Plea to Paul: Let it be when it comes to claiming credit

One thing to bear in mind is that Paul felt under pressure – real, existing pressure – to justify why he’s doing a Beatles song that most people assume he didn’t write, in one of his solo tours. Artists who come from great bands and then went on to do solo tours often face this problem. Please allow me to clarify with an example from another band. When Roger Waters and David Gilmour play Floyd songs, there’s an unspoken assumption that they are “allowed” to do the songs that they had a hand in writing. On the other hand, it would be perceived as weird (rightly or wrongly) If David Gilmour played a track from “The Final Cut” (not that he ever would). The exception to this is if the performance is a tribute to a deceased former band-mate; thus David Gilmour often plays Syd Barrett numbers and played “Remember a Day” after Richard Wright’s death. (Did George play “In My Life” after John’s death?) As for “Kite,” the nature of that song precludes it from being a tribute, since it doesn’t say anything overt about life, death, friendship or remembrance. So, without the “tribute” option available to him, Paul might well have accrued criticism for playing “Kite” and choosing not to clarify his role in writing it.

I read the article in the Beatles Bible some time ago. It was the preamble to If I Fell that Paul was referring to not the song. He said it was John’s ballad. John said Paul helped write the middle eight so who knows. It should be remembered that publications like Q magazine don’t always edit verbatim. So unless anyone has direct access to Paul’s exact spoken words (as in a TV interview) the accusations against him are meaningless. By the way Paul was 68/69 at the time of the 2013 interview so hardly suffering from geriatric memory issues.

Should Paul really have to censor his thoughts because some people will get upset over them? In almost any McCartney article there are people finding fault with something he has said or some past mistake. He’s never going to please everyone and will always have his critics. There is no reason why he should be walking on eggshells to appease a group of people who will never be happy with him.

I’m almost 100% sure that all the people you quoted from the comment section on that article already had a negative opinion of Paul to begin with. That what he said changed few people’s minds on him, just reinforced what they already believed to be true.

With regard to his comments on the song, it does two things; annoys the people who are already annoyed with him and it adds his name to the legacy of the song. It is probably better for Macca’s state of mind that there be some recording of the fact that he played a part in that song.

Interestingly in the Get Back tapes Lennon confirms that Paul played an important part in the making of that song, as he complains about what the song turned into.

“And that’s all I did on the last album was say, “Okay, Paul, you’re out to decide where my songs are concerned, arrangement-wise.” [exasperated] I don’t know the songs, you know. I’d sooner just sing them, than have them turn into – into ‘Mr. Kite’, or anything else, where— I’ve accepted the problem from you that it needs arrangement.” – Lennon in semi private conversation with Paul

Paul was involved enough in that John thought he changed how he thought the song should be.

Now the issue here is what do you think counts as part of the songwriting. John, more lyricist than melodymaker, may not have seen Paul being involved in the writing. Paul on the other may have seen his contribution as being vital to the songwriting. The trouble with conversations like this is that many have different ideas of what constitutes as a songwriting contribution.

Finally I find it funny that one of the biggest criticisms of Paul is that he is too much of a PR man, but when he does something that many people don’t like some of those same people want him to shut up and not offend people.

Yes, it is better for Macca’s state of mind that he take a bit of John’s legacy when it comes to many songs, and it’s a sad state of mind. As if Paul isn’t called the mastermind behind Sgt. Pepper already and hasn’t seen success beyond anyone’s wildest dreams.
.
What contribution did Paul make to Being For the Benefit of Mr. Kite exactly? John wrote the melody, the lyrics were taken almost verbatim from a 19th century circus poster, and George Martin and Geoff Emerick brilliantly assembled the playground atmosphere at John’s request. Was it Paul’s mere presence that helped write the song? Like it was John’s presence that helped Paul write Yesterday? Because Paul certainly didn’t write anything quite like it in his solo career, and that is precisely why he can’t let it be when it comes to claiming credit. Niggling doubts about not writing at the same standard he set for himself when John was there to give him feedback.
.
I would care much less about this if Paul wasn’t so reluctant to give John credit on his songs where it was due, like the fact that John wrote the middle eights for And I Love Her and Michelle. Instead he adds insult to injury by saying in his book that John didn’t know how to write a middle eight. It was Paul who often got stuck on the middle eight when he was writing songs. What he’s very good at is medleys and piecing together unrelated songs.

Paul says he wrote the middle eight to And I Love Her and that John helped a little, though John wrote the middle eight to Michelle. So he does give John credit for his songs – but only when it’s due and not for the sake of it. There is nothing to be gained by challenging this tit for tat argument by replacing one truth for another depending on one’s viewpoint. Neither man wrote to the same standard in their solo careers without the feedback from each other. There was no Strawberry Fields Forever or I am the Walrus in John’s solo catalogue any more than any Eleanor Rigby or Yesterday in Paul’s.

@Laura, that’s interesting about the poster — thank you! Even Mark Lewisohn, who will often take an opportunity on podcasts to get a dig in at Paul, said on a podcast when a caller asked if Paul really had a part in writing that song that he very likely did, was most certainly there, and implied that Paul shouldn’t have to justify it. You’re right that no matter what Paul says himself, nobody who doesn’t want to believe him will, because he’s often assumed to be speaking in bad faith instead of remembering his own life.

Thank you for enlightening me on the poster that inspired Mr. Kite. No one’s memory is perfect, certainly not theirs, and I realize that (although John’s recollections are obviously closer to the time these songs were written than Paul’s more recent revelations). That’s not what I have a problem with so much as Paul’s attitude with regards to songs that are mainly John’s. Why does he take exception to people calling something “John’s song” when they do the same thing with songs that he mostly wrote and John contributed to? We Can Work it Out and She’s Leaving Home are called “Paul’s songs” all the time and he doesn’t say “but wait a minute…”

I don’t believe Paul has ever objected to a song being referred to as a John song – he’s objected to people saying John wrote a song completely on his own when he recalls otherwise.
.
Although John’s recollections were mostly made closer to when the deed was done, I think it’s fair to roll his agenda of minimizing Lennon-McCartney into the mix. And yes, Paul may maximize Lennon-McCartney, so that can also be taken into consideration.
.
Leaving us… where? It leaves me at, “I don’t know and I’m not going to get too upset about it since both their names are on the songs.” And John’s name is (almost) always first, so I cut Paul some slack since that’s contrary to what he, John and Brian agreed to before that storied trip to Spain.
.
Speaking of when authorship claims were made, “Beatlesongs” dates Paul’s claim of having written the tune for “In My Life” as 1984 when it was actually 1973. That kind of error is the last thing Paul needs :-\

@Laura, “I think it’s fair to roll his agenda of minimizing Lennon-McCartney into the mix. And yes, Paul may maximize Lennon-McCartney, so that can also be taken into consideration.”
.
Well put!
.
I remember the days when I was a casual fan, before I knew who wrote what song, and I just thought of them all as Lennon-McCartney songs. I remember asking someone if it was Paul singing that kooky “I Am the Walrus,” hah.

@Michelle.I am very glad to answer who sang the…ahs in a day in the life. I refer you to EXPERT analysis in pages and pages on….the Steve Hoffman record forum….turns out it was Paul. The discussion is probably the longest one on that great record form, as goes on several hundreds of pages. The second longest Steve Hoffman forum disputing who did it….is who played the great drum shuffles on old a Brown Shoe. It turns out that too was Paul per verified double checked studio logs, a text to writers of reissued deluxe abbey road books and verification that ringo was indeed missing off filming Old Brown Shoe. When these contributions can be analyzed and verified they are indeed interesting, that’s why I found the old 72 Hit Parader list that the mag went over sing by sing with John and Paul then Paul and Paul agreed on all but two songs. As this was much closer to Beatles era and checked by John and Paul I found this list probably the most valid.

Always glad to help.

If I may be allowed one more comment as have already made two in the same subject ok, but if I’m not allowed anymore comments p, that’s ok too.

Clearly folks questioning seventies AM radio hits do not remember the seventies, as Junior’s farm was considered rocking just as Whatever Gets You Through the Night and just as George’s This song all were AM seventies AM rocking hits and all songs had zany, seventies style lyrics. Though you may like one song and not another, the majority of listeners in that era liked all of them, and thus, they became popular radio hits and sold. Junior’s Farm was actually the heaviest sounding song of all of them and had the heavier sound popular in that era.

If blog moderators don’t want to post this, that’s OK, but I continue to see misinterpretations of seventies styles and now music on this blog. As the seventies was a major part of solo Beatles story and the only decade when they all lived, The seventies solo Beatles was an extension of the Beatles, as had none of them gone solo, that would have drastically restricted the Beatles story. As this blog occasionally post solo Beatles endeavors articles, I feel this comment is relevant.

Never fear about the extraordinary Steve Hofffman record form John fanboys not being on guard. There are a few who reads Paul threads on that site just to creadcrap and troll Paul air them a shill for John and another one or two love to put in his regular hearsay heard it from a friend who heard it from a friend with UNCITED, sorry for caps auto correct wouldn’t spell without caps, sources hearsay Paul is a bastard, conniving, wanted only one mega star when worked with Jackson. One new John fanboy launched in one his first post that Paul is a psychopath.. Another is so devout that his user name is John Lennon’s but unlike most John fanboys, he gets on Paul threads and credits him for good songs.

There have been posts on that good site that John fanboys threadcrap and diss Paul so, that the negative intense John fanboys disgust Paul fans , especially the younger ones, from liking John or his music. I have made. similar post here. John fans do John or his fans no favors by downing Paul. I see an extraordinary number of comments on Paul music youtubes that John and George with all of their downing of Paul clearly were jealous of him and look bad because of it.

The big fault of that excellent forum is that there can be no honest discussion of her as a person, her music because any criticism is seen as sexist or racist. The rules of the forum quickly and zealously guard yoko’s personal and musical reputation and It is interesting to me that they would do that for her so zealously yet so many Paul trolls run amuck when he was ine if the Beatles and is a highly prolific solo artist.m I see that as reverse discrimination and a double standard only because she is a female.

@Michelle, I can only say you must read every comment on the very long Who did the Ah’s in a day in the life. I read the different thread you noted but the very long thread on who did the ah’s is much more closely analyzed, possibly computer analyzed, like the melody of in my life was computer analyzed,…..and comes to the conclusion that Paul did the ah’s which I think were begun by John, extended and sustained by Paul, which interestingly shows their combined efforts many times. You must read the entire thread, however. I myself don’t care, long thought it was John who held the high note. I’m always amused at how John fans zealously guard his legacy which needs no such guardians because the man had a tremendous legacy.

***In case my third comment wasn’t posted from yesterday because I probably exceeded my daily allowance of comments, I continue to be amused at the various criticisms of seventies on this blog, in the more recent case of a song by, WHO ELSE? Lol, Paul, Junior’s farm….his harder rocking hit and wondering how that ever became a hit…..It did as did Whatever Gets You Through The Night, nit John’s finest lyrics or as did George This Song, not George’s finest lyrics.

Songs had to be catchy however in the seventies to be a hit. I continue to stress that had no solo Beatle produced anything or succeeded their individual talents would have been questioned and they would have been assessed as overrated as Beatles. I also continue to stress on this blog seventies was a new decade, with new sounds, new clothes, new glam rock hair. style shag, that folks on this blog wrongly the much later revised and denigrated mullet, but was the Bowie, rod, Keith, Paul unisex glam rock shag hair, the new look for tge new decade of the seventies rockers then.

Thus, I continue to say had there been no solo Beatles or success of any solo Beatle that would have eroded their rep for having such great talent In that band. They had extraordinary expectation and pressure on them to succeed and produce Beatle style music, which John. And George stuck to thst preachy style lyrics and heavy sound very first albums before becoming balladeers, but right off thus became critical and old sixties fan darlings but John and George took the safe way as did ringo m recycling a few late beatle styles throughout their solo which soon wore thin and folks tired of, thus their record sales fell off.

Many folks decided that by the seventies anyway, as Beatles were very out of style in the seventies, long over taken by heavier who zeppelin and prog folks Yes, Kansas, ELP and ELO. Elton-taupin surpassed them as a songwriter team for extraordinary hits. The ONLY steady interest in the Beatles in the seventies was the will they re unite clamoring the press kept up and their Red and Blue albums interested a younger generation in them as anthology would do decades later. I knew four total solo Beatles fans high school and college combined. Of course, John’s death changed all of this as death of a musician always skyrockets their backlog catalogue and interests in them. More John tribute and Beatles biographies poured out after John’s death than possibly Elvis)as books were big business tgen.

@Nancy, , I think any comment with facts on any Beatles related issue with backup supporting info, long or short, beats any ….much briefer …..fanboy …..“I just don’t like or I do like this or that….or the way the he looked with hair or clothes then, and beats the ””I just don’t like”.or the …“I’m Still not convinced despite a factually previous cited comment.“ Many of the same very few folks jump in with completely unsupportable comments that forces others like those you see in this thread to pull out facts and citations to address the issues raised, sometimes in lengthier comments, to dispute the commenter. On other blogs this is called fanboy shilling or troll derailing. When I have discussed solo music, say in my case, to use an example, I have noted very specific of failures of others solo music such as severely restricted genres and theme styles and of it as opposed to generalities of I don’t like or didn’t like styles of an era.

This was the one blog I seriously debated donating to regularly to when learned it was privately funded until I repeatedly read the constantly unmonitored allowance of unrestrained thread derailment and fanboy generalities by the very same few that another commenter has I have privately written to blog owner about several of my concerns here who says just ignores this but these few folks do the blog no favors with constant derailment and fanboy stuff and can do the most to discourage new commenters. Also, I have freely told all that I have medical problems which may cause me to repeat or forget things.

The unmonitored continued run of issues circling is as good a proof of any of a very serious issue you raised in Beatles culture….are the fans too toxic?

I’m beginning to also suspect that there is In blog comments and moderation sadly…some prejudice towards ageism here as those with older memories or those liking hair styles, fashions and music of earlier times are ridiculed and are repeatedly discouraged whereas younger folks are not called out for ridiculing and that there is possibly prejudice towards those with disabilities who are called repetitive and long winded, as well as Beatles fanboy culture toxicity here, as rejection of cited sources are rejected. I really hate thinking this about a blog where the folks overall and owners say they have liberal views and want going discussions because I have liberal views as well but have not sadly experienced the best of liberalism here. I hate to see the best of progressive liberalism not enforced among liberals because if they don’t, who will?

@Nancy, thank you for responding and for pointing out that it is indeed the seventies era as represented by styles and music that is considered red headed and step now. I see the seventies styles ridiculed all over the internet, the real era I grew up. The sixties, especially on this site or any other such worshipping and emphasizing the sixties era, is seen as the golden, fair haired age, hence seventies is the red headed ridiculed era. These Beatle internet sites are as a whole at root a sixties worship fan fest and it is interesting how so many of them and the weaker books drop off a cliff in 1970. Sites like this simply at best grand father in seventies or any and later Beatles solo decades, just like at the time begrudgingly and most claim at extreme they somehow all lost their talent alone instead of more accurately sometimes expandedA on their talents alone, sometimes successfully, sometimes not. All sixties music and fashions are all and worshipped because were part of that golden Beatles era. This goes back to the old Beatles were brilliant together but weaker apart boomer tropes whereas sometimes they were as a group and individually weak together but stronger than with group.

I have privately mentioned to Michael myself a earlier that it would be a very good thing to disable all comments on this blog and instead of spending so much time moderating them, instead spend much more profitable time on writing interesting brief articles because that is where you shine. I can tell you that it is discriminating to have the entire era you really got into the Beatles and solo Beatles ridiculed in every way. It is likewise discriminatory for the same clearly younger folks views to be constantly supported and someone my age to be consistently spurned. I find that the seventies is the sport ridicule decade of the many gen xers and millennials all over the internet and their offensive chuckles at wrongly called mullets, the styles, when then where glam rock shags and such insults. If comments are too incendiary and offensive and too time consumming, by all means, disable them.

I read all comments on any site or video to learn previously unknown info, not for my generation and taste to be insulted. If you prefer to keep this a Beatle focused rather than a solo Beatle focused site, that would be easier, as solo John seems to be over represented here, the great majority of Paul solo career under represented and sometimes ridiculed, while George and Ringo are almost completely overlooked on this site. I do think it is good to keep things such as then stylish pink shirts and such jokes out of future references as that is akin to ridiculing later Beatles Indian shirts and love beads indicative of the sixties.

I know, this is already too long and old folks ramble and disabled folks like me with seizures and probably senile older Paul repeat ourselves and get mixed up and no one cares about their memories or opinions because boomers are only, what, 2% of the world or US population they say now and majority rules or something. You know everything is brief sound bites and folks today can’t pay attention or something I read. For most of my work career, it was with folks younger than myself, but I can now truly sadly understand discrimination. Interacting with folks on this site has taught me that unfortunately about a subject matter of my interest.

By all means, if you cannot do better, turn off ALL comments though some have contained very interesting real information.

PIDPOO: I have privately mentioned to Michael myself a earlier that it would be a very good thing to disable all comments on this blog

MICHELLE: Pidpoo, I think you’re being a little paranoid.

.
The gingham dog went “Bow-wow-wow!”
And the calico cat replied “Mee-ow!”
The air was littered, an hour or so,
With bits of gingham and calico,
While the old Dutch clock in the chimney-place
Up with its hands before its face,
For it always dreaded a family row!
.
Next morning, where the two had sat
They found no trace of dog or cat;
And some folks think unto this day
That burglars stole that pair away!
But the truth about the cat and pup
Is this: they ate each other up!
Now what do you really think of that!
.
I sort of wish the gingham dog and calico cat would take their drama over to reddit. I used to enjoy reading and learning from comments here. But now all the smart and funny commenters have gone quiet.
.
Pidpoo, I used to enjoy your comments. You’d share your memories of when the Beatles first came on the scene. I’m 62, so I remember the first wave of Beatlemania as well. But lately you’ve used this place as a forum to work out your rage. It has nothing to do with your age or disability, but rather a fierce sense of entitlement that compels you to attack other opinions as “wrong” and belittle the folks who run this site when they politely ask you consider the feelings of others. You’re better than this.
.
Michelle, I just find your comments mean-spirited. You didn’t start out this way. But lately, your angry comments remind me of the sort of toxic “letters to the editor” that Steve Allen used to read aloud on his old TV show. Are you the one who called Paul “his own worst enemy” for participating in a charity event? You have interesting opinions to share. Why turn this peaceful blog into your personal thunderdome?

The world had changed vastly by the sixties, spearheaded by the Beatles and others, which is why the decade remains a source of fascination compared to the seventies. We see a similiar interest in the years of WW2 – films, books, documentaries – compared to the twenties, thirties, or fifties. A decade of huge upheaval. The whole purpose of Beatles’ websites, I should think, is to reflect and examine their huge musical and cultural dominance as a collective during the sixties. And I think it should remain centrepoint. Without the Beatles, there would be no solo Beatles to even discuss. It is ironic in itself that the term ‘Beatle’ is even used now, as ‘The Beatles’ were disbanded by being legally released from their contract in April 1970. The four then became separate artists: John Lennon, Paul McCartney (or Wings), George Harrison, and Ringo Starr. Why they should be even referred to as solo ‘Beatles’ beats me (no pun intended). But I get that it’s convenient.
.
I’ve always disliked the term baby boomer or boomer intensely. It’s derogatory and discriminatory devised by an American in the late 60s to categorize people born over a very wide number of years from 1946 to 1963. A term that we non-Americans born during those years have been saddled with ever since (please don’t think I’m anti-American as I’m not; I’ve visited your amazing country many times and love American popular culture as much as anyone). Previously named the post-war generation, and correctly so, it ended with the discovery of the contraceptive pill, and had it not been invented, the ‘boomer’ generation would have continued to this very day. Oh, the irony of it all. Do people seriously think that those born in 1963 grew up with the same social, musical, and cultural influences of those born in 1946?
.
Effectively, everyone born during those years is now aged between 56 and 74, hardly old by today’s standards, let alone senile (the life expectancy for both men and women today is in the early 80s). Like everything else, there are attitudes to life and ageing, both positive and negative, but both Paul and Ringo reflect the former very well. Paul may well tell the same old stories at his concerts, mainly now from habit and expectations, with a little showmanship thrown in for good measure.

@Lara, yes, indeed you are right about the Americans term baby boomers, the artificial term given to those kids born when WW2 soldiers returned. You are right about the sixties being the pivotal key change decade but the sixties and its influenced, musically or otherwise did not artificially stop in 1970. The seventies are very much an extension of the late sixties. I began collecting records, reading mags and then available rock books in the late sixties and kept doing so in seventies and the dividing line was more accurately 1967-80 late sixties influence.

The seventies are very much an extension of the late sixties musically and fashion wise. There were new seventies musical and fashion styles but most we’re simply extensions of sixties, most young women wore very long hair parted down middle. One huge change is that by the early seventies, younger men all began wearing their hair longer, even longer than mid era Beatles. Absolutely, no sixties, no solo Beatles but no solo Beatles, all would have retired at once. Most, but certainly not all acts in seventies, got their start in the late sixties st least. From my reading about this and my memories,

I would put the sixties and the seventies together as music and fashion of each so close then overall but it was the eighties where music and fashion completely changed never to return, as new wave lead finally into hip hop, women began to again wear more makeup to dress up and use hair spray for a while. Today, we have a blend of casual style blended with conservative but indistinct hair. Seventies was the last hurrah decade of rock that also yielded rise of black urban dance music in r n b, disco and funk. The most interesting thing about the seventies solo Beatles particularly is their varied niches and styles from each other and that they all even survived then as solo artists. There’s been some re cycling of fashion styles, furniture styles throughout the decades but due to technology, music has in this era gone electronic and folks tend not to play instruments.

As for Paul‘S repeat stories, it’s hard to know , as folks who work for him have said upon occasion he has gotten forgetful in last many years. In interviews, his repeat stories could be a defense mechanism as so repeatedly jumped on for so long regardless of what he says or it could be his efforts to give his angle. I’ve seen multiple different videos of him messing up lyrics and know his band has to go over those of older songs with him.

However, sociological divides of eras and age groups are not easily made, though, and differ as to who is making them, Lara, you are right, as with boomers so with music. For instance, I personally never much separated Beatles from a solo Beatle as saw every solo Beatle as a later extension of his work in the Beatles. I even filed my records, magazines and books on them like that. These are extremely interesting discussions and we do still have two very elderly solo Beatles still making music. A whole book could be written on these things.

With or without comments this site has been a good niche for us to read well-informed opinions and topics related to The Beatles seen in a different light through its regular posts. Thanks for that…