More Macca Madness...

[wraub]

So, I see in Rolling Stone (yeah, I know, but I still read it...) that Sir Paul is apparently trying to change the writing credits for "Eleanor Rigby" from Lennon/McCartney to McCartney/Lennon. Just seems kind of cheap and sneaky, IMO. I am not trying to start another anti-Paul thing here, just found this a little...odd, maybe. Comments? Peace, wraub

[Bunny Knutson]

How is that cheap and sneaky? He penned that song entirely by himself. It's not like he is trying to get Lennon's name [i]removed[/i] from the credits, even though it doesn't really belong there, anyway.

[wraub]

[quote]Originally posted by dBunny: [b]How is that cheap and sneaky? He penned that song entirely by himself. It's not like he is trying to get Lennon's name [i]removed[/i] from the credits, even though it doesn't really belong there, anyway.[/b][/quote]It's cheap and sneaky like this... By his own admission, Paul says: "John helped me on a few words, but it came down 80-20 to me." Not exactly "entirely by himself", as you say. And then this, from J. Lennon, in a 1980 Playboy interview: "The first verse was his, and the rest are basically mine...I finally went off to a room with Paul and we finished the song. Who said what to whom as we were writing, I don't know. I do know George Harrison was there when we came up with 'Ah, look at all the lonely people.'" So not only does Lennon's name belong there, in spite of what you say, but apparently, so does Harrison's. Again, nothing against McCartney as an artist, just seems a little petty and weird, is all. Peace, wraub

[Lee Flier]

Yeah, I read about this and I agree, it's pretty stupid and petty. John and Paul agreed early on that everything would be credited as "Lennon/McCartney" and if Paul wants to change that now, it sucks because John's not around to discuss it with him. Anybody who actually cares who wrote what, can find that information easily in the Lennon Playboy interview or McCartney's official bio. Amazingly enough, the two of them disagreed on who wrote what, on only TWO songs - "Eleanor Rigby" being one of them. So, real fans can easily find out how the songs were written and nobody else cares, they just listen to the bloody songs (or not). This does seem like a cheap shot to me.

[Jotown]

It is well documented by both Beatles that towards the end of the Beatles they pretty much weren't collaborating as much, yet they still shared writing credit. I read in a McCartney interview that the motivation came from an several incidents where he noticed in fake books and even published sheet music, that the songwriting credit only listed Lennon because there either wasn't room for both names or they just listed it as Lennon. There is also an article somewhere that lists who wrote what, based on separate interviews of the two Beatles. Lennon and McCartney agreed on all but two songs, neither of which were Eleanor Rigby, or Yesterday. They made their songwriting deal when they were fourteen/fifteen years old. That he only wants to change the order of credit on two songs of the vast Beatles catalog, to me is not much to ask. I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on this. And for the record, Yoko Ono is who is saying no to his request, not John Lennon.

[Kaz]

McCartney has been talking about changing the credit around for Yesterday for a while, but Yoko keeps saying no. So he goes and does it without permission. Why McCartney seems intent on this is certainly interesting, but I'm guessing there's more to it then meets the eye, in the world of business and millions and billions of pounds and dollars they live in... As far as Lennon goes, I imagine he doesn't give a shit.

[Kaz]

One song they disagree on is In My Life, McCartney says he wrote the melody, Lennon said he did, though McCartney wrote the middle eight. Not sure what he meant by middle eight in that song, though.

[Bunny Knutson]

Whoops, my bad. I was thinking of "Yesterday" not "Eleanor Rigby." Anyway, it doesn't bug me at all if Sir Paul wants to get proper credit, as long as he doesn't mind Yoko doing the same thing with John's songs.

[Anderton]

I believe Paul is under the delusion that someone actually cares about this. Quick -- if I ask you to identify Eleanor Rigby, wouldn't you identify it as a Beatles tune? And frankly, where would it have been without George Martin's string arrangements? Besides, we all know it was David Lee Roth who wrote that tune, but couldn't use his name for contractual reasons.

[Kaz]

[quote]Originally posted by Anderton: [b]And frankly, where would it have been without George Martin's string arrangements? [/b][/quote]It would be considered a great, great song. (Great arrangement, for sure.)

[BP3]

Is Macca the long lost british brother of Tom Petty?

[Rim]

[quote]Originally posted by zork: [b]One song they disagree on is In My Life, McCartney says he wrote the melody, Lennon said he did, though McCartney wrote the middle eight. Not sure what he meant by middle eight in that song, though.[/b][/quote]The middle eight is the part that starts, "Woke up, got out of bed, dragged a comb across my head ..." which Sir Paul did write. I thought Sir John wrote everything else, though.

[Gtoledo3]

[quote]Originally posted by Chestnuts riffing on an open fire: [b] [quote]Originally posted by zork: [b]One song they disagree on is In My Life, McCartney says he wrote the melody, Lennon said he did, though McCartney wrote the middle eight. Not sure what he meant by middle eight in that song, though.[/b][/quote]The middle eight is the part that starts, "Woke up, got out of bed, dragged a comb across my head ..." which Sir Paul did write. I thought Sir John wrote everything else, though.[/b][/quote]Maybe you're thinking of "A Day In The Life"?

[Rim]

Oh yeah. Bad Beatle fan! I need to be spanked for that one. Where's Ashley? :)

[Bob Keelan]

Who knows what motivates a billionaire? Seems pretty trivial from here. Kinda like changing a song to read "Hammerstein & Rodgers". bob

[LiveMusic]

He's a billionaire; doesn't need any more money. Couldn't possibly spend his. Nor his kids or grandkids. It's something deep. Something very deep. He seems to be such a caring person. It's gotta be something really heavy on his mind. Something's really stuck in his craw. Maybe Yoko fits in somehow but I can't seen Mccaa doing anything to harm Lennon's memory just to piss off Yoko. There's more to it. Seems like I recall reading that he wasn't making any big deal about anything but a couple, which he said DID matter.

[gtrmac]

Maybe he feels that the credit should reflect his contribution on those songs that he conceived on his own. All the Lennon/McCartney songs will probably live forever so it might be posterity that he is interested in. It's hard to imagine how I would feel about something like this. Many of us react emotionally because we idolise Lennon but remember that to McCartney he's just a guy that he worked with. Someone that I know said that this topic was brought up at a dinner that they attended at Yoko Ono's house and she said that Ono exploded in a rage at the suggestion. The party actually ended and McCartney left in a hurry. I think Paul should give it up, Ono will never agree to changing the credits IMO.

[fantasticsound]

Perhaps, with the passing of his first wife, Linda, and of George Harrison by disease (as opposed to the unpredictable crazy, shooting John) has made Paul face his mortality. That, and the fact that so many here (and I can only assume many in media, etc.) have dismissed Paul as insignificant and sappy may have him yearning for proper credit on several masterpieces that were primarily his inspiration. It must be difficult to be the living legend in the shadow of the tragic, martyred legend of John Lennon. I may get flamed here, but one could make the arguement that Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, etc. would not have been legends had they lived, though they were gifted musicians. Why is it so hard to understand why Paul might want history to remember his most poignant writing as [i]his[/i], and not an extension of the tragically dead legend he collaborated with? Thing is, your problems are your own. And Paul's troubles are his, not yours. If it's not a big deal, why are there so many people telling him to let it alone? Seems to be important to a LOT of people. My opinion. YMMV.

[D. Gauss]

rosebud........ -d. gauss

[Philip OKeefe]

If I was in Macca's shoes, I'd just leave it Lennon / McCartney. To do otherwise just makes him look petty to most people. But OTOH, John was always more outspoken regarding who did what with the Beatles insofar as writing... and some of his recolections (such as the Eleanor Rigby comments made above, which have been contradicted by Ringo, George, Paul and others who were there when the song was being worked on...) were apparently mistaken. But then again, Paul says he had a significant input to "In My Life", and maybe he did - but to my ears, it sounds like it's mostly John in style, lyrics and approach. These two songs have been the ones that Lennon and McCartney have had the greatest disagreement over "who did what" insofar as composition and lyrics. For the most part though, their accounts have been surprisingly similar, especially when you consider their rivalry and the fact that it's been a LONG time since those events transpired. I'll probably tick a few of you off (which isn't my intention), but IMO, as much as I love John, I think his untimely demise has definitely been hard on Paul - not only from a personal perspective (losing a friend and former partner), but also because a lot of us have placed John on this HUGE pedestal (which he wouldn't have favored anyway), and have blown him up to nearly mythical proportions - while oftentimes discounting Paul's significant contributions. Paul without John can be good, and John without Paul was sometimes good, but the two together drove and encouraged each other, and tended to tame the furthest excesses that the other could sometimes exhibit, and the result was something that either one very rarely ever managed to achieve on their own. Right now, because John is gone, we tend to remember his greatness, and sometimes at Paul's expense. After Paul's gone, I think it will all tend to balance out. Here's hoping that doesn't happen for a LONG time.