Things We Said Today  

I wish I did. Why don't i?

Surely everyone knows by now that there is audio from an Abbey Rd session in1968 during which Paul explains to Donovan that he originally meant the "black bird" to refer to a black woman and that he wrote it after reading about civil rights riots in the US? You can find that on RU-vid too.

@@strathman7501 Of course we know that. My point in this discussion is that while I certainly don't want to doubt the songwriter, who would know better than him about his own song, it seems odd when you hear completely new information about songs that are over 50 years old now. Yes, Paul told Donovan he played Blackbird for Diana Ross, and I believe him. But publicly Paul didn't say anything about Blackbird (to my knowledge) until the 1989-90 tour. Why wait so long before you publicly divulge information like that? There is no law that says we must know everything about songs by a certain date, but you'd think for songs in such an important catalog he would have discussed them sooner than now. The story of Paul visiting an elderly woman that he did chores for for extra money, which was an inspiration for Eleanor Rigby, how Martha My Dear is partly about a relative of his being unfaithful, etc. I'm not doubting that Paul is telling the truth, just find it odd that he's revealing this now.

@@kenmichaelsradio748 Ken, that was a reply to the two posts above, both of which "do" doubt that Paul is telling the truth about Blackbird. They are "sceptical" and "extremely sceptical" that Paul thought of this angle in 1968. This is provably untrue. He did - as you know. So why you are taking me to task, rather than the person who says "I'm with you Ken when you question that song", is not clear to me.

There's contemporaneous audio of Paul telling Donovan it's about the civil rights movement. Go find it, it's quite interesting and puts any doubts to rest.

@@strathman7501 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-YDAO15rrshk.html Paul: I sang it to Diana Ross the other night. She took offense. Everyone laughs. Paul: Not really. But I did mean it like that originally. Donovan: Really? Paul: Yeah, I remember… I’d just read something in the paper about riots and then (singing briskly) Blackbird singing in the dead of night, take these broken wings and learn to fly, all your life, you were only waiting…

Not only that. Paul was quite into reading books at least since he started dating Jane too. Paul was dating Jane and Peter Asher, her brother, has told that Paul read all the books they got in theri home. Paul, as many already know, was living at Jane's family home at the time. I knew Paul also put money to finance the Mile's bookshop Indica. Throughout history all this was left aside and journalists and historians tended to picture John as the intelectual one, not Paul. I think both were at that time. After marrying Linda, Paul went to the country and had his family life that helped to erase his intelectual figure of the 60s.

Yes, he should have done that. It seems John and Paul were quite like that at the time. George H said that when a journalist told him something about John being mad because he hadn't mentioned him in his book (what was not true by the way). He said that he didn't made such a fuss (he didn't use those words) when nobody mentioned him helping with some words or ideas in Paul's or John's songs. Once, John even had the guts to take one Zapppa's song that they'd played together in a show and put his own name on the credits and didn't mention Zappa, the real author of the song. Hahaha, it seems Paul and John had some ego issues.

I don't think I ever said that. What I said is that Paul only gives you part of the story, not that what he's saying is inaccurate. With some people, Paul can never win. If he tells you the same stories he's been saying since the Beatle breakup, it becomes boring, as if he has nothing new to say. When he does finally tell you something new, fans question why he waited this long to say it, and doubt his sincerity.

@@kenmichaelsradio748 great response, and I fully agree, he can never win with many people... "some inaccuracies" is not "totally made up" or (excessively) embellished 🙂

@@BeatlemaccaAR Yes that's funny. George Martin mixed up some things, John also did...Ringo and Geoff Emerick, the same but the only one that is destroyed for doing that is Paul. I understand that the Lennon-McCartney is at stake in Paul's case and not so much with the others, although some of them have backed up Paul or John with their retellings. However, it's understable that Paul had forgotten things or that he really thinks he did more in a song than John. That happens to lot of people, Most people think that what others did is not more important than what they themselves did. John also had that tendency, I think, I may be wrong.

I totally agree.

I think when he talks about Mal writing it, he meant “writing it down,” as you’ll see him do in the Get Back film. It was one of his jobs - writing down the lyrics as they came up with them. That said, he did contribute some lyrics to Fixing a Hole, uncredited.

Re Blackbird: There’s also the Paul with Donovan tape from 1969 where he talks about Blackbird and mentions Diana Ross and says - there is some dispute about this, and close listening doesn’t settle it - either, I didn’t mean it that way, or I did mean it that way. But I’ve also felt that this is a latter-day interpretation.

@@allankozinn192 Agreed. Maybe it was a sub-conscious thing at the time he wrote the tune. If it is a latter day interpretation possibly another example of some of Paul's insecurities about his song-writing and place in the pantheon of great musical artists. In some of his recent interviews he seems to be trying to come off as edgier, always socially aware, etc. etc. In my estimation his catalogue of work stands on it's own merits and needs no further justification. Truly one of the greats of all time. And thank goodness he is still with us and keeps giving new music (his last two albums are quite good) and all this bonus stuff!!!

@@allankozinn192 he said it was about something he had read on the paper minute 3:58 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-YDAO15rrshk.html

@@allankozinn192 Allan, this claimed "dispute" is unsupportable. Listen carefully again. Here is my transcript of the crucial exchange: Paul: "But I did mean it like that originally, I remember sort ..." Donovan: "Really?" Paul: "... yeah, I'd sort of read something in the paper about the riots and that..." It is blindingly obvious that if Paul had actually said "I *didn't* mean it like that" then the corollary about the race riots would make no sense whatsoever. Even if I didn't disagree with you that "close listening doesn't settle it", that *context* precludes any reasonable case for the sort of ambiguity you want to espouse and removes the need for the "dispute" you say exists. (I say "want to espouse" because to think that the civil-rights angle is a "latter day interpretation", as you admit to thinking, forces you to perpetuate the "dispute" or be self-inconsistent.) Notice furthermore the way that immediately after saying "I did mean it like that originally ...I'd sort of read something in the paper about the riots", Paul then plays Donovan the first verse, "blackbird singing in the dead of night, take these broken wings and learn to fly", semi-speaking this lyric with careful enunciation, as if to allow Donovan to appreciate the metaphor.

@@strathman7501 Okay, I've listened again. Although I still hear it as "didn't," much as I try to hear it as "did," you are correct that he then says he read something in the paper about the riots, and as you say, that doesn't make any sense following "didn't." Unless he said "didn't" as a specific follow on to his joke about Diana Ross not liking it ("not really"), and what he's saying that he didn't mean it as "black bird" in the sense of "bird" meaning girl - but rather, he meant it as a (non-gendered) metaphor for Black people during the civil rights struggle. But in any case, I obviously have to rethink my feeling that the civil rights interpretation was of more recent vintage.

Yoko approached Paul asking for a Paul's partiture for John Cage's birthday. Paul was known for being into the German electronic music at the time and someone told her to see Paul for that partiture she wanted.

Yes, Paul is on record from decades ago saying how he wanted the orchestra to make their own way to that final note/chord. There are even photos from the session with Paul holding a conductor's baton.

@@mikeysaint4368 and Paul was into Stockhausen since middle 60s (I've even heard an interview to George Martin recognizing that) and that disonant orchestra sounds very much of an idea coming from that stuff.

Tony---Where did you see that Paul was offended by those two songs from Plastic Ono Band?

That’s actually a great idea for a project. Something like it was done in print in the 70s - Paul McCartney in his own words - but the technological upgrade would be interesting. Getting master quality clips and untangling the rights issues would probably be a full time job or two.

Yes

So was I, Mikey... took me a year to make up my mind. It's worth it. It's a beautiful edition.

@@BeatlemaccaAR I got my copy soon after I posted my message. I'm pleased to have it.

The worst one is Paul cadging ANY credit for John's "If I Fell" which was completely a solo-written Lennon song. There is a long home demo to prove it too... All home demos, by any one of the Beatles, in existence, are solo works. There isn't a single co-write by Lennon & McCartney that was ever home-demoed (and that's according to Paul!) nor would you expect for there to be one...if you're at home, composing, you record the song so as not to forget it; or, to preserve your song-in-progress for further work....I'm a songwriter. That's what songwriter's do...Paul has a number of these...and John has a number of these and George has a number of these too....Not ONE of them is a co-write...Sadly, sites like the self-proclaimed "The Beatles Bible," and others, have bought this nonsense without bothering to question or even examine the disputed claim.. In many cases, we'll never know the precise contributions made by Paul or John to a given song......in others, we have conclusive evidence of authorship; and, that should be respected....

Regarding Paul's version about his contributions in Lennon-McCartnet's songs is difficult to tell. When John gave the list of songs of who wrote what, Paul was in the middle of a dispute with the other three and didn't say a thing. He didn't talk much about The Beatles at the time. The proportion of interviews was 5:1 Jonh/McCartney (source the historian Erin Torkelson Weber). Paul responded in Ram to some of the "attacks" (or what he felt as attacks) from John's interviews (he mixed up his memories in "The Lyrics" John had talked about Paul, Linda and Linda's family in some interviews) and remained silenced since then until 1976 when he felt confident to include Beatles' songs in his tour. In an interview in 1976 or 1977 he mentioned he had written In my Life music (I don't know if the interviewer asked him about John's authorship list or what) and that caused a response from John and from then on Paul remained silenced again until John's death. Paul trying to keep a good relation with John and giving his version of the events seems to have been a real problem. At least that's my point of view. He might have gained a bit of peace of mind with John at that moment and maybe that let him have at kind of good relationship with John, at least through telephone calls, untill John's death. However, his silence throughout that time has been also a problem to him. Now, his side of the story is in doubt and there's quite a good reason for that, since part of it contradicts John's. We realy can't know whether John was right or Paul was/is. Maybe both of them exagerated here and there. We'll never know really. At least, the part of John writing 70% of lyrics on Eleonor Rigby has been contradicted by several witnesses. Some of them, Pete Shotton, John's friend, said that his collaboration was "nill". Probably Paul saying that he wrote Ticket to Ride with John is not true. He could mention he came up with the drum beat (even John mentioned that) but the song seems to have been written by John. It's his style lyrically and melodically. Yes, the drum is an important part but that's not writing the song. About Mr kite, I don't know, really. It sounds as a John's song to me but who knows if Paul helped or not with one word or another. Finally, about "If I Fell", if we considered the paper everybody talks about regarding "In My Life" to back up John's version of the story to say that it is completely his (or at least most of it, except for the bridge) we should take it for this one too (or at least the people that use that paper as a source should). The mathematical caculation that they made gives a probability of almost 0.6 (60%) for attributing "If I Fell"'s melody to Paul. The authors don't argue that that song is from John, I'm just talking about what the calculation yields. They analyzed several song with a known, or not disputed authorship, to calculate the statistical error of the formula and it seems If I Fell goes into that error. Why not In My LIfe? However, I don't take this paper as a source, because of its big bias towards John's authorship in general. I have a theory for that to happen. Well, Paul had a wider vocal range. A lot of his melodies have an up-and-down pattern because he was able to sing them. If John came with a lyric and Paul was to help him to make the melody, most probably Paul would have done a melody that matches John's vocal range (as both did when writing songs to Ringo, who has a narrower range that John and Paul). That melody would be more similar to John's patterns. That would wider the error of the calculation towards John's, since Paul more often helped with melodies and John helped with lyrics. Anyway, the demo idea is also a valid evidence to infered that "If I Fell" was John's. However,, John also said in 80 "That’s my first attempt at a... at a ballad proper. That was the precursor to ‘In My Life’. It’s the same chord sequence as ‘In My Life’, but - just about ‘round D, and B minor, and E minor, those kind of ... things.... So that’s all mine. The harmony’s Paul’s … and maybe the middle eight, let me think [-sings the verse through-]… yeah, that’s all mine, i think maybe the middle eight he introduced the chord in the… I might have mixed up the story on the middle eight to In My Life and this one - I think it’s this one he gave me the middle eight on the F, and In My Life I think was complete. So that shows that I wrote sentimental love ballads - silly love songs, as you call them - way back when.",Even John wasn't very sure af how it was.

He is just correcting the history rewritten by LennonOnoKlein-Jann Wenner-Philip Norman.

It's his version of the story. Each of them has done it and he also has the right to tell what he believes is true. It's a shame he didn't keep diaries throughout his life to refresh his memory for the writing of his memoires. Most of us tend to confuse memories, exaggerate things or make up things believing that it happened to us and in reality those memories have been told to us and they stick into our minds as if we were the protagonists of it. All those things happen a lot. Not necessarily is Paul lying.

and from Jane's mother. She played oboe and teached the instrument.

There is audio of his saying that it was, back in the sixties.

@@larushka1 minute 3:58 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-YDAO15rrshk.html