Log In
Register
9.00am
31 March 2008
Offline
It’s that book any good? I’ve been thinking about getting it but I’ve not been able to look inside a copy yet.
Can buy me love! Please consider supporting the Beatles Bible on Amazon
Or buy my paperback/ebook! Riding So High – The Beatles and Drugs
Don't miss The Bowie Bible – now live!
4.40pm
Moderators
Members
Reviewers
20 August 2013
Offline A good article summarizing Paul’s interviews regarding John over the past few years.
The following people thank Ahhh Girl for this post:
ewe2Can buy Joe love! Amazon | iTunes
Check here for "how do I do this" guide to the forum. 
(2017) 
(2018)
4.56pm
8 January 2015
Offline
I like the deliberate pun on the MacDonald book there! What strikes me about that article is how much it mattered, and still matters to Paul who had the first name in the credits. It’s just so petty.
I'm like Necko only I'm a bassist ukulele guitar synthesizer kazoo penguin and also everyone. Or is everyone me? Now I'm a confused bassist ukulele guitar synthesizer kazoo penguin everyone who is definitely not @Joe. This has been true for 2016 & 2017 
but I may have to get more specific in the future.
5.06pm
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline He really needs to move on. Maybe he does it to irk everyone else.
"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
5.15pm
8 January 2015
Offline meanmistermustard said
He really needs to move on. Maybe he does it to irk everyone else.
Well he claimed he had moved on, right after he complained about it again. Just maddening, it must be a signature point of order whenever he feels compared to John, but it’s such a stupid one and he’s not a stupid person. I think the the post-Beatles trials must have put a burr in his sock about it, having to define what constituted their partnership in a way the law could interpret properly. I don’t blame him for being a bit frustrated about that side of it, but the naming doesn’t solve that problem, it makes you look awful instead.
I’ve been in a similar situation: a band I was in divided their performance royalties absolutely equally regardless of the input and I was in charge of keeping that stuff updated; after the band broke up, various member wanted to “change” some songs, one in particular expected me to alter all credits to 50% for them and 50% for the rest of us. Needless to say I laughed a lot and refused. But that’s how things pan out after the idealism of a band dissolves, it can get really petty and selfish.
I'm like Necko only I'm a bassist ukulele guitar synthesizer kazoo penguin and also everyone. Or is everyone me? Now I'm a confused bassist ukulele guitar synthesizer kazoo penguin everyone who is definitely not @Joe. This has been true for 2016 & 2017 but I may have to get more specific in the future.
5.25pm
Moderators
15 February 2015
Offline meanmistermustard said
He really needs to move on. Maybe he does it to irk everyone else.
To quote Lewis Carroll:
He only does it to annoy,
Because he knows it teases.
([{BRACKETS!}])
New to Forumpool? You can introduce yourself here.
If you love The Beatles Bible, and you have adblock, don't forget to white-list this site! 
6.40pm
17 October 2013
Offline It’s an unattractive side of our nature that we want the credit due.
I was watching ‘The Wrecking Crew’ recently……They were the US session musicians behind a plethora of hits that the artists themselves had little to do with.
It comes over strongly that they wanted the truth of their creative in-put put down for posterity.
Then look how miffed Paul Simon got because Art was getting all the adoration whenever they performed ‘Bridge over Troubled Water.’….and that many never looking at the credits thought they wrote together ……..Lennon and McCartney ….so Simon and Garfunkel…….. So BOTW must be one that Art wrote. That perception and the applause was a dagger in Simon’s heart.
Our Paul though irks us because he has so much credit in the bank already…….why must he have every scrap??
I think it annoys Paul that most other people can’t see that why it annoys him……..AND it annoys him that it annoys him……….But it annoys him.
It is what it is…..He won’t change now.
The following people thank Wigwam for this post:
Beatlebug, ewe28.03pm
Moderators
15 February 2015
Offline Wigwam said
<snip>It is what it is…..He won’t change now.
Are you saying old Pauls can’t learn new tricks? 
([{BRACKETS!}])
New to Forumpool? You can introduce yourself here.
If you love The Beatles Bible, and you have adblock, don't forget to white-list this site!
10.36pm
17 October 2013
Offline .jpg){kind=link}
The following people thank Wigwam for this post:
Necko, Zig6.12pm
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline Of course, the Ringo auction again throws doubt on Paul’s memory. In Many Years from Now he clearly states that John got No. 0000001 of The Beatles (White Album ) because he “baggys”-ed it fastest. Recounts it very convincingly. Except it’s Ringo that’s putting No. 0000001 up for sale. Now, it’s always possible that John left it at Tittenhurst and Ringo got hold of it then. There are other items, like the “refractory” table John, George and others are seen sitting around in the Imagine : John Lennon film, joking about “Beatle Ed” etc. But with Ringo selling so much, and not selling two low number White Album ‘s, it seems more likely that, despite Paul’s memory, Ringo got No. 0000001.
I am reminded of Elvis Costello on BBC Breakfast a few weeks ago to promote his autobiography, and talking about doing a Q&A at a theatre the night before, and joking about how the moderator knew more about him than he did.
He was happy to admit that, and found it amusing.
To me that is part of Paul’s problem, that he refuses to accept his memory may be fallible, and even when presented with evidence he isn’t recalling rightly, he rejects it.
I’ve said it before, and I say it again, Paul often ignores facts because they don’t match his memory.
The following people thank Ron Nasty for this post:
ewe2"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
6.25pm
8 January 2015
Offline It’s also possible Ringo got a bunch of stuff from John when he moved, which explains several items in the auction as well as possibly White Album #1. Just giving Paul the benefit of the doubt, he may be unaware that John gave it to Ringo back in the 70’s.
I'm like Necko only I'm a bassist ukulele guitar synthesizer kazoo penguin and also everyone. Or is everyone me? Now I'm a confused bassist ukulele guitar synthesizer kazoo penguin everyone who is definitely not @Joe. This has been true for 2016 & 2017 but I may have to get more specific in the future.
6.43pm
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline That’s why I mentioned Tittenhurst, @ewe2. Ringo moved in after John left for New York. However, I do think, even had it been given to Ringo by John, Ringo would have gone through the process of offering it to Yoko, Julian, Sean, before selling it, as it’s such a personal item. And Julian would definitely had said yes.
The other thing, it is not being sold as having belonged to John, which would probably bump its price. It’s being sold as Ringo’s copy.
"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
6.57pm
8 January 2015
Offline That’s a good point, but maybe he didn’t tell anyone he had it! A nestegg for a rainy day.
I'm like Necko only I'm a bassist ukulele guitar synthesizer kazoo penguin and also everyone. Or is everyone me? Now I'm a confused bassist ukulele guitar synthesizer kazoo penguin everyone who is definitely not @Joe. This has been true for 2016 & 2017 but I may have to get more specific in the future.
4.25am
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline From the ‘Anthology’ book
RINGO: I got number one – because I’m lovely! John was actually the kindest and most loving overall, when he could be. And he wasn’t quite as cynical as everyone expects. I got number one here and number four in America.
Paul therefore gets it wrong when he says
… Then he had the idea to number each album, which I thought was brilliant for collectors. You’d have 000001,000002, 000003, and so on. If you got, for example, 000200 then that would be an early copy – it was a great idea for sales. EMI weren’t easy to persuade and they said they couldn’t do it. I said: ‘Look, if a milometer can turn over, you must be able to do that with every record that goes out.’ And they found a way. I think they stopped at some point, so not all ‘White’ albums have the numbers on them. But it was a good idea and we got the first four. John, I think, got the first one. He shouted loudest!
And here’s Paul’s similar quote from ‘Many Years From Now’
Then Richard had the idea for the numbers. He said, ‘Can we do it?’ So I had to go and try and sell this to EMI. They said, ‘Can’t do it.’ I said, ‘Look, records must go through something to put the shrink wrap on or to staple them. Couldn’t you just have a little thing at the end of that process that hits the paper and prints a number on it? Then everyone would have a numbered copy.’
I think EMI only did this on a few thousand, then just immediately gave up. They have very very strict instructions that every single album that came out, even to this day, should still be numbered. That’s the whole idea: ‘I’ve got number 1,000,000!’ What a great number to have! We got the first four. I don’t know where mine is, of course. Everything got lost. It’s all coming up in Sotheby’s I imagine. John got 00001 because he shouted loudest. He said, ‘Baggsy number one!’ He knew the game, you’ve gotta baggsy it.
The following people thank meanmistermustard for this post:
Ron Nasty, ewe2"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
5.00am
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline Thanks, @meanmistermustard. I only thought of the Many Years from Now quote because it’s included in Joe’s article on the album, and I’ve had reason to look at that in recent days.
As I say above, I think it’s good example of Paul’s memory getting it wrong, and now it’s not just Ringo and Paul disagreeing in quotes, Paul is proved to have got it wrong by the fact that Ringo has included No. 0000001 in his upcoming auction.
Paul has his version of what happened, when it happened, and how it happened, and I thought it an interesting example of where he’d got it wrong. It throws into the air, as an example, how reliable his memory of him and John listening to Here, There And Everywhere during the Austrian filming of Help !.
I don’t doubt the exchange between John and Paul, but I do doubt Paul’s recollection of the when.
As I have said previously, whatever they may think, John, Paul, George and Ringo are not necessarily the most reliable witnesses. But, as shown in Early Days , Paul has a belief that he is.
"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
8.09pm
Moderators
Members
Reviewers
20 August 2013
Offline I heard a clip from an interview today. Paul said once he and John found out how much money they got from songwriting, they would say to each other, “Let’s write a swimming pool. Let’s write a new car.”
They crack me up.
The following people thank Ahhh Girl for this post:
Mademoiselle Kitty >^..^<, BeatlebugCan buy Joe love! Amazon | iTunes
Check here for "how do I do this" guide to the forum. (2017) (2018)
1.39am
27 March 2015
Offline Re: the White Albums… Maybe Paul got it half right? Ringo said he had #1 of the U.K. album, and #4 of the U.S. album. What if John had #1 of the U.S. album? Then they’d both be right.
And even if he got it wrong, so what? Imagine the sheer number of memorable experiences those four guys had in their lifetimes. We can hardly expect them to recall everything correctly. Havent we all, at some point, shared a a memory we were 100% sure of, only to find out that wasn’t how it happened after all? F**k that, I usually can’t even remember what I ate for dinner three days ago, let alone what the colour socks I wore when I went skydiving. So, why do we expect Paul to remember every little thing without fail?
Yeah, Paul tends to embellish his memories. I don’t think it’s a conscious thing, it’s just his personality to have a positive, if not rose coloured recollection of events. Let’s not be too hard on him for it. After all, it’s not like he’s the only Beatle to have a distorted view of the band’s history.
peace and love 
The following people thank Mademoiselle Kitty >^..^< for this post:
BeatlebugFormerly Known As JPM-Fangirl --
2016
'Out There' - 07-06-2015 - Ziggo Dome Amsterdam -- 'One On One' - 12-06-2016 - Pinkpop Festival Landgraaf
10.34am
7 April 2015
Offline This is a great August 1986 hour long Paul McCartney interview by Barbara Hower from Entertainment This Week. 🙂 She asked him a lot of great intelligent questions including about John’s murder and she got a rare great interview out of him.I still have this interview on an old VHS tape from the time. It’s not on youtube though for some reason. Unfortunately it gets interrupted by advertisements but then the interview resumes.
The following people thank Randie for this post:
Mademoiselle Kitty >^..^<, ewe212.20pm
27 March 2015
Offline I really enjoyed that. Thank you for sharing it.
Formerly Known As JPM-Fangirl -- 2016
'Out There' - 07-06-2015 - Ziggo Dome Amsterdam -- 'One On One' - 12-06-2016 - Pinkpop Festival Landgraaf
1.32am
7 April 2015
Offline Your both welcome,I really hope more members watch it too,it’s one of the best Paul McCartney interviews.
3 Guest(s)