The Beatles - Norwegian Wood Question

Well, I just asked a question - you know, it happened several times that I was surprised by an information that McCartney claims that he substantially helped with a song I considered as generally ascribed to Lennon (I may had been wrong). So I am just asking if it happened - in how many cases has Paul McCartney started (after 1980) to tell a story about John Lennon significantly helping with a song that was traditionally ascribed to McCartney? I guess there is nothing wrong with asking such a question. However, if you do not want to answer it, you can just ignore me . It's easy.

 

In 1970 he claimed Paul helped, in 1972 he claimed Paul helped and Paul claims he helped.

In 1980 he says it was his song completely, he also does not know why the song is called Norwegian Wood suggesting one of two things

• his memory is not great, which puts doubt on his claim that the song is completely is
• this is a semantics argument and his use of the word completely may not mean he was the only person that had involvement in the songwriting, but that he was the primary songwriter.

The trouble with interviews is that sometimes the answer is not straightforward. That how it reads is not how it was meant.

 

Eight Days A Week was often called a Paul song mostly down to John saying it was his idea (and little else), Paul makes it clear that it was a co-write. In a fair few interviews John calls With A Little Help From My Friends a Paul song (but also once a 50-50) and yet Paul clarifies it was a song they both worked on. Birthday is a song that John took no credit for yet Paul claims it was a co-write.

There are a lot of songs that Paul goes out of his way in later years to give John credit for, the trouble is no one cares about that. It is all about catching Paul in a lie for some people. That is probably why some of us Paul fans are so defensive on the matter and are well versed on the songwriting credits.

 

Still being very careful in a smoke-screen way.

 

Thanks. At least With a Little Help was not generally considered pure McC song since Lennon claimed helping with the middle part. It is similar with Eight Days a Week - Lennon claimed that they both worked on it. I will check on Birthday.

 

Many people say the song originated in Switzerland.
Is that weird?

 

I believe Paul (that he helped with it, and that the guy burns the Norwegian wood at the end). This also fits in with their self-confessed "comedy songs" era of late 1965.

 

In later years John talks about With A Little Help From My Friends as being a Paul song

• JOHN 1980: "That's Paul, with a little help from me. 'What do you see when you turn out the light/ I can't tell you but I know it's mine' is mine."

If Paul was the devious songwriter stealer some think he is he'd have gone along with John's story and played down his involvement, instead he talks of it as purely a co-write with no indication of who provided more or less.

Similar is true of Eight Days A Week

• JOHN 1980: "Eight Days A Week' was never a good song. We struggled to record it and struggled to make it into a song. It was his (Paul's) initial effort, but I think we both worked on it. I'm not sure."

Paul could have easily took primary credit on both songs if he wanted and could have pointed to John's own words supporting him. The fact that he didn't kind of disproves that he is deliberately rewriting history to give himself a bigger role in the songwriting partnership.

 

Well, there is no need to use those strong words. It's better to simply answer. It seems like up to now we have only one example of a song traditionally ascribed to McCartney that the man himself started to call a collaboration in the later years. Well, Lennon called it "a garbage", Mccartney called it "50-50 John and me".


You know, you guys seem to me a bit over-defensive. My aim is not aggresive. I am ready to acknowledge that memory plays wild tricks with us all. And I do not have a fetish on John Lennon - he was no saint himself (and we shall never know what would have been his stories if things went other way round). I am really just curious the evolution of those credits.

 

It was a generalization, it was not aimed specifically towards you.

What evolution? John and Paul pretty much agree on who wrote what, considering the amount of songs they wrote there is little discrepancies between the two of them.

 

Well, I stated my question two times already. I guess it is clear now. And I am not here to fight.

 

Why don't you look into it yourself. Yes, asking around here "should" be fine, but when implicit in your question is a possible suspicion that McCartney has been taking more credit than giving, now that Lennon isn't around (which is quite a long time now), but having no evidence to support that idea and expecting others to prove or disprove, feels ever so mildly offensive, so I think that's why you are seeing some get defensive.

 

I'm not fighting, it was a serious question.

Paul spoke little about the Beatles songwriting in the 70's and 80's. He was more concerned with his own career, he was the last of the four to play Beatles songs live, he, even more than the other three, talked down reunions in the 70's. He was not as Beatles centric in his interviews as John was.

On his part there has been little evolution on who wrote what.

Again, to reiterate, I'm not fighting. What songs do you think Paul has 'evolved' the songwriting credits on?

 

Well, I just hope that asking here may be a good way to get the answer.

 

You see? I did not say that McCartney "evolved". I just said that in several cases he claimed a credit where (I thought possibly I was mistaken) there is a general idea (prejudice maybe?) that the song is by Lennon only. So I just asked if there are examples of him doing the opposite thing: surpisingly giving credit where he was traditionally considered a sole author - which I see as a possibility. Again, if there are no such examples it does not prove anything wrong with McCartney in my eyes.

 

Doesn't the Hunter Davies book document a writing session for With A Little Help From My Friends?

 

Several cases? Can you name them?

In 1970 John says Paul helped on Norwegian Wood, in 1972 he says Paul helped on Norwegian Wood. In 1980, in an article that would be published shortly(maybe even after) his death he suggests he is the only writer, contradicting himself. What do you expect Paul to have done in this situation? Providing he even read the interview or cared enough at the time?

Is he not allowed to ever talk about his involvement in the song, involvement that John backs up in two of the three times he spoke about the song?

 

I can say it again - I was asking a question to get the answer. When I asked, the song was proposed as an example to asnwer it. I just said that Lennon claimed a bit of a credit in a widely popular interview, so the song is not exactly a perfect example of a case where there was a general belief that the song written by McCartney. Really, I am not arguing that it was written by one or the other or both of them.

 

This. What a wicked way to end the song, and I never realized what was meant until Macca said it in an interview in the mid-80s. Brilliant!

 

So, the other thing about the title...I swear I remember as a kid, back in 65/66, when I first heard Rubber Soul that someone, I have no idea who, said it's original title was Knowing She Would. So, as I got older and thought about, it made a lot of sense to me, being a song about an affair, and that Lennon was trying to to write about it ,yet disguise it, that he'd start with that "Isn't it good, knowing she would", but decided to play word games with that and came up with Norwegian Wood. And that could certainly go where Paul talks about it with the wood rooms, and the inspiration for the fire at the end and all that. But I've never seen anyone in the know actually mention that phrase. So in retrospect, I'm guessing it was one of those stories that someone misheard a line, talked about it as though it was true, and when it couldn't be proven, it disappeared.

 

Well, it seems we are going nowhere. You still try to turn it back on me.

OK, if I remember correctly there was some fuss about In My Life, Mr Kite(?), or the song in the title of this thread (as you say the general idea about the song was perhaps wrong, which I never denied). If there are others, I am sorry, if I wanted to bring the case to court, I would make a list.

Yes, McCartney is allowed to talk about his involvement - I never denied him that. I am just curious about things he says (and as I said several times I am not trying to prove anything wrong about him).

But I give up.

 

Norwegian Wood is an interesting one. I always took the song to be a bit of a dig at the pretentiousness and vacuousness of the rich, 'Scandinavian design' and all that. If the song is a clandestine reference to an actual affair Lennon had (which seems beyond dispute), rather than a non consummated one, then maybe it's documenting the end of an affair, i.e. the woman doesn't want to sleep with him anymore, or kicks him out of bed so she can get some sleep because she's got to be at work early...so he 'crawls off to sleep in the bath'. She goes to work and he wakes up alone, 'lights the open fire', or 'lights a joint' or heaven forbid...'burns the house down'

 

And quite a dylanesque one. Maybe that was the main point - an exercise in Dylan's style?

 

Yep. And it's a great song that's for sure.

 

All I'm asking is for you to clarify your position. Please don't take it as a personal attack, it is not meant to be and I sincerely apologize if you think that is what I am doing.

Okay. John and Paul are almost on the same page on this one.

Here are two quotes from John on that song

• “Paul helped with the middle eight, musically.”
• “The whole lyrics were already written before Paul even heard it. In ‘In My Life’ his contribution melodically was the harmony and the middle-eight itself”

In another interview John contradicts himself and claims it was done by him

Paul himself says this of the song

• "I think I wrote the tune to that; that's the one we slightly dispute. John either forgot or didn't think I wrote the tune. I remember he had the words, like a poem... sort of about faces he remembered."

So in multiple versions of the account by John and Paul they agree that John wrote the lyrics and that Paul contributed (to) the music.

They are not really in disagreement on this one if you factor that in two of the three John interviews post Beatles he makes it clear that Paul contributed. My own thoughts are that its primary a John song with Paul assistance, similar to Norwegian Wood.

This is a weird one. When John talks about the song he only really talks about the poster

• "It's all just from that poster. The song is pure, like a painting. A pure watercolor."
• "'Mr. Kite' was a straight lift. I had all the words staring me in the face one day when I was looking for a song. It was from this old poster I'd bought at an antique shop. We'd been down to Surrey or somewhere filming a piece. There was a break, and I went into this shop and bought an old poster advertising a variety show which starred Mr. Kite. It said the Henderson's would also be there, late of Pablo Fanques Fair. There would be hoops and horses and someone going through a hogs head of real fire. Then there was Henry the Horse. The band would start at ten to six. All at Bishopsgate. Look, there's the bill-- with Mr. Kite topping it. I hardly made up a word, just connecting the lists together. Word for word, really."

Paul backs this up

• "’Mr. Kite’ was a poster that John had in his house in Weybridge, I arrived there for a session one day and he had it up on the wall in his living room. It was all there, the trampoline, the somersets, the hoops, the garters, the horse. It was Pablo Fanque’s fair, and it said ‘being for the benefit of Mr. Kite’; almost the whole song was written right off this poster.”
  

Paul claims he was there with John when he wrote it and helped in framing the song, but claims the song is more John. Musically, Paul seems to have a decent amount of involvement as John, in the get Back tapes, complains how the song turned out thanks to Paul.

• And that’s all I did on the last album was say, “Okay, Paul, you’re out to decide where my songs are concerned, arrangement-wise.” [exasperated] I don’t know the songs, you know. I’d sooner just sing them, than have them turn into – into ‘Mr. Kite’, or anything else, where— I’ve accepted the problem from you that it needs arrangement. And then, because I’m an ape, I don’t know.

From John's own private complaints it is clear that Paul played a part in how the song came to life.

So this is a weird one as when John talks about the song he does not really take credit for himself, he credits the poster. He does not talk about the music at all, something the poster is not responsible for.

Sometimes I think some of the differences in Johns accounts is down to semantics. I think much of the time when John talks about a song he is mostly talking about the lyrics, that he sees the lyrics as being the bulk of a song. I'd bet many other songwriters are the same way.


Paul has never claimed primary ownership of these three songs, all he has done is pointed out that he assisted, on two of those songs John backs him up (in multiple interviews, not all).

Please don't take this as an attack or for anyone to shut you down. I love conversations like this.