Paul Mccartney on the Ronnie Wood Show

[MiloMinderbinder]

Yes, wrote and wrote is an interesting question. I watched that controversial Eagles documentary last week and was really disturbed by the posturing on all sides really. Frankly the Eagles are not my bag - nice tunes, some good lyrics, but they're not the Beatles, whatever they may think. So at one level I couldn't care less about their in-fighting, but egotism generally riles me, and I wasn't very impressed. Anyway, read an Eagles-related site on the subject of Don Felder's contributions, mainly out of interest. People were making claims there effectively implying that Hotel California is all about the lyrics. Apparently if you read them out loud, they work as poetry. Personally I'd like to hear it. Had I more time, I'd set up a thread where the lyrics were read out straight without music, then set to different, equally famous pop melodies/progressions, and where the music was offered as an instrumental, and then with alternative lyrics taken from equally famous songs. Just so that people might judge for themselves what really makes a song. Would be an interesting experiment, I think, and it might be revisited on a lot of other songs.

 

I've always been a believer that people almost always like a song first for it's music and that lyrics are far less important. If anything, the lyrics often add appeal to the song. I'm speaking of rock and blues. Also, the Beatles have soooo many songs with all kinds of nonsensical lyrics that were still very popular. There is no way that I am the Walrus became popular for its lyrics, for example.

[Mojorule]

It's sort of nice though that both Charlie Watts and Ringo still look like men. Fair enough, one of them does look dead, the other looks like the reflection of a Spitting Image puppet you might see by gawping into the back of a spoon, but neither really look like old ladies.... has to be bonus points in there.

 

And I thought you were going to say that the other looks like a 1980s Hollywood Werewolf - all very living dead really. I suppose playing the drums can turn you into a zombie...

[Mojorule]

I've always been a believer that people almost always like a song first for it's music and that lyrics are far less important. If anything, the lyrics often add appeal to the song. I'm speaking of rock and blues. Also, the Beatles have soooo many songs with all kinds of nonsensical lyrics that were still very popular. There is no way that I am the Walrus became popular for its lyrics, for example.

 

I think I'm inclined to believe you in many cases, Milo, though all things considered, I do think that most of my favourite songs really constitute an almost magical coming together of both elements. Hotel California would be such a combination I think (though it isn't one of my personal favourites, great as it is). If I had to opt for one side of the equation in that song, though, I'd be with you and venture that the music would stand up better on its own.

 

The case of Dylan, of course, is problematic. I'm happy to subscribe to the Christopher Ricks school of thought which is keen to see his lyrics recognized for their genuine poetic value, especially since Ricks is objective enough to say when he thinks Dylan is underperforming. But I don't believe that many of his songs would stand alone as poems without a musical setting. That's not how they were conceived in any case. In the main, his are great, poetic lyrics, and should be revered as such, not as poems per se. Trying to present him as a poet to be read without music smacks of too much concern for the literary canon and academic acceptance. I think Ricks just about avoids that position, but he treads a fine line. The music wouldn't really be revered without the lyrics, though, would it? It might live on in a million folk songs - Dylan already borrowed from enough old songs to prove that the music is durable and memorable, but only when matched to good lyrics. It wouldn't live on in the way that the most famous pop tunes do, though. Similarly, I love Lou Reed and when it came out, I bought Between Thought and Expression, where he tried to present his lyrics as poems. But frankly, the idea of Lou Reed doing a poetry reading of 'Sweet Jane' is laughable. Of the great lyricists, I suspect that Paul Simon has the best chance of passing his lyrics off as music-less poetry. But that may precisely be why Dylan's lyrics ever so slightly have the edge over Simon's when put back in their musical context.

 

I don't agree with you about I am the Walrus, though. It is a musical tour de force for sure, but it is the lyrics that drew my friends and myself to it when we were kids. Without a doubt they were what we were really listening to. It was my first encounter with surrealism. Having read a lot of 1920s/1930s surrealism since, I can see that Lennon wasn't doing anything particularly new in those lyrics, but certainly in the context of pop/rock he was breaking barriers. Also, newness aside, they are a pretty powerful example of surrealism, but that's another story.

[MiloMinderbinder]

I think I'm inclined to believe you in many cases, Milo, though all things considered, I do think that most of my favourite songs really constitute an almost magical coming together of both elements. Hotel California would be such a combination I think (though it isn't one of my personal favourites, great as it is). If I had to opt for one side of the equation in that song, though, I'd be with you and venture that the music would stand up better on its own.

 

The case of Dylan, of course, is problematic. I'm happy to subscribe to the Christopher Ricks school of thought which is keen to see his lyrics recognized for their genuine poetic value, especially since Ricks is objective enough to say when he thinks Dylan is underperforming. But I don't believe that many of his songs would stand alone as poems without a musical setting. That's not how they were conceived in any case. In the main, his are great, poetic lyrics, and should be revered as such, not as poems per se. Trying to present him as a poet to be read without music smacks of too much concern for the literary canon and academic acceptance. I think Ricks just about avoids that position, but he treads a fine line. The music wouldn't really be revered without the lyrics, though, would it? It might live on in a million folk songs - Dylan already borrowed from enough old songs to prove that the music is durable and memorable, but only when matched to good lyrics. It wouldn't live on in the way that the most famous pop tunes do, though. Similarly, I love Lou Reed and when it came out, I bought Between Thought and Expression, where he tried to present his lyrics as poems. But frankly, the idea of Lou Reed doing a poetry reading of 'Sweet Jane' is laughable. Of the great lyricists, I suspect that Paul Simon has the best chance of passing his lyrics off as music-less poetry. But that may precisely be why Dylan's lyrics ever so slightly have the edge over Simon's when put back in their musical context.

 

I don't agree with you about I am the Walrus, though. It is a musical tour de force for sure, but it is the lyrics that drew my friends and myself to it when we were kids. Without a doubt they were what we were really listening to. It was my first encounter with surrealism. Having read a lot of 1920s/1930s surrealism since, I can see that Lennon wasn't doing anything particularly new in those lyrics, but certainly in the context of pop/rock he was breaking barriers. Also, newness aside, they are a pretty powerful example of surrealism, but that's another story.

I was just listening to Across the Universe. Great lyrics and a song I really like. But, I was also thinking that other lyrics would have worked even if they weren't as pithy because it's such a catchy tune to begin with. As such, I think a song like that or I am the Walrus first grabs you with the music and then you turn your attention to the lyrics, and if they are interesting or meaningful, or even somewhat of a puzzle like the latter, they add value to the piece. But, I still maintain that if you take I am the Walrus and put it to some dopey music that nobody is going to find them interesting anymore. It also might be different folk music where I suspect listeners are more attuned to lyrics from the get go.

 

I do agree that some of the best songs combine lyrics that match the tone of the song nearly perfectly. Satisfaction is the first one that pops into my mind.

[Mojorule]

I was just listening to Across the Universe. Great lyrics and a song I really like. But, I was also thinking that other lyrics would have worked even if they weren't as pithy because it's such a catchy tune to begin with. As such, I think a song like that or I am the Walrus first grabs you with the music and then you turn your attention to the lyrics, and if they are interesting or meaningful, or even somewhat of a puzzle like the latter, they add value to the piece. But, I still maintain that if you take I am the Walrus and put it to some dopey music that nobody is going to find them interesting anymore. It also might be different folk music where I suspect listeners are more attuned to lyrics from the get go.

 

I do agree that some of the best songs combine lyrics that match the tone of the song nearly perfectly. Satisfaction is the first one that pops into my mind.

 

Maybe Across the Universe would work with other lyrics - the melody and the guitar part taking it up are nice and it is more than just a chord sequence. On the other hand the 'jai guru deva om' line seems integral to that song, as does the flow of the lyrics about words flowing. Personally I'd count it as a song where music and lyrics are both essential to each other, even though it's never been one of my favourite Beatles songs. With Walrus, I really don't see the music as much more than a strong chord sequence (but not as enticing or stand-out as Hotel California). True there are all the orchestral bits which make it interesting and the King Lear recording and what have you. The beat is strong too, and with that chord sequence and driving rhythm you might turn it into a really good R and B song with banal lyrics about liking a girl/boy you met in the street. But I think it would be little more than a cult Northern Soul cut then, not a really famous song. It's true you could switch in any surreal lyrics you want and it would still play the same role in the Beatles catalogue, but the lyrics would need to be surreal - they go with the weird string effects. On the other hand those lyrics might have made any tune into an important Beatles experiment.

 

Satisfaction for me is a great song lyrically and musically. I remember the elation it gave me as a teen, and both sides were integral. But if I'm honest, any lyrics with a hint of sex about them could have worked as well, because that song is so much about Keef's riff. Try something banal with it: 'I was born in New York City/All the girls there are so pretty'. The riff still makes it sexy...

[Tarrr]

'Your baby doesn't love you anymore' Roy Orbison had em hooked with the opening lyric. But the line was music not just words.... hard to do. The hook is normally an instrument of some type but Roy's voice was an instrument. Goo Goo G'joob

[Smurfbird]

Unless my ears deceived me, Paul claimed "Anna" to be the only thing by Arthur Alexander that he was familiar with. Ronnie chuckled.

 

Shouldn't Ronnie, at least, remember that his employer once covered Alexander's "You Better Move On" in their earliest years? Or was he only handed a copy of Stone Age or an advance of Rolled Gold when he joined?

[MiloMinderbinder]

Maybe Across the Universe would work with other lyrics - the melody and the guitar part taking it up are nice and it is more than just a chord sequence. On the other hand the 'jai guru deva om' line seems integral to that song, as does the flow of the lyrics about words flowing. Personally I'd count it as a song where music and lyrics are both essential to each other, even though it's never been one of my favourite Beatles songs. With Walrus, I really don't see the music as much more than a strong chord sequence (but not as enticing or stand-out as Hotel California). True there are all the orchestral bits which make it interesting and the King Lear recording and what have you. The beat is strong too, and with that chord sequence and driving rhythm you might turn it into a really good R and B song with banal lyrics about liking a girl/boy you met in the street. But I think it would be little more than a cult Northern Soul cut then, not a really famous song. It's true you could switch in any surreal lyrics you want and it would still play the same role in the Beatles catalogue, but the lyrics would need to be surreal - they go with the weird string effects. On the other hand those lyrics might have made any tune into an important Beatles experiment.

 

Satisfaction for me is a great song lyrically and musically. I remember the elation it gave me as a teen, and both sides were integral. But if I'm honest, any lyrics with a hint of sex about them could have worked as well, because that song is so much about Keef's riff. Try something banal with it: 'I was born in New York City/All the girls there are so pretty'. The riff still makes it sexy...

I think we probably agree about most of this. You make the point that if Walrus had different lyrics that they would likely need to be similarly surrealistic for the song to work. The same thing can be said for most blues songs - you have to have the right kind of lyrics for the song to feel right. So, on that we agree. But I think there are lots of other songs out there where the music really defines the essence of the song the lyrics are much less important. Either way, these lyrics don't necessarily stand on their own the way in which poetry does, and I think that's what we were trying to get at.

 

Also, we all know lots of famous songs where most people sing along with the wrong chorus such as "there's a bathroom on the right..." :)

[Mojorule]

I think we probably agree about most of this. You make the point that if Walrus had different lyrics that they would likely need to be similarly surrealistic for the song to work. The same thing can be said for most blues songs - you have to have the right kind of lyrics for the song to feel right. So, on that we agree. But I think there are lots of other songs out there where the music really defines the essence of the song the lyrics are much less important. Either way, these lyrics don't necessarily stand on their own the way in which poetry does, and I think that's what we were trying to get at.

 

Also, we all know lots of famous songs where most people sing along with the wrong chorus such as "there's a bathroom on the right..." :)

 

Oh yes, I think we broadly agree, Milo. I'm sure we would all find different songs more dependent on their music or more dependent on their lyrics, but that's the fun of the conversation really. I'm glad that Walrus is primarily the music for you - even if it's primarily the lyrics for me, I have to admit that when it came on the radio last week, I found myself taking the words for granted and thinking how the music kicks, and how bluesy it is.

 

As for the Mondegreens, well my favourite is from the band who did the most famous cover of I am the Walrus. Truly I believe that Oasis should have included the line 'Maybe you're gonna be the one at Sainsbury's' in Wonderwall.

[Rambler]

Interesting too that Macca now credits Billy Preston with writing the piano solo on Get Back. Never really doubted it, but in other bands that might have constituted a writing credit and some royalties.?

 

Hm. Interesting question but not sure I agree. I'd offer that there is a difference between performing as a session musician vs crafting an arrangement/composition. Take, say, the "mandolin player from Lindisfarne" on Maggie Mae? He fi his licks into a stucture that was already there, and got paid the going rate. It's only an injustice in retrospect, because the principles ended up so well as they did.

 

For the rest, its just some old guys having a goof.

[Mojorule]

Hm. Interesting question but not sure I agree. I'd offer that there is a difference between performing as a session musician vs crafting an arrangement/composition. Take, say, the "mandolin player from Lindisfarne" on Maggie Mae? He fi his licks into a stucture that was already there, and got paid the going rate. It's only an injustice in retrospect, because the principles ended up so well as they did.

 

For the rest, its just some old guys having a goof.

 

Not sure that Maggie May is the best example of just fitting licks into a structure. If Rod Stewart basically wrote that melody and hummed it so that the bloke from Lindisfarne could copy it, then fair enough, the session player is just performing. But if he came up with them himself, it is different. Not legally, obviously, more morally. Musically those licks make the song more than it might otherwise have been. You know what the song is as soon as you hear them. You could just as well argue that Chuck Berry's opening to Johnny B Goode is just fitting licks into the 12-bar blues format that thousands of others had already used. Or that McCartney's suggestion that Norwegian Wood might end with an arson attack was just fitting a witty quip into a structure that John Lennon had already 99% written. But of course CB's licks are his signature and make the music his own rather than just the lyrics. And McCartney's quip does lift what is already an excellent Lennon composition. There are plenty of session performances which are tasteful and no doubt play a role in the song, but which don't really make the song compositionally (the piano playing on Moonlight Mile, for example, or even Ry Cooder's truly brilliant playing on Sister Morphine). Others really leave their mark on the song - Steve Cropper's thirds on Soul Man, for example, which in copyright terms are also 'just fitting his licks into a structure that was already there', but morally are integral to the whole thing, and in fact are the most instantly recognizable part of it.

 

As for the retrospect argument, it might apply in many cases where the principle performers were unknown before the recording, but I'm sure it doesn't apply in the case of Get Back. It's not as though Billy Preston took the session money in the belief that it would be a safer bet than opting for royalties from the next single from the biggest band in the world. He clearly had no choice, and hopefully the Beatles paid him top dollar for a one-off performance. I like the counterfactual conceit of him kicking himself for writing off the Beatles in 1969 as a bunch of no-hopers in a world where guitar bands were already a thing of the past. Clearly that wasn't the case, though, as the Beatles could have farted on record by then and everybody would have bought it on advance order, such was their reputation. And even the argument that it is a retrospective fallacy to wish for more egalitarian writing credits in the light of later bands' practices doesn't stand up when considering the Beatles. Already in the mid-sixties Lennon and McCartney had admitted that they were effectively sharing royalties with one another even where only one had contributed anything. Aside from the fact that George and Ringo were excluded from that deal, it's one of the most liberal copyright arrangements ever.

 

Fair enough, it's two old blokes goofing. And in some ways it's charming. And of course as long as there is an audience for that sort of thing, they'll do it. I just wonder whether there should be an audience for it, or whether we should all be so indulgent of every little thing they do. Personally I love the stuff Ronnie and Macca picked for the show. We all love to play along with stuff too. But on a TV show? It was very uncool to drown out Eddie Cochrane's sublime solo to Twenty Flight Rock with a load of muffed doodling. All the banter suggested a similar arrogant attitude towards their influences. I think the format really has the potential to be excellent. But they need to let the records breathe, as Dylan does when he DJs.

[MiloMinderbinder]

Fair enough, it's two old blokes goofing. And in some ways it's charming. And of course as long as there is an audience for that sort of thing, they'll do it. I just wonder whether there should be an audience for it, or whether we should all be so indulgent of every little thing they do. Personally I love the stuff Ronnie and Macca picked for the show. We all love to play along with stuff too. But on a TV show? It was very uncool to drown out Eddie Cochrane's sublime solo to Twenty Flight Rock with a load of muffed doodling. All the banter suggested a similar arrogant attitude towards their influences. I think the format really has the potential to be excellent. But they need to let the records breathe, as Dylan does when he DJs.

As far as them playing over some of those songs, I took it as more of a thing where they were just having fun remembering the past and talking about how those songs influenced them rather than trying to play the songs for the listeners. RW explained what each track was and no doubt they would be easy to located for anyone interested in the original.

 

No different, really, than two guys playing a Beatles or Stones song and explaining to each other what they liked about the track and how when they played it they got an idea for something the else.

 

I didn't see anything arrogant in their attitude at all, so to each his own.

[Rambler]

"You could just as well argue that Chuck Berry's opening to Johnny B Goode is just fitting licks into the 12-bar blues format that thousands of others had already used." At least its his version of a 12-bar blues, heh.

 

In the early days of recording, you a featured performer, a writer, a publisher and maybe an arranger, who split the royalties. The orchestra played the parts they were given. The waters got muddied a bit when the record companies started working with roots musicians, because now you are dealing head arrangements instead of reading parts. So there's more input from the players. But at the end of the day, the solo is not part of the publishing, just the tune and lead line. Someone else would know better than I what rights session players have in terms of payback for hits. But I still see that as something different from composition. Not everyone agrees. Its one reason Lee Helm (bless his soul) was bitter in later years.

[geeterpicker]

I enjoyed the video, especially the story about John not wearing his specs and confusing the Nativity scene with people playing cards. I also can't criticize two guys who've had unbelievable success in their field. Who am I, after all, but some rummy from Ohio? As for Paul's voice, at his age playing live shows, it's bound to wear out. He's not 23 anymore and all those years and ciggies take their toll. Still, it was a relaxed little reminiscing session and any performances were pretty off the cuff and not meant to shake the foundations of the earth. It was just a bit of lighthearted fun. I remember when I first saw Let It Be in the theaters with all the rehearsal bits and thinking, "Man, these guys sound awful and they can barely stand each other." Then they got on the roof and the magic happened. So what people do when their goofing around says nothing to me about their true talent. Just listening to those two guys talking about their love for that old music and sharing stories was interesting. To go off and criticize how they speak says more about the critic than it does the subjects.

[Smurfbird]

Levon Helm and his fellow Band members were bitter with Robbie also because it's said that Robbie bought their copyrights from them when they needed money and he now collects all the publishing.

 

I love Levon but believe me there have been more "benefits" for him, Danko and Hudson than any successful musician should ever need. Their musical abilities far outstripped their abilities to make smart financial decisions and other decisions in their personal lives.

[Mojorule]

I enjoyed the video, especially the story about John not wearing his specs and confusing the Nativity scene with people playing cards. I also can't criticize two guys who've had unbelievable success in their field. Who am I, after all, but some rummy from Ohio? As for Paul's voice, at his age playing live shows, it's bound to wear out. He's not 23 anymore and all those years and ciggies take their toll. Still, it was a relaxed little reminiscing session and any performances were pretty off the cuff and not meant to shake the foundations of the earth. It was just a bit of lighthearted fun. I remember when I first saw Let It Be in the theaters with all the rehearsal bits and thinking, "Man, these guys sound awful and they can barely stand each other." Then they got on the roof and the magic happened. So what people do when their goofing around says nothing to me about their true talent. Just listening to those two guys talking about their love for that old music and sharing stories was interesting. To go off and criticize how they speak says more about the critic than it does the subjects.

 

And what, in precise terms, does it say about the critic?

[Rambler]

Levon Helm and his fellow Band members were bitter with Robbie also because it's said that Robbie bought their copyrights from them when they needed money and he now collects all the publishing.

. LH goes further in the S Davis book, pretty much states JRR took full writers credit back on the original LPs. It goes back to the point of writing vs contributing parts.

[Tarrr]

Every sabby ballad that had ever been written was out there for anyone and look what the Beatles did with 'This Boy'..... the greatest 2m11sec song ever. Its not nice to mess with some things.

[Del Nilppeznaf]

Not the bloody boy bands again ..heheheheheh

[Mojorule]

Not the bloody boy bands again ..heheheheheh

 

Hi Del. Well, I think it should be an annual fixture, as with the Homecoming and SANSJAM! Good to see you back. Looking forward to hearing all that jazz.

[Mojorule]

"You could just as well argue that Chuck Berry's opening to Johnny B Goode is just fitting licks into the 12-bar blues format that thousands of others had already used." At least its his version of a 12-bar blues, heh.

 

In the early days of recording, you a featured performer, a writer, a publisher and maybe an arranger, who split the royalties. The orchestra played the parts they were given. The waters got muddied a bit when the record companies started working with roots musicians, because now you are dealing head arrangements instead of reading parts. So there's more input from the players. But at the end of the day, the solo is not part of the publishing, just the tune and lead line. Someone else would know better than I what rights session players have in terms of payback for hits. But I still see that as something different from composition. Not everyone agrees. Its one reason Lee Helm (bless his soul) was bitter in later years.

 

Of course you're right in terms of the dance bands that developed the big band swing thing, Rambler. I'd be interested to know about the earlier dixieland bands though, and exactly what smaller bands like the Goodman Sextet did in relation to arrangements/writing credits. If it's an arrangement/cover of somebody else's tune, then clearly composition rights won't apply. But in terms of original material, I wonder. I've read that Charlie Christian wrote some of Goodman's head arrangements and that Goodman took credit for them, but I don't know if he did so in every case. This is a really interesting topic for me, and it would be great to have a longer discussion about it at some point, perhaps on another thread. I would need to do more research into certain cases, which this week I won't have time for unfortunately. The other interesting question is the historiographical one about how far we should allow hindsight to dictate our opinions of what went down. I'm all for historical contextualization, but I think that there are moral concerns which can be brought to bear to some extent irrespective of the historical situation. It's all a matter of degree, of course.

[Mojorule]

As far as them playing over some of those songs, I took it as more of a thing where they were just having fun remembering the past and talking about how those songs influenced them rather than trying to play the songs for the listeners. RW explained what each track was and no doubt they would be easy to located for anyone interested in the original.

 

No different, really, than two guys playing a Beatles or Stones song and explaining to each other what they liked about the track and how when they played it they got an idea for something the else.

 

I didn't see anything arrogant in their attitude at all, so to each his own.

 

Yes, each to his own, Milo. Perhaps arrogant is a bit harsh in any case. Smug or self-satisfied is probably a more exact expression of the impression I got. Clearly others don't see it that way. It's all good. To be fair to Ronnie, I think he has a different (better?) handle on what happened to royalties owing to the likes of Bo Diddley than Paul has, as his comments in the show about holding companies suggest. In any case, what Paul said about having done good for other performers suggested he might not have looked into the realities of the matter with the same critical eye as Ronnie. It's not his job to do so of course - it's not his fault if his band paid royalties and they were not passed on by a third party. So he is justified in feeling proud of himself to some extent on that front. But perhaps if I wanted to tell the world about how I'd helped others financially through my work, I'd like to make sure that I actually had done so. But then, quite possibly, all the Beatles royalties did get through to their intended recipients. With McCartney interviews I'm always a touch wary of what he says in the light of the way he's tried to put a cap on adulation of Lennon, in order to ensure his own work gets the coverage it deserves. I can see why he does it - when so much has been made of John as the drug-taking and witty experimentalist, it's not surprising if Macca wants to set the record straight about being the first to do LSD, the first to do electronic stuff and so on. But on the other hand he always was the subject of plenty of adulation himself, there's no voice left to put a cap on that and talk Lennon back up (does anybody listen to Yoko?), and the guy is a phenomenal talker - a one-man PR machine. Another of his prodigious gifts, no doubt. But I do think it is worth annotating what he and others say. It may be just two guys goofing around, but actually those of us who see it that way still hand on their every word...

[MiloMinderbinder]

Yes, each to his own, Milo. Perhaps arrogant is a bit harsh in any case. Smug or self-satisfied is probably a more exact expression of the impression I got. Clearly others don't see it that way. It's all good. To be fair to Ronnie, I think he has a different (better?) handle on what happened to royalties owing to the likes of Bo Diddley than Paul has, as his comments in the show about holding companies suggest. In any case, what Paul said about having done good for other performers suggested he might not have looked into the realities of the matter with the same critical eye as Ronnie. It's not his job to do so of course - it's not his fault if his band paid royalties and they were not passed on by a third party. So he is justified in feeling proud of himself to some extent on that front. But perhaps if I wanted to tell the world about how I'd helped others financially through my work, I'd like to make sure that I actually had done so. But then, quite possibly, all the Beatles royalties did get through to their intended recipients. With McCartney interviews I'm always a touch wary of what he says in the light of the way he's tried to put a cap on adulation of Lennon, in order to ensure his own work gets the coverage it deserves. I can see why he does it - when so much has been made of John as the drug-taking and witty experimentalist, it's not surprising if Macca wants to set the record straight about being the first to do LSD, the first to do electronic stuff and so on. But on the other hand he always was the subject of plenty of adulation himself, there's no voice left to put a cap on that and talk Lennon back up (does anybody listen to Yoko?), and the guy is a phenomenal talker - a one-man PR machine. Another of his prodigious gifts, no doubt. But I do think it is worth annotating what he and others say. It may be just two guys goofing around, but actually those of us who see it that way still hand on their every word...

I guess I didn't pay close enough attention to the conversation about making sure others got their royalties, because I don't even recall it. I thought they were just talking about who influenced who, who covered who, who got what ideas from who, etc.