Rare Lennon interview who wrote what ? Lennon and McCartney

There was a semi pretence that all Lennon McCartney songs were joint compositions, it wasn't exactly a secret that they wrote separately but it would often be at least downplayed, Mal or Beatles monthly may have just been adhering to this unwritten convention.....

 

he could be " lazy " but he was also impulsive too....

 

just like most people

 

too right !

 

To quote Paul from "Little Lamb Dragonfly" (1973):

How Did Two Rights Make A Wrong?

John + Paul = Two Rights

Arnie

 

Not to mention Ballad of John and Yoko. That's four Lennon A-sides released in just over eight months, and if it was up to him What's The New Mary Jane/You Know My Name would've been released in there also.

 

thank goodness it wasn't ...its as bad as releasing mary had a little lamb....

 

I never said that he didn't want to record a single immediately... I said, in my opinion, he didn't offer it to the others. I think he asked Eric and Klaus because they just played with him in Toronto (and he was mixing the live tracks that day)... and then asked Ringo because he was around. That's it. If John wanted to record Cold Turkey with the Beatles immediately, why did he wait almost a month after writing it. And again, when and how did he offer it "them?" Before the contemptuous Apple meetings when he announced he was leaving the group? Before going to Toronto? The time line is mighty short for such an opportunity. Ron

PS You're correct about the Holidays... but Revolution #1 was completed before they left and I'm guessing none of them thought that John wanted Revolution #9 to be a singles track.

 

No offense, but it sure looks like that's exactly what you said Ron. That's what been so hard to understand. You have mentioned twice that you don't think John wanted to record and release a single immediately, in spite of the obviously verifiable fact that that is exactly what he did. That doesn't make any sense.

Regarding when he offered "Cold Turkey" to the Beatles: Unless I am missing something it seems you believe all four Beatles needed to be in the same room at the same time for John to bring the song up. Consider this : George hears the song at Tittenhurst and helps with a demo. John mentions to him how excited he is about the song and he thinks it might be a great Beatles single. George says nothing at that point. At ANY point later in the next few days or couple of weeks George talks to Paul somewhere and says "Gee, John is really hot to trot for US to release his new song about ...heroin withdrawal, what's your take on this Paul? The other three are smart enough to realize that a heroin song is commercial death, and they may even wonder if John is testing them out, vacillating between staying in the band and leaving the band. Band politics. "Something/ "Come Together" is coming out anyway, so the three have an out : "Um, sorry John, we don't need a new single now, maybe let's wait until we need something."

 

Do you mean why did he wait almost a month before recording it with Eric/Klaus/Ringo? Because he wasn't able to record it even sooner with his regular band.

Yes, one of those times.

It was completed June 21, while Paul was out of the country.

 

What puzzles me about all this is why you think your opinion carries more weight than the direct testimony of people who were involved (Lennon and Peter Brown). Particularly since (as I've noted repeatedly) your opinion is not based on a single bit of evidence.

If there are conflicting reports about an event, then yes, a historian has to look to external evidence, and examine the credibility of witnesses, and perhaps even resort to speculative opinion to try to best determine what happened. But in this case, there are no conflicting reports. There is no evidence that contradicts or disproves what Lennon said. Arbitrarily dismissing Lennon's account for no reason is quite frankly, a very silly thing to do.

To put it another way, McCartney is talking to you here, Ron:
So many times, I will have people tell me what I did when I was younger. There's so much being written [about] the early Beatles period, and even pre-Beatles period. And people will say, "Oh, he did that because that, and that happened because of that." And I'll be reading and think, "Well, that didn't happen" and, "That's not why I did that." Like anyone's history, you remember what went down better than people who weren't there. So I started off with this song — just a nostalgic trip, really. I was remembering John and I in Liverpool as young boys, walking down the street, dressed in black, guitars slung across our backs, trying to get people to listen to our music. Or we'd be in the record shop, listening to new records. All these experiences were in the song. And then I got to the last verse and I thought, "That's all very well, me telling everyone how all this went down, but there are a lot of people who are going to say, 'Well, no — I know what really happened.' "

Offering the song to the others is something that could be accomplished in three five-minute phone calls. We know the song was written by September 1st, and that he quit the band on the 20th. It certainly would not be difficult to squeeze in a few phone calls in a 20-day period, or quickly discuss the matter at one of their face-to-face meetings. Twenty days is not a short time line.

 

I always wished there was more of a "middle 8" in Come and Get It. Maybe I would have gotten it that way!

 

^^^Speaking of "Come And Get It":

On September 18, 1969, during the week of those infamous Apple business meetings, Paul was indeed in the recording studio, helping to coproduce and play piano on Badfinger's "Rock of All Ages".

Just adding more dates to the September 1969 timeline....

Arnie

 

Yikes you guys are a tough crowd. I don't think MY OPINION carries more weight, or somehow is more truthful than John's remarks. Honest, I don't. However, it IS my opinion and I think I can pretty well say whatever I want regarding the matter. My take. John never offered the song to the Beatles.... and THEY didn't turn him down. I don't think he ever said anything to the group as a whole... and I doubt he ever mentioned it to Paul (who has never commented on the matter). Did he place a phone call to one or all of them? Sure, he may have. Is it possible that he did so in a drug-induced state? Yea... it surely is possible. I don't think a few comments from John months later indicates much, or proves anything either. John was boastful at times. He was also prone to hyperbole and exaggeration.... as we all are. My posts are not intended to sway fellow forum members that I'm right and John was telling a fib. I do feel that my point of view is fair and not intended to be the final word on the subject matter. Ron

 

And a great rocker it is too!

 

And why was that?
1. Because he went to Toronto with his new band.
2. The band was going through tortuous meetings regarding Apple and their future as a band.
3. Paul was in the studio with Badfinger.
4. George's mom was dying of cancer.
5. Ringo was hospitalized for 4 days.

 

I, for one, am glad that The Beatles did not record Cold Turkey, regardless of whether John offered it to them or not (and I am firmly in the not camp).
While perhaps the Beatle magic could have transformed the song, most likely it would have been a very sub-par song and a really lousy way for the group to go out with a last "real" single (since Let It Be & L&WR were not fresh singles, but had been in the can for more than a year.) Cold Turkey wasn't even a good song for the POB, surely not even close to Instant Karma.
As it was, Something was a great single and finally gave George his due. Even Lennon said so. And Come Together proved the Beatles could still rock.

 

i know how you feel Ron, as far as I am concerned he may have offered it or maybe what he meant was that he just was prepared to offer it but knew there was not chance for them all to work on it in the timeframe he wanted so he did it in his own way, who knows. We all have to be careful about taking things too literally, people say things that either may not be totally true or they may be true as they perceive them or they get twisted in the quotation process ( if it is not available on tape ). Written interviews as such should NEVER be taken too literally. So whats the truth ? Paul may be the only one who can tell us for sure...assuming he remembers, otherwise it is a best guess for us all and none of us can be certain. And for those that say well he/she said that so it must be true, all i am saying there must always be an element of doubt, beware the arrogance of certainty

 

Hey, don't forget Ringo!!! He's not dead yet, and he did after all play on the song. He might have something left in his brain that could prove to be helpful. Of course, I know Ringo won't sign autographs, but does he answer nicely written questions?

Arnie

 

Hence "they weren't ready to record a single."

 

Regarding "Cold Turkey", it would be nice to see some quotes from Paul, George or Ringo stating that John previewed or even mentioned the song to them at the time.

 

But there is no middle eight in "What Goes On"!

 

I'm not saying it must be true because Lennon said it. I'm just saying that it's likely true because Lennon said it AND because there is no evidence that it's not true.

Certainly people lie or misremember things, and we shouldn't automatically take recollections at face value. But conversely, we shouldn't dismiss something that someone says without any good reason, should we? To those of you who don't think he offered the song to the Beatles: what are you basing this speculation on? If you are going to dismiss Lennon's story, shouldn't you have a better reason for doing so than "I've read a lot about John Lennon and I just don't think he would do that, based on what I know about him"?

Lennon said it happened. It realistically could have happened within the time frame. And there are certainly plausible reasons why the Beatles would not have wanted to record that song and release it as a single at the time. It's not like Lennon's story is outlandish or unbelievable or requires the other Beatles to behave wildly out-of-character. I don't see what basis there is to reject Lennon's story. And as I've noted repeatedly, there is no evidence that he was lying or misremembering, either.

 

You are entitled to your opinion. I'm just pointing out that your opinion is not based on any evidence, and in fact contradicts the available evidence.

 

That would explain Ringo's contribution...........NONE!