Is Paul McCartney Ruining the Beatles Myth?

I don't see as there's a myth. Four blokes with the right image at the right time released some good music that lots of people liked. That's it.

 

Who could have guessed you were such a fan.

 

Oh yeah, we go back a long time .
I help her out and loan her money from time to time .
It's a little known fact, but she's a member here, posting under a pseudonym.

Arnold Grove is the name she uses here I believe .

 

Yeah, what's he thinking, going out and earning money while entertaining eager fans.

 

Well there are members on here who describe Paul as super human. The scary thing is that they are serious...

 

Yes, that's the myth because the walrus was Paul!

 

Link?

 

Yeah, if the myth is that Paul died in the 60's, then he's really taking a stick to that one.

 

I think Paul does a good job of just trying to be ordinary.

Sir Paul McCartney spotted on casual train ride | Daily Mail Online

 

God, I hope so. Ruin away.

 

There's a lot of Beatles/McCartney stuff I love and a lot of Beatles/McCartney stuff I don't like, but I like talking about it all, probably more the stuff I don't like because it's more interesting, and then, separately, I'm completely odd and creepy. Not sure where that leaves me on the scale.

 

These people need to listen to the solo albums. Also Revolution 9, Maxwell's Silver Hammer, Octopus's Garden, and other pedestrian material.

 

If there's a 'myth' it's the music press that made it up.
If you see the Anthology-series you see four guys working hard and making one hell of a career; getting to the toppermost of the poppermost and, amid tensions and relational stuff, eventually split up. In the meanwhile they came up with great music and brilliant inventions.
The fact that one of these four guys is still touring and writing songs is a miracle and something to be treasured! Some of his stuff is a bit pedestrian, but so was some of Lennon's solo output, ditto about Harrison and Richard 'don't call me a former Beatle!' Starkey's albums.

So the answer is no.

 

Thanks eveybody for their input.

Maybe the Beatles didn't want a 'mystique' surrounding them. John Lennon even said that he wanted to destroy the Beatles' legend by putting out the "Let It Be" movie. Perhaps that is also the reason why the three surviving Beatles did the Anthology project.

 

Well, in that case, please send me some funds to cover the upkeep for my original white bag:

 

Brian keep all his money in a 'big brown (paper) bag', I think John upped the game here!

 

I never thought there was a myth. If there's one band there's no mythology around it's the fab four; every aspect of everything about them has been analyzed and pored over.

 

I don't believe any of the Beatles ever felt obliged to preserve others' idealized notions of them. And I can't think of a more characteristic symbol of their attitude toward their past than those four waxworks moptops standing off to the left. (Extraneous directions: find Sonny Liston and then scan right.)

If this is still Paul's attitude, then good on him.

 

What do you mean by that?

I own all their studio albums, a number of dvds and quite a few books on them. I enjoy their music. Do I have to worship them and fixate on every single thing they ever did too? Of course not.

Four blokes with the right image at the right time released some good music that lots of people liked is the way I see it.

 

I'm sorry if you felt like someone was telling you that you had to worship them.

Right image at the right time...released some good music....

The Beatles were so much more than this, of course.

They were way beyond image.

Way beyond good.

"lots of people liked"

That's one way to put it...

Bloke, thank you for the understatements.

 

There's always some legend to go along with the Beatles' level of genius, but there's is little, I believe, that the individual Beatles could have done to thrash their own legacy. Including starting a punk band while wearing safety pins through their ears along with green dyed mohawks.

 

I see it as being realistic: Four blokes with the right image at the right time released some good music that lots of people liked. Lots of people did like their music. Lots = large number. As for image, saying they had the right image at the right time is perfectly true also. If you take issue with me describing them as "good" then how would you react to someone who didn't like their music? Or those who don't care for it whatsoever. You are aware there's a much larger number of people who don't really care for The Beatles whatsoever, aren't you? 270 million certified sales is great, but there's over 7 billion people on this planet, so that's a lot of people that aren't bothered, or don't have The Beatles on their radar at all.
Whatever you're attempting to try and prove here, it's not going to make any odds - I already think they were a good group, and I enjoy their music, hence, I've got all their studio albums, various dvds and books. I'd say attempting to push your views about The Beatles onto someone who's already got their albums out of that number of people seems a bit of a waste of time. You seem disappointed that I'm not gushing over them, or something, and I'm not prepared to do so in order to make you feel better.

 

I still don't know what George had for lunch on July 15, 1967. Many experts say a curry, but I think it was a salad and a truffle. The truth is: we just don't know.

 

Pedant alert! There is no Beatles myth. But there may be a Beatles legend. Myths and legends are very different things. Legends are constructs built around figures who actually existed or are assumed to have existed (e.g. Moses, King Arthur, Lincoln). Myths, on the other hand, are constructs which tend to fabulate some sort of explanation for something (e.g. origin stories). And fables - not that anyone asked - have anthropomorphised animals in them. You know, like beetles, but probably not Beatles. (Oh, and don't get me started on the Elvis of faith and the Presley of history.)

As for Paul McCartney, I suspect he is continuing to develop his take on the Beatles legend. Which is absolutely fine.

 

As Paul gets older and Tours more he may just want to put all he can out there to the fans. Trying something new for a playlist every show. Play a tune he never played or rarely played before. Kind of have fun the different playlist puts an excitement on the strenuous life of touring. At this point I'm glad Paulie is still touring. Hope he does for a very long time.