Paul McCartney Never Retiring: 'I'd Do This for Nothing'

"If I retired, I'd still do exactly what I do," says 71-year-old music legend.

Ultimate Guitar

Despite being in his '70s, Sir Paul McCartney isn't planning on stopping any time soon. As the music icon recently stressed, retiring isn't even a possibility.

During a chat with XRT, McCartney explained that making music is simply what he does, and not something he can just retire from.

"For me, the main thing is I love making music so much," 71-year-old former Beatle said. "If I retired, I'd still do exactly what I do. So I may as well not retire. Retire from what? I'd do this for nothing."

Sir McCartney recently premiered a new song appropriately titled "New." As the title track of upcoming "Kisses on the Bottom" follow-up, the tune announced the October 15 official US release date through Hear Music.

The album was recorded with several notable collaborators, including Ethan Johns, Paul Epworth (Adele), Mark Ronson and Giles Martin, the son of classic Beatles producer George Martin. "New" info should surface soon; in the meantime, check out the "New" track below.

"The record is very varied. I worked with four producers and each of them brought something different," the bassist/singer told BBC. "Mark's work with Amy [Winehouse] was sensational, so I knew he'd be good. He knows his music, he knows what he likes and the two of us together took the song and tried to put the maximum vibe into it."

YouTube preview picture

28 comments sorted by best / new / date

    Paul McCartney was recently asked by Justin Bieber to collaborate with him. Can we just take a moment to thank any and all gods out there that he refused?
    Jacques Nel
    For 71 he's still got it.
    Buddy saw him a few months back and said it was a great show. Can't believe he's still got the pipes to sing for two hour sets.
    Every single person that saw him at Outsidelands said he was the highlight. Even people who said they aren't fans of his. It is insane how his voice has stayed intact for 50 years
    I would do things for free if I had enough money to not want any more of it.
    totally missing his point...
    He wouldn't be making the point if he weren't already rich.
    so he's not allowed to say he'd still be doing what he loves the most for free if he was poor?
    Actually most musicians who are truly passionate about what they do would say the same thing. That's how you get to be a successful musician by thinking "this is the only thing I want to do with my life and I would play for nothing because making music is what makes me happy."
    Usually when you retire, you do it because you don't want to/can't do it anymore. He's fully capable of continuing on, and he still wants to, so there's no point in retiring. He's saying if he were forced to retire from professional music, he would continue music as a hobby. So there's really no point for him to retire
    Yeh, I have to side with solexhn on this. I'm not a fan nor foe of Paul and I'm from Liverpool, for the record. But I too would do something for free if I had more money than possibly any person living in the UK combined.
    There are very few people who I think should go forever if they choose to. Paul is DEFINITELY one of them
    maybe he should stop charging 250+ for his shows then.
    His live shows are not nearly as expensive as, say, a Rolling Stones shows, pretty affordable for nosebleed seats when he came through Edmonton actually. It's just they sell out so damn fast, and the resellers quadruple the price. Shows as elaborate as his, not to mention the touring and security entourage are a hard thing to maintain, so he doesn't exactly see all that money himself.
    According to their bio...early in their careers PMac and the Beatles said the same thing when they played and shuffled from city to city poor as dirt....just saying...
    link no1
    I hear many people say they would do this for free if they could...I can't personally think of a single musician that has put those words into action though, especially when they likely COULD do it for free.
    You're missing the point. It's not that he'd rather do it for free, it's that if he stopped making money from music he wouldn't stop writing and playing
    This exactly. If he were forced to retire, only the professional half of "professional musician" would change.
    Paul McCartney's music will live on forever and I do hope that he will continue up until the day that he dies. He is the best musician the genre of Rock n' Roll has ever seen. Live on and Rock On!
    And guess what we get out it? Nothing. I haven't heard anything great from him min a while.