|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Jan 16, 2011 19:22:33 GMT -5
Beatle Ed is just another way of saying BeatlEd or Beatled.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jan 16, 2011 20:11:34 GMT -5
Agreed, agreed. Good points. Yes, that self-interview was slimey. If that short harmless interview was slimy, then John's 1970 Rolling Stone interview was a cesspit. John's was a real interview where probing questions were asked by a real journalist. Paul's was a fictitious interview where Paul calculatingly thought how he could slam John and Yoko and Ringo and sell a record. Paul was being as fake(and as scary) as Garth Brooks becoming "Chris Gaines." Paul and Garth do have a lot in common.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jan 17, 2011 5:36:25 GMT -5
Agreed, agreed. Good points. Yes, that self-interview was slimey. If that short harmless interview was slimy, then John's 1970 Rolling Stone interview was a cesspit. That's right, John's Rolling Stone interview was. Again, SO WHAT? If that's what you're feeling and you want to vent, you do it. The difference between you and me is that *I* can admit that John's interview was a "cesspit"... you, on the other hand, never admit anything against Paul. You and he were made for each other.
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Jan 17, 2011 18:41:56 GMT -5
If that short harmless interview was slimy, then John's 1970 Rolling Stone interview was a cesspit. John's was a real interview where probing questions were asked by a real journalist. Paul's was a fictitious interview where Paul calculatingly thought how he could slam John and Yoko and Ringo and sell a record. Paul was being as fake(and as scary) as Garth Brooks becoming "Chris Gaines." Paul and Garth do have a lot in common. John do you really think a journalist would have asked any different questions from what Paul suggested? No. Can you think of any more probing questions? No. He hit all the points people wanted to know about then hid away like a wounded animal after being stabbed in the back by his beast fiends. So what. Get off his back about this. You've blown up its significance completely out of proportion. There is nothing misleading in it, no lies no vagaries, no hedging. He was very truthful. Even Joe K. concedes that. He didn't want to face the press at that point in his life. His friends had just cold cocked him and he had lost what he had known and cherished all his life. And you're going on about the form the interview took. Lucky he answered any of those questions. As for it being a form interview, the Beatles often sent out form interviews to radio stations with their answers with their voices and the local DJ would fill in the questions with his voice. I suppose that was slimy too? Why were those never spoken against?
|
|
|
Post by Jason I on Jan 17, 2011 19:49:46 GMT -5
Figured we might as well hear it from the horses mouth so to speak. It’s only fair. So from Keith Badmans ‘Off The Record’, here is McCartneys quote from around the time, explaining his Q&A:
Thursday, April 9, 1970 (note: a month before Let It Be was released)
Paul: “When people say I let it out, it was actually months after we had broken up. No one was saying anything and I was putting out this crazy press release with the McCartney album because Peter Brown said to me, ‘We need some press on this. You’d better do something’, and I didn’t want to be interviewed. I didn’t feel secure enough to do that.
So I said, ‘Okay, we’ll do a question and answer thing’. So I said to Peter, ‘Write me out a questionaire of what you think they’d ask me.’ He wrote it all out and I just filled it all in, like a questionaire, and it all came out weird”.
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Jan 17, 2011 20:52:52 GMT -5
Agreed, agreed. Good points. Yes, that self-interview was slimey. If that short harmless interview was slimy, then John's 1970 Rolling Stone interview was a cesspit. I don't necessarily disagree, but you had one pissed-off John at that moment. Worst part of the self-interview, outside of its use to sell a record? Probably the shot at Ringo. How was that called for? Sh*tty thing to do to a friend.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jan 17, 2011 22:48:25 GMT -5
If that short harmless interview was slimy, then John's 1970 Rolling Stone interview was a cesspit. I don't necessarily disagree, but you had one pissed-off John at that moment. Worst part of the self-interview, outside of its use to sell a record? Probably the shot at Ringo. How was that called for? Sh*tty thing to do to a friend. That's the bit that bothered me most because it wasn't a frank answer by a Paul put on the spot by a journalist sitting across the table from Paul with a tape recorder. It was Paul, probably over a course of days or weeks, thinking how he could stick it to Ringo for asking Paul to delay the release of McCartney. "Hmm, I'll ask myself if I miss the others, would I want Ringo here on this break and I'll answer "No" and I'll even put an exclamation mark after it." Conniving and yeah, slimey to me. I also didn't like Paul asking himself, "Will you and Linda be the next John and Yoko?" First off, that would be a crappy Larry King kind of question anyway so what does it say about Paul that he thought it a good question to ask himself! ;D
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Jan 18, 2011 0:25:20 GMT -5
I don't necessarily disagree, but you had one pissed-off John at that moment. Worst part of the self-interview, outside of its use to sell a record? Probably the shot at Ringo. How was that called for? Sh*tty thing to do to a friend. That's the bit that bothered me most because it wasn't a frank answer by a Paul put on the spot by a journalist sitting across the table from Paul with a tape recorder. It was Paul, probably over a course of days or weeks, thinking how he could stick it to Ringo for asking Paul to delay the release of McCartney. "Hmm, I'll ask myself if I miss the others, would I want Ringo here on this break and I'll answer "No" and I'll even put an exclamation mark after it." Conniving and yeah, slimey to me. I also didn't like Paul asking himself, "Will you and Linda be the next John and Yoko?" First off, that would be a crappy Larry King kind of question anyway so what does it say about Paul that he thought it a good question to ask himself! ;D Ringo went along with John and George and stabbed his friend in the back because he didn't step up and say it has to be unanimous regarding the decision about Klein. But Ringo kept quiet. When during Let It Be Ringo didn't want to fly to Greece or somewhere else in Europe or go on an ocean liner to do the Let It Be concert, it was Paul who said if Ringo doesn't want to go, that's one dissenting vote, that means we don't do it. That is how they always operated before April, 1969. I think Paul was justified in being pissed off. Then Ringo comes around at Klein's behest trying to tell Paul when he could release his own album when Klein had nothing to do with Paul. Klein had already tried to put his label on Paul's album and had changed songs on Let It Be without Paul's approval. I would have been mad at Ringo at that point too. Why does Paul have to be put on the spot by a journalist to convey his true feelings. Certainly John didn't need that excuse. You ask him one question and you couldn't stop him from spewing his venom. They were frank answers even if you didn't see them as such.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jan 18, 2011 6:19:20 GMT -5
John was slimey at that time. Paul was slimey at that time (yes, concocting your own interview questions is slimey. Showing a pic of a beetle screwing another beetle on your LP cover is slimey.). George was slimey at that time. Ringo was slimey at that time.
Whoever, whatever.
It was just a phase, that is all. Look at Paul, George and Ringo in the Anthology. Look at Paul and Ringo TODAY.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jan 18, 2011 7:05:28 GMT -5
So what. Get off his back about this. Get off his d!ck! I'll stop conceding anything if you don't, RTP. It's amazing how you'll always sit there and welcome anyone praising Paul or being honest enough to bash John but you will seldom if ever do the same thing, in reverse. You've got your nose so far up Paulie's ass that it really makes me not want to even give you the satisfaction of acknowledging when I feel like throwing Paul a bone. Why bother? Poor Paulie. Just consider the ripping John took from their "friends". It was tacky as hell. But not slimy because it wasn't in the same vein at all as Paul's declaration of going it alone and screw them. Plus, Paul was so full of shit; he didn't want to go solo at all, he wanted the Beatles.
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Jan 18, 2011 21:31:27 GMT -5
Ringo went along with John and George and stabbed his friend in the back because he didn't step up and say it has to be unanimous regarding the decision about Klein. But Ringo kept quiet. When during Let It Be Ringo didn't want to fly to Greece or somewhere else in Europe or go on an ocean liner to do the Let It Be concert, it was Paul who said if Ringo doesn't want to go, that's one dissenting vote, that means we don't do it. That is how they always operated before April, 1969. I think Paul was justified in being pissed off. Then Ringo comes around at Klein's behest trying to tell Paul when he could release his own album when Klein had nothing to do with Paul. Klein had already tried to put his label on Paul's album and had changed songs on Let It Be without Paul's approval. I would have been mad at Ringo at that point too. Oh for the love of...come on RTP! Please! You're smarter than this. This is the justification, really? How small must Paul have been? Can't you just say that this was a lapse in Paul's judgement at an emotional time if you must rationalize his behavior?
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Jan 18, 2011 21:33:11 GMT -5
John was slimey at that time. Paul was slimey at that time (yes, concocting your own interview questions is slimey. Showing a pic of a beetle screwing another beetle on your LP cover is slimey.). George was slimey at that time. Ringo was slimey at that time. Whoever, whatever. It was just a phase, that is all. Look at Paul, George and Ringo in the Anthology. Look at Paul and Ringo TODAY. I agree with the John and Paul parts, but were George or Ringo slimey at the time? What actions did those guys take that were slimey? Uncooperative, maybe. Pissed-off and frustrated, definitely. But slimey?
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Jan 18, 2011 22:58:16 GMT -5
Ringo went along with John and George and stabbed his friend in the back because he didn't step up and say it has to be unanimous regarding the decision about Klein. But Ringo kept quiet. When during Let It Be Ringo didn't want to fly to Greece or somewhere else in Europe or go on an ocean liner to do the Let It Be concert, it was Paul who said if Ringo doesn't want to go, that's one dissenting vote, that means we don't do it. That is how they always operated before April, 1969. I think Paul was justified in being pissed off. Then Ringo comes around at Klein's behest trying to tell Paul when he could release his own album when Klein had nothing to do with Paul. Klein had already tried to put his label on Paul's album and had changed songs on Let It Be without Paul's approval. I would have been mad at Ringo at that point too. Oh for the love of...come on RTP! Please! You're smarter than this. This is the justification, really? How small must Paul have been? Can't you just say that this was a lapse in Paul's judgement at an emotional time if you must rationalize his behavior? I'm not justifying it. I am trying to show it from where Paul was standing at that time. Of course in retrospect, it was a mistake. Even Paul said of the incident with the release date "at the time I saw it as a victimization. I know now that it wasn't". Hind site displays its charms.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jan 19, 2011 6:56:17 GMT -5
I agree with the John and Paul parts, but were George or Ringo slimey at the time? What actions did those guys take that were slimey? Uncooperative, maybe. Pissed-off and frustrated, definitely. But slimey? George was slimey in the way he teamed up with John and helped to trounce Paul, like with HDYS. Ringo in the sense of joiningg the "Klein Clan" and suing Paul ("Paul acted like a spoilt child" -- Ringo). But I was just making a generic point that none of this matters anymore now, that's all.
|
|