bdelma Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 Can they ever ask their guests anything else but the same questions over and over again. Letterman had Mccartney on last night and asked one stupid question over and over again. Why don't these morons do some research on their guest and come up with something like, where is tour playing in what cities and how long will it be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Vader Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 What makes it worse, is that these guys get paid millions for what they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdelma Posted July 16, 2009 Author Share Posted July 16, 2009 What makes it worse, is that these guys get paid millions for what they do. That's true and their $ss*holes too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 Can they ever ask their guests anything else but the same questions over and over again. Letterman had Mccartney on last night and asked one stupid question over and over again. Why don't these morons do some research on their guest and come up with something like, where is tour playing in what cities and how long will it be. Wow, I thought Letterman was great with McCartney last night...he gave him proper time (in the talk show world anyways) and let McCartney reminisce about the thing that people care most about (he was in the Beatles), and they had a good rapport...personally, I would have hated it if Macca talked about the cities he would be touring in, his newest forgettable record...that is what the internet is for! It didn't feel like McCartney was there to sell something, only to revel in returnig to Queens, to play where the Metz play, as he did 45 years ago with his first band...and to make his first appearence on Lettermen's show, which happens to tape in the same studio that the Bealtes made their monumental first American tv appearence...my only complaint about the apperence, the sound from atop the marquee of the Sullivan theater was not so great... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nervous Guy Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 Can they ever ask their guests anything else but the same questions over and over again. Letterman had Mccartney on last night and asked one stupid question over and over again. Why don't these morons do some research on their guest and come up with something like, where is tour playing in what cities and how long will it be. Did it go something like this? Chris Farley: [ uncomfortable ] You.. you.. you remember when you were with The Beatles? Paul McCartney: Yeah, sure. Chris Farley: That was awesome! Paul McCartney: Yeah, it was. Chris Farley: O-kay.. Oh! You.. you remember when you went to Japan.. and, uh, and at the airport they arrested you 'cause you had some pot, and.. it made all the papers, and everything..? Paul McCartney: Well, to be honest, Chris, I'd kind of like to forget all of that. Chris Farley: [ smacks himself harder ] IDIOT!! That's so stupid! What a dumb question!! Paul McCartney: No, no, no, Chris. I get asked that all the time in interviews. Maria Shriver asked the same question last week. Chris Farley: Really? [ pause ] Did you know that she's married to Arnold Schwartzenegger? Paul McCartney: Yeah. I've heard that. Chris Farley: Did you see "Terminator"? Paul McCartney: No, I missed that one. Chris Farley: That was a pretty awesome flick. [ pause ] O-kay.. remember.. you remember when you were with The Beatles, and you were supposed to be dead, and, uh, there was all these clues, that, like, uh, you played some song backwards, and it'd say, like, "Paul Is Dead", and, uh, everyone thought that you were dead? That was, um, a hoax, right? Paul McCartney: Yeah. I wasn't really dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Renko Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 Can they ever ask their guests anything else but the same questions over and over again. Letterman had Mccartney on last night and asked one stupid question over and over again. Why don't these morons do some research on their guest and come up with something like, where is tour playing in what cities and how long will it be. You mean like going through talking points like Conan does? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chandler#81 Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 Wow, I thought Letterman was great with McCartney last night...he gave him proper time (in the talk show world anyways) and let McCartney reminisce about the thing that people care most about (he was in the Beatles), and they had a good rapport...personally, I would have hated it if Macca talked about the cities he would be touring in, his newest forgettable record...that is what the internet is for! It didn't feel like McCartney was there to sell something, only to revel in returnig to Queens, to play where the Metz play, as he did 45 years ago with his first band...and to make his first appearence on Lettermen's show, which happens to tape in the same studio that the Bealtes made their monumental first American tv appearence...my only complaint about the apperence, the sound from atop the marquee of the Sullivan theater was not so great... As a HUUUGE Beatles/McCartney fan (I've got my tix for Atlanta 8/15! WOO-HOO! ), I have to agree with bdelma. Every story Letterman drew out of Macca -from his father to Starr's fraility- has been forced from him at least 365 days a year. Ferchristsake, the guy was a Beatle for 15 years. There's another 52 years in his life! Felt sorry for him to have a national audience and not be allowed to talk about even the great band members he plays with now (Laboriel Jr. May, Rusty and Wings holdover Wickens). At first I thought DL's opening question about why Paul hasn't been available to do the show for 25 years was a 'mickey-take'. Now I think he meant it. "I don't like the show.." IMO, Letterman AND King suck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 As a HUUUGE Beatles/McCartney fan (I've got my tix for Atlanta 8/15! WOO-HOO! ), I have to agree with bdelma. Every story Letterman drew out of Macca -from his father to Starr's fraility- has been forced from him at least 365 days a year. Ferchristsake, the guy was a Beatle for 15 years. There's another 52 years in his life! Felt sorry for him to have a national audience and not be allowed to talk about even the great band members he plays with now (Laboriel Jr. May, Rusty and Wings holdover Wickens). At first I thought DL's opening question about why Paul hasn't been available to do the show for 25 years was a 'mickey-take'. Now I think he meant it. "I don't like the show.." IMO, Letterman AND King suck. I am not so sure. I find it hard to believe that McCartney didn't approve anything that was spoken about on last nights' show. If he wanted to talk up his new band, I gurantee, he would have. If he didn't want to go over the same old Beatles stories, I guarantee, he wouldn't have, and Letterman wouldn't have asked him to. I have done, and been around many musicians doing interviews over the years, the bigger they are (and McCartney is about as big as it gets), the more control they have in these situations. Personally, while I love McCartneys' music with the Beatles, I do think he is a bit of a poseur at times. I think he enjoys being the undisputed voice of the Beatles at this point in time. btw- I am not huge Larry King fan either! I guess I don't hate him as much as others seem to, but I have never thought he was a particularly good interviewer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chandler#81 Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 I am not so sure. I find it hard to believe that McCartney didn't approve anything that was spoken about on last nights' show. If he wanted to talk up his new band, I gurantee, he would have. If he didn't want to go over the same old Beatles stories, I guarantee, he wouldn't have, and Letterman wouldn't have asked him to. I have done, and been around many musicians doing interviews over the years, the bigger they are (and McCartney is about as big as it gets), the more control they have in these situations. Personally, while I love McCartneys' music with the Beatles, I do think he is a bit of a poseur at times. I think he enjoys being the undisputed voice of the Beatles at this point in time. btw- I am not huge Larry King fan either! I guess I don't hate him as much as others seem to, but I have never thought he was a particularly good interviewer. Eh, I'm not so sure.. Just reviewed it again and DL started to pose a question about the current band and he (PM) lit up in anticipation of sharing, but DL then spun it back to Beatles before he could reply. Don't mean to spilt hairs and I know you've worked this venue before. Personally, I think PM IS a true gem of our time and seems genuinely sincere and appreciative of his place in time. We're all jaded by celebrity poseurs and it's best to be wary as they're typically nothing like they appear. IMO, he's a most rare, real deal. BTW, the short concert on the marquee sounds MUCH better in digital headphones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 My favorite Larry King interview Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chandler#81 Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 Did it go something like this? Chris Farley: [ uncomfortable ] You.. you.. you remember when you were with The Beatles? Paul McCartney: Yeah, sure. Chris Farley: That was awesome! Paul McCartney: Yeah, it was. Chris Farley: O-kay.. Oh! You.. you remember when you went to Japan.. and, uh, and at the airport they arrested you 'cause you had some pot, and.. it made all the papers, and everything..? Paul McCartney: Well, to be honest, Chris, I'd kind of like to forget all of that. Chris Farley: [ smacks himself harder ] IDIOT!! That's so stupid! What a dumb question!! Paul McCartney: No, no, no, Chris. I get asked that all the time in interviews. Maria Shriver asked the same question last week. Chris Farley: Really? [ pause ] Did you know that she's married to Arnold Schwartzenegger? Paul McCartney: Yeah. I've heard that. Chris Farley: Did you see "Terminator"? Paul McCartney: No, I missed that one. Chris Farley: That was a pretty awesome flick. [ pause ] O-kay.. remember.. you remember when you were with The Beatles, and you were supposed to be dead, and, uh, there was all these clues, that, like, uh, you played some song backwards, and it'd say, like, "Paul Is Dead", and, uh, everyone thought that you were dead? That was, um, a hoax, right? Paul McCartney: Yeah. I wasn't really dead. A true classic! Thanks for the memory! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 Eh, I'm not so sure.. Just reviewed it again and DL started to pose a question about the current band and he (PM) lit up in anticipation of sharing, but DL then spun it back to Beatles before he could reply. Don't mean to spilt hairs and I know you've worked this venue before. Personally, I think PM IS a true gem of our time and seems genuinely sincere and appreciative of his place in time. We're all jaded by celebrity poseurs and it's best to be wary as they're typically nothing like they appear. IMO, he's a most rare, real deal. BTW, the short concert on the marquee sounds MUCH better in digital headphones. No doubt. I am a big McCartney fan too. I guess I just don't think Letterman did that bad an interview. When you just take a look at the songs this man has written, and really think about it, it is pretty phenominal. If I didn't know better, I might call foul, and think he had to have been using songwriting enhancning steroids in the Hall Of Fame portion of his career. I am almost certain, McCartney has input into what kinds of questions he wil answer. If he didn't want to talk about the Beatles, he wouldn't have. Just as Letterman would have never asked him about Michael Jackson, if McCartney had said it was off limits. I didn't mean to insult him, and I am not one of thos who holds the notion that Lennon was the true talent, while McCartney was a hack...but I have sensed a number of times over the years, since Lennon died, that Paul feels a little overshadowed by the cannonized Lennon. His attempt to have songwriting credits changed to McCartney-Lennon, for the songs we all know he wrote, was kind of embarassing. He has every right to be proud of his body of work (though I am not a big fan of most of his stuff after the early 80's), all props to him. I don't, however, put his post-fab Beatles material in the same class as his fab-Beatles material. I don't even think that is becasue the Beatles made him that much better a talent, as much as it is that is the way things go. Dylan has written some good stuff in the last 40 years, but it isn't in the same class as what he did 41-50 years ago. On the same topic, Larry King had McCarteny, Ringo, Yoko and George Harrison's widow on his show, a few years back, when "LOVE" was making its run in Vegas. Now that was a bad interiview. Twice, King referred to Ringo as George...Ringo had a great retort, but I can't remember what it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Poojer Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 I wish I 'sucked' as bad as they do.....you may not like them, but you don't get to their level, by sucking....oh wait....maybe that is exactly how they got there......EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW! Can they ever ask their guests anything else but the same questions over and over again. Letterman had Mccartney on last night and asked one stupid question over and over again. Why don't these morons do some research on their guest and come up with something like, where is tour playing in what cities and how long will it be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chandler#81 Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 I'm with you, Buftex. He's made it pretty clear over the years he felt betrayed by MJ for not adding more royalties after purchasing much of the Beatles music. He's just spinning nice about it now, IMO. Given that George was viciously knife attacked in his own home and John brutally murdered in front of his, no one could blame Paul if he chose a life of recluse. That he instead champions' his music and continues to thrill millions the world over in his late 60's, when money is not an issue, makes me one very appreciative fan! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 That's true and their $ss*holes too. there entertainers, not interviewers... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmac17 Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 on the subject of interviewing - i'll throw my $.02 into the ring on the best bit of interviewing you've heard in a while.... The #1 podcast in America - Adam Carolla. 5 days a week he has someone different on - frequently comedians, sometimes other hollywood types. The thing is, he has them for about an hour and does a VERY good job of getting them to tell their stories of how they "made it". And along the way he tells a lot of stories and does his signature ranting. He says he likes the podcasts because on radio you only get a few minutes to talk to someone and it is always the same, but the long format you can dig in. If there is such a thing as "the perfect mix of toilet humor, insights and interviewing" - he has it nailed. I'd recommend listening to the recent jimmy kimmel podcast or one of the Andy Dick ones - very interesting. Some good hollywood gossip comes up sometimes as well. It's on his website , but is easier to get through itunes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 That's true and their $ss*holes too. That $ss*hole Letterman paid his entire staff through the last writers strike. He also was the first to settle with the writers union. STFU before you call someone an $ss*hole without the facts. Wow, I thought Letterman was great with McCartney last night...he gave him proper time (in the talk show world anyways) and let McCartney reminisce about the thing that people care most about (he was in the Beatles), and they had a good rapport...personally, I would have hated it if Macca talked about the cities he would be touring in, his newest forgettable record...that is what the internet is for! It didn't feel like McCartney was there to sell something, only to revel in returnig to Queens, to play where the Metz play, as he did 45 years ago with his first band...and to make his first appearence on Lettermen's show, which happens to tape in the same studio that the Bealtes made their monumental first American tv appearence...my only complaint about the apperence, the sound from atop the marquee of the Sullivan theater was not so great... What a lot of people don't know is that the interview topics are discussed beforehand for most guests. I'm sure McCartney's publicist was completely aware of what the interview would be. If he didn't want to talk about the Beatles he wouldn't have played "Get Back" on the marquis. JMO I am not so sure. I find it hard to believe that McCartney didn't approve anything that was spoken about on last nights' show. If he wanted to talk up his new band, I gurantee, he would have. If he didn't want to go over the same old Beatles stories, I guarantee, he wouldn't have, and Letterman wouldn't have asked him to. I have done, and been around many musicians doing interviews over the years, the bigger they are (and McCartney is about as big as it gets), the more control they have in these situations. Personally, while I love McCartneys' music with the Beatles, I do think he is a bit of a poseur at times. I think he enjoys being the undisputed voice of the Beatles at this point in time. btw- I am not huge Larry King fan either! I guess I don't hate him as much as others seem to, but I have never thought he was a particularly good interviewer. I have no idea where that came from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Vader Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 there entertainers, not interviewers... Very true. The only person who could entertain and interview was Johnny Carson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 I have no idea where that came from. Maybe a poor choice of words, but as I explained in a later post, I get the feeling he is much more of a control freak than he pretends to be. From what I have read over the years, even in the later days of the Beatles, he was always the "mother hen" type. I think it was George who said, at one point, the Beatles likely would have broken up in 1967 (after Brian Epsteins death) had Paul not bullied the rest of them into carrying on as a band. He said that the Beatles mattered more to Paul than the rest of them. I don't really mean it as an insult, just that he always comes off as being very easy going about the Beatles, but every now and again, he will say something sort of "catty" that kind of reveals that there is still some resentment about the way he is perceived, particularly in the shadow of John Lennon. I can understand his resentment to a degree. I happen to think Paul was every bit the songwriter, if not better than Lennon, but his ultra- pop tendencies seem to cause some to think of him as a lightweight. I happen to like good pop music, and McCartney has given us some of the best ever. If you love the Beatles, and haven't seen the full DVD version of the Anthology, you owe it to yourself to watch it. When watching, it is pretty obvious to me, even during the heyday of Beatlemania, Paul was always more image conscious than the rest of the guys. I don't know how to explain it, but others noticed it to. If you can find it, check out the tv special "The Rutles: All You Need Is Lunch". It was produced by Eric Idle, and Loren Michaels (IIRC) around 1978. It is a parody of the Beatles...it is absolutely hilarious. In it, Idle plays Dirk McQuigly, the Rutles version of McCartney. Throughout the thing, Idle does this over the top, precious, confectionery imitation of Paul... George Harrison (an Idle buddy) makes a cameo, and, apparently, at the that time (1978) gave lots of insights to Idle, of the Beatles. You should see it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 Maybe a poor choice of words, but as I explained in a later post, I get the feeling he is much more of a control freak than he pretends to be. From what I have read over the years, even in the later days of the Beatles, he was always the "mother hen" type. I think it was George who said, at one point, the Beatles likely would have broken up in 1967 (after Brian Epsteins death) had Paul not bullied the rest of them into carrying on as a band. He said that the Beatles mattered more to Paul than the rest of them. I don't really mean it as an insult, just that he always comes off as being very easy going about the Beatles, but every now and again, he will say something sort of "catty" that kind of reveals that there is still some resentment about the way he is perceived, particularly in the shadow of John Lennon. I can understand his resentment to a degree. I happen to think Paul was every bit the songwriter, if not better than Lennon, but his ultra- pop tendencies seem to cause some to think of him as a lightweight. I happen to like good pop music, and McCartney has given us some of the best ever. If you love the Beatles, and haven't seen the full DVD version of the Anthology, you owe it to yourself to watch it. When watching, it is pretty obvious to me, even during the heyday of Beatlemania, Paul was always more image conscious than the rest of the guys. I don't know how to explain it, but others noticed it to. If you can find it, check out the tv special "The Rutles: All You Need Is Lunch". It was produced by Eric Idle, and Loren Michaels (IIRC) around 1978. It is a parody of the Beatles...it is absolutely hilarious. In it, Idle plays Dirk McQuigly, the Rutles version of McCartney. Throughout the thing, Idle does this over the top, precious, confectionery imitation of Paul... George Harrison (an Idle buddy) makes a cameo, and, apparently, at the that time (1978) gave lots of insights to Idle, of the Beatles. You should see it... The Ruttles is hysterical! I love how they had an Indian guy playing George. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts