Sometimes Lennon needed McCartney and sometimes Simon needed Garfunkel. You'd go mad doing everything on your own.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I wasn't Lennon, or I wasn't McCartney. I was me. And the only reason I started to write songs was because I thought, 'Well, if they can write them, I can write them.'
Anything to do with the Beatles is very complicated.
If it weren't for the Beatles, I would not be a musician.
I don't think there's anything anybody's doing that the Beatles didn't at least try at some point.
People say the Beatles were John Lennon. What is Paul McCartney? Chopped liver? But everyone has their own favourite members whose creativity they gravitate to. That's normal.
I wanted to have the adoration of John Lennon but have the anonymity of Ringo Starr. I didn't want to be a frontman. I just wanted to be back there and still be a rock and roll star at the same time.
My cousins and I used to play Beatle wives. We all wanted to be married to Paul, but John was O.K. too. None of us wanted Ringo. Or even worse, George.
I wondered if people might not have had enough of Simon Armitage and wondered whether I hadn't had enough of Simon Armitage.
It's insane that, since the Beatles and Dylan, it's assumed that all musicians should do everything themselves. It's that ridiculous, teenage idea that when Mick Jagger sings, he's telling you something about his own life. It's so arrogant to think that people would want to know about it anyway!
They gave their money, and they gave their screams. But the Beatles kind of gave their nervous systems. They used us as an excuse to go mad, the world did, and then blamed it on us.
No opposing quotes found.