From: dmaclaug@agsm.ucla.edu (saki)
Subject: Re: Stu Sutcliffe vs. Paul McCartney
Summary: Was there a Paul/Stu rivalry?
Organization: UCLA, Anderson Graduate School Of Management
Date: 23 Jul 92 10:59:43 PDT

In article <1992Jul20.162400.7966@menudo.uh.edu> edc@evolution.bchs.uh.edu (edward s. chen) writes:
>In article <cPa2NB4w164w@edale.amigans.gen.nz> olive@edale.amigans.gen.nz (Wayne Hoyle) writes:
>>rm34@quads.uchicago.edu (Robert James Mohammed Monk) writes:
>>[re: Stuart Sutcliffe]:
>>his ineptitude caused alsorts of problems with perfect Paul and it
>>seems that Paul attacked stu on the hamburg stage once because he
>>played so badly .... also paul always wanted the bass slot .
>
>This is one of those things that there really is no proof for.
>The story probably began with _Shout!_  (Philip Norman's poorly
>written account of the boys life and times), but perhaps earlier.
>It has definitely reared its ugly head in the more sensationalistic
>of McCartney biographies.  Conversely, Paul has taken virtually every
>opportunity to deny this claim.  ("I *coveted* the position of bass?
>Nobody else would take the bloody thing.  Besides, I always thought of
>the bass player as being the fat guy in the back")  I would tend to favor 
>this version.  It is entirely possible Paul argued with Stu as Astrid
>began to take more of his (Stu's) time, but such antics would have fit quite
>nicely in their rowdy rough-and-tumble Hamburg shows.  

Actually the story of Paul's and Stu's altercations originated much earlier
than Philip Norman's 1981 "Shout!" (Norman, a journalist, picked up a fair
amount of information on the Boys' early days from other published sources,
without acknowledging them; his writing style wasn't all that bad, though,
IMHO). Hunter Davies, writing the "authorized" biography of the Fabs which
was researched in 1966-67 and published in 1968, refers to numerous minor
fights among the Beatles as they were in 1960-62---inevitable irritations
that are bound to arise when a group of young men hang out together. Stu
was the scapegoat, more often than not; the in-jokes which John shared
with Paul and George were often denied to Stu; they would occasionally
tell Stu he couldn't sit with them, eat with them, etc. And although Stu
was a mysterious sort and more classically good-looking than the other
Beatles, he was slight and timid in the music milieu, which was after
all only his adopted field. No one in that little circle could touch
his artistic talent (Paul admired it from afar, Davies reported), but
that didn't help much on-stage. And Stu had a special, intense (yet
platonic, I find myself compelled to point out) relationship with John,
which Paul also coveted.

Davies said "The relationship between Paul and Stu, the petty jealousies
and rows, is not too difficult to explain. In a way they were both
competing for John's attention. Paul had it for a couple of years,
until Stu came along....Paul's younger brother [Mike] remembers beforehand
in Liverpool that Paul was a bit jealous of Stu" ("The Beatles", 2nd
revised edition 1985, p. 86). 

John remembered "We were awful to [Stu] sometimes. Especially Paul,
always picking on him. I used to explain afterwards to him that we
didn't dislike him, really". And as to whether Paul lusted after the
position of bass player, Stu's "specialty" (within his evidently weak
talent in this area), Davies suggested that Stu's reasons for leaving
the Beatles were not so much based on this friendly harrassment as
his decision to marry Astrid Kirchherr and study art in Hamburg: "Stu
liked the Beatles' music, but he felt he was better at art than on
the bass guitar. Paul could obviously play it much better. It would
be best for him to take over, which he did" (Davies, p. 104).

Now this suggests to me that, at least in 1968, Paul had no argument
with the suggestion that he was better at the bass guitar than Stu,
even that he'd played it with the group and was prepared to take over
as bass guitarist. Davies went through a protracted procedure of allowing
the Beatles and their families to review the text of the biography, and
those who wished could make editorial changes (unprecedented these days
in biographical journalism!) Paul had the opportunity to object. It
doesn't say that Paul made Stu's life a living hell till Stu ran screaming
from the stage, but one must assume that, with all Paul's badgering of
the poor art student, there must have been some pretty relentless digs
at Stu's musical ability.

The current statement you quote about Paul's innocence on the subject
suggests to me a revisionist mode is at work in the mind of our dear
Dr. Macca. He's his own best press officer. :-) Similar to his revised
history of Pete Best's sacking (to wit, Paul nowadays claims---see
the interview with Lewisohn in "Recording Sessions"---that he, Paul,
had nothing to do with it and wouldn't have wished ill-will toward
Pete for all the tea in China....), I think that's what's happening
here is an attempt to whitewash the situation. "No one else" would
take the position of bass player? Is that because Paul was the only
one of the remaining Fabs to qualify for it? Or because they all ganged
up on him and forced him to do it? :-)

Paul has a current predilection for painting himself in a more holy
glow (not always, but when the situation warrants...especially when
it means "correcting" his historical interaction with two past Fabs,
viz., Stu Sutcliffe and Pete Best) than actual facts would support. He
may be telling the truth *as he sees it* regarding Stu; but we should
be careful of accepting everything the good Doctor says, especially
if Paul has a particular personal agenda.

--
"Modern music is, however, the groups' delight, and as if to prove the
point, John and Paul have written over 50 tunes, ballads & faster
numbers, during the last three years!"_________________________________
                                        saki (dmaclaug@agsm.ucla.edu)