Lennon’s identification of himself as anti-establishment and McCartney as straight or square was not the only way Lennon infused politics into the issue of the Beatles breakup. The primary legal and personal schism between the two men involved McCartney’s refusal to support the appointment of Lennon’s choice, Allen Klein, as Apple’s new manager. Lennon and Klein repeatedly maintained that McCartney’s refusal to accept Klein was motivated not by legitimate concerns regarding Klein’s legal and financial dealings, but by an emerging middle-class snobbery which, fostered by his new wife Linda, disdained the working-class, and self-professed “anti-establishment” figure, of Klein. This claim was seemingly reinforced by McCartney’s preferred candidates for Klein’s position: John and Lee Eastman. The Eastman’s were wealthy, well-regarded New York entertainment lawyers whose clients included established artists such as Hoagy Carmichael; they were also, by virtue of his March 1969 marriage to Linda Eastman, McCartney’s new brother and father-in-law. McCartney’s preference that the Eastman’s take the managerial position obviously opened up accusations of nepotism from the press at large, Klein, and fellow former Beatles Ringo Starr and George Harrison.
While McCartney’s acquiescence attracted considerable criticism, the Eastman family was identified as the primary culprit behind McCartney’s betrayal of the counter-cultural values supposedly embodied by Lennon, Ono and Klein. In his December 1970 narrative—defining interview to the counter-cultural publication Rolling Stone, Lennon presented the case against the Eastman’s in vituperative language. Describing McCartney’s in-laws as “fucking stupid middle-class pigs,” Lennon heaped scorn on them for anglicizing their original Russian-Jewish surname of Epstein, labeling them “WASP Jews.” In contrast, throughout the same interview Lennon praised Klein as “working-class” and “real.” In his November 1971 Playboy interview, Klein condemned McCartney’s conventionality and selfishness but ultimately blamed the Eastman family for misleading and manipulating the musician, and offered hope for an eventual Beatles reunion, contingent upon McCartney “learn[ing] to think for himself.” Lennon expressed a similar belief in a private letter to McCartney, drafted in 1971. The letter found Lennon condemning the Eastman family for being “Middle Class,” and assigning them much of the blame for the poor relations and financial chaos accompanying the Beatles split. Lennon also predicted in the letter that McCartney’s marriage, and business relationship with his in-laws, would not last. Like Klein, Lennon implicitly invited McCartney back into the fold, provided the other man left the umbrella of the Eastman family: “God help you out, Paul. See you in two years. I reckon you’ll be out by then.”
However, while John and Lee Eastman waged legal and financial battles on McCartney’s behalf, by far the most unpopular figure was Linda Eastman; the professional photographer and single mother who had, in March 1969, become Linda McCartney. Even prior to the Beatles breakup and the ensuing debate regarding her culpability for it, Eastman already was widely disliked by millions of female fans for committing the crime of marrying the “cute” Beatle. Life magazine noted the immediate, sweeping condemnation of Eastman: “From the onset, everyone hated her.” Her interjection of her brother and father into the Beatles legal and financial troubles was regarded as only part of the problem; the other involved her domesticating influence on her new husband, which the rock press regarded as, at best, hobbling McCartney’s creativity, and, at worst, malignantly crippling it.
In addition to impacting McCartney’s music, Eastman’s domesticating influence was also viewed as a key factor in his seeming rejection of countercultural values. “It did not escape the notice of the alternative press that the pleasures McCartney celebrated (love, home, family) were distinctly bourgeoisie; and, indeed, it would increasingly seem that Paul, in abdicating from the Beatles, had also abdicated from the counterculture.” McCartney intentionally or inadvertently encouraged such accusations in his November 1971 interview with Melody Maker. In response to Lennon’s “How Do You Sleep” jibe that he “lived with straights,” McCartney defended himself and the establishment, countering “I think it’s silly. So what if I live with straights? I like straights. I have straight babies.” Throughout McCabe’s Apple to the Core, associates of both Linda and Paul McCartney declared that, following their marriage, the couple became “conservative, domestic and boring.” To illustrate just how straight the couple now was, various book sources claimed that the two even had stopped smoking marijuana. (Given that both Linda and Paul McCartney were repeatedly arrested throughout the 1970s for marijuana possession, and that in 1980 Paul McCartney was arrested for, and spent nine days in, a Japanese prison for marijuana possession, all other evidence indicates this claim regarding the couple’s abstinence from marijuana to be sweepingly inaccurate).
Bibliography:
McCabe and Schonfeld, Apple to the Core, 151.
By the end of 1971, McCartney was firmly dismissing the other three’s repeated accusations that he had attempted to force the Eastman’s on the other Beatles, instead maintaining that it was Klein who had been forced on him by an unprecedented 3-1 vote. (McCartney viewed the appointment of Klein through majority vote as a betrayal, as previous precedent among the Beatles had always required unanimity). McCartney argued in his November 1971 interview with Chris Charlesworth in Melody Maker that, while he had initially thought that John and Lee Eastman would be excellent candidates for Apple’s Manager, he understood the other’s reluctance to accept them, and had suggested alternatives to both the Eastman’s and Klein, all of which the others had refused in favor of Klein. McCartney further declared that Klein’s continued insistence, in his November 1971 Playboy interview, that the Eastman family was still plotting to take over the Beatles was absurd. Relations between the other three ex-Beatles and McCartney’s in-laws were so poor that, even if Lennon, Harrison and Starr reversed their stance, removed Klein, and sought the Eastman’s management, McCartney declared that the Eastman’s would reject any such overtures.
Wenner, Lennon Remembers, 229.
Ibid., 35
David Vetter, “Allen Klein: A Candid Conversation with the Embattled Manager of the Beatles,” Playboy, November, 1971., 100
John Lennon, The John Lennon Letters, edited by Hunter Davies (New York: Little, Brown, 2012), 209.
Tony Scherman, Paul (New York: Life, 2014)., 79
Schafner, The Beatles Forever, 120.
Ibid, 136.
Doyle, Man on the Run, 61.
McCabe and Schonfeld, Apple to the Core, 114.
Ibid.
Joe Goodden, Riding So High: The Beatles and Drugs, (Pepper & Pearl, 2017)., 277.
Ibid., 284.
Ibid., 184.
Ibid, 187.
I presented a considerably expanded version of this paper at the Missouri Valley History Conference in Omaha approximately two weeks ago. The Conference’s theme was politics and resistance, which suited my subject — how politics and class were used to frame the story of the Beatles’ breakup — perfectly. My presentation was twenty minutes long: The following is a relatively short excerpt, primarily focusing on the perception of the role Linda McCartney and the Eastman family played in helping define Paul as “establishment” during this particularly volatile time period.
If this post spurs enough interest, I’ll be happy to post more excerpts from my paper. I chose this particular excerpt primarily because I believe that the role and perception of women in Beatles historiography has been overlooked, and that this blindness has resulted in a less-than accurate version of the band’s story.
My apologies for the months-long lag time between posts: it turns out severe bronchitis and pregnancy don’t mix well, especially when coupled with an avalanche of grading. (Who knew?) I also spent much of the time that I normally would have spent on book reviews and posts for this blog working on this conference paper instead.
The Historian and The Beatles 
For whatever reason, wordpress will not accept the spacing I originally put between paragraphs on this post. I’ve tried to repeatedly edit the post and include the spacing, but it will not show up on the posted draft.
LikeLike
I managed to stick a few spaces in, Erin. Sometimes WP gets pouty about spacing, but sometimes you can get around that by using the HTML option in the edit form. 🙂
Anyhow–a few comments on your piece, thanks for posting.
I must say that I always found John’s life-long obsession with an “artiste” persona grating, particularly since the “bourgeoisie” existence–family home, an ordinary life — was the very thing he craved (and even created, after a fashion, during his “househusband” years). At least the Lennons were sympathetic to the “shellacking”–John’s word– Linda was taking by the press.
I don’t know if anyone remembers this, but Wings put out “Mary Had A Little Lamb” as a single back in ’71 or ’72. While McCartney denied it was a political statement of sorts (he said it was an earnest attempt to publish a children’s song, wow) one wonders whether a teensy bit of him relished the inherent “fuck you” in the message.
LikeLike
Thanks for the editing job, Karen.
“I must say that I always found John’s life-long obsession with an “artiste” persona grating, particularly since the “bourgeoisie” existence–family home, an ordinary life — was the very thing he craved (and even created, after a fashion, during his “househusband” years).”
Another of John’s fascinating dichotomies. It reminds me of what others have said: John loved a lot of the type of songs that he would later deride — in Lennon Remembers and other interviews — as inferior work, songs like “Red Sails in the Sunset,” which Paul unabashedly loved. John was so very interested, seemingly, in projecting a certain sort of image – whether it be that of an artiste or a fierce rock and roller — that he seemingly found it hard to acknowledge when he wanted something that wasn’t rebellious, counter-cultural, radical, etc. Projecting that sort of personae all the time must have been exhausting.
For me, John’s bourgeoisie put-downs regarding Paul and Linda (as well as others) are both symptomatic of the times (that was the put down among the counterculture) and another of those unexplored breakup era issues that has really been ignored by later Beatles historiography. If you look at the narrative John, Yoko and Klein are spinning from 1969 until 1972, that counterculture vs. establishment issue is identified, repeatedly, by them, as one of the primary reasons for the band’s split. Yet it vanishes once Klein gets canned in March 1973. I wonder how much of the “counterculture vs. establishment caused us to split” rhetoric that came from John was prompted by Klein (who self-identified himself explicitly as anti-establishment), and how much by John’s own desire to want to view Paul and the Eastman’s in particular, as the establishment bad guys, and him, Yoko and Klein as the good guys. I’ve always found it pretty telling that John and George’s relationship with Klein collapses pretty quickly after the Eastman’s are no longer an establishment “threat” for Klein to use as a boogyman. Once that happens, Klein becomes the establishment, rather than John’s anti-establishment defender.
LikeLike
More please? 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for the vote for more: it’s been so long since I posted anything, I wanted to dip my toe in first.
LikeLike
Erin this is so interesting. Please post more of this! Hope you’re doing better. Bronchitis is absolutely awful. I can’t even imagine having it while pregnant.
I agree Karen, that John’s pose as an artiste was like nails on a black board. I’m sorry to say that in general, John was a major pain in the ass during this time period. Those comments from both John and Klein are so ridiculous and manipulative, it drives me crazy.
LikeLike
“Bronchitis is absolutely awful. I can’t even imagine having it while pregnant.”
It’s about as fun as it sounds. Especially when everyone in my family got it. We basically spent all of February miserable, but seem to be recovering now.
“Those comments from both John and Klein are so ridiculous and manipulative, it drives me crazy.”
If you ever get a chance, and want to read something both fascinating and frustrating, I’d highly suggest checking out Klein’s 1971 Playboy interview with David Vetter. (I have a physical copy, but not a link). It’s where (along with 1972’s Apple to the Core) a lot of these quotes from. Much of what Klein says in the interview is now regarded as inaccurate (like his claim that John Eastman started screaming insults and names at that first meeting for no reason, or his claim that he, Klein “reminded” John that John had written 70% of the lyrics of “Eleanor Rigby”). The pervasiveness of John and Klein’s PR offensive in this time frame (which, as we’ve discussed before, is another essential breakup element that, like the political schism, has been virtually ignored by most Beatles authors) really comes through in that interview. So does the effort, particularly by Klein in this period, to identify the Eastman’s as the primary forces of the breakup. Paul certainly receives his share of blame from Klein, but the Eastman’s are presented as malevolent Wormtongues, dripping poison about Klein in Paul’s ear. Their motivations, as presented by Klein, are greed, self-interest, and establishment bias.
Personally, I’ve always found John’s repeated predictions that Paul’s relationship with Linda and the Eastman family would disintegrate within a few years (in some interviews John says two, in others five) fascinating and revealing. (Not the least because it’s John whose separated from Yoko by 1973, not Paul from Linda). If John really believed that Paul/Eastman schism was going to eventually happen, what must have been his reaction when it didn’t? And, with those comments (“See you in two years: I reckon you’ll be out by then”) was John implicitly inviting Paul back into the fold, provided the other man admitted the error of his ways and groveled appropriately to both John and Klein?
LikeLike
“Personally, I’ve always found John’s repeated predictions that Paul’s relationship with Linda and the Eastman family would disintegrate within a few years (in some interviews John says two, in others five) fascinating and revealing.”
I think that comment was appallingly insulting and just not very nice coming from someone who was supposed to have been a friend. When I re-read these comments from John and Klein I can’t help but think how venomous and miserable they both sound. Two miserable, delusional nit wits, ready to strike a pose whenever a tape recorder was turned on. They also doth protest just a tad too much.
“Not the least because it’s John whose separated from Yoko by 1973, not Paul from Linda”
John did a lot of projecting when it came to Paul. He seemed to attribute his own bad behavior onto Paul. Maybe he subconsciously knew johnandyoko would only last two years.
“comments (“See you in two years: I reckon you’ll be out by then””
He sounds insane. Just absolutely insane. Jesus.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“When I re-read these comments from John and Klein I can’t help but think how venomous and miserable they both sound. Two miserable, delusional nit wits, ready to strike a pose whenever a tape recorder was turned on.”
I think it’s highly likely that both John and Klein egged each other on in interviews and in private conversations. They were both, at times, bullies — John’s bullying tendencies are fairly well established, and even in Fred Goodman’s halfway hagiographic biography of Klein, Goodman admits that, if extravagant promises didn’t work, Klein’s next most-used tool in his belt was bullying. It’s a safe assumption that they would, and did, feed off of one another.
What’s striking to me regarding John’s cornerstone interviews — Lennon Remembers, the St. Regis interviews, the Playboy interviews — as well as others, such as Apple to the Core, is that they are all conducted while John has a partner with him. In LR, it’s Yoko, although Klein as a topic is very much part of the conversation. In the St. Regis interviews, its Yoko again. In the Playboy interview Klein did, John and George are both there, as is Ringo, although to a lesser extent. The McCabe interviews are the same: John, George and Yoko with Klein. In the 1980 Playboy interview, it’s Yoko. John’s need for some sort of partner has been pretty well documented — Pete Shotton is among those who describe it as a fundamental aspect of John’s personality — and you can really see that in the interviews he gave. How those other people — Yoko, Klein, esp. — impacted the answers and tone of those interviews is up for speculation, but shouldn’t be ignored.
“See you in two years: I reckon you’ll be out by then”
To be fair, we don’t have conclusive proof, so far as I know, that John sent this — or a version of it — to Linda and Paul. We know he drafted the letter in 1971 (it’s in Hunter Davies book the John Lennon Letters) but we don’t have actual confirmation he sent it.
Assuming he did, then it’s a cruel prediction to make; the equivalent of crashing a wedding party and saying: “I give it two years.” However, it does seem as if John — and numerous others in the Beatles circle, as well as fans — could not comprehend Paul’s choice of Linda. The whole “one minute she’s riding with us to the airport and the next minute she’s married to him” disconnect.
LikeLike
“The whole “one minute she’s riding with us to the airport and the next minute she’s married to him” disconnect.”
Hehe that really is kind of funny. I remember when he married Linda. It was kind of upsetting. I wished he was still with Jane Asher 😁 but that comment seemed so nasty.
Regarding John always being with a buddy during interviews, yes I agree he seemed to be influenced by whoever he was with.
LikeLike
You evidently weren’t alone in your preference for Jane Asher: My research indicates that almost everyone — Beatles fans, insiders, men and women, virtually all contemporaneous and many retrospective sources and biographers — viewed Linda as a lesser and, at times, incomprehensible choice. She was new, unlike Jane; she was pretty, but not stunning, unlike Jane, she was a divorcee with a young child, and she had the gall to marry the world’s most eligible bachelor. Particularly hard for the British press to swallow is that she was an American, and she was Jewish. Those things alone were pretty significant strikes against Linda; her role involving John and Lee Eastman in the mix hardly helped matters. The image you really have of Linda from most sources throughout the 70s and 80s is very interesting, in that it’s not too unlike the popular perception of Yoko: an untalented seductress who snared a Beatles through manipulation and used him for self-promotion.
And, like the debates regarding Yoko’s artistic influence on John, you have debates surrounding her impact on Paul’s art. The more benign interpretation, coming largely from authors such as Schafner, is that Linda simply made Paul too happy. She evidently made him the happiest he had ever been in his personal life, but this domesticity and contentment impacted his songwriting because it removed some of its depth: there’s no “For No One” written about Linda because Linda, unlike Jane, never would have inspired such a despairing song.
The more critical interpretation, coming primarily from authors such as Norman and Coleman, (at least before their deathbed conversions on both Linda and Paul) is that Linda was a simpering, shallow groupie/opportunist who didn’t have the intellectual depth to challenge Paul the way John had; she catered to his ego and his worst artistic instincts, paving the way for the regression from “Eleanor Rigby” to “Bip Bop.”
LikeLike
“Particularly hard for the British press to swallow is that she was an American, and she was Jewish.”
That’s appalling and shameful. I didn’t realize they were focused on that. I don’t remember not liking her but in my pre teen mind I just thought the pretty actress was better for him and Linda just wasn’t pretty or stylish enough. I think I got over it by the time Mary and Stella were born.
“Linda simply made Paul too happy. She evidently made him the happiest he had ever been in his personal life, but this domesticity and contentment impacted his songwriting because it removed some of its depth”
I always thought that too but now I’m not so sure. He did write songs that had depth, like Dear Friend and even Maybe I’m Amazed. I think he might have been trying too hard to be prolific and successful and live up to the Beatles but something got lost along the way. The pot smoking might have contributed more to the lack of quality control. Who knows maybe it also was domestic contentment that took the edge off some of his songwriting. Probably a combination of a lot of things. I happen to prefer a lot of Paul’s solo music over John’s so I’m probably not the best judge. I think many people tend to over rate John’s solo work and under rate Paul’s.
“there’s no “For No One” written about Linda because Linda, unlike Jane, never would have inspired such a despairing song.”
True but John certainly inspired a few despairing or edgy songs such as Dear Friend, Too Many People and Three Legs. Perhaps John replaced Jane in that category.
LikeLike
“That’s appalling and shameful. I didn’t realize they were focused on that.”
The British tabloids aren’t well known for their maturity and inclusiveness. 🙂
One of the terms used to describe Linda in the press at her introduction into the Beatles story, and during the worst period of the breakup, was “JAP” — or “Jewish-American Princess,” which is urban slang for a demanding, petulant, Jewish-American girl who grew up wealthy and spoiled. And plenty of English authors, and fans, by my understanding, had big problems with Linda being American. (I know Norman has mentioned this, and so hae other English journalists — Ray Connolly, I believe. That England’s most eligible bachelor left his long-standing relationship with a beautiful, appropriate Englishwoman (Jane) for an American hippie divorcee evidently immensely frustrated some male English journalists. There were even some comparisons made between Linda and Wallis Simpson: another American divorcee who, decades earlier, had snagged England’s most eligible bachelor (Edward VIII) and seemingly transformed him, throwing his priorities all out of whack.
“The pot smoking might have contributed more to the lack of quality control.”
That was another element that got laid at Linda’s door. Jane was well known for curbing or disliking Paul’s drug use, while Linda was a fellow marijuana user. So when Paul switched from Jane to Linda, there was criticism that her lack of effort to curb Paul’s dope smoking impeded his quality control, leading to inferior work. Of course, as the earlier excerpt proved, Linda was damned if she did and damned if she didn’t: her doing pot with Paul was blamed for his decline in his solo material, but if they stopped doing drugs, like some people (falsely) claimed in Apple to the Core, then people labeled them “straight.”
LikeLike
“Jewish-American Princess,” which is urban slang for a demanding, petulant, Jewish-American girl”
“And plenty of English authors, and fans, by my understanding, had big problems with Linda being American. (I know Norman has mentioned this, and so hae other English journalists — Ray Connolly, I believe.”
The small mindedness of the British tabloid press, both past and present literally makes me feel nauseated. Was it really Ray Connolly and not Ray Coleman who spewed this dreck? I can believe that Norman said it because that is who he is, but Connolly? I’m surprised.
Speaking of Wallis Simpson remember the wedding dress that Stella designed for Nancy? It was a slightly updated replica of Wallis Simpson’s wedding dress. 😂😂 I love the McCartney sense of humor.
“So when Paul switched from Jane to Linda, there was criticism that her lack of effort to curb Paul’s dope smoking impeded his quality control”
Wow you would think Paul was about 12 and Linda was his neglectful mommy.
“but if they stopped doing drugs, like some people (falsely) claimed in Apple to the Core, then people labeled them “straight.” ”
This is absolute drivel. Stopped doing drugs??? Straight? The amount of erroneous crap written over the years, about these guys is mind bending. These people write whatever seems to sound good at that moment. They just pull it out of the sky. I read Apple to the Core decades ago…probably about 46 years ago to be exact. I don’t remember much, if anything that was in the book but this little chestnut is hilarious.
LikeLike
“I can believe that Norman said it because that is who he is, but Connolly? I’m surprised.”
That was my fault for wording that poorly. Norman, of course, participated in the English journalist backlash against Linda because of her American background. Connolly, from what I have seen, didn’t participate in it: he simply acknowledged that her American background was a reason a lot of people disliked her. So Norman contributed to it (if you read the first edition of Shout! its very clear that Norman viewed Linda as an inferior choice to Jane) while Connolly simply acknowledged it was there. In fact, Connolly’s obituary for Linda, written at the time of her death, is quite touching. It’s been ages since I read it, but I remember one of his initial descriptions of Linda: “She had dignity.” He also notes his surprise that Paul would go for someone like Linda (remember, Connolly had been around the Beatles since MMT) but thought they obviously fitted each other well.
LikeLike
Linda wasn’t glamorous and Paul was so very glamorous. I think that’s why so many of us were flummoxed( although there was no need for childish nonsense) when he chose her. Paul knew what he was doing however, as time would soon prove. Someone mentioned that Connolly is very good friends with Mike McCartney and by association, Paul and Linda as well….unlike Norman.
LikeLike
“This is absolute drivel. Stopped doing drugs??? Straight? The amount of erroneous crap written over the years, about these guys is mind bending.”
I admit to laughing out loud when I first read that comment from a friend/associate of Paul and Linda about them now being so straight they had even stopped using marijuana. Of course, I had the insight of hindsight, reading “Apple to the Core” forty some years later, knowing full well that (thank you legal cases) that the claim was rubbish.
Apple to the Core very much buys into the “Straights vs. Establishment” reasoning behind the split, unfortunately. Which makes sense, as it was researched and written in 1971, published in 1972, and had extensive interviews from one side of the split, but not from the other. It also interviews old New York friends of Linda’s, many of whom felt dumped when she left for London and then failed to talk to them for years. (To be fair, she was a rather busy woman at that time). There was a lot of bitterness there, and they didn’t have many good things to say about her or Paul in that time period.
LikeLike
“Apple to the Core very much buys into the “Straights vs. Establishment” reasoning behind the split,”
” was a lot of bitterness there, and they didn’t have many good things to say about her or Paul in that time period.”
Oh jeez, exactly what I mean about this and other, extremely dated books. Purely for entertainment value and nothing else. The problem though, is that I think most people read these books because they want to acquire some knowledge about the Beatles, because they’re interested in them and not because they’re looking to be entertained. In that regard, most of the books written before the late 90’s are useless.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It wasn’t just the press, there was a story about one of Paul’s aunts saying something like, “Why did he have to bring home a Jewish thing?”
LikeLike
“It wasn’t just the press, there was a story about one of Paul’s aunts saying something like, “Why did he have to bring home a Jewish thing?””
I remember that Rose. I think his step mother, Angie also said it. If I remember correctly they weren’t too happy that she was a divorcee
either. They were also puzzled by the way she disciplined Heather.
LikeLike
Ouch. I’ve never heard that before, Rose; do you remember where you heard that from? It calls to mind Mimi’s reaction to first seeing Yoko at her house; wasn’t it something akin to: “Who’s the monkey in the garden, John?”
I admit; I’m curious as to the McCartney clan’s reaction to Linda’s sudden entrance into the picture. I would speculate that a certain level of wariness was inevitable (not that I’m in any way using that as a justification for anyone disliking/distrusting her due to her religion). Linda was an unknown entity, suddenly enmeshed in the life of the McCartney family’s 26/27 year old wealthy patriarch. I may be remembering this incorrectly, but my impression on reading Mike McCartney’s pseudo-memoir “The Macs” was that he didn’t even meet Linda until he showed up to be best man at her and Paul’s wedding in March 1969.
LikeLike
It’s interesting to speculate what might have happened had the Eastmans been installed as Apple’s new management, as they did quite well for Paul in the subsequent years.
LikeLike
Interesting, definitely, if impossible to know. That’s a subject where I wish I was more familiar with business and finance: I might be able to offer a better, more thoughtful answer.
Personally, I find a scenario in which John and George go with the Eastman’s too separate from what actually occurred to offer any real concrete theories. We could assume, for example, that the Eastman’s may not have let the Northern Songs catalog slip away — but they did let it slip through Paul’s fingers in the 80s, so who knows? But the Eastman’s, overall, did stunningly well for Paul, making him not only one of the world’s wealthiest musicians, but also considerably wealthier than John, George or Ringo — something of which John was well aware. Whereas the other three shuffle through various post-Klein managers, Paul sticks with the Eastman’s, and it pays off. Meanwhile, John complains to Yoko that they don’t have as much money as Paul and Linda, while George gets sued by Klein and ripped off by another manager, Dennis O’Brian. However, it’s easy to see a George and John who were already somewhat chafing at Paul’s behavior resenting and refusing to work with Paul’s in-laws.
For me, the far more interesting theoretical scenario was the one Paul maintained in his Melody Maker interview from 1971: that when it became clear the others weren’t going to go with the Eastman’s, and he had made it clear he wasn’t going to accept Klein, he suggested other, non-Klein/Eastman candidates, but the other three refused, because Klein was the only one they wanted. Had the other three not violated the unanimity agreement, and decided to go along with a more neutral candidate, how much would that have changed the breakup and its aftermath? Would there even have been a Beatles trial? Would the breakup have been as bitter, and public, and sustained? I’d theorize not.
LikeLike
Yes, please post more on this subject. So very interesting.
The four guys argued among themselves, like they always did, and settled their differences
in band politics within the group, by using unanimity to determine the vote. This method worked extremely well within the group, and established a strong “one for all, all for one” comaraderie within the band. That is, of course, until Yoko and then Klein showed up, and suddenly all the votes taken within the group become “majority rule” against Paul, with Yoko “thinking” and speaking for John, and George and Ringo backing John/Yoko’s vote.
Now, as John’s living representative in Apple meetings, Yoko finds that “unanimity of the vote” works just fine, and suits her purposes much better than “majority rule”, and gives her a chance to impose her will on Beatles projects, thereby being able to thwart Paul and Ringo with her votes used as weapons, lest Paul and Ringo play “nice” with her. I realize that Olivia is George’s living representative, I may be wrong, but I don’t think anyone would accuse her of trying to throwing her weight around just to get her way, unlike Yoko who has manage to be a bane in the side of The Beatles ever since she showed up on the scene.
LikeLike
Glad you liked the post, Charlotte, and that you want to see more.
The unanimity role is a fascinating one for me, both because of the debate surrounding it and because of the practical and symbolic consequences once they broke it. I’ve never seen any evidence supporting John’s court testimony claim that they had employed majority rule in earlier decisions, while there’s considerable evidence reinforcing Paul’s testimony claim that the unanimity role had been enforced for years, regarding every decision, until the appointment of Klein broke that precedent.
Since the evidence seems to favor Paul in this regard, it calls into question what other untrue things are included in John’s 1971 trial testimony. (And my understanding, although I haven’t seen the actual transcripts, is that both George and Ringo also backed John on this issue in their court testimony, which calls into question the veracity of some of their court testimony). That’s why I have problems with McCabe or Schafner, and other authors, who take John’s trial testimony as gospel. McCabe at least was writing in 1971, but Schafner should have attempted some form of source analysis, and the further the author is in distance from the Beatles trial, the less of an excuse they have for simply regurgitating it and failing to apply any sort of grain of salt to it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Here’s a question that’s most likely impossible to answer:
If Ringo had suggested Maureen’s father and brother as Apple’s manager, or if George had tried to bring in Pattie’s father and brother to run things, or if Yoko’s father and brother were suggested, would there have been the same resistance from the other three? Would there have been the same fears of nepotism, or was Paul considered less trustworthy than the others?
LikeLike
I thought the suggestion of Yoko’s father and brother was particularly provocative: doesn’t her family originally come from a very prestigious business/banking background? I remember one author who described her family as the Japanese equivalent of the Rothschild’s, although that may have been hyperbolic.
Had it been Yoko’s relatives, I think the rejection would have been just as swift, especially by George. For all of John and George’s claims in the trial that the two of them had no conflicts, and that the only interpersonal problem was Paul; Yoko, and her entrance into the band’s lives, was obviously a very big sticking point for George. I simply can’t see a scenario where George goes along with granting Yoko’s relatives control over the band’s finances at the same time he’s chafing over her presence in the studio and resenting her speaking for John in Apple meetings. And George, not John, was really the swing vote in the Klein vs. Eastman’s scenario.
In general, I would theorize that, from what I’ve seen and heard so far from Lewisohn, his analysis is going to be that the rejection was really more prompted by the nepotism angle than the Eastman’s being Paul’s particular choice. In “Tune In”, my reading is that John, Paul and George clearly resented Mona Best’s managerial position and duties (even as they inevitably benefited from it) because, in part, she viewed them as “Pete’s band.” They thought that she would always favor Pete, and it left them with a bad taste in their mouths with having family members of band members in positions of power. In one podcast or another — I think it was a Fabcast episode with Lewisohn — he also hints at the subject, really emphasizing how the nepotism aspect really influenced the other Beatles in their choices.
He cites a time when one of George’s brothers was unemployed, before the Beatles made it big but after they had hired Neil. George’s mother suggested, to George, John and Paul that they all fire Neil and hire George’s brother instead, since he needed a job. Evidently none of them liked that idea, and according to Lewisohn, the reason (besides their fondness for Neil) was the nepotism issue. That’s my roadmap of where I think Lewisohn may go with that interpretation, but I could be wrong. But he does seem to set up the pattern for certain recurring issues within the Beatles story — Paul vs. Stu for John’s artistic attention (and later Paul vs. Yoko): Paul’s reluctance to take speed (and later LSD) with the others, and how they reacted to that: how the band’s members responded to nepotism with Mona Best (and eventually the Eastman’s).
LikeLike
” He cites a time when one of George’s brothers was unemployed, before the Beatles made it big but after they had hired Neil. George’s mother suggested, to George, John and Paul that they all fire Neil and hire George’s brother instead, since he needed a job. Evidently none of them liked that idea, and according to Lewisohn, the reason (besides their fondness for Neil) was the nepotism issue. That’s my roadmap of where I think Lewisohn may go with that interpretation, but I could be wrong.”
I do recall this from the Fabcast interview, and it’s one of the annoying things about Lewisohn’s interpretation IMO. He presented it as simply a problem they all had with nepotism, as if was some sort of honor code all the Beatles adhered to and Paul violated it, case closed. There’s no room for nuance and the complexity of human emotions.
Even if Louise Harrison was serious with her suggestion, how serious did George’s brother take it? Would he have even wanted to be a band roadie for a bunch of kids? Did the other Beatles like George’s brother? Did they know him, get along with him? George’s brothers were much older than him, was he particularly close with them that it would’ve even been a possibility? How much were they paying Neil and would it have even been enough for an older man with a wife? (I think both George’s brothers were married at that point).
How do we know the reaction wasn’t no because Neil was a close friend of both George and Paul from childhood, had already been hired and was already good at his job? What if they weren’t going to throw over their good friend for George’s brother because he wouldn’t fit in personality wise and they loved Neil, not anything to do at all with George’s brother?
How would the Beatles have taken the suggestion if they DIDN’T already have Neil at that point? Would they have given George’s brother a chance? Would they have not hired George’s brother but hired Mike McCartney, who was the same age as George, close to Paul and got along with John and had a temperament similar to Neil’s?
AND then we get to the issue of time. Almost ten years and a whole lot of drama later, how do we really know what the Beatles thought and how their minds might have changed? It seems foolish to argue John Lennon, for example, was against nepotism when at the same time he was foisting his wife on the other Beatles and insisting to the media that she was his artistic equal and entitled to half the content on his albums.
The Eastmans were experienced entertainment/artists’ attorneys, it wasn’t like suggesting Cousin Bob from down the pub should run the Beatles’ empire with no experience, like giving a random roadie job to an unemployed brother and letting your non-rock star musician wife equal space on your rock albums. That’s to say hiring them would’ve been right, but to boil it down to “the Beatles hated nepotism, case closed” is wrong.
LikeLike
On one hand, the band deliberately hired people closest to them, choosing an intimate circle of friends as their work detail. There’s abundant evidence of this, as well as the Beatles themselves going on record as preferring a close cadre of friends around them vs a bunch of strangers. In this sense, the Beatles strike me as completely NOT concerned about nepotism–heck, Mike McCartney was their unofficial photographer in the early days.
Having said that, none of these folks were in positions of authority and control over them. It was well and fine for Mike to take photos or Neil to set the stage and haul equipment, but when it came to decision-making about their careers, I suspect that each Beatle would have preferred a neutral party–particularly in the circumstances in which they found themselves in 1968. It really doesn’t surprise me that they didn’t want the Eastmans, frankly. It’s a shame that Paul’s suggestion was interpreted as some incidious effort at control vs an honest attempt to get qualified people at the helm.
LikeLike
Oh, I absolutely think the concerns about the Eastmans and their possible favoritism of Paul was valid. What I don’t like is if Lewisohn’s dismissal being basically, “It never would’ve happened because they were relatives, like how they didn’t fire Neil because George’s mother had a whim.”
Of course, nepotism is the only argument left in the Eastman v. Klein battles, because history has shown Lee and John Eastman as respected entertainment attorneys over decades who’ve protected their clients while making them a fortune, and Klein’s legacy is having gone to jail and left a string of bitter artists in his wake.
LikeLike
Gotcha. Lewisohn is attributing both circumstances to “nepotism”, when common sense would dictate that, in Aspinall’s case, firing him to appease Mrs. Harrison would make no sense.
LikeLike
“What I don’t like is if Lewisohn’s dismissal being basically, “It never would’ve happened because they were relatives, like how they didn’t fire Neil because George’s mother had a whim.”
That would be my concern as well, Rose.
Again, that’s my speculation on how Lewisohn will approach the issue, given my reading of “Tune In” and the podcast discussion. It doesn’t mean that is how he’ll approach it. We may simply have to wait and see. I would hope that Lewisohn would take various elements into account, rather than analyzing the issue within a pre-determined framework.
LikeLike
To add a little more: what also interests me is what evidence Lewisohn is (possibly) going to find regarding Paul’s claims that, when it became clear the others would not accept the Eastman’s, and he was refusing to accept Klein, he suggested third-party alternatives, only to be overruled by the 3-1 vote when they chose Klein anyway.
I know John and Lord Beeching had a meeting, but I believe that was before Klein entered the picture, and I’ve never heard of other concrete alternatives to Klein and the Eastman’s being suggested. Paul was maintaining in November 1971 he had been willing to go with both a non-Klein and non-Eastman candidate, but the other three refused, broke the unanimity rule, and appointed Klein anyway. Now, obviously, Paul is trying to do damage control in his Melody Maker interview, but the extent to which this idea gained any traction is a very interesting what-if, at least to me. If this was a one-time comment from Paul, desperately trying to prevent the others from signing their contract with Klein and quickly forgotten by the others, that’s different. But if he repeatedly suggested this, and presented them with a list of legitimate non-Klein/non-Eastman candidates, only to have them still violate their own unanimity rule and appoint Klein over his objections, that’s a pretty serious refusal to compromise on their part.
LikeLike
Off topic, but current events:
Paul McCartney Invokes John Lennon at March for Our Lives
Beatles legend Paul McCartney was among the many celebrities who took to the streets on Saturday around the country, joining hundreds of thousands of protesters demanding action to stem gun violence in America.
Interviewed by CNN in New York City, McCartney, sporting a “We Can End Gun Violence” T-shirt, made clear that the issue is personal to him.
“One of my best friends was killed by gun violence right ‘round here,” he said.
McCartney was of course referring to his former bandmate John Lennon, who was fatally shot by Mark David Chapman at the entrance to the Dakota, his residence on the Upper West Side.
Since Lennon’s death, more than 1 million Americans have been killed as a result of gun violence.
(New York Magazine)
LikeLike
I’m writing this response with great effort because to be honest, reading this thread made my blood boil.
It is my firm belief that John’s public portrayal as Paul as the straight/square was nothing more than a calculated smear campaign to decrease Paul’s “cool factor” (with the type of people this kind of stuff resonates with) and enhance his own. Because it’s patently absurd. Paul is a multi-faceted, innovative artist with voracious curiosity, willingness to experiment and famously (infamously!) eclectic tastes. To paint him as some kind of artistic simpleton is so absurd that I can barely believe it stuck. BUT…. John was very loud, had a (sometimes earned, sometimes not) reputation as a “truth teller” and -in combination with Yoko- was EXTREMELY good at messaging. And when you come down to it, messaging always wins over truth, details or anything than requires critical thinking. Not to mention that there is a certain type of audience (not to point fingers but… white boy-men who “see themselves” in John Lennon and believe themselves to be smart, “enlightened,” and “misunderstood” regardless of whether or not they ACTUALLY ARE any of these things) who identify John as the “alpha” of the Lennon/McCartney pair (although they usually call him “iconoclast” or “visionary”) and who have a knee-jerk obedience to this kind of perceived power. John is the cool-guy and what he says goes. It just does, and so there’s no need to ever push back.
But if you examine John’s obsessive rejection of the “middle class” in the early 70s’…. it’s A) fucking stupid and B) total bullshit. Of Paul, John and Yoko there is a CLEAR and UNDENIABLE class hierarchy and it goes 1) Yoko 2) John and 3) Paul. In no universe is John FACTUALLY less privileged than Paul, but hey, it FEELS like John was less privileged because he was less loved by his own family, therefore Paul was spoiled (with a father and brother who never abandoned him).
Paul’s marriage to Linda provides him with more that John feels HE deserves rather than Paul- not just a wife but a child who loves and looks up to him, a new baby and in-laws that are capable and actively fighting for Paul’s best interests. As to John’s insane reaction to the Eastmans and his preoccupation with their “middle-class-ness” I’ll go a step further and say that it wasn’t so much that Paul married a “rich” girl, (Yoko had money and class status too) it’s that John thought Paul was getting above his station. It’s basic classism, masquerading as anti-classism.
After all, what was so anti-establishment about John & Yoko? Sure, they criticized the System but what did they do that was so “radical?” It’s not like Yoko got John to give away his money and join the fucking Peace Corps! All he did was REMAIN A RICH ROCK STAR while sporadically spouting liberal theories to the press in between promoting his records. It is the ABSOLUTE ESSENCE OF PRIVILEGE. His “radical” talk helped him sell records and increase his popularity. I’m not saying it was insincere, but authors treat it as if it was some majestic, self-less act when it was actually a predominant feature of youth culture at the time. He wrote a song called Working Class Hero, for crying out loud.
And as far as Klein alleged “authenticity” – Don’t try to ride on someone else’s street cred, John. Pathetic!
LikeLiked by 1 person
If John was so unfettered by the bourgeois concept of money he could’ve acquiesced and settled the lawsuit much more swiftly. Are we supposed to be enraged that Paul didn’t roll over and let John/Klein/Geo&Ringo take his money?
Furthermore (am I done? No, sorry, I’m not) – the idea that John was able to successfully float the idea that TAKING CARE OF YOUR CHILDREN and being close to them was “bourgeois” is not just…. unbearably stupid and nonsensical, it’s downright disgusting! There is nothing radical or enlightened about abandoning your kids to live a self-indulgent lifestyle of filming your genitals 24/7. I mean you’re free to do it, but Jesus it takes A LOT of gall to criticize a person (Paul) for putting in the grueling, thankless work of being a parent. I’d argue that Paul was actually the radical, subversive one. The guy put his baby on the (back) cover of his first solo album! Talk about NOT TRYING to look cool… Paul has always done whatever he wanted (even when it was totally against the grain) and that takes balls, no matter how you try to spin it otherwise. He was under no obligation whatsoever to project a “counterculture” image (real or manufactured) and in any case that should be evaluated as separate from his music. Rock critics tried to bully him for years and years about really juvenile things like “cool factor” (seriously? Why is rock journalism on an 8th grade maturity level?) and he persevered, because he has always remained an epic performer that audiences love. It drives me insane that the old, TRASH narrative hasn’t changed since 1970. Paul transcends “rock” and just makes music he likes, whether it’s flavored with classical, country, r-n-b, electronica, pop, opera, etc. There is something deeply, DEEPLY wrong with a narrative that values all that less than “cool factor.”
LikeLike
So Brit, tell us how you really feel. 🙂
I think it’s important to consider John’s remarks in the context of a) his drug addiction, b) his psychological profile, and in particular, how a + b affected his attachment to Paul, as a partner and significant other.
We’ve discussed this a bunch here and you might find it interesting if you wouldn’t mind slogging through earlier posts. 🙂
LikeLike
I thought I’d done my slogging; perhaps I skimmed too fast. Sorry if I repeated too much of what others have already said!
LikeLike
Oh not at all. I suggested it because I thought it might lower your blood pressure a bit. 😉
LikeLike
Brit, brava! I understand John had issues and they have to be taken into account(though as has been noted in some of the commentary I’ve read here, Paul’s own issues are rarely taken into account when recounting his flaws) but you know what IMO that really does not excuse the absolute smear campaign, and I really don’t think it can be called anything but a campaign, they did on Paul during those early years. It was cruel, and it was clearly by design and not just by chance, in my opinion. John, Yoko, Klein to whatever varying degrees set out to destroy Paul’s reputation as much as they could, for whatever reason John had and he did so through misrepresentation and sometimes outright lies.
I also agree that in many ways Paul was actually more of a “rebel” than John was. Paul did what he did and it was sometimes something that would have been the absolutely anti-thesis of the obvious cool thing to do, but he did it anyway. John was the one who often seemed to base his public statements and activity on what would be good for his “cool” image, not Paul. I’m not saying he wasn’t sincere in some of his beliefs and causes but IMO his image was very very calculated even more than Paul’s. Yet Paul gets labeled the “PR Beatle”. It’s never made sense to me.
I don’t even think it’s true that family, home, children were considered bourgeois – even in the counter culture, people got married and had children and loved their families. So that wasn’t about counterculture vs bourgeois imo, that was about taking something perfectly normal and mis-representing and twisting it into something else, to sell a narrative that was not particularly based in truth.
Most of the other stuff is just you know relationship problems, between John and Paul and they can be messy. But IMO there is no excuse or mitigating circumstance for John’s actions during that time with regards to the way he attacked Paul’s personality, talent and reputation not just as a musician but as a human being. This is something that affected Paul’s entire life, it affected how he was viewed by and able to interact with other people, from that point on. It’s almost like a form of identity theft.
LikeLike
“I don’t even think it’s true that family, home, children were considered bourgeois – even in the counter culture, people got married and had children and loved their families. So that wasn’t about counterculture vs bourgeois imo, that was about taking something perfectly normal and mis-representing and twisting it into something else, to sell a narrative that was not particularly based in truth.”
Nina I think you are absolutely right about this.
LikeLike
Brit,
I’ve been thinking of “The Beatles Forever” recently, and your comment does a good job of highlighting what I believe are some of the fundamental issues with that book. For all his efforts at objectivity (and I do find Schafner more objective than numerous other Beatles writers who followed him) Schafner buys into many of the elements you criticize in your post. He explicitly labels John as the cool, intellectual Beatle who cool, intellectual men liked, whereas shallow, shrieking female fans liked Paul best. He describes John as “honest” multiple times and accepts his comments unquestioningly; his primary description for Paul is “pretty.” (I’m not being hyperbolic; I think he described Paul as “pretty” approximately twenty times in his book.) He displays no source analysis, and uses heavily gender coded, feminine associated terms to dismiss the music he doesn’t like. He also buys heavily into the class issue: not only John as the cool “working-class hero” struggling against the system, but also the perception that Paul didn’t want Klein as manager because Klein’s “self-made man” image chafed with Paul’s higher-class aspirations. I think, given better sources and with the advantage of historical distance, Schafner could have written a classic work on the band; he was too handicapped by the sources he didn’t have and the overwhelming consensus, however flawed, which dominated in the time period in which he was writing.
I do think we’re starting to see pushback on these simplistic interpretations: Doggett notes how it was Paul, not John, who was “the golden boy of the London counterculture,” and it’s also Doggett, I believe, who acknowledges that while John and Yoko’s political involvement stemmed from genuine desire to improve the world, it was also the fashion du jour among their rock set. However heartfelt their political campaigning was, it was also fashionable among the publications and individuals that dominated their breakup-era P.R. campaign; that’s an issue that can’t and shouldn’t be ignored.
“the idea that John was able to successfully float the idea that TAKING CARE OF YOUR CHILDREN and being close to them was “bourgeois” is not just…. unbearably stupid and nonsensical, it’s downright disgusting!”
The issue of “family” and “parenthood” and “monogamy” being regarded as “bourgeoisie” and; therefore, inferior, classist, snobbish, propping up the establishment, etc. is something I’d like to do further research on; most of that information came from Doggett’s There’s A Riot Going On. It’s not so much John directly criticizing Paul for having a family/kids/being domestic as it is 1. This overall countercultural perception that ascribing to the basic middle-class family structure classified you as bourgeoisie and 2. The particular (establishment) family Paul chose: The Eastman family. To my recollection, John doesn’t really criticize Paul for wanting/having kids/being a father/monogamous marriage: it’s the rock press that equates family/domesticity with establishment values.
And George Martin agrees with your condemnation of those who sweepingly dismiss music that isn’t “cool” enough or “rock” enough: he argues in one of his memoirs that such thinking is snobbish and narrow minded.
LikeLike
John’s public slagging of Paul during this era was unfair, unwarranted, and just plain wrong. But analyzing John’s behaviour in this context–his notoriously screwed up personal psychology, his relationship challenges, drug use, etc–isn’t an attempt to excuse or mitigate the unfairness of his actions; it’s the only way in which we, as Beatle fans and formal/ informal Beatle historians, can put it into some kind of rational context. Otherwise, there’s a tendency to demonize the perceived wrongdoer and catastrophize the perceived victim.
As fans, we tend to respond with moral outrage on Paul’s behalf, kind of like relatives who take sides during a particularly protracted and messy divorce. Paul, for his part, has been fairly philosophical about it all. Indeed, he’s been the most successful solo artist of all the individual Beatles combined–and good for him, too. He’s earned it.
LikeLike
“But analyzing John’s behaviour in this context–his notoriously screwed up personal psychology, his relationship challenges, drug use, etc–isn’t an attempt to excuse or mitigate the unfairness of his actions; it’s the only way in which we, as Beatle fans and formal/ informal Beatle historians, can put it into some kind of rational context.”
That’s why, as I’ve said before, I’m immensely pleased that we’re seeing the acknowledgement of these crucial issues enter into Beatles historiography. When you ignore/downplay the psychological issues, the damage caused by drug use, the emotional instability — the way Schafner did (at least initially) the way Coleman did, the way Norman did, the way Wenner did/does — authors draw simplistic and partisan interpretations that are ultimately flawed.
But authors don’t ignore those elements anymore. Turner’s recent work; Doggett’s, Tune In, Goodden’s; all of these are delving into these crucial issues, providing us with a more nuanced version of why John did and said the things he did and said. I’m picking up a rather older, but still different book up today – The Beatles With Lacan — and it will be interesting to see what it has to say, as I do think it attempts a more psychological approach.
LikeLike
…and also why Paul, George, and even Ringo did and said the things they did and said. So many authorial conclusions regarding individual Beatles is based on an examination of behaviour in a vacuum, rather than within the context of personal and professional relationships.
LikeLike
Erin, I’m so pleased you’re looking at The Beatles With Lacan! It’s maybe the most bizarre Beatles book I’ve ever read. (A friend gave it to me years and years ago. I no longer have it and it’s long out of print, I believe.) I’ll be excited to read your take on it!
LikeLike
With that endorsement, I can’t wait to look at it! So far, the oddest book I’ve read has been Norman Smith’s memoir. What an odd book that was; stream of consciousness writing, significant grammar/sentence structure errors; conspiracy theories, imaginary conversations with various ex-Beatles, cryptic discussions with a figure identified only as “Research.” It’s something else, alright.
I received “The Beatles with Lacan” yesterday, along with Mojo’s “Ten Years that Shook the World.” “The Beatles with Lacan” is going to have to wait, though; Mojo’s book is due back to Interlibrary Loan at the end of May, whereas “The Beatles With Lacan” is mine through the end of July. And, before either of those, grading.
LikeLike
It’s me replying to another old comment again!
“He describes John as ‘honest’ multiple times and accepts his comments unquestioningly; his primary description for Paul is “pretty.” (I’m not being hyperbolic; I think he described Paul as “pretty” approximately twenty times in his book.) He displays no source analysis, and uses heavily gender coded, feminine associated terms to dismiss the music he doesn’t like.”
As someone who already has an interest in exploring how female fans and fandoms are presented and viewed in society, I find myself really interested in what I’m seeing in my reading about the Beatles’ history and historiography that relates to what you’re describing here. I really have been enjoying seeing digging into the “male journalists loved John” thing beyond the surface: why did they identify so hard with John (or at least, John’s image)? What issues did/do they have with Paul that make it so easy for them to side against him with seemingly no self-awareness? Jealousy of his looks? his talent? his success with women? It sounds flip to say “They were just jealous!” but it seems reasonable to conclude they were! and it clouded their coverage. The role of sexism in this particular dynamic is really fascinating to me.
LikeLike
In Ray Connolly’s most recent John Bio, and in an interview on SATB, he does acknowledge how eager the press was to swallow everything John said, regardless of its truthfulness or exaggeration. He doesn’t acknowledge that the most important journalists who swallowed John’s line hook, line and sinker were males; maybe it didn’t occur to him, or maybe he just thought it just went without saying, given how male-dominated rock journalism was at the time and still is today.
I’ve seen differing reasons given, each of which are interesting in their own way. Norman now espouses jealousy of Paul for his fervent embrace of John; Richard Corliss argues that Paul’s seemingly feminine qualities could never satisfy the masculine rock critics; McCabe, another author who bought John’s line unquestioningly, fervently embraced the political schism of the era by adopting the Paul as establishment/John and Klein as anti-establishment (with the relevant issues regarding marriage, domesticity, etc.) take. But I think something that always simply needs to be remembered when looking at why reporters loved John is first, his charisma, which must have been absolutely remarkable and, two, access. In the SATB interview, Connolly mentions how he actually met and got along with Paul first, because he’d met and interviewed Paul’s brother Mike. When Jude Kessler wants to know then why, then, he became more attached to John, rather than Paul, Connolly indicates it had to do access. John invited him. John called him up and asked him to come over. John would have phone conversations with him. John courted him, and other members of the press, and that was key: Paul didn’t. John was courting these male reporters during the breakup period at the same time Paul was rebuffing them. I think that’s one of many elements in regards to it,
LikeLike
Yes. I’ve no doubt he had charisma, but it also sounds like the root here was that John flattered them in a way Paul, despite their branding him as a PR floozy or whatever, didn’t do! It seems there’s a lot of ego involved: John didn’t threaten their ego in the ways Paul did, and they weren’t reflective enough to realize it, apparently. I just always find myself wondering what might be going on below, which admittedly has to be mostly speculation.
LikeLike
The impression we have is that attention from John, even if you were a Beatle, was flattering. Paul talks about John being the one you wanted to sit next to on the bus. So you can probably increase that 1000x if you were just a journalist: here’s John Lennon devoting attention to you; just that attention and access is flattering, even if John’s not purposefully pitching his story to you which he presumably is. And no doubt there’s ego is involved: one interpretation of their interaction with John is immensely flattering: John Lennon trusted me enough to bare his soul and give me the honest truth about his personal relationships and the working’s of the worlds most popular band. The alternative interpretation — John was using me to vent, let off steam and therefore give me an unwittingly inaccurate version of the Beatles/himself and further his propaganda — is hugely unflattering. One of the things I emphasized in my book on the section on Lennon Remembers is how much Wenner’s publication and its reputation stood/stands to lose if they acknowledge that much of that interview is wrong. John could, and did, blithely dismiss its importance both publicly and privately, but Wenner staked a considerable amount of Rolling Stone’s early reputation on that interview which is why, thirty years later, the revised edition still fails to acknowledge that its anything but gospel truth.
I’ve mentioned this before, too, but given my understanding of journalism there’s an element of self-interest in offering for reporters what makes the better/more interesting story. John, far and away, always gave the more interesting story, because of his emotional, if not factual, honesty in his interviews: numerous biographers, both then and now, note the contrast between John’s compelling “soul-baring extravaganzas” and Paul’s rote responses. And especially during the breakup period, John and Yoko (and Klein) wooed reporters and packaged them a version of the split that 1. largely prescribed to their political leanings 2. Was simplistic but compelling: John/Yoko/Klein = victims, Paul/Eastman’s = bourgeoise villains. 3. They provided the material/quotes. Boy, did they ever. It’s hard to write Paul’s version of the breakup in 1971/72 because he’s not giving it. It’s not just that he’s not giving the as good of a story as John — which he’s not — its that he’s not giving reporters almost anything. Ten interviews in three years, and three of those barely mention the Beatles once, let alone offer Paul’s version of the hows and whys of the split. Contrast that with the quality and quantity of John and Yoko’s breakup-era press material.
LikeLike
“seems foolish to argue John Lennon, for example, was against nepotism when at the same time he was foisting his wife on the other Beatles and insisting to the media that she was his artistic equal and entitled to half the content on his albums.”
I agree Rose. John didn’t like nepotism but yea his wife joining the band isn’t nepotism at all??? Oh no not at all. 😕 Interesting that you brought up the incident with Mrs. Harrison telling them to fire Neil and hire Peter. I’ve always interpreted John’s reaction as loyalty to Neil because he was their friend, not because he was against nepotism. Mike McCartney has said that he was supposed to join the Beatles in 1959, as their drummer but he badly broke his arm at boy scout camp and partially lost the use of his arm so he was never able to play the drums again. He never said, ‘And besides it never would have happened for real because The Beatles didn’t like nepotism’. It concerns me that Lewisohn seems to brush the Eastman situation off as ‘the Beatles didn’t like nepotism ok that’s it we’re done no more interpretation needed.’ I expected more from him.
LikeLike
Hopefully we will get more from him, when the third volume comes out and the Eastman issue takes front and center. Lewisohn was constrained by presenting what may be his preliminary evaluation on a podcast, after all: I don’t have nearly as much experience as he does in granting interviews on the Beatles, but I know that in every interview/presentation I’ve done so far, there are things I’ve said that I then almost instantly wished I could revise/take back/provide nuance to. With the Sgt. Pepper presentation, it was my answer regarding John’s inclusion of “So Sgt. Pepper took you by surprise” in “How Do You Sleep”: I wish I could have added more nuance.” For my “Eleanor Rigby” presentation, it was my declaration that Klein was the worst possible choice they could have made: I shouldn’t have been so glib and absolutist. For the SATB broadcast, I wish we could have gone over their overall historiographical arc more. Sometimes when you’re being interviewed, you simply don’t get to cover all the material you want to cover, because of time constraints, other questions, etc.
LikeLike