But You Know It's Not Allowed: A Case for Imagine as a Lennon/McCartney Song
When Paul McCartney decided to include secret messages to John Lennon on Ram ("you took your lucky break and broke it in two" being the type of message he admits to, "I find my love awake and waiting to be / what can be done for you, she's waiting for me" the type he doesn't), he must have known how John would react. This was after Lennon Remembers
( Read more... )
But that's exactly my point. I know the situation was desperate, but it seems like "maybe my bandmates would be uncomfortable being managed by my future in-laws", especially with band already in a band state of relations. The #1 reason that Eastmans were not a good idea of the Beatles wasn't John L.'s personality clash with Lee Eastman, but the fact that they were Paul's in-laws. I wonder if Lee and Paul discussed that at all beforehand, what they said.
BTW, this is what Paul had to say about the situation in the Beatles' Anthology:
I put forward Lee Eastman as a possible lawyer but they said, 'No, he'd be too biased for you and against us.' I could see that, so I asked him, 'If the Beatles wanted you to do this, would you do it?' And he said, 'Yeah, I might, you know.' So I then asked them before I asked Lee Eastman seriously. and they said 'No way - he'd be too biased.' They were right - it was just as well he didn't do it, because it really would have gotten crazy with him in there.'
I'm thinking now that I don't think Paul knew it would get as bad as it did, but I think he knew perfectly well that this move would piss his bandmates off.
I wouldn't be surprised if Paul, on general "John vents what I can't allow myself to feel" principle, would have expected some John-Lee clashes in their further future with a certain degree of anticipation. But that would have been a Klein-less future in which E & E was securely the new management. IMO he definitely didn't expect - and nor did Lee Eastman - the initial John L - John E encounter to go as badly as it did so that Lee had to show up himself in London.
I agree with this. I may have overstated my point - I've noticed in conversations in other fandoms that when I'm talking about characters (or people) having suppressed negative emotions that I sometimes overstate how significant the emotions are. John Lennon was out of control in 1969, and I agree that I don't think Paul thought it would go *that* badly.
ETA: Also, even if relations between the Beatles were good, I have a hard time seeing John, George, and Ringo being OK with being managed by Paul's in-laws. No matter how well-intentioned Paul and said in-laws were. I think everyone would have been better able to communicate about it, but I don't think they would have accepted it.
Reply
Probably not, you're right. I'm trying to think of precedent and parallels, because they did employ a lot of their friends from Liverpool, of course, and nobody had objected to, say, Paul giving Peter Asher a key job at Apple (that survived the Paul/Jane breakup) - but none of them were ever in a position of power over the band, which automatically comes with the management gig. Then again, pre-Brian, management was handled by a wild variety of people, with Alan Williams being the only semi professional to do it, and none of these was treated as an authority. And of course post Brian's death, "we'll manage ourselves" had resulted in de facto Paul being manager (initializing projects except for India, which was George's idea, pushing for recordings etc.) and the rest of them going along with it, not always peacefully, but going along with it. Especially since they had no counter suggestions/ideas for the band's future of their own. (Again, always minus Maharishi & India as the George-initialized Beatles project.) So I could see Paul in 1969, after a year of "well, okay then", believing that while they wouldn't be thrilled to hear his idea for their fixer/new management would be his new in-laws, John, George and Ringo would go along with this as well.
BTW, not unrelated but another aspect: he must have been aware what this meant re: his relationship with Linda, too, which amounted to a massive commitment on an unprecedented (in terms of his relationships with women) scale. Because once he'd made her father and brother his managers, a divorce, while not impossible, would have been hard and awkward to accomplish, and would likely have resulted in him being taken to the cleaners, as the expression goes. This from a man whose previous track record with women was anything but confidence inspiring, and whose few romantic long term relationships (Jane Asher, Maggie McGivern) had run parallel with each other, something Linda had made clear she wouldn't go for. So I wonder whether that insisting on the Eastmans wasn't Paul's version of John's "it's just you now" gesture to Yoko, a kind of "this is real, I am willing to put all on the idea that we're going to make it as man and wife" demonstration.
Reply
Paul's decision to try to get the others to accept his in-laws actually reminds of the whole betting busted for pot in Japan. I mean, really, what was he thinking? But maybe Paul isn't always making these decisions on a conscious level? John thought that might be the case, about Paul's public announcements at convenient moments:
John: Do you remember if Paul's statement on acid came out after Sergeant Pepper?
Q: Just as it was released.
John: I see. He always times his big announcements right on the letter, doesn't he. Like leaving the Beatles. Maybe it's instinctive. It probably is.
If John Lennon couldn't be certain as to whether Paul McCartney made decisions based on conscious thought or instinctively, I'm probably not going to be able to have much luck.
Paul and Linda happened really fast. As John once grumbled, And the next minute she's married him. And yeah, taking on her family as managers was a huge commitment. Which just added to all the complicated emotional drama going on.
Reply
The pot busts (not just but especially the Japan one; you could throw the other 1970s one as well) are more evidence of not thinking at all. Or, more seriously: of the hubris that comes with having been a global superstar for (by then) almost two decades. I mean, of course there are far worse examples - people who shall remain Keith Richards snorted away thousands of dollars with the cops standing by because He's A Rebel, You Know - but Paul is by no means immune to the syndrome. Whereas he evidently did think about the management question, he just didn't come to the right (and yes, likely, I admit) conclusion.
Re: John's statement, he is being a bit less than thruthful, there, considering that he himself did test the waters with the "the Beatles are no more" news before Paul did, and no, I don't mean the "I want a divorce" private scene at Apple - I mean he did when later journalist Ray Connolly, while he and Yoko were in Toronto. Connolly sat on the announcement because John had said it was confidential, and John was incensed post Paul's McCartney release self interview ("But you told me not to!" "you're the bloody journalist", according to Connolly, was how the dialogue went).
Mind you, in general my guess is most of both of their decisions in the 60s were done on instinct (of which PR instinct certainly was one aspect) and, let's not forget, in a druggy haze. It's periodically worth remembering we're talking about two people who consumed A LOT of drugs in those key years. I remember one fan observing with black amusement that their most dangerous drugs of choice were also telling and eye roll worthy - John tries heroin because that's just what a naturally lethargic guy already paranoid and introspective needs, and Paul takes coke because clearly, that's just the thing for someone who is already a hyper workoholic with bossy tendencies. And before that, LSD for John that (according to John) almost destroyed his ego and sense of self), and through it all and for decades more, lots and lots of marihuana for Paul.
Tangentially related, something you brought up in your original post, that John in none of his rants ever went after Paul for Apple in general, despite it having been Paul's baby. I think that probably did fall under their code of publically supporting each other in these matters - see none of the gang critisizing John for "bigger than Jesus" (and ensuing disasters), Paul (in public at least, no matter how much they grumbled privately) for "I've taken LSD three times", and while John ranted about the Maharishi once he was disenchanted, he didn't say at any point "why did George have to drag us to the guy in the first place?"; and then there's Paul going with John and Yoko to Sir Joe to get "Two Virgins" released even though he was less than thrilled with that record himself. (You know, the "if it's art, why don't you put Paul on the cover instead? You two aren't very attractive" Sir Joe from EMI.) And providing John with the "When two saints meet" quote, for that matter.
(I suspect that event Michael Lindsay-Hogg describes in his memoirs, of John playing the recording of him and Yoko having sex to the rest of the gang plus their harrassed director, Ringo and George staying silent, non-plussed, and Paul finally saying "well, that's...interesting", but none of them making a critical comment, probably also still fell under that category. Whether or not MLH is correct in the interpretation of this being John's way of saying "this is where I am now, with her, I don't want to hold your hand anymore".)
Reply
I don't think John quite meant it when he told Paul he wanted a "divorce". The Beatles were ending in many ways, but I also suspect John was testing Paul's Oh! Darling claim that he wouldn't be able to make it without John. You can't live without me? Fine, I want a DIVORCE just like my DIVORCE from my wife CYNTHIA.
When Paul announced the break-up the way he did John's first thought was probably that he had been wrong: Oh! Darling and The Long and Winding Road and all those songs had not been autobiographical after all. The musical communication he had though had been going on had not been. And then Ram came out, where Paul seemed to be saying that he had been devastated, and "I guess you never saw, dear boy, that love was there", and Linda saved his life.
Speaking of Linda - As you said before, taking on the Eastmans was a huge gesture of trust in Linda. I wonder if that was part of the problem for John. Especially since Paul seemed more trusting of the Eastmans than of Yoko. I mean, in Paul's defense, John brought Yoko into the studio in an aggressive way designed to push Paul's buttons. But there still might have been resentment on John's part that Paul trusted the Eastmans so thoroughly and not Yoko.
I actually think John really wanted to accept the Eastmans. "All I want is you / everything has got to be just like you want to do", right? But accepting Paul's in-laws was too much. And I think that's part of why John was so vicious towards the Eastmans. John had a history of taking out his anger at himself for how he treated someone on the person whom he had mistreated ("I hate your fucking laugh", to Julian, being one of the most horrifying examples).
Reply
No to the former, and that's very possible for the later. This keeping a foot in the door thing strikes me as fairly typical for John. As long as it wasn't public, after all, he could always change his mind, and so could everyone else. (I would say that George for one wasn't likely to, but in Chris O'Dell's memoirs, she writes that when he got the news about Paul's interview/release, he went into the garden and wanted to be alone, and that it appeared to be quite a blow - George, who you'd think would have said "at last" at least on some level.) Incidentally, when they stopped touring it's worth noting that Paul was the last hold out but once he said he didn't want to tour anymore, either, suddenly that was that. It had become real. Perhaps this was the pattern - the curtain didn't fall until Paul let it fall, no matter how much the other three before that point had said they wanted it to.
As you said before, taking on the Eastmans was a huge gesture of trust in Linda. I wonder if that was part of the problem for John. Especially since Paul seemed more trusting of the Eastmans than of Yoko.
Also, Paul was willing to actually make behavioral changes for Linda. Not just in terms of new monogamy - nobody could have known whether or not that would last beyond the initial falling in love period. But in terms of life style. In the St. Regis interview, John sounds both hurt and bewildered when saying Paul said during their last phone conversation he doesn't like cities anymore and loves staying in Scotland. This from a man whose emotional reaction to John's "let's all move to a Greek island" idea, according to Marianne Faithfull, had been "hell no!" (and even if he'd been careful not to say as much to John, John probably felt that Paul was lukewarm at best). Basically, Paul was willing to do the hermit in the wilderness thing for Linda, the new arrival, but hadn't been willing to it for John after their years together. (And again, if John felt that way it wasn't all overblown - I think the fact Paul hasn't been back in Scotland after Linda's death argues that it was more for her and he's generally more the city type.) (I'm also reminded of one of Jane Asher's few recorded statements during their relationship - that Paul was different and behaving differently towards her when with John. If he did the reverse - being different when with Linda while John was present - as opposed to his behavior with Jane - that was another big shift.)
Of course, John was willing to make major changes for Yoko, on all levels, going from "avantgarde is French for bullshit" to "yay performance art!", and living in symbiosis until their big crisis that precipitated his Lost Weekend. But it's always different if the other party is doing it, etc.
Just speculating, though: what WOULD have been John's ideal way for Paul to respond to the "DIVORCE!" announcement? What would have been the proof that Paul couldn't live without him? Accepting Allen Klein as manager and ditching the Eastmans, presumably?
Reply
I've always found this bit from Lennon Remembers telling:
WENNER: You said you quit the Beatles first.
LENNON: Yes.
WENNER: How?
LENNON: I said to Paul “I’m leaving.”
John quit the Beatles by telling Paul he quit the Beatles. He told a lot of other people, too, but it was telling Paul that minute it was real. I believe Peter Doggett determined that George wasn't even at the meeting. It was telling Paul that made it significant.
Point about Linda and Scotland. That's an an interesting idea, that Paul would have behaved differently around John when she was there. Quite plausible, since John seems to have done the same thing with Yoko. I do find it interesting that John in the St. Regis Hotel interview made a comment about how they all got along with Linda. Pretty high praise from John in 1971, I would say.
Just speculating, though: what WOULD have been John's ideal way for Paul to respond to the "DIVORCE!" announcement? What would have been the proof that Paul couldn't live without him? Accepting Allen Klein as manager and ditching the Eastmans, presumably?
Hmm. Interesting thought. It would definitely have had to involve some kind of concessions on Paul's part. Probably involve Paul admitting that he was wrong about something, ha. Maybe also a confession of love more straight-forward than a song? I actually think John was more willing to flex on the manager thing than he appeared on the surface, but be the time he told Paul he was quitting he had signed with Klein and his relationship with the Eastmans was at subzero temperatures...I' m not sure how they would handled the manager issue. It might not have been solvable at that point.
Reply
Indeed he did. I hope Ringo told him what went on, otherwise ensuing events must have been even more confusing for George than they were already. Then again, John told the world in "Lennon Remembers", so he did find out then at the latest.
I do find it interesting that John in the St. Regis Hotel interview made a comment about how they all got along with Linda. Pretty high praise from John in 1971, I would say.
True. Some of it was probably because of that awful sexist cliché that was making the rounds then that the entire Beatles collapse was due to a Linda/Yoko feud, and he was eager to set things straight. (Isn't there even a Mimi interview from 1970 where she says it must have been all because of Yoko and Linda?) But I also think John meant it in that he found Linda herself unobjectionable and even good company. Her getting along with as many rock stars as she did as a photographer wasn't solely because some of them had sex with her. I mean, if Barry Miles speaks true, the woman even managed to get Allen Ginsberg relaxing into a chat with her about New York memories when he visited the McCartneys. And Twiggy in the National Portrait Gallery exhibition catalogue about her names Linda as her favourite photographer precisely because she managed to be good company and yet create photos that truly captured something about you. The one "Linda was awful!" voice from the inner Beatles circle around that time remains Alistair Taylor, and poor Alistair was reeling from the twin blows of Paul not standing up to Klein for him when Klein fired him and not talking to him thereafte. Well, none of the Beatles did, they truly all were terrible with these situations, see also Pete Best, but as Alistair was closest to Paul before the event, it was Paul's betrayal that cut worst. Blamingthe new girl for at least some of this is alas not an unusual deflection tactic.
It would definitely have had to involve some kind of concessions on Paul's part. Probably involve Paul admitting that he was wrong about something, ha.
I do suspect it would have gone thusly:
P: John, I've changed my mind. Allen Klein may be a mean son of a bitch, but that contract with Capitol he negotiated is truly something. You were right, and I was wrong. He'll be a great manager for us!
J: Is this a trick?
P: Also, I'd like to ask Yoko to help me out with my first solo LP. Have her input to make it more experimental.
J: Are you ill? You are NOT DOING A SOLO ALBUM WITH YOKO!
P: Relax, mate. You know I love you, right?
J: That's it. Those freaks were right when they said you was dead. Who are you, impostor? I want the old Paul back!
Reply
It was a very important moment for John and Paul - not so much for George.
It's struck me from interviews I've seen of Linda that she does have a certain type of charisma. It's not surprising people liked her. It's just - John liking her is not something you would think about. It's not surprising, it's just odd.
(I mean, he was her favorite Beatle. That's got to count for something.)
Ha ha, may well have gone like that.
It occurs to me that one reason why Yoko's relationship with John was a success, while Cynthia and Paul not so much, was that she didn't take John's paranoia personally. I think both Cynthia and Paul, in their different ways, thought that if they showed John they were trustworthy he would trust them. Cynthia stayed by his side and tolerated mistreatment, thinking he would soften. Instead he abused her and abandoned and was still incredibly paranoid about her. Paul didn't let John's issues run the game, but I think he took it very, very personally when John expressed paranoia towards her. They were supposed to be mates, after all, so when John was suspicious of him, afraid that he would take Yoko or only cared about himself, he took it personally. Yoko was more realistic: probably because, as a paranoid person herself, she understood the mindset. John's paranoia was, at the end of the day, about John's paranoia: Not Cynthia, Paul, or Yoko.
Reply
Leave a comment