Paul Mcartney - what an ego
Warren
amazed that indirectly/humbly Mcartney was trying to take credit for the
success of the Beatles.Pity Lennon isn't here to reply. It is very similar
to the Pink Floyd/Roger Waters argument over who was the creative force
behind the band. The whole show was basically a job at rewriting history to
give Mcartney the credit over Lennon for being the creative force behind the
band.
I always think in these situations, (particularly when one member can't put
his 2 cents in because he is dead) the only real way of determining who was
the creative force behind the band is to simply look at the work that was
done as a solo artist.
With the greatest respect to Mcartney, give me Lennon's solo work over your
work with the Wings and any other solo work you may of done since the
Beatles broke up.
BTW how long did Lennon have to go on his own after the Beatles split?
I lost a lot of respect for Mcartney after seeing that show. The guy has all
the money and fame a man could ever want, but that is not enough he wants
more credit at the expense of someone else. Let sleeping dogs lie.
Warren
BTW for those not from Australia, it was the one where Mcartney calls Lennon
his hero.
Mister Charlie
"Warren" <war...@code.com> wrote in message
news:3c61bbe6$0$24543$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> I was watching that ABC special in Melbourne Australia last night and was
> amazed that indirectly/humbly Mcartney was trying to take credit for the
> success of the Beatles.Pity Lennon isn't here to reply. It is very similar
> to the Pink Floyd/Roger Waters argument over who was the creative force
> behind the band. The whole show was basically a job at rewriting history
to
> give Mcartney the credit over Lennon for being the creative force behind
the
> band.
>
> I always think in these situations, (particularly when one member can't
put
> his 2 cents in because he is dead) the only real way of determining who
was
> the creative force behind the band is to simply look at the work that was
> done as a solo artist.
Given that all four of them sucked and were lucky as shit to have George
martin and Brian Epstein around.
momo
>
>I always think in these situations, (particularly when one member can't put
>his 2 cents in because he is dead) the only real way of determining who was
>the creative force behind the band is to simply look at the work that was
>done as a solo artist.
>
>With the greatest respect to Mcartney, give me Lennon's solo work over your
>work with the Wings and any other solo work you may of done since the
>Beatles broke up.
>
In my opinion, wings' works are better than Lennon's solo material. I
like very much Lennon's carrer, but Wings are better.
SLEEPING VILLAGE
That seems to be a fairly common view of Macca and while he is my
least favorite Beatle, I still have all his albums up to Flowers plus
Run Devil Run. I skipped a few inbetween there.
It seems like Macca did write more and better songs while he was a
Beatle on the whole than after. The albums Red Rose Speedway, Band On
The Run , Venus and Mars and Ram are very well done. Some of his
other albums have less hits on them (I.E. Wildlife, McCartney, most
after Venus and Mars)
and what happened on McCartney II?
Is that like his worst album?
lstoll
>
> I was watching that ABC special in Melbourne Australia last
> night and was amazed that indirectly/humbly Mcartney was
> The whole show was basically a job at rewriting history to
> give Mcartney the credit over Lennon for being the creative
> force behind the band.
> BTW how long did Lennon have to go on his own after the
> Beatles split?
Ten years but he took about half of them off.
> BTW for those not from Australia, it was the one where
> Mcartney calls Lennon his hero.
What did he say that made you feel he was taking credit for the Beatles? -laura
Beth Girsch
"lstoll" <la...@lstoll.com> wrote in message
news:3C61C6EF...@lstoll.com...
with people like this, macca just opening his mouth is enough to send the
nutjobs rabbiting on about how paul is such a revisionist asshole.
cue derek larrson.........>
Matthew Kirkcaldie
little disingenuous caption at the start saying "While I am flattered
that the makers of this programme think I'm so great, I just want to
emphasise that the Beatles were about the four of us," and then goes on
to some weird version of history fuelled by some obviously skewed info
from McCartney, e.g.
- drugs (including pot) only became part of the scene in Rishikesh,
makes you wonder how they managed to write "Got to Get You Into My Life"
and "Doctor Robert" with such foresight
- McCartney assumed control of the group when Epstein put them in suits
- Paul had the ambition and drive and Lennon probably wouldn't have made
it alone
- Paul was always the experimental one and John just tagged along
- the loops in Tomorrow Never Knows were all Paul's
- it was Paul's idea to call it Abbey Road, then Everest was suggested
later
- Magical Mystery Tour is being reassessed and Spielberg says they use
it at film school
- Paul was firm about no reunion work after John's death (so I guess it
was Ringo who forced Paul and George "not while John Lennon remains
dead" Harrison into the studio in 1995)
- It was Paul who wanted the group to stop touring after 1966
- The Angus MacBean shoot for the Get Back cover was the last Beatles
shoot
Many of these distortions we've heard before, but there are some fresh
insults to history among them. I guess some of them could be poor
recollection, but I nearly hurled a plate at the screen when I heard
McCartney say "well, I don't want to be the guy blowing my own trumpet,
but then people come to me and say, well, you did this, didn't you? and
you did this as well, that was great - so I don't want to pretend I
didn't do these things" after a series of steadily taking the maximum
credit for anything worthwhile about the Beatles.
Perhaps the weirdest single thing was the total absence of any Beatles
or McCartney music except for some piano doodling at the start and
finish - all the Beatles segments where they talked about specific songs
were accompanied by pissweak pastiche music which sounded vaguely like
the songs.
What a mess.
Matthew.
Mister Charlie
"Matthew Kirkcaldie" <matt...@mail.newcastle.edu.au> wrote in message
news:matthewk-D913A3...@seagoon.newcastle.edu.au...
> God yes, I felt quite sick watching the programme - it starts with a
> little disingenuous caption at the start saying "While I am flattered
> that the makers of this programme think I'm so great, I just want to
> emphasise that the Beatles were about the four of us," and then goes on
> to some weird version of history fuelled by some obviously skewed info
> from McCartney, e.g.
I can only surmise that you heard what you wanted thru some sort of an
anti-Paul filter. Yes, some of the following statements he has made before,
but few were made the way that you report them:
>
> - drugs (including pot) only became part of the scene in Rishikesh,
> makes you wonder how they managed to write "Got to Get You Into My Life"
> and "Doctor Robert" with such foresight
Surely you misheard. Even in Anthology they all cop to doing it in HAMBURG
before they even made it big.
>
> - McCartney assumed control of the group when Epstein put them in suits
Again, you misheard. He has never said that. He may have alluded to the
fact that John felt he was joining Brian in a conspiracy to run the
group...but that's a whole different thing now, isn't it?
>
> - Paul had the ambition and drive and Lennon probably wouldn't have made
> it alone
Quotes please. I'd bet anything Paul NEVER said this (publicly). :)
>
> - Paul was always the experimental one and John just tagged along
This IS one big bugaboo that seems to still bother Paul, as he has been
trying to foist this nugget off for a few years now. And as to
avante-garde, yes, he was into it well before John. One point for your
side.
>
> - the loops in Tomorrow Never Knows were all Paul's
There is a dispute on this. They were not all Paul's loops, but according
to him they were. All the other Beatles (and George Martin) remember them
all bringing in bits.
>
> - it was Paul's idea to call it Abbey Road, then Everest was suggested
> later
Paul drew the cover idea for it, so it may be possible as to have been his
idea, tho I doubt it. And Everest was one of the titles suggested (and
dropped) for Revolver, not Abbey Road (although now that I state it so
categorically I feel as though I could be wrong on that).
>
> - Magical Mystery Tour is being reassessed and Spielberg says they use
> it at film school
Reassessed by Paul maybe. As to Spielberg, he probably DID tell Paul this.
So?
>
> - Paul was firm about no reunion work after John's death (so I guess it
> was Ringo who forced Paul and George "not while John Lennon remains
> dead" Harrison into the studio in 1995)
This is another off the wall new one. Quotes would be nice (I know you
cannot provide them as it was a programme rushing by on your screen...but
the point being this just sounds plain wrong.)
>
> - It was Paul who wanted the group to stop touring after 1966
I doubt him ever saying that either. If anyone he would have wanted to go
on.
>
> - The Angus MacBean shoot for the Get Back cover was the last Beatles
> shoot
That is factually incorrect. But he made an error...how does that glorify
him?
>
> Many of these distortions we've heard before, but there are some fresh
> insults to history among them. I guess some of them could be poor
> recollection, but I nearly hurled a plate at the screen when I heard
> McCartney say "well, I don't want to be the guy blowing my own trumpet,
> but then people come to me and say, well, you did this, didn't you? and
> you did this as well, that was great - so I don't want to pretend I
> didn't do these things" after a series of steadily taking the maximum
> credit for anything worthwhile about the Beatles.
>
> What a mess.
Indeed, Matthew. Out of all these points I only know of one, maybe two that
are factually true, the rest is....HIGHLY inaccurate and highly unlikely.
Perhaps if you lay off the pints before the tellie next time.....;-)
>
> Matthew.
Mister Charlie
"matthew" <matthew...@dingoblue.net.au> wrote in message
news:qbj36u072rluna0l8...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 6 Feb 2002 15:59:35 -0800, "Mister Charlie"
> <swam...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
>
> Non of them were a patch on the greatest song writer/producer ever,
> Brian Wilson
WRONG.
lstoll
>
> > What did he say that made you feel he was taking
> > credit for the Beatles? -laura
>
> with people like this, macca just opening his mouth
> paul is such a revisionist asshole.
>
> cue derek larrson.........>
Did you see it? Some guy named Matthew ripped it too, so I'm curious about
it and about McCartney's level of involvement with it. Since someone said
there was the total absence of any Beatles or McCartney music, I assume the
producers were unable to get permission and/or afford any Fabs or solo McC
music. -laura
Mister Charlie
The two rippers were both named Matthew, both from Oz, and both crossposting
into the same off topic newsgroups.
Looks like a troll job to me. Especially as one of the posts contained so
many lies and downright inaccuracies that it negated the whole 'review'.
lstoll
>
> The two rippers were both named Matthew...
Oooh. Matt the Ripper.
(But I thought one of them was named Warren -- Warren the Ripper doesn't
have such a nice ring to it though ;-) -laura
lstoll
>
> > - Paul was always the experimental one and John just
> > tagged along
>
Yeah, maybe a week or two ;-)
> One point for your side.
Er, wouldn't that be one point for Paul's side?
> > - the loops in Tomorrow Never Knows were all Paul's
>
> There is a dispute on this. They were not all Paul's loops,
> but according to him they were. All the other Beatles
> (and George Martin) remember them all bringing in bits.
Actually, John also said they were Paul's loops (not to say they were).
> Everest was one of the titles suggested (and dropped)
> for Revolver, not Abbey Road
Nope. Abbey Road. I think.
> > - Magical Mystery Tour is being reassessed and Spielberg
> > says they use it at film school
>
> Reassessed by Paul maybe. As to Spielberg, he probably
> DID tell Paul this. So?
He wanted Paul to autograph ten copies of "1" for his kids (kidding;-)
To those who saw it, is Paul supposed to have all this (as opposed to maybe
a voiceover or narrator). -laura
Matthew Kirkcaldie
"Mister Charlie" <swam...@lycos.com> wrote:
> I can only surmise that you heard what you wanted thru some sort of an
> anti-Paul filter. Yes, some of the following statements he has made before,
> but few were made the way that you report them:
Well, thanks for the patronising comments and the crack about the pints,
but it strikes me it's difficult for you to assume superior knowledge of
a programme I watched and you didn't!
> > - drugs (including pot) only became part of the scene in Rishikesh,
> > makes you wonder how they managed to write "Got to Get You Into My Life"
> > and "Doctor Robert" with such foresight
>
> Surely you misheard. Even in Anthology they all cop to doing it in HAMBURG
> before they even made it big.
Even my wife (not a Beatles scholar but acquainted with their history)
said, "how can he say that? Surely they were taking drugs in Germany?"
His words were something like, "and when we got to India, you know,
drugs began to enter the scene, like pot and other stuff, and we were
into them."
> > - McCartney assumed control of the group when Epstein put them in suits
>
> Again, you misheard. He has never said that. He may have alluded to the
> fact that John felt he was joining Brian in a conspiracy to run the
> group...but that's a whole different thing now, isn't it?
That was part of the narrative, I included it as an example of the weird
stuff being said in the programme. How on earth can you say that I
misheard?
> > - Paul had the ambition and drive and Lennon probably wouldn't have made
> > it alone
>
> Quotes please. I'd bet anything Paul NEVER said this (publicly). :)
Again, part of the narrative.
> > - Paul was always the experimental one and John just tagged along
>
> This IS one big bugaboo that seems to still bother Paul, as he has been
> trying to foist this nugget off for a few years now. And as to
> avante-garde, yes, he was into it well before John. One point for your
> side.
There aren't sides in this, I was just irritated by the false assertions.
> > - the loops in Tomorrow Never Knows were all Paul's
>
> There is a dispute on this. They were not all Paul's loops, but according
> to him they were. All the other Beatles (and George Martin) remember them
> all bringing in bits.
It was clearly implied that Paul put the whole flavour of the track
together, he said something to the effect that the "solo" was his idea
and that it should be made of these tape loops, so he brought in a
plastic bag full and they made it like a modern remix.
> > - it was Paul's idea to call it Abbey Road, then Everest was suggested
> > later
>
> Paul drew the cover idea for it, so it may be possible as to have been his
> idea, tho I doubt it. And Everest was one of the titles suggested (and
> dropped) for Revolver, not Abbey Road (although now that I state it so
> categorically I feel as though I could be wrong on that).
No, Revolver's alternate titles were "Abracadabra", "Beatles on Safari"
and so on; Everest was an alternative title for Abbey Road, but I think
it was the *first* title suggested rather than following the road shoot.
Trivial point but an easy one to get right for the doco makers.
> > - Magical Mystery Tour is being reassessed and Spielberg says they use
> > it at film school
>
> Reassessed by Paul maybe. As to Spielberg, he probably DID tell Paul this.
> So?
Yes, I guess I just took offense at the tone here (a bit like "well,
they all thought it was bad, but it turns out I was pretty brilliant
after all"]
> > - Paul was firm about no reunion work after John's death (so I guess it
> > was Ringo who forced Paul and George "not while John Lennon remains
> > dead" Harrison into the studio in 1995)
>
> This is another off the wall new one. Quotes would be nice (I know you
> cannot provide them as it was a programme rushing by on your screen...but
> the point being this just sounds plain wrong.)
No, Paul explicitly stated that after John died, people kept saying how
nice it would be for the Beatles to work together again, but he said
hang on, it's not right, one of us can't be there so it can't be the
same. Paraphrase, but a comment like that was explicitly made.
> > - It was Paul who wanted the group to stop touring after 1966
>
> I doubt him ever saying that either. If anyone he would have wanted to go
> on.
I know, but he said something like "after a famous incident I'd had
enough of touring and so I said, why don't we send a record out, the
people will know where we're up to, and so the Sergeant Pepper record
got its start."
> > - The Angus MacBean shoot for the Get Back cover was the last Beatles
> > shoot
>
> That is factually incorrect. But he made an error...how does that glorify
> him?
No, just an error which went uncorrected in the programme.
> Indeed, Matthew. Out of all these points I only know of one, maybe two that
> are factually true, the rest is....HIGHLY inaccurate and highly unlikely.
>
> Perhaps if you lay off the pints before the tellie next time.....;-)
I find that kind of offensive seeing that you're commenting on something
you haven't seen, and are basically suggesting that my reporting can't
possibly be right if it differs from your opinion, so I might have been
a bit pissed. Have a look at the show, find out where I was wrong, then
fire away. Otherwise don't presume to tell me what I saw.
Matthew.
Matthew Kirkcaldie
"Mister Charlie" <swam...@lycos.com> wrote:
> The two rippers were both named Matthew, both from Oz, and both crossposting
> into the same off topic newsgroups.
Now you really are pissing me off. Would you like to tell me what is
off-topic about the following newsgroups for a programme about Paul
McCartney screened on an Australian TV network?
>>> Newsgroups: alt.music.beatles,aus.music,aus.tv,rec.music.beatles
One person named Warren made a negative comment, and I seconded his
opinion. Or perhaps you know better and this Warren person was actually
called Matthew instead of Warren, since you seem to have cornered the
market on omniscience.
> Looks like a troll job to me. Especially as one of the posts contained so
> many lies and downright inaccuracies that it negated the whole 'review'.
And you're able to judge the accuracy of comments made about a programme
you haven't watched? Exactly how would that be? I raised them in the
context of them being factually incorrect assertions, and then you
accuse me of trolling because the falsehoods are false?
Take ten seconds, have a look under my name in the Deja/Google archives,
see how many posts I have made here over the last five years. Hallmark
of a troll?
I think a little pause for thought before shooting one's mouth off would
be basic newsgroup etiquette, correct me if THAT's inaccurate.
Matthew.
CJF
Ono Band to Double Fantasy. Add a couple more years if you want to go back
as far as Two Virgins.
It's not my most favorite tidbit of trivia knowledge, but John's famous
interview with Jann Wenner and Rolling Stone occurred 10 years to the day
before his death: Dec 8, 1970.
"Warren" <war...@code.com> wrote in message
news:3c61bbe6$0$24543$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Stephen Bruun
(contradicting, for instance, John's rather silly claim to have written most
of "Eleanor Rigby"), he has on the whole been generous toward Lennon, both
during and after Lennon's lifetime. And, as McCartney has observed on more
than one occasion, others can say what they want about the roles of the two
musicians, but McCartney is the one who was actually there in the room with
Lennon.
Stephen Bruun
news:3c61c33f...@news.ev1.net...
> It seems like Macca did write more and better songs while he was a
> Beatle on the whole than after.
Same for all of them. Does anyone really think that "Luck of the Irish" and
"Tight A$" really hold a candle to "Dear Prudence" and "I Am The Walrus?"
> and what happened on McCartney II?
> Is that like his worst album?
McCartney has said that he did not originally record McCartney II for
commercial release. Rather, he recorded a bunch of demos to listen to in
his car. Friends and family heard the songs and persuaded him to release
them as a solo album (he was still in Wings when the album was recorded).
Stephen Bruun
news:a3sj9v$1amho4$1...@ID-63206.news.dfncis.de...
> Surely you misheard. Even in Anthology they all cop to doing it in
HAMBURG
> before they even made it big.
In Hamburg it was Preludin diet pills. The "herbal jazz cigarettes" came in
late '64.
> > - Paul was always the experimental one and John just tagged along
>
> This IS one big bugaboo that seems to still bother Paul, as he has been
> trying to foist this nugget off for a few years now. And as to
> avante-garde, yes, he was into it well before John. One point for your
> side.
Paul lived in London, in the middle of the experimental crowd; John lived in
a distant suburb. Paul had a lot more exposure. He talks about this in
"Many Years From Now." Self-serving statements? Consider that the book was
written by Barry Miles, a central member of that avant-garde movement. Of
all people, Miles is DEFINITELY in a position to know whether John or Paul
was the first to go avant-garde, and he doesn't challenge Paul's claim. The
difference is that Paul dabbled in it, on the side; John immersed himself in
it completely and that is why it is he, not Paul, who is associated with
avant-garde. John's whole adult life fits this pattern - becoming almost
obsessed with some timely fad or new gimmick. Primal scream therapy,
hanging out with radicals in the early '70s, being a "househusband" for five
years, and then discarding it completely or almost completely and moving on.
> > - It was Paul who wanted the group to stop touring after 1966
>
Again, in "Anthology" he admits that he was the last one to turn against
touring; it took the hellish 1966 tour to make his mind up.
Stephen Bruun
> No, Revolver's alternate titles were "Abracadabra", "Beatles on Safari"
> and so on; Everest was an alternative title for Abbey Road, but I think
> it was the *first* title suggested rather than following the road shoot.
> Trivial point but an easy one to get right for the doco makers.
All the Beatles have done that, though. George Harrison talked about how
"Revolver" sounds so sophisticated, and hard to reproduce on stage, because
"by then we had 8-track." Revolver was recorded on 4-track- there's no
debate about it, Mark Lewisohn personally analyzed the tapes. Abbey Road
documents show that the Beatles didn't use 8-track there until partway
through the "White Album" sessions. Often, the people closest to the events
are the ones paying the least attention to some of the minutiae; people with
more distance can afford to worry about dates and so on. I admit I didn't
see Paul's documentary but it sounds to me like he's simply misremembering
things which, to be fair, happened nearly 40 years ago.
Sixties Gen
Just a suggestion...add "McCartney" to your spell check.
Thomas A
news:a3srnj$cpn$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> McCartney has said that he did not originally record McCartney II for
> commercial release. Rather, he recorded a bunch of demos to listen to in
> his car. Friends and family heard the songs and persuaded him to release
> them as a solo album (he was still in Wings when the album was recorded).
I'm not sure if there was a bootleg album around which had McCartney demo's
but it was titled "The lost McCartney album", maybe II is the master tape
for the bootleg?
Thomas A
news:4734803e.02020...@posting.google.com...
> Just a suggestion...add "McCartney" to your spell check.
Heck, McCartney was spelt as McArtney on promo copies of Love Me Do sent to
radio stations at the time..
Matthew Kirkcaldie
"Stephen Bruun" <br...@starpower.net> wrote:
> All the Beatles have done that, though. George Harrison talked about how
> "Revolver" sounds so sophisticated, and hard to reproduce on stage, because
> "by then we had 8-track." Revolver was recorded on 4-track- there's no
> debate about it, Mark Lewisohn personally analyzed the tapes. Abbey Road
> documents show that the Beatles didn't use 8-track there until partway
> through the "White Album" sessions. Often, the people closest to the events
> are the ones paying the least attention to some of the minutiae; people with
> more distance can afford to worry about dates and so on. I admit I didn't
> see Paul's documentary but it sounds to me like he's simply misremembering
> things which, to be fair, happened nearly 40 years ago.
Yeah, that's fair and I really didn't have a problem with that
particular slip. But there was a lot of stuff said directly by
McCartney or the narration which was just rubbish, and nearly all of the
mistakes were in the direction of making McCartney look like the core of
the Beatles' success. Among other things it stated that McCartney was
true working class while Lennon put it on (come on, both were middle
class); McCartney designed the Revolver sleeve (on a show interviewing
Klaus Voorman!); McCartney hung out at the Haight-Ashbury scene (we know
George was the only one who visited, and hated it); Apple the company
was much more successful than we think while Paul was at the helm, and
only disintegrated when he stopped coming in daily; they only got into
drugs in India; etc, etc.
I think McCartney is a talented man, and a good writer when he puts his
mind to it, and I'm very jealous he was such a good friend and sparring
partner for John, and I think he was a HUGE part of the Beatles'
success. However, this kind of pathetic revisionism undermines his
credibility and makes him sound like an insecure egotist, rather than
making people think, "hm, what a genius!"
Matthew.
st
>
> Given that all four of them sucked and were lucky as shit to have George
> martin and Brian Epstein around.
haha. ignorance like that never fails to be amusing (but ever so
irritating at the same time).
george martin contributed greatly to the beatles, however they were
brilliant songwriters in their own right (look at their demos for
crying out loud). the only thing epstein did was have an affair with
lennon.
Beth Girsch
don't you think you're reading too much into this stuff? its seems this says
more about your hypercritical bias than it does about a pop star
misremebering events that are nearly a half a century old.
look, if paul makes the odd historical slip up, we get ubernuts like derek
larrson and francie schwater-rat jumping up and down and screaming about him
being a revisionist asshole.
if he appears on a TV spot to promote his records, he gets shat on for being
a media slut.
if he stays at home, bakes bread and raises kids, he gets called "reclusive"
and a " burn out".
if he writes and sings a new song for a topical event, he gets called a
opportunistic neo-patriot.
so i, for one, would like to know just what the hell he IS allowed to do
these days?
Beth Girsch
"st" <steve...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8a093347.0202...@posting.google.com...
>the only thing epstein did was have an affair with lennon.
steve, moron, if you're going to open your ignorant cakehole, expect to get
told to shut the fuck up.
so shut the fuck up.
jbar
"Beth Girsch" <be...@asleep.com> wrote in message
news:a3svmp$efa$0...@dosa.alt.net...
>
>
> look, if paul makes the odd historical slip up, we get ubernuts like derek
> larrson and francie schwater-rat jumping up and down and screaming about
him
> being a revisionist asshole.
>
> if he appears on a TV spot to promote his records, he gets shat on for
being
> a media slut.
>
> if he stays at home, bakes bread and raises kids, he gets called
"reclusive"
> and a " burn out".
>
> if he writes and sings a new song for a topical event, he gets called a
> opportunistic neo-patriot.
>
>
>
> so i, for one, would like to know just what the hell he IS allowed to do
> these days?
Good question and it's been a maddening ride here reading a beatles group
where you have to constantly defend one of its key members from biased and
often humiliating attacks and then have to apologize for it. What is really
sad to me is that he will probably only really get recognized and respected
when he is in fact dead like Lennon. He may never REALLY
know the extent that his music and his efforts have touched so many people
like me. I know he can be (and always was probably) irritating at times but
can't he be cut a little slack for this as we do for anybody else??
Jan
>
>
>
>
Matthew Kirkcaldie
wrote:
> so i, for one, would like to know just what the hell he IS allowed to do
> these days?
Fair comment, he does come under fire a lot, and I have no problem with
him running his life the way he wants, recording what he wants,
promoting it, etc. I don't need a plaster saint and to be honest his
post-1970 doings have little impact.
I get kind of angry about him wanting people to believe that his was the
principal contribution to the Beatles, which is where this stuff seems
headed. That makes me a little hypercritical and in that light I was
more worked up than the mistakes deserve. There was still one hell of a
lot of spin there - and don't tell me it wouldn't have needed to be OK'd
by McCartney before they aired it.
Matthew.
Warren
question, see Mathews post at 11.25 am. Mathew has pretty much picked out
the parts where Mcartney and the show (I am not sure if the show was
commissioned by Mcartney - I would not be surprised) basically tried or
attempted to give a view of the Beatles that it was Mcartney that was the
creative force/leader behind this great group. Some of his comments were
quotes by Mcartney some were by the person narrating the show. (as he has
written)
Of course for obvious reasons, the person the show/Mcartney was taking
credit away from can't exactly reply from 6 feet under. That to me is unjust
both that he can't reply and that he is dead.
As I have previously written, IMO the music of Lennon as a solo artist is
substantially better than Mcartney and Mcartney has had a lot longer to make
great music than Lennon. Mcartney has had 30 more years to write great music
than Lennon and still cant touch solo Lennon stuff like - Instant Karma,
Mind Games, , Watching the wheels, beautiful boy, SBM, Jealous guy to name
but a few.
Sure Mcartney had Jet, band on the run, listen to what the man said etc But
as a package IMO it does not come close to Lennon. Much of Lennon's solo
work are simply classics. And he was only doing solo stuff for 5 of the ten
years after the Beatles split according to a previous post.
IF Mcartney was the driving force, why is his solo stuff nothing on Lennon.
In light of the circumstances, to me the solo stuff is the best way to
determine the creative genius behind the band. Particularly (as repeated
for the third time) one member can't unfortunately reply to the claims made
by the program.
There was one other point Mcartney made in the show which Mathew did not
mention. He said something to the effect in answer to some question about
him not getting the credit to date, "in the end all this stuff comes up in
the wash" Ie at the end of the day people will realise that it was Mcartney
who was the creative genius/driving force behind the Beatles. (the quote may
not be exactly correct - someone may correct it)
As I said originally he has his millions, he has his fame, what more does he
want. This guy has a huge ego.
In relation to the cross post question, as Mathew said, it was a Beatles
show shown in Australia hence the Beatles/Aus TV/Aus Music cross post - all
relevant IMO.
Warren
Beth Girsch
"jbar" <janba...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:0Rn88.4708$6lf1...@news2.bloor.is...
>
> "Beth Girsch" <be...@asleep.com> wrote in message
> news:a3svmp$efa$0...@dosa.alt.net...
> >
> >
> > look, if paul makes the odd historical slip up, we get ubernuts like
derek
> > larrson and francie schwater-rat jumping up and down and screaming about
> him
> > being a revisionist asshole.
> >
> > if he appears on a TV spot to promote his records, he gets shat on for
> being
> > a media slut.
> >
> > if he stays at home, bakes bread and raises kids, he gets called
> "reclusive"
> > and a " burn out".
> >
> > if he writes and sings a new song for a topical event, he gets called a
> > opportunistic neo-patriot.
> >
> >
> >
> > so i, for one, would like to know just what the hell he IS allowed to do
> > these days?
>
> Good question and it's been a maddening ride here reading a beatles group
> where you have to constantly defend one of its key members from biased and
> often humiliating attacks and then have to apologize for it.
me, i never apologise for telling the truth...:)
>What is really
> sad to me is that he will probably only really get recognized and
respected
> when he is in fact dead like Lennon. He may never REALLY
> know the extent that his music and his efforts have touched so many people
> like me.
you know, i honestly dont think so.
if you ask anyone of the genrela public what they think of paul and his
contribution to mode4rn times and pop music, i think they will be gushing in
their porase for the man.
not only for his talent and his songs, but for being a family man, a nice
guy and a witty, down to earth, straight shooter in a business fraught with
no talent big mouths and big shot nobodies.
sure when you get microscopic and let dick heads like derrek and franny get
inside your head with thier insane ramblings and biased nonsense, it can
seem like the whole worlds hates macca.
but they dont.
in fact, most of the reasonable world loves the guy.
>I know he can be (and always was probably) irritating at times
so who cant be?
Beth Girsch
> In article <a3svmp$efa$0...@dosa.alt.net>, "Beth Girsch" <be...@asleep.com>
> wrote:
>
> > so i, for one, would like to know just what the hell he IS allowed to do
> > these days?
>
> Fair comment, he does come under fire a lot, and I have no problem with
> him running his life the way he wants,
;-)
> I get kind of angry about him wanting people to believe that his was the
> principal contribution to the Beatles,
well in fariness, his contribution was half of the fabs.
.which is where this stuff seems
> headed. That makes me a little hypercritical and in that light I was
> more worked up than the mistakes deserve.
no probs matey. i have the doco on tape and will be watching it this
weekend, and maybe posting a synopsis from my POV.
btw, did you happen to see "Being Mick" the week before?
Warren
> I think McCartney is a talented man, and a good writer when he puts his
> mind to it, and I'm very jealous he was such a good friend and sparring
> partner for John, and I think he was a HUGE part of the Beatles'
> success. However, this kind of pathetic revisionism undermines his
> credibility and makes him sound like an insecure egotist, rather than
> making people think, "hm, what a genius!"
>
> Matthew.
I could not agree more.
Warren
Warren
>
> Fair comment, he does come under fire a lot, and I have no problem with
> him running his life the way he wants, recording what he wants,
> promoting it, etc. I don't need a plaster saint and to be honest his
> post-1970 doings have little impact.
>
> I get kind of angry about him wanting people to believe that his was the
> principal contribution to the Beatles, which is where this stuff seems
> headed. That makes me a little hypercritical and in that light I was
> more worked up than the mistakes deserve. There was still one hell of a
> lot of spin there - and don't tell me it wouldn't have needed to be OK'd
> by McCartney before they aired it.
>
> Matthew.
The guy is a multi millionaire and famous beyond belief. I don't feel sorry
for him and he should simply pull his head in and write some good music. He
should stop trying to rewrite history. It is quite amazing that the more you
have (materialistically or in this case credibility wise) the more you
want - it is quite sick IMO.
Warren
Warren
"Thomas A" <soundz28*nospam*@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3c61fa3c$1...@news.iprimus.com.au...
Warren
> than one occasion, others can say what they want about the roles of the
two
> musicians, but McCartney is the one who was actually there in the room
with
> Lennon.
>
the partnership has no ability to respond.
jbar
Well, you may be right. Maybe spending too much time reading Derrek and
Francie has fried my brain. Thanks for the reminder.
Jan
>
>
>
Warren
jweb
>
> I was watching that ABC special in Melbourne Australia last night and was
> amazed that indirectly/humbly Mcartney was trying to take credit for the
> success of the Beatles.
"Indirectly/humbly"?
I interpret that as meaning that he flat out didn't say he was taking
credit for the success of the Beatles. What an ego!
>Pity Lennon isn't here to reply.
Pity Lennon isn't around to *make music*. I doubt he would give a shit
about McCartney's endeavors as much as you seem to think he would.
> It is very similar
> to the Pink Floyd/Roger Waters argument over who was the creative force
> behind the band. The whole show was basically a job at rewriting history to
> give Mcartney the credit over Lennon for being the creative force behind the
> band.
Bullshit. McCartney is alive to be able to display his contributions to
The Beatles over the years, and why should he bury his past
accomplishments when *he is alive*? If anything, John's untimely death
probably taught him a lesson- "be proud of your history".
>
> I always think in these situations, (particularly when one member can't put
> his 2 cents in because he is dead) the only real way of determining who was
> the creative force behind the band is to simply look at the work that was
> done as a solo artist.
? ?
So what a musician does *after* a band breaks up determines how
important he was when he was with the band? That makes absolutely no
sense.
>
> With the greatest respect to Mcartney, give me Lennon's solo work over your
> work with the Wings and any other solo work you may of done since the
> Beatles broke up.
Oh, so you're just a bitter Lennon fan who is pissed off that Paul's
alive and John's dead. *yawn*. I've seen it all before.
> I lost a lot of respect for Mcartney after seeing that show. The guy has all
> the money and fame a man could ever want, but that is not enough he wants
> more credit at the expense of someone else.
Paul McCartney, with John and the Beatles, is partly responsible for
creating some of the greatest popular music ever produced. John Lennon
is unfortunately silenced- Paul McCartney is not.
You sound bitter about John's death, and you need to deal with it, and
not go around putting down Paul for still being around.
> Let sleeping dogs lie.
Who in the world would ever forget the fantastic music John Lennon made?
Why feel threatened by McCartney's flaunting of his own past triumphs?
We should consider ourselves lucky that Paul hasn't gone all reclusive
on us, and that we can hear new material as well as past reminders of
his musical genius.
--
-John W.
The new album is here: http://www.mp3.com/lielock
jweb
> The guy is a multi millionaire and famous beyond belief. I don't feel sorry
> for him and he should simply pull his head in and write some good music. He
> should stop trying to rewrite history.
He's giving the majority of the fans what they want- history.
When you get to be Paul's age, it's all about pleasing the fans and
entertainment. While I know Paul has another good album in him, right
now he's going to tour and give the fans what they want.
Fans that pay to see him don't want to hear some new numbers- they want
memories, hits, and a calming reminder that at least through music, you
can relive a time when things were better. The Beatles' music always had
an innocence to them, and that is one of the reasons the music is
timeless.
> It is quite amazing that the more you
> have (materialistically or in this case credibility wise) the more you
> want - it is quite sick IMO.
Musicians just want to play music and make people happy. Oh, and they
want money. Since Paul has all the money in the world, I am willing to
guess he wants to play music and make people happy.
Dean
"Mister Charlie" <swam...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:a3sft7$19vm8s$1...@ID-63206.news.dfncis.de...
>
> "> Given that all four of them sucked and were lucky as shit to have
George
> martin and Brian Epstein around.
whatever they have then ) in 35 years time ? I dont think the Beastie Boys
will still be the subject of countless books and docos for years to come.
Dean.
Warren
about is the television show I watched last night where Paul Mcartney
attempted to rewrite history in relation to the role he and Lennon played in
the Beatles. Nothing more nothing less. The guy is obviously searching for
more respect as he has obviously not received enough from his solo work. He
obviously figures the respect he is craving won't come from his solo work so
he has decided to play around with the Beatles history.
Did you see the program?
Mister Charlie
> >
> > Perhaps if you lay off the pints before the tellie next time.....;-)
>
> I find that kind of offensive seeing that you're commenting on something
> you haven't seen, and are basically suggesting that my reporting can't
> possibly be right if it differs from your opinion, so I might have been
> a bit pissed. Have a look at the show, find out where I was wrong, then
> fire away. Otherwise don't presume to tell me what I saw.
>
Sorry...it was patronizing. You do pop up regularly so I should have
treated you with more respect.
It's not a matter of my 'opinion'...it was a matter of what seems to be your
'take' on what was said.
Regardless, I too made obvious errors so I guess none of us are perfect,
including you and Paul.
Mister Charlie
>
> I think McCartney is a talented man, and a good writer when he puts his
> mind to it, and I'm very jealous he was such a good friend and sparring
> partner for John, and I think he was a HUGE part of the Beatles'
> success. However, this kind of pathetic revisionism undermines his
> credibility and makes him sound like an insecure egotist, rather than
> making people think, "hm, what a genius!"
>
possible their sloppy researching and probable bad editing of interview
clips gave this overall impression? Of course, if it was a show ABOUT Paul
specifically then it would be natural for the entire programs slant to be
about his contributions.
Mister Charlie
Why would it? You indicated it didn't seem as tho the producers had the
authorization of the MPL folks...certainly these guys can't screen every two
bit program someone wants to air on their lives? Other than really spurious
claims, which they can sue for, I doubt they even have a clue.
>
> Matthew.
Mister Charlie
As is publicly whipping someone you can never know personally and can only
form opinions on from what you're fed by the media.
>
> Warren
>
>
Mister Charlie
> In article <a3sju3$1as113$1...@ID-63206.news.dfncis.de>,
> "Mister Charlie" <swam...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
> > The two rippers were both named Matthew, both from Oz, and both
crossposting
> > into the same off topic newsgroups.
>
> Now you really are pissing me off. Would you like to tell me what is
> off-topic about the following newsgroups for a programme about Paul
> McCartney screened on an Australian TV network?
>
> >>> Newsgroups: alt.music.beatles,aus.music,aus.tv,rec.music.beatles
>
> One person named Warren made a negative comment, and I seconded his
> opinion. Or perhaps you know better and this Warren person was actually
> called Matthew instead of Warren, since you seem to have cornered the
> market on omniscience.
>
> > Looks like a troll job to me. Especially as one of the posts contained
so
> > many lies and downright inaccuracies that it negated the whole 'review'.
>
> And you're able to judge the accuracy of comments made about a programme
> you haven't watched? Exactly how would that be? I raised them in the
> context of them being factually incorrect assertions, and then you
> accuse me of trolling because the falsehoods are false?
>
> Take ten seconds, have a look under my name in the Deja/Google archives,
> see how many posts I have made here over the last five years. Hallmark
> of a troll?
>
> I think a little pause for thought before shooting one's mouth off would
> be basic newsgroup etiquette, correct me if THAT's inaccurate.
Nope. You're spot on there. Sorry.
>
> Matthew.
Mister Charlie
"Stephen Bruun" <br...@starpower.net> wrote in message
news:a3ss41$emn$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...> news:a3sj9v$1amho4$1...@ID-63206.news.dfncis.de...
> > Surely you misheard. Even in Anthology they all cop to doing it in
> HAMBURG
> > before they even made it big.
>
> In Hamburg it was Preludin diet pills. The "herbal jazz cigarettes" came
in
> late '64.
Nope. That's the myth. Apparently they were smoking it in 60, 61. I
believe it is referenced in the Anthology book, I will check it later.
>
>
> > > - Paul was always the experimental one and John just tagged along
> >
> > This IS one big bugaboo that seems to still bother Paul, as he has been
> > trying to foist this nugget off for a few years now. And as to
> > avante-garde, yes, he was into it well before John. One point for your
> > side.
>
> Paul lived in London, in the middle of the experimental crowd; John lived
in
> a distant suburb. Paul had a lot more exposure. He talks about this in
> "Many Years From Now." Self-serving statements? Consider that the book
was
> written by Barry Miles, a central member of that avant-garde movement. Of
> all people, Miles is DEFINITELY in a position to know whether John or Paul
> was the first to go avant-garde, and he doesn't challenge Paul's claim.
The
> difference is that Paul dabbled in it, on the side; John immersed himself
in
> it completely and that is why it is he, not Paul, who is associated with
> avant-garde. John's whole adult life fits this pattern - becoming almost
> obsessed with some timely fad or new gimmick. Primal scream therapy,
> hanging out with radicals in the early '70s, being a "househusband" for
five
> years, and then discarding it completely or almost completely and moving
on.
Good points.
>
> > > - It was Paul who wanted the group to stop touring after 1966
> >
> Again, in "Anthology" he admits that he was the last one to turn against
> touring; it took the hellish 1966 tour to make his mind up.
>
>
>
jweb
>
> Thanks for you amateur phycology lesson.
You're welcome.
>The only thing I am pissed off
> about is the television show I watched last night where Paul Mcartney
> attempted to rewrite history in relation to the role he and Lennon played in
> the Beatles. Nothing more nothing less.
You're simply stating you like John better than Paul, so you're ripping
on Paul because John isn't around any longer. Nothing more nothing less.
>The guy is obviously searching for
> more respect as he has obviously not received enough from his solo work. He
> obviously figures the respect he is craving won't come from his solo work so
> he has decided to play around with the Beatles history.
Since Paul McCartney played a major, *major* part of Beatles history, he
has every write to "play around with it".
>
> Did you see the program?
No need to have seen the program. Your bias is enough evidence that
you're just pissed off that John's dead and Paul is alive. Get over it.
Matthew Kirkcaldie
"Mister Charlie" <swam...@lycos.com> wrote:
> Sorry...it was patronizing. You do pop up regularly so I should have
> treated you with more respect.
>
> It's not a matter of my 'opinion'...it was a matter of what seems to be your
> 'take' on what was said.
>
> Regardless, I too made obvious errors so I guess none of us are perfect,
> including you and Paul.
Thanks - it's nice to know we're not all against each other! Weird how
this kind of thing ignites such heated discussion.
If you have a look at some of the other posts you'll find that my "take"
was shared by several others who saw the same show, so it's probably
worth your while checking it out if possible. Then again, maybe only
the McCartney bashers feel motivated to post! (insert smiley here)
Matthew.
Matthew Kirkcaldie
"Mister Charlie" <swam...@lycos.com> wrote:
> Why would it? You indicated it didn't seem as tho the producers had the
> authorization of the MPL folks...certainly these guys can't screen every two
> bit program someone wants to air on their lives? Other than really spurious
> claims, which they can sue for, I doubt they even have a clue.
AHA! Now I realise the misunderstanding between us!
This show was a recent (maybe 2001) production which consisted only of
interviews which were specifically recorded for it - no historical
interviews were used at all as far as I remember. They interviewed
McCartney (about 70% of the show), Klaus Voormann, the DJ from the
Cavern, Pete Best and George Martin (as well as snippets from Roger
McGuinn and Brian Wilson).
So the stuff I am referring to is from a recent interview - whereas you
thought it had been put together from archive material which you HAD
already seen, and hence were able to comment on. In fact the show was
history according to McCartney 2001, and was obviously made with his
full co-operation. That makes it all the more baffling that there was
no Beatles or McCartney music in it - and I'm sure McCartney would have
had approval over it.
Phew!
Matthew.
Mister Charlie
> >
> > Given that all four of them sucked and were lucky as shit to have George
> > martin and Brian Epstein around.
>
> irritating at the same time).
>
> george martin contributed greatly to the beatles, however they were
> brilliant songwriters in their own right (look at their demos for
> crying out loud). the only thing epstein did was have an affair with
> lennon.
well, dilbert, my statement was a sarcastic rejoinder to warren's original
post. "Given that [all the terrible things you've mentioned][then] all of
them sucked and..." blahdy blah.
That certainly does NOT represent MY opinion.
And it has never been proven Lennon and Epstein bumped uglies.
Mister Charlie
That's all ANY of this is. Your opinion. John's music is better...IYO.
Paul is a maniac...IYO. Paul is rewriting history...IYO. No facts,
just...feelings.
Mister Charlie
> Thanks for you amateur phycology lesson. The only thing I am pissed off
> about is the television show I watched last night where Paul Mcartney
> attempted to rewrite history in relation to the role he and Lennon played
in
> the Beatles. Nothing more nothing less. The guy is obviously searching for
> more respect as he has obviously not received enough from his solo work.
He
> obviously figures the respect he is craving won't come from his solo work
so
> he has decided to play around with the Beatles history.
>
> Did you see the program?
Do you have ANY knowledge as to whether or not Paul had ANYthing to do with
this? Could it be an independently produced program?
It sure sounds like a piece of crap, anyway.
Mister Charlie
"jweb" <du...@noreply.com> wrote in message news:3C6223...@noreply.com...
> Warren wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for you amateur phycology lesson.
>
>
> You're welcome.
>
>
> >The only thing I am pissed off
> > about is the television show I watched last night where Paul Mcartney
> > attempted to rewrite history in relation to the role he and Lennon
played in
> > the Beatles. Nothing more nothing less.
>
>
> You're simply stating you like John better than Paul, so you're ripping
> on Paul because John isn't around any longer. Nothing more nothing less.
>
>
> >The guy is obviously searching for
> > more respect as he has obviously not received enough from his solo work.
He
> > obviously figures the respect he is craving won't come from his solo
work so
> > he has decided to play around with the Beatles history.
>
>
> Since Paul McCartney played a major, *major* part of Beatles history, he
> has every write to "play around with it".
>
> >
> > Did you see the program?
>
Were YOU in the Beatles? Do you have knowledge of truths Paul does not
possess?
>
> No need to have seen the program. Your bias is enough evidence that
> you're just pissed off that John's dead and Paul is alive. Get over it.
Well said, sir.
Mister Charlie
"Dean" <d...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au> wrote in message
news:a3t5sq$kjs$1...@enyo.uwa.edu.au...
I suppose I am going to have to take a remedial writing course. Something
about clarity in my writing.
That line was my witty (LOL) sarcastic answer to the original poster
(matthew, warren, whomever). It doesn't express what I think about the
Beatles at all.
>
jweb
> has every write to "play around with it".
I meant to say "right". I was thinking about "In His Own Write" when I
wrote what I wrote. "What I wrote was wrong, or was taken wrong, and now
it's all this." Or something.
Mister Charlie
Well clearly you all share the same opinion of the show...leading me to
believe it was pretty slanted. I guess my only question is: did Paul have
ANYthing to do with it? And if not, then whose fault is it? I would
suggest producers with an agenda.
If it was Paul's baby, well I'd have to see it before I could determine what
he was saying that was so outrageous...but yeah, you have quite an Ozzie
concensus going there. ;-)
>
> Matthew.
Mister Charlie
rude.
That really surprises me that this is all new stuff. Hmph. Would be
interested in seeing it now (normally I wouldn't bother watching a Beatle
bio...seen it all before...or so I thought)....
racing snake
(pun intended)
Richard Dixon
England
Mister Charlie <swam...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:a3t89v$1al8tm$1...@ID-63206.news.dfncis.de...
Mister Charlie
"racing snake" <rich....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:a3tb2u$mp6$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
> You will all miss him when he's gone, only then will he become a leg end,
> (pun intended)
>
> Richard Dixon
> England
And funny enough, no one will miss you when you're gone. When are you
leaving?
Warren
> Paul is a maniac...IYO. Paul is rewriting history...IYO. No facts,
> just...feelings.
>
Maybe, but the program made out that it was fact not feelings. The facts the
program claims are dodgy to say the least.
Warren
Beth Girsch
>
> >
> > Fair comment, he does come under fire a lot, and I have no problem with
> > him running his life the way he wants, recording what he wants,
> > promoting it, etc. I don't need a plaster saint and to be honest his
> > post-1970 doings have little impact.
> >
> > I get kind of angry about him wanting people to believe that his was the
> > principal contribution to the Beatles, which is where this stuff seems
> > headed. That makes me a little hypercritical and in that light I was
> > more worked up than the mistakes deserve. There was still one hell of a
> > lot of spin there - and don't tell me it wouldn't have needed to be OK'd
> > by McCartney before they aired it.
> >
> > Matthew.
>
>
> The guy is a multi millionaire
so what?
>and famous beyond belief.
so what?
> I don't feel sorry
> for him
so what?
> and he should simply pull his head in and write some good music.
you should pull your head in and grow up.
Beth Girsch
> Thanks for you amateur phycology lesson. The only thing I am pissed off
> about is the television show I watched last night
build a bridge, get over it.
its only TV.
Beth Girsch
"jbar" <janba...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:9zo88.3249$WHj1...@news1.bloor.is...
> Well, you may be right. Maybe spending too much time reading Derrek and
> Francie
you mean people actually read what those halfwits write?...:)
Warren
it" you are accepting everything Paul says for gospel - If you are willing
to accept that Paul was the driving influence both musically and creatively
behind the Beatles (because he was there) then that is your business. I wont
accept everything Mcartney says as gospel.
I am sure you will correct me if I misquoted you.
In relation to the program, if you remove the narrative element and simply
look at what Mcartney said then it was still pretty egotistical and IMO an
attempt at rewriting history. You can't take the words Paul said back by
simply trashing the program.
Warren
"jweb" <du...@noreply.com> wrote in message news:3C6223...@noreply.com...
Warren
effect that could have as he attempts to rewrite history.
Warren
"Beth Girsch" <be...@asleep.com> wrote in message
news:a3tdpl$dha$0...@pita.alt.net...
Mister Charlie
Yeah, it's beginning to sound as if this program was going out of its way to
canonize Paul...I guess one needs to see it to figure what's real and what's
not.
> Warren
>
>
Trevor Gensch
had written, but then I realised I couldn't make head nor tail of
their post to aus.tv dated Thu, 07 Feb 2002 11:43:06 +1100:
>
>
>Non of them were a patch on the greatest song writer/producer ever,
>Brian Wilson
For gods sake, he doesn't even come close to the amount of hits that
the Beatles had under the penship of Lennon/McCartney.
--
Trev.
-----------------------------------------------------
"I thought that having my own web page was pretty cool, until I
noticed that my deodorant has ITS own web page" - Dr. Joy Brown
Trevor Gensch
had written, but then I realised I couldn't make head nor tail of
>>> Non of them were a patch on the greatest song writer/producer ever,
>>> Brian Wilson
>>
>>WRONG.
>
>
>Nope.
To take a leaf from your book - back your opinion up with FACTS
Das Monkey
> John's solo career lasted nearly exactly 10 years, if you count from Plastic
> Ono Band to Double Fantasy. Add a couple more years if you want to go back
> as far as Two Virgins.
And his solo catalogue is 10 times more impressive than paul's over the
past 30 years.
--
Das Monkey
http://www.dasmonkey.com - My favourite food group.
Rockin out to the smooth sounds of Winamp stopped.
Only shapes have points, my job has no form or structure,
therefore no shape, therefore no point.
Warren
That is a succinct way of making the point I have tried to make 5 times.
Warren
Richard Cavell
was
> the creative force behind the band is to simply look at the work that was
> done as a solo artist.
No, that's rubbish. I am more familiar with comedy, and I can tell you that
there are comedy duos and groups out there that are more than the sum of
their parts. So you can't take the best standalone comedian and call
him/her the reason for a group's success. The success of the group lies in
the dynamics among the members.
Hipster-Doofus
: In relation to the program, if you remove the narrative element and simply
: look at what Mcartney said then it was still pretty egotistical and IMO an
: attempt at rewriting history. You can't take the words Paul said back by
: simply trashing the program.
I watched the same programme the other night and I can only agree with the
above.
It was quite surprising/disappointing to listen to McCartney...
Detlef H. Pelz
news:cog46ukebrbhium14...@4ax.com...
> I tried to understand what matthew <matthew...@dingoblue.net.au>
> had written, but then I realised I couldn't make head nor tail of
> their post to aus.tv dated Thu, 07 Feb 2002 11:43:06 +1100:
>
> >
> >
> >Non of them were a patch on the greatest song writer/producer ever,
> >Brian Wilson
>
> For gods sake, he doesn't even come close to the amount of hits that
> the Beatles had under the penship of Lennon/McCartney.
I think you've hit it on the head -- it was the Lennon/McCartney
relationship that produced the best of the Beatles. Alone they did OK too,
although I preferred Lennon's music for the edge it had.
I have the impression that Brian Wilson was a big fan of the Beatles, and
strove to equal their creativity, with more than a little success. But I
doubt that he'd agree with Matthew's contention.
Regards,
Detlef Pelz
Mister Charlie
"Das Monkey" <mon...@dasmonkey.comSPAM> wrote in message
news:MPG.16cd048549426afd989816@news-server...
> With a final breath, CJF screamed:
> > John's solo career lasted nearly exactly 10 years, if you count from
Plastic
> > Ono Band to Double Fantasy. Add a couple more years if you want to go
back
> > as far as Two Virgins.
>
> And his solo catalogue is 10 times more impressive than paul's over the
> past 30 years.
To whom?
Mister Charlie
>
> That is a succinct way of making the point I have tried to make 5 times.
One which, as been pointed out to you repeatedly as well, is pure opinion.
Mister Charlie
"Richard Cavell" <richar...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:a3ttph$2nn1$1...@otis.netspace.net.au...
Excellent point. Who was the funny one, Martin or Lewis? Who thrived after
the breakup?
Perfect illustration.
>
>
lstoll
Er, it's not a poiint, it's an opinion. -laura
Warren wrote:
>
> That is a succinct way of making the point I have
> tried to make 5 times.
>
lstoll
>
> > has every write to "play around with it".
>
> I meant to say "right". I was thinking about
> "In His Own Write" when I wrote what I wrote.
BTW, the book title was Paul's idea ;-) -laura
(it really was though)
Mister Charlie
lstoll
>
> Yeah, that's fair and I really didn't have a problem with that
> particular slip. But there was a lot of stuff said directly by
> McCartney or the narration which was just rubbish, and nearly
> all of the mistakes were in the direction of making McCartney
> look like the core of the Beatles' success. Among other
> things it stated that McCartney was true working class
> while Lennon put it on (come on, both were middle class);
I know John was from a more posh neighborhood and definitely not working
class, but I think Paul's family was borderline working class. They lived
in what I think was similar to low-income housing.
> they only got into drugs in India; etc, etc.
Not having seen the show (damn!), I can only make a guess on this point,
but perhaps he was thinking of their very first trip to India, which was
indeed pre-Revolver. I think his point may not have been that they'd never
taken drugs before that but it was after that (and I can't say why he
picked India as the watershed) that drugs began to have a direct effect on
their music.
> I think McCartney is a talented man, and a good writer
> when he puts his mind to it, and I'm very jealous he was
> such a good friend and sparring partner for John, and
> I think he was a HUGE part of the Beatles' success.
> However, this kind of pathetic revisionism undermines
> his credibility and makes him sound like an insecure
> egotist, rather than making people think, "hm, what
> a genius!"
Yeah, it's a shame. Even though I haven't seen the show (and I doubt I'd
have as many problems with it as you do), I've seen evidence of what you're
describing elsewhere. One of his oddities is that he's insecure about this
stuff. -laura
lstoll
>
> (I am not sure if the show was commissioned by Mcartney
> - I would not be surprised)
The show wasn't commissioned by McCartney. If it had there would have been
solo McCartney songs if not Beatles songs.
> ...attempted to give a view of the Beatles that it was
> Mcartney that was the creative force/leader...
I found out it was a UK program called "Rock Legends: Paul McCartney", so
the focus was on Paul rather than the Fabs. But McCartney does have a big
ego, I won't argue with you there!
> Some of his comments were quotes by Mcartney some
> were by the person narrating the show. (as he has written)
In some cases, still I wouldn't assume that McCartney is the source of all
of the errors.
> IF Mcartney was the driving force...
I personally have no doubt that Paul was *a* driving force behind the Fabs.
You're certainly entitled to disagree though.
> [Paul] said something to the effect in answer to some
> question about him not getting the credit to date,
> ...at the end of the day people will realise that it was
> Mcartney who was the creative genius/driving force
> behind the Beatles.the (the quote may not be exactly
> correct - someone may correct it)
I seriously doubt he said he was *the* creative genius/driving force behind
the Beatles. I'd sure like to see the show. It'll probably turn up in the
US at some point.
> ...it was a Beatles show shown in Australia...
Thanks for the response, Warren. As I mentioned though, it wasn't a Beatles
show. It was about McCartney. -laura
Stephen Bruun
> And it has never been proven Lennon and Epstein bumped uglies.
McCartney, on Howard Stern a few months back, pointed out that in Hamburg he
very frequently saw John come back to the room drunk, with a girl, and
they'd go right at it, not caring who else was in the room. Paul observes
that, given that Lennon didn't care who was watching, and that he sometimes
got VERY drunk indeed, Paul would surely have seen something if John was gay
or bisexual, but he never did. He's not trying to "protect" John, because
Paul has also made it clear that he doesn't consider homosexuality to be
evil or an embarrassment.
Stephen Bruun
news:3c61f9c2$1...@news.iprimus.com.au...
> I'm not sure if there was a bootleg album around which had McCartney
demo's
> but it was titled "The lost McCartney album", maybe II is the master tape
> for the bootleg?
>
I've heard something about how McCartney II was going to be a double set -
the "lost" album might be the outtakes.
Stephen Bruun
> > In Hamburg it was Preludin diet pills. The "herbal jazz cigarettes"
came
> in
> > late '64.
>
> Nope. That's the myth. Apparently they were smoking it in 60, 61. I
> believe it is referenced in the Anthology book, I will check it later.
Ringo, talking about meeting Dylan in '64, says "that was the first time I
really smoked marijuana." Lennon, for one, freely admitted popping pills in
Hamburg, and freely admitted smoking marijuana later on, but I don't recall
him ever saying they smoked it in the Hamburg era. (Of course, Lennon had
some legendary lapses of memory himself....)
Stephen Bruun
news:15m88.16472$3E5.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> John's solo career lasted nearly exactly 10 years, if you count from
Plastic
> Ono Band to Double Fantasy. Add a couple more years if you want to go back
> as far as Two Virgins.
John was inactive for almost half that time, though, not recording between
late 1975 and mid-1980.
> It's not my most favorite tidbit of trivia knowledge, but John's famous
> interview with Jann Wenner and Rolling Stone occurred 10 years to the day
> before his death: Dec 8, 1970.
The "Magical Mystery Tour" EP was released in the UK exactly unlucky 13
years before, December 8, 1967. It contains the ominous photo of John in
front of the poster reading "The Best Way To Go Is By M D C."
Stephen Bruun
> And, as McCartney has observed on more
> > than one occasion, others can say what they want about the roles of the
> two
> > musicians, but McCartney is the one who was actually there in the room
> with
> > Lennon.
> >
> Exactly why he should not be trying to take credit when the other half of
> the partnership has no ability to respond.
>
>
So Paul McCartney is no longer in a position to talk about anything he and
John did in private, because John can't provide rebuttals? Should Paul's
future comments about the Beatles be limited to what Ringo did? Music
historians debate the relative contributions of the four Beatles. It seems
only fair to let the Beatles themselves do the same thing.
Mister Charlie
smoked it and we didn't know what it was. We were drunk." -John Lennon
"We first got marijuana from an older drummer with another group in
Liverpool. We didn't actually try it until after we'd been to Hamburg. I
remember we smoked it in the band room in a gig in Southport one night and
we all learned to do the Twist that night, which was popular at the time.
We were all seeing if we could do it. Everybody was saying, 'This stuff
isn't doing anything.' It was like that old joke where a party is going on
and two hippies are up floating on the ceiling, and one is saying to the
other, 'This stuff doesn't work, man.' - George Harrison
Both of these quotes can be found in the Anthology book, page 158, first
column.
"Stephen Bruun" <br...@starpower.net> wrote in message
news:a3ucns$qtt$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
LIMOH
able to say or do anything relevant for a very long time.
I think it's quite natural that he's starting to feel he's got to remind people
of who he was. The old guys from WWII have had the same attitude for years.
Derek J. Larsson
> God yes, I felt quite sick watching the programme - it starts with a
> little disingenuous caption at the start saying "While I am flattered
> that the makers of this programme think I'm so great, I just want to
> emphasise that the Beatles were about the four of us," and then goes on
> to some weird version of history fuelled by some obviously skewed info
> from McCartney, e.g.
>
> - drugs (including pot) only became part of the scene in Rishikesh,
> makes you wonder how they managed to write "Got to Get You Into My Life"
> and "Doctor Robert" with such foresight
Lennon made it clear that in Hamburg they had to take pills
to keep them awake enough to play the all-night gigs.
He described "Rubber Soul" as the "pot album"
"Revolver" as the "acid" album. The Beatles were
on record for having been exposed to pot as early as 1964
and acid as early as 1966.
Rishikesh didn't happen until 1968 ... so this is obviously
a "rewrite" of history.
> - McCartney assumed control of the group when Epstein put them in suits
The Beatles own PR from 1964-1966 described Lennon as
the group's leader. Capital press for "Meet The Beatles"
identifies Lennon as the leader of the group. Ringo Starr
commented in a 1964 interview that Lennon was the leader.
The TV Beatles cartoon series identified Lennon as the band's leader.
Brian Epstein (Beatles manager) regarded Lennon as the leader.
Lennon was clearly the dominant, creative force behind "A Hard Day's
Night",
"Help", etc. writing virtually all of the big songs and innovative
material.
Clearly, this is a "rewrite" of history.
> - Paul had the ambition and drive and Lennon probably wouldn't have made
> it alone
Well, Paul clearly has ambition and drive...
but John was the type of guy who was a bit of a manic-depressive.
He was capable of great outbursts of activity one minute .. and
depression the next. He would spend all-nighters in the studio.
It is pure speculation that either John or Paul would have had
the same level of success without each other - however, one thing
is clear ... Paul McCartney would not be associated with
being part of anything "revolutionary" without the
close proximity to the mind and spirit of John Lennon.
> - Paul was always the experimental one and John just tagged along
This is clearly a 180-degree rewrite of history.
All of the Beatles experimental, psychedelic, surrealistic material
from 1966 - 1969 were Lennon authored songs ("Strawberry Fields",
"I Am The Walrus", "All You Need Is Love", etc.). Lennon's
material provided the musical and artistic framework and
conceptual pretext by which "experimental" music was
produced. Lennon may not have done -all- of the tape loops
or had -all- of the ideas (many ideas were added by George Martin),
but this was obviously John's material .. John's personality and
part of his whole makeup.
> - the loops in Tomorrow Never Knows were all Paul's
George Harrison and George Martin have both commented
that "they all" or "we all" brought in different loops of
sounds. The idea that Paul did "everything" .. is not
just wrong and just a swipe at John ... but also a swipe at George
Harrison
and George Martin. In addition, the concept behind all of this
was Lennon's. From the outset - Lennon wanted this song
to have a special "errie" sound and implementation. Many
ideas were suggested by Lennon. McCartney's role in the
tape loops were only one part of one aspect of the song (Lennon's)
and the tape loop work had several contributors ... with Lennon
the architect of this song.
> - it was Paul's idea to call it Abbey Road, then Everest was suggested
> later
ok .... (big deal ... not a very 'original' title)
> - Magical Mystery Tour is being reassessed and Spielberg says they use
> it at film school
MMT was a both an artistic and commercial failure ..
and notably .. the Beatles -FIRST- such artistic and commercial failure
breaking their string of successes and making them appear failable for
the first time since they burst onto the scene in 1963.
(Paul's "Let It Be" film project would be their other huge flop ).
It is a "rewrite" of history to characterize it any differently.
> - Paul was firm about no reunion work after John's death (so I guess it
> was Ringo who forced Paul and George "not while John Lennon remains
> dead" Harrison into the studio in 1995)
Paul is the one who clings to his "beatle-good-boy" image like a
life raft on the titanic. Both John and George detested and
rejected it
and were the most individualistic, un-Beatle members of the
band.
> - It was Paul who wanted the group to stop touring after 1966
Total lie.
John Lennon was afraid for his life (death threats) in 1966 and
George Harrison constantly complained about the bad sound
and futility of peforming in from of 60,000 people with the
equipment they had. John confessed that he sometimes didn't
bother to sing ... because no one could hear anyway.
"We've already proved we're enormous."
-George Harrison
" I reckon we could send out four wax-dummies that shook their
heads at the right time and no one would no the difference.
It's all gotten too far from the Cavern. We're not going on tour
again."
-John Lennon
"Good now I don't have to be a "beatle" anymore"
-George Harrison
Paul, typically, was the one who wanted to keep touring ... just
as he was the one who wanted the Beatles to stay together
(in spite of the disintegration) ... then lied to the whole world
that
he was the one (not Lennon) who had "left" the band.
Once again, a consistent pattern of behavior is exhibited by
McCartney.
He turns history around 180 degrees ... trampling all over John
and George to make himself appear like the "big man" in the group.
A mark of a very, very "little" man....
It becomes clear then .. who the real "genius" was behind the
"Beatles".
The blatant liar ... ain't the guy!!
- Derek
===============================
derek_...@3com.com
===============================
lstoll
>
> Rishikesh didn't happen until 1968 ... so this is obviously
> a "rewrite" of history.
They visited India for the first time before recording Revolver.
> > - McCartney assumed control of the group when Epstein
> > put them in suits
> ...
> Clearly, this is a "rewrite" of history.
> ...
> > - Paul was always the experimental one and John just
> > tagged along
>
> This is clearly a 180-degree rewrite of history.
Although I agree that Paul is off-base on the subject, this could easily be
someone overstating something Paul said, a technique with which I know
you're familiar.
> > - the loops in Tomorrow Never Knows were all Paul's
And in 1966 John said Paul made the loops for TNK.
> > - It was Paul who wanted the group to stop touring after 1966
>
> Total lie.
> ...
> Once again, a consistent pattern of behavior is exhibited
> by McCartney. He turns history around 180 degrees ...
> trampling all over John and George to make himself
> appear like the "big man" in the group.
A few general questions should be asked: What was actually said? What was
the context? Who said it? If it wasn't Paul, what was their source and how
accurately did they interpret that source?
But I won't be holding my breath. -laura
J37
to understand the history behind the Beatles."
George Martin "Making of Sgt. Pepper"(Bergen, May 2000).
J37
How will John Lennon diehard fans get a mental breakdown??
Tell them that John Lennon wasn't the sole genious of the Beatles!
Works every time!
J37
"Matthew Kirkcaldie" <matt...@mail.newcastle.edu.au> skrev i melding
news:matthewk-E8A26C...@seagoon.newcastle.edu.au...
> So the stuff I am referring to is from a recent interview - whereas you
> thought it had been put together from archive material which you HAD
> already seen, and hence were able to comment on. In fact the show was
> history according to McCartney 2001, and was obviously made with his
> full co-operation. That makes it all the more baffling that there was
> no Beatles or McCartney music in it - and I'm sure McCartney would have
> had approval over it.
>
> Phew!
Why is it more easier to forgive that John Lennon has his insecure periods
than to forgive Paul for the same thing.
Johns insecure period led him to believe that "Paul sabotaged his songs",
that he "wrote 70 % of Eleanor Rigby" and to say that "Let it be is Paul
doing bridge over troubled water"(when the song was conveived and recorded
way before BOTW)" and to use every occation he could get to put down Paul
(interviews),discuss Pauls personality with press and people.
After Johns death there was tendency to put John on the pedestal and say he
was the genius of the Beatles: Paul was just the "pop-guy". John was the
only mastermind behind the "heavy" work. History knows otherwise,but I think
that period must have had a heavy impact on Paul.
The first big revisionist was the press--- Paul have tried to claim his
right. He may have overplayed that role on some occations. But mainly I
think he's been very generous the other way around and giving John credit
for things he never did.
It worked both ways.
and for Mr Larsson: You wasn't in the studio or with them all those years
ago.Although I sometimes suspect you to beleive so.
and for you who don't think that John Lennon had a big ego...........? Well
he had!
Derek J. Larsson
> Who in the world would ever forget the fantastic music John Lennon made?
> Why feel threatened by McCartney's flaunting of his own past triumphs?
> We should consider ourselves lucky that Paul hasn't gone all reclusive
> on us, and that we can hear new material as well as past reminders of
> his musical genius.
When you have to inaccurately flaunt (embellish) your past triumphs
at each and every turn - and falsely present the work of others
(John, George, and/or George Martin) to the public as:
............ what -you- did ..............
to make the case for "musicial genius" ... then that is
a weak house of cards, not worth the paper its printed on,
that can only crumble.
There is nothing "lucky" for us about Paul's false posturing.
Paul is a guy here .. who is all hat and no cattle ... nothing
more than a used-car salesman run amock ... there's no "genuis" there.
It is quite sad the the band's men of integrity, purpose, and
originality
John & George .. were the ones to have tradegy befall them so young.
Those were the voices we were "lucky" to have heard.
Those were the voices that we learned real things from.....
Those were the voices not of smilely-faced narcissm, self-worship, and
vanity
.. but of a message to the world, hope, self-revelation, and
inspiration.
Those were the substantive, brilliant ones....
J37
"lstoll" <la...@lstoll.com> skrev i melding
news:3C62ADD7...@lstoll.com...
> I personally have no doubt that Paul was *a* driving force behind the
Fabs.
> You're certainly entitled to disagree though.
>
> > [Paul] said something to the effect in answer to some
> > question about him not getting the credit to date,
> > ...at the end of the day people will realise that it was
> > Mcartney who was the creative genius/driving force
> > behind the Beatles.the (the quote may not be exactly
> > correct - someone may correct it)
>
> I seriously doubt he said he was *the* creative genius/driving force
behind
> the Beatles. I'd sure like to see the show. It'll probably turn up in the
> US at some point.
He probably was trying to say: I was a creative force behind the Beatles
too!
Derek J. Larsson
> > a "rewrite" of history.
>
> They visited India for the first time before recording Revolver.
They visted India twice between Sgt. Pepper and the making of White
Album.
But the point was about drug use ... something that Ringo talks about
taking place ("pot") back when they were making the movie "Help".
So, the point is the same.
> > > - McCartney assumed control of the group when Epstein
> > > put them in suits
> > ...
> > Clearly, this is a "rewrite" of history.
> > ...
> > > - Paul was always the experimental one and John just
> > > tagged along
> >
> > This is clearly a 180-degree rewrite of history.
>
> Although I agree that Paul is off-base on the subject, this could easily
be
> someone overstating something Paul said,
Paul took part in the program ... comprised primarily of off-base
assertions.
If Paul is letting his "campaign managers" do the heavy lifting (while
he appears less strident) ... this does not exempt him from the
overall message that his campaign is putting out.
> > > - the loops in Tomorrow Never Knows were all Paul's
>
> And in 1966 John said Paul made the loops for TNK.
And George Harrison said "we all" made some of the loops
(himself one of a Grandfather clock) and Martin said "they all"
made loops. Clearly, "we all" and "they all" involves
more than just Paul McCartney ... and Lennon's quote
did not say all of the various loops or sound effects. It is
clear that John was part of this process as well - he had employed
backwards taped guitars in "I'm Only Sleeping" and "Rain"
(which predated TNK).
> > Once again, a consistent pattern of behavior is exhibited
> > by McCartney. He turns history around 180 degrees ...
> > trampling all over John and George to make himself
> > appear like the "big man" in the group.
>
> A few general questions should be asked: What was actually said? What was
> the context? Who said it? If it wasn't Paul, what was their source and how
> accurately did they interpret that source?
Those details may be interesting .. but the larger point is that
virtually
everything McCartney is associated with in some way .. falsely
presents him as Beatles "bigman" (obscuring Lennon's work & impact).
Again, even if Paul is letting his "campaign managers" do the heavy
lifting
(while his direct statements appear less strident) ... this does not
exempt
himself from the overall message that his campaign is putting out.
He has the control and is responsible for overall modus operandi
for each of the activities that he participates in.
... the self-serving history, me-first-vanity, and pomposity
(though he may smile ... and look nice for the camera...)
Gat
track - but they synched two four tracks together and got eight. I've read
somewhere that George Martin and Geoff Emerick spent hours and hours trying
to keep them both in synch. Might it have been possible this setup was also
used towards the end of recording Revolver?
Cheers,
Gat.
--
_________________________
http://www.gatmusic.co.uk
"Stephen Bruun" <br...@starpower.net> wrote in message
news:a3ssav$fpb$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> Matthew Kirkcaldie <matt...@mail.newcastle.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:matthewk-D2E4D2...@seagoon.newcastle.edu.au...
> > No, Revolver's alternate titles were "Abracadabra", "Beatles on Safari"
> > and so on; Everest was an alternative title for Abbey Road, but I think
> > it was the *first* title suggested rather than following the road shoot.
> > Trivial point but an easy one to get right for the doco makers.
>
> All the Beatles have done that, though. George Harrison talked about how
> "Revolver" sounds so sophisticated, and hard to reproduce on stage,
because
> "by then we had 8-track." Revolver was recorded on 4-track- there's no
> debate about it, Mark Lewisohn personally analyzed the tapes. Abbey Road
> documents show that the Beatles didn't use 8-track there until partway
> through the "White Album" sessions. Often, the people closest to the
events
> are the ones paying the least attention to some of the minutiae; people
with
> more distance can afford to worry about dates and so on. I admit I didn't
> see Paul's documentary but it sounds to me like he's simply misremembering
> things which, to be fair, happened nearly 40 years ago.
>
>
Gat
Telling the truth would be a good place to start.
Cheers,
Gat
_________________________
http://www.gatmusic.co.uk
"Beth Girsch" <be...@asleep.com> wrote in message
news:a3svmp$efa$0...@dosa.alt.net...
>
> so i, for one, would like to know just what the hell he IS allowed to do
> these days?