John Lennon- Paul Was Right About Allen Klein

You think piano is over Lennon's head? I never got that impression or heard anyone else say that. I'm curious if anyone else feels that way. I agree McCartney has a more musical approach whereas Lennon is more of a instinctual player. And if you wanted people to understand your point, you should check your facts. "That guy" is the guy who gets called out and feels it is unfair to be called out on incorrect facts.

Diamonds, Daisies, Snowflakes,
That Guy
Chestnuts, Rainbows, Springtime...
Is That Guy
He's tinsel on a tree...
He's everything that every guy should be!

Sable, Popcorn, White Wine,
That Guy
Gingham, Bluebirds, Broadway...
Is That Guy
He's mine alone, but luckily for you...
If you find a guy to love,
Only one guy to love,
Then he'll be That Guy too...
That Guy!

Happy Memorial Day!

 

What was the purpose of this interview? If it's time-stamped April 1973, why would he take the time? I know things were different back then when artists actually spoke to the press when they didn't have something to promote, but it just seems like an odd interview.

 

Well then, it was a good thing that Paul never pushed to have Eastman as the group's manager, isn't it? He was only ever suggested as part of a plan whereby he would be the band's legal manager and whereby Klein would be the group's business manager; Paul never suggested him to the other's as a full replacement for Epstein, even when Eastman wasn't yet an in-law, and was merely his then girlfriend's Father. The dual manager situation broke down after a short amount of time due to Klein's behaviour, and then Paul hired Eastman as his personal manager, not the band's.

It is annoying that incorrect information is mentioned so often as if it is correct, especially when Paul only ever asked for people like Lord Beeching to be considered for the role of group manager, not Eastman.

 

Ha! Brilliant.

 

I think the story is that "Ballad of J&Y" only features J&P because George and Ringo were unavailable and in then-typical Lennon fashion, he wanted to record the song now!!! (Or "then!!!", more accurately.

So I never viewed the absence of half the band as ego - it just John's impatience...

 

I always love hearing how during the sessions John shouted to Paul 'play the drums Ringo' and how Paul responded with 'play that guitar George'.

 

True - the absence of the other members isn't, but the song itself is just a tad bit egotistical, in my opinion.

John wanted to record a song about him and Yoko and release it as the Beatles and wanted to do it "now".

Since Paul was willing to help (and it wouldn't happen without Paul), showed that Paul wasn't all about Paul - in my opinion.

 

The big question: if "Ballad" had used a guitar solo, who would've played it?

I'm guessing Paul, as he did more solos...

 

That is a good question; I would guess Paul, but would John wanted to have played the solo on his own song?

 

I think Paul did it because it gave him a chance to just have fun with John and make it feel like the old days.

I also think that Paul would've done pretty much anything to keep the Beatles afloat - if that meant recording a song about J&Y's travels and travails, so be it.

And yes, the lyrics are definitely self-centered - and whiny, too. A beloved superstar and millionaire complaining about how "persecuted" he is?

I like the song a lot and don't really mind the lyrics, but I can't defend them in any substantial way...

 

Could be - or in the interest of expediency, he might've deferred to Paul because Paul was a better lead player and would get it done quicker.

Obviously it's a moot point since there was no solo!

 

I read the book too. All Beatles and Stones fans should read it.

Klein was initially brought in as an outside negotiater. He could have done the same for the Beatles.

Everybody wants a better deal than there competition.

 

The "beloved " is not in real time. Just look at some of the photos where Lennon is having to protect Ono from a jeering mob.

I have no problem with his lyrics (though agree it's personal).

 

Ask Keith and wear a guitarproof helmet.

 

Your take on Brian is certainly harsh, but not without merit. My counter would be that as a manager, Brian was a fantastic promoter, who had a strong sense of loyalty to all his acts (most obviously the hard-to-market Cilla Black) and was uncommonly fair in his dealings. He made money off the band, but also doubled back to make sure the members got a piece of NEMS Enterprises he absolutely did not need to give. The problems he encountered, while often caused by his own failures, cost him money as much as it did anyone else.

A recent ABA Journal cover story spotlights Brian's management of the Beatles, and how it caused problems that sped their eventual dissolution. Even if it as harsh in places as your reading, it's worth a look. Did litigation kill the Beatles? »

 

Yes, indeed.

Earlier, someone posted that any competent manager could have done what Klein did for the Beatles (in '69?). Maybe, but it was BECAUSE of Klein re-writing the band/record label roles, flipping the power structure.

I came away from the book thinking that I couldn't personally deal with such a character, someone who thought lawsuits were all good fun. But it seems Lennon was a much tougher character. When Klein's contract was terminated...the final (mutual) condition was to have dinner together!

 

Not one you can comprehend!

 

And we're discussing age-old business problems of people who are probably eating caviar on their yachts now for the weekend.

 

The industry has changed to much in 50 years that bands and artists that are nowhere near as successful as the Beatles and that most people haven't even heard of are eating caviar on their yachts this weekend.

 

I beg your pardon. McCartney is eating tofu ... on a yacht.

Update on the ribs: They're looking awesome. The key: Bake them 2 hours at low heat (1 hour covered; 1 hour uncovered). Then grill them for 15 min. Perfection!

 

Thanks for that link for the article in the ABA Journal. The most fascinating part of it to me was Klein's attempts to "steal" the ownership of Harrisongs away from George. It seems that George ended up with the most hassles (post-1970) from Klein out of all the Fabs --- problems with the charity monies from the Bangladesh concerts/albums; problems with Harrisongs; problems with "My Sweet Lord" vs "He's So Fine" due to Klein's intervention. John sought of "admired" Klein even after they ended their working relationship, especially as John insisted that they go out to dinner after their court cases were resolved. I think John had to give Klein credit for taking him (John) to the cleaners, while also making him (John) a good amount of money at the same time. But George seems to have been a small fish in Klein's clutches.

 

Or, far more accurately, but perhaps still not 100% accurate as I'm only going from memory:

John: "Go a bit faster Ringo"
Paul: "OK George"

 

Both Epstein and Klein were interested in money and Epstein tried to get them to accept a dubious management contract in the early days (which George, apparently, talked the others out of accepting).

Hst: Epstein WAS interested in music, the theatre and other arts.

Klein was an effective accountant who knew his stuff, but he was also unethical, so the Fabs gained nothing from their association with him but increased aggravation.

Paul was right, and the others acknowledged it.