No, Really...McCartney, why?

[The Golden Boy]

I've noticed that there's something evil that follows McCartney threads. Did I miss something, or is there a certain McCartney topic to leave alone?

 

[JMX]

It's just that trolls like to post Sir Paul threads.

Also, he's been talked about a bassillion times.

 

[JimK]

...never heard of him.

On a tangent-
Does anyone have a copy of Brian Lefcowitz' "Tomorrow Never Knows" for sale? I would prefer the hard cover edition.

 

[Muzique Fann]

I do find it strange that after 30 or is it 40 some years, he wanted to take Lennon's name off of one of their songs. Granted, he wrote the lyrics or it came to him in a dream or some crap - but seriously why wait soooooooooo long and then just decide that 'hey wait a minute, that was all me.' This after they agreed years ago to have everything with both of their names? I think the Sir thing may be getting to his head. Maybe I'm just venting here, I've always been a bigger Lennon fan. Does anybody know more about this?

On another McCartney note - did anybody honestly like that Freedom song?

 

[Steve Holroyd]

I do find it strange that after 30 or is it 40 some years, he wanted to take Lennon's name off of one of their songs. Granted, he wrote the lyrics or it came to him in a dream or some crap - but seriously why wait soooooooooo long and then just decide that 'hey wait a minute, that was all me.' This after they agreed years ago to have everything with both of their names?

I hadn't heard that he wanted to take John's name off of songs...rather, he just top billing on a few, particularly "Yesterday," etc.

I'm no McCartney fan--I've always preferred Lennon, too--but "McCartney-Lennon" is not something new; check out the album credits to Please Please Me and [/With The Beatles[/i].

Most Beatleologists can tell you who wrote what, so it's not like Paul can try to grab a "McCartney-Lennon" credit for, say, "Revolution." I'd have no problems letting Paul take top billing on "his" songs.

Generally speaking, Paul has revealed himself to be a very churlish human being. Even his children are starting to see this. Let It Be...Naked is another shining example. But I can appreciate his frustration. As, I suspect, could John if he was alive...Lennon was the first to bitch about people playing "Yesterday" for him.

 

[The Golden Boy]

As far as a Bazillion threads about him, he's the reason I started playing, and I still love the way he attacks stuff. I've been to a Gazillion rock shows in my life, but the McCartney tour 2 years ago was the BEST show I've ever seen, and I was in the Freakin' nosebleeds!

I don't want to make excuses for anyone, but think about this 50 or so years on down the line, as anyone that had anything directly to do with the Beatles dies off, eventually that "Lennon/McCartney" is going to actually mean something. Lennon first- he was the primary songwriter. That's just how it looks, you and I may know different, but how about your kids or grandchildren. Especially with Lennon being the first to die and practically being sainted, I would think it's smart for him to change stuff instead of leaving it to a headstrong widow.

As far as Let It Be...Naked. It's cool because it's the way the concept was concieved. I think John would have hated hearing his voice without the harmonizers and hoozy woozies that he used all the time, but that wasn't the idea. Changing history isn't always appreciated. I'm surprised I never heard of people protesting the Yellow Submarine Songtrack.

BTW, thanks for answering!

 

[Wrong Robot]

Blackbird is one of my all time favorite songs