John wasn't forced to give up leadership...he had a time when the group apparently meant nothing to him and all that was important was Yoko (and his drugs). He neclegted the band and that is when Paul tried to hold it all together. He was a bit too bossy maybe, but there was no alternative to his actions. Unfortunately today this is hold against him....that he took over and kicked the leader because of his immense ego. Which is definitely not true...all he wanted to do was to save the band.
I can't remember Geo explicit saying something about the leadership, all I know is that Geo and Paul had some arguments when Paul told him that he has to play some song in a different way. That is when Geo maybe told him that he isn't the leader (and I remember that this was in the film "Living in the material world")...and left the band for a short time. Just like Ringo, who also said that he had some problems at that time. I remember that it was during the filming of Let it be.
Agreed re: John, just a few additions about the others:
Ringo left during the White Album, not Let It Be. As for the George-Paul argument that made it both on Let It Be the film and into Living in the Material World, what George says in it is:
Look, I'll play whatever you want me to play, or I won't play at all. Whatever it is that'll please you, I'll do it!Then came the lunch break, at which point George said "see you around the clubs" and left. (Followed by the "We'll get Clapton" conversation between John and Michael Lindsay-Hogg that's on YouTube somewhere, with Yoko vocalizing "John, John" in the background and Paul playing "Martha my Dear" on the piano. There was a (not taped) meeting at George's house during that weekend, during reportedly George and John almost came to blows, but the problem is that while the taped conversations between the Beatles the next week make some allusions to this, George and John in public later denied it had happened, so you have conflicting testimony on that, as opposed to the George-Paul
( ... )
Ah, right, mixed that up. Ringo talked about that in Living in the Material World and I just remembered what he said....that he went around and got a similar question from everyone...and then he left.
There was a (not taped) meeting at George's house during that weekend, during reportedly George and John almost came to blows,
this bit of beatles history has always confused me. their are so many variations to it. i hadn't heard about the incident happening untaped at george's house until you posted about it in this thread. the one i've always heard was that george hit john in the studio, but if that were the case wouldn't their be film of it? or at least one person who had been their and witnessed it to speak up about what they saw? what i want to know is did george actually hit john and did john hit him back? i know some things will just never know. i find the different theories interesting. it's like a game of 'telephone'.
While I liked much of the article, that statement annoyed the hell out of me on several counts.
1.) To start with the last: "forced" nothing. First of all, John's increasing drug intake and decreasing input was John's choice; secondly, if anything, Paul kept badgering him to do more, not less in the band. Because I like to back assertions up with quotes: In "John Lennon: One Day at a Time", Anthony Fawcett (used to be John's P.A. before May) quotes a taped conversation between John and Paul in September 1969, just before John left the group:
JOHN: 'You'd come up with a 'Magical Mystery Tour'. I didn't write any of that except 'Walrus'; I'd accept it and you'd already have five or six songs, so I'd think, 'Fuck it, I can't keep up with that.' So I didn't bother, you know? And I thought I don't really care whether I was on or not, I convinced myself it didn't matter, and so for a period if you didn't invite me to be on an album personally, if you three didn't say, 'Write some more 'cause we like your work', I wasn't going to
( ... )
Thanks for backing everything up with quotes. Recently I had some debate with a stubborn young fan who insisted on Paul being a selfish prick who ursuped the leadership. These quotes would have come in handy....if she would have listened to me anyway. Unfortunately many especially very young fans start to blame it on Paul....when the only thing he had in mind was to save the band. Without him we would have lost them earlier.
I find direct quotes to back up claims work at least with some of the people, though unfortunately, as you say, not with those so set in their opinions that they won't listen anyway. Incidentally, "Living in the Material World" contains another great (and funny) quote I could have used, this one from Ringo, about how he has this image of them lazing in the sun in the suburbs and Paul inevitably calling to suggest a new project (be it a new record, film, Apple...) "because he is a workoholic!" Said with affection and accuracy.
The irony is that if you ask the same fans whether they'd rather not have had the Beatles records from Pepper onwards, I dare say they would deny this. And if Paul hadn't initialized all those records, they would not exist.
Ah, and another John quote that comes to mind is the one where he explains the "the Walrus was Paul" line from Glass Onion: "
That's me, just doing a throwaway song, à la Walrus, à la everything I've ever written. I threw the line in, 'the walrus was Paul', just to confuse everybody a bit
( ... )
the article did feel 'off' to me on many of the points it made, but i couldn't be entirely sure. thanks for providing a great deal of information. it seems that the writer of this piece based their article more off of what they felt as oppposed to the facts of the situation.
In the Anthology, George was this to say about Magical Mystery Tour: This is where Paul felt somebody had to try to do something, and so he decided he'd push what he felt. As for me, I didn't really belong; I was just an appendage[...]In one respect Magical Mystery Tour was probably quite good, because it got us doing something; it got us out and got us together.
George complained a lot about Paul being too controlling of how George played his instrument, but not about Paul taking leadership away from John.
In interviews during the touring years, the Beatles would sometimes say that John was the leader, and sometimes say they had no leader. Paul as late as 1984 describes John as having been "very much the leader", and George as late as the Anthology says that John "is still the leader now, probably". So John was always the "titular leader", but he was never the sole leader of the group on a practical level after Paul joined.
John said in 1970: I had a group, I was the singer and the leader; I met Paul and I made a decision whether
( ... )
Comments 10
I can't remember Geo explicit saying something about the leadership, all I know is that Geo and Paul had some arguments when Paul told him that he has to play some song in a different way. That is when Geo maybe told him that he isn't the leader (and I remember that this was in the film "Living in the material world")...and left the band for a short time. Just like Ringo, who also said that he had some problems at that time. I remember that it was during the filming of Let it be.
Astrid
Reply
Ringo left during the White Album, not Let It Be. As for the George-Paul argument that made it both on Let It Be the film and into Living in the Material World, what George says in it is:
Look, I'll play whatever you want me to play, or I won't play at all. Whatever it is that'll please you, I'll do it!Then came the lunch break, at which point George said "see you around the clubs" and left. (Followed by the "We'll get Clapton" conversation between John and Michael Lindsay-Hogg that's on YouTube somewhere, with Yoko vocalizing "John, John" in the background and Paul playing "Martha my Dear" on the piano. There was a (not taped) meeting at George's house during that weekend, during reportedly George and John almost came to blows, but the problem is that while the taped conversations between the Beatles the next week make some allusions to this, George and John in public later denied it had happened, so you have conflicting testimony on that, as opposed to the George-Paul ( ... )
Reply
Astrid
Reply
this bit of beatles history has always confused me. their are so many variations to it. i hadn't heard about the incident happening untaped at george's house until you posted about it in this thread. the one i've always heard was that george hit john in the studio, but if that were the case wouldn't their be film of it? or at least one person who had been their and witnessed it to speak up about what they saw? what i want to know is did george actually hit john and did john hit him back? i know some things will just never know. i find the different theories interesting. it's like a game of 'telephone'.
Reply
1.) To start with the last: "forced" nothing. First of all, John's increasing drug intake and decreasing input was John's choice; secondly, if anything, Paul kept badgering him to do more, not less in the band. Because I like to back assertions up with quotes: In "John Lennon: One Day at a Time", Anthony Fawcett (used to be John's P.A. before May) quotes a taped conversation between John and Paul in September 1969, just before John left the group:
JOHN: 'You'd come up with a 'Magical Mystery Tour'. I didn't write any of that except 'Walrus'; I'd accept it and you'd already have five or six songs, so I'd think, 'Fuck it, I can't keep up with that.' So I didn't bother, you know? And I thought I don't really care whether I was on or not, I convinced myself it didn't matter, and so for a period if you didn't invite me to be on an album personally, if you three didn't say, 'Write some more 'cause we like your work', I wasn't going to ( ... )
Reply
Unfortunately many especially very young fans start to blame it on Paul....when the only thing he had in mind was to save the band. Without him we would have lost them earlier.
Astrid
Reply
The irony is that if you ask the same fans whether they'd rather not have had the Beatles records from Pepper onwards, I dare say they would deny this. And if Paul hadn't initialized all those records, they would not exist.
Ah, and another John quote that comes to mind is the one where he explains the "the Walrus was Paul" line from Glass Onion: "
That's me, just doing a throwaway song, à la Walrus, à la everything I've ever written. I threw the line in, 'the walrus was Paul', just to confuse everybody a bit ( ... )
Reply
Reply
George complained a lot about Paul being too controlling of how George played his instrument, but not about Paul taking leadership away from John.
In interviews during the touring years, the Beatles would sometimes say that John was the leader, and sometimes say they had no leader. Paul as late as 1984 describes John as having been "very much the leader", and George as late as the Anthology says that John "is still the leader now, probably". So John was always the "titular leader", but he was never the sole leader of the group on a practical level after Paul joined.
John said in 1970: I had a group, I was the singer and the leader; I met Paul and I made a decision whether ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment