.jpg)
The cover of "Paul McCartney: A Life" by Peter Ames Carlin. (Touchstone)
Peter Ames Carlin's recently released book, "Paul McCartney: A Life," is a fan-friendly biography of the former Beatle. It features interviews with many of McCartney's friends and tries to cover his life without going for the jugular. We recently asked him some questions about the book and the Beatle by email.
Q: Paul McCartney has really become one of the biggest stars in the entertainment world. Can you cite a turning point in his career where things really kicked into high gear?:
Peter Ames Carlin: The guy has been around so long there have been a lot of turning points, I think. Meeting John was a big one. Then joining the Quarrymen, and helping to keep John interested in the band in the latter half of 1958, after Julia died and he wouldn't even pick up his guitar for the longest time. Paul kept coming round though, not taking no for an answer, and we all know how that worked out. But I assume you're really wondering about his post-Beatles career, the point at which he started re-creating himself as a solo artist. And that's another 40 years to consider, so again, there seem to be a lot of turning points: Forming Wings and pushing the group to the apex of the '70s pop world. Sticking with it as a solo act in the '80s, always working and trying new things, never giving up, always keeping an eye on the Beatle legacy, knowing when to lean towards it, and when to lean away. He's pretty much the Beatle ambassador to the 21st century these days, which is both great (all that ongoing Beatle worship) and limiting (makes him too extremely self-conscious, particularly as a live performer). But anyone who has written that many songs and changed that much about music and the world is going to be a big star as long as he wants to be.
Q: His current band has really jelled with him perhaps better than one could have perhaps originally expected. Why?
Peter Ames Carlin: They're young, energetic and very good. They don't threaten him because they're young enough to be his kids, and they obviously love the guy and his work. Paul has always been as much about attitude as he is about technical chops when it comes to musicians, and there's a good mix there. They play his music the way he wants them to, and they're fun to hang around with. They make him feel good, and they love to play his music. That's the kind of band Paul likes the most.
Q: Your book counters the generally accepted feeling that John drove the band, saying Paul was the musical leader. Why?
Peter Ames Carlin: Okay, this is where I have to make something clear: Paul was obviously the musical director of the Beatles. He was the best musician, for one thing, and was a natural-born director, being a workaholic and a little on the bossy side. But that STILL doesn't mean John didn't drive the band, too. In fact, I'd argue (and say explicitly in the book) that John invented the idea of the Beatles: that rock was art, and they were artists who could rock as hard as they could think. Credit Stu Sutcliffe for helping him make that connection. So John and Paul played distinct leadership roles. Mostly. For while John trended toward conceptualizing and Paul trended toward musicianship, Paul was also capable of coming up with great ideas (e.g., "Sgt. Pepper's) while John was also an inventive and terrific musician. Therein lay their brilliance, but also their tension.
Q: Do you think Paul could ever find a songwriter partner on a regular basis that he'd be comfortable with like he was with John Lennon?
Peter Ames Carlin: Not as an equal. Because other than the occasional one or two-off collaboration with another superstar (Stevie Wonder, Michael Jackson) \ he's Paul McCartney, and no one else but John Lennon could ever be John Lennon. Sure, he wrote cool songs with Denny Laine, Elvis Costello and Eric Stewart,I think they all found that Paul finds it extremely difficult to take suggestions -- let alone criticism -- from someone who expects to be treated as an equal. Because John Lennon was his equal and -- as he has pointed out on more than one occasion -- are YOU John Lennon? No, you're not. Which brings us to your next question...
Q: A lot of critics felt the partnership with Elvis Costello was a perfect fit. Why didn't it work?
Peter Ames Carlin: So after the back-to-back disasters of the "Broad Street" movie and "Press to Play" Paul knew he had to shake things up a bit. His manager suggested getting together with Elvis Costello, and so they did, and it worked wonderfully as a songwriting collaboration. They wrote great songs, the obvious next step was producing an LP together, which they did, but Elvis had such distinct ideas about how the record should sound (raw, hardly produced, like the old Merseybeat sound of '62) he pushed Paul to his breaking point. Not just because Elvis was pushing him out of his usual sleek setting, but also because it was so obviously not his studio sound. Eventually it felt like a no-win: if people loved it, they'd credit Elvis for saving poor, helpless Paul. (he always needed John, right?) And if it was a flop, well, Paul would be that much closer to professional extinction. (even Elvis couldn't save him!). So that was the end of the collaboration album, and it was all they could do to talk Paul into dusting off a handful of the tunes to re-record for "Flowers in the Dirt."
Q: Do you think Paul would ever do a torch song album and would it be successful?
Peter Ames Carlin: I don't, though I could be wrong about that. I guess I just haven't given it much thought. But why would Paul want to follow such a well-trod path, years/decades behind Rod Stewart, kd lang, Carly Simon, etc. etc. etc?
Q: What do you think of the side projects -- the classical music, the drawings, the poems?
Peter Ames Carlin: I like his poems and paintings quite a bit. I was surprised (and delighted) to find how passionate and revealing his verse can be when he's not writing for the mass audience. But I'm less into the classical stuff, tho I do like the chamber music more than the full-on symphonic/operatic stuff. Full disclosure: I don't have a particularly sophisticated classical sensibility. But I've heard enough from people who do (hello, Allan Kozinn) to comprehend how derivative his work seems to serious students of classical music. And anyone can tell how awkward the lyrics to the Oratorio are.
Q: Do you think Paul will ever get married again?
Peter Ames Carlin: The guy is like a duck: when he bonds, he bonds for life. Or what he thinks will be life. He does seem happy and comfortable with Nancy, which is good to see. He deserves to be happy. Whether they'll bother to make it legal, or simply spend their time together enjoying one another's company and not getting hung up on legal documents and etc. And why should they? They're both mature adults, his kids are mature adults at this point. They're old enough (and rich enough) to be as freaky as they wanna be.
Q: What musically is in the future for Paul McCartney?
Peter Ames Carlin: That's for him to answer, I reckon. But I'd wager that he continues to play huge shows as The Last Beatle Standing (and the only Wing that mattered) and also write and record new music as it occurs to him. Why stop? His last few albums have been really good, both the commercial Paul McCartney ones and the freaky Fireman one. I particularly LOVED the Fireman one, if it were up to me that's how he'd record - maybe not all improvised in the studio, but definitely as experimental, passionate and weird as he feels like being. The radio ain't going to play him anymore; his fans will find his work no matter what. SIng the changes, I'd say to him. You've done enough for the pop audience. Be who you are, and have a ball doing it. When I think of the Paul I love I think of him neck-deep in music, whirling away like a dervish, having more fun than a man of his years is supposed to have, and seeing the world like no one else. He described it just like that on "Electric Arguments": Everywhere a sense of childhood wonder! That's the musical future I'd wish for Paul.
Comments
Interesting interview. The book is not the one I hoped for though. The author didn't even know why Paul played Something on the ukelele for heavens sake. It also seemed like he relied heavily on other books - Many Years From Now was used heavily I think. On the plus side he treated him fairly. He didn't trash him or put him on a pedestal.
Disappointed that Paul would rebuke Elvis Costello's suggestion to do a bare bones album of their collaborations. That would sound sensational, in my opinion. What the hell does he have to play it safe for at this point? Even 20 years ago? The FIREMAN album proved this. He should ring Elvis up and finish that sucker off.
Marie - I agree: I was disappointed with the book. Whole sections seemed to have been taken verbatim from other books I've read. I suppose saying he treated Paul "fairly" is one way to put it, because when I finished the book, I still wasn't sure whether he likes Paul or not!
Ever had the experience where a single mis-informed comment can put you "off" a book, or an author? Well, this guy spent X amount of time writing a Paul biography and then he says (about Paul's band): "They don't threaten him because they're young enough to be his kids". HUH!?! Rusty, Brian & Wix are all in their FIFTIES! Yeah, reviewers always like to talk about his band of "young guns" or some such nonsense, but they're far from it! When a guy makes such a colossally moronic statement as that, how are we supposed to take his book seriously?
Steve did his job in getting an interview w/the author, and he's news oriented (Steve I mean), so that was good. Though I guess he means "fan friendly" as a compliment and if I was an author I'd take that as an insult; it's not a challenging or insightful work. And frankly that's how I felt about the bio. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone. I found another review on examiner that was more critical, and that I agreed with. Maybe Steve felt he had to be nice because he was doing an interview.
I made the mistake of buying this book. Much of it is a rehash of anecdotes we've all read elsewhere in better books. What really bothers me, though, is Carlin claims to be a fan of McCartney's music, but he only says that on the book jacket because he's trying to get McCartney's fans to buy his book. But when you actually read it, Carlin allows sources whose objectivity is questionable to make nasty remarks -- unchallenged -- about McCartney. And Carlin's treatment of Paul's music is cursory at best. Do yourself a favor, don't get sucked into buying this by an author who is only trying to make money off of McCartney's name and offers no new understanding of him or his music.
This isn' the first book about Paul McCartney, so I'd expect some stories would be in other books, too. I think people should at least check the book out before taking other people's word about it.
mrjinks: So you're putting a verdict on the book based on an offhand comment in an interview? It's a very respectful, fair treatment of Paul McCartney's life, not a kiss-and-tell trash Paul book. I think that's all you can ask.
michael: By fan friendly, I meant not trashy. Which it definitely isn't. I think it's a very satisfying read.
Thanks to Steve for doing the interview, and to everyone who read it and took the time to comment. People are clear to like or dislike the book on whatever terms they please, but I'll take a moment here to respond to a few notes.
1. I know why Paul played 'something' on the ukulele. I just didn't like it. Love the next bit, tho.
2. Taking entire sections of the book verbatim form others? Not even close. There are laws against that, for one thing. Every source is noted in the back. A lot of it is original.
3. The age of the new band - Yeah, yeah, yeah. An off-hand comment, for real. But also: Paul IS old enough to have kids in their 50s. Technically, anyway.
4. I'm not a fan of Paul's music? Dude, please. That's just absurd.
"I think people should at least check the book out before taking other people's word about it."
But isn't that the purpose of a review, or getting word of mouth from yr friends? If a friend you agreed w/said a certain film wasn't good, why should you have to check it out anyway "before taking other people's word about it"? The comment makes no sense coming from a journalist; following that logic, why should we take your word for it?
I have read the book. Didn't like it, wouldn't recommend it. But I'm very interested in the Beatles so I tend to read all the books. If I was talking to another Beatle geek that'd be one thing (I'd assume they'd be interested in reading anything new, like me), but for a casual fan/reader, no I wouldn't recommend it. There still isn't an all encompassing book on Paul I'd recommend (Many Years... only covering the Beatle years).
The interview was funny; I don't know his age, but he looks too old be using the word "dude." It's embarrassing.
Not so sure about Paul being a duck. There is not really proof they mate for life. They often cheat on their partners. Canada Geese are the go to birds for monogamy.
I like the book for the simple reason he is not trashed or worshipped. One new thing: Loved the quote from Ringo about the ex "She's just awful". Also glad to read that Paul did pay members of Wings what was promised after all that time passed. After years my study if Paulology I think it might be hard to read something new. In this book he comes across as a normal musical genius. I wonder if he has music playing in his head all the time?
Not impressed with this interview. Will he
marry? maybe, maybe not, that certainly covers the options, lol. I have the same insight. I'm thrilled that musicians in their fifties are considered young, that's fantastic. Playing Something on the uke, was one of the most moving tributes I've ever seen. I don't understand not liking it. I think I will skip this book, I don't feel the writer has any passion for his subject. Lastly, I found "Last Beatle Standing" disrespectful. These are all Paul's songs, no matter what decade they came from, and people are thrilled to hear them. I just get the impression that Mr. Carlin wants to be "cooler" than his subject. typical.
Just finished the book and must say I loved it, best thing I've read since I became a mega Macca fan in 1982 when I was 12. I've read everything I could find about him since and I applaud the author for patching everything together without any bias and in style. Coming off the Emerick book it's really been a great year.
Some say it's a rehash, but to the best of my Macca knowledge, Hugh Padgham, Hamish Stuart (probably the source for the aborted Costello album, all we knew was that Paul thought "it was too close to John for comfort"), Eric Stewart (we knew there had been problems with the Producer's credit on PTP but we get a lot more here) or Carla Lane (Linda's last days are really heart-breaking) hadn't been interviewed so far.
If I had to name two books to "understand" the Beatles/Macca "saga", they would have to be Emerick's and Carlin's, kudos guys !
The author affirms that McCartney II was recorded in the Spring of 1980. Enough Said.
He links his arrest for drugs possession with the recording of McCartney II just because the album was put out that year. Mistake.
What about describing the Abbey Road tracks? Now we're talking. Newsflash! .
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!