Paul & Linda McCartney Interview with Geraldo Riviera 1979 

I agree he is a gentleman and mild-mannered

So humble he is

Exactly

Every 'Penny' Lane 'because' 'Baby, you're a rich man.'

He is a fabulous musician and a fabulous composer

It’s a British thing- being humble 🇬🇧🇬🇧

his mother dying was the worst time in his life.

They always pick on celebrities like him, who are nice, self-assured and honest

Still in his 30's, so much accomplished and he knew whatever he'd get into it was his to get in to. Very kind natured but determined as hell to do something with his life. I love him for that

The world is their ashtray.

Nasty filthy habit. Glad he cleaned up and just stuck to weed.

Nasty filthy habit. Glad he cleaned up and just stuck to weed.

You welcome! Thanks for watching!

December 26th 1965 moped crash.

I was a kid then and everyone was aware of the Beatles before Lennon was shot. It wasn't a re-introduction. Classic rock became huge in the 80s playing everything from the 60s/70s rock period. The Beatles catalog was always big. 70s radio was dominated by solo Beatle songs.

​@@stickman1742I was 12 when John died and even though i was aware of the Beatles I remember that the Beatles really weren't played on the radio that much between 75-80. When John died they started playing the Beatles again nonstop and haven't stopped since. There definitely was a slow period between 75-80. I do remember though Here Comes The Sun and Got To Get You Into My Life was still being played heavily from the early to mid 70s though.

Gerardo was always a jerk in all reality. He's even worse these days.

*rip

Not really.

John said the same thing, if they all found something that really turned them on, he wouldn't be opposed to a reunion under the right circumstances, they would have reunited John not been killed... Like everyone has said, it would have been live aid..

John was also interested in a Beatles reunion everyone was except for George what could have been

That's because Geraldo has always been a jerk. He got more toxic as time went on and ended up on FoxNews where he is suited. Linda was better off not going near that jerk.

.. wow, Jean... I don't believe that Paul was ever the same person after Linda passed away.. what a couple.. can't listen to Paul now, I'm sorry to say

​@@imemine6494 no one's ever the same after a loved one died and certainly not after your soulmate and best friend dies. Can't imagine why you can't listen to Paul these days. I guess you were just never much of a fan in the first place. Loved seeing Paul play in concert with Jimmy Buffett right before he died.

@@GOLDENFLYWARRIOR.. His music is garbage these days.. his voice is gone.. I'm a fan but not a sycophant

Paul was arrested on 1/16/80 in Japan for 7.7 grams of marijuana. He spent nine days in jail.

It was Linda that forgot and brought it.

Weed should have been legal in Japan them too.

Arrow Through Me from Back to the Egg album.

🥱

okay riddle me this then, genius: If Paul died in 1966 and Faul who was only a mere lookalike and so according to most of these juvenile theories had to get surgery to look even more like Paul --***how come his son James who was born in 1977 when James was a young man is the spitting image of Paul in 1963.**** ***The exact same droopy eyes, raised eyebrows, and chin.**** ****And when James gets older is the spitting image of Paul's brother Michael. An actual doppelganger of Mike now.**** If one answers because they took the sperm of a young man in his early 20s, which they would have taken in the 60s, a decade before the boom of this practice in the 70s (1700s, but frozen sperm only since the 50s) and then waited 11 years to inseminate or answer he doesn't look just like them it just proves to me how weak and thin these theories actually are. ==== Oh and here Paul still has his lip scar in 1968 (in John and Paul's last interview) from that famous December 26th 1965 moped crash photo of his badly cut lip (not the 1966 fantasy car crash where he supposedly died). You still see it to this day. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-TAtvlIm-s-E.htmlsi=Iff9Ojzem02a8Ykn At three minutes and Fifty Seven seconds in. ===== ***Also things like seeing Michael and Paul going off to dinner together in Get Back, not even knowing they are in the shot. And Paul's penchant for what Lennon called Granny music became even more prominent at times in the 70s which wss a direct extension of his growing up with his father's music hall influences. And him recording his father's song that his father told him he wrote and then Paul surprised him with. His father in the pictures at Paul and Linda's 1969 wedding, etc **** ===== And George has explained a thousand times that his first trip to India with Patti in 1966 changed him forever. And that the Beatles had no meaning to him after that with his new egoless spirituality. And those channels for the moronic sheep who eat up anything given to them take that out of context on purpose. Just like when they use normal forced perspective photography illusions as proof that Faul is taller or they try to pass off Paul's IEM's as prosthetic ears And then the followers think we are the moronic unthinking sheep. Lol. They should take a photography course sometime. Forced Perspective Illuision in photography is when someone is standing beside someone else but slightly ahead of the other making the illusion that one person is taller than the other. Almost all group pictures have this illusion. It's time for the Faulers to move beyond a 60s teenage fantasy that was born on college campuses in 1965 but mostly birthed from a satirical article about it and then a joke call in (by the same person who wrote it) to a radio show about it. Then exploited by an opportunistic record company and spurred on by the dry wit of the Beatles and their wives. Do they really think they are that stupid to call him Billy evey chance they got in front a camera? If you reply TLDR I'll leave you to it and give you my bored yawn now.

Yes that’s a fair point about the Beatles reunion I also think George H was always adamant about not reuniting as well. There was probably more chance of Paul and John collaborating on something together. Before John went into hibernation during his lost weekend there were quite a few meet ups between them and rumours of doing something together. I wonder if John had been around during the anthology period if that would instigated any form of collaboration Andy there was always live aid concert that could have been some sort of catalyst but who knows ? It’s probably best they didn’t as they left an amazing legacy ?

@@andrewmills509 John said in a 1980 interview that the last time he had seen Paul was when Paul knocked on his door with a guitar in hand but John sent him away saying that he could not just show up announced. IIRC, that incident occurred around 1977. *So John had no direct contact with Paul in the final years of his life* except for possible phone conversations. That would explain Paul's total lack of interest here in 1979 at any suggestion of a reunion. Have to believe that Paul was hurt by being turned away at the door and had clearly moved on musically. Of course Paul could have had a change of heart in later years but at this point in 1979, Paul clearly had zero interest. Paul says that even if the other three were very keen on doing it, there is a *very slim chance* he would agree. I found the Anthology treetle reunion rather disappointing and George did not appear comfortable playing with Paul. Had John been around during Anthology, I similarly suspect a reunion would not have come anywhere close to meeting the high expectations. As George said, the Beatles belong in the history books.

yeah but John was the one who quit first and Paul took the fall when Paul told the media the Beatles were over and he had an album coming out. Paul was the only one who didn't want the Beatles to end. He drank for a year and even put himself into a mental facility for a very brief week or two after the Mccartney Album came out. This interview was years later when he learned to move on.

What about him?

@@KebabMusicLtd Or is he William Campbell ? Inquiring minds want to know.

@@mullhollandmace7271 Sorry. No William Campbell, Billy or Faul. Just Paul.

You mean William Shepherd? Or William Shears? Or William Campbell? Too much Williams here right? Like your Paul Is Dead theory deceiver guru Mike...Williams. In your face! Mike Williams himself has said (using masterful speaking of course!),that he is a freemason and Illuminati. There are people that sustain that he works for Paul. That I don't know. But it's clear that he's a deceiver. You should stop lending your ears to his nonsense.

Mark Chapman

I don’t think he ever considered pot to be “drugs”. He always advocated for its legalization. I think he took his high profile busts as a badge of honor.

He's specifically referring to prescription pills here. He had taken amphetamines in the 60s, so he's saying here that he was very careful, b/c he was scared and not really into pills. No sleeping pills, painkillers etc

He had a lot more drugs than he's letting on he took cocaine a lot during the tough early 70s ,endless uppers in Hamburg and mountains of pot lol

​@@gavinthorburn5385so was most of the younger generation of that time then. Squares used to say tons of lies about weed too😂. This generations parents should have taken a few acid trips especially in the states. Closed minds are dangerous.

why?

Cool thing about Linda was she didn’t give a damn about someone’s opinions. I wish I had that kind of confidence! Linda’s true beauty was from within anyway. I would say Paul was a lucky man.

I love her haircut. It's layered and punk. It was the style then too. Then came BIG HAIR again. Linda always had great hair. I never recall her ever coloring it even as she got older. A natural beauty for sure.❤ RIP Lovely Linda ❤💔❤️

@@GOLDENFLYWARRIOR its a bad haircut and it looks like something she did herself. her hair is on the thin side and was never full and luxurious. She was a drug addict.

Who cares . Out of all the things you could have said you pick on a spelling mistake . Did your husband just leave you ?

Who's Ringo? Lol

John only released 7 commercial albums while he was alive. Paul is god knows how many . 30 ? 40 ? Paul toured. John didn’t. Touring can be a big part of the selling records process. Barring the Somewhere in New York City Album the quality of John’s releases were at least on a par artistically with Paul’s. His first two solo albums often feature in the 100 greatest of all time. John’s body of work with the Beatles and solo tell a developmental story which many music people hold in very high regard and many of them put John ahead of Paul in their list of favourite artist and many ( I’m guessing you’re one ) put Paul ahead. It’s kind of your own personal opinion. Selling records is great but it’s not always an indicator of artistic greatness, it’s just one of many ways one can measure it.

@@stewartcohen-jones2949 I was marvelling at the fact that John has this status. I’ve always been more into Lennons music. I struggle with the fact that Paul is probably a much nicer person as I’m such a Lennon fan. Paul would probably be a much better friend too. It seems that the people that are a bit twisted seem to come up with the more poignant art or music.

@@Ornamentmountain It’s that old quality not quantity thing. Also , as you point out , it’s what resonates with you as a person at any given time. Take 4 songs ( 2 John 2 Paul ) these 4 songs have a looking back retrospective feel. Yesterday, Penny Lane , In my life and Strawberry Fields. When I hear Yesterday and Penny Lane I instantly recognise their beautiful melodies but oddly I sense the writer/singer is not fully engaged with the subject matter . Both songs have a kind of made to order feel to them. Excellently presented ( Thanks partly to George Martin) but lacking a personal touch the songs are crying out for. John’s songs provide that for me. Both his songs have an equally well presented quality ( again thanks partly to George Martin) and have that edge that , “ Shit !!! This guy actually means what he’s singing “

@@stewartcohen-jones2949 I know exactly what you mean. Paul’s are great pop but johns feel so personal almost as if you’re living the experience with him.

John didn't need to be as successful. He had done it all. As Paul said here, it wasn't the question of music but of business. The four group members could only talk to each other via lawyers. John refers to this himself in 'Watching The Wheels'. John didn't feel he had anything more to prove and in all honesty, I thought the first three or four solo Paul albums were very weak. (Apart from Band On The Run). Smaltsy Schmit John's best solo work was those albums he did without Yoko. I am not having a go at Yoko because I thought both Double Fantasy and Milk and Honey were fine albums and I like plenty of what Yoko put on them. Especially 'You're The One' and 'Your Hands.'

Linda is gorgeous and not to be compared .

Looks can be deceiving. The Manson girls were hippies who belonged to a cult which convinced people to kill. Linda was a hippie who tried to convince people NOT to kill.

@@hopeshyly5708.. she wasn't gorgeous.. she was a lovely person.. and I'm not saying she was unattractive, but she was in no way gorgeous

@@imemine6494 I was watching her in the Get Back movies. I thought she was very attractive in1969. This is 10 years later and like most people , she has aged. But Paul didn't care and they had a great marriage and kids that loved them. That is the most important thing and the thing I find most admirable about Paul and Linda.

@@jaceconverse6337.. iv seen pictures of Linda before meeting Paul... she was never gorgeous

The difference is that Paul McCartney wrote and still writes his own songs and he will be remembered and his songs will be sung long after all those awards from those famous people you mentioned become rusty and forgotten. 🎶

@@rheailiarome2287I mean Elvis won’t be forgotten

Boxcar Willie sold more records than all of them!!!