|
|
Post by ursamajor on Oct 31, 2010 16:55:45 GMT -5
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. The following is John’s description of In My Life to David Sheff during the 1980 Play interview: LENNON: [In My Life] was the first song I wrote that was consciously about my life. Before, we were just writing songs á la Everly Brothers, Buddy Holly—pop songs with no more thought to them than that. The words were almost irrelevant. In My Life started out as a bus journey from my house at 250 Menlove Avenue to town, mentioning all the places I could recall. I wrote it all down and it was boring. So I forgot about it and laid back and these lyrics started coming to me about friends and lovers of the past. Paul helped with the middle eight.44 Paul claims he wrote the entire melody. The following are excerpts of an interview with Paul from Paul McCartney: Many Years From Now, by Barry Miles: MCCARTNEY: I’ll give my memories of writing "In My Life." I arrived at John’s house for a writing session and he had the very nice opening stanzas of the song….But I recall, he didn’t have a tune for it, and my recollection, I think, is at variance with John’s. I said, "Well, you haven’t got a tune, let me just go and work on it." And I went down to the half-landing, where John had a Mellotron, and I sat there and put together a tune based in my mind on Smokey Robinson and the Miracles….So I recall writing the whole melody. Paul’s description of the "writing session" is somewhat ambiguous. He claims he told John, "You haven’t got a tune," but he doesn’t say precisely how John presented the song to him. Did John simply recite the lyrics, show him the written lyrics? If so, it would seem a bit illogical for Paul to state the obvious, "You haven’t got a tune." If someone recites a written lyric without singing a melody, it’s obvious there’s not a tune, so why state the obvious? I suspect what really happened was John had the skeleton of a melody, he played it for Paul, and Paul responded saying, "You haven’t got a tune." Then Paul offered to work on it and flesh out a better, stronger melody. That seems more likely, but to claim that he (Paul) wrote the entire melody doesn’t ring true, and Paul’s description of how the song was written is quite feeble. In addition, biographer Barry Miles made misleading statements (close to outright lies) in his lead-in to Paul’s description of how he wrote the entire melody for In My Life. Miles made the following statements: BARRY MILES: Of all the songs credited to Lennon and McCartney, there are only two that are the subject of contention. In interviews given to Hit Parader, Newsweek, Playboy, Rolling Stone and various other magazines, John described his role in the creation of most of the Beatles’ songs, though his comments were not always consistent. Paul’s recollections in this book were made without reference to John’s published comments and in only two cases was there a substantial disagreement: on "In My Life and "Eleanor Rigby." I will not debate John’s comments about Eleanor Rigby because John has always claimed it essentially Paul’s song, but he (John) help slightly with the lyrics. But focusing on In My Life, perhaps John’s greatest lyrical work, let’s examine Barry Miles’ comments. He said John’s descriptions of the Lennon-McCartney compositions in various magazines were "not always consistent." This is a sneaky comment because Miles is wavering between John’s comments about the entire Lennon-McCartney compositions versus two specific songs. Perhaps John was inconsistent somewhere, but Miles failed to point out where the inconsistencies were. This is vintage spin doctoring. In addition, Miles implies Paul never read John’s published remarks. Miles wrote: "Paul’s recollections in this book were made without reference to John’s published comments…" This is hogwash. McCartney is obsessed with taking as much credit as he possibly can for Lennon-McCartney songs. What Miles is really doing is inoculating the reader to a previous statement John made to Rolling Stone, in 1970, about In My Life, ten years before the Playboy interview. In both interviews, John’s remarks are identical with respect to Paul’s contribution. In both interviews, John said Paul helped with the middle eight. The following is an excerpt from the famous Rolling Stone interview where John answers questions asked by Jann Wenner: WENNER: You also have a song on that album [Rubber Soul], "In My Life." When did you write that? LENNON: I wrote that in Kenwood. I used to write upstairs where I had about ten Brunell tape recorders all linked up—I still have them. I’d mastered them over the period of a year or two. I never make a rock ‘n’ roll record, but I could make some far-out stuff on it. I wrote it upstairs, that was one where I wrote the lyrics first and then sang it. That was usually the case with things like "In My Life" and "Universe" [Across the Universe] and some of the ones that stand out a bit. WENNER: Would you just record yourself and a guitar on a tape and then bring it to the studio? LENNON: I would do that just to get an impression of what it sounded like sung and to hear it back for judging it—you never know til you hear the song yourself. I would double track the guitar or the voice or something on tape. I think on "Norwegian Wood" and "In My Life" Paul helped with the middle eight, to give credit where it’s due. Notice how Jann Wenner framed the first question within the context that John had written In My Life entirely by himself. Then later, John spontaneously gave Paul credit for helping with the melody, without prompting from Wenner. The objective of the interview was not to define who wrote what part of Lennon-McCartney songs. The Rolling Stone interview was free-form, covering many topics. When questions arose about In My Life and Norwegian Wood, John quickly gave credit to Paul for helping with the melodies of both. He said Paul helped with middle eight. This is exactly what John said ten years later while discussing In My Life with David Sheff during a 1980 Playboy interview. Barry Miles suggests John’s comments were inconsistent, but they were surprisingly similar with respect to In My Life. In addition, John defended Paul’s role as co-author when Wenner was under the impression that John had written In My Life completely on his own. This leads to another question: Why did Paul never respond to John’s 1970 remark that he (Paul) helped write the middle eight of In My Life? John was alive for ten years after making the remark to Jann Wenner of Rolling Stone. Yet Paul remained silent, apparently because he knew John was telling the truth. This would explain why Paul waited 27 years after the Rolling Stone interview, and 17 years after John’s death, to publicly claim he wrote the entire melody to In My Life. It’s obvious Paul is lying, but why? In My Life is considered a great song primarily because of the lyrics, not because of the melody. There’s absolutely no way Paul could have written those lyrics; he’s not known for his poetic depth. We’re back to Philip Norman’s description of Paul’s character flaw of wanting to be liked, even if it means betraying his former partner. |
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Oct 31, 2010 17:10:23 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$t? You stoop down to quoting AG just because he "praises Paul"! Let me tell you something, Mr. RTPGoldman ... you'd better thank your lucky stars that your good friend Albert Goldman is dead... because if he was still alive and Paul died, you'd have to read a book about your hero Goldman trashing Paul McCartney. That was your last mistake. I will forevermore refer to you as taking over Albert Goldman's legacy in destroying John Lennon's memory. Just like in the SAW films where the maniac named Jigsaw has entrusted others to carry on his work, so too are you in league with the devil (aka Al Goldman). HAPPY HALLOWEEN! ;D Oops. I had forgotten that Goldman was such an evil hack. I thought things had changed for this newer book because he interviewed Yoko and she told him about John's insecurities about his songwriting. I thought that by Yoko talking to him that was some kind of tacit accession. I apologize for quoting his book. Maybe parts of it were accurate but when I looked him up in Wikipedia most everyone had bad things to say about him. I am sorry for even quoting him in these sections. I had no idea he was that hard on John and even harder on Yoko. I really hadn't read that much of the book. Please forgive me. I 'm going to burn the book-no kidding. I can't believe the BS he wrote. Reading this link kind of made me sick. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lives_of_John_Lennon |
|
|
|
Post by joeyself on Oct 31, 2010 17:14:57 GMT -5
Albert Goldman?? Hold on a minute -- now you're quoting garbage from ALBERT GOLDMAN?? The man who thanked people in his book for giving interviews, and they later showed up on talk shows in 1988 trashing his book and saying that they'd NEVER given an interview?? I think I've just thought up a new name for you--- it shall be RTPGoldman. That suits you to a tee. You're destroying John just the way AG did. You have forever lost all credibility by quoting AG. How dare you quote anything from that lying and manipulating sack of sh$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 Oops. I had forgotten that Goldman was such an evil hack. I thought things had changed for this newer book because he interviewed Yoko and she told him about John's insecurites about his songwriting. I thought that by Yoko talking to him that was some kind of tacit accession. I apologize for quoting his book. Maybe parts of it was accurate but when I looked him up in Wikipedia most everyone had bad things to say about him. I am sorry for even quoting him in these sections. I had no idea he was that hard on John and even harder on Yoko. I really hadn't read that much of the book. Please forgive me. I will burn the book-no kidding. I can't believe the BS he wrote. Reading this link kind of made me sick. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lives_of_John_Lennon You know, you venture too far into revisionism for my tastes, and believe you know what others were thinking even when it contrasts with what they have expressly said, but I know a couple of times during this tourney discussion that you've "manned up" and admitted publicly that you were wrong and/or changed your mind about something. And I admire that quality... JcS |
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Oct 31, 2010 17:27:51 GMT -5
This leads to another question: Why did Paul never respond to John’s 1970 remark that he (Paul) helped write the middle eight of In My Life? John was alive for ten years after making the remark to Jann Wenner of Rolling Stone. Yet Paul remained silent, apparently because he knew John was telling the truth. This would explain why Paul waited 27 years after the Rolling Stone interview, and 17 years after John’s death, to publicly claim he wrote the entire melody to In My Life. It’s obvious Paul is lying, but why? In My Life is considered a great song primarily because of the lyrics, not because of the melody. There’s absolutely no way Paul could have written those lyrics; he’s not known for his poetic depth. We’re back to Philip Norman’s description of Paul’s character flaw of wanting to be liked, even if it means betraying his former partner. This is where you are wrong. Paul did respond to John's claim about In My Life in the 1972 Hit Parader magazine while John was alive. See Joey Self's post. Paul did not remain silent. There are quotes from Paul immediately after John's HP interview in which he disputes John's take on In My Life and says (again while John was alive) that he (Paul) wrote the melody. John never directly contradicted him or said it wasn't true. So Paul did make this claim while John was alive. It is not a betrayal of his former partner. John kept referring to the middle eight but the middle eight doesn't exist in that song. It is verse chorus verse chorus. This confuses me as it did Ian MacDonald, musicologist and writer. The structure of the melody has Paul's hallmarks all over it. John would not use such a range of notes in his songs. The range used in In My Life is all Paul. |
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Oct 31, 2010 17:46:46 GMT -5
I just realized what happened. I swear I got this mixed up with the newer Phillip Norman book from 2008. I remember now that Goldman was evil. I am so sorry for even posting anything from this book. I swear I thought this was the new book on John. I saw the Phillip Norman book in Best Buy last year and bought it. It must have been Norman that interviewed Yoko and told him about John's late night doubts about his songwriting. I really never read that much of Goldman's book. I remember now about the big controversy about Brian Epstein and John and how Paul and Yoko both denounced the book. I just picked it off the shelf and happened to get to the part of the book where John was withdrawing a bit from the group. Someone had made a comment and I was using that section to refute it. I have no idea about the rest of the book because I never bothered to read it. I thought it was a piece of trash. I know I mentioned Albert Goldman, but I didn't equate him to the evil author. In my defense, the covers of the books are very similar.  |
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Oct 31, 2010 18:30:23 GMT -5
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. The following is John’s description of In My Life to David Sheff during the 1980 Play interview: LENNON: [In My Life] was the first song I wrote that was consciously about my life. Before, we were just writing songs á la Everly Brothers, Buddy Holly—pop songs with no more thought to them than that. The words were almost irrelevant. In My Life started out as a bus journey from my house at 250 Menlove Avenue to town, mentioning all the places I could recall. I wrote it all down and it was boring. So I forgot about it and laid back and these lyrics started coming to me about friends and lovers of the past. Paul helped with the middle eight.44 Paul claims he wrote the entire melody. The following are excerpts of an interview with Paul from Paul McCartney: Many Years From Now, by Barry Miles: MCCARTNEY: I’ll give my memories of writing "In My Life." I arrived at John’s house for a writing session and he had the very nice opening stanzas of the song….But I recall, he didn’t have a tune for it, and my recollection, I think, is at variance with John’s. I said, "Well, you haven’t got a tune, let me just go and work on it." And I went down to the half-landing, where John had a Mellotron, and I sat there and put together a tune based in my mind on Smokey Robinson and the Miracles….So I recall writing the whole melody. Paul’s description of the "writing session" is somewhat ambiguous. He claims he told John, "You haven’t got a tune," but he doesn’t say precisely how John presented the song to him. Did John simply recite the lyrics, show him the written lyrics? If so, it would seem a bit illogical for Paul to state the obvious, "You haven’t got a tune." If someone recites a written lyric without singing a melody, it’s obvious there’s not a tune, so why state the obvious? I suspect what really happened was John had the skeleton of a melody, he played it for Paul, and Paul responded saying, "You haven’t got a tune." Then Paul offered to work on it and flesh out a better, stronger melody. That seems more likely, but to claim that he (Paul) wrote the entire melody doesn’t ring true, and Paul’s description of how the song was written is quite feeble. In addition, biographer Barry Miles made misleading statements (close to outright lies) in his lead-in to Paul’s description of how he wrote the entire melody for In My Life. Miles made the following statements: BARRY MILES: Of all the songs credited to Lennon and McCartney, there are only two that are the subject of contention. In interviews given to Hit Parader, Newsweek, Playboy, Rolling Stone and various other magazines, John described his role in the creation of most of the Beatles’ songs, though his comments were not always consistent. Paul’s recollections in this book were made without reference to John’s published comments and in only two cases was there a substantial disagreement: on "In My Life and "Eleanor Rigby." I will not debate John’s comments about Eleanor Rigby because John has always claimed it essentially Paul’s song, but he (John) help slightly with the lyrics. But focusing on In My Life, perhaps John’s greatest lyrical work, let’s examine Barry Miles’ comments. He said John’s descriptions of the Lennon-McCartney compositions in various magazines were "not always consistent." This is a sneaky comment because Miles is wavering between John’s comments about the entire Lennon-McCartney compositions versus two specific songs. Perhaps John was inconsistent somewhere, but Miles failed to point out where the inconsistencies were. This is vintage spin doctoring. In addition, Miles implies Paul never read John’s published remarks. Miles wrote: "Paul’s recollections in this book were made without reference to John’s published comments…" This is hogwash. McCartney is obsessed with taking as much credit as he possibly can for Lennon-McCartney songs. What Miles is really doing is inoculating the reader to a previous statement John made to Rolling Stone, in 1970, about In My Life, ten years before the Playboy interview. In both interviews, John’s remarks are identical with respect to Paul’s contribution. In both interviews, John said Paul helped with the middle eight. The following is an excerpt from the famous Rolling Stone interview where John answers questions asked by Jann Wenner: WENNER: You also have a song on that album [Rubber Soul], "In My Life." When did you write that? LENNON: I wrote that in Kenwood. I used to write upstairs where I had about ten Brunell tape recorders all linked up—I still have them. I’d mastered them over the period of a year or two. I never make a rock ‘n’ roll record, but I could make some far-out stuff on it. I wrote it upstairs, that was one where I wrote the lyrics first and then sang it. That was usually the case with things like "In My Life" and "Universe" [Across the Universe] and some of the ones that stand out a bit. WENNER: Would you just record yourself and a guitar on a tape and then bring it to the studio? LENNON: I would do that just to get an impression of what it sounded like sung and to hear it back for judging it—you never know til you hear the song yourself. I would double track the guitar or the voice or something on tape. I think on "Norwegian Wood" and "In My Life" Paul helped with the middle eight, to give credit where it’s due. Notice how Jann Wenner framed the first question within the context that John had written In My Life entirely by himself. Then later, John spontaneously gave Paul credit for helping with the melody, without prompting from Wenner. The objective of the interview was not to define who wrote what part of Lennon-McCartney songs. The Rolling Stone interview was free-form, covering many topics. When questions arose about In My Life and Norwegian Wood, John quickly gave credit to Paul for helping with the melodies of both. He said Paul helped with middle eight. This is exactly what John said ten years later while discussing In My Life with David Sheff during a 1980 Playboy interview. Barry Miles suggests John’s comments were inconsistent, but they were surprisingly similar with respect to In My Life. In addition, John defended Paul’s role as co-author when Wenner was under the impression that John had written In My Life completely on his own. This leads to another question: Why did Paul never respond to John’s 1970 remark that he (Paul) helped write the middle eight of In My Life? John was alive for ten years after making the remark to Jann Wenner of Rolling Stone. Yet Paul remained silent, apparently because he knew John was telling the truth. This would explain why Paul waited 27 years after the Rolling Stone interview, and 17 years after John’s death, to publicly claim he wrote the entire melody to In My Life. It’s obvious Paul is lying, but why? In My Life is considered a great song primarily because of the lyrics, not because of the melody. There’s absolutely no way Paul could have written those lyrics; he’s not known for his poetic depth. We’re back to Philip Norman’s description of Paul’s character flaw of wanting to be liked, even if it means betraying his former partner. This is what happened regarding In My Life. John had written the lyric about his childhood. He wrote it as a poem but when he showed it to Paul it wasn't the final and complete version we know today. John may have had a vague idea about a melody for it, but it was rejected. Here is the evidence. When you look at the existing lyric sheet from their songwriting session, you can see that the lyric was reworked during the session. There are many words that have been lined out and replaced with new words. If you look at the original words which can be read through the line-outs you can see that they don't scan to the final melody. This indicates that if there was an original melody, it was rejected. There was a lot of rewriting during that session which backs up Paul's take on it. |
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Oct 31, 2010 18:52:55 GMT -5
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. Shotton also siad that he, Neil and Ringo contributed to the lyrics. And George came up with the "Ah, look at all the lonely people". And Paul didn't even think up a fictional name for Eleanor Rigby. What page of Many Years From Now does Paul give credit to others for half of the lyrics to leanor Rigby? I also missed the part where Mal Evans is credited for the lyrics he contributed to Sgt Pepper and Fixing A Whole. I would give Paul a lot more credit if he was free with the credit he gave. Could you ever imagine him doing what George did, helping Ringo write his It Don't Come Easy without grabbing credit? Can anyone here imagine that? |
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Oct 31, 2010 18:56:30 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. See, I really don't need to contribute to these discussions. Joe K. really has it covered. What Joe describes is my exact experience, which is why I sometimes wonder if Paul didn't somehow piss off RTPGoldman at some point, and RTPG has made it his goal in life to come to Beatle boards and get everyone to hate Paul McCartney, that is certainly the effect it has on me. |
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Oct 31, 2010 19:01:57 GMT -5
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. Convoluted logic, but at least your answer is there for all to assess. Personally I find the distinction tenuous at best, and do consider your take on this hypocritical. Before this goes further, I am not calling you a hypocrite personally, I am in no postion to judge that. However, I am calling your position that it is ok for you to call Paul a liar but not if I do (which, again, technically I have not, to my knowledge you're the only one here that has actually called him a liar thus far. Some fan.) |
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Oct 31, 2010 19:06:26 GMT -5
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. The following is John’s description of In My Life to David Sheff during the 1980 Play interview: LENNON: [In My Life] was the first song I wrote that was consciously about my life. Before, we were just writing songs á la Everly Brothers, Buddy Holly—pop songs with no more thought to them than that. The words were almost irrelevant. In My Life started out as a bus journey from my house at 250 Menlove Avenue to town, mentioning all the places I could recall. I wrote it all down and it was boring. So I forgot about it and laid back and these lyrics started coming to me about friends and lovers of the past. Paul helped with the middle eight.44 Paul claims he wrote the entire melody. The following are excerpts of an interview with Paul from Paul McCartney: Many Years From Now, by Barry Miles: MCCARTNEY: I’ll give my memories of writing "In My Life." I arrived at John’s house for a writing session and he had the very nice opening stanzas of the song….But I recall, he didn’t have a tune for it, and my recollection, I think, is at variance with John’s. I said, "Well, you haven’t got a tune, let me just go and work on it." And I went down to the half-landing, where John had a Mellotron, and I sat there and put together a tune based in my mind on Smokey Robinson and the Miracles….So I recall writing the whole melody. Paul’s description of the "writing session" is somewhat ambiguous. He claims he told John, "You haven’t got a tune," but he doesn’t say precisely how John presented the song to him. Did John simply recite the lyrics, show him the written lyrics? If so, it would seem a bit illogical for Paul to state the obvious, "You haven’t got a tune." If someone recites a written lyric without singing a melody, it’s obvious there’s not a tune, so why state the obvious? I suspect what really happened was John had the skeleton of a melody, he played it for Paul, and Paul responded saying, "You haven’t got a tune." Then Paul offered to work on it and flesh out a better, stronger melody. That seems more likely, but to claim that he (Paul) wrote the entire melody doesn’t ring true, and Paul’s description of how the song was written is quite feeble. In addition, biographer Barry Miles made misleading statements (close to outright lies) in his lead-in to Paul’s description of how he wrote the entire melody for In My Life. Miles made the following statements: BARRY MILES: Of all the songs credited to Lennon and McCartney, there are only two that are the subject of contention. In interviews given to Hit Parader, Newsweek, Playboy, Rolling Stone and various other magazines, John described his role in the creation of most of the Beatles’ songs, though his comments were not always consistent. Paul’s recollections in this book were made without reference to John’s published comments and in only two cases was there a substantial disagreement: on "In My Life and "Eleanor Rigby." I will not debate John’s comments about Eleanor Rigby because John has always claimed it essentially Paul’s song, but he (John) help slightly with the lyrics. But focusing on In My Life, perhaps John’s greatest lyrical work, let’s examine Barry Miles’ comments. He said John’s descriptions of the Lennon-McCartney compositions in various magazines were "not always consistent." This is a sneaky comment because Miles is wavering between John’s comments about the entire Lennon-McCartney compositions versus two specific songs. Perhaps John was inconsistent somewhere, but Miles failed to point out where the inconsistencies were. This is vintage spin doctoring. In addition, Miles implies Paul never read John’s published remarks. Miles wrote: "Paul’s recollections in this book were made without reference to John’s published comments…" This is hogwash. McCartney is obsessed with taking as much credit as he possibly can for Lennon-McCartney songs. What Miles is really doing is inoculating the reader to a previous statement John made to Rolling Stone, in 1970, about In My Life, ten years before the Playboy interview. In both interviews, John’s remarks are identical with respect to Paul’s contribution. In both interviews, John said Paul helped with the middle eight. The following is an excerpt from the famous Rolling Stone interview where John answers questions asked by Jann Wenner: WENNER: You also have a song on that album [Rubber Soul], "In My Life." When did you write that? LENNON: I wrote that in Kenwood. I used to write upstairs where I had about ten Brunell tape recorders all linked up—I still have them. I’d mastered them over the period of a year or two. I never make a rock ‘n’ roll record, but I could make some far-out stuff on it. I wrote it upstairs, that was one where I wrote the lyrics first and then sang it. That was usually the case with things like "In My Life" and "Universe" [Across the Universe] and some of the ones that stand out a bit. WENNER: Would you just record yourself and a guitar on a tape and then bring it to the studio? LENNON: I would do that just to get an impression of what it sounded like sung and to hear it back for judging it—you never know til you hear the song yourself. I would double track the guitar or the voice or something on tape. I think on "Norwegian Wood" and "In My Life" Paul helped with the middle eight, to give credit where it’s due. Notice how Jann Wenner framed the first question within the context that John had written In My Life entirely by himself. Then later, John spontaneously gave Paul credit for helping with the melody, without prompting from Wenner. The objective of the interview was not to define who wrote what part of Lennon-McCartney songs. The Rolling Stone interview was free-form, covering many topics. When questions arose about In My Life and Norwegian Wood, John quickly gave credit to Paul for helping with the melodies of both. He said Paul helped with middle eight. This is exactly what John said ten years later while discussing In My Life with David Sheff during a 1980 Playboy interview. Barry Miles suggests John’s comments were inconsistent, but they were surprisingly similar with respect to In My Life. In addition, John defended Paul’s role as co-author when Wenner was under the impression that John had written In My Life completely on his own. This leads to another question: Why did Paul never respond to John’s 1970 remark that he (Paul) helped write the middle eight of In My Life? John was alive for ten years after making the remark to Jann Wenner of Rolling Stone. Yet Paul remained silent, apparently because he knew John was telling the truth. This would explain why Paul waited 27 years after the Rolling Stone interview, and 17 years after John’s death, to publicly claim he wrote the entire melody to In My Life. It’s obvious Paul is lying, but why? In My Life is considered a great song primarily because of the lyrics, not because of the melody. There’s absolutely no way Paul could have written those lyrics; he’s not known for his poetic depth. We’re back to Philip Norman’s description of Paul’s character flaw of wanting to be liked, even if it means betraying his former partner. Ursamajor, thanks for doing the homework that I have no patience for...this is a great analysis. By the way, does anyone know when John acquired a mellotron? |
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Oct 31, 2010 19:10:18 GMT -5
This leads to another question: Why did Paul never respond to John’s 1970 remark that he (Paul) helped write the middle eight of In My Life? John was alive for ten years after making the remark to Jann Wenner of Rolling Stone. Yet Paul remained silent, apparently because he knew John was telling the truth. This would explain why Paul waited 27 years after the Rolling Stone interview, and 17 years after John’s death, to publicly claim he wrote the entire melody to In My Life. It’s obvious Paul is lying, but why? In My Life is considered a great song primarily because of the lyrics, not because of the melody. There’s absolutely no way Paul could have written those lyrics; he’s not known for his poetic depth. We’re back to Philip Norman’s description of Paul’s character flaw of wanting to be liked, even if it means betraying his former partner. This is where you are wrong. Paul did respond to John's claim about In My Life in the 1972 Hit Parader magazine while John was alive. See Joey Self's post. Paul did not remain silent. There are quotes from Paul immediately after John's HP interview in which he disputes John's take on In My Life and says (again while John was alive) that he (Paul) wrote the melody. John never directly contradicted him or said it wasn't true. So Paul did make this claim while John was alive. It is not a betrayal of his former partner. John kept referring to the middle eight but the middle eight doesn't exist in that song. It is verse chorus verse chorus. This confuses me as it did Ian MacDonald, musicologist and writer. The structure of the melody has Paul's hallmarks all over it. John would not use such a range of notes in his songs. The range used in In My Life is all Paul. Is that a different Ian McDonald than the one Paul said got 90% of it wrong, because he was the only one in the room with John and not Ian? Is Ian McDonald a very common name in England or is this an amazing coincidence? Seriously, RTP, why don't you quote those parts of Revolution In The Head that contradict Paul's claims? It's this one-sideness that drives us the other way. |
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Oct 31, 2010 20:29:22 GMT -5
Revolution In The Head is a GREAT book and I will defend it to the ends of the earth, but I am also absolutely clear that it is primarily analysis and opinion. But it is thoughtful, insightful, thought provoking, and brilliantly written. And while Paul may very well say it got 90% wrong, I think that means he didn't read it very carefully - there's not that much in it which is the sort of thing to be wrong in the sense Paul means.
|
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Oct 31, 2010 20:37:34 GMT -5
This is where you are wrong. Paul did respond to John's claim about In My Life in the 1972 Hit Parader magazine while John was alive. See Joey Self's post. Paul did not remain silent. There are quotes from Paul immediately after John's HP interview in which he disputes John's take on In My Life and says (again while John was alive) that he (Paul) wrote the melody. John never directly contradicted him or said it wasn't true. So Paul did make this claim while John was alive. It is not a betrayal of his former partner. John kept referring to the middle eight but the middle eight doesn't exist in that song. It is verse chorus verse chorus. This confuses me as it did Ian MacDonald, musicologist and writer. The structure of the melody has Paul's hallmarks all over it. John would not use such a range of notes in his songs. The range used in In My Life is all Paul. Is that a different Ian McDonald than the one Paul said got 90% of it wrong, because he was the only one in the room with John and not Ian? Is Ian McDonald a very common name in England or is this an amazing coincidence? Seriously, RTP, why don't you quote those parts of Revolution In The Head that contradict Paul's claims? It's this one-sideness that drives us the other way. Its the same one. Just as you said in your post, I guess he didn't get everything wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Oct 31, 2010 20:39:54 GMT -5
Revolution In The Head is a GREAT book and I will defend it to the ends of the earth, but I am also absolutely clear that it is primarily analysis and opinion. But it is thoughtful, insightful, thought provoking, and brilliantly written. And while Paul may very well say it got 90% wrong, I think that means he didn't read it very carefully - there's not that much in it which is the sort of thing to be wrong in the sense Paul means. But analysis and even opinion can be off the mark. I know what you mean in the sense that the facts were pretty well on target. |
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Oct 31, 2010 20:48:53 GMT -5
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. See, I really don't need to contribute to these discussions. Joe K. really has it covered. What Joe describes is my exact experience, which is why I sometimes wonder if Paul didn't somehow piss off RTPGoldman at some point, and RTPG has made it his goal in life to come to Beatle boards and get everyone to hate Paul McCartney, that is certainly the effect it has on me. I said it was wrong to quote that stupid book. I said it was a mistake and I apologize to anyone who was offended. I just got mixed up on the authors. I got Phillip Norman mixed up with Goldman. The part of the book I was reading didn't involve the most horrible lies about John and Yoko. What Goldman did makes me sick.  I was reminded of it all from that Wikipedia link. He is the lowest form of human being--making up unsubstantiated allegations. Yoko, Paul, Cynthia Lennon, George Martin, and many others called the book a load of crap. Goldman accused John of murder. I had never heard the part about Goldman accusing John of causing Yoko's miscarriage. That has never been even suggested by anyone else and it is despicable. |
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Nov 1, 2010 6:04:51 GMT -5
But analysis and even opinion can be off the mark. Yes indeed! But MacDonald's analysis is always interesting and well-informed - his technical background means that he can discuss musical structure, recording techniques etc. from an informed viewpoint - and he clearly knows every last second of every recording backwards, forwards and sideways - there are voluminous footnotes pointing out where wrong notes fall, smiles can be heard and so on. And his opinion is always well-reasoned albeit, being opinion, you don't have to agree with it. I think the thing that may have got McCartney's goat is the fact that he's not an apologist, which he makes quite clear in his introduction. |
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on Nov 1, 2010 6:28:16 GMT -5
The following is John’s description of In My Life to David Sheff during the 1980 Play interview: LENNON: [In My Life] was the first song I wrote that was consciously about my life. Before, we were just writing songs á la Everly Brothers, Buddy Holly—pop songs with no more thought to them than that. The words were almost irrelevant. In My Life started out as a bus journey from my house at 250 Menlove Avenue to town, mentioning all the places I could recall. I wrote it all down and it was boring. So I forgot about it and laid back and these lyrics started coming to me about friends and lovers of the past. Paul helped with the middle eight.44 Paul claims he wrote the entire melody. The following are excerpts of an interview with Paul from Paul McCartney: Many Years From Now, by Barry Miles: MCCARTNEY: I’ll give my memories of writing "In My Life." I arrived at John’s house for a writing session and he had the very nice opening stanzas of the song….But I recall, he didn’t have a tune for it, and my recollection, I think, is at variance with John’s. I said, "Well, you haven’t got a tune, let me just go and work on it." And I went down to the half-landing, where John had a Mellotron, and I sat there and put together a tune based in my mind on Smokey Robinson and the Miracles….So I recall writing the whole melody. Paul’s description of the "writing session" is somewhat ambiguous. He claims he told John, "You haven’t got a tune," but he doesn’t say precisely how John presented the song to him. Did John simply recite the lyrics, show him the written lyrics? If so, it would seem a bit illogical for Paul to state the obvious, "You haven’t got a tune." If someone recites a written lyric without singing a melody, it’s obvious there’s not a tune, so why state the obvious? I suspect what really happened was John had the skeleton of a melody, he played it for Paul, and Paul responded saying, "You haven’t got a tune." Then Paul offered to work on it and flesh out a better, stronger melody. That seems more likely, but to claim that he (Paul) wrote the entire melody doesn’t ring true, and Paul’s description of how the song was written is quite feeble. In addition, biographer Barry Miles made misleading statements (close to outright lies) in his lead-in to Paul’s description of how he wrote the entire melody for In My Life. Miles made the following statements: BARRY MILES: Of all the songs credited to Lennon and McCartney, there are only two that are the subject of contention. In interviews given to Hit Parader, Newsweek, Playboy, Rolling Stone and various other magazines, John described his role in the creation of most of the Beatles’ songs, though his comments were not always consistent. Paul’s recollections in this book were made without reference to John’s published comments and in only two cases was there a substantial disagreement: on "In My Life and "Eleanor Rigby." I will not debate John’s comments about Eleanor Rigby because John has always claimed it essentially Paul’s song, but he (John) help slightly with the lyrics. But focusing on In My Life, perhaps John’s greatest lyrical work, let’s examine Barry Miles’ comments. He said John’s descriptions of the Lennon-McCartney compositions in various magazines were "not always consistent." This is a sneaky comment because Miles is wavering between John’s comments about the entire Lennon-McCartney compositions versus two specific songs. Perhaps John was inconsistent somewhere, but Miles failed to point out where the inconsistencies were. This is vintage spin doctoring. In addition, Miles implies Paul never read John’s published remarks. Miles wrote: "Paul’s recollections in this book were made without reference to John’s published comments…" This is hogwash. McCartney is obsessed with taking as much credit as he possibly can for Lennon-McCartney songs. What Miles is really doing is inoculating the reader to a previous statement John made to Rolling Stone, in 1970, about In My Life, ten years before the Playboy interview. In both interviews, John’s remarks are identical with respect to Paul’s contribution. In both interviews, John said Paul helped with the middle eight. The following is an excerpt from the famous Rolling Stone interview where John answers questions asked by Jann Wenner: WENNER: You also have a song on that album [Rubber Soul], "In My Life." When did you write that? LENNON: I wrote that in Kenwood. I used to write upstairs where I had about ten Brunell tape recorders all linked up—I still have them. I’d mastered them over the period of a year or two. I never make a rock ‘n’ roll record, but I could make some far-out stuff on it. I wrote it upstairs, that was one where I wrote the lyrics first and then sang it. That was usually the case with things like "In My Life" and "Universe" [Across the Universe] and some of the ones that stand out a bit. WENNER: Would you just record yourself and a guitar on a tape and then bring it to the studio? LENNON: I would do that just to get an impression of what it sounded like sung and to hear it back for judging it—you never know til you hear the song yourself. I would double track the guitar or the voice or something on tape. I think on "Norwegian Wood" and "In My Life" Paul helped with the middle eight, to give credit where it’s due. Notice how Jann Wenner framed the first question within the context that John had written In My Life entirely by himself. Then later, John spontaneously gave Paul credit for helping with the melody, without prompting from Wenner. The objective of the interview was not to define who wrote what part of Lennon-McCartney songs. The Rolling Stone interview was free-form, covering many topics. When questions arose about In My Life and Norwegian Wood, John quickly gave credit to Paul for helping with the melodies of both. He said Paul helped with middle eight. This is exactly what John said ten years later while discussing In My Life with David Sheff during a 1980 Playboy interview. Barry Miles suggests John’s comments were inconsistent, but they were surprisingly similar with respect to In My Life. In addition, John defended Paul’s role as co-author when Wenner was under the impression that John had written In My Life completely on his own. This leads to another question: Why did Paul never respond to John’s 1970 remark that he (Paul) helped write the middle eight of In My Life? John was alive for ten years after making the remark to Jann Wenner of Rolling Stone. Yet Paul remained silent, apparently because he knew John was telling the truth. This would explain why Paul waited 27 years after the Rolling Stone interview, and 17 years after John’s death, to publicly claim he wrote the entire melody to In My Life. It’s obvious Paul is lying, but why? In My Life is considered a great song primarily because of the lyrics, not because of the melody. There’s absolutely no way Paul could have written those lyrics; he’s not known for his poetic depth. We’re back to Philip Norman’s description of Paul’s character flaw of wanting to be liked, even if it means betraying his former partner. This is what happened regarding In My Life. John had written the lyric about his childhood. He wrote it as a poem but when he showed it to Paul it wasn't the final and complete version we know today. John may have had a vague idea about a melody for it, but it was rejected. Here is the evidence. When you look at the existing lyric sheet from their songwriting session, you can see that the lyric was reworked during the session. There are many words that have been lined out and replaced with new words. If you look at the original words which can be read through the line-outs you can see that they don't scan to the final melody. This indicates that if there was an original melody, it was rejected. There was a lot of rewriting during that session which backs up Paul's take on it. RTP , your post is full of contradictions. Paul said John already had the "nice opening stanzas of the song". This has to mean that he had a melody to go with the words, otherwise what would be so nice about it ? It seems obvious that Paul was able to flesh the song's melody out more and he deserves and he is given credit by John on two occasions. The issue is that Paul claims he wrote the whole melody and that John said he helped with the melody. Now we can argue back and forth to our hearts content but they are the only two people who would really know. If we could get them in a room together and ask them the same question I'm sure we'd finally get our answer but we can't. |
|
|
|
Post by joeyself on Nov 1, 2010 7:14:38 GMT -5
Now we can argue back and forth to our hearts content but they are the only two people who would really know. If we could get them in a room together and ask them the same question I'm sure we'd finally get our answer but we can't. The answer you might get would be that the two of them couldn't agree. Married people can do that all the time... JcS |
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Nov 1, 2010 12:01:09 GMT -5
Well, one of them can!
|
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Nov 1, 2010 12:36:36 GMT -5
Shotton also siad that he, Neil and Ringo contributed to the lyrics. In Pete Shotton's excellent book he talks about the writing of "Eleanor Rigby," which I think is a good thumbnail description of how a lot of those songs were written. It was sort of a bull session at John's house and there was a whole bunch of people present and everybody was throwing out suggestions. One of the original lines was "Father McCartney" but they nixed that line for personal reasons and actually thumbed through a phone book under the Mac section until they came up with "McKenzie" which was similar enough in phonetics to work as a lyric. Shotton by the way credits himself with the line that brought the song together -- suggesting they end the song with the preacher presiding over the funeral, bringing the two lonely characters together at the end, but ironically too late to connect. But Shotton defers ultimate credit to the Beatles saying that he just happened to be there at the songwriting session chipping in with suggestions, but that the Beatles would've come up with the ideas themselves -- they were the geniuses after all -- no matter who happened to be there at the time. He also says that Lennon was completely unhelpful during the session and even made cutting, disparaging remarks about Shotton's suggestions. |
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on Nov 1, 2010 15:11:35 GMT -5
Paul's account is vague and questionable and he uses Barry Miles' spin doctoring as a lead in to make his "version" believeable and in the end he backed down. I've already quoted this before. So for all you Paulites, In My Life is a John Lennon song on which Paul helped with the melody. |
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Nov 1, 2010 20:10:26 GMT -5
I was actually talking about married people not being able to agree, and observing that my wife can even when I can't. Like all humour, if you have to explain it then it didn't work! It was my way of reacting to yet another of the "Paul wrote 57%""Yes, but John wrote 66%" exercises in utter futility.
|
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on Nov 1, 2010 21:30:47 GMT -5
I was actually talking about married people not being able to agree, and observing that my wife can even when I can't. Like all humour, if you have to explain it then it didn't work! It was my way of reacting to yet another of the "Paul wrote 57%""Yes, but John wrote 66%" exercises in utter futility. You're English, you don't have a sense of humour ;D |
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Nov 2, 2010 8:37:14 GMT -5
I suppose you realise this means war....
|
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Nov 2, 2010 8:37:44 GMT -5
Al least I understand irony...
|
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Nov 2, 2010 8:38:02 GMT -5
...and subtlety...
|
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Nov 2, 2010 8:38:23 GMT -5
...and running gags...
|
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Nov 2, 2010 8:39:45 GMT -5
Shame about In His Own Write and A Spaniard In The Works though. Not a chuckle amongst 'em. Those humourless Brits, eh? (PS we can spell correctly, too  ) |
|
|
|
Post by joeyself on Nov 2, 2010 10:38:26 GMT -5
I suppose you realise this means war.... War? From a member of a nation that marks a retreat as its greatest military accomplishment of the 20th Century? ;D  JcS |
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Nov 2, 2010 11:18:29 GMT -5
Joey! Honestly! My granddad was in the Royal Navy at Dunkirk, so I choose to regard that as a victory snatched from the jaws of defeat.
|
|
I was reminded of it all from that Wikipedia link. He is the lowest form of human being--making up unsubstantiated allegations. Yoko, Paul, Cynthia Lennon, George Martin, and many others called the book a load of crap. Goldman accused John of murder. I had never heard the part about Goldman accusing John of causing Yoko's miscarriage. That has never been even suggested by anyone else and it is despicable.
)
