Wednesday, 12 February 2014

M Y T H O L O G Y 1 0 1

This was a Note (published at Facebook) from 8th January, 2014, which is now a blog entry. 


The main thrust of most of my research into PID, and The Beatles, tends to be going straight to the horse's mouths. If you want to find something, you let people talk. And as soon as they start talking, you watch where they trip up over themselves. The more they trip, the more likely you are to find the hole they fell in. 

When it comes to PID as hoax or marketing ploy, is where I see many holes. I've discussed it before at my blog, and feel no need to really reiterate it once again. Neither of these scenarios seem to have much weight behind them. And the more you look into PID (by way of horse), the more it seems evident that a grand design is at play. Why do I say this? Because people stick to a script within the Beatles organisation like glue. And information that conflicts with that script gets either buried, or washed under the constant media regurgitation OF that mythology. It is hard to hear a tiny voice saying waitaminnit, when another MOJO magazine hits the stands announcing some guitar picks were found that might be Beatles guitar picks. 

This is Mythology. My research states that you cannot believe a single thing that comes out of these people's mouths about their story. Because their story has more holes than Blackburn, Lancashire. 

George Martin states the Beatles had nothing to do with Yellow Submarine, and the idea was abhorrent to them because the director was only known for The Flintstones.

Which he had nothing to do with. He worked on The Beatles cartoon series. Then you have John Lennon stating that producer Al Brodax got most of the ideas from Lennon FOR the Yellow Submarine movie, including the hoover sucking monster. So did The Beatles have anything to do with this movie, or didn't they. You decide. 

My latest fascination is Postcards. Postcards sent from a Beatle to another, or a Beatle to a Beatle Friend. These things not only stick with the script, but also tell you, these are stories too impossible to take seriously. Unless you like Soap Operas a lot. In a recent post at a group for PID I brought this postcard to people's attention. 



It's a postcard dated 27th January, 1969, from Paul McCartney to Ringo Starr. Please read below the postcard for Ringo's recollection of events that may have inspired McCartney to stick a stamp on it.

The card is dated 27th January 1969.

Harrison quit The Beatles on the 10th January 1969.
The Brookfields meeting was on the 12th January 1969. Harrison did not return to the band after this meeting.

The SCRIPT says that McCartney is to be blamed entire for Harrison's departure. Transcripts from the Get Back taped and filmed sessions dictate that the argument that truly sent Harrison out the door, was between himself and John Lennon. What was FILMED was the argument between McCartney and Harrison that causes all to say his departure was McCartney related. 40+ years later, both McCartney and Starr stick to this script like glue, even though all evidence states Harrison and Lennon were in fueled disagreements, enough to cause Harrison to quit. 
GET BACK: THE BEATLES' LET IT BE DISASTER
by Doug Sulpy and Ray Schweighardt

9TH JANUARY, 1969
Harrison shows up late to rehearsals, as the live show planned is still being voted on. (This was one of the conditions Harrison demanded on his return to the Beatles, that the live show would be scrapped if he was going to return.)

Harrison runs through For You Blue, which had been introduced as a song days earlier (7th January 1969) but when playing it to Lennon (who has shown up late for rehearsals as well) McCartney introduces the song to him like it's just been written the previous night, completely forgetting it was around before that. And he was around to hear it. After an improvisation, Lennon suggests they work on For You Blue, which Harrison agrees to, but McCartney vetoes it in favour of the routine they've been in of performing familiar/working songs at the start of sessions, and newer / unrehearsed material at the end of sessions. So it's right back to McCartney tunes once all 4 are present to perform, starting with "Two of Us".
10TH JANUARY 1969

After a pretty shambolic rehearsal of material the previous day (For You Blue eventually gets played, but no greater than it was before, and it's back to familiar material. It's pretty much that Harrison is being ignored throughout sessions in favour of whatever Lennon and McCartney are inclined to do.)

Much of the taping this day has been lost, fragments of conversations exist, but important exchanges are edited out, or missing, What happens is that something happens between Lennon and Harrison during a lunch break, and Harrison walks out right after. Lennon, McCartney and Starr continue on rehearsing afterward. This argument had nothing to do with McCartney, Let It Be (the film) just showed you a portion of the tensions that existed during the sessions, thus regulating blame for it on McCartney, where everything else says this confrontation, heated enough to cause departure, was between Lennon and Harrison. It has been edited out of their history like a tape reel, and the SCRIPT comes into play where what's edited in is a simple version of events, which lays the blame on the wrong party, and keeps details discreet and hidden as to their true cause.
Let's see what the recollections are according to Anthology.
PAUL: If I made a suggestion and it was something that, say, George didn't want to do, it could develop quite quickly into a mini-argument. In fact George walked out of the group. I'm not sure of the exact reason, but I think that they thought I was being too domineering.

Paul can't remember the exact reason. He should ask Ringo.
RINGO: George left because Paul and he were having a heated discussion. They weren't getting on that day and George decided to leave, but he didn't tell John or me or Paul. There'd been some tension going down in the morning, and arguments would go on anyway, so none of us realised until we went to lunch that George had gone home. When we came back he still wasn't there, so we started jamming violently. Paul was playing his bass into the amp and John was off, and I was playing some weird drumming that I hadn't done before. I don't play like that as a rule. Our reaction was really, really interesting at the time. And Yoko jumped in, of course; she was there.

None of them realised until they went to lunch that George had gone home. Which is strange, because it's that lunch that has missing transcripts, film, tapings where an argument occurred between Harrison and Lennon that caused Harrison to announce he was leaving. British newspaper The Daily Express even picked up on this argument in its interview with Harrison on the 16th January, 1969. It even reported that George and John did NOT come to blows in this argument (even though John would state he wanted to hit George because of the way Harrison treated Ono, but we'll get to that later.) Judging by the evidence gathered going through the Get Back tapes, Harrison was through putting up with Lennon's unwillingness to engage in rational communication, and that Ono seemed to be doing most of his talking for him. As an Apple partner, to have Ono step in speaking on anyone's behalf, especially when you've been a member of the band since 1958/1959, and have enough trouble getting songs on albums, would be the final straw. 

Considering Harrison between 1965 - 1968 was essentially PAYING Lennon and McCartney to get his songs on Beatles albums. (His share in Northern Songs was set at 1.6%, Lennon and McCartney somewhere at 15% each. Therefore, all mechanical royalties earned from having a song appear in a collective album gets dispersed to those in ownership of the publishing. Taxman earns more for Lennon and McCartney, than it does for its composer.) Considering Harrison had his OWN publishing company back in 1964 and did not go with it immediately, but instead writes no songs after the ownership of Don't Bother Me is sold right along with Lennon and McCartney's tunes. The ones they wrote before forming Northern Songs. He writes nothing for the band again until he's offered 1.6% in Northern Songs, even though Harrisongs Ltd is established by December 1964. He stands to earn 80% of the royalties, and full ownership of the songs he composes, but he ... goes into contract for 3 years. This is a mystery why he does this. It proved wise when 1968 rolled around. Until McCartney sued them in 1970.

So the argument is between George Harrison and John Lennon. And personally, in that Mythology, in that Soap Opera, their relationship forever changes. Probably why Lennon in 1976 wrote in one word answers to a fan's questions regarding Beatles -  GEORGE: Lost. RINGO: Friend. PAUL: Extraordinary. Shame, as it seems in that mythology, Harrison and Lennon are the closest of allies when it comes to creativity, avant garde exploration, transcendental meditation, and keeping their mouths shut when they take LSD. And they both despise Maxwell's Silver Hammer. 

PAUL: These things had been going down in Let It Be: George leaving because he felt he was being told what to do (I think  that's why he left). Ringo had earlier left because he didn't think we liked him as a drummer. That wasn't as difficult to solve as maybe George's thing was, but at the same time John was looking to get out of the situation, and I think we were all really feeling that some cracks were appearing in the whole edifice.   

Like glue. Paul STILL isn't sure why George left, but he's pretty sure why Ringo left. (But George isn't sure why.) From my research, and the thing that tells me Paul McCartney CAN'T be the drummer who does the solo at the end of Dear Prudence, because he can barely keep in time during the simple verses, the problem Ringo had may have stemmed from McCartney himself. 

But he won't tell you. Because it's not in the script to say so. 

So let's go further into the Mytholopera. 

Here's another postcard. This one from Paul McCartney to Cynthia Lennon (nee Powell) in 1985. 



She states:
“It seemed that John had cut me off not just from him but from the whole Beatles family. The only person who came to see me was Paul. He arrived one sunny afternoon, bearing a red rose, and said, ‘I’m so sorry, Cyn, I don’t know what’s come over him. This isn’t right.‘ (…)Paul stayed for a while. He told me that John was bringing Yoko to recording sessions, which he, George and Ringo hated. (…) He joked about us getting married – ‘How about it, Cyn?’ – and I was grateful to him for cheering me up and caring enough to come. He was the only member of the Beatles family who’d the courage to defy John – who had apparently made clear that he expected everyone to follow his lead in cutting me off. But Paul was his own man and not afraid of John. In fact, musically and personally, the two were beginning to go in separate directions so perhaps Paul’s visit to me was also a statement to John. He drove off, promising to keep in touch, but a month or two later he got together with American photographer Linda Eastman and his life began a new phase. It was many years before we met again.”  Cynthia Powell

So sweet. Anyway let's look at her statements one by one. 

It seemed that John had cut me off not just from him but from the whole Beatles family. The only person who came to see me was Paul. He arrived one sunny afternoon, bearing a red rose, and said, ‘I’m so sorry, Cyn, I don’t know what’s come over him. This isn’t right.

Cutting her off is an understatement. But here we have Paul as the do right hero. What's come over our Johnny. 

Paul stayed for a while. He told me that John was bringing Yoko to recording sessions, which he, George and Ringo hated. 

It seems that from Get Back transcripts, Paul in fact plays the diplomat. It's Harrison that has issues with it. But let's see what Lennon's take on it was. 

JOHN: Paul was always gently coming up to Yoko and saying,Why don't you keep in the background a bit more? I didn’t know what was going on. It was going on behind my back.

GEORGE: Lost. RINGO: Friend. PAUL: Extraordinary. 

He joked about us getting married – ‘How about it, Cyn?’ – and I was grateful to him for cheering me up and caring enough to come. He was the only member of the Beatles family who’d the courage to defy John – who had apparently made clear that he expected everyone to follow his lead in cutting me off.

He was the only member of The Beatles to visit you BEHIND JOHN'S BACK. By all accounts, from the looks of things, Lennon had no idea McCartney visited you privately whatsoever, or made complaint about Yoko Ono, or Lennon's behaviour.

But Paul was his own man and not afraid of John. In fact, musically and personally, the two were beginning to go in separate directions so perhaps Paul’s visit to me was also a statement to John.

How is it a statement to John if Paul doesn't let him know he visited you. Seeing as how he's not afraid of Lennon, but avoids the wrath of him that Harrison seems to have gotten should he dare question who Yoko Ono is, and why does she do all his talking for him. It seems to me, that Paul making a bold statement to Lennon about the "cutting off" would be to drive him out there with him, and say, this is how I feel about you leaving her on her own with Julian. And asking us to leave her alone too. That doesn't happen. But George quits The Beatles and no one knows why he does apparently. Except for the canteen staff, and The Daily Express. 

In fact, musically and personally, the two were beginning to go in separate directions so perhaps Paul’s visit to me was also a statement to John. He drove off, promising to keep in touch, but a month or two later he got together with American photographer Linda Eastman and his life began a new phase. It was many years before we met again.

Seeing as it took 17 years for McCartney to show up back in your life again, and this time, just sending you a postcard, I guess he pretty much cut you off too didn't he. I mean, it seems really sweet, that you're portraying this man as a man who does not live in fear of John Lennon, and was the only one of 3 to come and see you and ask if you were okay, but then he drops you for nearly two decades. It's painting a portrait of a man who does not exist. And he also advises 5 year old boys in songs to "go out and get her."

So all I can gather from this is, John Lennon was completely blind to the actions of Paul McCartney, because any actions McCartney did against him, he did behind his back and without knowledge of. And John Lennon is totally aware of the actions of George Harrison, because he did them right to his face. And if you're going to be that truthful to someone about themselves, and their effect on others, you can go get lost. 

So ends today's lesson in Mythology. Watch how it works, because Paul Is Dead makes much much more sense when those who say something happened, are lying through their teeth about it in the first place, and no one can remember anything. Is it airing dirty laundry, or what goes on in private stays in private. Well if you're going to go so far as to say The Beatles are bastards for treating Yoko so badly, then what they did deserves to be aired to see how much bastards they can be. That's where you need a Mal Evans keeping a diary of things. 

Damn. He got shot. And they cut him off in Death as much as they cut him off in Life. Oh well.

3 comments:

  1. Mechanical royalties are monies derived from the performance of a song (or any other content) on a recordable medium (CD, mp3, vinyl, player piano scrolls, etc.). They are separate from publishing royalties. If, for instance, McCartney recorded "When We Were Fab," he would get the mechanical royalties (assuming he got permission from George';s estate), but Harrison's heirs would still derive revenue from the publishing royalties.

    Mechanical royalties are small compared to publishing royalties, and most artists don't rely on them to make all that much.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The mechanical royalties earning potential as given in the example of Lennon - McCartney as employees of Northern Songs Ltd., and George Harrison as employee of Northern Songs Ltd. is just that. An example.

    While every song generates royalties for the holder of the sound
    recording copyright, they also generate separate royalties for
    the songwriter and / or publisher (if the songwriter(s) have signed a publishing
    agreement). There are two types of royalty due to songwriters / publishers in this
    instance:

    1. Mechanical Royalties
    2. Performance Royalties

    The size of the royalty is not in question,nor if Harrison can derive an income from it. It is presented as how it works if you're a 1.6% owner/earner in Northern Songs Ltd., as a songwriter, and if you own 15% as a songwriting team, even if you don't write all your songs together in the partnership. NO matter how much is derived, Lennon and McCartney earn up to 13% more for every minute of song Harrison composes. Whether that's publishing or mechanical royalties. Doesn't matter.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The real point that should be brought up is:

    WHY does Harrison sign to Northern Songs Ltd in 1965, when he has Harrisongs established by December 1964. He owns full copyright anything Harrisongs Ltd publishes, and stands to earn 80% of all royalties, whether mechanical, performance or publishing that comes in. So why does he take this lesser deal where he gains 1.6% of all earnings Northern Songs Ltd receives.

    One could say as a 1.6% earner, anything Lennon and McCartney compose, Harrison receives earnings as a shareholder in that company. So one would have to establish whether getting your compositions on albums as sole owner of the publishing (Harrisongs Ltd.) is more beneficial than joining a publishing company where your earnings are established by the compositions of other composers and the revenue that generates. Surely this must be one of the reasons Harrison did not pull out Harrisongs as early as 1965. It does not establish the reason why after Don't Bother Me was given away along with other Lennon & McCartney compositions before Northern was created, that Harrison stops contributing compositions to Beatle albums UNTIL he gets that Northern Songs contract. His number of songs on Beatles albums increases, he averages 2 to 3 songs per album, until Sgt Pepper. His open criticism or opinion of Northern Songs is left off of Sgt Pepper "Only a Northern Song", and such songs as Art of Dying and Isn't It a Pity would have to wait 4 years before the public ever heard they existed. (Pity and Dying both written in 1966).

    Why does Harrison wait until Northern Songs is offered him partnership in before he starts contributing compositions again?
    Why does he not use Harrisongs Ltd in the first place, rather than wait til his contract with Northern expires, then he sells his stock in Northern Songs (basically losing any earning potential through that publisher) and kisses goodbye to any earnings on any thing he wrote between 1965 - 1968. But then begins writing things like While My Guitar Gently Weeps, Here Comes the Sun, Something where he is the publisher and the copyright owner. Singsong publishing also emerges in 1968, but this publishing arm soon disappears.

    It's a subject many Beatles biographers and fans barely look at, and stick with the "Harrison wrote better songs later on" schtick, or the George Martin "Harrison wrote boring songs until 1968" mentality, that never mentions what songs George Martin found boring. Was that Taxman or If I Needed Someone? Or Within You Without You, the song in Western music terms is so groundbreaking it should have established Harrison as one of the most important Western composers of the 20th century. The melding of East and West was something the classical composers barely touched on, and if they did, they did it with western instruments in faux imitation of the exotic.

    The Beatles. The Fab in Fab Four truly suggests FABricated.

    ReplyDelete