But You Know It's Not Allowed: A Case for Imagine as a Lennon/McCartney Song

[itsnotmymind]

When 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. 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.

Comments

Management Issues I

[selenak.livejournal.com]

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.)

Give me something to sing about

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Okay, last night I was too tired due to rl business, but here I am, ready to proceed. :)

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.