|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 29, 2010 6:47:19 GMT -5
Well for one thing her name is Heather McCartney not Heather See. Well, which name would YOU want to be associated with? All the same, if See was Heather's biological daddy, she's always going to truly be Heather See. |
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Oct 29, 2010 12:26:26 GMT -5
Does anyone here have an interest in joining FHLM(Fans of Heather Louise Mcartney)? P.M. me if you are. We were originally just FHM but people thought we were loyal to the former Heather McCartney, a/k/a Heather Mills, and were getting real bitchy towards us.  |
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Oct 29, 2010 12:37:50 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? Sounds to me like he's singing "I buried Paul." But it could be the drugs I'm on. |
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Oct 29, 2010 19:46:04 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. 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?I always love the expressions on Paul's face when he is standing next to Yoko in a photo. His look says it all........  |
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 30, 2010 6:59:59 GMT -5
I always love the expressions on Paul's face when he is standing next to Yoko in a photo. His look says it all........ All I think it does is say it all about your automatic hatred of Yoko. |
|
nine
Very Clean
Posts: 840 
|
Post by nine on Oct 30, 2010 7:41:03 GMT -5
I always love the expressions on Paul's face when he is standing next to Yoko in a photo. His look says it all........ All I think it does is say it all about your automatic hatred of Yoko. We all hate Yoko man, she split the band. |
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Oct 30, 2010 8:39:01 GMT -5
All I think it does is say it all about your automatic hatred of Yoko. We all hate Yoko man, she split the band. Heehee. I thought Paul looked deep in thought as to whether he was going to hit on Yoko or Kelly Osborn! |
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 30, 2010 10:13:02 GMT -5
We all hate Yoko man, she split the band. Well it's nice to hear one of you finally admit it.  However, The Beatles themselves have said it wasn't expressly Yoko's fault. Sorry. But don't let that spoil your opportunities for venting life's frustrations on her.  |
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Oct 30, 2010 11:06:11 GMT -5
I always love the expressions on Paul's face when he is standing next to Yoko in a photo. His look says it all........ All I think it does is say it all about your automatic hatred of Yoko. Now Joe, I only commented on Paul's expression. Maybe he is thrilled to be standing next to his old mate's wife.... BTW, I don't hate Yoko. As a Beatlefan, I respect the fact that she was John's wife, and he genuinely loved her. She's a smart cookie. Having lived as a fan through the 68-70 Beatles period, I just never trusted her true motivations for hooking up with John and the added pressures it put on the straining relationships amoung the Fabs during that period when she hung out in the studio while they were trying to make their last three albums. And the way she treated Julian initially after John's death said a lot about her true feelings toward anyone in John's family outside of herself and Sean. So I don't hate her. Like most Beatlefans, I tolerate her. My guess is, Paul does the same. |
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 30, 2010 13:23:00 GMT -5
Whatever, lowbasso. You follow the script perfectly. But there are other Yoko threads where we can go deeper.
|
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Oct 30, 2010 16:22:14 GMT -5
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. Own the book, read it. Saw right through it. Turned my opinion of McCartney upside down, not in the way he wanted. It made him so uncool. People need to credit you with stuff, you can't grab it and contridict everything your parter said 30 years ago once he's dead and can't call you on it any more. Paul comes across as vain, scared, embarrassed that his work may not have been good enough, and what's lower than putting down your partner when he can no longer answer for himself? No courage to claim the credit when John was alive. And no credit given to John for John's contributions to songs considered "Paul songs". One-way credit grabbing. I don't have to go song by song, pick any page or better yet, ask someone with the patience to debate you. |
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Oct 30, 2010 16:24:05 GMT -5
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? I think this needs a bump, as RTP chose not to address this. Give you another chance before we all can come to the natural conclusion. |
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Oct 30, 2010 18:18:35 GMT -5
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. Own the book, read it. Saw right through it. Turned my opinion of McCartney upside down, not in the way he wanted. It made him so uncool. People need to credit you with stuff, you can't grab it and contridict everything your parter said 30 years ago once he's dead and can't call you on it any more. Paul comes across as vain, scared, embarrassed that his work may not have been good enough, and what's lower than putting down your partner when he can no longer answer for himself? No courage to claim the credit when John was alive. And no credit given to John for John's contributions to songs considered "Paul songs". One-way credit grabbing. I don't have to go song by song, pick any page or better yet, ask someone with the patience to debate you. Really he doesn't contradict John that much. The only two I can think of is Eleanor Rigby and In My Life. Pete Shotton backs Paul up on Eleanor Rigby testifying that John's contribution was "nil". With In My Life, musicologists have backed Paul up on it being his melody. Paul reveals details about writing In My Life that correspond with empirical evidence. An example is the inspiration that came from Tracks of My Tears by Smokey Robinson and the Miracles. Clearly Paul's guitar intro is inspired by that. Also, there is the fact that the lyrics were written and then re-written during the writing session with John and Paul. You can tell by looking at the existing sheet of original lyrics that were lined out and rewritten. The cadence of the original lyrics do not scan with the melody. Therefore the words were reworked during the songwriting session with Paul. And he describes that very thing. There are too many details to completely write off what he says. John even said Paul wrote the middle eight. The fact that there is no middle eight-only verse chorus, verse chorus makes John's statement confusing. Ian MacDonald, a prominent musical authority who has written many books including books about the Beatles, wrote that he is convinced it is McCartney's melody based on its style and octave range. You have to remember that John himself admitted that he gave interviews in which he lied or incorrectly diminished Paul's contributions to his songs. He tried to portray a situation where they rarely if ever really collaborated. This was done during his resentful period. While admitting such a thing is admirable. the fact that he did do such a thing does not lend credibility to his other statements. Give him points for being honest about lying, but how many other times did it happen when he didn't admit it or clarify. There is an interview where he claims Day Tripper is all his and that is the story taken as fact by most people. Then in another interview he admits it was Paul's verses in the song. Indeed, Paul sings the verses, an almost sure sign he was the composer. This is an example of his flip-flopping. The evidence shows John was jealous of Paul's composing skills and at times exaggerated his contributions to Paul's songs (We Can Work It Out, Michelle, And I Love Her, Eleanor Rigby, With A Little Help From My Friends) and underplayed Paul's contributions to his songs (In My Life, Help!, There's A Place, Day Tripper, Ticket To Ride, Girl, Norwegian Wood). Just read The Lives of John Lennon by Albert Goldman. It details the obsessive jealousy John felt toward Paul. Goldman relates a story from an interview with Yoko. John would wake up in the middle of the night and ask Yoko why other artists always cover Paul's songs and they seldom cover his song. Yoko soothed him by telling him how unique John's songs were and that Paul's songs were all moon and June style music. It made him feel better for a moment. Here is author Albert Goldman's description of the change that took place in the mid sixties: The photos of John Lennon during his acid days beginning in 1966 are disquieting. Instead of the typical Lennon--mouth agape, eyes popping, the whole face a clown mask--here is a young man who had suddenly aged about 40 years. The eyes look like those of a dead fish. His slumped posture is that of an ancient door keeper. (Barry) Miles, a frequent visitor to the Beatles sessions, explained: "John had destroyed his ego with the drugs. They had made a good job of it." Ego death, the product of heavy doses of LSD and the Tibetan Book of the Dead could be the reason for Lennon's sudden metamorphosis into the Superannuated Man. But two facts make this interpretation untenable. First, John never dropped acid while recording; second, his abject mood blew away as soon as the sessions concluded. So other reasons must be sought, the most likely being either a heavier drug that acid or some intense emotional disturbance. Actually, both factors were at work. John was choked with resentment because Paul had seized control of the Beatles. This had been in John's mind for years, perhaps from the moment he met Paul, because the latter was such an obvious "keenie" and because he was so musically gifted. Only the fact that Paul was younger than John both in age and experience had prevented their naturally conflicting personalities from clashing sooner. When we are young, nineteen months looms large as an age difference. As aging progresses, that short amount of time eventually provides no distinction. Their relationship had also been buffered by the separation of each man's sphere of authority. Paul had acted as the band's front man in public and its de facto manager in private. John, was long content with being the proudly aloof artiste who concentrated on the music and was not concerned with details about how things were run. This arrangement had a profound attachment to John's ego. The feeling was connected to a deep psychological need to be in charge or at least the center of attention. When Paul overtook John in an artistic sense, something snapped. John was either to take leadership or he would have to end the relationship. As John later lamented, the Beatles had become "sidemen to Paul." Ultimately, he ended their relationship for just that reason. Bringing Allen Klein into the picture against Paul's wishes was a power grab. And it worked. John wanted to stop Paul from using the vehicle of the Beatles to build up his own reputation. John gambled that when the Beatles were scattered to the four winds and Paul could no longer use the platform of the Beatles, he would have a chance to reinstate himself at the top of the rock world. Yoko had given him that confidence. John's heavy public criticism of Paul's early post-Beatles work sealed the deal and Paul's fate to this day to be dismissed as a lightweight with no real talent. The exchange of power began in 1965 with the song Yesterday on the Help! album. This song elevated them in the eyes of the world to a level of composition that they had not attained to that point. And the song belonged to Paul completely. John always made it a point to say he never envied the fact that Paul wrote it and not him. It was a perfect example of what Shakespeare described in his observation from Hamlet: "The (man) doth protest too much, methinks"-- so insistently as to lose credibility. The Help! album was the beginning of this change. They were just completing the shooting of Help! in Switzerland. Having come in from snow, they were removing their heavy clothing while listening to a tape of their latest songs. After hearing Paul's tracks, John mumbled: "I think I like your songs better than mine." Doubt, envy, fear concerning who was the better composer dominated John's true feelings about Paul. The more passive and withdrawn John became, the more active and engaged grew his rival, who was developing now at an incredible rate and constantly bombarding the other Beatles with his new discoveries and inspirations from Vivaldi to Stockhausen, from advanced tape editing techniques to odd sounds of that protosynthesizer, the Mellotron. Inevitably Paul became the Beatles prime mover, acting as both arranger and ersatz producer in the German context of the word. The first full product of Paul's ascendancy was the greatest of the Beatles miscellaneous albums, Revolver. To be continued. |
|
diego
Very Clean
Posts: 130
|
Post by diego on Oct 30, 2010 19:02:23 GMT -5
So, let's see if I got this right, in "Many years from now" Paul tells the absolute truth about every single Lennon-McCartney song, but only lies about "Dear Boy"?? How convinient.
|
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Oct 30, 2010 19:55:33 GMT -5
So, let's see if I got this right, in "Many years from now" Paul tells the absolute truth about every single Lennon-McCartney song, but only lies about "Dear Boy"?? How convinient. He also fibbed about Little Lamb Dragonfly from Red Rose Speedway and the other songs on Ram. |
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Oct 30, 2010 20:57:23 GMT -5
Whatever, lowbasso. You follow the script perfectly. But there are other Yoko threads where we can go deeper. No need to. I understand your point of view. I respect it. I have mine. Yoko is not a Beatle. She was just married to one. Who died. So she has to decide Beatle business as John's representative. Paul and Ringo must deal with her in that respect, as they do with Olivia as well. But all this "chumminess" lately with Julian and especially Cynthia, and jumping onstage to perform with Ringo at his 70th birthday celebration, well, that is really pushing the envelope a bit in my book. Isn't it just all for PR purposes really? I am posting a controversial thread following this comment which I believe no one has yet dared discuss I believe. |
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Oct 30, 2010 21:47:22 GMT -5
Goldman continued:
The first full product of Paul's ascendancy was the greatest of the Beatles miscellaneous albums, Revolver. This landmark recording completes the transition already underway in Help! and Rubber Soul. Part of the transition was Paul's ascendancy. Along with that was the transition from rock and roll to rock, the term which distinguishes the style of the Sixties from the Fifties. Rock meant more sophisticated and witty lyrics dealing with more serious themes. Rock meant a flood of new sounds and musical idioms from every time and place.
The cinema verite opening of the 1-2-3-4 count-in of Taxman underscores the fact that Revolver is a work of real, live men in a studio--initiated a whole new game in which rock bands began to play around with reality and illusion the way dramatists and moviemakers had long been doing.
The eclecticism of the Beatles explodes here in a dazzling display of artistic diversity. "Eleanor Rigby" points forward and backward at the same time with its social themes and innovative use of strings on a rock album while harking back to the gaslight era, with the style of the urgently chopping string quartet and Dickensonian cast of characters. Tomorrow Never Knows with its robot voice chanting over an arrangement of psychedelic tape loops including fiddles and guitar riffs, gesticulates awesomely toward the psycho-pharmaceutical future. Between these extremes is marshalled a comical street shanty, "Yellow Submarine" (widely regarded as a song about Nembutals, yellow sub-shaped pills also known as Pentobarbital, a barbiturate used in the short-term treatment of insomnia to help you fall asleep and to induce unconsciousness just before surgery). Paul hinted about this connection when he related the story of writing the song just before falling asleep "during that twilight time just before going under".
Also included in this eclectic smorgasbord is "For No One", an Eduardian parlor musicale, "Good Day Sunshine", a perky straw hat music hall turn, "Got To Get You Into My Life" a soulful reading of the big band sound, by itself ushering in a new musical genre in the form of inspiring the musical course of the rock group Chicago. It is said to have been inspired by the author's discovery of marijuana. And so on it goes through the greatest variety of musical fare ever heaped up on a pop platter.
Overriding this array of eclecticism is the vital link between popular music and drugs forged secretly in the underworld of jazz and now becoming in the sixties the universally acknowledged and accepted precondition for "getting off" to records.
Who was primarily responsible for this hallucinatory album, as full of illusions as a Tunnel of Love? The answer would seem to have been John Lennon. But that was not the case here. Paul had attained absolute parity with John by this time and "Eleanor Rigby" only confirmed this fact. It was as remarkable as Lennon's best effort "Tomorrow Never Knows." As these two songs testify, John and Paul were not just equals now but opposites, as different in art as they had always been in life.
But it was not simply a case of the Beatles being bi-vocal. Paul was primarily responsible for the highly innovative use of music and sound, language and verse, production values and recording techniques throughout the album, Revolver, a Columbian journey in search of a brave new world, inspired, sustained and infused with Paul's bright eyed discovery of all the wonders of the London cultural scene, that vast new world that had been opened up to him by his sojourn with the Ashers. The tighly closed and highly defensive Lennon would never have opened himself to all these influences and experiences if Paul had not half seduced, half challenged John to make the effort. Ironically, it was Lennon, once converted by McCartney, who carried the Beatles journey of discovery further in this direction, but by that time the whole world was tumbling along in the same direction having taken its cue from the Beatles earlier influence.
From the early days, Paul had taken the role as co-producer and arranger along with George Martin. By November 1966, when the Beatles began laying down tracks for the album that became Sgt. Pepper, Paul McCartney had become the group's de facto artistic director (arranger and producer). Pepper was from the outset Paul's album. He conceived the idea, wrote most of the songs, ran the recording sessions, supervised the mixing and arranged for the precedent setting art work for the packaging. John Lennon was so graveled by this tour de force that he complained bitterly that Paul had gotten the upper hand. "When Paul felt like it," grumbled John, "he would come in with about twenty good songs and say 'We're recording.' And I suddenly had to write a fucking stack of songs. Pepper was like that." Even if this account were literally true, as it is not, it would hardly be a crushing indictment of Paul. Indeed, it simply confirms the suspicion that Paul wielded the power in the group. John's apathy had produced an aversion to work and responsibility. Suppose Paul hadn't come in with his twenty good songs? What would have happened to the Beatles? The answer is they might not have produced the albums that gave them their greatest acclaim. Nor would the lethargic Lennon been inspired to compose some of his most memorable tracks.
Though John bitterly resented Paul's takeover, Lennon never confronted the issue squarely. John sulked and played possum instead. Lennon wouldn't lead but neither did he want to follow. Hence he had no choice but to tune out. This was a fateful act. Not only did it initiate the process that eventually broke up the Beatles, but it also marked the beginning of his long decline.
Paul came closest to getting what he wanted in the studio because he could articulate his ideas into words and would have the band go through take after take to get it right. Then he would stand over the engineers and monitor every step of the recording and mixing process until he achieved perfection. John could not tolerate repetition or tedium. If it didn't happen in the first few takes, his impulse was to say "Fuck it." Paul would often spend a great deal of time even on John's songs. Ticket To Ride, Tomorrow Never Knows and A Day in the Life were prime examples. There was another song to which Paul contributed heavily--the suggestion of brass and strings, the other worldly, eerie Mellotron, the suggestion to Ringo regarding the drum sound. It was the song, among others, John had blamed Paul for ruining with his experimental ideas: "Paul would subconsciously try to destroy my great songs with that experimental crap." The Beatles classic whose "destruction" John most resented: Strawberry Fields Forever.
|
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Oct 30, 2010 23:50:35 GMT -5
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. Own the book, read it. Saw right through it. Turned my opinion of McCartney upside down, not in the way he wanted. It made him so uncool. People need to credit you with stuff, you can't grab it and contridict everything your parter said 30 years ago once he's dead and can't call you on it any more. Paul comes across as vain, scared, embarrassed that his work may not have been good enough, and what's lower than putting down your partner when he can no longer answer for himself? No courage to claim the credit when John was alive. And no credit given to John for John's contributions to songs considered "Paul songs". One-way credit grabbing. I don't have to go song by song, pick any page or better yet, ask someone with the patience to debate you. But John died suddenly and very young. Its unfair to think Paul would have had much of a chance to write about all the hundreds of songs they wrote before he was 38 years of age. AND HE DIDN'T PUT JOHN DOWN IN THE BOOK. Talking about what happened and how they write their songs is not a put down unless you think John walked on water and was responsible for any and all interesting things the Beatles did. As for other people needing to credit him instead of him talking about it, that is a weak point. First of all, many times other people weren't around so how could someone come out and give Paul credit. Secondly, the idea that it is uncool is even weaker. I suppose its uncool to talk about your most celebrated accomplishments because your songwriting partner is dead when people are getting it wrong. It would take a superhuman to sit back and not say anything when you know you contributed more than some misguided people want to give you credit for. Alright someone with patience, please give me some examples of blatant credit taking by Paul that you know is not correct. |
|
|
|
Post by joeyself on Oct 31, 2010 0:28:31 GMT -5
Really he doesn't contradict John that much. The only two I can think of is Eleanor Rigby and In My Life. Yeah, and Paul didn't even challenge what Lennon said in HIT PARADER in 1972 on "Eleanor Rigby." Now, it may have been at that point, things were such between them that Paul didn't want to stir the kettle; on the other hand, it wouldn't have taken much effort to explain his position of "Rigby" while he was taking the opportunity on "In My Life." Here's the interview: pages.prodigy.net/walrus_iamthe/htmlwgu/HOW2wgu.htmlJcS |
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Oct 31, 2010 0:59:59 GMT -5
Really he doesn't contradict John that much. The only two I can think of is Eleanor Rigby and In My Life. Yeah, and Paul didn't even challenge what Lennon said in HIT PARADER in 1972 on "Eleanor Rigby." Now, it may have been at that point, things were such between them that Paul didn't want to stir the kettle; on the other hand, it wouldn't have taken much effort to explain his position of "Rigby" while he was taking the opportunity on "In My Life." Here's the interview: pages.prodigy.net/walrus_iamthe/htmlwgu/HOW2wgu.htmlJcS I doubt Paul had a subscription to Hit Parader. Of course he could have heard what John claimed from someone. In 1972 John was still in that bitter state of mind. He might have been doing what he later admitted he did. That is he may have been distorting the details of their songwriting for his own benefit. |
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Oct 31, 2010 2:40:00 GMT -5
Own the book, read it. Saw right through it. Turned my opinion of McCartney upside down, not in the way he wanted. It made him so uncool. People need to credit you with stuff, you can't grab it and contridict everything your parter said 30 years ago once he's dead and can't call you on it any more. Paul comes across as vain, scared, embarrassed that his work may not have been good enough, and what's lower than putting down your partner when he can no longer answer for himself? No courage to claim the credit when John was alive. And no credit given to John for John's contributions to songs considered "Paul songs". One-way credit grabbing. I don't have to go song by song, pick any page or better yet, ask someone with the patience to debate you. But John died suddenly and very young. Its unfair to think Paul would have had much of a chance to write about all the hundreds of songs they wrote before he was 38 years of age. AND HE DIDN'T PUT JOHN DOWN IN THE BOOK. Talking about what happened and how they write their songs is not a put down unless you think John walked on water and was responsible for any and all interesting things the Beatles did. As for other people needing to credit him instead of him talking about it, that is a weak point. First of all, many times other people weren't around so how could someone come out and give Paul credit. Secondly, the idea that it is uncool is even weaker. I suppose its uncool to talk about your most celebrated accomplishments because your songwriting partner is dead when people are getting it wrong. It would take a superhuman to sit back and not say anything when you know you contributed more than some misguided people want to give you credit for. Alright someone with patience, please give me some examples of blatant credit taking by Paul that you know is not correct. I was excited at first about the book All Those Years Ago. That was before I ran into the John versus Paul conflict of Message Boards and before I knew who RTP was. And without any agenda on my part, just reading that book really pissed me off because it so marginalized John Lennon. That scoring system used in the book on who wrote what is bullshit! John Lennon never ever wanted to be murdered, never ever wanted that martyrdom and rather than bitch and moan about it, Paul McCartney ought to thank his lucky stars that he has life, life to make music, life to be a father to his children and now life to be a grandfather to his children's children. Paul's legacy was always assured. It was never in danger but Paul felt the need to kill the goose that laid the golden eggs by diminishing John's role. Weakening Lennon's legacy is also weakening McCartney's legacy in the long run. All Those Years Ago sits in the bargain bin now(if it can be found at all). That is what this rag deserves. |
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 31, 2010 5:17:50 GMT -5
John Lennon never ever wanted to be murdered, never ever wanted that martyrdom and rather than bitch and moan about it, Paul McCartney ought to thank his lucky stars that he has life, life to make music, life to be a father to his children and now life to be a grandfather to his children's children. Paul's legacy was always assured. It was never in danger but Paul felt the need to kill the goose that laid the golden eggs by diminishing John's role. Weakening Lennon's legacy is also weakening McCartney's legacy in the long run. Pure gold. |
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 31, 2010 5:28:04 GMT -5
But John died suddenly and very young. Its unfair to think Paul would have had much of a chance to write about all the hundreds of songs they wrote before he was 38 years of age. Very weak excuse. There was no reason why Paul could not speak about their songwriting, who wrote what songs, etc. I'm not saying that Paul had to write his "autobiography" by age 38, but at least discuss the songs. Or counter some of John's claims, if he thought John was wrong. RTP -- please listen to these next words and really consider them. As some of us members here have told you before, you are making us grow to respect Paul even LESS by your tactics here. Do you not realize you are having the REVERSE effect on people than what you've always hoped to accomplish? You are a complete failure with your plan. You are making me actually start to DISLIKE Paul. I have to try and fight those urges and realize I'm not going to allow you to do that to me. And it's not because I'm "scared of the realization that maybe Paul was just as important as John was", or anything like that. I HAVE ALWAYS KNOWN THAT PAUL WAS JUST AS IMPORTANT AS JOHN. You just don't see it, do you? YOU ---- RTP ---- ARE THE ONLY PERSON WHO THINKS SOMEONE WALKED ON WATER -- AND THAT SOMEONE IS JAMES PAUL McCARTNEY. You are so obsessed that I honestly think you are incapable of realizing this. You have tried to reduce John Lennon down to a slug. You have made Lennon like Paul's apprentice. Shame on you for degrading John Lennon the way you do. Be it conscious or unconscious. |
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 31, 2010 5:54:21 GMT -5
But all this "chumminess" lately with Julian and especially Cynthia, and jumping onstage to perform with Ringo at his 70th birthday celebration, well, that is really pushing the envelope a bit in my book. Isn't it just all for PR purposes really? No, it is not pushing the enevelope or PR to respect Ringo's 70th birthday and be nice to Ringo, trying to be friends. I don't think you know what you're talking about. You probably haven't seen Ringo on Barbara Walters in 1981 practically in tears, talking about visiting Yoko. Ringo and Yoko are friendly, always have been. Ringo was the only Beatle who went to NY and was there for her when her husband was killed. But of course there are so many Beatles fans who think of nothing except the break-up of the band and will never get past it. As for this "PR claim" -- in the last 30 years Yoko Ono has NEVER been the "Paris Hilton Type" of consistent media-seeking celeb. She may do some projects here and there, but if anything she's a quiet sort who stays under the radar and keeps mostly to herself. So what the hell do you want? If Yoko ignored Julian and Ringo and Paul and the other wives, you'd say "See? Yoko is a selfish creep!" And when she tries to keep up withthem and get together or be sociable during Beatles-related media events, you consider her some kind of "opportunist". |
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 31, 2010 5:58:44 GMT -5
Here is author Albert Goldman's description of the change that took place in the mid sixties: Albert Goldman?? Hold on a minute -- now you're quoting garbage from ALBERT GOLDMAN?? The man who thanked people in his book for giving interviews, and they later showed up on talk shows in 1988 trashing his book and saying that they'd NEVER given an interview?? I think I've just thought up a new name for you--- it shall be RTPGoldman. That suits you to a tee. You're destroying John just the way AG did. You have forever lost all credibility by quoting AG. How dare you quote anything from that lying and manipulating sack of sh$t? You stoop down to quoting AG just because he "praises Paul"! Let me tell you something, Mr. RTPGoldman ... you'd better thank your lucky stars that your good friend Albert Goldman is dead... because if he was still alive and Paul died, you'd have to read a book about your hero Goldman trashing Paul McCartney. That was your last mistake. I will forevermore refer to you as taking over Albert Goldman's legacy in destroying John Lennon's memory. Just like in the SAW films where the maniac named Jigsaw has entrusted others to carry on his work, so too are you in league with the devil (aka Al Goldman). HAPPY HALLOWEEN! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 31, 2010 6:10:19 GMT -5
I think this needs a bump, as RTP chose not to address this. Give you another chance before we all can come to the natural conclusion. Well, anyoneanyhow, that is always RTPGoldman's M.O. -- he runs away from points he cannot refute, things he doesn't want to face or address. He does it to me constantly. |
|
|
|
Post by joeyself on Oct 31, 2010 8:00:38 GMT -5
Yeah, and Paul didn't even challenge what Lennon said in HIT PARADER in 1972 on "Eleanor Rigby." Now, it may have been at that point, things were such between them that Paul didn't want to stir the kettle; on the other hand, it wouldn't have taken much effort to explain his position of "Rigby" while he was taking the opportunity on "In My Life." Here's the interview: pages.prodigy.net/walrus_iamthe/htmlwgu/HOW2wgu.htmlJcS I doubt Paul even read Hit Parader. Of course he could have heard what John claimed from someone. In 1972 John was still in that bitter state of mind. He might have been doing what he later admitted he did. That is he may have been distorting the details of their songwriting for his own benefit. The point I was making was in support of what you said--that there wasn't a lot of disagreement between them. But, let's play this to its logical end: On what basis do you "doubt Paul even read HIT PARADER?" The writer of the article said "Paul McCartney saw the list and came up with one correction. He says that John didn't write the music to "In My Life," just the words. Paul worked out the melody on a mellotron in John's house." Was the writer lying (or fibbing, I think you prefer to call it)? If he was, how do you know, or on what basis do you even purpose that supposition? Further, If McCartney hadn't seen the list, how would the writer have known Paul's position in 1972 as to "In My Life?" That disagreement wasn't commonly known at that point in history. If Paul HAD seen the list, then it supports what you said about few disagreements, and that Paul didn't mention anything about the lyrics to "Eleanor Rigby" might have been an oversight. On the other hand, you've already told us Paul isn't always truthful about his songwriting, so perhaps he was "fibbing" later when he claimed something different than what Lennon said in this interview. JcS |
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Oct 31, 2010 8:57:08 GMT -5
I doubt Paul even read Hit Parader. Of course he could have heard what John claimed from someone. In 1972 John was still in that bitter state of mind. He might have been doing what he later admitted he did. That is he may have been distorting the details of their songwriting for his own benefit. The point I was making was in support of what you said--that there wasn't a lot of disagreement between them. But, let's play this to its logical end: On what basis do you "doubt Paul even read HIT PARADER?" The writer of the article said "Paul McCartney saw the list and came up with one correction. He says that John didn't write the music to "In My Life," just the words. Paul worked out the melody on a mellotron in John's house." Was the writer lying (or fibbing, I think you prefer to call it)? If he was, how do you know, or on what basis do you even purpose that supposition? Further, If McCartney hadn't seen the list, how would the writer have known Paul's position in 1972 as to "In My Life?" That disagreement wasn't commonly known at that point in history. If Paul HAD seen the list, then it supports what you said about few disagreements, and that Paul didn't mention anything about the lyrics to "Eleanor Rigby" might have been an oversight. On the other hand, you've already told us Paul isn't always truthful about his songwriting, so perhaps he was "fibbing" later when he claimed something different than what Lennon said in this interview. JcS I never said Paul said he didn't know about the Hit Parader interview. That was my statement. I forgot that Paul had answered the claim by John when John was alive. I said Paul probably didn't read Hit Parader. I was going to write that he didn't have a subscription to HP with a smiley face. It was a bit tongue in cheek. I immediately admit that, of course, someone could have told Paul about what John said and that is exactly what happened. I stand corrected on my initial statement. So you are right about In My Life. You refreshed my memory. There is a rebuttal from Paul during John's lifetime and John never responded to "correct" Paul so it appears John agreed with Paul in the end. As for the the Eleanor Rigby dispute, there is a witness--Pete Shotton--who contradicts John's story. Shotton said he was present and John did not contribute to any of the words. Shotton was John's friend. I don't know why he would say such a thing if it were not true. |
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Oct 31, 2010 16:35:12 GMT -5
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? It is one thing to fib about the meaning of your own lyric to avert revealing its meaning when you want to keep it private as compared to taking credit for someone else's work. There is a clear distinction. When you essentially call Paul a liar on the issue of taking credit that didn't belong to him, this amounts to challenging the very essence of his integrity. Calling him a liar on an issue of such significance challenges his honor and reputation. The fact that you would do such a thing without real evidence is troubling. How is it that you are so convinced Paul is a liar when he says he collaborated with John on this song or that song. What is your basis for making such a rash judgement? Remember they were songwriting partners. They were part of a team. Do you think John covered every possible detail about how, when and how much they collaborated? John himself said he purposefully diminished Paul's role in his songs by not pointing them out and by its exclusion, leading us to an inaccurate conclusion about their collaboration. I don't know how you can think it is so unheard of that Paul might add more to the picture. So when Keith Richards talks in his book about what he contributed to the Stones songs he is being disloyal to Mick? I don't get it. Yes Mick is still alive. Is that the only reason you give him a pass? Paul could never talk about his collaboration with John after John died! That is not fair at all. Maybe many things hadn't been talked about. John just replied to these questions with a few words, maybe a sentence. Do you think he might have left a couple of things out? Come on be fair. I know most of you resent my championing of Paul's contributions, but you shouldn't try to paint him as a liar just for telling about them. I quote from these various books to show there are more things that went on than you may know. You can question the veracity of the authors. They weren't there, but Paul was. |
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Oct 31, 2010 16:50:01 GMT -5
But John died suddenly and very young. Its unfair to think Paul would have had much of a chance to write about all the hundreds of songs they wrote before he was 38 years of age. AND HE DIDN'T PUT JOHN DOWN IN THE BOOK. Talking about what happened and how they write their songs is not a put down unless you think John walked on water and was responsible for any and all interesting things the Beatles did. As for other people needing to credit him instead of him talking about it, that is a weak point. First of all, many times other people weren't around so how could someone come out and give Paul credit. Secondly, the idea that it is uncool is even weaker. I suppose its uncool to talk about your most celebrated accomplishments because your songwriting partner is dead when people are getting it wrong. It would take a superhuman to sit back and not say anything when you know you contributed more than some misguided people want to give you credit for. Alright someone with patience, please give me some examples of blatant credit taking by Paul that you know is not correct. I was excited at first about the book All Those Years Ago. That was before I ran into the John versus Paul conflict of Message Boards and before I knew who RTP was. And without any agenda on my part, just reading that book really pissed me off because it so marginalized John Lennon. That scoring system used in the book on who wrote what is bullshit! John Lennon never ever wanted to be murdered, never ever wanted that martyrdom and rather than bitch and moan about it, Paul McCartney ought to thank his lucky stars that he has life, life to make music, life to be a father to his children and now life to be a grandfather to his children's children. Paul's legacy was always assured. It was never in danger but Paul felt the need to kill the goose that laid the golden eggs by diminishing John's role. Weakening Lennon's legacy is also weakening McCartney's legacy in the long run. All Those Years Ago sits in the bargain bin now(if it can be found at all). That is what this rag deserves. You are going to have to give me concrete examples of how Paul marginalized John in that book. Did he do so by telling the truth? By busting up some myths? By saying some things that you hadn't heard before about their collaboration? When we have several books now backing up Paul's claims, I don't know how people can continue to call it untrue. I am convinced Paul opened John's mind a bit regarding some of the cutting edge trends. John was not open minded about such things in those days. He has admitted it himself. So by Paul talking about his discovery of some of the progressive ideas in art at the time, he is doing a disservice to John? John must be the avant garde one? Paul avant garde---does not compute! Warning! Warning! This whole attitude doesn't compute. Why do these facts offend you so? Is it just not cool for Paul to talk about these things because John is dead? Seriously I want to know how you see this. |
|
