, he was The Beatles.'” So with John's remains on some cold morgue table Paul is worried about self-legacy damage? Really!? How dare that John go and get murdered and be a martyr, be a JFK? BTW, is Paul calling JFK overrated as he is John Lennon? I think Paul is jumping around in time. I'm not sure Paul is implying that he was thinking those things within minutes or days of John being shot. I think he's talking about the aftermath in the weeks and months and years that followed.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jul 7, 2015 11:11:55 GMT -5
We may have to disagree on that and other implications of this newest interview by Paul as to the parts concerning John. "When John was shot," sounds like as close to the event as possible to me.
Paul's immediate and muted (and at the time puzzling) response of, "It's a drag," now makes sense to me and I am even more saddened..
|
|
|
Post by stavros on Jul 7, 2015 16:04:22 GMT -5
We may have to disagree on that and other implications of this newest interview by Paul as to the parts concerning John. "When John was shot," sounds like as close to the event as possible to me. Paul's immediate and muted (and at the time puzzling) response of, "It's a drag," now makes sense to me and I am even more saddened.. I am trying to see it from both sides and I can see Paul's point over the song writing credits in a digital world where it says The Long and Winding Road by John Lennon and ..... He has a point and as I said before I don't think John would have given a toss about it. Anyone interested enough in the Beatles songs would find out for themselves anyway. And let us not forget that Yoko dropped the McCartney credit on "Give Peace A Chance" on the Lennon: Legend album (1997) and Lennon Anthology (1998), where the credit for the song is given solely to John Lennon. Perhaps rightly so. But isn't that double standards as well? No matter how petty this all seems. I think a lot of this talk about John seems to come from Paul's deep insecurities about his legacy. Thirty five years he's been hearing Yoko talk about how great John was, the media perhaps paint a rosier picture of Lennon than the one Paul knew. Julian has also been openly critical of how the English side of the Lennon family were often sidelined by Yoko. Looking in from the outside I think Paul has never, ever got over the fact that he lost John Lennon not once but twice.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jul 7, 2015 16:59:58 GMT -5
Yoko was/is wrong if she removed Paul from GPAC because John has said that while Paul obviously did not help on that, that was the deal and I believe I have read that there was also some feeling of good will towards Paul by John in parts of 1969 about "The Ballad Of John And Yoko" and Paul let John and Yoko live in his London townhouse for awhile. I would like to hear from Yoko on this, why has there apparently been a change!
But for Paul to keep complaining that John was "martyred" and that his fame and admiration today is the result of "revisionism" hurts to the bone those many of us who do like John Lennon's music especially as many of us are equally Paul fans! Are we idiots for admiring John's solo music? Do we love it only because he was murdered? Paul out of nowhere slams much of John's solo music in this new interview!
For well Paul should know that it is a fool who plays it cool by making his world a little colder. Paul and his most ardent fans attacking John Lennon diminishes and chips away at The Beatles' legacy as a whole and that hurts Paul's legacy too and the same is just as true if once John and now Yoko and John's most ardent fans do the same to Paul. These two men are forever tied together but that is a beautiful thing, right? Paul's solo career also has major blemishes but yet we find enjoyment and derive so much pleasure from it as do many of us from John's solo music, warts and all for both men. That is why I am attracted to John and Paul, two normal and fallible men did superhuman things with Pop Music both together and even once apart, more often than not.
Non-Beatles music fans think John and Paul were hypocrites for publicly arguing and fighting like they did too often from 1969 through 1972 and they likewise think we fans are morons for the John versus Paul wars. Paul is King of Pepperland, he has nothing to worry about as to legacy because by the grace of God, Vishnu or fat old luck he is still here and thus able to keep producing cool new music and perform and savor old. Paul ought to be the content , gracious and benign King not the defensive, bitter and paranoid one.
When I read things like those passages much discussed from Esquire, I fear he has become the latter.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Jul 8, 2015 10:22:24 GMT -5
Heard this on the radio the other day regarding this article; Did Yoko really say (regarding the Get Back Sessions I believe, or the 1969 year in general?)(Paraphrasing) "Paul's main contribution to that period was booking the sessions." ? Did I hear that correctly?
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Jul 8, 2015 10:25:55 GMT -5
Yoko was/is wrong if she removed Paul from GPAC because John has said that while Paul obviously did not help on that, that was the deal and I believe I have read that there was also some feeling of good will towards Paul by John in parts of 1969 about "The Ballad Of John And Yoko" and Paul let John and Yoko live in his London townhouse for awhile. I would like to hear from Yoko on this, why has there apparently been a change! But for Paul to keep complaining that John was "martyred" and that his fame and admiration today is the result of "revisionism" hurts to the bone those many of us who do like John Lennon's music especially as many of us are equally Paul fans! Are we idiots for admiring John's solo music? Do we love it only because he was murdered? Paul out of nowhere slams much of John's solo music in this new interview! For well Paul should know that it is a fool who plays it cool by making his world a little colder. Paul and his most ardent fans attacking John Lennon diminishes and chips away at The Beatles' legacy as a whole and that hurts Paul's legacy too and the same is just as true if once John and now Yoko and John's most ardent fans do the same to Paul. These two men are forever tied together but that is a beautiful thing, right? Paul's solo career also has major blemishes but yet we find enjoyment and derive so much pleasure from it as do many of us from John's solo music, warts and all for both men. That is why I am attracted to John and Paul, two normal and fallible men did superhuman things with Pop Music both together and even once apart, more often than not. Non-Beatles music fans think John and Paul were hypocrites for publicly arguing and fighting like they did too often from 1969 through 1972 and they likewise think we fans are morons for the John versus Paul wars. Paul is King of Pepperland, he has nothing to worry about as to legacy because by the grace of God, Vishnu or fat old luck he is still here and thus able to keep producing cool new music and perform and savor old. Paul ought to be the content , gracious and benign King not the defensive, bitter and paranoid one. When I read things like those passages much discussed from Esquire, I fear he has become the latter. Paul's greatest enemy has always been his own ego. And the only person who could step on it for him was John.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jul 8, 2015 17:10:35 GMT -5
. . . Paul out of nowhere slams much of John's solo music in this new interview! . . . JohnS, I think I missed that in the interview or perhaps I was only reading an excerpt. Or, maybe I didn't pick up on the digs. What quotes are suggesting this to you?
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jul 8, 2015 21:24:27 GMT -5
. . . Paul out of nowhere slams much of John's solo music in this new interview! . . . JohnS, I think I missed that in the interview or perhaps I was only reading an excerpt. Or, maybe I didn't pick up on the digs. What quotes are suggesting this to you?
"And post-Beatles he did more great work, but he also did a lot of not-great work. Now the fact that he’s now martyred has elevated him to a James Dean, and beyond. " Paul McCartney 2015
Where the fuck did that come from Sir Paul? Why now, why in 2015 when your dear friend has been dead for 35 years and you are the only Beatle most young people know(including many on this Board and others).
POB and Imagine, at the very least equal probably better than McCartney and Ram. STINYC is a low spot for solo John but even the Macca Mad Hatters hate Wild Life and consider it Paul's low spot so we have us a tie(and here I am the author of the The JSD Postulate who loves early solo Paul more than his fanatics). Mind Games and Red Rose Speedway easily a tie(and I think both are great but the Hatters are indifferent on RRS and the Lennonites too quickly dismiss MG). BOTR and Walls & Bridges each produce a #1 single and each produces another Top 40 single so no way is W&B "not-great work." There is John's RnR that is no better or no worse than Paul's Russian RnR album or the later Run Devil Run.
Finally, 1980's Double fantasy created a billion times bigger buzz than 1980's McCartney II and artistically they are both good so again, where is the "not-great work" in the context of what Paul himself was doing?
Anything after December 8, 1980 is apples to oranges because John wasn't given the opportunity to live and thankfully we have had Paul but we cannot subtract on our scorecard from John when he was not permitted to go forward artistically.
Dear friends, if John was alive today I would be the first to say, "Go for it Paul, let it out, tell us how you really feel about John." That would be a fair fight because in my hypothesis John would be alive to defend himself. I would sit back and eat the popcorn for that debate.
But no, Paul's supposed best friend, the man honestly and genuinely linked with him to the Toppermost of the Poppermost is 35 fucking years gone and Paul is trashing his memory and legacy? Is John's legacy really just a product of "revisionism," really Paul?!
You all have read Mark Lewisohn's Volume I and guess what, Paul trashes that work and even wrote a song dismissing it on his album New. And why is Paul bent out of shape on Lewisohn, because Mark had the nerve to write throughout Volume I that John was a critical part of the Beatles story but just as Paul was!
There we go, why does Paul McCartney reject Mark Lewisohn's Volume I, as objective and thorough a book on the Beatles as ever written? Because Lewisohn would not and could not marginalize John Lennon as Paul wanted, now that John is long gone and cannot defend himself!.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jul 8, 2015 23:11:16 GMT -5
"And post-Beatles he did more great work, but he also did a lot of not-great work. Now the fact that he’s now martyred has elevated him to a James Dean, and beyond. " Paul McCartney 2015 Okay. I read that, too, but didn't see it as a dig on John. It's the truth. Everyone agrees. John DID do GREAT things and also not-so-great work. I think all Paul is saying that it seems that when people compare John to Paul it's always Plastic Ono Band to Press to Play or Imagine to McCartney II or Instant Karma to Mary Had a Little Lamb or Woman to Loop, the First Indian on the Moon. Sure, Paul is often responsible for his own bad press: "It's a drag," Give My Regards to Broadstreet, "What a jerk, the jerk of all jerks," Japanese drug bust, not showing up for Beatles' induction in RRHF, etc. He's not about to compare himself to John and he's willing to have others do it, IF it's fair. It's like people thinking John was the rocker and Paul wasn't by citing Revolution and Yesterday. Or labeling John as the edgy artist and not owning up to Paul being the one who wanted to bring his discovery of Stockhausen and John Cage into Beatles' recordings. I think Paul is right to believe comparisons with John are not fair. I think the REAL issue is "should Paul even care." Maybe he shouldn't. But, he's human. Who knows what Dylan would be saying if throughout his career he was being compared to Leonard Cohen, with Cohen being the silent, deep, personal writer and Dylan being the commercial, quasi-folk/wannabe rocker, near-plageristic one.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jul 9, 2015 5:51:37 GMT -5
"And post-Beatles he did more great work, but he also did a lot of not-great work. Now the fact that he’s now martyred has elevated him to a James Dean, and beyond. " Paul McCartney 2015 Where the fuck did that come from Sir Paul? Why now, why in 2015 when your dear friend has been dead for 35 years and you are the only Beatle most young people know(including many on this Board and others). POB and Imagine, at the very least equal probably better than McCartney and Ram. STINYC is a low spot for solo John but even the Macca Mad Hatters hate Wild Life and consider it Paul's low spot so we have us a tie(and here I am the author of the The JSD Postulate who loves early solo Paul more than his fanatics). Mind Games and Red Rose Speedway easily a tie(and I think both are great but the Hatters are indifferent on RRS and the Lennonites too quickly dismiss MG). BOTR and Walls & Bridges each produce a #1 single and each produces another Top 40 single so no way is W&B "not-great work." There is John's RnR that is no better or no worse than Paul's Russian RnR album or the later Run Devil Run. Finally, 1980's Double fantasy created a billion times bigger buzz than 1980's McCartney II and artistically they are both good so again, where is the "not-great work" in the context of what Paul himself was doing? Anything after December 8, 1980 is apples to oranges because John wasn't given the opportunity to live and thankfully we have had Paul but we cannot subtract on our scorecard from John when he was not permitted to go forward artistically. JSD, you are right on the money here... excellent points! And you have properly and successfully broken down the comparisons in both John and Paul's solo music, during the applicable years in which they recorded at the same time. I have tried to make this case many times, that for the periods of time where both made recordings, they are about EVEN. (I would even take Lennon's RNR album over Paul's Russian Oldies one). So would I -- and I think you're correct. In a way it's refreshing to hear Paul letting it all hang out. But with John not here to respond or defend himself, it's not a fair fight, not at all. [/p][/quote] Yup.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jul 9, 2015 5:52:43 GMT -5
Heard this on the radio the other day regarding this article; Did Yoko really say (regarding the Get Back Sessions I believe, or the 1969 year in general?)(Paraphrasing) "Paul's main contribution to that period was booking the sessions." ? Did I hear that correctly? As much as I defend Yoko, this was an idiotic thing for her to say - if she said it.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Jul 9, 2015 7:01:35 GMT -5
Heard this on the radio the other day regarding this article; Did Yoko really say (regarding the Get Back Sessions I believe, or the 1969 year in general?)(Paraphrasing) "Paul's main contribution to that period was booking the sessions." ? Did I hear that correctly? As much as I defend Yoko, this was an idiotic thing for her to say - if she said it. These people have to stop. It's like second grade. Not talking about us-talking about Yoko and Paul. It makes Lennon and McCartney look like the ones in Dewey Cox.Warning-foul language!
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jul 9, 2015 9:22:50 GMT -5
As much as I defend Yoko, this was an idiotic thing for her to say - if she said it. These people have to stop. It's like second grade. Not talking about us-talking about Yoko and Paul. It makes Lennon and McCartney look like the ones in Dewey Cox.Warning-foul language! Right on, Mike! We need peace in the Beatles Family. Like a family with deaths in it of key members, I acknowledge Paul as our "Beatles family" leader. I just wish Paul would be a happy, gracious and content family leader honoring the memory of his departed brothers in a nice way(just like he does in concert) content and appreciative that he is now sitting solely at the head of the table.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Jul 9, 2015 9:45:33 GMT -5
JohnS, I think I missed that in the interview or perhaps I was only reading an excerpt. Or, maybe I didn't pick up on the digs. What quotes are suggesting this to you?
"And post-Beatles he did more great work, but he also did a lot of not-great work. Now the fact that he’s now martyred has elevated him to a James Dean, and beyond. " Paul McCartney 2015
Where the fuck did that come from Sir Paul? Why now, why in 2015 when your dear friend has been dead for 35 years and you are the only Beatle most young people know(including many on this Board and others).
POB and Imagine, at the very least equal probably better than McCartney and Ram. STINYC is a low spot for solo John but even the Macca Mad Hatters hate Wild Life and consider it Paul's low spot so we have us a tie(and here I am the author of the The JSD Postulate who loves early solo Paul more than his fanatics). Mind Games and Red Rose Speedway easily a tie(and I think both are great but the Hatters are indifferent on RRS and the Lennonites too quickly dismiss MG). BOTR and Walls & Bridges each produce a #1 single and each produces another Top 40 single so no way is W&B "not-great work." There is John's RnR that is no better or no worse than Paul's Russian RnR album or the later Run Devil Run.
Finally, 1980's Double fantasy created a billion times bigger buzz than 1980's McCartney II and artistically they are both good so again, where is the "not-great work" in the context of what Paul himself was doing?
Anything after December 8, 1980 is apples to oranges because John wasn't given the opportunity to live and thankfully we have had Paul but we cannot subtract on our scorecard from John when he was not permitted to go forward artistically.
Dear friends, if John was alive today I would be the first to say, "Go for it Paul, let it out, tell us how you really feel about John." That would be a fair fight because in my hypothesis John would be alive to defend himself. I would sit back and eat the popcorn for that debate.
But no, Paul's supposed best friend, the man honestly and genuinely linked with him to the Toppermost of the Poppermost is 35 fucking years gone and Paul is trashing his memory and legacy? Is John's legacy really just a product of "revisionism," really Paul?!
You all have read Mark Lewisohn's Volume I and guess what, Paul trashes that work and even wrote a song dismissing it on his album New. And why is Paul bent out of shape on Lewisohn, because Mark had the nerve to write throughout Volume I that John was a critical part of the Beatles story but just as Paul was!
There we go, why does Paul McCartney reject Mark Lewisohn's Volume I, as objective and thorough a book on the Beatles as ever written? Because Lewisohn would not and could not marginalize John Lennon as Paul wanted, now that John is long gone and cannot defend himself!. Paul claimed he wasn't even going to read the Lewisohn book. Yea sure Paul. You read it cover to cover. And you probably learned a lot about the band's history that you couldn't have possibly known because the facts weren't even known to the band. Like G. Martin's real reason for requesting an audition for the band in June, 1962 for starters. Just do your concerts Paul, make music, entertain, and leave the evaluations of the quality of music each member of The Beatles contributed either jointly, or separately, to the fans and historians. We've heard all your recollections as well as the others as to who thinks who did what. And we are lucky to have someone like Mark Lewisohn to devote his life's work to record in book fashion an unbiased view from the outside based on all available evidence. It is now left up to history and future generations to see how the legacy will evolve.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Jul 9, 2015 18:00:52 GMT -5
Personally, I like to read a track by track review by Paul of every Beatle/Solo Beatle song.
I trust Paul's recollections of what happened with the Beatles over anyone outside the band. Even if there are 5 or 6 of them saying the same thing, doesn't mean it true. Sometimes the sewing circle think things are happening behind curtains that aren't.
I know Martin and Paul tend to stick to the official story because it's more colorful, puts them in a better light or for reason we don't know.
If Elvis slaps at a bass while you tap your hand on the table, you may consider that you jammed with Elvis. I'd rather hear what John thinks happened than what Esposito told Mark last week. He may have been finding Elvis a pick at the time.
I'll bet Paul has a book somewhere that is slated for release 100 years after his death. We'll just have to wait and see.
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Jul 9, 2015 19:36:11 GMT -5
JohnS, I think I missed that in the interview or perhaps I was only reading an excerpt. Or, maybe I didn't pick up on the digs. What quotes are suggesting this to you?
"And post-Beatles he did more great work, but he also did a lot of not-great work. Now the fact that he’s now martyred has elevated him to a James Dean, and beyond. " Paul McCartney 2015
Where the fuck did that come from Sir Paul? Why now, why in 2015 when your dear friend has been dead for 35 years and you are the only Beatle most young people know(including many on this Board and others).
POB and Imagine, at the very least equal probably better than McCartney and Ram. STINYC is a low spot for solo John but even the Macca Mad Hatters hate Wild Life and consider it Paul's low spot so we have us a tie(and here I am the author of the The JSD Postulate who loves early solo Paul more than his fanatics). Mind Games and Red Rose Speedway easily a tie(and I think both are great but the Hatters are indifferent on RRS and the Lennonites too quickly dismiss MG). BOTR and Walls & Bridges each produce a #1 single and each produces another Top 40 single so no way is W&B "not-great work." There is John's RnR that is no better or no worse than Paul's Russian RnR album or the later Run Devil Run.
Finally, 1980's Double fantasy created a billion times bigger buzz than 1980's McCartney II and artistically they are both good so again, where is the "not-great work" in the context of what Paul himself was doing?
Anything after December 8, 1980 is apples to oranges because John wasn't given the opportunity to live and thankfully we have had Paul but we cannot subtract on our scorecard from John when he was not permitted to go forward artistically.
Dear friends, if John was alive today I would be the first to say, "Go for it Paul, let it out, tell us how you really feel about John." That would be a fair fight because in my hypothesis John would be alive to defend himself. I would sit back and eat the popcorn for that debate.
But no, Paul's supposed best friend, the man honestly and genuinely linked with him to the Toppermost of the Poppermost is 35 fucking years gone and Paul is trashing his memory and legacy? Is John's legacy really just a product of "revisionism," really Paul?!
You all have read Mark Lewisohn's Volume I and guess what, Paul trashes that work and even wrote a song dismissing it on his album New. And why is Paul bent out of shape on Lewisohn, because Mark had the nerve to write throughout Volume I that John was a critical part of the Beatles story but just as Paul was!
There we go, why does Paul McCartney reject Mark Lewisohn's Volume I, as objective and thorough a book on the Beatles as ever written? Because Lewisohn would not and could not marginalize John Lennon as Paul wanted, now that John is long gone and cannot defend himself!. Thanks John. I've been trying really hard to not criticize Paul anymore, to realize he's just human and has flaws like the rest of us. But you've perfectly encapsulated why I'm disappointed by Paul, why I just don't like him anymore. He will always has his apologists, but the bottom line is he's willing to be a downright creep if he thinks he can enhance his place in history. He's Paul friggin McCartney, why does he need to make such a DB of himself every few years? Sigh. BTW, I can't agree that John's first two an pd Paul's first two are of equal quality. After hearing the Imagine album I forever realized that it was John, not Paul that was to be my favorite Beatle on a musical basis. Paul was my fav when I first discovered them, but John's stuff just blew me away, and Pauls music in those years jutted paled by comparison...
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Jul 9, 2015 22:08:20 GMT -5
Personally, I like to read a track by track review by Paul of every Beatle/Solo Beatle song. I trust Paul's recollections of what happened with the Beatles over anyone outside the band. Even if there are 5 or 6 of them saying the same thing, doesn't mean it true. Sometimes the sewing circle think things are happening behind curtains that aren't. I know Martin and Paul tend to stick to the official story because it's more colorful, puts them in a better light or for reason we don't know. If Elvis slaps at a bass while you tap your hand on the table, you may consider that you jammed with Elvis. I'd rather hear what John thinks happened than what Esposito told Mark last week. He may have been finding Elvis a pick at the time. I'll bet Paul has a book somewhere that is slated for release 100 years after his death. We'll just have to wait and see. It is absolutely imperative to have Paul's recollections on everything that happened historically, as well as the others. And we have that, for the most part, in The Beatles Anthology (Book Form). But it is also imperative to have someone totally outside the inner circle who will take the time and effort to research the story based solely on the hard facts available to give an unbiased look at what may have actually occurred. We are very fortunate to have in Mark Lewisohn an ardent Beatlefan who has chosen to devote a significant portion of his life to researching and attempting to present the history based solely on evidence available, even if those conclusions may not always sync up with what the Four Beatles thought happened. It is clear after reading the first volume, some of the information he published could not have been known by all the inner circle of the group through no fault of their own. They just were simply not privy to everything that was occurring. I would think Paul and Ringo (and Pete) would be grateful to finally read what has been uncovered and unknown even to them after more than 50 years in some cases. Lewisohn has been very careful to only draw conclusions to previously unknown or unpublished facts when there is hard evidence to support his point of view. He also points out out where the hard evidence cannot be found to support some important moment in the band's history, and where only their recollections can be relied upon. I for one, am glad we have Lewisohn and his work. I only hope I live long enough to see and read the rest of his project. I want all the facts, and recollections in order to make my judgement over what I think really happened to make this band the most important pop music group of the 20th Century.
|
|