Jump to content

Talk:Paul McCartney/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Scrambled eggs

How exactly is the Scrambled Eggs thing a myth? It is quoted even in "Many Years from Now On" as said by him. Well, maybe McCartney has chosen to start enforcing that myth or something. I would just like to know where the claim that it is a myth originated.--Deadworm222 16:33, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Request for expansion

Most of this is from memory, with some fact-checking on the dates of his inductions into the Rock & Roll hall of fame and his knighting, so please go ahead and correct and expand where necessary. --KQ

Usage note

"This was the first album released since their last album Let it Be in 1970." Lots of Beatles compilation albums have been released since 1970. My guess is that what this sentence means to say is that it is the first album of previously unreleased material since 1970. soulpatch

Why Category

can you tell me what Category:Paul McCartney brings to the Paul McCartney article that the Paul McCartney article doesn't already provide itself? Kingturtle 18:28, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

error

Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey is not a Wings song. It should be credited as Paul and Linda McCartney. It appears on thier album entitled Ram.

Please sign your comments. --Mal 09:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

hero

paul mccartney was a hero of the 70s bcause after the band broke up and John Lennon died (was murderd by a complete nut job) and after george died of cancer, or even after linda McCartney died he still wrote songes and still composed albums.

Please sign your comments. --Mal 09:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Too positive about later music

I agree with this entry, by and large, and consider it well-written, but it does seem a little too positive about McCartney's later music. It mightn't hurt to point out that his solo material is not remotely as well-regarded as his work with The Beatles. Since it notes (accurately, I think) Lennon's decline in productivity and influence in the later Beatles years, it mightn't hurt to mention how McCartney's work of a few years later doesn't appear to have aged well. --DR

I am sorry to have to disagree with you about this. Yes McCartney was great in the 1960s, but you should also remember that for kids growing up in the 70s rather than the 60s, Paul's solo stuff was fantastic. Please do not disregard stuff like 'Band on the run', 'My Love', and the poppier Wings 70s output. Paul always had a pop sensibility that appealed to me during the 70s. In fact there is not one song that I can say that I really dislike (other than Mull of Kintyre). There are so may I could mention that I still really love. You must remember that an individual's perception of songs will be subjective, but are often bound up with when they were growing up and getting into music for the first time. For me, Paul and Wings were up there with the best, and I really get tired of crtics saying he wasn't as good in his solo career. For me, he was!

Please sign your comments. --Mal 09:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I grew up in the 70s, and McCartney to me was a pop star who made Mull of Kintyre (and later Say Say Say/Ebony and Ivory). When I heard Mull of Kintyre (and really liked it, not least because my grandfather played bagpipes), I didn't know he was an ex-Beatle. I think he hasn't made a good album (apart from The Fireman/live stuff) since Flowers In The Dirt though!! None of which has any relevance to the article, of course :) We should just tell it as it is. He did this, this and this, and critical and public reaction was this, this and this. --kingboyk 09:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
While I like half of post-Beatles McCartney stuff, and haven't heard the other half, I don't think its this encyclopedia's place to place critical judgement on his work - either way. For a start, its a matter of opinion. I wouldn't worry too much about this but, if its overly positive of this period - especially to the detriment of the earlier stuff - than I'd say fix it. --Mal 10:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Knighthood

Should the link to Knight go to Knight#ModernUse instead? I'm not sure if this is correct style. --Theaterfreak64 19:25, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

Wings material to Wings article

I've moved all the Wings material into the Wings article, leaving only a brief recap here, and I've moved all the pre-Wings solo material from the Wings article into here. As it was there was part duplication, part uneveness of treatment. -- jls

No "major" in Britain

Removed the line "*Was actually the only Beatle to graduate from Britain's equivalent of high-school; he majored in Art." - in the United Kingdom you don't "major" in anything - you go to secondary school, study a variety of subjects (all of equal importance) and sit exams - you don't graduate from secondary school, only from university. At the end of secondary education you should have a selection of pass certificates, there is no such thing as a "major". As McCartney is English I don't see why his education should be Americanised. Or why the writer assumed that everyone reading this is from North America.

Please sign your comments. --Mal 09:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

british no;1

What is this subsection about please..? --Mal 09:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Roman Catholicism

I had no idea McCartney was a Catholic, and have not heard it mentioned.

I cannot find any reference to Paul McCartney being a practicing Roman Catholic in adulthood. There is ample information indicating that he was raised within that tradition, however. I have ammended the text accordingly.

I am not sure if he attends Mass or not. I would like to think that he does but I am skeptical. His religion, however, is his own business. BlueKangaroo.

His mother was a Roman Catholic, but Paul is not a practising Catholic. Incidentally, Harrison's mother was too, whereas both John and Ringo had Protestant upbringings. This is not a big deal in the greater scheme of things, but there may peripheral influence in song lyrics, behaviour, etc. Raymi

Drammen, Norway concert

Paul McCartney's World Tour 1989 - 1990. After having released his "Flowers in the dirt" album in summer of 1989, Paul McCartney was headed for another world tour. The interesting thing in this connestion is: The tour started in Norway, late autumn 1989 with a concert in Drammenshallen in the city of Drammen. This was a kind of "testing concert" before the real tour took off in 1990. For people in Norway this was a great event! The Beatles as a group never toured Norway during their career, but Paul McCartney and The Wings played in Oslo in 1972. Who could ever forget one of the extra's of the concert: "Long Tall Sally" with Paul at his very best! Therefore, the Norwegians were very proud when Mr.McCartney announced that his tour of 1989 - 1990 was to start in Drammen, Norway! The concert was indeed a memorable one, and in particaular for one in the audience: The Crown Prince of Norway, Haakon. The heir to the Norwegian crown was then a 17 - year old teenager with a keen interest in pop and rock music, and in the press stated that the concert with Paul McCartney was "a truly magnificent event!" Written by a dedicated fan of Paul McCartney, Mr.Tor Arne Eilertsen Norway

Album Descriptions are poor

How on Earth could the description of the "McCartney" album mention Meat Loaf and his cover of "Hot as Sun" and not mention "Maybe I'm Amazed"? Wow. --Stevestrange 01:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

This was part of the 20:51, 9 October 2005 172.203.51.60 vandalism mentioned below. It's now been restored. Wasted Time R 13:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Large Wings probable copyvio removed

On 22:35, 22 October 2005 anon 24.22.58.112 introduced a large, unwikified text segment on Wings that reads like an almost certain copyright violation (it's part IV of some larger work and has the tone of being written for something other than an encyclopedia, it was the only edit this anon ever did, etc.). Even if it was legit, which I highly doubt, it belongs in the Wings (band) article, not here. I've reverted this whole insertion to the previous short section that refers to the Wings article. Wasted Time R 12:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Role in The Beatles section restored

This whole section had been removed in a 20:51, 9 October 2005 vandalism by 172.203.51.60, who committed other vandalisms at the same time that I will repair. Geez, this article really fell apart.... Wasted Time R 13:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Left-handed, instruments

It would be good to somewhere mention that Paul is left-handed and that he played bass guitar for the Beatles. Just a thought.

That he was an influential bassist is now mentioned in the intro, and that he was bassist for the Beatles is mentioned at the start of the Beatles section. That he was left-handed is mentioned fairly early in the Beatles section and again at the end of the Trivia section. Are these mentions not sufficient? Wasted Time R 12:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Change

an anon ip changed the age in this sentence to 17 (I don't know which is correct so please can someone more knowledgable check it): "and John Lennon, whose mother died when John was 18." Arniep 13:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I ducked it, by saying "when John was also a teenager." The Paul article shouldn't have to worry about the precise details of John's life. Wasted Time R 14:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

John was born on the 9th October 1940. His mother, Julia, sadly was run over and killed on the 15th July 1958, three months before his 18th birthday.

References

I am struck by the lack of references in this article. The information in this article needs to have documented sources, IMO. 67.177.215.10 19:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC) Sorry, JJ 19:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC) was not logged in.

Main Image

Is there any reason why the all Beatles' main pictures have been changed to 1962/1963 era images? I don't think pictures from that era are reflective enough of each Beatle's life to warrant being the main image.

--Bbsrock

'Here Today'

This article twice references the song 'Here Today' as a eulogy to John Lennon. In fact PM has denied that it was written for John, adding 'If that's what people want to think, that's fine.' I think we should take his word for it or at least mention his denial. Tripper 15:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's any doubt that he wrote Here Today for John... Here's an interview about it: http://www.youtube.com/enwiki/w/Paul-McCartney---Here-Today?v=3vqX5dFnnzc&search=Paul%20McCartney

Left Handed???!!!!!!!

Ok. I might be a bit obsessive, rock music being my forte, but Paul McCartney was not left handed. He was right handed. He found Italic textplaying the guitarItalic text difficult with his right hand, but he did everything else right handed. I haven't made a change to the page, but I think I might, because in my mind this is a large error, and somebody ought to correct it. If not me, then at least somebody may agree. . .

I just changed it 15 minutes ago but it was changed back, apparently. I've seen him sign autographs a million times, he is right handed.

From every article Ive read he is left handed...in the early days he couldn't afford a left handed guitar so he used a normal one, then when the whole beatlemania started he got a free left handed bass. That's just from what I've read. (Revo 07:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC))

The pictures from Hamburg show him playing left handed rhythm guitar. As he was using an acoustic guitar with a pickup and the bass he then purchased was a Hofner (so called) violin type, they were as easily played left or right handed once restrung (the bodyshape being duplicated top and bottom). BTW Jimi Hendrix managed to play his Strat "upside down", so talent usually gets round these things!LessHeard vanU 19:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Mother Mary and Jane Asher

Was "Mary Mohin McCartney" his mother's full name? I have never seen the middle name shown anywhere before but perhaps it just isn't usually cited.

I thought that Jane Asher was his fiancée. Am I right? DavidFarmbrough 12:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Pauls mother was born Mary Patricia Mohin on 29th September 1909 at 2, Third Avenue, Fazakerley, Liverpool. Therefore, Mohin was her maiden name.

Paul and Jane never officially declared their engagement (well, Paul didn't anyway!)but Jane officially anounced it was off during BBC's Dee Time (whatever happened to Simon Dee?) on 20th July 1968. It was his affair with Francie Schwartz that ended their relationship.

Left or right handed

I corrected the piece about him being left handed and then discovered that someone had removed it! Weird. I have put it back. (It's gone again! What do I do?) I suppose that all those fantastic mental images of him holding his Hofner the opposite way to the other two right handed players are hard to ignore. Paul plays guitar in the left handed position but does everything else with his right hand. Who was the left handed Beatle? Actually, it’s Ringo. And it was because Ringo set up his kit in the traditional right hand playing format that made him sound slightly sloppy coming out of fills etc. I personally think that contributed to the Beatle sound.

Perhaps it was removed because... Paul is actually, really left-handed!
From Rolling Stone issue 482, September 11, 1986
"Kurt Loder: On a more trivial but similarly ancient note, a new biography of you claims that Paul McCartney, the world's most famous left-handed bassist, is actually right-handed. True?
Paul McCartney: No, I'm quite definitely left-handed." --Krich (talk) 17:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Well perhaps he was in 1986! But in 1981 Philip Norman wrote in "Shout The True Story Of The Beatles" Quote: Paul, strangely, made little progress (in learning to play the guitar). His left handed fingers found it irksome to shape the patterns of black dots shown in the tuition book, and his right hand, somehow, lacked the bounce necessary for strumming. Then he made the discovery that, although right handed for every other purpose, he was a left handed guitar player. End quote. This might be the biography in question however (perhaps reprinted in 1986) Obviously not going to argue with the man himself. Let me look into this!

"Shout" is one source for this mis-information, as well as "A Day in the Life" (Hertsgaard 1995). It's not clear where the myth came from, but most other bios (such as the 1968 authorized bio by Hunter Davies) clearly state that Paul is fully left-handed - as does Paul himself. --Krich (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
And there's a trillion sites or so on Google that support him being left-handed. OsFan 14:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

You fools, he plays the guitar and bass left handed because he didn't have a teacher. He WRITES with his right hand, and in every other way is a right hander. Paul McCartney is RIGHT HANDED and no one should change the article to say he is left handed, you fools.

Firstly, whoever you are, please sign your comments there's a good chap.
Paul McCartney: "No, I'm quite definitely left-handed."
Says it all for me. Why would it be so hard to believe that he was left-handed anyway? One out of every ten people you meet is probably going to be a leftie. I'm left-handed. There's nothing sinister about it you know. --Mal 07:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
You could at least acknowledge Ned Flanders for that quip!LessHeard vanU 19:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
You know I honestly don't recall ever seeing an episode of the Simpsons where he used that joke! I really thought it up all by my ownsome. But hey - the writers of the Simpsons got there first I suppose. lol --Mal 20:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
The episode when Ned opens his shop for left-handed people, he has a BBQ where he explains his "sinister" reasons for inviting the regular cast. I can't tell you its name, even my geekdom has its limits!LessHeard vanU 21:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Ah yes that was a great episode. I just looked it up, it was "When Flanders Failed". --kingboyk 22:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, he was left-handed, but then right-handed Billy Shears replaced him. SpeedKing1980 08:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Another little comment about being left-handed: When I were a lad, it was still considered 'wrong' by some school teachers in the UK to use your left hand when writing. People of McCartney's generation were often forced to write with their right hand - often persuaded by corporal punishment (smacking the left hand with a ruler for example). I don't know if this happened to Paul or not, but I'm sure there is archive footage somewhere.. and recent footage too, which shows him signing an autograph or something. Either way, the hand he uses to write with, while it is usually considered the standard to determine whether a person is left- or right-handed, does not alter the fact that he is a left-handed guitarist. --Mal 20:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Paul McCartney is, was and always will be LEFT HANDED! I have seen him sign autographs on many occasions. Shout! is not a reliable source for any information, particularly about Paul. Clare Sherman

Grammys 2006

Why didn't he sing BLACKBIRD at the Grammys (for Coretta Scott King)? Would've had far more meaning than yesterday or fine line. Seems that once again, Sir Mc has gone for the crowd-pleasing route...

Canadian Seal Hunt

Although I believe McCartney is a complete moron for opposing the seal hunt in Canada, somebody should write about it in his article. --Devahn58 04:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Seal Hunt

Devahn 58, I would not consider McCartney as a moron but (as I have seen in the past) as a misinformed celebrity that is used by certain groups to justify a lie that as been circulating for the past 20 years. The pups (as seen on the newspapers headlines) haven't been hunted for the last twenty years but it makes a better picture! The hunt brings an economy boost to our region and is considered as one of the most awaited activity that is compared to our lobster season.

The market is not only for China or other countries, the meat is considered as a delicacy here at Iles de la Madeleine, the fur and byproducts (omega 3) are opening new markets that are giving jobs to people on the Island. I once was against this type of hunting, but when I found out how it was misrepresented by some factions who hired a misguided fellow to make that gruesome picture (killing of a pup in the 70’s) I started to look for the facts The fisheries and aquaculture management as a site that describes sealing in Canada. As the saying goes here, “aux Iles c’est pas pareil”. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/seal-phoque/reports-rapports/forum-colloque2002/forum-colloque2002_e.htm and http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/infomedia/2005/im01_e.htm --Pdoucet41 22:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC) Havre-aux-Maisons

THE SEAL HUNT NEEDS TO BE REMOVED OR AT LEAST EDITED FOR BIAS AND OBSCENE SPELLING ERRORS. AND OBSCENE STUPIDITY. I HATE WIKIPEDIA.

And I ""hate"" people who shout and don't sign their messages. McCartney's opposition to the seal hunt needs to be documented in a NPOV, matter of fact way, on that we agree. --kingboyk 09:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Seal Hunt

There was a great deal of factual errors about the seal hunt in this article, which I deleted. Also much of the inaccurate information was not directly relevent to Paul McCartney, and anyone interested in the seal hunt can follow the link to the Wiki entry on that topic.

Seal hunt

There's no way a section on the seal hunt should be this long: it takes up almost a third of his entry when other, much more major events in his life (wife's death) merit a couple of sentences. The seal hunt is not even a major aspect of McCartney's activist history: his anti-landmines campaign, for example, has gone on much longer, as has his involvement with PETA, cancer charities, music education, etc. In terms of headlines, his pro-Irish stance in the 70's and anti-Thatcher stance in the 80's also generated more controversy at the time. If anything activist related deserves its own section it would be his founding of LIPA (Liverpool Institute of the Performing Arts), but even that would be overkill if it was this long. The seal hunt section should be transferred to the seal hunt entry and be reduced to one sentence in this entry. 12.171.23.34Angel

As both a Beatles fan and a Newfoundlander, McCartney is IMO being a tool. However, I agree that it should be deleted or moved. Not only is it irrelevant, but it also isn't NPOV at all. CWMcGee 23:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

DS Corruption?

I was wondering why this 'fact' was included. It seems slightly leaning toward POV to me, and I'd personally need convincing that it has anything to do with Paul McCartney. For example, did alleged corruption affect Paul McCartney or impact his use of drugs or the consequences? Did the allegations of DS corruption affect any of this? If not, then I suggest the allegation is removed from the article. --Mal 07:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Watch Anthology, I seem to recall George telling a story about this issue? Anyway, I already toned it down to a "see also" (Norman Pilcher, the famous rock-star-raiding drug squad detective who got nicked for purjory). --kingboyk 09:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Ecce Cor Meum

I added a bit in the 2000's section about an upcoming CD. If you didn't know about it, it does exist, I helped record it! Sorry, forgot to login. That IP is actually me - User:simongoldring

Information here needs to be verifiable, and we're in no rush to document the newest happenings - an enyclopedia is built to last :) Ordinarily first hand accounts shouldn't be added. But, I can see there's a few Google hits already so I've left it in place. Could you link King's College to the correct college of that name and find a link for St Martins? Is it Saint Martins College of Art and Design? --kingboyk 10:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Sir James vs. Paul

I support restoring the parenthetical pointing out that he's known as Paul. Alternatively, perhaps make the formalism parenthetical?: "Paul McCartney (born June 18, 1942; formally known as Sir James Paul McCartney, MBE or sometimes Sir Paul) " ... That places the emphasis where it belongs. As Steve says, hardly anyone knows him as Sir. ++Lar: t/c 14:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that the link to Macca's MBE said "Order of the British Empire", which of course is shortened to OBE (which is what I've changed it to). Macca was a MBE - Member of the British Empire - but he returned this honour, along with the rest of The Beatles, in the 60's. I'm truthfully not certain what "honours" he has, since it isn't a subject I have any interest in.LessHeard vanU 21:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Only Lennon returned his MBE - Paul still has his. Clare Sherman

George Harrison (R.I.P.) used to phone his house and ask if "his holiness" was in. (True) --andreasegde 04:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

songwriting and notable songs

There's been a few edits back and forth between myself and an IP over how to word the section about Lennon/McCartney and McCartney's more notable songs. I'm a bit edited out and would welcome a 3rd party review/edit. --kingboyk 23:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

got some diffs? I don't know anything though. ++Lar: t/c 00:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

picture

Why is Image:PMcCartney.JPG being taken off the article? All its copyright information is there; I see no reason why it should be removed.

bbsrock

Maybe it got accidentally zapped during another edit or revert? I'll see if I can find it in the history. Looks like a nice image certainly. --kingboyk 12:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
[1] --kingboyk 13:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I'll put it back then - bbsrock
Sorry I took it off as cropped covers aren't fair use, plus, a free image should go at the top. Arniep 22:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh OK. Looks like you mistagged it bbsrock. A book cover is not a "promotional image", and it also looks like it's been cropped. Definitely a no no then, sorry. --kingboyk 22:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'll try to find a better usable image. -bbsrock
I haven't removed it, otherwise you'd begin to think I'm picking on you which honestly I'm not, but personally I think the new picture at the top of the article is horrible! Looks like a bad hair day for Macca there. Got any others? I like the idea of using a 70s or early 80s photo of him, after the Beatles but not contemporary, but I really don't like that one. Just my 2 cents, others may disagree :) --kingboyk 17:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I moved the free image back to the top as we should really use the free images at the top of articles as this is a free encyclopedia. I'm not actually certain whether we have a fair use claim for other posed images although we could probably get away with screenshots or covers. Arniep 22:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I definitely think McCartney3.JPG should be at the top of the article - bbsrock
It's one of the yukkiest pictures I've ever seen of him. What's up with his skin? --kingboyk 19:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I swtiched it back. Bbsrock 22:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Free images should go at the top. It is doubtful that your image qualifies as fair use also. Arniep 23:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Publicity stills of a public figure, when obtained from an official website, qualify as fair use when used to illustrate the article about the figure in question. That's pretty cut and dried to me, leaving only the question of whether free images should be used in preference on lead. I have to say I would want to see clearcut policy on that before I'd be happy with an icky free image in preference to a very nice fair use one, because to me article overall quality matters a bit more than whether image 1 is free but used first and image 2 is not but used second or vice versa... both images being used in this case. Arniep, can you provide us with pointer to a clearcut statement to the effect of your assertion? I'd really appreciate it. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 17:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Fair Use law states "in the absence of a free alternative", so it is unclear that any image which is not a cover would comply. Arniep 20:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
There are many examples of publicity photos as the main photo on various prominent wikipedia articles. Bbsrock 22:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Do they have free images availiable? Arniep 22:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Generaly not. In this case we have two free images availible.Geni 22:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Unless I hear from other editors (more than one!) that I'm wrong on this, I'm vetoing the use of McCartney3.JPG. I'll say it again, to my eyes it is quite an ugly picture. Macca was a 60s heartthrob remember? I don't see much "handsome" in that picture. (Personal story about taking a gf to see Macca deleted!) --kingboyk 19:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought you were opposed to Paul_McCartney_on_stage_in_Prague.jpg? McCartney3.JPG is a fine picture. Bbsrock 23:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
It isn't under a free lisence.Geni 12:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Change to intro

Two of my editing tasks today were supposed to be writing a new section in The KLF article, and reworking the intro to this one. I find a {{inuse}} on The KLF and somebody already doing it, and an anon IP has redone the intro here! :-) "Sir James Paul McCartney, MBE Kt., known simply as Paul McCartney," pretty much covers it per the Manual of Style. I might remove "simply" though. --kingboyk 17:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

No. He is a Knight bachelor which has no post-nominals. So He is not ...Kt. - Kittybrewster 13:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Buddy Holly

I seem to recall that Macca was promoting a "Buddy Holly" day during the 90's. I don't know what happened there, but I am pretty sure that he purchased the Holly publishing rights. I think this could be included in the article.LessHeard vanU 19:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, MPL owns those rights. --kingboyk 18:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
As a McCartney/Buddy Holly link might be too esoteric a subject for anything more than a stub (at the moment), is it known what other artists MPL owns the publishing rights to? A listing may give an indication of McCartneys favoured music style(s) and/or his general business acumen in acquiring them.LessHeard vanU 19:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure the info is out there yes (and it's a pretty extensive collection from the early days of rock and roll, iirc). I'd certainly be interested in reading more about it (and hence it follows I'm not the guy to be writing it!). If you can't do it yourself I suggest adding it to the "to expand" section on the WikiProject todo list. --kingboyk 19:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I think it should be on the todo list. I am not the one to do it, either.LessHeard vanU 20:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Everton Football Club

You'd be hard pushed to find a quote from Paul McCartney saying that he supported Everton, or in fact any of the Beatles saying they favoured any team at all. None of the Beatles were part of the 60s explosion of football in Liverpool, being as they were part of the 'Art Set' with no interest in sport at all. If you google McCartney and Everton it just self references back to Wikipedia.

It was news to me that Macca supported Everton; I was not aware of any band member expressing a preference, which would be quite sensible if they were not to alienate a section of their local audience. I do remember some 60's newsclips of The Kop adapting Beatle songs (in particular She Loves You as We Love You) as terrace chants, but I think that was a BBC "Those lovable Scousers" type thing. ps. Please sign your talk contributions, fanx ta-ra!LessHeard vanU 12:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I can remember reading an article quoting Linda as adopting Liverpool FC as her team whilst Paul was a mild Evertonian. I can't find it now however.--Sammysausagechops 11:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Read his "early years", and you will find out that he used to live in the Everton area of Liverpool for a short time. --andreasegde 04:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Songs generally attributed to McCartney alone

I don't think 'Eleanor Rigby' should be used an an example of a song generally attributed to McCartney alone. In Paul McCartney: Many Years From Now", Barry Miles writes (pp. 276-277) that there are only two songs on which John and Paul significantly disagreed over authorship. Eleanor Rigby is one; John claimed to have authored a significant amount of the lyrics. (The other is "In My Life", where Paul claims to have written the melody.) In The Beatles Anthology (p. 208) John is quoted as saying (in 1980) that "'Eleanor Rigby' was Paul's baby, and I contributed to the education of the child". I think it's better if another song is cited. There are many to chose from; for the sake of argument I'll substitute "Penny Lane" since that was another hit single from around the same period and its authorship is generally undisputed. - Jim Butler 05:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Oops, just noticed that Paul credits John with lyrical help on "Penny Lane" (Many Years From Now, p. 308). Substituting "Hello Goodbye". -Jim Butler 03:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Re edits from 72.29.165.14: Lennon was in on Michelle a little bit (if McCartney's own account is to be trusted; cf Many Years). It seems reasonable simply to list a few famous (and undisputed) songs from across his career with The Beatles. thx, Jim Butler 05:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

What's the point of disputing who wrote what? Some songs are one way, some the other. The two of them were not 100% exactly sure about who wrote what, so why bother? It's nit-picking. They both agreed (when they were teenagers) that all the songs should be Lennon-McCartney (or McCartney-Lennon :) --andreasegde 04:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

James

I don't know the dates on the third son Paul is mentioned to have, but it does say that it was born in 1977 and died in 1976... which unless he was in cahoots with Michael J. Fox, is highly unlikely. Myfriendbrenn 23:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

MBE

Did Macca get the gong a second time? I note that all four members are listed in the (Members of) The Order of the British Empire page - but I know that they returned the medal/honour in the late 1960's. As such no other band member is noted as being an MBE, and nor should Macca unless he has been subsequently re-awarded it. As I previously mentioned, my lack of interest in the arcane British civil awards system means that I do not know what the situation regarding McCartney is. However, if he has not been re-Invested then he should not be given the title in the header.LessHeard vanU 14:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Only John sent his back. Paul has a Knighthood also (I don't know of which type). So, yes he is MBE as is Mr Richard Starkey. --kingboyk 15:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
What about George? BTW - are you certain that it was only John? I know that he gave the most amusing coda for his reasons for returning it.LessHeard vanU 15:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Well George too in the past tense... only John sent it back, 99% sure! :) Anyone? --kingboyk 16:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

You can't "return" an honour. You can send back the medal, but that's merely a symbolic representation of the honour, and the only way of actually ceasing to be a member of the Order once appointed is to be thrown out by the Sovereign. Proteus (Talk) 22:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Knight Bachelor - no postnominal Kittybrewster 22:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

John was the only Beatle to return the medal. He had his chauffeur Les Anthony collect it from Aunt Mimi in Poole, wrapped it in brown paper and sent it to the Queen at Buckingham Palace with the message, " I am returning this MBE in protest against Britain's involvement in the Nigeria-Biafra thing, against our support of America in Vietnam and against "Cold Turkey" slipping down the charts. With love, John Lennon. Bag Productions. He also sent letters to The Prime Minister and the Secretary of the Central Chancery. The Honour itself remains. The other three Beatles were happy to receive and keep theirs. --Sammysausagechops 11:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Macca/Mills to split!

Can someone check the news and ensure it is updated.(I'm having tea.)LessHeard vanU 17:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Errr, thanks for the info LessHeard, but that info was incorporated into the article about 6 hours before you told us. The wonder of wikipedia! --Oscarthecat 17:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
(grin) I had hoped it had, but I was in a rush...LessHeard vanU 19:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

User:70.23.135.95 vandalised the history section today.--Anchoress 23:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

In what way?(query added by User:195.93.19.23 13:47 01 June 2006)

Is it important? I suggest that it is less so than not signing your comments.LessHeard vanU 14:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Has he ever discussed singing while playing bass?

As above.

Can we just be clear. Do we mean "has he ever - whilst playing the bass - discussed singing?" or "has he ever discussed his ability to simultaneously sing and play the bass?". In both cases I believe the answer is almost certainly "yes". Hope that helps. --kingboyk 18:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
He's discussed singing while playing bass? I've never heard that song. Was it any good?--Crestville 00:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Foolish Child! It was a concept* album released under the psuedonym of "The Ambulance Chaser" - a "hard trance/bulgarian folk" fusion opus featuring The K.F.C. on meaningful silences and Ringo Starr's All Stare Bland as "chirrupy things" - which was released only in Tonga and Watfords Furniture Emporium. Call yourself a Beetles fan? LessHeard vanU 10:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC) (*the concept was to sell some records.)

No sir, I call myself a Beatles fan (OH! IN YOUR FACE PRETTY BOY!!). Ha ha, only kidding. Though somehow I get the impression you are too. JHard trance/Bulgarian folk rock? I fucking hope you are at any rate. I draw the line just before we get to Harrison's "wonderwall" or Lennon's "Wedding Album". There's only so much weird self indulgance my ipod can take.--Crestville 11:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Does this excerpt even make sense?

"Some criticised that McCartney should quit his music job as it is an unnecessary luxurious activity" I read this in the article and I really am at a loss to understand this.

POV creep

We appear to be on first name terms with Macca again... Also, "It is now generally accepted that McCartney was the motivator for much of The Beatles' later work." By whom? Is there a source/citation available? My understanding was that Macca and Lennon were pulling the group in different directions as their personal tastes evolved, and that Harrison was demanding more creative input as well. Magical Mystery Tour and the filming of Get Back/Let It Be was supposedly Macca's idea's, but the song writing splits were much the same as before.LessHeard vanU 21:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC) ps. I have only just realised why Macca/they were going to call the record "Get Back". An album named "The Beatles Get Back"!!

I heard it was originally called "Get Back Pakis" and was a reaction to the Enoch Powell/rivers of blood idea prominant in Britian at the time. Wisely they changed it.--Crestville 22:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
That was a joke, right? LessHeard vanU 22:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
No, honest to goodness. Look it up on the net. This was, I think, about the time that Eric Clapton was critisised for making similar statements to the press. I don't think it was so much rasicm - the word "paki", whilst deeply offencive now, was less so in the 60s - but a fear that the Government was bringing over Pakistanis and such from what remained of the Empire to work in the the faultering mills. There was a fear that once the mills finally collapsed these people would stranded in the country with no job oppertunuines. At least I think thats what Powell was saying.--Crestville 22:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
It's actually on the wikipedia Get Back (song) article.
Well, you learn something new everyday! I'm surprised that some people who had recently been hanging out in India should be unable to anticipate the reaction to that type of lyric, no matter what the intent was. nb. I well remember Enoch Powell, and his Imperialistic/racist utterances - one of the stains on the 60/70's.LessHeard vanU 23:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Did people not take to his ideas back then either? I thought people agreed with him. Still, he was probably right in so much as we didn't have the jobs to support an influx of immigration. I'm sure my lovely Beatles did not mean to be racist. As a possibly chilling not - 100 Greatest Britons; 2002; check #55. And then, even more chillingly, it comes before #62!

See Ian Macdonald's Revoloution In The Head for info regarding this. The song originaly inspired by Canned Heat's On The Road Again. McCartney ad libbed a version with reference to Powell's river of blood speech. This is now a bootleg of course.--Patthedog 09:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Enoch had his supporters, in his day, but there were as many detractors, too. A lot of things happened in the 60's regarding anti racism, pro feminism, and all kinds of wonderful social advances - and it was soundtracked by The Beatles. Enoch was a reactionary bigot, and he was against the "Peace and Love" generations (and Catholics, womens rights, homosexuality, etc.) That is why I was surprised at the niavety of Macca - who is/was a sharp lad.LessHeard vanU 11:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC) ps Crestville; sign your comments, please.

I do!--Crestville 12:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC) "He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy!" You did the 100 Greatest Britons paragraph, and forgot to sign it! (grin) No milk at bedtime for you! LessHeard vanU 15:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC) I do so heartily apologise. What I meant to say is "I usually do, you don't need to remind me my old salt". A nod's as good as a wink to a blind bat.--Crestville 15:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

What is MACCA?

Where did this name come from, and what does it mean? (unsigned query by User:72.153.182.96 19:51 13 June 2006)

Short for McCartney, innit?--Crestville 19:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
The Beatles had nicknames for each other. McCartney was "Macca" (by far the most famous of the nicknames), Harrison was "Hazza", Lennon was "Lennie". Danthemankhan 03:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

That's interesting. I never knew that. Funny how only Macca caught on. You got a source for that? We could include it.--Crestville 09:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It was revealed in the official 1989 McCartney World Tour booklet, and here is a transcript of that page. Scroll down to "Nickname". These nicknames were used back in the olden days, probably years before Ringo joined, but their use (especially "Macca") would continue on for quite some time. In fact, you can hear Lennon say "are you ready, Macca?" on the Anthology version of "You've Got to Hide Your Love Away". Danthemankhan 02:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but before that he says "Paul's broken a glass, broken a glass, Paul's broken a glass, a glass, a glass, a glass, a glass he broke today.--Crestville 19:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Feature? Asessment? Peer Review?

So...this seems like a pretty good article =) Any chance we could start the ball rolling on a peer review, maybe one day bump it up to FA-class? -MBlume 20:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Any responses from editors who have been involved in FA articles? LessHeard vanU 22:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
It's only got 3 references, and 5 inline citations, and they're quite "light" too (only 1 of the 3 refs is a book). There's a few URLs in there too, which should be converted to footnotes. I think at peer review a lot of people won't see past that problem, so I'd be looking at getting the article better referenced first. (Alternative approach, since peer reviews often don't get much of a response: nominate it immediately, say it's a large and major article and we'd like some feedback, and fix the referencing concurrently - moving to inline citations, preferably). WP:PR for peer review, WP:FAC for Featured Article Candidacy. Anyone can request a peer review (hint: I have 2 on the go at the moment so I won't be making a 3rd request just yet. Perhaps someone else would do it? :)) --kingboyk 09:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I so want not to be an admin (I am still enjoying the struggle with English as a language)! Is there any takers on kingboyks "request" to have the article nominated, and mentor any changes needed? It is likely that Paul McCartney is going to be a newsworthy item in a year or so's time (or less) - thus getting the article to FA status might be a good move. LessHeard vanU 23:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Wait, what happens in a year or so? -MBlume 00:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
A divorce.LessHeard vanU 21:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, you had me kinda scared there, I was thinking along the same lines that the pope was newsworthy a year or so ago. -MBlume 21:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
It was that when kingboyk got the KLF article to FA status recently, he commented that it was more likely to be used if related events/subjects were in the news; thus a new sparkly Macca FA would likely be considered around the time any divorce was finalised. Since proceedings have commenced then a window of opportunity is likely to open in a short while. A bit mercenary, perhaps, but a consideration never the less.LessHeard vanU 21:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I reorganized the "Role in The Beatles' section and added the subsections because this part just didn't flow well, chronologically or otherwise. It jumped from Beatles bassist, to songwriting, to being Beatle Motivator, then to marriage with Linda and Heather (Heather didn't play a part in The Beatles, did she?), back to motivation, then to LSD, then back to motivation again, then to the Paul Is Dead hoax (with a NPOV endorsement of a book used as a reference in the main 'Paul Is Dead' article, which I removed because such a sentence shouldn't be here but in the 'Paul Is Dead' entry instead), then to the end of The Beatles. I also added some clarification to the McCartney/Eastman/Asher triangle and set out the timeline, but my prose isn't very good there (probably because I'm tired) and it needs another editor's touch. I still think these subsections need more work, too. IMHO, fixing this part of the entry will move the whole entry much closer to FA status. BaseballBaby 19:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

When he's 64

HAPPY BIRTHDAY PAUL!!!!! WE ALL STILL LOVE YOU VERY MUCH!!!!! --Ian911299

Irony is, his wife's left him. Happy B-Day Macca. Hope the "When I'm 64" joke doesn't get boring too fast.--Crestville 16:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Richest entertainer?

I notice in the opening paragraph it is stated that McCartney is 'the richest entertainer of all time'. While I myself think that is probably correct, I am wondering if it has ever been verified by a reputable source? There is no inline citation. Rdysn5 03:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right. What are the three rules when buying a house? "Location, location, location", as they say. The three rules when editing? Citation............ --andreasegde 16:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

singer/musician

This may just be a personal beef, but songwriters are musicians. Singers are definitely musicians. Changing to singer, instrumentalist, and songwriter, if that's alright. -MBlume 20:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree enough to edit, but would suggest that not all songwriters are musicians (those whose part of a songwriting team is lyrics may not be able to hold or play a note, but can write wonderfully, and I'm fairly sure that there was one "songwriter" used to hum his compositions to the band) and most popular singers have little in the way of formal training - it is a talent. Learning the techniques of playing an instrument, however, immediately makes one a musician (but not necessarily a good one). The term instrumentalist gives, in my view, the impression that his playing of an instrument is the focal point of his contribution to a track, when it is more usually his voice and songwriting. When performing as part of the backing with The Beatles he rarely, if ever, performed a "lead" part on any instrument - and it hasn't been common even as a solo artist or as leader of Wings. However, if everybody else is happy with the change then I don't feel it important enough to go and revert it.LessHeard vanU 20:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm willing to go back to musician if people want it. I don't really think the term instrumentalist gives any undue focus to his instrumental contributions since singer and songwriter are listed as well. I don't know, what's everyone think? -MBlume 17:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Coat of arms

someone put Sir Paul's coat of arms there like was done with Sir George Martin

Net worth

I'm removing[2] the statements about his wealth which I'd fact-tagged on 24 June[3]. Any good sources on this? AFAIK Paul chooses not to comment on his net worth. cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 06:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Football

Why is football in inverted commas. I hope it isn't some American taking a swipe at "soccer" not being real football, given that "soccer" has been around for longer. I've therefore wikified it, sureley the better option. Also, is there actually a solid source for his alleged support of Everton. It's something I've heard on a number of occasions, but nobody seems to be able to back it up. hedpeguyuk 20 July 2006, 7:55 (UTC)

Just as I thought, it seems hard to find a solid reference for his support of Everton. He admits that his uncles supported them, and allegedly said that "I am SUPPOSED to support Everton". Whether he is a football fan, but is a neutral, or does support Everton and doesn't want to alienate any fans, I think that if nobdy can provide a solid citation, then it should be removed. Have at look at these two articles. Both give an accounty of the ambiguity. hedpeguyuk 20 July 2006, 8:28 (UTC)

http://football.guardian.co.uk/news/theknowledge/0,,1104898,00.html

http://www.macca-central.com/macca-news/morenews.cfm?ID=1290

Peer review

Regular editors of this article: Please note that you have unanswered suggestions at the peer review page. It's good form to thank the contributors and act on their suggestions. Perhaps a Todo list is needed? --kingboyk 17:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA nom

I've failed the article for GA. It needs several copyedits, and some images need fair use rationales, but most of all, you need references. 7 footnotes and 3 references is nowhere near enough. Statements like, "Out of all The Beatles compositions, it is claimed only 27 were composed by both equally"; who claims this? Can you cite it?

I scanned your peer review, and most of the problems have been recognized there. The "Achievements, world records, and miscellania" section is really a trivia section, and if this is heading for GA or FA status it needs to go. Either delete the entries or incorporate them into the article. Good luck. -Dark Kubrick 07:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Co-writer

The co-writer was shown as George Martin. Maybe the Kellogg substitution is wiki-vandalism - introduced by an IP address rather than a registered user. - Kittybrewster 16:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It was. --andreasegde 15:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Paul McCartney is LEFT-HANDED

To all those who continue with not believing that Paul McCartney is left-handed take a look at the following proof:

1) On the inside centre fold of Paul McCartney’s McCartney LP it has a photo of him using a hammer with his left hand.

2) On the poster that came with the Band On The Run LP it has two photos of Paul McCartney writing with (yes, you guessed it) his left hand.

3) On the inner sleeve of the Tug Of War LP it has Paul McCartney sitting writing with (once again) his left hand.

Why people continue to doubt Paul McCartney being left-handed is weird, if not obsessive. I suppose next they’ll be claiming the photos are back-to-front? Or maybe they are not of the real Paul McCartney? Peter Jensen 00:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I have used a hammer with my left hand, and I am right handed - albeit with bruised fingers for a time!LessHeard vanU 00:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
It all comes down to one simple question which will put this to rest once-and-for-all: Which hand does he masturbate with? That'll prove it - and now's the best time to ask him... :) --andreasegde 09:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I never cease to wonder at the stupidity of the human mind. Some mothers do have them, but why do they all have to come to Wikipedia? Peter Jensen 19:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

"stupity" - Doesn't that just kill you? Especially within context. :D LessHeard vanU 10:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Good pick-up. Some people are awake after all. Don't you just love subliminal hooks, they always catch someone. But it has now been changed. Play nice!Peter Jensen 06:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paul_McCartney/Archive_1&oldid=1087184597"