Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Greg]

Do you care how the order goes?  What do you think about Paul caring about this?

I don't care about the order.  I don't think Paul should either.  Did you read the Esquire article?  I think he was still going on about being in a hotel and seeing, on his iphone, "Hey Jude by John Lennon and ..."  because there wasn't enough room on the screen.

I just don't care.  Paul wrote what he wrote.  I can see his point though, and it would bug me if I were him.  As silly at it is it would bug me.  From me, the guy who didn't write these songs, it seems silly though.

[2 of 3]

It is a bit weird considering Paul knows that the Lennon/McCartney songwriting duo is a brand. Most people know that every person not named Ringo who sang lead vocal is the main songwriter. They both would have sold a lot more records as solo artists if the kept the Lennon/McCartney signature on each song.  Or not. 

[Mervap]

I haven't given it a lot of thought, but I suppose if I had written some of the great songs Paul has, I might be a little perturbed if the general populace thought Lennon did them. But that was an issue that could easily have been resolved at the time they decided the order. Enjoy the adulation that rightly is yours, Paul.....we wouldn't love you more if your name was first.

[Keri]

Was it Bob Geldof that called Paul out on this? Paul does still seem concerned about which name comes first as though he thinks he won't be recognised as a great writer, I think it's a bit of ego and a bit of phobia, so it's a little weird. He needs to relax about it, he's done the stuff, people can tell that Penny lane is Paul and i am the Walrus John. People are not going to think because John's name appears first that he wrote most of Rocky Racoon, Hey Jude, Lovely Rita, Yesterday, Here there and everywhere, etc.

Paul is a giant in popular culture, he must know that.

[2 of 3]

I haven't read the Esquire article yet, so what Paul has been quoted as saying may have been taken out of context, but I can't find any stories about this on the internet where Sir Paul doesn't come off looking bad. 

[Keri]

I haven't read the Esquire article yet, so what Paul has been quoted as saying may have been taken out of context, but I can't find any stories about this on the internet where Sir Paul doesn't come off looking bad. 

I don't really think it reflects badly on Paul, it's just seems he's worrying about something he shouldn't. Maybe there is some ego there, but both him and John have always had plenty of that, but they've had talent to match. Actually maybe it's more about insecurity.

[2 of 3]

Right, and there's a difference between being asked about it and answering, and just starting to babble about it. I'll have to read the story when it comes online.

[kylenz]

I haven't read the Esquire article yet, so what Paul has been quoted as saying may have been taken out of context, but I can't find any stories about this on the internet where Sir Paul doesn't come off looking bad. 

I don't really think it reflects badly on Paul, it's just seems he's worrying about something he shouldn't. Maybe there is some ego there, but both him and John have always had plenty of that, but they've had talent to match. Actually maybe it's more about insecurity.

The full Esquire interview is here: http://www.esquire.co.uk/culture/music/8511/paul-mccartney-interview/

-what is saddening to me, is not what Paul has to say about John.. but reading the comments towards Paul on the internet generally, on the wake of this. It serves to justify their opinion of him that he is too self-absorbed and that 'John was the better one' - which is exactly the kind of public opinion Paul is speaking about!!

Sure there is an element of insecurity there - I'm sure it's something in all of us - but Paul is right to stand up for himself and tell it like it is. People don't like hearing these things, because they've been conditioned all these years since John's death that it was John who was the most creative one. Paul is just trying to set the story straight. But gee, there sure are a lot of haters out there.

[2 of 3]

I was reading a story about it on Gawker, and the article gave Paul a Rough Ride. ...but oddly enough, most of the comments are on Pauls side. Totally surprised me.  One person even mentioned how it was Paul who was guy who got them into the studio do produce any product.

[Greg]

KyleNZ:
"Paul is just trying to set the story straight."

Yep.

[kylenz]

If you're a fan of Macca's, I highly recommend not reading the comments on this page..

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3149771/People-started-say-Beatles-Paul-McCartney-reveals-frustration-John-Lennon-s-martyr-status-shot-dead-street.html

[2 of 3]

I highly recommend not reading the Daily Mail

FYP 


The Daily Mail is a really weird publication. They'll dump on somebody forever and then all of a sudden completely reverse their stance. I guess it depends on who they hate the most. They slagged Jeremy Clarkson for everything on earth until the BBC fired him. They are so anti-BBC that they started to martyr Clarkson. Too funny. Whatever generates CLICKS is all that matters I suppose.

[Greg]

The comment section was interesting to read too in that Daily Mail article. 

I think John would agree with Paul and be sickened at some of the martyr-type hype about him after his death.

I also think John would say something like this:  Paul can change ALL the songs to McCartney-Lennon if he wants.  I don't care.  What is he talking about?  It seems childish to me to hear him talking like that.  He's on the credit for Give Peace a Chance for Christ's sakes; it's never bothered me.