Was John a liar? | John Lennon | Fab forum

Please consider registering
Guest

Log In Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —

  
 

— Match —

   

— Forum Options —

   

Minimum search word length is 4 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

Was John a liar?
20 December 2013
7.30pm
Expert Textpert
In bed.
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 1211
Member Since:
18 April 2013
Offline

I'm reading the book, Inside the Yellow Submarine, and the book exposes John as having lied about the film's creators stealing his ideas for the vacuum monster and the blue meanies (and not crediting him) and copying his writing style for some of the script.  Apparently, he claimed this in several interviews while it was completely untrue.

Was he just so egocentric that he actually thought he created them?  Or did he just lie?  Or what?

It seems that generally some of what John claimed here and there turned up not to be true.  Any thoughts about this?

I guess maybe he was a violent, arrogant, egocentric, womanizing liar?  Then why do I still like him so much?  LOL.

"This Beatles talk bores me to death." --John Lennon

20 December 2013
8.57pm
trcanberra
Canberra, ACT
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 1770
Member Since:
29 August 2013
Offline

Expert Textpert said
I'm reading the book, Inside the Yellow Submarine, and the book exposes John as having lied about the film's creators stealing his ideas for the vacuum monster and the blue meanies (and not crediting him) and copying his writing style for some of the script.  Apparently, he claimed this in several interviews while it was completely untrue.

Was he just so egocentric that he actually thought he created them?  Or did he just lie?  Or what?

It seems that generally some of what John claimed here and there turned up not to be true.  Any thoughts about this?

I guess maybe he was a violent, arrogant, egocentric, womanizing liar?  Then why do I still like him so much?  LOL.

I take just about anything John said with a pinch of salt as I may have mentioned elsewhere.  His answer to any given question, or opinion of any given song, seemed to depend very much on how he felt about the Beatles, or the world, at the time - much more so than for most people.  Whether this was conscious?  No idea.  However, he is obviously not the only one - Paul seems intent on rewriting history these days, so I feel much the same about many of his interviews over the last 5-10 years.

I'm sure there is a lot of truth in there as well, but I think you need corroboration, just as for many of the books written about them all - I'm afraid I don't consider them as reliable.  George and Ringo seemed more reliable, maybe because their egos didn't seem as highly developed.

 

20 December 2013
9.08pm
LongHairedLady
coming in through the bathroom window
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 1981
Member Since:
17 January 2013
Offline

trcanberra said

However, he is obviously not the only one - Paul seems intent on rewriting history these days, so I feel much the same about many of his interviews over the last 5-10 years.

 

Really?  I have seen a ton of interviews with Paul from the last 5-10 years and I would say he is very consistent, to the point that he sounds like a  broken record after so many interviews.  If you are refereeing only to the whole "who wrote what" debate...  That issue on its own is greatly outweighed by Johns inconsistency with pretty much everything.  

trcanberra said
I take just about anything John said with a pinch of salt as I may have mentioned elsewhere.  His answer to any given question, or opinion of any given song, seemed to depend very much on how he felt about the Beatles, or the world, at the time - much more so than for most people.

 

This I agree with totally.

"Please don't bring your banjo back, I know where it's been..  I wasn't hardly gone a day, when it became the scene..  Banjos!  Banjos!  All the time, I can't forget that tune..  and if I ever see another banjo, I'm going out and buy a big balloon!"

 

21 December 2013
2.02am
trcanberra
Canberra, ACT
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 1770
Member Since:
29 August 2013
Offline

"Really?  I have seen a ton of interviews with Paul from the last 5-10 years and I would say he is very consistent, to the point that he sounds like a  broken record after so many interviews.  If you are refereeing only to the whole "who wrote what" debate…  That issue on its own is greatly outweighed by Johns inconsistency with pretty much everything.  "

I agree, but I also feel that the details of what he has been saying so consistently are often at variance with what he and others were saying before that.

One example - how much he had to do with Magical Mystery Tour.  At one time he was VERY vague about being the driving force, mostly when people were hammering it.  Nowadays, it has a certain type of retro cachet to it, and he has been quite happy to claim more credit.

Of course, we have to try and balance all of that with Yoko's attempts to turn John into a saint.

In terms of who I believe; in order - Ringo, George, Paul, John.

21 December 2013
2.33am
parlance
Slaggers
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 5594
Member Since:
8 November 2012
Offline

trcanberra said

One example - how much he had to do with Magical Mystery Tour.  At one time he was VERY vague about being the driving force, mostly when people were hammering it.  Nowadays, it has a certain type of retro cachet to it, and he has been quite happy to claim more credit.

It being The Beatles' first notorious flop, I think I can give him a pass on distancing himself from it. I wouldn't call his embracing of it flat out revisionism.

As far as any other claims to revising, I haven't seen any proof. The claims seem to be based on a disbelief that Paul could have done x, y, z because x, y, z don't gel with traditional perceptions of him.

parlance

Beware of sadness. It can hit you. It can hurt you. Make you sore and what is more, that is not what you are here for. - George

Check out my fan video for Paul's song "Appreciate" at YouTube and Vimeo.

21 December 2013
4.30am
trcanberra
Canberra, ACT
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 1770
Member Since:
29 August 2013
Offline

parlance said

trcanberra said
One example - how much he had to do with Magical Mystery Tour.  At one time he was VERY vague about being the driving force, mostly when people were hammering it.  Nowadays, it has a certain type of retro cachet to it, and he has been quite happy to claim more credit.

It being The Beatles' first notorious flop, I think I can give him a pass on distancing himself from it. I wouldn't call his embracing of it flat out revisionism.

As far as any other claims to revising, I haven't seen any proof. The claims seem to be based on a disbelief that Paul could have done x, y, z because x, y, z don't gel with traditional perceptions of him.

parlance

As I noted - that was just one example of many that are around.  When things are unpopular - 'it's not me'; when opinion changes - 'it was me'.  Anyway, I'm not about to go case by case on every one and argue their merits or otherwise.  This is all just opinion; and I will stick with the list which gives my order of trust in what they claim - and the Paul fans will stick with theirs (and give him a pass on any examples anyone comes up with - he seems as non-stick as Ronald Reagan sometimes), as will those who consider John a hero.

 

21 December 2013
5.53am
parlance
Slaggers
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 5594
Member Since:
8 November 2012
Offline

trcanberra said

When things are unpopular - 'it's not me'; when opinion changes - 'it was me'.  Anyway, I'm not about to go case by case on every one and argue their merits or otherwise.  This is all just opinion; and I will stick with the list which gives my order of trust in what they claim - and the Paul fans will stick with theirs (and give him a pass on any examples anyone comes up with - he seems as non-stick as Ronald Reagan sometimes), as will those who consider John a hero.

I suppose you won't see this since you're leaving or on hiatus now. I don't know about "Paul fans" since I don't have a favorite Beatle. I just want to see more than one of "many" examples of this revisionism Paul is often accused of, which is a reasonable request. I believe he's engaged in some, but I've yet to see proof that it's as rampant as some have suggested.

parlance

Beware of sadness. It can hit you. It can hurt you. Make you sore and what is more, that is not what you are here for. - George

Check out my fan video for Paul's song "Appreciate" at YouTube and Vimeo.

21 December 2013
6.15am
Porgy
A Beginning
Forum Posts: 7
Member Since:
20 December 2013
Offline

One obvious example is Paul talking about not going to America until they had a Number One, despite Ed Sullivan being booked long before they had a sniff of one.

There is also the argument about him being the most avant garde Beatle, and the first avant garde Beatle. While elements may be true, among their released it's hard to find, with maybe the best example being Strawberry Fields/Penny Lane, or dropping back to Tomorrow Never Knows.

21 December 2013
6.25am
parlance
Slaggers
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 5594
Member Since:
8 November 2012
Offline

Porgy said
One obvious example is Paul talking about not going to America until they had a Number One, despite Ed Sullivan being booked long before they had a sniff of one.

That's an example, sure, but Paul wasn't only one who participated in that myth.

There is also the argument about him being the most avant garde Beatle, and the first avant garde Beatle. While elements may be true, among their released it's hard to find, with maybe the best example being Strawberry Fields/Penny Lane, or dropping back to Tomorrow Never Knows.

I see from another post that you've read Many Years from Now, so you know that goes into detail how Paul ventured into and even influenced the London underground movement. Not all of Paul's experiments made it into The Beatles music, but as you mentioned, his tape loops for Tomorrow Never Knows were part of that period. There's no revisionism there, his involvement has been well documented.

parlance

Beware of sadness. It can hit you. It can hurt you. Make you sore and what is more, that is not what you are here for. - George

Check out my fan video for Paul's song "Appreciate" at YouTube and Vimeo.

21 December 2013
6.53am
Porgy
A Beginning
Forum Posts: 7
Member Since:
20 December 2013
Offline
10

Yes, I have read Many Years from Now. You can view that two ways, a truth or revisionism. I consider neither John or Paul as reliable witnesses. Looking at the evidence of the music however, the majority of songs that pushed the boundaries musically were John's. I don't deny Paul's contributions to them, sometimes amazing as in A Day In The Life and the orchestra, but they were John songs. I, unfortunately, find it difficult to think of a Paul from that time that wasn't basically traditional. Had he brought more of what he knew of the avant garde to his Beatles songwriting, I'd tip the hat to his version. John may have known less, but he brought everything he knew to how he wrote, and what he wanted soundwise.

21 December 2013
7.10am
parlance
Slaggers
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 5594
Member Since:
8 November 2012
Offline
11

Porgy said
Yes, I have read Many Years from Now. You can view that two ways, a truth or revisionism.

Why a revisionism?

I consider neither John or Paul as reliable witnesses. Looking at the evidence of the music however, the majority of songs that pushed the boundaries musically were John's.

 

This is an opinion, not a presentation of evidence.

I don't deny Paul's contributions to them, sometimes amazing as in A Day In The Life and the orchestra, but they were John songs.

I'm sorry, are you categorizing ADinL as solely a John song?

I, unfortunately, find it difficult to think of a Paul from that time that wasn't basically traditional.

You're using a circular argument. I can't think of anything Paul did that wasn't traditional, therefore he's traditional. I think of Paul as a traditionalist, therefore his music was traditional.

Had he brought more of what he knew of the avant garde to his Beatles songwriting, I'd tip the hat to his version. John may have known less, but he brought everything he knew to how he wrote, and what he wanted soundwise.

 

What "version" do you believe you're arguing against? Paul has never denied John's avant-garde tendencies, he's merely pointed out that he was the first to branch out and be involved in the underground, and he helped push The Beatles in an experimental direction. Again, documented by other sources than Paul, so not revisionism.

 

As an aside, welcome to the board. :->

parlance

Beware of sadness. It can hit you. It can hurt you. Make you sore and what is more, that is not what you are here for. - George

Check out my fan video for Paul's song "Appreciate" at YouTube and Vimeo.

21 December 2013
9.47pm
acmac
Carnegie Hall
Forum Posts: 231
Member Since:
1 August 2013
Offline
12

I'm not sure why this topic had to turn into a Paul versus John thing?

Anyway, to answer the original question: John frequently lied left right and center. Many people chalk this up to drugs or a "bad memory," but that's a little too easy. I've also seen the argument that John's susceptibility to magical thinking caused him to believe on some level that he could make things true by saying them. To me that seems closer to the truth, but it still lets John off the hook a little too much. It's a prettier way of saying John was prone to narcissistic confabulation, which is what was usually going on, IMO. 

 

22 December 2013
1.28am
IveJustSeenAFaceo
Somewhere other than where you are.
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 2616
Member Since:
1 November 2013
Offline
13

Yeah, I'd say that they're both not the most reliable sources. I'd also say that there really aren't any 100% reliable sources, everyone has their own biases and warped versions of what happened. But, to answer the question, John lied a lot. So did Paul. So did George. And Ringo too, likely. The only people who might know exactly what happened are Paul and Ringo, and I'm not even sure if they do. 

(This signature brought to you by Winter. Coming for an abnormally long amount of time.)
30 December 2013
2.00am
Billy Rhythm
Shea Stadium
Forum Posts: 492
Member Since:
22 December 2013
Offline
14

trcanberra said
Paul seems intent on rewriting history these days, so I feel much the same about many of his interviews over the last 5-10 years.
 
 
  

 

 

The whole "Paul rewrites History" notion was likely started by Philip Norman (author of 'Shout!', which is often used as a source for BeatleLore), it's actually a direct quote ("Paul rewrites History") from Philip himself in response to an interviewer asking him, "What do you mean Paul won't say (the "truth" about The Beatles)" when Philip stated this.  Since then Paul's comments have been viewed under an even higher calibre microscope than ever before.

 

Rather than focus on the numerous inconsistencies pointed out by many in his interviews (and yes, the other Beatles could also be faulted), I choose to look at the details that Paul seems bent on omitting from the record, such as, why did Lennon & McCartney lose control of ownership of their music in the first place?  Paul was quite candid in discussing what Micheal Jackson owned which Paul felt was rightfully his, but always avoids any talk about how he lost control of the rights in 1969, and for good reason.  Peter Brown (yes, the same Peter Brown immortalized forever in 'The Ballad of John & Yoko' lyric) is the only one who's talked about what actually happened, in his book 'The Love You Make', who coincidently wasn't invited to participate in any official Beatles' projects after that.  Peter Brown was there throughout their entire career, and a credible source for he was a legit member of The Beatles' tight (and very small) "inner circle" of friends and associates, not to mention the only member of their close knit group to attend John & Yoko's wedding during the Spring of 1969,  Peter Brown's account of what actually happened with the Lennon/McCartney Songbook goes something like this (apologies for I no longer own my copy from the 1980s to give you direct quotes, but I'll do "the best that I can"):

 

Throughout the nuisance of the financial mess that Apple had become by Spring 1969, John & Paul had to deal with an attempt by ATV Music to takeover ownership of Northern Songs (the "parent" Publishing Co. controlling their music rights).  John & Paul, along with their associates (including Peter Brown) held a meeting to attempt to outbid ATV Music and regain control of their songs, this included presenting some financial "details", this "detail" is what Peter Brown claimed to be "the final wedge between John & Paul".  Peter Brown says that he was directed personally by Paul to secretly buy up stock of Northern Songs without John's knowledge for years (Northern Songs had been quoted on the London Stock Exchange) but they both needed to put up their stock as collateral in order to counter the ATV offer.  When the reality came out at the meeting that Paul owned considerably more of what John had always honored to be an equal "partnership" between them, John apparently lost it.

 

"You Bastard!" was John's first reaction according to Peter Brown, "This is f***** low!  None of us has gone behind each other's backs before!"  while Paul attempted to be coy and smug with an "oops sorry, I just wanted some more beanies" response.  John apparently got up right then and there and walked out, effectively throwing Northern Songs into ATV's hands for without John's support they couldn't compete with ATV's bid to purchase.  You gotta understand John's frustration here, they had an agreement since they wrote their very first tunes that it would always be equal, Lennon/McCartney, regardless of who wrote the song.  Paul asked Peter Brown not to tell anyone about his secret transactions because he likely knew full well how John would react.  Despite all of this, John still credited his next single 'Give Peace A Chance' as a 'Lennon/McCartney' composition, eventhough Paul had absolutely zilch to do with it.

 

Maybe Paul doesn't want to respond to this allegedly happening because he feels that it would give it more wings?  Feeling a little guilty perhaps?  Who knows, but it's pretty clear that he wants this "detail" stricken from the record for he NEVER discusses it, come on Paul, how does the Greatest Songwriting Partnership in Music History manage to lose control of the publishing rights to their own songs?  I'd love to hear your answer to this one...:-)

 

 

 

 

30 December 2013
2.35am
Ahhh Girl
sailing on a winedark open sea
Moderator


Forum Posts: 5632
Member Since:
20 August 2013
Online
15

^Hi, Billy Rhythm, I'm thinking a version of this post should be added to the Questions to ask Paul thread. Would you consider putting it over there? I'm intrigued.

30 December 2013
9.30pm
Ron Nasty
"Where have you been?" "I'm not telling you..."
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 3229
Member Since:
17 December 2012
Offline
16

I first remember reading this story in the early '70s book Apple to the Core: The Unmaking of The Beatles by Peter McCabe and Robert Schonfeld that I mentioned in another thread - which went into detail about the legal wranglings surrounding their last days.

Because Northern Songs was listed on the Stock Exchange, it meant that who owned what was publicly available, and once the battle for control of it really got going, John discovered that Paul - on the advice of the Eastman's - had been buying up stock behind John's back, and owned several percent more of their joint songwriting publisher.

I often think the effect of John's discovery of that in 1969 is often overlooked. John expected the "suits" to screw him, but his friend and partner? I think that played a part in all that followed.

"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
30 December 2013
9.50pm
meanmistermustard
Moderator



Forum Posts: 10538
Member Since:
1 May 2011
Offline
17

Am currently reading Tom Doyle's 'Man on the Run: Paul McCartney in the 1970s' and he says that this incident (Paul buying the shares behind John's back or without his knowledge - depending on how you see it) was one of the biggest and deepest nails in the Beatles coffin - there being no way back after John found out.

Don’t make your love suffer insecurities, trade the baggage of self to set another one free. ('Paper Skin' - Kendall Payne)
30 December 2013
10.21pm
Ron Nasty
"Where have you been?" "I'm not telling you..."
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 3229
Member Since:
17 December 2012
Offline
18

Especially when you consider that this happened at the same time Paul was arguing for the Eastman's to become their manager(s)!

"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
30 December 2013
10.40pm
meanmistermustard
Moderator



Forum Posts: 10538
Member Since:
1 May 2011
Offline
19

Yes - and Paul must have known John would have found out at some point due to the ongoing negotiations over who would buy the controlling stake in Northern Songs. To have found out during a meeting with all the suits there must have been truly galling.

Don’t make your love suffer insecurities, trade the baggage of self to set another one free. ('Paper Skin' - Kendall Payne)
30 December 2013
10.52pm
Ron Nasty
"Where have you been?" "I'm not telling you..."
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 3229
Member Since:
17 December 2012
Offline
20

And it wouldn't be the only time Paul would do something like. Wasn't there a legal case from the other Beatles when it was discovered Paul had got himself a higher royalty on Beatles' recordings as part of his solo deal with Capitol?

And people wonder why John and George had their problems with Paul, instead of wondering why Ringo didn't!

"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
Forum Timezone: Europe/London

Most Users Ever Online: 597

Currently Online: Zig, Inner Light, Ahhh Girl, nzbeatlefan, Oudis, StrawberryFieldsForever, Sugarplum fairy
71 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

meanmistermustard: 10537

mr. Sun king coming together: 6916

Ahhh Girl: 5631

parlance: 5592

Annadog40: 4851

mithveaen: 4651

Zig: 4599

Mr. Kite: 4387

Ron Nasty: 3229

fabfouremily: 2949

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 88

Members: 2696

Moderators: 4

Admins: 2

Forum Stats:

Groups: 3

Forums: 34

Topics: 3145

Posts: 141501

Newest Members: lematalk65, rzleromer, JonoTheFifthBeatle, LennonMcCartney, You Know My Name

Moderators: Ahhh Girl: 5631, meanmistermustard: 10537, Zig: 4599, Joe: 3497

Administrators: Joe: 3497, Ellie: 1

Members Birthdays
Today: None
Upcoming: None