by Karen
While trolling the internet for Beatles’ material, I came across this interesting article in The Guardian. In 1969, an enterprising young student by the name of Maurice Hindle wrote to a fan magazine, requesting an interview with John Lennon. To his surprise and eternal delight, Lennon himself answered.
Of particular interest to John was an open letter published in the ultra-left magazine Black Dwarf, which accused the Beatles of being a sell-out and Lennon for his “evolution vs revolution” stance. John was not amused, and wrote an open letter of his own (see below).
According to Hindle,
we students crammed into the back of the Mini and John drove us up the bumpy private road that led to his house, Kenwood. In a sitting room at the back of the house we sat down on thick-pile Indian carpets around a low table, cross-legged. Yoko said little, as we all knew this was primarily John’s day – and he said a lot. Apart from a short break when Yoko fed us macrobiotic bread and jam she had made, Lennon talked continuously for six hours.
Ultimately Lennon responded to the open letter with some thoughts of his own. Both letters, the interview recording, and the interview transcript may be found here. Below is John’s letter.
“You smash it— I’ll build around it.” Right on, John.
The Historian and The Beatles 
I have a few minutes of internet-time at work before returning to my house’s broken Wi-Fi and becoming incommunicado …
What’s striking to me, on my quick read, is that there’s a level of maturity in John’s letter here that, by the time of “Lennon Remembers,” has demonstrably weakened, if not vanished. Peter Doggett notes that in his book “There’s a Riot Going On,” where he references this letter/interview: In 1969, John was asking questions that needed to be asked and, until those questions could be answered, refusing to be the Rock Liberation Front’s Mascot. By the end of 1970, he’s not asking those questions anymore; he’s simply seething with rage, and all too willing to declare himself and Yoko ‘in’ for the upcoming revolution, even though those questions still haven’t been answered.
LikeLike
…which I attribute not only to the absence of the McCartney/Beatle influence and the increasing influence of Ono, but also to the amount of time John was spending with New York radicals.
It’s interesting to me that although John claimed retrospectively that his time with the Beatles was stifling, the truth of the matter is that the Beatle years represented a time with John was the most capable of thinking and acting independently.
LikeLike
Yes, by December 1970 John had spent months surrounding himself with a large variety of individuals — from Allen Klein to Abie Hoffman to A.J. Weberman — who spent much of their time telling him what he wanted to hear. How much he genuinely believed it is, to me, one of the most interesting questions about that time period. In “There’s a Riot Going On,” Weberman (a self-anointed “Dylanologist” who made a career of stalking Bob Dylan and pawing through his garbage) recounts how he spent his first major audience with John in ’71 by following the Klein template of going through the Lennon/McCartney song catalog, hypothesizing on what the lyrics meant, and courting John’s ego by attributing many of Paul’s songs to John. (Weberman evidently genuinely believed many of those songs that were attributed to Paul had to be John’s, because, well, it’s not as if Paul could write anything decent). According to Weberman, John accepted his attributions without argument. Given John’s psychological state and drug use in that time, when everyone around him was repeating the same political/musical/personal doctrine, how likely is it that John genuinely believed what they were telling him?
“It’s interesting to me that although John claimed retrospectively that his time with the Beatles was stifling, the truth of the matter is that the Beatle years represented a time with John was the most capable of thinking and acting independently.”
I tend to think once the LSD really sank its teeth in that that much of that capability had diminished. John’s ego destruction and drug use, along with the whole collective identity the Beatles promoted seems to have had a major impact on his ability to make independent decisions. Not to mention the unreality of living as a Beatle: Paul has discussed how liberating it was for him, after marrying Linda, to go buy his own Christmas tree and not have it magically appear in his living room like in previous years.
One of the most striking elements for me, regarding May’s book, was how she claims she repeatedly pushed and wanted John to stand on his own adult feet; to really make his own decisions, rather than being managed by Brian, or guided by Yoko, but he was too unsure and scared to make that leap. John and Paul appear to strike out in very different directions following the breakup; (and its worth noting that, according to Pete Shotton, John always envied Paul’s independence) Paul and Linda retreat to Scotland and find themselves dealing with the hard realities of living: nothing in existence slaps you in the face like the reality of newborn baby who cries and needs to be changed and fed every three hours and does not give a damn what else is going on in your life. Whereas John and Yoko sank themselves into Primal Scream Therapy in a hotel, surviving on soda and junk food before immersing themselves in the NY political world.
LikeLike
One shudders to think what would have happened to their first baby, had Yoko not miscarried. I kind of doubt it would have been a come-to-Jesus moment for either of them; they were both too damaged to be responsible parents.
LikeLike
Best case scenario would have probably involved them hiring some full-time nanny — as they did later on, with Sean.
That issue of how children impacted the amount of Beatles breakup era P.R. is something I didn’t have too much time to cover in my book, but I do consider it a component of why John won the breakup era narrative: he and Yoko had the time and willingness to give all these interviews from 1969-to the end of 1971 in part because they didn’t have children together, and were pretty much ignoring the kids they already did have.
It’s not simply an issue of Paul’s depression, and his reluctance to wage all out war with John, diminishing his number of interviews, although that’s a major factor: by late Summer of 1969, both men were newly married, but Paul had a new baby and a seven year old, and he and Linda didn’t have a nanny, although I’m sure they had a number of babysitters. The reality is that dealing with kids and infants is a full time job, and while I’m assuming that Linda did the majority of the work, all sources indicate that Paul was a very hands-on father. Kids, no matter how much you love them, are distractions; and distractions don’t help launch a P.R. campaign.
LikeLike
I agree, absolutely. Paul and Linda constructed their life, rock `n rollish as it was, around their parenting. It’s hard to imagine a star of Paul’s stature taking their young children on the road year in and year out, but somehow he and Linda pulled it off.
LikeLike
“It’s hard to imagine a star of Paul’s stature taking their young children on the road year in and year out, but somehow he and Linda pulled it off.”
Yes, And from the looks of it, their children are relatively normal, sane, well adjusted people. The McCartney children all appear to be close knit, loving, who adored their parents, certainly not fodder for the tabloids.
I really love this new blog. I seem late to the party but I was actually lurking, and deciding whether or not to use my pseudonym. I decided to use my first name.
LikeLike
Welcome Charlotte!
It really is a credit to Paul’s mental stability, in the face of such an incredibly unusual life, that he and Linda raised happy and stable kids.
Please comment as often as you are able, and again welcome aboard.
LikeLike
“It’s hard to imagine a star of Paul’s stature taking their young children on thee road year in and year out, but somehow he and Linda pulled it off.”
Yes, and the McCartney children appear relatively normal, sane, and well adjusted. From what I’ve seen, the McCartney children are close knit, loving and adore their parents. They certainly were not tabloid fodder. Same for the grandchildren so far.
I really like this new blog site. I may seem late to the party, but I’ve just been lurking, reading and catching up on this and other sites. I decided to use my first name instead of my pseudonym, like everybody else.(When in Rome)
LikeLike
Welcome, Charlotte!
As a habitual lurker on various sites myself, I want to thank you for posting. I’m glad you are enjoying the site, and we’d love to hear any thoughts you have.
“I decided to use my first name instead of my pseudonym, like everybody else.(When in Rome).”
True. It would be rather silly (and pointless) of me to use a pseudonym, and Karen chose to use her name as well. If there are any other lurkers reading this, you don’t have to use your first name, pseudonym’s are fine.
“Yes, and the McCartney children appear relatively normal, sane, and well adjusted. From what I’ve seen, the McCartney children are close knit, loving and adore their parents.”
Certainly every interview I’ve ever seen with Mary and Stella emphasizes that, quirks aside, they had a great upbringing with two very hands-on parents. There was an interview with James where he discussed himself going through a rough patch, including drug use, after Linda’s death and his father’s re-marriage, but that’s as bad an account as I’ve ever seen. Even the most virulent anti-Paul Beatles authors have seemingly always agreed that, whatever his other faults, he was a great, involved dad. And according to him, all the wild guys they met and knew on tour were always on their best behavior around his kids.
Personally, I can’t imagine touring around with toddlers and young kids. I don’t even like taking my kids (5 and 8) to the grocery store with me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Personally, I can’t imagine touring around with toddlers and young kids. I don’t even like taking my kids (5 and 8) to the grocery store with me.”
That would be so me. 🙂
LikeLike
I wouldn’t like it either. It seemed we moved a lot when I was a kid, and I didn’t like it at all. My favorite home was the one we lived in the longest during my teen years. We were not rich, couldn’t afford a lot of comforts and babysitters etc I’m sure the McCartney’s could. Still for young children I wonder if the Mac kids felt they were on another adventure or another upheaval.
LikeLike
Hi Water Falls–
I recall reading an interview with one of the McCartney girls about their experiences as children on the road, but for the life of me I can’t remember what she said about it. It wasn’t negative, if I recall, though; I think it was along the lines of it being more of an adventure than anything.
LikeLike
And I’m sure the response varied from child to child — just like the response to touring varied wildly with in the Beatles. Mary and Stella certainly seem to have enjoyed themselves, but it does seem as if Heather is considerably more fragile than either of her younger sisters. She would also have been older, capable of remembering years of non-touring stability, and perhaps more capable of understanding just how bizarre this was. I mean, consider being nine or ten and having that conversation with your pals at school:
“What did you do over the holidays?”
“We went to Bath. What about you?”
“We Went to Rome and Stockholm and Lisbon and Paris and Stella spit up all over the crib and Dad got busted for marijuana possession.”
LikeLiked by 1 person