Pink Floyd star Dave Gilmour says Paul McCartney is a tight-wad
Lance
By Mark Reynolds
10 February 2004
Pssst...His own daughter once famously described him as 'a tight
bastard'.
Now Sir Paul McCartney's generosity has been questioned again, by
fellow veteran rocker Dave Gilmour.
Gilmour recently donated £3.6million to the 'urban village' project of
the homelessness charity Crisis.
The 58-year- old Pink Floyd star said he had more money than he knew
what to do with and that giving huge amounts to charity therefore made
sense.
He went on to chastise the former Beatle for not giving more of his
vast fortune to good causes.
' I am supposed to have £80million, according to the Rich List,' he
said.
'£3million is just a fraction of what the project is going to cost and
it needs people with serious money to help out.
'My friend Paul McCartney is meant to have more than £500million.
' The way he lives you can understand where £100million goes.
' But I have no idea what he does with the other £ 400million. That's
a crazy amount of money and nobody needs it.'
In fact, 61-year-old Sir Paul's wealth is more accurately put at
around £713million.
Gilmour, who with Roger
Waters was the songwriting talent behind Pink Floyd for 35 years, is
close enough to Sir Paul to have attended his wedding to Heather Mills
last year.
His barbed comments might strike a chord with Sir Paul's fashion
designer daughter Stella, who described her father as 'a tight
bastard' for sending her to a comprehensive school.
Three years ago, Sir Paul threw a birthday party for Heather where
guests had to pay for their own drinks at the bar.
On another occasion, he presented a workman with a gift of one bottle
of beer brewed on his East Sussex estate. It did not go down very
well.
The star did, however, pass on $1million last year to one good cause -
the landmines charity run by his wife - after earning it in one night.
The Crisis project aims to build 400 homes for down-andouts and
low-income workers in London.
Despite Gilmour's generosity, it is still £50million short of the
fund-raising total required.
Sir Paul declined to comment on Gilmour's remarks.
---------------------------------
Reprinted from
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/showbiz/articles/9063842?source=Daily%20Mail
---------------------------------
=================================
http://www.beatlemania.ca
The Gunslinger
> 'Macca should donate more'
> By Mark Reynolds
> 10 February 2004
>
dont' feel compelled to give away vast amounts out of social pressure! Keep
your money Sir Paul and ROLL in it!
Runnnerr
anything?
One might also criticize Dave Gilmour for not giving away more of his money.
>Subject: Re: Pink Floyd star Dave Gilmour says Paul McCartney is a tight-wad
>From: "The Gunslinger" guns_...@darktower.com
>Date: 2/15/2004 1:45 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <eAEXb.23210$1S1....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>
MacBeatle
> 'Macca should donate more'
> By Mark Reynolds
> 10 February 2004
>
> Pssst...His own daughter once famously described him as 'a tight
> bastard'.
Go Stella...
That would be the Birthday party. Noted in rmb...
> On another occasion, he presented a workman with a gift of one bottle
> of beer brewed on his East Sussex estate. It did not go down very
> well.
>
> The star did, however, pass on $1million last year to one good cause -
> the landmines charity run by his wife - after earning it in one night.
>
Uh huh
> The Crisis project aims to build 400 homes for down-andouts and
> low-income workers in London.
>
> Despite Gilmour's generosity, it is still £50million short of the
> fund-raising total required.
>
> Sir Paul declined to comment on Gilmour's remarks.
>
> ---------------------------------
> Reprinted from
> http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/showbiz/articles/9063842?source=Daily%20Mail
>
> ---------------------------------
> =================================
> http://www.beatlemania.ca
Instant Karma, Fatface...
JLW44
>
Go to his website if you need to know about all that he has given away. May not
be your charities of choice but then why should it be.
MƸĿX
> His barbed comments might strike a chord with Sir Paul's fashion
> designer daughter Stella, who described her father as 'a tight
> bastard' for sending her to a comprehensive school.
I guess Stella is more into his dad's money than Paul himself...
> Three years ago, Sir Paul threw a birthday party for Heather where
> guests had to pay for their own drinks at the bar.
Cool! Heather should have offered the drinks herself, if she wanted
to...
These rich kids shoud learn how to make their own income, not counting
on dad's...
--
"E si arrangi chi ha paura del caviale"
'Nel Ghetto' - A.Radius.
McLesh
>> Three years ago, Sir Paul threw a birthday party for Heather where
>> guests had to pay for their own drinks at the bar.
>
>Cool! Heather should have offered the drinks herself, if she wanted
>to...
>These rich kids shoud learn how to make their own income, not counting
>on dad's...
>
Ummm, it was his wife Heather (though girlfriend at the time). Not his daughter
Heather.
Rich people should learn how to throw parties.
From Me To You
ultra-fantastic "When I'm Sixty-Four" Tour!
Then Paul will be giving to us all more than can be had by money alone even if
the tickets cost an arm and a leg!
Paul has given to us all and always will... Big Time!
·.·´¨ ¨)) -:|:-
¸.·´ .·´¨¨))
The Beatles
((¸¸.·´ ..·´
-:|:- ((¸¸ ·.·
From Me To You
>> Three years ago, Sir Paul threw a birthday party for Heather where
>> guests had to pay for their own drinks at the bar.
It may seem selfish, but I imagine Paul would have left himself open to huge
lawsuits by anyone who might have been hurt because they had been drinking
going home from the party.
mike constantine
"From Me To You" <alla...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040215111940...@mb-m24.aol.com...
That doesn't make any sense. If the tickets cost an arm and a leg, that's
what's paying for the tour. If the shows were free, maybe you'd have a
point.
mike constantine
Right...just like the thousands of lawsuits filed each weekend from angry
wedding reception attendees....
Tony
Howard Stern couldn't believe that Paul didn't own a jet.
BlackMonk
>
> >> Three years ago, Sir Paul threw a birthday party for Heather where
> >> guests had to pay for their own drinks at the bar.
>
> It may seem selfish, but I imagine Paul would have left himself open to
huge
> lawsuits by anyone who might have been hurt because they had been drinking
> going home from the party.
>
If he were worried about that, he would have made it an alcohol-free party.
Charging for drinks doesn't give him immunity from reponsibility, though it
might help pay the legal fees.
dlarsson
> IMHO, this only increases my esteem of Sir Paul, I love rich people who
> dont' feel compelled to give away vast amounts out of social pressure!
Keep
> your money Sir Paul and ROLL in it!
In other words, in your view, greed is good
and charity is bad.
This will make the world better place?
Think again .....
- Derek
================================
EMail: derek_...@comcast.net
================================
MacBeatle
> >rom: matteoa1963@jumpy.i
>
> >> Three years ago, Sir Paul threw a birthday party for Heather where
> >> guests had to pay for their own drinks at the bar.
> >
> >Cool! Heather should have offered the drinks herself, if she wanted
> >to...
> >These rich kids shoud learn how to make their own income, not counting
> >on dad's...
> >
>
> Ummm, it was his wife Heather (though girlfriend at the time). Not his daughter
> Heather.
>
But she's younger than Mary, who *is* a kid... a kid who never
criticizes Dad. She's cool... whereas Stella is Hot-t-t-t-t!
> Rich people should learn how to throw parties.
I can't believe how many rmb regs are so quick to apologise for P's
incredible tightwadness.
It's not just the charities, it's a birthday party for his fiancee
where they charged for drinks. It goes all the way back to taking
Linda's credit cards away. He's just not a generous person. That's
fine, but how many hundreds of millions will he have to be worth
before he relaxes and makes a major gift, as Bill Gates has done, to a
real charity. I'm not taking the time to go to his website (as if
everything on that site was true - not like other websites which are
just advertising disguised as PR, marketing a product.
frannie
McLesh
>>> guests had to pay for their own drinks at the bar.
>
> It may seem selfish, but I imagine Paul would have left himself open to
huge
>lawsuits by anyone who might have been hurt because they had been drinking
>going home from the party.
>
OK. You're just yanking our chain now.
NotMeAtAll
"MacBeatle" <waro...@yahoo.com> . It goes all the way back to taking
> Linda's credit cards away.
That's a new one.....
I always saw them as a happy couple...?
Is that why you're so happy after the 36 years without Paul....??
NotMeAtAll
"MacBeatle" <waro...@yahoo.com>
It goes all the way back to taking
> Linda's credit cards away. > frannie
Is that the period when they lived in a Lumberyard in Scotland?? And they
lived on her money after Apple stopped his money..?
MƸĿX
> I can't believe how many rmb regs are so quick to apologise for P's
> incredible tightwadness.
I think it's not easy to raise your own kids and not spoil them if you
are as rich as Paul Mc Cartney; I think it's pretty fair for the kids to
just get the same amount of money we - normal people - give our
kids/receive from our parents.
I guess he tried to teach them how to build their own career, no matter
what their surname is, so Stella's comment on her dad sounds really bad,
seems like she is the one who wanted rich and posh schools and to live
in a luxury world, much more than Paul himself.
Mister Charlie
"M鈄?鈄徠'酶X" <matte...@jumpy.it> wrote in message
news:1g97zr3.4elegm5p5qwN%matte...@jumpy.it...
> MacBeatle <waro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I can't believe how many rmb regs are so quick to apologise for P's
> > incredible tightwadness.
>
imagined slight.
That said, he's been known as tight with a tuppence since the 60's, it's
no revelation.
Opticreep
> what to do with and that giving huge amounts to charity therefore made
> sense.
>
> He went on to chastise the former Beatle for not giving more of his
> vast fortune to good causes.
>
Maybe Paul is saving up a few hundred million pounds so he can
purchase back control of Beatles Music from the clutches of Jacko?
In that situation, Gilmour would be wrong in saying Paul has more
money than he knew what to do with ;)
mike constantine
"McLesh" <mcl...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20040215151439...@mb-m07.aol.com...
Heh
JLW44
>It's not just the charities, it's a birthday party for his fiancee
>where they charged for drinks.
tabloid
>It goes all the way back to taking
>Linda's credit cards away. H
hearsay
> That's
>fine, but how many hundreds of millions will he have to be worth
>before he relaxes and makes a major gift, as Bill Gates has done, to a
>real charity.
LIPA
>I'm not taking the time to go to his website (as if
>everything on that site was true - not like other websites which are
>just advertising disguised as PR, marketing a product.
>
firsthand experience?
The Bee Tells
anything?
There is no obligation, there is only conscience.
>One might also criticize Dave Gilmour for not giving away more of his money.
He has. Many times.
Runnnerr
have clear and easy consciences.
You want to tell us what percentage of your money you give away to others?
>Subject: Re: Pink Floyd star Dave Gilmour says Paul McCartney is a tight-wad
>From: thebe...@aol.com (The Bee Tells)
>Date: 2/16/2004 2:36 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <20040216023646...@mb-m11.aol.com>
MacBeatle
> >
>
> >It goes all the way back to taking
> >Linda's credit cards away. H
>
> hearsay
>
Oh no, dear. I got it straight from the witness, Blair Sabol, who went
to high school with Lin. It happened, all right.
> > That's
> >fine, but how many hundreds of millions will he have to be worth
> >before he relaxes and makes a major gift, as Bill Gates has done, to a
> >real charity.
>
> LIPA
>
LOL! That's peanuts, to a small institution.
> >I'm not taking the time to go to his website (as if
> >everything on that site was true - not like other websites which are
> >just advertising disguised as PR, marketing a product.
> >
>
> firsthand experience?
Lots!
MacBeatle
> I admire Paul for his austerity.
> Howard Stern couldn't believe that Paul didn't own a jet.
Why should he?
Furthermore, who cares where Fatface's money is invested? He earns
about a gazillion dollars a year by just *existing*... how much money
do you figure he's gonna accumulate before somebody asks him the big
question:
So what did you mean by "Can't Buy Me Love" eh, mate?
frannie or schwartz
http://homepage.mac.com/fabela913/PhotoAlbum26.html
FIVE MORE DAYS of all new Beatles scans from 1968 plus related docs
SPECIAL FOR rmb!
Check it out now before I take it down for another ten years!
fhs
JLW44
>to high school with Lin. It happened, all right.
LOL. SHe had no bone to pick did she.
>LOL! That's peanuts, to a small institution.
Maybe to you, but not to the many that attend and the boost it has given to the
city. Not to mention the health care centers he kept open, the vegetarian
causes, the landmine awareness, etc. Again maybe not your cup of tea, but then
it doesn't have to be.
JLW44
>about a gazillion dollars a year by just *existing*... how much money
>do you figure he's gonna accumulate before somebody asks him the big
>question:
>
>So what did you mean by "Can'
And of course the same is true of Yoko. How many more apartments could she
possibly need all by her lonesome? And whatever else she is accumulating. Or
are you going to say, she gives it all away? Hardly. SHe is in competition with
your Fatface on the who can get more money scale. SHe was recently asked that
question as well and said she is at least as rich as Paul. It matters a lot to
her.
Phred
>
> Maybe Paul is saving up a few hundred million pounds so he can
> purchase back control of Beatles Music from the clutches of Jacko?
>
Well worth saving for and money well spent. It'd be nice if he could
pull it off. With a few hundred million left for a rainy day.
Rich Forman
> > By Mark Reynolds
> > 10 February 2004
> >
> > Pssst...His own daughter once famously described him as 'a tight
> > bastard'.
>
> Go Stella...
>
Another pattern I've noticed over the long run about your posts is,
anybody who disses, insults, criticizes or flames McCartney is
automatically A-OK and one of the truly hip in your book.
richforman
Rich Forman
> > I admire Paul for his austerity.
> > Howard Stern couldn't believe that Paul didn't own a jet.
>
> Why should he?
>
> Furthermore, who cares where Fatface's money is invested? He earns
> about a gazillion dollars a year by just *existing*... how much money
> do you figure he's gonna accumulate before somebody asks him the big
> question:
>
> So what did you mean by "Can't Buy Me Love" eh, mate?
I don't get it. I think it's pretty clear what he meant, I understood
the song when I was just a little kid. I mean, sure, it's a kind of
tritely sweet sentiment, not exactly profound and doesn't purport to
be...it's just a pop song (a damn good one IMO!).
Anyway, I agree, who cares about Paul's money, how much he has or what
he does with it? (Only someone with a preexisting virulent disdain
for the man would bring it up, seems to me.) And who knows the answer
anyway? Not Dave Gilmour, not Frannie, not Stella, and none of us,
only Paul and his accountants etc. Anyway not nice of Dave to snipe
at Macca - Paul has gone out of his way to cite him as one of his top
favorite guitar players.
richforman
Rich Forman
> > I admire Paul for his austerity.
> > Howard Stern couldn't believe that Paul didn't own a jet.
>
> Why should he?
>
> Furthermore, who cares where Fatface's money is invested? He earns
> about a gazillion dollars a year by just *existing*... how much money
> do you figure he's gonna accumulate before somebody asks him the big
> question:
>
> So what did you mean by "Can't Buy Me Love" eh, mate?
I don't get it. I think it's pretty clear what he meant, I understood
the song when I was just a little kid. I mean, sure, it's a kind of
tritely sweet sentiment, not exactly profound and doesn't purport to
be...it's just a pop song (a damn good one IMO!).
Anyway, I agree, who cares about Paul's money, how much he has or what
he does with it? (Only someone with a preexisting virulent disdain
for the man would bring it up, seems to me.) And who knows the answer
anyway? Not Dave Gilmour, not Frannie, not Stella, and none of us,
only Paul and his accountants etc. Anyway not nice of Dave to snipe
at Macca - Paul has gone out of his way to cite him as one of his top
favorite guitar players.
richforman
>
JLW44
>at Macca - Paul has gone out of his way to cite him as one of his top
>favorite guitar players.
>
>richforman
Dave and Paul have played together on numerous occasions , including several of
Paul's 80' s tracks(no more lonely nights, we got married, and a few others)
and more recently on the whole Run Devil Run album including live performances
on many shows and the Peta benefit in 1999 and also the Cavern Club show. He
was also a guest at Paul's wedding.
kevlang
>
> In other words, in your view, greed is good
> and charity is bad.
>
> This will make the world better place?
>
> Think again .....
>
>
>
> - Derek
So if giving to Friends of the Earth, PETA, LIPA and the land mind
charities aren't enough, should we look at how much of John's fortune
has been given to charity? How much of George's money he collected
actually made it to Bangladesh? What's Ringo's charity?
Kevin L.
Was it a millionaire who said "imagine no possessions"?
A poor little schoolboy who said "we don't need no lessons"?
-Elvis Costello
MacBeatle
That's bullshit and you know it.
Mister Charlie
"MacBeatle" <waro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:23e30c12.04021...@posting.google.com...
It's absolute truth and YOU know it. At least, everyone else does.
Olompali4
Rich Forman
> > >
>
>
> > >It goes all the way back to taking
> > >Linda's credit cards away. H
> >
> > hearsay
> >
>
> Oh no, dear. I got it straight from the witness, Blair Sabol, who went
> to high school with Lin. It happened, all right.
>
> > > That's
> > >fine, but how many hundreds of millions will he have to be worth
> > >before he relaxes and makes a major gift, as Bill Gates has done, to a
> > >real charity.
> >
> > LIPA
> >
>
> LOL! That's peanuts, to a small institution.
>
Paul's charitable contributions and involvement with music education
for Liverpool children aren't worth anything IYO? Nor his campaining
for animal rights, vegetarianism, the environment and landmines no
doubt, or his contributions to NYC police and firemen and their
families post-9/11. It can all be cynically dismissed once
interpreted through the prism of your very objective anti-Mac
perceptions. Enough with the LOL's already.
richforman
Danny Caccavo
rfor...@optonline.net (Rich Forman) wrote:
Well, that's the popular thing to do. Deify someone because of a
romantic notion of the tortured artist, pain, suffering, then on the
threshold of re-emergence - death. Stuff of Legends, right? But hey,
let's tear down the surviving half of the team. Sure, John wasn't
"tight" like Paul - he had nothing to do with his own finances. Sure,
John's the "cool" one, 'cause he mouthed off to everybody, sure, easy to
forgive what an asshole he was, 'cause he was COOL, man. Mean? Sure,
but he was funny, so that's ok. Paul? Not the "cool" one. Never could
figure out how to talk to an audience. How DARE he survive, how DARE he
be one of the worlds's richest, how dare he suggest that he might have
had as much to do with The Beatles as John did - the nerve!
<g>
May Paul remain healthy and alive.
dc
Danny Caccavo
waro...@yahoo.com (MacBeatle) wrote:
> mcl...@aol.comnojunk (McLesh) wrote in message
> news:<20040215105433...@mb-m28.aol.com>...
> > >rom: matteoa1963@jumpy.i
> >
> > >> Three years ago, Sir Paul threw a birthday party for Heather where
> > >> guests had to pay for their own drinks at the bar.
> > >
> > >Cool! Heather should have offered the drinks herself, if she wanted
> > >to...
> > >These rich kids shoud learn how to make their own income, not counting
> > >on dad's...
> > >
> >
> > Ummm, it was his wife Heather (though girlfriend at the time). Not his
> > daughter
> > Heather.
> >
>
> But she's younger than Mary, who *is* a kid... a kid who never
> criticizes Dad. She's cool... whereas Stella is Hot-t-t-t-t!
>
> > Rich people should learn how to throw parties.
>
> I can't believe how many rmb regs are so quick to apologise for P's
> incredible tightwadness.
>
> It's not just the charities, it's a birthday party for his fiancee
> where they charged for drinks. It goes all the way back to taking
> Linda's credit cards away. He's just not a generous person. That's
> fine, but how many hundreds of millions will he have to be worth
> before he relaxes and makes a major gift, as Bill Gates has done, to a
> real charity. I'm not taking the time to go to his website (as if
> everything on that site was true - not like other websites which are
> just advertising disguised as PR, marketing a product.
>
> frannie
What does it say that you know in full detail everything that Paul has
done wrong since 1968?
What's in it for you?
dc
D.T. Smith
One would hope so.
MacBeatle
Ah, the arbiter of Absolute Truth has spoken again! And you speak for
everyone else, as well...
Could you possibly be any *more* pathetic, Charlie?????
Francie
http://homepage.mac.com/fabela913/PhotoAlbum26.html
ALL NEW SCANS OF BEATLES (some with me)
ESPECIALLY FOR RMB
Five days remaining, then...
Mister Charlie
MacBeatle
> > Sha...@webtv.net (Tony) wrote in message news:<9805-402...@storefull-3191.bay.webtv.net>...
> > > I admire Paul for his austerity.
> > > Howard Stern couldn't believe that Paul didn't own a jet.
> >
> > Why should he?
> >
> > Furthermore, who cares where Fatface's money is invested? He earns
> > about a gazillion dollars a year by just *existing*... how much money
> > do you figure he's gonna accumulate before somebody asks him the big
> > question:
> >
> > So what did you mean by "Can't Buy Me Love" eh, mate?
>
> I don't get it. I think it's pretty clear what he meant, I understood
> the song when I was just a little kid. I mean, sure, it's a kind of
> tritely sweet sentiment, not exactly profound and doesn't purport to
> be...it's just a pop song (a damn good one IMO!).
>
> Anyway, I agree, who cares about Paul's money, how much he has or what
> he does with it?
(Only someone with a preexisting virulent disdain
> for the man would bring it up, seems to me.)
Are you accusing Lance of "virulent disdain"??? Because all he did was
post one current article from the Liverpool Echo, which we all know
was the first newspaper to publish a Beatle... George. Ghosted by
Derek Taylor.
And who knows the answer
> anyway? Not Dave Gilmour, not Frannie, not Stella, and none of us,
> only Paul and his accountants etc. Anyway not nice of Dave to snipe
> at Macca - Paul has gone out of his way to cite him as one of his top
> favorite guitar players.
>
> richforman
>
>
BFD, rich. BFD. You need to accuse people of "virulent disdain" (is
that anything like typhoid?) simply because they are finally saying
what so many of Paul's friends and acquaintances have known for about
30 years... that he is tighter than most people... and for one of the
richest men in the world, he has given a pittance to charity. His
visible support for Linda's charity has dried up, as he is now
enchanted by landmine removal, his wife's "I wanna be like Di" pet
charity.
I think it's amazing that you persist in attacking me as a person for
telling what I (and apparently Stella and Dave) just plain KNOW...
apparently, you can't handle the truth.
MacBeatle
Well then I guess he drew his own conclusions about King Miser...
Teddy
Charlie, it amazes me. But it's what she believes.
Howard Beale
"Danny Caccavo" <dcac...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:dcaccavo-A87D51...@comcast.ash.giganews.com...
> Well, that's the popular thing to do. Deify someone because of a
> romantic notion of the tortured artist, pain, suffering, then on the
> threshold of re-emergence - death. Stuff of Legends, right? But hey,
> let's tear down the surviving half of the team. Sure, John wasn't
> "tight" like Paul - he had nothing to do with his own finances. Sure,
> John's the "cool" one, 'cause he mouthed off to everybody, sure, easy to
> forgive what an asshole he was, 'cause he was COOL, man. Mean? Sure,
> but he was funny, so that's ok. Paul? Not the "cool" one. Never could
> figure out how to talk to an audience. How DARE he survive, how DARE he
> be one of the worlds's richest, how dare he suggest that he might have
> had as much to do with The Beatles as John did - the nerve!
>
> <g>
>
> May Paul remain healthy and alive.
Thank you Danny!
The Bee Tells
>have clear and easy consciences.
You don't follow logic very well, do you?
>You want to tell us what percentage of your money you give away to others?
Possibly about 25%. Imagine if a rich man did that.
The Bee Tells
Well, he won't be at the next one if he doesn't shut his mouth.
MacBeatle
> "Danny Caccavo" <dcac...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:dcaccavo-A87D51...@comcast.ash.giganews.com...
> > Well, that's the popular thing to do. Deify someone because of a
> > romantic notion of the tortured artist, pain, suffering, then on the
> > threshold of re-emergence - death. Stuff of Legends, right? But hey,
> > let's tear down the surviving half of the team.
Paul's done a pretty good job of tearing down the surviving historic
Beatles all by his lonesome.
He's the biggest liar of all when it comes to John Lennon.
And you know what? He's still in love with John. Still jealous of the
world's love for a guy who never hurt a flea and worked for peace...
yeah, Paul McCartney worshipped John like a God. And now he pisses on
John's grave and lies about his widow because it will never ever be
enough, the love he gets from fans will never be as large as the
world's love for John Lennon, and he will never achieve it and he
cannot steal it no matter how many lies he tells.
Francie Schwartz
http://homepage.mac.com/fabela913/PhotoAlbum26.html
EVIDENCE
johnny dupe
"MacBeatle" <waro...@yahoo.com> wrote
> And you know what? He's still in love with John. Still jealous of the
> world's love for a guy who never hurt a flea and worked for peace...
> yeah, Paul McCartney worshipped John like a God. And now he pisses on
> John's grave and lies about his widow because it will never ever be
> enough, the love he gets from fans will never be as large as the
> world's love for John Lennon, and he will never achieve it and he
> cannot steal it no matter how many lies he tells.
thats gonna get you some flames, frannie or schwartz. but you're used to
that with your no-holds-barred posting style.
i tend to agree that paul has delved into jerkland recently. i really am
disappointed that he turned out to be obsessed with money and fame, what
with the whole writing credit debacle. i just can't fathom how a
multimillionaire still seems to want more. good god, he's financially set
for life, anyone in his will is financially set for life. why oh why is
money an issue with him?
-john w.
www.johnnydupe.com
coming soon- renee zellweger!!!
M@tFox
> good god, he's financially set
> for life, anyone in his will is financially set for life. why oh why is
> money an issue with him?
Probably because in the very deep of his heart he's not happy...
--
"E si arrangi chi ha paura del caviale"
'Nel Ghetto' - A.Radius.
MacBeatle
> "MacBeatle" <waro...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> > And you know what? He's still in love with John. Still jealous of the
> > world's love for a guy who never hurt a flea and worked for peace...
> > yeah, Paul McCartney worshipped John like a God. And now he pisses on
> > John's grave and lies about his widow because it will never ever be
> > enough, the love he gets from fans will never be as large as the
> > world's love for John Lennon, and he will never achieve it and he
> > cannot steal it no matter how many lies he tells.
>
> thats gonna get you some flames, frannie or schwartz. but you're used to
> that with your no-holds-barred posting style.
>
Yup. I know. But I figured, whatthehell, you only live twice,
I may as well just sum it up in one graph and let the
Beatlemaniacs have a ball...
Stand back, Johnny! I think I hear hoofbeats!
> i tend to agree that paul has delved into jerkland recently. i really am
> disappointed that he turned out to be obsessed with money and fame, what
> with the whole writing credit debacle. i just can't fathom how a
> multimillionaire still seems to want more. good god, he's financially set
> for life, anyone in his will is financially set for life. why oh why is
> money an issue with him?
>
I think I put the answer on my CD (remember?) if it was a bit clumsily phrased.
Paul was so poor as a boy that he never really believed how rich he was
until it was too late - everybody around him is a paid employee. Everybody
says yes, Sir P, you're right, no matter what. And apparently, the beat goes
on. I read someplace that Heather recently bought some clothes from her
stepdaughter's store, and paid retail. Probably used "her own money" too...
I can't imagine P paying retail for Stella's stuff.
> -john w.
> www.johnnydupe.com
> coming soon- renee zellweger!!!
Renee... the mere mention of her cuteness's name
sets off the sounds of "Just Walk Away, Renee" in my
head and in my iTunes Library... were you
posting that as some sort of cryptic hint I should
take cover????
BlackMonk
> > > That's
> > >fine, but how many hundreds of millions will he have to be worth
> > >before he relaxes and makes a major gift, as Bill Gates has done, to a
> > >real charity.
> >
> >
>
On the other hand, Paul isn't trying to manipulate the CD market so that
every one is forced to buy his CDs and made to suffer if they buy anyone
else's CDs.
BlackMonk
"Danny Caccavo" <dcac...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:dcaccavo-A87D51...@comcast.ash.giganews.com...
> John's the "cool" one, 'cause he mouthed off to everybody, sure, easy to
> forgive what an asshole he was, 'cause he was COOL, man. Mean? Sure,
> but he was funny, so that's ok. Paul? Not the "cool" one. Never could
> figure out how to talk to an audience.
Sure, there are people like that. There are also those who build up Paul and
tear down John because Paul was having hits while John was doing weird stuff
with Yoko. Are you bothered by the people who attack John for the things he
did, as well? If you're going to defend Paul's right to do "My Love," you
have to defend John's right to do "Two Virgins."
Strabbo
66.1...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com:
> -john w.
> www.johnnydupe.com
> coming soon- renee zellweger!!!
An interview, or pictures?
Marty
Mister Charlie
Psychoanalysis of the century.
Mister Charlie
"johnny dupe" <du...@assassinatedpress.com> wrote in message
news:NJjYb.16750$_66....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
to do with it?
he's always been known as tight. This is not news.
Mister Charlie
news:<NJjYb.16750$_66.1...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
> > "MacBeatle" <waro...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >
> > > And you know what? He's still in love with John. Still jealous of
the
> > > world's love for a guy who never hurt a flea and worked for
peace...
> > > yeah, Paul McCartney worshipped John like a God. And now he pisses
on
> > > John's grave and lies about his widow because it will never ever
be
> > > enough, the love he gets from fans will never be as large as the
> > > world's love for John Lennon, and he will never achieve it and he
> > > cannot steal it no matter how many lies he tells.
> >
> > thats gonna get you some flames, frannie or schwartz. but you're
used to
> > that with your no-holds-barred posting style.
> >
>
> Yup. I know. But I figured, whatthehell, you only live twice,
> I may as well just sum it up in one graph and let the
> Beatlemaniacs have a ball...
>
> Stand back, Johnny! I think I hear hoofbeats!
Overblown martyr syndrome.
>
Mister Charlie
"BlackMonk" <Blac...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:c0t9kt$1bc1dc$1...@ID-133514.news.uni-berlin.de...
I agree with your premise but there is NO correlation between My Love
and 2 Virgins!
>
>
johnny dupe
"Mister Charlie" <smokerdu...@myway.com> wrote
>why oh why
> is
> > money an issue with him?
> >
> He earned it. What the hell business is it of any of us what he chooses
> to do with it?
>
> he's always been known as tight. This is not news.
But I think as the years go by, it either mellows him or it brings out an
even worse side. Time changes everything, I think, Charlie. As the years go
by, I think Paul has gotten worse with his behavior. I will admit clearly
that it all comes down to everyone's own ethics. I understand why you and
others may disagree with me. The way I view money and financial success is
pretty much "*enough is enough*).
Paul? You're rich. Please please please dont get arrogant about it.
John W.
www.johnnydupe.com
R.A.G. Seely
news:c0t92r$1c87ve$1...@ID-133514.news.uni-berlin.de:
:-) ... not to mention selling second-rate rip-offs of someone else's old
CDs in the first place ...
-= rags =-
--
To reply by email, use "@" not "__A@T__"
<rags AT math . mcgill . ca>
<http://www.math.mcgill.ca/rags>
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
BlackMonk
Sure there is. Both are recordings made by members of The Beatles because
that's the kind of thing they were interested in recording at the time.
Mister Charlie
>
> "Mister Charlie" <smokerdu...@myway.com> wrote
>
> >why oh why
> > is
> > > money an issue with him?
> > >
> > He earned it. What the hell business is it of any of us what he
chooses
> > to do with it?
> >
> > he's always been known as tight. This is not news.
>
> But I think as the years go by, it either mellows him or it brings out
an
> even worse side. Time changes everything, I think, Charlie. As the
years go
> by, I think Paul has gotten worse with his behavior.
But 'worse' is purely a subjective idea.
The way I view money and financial success is
> pretty much "*enough is enough*).
I agree. 100000 bucks would set me for life, I know how to live cheap.
>
> Paul? You're rich. Please please please dont get arrogant about it.
He's been full of himself since childhood. I don't think that's changed
or increased much.
Mister Charlie
The absolute vaguest of associations.
>
>
WizardGlik
>multimillionaire still seems to want more. good god, he's financially set
>for life, anyone in his will is financially set for life.
It's not about the money AT ALL, that's why he's a friggin' skin-flint. It's
more about how when you walk into a record store or head shop, there are John
Lennon tapestries, t-shirts, and posters, but none of Macca. He is worried
about his "legend" status versus Lennon's, so he has become bitter (and losing
a wife to cancer has to piss you off as well).
- Darren
Danny Caccavo
"BlackMonk" <Blac...@email.msn.com> wrote:
No, actually, I'm not a fan of Paul's solo stuff at all. I hate "My
Love"....yecch!
As far as the "right" to do something, they both had the right to
release crap - and did!
Very little by Lennon or McCartney after the Beatles broke up really
measures up to Beatles caliber, imho.
dc
Danny Caccavo
"Mister Charlie" <smokerdu...@myway.com> wrote:
Yeah, that's pretty funny. John would never hurt a flea and worked for
peace?
John went through a "peace" period. That's it, folks. It's not like he
devoted his life to it, like some would have us believe.
dc
Danny Caccavo
wizar...@aol.com (WizardGlik) wrote:
He's rightfully pissed off that all the legend-making has turned John
into "the rightful Beatle" in a lot of people's eyes. It seems to me
that Paul gave it a good amount of time before trying to set the record
straight - perhaps hoping that the legend-making would die out. But he
finally decided to try to set things straight.
Some would have us believe it's all lies, and that everything Yoko says
is true. The answer is probably somewhere inbetween the two.
dc
Danny Caccavo
"Mister Charlie" <smokerdu...@myway.com> wrote:
And I wouldn't have it any other way. It sure worked out well for The
Beatles.
dc
MacBeatle
> In article <c0tgtf$1c4kvo$1...@ID-63206.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> "Mister Charlie" <smokerdu...@myway.com> wrote:
>
> > "johnny dupe" <du...@assassinatedpress.com> wrote in message
> > news:%prYb.18922$_66....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> > >
> > > "Mister Charlie" <smokerdu...@myway.com> wrote
> > >
> > > >why oh why
> > > > is
> > > > > money an issue with him?
> > > > >
> > > > He earned it. What the hell business is it of any of us what he
> chooses
> > > > to do with it?
> > > >
> > > > he's always been known as tight. This is not news.
> > >
> > > But I think as the years go by, it either mellows him or it brings out
> an
> > > even worse side. Time changes everything, I think, Charlie. As the
> years go
> > > by, I think Paul has gotten worse with his behavior.
> >
> > But 'worse' is purely a subjective idea.
> >
Only if you have no moral code.
> >
> > >
> > > Paul? You're rich. Please please please dont get arrogant about it.
> >
> > He's been full of himself since childhood. I don't think that's changed
> > or increased much.
> >
> >
>
> And I wouldn't have it any other way. It sure worked out well for The
> Beatles.
>
> dc
Please explain: How does this work, exactly?
You wouldn't have it any other way... you mean Paul's being full of
himself, abstemious, and driven largely by the need to amass wealth
rather than the passion for music and art?
*What* worked out for the Beatles, exactly? They stopped recording as
the Beatles in 1968, privately, at least, and broke up after LIB. As
George put it, "We gave our nervous systems" (Anthology VHS).
Obviously, being a Beatle wasn't all it's cracked up to be.
A What If:
What if Paul, instead of hating Yoko from the getgo for coming between
himself and John, had rejoiced in his best buddy's finding the love of
his life?
F
http://homepage.mac.com/fabela913/PhotoAlbum26.html
FOUR DAYS ONLY
Beatles Evidence
Larry
bring her into the middle of everything all the time. I think the animosity
toward Yoko, at least at first, had very little to do with her as a person
but rather her and John's insistence that she be, in essence, part of the
Beatles' creative process. And given that, if I were a member of that band,
I would have hated her too.
And now of course, in so many things she has done since, she has shown
herself to be a not very nice, conniving person as well so there are more
reasons not to like her and to feel sorry for John being manipulated by her.
"MacBeatle" <waro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:23e30c12.04021...@posting.google.com...
>
BlackMonk
> In article <20040217225814...@mb-m12.aol.com>,
> wizar...@aol.com (WizardGlik) wrote:
>
> > >i just can't fathom how a
> > >multimillionaire still seems to want more. good god, he's financially
set
> > >for life, anyone in his will is financially set for life.
> >
> > It's not about the money AT ALL, that's why he's a friggin' skin-flint.
It's
> > more about how when you walk into a record store or head shop, there are
John
> > Lennon tapestries, t-shirts, and posters, but none of Macca. He is
worried
> > about his "legend" status versus Lennon's, so he has become bitter (and
losing
> > a wife to cancer has to piss you off as well).
> >
> > - Darren
>
> He's rightfully pissed off that all the legend-making has turned John
> into "the rightful Beatle" in a lot of people's eyes. It seems to me
> that Paul gave it a good amount of time before trying to set the record
> straight - perhaps hoping that the legend-making would die out. But he
> finally decided to try to set things straight.
>
Still, some of us don't take the legend-making seriously, but still wonder
why Paul bothers trying to "set things straight." (which really means doing
some legend-making of his own)
After all, you don't see interview after interview where Ray Davies says
stuff like "I was writing narrative and 3rd person songs long before
McCartney but he never gives me any credit for that" and as far as I know,
Brian Wilson never complained about being slighted by history, despite his
having a legitimate claim to that regarding the relative credit both he and
The Beatles get for being innovative. (That situation has been rectified in
recently years, but the cynic in me wonders how much of that was just Brian
being flavor of the month. I expect that in 10 years, things'll go back to
the way they used to be, there'll be a group of people, mostly musicians,
who go into a trance at the mention of his name, and there'll be a lot more
people who don't know anything beyond the surf hits.)
Mister Charlie
news:<dcaccavo-9307B2...@comcast.ash.giganews.com>...
> > In article <c0tgtf$1c4kvo$1...@ID-63206.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> > "Mister Charlie" <smokerdu...@myway.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "johnny dupe" <du...@assassinatedpress.com> wrote in message
> > > news:%prYb.18922$_66....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> > > >
> > > > "Mister Charlie" <smokerdu...@myway.com> wrote
> > > >
> > > > >why oh why
> > > > > is
> > > > > > money an issue with him?
> > > > > >
> > > > > He earned it. What the hell business is it of any of us what
he
> > chooses
> > > > > to do with it?
> > > > >
> > > > > he's always been known as tight. This is not news.
> > > >
> > > > But I think as the years go by, it either mellows him or it
brings out
> > an
> > > > even worse side. Time changes everything, I think, Charlie. As
the
> > years go
> > > > by, I think Paul has gotten worse with his behavior.
> > >
> > > But 'worse' is purely a subjective idea.
> > >
>
> Only if you have no moral code.
Well, you would know.
MacBeatle
> > > > But 'worse' is purely a subjective idea.
> >
> > Only if you have no moral code.
>
> Well, you would know.
Colossally stupid, uptight and boring Cherkle the unemployed has-been
radio guy posts another loser flame.
Gosh, you must be so proud of yourself! Eight posts in the past half
hour, and not a bit of Beatle spirit in even one of them!
T'ra, fuckface...
Strabbo
news:23e30c12.04021...@posting.google.com:
>> > He's been full of himself since childhood. I don't think that's
>> > changed or increased much.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> And I wouldn't have it any other way. It sure worked out well for
>> The Beatles.
>>
>> dc
>
> Please explain: How does this work, exactly?
It was 25% of what made the Beatles kick so much ass so successfully.
> You wouldn't have it any other way... you mean Paul's being full of
> himself, abstemious, and driven largely by the need to amass wealth
> rather than the passion for music and art?
Ah, you're stretching a bit here... yes, he's full of himself.
Abstemious? How is he abstemious? That aside, yes, he has the need to
amass wealth. But not at the expense of music and art.
When he was young, and furthest from having any wealth to speak of, he
made great art. As he got older, he continued to make great art. A lot
of what he does is driven by money (and he isn't riding solo in that
boat), but not all of it. And (I suspect) less so when he was with the
Beatles.
> *What* worked out for the Beatles, exactly? They stopped recording as
> the Beatles in 1968, privately, at least, and broke up after LIB. As
> George put it, "We gave our nervous systems" (Anthology VHS).
Are you saying that McCartney's nature changed dramatically from 63 to
69? His character?
> Obviously, being a Beatle wasn't all it's cracked up to be.
Like being an anything, it probably had its ups and downs.
> A What If:
>
> What if Paul, instead of hating Yoko from the getgo for coming between
> himself and John, had rejoiced in his best buddy's finding the love of
> his life?
It would have probably been better for everyone. Likewise, had John
chosen to not bring Yoko into the studio, it probably would have made
the situation less tense. Had they both allowed George more than 2 songs
per album, George would have been happier. Had they all recorded some
solo work, then returned to the Beatles for their best stuff, they might
have all been happier.
Everyone could have done something here and there to increase the
overall happiness.
Marty
Mister Charlie
"MacBeatle" <waro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:23e30c12.04021...@posting.google.com...
> "Mister Charlie" <smokerdu...@myway.com> wrote in message
news:<c0vv9i$1bs3js$1...@ID-63206.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> > "MacBeatle" <waro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:23e30c12.04021...@posting.google.com...
> > >
>
> > > > > But 'worse' is purely a subjective idea.
>
> > >
> > > Only if you have no moral code.
> >
> > Well, you would know.
>
> Colossally stupid, uptight and boring Cherkle the unemployed has-been
> radio guy posts another loser flame.
OK, yes, that remark of mine was superfluous and not necessary.
Nevertheless, your constant depictions of me (besides not bothering me
in the least) are inaccurate, and, in truth, much closer to your
situation.
>
> Gosh, you must be so proud of yourself! Eight posts in the past half
> hour, and not a bit of Beatle spirit in even one of them!
Ah you are now the arbiter of the Beatle's spirit? Man, that is a scary
thought!
From Me To You
>No, actually, I'm not a fan of Paul's solo stuff at all.
Not "at all"?
>Very little by Lennon or McCartney after the Beatles broke up really
>measures up to Beatles caliber, imho.
I don't care how "famous" you are, you're "humble opinion" sucks. Hopefully,
you're just having a bad day, Danny.
·.·´¨ ¨)) -:|:-
¸.·´ .·´¨¨))
The Beatles
((¸¸.·´ ..·´
-:|:- ((¸¸ ·.·
UsurperTom
>I don't care how "famous" you are, you're "humble opinion" sucks. Hopefully,
you're just having a bad day, Danny.
That's a rude way to disagree with somebody. Danny's not the first person here
to express this sentiment. I've said the same thing many times. Putting John,
Paul and George into the Rock 'N' Roll proves that Jann Wenner's Hall of Fame
is a joke.
Usurper
mike constantine
"From Me To You" <alla...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040218185627...@mb-m16.aol.com...
> dcac...@comcast.net wrote:
>
> >No, actually, I'm not a fan of Paul's solo stuff at all.
>
> Not "at all"?
>
> >Very little by Lennon or McCartney after the Beatles broke up really
> >measures up to Beatles caliber, imho.
>
> I don't care how "famous" you are, you're "humble opinion" sucks.
Hopefully,
> you're just having a bad day, Danny.
What the hell is that?....can't Danny have his opinion?
Teddy
Just luv it when the Brit talk comes in.
(falls about, larfing)
Oooohhhh, must pop round the shops so I can stuff meself back in me
bin up the old china plate an tell good John Bull 'ow I gave Mr. Paul
a good shag back when those were the days my friends....
Who Me
MacBeatle
> >> The Beatles.
> >>
> >> dc
> >
> > Please explain: How does this work, exactly?
>
successfully.
>
>
Paul's tightwadness? That wasn't what made the Beatles kick ass.
> > Me: You wouldn't have it any other way... you mean Paul's being full of
> > himself, abstemious, and driven largely by the need to amass wealth
> > rather than the passion for music and art?
>
> Marty: Ah, you're stretching a bit here... yes, he's full of himself.
> Abstemious? How is he abstemious? That aside, yes, he has the need to
> amass wealth. But not at the expense of music and art.
>
Marty, I'm sorry, but I think he *has* pursued fame itself, at the
expense of his music (since 1980) and art (since ALWAYS).
> When he was young, and furthest from having any wealth to speak of, he
> made great art.
You mean, when he was with The Beatles as they were.
Marty: As he got older, he continued to make great art.
Me: No... as he got older he continued to make art... very little of
it was great.
His paintings and poetry (oh boy) were terrible- esp when you compare
them to John and Yoko's art.
His music? I've listened to RDR and it doesn't come close to anything
he wrote as a Wing, much less as half of the songwriting team LENNON &
McCARTNEY. (Big letters for the original handshake agreement applying
to all Beatle songs.)
A lot
> of what he does is driven by money (and he isn't riding solo in that
> boat), but not all of it.
imo, since 1999, it's all about money, fame, and (shudder shudder)
Legacy.
>And (I suspect) less so when he was with the
> Beatles.
>
What I saw in 1968 was the beginning of a career in PR spin and the
deterioration of the four-way friendship that was the basis for the
greatest little rocknroll band in history... the harder Paul clung to
"the Beatles" as they once were, the faster the other three pushed
toward the End.
>
> > *What* worked out for the Beatles, exactly? They stopped recording as
> > the Beatles in 1968, privately, at least, and broke up after LIB. As
> > George put it, "We gave our nervous systems" (Anthology VHS).
>
> Are you saying that McCartney's nature changed dramatically from 63 to
> 69? His character?
>
No.
>
> > Obviously, being a Beatle wasn't all it's cracked up to be.
>
> Like being an anything, it probably had its ups and downs.
>
You said it, Marty. It *had* its ups and downs. That was a long long
time ago.
Paul could have stopped trying to be The UniBeatle in 1982; instead,
he started painting his faux expressionist paintings back then
(according to his interviews and press releases at the time of his
exhibit) and God only knows when he decided to try his hand at
"poetry" -- well... a lot of the poetry was verbatim lyrics, some of
which he had written with John.
>
> > A What If:
> >
> > What if Paul, instead of hating Yoko from the getgo for coming between
> > himself and John, had rejoiced in his best buddy's finding the love of
> > his life?
>
> It would have probably been better for everyone. Likewise, had John
> chosen to not bring Yoko into the studio, it probably would have made
> the situation less tense.
Right, except for one thing. As far as I could tell, the tension was
not about Yoko being there. It was about her being involved in the
creative process... which she *wasn't* - not at any sessions I
attended.
>Had they both allowed George more than 2 songs
> per album, George would have been happier.
Yes. Probably. But how commercially successful would the Beatles have
been with all that Eastern spirituality of George's? The stuff a lot
of people in this ng can't get?
Had they all recorded some
> solo work, then returned to the Beatles for their best stuff, they might
> have all been happier.
>
As I wrote in Body Count, John told me that the guys had thought of
this even before Brian died. He said (to my face) that it was going to
be called "Paul McCartney Goes Too Far" but that Paul was "too hung up
on us bein' Beatles."
> Everyone could have done something here and there to increase the
> overall happiness.
>
But Paul could have prevented the Beatles breakup if he had just
stopped being such a goddamn jerk.
That said, you're right, each of the Fabs had something to contribute
to the Breakup.
But imnsho, it was Paul's attitude that kept the four from reuniting
-- mainly his hatred of John's "jap tart".
>
>
> Marty
frannie
MacBeatle
> Dave Gilmour: Mind your own business.
What's the matter? Can't Gilmour express a personal opinion?
Mind your own business, fella!
Danny Caccavo
"BlackMonk" <Blac...@email.msn.com> wrote:
I don't think that's a proper comparison.
John did his own share of legend-making in the early 70s, trying to
rewrite what The Beatles were. Paul mostly stayed above that, with the
"oh, that's just John" attitude. They were both hurt by the breakup -
but the difference was that Paul knew it and kept low about it, and John
acted it out.
And since John's death, the legend making continued, but even more so.
I can certainly understand how Paul would want to set the record
straight. There are a lot of people like Derek L. out there, yer know!
dc
Danny Caccavo
Strabbo <str...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Problem is, any of this would have upset the space/time continuom! <g>
But a few comments -
Lots of folks like to say that George was repressed as a songwriter by
John and Paul because he only had one or two songs per album (with some
exceptions). I think that's nonsense - it was only in the last year of
The Beatles where he clearly started having more songs to contribute -
songs which ended up on ATMP. I doubt if George ever would have written
such good songs if it weren't for the pressure cooker of John and Paul.
Yes, there are a lot of "what ifs" - we'd all like to think about The
Beatles having gone on if it weren't for Apple, if it weren't for Brian
Epstein dying - but to speculate that somehow it would have all been
better if they had different personalities?? That's a pretty delicate
balance to upset. The chemistry was perfect - alter that, and we
probably would not have had such a great 7 year run.
dc
Danny Caccavo
Me, famous? What yardstick are you measuring THAT by? Jeez. Just
because I *almost* worked with him? <g>
As far as Paul's solo stuff, I can count on one hand the amount of songs
I really like on one hand - maybe. (or should I say, "maybe I'm amazed"
<g>). I certainly like more of John's solo stuff, but his overall output
ain't so hot either, IMNSHO.
Anyway, all opinions suck to a degree.
dc
Mister Charlie
"UsurperTom" <usurp...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040218193057...@mb-m10.aol.com...
Not necessarily. It simply means your criteria are different than
others.
>
>
Mister Charlie
>
> Yes, there are a lot of "what ifs" - we'd all like to think about The
> Beatles having gone on if it weren't for Apple, if it weren't for
Brian
> Epstein dying - but to speculate that somehow it would have all been
> better if they had different personalities?? That's a pretty delicate
> balance to upset. The chemistry was perfect - alter that, and we
> probably would not have had such a great 7 year run.
>
Strabbo
>> > Please explain: How does this work, exactly?
>>
>>(Marty) It was 25% of what made the Beatles kick so much ass so
> successfully.
>>
>
> Paul's tightwadness? That wasn't what made the Beatles kick ass.
No, but I think his ego (another trait mentioned) helped with the image
a bit.
>> > Me: You wouldn't have it any other way... you mean Paul's being
>> > full of himself, abstemious, and driven largely by the need to
>> > amass wealth rather than the passion for music and art?
>>
>> Marty: Ah, you're stretching a bit here... yes, he's full of himself.
>> Abstemious? How is he abstemious? That aside, yes, he has the need to
>> amass wealth. But not at the expense of music and art.
>>
>
> Marty, I'm sorry, but I think he *has* pursued fame itself, at the
> expense of his music (since 1980) and art (since ALWAYS).
I find it hard to separate the music from the art, myself. And I can't
believe that someone who could write 'Here There And Everywhere' or 'Let
It Be' could be money-hungry, at the expense of the art... those songs
are perfect art.
But even looking post 1980... he has still managed to produce some
material that is extremely non-commercial, and very much not in pursuit
of his fame: the Sound Collage, the Fireman stuff, the classical
experiments - even RDR stood little to no chance of being a commercial
success. Elvis didn't quite shatter the charts with Kojak Variety (a
similar experiment), and that was a much better album. IMO, of course.
That's not to say Paul hasn't hunted after super-fame as well - one
would have to be half-blind to miss his blatant PR-ing. And the lyric-
swapping thing was just ridiculous.
And, I think a case could be made that he still makes great art. A lot
of people found DR and FP to be fantastic albums. Not commercial
successes, but of course that doesn't mean it isn't great music.
>> When he was young, and furthest from having any wealth to speak of,
>> he made great art.
>
> You mean, when he was with The Beatles as they were.
Yes.
> Marty: As he got older, he continued to make great art.
>
> Me: No... as he got older he continued to make art... very little of
> it was great.
Your opinion. Polls here (among his biggest fans - remember, we aren't
going by commercial success) often place Driving Rain and Flowers In The
Dirt among Paul's top solo releases.
> His paintings and poetry (oh boy) were terrible- esp when you compare
> them to John and Yoko's art.
I've only seen a few snapshots of Paul's paintings, and yeah, I'd rather
look at John's sketches. I don't think Paul's trying to make the kind of
statements with his paintings that Yoko is with her art, is he? Kind of
an apples/oranges thing, I'd think.
> His music? I've listened to RDR and it doesn't come close to anything
> he wrote as a Wing, much less as half of the songwriting team LENNON &
> McCARTNEY. (Big letters for the original handshake agreement applying
> to all Beatle songs.)
Well, not the *original* agreement, if you look at early PPM albums...
but we both agree Paul was being a shmuck about that argument.
RDR was all (?) old covers, so I don't think it belongs in the canon of
Paul-written discs. Look instead to Flaming Pie, or the better tracks on
Driving Rain. Both cases, I think, beat out a lot of his Wings stuff.
> A lot
>> of what he does is driven by money (and he isn't riding solo in that
>> boat), but not all of it.
>
> imo, since 1999, it's all about money, fame, and (shudder shudder)
> Legacy.
Since 1999? Well, despite his intentions in late 2001, that concert for
NYC did raise a lot of money, didn't it?
> What I saw in 1968 was the beginning of a career in PR spin and the
> deterioration of the four-way friendship that was the basis for the
> greatest little rocknroll band in history... the harder Paul clung to
> "the Beatles" as they once were, the faster the other three pushed
> toward the End.
So it was pretty much inevitable, I suppose.
> You said it, Marty. It *had* its ups and downs. That was a long long
> time ago.
> Paul could have stopped trying to be The UniBeatle in 1982; instead,
> he started painting his faux expressionist paintings back then
> (according to his interviews and press releases at the time of his
> exhibit) and God only knows when he decided to try his hand at
> "poetry" -- well... a lot of the poetry was verbatim lyrics, some of
> which he had written with John.
Were there co-written pieces in that book? My wife offered to buy the
book for me a few times, but I couldn't see myself reading it more than
once. I'm not a big poetry reader these days, and I don't need to spend
money to have the words to 'Yesterday' written out.
I don't see the problem with him painting, though. He had the money, he
had the time, why not try something he'd never done before?
Hell, if I had the money and the free time, I'd probably buy an easel,
some oils and canvases (canvi?) and give it a shot, despite my known
painting ability to be somewhat worse than the average hamster.
>> It would have probably been better for everyone. Likewise, had John
>> chosen to not bring Yoko into the studio, it probably would have made
>> the situation less tense.
>
> Right, except for one thing. As far as I could tell, the tension was
> not about Yoko being there. It was about her being involved in the
> creative process... which she *wasn't* - not at any sessions I
> attended.
Yes, but I think the tensions that ultimately shattered the group really
came out strongest after you'd left. Even Ringo has commented on the
bed-in-the-studio thing as being not so pleasant for the other three.
I don't begrudge J&Y being J&Y - you know that about me. But her being
ever-present at the sessions probably didn't contribute to an ideal
fertile creative ground for the group.
>>Had they both allowed George more than 2 songs
>> per album, George would have been happier.
>
> Yes. Probably. But how commercially successful would the Beatles have
> been with all that Eastern spirituality of George's? The stuff a lot
> of people in this ng can't get?
True. But this leads me to the next point:
> Had they all recorded some
>> solo work, then returned to the Beatles for their best stuff, they
>> might have all been happier.
>>
>
> As I wrote in Body Count, John told me that the guys had thought of
> this even before Brian died. He said (to my face) that it was going to
> be called "Paul McCartney Goes Too Far" but that Paul was "too hung up
> on us bein' Beatles."
It might have been handy, especially for George. The Stones have pulled
it off.
>> Everyone could have done something here and there to increase the
>> overall happiness.
>>
>
> But Paul could have prevented the Beatles breakup if he had just
> stopped being such a goddamn jerk.
But as you said above, the deterioration of the friendship had already
set in. Maybe he could have slowed it down another year or two, but you
indicated that it was on its way anyhow.
> That said, you're right, each of the Fabs had something to contribute
> to the Breakup.
>
> But imnsho, it was Paul's attitude that kept the four from reuniting
> -- mainly his hatred of John's "jap tart".
Well, that and the lawsuits! ;-)
Marty
Strabbo
> Problem is, any of this would have upset the space/time continuom! <g>
It could use a bit of upsetting, I think!
> But a few comments -
>
> Lots of folks like to say that George was repressed as a songwriter by
> John and Paul because he only had one or two songs per album (with
> some exceptions). I think that's nonsense - it was only in the last
> year of The Beatles where he clearly started having more songs to
> contribute - songs which ended up on ATMP. I doubt if George ever
> would have written such good songs if it weren't for the pressure
> cooker of John and Paul.
True. But the trend should have started on the White Album, when 'Not
Guilty' should have been put on in place of a L/M song, rather than in
place of a Harrison tune.
> Yes, there are a lot of "what ifs" - we'd all like to think about The
> Beatles having gone on if it weren't for Apple, if it weren't for
> Brian Epstein dying - but to speculate that somehow it would have all
> been better if they had different personalities?? That's a pretty
> delicate balance to upset. The chemistry was perfect - alter that, and
> we probably would not have had such a great 7 year run.
Well, that's what it all comes down to. For John and Paul to have let
George have 5 songs on an album, well that wouldn't have been John and
Paul as they were. For John not to bring Yoko in, that wouldn't have
been true John. Personality changes would have had to have been made,
and at that point, the dominoes are in motion.
It could have been worse - Paul could have kept on with the Beatles like
Dave Gilmour kept on with Pink Floyd (getting us back to the thread's
original subject), leading them into a phase of bland, lifeless drivel-
music that tainted the band's legacy as a whole.
Marty
Strabbo
news:c0vncr$1bh123$1...@ID-133514.news.uni-berlin.de:
> and as far
> as I know, Brian Wilson never complained about being slighted by
> history, despite his having a legitimate claim to that regarding the
> relative credit both he and The Beatles get for being innovative.
> (That situation has been rectified in recently years, but the cynic in
> me wonders how much of that was just Brian being flavor of the month.
I don't know - Paul was giving Brian Wilson credit for inspiration in
his introduction-interview to Lewisohn's book, and that goes back to 89.
He also wrote a fair bit in the Pet Sounds re-release booklet, which was
a few years ago.
> I expect that in 10 years, things'll go back to the way they used to
> be, there'll be a group of people, mostly musicians, who go into a
> trance at the mention of his name, and there'll be a lot more people
> who don't know anything beyond the surf hits.)
I think the Beach Boys will still be most remembered (by the teeming
millions) for surf hits, yeah. But the Beatles will probably be
remembered by those same millions for their biggest hits too. Fair?
Maybe - just the way it is.
Marty
Strabbo
> Anyway, all opinions suck to a degree.
If an opinion didn't suck in *someone's mind*, then it wouldn't be an
opinion so much as a fact, would it?
Marty
Who who
Study_a_broad_wrote:
Dave Gilmour: Mind your own business.
>>What's the matter? Can't Gilmour express a personal opinion?<<
Who needs someone telling "us" how we should spend our money? Would you
like it?
>>Mind your own business, fella!<<
Got cha!
Mister Charlie
> "BlackMonk" <Blac...@email.msn.com> wrote in
> news:c0vncr$1bh123$1...@ID-133514.news.uni-berlin.de:
>
>
> > I expect that in 10 years, things'll go back to the way they used to
> > be, there'll be a group of people, mostly musicians, who go into a
> > trance at the mention of his name, and there'll be a lot more people
> > who don't know anything beyond the surf hits.)
>
> I think the Beach Boys will still be most remembered (by the teeming
> millions) for surf hits, yeah. But the Beatles will probably be
> remembered by those same millions for their biggest hits too. Fair?
> Maybe - just the way it is.
>
The Beach Boys will be remembered for good time music, not just surf
stuff. Their biggest hits are not surf or car songs at all (Good
Vibrations, Help me Rhonda, California Girls, etc.).
Mister Charlie
Facts suck too.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Marty
Stephen X. Carter
<dcac...@comcast.net> wrote:
>In article <20040218185627...@mb-m16.aol.com>,
> alla...@aol.com (From Me To You) wrote:
>
>> dcac...@comcast.net wrote:
>>
>> >No, actually, I'm not a fan of Paul's solo stuff at all.
>>
>> Not "at all"?
>>
>> >Very little by Lennon or McCartney after the Beatles broke up really
>> >measures up to Beatles caliber, imho.
>>
>> I don't care how "famous" you are, you're "humble opinion" sucks. Hopefully,
>> you're just having a bad day, Danny.
>>
>>
>>
>> ·.·´¨ ¨)) -:|:-
>> ¸.·´ .·´¨¨))
>> The Beatles
>> ((¸¸.·´ ..·´
>> -:|:- ((¸¸ ·.·
>
>
>Me, famous? What yardstick are you measuring THAT by? Jeez. Just
>because I *almost* worked with him? <g>
Didn't you get an Emmy (or similar) for the sound on that
9/11 documentary? :-)
--
st...@stephencarterNOSPAM.net
Nothing is Beatle Proof!!
BlackMonk
Sure it is. If Paul has a right to create his own legends because he doesn't
think he's getting enough credit, so do Ray Davies and BrianWilson.
> John did his own share of legend-making in the early 70s, trying to
> rewrite what The Beatles were.
They were a rock band, exactly what he said they were.
Paul mostly stayed above that, with the
> "oh, that's just John" attitude. They were both hurt by the breakup -
> but the difference was that Paul knew it and kept low about it, and John
> acted it out.
>
> And since John's death, the legend making continued, but even more so.
> I can certainly understand how Paul would want to set the record
> straight.
There's a difference between setting the record straight and creating a new
set of myths.
There are a lot of people like Derek L. out there, yer know!
>
Not all of them are John fans. Surely you've seen the "Paul was a great
musician, John was an idiot savant" contigent. According to some people
who've posted here, John couldn't write melodies, could barely play the
guitar, and didn't know a thing about music beyond three chord rock and
roll.
BlackMonk
> It could have been worse - Paul could have kept on with the Beatles like
> Dave Gilmour kept on with Pink Floyd (getting us back to the thread's
> original subject), leading them into a phase of bland, lifeless drivel-
> music that tainted the band's legacy as a whole.
>
Some of us would put Roger Waters in place of Dave Gilmour in that sentence.