Today's post will be the first in a series on the theme of "Things I'll Never Understand If I Live To Be 100".
If I Live To Be 100, I'll Never Understand all the hate that some people have for Paul McCartney.
I've done a fair amount of research and study on The Beatles. Some people out there can legitimately claim to be Beatles experts, particularly people who have enjoyed first-hand access to The Beatles themselves and/or to primary source documents and materials. While I cannot claim to be an expert in the way that these people can, I have spent a great deal of time reading books and other publications written by The Beatles themselves and by those who did have first-hand access to them. I've studied them as musicians. I've read about them as people, both in their own words and in the words of others. I've read about them as a pop culture phenomenon and as The Voice of an Entire Generation (as if any one person or artist could claim that). No band in history has been written about as much as The Beatles. There's certainly no shortage of information (and, unfortunately, disinformation and misinformation) out there, and here's the thing: it's become clear to me that there's a sort of Anti-McCartney "cult" (for lack of a better term) out there among "Beatlephiles". These people find it necessary to denigrate and minimize McCartney's considerable contributions to the success of The Beatles, often in a quite nasty way and usually in the service of hyper-excessive "loyalty"to some other member of the band, most often John Lennon. For these people, one cannot simultaneously respect McCartney without somehow being disloyal to Lennon.
While I don't see quite as much of this petty, irrational disrespect for McCartney from people who are professionals and arguably should know better (and I'm talking to you, Robert Christgau, you self-important dolt), I do see it quite a bit from people who claim to be Beatles fans. I don't understand how you can claim to be a fan of a band and yet hate one of the members so much. Why must it be a "one or the other" proposition for these people? The late Linda McCartney perhaps said it best in an article in the now-defunct Musician magazine, published shortly after McCartney resumed touring in the late 1980s (and I quote entirely from memory): "What is this? You're my best friend, so I hate my other friend? Like them both."
I can understand why people think John Lennon was a genius and a brilliant artist. I hold that view myself. I'm endlessly fascinated by John Lennon. In fact, he's the Beatle that I've studied the most. There is no denying his contributions to The Beatles and to music in general.
That said, most of my favorite Beatles songs are primarily McCartney compositions: Penny Lane; Paperback Writer; Drive My Car; Here, There, and Everywhere; Things We Said Today; Getting Better.... I could go on and on. This doesn't mean that I don't like Lennon's songs or that he did not also primarily contribute some truly great songs to The Beatles' canon. He did, and that's exactly my point. I can no more sit here and claim that Paul McCartney was The Beatles than anyone can credibly claim that John Lennon was The Beatles. They were all The Beatles. There wouldn't have been a Beatles without John Lennon. There wouldn't have been a Beatles without Paul McCartney. There wouldn't have been a Beatles without George Harrison. There wouldn't have been a Beatles without Ringo Starr. They all contributed to what The Beatles were and are and all that they managed to accomplish, which is made all the more amazing when you consider that they were a band for a relatively short time. And yet, McCartney hatred continues to run rampant in certain circles. Why is this?
I think the biggest problem with this kind of thinking is that it becomes a zero-sum game for these people. Nobody wins unless somebody loses, and it's a very "all or nothing" proposition that puts each man in a box and unfairly and unneccessarily sells each of them short. An example of a typical argument goes like this: John was the rocker, while Paul only wrote syrupy ballads and "granny shit" (as Lennon famously said about McCartney's Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da). 1968's The Beatles (more popularly known as "The White Album") provides evidence for why this line of reasoning is preposterous. The hardest-rocking song on the album is Helter Skelter - a McCartney composition; while the softest ballad, written by Lennon for his son, Julian, is Good Night. John could write beautiful melodies and be just as tender as McCartney, while McCartney could write a song that was every bit as edgy as anything Lennon ever composed.
One of the sad truths here is that Lennon's tragic death at such a young age immediately vaulted him into sainthood, and all perspective and objectivity regarding him went right out the window and has not yet returned, even almost thirty years after his assassination. Perhaps those who idolize Lennon feel a need to lash out at someone over such a senseless and horrific injustice. In their blind anger, they turn on McCartney. Who knows?
Paul McCartney does not deserve anyone's vitriol, so please explain it to me. If you hate Paul McCartney, please post a comment and "Tell Me Why".
Cheers!
