Paul, some words of wisdom: let it be.

Will someone just kill this douche already?

is #2389 michelle?
/my belle
//slashies

Q: When did Paul McCartney write Silly Love Songs?
A: 1963-present

zing!

There are two other Beatles who were more political than Paul ever was, at least with their music. And even if this story is true, its not like suddenly coming to a realization about the Vietnam war was the only thing that made John Lennon "go political". If anybody caused a change in Lennon, it was Dylan.

Passive Aggressive Larry:If anybody caused a change in Lennon, it was Dylan.

yes.

Paul needs to stop talking to microphones.

Meh. Any goodwill and musical credibility that Lennon earned was negated by unleashing Yoko on the world.

/Paul, STFU already
//You haven't been relevant since, what? the 70's?

Be sure to sign a pre-nup Paul.

Idiot.

Paul's always been a bit hypocritical on this. He's the one who wants you to know he was listening to Stockhausen long before Lennon was, and that he was the one who got them into politics, blah blah blah, but he's also the one who wrote "Oh Bla Di Oh Bla Da".

So so much for you being the "avant-garde" one, Paul.

gunsmack: Meh. Any goodwill and musical credibility that Lennon earned was negated by unleashing Yoko on the world.

/Paul, STFU already
//You haven't been relevant since, what? the 70's?

FTFY, Yoko is awesome.

Shouldn't Paul be out chasing one-legged women. I've heard they're easier to catch. I heard it in a love song, a silly little love song. He just won't just rest on past laurels, now, he's stealing them from graves. Again.

bobbette: gunsmack: Meh. Any goodwill and musical credibility that Lennon earned was negated by unleashing Yoko on the world.

/Paul, STFU already
//You haven't been relevant since, what? the 70's?

FTFY, Yoko is awesome.

*Shakes head*

Chicks...

Given the way that the press regularly takes things out of context, I'd like to see the interview transscript before we burn McCartney at the stake.

/// If I wrote the above to a reporter, the press headline would be:

Notmtwain says "Burn McCartney at the stake."

Paul has been saying this for years.

When you listen to the material they did as solo artists and then compare it to the work as a group its pretty darned apparent who wrote what or who had the most influence in songs.

Paul has been claiming credit for the more serious songs for at least 15 years.

Here's my input - after this, discussion can cease!!
(kidding)
Okay, Paul was very much conscious of being an artist and trying to do as much as he could with music. Lennon I don't think really cared until he met Yoko. Yes, Paul did the early experimentation and stuff, and by about Beatles For Sale I think Lennon was just along for the ride until he couldn't take it. Lennon got all his "being in a band and putting out records is AWESOME" yayas out of his system pretty quick.
That said, when it's time to make a record and Lennon was expected to come up with some material, and he just jerked it out, he IS John Lennon, so it was very, very classic stuff. Lennon's essential naturalness as an artist is one thing Paul couldn't pull off.
So give McCartney some credit. Yes he did write stuff like Ob-la-di, but it's on the same record as "Helter Skelter" and "Why Don't We Do It In The Road?" While the rest of the Beatles spent their glory years married in country homes, Paul lived in London as a bachelor and was the most in-tune with the times, hanging out with other musicians and such.
As for this article, I might believe it BUT Paul was far too much an aspiring bourgeois to be the political lightning rod John was for the late 60s - I think because Paul was the actual working class one of the two. John came from a distinctly middle class background and historically those become the real crap disturbers. A lot of the dichotomy between the two can be understood from that perspective.
//still, the best post-Beatles record is by far Plastic Ono Band. So foo on Paul.
///"Who are Wings? Wings were the band the Beatles could have been!"
////obscure?

Blackbird was political!

If it wasn't for McCartney, most probably never would have heard of Lennon. McCartney has always been a pop song writer. They complimented each other greatly.

Lennon would have probably ended up as some Phil Ochs-type character.

I still liked them better when they were the Clarences.

Ringo is my favorite Beatle because he's not an attention whore.

I can benchpress more than Paul McCartney. Suck it Paul.

Paul is talented, but it's a very specific sort of talented (namely, saccharine pop songs), and his douchetastic ego broke up the Beatles. Yes, that's right, I said it. Paul, not Yoko, broke up the farking Beatles.

They're dying off in descending order of talent. You're next, Paul.

jake_lex: Paul's always been a bit hypocritical on this. He's the one who wants you to know he was listening to Stockhausen long before Lennon was, and that he was the one who got them into politics, blah blah blah, but he's also the one who wrote "Oh Bla Di Oh Bla Da".

So so much for you being the "avant-garde" one, Paul.

Not many rock stars were attempting reggae/ska in 1968.

As I said in a thread a few days ago.

I'm a Beatles fan, but Paul can be an asshat.

... he has his asshat on; just ignore him.

Benalto: //still, the best post-Beatles record is by far Plastic Ono Band. So foo on Paul.

Sorry, but it's All Things Must Pass.

Paul just might have been political but he didn't have the balls to express it like John.

notmtwain: Given the way that the press regularly takes things out of context, I'd like to see the interview transscript before we burn McCartney at the stake.

/// If I wrote the above to a reporter, the press headline would be:

Notmtwain says "Burn McCartney at the stake."

This is what I'm thinking. None of the quote even indicates he's claiming to have 'turned Lennon polical' only that he mentionned relaying Russel's story about Vietnam to Lennon.

YOu guys sure take seriously pop "musicians" who bragged about sitting down to write themselves something that will make them enough money to buy a swimming pool.

SockMonkeyHolocaust: YOu guys sure take seriously pop "musicians" who bragged about sitting down to write themselves something that will make them enough money to buy a swimming pool.

Oh come on. Liszt did his piano transcriptions of Beethoven's symphonies 'cause he needed money quick. DeQuincey wrote 90% of the time for periodicals and encyclopedias because he was always in debt. Dylan wrote "Like A Rolling Stone" to see if he could get a top 10 hit. You have not given a good reason to put musician within parenthesis.

He blew their cover as far as LSD went...the big mouth...

TeddyRooseveltsMustache: Ringo is my favorite Beatle because he's not an attention whore.

Didn't Ringo just announce that he will no longer answer fan mail and anything sent to him will go straight to the garbage?

Let's face facts. Paul wants to be John Lennon. Anything John was well-known for, Paul has said that he was doing it first. Writing poetry? He just didn't bother to publish until a few years ago. Painting? He's only just gotten comfortable to show them in the past twenty years. Avant garde? He was avant garde before John ever set foot in an art gallery. Musical experimentation? Even though John wrote "Tomorrow Never Knows," he's the one who did all the tape loops. Yoko? He'll make damned sure you know he met her before John.

And now this.

I farkin' hate Paul McCartney.

Argoran: Let's face facts. Paul wants to be John Lennon. Anything John was well-known for, Paul has said that he was doing it first. Writing poetry? He just didn't bother to publish until a few years ago. Painting? He's only just gotten comfortable to show them in the past twenty years. Avant garde? He was avant garde before John ever set foot in an art gallery. Musical experimentation? Even though John wrote "Tomorrow Never Knows," he's the one who did all the tape loops. Yoko? He'll make damned sure you know he met her before John.

And now this.

I farkin' hate Paul McCartney.

So...John was well-known for his poetry? Such as....? Paintings? John was a vaguely skilled cartoonist...Paul wasn't. Avant-garde music...well, Paul was doing that stuff while John was home with his wife. Don't let your hate blind you to the facts. Hate sucks.

FlyingPig: Paul is talented, but it's a very specific sort of talented (namely, saccharine pop songs), and his douchetastic ego broke up the Beatles. Yes, that's right, I said it. Paul, not Yoko, broke up the farking Beatles.


Wrong. Brian Epstein's death broke up the Beatles.

I have to agree he was much more in touch with 'the times' in London back in 65-69. But George's "Taxman" seems to me their first overtly political song.

Lets all get off his lawn so he can enjoy his senile years in peace with whatever little girl he's managed to scavenge up from the orphanrium this month.

/hotlinked for your pleasure

Argoran
Let's face facts. Paul wants to be John Lennon.

John wanted to be Paul as well.

This true paradox only spans from their first meeting through 1968. By then the Beatles couldn't stand each other. Still, had John not been murdered there would've been the inevitable appearances and reconciliation...never any more Beatles, though...

Allen Klein broke up the Beatles. Paul was the only one sensible enough to not want to put his life's work in Klein's grubby hands. Sure enough the others eventually saw through him, but not before four million dollars disappeared, and several tax filings were ignored.

That said, I wish Paul would just shut up about the whole thing. We all know what he did, so why does he have to keep bleeting on about it? For guys with such big egos, John and Paul sure could be insecure.

I guess we dont need Paul anymore.

Glenechocreek: hat said, I wish Paul would just shut up about the whole thing. We all know what he did, so why does he have to keep bleeting on about it? For guys with such big egos, John and Paul sure could be insecure.

So stupid press hound you with dumb questions about old news, you indulge them by responding to their question, and that qualifies as blabbing all the time about old news?

If it's true that Paul wanted to be like John, I guarantee he will one day get his wish! In the mean time I wish he'd just STFU!

Benalto: Here's my input - after this, discussion can cease!!
(kidding)
Okay, Paul was very much conscious of being an artist and trying to do as much as he could with music. Lennon I don't think really cared until he met Yoko. Yes, Paul did the early experimentation and stuff, and by about Beatles For Sale I think Lennon was just along for the ride until he couldn't take it. Lennon got all his "being in a band and putting out records is AWESOME" yayas out of his system pretty quick.
That said, when it's time to make a record and Lennon was expected to come up with some material, and he just jerked it out, he IS John Lennon, so it was very, very classic stuff. Lennon's essential naturalness as an artist is one thing Paul couldn't pull off.
So give McCartney some credit. Yes he did write stuff like Ob-la-di, but it's on the same record as "Helter Skelter" and "Why Don't We Do It In The Road?" While the rest of the Beatles spent their glory years married in country homes, Paul lived in London as a bachelor and was the most in-tune with the times, hanging out with other musicians and such.
As for this article, I might believe it BUT Paul was far too much an aspiring bourgeois to be the political lightning rod John was for the late 60s - I think because Paul was the actual working class one of the two. John came from a distinctly middle class background and historically those become the real crap disturbers. A lot of the dichotomy between the two can be understood from that perspective.
//still, the best post-Beatles record is by far Plastic Ono Band. So foo on Paul.
///"Who are Wings? Wings were the band the Beatles could have been!"
////obscure?

Bravo. Quite right on all counts.

theurge14: FlyingPig: Paul is talented, but it's a very specific sort of talented (namely, saccharine pop songs), and his douchetastic ego broke up the Beatles. Yes, that's right, I said it. Paul, not Yoko, broke up the farking Beatles.


Wrong. Brian Epstein's death broke up the Beatles.

This. Although theurge14 is also correct. But it certainly wasn't Yoko.

Paul will never get everyone onboard with his "I was the political one" claim.

Nixon didn't try to get him deported for his work against the Vietnam War. As someone said earlier, John simply had more courage to speak his mind.

Perhaps Sir Paul oughta lay off the pot. Maybe now that he's in his 60s, smoking it everyday might not be a great idea.

Also, re: the one-legged woman...people say rock stars shouldn't date fans. Well, a fan wouldn't have f-ed him over the way Heather did. Also, a fan would be familiar with his back catalog, unlike Heather. That she couldn't identify a number of Beatle songs annoyed him to no end, but then that could be due to ego. But then again...his own wife not knowing all the Beatle's biggest hits? "All You Need Is Cash"?

A fan wouldn't have made him venture into Rap...