The Beatles Bible - Topic: Paul "rewrites history?"

meanmistermustard on Paul "rewrites history?"

Sat, 17 Nov 2012 21:42:04 +0000

One of the things that bugs me about Johns reported stance on the beatles is that generally folk only pick up on the early 70's quotes, especially the Jann Wenner interview, when he slated their legacy, trying to dismantle the godlike persona that had been attached. Later on his position changed a bit and gave some very positive comments.

For me Paul tries a little too hard at times to play the PR man role, something that he has been criticised over. If he did just speak his mind and be open and frank he would come across better at times. And sorry but when he says the ...

Holsety on Paul "rewrites history?"

Sat, 17 Nov 2012 15:40:26 +0000

Think about it. Do you think Paul would freely dish out all the problems he and the band had with Yoko being around during the White Album and Get Back Sessions (as well as Abbey Road)? I'm not saying she was 100% a problem, but he only speaks good about her because he knows dishing it out would have pissed them off. That's more him holding back than changing the truth, though.

by the way, I posted this thread with the mindset of an annoyed Paul fan, but I'm primarily a George fan and the rest are close.

bikelock28 on Paul "rewrites history?"

Sat, 17 Nov 2012 15:12:03 +0000

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

No. It just means you would have a different take on things and a different memory of events than another person would. As a rule, Paul is the optimist, so obviously when he gives interviews about the Beatles they sound pretty rosy, or at least rosier than John's accounts (I look at it like this; Paul writes about losing a girlfriend in Yesterday in which he looks back on the relationship and thinks how great it was and deals with rejection by beleiving in yesterday. John writes abot losing ...

paulsbass on Paul "rewrites history?"

Sat, 17 Nov 2012 07:46:27 +0000

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 ...

frankdialogue on Paul "rewrites history?"

Sat, 17 Nov 2012 06:26:26 +0000

Paul doesn't rewrite history, because he wrote part of the history.

Perhaps a solution would have been to simply release the Glyn Johns 'Get Back'. but there may have been contractural problems, or perhaps the actual Johns version was damaged, unavailable or unusable.

kedame on Paul "rewrites history?"

Sat, 17 Nov 2012 03:44:39 +0000

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 ...

meanmistermustard on Paul "rewrites history?"

Fri, 16 Nov 2012 22:31:31 +0000

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 ...

Holsety on Paul "rewrites history?"

Fri, 16 Nov 2012 22:23:26 +0000

The fact that he directed the claim at Paul was what bothered me. I'm sure they have all had a claim about something that happened during the Beatles in which they were mistaken about. While they were listening to Golden Slumbers in Anthology, none of them could figure out who was playing bass, but they did come to the conclusion of John or George. I can't blame them for being forgetful though, because most people who do know that found out without being there.

kedame on Paul "rewrites history?"

Fri, 16 Nov 2012 21:16:32 +0000

thewordislove94 said
A great example of what people would call "Paul rewriting history" is the dispute over how much Paul contributed to In My Life. John stated that he wrote all of the lyrics, and Paul did the harmony and middle eight. Paul claims that he helped with the lyrics at John's house. No one knows which is the truth, but I could understand how people could hate Paul for this. In their minds, they are saying,"How could he take more credit than he deserves on a song that just oozes with John Lennon's heart and soul?" If you ...

thewordislove94 on Paul "rewrites history?"

Fri, 16 Nov 2012 20:37:09 +0000

A great example of what people would call "Paul rewriting history" is the dispute over how much Paul contributed to In My Life. John stated that he wrote all of the lyrics, and Paul did the harmony and middle eight. Paul claims that he helped with the lyrics at John's house. No one knows which is the truth, but I could understand how people could hate Paul for this. In their minds, they are saying,"How could he take more credit than he deserves on a song that just oozes with John Lennon's heart and soul?" If you don't like what ...

fabfouremily on Paul "rewrites history?"

Fri, 16 Nov 2012 18:43:12 +0000

I think the reason why he tries to make thing more ''happy'' sounding is because he´s tired of going over the same things every he does an interview or whatever. Imagine if you were asked the same question all the time, it would be such a drag to say well, look it was a horrible time for all of us and we practically hated eachother and so on..., so he makes it sound a bit better, what ''we weant to hear'', as said above. I don´t know whether that´s twisting the truth as such or just stopping himself from getting ...

BluemeanAl on Paul "rewrites history?"

Fri, 16 Nov 2012 18:40:00 +0000

So can we predicate this conversation this way?

Everybody "rewrites" history.

Let's face it, human memory is far from infallible. And no one really has an "objective" perspective on the events they've participated in, witnessed, heard of, or even made up. The lens through which I see events is different from yours -- maybe a subtle difference, maybe a much larger difference, but different.

Our interpetation of events becomes our truth, and that truth undergoes transformation as time passes. I'm quite sure that as my memory fades my "recollections" become informed more by the stories I've told and heard about past events than actual, objective recollection of those ...

RunForYourLife on Paul "rewrites history?"

Fri, 16 Nov 2012 17:45:33 +0000

For the record, I like Paul, and I think he gets an unfair amount of hate.

That being said, I have trouble trusting him. As others have said, I feel like he tells people what they want to hear, and buys into the Beatles-myth a bit too much (certainly more than the other 3). Even when he discusses the nastier bits of the band, it feels like it's been sanitized a bit. He was after-all, the "diplomat" and "friendly face" of the band, and he is a showman.

That's not to say I don't trust him at all, I just take what ...

kedame on Paul "rewrites history?"

Fri, 16 Nov 2012 06:41:45 +0000

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.

bikelock28 on Paul "rewrites history?"

Fri, 16 Nov 2012 06:21:36 +0000

I think that Paul has a tendancy to tell us what we want to hear (or at least what he thinks we want to hear), which is perhaps a slightly cleaner and happier version of how G ,J and R would reccount the same event- but that's his viewpoint isn't it? I reckon he tends to emphasise the sunny side of things and perhaps twist the odd event, but he doesn't make up lies.

I think one has to trust Paul's word, because...well, he's Paul. He was actually a Beatle. If he doesn't know about the Beatles, who does? a-hard-days-night-paul-5