#john Lennon narrative

[merrysithmas]

the beatles need a modern meta animated show like Agent Elvis

[pleasantlyinsincere]

May Pang, Sunday Mirror December 14, 1980

MY LOVE AFFAIR WITH LENNON - I didn't steal her man - by Tony Frost

John Lennon's secret love has talked for the first time about her "beautiful and tender" affair with the tragic superstar.

Chinese beauty May Pang has fought back the tears and said: "I still can't believe he is dead. Now he is gone, I feel a part of me has died too." Lennon turned to May after breaking up with his Japanese wife Yoko Ono in 1973. They spent eighteen 'Idyllic' months together - living in Los Angeles for six months, then setting up a love-nest on New York's fashionable East Side, before Lennon eventually went back to Yoko.

Only a few close friends knew of Lennon's romance with May, who was once secretary to him and Yoko. The affair was deliberately concealed from fans.

May, 30 but looking ten years younger, overcame her grief at last week's assassination of the ex-Beatle to give me an exclusive interview at her Manhattan apartment. "They were such magical times", she said. "Thank God, no one can take away my precious memories. I count myself as a very lucky woman to have shared some of John's most tender moments, his private thoughts and, most of all, his love. John brought me more happiness than I could hope to find in a lifetime with another man."

May originally worked for apple, the Beatles recording company. She became very close to Yoko and helped her in women's lib campaigns. "I don't want to say anything that might be hurtful to Yoko", she said. "She was always very kind to me. I didn't steal her man - they had broken up before John and I became lovers. I know she is deeply upset, and my heart goes out to her. But I have shed as many tears as Yoko."

Last Monday night, when Mark Chapman pumped five bullets into Lennon outside his New York home, May was at a friend's flat half a mile away. "We had the radio on," said May. "The disc jockey suddenly interrupted saying 'John Lennon has been shot'. At first I thought it was some kind of a sick joke. The initial news flash said that John was wounded. A few minutes later it was announced that he was at the hospital being operated on. I began shuddering and held my breath. I prayed that it wasn't true, but the third bulletin revealed the awful truth - John was dead. I screamed hysterically for several minutes. I stayed in bed for two days, sobbing and just thinking of John. I couldn't eat or sleep - my body was so numb from shock."

TOO UPSET

"The only thing I managed to do was pull a call through to Yoko. One of her aides answered the phone, saying she was too upset to talk to me. I can understand her feelings. Perhaps she cannot forgive me for loving John as much as her, and I feel I have no right to intrude into her sorrow. I left a message that I would gladly to anything to help her or their little boy Sean."

May's flat is a shrine to Lennon. Two pictures that she took of John - one showing him shirtless on a beach in California, the other relaxing with ex-Beatles drummer Ringo Starr - take pride of place. A note that Ringo slipped through the door of their New York home is pinned on the wall. "Dear John and May, Popped round to see you. Will call again." May has all of Lennon'd records but her most treasured possession is a doodle he produced.

"He was talking about finding peace and tranquility in his twilight years," she said. "He sketched for several minutes and handed me a drawing of himself as a little old man. 'That's how I'll look, when I'm 64,' he told me."

Lennon obsessed with assassination during the early Beatlemania years, later curbed his fear of death. "His great desire was to grow old gracefully," said May. "Some people fear old age, but John actually looked forward to it."

May, who was nicknamed 'Mother superior' by Lennon because she loved to organise things at his recording sessions, now works for Rod Stewart's record company. She cuddled two pet cats as she told of the gentle side of Lennon.

"When he read about callous acts of violence throughout the world, he would take it all so personally. 'Guns are for cowboys in the movies,' he said. John wanted desperately to be accepted at the level of the ordinary man. He always shunned bodyguards, to avoid attention being drawn to him."

WITTY VERSES

In a magazine interview shortly before his death Lennon said he had sometimes beat up his women. "He was never like that with me," said May. "He was a kind, caring and gentle companion. We would often stay up until dawn discussing music and the world's problems. Sometimes as we lay in bed he would recite poetry - nothing heavy just little witty, amusing verses - or sing to me. He was a real romantic and I don't believe he was capable of hurting a fly."

Lennon's fling with May ended after he bumped into Yoko backstage at an Elton John concert in New York.

She suggested he should improve his health by cutting down on alcohol, losing weight and stopping smoking. An appointment was made for him to visit a hypnotist who treated heavy smokers. Friends say that after his first session in the hypnotist's chair Lennon walked "almost spell-bound" back to Yoko's flat. From then the two were inseperable.

"When John went back to Yoko I knew it was finished between us forever, because he was a loyal and honorable person", said May. He was faithful during our time together and since he returned to Yoko there was never any question of him looking at another woman."

The last time May spoke to Lennon was three years ago ata party at Regine's nightclub in New York. "He was very careful in his choice of words because Yoko never left his side," said May. "I believe he could sense that I had never stopped loving him. I will love him forever. There will always be a corner of my heart reserved for John Lennon.

Lennon's affair was observed by Chris Charlesworth, then American editor of Melody Maker.

Chris, 33, said in London: "He was obviously infatuated with May. Yoko thought it would be a short-lived fling while John sowed his wild oats. I don't think he could ever get Yoko out of his mind. He used to ring her every few days just to hear her voice."

Chris said: "Dying so young was something that never entered John's head. 'When I'm 64, Yoko and I will be a doddery old couple living in a tiny cottage in Ireland,' he said. "Yoko envisaged them growing all their own vegetable and milking a couple of goats every day."

Lennon gave the reason why the fab four could never perform together again.

He told Chris: "If we got our act together it wouldn't be as good as the old days. We're rusty old men." The world will now never know if he meant it.

[mythserene]

Mark Lewisohn really wants to overturn narratives and “Get Back” accidentally gave us incredible insight into how little it takes to make him smoothly and confidently wrong

Great AKOM. Maybe too good because it left basically nothing to add on the primary topic. This show followed my own notes more than any so far—but I had not caught the John quote being about the Maharishi—chef's kiss. 👩‍🍳💋

However... it does give me a chance to riff off something they touched on that I've also been thinking about for awhile: Mark Lewisohn's big desire to overturn narratives, and how wrong he gets it when he runs into a fact check we can all see with our own eyes.

Pre-“Get Back” Mark Lewisohn previewed some of the narratives he was itching to overturn, and off the top explained that no one had really told the Get Back sessions correctly. By trying to ingest all that Nagra audio on a sort of anniversary-tribute calendar schedule—(which is insane, impossible, and hubristic beyond words)—he was prepared to make news on a few fronts. (All clips of him are from 2019.)

First of all, no one has told the "Get Back" sessions story right. Yet.

But after binging the Nagras once the expert is ready to “write it differently”

Redeeming Magic Alex

In this tweet is a hidden wink-wink-hint at the new Magic Alex storyline Lewisohn was queuing up. Although if he hadn't tipped us off in the podcast the “not so bad then” would be meaningless. As it is, we have the key.

Magic Alex has been slandered, his studio was fine, and the Nagras — especially George's good vibes — prove it.

Honestly, just imagine what we would be reading from him if “Get Back” didn't exist. This is the flimsy nonsense he builds entire storylines around. Because he prioritizes flipping narratives second only to deifying John. And like a reporter with a thesis he interviews and searches out sources to prop up that thesis. But unlike a reporter he has no checks. No imperative to give competing evidence. Answers to no one. Is wholly opaque about sources. And most certainly doesn't concern himself with adhering to even the most basic UK and US ethical guidelines for historians.

And so this is possibly the best peek we will ever get into how his process works and just how incredibly flimsy it is.

Paul didn't want to go up on the roof—he was the one who had to be persuaded—because it wasn't enough of a climax

Apparently even Anthology was trying to pull the wool over our eyes about Paul and the rooftop concert, but Lewisohn was ready to rewrite history and tell the truth about Paul not wanting to go up on the roof.

The last clip isn't of Mark Lewisohn, but references him as an expert. The final arbiter of fact. And it fits. Because at this point if Mark Lewisohn says it, no matter how ridiculous it is, it becomes cannon. And it pains me to see anyone—especially Beatles' fans—parroting nonsense and looking foolish.

Mark Lewisohn, heroin expert

It is so clear that Mark Lewisohn is going to handle John and Yoko's heroin issue by feigned expertise blended with apologia and creepy idolatry. (See Prellies in Tune In.) How he thinks he's expert enough to opine on the effects of heroin is beyond me, but that's never stopped him before. I really don't think he ever even questions himself or his superior knowledge of anything, despite zero experience or study. His expertise at extricating John from all hard truths is enough, and will make us all stupider. (Also playing now because I am inching up to pointing out something on those Nagras.)

Repeating Mark Lewisohn: the "Two Junkies" interview (where John literally had to stop to throw up) was from a heroin hangover because John and Yoko weren't messed up enough to actually be doing heroin on set

*I posted this last night and Tumblr disappeared 90% of the post then wouldn't let me post more audio because it counted the disappeared audio against me. Therefore I forced myself to repost it this morning before listening to the bonus (Womak/Mal Evans) AKOM I've been so looking forward to and may now go revel in my reward without guilt. 😌

[mudvi]

i must either be exceptionally jaded or the only normal person on the planet because i feel like a lot of what some people (willfully) misinterpret or whatever is so easily explainable if you think for even a second

[didsomebodysaypancakes]

When will historians ask Paul McCartney to explain "I Don't Know (Johnny, Johnny)" (1960). We are running out of time.

[notaplaceofhonour]

One of the experiences that really highlighted to me how willing the left can be to turn a blind eye to and gaslight Jews about antisemitism was trying to talk about Michael Jackson’s antisemitism, such as in the song “They Don’t Care About Us”, which was released with the lyrics:

“Jew me, sue me, everybody do me / Kick me, kike me, don't you black or white me.”

I feel like that is shockingly straightforward with how antisemitic it is, both in its specific language (the K-slur & Jew-as-a-verb) and its conspiratorial bent in the context of the whole song. But when it came out and Jews were obviously appalled and spoke out about it, MJ made the standard “but have you considered that accusing me of bigotry offends me?” and “I was taken out of context!” statements that bigots make when they get called out on their bigotry.

As for MJ’s claim that he was taken out of context, here is some context: In 1993, MJ’s relationship with the press deteriorated when they began covering allegations of his child sex abuse. In the midst of this, tabloids ran a lot of scummy, sensationalized headlines—ruthlessly mocking his appearance and eccentricities and even running entirely false stories. This marked a drastic shift in MJ’s lyrics, which began to focus heavily on his victimhood (both real and perceived, often conflating both and tying them to broader social issues), with many of the songs on the next album HIStory (1995) being about this. “They Don’t Care About Us” is on this album. In 2003, there were revelations that Michael Jackson had grown close with members of Nation of Islam (a fringe and antisemitic hate group), and in 2005, Good Morning America aired a phone recording of Michael Jackson calling Jews “leeches”, claiming Jews had targeted him for his wealth, and saying “It’s a conspiracy. Jews do it on purpose”.

This is the context of Michael Jackson singing about being a stand-in for the victims of all kinds of real world oppression like racism and police brutality, and then saying he was being “Jewed” and “kiked”. It came out that he was molesting little kids, and rather than face the music, he tried to dodge responsibility by conflating those allegations with racism and the gross, sensationalist bullshit that tabloids were running on him; he wove all these things together in a narrative that he could use to wrap himself up in victimhood & conspiracy to position himself as not just a martyr, but the very archetype of martyrdom so that the world could, as he sang on the same album in his cover of John Lennon’s song, “Come together, over me.”

The lyrics were later changed to replace “Jew” & “kike” with abstract noise that drowned out the words or repetitions of “sue” & “strike”. But even so, this is still a song, not truly about inequality and injustice, but using inequality and injustice to shield a child molester from responsibility. And the fact that “Jew” can so easily be replaced with “sue”, not simply in sound but in meaning, without disrupting the narrative and tone of the song, belies the fact that Michael Jackson believed himself to be a victim of some sort of conspiracy between “(((The Media)))” and greedy Jewish lawyers.

And yet, trying to talk about this to this day, even with the benefit of hindsight, when it’s pretty well-accepted that MJ was in fact a child molester and knowing what he said about Jews after this song came out, it is next to impossible to get people to see the antisemitism in him tying together all oppression in the world as him being “Jewed” and “kiked” by (((The System)))—even when he literally says “Jew”, even when he says the K-slur, even when he refers to Jews as blood-suckers, even when he literally says Jews are conspiring against him. When people started using the song as part of the George Floyd protests, and I was like “hey, maybe that’s not a great idea” and gently tried to explain this context, I was ignored, told it didn’t matter because the song was about inequality, told Black people have every right to distrust Jews “because Jews are White” and stabbed Black people in the back by embracing Whiteness, etc. etc.

I think that is one of the times that really started to make it clear to me, “oh, yeah no, leftists can be staring straight at a K-slur in the mouth of a known sex offender and still say it’s fine”—something leftists generally would not do for any other vulnerable minority. It still astounds me.

[franklyimissparis]

call me john lennon the way i’m going on a trip to paris with the friend/creative partner i’ve had homoerotic tension with since we were 15. hope it doesn’t haunt the narrative for the next 20 years!

[asurrogateblog]

alright so wait a minute. according to the official record the last time paul saw john in person was in 1976, and the last time they talked over the phone was a few weeks before his death (about bread). we also know, of course, that the last words john said to paul was "think about me every now and then, old friend." now.... given the presented timeline, that must have been over the phone, BUT, carl perkins said in his interview about...that whole situation, that linda told him "the last words that John Lennon said to Paul in the hallway of the Dakota building were… he patted him on the shoulder, and said, [quote]." do you see the problem with these two narratives? do you see it? now you could say that john said that in 1976, but then why would paul have such a strong emotional reaction to carl when he said it? clearly those were john's last words to paul ever. so they must have been meeting in person much later than he's admitted. WHATS THE TRUTH PAUL

[paulmccartneyprostateorgasm]

I don’t agree that ringo would die in childbirth, simply because he already survived both sepsis from appendicitis and TB. Like don’t get me wrong I do think it would be a close thing where he’s on the brink of death but ultimately he’d survive. He’d have to be on bed rest for like a year after tho.

George is too skinny so I think he’d have an emergency c-section (if he could carry a baby at all. Really I think he’d have many miscarriages and then give up) but like it would be more for the baby being stuck in his birth canal, like ultimately he’d be fine . He would be disappointed tho because he’d planned some like natural water birth no midwife just him and his husband with some incense and stuff.

Paul is too perfect. He would have a birth of precisely 1 hour 30 minutes, and he’d brag about it all the time. It’s how he’s able to keep pumping out kids, they’re just all so easy for him. He doesn’t even have an epidural or anything

John’s life is already a tragedy. IRL he was like finally settling down and becoming happy with himself and then he was murdered. Her struggle so much with infertility before eventually using IVF, which already makes him feel like a failure, and then he’d die in labor to make the tragedy come to fruition. The only other option is in order for him to survive the baby would have to have been choked by its umbilical chord or something. That’s just how it is!

john lennon dying in childbirth for narrative reasons is such a funny concept to me I'm sorry

[idontwanttospoiltheparty]

can you elaborate more on John struggling with feeling possessive over Paul while somewhat needing to downplay that to himself. idk, i feel like john was able to do that well. i mean he was the one who asked for the divorce, plus during his house husband years, he did not want anything to do with paul. or do you just mean during the beatle years?

I meant a lot more in the Beatle years than later, yes, though I think it all had a long after-effect. Whatever Yoko meant when she said no one hurt John as much as Paul – do you think that referred to something before the Divorce meeting? Because I would have suspected it was related to Paul's announcement of leaving or to the lawsuit, which would indicate John still had some lingering attachment, no?

People differ wildly on how over Paul they think John actually was. Personally, I think some of his complaints about Paul in Playboy 1980 don't really indicate he was, on the other hand he had kind of changed his tune a lot by December, sounding more nostalgic… Either way, I don't know if avoiding Paul is in of itself indication that he had no issues though. That could just be a different type of self-preservation.

[fireintheimpala]

McLennon Playlists

I have been working putting together some McLennon playlists. I mean "McLennon" pretty broadly and vaguely with these lists, so choose your own adventure. It's a useful short portmanteau for for the creative partnership of Lennon/McCartney. But I do also think there is a powerful human relationship here, disregarded from the classic Beatles narrative. And I think this relationship is pivotal to much of their songwriting.

This is a work in progress but here are the acts so far:

Act I: The Beatles before India '68. This is a foundational period. For the most part, I don't think these songs are consciously referencing each other. Rather, they providing a foundation for future references. That said, I think Hide Your Love Away deserves a second look.

Act II: The Beatles after India '68. The contrast is remarkable. Not everything on this list is written by Lennon/McCartney. I think George's While My Guitar Gently Weeps is actually the best expression for the whole time. Anyway, they're breaking up. Passionately. Chronology is a total mash since most of these songs were written or produced in a small period of time.

Act III: The 70's up through approximately 1975. Here especially the chronology of songs begins to be sacrificed for highlighting some back and forth. I personally find their mirroring right after the Beatles--with the front and center band wives and antipodal messages right when they're sending each other cutting missives through hit singles--hilarious. But after that you get this escalating back and forth in moods. Still sent through international hits! Lol. Which they simply presume will work. Anyway, if you listen in order, the positivity increases. Unfortunately, a playlist shift is required once John returns to Yoko in 75ish.

Act IV: '76ish through 1980. After a period of musical productivity and reconnecting with old friends including McCartney, John returns to Yoko. Let's not weight into that but merely note that it changes all music vibes for both musicians. John goes completely silent for 5 years, except for later release home demos. (I'm using Spotify for this which doesn't have most of Lennon's demos unfortunately. But the demos for Free as a Bird and Real Love are recorded during this time so those songs are included. Now and Then demo also, but c'mon let's save that.) McCartney in the meantime writes a series of IMPASSIONED songs about things like his baby who won't call him back, and his lover who needs to beware. Idk what is going on with Wings in production, but LIVE he is absolutely wailing. He starts '76 going on tour worldwide with every song so far I would ever include in these lists. He wails into that void so hard... Things dip, but then escalate back up in 1980. Coming Up. Starting Over Again. But then unfortunately...

Act V: Post Dec 8, 1980. Pending. There's a lot here, but it's so sad it's taking me awhile.

Please contribute suggestions if I've missed relevant songs!

I'll be working on providing more details explanations of some song inclusions.

[julienbakerstreet]

Hey when was someone going to tell me about the time John Lennon wrote a wild Sherlock Holmes pastiche?

The main characters are Shamrock Wolmbs and Dr. Whopper. The completely nonsensical narrative includes such gems as:

In the ear of our Loaf 1892

Ellifitzgerrald my dear Whopper

Harrybellafonte, my dear Whopper

Eliphantitus my deaf Whopper

“You must be Doctored Whopper” he pharted.

“Jack the Nipple is not only a vicious murderer but a sex meany of the lowest orgy.”

Alibabba my dead Whopper

Alecguiness my deep Whopper

Little did she gnome that the infamous Jack the Nipple was only a few streets away.

“Only kidding Shamrock,” I said remembering his habit of hiding in the cupboard.

When he had minicoopered he told me a story which to this day I can’t remember.

Anyway go read it here: x

[mythserene]

Today's final Lewisohn weirdness from last Friday's interview- a new narrative: “Stuart was cool.” That was his legacy.

This clip is massively cut down. It was very long. By the way, “the Beatles' look comes from Stuart” is basically true, but the “art school band” bit seems new, and the “Stuart was cool” bit most definitely is.

FRIDAY: “First of all, he was cool. He was cool in a way that they-- that they aspired to.”

TUNE IN p305: Stuart, who had no discernible Liverpool accent, stayed delicate and never grew tall, reaching no more than 5ft 7in. College friend Jon Hague remembers [Stuart] as ‘very skinny, weak and sick looking’ while Rod Murray notes ‘He was often unsteady and wobbly. If someone was going to fall over something, he would.’ ... Tony Carricker, says ‘Stuart was always the most cerebral and intellectual of all of us: I don’t remember him being into rock or having records. I once loaned him about ten 45s and they came back warped – the ultimate sin.’

“Stuart was cool” ❦ Lewisohn last Friday:

ARTE DA BIOGRAFIA - 26 April 2024:

LEWISOHN: The legacy of Stuart Sutcliffe—who died at the age of twenty-one, he was the Beatles' bass player for about eighteen months—uh, is quite strong. Because, uh-- on two fronts. First of all, he was cool. He was cool in a way that they-- that they aspired to. So he gave them-- they were art school. ... The Beatles had an intelligence about them. In particular because John Lennon and Stuart Sutcliffe went to art school. And art school was a different breeding ground entirely. 

And the Beatles were an art school band.  

So Stuart was arty, that's the first thing. The second thing is when they go to Germany the first time they make three very important friendships. Three young Germans ... They shunned everything that was German and- and grooved to everything that was Paris. ... When they see the Beatles, they fall in love with Stuart, primarily, because he's so cool. Uh, and then they fall in love with the Beatles' generally. ... Their look comes from France, via Germany. And so, it all comes-that all comes through Stuart. If they hadn't have liked Stuart the Beatles' wouldn't have had that look.

----

He sounds so ridiculous it HURTS. 😭

[lastlennonista]

More “Now and Then” Thoughts:

I keep seeing comments that Paul re-recorded George’s guitar parts. But the bluesy guitar bits (not the slide) are clearly George’s. Paul says George ran out of time to do a solo, hence the tribute solo. (A similar time crunch happened on the drums, hence Ringo’s track in lieu of the drum machine from ‘95.)

Kinda losing it over the Lennon/McCartney love story being NYT worthy. I have kept my tinhatty thoughts to myself offline for fear of my straight guy friends leading a revolt at the hint of gay-itude. It’s incredible.

Whatever happened in India (?!?!), twenty-five-year-old Paul McCartney could have no concept of what a real break with John would mean. Could he imagine the band breaking up? Probably. But this is the fella who, when asked “what’ll you do when the bubble bursts?,” always said something like, “John and I will carry on writing.” So the idea that he would have over forty years to live without John? Inconceivable. Which explains why this was so important for him to finish. I love that Sean is supportive of Paul and the “Lennon-McCartney as partners not rivals” narrative.

[officialpenisenvy]

the way yoko ono got treated by the media was crazy misogynistic and racist of course but it's especially insane to me that they tried to paint her as ugly????? she's so gorgeous you'd think it'd be easy to paint a "this sexy succubus temptress broke up the beatles with her feminine wiles" narrative but they were so hellbent on her unattractiveness that the narrative became "this hideous hag bewitched john lennon with her oriental dragon lady ways and he is so blinded by her evil magic he can't see her ugliness". which is obviously racist as fuck cause you know if she was a white blonde the first narrative would have been the popular one. but it's also just so patently untrue like do you not have EYESSSSS

[wingsoverlagos]

Lewisohn vs. Howard Smith, January 23, 1972

The Lewisohn-fact-checkification has heated up in other areas of the interent, and while I can't say the reception is unexpected, it's not the sort of thing for which I'm well-equipped. I'm leading with that because, honestly, I don't see the point in actively fighting Lewisohn's reputation anymore. I have several more comparison posts drafted, and I intend to step back after I churn those out. I want to put the evidence out there as clearly as I can - it may not matter now, but down the line, when more people are ready to put the actual history above a sham historian, it will be there. I can't forcefeed the truth to people who are still unreceptive to it.

This isn't a goodbye post (there are still quite a few drafts to go!), but I want to thank the community here for being so funny, openminded, and encouraging! I don't interact with you all as much as I'd like to--I'm an anxious little bird--but your thoughtful responses and feedback have meant the world to me :) Sincerely, thank you!

Anywho, enough whining - I've got an audio comparison today! I love audio comparisons - the immediacy of hearing John Lennon or Brian Epstein or Paul McCartney say words that are clearly different from what Mark Lewisohn wrote can't be beat. Today's comparison comes from Howard Smith's January 23, 1972 interview with John and Yoko. Let's all praise the estate of Howard Smith, as many of his interviews are available for purchase at a reasonable price! You can find this track for purchase here, and two other interviews at this link. There are three interviews available total, each chopped into two tracks, with each track costing ~$0.99-$1.50.

Lewisohn quotes this interview three times, and there are issues with all three quotes. One is a standard Lewisohn rephrasing (you'll find that under the cut), while the other two construct an equally standard but somewhat meatier John v. Paul narrative.

All three quotes fall in the same ~1:30 of the interview, running from 9:29-11:10 in the track linked above. I've included the clip here for your listening pleasure:

Tune In 24-5 vs. Interview by Howard Smith, January 23, 1972

HS: This tape, the Decca tape that we were talking about, that was for a Decca audition I’m informed, January 1, 1962 [crosstalk] JL: That was the famous one that they turned us down on. I listened to it, y’know, I wouldn’t have turned them down on that, not in those days, y’know. I think it sounds okay, especially the last half of it for the time-  the period it was, there wasn’t many people playing music like that. HS: Were you guys very disappointed? JL: Oh, it was terrible, yeah. I mean, See, we used to-Brian Epstein had come down to Liverpool- to London, and then he’d come back and say, ‘I’ve got you an audition.’ We’d all be excited, it was Decca and all that. We met this Mike Smith guy, and we were going to go down there. So we went down, we did all those numbers, [we were?] terrified, nervous- you can hear it on that album, start off terrified, and gradually settled down, and then we went back and waited, and waited and then we just found out they hadn’t accepted it. We really thought that was it then.

(Emphasis indicates quoted phrases. I've bracketed "we were?" because, while I don't hear it clearly in the audio, it's not clear enough for me to say with perfect certainty that John didn't say it)

Lewisohn gives this quote as John's assessment of the day of the Decca audition, but that's only partially correct. The first word, "terrible," is representative of John's feelings about Decca's rejection, which is clear from the context of the quote. The second part of the quote "we were terrified, nervous" does describe how John felt during the sessions, but only partially. He quickly goes on to say they "start off terrified, and gradually settled down."

The next citation continues on with this theme.

Tune In 25-12 vs. Interview by Howard Smith, January 23, 1972

JL: Oh, it was terrible, yeah. I mean, See, we used to-Brian Epstein had come down to Liverpool- to London, and then he’d come back and say, ‘I’ve got you an audition.’ We’d all be excited, it was Decca and all that. We met this Mike Smith guy, and we were going to go down there. So we went down, we did all those numbers, [we were?] terrified, nervous- you can hear it on that album, start off terrified, and gradually settled down, and then we went back and waited, and waited and then we just found out they hadn’t accepted it. We really thought that was it then. HS: What, that that was all? JL: That was the end, yeah, y’know, cause [crosstalk] YO: You think that the sound was too far out for them or something? JL: [crosstalk] Well, we’d been- they all said it’s too bluesy or too rocky, too much like rock ‘n’ roll, and that’s all over now, they used to keep telling us, y’know.

(Emphasis indicates quoted phrases. This segment overlaps with the transcript above)

Here, Lewisohn recounts Paul and John's reactions to Decca's rejection of the Beatles. The quote isn't too butchered, though there are some small changes (e.g. "they all said" to "they always said")

That's a quibble, though. The main issue here is Lewisohn's misrepresentation of John's feelings at the time. Lewisohn's assessment that "[John] also wondered if they'd shot their bolt" is correct, but the rest, which I've underlined in pink, isn't supported by the source. Lewisohn contrasts Paul’s reaction with John’s: Paul thought the rejection was “shortsighted” but, as Lewisohn writes, “John marked it differently. He knew the Beatles had underperformed on the day.”

John does not express that sentiment in this interview. Within the same brief span that John gives the “too bluesy” quote, he also says of the Decca tape, “I listened to it, I wouldn’t have turned them down on that, not in those days. I think it sounds okay, especially the last half of it for the period it was, there wasn’t many people playing music like that.” John says that their nerves were apparent for part of the session, but he clearly didn’t view it as a dud overall, and underperformance isn’t the reason he states for the rejection. When Yoko asks for clarification (“You think that the sound was too far out for them or something?”), John gives the answer that Lewisohn quotes here: “They all said it’s too bluesy or too rocky, too much like rock ‘n’ roll, and that’s all over now, they used to keep telling us.”

Lewisohn intentionally misrepresents the above quotes to set John up as more knowing, more aware than Paul, who, per Lewisohn's version, even with hindsight couldn't see the flaws John spotted the day of the audition. In reality, John and Paul were of one mind—they didn’t think the audition was that bad. Paul’s assessment that Decca’s rejection was “shortsighted” goes hand in hand with John’s true thoughts on the matter, which I’ll quote here a third time, in case I’ve failed to get the point across: “I wouldn’t have turned them down on that, not in those days. I think it sounds okay”

Tune In 5-17 vs. Interview by Howard Smith, January 23, 1972

JL: The first day I got interested in rock, the first six months, y’know, when Presley’s heartbreak hotel came out in England, they were saying rock was gonna die already, which- “Is calypso gonna take over?” That was what they were talking about then. So whenever- Even in Hamburg, when we auditioned for those German companies, they would tell us to stop playing the rock and the blues and concentrate on the other stuff, y’know. Cause they all thought rock was dead, y’know. But they’re wrong. They’re still saying rocks dead, right?

Minor changes. John starts this quote by discussing one time frame ("The first day I got interested in rock") and then changes to another ("the first six months") - Lewisohn swaps the order of "I got interested in rock" and "the first six months." John also clearly says "gonna" instead of "going to" - this is exceptionally minor on its own, but I do think there may be some interesting patterns on when Lewisohn preserves vs. erases vs. introduces certain colloquialisms and dialect-specific spellings. That would take a more in-depth analysis to tease out, and I shall resist the urge - I'm clearing my drafts & touching grass!

Sources:

Lewisohn M. 2013. The Beatles: All These Years Vol. 1: Tune In. New York (NY): Crown Archetype. [ebook]

Smith H. 1972 Jan 23. Interview with John Lennon and Yoko Ono. Purchased 2024 May 28. Available from: https://www.amazon.com/music/player/albums/B00JMTMOTU