Chris Speers wrote:I think i was trying to state why John had so much anger toward Paul. Why the business deal drove him to really have some nastiness toward him? Meaning Paul.
I don't think Paul deserved the anger. But, i don't think he is an innocent victim.
I have been a bit down on Paul , i suppose. I shouldn't be that. My issues with him remain his attempt to re-write the past. I still can't get over the Vanity Fair article and the Danny Fields book. Wow! Of course, i should try to be a little more positive since he is the only the greatest song-writer of all time[^][;)]
I'd like to ask how you know whether he's trying to rewrite the past, or set the record straight? If his statements are true, and he feels the need to make those statements because the public's general impressions are not consistent with the truth, isn't he justified? I certainly think so. I'm sure anyone in that situation would do exactly the same thing. I sure know I would.
Look at it like this: Someone mentioned that John accused Paul of "subconsciously sabotaging" his songs. First, this isn't just a story, it's a matter of public record. John filed a lawsuit (actually a counter-suit) alleging this. The suit alleged that Paul would micro-manage (my words) when doing one of his own songs, until the song was note-perfect, but when they were doing one of John's songs Paul would become casual and want to experiment.
Keep in mind John sued Paul over this... yet John is considered the "experimental" Beatle. How can one complain about the "air of experimentation" that would surround his songs, and simultaneously be the "experimental" Beatle? It doesn't make sense. Yet when Paul comes out and says that he pushed the Beatles to experiment, and he was the one that did this or did that, he's accused of rewriting the past. John never ventured very far away from standard guitar rock on any of his solo songs after the Beatles. Paul on the other hand touched everything from avant-garde to psychedelic to country on his solo songs. Why? Because these are their respective natural tendencies. I'm not saying one tendency is better than the other, in fact my opinion is that Paul's tendency to experiment (both with different genres and with different sounds) did not work as well on his solo recordings without the strong foundation Lennon's musical and lyrical tendencies seemed to provide.
So you know what I think? I think Paul McCartney was the experimental Beatle. I think Yoko Ono was the experimental Beatle. And I think John Lennon would have played guitar rock songs with few exceptions throughout the 60's without their influence. And I don't think it's a terrible thing for Paul to say so.