Let's be reasonable about some stuff here: The Beatles -- specifically John & Paul -- made their deals when they were too young to know what the business was, let alone how they would change so much about it. What seems to be overlooked here is the emotional momentum that comes with being barely out of high school and playing in a really great band that you're sure will rule the world: "We're blood brothers for life! We'll be the next Zep!" Chances are, everything becomes "all for one" etc. But if you wrote something that became the most played song of all time (which I think "Yesterday" is by now) and had to give half the money and credit away in the name of being blood brothers for life, it could irk you. Not so much the money (if you've got enough), but the popular misconception -- printed on every damn copy of the thing -- that someone else did half the work. In light of that, moving the credits around so people at least get a notion of primary authorship sounds like an equitable solution. Lennon doesn't lose anything concrete ($), and Macca gets the top billing for something he did himself. (Lennon himself did an interview with Playboy where he went down the list of Beatle songs and said quite often "that's all me" or "that's all Paul", so we can consult that for definitive reference.) Watching the Dead Kennedys sue Jello Biafra was an ugly lesson in the value of songs and the ramifications of what happens when the blood brother thing wears off. Seeing how Jello Biafra owns virtually nothing of about eight years of his own work makes me think how much bitterness can come out to the legal fore when the blood brother who did the bulk of the writing doesn't stake a binding claim for himself starting at Day One. What would have gone down if the Blasters songs -- which the whole band helped arrange and refine -- had been credited to "The Blasters" and not Dave Alvin? (If you know the history of the band, this is a scary question). While Stan Ridgway was pretty much the sole writer on that 1980's cash cow "Mexican Radio", it's still credited to "Wall Of Voodoo". And he get's 25% of the royalties for something of which he probably wrote 99%. He doesn't say too much about it, but you know that's gotta be slightly discomforting. Now imagine if you were talking about the annuities generated by any cut on any Beatles album. That's a serious amount of money and historical regard as to your abilties as someone who can write a hit by yourself. After watching lots of people sue primary band members over royalties and credits (Biafra, Greg Ginn, Brian Wilson etc), McCartney's want for primary credit seems gentlemanly. He's not taking anyone to court to win retroactive money for royalties awarded Lennon on songs he didn't write. After watching the legal wheels go 'round these last few years, I can't say his request is all that distasteful skip h