Topic: Sir Paul Revises History - Again (Read 6789 times)

adamzero · « **Reply #40 on:** December 29, 2008, 11:19:01 PM »

Enjoyed the discussion.  A few points:

1) Beethoven's most memorable "political" statement was scratching out the dedication of the original score to the Third Symphony (titled "Eroica").  He'd originally planned on dedicating it to Napoleon (instead of a Viennese patron) for "liberating" France and promoting the ideals of the Revolution.  However, after Napoleon declared himself Emperor, Beethoven dedicated it to the "memory of a great man."

2) Paul's Bertrand Russell sounds kinda loony.  He wants to learn more about the Vietnam War so he walks down the street to ask one of the most famous minds in the UK about it.  Can't just pick up a book or newspaper?  Or phone a friend?

3) I agree that John's bed-ins were more about bourgeois hippie-junkie phoniness than any practical politics.  Even the FBI essentially wrote Lennon off as a harmless junkie.

4) I do like Paul's willingness to discuss Skull-and-Bones and conspiracies.  I think Georgia backfired on McCain and the Republicans.  Especially since Palin had become a joke with her "when Putin rears his head . . . " jingoism.

pc31 · « **Reply #41 on:** February 07, 2009, 12:58:13 AM »

http://www.nme.com/news/the-beatles/41638

Penny Lane · « **Reply #42 on:** February 07, 2009, 01:16:22 AM »

This is an old story.  Howard Stern asked Paul about this on his show, and from what I recall, Paul said while he thought the Vietnam War was bad, it was really John who was the political or activist Beatle.

I'm not trying to sound biased towards Paul, but in all fairness I've yet to see a direct quote from Paul where he actually says, "I was the activist, I politicized the Beatles, I was more political than John" or whatever.  If anyone has seen a direct quote IN context, please post it here.

Here, he's just saying that he talked about the Vietnam War with someone and told the Beatles about it in the end.  That's it.  I've seen these articles repeatedly and I get the feeling that the writers just twist Paul's words to make them sound worse than they really are.

adamzero · « **Reply #43 on:** February 07, 2009, 01:32:28 AM »

Why does Paul feel compelled to say these things--even if they are true?  This story about walking down the street to chat up Bertrand Russell just seems goofy.  Like "I'll have me a little stroll down the street and get Noam Chomsky to fill me on this Iraq thing."

In what way did Paul ever ACT upon his anti-war stance?  Lennon did a bunch of crazy conceptual protest art crap (bed-ins, acorns. etc., while the Beatles were still in tact); I'm not sure what Paul and Linda were doing.

Has Paul ever written a directly anti-war song (besides "Give Ireland Back to the Irish")?

pc31 · « **Reply #44 on:** February 07, 2009, 02:27:05 AM »

maybe we can consider pipes of peace......

tkitna · « **Reply #45 on:** February 07, 2009, 04:26:34 AM »

'freedom'

mr vandebilt · « **Reply #46 on:** February 07, 2009, 07:46:16 PM »

Quote from: 9

Why does Paul feel compelled to say these things--even if they are true?  This story about walking down the street to chat up Bertrand Russell just seems goofy.  Like "I'll have me a little stroll down the street and get Noam Chomsky to fill me on this Iraq thing."

In what way did Paul ever ACT upon his anti-war stance?  Lennon did a bunch of crazy conceptual protest art crap (bed-ins, acorns. etc., while the Beatles were still in tact); I'm not sure what Paul and Linda were doing.

Has Paul ever written a directly anti-war song (besides "Give Ireland Back to the Irish")?

So unless a person did everything John did their not allowed to answer questions about their past and share opinions about past wars.

pc31 · « **Reply #47 on:** February 09, 2009, 03:44:46 AM »

facts are paul always played it safe.....he wanted to do what john did and always copied him in a watered down version.....but i do recall pauls naked body showing up in pictures before johns ever did....paul had more exes than john...even george m said paul played it safe...

Penny Lane · « **Reply #48 on:** February 09, 2009, 07:50:46 AM »

Quote from: 284

but i do recall pauls naked body showing up in pictures before johns ever did

Name your sources, please. (ghost1) (ghost1) (ghost1)

Bobber · « **Reply #49 on:** February 09, 2009, 09:11:30 AM »

Quote from: 1620

Name your sources, please. (ghost1) (ghost1) (ghost1)

White Album inner poster.

Penny Lane · « **Reply #50 on:** February 09, 2009, 03:42:42 PM »

^ Awww. I was hoping it'd be something I hadn't seen before.

Bobber · « **Reply #51 on:** February 09, 2009, 03:53:22 PM »

Penny Lane · « **Reply #52 on:** February 09, 2009, 11:07:36 PM »

^ Well, that's the one I've seen before, LOL. Thanks anyway, Bobber.

Sorry this thread has devolved from politics to nude photos. I'm shameless.

HeyJude18 · « **Reply #53 on:** February 10, 2009, 02:47:08 AM »

^Nude Beatles are always appericated LOL

alexis · « **Reply #54 on:** February 10, 2009, 02:57:23 AM »

Quote from: 1620

This is an old story.  Howard Stern asked Paul about this on his show, and from what I recall, Paul said while he thought the Vietnam War was bad, it was really John who was the political or activist Beatle.

I'm not trying to sound biased towards Paul, but in all fairness I've yet to see a direct quote from Paul where he actually says, "I was the activist, I politicized the Beatles, I was more political than John" or whatever.  If anyone has seen a direct quote IN context, please post it here.

Here, he's just saying that he talked about the Vietnam War with someone and told the Beatles about it in the end.  That's it.  I've seen these articles repeatedly and I get the feeling that the writers just twist Paul's words to make them sound worse than they really are.

Agree with this and Mr. Vanderbilt. Paul wasn't saying he was the Messiah, he was just talking about something that probably is true. So what if he was the "cautious" Beatle, and let John take the lead? That makes him a farce?

Puhleez!

harihead · « **Reply #55 on:** February 10, 2009, 03:27:01 AM »

Very good points on pointing out what Paul said ("I drove round and chatted this guy up") vs. what the newspaper said: "Singer claims he was the anti-war member". PAUL never said that; NEMS did, in a subhead. They're trying to stir up controversy.

I can imagine Paul chatting up anyone in London as he's a real people person and loves to have his finger on the pulse. As far as doing anything with this information, clearly it was John carrying the ball. But all the Beatles were anti-war, not just one or two. What they did with their beliefs varied per individual. But I'm always struck (reading these old articles) how close the Beatles were in sentiment. Clearly Paul was moved by what he heard, and wanted to report it back to the others. That's just what friends do. It wasn't a contest; it was just some guys sharing their thoughts.

DaveRam · « **Reply #56 on:** February 10, 2009, 10:03:40 AM »

John was people and Paul was animals , just showed they cared for the world in a different way ?

Penny Lane · « **Reply #57 on:** February 10, 2009, 10:12:37 AM »

Quote from: 1447

^Nude Beatles are always appericated LOL

Hahaha! It's so true.

Quote from: 551

But all the Beatles were anti-war, not just one or two. What they did with their beliefs varied per individual.

This is an excellent point.

jjs · « **Reply #58 on:** February 15, 2009, 01:16:21 AM »

Quote from: 63

I could have lived the rest of my life without seeing this. Thank God for the pole....

jjs · « **Reply #59 on:** February 15, 2009, 01:17:26 AM »

Quote from: 1428

I could have lived the rest of my life without seeing this. Thank God for the pole....

Oh God.. it isn't a pole....

News:

Author Topic: Sir Paul Revises History - Again (Read 6789 times)

Bobber

Bobber