Thursday, August 4, 2011

1965 Melody Maker interview with Paul McCartney

In this interview from the March 27, 1965 issue of "Melody Maker," James Paul McCartney talked about not telling Beatles' fans what to do. If you read the article carefully, you might pick up on some incongruities, such as Paul saying he would never leave England, yet he supposedly went to live in Scotland a few years later.

The most telling aspect about the article, in my opinion, is that Paul and the other Beatles refused to tell their fans not to drink. It is hard to imagine the Beatles being used to further an agenda, especially pushing LSD, if they were not team-players. Paul makes it clear in this interview they would not exploit their popularity to influence people to do anything.


During the group's stay in Austria, John Lennon was angered by the crowds who flocked to the set, ruining assorted shots; and he let them know it, loudly, most definitely and often crudely. Charm was not one of his major personality quirks. That was more Paul than anyone else in the group. George was funny, Ringo was a comedian, John was abrasive, and Paul was confident and often charming, perhaps more conscious of the press than the others. Not that he courted publicity. He was simply more thoughtful. Over dinner at the Hotel Edelweiss in Obertauern, Austria, he spoke with Coleman. Asked Coleman, "Do you think you have some sort of responsibility to your fans? Do they look up to you?"

PAUL: "No, it would probably be a nicer answer if I said yes, we have a responsibility to fans. But I can't be noble for the sake of it. The answer's no. I don't believe we have any responsibility frankly, and it takes a bit of saying. It's insulting the intelligence of a lot of young people to say we have. We used to get requests from people, asking us if we'd go to a meeting and tell loads of people they shouldn't drink. What do they take us for? We'd get laughed at if we said the youth of Britain shouldn't drink. It'd be bloody impertinent. I haven't the right to interfere with anybody else's life. Do you think just because a Beatle said, 'Don't go beating people up.' the crime figures would go down? They wouldn't. And it's a cheek to expect us to do it. And I'd feel a right nit saying, 'Thou shalt not drink'."

COLEMAN: "Is the image of the Beatles changing?"

PAUL: "Yes I think it is. At least I do feel it is switching a bit now. Let's get one thing clear though. It's other people looking at us that creates the image. We can't create it. We can just notice it and sort of say, 'Ah, well...' I think it is good that it's changing, as well. You ask how is it changing? I'd hesitate to use the word maturing. That word has certain connotations. People who are mature are respectable, ordinary, and I think dull. They use the word mature when what they mean is that people are in a rut. I hope we're not mature. My feeling about our changing image is this: Everybody goes through certain stages of growing up. For us, this is one of them. People are simply realising that we're growing up."

COLEMAN: "How will you feel, how will you react, if 'A Ticket to Ride' does not go immediately to number one?"

PAUL: "It would be a terrible drag and then I'll really pay attention to the knockers who say the Beatles are slipping. I mean, think of those horrible quotes we'd have to give people. 'Proves there's room for everybody.' we'd say, if it goes in the chart at number fifteen. Seriously, if it doesn't get to the top first go, I'd say damn and blast it, because as you know I never swear. I might say flipping heck! Come off it. Truthfully, I'd feel very depressed and I'd be in a disappointed mood."

COLEMAN: "Do you expect it will hit number one immediatly?"

PAUL: "It's not a question of expecting, but hoping. It's always hope rather than expectancy. Once you start expecting success you get blase'. We'll never get to the stage of releasing rubbish because we know people will buy it. Disaster. We've always been terrified with each new release and we're the same now. We like it, but people might hate it and that's their right. This business of singles has always been a real worry for us, and I mean this because every time, we've tried for something different and we have done it this time. Not that we've got the Black Dyke Mills Band backing us! The worst attitude anybody in the chart can have is: 'The last one did ok so this one will.' All I can say is, let us pray."

COLEMAN: "Are the Beatles knockers moving in?"

PAUL: "One thing on this subject has always struck me as stupid. You get people who say things like: 'A bit of criticism is always good for you. Being taken down a peg and getting advice never hurt anyone.' It's a load of rubbish. I've never met anyone yet who liked being criticised, even when the criticism was meant as advice. Let's face it, our knockers aren't interested in helping us, or giving us advice. They're simply malicious. Another thing I hate is where somebody tells you his opinion after the event, you know the sort, 'Well, if you want my honest opinion, I didn't like it in the first place.' We've had a lot of that and we hate it. It's cowardly. We've always been worried about knockers. Isn't everyone? If somebody walked up to another person in the street and said, 'That's a lousy jacket you're wearing,' he'd be a knocker. And the bloke wearing the jacket would hate it; so do we. If the knockers are moving in now, we don't like it. We don't like Clever Henrys."

COLEMAN: "What are your feelings about invasion of privacy?"

PAUL: "Mainly yes, we resent it a bit. It depends on my mood. If I'm away on holiday and photographers start chasing, I get fed up. But if the photographer's okay and asks if I'd pose for a picture or something, and he's reasonable about it, I'm not annoyed. After all, you've got to face the fact the press is after you, haven't you? It's when people start sneaking pictures and wrecking a private holiday that I get temperamental."

COLEMAN: "What do you think of John's idea of becoming a record producer in partnership with you?"

PAUL: "I don't mind the idea, as long as he lets me set up the mics for him. Just to keep my hand in, like. Seriously I'd love it. It'd be a challenge."

COLEMAN: "What do you dislike about show business?"

PAUL: "Shaving. Right, I'll answer that properly. Those daft people who go back stage after an opening night and say, 'Dahling, you were super.' Women in show business who swear like troopers to make everybody know they are in show business. Show biz women who act like men. I hate this type. All the 'Oh dahling types. Horrible. Also people who talk around, calling each other 'love'. Not the 'luv' that shop assistants in the North mean, but the show biz 'love'. This type is often the floor manger on a TV show. It is so affected. They think these affectations make them individual. Actually they are following every known rule in the book and falling into every possible show biz trap that makes them UN-individual. To me, this is one of the drags of show business."

John iterrupted saying, "That's it, Paul. Have a bash. Have a go."

COLEMAN: "How aware are you of personal images?"

PAUL" "I used to panic about images, because I'm very easily influenced, impressionable, truthfully. I used to worry about whether we should smoke on photographs. Then I realised it would be daft not to. I used to panic about being seen anywhere with Jane, because I used to have this old fashioned idea that recording people were never seen out with girlfriends. Now, I don't care much. No, these things don't matter to me or any of us, because we don't really believe in images. We never talk about them, except to send up the word image."

COLEMAN: "How would you define a hanger on?"

PAUL: "There are various kinds of hangers on, we find. Some hang on because they can tell their friends they've met the Beatles. Big deal.Some hang on because it's their job to do so. The very worst kind of hanger on is the one you discover was a hanger on three weeks after he's left your company."

COLEMAN: "Do you think anyone will ever have greater success than the Beatles?"

PAUL: "Yes. I think they might easily. Nobody thought Elvis's successes could ever be surpassed, but I think we might have surpassed one or two of his, haven't we?"

COLEMAN: "Would you ever leave Britain to live abroad?"

PAUL: "No definitely not. Out of everywhere I've been, I like England best."
And George added, "Leave England? Never. Best country in the world to live in."

COLEMAN: "How would you like to be remembered?"

PAUL: "With a smile."
John replied, "I won't be interested in being remembered. I'll be in a mental home and Melody Maker will run articles saying, 'Now, direct from the mental home, we present John Lennon in Blind Date.' No I'd like to be remembered as the one with the twinkle in his eye."
George said, "I just don't care." And Ringo added, "I'd like to be remembered as Mrs. Starkey's little boy."


Paul is remembered with a smile... and gratitude.

The Luciferian Deception

Reptilians, Cetaceans and Frequency Wars on Planet Earth


  1. Absolutely sublime!

    That young man had some true dignity standing up to creeps who wanted to exploit young people.

    THANK YOU Tina for posting this!

  2. ^ You're welcome! Thank you for suggesting it :)

  3. I remember as a kid my teacher telling me, after a Beatle documentary had been on television,how impressed she was when Paul refused to paly the game of 'role model.' He wasn't going to tell people to do LSD, but he wouldn't lie about his own personal use. If fans found out he took drugs, that would be the media's responsibility. For me as a teenager hearing that 20 years after it had been said seemed very profound.

  4. The guy promoting LSD in the media in 1967 wasn't Paul. That was Faul.

  5. Quite a far cry from the global warming-spouting, vegetarianism-pushing hypocrite "Paul McCartney" of today:


    I could never in a billion years see JPM pushing that population-control, elitist crap on the rest of humanity. If he wouldn't push the LSD agenda, it's very safe to say he wouldn't be down with all the other NWO agendas that would come later either.

  7. Hi Tina, I've been reading this blog for a while and I really commend your efforts, it's one of the best there is. You've entirely persuaded me of the facts of the PID / PIA debate, and having read this interview, I just wanted to comment why.

    Paul (James Paul) comes across in all his interviews as being quick and clever, principled without being sanctimonious, and sort of roguishly charming - the kind of guy your mum would like, while tutting and twinkling and calling him 'a terrible man'.

    Faul, however, is just... *really irritating*. He seems prissy and prickly, and somehow... not very bright at all. I remember as a kid, when Faul would have been in his forties or fifties, I used to find him unbearably annoying every time he appeared on TV - especially when he did 'jazz hands' (ARGH).

    Then in my teens, I became a Beatles fan. JPM was my absolute favourite from the start, and I couldn't understand why I could like the young Paul so much, and find the old one so irritating.

    Now I know!

    I realise its hardly concrete evidence, but everything you've said about PID just feels instinctively right, given my instinctively different reactions to Faul, and to JPM.

    So all in all - please keep up the good work!

  8. What's Wrong, thank you so much for your kind comments and great insights into Paul & Faul's personalities. Faul comes off as an inarticulate phony who has let being "Paul McCartney" go to his head. Paul was thoughtful and charming. He never got a big head - always seemed down to earth & polite.

    It makes me sad to think about what incredible masterpieces we'll never hear. Instead of more Eleanor Rigbys or Yesterdays, we got the Frog Chorus & Silly Love Songs. Egad! lol

  9. You're welcome :-) And "Frog Chorus", oh good God - that alone should be enough to throw "Paul's" identity, and indeed sanity, into question...

    I have noticed this instinctive reaction (well, repulsion!) to Faul come up again and again with people, and I've read several people say that, when they show young children, who haven't been conditioned to know what 'Paul McCartney' looks like, pictures of JPM and Faul, and ask, is that the same man - they just laugh! Indeed, I even read (perhaps it was here?) that when Faul's daughter Beatrice sees early Beatles pictures, she points at JPM and says "that's Daddy when he was different" - !


  11. The lyrics to "How Do You Sleep" go:

    "The only thing you done was yesterday
    And since you're gone you're just another day"

    That sounds to me like "Yesterday" was good, but "Another Day" is not.

    You can tell by listening that "Another Day" is just "Another [Yester]Day." In other words, it's "Yesterday" rehashed. Faul doesn't have even close to the amount of talent Paul had in his little pinkie, so he has to borrow, steal, rework song, & get others to help him write (for ex, Mal Evans).

  12. thats a pretty convincing answer! thanks so much! that had been troubling me for soooo long!

    btw, wonderful blog! just the thing i needed!!!!

  13. some people are saying that faul is actually tara browne! has anybody heard anything related to this?

  14. Okay here's a question for anyone who can answer it:

    If Paul was in Nairobi from October to 19th November 1966, then how can the date of his death be placed at 9th November, 1966?

    That wouldn't make sense now, would it? Just a loophole that's driving me insane!

    any help would be greatly appreciated!

  15. "If Paul was in Nairobi from October to 19th November 1966, then how can the date of his death be placed at 9th November, 1966?"

    Paul was not in Nairobi - that was Faul. I have narrowed down Paul's death &/or replacement to Aug. 26-27, 1966.

    Was Paul McCartney replaCIAed in August 1966? (updated)

  16. "some people are saying that faul is actually tara browne! has anybody heard anything related to this?"

    I think that's what people on Nothing is Real say, right? In my opinion, it would be unlikely that they would use anyone famous to fill in as Paul. In my opinion, it is much more likely they would use an unknown person to "become" Paul. I have speculated that Faul may be linked to intelligence:

    The Faul Guy: is the new McCartney linked to intelligence?

    On the other hand, he has commented about working in a factory, so who knows?

    Funny Faul Flubs (updated)

  17. Another huge difference in the two is the sheer arrogance Faul displays.

    Compare this excerpt from Paul in August 6, 1966:

    Q: Well, that was the Irish Guards recording of "She Loves You", and the Irish Guards are just one of many and literally varied people who've recorded compositions by Lennon and McCartney. I've got a list of at least three hundred recordings that have been made in this country alone, by all sorts of people, uh... who have taken a fancy to different types of Lennon and McCartney songs, and the two gentlemen concerned are sitting with me now in the sitting room of Paul McCartney's house. Starting off with a question about - do you ever resent anybody else recording your songs?
    PAUL: No, no. No.
    JOHN: No, no.
    PAUL: Never.
    JOHN: No. Never.
    PAUL: It's, uh - it's all good, it's all good stuff, y'know. Whatever anyone does with it, um... they always make it different, and normally better than we did.
    Q: You seriously mean that?
    PAUL: Well, yes, quite often, y'know.
    JOHN: I don't agree on that point, Paul.
    Q: Not always better than you?
    PAUL: John doesn't agree.
    JOHN: No, I - it's just the opposite, I think. But it's still good, them all doing them.
    PAUL: The thing is that if - if they do our songs, and do them differently, then uh, I think it's better, probably. But if they do - if they do the same arrangement, it's just, uh... it's their fault, y'know. They shouldn't really do the same arrangement, 'cause it's probably... uh... y'know, over to John.
    JOHN: It doesn't matter, y'know, what - if they do 'em, 'cause it never harms us. Some - even if one person buys it. It doesn't seem to harm our sales too much.
    Q: But do you - do you get more interest out of artists who are perhaps, unlike yourselves, solo artists, say?
    PAUL: Mm hmm.
    Q: Uh, the Peggy Lee type, do - does that interest you more than another group copying your style?
    PAUL: Yeah. I - that's what I meant, actually. When I said - I don't necessarily mean they're sort of much better than ours, but -
    JOHN: Oh, well I agree with you now, Paul.
    PAUL: I - y'know, that's - that's the thing really, that when they do them, when people like Peggy Lee do them, then it's, uh - they do 'em different, and it's - it's probably just a bit better because it's different. For me.

    Compare this to Faul's reaction to Twist and Shout in Ferris Bueller's Day Off. He claimed that "They overdubbed some lousy brass on the stuff! If it needed brass, we'd had stuck it on ourselves!" And this coming from the guy who wasn't even on the scene when JPM recorded Twist and Shout.

    1. Speaking of other people doing the Beatles, there was the London Symphony, the London Philharmonic, the Brazilian Tropical Orchestra, the Hollyridge Strings, etc, and they did them differently and excellently, too. The HS Beatles SongBook, arranged and conducted by Stu Phillips, are probably the best known, and they did wonderful instrumentals, featuring the pizzicato. If I Fell was beautiful enough as it was but was even more beautiful by the HS. But the Beatles do a better version of the gorgeous And I Love Her than the HS. And no one can beat the Brasil '66 rendition of Fool on the Hill.

      Interestingly, Vol. 1 of the Beatles Songbook cover had 3 hearts instead of 4, and that was in '64 or '65, unless it was a later re-release.

      As for ''les Beatles en français et au féminin'' there was the superbly done copy of Hello, Goodbye by the Intrigantes and Till There Was You (Les enfants de la plage) also by the Intrigantes, Fool on the Hill by the Miladys (a superbly done copy of the Brasil '66 arrangement), and the excellent rendition of And I Love Her (Et je l'aime) by Michèle Torr, all in the '60s.

    2. The album was from '64 and it was not a re-release.

      A note on Stu Phillips: he produced the wonderful Johnny Angel for Shelly Fabares and co-composed the fabulous Knight Rider theme and also composed the Battlestar Galactica theme (not the later series).

  18. New Videos appeared on August 30 2011 on is the link for those interested:

  19. Found a new excerpt of an article suggesting that the Beatles were main pushers and promoters of LSD and other drugs on the masses. I really don't think Paul would want anything to do with this.


    "Drugs certainly helped this transformation and, because LSD and marijuana were illegal, The Beatles found themselves assigned yet another pioneering role as spokesmen for the newly emerging drug culture: they signed (and paid for) the "pot ad" in The Times, they recorded psychedelic music that was banned by the BBC and were interviewed about LSD by serious newspapers. Naturally they were also busted. Having abandoned their identity as the Fab Four, the nation's favourite boys, they were fair game for the drugs squad..."

  20. ^ Anonymous, thank you for posting that. Would you kindly provide the citation to the article? Thank you!


  21. Here it is:

    The article, believe it or not, is from Barry Miles! Sneakingly admitting the truth, perhaps.

    Also, there's actually some great stories about JPM in the Beatles diary here! Just make sure to click on anything before 1967, of course.

  22. As far as I know, I'm the only one who's remarked on the following, publicly:

    In MMT film:

    When the "Aunt" character is dreaming of "food" -- remember, in death, we are "food of the universe" -- she cries twice. The first time, at 0:21 , a decapitated head is superimposed, with body bag or medical sheet buttons or snaps showing on the left side. It has Paul's browridge shape. The 2nd time, at 0:31 , some religious regalia are superimposed on her

    Shortly after, the Aunt is crying while laughing sounds play, and a man is shovelling spaghetti (implying brains? guts?) onto her table. Meanwhile "Mr. Buster [bust a?] Bloodvessel" character, sits opposite, eating. The man who shovels has "MC" insignia on his jacket (the same letters in Sir Paul's fancier-designed insignia).

    The MMT movie was first going to be called "Loot", after Joe Orton's play about a coffin, etc. The original title page (with "Loot" crossed out), is shown in a flashing image in one of the iamaphoney videos, which are filled with original documents and photos, and purports to be a leak, to be fully revealed next year. (MMT = Magical Mystery Tour)


    Comments in sympathy with the Beatles &c., creators of the movie:

    Now, would they have shown Paul's death head this way and why? How respectful is that? ... Well, they were

    a) mourning in secret,
    b) avant garde artists, so acknowledging death was okay and important, and not necessarily pornographic (exploitative),
    c) though no-one wants to be remembered for how they looked in death, if you can face it, that's a respect.


    Clearest copy of the movie segment on Youtube, to which the specific time signatures in this e-mail refer, is at , posted by "gx5ar" as "part 5".


  23. Excellent observations, Clare. I hope you join the forum.

    Just realized how much Magical Mystery Tour reminds me of mystery schools & magic...

  24. Been thinking about this question for a while.

    Did JPM technically die a martyr?

    You know, concerning the whole LSD agenda refusal. That would definitely warrant certain death.

    Any opinions?

  25. ^ Paul also spoke out against the Vietnam War, which was probably not the healthiest thing to do. I think Paul was a martyr, in a way. He seems to have subtly worked a positive influence on the world by using music to spread Light and Love. He refused to use his popularity and influence to promote a dark agenda, such as LSD. Since he could not be turned, he was killed & replaced with someone who would exploit that influence. That just may fit the definition of martyr... JMO

  26. An interesting little tidbit about Jane Asher's father...maybe he was involved with the LSD agenda, telling by this little blurb?

    When living with Jane Asher's family in London in the mid-1960s, her father, Dr Richard Asher, told McCartney once how the drug Benzedrine, could be extracted from an inhaler.

    Dr Asher loved to shock his family. Once, when Paul had a bad cold, Dr Asher wrote him a prescription for a nasal inhaler and showed him how to use it. 'You take off the top and place it on your little finger, like so.' He demonstrated. 'Then you take a sniff with each nostril as per normal; then, after you've finished with it, you can unscrew the bottom and eat the Benzedrine.' Peter shuffled his feet nervously and Paul grinned, not knowing how much he could confide in the good doctor.


    So apparently, Paul wasn't falling for Dr Asher's little bit of advice. This excerpt was taken from a book involving accounts from people close to the Beatles (will get the title when I think of it).

  27. Someone from ArgentinaNovember 7, 2011 at 6:55 AM

    It happened to me all my life that I always prefered young Paul than "the other one"... Now I can see why!
    I can't believe it...
    I have to thank you for this blog, please, make a back up of all this entries!

  28. One another thing I forgot to mention...

    Unlike Faulie-boy, I really don't believe JPM would ever endorse a complete talking head like Obama. I'd like to think he'd be a little smarter than that (I personally think that Paul would find him a fool, not to mention a dangerous one). Ah well. At least we know exactly what side Faul's working for.

  29. ^ It makes me ill that "Michelle" was dedicated to Barry's trashy wife :P But yes, we do know what side Sir-pent Faul. is working for...

    1. I heard that ''Michelle'' was used because it rhymed with ''ma belle'' or that it was for his (the real Mccartney's) bastard daughter Michelle LeVallier.

  30. About "official biographers":

    Barry Miles is one of the authors of "Many Years from now", a biography on "Paul"/Faul.
    In the book it contains a lot of questionable sources, and like other books, attempt to portray JPM as a really bad, unlikeable person with habits ranging from cruelty to self-indulgence to selfishness, you name it. From HONEST people who knew JPM in real life (and who didn't have a hidden agenda), similar to what you said, Tina, is that he was quite the modest, truthful and sincere person who wasn't half of what the revisionists painted him as, to say the least. He never did hard drugs and seemed to have some form of a moral code. Also JPM claimed up until the day he died that he was never into politics and remained more or less neutral on most topics. But come late-1966 and ALL of a sudden he is endorsing hardcore drug use and the overthrow of traditional moral values....WTF.

    On Barry Miles you believe he is "covering" for Faul? Do you believe he has a hidden agenda? For example, I know Hunter Davies' biography was denounced by the other three.

  31. ^ I get the impression Paul WAS political, but not in a way that was acceptable to the power elite. He spoke out against the Vietnam War, pushed for the Butcher Album cover, which I think was meant to expose ritual satanic abuse of children, & then "Taxman" was also very critical of the elite.

    But yes, I believe anybody who keeps pushing the "official" story that Faul is Paul is spreading disinformation, perhaps as a paid agent...

  32. When did Paul become a vegetarian? When did he start playing piano so much? Why did he leave England? And, no offence intended, why Linda? Paul could have had any woman he wanted.

    Had to laugh at the posts about Barry Marshall Davis and the shill "stars" kissing his ass and whoring themselves for the Democrat party. Saw Springsteen in the papers today doing the same. "Something to say" my arse. Can't take these pompous morons seriously.

    The system sets it up that way: "left-wing good, right-wing bad" as George Orwell once observed. So all the fashionista celebritards now line up for the Demonrats.

    NB: I am not a Republic**t.

  33. I'm kinda new to this and something has been gnawing at me. Michelle LeVallier had a daughter with Paul. Her name was Michelle and in 1965 he wrote a song with the same name for her. she would have been about 5 then. And in 1966 it was on top of the charts and disappeared just as quick. How can a man love his daughter so much he will write a song for her only to claim she is not his later on?

  34. That first photo you have of Paul vs. Faul gives me a strange feeling. Part of me feels like that may be the real JPM or at least a different impostor. Do you know what year that second photo is from? I'm guessing late 80's or early 90's? This man looks as though he truly has brown eyes, and while his nose appears very different than Paul's, his face looks more rounded than the other man (William?). Are there more photos of this beaky man? Could you do a side by side comparison of the 2?
    This whole thing makes me go back and forth over and over. I cannot be sure one way or the other. I have spent an embarrassing amount of time researching this and things just keep getting more and more strange. I came across the "twin theory" ( and also Miles Mathis' article) which I don't fully subscribe to simply because the child Mike McGear looks too much the adult, but it did make me wonder why sometimes (even after 1966) it seems as though it really is JPM in photos while clearly a different man in others. I don't know why I care or why I spend so time trying to figure this out, but one thing I can say for sure is that SOMETHING bizarre went on with The Beatles and the man who calls himself McCartney is either an impostor or is a sad example of the negative effect fame and money can have on such a sweet and charming young man.


