Paul (in 1980) about John's Playboy interview

"I never went to high school reunions. My thing is, Out of sight, out of mind. That's my attitude toward life. So I don't have any romanticism about any part of my past. I think of it only inasmuch as it gave me pleasure or helped me grow psychologically. That is the only thing that interests me about yesterday. I don't believe in yesterday, by the way. You know I don't believe in yesterday. I am only interested in what I am doing now."

We know now that he was very nostalgic for the past, just not the Beatles.

 

Sheena Easton certainly did. As her Scottish audience around ten years ago would back up. It didn't go down particularly well...............

 

Dave Mason lost his English accent too.

 

You might want to think again. Yes, Paul certainly said this, and I can even hear his voice in my memory from the audio when I read Yoko's comment. I'm not 100% positive now, but I'm thinking it's from that MUSICIAN 1980 magazine, which was the source for the LP called THE McCARTNEY INTERVIEW. Paul says his feeling was: "I can understand he needs to have time with her... but does he need THAT much time with her?" And you know what? I agree with Paul 100% there. I've never understood men who completely get so absorbed in their woman that they have no time apart, or for their friends. So Paul was correct there in my view -- and yeah, Yoko was also right about noting Paul's having said that recently.

Here it is around the 10:00 mark:

 

Alright, I will give you an occasion where Paul discusses his lying. Funnily enough, it's also about the time just after the break-up. Much more about general lies than one specific one, though. Of COURSE he's fabricated in interviews, as well as omitted, smoothed over, and all the rest of it. That's not the point. The point is that John still gets held up as a great truth-teller, and I don't see any evidence he told the truth MORE than Paul, just that he told different truths, ones which are more interesting and less predictable. And often 'dirtier'.

"And my overwhelming feeling was of 'Well, I'm of no use anymore. My usefulness is gone'. You know, I just, what's my use? What do I do now? What am I?"

You were one of The Beatles. And The Beatles didn't exist anymore.

"It's like yeah, you WERE one of The Beatles. That was like the frightening bit. You once were. And I kinda think well, god, I'm not at retirement age yet. I can't just swan off to a desert island. I've gotta do something. So just the kind of depression of actually trying to think what I would do next, you know, and my self-esteem was what was, was the thing that I think the guys who get laid off, it's what they feel. You just plummet. You just get so depressed."

Did you really?

"I mean, that was the worst moment - other than my mother dying when I was fourteen - that was kind of the second worst moment in my life to that point. I mean, I didn't get up for a long time. I didn't shave for a long time. I drank a little. Hey, what the hell. Yo, let's go for it. We've got time off, guys. Why shave? No one's coming 'round. I don't have to go out."

And it was that serious?

"Oh yeah, it was serious."

It was serious to your fans obviously. I mean -

"Well, it was more serious to my family, you know. I mean, the fans is one thing. We'd given them ten years of good music, at least. But the current situation with a young family as I had, you know, Linda. I'd been married -"

But you weren't worried about making ends meet. You weren't worried about that.

"No, it wasn't that. It was your self-esteem. It's not having money. It took me quite a long time and Linda was like a major help with that. She kinda lifted me back up, and I eventually started thinking 'Well, you know, maybe it's not the end of the world' but it took a couple of months. And the difficult thing for me, um, that an ordinary guy being laid off work wouldn't encounter was people like yourself would sort of say to me - once I was trying to make a return to the world, you know, and start doing interviews as kind of, quote, your ex-Beatle - the worst question I really feared was they'd say: 'Paul, are you happy?' And I'd go *acts trying to smile and not cry* Yes, I'm happy!' And you know, you felt you were going to break down, lying through your teeth. You weren't happy at all, you know."​

Perhaps you're right. I'm not imagining still seeing references to HDYS and John's interviews, however. Maybe it's because I basically only read UK press online, not American? I could also do without the way people still feminise Paul in comments and debates online in order to do him down. The stereotypes are still being shouted out. Here's a fun comment I found immediately on searching an article from the Sydney Morning Herald from 2014:

Lennon also was awarded the BBC "Man of the Decade" in 1970....evidence that he was clearly regarded in a whole different category than any other 1960s musician......much less McCartney who mostly was just a "pop writer".. A lot was lost in 1980 when Lennon was shot dead. His impact and his potential far exceeded that of any of the other Beatles. He was the voice and spirit of a whole generation. His music is also much more complex then he is given credit for. Listen to the chord progression for "Because", or "Julia" or "Dear Prudence". Listen to the melody line for "Lucy In the Sky" or "If I fell" or "Girl". This propaganda that only McCartney wrote 'melodies' is absolute nonsense. Lennon wrote the most gorgeous melodies of them all...and he was also far more passionate, intense, and a person of much more artistic, and substance and intellect then pretty-boy Paulie ever was. In short, Lennon was a one-of-a-kind artist who changed the whole World. McCartney was a pop-writer and a big celebrity with a pretty face. There is a reason WHY Lennon was the one who was shot. HE was the only one who really mattered!​

I agree that there's been a general shift but I think it was one which was NEEDED to redress the balance. John Lennon has not been reduced to that at all, for goodness' sake. Certainly, his faults and failings are being more widely discussed online but that doesn't take away from his general image which has been well-cultivated over the years, and people criticising John aren't doing it to raise up Paul, which I think is the primary difference in the two situations, now and the time just after John's passing. I've discussed this with you multiple times but I'm one of things of these young fans who wasn't born until a decade after John's death. I STILL knew far more about John's solo work and image than Paul's growing up, and even without ever listening to their music knew the often accepted view that John was 'cool' and 'peace loving' and Paul was 'sappy' and 'shallow' by the time I reached my late teens. It's not a competition, and John is not being roasted and chipped down. Is is wrong to bring up that yes, John did cheat on his wives and did treat his first son with indifference and occasionally what may be considered cruelty? I don't think so. That doesn't take away from his music at all. I didn't 'grow up' with Paul but I still prefer him - is something wrong with me, lol?

So it doesn't pertain to anything political, even though you're talking about political correctness? You may want to find a word which better expresses what you mean then, to be honest. While I think Paul is definitely a people-pleaser, too predictable in interviews, and obviously likes to be liked, and to get along with interviewers, I don't see this as a negative thing. People who sneer at the popular just because it's popular just come across as condescending, frankly. Naughty might be more fun, but I prefer nice every time. Personal preference, I know. Why shouldn't Paul say what is deemed acceptable, if it's true for him? There are plenty of interviews where he seems pretty frank, anyway. This is from a fun one I posted the other day on my blog. From July 1972 in The Record Mirror about Linda playing onstage:

"She is the only member of the group who isn't like, professional. But it is too bad. If people don't like it, then they should not come next time. I couldn't care less."​

He doesn't always mince his words. In 1997:

Q: As a kid you used to play pranks at school by throwing balloons filled with something "worse than water". If you had one of those balloons right now who would you like to hit with it?
A: Jonathan King. He's a prat from way back.

Q: Do the copulating beetles on the sleeve of Ram stand for **** The Beatles?
A: It happened to be a picture Linda had taken. We couldn't resist it just because of the way it looked. She'd caught these two beetles f**king, and then the significance hit us. We saw the pun, yeah, thought why not?​

And ten years later:

The 2D caricature of you has been the wacky, thumbs-aloft, happy-go-lucky guy. Is that quite a handy public image because it doesn't portray the guy who gets annoyed or angry or tells people what to do?
It's just how you're brought up. I'm from Liverpool and a lot of Liverpool people will do a thumbs-up, like [exaggerated Scouse] "Alright, alright, eh?" And also I am optimistic and want to remain optimistic. It seems natural to me, y'know. And by the way, I don't always do it. I'm not always feeling in that mood. And I have been chastened by the world opinion on that and you will not actually see me do it. Have you seen me do it in the last 10 years?

Actually, no, that's true.
Because I'm suitably chastened by people saying "You shouldn't do that." [Launches into comedy rant] It's like f**cking school! "One thing you must not do is put your f**cking thumbs up, you twat!" So much of what happens reminds me of school. And I think my attitude's the same as it always yes. "Yes, sir." Waits until sir has gone out the room and then goes, "F**k off!" Y'know, that's what we really think. Anyone dares to tell us we're... c***s... is a twat. [Calms down] Excuse me, I've just gone all sweary. You said I was wacky, thumbs-aloft, you see.​

No, it's not all about equality. Not at all. http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/09/equality-is-not-enough/ This is a bit simplistic but I think it demonstrates the basic point:

Just because you sometimes praise Paul 'over' John doesn't make your opinions where you praise John 'over' Paul necessarily without reproach, though? It's really not a matter of adding up posts pro and against each Beatles to see if they're 'even' or 'fair'. Paul doesn't need to be praised AT John's expense; the two are separate issues and vice versa. I can say Paul sometimes treated George as inferior without pointing out that John did the same thing. I can say John sometimes lied in the press without making sure to give examples of Paul doing the same thing. Generally in online conversations, the engagement takes place more in debates and arguments rather than agreement, and thus even if the same number of people read and appreciate and agree with a comment, you'll likely receive more attention and feedback if they disagree with one.

 

Yes, I do agree that a shift needed to be addressed, and it was grossly unfair for Paul to be thought of as "John's shadow" for too long. But we are all allowed our own perceptions, and I just feel that John has indeed been reduced in recent years. Part of that is because - tragically - he hasn't been on Earth for the last 35 years. He hasn't been able to tour, make up new projects, speak up in new interviews, have a chance to get the Paul/Beatles chip off his shoulder once and for all, and be a modern day force to be reckoned with in the ongoing 21st Century.

And John spoke up and always addressed his own flaws and didn't need others to do it for him. His image may have been well-known, but he changed, too. He was really ignorant to the plight of women when he was young, and later became feministic and wrote the song "Woman" not only to Yoko, but to all women (as John explained the song). We have no idea what Lennon would have been like today, had he lived. And he would have been able to defend himself against a lot of the naysayers, just as he'd always done... that is for sure.

I don't see it that way, not anymore. More hardcore Paul fans do that all the time. So we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.
Just as an aside -- I see so many "Diehard Paul Fans" who never show up in threads on the other three Beatles. They really think Paul Was The Beatles.

The reason that generalization exists though is because that's how it was, for the most part. I'm not the one who "invented" it, and people get their reputation for the predominant qualities they possess. But this does not mean that John could not also be shallow or sappy, nor does it mean that Paul could not also be very deep and revealing, and a tough rocker. It's just that one aspect is usually more dominant over others, and THAT is where a person's impression is made.

Again, we'll have to disagree on the last part here...
But the "competition" thing is overstated. And what's more, it's been a two-way street... and I see just as many (more, actually) diehard "Paul People" quick to throw Lennon under the bus to "balance things out". Those who may lean more toward John do not own any monopoly on that. If you read ALL of my posts, I praise Paul on some things while I'm critical at others. I do the same for John, George, and Ringo. That's just the way I am.

It's not wrong -- facts are facts, and in John's case, at least, he wrote songs about these things and revealed them to the public, and owned up. However - the point to me is, I don't think it's fair to paint John as only being that way. People LOVE to focus on the bad qualities. And as I have explained many times before, John married Cynthia when she became pregnant (which was a noble thing to do) and then he immediately got hit with megastardom, the likes of which none of us here could imagine. Considering that Lennon was only 22/23 at the start of Beatlemania, was out touring the world, and having grown up without traditional parenting himself, it comes as no surprise that he neglected Julian. We all have our own crosses to bear. I can relate, as my own dad was never around... but I don't hang my head on my chest and use it as some kind of crutch for the rest of my life. And John grew up, he matured, and made it up to Julian best he could -- and became the perfect father the second time around with Sean, who became the lucky recipient of John's maturity with Fatherhood.

I prefer nice to naughty too, but even more I prefer genuine. I always got the feeling (okay, I'll say MOST of the time I got the feeling) that John was being candid and frank, saying what he truly thought or felt at the moment. With Paul, I often (not always) feel he's doing more of a PR routine. The problem is, some fans won't allow me this preference. As much as I liked John's multi-faceted personality, I have often gone on record (and will do so again here) in saying that I think Paul is the most amazing musician and songwriter of all time. Better than John Lennon -- okay? However, I have a preference for John as a person, that's all. If I were to list my "favorite Beatles" in terms of MUSIC, Paul is at #1, followed by John. But if I were to list my favorite Beatles in terms of PEOPLE, it would be John, Ringo, Paul, and George - in that order.

Yes, but that goes back to what I just wrote about a person's general personality. The problem is, some people turn things into "all black and white", but I always realize there are shades of gray in there. What you've done here is basically cherry-pick exceptions to the rule, and that's fine. But I sense again that it's all about Paul for you, and not much time or passion for the other three Beatles.

 

Exactly. In fact, see how Paul says in the interview "anything I say he gets resentful of", and in fact John seemed to be pretty thin skinned, just see how he's hurt by George's book not talking about him enough. And yet, he could himself be very hurtful...

Well, John calls her on it, but then she convinced him by insisting Paul had recently said it... and yet, either she was misunderstanding/manipulating, or I'm misunderstanding, because from the interview jeatleboe quotes, Paul was talking about how the other beatles felt AT THE TIME when she came into the picture, not about how he feels now.

Well, John does outright admit he was lying, what do you want

Not the only time he lied either. His comment about not having followed Paul's career as you yourself pointed out, calling himself working class in the Rolling Stone interview.

So I don't really think John was more honest in his interviews per se, but he did give a lot more of his opinions and thoughts than Paul does, which makes his interviews overall more fun. Paul tends to not say so much what he's thinking, but he also tends to outright lie less imo. You can see this in their comments about songs, John usually gives his opinion about the songs and we know which songs he liked or disliked for example, Paul tends to give factual information and not much his opinion.

I do think Paul has made considerable gains in public perception, especially about his role in The Beatles, which is what he clearly set out to do in the mid 90's, with his book and comments he made. However much he was criticised for it, he was right to do it and pretty much got what he wanted imo.

However, the old attitude of "Paul just wrote silly love songs while John was the cool one" still exists among many people, especially imo casual Beatles fans, which is why you might not see it here in this forum.

There's a fine line imo between simply being respectful of others and mere political correctness, which makes any such discussion difficult. Over agree with you, though I think Paul's basically trying to simply be polite and not hurt other people's feelings. Takes his comments that are the subject of this thread for example. He clearly has some "theories" about why John said what he did, but doesn't want to talk about it because John would resent it...

Thanks for posting the video, I think I had only read this interview before. As I said to gswan above, not sure if I'm not hearing this right, but isn't Paul talking simply about how he felt 10 years ago then, and not then, which would make Yoko NOT right?.

 

But has he been reduced to less than he actually was? Or has he just been reduced from that initial post-1980 pedestal? I think peoples' mileage may vary, and their perceptions may vary, as you say. I don't think his legacy has suffered in any way just because he hasn't been here as a creative force. His solo work is still - with the general population - seen as higher quality than Paul's, rightfully or wrongfully so. He's still seen as an absolute icon and I will die of shock if I ever see Paul's albums or songs rated above Imagine or Plastic Ono Band in a poll or telly programme. Which is fine, and is as it should be.

Except he's not here to 'address his flaws' and there are plenty of people around who ARE unaware of them. I don't think it's right to focus only on the negative, but I also have issues with the very sanitised John Lennon story which is regularly promoted, whether by Yoko or the media or just by fans. Of course he changes and I love how readily he talked about his mistakes, regrets and how he was trying to change. I think that's incredibly admirable.

I do think he improved in his attitude to women, but frankly, I think his views as expressed in Women Is the N***** of the World are misguided at best, and I think that people also forget that he and Yoko's relationship wasn't all roses. Certainly, he cheated on her; it wasn't just Sixties!John who did that. Woman is a gorgeous song and I do think his views would've evolved even more for the better as he aged. Hopefully.

Sure. I will. And LOL. I show up in every Beatles thread. To read. I basically avoid commenting unless I see something which touches a nerve; that generally happens in Paul threads because I do get overly defensive about him above the other Beatles. I've rarely come across fans here who think Paul Was The Beatles, but I can understand why one might feel slighted if you perceive it that way.

Or one aspect is more dominant in the most well-known songs. Or one aspect is more dominant in the narrative written by the band and the media. Or one aspect is more obnoxious and noteworthy. I do agree that generalisations exist for a reason but I don't think they serve much of a purpose beyond shorthand in a narrative being told. The stereotype of 'pretty Paulie writing annoying soppy meaningless love songs' irritates me as much as 'hard as balls Lennon being under Yoko's thumb and always being angry'. It's the unnecessary adjectives and exaggerations which fans add in that colour that generalisation that are the issue.

I do read ALL of your posts, actually. When I became a fan I read the entire archive of this forum as well as the other where we have interacted. I like reading. I think that perhaps we have a different perception of what 'throwing Lennon under the bus' means. I don't Lennon fans have a monopoly on being over the top in their trying to balance things, of course not. I do think that we all sometimes exaggerate own own 'objectiveness'....

I agree that it's not fair to only bring up mistakes John made; I'm not suggesting that that should happen. I don't think there's anything the matter with discussing his failings, though. I don't need you to explain the history of John and Cyn to me. I'm more than familiar with the story and have read her autobiographies for myself. I'm not surprised that John struggled with parenthood and I don't hold that against him. From his letters to Cyn, we can see clear remorse and regret at times and the knowledge that he hasn't been the best and wants to improve. That's very commendable. However, I DON'T think he made it up to Julian as best he could, and he definitely didn't become the 'perfect' father with Sean. John always had issues with his anger and his sons did suffer because of it.

Cynthia, about Julian's visit when he was sixteen, in the late seventies:

“John's erratic behaviour around Julian continued — fun one moment and violent anger the next. And he could be like this with Sean too, reducing the little boy to tears of terror. Fred Seaman, or sometimes Yoko, would act as a buffer when John lost his temper. Julian was constantly on tenterhooks, sensing that an eruption was coming and retreating to his room in the hope of avoiding it. One incident in particular did him lasting damage. The whole family had been having fun, making Mickey Mouse pancakes and fooling around, when Julian giggled. John turned on him and screamed, ‘I can't stand the way you ****ing laugh! Never let me hear your ****ing horrible laugh again.’ He continued with a tirade of abuse until Julian fled once again to his room in tears. It was monstrously cruel and has affected him ever since. To this day he seldom laughs.”​

Sean himself wrote:

“[He was] teaching me how to cut and eat steak, which was a mystery to me at age 4; how to stick the fork in and cut behind it, and that was how you got a piece in your mouth. I think it was that night when he got very upset with me, I think because of something I did very cheekily with the steak. He did wind up yelling at me very, very loudly to the point where he damaged my ear, and I had to go to the hospital.” He says John, mortified by his cruelty, was immediately apologetic: “I remember when I was lying on the floor and hurting, and him holding me and saying, ‘I’m so sorry.’ He did have a temper.”​

It was always a process and that's completely okay. To pretend John was somehow cured of his misogyny, sexism and violence is just ignoring the facts, though.

Is there there anything to suggest that Paul's niceness isn't genuine, though? Obviously people are going to have different perceptions of Paul. I too feel like he does a routine for many interviewers, but instead of 'not being genuine' I just sense that he's being Paul McCartney The Famous Person. He's not obligated to share everything about his life, and I think his impulse to separate the two persons, the famous one and the one at home with the family, is key to how he's managed to keep a level of normality throughout the past fifty years. Can I ask what isn't 'multi-faceted' about Paul? I think that he's often portrayed and understood quite simplistically, to be honest. And I think he usually prefers it that way.

And you think I see things in black and white, then? Hmm, okay. I don't think I HAVE cherry-picked that much. I mean, how many examples do you need (and how do you judge them as 'frank' versus 'PR', anyway? what's the objective way of measuring that?) before it stops being an exception and starts being an 'entirely normal level of frankness vs regurgiated stories vs keeping a shine on things'.

I don't think one is required to have an equal love and passion for all The Beatles as individuals to love them as a group, does one? I got into them by listening to the band's discography in order. Then John's. Then Paul's. Then George's. Then Ringo's. And yes, I was immediately attracted to Paul's songs, both within the band and as a solo artist. But do I prefer Plastic Ono Band to Red Rose Speedway? Hell yeah. Do I think All Things Must Pass is better than Pipes of Peace? Absolutely. Do I listen to Jealous Guy or How? or Oh My Love or Watching The Wheels or I Know (I Know) more than any number of Paul solo songs? YEP. Paul is definitely my favourite - as a person and as a musician. I don't think that position needs defending and I don't think it makes my opinions on him or the other Beatles completely without validity or any objectivity.

 

Oh, come on! These are semantics. The other guy claimed Yoko was making it up, that's all.

I'd like to see Paul admit to times when he's lied or revised details.

ooooooohhhh... how inhuman!

I'll agree, but we can't always know if Paul's fabricating or revising, if he doesn't reflect later and say so. But sometimes we find out in other ways.

I think you're right, and that's what I think, too. Now if only Paul himself and the more intense Paul fans would also concede that it's time for him to relax, sit back, and enjoy -- and NOT continue to be concerned about his legacy and how he'll be remembered after he's gone.

As I replied to Nicole, a certain reputation usually exists for s predominant reason. No amount of decades or quotes will ever change those "vibes".

Good Ol' Paul .... Bad Ol' John...

I guess it depends on how much one wants to "protect" Paul.
The point to me was, an earlier poster claimed Yoko was making up the interview quote.

 

​

Ha!, I remember seeing that very comment sometime.
The attitude definitely still exists, much much less so than it used to it seems. I do think the "putting one down to make the other look better" is something hardcore fans of John do more than the other way around. Maybe it even has to do with John himself doing so.

Equality of opportunity vs. equality of result I guess. There's also a considerable degree of generalizations involved.

I also think people sometimes get a little (or a lot) into a certain culture of victimhood if you will, which I don't think it's good for anyone, nor fair.

 

I think he just hadn't seen Paul's quote.
I don't think it's at all just semantics by the way, it's completely different if Paul was talking about how the other beatles felt in 68/69, or how he felt then in 1980. And Yoko, on purpose or not, makes it seem like it was the latter.

Lol, come on, I just mean, he's not more honest than Paul, he just is more outspoken. Different styles and all. I'll agree John 's interviews were usually more interesting because of this.

Oh, I think Paul is quite relaxed about it nowadays.

Probably, yeah. Plus casual fans won't go with much more than generalizations for the most part.

 

The interviewer clearly wasn't a fan, judging by his lack of Beatle knowledge.

 

Yeah many interviewers are idiots when it comes to interviewing Beatles.
Larry King's famous interview with Paul, Ringo, Yoko and Olivia.
I remember Johnny Carson (who I love) asking Paul if he writes his own material ?

 

I say it's the former. Quite clearly to me... but I guess we each come from seeing this from differing perspectives. The "Paul People" (of which I am too - I am a fan of Macca's, y'know.. but I mean the more intense ones...) just can't seem to see it any other way as Paul always getting slighted in favor of John. I myself clearly saw and felt this in the '80s into the '90s... but definitely not now.

No way! Are you kidding?
Most everyone feels that Paul (especially via his huge success with Wings) was the most successful of the 4 Beatles after their breakup. And Paul IS! -- He's even honored in the Guiness World Records Book! By contrast, the vibe about John's solo career is that it has not held up well at all, and it's all very dated (with the exception perhaps of rightly hailing his first solo LP as a masterpiece). And much of it is considered poorly recorded.

Of course John is an Icon - as are all The Beatles .
John definitely got held up higher as an early martyr of sorts.
Maybe after Paul dies ... But honestly, who wants that? Hopefully Paul would prefer being here now, whatever his standing.

I'm not drinking that Kool-Aid, no. A newbie does not have to dig deep to hear John addressing all his own flaws; all they need to do is hear his songs, and read or hear his words in interviews. It's not hidden nor unrevealed, like someone else's are.

Perhaps misguided in using the "N Word"... but sharp people will understand the comparison in terms of being so mistreated. The sentiment in that song is very Pro-Women in their defense, and more strongly supports them than is heard in "Woman" (1980).

For one thing, John was drunk the night he went into the room with another woman (I'm not approving that, I'm just setting it straight like you might with Paul things). For another thing, Yoko even arranged the fling with May Pang!

I know you won't like the following -- but has Paul ever cheated? How do we know when he's so guarded? I suspect a lot more people will talk when Paul's gone (which hopefully will not be for a long time yet). He really worked hard to get those "Linda Tapes".

Well, that's sort of what I meant. It's mainly about protecting Paul... and you are not alone there.

Coming from your side of it, I can understand why it may zip right past your eyes. But that vibe is dominant around here, and by quite a few regulars.

All I'm saying is that it will never change. I didn't create it, though.

With respect, Nicole, I doubt that! I never see you provide long multiple quotations in support of John.

Thanks. Hopefully you'll hit "like" then, when I say something Pro-Paul, which I do. Not because I need the likes, per se... but just in the sense of fair play.

Okay, but I think that we likewise may have a different perception of what 'throwing McCartney under the bus' means.

Can't help it... I have always been able to be critical of things/people I like.

I trust you will be as willing to accept everything at face value then, should Heather Mills or some former friend/associate of Paul's ever write a "tell-all" book on Paul, after he's no longer here to speak up...

I'm pretty much getting done batting this all back and forth, but I'll say that nobody is perfect. And when has John Lennon ever claimed to be perfect? This is another thing: somehow requiring our celebrities to be "perfect". What parent hasn't at some time yelled at their child, or worse? Come on now. People are flawed. But just look at Paul's family --- a perfect façade, right? What would happen if his own children ever decided to reveal some details of what 'less-than-ideal' things happened behind closed doors in the McCartney household?

She was really something, living off her tell-all association with John and using his name when she felt it was worth it. We don't know if this stuff is true, and even if it is, okay -- but I hope you'll be as accepting when the Macca Tabloid Books arrive one day (methinks you'll be quite busy deflecting things then!). At least with Lennon we largely knew the deal because he was so forthcoming himself; with Paul, any warts are all in the closet -- for the time being

If it's "okay", why the crusade to constantly "expose" John's negatives? I'm tired of the Anti-Lennon stuff. The facts are that John's life was snuffed out at 40, which may still seem old to a person in their 20's, but believe me as a guy in his 50s -- it's not.
John was admirably bettering himself and was on a positive path when he was gunned down. That will have to suffice. (Now, where are all those alleged Lennon Supporters around here?)

 

This interview really confirms the "Yoko broke up the Beatles" theory. He actually berates George and Billy Preston for having the audacity to suggest a band without Yoko. As if they should of COURSE know no band with John can exist without her.

 

Are you actually comparing Cynthia to Heather Mills?, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but Cynthia always seemed very fond of John, despite how things ended between them. Heather's case is completely different... not to mention she was shown to be a liar already in the divorce case. So I'd certainly not believe a word she says if not confirmed by someone or something else. BTW, The Cynthia story would be confirmed by Julian at least.

I'm sorry, I love John too, but the Julian and Sean stories go way beyond merely yelling at your child. I'm sure every parent has sometime yelled at their children, but certainly not every parent has done so to the degree of damaging their ear nor has told them they hate the way they laugh...

What makes you think Paul's family is in any way a facade anyway?. Some families are simply happy affairs.

 

His words were:

This is implying Yoko was making this up.

Yes, I get it -- Yoko is 'evil'... anyway ... the gist of her point was accurate. It just depends on how hard people want to keep defending Paul against anything and everything, imo. Jeez, I even said myself that I AGREED with Paul, that Lennon spent too much time with Yoko!

If by "nowadays" you mean 2015 or so, okay. But up to even a year or two ago, he was still out there making everyone know that he had a hand in "Mr Kite", and that only he was "where it was at" in the song "Early Days". He has been very worried about his legacy when he's gone.

 

Yoko goes on to say:

ONO: "No, no, no. He said it recently. I mean, what happened with John is like, I sort of went to bed with this guy that I liked and suddenly the next morning, I see these three in-laws, standing there."

--So she Was referring to the 68/69 thing.

 

Makes no sense to hear her whining about so many "bad John things", and then supposedly also being very fond of him. She got away with it because she was a quiet, shy, and non-intrusive type. What was she, a glutton for punishment, then?

Julian's a big baby who needs to grow up, still. I'll repeat from earlier: we all have our own crosses to bear. My father wasn't around, and he would often drink when I was Julian's age then, and shout, and so on (my parents divorced). But you get past it.
Then again, my biological dad didn't have a sizeable fortune, so...

I was awaiting this usual question. Not saying it's a total facade, but Paul could have a temper as well and I'll bet more went on behind closed doors. It's because no family is as perfect and "Brady Bunch-like" as the Maccas. We will learn much more in the years to come, I think. Paul was very frightened about The Linda Tapes.

 

He hadn't seen Paul's quote, so he thought Yoko was probably making it up. She wasn't, but she was certainly misrepresenting what Paul said.

John didn't agree though... and he was annoyed that Paul would still be saying that... when he wasn't.
It isn't about "defending Paul", it's about accuracy. John got if anything annoyed at Yoko for bringing up something old like that, and it isn't until Yoko points out Paul said it "recently" that he agrees with her.

How is that any different from John saying what he had contributed to Paul's songs?.

I think the Early Days song is about his relationship with John more than anything, not about who wrote what or contributed what.

Plus, hey, he dropped the whole McCartney/Lennon thing, years ago.

 

Or loosely referring to it. The Yoko Bashing really knows no bounds...

John often said it was "all Paul". Or "Paul's song -- with a little help from me", or something.
With Paul, it seems he always had to relate every song as being - if not mainly his - then at least "50/50".

It is, but don't look at me -- it was Paul who chose to tarnish that good song just a tad, by recording the line about "everybody seems to have their own opinion about who did this and who did that..." The song didn't need that, and I feel it was the one line that got petty.

 

I'm not talking about commercial success, something which I honestly don't care about. I'm talking about artistic reputation and credibility. The vibe I get is that both POB and Imagine are still considered to be great pieces of art, as well they should be. Mind Games and Walls & Bridges are generally seen as decent but a bit mediocre. Sometime In New York City basically is forgotten and Double Fantasy seems to split opinion between those who adore it and revere it, those who think it was pure overrated sentimental pap, and those who like it, but more because of Yoko. I do think John's career is seen as more spotty than it used to be, while some of Paul's albums have been re-evaluated more recently. There has definitely been an increase in people positively commenting on Paul's solo career online, but there is always a not unremarkable number of people who go down the 'sentimental, sappy git who only wrote nursery rhymes' route.

I knew next to nothing about The Beatles before 2009. I didn't even connect John with The Beatles - to me, he was that guy on all the shirts looking cool in New York, the dude who did the peace stuff and got shot. He's iconic as a person and solo artist in a way Paul will never be, and I don't think that's a good or bad thing. I'm just saying that there's been a focused cultivation of that image and legend, in a way which separates him from his Beatle identity in a way which Paul generally hasn't. As a person, not musically.

I agree that John is open about his flaws in interviews and songs. But I also if I'm talking to a new fan about The Beatles that it does them a disservice to ignore Paul's bossiness, George's bitterness, or John's anger issues. I'm pretty sure I've talked about this before but Paul DOESN'T keep all his flaws unrevealed. And even if he did, why ought he to share his flaws with the media? I mean, really? Sometimes I get the feeling that you assume the worst solely because he doesn't tell you everything. And if he did tell 'everything', how would we know it was everything?

"So I knew a particular [therapist], who I talked to. He was a good help. It was mainly to get rid of some of my guilt. When anyone you love this much dies, one of the first things is that you wish you could have been perfect -- every minute of every day. But nobody's like that. I would say to Linda if we were arguing, "Look, I'm not Jesus Christ. I'm not a saint. I'm just some normal man. I'll try to do something about it but that's who I am, that's who you're married to." So I had quite a bit of guilt and probably still have. You remember arguments. When you're married you don't remember them so much, you just get on the next day and as long as you don't have too many and they're not too bad you figure it evens itself out. But when someone dies, you remember only the arguments in the first couple of weeks and the moments when I wasn't as nice as I would have wanted to be. So I need counseling with that. I found that really helpful."

“We just fancied each other. That was the whole root, the whole essence of our love. It wasn’t always idyllic. It was a marriage and we had rows. It was nearly always my insecurities that caused the rows between us which has left me with quite a bit of guilt. The guilt’s a real bugger. Whenever anyone dies you do think, oh I wish I’d been an angel for the whole of my life. But I wasn’t, so I was getting into heavy guilt when she died. “Then I thought, hang on a minute. We were just human. That was the beautiful thing about our marriage. We weren’t king or queen someone or other. we were just a boyfriend and girlfriend having babies.”​

They can also, quite understandably, sound a little smug on the subject of their marriage. “It’s very organic,” Paul says. “It changes all the time. One day Linda will be very sort of wifey. Then on other days, she’ll say, ‘Sod this, let’s groove.’ And we’ll be off in the woods doing things together that you might not expect from a middle-aged couple.”
(He rolls his eyes suggestively.)

But in fact they are not half as self-congratulatory as they might be about their 23-year marathon. Perhaps out of superstition, both insist on recognizing that their gingerbread house could fall apart yet. “If you’d seen our marriage at any point throughout the last 23 years,” Paul says, “you would always have said, ‘It might not last.’ I mean, [it] has always been quite a fragile thing.”

Karen Fox: What is your secret to a happy marriage?
McCartney: When you love one another you have a happy marriage because you care enough to work out the problems. If one of you is in a bad mood one day you put up with it because you love the person. It isn’t easy. Men in marriage, and I don’t mean this in my marriage, get a much better deal. They get a live-in-cook and all that. “There’s a bit of dirt on my shirt, honey.” Women are often suppressed in a marriage. Their fathers still dominate them; then they go into a marriage and let their husbands dominate them. It’s frightening. So many women say, “I’d like to be a vegetarian but my husband would never let me,” and you think God, that’s so sad, men are still thumping women. But back to marriage, I believe in a loose rein. Being a rider, I also believe in tightening it and giving it some slack. I’ve captured that art, being so horse-oriented.​

Sharp people unlike me? Charming. I understand the comparison. I think it's faulty. And I think it's racist. And exclusionary. Basically, I don't think the n word translates to other minority groups. We all know it was used to dehumanise black people and so it makes sense to use in describing the struggles or black men and woman, other groups don't have that same experience. White women still have white privilege which women of colour don't. I understand that the song was quite progressive in some ways but it is definitely problematic. I'd suggest reading this for a start: http://www.womanist-musings.com/2009/04/woman-is-n****r-of-world.html

No, you're not 'approving' it; but if you're mentioning that, I assume there's a reason? Is drunkedness a justification? An explanation? Cheating's cheating. And I knew that, anyway. And I knew that about May, thanks. I've read and listened to them all talk about that. I don't see what that relationship has to do with John cheating on Yoko. That was a period of separation for them. If they weren't in a committed monogamous relationship, of course I don't consider that cheating.

He's said he hasn't, and I don't think there's any reason to doubt his word on that matter. He's not guarded about his past and how he changed when he married. Linda certainly wasn't shy about discussing her attitude to the matter.

“People have said I’m possessive of him, but actually my attitude is ‘Hey, f**k off, do what you want to do, I’m not your jailer.’ I mean, I read these letters in the women’s magazines: ‘My husband left me for his lover, but now he’s come back. What shall I do?’ And the woman’s writing back, saying, ‘Why don’t you sit down and discuss your problems.’ I think, Talk to him? I’d just say **** off. None of this ‘Oh please, dear.’ If Paul were to go, O.K., I’d move on to something else. If we want to be together, then let’s be together, but if either of us doesn’t, then all the heart pain isn’t going to stop it.”​

Everyone who has publicly spoken about the relationship has talked about how devoted they were, and while they've openly talked about their marriage being imperfect, I've never heard anything to suggest he ever cheated on Linda. They sowed those oats and Linda wasn't a doormat.

CH: Well once in a while she'd say, "Oh, Northern Men." And that would be all.
PM: She'd never be a good traitor. But there would be a little bit of fun. She and I liked to take the "mickey" out of each other and I liked that she was strong enough to take the "mickey" out of me. I was telling someone the other day one of the greatest things for me, strangely enough -- it seems a bit perverse but it's true -- was being told off by Linda. And it didn't happen many times, but the first year we got together, somebody had said something about her that wasn't amazingly complementary. I can't remember what it was, but we were walking down Park Avenue in New York and it was late, late at night, early in the morning,. We'd been to see probably her dad or something. We were strolling arm-in-arm, and I mentioned this thing; I said, "Oh so-and-so said so-and-so." Well, she stopped in the middle of the street. Luckily, there was no traffic. She put her hands on her hips and she just colored-up, not a kind of beet root color, more a sort of light strawberry, and she just looked me right in the eye. She said:"If you ever say that again or even suggest it," and she just tore a strip off me. I never forgot it. But you know what, I loved it. I just thought, God, this is her. She's being herself. She's not frightened. She's not the intimidated woman. And I love to see her like that. Fondly enough, because I think many men would think, "Ooh, how dare you go on like that?" and we'd have a raging argument. But I just said, "OK, I know that what you just said is absolute, a thousand percent true." And, apologize. You knew about it when she tore a strip off you. It's actually one of my most fondest memories. ​

Why do you assume that all this incredible dirt will come out about Paul? Is there any basis for this except that you feel he's a bit guarded and too private? The Linda Tapes thing, for goodness sake? He literally met the guy in a public place and loudly chatted about it. They pretty much allowed the taper to discuss the contents in the press and it added up to nothing worse than an average, normal marriage to my eyes. Most marriages of several decades have rough patches. Linda spent a couple of weeks with this guy saying stuff like this. The marriage lasted thirty years. Their children clearly are devoted to both parents, and respect that relationship. I honestly don't think there's dirt there.

Because 1) I don't see near as many comments where I think John needs 'supporting 2) I don't have the same resources to hand that I do for Paul

I don't like comments just because they're 'pro-Paul', lol. I like comments because I agree with them, not just because they're nice about Paul! It's nothing to do with fair play. I'm often on this forum at very different times than most people, and so I don't go back and like comments from a day ago just because it was decently written.

I would willingly read a tell-all book, should the author be credible and be in a place to know things. Written by Heather Mills? Absolutely not. I respect that she is the mother of Paul's children and helped him in the aftermath of Linda's passing, but she is a proven liar many times over, and I don't trust a word from her mouth, unless it can be verified by another source.

That's my point. You were the one who said John was a perfect father when it came to Sean; I merely disagreed. I don't expect any celebrity to be perfect. Of course they're not. People are flawed but most fathers, I would venture to say, don't shout and swear at one child to stop smiling and don't yell so loudly at another child that a hospital trip is warranted...

WHY are you saying Paul's family is a facade, lol? What basis is there for that statement? His own children won't because, like Paul, they seem to protect their privacy fiercely. And that doesn't mean they're hiding some sinister secrets. If they suddenly do spill damaging secrets about Paul, I would lose respect for him as a man, naturally. I'm not about to ignore his faults or mistakes, for goodness' sake.

Wow. Okay then.

I will absolutely accept the existence of any 'Macca Tabloid Books' and read them. I'll weigh them the same as any other 'tell all' books, looking at the motive of the author, the evidence for any assertions, etc. This is just completely speculative and there's nothing to suggest the existence of these secrets which you think will come out. It's an assumption based on nothing besides Paul's love of privacy. If there was proof or a pattern that Paul had anger issues which led to him being violent with his family, I absolutely would not deflect things, thank you very much. I have no patience with that kind of thing.

I'm not on any crusade, and I've never seen said crusade. It's only natural that facts about a person's life will impact how they are viewed, both as a person and even their music, if it and their image aare seen as 'contrary' to his 'negatives'.

If you could refrain from being patronising, I'd appreciate it. 40 does not seem old to me at all, thank you. I'm full cognizent of the tragedy of John's premature death, and how sad it is that he never got the chance to make more music, or spend more time with his family, or fulfill all his potential in many other ways. I'm sure he would have grown even more as a person, and given us many more wonderful songs and interviews. That doesn't mean that discussing any of his faults is dismissing that tragedy or undermining it. It's simply a way to see the context of his music and interviews, and a way to examine his life in full, the good and the bad.

 

Cynthia does come off a bit passive aggressive maybe, but I haven't read her books. She does seem very fond of John, though that might have to do with him dying, and the way he did. Don't know what kind of relationship they had while John was alive.

The point was though, Cynthia's Julian story would be backed up by Julian, and in a way by Sean's story too. So if one believes her, it isn't "taking things at face value". And not the same thing as believing whatever unsupported quote Heather Mills might come up with.

No, you're saying it's a half facade because... just because.

LONG distance between not being perfect and being a facade.

I'd say there's nothing but cynicism in your assumption...

 

I'd say that Paul wanted to get back those secret Linda Tapes, for some reason. Paul has blown up himself at times. He threatened to "finish Ringo off" at the time of the breakup. He's gone off at fans now and then, and I witnessed him blowing up at a female fan in person, first-hand. There is also an account of that same female fan getting yelled at again a second time two years later in the Howard Sounes book. I don't know if this next part is true, but I know of a guy who was part of Wings' touring entourage in the '70s who claims that he used to often hear Paul verbally (not physically) abuse Linda.

But even disregarding all of that, Paul is human. I'm sure he's had to have had his regrettable or unpleasant moments, too. I think it's inevitable that we'll learn some things after he's no longer here (which hopefully won't be for a long time).

 

Yes, I can't imagine that a woman who fell in love with John as a teenager may have whined about him ignoring her, cheating on her and hitting her, but also have been fond of him. It sounds almost as if he was a complicated guy who was both a a wonderful, loving person and also a guy who made some crappy decisions and didn't always treat her well. SHOCKING NEWS.

'She got away with it'? What? Telling her story? For shame. 'A glutton for punishment'? This is sounding uncomfortably close to arguments you hear when people are blaming victims for staying with their abusers, to be quite honest, though John and Cynthia were neither of those things.

Well, maybe some people DON'T get past it. Maybe some of them find it difficult to cope with for various reasons that weren't in play regarding your situation. And maybe a little sympathy wouldn't hurt.

But neither Paul nor Linda ever said their marriage was perfect, and talked openly about it multiple times. Paul's been quite open about how he sought counselling after Linda's death, and that one of the primary reasons was because of the guilt he had over not being perfect, over dwelling on the arguments and not the good times, etc. Paul's been surprisingly open about being imperfect for someone you think spends all his time being PR-conscious and covering up his sinister depths...

Paul is a VERY private man, and doesn't feel the need to tell you and the public everything. Good for him. I think his way of managing his private and public selves has been good for his mental health, frankly. And I value that over the public's desire for every detail about his 29 year perfectly normal (as much as possible, given who Paul is) marriage, with its various ups and downs. Everyone who has known them has spoken about theirs being an extraordinarily warm, loving and supportive marriage, considering everything. I think the kids bear witness of that as well.

By the way, these are the 'exclusive' bombs from the Linda Tapes, courtesy of Peter Cox. These are from the late eighties, you'll remember.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbi...apes-exclusive--Linda-wanted-leave-Macca.html

"Every marriage has its ups and downs, of course. In her low moments, the idea of leaving him did cross her mind, but she immediately rejected it. Her family was the most important thing in her life and there was no way she'd give them up. At the low points, she did feel trapped."

You seem to given Cox more credibility than any other source purely BECAUSE it's something different than the company line. Just because he didn't want this chap releasing tapes of his late wife discussing family matters doesn't mean there's anything deeply harmful to Paul's reputation on there.

Did he now? I think the usage of percentages in Many Years From Now sucked, but the main thrust of the book seemed to be that Paul wanted to emphasise the collaborative nature of their relationship. Here are the times he talked about John's contributions, by the way.

I SAW HER STANDING THERE: "So it was co-written, my idea, and we finished it that day.
AND I LOVE HER: "I would say that John probably helped with the middle eight, but he can't say 'It's mine'."
SHE LOVES YOU [included because John himself gives Paul extra credit for the idea]: "It was very much co-written as I recall, I don't think it was either of our idea."
CAN'T BUY ME LOVE: "John did a very good thing: instead of playing through it and putting like a watercolour wash over it all with his guitar he just stabbed on the off-beats. Ringo would play the snare and John did it with the guitar, which was good."
WHAT YOU'RE DOING: "...was a bit of a filler. I think it was a little more mine than John's, but I don't have a very clear recollection so to be on the safe side I'd put it as 50-50."
TELL ME WHAT YOU SEE: "I seem to remember it as mine. I would it claim it as a 60-40."
I'M DOWN: "I'm not sure if John had any input on it, in fact I don't think he did. But not wishing to be churlish, with most of these I'll always credit him with 10 per cent just in case he fixed a word or offered a suggestion.
WE CAN WORK IT OUT: "I had the idea, the title, had a couple of verses and the basic idea for it, then I took it to John to finish it off and we wrote the middle together... Then it was George Harrison's idea to put the middle into waltz time, like a German waltz."
DRIVE MY CAR: "So that was my idea and John and I wrote the words, so I'd go 70-30 on that to me."
YOU WON'T SEE ME: "It was 100 per cent me as I recall, but I am always quite happy to give John a credit because there's always a chance that on the session he might have said, 'That'd be better'."
MICHELLE: "The 'I love you, I love you, I love you' wasn't in the original. The original was just the chorus. That sounds like Nina Simone, I can see that. I'll give him ten points for that."
PAPERBACK WRITER: "I remember him, his amused smile, saying 'Yes, that's it, that'll do.' Quite a nice moment. 'Hmm, I've done right! I've done well!' And then we went upstairs and put the melody to it. John and I sat down and finished it all up, but it was tilted towards to me, the original idea was mine."
ELEANOR RIGBY: "John helped me on a few words but I'd put it down 80-20 to me, something like that."
HERE, THERE & EVERYWHERE: "I think by the time he'd woken up, I had pretty much written the song, so we took it indoors and finished it up... John might have helped with a few last words... So I would credit me pretty much 80-20 on that one."
YELLOW SUBMARINE: "It's pretty much my song as I recall, written for Ringo in that little twilight moment. I think John helped out."
GOOD DAY SUNSHINE: "'Good Day Sunshine' was me trying to write something similar to 'Daydream'. John and I wrote it together at Kenwood, but it was basically mine, and he helped me with it."
PENNY LANE: "When I came to write it, John came over and helped me with the third verse, as often was the case. We were writing childhood memories."
GETTING BETTER: "I was sitting there doing 'Getting better all the time' and John just said in his laconic way, 'It couldn't get no worse,' and I thought, Oh brilliant! This is exactly why I love writing with John. He'd done it on a number of occasions, he does a Greek chorus thing on 'She's Leaving Home', he just answers. It was one of the ways we'd write. I'd have the song quite mapped out and he'd come in with a counter-melody."
OB-LA-DI OB-LA-DA: "He sat down at the piano and instantly played the blue-beat-style intro. We were very pleased with his fresh attitude. It turned us on and turned the whole song around. He and I worked hard on the vocals and I remember the two of us in the studio having a whale of a time."
SHE'S LEAVING HOME: "John and I wrote 'She's Leaving Home' together. It was my inspiration. We'd seen a story in the newspaper... I like it as a song, and when I showed it to John, he added the Greek chorus, long sustained notes, and one of the nice things about the structure of the song is that it stays on those chords endlessly... It was largely mine, with help from John."
MAGICAL MYSTERY TOUR: "'Magical Mystery Tour' was co-written by John and I, very much in our fairground period."
ROCKY RACCOON: Paul wrote 'Rocky Raccoon' sitting the roof of the ashram with John and Donovan helping out.
HEY JUDE: "I finished it up in Cavendish and I was in the music room upstairs when John and Yoko came to visit and they were right behind me over my right shoulder, standing up, listening to it as I played it to them, and when I got to the line 'The movement you need is on your shoulder', I looked over my shoulder and I said, 'I'll change that, it's a bit crummy. I was just blocking it out,' and John said, 'You won't, you know. That's the best line in it!' That's collaboration."
MOTHER NATURE'S SON: "There might have been a little help from John with some of the verses."
BIRTHDAY: "So that is 50-50 John and me, made up on the spot and recorded all on the same evening."
GET BACK: Paul had a rough idea for the words and music and began jamming it out. John joined him and together they worked on some lyrics.​