[Ok, beatle history peeps: while Erin is recuperating from childbirth I thought I would post this book review I wrote for Hey Dullblog awhile back. Looking forward to your comments. KH]
Get Back: The Beatles’ Let It Be Disaster (Doug Sulpy and Ray Schweighardt, 1994)
In January, 1969, The Beatles began a project that ostensibly marked their return to concert performances, something they hadn’t done in over three years. The project was the brainchild of Paul McCartney, who hoped that performing before a live audience would restore the group’s fading morale and creative ennui. Michael Lindsay-Hogg was hired to direct a television documentary which was slated to accompany the concert’s live television broadcast.
Alas, the concert never happened, the band broke up, and out of the rubble came the feature film, Let It Be. The film became a de facto statement about the break-up, even though much of what happened during that terrible month was left on Lindsay-Hogg’s cutting room floor. Not satisfied with the film version of the breakup, Sulpy and Schweighardt reviewed the unused footage with the hopes of gaining further insights. The result is Get Back: The Beatles’ Let It Be Disaster, an even-handed and often sympathetic account of the final days of the band. Their account debunks the decades-old myth of Paul as Band-Destroyer, and supports the view that— far from being victims of Paul’s relentless perfectionism— the other three were, in varying degrees, saboteurs of Paul’s genuine attempt to save their collective interests. And, in spite of her protestations, their account also demonstrates how Yoko’s presence and constant meddling had a scorched earth effect upon the group and everyone associated with them.
From the outset, it was clear to the authors that, far from pursuing leadership, Paul was frustrated and concerned about the leadership role being thrust upon him. John’s uncommunicativeness, in particular, impeded the band’s ability to move forward on creative ideas and resolve creative disputes.
The famous “fight” between Paul and George, depicted in the movie and overblown by Beatle pundits ever since, exemplifies this dynamic:
Paul, as he had several times earlier, expresses his desire that they work out the structure of the song before working on specifics. George disagrees, and believes they should just play until things come together. The conflict revolves around the different working methods of George, Paul, and John. John is withdrawn and uncommunicative…even for his own compositions. This leaves Paul…as the only Beatle able to propel the rehearsals forward. This isn’t a role he wants to assume. He bluntly states he wants to encourage them, but worries that this will mean taking a leadership role in the group, which would inevitably lead to ruffled egos. John admits his non-participation but says he has no suggestions to make. Paul, still trying to mend fences, stresses… there’s nothing personal against George.
The extent of John’s incapacitation, and the devastating effect it had upon the group, cannot be overstated. His song output was at an all-time low, his guitar-playing was substandard, and he could not remember simple riffs or the lyrics to his own songs (a problem he had at the best of times, but almost reeking of a drug-induced memory impairment now). The band’s reaction to this was interesting: while Paul vacillated between accommodation and careful confrontation, Ringo ignored the problem altogether while George seethed. George, in particular, was enraged by Yoko’s unsolicited commentary during rehearsals and preeminence in business matters. Indeed, it was because of Yoko’s interference in a business meeting, and not some altercation with Paul, that prompted George to quit. As Sulpy and Schweighardt observe,
if there had been some conflict between George and Paul, one would expect to find some evidence of ill-will between the two. In fact, there are no negative feelings expressed, or even implied. It seems that George had expressed his view [in the business meeting] that the future of The Beatles was a matter that should be discussed privately between the four members of the group. This would have implicitly excluded Yoko, but rather than having to choose between her and The Beatles, John appears to have pretended not to understand George’s request. This childish behaviour angered George, who then walked out on the meeting.
While Yoko didn’t ipso facto cause the break up, her interference was the proverbial straw that broke the band’s collective back. Contrary to her revisionist claims that John “forced” her to speak and act for him, Sulpy and Schweighardt suggest that it was clear from even a cursory examination of the tapes that Yoko was a willing participant:
After several aborted tries [to discuss the live show], Paul, George, Yoko, and Michael discuss the theoretical uses of an audience. John is present but silent. While Michael expresses the view that the band needs an audience [in response to Yoko’s suggestion that they play to empty seats], Yoko quite comfortably talks down to him. Her tone clearly indicates that, in her own mind, at least, she’s as important as any of The Beatles. Although John is present, he contributes nothing to the conversation, offering as proxy Yoko’s generally unorthodox and self-aggrandizing observations.
Later on, in a private (but taped) conversation with his wife Linda, Michael Lindsay-Hogg, and Neil Aspinall, Paul correctly observed that the problem isn’t with Yoko per se, but with John’s acquiesce to her and her eagerness to act in John’s stead. The rest of The Beatles, together with Linda, Neil, and Michael, discussed the issue thusly:
Linda, Neil, and Paul all see Yoko working her will through John, but don’t wish to confront him about it until they have no doubt as to what’s going on. Not only do [Paul and Neil] see Yoko talking for John, but they feel that when they talk to John, they’re really talking to Yoko, since John’s only saying what Yoko wants him to say. Paul is faced with a dilemma. If he confronts John, he’s sure that John will quit The Beatles and devote himself to Yoko (which, of course, is what ultimately occurs) but he sees the group disintegrating anyway, both because of the vacuum left by John’s creative withdrawal and George’s unwillingness to tolerate John’s behaviour.
Paul recognized that the frustration everyone was feeling was almost as damaging and disruptive as the behaviours which provoked it. He attempted to defuse the situation by minimizing John’s actions and suggesting tolerance:
[Paul] goes out of his way to explain how [Yoko] didn’t interfere when he and John were struggling with the lyrics for I Will the previous year. He then goes a step further and [claims] that when the two get really serious about something, John won’t let allow Yoko to interfere (if this is true, it’s not supported by the available tapes). He admits that John and Yoko go too far in their relationship, but tolerates it because it’s characteristic of John to go overboard on things. He then explains it’s not really their business to tell John that Yoko can’t attend their business meetings and that all they can really do is express their displeasure to him.
Paul’s defense of John and Yoko was bolstered by his view that the Lennon/McCartney partnership was waning even prior to Yoko’s appearance, due to the fact that
they no longer shared the physical closeness that they had in the early years. [Paul] believes they still have the ability to play well, and that the real problem is their lack of communication. Paul then reveals that the underlying motive behind [the project] was to force the group into the discipline of a 9-5 situation, claiming that even if it’s a grind at times, at least they’d be able to reap the rewards of their work.
It’s interesting to note that while there was much discussion about John and Yoko’s co-dependence and the effect that had upon the band, there was no similar discussion about John’s heroin use. On at least one occasion, Yoko asked John when Mal was going to purchase more heroin for them. Although it was asked cryptically, it occurred in front of the cameras and everyone else in the room, and there could be no doubt as to what the conversation was about.
Regardless of Paul’s intention to inspire the band by a 9-5 work commitment, interpersonal tensions were exacerbated by the nebulous nature of the project itself. Although the band was meeting regularly for rehearsals and a concert date had been selected, they still hadn’t come to an agreement about the actual venue. (This was hardly surprising, considering that one idea was to hire a cruise ship, bring several hundred fans aboard, and have the concert on the way to India.) One can hardly imagine such a cock-eyed scenario occurring if Brian Epstein was still at the helm, and speaks to how desperately they needed management oversight–something each Beatle recognized.
This notwithstanding, Paul seemed to be the only band member who clearly understood what was at stake if they didn’t get their act together and was understandably losing patience:
[Paul’s request that they clear the air] irritates George, who comments that past attempts to do this resulted in compromises no-one wanted to make. Paul answers by saying that if a live show turns out to be a compromise of that type then they should just give up and let The Beatles die. Almost enthusiastically, George agrees. Amazed and baffled at the thought of breaking up The Beatles, and cognizant of the artistic and financial havoc such an act would cause, [Paul] incredulously reminds the others how stupid it would be for them to break up. Paul …complains that John talks condescendingly to them and then observes he doesn’t talk at all. The nearly hour long series of discussions has ended with nothing being resolved in terms of the show or the group’s future.
One can feel for Paul and his frustration. In spite of all the tension and creative impasses, this was a band that clearly still cared for one another and had the ability to make good music. Sulpy and Schweighardt note that frustrations with the new material inevitably lead to jamming the old stuff, mostly from the teenage Lennon-McCartney songbook. This prompted George to suggest that they perform the old material rather than new material, which may be more interesting to their fans anyway. Yoko recoiled at the idea, and seemed “quite obstinately against the idea of The Beatles returning to their past, [presenting] the somewhat confused argument that people would rather see Richard Burton shaving than returning to his roots on the stage.” George’s suggestion ultimately never took root, and discussions about the concert continued without resolution.
Sulpy and Schweighardt’s thoughtful study of The Beatles’ dissolution makes for compelling reading, and raises as many questions as it answers. Why, for example, do George and Ringo side with John in his ostracism of Paul, after living through two frustrating years of Yoko- and drug-inspired craziness and when John’s decision-making capacities are clearly impaired? How is it that none of The Beatles understood how serious John’s drug-taking had become? Why didn’t the band go on hiatus rather than attempt a project which was so clearly destined to fail? Sulpy and Schweighardt don’t offer explanations or provide any answers. Perhaps they left that for us as Beatle fans, to figure out.
The Historian and The Beatles 
Thanks! I just ordered this book a couple days ago and am glad to see it’s getting the historiographical seal of approval. I’d also be curious to get your take on the 33 1/3 Let it Be book.
LikeLike
Hi Kevin; I think you’ll like the book; I certainly did.
Erin is the historian around these parts and I’ll let her speak to the historiographical specifics, but I think it’s an invaluable work in terms of its painstaking transcription and even-handed interpretation of Beatle interaction during Get Back sessions.
I’ve not read the 33 1/3…I’d be curious to see how it compares to Sulpy et. al.’s work.
LikeLike
Why, for example, do George and Ringo side with John in his ostracism of Paul, after living through two frustrating years of Yoko- and drug-inspired craziness and when John’s decision-making capacities are clearly impaired?
I’m going to make a guess here:
George was thoroughly sick and tired of touring. I believe Ringo was weary of touring. So they could choose to side with Paul and his good ideas, and find themselves back on the road in a revitalized Beatles, or side with John (and Yoko’s bad ideas) and remain free to relax and focus on easier solo projects.
Paul’s side makes sense to me because I would have loved the group to stay together and do all the stuff Paul was talking about. But it wasn’t me who would have had to live in hotel rooms and face demanding fans.
LikeLike
George was particularly fearful of resuming the old life, for sure. And although Paul was emphatic that it wasn’t his vision or intention to revitalize the band of old, it’s clear that George wasn’t convinced.
Heres’s the thing, though: George’s aversion to his former life had to be pretty strong for him to side with John on business matters (the selection of Klein, for example) when Yoko–someone George clearly detested at the time–was clearly calling the shots.
Here’s my guess, to piggyback on to yours: I think George was also motivated by old animosities and jealousies toward Paul, a perceived equal who nevertheless yielded greater power in the group and whose creative approach was frustratingly different from his own.
LikeLike
I think money and the fear of losing the lifestyle that came with it had to have been their biggest motivating factor.
They didn’t trust the Eastmans to slice the apple into four equal pieces so to speak, and meanwhile Alan Klein had negotiated them a 7.5% increase in royalties.
Along with that, they (or George and John at least) were obviously jealous of Paul and resentful of the fact that he had written their biggest hits. I would imagine that they were quite receptive to Klein’s rhetoric about commercial worth versus artistic worth, and that he told them exactly what they wanted to hear.
But at the end of the day, John, George and Paul were childhood friends, there were three of them and three is always a crowd. I don’t know what John promised George as a reward for taking his side, but May Pang’s book makes it clear that George was promised something. Presumably, he expected to take Paul’s place as John’s writing partner because what else could it be?
LikeLike
Right–I recall that John was excited at the prospect of making more money–an area of management in which he believed Epstein fell short. And John was particularly susceptible to daddy figures with big promises and it’s no surprise that he would be a sitting duck for Klein.
I read Pang’s book so long ago I don’t remember much of it–so she claims that John promised George something as a reward for taking John’s side in the Klein affair?
It’s ironic that in a few short years, both John and George disavowed Klein. George describes his own experience with Klein thusly:
LikeLike
“so she claims that John promised George something as a reward for taking John’s side in the Klein affair?”
Not in those words. She says George flipped out on John and yelled about John not being there for him. What precisely John promised (if anything) isn’t articulated and May doesn’t really speculate.
For context: May explains that at the time of this encounter, George had a show scheduled for Madison Square Garden, but his tour had been getting such bad reviews that he was considering cancelling (!). John told Neil to pass along the message that “he’d do anything to help” and George came by for a chat.
May then recounts that George arrived stressed out and angry and John was trying to be friendly. She said John implied that he’d be willing to make an appearance at George’s MSG show (probably a hollow gesture considering he’d previously backed out in a similar situation) She describes the fight thusly:
“George said that repeatedly in the past he had sung what John wanted him to sing, said what John wanted him to say. Because John wanted it, George had gone along with the decision to go with Allen Klein. In the nearly four years since, John had virtually ignored him, a fact that pained George deeply.
George’s voice grew even more harsh as he blasted John for his sudden appearance, as if out of nowhere, to offer an evening’s worth of help.
Yet again George said furiously, “I did EVERYTHING you said, but you weren’t there.””
Then she says George ordered John to take off his sunglasses, which he did (exchanged them for his normal glasses). Then George got so angry he ripped John’s glasses off and threw them to the floor. May says repeatedly that she expected George to slap or punch John, but John just remained passive and quiet the whole time and eventually George chilled out. FWIW, she also says they saw George the next day and George apologized to John and they hugged it out.
I’m no expert on George, but my impression/guess is that the implicit promise was for more attention, support and/or collaboration from John. Personally I doubt it was anything concrete, but who knows?
But this exchange from 1974 seems to speak to George’s dawning awareness that he had merely been used by John as a weapon against Paul. Personally I think George loved both John and Paul but ultimately resented them both for the same thing: ALWAYS prioritizing themselves and each other over him. George could never compete with John & Paul when they were together, so I think in 1969 John manages to recruit George to his corner by dangling that long-awaited attention/approval/collaboration like a carrot.
LikeLike
Thanks for this, Brit; it’s ringing a bell now. And George’s words: “I did everything for you and you weren’t there”–if Pang’s recollections are correct– are simply amazing.
I agree with you 100% that George grew to resent John and Paul’s professional and artistic preeminence. It’s hard to play second or third fiddle, regardless if your social standing is appropriate in comparison to other artists. It must have rankled.
LikeLike
I think it’s important also not to underestimate the significance of the age difference between George/Paul and John when they first met. George and Paul were 14/15 year old schoolboys, whereas John was a college student. They must have fought like mad for his attention, but George never stood a chance and I bet that was the reason he resented Paul really.
You always get petty resentments among groups of childhood friends or siblings, especially among groups of three. It’s like being permanently stuck at age 14 – you can’t change the dynamic or move on. In the case of John, George and Paul, John had all the power from the beginning, and he was able to use that to his advantage to get George to do what he wanted.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Exactly, Alex, and a point I made earlier.
There’s a psychological basis to this: we are more competitive with those who are closer to our social standing in a peer group than with those who we perceive as above our social standing. In other words, George was more likely to feel jealous of and more inclined to compete with Paul for John’s affections than be competitive with John directly. And that Paul–who George perceived as his equal–achieved social and professional equality with John remained a thorn in George’s side throughout his life.
LikeLike
First of all, I think this is an excellent post and a great summation of the Get Back sessions. I haven’t read the book (i.e. Sulpy and Schweighardt’s commentary) but I’ve listened to most/all the available audio and watched most/all the available footage and generally concur with their editorial conclusions.
MANY questions still remain about the Beatles break-up, not just for me but for anyone who thinks critically about John & Yoko’s post-facto version of events. History has shown that much of what they told the press in the decade after LIB was simply false. The majority of John’s statements regarding the break-up with Paul are so self-aggrandizing as to be virtually useless. In John’s public version he is always the powerful genius who rejected the less-talented craftsman due to artistic boredom. John is so attached to this fictional narrative and so good at PR that he reiterated it in virtually every major interview (except for the 18 months he was separated from Yoko) -and Rolling Stone has been forcefully pushing it nonstop since 1970. But access to the LIB source material disproves all of this and undermines the entire premise of John & Yoko’s “we innocently fell in love and everyone was mean to us” narrative. So where does that leave us? If what John (and Yoko) told the press was bullshit, where can we possibly find the truth?
What I think is missing from so many Beatles books that seek to understand the dynamics and history of the band is that there is such little focus on the actual music. Part of that is no doubt the natural limitations of the medium – (you can’t hear a book!) but trying to find motivation and meaning in the behavior of a songwriting team without examining their songs seems absurd. I mean, why do I even care about these people if not for the music they produce together?
Let it Be proposes to do this (focus on the music) but it errs in the opposite direction; the problem with Michael Lindsay Hogg’s movie isn’t that it’s sad, it’s that it’s BORING. It’s demystifying in the sense that it shows “how the sausage gets made,” but it skirts, ignores and sometimes actively conceals the human drama unfolding in the background. And because it provides no context for why the people in the film are behaving the way they are, they come off as either bored or crazy and the whole experience is demoralizing.
So for me, it’s important to look at all this material holistically.
Paul’s most notable songs from this period have a theme of resignation. Two of Us looks back on the old relationship (John) with fondness but also looks forward to a new future with a new partner (Linda). Let it Be is a goodbye song, making peace with an untenable situation from which Paul has decided to withdraw. The Long & Winding Road is the saddest and deepest of the lot, but it too seems to say “I’ll always love you but I realize this situation is hopeless.”
John’s songs have a very different vibe. John has no break-up songs (those come the following year on Plastic Ono Band), only songs of frustration. Dig A Pony is addressed to a multi-talented but rigid partner who could remedy the current situation with a bit of flexibility. Don’t Let Me Down tells of a new relationship with a partner who loves John like no one has before. But still, John hypothesizes that “If somebody loved me like she do me……” ? And then urges either the new parter or the old one (or both?) to follow through and not disappoint. I Want You (at least in its embryonic form) is a pure and simple expression of sexual/romantic frustration.
My point is that I don’t believe John was “bored” or ready to leave the band by this time. The cutting-room floor provides ample (albeit sporadic) footage of John being highly engaged with Paul and the band. I definitely think Yoko wanted John to leave while Paul wanted him to stay, but I’m not sure John ever had a clear plan other than to force a reaction from Paul. And he was conflicted enough at this point that he just went passive and let Yoko and Paul fight it out. He probably couldn’t bear the responsibility of his own decisions and this way (by forcing Paul to decide for him) he wouldn’t have to.
And THIS is the emotionally brutal but highly compelling storyline that was buried/omitted in MLH’s cut.
Fortunately I specialize in these types of films. 🙂 So I re-cut the movie – as a real documentary rather than a performance film. I’ll link it here if anyone is interested in watching it. (And I’ll do it in a separate comment, so that if it’s not OK to post here you can easily delete it!)
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s interesting that writers of the day discussed Paul’s distain with Spector’s over-production of the Long and Winding Road, but paid little attention to what the song actually seemed to represent. As a matter of fact, most of Paul’s songs speak to his profound sadness and regret over the band’s demise. The songs themselves tell the real story louder, and with more accuracy, than any biography written at the time.
John came to life, as it were, when playing old songs from the Lennon-McCartney playbook–prompting George to suggest that they concentrate on the old standards rather than on new material (something Yoko, interestingly, panned.) It’s so hard to decipher what John’s plans actually were, given his heroin intake and Yoko’s influence. I think you’re correct in saying that John simply let inertia take over–he couldn’t choose between Julia and Mary, and he couldn’t choose between Yoko and Paul. The zero-sum orientation he developed toward important relationships was clearly at play here.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Two years late, but I just found this site. What a great observation regarding the theme of the songs that Paul and John both brought. Two of Us is really sad, especially the line, “you and I have memories, longer than the road that stretches up ahead.” I agree with you on the other songs as well. John’s are about frustration, Paul’s are about a loss or saying goodbye.
LikeLike
Hi William—just a quick
drive-by post to say glad you found us.
LikeLike
Hello, William! Welcome to the blog. We are still around, even if we’re not posting as frequently as I wish. Feel free to comment on any of the threads, regardless of how old they are: Karen and I will still see them.
LikeLike
Brit, you and some of the others on this website present the most perceptive and well thought comments I’ve read anywhere. Your descriptions of the difference between Paul’s songs and John’s during this period are important. We don’t have many truthful answers of what happened in India, but beginning with the White Album, Johns songs did become angry and frustrated. Which is peculiar since John and Yoko had repeatedly and publicly stated their love was the most perfect ever in the history of the world.
John bringing Yoko into the studio was a deliberate provocation to the entire band, but especially to Paul. As has been speculated elsewhere and on podcasts, perhaps John’s intention was to make Paul jealous and wanted him to demonstrate his commitment to John (how?), and to rebalance their writing partnership like it was previously – before Paul’s tremendous burst of creativity overshadowed John. While Paul wanted to continue to write with John, it was impossible for him to return to that previous life of tending to John’s high maintenance personality and neediness. Especially after Paul realized Linda was the lifelong partner he wanted. His relationship with John had become a circuitous long and winding road.
(I was hoping to contribute to your comment, but I may have inadvertently just reworded what you wrote.)
LikeLike
Here’s my film about John and Paul in ’68-69. (The Get Back portion begins at 30:25 if you want to skip directly to it)
LikeLiked by 2 people
Watching Paul calmly play the piano during Yoko’s caterwauling–gotta give him a medal for composure, good grief.
And you see the fun John and Paul still have together….more and more, I think John was torn between his zero sum game relationship mentality.
Thanks for posting this.
LikeLike
This film is fantastic – much better than anything Lindsay-Hogg produced.
I agree with your interpretation, Brit. I think that John wanted Paul to fight for him. There’s a little snippet of dialogue from Cynthia in the Hunter Davies book, which I think is quite revealing. They’re talking about travelling or moving away or something like that (I don’t have the book to hand), and John makes the comment that he always needs ‘the others’ to be around him. And Cynthia replies, ‘You need them more than they need you.’
That comment must have played on John’s mind, especially when he saw it in print. And I would imagine that part of him despised Cynthia for voicing his deepest fear because the evidence was overwhelming – he might have been half of the Lennon/McCartney songwriting team, but Paul didn’t need him. He had his own friends, his own life in London, he wouldn’t take LSD with John, he didn’t understand that ‘Help’ was written as a message to him (or he pretended not to) and he was able to write songs in his sleep. So when he started to cut John out (as John interpreted it) of their songwriting partnership, I think John just flipped.
The interview linked below from 1966 is very interesting, because not only does the interviewer go on and on about how much he loves ‘Yesterday’ and ‘Michelle’, he asks John what he will be doing when he gets back to England (the interview takes place on the set of ‘How I Won the War’). The anticipation and excitement in John’s voice as he describes how he and Paul will be writing a score for a film is palpable, but of course we know that he got back to England to find that Paul had written the score without him:
That must have been crushing for John, as must Paul’s willingness to write ‘Eleanor Rigby’ with Mal Evans and Pete Shotton. And I think he fought back by bringing in Yoko – the most infuriating person he could ever have found on the planet (I mean, she was just perfect for the job) – to punish Paul and to prove to Paul that he didn’t need him that much after all. I don’t believe for a minute that he ever wanted to get stuck with Yoko. It just worked out that way when his plan backfired and Paul didn’t fight back like he wanted him to.
LikeLike
I didn’t know that John and Paul were meant to write that film score together. Do you know what prompted Paul to do it himself?
LikeLike
Re The Family Way film score? They weren’t, as far as I understand.
According to Paul, he was asked to write it and asked John, who gave him the go-ahead to write it solo. Paul was flummoxed when, in later years, John was angry and hurt that he wasn’t included.
LikeLike
So… I recently read a quote/excerpt (can’t find the source! so sorry!) from George Martin about the Family Way score. He said Paul was procrastinating writing the final ‘love theme’ so much that George had to track him down at Cavendish. Evidently Paul and John were hanging out at Paul’s place and George had to ‘literally stand over Paul’ as Paul composed something. I got the feeling reading George’s comment that John was never supposed to be involved in the project. Like, never even invited. And when you think about it… with all due respect to John, what would he even have contributed?!? The thought of John writing a romantic, instrumental film score is about as ludicrous as… Paul putting his genitals on an album cover!
My guess is that Paul mentioned the project to John and John just assumed he was included because they were a team. I doubt they ever explicitly hammered out the details. The fallout seems typical of their communication problems; John feels useless/rejected but rather than confront Paul he buries it and builds up a resentment (i.e. never mentions it to Paul for the rest of his life). Paul assumes John doesn’t want to contribute so he just does the project on his own and is caught by surprise when he finds out (30 years later) that John was hurt by it.
LikeLike
That was my impression too.
The interview I read was slightly different, although same outcome: Paul, in the interview, explained that he asked John if he wanted to participate and John said no; years later, Paul was surprised that John was offended.
We need Erin, aka the Beatles information data bank, to tell us what she knows. 🙂
LikeLike
OK, I found Paul’s version of the story (thanks to amoralto, as usual), from 1995:
LAVERDIERE: [The Family Way soundtrack] was actually the first time you would officially compose outside the Lennon-McCartney tandem.
PAUL: Yes, and you know, it’s funny. That’s true. It’s funny because talking to Yoko recently, you know, you talk about all these things that happen way back in history. It turns out John was not pleased; but I didn’t know ‘til a year ago that he wasn’t pleased. He always told me, “Fine.” ‘Cause he’d been acting in a film – he did a film called How I Won The War – so we started to do little solo thing, just for a change, just for a break, and so I assumed, I asked him, “Is it okay with you?” He said, “Yeah, fine, fine.”
But Yoko told me that he was actually a little bit put off by that, because he hoped probably that I would say Lennon-McCartney will write this together. But to me it seemed a good opportunity to get away of what I did normally. But Yoko just told me apparently John was a little bit hurt about that. Which is sad. But we did actually talk about it. He just never told me at that time. He probably just covered up.
LAVERDIERE: Because that was the first time we could read: music composed by Paul McCartney?
PAUL: Yeah, that’s right. For me it was very interesting, because it allowed me something of my own. You know, like women these days want to get away from their husbands, get a life of their own. It was a bit that. Because with The Beatles, it was a bit like a marriage. It was quite good to just get away do something of my own. I think if I’d known John was disturbed, I would have just asked him to join me. We could have done that.
— Paul McCartney, interview w/ Michel Laverdière. (May 23rd, 1995)
LikeLike
Awesome find, Brit, thanks! (I’m glad my memory wasn’t faulty–you never know, what with my advanced age. 🙂 )
Someone up-thread may have already said this, but I have a hunch that what John wanted was for Paul to say “I need you on this, John, please write it with me”, or something along those lines. That Paul felt perfectly comfortable doing it on his own–he was, after all, asked to do it as an independent song writer, not as part of Lennon/McCartney–must have triggered all kinds of Lennonesque insecurities.
LikeLike
George Martin’s role in the whole Family Way movie is an interesting one.
Evidently he was the one who approached Paul to do the score; I can’t recall if Martin ever mentioned wanting/assuming John would work on it as well, but the implication is that Martin wanted Paul, with or without John. That could have simply been because Martin knew John was going to be shooting the movie and would have less time than Paul, but one wonders, given John’s own feelings of insecurity, what he thought of their producer choosing Paul and not him/both of them for the project. And Martin, of course, had also suggested releasing “Yesterday” (cue John’s countless issues over that song) as a Paul McCartney single. A few years later in “Lennon Remembers,” you have John complaining that Martin was more of a Paul guy.
LikeLike
Interesting. I found this little snippet on Wikipedia regarding the background:
LikeLike
According to Norma Shepherd, Bernard Herrmann’s third wife, Roy Boulting (The Family Way director) asked composer Bernard Herrmann to do The Family Way score and he said ““Don’t have me. Have a young person. You want a composer who is the age and spirit of those two young people in the film.” Then he suggested the name of Paul, not John, just Paul. And he advised Paul how to do it. Source: http://www.bernardherrmann.org
There is more about Paul and Bernard Herrmann relationship here:
https://knightfoundation.org/articles/waiting-for-wuthering-heights-from-facts-from-the-minnesota-opera/
I love beatlebioewview, wonderful read. Saludos desde Buenos Aires!
LikeLike
Thanks for the info, Maria. It adds additional nuance to the discussion about The Family Way vis a vis Paul’s involvement and John’s lack thereof.
LikeLike
Aww, thanks Alex! Glad you enjoyed it. 🙂
“I don’t believe for a minute that he ever wanted to get stuck with Yoko. It just worked out that way when his plan backfired and Paul didn’t fight back like he wanted him to.”
It took me a LONG, LONG time to come around to this conclusion (like only within the past year or so) but at this point I agree! Obviously John committed to Yoko after Paul married Linda. I just suspect that this scenario wasn’t John’s first choice. I think things spiraled out of control VERY quickly.
But this is SO contrary to the official narrative regurgitated by literally EVERY Beatles/Lennon book I grew up with. It’s a radical idea in that it almost requires you to throw out the whole Beatles Story after India and start over from scratch. And it requires the acceptance of something many Beatles/Lennon fans simply find sacrilegious: that Lennon often lied to serve his own agenda. Particularly where his pride was concerned and ESPECIALLY when Paul was the source/cause of that wounded pride.
LikeLike
Hello, I have noticed this video is no longer available. Is there another way to access it?
LikeLike
Not from our blog, unfortunately. Brit may have taken it down or youtube has rendered it inaccessible.
LikeLike
A quick, drive-by comment between changing diapers and naps:
One of the striking elements for me regarding Klein’s version of the Beatles breakup is his emphasis on the closeness and lack of friction within the John/George relationship. It’s something he sells in his Playboy interview, in Apple to the Core, in his trial testimony, etc. He’s even still selling it decades later, telling Mark Lewisohn that the reason “Something” became the A-side is because John wanted George to have that validation and support as the group was disintegrating. (That contradicts what we know of how previous A-sides were chosen, via majority vote among the Beatles and Martin) and Klein portrays it as John championing George.
The John/George relationship is seemingly worse, during the LIB sessions, than the John/Paul relationship, and right at the at crucial moment is when Klein enters the picture. This is speculation on my part, and I want to identify it as such, but I would guess that Klein, once he was ensconced as manager by John and George, emphasized to them that they needed to downplay any conflicts between the two of them over Yoko. My guess is that Klein, after he wooed them, and especially after Paul sued the other three, emphasized that they needed to concentrate on the larger conflict with Paul/The Eastman’s. It was easier for both of them to downplay their conflict regarding Yoko when they had the larger boogeyman of the Eastman’s, but once that boogeyman vanishes after the trial ends, that’s when the issue (which never really went away, but was only put on the backburner) rears its head again, such as in George’s concert for Bangladesh and the argument over Yoko’s participation. You also have John’s dismissive comments regarding George during the St. Regis interviews. That’s also when you see the beginning of the end of George and John’s blind faith in Klein.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This makes so much sense, Erin. But the thing that sticks with me, aside from that, is that George himself didn’t miss an opportunity to diss Paul during interviews and rarely said a word about John. To piggyback on your hypothesis, I think Klein’s persuasive efforts worked because it resonated with George–his resentment and jealousy finally had a socially acceptable outlet.
(p.s. glad to see you around these parts, even in a drive-by. Hope everyone is settling in nicely. 🙂 )
LikeLike
I like your blog…….here is my quick blog on the Beatles
Zulu Delta
LikeLike
Thanks for the link; I’ll check it out. Sorry for the late-ish reply; Life’s been hectic lately.
LikeLike
Is this the book that was legally enjoined from using direct quotes? It seems so. I remember reading it and finding it a revelation after years of thinking Paul spoiled things by getting too “bossy.”
LikeLike
Yes, this is the book. Which is a serious drawback for the book’s authors, and for its readers: how great would it have been to be able to directly contrast the recordings with the interpretation by Sulpy and Schewghardt? Of course, with the Nagra tapes, you can actually do that, but its more difficult.
“I remember reading it and finding it a revelation after years of thinking Paul spoiled things by getting too “bossy.”
That’s certainly one of the key conclusions in the book; it acknowledges he contributed to the tensions, but flat out disputes blaming him alone for the acrimony. Which is a pretty serious reversal from what other secondary sources — Schafner, Norman, Coleman — and even some primary sources (George’s trial testimony) had claimed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The first book I read that pushed against the “bossy Paul” idea was “The Love You Make” tell-all Peter Brown did with Steve Gaines. I mean, not exactly Lewissohn; I’m guessing Karen could drive a yellow sub through some of the research holes in it, but Paul there comes across as more sinned-upon than sinning, done wrong by a quick-to-anger partner with massive insecurity issues. TLYM was a potboiler, though, so it doesn’t carry the same weight as this book did a decade later.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s kind of surprising that Brown’s book pushed against the “Bossy Paul” meme (I’ve never read it, myself), considering how intensely Paul and Linda hated the book. I guess there were other sins in Brown’s narrative that the Macs couldn’t overcome.
LikeLiked by 1 person
My interpretation is that the biggest reason Paul and Linda despised Brown’s book is due to its depiction of Linda. Brown argues that Linda pestered Paul with postcards, letters, etc. after that first meeting in the Bag of Nails, almost harassing him, and implies that Linda was considerably less attractive than Jane. (Brown was definitely someone who appeared to prefer Jane over Linda). He also appears to argue that the reason Paul and Linda worked ,where Paul and Jane did not, is because Linda was more willing to sacrifice her ambitions to be the wife and mother Paul wanted: there’s something from Brown about how “at the bottom of his Irish Catholic heart, Paul wanted a woman to take care of him.” It certainly takes some shots at the “We locked eyes in the Bag of Nails and from that point on it was only a matter of time” simplified version of the Paul/Linda story that they sometimes told.
Having said that, Brown is balanced in that he acknowledges that both Paul and Linda were very devoted parents, putting in the necessary grunt work, and describing them both as loving and attentive, so he’s not just relaying the negative.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ah–gotcha. Thanks for the clarification.
There’s a strong element of truth in that, I think, although I don’t entirely agree with the chauvinistic interpretation Brown may be putting on it. I think the loss of his mother at 14 had a tremendous impact on Paul, particularly since he–as the oldest child in a family of males—bore the lions’ share of responsibility to step up. That he would crave nurturing and caregiving, even as an adult, isn’t unusual.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I agree with that, but note that there’s so much more to what made Linda work with Paul vs. Jane than just nurturing. I think it was a lack of pretense and acceptance on her part that allowed him to feel comfortable being himself around her.
LikeLiked by 1 person
In interviews, Paul always commented on Linda’s lack of make-up, pretense, and mother-earth ways. Even her photography was beautiful in its honesty and simplicity. He loved that about her.
LikeLike
Sulpy et. al. wrote a lengthy intro for the book, describing their methods for theme analysis. They probably also shared this tidbit about their legal restrictions but for some reason I missed it.
Wish I included it in the post; thanks for mentioning it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m a year-plus late; but this is an excellent synopsis and review. I have a lot more insight into the breakup for having read it.
LikeLike
Thank you Benjamin–and you’re never too late to comment. We welcome new readers!
LikeLike
I’m a year or so late but I’ll jump in too. (Sorry if this is a rewrite – I think my first attempt got eaten.)
I read the older Sulpy book, and the thrust is pretty much the same. Here’s hoping the new documentary does a better job of capturing what happened!
I recently read that NME reported John and Paul would be working on The Family Way. Could John have read this and forgotten that Paul had asked him about it? Was he forgetful and/or did he sometimes tune Paul out (like perhaps about buying a puny number of Northern Songs shares)?
It seems like Paul arrived for a scheduled songwriting session with Eleanor Rigby burning a hole in his pocket, not expecting to find a gang there. Was he carelessly insensitive or just clueless in plowing ahead? Was this free-for-all a first, or was John’s problem more specifically that a non-Beatle was included? Did John work on She Said She Said with George in retaliation? Did that have anything to do with the “barney” when Paul walked out of the session? (I have only questions, no answers!)
I’d be surprised if Peter Brown’s book pushed back on “bossy Paul.” Isn’t he the one who said it was an open secret that Paul would go back to the studio and redo parts the other Beatles had recorded? Such nefarious activity seems unlikely – nobody else has said it and it doesn’t show up in session logs – but the claim also seems contrary to pushing back on bossy.
LikeLike
Hi Laura–All good questions, and unfortunately I don’t have any answers but I think Erin and others readers might (so weigh in, guys!) Like you, I also hope that the new release of LIB will be better than the first–certainly, with more context.
What I recall reading about The Family Way was an interview with John, at the time, when he said that he would be working on it with Paul. I thought that John assumed he was working on it with Paul, and Paul assumed he was working on it alone and asked John is he minded and John said no (but he did mind, and didn’t say so until many years later.)
I haven’t read anything about the Eleanor Rigby sessions and find your account fascinating. I think there’s so many misunderstandings which abounded among the band which, in later years, were amplified by the current contentions with Alen Klein, etc.
LikeLike
From what I recall, Laura, the only eyewitness account we have of the group songwriting session on Eleanor Rigby is Pete Shotton’s. I don’t recall whether he specifies that Paul arrived for the express purpose of a songwriting session, but I believe he does emphasize that they were all hanging around when Paul arrived, watching T.V. (including George and Ringo). It was an evening, I think, which would seemingly contrast with what a typical “Lennon/McCartney/Paul drive out to Weybridge late morning/early afternoon for a two hour songwriting session” would typically have been around that time period, at least according to Paul. I don’t think we have indication from Paul specifically that it was a formally scheduled songwriting session. I do recall Pete noting how the Beatles — or at least John — spent a lot of their evenings watching a lot of T.V.
My quick take would be that the idea of the group nature of the songwriting really wouldn’t have seemed to irk John, but the actual reality of it may have. My memory is telling me (I’d double check the source, though) that Pete’s analysis is that John got angry quickly in the session because everyone else was offering good contributions to it, except John. So in that way, perhaps, the reality of the group element of the songwriting ticked him off, whereas initially he was okay with it. John quickly felt outshone by the others, including Pete, and didn’t like it one bit.
Brown specifically claims that Paul would go in and overdub much of Ringo’s drumming; claiming it was an “open secret” at Apple. I can’t recall whether he specifically claims Paul going in and dubbing John or George’s work. However, the reality is that Brown wasn’t in the studio, nor was he, so far as I know, a musician. And that claim of Paul dubbing Ringo’s drumming had a significantly detrimental impact on Ringo’s reputation; it’s still something you see cited in forums and some books, even though Brown personally never witnessed it. I don’t believe any of the Beatles engineers mention Paul doing it for Ringo or any of the others; its a claim I’d treat with hesitancy, esp. given Brown’s contemptuously dismissive portrayal of Ringo in The Love you Make.
LikeLike
This was a very valuable resource when it came out, particularly when the tapes sourced weren’t as widely available. Sulpy updated the book in 2007, and that’s the text I’ve read since then.
In the wake of Get Back via Peter Jackson, it’s clear that Sulpy and Schweighardt did their best without visuals to reach some of their conclusions, as tapes don’t always convey glances, reactions, smirks, etc. I highly recommend the They Might Be Parted blog and Winter Of Discontent podcast for their continual attempts to get as much context as possible to balance these two narratives.
Personally, I think the band would have been better off sticking to playing songs off the White Album for the TV show.
LikeLike
I can’t recall which version of Sulpy and Schweighardt I read: I’d have to look at my bibliography to see whether it was the older or newer edition.
That’s a key point regarding S&S’s (Sorry, I don’t want to type their full names out every time, so they shall heretofore be known as S&S, and if anyone wants to refer to me as ETW, knock yourself out) lack of visual, at least one some of the recordings. I would assume that they watched the visual when it was available, and compared it to the audio tapes, but we know there we many hours they didn’t have that visual to work with. And you’re 1000% right that the visual matters, because when you’re just listening to the audio, you don’t get the glimpses, the half-smiles, the eye contact, etc. Eye contact and visual connection can and is a significant part of how people communicate, and on audio tape that communication/connection isn’t available. People who were as close as the Beatles were can communicate with one another with just a look. I’ve experienced that with my closest friends and my spouse; I imagine almost everyone else reading this has, too.
Not to get too off-Beatles, but one of the best examples I can think of involved myself and the person who’s been one of my two best friends ever since we were twelve. This amazing, resilient, funny, generous person grew up in a house that routinely didn’t have food. Like, any food. Weekends and vacations were the worst, because of lack of school meals. By the time she was a senior in high school, she was routinely eating both breakfast and dinner at my house, because otherwise she wouldn’t have had anything to eat. And one day one of our teachers made a comment in class about how “No one in this room really understands what it’s like to be really, truly hungry.” And my friend and I, across the classroom, simply looked at each other and read each other’s minds: “This woman doesn’t have any idea what she’s talking about. One of her students sitting in her classroom, three rows down, knows precisely how it feels to be that hungry.”
But back to the Beatles: On the audio, you don’t see the look and, therefore, don’t see the communication. And that’s a reason, you could argue, that S&S’s interpretation of the tapes certainly skews more negative.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ll go out on not much of a limb to say that much of what Sulpy has written about the Beatles skews negative. As for the other S, I haven’t come across anything else.
Still, it’s an excellent resource, and one I’ve gone back to many times, especially while watching the Jackson film and listening to the Winter of Discontent podcast.
LikeLike
The Sulpy and Schwighardt book is an valuable resource for sure, especially since we likely will never get a kick at the can to view the unedited tapes.
Thanks for those other blog recommendations. Analyses of the breakup era is a fascinating and inexhausible topic.
LikeLiked by 1 person