|
Post by sexysadie on Oct 3, 2008 4:33:33 GMT -5
Paul does eat ice cream, John. Or did up until a couple of years ago, when he told a story about buying some of the nasty stuff during a Coldplay concert. Actually, he didn't buy it at all. People are always giving him things for free. Doesn't seem quite fair, does it? Paul could afford to buy the whole damn ice cream company--and then do Ingrid's bidding by mandating that it ditch the cow's milk for the gals' milk! Rich, I've stated elsewhere that I listen to Paul's music all the time, and that includes a more than representative sampling of what he has done in the last 25 years. Flowers in the Dirt and Flaming Pie are worthy efforts; Driving Rain was a major disappointment, recorded in a fog of Heather worship (I can hardly wait for the new Nancy paean). The CD I listen to more than any other is the live album of his FITD tour. A good mixture of Wings, Beatles and Flowers, and the best vocal ever on Long and Winding Road. The one element of Paul's music that I really, REALLY like is his bass playing--which means that I enjoy some songs that other people regard as complete crap. Old Siam Sir comes to mind. And Silly Love Songs, especially the version on Broad St...the bassline IS the song. Have you ever seen the video of the song "India," from the Back in the US DVD? Watch his fingers on the fretboard. Or check out the Sgt. Pepper clips on YouTube, which consist of only the drumming, bass and vocals. As Mr. Spock would say, "fascinating." Lucy is unremarkable without the bassline, which is also how George Martin described Come Together until Paul came up with the "swampy" bass. Geoff Emerick revealed in his book that Paul would stay in the studio long after the others had gone, perfecting his basslines until his fingers bled. Dear Prudence and Something are awesome. A music reviewer in the London Times once called the bassline to All My Loving "pure genius"--although, from that era, I prefer the original ISHST with the ascending bassnotes that Paul no longer plays in live performance. As sexy sadie would say, "disappointing." But I think that person's remark about Paul not having made a decent record in 25 years is a common perception. He did himself no favors with efforts like the Frog Chorus, Ebony and Ivory, and Wonderful Christmastime. Plus, his personality gets on a lot of peoples' nerves, especially those below a certain age. Recently he was voted "most irritating music star" in a British poll. Pile on me all you want, rich, but I understand why. You may chafe at the suggestion that Paul has become "irrelevant," but for the most part, he now is. He was reduced to giving away MAF--which contains several terrific songs (once again, note the bass on That Was Me)--in a UK tabloid newspaper. What does that say? You might be interested in this blog. "The Solo Paul McCartney is a Major Lightweight." www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicblog/2007/may/21/paulmccartneyhastoldbillboObviously I don't think I'm out of line with my criticisms of Paul, who, IMO, has simply lost the plot in his personal life over the past ten years. I might spend an hour each week here "gossipping and bloviating," but only because I know how much rich enjoys my commentary. Are you telling me to get a life, rich? Nice. And I'm not sure why I'm being accused of violating the International Rules of Discussion Boards by supposedly being a know-it-all when you are the one trying to set the parameters for what is and is not fair game. Since I wouldn't want to disappoint you by failing to gossip and bloviate before I wrap up another obnoxiously long post, here's a question for you--what would you think of a man who just quit showing up for his job, backburnered his only child, and shirked his responsibilites as the member of a very important public board to go gallivanting around the world for months on end in pursuit of a rich and famous woman twenty years his senior? Just wondering.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Oct 3, 2008 7:54:17 GMT -5
I agree Paul's bass playing is superb. ( I am a bassist).
However, I believe that Paul does NOT play bass in the Broad Street "Flock of Seagulls" version of Silly Love Songs.
|
|
|
Post by richforman on Oct 3, 2008 11:09:21 GMT -5
Well, sadie, you and I certainly agree on the (somewhat obvious, pretty much universally acknowledged) idea that McCartney made amazing, brilliant, important, classic contributions on bass to the Beatles' records including the (again, fairly obvious) tracks you mentioned and many more. I also agree that Tripping the Live Fantastic (and the '89-90 tour it comes from) were pretty great, very exciting and benefitting both from the live "debut" of so much backlogged Beatles materials and also from the excellent new material from what I think was one of Paul's best-ever solo efforts, FITD (thanks in large part to his collaborating with Costello, which partnership I think resulted in many of his all-time best songs since the Lennon-McCartney era).
Now, I of course recognize that the statement about Paul not having made a decent record in decades is like you say a "common perception" (and I granted that there have been plenty of clunkers). However, I was just talking about the fact that I don't think the statement is actually *true*, and I was asking what you thought. Glad to see we pretty much agree on this. I agree with you that MAF had "several terrific songs" (surrounded IMO by a number of very bland, unremarkable ones) - we would no doubt have different choices as to which ones were the terrific ones, but that's part of the fun. In talking about the album I think that it's worth noting that by and large it was very well received critically as was his previous album - unlike, if you think about it, his 70's albums that many of us fans probably prefer. I think that is because, and it shows, that unlike the "common perception" would have it, McCartney has in the last decade, musically grown and challenged himself, freed I think (by his age-induced lack of commercial viability) from the pressure to produce a lot of crowd-pleasing, easily-accessible hits and has been instead creating some more personal, more experimental stuff that, again, offputs some fans but has garnered more critical acclaim and appreciation....than he did in his days of more ostensible "relevance." Anyway, I don't think it's accurate to characterize MAF as some kind of failure, even if he did use a marketing stunt of giving away copies in the paper many months after its initial release and peak in sales....didn't the album reach #3 in the US charts and sell more copies for him, and probably get more overall attention, than anything since Flaming Pie?
Now, I don't need a link (I'll read it, I'm always interested) to demonstrate to me that McCartney's solo career has ALWAYS been dissed and dismissed by MANY writers and critics, ever since it began.....that's hardly news. Of course there are also lots of people, including myself, and if I understand correctly, you, who have enjoyed and admired a great deal of his post-Beatles music, so really, who cares? The essay you quoted is going to change my opinion of his music?
At any rate, no I don't bristle at your repeated assertions that McCartney is "irrelevant." Again it is an old and somewhat non-controversial statement. (I don't really even understand the intended gist of this common criticism directed at many entertainment old-timers. They are relevant to the people who are interested in what they are doing, irrelevant to those who are not. Is Coldplay or Arcade Fire Hannah Montana more relevant? Am I supposed to care?) But what I question is the purpose of your going on at such length, so many times over and over again, to make the case to others that he is irrelevant and all the other adjectives I listed in my previous post. What is the end objective of this exercise? What does it get YOU? "Just wondering."
Finally, as to the last question you posed to me....if I didn't know the person in question personally, if I had no real inside knowledge of the many complex, personal, behind-the-scenes realities that underlied whatever I had seen reported in the press and on the internet, I think I would probably refrain from judging them too harshly. Even if I decided I didn't like them I doubt very much I would write multiple long diatribes listing all the things I didn't like about them on a forum as if to try to convince everybody else to dislike them too. It just seems pointless.
Now, if the person were an artist or entertainer whose work I was interested in, I would in fact be very likely to write plenty of long posts detailing what I did and didn't like about their recent albums or movies or whatever. That would be very much like me. Like I said before, that is what I consider more interesting and legitimate fodder for discussion.
richforman
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Oct 4, 2008 9:50:07 GMT -5
Paul does eat ice cream, John. Or did up until a couple of years ago, when he told a story about buying some of the nasty stuff during a Coldplay concert. Actually, he didn't buy it at all. People are always giving him things for free. Doesn't seem quite fair, does it? Paul could afford to buy the whole damn ice cream company--and then do Ingrid's bidding by mandating that it ditch the cow's milk for the gals' milk! Rich, I've stated elsewhere that I listen to Paul's music all the time, and that includes a more than representative sampling of what he has done in the last 25 years. Flowers in the Dirt and Flaming Pie are worthy efforts; Driving Rain was a major disappointment, recorded in a fog of Heather worship (I can hardly wait for the new Nancy paean). The CD I listen to more than any other is the live album of his FITD tour. A good mixture of Wings, Beatles and Flowers, and the best vocal ever on Long and Winding Road. The one element of Paul's music that I really, REALLY like is his bass playing--which means that I enjoy some songs that other people regard as complete crap. Old Siam Sir comes to mind. And Silly Love Songs, especially the version on Broad St...the bassline IS the song. Have you ever seen the video of the song "India," from the Back in the US DVD? Watch his fingers on the fretboard. Or check out the Sgt. Pepper clips on YouTube, which consist of only the drumming, bass and vocals. As Mr. Spock would say, "fascinating." Lucy is unremarkable without the bassline, which is also how George Martin described Come Together until Paul came up with the "swampy" bass. Geoff Emerick revealed in his book that Paul would stay in the studio long after the others had gone, perfecting his basslines until his fingers bled. Dear Prudence and Something are awesome. A music reviewer in the London Times once called the bassline to All My Loving "pure genius"--although, from that era, I prefer the original ISHST with the ascending bassnotes that Paul no longer plays in live performance. As sexy sadie would say, "disappointing." But I think that person's remark about Paul not having made a decent record in 25 years is a common perception. He did himself no favors with efforts like the Frog Chorus, Ebony and Ivory, and Wonderful Christmastime. Plus, his personality gets on a lot of peoples' nerves, especially those below a certain age. Recently he was voted "most irritating music star" in a British poll. Pile on me all you want, rich, but I understand why. You may chafe at the suggestion that Paul has become "irrelevant," but for the most part, he now is. He was reduced to giving away MAF--which contains several terrific songs (once again, note the bass on That Was Me)--in a UK tabloid newspaper. What does that say? You might be interested in this blog. "The Solo Paul McCartney is a Major Lightweight." www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicblog/2007/may/21/paulmccartneyhastoldbillboObviously I don't think I'm out of line with my criticisms of Paul, who, IMO, has simply lost the plot in his personal life over the past ten years. I might spend an hour each week here "gossipping and bloviating," but only because I know how much rich enjoys my commentary. Are you telling me to get a life, rich? Nice. And I'm not sure why I'm being accused of violating the International Rules of Discussion Boards by supposedly being a know-it-all when you are the one trying to set the parameters for what is and is not fair game. Since I wouldn't want to disappoint you by failing to gossip and bloviate before I wrap up another obnoxiously long post, here's a question for you--what would you think of a man who just quit showing up for his job, backburnered his only child, and shirked his responsibilites as the member of a very important public board to go gallivanting around the world for months on end in pursuit of a rich and famous woman twenty years his senior? Just wondering. Well, sadie, you and I certainly agree on the (somewhat obvious, pretty much universally acknowledged) idea that McCartney made amazing, brilliant, important, classic contributions on bass to the Beatles' records including the (again, fairly obvious) tracks you mentioned and many more. I also agree that Tripping the Live Fantastic (and the '89-90 tour it comes from) were pretty great, very exciting and benefitting both from the live "debut" of so much backlogged Beatles materials and also from the excellent new material from what I think was one of Paul's best-ever solo efforts, FITD (thanks in large part to his collaborating with Costello, which partnership I think resulted in many of his all-time best songs since the Lennon-McCartney era). Now, I of course recognize that the statement about Paul not having made a decent record in decades is like you say a "common perception" (and I granted that there have been plenty of clunkers). However, I was just talking about the fact that I don't think the statement is actually *true*, and I was asking what you thought. Glad to see we pretty much agree on this. I agree with you that MAF had "several terrific songs" (surrounded IMO by a number of very bland, unremarkable ones) - we would no doubt have different choices as to which ones were the terrific ones, but that's part of the fun. In talking about the album I think that it's worth noting that by and large it was very well received critically as was his previous album - unlike, if you think about it, his 70's albums that many of us fans probably prefer. I think that is because, and it shows, that unlike the "common perception" would have it, McCartney has in the last decade, musically grown and challenged himself, freed I think (by his age-induced lack of commercial viability) from the pressure to produce a lot of crowd-pleasing, easily-accessible hits and has been instead creating some more personal, more experimental stuff that, again, offputs some fans but has garnered more critical acclaim and appreciation....than he did in his days of more ostensible "relevance." Anyway, I don't think it's accurate to characterize MAF as some kind of failure, even if he did use a marketing stunt of giving away copies in the paper many months after its initial release and peak in sales....didn't the album reach #3 in the US charts and sell more copies for him, and probably get more overall attention, than anything since Flaming Pie? Now, I don't need a link (I'll read it, I'm always interested) to demonstrate to me that McCartney's solo career has ALWAYS been dissed and dismissed by MANY writers and critics, ever since it began.....that's hardly news. Of course there are also lots of people, including myself, and if I understand correctly, you, who have enjoyed and admired a great deal of his post-Beatles music, so really, who cares? The essay you quoted is going to change my opinion of his music? At any rate, no I don't bristle at your repeated assertions that McCartney is "irrelevant." Again it is an old and somewhat non-controversial statement. (I don't really even understand the intended gist of this common criticism directed at many entertainment old-timers. They are relevant to the people who are interested in what they are doing, irrelevant to those who are not. Is Coldplay or Arcade Fire Hannah Montana more relevant? Am I supposed to care?) But what I question is the purpose of your going on at such length, so many times over and over again, to make the case to others that he is irrelevant and all the other adjectives I listed in my previous post. What is the end objective of this exercise? What does it get YOU? "Just wondering." Finally, as to the last question you posed to me....if I didn't know the person in question personally, if I had no real inside knowledge of the many complex, personal, behind-the-scenes realities that underlied whatever I had seen reported in the press and on the internet, I think I would probably refrain from judging them too harshly. Even if I decided I didn't like them I doubt very much I would write multiple long diatribes listing all the things I didn't like about them on a forum as if to try to convince everybody else to dislike them too. It just seems pointless. Now, if the person were an artist or entertainer whose work I was interested in, I would in fact be very likely to write plenty of long posts detailing what I did and didn't like about their recent albums or movies or whatever. That would be very much like me. Like I said before, that is what I consider more interesting and legitimate fodder for discussion. richforman Stand back folks, the clash of the titans!Seriously, this is a great example of two people who know their Macca yet arguing respectfully for their points of view. I think both writers make good points and I'm almost breathless on your mutual knowledge of Paul. As Bob Dylan once wrote: We always did feel the same, We just saw it from a different point of view, Tangled up in blue.
|
|
|
Post by sallyg on Oct 5, 2008 13:44:53 GMT -5
This is an article in Oct 5th edition of the Daily Mail. Further down in the article it says that Nancy has gone vegetarian and supposedly changed her political views to impress Paul. Time will tell if this is true. Sir Paul's (love) message in a bottle for Nancy
By Katie Nicholl Last updated at 11:07 AM on 05th October 2008
* Comments (0) * Add to My Stories
Sir Paul McCartney showed his love for girlfriend Nancy Shevell by buying her a bunch of flowers and popping them in a bottle of mineral water.
The couple were spotted taking a romantic stroll in Paris after attending his daughter Stella's fashion show.
They had lunch at the upmarket Laperouse restaurant before walking to Gare du Nord train station to catch the Eurostar and go back to London.
Nancy looked effortlessly chic in knee-high boots and a crepe mini-dress.
Paul, 66, presented his gift to the 47-year-old New Yorker at an exclusive restaurant.
Shevell has given friends the firmest indication yet that she could become the third Lady McCartney.
The heiress, who has a penchant for crocodile handbags and steak, has turned vegetarian to impress the ex-Beatle.
The striking brunette has even changed her political views for her liberal lover.
‘Nancy has toned down her super-Republican views and given up her beloved steaks, which shocked us.
'When they travelled around America this summer, they lived on avocado sandwiches and tomato soup. Now Nancy orders veggie food all the time,’ says a friend.
Will Nancy really prove her commitment to animal-loving Macca and ditch her crocodile-skin Birkin bag? Could Paul McCartney and Nancy Shevell be taking their relationship to the next step? Nancy has given up steak for the Vegetarian singer.
View all Add your comments Comments (0)
No comments have so far been submitted. Why not be the first to send us your thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Oct 5, 2008 21:46:43 GMT -5
Thanks for posting that article, sallyg! A lasting relationship is a lifetime of compromises but apparently when one wants to be Mrs. McCartney it is Paul's way or the highway.
King Henry VIII was a lot like that.
|
|
|
Post by sallyg on Oct 6, 2008 6:38:13 GMT -5
Thanks for posting that article, sallyg! A lasting relationship is a lifetime of compromises but apparently when one wants to be Mrs. McCartney it is Paul's way or the highway. King Henry VIII was a lot like that.[/quote I hope this is what Nancy really wants because if it isn't she's going to resent it further down the road. If Nancy doesn't want to be veggie, can you picture her sneaking out for a burger or steak? I hope Paul didn't issue her an ultimatum saying if you want me you have to go vegetarian because if he did he's trying to force her to be the right woman just like he tried to convince himself that Heather was the right woman.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Oct 6, 2008 7:46:05 GMT -5
I hope this is what Nancy really wants because if it isn't she's going to resent it further down the road. If Nancy doesn't want to be veggie, can you picture her sneaking out for a burger or steak? I hope Paul didn't issue her an ultimatum saying if you want me you have to go vegetarian . . . A lot people want to become vegetarians, but find it difficult because of family or spouses. Maybe she's always wanted to be one, and being with Paul makes it easier. My wife and I came about it independently of each other, but I know it was an easy transition because the two of us were doing it together. In the interest of fairness and until proven otherwise, I will assume this is the case for Nancy, especially since I do not know her.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Oct 6, 2008 8:03:49 GMT -5
I hope this is what Nancy really wants because if it isn't she's going to resent it further down the road. If Nancy doesn't want to be veggie, can you picture her sneaking out for a burger or steak? I hope Paul didn't issue her an ultimatum saying if you want me you have to go vegetarian . . . A lot people want to become vegetarians, but find it difficult because of family or spouses. Maybe she's always wanted to be one, and being with Paul makes it easier. My wife and I came about it independently of each other, but I know it was an easy transition because the two of us were doing it together. In the interest of fairness and until proven otherwise, I will assume this is the case for Nancy, especially since I do not know her. Perhaps Nancy was waiting for the right moment to give up her "beloved steaks"(what a weird phrase anyway) but allegedly giving up leather and changing her politics virtually overnight? Let's hope Nancy draws the line at Paul's insistence that each morning, as they awake next to each other, they must serenade one another with "Ebony And Ivory", Nancy taking Stevie's part.
|
|
|
Post by sallyg on Oct 6, 2008 13:37:41 GMT -5
Sayne, I assume she's doing this for the right reasons because I don't know her either and I'm waiting to see if this is really true. The part I think is made up is the part about Nancy changing her political views. One does not change their views that quickly but I suspect that Nancy is economically conservative and socially liberal which would be more compatiable with Paul's beliefs. If Nancy is changing her political beliefs is Paul making her vote for Obama/Biden instead of McCain/Palin? ;D (Just kidding!) Maybe she's just tired of the Republicans.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Oct 6, 2008 15:54:41 GMT -5
If Nancy is changing her political beliefs is Paul making her vote for Obama/Biden instead of McCain/Palin? ) . . . "with a love like that you know you should be glad."
|
|
|
Post by winstonoboogie on Oct 6, 2008 20:35:15 GMT -5
If Nancy is changing her political beliefs is Paul making her vote for Obama/Biden instead of McCain/Palin? ) . . . "with a love like that you know you should be glad." ;D
|
|
|
Post by sexysadie on Oct 9, 2008 5:11:07 GMT -5
So Nancy is showing her "love" for Paul by giving up her "beloved steaks" and animal-skin accessories, and changing her political beliefs? Have we returned to the "keep-'em-barefoot-and-pregnant" mindset of the '50's? It's 2008--why doesn't Paul show HIS love by chowing down on a steak and changing his politics?
Two possibilities. Either Nancy is even more manipulative and scheming than Heather and will do literally anything to snag herself a rich, titled and famous old man, or she is a braindead doormat. Of course the second possibility doesn't mean that Paul isn't also being braindead, just as he was when Miss Mills came a'calling. Having been suckered once, he doesn't find it suspicious that Nancy is changing the very basics of her lifestyle and thinking just to please him? Or maybe JSD is right--he's such a control freak that all he cares about is her falling into line with what he wants and thinks. Gosh, a yes-gal to cater to his every need. With a huuuge bank balance, yet. No wonder he is "so happy." She's every male neanderthal's dream.
I always thought true love was about accepting people for who they are, and not trying to change them. I once commented on the myth that Paul likes strong women, and a very perceptive member (sally g?) observed that he would still be with Jane Asher if that were indeed the case. How revealing that the two women who didn't allow Paul to push them around didn't last terribly long.
Nancy apparently checks with Paul to see how far behind him she should walk on any given day, so I guess it's no surprise that she would ditch her steaks, possessions and politics for him. Does this woman have any sense at all of who she really is? Honestly, I've got more respect for Heather. At least she is her own woman--even if you don't like who that woman is!
I'm reminded that teenage Paul would tell his girlfriends what to wear and how to style and color their hair. And I'm once again wondering why he was so insistent that Heather be held to a confidentiality agreement. At the risk of being accused of more Paul-hate, maybe he is a bonafide bully. It's a logical conclusion. He certainly knew how to throw his weight around in the recording studio.
It was bad enough that Princess Nancy has had everything served up to her on a silver platter her entire life, and I never trusted her or her motives. But now she's really pissing me off, what with her subserviant behavior. I have a theory as to why she is near-anorexic in appearance. If she were any heavier, she'd collapse under her own weight. NO spine.
Rich, shortly after my last post I came across the opinion of a so-called "professional musician" that Paul is a terrible bassist--supposedly has no technique. Interesting, then, that when I was looking for a book about bass guitar for my nephew, every single one I picked up mentioned Paul as one of the greats. I appreciate the musical discussion (and neglected to include Rain as a primo example of the bass playing technique Paul doesn't have), but I posted the link more for the comments on the article than the article itself. I thought there was some provocative and fairly balanced feedback. So if you have the time, go back and check out how people responded to the assertion that solo Paul is a dud. And if you want to discuss music, why not introduce a thread for that purpose? This one was started as a commentary on Paul and Nancy's road trip, so don't you think it's unfair to criticize gossipping--or, in my case, bloviating--about their relationship here?
|
|
|
Post by sallyg on Oct 9, 2008 7:43:14 GMT -5
I always thought true love was about accepting people for who they are, and not trying to change them. I once commented on the myth that Paul likes strong women, and a very perceptive member (sally g?) observed that he would still be with Jane Asher if that were indeed the case.
I was not the one who made that statement about Jane (that's ok if you thought I did) but in my opinion one of the causes of Paul and Heather's break-up besides the fact that she was an opportunist is that perhaps Paul and Heather both are strong willed people and being so they constantly clashed.
One of the things that the Daily Mail article did in my opinion is make Nancy look like she's making such a heroic sacrific for love in giving up eating meat. To me that's a bit silly and overly dramatic. As I have said before in a previous post that although I have not seen enough evidence to really know if she's genuine or if she's up to something, I think the media is giving Nancy a free pass just because she's wealthy. It's strange that there has been absolutely no negative press on this woman and the media adores her. It's always possible that there is no dirt on her and no one wants to talk negatively about this woman. Then it's always possible that the media fears a lawsuit from Paul (and Nancy) if they publish any thing negative about her.
[/quote]
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Oct 9, 2008 9:23:02 GMT -5
. . . And if you want to discuss music, why not introduce a thread for that purpose? This one was started as a commentary on Paul and Nancy's road trip, so don't you think it's unfair to criticize gossipping--or, in my case, bloviating--about their relationship here? I guess that's why it's appropriate that this board is called the "long and winding road message board." I wrote on the old board that I always found it interesting in a zen sort of way where discussions would go. A thread on Lennon/McCartney vs McCartney/Lennon would evolve into a discussion on the war in Iraq. The topic of the Beatles drug use would morph into a discussion on the Partridge Family. I decided a while back to just "relax and float downstream" while following the ebbs and flows of our threads. It's quite fascinating, actually, where things lead. It's kinda like the Beatles' music itself. From one song to another and one album to another, they took us to different places. Frequently, people would not want to go where they did, so they moved on to other bands and were thus limited only to the hits, while the rest of us were treated to the intricacies of deeper album cuts. And, we're better for it, musically. So, if a thread crashes and burns, oh well. If it careens off course, cool. If it veers into the rocks, let's see what we can salvage. "Unfair"? Nah. "Interesting"? Uh, huh.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Oct 9, 2008 9:32:47 GMT -5
. . . I always thought true love was about accepting people for who they are, and not trying to change them. No, true love is ALWAYS having to say you're sorry. ;D Funny, my sister once said about her husband that she knows he's not perfect. If she was looking for the perfect guy, she'd still be single. It was too hard to find the perfect guy. She decided that it would be easier to find a guy who could be molded into the guy she wanted. She's been molding for over 25 years! He is, after all, a pretty thick lump of clay! ;D
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Oct 9, 2008 23:11:41 GMT -5
Nancy apparently checks with Paul to see how far behind him she should walk on any given day, so I guess it's no surprise that she would ditch her steaks, possessions and politics for him. Damnit, stop that sadie, you're killing me with those great one liners! ;D That was almost as good as your comment on old Knights running around in suits and their trainers. ROTFLMAO! Here is a great photo for you from Beatle Photo Blog: That is not very chivalrous of Paul to not escort Nancy across the busy street! P.S. It looks like Paul is in his suit and trainers! ;D
|
|
|
Post by sexysadie on Oct 20, 2008 8:31:35 GMT -5
Always happy to provide some entertainment, John, but I'm really getting concerned about this Nancy gal, and not just because she forces the photogs to take wide-angle shots when she's (kinda) with Paul. If they do get married, Paul will be out of the church before she's even left the altar. I'm telling you, there is something very "off" about her.
Sayne, when you were so much younger than today, did you ever play the game where a secret is whispered by one kid to another, 'til it's revealed aloud by the last person in the circle? In most cases the final version bears little resemblance to the original secret. Similar to what happens with these threads. Everyone zeros in on what interests him or her in a particular post and then runs with it. The sometimes surprising turns do indeed make thing interesting.
There were initially a couple of negative stories about Nancy, calling her pampered, demanding and entitled, and pointing out that she was an avowed meat-eater and a mover and shaker in Republican politics--two things that were at serious odds with Paul's lifestyle. You may be right, Sally, about the media not wanting to risk Paul's wrath, legal or personal, by printing anything uncomplimentary about Nancy. In fact, they seem to bend over backwards to say how "classy" and "stunning" she is, and since they never fail to mention that she is an heiress, I suspect you are also right about the favorable treatment being related to her wealth. How do they know she is classy? Because she wears big sunglasses? Hey, lots of women have big sunglasses. But unless they've also got hundreds of millions of dollars, I doubt they'd be automatically labelled as classy. Or stunning. Nancy is attractive enough, albeit much too thin, but there is no way she is "beautiful" or "stunning." She's actually quite plain, not unlike Linda. If I had to bottom-line it, I'd say the press is going all out to cut Paul a break on this relationship because of the vitriol they unloaded on Heather. AND because Nancy is rich.
Face it, if she weren't an "heiress," they'd be calling her a golddigger, 'cos she's definitely after something. It's absolutely shocking how she has changed her life around just to ingratiate herself with Paul. Since the spring she has been with him almost constantly, travelling the world--and fabled Route 66, of course. Blown off her "job" as a VP at daddy's company, her son, her responsibilities as an MTA board member. Changed her diet and her politics--which means she should resign her board position, because she was a Republican appointee (but then she would have to give up the "official business" pass that she uses to park wherever she wants while running personal errands in Manhattan). Her behavior has been odd and highly suspicious right from the beginning. After she was photographed in a liplock with Paul in the Hamptons last fall, she was designated as his "new girlfriend" on the front page of the NY Post, on the entertainment blogs and TV shows, and in the British tabloids. She had the paparazzi following her to Dean and DeLuca, and videoing her walking her dog (btw, what happened to her doggie? Blowing off the kid is one thing, but ditching man/woman's best friend? That's REALLY low.) Yet Paul went straight back to England for a very public hook-up with Rosanna Arquette, who at that point was no doubt giving him a more intimate kind of "quality time" than Nancy was, if you know what I mean (and I know you do). It was a selfish and insensitive thing for him to do, and must have been humiliating for her. I honestly don't understand why any woman would put up with such treatment, but instead of following Rosanna's example and telling him to take a hike, she went into doormat mode--and has been there ever since. The question is why. It's logical to conclude that she has bigger fish to fry. Oops, I forgot, no more fish for Nancy...bigger veggie burgers to fry.
Reportedly she is now living at Peasmarsh, and one newspaper did note that it's only been five months since Paul's divorce became final. A little swipe, I guess. No mention that Nancy is legally free and clear, so I presume her divorce is still pending. Not exactly exemplary behavior on either of their parts, especially with children involved. That, together with all her other apparently calculated and self-serving actions, certainly provides plenty of fodder for the tabloids. You would think the notoriously nasty and intrusive British press would be having a field day. Go figure. Maybe after they're done with the Madonna divorce drama, they'll do a little digging. But considering the way things are shaking out with Madge and Guy, that could be a while. Did you know that making love to her was like hugging a piece of gristle? (Is it now required that one spouse publicly savage the other's "technique" during divorce proceedings? Heather sure had to get her two pence in.)
It does appear that Nancy has been awfully eager to change who she is and abandon her life in the States to move in with Paul, mere months after they started dating. And what's wrong with him? These are two emotionally unhealthy and needy people, scarred by recent/ongoing divorce, who are too co-dependent to have a successful relationship. I don't give a rat's ass about her, but I feel badly for Paul. After Linda's illness and death and the Heather mess, he deserves some happiness, and I can't help believing he is buying himself a truckload of trouble with this woman. Would some unfavorable press open his eyes? It didn't the last time.
|
|
|
Post by sallyg on Oct 20, 2008 11:16:44 GMT -5
For those who want to read the Sun story about Nancy reportedly moving in with Paul www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/bizarre/article1829677.eceSexysadie, good points on your part. My observation of the media's blanket acceptance of Nancy is based upon the fact that historically most of the Beatle wives and girlfriends have gotten negative treatment from the media so I find the blanket acceptance strange. I would think that after what happened with Heather that there would be at least some skeptical people in the media. Moreover, another reason why the media hasn't published any negative stories on Nancy is that maybe people may have feared retaliation on Nancy or the Shevell's part in the form of a law suit if they would go public with negative stories. Again, I don't know the woman and this is only conjecture on my part. As for her professional and personal responsibilities, it seems kind of strange that she is spending all this time traveling around the world with Paul but then again I don't know this woman. I don't know if the Sun article is true, for all we know they could have been living together for a while.
|
|
|
Post by richforman on Oct 20, 2008 13:49:27 GMT -5
Good point about not knowing her! I don't either. I would think maybe one reason that the media has not attacked or published negative stories about this woman is....why would they? She's not a public figure, she's not running for office, right? She's not trying to sell you or me anything? ? What would be....what IS...the point in attacking, judging and scrutinizing her? I really don't get it.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Oct 20, 2008 15:42:36 GMT -5
Maybe she's a George fan and wanted to reinact the Abbey Road album cover.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Oct 20, 2008 21:56:20 GMT -5
Maybe she's a George fan and wanted to reinact the Abbey Road album cover. You're on to something there, sayne! Nancy is every bit as skinny, nay gaunt, as Hari was on Abbey Road.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 21, 2008 6:50:04 GMT -5
In that photo it's amazing that Paul seems to have the exact same stride as he did on ABBEY ROAD's cover.
|
|
|
Post by sallyg on Oct 21, 2008 7:32:08 GMT -5
Good point about not knowing her! I don't either. I would think maybe one reason that the media has not attacked or published negative stories about this woman is....why would they? She's not a public figure, she's not running for office, right? She's not trying to sell you or me anything? ? What would be....what IS...the point in attacking, judging and scrutinizing her? I really don't get it. You make the arguement that Nancy is not a public figure, or trying to sell us something and therefore why should the media scrutinize her? You could have said the same thing about Linda and Yoko. Linda and Yoko are not public figures but yet the media attacked them. Like Nancy, Linda and Yoko are from affluent families. I personally have no opinion of Nancy but I was just commenting about the media's attitude towards Nancy and I think that the media should have given Linda and Yoko the same consideration.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Oct 21, 2008 9:10:22 GMT -5
Good point about not knowing her! I don't either. I would think maybe one reason that the media has not attacked or published negative stories about this woman is....why would they? She's not a public figure, she's not running for office, right? She's not trying to sell you or me anything? ? What would be....what IS...the point in attacking, judging and scrutinizing her? I really don't get it. Just to clarify, in the eyes of the press, she is a public figure. She's from an affluent family and has (or had) a position of responsibility with the public. That and the fact she's now involved with Paul makes her a public figure.
|
|
|
Post by richforman on Oct 21, 2008 9:37:57 GMT -5
I agree with you SallyG....well, Yoko had a much more in-your-face presence and public persona, and co-involvement with John in all the public things he was doing for years, so in her case the scrutiny and attention is much more understandable I'd say. But with Linda and especially now with Nancy, no I don't think that dating a famous musician *should* really make a woman automatic fair game for all this analysis and criticism. It happens that way in the real world, but to me it's just very low-minded gossip. Coming from an an "affluent family" shouldn't do it either IMO (and normally doesn't, lots of people come from affluent families but you never hear about them or see them published in gossip mags and discussed on message boards). As for a "position of responsibility with the public," it's kind of stretching it I think, no one reported or talked about her in the press until she became associated with McCartney, that is really the only reason people are doing it now. Paul has not pushed her on the public like John did with Yoko (and like he did with Heather to a lesser extent), their life together it seems to me has been (at least they've tried to keep it) basically private. I don't know, to me it's just not really right. It's just a bunch of yenta-like tongue-wagging about the personal private life of people you don't know.
|
|
|
Post by sallyg on Oct 21, 2008 13:59:47 GMT -5
Good point about not knowing her! I don't either. I would think maybe one reason that the media has not attacked or published negative stories about this woman is....why would they? She's not a public figure, she's not running for office, right? She's not trying to sell you or me anything? ? What would be....what IS...the point in attacking, judging and scrutinizing her? I really don't get it. Just to clarify, in the eyes of the press, she is a public figure. She's from an affluent family and has (or had) a position of responsibility with the public. That and the fact she's now involved with Paul makes her a public figure. You bring up a legitimate point about Nancy's position on the board of directors of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority making her a public figure as well as the fact that she is vice president of a successful trucking company in NJ. Another thing that throws the spotlight on her is that her estranged husband Bruce Blakeman has announced his candidacy for mayor of New York City. Blakeman is on the board commissioners of the New York Port Authority and New Jersey Port Authority who has made a previous unsuccessful run for public office. The fact that Nancy is his estranged wife makes her a public figure.
|
|
|
Post by richforman on Oct 22, 2008 9:10:54 GMT -5
Still seems like a stretch to me. "Vice president of a successful trucking company in NJ" doesn't add to the argument at all. Being on the board at the MTA, okay I can see that as grounds for scrutinizing her conduct in that role or related to it. But it isn't a valid reason to be tracking, reporting on, analyzing or criticizing where she walks down the street in relation to her boyfriend in photos, who she loves or dates and why, whether and when (and why) she switched to a vegetarian diet or anything else in her personal life. It's all just silly yenta gossip, and the only reason anybody talks about it is because of who the boyfriend is. (The other things, the MTA board position, the estranged husband's "candidacy for mayor," never thrust her into the news or forum chat before and likely never would have.)
|
|
|
Post by sexysadie on Nov 11, 2008 6:42:52 GMT -5
Please, can we dispense with the attempts to scuttle discussion about Nancy because we "don't know her?" Not knowing Heather didn't stop Paul's fans, or the media, from tearing her a new one. Nancy most decidedly is a public figure--she has paired off with one of only two surviving Beatles, a man who is occasionally lauded as a British National Treasure, and who recently spent the better part of two years on newspaper front pages as one-half of (according to the NOTW) The Messiest Divorce Ever. It IS curious that the press has pretty much given her a free ride. After all, they were speculating wildly about the Paul/Heather relationship right from its inception, even though he tried to keep her under wraps. I don't buy the argument that because Paul isn't "pushing" Nancy on the public she isn't, or shouldn't be, the subject of media attention. In fact, I would think the fact that she refuses to go to public events with him, or pose with him for pictures when she does, would just serve to pique their interest. I don't know how the picture John posted, and the many others like it, can't leave you scratching your head. Do they look like a happy "together" couple to you? It's almost like Paul is trying to ignore Nancy, which is very out-of-character for him in that he always treated Linda, and even Heather, with respect and affection in public. Something ain't right. And if the Brits weren't so enamored of the titled and wealthy--especially people with inherited wealth like Nancy--they would be wondering whether Paul has chosen his post-Heather partner not with his heart, but with his wallet. Pigeon-holed himself into a relationship by ticking off all the requisite "she's-not-Heather" boxes. Doesn't crave the limelight. Check. Is easily dominated. Check. Has money. Check, check, check. Seriously, what happened to THIS guy?** The "scruff from Liverpool," so proud of his working-class values, with a snobby Upper East Side rich broad? Whoever would have thunk it? Ultimately, no one is off-limits for the press in Britain, and that includes the National Treasure and his gal pals. The Mirror's Carole Malone turned the tables on Paul big time when he made a round-robin of calls to the press begging them to show some Heather-love (Malone got the last laugh--she refused to be intimidated, and told him that one day he'd find out the truth). And remember, they printed Heather's abuse allegations, and gleefully suggested that Paul had something to hide when he paid off Cookbook Man for the Linda tapes. The Mail did print that Nancy was "notably absent" when Paul picked up his Ultimate Legend award in Liverpool the other night. So they are paying attention. ** www.sundaymail.co.uk/news/editors-choice/2008/11/02/the-beatles-in-scotland-paul-mccartney-s-story-78057-20862290/You have to read it to the end to get the point. And check out the 90% tax rate. Coming soon to a country near you.
|
|
|
Post by sallyg on Nov 12, 2008 18:32:58 GMT -5
I don't know how the picture John posted, and the many others like it, can't leave you scratching your head. Do they look like a happy "together" couple to you? It's almost like Paul is trying to ignore Nancy, which is very out-of-character for him in that he always treated Linda, and even Heather, with respect and affection in public. Something ain't right. Ultimately, no one is off-limits for the press in Britain, and that includes the National Treasure and his gal pals. The Mirror's Carole Malone turned the tables on Paul big time when he made a round-robin of calls to the press begging them to show some Heather-love (Malone got the last laugh--she refused to be intimidated, and told him that one day he'd find out the truth). [/quote]
I have often noticed that Nancy is frequently walking behind him in various pictures. They often are not holding hands and something seems out of synch, no spark. Whenever I look at pictures of Paul and Linda, you can see how deeply in love with each other they are/were. As for Carole Malone, I'm surprised she has not written a column voicing skeptism concerning Nancy.
|
|