#the mccartney legacy

[reflectismo]

There’s no hard feelings or anything, but you just don’t hang around with your ex-wife. We’ve completely finished. ’Cos, you know, I’m just not that keen on John after all he’s done. I mean, you can be friendly with someone, and they can shit on you, and you’re just a fool if you keep friends with them. I’m not just going to lie down and let him shit on me again. I think he’s a bit daft, to tell you the truth. I talked to him about the Klein thing, and he’s so misinformed it’s ridiculous.

— Paul interviewed by student journalist Ian McNulty for the Hull University Torch, May 1972 [From The McCartney Legacy, Volume 1: 1969 – 1973 by Allan Kozinn and Adrian Sinclair (2022)]

[ohblahdo]

A very Paul story from The McCartney Legacy:

In the early hours of the next morning, June 19, the dozing McCartneys were awoken by a disagreement outside their hotel window. Rubbing his eyes to check if he was still dreaming, or perhaps tripping, Paul spotted the hotel manager, José Manuel Castillo, arguing with a group of nuns and sheepish-looking children. The visiting sisters had ventured down from the Casa de Beneficencia de Alcoy (a nearby convent and school) hoping to treat their orphaned children to a rare day out, only to be turned away. Pulling on a T-shirt and shorts, Paul dragged Denny Laine out of bed and ran outside clutching two guitars. And from facing eviction, the holy party suddenly found themselves the exclusive audience for an impromptu coastal concert with a former Beatle.

What do you do when a group of nuns and orphans invade your luxury birthday vacation? Invite them in and put on a show!

[beatlesblogger]

The McCartney Legacy, Volume 1, 1969-73 - A Review

Cool cover, huh? That cover is a harbinger of what is contained inside. Let’s get straight to the point – this is one of the best studies of Paul McCartney and his solo music you are going to find. Epic and essential, full stop. The McCartney Legacy by Allan Kozinn and Adrian Sinclair is the first installment of what will become a multi-volume set. As its subtitle suggests, Volume 1 captures…

[anotherkindofmindpod]

So on reading a bit more of McCartney Legacy, the breakup section seems to align more with the typical Jean Jacket interpretation to me... is that your impression?

My take of the Breakup Section of McCartney Legacy is that it DOES align with the Traditional narrative, but not necessarily the Jean Jacket narrative.

What's the difference? I think the Traditional Narrative is more like Paul's and John's Public version, the "Official" version, the Common Ground version: John privately quit in September '69 and meant it; Paul didn't want to break up, but begrudgingly accepted it. Cue: divorce proceedings and the inevitable ugliness. The Jean Jacket Narrative is more like Yoko's PR (or JohnandYoko's PR): The Beatles were essentially a chrysalis that required Yoko to break the spell and release John from what had become a cage. After he dumped Paul (a relic of his childhood), he was able to fulfill his true mission. Ultimately, John's Higher Artistic Purpose, Yoko's transformative partnership and their shared drive for World Peace were too strong and too big for the Beatles. Paul, OTOH, was childishly stuck in Little Boy land, wanting to make mindless pop music with his schoolmates (tsk tsk tsk). Unlike John, Paul never grew out of his desire for childish friendships and refused to progress. Pathetic and sad, Paul limped along (with his successful marriage, beloved family, numerous fantastic albums and tours, etc), while John finally blossomed and flourished without him. It might seem like a depressingly low bar, but I can't emphasize enough how remarkable and progressive it is to read a book on Paul in the 70s without that Jean Jacket narrative! I don't mind reading the Official Narrative! Because personally I didn't expect (or particularly need) the McCartney Legacy to re-write the Breakup for me. Having done years and years of work on the break-up myself, that's just not what I was looking for. What I DO appreciate is that their coverage, while including all the most vital facts and events, was sparse, fairly unemotional, and did not ever demonize the other Beatles. (They did however agree that Klein was objectively shit, which I GREATLY appreciate). It's almost impossible to read a Beatles book that doesn't insert snide commentary about John or Paul's behavior, so this was immensely refreshing. -Phoebe Incidentally, we feel like the Real Version of the breakup is much closer to: JOHN: Paul, you turned on me the second the Beatles were done. You jumped ship without a backwards glance, cut me off completely and then turned your lawyers on me! WTF!?! PAUL: Bullshit! I loved you and wanted to work things out. I would've stayed forever, but YOU said you wanted a divorce! You TOLD me to fuck off out of your life! WTF?!?! I feel like they're having this argument for 2-3 straight years, if not for the rest of their lives. (*grumble, sigh, cry, rip out hair*) Sometimes I wonder to what extent they were truly able to see things from the other's POV. IMO, they were both so pathologically afraid they loved/needed the other more, it clouded their ability to see how much they were hurting each other. However, IMO, they do have a whiff of understanding, because when they try to make up in the 70s it's like: JOHN: No, I do love you and want you in my life always PAUL: Awesome, I don't give a shit about money, let's never discuss it again please But (as we all know), they don't heal completely and when they are hurt and/or scared, they retreat to these original positions: JOHN: Fine then, fuck off out of my life PAUL: Great. Speak to my lawyer In other words, I don't think the Official Narrative is incorrect, exactly. Just incomplete (i.e. strongly believe John wanted Paul to come back in early '70 and ask for another chance, etc), and doesn't address the emotional drivers of their behavior (which to us is the "Real" Story).

[franklyimissparis]

yes i’ve never been a man in the 1960s but surely if i was and my friend started randomly wearing a pin that said ‘sword swallower’ with basically all of his outfits, i would have some suspicions abt his sexuality, right? …. RIGHT???

[recallthename]

With John and I it was so special, so special, I think both of us knew we couldn't get that again.  We really were a complete fluke - just two kids who happened to meet up in Liverpool and share an interest and start writing songs together.  And then developed, organically, together... All of these little awarenesses pretty much hit us at the same time over a period of years.  And you really become soulmates when that happens.

Paul McCartney - The McCartney Legacy Vol 1

[paulic]

remember when John told Paul he was leaving the Beatles and Paul wrote nothing but “THE END” in his diary? I have so much to say about this

[denimbex1986]

'At the start of our interview, Andrew Scott and I are squeezing into a booth in the restaurant at the British Film Institute. It is very similar to the one occupied by Billy Crystal and Meg Ryan's characters in When Harry Met Sally. Quick as a flash, the actor smiles at me and says, “I'll have what she's having.”

Scott goes on to remark that he often dreads reading interviews with actors and hopes this won't be another that he recoils from. “Sometimes talking about acting can be reductive and a bit boring. Of course,” he adds, breaking into a wry, self-mocking grin, “I'm not like that. I'm completely fascinating. Everything I say is a bon mot. It's epigram after epigram. It's like sitting with Oscar Wilde... Although I have better hair!”

Witty. Mischievous. Charming.

These are precisely the qualities that catapulted Scott to stardom as Moriarty in BBC1's worldwide hit drama, Sherlock. People were already talking about him as a striking new talent after his first brief, if completely scene-stealing, 10-minute appearance in Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss's compelling modern-day reworking of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's classic detective stories.

His performance as Holmes's dastardly foe – by turns mesmerising and menacing – won Scott the best supporting actor Bafta award last year, beating his co-star Martin Freeman (who plays John Watson in Sherlock) in the process.

It was not exactly an overnight success for Scott – the 37-year-old Irishman had for many years been turning in very creditable, if not such conspicuous performances in dramas such as Lennon Naked (in which he gave a memorable Paul McCartney opposite Christopher Ecclestone's John Lennon), The Hour, John Adams and Band of Brothers.

But Moriarty, who appeared to come to a sticky end at the end of the last series on Sherlock, transformed Scott's profile. Moriarty is the archetypal baddie who has all the best lines, and his popularity meant that the actor was soon being offered leading roles in ITV1 dramas such as The Town and The Scapegoat.

Scott, who was raised in Dublin, where his father worked in an employment agency and his mother was an art teacher, has the volume turned down in real life and has no need to turn the dial up to 11 in the way that Moriarty does. But you can see that he still possesses the same razor-sharp instincts as Sherlock's arch-enemy.

The actor is the first to acknowledge that playing the role of Moriarty has moved his career up several notches. Picking at a croissant, he reflects that: “Sherlock has changed all our careers, and I'm really pleased about that. It gives you the benefit of the doubt because executives like to see recognisable faces.

“It was overwhelming to be on a TV show that is quite so popular. That took me totally by surprise. People had an instant affection for it from the first episode. The reaction was extraordinary. People still come up to me in the street all the time, wanting to talk about it.”

Sherlock fans are known as some of the most passionate in the business, but Scott says they are generally delightful. “There is this impression that the fans are crazy, but they're not – they're very respectful. They don't overstep the mark. I get a lot of fan mail. Of course, some of it is a bit creepy, but mostly it's very moving and creative. People send me drawings and their own versions of Sherlock stories. It's a source of escapism for people and that's great.

“I'm an enthusiast for people, and I don't want them to become the enemy. I've seen that happen to colleagues who are disturbed the whole time, but there's a certain degree of control you can have if you keep yourself to yourself. The kind of actors I admire move through different characters and genres. That's the kind of actor I try to be. If you want that, you have to be circumspect about your private life.”

Scott thinks the character made such an impact because, “Moriarty came as a real surprise to people”. He adds: “He doesn't have to do the conventional villain thing. He is witty, and people like that. He is also a proper match for Sherlock. He's very mercurial, too. I have since been offered to play a lot of different characters, and that's because Moriarty is a lot of different characters. He changes all the time.”

The next legacy of the “Sherlock Effect” is that Scott is starring in a one-off BBC2 drama entitled Legacy. An adaptation by Paula Milne of Alan Judd's bestselling 2001 espionage novel, this is an absorbing contribution to the BBC's “Cold War” season. In this film, set at the height of the conflict between the UK and the USSR in 1974, which goes out on Thursday 28 November, Scott plays Viktor Koslov, a KGB spy.

Charles Thoroughgood (Charlie Cox), a trainee MI6 agent, tries to reconnect with Viktor, an old friend from their Oxford days, in an attempt to “turn” him. However, Victor adroitly turns the tables on Charles with a shocking revelation about the British spy's family. Deliberately shot in Stygian gloom, Legacy captures the murky world of the secret services where cynicism and duplicity are part of the job description. Its tagline could well have been: “Trust no one.”

The film convincingly conjures up the drabness of the 1970s, all three-day weeks, petrol rationing and power cuts. Scott says: “Characters in those days called from phone boxes – whoever does that now? The film fits the era. It has a melancholic tone. It's very brown and downbeat.”

Scott particularly enjoyed playing the ambiguity of Viktor's character. “I like the idea that you don't know who he is. It's important that you feel for Viktor and his predicament. You have to feel he's a human being with a family. But both he and Charles are elusive figures – it's not clear whose side they're on. It's not at all black-and-white, and that's why the film is so shadowy.”

The actor boasts a terrific Russian accent in Legacy. Where did it come from? “There isn't a huge amount of footage of Russians speaking English as a second language, so I started looking at Vladimir Putin videos on YouTube. But then Putin introduced anti-gay legislation this summer – so, being a gay person, I switched to Rudolf Nureyev videos instead. It was another Nureyev defection of sorts!”

Scott is low-key on the subject of his sexuality. “Mercifully, these days people don't see being gay as a character flaw. But nor is it a virtue, like kindness. Or a talent, like playing the banjo. It's just a fact. Of course, it's part of my make-up, but I don't want to trade on it. I am a private person; I think that's important if you're an actor. But there's a difference between privacy and secrecy, and I'm not a secretive person. Really I just want to get on with my job, which is to pretend to be lots of different people. Simple as that.”

Scott is very much getting on with the job at present. He has many intriguing projects in the pipeline, including starring in Jimmy's Hall, the new Ken Loach movie about a political activist expelled from Ireland during the “Red Scare” of the 1930s. He is also appearing with Tom Hardy and Ruth Wilson in Locke, a film about a man whose life is falling apart, and in The Stag, a movie about a stag weekend that goes horribly wrong. In addition, he is headlining alongside Bill Nighy, Dominic West and Imelda Staunton in Matthew Warchus's movie Pride, a true story about an alliance between the mine workers and the lesbian and gay community during the 1984 miners' strike.

If he can possibly find any spare time, Scott is also open to comedy offers. “Everything in life has to have an element of comedy about it. I did Design for Living at the Old Vic in 2010 – Noël Coward was a master of comedy. The audience were convulsing every night. It's such a joyous feeling to hold a pause and wait for the laughter. There is no better high. Forget about drugs!”

But despite the fact that producers are now cold-calling him like overeager mis-sold PPI salesmen, Scott won't be rushing into the first role he's offered. One positive by-product of his success is his ability to be choosy about what he does. He observes: “You have to be brave to turn things down, but there is a certain power to that. I've had offers to do more regular TV series, but I don't regret rejecting them. If money and fame are not your goals, then it becomes easier. American agents use the expression, 'this could be a game-changer'. The implication is that you want the game to change. But I don't. I don't have a plan. I like unpredictability and randomness.

“People get distracted by box-office figures and take jobs because they think it will advance their careers. Of course, it's nice to get a big cheque and be able to buy a massive house, but my view is that we're not here long, so why not do something of value?”

So Scott is very happy with where he's at. “To do all these different things is a dream for me. My idea of a successful actor is not the most recognisable or the richest – it's someone who is able to do a huge amount of different stuff. I don't want to be known for just one thing.”

It's true that Scott is now broadening his career far beyond Moriarty. But I can't resist one final question on the subject: Is there any chance that Moriarty will, like his nemesis, be making a Lazarus-like comeback in the new series of Sherlock? Scott has, after all, been photographed filming scenes for the upcoming third season.

“People ask me that every day. It's a small price to pay for having been in such a wonderful show,” he teases. But he is forbidden from spilling the beans about Moriarty's fate in Sherlock even to close family members.

So has Moriarty played one more dastardly trick on us by faking his own suicide? Or are the scenes the actor has been shooting merely flashbacks? Scott could tell us, but then – like some ruthless Cold War spy – he would have to kill us...'

[mydaroga]

Rip It Up c/w Ready Teddy was a bolt from the blue for Paul McCartney. He too experienced the epiphany: first Elvis and now this! ‘Little Richard was this voice from heaven or hell, or both. This screaming voice seemed to come from the top of his head. I tried to do it one day and found I could. You had to lose every inhibition and do it.’ Jim McCartney didn’t like it at all, but Paul was singing like a boy possessed, and in a very real sense he was. Absorbing Elvis, Little Richard and Gene Vincent was glorious, and it could block out other feelings. Paul revelled in the sounds of his great American heroes. He loved the way Little Richard hollered in his songs, a high-pitched ‘Wooooooo!’ evident in almost every recording, and found he had the range and talent to imitate this too. Paul would know it as his ‘Little Richard voice’, though Richard himself admitted to having purloined it from Sister Rosetta Tharpe, Wynonie Harris, and Esquerita, the artist whose look, voice and sound he’d all but cloned.

Mark Lewisohn, Tune In, quote from interview by Johnnie Walker, BBC Radio 2, 11 May 2001.

[reflectismo]

Paul’s letter to Allen Klein

❝ Incensed by the delays, Paul waited until the problems were sorted and the album [Wild Life] was released, and then he reminded Klein who had won the lawsuit. On a piece of Kidney Punch Music stationery, bearing MPL’s London and New York addresses and the publishing company’s logo—a martini glass with a boxing glove in it—he dashed off a quick note, by hand, that read:

Dear Pig,

You have nothing to do with my affairs, so keep out of them!

Fuck off.

P.M. ❞

— The McCartney Legacy, Volume 1: 1969 – 1973 by Allan Kozinn and Adrian Sinclair (2022)

[ohblahdo]

So TIL Paul wasn't (just) being a weirdo with the polygon line in Hi, Hi, Hi: “I put a line in ‘Hi, Hi, Hi’ where I said, ‘Lie on the bed and get ready for my . . .’ [And I thought] I wonder what I put here?” he explained. “I used a really mad word from a surrealist play by a man called Alfred Jarry, a French playwright who wrote around 1900. He was a real nutter who used to cycle around Paris on his bike, and he used to have this thing called the Pataphysical Society. It was nothing but a drinking club, but to be a Professor of Pataphysics sounds great. I used that term in ‘Maxwell’s Silver Hammer’—‘he studied Pataphysical.’ At any rate, Jarry wrote this theatre sketch called Ubu Cocu, which has this character called Peardrop, who’s always going around worried about his ‘polyhedron.’ So I said, ‘polygon.’” (via The McCartney Legacy)

But also apparently this part of the song got a little extra embellishment: "One other late addition is undocumented, but it is claimed that the group took the sexual theme one step further, overdubbed the pulsing sound of a vibrator after the line 'get you ready for my polygon.'"

Somehow I don't have trouble believing that.

[thestarsarecool]

Does [Ono] feel close to McCartney?

“I think it’s a very strange situation. We were kind of like stuck with a situation for 30 or 40 years, so we understand each other—let’s put it that way. What he said in Esquire [Paul complained about how Yoko used to say he only booked the studio and Lennon-centric revisionism], I think he’s really right. I mean, he must have suffered a lot, just like I suffered more or less the same thing in a way. So I understand. I’m sympathetic to him for having all sorts of pain. Most people think that Paul or me should not have any pain at all because we are so privileged. But it’s not true. The degree of pain is always there.”

Does she feel they need to forgive each other in some way?

“No, no. We had to come to terms with the past in some way. Both of us are pretty self-sufficient in that sense.”

Yoko Ono in Daily Beast, 2015

[kaiserkeller]

MILLIE SUTCLIFFE, mother of STUART, alongside councillor ERIC FISHER, at an exhibition of her son’s paintings, 15 December 1969.

The painting they are standing in front of was considered the most valuable, at £300.

[eppysboys]

“As a Beatle, a solo artist, a Fireman, as Percy Thrillington, Paul McCartney has pushed forward both the art of songwriting and his own “random experiments”. But the work of this ‘unknown’ McCartney wouldn’t have surprised Brian Epstein. The “gentleman of pop”, as the original Cavern Club DJ Bob Wooler described him, saw boundaries blur and new musical directions splinter in 1967. In his last interview before his death, Epstein described all four of The Beatles as “four creative people whose minds burst with ideas ... they will always be exploring new horizons.” “You won’t find them sitting back and saying they’ve come to the end and can go no futher,” Epstein added prophetically. “For them, the road has no end. They follow it, enthused with incentive and ambition and the insatiable urge to discover fresh things.””

The Unknown Paul McCartney and The Avant-Garde by Ian Peel

[anotherkindofmindpod]

DR. FRANKENSONG⚡️w/ Adrian Sinclair and Allan Kozinn, Authors of THE McCARTNEY LEGACY Vol 1.

--- Frankensong: noun 1. a dynamic, hook-filled McCartney composition comprised of two or more independent songs sutured together --- Listen HERE

[underthecitysky]

Pic 2 from mccartneysteam Instagram