RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


Lennon/McCartney?(15 posts)

Lennon/McCartney?VertAddict
Dec 19, 2002 9:38 AM
So what's the opinion on Paul McCartney deciding his name should be first on the old Beatles songwriting credits? I'd like to know where people on the board stand on this one.

I don't have a really strong opinion on this, but I always feel a bit uncomfortable when someone makes a revision to history after their partner is gone. One example that definitely bothered me was Edmund Hillary suddenly claiming he was on top of Everest first, coincidentally the year after Tenzing Norgay died. This is after 40+ years of the two of them refusing to talk about who actually summitted first. I don't understand, why didn't it get brought up before?

To me, it seems to dishonor the one who has passed on, and I guess that's how I'd feel about Lennon/McCartney - if the arrangement was OK for all those years they were writing for the Beatles and all the years after that up until John Lennon died, why is it suddenly not OK now?

PS. I think I'm having trouble dealing with the shock of finding myself agreeing with Yoko Ono ;-)
What's this? More details please...eyebob
Dec 19, 2002 9:50 AM
did he come out and say that he wants all the credits changed or just the one's where he was the primary author? Does it matter since whacko Jacko owns the rights anyway? Don't get me started!!!!

BT
Here's a link...VertAddict
Dec 19, 2002 10:01 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2002/SHOWBIZ/Music/12/18/beatles.battle.ap/index.html
So he's really only done it on the latest album of songseyebob
Dec 19, 2002 11:15 AM
which he really is the primary author. Whatever. I think that the primary issue may actually be financial. Sounds like he's just protecting himself from further problems like the one he's having with Yoko where he doesn't care for her and thinks that she shouldn't be getting any bennies. It's similar to what any good attorney/accountant would suggest.

BT
pettymohair_chair
Dec 19, 2002 10:02 AM
Lennon and McCartney had an agreement about the credits, and Paul decided on his own to break it, but only on the songs he wrote. He's only done this on his latest album, where he can write whatever credits he wants. Everywhere else, for the rest of time, or maybe until Yoko Ono dies, the credit will still read Lennon/McCartney in spite Paul's wishes.

It think it's pretty pissy of Paul to do this 30 years later. I don't understand what the big deal is anyway. True fans of the Beatles know who did what, and most of the rest probably don't even care. Paul was always the one who got all pissy about their business dealings, and this seems to be a continuation of that.
Another reason to dislike McCartneymickey-mac
Dec 19, 2002 10:10 AM
In addition to all the schlocky music he has put out since the Beatles broke up.
You didn't like Band on the Run? Even just a little? NMeyebob
Dec 19, 2002 11:17 AM
Pretty pissy there, Paulie.OldEdScott
Dec 19, 2002 12:42 PM
And no, I did not like Band on the Run even a little. Wings was just ... awful.

To follow Paul's logic, since no one but him performed on Yesterday, it shouldn't be listed as being by the Beatles.

John got fed up with sharing credit too, but his response was to start writing new great songs under his own name only. He didn't go back and deconstruct the Beatles' past, saying 'OK, my name's first here, Paul's is first here.'

John always more talent, more edge and more class than Paul. I had thought Paul was coming around in recent years, although his songwriting is still naught but fluff without John. But now this. Too bad.
To be fair to Ed Hillary....Fr Ted Crilly
Dec 19, 2002 2:23 PM
... he only admitted that he was the first to reach the summit, (by a couple of metres), because of the almost constant questioning by journalists and the public in general even years after the event. It's obvious that both of them didn't step to the summit together at the exact same moment, and he was, I believe, just setting the facts out straight to those who wanted to know. He could have continued his silence on the matter, but does anyone really think that he gains any more credibility or recognition just because he got to the top a few seconds before Tenzing? I doubt if Ed Hillary does. It was a joint effort and history will rightfully recall Ed Hillary and Tenzing Norgay as the first to step onto the highest point on the planet.
The Tenzing/Edmund controversy (accent on 2nd syllable ;-)VertAddict
Dec 19, 2002 3:27 PM
I totally agree with your point that they reached the top virtually simultaneously, and it is only our western journalists/culture that seem obsessed with who set foot on it first by a couple of seconds. I just find it peculiar that after successfully deflecting those questions for over 40 years, he suddenly decides to come clean just after Tenzing died. There are so many other what if's anyway - it's very possible/likely that Tenzing was actually the stronger climber, could have reached the top first. But then, he wouldn't have been there at all in the first place without the British team and the good will of Edmund Hillary.

Apparently they had a gentleman's agreement not to talk, I guess I just don't understand why that changed when Tenzing died. Whatever the case, he's the one who climbed the mountain and got knighted by the Queen, not me.

One last note on getting there first - counterpoint would be that people remember Neil Armstrong's name for setting foot on the moon first, but who remembers Buzz Aldrin stepping out a few moments later (except for that Simpson's episode he did). And really, if Edmund truly was first by a few seconds, given the example I just cited, Tenzing owes him a debt of gratitude for not saying so, it's possible Tenzing might have been (relatively) marginalized the way Buzz was!

For me, I reserve the right not to take Edmund at his word. Not being satisfied with the explanation, for me it's an unsolved mystery, albeit one considerably less compelling than what actually happened with Mallory and Irvine!
The Tenzing/Edmund controversy (accent on 2nd syllable ;-)Fr Ted Crilly
Dec 19, 2002 4:05 PM
What bugs me at the moment is that TV advertisement for a Toyota SUV that has Ed Hillary saying a few words. In the captions it staes that he was the first to climb Everest - no mention of Tenzing here. This is kind of annoying because it's almost the first step to rewriting history and maybe it only came about because of Hillary finally stating that he was the first to set foot on the summit. With this in mind maybe it would have been better if he had kept quiet on the matter, but who am I to question his motives for saying what he has said.
From what I recall of Hillary's summit chapter in "The Ascent of Everest", he was the one who was cutting steps and leading most of the route on summit morning, and since this indicates that he was probably the stronger of the two, I believe that it's probably true that he did step on the summit a few seconds before Tenzing. I don't recall ever hearing that Tenzing questioned Hillary's account of the summit day, so why should you now question if he made it to the summit first? Besides, if it was Hillary's plan to get maximum exposure and recognition would he not have ensured that Tenzing was able to take a photo of him standing on the summit? There's only one famous summit shot from that day, and Ed Hillary isn't in it.
Now as for Mallory & Irving - nothing would give me greater excitement that if Irvine's body was found with a camera which proved they reached the summit back in 1924. That feat would put the 1953 success into a slightly different perspective.
Buzzmohair_chair
Dec 20, 2002 9:04 AM
I remember Buzz Aldrin, as do most people who were fascinated by the space program. If people don't remember Aldrin, they definitely don't know who Michael Collins was.

One thing that always bugs me is that very often, I'll see the classic shot below, and they'll identify it as Armstrong. It's not, it's Aldrin, which if the picture were bigger, you can easily tell by his name tag on the suit. You can see Armstrong reflected in the center of the visor, taking the picture. Aldrin is the guy in most of the pictures from that mission.

Buzz should have been firstTig
Dec 21, 2002 8:14 PM
Politics messed Aldrin over. Neal played the game better and had a more all-American name. All that is water under the bridge now though.

Armstrong was an a-hole who never listened to anyone. In Yeager's book he mentioned how Armstrong was told to not land on one of the lake beds in Yuma (later Edwards AFB) because it was still muddy after a rain. Armstrong ignored it and stuck his aircraft in the clay like an idiot. Too much of a hotrod even among test pilots.

Deke Slayton had a few hot airplanes in the hanger next to where we'd skydive from in a little airport called Spaceland. He loved to shoot the sh|t when he wasn't flying or playing with his toys. He was nice enough to never come right out and say it, but he believed Buzz should have stepped first.

Armstrong blew the most famous line in recent history, yet not many people know it. He was supposed to say, "That's one small step for A man... One giant leap for mankind." By saying, "That's one small step for man... One giant leap for mankind", he is redundant. "for man" and "for mankind" has the same meaning. A small trivial fact, that's all.

All those guys are cocky to say the least. I met Al Shepherd during the 20th Lunar Landing Anniversary in all places, the men's room. I asked him if he was tired of all the attention. He cooly said, "Ah, you get used to it". Yep, those guys were pistols!
abchayaku
Dec 21, 2002 7:20 PM
defghijkLMnopqrstuvwxy and z

Should be as easy as ABC
M.
All I'll say is that I miss John Lennon... -nmTig
Dec 21, 2002 8:15 PM