|
Post by barbara on Jul 2, 2008 22:02:25 GMT -5
This article says Paul will play in Georgia and Turkey prior to Israel. Turkey? Really? Does anyone tour Turkey? Honestly Paul, if you are looking for new places to go - come to upstate NY. There is life above NYC I swear! www.forward.com/articles/13698/After 43 Years, Israel Welcomes Paul McCartney By Nathan Burnstien Wed. Jul 02, 2008 Paul McCartney is no longer a threat to Israeli youth. More than four decades after the Beatle and his famous band mates were told they couldn’t perform in Israel for fear that they would corrupt the country’s young people, the “Let It Be” singer has signed on for a September concert in either Tel Aviv or Ramat Gan. The big-budget show, first reported by Yediot Aharonot, will follow McCartney concerts in Georgia and Turkey. The show, likely to be the largest and most expensive of the summer, is being organized by David Zarzevski, a promoter behind the Eilat Jazz Festival and recent Tel Aviv-area concerts by Lauryn Hill and Erykah Badu. The show will mark McCartney’s debut concert in Israel, though not his first invitation to perform. The singer and his Beatles counterparts planned a concert in the country in 1965, but they were barred from performing by then-education minister Yaakov Schneider on grounds that the band members might serve as negative role models for the country’s youth. (Israeli government approval is no longer needed for performances by foreign artists.) Israel’s current ambassador to England sent letters to McCartney, Ringo Starr and relatives of deceased Beatles George Harrison and John Lennon earlier this year, expressing regret for the incident. The letter to McCartney declared that “Israel missed a chance to learn from the most influential musicians of the decade.” McCartney isn’t the only high-profile musician heading to the Holy Land. Also on his way is American jazz great Branford Marsalis, who will perform at the Tel Aviv Opera House on July 17. The saxophonist previously performed in Israel in 1997.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jul 2, 2008 23:10:22 GMT -5
. . . Does anyone tour Turkey? Funny you should say that. Just last week I watched a documentary about the modern music scene in Turkey. Turns out that Turkey, in a very interesting way, is much like Liverpool. Just as Liverpool was a hotbed of music from abroad, thanks to the sailors and merchant marines, Turkey, being the bridge between Europe and Asia, is a place that is open to all kinds of musical influences. From rock to hip hop to folk to classical to on and on, Turkish music is an interesting blend of many different styles of music. The Beatles and other "classic rock" bands were appreciated from afar. Paul would be STRONGLY welcomed there. If this is going to be Paul's last major world tour, I like the idea of him playing in places that heretofore have never seen a major Western rock show, let alone a Beatle. I think, too, it's got to be blast for Paul. Good for him to still have places to explore and fans to meet.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmos on Jul 2, 2008 23:56:15 GMT -5
Yeah...how about Vermont? barbara could just take the ferry across Lake Champlain. For Pete's sake even PHISH got 60,000+ people to come to a farm here a few years ago! Paul could even stay in my music/Beatle room to save a few bucks. We're vegetarians already, so he'd feel quite at home. ;D
|
|
ChuckE
Very Clean
AlexE & RachelE, May '08
Posts: 77
|
Post by ChuckE on Jul 3, 2008 11:46:39 GMT -5
Hmmmm... Paul wouldn't exactly play "Cold Turkey" in Turkey, would he? "Cold turkeeeeeeeeeee... has got meeeeeeeeee... on the run." Naaah... he'll just play " Band On The Run" again. NP: Black Crowes, "Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds," I Am Sam (soundtrack)
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jul 3, 2008 13:52:16 GMT -5
Hmmmm... Paul wouldn't exactly play "Cold Turkey" in Turkey, would he? Actually, he'd probably sing "Cold Tofurkey" ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by sexysadie on Jul 3, 2008 15:20:56 GMT -5
I think Paul is going for the "big bang" concerts now. One-offs in foreign locations where he has never played--like Kiev, Turkey, Georgia, Israel and Quebec--and special event concerts like the Capital of Culture celebration in his hometown. Appearances that get a lot of attention, huge audiences (some big enough to put him in the record books) and help burnish his legacy. I sense from all the speculation and ambiguity about future touring plans that he may be conflicted about staging a world tour, even a major one in the US. Maybe the new girlfriend isn't thrilled about it. And Bea is extremely problematic. The big-deal one-time concerts allow him to indulge his love of live performance and keep up his performing skills without the time--and physical--demands of a scheduled tour. Face it, it's difficult for him now to go out on the road for weeks at a time. Not only because of the physical demands, but because Bea is school age and he has shared custody. Heather simply isn't going to allow Bea to go out on tour with Paul. For one thing, as we all well know, Heather isn't in the business of making Paul's life easier. And for another--and to be perfectly honest--it isn't in Bea's best interests to be away from her friends and to disrupt her regular routine for an extended period of time (let's not even talk about the "atmosphere"--and personnel--that are part and parcel of a rock'n'roll tour). Can I observe that this is why childrearing is for the young? People who are rounding the bend toward 70, regardless of their station in life, shouldn't be involved in the day-to-day responsibilities of raising small children. At that stage of life they should be able to do what they want, when they want. The bottom line is that Paul can't. There was even a recent newspaper article saying he was considering retirement. Not that he hasn't earned it. As for the US, we may see some sporadic "regional" concerts in big metro areas like NYC, Chicago, LA, Atlanta, etc., that would allow Paul to fly in and out with a minimal time commitment. But I'm really not hopeful about another full-scale tour. I'd love to be wrong. But Upstate NY? Don't make me laugh.
|
|
|
Post by barbara on Jul 4, 2008 21:38:04 GMT -5
glad I made you laugh with upstate NY because I was kidding. I am pretty sure if he as not been here yet he isn't coming. The Stones, Springstein, Elton John, and other big names have been here though so were aren't that far out of the civilized world.
Bea is only going to be in kindergarden (or the English equivalent). If she were in my school district she would be too young to start kindergarden as she won't be 5 until after the deadline. I am pretty sure she could travel just fine. I don't really think Paul's tours are partytime. The guy sails and rides bikes on his days off. Somehow I think touring with daddy would be a better life than hanging out with mommy and the poolboy she picked up on her last vacation.
Having said that I do think the he is only going to hit big cities and places that interest him this time. The ex would make sure to make his life is as miserable as possible if he toured.
Rich people get to do what they want when they want no matter what age. Just because you are in your 60s does not give you the ability to do that.
I don't think Paul would say Bea was problematic. I really think he is a good father. Older parents are often times far better parents the young ones. Many grandparents raise their grandchildren too. Sixty is the new forty.
I'll vote for Vermont if that's what it takes!
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jul 4, 2008 22:06:23 GMT -5
I'm with sexysadie, a rock tour is no place for little Bea. If Paul is doing his job right, he wouldn't have time for her as he would need to be 100% focused on delivering the best show possible day in day out.
Besides, Paul is probably back to smoking a ton of reefer now that Heather is gone. She scored points for stopping Paul's doping ways.
Bea needs structure. That means sleeping in her own bedroom most nights.
Linda took care of the first set of kids when Wings' toured. Paul needs too much pampering to be able to care for a 4 year old on the road.
|
|
JMG
Very Clean
Posts: 412
|
Post by JMG on Jul 5, 2008 2:20:01 GMT -5
If you have enough money you can pretty much go anywhere or do anything your heart desires. McCartney would fit this description. I don't pretend to know but I doubt very much McCartney is a stay at home taking care of baby type Dad. I would imagine he has a very high paid staff to handle this situation.
The deciding factor would be...does McCartney, at this point in his life, want to put himself through the wear and tear of a major world tour? McCartney has more or less done it all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2008 3:43:49 GMT -5
Paul is also no doubt aware that his vocals aren't what they used to be and maybe he is now genuinely worried that a major tour would expose his "old man" vocals like never before...
One off gigs here and there are probably easier for him to handle vocally,although he'll have to do more of them to cover the court enforced "Heather"allowance.......
|
|
|
Post by winstonoboogie on Jul 5, 2008 12:54:19 GMT -5
I don't really think Paul's tours are partytime. The guy sails and rides bikes on his days off. Somehow I think touring with daddy would be a better life than hanging out with mommy and the poolboy she picked up on her last vacation. ;D
|
|
|
Post by sexysadie on Jul 9, 2008 23:50:25 GMT -5
I didn't say Paul sees Bea as a "problem," only that his shared custody arrangement is problematic relative to his going on an extended tour. My point is that if Paul is a good father, he'd be reluctant to take Bea away from her normal environment for weeks at a time. It would be extremely selfish for him to uproot her in such a way, and being on the road would be neither fun nor healthy for her. In any event, I simply can't imagine Heather would allow it. She's no candidate for Mother of the Year--that's the kindest spin I can put on her maternal abilities--but she'd be right to object. As a mom myself I know I certainly would.
The meme about older parents being better parents sounds all warm and fuzzy, but in most cases, I don't believe it's true. Raising children is physically and emotionally taxing, and younger parents are better able to cope. Grandparents having to step back into a parenting role readily admit that they often are not up to the task. And it's been documented that children who have elderly fathers feel "different," especially once they are old enough to understand that their friends' dads are recognizably younger than their own. On the upside, these kids feel that they learn a lot from their older fathers and benefit from the wisdom of their longer life experience. On the downside, they live with the constant fear that dad may not be around much longer. It's a little dark cloud over them that doesn't exactly make for a secure childhood.
Yes, I've heard that "sixty is the new forty," at least according to the boomers who like to rail against Mother Nature. But 60-year-old men with young children don't have the freedom and options of other men that age. Not if they are hands-on in their parenting, as I suspect Paul is.
To be blunt, late-in-life fatherhood is a self-indulgence available only to the very wealthy. Beyond those observations, I won't argue the ethics of such situations (although I'm sure you can guess my opinion!). I mainly wanted to comment on the practicalities of Paul's touring when he has Bea to consider. Like it or not, it IS problematic for him.
Still, I occasionally toss some money into the "Concert Fund" bowl. Better safe than sorry!
|
|
|
Post by barbara on Jul 11, 2008 7:56:50 GMT -5
I work with quite a few older fathers. None are wealthy enough to not work. They are actually some of the better parents I know.
I do agree that taking an older child out of school and around the globe might not the best, but Bea is still young enough that I don't think it will matter to her. I think traveling with dad is far better than being at home with the nanny while she is at her mother's house. According to the stories from Paul's last tour Bea was with Paul when he was not on stage or getting ready for a show. "Mommy" was too busy with all her "work".
I don't think that Paul is smoking anything again. If he did it would be something the ex could use against him and take Bea away.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jul 11, 2008 10:38:27 GMT -5
I'm impressed! You don't see that word around here very often.
|
|
ChuckE
Very Clean
AlexE & RachelE, May '08
Posts: 77
|
Post by ChuckE on Jul 14, 2008 11:58:14 GMT -5
I became a father in my 40's. I like to think of it as a tradeoff... I don't have the energy I would have had in my 20's, but I think I appreciate my kids more now than I would have then. NP: the Beach Boys, "Surfin'," Good Vibrations: Thirty Years of the Beach Boys
|
|
|
Post by sexysadie on Jul 17, 2008 5:37:40 GMT -5
So you like "meme," sayne? Well, I've got no shortage of words--don't say I didn't warn you. ChuckE, 40's isn't too old to be raising little ones. But 60's and beyond is. It is considered unethical for doctors to use IVF treatment on women once they are in their 50's. Why is it wrong for women to be old mothers, but okay for men to be old fathers? (Ah, yes, the legendary double standard.) Men need appreciable wealth to be late-in-life fathers for obvious reasons. First of all, they have to be successful and rich to attract the much-younger, childbearing-age gals. These women don't marry guys old enough to be their fathers for their good looks and sparkling personalities, you know--they do it for money and social status. Secondly, the average 60-year-old can't afford to be writing college tuition checks out of a pension fund when he's 80. Trophy wives--and kids--are a product of an increasingly affluent and self-absorbed society. Paul isn't different or special, he was being as self-indulgent and egotistical as every other man who uses a young wife and new baby to create the illusion that he isn't getting old. Last year I read an article by a 50-something psychologist who said that whenever he feels a mid-life crisis coming on, he just thinks of Paul and immediately comes to his senses. Barbara, I see you taking a lot of swipes at Heather, I presume to make Paul look like Mr. Perfect by comparison. If the "pool boy" joke was meant to argue that Paul's judgment about the opposite sex is superior to hers, I can't agree. I'm unimpressed with his string of gal pals, and especially his very public behavior with them--one of whom was still a married woman--while the divorce was ongoing and being splashed across all the tabloids. He can't be without a woman for ten minutes? He showed abysmal judgment that could have come back to haunt him in a custody dispute. The fact that his girlfriends have money doesn't make them better human beings than people who work for a living, even as a "lowly" pool boy, or recreation director, or whatever the heck Heather's latest boyfriend does. It's pretty damn difficult to argue than her judgment in men is measurably worse than Paul's judgment in women when HE chose to marry HER. A pool boy looks positively golden in comparison to a too-young, ex-prostitute/pornstar golddigger. IMO, it's incredibly naive to think Paul doesn't continue to use marijuana. There were persistent reports that he intended to file for sole custody, especially after Heather's meltdown on GMTV. Heather is almost universally seen as nasty, selfish, amoral and mentally unbalanced--yet he chose not to pursue the custody issue, and even testified that she is a good mother. Does he really believe that, or was he worried that he might actually have to refute the document Heather leaked to the media, which included allegations of drug and alcohol abuse? He promised to fight those charges but never did, because the judge ruled them irrelevant for the purposes of determining the divorce settlement. But everything is fair game in a custody dispute. And Paul has been very, very diligent about protecting his public image throughout the years. I don't understand why you keep trying to discount Bea as the likely reason Paul hasn't yet scheduled a tour. Sometimes the obvious answer IS the answer. We know Paul wants to tour, he has always loved peforming. And he said last year he was looking forward to touring once the divorce was settled. We know from his continuing one-off concerts that he is still capable of performing, even if his diminishing vocal abilities will require more rest between shows, and therefore more time on the road. So there must be some other obstacle, and Bea is the probable explanation. It is to the fans' good fortune that the only two remaining Beatles are still enthusiastic about recording and performing. Ringo can do whatever he wants whenever he wants--this is his tenth All-Starr tour, I believe. But as a result of the choices Paul has made in his personal life, his situation is complicated. That is to the fans' bad fortune, because despite Paul's best and desperate efforts to convince himself to the contrary, none of us is getting any younger. Which reminds me--"60 is the new 40?" Not so much, as it turns out. www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1035037/Old-time-When-body-really-starts-going-downhill.html
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jul 17, 2008 15:36:58 GMT -5
....If the "pool boy" joke was meant to argue that Paul's judgment about the opposite sex is superior to hers, I can't agree. I'm unimpressed with his string of gal pals, and especially his very public behavior with them--one of whom was still a married woman--while the divorce was ongoing and being splashed across all the tabloids. He can't be without a woman for ten minutes? He showed abysmal judgment that could have come back to haunt him in a custody dispute. The fact that his girlfriends have money doesn't make them better human beings than people who work for a living, even as a "lowly" pool boy, or recreation director, or whatever the heck Heather's latest boyfriend does. It's pretty damn difficult to argue than her judgment in men is measurably worse than Paul's judgment in women when HE chose to marry HER. A pool boy looks positively golden in comparison to a too-young, ex-prostitute/pornstar golddigger. Wow, that is music to my ears. I was nearly banned at the old Board(not by Steve but by "the mob") for saying that there is two sides to every divorce. My defense of Heather in some aspects of that divorce(though not in all aspects) nearly cost me my life! And don't forget the "Linda Tapes" which Paul has had buried deep in some "undisclosed location"(probably where Cheney hides). Linda unloaded in hours of taped interviews with her cookbook friend about the stresses in her life with Paul. Paul has heard these tapes and paid big bucks to acquire them. All I am saying is that no one is perfect nor are their relationships(despite the best P.R. efforts) and Heather isn't all to blame. Paul should have seen the warning signs especially before it was decided to have a child.
|
|
|
Post by sexysadie on Aug 4, 2008 6:52:40 GMT -5
John, I like you. It's clear from your posts that you're a critical thinker who isn't afraid to say exactly what he thinks. Did you actually call Paul an "old fart?" Say that the new song is "the pits?" Label C-Moon "lame-ass?" You must not have gotten the "Paul is perfect" memo. I used to think he was perfect...when I was 13! (Just a few scant years ago, might I add. ) As for your above post, anyone who thinks a marriage fails--or succeeds--through the actions of solely one partner has never been married. Heather is a deeply flawed woman who behaved despicably, but she is the mother of Paul's child, and during the divorce he self-servingly allowed the press to carve her to shreds. Many people found his silence "dignified." I thought he was a coward who wanted to evade responsibility for both the decision to marry her (w/o a prenup) and the collapse of the relationship. What better way to preserve that "British National Treasure" status than to cast himself in the role of innocent victim? Since Linda's death, it's become sadly apparent to me who was doing the heavy lifting in the "practical, down-to-earth values" department. Consider the Heather debacle, a late-in-life baby, the way Paul has done a 180 on his much-vaunted philosophy of childrearing, and now his jump-the-shark relationship with Nancy Shevell--who wouldn't know working-class Liverpool values if they took a dump on her Jimmy Choo's. When he's with her, it's private jets all the way (while he hypocritically pushes people to give up meat to "save the planet"). He waxes nostalgic about bus travel, while she abuses her MTA Board perks to avoid mingling with the unwashed masses on public transit. And she's clearly uncomfortable with his fame, and has no use for his fans. Linda understood and accepted Paul's need for public adoration. Nancy is nothing like Linda, although I have no doubt Paul thinks she is just like her. What they have in common eludes me--aside from the money, of course. Nice. Seems that Heather may have robbed Paul of something much more valuable than a $50 million divorce settlement. If he wants to jettison birdwatching at the farm for life with the beautiful people that's his choice, but he really needs to cut the "I'm just an ordinary bloke" crap. Ordinary blokes don't toss back Margheritas in trendy Hamptons' restaurants--the kind of places where you have to be "someone" to get a reservation--with their much-younger rich and elitist girlfriends. You can't get any farther from a Liverpool pub than that, both literally and figuratively. And C-Moon IS lame-ass, and Dick Cheney is probably listening to the "cookbook tapes" as we speak. Hopefully they will keep him occupied until January 20th.
|
|
|
Post by barbara on Aug 4, 2008 8:53:11 GMT -5
Saying exactly what you think does not make you correct and everyone who has a different thought wrong.
I don't think anyone is perfect and that includes Paul. It is unfair to put that on anyone.
If anyone thinks Paul was going to go for custody of Bea and did not because he is afraid of being investigated - I have this question for you: Why did Heather not try to get sole custody of her? She claimed Paul was a violent/drunk/drug taker. Why on earth would anyone leave a child with someone like that? She did, often, and all during the time leading up to the separation and during the separation. Makes me think that he wasn't so drunk/drugged/violent.
Paul gave her close to a million dollars a year as pocket money. She did not need to pay any bills - it was just spending money. If you were given that much and were being abused and had a small child you felt you needed to protect what would you do? You would take the money and run to a lawyer. If Paul was violent and wanted to protect his reputation he would have given her the moon and folded his tent. He did not. She lied.
Two of her claims of abuse were exact duplicates of events that occured between her parents (the pushed in a bathtube incident and the having to make dinner late at night on crutches). What are the chances of that happening? Another was just unbelievable. Does anyone really think Heather, still revcovering from surgery, could lift a passed out drunk naked 160 lb (guessing) man out of a bathtub and carry/drag him upstairs and put him in bed? Honestly? Does anyone really think that Heather would let anyone push her around? By all accounts she was the one who was physically violent in past relationships. Does anyone really think that if she was abused she would have stayed? You are not giving her enough credit there. She claims to have hundrends of close friends (one interview she said "hundreds"). Why did she not go to anyone of them for help for her situation? I will never buy the excuse she had no where to go or she was "afraid".
Sorry, but a guy who works part time at a resort for $9.00 an hour is someone who never got himself together. He would not be most women's choice of a go to guy for a partner. Of course her would find Heather attractive just like she found Paul attractive - money and possibility of fame for themselves.
Was Paul a fool for ignoring all the warning signs thrown up in front of him on his was to that castle in Ireland - yeah. I do not think his situation is unusual though. It happens to many men - does that make them all stupid?
Why is Paul going out to dinner with someone bad? Exactly how many women has he been with? Do we know he has been intimate with any or all besides Nancy? What is so wrong with Nancy not wanting to be in the spotlight? I actually find it refreshing. Why are they not allowed to be out in public?
Apparently Heather was with her personal trainer before she picked up her latest man - is that ok? All of it is in front of Bea. At least Nancy is not on Paul's payroll.
Does anyone really know if he flies private planes everywhere? He does when he tours or plays a concert, but other than that he is spotted on commercial planes.
Please don't tell me Linda is perfect and took abuse the whole marriage through. She could have left at anytime too. The lawyers are on her family remember. She would have done just nicely in a divorce. As far as her being the better parent I have to ask again - didn't she smmoke pot just as much if nto more than Paul? Did she not leave her daughter Heather alone with a babysitter for a month to go be with Paul. Paul was the one that said they should go get Heather and have her with them (according to what is in books). In the end it was a nearly 30 year marriage. If they were unhappy at times is that unsual?
The cookbook author did not like Paul and it showed. He was also willing to be bought if he sold those tapes.
As far as my thought on Heather and her "tapes": she does not have anything or we would have seen/heard it by now. She would have released it to the press long ago. No I do not like her, especially after reading the 58 pages released by the judge. She had no evidence of anything and was caught in so many lies by the judge what little good thoughts I had left for her ended. Miss Charity Worker 80 % of MY Income Goes to the Little People has no proof of any charity donations at all. She didn't even have tax returns available prior to meeting Paul. She is a liar and a fraud.
Up until she met Paul she was able to lie and move on without it causing her harm or anyone questioning it. It always worked for her before. She finally got caught in a courtroom though. I gave her my good wishes when Paul first got to gether with her, but that ended when she started to increase her attacks on him. In the end I think she got angry because in her fantasy world she was a bigger star than him and both he and the world know that is not true. According to the court documents he did things to support her. He lived in California for a while so she could try and find work. He got Paul Newman to go on Larry King so she could host it. None of it worked and she probably blamed him.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Aug 4, 2008 16:44:20 GMT -5
John, I like you. It's clear from your posts that you're a critical thinker who isn't afraid to say exactly what he thinks. Did you actually call Paul an "old fart?" Say that the new song is "the pits?" Label C-Moon "lame-ass?" You must not have gotten the "Paul is perfect" memo. I used to think he was perfect...when I was 13! (Just a few scant years ago, might I add. ) Yes, I am afraid that I wrote those things. ;D The funny thing is that I absolutely love the vast majority of Paul's music and I play his solo material more than the others even though I am a "John" guy as to my taste with The Beatles. Maybe it is Paul's large body of solo material to choose from. John wasn't given the chance to increase his solo catalog. I do love John, Paul, George and Ringo mightily(and no one else in their story except Pattie Boyd) but I am too old and cynical to buy all of their company lines all of the time! ;D And I agree with Barbara that my popping off doesn't make me correct and everyone else wrong. Man, I sure hope I don't come across like that. SS, you should have seen my long ago tirades on Paul's first four kids! It is amazing that the Macca Mad Hatters here still talk to me! LOL! I feel like I could have written that but not as well as you have!
|
|
|
Post by sexysadie on Aug 8, 2008 6:07:43 GMT -5
So, John, there's something wrong with being old and cynical? It occurs to me that the "old" have earned the right to be cynical! Having previously been on a board where members were intimidated into censoring themselves--or not posting at all--I'm impressed when any person says what he or she actually thinks and risks the ire of the true believers. I really bristle at the characterization of someone's comments as being "correct" or "wrong." Who decides that? Opinion can't be right or wrong, and everyone should be able to express his or hers without being attacked. It sounds like you have stood your ground through many slings and arrows--believe me, I can identify. I'm happy to consider any viewpoint that makes rational arguments, and I'm sure you are, too. People should feel free to be themselves, to be spontaneous, analytical, humorous, whatever. Your calling C-Moon "lame-ass" made me laugh (as did a similar comment I recently saw--"why does Paul play that shit?"), but no one would have dared to ridicule Paul's music on that prior board. Or refer to him as an "old fart." A columnist was derided in post after post for getting snarky about his hair dye--like she was the only person to ever do THAT? "What a hypocrite she is, I bet she dyes her hair!" Where are our senses of humor? The Beatles are the greatest group ever, but none of the individual members are/were deities (despite John's misinterpreted claim). People who worship celebrities are driven to excuse, rationalize and/or defend their idol's every act, and God help anyone who isn't singing from the same hymnal. But it sucks the life right out of a discussion forum. So, John, what DID you say about the older kids? I could make some choice remarks about Mary right now if that would spur you on... I'm a first-generation Beatles fan who also listens to Paul's solo music more than any of the others. I'll always enjoy the bulk of his music...with the exception of that lame-ass C Moon. But he's really lost me with his personal behavior. As someone who has now been married longer than Paul and Linda were (which does indeed make me both old AND cynical), and has likewise raised a family, I had a lot of regard for their relationship, their priorities, their grounded lifestyle, and the way they brought up their children amidst enormous fame and wealth. While I didn't approve of their drug use, I believed that, as a couple and as parents, they were the real deal. Then Linda unfortunately dies, and Mr. Grounded makes the same idiot move every other old guy who can't accept the aging process makes--gets himself a busty blonde young enough to be his daughter, and fathers another baby. When it unsurprisingly all goes south, he assesses the wreckage and concludes that the problem was...Heather's paltry bank account. WTF? You really can't make this stuff up. If it wasn't so sad, it would be funny. As disappointed as I was in Paul's behavior during the divorce, I was willing to give him a mulligan on the Heather mess, until he decided to chase after a socially and politically well-connected New York heiress, months before his divorce was final, and while she was still legally married. That, to me, represented the definitive repudiation of all those down-to-earth values he claimed to hold so dear during his years with Linda. Paul has always been the consummate PR guy, but the image no longer matches the reality--if it ever did. He may be a nice person, but he's not the same man who was married to Linda. So much for the "real deal." And from some of the comments bandied about during the divorce, and just this week in the Daily Mail, it's clear I'm not the only one who thinks that is the case. I still give him some leeway because I'm not sure he KNOWS he's become a phony. And because old habits die hard, perhaps? But, in the "doth protest too much" category, he is still pushing that "ordinary guy" narrative, as recently as the Quebec concert. So I suspect that, on some level, he does know he's sold out.
Nancy isn't horrible, although my naturally suspicious nature does go into overdrive whenever a younger woman gets all hot and bothered over what the Chicago Tribune described as an "old man with dyed hair and a beaded Indian belt holding up hitched-too-high pants." Ewww. Maybe she is as focused on protecting her fortune as Paul is on protecting his, post-golddigging Heather. At least she isn't Rosanna Arquette (breathes huge sigh of relief). She's not a model or an actress, or the "blow-up doll from the fringes of Hollywood" that one guy predicted Paul would marry next (such is the extent to which his image has been damaged--ah, The Heather Effect). She's certainly no gorgeous and glamorous bimbo. Plain and rail-thin, her wardrobe choices are almost as strange as his (where DID Stella get her fashion sense?), and she seems smart and classy. I just don't think she has longterm relationship potential, and her age isn't the half of it. Having just rid himself of "look at ME" Heather, I'm sure Paul does find her aversion to his fame charming. For the moment. He was also totally besotted with Heather at this point in their relationship, remember. I may not know what his core values are these days any more than he apparently does, but I do know this--he thrives on the attention of his fans, loves to perform, and has repeatedly stated that he doesn't see himself ever "retiring" as such. But unless he reneges on that promise, Nancy's attitude will become a source of ever-increasing friction, as will their political, educational, and lifestyle differences--not to mention the very basic fact that she is a New York socialite born with a silver spoon in her mouth, and he's a "working-class scruff" from Liverpool. I see that they are on a road trip together, only the two of them, at her suggestion. Very sweet--and transparent. As a woman, I've got to hand it to her. She's a gal with a plan. And Paul is an easy target, just like he was after Linda died, not that he understands that. His cluelessness, impatience and neediness will be his undoing yet again. Plus, the poor schlep has now acquired the ex from hell. What woman would want to put up with Heather and her interference? But Nancy and Paul do have all that money in common, although I once heard it can't buy you love. Oh, and did I mention she is wealthy? An heiress? She's "not on Paul's payroll." Yep, that should make ALL the difference this time around. I hope he has Fiona Shackleton on retainer. Barbara, I find your comments about Linda curious. If you are arguing that her electing not to leave is de facto evidence that Paul was never abusive, the perfect husband, I'm sorry, relationships are not that black and white. The best marriages succeed because they are grounded in shared values and experience, which was obviously the case with Paul and Linda--and which, btw, is also why the big age-gap pairings seldom work. Those shared values and experiences create a strong bond that see you through the tough times. Of course there are different thresholds for different people as to what they will and will not put up with in a marriage, but Linda clearly prioritized her family. That suggests she would have been more motivated to hang in through thick and thin than many others might have been. I don't know what actually went on in their marriage, and neither do you. What I do know is that Paul regularly abused both alcohol and drugs--I remember reading that when he was at home, he would walk around all day with a glass of scotch in his hand, which he would periodically replenish under Linda's concerned and disapproving eye--and what any Beatles fan would know through observing the group's history. That is, Paul is driven, stubborn, egotistical, overbearing, and almost pathologically perfectionistic. Looking at those facts, I can guarantee you he was no box of chocolates to be married to. What Linda's co-author, Mr. Cox, personally thought of Paul, and how Cox conducted himself, is immaterial. Linda must have needed to vent to someone, and her collaborator was evidently a close and trusted friend. I'd wager there is some very interesting commentary on those tapes, not all of it flattering to Paul. If you want de facto evidence of something, Paul's eagerness to shell out big money to acquire them is more revelatory than anything Linda or Mr. Cox did. I don't see any mystery in why Paul and Heather agreed to joint custody. They both have skeletons in their respective closets, and Paul's age would have been a major strike against him. Even the judge tactfully addressed the old fart issue (if you're still here, that Bud's for you, John) in his divorce judgment. I think they realized it would have traumatized Bea not to have equal access to both her parents, and sensibly wanted to avoid a Brinkley/Cook-type smackdown. Paul may have failed to be a stand-up guy during the divorce, but at least he didn't mortify Heather any further by trying to take her daughter away from her. I don't like Heather, but honestly, I understand her motivation for some of the things she did. Paul hung her out to dry, and she must have felt like a cornered animal. Barbara obviously sees her as pure evil, but Paul is no angel, and certainly no babe-in-the-woods. At the risk of repeating myself, no one forced him to marry Heather. He doesn't have the moral high ground, especially in his behavior with his girlfriends, and in his actions around Bea. He and Nancy and Bea stayed together in a resort in Morocco, and reportedly will spend some of the month of August together. Both Paul and Heather have behaved immaturely and selfishly in the example they set for that little girl, and have exhibited questionable judgment. Which reminds me, my previous question remains unanswered--why is Heather fair game for her errors in judgment while Paul, who made the biggest error of all in choosing her, gets a pass?
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Aug 8, 2008 9:12:28 GMT -5
. . . I really bristle at the characterization of someone's comments as being "correct" or "wrong." Who decides that? . . . I"ll take that job!
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Aug 8, 2008 9:38:57 GMT -5
So, John, there's something wrong with being old and cynical? It occurs to me that the "old" have earned the right to be cynical! Ha, agreed! I feel old at 45 and I know I'm cynical as hell! sexysadie, I loved your entire post but I certainly lasered onto this bit. There is something about Mary! Tell me more! I am having a totally out-of-body experience. I have been asking that question for years now and have accordingly become a social pariah here. Too bad Jane Asher is not single and would agree to take Paul back!
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Aug 8, 2008 10:25:51 GMT -5
. . . why is Heather fair game for her errors in judgment while Paul, who made the biggest error of all in choosing her, gets a pass? Because she's a twat, and being a twat trumps being a twit. ;D
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Aug 8, 2008 10:36:19 GMT -5
sexysadiesaid:
I don't understand why you keep trying to discount Bea as the likely reason Paul hasn't yet scheduled a tour. Sometimes the obvious answer IS the answer. We know Paul wants to tour, he has always loved peforming. And he said last year he was looking forward to touring once the divorce was settled. We know from his continuing one-off concerts that he is still capable of performing, even if his diminishing vocal abilities will require more rest between shows, and therefore more time on the road. So there must be some other obstacle, and Bea is the probable explanation. It is to the fans' good fortune that the only two remaining Beatles are still enthusiastic about recording and performing. Ringo can do whatever he wants whenever he wants--this is his tenth All-Starr tour, I believe. But as a result of the choices Paul has made in his personal life, his situation is complicated. That is to the fans' bad fortune, because despite Paul's best and desperate efforts to convince himself to the contrary, none of us is getting any younger.
RTP said: He is sort of touring - hit and miss. He is just warming up. Maybe he wants to complete an album and tour to support it. He should have an album out before he tours the US. He doesn't need to wait to tour two areas of the world that are dying to see him: South America (and Mexico) and Australia. He's got to go to those places soon. They have been neglected.
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Aug 8, 2008 10:38:25 GMT -5
sexysadie: Trophy wives--and kids--are a product of an increasingly affluent and self-absorbed society. Paul isn't different or special, he was being as self-indulgent and egotistical as every other man who uses a young wife and new baby to create the illusion that he isn't getting old. Last year I read an article by a 50-something psychologist who said that whenever he feels a mid-life crisis coming on, he just thinks of Paul and immediately comes to his senses.
RTP: It was Heathen who wanted the baby. Paul went along with it since she had not had a child before. I give him points for that not take them away.
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Aug 8, 2008 10:45:29 GMT -5
A pool boy looks positively golden in comparison to a too-young, ex-prostitute/pornstar golddigger.
RTP: If she hadn't hidden her past from Paul, they might still be together. Who knew you need a detective with the skills of Sherlock Holmes and Charlie Chan to clear the way before you fall in love. Love is not rational. Love is a feeling and feelings are not rational. On the other hand, had Paul known of these things before they became serious, he would have stayed away from her as though she had the Bubonic Plague.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Aug 8, 2008 11:27:27 GMT -5
A pool boy looks positively golden in comparison to a too-young, ex-prostitute/pornstar golddigger. RTP: If she hadn't hidden her past from Paul, they might still be together. Who knew you need a detective with the skills of Sherlock Holmes and Charlie Chan to clear the way before you fall in love. Love is not rational. Love is a feeling and feelings are not rational. On the other hand, had Paul known of these things before they became serious, he would have stayed away from her as though she had the Bubonic Plague. His kids figured out about Heather well before all the details about her past came out. They were trying to get him away from her early on, but he was supposedly too much smitten with her to listen.
|
|
|
Post by winstonoboogie on Aug 8, 2008 20:37:12 GMT -5
Are you kidding? Rupert Murdoch (and the rest of his tabloid ilk)would be in hog heaven if that happened!
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Aug 9, 2008 5:57:18 GMT -5
Excellent post Sadie.
I wouldn't say that Paul deserves a pass in respect of his decision to take up with Heather, but I would say: 1. He was vulnerable following Linda's death; 2. Heather targetted him and actively plotted to snare him; and 3. Men have this odd thing that when the sap rises, the brain goes to sleep.
|
|