american dream
seen from Panama
seen from Brazil
seen from Saudi Arabia
seen from Yemen
seen from Netherlands

seen from United States
seen from Philippines

seen from Peru

seen from United States
seen from China
seen from Argentina
seen from El Salvador

seen from Canada
seen from United States
seen from China
seen from Argentina
seen from United States

seen from Germany
seen from Brazil
seen from United States
american dream
"He wouldn't talk" Biographer Hunter Davies recollects spending a day of silence with John Lennon.
"The first memory that always comes back is swimming in John's pool at his house in Weybridge. I'd gone to spend the day with him, but when I arrived, it turned out he had decided it was a day for not talking. I walked round his garden with him, not talking. Cynthia made lunch and we ate it, not talking. I sat with John in his cramped little den, under a sticker saying "Safe as Milk" while he watched children's television, not talking. Then we had a swim, round and round in his pool, not talking, but while we were swimming, we suddenly heard the noise of a police siren floating up the hill from Weybridge itself. It was giving that familiar two-note wail - Ah, ahh, ah ahh, ah, ahh. John started playing with the two notes - humming them, while not actually talking. Then he went inside, went to his piano, till he had turned the two notes into a song, or at least half a song. John was very good at half songs, quickly growing bored, often needing Paul to coax the other half out of him. A lot of their joint working sessions were like competitions - to show the other what they could do, or make the other do better."
- Hunter Davies for The Independent, 2005 [x]
Paul’s handwritten lyrics of “I Wanna Hold Your Hand” for Hunter Davies (but with a twist)
The Beatles Lyrics by Hunter Davies, pg. 59
“And please say to me, you’ll let me hold your thing”
Paul did say in The Lyrics that he likes to have sexual references in his love songs.
“But eroticism was very much a driving force behind everything I did. It’s a very strong thing. And, you know, that was what lay behind a lot of these love songs. ‘I wanna hold your hand’, open brackets, [and probably do a lot more!]” - Paul McCartney, The Lyrics , pg. 244.
Paul also says that this song was not about Jane (who he was living with at the time of writing this song)
“‘I Want to Hold Your Hand’ is not about Jane, but it was certainly written when I was with her. To tell you the truth, I think we were writing to a general audience. I may have been drawing on my experience with a person I was in love with at the time-and sometimes it was very specific-but mostly we were writing to the world”- Paul McCartney, The Lyrics , pg. 244. (The “we” is him and John writing this song together).
Not sure why Paul wrote this joke for Hunter Davies if he knew it was going into a Davies’s book about The Beatles lyrics. Maybe Paul had a bone to pick with Davies, lol.
Now I’m wondering if Paul always had this joke in mind when writing this song. (I have a feeling he did). Well we can definitely tell this song was not written for Jane because she doesn’t have a “thing”.
i'm curious what you mean that brian became less of a conformist?
Throughout 1967, Brian broke many of his own rules and became a more carefree, outspoken person, very in-line with the sentiments endorsed by the Summer of Love. You could argue that this is a conformity of its own, but in my personal opinion, he took it farther than most hippies of the era, especially considering how much he had to lose.
He started dressing in the styles of the era, finally shedding his immaculate business suits for brightly-colored floral shirts. He also did away with his famous curls and for a time combed his hair down into something of a moptop, the result of which made him appear shockingly young whenever he visited the Beatles in-studio with their mustaches.
He also promoted recreational drug use and admitted to having used such substances as LSD himself. Granted, this seems the most involuntary change, as initially his confession was meant to detract from the drama of Paul McCartney's drug use, but for a man who'd previously kept his image squeaky clean, admitting that he'd used these drugs at a time when they were illegal was a huge step for him.
He and the Beatles also leant their names to some sort of petition which was pro-recreational drug use, probably with the intent of lessening Mick Jagger's possible sentencing (sorry this is so vague, I literally read about this yesterday but can't find it in the book to get the specifics).
The rule that Brian specifically broke which shocked me was the no-talking-about-politics. For years the boys had been chafing under this rule, wanting to discuss things such as segregation and Vietnam, and they did manage to do so in their own special way, just with heavy limitations on what they could say. I'll admit that, while overwhelming, this rule wasn't useless; look at the bigger than Jesus controversy to see what happens when the boys spoke about politics off the cuff. But by 1967, all their political ideas had matured, and so had Brian's.
One of the most significant was his view of Israel. As someone from an orthodox Jewish family, undoubtedly he felt pressured to support Israel (sixty years later, I'm from a purely cultural Jewish family and even then the pressure is immense), and in the late-50s he even intended to give all his clothes to the country of Israel in his will. More recently, in 1964 he planned to have his new-signing The Cyrkle play in Israel. As he revealed in what might be his final interview, with Melody Maker, his opinions on Israel had changed drastically, undoubtedly in response to the third Arab-Israeli War.
I believe you were asked to help the Israeli cause in the recent Middle East crisis and refused. Why? I refused to help because I’m as sorry for a wounded Arab as I am for a wounded Israeli. People fundamentally are all the same and I can’t discriminate between Israelis and Arabs. Did your refusal to help upset your Jewish friends? I think Bernard Delfont and Cyril Shane who were among many who particularly asked me to help, were somewhat surprised at my negative reaction! But I can’t help it. I feel that people should have no greater concern for the suffering of one race than they have for any other. I believe in and want to help, as far as I can, to understand mankind whatever colour, creed, religion or nationality. And I think this sort of philosophy, however broad and general it sounds, is the only basic one the leaders of the world can work from to attain world peace.
As Brian has said, even his private refusal to help Israel had gotten him into hot water with his Jewish friends. Imagine the backlash he would've received for broadcasting this on a grand scale, and in Britain, no less, the very architect of the country of Israel! And yet he didn't seem to care anymore. He was placing authenticity over reputation for the first time in his life.
This is especially evident when he compares the criminalization of marijuana to something particularly close to home:
There is a parallel with homosexuality when that was a cardinal sin. Isn’t it silly that we have had to wait all this time for the reforming legislation to go through? Do you, then, support the provisions of the new bill which legalises homosexual acts between consenting adults in private? Of course! In fact, the majority of people do, I’m certain. You hear of very few prosecutions for homosexual offences these days.
Mind you, he brought this up entirely on his own. The interviewer literally has to steer him back to questions on drugs. For a man who would previously take legal action against anyone who claimed he was queer, this is beyond unprecedented.
The largest leap, in my opinion, was only revealed posthumously by Hunter Davies, author of the 1968 authorized Beatles biography, and was prevented only by his family:
As [Brian] was now dead, the Epstein family demanded to see the manuscript. Legally, his mother had inherited his estate. I was therefore technically beholden to Mrs Queenie Epstein, an old lady who knew nothing about the pop world, and, even worse, nothing about Brian's secret life, for the final clearance on the book. You can imagine what she thought about any suggestions that Brian might be homosexual. She denied it. As far as she was concerned, it wasn't true. I needed her signed agreement... Clive Epstein, Brian's brother, was helpful, though of course he wanted to keep his mother happy. As her beloved son had died only recently, it was thought unseemly to go into all the sordid details of his last couple of years... In the end I was persuaded to steer completely clear of his sex life, but I thought I did manage to make it fairly clear at the end of Chapter 15, where I said he had only one girlfriend in his life—and then continued to talk about his unhappy love affairs. I also described him as a 'gay bachelor'. The word was not in such common use in England in those days, but it was enough to let many people know the truth. Did it matter, Brian's homosexuality? I did regret having to disguise it, as he himself had given me permission to mention it and it has been publicly stated since. With most people, their sex life is not relevant, either way, to their work, although... with Brian I think it did matter and it was a vital clue to his personality, to his death, and also to the birth of his interest in the Beatles.
So, there you have it. Brian was planning to be completely open regarding his queerness by 1968. I'd say that's pretty non-conformist, even by Summer of Love standards.
Oh shit- more Beatles backstories!!
And here is the bittersweet final paragraph. Don’t read it if you don’t want to.
I would like to discover other beautiful, bittersweet loves like this one. But I guess all love is bittersweet, because even if it lasts a lifetime, life still ends.
And I don’t mean that in a nihilistic way.
But Paul’s words, and the author’s conclusion, is indeed true for all of us. We can never fully know another person. I think that, above all else, is what makes love so difficult.
I was writing about how Paul started writing with John, and how that story has been told. Once you’ve noticed that Paul wrote songs first, you can’t unsee it. And you can’t help spotting which writers just haven’t noticed, and who is actively going LOOK OVER THERE A SQUIRREL when they have to mention Paul bringing songwriting into the group. (I’m curious to see how the new Ian Leslie book handles this; the first review I’ve seen says the partnership “began in earnest in 1962”, which suggests Leslie has at least looked beyond the usual “they met at Woolton Fete and almost immediately started writing together” take.) Anyway, here’s a LOOK OVER THERE A SQUIRREL compilation, because some of these are outrageous
During the 1960s, the official band narrative presents JohnandPaul as a unit, keeping their contributions carefully balanced. Here’s Hunter Davies, the jumping-off point for most later accounts:
[Paul] played a couple of tunes to John he had written himself. Since he’d started playing the guitar, he had tried to make up a few of his own little tunes. The first tune he played to John that evening was called ‘I Lost My Little Girl’.
Not to be outdone, John immediately started making up his own tunes. He had been elaborating and adapting other people's words and tunes to his own devices for some time, but he hadn't written down proper tunes till Paul appeared with his. Not that Paul's tunes meant much, nor John's. They were very simple and derivative. It was only them coming together, each egging the other on, which suddenly inspired them to write songs for themselves to play.
After the breakup, rock journalism tended to take John’s side, and downplay Paul. Here’s Philip Norman in Shout! (1981), doing a virtuoso hatchet job:
Paul McCartney had always used his guitar to help him make up tunes. His main objective in the Quarry Men, however, was to oust Eric Griffiths from the role of lead guitarist. One night at the Broadway Conservative Club, he prevailed on the others to let him take the solo in a number. He fluffed it and, later, in an attempt to redeem himself, played over to John a song he had written, called I Lost My Little Girl. John, though he had always tinkered with lyrics, had never thought of writing entire songs before. Egged on by Paul - and by Buddy Holly - he felt there could be no harm in trying. Soon he and Paul were each writing songs furiously, as if it were a race.
Did you think, dear reader, that writing your own songs might be a significant artistic breakthrough? No, no, it’s just a backup weapon in Paul’s Machiavellian plot against poor Eric. This is his “main objective”, and he’s manipulated the others into letting him grab a solo. Norman has, by the way, already admitted that the Quarrymen all recognised that Paul was a stronger musician than the rest of the group. Is it reasonable for the best guitarist to want to play a solo? Clearly not.
For maximum whiplash, compare Norman telling the same story 27 years later, in John Lennon: The Life (2008).
The idea of writing original songs to perform, rather than merely recycling other people’s, was firmly rooted in Paul’s mind well before he met John. He had begun trying it virtually from the moment he acquired a guitar, combining melodic gifts inherited from his father with a talent for mimicking and pastiching the American-accented hits of the moment. His first completed song, “I Lost My Little Girl,” had been written in 1956, partly as a diversion from the trauma of his mother’s death, partly as an expression of it. Around the time he joined the Quarrymen, he had something like a dozen other compositions under his belt, mostly picked out on the family upright piano, including a first draft of what would eventually become “When I’m Sixty-four” (which he thought “might come in handy for a musical comedy or something”).
For a fifteen-year-old Liverpool schoolboy - indeed for any ordinary mortal - this was breathtaking presumptuousness. In Britain’s first rock’n’roll era, as for a century before it, songwriting was considered an art verging on the magical. It could be practiced only in London (naturally) by a tiny coterie of music-business insiders, middle-aged men with names like Paddy or Bunny, who alone understood the sacred alchemy of rhyming arms with charms and moon with June.
Just imagine if Norman had published that second version in 1981. Shout! was one of the most influential Beatles books, shaping the narrative for decades to come. Even Norman now admits its extreme bias, but you can still see its lingering influence. (Also, what a natural-born hater Norman is. When he puts his Paul-bashing on hold, he makes up some fictional songwriters to despise instead.)
Next up we have Mark Lewisohn, who doesn’t write Paul as the Evil Grand Vizier, but keeps shuffling the pack to put John front and centre whenever a breakthrough happens. His prologue to Tune In is a snapshot of John and Paul writing together at the very beginning of their partnership:
Towards the end of 1957, John wrote Hello Little Girl and Paul came up with I Lost My Little Girl; the similarity in their titles was apparently coincidental but both were steeped in [Buddy Holly and] the Crickets’ sound…Buddy Holly was the springboard to John and Paul’s songwriting. As John later said: “Practically every Buddy Holly song was three chords, so why not write your own.” Stated so matter-of-factly, it could seem that writing songs was an obvious next move, but it wasn’t. Teenagers all over Britain liked Buddy Holly and rock and roll, but of that great number only a fraction picked up a guitar and tried playing it, and fewer still, in fact hardly anyone, used it as the inspiration to write songs themselves. John and Paul didn’t know anyone else who did it, no one from school or college, no relative or friend… and yet somehow, by nothing more than fate or fluke, they’d found each other, discovered they both wrote songs, and decided to try it together.
When Lewisohn disagrees with the accepted narrative, he’s usually very keen to show you all his evidence for why everyone else is wrong. Here he suggests John wrote Hello Little Girl first, without discussion. Then he quotes John on getting the idea to write songs, before discussing what an important innovation that was. Right at the end, he says they both wrote independently - but John is in prime position throughout.
As you read on, he acknowledges Paul’s pre-Quarrymen songs, framing them as juvenilia (“exceptional for a first attempt by a boy on the cusp of 14”). Giving I Lost My Little Girl a later date than everyone else, Lewisohn notes that when Paul performed it on MTV Unplugged, his “vocal includes a Holly hiccup, pinpointing its creation to post-September 1957”. (Because the way Paul sings something in 1991 must be exactly how he sang it from the beginning.) Lewisohn also ignores the many interviews in which John says he started writing after seeing Paul’s example.
Obviously, these distraction tactics sell Paul short. But I think they harm John, too. If you’re interested in him as an artist, don’t you want to know how he developed? What he learned, how he used those influences to shape his own voice? How he and Paul worked, together and apart? How they saw their partnership, how that fed into their competitiveness, ambitions, or insecurities? Mary Sue Blorbo Leader John is no good to me. And, more than 60 years on, memories have faded and sources have died; we’ve lost so many chances to look at how they really worked. John and Paul both deserve better.
Paul and Ringo's conflict in 1969/70
SG: Then, what happened? You finally got to meet with John and Yoko, and there was an all-night session at the Dorchester hotel. And something happened in that all-night session at the Dorchester that totally won their allegiance to you. AK: John said, listen, the Beatles are represented by the Eastmans, will you represent me and Yoko? SG: The Beatles’ legal affairs were represented by the Eastmans? AK: You see, you have to read that piece of paper. SG: The piece of paper the Eastmans had with the boys? AK: Oh yes. All signed. SG: All of them signed it? AK: Yes. And Apple. It never used the word management, but it didn’t have to. If you represent all the negotiations throughout the world of Apple and the Beatles, you have it. The import of that particular piece of document was that everything would have to flow through them.
(Allen Klein, 1980, interview with Peter Brown and Steven Gaines, All You Need Is Love, 2024)
John comes into the office and says, ‘Don’t care about the others, don’t give a shit … but I’m having Klein, he can have all of my stuff and get it sorted out.’
(Derek Taylor, As Time Goes By, 1973)
AK: …We were just trying to get to know one another… Lennon and Yoko, I would rather not say what won them over for me. I would think that a principal thing was the fact that they really wanted someone for themselves. Apart from the Beatles. That’s really what it was. John is a very practical human being and the conflict was there, and it was his band and he was losing control, and he didn’t want to. He wanted to be protected. It was as simple as that. That first evening that I met with John, he said, “Do you want to represent us?” I said yeah.
(Allen Klein, 1980, interview with Peter Brown and Steven Gaines, All You Need Is Love, 2024)
When the four of us entered into our partnership agreement in 1967, we did not consider the exact wording or give any thought to the agreement's legal implications. We had thought that if one of us wanted to leave the group he would only have to say so. On the way in which the four of us had sorted out our differences in the past, I deny that it had been on a three-to-one basis. If one disagreed, we discussed the problem until we reached agreement or let the matter drop. I know of no decision taken on a three-to-one basis. I deny that the Eastmans and I obstructed Mr. Allen Klein in the preparation of accounts. Nor had the Eastmans been contenders for the job of manager for the group. I wanted them as managers but when the rest of the group disagreed, had not pressed the matter. Mr. Lennon had challenged my statement that Mr. Klein had sowed discord within the group, but I recall a telephone conversation in which Mr. Klein had told me, "You know why John is angry with you? It is because you came off better than he did on Let It Be.' Mr. Klein also said to me, 'The real trouble is Yoko. She is the one with ambition.' I often wonder what John would have said if he heard the remark.
(From Paul McCartney’s affidavit, Feb 26 1971, The Beatles Diary. Volume 2. After The Break Up. 1970-2001. Keith Badman)
I was very upset when they said I was just trying to bring in Lee Eastman, because he’s my in-law. As if I’d just bring in a member of the family, for no reason. They’d known me twenty years, yet they thought that. I couldn’t believe it. John said, ‘Magical Mystery Tour was just a big ego trip for Paul.’ God. It was for their sake, to keep us together, keep us going, give us something new to do…
(Paul McCartney, Private Call with Hunter Davies, May 1981)