Talk:Paul McCartney

Bass Technique

The article states "He does not use slapping or muting techniques." While yes, he does not use slapping techniques, muting was an integral part of his sound during the mid-to-late Beatle years. He used the built-in foam mute pad on his Rickenbacker 4001 bass, and later installed a home-made mute on his Hofner 500/1 "Cavern" bass, which is clearly visible in the "Revolution" promo video. That section should be edited to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.143.61.16 (talk) 16:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Drugs

The article tells that McCartney quit taking cocaine after using it for a year. It also says that he quit cannabis in 2015. But when did he stop taking LSD? How long did he use it before he quit?.Vesahjr (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

In the Anthology documentary, it pretty much sounds like he only took it two or three times, while remaining in a heavy relationship with pot and coke for many years. --79.242.222.168 (talk) 07:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

No mention of Michael Jackson owning rights to his songs?

Since it was only "Paul" bidding on the rights,why no details here on Wiki? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:642:4100:17A5:40AE:1F73:64E6:AD1 (talk) 20:16, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

See Paul McCartney#Business. Piriczki (talk) 11:40, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Paternity suit

Just a little heads up for discussion at Talk:Personal_relationships_of_Paul_McCartney#Wohlers.2FKrischbin_lawsuit, a case where he paid twice in order to avoid child support claims (paying 41,000 Deutschmarks overall), on whether to include the issue in that article over there, even if its relevance may only hinge upon the fact it went to court twice and that he paid for it twice. --79.242.222.168 (talk) 08:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Anyone can make an accusation, and it's not unusual for a wealthy celebrity to pay money to someone simply to get them to shut up. At this point this issue hasn't moved beyond tabloid-ish gossip. Whether there's a shred of truth to the claim or not, WP:V and WP:WEIGHT apply. Unless there's something more substantial that comes out, it does not deserve any mention on Wikipedia -- in any article. Sundayclose (talk) 17:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The above post by 79.242.222.168, as well as the longer post linked to, contain a number of falsehoods. The case did not go to court twice and was not paid for twice and there was no out of court settlement. Here is the timeline of events:

March 13, 1962 - 40 weeks prior to December 18, 1962.

April 11, 1962 - The Beatles arrived in Hamburg.

April 13, 1962 - The Beatles began their first engagement at the Star Club.

December 18, 1962 - Bettina Hubers was born.

1966 - McCartney paid $7,500.

September 1982 - Suit filed asking for Bettina's inheritance (10% of McCartney's wealth under German law, never mind that he's still alive).

April 1983 - The judge ordered McCartney to pay maintenance payments of $282 per month until the case is resolved. McCartney appealed.

January 1984 - The case was dismissed after a blood test ruled out McCartney as the father. Hubers appealed claiming the blood sample did not come from McCartney.

September 1984 - The court again ruled McCartney was not the father and the appeal was denied.

May 2007 - Hubers filed a fraud complaint claiming the blood sample in the 1982 case did not come from McCartney. The prosecutor dropped the investigation a week later.

Piriczki (talk) 18:02, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Piriczki, there are a number of respectable sources that say he did pay twice. Furthermore, I see no reason as to why you mention the date of March 13, 1962 (in case you're trying to infer that that must be the date when Hübers was conceived, you're off by a month, as 10-month pregnancies are a rarity, and April would fit better), and I'd like to see your sources for April 1983 and the alleged January 1984 appeal. Paywall sources are discouraged on Wikipedia. Furthermore, you're handling the 2007 dismissal as if that would be some kind of judgment on how solid the evidence would be when it's not: The only reason for the 2007 dismissal was not evidence but statute of limitation.

Sundayclose, your reasoning does obviously not work for the 1990s accusations against Michael Jackson, so why should it here? (NOTE: In light of both inclusionist and deletionist interpretations of Wikipedia policies, WP:OSE does not apply as a counter-argument against precedence, as is spelled out in the policy lead's third paragaph there.) Of course the severity of the accusation is of a vastly different level here, but a.) level of severity alone is no reason for inclusion of an accusation, b.) the evidence is pretty much the same (aka what you call gossip), and c.) the authorities were involved in both cases, yet no legal consequences came from it for either celebrity.

Furthermore, I'd like to repeat that I agree that this tidbit doesn't belong in his biography article as that would be undue weight indeed, but the fact that he did pay twice and that it *DID* go to court (at least during the 80s, and we have evidence that the West-German authorities were already involved during the 60s) do make it relevant enough to be added in the article Personal relationships of Paul McCartney, as just that: An accusation or rumor that is made relevant by a.) the fact a number of respectable sources mention it, b.) by Paul's own reactions to the entire thing, and c.) that the authorities were involved several times. We're not saying it would be true, we're just giving the facts, just like over at Paul is dead. --79.242.222.168 (talk) 12:23, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

This article is about Paul McCartney, not Michael Jackson. I don't edit the Jackson article so if there are problems with that article I'm not interested. It doesn't matter what's in Jackson's article as far as Wikipedia policies applying here. You are straining to make a case for including unverified gossip in the article, and it's not how things are done here. Drop the stick and move on. Sundayclose (talk) 12:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

You don't seem to grasp the definition of precedence. Precedence does not mean there would be an issue with the article Michael Jackson. Precedence means that we should deal with accusations, rumours, gossip etc. in the same way, as is also stated by WP:OSE. While I agree that the issue would be undue weight at Paul's own biography article, the fact that Jackson's sourced "gossip" is relevant enough for his article makes Paul's sourced "gossip" relevant enough for the article dealing with exactly that part of his life, that is the article on his family. There is as much evidence as we need to call it "verified", as the only verification we need to back up the claim of the issue's existence are a number of relevant sources. Both cases are "gossip", as is the Paul is dead hoax, but the mere fact that all three issues are "gossip" are no reason to keep them out of Wikipedia in at least two of the cases. Plus the issues in two out of three cases transcend mere boundaries of gossip because authorities verifiably probed into them. --79.242.222.168 (talk) 13:03, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a court of law. The judicial concept of precedence does not apply. One article does not establish a "precedent" that must be followed in other articles. Wikipedia operates by verifiability and consensus. So again, the content of the Michael Jackson article has no bearing on McCartney's article. Sundayclose (talk) 15:40, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't help with your difficulty with math but here are some articles that may enlighten you on the suit.

The Paul McCartney Paternity Case

Rolling Stone

Paul To Appeal

McCartney suit is history

Judge rejects paternity suit against McCartney

Personality Parade

Piriczki (talk) 13:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I beg your pardon, but your bringing up even more repectable sources on the issue only further corroborate its relevance, which does not seem to be your intention. I repeat that nowhere should we claim that he's her father but that we should mention the issue (not here but in his family article) out of relevance which stems from the three facts that a.) a number of respectable sources mention it, b.) the fact that authorities have looked into it at least twice (during the 60s and during the 80s, and they were involved again in 2007), and c.) Paul's own reactions to the thing, which was paying twice. Anyway, it's interesting that one of your new sources obviously contain a lie on his part (or he simply forgot), which is his claim that he never even met Bettina's mother, when newer sources have even published photos of them being intimate together back in 1962 (Paul hugging Erika while she's sitting on his lap). In the early 1980s, he claimed he never even met her (see the Gainesville Sun source), and when faced with photographic evidence in 2007, he said that the touch was "just friendly".

Again: This is not about whether he's her father or not, this is simply about whether the issue exists, even if it's as much "(legal) gossip" as are Paul is dead and the 1990s accusations against Michael Jackson, and in spite of their being "gossip" both are relevant enough for Wikipedia by being included for years already, for the same reasons that apply here: a.) A number of respectable sources mention it, b.) legal authorities have looked into it (even several times, obviously), and c.) the celebrities themselves have reacted to it. In all three cases (Michael Jackson, Paul is dead, and the paternity suit), the final official ruling was that there was nothing to it, and still, we have two of them on Wikipedia for the reasons of a.), b.), and c.). --79.242.222.168 (talk) 13:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I never said it shouldn't go in the article, I said you have your facts all wrong. For instance, he didn't say he never met her, he said he didn't remember her. There's a difference.

McCartney Comments About Suit

And these are not "new sources," it's documented fact for over 30 years. Piriczki (talk) 14:51, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Lorne Michaels

He made a $3,000 cash offer for the Beatles to reunite? Can this be correct, or is it a typo? (I would have offered $4,000 myself!)

Paul Magnussen (talk) 15:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Today is not April Fools. I assume you're joking. That's one of the mostly widely known antics ever shown on SNL. The humor isn't conveyed in the article's description, including the description of John and Paul's thoughts of continuing the joke by actually showing up. Sundayclose (talk) 17:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The humor definitely isn't conveyed. I believe $3,000 was the standard appearance fee paid by SNL at the time. The Beatles had recently been offered $50 million for a reunion concert which was the topical backdrop for the skit, also not conveyed. Piriczki (talk) 18:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

To add to the humor, when Michaels made the offer he said, "You can split it any way you want. If you don't want Ringo to get as much as the others that's up to you." On a later show that featured George Harrison, they were doing a camera walk-through backstage before the guest host intro. George was talking to Michaels; as the camera went by you could hear George saying, "That's kinda chintzy!" Sundayclose (talk) 19:04, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe George made a quip soon afterwards along the lines of "Why don't we have a cup of tea together" saying you could film it, get millions to pay $20 to watch it, and make a fortune. [1] Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Series of performances

I find it hard to use that term in reference to the Beatles first residency at Hamburg. That term is usually reserved for an established artist in performance, not for a bar band that had to go to another country because they couldn't find steady work in their own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil5775 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

pop music

I put "pop music" back in the lead. Numerous sources refer to McCartney as vitally important "in the history of pop music" (random example). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Overdubbing Ringo's Parts?

This quote is bugging me:

"As Apple's Peter Brown recalled, "it was a poorly kept secret among Beatle intimates that after Ringo left the studio Paul would often dub in the drum tracks himself ... [Starr] would pretend not to notice"."

I've heard that before, but only in the context of this specific quote from Peter Brown. What bothers me is the lack of evidence that would support a statement that, if it were so, would be quite significant. I've looked at the articles for the White Album and Ringo, and (as far as I could see) neither mention this. Indeed, the Personnel section of the White Album only lists Paul as playing drums on the few songs that we know to be ones Ringo wasn't present for (Dear Prudence, U.S.S.R., etc.) because he had quit the group (the only other songs that list Paul as the drummer were a few of his pure solo bits he did for the album). There certainly isn't any official backing that Paul redid the drumming for any parts that Ringo had done. In fact, the primary source for the recording details of the Beatles works (Mark Lewisohn, "Complete Recording Sessions") says that based on drumming style, recording setup, and the fact that hi voice is always present on the outtakes, it's clearly Ringo drumming on almost every song.

So it's not so much that the quote is inaccurate (in that Peter Brown really did say that), my objection is that it simply seems to be untrue, and rather inflammatory toward Ringo. You would think that with all of the documentation surrounding the recording sessions that this "fact" would have been born out, but that hasn't been the case. Unless we are to think this is a grand conspiracy to hide the truth, not only by the Beatles, but by the whole recording/engineering staff, the Beatles' intimates (whatever that means) and authors, including Lewisohn (who, if this were true, would have noted all of those late night sessions where Paul would come in and redo the drums, which he of course does not...which either makes the "poorly kept secret" false or makes Lewisohn a liar). That seems rather hard to believe, so I question the inclusion of the quote, at least in the manner it is presented (which brings it up as "fact" and then leaves it at that)

Should it be included? (If so should it be followed by Lewisohn's observations, which I would think are a lot more reliable than Brown's recollections?) If it were to stay in I think it needs a lot more to back it up...any shred of evidence...something, beyond just one man's quote. Thoughts? 70.91.35.27 (talk) 18:25, 16 June 2016 (UTC)Tim

It doesn't strike me that it's presented as "fact"; it's a quotation from Peter Brown, and that is clear. It's presented in the context of the relationship between McCartney and Starr. Peter Brown's relationship with The Beatles puts him in a position to offer such observations that very few have. The fact that Brown said it is noteworthy whether it's true or not. There are a lot of "facts" about The Beatles that aren't borne out or have "official backing" because all of The Beatles were very tight-lipped for a long time about many details and we have to depend on the recollections, often years after the fact, of those close to them, which sometimes conflict with each other. That's why (as far as I know) we don't have a comment by Starr denying or confirming. You comment that Lewisohn "would have noted" anything or otherwise would be a "liar". Can you give us a direct quotation and page number in the Lewisohn source in which he states that "it's clearly Ringo drumming on almost every song"? Sundayclose (talk) 19:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Didn't realize that passage was still in the article, it should have been removed long ago. As you said, Peter Brown is the only person who ever said this and it is highly unlikely that no one else would have ever breathed a word of it, let alone been at all forgiving of such a thing. Piriczki (talk) 19:14, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Should we be bold and go ahead and remove it then?70.91.35.27 (talk) 20:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC)Tim

You raise a good point, Sundayclose, about Brown's position with the band, and it has to be said that this comment of his has been much quoted. I'd favour removing it though, because it's factually incorrect – at least according to every source I've read that offers a line-up for each of the Beatles' recordings. Also, having worked on the Love You Make article, I know that Peter Brown's book has routinely been identified as inaccurate. I concede one has to weigh all that against the issues you raise.

While I'm here, I would like to restate my intentions – here and here – to add some content that I consider important for the article. As mentioned previously, those points have each received no end of coverage; not only that, but I don't believe any other biographical article on a musician or entertainer, BLP or otherwise, would omit such items. (It seems, back when this article made FA in 2012, we've been extraordinarily selective.) Someone recently added, under 1960–70: The Beatles, that final para starting "Prior to, and for a while after leaving the group, McCartney suffered from a deep depression" – which seems a bit excessive in length, and it still doesn't cover McCartney's role, or perceived role, in the announcement of the Beatles' break-up. On the other hand, I find the inclusion of the subsection on Football baffling(!). Does anybody believe this last item is really needed, or notable? JG66 (talk) 05:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

So it sounds like we can go ahead and take that bit out...I see the article is semi-protected though so I can't do it, can someone else take care of that? 70.91.35.27 (talk) 14:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC)Tim