Paul and Yoko duke it out once more, but for what?
So what’s the big stink? Paul wants to switch the order of names on the songs he mainly wrote. Who cares? Apperently, Yoko. Though I tend to see it as a lot of hot air, most media outlets have reported that Yoko Ono is investigating her legal options to force McCartney to switch back the names on later releases of his Back in the U.S. Live 2002 album. Is there any legal ground?
McCartney's publicist, Paul Freundlich doesn’t think so. In an E! Online interview Freundlich said, "Merely switching a credit on a song doesn't seem to misrepresent who wrote the song in any way shape or form."
And I tend to agree with him. Actually deleting John’s name may get Macca a kick in the nuts from Yoko’s attorneys, but simply changing the order wouldn’t remove authorship. And besides, anyone who cares already knows who wrote what, a fact Freundlich points out.
"It's pretty much public knowledge, I would say, as to which songs were authored mainly by Paul and which songs mainly by John... All he's done is switch the names. It's not meant to be divisive," said Freundlich.
Furthermore, Canadian daily The Globe Daily Mail, reported in a December 28, 2002 story that “Donald Passman, a prominent music-industry lawyer in Los Angeles, said recently that he believes that transposing a credit doesn't seem to misrepresent authorship or damage the song as a piece of revenue-generating property. Moreover, there seems to be general agreement that on his own releases, Mr. McCartney can rearrange the heretofore standard byline as he sees fit.”
But legal matters are all together different from the court of public opinion where McCartney’s actions seem to be further sullying the legacy he’s so desperately trying enhance. Poor old Paul has been trying to live in his more boisterous partner’s shadow for most of his adult life. That shadow grew longer and colder in 1980 when Lennon was gunned down in New York City, solidifying his position as an icon with an untimely death. In countless interviews, McCartney has tried to convince the public that he was no “Salieri to Lennon’s Mozart,” as Ono famously quipped years ago. For the most part his efforts have fallen flat simply because they sound desperate. This latest ploy to switch the order of names in what is arguably the best-known partnership of the 20th Century is similarly misguided. Elliott Mintz, Ono’s perpetually tanned spokesperson takes it less kindly.
"There's no question this is an attempted act of Beatle revisionism," he of the extraordinarily white teeth told Associated Press. "And it does appear to be an attempt to rewrite history."
Ono claims that McCartney’s attempt at revisionism may in the end actually hurt his legacy.
"If those songs are credited to 'McCartney-Lennon' and the rest of the 200 or so are credited to 'Lennon-McCartney,' people may think Paul wrote those songs and John wrote the rest," said Ono.
But isn’t that Paul’s problem? Perhaps, to further confuse the hissing numbskulls at Beatlefest who spit and slur whenever Ono’s name comes up, Yoko’s just looking out for Paul’s best interests? But why the threat of legal action then? It’s not that he’s trying to nullify the agreement he and John made 40 odd years ago, in fact, it’s not clear that the order of names was even part of that agreement.
The 1964 pressing of Introducing the Beatles on Vee Jay records lists McCartney’s name first on all of the duo’s originals (see label scan). History clouds the story around the Beatles’ releases on Vee Jay and they may not have had a hand in the packaging, but there was no stink made about it then. Same with the Parlophone release of Please, Please Me from the Beatles' own EMI (see label scan).
On page 94 of the book the Beatles Anthology, McCartney explains the original arrangement as:
"I wanted it to be McCartney/Lennon, but John had the stronger personality and I think he fixed things with Brian [Epstein] before I got there...they all said, 'Lennon/McCartney sounds better'...I had to say, 'Oh, all right, sod it.'"
McCartney added, maybe a bit too conveniently, that he and Lennon had always agreed that "if we ever wanted it could be changed around to make me equal."
More recently, McCartney switched the order of the names on his 1976 live album Wings Over America (see label scan). A massive release from arguably one of the most successful bands of the 1970s, it’s unlikely that this slipped under Lennon’s radar, which begs the question: would John even care?
John was always very candid in interviews about who wrote what (sometimes charitably, sometimes to avoid association with songs he disliked). But it seems John was always comfortable with his legacy and isn’t Yoko’s threat of legal action to leave the order as it is grounded in the same false logic that somehow a legacy is at stake?
In the end, Lennon-McCartney are as eternally linked as Leiber-Stoller, Ali-Frazier, or Costner-Waterworld. Whenever anyone thinks of one, they will always think of the other—regardless of order. To first try and get top billing over the person with whom you actually made your legacy is unfortunate. To then sue to ensure that petty act is punished with monetary remuneration is ludicrous.
Email
Comments
There is a theory of history that essentially says that what "was" "is" what is presently accepted to be. To be sure, this is more than somewhat subjective. But what can be described as "the accepted theory of history" is probably more with us than we would like to admit. (For example, most people would probably claim that Henry Ford invented the mass-produced automobile, which isn't correct, but which is acceptable for most purposes.)
In the case of Lennon-McCartney/McCartney-Lennon, Paul can only lose, regardless of what goes on freshly printed labels--at least he'll lose in the contexts of (1) those people who have a memory of what was, and for whom it is important or relevant and (2) history as it will be recorded, as the musicologists go back to the sources and note the early variants of labeling, but who note the general run of the authorial identification.
As for those who don't remember Lennon-McCartney, I think Paul is going to be out of luck--as if they'll give a damn about him and his legacy.
It is amazing to me that the older these two get, the longer they apparantly think they are going to live...
I say credit it all to Ringo...
All this hubbub is really getting in the way for those of us who are trying to forget that McCartney and Lennon ever existed.
M,
I think you mean Lennon and McCartney...
well, for someone (M) to think that it is ever going to be possible for a generation to not know the Beatles....guess again. Paul simply wants to finally get some much overdue credit, everyone talks about Lennon...I have an idea...credit all songs simply to "The Beatles".
Crystal,
I'm sure Paul would LOVE that idea...
Phil: That would be "Sir" Paul, to you.
Crystal, do you think that's true? I think the masses more readily identify McCartney with the Beatles than Lennon, these days.
Well, I bet that if you were to go into a high school and ask the teenagers, you would find ALOT more people saying JOHN LENNON when they are asked to name a Beatle, or even if they were asked who their fav. Beatle is...poor Ringo...he never gets ANY credit...and you rarely heard anyone talk of George's talent, until he was dead.
I still say that all the Beatles probably had little bits and parts in every song and the songs should be credited to THE BEATLES if Paul insists on changing things....as long as they don't start adding "written by Lennon/McCartney OWNED by M. Jackson" then I really don't care...
Of course, each of the Beatles contributed to the songs they played on, but the who is credited as the author of the song is an entirely different thing. It may be unfair, but that's the way it is. You can bet Hal Blaine or any of the other Wrecking Crew members contributed bits and pieces to the songs they recorded, but they don't get writing credit.
Judging cultural relevance by teenage recognition is a waste of time. As much as tracking recognition of Emo bands among the Cracker Barrel set.
Keep posting though, Crystal. I like the discussion and hope this doesn't come across as harsh.
Do you think Paul would pursue this if John was still here? I don't think so!
Well....the way I see it, Paul should have thought of this in 1964. I always just assumed that the credits were in alphabetical order, no big deal. Paul is my fav, btw, but the are "Beatle" songs to me, not "paul" or "john" or "george" songs....as for Paul coming up with this if John was here, I don't think anyone can even imagine what John and Paul would be like towards each other....
When we talk about who authored what song, are we only referring to the lyric-writing? If this is the case, there'd be quite a few songs in the Beatles catalog that should be credited to only Lennon or only McCartney. I think McCartney wrote all the lyrics to "Yesterday" by himself, and I think John wrote all the lyrics to "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite" all by himself, for example.
Was this some all-inclusive covenant that any song written by either Lennon or McCartney would bear the stamp of both of their names?
I always assumed the guy that sang it wrote most of it... except for Ringo. And Crystal, in George's case I think it certainly makes sense to credit it to George instead of the Beatles since he wrote alone. Are there any Beatles songs credited to Harrison/someone else? I don't know of any.
Paul's ploy seems petty, but who gives a fuck besides Paul and Yoko?
The above post belongs to me.
Well, as a fan, and as someone that has researched the Beatles, often Paul or John would come in with some words and ALL of the guys (including poor Ringo) would put the song together. Is that it now?
Just to clarify, I said "those of us" trying to forget. I wasn't t-t-talking 'bout my generation.
Funny, at first I thought you guys were talking about Lemmon and McCartney. But then I remembered that Mathau did all those movies with him. Still..., think of the REALLY great neurotic songs that could have come from that. More stuttering than Daltrey on Prellies!!!!!!!!!
Update - Yoko will not sue: http://launch.yahoo.com/read/news.asp?contentID=213163
Quite frankly, I just thought it was alphabetical; makes sense that way. And I agree that nobody will really care. Really, the only times I check the authoring credits is when I hear that damned sitar starting up again....dammit it better be George. I just don't understand the point.