What a cringe-making, mealy-mouthed piece of nonsense that is. Paul McCartney spends years telling us how much he contributed to John's songs, and how little John contributed to his. Then up pops this piece of idiocy - where Paul says George (George!) actually wrote a song for Paul to record.Two things immediately occur to me:(1) The song is dreadful, and Paul can say "Well, I didn't write it!"(2) Paul thinks a phantom other-Beatle presence will help sales.
I'd sooner listen to what Paul says than someone who knows absolutely nothing about the development of the song and It's possible that John would claim his due to the partnership if he could.And two things immediately occur to me:(1) Maybe we should all keep an open mind on a song we haven't heard, perhaps?(2) Only one person I can think of would think of something like that, and it ain't Paul.
Can he do no right in your eyes?
Are you even going to check out his new album? I'm not sure why you would but i'm just asking. Do you go into an album looking for all the negative aspects first? The question i'm most curious about though,,,,,,,,'What was the last song by Paul that you liked'?
Of course I'm going to check it out. That WAS a silly question.
I go into an album I've never heard before with an open mind. That was ANOTHER silly question. I certainly do not say, "This'll be dreadful because the last one was". NOR do I say, "Gee, I liked this guy a lot in the past, so this one'll be great too." Both extremes (I'm sure you'll agree) are stupid.
The last song by Paul McCartney that I liked? OK, it was not a Macca-penned tune, but I thought his performance was excellent on I'm Partial To Your Abracadabra on the Ian Dury tribute album, "Brand New Boots and Panties". It was released in 2001 I think. Check it out.