Hey Dullblog article: Plea to Paul: Let it be when it comes to claiming credit | Page 5 | Paul McCartney | Fab forum | The Beatles Bible

A A A

Please consider registering
guest

Log In Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search:

— Forum Scope —



— Match —



— Forum Options —




Wildcard usage:
*  matches any number of characters    %  matches exactly one character

Minimum search word length is 4 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

Topic RSS
Hey Dullblog article: Plea to Paul: Let it be when it comes to claiming credit
24 January 2014
1.01am
Ron Nasty
Floating downstream in the suburbs...
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 2517
Member Since:
17 December 2012
Offline
81

Plus, looking at your last reply while I was writing mine, you are talking about arrangement, not songwriting! As evidenced by Ob-La-Di, John didn't walk into the studio and write a new riff when he banged it out on the piano. He used a riff that was already there and played it with more frustration… anger… and that led to a change in how they arranged the song! There is a difference!

"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
24 January 2014
1.03am
Musketeer Gripweed (kezron9)
Coldspring Harbor, NY
Ed Sullivan Show
Forum Posts: 173
Member Since:
17 January 2014
Offline
82

http://www.beatlesbible.com/19…..f-mr-kite/

 

I don't know how Ringo having more tracks has anything to do with composing the melody. If you arent def you can here hes echoing the bass line. Read article Mccartney took it away for mixing…So Mccartney contributed to the mixing,lyrics, melody, bass,the guitar solo, vocals, and I've read other sources he was on Piano. Even this site doesnt truly know who was on piano. But yeah Ringo did more for the track….Your getting nowhere, Nowhere Man! I am a John fan but musically Mccartney was on fire and should have gotten production credits on this album. But yeah Ringo contributed more to this song! 

24 January 2014
1.08am
meanmistermustard
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 7153
Member Since:
1 May 2011
Offline

Personally i find it a bit sad that Paul, who is widely seen as one of the greatest musicians ever, feels that he has to be claiming credit for bits of Beatles songs 50 years on and aged 71. People will reply that its setting the record straight and why shouldn't he but it just comes across as a little too much like trying to get attention – "please sir, please madam, oh, please, look here, look here, look at me, look at me and what i did". 

Let it go and enjoy your legacy.

"Well, probably we'll sell less records, less people'll go to see the film, we'll write less songs, and we'll all die of failure" (John Lennon 8/64)
24 January 2014
1.12am
Musketeer Gripweed (kezron9)
Coldspring Harbor, NY
Ed Sullivan Show
Forum Posts: 173
Member Since:
17 January 2014
Offline
84

Plus, looking at your last reply while I was writing mine, you are talking about arrangement, not songwriting! As evidenced by Ob-La-Di, John didn't walk into the studio and write a new riff when he banged it out on the piano. He used a riff that was already there and played it with more frustration… anger… and that led to a change in how they arranged the song! There is a difference!

 

MJA, first read the article George Martin says John walks in and said he wanted a circus atmosphere….He says he was the most vague and they would have to figure it out. So by Mccartney playing bass and guitar solo I believe it is safe to say he composed them. I am a John fan but when it comes to composing music Paul was always superior and had more complex. Learn some of there tunes you'll see. Listen to Ob la di bedore and after Johns intro in altered the whole song musically, why do you think Paul made them do so many takes? It wasn't the way he wanted it until Johns piano part which is the backbone of the melody and continues throughout the song. It is similar to the other take tempo but completely different musically.

24 January 2014
1.18am
Ron Nasty
Floating downstream in the suburbs...
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 2517
Member Since:
17 December 2012
Offline

kezron9 said
http://www.beatlesbible.com/19…..f-mr-kite/

 

I don't know how Ringo having more tracks has anything to do with composing the melody. If you arent def you can here hes echoing the bass line. Read article Mccartney took it away for mixing…So Mccartney contributed to the mixing,lyrics, melody, bass,the guitar solo, vocals, and I've read other sources he was on Piano. Even this site doesnt truly know who was on piano. But yeah Ringo did more for the track….Your getting nowhere, Nowhere Man! I am a John fan but musically Mccartney was on fire and should have gotten production credits on this album. But yeah Ringo contributed more to this song! 

Again, I say you are talking more about arrangement than songwriting, and NOTHING in your reply says anything different. And this site does have George Martin playing piano, as it agrees with most sources (though I acknowledge that some places agree with you and say Paul). However, that is arrangement, not songwriting. If arrangement counts as songwriting, then many songs should actually be Lennon/McCartney/Martin, and Mr. Kite should be Lennon/McCartney/Martin/Emerick!

"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
24 January 2014
1.21am
Musketeer Gripweed (kezron9)
Coldspring Harbor, NY
Ed Sullivan Show
Forum Posts: 173
Member Since:
17 January 2014
Offline
86

Mustard most on point comment in this thread he shouldnt be so worried about it. I think it was just assumed to be a John song and he thought he might have to defend why he was adding to set. But no need to reclaim credit. Poor word choice also. Paul needs to take his own advice and let it be!

24 January 2014
1.30am
Musketeer Gripweed (kezron9)
Coldspring Harbor, NY
Ed Sullivan Show
Forum Posts: 173
Member Since:
17 January 2014
Offline
87

MJA the melody of a song is not the most crucial part? Paul recalls working it out on Piano with John. His bass is also contributing to the melody. You can honestly say that Paul did not compose most of the music and instruments for this track? He was a mad man at this time coked out of his mind. Peppers was all Paul he even conducted the orchestra on shes leaving home. He wouldnt of taken the tapes if he wasnt a major part of composing the song.

24 January 2014
1.41am
Ron Nasty
Floating downstream in the suburbs...
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 2517
Member Since:
17 December 2012
Offline
88

Something I have said myself in this thread more than once.

A story I like to tell, and have told in this thread, is one Bob Geldof, about McCartney competing with Lennon's memory, and Linda asking him to try persuading Paul to stop doing it.

Bob rang up Paul, "You're Paul fecking McCartney! There's you and John! Only you two! Now fecking stop it!"

"But…"

"No fecking 'but'! You two are it, no competition."

Paul has difficultly living with John's talent, just as John expressed it was hard to live with Paul's talent. But, hell, we ain't seen nothing like the two of them working together – including the two of them working apart!

"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
24 January 2014
1.52am
Ron Nasty
Floating downstream in the suburbs...
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 2517
Member Since:
17 December 2012
Offline
89

kezron9 said
(Paul) wouldnt of taken the tapes if he wasnt a major part of composing the song.

There was a bunch of tapes (known as the "Peter Sellers Tapes") that Ringo took home from the White Album sessions, does that mean that he was a major part of composing those? All the way through their career you can find one, another, or all, wanting to take home tapes to listen to what they had done. Again, and I am being forced to repeat myself, Paul wanting to listen to the way they were arranging the song in the studio, says nothing to whether John walked into the studio with 10% of the song or 90% of the song, with ideas about what he needed for the rest.

"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
24 January 2014
2.00am
Musketeer Gripweed (kezron9)
Coldspring Harbor, NY
Ed Sullivan Show
Forum Posts: 173
Member Since:
17 January 2014
Offline
90

MJA, you can honestly say that Paul did not write most of the music and contribute to the melody and lyrics? Why dont you answer the question I asked you lasted time instead of diverting to some off topic. Maybe Ringo brought home Don't Pass Me By first song he wrote which is on the White Album, would make sense since he wasnt there for all the tracks and quite during this period. But listen to this http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ub4NGc9FpV4 its the isolated bass and tell me Mccartney did not write some of the music and provide the back bone of the song with one of the hardest bass lines hes done according to him. I mentioned the tapes because usually the main author of song brought them home when it came to final mixing. In this case Paul did so for this website to mention I am using logic to assume he was a part of writing this song. I know it is possible to bring the tapes home to work on your part but in final mixing stage it is rare to have Paul take them with John on lead vocals. 

9 February 2014
4.36pm
tulane
Decca
Forum Posts: 87
Member Since:
7 February 2014
Offline
91

I have not read the "Many years from now" book, but I have read lots and lots of quotes from it, mainly on this site.

What struck me is that Paul seems to remember all the ins and outs of the writing of every song in lots of detail.

This makes me a bit dubious about how accurate the book is. 

Paul would have to have a photographic memory to remember everything he did 30 years earlier so vividly.

I can't help feeling that Paul is making some of it up.

Maybe it's just me but I find my memories of the past for the most part very hazy (no, I've not spent the intervening years on drugs!).  I can remember a few things vividly (eg  death of my father) and I have a rough idea of what I've done in my life (eg. what school I went to, where I have worked etc) but if you were to ask me about hundreds of specific day to day things I did decades ago, I would simply not be able to remember.  Surely Paul can't remember sitting down to write every single one of his tunes as clearly as the day he wrote them, yet, as far as I'm aware he never says "I have no idea about that one – can't remember" or anything along those lines.  He even apparently remembers in such detail that he remembers where he was when he wrote them, what percentage was down to him and the exact bits that he wrote and the bits that John wrote.

So I am sceptical.  If Paul's memory is so good, how come, by his own admission, he forgets the words to his own songs?

‘To tell you the truth, I don’t really know my songs,’ said Sir Paul, 67.

‘There are certain ones that I can conjure up but really, the truth is people say, ‘Go on, do that one!’ and I say, ‘Sorry, I have no idea how it goes.’

And yet in the Barry Miles book his memory is marvellous?  Makes no sense to me.

Agree with what others have said.  Paul has absolutely nothing left to prove.  Strikes me as a bit insecure that he feels he needs to set the record straight about what percentage of some 50 year old song was down to him.

In my experience, people who dislike Paul tend to dislike him because of his personality (at least as they perceive it).  As a musician, he is almost universally respected.  I was disappointed by the replacing Lennon-McCartney with McCartney-Lennon too.  I just think it's sad that Paul seems to feel the need to go to such lengths protect his legacy, which is secure no matter what.

9 February 2014
6.24pm
Billy Rhythm
Hollywood Bowl
Forum Posts: 383
Member Since:
22 December 2013
Offline
92

It's much the same as any historian studying any given moment in history goes through when attempting to sort all of this out, the documentation is either obscured or non-existent, and what is often the case with BeatleLore, there are contradicting accounts from different sources.  Personally, I kinda like that we're given so much to ponder while piecing this whole puzzle together, it causes you to dig much deeper for more clues and makes for a far more interesting legacy, and further cements the "Legend" status that The Beatles are so deserving of.  I believe that often there are deliberate attempts to obscure events by design so that the truth is essentially there for you to discover, but if you're not particularly versed with previous background information, you may miss it entirely.  This is very evident to me with The Beatles' 'Anthology' which is still the best source of information of all due to it being comprised of mostly first-hand accounts, yet it also contains perhaps the biggest collection of conflicting reports as well.  I'll use this example:

 

According to Peter Brown, in his 'The Love You Make' book, The Beatles snuck off to a Buckingham Palace bathroom to smoke a joint before meeting the Queen to receive their M.B.E. medals and The Beatles do in fact address this claim on the 'Anthology' (which in itself supports it being true for if it was really B.S. it wouldn't have been given the time of day).  There's no comment from John during the 'Anthology' video, but "the blame" is clearly put on John for suggesting that such an outrageous claim was made.  Don't expect Paul to jeopardize his Knighthood by confessing to such an act, so pay more attention to what George and Ringo say instead.  George downplays the claim by suggesting that John the dreamer dressed the story up when in fact it was "a cigarette" that they smoked in the bathroom, which is entirely believable, but atleast he confirms that the four of them escaped to the bathroom to calm their nerves before meeting Her Majesty.  Ringo then says that he was too stoned to remember while a smoking gun clip shows the four of them looking very stoned (even in Black & White their eyes look red) holding their M.B.E.s for reporters outside the palace.  The truth is there for those wishing to know it, while the denials from a public relations point of view are also present to maintain a certain "family friendly" image that, believe it or not, is still very much a big part of their make-up.

 

Now why would The Beatles purposely mislead us on "song facts"?  Well, one theory might be that most Beatles fans do have their preferred moptop and want to believe, for example, that Paul may have had more to do with a "John song" than he actually did or that John played some spectacular part that "only Paul" could've come up with, who knows.  But there's conflicting accounts from all four of them around just about every corner in their history and for a number of reasons, not the least of which that was all ready mentioned above where you have four human memory caches damaged by mind altering chemicals and old age.  Still, you gotta like the Sherlock Holmes roleplaying involved in acetaning the truth…:-) 

Forum Timezone: UTC 0

Most Users Ever Online: 597

Currently Online: salviandres, vectisfabber, nzbeatlefan, imtheTaxman
50 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Members Birthdays
Today None
Upcoming None

Top Posters:

meanmistermustard: 7153

mr. Sun king coming together: 6972

mithveaen: 4678

parlance: 3620

MeanMrsMustard: 2803

Ron Nasty: 2517

skye: 2295

LongHairedLady: 1891

IveJustSeenAFaceo: 1885

Von Bontee: 1797

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 87

Members: 2329

Moderators: 5

Admins: 1

Forum Stats:

Groups: 3

Forums: 33

Topics: 3060

Posts: 109557

Newest Members: imtheTaxman, Ani, onlyanorthernsong

Moderators: Ahhh Girl (3292), fabfouremily (2941), Zig (3292), Joe (3200), Ellie (1)

Administrators: Joe (3200)