Well, I just got done watching Anthology over the last few days.

It's fun, but for me, Paul's attitude ruins a lot of it. It probably isn't intentional of him, but I really dislike the way he always has to take credit for absolutely everything he did. Like if they are talking about one tiny part in a song, he just has to say, "oh, that was one of my ideas." They could be talking about anything and he just comes out with how he came up with a certain idea...

I mean, obviously, the Beatles are excellent along with everything they have done but does he really need to go on about how much he contributed so much? Does he really have to prove himself to anyone? He reminds me of George Martin!

George or Ringo don't do that, they just remember it all with fond memories which I like.

Also, I don't like that he says that during the recording of Real Love, he felt like he was acting as a sideman to John because the song was complete. The guy is dead! Do you think that stems from when John said that Ringo, George and himself were acting as sidemen to Paul during the end of the Beatles' career?

Besides that, I think it's excellent. I think they incorporated John into the thing very well. It would've been nice if they included interviews with certain Beatles 'people' (Linda McCartney, Yoko Ono, Julian Lennon, Sean Lennon, Cynthia Lennon, so on...) but then again, the point of Anthology was the Beatles' story as told by the Beatles, so nevermind .

So what are your thoughts guys? What did you like and dislike?

PS - the Real Love video really is great.

I really like the Anthology, and pull it out now and again to play some or all of it. It's interesting how people react to the Beatles differently. For me, George really clicked. For others, Ringo was warmest. I can't say I really thought Paul was going overboard claiming credit--at least it never struck me. He did strike me as smoothly polished in his replies, and no wonder-- he's been giving interviews like this for 45 years. I never noticed his comment about being a sideman. Do you have the DVD? Because I only have the video version, and I know it has less on it.

I have a warm spot for Anthology because it got me started on my whole Beatles craze. Before that, I never intentionally played one of their songs. I never owned any Beatles stuff at all. Now I have many recordings and books. I am a happier human being. These guys are so interesting!

Yes, I own the DVD version. He says it on one of the bonus features, 'The Making-of Free as a Bird and Real Love,' I believe. Something like that anyway.

It just seems like a weird thing to say considering it was his idea (I think) to work with Lennon's old recordings. And the fact that Lennon said it about him all those years ago does make me wonder a little.

I dunno...

Hmm, yes, it does seem a bit odd, as he was reportedly quite keen to get his hands on whatever Yoko would give him and "record" with John again. It was a technical nightmare, and they were constrained by having only this copy to work with, but "sidemen" doesn't seem the right term.

I liked it. And i actually cant really recall Paul being "oh yea it was my idea"... But he does have that kind of personality. What bugged me was that they didnt talk much about the movies. I really liked Ringo's stories. They are so... Ringoish.

It really is so long that I know that when I watch it again there will be parts I didn't catch last time.

I found Ringo to be funny too. Like when he talks of John showing him the 'Two Virgins' album cover and Ringo says he "pointed out The Times newspaper like his d--k wasn't out"!

I picked up the video anthology in a charity shop when I didnt know much about the beatles but was beginning to really like them and after watching the videos, there was no going back!

I have always felt Paul was the least genuine beatle, and I think in a lot of interviews that comes across. I can kind of see where you are coming from- but then I suppose he is just really really proud to have been in the beatles and undoubtedly he does have quite an ego because of it. It's as though Paul feels the need to put up a slightly false front to the media. Of all the beatles I've found him the hardest to relate to from interview footage and reading. I feel sorry for him though- because I think it's partly a defense mechanism and he cant help but always act the 'good guy' who makes all the right decisions and maybe it is this that makes him sound a bit arrogant and self-important.

John Lennon could be painfully honest at times- whilst sometimes with this honesty he could build himself up as something great he was also hugely critical of himself, and Ringo is ridiculously down-to-earth despite his fame, and George with his spiritual beliefs I feel was also very honest and more than anything, George's modesty helps there, so basically compared to the other 3 beatles, Paul's way of talking and stuff could well seem a bit more self-obsessed and that could be irritating.

Bit off the point but an example of this is in a Pink Floyd book I read- which said about the random voices on Dark Side of the Moon- and how some of them are just random people who happened to drop into the studio who were asked questions which were help up on cards and their answes were recorded. It says in the book: 'Interestingly enough, almost everyone was useable, except Paul McCartney He was acting, he was performing, other people were responding to the questions, but he can't, his whole life...thumbs up, swinging, that's the burden he carries with him' - I reckon that's pretty interesting really. I think it's a big part of the Lennon/McCartney clash- John's honesty in contrast to Paul's social barriers.

I've nothing really against him but I just found him a little irritating. I don't blame him for being proud of his work. But when he is talking to someone about a song and then suddenly states how it was his idea and all him, etc.

Also on the DVD, he talks about directing the Magical Mystery Tour movie, and he says that the others weren't really involved with that but they still got credited as directors. It's just little things he does like that that really get to me. Why does he have to bother even saying it? He doesn't have to prove how much he contributed. Anyone who listens to the music can hear how much he contributed.

Quoted from thefadedline

Why does he have to bother even saying it? He doesn't have to prove how much he contributed. Anyone who listens to the music can hear how much he contributed.

I guess because for over twenty years he had to endure the press (and most of the world) proclaiming St John as the really talented Beatle, the one with the edge, the ideas, the innovations. Paul was dismissed as a lightweight composer of pretty but instabstantial ditties.
I can't blame him for finally wanting to set the record straight (as he sees it), and I can understand why he may appear a bit zealous over this. (those not around in the 70's don't often realise how villified Paul was (thanks mainly to Johns superb hatchet job on his old mate) by the rock press.

Rolling Stone noticed that too, Thefadedline. Darn, I've now returned the book to the library, but it was "In other words : artists talk about life and work" by Anthony DeCurtis.

There's a section on the Beatles and the author interviewed Paul twice and George once. The story of how he got each interview is interesting in itself. He adored the Beatles as a kid and was thrilled to get the opportunity. Anyway, at one point he mentioned Paul's battle to swap the names around on the credits to various songs (particularly "Yesterday") to McCartney-Lennon. He writes (paraphrasing): "Paul seems certain that history will forget him, but this battle looks churlish for an artist of his stature."

I think this idea that Paul will be overlooked in favor of John is just a personal sticking point with him. Paul tells the story of how he found some sheet music in a lounge and they didn't have room to put both names, so had credited (I think it was "The Long and Winding Road") as Lennon only, because that name came first. It really bothered him. I think he's working hard to set the record straight, when it already is straight.

Nice post, Tangerine. Good to see you! I agree it's partly a defense mechanism. Paul himself says in the Hunter Davies book (which I'm rereading) that after Brian came along, he tried not to be so friendly and accommodating to the press (or "keening", as he called it), but that felt more fake than just doing it. So he went on "keening" because he was just more comfortable that way; it's how he's built.

In one way I do feel sorry for Paul about that tendency. When John died, he came out with that atrocious "It's a drag" comment and he was dragged mercilessly through the press because of it. When George died, he was obviously much more prepared and gave quite a lengthy, nearly 4-minute statement, answering the same daft questions again and again. Then he was faulted for giving what sounded like a prepared statement! From his point of view, he must go crazy over those kind of things.

Kevin, your response came in while I was posting. I'll add, I didn't pay any attention to this in the 70s, so am unable to comment on the attacks on Paul from John or the press at that time. Obviously, it still bothers him.

I bought the Anthology DVD set when it came out & really enjoyed the
extra's which gets me a bit emotional with George talking. I tend to forget
that George is not here when i see the footage.
Macca does seem to be a bit controlled on his inteviews but i suppose
its just the way he is. Personally, i always think he gives really
good facts & detail on things.
I always refer back to the dvd & book if i need to know something,
it is the story told by them themselves with no other writer
claiming they knoew what they don't. That's the best thing.

Quoted from Andy Smith

[...]
it is the story told by them themselves with no other writer
claiming they knoew what they don't. [...]

Their strongest point ...

... and annoying when writers do such a thing!

Quoted from raxo

Their strongest point ...

... and annoying when writers do such a thing!

We need to remember though that Anthology shows The Beatles as The Beatles want us to see them.
If you watched Antho and didn't know anything about them, you'd think they only took fun drugs, Yoko barely existed and that the breakup was only a minor affair.
A third party can give a perspective that would be impossible for those who were there (not that that perspective is always right. But then again there's no guareantee the threetles recollections are either. The debate about the writing of AYNIL and the origin of I Feel fine's feedback intro are cases in point)

Quoted from Kevin

We need to remember though that Anthology shows The Beatles as The Beatles want us to see them.
If you watched Antho and didn't know anything about them, you'd think they only took fun drugs, Yoko barely existed and that the breakup was only a minor affair.
A third party can give a perspective that would be impossible for those who were there (not that that perspective is always right. But then again there's no guareantee the threetles recollections are either. The debate about the writing of AYNIL and the origin of I Feel fine's feedback intro are cases in point)

Sorry, but I don't remember so many references to drugs to "think they only took fun drugs" ... and if you're trying to tell the story of four people before they became a famous group or even a group and untill their breakup focusing on what they did: albums, performances and tours, films, etc ... you won't probably have time and space for everything ... and less for details ... but we've got some anecdotes!

... after all, we're not talking about the Anthology Book (which seems to be a summary of what the DVDs show us) and Yoko "entered the room" at the end of the story so she's there but not more time than what she deserved, in my opinion ... she had not any role in the group but her influence on John so how much time do you think she deserved or how much time the others should have been talking about her?

... their breakup: they didn't "fight" so much (or as much as some people seem to think ) untill Paul sued the others (December 1970) ... they were doing different things by 1969 (among many more: Bed-in, Ringo's film, solo singles/albums, playing/producing other people, even some concerts ... ) so the breakup is shown as it was remembered by them during that time -well, more or less, to be sincere  - ... and their story ends in 1970 and so does the Anthology (apart from their reunion) ... tho some people would have liked to hear some of their personal opinions more than actual facts!

Quoted from thefadedline

I found Ringo to be funny too. Like when he talks of John showing him the 'Two Virgins' album cover and Ringo says he "pointed out The Times newspaper like his d--k wasn't out"!

Where does this come from? Crikey, I never heard that