Paul "rewrites history?" | Fab forum

The history has always been rewritten, by all of them. What this person is probably referring to is Paul's tendency to try to set things straight on his contribution to songs and ideas after the John-was-the-only-genius-in-the-band period in the 80s. People who already don't like him might see this as him "rewriting history," when really, I think he just wants to preserve his own legacy as an important member of the band. I don't fault him for it, but I can see why it makes Lennon fans mad.

meanmistermustard said
Wouldnt Let It Be Naked be an effort of trying to rewrite history? Maybe more so if the original Let It Be had been deleted at the same time but certainly it was an effort of Pauls to create a new album from those sessions especially with all the hype about being as it was meant to be. Maybe im just always annoyed by that album, got to let it go.

 

Ever since the split Paul and John have been trying to grab credit. I have this idea that Paul only really began after John died and began to be portrayed as the Great One as Paul stood on the sidelines looking on with awe and bathing in Johns glow. That understandably pissed off Paul who ever since has been trying to reclaim ground. I'm willing to be wrong.

His bid to reverse the Lennon/McCartney composer credit on his songs was naive tho as its inbuilt in people's minds and history; it came across as a petty move and left a nasty taste in some peoples mouths.

I agree with this sentiment, but I must add that the "bid to reverse the Lennon/McCartney composer credit" is always misunderstood by those who use against Paul the most vehemently. He didn't want to reverse the credits on albums or anything, just on one of live albums. He did it on Wings Over America and John had no problem with that. I don't understand why it makes people so mad. He could have just done it and dealt with the consequences, I suppose, but he even asked Yoko. She made too big a deal out of it, I think.

If I were Paul, I'd be pretty pissed off if I flipped through a songbook and found one of the most special songs I had ever written did not even display my name (which is what set him off to begin with, I think).

Edit:

This posting might come across as a tiny little bit agitated, and this is not because of this certain thread, although the title alone makes me kind of mad.

All the posters here were having their say in a very moderate way and all of them had nice things to say about Paul.

So please note that this rant is not directed at a certain poster here, but "some people" and this theme in general.

Seriously, sooo many people who call Paul some variation of pretentious are soooo pretentious themselves!

He tells people "what they want to here", so they "don't trust him"???

He "rewrites history" to come out better himself???

He kind of sugar-coates the Beatles' history???

So, being optimistic and positive from your heart means you're naturally dishonest.

On the other hand, being insecure and especially frustrated and agitated about some certain period of your life means you're going to speak the holy truth about every aspect.

Is that what you tell me???

How can soooo many people ignore the state of mind John was in when he gave all his infamous negative comments about his former band mates, while every word Paul said is measured extremely carefully??!!

Paul felt disrespected for his work with the Beatles for most of his life, obviously. He was the one with the Magical Mystery Tour fiasco, the sugar sweet ballads and the granny shit.

John was the legendary Rock'n Roller who invented all these cool lyrics and sounds.

Wouldn't YOU just ITCH to put that record straight in some way?

Changing the "Lennon/McCartney" order on Wings over America wasn't the most mature move, but I can deeply understand it. Lennon contributed nothing to all these songs, so why put him in the first place? Unfortunately the legendary signature names and their order were bigger than Paul himself, so that had to look bad.

But sooo many people take offense on "Many years from now" and his comments about the songwriting credits.

And why is that?

Because he's NOT telling (some) people what they want to hear, instead he says he contributed to many of John's songs some people thought were TOTALLY John and nothing else.

But he always does that in a very humble and quite realistic and accurate way, very often speaking about himself being uncertain how much one or the other in fact did. But it NEVER sounded out of bounds to me and ALWAYS fit the impression I got from listening to the actual songs. And of course he also pointed out John's help in his own song.

Please quote a SINGLE line from "Many years from now" that sounds pretentious or arrogant or self-rightous.

Please, try and come up with something, if you can and if you dare.

Btw, there's LOTS of Lennon quotes to fit in one of these categories, coming from his infamous interviews. We all (kind of) know why he said these often bitter words, but again:

TELL me why some people treat every word John talked out of his ass like the holy Bible while questioning every single claim Paul ever made?!

So, the problem remains the same:

It's not Paul who's having problems here, it's the Lennonistas who can't stand ANYTHING being taken away from their idol, and they simply can't stand the truth.

I will NEVER get why insecure, frustrated, depressive people get all the respect while the solid, optimistic, positive people who actually get things done are just being frowned upon…