I agree. There's a lot of anger or frustration in some of Paul's early songs that I suspect was born out of the breakup of the band. This is a great example. Not so widely known is John's comment on the 69 Christmas fan club record where he talks about his "beast friends." He actually admitted (Lennon Remembers?) that this was a wink and a nod to what was happening to the band, but it was hidden in his Lewis Carroll gobbledygook on a fan club disc. As we all know, John would get much more direct very soon.
Yes, subtle meanings in the later Christmas Records. This was from Nov 1968: (J) : Once upon a time, there were two balloons called Jock and Yono. They were strictly in love, bound to happpen in a mllion years. They were together man. Unfortunate timetable, they seemed to have previous experience which lept calling them one way or another. You know how it is. But they battled on against overwhelming oddities, including some of their beast friends. Being in love, they clung together even more man. But some of the poisonous monsters' outdated boss, lordy ape claws did stick slightly, and they occasionally had to resort to the dry cleaners. Luckily, this did not kill them and they weren't banned form the Olympic Games. They lived hopefully ever after and who could blame them. (J) : Once upon a pool table there lived a short-haired butcher's boy by the way of Ostergrad. It comes in scented cesspool or be careful. Her father was in a long story cut short in the middle of this life sentence. We're indebted to the colloquial office fot its immediate disposal of her honorwitz, including, I might add, half a fell of her twotem. On the other handbag, I mean to say l'amoure ne soome tu joures realistic, strictly speaking. For this film is about an hourglass houseboat. The full meaning of Winchester Cathedral defies description. Their loss was our Gainsborough nil.
Might've been the exception to the general rule...and I loathe how he's lionized, based on his later years!!!
I think the line is deliberately ambiguous. It is inconceivable that in 1970 John wrote a song referring to “Paul” and didn’t contemplate that people would immediately think he was referring to Paul McCartney. I don’t think we need to find an interview where John says that to take it to be the case.
I believe John’s “Jesus to Paul” was in direct reference to his songwriting partner who took over as band manager (or so it seemed) after Brian Epstein had died. I remember John explaining said lyrics but cannot find the quote.
My two pence (basically summing up what others said here before): Yes, I think "from Jesus to Paul" was a clever ambiguity: Jesus to (either apostle or current pope) Paul could refer to the founder (he was alright) and to the disciples (thick and ordinary). Two sides of religion in simple terms: good ideas, bad execution Jesus to (Beatle) Paul: itself ambigious - Paul as a synonym for Beatlemania that had religious undertones - Paul as a synonym for the Beatles themselves, being their most public "face" in PR terms - Paul as the one who believed (!) and tried to maintain the Beatles the longest and strongest - Paul as the internal driving force / dictator of the Beatles, head of the church if you like - and last but not least: old estranged friend Paul, who once meant a lot to John but now he has to / wants to do without him Let`s not forget Johns search for meaning / leadership / father figures etc. that lead him through so many phases and figures. "I found out" has a lot in common with "God".
I agree the criticism (not necessarily bashing) in more or less hidden in lyrics did indeed start earlier, probably with Pauls contribution to Let it be / Abbey Road. I do NOT think Ringos "Early 1970" is bashing at all. While it refers to his fellow Beatles it does so in a hopeful way that they all stay friends with him. He is not sure wether Paul will though.
I guess when an artist is mining their life for inspiration there will always be references to situations they are currently experiencing- and where does it end? I’ve read some people think “And Your Bird Can Sing” is a dig at Paul, I don’t necessarily agree though! Even if You Never Give Me Your Money is about the band and not solely Klein, I don’t think it’s a cruel song- I mean, “I never give you my pillow, I only send you my invitation, and in the middle of the celebration, I break down”? (Technically carry that weight but still...) Sounds like an acknowledgement of the estrangement between them and perhaps an olive branch? Maybe I’m too easy on Paul because I like him so much, I don’t know. I do know they all could have probably benefited from group therapy or at least some neutral mediation!
From what I remember, this text was also included in the calendar that was included in the "Live Peace in Toronto" album. Regrettably, mine has long ago disappeared but maybe someone here could take a look at theirs.
I am HEARING exactly what he's 'laying down, man...'.. Please spare me the pontificating, will you?----not coincidentally, makes you sound the the man himself at his worst!?!?!?!?!
Well, here’s a serious question then. Why are you a Beatle fan, but dislike John solo? It doesn’t make much sense to me. His art from about ‘65 or ‘66 on is pretty much totally infused with his political and personal viewpoint. It’s not like what he was saying in 1980 was that much different than what he was saying in ‘69, except he had left the Beatles and a lot of the music machine behind, such that his arguments with Paul in ‘69 were no longer relevant in 1980. It’s practically a direct line from “Watching the Wheels” to EVERYTHING John had done as a Beatle, including: arguing with Paul in ‘69; then trying to reverse breaking up the Beatles; then getting outright vicious toward his former bandmates; and finally letting it go. Also, there’s not any real contradiction between what he was singing about and what he talked about. They were practically one and the same. He was real. As he said, he “just had to let it go.” Again, my question to you is, why are you a Beatle fan, but dislike John solo?
You can be a Beatles fan and not like solo John ( or Paul or George or Ringo). This 'dislike (John) solo' argument doesnt work. Beatles music is not the same as solo works.
Man, this place. There was some bitterness between the members of the Beatles around the time of the breakup. That was almost 50 freaking years ago. John and Paul put it aside within a couple of years and moved on. Why keep this fight alive?
John actually did go on record regarding the "Jesus to Paul" line. When challenged by radio personality Howard Smith (December 12th, 1970) as to which 'Paul' he was referring (the Biblical Paul, or Paul McCartney), John replied: "It's a double-entendre, you know, for all the fanatics who like to play things backwards and hear words of wisdom which nobody ever thought of." Chip Madinger www.lennonology.com
Because outside of the music it is probably one of the most interesting parts of the band. This is hardly a subject exclusive to Beatles fans, all popular bands have their fanbase talk about the band dynamics and squabbles. The Lennon McCartney relationship fascinates most Beatles fans and far, far more is written and known about the years they disliked each other than the years they were best friends or just cordial.
I can see the instrumentation and the editing process isn’t the same between the individual members — John, Paul and George aren’t adding or taking things away from each others’ songs — but beyond that, it’s the same songwriters. Only the business arrangements are different. But people will like what they like.
Those 'same songwriters' still interacted as the Beatles, but not as solo artists. And yes, business arrangements were waaaay different.
I agree. But some people here are taking sides and fighting about it. It gets bitter, like it’s 1970. I like both both John and Paul and don’t see either as being all wrong or all right in this. Together they screwed up the Beatles’ business side after Brian died because they didn’t understand it all and they didn’t bring in a new manager. Apple was possibly both the worst business idea ever and the worst execution of an idea in history. They turned a huge golden goose into a massive cash drain. Blame for that is shared. They then disagreed about how to get out of the troubles they were in, specifically over Klein. Who was a good choice for renegotiation of deals (which was his initial duty) and a bad choice for anything more (which he eventually got). It was messy and a lot of money was at stake, and their deal didn’t really provide intelligently for solo work or for breaking up. There was no clean way out. It was going to be ugly any way they went. It helped foster bitterness between them and contributed to ending the band.
Agreed. Taking sides in the interpersonal issues of people you don't know, but worship from afar, is one thing. But none of this happened to, or involved, any of us. Best to keep in mind these were all rich rock stars who had a very good life, and whatever issues came up were standard stuff for people lucky enough to make it. Few adjust well to getting rich and/or famous, and becoming responsible and conscientious in the process. Most become hedonistic, self-absorbed. Some develop a god complex. Simply, the Beatles weren't role models for anyone over the age of 19 years old. No deification is required. If John or Paul is either the hero or villain in this story to you, it might be time to reassess.
Except, I think we care about the history. History shows, Klein was a horrible choice of manager, for basically anybody. His hiring is the straw that broke the camel’s back. Paul’s good intentions were perceived as the last bit of him being a control freak. The others may not have appreciated John allowing Yoko in the studio; John’s heroin use, which didn’t aid the crafting of the songs; but in the end, it was Paul’s controlling ways that doomed the “band,” to the point that when he was finally right, the others couldn’t bring themselves to recognize it. There went the camel’s back. And Paul left, well, sued the others to get out of the partnership. We care about the history, getting it right. It’s not about moral judgement.
