Sun claims Paul reversing Beatle song credits

[Steve-o]

Yep..have to STRONGLY disagree with that one, Chris.

[mr. kite]

Would he have done this if John is alive?

[Chris Speers]

Would he have done this if John was alive

A: The answer is no. Exactly. Also, there wouldn't be a debate about who wrote what and there wouldn't be a canonization of John Lennon either which created all of McCartney's insecurity.

Bottom line switching the names is an incredably crass and lame thing to do. When they were 16, they agreed to Lennon/McCartney each song - so deal with it. Be grateful that people think you co-wrote Strawberry Fields and Julia and I am Warlus when you didn't - so it evens out.

[Chris Speers]

No need to be rude about it, guy. Chill. While i think Paul is wrong, i don't think he's as evil as you say. Try not to project your negativity and misplaced anger on my post I think Paul is wrong - as wrong as ever on the credit switch - i hardly think he's as evil as you say. Crass and insenitive abolsutely - not he's not evil as you characterize.

[Mike]

In response to "The Man" as to if Paul would do this if John were alive, YES. In fact the only time he did do it was for Wings Over America.

Also, the Back in the US CD has come out in Japan already and apparently Beatle credits are McCartney/Lennon.

[maccafan]

I don't blame Paul one bit, after all the lies, myths, misconceptions, absolutely wrong album reviews, and lack of deserved credit I say go for it Paul and to hell with anyone who doesn't like it!!

[maccastheman]

quote:Originally posted by The Man


The most logical argument in the thread. I couldn't help but laugh at the string of blind sheep responses without a countering view. Sorry Chris, I have to disagree on that one. Sorry Chris I don't share your view on that one. Lame f*ckers.

Paul is one big egotisitcal p-r-i-c-k people. That's why the other Beatles couldn't stand the guy towards the end. Lennon was kicking Paul's arse until he hooked up with Yoko.


I think I was pretty rational when I explained why I had no problem with Paul's decision. You're the one doing all of the name-calling. Lennon was very good at that as well. [;)]

[maccastheman]

Also, that's a very good point Mike made. Another one is that John and Paul were uncertain from the beginning how they wanted their songwriting label to appear. They switched it around several times in the early years.

[scrodfish256]

It's not a big deal to me. It doesn't change the songs, It's writing on a piece of paper. Both of their names are credited on the songs,
It's paul's album he could do what he want. People are getting way to riled up over this. If john was alive and it was the other way around then oh well, it's his album, he could do what he wanted and I wouldn't care because the songs were still the same.

[Mike]

Woman of 'The Hours'

Yoko Ono has never been a member of the Paul McCartney Fan Club, but no one may be more eager than she to get a copy of his new CD.

According to record-business sources, McCartney wants to change the credit on several Beatles classics from "Lennon/McCartney" to "composed by Paul McCartney and John Lennon." The album, "Back in the U.S. Live 2002," features "Eleanor Rigby," "Let It Be" and "Hey Jude."

McCartney is said to have long resented seeing Lennon's name on some songs. Back when Capitol was assembling a collection of the Beatles' No. 1 hits, McCartney asked Ono if he could change the credit for "Yesterday."

Ono's spokesman, Elliot Mintz, recalls: "She said no, because that would violate the terms of Paul's original agreement with John."

But now, sources say, McCartney is pushing to get his way on his new album. A McCartney rep said he didn't know how the credits would read on the disk, which is due out Nov. 26.

The Beatles catalogue is owned by Sony ATV, the joint venture of Sony Music and Michael Jackson. One legal observer notes, "If Paul ignores the copyrighted credit, it's up to the owner of the song to take it up with him."

A Sony spokesman had no immediate comment on whether Sony ATV had authorized McCartney to switch the names.

But Mintz said, "For Paul to attempt to do this would be not only improper, but outrageous. John is not here to defend the authenticity of that agreement. It's up to Yoko to protect John's creative interests. She believes a deal's a deal."

Hair apparent