|
Post by sayne on Jul 1, 2016 18:23:11 GMT -5
I'm in the midst of a vacation and drove through the Black Mountain Hills of Dakota. No one here has ever heard of Rocky Raccoon, Magil or Lil or Nancy and her man, Dan, and a fight with Rocky. What a let down.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2016 1:38:35 GMT -5
Yes, he has lied.
Madonna is no Lady either.
|
|
|
Post by stavros on Jul 2, 2016 8:04:59 GMT -5
I reckon he's smoked the Pipes of Peace a few times though
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Paul Lied
Jul 2, 2016 15:22:06 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by lowbasso on Jul 2, 2016 15:22:06 GMT -5
Paul lies everytime he talks about who gets what credit in the Lennon/McCartney Catalogue. How does he sleep at night I wonder....
|
|
markc
Very Clean
Posts: 447
|
Paul Lied
Jul 2, 2016 15:30:40 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by markc on Jul 2, 2016 15:30:40 GMT -5
How?
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Jul 4, 2016 5:20:40 GMT -5
Paul lies everytime he talks about who gets what credit in the Lennon/McCartney Catalogue. How does he sleep at night I wonder.... Here we go again... Interesting how "I don't like the way how what he says appears to marginalise Lennon" morphs into "He's lying."
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jul 4, 2016 5:50:42 GMT -5
Paul lies everytime he talks about who gets what credit in the Lennon/McCartney Catalogue. How does he sleep at night I wonder.... Here we go again... Interesting how "I don't like the way how what he says appears to marginalise Lennon" morphs into "He's lying." We are "going again" because Paul himself keeps going again, always coming up with new stories and tidbits that boost his presence in The Beatles and diminishes John's... and often these are stories and revelations which he has never mentioned in previous decades. It's obvious that Paul is insecure about his legacy and still feels "in John's shadow", so he's doing everything he can to be Chief Beatle. Including touring relentlessly despite vocal limitations, and making the new generations know it was all about him.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jul 4, 2016 5:52:41 GMT -5
Paul lies everytime he talks about who gets what credit in the Lennon/McCartney Catalogue. How does he sleep at night I wonder.... Paul has defiantly replied: "Quite well, thank you" with regard to the HDYS question... but not realizing that this is the whole point. Yes, he seems to sleep well... but how can he, how is he able to ??
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Jul 4, 2016 7:46:18 GMT -5
I like even after all this time that there are still new stories that we haven't heard.
I suppose now that Lewisohn is writing about the studio years, we will be hearing more about how Paul spent much more time helping with the song writing and spending more time in the studio.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jul 4, 2016 11:54:43 GMT -5
I like even after all this time that there are still new stories that we haven't heard. I suppose now that Lewisohn is writing about the studio years, we will be hearing more about how Paul spent much more time helping with the song writing and spending more time in the studio. I like that Lewisohn at least established John as a leader and major factor in The Beatles during the early years, in his first TUNE IN book. Because even I, a big fan of Lennon's, have begun getting influenced by the "Paul Is The Beatles" crowd! They and Paul himself have really gotten even me drinking that Kool-Aid and thinking it's all about Paul, now that we haven't had John around for near 36 years to speak up about his role from the past, and not playing concerts today nor doing anything new.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Jul 4, 2016 13:17:31 GMT -5
I like even after all this time that there are still new stories that we haven't heard. I suppose now that Lewisohn is writing about the studio years, we will be hearing more about how Paul spent much more time helping with the song writing and spending more time in the studio. I like that Lewisohn at least established John as a leader and major factor in The Beatles during the early years, in his first TUNE IN book. Because even I, a big fan of Lennon's, have begun getting influenced by the "Paul Is The Beatles" crowd! They and Paul himself have really gotten even me drinking that Kool-Aid and thinking it's all about Paul, now that we haven't had John around for near 36 years to speak up about his role from the past, and not playing concerts today nor doing anything new. Whereas I'm not getting anywhere near the "Paul Is the Beatles" crowd. That's crazy to think that. I don't think Paul is in that crowd either.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jul 4, 2016 15:05:17 GMT -5
Wow, I didn't think my silly little post about my vacation, which included Mount Rushmore, the Badlands, Yellowstone, and the Devil's Tower (Close Encounters rock formation) was going to lead to Paul bashing. Guess it's my fault for naming it the way I did.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Jul 5, 2016 4:54:19 GMT -5
Here we go again... Interesting how "I don't like the way how what he says appears to marginalise Lennon" morphs into "He's lying." We are "going again" because Paul himself keeps going again, always coming up with new stories and tidbits that boost his presence in The Beatles and diminishes John's... and often these are stories and revelations which he has never mentioned in previous decades. It's obvious that Paul is insecure about his legacy and still feels "in John's shadow", so he's doing everything he can to be Chief Beatle. Including touring relentlessly despite vocal limitations, and making the new generations know it was all about him. 1. Given that he was there and I wasn't, I'm always happy to hear previously untold stuff. 2. If Paul's recollection about, say, Mr Kite is true, isn't it better to know this than not? Should we not be told, on the grounds that it betrays John's legacy? 3. There must be thousands of bits of information which we don't know and never will. Does the fact that some of them get mentioned now after never having been mentioned before mean that Paul is lying about them? 4. Yes, clearly Paul feels insecure about his legacy. Seeing "Yesterday, by John Lennon and P" can do that to you. I suspect that subsequent generations will view them equally despite any of Paul's actions. 5. He shouldn't promote himself as Chief Beatle. It's arguable that he's promoting himself as Chief Surviving Beatle. 6. Paul should stop public croaking.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jul 5, 2016 18:16:53 GMT -5
1. John was also there at the time. Problem is, he's not also here right now to challenge Paul's stories. 2. Ask Paul... he'd kept his mouth shut about it for almost 50 years. Now that he's worried about his legacy, he claims co-authorship where he hadn't before. 3. I guess only Paul knows. 4. That's petty childishness. Besides, Paul has no clue as to how future devices will list the credits after he's gone, despite his efforts. (and he felt that way about the song titles before the current computer screen situation). 5. It is a matter of opinion, yes. But it seems to me (and others) that he wants the world to know it was mainly about Him. He has voiced as much over the years after John's death ("I was really the Avant Garde One", etc..) 6. At this point in 2016 I just may come to agree. But I'll let you know after I see him in August.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Jul 6, 2016 3:30:46 GMT -5
1. John was also there at the time. Problem is, he's not also here right now to challenge Paul's stories. 2. Ask Paul... he'd kept his mouth shut about it for almost 50 years. Now that he's worried about his legacy, he claims co-authorship where he hadn't before. 3. I guess only Paul knows. 4. That's petty childishness. Besides, Paul has no clue as to how future devices will list the credits after he's gone, despite his efforts. (and he felt that way about the song titles before the current computer screen situation). 5. It is a matter of opinion, yes. But it seems to me (and others) that he wants the world to know it was mainly about Him. He has voiced as much over the years after John's death ("I was really the Avant Garde One", etc..) 6. At this point in 2016 I just may come to agree. But I'll let you know after I see him in August. 1. Yes, he isn't. I wish it were otherwise, and I imagine Paul wishes this, too. But the inference here is "and Paul should shut up and never say anything new, especially if it bigs up himself and, by subtraction, diminishes John," and I simply don't agree. If he has something to say which hasn't been said before, then it's worth hearing in my view. This particular rejoinder is getting very old and worn out, and I personally dislike it being used as a reason for arguing that Paul shouldn't say anything new which is even vaguely "anti-John". And, quite frankly, I don't think "I had a hand in writing Kite" does John any harm at all. 2. So he shouldn't say anything. If it's true then I think he should. There are no grounds for suggesting that it's not true other than the fact that it hasn't been mentioned before and, as I said, there must be thousands of titbits which have never been mentioned. Of course, it can be suggested that it's not true because the reader doesn't want it to be true. 3. Yes. Not us. 4. Why is it petty childishness? 5. Again, if what he is saying is true, then shouldn't it be said? It's a matter of historical record that Paul was immersed in the avant garde scene (and other cultural areas) at a time when John was saying "Avant garde? I call it avant garde a clue,", and then when Yoko came on the scene, John was suddenly at the forefront of popular culture avant garde, bigging himself up and not mentioning Paul. Was that not equally reprehensible at the time? No, because John was spilling over with J&Y and Paul was irrelevant. Doesn't alter that this was all a matter of record, and that what Paul said about it was true. 6. I hope it's a great show Joe, and that you really enjoy it.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jul 6, 2016 5:28:11 GMT -5
1. Yes, he isn't. I wish it were otherwise, and I imagine Paul wishes this, too. But the inference here is "and Paul should shut up and never say anything new, especially if it bigs up himself and, by subtraction, diminishes John," and I simply don't agree. If he has something to say which hasn't been said before, then it's worth hearing in my view. This particular rejoinder is getting very old and worn out, and I personally dislike it being used as a reason for arguing that Paul shouldn't say anything new which is even vaguely "anti-John". And, quite frankly, I don't think "I had a hand in writing Kite" does John any harm at all. 2. So he shouldn't say anything. If it's true then I think he should. There are no grounds for suggesting that it's not true other than the fact that it hasn't been mentioned before and, as I said, there must be thousands of titbits which have never been mentioned. Of course, it can be suggested that it's not true because the reader doesn't want it to be true. 3. Yes. Not us. 4. Why is it petty childishness? 5. Again, if what he is saying is true, then shouldn't it be said? It's a matter of historical record that Paul was immersed in the avant garde scene (and other cultural areas) at a time when John was saying "Avant garde? I call it avant garde a clue,", and then when Yoko came on the scene, John was suddenly at the forefront of popular culture avant garde, bigging himself up and not mentioning Paul. Was that not equally reprehensible at the time? No, because John was spilling over with J&Y and Paul was irrelevant. Doesn't alter that this was all a matter of record, and that what Paul said about it was true. 6. I hope it's a great show Joe, and that you really enjoy it. 1. The whole point is that these things never seemed to concern Paul when he was a young man; but now he is obsessed with boosting up his influence in The Beatles. With the KITE song, for nearly 50 years the world (and Paul) has been fine with accepting KITE as "a John song"; suddenly, Paul decides -- and his words here are very telling: "I wanted to re-claim it as partially mine" (it's the term "reclaim" which is bizarre). It would be the same idea if it was John who was alive with Paul deceased, and suddenly John said "I wrote half of WHEN I'M 64, and I want to now re-claim YESTERDAY as partially my own because I actually had part of the idea", or "I was actually the one who was the ballad singer" (like Paul's "I was the Avant Garde one") ... etc. 2. It can also be suggested that it's true because the reader wants it to be true. And it has been long said that Paul "re-writes history". 3. Glad I remembered to touch on this, as I'd forgotten previously. This business about "Paul was there, we were not" is a load of hogwash in many cases. Mark Lewisohn will tell you this after doing much historical research ... and it applies not only to Paul, but also Ringo, George Martin, or anyone else associated with The Beatles. People think that if you weren't there, then you don't know the real story and they do... and while this can be the case sometimes, also many times we see that even the main participants themselves get facts screwed up. Just look at how messed up George Martin's account of signing The Beatles is. 4. It's my opinion that it is. In the past Paul did not care... now he's paranoid that some kid playing with his smartphone screen might decide to look up YESTERDAY some day and see that it says "John Lennon and P -- ". But even if Paul could somehow fix that, there also will be all sorts of future devices and technologies developed after he's dead that he cannot possibly safeguard his memory against. 5. First, we don't know if it's true (and Paul re-writes history, as is his longstanding reputation). And here we go again bashing John Lennon.. and quite frankly, John has always had his share of merciless bashing already, especially once he hitched up with Yoko during the period you talk about. But John was always the more weird one, always the more risqué and adventurous one... and now Paul is trying to take even that from John. It's true that Paul's tape loops were used for TOMORROW NEVER KNOWS, but that hardly established him overall as "The Avant Garde One" (besides, if Paul WAS truly the Avant Garde One, you wouldn't like his music).
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Jul 6, 2016 9:56:36 GMT -5
1. The word reclaim certainly indicates insecurity, but I think that Paul's insecurity is a Given: you won't catch me arguing against it. My argument is that I think it's understandable and I also think that for all of Paul's rewriting history (or putting his own spin on it, which isn't quite the same thing), John's legacy is pretty safe. 2. Indeed. Or "puts his own spin on it"! 3. Agreed, with knobs on. To be fair, they pointed this out themselves in Anthology more than once. It still remains the case that those in the room have a better idea of what happened in that room than those who weren't. And it also remains the case that the last survivor of those who were in the room could lie about what happened, or just misremembers. Let me get this straight, though - when Paul says "I remember sitting there with John and writing Kite", are people saying "No, you're lying - John wrote it all on his own"? 4. I agree that 100 years in the future John won't be here, Paul won't be here, I won't be here, you won't be here, and anyone who cares will need to trawl back through the millions of words - reliable, unreliable, downright mendacious - to try to extract a truth from them. It won't always be easy for them to do that, and it almost certainly won't matter a stuff! 5. It wasn't just tape loops though, was it? Paul was keenly following avant garde art in general, just as he was also eagerly following more formally cultured stuff - I think I recall the expression "soaking up influences" from somewhere. But why is this bashing John? I genuinely don't understand - John had a viewpoint and he changed it, something he did many times. Something I've done many times, too. It's part of being a person. And yes, John was always a rule breaker and Paul was always a rule follower, no question about that. I don't see why either has to be labelled "The Avant Garde One" (and if those were Paul's words then he's a complete tit to have said that, although I have a feeling he said something more like "John is always called the avant-garde one, but I got interested in it before he did" which, again, I believe to be true and, because of that, cannot be fairly said to take anything away from John except a "title" which wasn't true. Paul sought avant garde out and tried it out a bit but never really went further than that, John was dismissive (despite his tendency to flout rules), then jumped aboard and became almost ambassadorial about it. Strikes me that is simply how it was, no big deal one way or the other.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Jul 6, 2016 17:53:39 GMT -5
I think Paul mentions the avant garde thing just to combat his straight arrow image. He wants to show he colored outside the lines too. Paul still feels in competition with John. That's what has made him great.
When John was murdered, he became larger than life. Paul is still trying to catch up with that.
We all know John was no saint. That's probably the worse thing, if not the only bad thing Paul has ever said about John.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jul 6, 2016 18:05:48 GMT -5
1. The word reclaim certainly indicates insecurity, but I think that Paul's insecurity is a Given: you won't catch me arguing against it. My argument is that I think it's understandable and I also think that for all of Paul's rewriting history (or putting his own spin on it, which isn't quite the same thing), John's legacy is pretty safe. The whole point of all this to me is that it's Paul's legacy which is actually pretty safe. Yet he's the one getting all nervous about it, thinking it's still the 1980s and people are still worshipping John more than him ... when in truth the tables have now turned in Paul's favor tenfold, from John being inactive and gone 36 years, while Paul tours his life away doing vocals by John, with new young generations of fans only drinking McCartney in as their frame of reference. So while I acknowledge that it was all "understandable" for Paul to be concerned for about a decade right after Lennon was deified, I now think he's way too petty about counting beans. I won't say he's lying with this particular song (though I'm not sure of others)... but as I already explained (or tried to), I think Paul it's just petty and tacky of Paul to now "set the record straight" on a song like this, which he used to be content to generally allow people to consider "a John Song". It was John's poster, he had the words... it was always felt it was a John thing. Why must he have his hand in the pie on everything now? It's not about it being "wrong information"; it just seems weird that Paul is so concerned about it all, as he steps closer and closer to death. I really do think that's a large part of the reason why he sings all sorts of Beatles songs most associated with John's vocals. I'm not talking about John's changing his mind on ideas or issues and things .. I do that too all the time too, and I've always been fine with that. I mean that John was generally always thought of as The Wild One, the more Psychedelic One, etc. (I mean .. do you see? Why must I have to actually EXPLAIN that here? Have things changed THIS much in all the decades John has been gone that I have to describe it?.. It was always a given image)... and Paul never seemed to have much of a problem with this until he got elderly, though. Now he's out to get a piece of the action in everything... he was actually just as weird or avant garde (or even the first one!).. and he wrote half of most of John's songs, or at least had some input to almost all of them. He talks about John not being able to play guitar, all sorts of things, all the time. The result is - as I have said before - even 'I' as a JL fan have even started to feel it was mainly about Paul. And that's something I never thought before (while John was still alive I thought it was BOTH of them equally or, if anything, more John)...
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jul 6, 2016 18:11:05 GMT -5
When John was murdered, he became larger than life. Paul is still trying to catch up with that. Problem is that he HAS caught up to John, and even surpassed him with so much music in the 21st Century, and all sorts of live appearances. etc... but Paul doesn't know it! Whenever you ask young people who their favorite Beatle is, they almost always say Paul, where they might not have said this in 1985. They have now grown up with Paul. The newbie Beatleholics who go to his shows and are just getting into the band feel that Paul is "The Main Guy". I'm not saying I don't understand how this has happened... but I'm saying let's not pretend it hasn't. John himself told the whole world how he was no saint. Paul didn't/doesn't have to. With Paul. that dirt will only come out after he passes.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Jul 6, 2016 19:15:52 GMT -5
All this negativity is making Paul go grey.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Jul 6, 2016 19:16:14 GMT -5
I still remember him at his best.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jul 7, 2016 1:01:16 GMT -5
6. At this point in 2016 I just may come to agree. But I'll let you know after I see him in August. Wow! You're going to see Paul in concert? I thought you would never go based on all the times you've put him down for his subpar live performances and your assertions that he is well beyond his live viability.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jul 7, 2016 18:08:59 GMT -5
6. At this point in 2016 I just may come to agree. But I'll let you know after I see him in August. Wow! You're going to see Paul in concert? I thought you would never go based on all the times you've put him down for his subpar live performances and your assertions that he is well beyond his live viability. You're mistaken, but it's not the first time. Yes, I have put Paul's vocals down now and then where I felt it was applicable in past years, depending on the venue; but I have also written posts here whenever I have seen Paul and have been pleasantly surprised after seeing him live, too. It has been very "hot and cold", "on and off" during the past 15 years or so. I recall being blown away by Paul's voice and performance in 2005, for example, after seeing him at Madison Square Garden. I stood corrected then, and was not too proud to admit that perhaps I'd written him off prematurely up to that point. I came away from that show thinking that he could go on indefinitely. The same thing occurred when I saw him 6 years later, at Yankee Stadium in 2011, with my nephew... Paul still managed to pull it off. That has been the pattern... you just haven't been paying attention, or else you just remember it how you want to remember it. The same thing will apply when I see Paul live next month... but the difference this time (and why I replied to Vectisfabber as I did) is that NOW he DOES seem beyond hope. No matter where he sings live... even on the laid back BBC Interview Show recently... McCartney's singing voice does indeed appear to be shot, and it "appears" to not be merely a matter of having "one off day" any longer. Just about every single YouTube live video from any concert performance on this current tour seems to bear this out. Which is why I said "at this point in 2016 I just may come to agree". We fans have all been wondering with dread at which point Paul maybe would be unable to sing live anymore, and thankfully Macca has surprised us again and again... but I wonder if right now is finally and regrettably ... "the time".
|
|
|
Post by Snookeroo on Jul 22, 2016 12:53:38 GMT -5
Hi all. Hope your summers are going well. Thought I'd swing by the board and visit. Maybe catch an interesting thread. Everything seems to be status quo. Be well.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Jul 22, 2016 14:11:45 GMT -5
Hi all. Hope your summers are going well. Thought I'd swing by the board and visit. Maybe catch an interesting thread. Everything seems to be status quo. Be well. Status quo? You missed some big news lately, snook...
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jul 22, 2016 18:38:39 GMT -5
Hi all. Hope your summers are going well. Thought I'd swing by the board and visit. Maybe catch an interesting thread. Everything seems to be status quo. Be well. Status quo? You missed some big news lately, snook... True, Steve. But I think Snooks was likely referring to the "same old bickering", just because some people like to "Think For Themselves", and don't always necessarily praise their icons 100% of the time. The joke about that is, if we were all to just agree with one another all the time and never criticized John, Paul, George and Ringo, THAT would actually be "status quo".
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Aug 31, 2016 17:19:25 GMT -5
Paul lies everytime he talks about who gets what credit in the Lennon/McCartney Catalogue. How does he sleep at night I wonder.... Oh then I suppose you were there and you know better.
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Aug 31, 2016 17:21:47 GMT -5
1. Yes, he isn't. I wish it were otherwise, and I imagine Paul wishes this, too. But the inference here is "and Paul should shut up and never say anything new, especially if it bigs up himself and, by subtraction, diminishes John," and I simply don't agree. If he has something to say which hasn't been said before, then it's worth hearing in my view. This particular rejoinder is getting very old and worn out, and I personally dislike it being used as a reason for arguing that Paul shouldn't say anything new which is even vaguely "anti-John". And, quite frankly, I don't think "I had a hand in writing Kite" does John any harm at all. 2. So he shouldn't say anything. If it's true then I think he should. There are no grounds for suggesting that it's not true other than the fact that it hasn't been mentioned before and, as I said, there must be thousands of titbits which have never been mentioned. Of course, it can be suggested that it's not true because the reader doesn't want it to be true. 3. Yes. Not us. 4. Why is it petty childishness? 5. Again, if what he is saying is true, then shouldn't it be said? It's a matter of historical record that Paul was immersed in the avant garde scene (and other cultural areas) at a time when John was saying "Avant garde? I call it avant garde a clue,", and then when Yoko came on the scene, John was suddenly at the forefront of popular culture avant garde, bigging himself up and not mentioning Paul. Was that not equally reprehensible at the time? No, because John was spilling over with J&Y and Paul was irrelevant. Doesn't alter that this was all a matter of record, and that what Paul said about it was true. 6. I hope it's a great show Joe, and that you really enjoy it. 1. The whole point is that these things never seemed to concern Paul when he was a young man; but now he is obsessed with boosting up his influence in The Beatles. With the KITE song, for nearly 50 years the world (and Paul) has been fine with accepting KITE as "a John song"; suddenly, Paul decides -- and his words here are very telling: "I wanted to re-claim it as partially mine" (it's the term "reclaim" which is bizarre). It would be the same idea if it was John who was alive with Paul deceased, and suddenly John said "I wrote half of WHEN I'M 64, and I want to now re-claim YESTERDAY as partially my own because I actually had part of the idea", or "I was actually the one who was the ballad singer" (like Paul's "I was the Avant Garde one") ... etc. 2. It can also be suggested that it's true because the reader wants it to be true. And it has been long said that Paul "re-writes history". 3. Glad I remembered to touch on this, as I'd forgotten previously. This business about "Paul was there, we were not" is a load of hogwash in many cases. Mark Lewisohn will tell you this after doing much historical research ... and it applies not only to Paul, but also Ringo, George Martin, or anyone else associated with The Beatles. People think that if you weren't there, then you don't know the real story and they do... and while this can be the case sometimes, also many times we see that even the main participants themselves get facts screwed up. Just look at how messed up George Martin's account of signing The Beatles is. 4. It's my opinion that it is. In the past Paul did not care... now he's paranoid that some kid playing with his smartphone screen might decide to look up YESTERDAY some day and see that it says "John Lennon and P -- ". But even if Paul could somehow fix that, there also will be all sorts of future devices and technologies developed after he's dead that he cannot possibly safeguard his memory against. 5. First, we don't know if it's true (and Paul re-writes history, as is his longstanding reputation). And here we go again bashing John Lennon.. and quite frankly, John has always had his share of merciless bashing already, especially once he hitched up with Yoko during the period you talk about. But John was always the more weird one, always the more risqué and adventurous one... and now Paul is trying to take even that from John. It's true that Paul's tape loops were used for TOMORROW NEVER KNOWS, but that hardly established him overall as "The Avant Garde One" (besides, if Paul WAS truly the Avant Garde One, you wouldn't like his music). Mark Lewisohn is firmly planted in the Lennon camp.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 31, 2016 22:29:27 GMT -5
Mark Lewisohn is firmly planted in the Lennon camp. That's so unfair, when Mark Lewisohn is obviously trying to make the definitive, accurate account of The History Of The Beatles. And Mark hasn't just made things up for himself, he has done many interviews and a ton of vital research to arrive at his conclusions. Even if Lewisohn WAS a John booster, that strikes my senses like a breath of fresh air after this past decade or so. Judging by the "Paul Was The Beatles" aura I have encountered from "Beatles Fans" online, I was beginning to suspect that John (or George and Ringo for that matter) didn't have many fans left. (By the way ... don't forget that you, like so many in the past 25 or so years, are firmly planted in the McCartney camp).
|
|