Paul McCartney: Ringo "Ballsy" For Not Signing Autographs (VIDEO)

Paul McCartney appeared on "The View" Wednesday to talk about his new album, and along the way he called former Beatles bandmate Ringo Starr "ballsy" for his public announcement that he would no longer sign autographs.

When asked if would every play with Ringo again, Paul told the ladies he wasn't sure. He then added, "Why doesn't he sign his autographs anymore? I love him. I think that is so ballsy."

Last October Ringo released a video on YouTube telling his fans to stop sending mail, as he was cutting off autographs. "I'm warning you with peace and love, I have too much to do. So no more fan mail."

WATCH PAUL:

Comments

[macgaff]

I don't blame celebrities for getting frustrated and wanting their privacy. That has got to get hard after so many years.

Easiest Movie Downloads: http://movies.instant-download-now.com/

[Arthur954]

The Beatles without John would have been a different group for sure, but without Paul, The Beatles would not have existed at all. With all respect for all four, Paul had the greatest talent, including the initiative to imagine what to do in the first place, such as Sgt. Peppers, Magical Mistery Tour, etc.

[Zofomofo]

You are sooo wrong. First of all, each Beatle is required, however...

If you look at the Beatles #1 CD there are 20 something number one songs. Of the first 10 John wrote 9 of them! I Wanna Hold Your Hand, She Loves You, I Feel Fine, Hard Days Night, Help etc.
It wasn't until Sgt Pepper that Paul started to have most of the hits,

Don't get me wrong Paul is a god among Singer/Songwriter/Musicians, but never under-estimate the fact that the Elvis crown went straight to John Lennon.

[BigCheese]

Guess what, nerds? George Harrison was, is and shall always be the coolest Beatle.

He wrote songs with Dylan. He made movies with Monty Python. He never went on The View.

Pwned!

[JenniferEccles]

George wrote the best post-Beatles songs, Paul second and Lennon third. Lennon and McCartney needed each other to bring out their best work.

There would not have been Beatlemania without all 4 members. Each was needed. In fact, it wasn't until Pete Best was replaced with Ringo Starr that the planets lined up and it was full steam ahead. So don't underestimate the importance of any single one of them. The final Fab Four was the way it HAD to be.

[pab08]

For what it is worth, it is my opinion that George Martin is the most underappreciated figure involved with the enduring success of the Beatles. Without Geaorge Martin, it is doubtfuil that their work would be as influential as it has become. They did write good tunes. But without the arrangements, prodcution, engineering and direction that George Martin provided, the Beatles would have disintergrated into Revolution Number 9 self-indulgent silliness.

but that is just my opinion.

[strangerinthenight]

McCartney still in the public eye, but most are only interested in his sleazy affairs. But yes, the Beatles made history. I don't know much about the music of that generation, so I can't say for sure what made them tick.

[Jaime47]

The Beatles were a Rock’n’Roll/R&B band initially. They evolved, however, into something quite different and amazing. Their music transcends labels. To dismiss it as “Pop” is absurd. Their combined creativity was, and still is, unrivalled.

Ringo’s contribution was consistent with the overall philosophy of the band. Each member’s playing served the intent of the music. The Beatles were virtuosos, all right. Their collective imagination opened doors that didn’t even exist before them. In the same way that Schoenberg reinvented classical music, and Bird reinvented jazz, and James Brown reinvented R&B/Soul, The Beatles reinvented popular music. Paul brought the bass out of the shadows and into the heart of the music, making his parts integral to the structure of a song. Ringo did the same thing on the drums.

It is to The Beatles’ credit that so little of their music displays any need or desire to demonstrate virtuosity for its own sake. A hundred years from now, even the venerated Rolling Stones, the U2s, the Springsteens, the Nirvanas, and the Polices of the world will be fading from memory, but, I promise you, people will still be studying and listening to the Beatles.

Ringo Starr was not merely lucky.

[AnnoyedCanuck]

Hear, hear. Ringo was a terrific drummer, the best in Liverpool when he joined up, which meant he was the best in England.

Ringo was an ensemble musician, not a showboat, which made him particularly suited to play with the Beatles. He didn't even like to solo. He only played a single solo on all the Beatles albums, at the others' insistence (on Abbey Road). He was well matched with McCartney, whose bass playing is unusually melodic and complex. They formed a matchless rhythm section that drove the Beatle's unique sound.

To the Ringo doubters: listen to 'I Saw Her Standing There'. Ringo kicks ass. Keeps time like a metronome, plays great fills and drives the tune. Listen to how Paul's bass blends with the drumming. Then listen to, say, 'While My Guitar Gently Weeps'. Again, restrained ensemble playing, excellent timekeeping, complex rhythms and the drums blend seamlessly with the bass. Give a hearing to 'Hey Jude' - lovely, loose, almost jazzy use of tom-toms and cymbals.

Obviously, I'm a Ringo lover. But listen again, even if you've heard all the songs before. He was as good a drummer as George was on guitar or Paul was on bass. And his playing evolved with the band as they went through their incredible, brief career. Listen carefully to almost any Beatles song, and it becomes clear in a hurry that Ringo was a creative musician who held his own in a group characterized by big egos and jaw-dropping talent.

[BadgersBite]

There was a great interview of Sir Paul on Sirius Radio with Howard Stern the other day.

[JeremyO]

The Beatles are the best band ever but I just don't see Paul in the same light. Ever since I realized he's probably one of the most self-obsessed, arrogant persons in Rock. And there's some real competition for sure. Besides John Lennon was a way better solo act.

[missjabez]

I think a lot of artists have a self-obsessed, arrogant side. John Lennon was extremely talented, but he wasn't always Mr. Nice Guy. I hated Paul's post-Beatles band, Wings, but once he got away from all that 70s kitsch he gradually improved.

[SpaghettyIrish]

Wings was some of the worst crap ever foisted on the listening public.
That, and because of Sir Paul, we're going to have to hear about Heather Mills for a very loooong time.

[AnnoyedCanuck]

I respectfully disagree. John's post-Beatles Plastic Ono period was spotty. The stuff he recorded while he was in Primal therapy was, shall we say, self-indulgent dreck. It hasn't aged well.

Paul's first solo efforts after the Beatles were pretty good. 'McCartney' and 'Ram' are strong albums and most of the songs stand up well.

Paul's problem is that he is cursed to be compared with a dead saint. But John, for all his genius and wit, was not a saint. A lot of the time, he was an angry, selfish prick. A big part of the reason for John's power struggle with Paul was John's own fault. He got deeper into drugs than the other Beatles - from 1966 on, John was strung out a lot of the time. He was often paranoid, isolated and unable to deal with the band's business. Paul stepped into the void, and John resented it. This was partly opportunistic on Paul's part, partly a necessity. He has been vilified for it every since.

I hate the way John, then Yoko, treated John's first son. It doesn't reflect well on the man who stood for peace, who wrote 'Imagine'. Contrast this with Paul's success as husband to Linda and father to his kids.

[celebfan]

Vote Paul and Nancy most romantic in hellomagazine's Valentines poll!
http://www.hellomagazine.ca/votes/mostromanticstarcouple/

[MomfromTexas]

Looks like Vanessa and Johnny are running away with that one.

Personally, I was a fan of Linda's. Wide Open is one of my favorite books on photography, and Linda's Kitchen is one of my favorite cookbooks. She couldn't sing, for sure, but I blame Paul for that one :).

[Gasparilla]

I would imagine that there were a lot of Ringo autographs that ended up on Ebay. He has every right to say no. I thank him for the great music. Every time I think that maybe they were overrated, I hear something I haven't heard in five years and I realize how great that music was. Even the "minor" hits like No Reply and I Don't Want to Spoil the Party are classics.

[thephenomenologist]

paul mccartney and his opinions about ringo starr are completely uninteresting and irrelevant.

[Gasparilla]

But certainly more entertaining than your post.

[spiderbucket]

The Beatles are the greatest and most influential artists of any medium in any timeframe.

[SpaghettyIrish]

More than da Vinci or Picasso?

[Clavis]

Interesting thought. Leonardo and Picasso are important for art history, but the Beatles as a visual, musical, political and historical phenomenon, it could be argued, have had a more pronounced influence on culture overall than either Leonardo (who is more respected historically as being ahead of his time, but didn't actually do a lot of work) or Picasso (who inspired successive elitist movements rather than the culture at large).

Of course, I could be completely wrong on all this.

[RevengeIsNear]

Macca is a great tunesmith and has paid his dues. So what if he's tapped out now. Also, he is an underrated guitar player. He can play some chops - he's the 2nd sololist on "The End". Also, I love his little mini song/reprises at the end of the main song. Like what's up when he sang a bit of "Big Barn Red" (who's that coming round the corner) on one of the Beatle White album songs.... can't remember which one now. Pretty cool. He can be kitschy but his roots are pure rock n roll Teddyboy.

[theBooHooBand]

complete bullshit. it may be that clapton played it, but george could easily have. you haven't been listening. Oh, and, by the way: eric clapton is not god. but he's not bad for a white boy.

And do a YouTube search for CARL PERKINS and you'll see Ringo and George and Eric at the feet of a Rock N' Roll/Rockabilly master. They adored him and the other greats of the 50's as well as the StaxVolts artists and Motown.

[Z2221344]

George Harrison himself said that he needed Clapton to play the solo on 'While My Guitar'. He didn't have the ability to get it to sound the way that he needed it to. So, no, he couldn't "Easily" have played it. Love the way you say he's "not bad" for a "white boy". You can play better? Doubt it. In fact, no, I don't just doubt it. I know you can't.

[Stefano]

All you have to do is watch the film of Let it Be or read any of the books about the beatles (I suggest Here, there everywhere by their old sound engineer) to know that Harrison knew his limitations. When they recorded "All you need is Love" live for a wordwide audience, they were petrified he would flub the solo (he got through it) But Clapton and he were close friends, and the rest of the Beatles didn't care for While my guitar... So Clapton came in and played on it. Its really not a big deal, its not like Eric got called in to bail him out, it was purely invitation.

[Rivermont]

And you are not too bad as a dullard.

[gouge]

Clapton is not god -but Harrison himself stated that he simply couldn't get it right -on the guitar work for My Guitar Gently Weeps -as for your idiotic white boy comment, being reasonably involved long time in the Chicago music scene -around lots of great players -all serious geetar players know that a 'white boy'- Jeff Beck is the finest practioner alive on the relatively young instrument known as the electric guitar-

[deepfreezevideo]

Paul needs to rock out more.
Between him and Elton I think I'm fed up with the Milk of Magnesia sound the two of them have been purveying the last few years.
Both are magnificent talents but they're stagnating right now, feeling their age.
Remember when Paul did that Russian album?
Remember when his own kid told him he was getting too soft?
The result was flashes of brilliance.
Paul, if you're listening, get BALLSY, play some rock and roll and tell Elton to stop doing remakes of
"The Lion King".
And Ringo, please keep rocking too.

[damnadamson]

listen to pauls latest album with the firemen ... it is the best thing he's done in years.

[OttoMann]

Ditto.

[JZ735]

Paul was a POP ARTIST...HELLO! The Beatles were a POP band...WINGS was ultimately a POP band with rock infusions...so don't expect something from him that he doesn't have...plus I like his foray into classical...sorry he doesn't fit the category you wish to box him in.

[scouserinlondon]

Originally they were Rock and Roll / R & B... Muddy Waters and Chuck berry stuff.

[missjabez]

While Paul generally went for a softer sound, he proved that he could rock out on "Back in the USSR" and particularly "Helter Skelter". I really wished he had rocked out more.

[indypete]

I've heard his "classical" stuff....

Paul.... Stick to rockin' out!

[ktano0]

It is quite apparent that you haven't listened to the albums that Paul has released in the past 13 years or so...from Flaming Pie to his new collaboration with Youth, Electric Arguments, he has recorded some real scorchers. Yes I remember and own the russian album,as you call it. For more of that (killer covers played with fire) please consider Run Devil Run. Electric Arguments, with 13 songs recorded in 13 days, is anything but stagnant and is his strongest album in years, if not ever. You can take off that hat when you are done talking through it.