|
Post by John S. Damm on Jun 30, 2013 15:06:30 GMT -5
Are you kidding? Go up as an adult and actually talk to children -- in THIS current PC world!?? That's funny. I guess as long as you don't start off the conversation with ,"Hello, little girl, heh heh, what's your name? Heh, heh. Is your mommy around? No? Heh Heh, can I buy you an ice cream? Heh heh" you'll be okay - "heh heh". Or recite verbatim The Beatles' "Little Child" lyrics!
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jun 30, 2013 15:13:29 GMT -5
Perhaps he is a pretty man, but not a very pretty woman! I must say, I too thought this was an early photo of scousette from the 60s or 70s! No offense, scousette, and I mean this in a complimentary fashion -- but I am relieved to know that this is NOT a photo of you! LOL I see many here need to take a Tony Hicks 101 course! Thanks for the compliment, Joe. I look nothing like Tony Hicks. I am hoping that the recent U.S. Supreme Court cases will someday allow me to walk down the aisle with Tony Hicks, lead guitarist of The Hollies, in Indiana as man and wife, or is it man and man? My one-time only man-crush thing is confusing(I am so over John Oates, you know, the short, dark, perky one from Hall & Oates).
|
|
|
Post by nicole21290 on Jul 1, 2013 6:24:46 GMT -5
*takes a deep breath* Okay. So, I have been following this thread and, quite honestly, it's raised my hackles as it were a number of times - both the whole idea of it and the actual discussion and quotes within. So, I thought as a reasonably young person I'd give my perspective. Before the end of 2009 (when I was 19), my knowledge of The Beatles as a group consisted of recognising a number of their more famous songs. I might've been able to tell you the names of all them bar George and I MAYBE might have been able to tell you which one was John in a picture (if it was post-1966 and he was wearing glasses...). Oh this thread, I've seen it mentioned that because John has been dead SUCH a long time, young people see a lot more of Paul and thus identify with him more and thus think he WAS The Beatles. To be quite honest, I have never come across this view of things in any discussion I've had either with non-fans or fans in real life or on the internet. And these ARE mostly people aged 15-25... Anyway, my view of the solo!Beatles before I became a fan was thus: a cursory knowledge of some hit songs without any real knowledge of the men behind the music (bar John, who I recognised as the 'peace' guy who sang Imagine with the Japanese lady...) - I probably knew Watching the Wheels, Imagine, Instant Karma, Band on the Run, Live and Let Die and My Sweet Lord. That's it. I don't recall taking ANY notice of Paul McCartney at any 'big' events, never got to see him live, never randomly came across him preaching his 'leader of The Beatles' scriptures. When I discovered The Beatles, I didn't immediately gravitate towards Paul solely because he's the primary songwriter who's still alive and performing; I did not latch onto him as my favourite simply because there were more live performances and interviews with him on YouTube. No, I downloaded every single group and solo album and listened to them all. I didn't know who sang which song, I didn't know who wrote each song (in the group). I basically had their catalogues on repeat for the next few months, and collected as many alternate takes, demos and outtakes as I could. I found I naturally felt closer to Paul's music, his lyrics, his attitude and that was in NO WAY influenced by the fact that Lennon is dead and that Paul is still alive. It was in NO WAY influenced by Paul wanting credits changed ONLY on live performances of songs primarily written BY him on a LIVE album, for example, nor was it influenced by seeing him perform Hey Jude at award shows... As I listened to the music, I also began researching. I watched as many interviews as I could on YouTube (with ALL The Beatles, group and solo) from 1963 through to 2009. I watched as many live performances as I could find from The Cavern through to Paul's 2009 Grammys appearance. I hunted through the internet and collected thousands of pictures. I read and read and read and listened to other interviews, older ones, newer ones, contradictory ones, anything and everything. I bought about 30 Beatles related biographies and books over the next few months, bought many magazines and articles off of eBay, purchased basically every official Beatles/McCartney/Lennon/Harrison DVD I could find. And yes, Paul was and remains my favourite. It does not mean I take his word as gospel every time he opens his mouth. It does not mean I think John Lennon was some cruel bastard who rode on the coattails of his friends. It does not mean I ignore the role George and Ringo played in the success of The Beatles. It does not mean I scour the internet for Paul news and ignore anything related to one of the other Beatles. Paul cannot help that John is dead. Or that George is dead. He does not control the world's media and cannot demand they cover Lennon and Harrison in the news and music media as much as they cover him. He cannot force his fans to equally respect and enjoy John's music and legacy. He cannot simply say 'Oh, I'm not going to close your show; it's not fair because young people might get the wrong impression and think I wrote all these songs ALL on my own and they might forget my musical partner's role in my success and this music'. Neither do I think it fair to say 'oh, young people merely seem to like Paul more because he's more visible in their world'. Is that not a tad judgmental? Why can't they like Paul more simply because they find more to connect with him as a person and in his music? For me, I ADMIRE John's music more than I like it. I ADMIRE him as a person more than I like him. I find a lot of his solo music difficult to listen to because a fair chunk of it I don't like the production of or I find it either lyrically too narrow (JohnandYoko can relate only) or too broad (rallying the troops to activism) etc. I find things like Sometime In NYC VERY dated and thus I find that hard to listen to also. Paul's music on the other hand I find much more universal and relatable. Yes, he has some terribly bad lyrics at certain points in his career (see many Pipes of Peace songs, in my mind) and has made shocking career missteps (Broadstreet). He has said some jerkish things in interviews as well and can be incredibly hammy and on-the-surface which I know pisses a lot of people of. HOWEVER, I truly don't think there's some giant change in the world wherein John is being denigrated and marginalised and Paul is being seen as THE Beatles. Yes, the print and the media have altered their views on Paul in the past decade or so - for the better, I think. And yes, sometimes the same press and media have pointed out some possible flaws in John's character/music/etc that they may not have in the past. However, if we look, for example, at the coverage for their respective 70th birthdays, it would be hard to say that Paul is somehow monopolising the media in Beatles coverage. John's name is out there - but yes, more as a 'legend' or an 'icon'. That really can't be helped. He no longer is making music, nor conducting interviews, nor playing live. And Paul can't do a damn thing about it so it sounds a bit harsh to me to be so hard on the man simply for the fact that he's still alive and promoting his own material still... I would like to see concrete examples of Paul doing John down or making him seem less than he is. The few that commonly get brought up are a tiny, tiny, tiny sample of the HUGE number of times in the big media interviews etc where Paul talks John UP. As long as people discover The Beatles, they will either stop with a general overview of the catalogue and the hits OR they will go further. They're unlikely to simply go 'Oh, The Beatles. I like them. I think I'll become obsessed with them but solely with McCartney after the band. Lennon isn't alive anymore so I shan't bother looking into his career anymore, regardless of the fact that the general public still holds him in high esteem and as far as longdead musicians go, he's still fairly visible'. As I was saying, the media uses Lennon's name as much as it's really possible to - news articles still get written about him. It's difficult as there's not much new 'news' but they do it - he gets read and people are still interested. People will always be more interested in John as a person and a character than Paul in the media, so far as I can see. He makes better reading... Anyway, the media might be more respectful and worshipful of Paul these days as may Beatles fans. BUT I don't think that's necessarily true of the general public, to be quite honest. How many articles (particularly in the British media) will publish something about Paul and have a large proportion of the comments be criticising his hair, his family, his music? I think Paul is still measured by his WORST songs in a way John never has been or ever will be. You see people go 'Oh, but he wrote The Frog's Chorus! He wrote that horrid Christmas song! He wrote Mull of Kintyre! Maxwell! etc' still in a way people don't ever do with John's lesser songs. Of which there are actually some, believe it or not! Yes, perhaps it's because he was smart enough not to release them as singles but still. I still find, both in the media and the general public, people more willing to apologise and defend John rather than Paul. Musically and in terms of being 'deep' and 'thoughtful'. Anyway, this was not a reply to any specific comment and ended up being a total mishmosh of thoughts off the top of my head. Forgive me for the rantiness and the over-the-top and all-over-the-place nature of the post. I just have SO many issues with a lot of comments in this thread that I didn't know where to start. Yes, a lot of it is all in 'fun' and a bit of a laugh BUT I find this over-defensiveness simply because Paul seems to be gaining interest and respect and musical credibility (esp. amongst us 'young people') and John is no longer alive to do that VERY frustrating and counter-intuitive to promoting The Beatles, either as a whole or as solo artists.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jul 1, 2013 8:13:44 GMT -5
..so am I... -- so then you couldn't have been around from 1980 to 1989 when it was Paul McCartney who was crying that he was now considered "in John's shadow". Then our experiences have been different. I'm not surprised. I think John's being dead and Paul being "real" to you does in a way influence you, even if it's unconscious. Please. You are too young to know, but I could say this same thing in REVERSE -- and in fact, I HAVE. When Paul and his fans were complaining that John seemed to get all the attention after his death, I said: "It's not John's fault that he's dead. John can't help that. John also can't help that his death has made him something of a martyr or saint-like figure, which is something he never wanted. John cannot force fans to equally respect Paul and his music. " (etc).. We have had RTP here (ReturnToPepperland) making it his life's mission to "defend" Paul and try to "restore the understanding that the Beatles was not only about John". First of all, it doesn't mean that "every" Paul fan out there "only" likes Paul because he's still around and active. I'm not suggesting it is "one size fits all" that applies to every Paul fan. However, I do believe that a lot of fans these days unconsciously do gravitate to Paul because he is still "real" to them and part of their active world today, whether they are aware of it having an influence on them or not. Some can, and they do. I'm not saying "all" -- that is your misperception. But I have definitely seen a change these days with young people than I saw in, say, 1985. Right, because John died in 1980 and all we've got are mostly political and outdated works from the old 1970s. if John hadn't died and had made a variety of different soundings music in the 80s, 90s, 00s and 10s, perhaps you would feel differently. Sorry, Nicole, but you aren't qualified to see the change because you weren't born until around 1990 (if my math is close enough). It used to be "all about John", and Paul was like "the other guy". I am not saying I approved of that -- I didn't, and I felt bad for Paul... but if you were around both then as well as now, you would sense the change in the opposite direction. (And that's not right either). I have said the same thing in reverse. I think it was "harsh" for Paul to refer to John as "Martin Luther Lennon" after John was killed and naturally took on some sort of prominence in the wake of his assassination. It's not John's fault he was murdered... not John's fault that he became larger than Paul in death... at least Paul was still alive. And by the way, I am not being "harsh on Paul", and I am not faulting him for continuing making different music and making so many appearances and public projects -- I think it's very important that Paul does these things and I would never want him to ever stop. I am not "judging" Paul; I am merely telling it like it is. Paul has now eclipsed John, after over a decade of bellyaching that John had eclipsed him. And I would like to see concrete examples where I (or others) have said that Paul talks John down? I'm sick of hearing this particular straw man argument; I have never claimed that Paul talks down about John; quite the opposite, in fact -- Paul has always talked John UP, and Paul defended Lennon many times against the press and vicious tabloid reports, like the Albert Goldman book. However, I DO feel that Paul has tried to claim too much credit for John's songs... But I am a record collector, and I belong to "The Vinyl Community" on YouTube. I constantly see videos of fans showing off their Beatles and solo Beatles collections, and by far it seems that fans tend to gravitate to collecting all of Paul's solo music, but only give lip service to John, George, and Ringo. Nicole, you even said yourself that John's solo music just doesn't speak to you in the same way that Paul's does -- but I'm suggesting that part of that reason is because there's much less of it. I think if john had been alive to make different kinds of music in the past 33 years, you may have had a chance to feel differently. Interested in what, exactly? "Old, poorly recorded, outdated political jargon albums like SOME TIME IN NYC" ...? No argument here. John always was and always will be more interesting as a person. Are you kidding? As far as the general public in concerned, John only did the song "Imagine" after The Beatles. You want to talk about being measured by worst songs? How about the crap John put out like TWO VIRGINS, LIFE WITH THE LIONS, THE WEDDING ALBUM, SOME TIME IN NYC, ROCK AND ROLL..? John took far more lumps musically than Paul, I think. I don't know what you're talking about in Paul's case, as he is recognized as the most talented and musical of the Beatles, and he has written an Oratorio and classical music, as well as being recognized as the main author of the Beatles' most enduring and popular songs like: HEY JUDE, LET IT BE, LONG AND WINDING ROAD, YESTERDAY, ELEANOR RIGBY, etc. Well, much of John's music was indeed more "deep and thoughtful", that's just a fact. But the reason I started this thread is because I actually now see more people defending paul and apologizing for him. If I did not sense this change out there, I would not have been inspired to create such a thread. I mean, just read this thread -- it's nothing but "pro Paul" and "defending Paul". Some of acebackwards' posts seem downright anti-John sometimes. Where are all those alleged "Lennonheads" in this thread, aside form JSD and me? "Over-defensiveness"? Have you ever read RTP's posts defending Paul endlessly? Once again, all I have done with this thread is make an observation. It used to be John Lennon who garnered all the attention after he died, leaving Paul as "second banana". But now it is 2013 and that is no longer the case. and I feel it has changed in Paul's favor. I am not saying either slant was right. It's just how it is. We needed to put the 'McCartney' back into Lennon and McCartney up until recently; but now we have to put the 'Lennon' back in.
|
|
|
Post by nicole21290 on Jul 1, 2013 10:14:32 GMT -5
Ah, I'd forgotten how fun this was... :/ Um, that would correct. Nice mathematics skills there. You've talked on and on about young peoples' perspectives on this so I thought it wouldn't hurt for a person (I think) a fair bit younger than most here to actually say what THEY think... Look, I realise that not being around at the time and being new to The Beatles and everything puts me at more than a slight disadvantage. It IS difficult for someone like me to gain a true perspective on what it was like during the seventies or eighties or nineties for Beatles fans and the Beatles themselves. However, I have READ and HEARD and SEEN plenty of media from that time period and whilst, yes, I have seen a fair amount of Paul 'crying' about being in 'John's shadow' I don't think it's quite as bad as some people make out nor do I think it's had quite the impact some people seem to think it has. And to be quite honest, I sympathise with that view of being in John's shadow, especially in the early eighties (I'm still quite frustrated with some of the views espoused in Shout! along these lines, for example - both in their denigration of Paul and George...) Because it was true. His music and career suffered during that decade as John's importance and person were being lifted higher. And I can imagine that was hard. No, he probably should never have whined about it at any point but I DO understand why. And just because I wasn't around back then doesn't mean I can't find out what was said, both by Paul and critics etc. Apparently so. Shocker. I'm certainly willing to concede that there are plenty of idiots out there who do think Paul is the be-all and end-all but I'm just pointing out that it may not be quite as prominent a view as you seem to have come across. Certainly, most people I know in that age bracket barely know anything about The Beatles, bar what I've rambled at them about. They know a few songs, maybe a few solo songs. Most know who John Lennon is (though associate him more with his post 1970 style/music/partnership than The Beatles, I think) and most know who Paul is ie. the Beatle who does Hey Jude at the end of shows etc. That's truly it. REALLY!? Can I ask why and how exactly that would influence me? Perhaps I just don't understand my own mind and thoughts?! Cos I was pretty damn sure it doesn't influence me. I am attracted to Paul and his music for reasons other than him still being alive and having a larger catalogue. If I looked merely at their work and interview up until 1980 I would STILL prefer Paul. I don't think he's any more 'real' to me just because he's alive. I think that assumes quite an inability to discern and think for myself. Paul is my favourite for the following reasons out of many and I would think you would agree that these reasons are primarily not associated in any way with him being alive as opposed to dead: 1) musical ability - the ability with so many instruments, the joy he takes in making music, the many genres he's dabbled in (and/or mastered), his sense of melody and structure, and I prefer his actual voice to John's, for the most part. 2) personality - I find John interviews and studio chatter very, very amusing and funny BUT I also think I would struggle to get along with him a lot of the time in real life from what I've seen and read. I prefer stability and calm and I think Paul provides more of that. I know some folks hate when he hams it up but, though it can be awkward, I find it somewhat endearing. I like that he's always embraced that side of his personality even if it wasn't 'cool'. 3) his songs of empathy - I like a lot of Paul's music. AND lyrics. My favourites, however, do not tend to be the hard rockers or the silly ditties. No, I LOVE his songs of empathy. That is, I do think he has a gift for being able to reach people and touch them. I think he has many songs of comfort and resilience and finding joy in love and friendship and marriage and I like that. I also like that he's written so many songs that seem to empathise with women and older people, especially when was still quite young himself. 4) his love of family and home - I like that he always bonded with his girlfriends' mothers and older women, that he has pretty much always placed a high priority on familial relationships. I love that he adopted Heather as his own and I really respect the way he and Linda conducted their marriage and raised their children. I love that he stills loves and visits Liverpool and is proud of it and his family. I'm sorry but WHY am I too young to know? Again, because I wasn't there and so, because I didn't inhabit the Beatle fandom or world at that time, I can't possibly understand 'what it was like' and why you're so vehement about this topic? I would AGREE with the reverse, by the way. I would agree that it's NOT at all John's fault. Of course it's not. He would have hated some of the ways he'd been treated and talked about since his death. But agreeing with the reverse does NOT negate my point. By the way, where exactly DOES Paul do all this 'complaining'? I'm not even sure it was primarily about John getting 'attention' but more to do with what KIND of attention that was. I think the majority of times where I've read Paul discuss or 'complain' about the treatment of John versus him after John's death, it was actually primarily to do with people taking credit away from Paul and giving it to John where it was undue. Paul got plenty of attention, just not for the things he wanted to be noticed for (ie. bad music, not being as cool as John, etc). Yes, I do know who RTP is without your elaboration, actually... I don't think it's his life mission, to be honest. Certainly, sometimes one gets overzealous in defending Paul and that doesn't reflect well but I think it fundamentally comes from a good place. As do your points of view which are equally valid. No, I know it doesn't mean that. Which is why I didn't say that. I do think a lot of fans gravitate to Paul because he is still real and active, yes, but him being 'real' and 'there' cannot make someone like his music or his personality or his tone of speaking. Yes, it allows them more ways to connect with him and identify with him but why would not having access to him also make these people incredibly turned off? It's only because they LIKE what they find that they would stick around. One doesn't simply LIKE something merely because it's there and if they do it's general a fairly shallow and surface-level interest in the first place. You need depth and knowledge to maintain interest, I would think, and you don't gain that merely because 'oh, I saw that Paul McCartney guy on the telly and he played that song pretty well. He was totally the top guy in The Beatles, y'know.' And it's not those people who maintain the Beatles story or 'myth' anyway. THAT is the media and biographers and the music press. All of whom know better than that shallow initial interest. Nope. Again, I'm not misperceiving anything. I don't recall saying I meant 'all' and I know you didn't mean that. I don't think it's fair to ascribe a motivation to these young peoples' liking of Paul without actually knowing what they say about why they like him. Yes, I would agree there's been a definite shift and I think that partly has to do with time and how it's made a difference in 'legend' status for Paul (as opposed to 80s trying to stay current but failing miserably for the most part!Paul). As time goes on, more and more of those rock and roll and pop legends gain status, especially in the eyes of the younger people who see them being held up as icons of music and performing all the big gigs. The media contributes to this as well and I think some of the view change is because of a lessening of the very strong pro-John feeling that was around in the early eighties in particular and also things like Revolution In The Head/Anthology/MYFN etc which I think evened out the playing field a little for Paul. And not in a bad way. EIther way, is there an actual PROBLEM with this change? Why is it so bad that more young people have grown to like Paul? Who's to say that the people back then were 'right' and now they're 'wrong'? Just because they're further removed from when John was alive and had a more current voice? Doesn't time also often lend objectivity to matters? Am I not, in 2013, able to see both John and Paul's 70s catalogues, for example, with more objectivity, and clarity, and knowledge than I would have been able to back in 1982? Not necessarily 'me' me but people in general? No, not because John died in 1980. Because he wrote political ballads and sloganeering songs with arrangements/production I really don't like that are VERY specific to the time in which they were written and because of that, though it gave them an added oomph at the time, it makes them feel dated and unrelatable now. It's nothing to do with WHEN they written so much as WHAT they were written about. Paul generally deals with more universal topics that don't lend themselves to one interpretation or person/event (though there are exceptions). This means that songs HE wrote in 1973 might be sappy or silly but I STILL relate to them more than Attica State for example, purely because they deal with themes I understand and are couched in a melody I enjoy. That's why I find John's songs on Double Fantasy and Mind Games, for example, much more enjoyable - I can relate to them more and thus generally enjoy them more. I can appreciate the others for what they are but it means I don't listen to them as much. Perhaps I would feel differently if he'd kept playing and making music. Honestly, though, he never would have extended himself into all the genres Paul has tried and, though that's not necessarily a bad thing, the eclecticism of Paul's music is one of the things I love best. Either way, John didn't make that music so it's difficult to judge him versus Paul on the basis on POSSIBILITY and MAYBES. Why aren't I qualified to see this change? If I was alive in 1980 that doesn't automatically make me more 'expert' on The Beatles or more knowledgable about what the press was saying or what Paul was saying. And yes, I was born in 1990. And yes, I agree with you on this. The pendulum had swung far too far to John's side (NOT his fault but not Paul's either). However, I don't think it's swung that far in the other direction. Truly. I read basically every article around that mentions The Beatles/Lennon/McCartney and nowhere I have seen in the past five years, for example, anything close to the types of thing I saw written in Shout! or some music press in the early 80s in so far as lifting one Beatles' status above anothers. I merely think things have equalled out for the most part, though Paul DOES get more media attention. Which is solely because he's alive and thus doing stuff thus earning coverage. It's not because all of a sudden he's the most important, influential, genius Beatle or anything like that in the eyes of the media or most of the general public. But yes, there has been change. I just don't think that change is a real problem. I think eventually things will play out so that both John and Paul will be seen as they ought to be seen - VERY different and with their own strenghts and weaknesses but EQUALS. Yes, I recall you saying that. I don't think it was 'harsh' for Paul to refer to John as that AT ALL. Because it was a PRIVATE phone call to a close friend which should never have seen the light of day. Also, because that phone call was made at a time when Paul was extremely emotional and all over the place - it was made primarily because he's just read Yoko saying that out of everyone in John's life, Paul had hurt him the most. That was the impetus for that call and I find it quite hard to read - he's VERY distressed and yes, he lashes out in ways he probably shouldn't have. But it was a private phone call and, as usual, the actual complimentary comments about John IN that transcript outweight the negatives such as that Martin Luther Lennon aside. Which I've never thought is as bad as you seem to consider it. I'm sorry, what 'naturally took on some kind of prominence'? That quote? Paul himself? If the latter, how could Paul avoid that?! He became, by proxy, the chief 'Beatle' because he and John had been the main songwriters and because George was somewhat more reclusive than Paul, I would say. And of course it wasn't John's fault!!! And yes, Paul should've been and I would guess WAS extremely glad he was alive. However, that doesn't take away from the fact that it would've been hurtful to see people saying things like the wrong Beatle got shot, etc. Yes, Paul could've been the bigger man and just ignored that all but, as with every person, he has weaknesses - and pride is one of them. Okay, I'll have to disagree with you on that one. I do think you sometimes come across as rather harsh on Paul... What exactly do you mean by eclipsed though and why is it some kind of competition anyway?! I don't think Paul has exactly spent over a decade primarily 'bellyaching', to be honest... He does overcompensate in MYFN and some interviews but the majority of the time he expresses his gratitiude that he got to be 'second' to John, that John even wanted to work with him, that John was a genius who he loved. I truly don't think Paul wants to 'eclipse' John. I think he wants credit for what he truly believes he did, I think he wants to be recognised as John's equal, and I think he doesn't want to be insulted/denigrated in order to praise John. Which is what happens. And vice versa. I truly don't understand it. One can PRAISE Paul without implying negativity towards John and the same goes for the other way around. Okay, I'm sorry for implying that, then. It's just definitely an impression I get. Why do you feel Paul has claimed too much? Because his accounts aren't identical to John's? Is there any possibility that sometimes John might've had it wrong? Is it also possible that they viewed divvying song credits up differently? Is it also possible that it's natural that an artist will focus more on THEIR contributions to their partner's songs as opposed to their partner's contributions to their song and that this isn't out of spite or trying to wrest control and power? I do think Paul was silly to divvy up the songs in quite so exacting a percentage as he did in MYFN. However, there really isn't THAT much disagreement if you compare John and Paul's accounts of who wrote what. I also think that people have a tendency to say 'well, Paul said it in 1995 and John said it in 1981. Therefore, John must be right cos it was closer to when they were written'. One must also take into account that John's explanations were shorter and thus he didn't elaborate as much on his own contributions as he might've done if he had more time/space. Of course, maybe he wouldn't have. We just don't know. On the whole though, I do think Paul went overboard in trying to redress the balance in MYFN. I think Miles made it worse, however, and I'll never not be thankful that Paul DID give those long detailed accounts. Even if they're contradictory or frustrating, I think it's better to have MORE primary accounts than less. Oh, interesting. Going to have to make a note to look that up. I own a fair bit of vinyl myself - sounds fascinating. Is it also possible that because Paul has a much larger, more eclectic, more audience-friendly catalogue that that might account for more Paul LPs being discussed? I truly don't think, however, that John's solo music doesn't speak to me because there's LESS of that. I think that's actually rubbish. Having more of something doesn't make it better! Paul's solo catalogue is bigger than The Beatles but it doesn't mean I esteem it better than The Beatles... As I've said before, I ADMIRE and respect his work much more than I enjoy it. Yes, there's nearly always a song or two I'll enjoy on his albums but I find a lot of it dated, irrelevant to my own life/experiences and mired in production/arrangements I don't like or find dull. Imagine and POB are of course works of art but I still find parts of them a bit of a slog to listen to. I do find Lennon's style of music a lot narrower than I like as well - I enjoy musical eclepticism and John doesn't delve into that as much as I would like. And maybe he would've changed my mind if he'd lived longer. But maybe not. Certainly, even if I just look at the seventies albums from both of them, I STILL prefer Paul. I find it easier to ignore Paul's sometime lacklustre lyrics than John's sometime lacklustre music... That's a personal taste thing, of course, but honestly, it has nothing to do with a smaller body of work. Even if Neil Young had, for example, only made one album (such as Harvest), I'd still love and esteem it more than the entirety of Bon Jovi's albums, regardless of the fact the latter is more 'modern' and there's much more of it... See, sometimes I think these news articles stretch it but they DO manage to write about him (even if it's about auctioning off toilet seats, lol). A lot of is 'remembering' him, of course, and rating his best work, talking about him more as a cult of personality and how Yoko's carrying on his peace efforts, etc. Most of the media does esteem him though and gives him plenty of credit for The Beatles and his solo work. It just doesn't get talked about as much as it was once - because of the passing of time, the diversifying and separation of the media and music press and because there's only so much one can say without any new product or information! Ha. Well, that's not what I was arguing but I won't bother arguing that one with you because I'd never convince you. BUT, just so you know, I find Paul more interesting and deceptively complex... Nope, not kidding at all. Yes, but the general public only associate his GOOD solo songs with John; the general public associates Paul's BAD solo songs with him. For the most part (BOTR, LALD, etc being the exceptions). Believe me, I've been on enough general music forums on the internet to be sick to the bone of people continuously bringing up Paul's bad 70s/80s songs to beat him with. Yes, John did put out plenty of crap but you don't see people use those bad songs/albums to measure John by. Instead, they look to Imagine and POB and even Double Fantasy as examples of John as an artist. The general public do not know Two Virgins or SINYC in the way they know and hate the Paul songs I mentioned. Yes, Paul is generally recognised as the most talented musically in The Beatles. By the media/music press. NOT the general public, I would venture to say. Yes, a large proportion of them will know and revere Paul's Beatles songs like Hey Jude, Let It Be, Yesterday (the 'famous' ones) BUT that's not the same as revering and respecting Paul's solo catalogue. The general public doesn't have much time for that in the same way they do for John's. Doesn't matter that they've not listened to either of the men's solo albums through - especially in Britain, the image of Sir Thumbs Aloft of Mull of Kintyre/Frog Chorus fame is STILL one constantly brought up whenever Paul is brought up in general forums online as a solo artist. By the way, I suspect the general public are about as aware that Paul's written classical music as they are that he's released collaborative music with Youth... See, I disagree that that's a fact. Completely. I think more of John's songs as a whole are obviously 'deep' and thoughtful but I can find lyrics in even quite 'shallow' songs that I find touch me and tell me something important in Paul's as well that I think you probably wouldn't recognise as such. Of course, it all comes down to individual interpretation but I sometimes find Paul's quieter and shorter relfections and contemplations on ageing and loneliness and love 'deeper' than a lot of John's sloganeering comments on God, and truth, and 'the world'. Why is it a problem that people defend Paul for you, though? Do you feel the need to balance out every piece of Paul!positivity and love with Paul!negativity/John!positivity or what? It's not like I would ever start a thread purely for the purpose of praising/promoting Paul; it's unnecessary. The defensiveness, for me, comes in where I feel people are demeaning or insulting him or are just wrong in their evaluation of him as a person or musician. I'm not going to jump in when people praise John and insist Paul gets praised equally or anything like that. And, as you've said, you can't be serious!!! Believe me, this thread is NOT nothing but 'defending and pro Paul' at all. I need to go to sleep (as it's early morning here) or I'd grab some quotes to illustrate but, honestly, this strikes me as blatantly untrue. There's plenty of defending Paul but there's also PLENTY of defending John. Also, 'Lennonheads', really?! It's not a gang. I find it incredibly divisive acting as though we have these little factions of pro-John and pro-Paul people and never the twain can meet! I just hate when 'defending' John becomes 'attacking' or 'dismissing' Paul, that's all. I think it's unhelpful and I think it happens more often than you'd want to admit. Though I suspect it might be seen as just 'being honest'... Yes, I certainly have. I recall talking about this before that I do sometimes feel RTP overcompensates. However, I feel you (and others) do the same for John. Yes, you've made an observation. But it doesn't necessarily follow that one has to just accept your observation as true at face value. There's no reason why that can't be discussed and argued at all. Being defensive (or overly defensive) doesn't make a person's opinion wrong anymore than stating something as fact makes it so. Lennon doesn't need putting back into Lennon and McCartney. You'll notice he's still there. Every time you write 'Lennon and McCartney' he's there. And there he'll remain. No one is trying to change that, not McCartney, not his 'mad' fans, not the media, and not the 'youth'.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jul 1, 2013 10:32:40 GMT -5
Welcome back Nicole! I am pushing the furniture against the wall because we got us a good old fashioned barn-burner here!
And don't forget, put the "Lennon" back in Lennon/McCartney!
|
|
|
Post by nicole21290 on Jul 1, 2013 10:58:19 GMT -5
Welcome back Nicole! I am pushing the furniture against the wall because we got us a good old fashioned barn-burner here! And don't forget, put the "Lennon" back in Lennon/McCartney! Ah, thank ye very much. I've been around, just refraining from fun little harmless discussions like these with very passionate, knowledgable older experts like your good self... Make sure the walls are padded, please. Either because I'm an insane McCartney worshipper or because it's quite likely I'll get so frustrated I'll punch a wall. Or both. OH LORD. FORGIVE ME FOR I KNOW NOT WHAT I HAVE DONE. *whimpers and settles in again* And don't forget that it doesn't need putting back because, unless my youthful eyes are failing me, it's still right there! Do you need his name bigger so you don't miss it? And don't forget, the "Lennon" is still in LENNON/McCartney
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jul 1, 2013 11:44:01 GMT -5
BTW, I am less than two weeks away from seeing Sir Paul in In-Dee-O-Nap-O-Los as Paul likes to say! I'll say "Hi" to him for you! I sure hope he opens with "Mumbo" and plays "Too Much Rain."
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Jul 1, 2013 18:54:55 GMT -5
Hi Nicole. I just mentioned you a few days ago, something about long posts that went on and on but were still entertaining to read.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jul 1, 2013 23:26:47 GMT -5
Perhaps I just don't understand my own mind and thoughts?! Cos I was pretty damn sure it doesn't influence me. I am attracted to Paul and his music for reasons other than him still being alive and having a larger catalogue. If I looked merely at their work and interview up until 1980 I would STILL prefer Paul. None of us knows what John would have done musically from 1981 through 2013. He was cut way short and he might have done music in the past 32 years that appealed to you more than his previous music had. Sadly, he didn't have that chance -- but Paul did. You mean the sort of calmness as seen in the video where Paul blows up at the people following him and he calls a girl "Fatso" and another guy a "Rat"? You mean the calmness like when I personally observed Paul yelling at a female fan from inside his limo and throwing her gift back at her right out of the car window? Do you mean the nice guy who shrugged at me and replied with indifference that he 'came all the way from England' (when I asked him for an autograph: "Please, Paul, I came all the way from Canada!")? Look - we KNOW that John could be a son of a bitch, because John acted real and we got to see his humanity. Paul has always been a showman, a PR puppet. Not only is it not cool, it's most often insincere. Did you see the video I posted of the 25-year-old woman who gave her "10 Reasons Why I Love Paul"? I haven't seen any of these for John lately! Would it make you feel better if I admit that 'i" was also too young to know? Sure, I've seen movies and read books about Beatlemania at its height, but i was only 2 years old as it happened, so I could not feel it, could not really experience what it was like. Same thing with you and the things I've been talking about. Reading and learning is never the same as actually living it. Sure, so now Paul takes credit away from John's songs and seems to claim them as his own, or half his own. So then we're agreed here. OK, so you're not one of them, and that's fine. But there are many others. I'm only saying it's as bad as what happened with John, only now in the reverse. It gets so frustrating writing things several times yet people don't read or absorb it. I have said more than once here that it wasn't really fair or right when it happened with John, but it is now also not fair that it has changed to Paul. I have also said this a dozen times, so hopefully this will sink on from here on out -- the whole reason for starting this thread was to demonstrate that things have indeed turned around for Paul. have you noticed that we never see endless posts from RTP anymore in endless defense of Paul and trying to beat people into realizing that "Paul was just as good or better than John"...? Why do you think this is? I think because even RTP himself realizes the fight is over, and Paul has "won", so to speak. This is not about "John VS Paul" -- it is about both men being equalized as they should be. If this message board had existed in 1986, I would have called this thread "let's put the 'McCartney' back in 'Lennon & McCartney". But it's not 1986, it is 2013. THAT WAS MY POINT! You weren't there at the time, thus John's type of '70s period music and arrangements are something from a whole other time and planet for you. How do you know that John's music from 1981 to 2013 wouldn't have had different musical arrangements and no politics or sloganeering? What do you mean "honestly"? How do you know what John might have done? By the way -- here's another thing that 'Paul Fans Today' do (like the woman in that Top Ten Reasons I Love Paul video) -- they talk about "all Paul's genres and risks"! Well, you did not say "risks" -- but the other girl did -- and that's a load of bull. John took far more risks throughout his career than Paul would ever dare to do. The nude LP cover? "Woman is the N- of the world" ...? All you're doing is convincing me more and more that John has been forgotten, and "it's all about paul". Paul has even tried to claim himself as "the real avant garde one" lately... Of course, as a self-professed "Paul Person", naturally you would deny that it's swung "too far". I disagree. When they're both dead and some time has passed, I think that is accurate (and I have already expressed all this myself). But it's not 20 or 30 years in the future yet, it is 2013 -- and I am talking about right now. Let me tell you something else you will live through and witness first-hand. When Paul dies and all this secret stuff comes out in tell-all trash books. You think it's unfair and this quote never should have seen the light of day? Just wait -- there will be a field day when paul dies. Most of the "dirt" read on John was nothing new, stuff we always knew about because John was always so forthcoming about his candid feelings and habits and things... but with "PR Paul"?? You ain't heard nuthin' yet! And I feel others are often coming off as too harsh on John. So Touche --- I have addressed this a hundred times. Paul is the one who felt some sort of competition -- he is the one who felt he needed to even the score, re-assert himself, claim some song credits. And RTP on these boards was always the constant person who endlessly felt "competitive". I am just reporting here that the tables have turned, paul is no longer the poor guy on the bottom -- that is all. But it does not, not always. RTP could never do it -- he could always point out negatives about John but could never concede any such imperfections with Paul. I have never heard this argument before now. I've always heard anti-John things like "John was so stoned all the time he didn't recall right", or "John always changed his mind so often that you can't know what was what". So it all depends which of the two men one prefers, as far as "who we feel gets misunderstood, or not". And they don't slam SOME TIME IN NYC or the disappointing ROCK N ROLL album? Or the half-ass and incomplete MILK AND HONEY? And by the way, you can't have it both ways --- you can't have Paul being steadily releasing over 20 solo albums for 40 years and then being annoyed that there's so much crap in such a large catalogue , that it would stand out more blatantly than John just having 7 records. Which only cements what I have said about John being more forgotten, and Paul being the one more known. But let me also ask you what's the deal with this "general public" stuff? Now you sound like RTP! Are you also trying to force the "general public" into accepting Paul? Beatles Fans are on thing -- the general public is another. I no longer agree with this, not at all. That's the whole point of this thread. maybe it USED to be about John after he died, but enough time has passed now that it's more all about Paul. I was there in 1980 -1990 and I have been there from 1990 - 2013, all as an adult --- and I have felt the different vibes change. This is just crazy. It goes to prove what I'm saying. As a "Paul Person", you seem to think Paul doesn't get enough attention in certain areas. Whereas it looks completely opposite to me. I will ask you again -- what music do you think the "general public" knows of John's except for the anthem "Imagine"? I don't think the general public could even name other Lennon songs! But you can damn well bet that people know "Maybe I'm Amazed", "Live and Let Die", "My Love", "Uncle Albert", "Silly Love Songs", "Listen to what the Man said", etc! So what "Lennon Songs" do you think the general public still knows? I have about as much a problem of people defending Paul as others once had for people constantly defending John, okay? I now feel John Lennon has been marginalized by Paul, through no fault of either man, really. So where were you when RTP made it his life's mission to defend Paul 24/7, even going to various sites to monitor people and "set them straight"? Talk to him,, not to me... I'm just saying the tide has turned, and now it seems to be John's need. But it was fine when RTP kept on defending Paul whilst diminishing John? Look, I have said a million times that John and Paul are equal. But that's why I'm annoyed that John has been marginalized now. You don't think so because you're more of a "Paul Person", for lack of a better term. And once again, I don't sense anyone here except JSD understanding the issue here and defending And I will continue to disagree. It's just a slogan ("Let's put the 'lennon' back in 'L&M") --- and it's silly for you to point out that his name is still written there, so of course he's there. Surely you can't miss the point behind the slogan. One other thing -- I love to chat, and I love to debate. I can tend to write detailed posts myself, Nicole - but I've got NOTHING on you. I tell you here and now, I am not about to spend endless hours back and forthing this with you, word by word after this.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jul 1, 2013 23:36:36 GMT -5
The fact is when they were both alive and active from 1970 to 1975 and pretty much releasing solo albums back to back Paul was way more popular. So nothings changed. But Paul couldn't hold John's jock as an artist. Just my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jul 2, 2013 0:04:46 GMT -5
The fact is when they were both alive and active from 1970 to 1975 and pretty much releasing solo albums back to back Paul was way more popular. So nothings changed. But Paul couldn't hold John's jock as an artist. Just my opinion. I am not sure Ace about Paul being "way more popular" in this period of 1970 to 1975. 1970 to 1971 I give the popularity nod to John. POB and Imagine were critically acclaimed and although POB wasn't very commercial, it gave John huge street creds with the counterculture. In this period Paul was viewed as the bastard who broke up the Beatles and McCartney and Ram were savaged by critics but sold well. Remember, The JSD Postulate wasn't formulated yet to rehabilitate those albums. Still, John was way more popular those first two years out of the post-Beatles gate. 1972 is a draw as not a great artistic time for either John or Paul. 1973 goes to Paul on strength of "My Love" and "Live And Let Die" but album-wise it is rather close. 1974 is when BOTR takes off but you also have John's big burst of popularity with W&B, #1 single, and helping Elton and Bowie score huge #1 hits. 1974 is a happy tie. 1975 goes to Paul with V&M and Listen to the Man vs. Rock and Roll and just the Shaved Fish comp. 1970: John 1971: John 1972: Tie(both had tough year) 1973: Paul 1974: Tie(both had good year) 1975: Paul I'd say it was a tie on popularity. No comment on the better artist portion of your post. It is too late to respond to certain Paul people.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jul 2, 2013 0:53:58 GMT -5
Well I'm talking about "popularity" on the most basic level, re record sales. I stick by my original assertion. Paul was way more popular. Isn't that the issue we were debating? Paul getting more public acclaim then he deserved? Critical acclaim is a completely secondary issue. John has always been ahead on that score.
|
|
|
Post by nicole21290 on Jul 2, 2013 2:43:00 GMT -5
Perhaps I just don't understand my own mind and thoughts?! Cos I was pretty damn sure it doesn't influence me. I am attracted to Paul and his music for reasons other than him still being alive and having a larger catalogue. If I looked merely at their work and interview up until 1980 I would STILL prefer Paul. None of us knows what John would have done musically from 1981 through 2013. He was cut way short and he might have done music in the past 32 years that appealed to you more than his previous music had. Sadly, he didn't have that chance -- but Paul did. Yes, I know that. And maybe if John had lived I would have preferred his past thirty years of music rather than Paul's. BUT he didn't and that music doesn't exist so one is forced to look at what we DO have - and based on what we do have, I prefer Paul's. And that has nothing to do with there being MORE of it. Quantity isn't quality, as I'm sure you'd agree. I do like much of John's music, by the way, and I deeply hate that we don't have more of it. I just don't think it's fair to say that I've been somehow unconsciously made into liking Paul's music better because there's more of it, he's still alive and I wasn't around when John was. Oh, I'll totally give you that. Yes, those THREE examples are perfect proof that I'm wrong - that GENERALLY Paul would provide more stability and calm in terms of friendship and company. I'm sorry, I do think those incidents reflect terribly on Paul but I've also seen many, many, many videos (not filmed by 'his' people) that show him happily talking, signing things, etc. There's plenty of stories of people running into Paul at a swimming pool, on the plane, in Liverpool, in the gym, where he's been perfectly pleasant and it's not advertised or captured on film so to keep in line with the image he so treasures of himself as some genial nice-guy. Yes, Paul loses his temper, it's not pleasant, he can be bossy and controlling, he can be extremely passive-agressvie (dating back from childhood there's LOTS of evidence of that) and he can be both arrogant and selfish. BUT, I think there's far more to recommend him in this than not. There's lovely stories like this, for example, which I've never heard people really mention much, from Horst Facher: "When [Paul] found out that [my daughter] had to have a heart operation and I couldn't afford it...he flew in the best surgeon possible to perform the operation and he paid for it all. Although my daughter died 13 days after the operation, I still think he is wonderful. I would do anything for him. Anything he asked, I would do it for him." And no, Paul wasn't the only nice, generous one. John was also very much this way and people like Pete Townshend have talked about how great it was being around John because he could actually put people at their ease and talk etc whereas when he first met Paul, it wasn't comfortable in that same way. Seriously?! Yes, John could be a son of a bitch. And lovely. And Paul could be a son of a bitch. And lovely. But this comment about how 'John acted real and we saw his humanity' and Paul is merely a 'showman and a PR puppet' REALLY rubs me the wrong way. Yes, Paul has always been aware of image and coming across a certain way to the public. I think he's always seen himself in the old fashioned entertainer mode where his public/private face ARE different in a way that John eventually grew to rip apart when he displayed them both as the same thing - that his life was his art and his art was his life. And this is very commendable and yes, it was fantastic when John was open and real, displaying both flaws and positive attributes. I just think you overstate how much Paul plays the PR game etc. I also think that just because Paul doesn't allow the media into every aspect of his thoughts and life it doesn't make him somehow 'less real' or 'more PR'. I think it's a good thing that he's able to separate those public/private lives for the most part. Yes, for the media, and for the fans, he has a different face than the one he displays for his family. And I don't think he should be labelled 'fake' for that. Look, if he were quite obviously living a Jekyll/Hyde existance wherein he was an alwayshorrible person behind doors but a nice one for the public, then I'd be very down on that. However, MOST accounts and encounters don't portray Paul like that. Why is it insincere? Why is hamming it up somehow insincere? Does it somehow go against his own character? It's simply a part of who he is and I really think that hasn't changed that much. It can be a bit awkward and wince-inducing but it's not a bad thing or 'insincere' - it's him trying to entertain, enjoying himself. Why begrudge him that? Also, I think the priority people place on 'being cool' - ESPECIALLY amongst rock critics etc - is frustrating. Twee/feminine/hammy/soft is seen as negative and hard/rawk/bluntness/rough is seen as positive in many circles and the former is seen as a weakness. Why can't a person have both aspects in their character and they both be part of them? And yes, I did. I watched it and enjoyed it quite a lot. I'd love to see one for John if you come across one, actually. Maybe you should make one yourself. 10 Reasons for loving John is pretty easy, to be honest; he's a great guy and musician. Ha, it's not a matter of 'feeling better'. I just it's unfair to infer someone can't understand things unless they were there. Yes, in some cases this IS true but you can certainly understand what Paul was saying, for example, without being alive then because it's in print media which is still available. Same with contemporary reviews and opinions of the men and albums, for example. Yes, it's much harder to gauge the 'mood' of a people and a fanbase but even that's not impossible if you read a lot from people who were there at the time. Yes, I agree it's never the same thing and thus I generally trust and respect the opinions of those who were around. UNLESS they contradict other things that I hold to be true. And yes, I may be wrong more often than not, but... Where does he do this, though!? In MYFN? By playing a primarily-written-and-associated-with-John song live with acknowledging him as the primary author? I really don't see this campaign Paul's waging to 'take credit' away from John and claiming those songs for his own. As I've allowed, sometimes he goes too far in MYFN in his defensiveness and stating hiw own contributions but most people in the world no not read MYFN or overanalyse his interviews where he talks up his contributions. I think they gravitate to see him, yes. But I don't think that's the sole cause for them LIKING or necessarily PREFERRING him to John most of the time. I trust that people who listen to both catalogues can judge for themselves which they prefer and I don't think they all unconsciously will end up preferring Paul just because they saw him perform live on the telly or they know he's still alive. And I don't think it's as 'bad' as what happened with John because I think it occurred in a different sphere - what you're talking about seems to primarily deal with the public's view and appreciation of John whereas what happened before was primarily dealing with the media and the music press/critics. The latter have more clout in terms of influencing one way of the other and they're the ones who write the history, not the general public. Okay, sorry. I'm obviously thicker than I thought and just don't get it. Believe me, I've read every word. I just happen to disagree. Yes, I know you've said that and I've agreed and that's not what I have an issue with. I have an issue with the implication that it's a negative thing that people are paying more attention to Paul than John. It's unfortunate but kind of inevitable at this point in time. It's just not necessarily anyone's FAULT and I don't think blame needs to be meted or campaigns waged to set things to right. I think time will handle that. Yes, I read your initial reason for starting the thread and whilst I had an issue with the premise, it ws subsequent posts that got my goat, to be honest. I have noticed a lack of RTP posts, yes. And I don't think that's necessarily the only reason one can think up for his lack of posts. Maybe he feels like you do - that it 'gets so frustrating wriitng things several times yet people don''t read or absorb it'. Maybe he got sick of repeating himself and trying to convince people who will not be convinced. This is ignoring whether he is right or wrong - simply an alternative scenario. Certainly, I stopped posting because I just found myself getting exhausted with only having some of my comments highlighted and argued against and the rest of my points plain ignored as if they'd never existed in the first place. I found it a hard slog, wading through endless negativity and digs and I found myself getting way more worked up and over-defensive than I ought to. Obviously, a lot's changed... Also, it's not a FIGHT between John and Paul for superiority and being liked in the eyes of the media/fans/public. Truly, it's not. Yes, I'm well aware I wasn't there at the time... However, how else am I to judge whether I prefer John or Paul's solo music? I can't just say 'well, maybe I would've liked John's possible future music more and thus I'm wrong to say I prefer Paul's simply on the basis that he's alive and has made music since 1980'. No, his music and arrangements are not from a whole other 'planet'. Most of the music I listen to is from the sixties and seventies. I am well aware of much of that time period's music and ADORE it. SOME of it does sound dated to my ears but I can contextualise that. SOME of it doesn't sound dated. Neil Young's albums from the seventies or the 1973 Buckingham Nicks album, for example, and lots of the more lo-fi singer-songwriter things sound very clean and fresh to my ears still. As I said, it's the production and themes of some of the songs that I have difficulty with - not because I wasn't around at that time and don't 'get' it. Just because it's not as enjoyable to listen to to my ears. Doesn't make the music worse or less important in anyway - just means I prefer Paul's music from the same time period for the most part. I don't know that. Certainly, Double Fantasy and his Milk&Honey tracks were far gone from his early 70s sloganeering and I appreciate both for what they were. I just can't base my preferance for a musician's catalogue on what he MIGHT have done. Okay, maybe I went a tad far there. I DOUBT he would have is better, perchance? I say this because I think John's taste in music was generally a bit narrower in terms of genres than Paul's and that would have probably continued. I don't know what John would've have done but I struggle to imagine him doing something like Paul did with The Fireman or his classical work. I just think generally John esteemed rock 'n' roll above the other genres in a way that limited his type of output in a way Paul's wider musical appreciation didn't. That's not a bad thing, per se, let me add. Isn't it true though that Paul HAS dabbled/performed in a lot of different genres? Stating that doesn't suddenly make it more true than it already was. No, I didn't say risks but I'd be happy to. If you re-read that Hunter Davies private conversation he had with Paul, Paul actually talks about how he's never been a risktaker - he doesn't just jump off cliffs. He states that he admires that quality in John. Paul CARED too much about the public and critics though. And yet, things like McCartney II, and his first two Fireman albums, his classical efforts, etc, aren't the sign of a man who doesn't take any risks at all. He just carefully calculates the risks first, I would venture. And yes, John DID take far more risks through his career. I just don't think that that somehow places John on some high pedastal - I think those projects were interesting and definitely a risk for him but I don't think they somehow elevate him in terms of Art. I also have big problems with 'Woman in the N-" so... Eek. Oops! LATELY!? That's just incorrect. This whole thing started, didn't it, with MYFN where he went into A LOT of detail (partly because he was sick of John getting 'all the credit' and partly, I suspect, because Miles was the author/interviewer and he was involved in that scene) about his part in the happening sixties in London and how instrumental he actually was in incorporating that music into The Beatles and being interested in it at all. And it certainly got talked about a lot when Paul brought out Electric Arguments and people were asking about Carnival of Light. But that doesn't make Paul's claims UNTRUE. I don't think it's the 'REAL avante garde one' anyway - I think it's 'AN avante garde one - and first' anyway. And, to be quite honest, he's probably right. That doesn't take away from the huge strides John made in that arena and how he, unlike Paul, was bold enough to actually fully embrace it and use it in a way Paul never would've (because he tended to couche experimentation etc WITHIN the bounds of respectability and other music). Yes, I know you're talking about right now. But what do you propose people start doing at this totally unfair exalting of Paul McCartney? Is it really helpful to drag him down in protest? One can't just insist on John getting more attention than he currently does. Time shifts things, and so I think all one can do is object if there's obvious lies being told by people like Paul, and try and continue discussing the music - cos that's what matters. Yes, and I dread living through this supposed time. Most of the musicians I admire are already dead or will be in the next couple of decades and it's totally going to bum me out... Also, I'm all for these biographies 'telling all' - as long as they have good, strong evidence to back them up. If a biographer wants to write such a book about Paul, I won't mind that - I'll be disappointed if they do manage to uncover some deep, dark, horrible secrets about Paul's character but just as biographies of John haven't ruined my opinion of him and his music, the same goes for Paul, I suspect. I do think Davies was unfair to publish this conversation, yes - it was PRIVATE, Paul was his friend, it was conducted when Paul was highly emotionally charged, and he used it to sell his book. Also, how are you SO damn sure that there'll be a field day? Do you know all this 'dirty' information that will somehow be brought to light? Is is SO fundamentally unbelievable that Paul is, at heart, a fairly decent guy, although with plenty of faults. Which we're also all aware of. Take his divorce for example - have you read that judgment from the judge lately? I think it's extremely revealing and actually digs in and Paul comes out better that I would have expected, to be quite honest. Yes, and I'd agree. Sometimes people are too harsh on John. And Paul. And sometimes they give both or either of them far too much credit and lee-way... Yes, it doesn't always happen, unfortunately. I think if we prefer one artist over the other we do tend to over-compensate at times and sometimes give in to the urge and can sneak little sly digs in, or even unknowingly imply insult to the other artist. And look, is it REALLY necessary to keep bringing up RTP here?! You can simply say some people can't do it without bringing in a specific person's name - seems a tad much. Really?! I've certainly heard this before. Or the alternative 'John was MORE honest so he must be right' or 'Paul only feels safe saying this now cos John's not around to defend himself against the lies'... I have heard those 'anti-John' comments as well but I think they have a kernel of truth in them regarding John!interviews, not that particular one dealing with his memories of who wrote what, however, for the most part. As I said, there really isn't THAT much disagreement between the two accounts of who wrote what. And yes, we do often feel a natural sympathy and defensiveness towards our favourite, for sure. No, they don't. On MUSIC forums (like Steve Hoffman's for example), yes, those things do get brought up but generally in online comments or messageboards it's VERY rare they slam those albums. Because they usually are unaware of them. In the same way they wouldn't slam Off The Ground as much as those 'hit' 70s/early80s singles Paul released that get so much flak. The more attention the song/album got, the more famous it is, the more attention is given online in these general areas. Sometimes it's the over-exposure of something which also contributes to it being more criticised, I think. It's easier to forget and forgive something you think is crap if you're not being forced to listen to it on the radio, for example. Oh, I'm NOT annoyed by how much crap Paul has released (it's easy enough to press skip!) - just annoyed that people hold those crap 70s/80s singles up as the primary reason for thinking his entire catalogue is terrible. Which DOES happen. I like people to have knowledge of an entire catalogue (the bad and good, the singles and the deeper album cuts) before they start in criticising the ENTIRE person's output. I don't think it's a matter of being more forgetten. I think it's because those Paul singles were released widely, publicised, got radioplay etc in a way the crapper songs from Two Virgins or SINYC didn't. John was far better at selecting singles, in my opinion, in his solo career. And let me also ask you why you have to keep bringing RTP into this?! I've talking about the general public because I see it being talked about about how Paul is more esteemed now and I see different groups of people/establishments where this may or not be true. And these groups are not all the same. The print/online media, the rock and music press/critics, the fans, and the general public. All different groups, all with differing general views on both Paul and John, I would suggest. And nope, I'm not trying to force anything. My little sister is 13 and I've spent the past few years trying to get her as interested in good, classic sixties/seventies music as I can and I assure you - I'm not trying to force her to like Paul best or anything stupid like that. Actually, her favourite is George. Her reason? He looks cooler... Okay, fair enough. We obviously mix in very different circles, which is unsurprising. The 'general public' I see online and in my life STILL think John is superior (both as a person and a musician) for the most part. I'll take your word on that one, then, that there's been this big change. I do think there has been a change but I don't think it's resulted in it being 'all about Paul'. Okay. I'll just go book myself in for psychicatric treatment if I'm so insane. I'm just basing this on my own observations, just so you know. It's certainly not just coming out of nowhere. No, no. It's got NOTHING to do with me wanting Paul to get more attention in certain areas, not at all. Yes, it would be nice if more people were aware of The Fireman's Rushes or Electric Arguments, to my mind, but that's not the issue I have here. I just want Paul to get fair attention based on all his work and not just a small sampling of his solo 70s/80s singles. I think this is the first time you've asked but I'll answer anyway. I'm not sure about the adult American population - I think it woul definitely align more with your opinion. Amongst people I know MY age, the 'general public' would know Imagine, and probably recognise Instant Karma, Give Peace a Chance, and his version of Stand By Me IF they listened widely to classic rock and stuff as I did as a child. I also was aware of Watching The Wheels. So far as Paul goes, I would venture to say there is NO WAY any people my age would recognise Uncle Albert or Listen to What The Man Said. Again, most of them would know Live and Let Die and maybe Maybe I'm Amazed. Again, those who listened more widely might also know My Love and Band on the Run. Those who watched Glee might also know Silly Love Songs, as hard as that is for me to admit... Anything else though? No way. And considering how much more Paul!music there is than John's - even just in the seventies - it's not a hugely outweighed result. Okay, so this marginalisation of John isn't the 'fault of either man' but he's been marginalised 'BY Paul'?! Look, again, there's no need to bring RTP into this. I've said before that I think he went too far sometimes but I'm certainly not going to go around to various websites trying to smooth over any ruffled feathers. I don't think John NEEDS this at all. Yes, generally Paul gets more attention these days (mostly on account of the fact he's still touring, giving interviews, etc) but if you compare things like their respective seventieth birthdays, John's was a MUCH bigger deal in the media. And that's totally fine. When we can take an opportunity to celebrate John's life and music, we should take it. No, of course not! I don't think I've ever condoned diminishing John in order to build Paul up at all. Feel free to point out if I do that cos it's truly never intentional. I don't think being a 'Paul Person' (as you seem to say) makes me blind to his faults or blind to Lennon's strengths and it certainly doesn't make me completely unaware of how the media presents and talks about either them... Look, I understand your concern that John is being forgetten about and that he doesn't get the attention he deserves but it was just a lot of comments in here struck me as quite over the top... Sure. I know it's just a silly slogan and this all isn't meant to be taken THAT seriously and no, I don't miss the point of the slogan or your points at all. I just think some comments made and some justifications made go too far... Um, yeah. I am sorry. I barely get the chance to talk to anyone in 'real life' and certainly never about the music and artists I love and admire so I tend to go overboard when I get the chance. I feel VERY strongly on some matters. Look, you're more than welcome to completely ignore anything and everything I say - it's all up to you. I shan't mind. I just appreciate that this board exists so I can say what's on my mind, that's all. So, thank you.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jul 2, 2013 7:35:11 GMT -5
Oh wow, I just don't believe this happened... I'm sure you people out there have had this unpleasant experience before. I just spent over an hour replying point by point to Nicole's last post, and then somehow i hit the wrong button AND I LOST THE WHOLE THING!! I absolutely hate when that happens... I do too and you folks can hear my profanity laced tirade, I am that loud when it happens. Actually I have discovered the only feature I like on this new ProBoards format and that is draft protection. If you lose something leave this site and come right back and I get a pop-up saying I didn't post this draft and it takes you to what you thought you lost! You have the option to return to it or delete it!
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jul 2, 2013 10:49:35 GMT -5
1970: John 1971: John 1972: Tie(both had tough year) 1973: Paul 1974: Tie(both had good year) 1975: Paul I'd say it was a tie on popularity. No comment on the better artist portion of your post. It is too late to respond to certain Paul people. For those people who where not around at that time, it's interesting to remember that George and Ringo were at the top for most of those years. In fact, George was arguably at the top of the entire rock heap from 70-72. And, the expectation of his 1974 tour was huge. Too bad he got in the way of himself.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jul 2, 2013 12:43:19 GMT -5
Agreed sayne, especially George but I was limiting my opinions on just John and Paul there.
Living In The Material World sold very well and "Give Me Love(Give Me Peace On Earth)" was a huge single but wasn't the album bashed by critics at the time as too preachy? LITMW gets slammed in Tyler & Carr's The Beatles: An Illustrated Record and I thought that was an album that has been rehabilitated with the passage of time.
My point was with ATMP and Bangladesh George fired out of the starting gate but there was huge grumbling and some alarm starting with LITMW. Of course, the album DH and the tour set George back big time, perhaps never to recover his zeal of being a contemporaneously important musician.
Today LITMW is considered a fine album and I know I had to grow into it. It is an album beyond the experiences of most teens.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jul 2, 2013 17:14:43 GMT -5
1970: John 1971: John 1972: Tie(both had tough year) 1973: Paul 1974: Tie(both had good year) 1975: Paul I'd say it was a tie on popularity. No comment on the better artist portion of your post. It is too late to respond to certain Paul people. For those people who where not around at that time, it's interesting to remember that George and Ringo were at the top for most of those years. In fact, George was arguably at the top of the entire rock heap from 70-72. And, the expectation of his 1974 tour was huge. Too bad he got in the way of himself. Well, George had a couple of hit albums out of the gate, and Ringo had that one hit. But isn't it a fact that Paul was the only Beatle to consistently have hit singles and hit albums during that entire period from 1970 to 1975 when they were all alive and active and pretty much releasing music back-to-back on an even playing field? In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Paul sold more albums from 1970 to 1980 than the other three Beatles COMBINED. My point being, there's nothing particularly new about Paul's music being more popular than John's. It was that way back then. Its that way now. And it'll probably be that way in the future. Paul's music was simply more catchy, more melodic and more prolific than John's.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jul 2, 2013 20:25:40 GMT -5
By prolific i just meant Paul has written more songs than John. And i mean from the 1970 to 1975 when they were equally active. Certainly John has complained how easy it was for Paul to crank out songs and how hard it was for John to keep pace.
|
|
|
Post by nicole21290 on Jul 2, 2013 23:50:41 GMT -5
Oh wow, I just don't believe this happened... I'm sure you people out there have had this unpleasant experience before. I just spent over an hour replying point by point to Nicole's last post, and then somehow i hit the wrong button AND I LOST THE WHOLE THING!! I absolutely hate when that happens... I am sitting here in the morning and am running late for an important appointment, and there is no way I'm going to re-type all the detailed responses. Nicole -- one thing I elaborated on was you constantly getting on my case for mentioning RTP. What, are you trying to get me into some sort of trouble here? You said something about "wanting evidence" at one point, and that's why I mention RTP - he is pure evidence of the type of person I am referring to, and since he is also a member of this very board, it seems fitting to keep him in this community right there at AbbeyRd, isn't it? I also mentioned the other woman who made her "Top Ten Paul" video -- why don't you have a problem with that? She is not here to speak up, ,but RTP is, if he so desires. Basically, if you don't like this thread topic you don't have to participate... but I feel the way I do because I have sensed a definite change in the climate out there, and this was not always the case. I wouldn't have felt the "need" for a thread like this 10 years ago, but I sense things have changed. That's been my experience... if it hasn't been yours, fine - those are your observations. But I still speak as someone who's been here all along and experienced these changing "climate" firsthand. i think it's strange to think that John's songs are more known than Paul's today. other than IMAGINE and maybe GIVE PEACE A CHANCE (the latter mainly as a slogan which people have heard about and on tee shirts, I'm sure they never hear that song on the radio!), I defy most young people to name more solo Lennon songs. Yes, paul has tried to marginalize John in more recent years by claiming at least partial credit for John's Beatles songs, and also for trying to get people to accept Paul as "the avant garde and psychedelic one". There were a lot of direct replies i made to your posts -- they are all gone now. One other thing i recall though... you said you were tired of making all sorts of points but then people ignored many of them. I think that is bound to occur when you write so much... I speak as a person who himself writes more than others usually do... it's just too much. I can't be sitting here for hours ... (and now I'm REALLY late in getting ready for my appointment, so see you later..) Ugh, my sympathies, Joe! That sucks when that happens. Learnt that lesson the hard way too and, as you can imagine, I lost quite a lengthy post... Since that blunder, I now actually write my entire post in a Word document of a writing app on my iPad before I copy it all over to the board and then post. Much less likely to lose it that way, I find. Not so much 'getting on your case' as wondering why you felt the need to bring him up constantly. Yes, that is evidence of one kind but I don't find a single person's opinion particularly weighty - especially when they're a very big fan and the majority of what I was discussing is more about the so-called general public. I don't have a problem with singling people out - here or not - but the five or so mentions were a tad excessive, I felt, just with the tone used... Not trying to have a go or anything; it just struck me a bit the wrong way. Sorry. I totally understand that and, believe me, I've not participated in many threads/topics that have made me more than a little annoyed. It's just that this one went on for SO long and it was niggling at me. I'm not frustrated at the existance of the thread being here, per se; people have a right to say and write whatever they want. I just wanted to point out, rightly or wrongly, a few issues I had with the content of the thread. And yes, I totally respect your opinion and experiences in these matters - you're obviously much more steeped in Beatles history and understanding than I am and it greatly helps that you've been firsthand able to observe these changes you keep bringing up. I just wanted to point out that, in my experience (which I think is equally valid, even if it doesn't have the weight of yours) what you say doesn't seem to be the case in totality. Why would that be strange to think? The height of The Beatles' solo careers was decades ago - I'd warrant the majority of people would only be able to name a couple of solo songs for each artist at most. I don't think most young people could name more solo Lennon songs than Imagine/GPAC, for sure. But I also think most young people would be hardpressed to come up with the name of ANY solo McCartney song, to be completely honest. They might recognise some of his songs on the radio (Live and Let Die, Maybe I'm Amazed, Band on the Run, ?) but I doubt many would be able to name his songs if asked. None of his songs are iconic in the same was as Imagine, not of his songs are as 'T-shirt ready' are GPAC. It might be different in America but I kind of doubt it. Yes, in Beatles circles that's completely different. Okay, so WHERE has he been trying to claim partial credit for John's Beatles songs which he cannot claim honestly? If he does happen to say 'oh, I contributed this line here' and no one knew that before, is it fair to say Paul must be lying? Yes, it can come across as extremely petty and selfish of him but it doesn't make his claim less legitimate just because no one has mentioned it before or because in the past it's been seen or claimed as a solely John song. I honestly think in regards to that kind of thing, he should let sleeping dogs lie but I certainly don't think he tries to marginalise John. Ditto for the avante garde thing - yes, he's gone too far in trying be the MOST avante garde one but it doesn't make what he actually says untrue. He did get into that scene, he did use it in music, etc - he just didn't embrace it as wholeheartedly as John did, he didn't release it in the way John did, and he didn't become known for it. That does not lessen Paul's actual involvement or interest in that scene, which I think was genuine. Paul had interests in many types of music and this was merely one of them for a time - he had a taste, enjoyed it, used it, then found something else. John, on the other hand, had a taste and devoured it and made it himself in a way Paul didn't. So far as the 'ignoring posts' thing went, apologies for that one. I was kind of knackered and a bit worked up writing that post - shouldn't have said that. I just found it curious that whole swathes of text would be ignored and only the things people disagreed with pointed out and argued. Yes, this makes logistical sense and I feel sorry for people who DO bother to read everything I write but, at the same time, it means it appears that to me that absolutely not one word of what I write has any merit and it's all wrong. So, yeah, sorry for being overly petty and selfish there.
|
|
|
Post by nicole21290 on Jul 2, 2013 23:59:44 GMT -5
My point being, there's nothing particularly new about Paul's music being more popular than John's. It was that way back then. Its that way now. And it'll probably be that way in the future. Paul's music was simply more catchy, more melodic and more prolific than John's. "More prolific than John's"? No. The other things, I'd agree with. But you'll have to convince Nicole; she still believes John's music is more popular, somehow... Agreed on being more prolific (producing more) - it's simply a fact that Paul released more music than John in the seventies... John had, in the seventies (incl. Milk&Honey here, though), eight albums of material, with Rock N Roll being an LP of covers and both Milk&Honey and Double Fantasy only half-filled with John's material. Paul had eleven albums of material, none of which were covers and one of which was just live material. Um, and sorry to butt in here but I don't recall ever saying John's music is more 'popular'. I just think John's solo music is generally held in higher regard both by critics, press and the general public, regardless of whether they know a lot of it or only Imagine/GPAC. That doesn't mean I think he was more popular in terms of sales, the largest audience or commercial success. He wasn't, for the most part. Commerial success does not equal artistic success or equal critical success. All different things.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jul 3, 2013 1:29:15 GMT -5
You gotta lotta soul Nicole. That even rhymes. Im an under rated lyricist.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Jul 3, 2013 4:26:43 GMT -5
Have read all this and enjoyed it. As someone who tends to agree wth Nicole, comments:
1. I think John's solo work tends to be more respected, Paul's tends to be more commercially successful (note use of "tends"). And I think both of them would have preferred an element of the other aspect.
2. I had a leaning towards Paul's musical tendencies right from the early days. Specifically, when John's music started leaving the mainstream, he partially lost me. There is not something inherently peculiar about preferring Paul's musical tendencies to John's (or vice versa), it's just taste, and I really don't believe Paul's ongoing career/public profile has anything to do with such a preference (although, obviously, it is likely to have a great deal to do with having the catalogue placed in front of an otherwise unaware new audience).
3. John tells it like it is, warts and all, he could be a sod, but what a guy! Respect! Paul gives in to his dark side on a small number of occasions in the later stages of 50 years' worth of making an effort to be nice to people - what a shit he is. Sorry, this is a double standard.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jul 3, 2013 6:38:44 GMT -5
Um, and sorry to butt in here but I don't recall ever saying John's music is more 'popular'. I just think John's solo music is generally held in higher regard both by critics, press and the general public, regardless of whether they know a lot of it or only Imagine/GPAC. Semantics... You did say that the public tends to know more of John's solo material than Paul's, if I read you right. I agree. Paul needs to realize that.
|
|
|
Post by nicole21290 on Jul 3, 2013 7:41:43 GMT -5
3. John tells it like it is, warts and all, he could be a sod, but what a guy! Respect! Paul gives in to his dark side on a small number of occasions in the later stages of 50 years' worth of making an effort to be nice to people - what a shit he is. Sorry, this is a double standard. First, what do you mean "in the later stages of 50 years' worth of making an effort to be nice to people"? How do you know Paul couldn't be a bastard in private, but just that he always covered it up in public? When Paul passes we will hear what went on behind the scenes, and I'm sure not all of it is "Mr. Nice Guy". On the other side of that coin is John Lennon not always being "a sod"... John made an effort to be nice to people too, and I have heard many good stories from New Yorkers who had nice encounters with John, outweighing the bad ones. If Paul has some false reputation as being "a silly pandering dandy", then John has a false rep for always being "Mr. Nasty Tough Guy". There IS a chance Paul could be a bastard in private and I would image he SOMETIMES is. However, both in public and private the impression I genuinally get from family members (extended or otherwise), fans, press, other musicians/celebrities, random people who run into him in gym/swimming pool/hotel/route 66/airplanes/etc, is that, whilst he 'protects' himself and isn't as open as one might like, he is a likeable, nice, kind person. Overall. You're right that more information about what Paul's 'really like' will emerge when he passes but I honestly wouldn't get your hopes up for it to be incredibly salacious and reveal that he was an outright horrid man and what we see and what everyone thinks is some false facade to hide the truth... Yes, there's always going to be stories about Paul being a jerk or nasty or bossy and that's fine. People aren't always nice and certainly not extremely famous celebrities on his level. I'd be more worried if we NEVER now heard any negative stories about Paul - then I would think something was being covered up. And yes, you're absolutely right re. John. I HATE when people insist on categorising him as some mean-spirited hardcore jerk. As Paul has talked about MANY times, both he and John had hard and soft edges. I love all the NY stories, especially, about people running into John and him being completely friendly and sweet but just because that negates the stereotypical view doesn't mean that Paul's 'stereotypical view' is completely incorrect as well. Yep, both are ridiculous caricatures of the men - basically taking one aspect of their character and enlarging it. Yes, there's an element of truth in these caricatures but by no means does it present a complete, well-rounded view of them. Yes, that is ONE interview where Ringo, off the top of his head, describes Paul in terms of his musicality instead of an actual positive character trait. Using that to sum Paul up, however, would be a mistake. You also need to factor in the many, many other comments Ringo has made and their onging friendship to this day. In fact, the loyalty and longheld ties people generally have with Paul speak very highly of his character, I would say. I adore Victor Spinetti and I certainly remember him telling that HUMEROUS ANECDOTE about a time in the SIXTIES. VAIN Paul, honestly?! Sigh. I'm sure he is/was vain at times as all people are (esp. those who are judged on appearance). He also lived in a rundown barn in Scotland in ratty clothes and fixed the roof himself. Yes, John was better friends with Victor, for example, but it's kind of a bit harsh to use that anecdote told by a friend as a major example of Paul's vanity and lack of good character. I'll just leave this here, by the way, without comment (and remind you of that lovely story I posted from Horst Facher...): Sir Paul McCartney rang up Victor Spinetti last May, at his house in Brighton, a short drive from London on England's south coast. "Are you going to be in?" asked Sir Paul. "Yup," said Spinetti. And Sir Paul said he would pop over for a visit. He arrived without the usual encumbrances of stardom. Without a driver or handlers. As Spinetti said, it was "just the man alone, looking for a parking spot like anyone else." They had some mineral water: "That's all people drink nowadays," explained Spinetti.... "[Paul] calls me the man who makes the clouds disappear," Spinetti said. During their recent visit, Spinetti explained, "we talked about when we were here or there, and when we did this and when we did that. We talked about Linda and had a bit of a weep. We talked about John and had a bit of a weep. We talked about people who passed by and we both said, 'Well, we're still here.' " (2001) Oh, not that this again... I feel like I exhausted myself going down this route once before, lol. Yep, John was most definitely a more openly upfront person about his motives and thoughts. Paul has always been more passive-aggressive (see the childhood story of him actually getting a RULER out and cutting just a mere INCH from the bottom of the curtains when he was cross at his Mum). Why is it better necessarily to be upfront about how rude and horrible and insulting you're being though? Why is it a good thing 'to let it ALL out' for the public to see? The legacy that left at the time was the vicious (untrue) HDYS which can ONLY be interpreted as a direct attack on Paul's *musicianship* and *character* as opposed to something like Too Many People which YES, can be seen as an attack on John's current habit of preaching etc and having broken The Beatles but is also far more general and applicable to other situations/people. You also need to remember that John may have been just a little paranoid about some of those references and that they didn't exist (such as that radio interview where John sings a bit of Backseat of my Car and interprets 'we can't be wrong' as obviously a dig at him and the situation)... And yep, Paul's corroborated that - that he's not as willing to jump off a cliff or dive in as John was. I know you really like HDYS and appreciate John's honesty but I think that song and some early 70s quotes John made about Paul did them both a huge disservice in the eyes of the press, fans and general public. I DO NOT admire John for having the balls to release that song on Imagine. I find it hypocritical, I find it over the top in its viciousness, and I find it cruel. But yes, congratulations, John on recording an angry, bitter song in the heat of the moment and releasing it so everyone knew how you felt right at that point in time. Love your guitar solo, by the way, George Harrison. Agreed on not needing fake friends. Glad Paul and John weren't that to each other. Sean Lennon: 'I’m just so excited when I’m around him. It’s like when you see a white buffalo and you just hold your breath – you’re just hoping that it’s not going to end. Because,’ he adds quietly, 'it’s the closest I can come to hanging out with my dad. Every second I’ve ever spent with Paul has been really meaningful to me. He was my dad’s best mate for a long time. And my dad didn’t have many friends, you know?’ HDYS How do you sleep? How do you sleep at night? Some People Never Know Some people can sleep at nighttime, believing that love is a lie I'm only a person like you, love And who in the world can be right, all the right time I know I was wrong, make me right, right I Know (I Know) Today I love you more than yesterday Right now I love you more right now And I know what's coming down I can feel where it's coming from And I know it's getting better (all the time) As we share in each other's minds
|
|
|
Post by nicole21290 on Jul 3, 2013 7:49:58 GMT -5
Um, and sorry to butt in here but I don't recall ever saying John's music is more 'popular'. I just think John's solo music is generally held in higher regard both by critics, press and the general public, regardless of whether they know a lot of it or only Imagine/GPAC. Semantics... You did say that the public tends to know more of John's solo material than Paul's, if I read you right. Nope, not quite. It, of course, depends on what age this public is, but I've been specifically talking about the young and said, based on my experience, that they would recognise songs by both of them (probably about equal numbers, I would say, but MAYBE Paul might have more recognised) but if asked to list songs by either man, I DO think more young people would know the name of a Lennon solo song than one from Paul. Imagine is iconic and associated with John in a way a Paul song could not or will not ever be. I agree. I mean, commercial success is a useful barometer in some ways but it's not the be all or end all. Actually, the same for critical success - that can also change over time (see quite a number of RAM reviews then and now, for example...) And I think Paul does actually know that, actually. I don't think he was particularly bothered about the commercial success of either of the first Fireman albums, for example. BUT he likes to be liked be people. And nowt wrong with that.
|
|
|
Post by nicole21290 on Jul 3, 2013 8:11:33 GMT -5
Okay, so WHERE has he been trying to claim partial credit for John's Beatles songs which he cannot claim honestly? If he does happen to say 'oh, I contributed this line here' and no one knew that before, is it fair to say Paul must be lying? Yes, it can come across as extremely petty and selfish of him but it doesn't make his claim less legitimate just because no one has mentioned it before or because in the past it's been seen or claimed as a solely John song. For one thing, John is no longer here to challenge Paul's claims. As for "where", don't ask me - ask RTP (I know how much you love it when I mention him ) . He was here almost every day with quotes and "proof" of who wrote which songs, all the time. Yes, that's true. SO?! You have an issue with Paul's desire to reverse credits in 2001, correct, on his live album? John didn't 'challenge' Paul in the 70s when he did it for WOA. Now, does that make it okay for Paul to change credits in 2001? You would probably say no, yes? Why assume John WOULD challenge Paul's claims anyway? For the most part, they AGREED based on the information that we DO have. John not being here does not make what Paul says automatically untrue or likely to be untrue. Um, why can't I ask you? If you're going to say Paul constantly and consistently has been trying to claim dishonest partial credit for John's songs, then surely you can provide evidence of Paul trying to do that?! The onus is on you there, I'm afraid, not me. And not RTP. And yes, I recall those 'proofs' and quotes and, though I know they annoyed people, I LIKED them. Because I'm more than happy to read first hand accounts on the songwriting and production FROM THE PEOPLE WHO WERE THERE. One of which was actually Paul... Oh, I love most of that documentary, actually. I find parts of it (particularly pertaining to him and Linda) quite moving. And yes, the mellotron. He does the same thing on that 2005 Chaos & Creation in Abbey Rd thing, IIRC and on a radio interview he also did in 1997? As I have said numerous times, YES, I think sometimes Paul goes too far trying to prove how important he was. Not only to the music, but to John (he's aways been, esp. since J's death, SO EAGER to point out his closeness to John and he couldn't be all that bad if John put up with him and wrote with him). I'm sorry, though, but I understand why and don't begrudge him that. And he did have his fingers in a lot of John's song and vice versa. It's just of course PAUL will be more likely to point out HIS contributions on John's songs as opposed to what John contributed to his - because he's proud of it, because he wants to emphasise the collaborative vs combative nature of much of the JP r'ship (a STRONG theme in MYFN), and because he's going to be more likely to remember what HE did as opposed to what John did, for the most part. Yep, exactly. I try not to do that but I might occasionally slip. Give credit for it's due and accede the point if someone else is right, I say. But yeah, I know my posts are way too long. I just get overly involved and don't realise their length til they're finished. Um, oops... Oh lordie. Yes, sir! Starting from tomorrow, I will be handing out copies of Imagine and POB to every single young person I know, preaching the good gospel of St Lennon of Peace to them, and extolling his many virtues. I will also refrain from mentioning that silly, fake 'Sir' Paul McCartney's name in their presence just in case they feel the urge to explore his lack-lustre music as well...
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Jul 3, 2013 8:45:14 GMT -5
First, what do you mean "in the later stages of 50 years' worth of making an effort to be nice to people"? How do you know Paul couldn't be a bastard in private, but just that he always covered it up in public? When Paul passes we will hear what went on behind the scenes, and I'm sure not all of it is "Mr. Nice Guy". On the other side of that coin is John Lennon not always being "a sod"... John made an effort to be nice to people too, and I have heard many good stories from New Yorkers who had nice encounters with John, outweighing the bad ones. If Paul has some false reputation as being "a silly pandering dandy", then John has a false rep for always being "Mr. Nasty Tough Guy". ** Interesting note here: I have a Ringo interview from around 1992 where some reporter says he's going to name all the other Beatles and he wants Ringo to say the first thing that comes into his mind. When the reporter said "JOHN?", Ringo replied: "KINDEST". Then when he asked "PAUL?", Ringo said "MELODIC". When asked "GEORGE?", Ringo said "COOL". Something to think about -- and Ringo knew these men. Also, do you recall a story by actor Victor Spinetti, where he was sick in bed with the Flu and the four BEatles came into visit him? Victor said their reactions were all different, and it showed their true personalities. For Paul, he said Paul poked his head through the door and asked "is it catching?", and when he was told Yes, Paul ran off and Victor said "I never saw him again!!" (the other three Beatles each stayed and did their various routines with Victor... George plumped up his pillows, Ringo read him a fairytale story, and John pretended to be a surgeon who was going to operate). Only vain Paul left the room... (And Spinetti told this story often). ***And of course, in 1980 when John was murdered, Paul callously said "It's a drag, isn't it?"-- Ringo was the only Beatle to go to New York to see what he could do. Now, there is no need to go over the fact that we know paul was very upset and just did not want to break down in front of the press... still, he could have mustered up something a little more "kind", even under the pressure. How about even "I'm too upset to comment right now"? A good example of the difference between John and Paul two lies in their brief early '70s feuding. Paul did everything in a sneaky and underhanded way of back stabbing, putting out subtle inside-references about John on his songs and in little interviews. I heard an audio interview with John where he said: "People don't know Paul like I know Paul. His idea is to appear almost straight, except maybe have just his ear painted blue or something..." So when it came to John's 'response', he let it all hang out, no beating around the bush, with his brilliant "How Do You Sleep?". None of this subtle playful trickery - just get in there and say it. So yes, I respect people who are more sincere and real, say what they mean, and not just try to make it look good so everyone will like them. Unfortunately, that makes you have less friends, but who needs fake friends? I'm sure Paul can be deeply unpleasant at times - I know I can, and I'm basically a nice bloke (in my own opinion) - but the perception is that, most of the time, he makes an effort to be just the opposite. Conversely, for much of the time from, perhaps, the end of touring (and after the celebrated Jesus apology) onwards, John could be perceived as not making anything like the same effort. Both perceptions could be wrong, and the full perspective is obviously much broader and covers both extremes for both men. But my point is that when John is a shit he gets a pat on the back for being honest, and when Paul is a shit he gets a kick in the nads for not being honest the rest of the time! As if his natural state was 100% shit and he's been studiously covering it up! My point was not really the extent to which either man is either a paragon of virtue or a dyed in the wool asshole - both were undoubtedly both at different times - but the fact that there is a double standard applying to similar behaviour.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jul 3, 2013 9:47:02 GMT -5
Oh vectis, join Nichole and help put "LENNON" back into Lennon/McCartney!
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jul 3, 2013 10:00:50 GMT -5
All this talk about John and Paul, and it's A LOT, reminds me of something said about the Beatles and the Stones (it may have come from Andrew Loog Oldham). It was something like "The Beatles were bad boys made to look nice and the Stones were nice guys made to look bad."
In a way, that's what we have with John and Paul. Although John can be very caustic and cynical and Paul can be very positive and accommodating, I think John was probably nicer and not as tough as people think and Paul is meaner and not as nice as people perceive.
I think it is telling that John (George and Ringo, too) seemed to have closer relationships with all the British rockers than Paul, as though they all kinda saw Paul as hard to like. I also remember something Clapton said about Paul in regards to the Concert for George. He said, "It was huge humble-pie stuff for Paul to be among these people who he may have thought had a better relationship with George than he did." Remember, Paul probably knew George the longest. My sense, now, that Paul is near the "end of the end", he seems to be connecting more with people. He's become closer (as friends) to Clapton and Keith Richards, and I'm sure others.
Anyway, Paul's image is that of being the more likeable one over John, but if one really looks at it, despite John's image, he was probably liked more than Paul by those who really knew them.
|
|