McCartney to Live 8: "I open the show, I close, I headline, or I'm out"

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/showbiz/articles/19579325?version=1



Sir Paul McCartney landed the headline spot at Live 8 after threatening not to perform at all.

The 62-year-old former Beatle told organisers he wanted to open Saturday's Hyde Park concert and close it or he would 'think seriously' about taking part.

They have bowed to his demand and Sir Paul will start the show with a version of Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band - reworded to honour the achievements of Bob Geldof - and round it off eight hours later with The Long and Winding Road.

In a compromise to clashing egos, he will share the stage for the opening number with Bono and U2. Both stars and the rest of the band will pay homage to the Sergeant Pepper legend by wearing the multicoloured militarystyle suits the Beatles wore on the 1967 album cover.

you suck

You can disagree with him, but don't say "suck". That would be most unfortunate. He was, after all, a Beatle. That's sacrosanct.
The Professor

even RINGO had to carry him! :D

McCartney: GREAT as part of the collective whole but LOUSY as "the last remaining Beatle"

"He was a Beatle". Trust me. It will clear all your issues.
The Professor

:cry: :(

Sir Paul is not acting very regal is he? :mad: :sarcasm:

And the fact that he was a Beatle DOESN'T mean he's done anything as good or as notable in the past 35 years...he needed the synergy he had with Lennon to do his best work; everything else has been anticlimax.

Beethoven wrote some crap too. So did Mozart. So did (i don't believe i'm saying this) Monk! (That hurt)

Any and every Beatle gets a pass. Lennon wrote some terribly pedestrian stuff after the Beatles broke up. He gets the same pass.

Sorry guys. I'm intractable on this. The Beatles are given a lifetime and beyond pass, because they were the FREAKIN' BEATLES!
The Professor

if he goes stone deaf and writes anything even a tenth as good as the "Missa Solemnis" or the Ninth Symphony (since you mentioned Beethoven).

Do you really believe "Ave Maria" and some of his church music is anything but treacle? I didn't think so.
The Professor

but I'd say that, given his relatively sparse output (especially compared to, say, Mozart or Bach) that Beethoven has less "suck" as a percentage of his total output than any other composer I can think of (this is, of course, merely a personal opinion).

It's why i used him as a reference. If i wanted a high suck proportion i would have used Haydn. Lots of work. Most of it crap!

Same reason why i used Monk. How much of his stuff was bad? Hardly any. (It still pains me to admit any of it was.) If i needed the opposite example in jazz i'd have used Kenny G. All technique. No musical ability.

I'm just kidding of course about the Paul Mac thing. I'm such a Beatles nut that i just will grant any of those four guys a lifelong pass. Truth be told, i think most of what either he or Lennon did after the Beatles was pedestrian, self-involved crap. They were geniuses when working together (or is that against one another) but not so good when they were left solely to their own devices.

But, i just don't think Paul deserves the derision he gets today. The earliest solo stuff (McCartney, Ram, and Red Rose Speedway) were very good works. It was later that he got into the "two hits and a load of fill" syndrome. I can forgive him for that.
The Professor

And McCartney and Lennon definitely had a synergistic thing going on. The sum was greater than the parts. McCartney brought Lennon down to earth and grounded him; Lennon gave McCartney a depth most of his solo work lacks. Too bad ego got in the way.

And as an aside, I have to wonder if Paul's prima donna stunt had anything to do with Bowie (a better solo songwriter than McCartney or Lennon, for my money) pulling out of the show?

Why did he pull out? Have you heard details? I am as big a Dave fan as there is and have been since 1971. Curious as to why he dumped the gig.
The Professor

he declined because he doesn't have a band at the moment (hiatus between recording & touring, I guess) and not enough time to put one together and rehearse on short notice. Which makes sense (bit dissapointing nonetheless, since he was expected to take part).

And, i concur it makes sense.
The Professor

But that doesn't mean he gets to headline now that he sucks because he is on his own.

Good albums too. I also have all of his albums he did with out the Beatles, along all of JL's, PM's, & GH's.

I got to see Ringo in Boston when he put out his last album, and it was one of the best concert experiences I have ever had. Many great old songs, and new ones too.

Part of what made the experience for me is that I thought I would never get to see any of the former Beatles live before they all died.:P

John and Ringo have always been my fav's. Never been much of a fan for Paul or George. However at the superbowl, he completely exceeded my expectations, and put out an incredible performance.

..spoiled wankers say to me about poverty??

Put down your Evian, cash in your Rolexes, sell on or two of your houses and THEN get back to me...

Get over yourselves.....Seriously...

I wonder how much the total proceeds will be from this event. I wonder if they wouldn't raise as much or more by just donating a load of cash.

Of course, maybe they already do, and we just don't know. And, as a performer, i sure can see the attraction of performing in a major event in front of tens of thousands and millions on TV.

I suppose it would be REALLY hard to pass that up.
The Professor

wankers.

I love that word. :)

:P

The Professor

Where did he say that?

1). The 62-year-old former Beatle told organisers he wanted to open Saturday's Hyde Park concert

2). and close it

3). or he would 'think seriously' about taking part.

Unfortunately, "The 62-year-old former Beatle told organisers he wanted to open Saturday's Hyde Park concert and close it or he would 'think seriously' about taking part" doesn't fit into a DU subject line.

There are no direct quotes from McCartney in the Evening Standard / This Is London piece.



:toast:

nm

I LOVE QUISP!!!!

Show me some proof.

for what it's worth, I found the original reference on Salon (which also proves nothing):

http://www.salon.com/ent/col/fix/2005/06/29/wed/index.html

"Also: Paul McCartney is headlining the Live 8 concert in London -- sharing the opening number with Bono and U2 and returning at the end to close the show with "The Long and Winding Road" -- after reportedly threatening not to appear if given a less visible role. (This is London)"

is nothing like the National Enquirer. You're thinking of tabloids like the Sun, the Mirror or the News of the World. Granted, it's not the Guardian, but it's definitely not like the Enquirer.

I'm not saying the Standard is right, BTW. I'm just saying that you shouldn't immediately dismiss it because you think it's a sleazier paper than it actually is.

Bubbles McCartney and U2 on the stage at the same time singing a version of Sgt. Peppers while wearing multicoloured militarystyle suits. That will make the Wiggles look cool.

just after George died:

" man: we're left with the 2 sh*tty ones!"

he already does

Band on the Run, Silly Love Songs, My Love (does it good), Listen to What the Man Said... whew, just thinking about this level of
suckdom makes me all sweaty and irritable.

sir Paul!

Now that would truly be a disaster!

masterpiece! Stevie Wonder was the sap in "Ebony and Ivory"!

Sorry - my mistake!

John singing backup keeps it from being totally nauseating.

If my math is right, Paul turned 63 on the 18th of June. Suddenly I'm really depressed. John and George are dead, Paul is going on 64, I haven't seen Ringo since he was replaced by George Carlin on Thomas the Tank Engine, and I think my dog already went to bed and is on my side. Dang it, I'm the alpha!

Mean Mr Mustard & BOR Ain't That Bad....But I Will Have To Agree On The Rest, & BTW Freedom Is The Loudest Sucking Noise To Come Out Of A Speaker..Ever..

Rock On !

hehehehe

how exactly does one suck a fuck?

how exactly does one 'suck a fuck?'"

Shit, I like Macca. Why shouldn't he open and close? He was the front man for Wings afterall.

:hi:

What an ego.

No one gives a fuck about hearing him sing "With A Little Luck"

When I want Bono to dress like Sgt. Pecker, I'll ASK him to dress like Sgt. Pecker.

What?

Oh.

"Pepper."

My bad.

:evilgrin:

Yep, All of them. Even Roger Waters. So far, it's the crown jewel of Live 8.

:toast:

This is good news. No wonder Paul is having a ego fit.

Starts with a Pink and ends with a Floyd.

Their set will be a monuments moment in rock history! Paul's set will be a run of the mill Beatles melody played half-assed by nobody session players.

Paul McCartney is so nobody anymore, IMO. He hasn't turned out a nonsuck song for a gazillion years. You can't really headline if you've been turning out crap, can you?

I guess you can.

Now, Bono singing Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club band, that I can get behind! :loveya:

Unless Harrison and Lennon show up, that is...

pax
ant

:eyes:

I have SO had it with these rich, self-important primadonnas.

STFU already!

I didn't find it in the article... now I'm curious.

a hissy fit. who cares if he shows?

This is supposed to be about charity. :(

This is supposed to be about selflessness and dedication to a cause - not promoting egos.

Even Roger Waters, the king of ego (and I say that as a devoted Waters fan) has set his aside to reunite with Floyd (which I await with trembling anticipation).

McCartney can sit on it and rotate for all I care...

McCartney should headline any all star event like that being that he is probably the most popular (living) rock star ever. It's his due as a Beatle. Personally I'd like to see the Sex Pistols headline in England.

should headline the Live 8 Concert.

Unfortunately, mincing primadonnas like Paul have a lot of clout.

I don't especially care. Paul's done amazing stuff with the Beatles and since and he's one of the most accomplished and exciting live performers around. He still puts 100% into every song, remaining committed fully even to songs recorded originally over four decades ago. If you get a chance to see him live, and have even a passing interest in pop culture and music, do not pass go on your way to the stadium. Yeah, if he gets the best slot or slots at this gig, good for him. He deserves no less.

Always interesting how (not so much on this thread yet, actually) Paul gets slammed by so many DUers whereas John gets a free pass to saintlihood when the fact is that much of the riskier stuff attempted by the Beatles was primarily Paul's doing and John (brilliant though he was) produced at least a couple of the Beatles' lesser moments and turned out a lot of unmitigated crap in the '70s. I'm guessing that part of it is the pseudointellectual trendy hipster f***wit tendency to dismiss Paul as a 'commercial' (ooooooohhhh...he must he evil, the capitalist running-dog lackey oppressor of the proletariat) hack while elevating John to the level of selfless Gandhi-like figure. Neither's a true picture and John's decidedly un-Gandhi-like personality makes him no less fascinating or talented an individual.

Bottom line is that both -- like Bob Dylan, criticized elsewhere on DU at this very moment for 'selling out' to Starbucks -- got into music to get the usual things: girls and money. That's not all they aspired to, once they matured, but it's what made the Beatles happen in the first place.

Pink Floyd should headline, if anyone... Paul's never gone away, and his stuff is crap now. THAT's why people bag on him, not because it's trendy and we're all fuckwits. Sure he puts 100% into his music, but it still sucks. He doesn't deserve to have his ego stroked because he's overexposed and people are sick of him.

I wonder what made you drag your hostility toward John into this thread. Curious...

Has Dylan and every Beatle stated that they only got into music to get "girls" and money? Or are you stereotyping musicians?

I just find it interesting that he's been elevated to a moral position higher than he would have accorded himself. And to a higher musical position than his erstwhile writing and performing partner.

The good thing about the Beatles is that you don't have to choose which ONE to like, though so many seem to see it as a choice between the two dominant personalities. Among John's solo stuff rest some of my all-time favorite songs, and it's not unlikely that I'd have 'clicked' with him on a personal level more than I would with Paul, but that doesn't have anything to do with Paul's worth, musically or otherwise.

There're lots of examples of John Lennon talking about money and girls as not only prime motivators but as money as a continuing thing of importance. Nothing wrong with that, but he was not some guru who eschewed the mterial world (neither was George, for that matter).

A mere sampling:

"I want the money just to be rich. The only other way of getting it is to be born rich. If you have money, that's power without having to be powerful." (London Evening Standard, March 4 1966)

"'Famous and loaded' is how he describes himself now. 'They keep telling me I'm all right for money but then I think I may have spent it all by the time I'm 40 so I keep going. That's why I started selling my cars; then I changed my mind and got them all back and a new one too."
London Evening Standard, March 4 1966

Question: Which do you like more. The fans or the money?
John: We'll still have the money and we'll miss the fans. They'll be the ones who have gone. The money will still be there, thankfully.
interview in Kansas City, 1964

"Once I heard it and got into it, that was my life, there was no other thing. I thought of nothing else but rock n' roll, apart from sex and food and money-but that's all the same thing, really.
The Beatles Come to America (p. 20)

...the line about "spending someone's hard-earned pay" recalls the "working-class glee" that Paul said he and John felt when they first realized that their songwriting could make them rich
A Day in the Life. The Music and Artistry of the Beatles (p. 270)

I didn't see any devotees lauding John for being the second coming on this thread, which is why your little rant seemed so out of place.

Nice that you have a few quotes about money and sex... doesn't really prove your assertion, though. Everyone needs money, and most really want sex... proving that those two things served as the primary impetus for their choosing careers in music would require a bit more.

:cry:

What's left to say? With clout comes responsibility and he's a walking ego missing the point of the event, I fear.

I wonder how much he's getting paid in return for threatening the gig with his ego? (Well, "threatening" for lack of more distinct word, but it works. Threatening is more than just about physical violence.)

and they can discuss their self importance.


:eyes:

...and showed him that had he had half the support Paul had, his work would have been an afterthought to Brian's.

At least that's my theory...

post-beatle material!

Geldof asked McCartney to start and end the show and to do it with U2.
This is just more bullshit from one of our wonderful trashy hamster-cage liners.