Joseph McCabe
Very Clean
A rebel to his last breath ...
Posts: 912
|
Post by Joseph McCabe on Oct 27, 2010 18:52:48 GMT -5
For all you (Uncle Albert) haters, John did express approval for that track.  He even did a version of it while recording the Imagine album. I have heard it. John Lennon's opinion doesn't matter a jot to me: UA/AH is very poor, as far as I'm concerned. Others really love it - that's great, and I'm sure they didn't take Lennon's opinion into account before forming theirs. McCabe |
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Oct 27, 2010 19:07:16 GMT -5
Ram wins hands across the water.............. SINYC is to me Lennon jumping on various bandwagons as he did once about peace and bagism. The album is the pits of his commercial career. Now Ram on the other hand has the excellent "Too Many People" which may or may not have been directed at John and the equally inspiring "Dear Boy" which may or may not be about Linda's first husband. But then Paul talks in riddles with his songs anyway. "Jet" was about a puppy ("Oh yeah really Paul?"") and "Two of Us" is about him and Linda (and yet seemingly John seems to know what this song is about on LIB). I don't care for "3 Legs" too much and "Smile Away" used to be a song I liked for a while but is ultimately pure filler. "Uncle Albert" is pure genius in my opinion. Good enough to be a Beatles track. I think John may have agreed. Ram is far from perfect, but SINYC is an album I wish John had never committed to vinyl. For all you (Uncle Albert) haters, John did express approval for that track. He even did a version of it while recording the Imagine album. I have heard it. Oh man are you kidding? I'd love to hear that one. I always felt Paul was directing that song to John. Or at least, he was very conscious of "How will JOhn react to this one" when he was recording it. |
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Oct 27, 2010 19:08:14 GMT -5
"and the kettles on the boil and we're so easily called away . . ."
|
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Oct 27, 2010 19:12:59 GMT -5
But yeah, you gotta give Lennon props for courage (at the least) for titling a song "Women are the NIGGER of the World." How many of these politically correct pussies in the media today -- all these fatuous rock stars and movie stars and celebrities -- how many of them would even THINK of perpetuating an outrage like that on the airwaves? To Lennon it was just another day in the office.
Elliot Mintz had a radio show in L.A. and he interviewed JohnandYoko and played the STINY album in its entirety on his show when it first came out. Got fired the next day. But then got a job as Yoko's PA (Personal Assistant, or as Lennon called it "Piss Artist"). The "Nigger" song got banned, of course (not the first time for Lennon). So they set up a tollfree phone line where people could hear the song that way even if the radio wouldn't play it.
Was Lennon out there or what?
|
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Oct 27, 2010 20:04:05 GMT -5
I'm not surprised Paul is vague about this because he was the one who disguised its meaning in the first place. Paul isn't actually vague in that quote - he categorically states it's not about John. He may well have said something contradictory at some point: if so, it needs sourcing. Because in the absence of a source we have a single quote that it's not about John. Was he lying? If so, evidence? |
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Oct 27, 2010 20:05:25 GMT -5
Erf. Another contest of dogs.
I voted for Ram, it's less offensive, and Too Many People is good.
Lots of garbage on these two sides.
|
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Oct 27, 2010 20:08:27 GMT -5
For all you (Uncle Albert) haters, John did express approval for that track. Well, duh. He provided the template for it with Happiness is a Warm Gun. |
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Oct 27, 2010 20:11:26 GMT -5
For those of us in the real world, Dear Boy is about Linda's ex. He said so and would have absolutely no reason to lie about it. Funny how Paul only becomes a liar when his quotes don't conveniently fit into someone's fantasy world.  |
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Oct 27, 2010 21:17:26 GMT -5
For all you (Uncle Albert) haters, John did express approval for that track. He even did a version of it while recording the Imagine album. I have heard it. John Lennon's opinion doesn't matter a jot to me: UA/AH is very poor, as far as I'm concerned. Others really love it - that's great, and I'm sure they didn't take Lennon's opinion into account before forming theirs. McCabe Touche McCabe. |
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Oct 27, 2010 21:19:33 GMT -5
I'm not surprised Paul is vague about this because he was the one who disguised its meaning in the first place. Paul isn't actually vague in that quote - he categorically states it's not about John. He may well have said something contradictory at some point: if so, it needs sourcing. Because in the absence of a source we have a single quote that it's not about John. Was he lying? If so, evidence? Yes he was lying. I presented common sense evidence in my previous post on this thread. |
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Oct 27, 2010 21:23:34 GMT -5
For those of us in the real world, Dear Boy is about Linda's ex. He said so and would have absolutely no reason to lie about it. Funny how Paul only becomes a liar when his quotes don't conveniently fit into someone's fantasy world. Its not a fantasy. He has never admitted any song is about John unless it is positive (Dear Friend, Here Today). All the others are denied and we're told they are about the most ridiculous subjects--Melvin See, a little lamb (no mention of the Dragonfly part of the song) but everyone buys it like they buy White House press releases and pass them off as news. |
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Oct 27, 2010 21:33:48 GMT -5
They don't sound appropriate toward an ex-husband if you analyze the lyrics and not take them on face value. When Paul says......... RTP -- did Paul McCartney provide this precise breakdown as you wrote it, or was this your own theory? Because it's really rather presumptuous of you, if Paul didn't break this thing down, sentence by sentence... I realize you said it was just "an anlysis", but really, you're going pretty far.... Oh, come on. I don't think that's what he said at the end of the song. The analysis is a mixture of my own and from various books including Paul McCartney A Life and Many Years From Now. Listen carefully to the end and you'll hear that word. Has anyone else tried? |
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Oct 27, 2010 21:35:46 GMT -5
For all you (Uncle Albert) haters, John did express approval for that track. Well, duh. He provided the template for it with Happiness is a Warm Gun. I think A Day in the Life is the earliest template for these different sections and that was a collaboration. In fact the changes all come from Paul. |
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Oct 27, 2010 22:42:27 GMT -5
Oh, fer cryin' out loud, "Dear Boy" is about Linda's ex-husband. Or at least that's what the composer said: "I think John might have taken Dear Boy as an attack on him." Dear Boy wasn’t getting at John, Dear Boy was actually a song to Linda’s ex-husband: “I guess you never knew what you had missed.” I never told him that, which was lucky, because he’s since committed suicide. And it was a comment about him, cos I did think, “Gosh, you know, she’s so amazing, I suppose you didn’t get it.” www.pauldunoyer.com/pages/journalism/journalism_item.asp?journalismID=252I await RTP's source for that theory that it was about anything other than what Paul said it was. JcS Paul obviously said that, okay. Paul also said that "Two Of Us" was only about Linda whom he had just met("You and I have memories, longer than the road that stretches out ahead") and that "Somedays" was written in like 30 minutes as an exercise to kill time, no biggie, no special meaning. My bigger concern here is that Paul is absolutely cold-hearted in these remarks. He basically calls See a clueless git for leaving Linda (WHICH HE DIDN'T, SHE LEFT HIM) and then in one of the most callous, insensitive, selfish remarks I have ever seen, says basically, "Lucky me for not telling him in person (BECAUSE YOU ARE A COWARD PAUL) because the loser killed himself." No wonder Heather Louise does not worship the ground Paul walks on and maintains an uncharacteristic distance for a McCartney. Oh yeah, I bet Stella considers Heather Louise a "Mudblood"(from Harry Potter but apt here: a person without pure McCartney blood). I am so much more proud of Paul publicly mocking a man who lost his wife(and child too), was not anywhere near Paul in wealth and power and from all accounts harbored no grudges. Yeah, that is a good guy for Macca to kick when Mel See was already down. Of course Paul wouldn't admit to taking on John Lennon. Paul learned that such disputes hurt record sales and besides, Paul lost every such confrontation he ever had with John. Heather actually went to live with Mr. See at some time in her young adulthood. I guess Paul and Linda weren't the "Dream Team" parents they portrayed themselves to be. How would Paul feel if every rock star who shagged Linda when she was a rock and roll sex groupie (who left her infant daughter with strangers to shag rock stars and even left the child in America to pursue Paulie in England and later used the child to ensnare Paul when she learned that he liked kids) got together and wrote "Dear Boy 2" where they detail their sexual romps with old Linda. It would be a cast of musicians larger than the "We Are The World" gathering. And why did Paul pay millions of dollars to buy and destroy the "Linda Tapes" where Linda almost certainly spoke on tape of her great marital unhappiness(but for the kids) and possibly revealed other abuses as Heather Mills alleged. We'll never know the truth because Paul and John Eastman destroyed the evidence! In law there is a presumption that evidence a party destroys was probably harmful evidence to the party destroying it. This is exactly why I said I hoped "Dear Boy" was aimed at John. That would have been Paul taking on a fair fight. Mocking poor Melvin See in a song heard by millions is not just mean but vicious. It is bullying and perhaps Paul has Melvin See's blood on his hands. Read the Wikipedia explanation about See's suicide. I guess "Dear Boy" was about poor old Melvin See so those of us thinking the song is aimed at John are wrong but now we are completely justified in believing Paul McCartney is a sociopath! |
|
nine
Very Clean
Posts: 840 
|
Post by nine on Oct 28, 2010 3:55:46 GMT -5
Ram wins hands across the water.............. SINYC is to me Lennon jumping on various bandwagons as he did once about peace and bagism. The album is the pits of his commercial career. Now Ram on the other hand has the excellent "Too Many People" which may or may not have been directed at John and the equally inspiring "Dear Boy" which may or may not be about Linda's first husband. But then Paul talks in riddles with his songs anyway. "Jet" was about a puppy ("Oh yeah really Paul?"") and "Two of Us" is about him and Linda (and yet seemingly John seems to know what this song is about on LIB). I don't care for "3 Legs" too much and "Smile Away" used to be a song I liked for a while but is ultimately pure filler. "Uncle Albert" is pure genius in my opinion. Good enough to be a Beatles track. I think John may have agreed. Ram is far from perfect, but SINYC is an album I wish John had never committed to vinyl. For all you (Uncle Albert) haters, John did express approval for that track. He even did a version of it while recording the Imagine album. I have heard it. I thought he only liked the "hands across the water bit..." |
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 28, 2010 5:28:42 GMT -5
Paul obviously said that, okay. Paul also said that "Two Of Us" was only about Linda whom he had just met("You and I have memories, longer than the road that stretches out ahead") and that "Somedays" was written in like 30 minutes as an exercise to kill time, no biggie, no special meaning. All the same, when a composer tells you his song was written this or that way, or about whatever or whomever, they still have to be the #1 source, even if they may be fibbing. Who ELSE is more qualified to "say"...? Maybe the "you and I have memories longer than..." line is a way of saying already their memories and time together seem like they've known each other forever. These kinds of poetic liberties occur in songs. And...? So he was cold-hearted. He's human. It happens. He was feeling maybe a little sadistic the day he wrote it, whatever. If Paul really did write with undue cold-heartedness, he's just earned a point with me, because he is being a little more "edgy" for a change. I don't know that he says anything about him having left her in the song. Just that he's missing out. Maybe there's more to it -- something which happened bewteen these three that WE don't know about. Maybe something Linda's ex said or wrote to Paul and /or Linda. Sounds again like DAYS OF OUR LIVES, or SCANDAL TV. So? Let them. They're as entitled as Paul was, to write whatever song they want. That's art. JSD, would I be correct in saying that since Paul did not literally NAME Linda's ex by name in the song, there's nothing that could have been legally done? AS THE WORLD TURNS. Blood on Paul's hands? LOL! Sounds like a case for F. Lee Bailey! Jeez, it's just a song. And I find I am loving it more and more. Most people listening to the song won't even know who it's about, ever. |
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 28, 2010 5:45:55 GMT -5
Listen carefully to the end and you'll hear that word. Yeah, sure. And John was really saying "I Buried Paul", right? |
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 28, 2010 5:50:01 GMT -5
Paul isn't actually vague in that quote - he categorically states it's not about John. He may well have said something contradictory at some point: if so, it needs sourcing. Because in the absence of a source we have a single quote that it's not about John. Was he lying? If so, evidence? Yes he was lying. I presented common sense evidence in my previous post on this thread. OK, so here you admit Paul was lying about something. Kudos for you there. However -- how the hell do YOU know what the song is "really about"? What makes you an authority over Paul, and how do you KNOW FOR A FACT that he's lying and does not want to admit when negative songs are about John?? That is your own theory. It is in NO WAY factual! |
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 28, 2010 5:56:38 GMT -5
For all you (Uncle Albert) haters, John did express approval for that track. He even did a version of it while recording the Imagine album. I have heard it. John Lennon's opinion doesn't matter a jot to me: UA/AH is very poor, as far as I'm concerned. Others really love it - that's great, and I'm sure they didn't take Lennon's opinion into account before forming theirs. McCabe John Lennon's opinion does not matter a bit, 'tis true. But UNCLE ALBERT was a #1 hit with the majority of people. And I know, this does not matter either. |
|
nine
Very Clean
Posts: 840
|
Post by nine on Oct 28, 2010 5:59:48 GMT -5
Paul obviously said that, okay. Paul also said that "Two Of Us" was only about Linda whom he had just met("You and I have memories, longer than the road that stretches out ahead") and that "Somedays" was written in like 30 minutes as an exercise to kill time, no biggie, no special meaning. All the same, when a composer tells you his song was written this or that way, or about whatever or whomever, they still have to be the #1 source, even if they may be fibbing. Who ELSE is more qualified to "say"...? Maybe the "you and I have memories longer than..." line is a way of saying already their memories and time together seem like they've known each other forever. These kinds of poetic liberties occur in songs. And...? So he was cold-hearted. He's human. It happens. He was feeling maybe a little sadistic the day he wrote it, whatever. If Paul really did write with undue cold-heartedness, he's just earned a point with me, because he is being a little more "edgy" for a change. I don't know that he says anything about him having left her in the song. Just that he's missing out. Maybe there's more to it -- something which happened bewteen these three that WE don't know about. Maybe something Linda's ex said or wrote to Paul and /or Linda. Sounds again like DAYS OF OUR LIVES, or SCANDAL TV. So? Let them. They're as entitled as Paul was, to write whatever song they want. That's art. JSD, would I be correct in saying that since Paul did not literally NAME Linda's ex by name in the song, there's nothing that could have been legally done? AS THE WORLD TURNS. Blood on Paul's hands? LOL! Sounds like a case for F. Lee Bailey! Jeez, it's just a song. And I find I am loving it more and more. Most people listening to the song won't even know who it's about, ever. Even JL read things in Paul's songs that Macca didn't mean anything by... the movement you need is on your shoulders.... I think Paul mostly writes songs that have a little truth in them, some stuff that rhymes and perhaps a flight of fantasy... I don't think he can focus on a theme, or rarely... He's basically a man who writes many, many melodies and has to find words to fit them... So, something that reminds him of something, something somebody said, something that rhymes, something that sounds good... Maybe one line refers to somebody whilst the next line is about the weather.... I think what was mentioned earlier is true, Paul isn't out to cause trouble. He wants to be open for interpretation. Clarity, certainly not on JL's level, was never Paul's gig. Trying to pin Macca down is impossible. |
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 28, 2010 6:05:27 GMT -5
So the question is this: if Linda expresses a positive description of her former husband, it was she who left HIM and Paul never even met the guy, why would Paul write a scathing critique of the man? It makes no sense. would Paul take the time to write a song about this harmless character whom Paul had never met. It makes no sense especially when you know the circumstances of the breakup of Linda's first marriage. Because perhaps Paul was feeling a little mean and nasty one day when writing. Maybe rubbing the guy's face in it for kicks, even though the man never did anything to Paul. OR, maybe the man DID contact Paul and/or Linda, or say something at some point. How does RTP know all?I come across the same thing in movie discussions. So many folks point to "this makes no sense", or "isn't that a more logical conclusion?", when they don't take into consideration that sometimes the truth isn't very logical and doesn't make much sense!!Oh, and John thought HEY JUDE was "clearly" about John. Give me a break, please, RTP. This use of the word "clearly" drives me nuts. Good for you. One hears all sorts of things "clearly". People think the chant is "Everybody smoke pot" at the end of WALRUS, when it is not. John's not saying "I buried Paul" either, no matter how "clearly" people hear that, too. I think Paul ends DEAR BOY with a jolly "Fa Fa Fa" jingle, which means absolutely nothing. |
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on Oct 28, 2010 6:27:12 GMT -5
I followed JSD's advice and looked up Melvin See on Wiki. He was only with Linda a short time so it does seem odd that Paul would write Dear Boy about him but his death is quite shocking.
Below is the extract from Wiki. Also if JoJo from Get Back was referring to Melvin See then Paul is basically calling him a transvestite, I don't think that is true.
Joseph Melvin See Junior was born in New York in 1937. It is thought that he was the Jojo referred to on the Beatles single Get Back.[1]
He attended Princeton University where he studied geology and played on the varsity football team, and was a varsity harrier. He graduated in 1960 and went on to postgraduate work in geology and cultural anthropology at the University of Arizona.
While at the University of Arizona, he met Linda McCartney (nee Eastman) who was also a student. They married in June 18, 1962, and had a daughter, Heather Louise, but split in 1964 and divorced in June 1965. When Linda married Paul McCartney in 1969, he adopted Heather as his daughter. There was no animosity and he remained on good terms with the McCartney family.
He was a respected ethnographer, documenting indigenous cultures around the world, and was a noted expert on pre-Columbian art. He is also credited with many contributions to the cultural life of Tucson.
He committed suicide with a self-inflicted gunshot wound on March 19, 2000, at his home in Tucson. This happened one week after he discovered that Linda's entire estate, valued at over $220M was left to Paul McCartney.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 28, 2010 6:48:18 GMT -5
He committed suicide with a self-inflicted gunshot wound on March 19, 2000, at his home in Tucson. This happened one week after he discovered that Linda's entire estate, valued at over $220M was left to Paul McCartney. Wow. I wonder what that says about Linda? We know what it would say about Yoko. |
|
|
|
Post by joeyself on Oct 28, 2010 9:55:49 GMT -5
Let me pose this to those that have questioned why Paul would address a song to See letting Linda go when it was Linda that left him.
Back in the mid '70's, I had a girlfriend that I was (or at least I THOUGHT I was) in love with. I was not as dedicated to her as I should have been, and one night, kind of out of the blue to me, she told me she was going to set me free to see if I would come back to her. Long story short, I didn't, but about 15 months after that happened, she got married to another guy. He could have well thought similar thoughts about me--"how did you let her get away, don't you know what you're missing?"
So, regardless of how the relationship ended, Paul had the germ of the idea for the song to the ex-husband that had his love in his arms, and she was now in his.
It's really not that complicated.
JcS
|
|
|
|
Post by scousette on Oct 28, 2010 10:54:42 GMT -5
Does anyone know the circumstances of Linda's break-up with her ex husband ? If he left her then I can understand why Paul would write a song like that but if Linda left him then it's actually very harsh to put someone down like that, especially since he would be the devastated party, it's a very hard thing to get over and can take a long time. I agree with JSD, I hope it really is about John. A direct quote about "Dear Boy" from Paul contains his disclosure or acknowledgment that John understood the song to be about him. I'm not surprised Paul is vague about this because he was the one who disguised its meaning in the first place. He didn't like the idea of a song being identified as having his former partner as the subject. Also, he likes to keep his songs open to interpretation. A mistake you can make at your own risk is to take Paul's lyrics literally. He seldom writes that way. Peter Ames Carlin, author of the book Paul McCartney--A Life, has the same take on it. He writes: The tuneful chorale "Dear Boy" addresses Paul's clueless ex-partner who "never knew what (he) had found" in a song in which he clearly second guesses the wisdom of their breakup. Its a theme Paul takes up in another song "Dear Friend". Significantly, we see the repeated use of the word "dear". In "Dear Friend" we find Paul again questioning John's judgement in the matter: "Are you a fool or is it true?" What was on Paul's mind in late 1970 when this song was written? He had been deciding whether to sue John (and George and Ringo) and end the group once and for all. He wasn't deciding to sue Melvin See. I'm sure that was the last person on his mind. Joseph Melvin See Jr. was a geology student at University of Arizona when he met Linda Eastman. Linda was barely out of her teens when they met. Linda studied for a Fine Art major at the University of Arizona. She and Melvin married on June 18 1962 (Paul's 20th birthday ironically). Their daughter Heather Louise was born on December 31, 1962. They were divorced in June 1965. Linda later commented that See was a "nice man, a geologist, an Ernest Hemingway type." She went on to confess that she had made a mistake by marrying him using the excuse that she was only 20 years old and three months pregnant at the time. Linda admits it was she who decided to move on from the marriage: "I grew up. I discovered a new freedom I had never realized before." So the question is this: if Linda expresses a positive description of her former husband, it was she who left HIM and Paul never even met the guy, why would Paul write a scathing critique of the man? It makes no sense. If you look a little beneath the surface, it is clearly about John. Tell my WHY after two years of marriage and knowing Linda for nearly four years would Paul take the time to write a song about this harmless character whom Paul had never met. It makes no sense especially when you know the circumstances of the breakup of Linda's first marriage. Also if you listen carefully, he does sing FA AA ART at the very end. I think I am the only one who has written about that last point. I can hear the word clearly. Hey RTP, I concur with what you say about DEAR BOY. It doesn't make sense for it to be about Mel See. Not at all. |
|
diego
Very Clean
Posts: 130
|
Post by diego on Oct 28, 2010 12:09:44 GMT -5
The man himself claims it's about Linda's ex in "Many Years From Now" which according to some people contains the absolute truth about everything, even though that book says Ringo did a good job singing the lead on "I Don't Want to Spoil the Party".
So it's about Linda's ex.
I really don't think it's meant to be mean-spirited, probably just a "hey she's great, why didn't you try harder? You really missed out" kinda thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Oct 28, 2010 12:14:07 GMT -5
For those of us in the real world, Dear Boy is about Linda's ex. He said so and would have absolutely no reason to lie about it. Funny how Paul only becomes a liar when his quotes don't conveniently fit into someone's fantasy world. Its not a fantasy. He has never admitted any song is about John unless it is positive (Dear Friend, Here Today). All the others are denied and we're told they are about the most ridiculous subjects--Melvin See, a little lamb (no mention of the Dragonfly part of the song) but everyone buys it like they buy White House press releases and pass them off as news. Who knows with Macca's lyrics. Lennon thought "Hey Jude" was about him. And that "Get Back" was directed at Yoko (as in "get lost"). Macca denies it of course. Who knows. A lot of times with songwriting you just make em up off the top of your head and figure out what they mean later (still wondering exactly what "the movement you need is on your shoulder" means, but it apparently meant a lot to Lennon). |
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 28, 2010 12:47:28 GMT -5
I really don't think it's meant to be mean-spirited, probably just a "hey she's great, why didn't you try harder? You really missed out" kinda thing. Good point. |
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Oct 28, 2010 13:02:40 GMT -5
Let me pose this to those that have questioned why Paul would address a song to See letting Linda go when it was Linda that left him. Back in the mid '70's, I had a girlfriend that I was (or at least I THOUGHT I was) in love with. I was not as dedicated to her as I should have been, and one night, kind of out of the blue to me, she told me she was going to set me free to see if I would come back to her. Long story short, I didn't, but about 15 months after that happened, she got married to another guy. He could have well thought similar thoughts about me--"how did you let her get away, don't you know what you're missing?" So, regardless of how the relationship ended, Paul had the germ of the idea for the song to the ex-husband that had his love in his arms, and she was now in his. It's really not that complicated. JcS Assuming the dude that married that chick even thought about it, he had the inherent class not to publicly embarrass you by taking out an ad in the local paper or writing a letter to the editor(assuming that he was not a famous singer/songwriter like Paul who could write a song millions would hear). I think nine and ace make a solid point: John Lennon thought the song was about him and not Melvin See and John still knew Paul in 1971 better than 99.999999999999999999999999% of the population. If John was suspicious about the subject of "Dear Boy" then some of us are not unreasonable in doubting Paul's story. |
|
|
|
Post by joeyself on Oct 28, 2010 13:24:21 GMT -5
Let me pose this to those that have questioned why Paul would address a song to See letting Linda go when it was Linda that left him. Back in the mid '70's, I had a girlfriend that I was (or at least I THOUGHT I was) in love with. I was not as dedicated to her as I should have been, and one night, kind of out of the blue to me, she told me she was going to set me free to see if I would come back to her. Long story short, I didn't, but about 15 months after that happened, she got married to another guy. He could have well thought similar thoughts about me--"how did you let her get away, don't you know what you're missing?" So, regardless of how the relationship ended, Paul had the germ of the idea for the song to the ex-husband that had his love in his arms, and she was now in his. It's really not that complicated. JcS Assuming the dude that married that chick even thought about it, he had the inherent class not to publicly embarrass you by taking out an ad in the local paper or writing a letter to the editor(assuming that he was not a famous singer/songwriter like Paul who could write a song millions would hear). I think nine and ace make a solid point: John Lennon thought the song was about him and not Melvin See and John still knew Paul in 1971 better than 99.999999999999999999999999% of the population. If John was suspicious about the subject of "Dear Boy" then some of us are not unreasonable in doubting Paul's story. Think about who you are talking about here. If Paul thought he could sell another copy of RAM by telling the big secret of "Dear Boy," he would have done it years ago. Everytime he has an album coming out or about to start a tour, there is something "revealed" to draw interest to the Beatles and by extension, to him as well. I can see where an egomaniac like Lennon would have thought everyone was talking about him, and therefore Macca HAD to be writing about him. It just doesn't bear up, either from the internal evidence of the lyrics or the external evidence of the interview. I do love, though, how RTP puts a liar--by his own reckoning--high on a pedestal. JcS |
|
