Truemors
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
Paul McCartney Pays Peculiar Tribute to Michael Jackson
Share:
by stevesmys | June 26, 2009 at 09:40 am
3778 views | 14 Recommendations | 19 comments
Videos
With the death of Michael Jackson at age 50, the celebrity tributes have been rolling in.
One such statement was made by Jackson's former collaborator, Sir Paul McCartney. While the statement seems heartfelt enough, McCartney's characterization of Jackson as a "boy man" seems a bit strange.
"It's so sad and shocking," McCartney said. "I feel privileged to have hung out and worked with Michael. He was a massively talented boy man with a gentle soul. His music will be remembered forever and my memories of our time together will be happy ones.
"I send my deepest sympathy to his mother and the whole family and to his countless fans all around the world."
McCartney and Jackson collaborated on a number of songs, including Thriller single "The Girl is Mine", before the friendship ended in 1985, when Jackson outbid a joint effot by McCartney and Yoko Ono to buy over 200 Beatles songs for $47.5 million.
When McCartney found out he said, "I think it's dodgy to do things like that. To be someone's friend and then buy the rug they're standing on".
Reports earlier this year suggested that Jackson had planned to leave the rights to McCartney in his will.
The "boy man" comment is just one of a string of seemingly cool remarks made by McCartney about deceased peers over the years. Most famously, McCartney received a lot of flak when he said "Drag, isn't it?" following the death of former bandmate, John Lennon in 1980.
McCartney later stated in a Playboy interview: "I had just finished a whole day in shock and I said, 'It's a drag.' I meant 'drag' in the heaviest sense of the word, you know: 'It's a — DRAG.' But, you know, when you look at that in print, it says, 'Yes, it's a drag.' Matter of fact."
Shows of emotion aren't characteristic of many London-dwellers, so it's easy for people to mistake McCartney as callous.
However, there have been numerous cases where McCartney had been aggressove towards former wife, Heather Mills. So maybe the characterization is warranted?
August 2003: In Long Island, Mills asked McCartney if he had been smoking marijuana. He became angry, grabbed her neck and started choking her.
[q url="http://www.celebrific.com/paul-mccartney-heather-mills-divorce-update-paul-is-an-asshole/"]October 2003: McCartney often told Mills when she was pregnant that he did not want her to breast-feed their child, making the comment “they are my breasts” and “I don’t want a mouthful of breast milk”.
November 2003: McCartney required Mills to defer an essential operation on her leg because it would have interfered with holiday plans.
What is NowPublic?
NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.
Most Recommended Comment
Crowd Power
stevesmys
Vancouver, Canada
Recommendations (14)
danesller0127
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
sara star
Halifax, NS, Canada
Roy C
Vancouver, Washington, United States
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (19)
at 03:49 on June 27th, 2009
What have you got against McCartney, one of the finest songwriters of the 20th century. This isn't enough for the headline-hungry media, the guy's expected to be saintly.
Even John Lennon, who publicly lambasted Paul many times in the early 70s, would be the first to admit that nobody's perfect.
Can't you see the 'boy-man' comment as perhaps a compliment? Jackson always had that innocent, childly aura about him which was part of his 'magic', and I think, with that phrase, he was trying to encapsulate that charm most people felt about Michael.
And cant believe you even refer to that Heather Mills stuff ? Totally unproven allegations from a money-hungry maniac designed for her to win sympathy before the court-case. The judge thought she was a loony.
The 'it's a drag' comment. I believe him on this one, but he has a record of being remarkably naive at times [LSD comments in '67, '80 Japan drug bust, Australian tour cancellation] particularly with a mic in front of him.
But come on, how would you be if you just found out your childhood friend, former professional collaborator and band-mate, had been murdered in cold blood? Geez, sorry for the 3 seconds of that day he wasn't grieving in the 'proper way!' And he's had enough grieving in his life, from his mum to Brian Epstein to John to Linda and to George. There's no 'proper way' to grieve and how dare you judge anyone for that!
[Saint] John Lennon unbelievably called him a 'cunt' on record [in a song from the 'Imagine' album mind you!] but Paul's not allowed to answer back, he's always got to take it on the chin, or he's judged to be 'callous.'
People have been stereotyping and pigeon-holing Paul for nearly 50 years now, why dont you journos bother to look behind a stereotype to see how someone really is? We're lucky to have him around in this world, just like we were John, Michael, Ray Charles, etc., etc. You two-faced devils'll be the 1st ones lauding this genius when he dies, and personally I hope he lives in happiness till he's 164!!!
at 18:22 on June 27th, 2009
Thank you Matto! My feelings exactly. Jackson was a pedophile, but now he's talked of as a saint. That's an injustice to those kids he diddled. Siince when is child abuse ok as long as a celebrity does it??
oh but Paul is callous for not crying on camera. GEEZ!
And Heather Mills LIED about everything - how is it the judge could see through that but those on here cannot???
at 18:29 on June 27th, 2009
They don't want to know. Its all so obvious but they refuse to accept it. It is disgusting how many people say they loved such a man.
at 07:24 on August 9th, 2009
i agree with matto allso, but michael jackson was NOT a pedophile, he was cleared of all charges and there was nothing in the news to say he was guilty, unless YOU WONT to read that. ppl like u belive the news wen its wot u wont it 2b, ie heather mills lied, the judge can see that, well so did the money grabbing parents of those kids, macaly calkin, his family, ppl like mark lester all said he was innicent and toterly trusted him with there kids, but then they did not need fame or MONEY, the 1st kid was allowed 2 stay with michael for 2wks after the parents accused him, if that was 1 of my kids, they would not b allowed ANYWHERE NEAR HIM, i would kill him i certainly would go straight drs n police with my child, not 2 a LAWER as this kids parents did, n no amount of money would stop me makeing sure he was locked up 4 good, im sure this would be the actions of any parent
at 19:00 on June 27th, 2009
Yeah if he was a pedophile but WASN'T M.J. I wonder how many of these people would want him living next door or on the same street as them.
at 21:55 on June 27th, 2009
Matto: I have nothing against Paul McCartney – except Wings, of course. I just find the term "boy man" a strange choice of words.
Agreed. We're lucky to have McCartney on this planet. But what's a celebrity if we can't take a few shots at him? Or her? If you're in the public eye and you do strange things, people are going to talk about it.
And talk about it we will.
And why so sensitive, anyway?
at 13:32 on June 28th, 2009
Everyone takes what Paul says and transforms it. Let Paul be Paul. Michael obviously took the Beatles copyright etc. Paul is the most magnificent human being that has ever walked this earth and he continues to be an earth angel
at 10:32 on June 29th, 2009
While not a huge McCartney fan (Lennon was more my style), I do think he was gracious in his comment about Jackson. Im not sure I could have been as magnanimous after being stabbed in the back over the beatles catalogue. Jackson had many issues, and everyone close to him knew it, but they enabled his eccentricities, and now they want to sanctify him. His fans are in total denial, just like they have been all along. Granted he had a certain genius to himself, but did the world have to come to a complete stop for two days of non stop coverage? I would have liked to have seen what was happening elsewhere. I tuned in last nite for a bit of the BET awards coverage, and was just so turned off. For his dad, Joe, to say that they should have honored him while he was alive so he could have enjoyed it, just told me one thing. The main stream pop/r&b culture, didnt think he deserved to be so honored while he was still alive. Over the past decade or so, I have seen many black comedians poke fun at Jackson, and not always in a positive vein. Now those same people are fawning over him and his greatness. Excuse me if I dont shed a tear. His talent doesnt outweigh his less than sterling character traits.
at 14:52 on June 30th, 2009
have some respect for the dead most you sound less than human if you cant understand tht someones passed on and you need to respect tht thn dont say n e thing i wish i knew all of you so i could beat the shit out of you for talkin about the dead in such way. i didnt hear too much of this whn elvis ass died and he was no angel
at 11:19 on July 1st, 2009
Excuse me, but I remember the day Elvis died. I was in the army, stationed in Ft. Leonard Wood MO. And there was plenty of derisive comments made about his lifestyle and manner of death. I dont know how old you are Von, but obviously you might not know that back in the day, there was no such thing as cable tv, internet or twitter or any of the new networking stuff that we have here nowadays. But the negative comments were there for all to see in what limited capacity there was. So please dont put the onus on those of us who fail to see why MJ deserves to be sanctified and his past "behavior" ignored. I personally mean no disrespect for the dead, I will be dead myself one day as will everyone else. The dead have no need of respect or disrepect. They could care less. Its the living, hanger oners who feel the need to validate their personal views and feelings, who feel the need to cram a demand for respect down everyones throat. As for beating the s**t out of anyone who doesnt agree with you, bring it on. I look at it this way. If in fact, MJ had been found guilty of the molestation charges, he would probably still be alive today, and probably a whole lot healthier, not having access to his yes men and pill popping drs at his beck and call. He would have been put on a strict regimen of proper health care and not allowed drugs for this that and the other thing. His people and supporters (people like you who believe his stuff dont stink) are the ones who enabled him, and let him die. YOU killed him.
at 18:45 on June 30th, 2009
Paul said Man/Boy because Jackson was famous both when he was boy and a man....think about it....
at 07:37 on July 1st, 2009
Why is everyone forgetting Jackson was a pedophile? The praise for him is mindblowing. If any of these Jackson disciples young sons were in "bed" (deemed perfectly natural by Jackson) with M.J., they would not be so enamoured. No response or reaction by Sir Paul could as damaging or vile as the ACTUAL actions of Michael Jackson.
at 17:05 on July 1st, 2009
OK... Michael Jackson was a pedophile, we know that. Paul McCartney hasn't been completely a saint, but certainly has a right to say what he feels, right? Sure, he's not in the USA and protected by the first amendment, but he's should be allowed to say what he feels, even if some people think what he said was callous. Yes, Michael Jackson is dead, but the biggest question is Will Sir Paul be able to obtain the rights to the Beatles songs? I don't know how much he will pay for them, but I'm sure he's offered a tidy sum of money to the Jackson family, seeing how much Michael was in debt.
Sir Paul may have to "bail out" Michael Jackson so that he can get the rights to the Sony/ATV music catalog. Yes, Sir Paul is loaded, moneywise - and I presume he's a shrewd businessman, as well. When all is said and done, I think Sir Paul will get the rights to the Beatles and conceivably the rest of the Sony/ATV catalog. My main reasoning is this. A few years ago, the Beatles released Love, which was being used by Cirque de Soliel at the time. As well as a CD, there was a DVD of the songs remastered in 5.1 audio. It stands to reason that the rest of the catalog was also remastered by Sir George Martin, as well. It is my opinion that the Beatles will be released on 5.1 audio WHEN Sir Paul gets the rights back. He's probably withheld them so that Jackson could not profit from the Beatles any more than he already has.
If the Beatles were released in 5.1 audio, you KNOW you're going to purchase a copy, right?
at 07:15 on July 2nd, 2009
Actually, we don't know that MJ was a pedophile. From most reports – Tatum O'Neal, Lisa Marie Presley – the man was asexual, or something like that. He didn't function in that way. And while sleeping in the same bed as little boys is very weird for this society – and while some sort of touching MAY have ensued – we really don't know what happened. No admissions of guilt were made and he was never found guilty.
at 12:18 on July 2nd, 2009
stevesmys is correct in his statement. It was never proven that Jackson was a pedophile...in fact, there are now reports circling that Jordan Chandler has admitted to lying about the awful allegations he made at the behest of his greed-driven father. When Paul McCartney was asked about the allegations in an interview from 1994 (well after he and Michael became estranged), he responded by saying "Linda and I are parents, and it's clear to us that Michael isn't that kind of person."
I'm no Michael Jackson fan...I've never really liked his music and he was a little too weird for my liking...but I would hate to slap the label of "pedophile" on someone who didn't deserve it.
at 11:33 on July 3rd, 2009
MATTO:
This is the first time I ever comment on an internet page, specially a gossip one (I hate them). But I gotta say... THUMBS UP on your comment.
It's sooooo sad to see what kind of things people -that clearly have nothing better to do in their sad and emphty lives- "make up" about someone that TRULLY has made wonderful things. Not only I'm a fan of sir Paul McCartney as a musician and song writer; but as a human being also.
I ENTIRELY AGREE with you. Congratulations to you and all the people that also agree with you because I see they are people that clearly use their brain and won't let stupid tabloids cloud their minds.
Cheers !!!
Dana
at 17:58 on July 7th, 2009
Michael Jackson himself might have referred to himself as a boy man. After all he referred to himself as "Peter Pan", the boy who never grew up and named his estate "Never Land". So, why is it so disrespectful for Paul McCartney to refer to him as boy man???
at 21:24 on July 7th, 2009
Ive said before that Im no huge fan of McCartney and even less a fan of Michael Jackson. But at the end of the day, does it really matter anymore. MJ is gone, he belongs to the ages, and will be judged accordingly. I am a very cynical man, but I did sit and watch the memorial coverage today, hoping to see something I could amuse myself with. Instead, for the most part, I saw his family, children, friends and fans, humanize the man. I still feel he had serious issues which he skirted by the skin of his teeth for the most part, but today, for myself, I decided to keep my personal opinions to myself. A talented man was honored for the good things he has done, and rightly so, there will be plenty of time to ugly up his memory in the future. I dont think Paul would want this day to be marred with ugliness.
at 21:10 on July 22nd, 2009
The more comments I read the more I wonder where American BRAIN power has gone. I am 100% positive that MJ was NOT a pedophile. He most likely was a CASTRATO! Read up the definition on-line MJ fits this to a tee. Which may account for Paul's comment and also when Lisa's M. remark that the S*** will hit the fan when the autopsy comes out. And WHY would this make sense, because it would have to been done BEFORE the 11 or 12th birthday, WELL below the age of CONSENT. THUS a crime had been committed against MJ. Could this be WHY he called himself Peter Pan?
Joe Jackson start sweating...you got tough questions to answer to.