|
|
Post by ticket2ride on Dec 8, 2013 0:58:54 GMT -5
tour after a lifetime of activities deeply damaging to the human body and mind? The man called Paul McCartney by the world is in his 70s and even though life expectancy has gone up, we all know people in their 70s who are fit and active but could never do anything like that even if they wanted to.
As a young man with a developing body and mind, Paul McCartney subjected himself to around 2 yrs of physical abuse in Hamburg. He took prellies to wake himself up after the little sleep he and his bandmates got in their digs - nasty stuff that does damage to anybody. He had sex with hookers - 'stripper girlfriend' is just a euphemism - in the days when stds were less manageable than now and medicine was less advanced than now. And even now stds are for life - you can manage them but you can't shake them off according to people in that field of medicine. He ate bad food and smoked. A lot. He drank cheap and nasty alcohol.
Before he did all that damage to himself in Hamburg along with his bandmates (although Pete Best was the sensible one who looked after himself and not coincidentally he was turfed out of the band) he sniffed glue. As Royston Ellis who has had no need to make a career out of hypocritically pretending he didn't do things said - he recommended glue to McCartney and Lennon.
Paul McCartney probably smoked as much as George Harrison when he was younger. He went on to the mary jane when he was older and despite the proclamations of safety, marijuana is a carcinogenic that is very effective at causing lung cancer.
The physical and mental damage continued with Beatle fame - little sleep, frantic sexual activity with strangers, some of whom are likely to have had stds, drugs to keep them awake and send them to sleep, frenetic schedules, a lot of bad food although not as bad as in Hamburg, smoking, alcohol and then at times heroin as he admitted more because he thinks it is cool to be in the same category as Burroughs without Burroughs' heroin addiction.
Finally LSD for probably three years of significant use though not as much as John or George - a psycotropic drug which does unseen damage to neural pathways as well as other parts of your brain.
And now apparently Paul McCartney is in his 70s and touring. I know you can say that rich men have the access to best medical care and technology etc but something just does not add for me. If Paul McCartney was spending his days relaxing on the farm or in London and doing some studio work it is more believable. But for me one of the best indicators that something is not quite real there is how he is still doing this in a stage of life when healthy, fit people of the same generation could not.
I think if John had lived he would have had the same death as George Harrison - from lung cancer. I think it is odd that the man we call Paul McCartney is so hale and well especially as smoking helped contribute to the death of his mother from breast cancer. She was a big smoker. I think it is also odd that the Rolling Stones are still touring - don't they have better things to do? I can well believe Keith Richard overdosed back in the 70s and it is well known that the oldies touring now don't play all that music. There is recorded music a lot of the time at their concerts.
A case for doubles, I think.
|
|
|
|
Post by cherilyn7 on Dec 8, 2013 15:45:49 GMT -5
How refreshing for a change to read something that actually makes any sense!
Regarding "life expectancy has gone up"; I don't agree with that in reality: merely that people are being kept alive by pharmaceuticals and languish in "care" homes without much real (if any) quality of life. It is just that the population has gone up not that "people are living longer". People have always lived into their 80s and 90s going back hundreds of years.
Back to "Paulie"; you are right that even people of that age group who are classed as fit or good for their age would not be able to function like that, going on tour and seeming like a much younger person (to my mind, it is a much younger person). Also, as to your question "why would they want to?". Indeed.
Going back to the Diamond Jubilee concert and the Olympic Games concert; why was this person chosen (yet again) out of all the performers on Planet Earth and then was singing flat and out of tune. People said then it is time he packed it in. Something does not add up.
|
|
|
|
Post by linus on Dec 8, 2013 16:33:20 GMT -5
If there was ever a case for multiples; it's The Beatles.
They had a rigorous two years in Hamburg. Can't remember the numbers, but didn't they play something around 6-10 hour shows 6-7 night a week. Then after signing with EMI, it was four years of almost constant touring, performing, interviews, photo shoots, recording, filming, public speaking, writing, etc.(Not to mention were able to study all the esoterica required to be able to stuff into their work that we see).
How could one person keep up with the demands of these grueling schedules that they had without taking any time off for sickness or fatigue?
As far as I know, only Ringo ever sat out an obligation; when he had tonsillitis in 1964.
(Interesting that it was Ringo, if it had been George, Paul or John, the fans would've rioted).
Sure, they were young men in the '60s and 'taking stuff', but were still able to be bright-eyed and bushy-tailed every time we saw them?
(then of course there's the possibility they weren't actually 'taking stuff', but were portraying their lives as if they were in order to influence the culture).
I saw McCartney in concert in 2002, and he played for three hours straight without taking a break, even while his younger band-mates did take breaks. He was 60 at the time and I couldn't believe how he was able to do that. To this day I hear he still maintains this performance standard.
He's either taking serious steroids, or isn't quite human, or there are a multitude of McCartneys. Or that's why he sings so flat, he's just going as half-ass as possible so as not to get fatigued.
I would put forward that there is as about much of a case for multiples in the '60s as there is in their senior years.
As for why was he chosen to perform at Diamon Jubilee and Olympics Ceremony; why not? He's still one of the biggest draws in the world, and a living British legend, as one of the members of the biggest entertainment act in the world's history (as the public sees it). Who better to perform for these events?! Even if he were retired, I could see him/them convincing him, to perform at these. I would think it odd if he didn't.
As for why would someone that age want to continue touring? For a career artist, it's about your legacy. Why not go as long as you possibly can?
The Stones, McCartney, Starr, Chuck Berry, they're all the first generation of rockers, and are still making fans happy. Why not go down in history for rocking for 60 a year career, as opposed to a 30 or 40 year career? If there's still millions of fans that will buy your albums and attend your concerts why not keep going?
When fans go to see aging performers, it's not so much for the musicality (i.e. singing in tune) it's about the experience and being able to say you saw one your favorite living legends perform live.
Hope that all 'makes sense'.
|
|
|
|
Post by cherilyn7 on Dec 9, 2013 18:01:44 GMT -5
Yes, of course, that does make sense Linus (you always do talk sense); re Hamburg, I don't really see why they would go to Hamburg and live like that just to play night and day it seems for peanuts in filthy, seedy conditions and poorly paid too. They were never going to become famous by this route and the famous chorus of, "Where are we going boys? "To the toppermost of the poppermost Johnny!" John would ask the others in the days of the Silver Beetles....They were "discovered" in Liverpool, not Hamburg and weren't George and Paul deported at one stage too? (for being underage to perform in public I think). So what made them think that all that grafting in the seedy strip clubs in the Reeperbahn would achieve their dreams of fame; where did they think it was leading? But, yes of course, the way they were living it is a wonder that one or more did not fall by the wayside in those days (Stu Sutcliffe notwithstanding). I find that picture of "one of the Pauls" standing in front of the camera (with quiff) and Stu Sutcliffe standing in fadeout behind with guitar slung downwards haunting and feel it seems to have some kind of message, in view of what we now know (that Stu died and Paul was replaced by someone else). I do feel that the whole Hamburg thing is a mystery in itself...
Yes, I can see why Paul McCartney (that name is magic and would rightly be so if only that were one celebrated person who had been feted as the much loved member of the phenomenon known as The Beatles and had, indeed, written all those songs with his dear friend/soulmate John Lennon) would be chosen for this landmark events/concerts if that was, indeed, the individual who carried that name/persona from the Cavern days; however, from our research it seems that is NOT the case.
You asked (as the title of this thread, "How on earth is PM in his seventies managing to..."?) Yes, he is doing so, but the question remains HOW? Is this being done with smoke and mirrors/doubles/younger than 71?
|
|
Jude
Hard Day's Night 
Acting Naturally
Posts: 34
|
Post by Jude on Dec 9, 2013 18:34:32 GMT -5
As Paul would say: Vegetarianism.
|
|
|
|
Post by hotman637 on Dec 9, 2013 19:39:22 GMT -5
If there was ever a case for multiples; it's The Beatles. They had a rigorous two years in Hamburg. Can't remember the numbers, but didn't they play something around 6-10 hour shows 6-7 night a week. Then after signing with EMI, it was four years of almost constant touring, performing, interviews, photo shoots, recording, filming, public speaking, writing, etc.(Not to mention were able to study all the esoterica required to be able to stuff into their work that we see). How could one person keep up with the demands of these grueling schedules that they had without taking any time off for sickness or fatigue? As far as I know, only Ringo ever sat out an obligation; when he had tonsillitis in 1964. (Interesting that it was Ringo, if it had been George, Paul or John, the fans would've rioted). Sure, they were young men in the '60s and 'taking stuff', but were still able to be bright-eyed and bushy-tailed every time we saw them? (then of course there's the possibility they weren't actually 'taking stuff', but were portraying their lives as if they were in order to influence the culture).I saw McCartney in concert in 2002, and he played for three hours straight without taking a break, even while his younger band-mates did take breaks. He was 60 at the time and I couldn't believe how he was able to do that. To this day I hear he still maintains this performance standard. He's either taking serious steroids, or isn't quite human, or there are a multitude of McCartneys. Or that's why he sings so flat, he's just going as half-ass as possible so as not to get fatigued. I would put forward that there is as about much of a case for multiples in the '60s as there is in their senior years. As for why was he chosen to perform at Diamon Jubilee and Olympics Ceremony; why not? He's still one of the biggest draws in the world, and a living British legend, as one of the members of the biggest entertainment act in the world's history ( as the public sees it). Who better to perform for these events?! Even if he were retired, I could see him/them convincing him, to perform at these. I would think it odd if he didn't. As for why would someone that age want to continue touring? For a career artist, it's about your legacy. Why not go as long as you possibly can? The Stones, McCartney, Starr, Chuck Berry, they're all the first generation of rockers, and are still making fans happy. Why not go down in history for rocking for 60 a year career, as opposed to a 30 or 40 year career? If there's still millions of fans that will buy your albums and attend your concerts why not keep going? When fans go to see aging performers, it's not so much for the musicality (i.e. singing in tune) it's about the experience and being able to say you saw one your favorite living legends perform live. Hope that all 'makes sense'.The Stones, Starr,Led Zeppelin, Dylan, Joni Mitchell, Joan Baez,The Who, Heart, etc. have ALL been replaced ( as far as I can tell).. So the fact is being replaced is really the NORM and not the exception! One guy I am not sure was replaced is Chuck Barry. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2013 19:46:12 GMT -5
How on Earth he manages to tour.  |
|
|
|
Post by decitfaul on Dec 10, 2013 0:49:19 GMT -5
I just saw him in May of this year in Austin... he's still playing 3 hours straight! He puts on a hell of a show and made my wife cry.. saying all that I feel he's a talented musician, BUT he's not the original Paul.
|
|
|
|
Post by hotman637 on Dec 10, 2013 17:34:34 GMT -5
I just saw him in May of this year in Austin... he's still playing 3 hours straight! He puts on a hell of a show and made my wife cry.. saying all that I feel he's a talented musician, BUT he's not the original Paul. I wonder why this brilliantly simple post is not known EVERYWHERE by EVERYONE! It is just like "Jackie shot JFK". Incredibly simple yet accurate. What happened is people turn "Paul is replaced" and "Jackie shot JFK" into an incredibly long and boring "shaggy dog story" ( a story with no purpose or ending). Why? |
|
|
|
Post by ramone on Dec 10, 2013 17:57:12 GMT -5
As Paul would say: Vegetarianism. I have an aunt that goes to do her laundry from the 2nd floor to the basement and up. Makes her own meals, has her wits, and still drives. She's 97. Probably thinks 70 is a spring chicken. Some people just stay in pretty good shape with help of diet, genes... If we say Sir Paul is not the original, then maybe he didn't tax himself early on with the JPM lifestyle. So it's not cumulative. (and who knows exactly what a JPM did back then anyway - tho I suspect there was some 'fun' peppered in). |
|
|
|
Post by decitfaul on Dec 10, 2013 23:24:56 GMT -5
I just saw him in May of this year in Austin... he's still playing 3 hours straight! He puts on a hell of a show and made my wife cry.. saying all that I feel he's a talented musician, BUT he's not the original Paul. I wonder why this brilliantly simple post is not known EVERYWHERE by EVERYONE! It is just like "Jackie shot JFK". Incredibly simple yet accurate. What happened is people turn "Paul is replaced" and "Jackie shot JFK" into an incredibly long and boring "shaggy dog story" ( a story with no purpose or ending). Why? Thanks.. I think once you see Faul perform in person he is very good. Perhaps, that's why most people won't even except the PID theory because he does play and sing well. However, what are we basing that on? If the real Paul had stuck around perhaps he would have given the world better songs and the Paul McCartney name would mean more than today.. no one will ever know. |
|
|
|
Post by linus on Dec 11, 2013 13:45:53 GMT -5
This brings out an important question: Why is it Chuck Berry can go on performing live into his 70s without being replaced, but if McCartney does it means he must've been replaced?
Do we really believe Chuck was living a pristine life in the '60s?
|
|
|
|
Post by hotman637 on Dec 11, 2013 15:08:32 GMT -5
I wonder why this brilliantly simple post is not known EVERYWHERE by EVERYONE! It is just like "Jackie shot JFK". Incredibly simple yet accurate. What happened is people turn "Paul is replaced" and "Jackie shot JFK" into an incredibly long and boring "shaggy dog story" ( a story with no purpose or ending). Why? Thanks.. I think once you see Faul perform in person he is very good. Perhaps, that's why most people won't even except the PID theory because he does play and sing well. However, what are we basing that on? If the real Paul had stuck around perhaps he would have given the world better songs and the Paul McCartney name would mean more than today.. no one will ever know. People see what they want to see. They pay a lot of money for "The Stones", "Elton John", "Paul McCartney", "Eric Clapton", "Bob Dylan", "Joni Mitchell", "Rod Stewart" etc. (the list goes on forever). They DESPERATELY want to believe they are seeing the original person so no matter how much evidence they see that they were replaced they won't admit it. Just like to me it is obvious that "Jackie" shot "JFK" (it is right on the video) they won't believe it. TPTB are counting on the average persons "blindness" to keep the status quo. |
|
|
|
Post by hotman637 on Dec 11, 2013 15:22:34 GMT -5
This brings out an important question: Why is it Chuck Berry can go on performing live into his 70s without being replaced, but if McCartney does it means he must've been replaced? Do we really believe Chuck was living a pristine life in the '60s? No Chuck Berry was NOT living a pristine life in the 60's! I am not SURE Chuck was not replaced I have just not seen the evidence. If Chuck was NOT replaced it would be the exception. I tend think that VERY FEW big stars from the sixties (or even 70's) were not replaced. I also tend to think that most of them are replaced because they RETIRE. Just like anyone who retires they want to have a lot of money. Chuck Berry spent time in prison for tax evasion so he may not have had the money to retire. That brings up the question "why doesn't Faul retire?" That is very good question and to answer that we would probably have to answer the question "why is Paul "dead"? then we might know why Faul doesn't retire. |
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Dec 12, 2013 1:42:41 GMT -5
Actually----I think there are no more new Paul McCartneys. There is only Sir Paul, the one who wrote "Band on the Run" and who still continue to sing and play in concert for long hours and performs accurately and sings extremely well in a huge vocal range. It's just him; Sir Paul; one man, no subs, no understudies! Whatever he did or did not do in his earlier life that one might anticipate as "health ruining" or whatever--- well it wasn't enough to hold him back. It's amazing but frankly I am delighted. Long live and long perform Sir Paul McCartney! I am glad about it an I hope to see him perform again!
|
|
|
|
Post by cherilyn7 on Dec 13, 2013 18:12:50 GMT -5
Actually----I think there are no more new Paul McCartneys. There is only Sir Paul, the one who wrote "Band on the Run" and who still continue to sing and play in concert for long hours and performs accurately and sings extremely well in a huge vocal range. It's just him; Sir Paul; one man, no subs, no understudies! Whatever he did or did not do in his earlier life that one might anticipate as "health ruining" or whatever--- well it wasn't enough to hold him back. It's amazing but frankly I am delighted. Long live and long perform Sir Paul McCartney! I am glad about it an I hope to see him perform again! ......"and sings extremely well in a huge vocal range" not if you saw the Olympic Games closing ceremony! The reviews in the media said it was time he packed it in. ..."It's just him; Sir Paul; one man, no subs, no understudies" If you think that you are in a dream world and it beggars the question why you are on this forum at all? |
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Dec 18, 2013 12:10:54 GMT -5
Well, I just enjoy listening to the second McCartney as well as I enjoy listening to the first. And I don't think there have been 3, 4, 5, or even 6 of them! Just the 2, and I've become ok with that. I was a little spazzed out about it in 2003, but a decade adjusts almost everything.
|
|
|
|
Post by B on Dec 19, 2013 22:23:27 GMT -5
With Kiss being introduced into the rock and roll hall of fame, I was watching videos about them, and was surprised when Gene Simmons talked about Peter Criss being played in a movie by a fifty-five year old man! (video at 7:55) www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiRXBxTZxXMAnd yeah, I know, it was Kiss, so they could hide things behind the face paint, but really a 55 year old man?! I know I am a bit off topic here, but it just goes to show, it may not take much to pass someone off as a celebrity when it occasionally needs to happen. |
|
ron
Hard Day's Night
Posts: 1 
|
Post by ron on Dec 21, 2013 18:51:00 GMT -5
someone wrote they don't thinktheres been but one double since the 70s. evidently they havnt seen the two side by side pics of faul around 2oo3 or so. its two different people. the pic is all over take a look.
|
|
|
|
Post by B on Dec 22, 2013 20:46:08 GMT -5
Speak of the devil, and.... Saturday Night Live SNL Justin Timberlake Jimmy Fallon 2013 with Madonna, Paul McCartney and More www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oD-5od9NR8joseph-morris.com/snl-justin-timberlake-jimmy-fallon-2013/"In case you missed the Saturday Night Live Justin Timberlake, Jimmy Fallon performance, Joseph Morris has you covered with the highlights (and, of course, the lowlights.) The opening skit featured the Christmas wrapping paper mascot. They were singing something along the lines of “Bring It on Down to Wrappinville.” I think we can all agree we’ve had enough of this guy, so next. Then there was Jimmy fallon covering Christmas songs including David Bowie and Paul McCartney. The moment he started to sing the McCartney part, the man himself joined him. It started to fake snow and then it turned all sentimental...." |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2013 20:52:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by multiverser on Feb 26, 2014 18:44:48 GMT -5
Whomever he is, he can't sing anymore. The performance on the Grammys was atrocious. This guy, "Sir Paul", has been a parody of himself for quite a few years now. Is there no shame? Apparently not. I suppose he will soldier on, torturing the public who lap it up like good little Pavlov dogs. When the Grammys camera panned the audience, it looked like mass hypnosis and cult of personality adoration, as usual. One can only pray for retirement, but I doubt if we'll get that lucky.
|
|
