|
Post by John S. Damm on Jul 3, 2013 10:16:03 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. I think there is a lot of truth to what you write, sayne. I again urge folks to read Howard Sounes' book FAB if you dare! BTW, I love that quote about the Beatles and Stones. I am coining a second phrase, "Put the "Bad" back into The Beatles!" I am weary of Epstein's success in making our boys look squeaky clean.
|
|
|
Post by nicole21290 on Jul 3, 2013 12:10:08 GMT -5
I read Sounes' book when it first came out. Some interesting quotes and stories in there but I wouldn't recommend it that highly. I think there a number of flaws with it that stop it from being even close to one of my favourite Beatles book (from recent years, You Never Give Me Your Money gets my vote...) Anyway, thought you might find this Pete Townshend quote from 1968 interesting: "I had an incredible conversation once with Paul McCartney. The difference between the way Lennon and McCartney behave with the people that are around them is incredible. What Lennon does is he sits down, immediately acknowledges the fact that he’s John Lennon and that everything for the rest of the night is going to revolve around him. He completely relaxes and let’s everybody feel at ease and just speaks dribble little jokes, little rubbish like he’s got, In His Own Write and little things. Like he’ll start to dribble on and get stoned and do silly things and generally have a good time. Of course everybody gets into his thing and also has a generally good time. But Paul McCartney worries, he wants a genuine conversation, a genuine relationship, starting off from square one: “We’ve got to get it straight that we both know where we’re both at before we begin.” One of them is fucking Paul McCartney, a Beatle, the other one is me, a huge monumental Beatle fan who still gets a kick out of sitting and talking to Paul McCartney. And he’s starting to tell me that he digs me and that we’re on an even par so that we can begin the conversation which completely makes me even a bigger fan. That’s all it serves to do. The conversation comes to no purpose and all he serves to do is to confuse himself. He’s trying to say, “Oh, you know, you know where you’re at. I know where I’m at, we’re both really just us and let’s talk.” So what do you say? “I’m a fantastic fan of yours, man.” He really tries to get it together often and you’ve got to relax, you’ve got to take people..." I think Paul doesn't let that many people KNOW him beyond a quite shallow, genial, friendly friendship.... I think it was Hunter Davies who has said that at first he thought Paul was the easiest one of the Beatles to get to know, but that in the end it turned out that Paul was the hardest for him to REALLY get to know. Pete Shotton echoed that: The one I found hardest to really know was Paul. He was always friendly and charming with strangers, but he played his cards close to his chest. Not many people seem to know all of him (just various aspects or parts of him that he displays depending on the 'audience') but those who seem to (family, old friends, some other musicians) do seem very, very loyal to him and respect him. So, I'm thinking he can't be too bad a guy.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jul 3, 2013 12:54:57 GMT -5
. . . Not many people seem to know all of him (just various aspects or parts of him that he displays depending on the 'audience') but those who seem to (family, old friends, some other musicians) do seem very, very loyal to him and respect him. So, I'm thinking he can't be too bad a guy. I wrote a question on the old board asking people which of the Beatles do you think you could really be friends with. I had to really think this through, based on all the interviews and footage I'd seen on them and what other peoples experiences were. First, I realized I was probably smarter than any of them. Second, there is not much evidence that they were into sports, other than George with Formula 1 and Paul with a passing interest in a couple of sports. Certainly none of them were into soccer like Rod Stewart or cricket like Clapton and Jagger. Third, although I am quite liberal in my views on politics, religion, sex, art, film, and so on, I would find John and George to be too preachy in their views. Fourth, John could be mean and George too condescending and Ringo boring. Anyway, what I'm leading to is I surprised myself when I concluded that if I had to choose one, I think I would most likely be friends with Paul than the others. I would have thought it would have been John. But, taking the totality of what we outsiders know, Paul would have been it. Anyone else here care to do an assessment of who they think they would be good friends with?
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jul 3, 2013 16:04:55 GMT -5
Anyone else here care to do an assessment of who they think they would be good friends with? With my penchant for drugs, art, songwriting, asian women, all forms of mystical spirituality, and wild street life, I think I would have naturally clicked with . . . Ringo.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Jul 3, 2013 19:09:26 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure John knew about the McCartney/Lennon credits on WOA although I couldn't cite a source without considerable research. But I recall reading somewhere that he was well aware of it - at that point he was taking an interest in Paul's releases, so he would have obtained it and examined it closely. Wouldn't have surprised me at all if he had phoned Paul and ragged him about it.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Jul 4, 2013 3:55:18 GMT -5
Not 100% all shit with Paul, but I think a lot more than he wants to be perceived for. But again, Ringo called John "Kindest", and George "Cool". Interesting that the word Ringo immediately thought of for Paul was "melodic", which is not even a personality or character trait.... but more like a "business thing with music". I'd have to disagree with the double standard thing. You don't get taken as aback by it when someone's rather up front about it; but when they pretend to be something else and then show their truer colors, that knocks me more for a loop. Seeing paul yell at a fan and throw her own gift back out the limo window at her said enough to me. I suspect we may wander into the vexed area of hypothetical percentages here if we're not careful. Again I point out that in the course of a 50 year career it would be strange if there weren't occasions when someone showed a darker side. Calling that "truer colours" presupposes that this is their default setting. I can't say whether it is or not, but the evidence of 50 years suggests that these incidents were bad days for a bloke who is usually genial and pleasant (if guarded) rather than incidents where you see the true face of someone who has pretended to be nice for 50 years. And the truth is, I am sure, somewhere between between the two, as it was for John. And again, John gets cut some slack for his antisocial moments, no such luck for Paul.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jul 4, 2013 10:10:22 GMT -5
Joe, you couldn't even start a Thread to "Remember John" without the Macca Mad Hatters(or is it Haters) going on the offensive and berating John, marginalizing John and blaming John on the first real "John Thread" started here in about five years! The dwindling John fans couldn't even have a sanctuary Thread to lament John being marginalized and erased from Beatles history! Lennon fans here wanted a crumb and we are having to battle for our very existence! I saw somewhere last night that Paul is insisting to his Hollywood celebrity circles that he and his mafia Princess wife are "PaulandNancy." Talk about usurping and rewriting history!
|
|
|
Post by Snookeroo on Jul 4, 2013 11:27:26 GMT -5
Interesting thread. I read the very first post, and then decided not to plow through the full 17 pages because I think I have an idea how it will have gone. I do have one question though.....
Exactly when was the "Lennon" taken out of "Lennon/ McCartney"?
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jul 4, 2013 12:00:02 GMT -5
Exactly when was the "Lennon" taken out of "Lennon/ McCartney"? Unofficially starting the day after John's murder when Paul went on the offensive to not just preserve his legacy but to increase it at John's expense. Officially starting with The Beatles Anthology which foolishly tried to tell the Beatles story by the Beatles themselves. Huge flaw fellas, JOHN LENNON HAD BEEN DEAD FOR GOING ON 15 YEARS AND COULD NOT SPEAK FOR HIMSELF!! John was represented poorly by scratchy old audio tapes or grainy old videotape or film in circumstances where he was not in any way trying to tell his definitive side of the story. John comes across as some old shadowy figure, often flippant or totally out of context. Anthology should have been told by a neutral third party narrator since all four were not alive to participate! Meanwhile Yoko Ono was not allowed to give 1995 contemporary filmed interviews in Anthology even though she is part of the Beatles' and John's story from at least 1968 to the break-up and she could have fairly represented John in modern, high-definition filmed interviews like we see Paul, George and Ringo. Speaking of which, I am amazed at the passive aggression shown by Paul, George and Ringo towards John and Yoko in those Anthology interviews! John comes across as a freak show towards the end of The Beatles. Two things stand out from Anthology: (1) Paul, George and Ringo marginalize John and make him seem a freak who got a lucky break(like Paul actually sang about on "Ram") and (2) George Harrison absolutely, positively could not stand being filmed with Paul McCartney! Good on Hari for not allowing himself to be swallowed up by Paul in that project. I view Anthology as the second McCartney-centric "Beatles'" film next to "Let It Be." Is it any wonder LIB will never be re-released as long as John and George live through their widows! In short that's where it started officially and unofficially. It continues to this day every time Macca opens his mouth on the subject and gives fake praise to John but in the next breath goes ever deeper in claiming credit for "John's" Beatles songs(JoeK and I have giving the very specific example of "Strawberry Fields Forever" where Paul in each new interview has a bigger hand in writing it ) while conversely Paul is finding it harder to cite examples of how John helped him with "Paul's" Beatles songs.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Jul 4, 2013 13:09:56 GMT -5
Exactly when was the "Lennon" taken out of "Lennon/ McCartney"? Unofficially starting the day after John's murder when Paul went on the offensive to not just preserve his legacy but to increase it at John's expense. Officially starting with The Beatles Anthology which foolishly tried to tell the Beatles story by the Beatles themselves. Huge flaw fellas, JOHN LENNON HAD BEEN DEAD FOR GOING ON 15 YEARS AND COULD NOT SPEAK FOR HIMSELF!! John was represented poorly by scratchy old audio tapes or grainy old videotape or film in circumstances where he was not in any way trying to tell his definitive side of the story. John comes across as some old shadowy figure, often flippant or totally out of context. Anthology should have been told by a neutral third party narrator since all four were not alive to participate! Meanwhile Yoko Ono was not allowed to give 1995 contemporary filmed interviews in Anthology even though she is part of the Beatles' and John's story from at least 1968 to the break-up and she could have fairly represented John in modern, high-definition filmed interviews like we see Paul, George and Ringo. Speaking of which, I am amazed at the passive aggression shown by Paul, George and Ringo towards John and Yoko in those Anthology interviews! John comes across as a freak show towards the end of The Beatles. Two things stand out from Anthology: (1) Paul, George and Ringo marginalize John and make him seem a freak who got a lucky break(like Paul actually sang about on "Ram") and (2) George Harrison absolutely, positively could not stand being filmed with Paul McCartney! Good on Hari for not allowing himself to be swallowed up by Paul in that project. I view Anthology as the second McCartney-centric "Beatles'" film next to "Let It Be." Is it any wonder LIB will never be re-released as long as John and George live through their widows! In short that's where it started officially and unofficially. It continues to this day every time Macca opens his mouth on the subject and gives fake praise to John but in the next breath goes ever deeper in claiming credit for "John's" Beatles songs(JoeK and I have giving the very specific example of "Strawberry Fields Forever" where Paul in each new interview has a bigger hand in writing it ) while conversely Paul is finding it harder to cite examples of how John helped him with "Paul's" Beatles songs. I am glad The Anthology was published in the 1990's. It was a chance for the three surviving Beatles to give their own versions of how they saw their history as a band unfold. Unfortunately John was not there to give his own current thoughts on their history, but his remarks from historical interviews were all there was to get his perspective. It must be remembered that all his remarks post 1970, were made when the band was in the midst of lawsuits and anger towards one another over various business and personal issues. It is sad that John passed away before the business isues were settled and certainly his opinions on anything changed faster than the weather, so had he lived to the 1990's and the Anthology project, certainly his views on Beatle history would have been made in a much different light. But that didn't happen. I find no aggression towards John, passively, or aggressively, by the other three. Only their observations on how they saw John as a member of the band and their personal memories of the man; as much as they wished to reveal in such a public fashion. How does John come across as a "freak show" toward the end of The Beatles? Where do P,G, & R marginalize John and "make him seem like a freak who got a lucky break?" If George could not stand being filmed with Paul, why did he participate in the reunion songs, in the films of the making of the reunion songs, and join Ringo and Paul for the jam sessions on old Beatle Cavern and Hamburg club songs, as well as recalling old memories with both of them for interviews in the Anthology film? The Anthology may not be perfect in your opinion, but it is an invaluable document and film about how the Beatles saw their own history unfold in their own words. It may be flawed, but so is life. As great as The Beatles were, they were still flawed human beings. But they wrote and recorded some of the best music of the 20th Century. Regarding the Anthology; it is certainly better that it exists for posterity. IMO opinion this so-called John Lennon bashing that some on this board feel Paul has been propogating since 1980 is a load of crap. John's Beatle output stands for itself on record. Literally. It cannot be altered by Paul or anyone else. John is dead. He only had 10 years of solo output after The Beatles. Paul has had 43 years and counting. He is still alive. Of course he is in the limelight as the Beatle who still is performing and putting out music. But his role as a Beatle, regarding Beatles music, ended in 1970, same as John's. John needs no one, especially us geeks on this board, to defend him, or his music.....
|
|
|
Post by Snookeroo on Jul 4, 2013 16:14:02 GMT -5
Exactly when was the "Lennon" taken out of "Lennon/ McCartney"? Unofficially starting the day after John's murder when Paul went on the offensive to not just preserve his legacy but to increase it at John's expense. . WOW! Paul got up on December 9, 1980 and this was his mindset. No, not in my opinion. 100 years from now the Lennon/McCartney legend will be just fine. John hasn't been here to defend himself - that's true. But Paul has also had a certain cross to bear since Lennon's murder. Paul has an awful lot more right to speak about John lennon than most other people on the planet too.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jul 4, 2013 17:42:05 GMT -5
[100 years from now the Lennon/McCartney legend will be just fine. I think that's true. However, here in 2013 it's more about Paul, and that's at the heart of what this thread is about. If I had started such a thread in 1985 it would have been called "Let's put the 'McCartney' back in Lennon & McCartney".
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jul 4, 2013 17:53:04 GMT -5
Joe, you couldn't even start a Thread to "Remember John" without the Macca Mad Hatters(or is it Haters) going on the offensive and berating John, marginalizing John and blaming John on the first real "John Thread" started here in about five years! The dwindling John fans couldn't even have a sanctuary Thread to lament John being marginalized and erased from Beatles history! Lennon fans here wanted a crumb and we are having to battle for our very existence! JSD, you are completely correct. Poor John...
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Jul 4, 2013 18:24:48 GMT -5
If I have been unfairly negative about John then I apologise - that wasn't my intention. I saw what I still believe to be a double standard, and sought to put an opposing viewpoint, during which I have said a number of times that the perception is almost certainly faulty in that both John and Paul have had their strongly positive and strongly negative moments.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Jul 4, 2013 18:36:29 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure John knew about the McCartney/Lennon credits on WOA although I couldn't cite a source without considerable research. But I recall reading somewhere that he was well aware of it - at that point he was taking an interest in Paul's releases, so he would have obtained it and examined it closely. Wouldn't have surprised me at all if he had phoned Paul and ragged him about it. And here you are again, perpetuating this myth that John was always this nasty guy - even to the point that you could see him picking up the phone and ragging on Paul about this. More likely it would be a Paul McCartney who would be this petty and vain, and would wish to take someone to task for such a thing, if the situation were reversed. Vectis, I know you are a first-gen Beatles Fan but I think you may need to brush up on your knowledge here. John never liked phones, rarely wanted to talk on them, and usually was content doing his own thing in this period and didn't appreciate his celeb friends always wanting to call him or hang out. I'd like to know where you get this idea that Lennon was taking an interest in Paul's releases; there are many sources from John himself where he at least claims he was not listening to Paul, didn't really care. There is an in-studio candid conversation from late 1980 which was captured on camcorder by Bob Gruen, where John says "the last one I listened to was the one where he had the rose in his mouth" (RED ROSE SPEEDWAY). In the PLAYBOY interview John had said " ' The Long and Winding Road' was the last gasp from him, though I haven't really been listening". But John did reveal that he came across hearing the "Coming Up" single in 1980, and said he preferred the "freak version" to the live one. But of course, if your main area of interest is still 1964, you may not have heard about all that stuff ... What? Where am I perpetuating anything about John being nasty? Perhaps I have misunderstood the slang expression "ragging" - I was using it intending it to mean teasing. My mental picture was of John talking to Paul with a smile on his face, rather pointedly taking the piss, and perhaps harking back to the original decision - "I thought you'd forgotten all that old shit!" or the like. I genuinely envisaged it as an amused conversation between two old friends - John amused, Paul perhaps a bit defensive (which John would have found even more amusing). And even though the phone wasn't his favourite means of communication, there is plenty of evidence of lengthy phone conversations with family and close associates. And despite what you say, I am quite sure that the credit reversal would not have slipped John's attention - if he hadn't spotted it himself, someone would have pointed it out to him. But I certainly don't think any element of this reflects negatively on him, and I am amazed and somewhat saddened that I seem to have given that impression.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jul 4, 2013 19:08:45 GMT -5
Maybe I'm missing something here (and not for the first time) but Macca has almost always seemed incredibly respectful towards John. When pressed Paul concedes the obvious. That John was the leader of the Beatles. And that Paul was grateful to be number 2 to Johns number 1. The only time Paul went to far was with his "You took your lucky break . . ." line. And John made him pay dearly for that one. Ha ha.
|
|
|
Post by scousette on Jul 4, 2013 20:35:26 GMT -5
And here you are again, perpetuating this myth that John was always this nasty guy - even to the point that you could see him picking up the phone and ragging on Paul about this. More likely it would be a Paul McCartney who would be this petty and vain, and would wish to take someone to task for such a thing, if the situation were reversed. Vectis, I know you are a first-gen Beatles Fan but I think you may need to brush up on your knowledge here. John never liked phones, rarely wanted to talk on them, and usually was content doing his own thing in this period and didn't appreciate his celeb friends always wanting to call him or hang out. I'd like to know where you get this idea that Lennon was taking an interest in Paul's releases; there are many sources from John himself where he at least claims he was not listening to Paul, didn't really care. There is an in-studio candid conversation from late 1980 which was captured on camcorder by Bob Gruen, where John says "the last one I listened to was the one where he had the rose in his mouth" (RED ROSE SPEEDWAY). In the PLAYBOY interview John had said " ' The Long and Winding Road' was the last gasp from him, though I haven't really been listening". But John did reveal that he came across hearing the "Coming Up" single in 1980, and said he preferred the "freak version" to the live one. But of course, if your main area of interest is still 1964, you may not have heard about all that stuff ... What? Where am I perpetuating anything about John being nasty? Perhaps I have misunderstood the slang expression "ragging" - I was using it intending it to mean teasing. My mental picture was of John talking to Paul with a smile on his face, rather pointedly taking the piss, and perhaps harking back to the original decision - "I thought you'd forgotten all that old shit!" or the like. I genuinely envisaged it as an amused conversation between two old friends - John amused, Paul perhaps a bit defensive (which John would have found even more amusing). And even though the phone wasn't his favourite means of communication, there is plenty of evidence of lengthy phone conversations with family and close associates. And despite what you say, I am quite sure that the credit reversal would not have slipped John's attention - if he hadn't spotted it himself, someone would have pointed it out to him. But I certainly don't think any element of this reflects negatively on him, and I am amazed and somewhat saddened that I seem to have given that impression. vectis, I understood what you meant and I would agree with your scenario. Re use of the telephone, didn't John phone Aunt Mimi every week or so?
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jul 5, 2013 5:28:27 GMT -5
Maybe I'm missing something here (and not for the first time) but Macca has almost always seemed incredibly respectful towards John. When pressed Paul concedes the obvious. That John was the leader of the Beatles. And that Paul was grateful to be number 2 to Johns number 1. Well, I've never heard Paul say he was "second". But as for respecting John's memory, how many times do I have to acknowledge that I fully agree that Paul has always been respectful of John's memory, and has always talked nicely about him? But that's separate from Paul's wanting to assert that he wrote most of the songs, and revealing new history that he wrote parts of John's songs (without telling us the contributions John made to Paul's music except for the three usual stories).
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Jul 5, 2013 10:21:03 GMT -5
With the exception of Ringo, none of them emerges from the shenanigans following the split with unsullied morality. And not even Ringo if he was in the car when the brick was heaved (assuming that story is not apocryphal).
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jul 5, 2013 10:40:33 GMT -5
I think it is interesting that people who heretofore consider the Lennon/McCartney collaboration to span everything from actually "nose-to-nose" writing to being alone in a room, but merely thinking about how the other person would think about it and thus being an influence on the writing, are now criticizing Paul for claiming he had certain roles in certain songs. You can't have it both ways.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Jul 5, 2013 17:23:32 GMT -5
Don't forget, Paul, that you also included a photo of a beetle screwing a beetle on the LP cover. So that's two boy beetles? I don't know how you tell with insects. It looks consensual to me though. Are you sure it's not Paul saying "Let's make up. Let's get back together". Paul was always sending those mixed messages. No wonder John got frustrated with Paul's albums.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Jul 5, 2013 17:24:37 GMT -5
I think it is interesting that people who heretofore consider the Lennon/McCartney collaboration to span everything from actually "nose-to-nose" writing to being alone in a room, but merely thinking about how the other person would think about it and thus being an influence on the writing, are now criticizing Paul for claiming he had certain roles in certain songs. You can't have it both ways. I'd bet George and Ringo could take more credit here and there.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Jul 6, 2013 0:15:52 GMT -5
IMO opinion this so-called John Lennon bashing that some on this board feel Paul has been propogating since 1980 is a load of crap. John's Beatle output stands for itself on record. Literally. It cannot be altered by Paul or anyone else. John is dead. He only had 10 years of solo output after The Beatles. Paul has had 43 years and counting. He is still alive. Of course he is in the limelight as the Beatle who still is performing and putting out music. But his role as a Beatle, regarding Beatles music, ended in 1970, same as John's. John needs no one, especially us geeks on this board, to defend him, or his music..... OK... but then can I ask you why, if you feel this way, you (or the Macca Mad Hatters) were so defensive of PAUL up until recently? When you felt it was PAUL who was being marginalized or sold short be Lennon's after-death mysticism, why were you guys upset with that? Did not the same general principals apply, that "Paul will always be remembered for his work in The Beatles and it stands for itself, and no death of Lennon can change that"....? I have no interest in defending Paul. As I said above; The same principle applies to Paul; His work in the Beatles stands for itself. It is common knowledge amoung fans, and The Beatles confirmed it as well, that the lead singer on MOST L&M songs was also the chief author of the song. So John's Beatles song legacy is safe from anything Paul might have said after John's death. I do not believe Paul is trying to alter John's legacy. 50 years after the fact, how can he now remember clearly how every song was composed? This thread needs to be put to rest....
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jul 6, 2013 3:39:42 GMT -5
50 years after the fact, how can he now remember clearly how every song was composed? I think that is a huge point made by a few of us here throughout yet Paul keeps expanding upon songwriting clarification taking credit for more and more, even on songs where John is lead vocal. Again, SFF. Oh yeah, and Paul basically calling John a liar on "Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds" saying that clearly was an LSD song! Doesn't Paul now claim 50% of that song too. Next time it will be 51% Why? No one is forced to participate in any particular Thread and there some Threads here that interest me not one bit but I certainly do not wish to dampen the enthusiasm of those who do.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jul 6, 2013 7:39:03 GMT -5
I'd bet George and Ringo could take more credit here and there. I'd bet you're right. I did see and hear an interview with George where he pretty much said that if he wanted to, he could surprise a lot of people with L&M songs he contributed to. I can't remember which interview it was, it's somewhere in my archives. And I think it was in defense of Paul getting ticked at something George said, to which George replied "But I don't go on about how I wrote a line in 'Eleanor Rigby'" (I think that was the song). And then he continued with saying how he could really blow the lid off the L&M machine!
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jul 6, 2013 12:15:48 GMT -5
I'd bet George and Ringo could take more credit here and there. I'd bet you're right. I did see and hear an interview with George where he pretty much said that if he wanted to, he could surprise a lot of people with L&M songs he contributed to. I can't remember which interview it was, it's somewhere in my archives. And I think it was in defense of Paul getting ticked at something George said, to which George replied "But I don't go on about how I wrote a line in 'Eleanor Rigby'" (I think that was the song). And then he continued with saying how he could really blow the lid off the L&M machine! He needed to put up or shut up. Unless the evidence is public, it does no good for him to make the claim. He may be right and I certainly accept the plausibility, but George (or anyone) can't just throw out an insinuation and not support it. Even with Eleanor Rigby, what was the line? George did the same with his guitar playing. He said that he could come up with stuff as good as Clapton, but it would take him awhile, so he would call Clapton in since he could knock it off right away. Well, George, since you took your time to do your albums anyway, you should have shown us you could play as good as Clapton.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jul 6, 2013 15:17:39 GMT -5
Oh yeah, and Paul basically calling John a liar on "Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds" saying that clearly was an LSD song! As a guy who has done 300 acid trips, and spent 10 years researching a book on the Beatles and psychedelic drugs, I've always thought -- and always will think -- that John was lying through his teeth when he said (repeatedly) that "Lucy" wasn't about acid. And I commend Paul for setting the record straight. Though, in typical Paul fashion, 40 years too late.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jul 6, 2013 15:22:11 GMT -5
I'd bet George and Ringo could take more credit here and there. I'd bet you're right. I did see and hear an interview with George where he pretty much said that if he wanted to, he could surprise a lot of people with L&M songs he contributed to. I can't remember which interview it was, it's somewhere in my archives. And I think it was in defense of Paul getting ticked at something George said, to which George replied "But I don't go on about how I wrote a line in 'Eleanor Rigby'" (I think that was the song). And then he continued with saying how he could really blow the lid off the L&M machine! Its interesting to note that of the hundreds of songs Paul and John wrote together, according to Paul they're really only in dispute over 2 songs when it comes to credits. Paul disputes John's claim that he wrote "half of the lyrics to Eleanor Rigby" (Paul claims he didn't write any, and Pete Shotton -- who was a Lennon guy if ever there was one -- was at the writing session and backs up Paul's claim). And "In My Life" where Paul claims he wrote a good part of the melody (and it DOES have kind of a Paul melody to the vocals). Lennon did the invaluable Playboy interview where he went through every Beatles song. So John's take is part of the permanent record no matter how much Paul, or anybody, tries to revise.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jul 6, 2013 15:30:54 GMT -5
Speaking of "Eleanor Rigby" there's a fascinating account of how that song was written in Pete Shotton's book. They were all hanging out at Lennon's house one afternoon, mostly having a decidedly "unmagical and unmysterious" afternoon sitting around watching television (as Shotton wryly put it). When they decided to have a songwriting session. Everybody, including Pete and Mal, kicked in with their suggestions, many of which were taken. It sort of had the feel of a bunch of people lazing around working on a big jigsaw puzzle together. Originally, Paul had written it as "Father McCartney" but they all agreed that would be a mistake. So they leafed through the "Macs" in the telephone book until they found a McKenzie which they all agreed sounded right.
Shotton claims that he was the one who came up with the idea to bring the two lonely people together at the end (but too late) by having the minister preside over Eleanor's funeral. Which is a pretty neat poetic devise and really makes the song complete. John -- who according to Pete was listless and unproductive during the whole session, possibly suffering from a drug hangover -- angrily denounced Pete's suggestion, maintaining that Pete had no concept of where they were going with the song. Much to Pete's ire. He also claims that Paul has acknowledged his contribution to the song. While modestly maintaining that he deserves no credit, that the Beatles would have eventually come up with the lines no matter who happened to be hanging out at the time.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jul 6, 2013 19:28:21 GMT -5
Oh yeah, and Paul basically calling John a liar on "Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds" saying that clearly was an LSD song! As a guy who has done 300 acid trips, and spent 10 years researching a book on the Beatles and psychedelic drugs, I've always thought -- and always will think -- that John was lying through his teeth when he said (repeatedly) that "Lucy" wasn't about acid. And I commend Paul for setting the record straight. Though, in typical Paul fashion, 40 years too late. I'm not going to get too deep into this one with you all over again, except to say I fail to see why John would always take great pains to proudly explain when he would write songs about drugs... but then "lie" only about LUCY? Even in the infamous 1970 Rolling Stone interview where John wanted to shatter every myth and taboo, he did not "expose LITSWD as being about LSD".
|
|