Jump to content

Lennon/McCartney and Yoko Ono


Recommended Posts

From About Songfacts Forum

originally posted by Martin22779

-OK....I feel a bit of support for my views now, so I can calm down a bit! The song with the insulting comments about Yoko is under "Yesterday". It seems to come about because the song's composer [McCartney] wants the credit changed from Lennon/McCartney to McCartney/Lennon. The comment about the composer credit is relevant to the song. The attack on Yoko is completely unnecessary and unwarranted.

Also, when researching "Get Back" yesterday, I noticed another nasty, pointless comment aimed in Yoko's direction: "[Yoko] is the most useless person that ever existed". Apart from being able to name 100 people off the top of my head who would deserve that title more than Yoko, is anyone able to to enlighten me as to what this has to do with "Get Back" (notwithstanding John Lennon's unsubstantiated view that he thought McCartney was singing to Yoko: "Get back to where you once belonged"]? What exactly is it that Yoko Ono is supposed to have done that warrants such postings from visitors to this site? Split up a pop group? [Which she didn't...and even if she did, she should receive credit for it.]

Martin,

I personally have cringed for decaded at people assertion that Yoko broke up the Beatles. Paaalleeze, I give John way more credit than that! John Lennon and Paul McCartney had creative differences, that's all!! Like so many other duo's they had to go their ways. We can speculate until the cows come home whether they would have teamed up again by now if John hadn't been murdered. I honestly think they may have.

Yoko was John's love of his life, I respect THAT! I respect him!! Anyone who said negative things about him or Yoko is really not a "true" fan in my humble opinion. They need to get a life! What's people do is their business, if you like their music .. let it be (ha-ha)

On the other subject. Long ago John and Paul decided on the Lennon/McCartney billing arraingment, I think it's petty and stupid to debate such a trivial issue. Songs are easy to to tell who actually wrote them (any real Beatle fan will tell ya) so who really cares. Again this is one of those "get a life" issues, "tempest in a teacup". Let it be, is my opinion. This remindes me of McQueen/Newman and Towering Inferno, they argued over top billing, whos name would go first, then when the studio said they would put them side by side McQueen said his first (left to right) so Newman said mine goes higher then, Steve McQueen demanded that he and Paul Newman have exactly the same number of lines, that they get exactly the same salaries.

After all that the move sucked anyway! LOL

Anyway, nice to have another Beatle fan aboard the board!

Stay cool!

Mike

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mike,

Thanks for your comments. I?m glad someone agrees with me!

The whole story of The Beatles - especially the period when they were disintegrating - is a really interesting area. My take on the 'split' is that, post-touring and post-Epstein there was only ever going to be one outcome. The Beatles grew up, they formed strong relationships with their women and...well...their priorities changed.

Not only that, but the evidence suggests that both Lennon and Harrison were 'savvy' enough to see that the band had run its course. McCartney hadn't realised that and wanted to keep the band together. It is therefore ironic that McCartney is probably more to blame for the break-up of The Beatles than anyone. His constant badgering of the other guys would have irritated anyone, let alone three of the most talented people ever to have been involved in popular music. Not only that, but his 'neatness' was the antithesis of was what his main partner was trying to do. Lennon's response to the meticulous "Abbey Road" was to put out "Cold Turkey". Pop groups have a limited shelf life, and if the Beatles had continued after ?Abbey Road?/?Let It Be? they would have tainted their own astonishing legacy. Look at The Rolling Stones.

The Beatles? worst album ? whatever that may be ? is better than most people?s best. They were a unique phenomenon and ? as if by some sixth sense ? they finished at exactly the right time. They defined the sixties. They were fab [still are] and it ended. Yoko?s involvement in all of it was that John wanted to spend more time with her. If you?re in love, you?d want to spend more time with your lover than your mates, wouldn?t you?

Save for the huge cock-up in McCartney and Yoko not outbidding Michael Jackson for the publishing rights to most of The Beatles? songs, I also feel that Yoko has been sympathetic with John?s legacy. There was the excellent Lennon ?Anthology? box set and the occasional re-release of ?Imagine? (over here), Oh?and ?Free As A Bird? of course, but I think she has been an excellent custodian of his work, image and name.

Even before it was obvious to the world at large that The Beatles were disintegrating, the press and the public were dreadful towards her ? with the press (here) even referring to her as ?ugly?. No-one deserves that.

Also this thing about being ?the most useless person that ever existed?, even if the only thing she had ever recorded was the very excellent ?Walking On Thin Ice?, that means she has made a far greater contribution to popular culture than most of the people on this planet can claim. No-one deserves the treatment she has received ? and, by looking at this site, is still receiving. As I asked previously: ?What is it that she has done that is so bad??

Anyway, thanks again for taking the time to respond. It?s always nice to mull over Beatles? stuff with a fellow fan. I really do like this site, I just get irritated when people abuse things.

Martin

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh...I just realised that I didn't respond to the "Lennon/McCartney" songwriting credit. The songs on the first album ["Please Please Me", as opposed to whatever was released in the States later on] were actually credited to McCartney/Lennon. Then there seems to have been some discussion when deciding on subsequently recorded original material. They clearly saw themselves as future "Rogers & Hammerstein" and, if you look at it, "Rogers" has the same number of syllables as "Lennon" and "Hammerstein" has the same number of syllables as "McCartney". So it sounds better that way round. However, I recall reading something from Paul where he said that, when asked how it should be styled, John jumped in with "Lennon & McCartney" and Brian Epstein (who, as we know had a crush on John) agreed. Paul was left open-mouthed without his opinion being heard.

Coming up-to-date, I understand that Paul saw somewhere something which had computer graphics (or something) where the composers' name didn't fit in the required field. I seem to recall that he saw that "Yesterday" was written by "Lennon & ...". So his concern is not for the present day - because we all know who wrote "Yesterday" and...well.. all of them. It is for the future; i.e. he is trying (I believe) to protect his future legacy so that people in the future will realise that that "Yesterday was not written by "Lennon &" but was written by "McCartney". I can see his point to an extent (if you put yourself in his shoes). It's just that it seems a bit tedious to you and me because we know and /or we don't care. If it was ever that much of an issue, they should have taken care of it at the time, but, as I say, in the more uncertain times of 1963/4, they saw their future as a songwriting team, like Rogers & Hammerstein. Imagine "Hammerstein & Rogers". In the same way that that doesn't sound right, nor does "McCartney & Lennon".

Martin

Link to post
Share on other sites

Although Martin has made credible (to an extent) facts, I'll further add...

From the start, Paul wanted it to be "McCartney - Lennon." They had a meeting with Brian Epstein & John (and I'm not sure who else - possible George, Ringo, [bleep] James). The former were adamant that it be Lennon/McCartney. Paul himself has said, "No, it can't be Lennon first..." The familiar (Lennon/McCartney) started with "She Loves You."

For 'Yesterday', well let's go back just a tad bit. Brian Epstein made some shoddy deals for the group especially with [bleep] James (music publisher). Paul (today) only gets 15% for 'Yesterday'.

John Lennon has said that [bleep] James claimed that he made the Beatles. John later retorted, "I'd like to hear [bleep] James's music, please. Just play me some."

Ant

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh thanks Sara, I remember one time when we were having a discussion on the Zeppelin song Moby Dick, and then that conversation turned to why we couldn't say Dick as a part of a song, and so on and so on and so on, there have also been times when I was really annoyed that I couldn't say Dick Cheney.

Thanks for making this site even better :coolio: :thumbsup:

Link to post
Share on other sites

:) Ant, you should be able to edit your post back to normal!

Nah, I kinda like it that way :laughing:

Besides, I'm not one to edit my posts to look like a goody-two-shoes for spite of acknowledgment (yes Sara - IMO, that feature for editing can be misleading. I've read posts where it was edited (and not mentioned) to change the meaning and making other(s) replys (to that original post) beforehand look rather silly). <---- did that sound confusing? :laughing:

Ant

Link to post
Share on other sites

So now I can post my favorite t-shirt saying I ever saw in my whole life...

It used stick figures and states....

See Dick Drink - See Dick Drive - See Dick Die ....

....... Please Don't Be A Dick!

I had one of these tees, too. Except it was "See Dick Smoke, See Dick Choke, See Dick Croak, Don't Be a Dick"

:jester:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...