Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Welcome Guest!

Join us now to get access to all our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, and so, so much more. It's also quick and totally free, so what are you waiting for?

BLACK LIVES MATTER! ×
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Sign in to follow this  
rainbowdemon

Report: McCartney says he's the political Beatle

Recommended Posts

Singer claims he, not Lennon, advocated group's anti-war stance

LONDON - Paul McCartney claims that he was the real politicized figure in The Beatles, not John Lennon, according to an interview published Sunday.

McCartney was quoted as saying it was he who first raised concerns over the Vietnam war within the group and advocated their anti-war stance.

Fans have long regarded Lennon, who wrote songs such as "Revolution" and — in later years — "Give Peace a Chance," as the group's authentic political voice.

:link:

2gujfo1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There he goes again, sticking his foot in his mouth. What were his political anthems?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Macca never said a public word against the tyranny of the Bush administration...would have been bad for his music sales, you know. Some of those consumers might have been Republican.

What this does show is that McCartney is even more insecure than even the admittedly insecure John Lennon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mccartney has had plenty of political stances, it's just that none of them (publically) had to do with humans. the "off the ground" album (horrible) had all sorts of anti-animal testing veggie crap, not to mention his go veggie simpsons episodes. he was the pretty face of the group, if he did anything political, it was behind the scenes. if he was anti-vietnam, it wouldn't be that much of a stretch, of course i would have figured it would be about overburdened water buffalos or something

he has a few songs about sexism/women (another day, elanor rigby) maybe they aren't as graphic as lennon's "woman is the nigger of the world" but they get a similar point across

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mccartney has had plenty of political stances, it's just that none of them (publically) had to do with humans. the "off the ground" album (horrible) had all sorts of anti-animal testing veggie crap, not to mention his go veggie simpsons episodes. he was the pretty face of the group, if he did anything political, it was behind the scenes. if he was anti-vietnam, it wouldn't be that much of a stretch, of course i would have figured it would be about overburdened water buffalos or something

he has a few songs about sexism/women (another day, elanor rigby) maybe they aren't as graphic as lennon's "woman is the nigger of the world" but they get a similar point across

the new album is his best in decades

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the new album is his best in decades

"flowers in the dirt" was the last one that had anything i liked. personally, i think political musicians are more pretentious and annoying than regular musicians. john lennon, bono, mccartney. as frank zappa said, "shut up and play yer guitar"

i really really hate bono. what a twat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"flowers in the dirt" was the last one that had anything i liked. personally, i think political musicians are more pretentious and annoying than regular musicians. john lennon, bono, mccartney. as frank zappa said, "shut up and play yer guitar"

i really really hate bono. what a twat

You should join with Umma and star a Bono-haters blog. I might join :) Here's a cut from the Fireman album. The video is lame, but I like the music. This has a pop feel - the rest is more experimental - the music reminds me of The White Album.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

reminds me of billy joel in about 1989. of course you probably already figured out i'm a george and ringo man.. it has to be said--no individual beatle effort can compare to the group work of the beatles. the longer paul and ringo live, the worse their efforts will seem. lennon clocked out early, in his prime. his ratio of shit to gold is pretty low (if you don't blame the yoko stuff on him) george had a good run, but he produced a lot of dogs. songwise, he made some of the best (here comes the sun, guitar gently weeps, give love (give me peace on earth), etc. ringo did well because his albums were beatle albums. the other 3 wrote and performed on his albums, and the results were great. he knows his limitations and surrounds himself with talent (all-starr band). he doesn't take himself too seriously, and to be honest, nobody ever expected anything good from him, so it was easy to exceed expectations. paul? he made a lot of crap. a shit ton of sappy garbage. his albums usually have 1 great song and 9 or 10 that are complete crap. he played the "cute" card for too long. after 1983, he wasn't cute anymore. he has celebrity syndrome. like bono, will smith and tom cruise, he thinks that because he believes something, and is also rich and famous, he is right and that people should listen to him. he is separated from reality

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I liked his first solo effort - it was a bit raw, but the songs weren't bad. Havent like much of anything since ... until the new album, which is more an experiment. I think the Beatles collectively were at their best when they tried things that were different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Our picks

    • Wait, Burning Man is going online-only? What does that even look like?
      You could have been forgiven for missing the announcement that actual physical Burning Man has been canceled for this year, if not next. Firstly, the nonprofit Burning Man organization, known affectionately to insiders as the Borg, posted it after 5 p.m. PT Friday. That, even in the COVID-19 era, is the traditional time to push out news when you don't want much media attention. 
      But secondly, you may have missed its cancellation because the Borg is being careful not to use the C-word. The announcement was neutrally titled "The Burning Man Multiverse in 2020." Even as it offers refunds to early ticket buyers, considers layoffs and other belt-tightening measures, and can't even commit to a physical event in 2021, the Borg is making lemonade by focusing on an online-only version of Black Rock City this coming August.    Read more...
      More about Burning Man, Tech, Web Culture, and Live EventsView the full article
      • 0 replies
    • Post in What Are You Listening To?
      Post in What Are You Listening To?
    • Post in What Are You Listening To?
      Post in What Are You Listening To?
    • Post in What Are You Listening To?
      Post in What Are You Listening To?
    • Post in What Are You Listening To?
      Post in What Are You Listening To?
×
×
  • Create New...