![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
itsnotmymindWhen Paul McCartney decided to include secret messages to John Lennon on Ram ("you took your lucky break and broke it in two" being the type of message he admits to, "I find my love awake and waiting to be / what can be done for you, she's waiting for me" the type he doesn't), he must have known how John would react. This was after Lennon Remembers, after all, and Paul was well aware that John would respond to goading viciously - and publicly.
In fact, it seems that Paul considered going a very different route with Ram: I recall reading that he made demos of Dear Friend when he was working on Ram - making Dear Friend initially a response to Lennon Remembers rather than How Do You Sleep? But Paul decided not to go that route. Maybe he was just too angry. Instead, he went the round that he must have known would lead to a massive, public breakdown on the part of his ex-partner.
(When insisting that Paul really had sent him messages on Ram, John once said: If one knows a person, one knows what is coming down. The same applies to Paul: he must have known How Do You Sleep? was coming.)
One of the songs John heard as being about him was a weird little nonsense piece called 3 Legs. Listening to lyrics, John's reasons for thinking that are clear. "When I thought you was my friend[...]But you let me down, put my heart around the bend", the lyrics go.
There is one section that is of particular interest to me:
"A fly flies in (a fly flies in), a fly flies out (a fly flies out)
Most flies they got three legs, but mine got one
Well when I fly when I fly when I fly, when I fly above the cloud
(When I fly above the man in the crowd)
Well when I fly when I fly when I fly, when I fly above the crowd
(When I fly above the man in the crowd)
You can knock me down with a feather, yes you could
But you know it's not allowed (but you know it's not allowed)"
Here, Paul seems to be admitting to his vulnerability. He's on his own while John has George and Ringo on his side. He is telling John how easily it would be for John to hurt him - but ends with a line that is almost a dare, or a taunt. That John would be cheating if he lashed out at Paul when Paul was feeling so vulnerable. The line seems to be implying that there were rules about the ways they could and could not attack each other, but bringing it up in that way is almost a dare. Almost like he's daring John to break the rules and come at him.
Backing up a little: I find it interesting that John never, at least in public, blamed Paul for the mess of the Beatles finances and Apple. The "Western communism" that was Apple was Paul's idea (though John was more than enthusiastic), and Paul was the one who did the most (unsuccessful) work to salvage Apple when everything went sideways. I know there's at least one early '70s article about George where George blamed Paul for the Beatles' financial situation - but John never did.![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
selenak[Bad username or site: @ livejournal.com] suggested to me that John may have been unwilling to admit that Paul, the conservative one, was the one to dream up Apple, that it would have gone against the image of himself and Paul that John was trying to project. But that doesn't seem a sufficient explanation for why John wouldn't blame Paul for the chaos of the Beatles' finances. John was actually pretty all over the place about his attitude towards money and business in interviews, and more to that point, he was not above outright lying or failing to mention specific details. John could easily have blamed Paul for the Beatles' finances while eliding the "Western communism" aspect of Apple, and his own enthusiasm. He could have. He didn't.
Here's what I think: I think John knew that no one was beating Paul McCartney up more for the Beatles' business chaos than Paul McCartney. We have a tendency to see Lennon and McCartney as enemies during the break-up period, and I think they often feared the other felt that way. I think they both felt at times as though they were facing an unrelenting foe who knew all the weaknesses and wanted only to destroy them. But in reality, that Lennon/McCartney relationship never broke. Or, as Paul once put it, it never "snapped". "but you know it's not allowed" implies that even in 1971, there were rules of engagement. They were pushing each other to the limit, but there was a limit.
When Paul tried to convince his fellow Beatles to accept his in-laws as managers, he must have known what he was asking. He knew George felt he was too controlling ("whatever it is that will please you, I'll do it"). He knew John was suspicious that Paul cared only about himself (I remember once, at a meeting to discuss Let It Be, John saying, "Oh, I get it. He wants a job."). He knew what John was like. He must have known John would flip upon meeting the Eastmans. The Eastmans were surely worldly enough to know that asking a band to accept one of the bandmates in-laws as managers was asking a lot - surely they could have helped Paul find someone else to help the Beatles with their finances if Paul had pushed for it. I think Paul knew exactly what he was doing when he brought in the Eastmans, and I think he was trying to save the band's finances - but I also wonder if, maybe, he was deliberately trying to piss off John. Maybe he was trying to use John to punish himself.
And maybe Paul to some extent wanted John to lose it with the Eastmans - because he couldn't. Paul didn't like how Linda's father talked to her. He may have had a lot of issues with Lee Eastman, in particular, that he didn't feel comfortable expressing within the bounds of their relationship. John's biggest criticism of the Eastmans was that they changed their last name from Epstein. It is beyond hypocritical for a man from a middle class background who is playing at being working class to hold such an opinion - but maybe Paul didn't entirely disagree. After all, once upon a time Paul McCartney was a boy who made fun of his mother for speaking the Queen's English. And then she died, knowing she was sick, and never gave him the chance to apologize. Maybe John could speak the things that, for Paul, had become unspeakable and unforgivable.
But back to Ram. So Paul sent John an album full of subtle messages, and John replied openly and viciously. But How Do You Sleep? is not the only song on Imagine that references Paul. It's not a coincidence that How Do You Sleep?, Jealous Guy, and Imagine are all on the same album. I don't know if Jealous Guy is only about Paul, but I am sure it is in part. Jealous Guy doesn't offer a change of behavior, but it gives a clear message of: This is my fault, these are my issues, it's not you. Similar to what John later said publicly about How Do You Sleep?: That he was really attacking himself. The song right after How Do You Sleeps? is entitled only How? It contains chords that are strikingly similar to The Long and Winding Road, and is a song of uncertainty and frustration. "How can I give love when I just don't know how to give>" John wonders. Cripple Inside* includes the lyrics "You can shine your shoes and wear a suit / You can comb your hair and look quite cute /You can hide your face behind a smile / One thing you can't hide /Is when you're crippled inside". This certainly sounds like a reference at least in part to Paul. But the song is a touch ambiguous. "You can live a lie until you die / One thing you can't hide / Is when you're crippled inside". Is the person John is singing about someone who is unsuccessfully trying to hide that there is something wrong with them...or someone who is trying to hide because they believe, incorrectly, that something is wrong with them? John's plea in Gimme Some Truth "All I want is the truth, just give me some truth" seems like it may be directed at Paul, as well.
Imagine, the song, was heavily influenced by Yoko Ono: The song was originally inspired by Yoko's book Grapefruit. In it are a lot of pieces saying, Imagine this, imagine that. Yoko actually helped a lot with the lyrics, but I wasn't man enough to let her have credit for it. I was still selfish enough and unaware enough to sort of take her contribution without acknowledging it. I was still full of wanting my own space after being in a room with the guys all the time, having to share everything. But I think the mental state that John got into when he wrote that song and put together that album - that was Paul.
And in fact, in November 1971, Paul said in an interview: John's whole image now is very honest and open. He's alright, is John. I like his 'Imagine' album but I didn't like the others. 'Imagine' is what John is really like but there was too much political stuff on the other albums. You know, I only really listen to them to see if there's something I can pinch
Imagine is what John is really like? The album with the five and half minute long song openly and viciously attacking Paul?
There's more going on here than appears on the surface.
*John once defended his tendency to make fun of handicapped people by saying, I would never hurt a cripple. It was just part of our jokes, our way of life. If John really thought hurting someone emotionally didn't count as hurting someone...while, he certainly didn't apply that to his life when other people hurt him emotionally.
ETA: One more thing. John Lennon once said of the song Let It Be: Nothing to do with The Beatles. It could've been Wings. I don't know what he's thinking when he writes Let It Be. I think it was inspired by Bridge Over Troubled Waters. That's my feeling, although I have nothing to go on. I know he wanted to write a Bridge Over Troubled Waters.. In fact, Let It Be was released before Bridge Over Troubled Waters. John was mistaken.
selenak suggested to me that maybe it was John who always wanted to write a Bridge Over Troubled Waters, and he was projecting. Bridge Over Troubled Waters was released in January of 1970, when Paul had retreated to depression in Scotland. The song offers love and support to someone who is going through a hard time. "I'm on your side", the song says. "I'll take your part".
But at the end of the day, John could not do that for Paul. And I think How Do You Sleep? is the song that he wrote because he could not figure out how to write Bridge Over Troubled Water.
In fact, it seems that Paul considered going a very different route with Ram: I recall reading that he made demos of Dear Friend when he was working on Ram - making Dear Friend initially a response to Lennon Remembers rather than How Do You Sleep? But Paul decided not to go that route. Maybe he was just too angry. Instead, he went the round that he must have known would lead to a massive, public breakdown on the part of his ex-partner.
(When insisting that Paul really had sent him messages on Ram, John once said: If one knows a person, one knows what is coming down. The same applies to Paul: he must have known How Do You Sleep? was coming.)
One of the songs John heard as being about him was a weird little nonsense piece called 3 Legs. Listening to lyrics, John's reasons for thinking that are clear. "When I thought you was my friend[...]But you let me down, put my heart around the bend", the lyrics go.
There is one section that is of particular interest to me:
"A fly flies in (a fly flies in), a fly flies out (a fly flies out)
Most flies they got three legs, but mine got one
Well when I fly when I fly when I fly, when I fly above the cloud
(When I fly above the man in the crowd)
Well when I fly when I fly when I fly, when I fly above the crowd
(When I fly above the man in the crowd)
You can knock me down with a feather, yes you could
But you know it's not allowed (but you know it's not allowed)"
Here, Paul seems to be admitting to his vulnerability. He's on his own while John has George and Ringo on his side. He is telling John how easily it would be for John to hurt him - but ends with a line that is almost a dare, or a taunt. That John would be cheating if he lashed out at Paul when Paul was feeling so vulnerable. The line seems to be implying that there were rules about the ways they could and could not attack each other, but bringing it up in that way is almost a dare. Almost like he's daring John to break the rules and come at him.
Backing up a little: I find it interesting that John never, at least in public, blamed Paul for the mess of the Beatles finances and Apple. The "Western communism" that was Apple was Paul's idea (though John was more than enthusiastic), and Paul was the one who did the most (unsuccessful) work to salvage Apple when everything went sideways. I know there's at least one early '70s article about George where George blamed Paul for the Beatles' financial situation - but John never did.
selenak[Bad username or site: @ livejournal.com] suggested to me that John may have been unwilling to admit that Paul, the conservative one, was the one to dream up Apple, that it would have gone against the image of himself and Paul that John was trying to project. But that doesn't seem a sufficient explanation for why John wouldn't blame Paul for the chaos of the Beatles' finances. John was actually pretty all over the place about his attitude towards money and business in interviews, and more to that point, he was not above outright lying or failing to mention specific details. John could easily have blamed Paul for the Beatles' finances while eliding the "Western communism" aspect of Apple, and his own enthusiasm. He could have. He didn't.Here's what I think: I think John knew that no one was beating Paul McCartney up more for the Beatles' business chaos than Paul McCartney. We have a tendency to see Lennon and McCartney as enemies during the break-up period, and I think they often feared the other felt that way. I think they both felt at times as though they were facing an unrelenting foe who knew all the weaknesses and wanted only to destroy them. But in reality, that Lennon/McCartney relationship never broke. Or, as Paul once put it, it never "snapped". "but you know it's not allowed" implies that even in 1971, there were rules of engagement. They were pushing each other to the limit, but there was a limit.
When Paul tried to convince his fellow Beatles to accept his in-laws as managers, he must have known what he was asking. He knew George felt he was too controlling ("whatever it is that will please you, I'll do it"). He knew John was suspicious that Paul cared only about himself (I remember once, at a meeting to discuss Let It Be, John saying, "Oh, I get it. He wants a job."). He knew what John was like. He must have known John would flip upon meeting the Eastmans. The Eastmans were surely worldly enough to know that asking a band to accept one of the bandmates in-laws as managers was asking a lot - surely they could have helped Paul find someone else to help the Beatles with their finances if Paul had pushed for it. I think Paul knew exactly what he was doing when he brought in the Eastmans, and I think he was trying to save the band's finances - but I also wonder if, maybe, he was deliberately trying to piss off John. Maybe he was trying to use John to punish himself.
And maybe Paul to some extent wanted John to lose it with the Eastmans - because he couldn't. Paul didn't like how Linda's father talked to her. He may have had a lot of issues with Lee Eastman, in particular, that he didn't feel comfortable expressing within the bounds of their relationship. John's biggest criticism of the Eastmans was that they changed their last name from Epstein. It is beyond hypocritical for a man from a middle class background who is playing at being working class to hold such an opinion - but maybe Paul didn't entirely disagree. After all, once upon a time Paul McCartney was a boy who made fun of his mother for speaking the Queen's English. And then she died, knowing she was sick, and never gave him the chance to apologize. Maybe John could speak the things that, for Paul, had become unspeakable and unforgivable.
But back to Ram. So Paul sent John an album full of subtle messages, and John replied openly and viciously. But How Do You Sleep? is not the only song on Imagine that references Paul. It's not a coincidence that How Do You Sleep?, Jealous Guy, and Imagine are all on the same album. I don't know if Jealous Guy is only about Paul, but I am sure it is in part. Jealous Guy doesn't offer a change of behavior, but it gives a clear message of: This is my fault, these are my issues, it's not you. Similar to what John later said publicly about How Do You Sleep?: That he was really attacking himself. The song right after How Do You Sleeps? is entitled only How? It contains chords that are strikingly similar to The Long and Winding Road, and is a song of uncertainty and frustration. "How can I give love when I just don't know how to give>" John wonders. Cripple Inside* includes the lyrics "You can shine your shoes and wear a suit / You can comb your hair and look quite cute /You can hide your face behind a smile / One thing you can't hide /Is when you're crippled inside". This certainly sounds like a reference at least in part to Paul. But the song is a touch ambiguous. "You can live a lie until you die / One thing you can't hide / Is when you're crippled inside". Is the person John is singing about someone who is unsuccessfully trying to hide that there is something wrong with them...or someone who is trying to hide because they believe, incorrectly, that something is wrong with them? John's plea in Gimme Some Truth "All I want is the truth, just give me some truth" seems like it may be directed at Paul, as well.
Imagine, the song, was heavily influenced by Yoko Ono: The song was originally inspired by Yoko's book Grapefruit. In it are a lot of pieces saying, Imagine this, imagine that. Yoko actually helped a lot with the lyrics, but I wasn't man enough to let her have credit for it. I was still selfish enough and unaware enough to sort of take her contribution without acknowledging it. I was still full of wanting my own space after being in a room with the guys all the time, having to share everything. But I think the mental state that John got into when he wrote that song and put together that album - that was Paul.
And in fact, in November 1971, Paul said in an interview: John's whole image now is very honest and open. He's alright, is John. I like his 'Imagine' album but I didn't like the others. 'Imagine' is what John is really like but there was too much political stuff on the other albums. You know, I only really listen to them to see if there's something I can pinch
Imagine is what John is really like? The album with the five and half minute long song openly and viciously attacking Paul?
There's more going on here than appears on the surface.
*John once defended his tendency to make fun of handicapped people by saying, I would never hurt a cripple. It was just part of our jokes, our way of life. If John really thought hurting someone emotionally didn't count as hurting someone...while, he certainly didn't apply that to his life when other people hurt him emotionally.
ETA: One more thing. John Lennon once said of the song Let It Be: Nothing to do with The Beatles. It could've been Wings. I don't know what he's thinking when he writes Let It Be. I think it was inspired by Bridge Over Troubled Waters. That's my feeling, although I have nothing to go on. I know he wanted to write a Bridge Over Troubled Waters.. In fact, Let It Be was released before Bridge Over Troubled Waters. John was mistaken.
selenak suggested to me that maybe it was John who always wanted to write a Bridge Over Troubled Waters, and he was projecting. Bridge Over Troubled Waters was released in January of 1970, when Paul had retreated to depression in Scotland. The song offers love and support to someone who is going through a hard time. "I'm on your side", the song says. "I'll take your part".But at the end of the day, John could not do that for Paul. And I think How Do You Sleep? is the song that he wrote because he could not figure out how to write Bridge Over Troubled Water.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Management Issues I
Date: 2016-12-09 10:25 am (UTC)Lots to unpack. In general, re: Paul making Ram in its current form rather than with "Dear Friend" as a placatory gesture, despite knowing something like "How do you sleep?" must be coming - I'm going with "he was too angry not to at this point". Lennon Remembers cut too deep not to be. BTW, lest we forget, he wasn't the only one. Derek Taylor has talked about how deeply what John said about him and the other employees hurt - which John scoffed at in later interviews -, and George Martin seems to have been the only one doing the emotionally healthy thing (instead of the indirect messages thing) and actually saying point blank to John, when he met him again, that John had hurt him, at which point John pulled his usual "that was just me being me, you had to know it didn't mean anything" defense. (Which, head, desk.) Anyway, nobody has accused Paul of being a turn the other cheek type, temper wise. And he was past the depression and "I suck" part of post-Beatledom by 1971, and apparantly wildly going back and forth between "fuck you, John" and "peace out, let's just stop arguing". "Lennon Remembers" is the kind of thing to let the "Fuck you, John" mood be stronger for a while.
Details:
. He knew what John was like. He must have known John would flip upon meeting the Eastmans.
Yes and no. I mean, clearly John and Lee Eastman were destined to clash, personality wise. But let's not forget, Lee wasn't, originally, supposed to be the Eastman doing the representing/negotiation thing. Lee wasn't the one set to make the original pitch to the other three Beatles for Eastman & Eastman to become their new manager. That was John Eastman, Linda's brother, who had been chosen precisely because Lee thought he'd get along better with the band - he was their age, after all. I wouldn't be surprised if Paul thought the same thing. Lee the patriarch was bound to be clash with John Lennon, but John Eastman? Jonathan Gould in Can't By Me Love speculates Paul saw his future brother-in-law as basically a US version of Brian Epstein, and thus definitely acceptable to the rest of the gang. And why not? On paper, there was no reason why John E. and John L. shouldn't have gone along as well as John and Brian, well, minus Brian's attraction. John Eastman was a young businessman working in his father's business, yes, but also eager to carve out his own niche. He was well educated, impeccably mannered (like Brian, and unlike his father, he also wasn't overbearing), fond of art (he'd already started collecting) and well read. Again, given Brian Epstein, nothing about this screams "Won't be able to get on with John Lennon" if you don't look at it with hindsight but with an early 1969 perspective. And since Eastman & Eastman had at this point a good record in representing musicians and spefically dealing with music license rights, nobody could accuse them of not being qualified.
(Sidenote: it's always tempting to point out that E & E went on to represent Paul McCartney to this day and make him a fortune, but nobody could have known that at the time. However, they did have a good record. Mind you, Allen Klein had also one in the sense that he'd managed to conclude a fantastic record deal for the Stones that outshone anything the Beatles had been getting - but Allen Klein, as opposed to Lee Eastman, also had those lawsuits hanging around him, so.)
Re: Management Issues II
Date: 2016-12-09 10:25 am (UTC)(
All this being said: I wouldn't be surprised if Paul, on general "John vents what I can't allow myself to feel" principle, would have expected some John-Lee clashes in their further future with a certain degree of anticipation. But that would have been a Klein-less future in which E & E was securely the new management. IMO he definitely didn't expect - and nor did Lee Eastman - the initial John L - John E encounter to go as badly as it did so that Lee had to show up himself in London.
More about the song(s) question(s) tonight, must be off to several appointments.
Re: Management Issues II
Date: 2016-12-09 01:40 pm (UTC)But that's exactly my point. I know the situation was desperate, but it seems like "maybe my bandmates would be uncomfortable being managed by my future in-laws", especially with band already in a band state of relations. The #1 reason that Eastmans were not a good idea of the Beatles wasn't John L.'s personality clash with Lee Eastman, but the fact that they were Paul's in-laws. I wonder if Lee and Paul discussed that at all beforehand, what they said.
BTW, this is what Paul had to say about the situation in the Beatles' Anthology:
I put forward Lee Eastman as a possible lawyer but they said, 'No, he'd be too biased for you and against us.' I could see that, so I asked him, 'If the Beatles wanted you to do this, would you do it?' And he said, 'Yeah, I might, you know.' So I then asked them before I asked Lee Eastman seriously. and they said 'No way - he'd be too biased.' They were right - it was just as well he didn't do it, because it really would have gotten crazy with him in there.'
I'm thinking now that I don't think Paul knew it would get as bad as it did, but I think he knew perfectly well that this move would piss his bandmates off.
I wouldn't be surprised if Paul, on general "John vents what I can't allow myself to feel" principle, would have expected some John-Lee clashes in their further future with a certain degree of anticipation. But that would have been a Klein-less future in which E & E was securely the new management. IMO he definitely didn't expect - and nor did Lee Eastman - the initial John L - John E encounter to go as badly as it did so that Lee had to show up himself in London.
I agree with this. I may have overstated my point - I've noticed in conversations in other fandoms that when I'm talking about characters (or people) having suppressed negative emotions that I sometimes overstate how significant the emotions are. John Lennon was out of control in 1969, and I agree that I don't think Paul thought it would go *that* badly.
ETA: Also, even if relations between the Beatles were good, I have a hard time seeing John, George, and Ringo being OK with being managed by Paul's in-laws. No matter how well-intentioned Paul and said in-laws were. I think everyone would have been better able to communicate about it, but I don't think they would have accepted it.
Re: Management Issues II
Date: 2016-12-10 09:44 am (UTC)Probably not, you're right. I'm trying to think of precedent and parallels, because they did employ a lot of their friends from Liverpool, of course, and nobody had objected to, say, Paul giving Peter Asher a key job at Apple (that survived the Paul/Jane breakup) - but none of them were ever in a position of power over the band, which automatically comes with the management gig. Then again, pre-Brian, management was handled by a wild variety of people, with Alan Williams being the only semi professional to do it, and none of these was treated as an authority. And of course post Brian's death, "we'll manage ourselves" had resulted in de facto Paul being manager (initializing projects except for India, which was George's idea, pushing for recordings etc.) and the rest of them going along with it, not always peacefully, but going along with it. Especially since they had no counter suggestions/ideas for the band's future of their own. (Again, always minus Maharishi & India as the George-initialized Beatles project.) So I could see Paul in 1969, after a year of "well, okay then", believing that while they wouldn't be thrilled to hear his idea for their fixer/new management would be his new in-laws, John, George and Ringo would go along with this as well.
BTW, not unrelated but another aspect: he must have been aware what this meant re: his relationship with Linda, too, which amounted to a massive commitment on an unprecedented (in terms of his relationships with women) scale. Because once he'd made her father and brother his managers, a divorce, while not impossible, would have been hard and awkward to accomplish, and would likely have resulted in him being taken to the cleaners, as the expression goes. This from a man whose previous track record with women was anything but confidence inspiring, and whose few romantic long term relationships (Jane Asher, Maggie McGivern) had run parallel with each other, something Linda had made clear she wouldn't go for. So I wonder whether that insisting on the Eastmans wasn't Paul's version of John's "it's just you now" gesture to Yoko, a kind of "this is real, I am willing to put all on the idea that we're going to make it as man and wife" demonstration.
Re: Management Issues II
Date: 2016-12-10 05:10 pm (UTC)Paul's decision to try to get the others to accept his in-laws actually reminds of the whole betting busted for pot in Japan. I mean, really, what was he thinking? But maybe Paul isn't always making these decisions on a conscious level? John thought that might be the case, about Paul's public announcements at convenient moments:
John: Do you remember if Paul's statement on acid came out after Sergeant Pepper?
Q: Just as it was released.
John: I see. He always times his big announcements right on the letter, doesn't he. Like leaving the Beatles. Maybe it's instinctive. It probably is.
If John Lennon couldn't be certain as to whether Paul McCartney made decisions based on conscious thought or instinctively, I'm probably not going to be able to have much luck.
Paul and Linda happened really fast. As John once grumbled, And the next minute she's married him. And yeah, taking on her family as managers was a huge commitment. Which just added to all the complicated emotional drama going on.
Re: Management Issues II
Date: 2016-12-11 02:38 pm (UTC)The pot busts (not just but especially the Japan one; you could throw the other 1970s one as well) are more evidence of not thinking at all. Or, more seriously: of the hubris that comes with having been a global superstar for (by then) almost two decades. I mean, of course there are far worse examples - people who shall remain Keith Richards snorted away thousands of dollars with the cops standing by because He's A Rebel, You Know - but Paul is by no means immune to the syndrome. Whereas he evidently did think about the management question, he just didn't come to the right (and yes, likely, I admit) conclusion.
Re: John's statement, he is being a bit less than thruthful, there, considering that he himself did test the waters with the "the Beatles are no more" news before Paul did, and no, I don't mean the "I want a divorce" private scene at Apple - I mean he did when later journalist Ray Connolly, while he and Yoko were in Toronto. Connolly sat on the announcement because John had said it was confidential, and John was incensed post Paul's McCartney release self interview ("But you told me not to!" "you're the bloody journalist", according to Connolly, was how the dialogue went).
Mind you, in general my guess is most of both of their decisions in the 60s were done on instinct (of which PR instinct certainly was one aspect) and, let's not forget, in a druggy haze. It's periodically worth remembering we're talking about two people who consumed A LOT of drugs in those key years. I remember one fan observing with black amusement that their most dangerous drugs of choice were also telling and eye roll worthy - John tries heroin because that's just what a naturally lethargic guy already paranoid and introspective needs, and Paul takes coke because clearly, that's just the thing for someone who is already a hyper workoholic with bossy tendencies. And before that, LSD for John that (according to John) almost destroyed his ego and sense of self), and through it all and for decades more, lots and lots of marihuana for Paul.
Tangentially related, something you brought up in your original post, that John in none of his rants ever went after Paul for Apple in general, despite it having been Paul's baby. I think that probably did fall under their code of publically supporting each other in these matters - see none of the gang critisizing John for "bigger than Jesus" (and ensuing disasters), Paul (in public at least, no matter how much they grumbled privately) for "I've taken LSD three times", and while John ranted about the Maharishi once he was disenchanted, he didn't say at any point "why did George have to drag us to the guy in the first place?"; and then there's Paul going with John and Yoko to Sir Joe to get "Two Virgins" released even though he was less than thrilled with that record himself. (You know, the "if it's art, why don't you put Paul on the cover instead? You two aren't very attractive" Sir Joe from EMI.) And providing John with the "When two saints meet" quote, for that matter.
(I suspect that event Michael Lindsay-Hogg describes in his memoirs, of John playing the recording of him and Yoko having sex to the rest of the gang plus their harrassed director, Ringo and George staying silent, non-plussed, and Paul finally saying "well, that's...interesting", but none of them making a critical comment, probably also still fell under that category. Whether or not MLH is correct in the interpretation of this being John's way of saying "this is where I am now, with her, I don't want to hold your hand anymore".)
Re: Management Issues II
Date: 2016-12-11 03:09 pm (UTC)I don't think John quite meant it when he told Paul he wanted a "divorce". The Beatles were ending in many ways, but I also suspect John was testing Paul's Oh! Darling claim that he wouldn't be able to make it without John. You can't live without me? Fine, I want a DIVORCE just like my DIVORCE from my wife CYNTHIA.
When Paul announced the break-up the way he did John's first thought was probably that he had been wrong: Oh! Darling and The Long and Winding Road and all those songs had not been autobiographical after all. The musical communication he had though had been going on had not been. And then Ram came out, where Paul seemed to be saying that he had been devastated, and "I guess you never saw, dear boy, that love was there", and Linda saved his life.
Speaking of Linda - As you said before, taking on the Eastmans was a huge gesture of trust in Linda. I wonder if that was part of the problem for John. Especially since Paul seemed more trusting of the Eastmans than of Yoko. I mean, in Paul's defense, John brought Yoko into the studio in an aggressive way designed to push Paul's buttons. But there still might have been resentment on John's part that Paul trusted the Eastmans so thoroughly and not Yoko.
I actually think John really wanted to accept the Eastmans. "All I want is you / everything has got to be just like you want to do", right? But accepting Paul's in-laws was too much. And I think that's part of why John was so vicious towards the Eastmans. John had a history of taking out his anger at himself for how he treated someone on the person whom he had mistreated ("I hate your fucking laugh", to Julian, being one of the most horrifying examples).
Re: Management Issues II
Date: 2016-12-11 05:53 pm (UTC)No to the former, and that's very possible for the later. This keeping a foot in the door thing strikes me as fairly typical for John. As long as it wasn't public, after all, he could always change his mind, and so could everyone else. (I would say that George for one wasn't likely to, but in Chris O'Dell's memoirs, she writes that when he got the news about Paul's interview/release, he went into the garden and wanted to be alone, and that it appeared to be quite a blow - George, who you'd think would have said "at last" at least on some level.) Incidentally, when they stopped touring it's worth noting that Paul was the last hold out but once he said he didn't want to tour anymore, either, suddenly that was that. It had become real. Perhaps this was the pattern - the curtain didn't fall until Paul let it fall, no matter how much the other three before that point had said they wanted it to.
As you said before, taking on the Eastmans was a huge gesture of trust in Linda. I wonder if that was part of the problem for John. Especially since Paul seemed more trusting of the Eastmans than of Yoko.
Also, Paul was willing to actually make behavioral changes for Linda. Not just in terms of new monogamy - nobody could have known whether or not that would last beyond the initial falling in love period. But in terms of life style. In the St. Regis interview, John sounds both hurt and bewildered when saying Paul said during their last phone conversation he doesn't like cities anymore and loves staying in Scotland. This from a man whose emotional reaction to John's "let's all move to a Greek island" idea, according to Marianne Faithfull, had been "hell no!" (and even if he'd been careful not to say as much to John, John probably felt that Paul was lukewarm at best). Basically, Paul was willing to do the hermit in the wilderness thing for Linda, the new arrival, but hadn't been willing to it for John after their years together. (And again, if John felt that way it wasn't all overblown - I think the fact Paul hasn't been back in Scotland after Linda's death argues that it was more for her and he's generally more the city type.) (I'm also reminded of one of Jane Asher's few recorded statements during their relationship - that Paul was different and behaving differently towards her when with John. If he did the reverse - being different when with Linda while John was present - as opposed to his behavior with Jane - that was another big shift.)
Of course, John was willing to make major changes for Yoko, on all levels, going from "avantgarde is French for bullshit" to "yay performance art!", and living in symbiosis until their big crisis that precipitated his Lost Weekend. But it's always different if the other party is doing it, etc.
Just speculating, though: what WOULD have been John's ideal way for Paul to respond to the "DIVORCE!" announcement? What would have been the proof that Paul couldn't live without him? Accepting Allen Klein as manager and ditching the Eastmans, presumably?
Re: Management Issues II
Date: 2016-12-11 07:44 pm (UTC)I've always found this bit from Lennon Remembers telling:
WENNER: You said you quit the Beatles first.
LENNON: Yes.
WENNER: How?
LENNON: I said to Paul “I’m leaving.”
John quit the Beatles by telling Paul he quit the Beatles. He told a lot of other people, too, but it was telling Paul that minute it was real. I believe Peter Doggett determined that George wasn't even at the meeting. It was telling Paul that made it significant.
Point about Linda and Scotland. That's an an interesting idea, that Paul would have behaved differently around John when she was there. Quite plausible, since John seems to have done the same thing with Yoko. I do find it interesting that John in the St. Regis Hotel interview made a comment about how they all got along with Linda. Pretty high praise from John in 1971, I would say.
Just speculating, though: what WOULD have been John's ideal way for Paul to respond to the "DIVORCE!" announcement? What would have been the proof that Paul couldn't live without him? Accepting Allen Klein as manager and ditching the Eastmans, presumably?
Hmm. Interesting thought. It would definitely have had to involve some kind of concessions on Paul's part. Probably involve Paul admitting that he was wrong about something, ha. Maybe also a confession of love more straight-forward than a song? I actually think John was more willing to flex on the manager thing than he appeared on the surface, but be the time he told Paul he was quitting he had signed with Klein and his relationship with the Eastmans was at subzero temperatures...I' m not sure how they would handled the manager issue. It might not have been solvable at that point.
Re: Management Issues II
Date: 2016-12-12 11:12 am (UTC)Indeed he did. I hope Ringo told him what went on, otherwise ensuing events must have been even more confusing for George than they were already. Then again, John told the world in "Lennon Remembers", so he did find out then at the latest.
I do find it interesting that John in the St. Regis Hotel interview made a comment about how they all got along with Linda. Pretty high praise from John in 1971, I would say.
True. Some of it was probably because of that awful sexist cliché that was making the rounds then that the entire Beatles collapse was due to a Linda/Yoko feud, and he was eager to set things straight. (Isn't there even a Mimi interview from 1970 where she says it must have been all because of Yoko and Linda?) But I also think John meant it in that he found Linda herself unobjectionable and even good company. Her getting along with as many rock stars as she did as a photographer wasn't solely because some of them had sex with her. I mean, if Barry Miles speaks true, the woman even managed to get Allen Ginsberg relaxing into a chat with her about New York memories when he visited the McCartneys. And Twiggy in the National Portrait Gallery exhibition catalogue about her names Linda as her favourite photographer precisely because she managed to be good company and yet create photos that truly captured something about you. The one "Linda was awful!" voice from the inner Beatles circle around that time remains Alistair Taylor, and poor Alistair was reeling from the twin blows of Paul not standing up to Klein for him when Klein fired him and not talking to him thereafte. Well, none of the Beatles did, they truly all were terrible with these situations, see also Pete Best, but as Alistair was closest to Paul before the event, it was Paul's betrayal that cut worst. Blamingthe new girl for at least some of this is alas not an unusual deflection tactic.
It would definitely have had to involve some kind of concessions on Paul's part. Probably involve Paul admitting that he was wrong about something, ha.
I do suspect it would have gone thusly:
P: John, I've changed my mind. Allen Klein may be a mean son of a bitch, but that contract with Capitol he negotiated is truly something. You were right, and I was wrong. He'll be a great manager for us!
J: Is this a trick?
P: Also, I'd like to ask Yoko to help me out with my first solo LP. Have her input to make it more experimental.
J: Are you ill? You are NOT DOING A SOLO ALBUM WITH YOKO!
P: Relax, mate. You know I love you, right?
J: That's it. Those freaks were right when they said you was dead. Who are you, impostor? I want the old Paul back!
Re: Management Issues II
Date: 2016-12-12 07:29 pm (UTC)It was a very important moment for John and Paul - not so much for George.
It's struck me from interviews I've seen of Linda that she does have a certain type of charisma. It's not surprising people liked her. It's just - John liking her is not something you would think about. It's not surprising, it's just odd.
(I mean, he was her favorite Beatle. That's got to count for something.)
Ha ha, may well have gone like that.
It occurs to me that one reason why Yoko's relationship with John was a success, while Cynthia and Paul not so much, was that she didn't take John's paranoia personally. I think both Cynthia and Paul, in their different ways, thought that if they showed John they were trustworthy he would trust them. Cynthia stayed by his side and tolerated mistreatment, thinking he would soften. Instead he abused her and abandoned and was still incredibly paranoid about her. Paul didn't let John's issues run the game, but I think he took it very, very personally when John expressed paranoia towards her. They were supposed to be mates, after all, so when John was suspicious of him, afraid that he would take Yoko or only cared about himself, he took it personally. Yoko was more realistic: probably because, as a paranoid person herself, she understood the mindset. John's paranoia was, at the end of the day, about John's paranoia: Not Cynthia, Paul, or Yoko.
Re: Management Issues I
Date: 2016-12-09 01:45 pm (UTC)I wonder if the fact that John lashed out at so many people people in Lennon Remembers, instead of just Paul, could have been a factor. I suggested earlier that Paul felt guilty when it appeared that John was triangulating Cynthia and Julian into his drama with Paul. I don't think it was really because of Paul that John felt the need to lash at everyone and their dog in Lennon Remembers, but I wonder if Paul felt some degree of responsibility. Especially where the Eastmans were concerned.
Re: Management Issues I
Date: 2016-12-10 09:19 am (UTC)You know, I could see that. I mean, obviously Lee Eastman was no naive innocent and must have had his share of unpleasant conversations for decades before encountering John Lennon, but Peter Brown, by no means a McCartney sympathizer, testifies that John was really spectacularly vicious (and so was Allen Klein) to both Eastmans during their meetings, plus "Lennon Remembers" ensured the entire world was told just what Time's personality of the decade, John Lennon, thought about the Eastmans. And respectability did matter to them - one reason why Lee changed his name, after all.
Going off on a tangent, there's also that weird interlude in 1974 where John refuses to sign the official end-of-Beatles contracts everyone came to New York for to accommodate him, then goes to meet Lee Eastman alone (well, with May, but explicitly without his lawyers, or, for that matter, Paul) and listens to a blistering "the reason you suck" speech from Lee without comment or argueing back. It's hard not to see that as anything but self punishment, because John certainly by 1974 was in no doubt as to what Lee Eastman thought of him, and having just refused to sign "because the stars aren't right", that Lee had no reason to sugarcoat said opinion. Of course, he also might have simply wanted to remind himself that he disliked the Eastmans for a reason. But could it have been a weird John way to apologize for just how out of control he was in those meetings aind in "Lennon Remembers", by essentially subjecting himself to the same treatment by one of the injured parties? By 1974, after all, he was as mellow and conciliatory re: Paul as he'd ever get.
Back to "could Paul have felt somewhat responsible for "Lennon Remembers" - if so, I think for the addressed at George Martin nastiness on John's part as much or more. Because John lashing out at their father-in-music figure was pretty much unprecedented and it's tempting to conclude he only did it because he suspected George M always liked Paul a bit more (and thus was collateral in the divorce battle).
Re: Management Issues I
Date: 2016-12-10 05:02 pm (UTC)I am 95% convinced that John only wrote Steel and Glass because he wanted to make things right with Paul (back in 1971 he had publicly bragged about Allen contributing a ling to How Do You Sleep?), so I could definitely by that 1974 meeting as an attempt to make things right, too.
I could definitely see John lashing out at George Martin due to jealousy of George preferring Paul, but I also think John resented George Martin's role in the creation of Beatles music. That's what he dismissed in Lennon Remembers: I’d like to hear Dick James’ music and I’d like to hear George Martin’s music, please, just play me some. I think at one time you also pulled some quotes of John claiming that there were people who thought the Beatles' music was all George Martin. John's self-image was insecure, and George Martin's role in the Beatles musical success was a threat to that.
Re: Management Issues I
Date: 2016-12-11 05:19 pm (UTC)Sidenote: George Martin’s music, please, just play me some. Well, in 1970 there was always that Family Way soundtrack he'd written with some input from, what was his name, ahem. Mind you, Uncle George himself never claimed top position. In the 1979 All you need is ears (i.e. something written and published before John's death), he wrote: "I must emphasise that it was a team effort. Without my arrangements and scoring, very many of the records would not have sounded as they do. Whether they would have been any better, I cannot say. They might have been. That is not modesty on my part; it is an attempt to give a factual picture of the relationship. But equally, there is no doubt in my mind that the main talent of that whole era came from Paul and John. George, Ringo and myself were subsidiary talents. We were not five equal people artistically: two were very strong, and the other three were also-rans. In varying degrees those three could have been other people."
Re: Management Issues I
Date: 2016-12-11 05:25 pm (UTC)Re: Management Issues I
Date: 2016-12-12 11:14 am (UTC)Give me something to sing about
Date: 2016-12-10 09:01 am (UTC)Jealous Guy: I think it's about Yoko, Paul and John being aware of his own issues in this regard. (Which also applied to Cynthia in the past and May in the future, of course.) I find it vaguely intriguing that the song started out with a completely different lyric about something different altogether in India, because, and correct me if I'm wrong/missing/forgetting something, while we know Paul wrote many songs with "dummy" lyrics at first, the melody coming before the words (and not just in the case of good old Scrambled Eggs), John in general seems to have been a lyrics and melody together kind of composer. Is there a Lennon song other than "Jealous Guy" which started out as a melody to a completely different lyric, that we know of? That the melody came to John in India, in 1968, the year of transition from Paul to Yoko, may or may not also play a role (cue the ever unanswered "what exactly happened in India?"). I think there's a viable case to be made that "Jealous Guy" is a song like "Julia", in that it's on one level of course about John's mother, but on another also about Yoko, deliberately invoking her and conflating her with Julia; thus "Jealous Guy" manages to both openly address Yoko and not so openly Paul as well. And I see it as John trying to warn himself not to make the same mistakes in this new relationship he's made in the old one. (What with the "boat called Paul/ boat called Yoko" statements he was making to Yoko during the same era and the constant habit of parallelling the two relationship right till December 1980, that's not too much of a stretch.) Why did he use the melody for "Child of Nature" instead of coming up with a new melody for "Jealous Guy"? Might be purely pragmatism (it's a good unreleased tune, why waste it?), might be also because he knew Paul would recognize the melody (since he definitely knew it, it's on the tapes of India composed melodies the Beatles made at George's house once they were all back).
"How?" and the direct melodic lift from "The Long and Winding Road" - that's fascinating. I remember a music critic seeing it as another (for him, the critic) satisfying swipe at Paul, but I agree with you that it's anything but, given the song's message. I see it more as an attempt to get back (ha) to their old dialogue. I mean, John presumably was aware that "The Long and Winding Road" was one of those few McCartney songs openly autobiographical and the expression of his 1969 misery (and a case of Paul's tendency to use song writing instead of therapy or, you know, openly admitting to said misery). And it was the song that more than any single other gets cited as a case for Paul's Phil Spector and Allen Klein loathing because of their releasing it in a version he hated. And then there's the dual matter of Ian McDonald theorizing that John's playing on the song "amounted to sabotage" and John accusing Paul of sabotaging/not supporting enough "Across the Universe" (the released form of which he also didn't like). So, speculating, I'd theorize that "How?" is a reply to "The Long and Winding Road", this time without ire, acknowledging the issues in it and saying "this is how I feel as well" - hence the direct musical allusion.
"Crippled Inside": I'm seeing this about both himself and Paul. The lyrics you quoted describe their shared Beatle looks of the mop top years. (And John could put on the cheerful, cheeky Beatle facade as efficiently as Paul if he needed to; in "Loving John", May Pang describes a scene where Tony King tells John that his sales have suffered because people saw him as angry, angry, angry all the time now, not the cheeky, smiling John they've fallen in love with, and John resurrected witty Beatle John on the spot for subsequent PR interviews to promote "Walls and Bridges". ) And certainly they both were, sometimes in different and sometimes in similar ways, deeply messed up.
Re: Give me something to sing about - PS
Date: 2016-12-10 09:01 am (UTC)Re: Give me something to sing about - PS
Date: 2016-12-10 04:08 pm (UTC)I don't think John ever said publicly that Jealous Guy is about Yoko specifically, but he did say it was about his relationships with women. My favorite interpretation is that it's about everyone John ever loved and hurt, but I'm not sure if that's actually what he intended or not. Either way, the song is more about him than the person he hurt.
Is there a Lennon song other than "Jealous Guy" which started out as a melody to a completely different lyric, that we know of?
May Pang claimed that some of the melodies on Double Fantasy were first written when he was with her (I believe Beautiful Boy was one she named). But in all these examples, it seems that there were lyrics with the original melody, but John then changed the lyrics later.
Another thing about Paul recognizing the Jealous Guy melody: Paul wrote Mother Nature's Son as a response to the same lecture from the Maharishi that inspired Child of Nature. It wasn't just a song that Paul knew, but a song that was connected to one that Paul wrote.
. I mean, John presumably was aware that "The Long and Winding Road" was one of those few McCartney songs openly autobiographical and the expression of his 1969 misery (and a case of Paul's tendency to use song writing instead of therapy or, you know, openly admitting to said misery).
I think it was one of those situations where John knew about didn't know. Plausible deniability, right? Maybe Paul was expressing his deepest feelings, or maybe it was just a song. If John really did try to sabotage the song, that was probably why: he was angry at Paul for expressing himself in an ambiguous manner.
Re: Crippled Inside. John was definitely open about being an asshole while Paul was more open about wanting to be likeable (I think John wanted to be liked as much as Paul did, if not more, but he went about it a different way). Paul seems to have a harder time admitting to his flaws and admitting mistakes.
One thing that gets overlooked during the break-up period is how frustrated John was with Paul refusing to admit he could be wrong. There's an exchange they had while dealing with Apple, I can't remember where, some book or other. Paul supposedly said, about his current plan, "You know I'm right." To which John retorted, "You're always fucking right, aren't you?" John also took the "we believe that we can't be wrong" line in Back Seat of My Car as an attack on him and Yoko. According to Peter Doggett, around that time he wrote a speech bubble over a picture Paul at age 21 with the words, "I'm always perfect". In the Melody Maker feud, John wrote, As I've said before, Have you ever thought that you might POSSIBLY be wrong about something?
Of course, John tried to get Paul to admit to imperfection by screaming verbal abuse at him, which is an unsurprisingly ineffective method.
And Some People Never Knew, the song that does appear to be a response to How Do You Sleep?, Paul admitted, "I'm only a person like you, love / and who in the world can be right all the right times?"
But with Paul more inclined to hide that he has flaws, and John inclined to paranoid, I wonder if John ever blew Paul's flaws and Paul's darkness out of proportion in his mind. In fact, I'm certain he did (subconscious sabotage, and all).
I will respond to your other comments later.
Re: Give me something to sing about - PS
Date: 2016-12-11 05:29 pm (UTC)Quite true, on both counts. And if We can work it out is anything to go by, 60s Paul must have been incredibly frustrating to argue with. "Try to see it my way" indeed. I can John escalating the verbal onslaught out of sheer "what does it take for him to admit he's wrong?" annoyance.
Re: Give me something to sing about - PS
Date: 2016-12-11 05:35 pm (UTC)Re: Give me something to sing about - PS
Date: 2016-12-12 11:31 am (UTC)Re: Give me something to sing about - PS
Date: 2016-12-12 07:35 pm (UTC)I've heard the comparisons to both John and Linda.
I've noticed one big difference in how Paul handled Heather Mills break-up versus John Lennon break-up: What he said in the music. Memory Almost Full has an adoring and unambiguous love song in See Your Sunshine, which Paul publicly stated was about Heather. On the same album is Gratitude, a song that must be about Heather. The song acknowledges Heather's mistreatment of him ("I should stop loving you / Think what you put me through"), but is an intense expression of what she did give him during their relationship. I think John would have appreciated a song like that. I'm sure John sometimes thought that Paul would have been better off had John Lennon not come into his life. After all, when imagining their alternate, Beatleless lives John pictured himself a bum and Paul a doctor.