Podcast: Play in new window | Download
In which Richard and Robert trace the rather momentous events of February 11th (give or take) throughout the entirety of The Beatles’ career. As with their Christmas messages, each fixed date saw major developments, mostly positive ones. Songs include “There’s A Place,” “Woman” and “Instant Karma.”
Find Robert’s books here.
Find Richard’s books here.
Let’s see, let’s see … Feb. 11 … Feb. 11 … 1964?!
It’s not fully registering but that particular one seems to stand out in my mind as one of the more significant ones. Not just for a “Feb. 11” but, I mean of course, as a date in American history.
Yeah, yeah, yeah … YEEEAAAAH (Major 6th!!)
Great fellas! Can’t wait to listen. Cheers!!
Richard make fake Yoko in surround sound!
Very interesting re: “Woman”; that was new to me
The drummer on “Cold Turkey” was Jim Gordon.
“The drummer on Cold Turkey was Jim Gordon.”
I noticed that this weblink below (and also the Wikipedia site) both say that it is Ringo on drums. (I assume these sources are correct, but I suppose they might not be. Dunno, not sure.)
https://www.beatlesbible.com/people/john-lennon/songs/cold-turkey/
Apparently Jim Gordon played Cold Turkey live Monday 15 December 1969.
I compared the single version with the one on Sometimes in NYC and the drumming in completely different, there are a lot more bass drum kicks.
It’s not a typical Ringo’s drumming, that’s noticeable, maybe it’s an improvement.
Another good one. I, for one, am really good they never did “What Goes On” live. Complete dog of a song, in their bottom 5 for sure.
really glad …
Surprised with your mentions of Sheryl Crow, Sarah Palin, and Jennifer Aniston, you left off mentioning one American female who literally grabbed a piece of Beatles history on Feb. 11, 1964, Beverly Markowitz of Silver Spring, MD, the original “Billie Shears” who famously snipped a lock of Ringo’s hair at the British Embassy function that day. Here’s a clip on her I found on the internet: http://www.donaldsauter.com/ringo-hair-embassy.htm
Good catch, Bill!
I’ve always thought they dropped Act Naturally because it is far trickier to pull off than I Wanna Be Your Man.
For a start, you have to detune the E string on all the guitars down to D in preparation then you’ve got the stop/start parts having to be coordinated as well as the tricky lead parts against a wall of screams. I Wanna Be Your Man by contrast is mostly a basic 3 chord stomp.
Before I’ve even listened to this I’m going 63 Please Please Me, 64 Washington Coliseum 65 Ringo’s wedding 68 Hey Bulldog recording/Lady Madonna promo film.
It’s really infuriating to hear Robert extoll the virtues of presenting fact from fiction on his shows, yet, here once again in this “Dear Friend” episode, he presents a show of pure speculation. At one point stating, “John would never ever take George seriously and I hate to say it, he probably saw George as a useful idiot.” Where did either George or John say this? Then there is the usual tiresome John bashing. The kicker for me though is when Robert tells the story of how Paul remembers the dates of his visit with John watching SNL and proves Paul had to remember it wrong (the one factual point made on the show) and then Robert and his guest spend the rest of the show defending Paul’s every comment as fact, like Paul would never say one thing and really feel something different, or remember facts wrong as Robert proves early on. It’s so frustrating because I really think Robert brings a unique perspective to the Beatles’ history, but he really needs to stop bashing John and defending Paul ad nauseam.
Hi Ron,
Thanks for the kind words and support for the show. To respond to your point, let me just say that I try very hard to be even-handed and not play favorites among the four of them. John may be the easiest of them to call bullshit on, because 1) he was the most loquacious; he’d mastered the talent for “speaking in headlines,” as Ray Connolly pointed out, and could always be counted on for coming up with a memorable turn of the phrase, perhaps more than the other three, but at the same time 2) He did have a penchant for speaking in hyperbole, asserting things in overstatement or flat out mistruths, as he himself would freely admit. So while you may read what I say about him as “tiresome John bashing,” it is not my mission to character assassinate Mr Lennon, who I admire personally as much as I do any other Beatle. It happens to be easier to call him out on things, just because he DID talk a lot and DID tend to possess, to use Pete Townshend’s words, “proneness to exaggeration.” Trust me when I tell you I am not looking for “Aha!” moments to diminish his character, and as you rightly point out, I did call out Paul on his evolving stories and tendency to re-write history, as I have on other shows. I don’t take anyone’s word as gospel if there is solid contrary evidence elsewhere, and if you think there was something in this show where I accepted Paul’s word when I shouldn’t have, please point it out.
RE the thesis of John never taking George seriously as an artist (rather, a “useful idiot” when it suited his purposes), the evidence for this is all over the place. Let’s take his own words, for instance: in Lennon Remembers, he was less than effusive about All Things Must Pass – something regarded by most everyone else as a monumental achievement not 30 years later but in real time (and expressed even greater disdain privately, as Klaus reported); was dismissive of Bangladesh as “ca-ca”; complained about having to help George out with “Taxman” (notwithstanding George’s labor in getting “She Said She Said” into recordable shape around the same time, at the expense of Paul’s involvement), and his continuously negative responses to George’s new material at Twickenham (notably on “I Me Mine,” but also on “Let It Down” – George reports to Ringo that “Isn’t It A Pity” had been rejected by John back in 1966, while John’s engagement on “All Things Must Pass” is less than 100%). He absented himself from the sessions for a number of George compositions during the last two years of the group (and is heard denying this in the September 10, 1969 Apple meeting tape), but the facts speak for themselves. On the other hand, George – as always – contributes mightily to John’s tunes, through the Beatles years and beyond. He was asked by John to come to Toronto but sidestepped it (not wanting to take part in a JohnandYoko self-indulgence), but for whatever reason, relented at the Lyceum months later; he was also on hand for the “Instant Karma” session and responsible for Spector’s involvement. George took time out from the All Things Must Pass sessions to cut a 30th birthday greeting for John, which he then presented in person, and though had his hands full with ATMP, precluding any involvement with Plastic Ono Band, availed himself for half the tracks on Imagine, turning in superb performances; only to see the favor go unreturned when John first accepted – and then reneged on – participating in the charitable benefit months later. You see a pattern starting to emerge: when Yoko is in the mix, there is trouble between John and George; strikingly less so when she isn’t, as in 1974, where John and George’s relations seem to be warming up: John speaking well of George and Dark Horse in the press and coming out to see the show, but then years of George’s long-simmering resentments coming to a head when they had it out backstage and George knocked John’s glasses off his head (and John letting him – “I know what pain is” – hard to imagine him responding as compassionately in Yoko’s presence); the complaint from George being, “I did everything you wanted me to…” and John’s not reciprocating. Instead, we get the penny-ante complaint of being slighted in the I Me Mine book which, for the record, is not a “memoir” or autobiography as much as it is simply an annotated collection of lyrics.
The relationship between these two was complex, to say the least. George was a valuable ally to John when it came to standing with Klein against Paul and enhancing his music, but this cooperation was not a two-way street. Despite this, George “would join a band with John Lennon any day” (1974) but not with Paul McCartney. That’s a whole other can of worms to explore: George’s personal friendship with Paul, but completely stressed relationship musically with the Beatle who contributed mightily to his music all the way to the end but who nonetheless “ruined” him as a guitarist.
So while I take issue with the characterization of Lennon basher, I will grant you that calling out BS on John may be easier some of the time, but there’s plenty of room for calling the others out too – I don’t play favorites.
A most excellent and measured reply Richard. You always better the discussion by putting forth facts to back up your thoughts.
We recognize that your rigorous examination of the points you raise does not mean a favouring of Beatle A over Beatle B, but rather that you are simply doing research as it should be done and teasing out what conclusions can be drawn from the extant facts. As your discussions with Erin Weber revealed, we all would have been better served if the writers in the 70s, 80s, and even 90s had hewn to this standard.
Keep up the outstanding work and thank you for what you do.
Sorry!!! Meant to say Robert. It auto-corrected to Richard. No worries, I wasn’t confusing you with your former co-host.
Hey Ron,
I found the whole interview by Robert very well researched as usual. It was also compulsory listening. Robert has always been even handed and fair in his appraisal of all 4 Beatles and I applaud him for this. He works with the truth and doesn’t tease out a fictitious romance between John and Paul .. that is the well of other platforms.
It has become more and more apparent that John was riddled with insecurities and low self esteem at times. Plus he had a massive ego. What he seems to have found to be true were his own emotional truths at the time of his blabbing out his latest interview. I don’t know how seriously the Beatles took the press after years of being subjected to and screwing with it. I am one of those who think that if the Beatles had gotten back together (as the Thomas Brothers pointed out in their book)they would have collaborated and made something wonderful. As far as George goes I seem to recall him doing an interview(was it the Datebook one?) where he said he didn’t really care about writing songs and hadn’t really bothered yet, or something along those lines. If that was the case that initial attitude might have carried over into the later years in some impressionable fashion.
It is a shame the Beatles turned out to be all too human. I think that the entire decade was built on the bedrock of the Beatles. Their enduring friendship , their self effacing attitude, sense of humor, anti authoritarian stance, seemed to blow in like a fresh breeze on the stagnant pond the World had become. It’s a shame they couldn’t get beyond their personal issues and reunite ,but that Beatles myth, which I don’t think they fully understood, must have been awfully intimidating. That one scene in the movie “I Wanna Hold your Hand” where the reporters are asking the girl who spent the night in the Beatles hotel room what it was like, the look on her face and whatever she answers as her face just glows, says it all.
A couple of thoughts after listening:
When you talk about Paul coming to John’s rescue it brought to mind Paul’s role in the famous “bigger than Jesus” press conference after the controversy broke out in the US. We’ve all read John’s quotes a million times and as far as I’m concerned he was just digging himself a deeper hole. Did he really think that it would mollify the anger of his Christian fans and enemies to say that he “could’ve said that it was TV” that was more popular than Jesus? I think he was missing much of the point in terms of how his remarks offended people and the problem might have been worsened. But if you watch the whole clip, it’s Paul who stepped in and said something to the effect that the Beatles are just honest and say what they think and it’s “you people” who create and perpetuate all the controversy and negativity. He got a round of applause from sympathetic onlookers and the hostile reporters were shut down. This was a common strategy for Paul and obviously highly effective. John should have been grateful to his friend, though I have no idea if he was. (I believe that this is how it went down. I can no longer locate the whole clip on YouTube).
As an artist, John was one of the greatest communicators of the 20th century. As a public figure and in what we know of his interpersonal relationships, he seemed to be a pretty terrible communicator, with all his contradictions and blind spots. Paul, for all his brilliance, couldn’t communicate emotion in song as deeply as John, but he has the skills of a diplomat in his relations both private and public. Once again, we witness the yin/yang of the Beatles that made them so special.
The other thought that came up for me was in response to your statement that there was synchronicity in the timing of John’s finding Yoko and Paul finding Linda. One thing I’ve never seen anyone remark upon was the mutual unusualness of their choices. Linda and Yoko were both attractive young women in their own ways (there’s differing opinions), but neither of them were even close to the model/movie star types that George and Ringo and every other rock star generally went for. I just think it’s fascinating that the two guys who were at the very apex of the pop mountain both chose women who were so far from the expected mold.
Some interesting conversations here but too much speculation. Also, Robert please stop using the word “drop”. Sounds like John Cusack misusing urban vernacular slang by screaming, “you must chill, you must chill” in Say Anything.
I don’t understand the dread fear of speculation–particularly when one is clear that speculating is, in places, what he is doing. Even scientific findings begin in hypothesis.
Also, as one who is very likely what Robert would call a “Lennonista,” I did not find the episode to be “Lennon bashing” as someone wrote.
Very enjoyable show (as always!). A very minor point, but I thought it of interest. Regarding John’s claim that Let It Be was Paul’s response to Bridge Over Troubled Water: Paul Simon didn’t start writing the song until spring 1969 and recording didn’t take place until August 1969. The song wasn’t played live until November 1969 and was first released as a recording in January 1970 (Source: “The Forgotten Political Roots of Bridge Over Troubled Water” by Dorian Lynskey, BBC Culture BBC.com, published January 24, 2020)
Anyway, given that Let it Be was being recorded in January 1969, it clearly predated BOTW.
Love your show!!
Hey Robert! I really enjoyed this episode. I was wondering, when/where did Paul say he and John actually did not see the SNL episode together?
Apparently, he said this late last year on the Adam Buxton podcast. https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/the-beatles-reunion-snl-saturday-night-live-paul-mccartney/
I do not take his word for this at all, for the reasons stated on my show, and the fact that Paul is notoriously bad with details and timings of things.
Hi Robert,
I read from heydullblog that Paul’s Northern song purchase was quite trivial. Initially they each had 750,000 shares, then John had to sell 100,000 shares for his devoice. At the end of day Paul had 751,000 shares. So he only purchased 1000 shares… He might not even thought it worth mentioning. And it was Klein who accused Paul of this in front of John.
Love your podcast!