Paul "rewrites history?" | Page 3 | Fab Forum | The Beatles Bible

I like the Jane Asher one better. Makes for a better story.

Sheepdog said
The problem with Paul McCartney was that he was so incredibly talented that he doesn’t come across as human, so to speak. Take his voice, for example. I cannot sing many of his songs because he goes too high or too low for my range, which got very frustrating. John Lennon , however, had the same vocal range as I have, so I can handle any of his songs (except the part in Happiness Is A Warm Gun ). 

Another thing that is not helping Paul’s image is the year of 1967. It started with John writing Strawberry Fields Forever , and Paul tried to one-up him, but he only managed to write Penny Lane . I understand anyone who thinks it is a great song, certainly it has a way of moving from happy go lucky to solitary and back again, but it is not nearly as personal or powerful as SFF. The next thing to happen in 67 was Sgt. Pepper . Paul McCartney was the leader of the band, it is undeniable. The only problem is that the two best songs on the album are usually seen as John Lennon songs. Sadly, Paul’s best moment on the album, IMHO, was his vocal on the opening track. His section on A Day In The Life would not have been a great song if it had to stand on its own. It is the hype that surrounds it in that the listener knows something incredible is about to happen. For LSD, John Lennon sings the lead vocals, so everyone assumes he wrote the entire song, no matter what Paul claimed in the ’80s. Moving onto MMT, Paul has an idea for a single in All Together Now , but John has All You Need Is Love , and it gets played as a “live” performance on TV, as well as taking the A side of the single. Paul finally gets his chance for an A side to show his abilities as a songwriter to the public. This time, he writes a catchy ballad called Hello, Goodbye . Sadly, John has I Am The Walrus , and, even though Paul wins the battle for the A side, the rest of the band totally sabotaged him in the recording of the promotional film. Clearly, Paul was the only one who enjoyed himself on the video, and the viewer is bound to think, “Paul must have forced this one on the band”. On the other hand, I Am The Walrus got an awesome promotional clip, and the viewer is back to thinking he is watching the happy Beatles performing, once again, a John Lennon song. 

Well, I could go through everything that happened in 68 and 69, but I am sure you already know the story: John writes deep, personal songs that connect to the listener while Paul just can’t get away from silly pop songs. The one time Paul got it right was Hey Jude . I used to think Oh! Darling was a legitimate, heart felt love song. I thought that until I found out it took him a week to get his vocal sound just right. It was a dead giveaway: it’s just a sound. Compare it to Don’t Let Me Down . IMO, I can hear the pain and weight in John’s voice, and it comes through in every version of it I’ve heard: the single, the rooftop, and several rehearsals. He didn’t have to get his voice “just right” because he truly meant it. 

Anyway, I should stop. I honestly wish I didn’t know everything I just typed, because then I would love both John and Paul as equals. If you disagree with me, I respect your opinion. The fact is that a lot of people see John Lennon as greater than Paul McCartney , so they are going to have a hard time with him making claims that seem out of line. Now that I think of it, this whole comment could be moved to a more appropriate thread, because I think it would help McCartney fans understand where many John Lennon fans come from. 

Peace. 

I don’t agree with all of this but you make some good points fellow Bulldogger.

I think Paul feels John gets a tiny bit more credit than he deserves for some of their collaborations and Paul himself a little less than he warrants.

Over my time on this board I’ve come to appreciate Paul, George and Ringo more…….and even though I’m a John man thru and thru…..My respect for John has diminished somewhat……… I think that puts me closer to what was the reality.

OK Cricket’s on gotta go.

Sheepdog said
Wow, I didn’t expect so many replies. I kind of just started typing and then realized I’d been at it for an hour already. 

Maybe “doesn’t come across as human” could have been said better. Think of it this way. There is a hard working genius in the band that has a bit of an ego. At first he works with them as a team but gradually he becomes more and more independent. Soon we have some really good songs (maybe even great) that have him playing the majority of the instruments. Eventually people are going to think, “wasn’t George the lead guitarist of this band? Can’t Paul let us hear him play?”, etc. Now, when Paul says anything to indicate he did even more for the Beatles, it will inevitably rub some the wrong way. It doesn’t really bother me, but it makes sense if it would for others. 

Basically, the 67 paragraph means that Paul’s luck almost always failed him. He was the hardest working, most dedicated Beatle by far, but their output still tells most people that John was the leader of the band even though it was Paul. It also doesn’t help that John started the band and his name is first on the songwriting partnership. When Paul tries to set the record straight, most people already have the opinion that John was the creative force and that Paul is just trying to get credit for too much. 

I still don’t agree with you.

All Beatles had/have an ego; not just Paul. Don’t forget that when they had their first recording session at Abbey Road , They were just 19 (George), 20 (Pete and Paul, technically 19, but who cares about a few days) and 21 (John and Ringo) years old. Every 20-something lad that’s being adored by thousands of screaming teens wherever they go will develop an ego. There’s nothing wrong with that.

You make it sound like it was Paul’s idea to change instruments, but they did that regularly; always have. George played lead on most songs, so there’s hardly any justification in saying “why can’t Paul let George play lead”. Besides, have you ever considered that they may have enjoyed changing it up a bit, or that they wanted to give Paul the chance to show he was great at playing guitar too? After all, bass was not his instrument of choice to begin with and had he not been a lefty, he may never have become the bassist in the first place. It was fairly easy for John and George to argue Paul should take Stu’s place, because Paul didn’t have a guitar on hand when Stu left. Had Paul been right-handed, they couldn’t have used the argument of not wanting their guitars restrung, and it may as well have been up to George to pick up the bass. We’ll never know.

What I really don’t get is the idea that Paul shouldn’t ay what he did for the band. Why on Earth should he diminish his role? He did do a lot, and he deserves to be recognised for it. If it rubs people the wrong way when they learn how many instruments he can and did play, or what he contributed to the Beatles catalog, then that’s their problem, not Paul’s. 

Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Paul have by far the most songs on the later albums, and most A-sides too? I wouldn’t call that bad luck. He wrote some of the Beatles’ biggest hits in those days. 

I will agree with you on your last point. People do tend to think John =/= the Beatles, and Paul does receive a lot of flak for trying to set the records straight. It’s been that way for a long time, and I think it’s very unfair. Alas, many people only see black and white. Thus, John becomes the hero, and Paul the villain, though both were neither.