new McCartney interview in Rolling Stone

Serge said his comments towards Dylan weren't very gracious! Oh, well, clearly we're not on the same page. McCartney won't have to look at all sheepish the next time he runs into Dylan. He wasn't ungracious in the least.

That's it for me! I can't take it any more for fear of being labeled one of RayS's Beatards.

 

It's also a no-win for him because of the cult of personality of Lennon that's been built up since his death where as pretty much anything he said or claimed is taken as irrefutable by the masses, regardless of the truth. The die was cast long ago with John as the brains and talent and Paul as the sappy lightweight and lesser partner, and as unfair and inaccurate as it is, it's so entrenched in the conventional wisdom (again, remembering that most music fans are MUCH less obsessive and informed than those of us on here) that his task to correct misconceptions is almost Sisyphean in nature.

 

Agree and paul was originally the artsy one in swinging London

 

Just a follow up for the sake of being thorough - it was the Feb 1977 issue of Crawdaddy. Here's George's quote:

GEORGE: "That was the song, when I left from the 'Let It Be' movie, there's a scene where Paul and I are having an argument, and we're trying to cover it up. Then the next scene I'm not there and Yoko's just screaming, doing her screeching number. Well, that's where I'd left, and I went home to write 'Wah-Wah.' It had given me a wah-wah, like I had such a headache with that whole argument. It was such a headache."

Carry on!

 

I read it a few times.....

 

Have no shame, there's some Beatard in all of us! I drove over 200 miles round trip last year to see "Rock Show". 200 miles to see a film I'd already seen a dozen times over, and owned a VHS copy of. That's expensive, and down right Beatarded! I'm also currently overseeing a song-by-song thread on "Down in the Groove" - if that doesn't make me a Dyldo I don't know what would!

 

It's easy to account for George's conflated memories of a period that was so unpleasant for him. Perhaps he would've remembered things more clearly if he'd been recalling events from the biography of his favorite band (Delaney and Bonnie maybe).

 

And quite often you don't recall exactly, but once somebody plays the song for you, you start saying "yeah, that's my guitar lick" or "that's my lyric, no way so-and-so could've come up with that" or "If I'm playing on that or had anything to do with it, I have no memory of it, so it must not be one of mine or much of me on it"

 

Are you sure that a "maniacal fanboy" in the McCartney world isn't called a Macca(damia) Nut?

 

Yes. And Johnny Cash fans are Cashews, Lee Hazlewood fans are Hazlenuts, and Phil Collins fans are Philberts.

 

Of course everyone points to his tiff with Paul, but his disgust with John and Yoko and near fisticuffs with John right before he quit, only hardcore fans know. Otherwise, it's just "Paul made George quit."

 

I think that is far too kind of a term But there is such a wide gamut of Beatards that they probably do require sub-classification. I mean the guy who wears his Sgt. Pepper suit to a fan convention (not guilty) and the guy who knows what vegetable The Beatles had with their lunch on January 24, 1969 - cauliflower, with cheese sauce - (guilty) are two very distinct subspecies.

 

Everyone must remember that Paul's memory isn't perfect, or he purposely changes history when he likes. He has said many times, and still says, that The Beatles wouldn't come to America until they had a Number One record. Everyone knows that his memory is incorrect or he is telling a "story". Brian Epstein arranged the Ed Sullivan show appearances before The Beatles had a Number One.

I don't like it when he says (or sings) that "I was there" as if his memory is perfect.

Just my 2 cents.

 

Point well made, RayS. My concern about the terminology -- tongue planted firmly in cheek, of course -- is how far back the classifications may go, and how definitive they become. Of course a Beatard by definition can be enamored of any of the four Beatles, not just Paul -- unless their interests run pre-Ringo, in which case they are Peteards. And then there are those whose preferences run all the way back to the Stuart Sutcliffe era, making them Stuards (not to be confused with Stewards, those with an irrational obsession for people named Stewart, or otherwise obsessed with those individuals who work on board ships and trains; or the subgenre of Stuards who like and appreciate the music of Hamish Stuart, as a sub-subgenre of Beatard fandom). Thus my usage of the term Maccadamia Nut, to set Paul apart from the other Beatles within the realm of obsessive preference.

This all does get to be rather Rutles-esque after a bit, doesn't it? But I certainly won't quibble with your use of "Dyldos." Nothing will top that, I'm sure. My own entry, "Dylberts," is inadequate in comparison.

 

And the term for the rabid trolls who enter Beatle (related) threads for the sole purpose of stirring up muck? Searching for Beatards under every rock? Twisting language and nuance in order to take a shot at a Beatle/ex-Beatle/Beatard/music fan? There must be a better term than simply troll.

not directed at you, freddie! I follow your argument (other than the perceived disrespect towards Dylan).

 

I think that would be a "king mixer".

 

Took me a while to figure this out, but got it!

 

No disrespect for Dylan intended, or toward his fans. Just having fun with the nickname issue, that's all. In fact I greatly respect Dylan and the profound influence he had held upon popular music, musicians, and songwriters for well over a half-century. He is one-of-a-kind, in a good way. The fact that he was a Wilbury is just the icing on the cake.

 

I think when he says (or sings) something like that he's saying it more with the attitude of "It's my life, I'm welcome to remember it however I want to" rather than "It's my life, I lived it, I remember everything 100% as it happened."

 

A sort of "What the hell gives you the right/To tell me what I did with my life?"

 

I could not agree with you more on that. He should definitely mix it up, 'casual' fans or not.

Although perhaps the whole 'casual' remark is getting dissected more than need be, he could have said that particular word offhandedly in the moment.

I was more thinking about how his main point seemed to be that people paid good money to come see his show (and that included a wide section of the world population!...and most of his fans ARE pretty hardcore for at least one phase of his career if not all) he was saying people should get their money's worth for a really good time, including the casual fans as well as te hardcore. He hated getting ripped off himself.

When he went to see Bill Haley as a kid he was quite disappointed and affected by the fact he paid 15 shillings to see Bill & The Comets and what he got instead was a first half show with a bunch of rather hokier acts (ML, Tune In pp.108-109). He remembered how he felt. I think he means it...so the word 'casual' was a smaller part of what I thought he was trying to relate.

But certainly by now everyone in the world who wants to HAS seen him, more than once even, and the entire globe should now tell him to never do all of the show bizzy Hey Jude singalongs again, and maybe then he'll feel he can dip into the catalog more. Each tour he switches out a few songs, however he should really break out an entirely new setlist for the whole show, he has the depth of material to choose from, no problem.

Again, I agree, I want as much as I can get, but ever since the Beatles they've handled their releases like premium artifacts, and to this day Apple gives just enough, with perhaps a wee bonus (LIB---N's 'fly on the wall' disc anyone?) and no more. Though Paul certainly gives them their money's worth in concert!

I don't know why they aren't more forthcoming, they are, thankfully, not Dave Clark. I, like many here, will be around only so much longer (as will Paul) and when those first generations are gone his history will be left to money men and the declining culture. Unless he has a plan (and the crafty bugger might).

 

He was Dyldo Wilbury, right?!

 

Not saying something smells funny, but he was there. I'm no sycophant, but I value his opinion over a thousand paperback writers.

 

Is there an echo in here....?

 

"We fought the war for your kind!"