Observations on Paul McCartney's Current Popularity
Mister Charlie
"Mister Charlie." despite what I may have said in a revious post. I
spoke in anger to some extent, and I may or may not actually made good
on my threat. I will keep you all informed as to my final decision.
In any case, people like Chewslop will NOT....repeat will NOT....win
this battle. I shall prevail, mark my words. It's just that I'm
still trying to think up other ways to frustrate the troll(s) who have
been impersonating me.
But what I want to talk about today is how the former "cute Beatle."
Sir Paul McCartney, is rapidly becoming the "rather annoying Beatle",
according to a recent poll -- and a substantial portion of the
music-listening public (including ME) is getting pretty sick of him.
For example, in a USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll conducted not so long ago,
Beatle fans and non-fans alike expressed disdain and even contempt for
McCartney's ongoing, nay neverending, TV and concert appearances, as
well as his many video, book and music releases of late.
Here are some relatively recent things that really irritate me about
Sir Paul:
In Paul's song 'Freedom,' which he wrote in response to the events of
September 11, its chorus goes 'I'm talkin' 'bout freedom. I'm talkin'
'bout freedom. I will fight for the right to live in freedom' - -and
then, at the end of the song, this chorus is repeated about 37
freakin' times."
When I first heard that song, I figured it was written by U.S. Senator
Orrin Hatch or Attorney General John Ashcroft or some other
simplistic, jingoistic, right-wing crackpot -- certainly not by one of
the Beatles, for Christ's sake.
I mean, Paul wrote "We Can Work It Out" -- and the Beatles did "All
You Need Is Love." But apparently now it turns out that all you
really need is a mindless, repetitive lyric using a word like
"freedom" that everyone likes to hear.
In "Eleanor Rigby" Paul didn't need to sing "I'm talkin' 'bout lonely
people. I'm talkin' 'bout lonely people" 37 times, did he? No, he
said it only once in each chorus of the song.
Nowadays, however, he apparently can't convey a concept through song
lyrics without having to tell us exactly what he's 'talkin' 'bout'.
I'm talkin' 'bout 'has-been'. I'm talkin' 'bout suck ass." Like
that.
Remember those crappy duets he did with Stevie Wonder ("Ebony And
Ivory") and Michael Jackson ("The Girl Is Mine", "Say Say Say")?
Maybe Paul should've done 'Freedom' as a duet with Gary Coleman,
former child star of "Diff'rent Strokes". Paul could've sung 'I'm
talkin' 'bout freedom' right after Gary Coleman asked him 'Whatchoo
talkin' 'bout, Macca?'" the same way he used to ask "Whatchoo talkin'
'bout, Willis?" with that cute, angry frown on his face.
According to the poll, some in the public feel that McCartney is
"spreading himself too thin," while many more (including yours truly)
feel that he "no longer has 'it.'" Yet most feel that he badly needs
an editor or collaborator or perhaps a mother figure because he
apparently thinks that everything he does -- music, painting, poetry,
shitting on a paper plate -- deserves to be in a freakin' museum.
Of those surveyed, 67% claimed to be Beatles fans -- and of this 67%,
22% claimed to have purchased McCartney music in the past three years.
Of this 22%, 53% claimed to detest McCartney.
I remember when the Beatles '1' CD became the biggest-selling album
of all-time, Paul apparently thought that the whole world would buy
anything Beatle-related. So right away, he released his 'Wingspan'
double CD even though it contained almost all of the songs on his
previous collections 'Wings Greatest' and 'All The Best'. But hey, if
it'll sell all over again, why not put it out?
Next, Paul released the 'Wingspan' documentary on DVD, and he
published a book of what he calls "poetry" and lyrics entitled
'Blackbird Singing'. Then he released 'Driving Rain' which I didn't
buy (I couldn't afford it, still can't), because I heard it wasn't any
good -- and it isn't.
And then right after September 11, Paul headlined 'The Concert For New
York City' which was released on a double CD and on DVD. And he did
the title track for the movie 'Vanilla Sky' whose soundtrack was also
released last year. Of course, Paul's 'Vanilla Sky' song couldn't be
included on his 'Driving Rain' album. Oh no. That would've meant a
few fans wouldn't have bought the 'Vanilla Sky' soundtrack, and then
that would've meant some lost revenue for bazillionaire Paul.
According to those polled, McCartney's music, video, and book frenzy
has been going on for quite some time, but it's gotten out of hand in
the past few years.
Along with the aforementioned items, McCartney has released the
following items in recent years: the rock and roll album "Run Devil
Run"; a special 25th anniversary edition of the Wings album "Band On
The Run"; the classical albums "Liverpool" and "Working Classical";
the sonic art album "Liverpool Sound Collage"; a book of his paintings
called "Paintings"; the concert videos "Live At The Cavern Club" and
"The PETA Concert For Party Animals"; and the documentary video
"Working Classical" (about the making of the album of the same name).
What's next? A book of his grocery lists called 'Blackbird Shopping'?
Paul's taking unfair advantage of Beatles completists. He was never
my favorite Beatle. Not by a long shot. But now, he is by far my
LEAST favorite Beatle -- and for me, that used to be Pete Best.
On his recent concert tours in the U.S., the average ticket price was
over $125 -- but if you can't afford to see McCartney on tour, you
needn't despair. He films his concert tours for home video release.
And if you were in Great Britain a while back, you could have seen him
perform "All You Need Is Love" at Buckingham Palace for Queen
Elizabeth II's Golden Jubilee celebration. "All You Need Is Love" is
not even his song -- it's John's. What a goddamned bastard. Just a
short time earlier, he sang 'I will fight for the right to live in
freedom', and now he sings "All You Need Is Love."
Why didn't he sing 'Her Majesty'? It was written by him, it's more
appropriate for the occasion, and it's only 23 seconds long -- which
is good for us Beatle fans because then we would have had to endure
him a lot less.
End of my rant.....for now.
PTSD
"Mister Charlie" <smoke...@myway.com> wrote in message
news:fc24t019hhb5o96lb...@4ax.com...
> First off, let me say that I have not YET abandoned my moniker of
> "Mister Charlie." despite what I may have said in a revious post. I
> spoke in anger to some extent, and I may or may not actually made good
> on my threat. I will keep you all informed as to my final decision.
>
> In any case, people like Chewslop will NOT....repeat will NOT....win
> this battle. I shall prevail, mark my words. It's just that I'm
> still trying to think up other ways to frustrate the troll(s) who have
> been impersonating me.
Liar. I am he is you are he is you are me and you are just full of
shit. LOL!
Mister Charlie is dead. Spin all you want, you can't fix it, asshole.
Mister Charlie
Au Contraire!! I am still VERY much alive and I will be the one who
decides whether and when my moniker will be retired. Not some
stinkin' forger.
"PTSD"??? Huh??
Anti-Charlie
What's it to you, Slop?
MIKE ROSS-TREVOR
it may not have been on the DVD.
"Mister Charlie" <smoke...@myway.com> wrote in message
news:fc24t019hhb5o96lb...@4ax.com...
edgy
Some extraordinary individual who has so much time on his hands that he can,
for reasons known only to himself, spend hours composing articles for the
the Internet designed to impersonate and thereby somehow denigrate "Mister
news:fc24t019hhb5o96lb...@4ax.com...
> And if you were in Great Britain a while back, you could have seen him
> perform "All You Need Is Love" at Buckingham Palace for Queen
> Elizabeth II's Golden Jubilee celebration.
> Why didn't he sing 'Her Majesty'? It was written by him, it's more
> appropriate for the occasion, and it's only 23 seconds long
Well, actually, if you WERE in Great Britain a while back, you WOULD have
seen him perform "Her Majesty" at Buckingham Palace for Queen Elizabeth II's
Golden Jubilee celebration. They cut it out of the DVD, but the TV
broadcast certainly included it.
Richard Dixon
not his choice.
In regard to public opinion, he just did a record breaking sell out world
tour, nuff said!
"edgy" <ed...@maintenance.federal.com.au> wrote in message
news:33fleqF...@individual.net...
caseystengel
his name back on top of the music world. $ 250.00 concert tickets to see
paul. i think not. i saw elton john, the doors,simon & garfunkel, phil
collins, and rodney croweell this year. spent a lot of dough. wouldn't
cross the street to see maccartney..
Sue Na Me
Goodie for you. Now kindly ask Elton to take that dick out yo ass so ye
be in a better mood dahling.
dlarsson
> And if you were in Great Britain a while back, you could have seen him
> perform "All You Need Is Love" at Buckingham Palace for Queen
> Elizabeth II's Golden Jubilee celebration. "All You Need Is Love" is
> not even his song -- it's John's. What a goddamned bastard. Just a
> short time earlier, he sang 'I will fight for the right to live in
> freedom', and now he sings "All You Need Is Love."
McCartney also did this song totally unattributed
(never mentioning that it was John's song and not his own).
I guess if he did that, people would then realize
hey that Lennon anthem was way better than
anything coming from the other guy.
mr_whatever
to me; sorta like he was trying to get his own "Give Peace A Chance"
going.
t...@aerovons.com
make clear who wrote which song. And all the music sequences in the two
films as well.
Everytime there's a John song we could have a super that said "DEREK
SAYS THIS SONG IS BETTER THAN PAUL'S SONG" or something.
Geez.
MacBeatle
Dunno where you got the Derek part, or whether you were just being
sarcastic, Tom... but I would agree that one thing this group does over
and over ad nauseum is squabble over who wrote which song, when, and so
forth, when "true" Beatles fans know that J&P had a handshake deal
about AYNIL, Yesterday, and all other pre-White Album songs. All four
Beatles had "a hand" in writing music, words, and intangibles, but all
Lennon-McCartney songs (as opposed to songs penned by Ringo or George)
would be credited to Lennon-McCartney, in that order. It was only
after John's murder that Paul started this crap about reversing credits
on certain songs.
Derek was their press agent and something more.
But thanks for the thought.
Francie
Back N Black
The expert has wrote. End of discussion.
t...@aerovons.com
Whatever your feelings on Paul are, Derek always seems to slam him and
I was responding to that.
Peace;)
la...@lstoll.com
> ... "true" Beatles fans know that J&P had a handshake
> deal... Lennon-McCartney songs... would be credited
> to Lennon-McCartney, in that order.
They clearly had a handshake deal to include both names, but since some
of the 1963 releases had Paul's name first, it looks like they figured
on swapping them around at random. The L/M order was established in
1964 when both their manager and their publisher insisted on a
consistent order and said L/M sounds better. You could call that a
handshake deal, but Paul's hand was forced.
> It was only after John's murder that
> Paul started this crap about reversing
> credits on certain songs.
Wrong. He credited the L/M songs on the 1976 "Wings Over Amercia" (all
"Paul" songs) with his own name first. There was no public reaction
from John.
la...@lstoll.com
Can't find it-got a link?
Richard Dixon
Lennon, so clearly Paul did not wait until after John's to "start this crap
about reversing credits" he always had the balls, ok.
And what do you know John, apparently had no problem with it for 4 YEARS!
funny how it upsets everyone else?
"MacBeatle" wrote in message
Mister Charlie
la...@lstoll.com
back up his claim that a "great majority in the public also feel that
McCartney has been on TV and in other media far too much recently." My
guess is that a great majority of the public doesn't even notice!
Although I agree with a few of the gripes, I don't understand the
completists who complain about too many things beng released - isn't
it their problem that they feel compelled to buy things they don't want
or like? Sheesh.
Mike
says at the bottom, "Original Comedy Material."
la...@lstoll.com
> Yes and when you're done reading what's on that link, notice what it
> says at the bottom, "Original Comedy Material."
Heh. The article ins't funny or unbelievable (as these things go) but
the should-be-links list in the upper right IS sort of funny and would
have clued me in had I bothered to read them.
la...@lstoll.com
la...@lstoll.com
dlarsson
Did I say anything about the Sullivan show or the films?
What I pointed out was, after Lennon is dead, McCartney
in the middle of other "McBeatle songs", performing John's
song with no attribution to John whatsoever (so that people
would naturally just assume McCartney was the writer or
the main writer of "All You Need Is Love").
Now, McCartney DID successfully attribute credit to Harrison
when they played "While My Guitar Gently Weeps".
He DID NOT attribute any credit at any time to Lennon
when "All You Need Is Love" was performed.
Hopefully, even someone as intellectually-challaged as yourself,
can see that ..
Two Men ==> Two DIFFERENT behaviors
In one case you have attribution & public respect (Harrison)
In the other case you have neither ( Lennon )
WAKE UP and smell the coffee!
====================================
- Derek
t...@aerovons.com
> What I pointed out was, after Lennon is dead, McCartney
> in the middle of other "McBeatle songs", performing John's
> song with no attribution to John whatsoever (so that people
> would naturally just assume McCartney was the writer or
> the main writer of "All You Need Is Love").
>
To the average guy, it's a BEATLE song. As usual, you can be counted
on to read writing on a wall that isn't even there.
"intellectually challenged"
For a guy who thinks about 200 different people were involved in
assassinating JFK, you have a ways to go kid.
No need to be insulting Derek, believe it or not, some people simply
disagree with your radical and relentless Paul-bashing.
TH
dlarsson
>> What I pointed out was, after Lennon is dead, McCartney
>> in the middle of other "McBeatle songs", performing John's
>> song with no attribution to John whatsoever (so that people
>> would naturally just assume McCartney was the writer or
>> the main writer of "All You Need Is Love").
> To the average guy, it's a BEATLE song. As usual, you can be counted
> on to read writing on a wall that isn't even there.
To the average guy, when Paul performs a Beatle song,
we are to assume that it is his song or mostly his song.
But your response just ignores the issue.
He gave attribution to George Harrison
(for a song that was also just a Beatle song)
He did not give any attribution to John Lennon
for Lennon's song.
Two men, two different behaviors.
Anyone can see that!
> "intellectually challenged"
> For a guy who thinks about 200 different people were involved in
> assassinating JFK, you have a ways to go kid.
Please use actual quotes because I have never said
or at any time attempted to name 200 people involved
in the Kennedy assasination ( I think you are confusing
me with Salvador Astucia )
However, the majority of Americans, and the vast majority
of people in the entire world know that a single gunman
was not responsible for 7 (seven) non-fatal wounds
in two different people, plus 1 missed shot, 1 head shot
( driving Kennedy backwards? ), all from just three clicks
using an inaccurate manual bolt axe gun with a broken scope
( a performance that FBI sharpshooters could not duplicate)
while also discovered just 70 seconds later on the 2nd floor
( 4 double-stair flights down ) calmly drinking a coke in the
lunch room (where he also had been seen a few minutes before)
and who also stated that he shot nobody and was never
nervous during his questioning (and who had a U.S. intelligence
background and stated he was 'just a patsy' ).
The Parkland doctors, nurses, and crime eye-witnesses
also did not think beleive the single gunman senario.
Nor should any reasoned, intelligent, thinking human being.
So who does?
Why, primarily, just the U.S. News Media and the
same right-wing crowd that declares that Hillary Clinton
murderd Vince Foster and that Bill Clinton fathered
a black baby. Good sources huh? NOT!!
It may be the U.S. News Media spin that we hear on TV
but this, after all, is the same U.S. News Media that
also declared:
-that our ships were attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin
( leading to the faulty rationale to start the Vietnam War ),
-that Ronald Reagan "ended the Cold War" (when it
was Mikhail Gorbechev who initiated nuclear disarmament
and not because of "star wars"bullshit but because
it's own Afganistan War had left the USSR bankrupt
unable to feed its people ),
-that thousands of voting "irregularities" are just natural, normal
things
-don't worry about that - ( while countries like
Canada, Sweden, Germany, etc. don't have them!!! ),
-that Bush won Florida (shhh .. don't worry that a statewide
recount post-analysis showed that Gore won when
ALL the votes were examined ),
-that there were stockpiles of illegal WMDs in Iraq,
-that the U.N. was not "disarming: Hussein
(even though he had no weapons found before or after the war),
-that the Iraq War has nothing to do with the natural resouces
of Oil (when other countries actually have nuclear weapons
and Iraq is the one country in the area that does NOT and
Halliburton is bilking U.S. Taxpayers out of billions of dollars),
-that declares that Bush is a "strong leader" and "strong on defense"
when more Americans have DIED under Bush's watch than at any
time since the Vietnam War, and he has systematically lied to the
public about foreign policy and national defense matters,
and he is the first president since Herber Hoover to lose jobs during
the course of his administration (first time since the GREAT DEPRESSION),
and has converted a budget surplus into an historic deficit
( none of these things are either good or "strong"
or reflect any "leadership" whatsoever ),
- that told you over and over again, "Bush was an honest and decent man"
( who has systematically lied to the public about every single policy
initiative
from the "clear skies act", to the "patriot act", to Iraq, to 9-11,
to the
mathematics of his tax cuts, etc. )
-that supply-side economics ( gutting the U.S. Treasury and handing
over the taxpayer money to rich people ) is good economic sense
[ despite the massive budget deficits, recession, layoffs,
poverty-uptick, etc. that have always followed that
approach whether in the 20s, the 50s, the 80s, or again in 2000s ],
and,
-that Bush won a huge victory and mandate in 2004
(when exit polls showed he lost the election, current polls show
his approval at 49%, and the majority of people don't like
his policies once they realize just what the heck they are )
_______
So the track record of the U.S. News Media is not very good here.
In fact, the U.S News Media is the main corrupt institution
that make the sham of American Politics and the ever growing
erosion of the standard of living and human condition possible.
40 years ago, all you needed was 1 income from 1 decent job,
to have a nice middle class house, perhaps a small swimming pool,
a summer home or at least nice vacations, full college, relative job
and economic security, and a secure retirement. Most people
had that or damn close to it. That was considered the
American "dream" and the American experience that everyone
could have.
Today, we have massive poverty (another untold American story )
and a decline in the standard of living to the point where most
people can't even afford a house (much less a nice house),
most people have huge trouble trying to afford college, huge
trouble paying for their health care (or they go without), forget
the 1 income lifestyle thing - most people need 2 incomes
or even more - if they are lucky to have them - simply just
to survive at all ( not prosper ).
We have been reduced from the great middle class society
down to a de-facto worker-slave-peasant society with no economic
security whatsoever and our jobs and industries ready to
be outsourced while the U.S. Tresury has been looted out from under
us to the tune of -$500,000,000,000.00 per year (and growing)
and the total U.S. Debt is now over 9 TRILLION dollars and
countries like China and Saudi Arabia own increasing portions
of the the United States business interests. Meanwhile, we
spend more money on War, the manufacture of U.S. made
WMDs (the only industry where we are a manufacturing leader),
and the Military than ALL nations on the face of the earth
COMBINED ( while you now have to give up your
social security, your health care or pay for it yourself,
and lie in a decaying society of mass unemployment,
crumbling public schools, high pollution, bad
drinking water, diminished living standards,
and the so-called "American dream" is something
that only applies to about 20% of the country).
Does that sounds like treason to you?
It should, because it certainly is not where your OWN
taxpayer dollars should be going towards nor the model
that our founding fathers dreamed up for this country.
That's all thanks to the performance of the U.S. News Media
which allows the corruption to occur and exist without
scrutiny while it distracts us with nonsense like Scott Peterson,
Clinton having a meaningless affair, and dissolves
the practise of true investigative journalism and
replaces it with RNC talking points, vocabulary, etc.
that now pass for so-called "news shows".
Think again!
- Derek
AC
dlarsson <derek_...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>> What I pointed out was, after Lennon is dead, McCartney
>>> in the middle of other "McBeatle songs", performing John's
>>> song with no attribution to John whatsoever (so that people
>>> would naturally just assume McCartney was the writer or
>>> the main writer of "All You Need Is Love").
>
>> To the average guy, it's a BEATLE song. As usual, you can be counted
>> on to read writing on a wall that isn't even there.
>
> To the average guy, when Paul performs a Beatle song,
> we are to assume that it is his song or mostly his song.
I don't think the average guy is a fucking retard. Most folks who would go
to a McCartney show would know All YOu Need Is Love is a Lennon number.
>
> But your response just ignores the issue.
>
> He gave attribution to George Harrison
> (for a song that was also just a Beatle song)
> He did not give any attribution to John Lennon
> for Lennon's song.
>
> Two men, two different behaviors.
>
> Anyone can see that!
I think you need to stop obsessing over celebrities.
Oh, and do you have any concept of what off-topic is?
<snip>
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
MikeSo
"dlarsson" <derek_...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:FaCdnYooTdr...@comcast.com...
<snipped an enormous amount of off-topic text>
You get side-tracked easily, don't you?
Danny Caccavo
"Richard Dixon" <richard...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Sorry, but check out Wings Over America 1976, songs credited to McCartney &
> Lennon, so clearly Paul did not wait until after John's to "start this crap
> about reversing credits" he always had the balls, ok.
>
> And what do you know John, apparently had no problem with it for 4 YEARS!
> funny how it upsets everyone else?
To many fans, there is a "sacred scrolls" mentality to Beatles songs. To
John and Paul, it was something they were proud of (despite Lennon's
protestations), but not sacred.
dc
dlarsson
>>>> What I pointed out was, after Lennon is dead, McCartney
>>>> in the middle of other "McBeatle songs", performing John's
>>>> song with no attribution to John whatsoever (so that people
>>>> would naturally just assume McCartney was the writer or
>>>> the main writer of "All You Need Is Love").
>>> To the average guy, it's a BEATLE song. As usual, you can be counted
>>> on to read writing on a wall that isn't even there.
>> To the average guy, when Paul performs a Beatle song,
>> we are to assume that it is his song or mostly his song.
> I don't think the average guy is a fucking retard. Most folks who would
> go
> to a McCartney show would know All YOu Need Is Love is a Lennon number.
The average guy might be aware that "All You Need Is Love"
( despite McCartney also referencing it in interviews as something
"we did" ) was entirely John's composition, but if so, they would
also similarly know for sure that "While My Guitar Gently Weeps"
was a George Harrison song.
He gave attribution to George Harrison ( i.e. public accreditation
& respect )
He did not give any attribution whatsoever to John Lennon
for Lennon's song.
Two men, two very different behaviors.
The difference is quite obvious.
People notice public accreditation given to song.
It makes the song a kind of "tribute" to that individual.
Harrison was recognized/celebrated
Lennon was not.
Two men, two very different behaviors.
- Derek
AC
dlarsson <derek_...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>>> What I pointed out was, after Lennon is dead, McCartney
>>>>> in the middle of other "McBeatle songs", performing John's
>>>>> song with no attribution to John whatsoever (so that people
>>>>> would naturally just assume McCartney was the writer or
>>>>> the main writer of "All You Need Is Love").
>
>>>> To the average guy, it's a BEATLE song. As usual, you can be counted
>>>> on to read writing on a wall that isn't even there.
>
>>> To the average guy, when Paul performs a Beatle song,
>>> we are to assume that it is his song or mostly his song.
>
>> I don't think the average guy is a fucking retard. Most folks who would
>> go
>> to a McCartney show would know All YOu Need Is Love is a Lennon number.
>
>
> The average guy might be aware that "All You Need Is Love"
> ( despite McCartney also referencing it in interviews as something
> "we did" ) was entirely John's composition, but if so, they would
> also similarly know for sure that "While My Guitar Gently Weeps"
> was a George Harrison song.
Do you think your obsession with Paul McCartney is healthy?
>
> He gave attribution to George Harrison ( i.e. public accreditation
> & respect )
> He did not give any attribution whatsoever to John Lennon
> for Lennon's song.
>
> Two men, two very different behaviors.
>
> The difference is quite obvious.
> People notice public accreditation given to song.
> It makes the song a kind of "tribute" to that individual.
>
> Harrison was recognized/celebrated
> Lennon was not.
>
> Two men, two very different behaviors.
Who cares. Anybody who knows anything about the Beatles knows who was the
primary creator of what. And for those that don't know the Beatles, I could
give a shit about their opinion.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
Salvador Astucia
Ditto.
Salvador
==
"Jose Joaquin Sanjenis Perdomo, John Lennon's true assassin(?)"
http://www.jfkmontreal.com/john_lennon/Usenet/Perdomo.htm
Ordering information for Salvador Astucia's books can be found at
http://www.jfkmontreal.com/raveningwolf/
Also see Astucia's homepage: http://www.jfkmontreal.com
dlarsson
>> People notice public accreditation given to song.
>> It makes the song a kind of "tribute" to that individual.
>>
>> Harrison was recognized/celebrated
>> Lennon was not.
>>
>> Two men, two very different behaviors.
> Anybody who knows anything about the Beatles knows who was the
> primary creator of what.
Well, it depends.
It depends on whether they are reading the
"Macca-did-it-all" books or the older stuff written
about them ( and the Lennon interviews ).
> Who cares.
> for those that don't know the Beatles, I could
> give a shit about their opinion.
That's not the issue.
McCartney misinforming the current public
about song credits whether done by commission
or whether done by Omission is not honest, not ethical,
and not respectful behavior.
Why not ask for a little integrity and a little decency
from a billionaire whose life was lucky enough
not to have been silenced unlike
his two dead bandmates.
How piggish and crass to bask himself in the glory
of "All You Need Is Love", indistinguished from his
own material , accepting the congratulations and the
crowd response, with no mention whatsoever at any time
of John - its true author.
He doesn't treat George Harrison publically that way.
Why?
BECAUSE IT WOULD BE WRONG !!
H-e-l-l-o- M-c-F-l--y?
Wake-up and smell the potatoes!!
======================
- Derek
AC
dlarsson <derek_...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> The difference is quite obvious.
>>> People notice public accreditation given to song.
>>> It makes the song a kind of "tribute" to that individual.
>>>
>>> Harrison was recognized/celebrated
>>> Lennon was not.
>>>
>>> Two men, two very different behaviors.
>
>
>
>> Anybody who knows anything about the Beatles knows who was the
>> primary creator of what.
>
> Well, it depends.
> It depends on whether they are reading the
> "Macca-did-it-all" books or the older stuff written
> about them ( and the Lennon interviews ).
There are enough other sources out there, not to mention the fact that
becoming familiar with the material will be a very good hint as to who was
responsible for what. Besides, John wasn't always terribly accurate either,
at one point saying he and Paul never wrote together, and at another point
claiming Cry Baby Cry was Paul's song. Part of the problem here is that you
are dealing with people who were talking about songs written many years
before.
>
>
>> Who cares.
>
>> for those that don't know the Beatles, I could
>> give a shit about their opinion.
>
> That's not the issue.
> McCartney misinforming the current public
> about song credits whether done by commission
> or whether done by Omission is not honest, not ethical,
> and not respectful behavior.
Oh balls. Everyone knows that All You Need Is Love is John's song. For
chrissakes, it's John on lead vocal, it's distinctly Lennon lyrically. For
those that don't know the Beatles that well, I could care less.
>
> Why not ask for a little integrity and a little decency
> from a billionaire whose life was lucky enough
> not to have been silenced unlike
> his two dead bandmates.
I don't ask anything from Paul McCartney. He's not my mate. I don't even
particularly most of the music he's done since the Beatles, and considering
John's own memory problems on occasion, why should I hold Paul to a separate
standard. For that matter, why should I hold Paul to any standard?
>
> How piggish and crass to bask himself in the glory
> of "All You Need Is Love", indistinguished from his
> own material , accepting the congratulations and the
> crowd response, with no mention whatsoever at any time
> of John - its true author.
>
> He doesn't treat George Harrison publically that way.
>
> Why?
> BECAUSE IT WOULD BE WRONG !!
>
> H-e-l-l-o- M-c-F-l--y?
>
> Wake-up and smell the potatoes!!
What are you, nine years old? Paul McCartney is a rich fucking dude, and he
doesn't care about you. I'm a poor fucking dude, and I don't care about
you. Your Paul hatred, that ingrained pathetic bigotry which seeps out of
every post, indicates that *you* have a problem.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
dlarsson
>> Well, it depends.
>> It depends on whether they are reading the
>> "Macca-did-it-all" books or the older stuff written
>> about them ( and the Lennon interviews ).
> John wasn't always terribly accurate either,
> at one point saying he and Paul never wrote together, and at another point
> claiming Cry Baby Cry was Paul's song.
Wrong.
Lennon did not say that Paul wrote "Cry Baby Cry".
He responded "not me"
which people do actually do quite commonly
when referring to their own work (creations)
that they are not happy artistically with.
as in: "it's not me"
This "is me" and that "is not me"
John did not say Paul wrote the song.
>> McCartney misinforming the current public
>> about song credits whether done by commission
>> or whether done by Omission is not honest, not ethical,
>> and not respectful behavior.
>> Why not ask for a little integrity and a little decency
>> from a billionaire whose life was lucky enough
>> not to have been silenced unlike
>> his two dead bandmates.
> why should I hold Paul to any standard?
Based on your posts its clear that you
have no standards yourself so I'm
not surprised.
>> How piggish and crass to bask himself in the glory
>> of "All You Need Is Love", indistinguished from his
>> own material , accepting the congratulations and the
>> crowd response, with no mention whatsoever at any time
>> of John - its true author.
>>
>> He doesn't treat George Harrison publically that way.
>>
>> Why?
>> BECAUSE IT WOULD BE WRONG !!
>>
>> H-e-l-l-o- M-c-F-l--y?
>>
>> Wake-up and smell the potatoes!!
> Paul McCartney is a rich fucking dude, and he
> doesn't care about you. I'm a poor fucking dude, and I don't care about
> you.
Try and stay on topic here son ....
============================================
- Derek
Richard Dixon
McCartney/Lennon credit on a song that Macca wrote (by himself) be
considered misinforming the public.
Macca is very rich, get over it!
"dlarsson" <derek_...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:DYCdnT7mDv8...@comcast.com...
Chewbops
"Richard Dixon" <richard...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:crdifi$n86$1...@hercules.btinternet.com...
> Derek, there are no books written as you suggest, and how can a
> McCartney/Lennon credit on a song that Macca wrote (by himself) be
> considered misinforming the public.
>
> Macca is very rich, get over it!
>
>
in life even though John said otherwise. Once the words are produced he
disappears. Typical. Predictable.
AC
dlarsson <derek_...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>> Well, it depends.
>>> It depends on whether they are reading the
>>> "Macca-did-it-all" books or the older stuff written
>>> about them ( and the Lennon interviews ).
>
>> John wasn't always terribly accurate either,
>> at one point saying he and Paul never wrote together, and at another point
>> claiming Cry Baby Cry was Paul's song.
>
> Wrong.
> Lennon did not say that Paul wrote "Cry Baby Cry".
>
> He responded "not me"
> which people do actually do quite commonly
> when referring to their own work (creations)
> that they are not happy artistically with.
> as in: "it's not me"
> This "is me" and that "is not me"
>
> John did not say Paul wrote the song.
As far as I read it, John denied authorship. Now I'm sure that doesn't mean
George or Ringo wrote it.
>
>
>
>>> McCartney misinforming the current public
>>> about song credits whether done by commission
>>> or whether done by Omission is not honest, not ethical,
>>> and not respectful behavior.
>
>>> Why not ask for a little integrity and a little decency
>>> from a billionaire whose life was lucky enough
>>> not to have been silenced unlike
>>> his two dead bandmates.
>
>> why should I hold Paul to any standard?
>
> Based on your posts its clear that you
> have no standards yourself so I'm
> not surprised.
Nice try there. It's you that has the hate hardon for Paul. It's pathetic.
>
>
>>> How piggish and crass to bask himself in the glory
>>> of "All You Need Is Love", indistinguished from his
>>> own material , accepting the congratulations and the
>>> crowd response, with no mention whatsoever at any time
>>> of John - its true author.
>>>
>>> He doesn't treat George Harrison publically that way.
>>>
>>> Why?
>>> BECAUSE IT WOULD BE WRONG !!
>>>
>>> H-e-l-l-o- M-c-F-l--y?
>>>
>>> Wake-up and smell the potatoes!!
>
>> Paul McCartney is a rich fucking dude, and he
>> doesn't care about you. I'm a poor fucking dude, and I don't care about
>> you.
>
> Try and stay on topic here son ....
I am. You hate Paul McCartney.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
Danny Caccavo
"Salvador Astucia" <cropdu...@cs.com> wrote:
You guys outta chill, jeez!!
Paul a "goddamn bastard" for singing "All you need is love?" So, was
John a goddamn bastard for singing "I saw her standing there?"
You think Paul is "claiming" the song by singing it?
I shouldn't ask questions when I know what the answer will be, but 'cmon!
dc
JLW44
>> hey that Lennon anthem was way better than
>> anything coming from the other guy.
>
>Ditto.
>
>Salvador
Always refreshing to see one nutcase responding to the other in unison.
JLW44
>
>I shouldn't ask questions when I know what the answer will be, but 'cmon!
>
>dc
>
sing it the other day on that fund raiser and she didn't give John the credit
he deserves, so therefore, I believe that Madonna wrote Imagine.