Lennon on McCartney and Ono: interview recordings newly available

Right, John. It’s the funniest thing ever. God, his attitude pisses me off. Not once on Ram — not once — did Paul demean John’s music or songwriting. Paul made a few sharp comments about John but focused them on the band and on his own feeling that John had taken his lucky break and broken it in two (which is pretty much true). And Paul accused John of preaching.

But no where did Paul demean John’s music, or insult John as a songwriter. Jesus, what a self-absorbed jerk he is in this interview. Paul is supposed to “get” the jokes that basically encouraged Jann Wenner and an army of rock critics to demean Paul’s music for decades.

Sorry for the rant. But: SHUT UP JOHN! Those radio listeners were right. He had lost his sense of humor in the service of destroying his partner’s reputation and satisfying his own petty resentments. In the end, John only hurt his own reputation, as “How Do You Sleep?” revealed more about John than it did about Paul.

— Drew

As usual, John wanted it both ways. He wanted to take shots at Paul and then pull his glasses down and say, “It’s only me.”

I’m convinced the two of them were taking shots at one another as early as 1965. I feel John wrote “Nowhere Man” as a sort of “pizza and fairy tales” characterization of Paul.

By the same token, I feel Paul wrote “Paperback Writer” as a jibe at John’s literary pretensions because he was jealous that John was considered the intellectual Beatle.

As stated in an earlier post, George slammed both John and Paul in “Not Guilty” and Paul in “Wah Wah”.

And let’s not forget that John once made George so angry that Harrison snatched John’s glasses off his face and smashed them.

Well I have never viewed How Do You Sleep as a great song. Not just because of its vicious content but because it’s just not that interesting as a song. And I think the Spector production ruins the whole album but that’s another thread. Imagine the album sounds very dated and uninspired these days. Not to mention that this song undercuts everything Mr. Peace was trying to say in Imagine

But I repeat: Paul’s “little digs” were just that: little and mild. Paul said John destroyed his luck break and that he was preaching. That’s hardly harsh stuff. Of course John brings a machine gun to a knife fight because that was just John.

But I’ve always admired Paul for never sinking so low as to publicly insult his bandmates’ musical abilities or songwriting. Paul never tried to publicly hurt their careers like John did. Nothing Paul wrote on Ram insulted John as a songwriter. But that’s the only point of How Do You Sleep — to attack Paul as a person AND as a songwriter. And that’s just pretty inexcusable to me.

JR: I don’t agree at all that Paperback Writer was about John, or that Nowhere Man was about Paul. John said in many interviews that Nowhere Man was about himself — marooned out in a London suburb. John was the one “sitting in his Nowhere Land.” Meanwhile Paul was in the middle of Swinging 60s London — involved in all sorts of “happenings.” So I just don’t see the song as about Paul.

— Drew

I wouldn’t necessarily put those Lennon interpretations down to paranoia. Just because Paul says they’re not targeted doesn’t mean they’re not (he’s guarded about his songs at the best of times) and the whole song doesn’t have to be about John – just bits here and there. And remember these guys knew each other inside out and had so much history. You know how it is with people like that in your life. Little phrases take on certain meanings, seemingly innocuous statements refer to specific things.

I also think Yoko might have a point when she says things they might say to each other can seem harsher to people on the outside. I mean, I think she was excusing it in a convenient way, but I think there might be something in it, too.

“like when he bought more shares of Northern on the sly”

“perhaps was Paul simply sneakier than John in his assholishness”

I think this has some bearing.

Again this is a cultural observation – speaking as someone who comes from a similar cultural background to the Beatles, I think it’s the slyness of Paul’s digs or the perceived slyness of his behaviour that would have played a large part in John’s anger. Among working class (real or perceived – there’s no point in arguing the class status thing here), the done thing is to ‘have it out’, say your piece, not mutter your grievances in ambiguous ways so only a knowing few get it.

It’s like in football (soccer). In Britain, if a player punches one of the opposition, chances are he’ll end up a hero to his fans. If he dives to try and con the referee into giving a free kick, he’ll be despised by everyone. Continental and South American players don’t get it because that ‘slyness’ is part of the game, part of the way they’re taught.

So in some quarters, and most significantly to himself, John’s direct and upfront response would have been seen as more noble. I’m not saying that excuses it or makes it right – I’m just trying to explain why I can fully understand why John responded like he did. Yes, it was ego driven, no doubt, but there was a cultural element that I think I understand.

By the way, Paul’s criticisms were valid and John was harsh and over the top, but he did have a point in accusing Paul’s post-Beatle work of being too lightweight. Yeah, it’s a matter of taste but I can’t disagree with him. And as much of an arsehole as Klein undoubtedly was, ‘since you’ve gone you’re just another day’ is a great line.

The Northern shares thing has always bothered me because I don’t think Paul has ever offered a good explanation for his action. I can understand why he did it. I think he was in a panic over losing control of the band, didn’t like the way Yoko was influencing John to do strange (and silly) things, and so he bought those extra shares as a way to gain some measure of control. He should have just publicly admitted that. Instead he’s avoiding giving a good answer or outright lied about his motives. So yes, he could be sly in his handling of things.

But John was perfectly capable of slyness and conniving, too. He is, after all, the one who used Brian’s attraction to him and got Brian to pressure Paul into changing the song credits permanently to Lennon-McCartney. John wasn’t exactly direct and forthright about that.

And John wasn’t being forthright at all in the lyrics of How Do You Sleep. He was being a playground bully. There is no honest expression of grievances in that song — just name calling. I might have some respect for the song if John had focused on his grievances, which would have been fair game. He could have used the lyrics to criticize Paul for bossiness, for steamrolling over people, and for being unwilling to compromise. THAT would have been a forthright expression.

Instead he took potshots. It’s the petty attacks aimed at hurting Paul’s career and reputation that seem low and unworthy of John’s talents.

As for “lightweight,” that is of course subjective. What is Imagine (the song) if not a lightweight understanding of politics? And by 1980, John would record Double Fantasy, which was filled with sweet “lightweight” songs about the importance of love and children and family. It’s a strength of Paul’s solo work, not a weakness, that he already understood the importance of all of those things 10 years earlier.

— Drew

Nancy, just to clarify, I don’t think all of Paul’s post-Beatles stuff deserves to be labelled lightweight. And some of the ‘lightness’ is in good taste and entirely appropriate. It’s just that I think he missed opportunities to produce real classics by not giving some of his songs enough weight lyrically.

The thing I always come back to with Paul is that he could do it. He gave us Eleanor Rigby, She’s Leaving Home, For No One, Blackbird. So as much as I enjoy, say, Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey, I can’t help be aware of what’s NOT there.

This doesn’t mean I’d dismiss Paul’s solo output per se. Ram, for instance, is probably my favourite Beatles solo album. I just find myself wanting more from much of it.

I agree that John also has to answer the ‘lightweight’ charge for some of his output. Oh Yoko is a good example. But he did have sufficient counterweight to that kind of throwaway sentiment at THAT time. Later on, not so much – especially with his songs on Double Fantasy.

As for Lennon and slyness, well, they were all playing games, no doubt. But with the example of announcing the Beatles were over then it being kept secret, I think that particular saga highlights why it’s not so much what Paul did, or what he did relative to John, that rubbed the others up the wrong way but how he did it:

You’ve got John being an arse and suddenly announcing he’s leaving. OK, after the initial shock they all agree to keep it under wraps until such time, etc. But then Paul decides unilaterally and without warning to sneak the information out. And in such a way where he doesn’t actually say it, but is really saying it. And as part of promotion for his own record.

Did Paul have a right to be pissed off? Absolutely. Was John being just as difficult? Definitely. But again, it’s a case of John being upfront and letting the others know exactly where he stood, albeit it being hidden from general view, while Paul gives the perception of going behind everyone’s back.

I’m not saying Paul was necessarily in the wrong. And as it turns out John hadn’t kept the secret anyway and had told journalist Ray Connolly but asked him not to publicise it until the contract negotiations had been sorted out. Now, John might well have expected Connolly to go ahead and write the story anyway, as he apparently later claimed – although that might have been wishful thinking in hindsight after Paul had stolen his thunder and taken ownership of the split. And as Connolly was a trusted confidant, I think the latter might be the case. But even if Connolly had written the story, John would have been able to claim betrayal by that fucking journalist who he’d told to keep schtum.

Both could be egotistical and mercenary, for sure. But John’s more brazen approach, while arguably more damaging in the long run, probably sat better with the others.

I think what I’m trying to say is possibly being misconstrued, which is entirely my fault for not explaining it well enough.

I’m talking about perceptions. I’m not defending John, and I’m not saying Paul was the sly one and John was straight down the line. Far from it. I’m looking at it from the perspective of: 1) Why John felt it was OK to deliver his tirade in How Do You Sleep and then feel justified in laughing it off, and 2) Why John felt such aggression in the first place (and why a lot of what Paul did was grating on the others in the latter years and post-breakup).

I’m not saying John WAS upfront about everything – far from it. But he felt if he could claim honesty, either in his actions or contrition after the fact, then, no matter how insensitive he’d been he’d still be able to claim the moral high ground.

Paul was always more guarded, more cautious and less likely to show his cards. This was partly because he couldn’t play John at his won game because he knew he wasn’t a match for him in that way. But it’s also his character. He doesn’t like to show weakness and doesn’t often show it. I read a revealing interview recently from the early eighties (I think – it might have been more recent) where he observes that if people think you’ve got it all sorted, they sort of despise you. I’m paraphrasing because I can’t find the bloody thing but hopefully I’ll be able to find it because it’s a rare moment of openness from him and also a really astute observation, I think. It also shows he’s really much more self-aware than many people think.

So I think it was partly this perceived slyness that really got to John and, as you say, Michael, no doubt it was the fact that Paul’s digs really hit the bullseye. But also this perception of Paul as being the sorted one, the one who had his shit together. Anything less would have seemed futile. He needs to knock him off that pedestal. It’s like a brother railing against his parents’ favourite.

I don’t want to keep banging on about the cultural aspect, but I do think it’s significant because John’s response was kind of typical for a man of his background backed into a corner. And as is often the case, the attempt at a show of strength serves to reveal the weakness.

But John, to give him credit, acknowledged as much later, admitting the song said more about him than Paul.

I don’t know that history has been unfair to McCartney over the breakup and aftermath. To use a cultural phrase, in my opinion it was six of one and half a dozen of the other. The accepted procedure for these circumstances is declare both parties as bad as each and threaten to bang their heads together if they don’t stop bickering 😉

Paul is absolutely sly and sneaky and it is absolutely in his nature. He says in the authorized biography that one of his earliest memories is tearing a little bit of his mother’s lace curtains whenever he was being punished. Not enough that they would notice, just enough so that he could think, “there, that’ll get them.”

Fast forward to his twenties, when John and Yoko are staying with him in his London house, and Paul mails an unsigned postcard to them … to his OWN address, in his own handwriting…that says “you and your Jap tart think you’re hot shit.”

There, that’ll get them.

I guess what I’d add as a listener but not a student of their back-and-forth is: this is what happens when your every thought gets recorded and published and sold.

For me, knowing that they took shots at each other and had worn out their welcome with each other is enough detail. I don’t want an album of bickering. Write the song if that’s your way of processing, and I’d rather not listen to it.

The song has musical value, yes. But I hear it much less as a musical offering than as a shot at Paul — which ought to be done in a nasty gram to Paul not an album released to the public. Sort this out yourselves, bicker all you want, bitch and criticize. I get it, it was an intense 15 years and you have issues. The songs I want to hear are about things more enduring than “that guy pisses me off right now.”

This thread is fascinating. I’m a big fan of this blog because I DO think about the Beatles maybe a little bit too much!

All Beatle roads DO lead to John and Paul. I suspect there is much more to their relationship that we realize.

Carry on.

I fear we’ve entered silly territory when we start talking about ripped curtains. 🙂 The vast majority of children do things like that when they feel powerless against a parent. It’s not evidence of anything but childhood immaturity.

“Leaving a letter in his own house for his houseguests to find seems like begging a personal (and knowing Lennon, perhaps physical) confrontation. It’s the opposite of sly.”

Spot on, Michael.

And you’re also correct that there is no evidence at all on the Let it Be tapes that Paul was ever rude/nasty to Yoko. At some points, he even supported some of her ideas — like when she suggested that for the Beatles’ return to live performance, they play in an absolutely empty stadium. Paul is the only one who actually liked the idea. (And it might have been kinda cool!) There are other examples: The photographer who took the Abbey Road album cover picture was someone that Yoko suggested and Paul hired on her suggestion. I’m sure he was very torn: He didn’t want her around (neither did George or Ringo) and yet he tried to get along with her because John wanted her around. Oy the stress of it all must have been magnificent.

Francie has done more than her share of ranting at Paul for what was a minor affair lasting only 2 months or so. Consider that Paul had a three-year affair with the model Maggie McGivern and she, to this day, never says a bad word about him. So I don’t think Paul was “callous” in his treatment of ALL women in the 60s. He was callous in his treatment of SOME women — but that’s true of the other 3 Beatles, too, not just Paul. And some of those women behaved quite badly, too.

I feel more for the 3 Beatles wives at the time (Mo, Pattie, and Cynthia) who were cheated on repeatedly, and, worse, treated like peripheral figures in their husband’s lives.

To return to the point: I understand that John may have been jealous and viewed Paul as “the sorted one” who needed to be taken down a peg. That makes a lot of sense. But that doesn’t excuse, for me, the damaging way that John went about belittling Paul as a songwriter. And I’m just glad Paul responded with “Dear Friend.”

— Drew

@Ingrid, though I may be reading into this (the instrumental does seem Japanese to a Western ear like mine), I must admit that I always assume “Frozen Jap” is a schoolyard insult; but what makes me think this is how different things were in 1979 than they were in 1969…The stuff that went down in 1975-76 started a cold war with Paul and Yoko that I think (business necessities aside) is very, very deep. But I know nothing more than any other fan. They could be warm pals; I kinda hope they are.

@Nancy, I try not to be too hard on Francie–I’m sure I would’ve done the exact same thing in her situation. Mega-fame is like a black hole; it distorts everything that gets close to it.

That’s an interesting Davies comment; although I think he’s utterly wrong about Lennon being “up-front” or “quick to reveal himself.” Opinions, John had plenty of–but if you collate them, they so often cancel each other that they add up to…no one. “Honesty” is also a disguise, and it’s the American version of reserve, especially in show biz. Like British reserve, American honesty (ie honesty without intimacy, or even sincerity) is a way to distance oneself, show immunity to judgment, and to keep the conversation away from painful topics. John Lennon post-68 was an Englishman adopting (what he thought were) American manners–which is why he emphasized it so much, and why he was such an easy mark for people like Allen Klein. And why he had such disdain for Americans who mimicked the other way (like the Eastmans).

It’s interesting to me, Michael, that you wave off Paul’s sneaky move re: the Northern Songs sale as merely one of the very few shit moves the usually unassailable Mr. McCartney may have made. John was enormously resentful of it and viewed it as a major betrayal. Sure, he was separating himself from Paul and the Beatles in general before that, so I’m not saying that this bit of Macca sneakiness is what caused the rift, but it was definitely a major contributor to the level of nastiness that ensued.

You can trace everything back and point your finger at John, but the truth is they were ALL nasty, just in different ways. But, basically, we are commenting on a family squabble—and in family squabbles, people rarely act rationally, and no one ever comes out smelling like a rose.

I just think it’s important to consider how much Paul’s passive-aggressive/bossy manner really annoyed the others and helped to deepen the growing resentments. The example you gave of Paul’s “allowing” the famous row to be included in Let It Be just proves to me that Paul thought he was in the right and that George would be the one to look bad in that scene. (Listen to him talk about Hey Jude these days. He likes to emphasize how George was wrong about his guitar riffs idea.)

Was Paul more rational and clear-sighted than the others, especially John (and George!) in the break-up era? Yeah, probably. But who’s “in the right” is less important to history than understanding the interpersonal dynamics that contributed to the split and the ensuing nastiness. And I feel you just glaze over Paul’s shortcomings, even though the others’ resentment of him (validated by history or not) was just as strong a contributing factor as John’s enormous ego… and a whole host of other factors.

Ultimately, no one’s to blame single-handedly, of course. They were still very young men, let’s not forget, and under enormous pressure in truly unprecedented circumstances. That none of them completely self-destructed (though they each came close) is truly remarkable.

And, of course, it’s such a shame that John is not here to share with us his mature view of everything… because he was truly unpredictable and we really don’t know for certain what he would have thought about it all today.

Let’s say Paul was everything the Cult of John says he is–an insincere, cloying, bossy egomaniac who was sneaky and nasty and mean to John and Yoko who were just two lovers wanting nothing more than to be together. Even if the story’s that simple, it’s got to be counterbalanced by all the Beatle music McCartney made and caused to be made from 1967-70. Had the Beatles died in a plane crash after Candlestick, certainly this blog wouldn’t exist, and the history of rock music would been massively different. What really galled Lennon was that his most enduring work–the foundation of his reputation as a genius–happened as McCartney was supposedly “leading him in circles.”

Is John Lennon a reliable source on the breakup? Weeelll….saying “everybody acted shitty” is accurate, as far as it goes, but for me it doesn’t go very far. As the years have passed we’ve discovered that the stuff John said in “Lennon Remembers” is mostly mean-spirited and self-serving, with just enough truth to make people believe it. Anthology is, as one would expect, much more reliable, but still pulls off on some important points (like the understandable and entirely predictable effect of Yoko on the group’s working relationship). As engaging as John Lennon was in interviews, he was also selling, and knew he was selling, and SAID he was selling.

As to the secret purchase of Northern, if your longtime partner is nursing a heroin addiction, has a new wife that may not be kindly disposed towards you, is in the thrall of a business manager that you don’t trust (as it turns out, rightly so), is behaving more and more erratically and (to your way of thinking) self-destructively, is absenting himself during sessions, and has recently declared he’s Jesus Christ, you have a right to take steps to protect yourself financially from him. Do I think it was devastating for John to find out that Paul had secretly bought those shares? Of course. Should Paul have immediately offered to sign over 50% of those new shares to John at cost? I would’ve. But Paul was not John’s parent, as much as John treated him like it. John Lennon was a hot mess at that stage in his life and, while that might be fun to read about and even part of his attractiveness, I can’t really fault Paul for trying to take charge in that way. I think he shouldn’t have done it secretly–but the “fat arse” comment suggests that even that might’ve been warranted. I dunno; like I said, I’ve always felt it was sleazy, but of late I’m at least entertaining the possibility that Paul was freaked out, and trying to control an out-of-control situation, with a partner who was going through tons of changes and acting differently than the guy he’d known for 12 years. It’s just a thought, and YMMV.

@Peter, absolutely right. And THAT is at the root of my celebrated (at least on this site) distaste for White and LIB–I hear the friendship breaking down, and it’s the friendship that I love most. Not more than the music, because it’s woven into the music.

This is also what people never seem to get about Yoko’s presence after May ’68–it’s not that she’s Japanese, or a woman, or a far-out conceptual artist, or works in a totally different style than Beatle-music–it’s that she was being introduced into a very close, very complicated, finely calibrated friendship between four people. It was so obvious she was going to knock that off-kilter, that’s what makes me think John was doing it on purpose. But whether he was, or just besotted and impetuous, once that stressor was present, all the other smaller things, like the ones you mention, became bigger than they would’ve been otherwise. I don’t think “Yoko broke up the group” but she never has seemed to understand or value the special friendship her husband had with P/G/R and how necessary that was to ameliorate the weirdnesses of fame and fortune; she and John cast it as an either/or choice, when of course it didn’t have to be.

Anyway, the moment tension appeared in the band, all the courtiers came into play (Klein and Eastman being foremost among them); once the equilibrium had been knocked out of whack, all the outsiders began trying to establish a NEW equilibrium where they would get more power and control over this vast money making device called The Beatles.

By 1976–and certainly 1980–when all the members of the band had successfully transitioned to adult married family life, one can see the old friendship coming back online. Which is why–even though it might’ve been difficult to convince George–I firmly believe that The Beatles would’ve gotten back together, in some form, for some time, in the early 80s.

They thing with the Northern Songs shares has always interested me. I think that once again, John was upset because he didn’t think of doing it first. The company was public- anyone with money could buy the shares: George, Ringo, John, etc. Paul got some good advice from Eastman and bought them. Should he have informed the others? Yea. The extra shares certainly made him look like a sneak when they came to light, but the weirdness of these times is hard to imagine having not been there.

-King Kevin

David, I think your chronology makes sense. I just skimmed through Doggett and here’s what I found:
McCartney’s depression:
“His account of the spring and summer of 1970 reads like a textbook description of clinical depression…Only one avenue promised relief: full legal separation from the rest of the Beatles.” [135-6]

“The three defendants received their first notification of the impending writ (a ‘letter before action’) four days before Christmas. ‘I just could not believe it,’ Harrison testified a few weeks later. ‘I still cannot understand why Paul acted as he did.’ Starkey concurred, adding that he had been under the impression that all four Beatles would meet in London during January 1971 for the first time in almost eighteen months. ‘I know Paul,’ Starkey said, ‘and I know we would not lightly disregard his promise [to meet]. Something serious, about which I have no knowledge, must have happened between Paul’s meeting with George in New York, and the end of December.’ Neither man understood that it might have been the confrontation between McCartney and Harrison that had tipped the plantiff’s hand.” [155]

That confrontation was the infamous, “You’ll stay on the fucking label. Hare Krishna”. [148]

More Doggett:
“Harrison’s contemptuous dismissal of McCartney’s plea for freedom had decimated his options. He hated to imagine the other Beatles as his enemies and would have preferred to target Allen Klein. But Klein wasn’t his manager and so couldn’t be fired. Likewise, Klein couldn’t release McCartney’s earnings from the Beatles partnership. This wasn’t about money; if it was, then McCartney could have read the sales figures for Harrison’s new records and relished the unearned 25 percent that would soon be added to his account. What he wanted was to be a Beatle, and if that wasn’t possible, then he wanted not to be in the Beatles, rather than being lost in this no-man’s-land of phoney partnership.” [153]

But here’s something that I think explains Paul’s behavior:
“According to Lennon, ‘Paul would’ve forfeited his right to split by joining us again. We tried to con him into recording with us, too. Allen came up with this plan. He said, “Just ring Paul and say, ‘We’re recording next Friday, are you coming?'” So it nearly happened. It got around that the Beatles were getting together again, because EMI heard that the Beatles had booked recording time again. But Paul would never, never do it, for anything, and now I would never do it.” [149]

I think one should take all Beatle comments made during the course of the lawsuit with a grain of salt. Also, here’s a transcript of McCartney’s interview with LIFE in 1971: http://beatlesnumber9.com/life1971.html

OK so how much can we blame the lawyers — Klein and the Eastmans — for all of this mess. 🙂 I’m a little bit serious, given that these four relatively uneducated guys from Liverpool certainly didn’t have the experience/know-how to pull any of these legal tricks and maneuvers (buying extra shares, tricking a member into giving up his legal rights) without lawyers telling them what to do.

Damn lawyers. 🙂

— Drew

David, great point about the chronology, and thanks, Michael, for going back to Doggett for the goods. What an ungodly mess it all is, from 1968 on. Though I’ve read the Doggett book, I’d forgotten the details of Klein’s plan to trick Paul into giving up his legal right to sue.

Paul’s buying Northern Songs shares without telling the others was underhanded, but Klein’s plan tops that. John’s admitting that trying to get Paul to meet and record was a “con” makes me more sympathetic toward some of the shots Paul takes on “Ram.” “I thought you was my friend / But you let me down, put my heart around the bend” sounds about right.

Which probably explains some of why Lennon is so acid on “How Do You Sleep?” — he feels guilty himself. I think we’re often the angriest at those we know we’ve hurt most. Which, of course, would also help explain why Paul was angry at John — Paul knew he’d really hurt John, and was justifying himself.

And Drew, I think you’re right about Paul’s having more than one depressive period. One before the first solo album and one after, for sure. And probably one following Linda’s death, which helps explain his disastrous marriage to Heather Mills. Increasingly I think the primary audience for McCartney’s more comforting/reassuring/optimistic songs is himself.

Drew, it seems entirely possible that Paul’s had to stave off depression, off and on, at least since the Beatles’ breakup. I agree with you about the sorrow that underpins “Every Night.” A fair number of McCartney’s songs are dark, or acknowledge darkness. Many are about escape, in some form or other. Still others are about getting up in the morning/getting through.

I think Linda saved him, in the late 60s, as much or maybe even more than Yoko saved John. Once she was gone . . . . Well, another thread, another time.

Paul hides hurt, sorrow and anger; he doesn’t want to talk about them publicly. They come out obliquely in his songs. John was all about expressing those negative emotions directly, especially after the breakup. Hence much of the difference between “Too Many People” and “How Do You Sleep?” Annnnnd I’ve talked myself around to the beginning of this thread!

Peter! Let ‘er rip! Your comments are great! (As have the others been.)

Clinical depression? That seems doubtful to me. But let’s keep in mind that Paul was a legendarily heavy smoker of pot for most of his adult life. Where there’s that much smoke, there’s usually some kind of psychological fire. As an American I medicalize everything, but it seems that Paul took to pot with a will around 1965, and was merrily puffing away for the next thirty-five years. “Contents under pressure” at the very least.

Ha, well, Michael, one of the things I was going to say was that Paul’s energy and workrate were inconsistent with someone suffering from long-term depression… but they’re equally inconsistent with his reputedly prodigious pot use. So who knows? 😉

But while I’m on the subject, and as I’m here, it’s interesting to note that the growing differences within the band coincided with a divergence in their individual drugs of choice, having made the collective journey from alcohol to uppers to pot. As I think I’ve observed on here before, acid initially created that soon-to-be familiar fissure, with John, George and Ringo on one side and Paul on the other.

I’m not suggesting that the drug divergence was responsible for the differences, but it must have exacerbated them.

And going back to the ‘sensitive’ early 70s, Lennon and cocaine was truly a match made in hell, and not at all conducive to reconciliation and harmony! (c/f the notorious Rolling Stone interview.)

Just saw this:

In 1985 Paul McCartney lost, in heartbreaking fashion, a bidding war for the publishing rights to the Beatles catalog to then-friend Michael Jackson. But, thanks to US copyright law, McCartney now has the opportunity to reclaim the rights to his half of the Lennon-McCartney catalog, at least in the United States.

When Jackson passed away, his estate retained the rights to the catalog, but recently the estate sold those rights to Sony/ATV for $750 million. The US Copyright Act of 1976, however, allows songwriters to reclaim the rights to their songs 56 years after they were written. This gives McCartney the chance to recapture his share.

As Billboard reports, McCartney has already made moves to claim his portion of the Lennon-McCartney collection, filing a termination notice for 32 songs written between 1962 and 1964 with the U.S. Copyright Office on December 15, 2015.

“Only the McCartney half of the Lennon/McCartney songs are eligible for termination, and only for the US,” a source told Billboard. “Sony/ATV still owns [those] Beatles songs in the rest of the world.”

McCartney also filed for rights to other songs from later years, including from Abbey Road, but those songs are not eligible for reversion until 2025. Yoko Ono already negotiated a deal to give Sony/ATV Lennon’s share.

(From Esquire)

I apologize for repeating myself from a couple of months ago, but I’m still hoping someone has the answer:

A few people in this thread have said John viewed Paul’s extra 1,000 shares of Northern Songs as a major betrayal, but does anyone have a quote?

I ask because books often repeat previous books without foundation, and I can see where authors might assume John was angry since he reportedly (and understandably) blew his top when Klein first told him Paul had 100,000+ more shares. It doesn’t help that these same authors usually give the impression that Paul bought a lot of shares rather than John sold a lot.

As someone up-thread mentioned, I’m pretty Paul said he bought the shares on Peter Brown’s advice (which Brown denied) well before the Eastman’s were around. I think I recall him saying he mentioned it to John, but of course I can’t find a quote. Paul saying it doesn’t make it true, but I can see where John might have forgotten if it had been a few years.

If Paul bought the extra shares on the sly, having so few more shares than John (0.13%) would be purely symbolic. Maybe he felt betrayed that his name was always second after they’d agreed the order would be switched around based on the main composer, a situation in which Paul must have felt powerless.

Can someone tell me to what John actually said about it and when?

Drew – “IMO John took the Northern shares thing especially badly because he was used to Paul sacrificing his own financial interests for John’s… Paul wrote most of the pair’s No. 1 hits yet never begrudged sharing the money equally with John.

This is not true or plain misleading. Paul had a few more #1’s than John. Many of their hits were true collaborations. How does Paul writing a handful more #1’s as the lone composer become writing most of their #1’s? John had more UK No. 1’s than Paul but I guess those don’t count. John in fact had a hand in composing, either on his own or collaboratively, more of the Beatles overall catalogue than Paul.

I have always thought that Paul knew exactly what he was doing with Too Many People and how those two lines were lines that most likely John would get and no one else. Which,in my opinion,made Too Many People much colder and meaner than HDYS. The line”you took your lucky break and broke it in two”could easily have meant that John’s lucky break was when he met Paul and the line”now what can be done for you” means that without Paul,John is nothing. But the lines were so subtle that they went over most people’s heads,but not John’s and Paul knew it. He probably wasn’t surprised by John’s response. I’ve always wondered why Paul has tried so hard over the last almost 40 years to convince everyone thwt he and John were friends. Why does it matter so much to him? Any ideas anybody?

As an older fan remembering Beatles and solo, Paul doesn’t have to convince folks he and John were friends because before John made it an either Paul and the Beatles or yoko, Paul and John were such close friends that even George could never break through their tight circle. Paul is simply telling history before John and yoko re wrote the ballad. When Beatles broke up, the general public blamed yoko, secondarily Klein and Linda. When Paul sang, you took your lucky break and broke it into he was correct. The Beatles and their extreme and ongoing success was the lucky break of a lifetime For John and all of them. When ram song written, John was struggling and followed left wing hippie causes and personally floundering to such an extent, he had to drop all of that, thanks wanting citizenship, then revert to his old style music, then retire a few years before returning.

It mattered to Paul so much and secondarily to the fans because when the John and Paul friendship fractured, a strong bond since 1957, the group soon afterwards did. More importantly, it mattered to Paul so much because he lost an old friend f over ten years. The REAL question is why John felt he had to go on aggressive attack from the beginning with his Rolling stone 70 interviews and I’ve seen 70 videos of him downing Paul, the Beatles and other Rock singers. John Lennon before yoko did not feel the need to do this but after yoko, he did.

Gretchen, you talk a lot about too many people…it was a response to John’s previous attacks and the song correctly called out the hypocrisy of John and others then in their left wing and peace movements……preaching practices, and don’t let them tell you how you ought to be, etc. John and yoko were CONSTANTLY giving interviews downing Paul and the Beatles before that song and elevating themselves and o pushing their causes. You cannot take the last part of a sequence of events and isolate it from previous years. The Beatles was such a lucky break of a lifetime, the towered above all other artists then. The causes John and yoko hijacked soo faded, nam ended, politics and musical styles shifted and ….John like other solo Beatles struggled solo at different times. By image album, even rolling stone dropped him as a darling and they gave band on the run a higher rating. Their review noted John preaching lyrics as hollow.

I thank all of the folks here and on other Beatles forums, however, for enlightening me that it was John’s choice to see it as an all or nothing, to chose yoko as a fellow collaborator…..to tell the Beatles he wanted a divorce. It was not yoko but John, though once he made his choice, she led him own. I heard of extremist folks, for whatever reason who drifted into cults or extremism and cut off their old families and friends of many years, got further confused in the cults and were not who they were before got out of the cults like Scientology and such. They used to have to be deprogrammed. I have seen a religious cult friend go through this.

Gretchen, have you lost an old family member or friend of many years? You dwell on too many people a lot I see but, if you had lost all old friend of many years or family member you would understand why it is so important to Paul to emphasize they were friends. They WERE very close friends from 57-68…..until John didn’t want to be and went on the constant attack. Paul was smart to see through the whole left wing hippie hypocrisy of those times. I myself did not see it then but began to see it latter. What CAN be done for folks who box themselves in a corner? Very little as the rest of John’s personal, sad life appears to show. John tried to pull himself out, but it is very difficult when in fairly constant isolation, with sycophants, and in extreme drug addiction by all accounts.

People make mistakes…..we all do ….but the mistakes have consequences. Above are discussions of odd things about John’s last days. I have read these things here and there as well. John had the greatest launching pad for his causes, the Beatles, but yoko seemed to convince him Beatles were inferior to him and yoko and by then John’s increasing lack of involvement with the Beatles had fractured the group because he had reneged his old leadership role. I was a serious John fan in sixties and most of seventies and read about and saw this as a fan in real time, I have NO PROBLEM understanding two many people in the order of events and the lyrics were dead on accurate. From 69 till that song, John had solidly downed the group in video and paper press interviews and elevated himself and yoko and He especially downed Paul and hid behind his causes and postured as a guru.

Because Eastman found Klein was about to move the entire Beatles music catalogue into his private holding co where he would own the songs, not the Beatles in a pyramid scheme Eastman found he had used with American artists, Paul had to sue other Beatles to sue Klein to prevent this. Songs Klein stole from stones it took them years to get back. Thus, Paul ended the group but saved their music from ABKCO ownership.

Also, I may be wrong but it is my understanding that as part of the divorce settlement, John was made to set up the trust fund for Julian, thus he didn’t voluntarily do so, Klein convinced John the Paul buying shares was his cheating John but John would have had more shares except for the Julian trust fund. However, Julian visited Sean and played with him at the Dakota. I never doubted that John realized his career and parental conflicts about Julian interfered with his being A goid father, so John wanted to be a good father to Sean although they had servants to help with the child.

I keep getting errors trying to send, so if you get duplicate comment, moderators, please delete one.

I meant to add that I researched the shares issue and John and Paul had near equal amounts as such things can be counted but John has fewer shares because of the Julian trust fund ordered by the divorce decree. There’s pretty detailed stuff on this in probably the very good Beatles books like you never give you your money which I never read. The Wiley Klein used the disparity in the shares in reality due to johns divorce decree to agitate the financially ignorant John against pail. The naive Beatles increasingly surrendered themselves with sharks and their own group and personal spending was obscenely profligate. One if the very few good thIngs I got out from of the brown book was their profligate spending but had to wade through the fanboy hero worship and the sleaze to get to these core facts I had heard mentioned in general here and there. Paul attempted to get a reputable money manger for the group when Brian died who had a sound business reputation but by then Beatles money so messed up the man wouldn’t touch them with a ten foot pole. They were so naive came to America and announced on tv would fund all of these hippie causes. They were all sitting ducks. They truly had more talent than sense by then.

@Nancy Carr: I also think it’s interesting that McCartney didn’t put “Dear Friend” on “Ram,” even though it was recorded at the time. It’s as if he was (subconsciously, at least) saving it for after John’s response to “Ram.”
.
Spot on. It goes to show that he knew John would be hurt. He recorded his apology in advance. So to say he didn’t hurt John intentionally is just an another attempt to let Paul off the hook.
.
Gretchen is correct in her interpretation of that line; at least that is exactly how John said he read it. These two didn’t mean any of their hurtful comments, but they wanted to cause pain. “Without me, you’re nothing John”?? Haha, and in Oh! Darling he said, “If you leave me, I’ll never make it alone.” Why John was hurt by that obviously false statement in Too Many People, I don’t know. But I’m sure it’s just one example of cloak and dagger lyrics on the album. John’s ongoing jealousy of Paul’s good looks? Give me a fucking break. Paul wasn’t all that. But he thought he was (the best looking are rarely the most vain, in my experieince) and he let John have it with references to dogs and “I’m the lucky one who will take her home after all the dancing is over” in reference to the dance halls the band played in the early days.

@Gretchen: “I’ve always wondered why Paul has tried so hard over the last almost 40 years to convince everyone thwt he and John were friends. Why does it matter so much to him? Any ideas anybody?”

He’s trying to convince himself. The better question would be: Why did Paul say that he’s so grateful to have made up with John in his final years, because if he hadn’t he would be wracked with guilt?

Some of the above comments seem to have degenerated into the saint perfect John, villainous Paul dichotomies. When friendships or families Or close friends dissolve…there is blame on both sides, human nature being what it is. I do remember John retracting his Rolling Stone 70 interviews, so he had to wisdom to realize this and Paul’s continued efforts to contact John throughout seventies shows he realized importance of patching up their old differences. Regardless of who said what to each other in person, in song or in press, they each got past it, so don’t know why Beatles fans keep fighting that long dead battle. You need to study survivor guilt to understand some of this.

None of us were the two men or even around them then. I don’t think there’s much need for probably much younger folks who were not privy to participating in the seventies even or who remember John and Paul relationship then or later Paul feelings about his old friend to be judging Paul’s motivations. As we all age and mature in our perspectives, we learn to be grateful that we are able to patch up as best can our old fractured relationships with significant others. Yes, of course when you fail to extend the olive branch no matter who was wrong and a person once close to you dies, particularly tragically, you would be wracked with guilt. I have two sisters on the complete outs,, but one continues to struggle to re establish communication yet is constantly rebuffed.

Thus, we have turned from the were John and Paul lovers issue to the favorite seventies and beyond John vs Paul and who was the great villain arguments. Yes, the greater question is why Paul says he would have been wracked with guilt had he not made up is the big point. Because folks who don’t forgive and leave fractured relationships are always wracked with guilt when an old significant other dies. This is to use the expression beating a dead horse obvious stuff to me, I always found it pointless to rehash old arguments, my own and those of other folks. Human nature enjoys easy villains and explanations but life is more complicated. Mine has been anyway.

@Pidpoo: “There’s .no denying that Paul in early sixties was classified as the cutest”
.
Just the cutest thing around? Where did I hear that before. Oh, in Paul’s supposed song to Linda’s first husband who worshipped her and was dumped by her. Couldn’t he see how great she was? Didn’t he know that love was there? What a load. That song, too, is directed at John. How well did Paul know Melvin See to dedicate such sweet harmonies to him? At any rate, Paul should *thank* the guy, if indeed he didn’t know what he had in Linda, or she would have never hooked up with Paul. Or, at least not write a diss track to the father of your adopted daughter, for reasons unknown.
.
John wasn’t complimenting Paul with his “pretty face” line; haven’t you heard the expression “just a pretty face?” The line just wrote itself. Because, you know, Paul thought he was just the cutest thing around and consquently, his banana was older than rest including John – er, Billy Budapest’s.

Haha, true that Nancy. Although I would have loved to see John on Twitter after they made peace.