The man in full

Q: Why did you want to write this book? What was missing in previous McCartney biographies?

A: I suppose I saw there was an opportunity to write a better biography than had been written, because it seemed to me there was a common flaw with the previous books. They were all about Paul in the 1960s, and the authors ran out of space or ran out of enthusiasm when they got to the end of the Beatles story, and either didn’t address what happened after the Beatles or just skimmed through it in a hundred pages or so. And I thought, ‘Well, the way to do this is to do a longer book.’ The book has to be physically bigger and you have to give equal attention to the Beatles story and the 40 years since the Beatles. And to be frank, the personal story gets better after the Beatles, and the story has got better because of his second marriage [to Heather Mills]. That divorce was happening while I was working on the book and she’s a fantastic character, an interesting person.

Q: She’s a surprising character to enter the narrative at this stage in his life.

A: Blimey, she’s a former topless model from a shithole in Gateshead, a confessed thief and she winds up marrying one of the most famous men in the world and gets 25 million quid out of it! That’s quite an achievement! [Laughs.] She’s universally hated, but she did pretty well for herself.

(Random House of Canada)

Q: At one point in the book, you say that one could be justified in wondering if McCartney had “undergone a lobotomy” before leaving the Beatles, due to the overall quality of his solo material. I think we can agree that there’s nothing in his solo catalogue that ranks with Penny Lane or Hey Jude. Why do you think the solo material has generally been so underwhelming?

A: I can only surmise that there are a few things going on. One, the collaboration with John [Lennon] was crucial to his artistic endeavour. The loss of John meant he didn’t have that strong partner who would make him do better work. And I also think [Beatles producer] George Martin was the only other person in the world who had that same position in his life. I think Paul had become so wealthy and powerful that there was no one to tell him when he wasn’t doing good work. So there was no editor for him, really.

Obviously he does have a sentimental streak — that’s strong in his character and unfortunately he indulges that in the lyrics. I mean, the melodies are still great; he can still write a good melody at the drop of a hat, it seems. But he did lose the ability to write good lyrics. And it seems incredible that the man who wrote Eleanor Rigby, and Penny Lane and all those songs, which really have some literary merit — how did he then write Hi Hi Hi and Magneto and Titanium Man, all that crap?

Q: There’s a quote from [film producer] David Puttnam in the book where he compares McCartney to film director Ridley Scott and says, “I’m not sure either of them have absolutely delivered what was in them.” What kind of damage has his solo career done to McCartney’s overall reputation?

A: In some ways in doesn’t matter, because the Beatles stuff lives on and presumably will live on forever. And when you go and see him now, it’s the Beatles material you go and see him for and that’s brilliant. And to some extent all the stuff he’s done afterwards is almost irrelevant.

I think it’s true as I say in the book that when you compare him to someone like [Bob] Dylan, Dylan seems to be a greater artist, I think, because he does seem still to be grappling with the essential issue of what it is to be a human being. Dylan’s records are still profound, or they can approach profundity. And he seems to be a thinker as well as a musician, an intellect and somebody who’s trying to do really good work. Whereas with McCartney, he’s now more of a showman than anything. His show is a great show. It’s a bit like going to see The Lion King: it’s the same every night, exactly the same. It’s a bit lifeless, but it is brilliant.

Q: Is it fair to ask a pop musician to sustain that level of brilliance for 40 years? Is McCartney so different in that regard from people like Elton John, David Bowie, Stevie Wonder or Paul Simon? Even John Lennon’s solo material didn’t match up to his Beatles output.

A: If at its best rock music can be art, like literature and painting and theatre, which I think it can be, then surely the best people should be able to create good work throughout their career. And Dylan isn’t the only one — Joni Mitchell and Leonard Cohen have been brilliant consistently for years. I think McCartney decided at some point not to take as many risks, and he doesn’t like to write about himself in an autobiographical way, clearly. He’s not as introspective as those other musicians. And he’s a showman; for him, it’s about a tune, and fitting words to that tune.

Author Howard Sounes. (Jerry Bauer/Random House of Canada)

Q: Lennon died in 1980 and ever since then, McCartney seems to have been fighting a battle, claiming that he was the Beatle who embraced the avant-garde before Lennon. McCartney has also complained that Lennon is now regarded as “Martin Luther Lennon.” Is McCartney obsessed with being perceived by many critics as a lesser artist?

A: Lennon has become wildly overrated because of the fact he died when he was 40. And if he’d been allowed to live, as Paul has, a long life, there would’ve been mediocre albums and comeback tours. He wouldn’t have been taken so seriously.

I think he’s been overrated simply because he died so young. And I’m sure that McCartney resents this, because he sees that’s true and he remembers John as a different person.

Q: You write at length about Linda McCartney’s illness and death in 1998. Why was that marriage so successful?

A: She was obviously the right person for him. He had this thing about motherly women – his mother died young – because he missed having a mother in his life. She was of course a single mother. She came from a wealthy New York family and I think he liked that because she wasn’t after his fortune. She was a rock ’n’ roll chick, liked to smoke dope. Jane Asher [McCartney’s previous girlfriend] didn’t, so Linda and Paul were simpatico on that front. I think they were just a good team. Obviously it was a love story and he was by all accounts faithful to her. In the book, Denny Laine [ex-Wings member] says he never saw them apart. I think her death is certainly a moving part of the book, really because of the way Paul has spoken about it, sitting on her bed and talking to her, imagining that they’re riding their horses.

Q: How do you think he’s handled all the fame?

A: Obviously, it’s been a difficult life, being this man. In many ways, he’s handled it very well. The book reveals a complicated man. He can be a right bastard, as he says himself. He’s very ambitious, perhaps not always the best judge of his own work. But on the positive side, he’s generous with his money despite his unwarranted reputation for being cheap, and he’s very good with fans. He wears his celebrity very lightly; he wanders around the world on his own really, popping into restaurants and diners. He goes to the local library in Long Island [N.Y.] to get books for his daughter. Completely unassuming, in stark contrast to Heather Mills, who as soon as she became Lady McCartney deported herself like the Queen of England. Whereas Paul has been modest and unassuming, which is to his credit. He’s a great raconteur, a wonderful torchbearer for the Beatles.