Dear Mr. Sir and/or Madam breathless345, in your video “Understanding Lennon/McCartney vol1: Together”, at about 1:48:00, WHAT IS THAT SONG??? It’s killing me that I haven’t heard it before because I love it. Thank you

@@BuenoMcgurski it’s from a Beatles bootleg that includes demos and song fragments from the Pepper era. It was labeled Mellotron 1. (Sorry, I don’t have much information other than that!)

@@breathless345 found it!! Thank you one million dollars. Without your help I would have never found it ;)

Now this is a comment section I can enjoy! 😂

@@breathless345 would you be willing to share the specifics of why volume 1 was taken down? What did you have to change before reloading?

except he wasnt always that diplomatic, the scenes that exist of paul expressing how fed up he is with john and yoko were left on the cutting room floor. for obvioius reasons.

@@simonjames1604 he was and is only human. The Beatles were not used to anyone infringing on their special relationship. John should have prepared them for her intrusion. It would have made it easier for them to all accept.

@@daletwin1 i am not blaming paul at all .

Linda was around all the time even brought her brat with her.

​@@StringersLogicthat was after Yoko. The Beatles had a rule of "no girlfriend" in studio, but John started bringing her into the studio during the White Album, so he broke that rule idk why. She was a problem and could have stayed at home, but she didn't even care if they didn't like her or felt uncomfortable working like that.

I suspected about it. So, it is true. Well, she is one of the producers.

She broke up the beatles paul george and ringo were put in an intolerable position with yoko being in the recording studio why the hell john couldnt see this is baffling she totally controlled him

@@susanrutherford866 Okay Boomer.

Yoko was a symptom not a cause. If you think they wouldn't have split apart anyway then you're delusional.

@@Mokkari77 im not delusional its painful to watch george ringo and paul having to suffer yoko being in the studio day after day

I know. I noticed that too and thought it was eerie foreshadowing.

Billy knew it was going to happen. He had it planned from the beginning.

WTF!!!!?? What are you smoking?

he comes across as an unbearable egomaniac on several occasions, jakcson edts his film to show a history that lindsay hogg would never had dared and in the end michaels film is ultiametly the more honest one.

Couldn't disagree with you more.

@@simonjames1604 Peter Jackson not Michael Jackson. We all get brain fade.

@@jhaduvala um hello?? micheal lindsay hogg is who i was refereing too, not peter jackson when i said "michael" , names are hard sorry that was difficult for you. peter jackson through slight of hand editing is LESS honest than michael lindsay hogg, hope thats dumbed it down enough for you

Yes. That was the exact moment.

William is a masterful actor.

I agree, Linda loved Paul in a healthy way

When they said in the Get Back documentary that they were visiting George to get him back and it said on screen that both Linda and Yoko joined, I immediately knew that meeting was useless. Some things just have to be dealt with without outsiders.

Well it's like a sibling's new girlfriend/boyfriend sitting in on a family meeting. It's just wrong

it was awful and odd. and it didn’t help that she wasn’t especially friendly, just like this silent unsmiling presence. and the two of them were doing heroin together, which worried the others.

Yes. He took over for the real Paul and he figured the best defense is a good offense so he tried to dominate the band. John missed his dear friend Paul deeply and Yoko was his security blanket.

Billy really did the best he could.@@surfrunnerd8457

@@surfrunnerd8457god you guys really believe that

@@rarecrom not a question of believing. A question of accepting which is a difficult hurdle for many long time fans. Different eye color. Different skull shape. Different voice when you listen to isolated vocals. Different body language on stage.

Speak for yourself.

and you too@@jhaduvala

@@Bella-nt7ec Well who else?

paul was the most realistic guy in the band, he said it how it simply was. while john and george where dosing off day dreaming about yoko and the maharishi.

Oh bullocks. The guy in the thumbnail is a double: Billy Shears. Real Paul was eliminated in 1966. He was the genuine article. Real Paul was much better looking, for starters, and a master bassist

@@PaulsAdvocateyou are WEIRD!!

@christiejohnston8538 And you are WRONG. I was around for the early Beatles and met Paul. I think that overrides any opinion you offer in ignorance. Those two put on a good public face..they had to. In reality, which you obviously don't inhabit, John resented original Paul very much.

@@PaulsAdvocateyou have no life

Stop pretending you know things you don't. You are acting like a 13 year old fangirl.

Maybe, but how would you feel sitting up on the roof in the cold? Also, needy? I thought that John was such a tough guy.

She could have just been cold lol. She gave John her jacket

​@@candelise he isn't a tough guy. He was very pussy whipped by Yoko

Yes, thank you! All these morons saying Yoko didn't break up the Beatles are dead wrong. She has y'all fooled. She thought her "work" with John was more important . LMAO 🤣🤣 I still find it hilarious she thinks her caterwauling is "art" Still as deluded as ever....

he was right to be worried, she led to Johns destruction. She was even cheating on him and they were soon going to be divorced before he was shot.

Hiya Squorly. How do you know that? I mean that Yoko was present during that convo?

@@favouritemoon4133 Yes, and Linda too. I think Ringo was also there. It was the lunch time, I believe. There were many people. Yoko makes some comment during that conversation. You can hear Linda and Ringo talking in the back. There some audios around there if you look it up in youtube, you can find them. I can't remember if Pop Goes to the 60's. made an analysis of that part, but he has many videos about the Let it be sessions.

@@julessabio Thanks for that.

Also my own film, which I've linked numerous times. Cheers!

@@breathless345 Yes, true. It could have been that too. I know I've seen your new edition of the breakup part Understanding Lennon-McCartney. I've seen the 5 (6) parts before but I dind't remember this part was included. I downloaded the old version too, so I have it somewhere :). I start to forget if I've seen things on video of it's the audios. What a mess!!! haha. Thank you for your videos. I've watched them all.

And she was pregnant at the time.

@@HandM80 Loyalty to his partner. John cheated constantly on Cynthia and he and Yoko were separated for a period in the 70s because he was cheating and she needed a break.

Yoko was also very insecure about Cynthia, terrified John would go back to her. So she got in between there too and insisted that Cynthia talk ONLY to her, and NEVER John, about all arrangements for Julian. She then soon saw that NO arrangements were made. So she was happy with that and left it alone at that point. May Pang didn't have any problem starting things up again for John and Julian, even inviting Cynthia unto the mix, as a mother should be. So it wasn't John who'd been against it. And May remained friends with Cynthia until the end. When you begin your relationship stalking a married man, doing all you can to lure him away from his family, until you turn him into a heroin addict just to draw him to you, you'll always be terrified he'll return to who he really is, and to those who really love him with a healthy love.

@@charwest9449 Yes! Classic narcissistic behavior on Yoko’s part, and I hate to keep pointing that out but it’s absolutely disgustingly obvious. Narcs are very insecure about their partners cheating on them because they’re notorious cheaters themselves. They project their own behaviors onto those they “love” and then totally gaslight, saying things such as “I only did this because YOU did that…” therefore, absolving themselves of all responsibility for whatever the bad situation may be.

@@Chinachik Absolutely. Classic narcissist behavior. Who would doubt that Yoko was a narc controlling John (the goose laying her golden eggs) by isolating him. He even sang Isolation - a cry for help more than Help. How would one of the most famous men in the world, who could draw anyone to him, come to know isolation so pitifully? And then having isolated the golden goose, Yoko's obsession with gaining media attention and then controlling how the media and public perceived their union was off the charts.

@@charwest9449 So absolutely true! And she’s manipulated the narrative of their entire “love story” until very recently when May was finally able to get her own story on film without needing Yoko’s approval about every bit involving John. Yoko’s old and her health is not the best anymore so she’s losing her manipulative grip on everyone and everything else while dealing with that. Shame it had to come to that first but she’s done it to herself.

@@HandM80 Paul is trying with all his might to accept what John wants. Linda talking Yoko down just isn't helpful. Not that I blame her really. It's a very human reaction.

and its proved she wasn't nice at all!!always knew she was annoying!

@@ChrisMaxfieldActs she had crush on john! i think she was jealous of yoko! although both yoko and linda was annoying but atleast yoko didn't talk bad behind their back!!

@@zabanenglisi9151 at least Linda know her place, not sitting with the band while they're at work. If you think Linda is worse, then Yoko is worst

@@eliboybherrera7890 that doesn't mean she was a nice person!!everyone talking about her like she was a saint lol!

We'll only get the full truth about the John and Yoko years once Yoko (and maybe Paul as well) is dead. E.g. Peter Doggett's book about Lennon's final years, _Prisoner of Love_ , was axed at the last minute; seems Yoko put the kibosh on it.

@@ModerateObserver, yes there was a tape where john said he would replace George with Clapton and Paul said no and john replied he would talk with George just because paul was asking him for because he always was jealous of Paul and George friendship and afraid that Paul would leave him because Paul was better musically than him and was better looking that him and Yoko listen to this yelled “ lets talk about George,

​@@stevemorris6790"because Paul was better musically than him and was better looking that him" 🤣🤣🤣 what one has to read. Without John, The Beatles wouldn't have been what they were, Paul may have been the one who made things work at that time but John was always the soul, regardless of who was the best musician. If you don't like the guy that's fine, maybe you have reasons but insinuating that he was jealous and wasn't himself so talented seems very silly.

@@lucashernandez4345 , because he was ! As john herself said that himself so go and argue wiTH john as there are a tape that is a continuation of the tape get back when john said to Paul how jealous he is of him , about his musically, for his looks and also jealous of George and Paul friendship blah blah that even yoko yelled and said lets talk about George! They were discussing George and Paul was asking john to go ask to get george back. True tape ! That yoko doesn’t let be played , the tape them talked about heroin too. P

Maybe when she goes there will be another cut. The SHE FINALLY GOT BACK cut.

Brian Epstein dying was a huge factor.

John and George broke up The Beatles and since they are Beatles they had every right. I feel like this stupid argument should end. They had problems before she came along as each and every one of The Beatles have said.

Shears takin over was the beginning of the end.@@kathypop4

At the very least she could've sat in the back like Linda, as opposed to sitting right next to John in the circle where they're creating music. The entire situation was ridiculous. It's as though John were holding the band hostage with his behavior, knowing that they needed him and would allow it. It worked on Paul. George? Not so much.

Thanks. Right, John was in the band and he wanted Yoko on his side but she was an adult and she made her choices,.no one forced her to being an disrespectful bitch to his lover's coworkers

The unfortunate outcome of the situation was Paul had to be the one to come out as the one quiting the band even though he more than anyone wanted to continue as a group. And that bastard Jan Wenner from Rolling Stone forced their reviewer to pan McCartney (Paul's first album) in the magazine and deliberately write a negative review in order to statisy the Lennon's in exchange for John's exclusive interview for Rolling Stone in December '70

@@seanaiello4984 I think I'll die mad about how it all went down. Jan was a bastard indeed. And he also wasn't supposed to publicly release the 1970 Rolling Stone interview with John but he did anyway. Paul was treated like garbage for years and it was totally unjustified.

I had the same thought! Ha

Haha - could have been a sequel to Thinking of Linking 😆

Yes she had veto rights, like the others did.

@@yes2day100 I don't doubt that in the slightest with Paul having no part in Allen Klein.

@@HandM80 *"Yoko helped John overcome his drug addiction."* (big sigh). What you have just spewed is simply LennOno Estate propaganda that has been promulgated for over 50 years with no pushback and it is *BS.* The fact is, Yoko *introduced HEROIN to John Lennon.* He struggled with that addiction the rest of his short life. Yes he was already a drug addict when she met him, but he was not a heroin junkie until she introduced it to him, took it with him, and both got hooked. Yes he could've gotten it from anybody, but he DIDN'T, he got it from HER, and she continued to provide it, enabled his reason's for taking it. "It's beautiful and any *serious artist* would take it to be a better artist", some BS reasoning like that. Once she was secure as his girlfriend, they had others to get smack for them both. *"If it were not for Yoko, John would have been dead in 1970."* I disagree. Besides, lots of folks think that if it were not for Yoko, John would probably have been still alive in 1981 and beyond.

@@waterfalls5194 THIS

@@waterfalls5194 Thank you for all of that. I do not see any way in which Yoko was John's "saviior." She was a highly intelligent and skillful manipulator who latched on to a man with severe attachment issues. He was lucky to have been close to Paul all those years, because Paul was a nurterer who to this day will never trash talk John. Joih spent most of his marriage to Yoko miserable and depressed. She sucked the life out of him. He was really only able to make music when she wasn't around - in fact the produ"cer of Double Fantasy said they could not be in the studio at the same time and they recorded their parts completely separately. They worked hard to maintain their image of a passionate couple with a great love story. I think once John went all in on their relationship, he had to commit and there was no turning back. Their relationship was highly performative. Paul's was as well, to a far lesser degree. I suspect a lot of it was performing for each other's benefit. "Look, you've been replaced! See how in love and happy we are! See us make music together!" No other rock star I know of has ever put their wives in the spotlight like John and Paul did. It's not a coincidence. Do I put all the blame on Yoko? Absolutely not. She was being herself. If John had not met (i.e., been aggressively stalked by her), he would have found someone else equally destructive to him.

@@waterfalls5194 Yoko did introduce heroin to John, but he didn't "struggle with it for the rest of his life". He used in 1968 and 1969, then never again. Yoko, by her own admission, became involved with it again in 1979/1980, but John didn't. You accuse the Lennono estate of propaganda, while doing that very thing. Hypocrite much? The key difference being yours is hateful and negative and is based solely on your personal prejudices.

@@BadfingerBoogieBarb I admit I have my own biases (as do we all), and I may even be incorrect (I don't think so) but I'm not hateful. Situation wise, the sadness of heroin addiction for both John and Yoko is a very negative take-away (among many IMO) of their history together. I'm no fan of Yoko but I don't (and didn't) wish heroin addiction on her or anybody.

I dont have problem with yoko being there same as linda being there. She’s not doing anything, so what’s the problem anyway?i wonder why Paul being so jealous about her sitting position btw? Is it wrong for her to touch John? Why it such a big thing for Paul to discuss john relationship instead of George leaving the band?

@@yuriitai4552 well that’s because Paul was very independent and did not rely on Linda, while John was very needy and needed Yoko for everything

@@thomascars1 still no one answering me about the whole chauvinist vibes from Paul. Ok Paul was so independent so was John. He writes his song too. Its not like Yoko write the song for him.

​@@yuriitai4552 bro everyone hated her beside john. George and Ringo had also stated about their frustration with yoko in interviews. They are not irritated because yoko was around in studio but bothered because she sits with them while writing songs. She also distracted john a lot, just watch the get back session!! And more hatred towards her is because of something which is never stated by any beatles publicly that she controlled John life and bend him towards her will!!!!

@@yuriitai4552 They're in the studio to work and Yoko was interrupting that work. How is that so difficult to get? Even if she was a nice person and not a looney her constantly being there to distract John would've been a problem. And they mention in this very video that they can't even talk to John anymore because Yoko is there. Either you're playing the fool or you should really get your eyes and ears checked.

Perfect. Some time ago Paul told in an interview (that dude who looks like a Ramone and talks more than the interviewed) that John and even him had something similar about women, they liked the strong ones. When men are in love with strong women, forget it, they will be 100% in the same vibe as John. But it's pretty cool watching Paul talking about it because he understands, and there is nothing more nice in friendship than empathy.

Yoko should be self aware enough to know how much the Beatles meant to John and that her presence at all times was causing major issues. She is definitely to blame, John ok kind of got sucked into it and became dependent which you could say is his fault, but man what a controlling and selfish woman Yoko was.

You've demonstrated how simple you are without explicitly having stated it.

Is this conversation complete in the book too?

that conversation is in the documentary Understanding Lennon/McCartney part 2 by our Breathless

@@Bella-nt7ec yup! Im so grateful for Breathless and the work thats done to make these great videos. In my opinion, his Understanding Lennon McCartney series is a better "companion" to the Get Back movie than the official coffee table book I originally mentioned lol😂.

@@olihhayes im not sure. I unfortunately haven't had enough time lately to properly sit down and read the Get Back book. But I think it is, im just not sure how complete the conversation is.

I Mean the book has it's omission and it's misplaced parts too (Some of them Very Weird). But I agree the book is better than the film, I've been thinking on doing this youtube channel about the sessions explaining everything. I can confirm by reading his interviews that PJ is really trying to rewrite history with the movie because he spreads misinformations. For Example that day that wasn't filmed (The 20), PJ uses footage of the Beatles entering the studio that comes from 3 days laters and Jabez the editor lied saying that the footage was actually from the 20.

And Ringo. AndLinda.

So how did they capture the welling up in his eyes at that moment? Maybe he was serious but they thought he was joking?

@@theresaricci to me, it seems like they also deliberately extended that silence for dramatic effect (cutting back and forth from Ringo). Paul is pensive, anxious but clearly not about to burst into tears as we are led to believe.

@@sebastianmaharg For me he is about to burst into tears, but not when he says "and then there were two". It was when Michael asked him about pushing John and if he would get something from him from doing that. He is distress, he's biting his nails, his voice cracks a bit and he's about to cry. When he says "I can't be bother ...." they put the audio of "Then there were two" instead. He's about to cry because of his breaking apart from John, I believe.

And what makes you believe this is the correct order the conversation took place in compared to the film? It even says it's an alternate edit in the title. Edit being the key word here.

@@jbryan8864 agreed, that's a poor choice in the video title. It's should say "raw audio". That aside, the audio (which has been around on Beatle bootlegs for a while) we can clearly see how the "then there were two" phrase was spliced out from earlier in the conversation, the laughter cut out, and then it was instead inserted over McCartney image when he wasn't saying that at all. That's quite clear.

I mean, she went for Paul first. That didn't work out so she went with the next one in the band.

@@SnipinG1337 woah, really?! What's the story? Please elaborate.

@@lazyartiste_2357 Before Yoko ever met John, she approached Paul at the underground art gallery and book store he had invested in, called Indica Gallery, (owned by Peter Asher, John Dunbar and Barry Miles), and asked him for lyrics for some art project of hers. Paul said he didn't have any. She hung outside his house for a few weeks - Paul's fans who hung out there said they saw her there. She definitely tried to connect with Paul first, who was at the time the only unmarried Beatle - and he was the only Beatle truly interested in avant garde art - and when he didn't bite, she turned her sites on John. Cynthia Lennon wrote in her book about how Yoko determinedly pursued John. For example, Yoko forced herself into a limo that John and Cyn were in, and Cyn wrote that she and John exchanged looks, like, 'what the heck?' And then, when they were in India at the ashram in early 1968, Yoko sent John lots of postcards and letters, gradually luring him away from Cyn. She hung around the Beatles' Apple offices with a lot of female fans whose ambition it was to sleep with Beatles. When John and Paul came back from America from their quick PR tour touting Apple Corps in spring 1968, she slept with John at the Apple offices for the first time. She was married to someone else at the time, and had a child by him. She then got John on to heroin, so they could take heroin together. She said she did it so John would give up hallucinogens and uppers and downers. (A bit like saying you're giving up burglary to take up armed robbery. ) BTW, John was still doing heroin when he died. That woman wanted herself a Beatle because she wanted a platform for herself in the avant garde art world. No one is allowed to say this about her, but it is absolutely true. She persuaded John to move to NYC, where she sought to be included in Andy Warhol's circle. Without John, she would not have made it. And even then, Warhol and his friends kept them at arm's length. As a 'performance artist' what Yoko wanted was attention and clout in the avant garde art world, and being Lennon's wife accomplished that. It's why she didn't divorce him even when she stopped loving him. She had numerous affairs in the late '70s, and some of the men she had affairs with were musicians John worked with. To be fair, I'm sure John was a handful. He was intensely insecure, and addicted to heroin (as Yoko was), and he also had something approaching a borderline personality disorder, so he couldn't have been easy to live with. He, too, was not a faithful husband. Still, she used him for what she could get, and he allowed her to do so for his own reasons. There might have been a kind of interdependent kind of love between them, but it was nothing close to a functional relationship. After all, he called her 'Mother' - and not ironically. And I always wonder what would have happened if John had not been killed. Would he eventually have left her? Would he have eventually started respecting himself? So sad that such a gifted human being should be so insecure. It is the 'could have beens' that always hurt the most.

@@yes2day100 thank you very much for your effort! That was a heart breaking read, hope John is at a better place.

Yoko wouldn’t have given John a second glance had he’d not been rich and famous.

The Beatles were breaking anyway. She just happened to be in the midst of it.

@@glorgau So how come she kept John from them for the rest of his life? Every time he was about to do something with Paul (like the Saturday Night Live show) or performing with him in that Louisiana concert ( or wherever it was) Yoko came up with the reasons he shouldn't/couldn't/wouldn't do them. And how about keeping John from George's Bangladesh concert by threatening to kill herself if he went (so he flew back)!! And even that time John was going to sign the Beatles dissolution papers in person which meant he'd physically he reunited with all the others at a very emotional moment, Yoko told John he mustn't go because the stars weren't aligned right or something so he backed out and signed it ALONE like a week later. Yoko was always so in tune with "the stars" to keep John away from the other Beatles, yet "the stars" said nothing about him giving up his security detail while working on her songs for that album.

@@charwest9449 Paul was in New Orleans recording a record and called John to come and record with him. According to May Pang in her book. He wanted to do it and May encouraged him , then the Dragon Lady reared her ugly head and we know the rest! Sad!

@@LSU01 Yes, we have the truth from May Pang, who really loved him and wanted what was best for him -- reunited with Julian, and Paul.

You're going with the decades old myth instead of the actual public facts presented in the documentary and by McCartney himself in the early 70s.

Yeah, there was a lot more conversation going on. I get it. A lot of it was directed at Yoko.

"And then there were two" was billy knowingly lettin us all in on the upcoming "sacrifices' still to come.....@@Piwork69

Lol 🤣

She took John with her.

That song ALL about Yoko. Not subconscious at all.

What about the pakistanis?

Well, it's worth seeing what happened in the seventies (or watching a movie from Breathless!)to see that they haven't broken up. For example, in the seventies they wrote several songs about each other.

​@@HmzmsnsnsJsjsm_9they broke up, those songs were just "exes" song. I don't think they were together alone anymore more than a few times in 70s

absolutely, I remember it too

George was having fun, it's obvious

George loved being a Beatle, i think the band could been managed the problem of his songs if it wasn't for the John-Paul-Yoko triangle that John created for some reason

Well, you need to know what happened next. Even here, if you look at the documentary, you can see that they are very close. The Beatles had some hard times, but they sorted it out in the seventies, after the breakup, and then I advise go deeper into this. For example, John and Paul wrote songs about each other, like "I Know (I Know), "Dear Friend." So the real loss was when John was killed by Chapman. Remember "Here Today"?

We also can watch Pop Goes to the 60's. I saw this dialogue first there. And they have lots of others very complete. I saw them much before the documentary. The conversation between Paul and George about the song Two of us is also not complete. We don't see that George changed Paul's name to Paulina. And that Paul had a itching problem that day. That is why he was nervous. " You have to wash it", said John.

@@dabreu read the comments on that video. Some people from Liverpool say that he says "Paul you know" as they would say that there. Yes, they all laugh about his itching problem, hahaha. Anyway the discussion doesn't seem so serious when you listen to all the audio.

​@@dabreu I've forgotten!! And Patie had left George. That's in Pattie's book. During his departure, he comes back in a better mood. Peter knows about that fact. He was asked about that in an inteview and he said he didn't want to put personal things in the film. However, it shows that the Pattie thing was a problem. Both were nervous for different things, Paul and George.

John’s attitude to Yoko is all in in my life: “but for all these friends and lovers there is no-one compares to you, and these memories lose their meaning when I think of love as something new. Though I know I’ll never lose affection for people and friends who came before, I know I’ll often stop and think about them - in my life. I love you more” The problem is ultimately that while we can all respect John and Yoko’s love for each other and the devotion it inspired for most people it was not worth the devastation it wreaked on the band. Lennon-McCartney had to die so that Lennon-Ono could live and the overwhelming majority of people would probably agree that the art Lennon made with Ono is nowhere near as good as that which he made with Paul.

@@nope2dat I definitely agree with what you say. Choosing Yoko as his lover was John's personal decision. But just because Yoko presented herself as a viable "creative partner" for his life work, doesn't mean she actually was. To the contrary, not only did she prove to be hopeless at furthering John's creative career, but she often hindered it. With Yoko, John ended up in a heroin fog for a few years, then hiding in the kitchen and blocked creatively for 5 years, and finally dead at her side, having fired security. And the real tragedy is that the brilliant Lennon-McCartney creative partnership that John sacrificed for that wasteland, WAS THE UNION OF THE CENTURY. Throwing that union away, and just blindly expecting his association with Yoko to bear equal fruit, was as foolish as expecting lightning to strike the same spot twice. Of course it didn't. John threw his lucky break away. In John and Paul's 13 years of working together, they jointly wrote and performed 155 amazing songs that propelled them to worldwide acclaim and wealth. In John's 13 years with Yoko as his creative partner, she helped him write and perform ... no songs? one song? two songs? Yoko may have contributed to two or three of his songs in their roughly 12 years together. At best, a decade after the fact, he generously claimed her 1964 booklet of poems was his muse for Imagine. Yet when we look at those nonsensical, often brutal, haiku-style directives, they bear no resemblance to his wistful song. But whatever. The point is, the Lennon-Ono catalogue is basically nowhere man.

👏@@charwest9449

Well John did say, let's get Clapton

I was always surprised that George didn't just tell the others "Blleep you, I'm gonna form my own band with Clapton and Dylan".@@michaelgressett7767

George was pissed because Billy wasn't even there at the beginning of the band and now he was 'leading' them.

Thank you!

ah!! Here you are! We've been talking about your videos :).

Thank you, love yours as well. Thanks for joining the discussion here!

Hi Matt, to me the real significance of this clip is not so much the discussion about Yoko, but how the "then there were two" statement by Paul was in fact supposed to be a dry quip (laughter included) about Lennon's no-show that morning and clearly manipulated by Jackson to illicit emotion that simply wasn't there. I'd love to hear your thoughts on that.

​@@sebastianmaharg and Matt, here's my 2 cents: Although we can't read Paul's mind and therefore don't know what he's privately thinking about, I think it's DEFINITELY possible (and IMO highly likely) that Paul is concerned for John's welfare when it turns out no one can reach him. He knows John is on heroin and only a couple days later John gets sick (presumably from heroin) in the so-called "Two Junkies" interview, so it makes sense that Paul is worried about John's health/life, beyond his own self-interest in keeping the band together. Heroin is another taboo subject of the breakup but it may be a contributing factor in why Paul feels he can only push John so hard. I personally don't like Peter Jackson's cut of the "then there were tow" line because it reinforces the idea that Paul only cared about the Beatles and/or John in a selfish way, i.e. "what if John leaves the band" versus "OMG, I hope my best friend didn't OD." I'm not suggesting that Paul DIDN'T love the Beatles or want the band to continue (of course he did), but if my friend is doing heroin and doesn't show up for work (and suddenly no one can find him), I know what my real fear is gonna be.

@@breathless345 that's a fabulous take away. Very insightful and I wouldn't be surprised at all that this was indeed the case. The point I'm trying to make, as I've said before, is deliberately and literally 'putting words into peoples mouths' in this instance. Had McCartney said this phrase elsewhere but still have evoked a haunting, poignant moment, I'd have less of an issue with what Jackson did. But it's clear that this phase in particular, was a laconic quip to break the tension, get a laugh. So, 'fly on the wall' or 'hey, I'm just showing you what happened' it ain't.

That depends on who P B Conte really is.....

That came off sounding very antagonistic, and that is not what I intend.

Exactly. There are so many layers to The Beatles that a genuinely dedicated fan will get as close to the truth as they can, and that means keeping on exploring. Peter knows that, but what he has done, is like Paul, and George, (and Ringo too, although I never got the impression that he'd very got really upset with any of the other three), is to forgive and be as kind as possible, knowing that it is better to see the good and remember the good times...

Tin-foil hat, party of one.

@@jpetersgoyanks it’s a valid point, tin foil hat guy.

Well George Harrison, not a fan, said loud and clearly that Yoko wanted John to leave the Beatles. I think he probably knew better than us

I agree. People can blame Yoko all they want (I personally think she's awful) but the reality is that this is John's fault. Yoko isn't there creating tension without John dragging her ass along.

Not a bad idea! Thanks for the tip

@@breathless345 also, even make it shorter... Folks have a very quick attention span... Make it only about that specific moment, IMO.

Yes, I've heard a lot of this, and he completely cut it out, and lowered her voice on the tapes to make her much more innocent, which she wasn't

Making a film or anything is manipulating. You pick and choose what gets seen and it’s part of art… it’s all a manipulation of sorts. You don’t know that? One should go into anything knowing that on some level but it’s fine, actually it’s good because it gives the viewer perspective. Anything else is just masturbation.

@@nnneptune3418 and where should we send you your next order of tin-foil hats?

Hi, what's that Julian's interview you mentioned? Do you have a link? Would love to see it... Thanks.

I feel very much like you do.

The emotion was there, but it was in another part. It was when they asked him about pushing John and getting something from him doing that. The only difference, in my view, is that maybe it had nothing to do with George ("then there were two"). I don't really know that. Maybe he was also distressed for all the situation, including George, and that also influenced in his reaction when he was asked about John.

@@julessabio that's a fair point. But the problem I have with this is Peter Jackson's innocent stance of "I'm just showing you what happened" is clearly disingenuous. Perhaps the most talked about moment in the film is now proven to be fabricated with adding dialog that wasn't there (taken out of context to boot) for dramatic effect or to make it more 'cinematic'...? I'm really disappointed.

@@sebastianmaharg yes, that's totally true. However, as far as I have listened to or watched (there are some audios and videos around about all this thing), that's the only part really manipulated in such a away. I mean, he decided to leave out a lot of parts regarding the interventions of Yoko and put in the film more parts where you can see a human aspect of Paul, but that’s not strictly manipulation. We can call it omission, in one of the cases. The other part would be giving a very strong weight to that. I guess he was trying to mend a bit of what was the first film (Let it Be) or what was being said in books and interviews. Yes, he could have done that in a most honest way. Those parts with the human part of Paul are there. They are not inventions. That part with the mixed audio was a bit of an act, but the emotion because of John, what is what is really shown there, remains the same. Yes, it was unnecessary to make that stupid manipulation of the scene or at least he could have said "I've taking a poetic license in this part, but just here, to make it more dramatic" and it would have been fair. That is really quite a scene!!!. Yes, everytime we retell something there's an edition and it is stupid to say "I've shown what happened". He can't do that. Peter decided what to put there and what to leave out and he took a poetic license there, and he should've told us. That’s an edition of reality and we all do that. When we talk about something that happened to us, even if we try to be objective, we make more emphasis in some parts and leave out, forget about, or don’t give much importance to other parts. And we tell the story according to our perception of what happened. It doesn’t mean we are necessarily revisionists or liars. Even with the videos and the audios taken by Michael, Peter can't be telling the complete truth. When Michael decided to film, he also decided to film some parts and not others. Remember that there are like 50 or 60 h of film and like 160 h of audio, I believe. I may be wrong with the numbers. At least regarding the filming, it does show that they didn't film all, as those 60 h are from more than one camera. Unless they’re counting the 60 h as 60 h of rolling of each camera, the filming is quite short. Even if they are counting the hours of each camera separately, that gives us like a third of the time they worked on the sessions. And regarding the audios, that obviously can't include each particular talk that was taking place, so we are missing part of the whole story anyway, and the images sometimes are very important, because an audio can be misinterpreted. We also know, if we believe Peter, that in some parts Michael cut the filming and the audio, as the Beatles asked for that. I should look up for the source, but I’ve read somewhere that Michael and Glyn Johns told that Michael stopped the filming when John and George started fighting. Glyn said that it was becoming too personal and he left the place. So when Peter said that he was happy that that fight never existed (I’ve heard him saying this in an interview), I’m not sure if he’s being naif or what. Not everything was on tape and we knew that from the horse’s mouth. Michael and Glyn told us several years ago about the fight. Many people spoke about that fight, so I can’t understand why he can’t believe all those witnesses. It wasn’t just one person. The fist part of the fight is not so clear. I think that was only on the papers. At least Peter left the bossy moment of Paul (I guess he couldn’t take that out, as it is in the Let it Be original film) and added the departure of George. In the original film George's part isn't there, as far as I remember. I remember they were rehearsing a George's song and then they suddenly appear directly in Apple. As he left that part from Paul and George, I think he should have left at least a bit of the interventions of Yoko. Her interventions don't make her the responsible for the breakup. Whoever wants to believe that is just naif. In any case, it was John that took her there and it was Paul who told Linda to be there in some of the sessions to take photographs, or at least agreed on her presence there. A lot of other things were going on that led to the breakup and the misogynic comment that they broke up because of the women is just that, a misogynic comment. Sorry for the length.

Well...yes, the "taken out of context to boot" is quite true for this one and the original film. The argument between George and Paul is still a bit out of context. It's a bit better than in the original film. You can see an analysis in Pop goes the 60s. Anyway that analysis is also an edition, hahaha. It's quite difficult to know the whole story as we also lack a lot about previous information. The reaction of every person is given for previous things too. Paul had been quite selfish in The White Album sessions as far as we know for some witnesses and George was a bit sensitive to Paul's comments as some people said. Both things seem to be true.

@@sebastianmaharg Soryy...I never finish, hahaha. And Pattie had left George during those sessions. When he left the band, he reconciled with her and he comes back in a better mood. He was not only sensitive because of Paul's attitude. And the audios show that Paul was with itching problems, haha. Both of them were very nervous.

I feel that they were very lucky to have each other when they did,and it was a tragedy when they broke up for what ever reason.

My impression listening to this is that George left because of Yoko. It's implied that he was fighting with John about her. I do agree that George wasn't getting treated like an equal by Paul and John but don't think his argument with Paul had anything to do with him quitting, as the film suggests.

I agree with you in general. It's like a poetic license. However, he should have said he took one or two poetic licenses just to avoid the suspicious situation. When people see this kind of things tend to disbelieve everything else. What we can also see is that most of them are saying that Yoko seems to be a problem and that she does all the talking for John. They say that George was really upset for Yoko's presence in the meeting. So, Peter saying that Yoko was just sitting there much doing nothing (and he said that in some interviews), it's not right. There are some other tapes where you can hear Yoko, mostly, and a bit of Linda, commenting on the project. Maybe they asked her to participate in the project meetings that they had every day during lunchtime. We don't know. But usually, she talks in every meeting. Even in the audio where John talks to Paul and tells him he had always been a bit bossy and that he couldn't stand the critics in the past, Yoko talks. There are several videos and audios around the internet about these sessions. I'd heard the audio in 2020 or the beginning of 2021 (without the video) about the comment "and then there were 2" and there were laughters after that comment, so this edition seems more real. Anyway, I agree the general idea stays the same. That particular manipulation doesn't change much anything as a whole. And everybody is talking about part because is like a soap opera, haha. Yes, it was like magic that something like that was said, but he couldn't leave the laughing part. It would be a bit of bad taste. I don't know. He should have said that he took some small poetic licenses or he just should have stayed with the desire to add that phrase. Maybe leaving the original part cutting the first laugh of Paul before saying that and all the laughters after the phrase would have done ok, but I don't know how it would have resulted and of course it wouldn't be that emotional, just a little bit.

@@julessabio Thank you for the reply :) I see what you meen. I can understand why people might be disappointed with this slight manipulation or like you nicely call it poetic license... But I don't know, I think it's impossible to do a big movie like that without any showbiz downsides, and any documentary is inevitably a bit of an interpretation, especially if has to be watchable. If Jackson said in interviews that he took poetic licences people would have wondered what they were and started questioning everything and started saying it's not really a documentary then. (and after all, for the most part, it obviously is!) People would have asked him additional questions and it would have undermined the truthful parts of the movie. And probably it didn't depend only on him, but on all of the producers/company behind him. He did state many times that the visuals and audio don't always match, and after all that's what happened here basically anyway. I tend to defend the movie becasuse even though I obviously can't prove it, I believe Peter Jackson is a genuine huge fan of the Beatles and the movie is a big love gesture to them. I find it understandable that he tried to show the better moments of them, the more poetic lines, the more meaningful narratives, among as much objectivity as he could. And I think it's more complex than that too -- if you show life in its tritest dialogues you don't necessarily show the ultimate truth. Paul's line about "I can't be bothered" may sound random and bitter and it's not as easily touching as ''and then there were two'' with the tears. But people say random and bitter things in real life all the time, but that's not all they are. You can's stick up a camera in their actual heart. I think Paul's actual heart was all of that - crying because there were only two, and bitter, and random, and trying to joke, but hugely anxious, and probably actually containing tons of _more poignant_ lines than ''and then there were two" anyway. But you don't express that easily, and noone ever films you really. Noone filmed him when he (according to Mal Evans, as seen in Understanding Lennon/Mccartney part 3) cried in his house for an hour after John Lennon said he watned divorce. Seems like all we have filmed from the many heartbreaken moments they probably had, are these 10-20 seconds of almost tears, and they tried to do some meaningful footage of them. Maybe sometimes a little poetic license tries to show that bigger truth behind the apparent randomness. I'll reply on Yoko in another reply because this one got too big :)

@@length_wise "that the visuals and audio don't always match," I didn't remember he had said that. Yes, it's true that if he says he took some poetic licenses it would be a mess. About the Paul's phrase, yes, it can be sound bitter out of context. The phrase is not just that, it was longer and I understood it as that he couldn't be bothered (he couldn't distress himself more) thinking about if he pushed John he could achieve something from him or either that he couldn't be bothered trying to push John. John had his temper and it would have been difficult to try to press him. Paul knew that that would mean trouble, I think. Just interpretations, of course. For me that phrase wasn't bitter. Sorry if it sounded like that the way I put it. I don't think this part of the edition changes anything anyway. The bigger problem is the omission of all the Yoko issue. With that omission, I only tend to think that that was more important than what it really was. Why did he need to omit all those parts? (unless Yoko asked him or he wanted Yoko to sign and just thought that if he added that, she wouldn't do it) I mean, I wouldn't make a point adding aaaaallll her interventions but leaving out almost everything but her singing, it's silly. Also, knowing that Pattie has left George is important for me. I know that's not on film; it's in Pattie's book. However, Peter put some things in context with notes and newspapers articles. George was in a very bad mood and it was not just because of the relationship with John and particularly Paul, he had other issues too. I know, I know....he wanted to keep their private lives private but....most of us already know that George and Pattie had problems around that time.

@@length_wise Anyway, as some people are saying in the comments it's true that it was supposed to be a documentary, and if you sart doing that kind of things it stops being real or trustful. Changing this part doesn't change the real meaning in itself, but it is in fact an unnecessary, and not trustful, change of invents in a supposed documentary. If it were a fictional-documentary (if there's such a thing) and it is clear that, it may not be much a problem. Another manipulation, or "reinterpretation" is that Paul is supposed to get up in the minute John is on the line, but it's not like that. Paul keeps talking for a short time with the others and gets up. For me it's not that important. It doesn't change the fact that he had been distressed. Maybe he wanted to compose himself before talking to John. Or maybe he was a bit relief but at the same time a bit angry at John at the same time. who knows what was in his head. But again, it gives an unnecessary bad impression. At least he can show a bit of the conversation before he gets up and let you do your own interpretation. He ommited some things and exagerated others, lets say.

​@@julessabio And about Yoko.. I agree, the movie seems to downplay her role a little bit. Not entirely though - this conversation about Yoko is not entirely ommitted. We know from the Get Back movie as well that she was part of the meeting with George and that it was a problem. We did hear parts of Paul's thoughts on the issue with her, etc. But yeah, Jackson comments in interviews and the whole presentation of the movie in media seems to insist Yoko had kinda nothing to do with the break up and I agree that this can raise a few eyebrows in suspicion. The movie itself made me think she did have something to do with the break up anyway, I mean of course it's a bit weird that she constantly sits next to John, even only that. Anyhow, I think Jackson and co may have predecided on such policy, and we can only teorise why. IMO these are the possible reasons: 1. Yoko Ono is now almost 90 years old and in ill health and that's not a situation to be casual with her repuation. One can see why her son (who I believe is representaative of her) wanted her to be seen in the best or least controversial possible light now. 2. In the past she has been criticized way too much, including in mysoginistic and racist ways. And nowadays movie industry is especially sensitive with racism and feminism and probably the producers wanted to be as far from any such controversy as possible. 3. Objectively speaking, no matter how much her presence was a factor in the Beatles desintigration, no way she was the only factor, and the casual myth still blames her mostly. And the thing is, it wasn't her responsibility to keep the band together. No matter how unpleasant she was (if she was) it was John who let her be there, it was him who wanted her to be there, and he was the member of the band, not her. So I don't know maybe they felt like they wanted to shift the balance a bit by downplaying her role as much as they could, because they believe ''the balance'' was unfairly shifted on the other side before. 4. They saw the whole 90 or so hours of the footage and probably she was quiet for the most of that part. Like statistically speaking, she was quiet in more moments than she wasn't I guess. Maybe they genuinely belive in the grand sceme of things she was basically quiet? Anyway, personally I don't really care much about that. Maybe Yoko was intelligent and interesting, maybe she was manipulative and weird, maybe she was as complex as anybody. But for me the lads are the most important, and I'm glad that the movie didn't focus much on her (or on Linda, Mal, Billy Preston or any other ''side character'').

You are basing this off of a clip cut together by some youtuber who leaves out TONS of details of the beatles history in general. Do you really think pauls words on that day in particular are like the holy gospel of beatle history? Paul was a pretty nice guy but he doesnt have a lot to say. Paul was a pretty nice guy but he didn’t have much to say. Paul is a pretty nice guy but he changes from day today. I can’t say that I like him a lot, even when I got a belly full of wine.