Log In
Register
11.04am
12 May 2015
Offline
An instance of paul “rewriting history” was him having the nerve to call lennon a “maneuvering swine” in an interview with relation to business matters, whilst completely brushing over his purchasing (via peter brown) of northern song shares behind his partners back when they had an agreement to retain an equal shareholding.
Behind that smiling,amiable “mr showbiz” face paul projects was a man who did a lot of questionable things to his bandmates in the late 60s…. and i don’t just mean endless takes of “ob la di ob la da” or his pathetic retrospective attempt at divvying up the lennon mccartney songwriting credits after john was killed. That’s been kind of discounted in the stampede to blame yoko for the break up of the band.
So yeah i take a lot of beatle pauls pronouncements on the bands history with a pinch of salt.
The following people thank castironshore for this post:
Oudis4.38pm
Reviewers
29 August 2013
Offline Anybody in the world sees the world through his own perception of reality, filtered to make it palatable when we look in the mirror. Paul is no different.
The following people thank trcanberra for this post:
meanmistermustard, Ahhh Girl, Mademoiselle Kitty >^..^<==> trcanberra and hongkonglady - Together even when not (married for those not in the know!) <==
7.31pm
17 October 2013
Offline 
The older you get the better you were……..and there are less people around to contradict you…..I should know!! It’s one of the joys of old age.
Paul covered this question on New.
But he’s always always claimed his due.
Why not? I don’t think he’s a liar.
The following people thank Wigwam for this post:
Ahhh Girl, Mademoiselle Kitty >^..^<12.07am
5 February 2014
Offline
Everybody has a distorted view of history.
Everybody.
Problems arise when certain groups considers only one person’s recollection as Gospel and anyone else’s is considered a revision. Or treason. Blasphemy. Whatever.
The following people thank C.R.A. for this post:
Mademoiselle Kitty >^..^<, trcanberra2.09am
15 May 2014
Offline In my humble opinion Paul has been trying to prove he was the driving force behind The Beatles –for years. And nope, it doesn’t sit well with me.
The following people thank Oudis for this post:
Wigwam“Forsan et haec olim meminisse juvabit” (“Perhaps one day it will be a pleasure to look back on even this”; Virgil, The Aeneid, Book 1, line 203, where Aeneas says this to his men after the shipwreck that put them on the shores of Africa)
2.50am
27 March 2015
Offline Well, he was the driving force behind the Beatles in the late sixties. There’s no denying it, and Ringo said it too.So why should he say otherwise? To appease John’s fans?
As far as I know, Paul has not claimed to be the leader or the driving force in the early days. If he has, I am interested in reading/hearing his words on that subject.
Having said that, John has said that asking Paul – who was a far better musician than the rest of the band – to join the Quarrymen was a calculate decision. He knew that Paul would raise the bar and they’d all be better for it. If John was able to say Paul was the most talented Beatle, and if the other Beatles can/could admit they likely wouldn’t have produced anything after Revolver if Paul hadn’t taken the reigns, then why would outsiders deny it?
Formerly Known As JPM-Fangirl --
2016
'Out There' - 07-06-2015 - Ziggo Dome Amsterdam -- 'One On One' - 12-06-2016 - Pinkpop Festival Landgraaf
3.07am
17 October 2013
Offline I agree with Oudis……But from ‘All You Need Is Love ‘ on he was.
It’s not enough for Paul to be branded the balladeer. He has to be the ‘Everything’ but he almost was. I’m a John man but Paul could rock voice too. He could do everything any of them could ‘do’…..but not replicate John’s writing style or wit…….In the ‘Commonwealth song’ “too wealthy” quips Paul……Too common for me John fires back
……Later watch him strive for centre stage in the embarrassing Ebony (and I’m playing the lot) Ivory video. Hear him strain.. for John’s voice in Let Me Roll It …..taking guitar solos when George floundered ……..Pick up the drum sticks when Ringo sodded off.
He is so good and he wants everyone to know this and what he’s done or it hurts him.
Paul’s Paul…….Take it or leave it. I’ll put up with it for a lot longer I hope. The man’s a frigging genius ………But there was another one in the group too. A genius that wasn’t even trying.
I’d like him to grasp at that and count himself so lucky that John and George could push him on to be the best he could be.
8.01am
5 February 2014
Offline There was another genius in the group and most of us are aware and readily accepting of that. Problem is, acolytes of Lennon won’t, and any attempt by McCartney to gain greater responsibility for the success of the GROUP… is met with derision. You’re just not allowed to broach that possibility.
As JPM-Fangirl points out, Lennon immediately knew McCartney was more talented when they met at the fete.
The other argument is the old quality over quantity adage; by and large, people tend to assess Lennon’s songs as being more ‘troubled’ and that spoke to a lot of people, most of whom were/are ‘troubled’ themselves. But who isn’t troubled in some way?
How could it be possible that hah-hah! laugh-a-minute, devil-without-a-care, cavalier PR-junkie, happy guy might be able to assist or even be responsible for 50% of a song so immediately identifiable as a Lennon creation? Is it that hard? It’s not like the man doesn’t have a soul.
McCartney started learning guitar AFTER Harrison. Yet, by the time they were both in The Quarry Men, McCartney was better. And ambidextrous on the instrument. Before he was 20 years old. How is it that McCartney stood up front with Lennon at the very first paid gig, and wasn’t questioned on it? By anyone. When it occurred to Lennon that they could write their own songs, McCartney already had dozens of outlines.
Whose ludicrous idea was it to rehearse in Hamburg?
Whose idea was it to wear identical gear?
Who was upset with Sutcliffe because his playing was dragging the group down?
Who would stomp the beat to Best because he was falling behind?
Who -and be honest with yourselves- possessed the largest, most obsessive drive to be a star?
If you think it was Lennon, you’re mistaken. Lennon definitely wanted to be a star, but history supports the fact that, other than first saying no and then bending to every idea foisted on them, he didn’t do much to propel them to stardom; it was largely done by Epstein, but before he was in the picture, it was Harrison, Pete and Mona Best. There were others, like Allan Williams, but it was never Lennon. It’s sacrosanct that Lennon was always the force behind the Beatles. We just have to accept it.
But he wasn’t.
So much love for Lennon. If we, here in this forum, hold that regard, imagine the regard held by those who idolized him from their teenage years. To speak out against him, especially while he lived, would break hearts and friendships. To do so after his death speaks of frustration, propelled by the obsessive need for recognition.
The following people thank C.R.A. for this post:
O Boogie9.50am
12 May 2015
Offline I’m quite willing to accept that paul was the more musically talented, but it was lennon that made them unique to a large degree. Thats why mccartney chased lennon for years up to his death to re-ignite their old partnership
However the thread is about mccartney rewriting history, and even up to that recent esquire article paul is still trying to do it.
The following people thank castironshore for this post:
Oudis, Wigwam2.46pm
5 February 2014
Offline castironshore said
I’m quite willing to accept that paul was the more musically talented, but it was lennon that made them unique to a large degree. Thats why mccartney chased lennon for years up to his death to re-ignite their old partnershipHowever the thread is about mccartney rewriting history, and even up to that recent esquire article paul is still trying to do it.
First, I should never post at night. Being tired makes me long-winded.
Lennon’s persona was a force. People gravitated toward him. And still do.
The point of all that was I don’t think McCartney is rewriting history as much as trying to correct it. But that’s not a free pass for him, he’s getting a few things wrong. And yes, he certainly longed to reunite with Lennon. I think he knew (if not both of them) that, separately, they were fair songwriters. Together, their chemical mix was intoxicating.
The following people thank C.R.A. for this post:
Oudis, Wigwam, Beatlebug7.11pm
Reviewers
14 April 2010
Offline Wigwam said
The older you get the better you were……..and there are less people around to contradict you…..I should know!! It’s one of the joys of old age.
Yep – that big fish I caught when I was 14 gets bigger every year. So does the story of how I caught it.
Part of Paul’s so-called revisionism (if you can call it that) could, to a large degree, have something to do with the endlessly frustrating, banal questions being asked during interviews. He could very easily be f*****g with the media by providing flippant answers that are all of a sudden taken for gospel. He has no reason to lie. I sometimes make fun of him for saying he wrote X% of a John song, mainly because it seems to make him look small. But I was not there. He could have. The fact that John is no longer with us all too often gives Lennonistas a lame excuse – “John isn’t around to defend himself” or something similar. That gets a bit tiring too in my view.
The following people thank Zig for this post:
Beatlebug, trcanberra, C.R.A., Mademoiselle Kitty >^..^<, O BoogieTo the fountain of perpetual mirth, let it roll for all its worth. And all the children boogie.
8.17am
12 May 2015
Offline “Yep – that big fish I caught when I was 14 gets bigger every year. So does the story of how I caught it.”
That fish is only so big because it became a martyr. It’s mate that it swam with was always the real talent behind the shoal.
The following people thank castironshore for this post:
Starr Shine?, Beatlebug1.55pm
Moderators
Members
Reviewers
20 August 2013
Offline People “rewrite” it for him. If people don’t go past this headline, they think Paul is awful.
Paul McCartney May Have Lost Dozens of Beatles Songs
I hate sensational headlines. It is beyond a pet peeve level.
The following people thank Ahhh Girl for this post:
Beatlebug, Mademoiselle Kitty >^..^<Can buy Joe love! Amazon | iTunes
Check here for "how do I do this" guide to the forum. 
(2017) 
(2018)
2.02pm
Moderators
15 February 2015
Offline
Ahhh Girl said
People “rewrite” it for him. If people don’t go past this headline, they think Paul is awful.Paul McCartney May Have Lost Dozens of Beatles Songs
I hate sensational headlines. It is beyond a pet peeve level.
Indeed.
Reading that article, though, it occurs to me that perhaps the fact that they had to write memorable songs to remember them may have raised the quality of their songwriting…
([{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! 
3.05pm
27 March 2015
Offline And besides, it’s not like we didn’t already know that. I’ve read the same thing in a different interview a while ago. But hey, nuance doesn’t sell. 
Formerly Known As JPM-Fangirl -- 2016
'Out There' - 07-06-2015 - Ziggo Dome Amsterdam -- 'One On One' - 12-06-2016 - Pinkpop Festival Landgraaf
3.18pm
Moderators
Members
Reviewers
20 August 2013
Offline ^ I know, right? Even I, who just got into The Beatles in 2013, know the story well.
Can buy Joe love! Amazon | iTunes
Check here for "how do I do this" guide to the forum. (2017) (2018)
4.11pm
27 March 2015
Offline I wonder what their headlines will be if they ever find out John and Paul actually tossed loads of lyrics in the bin because they weren’t good enough by their standards. 
The following people thank Mademoiselle Kitty >^..^< for this post:
Ahhh GirlFormerly Known As JPM-Fangirl -- 2016
'Out There' - 07-06-2015 - Ziggo Dome Amsterdam -- 'One On One' - 12-06-2016 - Pinkpop Festival Landgraaf
4.30pm
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline That did, sort of, happen, @Mademoiselle Kitty >^..^<. John and Paul in the early days wrote all their lyrics in exercise books. They were in Paul’s possession, until his housekeeper threw them out in around 1967 thinking they were rubbish (not the lyrics, she just thought they’d been left out to be thrown away). And, with that, many of their earliest songs were lost forever. Just the few they could remember survive.
"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
4.46pm
Moderators
Members
Reviewers
20 August 2013
Offline That is true. Paul sucks.
Can buy Joe love! Amazon | iTunes
Check here for "how do I do this" guide to the forum. (2017) (2018)
6.10am
27 April 2015
Offline Ron Nasty said
That did, sort of, happen, @Mademoiselle Kitty >^..^<. John and Paul in the early days wrote all their lyrics in exercise books. They were in Paul’s possession, until his housekeeper threw them out in around 1967 thinking they were rubbish (not the lyrics, she just thought they’d been left out to be thrown away). And, with that, many of their earliest songs were lost forever. Just the few they could remember survive.
I read it somewhere that it was actually Jane Asher that threw them away thinking it was nothing important, while cleaning their house.
EDIT: I read it right here, on this website
For tomorrow may rain, so I'll follow the Sun
3 Guest(s)