|
|
Post by Curious on Dec 16, 2003 11:40:35 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by MMCDHoward on Dec 25, 2003 7:01:59 GMT
Maybe he should be, she got pretty mad when he changed the names!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Imgonnaopenmymind on Dec 26, 2003 19:26:00 GMT
What's not the point is whether Faul should or should not be mad...what's the point is that he's being greedy, considering the fact that he didn't even contribute to "Give Peace a Chance" in any way, shape or form, so why should he be claiming credit to or being angry about the change of the songwriter's credit to a song he didn't even write?
OpenMind
|
|
|
|
Post by MMCDHoward on Dec 26, 2003 19:32:19 GMT
Well, I was just trying to prove that Yoko was just as bad as Faul. I never said that he should be. Remember, even though Faul never wrote Beatles songs, hes playing the role of a man who did. In that role he can claim that there are songs that he wrote that John shouldn't have his name on, but it was left on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Imgonnaopenmymind on Dec 27, 2003 0:46:46 GMT
Unless you're not boning up on the Beatles, you'd know JOHN AND YOKO WROTE THE DAMN SONG. The point's not that Yoko's an SOB, the point is that Faul is a greedy dumbass who's trying to make a claim on something that neither he nor Paul co-wrote.
No matter what the usual songwriting credits say, Faul didn't write a word of the song. In fact, this is old news. She changed it as far back as the early 1990s, when the "Lennon Legend" CD came out.
OM
|
|
|
|
Post by MMCDHoward on Dec 27, 2003 1:29:15 GMT
No need to get angry, I was just stating my point of view. I happen to like Faul's music  more than either Paul or John, though all of them were great. I just think that Yoko shouldn't get angry at Faul for trying to change Beatles music, then go and change it herself. It seems hypocritical. |
|
|
|
Post by Imgonnaopenmymind on Dec 27, 2003 1:47:48 GMT
IT'S NOT BEATLES MUSIC, YOU DUNCE! IT'S JOHN'S SOLO WORK! RESPECT THE MUSIC!!
Sorry, got carried away a bit there, but it is NOT a Beatles song.
|
|
|
|
Post by MMCDHoward on Dec 27, 2003 2:03:43 GMT
I have to admit, your right about that. I just think that they shouldn't argue over such petty things. If John were here now I think he would say let him have it, money isn't all we need. I think Yoko's being as greedy as Faul by taking his name off. Why after all the time since it was published did she choose to do it now?
|
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Dec 27, 2003 4:26:32 GMT
I just think that they shouldn't argue over such petty things. That's what shallow, greedy people do. And their reasoning is NEVER the real reason for their actions. COMING SOON! The Battle of the creepy, plastic, parasite-people! |
|
|
|
Post by MMCDHoward on Dec 27, 2003 4:50:48 GMT
lol! Thats pretty good eyesbleed! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Dec 27, 2003 7:49:59 GMT
Yes! It's John's solo work.
But it was released as a Beatles single, "Lennon-McCartney" was the credit on 1) a song written by Lennon OR McCartney 2) while released as a beatles composition, per the long before agreement. That's the "on paper" way it worked.
And yes, we all know it's John's solo work, known that since I was a little kid.
I guess it's annoying because Faul is making a big deal about taking any credit for a "Lennon-McCartney" song period! Wonder if the ballad of J&Y would even exist if Paul was around?
|
|
|
|
Post by Fwings on Dec 27, 2003 9:47:39 GMT
Well, I know the perfect way for them to settle this. Every pre-1967 song can retain the "Lennon-McCartney" credit, and from 1967 onward, they can designate them "Lennon-Sheppard." There! I know that would make me happy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Dec 27, 2003 10:53:02 GMT
Ya' know, it just seems like that somewhere, deep inside, Bill must really wish to have recognition directed at himself, for himself, for his own contributions.
He has sung some magnificent vocals, and I believe, provided some very effective music direction on many late Beatles (post '66) songs. Although different by a few shades from original JPM, he none the less, as 60IF states, is owed thanks and appreciation. As unprecedented an "assignment" as this was, he did TEXTineffet give up some things from the life he had to be someone famous. Although they NEVER toured with Bill, he plied and plied his talents until he was able to work into another situation.
I do think it would be so much better for Paul and Bill to have individual recognition fo their creativity.
I wish it were so simple for him and whoever else is involved just to let it all go and , well, unbag the cat. We live in a world just jaded enough to probably react to it with a , "Really? I'm not surprised."
Of course, the public would never believe it until it would be on CNN or FOXNews. If McCartney gave a press conference and announced his fuller history (more or less) , claiming the replacement motif, most people would listen, scratch their head, and say either "Is he talking about that nutty hoax from the late 60's again?" or they would sit stunned for a half second, then burst forth laughing saying," That McCartney!!He is so humorous!!!! He's making jokes about that 60's hoax again!" and think he was pulling their collective leg. "Yea, that's a good one Paul! Tell us again!"
Few people it seems are anxious to change their views on this; how ironic, if he wanted to tell everyone he was a pinch-hitter, it would take a lot more than his announcement or public statement to make them get up to speed. I mean, the public lets go of its ideas with difficulty. The public is tenacious.
I showed some more folks this site, the photos, and the reaction I got was, "Oh, well, it was all those drugs. Drugs made all of this happen. The clothes, the hair, the music, the attitudes, the faces, the beards, the height, the not performing live, the estrangement between Beatles--all lay at the feet of some generic, universal "drug".
Was it the hash, was it the coke, or was it the blotter?...
Or was it just something tainted in the water?.............
Another view was that Paul's apprent changes were from "years of hard living, and aging!" I said, from 1966 to 1967? Besides, he does'nt look haggard or drug-degenerate in these pics, he just looks modified. Drugs don't change the shape of your features. Tell a doctor that and he will say you are on drugs. (Yes, chronic drugs may make you look wasted or thin or lifeless or tired, but Bill looks perfectly healthy in these pics....)
And then the rebuttal came;" Why would they do it? What would it accomplish"?
I stumble through my "Crown" rational, the possibility of enemies of the West, or Englang, or the Beatles, or EMI.........then comes:"Well, the'd have made a lot more money if they said he was dead, if he had been dead which we don't think he was....."I stuttered to no avail, then the big blow, "Remember Jimi Hendrix and Elvis and janis? Why didn't they have replacements? "Cause they aren't cost effective. The record company makes more money on the dead talent!"
I am reduced to whale-sh*t on the spot(in my mind, anyway.). Unable to frame a sentence, I blurt out something about "more ideas will be forthcoming," then slink out the back door to comments of, "yeah, sure whatever" Oh, quite polite of course; we all have room for our own opinions is affirmed--but one has to admit that this IS just a lttle far out for acceptance by the average person with the average mindset.
Just another dream:
So last night I dreamed that I was working for the customs office, and McCartney and his wife had just flown into my city, to take a connecting flight to LA. I had to do some routine scrutiny of their papers and luggage (I would not know what the hell to do as a customs inspector) we had a brief, courteous interview in my office(I don't have a office!!!!) and at the end of our little visit I approved their visas and smiled as I sent them on their way. McCartney said," I can't get the ATM 's in the airport to work; can you loan me $6 dollars so that Heather and I can get those little headphones on the plane to LA?" I gave him a $10 and said, "have a cocktail or two, instead. The headphones are free in first class!" He said thanks and they left graciously. End of dream.
I AM insane.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fwings on Dec 27, 2003 11:37:37 GMT
Since I don't get too involved in the Illumanati theories here, I simply tell people what 60IF says. John and the rest didn't want Paul and Brian's murderers to "win." They thought they could kill The Beatles, but imagine their surprise when they carried on with Paul. Eventually, the memory of Paul erased the temporary satisifcation having Bill around created, and this began the friction that eventually led to their breakup. To me, it makes perfect sense. It wasn't about making money. It was about not going down without a fight. People like Elvis weren't murdered, but poor Paul and Brian were. Eventually John and the others realized how wrong they were, but by that point Bill was already a strong enough force to take care of himself.
Judging from the way he acts, I too would think that Faul would want credit to go to "Bill Sheppard" and not Paul McCartney, but then I remember it's been nearly forty years since he's been Billy. He really is "Paul McCartney" now, and he thinks of himself as Paul McCartney. He's been known to the public as McCartney longer than the geniune one ever was, and I don't think Faul is going to let go of that. It's a pity, because I believe it would lift a great weight from his shoulders, and he wouldn't have to "run" anymore.
|
|
more than either Paul or John, though all of them were great. I just think that Yoko shouldn't get angry at Faul for trying to change Beatles music, then go and change it herself. It seems hypocritical.