I just realized something.
Yoko never wrote an expose about John. Cyn, May Pang and Pete Shotton did, but Yoko didn't.
exposes kind of rub me the wrong way. This is someone who trusted you with everything, and then you turn around and write a tell-all about them. As a fan I love them, but I'd feel so betrayed if a friend wrote one about me.
Pattie Boyd, George Martin and Pete Best wrote books, but they were more about themselves and their connection to the boys than a fictionalized version of the past.
Ivan Vaughn, Jimmie Nicol, Jane Asher, Peter Asher and Maureen Starkey never did. They didn't even write autobiographies from what I can find.
I think that all speaks volumes.
Especially Yoko. No matter what you think of her, that shows a strong sense of character and respect that we just don't talk about enough when it comes to her.
So Paul himself says this story never happened but we’re just going to post this story because it “makes sense” based on no data whatsoever except a “feeling”. Let’s not support fuelling the fire of stories that have been disproven
“Most days Paul would stroll the prettily opulent, peaceful streets that lay between his house and Abbey Road. One evening, after the other three Beatles had long since driven up in their expensive vehicles, John could be made out pacing up and down the front steps, gazing with increasing impatience along the route that Paul usually took.
Suddenly he was called to the phone by George. Then he was seen racing down the front steps and running as fast as his unfit body could carry him in the direction of the McCartney residence. Paul had called to say that he would not be coming to the studio that evening–he and Linda had realized it was the anniversary of their first meeting and had decided to have a romantic, candlelit dinner at home.
Arriving outside 7 Cavendish Avenue, John, like a man possessed, clambered over the tall security gate. When Paul responded to his thumping on the front door by opening it, John pushed him aside, rushing in and screaming at Paul for his thoughtlessness.
“It’s the anniversary of me and Linda meeting,Paul reiterated lamely. ‘So what!’ snapped John contemptuously. ‘I don’t cancel studio bookings for my anniversaries with Yoko. How dare you inconvenience so many people!’ John glanced around him in furious frustration. Then his eyes alighted on something. Striding over to the wall, he removed a painting, one that he himself had done and given to Paul in earlier, genuinely loving times. It was Paul’s favorite painting, as John well knew. John stuck his foot through it and stormed back to Abbey Road.”
~McCartney, Chris Salewicz, 1986
Paul McCartney on hearing ‘Free As A Bird’ for the first time and working on it for The Anthology. Interview for Access Hollywood, 24 May 1997.
Paul: I heard it and I was very emotional. Sort of: “Wow! Yeah! The boy, Johnny!” You know, I loved- ‘Cus I loved him, you know. And I spoke to Ringo on the phone and I said: “Better keep your hankie handy for this one, ‘cus it’s pretty emotional when you hear it!”
It was fantastic for me! Having John in the headphones? It was like he was here! ‘Cus when you’re working, he’d be in a booth over there and you’re not necessarily looking at him. He’s here in the headphones…
Disclaimer: I’ve seen this quote float around but never the corresponding clip. If someone has made it available before, I apologise. If not, please enjoy, like I did, another addition to the tag #then you were here today, where Paul talks about feeling John’s presence.
“On this program a few weeks ago someone said The Beatles haircut was going out because the fringe was so long you couldn’t see the birds, what do you think of that?”
Yes another McLennon analysis where Paul is warm and flawless and John is a reclusive bastard who couldn’t relate to the world. I’m so bored of this now. They were both geniuses. Would it kill anyone on this platform to acknowledge this?
Preface: The following is an extremely self-indulgent deep-dive into one of my favourite moments of harmonization in musical history. It is both a relatively music theory-heavy analysis (though relevant concepts are explained with visual as well as audio examples) as well as a free-form riffing on what distinguishes Lennon from McCartney as a composer on the one hand, and what distinguishes Paul from John as a person on the other. Of course, like the duo's melodies intertwine, so did their lives.
DISCLAIMER: I think it's lovely how the music reflects their lives but that doesn't mean I think the music was created because it reflects their live (irrespective of artistic intention).
"Keeping an eye on the world going by my window" forms the beginning of the bridge of "I'm Only Sleeping". John, the main songwriter and lead vocalist of the track, sings a tight melody, which is sprinkled with several dissonances.
For those who don't know, dissonances occur either due to a dissonant interval – that is, when two or more notes that don't "go together" are played at once – or when a note that is not part of the current key is played.
In this example, the dissonant interval (on the left) is a second, that is the two simultaneously played notes are very close – so close that stacking their notes on sheet music becomes awkward, as seen above. The dissonant note is a B note (on the right), which has been elevated up a half-step from B♭ (in the middle), through usage of the ♮ symbol, preceding the note. B is not part of the usual 7 notes of the key, and thus adds a feeling of displacement within this harmonic context. You can listen to the interval as well as the transition from B♭ to B in the following file and notice the sense of discord these note combinations tend to invoke in a listener.
Now, back to John's melody:
Just looking at the score, we can see how close together John keeps everything; there are no larger jumps. He favours small intervals, even using dissonances to reduce the distance his voice has to travel to a minimum. The dissonances give a feeling of strangeness to the overall melody.*
*(arguably it isn't that strange, since he is following a blues scale, which includes notes considered "dissonant" in classical music theory; that being said I would argue that the frequency of the note-usage in this particular line is still of note in the context of this song and The Beatles' general discography.)
This is, in my opinion, one of the staples of John's melodies. Think of the intro to If I Fell, or even the siren-inspired wail of the I Am The Walrus verses. These are all close melodies that have at least somewhat dissonant qualities.
It is also an interesting reflection of him and his mid-60s situation. With his early-twenties behind him, John was known to have become more reclusive during this time; going out less often, preferring the comfort of his private home. Simultaneously, his interests became more eccentric and he began finding it more difficult to relate to "ordinary" people, for reasons ranging from disillusionment with society as a whole to mental health and addiction issues. Just like his melodic lines, he built a strange surreal world for himself, without stepping too far out his comfort zone.
"Keeping an eye on the world going by my window" is also the moment in the song where Paul, who up until this point was a mere co-background vocalist, is briefly promoted to co-lead. For the first part of the line – up until the word "world" – he joins John in unison, before breaking off to find his way to the highest note of "I'm Only Sleeping".
Unlike John's melody, Paul's unique part is much warmer and features no dissonances. This doesn't make it less complex though; for one, it covers a range that is two half-steps wider than John's melody and features the largest interval jump: a perfect fourth ("my win-[dow]").
Paul's songwriting is known for its wide tonal palette, his outstanding vocal range making melodic climbs and leaps second nature to him when compositing. At the same time, his tunes have over the years, it seems, almost been faulted for how intrinsically pleasing they are to the ear.
This, in turn, contains traces of Paul's personality; a constant thirst for life, a great skill of adaptability, an ambition that verges on destructive over-zealousness – he has risen too high, where no one can follow, perhaps inadvertently left someone behind. Yet, through it all, he maintains a pleasant sweet nature.
Both of these aforementioned melodic lines combine to form a whole in the song (note that because they begin in unison at first only one note is played at a time – that's how pianos work sadly :-( ):
Now before we take a closer look at what happens in the score when these two melodies are united, I'm gonna need to give some background on harmonic arrangement.
Typically, when harmonizing, the most common interval between two melodies is a third (minor or major). The third is considered to be a very pleasant-sounding interval; the notes are as close to each other as possible without sounding dissonant and overall the tone is warm.
See above two melodies set exactly a third apart at each note. It's an adaptation of a Mozart piece I played a few years ago and can be listened here:
The second most typical interval for harmonies is the perfect fifth. It's a bit more "hollow"-sounding, one might say, less warm generally, but does not, as such, sound "wrong" to the Western ear.
(asterisk elaborated further down)
The above sequence can be heard here:
You may be wondering why the two notes in the middle are not a fifth a part. This is because, for hundreds of years, Western music theoreticians have discouraged the use of parallel fifths. This is when two melodic lines maintain a perfect fifth interval between each other over multiple consecutive notes. It's considered to have a harsh and slightly strange sound, and also dilutes the wanted distinction between both melodies.
Here's the same arrangement as above, only this time utilizing parallel fifths.
Again, an audio example – however, this may not sound especially harsh or strange to an untrained ear. (Just know that if Johann Sebastian Bach saw any of this, he would tear the score to pieces!)
Now with all this acquired knowledge, how do the John and Paul's individual melodies in fact form a whole?
(grey highlight denotes unison)
Look at that.
Paul, once mirroring his partner flawlessly, suddenly stubbornly refusing to follow John – whether it be to Surrey, Greece or that natural D-note. Instead, he lingers on the E♭ for a few more beats, as if contemplating. John, on the other hand, repeats the first half's walk-down, marinading in his strange claustrophobic world. Together, they create a dissonant second, two notes in a row, a disturbance.
Then, Paul jumps, and they are both singing in opposite directions; Paul upward and John downward. Only suddenly, it's almost like they've created a healthy distance, a perfect fifth apart.
Next, they start moving in tandem again, both rising, utilizing a dreaded parallel fifth. But it works here – and, notably, sounds a lot better in the song than on my piano recording. As mentioned, one of the problems with parallel fifths is that they keep the melodic lines too similar; however, these lines are not being played by perfectly tuned instruments. These are two men with voices sometimes so distinct from each other, they're described as polar opposites. They bend their notes and the rules of composition to create an otherworldly beauty. The harmonies seem to accentuate the contrast between their vocal styles, but this doesn't worsen the sound in the least. Instead, it seems that it is in their opposite nature that they find each other.
And then, as if coming down from a high, Paul jumps down to join John, a beautiful, warm third above him.
They are one; they are so close they bring out the worst in each other; they drive each other apart; they reach for each other even when distant; and then, when all is said and done, they fall back together in the end.
To finish off I recorded a slower version of the harmony. Come bask in the infinite glory of every single note with me!
"Keeping an eye on the world going by my window."
Is this really an argument. Paul is a man and widely accepted as a straight man ( I’m not saying he is straight but widely accepted as one by the public). He is not a victim of misogyny. For the love of God
new hdb haute take: paul is only a chauvinist because society was misogynistic to him first
"I mean that is so special for me. I know it's virtual, but there I am. There I am singing with John again. We're back together."
I agree-they both needed each other. What’s most frustrating in this fandom is that some people think saying Paul needed John or vice versa somehow takes away from their individual talents and achievements but surely it only enhanced it? There is nothing wrong with needing people in this life otherwise we would all be recluses living a nomadic existence. Both John and Paul were wildly talented on their own but with each other they went further then they would have alone not just musically but through giving each other the love, support and confidence to succeed.
I’m asking you this question because I really value your opinion. Judging from some people’s opinions;some without knowledge and some with knowledge seem to feel that Paul didn’t need John, that he never needed John. Paul was IT. My question is , do you think he was just humoring John or did Paul feel that they were equals? I find it interesting that Paul felt that John was being credited for everything after he was killed, but now,IMO, it has gone WAY overboard in the other direction. Your thoughts? Thanks.😎
This is a very in depth question ha! Sorry I have been M.I.A lately things have been a little crazy...
Anyways... We all know that once John met Paul, and Paul met John, something magic just clicked. They were discovering things within each other that no one previously had been able to bring out. Yes, Paul was more "musically talented" in technical terms at the time, but John added that special something that made them excellent. Even after John’s passing, Paul still says he “looks to John” for guidance when he's stuck with a song, melody, or whatever it may be he needs a trusted opinion on... John was virtually the other half of Paul’s brain in human form, as was he to John.
Moral of the post, to make it short and sweet, I do believe they needed each other to a point. Then after that point ended, hanging onto each other (musically) would have held them back. Both boys branched out to what they wanted to do after the split, however continued to be influenced by each other, they did their own thing and thrived while doing so. If John was alive today, I know we would have gotten loads of more beautiful music, and whatever else his unique mind came up with. John and Paul set eachother up for greatness, yet always had each other to fall back on if need be <3
Apologies for the quickly thrown together response, but thank you for writing in! I love sharing my thoughts and opinions on the 4 boys we love the most!
"Possibly I (would) have to marry a very rich old lady... Or man, you know, to look after me.": John Lennon's interview for French TV at Sutton Place, New York, April 5, 1975.
I feel for Paul here and I can see that he is hurt. I didn’t realise until I moved here to the U.K. that there is a whole sub culture of taking the piss out of your friends which at first seemed really mean to me until I realised everyone did it to each other. It could be George wasn’t meaning to hurt Paul but did it unintentionally which to be fair is the story of the Beatles in a nutshell lol
—
cr: EMI records & Apple Corps.
This is adorable somehow. Why am I obsessed with these little moments?
a) Science boy johnny
b) something about the way paul responds at first…