|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Oct 28, 2010 13:43:16 GMT -5
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 Lying about the meaning of your own lyric is not the same as being "a liar"--i.e. someone who constantly lies about significant matters. The latter implies a habitual pattern of malicious deception. I don't think that is the case with Paul. The word "fib" comes to mind. I suppose you have never told an untruth. If you have, does that make you a person unworthy of any praise even in the context of your professional capacity? |
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Oct 28, 2010 14:14:49 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 Sorry but that part about setting you free to see if you'll come back appears to me to have been a smokescreen to cover HER desire to be free. The fact that she married a short 15 months later backs up my thoughts about this. Who says Mel See didn't try hard to keep Linda? There is no evidence of this. I know from personal experience that you can do everything possible that you can conceive of and if a relationship is over its over. If one of the two decides they want to move on, moving heaven and Earth generally wouldn't change things. We automatically assume Mel See didn't care to keep Linda or didn't try hard enough. We don't know anything of the kind. There are at least two parts of that recording that convince me it is not about Mel See. First the line "I guess you never knew, dear boy, that she was just the cutest thing around." I don't mean this maliciously. One word that does not describe Linda is "cute". Pretty, perhaps beautiful but not cute. She didn't have that kind of look or persona. On the other hand, Paul is known as the "cute" Beatle. Its not a coincidence that Paul uses that word. It indicates he (Paul) is one of the subjects of the song. So that he didn't appear to be self-absorbed and in order to disguise the negative feelings about his former friend--yet still yet vent them--he used this method of veiling its meaning. Its a tact he has used numerous times before (I'm Looking Through You, Hey Jude, You Never Give Me Your Money, Too Many People) and since (Riding to Vanity Fair) to varying degrees of success. The second thing that convinces me it is not about Melvin See is a part of the lyric that is not printed. It is Paul singing the word fart at the very end of the recording. If you listen carefully, its as plain as day. Why would he call Mel See that name? That indicates some personal animosity. There is no evidence of personal animosity on either side. Show me some evidence. If its just Paul saying "you missed a good thing buddy" why that final insult? Again it doesn't make sense. Joe K. said "Most people listening to the song won't even know who it's about, ever." I think that is just as Paul wants it to be. |
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Oct 28, 2010 14:33:30 GMT -5
I don't agree that the writer is the first source of clarity when he talks about the meaning of one of his lyrics. A writer with Paul's style of trying to universalize a lyric's meaning is going to be characteristically vague about its exact meaning. That is his whole approach--even philosophy--to lyric writing. It is why some people just don't get it some of the time.
So to say the writer must necessarily be the first source of revealing the meaning of a lyric is not always the best approach to take. Paul has a history of denying writing negative songs about John. He admits to the positive ones (Dear Friend, Here Today). The interesting thing is his statement about John's belief that Dear Boy was about John is telling by itself. I think it is a clue he has put out there. Otherwise he wouldn't even have acknowledged John's view of the song's connection to their breakup.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 28, 2010 16:32:29 GMT -5
I don't agree that the writer is the first source of clarity when he talks about the meaning of one of his lyrics. Maybe he's the second source. Right after Mr. Return To Pepperland, of course.  |
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on Oct 28, 2010 16:43:32 GMT -5
This is quite interesting, on the one hand we have Paul saying it's about Melvin See but on the other hand it really could be about John. I think it's about John because like RTP I don't believe it makes sense for Paul to have a go at Melvin See.
Also, I always thought Let Me Roll It was about John too but just recently Paul said it was not he just wanted to imitate John's singing style and that's it, the song is just a love song to Linda according to Paul.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 28, 2010 16:45:00 GMT -5
There are at least two parts of that recording that convince me it is not about Mel See. First the line "I guess you never knew, dear boy, that she was just the cutest thing around." I don't mean this maliciously. One word that does not describe Linda is "cute". Pretty, perhaps beautiful but not cute. She didn't have that kind of look or persona. On the other hand, Paul is known as the "cute" Beatle. Oh, STOP!!! Pllleassseee!  Now you're going to tell Paul he cannot use the word "cute" in describing his wife, unless it refers to himself, a la "The CUTE Beatle"?? RTP, can you not see how ridiculous this is?? Every word must be chosen so tactfully to appease you? Maybe Paul was just looking to find two syllables to fit into the melody ("Cute-est"). What else was going to fit into that tune? "Prett-i-est" is three syllables. I'm just trying to say you're really making my head spin with some of this nuttiness you're using as "proof". If Paul read one ounce of the things you write on his behalf, he'd probably be rolling on the floor laughing. So it's referring to Paulie, because he was the "Cute One", hmmm? I guess he doesn't mind putting himself into the feminine gender too, as the "she" of the title. (I'm not saying he would not do this, because I have said I understand about are poetic liberties in songwriting... but jeeez.) OK, but YOU, RTP, are not the authority on "what's right and wrong," or what "Paul's TRUE intentions were behind all his songs". All it indicates is that you think Paul was saying "fart" at the end of the song, and therefore it is somehow a kind of "fact". He didn't call anyone any name at the end of the song. I think that's bull. I know how the song ends, and I think you're hearing something unintended and whatever you want to believe it is. You CANNOT prove that, and you're the only one on this planet I've ever heard of who thinks this (unless you can name one or two more). |
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 28, 2010 16:47:20 GMT -5
This is quite interesting, on the one hand we have Paul saying it's about Melvin See but on the other hand it really could be about John. I think it's about John because like RTP I don't believe it makes sense for Paul to have a go at Melvin See. Doesn't have to make sense. Haven't you heard? EVERY solo song that each Beatle ever wrote was about one or more of the other Beatles. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on Oct 28, 2010 16:49:47 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. I knew you would pick up on that but you have a point here. If this was Yoko she would be painted as the Dragon Lady with a Medusa head , if things could be made to look worse for her.  I would have thought out of $220M Linda could have left even $1M to Melvin given they had a child together. Maybe because Heather went to live with Melvin upset Linda and she held a grudge, who knows, it explains why you never hear much about Heather though. |
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 28, 2010 16:55:12 GMT -5
Lying about the meaning of your own lyric is not the same as being "a liar"--i.e. someone who constantly lies about significant matters. The latter implies a habitual pattern of malicious deception. The latter describes a CHRONIC liar. But lying is lying. Unless, of course, it's Paul McCartney and one has an obsession with always defending Paul McCartney. Everyone on the planet has told an untruth at one time or another. I'm just amazed that you actually can admit Paul has too, though in this case it's only to advance your own theory that DEAR BOY was about John. You would be THE FIRST PERSON quoting Paul's own words, otherwise, as factual. And by the way -- I'm not insisting it's definitely not about John; I don't know anymore than you do... but Paul's word still has the most clout. If not his, then whose? The newspaper delivery boy's? |
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Oct 28, 2010 16:59:48 GMT -5
Wow. I wonder what that says about Linda? We know what it would say about Yoko. I knew you would pick up on that but you have a point here. If this was Yoko she would be painted as the Dragon Lady with a Medusa head , if things could be made to look worse for her. I would have thought out of $220M Linda could have left even $1M to Melvin given they had a child together. Maybe because Heather went to live with Melvin upset Linda and she held a grudge, who knows, it explains why you never hear much about Heather though. Why should she give a penny to him? He is not entitled. I'm sure Linda set Heather up so she is comfortable. Why should she be made to feel guilty because she doesn't give her ex-husband money. She had no way to know he was going to kill himself. And though the timing is convenient, it doesn't mean everyone can assume the two events are related. Apparently See suffered from depression and had suicidal tendencies before. He could have taken his own life at any time. People are too quick with this kind false corollary. Just because the stock market rose every year the Dodgers won the World Series doesn't mean the two events are related. |
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 28, 2010 17:04:48 GMT -5
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. How is that a point, when John Lennon was so paranoid all the time? The guy thought HEY JUDE was about him! He thought the end of BACK SEAT OF MY CAR where Paul sings "We believe that we can't be wrong" was a message to him! You don't think there were other examples where John really missed the mark in his insecurities about lyrics? As for the majority of the population, they've never even heard of Linda's ex. I don't think I've ever heard his name until this discussion myself. It makes more sense that 9.9999 (etc) would believe it was about John, because all they think is "Beatles". But that stil would not necessarily make them correct. |
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 28, 2010 17:07:26 GMT -5
I'm sure Linda set Heather up so she is comfortable. Why should she be made to feel guilty because she doesn't give her ex-husband money. She had no way to know he was going to kill himself. How do YOU KNOW what they ever talked about between themselves? For all we know, he and Linda may have discussed it. Hell, maybe she even promised him something. Maybe he threatened sucide before. None of us knows everything here. |
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on Oct 28, 2010 17:20:53 GMT -5
I knew you would pick up on that but you have a point here. If this was Yoko she would be painted as the Dragon Lady with a Medusa head , if things could be made to look worse for her. I would have thought out of $220M Linda could have left even $1M to Melvin given they had a child together. Maybe because Heather went to live with Melvin upset Linda and she held a grudge, who knows, it explains why you never hear much about Heather though. Why should she give a penny to him? He is not entitled. I'm sure Linda set Heather up so she is comfortable. Why should she be made to feel guilty because she doesn't give her ex-husband money. She had no way to know he was going to kill himself. And though the timing is convenient, it doesn't mean everyone can assume the two events are related. Apparently See suffered from depression and had suicidal tendencies before. He could have taken his own life at any time. People are too quick with this kind false corollary. Just because the stock market rose every year the Dodgers won the World Series doesn't mean the two events are related. Then why bitch about if it was Yoko people would be screaming ? I think she should have given him something because she had the means too. If he had a bad life after breaking up from her and the depression was caused by her she should have helped him that's all I'm saying, not that she really owes him something. What ever happenned to humanity ? |
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Oct 28, 2010 18:19:51 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. I'm sorry, RTP, but that wasn't evidence, it was interpretation and opinion. Evidence is Paul saying "This was about John," or someone else saying "Paul said this was about John," the latter being less compelling than the former. |
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Oct 28, 2010 19:53:14 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. After you beat me up a couple of weeks ago for calling Paul a liar (which I didn't, but I would.) Does that seem at all hypocritical to the citizens of that fantasy world of yours? |
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Oct 28, 2010 19:56:50 GMT -5
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 Lying about the meaning of your own lyric is not the same as being "a liar"--i.e. someone who constantly lies about significant matters. The latter implies a habitual pattern of malicious deception. I don't think that is the case with Paul. The word "fib" comes to mind. I suppose you have never told an untruth. If you have, does that make you a person unworthy of any praise even in the context of your professional capacity? OK, then let me say I think Paul "fibs" quite a bit when he takes credit for songs he didn't write only after John is dead and buried. I think Many Years From Now is chock full of fibs. Apparently you admit that there is at least one fib Paul told in that book. He's a fab fibbing fibber ot the first order. |
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Oct 28, 2010 20:04:40 GMT -5
FWIW, I don't think it was about John at all, I believe Paul wrote this about See. The lyrics are consistent about a relationship with a girl. And Paul did own up to Too Many People being about John, why wouldn't he own up here?
I thinks Beatles fans tend to read too much into the post-split lyrics sometimes. We see their relationships with each other as the most important ones, but once they moved on some other relationships became more important. Their lives didn't revolve around each other all the time, and generally they were reluctant to discuss each other. Yes there are references in several of the songs but why do we have to read a Beatles connection into every post-split song?
|
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Oct 28, 2010 20:18:17 GMT -5
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. Sorry, no...more than a bit of a stretch there. ADITL is a fairly straightforward verse/verse/middle 8/verse structure, which has an extended piece instead of a middle 8. John asked Paul for help in the middle part, Paul had a bit that seemed to fit in ok. Not at all like HIAWG, which moves from here to there to there to there without going back home. BTW, you always give Paul way too much credit for ADITL. What, can't find a well regarded song that Paul actually wrote most of? |
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Oct 28, 2010 20:32:33 GMT -5
Why should she give a penny to him? He is not entitled. I'm sure Linda set Heather up so she is comfortable. Why should she be made to feel guilty because she doesn't give her ex-husband money. She had no way to know he was going to kill himself. And though the timing is convenient, it doesn't mean everyone can assume the two events are related. Apparently See suffered from depression and had suicidal tendencies before. He could have taken his own life at any time. People are too quick with this kind false corollary. Just because the stock market rose every year the Dodgers won the World Series doesn't mean the two events are related. Then why bitch about if it was Yoko people would be screaming ? I think she should have given him something because she had the means too. If he had a bad life after breaking up from her and the depression was caused by her she should have helped him that's all I'm saying, not that she really owes him something. What ever happenned to humanity ? They hadn't been together for over 40 years! Its not like they just broke up the week before. So its inhumane to decide you don't want to give money to someone whom you have had no ties with for over 40 years because she was rich and had the means. I'm sorry but I don't buy it. If you are talking about Heather, that is a different story. And while I don't know what she received from her mother, there is no evidence they were estranged. Quite the opposite. Logically it seems she was taken care of. I haven't seen any Mommy Dearest books from Heather. Linda was known as an exceptional mother. The McCartney children weren't coddled and I think that's good. |
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Oct 28, 2010 20:47:45 GMT -5
Lying about the meaning of your own lyric is not the same as being "a liar"--i.e. someone who constantly lies about significant matters. The latter implies a habitual pattern of malicious deception. I don't think that is the case with Paul. The word "fib" comes to mind. I suppose you have never told an untruth. If you have, does that make you a person unworthy of any praise even in the context of your professional capacity? OK, then let me say I think Paul "fibs" quite a bit when he takes credit for songs he didn't write only after John is dead and buried. I think Many Years From Now is chock full of fibs. Apparently you admit that there is at least one fib Paul told in that book. He's a fab fibbing fibber of the first order. How about some specifics. What songs are you talking about that Paul took credit for that he didn't participate in writing? Its easy to talk in generalizations. Have you read that book? Do you own a copy? I don't know why is is that because John is dead that Paul can't talk about how they wrote their songs without it being implied or specified that he is a liar. |
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Oct 28, 2010 21:09:41 GMT -5
The second verse of the song does not fit the Melvin and Linda scenario. The lyrics are "I guess you never saw,
Dear boy, that love was there." The truth was just the opposite. It was Linda's love for him that disappeared. Those lyrics imply that he left Linda who loved him. It just doesn't fit reality.
Paul sings a word at the end of Dear Boy in falsetto. If its not "fa-a-a-art" what it is it?
Now why would Paul call Melvin See, a man he didn't know, a word like that if history shows Linda had good things to say about him.
|
|
diego
Very Clean
Posts: 130
|
Post by diego on Oct 28, 2010 21:25:40 GMT -5
Talk about over analyzing a song.
Just because one line doesn't fit the Linda divorce scenario as it literally happened doesn't mean the song isn't about that. I also don't buy that Paul was bullying Mr. See.
I'm thinking he got a very general idea "Hey Linda got divorced, someone lost her" and then made up a song with whatever words better fit. It's not a textual account of what happened, just a general feeling he might have had "She's great, you missed out". Maybe Paul didn't even know the details of the breakup.
And, if Paul himself says it's not about John, then it's not about John.
|
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Oct 28, 2010 22:44:07 GMT -5
Talk about over analyzing a song. Just because one line doesn't fit the Linda divorce scenario as it literally happened doesn't mean the song isn't about that. I also don't buy that Paul was bullying Mr. See. I'm thinking he got a very general idea "Hey Linda got divorced, someone lost her" and then made up a song with whatever words better fit. It's not a textual account of what happened, just a general feeling he might have had "She's great, you missed out". Maybe Paul didn't even know the details of the breakup. And, if Paul himself says it's not about John, then it's not about John. None of it fits and if Linda disliked Mr. See Paul would have known. As to the author's comments about meaning, Paul has always been very coy about the interpretation of his songs. He has denied that any of the songs on Ram were about John and we know that's not true. So no, you can't just take his word on this. John certainly thought it was about him. Maybe Paul wants it to have multiple meanings. He never directly denied it was about John. He just made a vague reference to Linda's ex-husband. Significantly Paul acknowledged John thought it was about him. One reason I don't believe him is that he tries this same trick with the song Little Lamb Dragonfly. Paul insists it wasn't about John, but that it was about a little lamb that died on his farm. Now if you look at this track, it is in two sections: the little lamb section and the dragonfly section. His story fits the little lamb section but it doesn't come near fitting into the dragonfly section. How is the following about a lamb? Dragonfly Fly By My Window (I hope you come around again) You And I Still Have A Way To Go (we still have a lot to do together) Don't Know Why You Hang Around My Door I Don't Live Here Any More (Paul felt displaced from Apple. He never went back after the breakup. I don't live here--where you are all the time and where I used to be every day. My door is Apple because Apple was Paul's. They have sort of taken over his domain. Remember Neil Aspinal was asked what the difference was after the breakup announcement. He said well for one thing there was no more Paul. He never went back) Since You've Gone (John left) I Never Know I Go On, But I Miss You So (Paul misses John not the damn lamb) Dragonfly Don't Keep Me Waiting (he is anxious to resolve this) When We Try We'll Have A Way To Go (if we make an effort we can have a future together) Dragonfly You've Been Away Too Long How Did Two Rights Make A Wrong (we both though we were right and it turned out wrong) In My Heart I Feel The Pain Keeps Coming Back Again (emotionally painful) Dragonfly Fly By My Window You And I Can Find A Way To See (love will find a way) Dragonfly The Years Ahead Will Show How Little We Really Know (this is the best line in the song. It is clearly not something you would say to a lamb. "How little we really know?" It is a line that speaks to the future regret they will feel when they are older and wiser--when they see that they foolishly let other people get between them. It is a very poignant line. It is a wise line and I wish Paul would have followed through fixing it at that moment) Since You've Gone Its Never Right They Go On The Lonely Nights (God I hope this isn't about a lamb. Lonely Nights? This is where he is is trying to throw people off by changing the sex again. It becomes a man and a woman in a sexual context. This is a smokescreen. When you read that line literally, you say Oh that can't possibly be about John. Its a diversionary tactic) Come On Home And Make It Right (come on home doesn't literally mean come home, it mean come back to our relationship) Paul is clearly talking about the breakup with John and is unwilling to publicly acknowledge it. Dear Boy is the precedent for this attitude about not revealing his feelings about John and even going to the length of making up this silly diversion about a lamb. Besides John was born in the Chinese year of the dragon. |
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Oct 28, 2010 22:46:29 GMT -5
I knew you would pick up on that but you have a point here. If this was Yoko she would be painted as the Dragon Lady with a Medusa head , if things could be made to look worse for her. I would have thought out of $220M Linda could have left even $1M to Melvin given they had a child together. Maybe because Heather went to live with Melvin upset Linda and she held a grudge, who knows, it explains why you never hear much about Heather though. Why should she give a penny to him? He is not entitled. I'm sure Linda set Heather up so she is comfortable. Why should she be made to feel guilty because she doesn't give her ex-husband money. She had no way to know he was going to kill himself. And though the timing is convenient, it doesn't mean everyone can assume the two events are related. Apparently See suffered from depression and had suicidal tendencies before. He could have taken his own life at any time. People are too quick with this kind false corollary. Just because the stock market rose every year the Dodgers won the World Series doesn't mean the two events are related. I think that See was upset that Linda did not provide for Heather in her Estate planning. It is said that Paul adopted Heather but following the lead of some posters here who demand absolute proof on everything, I won't believe that until I see a certified copy of the Decree of Adoption. I have written here several times my growing alarm that the Press increasingly refers to Heather as a "step-daughter" of Paul's or that Paul and Linda only had three children, Mary, Stella and James. If Heather Louise was legally adopted then she is every bit a child of Paul's as the other three, including for inheritance purposes. The fact that the McCartney Spin Machine remains quiet to these descriptions of Heather Louise as a "step-child" or worse, a non-entity, worries me. It must have worried Mr. See too as he killed himself the week after it was revealed that Linda made no provisions for Heather. Heather Louise was thus vulnerable. Heather Louise will probably live in the cellar and be forced to clean Mary and Stella McCartney's mansions(James better not get comfortable either once the old man is gone!).  Where is Heather Louise McCartney? |
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 28, 2010 22:50:14 GMT -5
Where is Heather Louise McCartney? Maybe she was taking a tinkle. |
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 28, 2010 22:52:48 GMT -5
Paul sings a word at the end of Dear Boy in falsetto. If its not "fa-a-a-art" what it is it? What word is he singing in AVERAGE PERSON between lines, where he jingles "Deh deh deh deh"? |
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 28, 2010 22:55:25 GMT -5
I thinks Beatles fans tend to read too much into the post-split lyrics sometimes. We see their relationships with each other as the most important ones, but once they moved on some other relationships became more important. Their lives didn't revolve around each other all the time, and generally they were reluctant to discuss each other. Yes there are references in several of the songs but why do we have to read a Beatles connection into every post-split song? Hey, did I just write that?  |
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Oct 28, 2010 23:11:23 GMT -5
Where is Heather Louise McCartney? Maybe she was taking a tinkle. Maybe she has been eliminated like the Family did to the oldest son in the Godfather trilogy.  |
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Oct 28, 2010 23:29:29 GMT -5
I think that See was upset that Linda did not provide for Heather in her Estate planning. It is said that Paul adopted Heather but following the lead of some posters here who demand absolute proof on everything, I won't believe that until I see a certified copy of the Decree of Adoption. Well for one thing her name is Heather McCartney not Heather See. |
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on Oct 29, 2010 1:07:40 GMT -5
Then why bitch about if it was Yoko people would be screaming ? I think she should have given him something because she had the means too. If he had a bad life after breaking up from her and the depression was caused by her she should have helped him that's all I'm saying, not that she really owes him something. What ever happenned to humanity ? They hadn't been together for over 40 years! Its not like they just broke up the week before. So its inhumane to decide you don't want to give money to someone whom you have had no ties with for over 40 years because she was rich and had the means. I'm sorry but I don't buy it. If you are talking about Heather, that is a different story. And while I don't know what she received from her mother, there is no evidence they were estranged. Quite the opposite. Logically it seems she was taken care of. I haven't seen any Mommy Dearest books from Heather. Linda was known as an exceptional mother. The McCartney children weren't coddled and I think that's good. They had a child together, meaning they are connected for life whether or not they moved on from their marriage. Linda should have been more respectful of the guy since all claims are that he was a nice guy and stopped Paul from putting out Dear Boy if in fact it was about Melvin See. He didn't deserve a put down like that from Paul. Makes me think that Paul is insecure if he wrote that song about Melvin See, insecure because perhaps he didn't have the influence over Heather that he wanted. Just speculating as obviously I have no idea of that relationship. Bottom line , she was well off and she should have helped him. |
|
Now you're going to tell Paul he cannot use the word "cute" in describing his wife, unless it refers to himself, a la "The CUTE Beatle"?? 
