The Definition of Friendship


lennon_paul.jpg

When Mark David Chapman pulled the trigger on that coldest night in December 1980, he robbed the world of a visionary who seemed to finally be at peace with his own inner demons. John Lennon’s anger had largely dissipated and was being transformed into a dignified wisdom. It was indeed a tragic turn of events, and was made that much sadder by the fact that he had finally found happiness and balance in his life.

As with any pre-mature death, there are also the very private tragedies of the loved ones and the close friends of the victim. His son Julian, who had virtually been ignored by John-the-Rock-Icon and John-the-Activist during his formative years, was at the beginning of a new father-son relationship and was abruptly deprived of that experience. Then there was his five-year-old son Sean, who was extremely close to his dad, and of course his eccentric uncharismatic widow.

And what of Paul McCartney? The two of them had forged a friendship and partnership that yielded some of the best music of the 20th Century. They were equal in every respect, trying to out-do each other but also improving upon one another’s work to the point of perfection. After the bloody breakup of the Beatles, Paul was alone. Who had the nerve and the credibility to say, “You can’t sing that – it’s rubbish!”

In the late 60’s and early 70’s, John’s anger was at a fever pitch, and Paul was on the receiving end of some very nasty commentary. While John was firing off songs like “How Do You Sleep?” that were put-downs and insults aimed directly at Paul, and simultaneously saying mean-spirited things about him to the press , Paul was taking the high-road. He recorded responses like “Too Many People” containing some subtle and vague references, and “Let Me Roll It’” which lyrically had nothing to do with John, but was a spot-on re-creation of a John Lennon record replete with sparse instrumentation, heavy chordy guitar, low-register bass part and simple drum beat. The vocal was soaked in reverb, and it sounded exactly like John Lennon in parts, as if Paul was saying, “See, I know what you are about,” but he refrained from the sort of attacks that John had leveled toward him. While John reveled in his anger and pain, Paul seemed to be oblivious to suffering, and content with smoking pot, loving his La-La-La-La-La-La-lovely Linda and making silly and innocuous records. It seems in retrospect that John may have been envious of Paul’s apparent effortless bliss.

When John was murdered, he was elevated to legendary status in the public eye, but to Paul McCartney he was still the brilliant but flawed friend and band-mate from Liverpool who had turned against him. During the Beatle years, they truly were equals, but in the aftermath of John’s death, Paul was starting to be perceived as a lightweight and was getting the short-end of the stick in the respect department. The fact that he had recorded some of the sappiest and most ridiculous songs of his career in the 70’s did nothing to help him in this regard. As a result, he had to suffer John Lennon getting credit for songs that he himself had written, and what could the man say? Any sort of criticism or rebuttal would only have served to make matters worse, so he had to put on his best face and move on. On a few occasions, when Paul was honest about Lennon the man, he was quickly taken-to-task for being disrespectful and envious.

The years went by, and the legend of John Lennon continued to grow. Songs such as “In My Life” aged very well, and contrary to what John had said in interviews, Paul maintained that he had written the music and melody to John’s sublime lyrics. [Sounds like a McCartney melody to me.] While most musicians and a subset of Beatle fans knew that the majority of the Lennon-McCartney catalog was penned by one or the other and not as a team, due to the publishing credits on the songs, many people mistakenly attributed some of Paul’s best work to John Lennon. After suffering this for many years, Paul began to put his name first in the writing credits of songs like “Yesterday” which he indeed had written alone. Seems petty from the outside, but Paul still appeared to feel as if he had been cheated by history, and looking at it from his perspective, I think I understand.

I believe that had John lived, the two of them would have reconciled their differences and perhaps even recorded together once again in the 35 years since. We were all potentially robbed of the fruits from that reconciliation, but Paul was deprived of the return of his best friend, and of his own self-image as the other-half of the finest song-writing partnership of the 20th Century.

From Paul’s latest effort, “Chaos and Creation in the Backyard,” comes this song, which Paul has stated publicly is not about any one individual. This is not a review of that album, but I’ll add that this is probably his best since “Band on the Run.” I know we’ve heard that all before, but this time it’s true.

Riding To Vanity Fair
By Paul McCartney
(Click here to listen. Or here.)

I bit my tongue
I never talked too much
I tried to be so strong
I did my best
I used the gentle touch
I’ve done it for so long

You put me down
But I can laugh it off
And act like nothing’s wrong
But why pretend
I think I’ve heard enough
Of your familiar song

I tell you what I’m going to do
I’ll try to take my mind off you
And now that you don’t need my help
I’ll use the time to think about myself

You’re not aware
Of what you put me through
But now the feeling’s gone
But I don’t mind
Do what you have to do
You don’t fool anyone

I’ll tell you what I’m going to do
I’ll take a different point of view
And now that you don’t need my help
I’ll use the time to think about myself

The definition of friendship
Apparently ought to be
Showing support for the one that you love
And I was open to friendship
But you didn’t seem to have any to spare
While you were riding to Vanity Fair

There was a time
When every day was young
The sun would always shine
We sang along
When all the songs were sung
Believing every line

That’s the trouble with friendship
For someone to feel it
It has to be real or it wouldn’t be right
And I keep hoping for friendship
But I wouldn’t dare to presume it was there
While you were riding to Vanity
Fair

[Originally posted 16-Oct-2005 over at my place.]

Information and Links

Join the fray by commenting, tracking what others have to say, or linking to it from your blog.


Other Posts
The Replacements Come to Monday Nights
What Price ‘Info’

Readers

Adverts

Liberal Prose

Featured book:


Write a Comment

Take a moment to comment and tell us what you think. Some basic HTML is allowed for formatting.

Reader Comments

I’m sure there are elements of Lennon in this song, which I’ve just listened to again (incredibly, it popped up on iTunes shuffle just now from among 3,000 songs!) but I don’t think it’s entirely about him. I think Macca has long-since reconciled himself to the failed friendship and the woulda-coulda questions and, indeed, reached out to the ghosts with Real Love a decade ago…Great post!

We’ll have to agree to disagree on this one Tom. I think this song is exactly about John.

He started to put his name first on the writing credits well after “The Beatles Anthology” series, and he appears quite defensive and cagey in interviews to this day when it comes to John, specifically referencing “In My Life” and “Yesterday.” I don’t think he will ever be able to completely reconcile their relationship.

Paul was the better lyricist, but a lousy poet.

But visionary? Uh, Einstein, Picasso, Lennon….something’s amiss, Skipper.

I think “visionary” fits both Lennon and McCartney.

One of my earliest tv memories - right up there along with the JFK funeral - was seeing the Beatles’ first appearance on Sullivan. Years later, a friend said that any kid who saw that was changed forever.

I’ve spent most of my life since then thinking about the Beatles, and I’ve come to the conclusion that Lennon and McCartney’s post Beatle-work ha had exactly the INVERSE ratio of good to bad songs that their Beatles work did…i.e., Beatles = 99 good songs per clinker…solo = 99 clinkers per good song. Nothing to be ashamed of, however - their Beatle-era canon remains unmatched by any group or single performer in terms of musicality, lyrics, innovation, and breadth. At the end of the day, I’m not sure it really matters WHO wrote what piece of each of their songs…the many bios attest to two minds essentially acting as one, especially in the early days.

P.S. - for fun, see last year’s “The People vs. John Lennon” - a real delight and a reminder that lying, underhanded governments are not a new phenomenon.

Paul was the better lyricist, but a lousy poet.

Please tell me you are into irony.

Viscount, a lyricist relies on the music for emotion, whereas a poet’s words have to do all the work. This is why song lyrics are larded with cliches. Even a Jim Morrison, prob the best lyricist of the rock era, was a lousy poet.

Tom,

A visionary, by definition, is a soloist. To require a second party means that there is no singular vision. That the Lennon-McCartney duo wrote together dispels the claim.

Also, visionaries have a transformative effect in their work. There is the Einsteinian universe, The Dalian POV in painting, etc. There is no Lennonian whatever.

Steverino is correct, that their post-Beatles stuff proves that neither man, alone, was anything but an average songwriter. Another knock against viisionary. And frankly, Wingsm despite mediocrity, was far better than any Lennon projects. That atrocious last album was execrable. Ringo did better in a caveman suit.

As for the hagiography about the Beatles. If you lop off the last thirty years of crap, the Stones match the Beatles for classics, and were more diverse. The Who was more diverse, and in terms of musicality and lyrics, Led Zeppelin was king of Classic Rock. The Beatles were pop.

Not a one of the Beatles could match a Jimmy Page or Pete Townshend’s musicality.

I’m not going to weigh in on the question of who qualifies as a “visionary” and who doesn’t; comparing scientific discoveries to musical works is a minefield of subjectivity that’s best left alone. But a couple of assertions can’t go unanswered:

Led Zeppelin was king of Classic Rock. The Beatles were pop.

What does this even mean? These are completely ahistorical and artificial categories, thought up by radio and journalist gooberheads to classify something that’s almost by definition unclassifiable. If you want to use “diversity” (another highly subjective word) as a criterion for excellence, both of these bands explored an enormous range of genres; can you really defend the notion that “Helter Skelter” is “pop” and “D’yer Mak’er” isn’t?

Further on the question of “diversity”: The Beatles bent genres in construction of their unique style well before they became famous. Listen to the Decca audition tapes from 1962; you’ll hear “Sheik of Araby,” “Bésame Mucho,” “Like Dreamers Do,” and “Hello, Little Girl” in quick succession. With a little sympathy and openmindedness, you can quite easily trace how elements of these diverse genres found their way into the Beatles’ later output. The point being, it’s arguable that the Fabs’ experimentation with a wide range of styles was their single most important contribution to rock — that the simplistic harmonic patterns of early rock could be expanded to include conventions borrowed from jazz (the sixth chord that suffuses “She Loves You,” the walking bass in “All My Loving”), musical theater (”Michelle,” “Girl”) bluegrass (”I’ve Just Seen a Face”), classical (”Yesterday,” “Eleanor Rigby”), West Coast country (”I Don’t Want to Spoil the Party”), and the list goes on and on and on. In this area, the Beatles were absolutely unarguably innovators, and everyone else followers.

Not a one of the Beatles could match a Jimmy Page or Pete Townshend’s musicality.

I’m at a bit of a disadvantage, here, because I don’t know the extent of your musical literacy. Your assertion implies a rather reductionist definition of the word “musicality.” I don’t think Pete Townshend himself would allow your assertion to stand. (Pete? Wanna weigh in?)

The Beatles’ initial appeal to the musical intelligentsia (as opposed to their appeal to teenaged girls) was based on the effortless harmonic sophistication that informed their arrangements. (I’m talking “With the Beatles,” here, not “Revolver,” by which time their genius was quite clear to everyone.)

The Beatles were above all else a quartet. Particularly in their pre-marijuana period, their song-arrangement skills were put to use to make four instruments sound like one single unit. That is to say, they sublimated their individual musical egos to the task of producing something greater than the sum of its parts. I’d point in particular to George Harrison’s lead guitar work, which in many cases wasn’t what we now think of as “lead guitar” at all (i.e., the production of bombastic single-note weedle-weedle extravanganzas at a given point in a song — many thanks are due in part to your Mr. Page for this innovation), but instead served the arrangement as an important but not dominant element. In many cases (”I Want to Hold Your Hand,” “She Loves You,” “When I Get Home” come to mind) it’s quite impossible to tell the lead and rhythm guitars apart, so complex is their interplay.

I would call this subservience of the ego to the greater whole, musicality.

(Fascinatingly, at the instant I was typing this last paragraph, I received Dan’s gibbering broadside “Diversion on Censorship, Stupidity, Dishonesty, et al…..”, and having now wiped the flecks of saliva from my glasses and face, and noting Dan’s assurance that he won’t be darkening our doors any longer, I can drop the veneer of politeness that I had carefully constructed around this Comment and say what I was actually thinking:

(Dan, you’re clearly not a musician, you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about, and perhaps most tellingly of all, you clearly have a very bad habit of defining words to your own purpose. In the case of this post, you misunderstand the word “musicality”; in the case of that bucket of bile you just dumped into my Inbox, you clearly need to carefully look up the word “censorship.”

Jesus Christ: Jim Morrison!?!?!?! You blither, Dan. Please check this tendency. It’s highly unbecoming.)

I think Lennon’s lyrics were as good as if not better as a solo artist.

And visionary the Beatles were. Pop music was never the same.

Besides, Einstein’s music sucked.

Just a couple of thoughts on Dan’s response: Lester Bangs once called Jim Morrison, Bozo Dionysus, cause he knew that, despite his gibberish Morrison’s shaman antics were good street theater if nothing else. Morrison’s “American poet” mystique is just tired, crusty 60s myth. And just how was he the best lyricist of the era? Other than “Break On Through” (and maybe a few bootlegs)he/they never lived up to their Blake-derived moniker.Cut for cut the only passable album is their last. Hell, Arthur Lee had more to say.
As for Lennon, it’s hard to imagine anyone, contrarian or otherwise, preferring the cloying Wings to, hard, bitter,rueful songs like “Gimme Some Truth” and “Working Class Hero,” and “Isolation.” The remarks about “diversity” and “musicality” are just vague, unsubstantiated pronouncements. I love the early Who (Sings My Generation, Who Sell Out) but Townshend’s turned the band (and his solo career) into one long concept/opera/high art project after another. If that’s “diversity” you can have it.

Ned is the shit, ain’t he?

As Tom said, Paul and John were both “visionaries” in their field. This is beyond debate.

Writing lyrics like “His brain is squirming like a toad” and “Out here we are stoned; immaculate!” automatically disqualifies you from any list that has the word “best” in it.

I still do like “I am the lizard king / I can do anything.”

The reason I accused Dan of being into irony was not because he said McCartney was a “lousy” poet - it was because he called him the better lyricist.

Paul did write some fine lyrics though - he seemed to not care all that much and just stumbled upon them by chance.

I don’t know about the nuances of the word musicality, and I like both Pete Townshend and Jimmy Page, but I think the music that came out of the Beatles is arguably as good as anything that the human race has ever produced.

And goddamn it, nobody calls ME Skipper.

I particularly enjoyed the use of the word “blither.”
Didn’t Lennon use that in an early version of I Am the Walrus?

Didn’t Lennon use that in an early version of I Am the Walrus?

Almost. It was actually in “Across The Universe.”

Words are flowing out like endless rain into a paper cup, they blither while they pass they slip away across the universe

those lyrics seem analogous to one heather mills-mccartney, to moi …