Paul in the New issue of Rolling stone

[Chris Speers]

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.

[Chris Speers]

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.

[Aujouret]

colourful, Chris: "slimy and swarmy" old Elliot Mintz
why do you care about Jon Wiennie's sex life?!
I agree with most of your post about RS. It's all bubblegum pop like all the garbage music out there nowadays.
Yoko is bluffing about "possible legal action".
She can't be that stupid.

[Chris Speers]

When he uses his publications to press family values as an issue in a Presidential campaign, it strikes me as not only hypocritical but comical. Jann Wenner is the same slimeball who banned Macca from the Rock N Roll Hall of fame for all those years - he is the same sleazeball who has pressed an anti-Paul bias in his magazine for years. Wenner and Rolling Stone is a propaganda tool for Yoko's mouthpieces.

In terms of its policial commentary and social activism, Rolling Stone and its publisher makes me sick - Jann Wenner is not only an immoral cheat and a bullying presence in rock n roll affairs - he produces a lousy magazine.

[shinestar]

Actually, he's pro ONO, not Lennon. God only knows why. And again, for the umpteenth time, I say neither Paul nor Yoko own the rights to The Beatles catalog - remember? Therefore, neither can take legal action against the other. Only Sony and MJ can do that and I don't think they care as long as the money keeps rolling in, which is does and probably will into perpetuity.

I do agree, however, that RS is not what it once was, although I think the decline is more recent than '75. They used to be nice to Paul once upon a time. I don't know when or why this changed but it's an interesting question, for sure. Wenner was always a conceited slimeball, fyi, from the get-go. Mintz has only been around since John was a house-husband, btw.

[Chris Speers]

Cameron Crowe is a RS apologist. I don't think Crowe is a complete film-maker like Scoresese or Spielberg in the sense that he can't write realistic dialogue or have a movie tell a story. Every one of his movies lacks decent dialogue and what he winds up doign is inserting music into the script as a way to try to tell the story. Example, in "Say Anything" - he had a character in a climatic scene hold a boom-box over his head. Typical Crowe - he can't write dialogue so he reverts to music-video.

I liked Jerry Maguire - it was ok. But, his most recent film about the groupies and rock stars was horrid - half-baked script, incomplete acting, and a lead character who couldn't act to save his life. A romantic love letter to Rolling Stone magazine and a movie totally devoted to the 70's but without the original music. Yawn.

If you're into films - gimmee Spielberg, Scoresese, Soderberg, Jim Cameron - they have intelligence, maturity, and depth - leave Cameron Crowe and his wide-eyed innocense and his incomplete scripts back at Rolling Stone.

[Ram1]

Huh? Crowe can't write realistic dialogue or tell a story? What about 'Almost Famous'?? I believe that's what you were referring to with the "groupies and rock stars." No realistic dialogue? That movie was loosely based on his own life, man. I don't see how it was a "love letter" to RS. It's what actually happened. He was telling his story.

[maccastheman]

Back to Jann Wenner - I remember reading an interview he did with Mick Jaggar a few years ago. He kept pressing the "How did you feel toward John Lennon? - you were the clear leader of one band and he was the clear leader of another" point.
Jaggar kept saying, "Well, I'm in a partnership so I don't know what you are saying." Wenner kept on pressing the point. Eventually Jaggar just started laughing at him. Wenner and the Rock and Roll hall of fame are a scam. I'm glad Bowie boycotted his own induction. I wish others would.

[maccastheman]

As for Cameron Crowe - His films are alright, but not spectacular. He does have good taste in music, however.