I know that we're all huge Beatles fans here.

I read something in the newspaper today about Paul McCartney. It said that on his new "Back in the U.S." album or DVD or whatever it is, he has changed the songwriting credits of all of the Beatles songs on the disc to read "McCartney/Lennon" instead of "Lennon/McCartney," which has been the designation of all of their Beatles material since oh, about 1963. McCartney said that since he had more to do with the writing of those songs than John did, his name should have come first all along, and now he's setting the record straight.

What do ya'll think about this?

I read a Rolling Stone interview a while back where he wanted to do that. Back then he said Yoko wouldn't allow it. I wonder how he can get away with it now. Personally I think it's lame, but who am I to argue with a Beatle?

well, i think that paul is being a bit petty over this whole matter....i mean i can see his point, but i dont think he should make this much of a fuss over it. however i can understand why he is doing it......

Actually, I think it's pretty reasonable. I mean, John & Paul's songwriting styles are so distinctive that it's kind of nice to have them properly attributed. What I heard on the Today show was that it was only for the songs on the new CD, which are only Paul songs. So it's not like he's "stealing" John's songs.

HOWEVER, he is only wanting this done on 20 something songs. This would make the implication for people that don't know the truth that Lennon wrote all the other hundreds of songs, and Paul just kind of had his hand in it. Does he want that? Seriously, we all understand you were a huge part of the songwriting process Sir. We all know you weren't JUST the guy who sang Yesterday. You don't have to prove yourself by playing semantics with songs that have remained as they were for 30 odd years.

time for tea............one lump or two?

I think Paul is being reasonable. Honestly, I would probably be a little upset after writing "Here, There, and Everywhere" or "Yesterday" and then having John's name noted ahead of mine. Those are songs that Paul came up with, practically with no contributions from John. Really, look at a song like "Mother Nature's Son" or "Eleanor Rigby". That is all Paul. It's not like Paul is taking "She Said She Said", "Sexy Sadie", or "Good Morning Good Morning" and slapping his name in front of John's. Those are John's songs for the most part, and his name should be first. These are Paul's songs, and he feels his name should be first since he contributed more to the songs.

Sure, it may seem "petty" or "lame" to some of us, but I bet if we were in his situation we would feel the same way and would want to do something about it... At least, I'm sure I would.

People need to stop making such a big fuss about it and let the man do what he wants to do with his songs. They should all just "let it be" (and really, John's mom didn't come to him in times of need and tell him to just "let it be", nope, that was Paul's mom...all Paul.)

i think he's being a little bitch (no offense meant to any little bitches that may be present). if it really mattered that much, it would have been dealt with a long time ago. however, to do it now is simply petty. so what if he was the main writer of those songs? anybody who really cares would already be aware of that.

i think its a pointless gesture. the only thing he is gaining by it is looking like a jackass, waiting years and years after his bandmate died to "take proper credit" for these songs.

Amen, Damon. That's my point of view as well. Anyone who's into the Beatles at all knows that John didn't have anything to do with "Yesterday." Does Paul really think people are so stupid?

I can understand how he feels, but if you follow that train of thought, why not just completely remove "Lennon" from the songs he had nothing to do with? And why not completely remove "McCartney" from all of the songs that John did by himself? That's the only way to truly get it right and POUND IT INTO EVERYONE'S HEADS that "PAUL WROTE THIS SONG, OKAY?" I mean, that's complete accuracy. I've just always thought that "Lennon/McCartney" was about much, much more than just "exactly who wrote this song." It was about a partnership, a commitment to the incredible songs that were the Beatles. Anyways, I guess for Paul, it's just about garnering personal recognition now.

No matter how you feel on the issue, you have to admit that this is only going to end up making Paul look petty and greedy.

I always admired the way that R.E.M. shared its song writing credits. No matter who contributed how much to a particular song, they were all written by "Berry/Buck/Mills/Stipe." They even put them in alphabetic order to avoid any incidents.

true dat holmes. its not about giving credit where credit is due. we all know joan and paul were both great songwriters, and a great partnership, so why make it a big deal now. and as for REM,hat's the way to do it. you do things as a band. when it comes down to it, does it really matter who contributed the most? not really, because the songs are god regardless and we love the beatles (and REM) as a whole for that, not just the individuals.

I've noticed that Coldplay is following in R.E.M.'s footsteps on this matter. It goes:

All songs by Berryman/Buckland/Champion/Martin.

Isn't it funny how the first two names "contain" R.E.M. names?

Also, another thing from the Coldplay liner notes might look familar to R.E.M. fans:


Coldplay

Guy Berryman, Jon Buckland, Will Champion, Chris Martin

and

Phil Harvey

(Edited by jamiecarroll at 8:21 pm on Dec. 23, 2002)

I was going to point out the same two facts, jamie, as well as the fact that in both cases, this method of crediting puts the lead singer last. Very different from the Lennon/McCartney situation of late.

Hooray for REM and Coldplay.

Will