I am writing this article primarily to ask Mr. McCartney to abandon the thought of changing the credits to the songs that he wrote during the 'Beatles' era from Lennon/McCartney to McCartney/Lennon. This may be a dead issue now, but from time to time it seems to come up. Although it may not be my place to make such a suggestion, I felt compelled to write a brief note to let him know how this idea comes across to me and I think most of us on this side of the pond, those of us here in the U.S.A.
Paul McCartney, undoubtedly, sees the Beatles songs that we all have come to love differently than the majority of us. He lived through the creating of these songs, some to be sure have deep personal meaning to him. I imagine that to change the credit to reflect more of who actually wrote any given Beatles song could be important, since this is his personal history. What he may not realize is that each of these songs also does and will have deep personal meaning to millions of others, those of us who can remember where we were the first time we heard one of these Beatles tunes. And there will be millions more that will have fond memories of certain Beatles tunes, songs that will become a permanent part of their lives. I still have young children come into my store (I sell Karaoke tracks) and ask for many Beatles songs, belting them out at the top of their little lungs. Shouldn't these kids know who was primarily responsible for the writing of any given Beatles song? I think certainly, but not by changing the credits.
A song by Lennon/McCartney has come to be known as something near sacred. There are certain pairs of names that really shouldn't be changed. They have become part of our lives in the order they fall. Abbott & Costello, Laurel & Hardy, Jack & Jill, and Sonny & Cher, just to name a few. And that last couple I mentioned - Sonny & Cher. That Sonny Bono really wasn't an accomplished singer; without Cher's lead vocals it is very unlikely that they would have received any sort of success. So Cher could argue that the couple really should be known as Cher & Sonny from this point forward but that would be opening up a whole big can of worms. Maybe Cher always wanted first billing, maybe Sonny promised her that her name would come first on the 'next' album, maybe the record companies changed their original agreement and made Cher, the solo artist into Sonny & Cher, the duo. And then there's the fact that Sonny Bono is dead. (Cher, it appears is going to live forever) To try to change the name Sonny & Cher to Cher & Sonny is like trying to change history. Likewise to try to change Lennon/McCartney to McCartney/Lennon, even if it's only on the songs that McCartney was the principal writer is like trying to change history. Most of us do not consider the second person in any of the previously listed couples of any less importance to the first person. Then there is the fact that John Lennon is dead.
When someone dies, he or she often reaches a sort of sainthood. All the imperfections, shortcomings, idiosyncrasies, and bad personality traits are quickly forgotten. Look at Michael Jackson. If he were alive today the tabloids would be slamming him for his latest cosmetic surgery, sleeping in a hyperbolic tube, his pet chimpanzee, his walking around in pajamas, or who knows what. Now that he's dead his personal life doesn't matter anymore; he's viewed as a musical genius, a superb dancer, and a great entertainer. We have undoubtedly seen the same thing happen with Paul Mac's friend and partner John Lennon. Many see him as the great peace activist, great songwriter, great musical artist that he was. Some may even see him as the principal leader of the Beatles. That probably may gnaw at Paul McCartney but look what he gave up to reach this status - his life. His life was taken away over 30 years ago; can you believe it's been over 30 years? McCartney is still here among the living. He was sainted by the Queen, for pete's sakes. He has his life, complete with children, stardom, success, and yes, recognition.
If he feels that he hasn't received the recognition that he deserves, then it's time to write an autobiography. That would be the best way to receive the credit that you feel might be lacking for the songs that you had the major hand in writing. To change the writing credits would be like trying to change history. I hear that Paul is an occasional painter and I am an occasional artist also, When I complete a painting and sign it, that's it. Although I see where I can improve my piece of artwork later, maybe by adding a shadow here or some texture there, I leave it alone. My suggestion is to leave your musical artwork alone also. It may be oversimplifying this but I believe I'm speaking words of wisdom when I say Let It Be.
Paul McCartney, undoubtedly, sees the Beatles songs that we all have come to love differently than the majority of us. He lived through the creating of these songs, some to be sure have deep personal meaning to him. I imagine that to change the credit to reflect more of who actually wrote any given Beatles song could be important, since this is his personal history. What he may not realize is that each of these songs also does and will have deep personal meaning to millions of others, those of us who can remember where we were the first time we heard one of these Beatles tunes. And there will be millions more that will have fond memories of certain Beatles tunes, songs that will become a permanent part of their lives. I still have young children come into my store (I sell Karaoke tracks) and ask for many Beatles songs, belting them out at the top of their little lungs. Shouldn't these kids know who was primarily responsible for the writing of any given Beatles song? I think certainly, but not by changing the credits.
A song by Lennon/McCartney has come to be known as something near sacred. There are certain pairs of names that really shouldn't be changed. They have become part of our lives in the order they fall. Abbott & Costello, Laurel & Hardy, Jack & Jill, and Sonny & Cher, just to name a few. And that last couple I mentioned - Sonny & Cher. That Sonny Bono really wasn't an accomplished singer; without Cher's lead vocals it is very unlikely that they would have received any sort of success. So Cher could argue that the couple really should be known as Cher & Sonny from this point forward but that would be opening up a whole big can of worms. Maybe Cher always wanted first billing, maybe Sonny promised her that her name would come first on the 'next' album, maybe the record companies changed their original agreement and made Cher, the solo artist into Sonny & Cher, the duo. And then there's the fact that Sonny Bono is dead. (Cher, it appears is going to live forever) To try to change the name Sonny & Cher to Cher & Sonny is like trying to change history. Likewise to try to change Lennon/McCartney to McCartney/Lennon, even if it's only on the songs that McCartney was the principal writer is like trying to change history. Most of us do not consider the second person in any of the previously listed couples of any less importance to the first person. Then there is the fact that John Lennon is dead.
When someone dies, he or she often reaches a sort of sainthood. All the imperfections, shortcomings, idiosyncrasies, and bad personality traits are quickly forgotten. Look at Michael Jackson. If he were alive today the tabloids would be slamming him for his latest cosmetic surgery, sleeping in a hyperbolic tube, his pet chimpanzee, his walking around in pajamas, or who knows what. Now that he's dead his personal life doesn't matter anymore; he's viewed as a musical genius, a superb dancer, and a great entertainer. We have undoubtedly seen the same thing happen with Paul Mac's friend and partner John Lennon. Many see him as the great peace activist, great songwriter, great musical artist that he was. Some may even see him as the principal leader of the Beatles. That probably may gnaw at Paul McCartney but look what he gave up to reach this status - his life. His life was taken away over 30 years ago; can you believe it's been over 30 years? McCartney is still here among the living. He was sainted by the Queen, for pete's sakes. He has his life, complete with children, stardom, success, and yes, recognition.
If he feels that he hasn't received the recognition that he deserves, then it's time to write an autobiography. That would be the best way to receive the credit that you feel might be lacking for the songs that you had the major hand in writing. To change the writing credits would be like trying to change history. I hear that Paul is an occasional painter and I am an occasional artist also, When I complete a painting and sign it, that's it. Although I see where I can improve my piece of artwork later, maybe by adding a shadow here or some texture there, I leave it alone. My suggestion is to leave your musical artwork alone also. It may be oversimplifying this but I believe I'm speaking words of wisdom when I say Let It Be.
I was born in 1960, so I cannot remember Beatlemania as it happened. The first recollections that I have of hearing the Beatles music was when my older brother brought home the Abbey Road album in the early 1970's. I hated it. I was used to my mother's music; Petula Clark, Herb Alpert & the Tijuana Brass, Andy Williams, and Perry Como. It wasn't until later that I could appreciate the music my brother already came to love - music by not only the Beatles but Creedence Clearwater Revival, Sly and the Family Stone, and the Doors. Now music plays a large part of my life. I sell renditions of these songs and thousands of others, music without the vocal track; I sell Karaoke.
No comments:
Post a Comment