Times you've been disappointed in Paul?
-
DrBeatle:
Michelley:
JoeySmith:
The day he released "Mary Had a Little Lamb" as an A-side. Rock gods - Zeppelin, Stones, the Who, Bowie, Lennon - were at their peak & Macca releases a nursery rhyme as a single???
That's one of the things I like about Paul. He marches to his own drummer. Always has. And anyway, John Lennon sat eating chocolate cake in a ****ing bag and mailing out acorns for peace. Was that deep thinking? Or just deeply silly and deeply pointless? Yet Lennon gets credited for making a "big statement" by those acts. People go, "Oh he was so cool, so edgy, so contrarian. He didn't care what people thought when he did these crazy things." So Paul does something crazy and silly and contrarian by releasing Mary Had a Little Lamb -- in order to make a statement of his own about the silliness of BBC censorship practices -- and he gets maligned. : : In the end, it was just a children's song. And a good little version at that.
I like the song as well...I just think he needed something a bit better as the big single from Wings, especially as his standing in the UK press was probably at an all-time low at that point, right after the Beatles break-up. Also agree on John...I love John, but that late 60s/early 70s stuff he did with Yoko is so embarrassing it's funny.
I was 14-17 years old when all that stuff was going on and we all thought it was eccentric, but cool. Looking back on it with the 'wisdom of age', it was really funny & weird!
-
Over the many years I've thought a few of his albums were disappointing, but considering the sheer amount of output that's to be expected. But the man himself has never disappointed me. I have always admired him as a great human being, and he has never let me down.
-
My biggest complaint through the years is Paul's song selections for albums. For example Another Day and Live and Let Die should have been on either Ram or RRS Juniors Farm should have been on Venus and Mars Girls School and Mull of Kintyre should have been on London Town Goodnight Tonight should have been on BTTE And, the unreleased masterpieces, ie, Water Spout, Return to Pepperland, Once Upon a Long Ago, etc, should have been put on any album.
-
Fan4-45years:
yankeefan7:
Michelley:
yankeefan7:
I agree with you about Beatles HOF induction. He should have put all the bitterness aside for one night and been there. I will add that McCartney declining the Kennedy Center Award in 2002 which had rarely ever been done before in the history of the award.
I understand why he didn't go, what with the lawsuit they were pursuing against him. But purely from a PR standpoint, this was just a bad decision. It only ended up hurting him, because you KNOW he wanted to be there. And he just ended up looking petty for not going.
Exactly, wonder if his management team tried to change his mind.
What if it was hurt and not bitterness? If we could only make ourselves do what our heads tell us to 100% of the time ..... few of us can. Arrows from brothers are the worst.
IMO - Sometimes it means stepping up and doing the right thing even if it is not something you feel like doing. Really, don't you think McCartney hurt the others at times also. Watch the "Let It Be' movie and listen to how McCartney talked to Harrison.
-
^totally agree. However, something a lot of people don't realize is that it was George's fighting with JOHN (and Yoko) that led to him quitting the group halfway through Get Back. But yes, it's uncomfortable at times how overbearing Paul is toward the others in that film.
-
Well, actually, it does disappoint me when I come across one of the many unreleased songs of his I'm crazy about and realize he must not have deemed it worthy of inclusion on an album or single...is that it, though, is that why he didn't? He thought it's not quite good enough? Many of them sure sound more than worthy, to these ears. Not all, but probably the majority.
-
DrBeatle:
^totally agree. However, something a lot of people don't realize is that it was George's fighting with JOHN (and Yoko) that led to him quitting the group halfway through Get Back. But yes, it's uncomfortable at times how overbearing Paul is toward the others in that film.
Yep. But I find it also uncomfortable to watch John and George behave like sullen teenagers rebelling against the headmaster (Paul). They were grown men who agreed to do the project and then acted like they were being forced into playing music. Like it was such a terrible thing for Paul to want to work and play a live gig. : No one in the band in that period was behaving all that well, including George. But then they were all mentally exhausted at that point.
-
They all acted like they were tired of being in the Beatles, except for Paul, whose musicality was (and is) so overwhelming that Paul just got carried away on its irresistible tide and remained full of enthusiasm, which he was unable to convey to his band mates so they got caught up in it again, too. So one would assume Paul's talents and overall musicianship was superior to theirs. That's the impression I get, anyway. Not that George and John didn't exhibit tremendous musical prowess themselves when released from the Beatle band albatross. And Ringo seemed to get a new lease on life too, he scored hits too, a bit later on.
-
Exactly, both of you! However, it was George being fed up with John and Yoko's heroin use and John antipathy for the band that really drove him nuts. John and George nearly came to blows, which is what made George quit. It wasn't Paul's fault (alone). Although I guess I could see why they'd be frustrated with how overbearing and bossy Paul was at that time, but if he hadn't been, who would've steered the ship?
-
yankeefan7:
IMO - Sometimes it means stepping up and doing the right thing even if it is not something you feel like doing. Really, don't you think McCartney hurt the others at times also. Watch the "Let It Be' movie and listen to how McCartney talked to Harrison.
Explain. Are you criticizing how Paul spoke to George? I really don't think the part we were able to witness was so bad. We never saw what Paul might have said or done earlier.
-
DrBeatle:
^totally agree. However, something a lot of people don't realize is that it was George's fighting with JOHN (and Yoko) that led to him quitting the group halfway through Get Back. But yes, it's uncomfortable at times how overbearing Paul is toward the others in that film.
I don't think that what we were able to see was that bad! Give me a specific instance. George was the one who really couldn't stand Yoko, especially when she stole and ate his cookies (biscuits to the Brits) and according to one insider's book, yelled "You bitch!" at her!
-
The only thing that Paul has made and made me feel bad was the private gig to that millionaire, he made last year...I can understand why... but really bother me.
-
Nancy R:
DrBeatle:
^totally agree. However, something a lot of people don't realize is that it was George's fighting with JOHN (and Yoko) that led to him quitting the group halfway through Get Back. But yes, it's uncomfortable at times how overbearing Paul is toward the others in that film.
I don't think that what we were able to see was that bad! Give me a specific instance. George was the one who really couldn't stand Yoko, especially when she stole and ate his cookies (biscuits to the Brits) and according to one insider's book, yelled "You bitch!" at her!
The stuff between George and John is not in the film. It is, however, on bootleg. I have the complete Nagra reels bootleg set...all 96 hours of Get Back audio, it's EVERYTHING they did in January 1969. And there's lots of bickering between George and John. And John was all too happy to really push for EC to replace George after he quit, even though Paul and Ringo were against it.
-
Interesting thread...not hearing JET last night was a little disappointing.
-
yankeefan7:
RRA:
I generally try to divide the artist from the artwork, and I said elsewhere that honestly I could care less if PM or any musician I like is a nice chap or a douche. But there are times when even you can be disappointed in them personally for something that they did that just makes you shake your head. Case in point: Paul snubbing the Beatles' Rock HOF induction. I've never understood why he did that. George, Yoko, and (a pretty awesomely plastered) Ringo were there. Why not Paul? I seem to remember George afterwards chiding Paul for that no-show. Him being there would've been a nice sweet moment for fans and give a nice positive ending to the Beatles saga (many years before the Anthology.)
I agree with you about Beatles HOF induction. He should have put all the bitterness aside for one night and been there. I will add that McCartney declining the Kennedy Center Award in 2002 which had rarely ever been done before in the history of the award.
Paul's pettiness on that lives on and will always be there. Now he does tributes to John and George in his concerts and there was just NO excuse, NONE, for him to miss that induction into the Rock HOF. business differences were noting in the scheme of things and he chose to stay away. A very low moment. Very low. Quite unforgettable and unforgivable. IMO
-
yankeefan7:
RRA:
I generally try to divide the artist from the artwork, and I said elsewhere that honestly I could care less if PM or any musician I like is a nice chap or a douche. But there are times when even you can be disappointed in them personally for something that they did that just makes you shake your head. Case in point: Paul snubbing the Beatles' Rock HOF induction. I've never understood why he did that. George, Yoko, and (a pretty awesomely plastered) Ringo were there. Why not Paul? I seem to remember George afterwards chiding Paul for that no-show. Him being there would've been a nice sweet moment for fans and give a nice positive ending to the Beatles saga (many years before the Anthology.)
I agree with you about Beatles HOF induction. He should have put all the bitterness aside for one night and been there. I will add that McCartney declining the Kennedy Center Award in 2002 which had rarely ever been done before in the history of the award.
Paul's pettiness on that lives on and will always be there. Now he does tributes to John and George in his concerts and there was just NO excuse, NONE, for him to miss that induction into the Rock HOF. business differences were noting in the scheme of things and he chose to stay away. A very low moment. Very low. Quite unforgettable and unforgivable. IMO
-
Beatles4Ever&Ever:
yankeefan7:
RRA:
I generally try to divide the artist from the artwork, and I said elsewhere that honestly I could care less if PM or any musician I like is a nice chap or a douche. But there are times when even you can be disappointed in them personally for something that they did that just makes you shake your head. Case in point: Paul snubbing the Beatles' Rock HOF induction. I've never understood why he did that. George, Yoko, and (a pretty awesomely plastered) Ringo were there. Why not Paul? I seem to remember George afterwards chiding Paul for that no-show. Him being there would've been a nice sweet moment for fans and give a nice positive ending to the Beatles saga (many years before the Anthology.)
I agree with you about Beatles HOF induction. He should have put all the bitterness aside for one night and been there. I will add that McCartney declining the Kennedy Center Award in 2002 which had rarely ever been done before in the history of the award.
Paul's pettiness on that lives on and will always be there. Now he does tributes to John and George in his concerts and there was just NO excuse, NONE, for him to miss that induction into the Rock HOF. business differences were noting in the scheme of things and he chose to stay away. A very low moment. Very low. Quite unforgettable and unforgivable. IMO
It wasn't petty, he stayed away because he had his reasons, and no one should judge him for it. It was a matter of timing. It was not the right year to be inducted, and it was not the right time for him to get together with the others, and that's it! He later inducted John Lennon and it was beautiful. But above all really, the Rock Hall and Awards are meaningless.
-
Michelley:
DrBeatle:
^totally agree. However, something a lot of people don't realize is that it was George's fighting with JOHN (and Yoko) that led to him quitting the group halfway through Get Back. But yes, it's uncomfortable at times how overbearing Paul is toward the others in that film.
Yep. But I find it also uncomfortable to watch John and George behave like sullen teenagers rebelling against the headmaster (Paul). They were grown men who agreed to do the project and then acted like they were being forced into playing music. Like it was such a terrible thing for Paul to want to work and play a live gig. : No one in the band in that period was behaving all that well, including George. But then they were all mentally exhausted at that point.
Agree. Paul looks desperate in the Let it Be film. Totally exhausted. George in particular, comes across as very bitter over the years. I don't think Paul as ever let me down, maybe his friends and family at times. He is a normal flawed individual. Nobody, yet nobody is perfect.
-
Beatles4Ever&Ever:
Paul's pettiness on that lives on and will always be there. Now he does tributes to John and George in his concerts and there was just NO excuse, NONE, for him to miss that induction into the Rock HOF. business differences were noting in the scheme of things and he chose to stay away. A very low moment. Very low. Quite unforgettable and unforgivable. IMO
It would have been easy for Paul to turn up to a "fake reunion" as he put it, but i think he did the right thing keeping away from the false "everything is alright" camp it would have been the height of hypocrisy. I applaud him for not taking the easy option and bowing to what others wanted. To be honest who gives a shit about the RNRHOF, they have their own agenda on who get's in and it's not straight.
-
beatlesfanrandy:
Beatles4Ever&Ever:
yankeefan7:
RRA:
I generally try to divide the artist from the artwork, and I said elsewhere that honestly I could care less if PM or any musician I like is a nice chap or a douche. But there are times when even you can be disappointed in them personally for something that they did that just makes you shake your head. Case in point: Paul snubbing the Beatles' Rock HOF induction. I've never understood why he did that. George, Yoko, and (a pretty awesomely plastered) Ringo were there. Why not Paul? I seem to remember George afterwards chiding Paul for that no-show. Him being there would've been a nice sweet moment for fans and give a nice positive ending to the Beatles saga (many years before the Anthology.)
I agree with you about Beatles HOF induction. He should have put all the bitterness aside for one night and been there. I will add that McCartney declining the Kennedy Center Award in 2002 which had rarely ever been done before in the history of the award.
Paul's pettiness on that lives on and will always be there. Now he does tributes to John and George in his concerts and there was just NO excuse, NONE, for him to miss that induction into the Rock HOF. business differences were noting in the scheme of things and he chose to stay away. A very low moment. Very low. Quite unforgettable and unforgivable. IMO
It wasn't petty, he stayed away because he had his reasons, and no one should judge him for it. It was a matter of timing. It was not the right year to be inducted, and it was not the right time for him to get together with the others, and that's it! He later inducted John Lennon and it was beautiful. But above all really, the Rock Hall and Awards are meaningless.