How The Beatles Made "Across The Universe"

[@JamesMaharajOfficial]

Forgot to put the links to my album, If you like The Beatles you might get a kick out of these. LINKS TO MY NEW AlBUM APPLE MUSIC tinyurl.com/ybbjltoo SPOTIFY tinyurl.com/y7zb2v42 ITUNES tinyurl.com/yabzhvb9 GOOGLE PLAY tinyurl.com/ydgqyyd5 AMAZON tinyurl.com/y7c355du

[@4rah46]

Really like your new song, well done

[@Orechaser]

Great song, great arrangement

[@MrMarkstyles]

I'm really liking your material. You've got a lot of the Beatles techniques and processes down very well. Your videos on Beatles tunes is right on also.

[@MonigMedia]

John Lennon said that at 39, and Paul said to him that the fued wasn't as bad as many say it was, with that being said Lennon still had regrets that his music was underproduced compared to how it was in Imagine or rock'n roll. I believe that Lennon meant every word and that Paul was being too self-centered having had the success that he had. There was not a great deal of explicit communication with Paul but just passive aggressive suggestions that later became productions; Magical Mystery Tuor; Stg Pepper and the Beatles album was really a breather in which they all reflected on what they wanted rather than follow another Beatle. The death or Epstein really played a factor in making these boys into independent artists really for egocentric thinking to later consume them. But hey I'm just a beatlemaniac eating a glass onion.

[@kathystromberger6560]

I think there was a rivalry between John and Paul....both wanted to be considered the "best" of the duo. They were such a huge success but were tiring of the grind and the issues. I think squabbles and put downs were just part of the ending of the group...but the daily patterns are long gone and only something to speculate on now.

[@debomb721]

Shit if John felt like his songs weren’t taken seriously imagine how George felt

[@grimtraveller7923]

Good point ~ and John was the one that put it out there that George didn't "have the material" which was nonsense.

[@nicolash2554]

They should have just let George do his thing because most of his solo work is 100% worthy to be in a Beatles record. If you listen to George’s All Things Must Pass album you can clearly hear some songs that sound like something out of a Beatles album and I bet he wrote those songs for a Beatles record.

[@debomb721]

Nicolas Hernandez such a great album

[@kamstewart7755]

Yeah so true

[@CH-jq9ry]

Its easy if you try

[@ashsundar2473]

I've always loved "Across the universe " Awesomeness incarnate

[@leeabend8079]

Across the Universe is in the top 2 hundred Beatles songs and tbeir all equal to me. I Love that song the most at times.

[@vivlund]

When you listen to the bass lines that Paul came up with on John’s songs, you can only say that Paul’s contribution, with just the bass alone, was more than almost any other musician could have added. We see Paul was the perfectionist and he also usually knew exactly what he wanted on his songs. He would say he wanted a French horn or a flute, but John would say he wanted to sound like the Dalai Lama on a mountaintop. This is not as easy for the producers and engineers to work with, as Geoff Emerick pointed out. And I don’t think John worked any harder on Paul’s songs than Paul did for John’s. As was stated in a comment before, I think Paul approached the whole song recording process while already hearing what he wanted on his head, but for John, a lot of the musical arrangements came with help from George Martin or Paul. Of course it’s going to seem like not as much effort was placed on John’s songs because Paul kept driving his songs to completion whereas John would get the framework done and then try fill it in in the studio or lose interest.

[@rick4electric]

In the beginning they ALL had a lot to lose if they didn't act as a unit! Clapton said that he thought that the band was some kind of surreal super-human robotic entity, or something like that. So in the beginning all the Beatles were supportive of the "Lennon-McCartney writing team. There was little support for George's songs; I think we can all agree! As they became wealthy in the latter years of their professional association, they became tired of the "lads on a string" attitude that the record company took towards them. Slowly they gained autonomy, eventually even refusing to tour! At the same time the three writing Beatles became better writers, needing very little assistance in crafting their own songs. But they still had a financial interest in moving their career as record making musicians forward. Jealousy had always been part of the organic process of choosing which songs to finish and put on record as well as choosing which songs would be selected for single release as an A or B side. "Across the Universe" was just one more example of how John Lennon's rapier wit jumped the track and produced a transcendental space in time that Paul could never achieve! Even now it stands alone in Beatles discography as a show stopper! It is very obviously not just a song, but a prayer for humanity! Paul always was and shall ever be in awe of John Lennon (as most of us are!) Are you paranoid if people are jealous of your talent? Can people secretly wish that they were better or you were not so good? Can they consciously or subconsciously work against you in very subtle ways? I know that in the work place it's happened to me! So is it just part of human nature that we all have to deal with? And why did that shooter end John's life? Wasn't it because in his sick mind he would take John' place? John inspired many people, but others wanted him to crash! Does Paul love John? Of course he does! Does he regret things that happened between them? You can bet that it bothers Paul every day of his life! Listen to "Universe" again and think about what's being said on these pages. I think George would agree that you had better beware of sorrow. It is a dangerous state of mind to trifle with!

[@KatieReadsKoziesAndMore]

Hello. This is the first video I’ve seen by you. I look forward to seeing more of them. 🙂 As to your question, I think the answer is a little bit of both. Two giant talents with egos to match. John is my favorite, so I apologize if this seems biased in his direction. From what I’ve learned about the two of them, Paul would come to the studio fully prepared to dictate every nuance of his music. What saved his most brilliant pieces (and there were MANY), was George Martin’s control of studio productions. This became clear in Paul’s continuing career and production of his own music. Listen to the controlled production of Band on the Run, then listen to the live album Wings at the Speed of Sound. In my opinion, BOTR is very nice. But the same songs on the live album jump into the extraordinary level. John didn’t go the to studio with the entire song written and produced in his head. He planted seeds, wrote the words, but was open to teamwork to finish the tunes. An example is For the Benefit of Mr. Kite. John told George Martin that he wanted the song to feel like a carnival. As the producer, this would seem to be an appropriate request, if a little vague. Can you imagine Sir George Martin’s job in working with two such different composers? These basic differences in the way they worked most definitely points to both questions being partially correct. Thank you for the questions and video.

[@Um_im_ryan]

I agree with Andrew McDaniel, I also think though, that Paul and John, since they were the main songwriters, Paul may have done that a little, just to try to maybe subconsciously promote his songs as better, or get them featured more.

[@HannibalLecter-hi4hh]

John didn't understand the jealous side of Paul, and maybe also didn't realize that he was on a much higher level of songwriting ability than Paul. Who knows where John's inspiration came from but it was definitely on a more metaphysical and enlightened level. An obvious comparison would be their two most famous Christmas songs, "Wonderful Christmas Time" compared to "Happy Christmas War is Over" .. different levels.

[@Taddoggg]

I'm sure Paul was always trying to make things better. He was a bit heavy-handed about it sometimes, but I don't think he ever tried to make the music and performance worse. That's just not in his personality. My favorite bass lines of his tend to be in John's songs too. Paul was musically articulate in a way that John wasn't, perhaps, which led to John becoming frustrated with the creative effort behind his songs sometimes. Paul could express what he wanted in very specific terms, which John had a hard time doing.

[@jariech87]

I truly don’t think John Lennon was paranoid and it’s hard to prove that Paul was subconsciously sabotaging John’s music. I think there are times when personalities clash, especially when they’re two powerhouses like these two men. I grew up listening to them and I’ve always thought they were extraordinarily talented

[@georgesolorzano4266]

THE SONG IS PERFECT IN THE END WHATEVER LENNON WAS GOING THROUGH MADE IT IN HIS SONG NO AMOUNT OF WONDERING OF WHO LIKED THE SING OR DIDNT HAS NO BEARING AS TO THE IMPACT IT HAS MADE TO THE WORLD PAUL WAS ALWAYS AWARE OF LENNONS ABILITY IN SONG WRITING AND TOGETHER THEY PENNED THE MOST ICONIC MUSIC TOGETHER TO SAY ONE SONG STANDS OUT MORE THAN ANOTHER WOULD BE CRITICAL OF THE OTHERS IT WAS A TIME IN WHICH HIS HEART WAS SPEAKING TO HIM AND THATS WHY HE IDENTIFIED SO STRONGLY WITH IT I SEE HIM ASKING FOR APPROVAL OR EVEN VALIDATION DO I THINK IT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE BETTER NO WHAT WE HEAR IS A SONG FROM A VERY TENDERHEARTED HUMAN BEING WHO HAPPENED TO BE JOHN LENNON SHARING IT ACROSS THE UNIVERSE

[@floatthecreek]

I'm an old man. My time on Earth is getting close to an end. Of all the great music John Lennon gave us this is the song that truly touches my soul. It's perfect. It will be played at my funeral. See Y'all on the other side.

[@krisa4029]

thats beautiful

[@MsPlayfulspirit]

I had it played at my son's funeral. It was "our song."

[@floatthecreek]

@@MsPlayfulspirit I'm so sorry for your loss. One day soon you'll be together again in a much better place. I hope to see you both when that comes. Take Care.

[@symphony-of-the-mint2008]

I don't understand why more people don't talk about Across the Universe, let alone how good it is. It's gotta be in the top 10 Beatles songs, maybe even top 5.

[@JoseRodriguez-ni8lg]

For me, it is in the top 2, together with A Day in the Life.

[@leeabend8079]

To me there's the top 2 hundred and their all equal.

[@TVSSC21]

Agreed. It’s odd it’s not more acclaimed. It’s my 2nd fav. And it’s for sure a top 10 Beatles song

[@dsw-2898]

It's my favorite

[@chrismacdonald7955]

I always felt that this song was absolute poetry. As for your question, all I will say is that I read a story many many years ago which quoted Paul saying that when he was young and got a telling off from his Mother, to get even he would stand at the window and make a little tear in her lace curtains....just saying.

[@OM-tu7ei]

Imagine 50+ years after the Beatles disbanded, we are still talking about them. That's how deep is their influenced to world. Thank God he gave these 4 lads to us in our generation

[@whichgodofthousandsmeansno5306]

That's why I say if anyone claims they were overrated just think how many are still talking about and enjoying their music over 1/2 a century later. That says it all right there.

[@robjohnston1433]

Why are you "thanking" a totally imaginary, destructive and revolting concept like "God"? The Beatles -- individually and collectively -- created THEMSELVES, with the help and influence of other people. NO dumb "supernatural" contribution was required (even IF some of them thought so!)

[@nedgrant918]

Back in the ‘60’s, we had no idea that “Beatlemania”, as frivolous as it sounded, would become a virtual religion. “We’re more popular than Jesus,” said Lennon in disbelief and disgust: little did he know!

[@NickSharpe]

The New classical

[@SargonofQueens]

The Rolling Stones are still touring after 60 years.

[@SheilaTheGrate]

Why not both? You have two egos that are butting heads. John wasn't always the nicest guy - and he would be the first to say so. It's not out of this world to think that Paul may have not dealt with John in the most unbiased way. At the same time, writing songs makes one incredibly vulnerable, so maybe John was extra sensitive/paranoid when his ideas weren't being taken as seriously as he thought that they should be. It's an interesting exercise trying to figure out motivation and internal thoughts - we can never really know for sure.

[@BrianNguyenIHASDACANSER]

This honestly makes the most sense because of the differences that Paul and John had especially later around this thime

[@Taffy064]

You put that comment so much better than I ever could.

[@yermother2364]

You copied and pasted this I just found the original comment you dumbass

[@wobbafett2464]

I have been on john's shoes wherein my material was being bypassed with another bandmate's writing for his, 2 headstrong songwriters in a group are gonna clash at some point

[@db-lp2bl]

whatever it was, it really doesn't matter in the end, because they inspired each other's creativity and we are left with absolute gems. no other band comes close to the beatles' songwriting abilities.

[@Nicco1957]

The Beatles, and especially George Martin put a lot of time into Strawberry Fields and pulled a few rabbits out of hats in order to make it a masterpiece. How John can be dissatisfied with it is beyond reason. Just listen to the demos - they took that song to heights the demo didn't even suggest. I love John, probably the most important person who lived in my lifetime (born 1957), but he was a fragile human just like all of us.

[@cantkeepitin]

I fully agree on Strawberry Fields!!

[@mariaiordanidou8112]

I love how you worded it …. I totally agree

[@SomebodyPickaName]

Great points!! I didn't even think of that until you mentioned it.

[@carl_anderson9315]

Strawberry Fields Forever is a masterpiece from any angle. But I think Lennon was resentful by Paul getting away with suggestions that John did not approve, and George Martin allowing it, and for me that is more palpable in the Get Back sessions. The amount of time and effort Paul took from his bandmates into his own songs is insane. When I was younger I wondered why John made such a horrible track of Across The Universe (the one in Past Masters 2). Birds chirping, children voices, an annoying background harmony, some descending “ah-ah-ah”s that sounded cheesy as hell. How could John dislike the better version Phil Spector made, that sounded more spaced, with a professional female choir, orchestra, John’s voice dubbed. The answer: it was the other way around. John loved Spector’s version and hated Martin’s version, filled with Paul ideas added at the last minute. Then I understood a lot of things I didn’t notice the first time. Everyone blames Yoko, but she’s not doing anything. Paul was getting more and more controlling. He was a genius with his own songs. But it was clear to me that John had to struggle to avoid Paul getting his hands completely on his recordings. The purest, untouched songs from John are the ones that work better for me. And same as Paul’s. George was alone, almost all the time. His closest collaborator was George Martin and they were able to produce wonders: Within You Without You, While My Guitar Gently Weeps, Here Comes The Sun…

[@akatsuki3573]

Across the Universe is my favorite song of all time. I can listen to it in any mood, and always makes me feel at peace.

[@eleazar-reyagudo1400]

Paul did not sabotage John. He is merely acting as the leader during.the times that John was falling out. The man loved John.

[@sacluvsBM]

No doubt. But Paul inserted himself into Brian's role and it caused much resentment. George more than anyone at that time. He did not want to be Paul's sideman or studio musician. George said it many times.

[@angelablackthorne3026]

I don't think John was paranoid. John himself said it was a "subconscious sabotage". That quote was from 1980! We often unconsciously sabotage relationships with people we care deeply about without being aware of it. People often make their biggest mistakes with the people closest to them. There's no doubt that John and Paul loved each other, but there's no doubt there was a rift, and it was based on more than ego or paranoia on John's part. Still Love ya, Paul! lol

[@cammarc]

@@sacluvsBM To be fair though, it was either that or the band's death. Hell, that wasn't even avoided, just delayed. John was clearly not that invested in the band by that point. George wasn't writing that much at that point. He had written some songs, including great ones like Taxman, but not that much. He would flourish as a songwriter later on, even though it wasn't appropriately acknowledged by Paul (or John) at the time. John had already thought about leaving when they stopped touring and he thought Brian's death was the end. If Paul hadn't stepped in maybe they would have made more music John and George were happy with, but much more likely it would have ended much sooner than it did.

[@tanyachou4474]

Paul is like a perfect human being. I like to be Paul, but we all know we are John.. it is one of my fav song.

[@hannahg8439]

Exactly.

[@andrewmcdaniel4645]

It's been said that Paul was the workaholic of the band and would usually be the one pushing for perfection in every small detail, sometimes to the dismay of the other lads. However, Paul was also a great admirer of John's talent. Could it be that Paul, knowing when John had brought something great to the table, was simply letting go of the reins out of respect? It would make sense that the recording process would become looser and more experimental without Paul driving the project as he would with his own tunes. With the working dynamic of the band at the time and John being a bit of a "jealous guy," it also makes sense that he could perceive this as disinterest and sabotage. This is all conjecture, of course. We'll probably never know for sure but at least we have some beautiful music over which to ponder these things.

[@Bobby-vy3se]

Well said 👍

[@seanfullertonmusic9885]

Let's not forget how George Harrison was fluffed off many-a-time by both Paul and John for what became great songs of his. I agree with you man, that Paul backed off out of respect.

[@gabrielasplund3390]

Exactly this.

[@gabrielasplund3390]

Although Paul’s songs weren't always straightforward as John said. His own compositions were often very experimental as well, doing various styles and new innovation of "heaviness" in songs such as Helter Skelter, screaming in Oh Darling, both of which John again expressed resentment towards. I think "Jealous Guy" was a clear self-analytical statement by John about this flaw in his own personality. None of us were there so it is not possible to know very well how the working relationship really were within the band, as they each have their own individual experience of it. What we can say though is that if it weren't for Paul's experimental nature, the Beatles wouldn't have broken as much ground as they did. There is a common miscategorisation that John was avant-garde and Paul weren’t at the time of the Beatles, when nearly every famous example of experiments in the studio came from an idea by Paul. He arranged and conducted the orchestra in "A Day In The Life" without really knowing how, the whole idea of Sgt. Pepper came from him, including the concept of the cover art, the unreleased "Carival Of Light" project and much more. He kept them going and working, and whether or not he was too much in control over what they did, what they end up achieving was mostly due to him. I think it’s also worth mentioning that Paul barley has fired any shots publicly towards his former band members even though they often did that to him. He seem to put more focus on that in the end they loved each other even if it went sour towards the end, and wanted to stop holding the grudges. Which I think shows he is an upstanding kind of guy.

[@andrewmcdaniel4645]

@@gabrielasplund3390 I absolutely agree! John, Paul and George each brought their own forms of experimentation to the band. Perhaps most notably John's lyricism and wit, Paul's ear for arrangements and conceptual ideas, and George's spiritualism and Eastern influences. Of course I am simplifying here; there was certainly crossover and outside influences (i.e. George Martin, Yoko Ono, etc.) at play but the idea is that they each had increasingly different mindsets, priorities and work styles by this point. What was once a tight musical unit became three strong-willed individual artists trying to collaborate and it's no wonder they would butt heads and grow resentful when one felt they weren't getting a fair shake. Like many a serious relationship gone bad, they each left with their own perception of who was right or wrong. I know Paul gets a lot of crap for being too "PR" about these things but, like you, I commend him for choosing to focus on the positives (one can only hope he's being sincere and not pandering). On a side note, apologies to Ringo for not including him in this. Peace and love, Ringo!

[@kadin2356]

I’m thinking Paul didn’t want to take control of Johns songs so it seemed like Paul didn’t work as hard with them

[@thomaskeough1]

I was thinking the same thing. Paul might not have wanted to take over the songs. We’re fortunate that there was more experimentation in those songs as they came out great.

[@kongmik]

It was ghost writers. Beatles only sang on the big majority of songs.

[@donalso]

I take your point. I have heard so many times that Paul was the guy to say lets get to the studio guys. John and Ringo would prefer to take tea in the garden as Ringo put it. I just loved John's happiness in the early days, then he got sad for some reason. I remember being happy for him around the time of Double Fantasy. seemingly coming out of some kind of funk. All I can say is, thank you John, Thank you Paul, thank you George and thank you Ringo in order of their respective induction to the group and themselves. They passed my audition.

[@hollycrawford6054]

Maybe someone's said this already, but I think Paul had a vision in his head for his own songs and strove to achieve it with the band in a meticulous fashion. He wouldn't have an end result in his head for John's songs, so he would just be creative. I think Paul was ambitious and a control freak, but had no reason to sabotage anyone. I also think that he (Paul) didn't recognize the intimidating effect he had on others, as both John and George expressed these kinds of feelings.

[@supercullen0047]

This is without a doubt my favorite song. I have never yearned for something so cosmic that allows me to cast myself away from my life. A beautiful piece of writing.

[@graytv-7345]

Yes

[@diane6643]

yes, so many layers.

[@hemanshu3698]

Says the dude that has Patrick as his pfp

[@johnmckay7621]

Damn, this is probably the best comment section on the whole internet.

[@peterschleh9382]

Agreed this is so much fun. Nobody else wants to listen to us discuss this shit

[@timothypierce6576]

@@peterschleh9382 lol

[@commentfreely5443]

ha, now it's ruined.

[@taylorwalters3191]

Yeah no comment section ever seems to have a friendly debate over something this controversial, I gues people are just passionate about things to a point were if a controversy comes up they will firmly stand for what they belive. It all realy depends on the subject, you never see a Republican and Democrat having a friendly discussion. At least they are passionate for something.

[@tardis5179]

Ya Damn Right

[@julianmcmanus3384]

What about George's while my guitar gently weeps, neither John nor Paul cared for it

[@chezzer58]

Not Guilty was dismissed too.

[@thomaspumilia8992]

I had a hard time liking Not Guilty.

[@chezzer58]

@@thomaspumilia8992 Did you feel guilty?

[@thomaspumilia8992]

chezzer58 George’s most of them Great, some of them hard to listen to.

[@thomaspumilia8992]

I believe had Brian Epstein lived, the Beatles would’ve lasted at least, another 5 years! He would’ve took the pressure off of Paul, who felt he had to take the managers role. Brian would’ve kept all the business bullshit away from them and made sure they got all the money they deserved! Leaving the Beatles to doing what what they did best. They would’ve probably jockeyed back n forth maybe doing solo stuff and then Beatles stuff giving George the opportunity to play all his songs! Just a thought.

[@LeeRenthlei]

I'm disappointed that they didn't released this as a single

[@royalanizjr5733]

Why is that? Genuinely asking

[@ConglomerationCat]

@@royalanizjr5733 From what I understand and read, it was decided that Lady Madonna would be issued. It's mentioned in this video

[@hunkhk]

i mean really why does it matter they didnt need critical acclaim they had everything they still are the biggest force in popular music even 50 odd years later. Im just grateful that John wrote that master piece and we can still enjoy it today #beatlesforever

[@CJA-jf8db]

I know right? It's so good. Just curious, do you think it's should have been a single over The Long and Winding Road?

[@michaelmisanthrope]

I love that song and I thought it was one of the better recordings on the "Let it Be" album. Lennon also did another version of the song on David Bowie's "Young Americans" album. It is sad to say but Lennon was going through some psychological difficulties around the time of his death. He had been experimenting with sensory deprivation and was trying to deal with his own neurosis in other ways. I don't think it is accurate or fair to make such claims about McCartney. It's a great recording. If it were sabotaged than the saboteur must have been quite incompetent. We should remember that "Let it Be" was their breakup album. All of the members were going through some major shit. It is quite amazing that. under those circumstances, they were able to create this throw back album. P.S.: I really enjoyed "The Engineers are Here."

[@raulmexb]

No it wasn't one oft the best? It was & is the best that he has writing for me!

[@rhodrifrost586]

Paul would obviously be more of a perfectionist to his own music though than he would johns or anyone else’s. And that’s not even selfishness or being vindictive, it’s just that he knows naturally what he wants from his song over someone else’s. I get why John would feel the way he did but I think he was being slightly paranoid.

[@JamesMaharajOfficial]

Right, why wouldn't you be. But I wonder if John just didn't know how to ask for help.

[@bobgreen623]

I think maybe John was a little paranoid, compare his and Paul's post-Beatles output - Paul's was always more detailed and arranged, whereas John's tended to feel a little less polished. And maybe that's how they both wanted their final mixes to sound. Personally, I love that really bare sound on the Lennon/Plastic Ono Band album, it doesn't need anything else.

[@MrSirMrSirMr]

@@JamesMaharajOfficial I think you're right. I think John was bad at asking for help, and at articulating the helping he wanted, and I think Paul was bad at picking up on other people's emotions - he missed John's frustrations.

[@hannahg8439]

Exactly

[@SuperGogetem]

@@bobgreen623 Interesting when you compare each ex-Beatle on how they treated their side-men on their solo projects. John was only really the "boss" on Double Fantasy. He wanted an entirely new band so he could feel comfortable being really picky about how he wanted things played. He said he didn't feel he could do that on his other albums because he was friends with them all and didn't want to come down hard on them. Paul, on the other hand, went through quite a few line-up changes in Wings mainly due to his being so overbearing and critical. Only now that he's become mostly an oldies act has settled on a long-term touring line-up. Paul the perfectionist and John with his ambivalence and insecurities?

[@danr1920]

John and Paul sabotaged George, who ended up being a Beatle class writer.

[@callahanburke8486]

We all forget, although we were not there with them to begin with, how tight these guys were. Don't get bogged down in interpersonal squabbles, but rejoice in the legacy they have left music.

[@brads2362]

My guess is that, Paul being the perfectionist, insisted his own material be worked to exactly the state he wanted it. John, being more instinctual, probably followed his muse through the creative process, but grew impatient with take after take studio kind of stuff. George Martin (and Paul too) probably pushed for more complicated arrangements as that was the direction the band was going in. Lennon would allow this, rather than micro-manage as Paul would. So, if that's anywhere near an accurate read, its creative and stylistic differences, but not sabotage.

[@JamesMaharajOfficial]

I think you're making a very important point to this question. I hadn't considered how different each of their methods of song writing were. Paul always seem to know where he was going and John was letting it happen to him cosmically.

[@lucasmcgill2636]

This reminds me of Paul only taking a day off to be a judge at a beauty pageant in the mid early years while John would sleep all day and would wait for a call from Paul telling him they need to go back into the studio

[@djkaka020772]

You nailed it right on the head!!!! Well said!!!

[@Nerkin610]

This, I think, is correct. It may be seen as sabotage when Paul spent hours and hours on end to perfect his own songs with the band while just letting loose on John’s songs, but that is just a reflection of their musical personas. It’s the way they approached the art. John didn’t mind the looseness, being the instinctive person he was, while perfectionist Paul just worked his brains off to get it all just the way he heard it in his head. You’re much right, that is a very truthful wording of the issue.

[@frmrchristian8488]

Brad Strauss Excellent observation, Man! I agree wholely!

[@curly_wyn]

It’s my favorite Beatles song, and John himself loved it too, saying “it’s some of the best lyrics I’ve ever wrote!”

[@Robil63]

Lol the irony of that quote

[@armandgallanosa]

Paul probably would focus less on John's masterpieces than his own

[@stevenlight5006]

Wooten u

[@roblund6919]

Paul was only human after all

[@gregoryfry2700]

For years I was thinking this song was about a revelation of sorts - humbly contemplating the grandiosity of what could be out there in the fabric of the universe. But now I must choose between: A. John was paranoid Or B. Paul was a saboteur Lol. The answer is of course : C. It doesn’t matter. Over the years I’ve listened and sang and chewed on this song so many times; and I’m sure millions (?) of others have as well-each of us bending it a little bit and applying our understanding to it -that it couldn’t be any more perfect. So Paul used just the right amount of treachery and John was just the right amount of neurotic. I always find it reassuring to know that John and Paul, who occupy such a hallowed place in the mind of many, have human moments that weren’t necessarily all that pretty (or maybe they were divinely beautiful). And as “unpretty”. as the last days of the Beatles may have been with the bickering and suspicions, my god there was a ton of great music that came out of it. The music was SO good not even Phil Spector could tarnish it very much. I find it hard to believe that George Harrison didn’t totally dig this song. As a matter of fact (maybe) without Across the Universe there might not be a My Sweet Lord. And there may not have been an Across the Universe without a Yesterday. So, in conclusion, Across the Universe, which was officially written by John Lennon AND Paul McCartney, always puts me in the mood for a nice stream-of-consciousness rant. Now that’s good art.

[@hunkhk]

brilliant comment - thanks, spot on

[@payday1963]

Because of their huge egos, I think both Paul and John felt cheated on the attention given to the recordings of their respective songs. So yes John was paranoid (and Paul probably too). The attention to detail given to Lennon's songs is obvious......just have a listen. Artists are always their own worst critic.

[@cammarc]

@Sam Maloney I agree. People like to shit on Paul for being a control-freak, but the only evidence I have seen of him being like that was with his own songs, which makes sense, as they are his material.

[@p4hmusic526]

I could imagine that its a little of both. John was going through a tough phase at this moment and didn't really want to be a part of the Beatles anymore. On the other side, Paul was still very enthusiastic and focused on the Beatles and so he taked the lead. Paul really became a perfectionist and kind of controlled every take, every little melody and every drum arrangement etc. the others did twice. I think everybody here knows the video of Paul and George arguing over Georges guitar play and of George being pretty pissed about that. I think, because Paul lead the group like this, John felt more and more cramped within his creative process and so became a little paranoid. Harmless (but serious) advice or criticism of Pauls, John would see as an sabotage of his creative process. In addition: John had some problems he had to fight with. The band didn't like his love Yoko and were subtile insulting her, Paul was dragging him along even though it was his wish to leave the Beatles etc. etc. John was in a mental, not ill, but in an unstable condition so he might have taken the criticism (espacially Pauls) as an insult or understood it as an attack. Thats why he might have came to the assumption that Paul was sabotaging him.

[@JamesMaharajOfficial]

It's so unfortunate he felt so alone so often. I bet Paul wanted to be closer to him too but it's hard if someone thinks you're suspicious.

[@hansvonessen6259]

Across The Universe is one of my most favourite songs in The Beatles' album Let It Be.

[@jordan.newsom]

So weird...this song has been stuck in my head this morning!

[@JamesMaharajOfficial]

Imagine how I felt making this video. I'm still humming it.

[@tamaramiller3483]

@@JamesMaharajOfficial and the way you narrate the video....One can feel the emotion in your voice. Thank you for making this vid and thank you especially for the Way you made it-

[@josettekey3533]

Always has been my favorite song by John, done with the other Beatles. It is pure poetry. And no, I don't think it got the attention it deserved.

[@Geritopia]

The more you read John interviews, the more you realize that he was mercurial and moody. Because he was killed by an idiot, we'll never know how he might have sorted all this out. "Across the Universe" is a fine song. I recall liking it instantly and thinking it had a unique vibe about it. Maybe we should thank Cynthia for irritating him that night.

[@patricshaw]

no, I can't believe that Paul would sabotage "across the universe" I love the sound of that song first on the original record and on the second raw version...its a masterpiece, a piece of poetry

[@suesjoy]

My favorite Beatles’ song and one of the best songs ever written.

[@luberdoo1950]

I'm 73. The Beatles landed in NYC on my 14th birthday, Feb 7, 1964. I remember being more of a Dave Clark 5 fan, initially, and then like most of my peers, hopped on the Beatles bandwagon. What an incredible soundtrack of music they, and other bands, created for my adolescence. Over the years, reflecting on their impact on my personal life as a young person, I had wished that McCartney with his lovely melodies, could write lyrics the way that Lennon did. As for McCartney sabotaging, even unconsciously, Lennon's songs, I'm going to speculate, no. What an incredible pair they were.

[@robertwiles8106]

It could be said that John sabotaged The Long And Winding Road with his terrible bass playing. It was almost beyond Phil Spector's abilities to clean up.

[@dsw-2898]

Old head

[@shyman99]

When I hear John's output with the Beatles (Paul & George Martin) and then without the Beatles (Spector & Yoko), I'd say Paul helped him, not hurt him.

[@originalmrjojangles]

You could certainly say the same thing, to a much greater degree, about Paul's solo work without John. I don't believe with John around Paul could have gotten away with writing, and certainly with recording, so much sappy material and silly lyrics.

[@katskiitakk]

@@originalmrjojangles paul mcartney and the wings made some bangers my guy

[@kenshiloh]

That's a great point! I think that each Beatle was right in thinking of their respective solo careers, "Wow! How can I top the Beatles?" I do not think any of them ever did. However, they still wrote some great tunes! There was just a kind of magic chemistry with, not just the four of them, but also include Martin and (engineer) Emerick. By the way, if you are a true blue Beatle fan, don't miss reading Emerick's book. He was the perfect engineer for them, the six of them becoming like a perfect storm. There were six geniuses creating those albums.

[@kenshiloh]

To elaborate on my last point, that the Beatles were really a six man band (including George Martin and engineer Geoff Emerick), check out the forward drums on 'tomorrow never knows.' Unlike the stuffed shirts at EMI, Geoff was born to create different types of recorded sound. Likewise, the bass guitar on my personal favorite, Paperback Writer, Geoff - are you ready - decided to use a bass amplifier as Paul's microphone. Ever notice how extraordinary the bass sounds on that song? It would not have had half the punch without Geoff. Concerning George Martin, he was not impressed with the Beatle's music when he first heard them. In fact, Decca records get a lot of flack for rejecting the Beatles, but I tend to agree with the executives that they were not that sharp. Martin was like a rock polisher. He caused the band to shine. Without Martin's direction, I do not think they would have gone too far out the Cavern.

[@davidg5629]

You are correct, shyman. John's solo work is lukewarm. 'Imagine' being the worst song of the batch. Beatles forever!

[@FromtheForesttotheTrees]

It's not so much a sabotage it's more about John giving away his power to Paul, which was a reflection of John's lack of inner self worth. They had been friends and co-writers for a long time, and as time changed they began to reflect and project different aspects of themselves on to each other, including their deep false beliefs and insecurities and so on that we all have within ourselves. Across the Universe is my favorite John song. I am so glad to understand how it came to him, and it is a GREAT song.

[@NicolaiRathjen]

I think Paul liked to control every aspect of his own songs. Him not putting the same efforts into John's songs could feel like sabotage.

[@JamesMaharajOfficial]

This is interesting. Like if I wrote a song; It's my baby. I want to make sure it get the attention it deserves no matter what. And perhaps I wouldn't fight so hard for someones else's song. They should fight for their own right?

[@smithaustin624]

Some of the BEST Bass lines Paul ever recorded as a Beatles were on John's songs. So don't give me this BS. Dear Prudence Hey Bulldog I Want You Come Together

[@dekugh64]

Smithaustin yeah but John is the owner of the song, if he wanted to make it better it was his responsibility, not Paul's

[@NicolaiRathjen]

@@dekugh64 Excactly my point. Maybe John felt his songs weren't recorded and produced with the same care as Paul's songs because Paul felt John should be responsible for the songs he wrote.

[@dpstrial]

@@smithaustin624 Good observation. For me one of the best bass lines was on Being for the Benefit of Mr Kite - John's song.

[@TheUnknownMattawa]

After watching the Let It Be film I understand what John Lennon means. There seemed to be almost an apathetic tone when the band were rehearsing John's songs. I don't think it was intentional but probably happened because he wasn't as strict on how his songs were done and Paul was becoming ever more of a perfectionist on his own songs. Adding to this there was Yoko now in the studio and followed John around even giving the band input at times. I think Paul didn't sabotage Lennon's songs on purpose but it became a habit over time to play loose in his songs. The two seemed to drift apart musically during this time and they had trouble communicating to each other on songs.

[@julianandres6211]

Yes, I read somewhere that Paul mentioned feeling embarassed at asking John if he could sing some backing-vocals on Come Together.

[@mightymartianca]

John really didn't have a lot of great material for Let It Be. Even John thought songs like I Dig A Pony were pretty much throwaways. They had used up a lot of the songs during the White Album sessions, and the Get Back sessions were dominated by left overs. Even Paul really had only two stand out songs; Let It Be and Get Back (and frankly, the latter, while a decent rocker, only stands out because of the mediocrity of a lot of other parts of the record), and pretty much the rest of the album was filler. When they agreed for one final push with Abbey Road, the side two medley is made up of song fragments that they never completed, and they found a way to string them together, thanks to George Martin being in control again and the band agreeing to put aside the acrimony.

[@julianandres6211]

@@mightymartianca I'd say The Long & Winding Road was a pretty special song too (and he had Junk and Maybe I'm Amazed in the bag by then too). If only they'd have included those and also replaced For You Blue with All Things Must Pass and included Don't Let Me Down the album would've been pretty much immaculate. But even on songs that weren't necessaily outstanding songs in themselves --- Two Of Us, I've Got A Feeling --- they had the knack for making them sound remarkable through the actual performances. Their throwaway stuff still outpaced other bands' career-best. By the time they were doing Abbey Road the really strong songs were both George's, but they (primarily Paul and George Martin really) still made something remarkable out of a bunch of bits and pieces.

[@topgunpigeonsphilippines4016]

John's being Vodooed by that YokoVodoo

[@kenshiloh]

I think there may have been some difficulty with Paul doing John's songs after Yoko entered the picture. However, I think John had every right to bring her to their sessions. He only wanted to be a Beatle if Yoko was with him. Can't blame him for that. Paul and the others could have said, "Well, I think this is the end of it." Can't blame anybody. They were not in the band except they were having fun. The fun stops, the band stops. That's life!

[@jwardbass4452]

Lennon was brutally honest and very detailed in his explanations of the behind the scenes for their songs. One of the most interesting musicians to interview of all time.

[@Bigbooster126]

I don't believe any of the band is responsible for sabotage per se, just a collection of talented individuals that each had their own idea of what makes a great song. The problem with this was that they were all right in their own way.

[@JamesMaharajOfficial]

Sabotage is a very heavy word to use for your best friend/ writing partner. I wonder what John would so he was alive now about it.

[@vernon197]

Totally agree with you

[@Bigstooler0]

Bigbooster126 This is "Bigstooler" saying "Hello" because our names are similar

[@jmssun]

Why do I get the vibe that Paul is the popular personality amongst them, John clinches to Paul for his popularity or to get his approval, and out of insecurity ignores George.

[@hw343434]

Well as far as the Beatles themselves go, it’s like George said, “We’re all John Lennon fans.” John was the one they followed

[@TheWorldTeacher]

🙏🏼 जय गुरूदेव! 🙏🏼 Jaya Gurudeva = praises to the spiritual master.

[@CampyVampy]

I believe that John genuinely felt that way about Paul. He called it “subconscious sabotage” which implies that Paul didn’t realize he was doing it, which may have been true. Though, I believe the sentiment goes both ways as I’ve heard Paul express similar feelings about John never praising him, and how Paul’s favorite Beatles song is “Here, There, Everywhere” because it was the only one that John ever complimented him on. It sounds like they both admired each other very much and thought each other talented, yet also felt in competition with another. Much like sibling rivalry. Like brothers.

[@ToneSherpa]

that was the beauty of it. they had a friendly rivalry to always write the best song and it's what made their songs so great.

[@qwertyuiop-ke7fs]

Johns music is more emotionally approachable. Paul wrote borderline showtunes. I think John was jealous of Paul's popular melodies and Paul was jealous of John's emotional rawness

[@ToneSherpa]

@@qwertyuiop-ke7fs it's craft vs artistry. they both had both, but each leaned more heavily towards one or the other.

[@michaeltingle444]

I think you'll find John was on H and probably got his perspective mixed up.

[@evepaludan7713]

I don't think Paul sabotaged John's song. Inside of any creator's mind, there is an expectation of how the work will sound in its finished version. But then, when you add other people to the collab, the outcome changes from what you imagined it would be. There is no way to exactly describe what other people are doing to alter your vision. You just know that when it was in your head, it was not only different, it was perfection. Manifesting a vision into the tangible here and now is always a tricky business. p.s. Loved your song at the end!

[@tomholloway7536]

I would hope Paul would not but do we really know him, or anyone, that well? I'm sorry to say we will never know.

[@JamesMaharajOfficial]

This is a very good point. I read somewhere once that while everyone hated Heather Mills her sister remarked that "You don't know Paul, You think you do but he's not who he seems like behind closed doors". I mean, with that level of fame, who knows what it can do to a person. Same with John and his potential paranoia.

[@a.r.9530]

Both had big egos, so naturally they both felt misunderstood by one another. Paul is incredible at writing catchy songs for a specific genre / within his own comfort zone. John was a natural innovator, risk taker and his writing was more avant-garde. Therefore I think Paul probably did sabotage some ofJohn's songs, maybe even consciously, because they were often breaking the frames in which a lot of their popular (Paul-infused) songs so neatly fit into. Still, one could not have done without the other and it was that dynamic of tension and release that we owe all those wonderful songs to. I love them both / all four of them of course. The other two were insanely talented in their own ways, but not nearly as big-headed.

[@brucefrey3705]

I believe John may have been suffering from bipolar depression.

[@peterschleh9382]

dont forget heroin addiction

[@aniyaanderson3676]

This song completely explains my feelings about everything. I am an over thinker, and that’s the way that I interpret the song. “nothings going to change my world” means to me that the life I have is a continuous loop that I can’t seem to escape from.

[@sthulander1]

Aniya - This song is about the infinite field of awareness within, 'the transcendent field' permeating all of life. . . It is the proverbial chase for an 'absolute', non-changing and eternal field that remains permanent even during deepest sleep . . . enlightenment; even glimpses of enlightenment such as this seemingly autobiographical lyric of John's. Transcending daily, as John is reporting here, brings one beyond the vast field of constant change, and into one's inner experiences of transcending. And yes, I feel your point is also valid . . . John is, at once, complaining about the endlessness of change, everywhere in his vision; save for closing the eyes into utter stillness and peace . . . twice a day. John was amazingly focused on hours-long meditations at Rishikesh . . . so much so, that many believe he went a bit overboard (which always has loosened stresses playing havoc for a while ) . . . and the need for stabilizing the integration of stillness and silence within the nervous system.

[@jmorales09]

I think he was subconsciously doing it, but I believe John was a really paranoid person, and that it wasn't as bad as he put it. And in the end, it benefitted his songs more, so it doesn't really matter.

[@JamesMaharajOfficial]

I really enjoy John's songs for how experimental they were. Maybe he regretted having done that to his songs. Because in his solo work it had a much more natural vibe.

[@kannonmcafee]

I don't think John was paranoid. His primal therapist, Arthur Janov referred to him as a genius for his insight into people. My two favorite Beatles songs are Across the Universe and Real Love, both Lennon songs.

[@scottb828]

My interpretation, since learning TM back in the 1970s, has always been that the line, "Nothing's gonna change my world" is not a declaration that my world is fine the way it is, or a stubborn refusal to accept change, but a positive statement that "nothing," meaning emptiness or nothingness in my mind--which is the "goal" in meditation practice--IS going to change my world. Sure, there will be thoughts meandering like a restless wind and so on, but the nothingness I achieve is going to have a profound effect on my world and my existence.

[@fadthetic]

💛

[@animalsoulconnection]

Brilliant!

[@alangordon99]

When I hear the words "nothing's gonna change my world" I take it to mean that nothing external can impact the world I create for myself - my inner world. it's a declaration of separating your inner world from the endless change of the outer world.

[@Worldwardinosaur]

Hey everybody! I was greatly influenced by the Beatles and started to write songs and play guitar because of them! If you like them you might wanna take a listen to my music! Someone also said it sounded like David Bowie. I’ve got a twist and shout cover up as well. Thanks for reading sorry for disrupting anything!

[@kevinfreitas2107]

I won’t speculate, but after listening to all the Parlophone and Apple albums over the last two months, I was taken by how the early records seemed to feature more John material (both originals and covers of raw rockers with John singing lead) while the later albums featured more of Paul’s (more refined productions) material. As far as support for getting songs released as Beatles material, it must be said that George faced greater challenges from Lennon McCartney than John ever did from Paul.

[@chrisbounds7994]

Something.

[@brianwolle2509]

this is very true. one book had a chart that showed john had a bigger output early on.

[@gaillight7501]

Hard drugs may account for decline in output.

[@Amquacktador]

Gail Light I'd say it got to be more because the passing of Brian Epstein and the pressure of handling all by themselves

[@rudyxrudy]

Paul, always the ham.... selF centered, JOHN 'WAS' THE BEATLES....

[@rivenwood3841]

John always wanted more approval from Paul than he would admit to Paul or to himself. In the state of John being paranoid I think John was just too critical of himself and it showed through his own music not, the bands music but his own music like; Across the Universe and other songs he put out before his untimely death. One thing people need to understand is the band, the members in the band and what each member meant to each other then, you can begin to understand John. at one point was the leader of the band then Paul slowly took control as Paul began to write more and more songs without john making john feel "This guy Paul writes better than I do, what will I do" This is where John's insecurity comes from in his own believing in himself as a song writer. Remember, john once said " The song have no meaning they're just words on paper with a tone attached to the words." Overall, I do not try to nit pick the group apart but listen to them for who they were, a good fucking band that will stand the test of time and they are doing a good job. AS men I think they all have sold themselves short on their own abilities each member has given to the world in his own way something that will out last their own life time 20 times over their children's children's children will hear their music. The Beatles music is never ending because whatever power in our universe did to allow their music to stand this way out weights our own humanity to understand it. I am thankful to have witness the Beatles growth through their short few years they were together but were the Beatles every apart or did the band just broke off into four different parts of the band into each member. Each day as I walk through my days of life something always reminds me a word, a secn an event something will trigger one of the Bands songs in my head where I must pop the CD into the machine and listen to those songs over and over This is what those four boys have given to me memories. As for john goes, everything happens for a reason without reason we have no knowing; goodnight John where every you are.

[@raquelmorales774]

Bravo! First of all I love the way you express your self .I agree with you & per cent ,listen to their music every single day,I bilive that John was a fantastic song writher,Paul too it was so much ,two genius at work,with very different personality ,we were the lucky ones to this day.Beatles forever!!'☆

[@bryanmiller6110]

Listen to both Pauls and johns music with the beatles and solo. The most noticeable difference is this: Pauls music usually lacked the grit and depth solo that it enjoyed with the Beatles. Likewise, Johns music solo lacked the polish and arrangement complexity that it enjoyed with the Beatles. On some level, I honestly believe that is due in part to the band dynamic of which both were of course a member. Whether it was the competition between them, the input of the other or whatever, I think that they demanded a lot of each other. Whether john or the that fact Paul would or could admit it, they were at their best together, so its hard to see “sabotage” as an accurate description.

[@observerclifford8113]

Song a bit like Seargent Peppers in the beginning- Interesting vidoe- Personally I really like the dreamlike quality in the the production of the song. As for the controversy I suppose we will never know but if it was the case it didn't do much harm to the end product

[@GuitarSolo1962]

The version of "Across the Universe" that's at the end of Anthology 2 might be the best of all - a better recording than on either Let It Be or Let It Be (Naked). It is one of the great song and Rufus Wainright's cover is classic. Perhaps the best performance was on a John tribute show by Rufus Wainright, Sean Lennon, and Moby. I don't think Paul intentionally sabotaged this, but I do think he focused more on his own needs. If you listen to him now, nearly 40 years after John died, his version of history is somewhat revisionist and he takes credit for pieces of things with which he had nothing to do.

[@stevenlight5006]

Might agree

[@xcalibur1011]

maybe it was a little of both on his part just mere speculation without true validation so rip john and thanks for great beatle music.

[@lundsweden]

It is a brilliant song, like a lot of really great things people just don't know how to take it, at first at least!

[@greenatom]

I would have thought it would have made John happy to get experimental on his songs. If he was unhappy about how his songs were done, he always could have recorded different versions as a solo artist, producing them however he saw fit. Across the Universe is a brilliant song. I'm very surprised that the others weren't so fond of it.

[@alistairbain6149]

It wouldn’t surprise me if McCartney *subconsciously* sabotaged (some of) John’s songs. In the film Let It Be McCartney comes across as narcissistic and lacking empathy (they go together). No. John is/was definitely not paranoid.

[@andrewfurst5711]

The "Let it Be" film is edited to contrive or at least emphasize a narrative of anger and separatism, only to be repaired (partly) by the arrival of Billy Preston and a change of venue. That makes an interesting story, period. The rest of the recorded audio and video (as available to the public in bootlegs, etc.) suggests that the film was not an accurate portrayal of those sessions, even the early sessions. From what I can see, Paul did try to step into the "leader" void which was left by the death of Brian Epstein, as well as John's withdrawal due to personal issues such as drug use and spending time with Yoko. Someone had to get the ball rolling, or keep it on track, and that fell to Paul. Although George or Ringo might have capably stepped into that role too, they didn't yet have the gravitas of Paul, because the driving forces of the band from the early days were John and Paul first, then George and Ringo. Yes I realize that George and Ringo were essential to the sound, and are sometimes overlooked in importance, but let's face it - it's hard to see either G or R stepping into a singular leadership role at that point (it does seem that George was becoming a co-pilot for the band at that point). For assuming a necessary leadership role, Paul gets the label of "bossy". I don't know what John meant in terms of Paul subconsciously sabotaging his songs, since he doesn't give an example of this. He says he thinks Strawberry Fields didn't quite have a good take; that song was (now somewhat famously) put together from two takes at two different speeds, in two different keys. But that was George Martin's work, not Paul's, and I don't know how the song could have turned out any better. It may be true that as time went on, Paul spent less time working on John's songs than in the early days, but that was also true of John spending less time on Paul's songs than in the past. It's strange that Paul could be simultaneously labeled as "bossy" and "too hands off" for John's liking. If John could just provide an example of the "sabotage", such as Paul adding discordant kazoo noises to "Sun King" (which didn't happen, I'm making that up) then he'd have a reason to feel that way. As it stands, I'd have to say that John was way off-base in making this claim. At least he gives Paul a partial "out" by saying "subconscious" but it's still a very harsh accusation, without basis from what I can see.

[@isadoramenk8648]

I think John was insecure and would self-doubt himself a lot (and boy was he good at covering it up). He needed his confidence boosted for him to fully get where he want it to get, and when he was alone in believing in the potential of a song he simply couldn't transmit his belief because he didn't had the mental strength to do it by himself. Without the encourage of Paul gradually he would lost the will and give up. Maybe what he was bitter about was Paul not taking his insecurities away. I don't think that it was properly fair to Paul, but that's John. Anyway, it's just my 2 cents on the matter. Let's talk about it :D

[@richievitanaquino737]

This is why john lennon is one of the greatest songwriter of all time this song is way ahead of its time

[@suesjoy]

No, I don’t think Paul sabotaged John’s songs. I think John was indeed paranoid. Still love and miss him, though. ✨💖✨

[@JamesMaharajOfficial]

I miss him too, I feel bad he felt like that though.

[@dannydessert5147]

No, Paul did not sabotage John’s songs. I do believe that Paul being a perfectionist, meticulously taking extra care and effort into his own songs that a John perceived as a personal assault. Though they all had their differences and challenges, they were brothers. Perhaps John was paranoid when he made the statement, in which the term sabotage reflects.

[@anirudhsingh2354]

Honestly I have confession to make. I have never heard beatles consciously. thought that like the Pop culture they are over-rated. Around four months back I stumbled on your channel. Now I feel that I should listen to them. Because there is so much to know about them. I would ask you and all the people out here to point me in the right direction. Sorry for being off topic.

[@JamesMaharajOfficial]

That's awesome, If I could do it all over again I would listen to the albums chronologically and the solo albums. Like traveling through time.

[@jasonjones4857]

Definitely start from the beginning. Love me do and you can here how they started as Elvis and Roy Orbison knock off to the creates of heavy metal with Helter skelter. If you just want the ridiculously awesome rubber soul album is where they became the ultimate band.the albums before that have sneak peak at how great they were but for the most part they were simple 3 cord songs designed to be Poppy and appeal to the masses. But they have great songs like please please me and George's first couple attempts. You have a little over two hundred songs to hear, and that's not including the ones they gave away. Like I call your name that the momma's and Pappas did. if you like off the wall in your face random unexpected stuff, the white album is a must.

[@geozipper]

Just listen to the albums, start to finish & hopefully the British releases (which have all the songs as they should have been heard) & not the U.S. releases. Then, watch this video to more fully appreciate what The Beatles had done with pop/rock music: kzbin.info/www/bejne/kIK2amSti8mpj8U

[@danvol3835]

Yes, chronologically at first. But whatever album you listen to, take note of the year of release and compare it to the other popular releases in the same year. You will be blown away by how far ahead the Beatles were, and by how many BIG name bands were really just following their lead, even if they were taking it in different directions.

[@brianwolle2509]

the british albums are great, but they dont include the singles most of the time. also get the anthology. put it into perspective i. e. what the times were like. the beatles first movie was in black and white! of course, its better that way.

[@muklpi]

Johns a hippocrat Paul's egotistic George's writing something Ringo likes octopuses

[@athhar3643]

I can't see George disliking the song. It's so similar to his style.

[@Stradelia]

Paul was a great musician but I guess sometimes he wasn’t a good leader. Yes, they we’re a band but for people cannot stir the same ship, there has to be a captain; and Paul might have been that indirect captain by nature. He las leading the band but maybe not in the best way. Leaders aren’t supposed to be bossy and that’s something that you learn trough time leading.

[@dnromeoalphayankee13]

Paul McCartney sabotaged Lennon's songs and that's why Lennon was paranoid

[@kinneko3]

First?

[@JamesMaharajOfficial]

Yes you were

[@auntiegrizelda4484]

John was paranoid and had other mental issues which is why he was abusive to his first family and also why he was attracted to yoko, who ALSO had mental issues. Not meant to be unkind, just truthful.

[@baltpit2439]

I think paul was a bit selfish. He became the leader of the group and i think john got left behind with George and Ringo too, with paul’s strong ego

[@TheAerovons]

John left himself behind in a haze of heroin and Yoko (not to mention his son and wife). Bless him, but facts are facts. He lost interest.

[@chezzer58]

I wouldn't call it selfish, it was just Paul wanting to get a job done. If not for Paul you wouldn't have, Sgt Pepper, The Beatles and Abbey Road Albums. If that makes Paul selfish I say thank god.

[@gkloner]

John saw Paul treating his songs different than he would his own songs. This created suspicion and paranoia. John and the band were already resentful of Paul because he was becoming domineering. John is famously quoted for saying "I can't speak for George but we were getting fed up being side men to Paul". John and Paul had a friendly completion going. When one would bring in a song the other one felt they needed to respond. Think Paul's "Penny Lane" in response to John's "Strawberry Fields" for example. I don't think John is entirely wacko or too paranoid at all for saying Paul wanted to subconsciously destroy his great pieces.

[@joelcer]

i think john was just paranoid. they have been collaborating side by side since the start but each opted to work on their own style & taste, not as collaborative as before.

[@iamhereblossom1588]

Yeah I think this whole video didn't take the into account how much the Beatles had fallen apart by this point and were just looking to blame each other. The quotes were taken out of context

[@shiftyhe]

I think everything John says should be taken with a grain of salt. He's disparaged Paul, George Martin, made plenty of unkind comments about George, was cruel to Brian Epstein. On and on. We saw and heard him calling Paul the c-word while making "How Do You Sleep" and then tried to say it wasn't about Paul. My friends and I always thought "Across The Universe" belonged in The Beatles top ten. I've always felt it was a transcendental meditation song and not just because of the "Jai Guru Deva" part. That's an incantation used by TM'ers. The Maharishi is also someone Lennon turned on with extreme vitriol. But everyone who was at Rishikesh said nothing untoward happened there to make John turn on him so. Paul and Ringo are still meditators. And consider this- it was while at Rishikesh that Lennon wrote what HE felt was his best Beatles stuff -the white album material. It was at Rishikesh where his relationship with Yoko blossomed via letters and he would be with her from then on. TM can bring long-lingering things to a head. And tap into the subconscious. "Words are flowing out" indeed. And, sorry, he also went from meditation to heroin so you really have to be wary. He could also be remarkably lucid, painfully honest and self-deprecating. And kind when he wanted to be. Best to judge him on his music and "Across The Universe" is a knock-out. One for the ages.

[@vinceallensanvicente5490]

Beatles and other bands from the past makes better music than Migos or any other pop musicians nowadays

[@JamesMaharajOfficial]

Could you BE any more correct?!

[@vinceallensanvicente5490]

@@JamesMaharajOfficial OH SHT U REPLIED TO ME BRO OH SHT U THE FIRST KZbinR TO REPLY TO MY COMMENTS AND ALSO GOT A HEART TY BRO GOD BLESS UR CHANNEL

[@johnhenson8862]

Where are the drums? Where are the Harrison licks? Where is the melodic bass? That is why Paul didn't support"Across the Universe" as a Beatles song. Same could be said about "Yesterday". So John probably had a point. Rather than retreat crushed John only needed to say "Paul you did Yesterday whats difference?" So a bit precious to mope about it, John didn't think of good argument.

[@harrynoke6458]

I wouldn’t say Paul sabotaged John’s songs, but he definitely took them in a direction they were never supposed to go in.

[@JamesMaharajOfficial]

Interesting, how do you mean exactly?

[@harrynoke6458]

The most obvious example would be Strawberry Fields Forever; started off as a acoustic number, but Paul slowed it down and made it more organ-driven. Not necessarily worse, but certainly different.

[@ChrisMaxfieldActs]

These all sound like excuses for the fact that John was checked-out on strong drugs during this period, and he either did not care at the time, or he failed to stand up for himself and his work. All the stories I have heard about Strawberry Fields Forever indicate that John was very involved in the decision-making while producing it. May he have regretted his choices later or chosen to rationalize his own (self-described) failures of execution? Highly likely. Don't get me wrong, I respect John very much in many ways, but the "laziest man in England," who wrote I'M ONLY SLEEPING about his own ennui not long before this song was written, does seem to chosen to be very negative and judgmental, and, yes, paranoid in those late interviews

[@TheAerovons]

Paul didn't do anything without John's OK, and the real innovator in "SF" was Martin.You don't think "SF" was released against John's will do you? LOL

[@Snakefinger1000]

All of the above. Many of the Lennon/McCartney songs weren't the result of any collaboration not consciously, however they both knew each other's likes and dislikes which because they respected each other affected their songs. So John's songs ended up a little less cynical and Paul's a little less syrupy . This is a classic example of this dynamic.. But "HEY" What's with the red ?

[@thesuncollective1475]

That's so interesting on the writing..I had the same experience when I wrote a song called The Day America Cried..I did not want to write it but had to or couldn't sleep..I won an award for it 6 months later so I'm glad I did.

[@MKida]

Congrats bro

[@deadshotcalamity8267]

Idk. I've heard that Paul Was A Bit of a control freak. Like everything had to be his way. Just look at the story about Hey Jude. If i Understand everything Correctly. What you hear now is pretty much how Paul wanted it. All the other Beatles including George Martin wanted to Change something about it. Most notably the Length of the song. We all know it's about 7 minutes long. Back then, They wouldn't play anything that long on the radio. But every idea The Others Through at Paul. He'd tell them no. It has to be played like this. Now at the same time. John Was on some pretty hardcore drugs. (I mean They all were) But john was the worst with drugs. So i cant really say my answer is 100% How i feel. But i suppose if i had to make a decision. Id say Paul was Consciously sabotaging.

[@aquamarine99911]

Great video, maybe your best. I've always believed that Paul played better bass on the other guys' songs ("Don't Let Me Down", "Rain", Come Together", "Dear Prudence" The list goes on. "Taxman". "Lucy".). George at the time thought Paul overplayed on "Something", perhaps at the time a (subconscious?) attempt to sabotage what was obviously a great love song ("the best" according to Sinatra). So it's not just John thinking this. As a bass player myself who actually got into bass because of "Something", I totally get George's concern. Imagine if John (or George) had played bass like that on "Let It Be"? Paul would like "WTF are you doing?" My interpretation is that Paul did feel competitive, and wanted people to remember him while they enjoyed George's song. As many here have already commented, Paul applied his fastidious perfectionism to his own songs. That he took a more carefree, creative approach to John's and the others songs I don't think constitutes actual intentional sabotage, but I can understand why John would think that. But if Paul REALLY wanted to sabotage "Come Together", he would not have come up with that line. He wanted to put his personal stamp on a great song. It's just human nature - or genius nature in this case.

[@JamesMaharajOfficial]

Thank you and well put. It's makes sense that as the band began to write separately Paul's work ethic would shine.

[@Robins_songs]

You are so right about his "ambitious" bass on George's song. And I do believe John was right, calling it "subconscious" but it hurts none the less.

[@hernanhonoriofortu6802]

Spot on.

[@gregtrimble7113]

I love Paul’s bass part on Something. It takes the song to a much higher level Love John but if he spent less time fucked up on drugs and Yoko he might have had the fortitude to insist his songs be perfected like Pauls

[@captinbeyond]

It's kinda silly for either John or Paul to suggest their songs/writings were not embraced or treated with respect. If anyone in the group can claim that it would be George Harrison.He'd get one or two songs per album and they better be good.

[@royboy4571]

Bad Questions to pose, almost a false equivalence. Maybe John sabotaged Paul's work, does that make Paul paranoid ? Come on stop cherry picking the Beatles. Just enjoy the music for what it is, exceptional !

[@susancorgi]

Anybody who create art understand It’s normal John felt that way about his songs not being care enough. They are his babies. But we can all agee that those great songs by John turned out great.

[@padrakomaille3430]

John Lennon / Paul McCartney had a competitive relationship, Paul was better at being boss, he could manipulate the outcome of their joint efforts, John Lennon should have been paranoid (if he wasn’t in real life) that’s what LSD does to you, John was weak, Paul was strong, John channeled Across the Universe and Paul channeled Silly love Song (What’s wrong with that) yes I think power was used to manipulate which Beatle would get what attention..... Paul is just too cleaver, good on you though John was a brilliant damaged soul

[@susanshutler8751]

John,"s consciousness was awake. So was George"s. Paul not so much. Hard for Paul to get past pop songs I guess. George was suppressed for years. His first solo album was full of songs he couldn't get the Beatles to take seriously.

[@jackyyumyum6626]

Fantastic lyrics. I like the song, but even I can hear how atrocious the tuning is on the song. I've always kept my mouth shut about it, but after watching this I realize I was exactly right about what I was thinking.

[@nynatv1951]

He probably sabotaged it's an ego thing with Paul, Lennon was always the more talented and deeper writer.

[@famachris]

I love Across the Universe and Strawberry Fields - but I disagree wholeheartedly with John's analysis of how his projects didn't get the production focus Paul's did. First of all, it's the artist's job to campaign for the treatment of his material in a group setting. If you would rather go off and huddle with Yoko and leave your work to the rest of the group - don't expect them to fall over themselves working on stuff you can't be bothered with. Secondly - in terms of production - the different permutations that SFF went through are testimony to the fact is was labored over - perhaps more than any other Beatles song. And switching speeds and blending takes may be easy today, but it was a labor of love back then. Finally, I always thought Across the Universe was a song John gave to some tree-hugger cause, and it was really a solo tune. So that's all on him too. I do prefer the Spector version of that tune over the single version! It's more majestic.