Kurt Cobain doc
-
I was watching that Kurt Cobain documentary, "Kurt Cobain: Montage of Heck" There's a demo recording of The Beatles' "And I Love Her" Kurt recorded and performed, alone. The credit for the song writing was billed as "Paul McCartney & John Lennon."
-
Dave Grohl seems to be on good terms with McCartney nowadays. Could it be he who has done hit? Or just a coincidence, an error... I remember when they played "Cut Me Some Slack" together there were some who said that Cobain was more into Lennon. "And I love Her" is basically a McCartney ballad.
-
jimmix:
The credit for the song writing was billed as "Paul McCartney & John Lennon."
Funny, I noticed that same thing just last night as I was watching the credits for the Cobain documentary. I don't normally watch credits but they were on right before Game of Thrones.
Anyway this song credit wasn't Dave Grohl's doing as he had nothing to do with the Cobain documentary and wasn't even interviewed for it. I have a theory on who was responsible for putting Paul's name first: One other thing I noticed in the Cobain credits was that one of the producers of the documentary was none other than Jann Wenner. Yes, that Jann Wenner, of Rolling Stone magazine. I'm guessing it was Jann Wenner's way of giving credit where credit was due as And I Love Her was Paul's. Actually kind of a nice thing for Wenner to do. -
Isn't there a legal requirement that it be credited as "Lennon & McCartney"? What's the purpose of having a trademark then?
-
I don't think it was intended as a trademark. It's an industry word, isn't it? I think I've read that they chose Lennon & McCartney of rhythmic reasons. And companionship. But it might have annoyed McCartney at times because some misinterpret it since John Lennon is mentioned first on all their songs. 'The leader John and his mascot Paul'. I remember when the live album "Back in the U.S." came out in 2002 it was critizised for the Paul McCartney & John Lennon credits on Lennon/McCartney songs, they were reversed. But most of all it shows perhaps that McCartney is hurt by the exaltation of John and mockery of Paul?
-
Hendrix Ibsen:
I don't think it was intended as a trademark. It's an industry word, isn't it? I think I've read that they chose Lennon & McCartney of rhythmic reasons. And companionship. But it might have annoyed McCartney at times because some misinterpret it since John Lennon is mentioned first on all their songs. 'The leader John and his mascot Paul'. I remember when the live album "Back in the U.S." came out in 2002 it was critizised for the Paul McCartney & John Lennon credits on Lennon/McCartney songs, they were reversed. But most of all it shows perhaps that McCartney is hurt by the exaltation of John and mockery of Paul?
I never understood why Paul wanted to try change the moniker in the first place - starting back in the 70s. I mean, the whole purpose is so people will remember that its a L&M song hundreds of years from now. Thats why they created it in the first place as teenagers. I believe both John & Paul influenced each others' songs even if they didnt have a direct hand in writing it. So the L&M trademark is valid in my eyes. Who cares who is first? If Paul is concerned about "getting credit", then what he should have done (or still do) is write a book about his own recollections of each song in terms of how it was created. But, leave L&M alone!
-
Hendrix Ibsen:
Dave Grohl seems to be on good terms with McCartney nowadays. Could it be he who has done hit? Or just a coincidence, an error... I remember when they played "Cut Me Some Slack" together there were some who said that Cobain was more into Lennon. "And I love Her" is basically a McCartney ballad.
More like a Harrison/Lennon/McCartney ballad. George did write the "do-do-dah-do" part throughout the song.
-
Yeah, I think there's always a beatle aspect to Beatles period songs. McCartney has been singing "his songs" in concert for decades in his solo career, but "Hey Jude", "Yesterday"... stands with the longest leg in The Beatles, and hey, Lennon/McCartney anyway. It's just the way it is.
-
Michelley:
Anyway this song credit wasn't Dave Grohl's doing as he had nothing to do with the Cobain documentary and wasn't even interviewed for it.
According to a recent Rolling Stone article which I just read about the Cobain movie, the filmmaker DID interview Dave Grohl, but due to Dave's busy schedule, it was done later than some of the other interviews. So by that time, the filmmaker (I forget his name) had the movie pretty much completed, and he wasn't able to find what *he considered a good place to insert Dave's interview. So he just left it out completely.
-
JoeySmith:
Hendrix Ibsen:
I don't think it was intended as a trademark. It's an industry word, isn't it? I think I've read that they chose Lennon & McCartney of rhythmic reasons. And companionship. But it might have annoyed McCartney at times because some misinterpret it since John Lennon is mentioned first on all their songs. 'The leader John and his mascot Paul'. I remember when the live album "Back in the U.S." came out in 2002 it was critizised for the Paul McCartney & John Lennon credits on Lennon/McCartney songs, they were reversed. But most of all it shows perhaps that McCartney is hurt by the exaltation of John and mockery of Paul?
I never understood why Paul wanted to try change the moniker in the first place - starting back in the 70s. I mean, the whole purpose is so people will remember that its a L&M song hundreds of years from now. Thats why they created it in the first place as teenagers. I believe both John & Paul influenced each others' songs even if they didnt have a direct hand in writing it. So the L&M trademark is valid in my eyes. Who cares who is first? If Paul is concerned about "getting credit", then what he should have done (or still do) is write a book about his own recollections of each song in terms of how it was created. But, leave L&M alone!
Well the excellent Barry Miles biography of Paul (Many Years From Now) -- to which Paul contributed and authorized -- already DOES give his recollections of each song and how it was created. Als0, why shouldn't Paul want his name first on his own songs. John Lennon certainly made sure HIS name was first on all of their songs, and no one has any problem with that! Of course a song writer wants credit for his or her work. Nothing wrong with that. It always amazes me to see people jump on Paul for wanting credit for his own songs, but they never criticize John for what he did -- manipulate Brian Epstein into pressuring Paul to agree that every song should say Lennon-McCartney when their original agreement was that the credit would change depending on who was the lead songwriter.
-
And I Love Her was written by Paul AND John. John wrote the middle part, "A love like ours, could never die..." but it is mostly Paul's. I don't think people get upset at Paul wanting credit for songs he wrote. HE agreed to the Lennon and McCartney label, and only complained many years later. True, he tried early on to get it to be McCartney and Lennon, but John won that one. Paul gets PLENTY of credit for his accomplishments, so let's be real. No one thinks John Lennon wrote Yesterday, or Hey Jude, or Let It Be. I suppose songs written by Paul alone or mostly by him could be credited as such. But then, the same for John's songs. Right?
-
Michelley:
JoeySmith:
Hendrix Ibsen:
I don't think it was intended as a trademark. It's an industry word, isn't it? I think I've read that they chose Lennon & McCartney of rhythmic reasons. And companionship. But it might have annoyed McCartney at times because some misinterpret it since John Lennon is mentioned first on all their songs. 'The leader John and his mascot Paul'. I remember when the live album "Back in the U.S." came out in 2002 it was critizised for the Paul McCartney & John Lennon credits on Lennon/McCartney songs, they were reversed. But most of all it shows perhaps that McCartney is hurt by the exaltation of John and mockery of Paul?
I never understood why Paul wanted to try change the moniker in the first place - starting back in the 70s. I mean, the whole purpose is so people will remember that its a L&M song hundreds of years from now. Thats why they created it in the first place as teenagers. I believe both John & Paul influenced each others' songs even if they didnt have a direct hand in writing it. So the L&M trademark is valid in my eyes. Who cares who is first? If Paul is concerned about "getting credit", then what he should have done (or still do) is write a book about his own recollections of each song in terms of how it was created. But, leave L&M alone!
Well the excellent Barry Miles biography of Paul (Many Years From Now) -- to which Paul contributed and authorized -- already DOES give his recollections of each song and how it was created. Als0, why shouldn't Paul want his name first on his own songs. John Lennon certainly made sure HIS name was first on all of their songs, and no one has any problem with that! Of course a song writer wants credit for his or her work. Nothing wrong with that. It always amazes me to see people jump on Paul for wanting credit for his own songs, but they never criticize John for what he did -- manipulate Brian Epstein into pressuring Paul to agree that every song should say Lennon-McCartney when their original agreement was that the credit would change depending on who was the lead songwriter.
I have never read ANYWHERE that Paul wanted it to be that whoever wrote most of the song would get their name first. Please provide a citation. The first Beatle recordings have McCartney-Lennon. Then John, who was aggressive and the leader of the band, insisted his name be first. I doubt there was any manipulation involved. I suspect John just made his case quite forcefully. Why was it ok for Paul to insist his name be first, but a terrible thing for John to insist the same thing?
-
I doubt that it was much ego behind it, ego came later as I see it. It sems very simple to me; Lennon/McCartney sounds better, there's more music and rhythm to the combination of words than the abrupt McCartney/Lennon.
-
RMartinez:
Michelley:
JoeySmith:
Hendrix Ibsen:
I don't think it was intended as a trademark. It's an industry word, isn't it? I think I've read that they chose Lennon & McCartney of rhythmic reasons. And companionship. But it might have annoyed McCartney at times because some misinterpret it since John Lennon is mentioned first on all their songs. 'The leader John and his mascot Paul'. I remember when the live album "Back in the U.S." came out in 2002 it was critizised for the Paul McCartney & John Lennon credits on Lennon/McCartney songs, they were reversed. But most of all it shows perhaps that McCartney is hurt by the exaltation of John and mockery of Paul?
I never understood why Paul wanted to try change the moniker in the first place - starting back in the 70s. I mean, the whole purpose is so people will remember that its a L&M song hundreds of years from now. Thats why they created it in the first place as teenagers. I believe both John & Paul influenced each others' songs even if they didnt have a direct hand in writing it. So the L&M trademark is valid in my eyes. Who cares who is first? If Paul is concerned about "getting credit", then what he should have done (or still do) is write a book about his own recollections of each song in terms of how it was created. But, leave L&M alone!
Well the excellent Barry Miles biography of Paul (Many Years From Now) -- to which Paul contributed and authorized -- already DOES give his recollections of each song and how it was created. Als0, why shouldn't Paul want his name first on his own songs. John Lennon certainly made sure HIS name was first on all of their songs, and no one has any problem with that! Of course a song writer wants credit for his or her work. Nothing wrong with that. It always amazes me to see people jump on Paul for wanting credit for his own songs, but they never criticize John for what he did -- manipulate Brian Epstein into pressuring Paul to agree that every song should say Lennon-McCartney when their original agreement was that the credit would change depending on who was the lead songwriter.
I have never read ANYWHERE that Paul wanted it to be that whoever wrote most of the song would get their name first. Please provide a citation. The first Beatle recordings have McCartney-Lennon. Then John, who was aggressive and the leader of the band, insisted his name be first. I doubt there was any manipulation involved. I suspect John just made his case quite forcefully. Why was it ok for Paul to insist his name be first, but a terrible thing for John to insist the same thing?
Here's your citation: In Mark Lewisohn's first volume of his history of the Beatles, Lewisohn has a copy of a document in which Brian Epstein tells EMI that John and Paul are going to vary the writing credit, so that whoever is primary songwriter on a song gets his name first. That was their agreement. We'll have to wait until volume 2 of Lewisohn's book comes out to find out how John then managed to get his name first on ALL of their songs. Paul also talks about this in Many Years From Now. And it isn't a terrible thing for each of them to want their name first on their own songs. That seems like a pretty fair solution to me. I do think it's not cool for John to want his name first on EVERY one of their songs, after they'd obviously reached a different agreement.
-
Michelley:
RMartinez:
Michelley:
JoeySmith:
Hendrix Ibsen:
I don't think it was intended as a trademark. It's an industry word, isn't it? I think I've read that they chose Lennon & McCartney of rhythmic reasons. And companionship. But it might have annoyed McCartney at times because some misinterpret it since John Lennon is mentioned first on all their songs. 'The leader John and his mascot Paul'. I remember when the live album "Back in the U.S." came out in 2002 it was critizised for the Paul McCartney & John Lennon credits on Lennon/McCartney songs, they were reversed. But most of all it shows perhaps that McCartney is hurt by the exaltation of John and mockery of Paul?
I never understood why Paul wanted to try change the moniker in the first place - starting back in the 70s. I mean, the whole purpose is so people will remember that its a L&M song hundreds of years from now. Thats why they created it in the first place as teenagers. I believe both John & Paul influenced each others' songs even if they didnt have a direct hand in writing it. So the L&M trademark is valid in my eyes. Who cares who is first? If Paul is concerned about "getting credit", then what he should have done (or still do) is write a book about his own recollections of each song in terms of how it was created. But, leave L&M alone!
Well the excellent Barry Miles biography of Paul (Many Years From Now) -- to which Paul contributed and authorized -- already DOES give his recollections of each song and how it was created. Als0, why shouldn't Paul want his name first on his own songs. John Lennon certainly made sure HIS name was first on all of their songs, and no one has any problem with that! Of course a song writer wants credit for his or her work. Nothing wrong with that. It always amazes me to see people jump on Paul for wanting credit for his own songs, but they never criticize John for what he did -- manipulate Brian Epstein into pressuring Paul to agree that every song should say Lennon-McCartney when their original agreement was that the credit would change depending on who was the lead songwriter.
I have never read ANYWHERE that Paul wanted it to be that whoever wrote most of the song would get their name first. Please provide a citation. The first Beatle recordings have McCartney-Lennon. Then John, who was aggressive and the leader of the band, insisted his name be first. I doubt there was any manipulation involved. I suspect John just made his case quite forcefully. Why was it ok for Paul to insist his name be first, but a terrible thing for John to insist the same thing?
Here's your citation: In Mark Lewisohn's first volume of his history of the Beatles, Lewisohn has a copy of a document in which Brian Epstein tells EMI that John and Paul are going to vary the writing credit, so that whoever is primary songwriter on a song gets his name first. That was their agreement. We'll have to wait until volume 2 of Lewisohn's book comes out to find out how John then managed to get his name first on ALL of their songs. Paul also talks about this in Many Years From Now. And it isn't a terrible thing for each of them to want their name first on their own songs. That seems like a pretty fair solution to me. I do think it's not cool for John to want his name first on EVERY one of their songs, after they'd obviously reached a different agreement.
Ok, thanks. I will check it out when I get home. In any event, if Paul wants his songs to have his name first, then he should. Most people won't notice. They have been Lennon and McCartney for fifty years. Why stop there? Maybe songs that we all know were written by just one of them should have just their name alone. That would be cool. And Lennon and McCartney does sound better!
-
I read all the pages in Lewisohn corresponding to the order of names and it seems it was initially agreed that whoever was the primary writer would get first credit. But then Epstein crossed out Lennon-McCartney in the contract. Later on, both orders of names were used, but mostly because of confusion and Epstein not correcting the music publishers. I didn't read ANYTHING about John manipulating Brian to get his name first. A page number would help. I will check again.
-
Good. Paul's the primary songwriter, so nothing wrong with it. I do NOT however believe it was Wenner's doing lol, not without proof. I think it's more likely the maker of the documentary was aware of the fact Paul has sometimes reversed the credit, so that's why he did it like that.
Michelley:
Here's your citation: In Mark Lewisohn's first volume of his history of the Beatles, Lewisohn has a copy of a document in which Brian Epstein tells EMI that John and Paul are going to vary the writing credit, so that whoever is primary songwriter on a song gets his name first. That was their agreement. We'll have to wait until volume 2 of Lewisohn's book comes out to find out how John then managed to get his name first on ALL of their songs. Paul also talks about this in Many Years From Now. And it isn't a terrible thing for each of them to want their name first on their own songs. That seems like a pretty fair solution to me. I do think it's not cool for John to want his name first on EVERY one of their songs, after they'd obviously reached a different agreement.
Not sure I understand. If the document says they're going to VARY the songwriting credit, that means there's was a previous agreement, which was what?. I have always heard that it became Lennon/McCartney once John came back from his trip to Spain with Brian. Paul has related a conversation about this, I guess it's in Many Years from Now, wonder if anyone can post the quote, I don't have the book. Now, the very fact that it was McCartney/Lennon for a while (For their first album and I think second single?) shows the relationship was a lot more equal than some make it out to be, even that early on. If John was clearly the leader or it was "his band" this would never have happened. I do think it's problematic to have whoever is the primary songwriter have their name first. Because, what if there isn't a primary songwriter?. That seems to have been the case from both John and Paul's recollections in at least She Loves You and I Want To Hold Your Hand.
-
I don't think there's any legal obligation to have a specific order in any case. They're both being given equal songwriting credit and I'd think that's what's legally relevant. Now, if there was a case at all, the fact that eary on the credit was McCartney/Lennon, and then that it was again in the mid 70's, I think in Wings Over America, and John said nothing, would destroy any case Yoko would have. Let's remmeber that what freaked Paul out was seeing Hey Jude credited only to John, due to the computer not allowing for more space or something, then it came the whole credit reversing in the 90's (or was it the early 2000's?). Understandable, but an overreaction imo. I think it'd be a mistake for Paul to have some songs with the credit reversed, I remember him insisting that at least the songs he wrote alone, like Yesterday, should have his name first, but that would be a huge mistake imo and I'm glad he'd dropped it, as it would only give the impression that ONLY the songs with his name first are the ones he wrote.
-
Even if, for whatever reason, John forced the issue to have his name first, Paul could have, on many occasion between 1965 and 1970, hell ESPECIALLY in 1970 when he SUED the other three Beatles, done something about the song writing credits. He didn't. I wonder why?
-
RMartinez:
Even if, for whatever reason, John forced the issue to have his name first, Paul could have, on many occasion between 1965 and 1970, hell ESPECIALLY in 1970 when he SUED the other three Beatles, done something about the song writing credits. He didn't. I wonder why?
What could he have done in 1970 though?, The Beatles were over by then. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't he change the credits' order on his Wings Over America album?.
