Lennon bashes Beatles

[tallpat1]

Interesting article on Lennon's remarks on the Beatles, Macca says it was drug induced

http://www.spinner.com/2009/08/27/mccar ... -by-dru%2F

[kiramdear]

I remember that Rolling Stone article of 1970 and how startling were John's comments about his mates. They were understandable, given the pressure and the problems (many self-induced) that he struggled with, but I think most of us who were paying attention sensed then that what Paul now says about it is true - John's statements were hasty and indeed drug-fueled. It just serves to illustrate how heavy was the burden of fame that they carried, when every little remark that one could make (and who of us is wise and thoughtful every time we open our mouth?), is dragged up and scrutinized before the public. As graceless as some of those remarks were, I doubt if I could have fared any better under that kind of pressure. Paul seems very wise and gracious in retrospect through all those years, if only for knowing when to keep his mouth shut about issues that were best kept private. I wouldn't dispute his assessment of John's conduct, or of any part of the Beatles' legend. Who would know as well as he what went on? Maybe only Ringo. Long live both of them!

[wayang]

Err...not every statement that's 'drug induced' is false...occasionally, drugs can bring out more of the truth than sobriety usually prevents being addressed, so 'point not taken'.

That said, I'm sure Paul would like to invoke the 'drug induced' defense to excuse Mamounia as well...

[8mileshigher]

I am sure there will be hundreds of opinions posted on that site (with the article) as well as lots more opinions posted on dozens of Forums like this, around the world, that have some Beatle content.... There will be countless attackers and defenders of Linda McCartney and of Yoko Ono who will pont the finger and say "that" person is the reason the Beatles broke up.... or countless defenders/attackers who will speculate that John's personality and drug use or Paul's personality and family business desire to take-over the Beatles empire was the root cause, etc. etc. etc.

I subscribe to the theory/opinion that Jann Wenner of Rolling Stone is just trying to make a buck by fueling old controversies and whipping dead-horses that have long been in the grave.

All those actual Lennon interviews from December 1970 have been available for years as audio files.... listen yourself and judge how much bitterness and/or exaggeration was in what JL originally said. Maybe some of what JL said was the Primal Therapy working itself out of his system ....

[wayang]

Bitterness? Absolutely... Exaggeration? Possibly not...

How many Mamounias do you think John had to say no to before he'd finally had enough?

[Scastles]

Just my two cents. Lennon's personality always seemed to swing. He could be insecure, incensed, indignant, impulsive and on and on. Much like the rest of us given certain situations. Drugs or not. With Lennon it probably depended on what day of the week you talked to him, and at what time. They were all pretty much fed up with one another anyway, regardless of girlfriends.

[wayang]

I dunno, Stan...his personality didn't seem that swingy to me. The guy at the Toronto Peace Festival bears, to me at least, a striking similarity to 'Musketeer Gripweed' in How I Won The War, and that guitar-player guy in A Hard Day's Night..

[Scastles]

‘Swings’ probably isn’t the right word, Dane, moody would be more like it. John was more pained and sensitive than what he sometimes portrayed, IMO. The lyrics to songs like Help, In My Life and Julia give you some idea of where his head was at, ranging from depression to loss. I think the breakup of the Beatles affected him more than any of the others. More people leaving him again, even though he had first suggested the breakup, but McCartney upstaged him. Once he realized it was really over, some bitterness and venom was exposed in those immediate years afterwards. Only natural in many ways.

Wasn’t it Lennon who said, “Weren’t the ‘70’s a drag”.

Again, just my thoughts.

[wayang]

And...weren't they?

Yeah, you're right...he was moody. I don't think that personality attribute is enough to explain his dissatisfaction with The Beatles, anymore than it would be enough to explain his opposition to the war. Sometimes I wonder if it would have made much difference to his career if he had gone off with his dad to New Zealand. I prefer to think it would have lead to the first internationally known Kiwi band...ten years before Split Enz...

[Scastles]

I agree, Dane. I don't think his personality can be attributed to the breakup. No more than the rest of them, except maybe from the standpoint of when all four them were together. The split was inevitable. Personally, I don't see how they made it as long as they did. Lennon and McCartney had done shows together since '57.

[atomic_punk]

It makes me upset that they keep dragging this stuff out. It's been common knowledge for a while that they had hard feelings, wrote songs about each other, etc. I agree with the thought that Jann Wenner is just looking to sell some magazines. And they have to use the Beatles to get any attention for that rag. Sad, really.

[lyle_from_minneapolis]

Lennon had acid on his tongue in more ways than one.

I believe heroin was on the menu around the time of the RS interview. But drugs or no drugs, he was one p*ssed off puppy in those days. Not all the time, but when he was, he sure didn't hold back.

The gist of McCartney's statement sounds about right...Lennon wasn't a black and white personality, nor was he consistent. He lived in the passion of the moment, struck like a viper and hugged like a best friend.

[FretlessOnly]

The gist of McCartney's statement sounds about right...Lennon wasn't a black and white personality, nor was he consistent. He lived in the passion of the moment, struck like a viper and hugged like a best friend.

Having studied the Beatles since 1976, I'd say that this really gets to the very gist of the nub, as it were.

If Brian Epstein hadn't offed himself when he did, things would have been different.

If Paul hadn't shouldered the legacy of the group as his burden to bear, things would have been different.

If the Beatles' singles had had a Lennon tune on the A-side after All You Need Is Love (and before The Ballad of John & Yoko), then things would have been different.

On and on...it happened, and we should just accept it.

[beatlefreak]

John was full of anger at the time he granted the Rolling Stone interview in 1970. That anger showed in the interview. He was also still new in his relationship with Yoko, and many people (not just the other Beatles) were not tolerant of her. Yoko was filling a void in John's life, and gradually replacing the close friendship he'd had with the other three.

The Rolling Stone interview is published as a book called Lennon Remembers for anyone that wishes to read more. It is a stark, frank, and sometimes disturbing account of what John was going through at that point in his life.

If Brian Epstein hadn't offed himself when he did, things would have been different.

A note here - Brain Epstein did not commit suicide. The cause of death was accidental poisoning of Carbitol from sleeping pills, built up over months of use.