Paul on Jimmy Kimmel - September 23
-
Well, duh.
-
beatlesfanrandy:
yankeefan7:
audi:
Granted, 95% of his questions were Beatle-related.
Question. Is part of this McCartney's fault? I always thought that a host would ask a in a pre-interview what the guest would like to talk about in the interview. I am sure if the McCartney team asked Kimmel to concentrate mostly on the upcoming record he would have obliged.
A good interviewer would never "rehearse" an interview. That just makes it phony. I'm sure Kimmel asked the questions he thought people would want to know. Besides, Paul's been at this for 50 years. He doesn't need coaching from his "team".
They don't tell you the actual questions but all shows will ask what you like to discuss or promote. Since McCartney has been at this for 50 years do you think we really need to discuss The Beatles for 95% of the interview - lol
-
yankeefan7:
beatlesfanrandy:
yankeefan7:
audi:
Granted, 95% of his questions were Beatle-related.
Question. Is part of this McCartney's fault? I always thought that a host would ask a in a pre-interview what the guest would like to talk about in the interview. I am sure if the McCartney team asked Kimmel to concentrate mostly on the upcoming record he would have obliged.
A good interviewer would never "rehearse" an interview. That just makes it phony. I'm sure Kimmel asked the questions he thought people would want to know. Besides, Paul's been at this for 50 years. He doesn't need coaching from his "team".
They don't tell you the actual questions but all shows will ask what you like to discuss or promote. Since McCartney has been at this for 50 years do you think we really need to discuss The Beatles for 95% of the interview - lol
Hey guys...good topic I would think Kimmel would discuss with the guest (especially if they are a high profile guest) what things they need to discuss/promote. At the same time, Kimmel wants the interview to be spontaneous which makes the show more interesting/funny etc. Johnny Carson and Letterman always came across as spontaneous while being a good interviewer. The appearance the night after Paul's with Justin Timberlake was a perfect example of this. Kimmel certainly covered JT's new album and new movie but it sure looked like the 1st 5 minutes were totally spontaneous. This is when Kimmel was gushing over how great Paul was. He went on and on about Paul (to my delight) way beyond the "how do you follow Paul question". I think that Kimmel was genuinely blown away by Paul's show (Did you see them hug at the end of the concert). If the guest (i.e. JT) controlled the entire interview, Justin and his management would not want Kimmel to be gushing over McCartney for that long of time. It was not just one comment about Paul it was several by Kimmel. Great free publicity for Paul.
-
B J Conlee:
yankeefan7:
beatlesfanrandy:
yankeefan7:
audi:
Granted, 95% of his questions were Beatle-related.
Question. Is part of this McCartney's fault? I always thought that a host would ask a in a pre-interview what the guest would like to talk about in the interview. I am sure if the McCartney team asked Kimmel to concentrate mostly on the upcoming record he would have obliged.
A good interviewer would never "rehearse" an interview. That just makes it phony. I'm sure Kimmel asked the questions he thought people would want to know. Besides, Paul's been at this for 50 years. He doesn't need coaching from his "team".
They don't tell you the actual questions but all shows will ask what you like to discuss or promote. Since McCartney has been at this for 50 years do you think we really need to discuss The Beatles for 95% of the interview - lol
Hey guys...good topic I would think Kimmel would discuss with the guest (especially if they are a high profile guest) what things they need to discuss/promote. At the same time, Kimmel wants the interview to be spontaneous which makes the show more interesting/funny etc. Johnny Carson and Letterman always came across as spontaneous while being a good interviewer. The appearance the night after Paul's with Justin Timberlake was a perfect example of this. Kimmel certainly covered JT's new album and new movie but it sure looked like the 1st 5 minutes were totally spontaneous. This is when Kimmel was gushing over how great Paul was. He went on and on about Paul (to my delight) way beyond the "how do you follow Paul question". I think that Kimmel was genuinely blown away by Paul's show (Did you see them hug at the end of the concert). If the guest (i.e. JT) controlled the entire interview, Justin and his management would not want Kimmel to be gushing over McCartney for that long of time. It was not just one comment about Paul it was several by Kimmel. Great free publicity for Paul.
I understand your point about controlling the interview but I don't think it is a bad idea to express that you would like to talk about new record as much as possible. I pointed this out after Audi had mentioned that 95% of the interview was about the Beatles. I think a good interviewer can be spontaneous and still help artist promote their new record and not totally rely on things in the 1960's. Don't you think we have heard pretty much all there is to know about The Beatles after 50 yrs? I know if I was in Kimmel's position, I would have not brought up The Beatles at all and the only way they would have been mentioned would be if McCartney did it in response to on of my questions. BTW - I did not see the Justin Timberlake interview so I am wondering if Kimmel ever asked about N Synch.
-
yankeefan7:
B J Conlee:
yankeefan7:
beatlesfanrandy:
yankeefan7:
audi:
Granted, 95% of his questions were Beatle-related.
Question. Is part of this McCartney's fault? I always thought that a host would ask a in a pre-interview what the guest would like to talk about in the interview. I am sure if the McCartney team asked Kimmel to concentrate mostly on the upcoming record he would have obliged.
A good interviewer would never "rehearse" an interview. That just makes it phony. I'm sure Kimmel asked the questions he thought people would want to know. Besides, Paul's been at this for 50 years. He doesn't need coaching from his "team".
They don't tell you the actual questions but all shows will ask what you like to discuss or promote. Since McCartney has been at this for 50 years do you think we really need to discuss The Beatles for 95% of the interview - lol
Hey guys...good topic I would think Kimmel would discuss with the guest (especially if they are a high profile guest) what things they need to discuss/promote. At the same time, Kimmel wants the interview to be spontaneous which makes the show more interesting/funny etc. Johnny Carson and Letterman always came across as spontaneous while being a good interviewer. The appearance the night after Paul's with Justin Timberlake was a perfect example of this. Kimmel certainly covered JT's new album and new movie but it sure looked like the 1st 5 minutes were totally spontaneous. This is when Kimmel was gushing over how great Paul was. He went on and on about Paul (to my delight) way beyond the "how do you follow Paul question". I think that Kimmel was genuinely blown away by Paul's show (Did you see them hug at the end of the concert). If the guest (i.e. JT) controlled the entire interview, Justin and his management would not want Kimmel to be gushing over McCartney for that long of time. It was not just one comment about Paul it was several by Kimmel. Great free publicity for Paul.
I understand your point about controlling the interview but I don't think it is a bad idea to express that you would like to talk about new record as much as possible. I pointed this out after Audi had mentioned that 95% of the interview was about the Beatles. I think a good interviewer can be spontaneous and still help artist promote their new record and not totally rely on things in the 1960's. Don't you think we have heard pretty much all there is to know about The Beatles after 50 yrs? I know if I was in Kimmel's position, I would have not brought up The Beatles at all and the only way they would have been mentioned would be if McCartney did it in response to on of my questions. BTW - I did not see the Justin Timberlake interview so I am wondering if Kimmel ever asked about N Synch.
Yankeefan 7, I know there was a U-tube on Kimmel's interview the following night with Timberlake. You might want to find it. I believe you would find it very interesting. In that interview, Jimmy didn't bring up Beatles (or N-Sinc for that matter). The entire 1st part was all about Paul and Justin having to follow him with his concert.
-
B J Conlee:
yankeefan7:
B J Conlee:
yankeefan7:
beatlesfanrandy:
yankeefan7:
audi:
Granted, 95% of his questions were Beatle-related.
Question. Is part of this McCartney's fault? I always thought that a host would ask a in a pre-interview what the guest would like to talk about in the interview. I am sure if the McCartney team asked Kimmel to concentrate mostly on the upcoming record he would have obliged.
A good interviewer would never "rehearse" an interview. That just makes it phony. I'm sure Kimmel asked the questions he thought people would want to know. Besides, Paul's been at this for 50 years. He doesn't need coaching from his "team".
They don't tell you the actual questions but all shows will ask what you like to discuss or promote. Since McCartney has been at this for 50 years do you think we really need to discuss The Beatles for 95% of the interview - lol
Hey guys...good topic I would think Kimmel would discuss with the guest (especially if they are a high profile guest) what things they need to discuss/promote. At the same time, Kimmel wants the interview to be spontaneous which makes the show more interesting/funny etc. Johnny Carson and Letterman always came across as spontaneous while being a good interviewer. The appearance the night after Paul's with Justin Timberlake was a perfect example of this. Kimmel certainly covered JT's new album and new movie but it sure looked like the 1st 5 minutes were totally spontaneous. This is when Kimmel was gushing over how great Paul was. He went on and on about Paul (to my delight) way beyond the "how do you follow Paul question". I think that Kimmel was genuinely blown away by Paul's show (Did you see them hug at the end of the concert). If the guest (i.e. JT) controlled the entire interview, Justin and his management would not want Kimmel to be gushing over McCartney for that long of time. It was not just one comment about Paul it was several by Kimmel. Great free publicity for Paul.
I understand your point about controlling the interview but I don't think it is a bad idea to express that you would like to talk about new record as much as possible. I pointed this out after Audi had mentioned that 95% of the interview was about the Beatles. I think a good interviewer can be spontaneous and still help artist promote their new record and not totally rely on things in the 1960's. Don't you think we have heard pretty much all there is to know about The Beatles after 50 yrs? I know if I was in Kimmel's position, I would have not brought up The Beatles at all and the only way they would have been mentioned would be if McCartney did it in response to on of my questions. BTW - I did not see the Justin Timberlake interview so I am wondering if Kimmel ever asked about N Synch.
Yankeefan 7, I know there was a U-tube on Kimmel's interview the following night with Timberlake. You might want to find it. I believe you would find it very interesting. In that interview, Jimmy didn't bring up Beatles (or N-Sinc for that matter). The entire 1st part was all about Paul and Justin having to follow him with his concert.
I actually just watched the three part Timberlake interview, very cool. I thought he handled the stuff about McCartney very well even though it was kind of taking up his time - lol. This interview proved my point in a way, Kimmel did not fixate on the band that made Timberlake famous and asked about other things in his career and life. Enjoyed the Michael Jordon golf store, funny stuff.
-
yankeefan7:
I know if I was in Kimmel's position, I would have not brought up The Beatles at all and the only way they would have been mentioned would be if McCartney did it in response to on of my questions. BTW - I did not see the Justin Timberlake interview so I am wondering if Kimmel ever asked about N Synch.
The only thing Kimmel said in reference to 'NSync was during his introduction. he said that JT was a "survivor of a boy band."
-
Nancy R:
yankeefan7:
I know if I was in Kimmel's position, I would have not brought up The Beatles at all and the only way they would have been mentioned would be if McCartney did it in response to on of my questions. BTW - I did not see the Justin Timberlake interview so I am wondering if Kimmel ever asked about N Synch.
The only thing Kimmel said in reference to 'NSync was during his introduction. he said that JT was a "survivor of a boy band."
And he has survived it quite well - lol.
-
yankeefan7:
B J Conlee:
yankeefan7:
beatlesfanrandy:
yankeefan7:
audi:
Granted, 95% of his questions were Beatle-related.
Question. Is part of this McCartney's fault? I always thought that a host would ask a in a pre-interview what the guest would like to talk about in the interview. I am sure if the McCartney team asked Kimmel to concentrate mostly on the upcoming record he would have obliged.
A good interviewer would never "rehearse" an interview. That just makes it phony. I'm sure Kimmel asked the questions he thought people would want to know. Besides, Paul's been at this for 50 years. He doesn't need coaching from his "team".
They don't tell you the actual questions but all shows will ask what you like to discuss or promote. Since McCartney has been at this for 50 years do you think we really need to discuss The Beatles for 95% of the interview - lol
Hey guys...good topic I would think Kimmel would discuss with the guest (especially if they are a high profile guest) what things they need to discuss/promote. At the same time, Kimmel wants the interview to be spontaneous which makes the show more interesting/funny etc. Johnny Carson and Letterman always came across as spontaneous while being a good interviewer. The appearance the night after Paul's with Justin Timberlake was a perfect example of this. Kimmel certainly covered JT's new album and new movie but it sure looked like the 1st 5 minutes were totally spontaneous. This is when Kimmel was gushing over how great Paul was. He went on and on about Paul (to my delight) way beyond the "how do you follow Paul question". I think that Kimmel was genuinely blown away by Paul's show (Did you see them hug at the end of the concert). If the guest (i.e. JT) controlled the entire interview, Justin and his management would not want Kimmel to be gushing over McCartney for that long of time. It was not just one comment about Paul it was several by Kimmel. Great free publicity for Paul.
I understand your point about controlling the interview but I don't think it is a bad idea to express that you would like to talk about new record as much as possible. I pointed this out after Audi had mentioned that 95% of the interview was about the Beatles. I think a good interviewer can be spontaneous and still help artist promote their new record and not totally rely on things in the 1960's. Don't you think we have heard pretty much all there is to know about The Beatles after 50 yrs? I know if I was in Kimmel's position, I would have not brought up The Beatles at all and the only way they would have been mentioned would be if McCartney did it in response to on of my questions. BTW - I did not see the Justin Timberlake interview so I am wondering if Kimmel ever asked about N Synch.
I must admit: When Kimmel asked "What was the very first song you and John Lennon wrote?," I rolled my eyes. I thought: "Seriously, Jimmy?"
-
audi:
yankeefan7:
B J Conlee:
yankeefan7:
beatlesfanrandy:
yankeefan7:
audi:
Granted, 95% of his questions were Beatle-related.
Question. Is part of this McCartney's fault? I always thought that a host would ask a in a pre-interview what the guest would like to talk about in the interview. I am sure if the McCartney team asked Kimmel to concentrate mostly on the upcoming record he would have obliged.
A good interviewer would never "rehearse" an interview. That just makes it phony. I'm sure Kimmel asked the questions he thought people would want to know. Besides, Paul's been at this for 50 years. He doesn't need coaching from his "team".
They don't tell you the actual questions but all shows will ask what you like to discuss or promote. Since McCartney has been at this for 50 years do you think we really need to discuss The Beatles for 95% of the interview - lol
Hey guys...good topic I would think Kimmel would discuss with the guest (especially if they are a high profile guest) what things they need to discuss/promote. At the same time, Kimmel wants the interview to be spontaneous which makes the show more interesting/funny etc. Johnny Carson and Letterman always came across as spontaneous while being a good interviewer. The appearance the night after Paul's with Justin Timberlake was a perfect example of this. Kimmel certainly covered JT's new album and new movie but it sure looked like the 1st 5 minutes were totally spontaneous. This is when Kimmel was gushing over how great Paul was. He went on and on about Paul (to my delight) way beyond the "how do you follow Paul question". I think that Kimmel was genuinely blown away by Paul's show (Did you see them hug at the end of the concert). If the guest (i.e. JT) controlled the entire interview, Justin and his management would not want Kimmel to be gushing over McCartney for that long of time. It was not just one comment about Paul it was several by Kimmel. Great free publicity for Paul.
I understand your point about controlling the interview but I don't think it is a bad idea to express that you would like to talk about new record as much as possible. I pointed this out after Audi had mentioned that 95% of the interview was about the Beatles. I think a good interviewer can be spontaneous and still help artist promote their new record and not totally rely on things in the 1960's. Don't you think we have heard pretty much all there is to know about The Beatles after 50 yrs? I know if I was in Kimmel's position, I would have not brought up The Beatles at all and the only way they would have been mentioned would be if McCartney did it in response to on of my questions. BTW - I did not see the Justin Timberlake interview so I am wondering if Kimmel ever asked about N Synch.
I must admit: When Kimmel asked "What was the very first song you and John Lennon wrote?," I rolled my eyes. I thought: "Seriously, Jimmy?"
and Paul gotit wrong!
-
That's what I'd figured. Heck, maybe Paul didn't care either.
-
audi:
That's what I'd figured. Heck, maybe Paul didn't care either.
He has a way of rewriting his own history.
-
For some reason I thought the first lennon mccartney song was one after 909.
-
no...they had a notebook with like 500 songs in it. what about 'in spite of all the danger'?
-
yankeefan7:
beatlesfanrandy:
yankeefan7:
audi:
Granted, 95% of his questions were Beatle-related.
Question. Is part of this McCartney's fault? I always thought that a host would ask a in a pre-interview what the guest would like to talk about in the interview. I am sure if the McCartney team asked Kimmel to concentrate mostly on the upcoming record he would have obliged.
A good interviewer would never "rehearse" an interview. That just makes it phony. I'm sure Kimmel asked the questions he thought people would want to know. Besides, Paul's been at this for 50 years. He doesn't need coaching from his "team".
They don't tell you the actual questions but all shows will ask what you like to discuss or promote. Since McCartney has been at this for 50 years do you think we really need to discuss The Beatles for 95% of the interview - lol
Do you really think the General Public wants to hear about anything else from an ex-Beatle, or should I say one of the two surviving Beatles? Get real!
-
beatlesfanrandy:
yankeefan7:
beatlesfanrandy:
yankeefan7:
audi:
Granted, 95% of his questions were Beatle-related.
Question. Is part of this McCartney's fault? I always thought that a host would ask a in a pre-interview what the guest would like to talk about in the interview. I am sure if the McCartney team asked Kimmel to concentrate mostly on the upcoming record he would have obliged.
A good interviewer would never "rehearse" an interview. That just makes it phony. I'm sure Kimmel asked the questions he thought people would want to know. Besides, Paul's been at this for 50 years. He doesn't need coaching from his "team".
They don't tell you the actual questions but all shows will ask what you like to discuss or promote. Since McCartney has been at this for 50 years do you think we really need to discuss The Beatles for 95% of the interview - lol
Do you really think the General Public wants to hear about anything else from an ex-Beatle, or should I say one of the two surviving Beatles? Get real!
If they don't, that is really sad. Really, did McCartney stop living after 1970. Maybe all those people who bought Wings records might want to hear some recollections about those days. Maybe they might get a laugh if McCartney talked about the night he played with Springsteen in London and they pulled the plug and ended the concert. How about McCartney talking about his playing with the surviving members of Nirvana. I mean it took me about 5 minutes to think of some things that are different and even a casual fan or as you say the general public might like to hear that is not Beatle related.
-
beatlesfanrandy:
yankeefan7:
beatlesfanrandy:
yankeefan7:
audi:
Granted, 95% of his questions were Beatle-related.
Question. Is part of this McCartney's fault? I always thought that a host would ask a in a pre-interview what the guest would like to talk about in the interview. I am sure if the McCartney team asked Kimmel to concentrate mostly on the upcoming record he would have obliged.
A good interviewer would never "rehearse" an interview. That just makes it phony. I'm sure Kimmel asked the questions he thought people would want to know. Besides, Paul's been at this for 50 years. He doesn't need coaching from his "team".
They don't tell you the actual questions but all shows will ask what you like to discuss or promote. Since McCartney has been at this for 50 years do you think we really need to discuss The Beatles for 95% of the interview - lol
Do you really think the General Public wants to hear about anything else from an ex-Beatle, or should I say one of the two surviving Beatles? Get real!
I know that guys like Neil Young and David Bowie hate tired, ridiculous, hackneyed questions.
-
yankeefan7:
beatlesfanrandy:
yankeefan7:
beatlesfanrandy:
yankeefan7:
audi:
Granted, 95% of his questions were Beatle-related.
Question. Is part of this McCartney's fault? I always thought that a host would ask a in a pre-interview what the guest would like to talk about in the interview. I am sure if the McCartney team asked Kimmel to concentrate mostly on the upcoming record he would have obliged.
A good interviewer would never "rehearse" an interview. That just makes it phony. I'm sure Kimmel asked the questions he thought people would want to know. Besides, Paul's been at this for 50 years. He doesn't need coaching from his "team".
They don't tell you the actual questions but all shows will ask what you like to discuss or promote. Since McCartney has been at this for 50 years do you think we really need to discuss The Beatles for 95% of the interview - lol
Do you really think the General Public wants to hear about anything else from an ex-Beatle, or should I say one of the two surviving Beatles? Get real!
If they don't, that is really sad. Really, did McCartney stop living after 1970. Maybe all those people who bought Wings records might want to hear some recollections about those days. Maybe they might get a laugh if McCartney talked about the night he played with Springsteen in London and they pulled the plug and ended the concert. How about McCartney talking about his playing with the surviving members of Nirvana. I mean it took me about 5 minutes to think of some things that are different and even a casual fan or as you say the general public might like to hear that is not Beatle related.
-
audi:
beatlesfanrandy:
yankeefan7:
beatlesfanrandy:
yankeefan7:
audi:
Granted, 95% of his questions were Beatle-related.
Question. Is part of this McCartney's fault? I always thought that a host would ask a in a pre-interview what the guest would like to talk about in the interview. I am sure if the McCartney team asked Kimmel to concentrate mostly on the upcoming record he would have obliged.
A good interviewer would never "rehearse" an interview. That just makes it phony. I'm sure Kimmel asked the questions he thought people would want to know. Besides, Paul's been at this for 50 years. He doesn't need coaching from his "team".
They don't tell you the actual questions but all shows will ask what you like to discuss or promote. Since McCartney has been at this for 50 years do you think we really need to discuss The Beatles for 95% of the interview - lol
Do you really think the General Public wants to hear about anything else from an ex-Beatle, or should I say one of the two surviving Beatles? Get real!
I know that guys like Neil Young and David Bowie hate tired, ridiculous, hackneyed questions.
I love this: "David Bowie Gets Annoyed":
-
David Bowie Gets Annoyed":
....seen this before..still funny