Print

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

[Jane]

I personally wish Paul would use the same silent tack he's used with regards to Heather Mills , and say in interviews look i don't want to talk about John other than to say he was a dear friend , infact i don't want to speak about The Beatles much , i would like only to talk about my solo career which is almost 40 years long , now that would get my (thumbsup)

Agree. This would be a very wise thing to do or else he would look more like a calculator-man, like when he was counting the percentage of his share in the songs credited Lennon/McCartney. You are great, be above that! It may be hard, but that`s what makes a great man different from an ordinary man.

[alexis]

My two cents: he's earned the right to talk about what he wants to (like all of us!), and if he wants to talk about his Beatle years, I for one would be very happy to listen!

[jjs]

Let me start out by saying that there are many fans out here who don't give a damn about who was the political Beatle, or who was the 'avant-garde' Beatle.

Personally, I don't respect John for his political views. I have long suspected those political views were actually Yoko's political views, but that's another story. I've always viewed  the bed-ins and bag-ins and the 'Give Peace a Chance' chants as a big pile of crap, sprung from the mind of a couple of hippie junkies. My feeling is that anyone who enjoys freedom, but runs away and cowers (or lies in bed complaining) when it comes time to defend that freedom, doesn't deserve to be free. Perhaps all those antics were out of fear and frustration at being one of the protected rather than a protector?

Regardless, when we are all dead and gone, all of us, Paul will be remembered for his music. He'll be remembered for his success as a Beatle, and the success of his solo career.  Maybe John will be remembered for bed-ins and bag-ins, and peace-ins... but by then, who the hell will care?

No one remembers or cares about Beethoven's political points of view. But everyone knows of him and has heard his music. Paul should be spending his time focusing on his music.

He should leave the significance of the political activism and peace-ins and the bed-ins happily in the minds of John's neo-fans. It's all they got. The certainly can't sit around discussing the music, the chart toppers and the world tours.. you know the things that musicians are supposed to accomplish.

Sorry if I seem a little abrupt here. I place no value whatsoever on that so called "political activism" BS, I have no respect for fans who dwell on it, and I'm sorry that Paul has sunk to the level of caring about it.

cheers



 

[fendertele]

Let me start out by saying that there are many fans out here who don't give a damn about who was the political Beatle, or who was the 'avant-garde' Beatle.

Personally, I don't respect John for his political views. I have long suspected those political views were actually Yoko's political views, but that's another story. I've always viewed  the bed-ins and bag-ins and the 'Give Peace a Chance' chants as a big pile of crap, sprung from the mind of a couple of hippie junkies. My feeling is that anyone who enjoys freedom, but runs away and cowers (or lies in bed complaining) when it comes time to defend that freedom, doesn't deserve to be free. Perhaps all those antics were out of fear and frustration at being one of the protected rather than a protector?

Regardless, when we are all dead and gone, all of us, Paul will be remembered for his music. He'll be remembered for his success as a Beatle, and the success of his solo career.  Maybe John will be remembered for bed-ins and bag-ins, and peace-ins... but by then, who the hell will care?

No one remembers or cares about Beethoven's political points of view. But everyone knows of him and has heard his music. Paul should be spending his time focusing on his music.

He should leave the significance of the political activism and peace-ins and the bed-ins happily in the minds of John's neo-fans. It's all they got. The certainly can't sit around discussing the music, the chart toppers and the world tours.. you know the things that musicians are supposed to accomplish.

Sorry if I seem a little abrupt here. I place no value whatsoever on that so called "political activism" BS, I have no respect for fans who dwell on it, and I'm sorry that Paul has sunk to the level of caring about it.

cheers



 

You're best post so far i agree 100%

[aspinall_lover]

Sounds like it's just another round of "Paul vs John"............

[aspinall_lover]

Oh........BTW.............very interesting thread and posts............

[Geoff]

He should leave the significance of the political activism and peace-ins and the bed-ins happily in the minds of John's neo-fans. It's all they got.

Agreed: them and the Lennon estate, which pushes this sappy sub-hippy rubbish through its merchandising arm.

The certainly can't sit around discussing the music, the chart toppers and the world tours.. you know the things that musicians are supposed to accomplish.

Erm, you mean like "A Day In The Life," "Rain," "Tomorrow Never Knows," "Strawberry Fields Forever," "Come Together," "A Hard Day's Night," "Day Tripper," that sort of thing?

Or "Cold Turkey," "Instant Karma," "Jealous Guy," "No. 9 Dream," "Oh My Love," "Gimme Some Truth," and "Look At Me" if you want to confine it to solo recordings?

[BlueMeanie]

No one remembers or cares about Beethoven's political points of view.

I gather he was a bit of a leftist anarchist troublemaker, who's struggle against the prolatariat resulted in a violent confrontation at the Royal Court in Vienna, where Salieri - who'd previously done a job on Mozart - whacked him over the head with a tuba, resulting in permanent deafness.



Btw, good post.

[Geoff]

There's a short excerpt from the interview up at Prospect's website. Here's part of it:


POWER: I remember reading that your blood was up after 9/11 and that

[Kevin]

Let me start out by saying that there are many fans out here who don't give a damn about who was the political Beatle, or who was the 'avant-garde' Beatle.

 BS, I have no respect for fans who dwell on it, and I'm sorry that Paul has sunk to the level of caring about it.


 

If I may defend those that do - it's fun (that's why we're here right?). Beatles are history now, remembered as much a cultural phenomena as the makers of good tunes. Lennon's politics are all part of the Beatle story, and one of the things that make them so damn interesting. You don't respect me for that? Oh well. Agree with all your other sentiments though.
ps - plenty of people dwell into Beethoven's politics.(he had a very dodgy relationship with Naploeon). Any serious work on the man could not ignore it. Google Beethoven politics. 3 million hits to Lennons 4.

[jjs]

Agreed: them and the Lennon estate, which pushes this sappy sub-hippy rubbish through its merchandising arm.




Erm, you mean like "A Day In The Life," "Rain," "Tomorrow Never Knows," "Strawberry Fields Forever," "Come Together," "A Hard Day's Night," "Day Tripper," that sort of thing?

Or "Cold Turkey," "Instant Karma," "Jealous Guy," "No. 9 Dream," "Oh My Love," "Gimme Some Truth," and "Look At Me" if you want to confine it to solo recordings?

I wasn't referring to the Beatles songs because they are Beatles songs. I firmly believe that John's contributions made Paul's songs better, and Paul's contributions made John's songs better. Event when the contribution was minimal, they brought out the best in each others talents simply with their competitiveness.

But please bear in mind that while the solo songs you list may be loved by fans, 'relatively' few people know them. None of them were Beatles-level hits.

You know the point I'm making.  Paul had a successful solo career. He wrote lots of popular songs, and brought Wings Over The World. Music-career wise John couldn't compete. A few notable exceptions aside, his music just didn't have that broad an appeal. These are facts.

And, my opinion is: When politics no longer matter, only the music will, and the music is what will be remembered.

Re-reading this it sounds like I'm bashing John and favoring Paul, but I'm not. I'm just stating the facts and my opinion. If we were discussing Paul's almost complete lack of lyric writing skills, I'd be all over him instead.

[jjs]

Paul is compared and sometimes unfavourably because of his strivings to outdo John.

But Jane, he has already outdone John. He's had more hits, he's sold more records, he's had the huge concert attendance and he's got more radio airplay. He actually had a second career, which is what they all set out to do, but only Paul really did it. His Beatles songs are loved, they get as much attention as John's, perhaps more in some cases.

I don't see what the hell his problem is. Who the hell cares who was political or more political? I sure don't. Why does this suddenly matter to Paul? I don't get it.  Let John have it. The fact that at this late stage of the game 'Wings Anthology' or 'Back In The US' or 'Memory Almost Full' can chart as high as they did and sell as much as they did should show Paul what people think of him, and that should be all the validation he needs.

[jjs]

If I may defend those that do - it's fun (that's why we're here right?). Beatles are history now, remembered as much a cultural phenomena as the makers of good tunes. Lennon's politics are all part of the Beatle story, and one of the things that make them so damn interesting. You don't respect me for that? Oh well. Agree with all your other sentiments though.
ps - plenty of people dwell into Beethoven's politics.(he had a very dodgy relationship with Naploeon). Any serious work on the man could not ignore it. Google Beethoven politics. 3 million hits to Lennons 4.

I said I don't have respect for people who dwell on it. I didn't say I don't have respect for people who take it for what it is. I take it for what it is: An irrelevant pile of BS. If he wanted to make a difference he should have ran for office.

As far as the Google search goes... Mozart and politics got 5,650,000 hits. Superman and politics got 7,100,000. You can get millions of Google hits with anything. The fact is 2 billion people know 'Ode To Joy' and 20,000 people know that he hated Napoleon

[Geoff]

You know the point I'm making.  Paul had a successful solo career. He wrote lots of popular songs, and brought Wings Over The World. Music-career wise John couldn't compete. A few notable exceptions aside, his music just didn't have that broad an appeal. These are facts.

And, my opinion is: When politics no longer matter, only the music will, and the music is what will be remembered.

Agree entirely, although I might add that commercial success or failure in the present says nothing about whose songs will be better regarded in the future. Shorn of current political prejudices and the sentimental hooey promoted by the Lennon Estate, John's solo songs might look more interesting to future audiences (or some future audience) than they do now, and Paul's please-the-masses approach on the other hand might not outlast the masses that are currently buying his records.  

[DaveRam]

As anyone noticed that John's physical albums are a lot more expensive than Paul's .
I was in HMV the other day and John's albums are Five Pounds more than Paul's , only John's Legend CD is a reasonable price.
The Lennon Estate is maybe charging to much to own a Lennon album ?
Not sure in todays climate people can afford to splash out on an expensive Lennon Album .

[Geoff]

As anyone noticed that John's physical albums are a lot more expensive than Paul's .
I was in HMV the other day and John's albums are Five Pounds more than Paul's , only John's Legend CD is a reasonable price.

Paul's "McCartney Collection" CDs appear to be in EMI's budget line over here; they're noticeably cheaper than other Beatles or solo CDs. John's remastered discs are definitely full price, sometimes a dollar or two more than even the Beatles' discs, depending on where you go. "Legend" is usually the cheapest one here, too.

[BlueMeanie]

As anyone noticed that John's physical albums are a lot more expensive than Paul's .
I was in HMV the other day and John's albums are Five Pounds more than Paul's , only John's Legend CD is a reasonable price.
The Lennon Estate is maybe charging to much to own a Lennon album ?
Not sure in todays climate people can afford to splash out on an expensive Lennon Album .

McCartneys' stuff was remastered in the 90's and (I think) immediately reissued as a budget priced series. Lennons used to be budget priced until Yoko had them remastered and reissued. I believe she also took off a lot of the bonus tracks that were originally on them. Best of's like 'Legend' are usually the first things to go cut price.

[mr vandebilt]

As anyone noticed that John's physical albums are a lot more expensive than Paul's .
I was in HMV the other day and John's albums are Five Pounds more than Paul's , only John's Legend CD is a reasonable price.
The Lennon Estate is maybe charging to much to own a Lennon album ?
Not sure in todays climate people can afford to splash out on an expensive Lennon Album .

I think the reason for this os that albums have to have sold a certain amount of copies before they deem it necessary/viable to slash the prices. Thats why the best offs are always cheap because they have already sold a decent margin, also slashing the prices of the solo albums will not increase sales as only the hatrdcore fans will purchase(and they would have purchased at the original price).

When i was growing up me and my best friend  were able to buy all the Beatles CDs in a matter of weeks because they were all on offer but all the solo material apart from All the Best and Legend were too expensive for what we regarded as inferior material.(Having not really listened to the songs but more going on the media and the compliation material.)

[jjs]

Agree entirely, although I might add that commercial success or failure in the present says nothing about whose songs will be better regarded in the future. Shorn of current political prejudices and the sentimental hooey promoted by the Lennon Estate, John's solo songs might look more interesting to future audiences (or some future audience) than they do now, and Paul's please-the-masses approach on the other hand might not outlast the masses that are currently buying his records.  

I see where you're coming from. I think the Paul liked to write hits, but I don't think 'pleasing the masses' was his only angle. There was no Wings disco album. Had he done that, he would have scored BIG. Instead we got acoustic songs and Scottish ballads, and harder rock albums.  'WildLife' was hardly an attempt to write a hit album. 'McCartney II' was hardly commercial in any sense of the word (and neither was the first McCartney album). Lots of sonic experimentation is going on in the 'Ram' album, which is generally regarded more favorably now than when It was first released.

My point is what the hell is Paul trying to prove? He's got it all, he's done it all, and apparently he can still do it. Why is he fixated on who was the avant-garde Beatle or the Political Beatle?  Yoko was the avant garde Beatle, and Yoko was the political Beatle, and this Beatles fan says who the hell cares?

[jjs]

As anyone noticed that John's physical albums are a lot more expensive than Paul's .
I was in HMV the other day and John's albums are Five Pounds more than Paul's , only John's Legend CD is a reasonable price.
The Lennon Estate is maybe charging to much to own a Lennon album ?
Not sure in todays climate people can afford to splash out on an expensive Lennon Album .

That was true in the states too, but I've recently seen a drop in price in those albums.

Interestingly enough, this seemed to coincide with the release of the remasters of Lennon's albums. McCartney's remasters originally triggered a drop in price for his cd's.

Maybe it has to do with the number of units printed?