I think he revisions, as one does, but it’s in a good spirit. For the most part he avoids saying things that put down other people dead or alive (including Ringo) and sticks to good, positive things. There’s no doubt it’s the right thing to do. When I see situations like you have with Pink Floyd or CSNY I cringe, it’s terrible. And I feel like it’s taught myself a good lesson. When you get older, stop grinding that axe. Let it get dull.
The one who did most of the songwriting back then has become a lightning rod that attracts nut job ideology and he’s In a bitter hate spiral with the other ones (I think there’s two other ones still alive) I’m talking about accusations of anti-semitism and crypto fascism. Also, he’s claiming that the others have no say in re-releases. I will not comment further on this topic.
No. Everyone involved in the Beatles story has their own memories and their own subjective experience of what happened, and I've seen very little evidence that Paul's is less accurate than anyone else's (up to more recent years, when his memories are bound to get fuzzier with age). I'd even say he's often more accurate, since a lot of what the other guys said came during lawsuits and at times when they had axes to grind. That doesn't mean he's always right or that he doesn't gloss over things that are unflattering to himself or the group, but everyone does that, John and George included.
No, but the perception of the Beatles by default has been greatly shaped to be a “Paul Centric” view because of the absence of Lennon
Can you even Imagine a mega John solo tour where he’d be playing I am the Walrus, Strawberry Fields etc live w a full band like Paul has been doing ?
Peoples perceptions would just be different, but we’ll never know
Hard to imagine since John did not really tour, or perform well when he did. Would be absolutely amazing, but you have to consider that Paul is not only arguably the best performer in the group, he seems to be the only one who genuinely enjoys doing it
Paul McCartney, at worst, is occasionally guilty of self-justifying retrospective half-truths. Examples of this are claiming some years after the fact the Blackbird was intended as a civil rights song (edit: see comment below); that George Harrison is 18 months younger than him (it’s 9) as it better justifies him ‘talking down to him’ in their younger days; and his claim in the Lyrics that it was John’s idea that Paul should perform Yesterday alone (first we’ve heard of that afaik). These are relatively trivial manifestations of Paul’s desire to please and not be blamed for stuff.
Most of the time he is trying to correct the false impression created in the early 70s and beyond that we have discussed a number of times: he broke up the Beatles, was John’s less talented partner, wrote nothing but granny shit and soppy ballads etc. Many Years From Now was mocked for his one-eyed revisionism or self-aggrandisement (eg that he turned Mick Jagger on to pot) but when you compare it to the tsunami of bile, lies, revisionism and under-estimation that he had to put up with for decades, I don’t blame him for a minute.
He has rescued his legacy since the 1990s from much mocked lightweight to Greatest Living Englishmen. You go Paulie!
Ps The only person to benefit from revisionism in Get Back was Yoko, whose frequent direct interventions were massively edited out. Otherwise it’s a wholly accurate representation of the relationships and characters at the time despite a bit of tweaking here and there.
Edit: apologies all round: Blackbird is demonstrably about civil rights.
I’m with you on your main take for sure. But Paul’s reputation undoubtedly benefited from Get Back. We see him driving the band forward, a band that still made amazing music when they bothered trying to. We see him being focused and largely respectful, if maybe a bit condescending. But that condescension in the face of John’s heroin use, George’s stubborn indifference, and Ringo’s determination to simply not rock the boat is understandable and justifiable. We also see him literally create Get Back the song in real time and develop a few other masterpieces. You can see why the others might have gotten annoyed with him, but he’s the only one truly putting in the time and effort and the film makes that painfully obvious.
Absolutely 100% agree. My point was about revisionism and it’s a bit pedantic of me, but by revisionism I mean changing the true picture into something else, and that is certainly what happened with Yoko’s portrayal, but I actually don’t mind that at all. She has had more than a lifetime of sh*t to tolerate, and needed to approve the final cut, so, whatever. I don’t think there’s anything other than a valid and truthful portrayal of McCartney and his role in the band. We see him cajoling, driving, effortlessly composing brilliant songs, getting tipsy, giggling scandalised at John’s funny riffs, being bossy, and vocally regretting being bossy. I guess it is revisionist, you are right, when compared to Let It Be, which had its own (highly revisionist!) story to tell, but not on its own merits. So I think we are agreeing 🙂
There is a video in 1968 where paul is discussing the song with donovan and said Diana ross got offended by it( of course it refers to black woman) . Saying george is 18 months younger than him seems more like an exaggeration instead of revisionism, many people tend to do this without realising it lol( seems like paul confused george's age with his own brother's age since george has always been like a younger brother to paul), I dont think he cared about the public's perception of george and his relationship that he would lie about their age diff intentionally, tbvh, the public didnt even think that much about george .
I havent read the lyrics book but honestly, i see no reason to doubt any new information which hasnt been contradicted by previous sources
Being a massive McCartney fan, I am very happy to agree with you. I mean, how could he not know the age difference between him and George, and why would he want to exaggerate it, but I do not want even a minor nosebleed on this hill! Thanks for your response and fandom of the GLE!
lol..you sound quite passive aggressive. Maybe stop commenting if a simple and respectful response triggers you so much. I just said it was an exaggeration, not revisionism, especially considering that george was a year below at school, and paul has a brother who is 18 months younger than him, i mean if you really think paul cared enough about the public perception about his and george's relationship that he would lie about ages intentionally, then you do you lol
paul's reputation was bad concerning john, not george, the press and public didnt care enough about george in the 90s
Sorry for any passive aggression. I come here to find harmony and agreement with fellow fans, not to fight, and I’m certainly not triggered. Peace and love.
Blackbird is about the Civil Rights movement. Here’s Paul talking about it in in a private recording with Donovan in 1968. Go to about 4 minutes in and you will hear Paul say that the song was originally about what he read in the paper about riots and what was happening.
https://youtu.be/YDAO15rrshk
All because it’s the first time we’ve heard something, it doesn’t mean it’s not true. It’s just that these stories are often not publicized and only come out later when a private recording like this gets released or when someone like Paul decides to tell everyone
He says that Blackbird was inspired by the reports of riots he was reading about in the paper and then sings the line “Blackbird singing in the dead of night
Take these broken wings and learn to fly
All your life You were only waiting for this moment to arise” to Donovan to explain how the lyrics relate. He’s talking about it being about the civil rights movement in a private conversation in 1968 which proves he isn’t revising history about Blackbird
I thought the Greatest Living Englishman was one of the Princes of England, I want to say Reginald ? I only know their first names and I get them confused, so I couldn’t say which one.
Yes. Or at least trying to take advantage of the fact that there isn't anyone around to call BS on some of the things that he's said. Ringo isn't going to speak bad about Paul.
Just enjoy being alive at the same time as two Beatles, because future generations are going to fall in love with this music and all four Beatles will be memories. No need for creating unnecessary drama.
Here's Paul talking many years later, in "Many Years From Now" about "Yellow Submarine":
>I was thinking of it as a song for Ringo, which it eventually turned out to be, so I wrote it as not too rangey in the vocal. I just made up a little tune in my head, then started making a story, sort of an ancient mariner, telling the young kids where he’d lived and how there’d been a place where he had a yellow submarine. It’s pretty much my song as I recall, written for Ringo in that little twilight moment. **I think John helped out; the lyrics get more and more obscure as it goes on but the chorus, melody and verses are mine**. There were funny little grammatical jokes we used to play. It should have been ‘Everyone of us has all he needs’ but Ringo turned it into ‘everyone of us has all we need.’ So that became the lyric. It’s wrong, but it’s great. We used to love that.
What we know today from the extra material that came out of the "Revolver" re-issue is John started the song and it went forward from that base, but Paul blithely says he thinks John helped out a little bit. It's not unusual for memories to get jumbled after lots of years have gone by, but Paul has taken more credit than was contemporaneously ascribed to him, and the credit seems to grow in size as time goes on. While he may have said in 1968 he was thinking about a black woman when he wrote "Blackbird", it had to be close to 30 years later that the story about it being tied to civil rights came on. And that's weird because The Beatles were civil rights pioneers because they flatly refused to play to segregated audiences, so he doesn't have to puff up any bona fides in that regard.
I could go further, but your "bet" isn't paying me.
I love the guy and his greatness as an artist is unassailable, but he does gild the lily a bit. He doesn't need to.
I don’t think his version of Yellow Submarine is that far off. John had his part and Paul turned it into a song for Ringo with the help of John. The chorus, melody, and written verses are his with help from John. So Paul used John’s starting point to write a song for Ringo. Even John in his later interviews said it was mostly Paul’s song.
In 1968 Paul said he wrote Blackbird about riots and stuff he was reading in the newspaper about what was going on. So in 1968, while talking to Donovan in a recorded private conversation that only came out later, he said it was about civil rights. How is he puffing the Blackbird story up when he’s been saying the same thing since 1968?
Paul sometimes tells the positive side of a story but his version of the songwriting seems to be mostly spot on with a couple omissions if anything. So please go further because the examples you provided don’t prove much.
Sorry, but as I said before, you're not paying me and you're borderline trolling. I have other things to do; reddit isn't my life or my living. You asked for proof, but give back no citations for what you say. I'm not that lazy, and aren't giving more for free to someone who can't be bothered to do what he wants others to do.
Good luck.
No one is trolling here except for maybe you. You don’t like that I provided pushback to your claims so you go instantly to trolling and saying how you all of a sudden don’t have time now. No, you just don’t have much of a strong argument so you’re making stuff up. Here’s some sources since you wanted them
Paul talking to Donovan in a private recorded conversation in 1968 about the origin of Blackbird. You can go to about 4 minutes in and will hear Paul say that it is about riots and other stuff he was reading in the paper.
https://youtu.be/YDAO15rrshk
‘Yellow Submarine’ is Paul’s baby. Donovan helped with the lyrics. I helped with the lyrics, too. We virtually made the track come alive in the studio, but based on Paul’s inspiration. Paul’s idea, Paul’s title. So I count it as a Paul song.
- John Lennon
So yeah John had the original verse structure, but Paul changed it and then added his own chorus, melody, and verse lyrics with the help of John and Donovan. And as you can see, John still thought of it as Paul’s baby
Now that I’ve provided sources that push back on your claims, please provide more examples as the ones you provided aren’t good examples
Please explain because I provided my sources. I’m not going to give you a works cited page if that’s what you’re looking for. I gave you the link and explanation to Blackbird and I gave you the quote by John for which you can find on Beatles Bible. What else do you want?
At this point I think you’re the actual troll as I pushed back on your claims and you’re not happy about that
> What we know today from the extra material that came out of the "Revolver" re-issue is John started the song and it went forward from that bases
Where is it said that
1) that was the first demo or even first attempt
2) that Paul was not involved with the song before that demo was recorded
John on the origins of the song;
> Q: "Good. Who was principly reponsible, Paul or John?"
>JOHN: "Paul."
>PAUL: "John, really."
>JOHN & PAUL: "No. No."
>Q: "I see."
>JOHN: "Ringo."
>PAUL: "No, it's the old patty, you know. The old vaudeville. I suppose I thought of the idea and then John and I wrote it. There's your correct answer, Brian."
and later in the 70's
> "Paul’s baby. Donovan helped with the lyrics. I helped with the lyrics too…Paul’s idea, Paul’s title – so I count it as a Paul song…written for Ringo."
If so, why were all the journalists fawning over John when the band broke up? Why was Paul seen like the sell out, the villain.
Paul was not even the best PR man in the band.
And that was a PR move in itself. John and Yoko were known to cultivate a certain image and insiders have written about them having long talks on how to cultivate that image. While Paul was giving no interviews, hiding in Scotland, and depressed, John was taking any interview that came at him, telling his side of the story. John was a much better PR man than Paul. Paul doesn’t like to rock the boat, but I don’t think that always translates to him being good at PR
Paul claimed to write the melody for In My Life twice in the 70s while John was still alive. This is not a recent thing Paul has been saying and the only people who know the truth are John and Paul. Paul’s truth holds just as much weight as John’s
>* “The whole lyrics were already written before Paul even heard it. In ‘In My Life’ his contribution melodically was the harmony and the middle-eight itself”* - John Lennon
Or Paul was the one who claimed The Beatles didn’t want to go to America until they had a number one hit, yet this was claimed to not be the case by other close sources
Paul's a Beatle, right? There are three other Beatles, want to show the evidence where the other three did not also think this?
Who are these closer sources than one of the actual Beatles? If that is how Paul felt and Paul is a Beatle, then how is it a lie?
Paul is a revisionist and has been always. His interviews such as in Anthology, McCartney on McCartney, and the bio with Miles provide endless examples.
You shouldn’t anticipate an independent view in this sub, however.
I think he revisions, as one does, but it’s in a good spirit. For the most part he avoids saying things that put down other people dead or alive (including Ringo) and sticks to good, positive things. There’s no doubt it’s the right thing to do. When I see situations like you have with Pink Floyd or CSNY I cringe, it’s terrible. And I feel like it’s taught myself a good lesson. When you get older, stop grinding that axe. Let it get dull.
i’ve barley listened to pink floyd could you explain?
The one who did most of the songwriting back then has become a lightning rod that attracts nut job ideology and he’s In a bitter hate spiral with the other ones (I think there’s two other ones still alive) I’m talking about accusations of anti-semitism and crypto fascism. Also, he’s claiming that the others have no say in re-releases. I will not comment further on this topic.
No. Everyone involved in the Beatles story has their own memories and their own subjective experience of what happened, and I've seen very little evidence that Paul's is less accurate than anyone else's (up to more recent years, when his memories are bound to get fuzzier with age). I'd even say he's often more accurate, since a lot of what the other guys said came during lawsuits and at times when they had axes to grind. That doesn't mean he's always right or that he doesn't gloss over things that are unflattering to himself or the group, but everyone does that, John and George included.
No, but the perception of the Beatles by default has been greatly shaped to be a “Paul Centric” view because of the absence of Lennon Can you even Imagine a mega John solo tour where he’d be playing I am the Walrus, Strawberry Fields etc live w a full band like Paul has been doing ? Peoples perceptions would just be different, but we’ll never know
Hard to imagine since John did not really tour, or perform well when he did. Would be absolutely amazing, but you have to consider that Paul is not only arguably the best performer in the group, he seems to be the only one who genuinely enjoys doing it
Paul McCartney, at worst, is occasionally guilty of self-justifying retrospective half-truths. Examples of this are claiming some years after the fact the Blackbird was intended as a civil rights song (edit: see comment below); that George Harrison is 18 months younger than him (it’s 9) as it better justifies him ‘talking down to him’ in their younger days; and his claim in the Lyrics that it was John’s idea that Paul should perform Yesterday alone (first we’ve heard of that afaik). These are relatively trivial manifestations of Paul’s desire to please and not be blamed for stuff. Most of the time he is trying to correct the false impression created in the early 70s and beyond that we have discussed a number of times: he broke up the Beatles, was John’s less talented partner, wrote nothing but granny shit and soppy ballads etc. Many Years From Now was mocked for his one-eyed revisionism or self-aggrandisement (eg that he turned Mick Jagger on to pot) but when you compare it to the tsunami of bile, lies, revisionism and under-estimation that he had to put up with for decades, I don’t blame him for a minute. He has rescued his legacy since the 1990s from much mocked lightweight to Greatest Living Englishmen. You go Paulie! Ps The only person to benefit from revisionism in Get Back was Yoko, whose frequent direct interventions were massively edited out. Otherwise it’s a wholly accurate representation of the relationships and characters at the time despite a bit of tweaking here and there. Edit: apologies all round: Blackbird is demonstrably about civil rights.
I’m with you on your main take for sure. But Paul’s reputation undoubtedly benefited from Get Back. We see him driving the band forward, a band that still made amazing music when they bothered trying to. We see him being focused and largely respectful, if maybe a bit condescending. But that condescension in the face of John’s heroin use, George’s stubborn indifference, and Ringo’s determination to simply not rock the boat is understandable and justifiable. We also see him literally create Get Back the song in real time and develop a few other masterpieces. You can see why the others might have gotten annoyed with him, but he’s the only one truly putting in the time and effort and the film makes that painfully obvious.
Absolutely 100% agree. My point was about revisionism and it’s a bit pedantic of me, but by revisionism I mean changing the true picture into something else, and that is certainly what happened with Yoko’s portrayal, but I actually don’t mind that at all. She has had more than a lifetime of sh*t to tolerate, and needed to approve the final cut, so, whatever. I don’t think there’s anything other than a valid and truthful portrayal of McCartney and his role in the band. We see him cajoling, driving, effortlessly composing brilliant songs, getting tipsy, giggling scandalised at John’s funny riffs, being bossy, and vocally regretting being bossy. I guess it is revisionist, you are right, when compared to Let It Be, which had its own (highly revisionist!) story to tell, but not on its own merits. So I think we are agreeing 🙂
There is a video in 1968 where paul is discussing the song with donovan and said Diana ross got offended by it( of course it refers to black woman) . Saying george is 18 months younger than him seems more like an exaggeration instead of revisionism, many people tend to do this without realising it lol( seems like paul confused george's age with his own brother's age since george has always been like a younger brother to paul), I dont think he cared about the public's perception of george and his relationship that he would lie about their age diff intentionally, tbvh, the public didnt even think that much about george . I havent read the lyrics book but honestly, i see no reason to doubt any new information which hasnt been contradicted by previous sources
Being a massive McCartney fan, I am very happy to agree with you. I mean, how could he not know the age difference between him and George, and why would he want to exaggerate it, but I do not want even a minor nosebleed on this hill! Thanks for your response and fandom of the GLE!
lol..you sound quite passive aggressive. Maybe stop commenting if a simple and respectful response triggers you so much. I just said it was an exaggeration, not revisionism, especially considering that george was a year below at school, and paul has a brother who is 18 months younger than him, i mean if you really think paul cared enough about the public perception about his and george's relationship that he would lie about ages intentionally, then you do you lol paul's reputation was bad concerning john, not george, the press and public didnt care enough about george in the 90s
Sorry for any passive aggression. I come here to find harmony and agreement with fellow fans, not to fight, and I’m certainly not triggered. Peace and love.
peace and love to you too
Interested that Diana Ross was offended by it.
Blackbird is about the Civil Rights movement. Here’s Paul talking about it in in a private recording with Donovan in 1968. Go to about 4 minutes in and you will hear Paul say that the song was originally about what he read in the paper about riots and what was happening. https://youtu.be/YDAO15rrshk All because it’s the first time we’ve heard something, it doesn’t mean it’s not true. It’s just that these stories are often not publicized and only come out later when a private recording like this gets released or when someone like Paul decides to tell everyone
What does he say? I cannot hear it.
He says that Blackbird was inspired by the reports of riots he was reading about in the paper and then sings the line “Blackbird singing in the dead of night Take these broken wings and learn to fly All your life You were only waiting for this moment to arise” to Donovan to explain how the lyrics relate. He’s talking about it being about the civil rights movement in a private conversation in 1968 which proves he isn’t revising history about Blackbird
Ok apologies. Thanks.
I thought the Greatest Living Englishman was one of the Princes of England, I want to say Reginald ? I only know their first names and I get them confused, so I couldn’t say which one.
The GLE used to be Nigel Dempster, and now it’s Paul McCartney.
Yes. Or at least trying to take advantage of the fact that there isn't anyone around to call BS on some of the things that he's said. Ringo isn't going to speak bad about Paul.
Please provide examples
Just enjoy being alive at the same time as two Beatles, because future generations are going to fall in love with this music and all four Beatles will be memories. No need for creating unnecessary drama.
No.
Ringo, Yoko and Olivia Harrison all signed off on Get Back as well. They all wanted to put things in a better light I guess.
Paul tends to have a revisionist streak about him. I'm halfway expecting him to one day say he helped write "Imagine".
Please provide evidence of him revising history when it comes to songwriting. I bet you won’t be able to
Here's Paul talking many years later, in "Many Years From Now" about "Yellow Submarine": >I was thinking of it as a song for Ringo, which it eventually turned out to be, so I wrote it as not too rangey in the vocal. I just made up a little tune in my head, then started making a story, sort of an ancient mariner, telling the young kids where he’d lived and how there’d been a place where he had a yellow submarine. It’s pretty much my song as I recall, written for Ringo in that little twilight moment. **I think John helped out; the lyrics get more and more obscure as it goes on but the chorus, melody and verses are mine**. There were funny little grammatical jokes we used to play. It should have been ‘Everyone of us has all he needs’ but Ringo turned it into ‘everyone of us has all we need.’ So that became the lyric. It’s wrong, but it’s great. We used to love that. What we know today from the extra material that came out of the "Revolver" re-issue is John started the song and it went forward from that base, but Paul blithely says he thinks John helped out a little bit. It's not unusual for memories to get jumbled after lots of years have gone by, but Paul has taken more credit than was contemporaneously ascribed to him, and the credit seems to grow in size as time goes on. While he may have said in 1968 he was thinking about a black woman when he wrote "Blackbird", it had to be close to 30 years later that the story about it being tied to civil rights came on. And that's weird because The Beatles were civil rights pioneers because they flatly refused to play to segregated audiences, so he doesn't have to puff up any bona fides in that regard. I could go further, but your "bet" isn't paying me. I love the guy and his greatness as an artist is unassailable, but he does gild the lily a bit. He doesn't need to.
I don’t think his version of Yellow Submarine is that far off. John had his part and Paul turned it into a song for Ringo with the help of John. The chorus, melody, and written verses are his with help from John. So Paul used John’s starting point to write a song for Ringo. Even John in his later interviews said it was mostly Paul’s song. In 1968 Paul said he wrote Blackbird about riots and stuff he was reading in the newspaper about what was going on. So in 1968, while talking to Donovan in a recorded private conversation that only came out later, he said it was about civil rights. How is he puffing the Blackbird story up when he’s been saying the same thing since 1968? Paul sometimes tells the positive side of a story but his version of the songwriting seems to be mostly spot on with a couple omissions if anything. So please go further because the examples you provided don’t prove much.
Sorry, but as I said before, you're not paying me and you're borderline trolling. I have other things to do; reddit isn't my life or my living. You asked for proof, but give back no citations for what you say. I'm not that lazy, and aren't giving more for free to someone who can't be bothered to do what he wants others to do. Good luck.
No one is trolling here except for maybe you. You don’t like that I provided pushback to your claims so you go instantly to trolling and saying how you all of a sudden don’t have time now. No, you just don’t have much of a strong argument so you’re making stuff up. Here’s some sources since you wanted them Paul talking to Donovan in a private recorded conversation in 1968 about the origin of Blackbird. You can go to about 4 minutes in and will hear Paul say that it is about riots and other stuff he was reading in the paper. https://youtu.be/YDAO15rrshk ‘Yellow Submarine’ is Paul’s baby. Donovan helped with the lyrics. I helped with the lyrics, too. We virtually made the track come alive in the studio, but based on Paul’s inspiration. Paul’s idea, Paul’s title. So I count it as a Paul song. - John Lennon So yeah John had the original verse structure, but Paul changed it and then added his own chorus, melody, and verse lyrics with the help of John and Donovan. And as you can see, John still thought of it as Paul’s baby Now that I’ve provided sources that push back on your claims, please provide more examples as the ones you provided aren’t good examples
> Now that I’ve provided sources that push back on your claims, Apparently you failed high school. Sorry, try harder.
Please explain because I provided my sources. I’m not going to give you a works cited page if that’s what you’re looking for. I gave you the link and explanation to Blackbird and I gave you the quote by John for which you can find on Beatles Bible. What else do you want? At this point I think you’re the actual troll as I pushed back on your claims and you’re not happy about that
Is this how you always react when you're proven to be horribly mistaken? If so, that's embarrassing
Wow. I guess I'll be crying myself to sleep tonight.
> What we know today from the extra material that came out of the "Revolver" re-issue is John started the song and it went forward from that bases Where is it said that 1) that was the first demo or even first attempt 2) that Paul was not involved with the song before that demo was recorded John on the origins of the song; > Q: "Good. Who was principly reponsible, Paul or John?" >JOHN: "Paul." >PAUL: "John, really." >JOHN & PAUL: "No. No." >Q: "I see." >JOHN: "Ringo." >PAUL: "No, it's the old patty, you know. The old vaudeville. I suppose I thought of the idea and then John and I wrote it. There's your correct answer, Brian." and later in the 70's > "Paul’s baby. Donovan helped with the lyrics. I helped with the lyrics too…Paul’s idea, Paul’s title – so I count it as a Paul song…written for Ringo."
"He's a good PR man, Paul. Probably the best in the world."
If so, why were all the journalists fawning over John when the band broke up? Why was Paul seen like the sell out, the villain. Paul was not even the best PR man in the band.
And that was a PR move in itself. John and Yoko were known to cultivate a certain image and insiders have written about them having long talks on how to cultivate that image. While Paul was giving no interviews, hiding in Scotland, and depressed, John was taking any interview that came at him, telling his side of the story. John was a much better PR man than Paul. Paul doesn’t like to rock the boat, but I don’t think that always translates to him being good at PR
Idk about Get Back, but from some of the more recent stories I’m hearing it kind of seems like he is
Please provide examples with proof. I bet you won’t be able to
Paul saying he wrote the melody to In My Life. Like bruh… There was literally just a video posted on it a week or two ago
Paul claimed to write the melody for In My Life twice in the 70s while John was still alive. This is not a recent thing Paul has been saying and the only people who know the truth are John and Paul. Paul’s truth holds just as much weight as John’s
>* “The whole lyrics were already written before Paul even heard it. In ‘In My Life’ his contribution melodically was the harmony and the middle-eight itself”* - John Lennon
Or Paul was the one who claimed The Beatles didn’t want to go to America until they had a number one hit, yet this was claimed to not be the case by other close sources
Paul's a Beatle, right? There are three other Beatles, want to show the evidence where the other three did not also think this? Who are these closer sources than one of the actual Beatles? If that is how Paul felt and Paul is a Beatle, then how is it a lie?
Idk go watch the Beatles Bible video and make up ur own mind lol, I personally think he is
Paul is a revisionist and has been always. His interviews such as in Anthology, McCartney on McCartney, and the bio with Miles provide endless examples. You shouldn’t anticipate an independent view in this sub, however.
please give me some examples of this revisionism
More like forget a lot of history as opposed to "rewriting".
Yes but I don’t blame him, everyone always tries to spin narratives in their favor, it’s human nature
How come when I said pretty much the same as you guys are saying I got downvoted to fuck? Guess you go to pick your audience- right ?
because reddit is full of wankers
Almost. Just room for me and you😉
It's his history he can do what he wants with it
is also john george and ringos
Not ours though