Paul and revisionism
-
hi everyone, i was watching an interview with Philip Norman (this was an old interview-late 1980s, I think) and he said that you can't ask Paul about the Beatles because "he won't tell you" when the interviewer asked what he meant by that, he said "he rewrites history all the time". this isn't the first time I've heard people say that about Paul-lots of people do, but why does Paul have the reputation of revisionism/rewriting history? in all of the interviews, I've read or seen, Paul usually tells the same stories and accounts. what do you guys think? Is this true among Beatle fans or is it press labelling him? love to hear your thoughts, thanks.
-
I think Paul tends to just remember positive things and tends to put a positive spin on things.
-
prudence1964:
I think Paul tends to just remember positive things and tends to put a positive spin on things.
Much like the majority of celebrities. And even those more willing to talk about the bad times still tend to airbrush out the worst or most uncomfortable parts. That's human nature.
-
thanks Bruce and prudence1964 for your insight/replies
-
Part of it is Paul's weird fear he is not getting the credit due to him for the Beatles. I find it a bit ridiculous. It shows in him playing John songs like Mr. Kite and A Hard Day's Night, a strange need to say, "I helped! I did this too!" I say strange because Paul has a stunning legacy without needing to do that. Paul wrote Hey Jude, Let It Be, Here There And Everywhere, Yesterday, For No One, Long And Winding Road....etc. AMAZING songs! His solo career out shone those of Lennon, Harrison and Starr, yet, he ignores that and focuses on trying to rewrite Beatle history. Paul, you are amazing in the actual history that happened. Enjoy it!!
-
I agree, RMartinez, Paul has had (and is still having) an amazing body of work/career; real fans know that is true. Though, I do understand why Paul has, as you said, a "weird fear he is not getting the credit due to him for the Beatles". I understand why he might feel this way, though I don't really agree with it. I know what a talented guy he is and how important he was in the Beatles. Most real fans do. But I think maybe he started feeling that way after John died, when so many people were giving John credit for everything Beatles and he 'only booked the studio' (someone actually said that about him!) We know he did much more than that.
-
Apple Scruff:
I agree, RMartinez, Paul has had (and is still having) an amazing body of work/career; real fans know that is true. Though, I do understand why Paul has, as you said, a "weird fear he is not getting the credit due to him for the Beatles". I understand why he might feel this way, though I don't really agree with it. I know what a talented guy he is and how important he was in the Beatles. Most real fans do. But I think maybe he started feeling that way after John died, when so many people were giving John credit for everything Beatles and he 'only booked the studio' (someone actually said that about him!) We know he did much more than that.
Yeah, but come on. Here we are, 36 years after John's passing, NO ONE thinks John wrote Yesterday or Hey Jude or Let It Be. No one thinks John was the mastermind behind Sgt. Pepper's. As a whole, I believe balance has been restored to the Beatle universe. John Lennon was brutally murdered at the age of 40. So people revere him and lift him up. So what? Let them. Anyone who says John was the Beatles was saying that before John died. And the same people who said Paul was the Beatles still think he was. I don't think Paul's revisionist history is sticking. And it shouldn't. The real story does him plenty justice and he really has nothing to worry about. If he is going to get back on his heels every time a journalist or pundit says John was better, he has a long and winding road ahead of him.
-
um...I was actually agreeing with you
I was only saying that I understand why Paul might feel that way (or how it began), even though I don't really agree with it. -
It's important to get history right so I understand why Paul is doing this. For example the song In my life is regarded as one of the best songs ever. Most everyone thinks it's 100% Lennon song whereas Paul says he wrote the melody of the song. I think it's important to know what really happened. I tend to believe Paul's vs Johns version of the truth.
-
Part of the problem is that I've always thought that John gives too much emphasis to the lyrics as the important part of writing a song and Paul over emphasizies the music. So, if Paul wrote a bit of the music, it's not regarded by John very highly and if John throws in some lyrics it's not regarded very high by Paul.
-
Apple Scruff:
um...I was actually agreeing with you
I was only saying that I understand why Paul might feel that way (or how it began), even though I don't really agree with it.I know you agree. I actually don't understand Paul feeling that way, even after John was shot. I think part of it may have been the 80s, which was not too pro-Beatles to my memory, and Paul may have been feeling slighted in more ways than just the post John thing.
-
JoeySmith:
It's important to get history right so I understand why Paul is doing this. For example the song In my life is regarded as one of the best songs ever. Most everyone thinks it's 100% Lennon song whereas Paul says he wrote the melody of the song. I think it's important to know what really happened. I tend to believe Paul's vs Johns version of the truth.
I don't believe Paul's take on In My Life. There is nothing to indicate he wrote the melody. John sings the main melody. Paul sings the harmony, which is not the main melody and does not go all the way through the tune. There are also stories that both had agree to start writing songs about Liverpool, and the story is John started to write down places he had know in Liverpool (which suggests HE may have had the idea for Penny Lane before Paul did!) but when nothing came of it, he just started to write about his life, which became In My Life. Even the melody is pure John, very horizontal with no real extreme intervals between notes. To be fair, I know at some point John claimed he wrote most of the lyric to Eleanor Rigby. While he may have contributed a line or two, I believe that is mainly Paul's song. It's a Paul song. Why dispute it now? In My Life is a John song. Period.
-
prudence1964:
Part of the problem is that I've always thought that John gives too much emphasis to the lyrics as the important part of writing a song and Paul over emphasizies the music. So, if Paul wrote a bit of the music, it's not regarded by John very highly and if John throws in some lyrics it's not regarded very high by Paul.
It is if it's "It can't get much worse!"
-
RMartinez:
JoeySmith:
It's important to get history right so I understand why Paul is doing this. For example the song In my life is regarded as one of the best songs ever. Most everyone thinks it's 100% Lennon song whereas Paul says he wrote the melody of the song. I think it's important to know what really happened. I tend to believe Paul's vs Johns version of the truth.
I don't believe Paul's take on In My Life. There is nothing to indicate he wrote the melody. John sings the main melody. Paul sings the harmony, which is not the main melody and does not go all the way through the tune. There are also stories that both had agree to start writing songs about Liverpool, and the story is John started to write down places he had know in Liverpool (which suggests HE may have had the idea for Penny Lane before Paul did!) but when nothing came of it, he just started to write about his life, which became In My Life. Even the melody is pure John, very horizontal with no real extreme intervals between notes. To be fair, I know at some point John claimed he wrote most of the lyric to Eleanor Rigby. While he may have contributed a line or two, I believe that is mainly Paul's song. It's a Paul song. Why dispute it now? In My Life is a John song. Period.
Yeah, I agree. A book I have (100 Best Beatles Songs by Spignesi & Lewis) says: The source of the song's melody is disputed. Paul has stated publicly that he remembers writing all the music to the song himself. He claimed to have gone off with John's lyrics and worked out a melody on a Mellotron. He said "his" melody was probably inspired by "You Really Got A Hold On Me" by the Miracles. John's position was that "[Paul's] contribution melodically was the harmony and the middle eight itself."
-
Nancy R:
RMartinez:
JoeySmith:
It's important to get history right so I understand why Paul is doing this. For example the song In my life is regarded as one of the best songs ever. Most everyone thinks it's 100% Lennon song whereas Paul says he wrote the melody of the song. I think it's important to know what really happened. I tend to believe Paul's vs Johns version of the truth.
I don't believe Paul's take on In My Life. There is nothing to indicate he wrote the melody. John sings the main melody. Paul sings the harmony, which is not the main melody and does not go all the way through the tune. There are also stories that both had agree to start writing songs about Liverpool, and the story is John started to write down places he had know in Liverpool (which suggests HE may have had the idea for Penny Lane before Paul did!) but when nothing came of it, he just started to write about his life, which became In My Life. Even the melody is pure John, very horizontal with no real extreme intervals between notes. To be fair, I know at some point John claimed he wrote most of the lyric to Eleanor Rigby. While he may have contributed a line or two, I believe that is mainly Paul's song. It's a Paul song. Why dispute it now? In My Life is a John song. Period.
Yeah, I agree. A book I have (100 Best Beatles Songs by Spignesi & Lewis) says: The source of the song's melody is disputed. Paul has stated publicly that he remembers writing all the music to the song himself. He claimed to have gone off with John's lyrics and worked out a melody on a Mellotron. He said "his" melody was probably inspired by "You Really Got A Hold On Me" by the Miracles. John's position was that "[Paul's] contribution melodically was the harmony and the middle eight itself."
And the song doesn't have a middle eight. I have no problem believing Paul wrote the harmony lines on the song. But that is a far cry from writing the melody. It is writing a harmony to a melody John wrote. It is a very cool part, though!
-
RMartinez:
Nancy R:
RMartinez:
JoeySmith:
It's important to get history right so I understand why Paul is doing this. For example the song In my life is regarded as one of the best songs ever. Most everyone thinks it's 100% Lennon song whereas Paul says he wrote the melody of the song. I think it's important to know what really happened. I tend to believe Paul's vs Johns version of the truth.
I don't believe Paul's take on In My Life. There is nothing to indicate he wrote the melody. John sings the main melody. Paul sings the harmony, which is not the main melody and does not go all the way through the tune. There are also stories that both had agree to start writing songs about Liverpool, and the story is John started to write down places he had know in Liverpool (which suggests HE may have had the idea for Penny Lane before Paul did!) but when nothing came of it, he just started to write about his life, which became In My Life. Even the melody is pure John, very horizontal with no real extreme intervals between notes. To be fair, I know at some point John claimed he wrote most of the lyric to Eleanor Rigby. While he may have contributed a line or two, I believe that is mainly Paul's song. It's a Paul song. Why dispute it now? In My Life is a John song. Period.
Yeah, I agree. A book I have (100 Best Beatles Songs by Spignesi & Lewis) says: The source of the song's melody is disputed. Paul has stated publicly that he remembers writing all the music to the song himself. He claimed to have gone off with John's lyrics and worked out a melody on a Mellotron. He said "his" melody was probably inspired by "You Really Got A Hold On Me" by the Miracles. John's position was that "[Paul's] contribution melodically was the harmony and the middle eight itself."
And the song doesn't have a middle eight. I have no problem believing Paul wrote the harmony lines on the song. But that is a far cry from writing the melody. It is writing a harmony to a melody John wrote. It is a very cool part, though!
I believe they were (or rather John was) referring to the instrumental break where George Martin played the piano.
-
Nancy R:
RMartinez:
Nancy R:
RMartinez:
JoeySmith:
It's important to get history right so I understand why Paul is doing this. For example the song In my life is regarded as one of the best songs ever. Most everyone thinks it's 100% Lennon song whereas Paul says he wrote the melody of the song. I think it's important to know what really happened. I tend to believe Paul's vs Johns version of the truth.
I don't believe Paul's take on In My Life. There is nothing to indicate he wrote the melody. John sings the main melody. Paul sings the harmony, which is not the main melody and does not go all the way through the tune. There are also stories that both had agree to start writing songs about Liverpool, and the story is John started to write down places he had know in Liverpool (which suggests HE may have had the idea for Penny Lane before Paul did!) but when nothing came of it, he just started to write about his life, which became In My Life. Even the melody is pure John, very horizontal with no real extreme intervals between notes. To be fair, I know at some point John claimed he wrote most of the lyric to Eleanor Rigby. While he may have contributed a line or two, I believe that is mainly Paul's song. It's a Paul song. Why dispute it now? In My Life is a John song. Period.
Yeah, I agree. A book I have (100 Best Beatles Songs by Spignesi & Lewis) says: The source of the song's melody is disputed. Paul has stated publicly that he remembers writing all the music to the song himself. He claimed to have gone off with John's lyrics and worked out a melody on a Mellotron. He said "his" melody was probably inspired by "You Really Got A Hold On Me" by the Miracles. John's position was that "[Paul's] contribution melodically was the harmony and the middle eight itself."
And the song doesn't have a middle eight. I have no problem believing Paul wrote the harmony lines on the song. But that is a far cry from writing the melody. It is writing a harmony to a melody John wrote. It is a very cool part, though!
I believe they were (or rather John was) referring to the instrumental break where George Martin played the piano.
For the middle eight? Perhaps. But that is not a middle eight, it is a solo over the chords of the verse. And I don't think Paul had a thing to do with that. George Martin played it and recorded it when the Beatles were not even there, I believe.
-
If you let him, Paul will take the credit for as much as possible. That's just the way he is. For all his undoubted talents he's one of the most insecure superstars, nay genius there ever was. He is absolutely consumed about his place in history. Why? I'll never know. It was assured before he hit 30.
-
We're not walking in his Super Star Legend shoes, so who but him can know about that. He doesn't come across as insecure and shaky in self-confidence all that often, IMO, nor overly puffed up with pride very often. Actually, Lennon should not be regarded as the end all and be all in the Beatles and Paul sort of a nothing in comparison. That's wrong
He's right to take up for himself, about that issue. Among others. -
SusyLuvsPaul:
We're not walking in his Super Star shoes, so who but him can know about that. He doesn't come across as insecure and shaky in self-confidence all that often, IMO, nor overly puffed up with pride very often. Actually, Lennon should not be regarded as the end all and be all in the Beatles and Paul sort of a nothing in comparison. That's wrong
He's right to take up for himself, about that issue. Among others.Who has ever said that in these threads? Who here has ever said John was everything and Paul was nothing? All we are saying is Paul seems to want not only the credit he gets for his amazing career and songwriting and performing, but even for things John did. Which he does not need to do. Paul is brilliant for what he has actually done. Claiming he wrote part of Mr. Kite or that he wrote In My Life is not helping him or augmenting him in any way. Too many people know what happened. I know Paul was there and I wasn't, but John was there too and so were the others and George Martin, and there is nothing to support much of these recent claims.
