z zed George made a great point in the Anthology, saying they were able to handle it because they had each other, whereas someone like Elvis had to carry the burden of fame on his shoulders alone. In The Beatles, they were all mates who made it together, so it must have been easy to keep each other in check through the turmoil of their ascent into superstardom.
Personally, I think it’s all about ego. We should never forget the Beatles were / are the biggest & most famous band in history. And that’s got to affect you in a profound way. One day you are four local lads having a ball & doing what you love doing, the next almost every person on the planet knows who you are. I certainly wouldn’t want to be in their shoes. 👍
"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you. The process of delving into the black abyss is to me the keenest form of fascination." ---- Friedrich Nietzsche.
The 'business' broke them up,, i.e. the record companies.. It's almost always this way when you really dig deep, it's rarely about the individuals or the 'musical differences'... Same thing happened with Pink Floyd, yet somehow the record companies are teflon when it comes to blame. The play is always the same... "Sorry, the money from the previous tour/album/video etc is still tied up with legal and accounts,,, so you're going to have to make a new tour/album/video if you want to see any money at all"... Rinse, repeat.. The corporates bank more than enough cash to 'out lawyer' any artist.. The whole industry, like Hollywood, is fucking sick.
Agree with every word.I've just read "And In The End" by Ken McNab,it details the last twelve months or so of the bands time together and it perfectly illustrates that The Beatles,through a mixture of naivety,trust in people who didn't deserve that trust and the perfectly legal,but morally disgusting contracts they signed as young men,were screwed out of untold millions.The music business is disgusting.
you are wrong. we now know actually paul made the band break up because he wanted to do his way and george got mad and left the band. george suggestions were not welcome and he was not happy about it so he left the band and made an album alone after.
"It wasn't a clean break." Under statement of the century. The business issues Paul related to can be summed up in one name: Allen Klein. It was decades before all four former members were free legally from any remaining entanglements with Klein. To this day, McCartney will not mention Klein's name for likely two reasons. Personal disdain and fear of being sued by Klein initially now his heirs. So how did Allen Klein come into the picture? John Lennon. It was Lennon's attempt to clean up Apple and more importantly take back control of the Beatles from McCartney as Lennon viewed Klein as his man who would represent his interests against those of McCartney and the Eastman legal team. Most certainly not a clean break.
He's right about the pressure to follow-up, my god. Can you think of having to top yourself in any way shape or form after one of the most successful groups/partnerships is dissolved? It seems that even though McCartney and they others achieved individual greatness and success afterwards, they were never truly acknowledged for the potential they had being themselves and working by themselves. Everyone was just sad and wondering what happened to the four boys from Liverpool.
I love the way he speaks about following the Beatles and "starting again". Oh come on! After the Beatles he had the world at his feet. Not exactly like trying to crack it as an unknown for fooksake. He was however, brilliant-that didnt hurt either.
Well, you have to deal with the urge of not disappointing the fans. Even today, every one would agree that the Beatles, as band, was more of the sum of its parts.
It's been 40 years since John Lennon was gunned down and we still miss him. Would you support a law that could have saved his life? Learn about it at safercountry.org/media/ Then, consider making a tax-deductible donation of $40 to honor the anniversary and to help save other lives. Imagine the difference you can make.
You aren't going to get much genuine insight into the break up of the Beatles from this guy really...just a very little only. The closest "observer" was Ringo..you can get 80% of iot from there.
Again and again we hear interviews with McCartney on You Tube, about the breakup of The Beatles. And it never gives us anything. Every time he talks about "business" thing and so on. He is never natural in any interview. And of course he doesn´t mention with a word his own cause to the split.
Johan Cavalli Paul was the least to blame for the split. He was the engine that was trying to keep the Beatles train going. Lennon was not interested in being a Beatle...he has said so repeatedly in interviews. We all know Paul loved being a Beatle. George opportunistically used Lennon’s disinterest and the fracture in the Lennon/McCartney relationship to be less of a “yes man” because it wasn’t 2 vs. 1 any longer, as it had been for so many years. George would not have been so defiant if Lennon and McCartney remained close, which again, was Lennon’s doing.
Colin. You really mean that? Oh, that´s the old cliché, we have heard for decades. It´s all acording to what McCartney is saying. Nobody can control him. Lennon and Harison are dead. McCartney is a PR genius, he will always win the PR fights. Why was not Lennon interested? --"Yesterday got to his head", Lennon said about McCartney (Lennon, by Ray Coleman) --1967 or earlier, McCartney started to put himself in front of the others when they were fotographed, the others became more and more irritated (McCartney, Ross Benson), --When McCartney made comments about The White Album, he talked o n l y about his eleven songs, for example, --"No one ever hurt him the way Paul hurt him, said Yoko (Shout, Philip Norman), --"Most people thought it was all Paul and George Martin", Lennon said to Allen Klein 1969, he was really depressed, He wanted to show that he was The Beatles, Lennon said about McCartney in an interview 8 jan 1970, --"I only remenber the hatred", Lennon said about the last years in The Beatles, --McCartney contributed to the false opinion for many, many years that he was "the composer", and Lennon "the lyric writer", despite Lennon composed most of the hits before Yesterday, and despite had over the whole world had more hits than McCartney, but McCartney had more hits in US. And, despite Lennon is one of the greatest composer ever.
Johan Cavalli I don’t disagree with most of what you said. McCartney and Lennon both had egos. But if you don’t read/listen to Lennon’s post break-up interviews and think he’s a bigger asshole than McCartney, then we just won’t agree. Macca’s ego manifested itself in dominance and confidence-like a man. Lennon was passive aggressive like a child. He could bitch and muckrake like no other. Neither could have been easy to work beside, but one is certainly preferable to me.
Yes, perhaps neither was not always to work beside. But as a matter of fact almost all producers, after Martin, and musiciens said it was easier to work with Lennon. For example, if they suggested something in McCartney´s songs, they almost always got the answer: "how many number one records have you got?" (and McCartney is not smiling when the press people is absent). Lennon accepted suggestions. And McCartney is not fair with credits when he talks about song composing.
Johan Cavalli I have not heard those claims about McCartney; will have to research. But he was certainly more interested in production than Lennon, so perhaps he took those things more personally. Kinda like if someone gave lyrical suggestions to Lennon-wonder how well that would go over? There is a humorous story about Lennon inviting Paul Simon to a relaxed jam session but then repeatedly dictating to him when he was allowed to play the guitar. Simon ended up packing up his gear and storming out. Not sure how much of a reflection that is upon Lennon though, given Paul Simon’s well documented ego and temper. But certainly an entertaining story!
The crazies in this comment section are sad. Still with the faul thing ? Do you realize That according to your theory this guy was around from most of the Beatles public life and was in the band when they broke up ?
They are my favourite band and I am glad they broke up. Their music together would have been worse than what they created separately after the split. Maybe not worse, but less interesting. I love it all just the way it was. Wouldn't change anything about the Beatles' history even if I could.
I don't get you "Faul"-people. When the breakup happened, the "real Paul" was already supposed to be dead. The conspiracy theory goes that Paul died in 1966 and was then replaced by William Campbell. Well, the Beatles broke up in 1970, at which point Campbell would have already replaced him. Any factual errors he gets slightly wrong, calling himself two years older than he actually was, couldn't even be blamed on Paul being replaced. When 20 years pass, you tend to forget things.
But then, this William Campbell character died and was replaced by Billy Shears, whom four haircuts previously, had had his adenoids taken out by none other than....yes you've guessed it Jock & Yono, who had recently escaped from an under developed parkkeeper from St. Bruno on the Crimplene. How we managed to keep a straight farce during his face I can now only imagine.
Ha! Ask him about the reason they split!? I Is he the wright person to tell? the ever smiling PR man. Of course he doesn´t mention with a wod his own contribution to the split. "the business thing..." That´s nonsens, and he knows it.
The business issues with Apple and the disagreements over who would become their manager post-Brian Epstein were indeed the final nail in the coffin for the Beatles. This is a well-documented fact. He isn't blaming any one particular Beatle for anything, and why would he? He was the only one of the four that didn't want Allen Klein to be the manager. He suggested other people to John, including his own father-in-law, and this did cause a lot of strife. So he could mention that. But if he did, he would be well within his rights to mention that history proved him completely right about Klein, who ripped off and then sued John, George, and Ringo in the 70s and went to even further lengths to undermine George when he was under legal trouble for the alleged plagiarism of My Sweet Lord. Really in the end, it was probably best for Paul to just say "business issues."
"Well-documented fact" ?? Oh, once again McCartney´s PR clevernes has won. It´s only he who talks about that manager- disagreement nonsens. Could two persons, so closed in their creativity, totally break their relationship with each other because of disagreement which manager the would have? Nonsens, so superficial. McCartney carefully wants to hide his own cause. These are the reasons: --"Yesterday got to his head" Lennon said about McCartney (Ray Coleman´s book about Lennon), --After Yesterday McCartney always put himself in front of the others, when they were photographed. The other became more and more irritated (Ross Benson´s book about McCartney), --He wanted to show that he was The Beatles, Lennon said about McCartney in his interview 8th of december 1970, --"Most people thought it was all Paul and George Martin" Lennon said to Allen Klein 1969, --"No one ever hurt him the way Paul hurt him", Yoko said. Lennon was the dominant composer 1963-1965, or before McCartney´s success with Yesterday. Much happened. McCartney changed, because after Yesterday 1965 the press people and music writers began, for many many years, to call McCartney "The Composer of The Beatles" and Lennon the lyric writer. (The press people got mad, and treated McCartney like God and Lennon like a clown). Some few examples: --Ned Rorem in New York Review of Books January 1968. He repeated it in a book from 2006, --Readres Digest 1968, --The Penguin Stereo Record Guide, first edition, --Das Grosse Lexikon der Musik 1978, --Concise Oxford Dictionary of Musik 2007, - --On the cover to the record Beatles go Baroque 2000, --In Oxford History of Western Music, 2009, Richard Taruskin writes that McCartney wrote: Not a Second Time, Tomorrow Never Knows and A Day In The Life. (All three are Lennon compositions). --McCartney can have contributed to this grotesque wrong rumor. See for example his comments on "all the songs" in The White Album 1968, here in You Tube.
Johan, You are a psycho. I think Paul's early contributions were better. It seems you would be tiring of waltzing around the internet spouting your little opinion.
The longer an English person stays in the states the more they pick up certain aspects of the American accent. So their accent becomes a bit less pronounced sometimes.
Nope,, You'll see in the upcoming Peter Jackson film how wrong that is. Yoko was an annoyance at best. She's a scapegoat,,, the record companies killed The Beatles.
The Beatles disbanded because Paul in late 1968 wanted to leave the group and start a solo career, as he wanted to get all the money, be the sole star, and play softer music. He then told Hunter Davis about this, and to prepare the public Paul released the film Let It Be / Get Back, which John called Paul's film for Paul. This is the basis. Everything else is just excuses or little things.
Paul McCartney was the Beatles. Lennon was icon and thats all. George was a great musician and contributed greatly and Ringo was the class clown who tried desperately to keep it together.
PAUL quitted THE BEATLES not because of Yoko BUT MONEY (Business with new manager A Klein who took PAUL as APPLE employee and who took 20 per cent of BEATLES SHARES.BUT PAUL just before WANTED to be LEADER of THE BEATLES in place of ICONIC JOHN wrecked by HARD DRUGS (and may be saved by Yoko).TO END IT PAUL SUED THE BEATLES WITH FINAL COURT DISSOLUTION in 1976. PAUL IS NASTY even GREAT
Love how animated he gets when she asks him a question he's never had before. "Good question! Go to the top of the Anthropology Class!"
That was it for me...and ironically his most human or normal moment.
Paul, you're the best! We love ya man!
Many groups, having found each other, grateful for their musical muses and supports, stay together for life.
Who?
Yeah, and so what? Some of them should stop.
You know that an event is cataclysmic when it is talked about 30, 40, 50 years later.
JFK assassination, Moon Landing, Beatles break-up.
And John’s murder.
Give thanks for Paul ♥️
Short but excellent interview👍
How they all came out of that era sane is beyond me. Imagine yourself at that age with that kinda fame ? Forget it...
z zed George made a great point in the Anthology, saying they were able to handle it because they had each other, whereas someone like Elvis had to carry the burden of fame on his shoulders alone.
In The Beatles, they were all mates who made it together, so it must have been easy to keep each other in check through the turmoil of their ascent into superstardom.
Exactly.
@@guyincognito5706 Excellent point👏👏
Personally, I think it’s all about ego. We should never forget the Beatles were / are the biggest & most famous band in history. And that’s got to affect you in a profound way. One day you are four local lads having a ball & doing what you love doing, the next almost every person on the planet knows who you are. I certainly wouldn’t want to be in their shoes. 👍
"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you. The process of delving into the black abyss is to me the keenest form of fascination." ---- Friedrich Nietzsche.
Who said this?
Who made this quote? This is wonderful.
@@rickdanger9991 Friedrich Nietzsche
@@osamabinladen824 Friedrich Nietzsche
Thanks!
The 'business' broke them up,, i.e. the record companies.. It's almost always this way when you really dig deep, it's rarely about the individuals or the 'musical differences'... Same thing happened with Pink Floyd, yet somehow the record companies are teflon when it comes to blame. The play is always the same... "Sorry, the money from the previous tour/album/video etc is still tied up with legal and accounts,,, so you're going to have to make a new tour/album/video if you want to see any money at all"... Rinse, repeat.. The corporates bank more than enough cash to 'out lawyer' any artist.. The whole industry, like Hollywood, is fucking sick.
Agree with every word.I've just read "And In The End" by Ken McNab,it details the last twelve months or so of the bands time together and it perfectly illustrates that The Beatles,through a mixture of naivety,trust in people who didn't deserve that trust and the perfectly legal,but morally disgusting contracts they signed as young men,were screwed out of untold millions.The music business is disgusting.
you are wrong. we now know actually paul made the band break up because he wanted to do his way and george got mad and left the band. george suggestions were not welcome and he was not happy about it so he left the band and made an album alone after.
"It wasn't a clean break." Under statement of the century. The business issues Paul related to can be summed up in one name: Allen Klein. It was decades before all four former members were free legally from any remaining entanglements with Klein. To this day, McCartney will not mention Klein's name for likely two reasons. Personal disdain and fear of being sued by Klein initially now his heirs. So how did Allen Klein come into the picture? John Lennon. It was Lennon's attempt to clean up Apple and more importantly take back control of the Beatles from McCartney as Lennon viewed Klein as his man who would represent his interests against those of McCartney and the Eastman legal team. Most certainly not a clean break.
Exactly right. It was creepy watching that begin to happen in “Get Back”, Lennon’s naive, disturbing admiration for Klein
He's right about the pressure to follow-up, my god. Can you think of having to top yourself in any way shape or form after one of the most successful groups/partnerships is dissolved? It seems that even though McCartney and they others achieved individual greatness and success afterwards, they were never truly acknowledged for the potential they had being themselves and working by themselves. Everyone was just sad and wondering what happened to the four boys from Liverpool.
Paul liked to be in the band he went through a depression after the breakup Linda brought him through and he wrote maybe im amazed to Linda
actually its paul fault if they broke up
There’s something so genuine about McCartney, so lacking in bullshit
When he whistled at the end he sounded just like Dana Carvey.
What is a “breakeup”? From what language is that word and how do you pronounce it? Is it “breaky-up?
Nobody proof reads anything anymore? The thumbnail with wrong spelling is bs
why is he keep saying 4 guys ? it means he's the 5th guy? Faul?
parketha Hahaha. The people who believe this “faul” business are a danger to society
Yes. He is Faul. Listen to Lennons song, how do you sleep.
miko1975guitar you need professional help
miko1975guitar _wow don’t be rude, ;~;_
Because he sees himself as part of a group with 4 people in it
Thought Paul was 27 when they finished?
Billy's got the age wrong before. In the Magical Mystery Tour film he admitted he was 30 at the time, when real Paul was actually 25
I love the way he speaks about following the Beatles and "starting again". Oh come on! After the Beatles he had the world at his feet. Not exactly like trying to crack it as an unknown for fooksake. He was however, brilliant-that didnt hurt either.
Well, you have to deal with the urge of not disappointing the fans. Even today, every one would agree that the Beatles, as band, was more of the sum of its parts.
@@ManOnJupiter2 Well said.
Liberation is a nice way of not saying the truths of the parting of 4 guys instead of together as the 3 musketeers covering one another's backs
It's been 40 years since John Lennon was gunned down and we still miss him.
Would you support a law that could have saved his life? Learn about it at safercountry.org/media/
Then, consider making a tax-deductible donation of $40 to honor the anniversary and to help save other lives.
Imagine the difference you can make.
You aren't going to get much genuine insight into the break up of the Beatles from this guy really...just a very little only. The closest "observer" was Ringo..you can get 80% of iot from there.
Does anyone else sometimes lose track of what he’s saying because he is just so freaking gorgeous?🔥
Again and again we hear interviews with McCartney on You Tube, about the breakup of The Beatles. And it never gives us anything. Every time he talks about "business" thing and so on. He is never natural in any interview. And of course he doesn´t mention with a word his own cause to the split.
Johan Cavalli Paul was the least to blame for the split. He was the engine that was trying to keep the Beatles train going. Lennon was not interested in being a Beatle...he has said so repeatedly in interviews. We all know Paul loved being a Beatle. George opportunistically used Lennon’s disinterest and the fracture in the Lennon/McCartney relationship to be less of a “yes man” because it wasn’t 2 vs. 1 any longer, as it had been for so many years. George would not have been so defiant if Lennon and McCartney remained close, which again, was Lennon’s doing.
Colin. You really mean that? Oh, that´s the old cliché, we have heard for decades. It´s all acording to what McCartney is saying. Nobody can control him. Lennon and Harison are dead. McCartney is a PR genius, he will always win the PR fights.
Why was not Lennon interested?
--"Yesterday got to his head", Lennon said about McCartney (Lennon, by Ray Coleman)
--1967 or earlier, McCartney started to put himself in front of the others when they were fotographed, the others became more and more irritated (McCartney, Ross Benson),
--When McCartney made comments about The White Album, he talked o n l y about his eleven songs, for example,
--"No one ever hurt him the way Paul hurt him, said Yoko (Shout, Philip Norman),
--"Most people thought it was all Paul and George Martin", Lennon said to Allen Klein 1969, he was really depressed,
He wanted to show that he was The Beatles, Lennon said about McCartney in an interview 8 jan 1970,
--"I only remenber the hatred", Lennon said about the last years in The Beatles,
--McCartney contributed to the false opinion for many, many years that he was "the composer", and Lennon "the lyric writer", despite Lennon composed most of the hits before Yesterday, and despite had over the whole world had more hits than McCartney, but McCartney had more hits in US. And, despite Lennon is one of the greatest composer ever.
Johan Cavalli I don’t disagree with most of what you said.
McCartney and Lennon both had egos. But if you don’t read/listen to Lennon’s post break-up interviews and think he’s a bigger asshole than McCartney, then we just won’t agree. Macca’s ego manifested itself in dominance and confidence-like a man. Lennon was passive aggressive like a child. He could bitch and muckrake like no other. Neither could have been easy to work beside, but one is certainly preferable to me.
Yes, perhaps neither was not always to work beside. But as a matter of fact almost all producers, after Martin, and musiciens said it was easier to work with Lennon. For example, if they suggested something in McCartney´s songs, they almost always got the answer: "how many number one records have you got?" (and McCartney is not smiling when the press people is absent). Lennon accepted suggestions. And McCartney is not fair with credits when he talks about song composing.
Johan Cavalli I have not heard those claims about McCartney; will have to research. But he was certainly more interested in production than Lennon, so perhaps he took those things more personally. Kinda like if someone gave lyrical suggestions to Lennon-wonder how well that would go over?
There is a humorous story about Lennon inviting Paul Simon to a relaxed jam session but then repeatedly dictating to him when he was allowed to play the guitar. Simon ended up packing up his gear and storming out. Not sure how much of a reflection that is upon Lennon though, given Paul Simon’s well documented ego and temper. But certainly an entertaining story!
;paul wanted to control what the band was doing alot and george got mad and left the band.
The crazies in this comment section are sad. Still with the faul thing ? Do you realize That according to your theory this guy was around from most of the Beatles public life and was in the band when they broke up ?
Those people are so boring and don't appreciate the music. Their loss.
@@Mandrake591 No we appreciate what Billy did keepin beatles going, sadly george and John never got over Paul's death
The latex is really showin BILLY
Paul seems to have been happy when The Beatles split. No member of the group fought to keep the group together.
They are my favourite band and I am glad they broke up. Their music together would have been worse than what they created separately after the split. Maybe not worse, but less interesting. I love it all just the way it was. Wouldn't change anything about the Beatles' history even if I could.
I think Paul worked hard to keep them together in 1968 and 1969. He was tired of dealing with Yoko and John.
gavin Reid. If you knew your Beatles history, you would know that isn't true.
They were friends? Doesn't he mean we were friends? Starting to think he really is Faul now!
The Walrus was Faul. Everyone knows that :)
The Beatles often refer to the group in the 3rd person, like it's a different entity.
Faul often refers to Paul in the third person because he isn't him he's "just a good double" as he's admitted a number of times on camera
I don't get you "Faul"-people. When the breakup happened, the "real Paul" was already supposed to be dead. The conspiracy theory goes that Paul died in 1966 and was then replaced by William Campbell. Well, the Beatles broke up in 1970, at which point Campbell would have already replaced him. Any factual errors he gets slightly wrong, calling himself two years older than he actually was, couldn't even be blamed on Paul being replaced. When 20 years pass, you tend to forget things.
Are you on drugs?
But then, this William Campbell character died and was replaced by Billy Shears, whom four haircuts previously, had had his adenoids taken out by none other than....yes you've guessed it Jock & Yono, who had recently escaped from an under developed parkkeeper from St. Bruno on the Crimplene. How we managed to keep a straight farce during his face I can now only imagine.
@@hulmerist4297 Not bad! George "Hari's Son" would have loved this.
well, when the beatles broke up they weren't living together . they hadn't been living together for a long time.
Exactly right. The Beatles' touring/recording years of 1963-1966 is when Paul (Faul) can legitimately say they were 'living together'...
But after quit touring they spend a lot of time in the studio. I think that is what he meant
Willy can never not remember he's number 5 not 4.....or Paul's human and he just fucked up? Do di do do. Do di do do.....
Just blew it again Ed! 4 guys , really!
,
dont discredits jhon works if its not to him you will not be a member of the band
Is this Faul or Paul? I think this is Faul.
Another IDIOT
Joseph P Liptak Jr Faul never existed. Such a idiot comment.
There are 2 fails. Beatle Bill and Beatle Ed. This is Ed.
Billy Faul
Ha! Ask him about the reason they split!? I Is he the wright person to tell? the ever smiling PR man. Of course he doesn´t mention with a wod his own contribution to the split. "the business thing..." That´s nonsens, and he knows it.
The business issues with Apple and the disagreements over who would become their manager post-Brian Epstein were indeed the final nail in the coffin for the Beatles. This is a well-documented fact. He isn't blaming any one particular Beatle for anything, and why would he? He was the only one of the four that didn't want Allen Klein to be the manager. He suggested other people to John, including his own father-in-law, and this did cause a lot of strife. So he could mention that. But if he did, he would be well within his rights to mention that history proved him completely right about Klein, who ripped off and then sued John, George, and Ringo in the 70s and went to even further lengths to undermine George when he was under legal trouble for the alleged plagiarism of My Sweet Lord. Really in the end, it was probably best for Paul to just say "business issues."
"Well-documented fact" ?? Oh, once again McCartney´s PR clevernes has won. It´s only he who talks about that manager- disagreement nonsens. Could two persons, so closed in their creativity, totally break their relationship with each other because of disagreement which manager the would have? Nonsens, so superficial. McCartney carefully wants to hide his own cause.
These are the reasons:
--"Yesterday got to his head" Lennon said about McCartney (Ray Coleman´s book about Lennon),
--After Yesterday McCartney always put himself in front of the others, when they were photographed. The other became more and more irritated (Ross Benson´s book about McCartney),
--He wanted to show that he was The Beatles, Lennon said about McCartney in his interview 8th of december 1970,
--"Most people thought it was all Paul and George Martin" Lennon said to Allen Klein 1969,
--"No one ever hurt him the way Paul hurt him", Yoko said.
Lennon was the dominant composer 1963-1965, or before McCartney´s success with Yesterday. Much happened. McCartney changed, because after Yesterday 1965 the press people and music writers began, for many many years, to call McCartney "The Composer of The Beatles" and Lennon the lyric writer. (The press people got mad, and treated McCartney like God and Lennon like a clown).
Some few examples:
--Ned Rorem in New York Review of Books January 1968. He repeated it in a book from 2006,
--Readres Digest 1968, --The Penguin Stereo Record Guide, first edition,
--Das Grosse Lexikon der Musik 1978, --Concise Oxford Dictionary of Musik 2007, -
--On the cover to the record Beatles go Baroque 2000,
--In Oxford History of Western Music, 2009, Richard Taruskin writes that McCartney wrote: Not a Second Time, Tomorrow Never Knows and A Day In The Life. (All three are Lennon compositions).
--McCartney can have contributed to this grotesque wrong rumor. See for example his comments on "all the songs" in The White Album 1968, here in You Tube.
Johan, You are a psycho. I think Paul's early contributions were better. It seems you would be tiring of waltzing around the internet spouting your little opinion.
accent is not strong hrm
The longer an English person stays in the states the more they pick up certain aspects of the American accent. So their accent becomes a bit less pronounced sometimes.
Billy Faul still fooling them all...
And he even isn't a good liar.
'He was goign grey here.....then he wasn't then he denied ever dying his hair---
Nowaday's he constantly reminds people that he isn't just a guy. HE is Paul McCartney. lol
Yoko broke the Beatles up.
Nope,, You'll see in the upcoming Peter Jackson film how wrong that is. Yoko was an annoyance at best. She's a scapegoat,,, the record companies killed The Beatles.
NEWS FLASH: No she didn't.
They broke up.cause they were all tired of the controlling Faul = Billy Shepherd the Egomaniac.!
He kept.saying: 4 guys cause - he Billy was the 5th Beatle!
Tell me your IQ is low without telling me your IQ is low.
The Beatles disbanded because Paul in late 1968 wanted to leave the group and start a solo career, as he wanted to get all the money, be the sole star, and play softer music. He then told Hunter Davis about this, and to prepare the public Paul released the film Let It Be / Get Back, which John called Paul's film for Paul. This is the basis. Everything else is just excuses or little things.
Hey, it’s UA-cam, just write any old crap. Your comment is 99.9% pure crap.
Paul McCartney was the Beatles. Lennon was icon and thats all. George was a great musician and contributed greatly and Ringo was the class clown who tried desperately to keep it together.
Nonsense. Ringo was the driving force which drove the Band forward and the final part of the puzzle.
John was the genius.
PAUL quitted THE BEATLES not because of Yoko BUT MONEY (Business with new manager A Klein who took PAUL as APPLE employee and who took 20 per cent of BEATLES SHARES.BUT PAUL just before WANTED to be LEADER of THE BEATLES in place of ICONIC JOHN wrecked by HARD DRUGS (and may be saved by Yoko).TO END IT PAUL SUED THE BEATLES WITH FINAL COURT DISSOLUTION in 1976. PAUL IS NASTY even GREAT