Hey Paul, you asshole!

[Guest Incandenza]

I cherish any reason to use a Dead Milkmen quote.

 

Paul McCartney has sparked another Beatles feud with the release of his live album, Back in the U.S.. Against the wishes of John Lennon's widow, Yoko Ono, the nineteen Beatles songs included on the two-disc set are credited to "Paul McCartney and John Lennon" rather than the traditional "Lennon/McCartney."

"What he did was absolutely inappropriate," says Ono's lawyer, Peter Shukat. "John and Paul had an agreement. This is very petty." Adds Ono, "John and Paul often disagreed on which songs were written by whom. If John was here now, they could fight it out, or maybe they could never agree. But the important point is that John has to be here. He is not."

 

Ono says Lennon and McCartney decided to credit all of their Beatles music to Lennon/McCartney almost forty years ago. McCartney disputes that claim. He would not comment for this story, but his spokesman, Geoff Baker, says that the two Beatles "had agreed in the Sixties that they could switch the names whenever they felt like it." (McCartney first made this claim in the Beatles' Anthology book, published in 2000, twenty years after Lennon's death.)

 

McCartney's contract with Capitol gives him control over the wording of the credits on his solo albums. In fact, five Beatles songs on his 1976 Wings Over America live album are credited to McCartney/Lennon. But for releases on the Beatle's Apple label, the surviving band members or their estates would have to unanimously approve any change to the credits.

 

This is precisely why the battle over who wrote what heated up in 1996, when the CD booklet for the Anthology 3 album was being written. McCartney's lawyer and brother-in-law, John Eastman, demanded that eighteen songs -- including "Blackbird," "Get Back" and "Hey Jude" -- be credited solely to McCartney, with Lennon's name omitted entirely. But George Harrison, Ringo Starr and Ono unanimously refused McCartney's bid, and Eastman later wrote a letter apologizing for his "zeal" and claiming he had acted "without Paul McCartney's instructions."

 

Writer David Sheff, who conducted a 1980 Q&A with Lennon for Playboy magazine, says the battle over authorship amounts to more than a spat between McCartney and Yoko. "Paul is rewriting history," says Sheff, who spoke with Lennon at length about how each Beatles song was written, including "Eleanor Rigby." Says Sheff, "There's something about 'Lennon/McCartney' that means more than just whose name comes first. For Beatles fans, this switch dishonors something that is cherished by so many people."

 

In an interview with Rolling Stone last year, McCartney revealed that the real sore spot may have been a decades-old bruise to his ego. "The minute John died, there started to be a revisionism," he said. "There were strange quotes, like, 'John was the only one in the Beatles.' Or 'Paul booked the studio.' Like John was the real genius, and I was just the guy who sang 'Yesterday.'"

 

Ono says that McCartney might be doing his own legacy more harm than good by trying to take credit for these nineteen songs. "If those songs are credited to McCartney/Lennon, and the rest of the 200 or so are credited to Lennon/McCartney, people may think that Paul wrote those songs and John wrote the rest," she says. "When the suggestion was first made by Paul, I said, 'This is like opening a Pandora's box, Paul. Don't do it.' I still stand by that statement."

 

Credit: Rolling "In spite of how terribly out of touch we are, we're still desperately trying to appeal to today's youth" Stone

[Guest Spaceman Spiff]

are credited to "Paul McCartney and John Lennon" rather than the traditional "Lennon/McCartney."

IMO, I don't see what the big deal is. Both names are credited. Although, I could see how people might think that the 1st person listed would be more important in the song-writing process. If it was me, I wouldn't care if my name was listed 1st or 2nd.

[Guest ShooterJay]

Yeah, it seems like a really petty thing to fight over.

 

Yoko is a glorified groupie bitch, Paul can be an asshole.

 

Ringo and George are/were the cool Beatles.

[Guest Nevermortal]

Who the fuck cares how they're credited. They're still good songs, no matter who does them.

 

Except for Godhead's Eleanor Rigby. That's the worst fucking song ever.

[B. Brian Brunzell 0]

Fuck Yoko Ono and fuck John Lennon.

[Guest The Man in Blak]

Who the fuck cares how they're credited. They're still good songs, no matter who does them.

 

Except for Godhead's Eleanor Rigby. That's the worst fucking song ever.

Well, there's always Our Lady Peace's atrocious attempt at "Tomorrow Never Knows"...though the Godhead track is easily one of the worst covers I've ever heard.

 

I'm not sure what all the hatred on John is for here, but both Paul and Yoko are acting like retarded children, fighting over which hat to shit in. It's trivial enough that Paul shouldn't have even bothered with switching it, and it's trivial enough that Yoko shouldn't have even bothered with litigation.

[Guest Incandenza]

fuck John Lennon.

WHAT?

 

This is a silly, trivial matter, but fuck Paul McCartney for being a whiny bitch AND producing godawful music for the past three decades (and, yes, Ono's being stupid in this, too). One could argue over who the real talent of the Beatles were, but that's beside the point. Lennon has nothing to do with the bullshit going on now, and he was a better solo artist to boot.

[Guest bob_barron]

Eh- I don't see a problem with what McCartney did but both are acting real petty here.

 

B. Brian- why the Lennon hate?

[Guest spiny norman]

Incandenza, what's with the McCartney hate!?

 

Paul's solo stuff was by no means better than John's, but I wouldn't say godawful music (well, except Freedom and Vanilla Sky, but he's old now). Surely you like some of his songs? Maybe I'm Amazed is definitely one of my faves.

 

As for this Lennon/McCartney McCartney/Lennon fiasco, well, who cares?

[Guest Incandenza]

Feh. At his best, McCartney's post-Beatles work is agressively bland pop fluff. At his worst, well....

[Guest Kinetic]

"Live and Let Die" is pretty good.

[Guest Lethargic]

The real question is why would anybody WANT their names to be credited to those songs?

[Guest spiny norman]

Cause they're the best songs in the world?

[Guest Kinetic]

They're also worth a pretty ridiculous amount of money. I'd take the rights to all Lennon/McCartney compositions if someone offered it to me.

[Guest bob_barron]

Doesn't Michael Jackson own the rights?

[Guest Kinetic]

I think he did. When he ran into some legal trouble, McCartney & Co. bought them back.

[Guest Ozymandias]

Kinetic: Please be telling the truth. If you're joking I'll fucking kill you for getting me that excited.

 

Anywho, this means nothing. If John didn't raise a fuss about Paul doing it in 76, then I doubt he'd give a shit if he was still with us. Plus, Paul is always thought of as secondary to John (he is, but that's another topic) even though he wrote just as many hit songs. So why not let him have this one?

[Guest Lethargic]

They're also worth a pretty ridiculous amount of money. I'd take the rights to all Lennon/McCartney compositions if someone offered it to me.

Yeah but you could at least hide it and just collect the money. You don't have to make a big deal about it. I sure as hell wouldn't want it known that I had anything to do with those horrible songs.

[Guest bob_barron]

You don't like the Beatles???

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

I'm pretty indifferent to them.

 

They've got a few songs I like, and I can easily see why so many people consider them the best band ever, it's just not something I'm really into at all.

[B. Brian Brunzell 0]

I think Lennon is incredibly overrated. His solo work was nothing spectacular. Nothing visionary about it, I think. The only Lennon tune I can get down on is "Instant Karma." I'd much rather listen to McCartney than Lennon. I enjoy his voice more, the structure of his songs is better, and he had a better backing band, well, except or Linda.

 

As for The BEatles, I'm pretty indifferent as well. I don't like any of the stuff from what, 1963-1965. The better stuff comes around Rubber Soul, which was 1966(coret me if I'm wrong). That's when i thought Harrison and McCartney realy started to wite classic songs("While MY Guitar Gently Weeps" is one of the finest tracks I've ever heard).

 

Of course, I prefer Harrison over all of the solo Beatles.

[Guest Lethargic]

You don't like the Beatles???

I only like them when they get shot, stabbed and/or die.

[Guest godthedog]

You don't like the Beatles???

I only like them when they get shot, stabbed and/or die.

oh the hilarity. my sides hurt just from thinking about the comic possibilities of somebody who's glad when one of the beatles dies.

[Guest bob_barron]

Wow- maybe you could've given actual reasons for not liking the beatles instead of trying and i stress trying to be funny

[Guest godthedog]

I think Lennon is incredibly overrated. His solo work was nothing spectacular. Nothing visionary about it, I think. The only Lennon tune I can get down on is "Instant Karma." I'd much rather listen to McCartney than Lennon. I enjoy his voice more, the structure of his songs is better, and he had a better backing band, well, except or Linda.

judging from this, you haven't heard 'plastic ono band', cause that refutes all these claims. it was a visionary work of total originality with some of the best lyrics ever written by anyone, he does some rather cool experimenting with song structure (especially on 'god'), and his backup band is awesome, with klaus voorman, billy preston and RINGO! i think harrison contributes on a track or 2 as well.

As for The BEatles, I'm pretty indifferent as well. I don't like any of the stuff from what, 1963-1965. The better stuff comes around Rubber Soul, which was 1966(coret me if I'm wrong). That's when i thought Harrison and McCartney realy started to wite classic songs("While MY Guitar Gently Weeps" is one of the finest tracks I've ever heard).

it was 65 actually, but close enough. strange that you talk about mccartney & harrison starting to write great songs with 'rubber soul' but don't talk about lennon, who made the biggest leap of all of them. 'nowhere man' was the first beatles song to not have the "boy meets girl" formula, and 'norwegian wood' took the formula & turned it on end.

 

Of course, I prefer Harrison over all of the solo Beatles.

yeah, harrison was always my favorite too. i cried when he died.

[B. Brian Brunzell 0]

"Norwegian Wood" is pure brilliance.

 

I have heard Plastic Ono, and it just doesn't do it for me. I just can't get into it.

[Guest Incandenza]

I thought a great deal of Plastic Ono Band.

 

OMG!!!!!!!!!!11 CHEAP PLUG~!

[Guest raptor]

Well, there's always Our Lady Peace's atrocious attempt at "Tomorrow Never Knows"

TAKE IT BACK! TAKE IT BACK!

 

Ahem... I actually really love that song. Why do you think it's so bad?

[Guest godthedog]

I thought a great deal of Plastic Ono Band.

 

OMG!!!!!!!!!!11 CHEAP PLUG~!

OH MY GOD...THAT ARTICLE WAS BOTH BEAUTIFULLY WRITTEN AND INSIGHTFUL! I WONDER WHERE I MAY READ OTHERS LIKE IT?

[Guest saturnmark4life]

why can't you not like the beatles? Hell i have nothing against them, but it's not something i listen to all the time. Like nirvana. I think they're ok, but they don't grab me. Nothing wrong with that. Oh and Incandenza, wasn't Gibby Haynes (butthole surfers) in the dead milkmen? or am i just being random and stuff?