Plea to Paul: Let it be when it comes to claiming credit

paulmccartney-koellnerLast Thursday Rolling Stone online published an interview with Paul McCartney about his current tour. It sounds like a stellar show—I’m sorry I haven’t been able to see it this year—but I groaned when I got to the part of the interview in which McCartney says, of adding “Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite!” to the setlist, that he was “happy to kind of reclaim it as partially mine.” I just want to say to him: please don’t keep pouring kerosene on those embers. Please step back and let that frustration go, because you’re fueling the dynamic that seems to keep you feeling insecure.

Here’s the relevant question and answer from the interview:

 

Q: What made you want to revisit those particular songs?

 

A: Well, for instance, “Mr. Kite” is such a crazy, oddball song that I thought it would freshen up the set. Plus the fact that I’d never done it. None of us in the Beatles ever did that song [in concert]. And I have great memories of writing it with John. I read, occasionally, people say, “Oh, John wrote that one.” I say, “Wait a minute, what was that afternoon I spent with him, then, looking at this poster?” He happened to have a poster in his living room at home. I was out at his house, and we just got this idea, because the poster said “Being for the Benefit of Mr Kite” – and then we put in, you know, “there will be a show tonight,” and then it was like, “of course,” then it had “Henry the Horse dances the waltz.” You know, whatever. “The Hendersons, Pablo Fanques, somersets…” We said, “What was ‘somersets’? It must have been an old-fashioned way of saying somersaults.” The song just wrote itself. So, yeah, I was happy to kind of reclaim it as partially mine. But like I said, you’ve got to look what you’re doing when you play that one.”

 

            Predictably, this is the answer that generated the most comments, including plenty of attacks on McCartney as a conscienceless credit-stealer newly taking credit for a Lennon song. Actually, McCartney’s claim about “Mr. Kite” isn’t that new. In Many Years From Now (1998), McCartney says that “almost the whole song was written right off this poster. We just sat down and wrote it. We pretty much took it down word for word and then just made up some little bits and pieces to glue it together. It was more John’s because it was his poster so he ended up singing it, but it was quite a co-written song. We were both sitting there to write it at his house, just looking at it on the wall in the living room.” (318) However, William J. Dowdling’s “Beatlesongs” (1989) lists Mr. Kite as a 100% Lennon song. Lennon is quoted about the song’s coming from the poster: “I hardly made up a word, just connecting the lists together. Word for word, really.” (172) No mention of McCartney adding anything

 

            Here’s the thing: even if what McCartney is saying is true—even if he did participate in writing “Mr. Kite” more than Lennon mentioned—I wish he would stop saying it, or things like it. I feel a great deal of sympathy for McCartney’s situation, because there can be few things more difficult than being the former artistic partner of a man nearly universally lauded as a genius and frequently considered a saint. Over the years McCartney has endured some unconscionably nasty digs (over and above deserved criticism, which he’s also received), and most of the nastiest compare him slightingly to Lennon. Hearing Lennon described, repeatedly, as the Beatles’ sole genius has to sting, especially given McCartney’s substantial, and well-documented, contributions to the band’s musical legacy. The hateful dismissal McCartney has often suffered is epitomized for me by a comment made in 2000 by “Kathleen Keplar” on George Starostin’s original “Only Solitaire” site: “Lennon was the organ grinder…McCartney was the monkey.” When McCartney gets defensive, I can see that that’s partly in response to people throwing darts.

          But when he asserts that he deserves more credit, McCartney stirs up more of the same kind of attacks, and the whole cycle repeats. Here are a couple of samples from the Rolling Stone comment thread:

 

“John S. Damm”: “Bloody Conquistador with your boot on the throat of John Lennon’s memory, legacy and your friendship with him. What will you do now with your drawn sword Sir James Paul McCartney?”

 

“CBP”: “One finds sad–pathetic in the precise sense of pathos–his hopeless, evidently bottomless Sea of Insecurities. The driving force of Fab Four was murdered more than 30 years ago; yet, Sir Mega[lo] can’t quite lay to rest his juvenile credits war with a long-fallen rock-qua-social genius. Verily, methinks he doth protest too much. Too much, and for too long . . . . the more he seeks to carry the weight, as it were, the more unbearable is his specific lightness of being. Time to retire, take wing to the dacha, Macca. Turn the business over to a younger, less disingenuous tribute band. Them freaks was right…”

 

“LenThea”: “Amazing, Paul can’t do an interview without taking credit for a John Lennon song. Whether he contributed a word or a sentence he just can’t seem to help himself, and since John isn’t alive to counter anything he says he does it all the time. Despite his enormous talent and recognition, he still has a tremendous need to claim a bit of a John song. He has an unbelievable need to get credit, even when he doesn’t need it. It screams volumes about his insecurity and about his incredible need for recognition and reassurance of who he is. With all he’s accomplished, he’s competing with John even in death. How pathetic.”

 

            With regret, I have to agree that McCartney’s credit-claiming is pity-inducing. It’s a mark of how badly hurt he has been, of how much he still needs approval and recognition. As much as it might smart for him to let go of such claims—and I’m pretty sure he believes what he’s saying about the songs he discusses—I think letting go is the only escape from the vicious circle of “claim credit, get attacked, feel more hurt, claim credit, get attacked . . . .”

            If I had McCartney’s ear for a few minutes, I’d ask him to err more often on the side of generosity towards Lennon, and to believe that he can afford to do that. Some of McCartney’s own statements exhibit an understanding of their interdependence that shows up how unnecessary this kind of small-stakes wrangling over who wrote what is. In the last paragraph of the “John” chapter in Many Years From Now, McCartney sums it up: “A body of work was produced that I don’t believe he alone could have produced, or I alone could have produced . . . . The truth of the matter is, John and I were kind of equal. It really did pan itself out about equal. That’s one of the amazing things about it. People can say, ‘Oh, well, it wasn’t Paul, it was John, or it wasn’t John it was Paul,” but I was there know that’s not true, the other Beatles know that’s not true. So much of it was team effort, joint effort, there really was so much of it.”

 

Note that “kind of,” so similar to “kind of reclaim it as partially mine.” But no “kind of” is necessary in a statement about the importance of their partnership. Lennon and McCartney achieved heights together that neither could have scaled alone, and even the songs they wrote independently during the Beatles years bore each other’s marks (rare indeed is the song that had no contribution, musically or lyrically, from the other). Malcom Doney, in his excellent Lennon and McCartney (1981), expresses this reality beautifully: “They shared with Picasso, and other major artists, the ability to soak up the stimuli thrown at them by their environment: contemporary music, words, images and experiences all became re-ordered and re-distributed to spill out into great music. But it was essentially a partnership. It only really worked with the two of them. When they wrote together, sparks flew. Each with his individual genius was able to counterpoint the other, excesses held in check—a creative clash of opposites. What they produced is evidence of a pairing of minds that transcended the mechanics of the making.”

Amen. So I’d ask McCartney to let go of the “mechanics of the making.” Those pale in importance next to the fact that Lennon and McCartney consistently brought out the artistic best in each other, and that each man’s finest work was created through that partnership.

If you liked this, share it!
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter
Share on StumbleUpon
StumbleUpon


77 Comments

  1. @Nancy, I think you’re right that Paul’s revising the credits only makes the haters hate. But like @Joe I support his right to say whatever he wants, even though it gets him nowhere.

    Rolling Stone is the house organ for “The Sixties”–the marketing concept of that decade. Since one of the most laudable aspects of that cultural and political explosion was a greater commitment to honesty, the commodifying of it is particularly misleading, and RS makes its money doing that. Fine. Make your money. But know you’re diminishing what you say you love. You know how people say, “If you remember the Sixties, you weren’t really there”? If you commodify the Sixties, you totally missed the point. (John Lennon touched on this in some of his last interviews. And just as an aside, he didn’t like or trust Jann Wenner, having felt that JW lied to him regarding the famous 1971 interviews. Subsequent years suggest that it was Yoko who got along with Jann–though the levels of using/being used make it complicated.)

    John Lennon has been similarly commodified and diminished–even though the fans that revere St. John think they’re actually celebrating him. That’s how fame works, and why it’s such a bitch.

    St. John fans are, I think, very guilty about his being killed by a fan, and so they overcorrect in various ways. One of these is raging at McCartney. But the haters need to stop themselves: not only was Lennon prone to self-contradiction, and credit was a hot-button issue for him, too, McCartney’s a primary source. Paul was there. He outranks everybody but John, and John too if John was on acid. ☺

    Could Paul be mistaken? Or lying? Sure–but given what’s already in his catalog, I rather doubt it. So if Paul McCartney–one of the two credited writers of the song, and unquestionably the driving force of the band during that period–says that he helped write “Mr. Kite”, I tend to believe him. That doesn’t add even a shovelful of admiration to Paul’s pile, nor take one from John’s. It’s freaking trivia. Of course John Lennon isn’t here to corroborate/deny, and we all are very sad, but is that Paul’s fault? No. And should that sadness impact setting the historical record straight? No. If this body of work is truly worth study, more quality data is good. What Paul says about “Kite” is quality data.

    People who feel that John Lennon had an uncommon devotion to truthfulness about anything regarding his personal life–which very much includes his relationship with Paul McCartney–are simply wrong. The very shoot-from-the-hip passion that made John Lennon such a great quote and still makes us talk about him today, makes him a very VERY unreliable source on stuff like who wrote what. Paul’s own ravenous ego aside, the minorness of “Kite” makes me believe him. Furthermore I think it’s his right to say whatever he wants about music that he is co-credited on.

    There’s loving The Beatles, being fascinated by the individual members…and then there’s fetishizing the personalities of each Beatle as handed down by the media. This is 12-year-old stuff, and mostly harmless. Yet some John and George fans seem to revere these images with a kind of seriousness that I find troubling.

    The most devoted St. John fans I know are people who find conventional religious activities distasteful in some way, and so have substituted John (and often Yoko) for the icons they discarded. There is–no other word for it–a kind of zealotry there. Paul must feel this constantly, and given that he “shitted and pissed together” with Sts. John and George, the impulse to reveal the personhood of his old friends must be immense–especially given that Lennon- AND Harrison-worshippers often cast him as the bad guy. On balance, I think he does all right with this.

    I find the whole dynamic fascinating, and endlessly come back to trying to imagine the personal experiences of each person. Such a strange story; so beautiful, so tragic, with the truth so hard to ascertain.

  2. Avatar Anonymous wrote:

    [imported from Blogger site by MG, 8.1.13]
    Nancy, I’m not sure I agree. I think Macca has swallowed a great deal since the breakup of the Beatles, and since Ram or so my impression is he’s been publicly gracious to a fault regarding Lennon and even where Yoko Ono fits in to the breakup equation. (In fact, on the latter point, his recent claim that she bore no responsibility seems like bending over backwards to let that whole mess go.) I attended a recent show and he gave a couple of moving asides about his love of John Lennon before playing his affecting tribute ‘Here Today.’ The loss he still must feel was palpable. He also played ‘Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite.’ I don’t mind if he personally asserts ownership – or his part of the ownership – in that song or any others that are generally attributed to Lennon. (assuming he’s being truthful). I prefer he sets the record straight from his perspective as Lennon did. I’d prefer to hear what he really thinks of Yoko’s role in the breakup, too, but it’s probably the creative stuff that matters to him, that touches his well-deserved sense of artistic pride. As to all the negative comments in ‘Rolling Stone’, quite simply there are people who hate McCartney. I remember seeing ‘Let It Be’ in a theater shortly after Lennon was shot, and every time Macca appeared on the screen in a close up, the audience erupted with hisses and insults. It was an unnerving experience. Like I said, McCartney swallowed a lot of hatred, probably as much as Yoko Ono, and he’s been about as big about it as any public figure could be, I think. If he feels he wrote part of a Pepper obscurity and would like to set the record straight, more power to him, I say! Joe

  3. Nancy Carr Nancy Carr wrote:

    [Imported from Blogger site by NC, 8.2.13]

    Nancy Carr wrote:

    Joe and Michael, thanks for your comments. I certainly think McCartney has every right to say what he will about Lennon/McCartney songs. I just question the wisdom of his doing so at this point, particularly since it feeds energy into a dynamic that I think increases his sense of insecurity. (I fully recognize that’s me being an amateur psychologist.) It inevitably opens up the issue of Lennon’s not being around to make a counterclaim, and is only worth doing, to my mind, when the stakes are higher than they are here.

    This pattern of McCartney’s saying things that bring down more grief on him wouldn’t bother me if I didn’t feel such sympathy for him overall and genuinely wish him well. But he can probably handle it, and it’s definitely his choice to make.

    July 29, 2013 at 2:27 PM

    • Nancy Carr Nancy Carr wrote:

      [Imported from Blogger site by NC, 8.2.13]

      Michael Gerber wrote:

      You’re right, @Nancy–I’m glad he does do it, however. First because it is more info, and I want as much info from these guys before they leave us. And second, because it is an opportunity to remember that whatever we think we are certain about–“Mr. Kite’s totally a John song, he wrote it when he was cranking songs out for Pepper, took it straight from this poster”–may not be the whole story, or even most of the story.

      I admit I’m perverse in this way. 🙂

      July 29, 2013 at 3:30 PM

      • Nancy Carr Nancy Carr wrote:

        [Imported from Blogger site by NC, 8.2.13]

        Anonymous wrote:

        Anonymous said…
        Nancy, my general feeling is that Macca can never win with some people. How much that pains Macca or how much he lets it roll off his back (at this point in his career), I can’t say. Why there’d be a hub-bub about who wrote ‘Mr. Kite’ is almost amusing since both Lennon and McCartney cop to copying the words from a circus poster. One could claim that NEITHER wrote the song in the strictest sense. Basically the argument is about who should take credit for a bit of harmless plagiarism. Amazing what gets people on the ‘Rolling Stone’ message board up in arms. Joe

        July 29, 2013 at 3:31 PM

        • Nancy Carr Nancy Carr wrote:

          [Imported from Blogger site by NC, 8.2.13]
          Anonymous said…
          Put me in the camp of “even if it’s true, it doesn’t help anything” for something as minor as this.

          Also, even though I’m no expert musicologist, the melody for “Mr. Kite” is so Lennonesque that what we’re probably really talking about here is Paul helping John get some of the words off the poster and into the meter of the song. That’s a horizontal, textbook John Lennon melody right there. Who cares who came up with a line here or there? It’d look petty if John were doing this, and it looks petty when Paul does it.

          July 29, 2013 at 3:42 PM

        • Nancy Carr Nancy Carr wrote:

          [Imported from Blogger site by NC, 8.2.13]
          Anonymous wrote:
          Put me in the camp of “even if it’s true, it doesn’t help anything” for something as minor as this.

          Also, even though I’m no expert musicologist, the melody for “Mr. Kite” is so Lennonesque that what we’re probably really talking about here is Paul helping John get some of the words off the poster and into the meter of the song. That’s a horizontal, textbook John Lennon melody right there. Who cares who came up with a line here or there? It’d look petty if John were doing this, and it looks petty when Paul does it.

          July 29, 2013 at 3:42 PM

          • Nancy Carr Nancy Carr wrote:

            [Imported from Blogger site by NC, 8.2.13]
            Anonymous said…
            I’ve often thought that John and Paul’s dueling claims for credit on songs comes down in part to their differing outlooks on what “ownership” of a song really means. Recall that John was actually successfully sued for plagiarism (for “Come Together”) and there were many other occasions where he admitted to blatantly copping someone else’s ideas, such as in “Run for Your Life”, just to name one example. Clearly, for John, “ownership” was a very loose proposition. As long as you put some sort of personal stamp on something, it was totally yours. I think he would have been very home in today’s world of sampling.

            Contrast that with Paul, who after writing “Yesterday” spent several weeks taking it around to everyone he knew, just to ensure he hadn’t lifted it from someone. John would say a song was “completely mine” when there had clearly been some collaboration (though Paul is sometimes guilty of that as well). And this despite the fact that there are plenty of eyewitness accounts (including by Hunter Davies) of them in total collaboration right up through Sgt. Pepper.

            So yeah, I think John had a much looser definition of “my song” than did Paul. John would think a song was his if he’d got the basic idea and the first few words and notes of music, whereas for Paul a song wasn’t done until it was done, complete with arrangement and everything else. This might partly explain Paul’s eagerness to set the record straight, at least as he sees it.

            July 29, 2013 at 5:49 PM

  4. Nancy Carr Nancy Carr wrote:

    [Imported from Blogger site by NC, 8.2.13]
    Annie McNeil said…
    I agree he’d come off better with a little more restraint — he could’ve left it at the “great memories of writing it with John” sentence, for example, and not bothered soldiering on in hopes of justifying himself to people who, let’s face it, would’ve had an equally “HOW DARE HE” reaction to him performing the song at all, let alone commenting on its creation. Those are people he will never, never, never be able to please and they’re just not worth his time. (I mean, hello, can we take a moment to savor the irony of quoting “How Do You Sleep” in a statement about how Paul should be more circumspect about publicly discussing John?!) Trying to justify himself to zealots will only serve to lower him in the eyes of fairer critics — but frankly, after everything Paul has endured, I suspect his ability to distinguish fair from unfair critics/criticism is pretty well fucked. So I tend to cut him a lot of slack when it comes to his less attractive displays of insecurity.

    And as Michael Gerber says, at least we have a little more data now to add the the books. 🙂

    July 29, 2013 at 10:26 PM

  5. Nancy Carr Nancy Carr wrote:

    [Imported from Blogger site by NC, 8.2.13]
    king kevin said…
    I don’t think he did himself any favors by saying “reclaim it as partially mine”. It makes him sound defensive. I still wish he would just do a song by song like Lennon did for Playboy. That story about George coming up with the And I Love Her lick was amazing. I want to hear it all! The Beatles stuff was a group effort between the four, George Martin and the recording engineers. Let’s hear it.

    July 30, 2013 at 6:23 AM

  6. Nancy Carr Nancy Carr wrote:

    [Imported from Blogger site by NC, 8.2.13]
    Anonymous said…
    The vast majority of commenters on that RS thread were supportive of Paul and of Paul’s right to discuss his contributions to a “John song.” Those critics you site were a distinct minority on the thread.

    I don’t see why Paul should have to bury his contributions to John’s songs, just because it would make him “look better.” Paul says he co-wrote the song. Why should he have to deny that? Why should he have to follow the Lennon party line? And so what if they disagree on who wrote what? Why aren’t they allowed to have conflicting memories without faulting one or the other? Why isn’t Paul allowed to be defensive? And imperfect? He’s a man, a real person, not a saint.

    I thought Paul’s comment sounded like he was anticipating haters saying “why are you singing Mr. Kite, a John song, and ‘stealing’ John’s legacy?” So Paul replies, “Because I helped write that song.” And then he gets attacke by the usual St. Lennon defenders, who never seemed all that upset when John said nasty things or claimed credit for co-writing Eleanor Rigby.

    The same honesty and bluntness that people celebrate Lennon for gets turned against Paul when he is honest and blunt. John gets to be the “asshole.” But people seem to want Paul to be perfect and polished in a way that they never expected of John. John was allowed to be imperfect and to say selfish, rude, arrogant, self-serving things. Paul apparently isn’t. Paul is ALWAYS expected to defer to John, to praise John, to talk about how great John was, yada yada yada.

    If this comment makes Paul look defensive, well, that’s part of who he is. And John Lennon was also quite defensive. Let’s allow them to both be imperfect.

    July 30, 2013 at 7:16 AM

    • Nancy Carr Nancy Carr wrote:

      [Imported from Blogger site by NC, 8.2.13]
      girl said…
      Problem is though Nancy, there are quite a large handfull (I’d even say it’s more than a handful and more like a mass) of people who don’t agree that Lennon and McCartney worked beautifully together and it was only through collaboration that they truly shined. There are an awful lot of people who don’t think that at all. They truly believe (or want to believe for some reason) that Lennon really was the only genius and McCartney didn’t do much of anything except write a few boring ditties “for the grandmas to dig”. Like it or not, and whether or not it is becoming of him or not, McCartney is responding to thoses masses. I personally think it’s a matter of principle at this point. I don’t think he cares that much whether or not he helped Lennon with a song like Kite for instance. It’s not even such a great song. I think the point for McCartney and a lot of people, is that history has been altered. Fact has been replaced by revision over and over and over. He’s trying to set the record straight simply because he was there and no one else was.

      July 30, 2013 at 12:09 PM

      • Nancy Carr Nancy Carr wrote:

        [Imported from Blogger site by NC, 8.2.13]
        Nancy Carr said…
        Good food for thought, everyone. I’m grateful to have an online space where it’s possible to ventilate contentious Beatles-related ideas in a constructive way.

        I agree that there are people who are going to hate McCartney no matter what he does or says at this point, and that he’s in a pretty impossible position vis a vis some vociferous Lennon fans. And as one Anon pointed out, plenty of comments on that RS thread are defending Paul.

        Essentially I agree with Annie and King Kevin that McCartney’s bringing up the “why are you doing a John song?” question himself and then answering it a defensive way that shows he’s uncomfortable (“kind of reclaim it as partially . . .”) was unnecessary. If he’d said something like “Getting to perform it live brings back great memories of collaborating with John,” that would have an entirely different feel. And that he DID bring up the question and answer it is what makes me feel he’s playing into the cycle I described. It makes me think the negative comments do bother him.

        This thread also makes me think about how hard “ownership” is to talk about with Beatles songs — even where the words are entirely one member’s, almost always the music was a shared creation (George and Ringo deserve more credit than they are sometimes given for the way Lennon/McCartney compositions came out sounding, for instance. Add in George Martin’s substantial arranging skills as well.)

        The overarching problem about clarifying the Beatles’ songwriting history is that memory is a tricky thing, and no one’s memory is perfect. Current research is, I believe, suggesting that memory isn’t even static in individuals — that memory pathways are subtly altered each time they’re accessed. So I sympathize with the Lennon fans who are frustrated by the fact that John can’t answer and put his own current memories next to Paul’s. Add to that the fact that the major players were often stoned in the later 60s, and it’s pretty well impossible to know exactly how some songs originated.

        July 30, 2013 at 12:12 PM

  7. Nancy Carr Nancy Carr wrote:

    [Imported from Blogger site by NC, 8.2.13]
    Karen said…
    Something to consider when reading those vapid comments on RS: many, many Lennon fans of today were born post 1980. They’ve been fed on and have bought into the collective party line that’s been perpetuated by Ono and her ilk, who’ve managed to change a great rock n roller into a plastic saint.

    I, for one, am tired unto death of these fools. I think that Paul protests too much. He will never convince those fools and he should stop trying.

    July 30, 2013 at 7:06 PM

  8. Nancy Carr Nancy Carr wrote:

    [Imported from Blogger site by NC, 8.2.13]
    Anonymous said…
    Agree Karen. Paul’s major “crime” has simply been living longer than his famous associates. The man is a precocious talent, and when he’s gone the whole world will know it. But here in England, mention “McCartney” to the average Joe and you’ll still probably just get a sneer back. The flack that accrued post Dec 1980 must irk the man beyond most people’s imaginings, and when it’s coming from home turf, it must really sting.

    They were a collaboration; they brought out the best in each other. (Why else is most solo Beatle music barely a patch on the group music?) They also had official songwriting deals in place, even though they were open to all sorts of contributions when it came to the actual process of writing. (George talks about this in that Radio KHJ 930 AM interview with John from ’74 —— see youtube).

    I don’t think Paul doing a mostly-John song is so shocking. George did In My Life on his tour, John did Paul’s (mostly) I Saw Her Standing There… etc.

    But in 2013, there’s barely anyone alive on his level: Dylan? Ringo? He’s someone who’s been left to forever keep setting the record straight, and he’s very very lonely. Noone but him quite understands that.

    July 31, 2013 at 2:46 AM

    • Nancy Carr Nancy Carr wrote:

      [Imported from Blogger site by NC, 8.2.13]
      Anonymous said…
      Agree Karen. Paul’s major “crime” has simply been living longer than his famous associates. The man is a precocious talent, and when he’s gone the whole world will know it. But here in England, mention “McCartney” to the average Joe and you’ll still probably just get a sneer back. The flack that accrued post Dec 1980 must irk the man beyond most people’s imaginings, and when it’s coming from home turf, it must really sting.

      They were a collaboration; they brought out the best in each other. (Why else is most solo Beatle music barely a patch on the group music?) They also had official songwriting deals in place, even though they were open to all sorts of contributions when it came to the actual process of writing. (George talks about this in that Radio KHJ 930 AM interview with John from ’74 —— see youtube).

      I don’t think Paul doing a mostly-John song is so shocking. George did In My Life on his tour, John did Paul’s (mostly) I Saw Her Standing There… etc.

      But in 2013, there’s barely anyone alive on his level: Dylan? Ringo? He’s someone who’s been left to forever keep setting the record straight, and he’s very very lonely. Noone but him quite understands that.

      July 31, 2013 at 2:46 AM

  9. Nancy Carr Nancy Carr wrote:

    [Imported from Blogger site by NC, 8.2.13]
    Karen said…
    So true anonymous. And it’s sooo unfair.

    July 31, 2013 at 8:45 AM

    • Nancy Carr Nancy Carr wrote:

      [Imported from Blogger site by NC, 8.2.13]
      ingrid schorr said…
      Anon 7/31 2:46 am, could you say more about this: “They also had official songwriting deals in place, even though they were open to all sorts of contributions when it came to the actual process of writing”

      Do you mean as Beatles or post-Beatles? By contributions, are you referring to using riffs from other songs?

      Also, I’ve always wondered, how was it that Lennon was sued over “Come Together” and not Lennon/McCartney?

      July 31, 2013 at 11:35 PM

  10. Avatar Mudarra wrote:

    One thing to bear in mind is that Paul felt under pressure – real, existing pressure – to justify why he’s doing a Beatles song that most people assume he didn’t write, in one of his solo tours. Artists who come from great bands and then went on to do solo tours often face this problem. Please allow me to clarify with an example from another band. When Roger Waters and David Gilmour play Floyd songs, there’s an unspoken assumption that they are “allowed” to do the songs that they had a hand in writing. On the other hand, it would be perceived as weird (rightly or wrongly) If David Gilmour played a track from “The Final Cut” (not that he ever would). The exception to this is if the performance is a tribute to a deceased former band-mate; thus David Gilmour often plays Syd Barrett numbers and played “Remember a Day” after Richard Wright’s death. (Did George play “In My Life” after John’s death?) As for “Kite,” the nature of that song precludes it from being a tribute, since it doesn’t say anything overt about life, death, friendship or remembrance. So, without the “tribute” option available to him, Paul might well have accrued criticism for playing “Kite” and choosing not to clarify his role in writing it.

  11. Avatar Anonymous wrote:

    [This comment came in over at the old site; I’m posting it here.—MG]

    To me it’s this simple. Paul is over 70 – there’s a thing called “maturity” – Paul should be magnanimous on this issue. He has out lived, out sold, out earned and out performed John – now he still tries to compete with a dead man. At his age it only makes him look foolish.

    If Paul wants to be considered an artist – then he should recognize that artists are often rejected, misunderstood and under appreciated. Ask Van Gogh

    The irony is this – my guess is that Paul has been given the advice to stop trying to set the record straight on who wrote what – and he ignores it.

    Or he hasn’t been told – which means there’s no one in his life that speaks truth to power.

    He is spoiling his own legacy – he’s going to go down as “the man who wished he was John”

    BTW – I am a major Macca fan.

    • Nancy Carr Nancy Carr wrote:

      Anon, while I (obviously) agree that Paul would do himself a favor if he left this subject largely alone, since I originally posted this I’ve also thought more deeply about the extent to which some critics have downplayed McCartney’s contributions to the Beatles catalog while idolizing Lennon’s. One of the most egregious examples is the chapter written by Robert Christgau and another critic in the Rolling Stone book “The Ballad of John and Yoko,” which I reread recently.

      That kind of criticism has put McCartney in the invidious position of answering back or letting the criticism stand, even when it’s patently unfair. So I do see this situation from both sides, even as I think McCartney would do well to disengage, to the extent he can.

  12. Avatar Michelle wrote:

    I saw something on The Beatles Bible the other day and it stunned me. It’s a statement Paul made to Q Magazine in 2013: “One song I wrote a little after ‘Please Please Me’ was my best attempt at a preamble: If I Fell. [Sings] ‘If I fell in love with you, would you promise to be truuue…’ Then after the line, ‘just holding hands’, the song properly gets going.”

    One of John’s early gems is now a song that Paul wrote. You can hear John’s very early ’64 demo of “If I Fell” on Youtube – preamble and all – which he recorded at home. George Martin and everyone else, including Paul prior to this Q interview, knew it to be a John song. I laughed at his claim to “Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite” and shrugged it off but this… this is quite a-PAUL-ling. I mean, not even bothering to say “we wrote” or “John and I wrote” if in fact he had anything to do with that song? Mercy.

    • I think we have to begin factoring in Paul (and Ringo’s) ages. The guy is 77 years old; I highly doubt his memory about who wrote what is particularly precise anymore, if it ever was.

  13. Avatar Kristy wrote:

    Information on “If I Fell” from Christie’s, which sold the original manuscript at auction, says that the song was written on an airplane while sitting next to Paul, lyrics on a valentine card (addressed to Paul, see link below for picture). And says Paul was sitting next to him on the plane. So it’s not crazy to say they were doing one of their “on the road” songwriting sessions, and Paul perhaps had a little bit of a hand in it, before John went home and recorded the demo?

    https://www.christies.com/lotfinder/lot/lennon-john-2536184-details.aspx?from=searchresults&intObjectID=2536184

  14. Avatar Lara wrote:

    I read the article in the Beatles Bible some time ago. It was the preamble to If I Fell that Paul was referring to not the song. He said it was John’s ballad. John said Paul helped write the middle eight so who knows. It should be remembered that publications like Q magazine don’t always edit verbatim. So unless anyone has direct access to Paul’s exact spoken words (as in a TV interview) the accusations against him are meaningless. By the way Paul was 68/69 at the time of the 2013 interview so hardly suffering from geriatric memory issues.

  15. Avatar Michelle wrote:

    Kristy, how sweet is that? Thank you for the link.

  16. Avatar idreamofpikas wrote:

    Should Paul really have to censor his thoughts because some people will get upset over them? In almost any McCartney article there are people finding fault with something he has said or some past mistake. He’s never going to please everyone and will always have his critics. There is no reason why he should be walking on eggshells to appease a group of people who will never be happy with him.

    I’m almost 100% sure that all the people you quoted from the comment section on that article already had a negative opinion of Paul to begin with. That what he said changed few people’s minds on him, just reinforced what they already believed to be true.

    With regard to his comments on the song, it does two things; annoys the people who are already annoyed with him and it adds his name to the legacy of the song. It is probably better for Macca’s state of mind that there be some recording of the fact that he played a part in that song.

    Interestingly in the Get Back tapes Lennon confirms that Paul played an important part in the making of that song, as he complains about what the song turned into.

    “And that’s all I did on the last album was say, “Okay, Paul, you’re out to decide where my songs are concerned, arrangement-wise.” [exasperated] I don’t know the songs, you know. I’d sooner just sing them, than have them turn into – into ‘Mr. Kite’, or anything else, where— I’ve accepted the problem from you that it needs arrangement.” – Lennon in semi private conversation with Paul

    Paul was involved enough in that John thought he changed how he thought the song should be.

    Now the issue here is what do you think counts as part of the songwriting. John, more lyricist than melodymaker, may not have seen Paul being involved in the writing. Paul on the other may have seen his contribution as being vital to the songwriting. The trouble with conversations like this is that many have different ideas of what constitutes as a songwriting contribution.

    Finally I find it funny that one of the biggest criticisms of Paul is that he is too much of a PR man, but when he does something that many people don’t like some of those same people want him to shut up and not offend people.

  17. Avatar Michelle wrote:

    Arrangement is not the same thing as writing. John not a melody maker? He wrote melodies and very good ones. Paul didn’t write his melodies for him. Seems like you believe in a few myths of your own.

  18. Avatar Michelle wrote:

    Yes, it is better for Macca’s state of mind that he take a bit of John’s legacy when it comes to many songs, and it’s a sad state of mind. As if Paul isn’t called the mastermind behind Sgt. Pepper already and hasn’t seen success beyond anyone’s wildest dreams.
    .
    What contribution did Paul make to Being For the Benefit of Mr. Kite exactly? John wrote the melody, the lyrics were taken almost verbatim from a 19th century circus poster, and George Martin and Geoff Emerick brilliantly assembled the playground atmosphere at John’s request. Was it Paul’s mere presence that helped write the song? Like it was John’s presence that helped Paul write Yesterday? Because Paul certainly didn’t write anything quite like it in his solo career, and that is precisely why he can’t let it be when it comes to claiming credit. Niggling doubts about not writing at the same standard he set for himself when John was there to give him feedback.
    .
    I would care much less about this if Paul wasn’t so reluctant to give John credit on his songs where it was due, like the fact that John wrote the middle eights for And I Love Her and Michelle. Instead he adds insult to injury by saying in his book that John didn’t know how to write a middle eight. It was Paul who often got stuck on the middle eight when he was writing songs. What he’s very good at is medleys and piecing together unrelated songs.

  19. Avatar Michelle wrote:

    Paul should do more songs of John’s in concert. Beatles fans in attendance are only hearing about half the catalogue. I think fans would be thrilled to hear, say, No Reply or Because instead of yet another performance of Hey Jude. He did Please Please Me some years back and it was fantastic! The crowd went mad. He’s wrong if he assumes people would think he’s claiming credit for John’s songs by performing them. Rest assured they wouldn’t if he simply says that he’s doing them because he likes those songs, and after all they belonged to his former band too. Why overthink it? By stating it’s because he wants to reclaim the songs as partially his, he’s confirming the suspicions they otherwise wouldn’t have had. I mean, if Paul had said in the RS interview that he did Mr. Kite in concert because he needed to freshen up his set list with its oddball quality, and left it at that, readers most certainly would not have given those responses. There is nothing inherently wrong with Paul performing John’s songs in concert; in itself it was not why people were angry.

  20. Avatar Lara wrote:

    Paul says he wrote the middle eight to And I Love Her and that John helped a little, though John wrote the middle eight to Michelle. So he does give John credit for his songs – but only when it’s due and not for the sake of it. There is nothing to be gained by challenging this tit for tat argument by replacing one truth for another depending on one’s viewpoint. Neither man wrote to the same standard in their solo careers without the feedback from each other. There was no Strawberry Fields Forever or I am the Walrus in John’s solo catalogue any more than any Eleanor Rigby or Yesterday in Paul’s.

  21. Avatar Laura wrote:

    @Lara said, “There is nothing to be gained by challenging this tit for tat argument by replacing one truth for another depending on one’s viewpoint.”
    .
    I agree, Lara. I’d also point out that John didn’t always say the same thing about who wrote what – he wasn’t a machine and (unlike us!) he didn’t have copious notes to refer to. For example, one interviewer asked John about “I Want to Hold Your Hand” and he said, “When I wrote that I was doing it in a very objective way.” Now, was he saying he and only he wrote it? He certainly said otherwise at another time.
    .
    This thread prompted me to compare the “Mr. Kite” lyrics with the poster, and it turns out only about a third are from the poster (mostly the first verse), so it’s far from verbatim. John and Paul worked together a lot in the Pepper era, so it isn’t hard to believe Paul was there for a songwriting session and helped out. Or Paul, also not a machine with copious notes, could have it wrong.
    .
    On your other point, Lara, I’m not sure I agree. John and Paul were both at their quality-plus-quantity peak in the 60s, but once the band reached a crazy level of success, just being Beatles songs brought – and continues to bring – their work to the attention of the world. I think this goes beyond the “sum is greater than its parts” aspect of how the songs were recorded by the Fabs. I think there ARE some songs that are just as good as their Beatles best, just not as many in such a short time span.
    .
    I also share Nancy’s compassion for the position Paul is in and agree that it’s not a good look for him to make claims he can’t support (unlike his claims about the avant-garde influences he brought into the studio, for example).
    .
    That said, maybe the rancorous responses will die off while his recollections live on. There are people who will hate Paul no matter what he says, so he could be playing the long game.
    .
    This IS the guy who said that in 50 years we’ll be talking about how that Beatles broke up because Yoko sat on amp.

  22. Avatar Kristy wrote:

    @Laura, that’s interesting about the poster — thank you! Even Mark Lewisohn, who will often take an opportunity on podcasts to get a dig in at Paul, said on a podcast when a caller asked if Paul really had a part in writing that song that he very likely did, was most certainly there, and implied that Paul shouldn’t have to justify it. You’re right that no matter what Paul says himself, nobody who doesn’t want to believe him will, because he’s often assumed to be speaking in bad faith instead of remembering his own life.

  23. Avatar Pidpoo wrote:

    I haven’t posted much lately because wrote a brief post with some historically relevant information that I notice was never posted. I do wonder about my comment not being posted, but will try again here.

    However, if it is one man’s word or memories against another, I don’t see why Paul can be expected to support his memories of who wrote what or about anything else just as John wasn’t expected to when he uttered some of his various and varying memories in his day. Then it was John’s stories and memories and interviewers dared not question them because it was him, but as someone who collected copious amounts of mag interviews and saw them in via TV guide alerts, I remember much John contradiction, but unlike Paul with folks today, I didn’t see it as John claiming credit so much as memory confusion from interview to interview. Because Paul did not speak out about who wrote what and his Beatles days and memories till decades later, however, it stands to reason he would have memory confusion as more distant to the events. It is always Paul it seems who has to account for every thing says or does but was never the others.

    Don’t think anyone will have to worry about Paul doing more John beatle songs in concert sadly because of the pandemic. I have however seen John fans slaying him for trying to claim John songs. A few decades ago, when he did give peace a chance on a tour and another I saw, without a doubt he had to get permission from Yoko and pay her as was supposed to. When Paul did a few John songs in videos I saw online some John fans slayed him for it. He soon dropped tge John songs possibly because of fan reaction. I’m sure he included them to honor John, but the man can’t win.

    As a boomer, who has tired of the Beatles music , however, I thank God they kept going solo and completely disagree that their creative high point was in the Beatles. As for genre variations, musical individual expressions and free of the Beatles burden they each, even ringo in last few years to my ears, far surpassed their Beatles brilliance in many songs and albums. I was just going through some of their best solo songs and albums from each Beatle. Yes, at times, some of the another could have probably improved a song or an album but by solo era, each was free and soared, each in his individual way. I’m a rare fan, I know, who thinks a hard thing for them to go through but best thing for them to do was to break up and go solo. I by far prefer their solo to their Beatles music. I’m way more of a solo than a Beatles fan now because of their great solo music.

  24. Avatar Michelle wrote:

    Thank you for enlightening me on the poster that inspired Mr. Kite. No one’s memory is perfect, certainly not theirs, and I realize that (although John’s recollections are obviously closer to the time these songs were written than Paul’s more recent revelations). That’s not what I have a problem with so much as Paul’s attitude with regards to songs that are mainly John’s. Why does he take exception to people calling something “John’s song” when they do the same thing with songs that he mostly wrote and John contributed to? We Can Work it Out and She’s Leaving Home are called “Paul’s songs” all the time and he doesn’t say “but wait a minute…”

  25. Avatar Pidpoo wrote:

    I don’t think and never did think John’s memories of who wrote what on what parts are particularly more valid than Paul’s because John’s 70 rolling stone three part series of interviews In 70 contain several contradictions as compared to John’s later 80 playgirl interviews. Though John spoke about who did what on these songs nearer to the time, his own series of interviews contradict themselves about the same songs, as folks can and I’m sure Paul AND John confuse memories, as John seemed to because there are contradictions about the same songs he notes between his 70 and his 80 interviews.

    I would DEFINITELY take either of their words over those of a biographer’s or a fan though because though they may have been confused about who did what on their songs perhaps they were at least there when those songs written ir recorded. I’m glad as he those interviews as he didn’t live long that John did all of these interviews ,but in the seventies Paul was way too busy being highly prolific with his music recording and touring to run around and do a big press series of interviews of who wrote what in the Beatles like John did, as he didn’t start doing that till much later when asked in interviews m especially when talking about it in Anthology, and by then maybe he realized John had mistakenly said some things because I remember when interviewers started citing what.john had said about the songs.

    This is always a way bigger deal to John fans it seems now, but these are just Beatles songs and Paul was a Beatle and I’m sure was involved with almost all of them one way or another. Last time I checked, they have Lennon-McCartney credits on them though some were completely written aloneL I’m pretty sure the other one helped on the songs. Some have tried to go back and analyze, even with computers stuff like who did melody of in my life or who sang the Ahs in a day in the life. I have a problem with John fans going on about this because I Would trust any of the Beatles on these issues way more than any of their individual fans,

    If you are going to go with the reasoning that the best way to evaluate this is by being closer to the time, then absolutely the John noted who did what on what Beatles composition Hit Parader Lennon-McCartney list from 72 that Paul looked over and agreed with except on two songs would be the list to go by. Funny, I’ve been reading about this very issue on a record forum. As by mid seventies Paul was called the most successful songwriter and got in Guinness book of world records as such, I don’t think he had to or has to steal John’s glory to get that title though and neither did anyone else then.

  26. Avatar Laura wrote:

    I don’t believe Paul has ever objected to a song being referred to as a John song – he’s objected to people saying John wrote a song completely on his own when he recalls otherwise.
    .
    Although John’s recollections were mostly made closer to when the deed was done, I think it’s fair to roll his agenda of minimizing Lennon-McCartney into the mix. And yes, Paul may maximize Lennon-McCartney, so that can also be taken into consideration.
    .
    Leaving us… where? It leaves me at, “I don’t know and I’m not going to get too upset about it since both their names are on the songs.” And John’s name is (almost) always first, so I cut Paul some slack since that’s contrary to what he, John and Brian agreed to before that storied trip to Spain.
    .
    Speaking of when authorship claims were made, “Beatlesongs” dates Paul’s claim of having written the tune for “In My Life” as 1984 when it was actually 1973. That kind of error is the last thing Paul needs :-\

  27. Avatar Michelle wrote:

    Paul was indeed more prolific than John in the ’70s. The memorable stuff is about the same as John’s. How did Junior’s Farm become a hit? Hell if I know.

  28. Avatar Kristy wrote:

    @Laura, “I think it’s fair to roll his agenda of minimizing Lennon-McCartney into the mix. And yes, Paul may maximize Lennon-McCartney, so that can also be taken into consideration.”
    .
    Well put!
    .
    I remember the days when I was a casual fan, before I knew who wrote what song, and I just thought of them all as Lennon-McCartney songs. I remember asking someone if it was Paul singing that kooky “I Am the Walrus,” hah.

  29. Avatar Michelle wrote:

    @Kristy, I miss those days. Every song blew me away upon first hearing, so who cares really. It was Beatles music. I started leaning more towards John’s songs but they are all great to me.
    .
    @Pidpoo – “…who sang the Ahs in a day in the life. I have a problem with John fans going on about this because I Would trust any of the Beatles on these issues way more than any of their individual fans.”
    .
    Who sings the “Ahs” in A Day in the Life is not even a debate. Paul himself said it was John and he described the little echo chamber he was in when he did it. Giles Martin confirmed that it was John (he must have heard it from his dad, or has the rehearsal tape in his possession). Does it sound like anyone other than John? I know Paul was good at imitating but my first impression was that it’s John. So it must be Paul fans who are making it an issue.

  30. Avatar Pidpoo wrote:

    @Michelle.I am very glad to answer who sang the…ahs in a day in the life. I refer you to EXPERT analysis in pages and pages on….the Steve Hoffman record forum….turns out it was Paul. The discussion is probably the longest one on that great record form, as goes on several hundreds of pages. The second longest Steve Hoffman forum disputing who did it….is who played the great drum shuffles on old a Brown Shoe. It turns out that too was Paul per verified double checked studio logs, a text to writers of reissued deluxe abbey road books and verification that ringo was indeed missing off filming Old Brown Shoe. When these contributions can be analyzed and verified they are indeed interesting, that’s why I found the old 72 Hit Parader list that the mag went over sing by sing with John and Paul then Paul and Paul agreed on all but two songs. As this was much closer to Beatles era and checked by John and Paul I found this list probably the most valid.

    Always glad to help.

  31. Avatar Pidpoo wrote:

    Turns out, like the song itself, ah s were a joint effort I think I remember from Hoffman forum, begun by John, I think, extended by Paul, I remember Hoffman conclusions correctly. This is a VERY good reason not to trust either in their interpretations, memories, etc…….as was studio work and a combined effort. It has, however, in recent years been in debate, though I always credited it to John. Just read Hoffman conclusions for yourself. Paul added they I’d love to turn you on lyric, but didn’t sing it.

  32. Avatar Pidpoo wrote:

    If I may be allowed one more comment as have already made two in the same subject ok, but if I’m not allowed anymore comments p, that’s ok too.

    Clearly folks questioning seventies AM radio hits do not remember the seventies, as Junior’s farm was considered rocking just as Whatever Gets You Through the Night and just as George’s This song all were AM seventies AM rocking hits and all songs had zany, seventies style lyrics. Though you may like one song and not another, the majority of listeners in that era liked all of them, and thus, they became popular radio hits and sold. Junior’s Farm was actually the heaviest sounding song of all of them and had the heavier sound popular in that era.

    If blog moderators don’t want to post this, that’s OK, but I continue to see misinterpretations of seventies styles and now music on this blog. As the seventies was a major part of solo Beatles story and the only decade when they all lived, The seventies solo Beatles was an extension of the Beatles, as had none of them gone solo, that would have drastically restricted the Beatles story. As this blog occasionally post solo Beatles endeavors articles, I feel this comment is relevant.

  33. Avatar Michelle wrote:

    Thanks. I’ve been getting into the Steve Hoffman Forums lately. A lot of knowledgeable posters on there. At first I thought it was anti-John but that must have been a few bad threads I happened to click on in a short span when I first discovered the site. There is a series of Beatles videos on Youtube called “You Can’t Unhear This” that dissects who sang the Ahhs in Day in the Life (I think they concluded it was John), who was singing “She Loves You Yeah Yeah Yeah” at the end of the Our World performance of All You Need is Love (it sounds like Paul but it looks like John is mouthing the words), what is that “ghost voice” that can be heard in I Want You (She’s So Heavy) etc.
    .
    I agree that the 1972 Hit Parader is probably the best source for who wrote what because Paul agreed with all but two songs that John went through. It was a good interview overall, from what I remember when I read it at the Beatles Ultimate Experience Interview Database.

  34. Avatar Pidpoo wrote:

    Never fear about the extraordinary Steve Hofffman record form John fanboys not being on guard. There are a few who reads Paul threads on that site just to creadcrap and troll Paul air them a shill for John and another one or two love to put in his regular hearsay heard it from a friend who heard it from a friend with UNCITED, sorry for caps auto correct wouldn’t spell without caps, sources hearsay Paul is a bastard, conniving, wanted only one mega star when worked with Jackson. One new John fanboy launched in one his first post that Paul is a psychopath.. Another is so devout that his user name is John Lennon’s but unlike most John fanboys, he gets on Paul threads and credits him for good songs.

    There have been posts on that good site that John fanboys threadcrap and diss Paul so, that the negative intense John fanboys disgust Paul fans , especially the younger ones, from liking John or his music. I have made. similar post here. John fans do John or his fans no favors by downing Paul. I see an extraordinary number of comments on Paul music youtubes that John and George with all of their downing of Paul clearly were jealous of him and look bad because of it.

    The big fault of that excellent forum is that there can be no honest discussion of her as a person, her music because any criticism is seen as sexist or racist. The rules of the forum quickly and zealously guard yoko’s personal and musical reputation and It is interesting to me that they would do that for her so zealously yet so many Paul trolls run amuck when he was ine if the Beatles and is a highly prolific solo artist.m I see that as reverse discrimination and a double standard only because she is a female.

    @Michelle, I can only say you must read every comment on the very long Who did the Ah’s in a day in the life. I read the different thread you noted but the very long thread on who did the ah’s is much more closely analyzed, possibly computer analyzed, like the melody of in my life was computer analyzed,…..and comes to the conclusion that Paul did the ah’s which I think were begun by John, extended and sustained by Paul, which interestingly shows their combined efforts many times. You must read the entire thread, however. I myself don’t care, long thought it was John who held the high note. I’m always amused at how John fans zealously guard his legacy which needs no such guardians because the man had a tremendous legacy.

    ***In case my third comment wasn’t posted from yesterday because I probably exceeded my daily allowance of comments, I continue to be amused at the various criticisms of seventies on this blog, in the more recent case of a song by, WHO ELSE? Lol, Paul, Junior’s farm….his harder rocking hit and wondering how that ever became a hit…..It did as did Whatever Gets You Through The Night, nit John’s finest lyrics or as did George This Song, not George’s finest lyrics.

    Songs had to be catchy however in the seventies to be a hit. I continue to stress that had no solo Beatle produced anything or succeeded their individual talents would have been questioned and they would have been assessed as overrated as Beatles. I also continue to stress on this blog seventies was a new decade, with new sounds, new clothes, new glam rock hair. style shag, that folks on this blog wrongly the much later revised and denigrated mullet, but was the Bowie, rod, Keith, Paul unisex glam rock shag hair, the new look for tge new decade of the seventies rockers then.

    Thus, I continue to say had there been no solo Beatles or success of any solo Beatle that would have eroded their rep for having such great talent In that band. They had extraordinary expectation and pressure on them to succeed and produce Beatle style music, which John. And George stuck to thst preachy style lyrics and heavy sound very first albums before becoming balladeers, but right off thus became critical and old sixties fan darlings but John and George took the safe way as did ringo m recycling a few late beatle styles throughout their solo which soon wore thin and folks tired of, thus their record sales fell off.

    Many folks decided that by the seventies anyway, as Beatles were very out of style in the seventies, long over taken by heavier who zeppelin and prog folks Yes, Kansas, ELP and ELO. Elton-taupin surpassed them as a songwriter team for extraordinary hits. The ONLY steady interest in the Beatles in the seventies was the will they re unite clamoring the press kept up and their Red and Blue albums interested a younger generation in them as anthology would do decades later. I knew four total solo Beatles fans high school and college combined. Of course, John’s death changed all of this as death of a musician always skyrockets their backlog catalogue and interests in them. More John tribute and Beatles biographies poured out after John’s death than possibly Elvis)as books were big business tgen.

    • Nancy Carr Nancy Carr wrote:

      Pidpoo, I’d like to respond to this part of your reply to Michelle:
      .
      “In case my third comment wasn’t posted from yesterday because I probably exceeded my daily allowance of comments”
      .
      There is no daily allowance of comments from anyone. But please edit your comments for length, because comments this long tend to overwhelm a thread and can keep other people from joining the conversation.

  35. Avatar Pidpoo wrote:

    @Michelle, let’s keep the Melody Maker list of who wrote what on what Beatles song discussion rational here. It is NOT the best list because Paul agreed with John on all but two sings but because each man was closer to the sixties with their recollections in 72 than later. Neither melody maker mag nor Paul thought they had to shill for John, though many music mags did shill for John but just went to each man for an honest run down of each single. Each man displayed later song confusion, John in 80 play girl interview and Paul throughout the decades as further removed from the historical events.

    **As for the Steve Hoffman form thread on the much longer thread provides much more evidence than the much shorter thread you read, which reached a different conclusion because it did not incorporate all of the data the much longer thread on the subject did.

    ** The John fan fear should be put to rest on that forum and elsewhere on the internet, as from blogs, forums and internet comments, Paul is by far more bashed and trolled than John. When John or George are criticized it us for their personal life failures and faults and usually not their music Beatles or solo. Of course as I have said elsewhere in a comment, Paul is not yet dead, aside from PIDtard believers, and when he is really dead, you have seen NOTHING until he really dies because his musical gifts and praises, Beatles and solo, will be sung to the skies then and go on a long time.

    Part of the praising and fear of trolling John and George online is because folks generally respect the dead and they are dead. It’s a matter of opinion and taste in Beatles different eras and in solo but, I do see multiple comments on youtube that Paul is by far the most Beatle due to high highly prolific out put and his longevity as well as his evident gifts and this is all based just on his solo. Nevertheless, Paul has and did before internet by far the most trolls of various types, I know as I watch mainly solo Beatles YouTubes. I don’t believe I or any Paul fan will have to fear for his legacy not being credited, though, except by PIDtards who I even see by youtube comments admit the substitute is indeed a musical genius and a legend in his lifetime, LOL.

  36. Avatar Pidpoo wrote:

    @Nancy, Thanks. I wasn’t sure about comments limits because way back before left the blog, I made multiple comments and was openly accused of “blitzing the blog.” I have noticed that when I make comments, I frequently get a moderator response but have not seen this that often with others except in a few cases. Nevertheless, when folks bring up different issues or views, that will engender different opinions.

    My above response is longer because it addresses three different points raised in above comments. Feel free to edit my comments as needed but they should keep the supporting facts to make sense. I have seen several folks on the blog write longer comments but not a problem as I have learned more from them unless they contain cherry picking and usually learn more from the longer supported comments than the brief opinions. Thanks.

  37. Avatar Michelle wrote:

    @Pidpoo – “When John or George are criticized it us for their personal life failures and faults and usually not their music Beatles or solo.”
    .
    This is not true at all. You yourself have repeatedly criticized John and George for being preachy, dated, and weak voiced and seem to revel in the notion that they ran out of ideas as songwriters. Yet when someone dares to say that they think Junior’s Farm was a hack job, we are told our opinion – yes opinion – is wrong. Not everything Paul did was an all-time classic. And what is with “John fanboys”. You remind me of some Youtube commenters I could name, also hypersensitive to the stupid Paul is Dead crowd. Not all of John’s fans are Jann Wenner clones or even male (obviously) or Paul haters. If you feel Paul is being bashed on various forums, you can stop the cycle by not slamming John in return. When one Beatle is criticized harshly, there is a tendency by his fans to do the same to the other. This is the last time I take up an argument with you because it’s become tedious, and I agree with Nancy above that you can get your point across much more effectively in a few succinct, non-repetitive sentences. Happy belated 78th birthday to Paul by the way. I hope he lives a long, long time.

  38. Avatar Henry wrote:

    Interesting the supposed fanboys of each sort of take on the personality of the Beatle himself. I’m a Paul fan first and foremost but I love John, warts and all, listen to his music, and hope he’s found peace wherever he is. And I believe hardcore Paul supporters have a lot of room in their hearts for John. The John fanboys however despise Paul, degrade him, obsess over him, and watch him like a hawk nit picking his behavior. And put down his musical achievements. They view him as a fraud and a phony.

    I’m talking of course of the hardcore types (small minority) not normal music loving folks.

  39. Avatar Henry wrote:

    However, if there is one thing that I will give credit to the Lennon fanboys is that they do still call out Paul when he goes a little too far with his nonsense. Blackbird for example…believe for decades that song was known to be inspired by Paul hearing the sound of bird singing while in India. Later, when it became opportunistic for him, Paul decided to change the origin story of that song to him being inspired by the civil rights movement and their fight for justice and equality. It really had nothing to do with it and Paul certainly would’ve probably come out and mentioned that sometime in the late 60’s, 70’s, 80’s or 90’s if it did. But it was only pretty recently that he did.

  40. Avatar Lily wrote:

    @Henry

    Actually, I would say that reflects Lennon fans’ tendency to see the worst in Paul, and Paul fans’ tendency to believe them. Unfortunately.

    The blackbird story IS a real story and he was recorded discussing it with Donovan in 1968. Check it out, Paul talks to Donovan about offering the song to Diana Ross and then he says that is how he originally meant it.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VrcsjDUfGw

    I find this notion that “Paul goes a little too far with the nonsense” pretty baseless. I think Paul sticks close to the truth when it comes to music, and in general in terms of their history, except he DOES like to put a positive spin on things, and I do think there are some agreed upon stories that all the Beatles maintain.

    But nevertheless, I totally challenge the Paul nonsense trope. Seems like the more digging that is done, the more of Paul’s “nonsense” claims are proven to be true. Maybe try giving him the benefit of the doubt and letting go of that notion?

  41. Avatar Jesse wrote:

    Transcript of Paul McCartney and Donovan recorded during the sessions for Mary Hopkin’s Postcard LP as heard on the “No. 3 Abbey Road N.W. 8” bootleg CD. (reproduced from http://davidgray101.tripod.com/PaulandDonovan.html )

    THE TAPE IS MUCH LONGER I AM ONLY QUOTING A SMALL PART HERE:
    .

    Paul: (singing) Black bird singing in the dead of night…

    Donovan: Yeah, that’s beautiful.

    Paul: (singing) Take these broken wings and learn to fly…

    Donovan: This is the one just for the guitar on the LP, eh? (apparently Paul nods.) Yeah.

    Paul: (singing) All your life… (speaking) It’s about a blackbird.

    Donovan: Yeah. A black bird playing a tune, eh?

    Paul: (singing) You were only waiting for this moment to arise.

    Donovan starts making bird noises, similar to those heard on the final recording. Mary Hopkins can be heard trying to sing quietly along with Paul in the background.

    Donovan: Fantastic.

    Paul: (singing) Blackbird singing in the dead of night… (Donovan joins in attempting to harmonize)…take these sunken eyes and learn to see,

    All your life…you were only waiting for this moment to be free,

    Blackbird fly,

    Blackbird fly,

    Into the light of a dark black night.

    Donovan: You see now, there are so many blackbirds (black birds?) now.

    Paul stops playing.

    Paul: I sang it to Diana Ross the other night. She took offense.

    Everyone laughs.

    Paul: Not really. But I did mean it like that originally.

    Donovan: Really?

    Paul: Yeah, I remember… I’d just read something in the paper about riots and then (singing briskly) Blackbird singing in the dead of night, take these broken wings and learn to fly, all your life, you were only waiting…


    The tape is from 1969. And from 1997 we have this quote:

    .
    “I had in mind a black woman, rather than a bird. Those were the days of the civil rights movement, which all of us cared passionately about, so this was really a song from me to a black woman, experiencing these problems in the States: ‘Let me encourage you to keep trying, to keep your faith, there is hope.’ As is often the case with my things, a veiling took place so, rather than say ‘Black woman living in Little Rock’ and be very specific, she became a bird, became symbolic, so you could apply it to your particular problem.

    Paul McCartney
    Many Years From Now, Barry Miles
    .
    .
    I just wish people would do little bit of their own research, it is so easy these days.

  42. Avatar Lily wrote:

    @Laura

    I totally understand and empathize with Paul’s concern about correct authorship of songs. I was shopping recently and noticed a pillow that was embroidered “I get by with a little help from my friends” — John Lennon which made me sad for Paul.

    If he doesn’t take these things seriously, things can spiral. I don’t think changing certain songs to McCartney/Lennon helps Paul’s cause because he had a hand in the majority of Beatles songs and doing that almost undervalues his contribution, but I guess these are the songs that he REALLY wants credit for.

    I don’t like John’s tendency to say “mine” about his songs – “Paul’s” about Paul’s songs, especially when Paul claims that that they were co-written (but I John does this because at one point I think he was paranoid that he wasn’t getting credit). If the “mine” or “his” is supposed to indicate who originated the idea, then fine, but so often I see full authorship credited to one or the other based on what John said. And it doesn’t seem to be how things worked between them, and it isn’t the way that creative collaboration usually works.

    Again, this notion of Paul and his “nonsense” is a trope. In My Life is another example of this.

    Paul was asked about his favorite Lennon/McCartney collaborations in 1973 and he named “IN MY LIFE.” This is when John was alive and could have disputed it. If it is a solo John song, then it’s weird that Paul remembered it this way only a few years after the breakup. Yet computers now say Paul is lying. John had the opportunity to call him out then, yet didn’t. I can’t imagine how frustrating this is for Paul.

  43. Avatar Michelle wrote:

    Well, John did give credit to Paul for the middle part of In My Life. So of course he’s not going to have a problem when Paul says in 1973 that it’s one of his favorite Lennon/McCartney collaborations. Paul later claimed to have written the entire melody, which goes beyond what John said. Did Paul claim the entire melody for In My Life at any point while John was alive?

  44. Avatar Laura wrote:

    From Paul McCartney in His Own Words by Paul Gambaccini, 1976: “I liked In My Life. Those were words that John wrote, and I wrote the tune to it. That was a great one.”
    .
    I believe Paul actually said it in 1973 when Gambaccini interviewed him for Rolling Stone but it wasn’t included in the magazine. Paul reaffirmed that this was his recollection in a 1977 Hit Parader interview.
    .
    There’s at least one other gem that was left out of a print interview. When David Sheff interviewed John and Yoko for Playboy in 1980, John said that the other Beatles had treated Ono quite well in the studio. Yoko agreed, saying none of them were nasty to her. This may have been included in the 1981 book version, but it’s definitely in the 2000 book version.
    .
    As for Blackbird, I’m glad there’s proof of what Paul has claimed about the song, but I’m sorry he needs it.

  45. Avatar Michelle wrote:

    Okay, so Paul isn’t taking advantage of John being dead in this instance. I’m still not completely convinced. First of all, maybe John wasn’t following every one of Paul’s statements in the ’70s. Secondly, it’s not so much that John said that Paul helped with the middle part of the song, but when he described bringing the song to Paul he said, “When he heard it…” Not when Paul read the lyrics or when he showed him the song. That tells me that John had at least some of the melody. Unless John expressly wanted Paul to share half the credit, he could have come up with that melody himself, being the pop craftsman that he was especially in those days. By the way, according to Paul there was only one instance where he wrote a melody to existing verses, and that was his own song All My Loving. It’s not something he was known to do.

  46. Avatar Pidpoo wrote:

    @Michelle, will try to write Hemingway style, , though my other comments contain detailed, relevant info from 63 yo. Also, next time ask me to list good lyric solo Paul non story songs which you seem familiar with, will remember I’m in catch 22 cuz you know songs already said and won’t bite hook or review white album fan impression of era as domination on album disputed. Will also learn to ignore ongoing fanboy dialogue another noted like me before joined and enjoy informative comments on blog. Some seem to have received preferential commenter treatment noticed from beginning when reading all comments on blog before joining, so almost didn’t, but never favorite anywhere, so usual. Decided had relevant memories and info to add. Hope that’s not case about preferential folks as believe is good blog overall run by good folks, but fanboy doesn’t help, so will continue commenting as relevant. However, others solo output that caused to see John and George as more hackneyed, though enjoyed some and not easily run off or never would have made it at age. Hope succinct enough. Have been called out and made example along here along, but old enough to defend self. This reads like translated Russian, but succinct and correct info and details matter…devil in details..

    As in Russia, this may not pass censorship, but won’t be first time…

    • Nancy Carr Nancy Carr wrote:

      Pidpoo, your joke about “censorship” is really not funny. This blog is paid for by Michael and me, who do all the unpaid work on it. And we are doing our utmost to keep this site a civil and productive space for people to converse.
      .
      In all the years this blog has been around, we have banned just one commenter, who was persistently rude to multiple people and who could not or would not alter the tone of those comments.
      .
      I want to err on the side of posting all comments. But I will point out again that people will pay more attention to what you say if you can make your comments shorter and edit them for clarity.

  47. Avatar Pidpoo wrote:

    @laura, trust me, Paul needs all backup sources can get but still will be greeted by …those..still not convinced despite documted proof. Yoko said John devoured all Paul records and written info he could find on Paul in seventies so I imagine John read what you said and didn’t dispute it. As there’s much ado now about a few Beatles John or Paul or co-writes among some, it was interesting he didn’t say anything on wings over America listing of McCartney-Lennon song credits though Paul indeed wrote those songs Yet some Beatles fans went nuts when he did that on back in them US album.. Folks have had to repeatedly posted the Paul Donovan video/audio on the Steve Hoffman forum as blackbird subjects matter comes up regularly under the…Paul revising history and claiming credit tropes. Folks claim paul only recently began saying that in concert before performing Blackbird, but I remember him doing so when saw wings in concert as song in acoustic part of concert and may even be in Rock Show, I think. Someone above did a good Paul tropes comment. Way back, I made a similar Paul tropes comment. Nevertheless, those tropes die hard and as someone said above, the fans of the different Beatles I’ve noticed too take on their personality traits, their most negative traits sadly and have seen this with George fans as well.

  48. Avatar Pidpoo wrote:

    @Nancy, , I think any comment with facts on any Beatles related issue with backup supporting info, long or short, beats any ….much briefer …..fanboy …..“I just don’t like or I do like this or that….or the way the he looked with hair or clothes then, and beats the ””I just don’t like”.or the …“I’m Still not convinced despite a factually previous cited comment.“ Many of the same very few folks jump in with completely unsupportable comments that forces others like those you see in this thread to pull out facts and citations to address the issues raised, sometimes in lengthier comments, to dispute the commenter. On other blogs this is called fanboy shilling or troll derailing. When I have discussed solo music, say in my case, to use an example, I have noted very specific of failures of others solo music such as severely restricted genres and theme styles and of it as opposed to generalities of I don’t like or didn’t like styles of an era.

    This was the one blog I seriously debated donating to regularly to when learned it was privately funded until I repeatedly read the constantly unmonitored allowance of unrestrained thread derailment and fanboy generalities by the very same few that another commenter has I have privately written to blog owner about several of my concerns here who says just ignores this but these few folks do the blog no favors with constant derailment and fanboy stuff and can do the most to discourage new commenters. Also, I have freely told all that I have medical problems which may cause me to repeat or forget things.

    The unmonitored continued run of issues circling is as good a proof of any of a very serious issue you raised in Beatles culture….are the fans too toxic?

    I’m beginning to also suspect that there is In blog comments and moderation sadly…some prejudice towards ageism here as those with older memories or those liking hair styles, fashions and music of earlier times are ridiculed and are repeatedly discouraged whereas younger folks are not called out for ridiculing and that there is possibly prejudice towards those with disabilities who are called repetitive and long winded, as well as Beatles fanboy culture toxicity here, as rejection of cited sources are rejected. I really hate thinking this about a blog where the folks overall and owners say they have liberal views and want going discussions because I have liberal views as well but have not sadly experienced the best of liberalism here. I hate to see the best of progressive liberalism not enforced among liberals because if they don’t, who will?

    • Nancy Carr Nancy Carr wrote:

      As I said, we have tried to allow posting of most comments. We only crack down when things are offensive or when they get so far down a rabbit hole that we feel we have to — that’s why we closed comments on the “Lovers” thread.
      .
      The one thing that I have done is recommend that you post shorter comments. That’s not meant to be ageist or discriminatory, but to point out a fact: people tend not to read very long comments.

  49. Avatar Pidpoo wrote:

    There has definitely been some ageism and possibly disability discrimination on this blog, though it has been more in the comments than the articles. However, some articles have contained discrimination, like articles and comments on the now highly derided seventies styles now, such as pink shirts articles, the early seventies glam rock hair and later seventies rock hair styles and clothes styles. For those of us who wore and liked these styles decades ago, that is complete age discrimination,

    The ageism is also lending preference to youthful tastes and youthful commenters over knowledge of historical trends then and allowing the unchallenged comments of younger folks. There is a tendency to defend the opinions of the younger folks on this blog and to fuss at the older ones, an irony as the very group and solo folks are old. Ageism is also the contemporary tendency to jump on elderly folks like Macca for possibly senile confusion and his older folks possible senile tendencies to tell repeat stories, as he and I here are told repeat ourselves.. When trying to clarify by using history and facts, I am told info facts too long and rambling, folks won’t read.

    Multiply loaded or openly easily checked bait is is thrown out on a few comments, thus takes carefully researched and long citations which folks scramble doing to correct and get threads back on course. I also see where thread derailments folk and fanboy folks aren’t called in check. Simply look up thread in comments just on this one article and most importantly, read the very good particular comment on the negative fans.

    It’s a pity as improvements could be easily made.

    • Nancy Carr Nancy Carr wrote:

      Pidpoo, I don’t know how else to make it clear that we are not going to police the comments in the way that you seem to want. Michael and I have actually talked about shutting down comments altogether. We are seriously considering that.
      .
      One thing I will say is that you seem to be taking rather joking references in posts quite seriously. My “pink shirt” comment about McCartney’s attire on that “Wings Over Switzerland” CD was tongue in cheek; I was a child in the 1970s and there are plenty of pictures of me in clothing that I now find fairly amusing. That’s personal taste; I think it’s a stretch to call any rueful acknowledgement that styles change “ageism,” especially when there are plenty of posts celebrating the styles and modes of the 1960s here.

  50. Avatar Pidpoo wrote:

    @Nancy, thank you for responding and for pointing out that it is indeed the seventies era as represented by styles and music that is considered red headed and step now. I see the seventies styles ridiculed all over the internet, the real era I grew up. The sixties, especially on this site or any other such worshipping and emphasizing the sixties era, is seen as the golden, fair haired age, hence seventies is the red headed ridiculed era. These Beatle internet sites are as a whole at root a sixties worship fan fest and it is interesting how so many of them and the weaker books drop off a cliff in 1970. Sites like this simply at best grand father in seventies or any and later Beatles solo decades, just like at the time begrudgingly and most claim at extreme they somehow all lost their talent alone instead of more accurately sometimes expandedA on their talents alone, sometimes successfully, sometimes not. All sixties music and fashions are all and worshipped because were part of that golden Beatles era. This goes back to the old Beatles were brilliant together but weaker apart boomer tropes whereas sometimes they were as a group and individually weak together but stronger than with group.

    I have privately mentioned to Michael myself a earlier that it would be a very good thing to disable all comments on this blog and instead of spending so much time moderating them, instead spend much more profitable time on writing interesting brief articles because that is where you shine. I can tell you that it is discriminating to have the entire era you really got into the Beatles and solo Beatles ridiculed in every way. It is likewise discriminatory for the same clearly younger folks views to be constantly supported and someone my age to be consistently spurned. I find that the seventies is the sport ridicule decade of the many gen xers and millennials all over the internet and their offensive chuckles at wrongly called mullets, the styles, when then where glam rock shags and such insults. If comments are too incendiary and offensive and too time consumming, by all means, disable them.

    I read all comments on any site or video to learn previously unknown info, not for my generation and taste to be insulted. If you prefer to keep this a Beatle focused rather than a solo Beatle focused site, that would be easier, as solo John seems to be over represented here, the great majority of Paul solo career under represented and sometimes ridiculed, while George and Ringo are almost completely overlooked on this site. I do think it is good to keep things such as then stylish pink shirts and such jokes out of future references as that is akin to ridiculing later Beatles Indian shirts and love beads indicative of the sixties.

    I know, this is already too long and old folks ramble and disabled folks like me with seizures and probably senile older Paul repeat ourselves and get mixed up and no one cares about their memories or opinions because boomers are only, what, 2% of the world or US population they say now and majority rules or something. You know everything is brief sound bites and folks today can’t pay attention or something I read. For most of my work career, it was with folks younger than myself, but I can now truly sadly understand discrimination. Interacting with folks on this site has taught me that unfortunately about a subject matter of my interest.

    By all means, if you cannot do better, turn off ALL comments though some have contained very interesting real information.

  51. Avatar Michelle wrote:

    Pidpoo, I think you’re being a little paranoid. Which according to Henry’s theory would make you a John fan.

  52. Avatar Hologram Sam wrote:

    PIDPOO: I have privately mentioned to Michael myself a earlier that it would be a very good thing to disable all comments on this blog

    MICHELLE: Pidpoo, I think you’re being a little paranoid.

    .
    The gingham dog went “Bow-wow-wow!”
    And the calico cat replied “Mee-ow!”
    The air was littered, an hour or so,
    With bits of gingham and calico,
    While the old Dutch clock in the chimney-place
    Up with its hands before its face,
    For it always dreaded a family row!
    .
    Next morning, where the two had sat
    They found no trace of dog or cat;
    And some folks think unto this day
    That burglars stole that pair away!
    But the truth about the cat and pup
    Is this: they ate each other up!
    Now what do you really think of that!
    .
    I sort of wish the gingham dog and calico cat would take their drama over to reddit. I used to enjoy reading and learning from comments here. But now all the smart and funny commenters have gone quiet.
    .
    Pidpoo, I used to enjoy your comments. You’d share your memories of when the Beatles first came on the scene. I’m 62, so I remember the first wave of Beatlemania as well. But lately you’ve used this place as a forum to work out your rage. It has nothing to do with your age or disability, but rather a fierce sense of entitlement that compels you to attack other opinions as “wrong” and belittle the folks who run this site when they politely ask you consider the feelings of others. You’re better than this.
    .
    Michelle, I just find your comments mean-spirited. You didn’t start out this way. But lately, your angry comments remind me of the sort of toxic “letters to the editor” that Steve Allen used to read aloud on his old TV show. Are you the one who called Paul “his own worst enemy” for participating in a charity event? You have interesting opinions to share. Why turn this peaceful blog into your personal thunderdome?

    • Nancy Carr Nancy Carr wrote:

      Sam, you’ve just succinctly stated why Michael and I are considering disabling comments, and perhaps shutting down the blog altogether.
      .
      I’ve really loved HD for 10 years now, but animosity and score-settling have increasingly taken over the comments. Never has “life is very short, and there’s no time for fussing and fighting , my friend” seemed more apropos.
      .
      Ideally all of us would realize that if we love the Beatles, there is more that unites us than separates us.

      • So @Hologram Sam, what’s your opinion? Should we run without comments? I’m still somewhat interested in the topic, but having spoken about it for 12 years the things I’m interested in are increasingly weird and based on my own experiences, and the ground which I use to speak on it is increasingly personal. People coming in 12 years in and educating me about “How Do You Sleep?” or “Dear Boy” or Yoko’s mistreatment at the hands of the male avant garde are… [this is my slight smile, waiting for you to finish, then asking you, “Why don’t YOU start a blog, and then people who are interested, can go there and interact with YOU?”]
        .
        I’m really not interested in engaging with the commenters any more, because you never know what they’re going to be weirdly attached to; and the attachment is never what it used to be: “I found x interesting, here’s my opinion, what’s yours?” I don’t know if it’s a generational thing, or an internet-poisoning thing, or the world in 2020, but these days every comment always feels like an excuse to rassle and — I’m not interested in rasslin’. Neither is Nancy, I suspect, but she’d have to speak for herself. Anyway, HD has never been about that or like that, proving people wrong or bludgeoning others into submission. That it feels like that now is sad for me. Not least because there are plenty of other places to go do that, even about something as tiny and not important as the Beatles.
        .
        I don’t wanna be Chief Blue Meanie, but I think Nancy and I have a right to say what we want, on the site we run and pay for, without having to deal with a bunch of strangers getting up in our grill. NONE OF THIS MATTERS, and if you think it does: go see a therapist. Be mad at me for saying that, but it’s not healthy to grab strangers on the internet and say, “STOP DISRESPECTING PAUL MCcCARTNEY!” Especially if you go to the same site over and over and do it on every thread. If you feel that strongly — if you have that much to say — start a blog! Don’t dominate this one; it doesn’t belong to you. Nancy and I are nice to a fault, but we’re sick of calling each other and saying, “How do we fix the site?”
        .
        It’s like hosting a potluck, and then having people show up and say shitty things about the food, your house, your clothes, your pet. After the tenth or twentieth one, you begin to ask, “Why am I still doing this?” or better yet, “This used to be fun. People used to be nice. How do I only invite the people who are nice?”
        .
        So @Sam, what’s your recommendation?

  53. Avatar Pidpoo wrote:

    @Michelle, not surprised at all that according to Henry’s theory, I come out being a John fan, as in John’s life time, he was my favorite Beatle. Nevertheless, he had his own many faults, but he would be the first to call out discrimination if all types.and and did so many times. In the seventies, John remained by favorite Beatle though I was disappointed overall at his solo output, but he still remained my favorite till died and I hung with John throughout some of his oddest times in the late sixties through 80 as he was always my early favorite. George was second favorite then but it was a close tie, almost neck and neck, with George and Paul solo in seventies. Perhaps I was a bit more paranoid in my youth from 70-80, probably so, as the times were very paranoid then, or perhaps I was more impressionable to critical notions of cool or maybe I outgrew all of that thinking eventually, I don’t know. See, primary favorite fan allegiance can change over the course of time and you can take the best from all of them yet eventually see their personal flaws as well.

  54. Avatar Lara wrote:

    The world had changed vastly by the sixties, spearheaded by the Beatles and others, which is why the decade remains a source of fascination compared to the seventies. We see a similiar interest in the years of WW2 – films, books, documentaries – compared to the twenties, thirties, or fifties. A decade of huge upheaval. The whole purpose of Beatles’ websites, I should think, is to reflect and examine their huge musical and cultural dominance as a collective during the sixties. And I think it should remain centrepoint. Without the Beatles, there would be no solo Beatles to even discuss. It is ironic in itself that the term ‘Beatle’ is even used now, as ‘The Beatles’ were disbanded by being legally released from their contract in April 1970. The four then became separate artists: John Lennon, Paul McCartney (or Wings), George Harrison, and Ringo Starr. Why they should be even referred to as solo ‘Beatles’ beats me (no pun intended). But I get that it’s convenient.
    .
    I’ve always disliked the term baby boomer or boomer intensely. It’s derogatory and discriminatory devised by an American in the late 60s to categorize people born over a very wide number of years from 1946 to 1963. A term that we non-Americans born during those years have been saddled with ever since (please don’t think I’m anti-American as I’m not; I’ve visited your amazing country many times and love American popular culture as much as anyone). Previously named the post-war generation, and correctly so, it ended with the discovery of the contraceptive pill, and had it not been invented, the ‘boomer’ generation would have continued to this very day. Oh, the irony of it all. Do people seriously think that those born in 1963 grew up with the same social, musical, and cultural influences of those born in 1946?
    .
    Effectively, everyone born during those years is now aged between 56 and 74, hardly old by today’s standards, let alone senile (the life expectancy for both men and women today is in the early 80s). Like everything else, there are attitudes to life and ageing, both positive and negative, but both Paul and Ringo reflect the former very well. Paul may well tell the same old stories at his concerts, mainly now from habit and expectations, with a little showmanship thrown in for good measure.

  55. Avatar Pidpoo wrote:

    @hologram Sam. Thanks for your third party perspective. We all should consider such all around. I’ll not comment on your points individually as you don’t mean for me to but will consider them overall as I’m sure other folks will. The very nature of comments is that they can sometimes wrongly make folks feel they are backed into corners and comments subsequently become increasingly polarizing and personal. Thanks for trying to mediate, hologram Sam. I know your intentions are good I whether agree with all you have said or not. That is the benefit of the doubt we all should receive and give each other and all any of us is asking.

  56. Avatar Pidpoo wrote:

    @Lara, yes, indeed you are right about the Americans term baby boomers, the artificial term given to those kids born when WW2 soldiers returned. You are right about the sixties being the pivotal key change decade but the sixties and its influenced, musically or otherwise did not artificially stop in 1970. The seventies are very much an extension of the late sixties. I began collecting records, reading mags and then available rock books in the late sixties and kept doing so in seventies and the dividing line was more accurately 1967-80 late sixties influence.

    The seventies are very much an extension of the late sixties musically and fashion wise. There were new seventies musical and fashion styles but most we’re simply extensions of sixties, most young women wore very long hair parted down middle. One huge change is that by the early seventies, younger men all began wearing their hair longer, even longer than mid era Beatles. Absolutely, no sixties, no solo Beatles but no solo Beatles, all would have retired at once. Most, but certainly not all acts in seventies, got their start in the late sixties st least. From my reading about this and my memories,

    I would put the sixties and the seventies together as music and fashion of each so close then overall but it was the eighties where music and fashion completely changed never to return, as new wave lead finally into hip hop, women began to again wear more makeup to dress up and use hair spray for a while. Today, we have a blend of casual style blended with conservative but indistinct hair. Seventies was the last hurrah decade of rock that also yielded rise of black urban dance music in r n b, disco and funk. The most interesting thing about the seventies solo Beatles particularly is their varied niches and styles from each other and that they all even survived then as solo artists. There’s been some re cycling of fashion styles, furniture styles throughout the decades but due to technology, music has in this era gone electronic and folks tend not to play instruments.

    As for Paul‘S repeat stories, it’s hard to know , as folks who work for him have said upon occasion he has gotten forgetful in last many years. In interviews, his repeat stories could be a defense mechanism as so repeatedly jumped on for so long regardless of what he says or it could be his efforts to give his angle. I’ve seen multiple different videos of him messing up lyrics and know his band has to go over those of older songs with him.

    However, sociological divides of eras and age groups are not easily made, though, and differ as to who is making them, Lara, you are right, as with boomers so with music. For instance, I personally never much separated Beatles from a solo Beatle as saw every solo Beatle as a later extension of his work in the Beatles. I even filed my records, magazines and books on them like that. These are extremely interesting discussions and we do still have two very elderly solo Beatles still making music. A whole book could be written on these things.

  57. Avatar Pidpoo wrote:

    As to the above discussions about the quality of the best solo John and best solo Paul songs not exceeding their best Beatles, it is hard to be objective if you think that is impossible. If it is impossible, then it has been pre determined that they did not do it without evaluating some of their best seventies solo songs. It all comes down to whether or not you believe or not that seventies John and Paul never exceeded their best Beatles songs. I could take the two best solo Beatles songs from each man, but if you are of the opinion that it was impossible for their best solo to exceed their best Beatles, then you can never be convinced. I would evaluate their best Beatles and best solo songs lyrically and for musical complexity and, to be fair to John, not use a Paul song from a later decade. I could take Bless You or Number 9 Dream from John and see as an example if his exceeding across the universe but you could cite that these songs were not culturally impactful like across the universe or I could take Imagine but you could claim it was not as musically powerful as Come Together or All you Need is Love . Likewise, I could take Little Lamb dragon Fly, though Jenny Wren from a different decade is musically and lyrically much more comparable to Eleanor Rigby tune and lyric wise and it could well be argued surpassed Eleanor. I could likewise take the co written Don’t Let It Bring You Down with the Irish whistle as better than Yesterday or for a non co-wrote, substitute a song like love in song or warm and beautiful as better than yesterday. However, if you are of the opinion solo Beatles never exceeded best Beatles, you would never be convinced because best always is subjective and best John and Paul Beatles , as determined by the critics and public, is now cannon while most of the time the best solo Beatles is not cannon. I would not include maybe I’m amazed as Paul was working on that song, had it completely done I believe in abbey road sessions, thus it was composed as a Beatle. It all comes down to opinions and subjective song tastes and methods as to how they are evaluated and notions of what best is.

  58. Avatar Alejandra wrote:

    With or without comments this site has been a good niche for us to read well-informed opinions and topics related to The Beatles seen in a different light through its regular posts. Thanks for that…

  59. Avatar Hologram Sam wrote:

    what’s your recommendation?

    .
    I always thought this place works best as a dialogue between blog hosts and readers.

    For example:

    Nancy writes a post about seeing the Beatle show in Las Vegas. A reader replies with a comment about the Cirque du Soleil soundtrack/Giles Martin remix. There are a few more replies about the remix and how the songs sound in the Giles mashup. Then another commenter mentions that the Cirque du Soleil has recently filed for bankruptcy protection and is negotiating with a private equity firm. Maybe a few more comments appear comparing private equity firms to vampires. Now we’ve got some current events to chew on. Maybe some readers share their own memories of Las Vegas shows. Then the conversation returns to the Cirque du Soleil soundtrack, and maybe someone with a background in dance comments on the choreography. And in the end everyone learns something and has some fun.

    And then, seven years later a new reader appears in the thread and adds a comment from the year 2027, about President Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez quoting Beatle lyrics during her State of the Union address.

    Throughout the Cirque du Soleil thread, perhaps one or two (or three or four?) commenters try to pick a fight. Those comments don’t make it past the moderators. Eventually, the folks who want to rassle notice their comments aren’t appearing, and so they either stop posting or change their behavior. And Heydullblog thrives.

    I think the Housekeeping post was useful:
    https://www.heydullblog.com/housekeeping-2/new-commenting-policy/

    • Nancy Carr Nancy Carr wrote:

      Sam, please comment on that Cirque post! And thanks for linking to the “Housekeeping” post again.
      .
      Neither Michael nor I likes to delete comments or block people. But there’s no doubt there’s been too much “rassling” lately, and too little listening and responding with care.
      .
      What I’d like to ask everyone to do: whenever possible, focus on something you can agree with, or something to which you can add a new dimension. Imagine you’re face to face with the person you’re responding to. Ask yourself how you would likely feel if you were on the receiving end of the comment you just wrote.

%d bloggers like this: