Talk:Paperback Writer

message: I've changed the line about this being their only #1 U.S hit single in 1966 to it being their only #1 U.S hit single released that year, as "We Can Work It Out" was #1 for three weeks in 1966, but had been released in December 1965. In fact, I'm not sure if noting this fact at all isn't misleading.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.85.212 (talk) 02:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: U.S. Number One Hits

message: How about some information about the promotional video for this song - which some consider to be the first music video by a band.  When/where was it filmed?
:Please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~) so people know who you are or can respond properly. If you're worried about showing your IP address, may I suggest signing up (it's free)? Kodster (Talk) 20:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Promotional Video?

message: As the article states, the UK - and therefore most "official" - cover for this single was the butcher cover. I, therefore, think replacing the cover up now with that one would be correct and uncontroversial. However, I can't find an image of the cover as the cover of this single, only as the cover of "Yesterday and Today". I encourage anyone who can find one to put it up. It would be admissible from any source under fair use. --MQDuck 08:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cover

message: It's written that mccartney tried to base the song's melody a single chord, which sounds reasonable, but the reference to "the word" seems wrong. In "the word" a single note is stretched (this has nothing to do with the single chord of this song). 80.121.19.88 (talk) 19:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Single Chord Section not correct

message: if And your Bird can Sing from Revolver is Hard Rock this Song surely is also.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.44.228.26 (talk) 19:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I will change it. Lordsurya08 (talk) 07:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed it back. We do not use our own opinions and original research here; we follow what the reliable sources say. Rodhullandemu 16:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither of them are hard rock. As far as I'm concerned, the only Beatles song that really is hard rock is "Helter Skelter". -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 09:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genre 

message: It's impossible for this song to be about Martin Amis as the article suggests: Amis was 17 at the time! He published his first book in 1973, 7 years after Paperback writer was released... 
He couldn't even qualify for the appellation of "aspiring author".
:I think it's a case of McCartney's memory being defective, although I can't check because the source for this is not online. Rodhullandemu 16:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Found the New Yorker article online here, but you need a subscription to read the whole article.  GoingBatty (talk) 16:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I searched the Daily Mail Archive - in 1965 (the year mentioned in the New Yorker article) Martin Amis was mentioned once, at the end of a piece on Kingsley Amis and Elizabeth Jane Howard, as Kingsley's 16 year old son. Kingsley was already a well established author by that time - not an "aspiring" one - so this sounds like an utter fabrication. Shilton (talk) 13:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Martin Amis

message: Is there any interpretation for the "son working for the Daily Mail" and who the "dirty man" is?--Gg53000 (talk) 17:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interpretation 

message: According to this page, Paul McCartney wrote the song, with input from John Lennon. But the List of songs recorded by The Beatles page says that it was written entirely by Paul. So the two pages contradict one another. -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 09:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Composer 

message: Just added a short note about the musicality of the bass playing.--Daveler16 (talk) 16:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bass 

message: The article states 11 seconds of footage was found in 2019.
29 May 2019 article here https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-birmingham-48444469 announces a much longer find, of 92 seconds, from the Top of the Pops 'live' appearance.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.182.37.221 (talk) 02:32, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lost Footage Found 

message: In an interview given to Der Spiegel in 2016, Philip K. Dick's last wife, Tessa Dick, said that John Lennon had called her husband during the 1970s and told him that Paperback Writer had been written in honor of him. Source (in German): . Quote from the linked interview: "In den Siebzigerjahren rief einmal John Lennon bei ihm an und sagte ihm, den Song 'Paperback Writer' hätten die Beatles ihm zu Ehren geschrieben." ("In the 1970s, John Lennon called him [= Dick] to tell him that The Beatles had written 'Paperback Writer' in his honor.").
Of course, we also have John's own quotes in the article that it's mainly Paul's song, but if you look at those quotes closely, you'll see John actually talks about the tune as being entirely Paul's, not the lyrics. --2003:EF:13CC:B669:D4F8:985C:1136:9394 (talk) 12:03, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  In reference to Philip K. Dick 

message: It’s a futile exercise trying to untangle who contributed what to a collaboration, especially decades after the event. 
But were I a betting man, I’d wager that the lines:
It’s a dirty story 
Of a dirty man
And his clinging wife
Doesn’t understand...
... are Lennon’s. I can almost hear him saying them.
It’s Lennon’s best acerbic manner. And unlike McCartney, Lennon was a voracious reader, and will have encountered that clichéd plot often in the average paperback novel of that era. So he’s having a laugh at best-selling trash, along with the hungry-for-fame types who write it. 
I doubt that any of the words apply to any person. Though the bit about ‘clinging wife’ makes me think a bit about Cynthia Lennon...2001:44B8:3102:BB00:C0C2:61AF:A2BF:CAD9 (talk) 02:39, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lyrics 

message: In ,  deleted a sentence in the first paragraph of the "Inspiration and lyrical themes" section without deleting the references following it.  Should the references also be deleted, or do they also support the remaining sentences?  Thanks!  GoingBatty (talk) 01:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, Bat, he's right all the time (didn't you know?!) I'll check it in Nicholas Schaffner's book and Jon Savage's 1966 – if I remember right, McCartney's comments about Aunt Lil's complaint first appeared in an interview with Savile coinciding with the single's release. So the two points are essentially one and the same, but the interview, or at least the radio programme, should probably be mentioned as well. JG66 (talk) 02:15, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about references 

message: Thanks for doing so much in the last little bit here . I saw you mention in an edit summary that you couldn't access this New Yorker piece, so I thought I'd just copy-paste the relevant parts here:  Cheers. Tkbrett (✉) 15:21, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks , that's very good of you. Although – as I'm sure you can appreciate – the more McCartney talks in detail about a song over the years, and the more details he adds each time, the more I groan silently at his inconsistency ... (Which is why I mentioned that Fontenot's comment seems especially apt.) JG66 (talk) 02:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Yorker piece