People in the know on Paul McCartney

I'm not "in the know" but I get the impression he's a control freak

Block Yoko!

He's the fool on the hill.

Yes, he's an asshole... or to use the proper DSM term, 'Psychopath.'

Monsterous ego but how could he not have one? That said, truly believes in being an Entertainer so he's very nice and patient, at least superficially, to the little people (which in his case, would be pretty much everyone). Apparently, had a good marriage to Linda although Phoebe Snow (name dropping I know) told me he and Linda invited her to in their bed sometime in the mid-70's. She said no but they were cool with it, them being the jet-setting hippy stoners that they were.

I ave a friend who worked for him and never said a bad word about him.

I know Paul. He and three other people know what it's like to be a Beatle. He grew up as a Beatle, and sought advice from other singers who hit it big at a young age. He talked to Sinatra and Elvis. He has said that what kept him centered was it was 4 of them. Fame is something he lived from an early age, and by most accounts he has done a very good job raising his kids. I think him having nice people as kids tells you alot about Paul

That's a good point about the kids, r7. James seems like he'd be a cool guy to hang out with.

He had a nightmare divorce with Heather Mills. She told lots of ugly stories involving alcohol and abuse.

[quote]He had a nightmare divorce with Heather Mills. She told lots of ugly stories involving alcohol and abuse.

However, she's also a Trump-level compulsive liar.

Which Paul? The real one pre August 1966 or imposter 'Faul' who took over that month in 1966?

He is a cheap cunt. His kids all went to public schools and he never put a dime towards his daughter's fashion career. well, not at first and not sure if he ever did.

My partner has had some interaction with Paul through his work -- he never had anything bad to say about him.

[quote]He is a cheap cunt. His kids all went to public schools

That's nothing to do with 'being cheap'.

& going to 'state' schools seemed to do them no harm, nor him.

R12, in a UK context, his kids most certainly did not go to public schools so I'm not sure you can be considered a credible judge of his kids' education.

R7, you mean Stuart Sutcliffe and Pete Best didn't know what it was like to be a Beatle? Brian Epstein had a good idea as well, I'm sure.

He ate my pussy!

Sutcliffe and Best knew what it was like to be a Beatle, r15? Don't be ridiculous. Epstein had first-hand knowledge of what they went through, but he didn't know fully what it was like for them.

Tough to work with. He'll be all polite and charming and "oh yeah that's really great" BUT at the end of the day, it's either his way or the highway (or when he's working in California, the freeway).

R7, What do you mean, Paul "grew up as a Beatle"? Such language is usually restricted to child stars, a 12-year-old Ricky Martin in Menudo, e.g.

I remember a time where he was a bit high almighty about his vegetarianism. There was an article that the school cafeteria (they school, or university, he and his wife owned or involved in somehow) only offered vegan dishes and the students revolted and due to public pressure they finally conceded and offered dishes that featured meat.

When I worked at Warner Bros, I learned that the mega stars can be pushy assholes when they dont get their way. Paul is no different. You dont accomplish what he did without focus and drive.

Paul will burn in hell for participating in the Beatles' drug music........John Lennon already got his for that crime.

Also, did not Paul just get ripped off royally$$ by some stinkfish 'professional'?

Paul was seriously pissed when Michael Jackson "stole" The Beatles song catalogue. Apparently at one point they were up for sale and Paul was like "Why should I be the one who needs to PAY to own my own songs?" Michael Jackson (and Sony? or did the Sony deal come later?) swooped in and bought the music rights and that was that.

Who was it who forced Paul to sell?

Didn't he keep the others in the Wings group on a fairly paltry salary? while he got all the money, well of course it was his group, selling on his name. Wish he didnt need to dye his hair, we all know he is 74. Ringo even had his beard dyed for the premiere of the 8 Days A Week documentary.

He was the prettiest Beatle, but is finally looking his age. Of course he cheated on Jane Asher a lot too and probably all the other women in his life.

He is a Beatle. Respect.

[quote] He had a nightmare divorce with Heather Mills. She told lots of ugly stories involving alcohol and abuse.

I never believed a word that nasty old one-legged whore said about him.

People saying "oh, it has to be his way." Shut up. He's Paul fucking McCartney - you bet your ass it's going to be his way and why in the hell would you think otherwise?

R23, Paul was seriously pissed at Yoko for blowing their only chance to buy Northern Songs, the owners of the Beatles' catalogue. She claimed she had a right to match any other offers in the deal negotiation and that Paul should just leave all the bargaining to her. She tried to lowball it as a ploy and Michael Jackson just came in over the top and snatched it away from Paul forever.

The irony is that it was Paul who advised MJ years earlier to invest his money in song publishing catalogues. McCartney himself owns all of Buddy Holly's songs.

R22 is very disturbed.

R25, You sound very young. "He cheated......" Not only are you late by 50 years with your post; it's a "NS, S" one!

Do you know the concept of "Male Rock Star"?

[quote]you mean Stuart Sutcliffe and Pete Best didn't know what it was like to be a Beatle?

They knew what it was like to play in a band with John, George and Paul. They never had any idea what it was like to have the Beatles' worldwide adulation. Sutcliffe never even knew they became famous.

Why does everyone think his kids are so great? Just because they haven't trashed him in public yet? He is a tightwad too. I don't understand why billionaires don't throw a chunk of change to all their relatives just for the hell of it. He always whined about his father's second wife selling his birth certificate. Maybe if he hadn't cut her and her daughter off when his dad died.... His son is a druggie dilletante, and his daughter Heather has always had emotional problems.

The rights to the songs in the Beatles catalog began to revert to McCartney and the Lennon estate in 2013. At the time Paul said he was going to handle his part himself. I don't know if he did, Sony could've offered great terms to retain them.

Though MJ acquired the ATV catalog, which included most but not all of the Beatles' songs, he ran into financial difficulties and ended up doing a deal with Sony to merge it with their catalog on a 50-50 basis. But in ensuing years, his continued cash difficulties ( most of his money went to Neverland, payoffs, and his lifestyle) meant that Sony ended up footing the bill for administrative and acquisitions costs related to the catalog. By the time he kacked, he owed them beaucoup bucks for his share of the expenses.

I saw an interesting video when he was denied entry to a private party. He joked with the doorman "how vip do you have to be?" I thought that showed a healthy perspective on his position, and he also didn't try to push his way in when he was told no.

His sense of humor can come across as straight up insults to people who aren't familiar with it.

He'll try to break the ice by teasing someone he just met about their colorful shoes or whatever. But it comes across as him calling you stupid for wearing such ugly shoes. He really means no harm but his sense of humor is quirky can make him seem like a heartless jerk.

Sounds like Mary Jackson borrowed a lot of money, never a good idea.

"Neither a borrower nor a lender be"!

the McCartney-Lennon thing was some petty bs

Paul McCartney thank you for the songs. Have some respect, bitches!

He's a billionaire. He can be whatever he wants to be. Love his music. You go, Sir Paul!

Heard the son is gay. Also heard Madonna wanted to really sleep with him (to check off "Beatle" on her list) but he was married to Linda so he passed. She then had an affair with Stella instead.

There is no hell, R22.

Fame wears differently on high strung people vs. low strung. If you're a passive "go along to get along type" you'll be handled by everyone, everyone will choose for you constantly and you end up being an observer looking in on your own life happening around you. The upside of that is that everyone describes you as likable and you get the reputation of being easy to work with, which on some level really means malleable.

If you're high strung, you get to control your life more but the down side is that you'll probably be described as an asshole by many people because you say "no" or don't want to slip into an inner meditative place for the 20th time in a day someone is presenting some new demand or request.

Fame is a wish on The Monkey's Paw. It's a weird thing. It doesn't matter how good a famous person you want to be, you never can live up to the elusive mark because fame is inherently incompatible with humanity. You have to build a tolerance to being constantly degraded, while sticking up for yourself and some people do that in more pathological ways than others. At McCartney's level, it's like learning to live with a lifelong disease.

He's done fine, all things considered. They all have. Even the struggling Lindsay Lohans. One human being to another. You don't have to be perfect.

I read somewhere or other that when he lived in that farmhouse in Scotland he was well liked by the locals. No VIP demands, nothing flash, just got on with living like any other family. That sounds like a reasonable person to me.

I thought Madonna slept with George, r40.

“High almighty”, R20?

He was awesome on the recent "Car Karaoke with James Corden," which was a visit to his area of Liverpool.

Maybe I"m Amazed is well, amazing. among many others.

I don't know about his personality, and I don't care, but musically he has been responsible for almost 50 years of utter dreck, what Lennon referred to as "granny music". You know the old joke:

Q: When did Paul McCartney write Silly Love Songs? A: 1963 - 2018.

Not sure who's laughing at that one, r48. We're still singing them, over a half-century later.

And you'd take a ticket, were it offered.

My elderly neighbor is a quiet old family man, and a now-retired waiter at the Cafe Caryle. Paul McCartney showed up with a few people one night; he ended up being comped for the whole evening - he may have even insisted on it. Anyway, the tip he left? Z.E.R.O.

"Paul will burn in hell for participating in the Beatles' drug music........John Lennon already got his for that crime."

How fucking drunk are you?

R48 John was at times critical of Paul's music but he loved the 1974 Band on The Run album and he said in 1980 he loved the new McCartney song Coming Up.

R49, yes, they play instrumental versions of his songs all the time on my "easy listening" station. Look, McCartney may be a fine pop musician, but that's all he is: a pop musician. He writes happy bouncy songs that the whole family can tap their feet to. That said, he has terrible taste and has always had a weakness for the most treacly, banal novelty songs. Enjoy him if you like, but don't kid yourself that he is one of the immortals - not by a long shot. It oughn't be heresy to point this out.

Another gem from the McCartney oeuvre:

[quote][R48] John was at times critical of Paul's music but he loved the 1974 Band on The Run album and he said in 1980 he loved the new McCartney song Coming Up.

I don't think he EVER used the word "love" in relation to Paul's post-Beatles music.

and John's post-Beatles music was mostly fucking awful and very mediocre at best. He was in no position to be high and mighty.

"MIchelle, ma belle. These are words that go together well."

No doubt the souls of Mahler and Schubert yet roam this earth; ever tormented by the knowledge that their lieder could never attain such sublimity, such depth.

R53, Paul is not "one of the immortals"? Are you NUTS?! Or simply too young to get it??

Try reading about the influence of the Beatles on society, not simply music. Oh, and don't try to claim that it's really Lennon, because no, that distinction is not made. Same as nobody says, "It's really Bernie Taupin."

Is Paul McCartney a Mozart, a Beethoven? Hardly. But then, no-one in Pop music was or is ("Pop" to mean every single sub-category that isn't Classical, so don't try the "But ROCK...," because Paul comes from the original Rock and Roll of Eddie Cochran, Gene Vincent, et al.).

And "instrumental versions" are themselves a refutation of "not an immortal." Who makes "instrumental versions" of Nirvana, e. g.? Let alone any song whatsoever on the charts this minute. ANY. Name ONE that will be remembered AND sung 50 years from today. Don't make me larf.

Has music changed? Of course. Music, taste, instrumental and recording technology (at least Paul wasn't auto-tuned), all belong to their respective generations.

But you don't get to declare by fiat that the music of Sir Paul McCartney, however you care to describe it in disparaging terms (BTW, any Pop composing career of a span of 50 years plus will perforce include some clunkers), is not worthy of its continued stadium-filling adulation, because that particular reality shows you for the anti-Nostradamus you are.

But you are being disingenuous, because you are certainly aware that

...the words are sung by millions, still.

And I am no Philistine musically. I KNOW Classical is the epitome, the F1 to Pop's Indy car, but so what? So "Michelle" is no "Ave Maria." And?

As with any creative art, there is room in this big world for many genres, there are many ways to enjoy sound and words and images.

If his new song. "Fuh You" is any indication, he is surrounded by yes-men who don't have the balls to tell him when something he does is shit.

Not surprised by the PS story. There was a BI that when he briefly dated Renee Zellweger he wanted to bring a third woman into have seX and she said no. There was another one a couple years ago that he and the wife like threesomes, sometimes with men.

Paul McCartney wrote "Hey Jude." That alone makes him a genius in my book.

He can do whatever he wants!

R42, you do realize that the same goes for non-famous people as well, yes? You don’t have to be famous to have a “rep”. Though I understand what you are stating, the only difference between famous people and non famous people is name and face recognition.

quit raggin on paul

Patronising Phil Collins is one thing. But patronising him in front of Heather Mills? I agree with Phil. Unforgivable. Mingy Mills probably got off on it.

[quote]“I’ve got to preface this by saying McCartney was one of my heroes,” he says, when prodded. “But he has this thing when he’s talking to you, where he makes you feel …[putting on a condescending Scouse accent] ‘I know this must be hard for you, because I’m a Beatle. I’m Paul McCartney and it must be very hard for you to actually be holding a conversation with me.’ I met him when I was working at the Buckingham Palace party at the palace thing back in 2002. McCartney came up with Heather Mills and I had a first edition of The Beatles by Hunter Davies and I said, ‘Hey Paul, do you mind signing this for me?’ And he said, ‘Ooh, Heather, our little Phil’s a bit of a Beatles fan.’ And I thought, ‘You f***, you f***.’”

Paul vs Faul is both creepy and amusing.

Is it really true that pauls eyes were brown? They're supposedly green now.

..and his face round? And he was shorter than he is now? And his teeth are all different.

I don't know what to think.

His stepson is a classmate of my son. He and his wife show up for all the parent school events. He stays low key and nobody bothers him.

Is his daughter Beatrice trans?

Between the Beatles and his solo/Wings career, he is the most successful recording artist ever.

The whole Beatles thing and the 'Paul McCartney' thing in particular is baffling and bizarre. I fell down the rabbit hole of this mystery and have not been able to make any sense of it.

There wasn't just one Paul swapped out for whatever reason in '66. The real Paul McCartney has ears that folded over at the tops kind of like Jeff Sessions. Take a look at childhood pictures of the boy named 'Paul McCartney' and then early pictures of the band 56-63, pre-Beatlemania, in Hamburg, as The Moondogs, backing other singers, as The Silver Beatles, at The Cavern, with Pete Best, with Stu, etc. And then look at a variety of Beatlemania-era pix. And then look at mid-late Beatles pix. And then at the beaky, nearly blonde, green eyed guy who was *usually* the lead singer of Wings.

There are at least 4 completely different guys identified as 'Paul McCartney' before '62; look for: Scowling Combover Puffy Paul (real Paul), Chinless Wonder No Ears Pompadour Paul (still around as of a couple years ago), Cutie No Ears Paul, Cut Eyes Paul (later in the Hey Jude video) and Swooped Right Eyebrow & Doll EyeLashes Pete's Boyfriend Paul (later known as 'Faul'). When Beatlemania hits, the entire band starts using doubles and triples and...New Pauls in this era include: Smallest Paul Ever, Chucky Doll Paul, Extra Tall Goofy Giant Hands Paul, Lanky Porcelain Doll Paul, Korean Monkey Wig Paul Mask (the bald Ed Sullivan '65) Paul, Dodger Stadium Paul, Round Headed Songs About Prostitutes & Lesbians Paul, Super Ugly Eyes Greaseball Paul, Sickly Chipped Tooth Paul and a half dozen guys hired to be 'Paul' decoys for arrivals and departures. After 66, you can add in: Passport/Nairobi/'Billy Shears' Paul, LSD Interview Paul, Who The Hell Is That On The Sgt Pepper Cover Paul, Sharp Nosed Sunglasses & Bell's Palsy Paul, Terrible Nose Job Very Low Eyebrows Fake Ears Fair Haired Paul (still around), Round Eyed Cherub Paul (69 rooftop concert), First Appearance With Mustache Fake Ears Paul and Bizarre Lip Job Fake Ears Paul.

The easiest way to start telling them apart is by the ears, lack or presence of oddly angled eye crinkles on the cheek when smiling, or in group shots by height. The 3 remaining Pauls all have light colored eyes and beaked noses.

I realize this sounds insane, but if you look at the photos/videos you'll understand.

R66, Stepson in school?! His wife is 56, and her son is 26!

Many years ago, I was late getting to a party in on old fancy building on 5th Avenue. The elevator was reeeeally slow and I was waiting for the door to close, really impatiently. The door opened again and I was audible pissed. Paul and Linda walked into the elevator. They were apologetic and super nice. Invited me to the party they were gong to. I didn’t.

I’m an original Beatlemaniac but I’m a realist about what John and Paul produced without each other. Not as much. But I gained more respect for Pauline when he finally admitted Wings were crap.

R69, I enjoyed that. I’ve tried to look into the matter but it does make feel too insane.

Do you think there were multiple John Lennons?

Paul gave us the first punk rock song, "Helter Skelter". Love this man. #Respect

I've always wondered about his kids. Heather and James are reclusive loners who seem uncomfortable in the world. Stella looks like a potato and behaves like a nasty fishwife. Mary seems to be the only one who can relate normally to people. Linda smoked a lot of fucking weed. That probably contributed to the emotional and mental issues of her offspring.

R69, please provide some links to this phenomena. TIA!

Paul takes a chef with him on the road. When he came to the city I live in reservations were made at a particular restaurant for everyone involved in his tour. The restaurant was closed to the public. The staff at the restaurant had been looking forward to at least seeing Paul in person. Unfortunately everyone but Paul came to the restaurant that evening. Paul paid the bill and gratuity for everyone in attendance.

He loved Mimi’s Pizza (he had good taste) and had an apartment for decades in a very non descript red brick post war building right across from the place on Lex. I always thought that said a lot about him.

This blog, The Fab 4 Dozen, is probably the best at laying things out clearly with photo evidence:

Of the many forums dedicated to variations on this topic, Nothing Is Real is probably the best overview of the many theories and most welcoming to a variety of viewpoints:

And, yes, there were several Johns, but nowhere near as many as there have been Pauls. The original had a very narrow head and a long straight nose. An older looking guy with a nose bump was introduced during The Moondogs/Hamburg period. Then there was the John with the lamb-nose. Sexy Brawny John. The skinny guy who was in How I Won The War and who appeared frequently during The Sgt Pepper era. But Abbey Road cover John is the one who was killed...or "killed". There were two more with crooked low hanging noses. And then there's the weirdness that the morgue photos of "John" show a guy who has no right ear.

Oh for fucksake on the Multiple Beatles bullshit. Go back to reddit.

How absurd that people are so gullible to believe that there are alternate Pauls or Johns. So The Beatles and their managers were able to find people that not only are clones of each them, but could write songs, sing and play musical instruments exactly the same way, and lives in their homes. No wonder enough people voted for con-man Trump.

Don’t mean to piss on anyone’s parade but don’t you think the Beatles are overrated? I do. Also Paul is never will be as famous as John.

[quote]Don’t mean to piss on anyone’s parade but don’t you think the Beatles are overrated?

Actually, no. I heard a few of their songs last week and was reminded how magical they were. Wonderful pop music.

[quote]Also Paul is never will be as famous as John.

You know nothing,

"Paul" on Ed Sullivan, August '65

CNN Money: The world's 10 richest recording artists

1. Madonna

2. Paul

I knew someone who was a roadie for Wings. He said McCartney was a dream to work with. Just a down-to-earth guy who treated everyone with kindness and did many unpublicized charitable deeds.

Yeah, I'm not from reddit; I've been a DLer since 03. So, you can go die in a grease fire.

Back in the 90s I met a guy who went on a tour with him. He was a chef and was hired to make vegetarian meals for the road crew and I guess for the rest of the band. Paul and Linda had their own vegetarian chef. To be hired he had to prepare a meal which Paul and Linda sampled. That was pretty much the only time he interacted with Paul, he said Paul was cool.

R84 He already is as famous as John because he's still alive and the younger generation know him. I went to his concert last summer and was taken aback by the huge diverse age range of the audience. Lots of teens and twenties. And every other age including little kids. And all singing.

R91 John is immortal, Paul is not. Let’s get real.

Well that's literally true.

I think McCartney's reputation would be higher if it weren't for the large number of middlebrow and novelty tunes he spewed out. For every "Hey Jude" there's half a dozen "Uncle Alberts".

R94 Yes Paul's song vary in range and quality, but so did John's.

I think most celebrities are assholes when no one is looking. I have known several people in my city (Philadelphia) who were local professional performers that no one knew nationally, strictly small-time and small talent. Most of them were real douches who thought they were a big deal. I figure if people act like that on that level, they are probably really unbearable if they are a big star (and almost always phony in public).

R70 Law school in Manhattan

R84 he’ll never be as big an asshole, either.

I can picture him beating Heather Mills with her prosthetic leg.

SIR Paul McCartney is and will forever be MORE famous than John Lennon, for at least the reason given heretofore: He is stll alive, still selling out stadia, and still putting out new music. He has a famous daughter who is always in the media.

The Millennials don't know Lennon, just as they don't know Garland or Sinatra.

I've always imagined that the granny music and novelty songs are actually closer to McCartney's heart than rock music, but that he has always had to write at least some rockers to maintain street cred.

Dame Paul looks like an angry old lesbian.

R100 what an idiot!

Cogent, r103. Can any Millennial sing any Lennon song other than the oft-misunderstood pro-globalization, atheistic, NWO "Imagine"?

I have to say that the "there are multiple Pauls" conspiracy theory is one of the silliest I have heard about in quite a while. I looked at all the photos and saw absolutely nothing to give me even a second of questioning the validity of the CT. But as with all good conspiracy theories, it's fun to look at and wonder why are people so wrapped up in contrarian ideas? What on earth would be the purpose of it even if it were true?

People are really strange. It's hard to be shocked by anything these days.

I find his music to be an utter bore. Whenever Paul McCartney gets trotted out on award shows for a concert, I switch the channel.

John beat the shit out of a journalist at a party for joking that he and Brian Epstein had been fucking on their vacation together. He, also, killed Stu Sutcliffe with blows to the head that resulted in an aneurysm. He was not a nice man.

R107 no he wasn’t. And he wrote some shitty solo music, too.

Eldergays, watch the clip below and tell me how true it is:

The rumor that John killed Stu has been discredited. Some nurse studied the timeline and determined that that never happened, despite what Stu's sister claims. Given Lennon's reputation, I can understand why people believe it.

When you've got his talent, as long as you don't "shoot someone on 5th Avenue " you're fine with me.

Terrible wig

^^ I think his wig looks great.

R109 that was a good summary. I will decide "yes they were" because why not.

Talkin’ ‘bout FREEDOM!

r110, oh, "some nurse studied the timeline" and "discredited" it, that sure sounds reliable, definitive, and authoritative. You might consider raising the bar on what you consider "incontrovertible proof".

Here ya go, R116!

[quote] Wired Italia: Forensic science proves Paul McCartney was replaced

[quote] Forensic science has proven that Paul McCartney was replaced in 1966. A scientific team in Italy consisting of Francesco Gavazzeni and Gabriella Carlesi conducted a biometrical analysis of Paul pre and post 1966. The scientists saw discrepancies in the facial features that could not be accounted for by error or plastic surgery.

[quote] The original article was entitled Chiedi chi era quel «Beatle» ("Ask Who Was the Beatle") and was included in the August 2009 Italian WIRED magazine. A translation follows.

Can the "Paul Replacement" theorists please explain the most important thing of all - why do all the Pauls SOUND the same? His fame is based on his sound, not his looks, but that never seems to come into the conspiracy.

r119, they don't sound the same. "Paul" had a low, wide register. And "Faul" has a high thin register.

He's friends with an ex-boss of mine, an animal rights activist. He's very kind to her and everyone who works in that field, it seems. And African-Americans - he's very kind to African-Americans, I've noticed. Sensitive guy.

This is news to me, R120. Since I was a small child watching the Beatles' rise, Paul always sang the higher harmonies (eg in When I Saw Her Standing There, 1963.)

Newsflash: everyone's voice is thinner when they're 70.

Paul wishes he was 70

r122, oh well, certainly, your impressions as a child trump scientific comparison by experts.

White Album Sessions:

George: Aw, do we have to play another one of Paul's fruit songs?

Yoko: BEATLES! STOP!

Even if one were to disregard the voice, what about the talent?? The supposed Faul is more experienced and has a broader repertoire than Paul 1.0. Not to mention, he also has the same height and build and mannerisms and handwriting and sense of humor and everything.

If that's the kind of clone available out there, I wouldn't mind being replaced and retiring to some uninhabited island. Get to work, PID detectives, and find the source of that kind of replication. You'll be rich!

Personally, I prefer Wings over the Beatles.

Loved Wings too. The trouble started with "Ebony & Ivory"... .

He is being interviewed again by Howard Stern on Wednesday.

r126, he's not the same height at all! Why don't you look at the comparisons and get back to us.

All I know, is that Paul's talent died in the early 2000's, and was replaced by...a big ole nothingburger. This song being perhaps the very worst offender.

R131 That's a gross exaggeration. He's recorded some good songs since 2000. Particularly the 2007 album, Memory Almost Full, is actually quite good and well received. Several good songs, including Only Mama Knows.

R127. Me too

I love early 70’s Paul.

Holy shit, r64.

Collins is known to be up his own ass himself, but he can at least back it up a fuck of a lot more than McCartney can. One of the best rock drummers, and his solo work is much better.

Both of them were better as a team than apart. I also think the "Paul wrote the pop stuff; John wrote the arty stuff" is exaggerated. That's why there was such a quality drop in their respective solo careers. Each took the edge off the other's extremes. Quantity isn't quality, either. Jagger could've written 95% of Satisfaction, but Richards wrote the riff, and that's the song. All the nerds who analyze their songs by numbers miss the point.

I was trying to remember why he ended up with the gold digging one legged Mills. Was he just Lonely? Sex?

I don't know about John and Stu but if your source is a batshit conspiracy site...

Musically, more people are influenced by Paul than John. John led the band up to Sgt. Pepper then workaholic Paul basically took over; John threw himself into acid, Yoko, heroin, being avante-garde, etc. Sure, latter day John had some great moments but overall his solo career was kinda blah. John was a boomer hero and, tragically, a martyr. But those folks are dying off. Meanwhile, Paul is writing with Kayne, pop nerds worship Ram and when someone covers the Beatles it's almost always a melodic McCartney tune rather than some idiosyncratic or decidedly personal John song.

Funnily enough, the two Beatles songs most downloaded by the new generation are George's (Here Comes The Sun and Something).

Don't feel too badly for Ringo. Riding on the coattails of his arguably more talented band members has served him well for 50 plus years.

John was crazy, but George seemed.like the meanest Beatle.

George came across as grumpy and bitter

George was sex on a stick, but it pissed me off beyond belief when he used to trash the Beatles, which he did on a regular basis. Beyond tacky for him to talk about the group so disparagingly - not because they were the BEATLES, but because without them he'd have been stuck in fucking Liverpool driving a bus like his dad.

So fuck him in a way.

When he joined the Beatles, George hoped to make enough money to open a shop. He always hit me as the sort who put the "small" in small business.

Ringo is the Working Class Hero of The Beatles.

r142 no he wouldn't have been stuck there. He had legitimate musical talent and wasn't a bad songwriter. He was bitter because John and Paul treated him like shit. Both of them, especially John, could be nasty to be around. I saw an old interview (Dick Cavett, IIRC) where he talked about being frustrated because he wasn't getting his music on Beatles albums. That cost him millions.

He was not a Ringo level hanger-on, and he was rightfully pissed he was treated like it.

George started the songwriting game late. So whereas the world was legitimately/passionately clamoring Lennon-McCartney songs, he was piping out "' "Blue Jay Way,", "You Like Me Too Much (and I like you!). etc Is there any wonder he'd be relegated to one-two songs per album while his partners were the two greatest rock singer/songwriters of all time? That said, George was coolest looking Beatle.. Loved the way clothes hung off him. He was a truly sexy hippie (which was rare).

R145 you are correct about John and Paul treating him badly (IMO like a kid brother they could walk over) but I disagree on Ringo being a hanger on. The Beatles would not be the Beatles without him.

R146 he had the best cheekbones in the group...probably the most handsome face, although that is subjective.

Paul had the best legs.

Ringo the best arms.

John I don't know. He was nice looking in a way I can't explain.

Paul was on Howard Stern today and Stern asked him something about John being the love of his life. To which Paul responded something like “No, Linda and Nancy... women...I loved John like a brother.” It was very awkward and uncomfortable. Not sure why, when Paul has variously called John his soulmate and admitted to writing love songs for him (another thing he explicitly denied here, saying he wouldn’t write a love song for John), that Stern’s comment today was a bridge too far. I guess he is wary of headines, and particularly wary of Stern pushing him on the John-gay-for-Paul thing the way he did after the Phillip Norman book came out.

Oh, well. It made me sad for Paul — whatever happened between them, however fraught or painful their relationship — John clearly was A love of Paul’s life.

r146 John and Paul did a lot of dross, too. I also think it wore on him, possibly affecting his output. Also, his style was not really "Beatle-ish" which probably got him more grief, and he got tired of it. Ringo was a good personality because he went along with everything, didn't embarrass the group, and had not obvious daemons. That doesn't make him a great drummer. He was easy to replace.

r147 I'm not a Lennon fan, but he was asked at one of those softball press conferences if Ringo was the best drummer in the world. Reply: "He's not even the best drummer in the band". Harsh, but true (Paul was).

Stern? Well, Jews love to shit on people.

John never actually said that, R150. There’s no evidence of it, Lewisohn has dug into it. It was first said by some comedian in the 80s.

His comments are only inconsistent if you mistakenly believe there is only one "Paul McCartney". His stories about "what happened" are in endless flux. He's told five completely different and completely incompatible versions of why he was barefoot for the Abbey Road shoot.

Yes, I understand all that, R145. I've been into the Beatles since '64, and I still say that George ought to have behaved gracefully after the breakup and not shit on his mates IN PUBLIC. Mismanaged that woefully he did, and came across for years afterwards as being thoroughly ungrateful, which did not sit well on his slight but sexy shoulders.

And yeah. Maybe not stuck in Liverpool, but certainly not giving command performances for the bloody Queen.

R149 that makes me sad too. That was one of the questions I'd ask Paul if I ever got the chance (not in public). Maybe Howard should have got him properly drunk first and then asked him.

Maybe or maybe not related, but since you mentioned love songs. You know that "Here Today" has the line that goes "what about the night we cried?". Well, that's the exact line in the Bobby Darin song "Things", a #2 hit in 1962. "Things" is a love song. Coincidence?

Well, "the love of your life" is an expression so fraught with connotation, obviously, that it's no wonder Paul back pedaled. He's always been open about his love for John, and while it may not have been a sexual love (as was Lennon's for him, according to rumor) it was all-encompassing for quite a while. People want to put a snarky twist on it, though, and I guess he figures it's just not worth his while being honest about it anymore.

Public schools in England are actually private schools. Some of you are really confused.

The poster upthread should have simply said, Paul sent his children to tuition free schools.

Paul is doing a concert at Grand Central Station in NYC at 8 PM EST this evening. This link is to a live stream.

It hasn't started yet.

Which part of the station is it in? It's Friday night, it'll be a madhouse.

Grand Central Terminal’s Vanderbilt Hall according to the link at R158.

Now the performance is said to be "starting soon".

The performance is starting.

Thanks for the link. Do my eyes deceive me or was that Meryl Streep turning around to talk to someone? How does one get tickets to this sort of thing?

Paul announced this concert last night on Fallon. I guess it's super fans only. NBC announced earlier fans needed a special pass to get in.

I reckon most of the people in the audience weren't even born when The Beatles first hit the scene! Par for the course.

So they were randomly chosen fans from a sweepstakes thing. That's cool, it's not just richie-rich people close to the performers there as there would be at a normal concert. I respect that.

I looked up Paul's tour dates in 2018 a couple of months ago and the fall dates were sold out except for a couple in Montreal and Quebec City. Those were seats in the first few rows....they were going for $800-2000+ and you didn't even get a meet and greet! (Although, $2000 did get you the ability to come in for the sound check...is that a worthwhile perk?)

[quote]Thanks for the link. Do my eyes deceive me or was that Meryl Streep turning around to talk to someone? How does one get tickets to this sort of thing?

There are celebs in the audience, I spotted Jimmy Fallon (a huge Paul fan) and if my eyes are not failing me fucking 'model' Kendall Jenner, who must be bored to tears! She probably doesn't know ONE damn song Paul is performing!

Isn't that always the case, fans get shut out but clueless asshole celebs get the best tickets!

At least Jimmy did tell Paul he was a huge fan and even talked about a fan letter he composed to Paul as a child, he then showed Paul the LP cover which had the impression of his handwritten letter on it. Cute.

[quote]So they were randomly chosen fans from a sweepstakes thing. That's cool, it's not just richie-rich people close to the performers there as there would be at a normal concert. I respect that.

I used to work in the music business, I did graphics for the publicity departments of two record companies. Lots of times it's not the regular fans who get into these special gigs. The super fans, the fanatics, always seem to have the edge to great seats.

If they belong to a musician's fan club, the super fans get special perks, they get access to buy tickets before a concert goes on sale. Don't assume this gig is filled with 'regular fans'. It's not.

On the local NBC news earlier this evening, a few super fans from Florida were being interviewed. Did they immediately book a flight and drop their lives just because Paul announced this gig on Fallon last night? They sure must have known for awhile about this 'surprise' gig.

R169 interesting. What makes someone a super fan? Repeatedly buying the expensive seats, I assume? What's a typical spending threshold?

This article told me the sweepstakes opened on Sep 1.

...but it closed on Sep 6, never mind, I didn't see that. So they really only had yesterday and today morning to get to NYC. I guess it's possible to swing that if you drop everything.

I am disappointed to hear that there are in fact celebrities there. I know jimmy Fallon may be over the moon as a fan but did he win the sweepstakes? I think not.

He seems like he'd be an arrogant asshole, but then, I suppose he has something to be arrogant about (unlike today's "stars", who think they shit ice cream, when their only claim to fame is that they made a sex tape).

[quote][R169] interesting. What makes someone a super fan? Repeatedly buying the expensive seats, I assume? What's a typical spending threshold? This article told me the sweepstakes opened on Sep 1.

C'mon, a super fan is what today's young people call 'stans'. They are fans who seem more like stalkers. They cannot simply be satisfied buying the music, going to their idol's local gigs and buying a T-shirt and a program, they must amass lots of stuff and ticket subs!

These super fans go to every gig, own every pice of vinyl, CD and cassette their fave has released and that even includes the Euro and Japanese copies! They buy every magazine their fan is in.

They basically buy anything associated with their idol. This level of fandom is costly.

Some even take off massive amounts of time to see every gig. When I worked for one record company, there was a lot of gossip about a married couple who took off a year from their jobs to go on 'tour' with Sting! I'm sure Sting had no idea 'who' they were. This wacky couple bought ticket to every one of Sting's concerts in the US and Europe, they always managed to have seats in the first few rows.

This kind of fandom is an illness! Fandom on this level is not normal.

His new song is called “Fuh You” as in “I just wanna fuh you.”

Pathetic. Play the hits, stop making embarrassing songs that no one wants and that only diminish your legacy.

R174 agreed. I have second hand embarrassment from the title alone.

Why not just sing "Why don't we do it in the road" if one wants to go there?

R173 that is illuminating. Sorry for the naive questions, I'm obviously not a super fan. The record is enough for me.

Which "Paul" performed?

Or maybe one of these "Pauls"?

r167 if you're a musician or an old school music fan, the soundcheck would be better than the concert depending on how much of the set-up you got to see, and who was in the backing band.

Back in the day, music stars for the most part had to be able to play instruments. It was really cool to see how they set up their rigs, and where everyone was, what they did to warm up (scales, equipment testing, etc.) Even if the lead was old/washed up, they'd often have great back up musicians. The Rolling Stones were known for that-to this day, I'd love to go to a full length sound check and/or rehearsal, but I'd pass on the concert itself.

Hope it wasn't one of these "Paul"s...

NBC just did more reporting on the event. The usual suspect 'celebrities' were there, Amy Schmuer, Chris Rock and John Bon Jovi. Snore. As if any of them give a shit, maybe Bon Jovi is an actual fan.

So much for this concert being filled with Paul's most dedicated 'super fans'. Same old bullshit.

Glad I stopped going to concerts years ago. The ticket prices are absurd anyway. I'd rather listen to the record or watch MTV Life, lots of good live concerts on that channel. I discovered a lot of great new British bands from watching that channel.

[quote]r25 He was the prettiest Beatle, but is finally looking his age.

That. Is. A. GODDAMN LIE!

Wrong R181.

George was the handsomest and sexiest Beatle, Paul was the prettiest and cutest. There is a huge difference.

George had the best hair! Better than a woman!

I always though George was the only halfway decent looking one. The other 3 were [italic]fairly[/italic] unfortunate looking, really.

Of all the venues in NYC, why a train station?

I thought his band was fantastic and their strong singing helped prop up his on the old Beatles songs (his newer songs are in a lower key, which he can handle). With the exception of one young superfan who was danced on stage, I seriously doubt there were many others there because most of the crowd looked under 30. I was laughing because there were so many young women who looked bored to tears. They weren't singing along or dancing.

However, he put on a solid 2 hour show for someone his age. I texted my sisters (all big Beatles fans back in the day) that I was watching him live for the first time since the Beatles were on Ed Sullivan.

Which ears did he wear?

[quote]Sounds like Mary Jackson borrowed a lot of money, never a good idea.

Maybe she split it with Helen Kleeb?!

Can't his wife get him to stop dying his hair?

R180 I bet for the regular people who got in it was an added bonus to see some other celebrities, too. It made it even more special.

R168 Kendall got in because she did a bit on Fallon's show where she danced around with Paul.

Paul looks good for an old dude. Very trim.

The Bee Gees were better song writers and they actually could sing and perform their songs life. During the Stayin Alive, Saturday Night Fever time they toured with a 20 piece something band, strings, horns and the whole shebang. But Maurice, Barry and Robin just doing three part harmony and an acoustic guitar was just as magical.

I take songs like I Started A Joke, NY Mining Disaster and Nights on Broadway over any ditty the Beatles wrote.

I think the difference between the Beatles and the Bee Gees was that the Bee Gees weren't stars but rather musicians.

Paul would look so much better with a haircut to get all that dyed shit off.

It's a wig. Look at the above posted gif of the 65 Ed Sullivan appearance. He flips "his hair" and the wig flies back exposing his bald fucking head going 3/4ths of way back. His dad was a cue ball, too.

I watched the first song on youtube. After that, he mentioned Kayne and I shut it off.

R192, I agree with everything you said... I love the Bee Gees and think they're way better than the Beatles!

I love the Beatles, Bee Gees, and Wings.

[quote]Paul was on Howard Stern today and Stern asked him something about John being the love of his life. To which Paul responded something like “No, Linda and Nancy... women...I loved John like a brother.” It was very awkward and uncomfortable. Not sure why, when Paul has variously called John his soulmate and admitted to writing love songs for him (another thing he explicitly denied here, saying he wouldn’t write a love song for John).

"The Beatles Were BI" threads were interesting.

Was anyone else a traveling Wilbury’s fan?

I also likes George’s 80s hits.

When we were Fab...

Check out the posts from an insider at R192 R194 R201 R201 R211 R222 R245 R249 R250 R251.......from this another thread.

[quote]Paul did say that if he had a chance to spend one more day with John he would spend it in bed. Take that as you will.—Anonymous

I have always preferred the Bee Gees to the Beatles, much better voices but uglier faces

How can anyone compare the Bee Gees to the Beatles, that's fucking hilarious! Yes, I am quite aware of the Bee Gees songs pre-"Saturday Night Fever". The BeeGees even released a rock opera, "Odessa". It had a red velvet cover, I have it somewhere.

The Beatles went from what was essentially being a boy band to different genres of pop and rock music, which each new release, they expanded musically. Anyone with ears can hear the Beatles musical progression. People making these bizarre proclamations either know little about music or are very young. Or just plain clueless.

I'm not even a huge Beatles fan, yet no one can deny the band's genius, impact on pop culture and the fact that George Martin, the extremely brilliant sophisticated producer, was the Fifth Beatle!

prefer The Beatles but Barry Gibb was hawt

He’s now talking about masterbating with John.

PsychoStalker r201, is referencing not only posts from multiple people, but posts that don't even exist.

I'm sorry but Bee Gees voices...so high? how is it possible? injections?

Castrati!!!

circle jerk time!

R194, If that gif shows (you didn't link), what you describe, it's a total fake.

r210, no it isn't. You can pull up the video from the 65 Sullivan performance, yourself, and freeze it at the same spot. Bald! Bald! Bald!

Yeah, okay.

My mistake: it's not Sullivan; it's Palais du Sports, Paris (June 20,1965) during Long Tall Sally. Unfortunately, A Paul Corps has removed the best copies of that video from YouTube within the last 3 days...Sullivan '65 is just a weird looking "Paul" who doesn't at all match the "Paul"s from the previous 3 Sullivan appearances.

Here's a shitty link to the whole concert. Long Tall Sally is the encore. If they have this one yanked, too, I'm holding you personally responsible.

Donk

He's a DICK. My friend met him at a party in LA, they chatted, then she hugged him. He whispered in her ear: "no one's hugged me like that since John Lennon". She nearly threw up from laughter.

Another friend is a trolly dolly, very very attractive. She was dating Lionel Richie a few years ago, and Lionel took her out for dinner to meet Paul. Paul spent the night flirting with her, right in front of Lionel. He played footsies under the table. And when Lionel went to the toilet, Paul leaned in and said to her "you've gone and given me a hard on love".

But he can sort of make mashed potatoes

Why do the Pauls have fake ears? Is it normal for spies to have their ears amputated?

R216 a few years ago...was he with Nancy or a Heather then?

Can someone dismiss the fucking PID morons from the thread please?

[Quote] He whispered in her ear: "no one's hugged me like that since John Lennon".

Wtf?? That's his pick up line? Like he just admits it?

r220, he's not dead. He's not he. "Paul McCartney" is a character that has been played by a dozen or so guys since 1960. There are 3 of them now. They have different heights, different ears and different eye colors. One of them was a later-Beatlemania-era Paul -- but not the cute one with the doll eyes and not the well spoken one with the bowling ball head and not the weird looking one with the great voice and the wig. The original "Paul McCartney" doesn't seem to have ever come back from Hamburg, going by all available photographs.

Rubbish.

[quote]think McCartney's reputation would be higher if it weren't for the large number of middlebrow and novelty tunes he spewed out. For every "Hey Jude" there's half a dozen "Uncle Alberts".

Middlebrow. It's POP MUSIC you snobby idiot.

PID is far more amusing than the FabFour Dozen

r222: I don't know if it's drugs you need or drugs you don't need, but whatever it is, do [italic]some[/italic]thing.

"Hey Jude" is a self-indulgent disaster.

I talked to someone who worked with McCartney. He can be an absolute prick and a taskmaster behind the scenes. He threatens musicians by claiming he can fire them and then play their part! The other Beatles hated this pushiness as well. Remember the rest of them banded against him at the end of the band for a reason.

r223 has prosopagnosia.

It's not the same fucking guy. It's just not.

Hi, we're "Paul McCartney"!

How many "Paul"s have there been???

What the fuck is going on with the fake ears?

We're ALL Paul McCartney!

More Pauls...

r228: The words I would use are "detail-oriented" and "perfectionist." Plus, he's been at the top of the world for over 50 years. [italic]Of course[/italic] he'll develop a his-way-or-the-highway mentality if someone pushes him too hard. As for your couple-sentence-long summary of The Beatles' break-up, man, are you missing the forest for the trees.

A small "Paul", 1963.

A taller "Paul", 1962.

R228

Paul's always been that way hasn't he? Driven and focused. I'm sure it must've been annoying at times. I'm thinking about that scene from the 'Let it Be' sessions. Paul's needling George about how he is playing a guitar part, and George asks how Paul wants him to play it and offers not to play it and allow Paul to do it.

I don't think it was just one thing that broke up the Beatles. It can't be all on Paul for the group dissolving.

Was listening to “Silly Love Songs” earlier and the music passage after the sax instrumental break “How can I tell you about my loved one” is as good as anything of his off “Rubber Soul.”

The Beatles never wrote songs like Heartbreaker, If I can't have you, Woman in Love, Islands in the Stream, More Than A Woman. The Bee Gees were not only better song writers, singers and musicians, they also were way more prolific.

I hate the Bee Gees. I hate high voices on male singers, across the board. Also, the Bee Gees were dog ugly and should have worn masks. Who wrote the Bee Gees’ music? The Stones, Kinks and Beatles all took writing credits for stuff their producers really created.

[quote] First of all, I am a retired news reporter/anchor/producer and worked my entire career for the NBC affiliate here in New Orleans, LA. From 1971-1976, I was a 24 year-old "special segments" writer/producer for the late news (10pm cst). In the fall of 1974/spring of 1975, Paul McCartney began appearing in town fairly often, being seen by many frequenting French Quarter restaurants and popping in and out of jazz clubs. Come to find out, he was laying the groundwork details for the recording of his album "Venus and Mars," alot of which was recorded here from what I recall.

[quote] Well, it didn't take long for the "newshounds" to sniff out his accomodations - he was staying at the Richelieu Hotel on Chartres Ave. Needless to say, many hours were spent by myself and other young journalists of every media stripe hanging around the hotel and the studio, trying to get a few words from Paul. You'd be surprised just how accomodating he was.....at times. I'd say about 1/3 of the time, he'd give us a curt little nod, a quick wave, or a funny face as he rushed by us down the sidewalk or into a waiting car. Another 1/3 of the time, he'd sort of stick around for a few minutes and simply banter with us, just joking around and what-not. But, the other 1/3 of the time, he'd hang around, often by himself, for a half-hour to an hour or so. A couple of times, an editor-friend of mine actually went for drinks with him at a bar called Napoleon's.

[quote] He was exceedingly witty, bright, and talkative. I remember there being something slightly condescending about him, not in a haughty way, more that he had simply become accustomed to "always being right." Totally friendly, though, was he on these occasions.

[quote] OK, now for the weird stuff (and there's ALOT of it---moreso than I can get into now). The friend mentioned above was with a now-defunct New Orleans newspaper (The States-Item) in 1964 as a "beat reporter." He tended to do write-ups on local club/restaurant openings, high school sports, fads, etc.

[quote] He was also fortunate enough to have met all four Beatles when they came to New Orleans for a 1964 concert at City Park, and to have been present at a "press conference"-style interview (along with about 75-100 other reporters) and a smaller radio interview session (about 10-12 media people in attendance). During the radio interview, he was about 6 feet away from each Beatle, at various points standing even closer, shaking their hands, and getting a friendly clap on the back from Ringo.

[quote] Fast forward to 1968: New York - same friend finds himself covering several appearances by Paul McCartney for a now-defunct local music magazine. He attends a press interview at The Americana, but doesn't get to ask any questions. Plus, he's confused. Although he is less than twenty feet away from Paul, something about his appearance makes my friend wonder if his eyes are beginning to fail.

[quote] Two or three days later, he and a reporter from the NY Times meet Paul in the lobby of the Americana. He stops to talk for a few minutes, seeming to recognize the NY Times reporter, who introduces him to my friend. My friend has said (paraphrase):

[quote] "MrKite, I tell you there is no single doubt in my mind that the man I met in 1964 and the one I met in 1968 were two different people. When he first came out for the press conference in New York, I and a few others actually laughed aloud, one reporter asking, 'What's the joke?' He was so obviously not Paul McCartney. I actually thought at first, 'Damn, that guy looks a lot like McCartney!' and was surprised he had someone in his entourage that resembled him so closely. Once I realized that this guy was supposed to be Paul, I just figured 'Okaaa-aay, whatever!' and dutifully recorded the interview. In the lobby of the hotel, up close, I was surer than sh*t it was a different person! No look of recognition coming from him either, even when I mentioned the radio interview and certain things said back in 1964."

[quote] Now, it gets weirder: fast forward again to 1974/1975 - this same friend, who had drinks with Paul, claimed that, yet again, he was sitting with a man who was different from both the 1964-Paul AND the 1968-Paul. He sat within arms reach of Paul for at least an hour, and he swore that his bone structure, hair texture, mannerisms, and overall look was but a good approximation of the "other Pauls" he had met.

[quote] I myself can personally attest that the Paul here in New Orleans in the mid '70s (who was recording an album) that I personally spoke to on a number of occasions (probably 20-30 times over a few months for a total of about 5-10 hours) was a different man than the one who gave "official" interviews here in New Orleans during the same span of time.

[quote] No doubt about it - case closed.

[quote] I and a few colleagues thought maybe he looked different because he was made-up. Not so. Again, no look of recognition when I queried him. Physically, "official" Paul was a broader, taller specimen with a more sing-song quality to his voice. What's more, his hair was a different length! Yep, "official" Paul's hair was a good two inches longer than "studio" Paul's.

[quote] Plus, my friend who sat for drinks with Paul agreed with me. Especially since "official" Paul had responded to an aside comment from him after the interview about their conversation at the Napoleon House with, "I don't know what you're talking about, bub." It was so obvious there were two Paul's running around that it became an in-joke among those of us who hung around the hotel and studio.

Oh, please stop.

R216, are you joking or being serious? And if you’re being serious...does anyone else think it’ll only take a couple of weeks after Paul dies for about two dozen people to come out of the woodwork saying that he and John were fucking? What a strange relationship.

So did Paul actually walk on the moon, or are the rumors true that it was filmed on a sound stage?

R245 I live in hope.

Paul did not walk on the Moon. There was no "Paul"; there have been a dozen or so guys playing the role of "Paul McCartney", at various overlapping times. No one walked on the Moon. But, around the time Kubrick would have been shooting the film known as "The Moon Landing", the Beatles (not The Beatles) did spice leftover footage from Dr. Strangelove into Magical Mystery Tour.