If Paul is like this: sophisticated, charming, the way he talks, acts, has a sense of humor, then why none of his children inherited those? They're miles far away from their father, they don't have that much sophistication, style, charisma and let alone humor, and comes off as shy towards the public, they don't interact that much with people, I doubt they're even nice as Paul himself. I guess, they've got too much from Linda (quite introverted), her genes became the dominant trait in their children, or maybe, they've just been spoiled? I don't know, this is not meant for trolling, not, but in my many observations, they're just far from how their father carry and represents himself at the public, and with regards to Linda, watched some of her interviews, and yep, she doesn't have sense of humor, style and sophistication, and comes off a bit shy, and quite stoic. I'm not knocking against Linda, I know Paul loved her and she loved him too, I think she's a good wife towards him, but it's just sad that none of his children could carry the image Paul himself crafted throughout the years, that legacy, I know they're all successful in their own right (although not sure about James), but none of them has Paul's personality, just sad.
If he's like this (sophisticated, the way he moves, speaks and etc.), Then why none of his children inherited this? They're all miles away from their father, yep, Linda's blood became the dominant one in their children (introverted and plain), they don't have the style that their father have, let alone a humor!
@@JakJim1 nothing more than the normal changes that comes with advancing into ur 20s, compare it to other paul mccartney interviews from early 60s and you’ll see there’s not much different
@@ratsubhan4968 Except these drastic changes happened in less than a year to include lengthening of the facial structure, different ear lobes, hair parting on opposite side, growing taller by 3 inches, and even an abrupt change in his musical style, voice, and bass playing. Even his longtime ex girlfriend who he suddenly dumped stated that he had drastically changed. To me though, the real clue is that not only did he not attend his father's funeral, but was forbidden to attend by the McCartney family, while the real Paul was extremely close with his Dad.
@@WeWuzKangZnShiyidt idk what pics ur looking at to think his appearance changed so much, but his face did not get much longer if anything since 1966 when he "died," and u can see his earlobes r the same if u look at pics w the right lighting and lens distortion. in terms of hair parting thats barely proof of anything, u can change urs if u have straight enough hair and u train it, especially if ur tyring to deviate from a hairstyle like paul did from the "moptop" pre 1966. in terms of his height, idk how tall u think he got cus hes always been around 5'11 as he confirmed in the "mockers" interview in 1964. his musical style changed as did that of john, george and ringo as the beatles sought to explore a more experimental style, and his voice and bass playing got better if anything, just listen to sgt pepper. about his ex, she was the one that dumped him cus he cheated on her in 1968, him changing can be attributed to him being on tour and doing drugs like lsd, not to mention they still got engaged in 1967 despite these "changes." about him not attending his dads funeral, there are several reasons why he didnt, including that 1) he was on tour in europe at the time (the canceling of which would be financially detrimental to his bandmates and the arenas they performed at), 2) he was asked by his stepmom not to due to the risk of the media ruining it, and 3) his brother mike said "It was no coincidence that Paul was on the Continent at the time. Like Dad, Paul would never face that sort of thing. As Dad would say, ‘It’s just the way you’re made, Son.’" paul clearly loved his dad, and they were still close after the beatles breakup.
Another way of saying, dude we made it! Beethoven, mozart and such is high class, high quality and all that stuff but u know iit u knoow we are more popular than mozart. I've been a beatles fan since 2016.
When i first started playing piano at 5, my teachers taught me all classical which i did like but when i heard Revolver at 13 it changed everything i thought about music.
Look at this man!! How can anyone be so simple to think he's not the same man from 1964-1966? I understand there are instances that I'll even admit his face seemed to look different at times, but my face changes too. Weight gain or loss. Stressed or being happy really effects how you look. This is Paul. Paul is Paul
This video is the proof that the "Paul Is Dead" folks don't want to see, that proves the one and only Paul has always been with us. They like to talk about how "Faul" has a longer face and different ears and other rubbish, and this is CLEARLY the same baby-faced Paul that was around in 1964, 1965 etc.
Try looking at the early 1967 interviews. Clearly a completely different guy. By '68 he had more work done and looked more like like Paul. Then go to 1971 Grammy's and see what happened after The Beatles split and they stopped the facial fillers etc.
@@OldSchoolVibes1978 That's hilarious. They haven't come close to perfecting facial surgery now, nearly 60 years later, but we are to believe not only did they do it then, but they found a guy who sounded exactly like Paul, played instruments as well, wrote amazing songs like Paul, and they were able to keep a LOT of people quiet about the whole secret. As for 1971, people age, they lose weight, they gain weight, they change their hairstyles etc. All lead to a different look, but no, it was a conspiracy and the new Paul somehow made the band even better. 🙄🙄
