In March 1966 Paul ran a competition in a little underground magazine called the Global Moon Edition of the Long Hair Times, the direct forerunner of International Times, edited by Miles and produced by John Hopkins on his own hand-cranked offset-litho machine. Paul, using his pseudonym Ian Iachimoe, offered twenty guineas for a film script. (âŠ)
PAUL: The thing about cleanliness could be my mother, who was a nurse and was very hygienic. She was amazingly house proud, she was almost obsessive about getting rid of dirt. So if I was analysing it, that would be the first thing Iâd go to. Twenty guineas was a lot of dough! I was very interested in making films. I used to have a few images that I stored to use if I ever did make a film. I suppose I was thinking of New Wave French directors, or New Wave Polish in this case. I remember I had an image of breaking an egg into an ashtray, a very full, very dirty ashtray. That was a shot that was always on my mind. I think it was the natural perfection of the egg breaking into the really slobby man-made mess of the all the ciggies and stuff. I was interested in the contrast. Then I had a thought about the sound of fire being very similar to the sound of applause and I wanted to do something with that. So I had a lot of unrelated ideas. I suppose it culminated in âMagical Mystery Tourâ. That was about the nearest I got to it.
â paul mccartney: many years from now, by barry miles
Obsessed with being clean. Something happened to make her crawl through dirt. Not forced to become involved with it, she chose filth. THIS IMAGINARY FILM BY PAUL'S ALTER EGO IS GAY. Reclaiming trash didn't start with John Waters; that was part of a queer tradition.
âIt's the same old song being sung in the background, being sung up front. But if you want to get it right, you got to listen. Heed my words, listen to me!â
Funnily enough, there are some words spoken in the background, starting at 3:55, that arenât included in the published lyrics. Give or take, this is what I hear:
âTell me now, you know the answer, yeah
Is it going to be all right or is it going to be all wrong?
Oh, you tell your sister, go and listen to her soul
You know what she wants and you know you agree
Oh, is it going to be (incredible..?), listen to me,
This is NOT a straightforward "love song." He has this dialogue going on between sex and spirituality which I find hugely fascinating as an artistic focus. "Destiny Of Man," I wonder if he was influenced by Berdyaev's philosophy popular in the 1960s.
The first thing to notice is the title of the song, particularly the word "nightime". I've seen many people correct it and type it as "nighttime" but "nightime" is not a spelling mistake, or at the very least it's a spelling mistake done on purpose.
"Nightime" makes me think of the saying "the time is nigh" which literally means âthe time is nearâ or âthe moment is about to arrive.â If that's the actual meaning of "nightime" (and I'm pretty sure it is, it would be weird if the title of the song got misspelled in all official releases) then the question is what is it the time for? What is the moment that is about to arrive? We'll hopefully find the answers to these questions while we analyze the song.
Throughout the song Paul says "nightime" but since it's a play on words (and probably a coded message to a specific person) I'm going to interpret it as "nighttime" while I analyze it, for clarity's sake.
We only took a look at the title and the song is already tricky and ambiguous, I'm afraid this is going to be a main feature of this song so bear with me while I give it my best shot at unraveling it.
What does she get for all the love she gave you
There on the ladder of regrets?
Mighty river, give her all she gets
The first verse introduces us to three of the main characters of this song, "she" who we automatically associate with a woman, "you" who is probably this woman's lover (which for clarity's sake we'll interpret as being a man) and the "mighty river".
The song opens with a question, Paul asks directly the character "you" what "she" gets as a reward for all the love "she" gave him. while Paul is asking this question "she" is standing on a ladder of regrets.
It sounds like all "she" is doing is give and give without getting anything or not much in return, hence the "ladder of regrets".
"She" is apparently in a relationship of sorts with this "you", but is unhappy because even though "she" gives her love to "you" it doesn't look like "she" gets much of anything in return, only regrets. We don't know why "you" isn't giving "she" the love which she very much craves, at least not yet. We might need to get to know the characters a little better to find this particular detail out.
Paul then invokes the "mighty river" and tells it to give her ("she") all she gets. In everyday English, "give someone what they get" can sound punitive ("give them what they deserve") but in this case it's more likely that Paul is asking the river to give her what she deserves which is to say the love "you" hasn't been giving her back. There is a certain weirdness to this line, why would Paul be asking this river we still don't know much about to supply "she" with love she clearly has been craving from someone else? It's even weirder because the river disappears from the next two verses. We may need more context from the song before fully analysing this line.
What does she get for all the love she gave you
There on the ladder of regrets?
Daytime nightime suffering is all she gets
The answer to the question asked in the first verse is answered here, all "she" gets for the love she gave this mysterious "you" is pain by day and by night.
Where are all the prizes for the games she entered
With little chance of much success?
Daytime nightime suffering is all she gets
"She" entered many games probably orchestrated by "you", games that were hard to win or rigged because the chances of success weren't high. Paul is asking where the prizes and the rewards are for participating in these games. It's interesting to note that Paul doesn't say "she" has won any of the aforementioned games and yet he's implying that "she" should still receive prizes for even taking part in them. It makes me think that these "games" were not something to be won or lost, but were instead a bit of a dance between two people, two lovers, with the "you" being the main instigator and "she" taking part in them. And yet all "she" gets for taking part in them is daytime and nighttime suffering.
Come on river, overflow
Let your love for your people show
Come on river, flow through me
Let your love for your people be
You are the river, I am the stream
Flow mighty river through me
This verse is very tricky so let's slowly go through it and discover what it might mean.
The first thing to notice is that we're undergoing a change of scenery. "She" who has been the main character of the song so far, disappears in this verse. In her stead we have the "river" that was introduced to us in the first verse, the second is that Paul is no longer an omniscient narrator but he himself is now a character in the song: "me", "I". So we now have four characters in this song: "she", "you", "river" and "me", Paul himself.
This is all rather confusing. Where has "she" gone? Weren't we talking about her suffering? The sudden reveal of Paul as a character in the song when we had so far been thinking he was just the narrator is also destabilizing, what might this all mean?
These questions will be answered as we continue to analyze the song.
Come on river, overflow
Let your love for your people show
After reading these first two lines we understand that Paul is personifying the River, he's treating it as if it were a person with feelings they're suppressing, not only that, he's egging it on: "come on river" he says, "overflow". The river feels love but it doesn't show it to "his people", it doesn't let its love "overflow" because it's contained, hidden.
Come on river, flow through me
Let your love for your people be
Paul himself enters the picture. He's still egging the river on but this time he's telling it to flow through him and from what we've learned in the previous two lines, the water of this river is the love it feels and this love only becomes visible to the people when it overflows. When Paul says to the personified river to flow through him he's actually telling it to let its love flow through him (Paul).
Paul wants to feel the river's love.
He then says "Let your love for your people be". Paul is once again asking the river to show its love to his people, to let this love be and since he wants the river to flow through him this line implies that Paul himself is one of those "people" he's talking about in this line.
You are the river, I am the stream
Flow mighty river through me
These lines are the pivotal point of the song and hold a lot of meaning.
The river, which Paul had previously personified, is now getting associated with the "you" that we'd seen previously in the song. The "you" that is the lover of "she". The "you" that makes "she" suffer because while "she" gives "you" all her love, "you" doesn't give back what he receives from her.
Sounds familiar?
The river, just like "you", doesn't let its love show (or "overflow" as Paul put it). The people, Paul included, crave the river's love, just like "she" craves love from "you".
Paul with this line has just given us the key to fully understand the characters he has presented us that had seemingly nothing to do with each other.
"You" and the "mighty river" are one and the same. The story about "she" suffering because of "you" was just an allegory for the suffering Paul himself is undergoing because of the river and its choice not to show its love, as he has explained with the lines "Come on river, overflow, let your love for your people show. Come on river, flow through me, let your love for your people be" that we have previously analyzed. He craves love from it -or at this point shall we say him- just like "she" craves love from "you".
Since Paul fused together "you" and the river with the words "you are the river" and since Paul has put himself in the position of craving for the river's love, we can come to the conclusion that Paul himself is also probably the "she" that craves love from "you".
But who exactly is this "you" that has been making Paul suffer so much? I found a possible answer to this question contained in the second half of the very same line we've been analyzing, but to understand what Paul is possibly getting at here I'm afraid we'll need to go on a bit of a journey so please bear with me while I slowly go through this.
Let's start by defining what the two bodies of water cited in that line are:
River: A river is a natural, flowing body of water that follows a distinct path, usually moving downhill from higher elevations (like mountains) toward a lower body of water, such as an ocean, lake, or another river.
Stream: A stream is a continuous body of surface water flowing within the bed and banks of a channel. Depending on its location or certain characteristics, a stream may be referred to by a variety of local or regional names. Long, large streams are usually called rivers, while smaller, less voluminous and more intermittent streams are known, amongst others, as brook, creek, rivulet, rill, run, tributary, feeder, freshet, narrow river, and streamlet.
As you may have already understood the main difference between these two bodies of water is the size. When a stream is big enough it is described as a rived instead.
So is Paul talking about two different bodies of water here? One large and mighty river and a smaller stream? Possibly, but I don't really think that's the case. There's another explanation to what Paul might be getting at here.
You see, the stream Paul talks about can also be interpreted as a "stream of water", which has a different meaning from the word "stream". Here's the definition:
Stream of water: Stream water refers to the water that flows naturally within the bed and banks of a continuous channel, such as a brook, creek, or river.
You may already see what I'm getting at here. If we take this definition then the stream is in and of itself part of the river.
Now let's get back to the song and the line we're currently analyzing.
You are the river, I am the stream
Paul is identifying himself with the stream. No tricks here, he's being very direct. The implications of this line are however quite mind-blowing and practically impossible for me to fully describe so pardon me because words are probably going to fail me soon.
The river (which we now know is a mysterious person that has made Paul suffer because he doesn't let his love show when that is exactly what Paul is carving) and the stream are one and the same. The stream flows inside the river, the river is the stream. This line speaks of a shared identity, a shared soul and as far as I know, Paul, while looking into his eyes, "dissolved" into one other person and one other person only.
With only one person has he ever had such an intense bond, a bond so deep and everlasting that he talks and sings about it to this day. You only need to look at his recent slip of the tongue "his spirit is still in mine- in me" to understand what I'm getting at here. I think he's talking about John.
This song from 1979 perfectly captures the various mood changes and feelings Paul was apparently going through during this period and that we can find in his songs from the time; feelings like the pain and suffering of "arrow through me", the urgency of "Morse moose and the grey goose" and the hopefulness of "with a little luck" and "coming up", which I believe are all songs possibly written about and for John. All those feelings are present in the song we're currently analyzing.
Paul and John have always liked to play with identity, no need to look farther than lines like "I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together" from I am the walrus and "the walrus was Paul" from glass onion (which I don't really have the strength to analyze right now, my brain is already breaking because of this song, I can see why Paul was so proud of it.), so whenever I see a lyric that plays with identity, my gut reaction is to take a look at their bond to see if it fits the general tone of the song, especially if it's a Paul song. And their relationship and what they were going through emotionally at the time this was written, do fit this song particularly well.
Flow mighty river through me
Remember, Paul is the stream. Here he is asking the river, John, to flow through him. He's asking John to be one soul in two bodies again. He's asking John to get back together in their most quintessential and unique way.
Now we have the necessary context to fully analyze the third line of the song which sounded pretty weird but now takes on another, more complex, meaning.
Mighty river, give her all she gets
Since Paul has merged the characters of the river and "you" in one with the words "you are the river" and since in this analysis both "you" and the river are John and "she" is Paul, what comes out (with some poetic license on my part) is something like this: "John, please give me what I deserve (your love) what little you're giving me now is not nearly enough and because of this I suffer day and night".
Back to where we left off:
What does it pay to play the leading lady
When like the damsel in distress
Daytime nightime suffering is all she gets
We're back to the "she" character but now it's easier to understand what Paul is telling us. For clarity's sake I'll now start interpreting "she" as Paul himself.
What's the point of being a main character in their mind games when Paul suffers day and night like a damsel in distress? I don't know exactly what kind of mind games Paul and John were playing in the 70s but from the looks of it they were quite the complicated ones and especially in the late 70s left them both feeling miserable.
It's also interesting to note that Paul has taken the role of the woman in this song, he feels silly like a damsel in distress, unable to save himself from the situation she's been thrust in and dependent on the hero to save her.
No less, no more
(No less, no more)
No sea, no shore
(No sea, no shore)
No sand, no pail
(No sand, no pail)
No fairy tale anymore
Paul gets no less and no more than daytime and nighttime suffering. There's no sea, no shore, no sand, no pail (we could analyze the sea and what it means to both John and Paul but this analysis is already long enough) and no fairy tale anymore.
The bit about the fairy tale is particularly interesting. There are multiple interpretations that I find likely:
Referencing the previous line about the damsel in distress, Paul could be saying that he's tired of these games they've been playing, he wants John to stop beating around the bush and do something already in regards to their relationship.
It could also be referencing the Beatles, their very own and special fairy tale that is no more, along with their youth. He could be saying that they're too old to still be playing games.
Another likely interpretation comes from a story Paul has shared about calling John on the phone in an attempt at mending their relationship in the late 70s. He said that John was suspicious of his motives and kept asking what he really wanted and during the conversation John apparently angrily told him "you're all pizzas and fairy tales!" (Paul had been talking about what he was going to eat and about reading fairy tales to his kids). This remark deeply hurt Paul who after weakly replying with "Oh, fuck off, Kojak" slammed down the phone. It wouldn't surprise me if he's referencing John's own words here. Possibly telling him that he's ready to actually have an adult and serious conversation about their relationship, that he's ready to mend it and for them to be together again if John wants to.
Come on river, flow through me
Don't be stopped by insanity
Come on river, overflow
Let your love for your neighbors grow
We've already talked about the meaning of the first line so let's focus on the second one. Paul who is asking the river, John, -and here I'm going to use an euphemism- to get together again, is also basically begging him to not be stopped by insanity. We know John was paranoid, we've just gone through a story of him being suspicious of Paul's real motives when all Paul actually wanted to do was catch up and possibly mend their frayed relationship. Paul knows that one of the main reasons they haven't made up yet is because of John's fraught state of mind, here he's asking him to push through it, to see reason and to "flow through" him.
"Come on river, overflow" again, egging him on to give into his feelings.
"Let your love for your neighbors grow" Paul is not the only one that has been deprived of John's love. The entire world has been. He's telling John to remember that there are other people outside, be it his neighbors or the American population, he's hoping for John to reinvigorate himself, to at least set foot outside of his house more often.
You are the river, I am the stream
Flow mighty river, through me
Daytime nightime suffering
Is all she gets
Daytime nightime suffering
Is all she gets
Daytime nightime suffering
Is all she gets
What does she get for all the love she gave you?
Repeating the most important lines. They could be one again if John wanted them to be. Paul suffers day and night because of John. What does Paul get for all the love he gave John?
John also used the "you're the x, I'm the y" lyrical structure on the song "One Day (At a Time)" from the 1973 album Mind Games:
'Cause I'm a fish and you're the sea
'Cause I'm an apple and you're the tree
'Cause I'm a door and you're the key
'Cause you're the honey and I'm the bee
Usually interpreted as being about Yoko, and it could well be, but the brackets in the song title might be a "tell" that a song is addressed to Paul too (see also "(I Know) I Know" from the same album)
Stream and River are both male - gendered metaphors, ocean female. This sounds like the Upanishads. This is more homoerotic mysticism (@faultlessspills)
On the surface, these two films do not look like they have anything in common. Dating from 1945, Brief Encounter, directed by David Lean, adapted from a NoĂ«l Coward play, with a Rachmaninoff score chosen by Coward, was voted in a BFI poll the second greatest British film of all time. (1) Released in 1984, Give My Regards to Broad Street, directed by Peter Webb using Paul McCartneyâs screenplay and music, was deemed by The Times of London âthe worst film that ever cost $9m and two years of work." (2) One is a romantic drama; the other is an âamateur sleuthâ musical comedy.
Yet upon closer inspection, there are, in fact, several echoes of the former in the latter. Firstly, both films use a train station as spacial metaphor for connection and loss. Secondly, both plots center on the conflict between dreams and reality. Thirdly, both movies feature a musical score that contains the otherwise repressed emotional turmoil of their protagonists.
More specifically, two of the most dramatically meaningful scenes in Give My Regards to Broad Street reflect the influence of their canonical predecessor.
âIâm in a Bit of a Hurryâ
In Brief Encounter, Laura, a married, middle-aged, suburban mother confesses, via voiceover, to an affair with a stranger she meets at a train station during her shopping trips into town. Â
Brief Encounter (screenshot): Train station clocks loom over Laura as trains and people come and go on schedule, just as the life of Laura, a self-described âordinary woman,â runs according to the rules. The trains depart, and so must her dreams vanish: ânothing lasts, really. Neither happiness nor despairâ she philosophizes.
Give My Regards to Broad Street is a daydream Paul, in his early 40s, has on a car ride to work. Paul dreams that Harry, described in Roger Ebertâs review as âan ex-con who is now an employee⊠[and] his friendâ (3) has stolen music tapes from him, a crime that risks Paulâs music business at a crucial financial deadline; the theft leads to Harryâs brutal murder. Paul solves the case himself. He proves Harryâs innocence just in time, finding him on a ruined track at the decayed Broad Street train station of the title.Â
(Screenshot) Broad Street Station, slated for demolition, at closing. The clock nears midnight, the deadline to appease Rath, to end the villainous businessmanâs hostile takeover. Â Â Does Paul have what it takes to locate Harry in time?
âYouâre Finishedâ
(Screenshots) Laura rests on a bench, exhausted from running through the rain. âShe sits at the [First World] War memorial. A high-angle shot has it towering over her, a symbol of male sacrifice in securing the society to which she belongsâŠof very obvious phallic proportions.â âPerhaps the moment of greatest despair in the film,â she decides to renounce her love affair before consummating it. (4, p34)
(Screenshot) (Screenplay excerpt from Paul McCartney, Give My Regards to Broad Street, London: MPL, 1984)
Having peeled away security gates to enter the last-chance track, Paul pauses to feel the full weight of failure. He imagines himself as a street busker near a poster announcing, âTHE MUSIC EMPIRE CRUMBLES.â The dim lights of the doomed station are overshadowed by the two gleaming new skyscrapers looming in the distance. As in Brief Encounter, the juxtaposed blight and might allegorize internal conflict. The potent skyscrapers, so emblematic of the power of human greed and transfer of power from industry to services, so prevalent in the 1980s, so representative of the physical curtailments of the office over freedom of motion. Paradoxically, once Paul lets go of his attachment, Harry and the tapes reappear as if by magic.
âAnd all the silly dreams disappearedâ
In Brief Encounter, Laura returns to her husband, accepting âthe oppressive undertow to Fredâs nonetheless genuine niceness and decency,â her home offering her an âadmixture of security and denial of selfâ (4, p34) Â
When Paul wakes up from his daydream, his manager makes the same observation that Fred makes to Laura upon rousing his wife from brooding: âYouâre a long way away.â Paulâs dream did take him on a long journey, and now he is back to his normal office schedule. His dream has ended with success, with the restoration of order, fulfilling the classical definition of a comedy.
Yet this routine is the very same as the contents of his dream suggest Paul finds abominable. Brief Encounter has been described as an unwinding of the âpain and grief caused by having oneâs desires destroyed by the pressures of social conventionâ (quoted in 4, p14) The desires show up not through Lauraâs restrained poise, but in the uninhibited passion of the music, heard throughout the film. Give My Regards to Broad Street, structured as a dream, cannot achieve emotional clarity from either a candid plot or realistic acting. In the tradition of musical theater, much of the film's story unfolds in song.
TO BE CONTINUED
(Screenshots: Laura stares at her reflection through a window on the train in Brief Encounter; Paul sees his reflection in a backstage mirror between performances in Give My Regards to Broad Street)
(2) David Robinson, Review of "Give My Regards to Broad Street, The Times (London), November 30, 1984, p. 15
(3) Roger Ebert, âGive My Regards to Broad Streetâ RogerEbert.com, accessed May 21, 2026, https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/give-my-regards-to-broad-street-1984
(4) Richard Dyer, Brief Encounter, 2nd ed. (London: BFI, 2015)
Lean, David, dir. Brief Encounter. 1945. New York: Criterion Collection.
Webb, Peter, dir. Give My Regards to Broad Street. 1984. London: 20th Century Fox.
There's something about this outtake of She Came in Through the Bathroom Window that just makes me feel a little sad. John and Paul were having fun at least.
Hi @therealsaintscully! As requested, an explanation:
In AHDN, John has spent the whole damn day working and he is exhausted (valid). He earns money to buys things for his beloved, but then he comes home and receives his compensation. All that labor is bearable bc love gives him a reason to endure it. And although love and labor are entwined here, the dynamic isnât cold or transactional â working is a way of proving devotion (*Girl plays ominously from the not-so-distant future*). In essence: I do all this shit, but itâs worth it bc itâs all for you. Iâll keep doing whatever it takes to give you what you want bc you give me what I want.
CBML, on the other hand, kind of pushes back against that logic. Itâs not exactly a refusal of the terms set by AHDN, but it definitely renders the terms irrelevant. Right away, Paul makes it clear that the money and the things that John works to provide in exchange for love donât matter to him. To prove heâs not in it for the stuff, HE will buy his âfriendâ a diamond ring, HE will give all heâs got to give, so long as he receives love in return. Does this sound familiar?
The crucial condition of both songs is mutual affection: love me too, and the rest becomes secondary. You donât have to earn whatâs already being freely returned.
I say (lots) more on the subject of love over labor in this essay for @wontyoucomeouttoplay <3
I think there is a lot going on in these songs to on-the-fly reconfigure the definition of "success" at a time of disorienting personal fame. They had to make new terms up as they went along. These songs are very spontaneously produced. I hear uncertainty and caution in addition to enthusiasm.
"IF you say you'll love me too." In "Can't Buy Me Love," the singer has the unusual power of having an endless supply of financial resources to impress his 'friend,' yet also, paradoxically, "may not have a lot to give." There is a wedding-ceremony quality that sneaks its way into "Can't Buy Me Love." For richer, for poorerâŠwith this (diamond) ringâŠ. Just how, exactly, does the exchange of gifts in order to hear the beloved say "I love you" display how love cannot be bought? This is not success defined by a Genghis Khan style conquest: the endless string of casual sexual partners. Surprisingly, this is success grounded in intimacy.
"Everything SEEMS to be right"
Is working "like a dog" becoming only a means to an end, as long as the "end" is the beloved waiting devotedly at home to provide some holding tight, doing those things that make you feel alright? For most people work can become that way, unless work itself is a place of joy (a 'home'). So in some senses yes "A Hard Day's Night" can indeed be seen as a plea to avoid a very real potential 'alienation of work.' I'm fascinated by the way Paul ends up inserting himself into the place where the beloved could have responded to the 'workin' man' singer as a duet. He focuses only on the loving part, playing the "girl's role" in the gender politics of the day. The surprise this provides is gently provocative.
"Wedding Bells (Are Breaking Up That Old Gang Of Mine)"
John, Paul and George used this song to describe the Beatles breakup. Get Back revealed how the Beatles used songs that meant something to them as a way of communicating with each other, through connotation and association, privately in public. "Wedding Bells" is one of those songs. We know it means something to George, because of his demo tape for All Things Must Pass (below). Paul, in particular, likes to reference "Wedding Bells" to say that the breakup was the inevitable consequence of mature manhood; a quotation of the song he could have looked up in a Social Science textbook. John brought it up (for example) in 1980, screenshot, in a usage very similar to Paul's.
(Screenshot: "McCartney: My Love For Linda," Brisbane, AUS Courier-Mail, December 5, 1998)
Neither John nor Paul were ever service members nor played on a sports team. So what's up with all these goofy analogies? The situation that the song is actually describing, is one of loneliness and regrets, sentiments that run counter to the narrative they use it for. In fact, the song looks like a way for them to convey their honest ambivalence about moving on.
Listening to the song itself, it tells of a singer who feels lonely and sad, watching his male singing group partners get married, because they don't sing together anymore.
An American popular standard, it was written in the 1920s to appeal to nostalgia for a bygone era (specifically, late Victorian Barbershop quartet harmonizing of a generation earlier). It was first a hit in 1929 by the early crooner Gene Austin. Revived in the 1950s in a relentlessly cheery version by the Ink Spots in 1954, it was covered by Gene "Be Bop a Lula" Vincent, a bit more sombre in tone, on his 1956 debut album.
Charted at #26 in Billboard in May 1954. This great recording was overshadowed in the hit department by its #1 hit a-side, "Three Coins in t
paul writing a song about a mum who works really hard and a dad who sucks and then being like 'not MY parents by the way :)' is so funny, never change paul (also we can see right through you)
Curiously similar to the behavior of the leading characters (Shanty and Mary Dee) in his "Liverpool Oratorio." Will be interesting to see the variation developed for the song.
Spirits of Ancient Egypt needs to be added to the 'master list' of Lennon-McCartney musical dialogues.
It has: sexual recognition ("I know...."). Uncertainty about reciprocated love ("do you love me?"). A relationship based on phone conversations ("hung on the telephone"). Two ludicrously talented people ("you could sell an elevatorâŠ" "I could drive a CadillacâŠ")**. The invocation of glorious but fallen empires, now lying in ruins. Hmm. Gee, I wonder what this song could perhaps be about.
To me, the key is in the change of text in The Lyrics from the uncertainty of the twice repeated "I'm your baby, do you love me?" to the recorded "I'm your baby, and you love me." In the recorded version, the singer is certain of the beloved's love, highly appropriate for Paul to sing with Linda. He doesn't doubt her love: she is right there by his side. The original version gives away the precariousness of the post-breakup Lennon-McCartney relationship. (**would I be shocked if these were all sexual metaphors? No.)
or: Whatâs going on in this Lennon song, and why does McCartney not like it?
As part of an album full of repudiations ("I donât believe in Beatles!â) and reckonings (âMy Mummyâs Dead!â) the litanies of "you" in "Working Class Hero" deserve closer inspection.
Paul's commentators have noted how he switches from first person singular "I" into first person plural ("we") or third person "he or she." This is a defense mechanism when things get emotionally vulnerable.
Meanwhile, John shifts pronouns away from himself into second person. Look at what he does in "You've Got to Hide You're Love Away," withdrawing from the exposed "Here I stand, head in hand, turn my face to the wall" to the safety of "you've got to hide." It draws the listener close as it blurs the focus on his own feelings.
Firstly, is he saying that a âWorking class heroâ is something to be, or not to be? Is this one of the identities he no longer wants to claim because the victories werenât/arenât worth it?
What did The Beatles get from becoming Carnegies of rock? They got all this money, fame, power, idolization.
But it was like drugs, enthralling; they were "still fucking peasants" with agency an illusion, elusive. They had âno timeâ that wasnât supervised.
âIf you want to be a hero, well just follow meâ He is using sarcasm to ridicule the aspirational goals that had governed his life up to that point as false, as folly. Rethinking those ambitions expunges his shared past with Paul. âFollow me,â like he is still leading a band. He is asking himself and the listener: âWhat can I do for good with all this power, fame that I earned jointly. If being a survivor of structural abuse/class-based injustices is the price of leadership, I don't know if I want it. None of my efforts has gotten me what I really want.â No wonder he thought heroism was dehumanizing. These profound self-doubts come with hindsight as he lays blame for his present state of mind.
"They hurt you at home, and they hit you at school.â âThey despise a fool" are all lines that might well allude to Paul. And/or himself.
The Folks on the Hill
âThe Folks Who Live On the Hillâ was written by Jerome Kern and Oscar Hammerstein II in 1937 (during the US Great Depression). It is about a couple who get to live the dream - a cozy, loving, married family together their whole lives. The lyrics bear some similarity to âWhen Iâm Sixty-Fourâ in that âsmaller gamesâ are valued over âlofty aims." The song is not about wanting to have the best house in town and lord it over everybody else; it is about ranking love over wealth.
(Hammerstein, Oscar. The complete lyrics of Oscar Hammerstein II. New York: Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, 2008.)
This sort of "Working Class Hero" bit
Fast forward past 12/8/1980. Someone who never wavered from his loyalty to representing a-working-class-hero-as-something-to-be is Paul. It is no coincidence that he rarely criticizes Johnâs work but occasionally makes his discomfort with âWorking Class Heroâ known. Paul sees âWorking Class Heroâ as a dig. Paul brings it up in the Liverpool Oratorio documentary to dismiss Lennonâs bona fides while defending his own. "This sort of "Working Class Hero" bit, itâs not quite true" he tells conductor Carl Davis, as if it is theater. However, McCartney still valorizes the working-class hero. âNot for ourselves alone but for the whole world are we born,â he writes in the oratorioâs libretto, placing civic duty on a pedestal above personal fulfillment. Paul alludes to Johnâs song again in the title of the subsequent classical album Working Classical (1999).
Part of his sense of dignity comes from The Beatles as a rags-to-riches narrative. He writes in 1964: Eyes of The Storm about The Beatles âconquestâ of America: âCommon peopleâŠ. are my peopleâŠThis is where Iâm from. I grew up in a working-class familyâ and, later, âas someone who came from a working-class estate in Liverpool, Iâm proud.â
This shared fervor with which they attack their roles as public figures, variously embracing and rejecting the pressures of successâ warrants further consideration. Heroism sometimes fits both Lennon and McCartney awkwardly, like hand-me-down shoes. Two men, one truth: âWorking Class Heroâ cloaks personal objective in political guise.
Ex-Beatles Solo Albums through the McLennonlens: Part 9 - Band On The Run (1973)
Previous instalments
Band On The Run: I want to run away from all my responsibilities.
Jet: Remember when we sort-of got married as teenagers and everyone was mad at us and it was great?
Bluebird: Because we can't be in the same country, I like to imagine I'm astral projecting into your room and kissing you <3
Mrs Vandebilt: Everyone needs to chill out, including me.
Let Me Roll It: Remember how good my handjobs are? I'm gonna get you back, yes I am. How about this sickass guitar solo I stole from your getting-off-heroin song? Lil shout-out to George too. I feel happy :))
Mamunia: I know it's scary to be cut loose from your wife, but I have faith in you.
No Words: You're being difficult again. Why won't you believe me when I say I LOVE you, always have, always will!
Picassoâs Last Words (Drink to Me): Wrote this to impress Dustin Hoffman, but kind of phoned it in.
Nineteen Hundred and Eighty-Five: The thought of getting to have sex with you again is making me feel insane with joy.
---------------
Credit to @menlove for noticing the similarities between the guitar solo in "Cold Turkey" and the one in "Let Me Roll It".
Awwww no love for "Picasso's Last Words"?? So like Macca to counter thanatos with a little eros. "Came without a warning," indeed. Think this can be looked at as a message to Johnny: Those French mots doux whispered in the background; that little accordion-esque thing going on to bring back that I-love-Paris feeling; the Rat Pack like drunk singalong in memory of 1960s companionship, like Dean Martin wobbling "To Celia," the Ben Jonson poem oft set to music that "Picasso's Last Words" reminds me of ("Drink to me only with thine eyes"). "I'll be waiting for you baby" Paul vows. "In bed."
And "Jet"? Who might that somebody be whose marriage upset Paul so much that he no longer thinks "the only lonely place is on the moon" and has to write a fun jaunty upbeat song everyone will come to hear him play, to conceal and soothe his true feelings?
âGive Us A Kissâ: Queer codes, Male Partnering, and The Beatles, essay by Ann Shillinglaw, The Queer Sixties by Patricia Juliana Smith, 1999 (pg.123).
Interesting little book about queer coding and sixties icons. Shillinglaw introduces The Beatles as examples of a strong âhomosocialâ (basically male friendships) bond, that was thwarted by the presence of women.
This is an interesting dilemma for me. On the one hand, The Beatles owe social acceptability to being a group of white men. And once they did achieve power, they became worthier of admiration and emulation on account of their success. On the other hand, their performances were sexually liberating and a bonding experience for women. Furthermore, there's something just too gendered and divisive about arguing for The Beatles as strictly a homosocial bond, because it doesn't take the power of the audience into account as an active participant. Secondly, perhaps influenced by second wave feminism, both John and Paul enthusiastically embraced having women partners as some degree of co-creators in the 1970s. At the same time, they missed their former creative partners who were male, and the Paul/Linda and John/Yoko partnerships don't feel like 50/50 equals with hindsight. This doesn't need to be an either-or situation, but a both/and. Highlighting Yoko Ono as the false threat to the Beatles breakup due to sexist stereotypes ends up being a pink elephant situation re-inscribing gender stereotypes. None of the theories I've read so far offers a convincing view of the band's breakup.
Dear Friend/Throw The Wine/I'm In Love with A Friend of Mine
This phrase from "Dear Friend" is intriguing for a number of reasons, but one of them is: what is going on with this wine? Is this an oinomancy, the practice of fortune telling through wine spill patterns, sediments, etc?
Is "I'm in Love with a Friend of Mine" Paul's prophesy, the truth revealed from this reading?
"Melted tin beads cast your fortune /In a glass of wine" he writes in the title track for the film Vanilla Sky (2001).
