What is Reddit's opinion of I'm Not The Beatles: John & Yoko Interviews, 1969-72?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

(...cont'd)

The next part of the quote that Miles presents seems to contradict his own assertion:

> "Paul protested that he had tried to allow space on albums for John's songs, only to find that John hadn't written any. John explained, 'There was no point in turning 'em out. I couldn't, didn't have the energy to turn 'em out and get 'em on as well.' He then told Paul how he wanted it to be in the future: 'When we get in the studio I don't care how we do it but I don't want to think about equal time. I just want it known I'm allowed to put four songs on the album, whatever happens.'"

My reading of this quote is that John was absolutely willing to submit to consensus and veto. What else does "I don't care how we do it" and "whatever happens" mean in this context? It seems to me, John is saying, "Even if it so happens that you guys veto some of my songs, or Paul comes in with twenty worthwhile songs, I'm still entitled to my four slots on the album." He never says, "I get to dictate my songs," he says, "I don't care how we do it" as long as he gets "equal time".

But why not go straight to the source? John gave an interview with Howard Smith of WABC Radio on 17 December 1969, where he addresses this very issue pretty directly. Smith asks about the recording process and future Beatles projects, and John talks about what would happen if a song gets rejected (available here though I took it from here):

> HOWARD SMITH: "Where do you see the Beatles music going? Let's say you do find yourselves, all four of you, back in a recording studio three months from now. What do you see?" > > JOHN: "I can't imagine, y'know. I can't imagine at all. I don't think of it in terms of Beatles music. It's only Beatles music when it comes out under the name 'Beatles'. There's no limit to where anybody's music can go, y'know. And I think Beatles still [???] too long after Pepper, and they got to freak out a little bit more. That's where I'd push them." > > HOWARD SMITH: "Do you think that's the general feeling among your other three partners?" > > JOHN: "No. See, because we're all different. We all have different concepts of how far you go, y'know, I say go as far as you can. I don't know what the others--I haven't [got a] quote for the others, but we don't all think the same. That's why we make individual music. > > "See, I like on the Beatles double album, 'Revolution 9' is the track I'm interested in, y'know. But I had to impose that on them, really, in a way. I'd like to just be able to go there. I still like offbeats." > > SMITH: "Is that what your new company is for? Bag Productions?"

After a brief aside about Bag Productions, Smith returns to the topic:

> SMITH: "I'm curious about how it actually works with a recording session, when you say you had to sort of force Revolution 9 on the other three. What do you mean? You came in and said, 'This is what I want one of the tracks to be?'" > > YOKO: "More subtle than that." > > JOHN: "More subtle than that, y'know. It's, uh, I was just putting it together, and George and Ringo were leaping about getting tapes and cutting them and all that, y'know, and we were just doing it. I just felt as though--I felt maybe it was my paranoia, I just felt as though I'd imposed it on them, y'know, on the 'Beatle' product." > > YOKO: "I remember the last minute, you said, well, it has to be a bit short because-- > > JOHN: "Yeah, y'know, it's just like that." > > YOKO: "--it would occupy too much space and all that, y'know." > > JOHN: "Sod that. If I want to do that, I'll do it separately, and then there's no messing. > >"See, while the other Beatles were on holiday, we'd started doing Revolution [i.e., Revolution 1], the song Revolution [1] which was on the album, and I wanted to put that out, and Revolution 9 as the B-side. And it was just literally the others wouldn't let me." > > SMITH: "But I mean, what happens when that happens? You all sit down together and you, like, have an argument?" > > JOHN: "I said I want to put this out as the next Beatles single, and they said, 'Well, we don't think it's a single, y'know.' So, I said, 'All right.' And I'd re-did Revolution, and by then, Hey Jude, and I managed to get it on the [B-]side of Hey Jude. But what I wanted out was the message. Not the song. Just the message."

Here, John seems to be content with doing his passion projects "separately" as a POB or solo track that the Beatles might reject so that "there's no messing" with criticism and compromise from the other Beatles.

And this is backed up by what John had been doing around the time of the 4/4/4/2 proposal. He'd already released Give Peace A Chance as a POB single. He did the same with Cold Turkey. He'd released three albums under his own name: Two Virgins, Life With The Lions, and the Wedding Album.

And when the band broke up, this didn't change. While his POB album may not have been very Beatle-y, it was still full of conventional, if loud, rock songs. He reserved his non-traditional, freeform tracks for Yoko's POB album. He did the same with Imagine--it's a straight pop-rock album, while he put all the more freaky stuff on Yoko's Fly.

There's no evidence John ever suggested a situation where the other Beatles couldn't reject his songs under a 4/4/4/2 album. He made at least one statement in the months after that contradicts this claim. He even adhered to keeping the less commercial stuff off his own solo albums. While I don't doubt that Miles is correct that Paul may have been worried that this was some underhanded way for John to get another "Revolution 9" on a Beatles album, there is no evidence that this was anything more than Paul's paranoia. As John said, "whatever happens", he just wanted "equal time" with Paul on the next Beatle album, and evidently thought George should get the same. There was nothing stopping Paul from agreeing to the plan, with the caveat, "We each do get four slots per album, but we also get to veto anything we don't like" if this were a major concern. Given John's statements during the Fawcett conversation, and his statements during the Smith interview, and given his actions and releases under the POB name and his own name in 1968-69, everything points to John being perfectly willing to agree to this.

But I do think it's interesting and am glad you were able to dig this up. Now it makes me want to seek out the Coleman book to see if he's able to present anything more substantive than Miles does. Maybe there is some quote out there of John, or any of the other Beatles or their hangers-on, that says John wanted a veto-less situation under the 4/4/4/2 plan. But as far as I can tell from the Miles passage, John is saying one thing in the quote, while Miles is deliberately trying to construe it completely other way.