Log In
Register
Read the original blog post
2.53pm
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline
I can hear the similarities.
What’s up with Rod’s hammy acting, makes for a painful uncomfortable view. Great song tho.
"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
6.54pm
18 October 2013
Offline 
Ron Nasty said
I was reading today the John considered the melody of Rod Stewart’s The Killing of Georgie (Part II) was ripped off from this, “the lawyers never noticed”.I can see what he means. What do you think?
I always thought that was common-knowledge pointing it out to my first wife…..but never considered before why John didn’t sue. Or at least more fuss being made at the time by DJ’s and others. Perhaps John didn’t want to say, ‘he was bigger than Rod and then there’s be all that’
The following people thank Wigwam for this post:
Ahhh Girl7.14pm
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline
The Beatles themselves do not seem to have big suers, @Wigwam. Think about George not going after Paul Weller for the obvious similarities between Taxman and The Jam’s Start. Perhaps because John (Come Together ) and George (My Sweet Lord ) had been on the receiving end they didn’t want to put other artists through what they’d been through. Plus, it wouldn’t have been John that sued, though he would have been drawn into it, but ATV Music who owned the copyright.
I suppose that explains John’s comment about the lawyers not noticing. And remember, it was John who warned Neil Innes (whoever he is!) not to include Get Up and Go on The Rutles original soundtrack album because it was too close to Get Back (not that it stopped ATV going after Innes).
In those days it wasn’t usually the songwriters that went after other acts for plagiarism, but the music publisher.
"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
7.36pm
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline Ron Nasty said
The Beatles themselves do not seem to have big suers, @Wigwam. Think about George not going after Paul Weller for the obvious similarities between Taxman and The Jam’s Start. Perhaps because John (Come Together ) and George (My Sweet Lord ) had been on the receiving end they didn’t want to put other artists through what they’d been through. Plus, it wouldn’t have been John that sued, though he would have been drawn into it, but ATV Music who owned the copyright.I suppose that explains John’s comment about the lawyers not noticing. And remember, it was John who warned Neil Innes (whoever he is!) not to include Get Up and Go on The Rutles original soundtrack album because it was too close to Get Back (not that it stopped ATV going after Innes).
In those days it wasn’t usually the songwriters that went after other acts for plagiarism, but the music publisher.
Except themselves: Paul sued John, George and Ringo; George threatened to sue Ringo; George, Ringo and Yoko sued Paul.
In December 1970 Dirk sued Stig and Nasty, Barry sued Dirk, Nasty sued Stig and Barry, and Stig sued himself accidentally. It was the end of a golden era, and the beginning of another one for lawyers everywhere.
The following people thank meanmistermustard for this post:
Wigwam"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
7.41pm
18 October 2013
Offline meanmistermustard said
Ron Nasty said
The Beatles themselves do not seem to have big suers, @Wigwam. Think about George not going after Paul Weller for the obvious similarities between Taxman and The Jam’s Start. Perhaps because John (Come Together ) and George (My Sweet Lord ) had been on the receiving end they didn’t want to put other artists through what they’d been through. Plus, it wouldn’t have been John that sued, though he would have been drawn into it, but ATV Music who owned the copyright.I suppose that explains John’s comment about the lawyers not noticing. And remember, it was John who warned Neil Innes (whoever he is!) not to include Get Up and Go on The Rutles original soundtrack album because it was too close to Get Back (not that it stopped ATV going after Innes).
In those days it wasn’t usually the songwriters that went after other acts for plagiarism, but the music publisher.
Except themselves: Paul sued John, George and Ringo; George threatened to sue Ringo; George, Ringo and Yoko sued Paul.
In December 1970 Dirk sued Stig and Nasty, Barry sued Dirk, Nasty sued Stig and Barry, and Stig sued himself accidentally. It was the end of a golden era, and the beginning of another one for lawyers everywhere.
You are wide awake and quicker than me……….But I’m just back from my swim.
7.44pm
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline Oh and Apple sue anyone who even look like they might infringe on the Beatles name.
"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
8.20pm
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline When I said The Beatles were not big suers, it was purely in relation to plagiarism.
The simple fact remains that John could not have sued Rod because John did not own the copyright to Don’t Let Me Down . He, or Paul (they were jointly credited for the song), could have gone to ATV and asked them to sue with their backing and co-operation. Neither did, nor George over Taxman /Start. While they may have been happy to sue each other, it was each other they sued.
Apple did not really start getting litigious until after they’d stopped suing each other in the ’80s.
"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
4.25am
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline Ron Nasty said
When I said The Beatles were not big suers, it was purely in relation to plagiarism.The simple fact remains that John could not have sued Rod because John did not own the copyright to Don’t Let Me Down . He, or Paul (they were jointly credited for the song), could have gone to ATV and asked them to sue with their backing and co-operation. Neither did, nor George over Taxman /Start. While they may have been happy to sue each other, it was each other they sued.
Apple did not really start getting litigious until after they’d stopped suing each other in the ’80s.
I suppose if the Apple lawyers are getting paid they might as well do some work and if they have run out of ways to sue each other then its only natural to look outward. After a while the boredom kicks in and you think “ok, I really must do something to make this day meaningful”. Anything goes at that point as you only have a short period of time before you have to think about going home for the day and all those biscuits and coffee granules will only go to waste if you don’t indulge yourself.
Maybe it’s also no coincidence that around the same time Apple could start vetoing any Beatles release that was suggested.
"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
8.48pm
Moderators
Members
Reviewers
20 August 2013
Offline “It’s a love that has no past”
Does that mean John didn’t have to marry her because he got her pregnant and had to do his manly duty? Probably not. 
What do you think it means? Or is it just a line to have something to rhyme with “last”?
The following people thank Ahhh Girl for this post:
ZigCan buy Joe love! Amazon | iTunes
Check here for "how do I do this" guide to the forum. 
(2017) 
(2018)
8.53pm
1 November 2013
Offline 
Ahhh Girl said
Does that mean John didn’t have to marry her because he got her pregnant and had to do his manly duty? Probably not.What do you think it means? Or is it just a line to have something to rhyme with “last”?
It means that John could buy himself a new swimming pool.
The following people thank Starr Shine? for this post:
Ahhh Girl
8.59pm
Moderators
15 February 2015
Offline Ahhh Girl murmured aloud, inciting and inviting Forumpudlians to respond
“It’s a love that has no past”Or is it just a line to have something to rhyme with “last”?
I think there’s a little more to it than that,
Does that mean John didn’t have to marry her because he got her pregnant and had to do his manly duty? Probably not.
although perhaps not quite as much as all that.
I think it’s sort of in the same vein as In My Life : ‘Though I’ll never lose affection/ for people and things that went before […] in my life, I love you more.’ I’ve often thought of In My Life as a Yoko-love-song, even though he wrote it before he met her, but then again he did claim that he dreamt of someone like her for years… Ahhh, Gerrrrherrrl… 
PWT 
([{BRACKETS!}])
New to Forumpool? You can introduce yourself here.
If you love The Beatles Bible, and you have adblock, don't forget to white-list this site! 
5.14am
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline Ahhh Girl said
“It’s a love that has no past”Does that mean John didn’t have to marry her because he got her pregnant and had to do his manly duty? Probably not.
I’ve always seen it as John saying the love between Yoko and himself was a) a total fresh start, b) very much in the present (nothing from before came into their wanting to be with each other and actually being together) and c) timeless. It was very much johnandyoko.
The following people thank meanmistermustard for this post:
Beatlebug, Eleanor Macca, Zig, Evangeline, Ahhh Girl"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
5.37am
22 September 2014
Offline Ahhh Girl said
“It’s a love that has no past”Does that mean John didn’t have to marry her because he got her pregnant and had to do his manly duty? Probably not.
That. I would bet that John himself would be the first to agree that his lyrics were not always grounded in profundity. Plus, rhyming can be an intractable tyrant; many song writers have complained about the iron bonds of rhyming; Paul Simon used to call himself “Rhymin’ Simon.”
EDIT: Ask @Zig how much of a struggle it is to conjure meaningful rhymes in his brilliant parodies. (Rhymes with dare to please?)
The following people thank georgiewood for this post:
Beatlebug, The Hippie Chick, ZigI say in speeches that a plausible mission of artists is to make people appreciate being alive at least a little bit. I am then asked if I know of any artists who pulled that off. I reply, 'The Beatles did'.
Kurt Vonnegut, Timequake, 1997
4.43am
Reviewers
14 April 2010
Offline I’m in love for the first time
Don’t you know it’s gonna last?
It’s a love that lasts forever
It’s a love that had no past
Isn’t it had? That’s how I hear it.
Either way, I’ve always interpreted this pretty much as mmm did above. Fresh start, no baggage, always looking forward. Even if “past” was a convenient rhyme as suggested above, I could envision John smiling at the perfect coincidental fit to the message. Sheer poetry, the lucky bugger.
The following people thank Zig for this post:
georgiewood, Beatlebug, Ahhh GirlTo the fountain of perpetual mirth, let it roll for all its worth. And all the children boogie.
3.21pm
Moderators
15 February 2015
Offline The other day, I was listening to Past Masters for the first time in a while. My ears ran across this song, and even though I’ve never paid too much attention to this track — usually thinking of it as ‘just another Beatles song’ — it struck me how good it is. Just a little b-side, nothing special, something to pad out space on the flip side of a good record, to tide you over between LPs… yet it’s got that searing Lennon vocal and clean grooves from Billy Preston and it’s really tight. Just another Beatles song, just the Fab Four being awesome again… and again… and again…
I find that with the Beatles (no pun intended), it’s really easy to forget how good any particular song is if you haven’t heard it in a while, because they’re all so damn good. 
The following people thank Beatlebug for this post:
pepperland([{BRACKETS!}])
New to Forumpool? You can introduce yourself here.
If you love The Beatles Bible, and you have adblock, don't forget to white-list this site!
4.15pm
18 April 2013
Offline I like this song.
"If you're ever in the shit, grab my tit.” —Paul McCartney
4.23pm
24 March 2014
Offline George’s arrangement is brilliant
The following people thank Shamrock Womlbs for this post:
Beatlebug"I Need You by George Harrison"
4.02am
3 August 2014
Offline I’ve always been struck by the bass, it’s got its own rhythm, sort of syncopated. I can’t think of anything else like it. I’d love to hear it isolated. (And about 10 minutes long!)
The following people thank Sugarplum fairy for this post:
Shamrock Womlbs, Beatlebug10.08am
26 January 2017
Offline Shamrock Womlbs said
George’s arrangement is brilliant
I agree. I like the slidey guitar, and how it compares to the “ooh she done me” lyrics. The guitar arrangement kind of feels like giving yourself up completely to another person, which is the point of the song.
"The pump don't work cause the vandals took the handles!"
-Bob Dylan, Subterranean Homesick Blues
"We could ride and surf together while our love would grow"
-Brian Wilson, Surfer Girl
10.15am
19 October 2016
Offline Don’t Let Me Down is a wonderful song, fantastic performance.
Does it make anyone else cringe a little to hear newly-separated John sing about being “in love for the first time?”
1 Guest(s)
