You know over the years in watching Paul McCartney interviews I've come to the opinion that one must take what he says in those interviews, historically speaking, with a grain of salt
I actually agree with this, Ringo too. George I tended to find fairly factual, articulate and honest, John I often found exaggerated or {and sometimes by his own admission} just plain lied to leave false impressions that put him in a good light and others in a poor one. But Paul and Ringo have been terrible culprits in the art of historical revisionism and trying to make a story sound spicy and overly entertaining.
But I believe him on his one. Firstly, it's a story he didn't have to tell. No other Beatle has ever spoken about it, George Martin has never mentioned it, nor has Geoff Emerick. As much of a revisionist as Paul is, curiously it doesn't tend to extend to what he says about what went on in the studio itself. Also, when one examines who played what on Beatle songs, Paul is the one that has played on the most songs. There's very few he wasn't on. "Julia," "Good night," "Revolution 9," "The Inner Light," "Within you, without you." So there's nothing to gain in denting his privileged place as one of the mainstays of the Beatles.
And there's quite a bit of photographic evidence of George playing about on the bass, both in the middle period and later on.
That one is actually in my top list of songs by the Beatles
Same here.
Silly story; back when I was 13 and I was aware of the song, but hadn't yet heard it, I imagined what it would sound like and I imagined it to have a "From me to you" kind of twist.
I was way off there !
the lead in Taxman, and if legend is to be believed Paul is said to have played
No legend to believe there ¬> George, Paul, Geoff Emerick, they've all confirmed for at least 46 years that Paul played the solo on it because George couldn't get it right. A similar thing happened on "Good morning, good morning."
When Paul tells the story in Bass Player magazine, he presents it as George saying in a rather pissed-off frame to Paul's criticisms, "well you do it then, if you're so good !"
He may never have "played" on that song, but clearly he sang throughout, harmony
Actually, Paul's vocals are conspicuous in their absence on "She said, she said." Long before Ian McDonald's first edition of the marvellous "Revolution in the head," when he didn't know about George and the bass, he comments that McCartney "oddly only contributes bass guitar here" and makes a point of stating that Harrison helps Lennon on the harmonies and lead guitar. Two years earlier, mark Lewisohn had made the same observation of the backing vocals just being George and John in "The Beatles' Recording Sessions."
In short, I think he's being full of shit
He may be in a lot of things. I've noticed that he sometimes likes to present himself as the musical director and avant-garde originator of the group. There's some truth in it but it's not the whole picture.
It may not be a popular opinion, and possibly could touch a tad on the overrated category, Stevie Ray Vaughan is/was a powerhouse, yet to an extent a one trick pony. 10 minutes in and you've pretty much heard all there was to offer
I've always felt that way about him from the first time I heard him. I used to have a manager at work back in 1990/91 that tried to turn me onto SRV. I'd not heard of him at the time and I wasn't aware of his reputation or that he was dead so I just listened to him on his merits and he did nothing for me. I was always on the lookout for new stuff at that point so if I'd've liked him, I'd've gone out and bought his stuff and would still be listening to it now, like I did with a number of artists like Sam Brown and Suzanne Vega.
