LENNON WANTED A BEATLES REUNION, SAYS LOVER #1740
May 17, 2005 Source: contactmusic.com


JOHN LENNON's former lover has blasted historical records for declaring the BEATLES' split was permanent, insisting they'd always planned to play together again.

Lennon's personal assistant MAY PANG - who had an 18-month affair with the IMAGINE singer in 1973 after he split from YOKO ONO - claims the pop icon often fantasised about reuniting with his ex-bandmate SIR PAUL McCARTNEY.

And Lennon often asked for advice on whether he should write to McCartney suggesting the Fab Four reform, to which Pang assured him they're far better as a unit than as solo artists.

She says, "Though John and Paul did not write many songs together, they had always been sounding boards for each other's ideas and he missed that. He was always saying, 'I wonder what Paul is up to.'

"I remember him saying, 'Do you think I should write with Paul again?' and I said, 'Absolutely, you should do it because it seems you want to. As solo performers you are good but together you can't be beaten.'"

The last Beatles album to be released was LET IT BE in 1970.

Sdldawn said:

Should we take the word of somebody who says that?

RipHer2Shreds said:

Well, I hear what ure saying..

But for a majority of the time.. paul presented a song, and then john ect.. and they helped each other with the tidbits of the song.. But I think they individually wrote the songs skeleton.. i think thats what she meant..

cause that is said by all the beatles.. multiple times.. I have many soundboard recordings of these examples..

A good one i have is when their helping george with 'something'.. he couldnt think of anything for "attracts me like no other" it was brilliant hearin all of their input..
[Edited 5/23/05 13:20pm]

During his time with May, John was probably so drunk and high, he didn't know what he was saying, but I'm sure the idea was always somewhere in the back of his mind.

You can hear the difference in writing styles as early as 1963. It's clear that All My Loving is essentially a McCartney tune while All I've Got To Do is obviously Lennon's work.

I heard recently that John & Paul did actually jam together some years after the break-up. Who knows what could've happened had John not been killed.

Its simple. The songs lennon sang he bascially wrote and vice versa!

thesexofit said:

Yep, pretty much.

I know in the early days they used to write together a lot, but this stopped after the first couple of albums, and it is definitely true that whatever they sang they wrote.

This period when John was with May actually saw him re-united with Paul for the first time in almost 5 years. They defnitely jammed together, along with ringo I believe, but nothing was recorded, and no plans to record together were made.

Regardless of whether he was high or drunk during this period, this break from Yoko saw him re-united with both Paul and Julian his son who he'd not seen for a few years either. Yoko may have been the love of his life, but she was also an extremely devisive figure in it to, seperating him from as much of his previous life as possible. Shee may not be as bad as has been made out, but im sure without her, a John / Paul renunion would have happened.

All the talk about a beatles renuunion ignores the biggest obstacle that stood in the way of one, and that was George. He could barely muster a positive word to say about the group until it came time to make the Anthology.

I know George had "issues" with John.

Cloudbuster said:

i thought george's main beef was with paul.

are you on about other "issues" ?

and by "issues" i mean

This period when John was with May actually saw him re-united with Paul for the first time in almost 5 years. They defnitely jammed together, along with ringo I believe, but nothing was recorded, and no plans to record together were made.

quote]

They jammed together with Stevie Wonder. They recorded the session.

TheFrog said:

Paul & George clashed in the studio a lot during the White Album and Get Back sessions. But with John it was more personal. I know George was the most openly hostile towards Yoko which rubbed John up the wrong way.

Cloudbuster said:

You make it sound like you were actually there in the studio....

Come to think of it.... did you have a part in the fab four breaking up....

Spill the beans mister!!

I doubt this based on an interview in Rolling Stone from 72 where John Lennon was just brutal and honest in talking about the Beatles. They were never going to get back together.

well, didnt john call paul up and consider the idear of them doing Saturday Night Live? For $1?

Yeah, I heard Paul was in NY with John and they almost went on SNL to collect the $3000 offered by Lorne Michaels.

Threads like these are just depressing because the only reunion we ever got was Free As A Bird & Real Love

Imagine 1975-1980 5 more Beatles albums instead of heroin induced seclusion & Silly Love Songs? Oh, it hurts!

andyman91 said:

ohh...its was a bit more then a buck ehh...

lol....i still cant believe they actually considered the offer...thats some funny sh*t...

with 2 of them in the grave, i'd say it's pretty academic at this point....

sosgemini said:

"Divide it any way you want...if you want to give Ringo less..."

The Beatles edgier, darker, more interesting songs were always written by Lennon. McCartney is an ordinary musician and simplistic writer, overestimated IMO. Props for 'Live and Let Die' though. That's a great song.

I don't know what it is about Sir Paul though, his music always irked me as i grew up. (Mull of Kintire, Pipes of Peace, Ebony & Ivory, Give My Regards To Broad Street, The Frog Chorus etc and on it goes with the cheesey crap) I'll include his collaborations with MJ in that list too. I just stopped listening. I thought he was crap by then.

Marrk said:

Couldn't agree with you more. My mother subjected me to London Town for about a year after it came out. She stopped when I threatened to report her for child abuse.
[Edited 5/24/05 14:06pm]

Marrk said:

I understand where your coming from.. Bit I think your overlooking a LOT of stuff that he did during the beatles.. in fact, it looks as if your basing your opinion on his solo/wings material, the topic is on The Beatles.


I think paul had some wonderful edgy stuff.. that might not have been as dark as Johns or Georges.. but it was ahead of its time

examples
Helter Skelter, elenor rigby, (btw he did a majority of the sampling in Tomorrow never knows), Why Dont We Do It In The Road, Fixing A hole

and a ton more I can think of when im working

MartyMcFly said:

Hi! I'm Yoko.

Cloudbuster said:

I like your big sunglasses.

TheFrog said:

They hide my face.

Cloudbuster said:

Thank goodness.

TheFrog said:

Marrk said:

This is the most cliched opinion of paul that is perpetuated throughout the media and casual beatles fans, which upon closer inspection is simply bullshit.

I tell you what, why not list all of pauls worst songs, and use these as a basis as to why paul is rubbish, rather than looking at most of his other work which was no where near as bad as that stuff, and using that as a basis to judge an artist.

Hey Jude, Let It Be, Blackbird, Maybe Im Amazed, The Long & Winding Road, Helter Skelter, Get Back, Back In The USSr, You Never Give me Your Money, Golden Slumbers, Penny Lane, Sgt peppers Lonely hearts Club, Band On The Run, With A Little Help From My Friends, Eleanor Rigby, Hello Goodbye, Here There & Everywhere, For No One, Yesterday, Ive Just Seen A Face, All My Loving, I Saw Her Standing There. I could go on but right now i cant think.

Of all the Beatles Paul was the most gifted musician. He developed the most personal music style of all of them, and to call his songs simplistic is to ignore the melodic structures of a lot of them (although Id defintely agree lennon had a better sense of lyrics). He had the best voice in the group, and was the only one with a real passion for playing live.

What really riles me is the way people try and seperate Lennon & McCartney off as one being better than the other. If you study their Beatles and solo work closely, you can see that both were better when in a group with the other. Out of this group, both struggled to make great albums (listen to Lennons Mind Games album and McCarnteys Wildlife), yet still managed to produce those 2-3 brilliant songs each year. Lennon made Imagine, Jealous Guy, Love, Whatever Gets You Through The Night. McCartney made Maybe Im Amazed, Every Night, Too Many people, My Love, Live & Let Die, Band On The Run etc. Its safe to assume if theyd stayed together as a group, theyd have made some brilliant beatles records on the back of these kind of songs.

Any way my point amidst all this is that whatever you're personal opinion of each, it should be accepted that without mcCartney, Lennon would not be the artist we knew, and vice a versa. Paul has been making music for 20 years since lennons death, hes had a lot more time to mess up, and methinks had lennon been alive, he wouldnt have releases half his cheesy crap anyway. Amongst whatever talent they had, one of the things that was so great about them was that they always tried to compete with each other to do better.

CrozzaUK said:

ladies and gentlemen, i present to you: Paul McCartney