Give Peace A Chance, 1997
Jeff Mills
I've been coming here since 1994 and I do so because I love talking to
like-minded people who are fans like me. And through these last three
years we have encountered many peaks and valleys and ups and downs but
recently I have been concerned about the recent posts here because although
I love to have a good argument every now and then with someone, I never get
personal with them the way some of you have been.
Frankly this whole "Paul bashers" vs "Paul defenders" thing is
embarrassing to this newsgroup and to the people who post. I know some of
you and some of you are older than me and I'm 24 and I'm supposed to look
up to you as elders but you act more immature than my two cousins who are
only eleven and eight.
Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and some of them stink. And
everyone has a right to their opinion but when it comes to personal attacks
especially when the two sides fighting are friends of mine, it is wrong. I
never thought someone's new single or album would threaten to tear a
newsgroup apart but I think it's time that we cool off a bit and stop all
this and start acting like adults. Thank you.
Jeff
Susan Juliano
On 6 May 1997 20:20:42 GMT, "Jeff Mills" <jmi...@awod.com> wrote:
> Frankly this whole "Paul bashers" vs "Paul defenders" thing is
>embarrassing to this newsgroup and to the people who post. [...]
> I think it's time that we cool off a bit and stop all this and start acting like
>adults. Thank you.
Agreed. My part in it stops as of this moment.
=====================================================================
Susan Juliano <sjul...@gte.net> "We all shine on." -John Lennon
Strawberry Fields Forever at http://home1.gte.net/sjuliano/index.html
Kat
It's about time somebody spoke up for Paul. I myself used to
greatly dislike Paul and thought he was stupid, and other
things. But after I listened to some of his music, i
realised that he's okay. He's not super-fantastic in my book
but it's not like I go around anymore telling all of my
friends that paul's an idiot. he's just a rock star out
there doing what he loves.
And also...I wasn't alive back in the 70s when paul was most
active with his music...I don't want to anger anyone with
this question: What did Paul do to make some of you hate him
so much? I just would like to know, because I wasn't around
to witness some of the stuff that you were...I'm just
wondering.
Kat
Kat
the "nospam" from my e-mail address.)
Cltbeat
To all who hate Paul, or just don't like him- None of the Beatles were
perfect little angels, although they may have looked that way on camera,
and have sounded that way on the radio. First of all, let's start with
George: He WAS a nosy little imature kid, who followed John and Cynthia
around where ever they went; he even showed up when Cynthia had Julian,
this upset Cynthia so much that she burst into tears, because George was
always there. Ringo: well I don't know too much about Ringo, I'm sorry
to say. John: John was the worst of the group, he was an unmoralistic
jerk who found pleasure in seeing others sad and miserable, if you don't
believe me just read The Love You Make (good book); and last is Paul:
Paul was sex crazed butt kissing little brat, but over the years he
matured, saw the error of his ways, and now is one of the most loving
caring understanding and respected people in the world. I could talk
forever on this but this is the nutshell version for you all.
Ashley Simon
The question is, what did he do to make YOU hate him so much?
>
>
Ashley Simon
Thank you for not going on forever.
Kat
>The question is, what did he do to make YOU hate him so much?
Me? Well...I use to view him as an idiot still experiencing
the after affects of the drugs he used to do. I saw him as a
sell-out for admitting about the drugs (which i realise was
wrong)...Recently he called his new album "Flaming Pie." Any
Beatles fan knows where that phrase comes from. I used to
see it as a "rip-off" or "unoriginallity." But, then if you
look at it the other way, then it looks as though he's
paying tribute to the beginning that got him as far as he is
now. But, now, i realise his music is pretty good and i have
no right to call him an idiot ---- He's doin' what he loves.
Kat
LennOno
Kat <tzeb...@crl.nospam.com> wrote in article
<5lj5q2$q1t$1...@nnrp1.crl.com>...
> It's about time somebody spoke up for Paul. I myself used to
> greatly dislike Paul and thought he was stupid, and other
> things. But after I listened to some of his music, i
> realised that he's okay. He's not super-fantastic in my book
> but it's not like I go around anymore telling all of my
> friends that paul's an idiot. he's just a rock star out
> there doing what he loves.
> And also...I wasn't alive back in the 70s when paul was most
> active with his music...I don't want to anger anyone with
> this question: What did Paul do to make some of you hate him
> so much? I just would like to know, because I wasn't around
> to witness some of the stuff that you were...I'm just
> wondering.
Cut/Paste Replace:Paul with; Yoko.
Amaranth56
George: How old was he at the time? The man is 54 years old now.
You're doing the same thing John did in the Playboy interviews. What
you say WAS true--when George was a teenager! How would you like
to be judged for the rest of your life for things you did at 16? I sure
wouldn't!
John matured trmendously over the years. The same teenager who
made fun of cripples fought for human rights as a grown man. He
did a complete turnaround in his attitude toward women. Compare
the meek, demure Cynthia to asserive, out-spoken Yoko. Would John
have stood for a woman like that in 1963, which is the year in which you
seem to be stuck?
Paul is still an arrogant perfectionist. It's his way or no way. Why do
you think he insists on having family members working for him (Linda,
James and Mary)? Perhaps it was his thick, impenetrable armor of
charm, diplomacy and cuteness that prevented him from developing as
much as the others did (stress *as much as*). Perhaps he fooled
himself almost as much as he fooled us. Witness the superficial and
vapid questions chosen for the recent online chat. How much has he
really changed?
saki
In article <19970521181...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
Amaranth56 <amara...@aol.com> wrote:
Why do I feel I won't be the only one responding to this post? :-)
>Paul is still an arrogant perfectionist.
I'd agree with the perfectionist part; the arrogance I just don't see. I
hope (and pray!) the two qualities needn't perpetually go together.
There's a distinction between believing in oneself and believing more
about oneself than one has a right to do. I don't think you can accuse Dr.
Macca of the latter, without more substantive evidence. I think he
sometimes lacks perspective about his work, but that's a failing all of us
have. He strives for more than most of us, and attains more. His failures
can also be more profound. That's part of the nature of fame.
>It's his way or no way.
There are times, though, when he seems willing, in these latter days of
his career, to listen to his compatriots and go with the flow. He was
convinced, after all, to use Jeff Lynne as a producer on "Free As A Bird"
rather than his pick of choice, George Martin. One example alone might
call your contention into question. No doubt there are others...and no
doubt others will mention them. :-)
>Why do you think he insists on having family members working for him
>(Linda, James and Mary)?
I thought he liked having family members around him because he loved them.
John did this too, you might want to note. :-)
James (Paul's son) would more rightly be a guest on Paul's newest LP;
James is not a professional guitarist and does not make a habit of
accompanying his father. Mary is actually an MPL executive of her own
volition; I doubt Paul forces her into servitude. Linda doesn't appear to
work *for* McCartney; I think it's safer to say she's worked *with* him,
by mutual choice when she's not busy with her own profesisonal and family
concerns.
>Perhaps it was his thick, impenetrable armor of
>charm, diplomacy and cuteness that prevented him from developing as
>much as the others did (stress *as much as*).
I just can't see this as a tenable hypothesis. One might well argue that
Paul has developed far more, in a variety of musical and entertainment
fields, than the other surviving Fabs---classical, pop, experimental
milieux, as well as sponsoring academic programs for performing arts. I
imagine others could do far greater justice to Sir Paul's resume than I
could; I'm not an expert, you see. :-)
That doesn't mean Paul is better at gardening than George, and I think
George has the edge on film production (or did in days of yore, when
HandMade Films was still a viable concept). But however impenetrable Paul
may be (and he certainly has a right to hide his inner core from us, for
self-preservation if nothing else), I don't think one can claim that this
prevented Paul from myriad accomplishments in life. You may not like what
he's done, or the way he's gone about it...but that's another point
altogether.
>Perhaps he fooled himself almost as much as he fooled us.
I don't think he fooled any of us, unless we were willing participants.
:-)
--
"We have honored guests from England here tonight. Give 'em
air or I'll have to close the place."
-----------------------------------------------------------
saki (dl...@midway.uchicago.edu)
Ray Martinez
>On 17 May 1997 10:11:23 GMT, clt...@aol.com (Cltbeat) wrote:
>
>Paul is still an arrogant perfectionist. It's his way or no way. Why do
>you think he insists on having family members working for him (Linda,
>James and Mary)? Perhaps it was his thick, impenetrable armor of
>charm, diplomacy and cuteness that prevented him from developing as
>much as the others did (stress *as much as*). Perhaps he fooled
>himself almost as much as he fooled us. Witness the superficial and
>vapid questions chosen for the recent online chat. How much has he
>really changed?
I *totally* agree with this paragraph. Hit the nail on the head.
(and in answer to your last question, 'not much'.)
-Ray
d.
In article <19970521181...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
amara...@aol.com (Amaranth56) wrote:
>On 17 May 1997 10:11:23 GMT, clt...@aol.com (Cltbeat) wrote:
>>John: John was the worst of the group, he was an unmoralistic
>>jerk who found pleasure in seeing others sad and miserable, if you don't
>>believe me just read The Love You Make (good book); and last is Paul:
>>Paul was sex crazed butt kissing little brat, but over the years he
>>matured, saw the error of his ways, and now is one of the most loving
>>caring understanding and respected people in the world.
First, cltbeat's comments about John are cruel and based on a work of
highly suspect scholarship.
>Paul is still an arrogant perfectionist. It's his way or no way. Why do
>you think he insists on having family members working for him (Linda,
>James and Mary)?
However, I do not understand how you expect to be accepted as the final
word on the intimate dynamics of Paul McCartney's family life without more
details. Most decent people struggle with what's happening within their
*own* family circle. You are making the rather devastating statement that
Paul *uses* his wife and children simply because he can control them. Are
you related to the McCartneys, and do you spend enough time with them that
you can objectively make such a judgement?
--
d. northcutt
We always came back to the song we were singing
at any particular time...
Jeff Mills
Ray Martinez <wave...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
<5m06fq$2...@camel2.mindspring.com>...
>
> >On 17 May 1997 10:11:23 GMT, clt...@aol.com (Cltbeat) wrote:
> >
> >Paul is still an arrogant perfectionist. It's his way or no way. Why
do
> >you think he insists on having family members working for him (Linda,
> >James and Mary)? Perhaps it was his thick, impenetrable armor of
> >charm, diplomacy and cuteness that prevented him from developing as
> >much as the others did (stress *as much as*). Perhaps he fooled
> >himself almost as much as he fooled us. Witness the superficial and
> >vapid questions chosen for the recent online chat. How much has he
> >really changed?
>
>
> I *totally* agree with this paragraph. Hit the nail on the head.
> (and in answer to your last question, 'not much'.)
The simple fact of the matter is that no matter what Paul does and no
matter how hard he tries to please people with a new lp, there are some
people out there who hold this grudge against him and they will not back
off of it.
Perhaps Paul wanted to make a laid-back album involving family members for
the fun of it. He is not under any pressure to release an album and while
on the heels of "Anthology" made an album which sounds like the most fun he
has had on an album in years.
John once said that he and Yoko wanted to be together at all times.
Working together and living together, not just seeing each other on
weekends. Maybe Paul feels the same way about his wife and his kids. So
using your logic, I guess John shouldn't have done that little duet with
Julian at the end of "Walls and Bridges" and never should have worked with
Yoko.
The fact is that you, for whatever reason, dislike Paul McCartney
personally and hold this bias against him and no matter what he does you
will hate it. It looks to me like Paul HAS grown up like the rest of the
Beatles. Paul isn't the one who needs to mature, you do.
>
> -Ray
>
>
Amaranth56
"Jeff Mills" <jmi...@awod.com> writes:
:Ray Martinez <wave...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
<sigh> I was going to let this go, but this is number 3, so, "visitors" or
no visitors, here goes.
First of all, I wrote the part that starts "Paul is an arrogant
perfectionist...."
It wouldn't be right to let someone else take the heat for something I
wrote.
It's not "bias" (i.e., unreasonable) when there's evidentiary reason to
dislike an individual. Subjective? Certainly. Unfair? Not in my book.
Secondly, it's simply not true that no matter Paul does I won't like it.
And I most certainly do not hate anything Paul does. You're unjustly--and
incorrectly--assuming these things.
Paul doesn't *have* to please us, nor should he be expected to put out
an album to please the masses. If you enjoy Paul's music, that's fine.
Don't let any critic tell you otherwise. Don't be intimidated by whatever
someone else says. Stick to your guns!
No matter what *any* artist does, they're not going to please everyone.
If you enjoy listening to "laid back" music, great! Personally, I've
always
expected more from the musical genius who wrote "Blackbird", "I Will",
"Fixing a Hole", "Eleanor Rigby", "Yesterday" and so many others.
As far as Paul's personality, as a teenager, I was taken in by his act.
John didn't fool anyone, nor did he try to. Paul did. When I started
reading biographies, I was greatly disappointed. Artist after artist
with whom Paul worked has commented on his need to be "the boss",
to dominate. This trait was evident in the 50s and continues to this day.
George, Ringo and John had the professional wisdom to work with
people as good as or better than they were. Paul obviously prefers to
work with lesser talented people (such as Linda and James). Can you
imagine Paul working with Eric Clapton, as George and John have?
As far as Paul and Linda working together, Denny Laine recalls Linda
literally crying and wanting to quit Wings: "She told me over and over
again that she did not want to be in Wings.... But Paul wanted her
there.... He wouldn't allow her to leave." Paul said that he needed her
onstage "...for my confidence. That was really the major poin." I doubt
Yoko had similar misgivings!
Peter Webb, producer of "Give My Regards to Broadstreet", had
this to say of working with Paul: "A little difficult? It was one of the
most horrible experiences of my life."
Even when he does work with his musical equals, Paul exercises a
profound need to dominate. Carl Davis wrote the orchestration and a
good deal of the harmonic structure to "Paul McCartney's Liverpool
Oratorio" (the full title). You'd never guess by the title, would you?
As Davis said: "[Paul's] used to being the boss."
Though Paul was with Wings for about as long as he was with the
Beatles, Denny Laine, et al. were never more than hired hands who
were paid minimum scale wages. "Mull of Kintyre" was written by
Paul and Denny and, in 1986, was the biggest selling single ever in
England, outselling "She Loves You". Does Denny get a cent from
that? No, Paul gets it all. Granted, Denny agreed to sell Paul the
publishing rights to *all* songs written by them for Wings for L90,000;
but Denny, suffering a financial disaster, was desperate. Some may
applaud this as a smart business deal on Paul's part. Doesn't seem
humanely ethical to me. Sounds rather like what Michael Jackson
and Sony did to Paul and John's music. Even worse considering that
Paul and Denny worked as a together for 10 years.
Linda says that, as with any married couple, they have their fights.
However, Paul can "definitely be quite horrible" because he "knows
how he wants things and gets angry when they are not done properly."
Well, I could go on, but that's more than enough. Flame away!
All of the above is from "Paul McCartney: Behind the Myth" by Ross
Benson.
RasMaster
Amaranth,
Your post was the voice of reason. I don't know why it is so hard to
recognize (or is it admit) that Paul is not a very nice person - and this
is made all the worse by his fixation on presenting himself to the
world as a "very nice person" - while also recognizing that he is a
genius,
and capable of making absolutely amazing music.
Further, I don't know why it is so hard to recognize these cababilities,
while at the same time realizing that he has not, generally, lived up to
his obviously massive abilities for the last 15 years or so. Yes there
have
been some good songs (and I have liked what I have heard of the new
album), but the consistancy that was present through Tug of War (except
Speed of Sound and Wild Life), is simply not present anymore, and has
not been since the early 80's.
Yes, he is massively talented. No, his recent work has not shown this
very well. Yes, he is a jerk. No, I would not want to be without his body
of work, even the bad stuff. These are not contradictory statements. Why
is that so hard to accept?
Bob Purse
(Getting my feet wet with the fire of flames to come........)
Amaranth56
rasm...@aol.com (RasMaster) writes:
:Your post was the voice of reason. I don't know why it is so hard to
:recognize (or is it admit) that Paul is not a very nice person - and this
:is made all the worse by his fixation on presenting himself to the
:world as a "very nice person" - while also recognizing that he is a
:genius, and capable of making absolutely amazing music. ......
Thanks for the support, Bob! Guess we'd both better get our flame-
retardant suits out of the closet ;-).
It not Paul or his actions that bother me. Rather it's the inability
and/or unwillingness of *some* of his fans to admit that he's not
perfect. Regardless of one's adoration of John, no one will hesitate
to admit that he could be a real SOB at times. But if you so much
as dare to suggest that Paul's voice isn't what it was 30+ years ago,
legions of fans rush to their idol's defense. And these are mature,
intelligent people. It's this mass delusion that astounds me.
Michelle . Pate
On 22 May 1997, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> >On 17 May 1997 10:11:23 GMT, clt...@aol.com (Cltbeat) wrote:
> >
> >Paul is still an arrogant perfectionist. It's his way or no way. Why do
> >you think he insists on having family members working for him (Linda,
> >James and Mary)? Perhaps it was his thick, impenetrable armor of
> >charm, diplomacy and cuteness that prevented him from developing as
> >much as the others did (stress *as much as*). Perhaps he fooled
> >himself almost as much as he fooled us. Witness the superficial and
> >vapid questions chosen for the recent online chat. How much has he
> >really changed?
>
>
> I *totally* agree with this paragraph. Hit the nail on the head.
> (and in answer to your last question, 'not much'.)
>
I was thinking just the same thing!
Michelle
Richard Flint
Yes, Paul and John had lots in common - probably more than most Lennon
fans care to admit. Both were coldly manipulative, both had colossal
egos, and so forth. But probably the major difference between them was
that Paul always plays a part for public consumption that's at variance
with his true nature, while John's public image was his true nature.
He always wore his heart on his sleeve, whereas Paul constructed a
two-dimensional cute, boyish poublic image. The tension between them is
part of what made the Beatles appealing on so many different levels: it
came through in their music and films and interviews. And it hurt them
as solos: John's strident cynicism & whining was just as hard to digest
as Paul's saccharine cloyishness.
IMHO, John's murder was a trsgedy in more ways than one: it left paul
permanently trapped in a creative vacuum, with no partner to "play off".
I think this may explain his assortment of pathetic "duos" in the mid
80s, but in the end he really could have no partner except John.
Edward S. Chen
First off, discount anything Denny Laine said. Remember, he and his
ex-wife have sold a story to anyone who would pay them a dime, and that
story has gotten progressively sleazier with each iteration.
>George, Ringo and John had the professional wisdom to work with
>people as good as or better than they were. Paul obviously prefers to
>work with lesser talented people (such as Linda and James). Can you
>imagine Paul working with Eric Clapton, as George and John have?
Let's see:
Stevie Wonder. Pete Townshend. Michael Jackson (like him or loathe
him, he *was* at the top of his game when he worked with Paul).
Elvis Costello. Ringo Starr. Carl Perkins. Not a bad assemblage of
talent. Remember, the vast majority of players on John and George's
solo albums are studio musicians subjectively at or below the quality of
the players in Wings. (Anybody remember "Elephant's Memory"?)
>As far as Paul and Linda working together, Denny Laine recalls Linda
>literally crying and wanting to quit Wings: "She told me over and over
>again that she did not want to be in Wings.... But Paul wanted her
>there.... He wouldn't allow her to leave." Paul said that he needed her
>onstage "...for my confidence. That was really the major poin." I doubt
>Yoko had similar misgivings!
Conversely, Laurence Juber remembers Linda as being happy to provide the
support to her husband, and that she had some small musical ambitions
("just for fun") of her own. A listen through "Oobu Joobu" shows that
she really did have enough "solo" stuff over the years that she could've
done an album of her own. Hardly the works of someone who had to be
"dragged into Wings."
>Even when he does work with his musical equals, Paul exercises a
>profound need to dominate. Carl Davis wrote the orchestration and a
>good deal of the harmonic structure to "Paul McCartney's Liverpool
>Oratorio" (the full title). You'd never guess by the title, would you?
>As Davis said: "[Paul's] used to being the boss."
...and your point is? Paul *is* used to being the boss. His status
as "former Beatle" gave him that. John Lennon had *just* as large an
ego, and didn't mind exerting it. There is a story about how Paul Simon
and John Lennon ended up attempting to jam in a studio during the "lost
weekend," and that the clash of egos broke up the time as Simon dared to
question Lennon's "my way or no way" attitude.
>Though Paul was with Wings for about as long as he was with the
>Beatles, Denny Laine, et al. were never more than hired hands who
>were paid minimum scale wages.
"Minimum scale" is not accurate. Ever since the Fabs, Paul has had his
musicians under contract. The salary they are paid is generous, but
not extravagant. When they went on tour, all profits were split evenly
among the band members. Although not necessary, it was good business sense,
and in the early days (i.e.: during the Apple litigation, when profits were
*all* tied up), it ensured the band got paid. Both under the advisement of
John Eastman, and because it worked, Paul continued that policy through the
"Off the Ground" band.
>that? No, Paul gets it all. Granted, Denny agreed to sell Paul the
>publishing rights to *all* songs written by them for Wings for L90,000;
>but Denny, suffering a financial disaster, was desperate. Some may
>applaud this as a smart business deal on Paul's part. Doesn't seem
>humanely ethical to me.
Paul offered to help Denny. He refused to take it, claiming it was
"charity." The song rights sale was the only way Paul could get
Denny to take any money. Besides, as I am wont to say, if Denny were
really such a great talent (songwriter or performer), why did his solo projects
(even with a giant cover sticker proclaiming "featuring Paul McCartney!") fail
so miserably, or why did he reduce himself to recording an album of
nothing but old Wings tunes which might as well have been called
"Hey! Paul used to like me! Remember me??"
>Sounds rather like what Michael Jackson
>and Sony did to Paul and John's music. Even worse considering that
>Paul and Denny worked as a together for 10 years.
The significant difference is no one went behind anyone's back. Paul
offered to help Denny out. Denny than sold the rights *of his own free
will*. Lennon and McCartney signed away their song rights without any
knowledge they were doing so.
>All of the above is from "Paul McCartney: Behind the Myth" by Ross
>Benson.
Not bad, but a bit pedestrian. Unfortunately, no one has really
written the definitive McCartney solo book, and in all likelihood
no one will.
<ESC>
--
It's a cold hard fact when you're young and dumb,
The trouble with trouble is...it starts out as fun.
-- T. Murphy, 1995
RasMaster
In article <19970524190...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
amara...@aol.com (Amaranth56) writes:
>It not Paul or his actions that bother me. Rather it's the inability
>and/or unwillingness of *some* of his fans to admit that he's not
>perfect. Regardless of one's adoration of John, no one will hesitate
>to admit that he could be a real SOB at times. But if you so much
>as dare to suggest that Paul's voice isn't what it was 30+ years ago,
>legions of fans rush to their idol's defense. And these are mature,
>intelligent people. It's this mass delusion that astounds me.
>
>
Exactly. Couldn't have put it better myself. To say that Paul has not, in
the last several years (generally), shown himself to be the talent we all
know he is, is not in any way to deny those talents. And to see he is not
a very nice person is a documented fact. And it still does not take away
from his massive talents.
Norman G. Hill
RasMaster wrote:
>
> Amaranth,
>
> Your post was the voice of reason. I don't know why it is so hard to
> recognize (or is it admit) that Paul is not a very nice person - and this
> is made all the worse by his fixation on presenting himself to the
> world as a "very nice person" - while also recognizing that he is a
> genius,
> and capable of making absolutely amazing music.
> very well. Yes, he is a jerk. No, I would not want to be without his body
> of work, even the bad stuff. These are not contradictory statements. Why
> is that so hard to accept?
>
> Bob Purse
>
> (Getting my feet wet with the fire of flames to come........)
Can't someone be domineering (sp?) and still not be a jerk? Some people
are just uncomfortable being around more talented people than themselves
(I've known a few), but does that make them a bad person? I don't know.
People are so complicated that I don't think you can just say that he's
not a nice guy like that. If your going to call Paul a jerk, than you
can call John a jerk, and George a jerk, and 99% of everyone else in the
world a jerk. I'm a jerk too. I'm lazy, I fight with my sister
constantly, I can just go on about mean things I do that I know are
mean, but I do them anyway. I'm not saying Paul is great either. I'm
just saying how come he either has to be this wonderful, nice, sweet
guy, or an egotistical, mean old jerk?
However, as long as people listen to him, the debate will continue...
Mandy
Norman G. Hill
Amaranth56 wrote:
>
> Thanks for the support, Bob! Guess we'd both better get our flame-
> retardant suits out of the closet ;-).
>
> and/or unwillingness of *some* of his fans to admit that he's not
> perfect. Regardless of one's adoration of John, no one will hesitate
> to admit that he could be a real SOB at times. But if you so much
> as dare to suggest that Paul's voice isn't what it was 30+ years ago,
> legions of fans rush to their idol's defense. And these are mature,
> intelligent people. It's this mass delusion that astounds me.
Whoa, hold on a minute! I thought it was John who had the religious
following here! As a former Lennon worshipper, I assure you that there
are many people who think John has a very enthusiastic following. I read
this guestbook at a John Lennon website and it had stuff like "John was
the smartest man who ever lived!", "John taught me the meaning of life",
"I'm going to kill myself so I can be with John". Paul also has some
people, like me, who are quite fond of him, but are willing to admit
that (sadly) *compared to how he sounded 30 years ago*, he sounds
terrible. James Taylor is old and bald, yet he still sounds exactly the
same. <sigh> Don't seem fair. Anyways, I don't think Paul's a jerk, I
don't think he's a saint. He's just a guy. Actually he's a freak.
There's some strange thing about this otherwise normal guy which gives
him the ability to produce some of the most amazing music I've heard. I
marvel at this strange phenomenon, and at the fact that two of these
freaks actually, by chance, met and were able to combine their powers,
and KABOOM!
Mandy
Ole M. Olsen
In article <5m831d$4...@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>, ec...@kiwi.imgen.bcm.tmc.edu
says...
>
>>Even when he does work with his musical equals, Paul exercises a
>>profound need to dominate. Carl Davis wrote the orchestration and a
>>good deal of the harmonic structure to "Paul McCartney's Liverpool
>>Oratorio" (the full title). You'd never guess by the title, would you?
>>As Davis said: "[Paul's] used to being the boss."
>
>as "former Beatle" gave him that. John Lennon had *just* as large an
>ego, and didn't mind exerting it. There is a story about how Paul Simon
>and John Lennon ended up attempting to jam in a studio during the "lost
>weekend," and that the clash of egos broke up the time as Simon dared to
>question Lennon's "my way or no way" attitude.
Incidentally, Paul Simon's own "my way or no way" attitude had a lot to do with
the failure of the Simon and Garfunkel reunion (although I wouldn't claim that
Garfunkel was completely innocent either)...
Magnum
RasMaster
In article <338843...@popd.ix.netcom.com>, "Norman G. Hill"
<nhi...@popd.ix.netcom.com> writes:
>. I'm not saying Paul is great either. I'm
>just saying how come he either has to be this wonderful, nice, sweet
>guy, or an egotistical, mean old jerk?
>
>
The point I was trying to make (poorly, I guess), is that in Paul's case,
he presents himself as just the opposite. And he has convinced a lot of
people of this untruth; once you say the opposite, these people jump all
over you. I have no problem with people pointing out that John Lennon was
not a very nice person. Some people get very hot and bothered when you
point out the same thing about Paul. And with Paul it is much more
insidious,
because he pretends to be Mr. Humanity. In this way, he is a fake. A
massively talented fake, but a fake. And I repeat, this comes
from a guy who would not want to be without Paul or his music. It's just
this:
How much better would he be (and how much better could his recent music
be), if he was true to himself and his audience, that is, either be the
humanitarian he acts like, or acknowledge that he is as low down and
rotten
as the rest of us. I think his charade has hurt his music. Just my
opinion.
Bob
John Sinclair
> rasm...@aol.com (RasMaster) writes:
>
> :I don't know why it is so hard to recognize (or is it admit) that Paul is
> :not a very nice person...
Paul may not be a very nice person, and John was probably even less nice than
Paul, but who cares? Why should it matter? We don't know him, and personally I
must say I don't give a damn about how nice he is. I only care about the music,
you know. It seems strange to me that some people look up to Paul (and John) as
human beings. I don't think that Paul McCartney is better than me as a human
being. I look up to him as a musician (and I have reason to think he's a
better musician than I am).
Amaranth56 <amara...@aol.com> wrote:
> It not Paul or his actions that bother me. Rather it's the inability
> and/or unwillingness of *some* of his fans to admit that he's not
> perfect.
I don't think only Paul fans act this way. Fans, by definition, have trouble
accepting that their idols are less than perfect. That's why I don't think of
myself as a Beatles "fan", or as McCartney/Lennon/Harrison "fan". I'm a music
fan, that's all. And I happen to love their music. I guess this inability to
admit that Paul isn't perfect bothers me as well, but I don't think it's
exclusive to Paul McCartney fans. I must admit, though, that McCartney fans
seem to be touchier when negative criticism of Paul's work is expressed.
> Regardless of one's adoration of John, no one will hesitate
> to admit that he could be a real SOB at times.
I wouldn't say "no one"...
--
John Sinclair
======================================
"May we never be called to handle
All the weapons of war we despise..."
hwhe...@pond.com
RasMaster wrote:
>
> In article <338843...@popd.ix.netcom.com>, "Norman G. Hill"
> <nhi...@popd.ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
> >. I'm not saying Paul is great either. I'm
> >just saying how come he either has to be this wonderful, nice, sweet
> >guy, or an egotistical, mean old jerk?
> >
>
> The point I was trying to make (poorly, I guess), is that in Paul's case,
> he presents himself as just the opposite. And he has convinced a lot of
> people of this untruth; once you say the opposite, these people jump all
> over you. I have no problem with people pointing out that John Lennon was
> not a very nice person. Some people get very hot and bothered when you
> point out the same thing about Paul. And with Paul it is much more
> insidious,
> because he pretends to be Mr. Humanity.
This is (please believe me), not an attack... I'm not jumping all over
you, nor am I reacting in knee-jerk defense of Paul. But my impression
has been, at least in the solo years, and especially most recently, that
Paul doesn't make himself out to be "Mr. Humanity," but rather, "Mr.
Normality." It's not as though he's trying to say he's more saintly, or
more kind, or more patient than anyone else, but that he's just like
everyone else. Which, of course, comes with all the attendant bad
behaviour, bad moods, bad intentions as everyone else. Also, it seems
to me that he never misses a chance to try to deny his cherubic,
goody-goody reputation -- and the response from the reporters tends to
be, "Yeah, right." In an industry when moody, artistic temperaments are
expected, and, in fact, respected, "nice" is the last thing anyone
wants to be.
I don't think it's any secret that he's a perfectionist, and difficult
to work with -- and that's something that he's able to admit. On his
Put it There video, he described Producer Trevor Horn as "someone who
was willing to work with me, which was good..." About asking Jeff
Lynne to work with him on Flaming Pie, he commented that they'd just
work together for a couple of weeks, because after that they'd get
"bored" with each other (read: sick of each other) and go on holiday.
It sounds as though Paul is very well aware of his shortcomings, and
acts accordingly in the damage control department.
I do think that Paul has grown up, developed. Regardless of any
stories of Linda in tears over Wings, they have been married for almost
30 years. Ringo, obviously, still considers Paul a close friend, as
does Goerge Martin... another top talent that Paul has returned to again
and again. Elvis Costello obviously holds Paul in high regard, and the
two continue to work together. Paul managed to get through three
albums (if you want to count the Unplugged album) and two exhaustive
tours with his (top-notch) band, with only a change in drummer. Richard
Lester, in writing about accompanying the band on tour to do the "Get
Back" film, speaks of the genuine rapport Paul had with the band, and
the fact that everyone got along "for the most part, without friction."
He also comments on how hard Paul worked the band, his perfectionism,
and the fact that he took suggestions from the band, never rejecting
any suggestion out of hand, "the subtext of all that being, 'offer me
choices.'" Not exactly 'my way or no way.'
Of course people are going to have a "public face." That doesn't
change, whether you're a couple trying not to fight in the supermarket,
or a superstar musician trying to get through another interview full of
tired questions. Sometimes it's not the most pleasant face, but just
what you want people to think of you... John's tough facade was just
that, a facade, but that cynical veneer is what he wanted to put forward
at the time. It seems as though John spent as much time after the
breakup trying to break down that "tough guy" image as Paul has spent
trying to break down his "goody goody" image.
Yes, I have jumped forward to defend Paul. No, I don't believe he's a
saint. But there is a subtle difference between saying that while John
could be an SOB, Paul is not a nice person, and saying that neither of
them is a very nice person, as you said in your last post. It may be a
minor distinction, but you'll find that the first statement will
probably ruffle a lot of feathers among Paul fans. I'd rather just say
that they both could be SOBs.
I just realized how long this post has gotten. I'll be quiet now.
huzzlewhat
PHDSKI
From: Richard Flint <rf...@cornell.edu>
>IMHO, John's murder was a trsgedy in more ways than one: it left paul
>permanently trapped in a creative vacuum, with no partner to "play off".
> I think this may explain his assortment of pathetic "duos" in the mid
>80s, but in the end he really could have no partner except John.
Absolutely. And whether justified or not, I don't think there is anyone
else on this planet who can check or effectively moderate Paul's music and
perfectionistic personality in a work situation-- because Paul won't allow
it. John is a hard act to follow.
Elizabeth :)
Richard Flint
I totally agree that there's no one on earth who can check or moderate
Paul's music. At one time it may have been John and George Martin, but
by the time of "Hey Jude", Paul seems to have allowed very little input
into his songs. He always respected John, but in the end it was more of
a case of "your turn to do a song, my turn to do a song" instead of
actually writing together.
And in Paul's defense, there was a good rationale for this attitude: he
had a sring of monster hit singles starting with "Hello Goodbye" and
only ending with "Long and Winding Road", most of which were at best
Beatle "performances" but solely written by Paul (and don't forget
"Yesterday"!)
The problem was that John and George wanted to do more than just produce
monster hit singles! Paul set himself an impossibly high standard, and
given the untimely demise of his partner, he's now open to criticism
from some circles that he's not as good as he once was. It's hard to
imagine John falling into that sort of trap, if he'd lived. And George
has avoided it, too, by going into an entirely new direction with his
"Wilbury" albums.
Norman G. Hill
RasMaster wrote:
>
>
> The point I was trying to make (poorly, I guess), is that in Paul's case,
> he presents himself as just the opposite.
He must not be doing a very good job.
> And he has convinced a lot of
> people of this untruth; once you say the opposite, these people jump all
> over you. I have no problem with people pointing out that John Lennon was
> not a very nice person. Some people get very hot and bothered when you
> point out the same thing about Paul.
....and some people get bothered when you point out the same thing about
John (or any other famous idol).
> And with Paul it is much more
> insidious,
> because he pretends to be Mr. Humanity.
> How much better would he be (and how much better could his recent music
> be), if he was true to himself and his audience, that is, either be the
> humanitarian he acts like, or acknowledge that he is as low down and
> rotten
> as the rest of us.
I'm not really sure about any of this, so I'm not really arguing, I'm
just trying to get this straight in my head. What kind of a humanitarian
is he acting like? He's polite and charming, that's all I see. It's not
like he's putting up bilboards about peace and love and all that junk.
Is he supposed to be like Howard Stern and yell at people all the time?
I try to act like I'm a humanitarian, but you could probalbly dig up
some dirt on me too. I think this is just the way Paul is. He tries to
be nice and polite in public even though he has some character flaws
like a massive ego and the tendency to be very hard to work with. It's
hard for some people to admit stuff like that. He probably wishes he
wasn't that way.
Just speculating,
Mandy
djs
> George, Ringo and John had the professional wisdom to work with
> people as good as or better than they were. Paul obviously prefers to
> work with lesser talented people (such as Linda and James). Can you
> imagine Paul working with Eric Clapton, as George and John have?
Didn't Paul work with Steve Gadd and Stanley Clarke? When you work with
those guys, who the hell needs Eric Clapton.
He also worked with Stevie Wonder, who IS probably a better musician
than Paul.
In addition, Paul has worked with Chet Atkins, Michael Jackson, Phil
Collins, Pete Townsend, Floyd Cramer, Carlos Alomar, Elvis Costello,
Hugh Padgam, Phil Ramone, and Dave Gilmour.
James Geren
djs writes:
>> George, Ringo and John had the professional wisdom to work with
>> people as good as or better than they were. Paul obviously prefers to
>> work with lesser talented people (such as Linda and James). Can you
>> imagine Paul working with Eric Clapton, as George and John have?
>Didn't Paul work with Steve Gadd and Stanley Clarke? When you work with
>those guys, who the hell needs Eric Clapton.
>He also worked with Stevie Wonder, who IS probably a better musician
>than Paul.
>In addition, Paul has worked with Chet Atkins, Michael Jackson, Phil
>Collins, Pete Townsend, Floyd Cramer, Carlos Alomar, Elvis Costello,
>Hugh Padgam, Phil Ramone, and Dave Gilmour.
Not to mention Allen Ginsberg -- not known for his musicianship, but a
phenomenal figure in American poetry. (I haven't heard the Ginsberg
collaboration. Any reviews?)
Jim
Amaranth56
jge...@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu (James Geren) writes:
:djs writes:
:
:Amara...@aol.com write:
:
:>> George, Ringo and John had the professional wisdom to work with
With the exception of Michael Jackson, these were all one-time
collaborations. Please correct me if I'm wrong; I'm going half by
memory and half by skimming through discographies.
John, George and Ringo have/had musicians with whom they
worked, and, more to the point, who worked with them, on several
occasions. Aside from Michael Jackson, not Too Many People seem
to want to work with Paul a second time except musicians who are
far below the calibur of Paul's artistry.
Sheldon Robertson
In <19970525125...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, rasm...@aol.com (RasMaster) writes:
>In article <338843...@popd.ix.netcom.com>, "Norman G. Hill"
><nhi...@popd.ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
>>. I'm not saying Paul is great either. I'm
>>just saying how come he either has to be this wonderful, nice, sweet
>>guy, or an egotistical, mean old jerk?
>>
>>
>
>he presents himself as just the opposite.
Apparently, your point is still being made poorly. "Opposite" of what, exactly?
> And he has convinced a lot of people of this untruth; once you say the opposite,
> these people jump all over you.
How well do you know Paul to know what's true and what's not? You may have your
suspicions about things, as I do, but I don't imagine you know any more about him than
I. And don't say you know what you've read, because I've read too and I can't claim
to know the man...
>I have no problem with people pointing out that John Lennon was
>not a very nice person.
That's mighty big of you.
>Some people get very hot and bothered when you
>point out the same thing about Paul.
Maybe it's not so much the accusation that gets people hot and bothered as it is the
fact that someone who doesn't know Paul from Adam is making the accusation...
>And with Paul it is much more insidious, because he pretends to be Mr. Humanity.
In what way does he do this? I've seen Paul carry on about vegetarianism and animal
rights (a bit too much for my liking, actually), but aside from that and LIPA and the
occassional charity concert, he seems to be pretty low-key about social issues, especially
compared to other members of the Beatles...
>How much better would he be (and how much better could his recent music
>be), if he was true to himself and his audience, that is, either be the
>humanitarian he acts like, or acknowledge that he is as low down and
>rotten as the rest of us. I think his charade has hurt his music. Just my
>opinion.
Again I ask, how do you know he's not being true to himself? I have a feeling
that he probably is. Maybe you just don't like who he is, in which case you should
just be true to yourself and stop trying to have Paul somehow fit your idea of
what he should be. And how should he be true to his audience? By releasing
albums? Going on tours? Making videos? Oh, wait -- he's done all that. I don't recall
Paul referring to himself as a great humanitarian who's better than other people. In
fact, I've seen him refer to himself as still being a scruff from Liverpool. But then,
that's mighty fake for a multimillionaire to say that, right? According to your set-up,
Paul can never win...
Sheldon
All non-mass-mailers may remove the "nospam" from my e-mail address to
write to me
Sheldon Robertson
In <19970524070...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, amara...@aol.com (Amaranth56) writes:
>No matter what *any* artist does, they're not going to please everyone.
>If you enjoy listening to "laid back" music, great! Personally, I've
>always
>expected more from the musical genius who wrote "Blackbird", "I Will",
>"Fixing a Hole", "Eleanor Rigby", "Yesterday" and so many others.
There's something to be said about the artistic power of the Beatles. While George
might have blossomed after the group's breakup, I don't think John OR Paul
were well-served by it from an artistic point of view. To expect Paul to do as
well as a solo artiste as he did being part of one of the most inventive rock groups of
all time is, IMO, to expect too much.
>
>As far as Paul's personality, as a teenager, I was taken in by his act.
>John didn't fool anyone, nor did he try to.
Oh, come on. John never fooled anyone all those years he was a Beatle or even
as a solo artiste? I guess the act worked better on you than it did on me...
>Paul did. When I started reading biographies, I was greatly disappointed.
When you believe that anyone is perfect, you're bound to be disappointed.
>Artist after artist with whom Paul worked has commented on his need to be "the boss",
>to dominate.
Of course, Paul McCartney is the first and only artist who's ever been bossy.
>This trait was evident in the 50s and continues to this day.
>George, Ringo and John had the professional wisdom to work with
>people as good as or better than they were. Paul obviously prefers to
>work with lesser talented people (such as Linda and James). Can you
>imagine Paul working with Eric Clapton, as George and John have?
Yeah, Paul ought to work with people like Stevie Wonder, Michael Jackson,
David Gilmour, Jeff Porcaro...
>
>As far as Paul and Linda working together, Denny Laine recalls Linda
>literally crying and wanting to quit Wings: "She told me over and over
>again that she did not want to be in Wings.... But Paul wanted her
>there.... He wouldn't allow her to leave." Paul said that he needed her
>onstage "...for my confidence. That was really the major poin." I doubt
>Yoko had similar misgivings!
Yoko talks about John wanting her around constantly from the White Album
sessions onwards...
>
>Peter Webb, producer of "Give My Regards to Broadstreet", had
>this to say of working with Paul: "A little difficult? It was one of the
>most horrible experiences of my life."
>
Richard Lester apparently had a different experience.
>Even when he does work with his musical equals, Paul exercises a
>profound need to dominate. Carl Davis wrote the orchestration and a
>good deal of the harmonic structure to "Paul McCartney's Liverpool
>Oratorio" (the full title). You'd never guess by the title, would you?
>As Davis said: "[Paul's] used to being the boss."
While Davis was indeed put off by the work's title, he understood why
Paul felt the need to use that title: because some people would believe
he had very little to do with the piece. In fact, Carl Davis went so far
as to say if Paul knew how to read music, he would have had no need
to use a collaborator for that piece...
>
>Though Paul was with Wings for about as long as he was with the
>Beatles, Denny Laine, et al. were never more than hired hands who
>were paid minimum scale wages. "Mull of Kintyre" was written by
>Paul and Denny and, in 1986, was the biggest selling single ever in
>England, outselling "She Loves You". Does Denny get a cent from
>that? No, Paul gets it all. Granted, Denny agreed to sell Paul the
>publishing rights to *all* songs written by them for Wings for L90,000;
>but Denny, suffering a financial disaster, was desperate. Some may
>applaud this as a smart business deal on Paul's part. Doesn't seem
>humanely ethical to me. Sounds rather like what Michael Jackson
>and Sony did to Paul and John's music. Even worse considering that
>Paul and Denny worked as a together for 10 years.
Paul's deal with Denny doesn't seem unethical to me, unless he twisted Denny's
arm to get him to sign the paper. And admit it, would you have picked
"Mull of Kintyre" to have become the best-selling single in England of all
time? I didn't think so... As for Michael Jackson, let's examine what he did:
paid a lot of money to buy shares of a publicly-traded company. What's
unethical about that? Besides, who do you think gave him the idea?
>
>Linda says that, as with any married couple, they have their fights.
>However, Paul can "definitely be quite horrible" because he "knows
>how he wants things and gets angry when they are not done properly."
No other wife could say the same about her husband...
>
>Well, I could go on, but that's more than enough.
It certainly is...
> Flame away!
Hopefully, you'll consider this a reasoned response as opposed to a vitriolic
flame. If not, then phooey on you :)
>
>All of the above is from "Paul McCartney: Behind the Myth" by Ross
>Benson.
And we all know that authors never have agenda, especially when they write
books subtitled "Behind The Myth"...
huzzlewhat
> :>In addition, Paul has worked with Chet Atkins, Michael Jackson, Phil
> :>Collins, Pete Townsend, Floyd Cramer, Carlos Alomar, Elvis Costello,
> :>Hugh Padgam, Phil Ramone, and Dave Gilmour.
> :
> :Not to mention Allen Ginsberg -- not known for his musicianship, but a
> :phenomenal figure in American poetry. (I haven't heard the Ginsberg
> :collaboration. Any reviews?)
>
> With the exception of Michael Jackson, these were all one-time
> collaborations. Please correct me if I'm wrong; I'm going half by
> memory and half by skimming through discographies.
I don't know about the others, but the collaboration with Costello is
ongoing. Also, McCartney worked with Allen Ginsberg on his CD The
Ballad of the Skeletons, and was invited back for Ginsberg's Unplugged
performance, which was cancelled, sadly, due to Ginsberg's death.
d.
>Amaranth56 wrote:
>> jge...@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu (James Geren) writes:
>>
>> :djs writes:
>
>> :>In addition, Paul has worked with Chet Atkins, Michael Jackson, Phil
>> :>Collins, Pete Townsend, Floyd Cramer, Carlos Alomar, Elvis Costello,
>> :>Hugh Padgam, Phil Ramone, and Dave Gilmour.
>> :
>> :Not to mention Allen Ginsberg -- not known for his musicianship, but a
>> With the exception of Michael Jackson, these were all one-time
>> collaborations. Please correct me if I'm wrong...
>I don't know about the others, but the collaboration with Costello is
>ongoing. Also, McCartney worked with Allen Ginsberg on his CD The
>Ballad of the Skeletons, and was invited back for Ginsberg's Unplugged
>performance, which was cancelled, sadly, due to Ginsberg's death.
Some more "more-than-one-time"-ers:
Phil Ramone (one of the engineers on "Ram;" worked extensively with
McCartney 1985-1987 as producer)
Pete Townshend (appears on two tracks off "Back to the Egg" as part of
Rockestra and appeared live with Rockestra at the Concert For Kampuchea; in
1986 played on the "Press To Play" LP; also participated briefly in "Oobu
Joobu")
Dave Gilmour (also a part of Rockestra; in the mid-80's recorced several
tracks with McCartney and producer David Foster, including "We Got Married"
and "I Love This House")
djs
I just thought that the comment along the lines that Paul has always
surrounded himself with people less talented than himself, whereas the
other three surrounded themselves with more talented people was
ludicrous.
The example given was George and John working with Eric Clapton. For one
thing, he is more of a myth, than a truly great guitarist (and certainly
not more innovative than George). Secondly, when he did appear on
ex-Beatles albums he was always given a limited role (usually a solo) on
the songs. Whereas, when Paul has collaborated, it was usually a full
collaboration on the writing and performance of the song.
Even if Paul did surround himself with inferior musicians (which I don't
believe), certainly a case can made that the other three were using
people like Jim Keltner, Jesse Ed Davis, Cheap Trick (!), Tony Levin,
Willie Weeks, Tom Scott, and the wonderful Eric Clapton because they
were not talented enough to pull it off without those guys.
Sure Paul lost the objectivety that John or George Martin infused into
his creative process, but members of Wings were hardly inferior. More
likely, they were awe struck. But then, I'm sure that ANYONE except a
genius on the level of the Beatles (say Stevie Wonder) would be
awestruck. Does anyone really think that John's and George's bands were
not awestruck? Listen toi the "Double Fantasy" boots. Those guys break
into Beatles songs constantly.
HSauertieg
That Paul works with musicians "inferior" to him as simply the price he
pays for
being so talented.
I don't believe that George always works with superior talents--in the
realm of songwriting, at least, he tended to work by himself, especially
after the Beatles broke up. On his own albums he nearly always handles
the guitars, lead and rhythm roles included.
John deserves some credit for working with a lot of competent but
relatively anonymous musicians when he could have played with anyone in
the world; this I think because he did work with Zappa, Clapton, Bowie,
Elton J., when each was at a career peak. These occasions never turned
into extended "collaborations." John's major collaborators were Paul,
first, and then Yoko. Of course he always had a little help from his
friends. He deserves more credit for being wise enough to rope in Ringo
for JL/POB. On that album Ringo is perfectly in synch with the drive of
the songs.
Howard Sauertieg (HSaue...@aol.com)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
("Thank Heaven I did not bring Caesar that huge crab I also caught!")
Rock and Real Memories Corp.
On 23 May 1997 19:23:40 GMT, "Jeff Mills" <jmi...@awod.com> wrote:
>
>
>Ray Martinez <wave...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
><5m06fq$2...@camel2.mindspring.com>...
>>
>> >On 17 May 1997 10:11:23 GMT, clt...@aol.com (Cltbeat) wrote:
>> >
>> >Paul is still an arrogant perfectionist. It's his way or no way. Why
>do
>> >you think he insists on having family members working for him (Linda,
>> >James and Mary)? Perhaps it was his thick, impenetrable armor of
>> >charm, diplomacy and cuteness that prevented him from developing as
>> >much as the others did (stress *as much as*). Perhaps he fooled
>> >himself almost as much as he fooled us. Witness the superficial and
>> >vapid questions chosen for the recent online chat. How much has he
>> >really changed?
>>
>>
>> I *totally* agree with this paragraph. Hit the nail on the head.
>> (and in answer to your last question, 'not much'.)
>
> The simple fact of the matter is that no matter what Paul does and no
>matter how hard he tries to please people with a new lp, there are some
>people out there who hold this grudge against him and they will not back
>off of it.
> Perhaps Paul wanted to make a laid-back album involving family members for
>the fun of it. He is not under any pressure to release an album and while
>on the heels of "Anthology" made an album which sounds like the most fun he
>has had on an album in years.
> John once said that he and Yoko wanted to be together at all times.
>Working together and living together, not just seeing each other on
>weekends. Maybe Paul feels the same way about his wife and his kids. So
>using your logic, I guess John shouldn't have done that little duet with
>Julian at the end of "Walls and Bridges" and never should have worked with
>Yoko.
> The fact is that you, for whatever reason, dislike Paul McCartney
>personally and hold this bias against him and no matter what he does you
>will hate it. It looks to me like Paul HAS grown up like the rest of the
>Beatles. Paul isn't the one who needs to mature, you do.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> -Ray
>>
>>
Gt794020
he also worked with Stevie Wonder on "Tug of War".