Talk:Paul McCartney/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

References

New editors should read this:

If you add ANYTHING to this article, it should be properly referenced. If it is not, it will be DELETED. Don't waste your time by slipping in your own personal opinions, because this is an encyclopedia, and not a fan page. --andreasegde (talk) 23:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You mean we can't say Paul was the cute one? Tvoz |talk 06:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, alright... you can put that one in, but NO more, comprende? (Actually, my sister always liked John's firm buttocks, but I'll save that for his article. :)--andreasegde (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that's because John was the sexy one, which always outshone cute in my eyes, and, apparently, your sister's. Tvoz |talk 08:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so (is this conversation fancruft? Good grief...:)) There's something in this, about who was/is your favourite Beatle. I think that they really did represent complete individual packages of looks, intelligence and general all-round rumpy-pumpyness in four different people. I wonder if they use the Beatle question in psychologcical questionaires? In my case, I liked the look of Macca more in the fabs, but he loked a bit silly in the 70s and 80s, whereas Lennon got better looking as he got older. George had big teeth and big ears and Ringo looked a bit non-plussed most of the time (he still does :) George looked like a broom on legs in the 70s and 80s. (I'll bet it was the ears...) Ho-hum. --andreasegde (talk) 03:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Categories and silly things

Why were these put in?

Categories: All articles with unsourced statements | Articles with unsourced statements since October 2007

Ah-hah, I have just realised that they are automatic. I added refs and deleted the THREE (yes, only three) "citation needed" tags from an article that has 307. I suppose I am forced to agree with the process, after my own comments. It's a funny old world. --andreasegde (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

References

Any edit made without a verifiable reference will be deleted, including edits that are slipped into referenced sentences, BTW. --andreasegde (talk) 02:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

ja wohl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 16:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Ja, und beachten, verstehen? Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 17:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Uhhh... it seems that 69.125.110.223 is a bit of bad boy/girl, and has been blocked for 72 hours. --andreasegde (talk) 01:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Some of the refrences are incorrect ,as is the infomration. The Beatles did not win a Grammy Lifetime Achevemt Awrdin 2008. Sir George Martin and his sone Giles won for the Love CD. This should be corrected. The reference to which it points, as well as the Grammy web site says nohing about a Lifetime Achiemnet Award. I watched so I know what they won. Also, the name of Paul's Brit award is incorrect. It was for Outstanding Contribution, not just as a solo artist. It was the equivilant of a Lifetime Achevment Award, but he said he would not accept it if that was what it was called, since he felt it might spell the end of his musical career.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.176.18 (talk) 22:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Broken links

Users should look at this, as it details the broken links. --andreasegde (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Liverpool

Apparently Macca ia a Liverpool F.C. supporter... --andreasegde (talk) 11:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Academy Award

Doesn't it seem a bit odd that his Academy Award is in the first phrase of the article's first sentence? It's certainly not his most noteworthy accomplishment, probably not even in his top 10 accomplishments. Besides, the article doesn't even mention or cite a reference to tell people when he won it. Vandelay (talk) 17:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Introducing a person with an award is extreme POV. Vikrant 10:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

He's known as Sir Paul McCartney. The Sir (being part of an award) kind of deflates your argument...--andreasegde (talk) 17:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It does nothing of the kind. It's quite obvious that the people throwing around this "Sir Paul" business are his adherents (to put it charitably). I don't think any knight in the history of the England has ever been gratuitously Sir-ed as much as this guy. Anyway, knighthood is not an "award"; it's an obligation. TheScotch (talk) 10:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, "Sir" McCartney shouldn't be "sirred". His Honour is an MBE which technically does not get "sirred". 68.188.187.211 (talk) 05:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

"Sir" McCartney? please. Thanks, SqueakBox 06:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

He received the MBE in 1965. He was knighted in 1997. Different honour. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 11:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Which makes him Sir Paul, and we have multiple sources that call him that. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge

An editor merged McCartney's relationships without leaving a note on the talk page. Would Linda McCartney want to be "merged" with Jane Asher and Heather Mills? I think not. --andreasegde (talk) 17:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Left or right

It says Macca is left-handed. Not so. He plays bass left handed but is otherwise right-handed. He writes, throws a ball etc with his right hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.167.174 (talk) 06:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Then why would a right handed person, buy a guitar, be unable to play it, see a poster, realise that the guitar player had his instrument strung the opposite way to a right handed player, then think oh wow, that's the way you play a guitar, and start learning to play it left handed. The Guinness Who's Who Of country Music, Slim Whitman entry. Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 15:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Beats me but I have a left-handed friend who insists on playing pool with his right hand and I have personally known a couple of right-handed people who play guitar left-handed. Their response when I ask them why they don't play right-handed? It just doesn't feel right to them. Unintuitive I agree but that's the way it is. Anyway, I saw a tv interview with Macca a good few years back where he talked about this and said the only thing he does left-handed is play guitar and bass. His given reason? It just never "felt right" the other way around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.167.174 (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Macca says lots of things, like his story of the seeing the poster of Whitman. Also he says he saw The Wild One (athough it was banned in the UK for 14yrs) and that's where the name The Beatles came from (The Beetles) and it was him that had the idea of adding the "A" etc, etc. All of which are nonsense - Lennon or Sutcliffe or both, created the names of every band that he ever played in with them. He's said all this since the deaths of John and George. I could get my Father to phone Colin Hanton and ask if he's right or left handed, but what ever the answer, Wikipedia wouldn't accept it, because it would be anecdotal, just like Macca's TV carry on - he can't keep retracting published statements. Unless he packs it in soon, he'll have everyone convinced that they were Paul McCartney and The Beatles. I'd be very intrested to know if George was alive when the TV interview went out. Cheers, Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 14:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC) PS. As for shooting Pool, when I play Snooker I'll use either hand, rather than use the rest. Cheers, Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 14:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This article deals with McCartney's music (primarily). If it says he is left-handed (musically) then that deals with his musical ability. If you want to change the sentence by adding that he does other things with his right hand, that will be fine, BUT... in order to be as close to the truth as possible, you would also have to say that he plays guitars as a left-hander, writes with his right hand, plays piano as right-hander, and can do lots of other things with both hands. This leads us down a complicated path of whether he kissed Linda on the right cheek and Ms Mills on the left.--andreasegde (talk) 19:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep it simple, and write the obvious: McCartney plays guitars left-handed, but is ambidextrous. Isn't that OK?--andreasegde (talk) 19:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

George was alive when this interview went out. It's at the very least 10 years old. Anyway thought you'd be interested to know this info and perhaps incorporate if possible! Btw, I have just done a bit of nosing around and it seems Macca did an interview sometime with the cadaverous Kurt Loder where he said he's just left-handed so I guess Sir Macca is prone to making stuff up when the mood takes him.

Yeah, he's a lefty - Deffo! Cheers, Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 21:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

He was on "Later" with Jools Holland and said he was a lefty, but Jools mentioned the piano, and Macca (with a hint of malice in his eyes) said, "OK Jools, you got me on that one". As for making stuff up, he said on the Anthology DVD that Stuart Sutcliffe wore Raybans in Hamburg and looked great, and it was all really cool. What a fantasist; he hated Sutcliffe to death...--andreasegde (talk) 09:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

1) I am completely left-handed, not the slightest bit ambidextrous, and yet in baseball I bat right-handed and I play the cello and guitar right-handed. Why? I bat right-handed because this is how my father, who is himself right-handed, taught me to bat. I play the cello right-handed because this is how my grade-school orchestra teacher taught me to play. I play the guitar right-handed because I learned on my sister's guitar, and she would have strangled me if I'd switched her strings round. (I was never as adept at batting as throwing and catching, or as adept at bowing, strumming, and plucking as I was at fingering.) Mickey Dolenz of the Monkees is right-handed and played the drums left-handed because his teacher was left-handed. Ringo is left-handed and plays the drums right-handed.

2) Re: "...plays piano as right-hander...":

How could anyone possibly play piano left-handed? What does it even mean to say someone "plays piano as [a] right-hander"?

3) "...and can do lots of other things with both hands....":

I read that McCartney learned to play guitar right-handed to a certain extent so that he could pick up Lennon's guitar when it happened to be handy and demonstrate things and that Lennon learned to play guitar left-handed to a certain extent so that he could pick up McCartney's guitar and demonstrate things.

4) Re: "Keep it simple, and write the obvious: McCartney plays guitars left-handed, but is ambidextrous. Isn't that OK?"

I say make it simpler still and leave off the "ambidextrous" remark, say that McCartney customarily plays the bass guitar and guitar left-handed.

5) Re: "George was alive when this interview went out.":

If McCartney was disingenuous about his putative right-handed-ness, I doubt Harrison would consider it an important enough matter to set the record straight. In any case, McCartney does habitually play fast and loose with the truth. He's done this at least since the Beatles first began to be interviewed, and he does seem to take into account what he's likely to get away with (a dead Lennon or Harrison can't contradict him). Often his mendacity seems carefully calculated, but at other times it just seems capricious and strange. TheScotch (talk) 07:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC) TheScotch (talk) 07:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

"Shout! The Story of the Beatles" gives a pretty good account of Macca's discovering the sinister way of playing guitar. I would also comment that, per point 3, it is easier for a left/right handed combo to teach each other chord fingerings, etc. since you can face each other and "mirror" the chord shape the other is showing... For the avoidance of doubt, I play guitar

badly! LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

McCartney plays his own Steinway & Sons piano on tour

He is a trained piano player, since his childhood when he took private piano lessons, and also had casual practice with his pianist father, Jim McCartney, who was a pianist leading the Jim Mac's Jazz Band in Liverpool. When I say him playing a Steinway piano on stage in the 90s, he was quite good and confident playing piano and singing. His another concert in 2004, at the Palace Square in St. Peterburg, he played the same Steinway piano, and his staff confirmed that he likes the piano and takes it on every tour. I remember Vladimir Horowitz took his concert Steinway on every tour, and now Paul McCartney too.Steveshelokhonov 01:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: "He is a trained piano player, since his childhood when he took private piano lessons, and also had casual practice with his pianist father, Jim McCartney, who was a pianist leading the Jim Mac's Jazz Band in Liverpool.":

My understanding is that McCartney's father played trumpet in a part-time quasi-amateur group, that McCartney's father taught McCartney only the very elementary rudiments of piano in a very informal manner (and a little trumpet as well), and that McCartney had no further piano instruction at all. Over the decades McCartney has admitted repeatedly that he can't read music (even seeming to boast about it), a circumstance diametrically inconsistent with the phrase trained pianist. The comparison with Horowitz is risibly ludicrous (but typical of McCartney adherents in this respect). TheScotch (talk) 16:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Good grief; read the Jim and Mary McCartney article, and all will be revealed.--andreasegde (talk) 23:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Some of the best pianists, like Art Tatum and Errol Garner did not read music, but they were recognized by Rachmaninoff and many others as brilliant. McCartney plays piano very well, listen to Let it Be and many other piano parts recorded by McCartney over the years. Steveshelokhonov 23:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: "read the Jim and Mary McCartney article, and all will be revealed.":

No wikipedia article can be valid source for another wikipedia article--or for anything else, for that matter.

Re: "Some of the best pianists, like Art Tatum and Errol Garner did not read music, but they were recognized by Rachmaninoff and many others as brilliant.":

Art Tatum was partially blind, but otherwise able to read music. Since Rachmanioff died in early 1943 and Errol Garner didn't move to New York until late 1944 (thus for the first time becoming more than a local musician), it's unlikely Rachmaninoff would ever had had an opportunity to have heard Garner. I've never been a fan of Errol Garner's playing myself, but there's no question he could have easily knocked the socks off McCartney's with one hand tied behind his back (literally). In any case, the point is that formal piano instruction for sighted persons almost always involves reading. Paul McCartney's self-professed inability to read (corroborated by Lennon, Carl Davis, and others) is therefore prima facie evidence that he's had no significant formal instruction.

Re: "McCartney plays piano very well, listen to Let it Be and many other piano parts recorded by McCartney over the years.":

I am quite familiar with McCartney's piano playing, thank you very much. He plays at a very rudimentary level, and your attempt to compare him to two of the greatest pianists of the twentieth century (Horowitz and Tatum) vividly demonstrates the laughable folly of McCartney idolaters. TheScotch (talk) 18:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

George Martin (a very good piano player himself) mentioned that Paul's piano playing was progressing and he was demonstrating more cretaivity and inventiveness on the piano with each new album. Another George Martin's comment that Paul's bass playing was inspired by his father's piano playing: "Paul says his dad liked to play boogie-woogie on the piano, which is interesting when you look at Paul's own development into one of the world's great bass guitarists. In a boogie-woogie piano tune, the bass line, played by the left hand, produces a strong contrapuntal melody, rather than just a rhythmic thud. Paul's own bass guitar playing is of course the most melodic ever. He set a standard no one has ever reached. Sometimes he even composed songs around a bass line melody. Paul's bass line on Baby You're A Rich Man is a good example of what he can do." said George Martin [1] One more by George Martin I heard on the weekly Beatles show, in Martin's words 'Paul played his father's piano since early age ... and even in his mid-twenties he could sit at the piano in the studio for hours experimenting with melody lines and chord changes.' (I am quoting this one by memory, the show is "Meet the Beatles" with Les Perry, on sundays from 10 to 2PM in LA [2]) Steveshelokhonov 08:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You've got so little credibility at this point I don't know why you bother to persist. In any case, it's quite obvious that nothing in your paragraph above, even if we take at all at face value, in any way contradicts my assessment of McCartney's piano playing. I do find Martin's later-day sucking up to McCartney pretty sickening, though.

Re: "In a boogie-woogie piano tune, the bass line, played by the left hand, produces a strong contrapuntal melody, rather than just a rhythmic thud.":

He's got this backward, of course--in two ways. 1) The left-hand pattern is the ground, the ostinato, above which the right hand puts a counter voice. I like boogie-woogie fine and enjoy playing it myself, but as counterpoint goes it's fairly primitive. The right-hand part fits the same chords, but otherwise it tends to be pretty much random counterpoint; there is no especial trick to the combining--not exactly a Bach fugue. The ostinato itself hardly deserves to be called a "melody"; it's generally a simple, repetitious pattern. I don't say this to denigrate boogie woogie; it's just that Martin is mischaracterizing it; 2) rhythm (rhythmic thudding, if you like), not counterpoint, is rather the particular point to it. Also: There have been impressive boogie woogie pianists (Mary Lou Williams and Oscar Peterson--on occasion--come immediately to mind), but McCartney happens not to be one of them, not by a very, very long shot. TheScotch (talk) 10:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I could not agree more! Martin's sucking up to McCartney is cringe making. The first thing McCartney needs to do, is spend some of his ill gotten gains on some bass guitar lessons from Jack Bruce or Herbie Flowers. As for his piano playing, he isn't in the same leauge as Elton John or Rick Wakeman, let alone Oscar Peterson! Pat Pending (talk) 16:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Just trying to help the article to illustrate the fact that Paul McCartney is a muti-instrumentalist[3] [4] who plays piano at many live performances, as well as guitars and other instruments. He takes his Steinway on tour along with his guitars, which not many touring musicians do. Here he plays a Yamaha piano at the Albert Hall, then switches from the piano to his Les Paul. [5] Sure, Jack Bruce, or Chris Squire, or Stanley Clarke[6] are bass specialists whose virtuosity surpasses that of Paul McCartney. He is arguably the only songwriter of such profile who is a multi-instrumentalist and a successful cross-genre composer. Here McCartney and Elton John are playing together on two pianos[7].Steveshelokhonov 20:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Multi instrumentalist? Not in the true sense of the word he isn't. I can wring a tune out of any instrument that has strings, because I'm a guitarist. I can even bash out a bit of boogie on the piano, but I'm no Ricky Scaggs and neither is McCartney. Pat Pending (talk) 22:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a Macca apologist by any means but to say he's not a multi-instrumenatlist is silly. Granted he's not exactly Stevie Wonder but he plays several instruments to a professionally acceptable standard. That makes him a multi-instrumentalist by any definition. Only ridiculous snobbery would say otherwise. Also his piano playing is pretty nice and has tons of personality which is something you can't say for a lot of people who are technically way more adept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.167.174 (talk) 01:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The divorce

I suppose many comments will be added during the next week. Editors should revert any nonsense ASAP, as any good edits will be lost.--andreasegde (talk) 21:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

One point here is that the divorce is not yet final; only its financial terms. Each party filed for divorce on grounds of "unreasonable behaviour" of the other, and the judge essentially tossed both. In the end ("the love you take...," oh, sorry) both parties agreed to wait until they've been separated for two years, and then refile, basing the divorce on the separation. See http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/judgments_guidance/judgment_180308.pdf, paragraph 7. According to the judge, he expects to grant the divorce on May 12. We can expect edits that the divorce is final (I just took one out just a bit ago), so let's be on guard for that. TJRC (talk) 22:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The BBC confirm this here. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Two editors; one is a lawyer and one is an art-lover. You can't go wrong with that. Can I join as the musical one? :)--andreasegde (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Audio samples

I see in the to-do list that Wings and solo samples are needed. I could help with it. I recently uploaded samples of Maybe I'm Amazed and This One (they are in the albums articles). I am perfectly aware of that non-free media can't be abused, and I can't upload as many of them as I feel like, that's why I need suggestions about which else should be added and how many. Which could illustrate Paul's music career the best? For instance, to illustrate early Wings period, should it be Mary Had a Little lamb, Hi Hi Hi, C moon, Wild Life or ...? --Betty kerner (talk) 21:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking you should probably include songs from his greatest hits albums. Try "Hi Hi Hi", "C Moon", "My Love"... you could do "Flaming Pie", "Driving Rain", "Ever Present Past", "Dance Tonight"... try some of the title songs from albums too (though "EPP" and "DT" aren't title tracks, MAF doesn't have one).GuitarWeeps (talk) 22:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

while/whilst

I've replaced "whilst" with "while" and been reverted. I thought I'd explain here. "Whilst" is considered archaic in American English. I understand and accept that it is apparently not considered archaic in British English.

However, "while" is correct in both American English and British English. It seems to me that, given a choice between a usage that is not grating to readers on either side of the Atlantic, and a usage that is grating to readers on one side, the choice that is non-grating to both should be preferred. This is what I tried to sum up in my pithy comment on the edit: Preferring "while" to "whilst"; "whilst" is archaic to US readers, but "while" is appropriate under both US and British English.

The revert commented only whilst last is quite ok in british english and mos resists such changes. I assume the MOS the reverter is referring to is WP:ENGVAR. I don't think that applies here. It would certainly apply if, for example, I was to change "colour" to "color." In British English, "colour" is correct and "color" is viewed as an Americanism. I myself have reverted such changes.

But the choice here is not between getting it wrong either in the US or UK; it's about getting a wording that works in both regions.

As a side note, I note that the style guides for two UK publications, the Times [8] ("while (not whilst)") and the Guardian [9] ("while/not whilst") prefer "while" to "whilst", so there's no question that "while" is acceptable in the UK, and at least in certain contexts, preferred. Similarly, my copy of Fowler's Modern English Usage says "while (or less commonly whilst)".

Given this, I propose to change back to "while," and will do so unless someone presents a compelling case for retaining "whilst." TJRC (talk) 21:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Please don't do that, there are hundreds of thousands of articles written in an American English dialect with usage that is considered obscure or indeed archaic to people outside of the US. There is no reason to start an edit war here. Jooler (talk) 21:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case, that's a good reason to edit those articles to correct them. It is not a good reason to refrain from fixing it in other articles. I agree on avoiding the edit war; that's why, rather than reverting my revert, I took it to the talk page. TJRC (talk) 21:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It's the suggestion that a change is a "fix" where we differ. "whilst" is perfectly acceptable in British English. The subject of this article is a British subject. MOS dictates that such changes as you propose are to be avoided. The same applies to those hundreds of thousands of American articles. Or do you propose that I and a legion of other British English speakers go about replacing the word "sidewalk" with "footpath" all over the place. Jooler (talk) 21:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Whilst he was waiting, and while he was in Jail.--andreasegde (talk) 12:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me ask this. What's the name of the language? Is it "American?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.163.138.12 (talk) 02:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Apart from not signing in, user 139.163.138.12 doesn't know that quotation marks are supposed to be at the beginning and at the end. "American??, for example. No, it's not American, it's English, you twerp, as The Beatles all learned how to speak, unlike you, buddy.--andreasegde (talk) 19:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)