Ah, The publishers of Rolling Stone, the once relevant musical magazine, that is now as irrelevant and insignificant piece of pop culture trash has in its Rock and Roll section page 19 an article on the latest McCartney-Ono feud.
If anybody has read this declining and morally bankrupt publication, it's a sad and cruel shell of its former greatness. It's clearly been outpaced by the more hard-hitting Mojo, the more punchier Q, and the easily more relevant VIBE, Source, etc.
As usual, Rolling Stone is published by Jann Wenner a notoriously shady and immoral business character. Wenner's objectivity needs to be called on since he is a personal friend of Yoko Ono and the notoriously slimy and swarmy Eliot Mintz. Of course, the article is a bit one-sided in Yoko's favor as most of Wenner's pieces are. Jann Wenner of course is the same horrid human being who left his wife and three children to move into a cozy little penthouse suite with a Calvin Klein fashion model - a male model i might add. This is the same moral character who put Al Gore on the cover of his magazine and endorsed him for PResident because of his morals and high family values. What a joke! So, i just call into question the credibility of a magazine that has such a pro-Lennon slant.
I was surprised to see that the normally rationale and ubitiquous Geoff Baker was only quoted once and that was "Paul and John agreed to switch the name around in the 60's". I always thought Paul said they agreed at the end to do "Lennon-McCartney" cause it sounded better.
The article contains a box calling into question the sole authorship of Eleanor Rigby. It says McCartney has said Rigby is entirely his while Lennon partisians like Mintz and Sheff (who by the way weren't even in the room with Macca and Lennon) maintain that John admitted to writing most of the lyrics. My view is without question Paul wrote Rigby (Paul doesn't fabricate song authorship and he is the one still alive in the room). John Lennon was a notorious fabricator of half-truths in his interviews and was prone to exaggeration for example the following quotes from Lennon we later learned was false (I never picked up a guitar for five years as a house-husband - that's a lie, We jammed with Elvis and it was recorded - a lie). So many others. If i was analyzing their comments, i would say Mintz and Sheff have little credibility and continue to be the dupes that they are - they are typical of Yoko's army of as-s kisser's who are ought to back up her usually inane comments.
The only thing that i think is unsettling to most Beatle fans and i think is a bit petty remains the fact that that Paul through John Eastman wanted "blackird", "Get back", and "Hey Jude" credited solely to him. The other Beatles and Yoko unanimously refused. I find that to be totally wrong and would be surprised how Paul and Eastman could be so forceful in such a senstitive topic.
I still think Paul is wrong for switching the song titles. But, i really think journalistically - this article is a sad, slamming of Paul's character that is unwarranted and just not true.