DM's Beatles forums
Solo forums => Paul McCartney => Topic started by: carlacundari on October 21, 2010, 09:36:33 AM
-
John said -being a Beatle was humiliating-
did Paul feel the same ?
-
Did John really said that? I don't think any of them thought being a Beatle was humiliating.John did his own band. It was all that he wished for. It's not like he was forced to do that so that he can feel humble.Paul joined John's band and they had the greatest time 2 young fellows could have. Maybe they fell bad in the last years of the Beatles era, but if John really said that I'm sure he was exaggerating or it was just one of his many "shocking" quotes.
-
John said -being a Beatle was humiliating-
did Paul feel the same ?
that John eh? Also called himself a genius, swore he saw a UFO and said (Playboy 1980) "When I was a Beatle, I thought we were the best f***ing group in the god-damned world."
I agree that The Beatles were at times reduced to the role of performing monkees, but to be honest they appeared to be enjoying the bananas.
Did Paul find it humiliating??? He's never said anything so we can assume no I guess.
But if you really want to humiliate yourself try whoring yourself to the media with ludicrous stunts like sitting in a bag or lying in bed for a week.
Or writing a song about Mary and Her Little Lamb and filming a gut wrenchingly smarmy video to go with it.
We all have our crosses to bear.
-
come on now kev.you cannot knock mary had a little lamb.anyone who can get away with releasing a song like that(and video)has to be applauded,surely?only joking......................................
-
Did John really said that? I don't think any of them thought being a Beatle was humiliating.John did his own band. It was all that he wished for. It's not like he was forced to do that so that he can feel humble.Paul joined John's band and they had the greatest time 2 young fellows could have. Maybe they fell bad in the last years of the Beatles era, but if John really said that I'm sure he was exaggerating or it was just one of his many "shocking" quotes.
it's true ! he actually said that, I saw the interview on TV.
-
that John eh? Also called himself a genius, swore he saw a UFO and said (Playboy 1980) "When I was a Beatle, I thought we were the best f***ing group in the god-damned world."
I agree that The Beatles were at times reduced to the role of performing monkees, but to be honest they appeared to be enjoying the bananas.
Did Paul find it humiliating??? He's never said anything so we can assume no I guess.
But if you really want to humiliate yourself try whoring yourself to the media with ludicrous stunts like sitting in a bag or lying in bed for a week.
Or writing a song about Mary and Her Little Lamb and filming a gut wrenchingly smarmy video to go with it.
We all have our crosses to bear.
I see your point, i completely agree-
John accepted it all until he met Yoko.
-
I see your point, i completely agree-
Now where's the fun in that? :)
-
John accepted it all until he met Yoko.
John has said he wanted out as early as 65', but then again he has said so many contradicting things that whatever he has said, I take with a grain of salt.
-
Now where's the fun in that? :)
Yeah, come on Carla! Disagree with Kevin! ha2ha
-
John has said he wanted out as early as 65', but then again he has said so many contradicting things that whatever he has said, I take with a grain of salt.
KLAUS VOORMANN SAID JOHN WAS AN UNHAPPY MAN, WHEN HE WAS WITH THE BEATLES,, HE FOUND HAPPINESS IN YOKO.
-
KLAUS VOORMANN SAID JOHN WAS AN UNHAPPY MAN, WHEN HE WAS WITH THE BEATLES,, HE FOUND HAPPINESS IN YOKO.
I would agree that John doesn't seem to have been too happy as a Beatle. But then again hwe never seems happy. In fact he seems to always come across as a rather bitter, angry man. You get the feeling the John Lennon Story was never destined for a happy ending.
-
I would agree that John doesn't seem to have been too happy as a Beatle. But then again hwe never seems happy. In fact he seems to always come across as a rather bitter, angry man. You get the feeling the John Lennon Story was never destined for a happy ending.
I think that John, just like Jim Morrison and Kurt Cobain for instance, disliked beeing a teen idol because he felt he wasn't beeing taken seriously as a real artist.
-
I think that John, just like Jim Morrison and Kurt Cobain for instance, disliked beeing a teen idol because he felt he wasn't beeing taken seriously as a real artist.
I think he kind of got lost. He started by trying to make it to the top no matter what the cost, but then when he made it, he didnt want it. I guess you have to be careful for what you wish for.
-
I think he kind of got lost. He started by trying to make it to the top no matter what the cost, but then when he made it, he didnt want it. I guess you have to be careful for what you wish for.
I think it can be pretty depressing to "have it all". If you're unhappy because you don't like your job, your wife, your house and the town you live in, then there are ways to make it better if you've got to guts to go for it. But what are you going to do if you're one of the most popular people on the planet, you've got more money than you can ever spend and super models are lining up for you and you still don't feel happy? I suppose it can seen like a dead end. Satisfaction is the death of desire and I suppose life must be empty without desires.
-
I think it can be pretty depressing to "have it all". If you're unhappy because you don't like your job, your wife, your house and the town you live in, then there are ways to make it better if you've got to guts to go for it. But what are you going to do if you're one of the most popular people on the planet, you've got more money than you can ever spend
What made John so unhappy then? He had the world by the fingertips and could have gotten away from the public. Sure seclusion sucks, but i'm sure there were plenty of people in Johns camp that would have followed. I dont know how I would react because I wasnt in his shoes, but I doubt I would have been depressed as he made himself out to be.
Satisfaction is the death of desire and I suppose life must be empty without desires.
Eh, I dont know. My interests skip around enough that I dont fall into complacency. Maybe Johns wife wouldnt allow him to pursue anything other than the life she was accostumed to.
-
What made John so unhappy then? He had the world by the fingertips and could have gotten away from the public. Sure seclusion sucks, but i'm sure there were plenty of people in Johns camp that would have followed. I dont know how I would react because I wasnt in his shoes, but I doubt I would have been depressed as he made himself out to be.
Eh, I dont know. My interests skip around enough that I dont fall into complacency. Maybe Johns wife wouldnt allow him to pursue anything other than the life she was accostumed to.
Maureen Cleaves interview of March 66 paints a picture of a young man bored witless. His life is full of pointless gizmos he doesn't need or know how to use, or hobbies that by his own admission didn't last more than a week.
Compare his life with Paul and George's, both of who seemed able to live exciting, fulfilling lives despite the fame and forced seclusion. Draws you to the conclusion that the problem might have been John, not his circumstances.
If I had to put my money on something, I would guess that John needed a dominant figure in his life. the BIG people in his life..Aumt Mimi, Stuart Sutcliffe, Brian Epstein and Yoko all seem to fit that role nicely.
By his own admission he was a very lazy man, and left to his own devices led a feckless, rather meaningless existance, prone to filling the void with various intoxicants.
This doesn't make him some kind of freak. In fact it sounds rather like me. And I ain't no freak.
-
What made John so unhappy then? He had the world by the fingertips and could have gotten away from the public. Sure seclusion sucks, but i'm sure there were plenty of people in Johns camp that would have followed. I dont know how I would react because I wasnt in his shoes, but I doubt I would have been depressed as he made himself out to be.
No doubt I'd trade my life for the life John had (well, minus the getting killed a 40 thing), but there's got to be some reason why so many rich and famous people are addicted to drugs and/or alcohol?
-
If I had to put my money on something, I would guess that John needed a dominant figure in his life. the BIG people in his life..Aumt Mimi, Stuart Sutcliffe, Brian Epstein and Yoko all seem to fit that role nicely.
That makes sense. Brian Wilson had exactly the same problem. He had three dominant figures in his life who told him what to do: first it was his dad Murry Wilson, then it was his therapist Eugene Landy and currently it's his wife Melinda. Although all these three people have been criticized for taking adventage of Brian in one way or another, it's a fact that he was at his very worst at the times when none of these three people were in his life.
-
george was also a very unhappy beatle from 66' onwards,but maybe he was a more balanced individual than john was.i read an interesting thing about what the maharishi said about john and george.you have maybe read or heard this yourselves,but the yogi said to one of his sidemen something along the lines of john was still on his first or second re-incarnation here on earth,whilst george was probably on his seventh-and last.(obviously the yogi was quoted as saying this during the rishikesh 68' period).no doubt he was refering to the difference in maturity shown by both beatles.
i am maybe digressing here a little,but george did seem to have a far tighter grip on his life than john did.john didn't seem unhappy until around 68'-,he seemed to enjoy pepper-in fact it was only upon meeting yoko that john seemed to show any kind of dissent towards being a beatle.i think george was far more fed up for far longer.
-
Draws you to the conclusion that the problem might have been John, not his circumstances.
Good point and thats pretty much where I was leaning too. I think John was just a tad f***ed in the head if you know what I mean.
If I had to put my money on something, I would guess that John needed a dominant figure in his life. the BIG people in his life..Aumt Mimi, Stuart Sutcliffe, Brian Epstein and Yoko all seem to fit that role nicely.
By his own admission he was a very lazy man, and left to his own devices led a feckless, rather meaningless existance, prone to filling the void with various intoxicants.
Ever wonder why John never allowed Paul to fill the gap of a dominant figure sometimes? I'm not talking about telling him what to do or how to act, but John seemed to rebel against the workload when it seemed like thats what he really needed. Of course we know its pride, but damn, John could have at least been a man and told Yoko to get the hell out of the studio. Eh, i'm rambling now.
As for the intoxicants, ehh, they help the creative process at times and ease the shyness so I dont have a huge problem with it (except the heroin).
In fact it sounds rather like me. And I ain't no freak.
Of course not. ;)
-
george was also a very unhappy beatle from 66' onwards,
Only because John and Paul dominated the song writing process, but thats natural.
but maybe he was a more balanced individual than john was.
Do you really think he was? George had a lot of personal demons. He drank and took drugs, cheated on his women and even betrayed his band mates at times, so i'm not so sure he had his sh*t together either. The Maharishi was a freak and they all saw through him eventually, so anything he said I dismiss as bullsh*t anyways.
i am maybe digressing here a little,but george did seem to have a far tighter grip on his life than john did
George just creeped into the background a bit better than John, thats all. When he went off the deep end with the Maharishi and his meditation, everybody thought he was a wacko. The people around him and the public. Another example is how he lost a wife to a friend because he didnt know how to interact with her. I mean theres other examples. I just dont think he had the firm grip on life you think he did.
john didn't seem unhappy until around 68'-,he seemed to enjoy pepper-in fact it was only upon meeting yoko that john seemed to show any kind of dissent towards being a beatle.i think george was far more fed up for far longer.
John was unhappy way earlier than 68'. It just came to a head when Brian died. George was unhappy for a longer period because he was frustrated. He didnt like the backseat, but he didnt have the writing skills to do anything about it. Paul and John hated helping him too when he was stuck, so sure, he was angry for a longer period.
-
Ever wonder why John never allowed Paul to fill the gap of a dominant figure sometimes?
yeah, quite a lot. Paul never seems to have occupied the position in Johns life that people like Stuart or Yoko did. This is why I'm doubtful that John and paul had that brother-type relationship so beloved of Beatle mythologists.
It seems that at the beginning it was a relationship based more on competition than lurve. The moment they were released from Beatlemania they seem to have pretty much gone their own ways. And maybe at the time the job was taken by Brian. But this could have been as much to do with Paul as John, the former seems to be quite notoriously a cold, distant guy. In fact, whereas John seems to have sought dominant partners, Paul seems exactly the opposite, surrounding himself with people who were compliant. No offence to Linda, but she seems to have lived her life in Paul's shadow. Look what happened when he did hook up with someone who was dominant and independant ie Heather: a disaster.
And don't forget the twisted relationships of some of rocks other great partnerships - Gilmour and Waters, Jagger and Richards, The Everley Brothers, Simon and Garfunkel, Tears for Fears, Young and Stills...all barely on speaking terms when they made some of their best music.
-
george was also a very unhappy beatle from 66' onwards,but maybe he was a more balanced individual than john was.i read an interesting thing about what the maharishi said about john and george.you have maybe read or heard this yourselves,but the yogi said to one of his sidemen something along the lines of john was still on his first or second re-incarnation here on earth,whilst george was probably on his seventh-and last.(obviously the yogi was quoted as saying this during the rishikesh 68' period).no doubt he was refering to the difference in maturity shown by both beatles.
Firstly, I would take anything those guys said with a grain of salt. Their preference for George could be more that he swallowed their mumbo jumbo hook line and sinker whereas I would imagine John maintained his standard cynical disdain. Ii don't think John really believed their message, which would have narked them somewhat.
I agree with TK - if George was unhappy it was more to do with being treated as a sideman than actually being a Beatle.
-
yeah, quite a lot. Paul never seems to have occupied the position in Johns life that people like Stuart or Yoko did. This is why I'm doubtful that John and paul had that brother-type relationship so beloved of Beatle mythologists.
It seems that at the beginning it was a relationship based more on competition than lurve. The moment they were released from Beatlemania they seem to have pretty much gone their own ways. And maybe at the time the job was taken by Brian. But this could have been as much to do with Paul as John, the former seems to be quite notoriously a cold, distant guy. In fact, whereas John seems to have sought dominant partners, Paul seems exactly the opposite, surrounding himself with people who were compliant. No offence to Linda, but she seems to have lived her life in Paul's shadow. Look what happened when he did hook up with someone who was dominant and independant ie Heather: a disaster.
And don't forget the twisted relationships of some of rocks other great partnerships - Gilmour and Waters, Jagger and Richards, The Everley Brothers, Simon and Garfunkel, Tears for Fears, Young and Stills...all barely on speaking terms when they made some of their best music.
good point about the role of linda and then heather in pauls' life.never thought of it like that.
-
i also do take on board the point about george maybe being frustrated with being a sideman to john and paul.however,i would still edge towards george being a more balanced human.sure,he took drugs and drank a little-musicians do this,even now-and maybe more so in the latter sixties.the point about pattie and eric-george was upset about that i'm sure,but maybe the marriage was failing anyway?
on the whole you have pointed out big holes in what i think,however i still maintain that it wasn't really until 68' that john started showing signs of wanting out?the arrival of yoko is the biggie.then the heroin etc.he seemed very happy making sgt.pepper,brians' death hit him hard and that could have been a trigger for john-i dunno,i'm not sure if he ever really voiced his feelings to the others before 68'?
john and george both struck me as being reluctant stars,but in different ways.............george hated people talking endlessly about the beatle thing(early 70s'),perhaps john used his fame to promote other stuff-and usually on yokos' say so.perhaps that is different from being a reluctant star,i also am rambling now........................they both enjoyed the riches though.
-
i would still edge towards george being a more balanced human.sure,he took drugs and drank a little-musicians do this,even now-and maybe more so in the latter sixties.......i still maintain that it wasn't really until 68' that john started showing signs of wanting out?the arrival of yoko is the biggie.then the heroin etc.he seemed very happy making sgt.pepper,brians' death hit him hard and that could have been a trigger for john-i dunno,i'm not sure if he ever really voiced his feelings to the others before 68'?
I do agree with the point about George. Yes he had demons (but who doesn't) but if I had to live in someones head It would be George's, not Johns. He seems to have been generally a nice chap.
Agree with the John bit. I would say that prior to Yoko John was more unhappy with John than the Beatles.He does say that Yoko woke him up, and maybe she did. Certainly he became far more productive with her and heroin than he did with Cynthia and LSD.
-
i think george was just a grumpy guy in general anyway,i remember reading an article about george ,where a young lad who played guitar asked him for some tips.george said"don't become famous".the apple scruffs have some stories about george being very gruff towards them, kicking, their ankles on purpose on occasions.he was definitely unhappy with his lot,perhaps 67' onwards.......
the point about john being more productive with yoko is an interesting one;maybe he was,i'm not too sure though if the quality of his work is as good as pre-yoko?that is another argument though.
perhaps we are in agreement here that john and george were unhappy at being beatles,paul was always happy with being a beatle.and ringo-well,he was probably happy at bumbling along with the others' fantastic ideas in the band,and just really enjoying the fruits as well.who wouldn't in his shoes?happy until back in the u.s.s.r,white album time...............
-
George Harrison quote: 'I wanted to be successful, not famous.'
-
George Harrison quote: 'I wanted to be successful, not famous.'
George never seemed entirely comfortable on stage from the beginning. He always seemed to be a bit embarrassed and just playing along. John however really seemed to enjoy being the centre of attention in the early years. Seemed like his attitude changed after a while.
-
Certainly he became far more productive with her and heroin than he did with Cynthia and LSD.
Really? I'm going to have to disagree with that. I'll take Johns output on Revolver, Peppers, and MMT way before his stuff on the albums afterwards.
Good point earlier about Paul Kev. I never thought about that fact before (people he surrounded himself with) and your right. Always good to read your posts as you touch upon the whole picture while I only grab pieces.
-
i would agree the standard of johns' work pre-yoko was better.as todd says-revolver and pepper,and indeed mmt were all real highlights in the lennon scheme of things(as they were for paul also)-BUT............he did become more productive after he met yoko.he probably wrote stuff pre-yoko because he felt he SHOULD do,but after meeting yoko and becoming an item with yoko,he may have wrote a lot more because he WANTED to.however,i also think that whilst still being very good songs,his output were not as good.anyone care to discuss?
also todd i would like to agree with you 100% about kevins' views.a real beatle enthusiast if i ever saw one......(not that i have seen kevin but you know what i mean.....hopefully).
-
also todd i would like to agree with you 100% about kevins' views.a real beatle enthusiast if i ever saw one......(not that i have seen kevin but you know what i mean.....hopefully).
Cheers, but I might suprise you. I haven't really listened to them for years, and my reading is way behind most of you guys. But I think a bit of distance gives you a better perspective. And to be honest I'm don't look at them as a fan, but as someone who's interested in their place in history. It's the same for me and hitler actually. :) He fascinates me but I wouldn't have him over for tea.
I just try and be logical about it all.
-
Cheers, but I might suprise you. I haven't really listened to them for years,
Me neither unless I have to throw a song on to pick something out of it.
-
I think that John, just like Jim Morrison and Kurt Cobain for instance, disliked beeing a teen idol because he felt he wasn't beeing taken seriously as a real artist.
he surely looked down at all the screaming girls, weeping and fainting-
he probably felt they were only nuts and he wanted to be out of that crazy world-
-
yeah, quite a lot. Paul never seems to have occupied the position in Johns life that people like Stuart or Yoko did. This is why I'm doubtful that John and paul had that brother-type relationship so beloved of Beatle mythologists.
It seems that at the beginning it was a relationship based more on competition than lurve. The moment they were released from Beatlemania they seem to have pretty much gone their own ways. And maybe at the time the job was taken by Brian. But this could have been as much to do with Paul as John, the former seems to be quite notoriously a cold, distant guy. In fact, whereas John seems to have sought dominant partners, Paul seems exactly the opposite, surrounding himself with people who were compliant. No offence to Linda, but she seems to have lived her life in Paul's shadow. Look what happened when he did hook up with someone who was dominant and independant ie Heather: a disaster.
And don't forget the twisted relationships of some of rocks other great partnerships - Gilmour and Waters, Jagger and Richards, The Everley Brothers, Simon and Garfunkel, Tears for Fears, Young and Stills...all barely on speaking terms when they made some of their best music.
I agree, they did not have the brother-type relationship-
they were not even friends-
at 1st, they had to share everything, Paul said -when u sleep one over another, u must be friends-
anyway, Paul did not grieve fro John when the last died-
and, well, Paul was recently asked if they were friends, he was kinda diplomatic- yes, we were friends- period.
-
I agree, they did not have the brother-type relationship-
they were not even friends-
at 1st, they had to share everything, Paul said -when u sleep one over another, u must be friends-
anyway, Paul did not grieve fro John when the last died-
and, well, Paul was recently asked if they were friends, he was kinda diplomatic- yes, we were friends- period.
-
how would YOU know that ?
wait,
maybe i don't understand what you're saying
do you mean paul didn't grieve when their songwriting partnership died or when john lennon died?
-
either way it's speculation, and if you're talking about when john died it's a gross comment. how could you possibly know that
-
:-[
yeah, quite a lot. Paul never seems to have occupied the position in Johns life that people like Stuart or Yoko did. This is why I'm doubtful that John and paul had that brother-type relationship so beloved of Beatle mythologists.
It seems that at the beginning it was a relationship based more on competition than lurve. The moment they were released from Beatlemania they seem to have pretty much gone their own ways. And maybe at the time the job was taken by Brian. But this could have been as much to do with Paul as John, the former seems to be quite notoriously a cold, distant guy. In fact, whereas John seems to have sought dominant partners, Paul seems exactly the opposite, surrounding himself with people who were compliant. No offence to Linda, but she seems to have lived her life in Paul's shadow. Look what happened when he did hook up with someone who was dominant and independant ie Heather: a disaster.
And don't forget the twisted relationships of some of rocks other great partnerships - Gilmour and Waters, Jagger and Richards, The Everley Brothers, Simon and Garfunkel, Tears for Fears, Young and Stills...all barely on speaking terms when they made some of their best music.
This is totally untrue about John and Paul not having a very close relationship and really loving each other! Dave Sholin from RKO Radio who with Laurie Kay etc interviewed John on his very last radio (or any interview) that was done just hours before he was tragically,insanely,cruelly shot and killed,and Dave Sholin says that he gave John and Yoko a ride over to the recording studio after this long interview,and unfortunately John said this when he wasn't being taped,but Dave talked with John a little bit about his relationship with Paul and he told him that,"Well he's like a brother,I love him." "Families-we certainly have our ups and downs and our quarrels." "But at the end of the day,when it's all said and done,I would do anything for him,I think he would do anything for me."
And in the interview and another one done days before( he said something like this either in The Rolling Stone interview 3 days before or 2 days before with Andy Peebles) he said,I have had 2 partners in my life,Paul McCartney and Yoko Ono and he said that's a pretty da*n good record and he said he did pretty well as a talent scout.
I also still have a 1986 hour long interview with Paul by a great intelligent interviewer Barbara Hower from Entertainment This Week.She asked him a lot of great questions including about his mother Mary's death when Paul was only 14 from breast cancer who was a beloved nurse and a midwife,Paul's drug arrests and how he feels about legalizing only soft drugs like pot,she mentioned to him how he often doesn't get enough credit for caring about causes,she said you were one of the first music artists to speak out against racism,and he said I don't think anyone who knows me thinks I'm apathetic.
She asked him about John's tragic murder,(and Paul said,you know it was like Kennedy's death,it affected *everyone* not just Beatle lovers)and his relationship with him,and his relationship with Linda and his kids,and asked questions about his music.She really brought the best out of him.And he says in this interview that shortly after John died,Yoko called him up and said that John really loved him.May Pang also told Paul the same thing.
He comes across very likeable in this interview,as intelligent,funny,sweet,charming and serious.
Also,Paul told Q Magazine in 2005 and said it through the years since John died,that John was a great guy and he will always love him. In this same interview he was asked about his loving tribute song for John,Here Today and the interviewer said that the song is quite specific and that it's about him and John and that it's pretty emotional.They asked him what he was remembering with his lines,"What about the night we cried because there wasn't any reason left to keep it all inside.
Paul said,"The Beatles were under a lot of pressure,touring all the time,and we didn't have any release.Paul then said,that night we were flying to Jacksonville,Florida (Sptember 9,1964)but to avoid a hurricane we had to put down in Key West,which at that time was the end of nowhere ,like in the Humphrey Bogart movie Key Largo."We stayed up all night drinking,all of us together,chatting about *everything* and there came a moment where we um,cried." "Which we'd never done ." "I'm not sure,but the likely explanation is that John and I had both lost our mothers-mine died of breast cancer,John's in a road accident-and it had always been a sort of unspoken bond between us." "Knowing we had both been through that grief and horror."That night we finally got round to talking about it."
I'm sure that John was actually *closer* to Paul than he was with Stuart,even if Stuart hadAC lived this still would have been the case because number 1 both John and Paul shared the rare tragedy of both losing their beloved mothers as only teenagers,and number 2 it was *Paul* who John shared the most critically acclaimed,popular,successful song writing partnership with,and they shared all of this and the experience of being and creating in The Beatles together.On one of The Mike Douglas shows that John and Yoko hosted for a week taped in January-early February 1972,audience members asked John and Yoko questions.
And one guy stood up and asked him about How Do You Sleep and said didn't he think it was vindictive,and John said it was his answer to messages that Paul said about him on his Ram album,he said the difference is,he publishes his lyrics,he(Paul) doesn't so you have to listen really hard and John said Paul doesn't feel like I insulted him or anything because,he recently saw him and had dinner with him and he's happy(of course this wasn't really true and Paul has spoken about how hurt he was since John died,and Paul answered John back on Wings Wild Life with the the touching pretty song,Dear Friend),and he said if I can't have a fight with my best friend then I don't know who I can have a fight with.Mike Douglas asked John if Paul is his best friend,and he said I suppose he was in the male sex,and he said I don't see him that much anymore.
By 1974 John wasn't bitter about The Beatles anymore and almost went to the first Beatles Fest(Now The Fest For The Fans) in 1974 and was collecting Beatles memorabilia including Beatles dolls that Elton John got him,and John said Christ what's this a Beatles collecting Beatles dolls? And he said why not I'm a Beatles fan too.He also was wearing a lot of buttons in 1974 and once he had on a button that said,I Love Paul and someone asked him why he was wearing it,and he said because I love Paul.He also said in the June 1975 Rolling Stone interview,that is on their site in the John Lennon section,that he thought the Band On The Run album is a great album and he said it's Paul's music and it's good stuff.May Pang has said that shortly before John went back to Yoko in early 1975,he was going to go to New Orleans and work with Paul on his great 1975 Wings rock album,Venus and Mars but went back to Yoko instead.
And Paul's beautiful heart felt tribute song to John,Here Today speaks volumes about their close relationship and love for each other.Paul has been playing this song as a tribute to John in concerts for some years now.And if you read the great authorized biography of Paul,Many Years From Now you will get a better understanding of their great loving relationship too and as Paul said and George Martin said,he and Paul were very similar in a lot of ways. George Martin also said that John and Paul did love each other a lot throughout the time he knew and worked with them in the recording studio.Paul cried all day when he got back home with Linda and his kids watching the news reports of John's tragic murder on TV.Paul also told Barbara Hower and others,that he's not a public grief kind of person,and that it's very difficult for him.
-
Paul also told Barbara Hower and others that he's not a public grief kind of person and that it's very difficult for him.
-
Sorry,I didn't mean to get a double post,I kept getting an error message on here and my modified post wasn't posting.