Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

I was watching the Let it Be DVD yesterday, and again, I couldn't help but notice how annoying Paul was. He seemed to be really wired out most of the time, and was very condescending. Paul was always my favorite, still is my bass hero, but if he acted like that most of time, I would consider him a real jerk.
I wonder if his attitude was one of the reasons for the break up? Any thoughts?

I think it was mainly because the others had "had the biscuit" with being a Beatle, and Paul did his best to keep them as productive as they were after Brian Epstein died. Looking at the movie, Harrison and Lennon really don’t seem to ever have a good time, except when jamming. Other than these times, they almost resent communicating with Paul. Towards the end, he became bossy and it seems that he thought his ideas should take precedence--he really started to dominate the group, and probably because he had to, as the others were fed up with the whole Beatle thing. Even when watching Anthology, the current interviews where the three are together, McCartney is dominating at times and really puts George and Ringo off on a couple occasions.

Heck, when you really look at the situation, both Lennon's and Harrison's first solo album releases were much better than McCartney’s, from a critical standpoint. They both had extreme focus and dedication to their first solo project, and McCartney’s is sort of haphazard and fragmented, but still a great album.

Many people who played with him through the years say he is a perfectionist who could be hard to work with. Look at the roster of Wings players through a relatively short career. Also, his current tour lineups are forever changing. This, though, can be a good thing, as a couple of his bands were sort of stagnant and sterile sounding, in my opinion. I think he would be better off assembling a stellar group of session players, such as the classic country singers do, and get back to high quality, deeply talented, rich playing that he is capable of.

After saying all this, I actually love McCartney’s music, solo and Beatles. I’ve seen him a few times in concert, and it is always a thrill.

I think Paul is often singled out as a prima donna unjustly. Regarding the previous posts regarding his LET IT BE behavior, to me he seemed uncomfortable about asserting himself, but felt it necessary, and that in itself could've been grating on the others. When a band's in a 'about to break up' situation, quite often things are miscommunicated and tempers flare, particularly with cameras present. Personally, I commend Paul for trying to keep it together, though he might've gone about it wrong. I think Lennon and Harrison reveled in the irresponsibility and used their 'What-he wants to play small clubs again? We're much too big for that-' attitude to needle Paul.

Man, when I was younger I went through the "hate McCartney" thing for the longest time. I was definitely in the George & John camp. I loved Macca's basslines, but I resented his attempt to control the band, his pop schlock, the selling of the catalog & the perceived underhanded way he left The Beatles. I always wanted to punch him during the Let It Be movie!
But then I looked at it this way - by the end all 4 were going in different directions with different distractions...if it wasn't for Paul trying to assert himself & get everybody focused and working we probably would never have had "Let It Be" or "Abbey Road."

That's just my 2 cents though...

Hey. IMO the "bad guy" is whoever got John into heroin (Yoko?), although acid combined with loss of Brian Epstein really started the damage. I feel sorta like Chris does about it -- Paul's "nagging" persistence & perfectionism had to be bothersome, but if the product of that was Abbey Road (third best selling album of the 60s), well, OK. Drugs are a *****, guys. Drug abuse and addiction is what took the Beatles from us.

"Drug abuse and addiction is what took the Beatles from us."
Probably that combined with apparent monster egos, apathy, and they had outgrown each other as musicians. During "Let It Be" , Lennon made the statment that he'd like to see what an album of his songs without input from anybody else would sound like. That is not to say that Lennon was solely responsible for the breakup because during Abby Road, Harrison was working on his own solo effort too.

Even George was a bit put out by this time. He got very few songs on the albums and was limited in his input in the others material too. When he was trying to show John All Things Must Pass and John's comment that What we're a rock N roll band, pretty much says it all.
However they did kill the goose that layed their own golden eggs by ending the Beatles. I'm sure that Paul could have done a better first effort. But there was probably some fear on his part about being on his own and he wanted to jump in as fast as he could when he found out that he had to be.
I have often wondered what Ringo's perpective was on the ending of the Beatles was though. No one seems to have paid much attention to his feelings on it and never asked him.

Right.
I recently read a book entitled "The Walrus Was Paul" which reported that while recording "Abbey Road" Paul became so critical of Ringos playing that he (R.S.) quit the band entirely and it took several days for the rest of the band to persuade him to return to the studio at all. So that being said, Ringo was probably as ready as the others for a change.