John And Jane Would Be Great But I Also Wouldn’t Mind Paul And Stu Lol. You Could Cut The Tension With

Dear friend! We already know his thoughts on Coming up from a few interviews and the same for Too Many People. I don’t entirely buy that Call Me Back Again is a McLennon song. But Dear Friend is 100 percent about John and given it came during a period of infighting, I want to know what John truly felt hearing that for the first time. Can I get Paul reacting to I Know, I Know as a bonus? And both of them reacting to I Don’t Know (Johnny, Johnny)?

Beatle (John) Hypotheticals #11

If you could be a fly on the wall when John listens to a song for the first time, which one of the following songs would you choose and why?

Too Many People

Dear Friend

Call Me Back Again

Coming Up

If you could choose another song, that isn’t listed above, which one would you choose and why?

Just wish I could read an article that praises Paul yet doesn’t crap on John. I’m the member of about 30 John Lennon pages across multiple social media platforms and they are really positive places that celebrate John with photos, video and articles. If the other Beatles are mentioned it’s always with respect and a desire to support their various projects. I can’t remember the last time someone bashed Paul. Why can’t this be the norm?

“Did you know Paul sent a telegram to Margaret Thatcher in 1982? He did. It wasn’t friendly. He lost his temper over her treatment of health workers and fired off a long outraged message, comparing her to Ted Heath, the prime minister (tweaked in “Taxman”) felled by the 1974 coal strike. McCartney warned, “What the miners did to Ted Heath, the nurses will do to you.” This controversy is a curiously obscure footnote to his life—it seldom gets mentioned in even the fattest biographies. He doesn’t discuss it in Many Years from Now. I only know about it because I read it as a Random Note in Rolling Stone, not exactly a hotbed of pro-Paul propaganda at the time. (The item began, “Reports that Paul McCartney is intellectually brain-dead appear to have been premature.”) But the telegram was a major U.K. scandal, with Tory politicians denouncing him. In October 1982, Thatcher was at the height of her power, in the wake of her Falkland Islands blitz. Many rock stars talked shit about Maggie—Elvis Costello, Morrissey, Paul Weller—but Paul was the one more famous than she was. He had something to lose by hitting send on this, and nothing to gain. What, you think he was trying for coolness points? This is Paul McCartney, remember? He was in the middle of making Give My Regards to Broad Street. He could have clawed Thatcher’s still-beating heart out of her rib cage, impaled it on his Hofner on live TV, and everybody would have said, “Yeah, but ‘Silly Love Songs’ though.” Why did he feel so intensely about the nurses? He didn’t mention his mother in the telegram, but he must have been thinking of Mary McCartney’s life and death. So he snapped, even though it was off-message. (He was busy that week doing interviews for the twentieth anniversary of “Love Me Do”—the moment called for Cozy Lovable Paul, not Angry Paul.) He didn’t boast about it later, though fans today would be impressed that any English rock star of that generation—let alone Paul—had the gumption to send this. You can make a case that it was a braver, riskier, and more politically relevant move than John sending his MBE medal back to the Queen in 1970. Still, John’s gesture went down in history and Paul’s didn’t, though his fans would probably admire the move if they knew about it. He couldn’t win. He was Paul. All he could do was piss people off.”

— Rob Sheffield, Dreaming the Beatles. (2017)

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?

"The world going by my window" – A Lennon-McCartney Microcosm

Or: Over-analysing the melodic and harmonic structure of one line from The Beatles' "I'm Only Sleeping" (1966) and discussing how it reflects the very essences of the musicians and people singing it.

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).

1. Homesy John and His Strange Close Melodies

"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.

2. Adventurous Paul and his Warm Leaps

"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.

3. (Never) The Twain Shall Meet

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."

Yup I love John and George. I’m indifferent about Ringo and can’t stand narcissist Paul at all. But weirdly think he was good for John. It’s complicated lol

Y'know lightbulb moment but maybe me being a John girl means I should be George girl adjacent because George was kind of a bastard too y'know like he had kind of a temper on him too, and he wasn't afraid to physically lash out.

Like you have George straight up headbutting some poor kid Paul had introduced to him, not even saying 'hello, how are you, see how you like it'' before doing so. Didn't like him and told Paul that he wasn't worthy of Paul's friendship.

Batshit insane thing to do.

Then you have John, and depending on his state of sobriety at the time, who's first words to some people were caustic and biting and not so very friendly like (inappropriate and/or rude), or he'd pour his drink on someone, typically unprovoked or undeserving usually... which would then result in some sort of fight breaking out.

And Paul loved both of them. He oft justified their behavior and actions, or found them funny when they really weren't to others.

I am not sure John was a baby but he was a softie. He is missed

the softest guy i’ve ever met

It’s nice to see a music critic put into words how I have felt as some of these excerpts from the book have come out. As a John fan, I’ve had to scroll past people calling John an evil wifebeater on my dash, people diagnosing him with a variety of mental illnesses despite no diagnosis in his lifetime and then diagnosing people around him with mental health issues just for associating with him. They then use these mental health issues he may have had to discredit his thoughts and feelings or even worse infantilise him, particularly in relation to Paul. I haven’t called these things out as everyone has a right to their opinions. But when a few people have called out Paul for some of the hurtful things he has said regarding John, they have been shouted down, blocked or told they have no right to their opinions and aren’t being team players in the fandom. I think that due to Paul having a tough treatment after John’s death, there’s a need to put Paul on a pedestal as he is seen as needing defending and consequently either minimise John’s accomplishments or grossly highlight all of John’s flaws (while conveniently ignoring those of the other Beatles.) Paul, like john, is human and it’s should be ok to point out elements of his behaviour you find problematic and by the way many of John fans completely are aware of both John’s flaws and Paul’s wonderful points too. If we call out the Jean jackets who put John on a pedestal and treat him like a God surely we shouldn’t be encouraging that behaviour for the fans of the other Beatles. Ted talk over

McCartney, With and Without Lennon

In “The Lyrics: 1956 to the Present,” Paul McCartney and the poet Paul Muldoon present the words to 154 of the former Beatle’s songs.

  Posting this, because it’s a pretty balanced review. The reviews have been generally pretty favourable, but they do (and rightly so) call out Paul for his (intentional?) inconsistency and revisionism. I’m not too familiar with the author, but a quick wikipedia search says he has been on the musicology/ music critique writing scene since the 70s. Some will probably say “oh he’s just one of those male rock journalists who favoured John and therefore his criticism of Paul is invalid”. But I think he makes some really excellent points about the flawed elements of this book. 

  “The best of the songs collected here (“For No One,” “She’s Leaving Home,” “When Winter Comes,” “On My Way to Work” and quite a few more) reflect eyes fixed on the small niceties and curiosities of everyday life and a mind that bounces freely, taking childlike pleasure in that freedom. “The Lyrics” makes clear that McCartney has written on a high level long past his Beatles years, and even the weakest lyrics in the books have a character all their own: a feeling of giddy playfulness and unguarded experimentation. They’re a joy to read because they exude the joy their maker took in their making.” “Over and over, McCartney shows how deeply he is steeped in literary history and how much his output as a songwriter has in common with the works of the likes of Dickens and Shakespeare. “John never had anything like my interest in literature,” he announces at the top of his commentary on “The End,” before pivoting to a mini-lecture on the couplet as a form. “When you think about it, it’s been the workhorse of poetry in English right the way through. Chaucer, Pope, Wilfred Owen.” Apropos of “Come and Get It,” the trifle he wrote and produced for Badfinger, McCartney notes, “When you’re writing for an audience — as Shakespeare did, or Dickens, whose serialized chapters were read to the public — there’s that need to pull people in.” Aaaah … we realize: Paul really is a word man, the more literary and cerebral Beatle.”  “As one would expect from the pop star who posed with his baby tucked in his coat on his farm for his first post-Beatles album, McCartney talks with ardor and respect for his parents, his extended family in Liverpool, and the traditional values of hearth and home in general. He attributes the buoyant positivity of his music to the happiness in his family life and, by extension, ascribes the bite and cynicism that distinguishes much of Lennon’s work to the domestic upheaval in John’s early years. To McCartney, a dark view of humanity is a failing and must be a mark of suffering, rather than an attribute of thought.”  “While pronouncing his love for Lennon as a longtime friend and creative partner, Paul is pretty rough on him at points in “The Lyrics.” His main crime is one of omission, passing on opportunities to point out Lennon’s signature contributions to songs they wrote collaboratively, such as “A Day in the Life.” In the context of conflicts between the two of them, McCartney describes Lennon as “stupid” or an “idiot.” Yes, we all know that McCartney can’t help defining himself in relation to Lennon. Still, as he shows convincingly throughout “The Lyrics,” you don’t have to make the other guy out to be an idiot to prove that you’re a genius.   

"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."

This is such a weird take that John’s mom dying horrifically in a car accident right underneath his bedroom window counts as hagiography regardless of whether the driver was drunk or not. It was still a traumatic thing for John. Also why is it never acknowledged there is massive hagiography for Paul “everything can be explained away as his actions are always right” McCartney?

It’s also massively problematic for anyone to diagnose anyone else without a formal mental health evaluation and even more wrong for a mental health clinician to do it via taking pieces of biographies out of context. Also Erin Torkelson Weber is biased. Ugh. So many things I hate about this and once again it’s taking a complex person like John and taking out his worst pieces out of context to form a half baked conclusion.

Hi :) my friend just sent me a link to a podcast episode called "The Psychology of John Lennon" by Psychology in Seattle. I'm kind of interested but seeing as the episode so awfully long and I have no experience with that podcast idk if it's worth a listen. So I wanted to ask if you have given that one a go and if so what are your thoughts on it? Is it insightful?

P.S.: I love your blog, I really appreciate all the hard work that goes into your posts and they're always so interesting to read!!

Hiya anon!

Thank you for the lovely “PS” message btw — I really appreciate hearing that!! :)

I have listened to this podcast a few times, and I’ve actually recommended this specific episode (which can be found here (x)) quite a bit – so I’m pretty familiar with it! The short answer here is that I would recommend it. It’s a decent illustration of the key arguments concerning a diagnosis for borderline personality disorder, albeit, not a comprehensive one. But id say the host gets the job done, and it’s a good starting point for wider discussion.

The long answer, is that the episode does have a handful of flaws. There were two main issues I recall having with it, the first being that Dr Honda assumes Mimi’s parenting was not in any way problematic or abusive. He discusses Julia’s parenting, establishing it as chaotic, and also discusses Alfred's parenting —or lack thereof, really— and illustrates how both these early abandonments would have affected John. He even mentions an intergenerational aspect to the family-line which I thought was interesting (I’m actually working on whole post dedicated to that topic!). But then he brushes off Mimi’s parenting as “good-enough”, when it evidently had a more substantial impact on John.

In discussing how a borderline personality might have developed for John throughout his childhood, I just don’t believe you can dismiss Mimi in this way, since she was such a pivotal figure in the formation of his personality. Her treatment of him appears to have been emotionally and verbal abusive — and that isn’t a judgement of her, nor is it to say that she didn’t love him (or that he didn’t love her), but simply that if you read the various accounts of her parenting styles, it seems fairly apparent that it is what would be considered abusive today. I do appreciate that John was probably always going to be difficult, and that she had her own issues largely stemming mainly from her father — but these things don’t ultimately dispel the argument that her parenting could be abusive. So essentially, Mimi's needed to be discussed in more depth for this to be a comprehensive outlook on John’s childhood. As well as this, the episode would have been improved had he dedicated more time into discussing the impact of Uncle George and his death.

The second issue I had with the episode, was that the host largely neglects to discuss John’s relationship with Paul. There are parts of the podcast where he does discuss their closeness, but overall it didn’t feel to me as though he had really recognised the depth of this relationship. Im aware that he recently did an episode on Get Back, which I haven’t gotten round to listening to just yet — but I’m interested to see to see if perhaps his perspective has changed/grown.

There are other things in the podcast which I take issue with (for instance, his understanding of the relationship between John and Yoko could be fairly shallow and one-sided), but it seems to me as though these things tended to be more-or-less related to a problematic historiography. I appreciate that Dr Kirk Honda has done dozens of these kinds of episodes, where he analyses the psychology of various celebrities and characters, and offers potential diagnosis’s for them – and therefore, I’m not expecting him to be an absolute expert on John Lennon. When you’re running a podcast which is fairly miscellaneous in its subjects, there’s an extent to which you can research each topic, and so I cant really expect the host to have studied practically Every Single Area of John Lennon’s life. There are things which I would have been more attentive towards — but I’ve dedicated, frankly, an amount of time into researching him which therapists would find concerning (*kidding*…..but not really). Additionally, I would presume that the shows hosts haven’t read most of the biographies in which they gathered their information from with much critical thought, because they’re not The Almighty Great Erin Torkelson-Webber. So effectively, their understanding of John Lennon is going to blindsided by hagiography — an example of this would be when the host cites that John’s mother was killed by a drunk-driver, which contemporary reports would disagree with. But I wouldn’t say that this flaw is so much so that it spoils their entire overarching argument, its just a notable blindspot and something to keep in mind when listening to their analysis’s.

On a more positive note, there were merits to this podcast. As a professional psychologist, he is able to offer valuable insights into things such as Janov’s Primal Scream Therapy, and illustrate in laymen’s terms, essentially why its a quack. And despite his arguments being, in my opinion, fundamentally flawed since they neglect to account for two massively crucial figures (Mimi and Paul), he’s still able to conclude with a solid, evidenced argument for John having had BPD.

If you happen to be someone fairly ‘iffy’ about diagnosing (or suggesting diagnosis’s) John with a mental illness—especially something as complicated as borderline personality disorder—id definitely recommend giving this as a listen! You might still conclude that diagnosing him is not the right course of action, or that it has little value, or that its just plain wrong etc. but I still think its a good thing for people to at least understand the arguments here, since I know that in the past when I have mentioned that I think John was a strong candidate for BPD, I am often met with a response telling me that I'm just projecting onto him, which does make me wonder if they’ve really understood the objective outlook in this discussion.

Someday I’ll have to sit down and write up an entire post on all this, collecting the strongest arguments for him having had BPD (and someday I will, I swear!) but for now I’ll just leave you a few other relevant links to this topic:

An overview of the John and BPD argument (x) — @thecoleopterawithana

Exposing the voice of truth: a psychological profile of John Lennon — Deborah Fade (x) + additionally you can read the @anotherkindofmindpod critique of it here (x)

A quote from Lesley Ann-Jones and (a more important) addition from @walkuntilthedaylight (x)

“Do you get to see much of any city that you visit?”