Wait...if he was Billy Shears, who was the Walrus?

February 8, 2005 12:53 AM

Live and Let Die. So you thought Paul McCartney's Super Bowl appearance was boring? Well, here's a little clue for you all: maybe that wasn't Paul. Of course, the "Paul Is Dead" phenomenon is well documented--but could that just be a coverup for a much larger conspiracy?
posted by First Post (37 comments total)

Paul or not Paul, it sucked.
posted by graventy at 1:07 AM on February 8, 2005

They say Paul was replaced by actor William Campbell...
posted by inksyndicate at 1:22 AM on February 8, 2005

Maybe Stephen King did Paul as well as John Lennon.
posted by RavinDave at 1:32 AM on February 8, 2005

I'm sure that even with seventies technology if Paul were replaced audio analysis would have shown an alleged difference in voices.

Sorry there were no boobs half-time for you, but it was a decent gig.
posted by page404 at 3:41 AM on February 8, 2005

paul's not dead...just his talent.
posted by gorgor_balabala at 3:43 AM on February 8, 2005

It's been said before but The Beatles really are dying in the wrong order...
posted by i_cola at 3:47 AM on February 8, 2005

What's really a hoot is, according to the Yahoo story two people actually went through the trouble of contacting the FCC to tell them that Mac was boring.

I have to admit that I'm still a fan of the Beatles' music, but the last new music they came out with was in, what, 1968? IMO, the individual efforts have never added up to what they created as a band, and then it was with a large contribution from George Martin.
posted by SteveInMaine at 4:01 AM on February 8, 2005

Since when has the Super Bowl been a forum for the cutting edge? It's a football game, already. They might as well just have the Trojan band playing "Louie Louie," I think. But Paul didn't do a bad job given the circumstances, and certainly did great compared to recent Super Bowl "talent," and Ashlee at the Orange Bowl, etc. It's not as if the competition were real fierce. Still, I don't get the bitching.

The only thing I didn't get was why a big artist's rendering of the Statue of Liberty came up on the giant TV screen/stage during "Hey Jude." It's as if the producers had prepared for a Toby Keith jingoism blowout, but changed their mind and hired a Brit, without time to change the graphics. And then the producers left the details to their staff, who were mostly too young to get the whole "British invasion" concept.
posted by raysmj at 5:08 AM on February 8, 2005

Since when has the Super Bowl been a forum for the cutting edge?

I don't think people are thumbing their nose at McCartney as much they are bristling at the snotty way that it was promoted. It was sorta like: "Lookie here! We got a class act! No evil boobies this year, yessiree!!"
posted by RavinDave at 5:26 AM on February 8, 2005

goo-goo-ga-joob
posted by LouReedsSon at 5:52 AM on February 8, 2005

Perhaps Paul should call up Linda J. Polley and coax her out of a few of the dozzens of songs she's co-written with John Lennon over the past five years. I think "Hussein's Butt Song" would have gone over great at the Sanitized-for-your-protection Bowl.
posted by Slack-a-gogo at 5:53 AM on February 8, 2005

I thought it was fabulous. Paul McCartney is smokin' hot.
posted by JanetLand at 5:57 AM on February 8, 2005

You could tell he was really trying to rock out...I was just afraid he was going to fall and break a hip. Rock icons just do not age well, even Paul McCartney.
posted by ChrisTN at 6:19 AM on February 8, 2005

Live and Let Die really should replace the american national anthem.
posted by mischief at 6:29 AM on February 8, 2005

It's been said before but The Beatles really are dying in the wrong order...

I have a bet that Ringo will be the last one standing. It seems only fair, what with the constant ridicule he's put up with. Then Pete Best will go. And Yoko will outlive them all.
posted by The Card Cheat at 6:29 AM on February 8, 2005

I thought it was a great show, too. Chose good songs and what, you wanted some pop chick or something? Last year's was abysmal in that, ugh, Justin Timberlake and the song where all the controversy happened was crap. At least Paul brought good tunes, he was energetic and funny. I mean, c'mon, "Thank you, Superbowl!"? So dorky. Mad love for Paul for doing it. And anyway, halftime is when you get up to make nachos.

Oh, and Ringo was the best Beatle. For real.
posted by livii at 6:43 AM on February 8, 2005

Of all the Beatle solo albums, "RINGO" is still my favorite.
posted by mischief at 6:45 AM on February 8, 2005

Wait, I thought Peter Frampton was Billy Shears.

Kidding... I'm kidding.
posted by psmealey at 7:12 AM on February 8, 2005

but the last new music they came out with was in, what, 1968? IMO, the individual efforts have never added up to what they created as a band

Ahem. The Beatles lasted until 1969, and more than halfway through the year at that. And that album (Abbey Road) was their best selling album of all time. Now you can probably make a pretty good argument for George Harrison being out of the picture after the Beatles (save for the one actually good song that was allegedly ripped off). Ringo--yes, OK, but he never did much with the Beatles in the first place.

But Paul McCartney had more financial success with Wings in the 70s than he did with the Beatles (not including publishing royalties, which I'm sure keep him living nicely). Then there's John. The saddest thing about John Lennon's death was that he was still making good music right up until the end. Lennon's death was a sad, sad fucking day for music.

Anyway, I liked the Superbowl performance, personally. Sure, it would have been nice to see some other performers play along with him (was that Jeff Beck? Way to play all the notes right, Jeff.) But I'd rather have Paul McCartney belting out Live and Let Die (and you've got to hand it to him, for better or worse he's alive and kicking) than have fucking Britney or Christina or Justin or any fucking American Idol sing Laudenum to the fucking masses. At least Paul's proven he had some talent at one point in his life (I mean didn't he, like, write his own fucking songs, for one thing?)
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 7:14 AM on February 8, 2005

Did Michael Jackson make any cash off the show or doesn't he own the rights to "Hey Jude"?
posted by DBAPaul at 7:28 AM on February 8, 2005

Paul is dead (backwards) haunted my senior year of high school. I watched part of the halftime show (and none of the game) and thought, hey, he looks pretty good for 62. And 10 year old my son was rockin' out to Live and let Die.
posted by bluesky43 at 7:42 AM on February 8, 2005

I kept waiting for him to rip off his shirt and display his star-shaped nipple rings, to no avail. Old limey coot.
posted by fungible at 7:48 AM on February 8, 2005

I have not seen mention anywhere about Get Back. . .a song that features marijuana and cross dressing (and implies more). I imagine that Paulie included this song as a little dig at the New American Morality (tm).

I thought it rocked. But then I am 54 and should probably be dead by now.
posted by Danf at 7:53 AM on February 8, 2005

I'm not ashamed to say that I like Paul and a lot of his work. He has made some hot jamz in the post-Beatles years. But best album by a Beatles-alum is All Things Must Pass hands down.
posted by papakwanz at 7:53 AM on February 8, 2005

Yeah, papakwanz, but best song has got to go to John.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 8:05 AM on February 8, 2005

Not Jeff Beck (be still my musical heart), but Rusty Anderson, guitarist on Paul's most recent tour. (Warning: somewhat annoying flash navigation.)
posted by fingers_of_fire at 8:12 AM on February 8, 2005

For years I thought Paul was singing "You gotta give the other fellow head".
posted by davy at 8:22 AM on February 8, 2005

What the face changing site failed to take into account is plastic surgery - big way to alter your features.

And the proof, anyway, is in the voice.
posted by agregoli at 8:25 AM on February 8, 2005

Did Michael Jackson make any cash off the show or doesn't he own the rights to "Hey Jude"?

Didn't Jackson have to give the rights to the Beatles catalogue to Sony since his last album (a non-greatest hits album) bombed? I thought he guaranteed Sony x amount of album sales and he fell far short of the goal, and I think that the Beatles catalogue was used as some sort of collateral in this deal.
posted by NoMich at 8:35 AM on February 8, 2005

agregoli-- in part 6 of the Undeniable Forensic Dissertation we learn that "Faul" is the one who had plastic surgery in 1966 to make himself look more like Paul.
posted by obloquy at 10:53 AM on February 8, 2005

Now you can probably make a pretty good argument for George Harrison being out of the picture after the Beatles (save for the one actually good song that was allegedly ripped off).

Actually, no. You cannot "make a pretty good argument" for this at all.

As for Sir Paul -- was it my imagination or did he skip the "movement you need is on your shoulder" verse in "Hey Jude"? Because there's an anecdote about that line which involves John, and my increasing McCartney cynicism makes me suspect that he's on a mission to obliterate any Lennon associations he possibly can. Or maybe he just forgot the words. Or maybe I was just distracted...
posted by scody at 11:21 AM on February 8, 2005

I'm just surprised no one's been up in arms about the line about "California grass" in Get Back.
posted by norm at 11:33 AM on February 8, 2005

Not to mention the cross-dresser. Sweet Loretta indeed!
posted by scody at 11:42 AM on February 8, 2005

Since when has the Super Bowl been a forum for the cutting edge?

Take a look at the Super Bowl half-time performing history. I think you'd have to admit that (despite being a tottering old geezer) Paul rocked a lot harder than Carol Channing. Or Up With People. Or even "Michael Jackson & 3,500 local children."
posted by LeLiLo at 12:00 PM on February 8, 2005

Contrary to popular opinion, the Walrus was in fact John.
posted by DirtyCreature at 2:20 AM on February 9, 2005

Since when has the Super Bowl been a forum for the cutting edge?

Am I the only one who remembers the 3-D extravaganza in the 80s?
posted by codger at 7:23 AM on February 10, 2005

I guess I am.
posted by codger at 8:15 PM on February 18, 2005