Ringo:Mc-Len writing credits in Rolling Stone

by **Steve-o** » Sat Mar 29, 2003 6:10 am

In the latest Rolling Stone issue:

RS: How do you feel about Paul reversing the L-M writing credits on "Back in the US"

Ringo: I think the way he did it was underhanded. He's wanted to do it for years. I'm not going to tell you his reasons; he'll tell you them. I thought he should have done it officially with Yoko. But he didn't. It was the wrong way to go about it.

Sorry Ritchie...I respectfully disagree. Does he actually think that Macca had not tried to bring the issue to Yoko in the past?

He makes a few other comments about Paul NOT being on the fringe. He says John WAS the fringe. Interesting comments.

by **Brains** » Sat Mar 29, 2003 9:00 am

Slang slang slang...

Underhanded? 'On the fringe'? What does that all mean?

by **Steve-o** » Sat Mar 29, 2003 10:21 am

Not slang---they both are in the dictionary:

un·der·hand
adjective

1. secret and dishonest: done secretively and dishonestly or with the intention to deceive or cheat somebody

fringe [ frinj ]
noun

3. outer limit: the outer edge or something considered to be on the outer edge and not central to an activity, interest, or issue ( often used in the plural ) outposts on the fringes of civilization

Ringo was talking about John being more inventive etc.

by **Brains** » Sat Mar 29, 2003 11:31 am

Ah.

Why does our nice Ringo do that? Quoted incorrectly? It doesn't seem like a Ringo-peace-keeping thing to say...

by **Steve-o** » Sat Mar 29, 2003 12:40 pm

I'm not sure. The verbage sounds Ringo-esque. It was an interview with Q & A's. There always is the fear of Macca-bashing and misquoting when it comes to Rolling Stone. You never know. Who knows what they left out of Ringo's comments. BY just changing a few words, they can twist anything. He might have said "Some" instead of "I" at the beginning of the first sentence.

by **maccastheman** » Sun Mar 30, 2003 2:11 pm

Very true. I don't trust Rolling Stone when it comes to covering Macca. Jann Wenner definitely has something against him. Hell, most rock critics have something against him.
Ringo could have said a number of things, but quotes can easily be manipulated.

by **maccastheman** » Sun Mar 30, 2003 2:33 pm

Also, the laws make it much easier to manipulate quotes from famous people than non-famous people. (It's harder to prove libel if you are a public figure than a non-public figure, etc.)

I'm not saying for sure whether any of this happened or not, I'm just saying why I don't put much faith in a serious-rock-music-magazine-turned-People-magazine-wanna-be.

by **paja** » Sun Mar 30, 2003 2:56 pm

RS has become a joke,and I would like to see the whole interview complete,without editing,before I would believe it.[xx(]

by **Steve-o** » Sun Mar 30, 2003 3:03 pm

I believe that he expressed his opinion that Paul should have involved Yoko and that he should not have done it quite that way. I'm just not sure what he said right before and right after, or of his tone of voice. I think it was a crappy question to begin with. They asked two anti-Macca questions---the interview was supposed to be about Ringo's new album---they did get to that stuff later. I think Ringo gave his opinion--how strong his answer was, we will never know. I'm still on Macca's side on this issue. I suppose Ringo, more than most, is entitled to his opinion on the matter. I just disagree.

by **theDingle** » Sun Mar 30, 2003 4:13 pm

quote:Originally posted by stevew628
He makes a few other comments about Paul NOT being on the fringe. He says John WAS the fringe. I agree that RS is not that far removed from the gossip rags, and it does have a pronounced anti-Paul bias.

I say both Paul and John demonstrated their fringe tendencies when the muse struck. Why the palaver over who was the mostest? Although Paul seems to be the one who usually presses the issue, I've also read interviews (particularly the '80 Playboy interview) where John complained about always being stuck with the experimental cuts. Sounds like even they were confused on the facts! Who knows?

My one criticism of Miles' Paul-bio, Many Years From Now, is that while it does detail Paul's fringe contributions (which I enjoyed reading about), it does so at the expense of Paul's WINGS/post-WINGS history. I guess we'll just have to wait for some comprehensive info on Paul through the 80s/90s+. I hope it will be at least as good as Many Years From Now.

Ringo:Mc-Len writing credits in Rolling Stone

Ringo:Mc-Len writing credits in Rolling Stone

Who is online