The Beatles

Revolver Deep Dive Part 2: Eleanor Rigby

By

0

Revolver

Side One, Track Two

“Eleanor Rigby” Lives On

 

by Jude Southerland Kessler and Simon Weitzman

 

Through 2023, the Fest for Beatles Fans blog will be delving into the fine details of The Beatles’ astounding 1966 LP, Revolver. This month network TV director, producer, and author, Simon Weitzman – best known in The Beatles’ World for his beloved film A Love Letter to The Beatles: Here, There, and Everywhere –  joins John Lennon Series author Jude Southerland Kessler for a fresh, new look at a track that literally changed all we had come to know about The Beatles! Simon is co-author, with Paul Skellett, of four remarkable Beatles books: Eight Arms to Hold You, All You Need is Love, The Mad Day Out with Tom Murray, and The Beatles in 3D. We’re thrilled to have Simon with us this month and in person, in just a few days, at the New York Metro Fest for Beatles Fans!

 

What’s Standard:

 

Date Recorded:

The Home Demo was recorded by Paul in late March 1966 at Ringo’s flat in Montague Square (Winn, 7)

 

First EMI session, 28 April 1966, Studio Two

5 p.m.- 7:50 p.m. (Lewisohn, The Beatles Recording Sessions, 77)

 

Second EMI session, 29 April 1966, Studio Three

5 p.m. – 1 a.m. (Lewisohn, The Beatles Recording Sessions, 77)

 

Third EMI session, 6 June 1966 in Studio Three (control room only)

7 p.m. – 12 a.m. (Lewisohn, The Beatles Recording Sessions, 82)

 

Tech Team

Producer: George Martin

Engineer: Geoff Emerick

Second Engineer: Phil McDonald

 

Stats: On 28 April, a professional string octet (members listed below) recorded 14 takes. On 29 April, as John C. Winn tells us in That Magic Feeling, “Paul added his lead vocal on track 4, and then he, John, and George harmonized for the choruses on track 3.” (p. 24) That evening, the tape recorder was slowed a bit to achieve a higher pitch when played at regular speed. Finally, on 6 June (spilling over into the small hours of 7 June), Paul re-recorded his vocal, employing a unique concept provided by Martin. Martin had suggested Paul “sing the chorus in counterpoint to his final vocal refrain.” (Winn, That Magic Feeling, 24)

 

Instrumentation and Musicians:

Paul McCartney, the composer, sings lead vocal.

John Lennon sings backing vocals.

George Harrison sings backing vocals.

String Octet including violinists Tony Gilbert (first violin) Sidney Sax, John Sharpe, and Jurgen Hess; violists
Stephen Shingles and John Underwood, and cellists Derek Simpson and Norman Jones. Musical arrangement by George Martin. (Hammack, 136)

 

Sources: Lewisohn, The Complete Beatles Chronicle, 219, Lewisohn, The Recording Sessions, 77, Martin, All You Need is Ears, 199, Emerick, Here, There, and Everywhere, 127, Rodriguez, Revolver: How The Beatles Reimagined Rock’n’Roll, 167-169, Davies, The Beatles Lyrics, 144-149,  Margotin and Guesdon, All the Songs, 326-327, Winn, That Magic Feeling, 7 and 24, Hammack, The Beatles Recording Reference Manual, Vol. 2, 136-137, Turner, A Hard Day’s Write, 104-105, Riley, Tell Me Why, 184-185, Spizer, The Beatles for Sale on Parlophone Records, 213, Spignesi and Lewis, 100 Best Beatles Songs, 93-95, McCartney, Paul McCartney, The Lyrics, 157-163, Sheff, The Playboy Interviews, 118-119 and 151, Shotton, John Lennon: In My Life, 123-124, and MacDonald, Revolution in the Head, 162-163.

 

What’s Changed:

 

Absolutely Everything!!! If you knew nothing at all about The Beatles, and heard “Love Me Do” followed by “Eleanor Rigby,” you would vow that those two songs were not composed by the same band! Even if we juxtaposed 1965’s “Help!” against 1966’s “Eleanor Rigby,” the differences would still be myriad and vast. The second track on Revolver truly changed so much that we know about The Beatles. It was a dramatic 180-degree pivot. Here are just a few of the meteoric changes:

 

  1. Instrumental Personnel – Paul sings the lead vocal while John and George sing back-up, but nary a Beatle plays an instrument on this track. The instruments are manned by a professional string octet, but not by John, Paul, George, and Ringo. That is certainly “something new”!

 

  1. Instruments – four violins, two violas, two cellos. And that is all. To quote Clang: “Shocking!”

 

  1. “A Complete Change of Style” – This quote regarding “Eleanor Rigby” (and “Tomorrow Never Knows”) is from Sir George Martin. And of course, he said it perfectly. Both songs propelled us headlong into “the new direction.” Prior to Rubber Soul and Revolver, Beatles music had been upbeat if not always optimistic. Even songs expressing crushing depression (such as “I’ll Cry Instead” and “Help!”) sound hopeful, if not downright joyous.

 

But “Eleanor Rigby” is unabashedly a song about painful isolation from which there is no glimmer of rescue. In The Beatles’ catalog, this is a revolutionary theme and sound. As Tim Riley observes in Tell My Why: “The ‘ah’s’ aren’t soothing, they’re aching, and the sudden drop in the cellos after the first line sinks the heart along with it.” Yes, “Misery” was a song of heartbreak but left open the possibility that the wayward girl would “come back to me.” And in “Girl,” the bickering couple only suffer through their troubles because they’re still very much in love.

 

But the world of “Eleanor Rigby” is a place in which “no one was saved.” In Revolver: How The Beatles Reimagined Rock’n’Roll, Robert Rodriguez points out that even “Yesterday” holds more hope than “Eleanor Rigby.” He observes: “’Yesterday’ bore obvious commerciality with its time-honored theme of love gone wrong. But ‘Eleanor Rigby’ was a somewhat unsettling composition devoid of traditional romanticism, calculated to stir rather than to soothe.”

 

  1. Contested Authorship of Lyrics – The lyrics of only one other Beatles song – “In My Life” – has been claimed by both John and Paul. Through the years, Paul has always claimed full authorship for “Eleanor Rigby.” In Paul McCartney, The Lyrics, he goes into great detail about several “old ladies” he encountered in his youthful Bob-A-Job-Week chores – ladies who inspired the character. And Paul adds that Eleanor Bron might have reinforced the concept of using “Eleanor” as the character’s name. Then he states, “Initially, the priest was ‘Father McCartney’ because it had the right number of syllables. I took the song out to John at that point, and I remember playing it to him, and he said, ‘That’s great, Father McCartney.’ He loved it. But I wasn’t really comfortable with it because it’s my dad – my Father McCartney – so I literally got out the phone book and went on from ‘McCartney’ to ‘McKenzie.’” (pp. 157-163)

 

However, in the 1980 Playboy Interviews, John Lennon told David Sheff, “Yeah, ‘Rigby.’ The first verse was [Paul’s], and the rest are basically mine…we were sitting around with Mal Evans and Neil Aspinall, and he said to us, ‘Hey, you guys, finish up the lyrics.’…and I was insulted that Paul had just thrown it out of the air. He actually meant he wanted me to do it, and of course, there isn’t a word of theirs in it because I finally went off to a room with Paul and we finished the song.” John then goes into great detail about the writing process of “Rigby,” even stating that “when [he] stepped away to go to the toilet,” George and Paul were working on “Rigby” in his absence, and they came up with the line, “Ah look at all the lonely people.” When he returned, John says, “They were settling on that.” He says that he heard it, loved it, and remarked, “That’s it!” (pp. 118-119)

 

Later in the same interview, John restated his contribution to “Eleanor Rigby,” calling it “Paul’s baby, but I helped with the education of the child.” (p. 151)

 

However, in his book, John Lennon In My Life, Pete Shotton revealed a very different account of the song’s creation. Pete says that he and about 8-10 other people (including Ringo) were spending an evening in John’s home Kenwood when Paul arrived. McCartney presented those gathered with a set of lyrics for “Eleanor Rigby,” and said, “I’ve got this little tune here. It keeps popping into me head, but I haven’t got very far with it.”

 

Pete says, “We all sat around, making suggestions, throwing out the odd line or phrase…[When] Paul got to the verse about the cleric, whose name he had down as ‘Father McCartney,’ Ringo came up with the line about ‘darning his socks in the night,’ which everybody liked.” However, Pete says that he objected to the cleric’s name and pointed out to Paul that fans might think it is Jim McCartney having to darn socks, lonely and all alone. And when Paul agreed, Pete goes on: “…I noticed a telephone directory lying around and said, ‘Give us that phone book, then, and I’ll have a look through the Macs.” And he did. After finding and rejecting the humorous name “McVicar,” Pete says that he asked Paul to “try Father McKenzie out for size, and everyone appeared to like the lilt of it.” (Shotton, 123)

 

Then, according to Pete, Paul told the gathered group: “The real trouble is I’ve no idea how to finish this song.” Ideas and suggestions were thrown out at random. And Pete claims that he suggested having Eleanor die and having Father McKenzie perform the burial. Pete states that he said, “That way you’ll have the two lonely people coming together in the end – but too late.” (Shotton, 124) It was a concept, Pete tells us, that Paul seemed to endorse, but an ending that John did not care for one bit.

 

Quite a different tale! So, where does the truth lie? Who wrote what and when and why?

 

The only thread that is consistent in all accounts is that Paul took the song to John and somehow the two of them – alone or with other people – finished the lyrics as a joint effort. All other details vary, depending upon the teller of the tale. Rarely does this scenario occur with a Beatles song. Credits are shared; nods are given. But the history of “Eleanor Rigby” is much like the record’s namesake, aloof and unknown.

 

  1. Recording Techniques – When Paul McCartney told new EMI engineer Geoff Emerick that he wanted the strings on “Eleanor Rigby” “to sound really biting,” Emerick was a little intimidated. How could he achieve that? In his book Here, There, and Everywhere, Emerick tells us that he devised an outrageous plan to close-mic the strings. He explains: “String quartets were traditionally recorded with just one or two microphones placed high, several feet up in the air so the sound of bows scraping couldn’t be heard.”

 

Defying this unwritten rule, Geoff close-miked the instruments. It was a bold act of genius. And the result was precisely what Paul wanted! Not only did the strings supply melody but they also supplied percussion. And their “harsh realism” brought the strident authenticity of a callous world into this lonely and tragic song. (More on this in Simon Weitzman’s “Fresh, New Look” interview below.)

 

One final note…According to The Beatles, “Eleanor Rigby died in the church and was buried along with her name.” But in 2023, almost 60 years from her appearance in the world of The Beatles, Eleanor lives on. By the mid 2000’s, the song had been covered by over 200 musicians. Ray Charles, for example, hit No. 35 on the Billboard charts with his version of the song. In 1969, Aretha Franklin’s take on the number shot to No. 17 on the Billboard Hot 100. But these two icons are not alone in their respect for the song. Hundreds of other groups recorded their own tributes to Father McKenzie, all the lonely people, and yes, to Eleanor. In 2023, Eleanor is still with us…living on.

 

A Fresh, New Look:

 

We’re thrilled to have Simon Weitzman with us this month for a close and personal examination of “Eleanor Rigby.” Apart from his other many credits, listed earlier in the blog, Simon is working on a documentary about Beatles PA and Rolling Stones Tour Manager, Chris O’Dell. He’s also completing his wonderful film, A Love Letter to The Beatles: Here, There, and Everywhere, which you will be able to enjoy at the New York Metro Fest for Beatles Fans. Taking time out of his hectically busy schedule to discuss “Eleanor Rigby” was a real treat for the Fest staff. Thank you, Simon!!!!

 

Jude Southerland Kessler: Hi Simon, thank you “ooover and oover and oover again” (whoops, wrong band!!) for giving us the gift of your time. We know you’re incredibly busy, so I’ll dive right in. Simon, the 1966 addition of young Geoff Emerick to the production team at EMI certainly made Revolver an edgier, more experimental LP. Please tell us a bit about Emerick’s clever method of making the orchestral segment “hard-biting,” as Paul had requested him to do.

 

Its production is as exquisite as it is different. Paul was a forward-thinker and was amenable to George Martin’s suggestions that classical music be employed. Despite initial misgivings, Paul wisely followed Martin’s lead and brought classical influences firmly into the 20th century. It was familiar ground for George Martin; it enabled him to take a leap of faith with Paul and really push the strings in the recordings, whilst taking inspiration from Bernard Herrmann, who himself innovated the modern film compositions that were to shape cinema throughout the century. Indeed, “Eleanor Rigby” has a soundscape that would very comfortably sit in a number of movie soundtracks today.

 

“I was very much inspired by Bernard Herrmann…[he] really impressed me, especially the strident string writing. When Paul told me he wanted the strings in ‘Eleanor Rigby’ to be doing a rhythm, Herrmann…was a particular influence.”

  • George Martin as quoted in The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions, Mark Lewisohn, 77

The sound revolution in “Eleanor Rigby” was further extended by the youthful influence of sound engineer Geoff Emerick. Emerick loved classical music but wasn’t bound by the rules and containment of his predecessors. He was more in tune with Paul’s desire to take what was known from the genre and move it into the contemporary music of the time…in effect, making classical acceptable to the pop genre and vice versa. To achieve this – as Jude noted – Emerick brought the microphones closer to the players, managing to isolate each string in a way that hadn’t been done before, This caused some of the more purist musicians some discomfort during the recordings. You just didn’t do that to musicians in session; well, not until now.  As Emerick clearly stated in his book Here, There, and Everywhere: “On ‘Eleanor Rigby’ we miked very, very close to the strings, almost touching them. No one had really done that before; the musicians were in horror.”

 

The combination of Emerick’s soundscape enthusiasm mixed with Martin’s more orthodox approach worked perfectly to create something that sounded filmic, classical, and modern, all at the same time – just as Paul had always seen it in his mind’s eye.

 

Kessler: Simon, please give us your thoughts on the imagery of the desolate woman and the desperate priest whom no one could hear and whom no one drew near. What do they say to you? Is there hope in this song?

For me, “Eleanor Rigby” is about the mask we put on when we are in social situations and the personas we invent to create our own self-worth. The line: “Wearing the face that she keeps in a jar by the door” is a face we all wear when we leave our homes and try to interact and connect with the world. “Picks up the rice in the church where a wedding has been, lives in a dream” for me, translates as the daydream in which most of us live as we look at what we perceive to be what we should be doing with our lives…and what we perceive everyone else is doing with theirs, as well as being the outsider who is always trying to conform.

 

“Father McKenzie, writing the words of a sermon that no one will hear, no one comes near. Look at him working, darning his socks in the night when there’s nobody there, what does he care?’” Again, for me the song concentrates on the lifelong search for our self-worth and ultimately, the things we do to satisfy our own perception of achievement. We are conditioned to do things that are recognized. We are educated to believe that the things we do to create our own self-worth don’t count if no one else is watching or listening. Perhaps Paul was also thinking about the apparent futility of everything. Perhaps he, too, was asking, “Does any of it matter?” and “Why are we conditioned to think like this?”

 

“Eleanor Rigby, died in the church and was buried along with her name, nobody came. Father McKenzie, wiping the dirt from his hands as he walks from the grave, no one was saved.” These final words remind us that we are all ultimately alone. Although in this case, Father McKenzie – whose life is as lonely as Eleanor’s – is at least there to see her over to the afterlife. There is ultimately someone there to see us through, even if it is after we have passed, if only to acknowledge our existence.

 

Then, there is the final chorus: “All the lonely people, where do they all come from?” This speaks to me and to all of us, I believe, at some stage of our lives, or a lot of stages in our lives. “All the lonely people, where do they all belong?” Where do any of us belong? It’s such a clever observation of the human condition and our need to find our place in the world. It addresses our belief that we only count if we are recognized by others…when the reality is discovering and being at one with our self-worth, however our life turns out. That is ultimately what it’s all about.

 

Kessler: Finally, Simon, why does this song appeal to you, personally?

 

This is a song that I very much identify with as an only child and as someone who lives on his own. Ultimately, we are all ‘lonely people,’ but what Paul McCartney (possibly together with John) tapped into is the ultimate loneliness of us all. Even if we are successful, we are unsure. If we are unsuccessful, we feel remote from those who seemingly find success easier. “Eleanor Rigby” is also about the lives we lead, despite the isolation we encounter in life. It is a song that speaks to so many people, even if they aren’t hardcore Beatles fans.

 

It’s a song that has always made me think. Very few of us get through life without anxiety and self-doubt. I do get very lonely. I suffer from anxiety and issues of self-worth, perhaps like so many of us in this Beatles family. And perhaps that’s why this family exists and why it is so successful…because it is one of the few places in life where we do belong, where we are amongst our own kind and where we can embrace individuality and encourage each other. It feels like this song was designed as a “shout out” to everyone looking for themselves.

 

We all have to go through life trying to exude a confidence we probably don’t have. Look at musicians like Adele, who suffer from imposter syndrome. I think we all suffer from imposter syndrome, unless we lack the humanity that anchors us to the reality of our short lives in the vastness of eternity. It doesn’t matter how much money you have in the bank, how good looking you are perceived to be, or what circles you move in – isolation is the biggest challenge we encounter in life, and it is easy to get lost. Look at the unfortunate people who are homeless and struggle to be seen at all by so many of us. Everyone deserves to be seen.

 

I wonder if Paul ever imagined that the fans of The Beatles would still be together after all these years and that the music and the legend of the group would create such a strong family bond?  Yet, here we are. We are very lucky to have our Beatles family. It’s what keeps many of us sane and gives us a community to feel comfortable with. I think our Beatles community has a bond stronger than The Beatles ever anticipated. It has been the catalyst that unites us and helps us get through the tough times, and songs like “Eleanor Rigby,” for me, remind us where we all are and how lucky we are to have each other. A place where we can belong, be valued, and not feel so lonely.

 

Kessler: Simon, truer words were never penned! Thank you for being an integral part of this special look at “Eleanor Rigby”! We can’t wait to see you in just a few days at the New York Metro Fest for Beatles Fans!

For more info on Simon Weitzman, HEAD HERE or follow him on Facebook HERE or on LinkedIn HERE

 

For more information on Jude Southerland Kessler and The John Lennon Series, HEAD HERE

Share

Revolver Deep Dive: Talent is the best weapon

By

0

If Frank Sinatra is correct and “success is the best revenge,” then surely “talent is the best weapon.” And for The Beatles, their ever-emerging and morphing talent was exhibited most effectively in their 1966 album, Revolver. Revolver shattered almost everything that fans and critics had come to think of as “classic Beatles.” It launched us all into an era of new sounds, new techniques, new topics and ideas. Even the LP’s clever title conjured up myriad novel images:

 

images of rotating turntables,

circular doors opening to new avenues,

opinions pivoting as the world revolved from comfortable “she loves you” yesterdays to thought-provoking “tomorrow never knows” futures.

 

Opening up and provoking thought: That is exactly what The Fest for Beatles Fans blog will be doing over the next 16 months as we begin to explore the genius and artistry of Revolver, track-by-track. We will study each song in depth and ask our own Fest authors and experts to share their insights into the 14 songs of 1966 that introduced us all to “the studio Beatles.” We will examine these innovative tunes and lyrics with the help of Bruce Spizer, Jay Bergen, Christine Feldman-Barrett, Dr. Kit O’Toole, Laura Cortner and Dr. Bob Hieronimus, Erin Torkelson Weber, Bob Wilson and Don Jeffries, Debbie Greenberg, Susan Shumsky, Ivor Davis, Melissa Davis, Bill King, and me, Jude Southerland Kessler.

 

Each month, I will research and present what the Beatles music experts have to say about “who played what and how and when and where” on that month’s selected track – presenting that information in our “What’s Standard” section of the Fest Blog. Then, the innovations of each song will be covered in the “What’s Changed” section. Finally, I’ll interview a guest Beatles author/expert, asking that individual to answer 4 in-depth questions about “the song of the month.”

 

We’ll begin this study in February with a look at “Taxman.” Guest Expert Bruce Spizer, who recently released the already best-selling book The Beatles Rubber Soul to Revolver, will kick things off. Already, Bruce and I are both hard at work, preparing the blog for you. We’re hoping that the information we uncover will provide a “Fresh New Look” at a song that may have been penned by George Harrison (with some help from John Lennon) but took all four Beatles to perfect. We hope we can serve up some food for thought about the exciting opening track on this great LP.

 

Because that, after all,  is the theme of Revolver. It was, in essence, the modern “shot heard round the world,” signaling freedom from past convention in favor of a “band-new,” independent  beginning. It was the decisive break between the stage band we had come to love so dearly and the studio band that would amaze us (no maybe) over and over again – with songs that would be almost impossible to be performed on a stage. Revolver encouraged us to stop, pay attention, and listen…very carefully. And over the next 16 months, that is what we will do.

 

The Fest for Beatles Fans cordially invites you to join us in this trek through the best music of 1966, brought to you via the genius of John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison, Ringo Starr, and the magnificent sound artists led by Sir George Martin at EMI studios.

 

Soon, we shall begin. Stay tuned.

Share

Jay Bergen represented John Lennon the man, not John the Beatle

By

0

If you’re a Beatles fan hungry for new material about one or all of the Fab Four…or if you’re a researcher seeking authentic, primary source material about John’s solo years, look no further than Jay Bergen’s book, Lennon, the Mobster, & the Lawyer, The Untold Story. This 2022 publication is a gold mine! Bergen was John’s attorney in the case against mobster Morris Levy, who tried to market a bootleg of John’s Rock ‘n’ Roll LP that Levy called Roots. And Jay has his own personal story of his days preparing for the trial as well as John’s lengthy and insightful court testimony to share with you. This is factual, documented material you’ve never read before. And it is fascinating!

 

Meet Jay Bergen in person at the New York Metro Fest for Beatles Fans from March 31 to April 2, 2023! 

 

Jay himself is fascinating. An esteemed New York litigator, Bergen represented the New York Yankees, then-Cleveland Indians, Cincinnati Reds and San Francisco Giants in the 80s/90s Major League Baseball salary arbitration with their players. He also represented Albert Grossman, Bob Dylan’s first manager, in litigation with the star.

 

But, as you will see in the interview below, Jay is also down-to-earth, gregarious, and extremely kind. Over the course of the Roots trial, John and Jay became friends, sharing many conversations, lunches, and walks together. This is a story that will not only inform you about John’s creative process, his love of 1950s music, and his passion for his work, but will also give you a new glimpse at John, the man.

 

After 36 years of research on John Lennon, I found this one of the best books ever written about his life in the 1970s. Let’s meet Jay and hear more about this riveting story…

 

Jude Southerland Kessler: Jay, for those in our Fest for Beatles Fans family who don’t know the stories of John’s legal troubles in the mid-1970s, please give us a synopsis of what happened to precipitate the Roots trial against Morris Levy.

 

Jay Bergen: In 1970, Morris Levy filed a lawsuit claiming that “Come Together,” written by John Lennon, infringed the copyright to “You Can’t Catch Me.” It was one of Levy’s bogus infringement claims for which he was notorious. The case was coming to trial in NYC in October 1973, but during that time frame, John was in LA recording an album of oldies rock ’n’ roll with Phil Spector producing. John did not want to leave LA, so he settled the case by agreeing to record three Levy-owned songs, including “You Can’t Catch Me,” on his “next album,” which was supposed to be John’s oldies album.

 

Spector disappeared with the LA master tapes. It took Capitol Records six months to get the tapes from Spector and send them to John in NYC. They arrived when he was ready to record new songs he had written at the Record Plant. John knew the Spector masters required a lot of work so he put them aside and recorded the new songs. That was Walls and Bridges released in September 1974. Levy knew that rock ’n’ roll oldies could not be on an album of John’s songs but still claimed that this was John’s “next” album and John had not complied with the settlement.

 

Levy then demanded a meeting with John on October 8, 1974. Levy, John, May Pang, and Harold Seider, John’s business advisor, met, and Levy claimed in January 1975 that John made an agreement that night allowing him to release the oldies album on TV on a worldwide basis.

 

In February 1975, Capitol learned that Levy was buying TV ad time to advertise a bootleg unfinished version of John’s oldies LP that he was calling Roots. John finished his album and Capitol rush released John Lennon Rock ’n’ Roll on February 13th. Levy then stopped his TV ads – after selling 1,270 albums. He then filed a lawsuit against John, Capitol Records, EMI Records, Harold Seider, and Apple Records alleging breach of contract, fraud, and other false claims. Two weeks later his lawyers filed a federal antitrust case against the same defendants alleging $14 million in damages.

 

Kessler: How did you become John’s attorney and how long did you work to gather data for the case? How involved was it?

 

Bergen: On February 3, 1975 my partner David Dolgenos – John’s lawyer in connection with the dissolution of The Beatles partnership – asked me to attend a meeting at Capitol’s offices about a rumor that Morris Levy was going to release a bootleg John Lennon album. While I was meeting with three Capitol lawyers, John Lennon suddenly entered the room. I was stunned since I didn’t know he was going to be at the meeting. John filled us in on his contact with Levy and this possible bootleg album.

 

During the meeting, I asked John how long it would take to finish the oldies album. He said it would take two days, and he wanted to finish it now. Once John delivered the finished album, Capitol could release it in a week to ten days. So that’s what happened.

 

Even before the first lawsuit was filed, I began interviewing John, May Pang, and Harold Seider in more detail because I wanted to get the facts about all of the dealings with Morris Levy down pat. In the course of doing so, I also learned that Levy was connected to the Genovese crime family in NYC, that he was really a bad guy, and that he had been in “business” with the Mafia for many years.

 

Pulling together all of the facts was involved because I learned that John had spent time with Levy at a club/restaurant where Levy was a member. I also discovered that in October 1974, John had taken the band with whom he was going to record some new tracks for the oldies album  to Levy’s farm for a weekend of rehearsals. More disturbing was that John had accepted Levy’s invitation to spend part of the Christmas holidays with May Pang and his son Julian, who arrived from England at Disney World in Florida. This series of events could be interpreted as evidence that John and Levy were close friends and that perhaps they had made a deal!

 

Kessler: So, John agreed to be very active in the case against Levy… to be present in court, to give testimony, and to assist in any way possible. Do you feel that John contributed to the case against Levy and to the success of your litigation? If so, how?

 

Bergen: Yes, John was in court every day, even when he did not have to testify. I think that impressed Judge Griesa because it showed how important the case was to John. Yoko Ono was there also when the trial was spread over January, March, and April 1976, twenty days. Levy was not present very often. Since John was there every day, he was able to watch each witness and see how the judge ran the trial. John knew what to expect when he testified.

 

John was the best witness I ever had. He was willing to review all the facts and prepare for his deposition and trial testimony. While the judge was a trained musician, he knew nothing about The Beatles or John Lennon or rock ’n’ roll music. John explained his entire process of producing records, the amount of space needed between each track, how long each side of an LP should be, etc. The judge was really into it, so he and John would have these long question/answer periods which drove Levy’s lawyer crazy. He’d try to object, but the judge ignored him.

 

Kessler: Before you really began work on the case full-scale, you were asked to the Dakota to meet Yoko and chat with her. Please tell us about the meeting…a meeting that you categorize as “an audition.”

 

Bergen: Sometime in late March, John called me and asked me if I could come up to the Dakota the next morning at 11 AM to meet Yoko. He said, “She just would like to meet you.” When I arrived, we sat in their big living room overlooking Central Park. John was not there.

 

Yoko had read the two complaints and asked me a series of questions about them. She also wanted to know about my background and experience as a trial lawyer. She was very interested and asked very good questions. She was extremely smart. She politely grilled me. After about an hour or so, she told me that John and she were very worried about Levy’s cases; she emphasized that all John and she wanted to do was hold down the amount of money that John would owe Levy. I told her that if I had anything to say about it, John would not owe Levy anything! That was my goal.

 

She finally stood up, said she was glad to have met me and thanked me for coming.

 

You might say I was naïve, but it wasn’t until many years later that I fully realized that our meeting was an “audition” so to speak…and that if Yoko had not liked me and thought that I was not the right lawyer to represent John, I would have been replaced.

 

Kessler: Jay, one of the most interesting parts of your book was John’s court testimony about how involved he was in the creative process for each of his solo LPs (just as The Beatles were actively involved in the making of their LPs.) Tell us about John’s involvement in insuring that each LP was special…and if you would, please share some passages with us that John actually said about that process.

 

Bergen: It’s really hard to describe John’s “involvement” as you say, without reading the entire two chapters — “How We Learned The Trade” and “John’s Creative Process” — in which some of his testimony is set forth. Let me insert the portions of that testimony:

 

Bergen: Now, would you generally describe the recording processes for the Court from the moment you got into the studio?

 

Lennon: Well, it varied from artist to artist.

 

Bergen: In [your] experience tell us what procedures you followed?

 

Lennon: In general, I take the group into the studio, and in general, I record my own songs, so I have to teach them the songs, either in the studio or outside of the studio. Generally, I teach them inside the studio, like a rehearsal or run-through.

 

And for that we would put it on just a one track or a two track. We would not waste time setting a 16-track machine, which costs money for the tape, and it is not worth it. So, we just run rehearsal on a smaller tape. And then we will try after we run through all the songs, and I have decided which ones they seem to be getting the best, after two days of that, say, I will start laying down the basic tracks for the first song. It usually take[s] the engineers an evening or half an evening to get the sound of the drums, then the sound of the bas[s], then the sound of the guitar, then the sound of the piano, and then a combination of all those people playing at once.

 

Bergen: You mean, to get it at the right level?

 

Lennon: The engineer has to know virtually what the drum is going to do, what it is going to sound like when it is hit, whether it is going to distort, so that there has to be an interruption and a sound check without having anything to do with the song, then rehearse the sound without me. The engineer will say drummer, drum, play your tom-tom, and he will play the tom-tom and adjust the mikes and move them around and play the tambourine or cymbals. They have to go through the whole thing before they even start the session.

 

Usually, I hire the studio, so I know I am going to be there for a month; I am usually there for ten days with the musicians, and so all the instruments are set up already, but even with that, after the run-through and the sound check still each night they will run through the sound of the instruments again, because people come in and move microphones, or the musicians forget and they kick the amplifiers or they change the volume.

 

Bergen: You mean then before you start the sessions?

 

Lennon: Yes, every night. That is why we get there early and I generally like to sing with the musicians. I may be in a booth that is supposed to be soundproof.

 

But I like to sing with the musicians, because then I get the rhythm; I like to do it by feel. Quite often I can’t use my vocal, but at least I know how it was.

 

Bergen: When you say you can’t use the vocal?

 

Lennon: I can’t use [it], sometimes it is no good, and I like to play an instrument myself. So, if I am lucky, I get a vocal. But even though I am singing, I have to be listening to the drummer and the bass player and all. I go around and say, “Has anybody got any secrets I didn’t hear?” Sometimes they [tell] you when it is too late, “Oh, yes, I played a wrong note here.” “Why didn’t you tell me? I didn’t hear it.” So, it is a matter, I have to produce it listening hard and do this for ten days usually. I usually put ten tracks on an album. I will tell you the reason if you want to know.

 

Bergen: Yes.

 

Lennon: In general, I put ten tracks because I have learned over the years — well, everybody knows this — after you get past 20 minutes the volume of a record has to go down, and it has something to do with the grooves getting thinner. I have had records over 20 minutes, but when it gets over 20 minutes, the volume goes down, and if you  average out ten songs it works out to about 20 minutes a side. So it usually takes about ten days to [p]lay the basic tracks down with the musicians, and then usually I send them home, and if I am going to overdub, like a saxophone or xylophone or flute or whatever, I want to put it on, then I will hire a new lot of people with those instruments.

 

Bergen: Talking about how long a record should be, what you mean is that there is just so much space on each [side] of a record for the sound that is going to be of a proper quality?

 

Lennon: Well, it is a matter of taste. I am not saying you [cannot] have more.

 

Bergen: I am talking about what you do.

 

Lennon: [It can] be done to 28 minutes, but I don’t like to do that, because I want the record loud, and if the groove is deeper you can get more bass drum, and it even goes to the selection of what to put nearest to the center of the record, because the nearer to the center of the record you get the quieter it has to be. The grooves change when you get to the middle. That is what I have learned from the engineers.

 

Bergen: You say you like the records loud?

 

Lennon: Yes, I like them to have depth.

 

Bergen: If you put your record on at a certain sound, say my stereo at home, it will play [at] a certain level, if you put on another record without adjusting the volume it may not be as loud?

 

Lennon: That is quite possible, yes.

 

Bergen: Now, you started talking about the next step after you finish the first basic tracks with the musicians. What is next?

 

Lennon: Every time I go in, I relearn the whole business. So, sitting here cold it is hard to remember what I do next. Probably I take those things home, play them on a cassette, listen to them, and decide what kind of instrumentation I want to put over the top of it.

 

Bergen: You mean what instruments in addition to the basic instruments that have been put on by you during these ten days?

 

Lennon: There is a chance that I have a few things I want to do with the tracks. In the meantime, I take them home and listen, or go to the studio and listen, and then decide the next phase, whether I am going to put in a rhythm section or something else.

 

This concludes the court testimony in Lennon, the Mobster, & the Lawyer, The Untold Story found on pp. 131-137.

 

Kessler: Jay, why was John’s testimony on this matter so crucial?

 

Bergen: Because John had to explain to the judge how careful he was in producing his albums – which was the exact opposite of what Levy did with the 7 1/2 inches per second unmixed and unfinished two-reel tape of the album John gave him just to listen to! Levy kept hounding John for a tape so he could hear the three songs owned by his publishing company that John had to have on his next album. Through John’s testimony, we had to make the judge understand that John had not given Levy the two tapes so that Levy could begin marketing them as the finished album.

 

Kessler: Jay, another section of the book that I, as a Lennon biographer, especially enjoyed was his testimony about what each song on the Rock ’n’ Roll LP meant to him. Can you tell what he said about “Bring It On Home To Me” “Bony Moronie,” and “Slippin’ and Slidin’.”

 

Bergen: John had reasons for each of the songs on the album and he testified that he was the only one who knew those reasons.  For example:

 

“Bring It On Home To Me” is one of my [all-time] favorite songs, and, in fact, I have been quoted as saying I wish I had written it, I love it that much, and I was glad to be able to do it.

 

“Bonie [sic] Maronie [sic]” was one of the very earliest songs, along with “Be-Bop-A-Lula,” and I remember [sing]ing it the only time my mother saw me perform before she died. So I was hot on “Bonie [sic] Maronie [sic].” That is one of the reasons. Also, I liked Larry Williams, who recorded it.

 

“S[l]ippin’ & Slidin’,” the B side of Long Tall Sally, which is the first Little Richard song I ever heard and was also recorded by Buddy Holly, so that covers a little of both. It was a song I knew. It was easier to do songs that I knew than trying to learn something from scratch, even if I was interested in the songs.

 

Kessler: Since the book came out, you’ve been on countless radio shows and podcasts, and you’ve been a sought-after speaker at numerous conventions and special events. You’ve been asked so many questions. If you don’t mind, please ask yourself a question that you haven’t been asked yet and that you want to answer. We’re all ears!

 

Bergen: I’ve told the story in the book about what happened when I stopped by the Record Plant Studios on my way home the evening of December 3, 1980, to say hello to a client, singer/songwriter Eve Moon, who was recording an album for Capitol Records there.

 

As I walked into the first-floor reception area on 44th Street just off Eighth Avenue, I was very surprised to see Yoko Ono sitting on a couch at the far end of the room. She immediately said to me: “What are you doing here?” I said “Hello Yoko” as I walked toward her.

 

I asked how John was since I assumed he was in one of the two studios on the first floor (Eve Moon was in a studio on the 10th floor). I knew that since Yoko was there, John had to be in one of those two studios right in back of me.

 

Later, on my way out I asked Yoko to give my best to John.

 

No one has ever asked me why didn’t I check each of those two studios and go in and say hello to John?

 

I could have easily done that. John would have been happy to see me, I know he would have been. Even though we hadn’t seen each other in four years that wouldn’t have made a difference to him or me. We had defeated Morris Levy together.

 

For a variety of reasons, I did not have a “voice” in my personal life. I was not like that in my professional life. I developed an aggressive style as a trial lawyer, not to the point that I was obnoxious. But I did not hesitate to speak up in situations where I had to.

 

That was not true many times in my personal life.

 

Five nights later, John Lennon was gunned down in front of the Dakota! And I had missed the opportunity to see him one last time.

 

I’ve replayed that night in my mind more than once over the decades since.

 

*****

As you can see, Lennon, the Mobster, & the Lawyer, The Untold Story is a remarkable book with facts and stories about John Lennon and his creative work that is extremely important and new! You can purchase the book at the Fest bookstore, on Amazon, or here.

 

And you can see him in action in this video episode of the “She Said She Said” podcast with Lanea Stagg of the Recipe Records Series and me:

 

Follow Jay on Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook

 

I also highly recommend the superb audiobook of Lennon, the Mobster, & the Lawyer, The Untold Story which is available on Audible. Scott McKinley, who does the professional voice work for this book, is amazing! His John Lennon is spot-on! McKinley keeps you so engaged that you can’t tear yourself away! I carried my phone around for days, listening to the audiobook. You will really enjoy it, trust me. Find it here.

Share

Thoughts on Rubber Soul as we wrap our track-by-track deep dive

By

0

For the last year and a half, our Beatles family of experts/authors have worked in concert to explore (track-by-track!) the phenomenal, pivotal LP that was Rubber Soul. To discuss which instruments were used on which songs, who played what, and how each song was created in studio, I spent hours poring over Beatles music studies (listed at the end of this blog). During that process, I found that (on several occasions) music experts were 180-out from one another; rarely did all of the authorities agree on the guitar used or who performed each part of the song. Working diligently to suss out the “facts and stats” for each song track discussion, I think we all discovered new schools of thought and began to look at Rubber Soul with a revitalized vision

 

A plethora of our Fest For Beatles Fans experts donated their time to answer interview questions that provided “A Fresh, New Perspective” on each track, and I hope you agree with me that their insights permitted us all to see these great 1965 songs in a better light. We heard from Kenneth Womack, Bruce Spizer, Al Sussman, Susan Ryan, Robert Rodriguez, Janet Davis, Jim Berkenstadt, Lanea Stagg, Jerry Hammack, Piers Hemmingsen, Sara Schmidt, Tom Frangione, David Bedford, and Scott Freiman. Then, professional artist Rande Kessler re-examined the creative cover of the LP while Terri Whitney created a poem to Rubber Soul that touched our hearts.

 

It was a wonderful series of thought-provoking Fest Blogs, and we thank each person who contributed to this study.

 

But…there is still so much to discover about Rubber Soul, as we approach its 60th Anniversary in 2025. For decades Revolver was regularly touted as “the transitional LP” that signaled the end of the touring years and ushered in the “studio years.” But progressively, music experts pointing to Rubber Soul’s  transition toward world music influences, its radical change in attitudes toward women, its shift from simple “moon-June-croon” love songs to intricate songs about complicated relationships, and its move toward intricate instrumentation as the transition point in The Beatles’ careers. Recently, Milwaukee journalist Bobby Tanzilo stated, “While the world glorifies Sgt. Pepper, many die-hard fans credit 1965’s Rubber Soul for kicking off The Beatles’ experimental phase.” The LP is gaining greater prominence and stepping into its own.

 

If you somehow missed the Fest Blogs on this unique album, I invite you to go back and enjoy them right here on the Fest For Beatles Fans website. They began in January 2021 and ended in August 2022. If you’ve digested all of the blogs as we went along, here is a bit of additional reading to enjoy:

 

The Beatles: Rubber Soul to Revolver, Bruce Spizer, 2022. The latest release in Spizer’s Beatles Album Series is thorough, interesting, and perceptive. Spizer not only traces the genesis and development of these two records with his signature accuracy, but he also calls upon respected Beatles authors to cover their fields of expertise. Piers Hemmingsen writes about the Canadian reception for these two remarkable LPs. Al Sussman provides the historical backdrop for their creation. Frank Daniels tells us about 1966 in film and comics. And Bill King, the creator of Beatlefan magazine gives us a chapter on “Summer of ’66: A Quiet Revolution.” As always, Bruce Spizer also provides priceless fan remembrances about the impact of Rubber Soul and Revolver upon the lives of ordinary people. With superb photos that you’ll find nowhere else, Spizer’s examination of The Beatles’ 1965 and 1966 LPs is extraordinary.

 

This Bird Has Flown, The Enduring Beauty of Rubber Soul, Fifty Years On, John Kruth, 2015. Kruth’s book is a thorough study of Rubber Soul, artfully highlighting the many aspects of the record that are propelling it into the limelight again in recent years. In an interview with OnMilwaukee.com, Kruth stated, “Rubber Soul is so rich – the first time George uses the sitar – on “Norwegian Wood,” Paul employs jazz chords on “Michelle,” John evokes Weill and Brecht on “Girl,” Ringo sings country on “What Goes On” on the Brit pressing. {And] Paul’s “I’ve Just Seen a Face” seemed to spell out everything I was searching for in a love relationship, overtly as romantic as it was.” In meticulous but very interesting detail, Kruth guides Beatles fans through each Rubber Soul track with care and attention to detail. You will enjoy this book and learn so much from it!

 

The Beatles as Musicians, The Quarry Men Through Rubber Soul, Walter Everett, 2001. If you are a serious music student or aficionado, this book is for you. Everett breaks down each track into its component parts. A respected Beatles scholar and lecturer, Everett delves into music theory, instrumentation, lyrics, and recoding techniques. A classic work, this book will never go out of style.

 

Finally, I could not have approached this “long and winding” blog series of blogs without the scholarly work of authors who for five decades have poured over Rubber Soul and lauded it for its creativity, style, and content. So, sincere “thank you’s” are definitely in order to these distinguished historians, Beatles music experts, and biographers for their exemplary work:

The Beatles, The Anthology

Paul McCartney, The Lyrics

Mark Lewisohn, The Beatles Recording Sessions

Mark Lewisohn, The Complete Beatles Chronicle

Bill Harry, The Ultimate Beatles Encyclopedia

Bill Harry, The John Lennon Encyclopedia

Kenneth Womack, Long and Winding Roads: The Evolving Artistry of The Beatles

Kenneth Womack, Maximum Volume, The Life of Beatles Producer George Martin

Kenneth Womack, The Beatles Encyclopedia

Bruce Spizer, Beatles for Sale on Parlophone Records

Bruce Spizer, The Beatles Rubber Soul to Revolver

John C. Winn, Way Beyond Compare: The Beatles Recorded Legacy, Vol. 1

Phillipe Margotin and Jean-Michel Guesdon, The Beatles, All the Songs

Jerry Hammack, The Beatles Recording Reference Manual

Steve Turner, A Hard Day’s Write

Stephan J. Spignesi and Michael Lewis, 100 Greatest Beatles Songs

Andy Babiuk, Beatles Gear

Ray Coleman, Lennon

Tim Riley, Tell Me Why

Tim Riley, Lennon

Barry Miles, The Beatles Diary, Vol. 1

Barry Miles, Paul McCartney, Many Years from Now

Keith Badman, The Beatles: Off the Record

Philip Norman, Shout!

Philip Norman, John Lennon: the Life

Ian MacDonald, Revolution in the Head, The Beatles Records and The Sixties

Chuck Gunderson, Some Fun Tonight: The Backstage Story of How The Beatles Rocked America: The Historic Tours of 1964-1966

David Sheff, The Playboy Interviews with John Lennon and Yoko Ono

Walter Everett, The Beatles as Musicians, The Quarry Men Through Rubber Soul

Wilfrid Mellers, Twilight of the Gods: The Music of The Beatles

 

Thank you, as well, to Nicole Michael of 910 Public Relations and Rande Kessler for carefully editing each blog before it went to press. And huge thanks to Danny Abriano of The Fest For Beatles Fans for posting each blog with rare and interesting photos that brought the subject to life!

 

Most of all, my deepest thanks to Mark, Carol, Michelle Joni, and Tilly Lapidos for permitting us to study this ever-evolving record with such intensity for so many months. It was a joy to bring our Fest Family of noted authors together for a project of this magnitude. You believed in us and gave us a great forum. We so appreciate it!

 

I hope you all have enjoyed  reading this as much as we, the authors, have enjoyed compiling it. Stay tuned to our Fest For Beatles Fans website, Facebook page, and Instagram page as we will continue to keep you on the cusp of Beatles scholarship.

 

Shine On!

Jude Southerland Kessler

Author, The John Lennon Series

Share

An ode to remarkable Beatles manager Brian Epstein

By

0

“It’s Not Personal, It’s Strictly Business”

by Jude Southerland Kessler,

author of The John Lennon Series

 

With the unveiling of the beautiful tribute statue to Brian Epstein in Liverpool just a few days ago, The Fest for Beatles Fans pauses to commemorate the remarkable man who brought our lads into the bright lights. We love you, Brian. You were “a class act” in every way.

 

Frequently these days, I hear people espousing the maxim, “It’s not personal, it’s strictly business” as if it were a yardstick of excellent business practice…the benchmark of what is equitable in one’s professional relationships. And I wince, knowing that this quote originated not in Shakespeare or Ben Franklin or The Bible, but came straight from the lips of Michael Corleone in The Godfather. Here’s the movie clip.

 

If one examines outstanding leaders throughout history, one will rarely find this “It’s just business” rule-of-thumb to be his/her guideline. Brian Epstein, The Beatles legendary manager, is one of those who prized his personal reputation more than money. He sincerely believed that honesty and a bargain well-kept championed all else in the “dog-eat-dog” world of entertainment. In fact, promoter Sid Bernstein (who booked The Beatles at Carnegie Hall in 1964 and Shea Stadium in 1965) said, “Once [Epstein] gave his word, he never changed terms or renegotiated. He had that kind of quality; you believed him; you trusted him. That isn’t true of very many people.”

 

Let me give you a just few examples of Epstein’s policy of personal integrity over profit:

 

  • Epstein honored his agreements

 

Epstein became The Beatles’ manager in December of 1961, and at that time they were quite popular around Merseyside and in Hamburg. However, they weren’t well-known outside those realms. In London, The Beatles were virtual unknowns. So, as we all know, Brian set about getting the boys gigs anywhere that he could, often at unflattering rates. Exposure and publicity were Epstein’s primary goals.

 

You know the rest of the story. Quite rapidly, The Beatles began to capture the attention of the masses and press. Everywhere they traveled they were an astounding hit, and people started flocking to their performances – filling town halls, theaters, dance clubs and cellars. So, not surprisingly, the asking price for upcoming Beatles gigs quickly flew up, up, up. In fact, in Craig Brown’s book 100 Glimpses of The Beatles, one Merseyside promoter, Peter Stringfellow, tells the story of how he delayed booking the four boys for several days. And while he hemmed and hawed over the decision, the asking price soared from £50 to £65 to £100. He who hesitated was lost.

 

However, Epstein firmly believed that a promise made was a promise kept. And he refused to renegotiate contracts signed months earlier. He refused to charge club owners more than he had initially agreed upon. And many of those bargains were word-of-mouth only! You see, Epstein didn’t require a written contract to do what was right. Integrity was ingrained in him.

 

  • Epstein kept ticket prices affordable

 

In June of 1965, when the highly successful Beatles toured France, Italy, and Spain, Brian noticed that the crowds weren’t as large as they’d been on the 1964 tours; so, he asked Neil Aspinall to explain the drop in numbers. At first Barrow pointed out that the unusually high temperatures that summer had somewhat diminished the crowds for afternoon shows. But Epstein instinctively knew that heat alone couldn’t be the sole reason that the fans had decided to stay home. So, he pressed Barrow for the bottom line. Finally, Barrow muttered, “It’s the ticket prices, Brian. They’re more than the average fan can afford.” Epstein was heartbroken. The young manager cared about the fans. And he had always striven to keep ticket prices at fair rates – to make it possible for anyone who loved The Beatles to be able to see them in person. He had no idea that tickets had climbed out of reach, and the moment Epstein heard this frank explanation, he made adjustments. (For the full story, see Shades of Life, Part 1, p. 638-640)

 

A month and a half later, when The Beatles played the mega-concert in Shea Stadium, the best ticket available – for a field-level box seat – was rigidly set at $5.65. And, of course, for that price, fans got to see the King Curtis All-Stars, the Discotheque Dancers, Cannibal and the Headhunters (“Land of 1000 Dances”), Brenda Holloway (“Every Little Bit Hurts”), the vivacious Sounds Incorporated, and yeah, yeah, yeah, The Beatles. It wasn’t just a “fair price.” It was a bargain!! Throughout the summer of 1965, The Beatles (and their opening bands) filled one stadium after another with fans, fans, and more fans! Lest we forget, in Chicago, the boys gave two performances in front of 50,000 fans total. They played the Hollywood Bowl in front of a sold-out audience. And in Shea Stadium, The Beatles gave the performance of a lifetime to 55,600 awed Beatlemaniacs.

 

Brian could have charged a great deal more for those tickets and made more profit. In fact, you’ll recall that promoter Sid Bernstein was willing to pay $10 a seat for any unsold Shea Stadium tickets. (However, there were none.) Bernstein thought the ticket to see The Beatles worth at least that price! But Brian Epstein valued what was right, what was just, and what was fair. He wanted everything associated with The Beatles to be completely above-board.

 

3) Epstein never dealt underhandedly with business associates

 

In The Man Who Made The Beatles, famous journalist and Beatles friend Ray Coleman stated, “Brian’s name was a byword for class and integrity – and he cherished his reputation.” (p. 218) Coleman goes on to say that Epstein had “a central core of integrity.” And when asked to give “a certain person [in the United States] a thousand dollars to oil the wheels” so that Epstein’s rising folk group, Silkie, could obtain a work permit for nine television shows in America, “Brian flatly refused.” (p. 303) Coleman explains, “He said he had never bought his artists into anything with cash and did not intend to start.” (p.303)

 

Honesty was the yardstick of Epstein’s success. As Coleman says in the touching conclusion of The Man Who Made The Beatles, “…Brian died with a golden reputation for integrity and charm intact.” His artists – Gerry and the Pacemakers, Cilla Black, Billy J. Kramer and The Dakotas and so many more including that group called The Beatles – were the bright lights of the 1960s. But their fame and his wealth were not amassed at the cost of Brian’s soul. Epstein wheeled and dealed with “the big cigars” of the entertainment industry and yet, remained unsullied.

 

In the 1960s, Brian Epstein was regarded as “naïve.” No doubt, he would be ridiculed in our cutthroat world of today. But in August of 1967, Epstein left this world with his honor intact. And his high standards of business behavior contributed much to the outstanding quality that shown through John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr. Brian expected “his boys” to be “better,” to be special. And they were. To Brian Epstein, everything was personal, especially business.

Share

Rubber Soul Deep Dive: The Iconic Album Cover

By

0

“There is no p-l-a-s-t-i-c in Rubber Soul”

by Jude Southerland Kessler and Rande Kessler

 

What a thrill to have my husband Rande Kessler with me this month to explore the artistry of Rubber Soul’s unique cover. Rande is a respected Louisiana artist who was selected as The Caroline Dorman Artist of the Year and featured in a one-man show in Shreveport’s Norton Art Gallery. He won the Melrose Arts Festival and his multi-media sculptures of The Beatles were featured at The GRAMMY Museum of Mississippi’s Beatles Symposium. and he has drawn the unique portraits of John Lennon that grace the covers of She Loves You, Should Have Known Better, and Shades of Life, part 1 (Vols. 3, 4, and 5 in The John Lennon Series.) Rande is the owner of OnTheRockBooks and co-hosts the Focal Points webinars with me. Here are his insights into this magical, unique Beatles album cover!

 

What’s Standard:

 

Date Released: 3 December 1965 in the U.K. as the sixth studio album by The Beatles. 6 December in the U.S.

 

Date Photographed: Late 1965

 

Location: Many sources state that the location for the photo shoot was John Lennon’s Kenwood garden in Weybridge, Surrey, U.K. (according to Robert Freeman and Bill Harry, The Ultimate Beatles Encyclopedia, 255, and Spizer, The BEATLES Rubber Soul to Revolver, 192-196.)

 

Photographer: Robert Freeman; graduated from Cambridge in 1959. Before beginning his professional career as a photographer, he worked for a short time as Director of Contemporary Arts in London.  In 1963, Freeman, who was noted for artistic portraits of jazz musicians, “made a chance phone call to Dick Fontaine” a friend of his in Manchester. Fontaine had filmed The Beatles in the Cavern Club and suggested that if Freeman wanted to photograph musicians, he should “have a look at them, as they were a talented band…”  (Freeman, p. 8) So, after contact, Freeman was asked by Brian Epstein to send photo samples to Wales to show the boys. He assembled a portfolio of portraits he had taken of jazz musicians, such as Dizzy Gillespie and John Coltrane. On 20 August 1963, at Epstein’s request (and after the boys had seen the work), Freeman traveled to meet them. (Freeman, p. 9) His artistic focus on musicians’ portraits and musicians in concert, was the “flash” that highlighted his photographic talent for the Fab Four.

 

The Photographees:

 

John Lennon, sporting a brown suede jacket, second from the left on the cover, obviously taking a “selfie,” looking at the camera with scrutiny and a hint of panache. There was a small, loose thread on his right shoulder which was airbrushed out on most covers (Spizer, The Beatles for Sale on Parlophone Records, p. 206 and http://webgrafikk.com/blog/uncategorized/lennons-thread/ You can see the thread in this…thread).

 

Ringo Starr, also wearing a brown suede jacket, with a blank stare to his right.

 

Paul McCartney, again with a suede jacket, this time more charcoal-colored, seems concerned with something George spotted.

 

George Harrison, barely in the picture (as was often his complaint) looks concerned about being too close to the edge of the album cover. He is quoted as saying about the album, however, “…The picture on the front is pretty good.”

 

Background: Rhododendron bush, not marijuana. And no LSD was harmed in the creation of the Rubber Soul artwork.

 

Sources: The Rubber Soul album covers, both EMI and Capitol; Lewisohn, The Beatles Recording Sessions, 69,  Spizer, The Beatles for Sale on Parlophone Records, 204-206; Spizer, The BEATLES Rubber Soul to Revolver, 192-196; Freeman, The Beatles, a private view, 8-9 and 64, Martin, The Beatles Diary, Vol. 1, 216; Kruth, This Bird Has Flown: The Enduring Beauty of Rubber Soul Fifty Years On, 37-42, and Harry, The Ultimate Beatles Encyclopedia, 254-255.

 

What’s Changed:

 

  1. The times – According to Spizer’s compilation and as stated by Freeman himself, Freeman was searching for “…another angle on the group and a different tonality…“ (Freeman, p. 64). Kruth (This Bird Has Flown, p. 37) discusses this change in angle and tonality as compared to Freeman’s previous photo work on Beatles for Sale. Freeman, of course, had been photographing The Beatles since Meet the Beatles, making Rubber Soul his fifth cover endeavor, albeit his last.

 

  1. No matching outfits…and no ties – The Beatles are not in a “posed band” or photo-promo shot. And the boys “stood shoulder to shoulder, huddled together in the cool autumn air.” (Kruth, p. 37) Indeed, to quote Robert Freeman: “Uniformity was out.” (p. 64)

 

  1. An album as artwork rather than simply “a collection of singles” – According to George Martin, the intention was to present “a new Beatles to the world…And Rubber Soul was the first to emerge that way.” (Martin, p. 216) Robert Freeman, it seems, was achieving that by first developing a photographic moment in dissolving light, perhaps to show a dissolving from “Beatles before to The Beatles after”? Next, Freeman adds graphic distortion to the photograph, which happened by accident, but was liked by The Beatles (Freeman p. 64). Viewers were now seeing The Beatles’ images as reflections in a chrome door knob. Perhaps, as we reached for them, Freeman was inviting us to open the door to a new album experience.

 

  1. No “nametag” – The group’s name does not appear on the cover for the first time in Beatles history. (Spizer, p. 204) I think the time had arrived to acknowledge four individual artists creating music as a band, versus “a band” of four talented musicians. Cheers. Everybody knew their name.

 

This “say no more” license was repeated again with the advent of the White Album. As The Beatles’ ninth LP, it was officially released in 1968 as “The Beatles.” But fans quickly identified the record according to the look of the white jacket instead, without need for “the” band name!

 

 

A Fresh New Look:

 

Rande Kessler has been part of our Fest Family for the last 15 years. He has produced the over 45 Power Point presentations that Jude has given during that time. His “Shine On” Beatles original T-shirt and John Lennon “Should Have Been There” T-shirt have been bestsellers, and Rande’s “Doors of Liverpool” art poster of unique photographs of each Beatle home and venue has been a Fest favorite. Kessler’s work has been featured in the “Artists of the Wiregrass” showcase and in Dothan magazine.

 

Jude Southerland Kessler: Rande, I know you are…um, quite familiar with The Beatles. As an artist, musician, and photographer yourself, does anything come to mind that you’d like to share about the cover of Rubber Soul?

 

Rande Kessler: The Beatles, oh yes, that group from Liverpool!! They are, fortunately, in my life. I have T-shirts that say “Give Peas a Chance,” “While My Guitar Gently Weeps,” “Hey Jude,” (of course), and “Lived a Man Who Sailed the Sea.” I do have some thoughts about the Rubber Soul cover.

 

Robert Freeman said about all his cover photographs, “My intention was to keep the compositions simple, so that the focus of attention would always be on The Beatles as personalities.” With the Rubber Soul cover, I think the intention was to wash their personalities across another new canvas of Beatles music and art.  I think when author John Kruth said of Freeman’s photography work, “The effect was to stretch the perspective…” he nailed it. (Kruth, p. 39)

 

Kruth goes on to say Freeman believed “the distorted effect was a reflection of the changing shape of their lives.” Rubber Soul was, as typical of The Beatles, a game-changer from cover-to-songmanship-to cover. The title with its equally transitional graphic also melded well with the photo work to depict the depth of The Beatles’ forever fluid offerings to the world. As usual, there was no shallow depth to that pool. In an article for The Daily Beatle, Patrick Roefflaer points out the Rubber Soul clever wordplay on ‘Plastic Soul.’” He elaborates that “plastic soul” was an expression “that black musicians were using to describe The Rolling Stones.” Mark Lewisohn adds: “Paul frequently repeated the words, ‘Plastic soul, man, plastic soul!’ And then, for the benefit of the other Beatles, and now history, he went on to explain that it was a phrase coined by black musicians to describe Mick Jagger.” (The Beatles Recording Sessions, p. 69)

 

The “rubber” component was explored further by graphic designer Charles Front (contacted by Freeman for the lettering) using his “innovative typography,” as Kruth puts it. Front researched rubber processing and successfully added the graphic look of rubber to the letters themselves. Front said, “If you tap into a rubber tree, you get a sort of globule…” (Spizer, The BEATLES Rubber Soul to Revolver, p. 192) And voila!

 

So, here we have an album cover, graphics, and title that encompassed The Beatles’ history and love of black rhythm and blues, The Beatles’ competitive and respectful musicians’ dance with The Rolling Stones, The Beatles’ introduction of albums as art collections, The Beatles’ transition from “the way they was,” and even the triple entendre of mixing rubber vs plastic, soul vs sole, and fluid graphic to fluid sound. Who knows, maybe they even thought, “Hey, Rubber Soul begins with “R – S” for more axe-play with “R-olling S-tones”?

 

The cover was subtle, and obvious, and fluid: an artistic portrayal of a transition, and of the four unique individuals involved in that change. Much detail about the cover development process and edits is provided by Spizer and Freeman – and explored by Kruth – but the artistic view of the cover art challenges us to see beyond the clever cover creation and into the creativity it presents.

 

What individual personalities do each of us see in Robert Freeman’s photograph? What messages are being conveyed? How does the cover encourage us to use new perspective when we pull the LP from the sleeve and listen? The artistry of the best photograph is to capture myriad descriptions in one still scene: to make a statement. In the case of the Rubber Soul cover, it also captures the observer. Instead of reacting to the cover art with stagnant appreciation, we react with dynamic processing. We think, “Hmmm, what’s this about?”

 

Freeman wanted to use his skill to present us with four Beatles pens and one signature, to introduce us to the full art potential of album covers, and to tease our sense of reality with distortion. And when we look at the Rubber Soul cover, Lennon clearly tasks us to try to keep our balance.

 

For more information on Rande M. Kessler, HEAD HERE

 

Follow Rande on LinkedIn HERE

 

To view an uncropped Freeman cover shot, HEAD HERE

Share

Rubber Soul Deep Dive Part 12: Wait

By

0

Side Two, Track 5

“Wait”…and They Did!

 

by Jude Southerland Kessler and Piers Hemmingsen

 

Through 2021 and the first few months of 2022, the Fest for Beatles Fans blog has been walking through The Beatles’ artistic and pivotal 1965 LP, Rubber Soul. This month, Piers Hemmingsen, author of The Beatles in Canada: The Origins of Beatlemania! (known as “The Red Book”) joins Jude Southerland Kessler, author of The John Lennon Series, for a fresh, new look at the only song on the LP “left over” from the Help! soundtrack recordings. Piers, who is busy completing the second volume of his series (“The Blue Book”) will be attending the April 1-3 New York Metro Fest for Beatles Fans. Please come by and chat with him when you’re there. But for now, let’s discover why The Beatles made the decision to wait on “Wait.” Read on…

 

What’s Standard:

 

Date Recorded: 17 June 1965 (and 11 November 1965)

Studio: EMI Studios, Studio 2

 

Tech Team

Producer: George Martin

Engineer: Norman Smith and Ron Pender

Second Engineer: Phil McDonald and Ken Scott

Stats: Recorded initially for the Help! LP in 4 takes.

 

Instrumentation and Musicians: ***

John Lennon, co-composer, sings lead – except for the middle eight – and plays his 1965 Rickenbacker 325 Capri electric guitar.

Paul McCartney, co-composer, sings lead vocal on the middle eight and plays bass on his 1962-63 Hofner 500/1.

George Harrison plays lead guitar on his 1963 Gretsch G6119 Chet Atkins Tennessean electric guitar. He is using a Gretsch Bigsby vibrato (and tone pedal).

Ringo Starr plays one of his Ludwig Oyster Black Pearl Super Classic drum sets. He also plays tambourine and maracas.

***from Hammack’s The Beatles Recording Reference Manual, Vol. 2, 57.

 

Sources: Lewisohn, The Complete Beatles Chronicle, 196, Lewisohn, The Recording Sessions, 60, Harry, The Ultimate Beatles Encyclopedia, 682, Davies, The Beatles Lyrics, 133, Margotin and Guesdon, All the Songs, 394-395, Winn, Way Beyond Compare, 363, Hammack, The Beatles Recording Reference Manual, Vol. 2, 57-58, Turner, A Hard Day’s Write, 99, Riley, Tell Me Why, 168-169, Miles, Paul McCartney, Many Years From Now, 278, Womack, The Beatles Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, 969, and MacDonald, Revolution in the Head, 128.

 

What’s Changed:

 

  • Debated Composership, Again – As with “In My Life,” “Wait” has been claimed by both John and Paul. In later life, Paul recalled young American actor Brandon de Wilde watching Paul create the song in the Bahamas. Paul stated, “I seem to remember writing ‘Wait’ in front of him, and him being interested [in seeing] it being written.” However, many experts (including Tim Riley in Tell Me Why, 168) state that “Lennon wrote the verses and the refrain and relied upon Paul for the bridge.” “Wait” appears to be a collaboration, and Bill Harry says it was, “jointly written by John and Paul.” (The Ultimate Beatles Encyclopedia, 682) In Revolution in the Head, MacDonald calls it “the first fifty-fifty Lennon-McCartney collaboration.” (More to follow on this topic in our “Fresh, New Look” segment.)

 

  • Debated Dedication – If one assumes that Paul wrote the song, “Wait” becomes a song directed to Jane Asher, as Margotin and Guesdon assert in All the Songs. If one assumes that John penned it, then it’s dedicated to Cynthia, waiting back at home. And if you accept the song as a collaboration, then it is both.

 

It’s interesting to observe that people often cite this song as evidence of John’s infidelity, when in fact Paul sings the line, “I’ve been good…as good as I can be.” Listeners can easily discern that Paul sings (and therefore, has written) the more optimistic lines in “We Can Work It Out,” and John (sings and therefore, has written) the more pessimistic view of “Life is very short and there’s no time for fussing and fighting, my friend” in that same song. But in “Wait,” some seem confused about the fact that John is singing (and therefore, wrote) the lines about longing for his wife, while Paul is singing (and therefore, penned) the lines hinting at a bit of mischief. Perhaps “Wait” deserves another listen.

 

  • Percussive innovation – Of all the songs on Rubber Soul, “Wait” is one of the least innovative. You find The Beatles playing their customary instruments and performing their customary tasks. As Hunter Davies comments, the boys are “head-to-head, as they used to do in the old days.” (The Beatles Lyrics, 133) Compared to the sitar-trimmed “Norwegian Wood” or the elegant harmonium-embellished “In My Life,” “Wait,” hearkens back to a simpler time in the band’s history.

 

However, the song is not without innovation. For example, the “silvery sound” that permeates “Wait” is supplied by Ringo’s generous use of tambourine which rises into a shiver of maracas and then, into drums. And when John (almost desperately) cries, “Wait!” that plea is punctuated a second later by a heavily-struck guitar chord, for emphasis. Finally, just before the chorus, Tim Riley tells us, “Ringo hits the crash cymbal before his roll on the tom-toms (a backward fill).” (Tell Me Why, 168) Furthermore, George’s implementation of his tone pedal adds to the richness of sound. This is achieved by John manually turning the volume knob on George’s guitar, just as he did on “I Need You.”

 

Even on a song that many experts deem a mere “album filler,” The Beatles’ careful attention to detail make the work unique. Beatles fans are accustomed to an extremely high bar and expect much from the Fab Four. But “Wait” is certainly as good as some of the songs on the 1965 Billboard Top 100, including Dino, Desi, and Billy’s “I’m A Fool,” Bobby Goldsboro’s “The Little Things,” or Brenda Lee’s “Too Many Rivers.” By any other band, “Wait” would have been applauded.

 

A Fresh New Look:

 

Recently, Jude Southerland Kessler sat down with noted Beatles expert Piers Hemmingsen, the author of The Beatles in Canada: The Origins of Beatlemania! to talk about this song. Piers grew up in England and moved to Canada in August 1963, with as he says “our Beatles records (the Parlophone Please Please Me LP and the From Me To You 45) in tow.” It is so interesting to hear his perspective, honed in two different corners of the world!

 

Piers, the last Rubber Soul track that we examined in our Fest Blog, “In My Life,” was a highly-contested creation. John claimed to have written both the lyrics and the melody. Paul said he created the melody. However, this next track, “Wait,” is as Jerry Hammack states in The Beatles Recording Reference Manual, “as clear a demonstration of the duo’s songwriting partnership as one could ask for.” Who did what on this song?

 

Listening to “Wait” with a critical ear takes me back to early 1966 when I first got the “latest” Beatles album from the Capitol Record Club…Rubber Soul. I had heard it at my neighbour’s house next door because he bought it straight away. My first impression was that it defined “cool”…a huge leap forward from my beloved Help! album, and I had to have my own copy and right away. Starting with Help! a few months before, we listened to an entire album to take us somewhere very different for a half hour or more. When listening to Help! or Rubber Soul then, we weren’t listening so much for which Beatle wrote which part of a particular song. But here goes my best try for “Wait,” all these years later:

 

Well, the opening is a vocal by John, almost more spoken than sung, so I can only assume that is John’s own introduction. Like his other “insecure” songs from 1965, like “Help!” or “Day Tripper,” I think John liked opening his inwardly-looking songs straight way with his own vocal. John’s vocal on “Wait” is very clear and direct. There’s no voice other than his. He’s speaking directly about his fidelity with his partner…in this case the “waiting at home” Cynthia.

 

Issues of fidelity and trust from the singer’s absence is affecting the couple’s relationship. Word fragments such as “forget the tears we cried,” “turn me away,” and “oh, how I’ve been alone,” are very personal word signatures in John’s first two verses.

 

But when the first chorus of “I feel as though…” rolls around, it sure sounds a lot more upbeat and positive. And it’s Paul singing it and so it just has to be his contribution to what I can only assume is a song that John brought to Paul with two verses waiting for a good chorus. John sings the verses. Paul adds vocals to his bridges.

 

As noted in Jerry Hammack’s Recording Reference Manual, George Harrison adds new sounds with his guitar, and Ringo adds unique percussive elements. (More detail is provided in the answer to Question 2.) When I think of how The Beatles evolved in 1965, one important thing that stands out in The Beatles’ recordings is the pioneering new sounds coming straight from George’s guitar … that all really started at the end of 1964 with his opening of “I Feel Fine.”

 

You know, Piers, few of the tracks on Rubber Soul are “silly love songs.” And the relationship on which “Wait” is based is clearly anxiety-ridden. In fact, Tim Riley in his book Tell Me Why says, “‘Wait’ is doubtful, anxious, uncertain.” How is this angst-ridden love affair reflected in the music of the song (as opposed to just the lyrics)?

 

On “Wait,” the vocals by John and Paul are sung in a direct and intended way to get the message of angst across to the listener. On Rubber Soul, “Wait” is an upbeat track that has almost military-march timing. The ringing guitars, tambourine, and drum rolls carry the vocals along. How so? Well, as noted earlier in the blog, that really effective ringing guitar sound was accented by George’s volume pedal, whereas, Ringo enhances the track with his maracas and tambourine.

 

The sound they get was crafted together at the eleventh hour, but it has all the new sound elements that made Rubber Soul a big step forward from Help! “Wait” is hardly the best song on Rubber Soul, yet it fits in because it was made in the Rubber Soul sound factory, if that makes any sense. There was definitely osmosis from the other Rubber Soul songs leaking into “Wait.”

 

To this fan – who took the Rubber Soul song trips in early 1966 – The Beatles had managed to release a 1966-sounding album in late 1965…a few months ahead of everyone else. It is likely why Rubber Soul pulled in the college crowd who had ignored the mania of the group in 1964 and 1965.

 

Piers, John Lennon tackled this exact theme in his infectious, popular LP opener to With The Beatles, “It Won’t Be Long.” But somehow, neither The Beatles nor George Martin had much faith in “Wait.” They rejected it for the Help! LP and only added it to Rubber Soul as a last-minute album-filler. What is missing in “Wait” that made “It Won’t Be Long” so appealing?

 

“Wait” had been a leftover track from earlier in 1965 as you suggest. As the Rubber Soul Christmas LP deadline loomed, and the group was short a track or two, it has been suggested that they went back to the earlier take of “Wait” from the Help! sessions to see if they could somehow re-use it to pad out Rubber Soul. If that were the case, then it was pure and simple “Beatles work” to make this older track fit in with the rest of Soul. The track was literally recorded within three weeks of the album’s U.K. release date. But new Beatles work in late 1965 was quite different from the new Beatles work earlier in 1965 on Help!

 

Perhaps what is missing in “Wait” was the call-and-answer technique that was used in “It Won’t Be Long” in 1963. That song-writing technique was lifted from early Motown songs like “Please Mister Postman.” In the case of “Wait,” the lyrics are all sung in first person, and there is no response from the person who has had to “Wait” while their lover/partner has been away. It is all sung from one person’s point of view, and maybe here on “Wait” it was the wrong point of view. The LOVE expressed by two people in this song is missing altogether. The other element that is missing is the LONGING. The longing that comes from waiting for a love letter to arrive in the post-box (mail box) seems more effective in song composition than the longing of waiting, waiting for someone who is returning from a concert tour where there has been so much temptation to cheat on their lover.

 

“Wait” was written in the winter of 1965 when The Beatles were in The Bahamas making the film “Help!” In November of 1965, “Wait” is (only out of necessity) added to Rubber Soul. What events had changed The Beatles so dramatically in those nine months that made “Wait” almost an immature offering for them? What had matured them so rapidly?

 

Well, for starters, The Beatles had completed another bout of touring which meant that “married Beatles,” like John who was married in August 1962 and Ringo who got married in February 1965, were both now facing marital pressure to be faithful while they were away on tour.

 

A small point is that when The Beatles were on tour in 1965, the two married Beatles John and Ringo usually shared a room. Paul and George shared a room as they were “single Beatles.” George would not get married until January 1966. Paul would not get married until March 1969.

 

In addition to the marriage fidelity issue, John and George had taken their first LSD trip in April 1965. Drugs were something new to the mix when recording Rubber Soul…and it is the big difference from Help!

 

Then, just a month later – in May 1965 – The Beatles had seen Bob Dylan in concert at the Royal Albert Hall. Dylan’s songwriting was another major influence on Rubber Soul. In comparison to the new Dylan songs on Highway 61 Revisited, “Wait” appears simple, both in its construction and message.

 

“Think For Yourself,” “In My Life,” “Norwegian Wood,” “If I Needed Someone,” and “The Word” reflect more adventurous song writing styles of The Beatles. “Wait” doesn’t really do that but somehow it is not out of place on Rubber Soul.

 

So, marriage and fidelity were song topics for John’s “Wait.” Drugs and Dylan did not impact “Wait” as much as they did for the other, “better” songs on Rubber Soul.

 

Where does “Wait” fit in the greater catalogue of Beatles songs?

 

“Wait” is clearly not the BEST song on Rubber Soul. But, looking back to November 1965, it is one background component of what was a Beatles master work. Removing it would be like removing a brush stroke from a Van Gogh painting. Each component is necessary to make a whole. “What Goes On” from Rubber Soul also shares something with “Wait,” in that it also generally falls short of its objective. Both tracks are “almost” great. However, they each lack something that holds them back from being great Beatles tracks.

 

But if we want to pigeonhole “Wait” in The Beatles’ catalogue, then it is in good company with The Beatles’ less stellar pre-1966 album filler tracks like “Everybody’s Trying To Be My Baby,” “Tell Me Why,” “Yes It Is,” “Any Time At All,” “When I Get Home,” and “I‘m Happy Just To Dance With You.”

 

And in the end, “Wait” is at least an integral component of the finished Rubber Soul album, and so it rates a better class of filler than earlier Beatles “album filler” tracks.

For more information on Piers Hemmingsen and The Beatles in Canada HEAD HERE and HERE

Meet Piers in person at the New York Metro Fest for Beatles Fans, April 1-3, at the Hyatt Regency, Jersey City, New Jersey. And to learn more about The Fest and the Special Guests who will be there, HEAD HERE

For more information on The John Lennon Series, HEAD HERE

Share

Rubber Soul Deep Dive Part 11: In My Life

By

0

Rubber Soul

Side Two, Track Three

“In My Life”

 

by Jude Southerland Kessler and Susan Ryan

 

Throughout 2021 and the first few months of 2022, the Fest for Beatles Fans blog has been exploring some of the finer points of The Beatles’ innovative 1965 LP, Rubber Soul. This month, a lifelong friend of the Fest, Susan Ryan, joins Jude Southerland Kessler, author of The John Lennon Series for an in-depth consideration of “In My Life.” Susan is the co-author of The Beatles Fab Four Cities, a new release thoroughly exploring the lives of The Beatles in Liverpool, Hamburg, London, and New York City. Susan is also an experienced New York City Beatles Tour guide and the owner of Fab Four Walking Tours. In her role as a noted public speaker, Susan has served as Emcee for Beatles at the Ridge and The Fest for Beatles Fans. Susan and Jude hope you enjoy this “fresh, new look” at Lennon’s masterpiece, “In My Life.”

 

What’s Standard:

 

Date Recorded:

18 October 1965 – The Beatles recorded the base track for the song: the two guitars, bass, and drums in three takes. On Take 3, John recorded his double-tracked vocals; Paul and George added backing vocals.

22 October 1965 – As per John’s request for “something baroque,” George Martin recorded an original piano solo for what John referred to as the song’s “middle eight.” Martin did this by playing half-speed on a normal piano and then speeding it up to create the sound of a harpsichord.

Studio: Both recordings took place in EMI Studios, Studio 2

 

Tech Team

Producer: George Martin

Engineer: Norman Smith (and according to some sources, Ron Pender)

Second Engineer: Ken Scott

Stats: Recorded in only four takes. “Best” take was Take 4. However, a plethora of overdubs completed the song in later sessions.

 

Instrumentation and Musicians:

 

John Lennon, the lyrical composer and, he states, the musical composer (Lennon stated to David Sheff that “All Paul added to the song was the middle eight and the harmony.”) sings lead vocals and guitar on his 1961 Fender Stratocaster electric. (Hammond, The Beatles Recording Reference Manual, Vol. 2, 73)

Paul McCartney, who also claims to be the musical composer, sings backing vocal and plays bass on his Rickenbacker 4001S. In his Beatles Recording Reference Manual, Vol. 2, Hammack points out that the Hofner 500/1 “was available, but probably unused.” (p. 73)

George Harrison sings backing vocals and plays lead guitar on his 1961 Fender Stratocaster electric, an exact match for John’s guitar. (Hammack, 73) Harrison plays the memorable and lovely introduction to this song. (Womack, Maximum Volume, The Life of Beatles Producer George Martin, 291)

Ringo Starr plays one of his Ludwig Oyster Black Pearl Super Classic drum sets (Hammack, 73 and Womack, 291)) and tambourine.

George Martin, plays the baroque “middle eight.” The complete story of this solo is covered in the “What’s Changed” section below.  (Womack, Maximum Volume, The Life of Beatles Producer, George Martin, 290-291.)

 

Sources: The Beatles, The Anthology, 194, Lewisohn, The Complete Beatles Chronicle, 202-203, Lewisohn, The Recording Sessions, 64-65, Womack, Long and Winding Roads: The Evolving Artistry of The Beatles, 122-124,Womack, Maximum Volume, The Life of Beatles Producer George Martin, 290-291 and 294, Womack, The Beatles Encyclopedia, Vol. 1, 462-464, Margotin and Guesdon, All the Songs, 302-303, Winn, Way Beyond Compare, 365 and 367, Hammack, The Beatles Recording Reference Manual, Vol. 2, 73-75, Turner, A Hard Day’s Write, 96-98, Spizer, The Beatles for Sale on Parlophone Records, 203, Coleman, Lennon, 299, MacDonald, Revolution in the Head: The Beatles’ Records and The Sixties, 136-137, Riley, Tell Me Why, 166-168,  Sheff, The Playboy Interviews, 149 and 151, Norman, John Lennon: The Life, 417-418, Miles, Paul McCartney, Many Years From Now, 276-278,  Babiuk, Beatles Gear, 169-170, and Spignesi and Lewis, 100 Best Beatles Songs, 33-34, and In My Life” by The Beatles. The in-depth story behind the songs of the Beatles. Recording History. Songwriting History. Song Structure and Style. (beatlesebooks.com)

 

What’s Changed:

 

  1. Overt autobiographical references set to a solemn melody –

 

Although many (if not most) of John’s songs prior to 1965 had been highly autobiographical, hits such as “I’ll Cry Instead,” “Tell Me Why,” and “Help!” had been accompanied by up-tempo music that made them seem happy, light-hearted, and upbeat. Even when John’s confessionals were backed by more somber music – as in the case of “If I Fell,” “I’m a Loser,” and “Not a Second Time” – the public perceived them merely as universal love songs, songs that could apply to anyone. Few guessed that rich, powerful, successful John Lennon was singing about his own wounds and fears.

 

“In My Life,” however, was at last quite completely candid about the joys and sorrows John had experienced. Spurred on by journalists John respected (including Maureen Cleave and Kenneth Alsop) who encouraged John to be more openly autobiographical and literary…and validated by the nature of Dylan’s popular “Freewheeling” LP, John summoned the courage to make “In My Life” an overtly personal release. He didn’t try to buoy it up with lively music or brush it off as nonsense or gobbledygook. John owned “In My Life” as “my first real major piece of work.” (Sheff, The Playboy Interviews, 151) Without excuse or camouflage, John laid bare his heart.

 

  1. Inclusion of a classical sounding (“Bach inversion”) piano solo –

 

John had originally envisioned a guitar solo as the instrumental solo for “In My Life.” He had even devised an intricate melody line for this part of the song. And in keeping with his wishes, a guitar solo was recorded. In his book, The Beatles Recording Reference Manual, Jerry Hammack states that this  might have been a dual solo, recorded by Harrison and Lennon. He writes: “…the solo appears to have been played by two different guitars. Harrison recalled that on October 22nd, he and John played a dual solo on ‘Nowhere Man,’ so the dual performance is a distinct possibility.” (p. 74) However, this solo just didn’t turn out to be as poignant or effective as John wanted it to sound, and he expressed those misgivings to George Martin.

 

In Kenneth Womack’s, Maximum Volume, The Life of Beatles Producer George Martin, we are told, “Lennon and Martin set about the business of recording a keyboard solo for ‘In My Life’…To Lennon’s mind, the solo was an essential feature – a highly melodic means of underscoring the song’s nostalgic power. With a Hammond studio organ on hand, Lennon opted for a classical sound in the manner of J.S. Bach. As The Beatles lacked the ability to score music…Martin sat beside Lennon in Studio 2. As Lennon sang the notes of a potential keyboard solo, Martin doubled the sounds on the grand piano with one hand while charting them in his notebook with the other. With the keyboard solo having been fully realized, Martin sat before the Hammond organ as Norman Smith cued up the existing first and second takes of ‘In My Life.’ But as he listened to the playback with Smith and The Beatles, Martin was decidedly underwhelmed [with the solo]…The organ sounded thin and lifeless in contrast with the song’s moving lyrics…”(p. 291)

 

So, the evolution of the lovely solo that John had composed did not end there. Womack goes on to say, “…on Friday, October 22…the band’s producer turned his attentions back to ‘In My Life.’ George was determined to unseat the Hammond organ solo that he had recorded…a stunning song and glorious song such as ‘In My Life’ deserved a much grander fate.”

 

To find out “the rest of the story” (as journalist Paul Harvey used to say), join Susan Ryan later in this blog for “A Fresh New Look” at the so-called “middle eight.”

 

  1. Highly-contested authorship and performance debates –

 

In the early years, The Beatles admittedly collaborated quite frequently on songs such as “She Loves You” and “From Me to You.” But as time went along and they lived further from one another, they began to write the body of a song singly, later altering that song with words or phrases deftly supplied by the other Beatles (such as John’s endorsement of “the movement you need is on your shoulder” in “Hey Jude”) or tweaking a composition here or there, with a little help from their friends. (Pete Shotton, for example, claimed to have contributed significantly to “I Am the Walrus”).

 

Of course, there were always some true collaborations such as “We Can Work It Out” and “A Day in the Life,” but these partnership productions were less prevalent post-1964 than they had been in the group’s ingenue years. Therefore, it was rare for a song’s authorship to be debated. “In My Life” is one of the few songs in contention. As Ken Womack points out in Long and Winding Roads, The Evolving Artistry of The Beatles, “It was certainly a song over which claiming authorship was a worthy goal indeed.” (p. 124)

 

More on this topic as we now join Beatles author Susan Ryan for…

 

A Fresh New Look:

 

Jude Southerland Kessler was thrilled to be able to interview Susan Ryan, for this deep-dive into John Lennon’s “In My Life.” When considering Lennon’s masterpiece – a song that Philip Norman has called “a superlative achievement” (John Lennon: The Life, 417) and Ken Womack has dubbed “John Lennon’s…exquisite composition.” (Maximum Volume, 290) Ryan has conducted tours of John Lennon’s New York City for many years as part of her company, Fab Four Walking Tours, and she is featured in the DVD “John Lennon’s New York City.” Kessler commented, “It would be difficult to find anyone who would know John Lennon better than Susan Ryan!” Here is their recent conversation:

 

Jude Southerland Kessler: Susan, congratulations on your new book co-written with David Bedford and Richard Porter, The Beatles Fab Four Cities! I’ve read it cover-to-cover and am really impressed with the depth of research and the wealth of Beatles history in its pages. I know you’re busy promoting it on podcasts, radio programs, social media, and so forth. So, thank you for taking time out to join us for this consideration of “In My Life!”

 

Susan Ryan: Thanks for asking me to help with this project, Jude! Rubber Soul is pretty much my favorite Beatles album, and being able to discuss “In My Life,” a song that has been one of my favorites forever, is a true privilege. I’m also glad to hear that you are enjoying The Beatles Fab Four Cities! Working on that book with David and Richard has also been a true joy, allowing us to share our personal passions as tour guides in our individual cities with all Beatle people!

 

Kessler: Well, let’s jump right into the heart of this beautiful Lennon ballad, “In My Life.” Susan, Ray Coleman in Lennon has this to say about John’s work on Rubber Soul: “For Lennon, particularly, this album marked a personal progression in his craft. Personal honesty and confession, which were to characterize his later work, were inherent. His songs are marked by a more poetic approach, and he was beginning to find his own voice.” How is Coleman’s observation well-illustrated in John’s poignant Side Two creation, “In My Life”?

 

Ryan: Certainly, by the time Rubber Soul and “In My Life” came out, John’s songwriting was maturing at rapid rate. His lyrics had already begun to exhibit a much more personal bent, less of the “I love you; you love me; she loves you” of earlier works. “In My Life” is absolutely an intensely personal reflection, a look back on simpler days and the people and things that were near and dear to John’s heart, and much more straightforward than previous “personal” songs that were covered up by cheerful pop melodies.

 

It is also interesting that the song came from someone so young – normally, a listener would not expect a man of just under 25 years of age to be able to craft such a heartfelt song about “looking back,” but John manages it, and you can hear his longing for times gone by, even if those times were not so very far in his past. Given everything that The Beatles had been through up to this point, becoming virtual prisoners of their fame, it’s not surprising that he would be wishing for the way things had been before they were swallowed up by fame and fortune.  It is also a definite step towards the sometimes brutal honesty that would characterize so many of John’s later songs, both with The Beatles and solo – songs like “Julia” on the White Album, where he sings about his mother, but also inserts his hope for the future with Yoko, or the songs on the John Lennon Plastic Ono Band album, nearly all of which are personal to the point of pain.

 

But it is with songs like “In My Life,” however, where the seeds for those songs and others begin to take root, and where his ability to craft beautiful, passionately personal songs that were destined to endure as pop standards began to emerge, although he could (and did) still write perfect bits of more commercial pop as well.  It’s no wonder this song means so much to so many people – even though they are John’s memories, there’s a universality to the lyrics, set to the lovely melody, that resonates with so many people and their lives.

 

Kessler: John wrote a third verse for “In My Life” that specifically mentioned places in Liverpool he so vividly recalled. However, he removed this bit because he said it felt too much like a “What I Did on Summer Vacation” essay. Share that verse with us, please, and if you don’t mind, please give us your reaction to the lyrics that were omitted.

 

Ryan: Here’s the omitted verse:

 

Penny Lane is one I’m missing
Up Church Road to the clock tower
In the circle of the Abbey
I have seen some happy hours

Past the tram sheds with no trams
On the 5 bus into town
Past the Dutch and St Columbus
To the Dockers Umbrella that they pulled down.[i]

 

Frankly, anyone who hears this song in its final form would have to agree with John; it reads like a travelogue or a “guide to Liverpool landmarks.” If it had been left in, it would have made what is a poignant, universally accessible song into something a little too personal and specific.  By omitting this verse, the song becomes something else – it takes on a life as a song any listener can relate to, no matter who they are or where they’re from. Everyone looks back at some point in their lives to “people and things that went before,” or remembers “friends and lovers….some (who) are dead and some (who) are living.” But not everyone is from Liverpool – and while the places mentioned specifically in those omitted lyrics may have meant something to John personally, or to the other Beatles or other Liverpudlians, they just would not have the same resonance to someone from New York or Los Angeles or any other place.

 

Removing this verse and leaving the form of the song as we know it was a brilliant move, whether originally intended or not, because even though the song remained intensely personal as far as John was concerned, it allowed other people to hear it and put themselves in the situation – the best way to create a “standard.”  There’s a reason this song is sung at weddings and funerals and other life-cycle events – it means something to everyone precisely because it is not time- or place-specific.

 

Kessler: Susan, John admitted that several influences led him to write this very autobiographical song in 1965. Tell us about those people who encouraged him to be more introspective.

 

Ryan: Prior to this song, although John had definitely written songs that were personal, he’d hidden that behind catchy pop melodies or found other ways to disguise the fact.  By the time he was working on this song, however, he’d done a couple of interviews with people who had asked him outright why he didn’t write more sophisticated, introspective songs. One of these was Maureen Cleve of the Evening Standard, who quite literally asked him why he “didn’t ever write songs with more than one syllable?” A second journalist, Kenneth Allsop, asked him why his songs didn’t contain the same kind of depth and meaning that his poetry and prose did when interviewing him after the publication of In His Own Write. All of this led John to begin thinking about doing something more serious and personal.

 

Add to this the release of Bob Dylan’s seminal work, “Freewheeling,” which was full of autobiographical songs, and John realized that if he wanted to do something more serious, he had to take that leap and be willing to share things of a more personal nature in his work.  For a man who most often carried his most intense personal feelings close to the vest, it was a huge step into the unknown, but as I mentioned above, it was also the seed that grew into so many other personal, autobiographical, confessional songs later in his life. The beautiful, tender melody also brought out a softer side of the man who had previously been perceived by many as the “rocker” of the group.

 

Kessler: All right, let’s address the elephant in the room. John was very proud of “In My Life.” In fact, he said it was “his first real major piece of work.” John emphatically said that Paul didn’t even see the song until the lyrics were finished and that “[Paul’s] contribution melodically was the harmony and the middle eight.” Paul, just as insistently, claims to have written the melody. This is the short version of this disagreement. Give us the details, please.

 

Ryan: Wow, Jude, you really want to open a can of worms here, don’t you?

 

There are numerous interviews where John states that he wrote the lyrics to the song first and the music later. This was frequently how he wrote – he’d start with an idea and then come up with the music. In the group’s early years, both John and Paul emphasized their “collaborative” songwriting, stressing the idea that every song they created was a totally collective endeavor by “Lennon and McCartney.”

 

However, in later years, both of their recollections about who wrote the actual melody began to diverge. In a 1980 interview, John said, “There was a period when I thought I didn’t write melodies; that Paul wrote those and I just wrote straight, shouting rock ‘n’ roll. But of course, when I think of some of my own songs – “In My Life” or some of the early stuff….I was writing melody with the best of them.”[ii]  In that same interview, he stated unequivocally that “Paul helped with the middle eight.”  But there was controversy as early as 1976-77 – when Paul was shown a list of Lennon-claimed songs by Hit Parader Magazine, the only one he disputed was “In My Life,” claiming that he’d written the whole melody from beginning to end, inspired by Smokey Robinson.

 

This claim to the authorship of the melody continued when Paul reiterated his statement in 1998, in Barry Miles’ biography of him, Many Years From Now, disputing previous statements by John insisting that his contributions to the song were minor. The fact that John died in 1980 and isn’t here to clarify these claims certainly makes it difficult to discern who was the real author of the music, but given that the song is so intensely personal, it seems logical that John wrote the majority of the song, with only small contributions from Paul in sections such as the middle eight/bridge.

 

Another fascinating thing is that the handwritten lyric sheet of the completed song, which is in John’s handwriting, has only one credit at the bottom – John Lennon! When songs were more collaborative, they’d sign them with both their names.

 

I did find an interesting tidbit that said that in 2018, Harvard University applied an artificial intelligence model to the music of the song, and determined, by their calculations, that there was a “.018% possibility of McCartney having written the whole of the music.”  They gave John an 81.1% certainty of having written the verses, and Paul a 43.6% certainty of writing the middle eight, which means that although the song did contain some obvious collaboration, the vast majority of it was written by John.  I’m inclined to agree.

 

Kessler: As Ian MacDonald points out, there really is no bridge in this song. However, there is an instrumental bridge, artfully created by George Martin. It wasn’t the first bridge composed for the song, however. Please tell us about both bridges and how, by strange coincidence, they “come together.”

 

Ryan: As Jude mentioned earlier in the “What’s New” segment of this blog, “In My Life” doesn’t really have a “middle eight” as people who are familiar with the songs of Lennon and McCartney would recognize. Instead, it has an instrumental bridge, played by George Martin on what is credited on the album cover as a harpsichord.  More on that later…

 

The song was recorded on October 18, 1965, during what was a relatively short studio session for The Beatles. By the end of the day, they had completed most of the song, but there was a section in the middle that was left out because John couldn’t decide what to put there.  Originally it was a guitar piece by George Harrison, but that didn’t hit the right note. George Martin left a gap in the song and John suggested that he supply one himself.  In a 1970 interview, John stated, “In ‘In My Life’ there’s an Elizabethan piano solo.  We’d do things like that.  We’d say, ‘play it like Bach,” or ‘could you put twelve bars in there?’”

 

With that rather vague instruction, George Martin was left to his own devices to create something to place into that section of the song. He worked on the section four days later, on October 22, 1965, when he wrote and recorded something he described as being “like a Bach inversion.” He recorded it first on a Hammond organ, but then did it again on the piano because he didn’t like the sound of the organ. It’s here where George Martin’s genius really shows through, because he used a technique called the “wind-up piano,” with the solo recorded at half speed and an octave lower. When played at normal speed, this made the piano sound like a harpsichord – an auditory trick that no one even realized at the time!  When he played it back for the Beatles when they came back to the studio, they loved it, and left the “harpsichord” solo that we all know and love as part of the song.

 

Kessler: Susan, amazing work! I’ve so enjoyed this. Thank you for taking time out of your preparations for the New Jersey Fest coming up on April 1-3 to be with us this month for the Fest Blog!

 

Ryan: Thanks again for this opportunity, Jude!  It’s been a true pleasure!  I’m looking forward to hearing what people think about our discussion of this special song, and to seeing folks at the New Jersey Fest in April!

 

For more information on Susan Ryan and The Beatles Fab Four Cities:

 

The Beatles Fab Four Cities by Ryan, Bedford, and Porter had been acclaimed as “a must for every Beatles fan” by Billy J. Kramer. To find out more about the book, HEAD HERE

 

To purchase The Beatles Fab Four Cities, HEAD HERE

 

To hear Susan Ryan, David Bedford and Richard Porter discuss The Beatles Fab Four Cities on the “She Said She Said” podcast, HEAD HERE

 

To discover more about Ryan’s Beatles Tours of New York City, HEAD HERE

 

To follow Susan Ryan on social media, HEAD HERE

 

[i] The original lyrics to “In My Life” may be viewed here

[ii] Sheff, David, The Playboy Interviews with John Lennon and Yoko Ono, p. 116-117

Share

Rubber Soul Deep Dive Part 10: I’m Looking Through You

By

0

Side Two, Track 3

 

“I’m Looking Through You”… Again!

 

by Jude Southerland Kessler and Scott Freiman

 

Last year at this time, we kicked off an in-depth study of The Beatles’ 1965 classic, Rubber Soul, examining what we know about this pivotal LP and then, taking a “Fresh New Look” at many aspects of the album that hitherto have not been considered. We’ve called upon experts in our own Beatles family (such as Kenneth Womack, Bruce Spizer, Tom Frangione, Janet Davis, and many more) to answer in-depth questions about the songs’ lyrics, instrumentation, and public reception. Now, as we move into 2022, the Fest for Beatles Fans blog is thrilled to be able to work with long-time friend of the Fest Scott Freiman. Scott is a noted speaker, the consulting editor for All the Songs: The Story Behind Every Beatles Release, and the creator of Deconstructing The Beatles, and he’s here this month to share insights with us. Scott joins Jude Southerland Kessler, author of The John Lennon Series, for a close examination of Paul McCartney’s “I’m Looking Through You.”

 

 

What’s Standard:

 

Dates Recorded:

 

24 October 1965: An acoustic version of the song, employing acoustic and electric guitars, bongos, maraca, wood blocks, organ, and hand claps; in this version, there was no middle eight. The song played out with vocal improvisation, or as John Winn phrases it in Way Beyond Compare, “the song stumble[s] to a halt past the point where it would normally fade.” (p. 368) This was a slower and more “mournful” sounding version of the song. In The Beatles Recording Sessions, Mark Lewisohn comments that this version of the song featured “great, great vocals.” He goes on to say, “To this writer it sounds superb, just as good as the re-remake.” You can hear this version of “I’m Looking Through You” on Anthology 2.

 

6 November 1965: A second more upbeat version was recorded. This version was closer to the version that was adopted for Rubber Soul. However, Lewisohn tells us that this version was considered by The Beatles to be “perhaps a little too fast and frenetic.” (The Beatles Recording Sessions, 67)

 

10 November 1965: Once again, the boys attempted to record the song, and this time, all were pleased with the rhythm track, selecting Take 4 as “best.”

 

11 November 1965: At the end of a 13-hour day, which Lewisohn refers to as “a marathon day” and John C. Winn calls “the penultimate session for Rubber Soul,” The Beatles superimposed the vocals for “I’m Looking Through You” as the very last effort in their heroic and tireless work on the LP. This was the final task on the final day of recording.

 

Studio: EMI Studios, Studio 2

 

Tech Team

Producer: George Martin

Engineer: Norman Smith

Second Engineer: Ken Scott

 

Instrumentation and Musicians for 10 November Version (LP Version)

 

Paul McCartney, the composer, sings lead vocal, plays bass on his 1964 Rickenbacker 4001S, piano, and possibly, lead guitar on his Epiphone Casino (Margotin and Guesdon).

John Lennon sings backing vocals. Some sources merely state that John also plays “rhythm guitar.” Other sources do not have him playing guitar at all on this song, but have John manning the tambourine.

George Harrison plays lead guitar on his 1962 Gibson J-169E. Some sources have George playing the tambourine.

Ringo Starr plays one of his Ludwig Oyster Black Pearl Super Classic drum sets, plays either the Hammond organ (as some sources state) or the 1965 Vox Continental 300 Organ (as other sources state). And, as Jerry Hammack tells us in The Beatles Recording Reference Manual, Vol. 2, Ringo also provides “matchbox percussion.” More about that in “What’s Changed.”

 

Sources: Lewisohn, The Complete Beatles Chronicle, 203 and 205, and, Lewisohn, The Recording Sessions, 65, 67, and 68, Margotin and Guesdon, All the Songs, 300-301, Winn, Way Beyond Compare, 368 and 375, Hammack, The Beatles Recording Reference Manual, Vol. 2, 81-83, Turner, A Hard Day’s Write, 96, MacDonald, Revolution in the Head, 140, Spizer, The Beatles for Sale on Parlophone Records, 202-203, Harry, The Ultimate Beatles Encyclopedia, 324, and Babiuk, Beatles Gear, 191. Interestingly, Paul does not discuss “I’m Looking Through You” in his Paul McCartney, The Lyrics compendium.

 

What’s Changed:

 

  1. An increasingly embittered attitude towards Jane Asher – As Steve Turner points out in A Hard Day’s Write: The Stories Behind Every Beatles’ Song, “This was Paul’s most bitter song so far…Paul accuses his woman of changing and holds out the thinly-veiled threat of withdrawing his affection. Love has a habit, he warns, of disappearing overnight.” (p. 96) Paul had sung many songs to Jane about what he considered to be her failure to commit to him. In 1965, she took an acting job in the famous Old Vic Theatre in Bristol and was gone for quite some time. In response, Paul wrote three songs that urged Jane to “try to see it my way.” They were “You Won’t See Me,” “We Can Work It Out,” and “I’m Looking Through You” in which Paul repeatedly asserts, “You’ve changed, you’ve changed, you’ve changed.”

 

Years later, when asked about “I’m Looking Through You,” Paul commented, “This one I remember particularly as being disillusioned over her commitment.” He went on to say, “I was seeing through her façade. And realizing it wasn’t quite all it seemed.” (Margotin and Guesdon, All the Songs, 300) With each lyrical appeal to Jane, Paul became less tolerant. Bill Harry quotes Paul as stating, “I knew I was selfish. It caused a few rows. Jane went off to Bristol to act. I said, ‘OK then, leave, I’ll find someone else.'” (Harry, The Ultimate Beatles Encyclopedia, 324) And certainly, in both “You Won’t See Me” and “I’m Looking Through You,” Paul is drawing a line in the sand and stating quite clearly that Jane must choose either her acting career or her relationship with him…or else.

 

In earlier Fest Blogs (see “Drive My Car” with Ken Womack), we’ve discussed the fact that The Beatles’ attitude toward women was changing in late 1965. No longer were women considered adored and adorable…and placed upon pedestals as they were in “I Want to Hold Your Hand” or “I Need You.” Many of the females on the Rubber Soul LP are unkind (as in “Girl”), strong and powerful (as in “Norwegian Wood”), hardline, aspiring go-getters (as in “Drive My Car”) or simply non-compliant, as we see in this song. No innocent “moon-June-croon-spoon” love songs these! On Rubber Soul, relationships have become complex and difficult to maneuver.

 

  1. Unique Percussion Instrument – Rubber Soul is replete with never-before-considered instrument choices by the lads. But the percussion instrument employed by Ringo in “I’m Looking Through You” is truly one-of-a-kind! In 1996, Ringo explained to Andy Babiuk, author of Beatles Gear, that in this song alone, he added a special effect “by tapping on a pack of matches with his finger!” (Beatles Gear, p. 191) Additionally, Ringo was asked to supply a bit of percussion at the end of each verse of “I’m Looking Through You” by playing a chord on the organ.

 

A Fresh New Look:

 

Recently, we sat down with noted Beatles expert, nationwide lecturer, consultant, and creator of Deconstructing The Beatles, Scott Freiman, to chat about “I’m Looking Through You,” a song Paul does not discuss in Lyrics. Scott is a guru of Beatles music, and this is what he had to say:

 

Jude Southerland Kessler: Welcome to the Fest for Beatles Fans Blog, Scott. We’re honored to have you with us! You know, as we’ve already discussed, “I’m Looking Through You,” written for Jane Asher, seems to focus on the self-same theme as “You Won’t See Me,” “The Night Before,” “Tell Me What You See,” and “We Can Work It Out.” In fact, that’s why we named this blog, “’I’m Looking Through You’ …Again!” Do you see Paul as becoming more or less hopeful that the relationship can work out successfully, and does he present his case any differently in this November 1965 creation?

 

Scott Freiman: I think this is one of the most direct songs Paul wrote about where his relationship stood with Jane, and also one of the nastiest. “You don’t look different, but you have changed.” “Love has a nasty habit of disappearing overnight.” “I’m looking through you, and you’re nowhere.” There doesn’t seem to be any effort at reconciliation as in “We Can Work It Out” or “The Night Before.” Together with “You Won’t See Me,” this does not bode well for his relationship with Jane!

 

Kessler: As you know, our Fest Family loves “Beatles intricacies.” Tell us about the very interesting musical anomalies that you point out to listeners of “I’m Looking Through You” in the book All the Songs: The Story Behind Every Beatles Release.

 

Freiman: There are a couple of minor mistakes, such as the feedback that occurs around 1:18 (after Paul sings “above me”) and some stray guitar notes around 1:53 (probably from a previous solo that wasn’t completely erased). If you listen closely, you will also hear a few missed handclaps and stray tambourine hits.

However, there is one pretty big difference between the UK and US recordings. There was a false start that began the final version of the song that the folks at Capitol thought was part of the recording. So, the US version of “I’m Looking Through You” begins with the false start, adding an extra six seconds to the song. Not the most exciting six seconds, mind you!

 

Kessler: You know, to my ear, that “false start” sounds a bit like the intro to The Traveling Wilbury’s “End of the Line.” But that’s neither here nor there.

Scott, please take us through the evolution of “I’m Looking Through You” from the original 24 October version to the final 10-11 November 1965 version that appeared on Rubber Soul.

 

Freiman: Sure. The first version of the song was recorded on October 24. It took about nine hours. This is the version that is on the Anthology 2 album. It is slower with a different rhythm, and it’s missing the bridge: “Why, tell me why did you not treat me right? / Love has a nasty habit of disappearing overnight.” It also has a classical guitar (played by George), bongos (played by Ringo), and hand clapping. The initial take also included an electric blues jam at the end.

 

The Beatles began a new version of the song on 6 November, but that version was also not used.

 

The final version, Take 4, was recorded on 10 November. It featured, as we’ve already noted, Ringo playing a matchbox with his finger! The Beatles added overdubs, including George playing the tambourine and the guitar solo. Yet, the biggest addition was by Ringo. He played two dissonant chords on the organ for a few measures at the end of each verse.

 

It was 7 AM on the next day, 11 November, when Paul and John overdubbed their vocals, and Paul double-tracked his bass. It was the final recording session for Rubber Soul.

 

Both mono and stereo versions of the song would be mixed four days later on November 15.

 

Kessler: And this is really a follow-up question to the one above, Scott. But the genesis of “I’m Looking Through You” reminds me, a bit, of the metamorphosis that John’s ballad “Help!” went through as “Help!” was retooled to be palatable for the film’s opening, title song. Do you prefer the up-tempo version of “I’m Looking Through You” or its original version that we hear on Anthology 2? And why?

 

Freiman: I think the earlier version is very interesting, but I definitely prefer the version that ended up on Rubber Soul. It’s tighter, more upbeat, and has a better bridge. Plus, I love to hear Ringo slightly out of his element. Only the Beatles would have their drummer play organ and a matchbox!

 

Kessler: And oddly enough, I prefer the 24 October version. To me, on that slower and less upbeat rendition, Paul sounds truly sad and sincere. On the later November take, he comes across as more vitriolic. But my favorite part of the 24 October version is the “old rock’n’roll” flavor of the song. I know The Beatles wanted to use a more current, mid-Sixties vibe, and the 10-11 November version definitely leans “pop” rather than rock’n’roll, but the guitar lead break in the 24 October version is incredible! Different strokes for different folks, right! That’s why everyone has a favorite Beatle and a different favorite song!

Well, Scott thank you for taking time to be with us for this new glance at “I’m Looking Through You.” You are an extremely busy writer, consultant, and speaker. We appreciate the gift of your time…and we sooo hope to see you in person April 1-3 for The Fest for Beatles Fans in Jersey City, New Jersey! God willing, we will all be there!

 

To learn more about Scott Freiman and Deconstructing The Beatles or to book
Scott to speak at your conference or event, HEAD HERE

 

Or follow Scott on Facebook HERE

Share

Rubber Soul Deep Dive Part 9: Girl

By

0

Side Two, Track Two

“Ah, Girl!!!”

 

by Jude Southerland Kessler and Robert Rodriguez

 

Throughout 2021, the Fest for Beatles Fans blog has been exploring the intricacies of The Beatles’ transitional 1965 LP, Rubber Soul. This month, our Fest friend Robert Rodriguez, award-winning author of Revolver: How The Beatles Reimagined Rock’n’Roll and Solo in the 70s: John, Paul, George, and Ringo (1970-1980), as well as distinguished podcast host of “Something About The Beatles,” joins Jude Southerland Kessler, author of The John Lennon Series, for a fresh, new look at the exciting second track of Side Two of this remarkable LP.

 

What’s Standard:

 

Date Recorded: 11 November 1965

Time Recorded: 6 p.m. – 7 a.m. (Work was also done on “You Won’t See Me,” “Wait,” and “I’m Looking Through You”)

Studio: EMI Studios, Studio 2

 

Tech Team:

Producer: George Martin

Engineer: Norman Smith

Second Engineer: Some sources say Mike Stone. Some say Ken Scott.

Stats: Recorded in only two takes. “Best” take was Take 2. However, three superimpositions were needed to complete the song. One for Lennon’s lead, one for backing vocals by Paul and George, and the last for George’s concluding solo.

 

Instrumentation and Musicians:

John Lennon, the composer, sings lead vocal and plays his 1964 Gibson J-160E acoustic guitar

Paul McCartney sings backing vocals and plays bass on his 1964 Rickenbacker 4001S bass

George Harrison sings backing vocals and plays lead in superimposition #3 on his 12-string Framus Hootenanny 5/024

Ringo Starr plays one of his Ludwig Oyster Black Pearl Super Classic drum sets in studio.

Thanks to Jerry Hammack and his superb The Beatles Recording Reference Manual, Vol. 2, for this information.

 

Sources: Lewisohn, The Complete Beatles Chronicle, 205-206, Lewisohn, The Recording Sessions, 68, Womack, Long and Winding Roads: The Emerging Artistry of The Beatles, 121-122, Margotin and Guesdon, All the Songs, 298-299, Winn, Way Beyond Compare, 375-376, Hammack, The Beatles Recording Reference Manual, Vol. 2, 96-97, Turner, A Hard Day’s Write, 95, Riley, Tell Me Why, 164-165, Spizer, The Beatles for Sale on Parlophone Records, 202, Everett, The Beatles as Musicians: The Quarry Men to Rubber Soul, 310-311, Miles, Paul McCartney: Many Years From Now, 119-120,  and MacDonald, The Beatles: Revolution in the Head, 145.

 

What’s Changed:

 

  1. The introduction of Viennese mandolin and Greek bouzouki sounds as experimentation in The Beatles’ catalogue soars – “Girl” sounded unlike any other Beatles song that fans had ever encountered. John’s high-capo-ed guitar was exotic and was described by MacDonald in The Beatles: Revolution in the Head as very much like the Viennese mandolins that John must have heard on Hamburg radio stations in the first few visits to the German port city. (p. 145) That backing, coupled with George’s unique concluding solo, edged “Girl” as far from the traditional Mersey Beat sound as any Beatles creation had ever dared…thus far.

 

George Harrison’s striking concluding lead left experts guessing about its creation for years. Early accounts of the 11 November recording session had Harrison playing a Greek instrument, the bouzouki. Even George Martin, at one point, said that he remembered Harrison performing the song’s concluding solo on that instrument. (Spizer, 202) Later, however, Paul McCartney just as adamantly averred that he recalled Harrison using his guitar with the capo placed very high on the neck to produce the unusual and tinny bouzouki sound. Barry Miles quotes Paul as stating, “We did it on acoustic guitars, not bouzoukis.” (Paul McCartney: Many Years From Now, 119-120) Whatever the methodology, the effect was (and is) singular and enchanting.

 

As Kenneth Womack observed in Long and Winding Roads: The Emerging Artistry of The Beatles, “Simulating a bouzouki-like sound on his Hootenanny, George play[ed] an intricate Greek melody that afford[ed] the track…an Old World resonance.” (p. 122) Rubber Soul had already introduced the sound of the sitar in “Norwegian Wood.” Now, the tone and cadence of another little-known instrument was introduced to listeners by the adventurous Beatles. As the boys moved decidedly away from the “pop” sound that was their staple as late as early 1965, the inclusion of innovative, world music was rapidly becoming John, Paul, George, and Ringo’s “new normal.” (See the chart entitled “Population of The Beatles Early and Experimental Style Features” in Dr. Walter Everett’s The Beatles as Musicians, The Quarry Men to Rubber Soul, p. 311. Also, please read Dr. Everett’s list of instruments that were in the studio during the Rubber Soul sessions on p. 310. The leap into experimentation is dramatic with the advent of Rubber Soul and enhanced with Revolver).

 

  1. A penchant toward more acoustic flavors on this LP – The original recording of “Girl” included George Harrison performing on an electric guitar with fuzz distortion. This rendition was removed as the acoustic sound became Lennon’s preferred medium. With extraordinary songs such as “Michelle,” “Norwegian Wood,” “Nowhere Man,” and “In My Life” populating this LP, The Beatles begin to venture away from the merry “tea-cup rattling” of “She Loves You” and “I Want To Hold Your Hand.” In 1966, Revolver would take them even further from the sounds of the early 60s. Rubber Soul gives us “an early clue to the new direction.”

 

  1. A tad of naughtiness in a song of desire – John Lennon’s very intimate inhalation (created, George Martin explained, by a special compressor used on Lennon’s voice) wasn’t the only bit of sexy innuendo in this second track on Side Two. Paul and George covertly (they thought) sang “tit-tit-tit-tit” to John’s passionate sigh of “Ah, Girrrrrl!” When George Martin questioned them about the phrase, so the story goes, they claimed to be singing “dit-dit-dit,” but Martin stated that he knew what they were saying. He shrugged and let it pass.

 

Now, for a “fresh new look” at “Girl,” we turn to author Robert Rodriguez, who invented the Fab Four FAQ series, recently hosted the very successful online conference Fab4ConJam, served as “Featured Author” at Beatles at the Ridge, and has been a beloved Special Guest Speaker at The Fest for Beatles Fans for years. Jude Southerland Kessler recently sat down with Rodriguez to discuss Lennon’s innovative and personal composition, “Girl.”

 

Jude Southerland Kessler: Robert, it’s a joy to get to work with the remarkable author who opened my eyes to the real significance and importance of Revolver via your incredible book Revolver: How The Beatles Reimagined Rock’n’Roll. That book completely changed my whole perspective on the LP…for the better. It’s a book everyone should read!

 

But our focus today is on Revolver’s predecessor, Rubber Soul, and specifically on the track, “Girl.” So let me ask you, early on, many listeners assumed that the “sizzle-sound” following John’s intonation of the word, “Girl!” was the sound of a cymbal. Of course, now we know it’s the sound of John’s audible inhale. Tell our readers, if you would, what Norman Smith did to create that vocal effect: the sound of ecstasy.

 

Robert Rodriguez: For the second time during the production of Rubber Soul, The Beatles requested an unusual manipulation of the EQ to distort the sound; again – as they had with the guitars on “Nowhere Man” – boost the treble up high, creating a sound from John’s intake of air that nearly matched the sound of Ringo’s brushed cymbal work. It is entirely likely that they were simply looking for a cool new sound to add to the track to give it an air of distinction and weren’t going for a particular evocation. However, given that this was the “pot” album, as compared to Revolver, the “acid” album, it would be naive to ignore the possibility of the effect as emulating taking a hit on a joint. The Beatles loved to sneak little inside jokes into their recordings, and in the case of “Girl,” this naughty touch alongside the backing vocal part on the bridge would’ve doubled their (guilty) pleasure.

 

Kessler: “Girl” is a quite sophisticated song, musically. Naturally, the usual intricate Beatles harmonies are in play, but so much more is at work. Tel us about some of the instruments that are used to create an exotic sound.

 

Rodriguez: As was often the case throughout the Rubber Soul sessions, The Beatles and their producer – though squeezed for time to write and record the album by deadline – would experiment with ideas to broaden their sonic palette. To their credit, simply having an idea didn’t justify using it; it had to be a good idea to make the final cut, and The Beatles’ recordings are evidence enough of the superb quality control standards they adhered to. Perhaps the ultimate example of this is “12-Bar Original” – a recording that they took seriously enough to spend precious studio time on, rehearsing and tracking a pair of takes before abandoning the experiment as an unremarkable failure.

“Girl” provides a further example of this thinking, in that we now know that though the final released performance features acoustic instrumentation (excepting Paul’s bass), a fuzz-distorted Harrison electric was tried out, but ultimately rejected. (A similar idea was tried out four years later for “Here Comes The Sun” and thankfully shelved). Maybe it was because they came up with a better idea: a sound that has been described by writers who should know better as a Greek bouzouki — an exotic stringed instrument not typically heard much on pop records.

 

But while the origins of the sound may be Greek-inspired (Paul has said as much), it was actually performed by George on his Framus Hootenanny 12-string guitar. The attack of his picking the strings is sharper than usual, giving a staccato effect (with no ringing out), suggesting an austere sonic tone that matches the lyric describing the title character’s early Christianity teachings: that heaven was for those who suffered deprivation. It’s a brilliant touch that we as listeners can come up with any number of creative suggestions for what the intent behind it was, when – per Occam’s Razor – it was probably nothing more profound than a pleasing sound that was fresh at the time.

 

Kessler: Cynthia Lennon once said that this song was about her. In April 1995’s Q magazine, she said, “The only song that I thought might be something to do with me was ‘Girl,’ but of course John isn’t here to say anymore.” However, when asked about “Girl” during his life, John claimed that the song was about an ideal girl (although this girl is far from ideal in many ways), a girl who turned out to be Yoko. Once, he stated that the description of the girl in the bridge referred to the Christian church. What’s your take on the identity of this “Girl”?

 

Rodriguez: Honestly, I find it difficult to understand why any woman would choose to identify with the character described in this song: she’s punishing and apparently warped by early years of religious education. But someone better qualified in psychoanalysis than I can probably provide a more satisfactory answer as to why John identified the character in this song as a “dream girl,” though technically nightmares are dreams, too. As described, the decision to keep this woman around (though he characterizes the choice as hers: “the girl who came to stay”) comes with ambiguity: he’s clear-headed enough to recognize his desire for her as something punitive (“…makes you sorry”), yet he is without regrets. That alone suggests a desire to be punished, which aligns nicely with her own worldview, shaped by the church, that states “pain will lead to pleasure.” Thus, John is describing a situation where he accepts day-to-day unhappiness and being made to feel a fool by her (and in front of his friends, no less) by a woman incapable of graciously accepting a compliment, all for the sake of a future reward, in this world or the next. John’s describing the “girl” he sings about as someone who “turned out to be Yoko” may be more revealing than he intended; he might inadvertently be indicating difficulties in a seemingly faultless relationship.

 

Kessler: Margotin and Guesdon claim that John waited 15 years to write the sequel to “Girl,” and that song was “Woman.” Robert, do you agree or disagree with this assessment and why?

 

Rodriguez: For something to be a “sequel,” it has to acknowledge its antecedent and either build upon it or deviate from it, does it not? I think Lennon was trying to come up with a compelling connection between the two songs, but I don’t hear it. Between the two, I hear “Girl” as the much more compelling composition: in addition to everything else it offers as a performance and as a recording, the lyrical ambivalence is a marvel to behold. There is much to unpack in its mixed signals – someone unpleasant and difficult as an ideal – and yet remaining the object of profound desire.

 

“Woman,” in contrast, is – to my ears anyway – much more facile and shallow, while seemingly striving for the perception of depth. (The opening remark about the other half of the sky sounds profound, without actually saying much of anything). The narrator in “Woman” gushes on and on about the debt of gratitude owed (“…for showing me the meaning of success” – was this a comment on Yoko’s financial acumen, handling their business affairs?) while lamenting his own ingratitude and thoughtlessness. The song takes on the air of a religious hymn, with offers of praise and loads of “I’m not worthy.” As such, it’s hard for me personally to enjoy to any great depth, or to see as anything more weighty than his myriad other mea culpa songs (“Jealous Guy,” “Aisumasen,” “Forgive Me (My Little Flower Princess),” etc).

 

By the end of his life, in the promotion of Double Fantasy, John projected an air of having figured life out: his relationship with Yoko as being some kind of summit of both ideal romantic love and a wholly-encompassing creative partnership. To me, it rings hollow, especially when contrasted with his former songwriting partner, who made the same point about his own life partner without loudly banging on about it; instead, providing an example that was as interactive with the world as John and Yoko’s was sealed off from it. Contrast this with the 25-year-old Beatle who, throughout Rubber Soul, describes deep social connections (“In My Life,” “The Word”) and his place in society (“Nowhere Man”), as well as a series of women who are apparently self-sufficient (“Girl,” “Norwegian Wood”) that he connects with. Personally, I know which artist I find more interesting.

 

To learn more about Robert Rodriguez, HEAD HERE

To follow Robert on Facebook, HEAD HERE

To hear Robert’s podcast, “Something About The Beatles,” HEAD HERE

Share