The "Lennon/McCartney" Credit Controversy

My former comments about this have concentrated on Paul's point of view, but since reading "All We Are Saying," I realize that it's in the interests of John's musical legacy just as much as Paul's that the false crediting on some "Lennon/McCartney" songs be corrected, and that John would have wanted this as much as Paul. My opinions have been published in the letters section of the 5/30/03 issue of Goldmine magazine. Thanks to editor Greg Loescher for printing the letter and improving some of my syntax: "Lennon-McCartney vs. McCartney-Lennon I read with interest Gillian G. Gaar's article about the continuing feud over Lennon-McCartney songwriting credits (Goldmine #593, April 18, 2003). Paul McCartney has concentrated on changing the order of some of the Lennon-McCartney credits, but in my opinion, the order of the names on songs both men wrote is unimportant. What really needs correction are the many songs that were written solely by John Lennon or McCartney, some of which are hugely popular. Songs such as "Yesterday" by McCartney and "Strawberry Fields Forever" by Lennon should have just one name on the credits. There's excellent documentation in the 1980 Playboy interview with Lennon and Yoko Ono (published in book form as "All We Are Saying") in which Lennon identified which Lennon-McCartney songs were actually written by just him or just McCartney. In his press release of 12/18/02, McCartney referred to that interview, saying that "John very accurately divided the credit for each of the Beatles songs between us " and that "John and I were in complete agreement as to who had done what." Lennon described the agreement thusly:   "....out of guilt, we always had that thing that our names would go on songs even if we didn't write them. It was never a legal deal between Paul and me, just an agreement when we were fifteen or sixteen to put both our names on our songs.  I'd put his name on "Give Peace a Chance" though he had nothing to do with it...lt was a silly thing to do actually.  It should have been Lennon-Ono." [Lennon in "All We Are Saying, The Last Major Interview with John Lennon and Yoko Ono," the 1980 Playboy Interview by David Sheff , pages 214- 215]. At the time they probably didn't realize that this would entail deception of the public, collection of royalties for songs they didn't write, and an inaccurate historical legacy for the work of both of them. False songwriting credits should be treated as fraud and theft by the legal system, but at present, such credits are permitted to be bought and sold as commodities regardless of whether they're true or not.  However, in this case, even if the law often does allow lying and cheating on song credits, Lennon and McCatney's agreement shouldn't have a legal leg to stand on, because they made that agreement when they were under-age and not legally competent to enter into any kind of contract. Given the definitive documention from Lennon, verified by McCartney, as to which songs were miscredited, and since both men have expressed regret about this foolish boyhood agreement they weren't legally competent to make anyway, I don't see why a simple court procedure couldn't result in the official correction of the credits for those LennonMcCartney songs which were actually written solely by McCartney or solely by Lennon." +++++++++++ Actually, I had put "Lennon/McCartney" in quotation marks to denote the inaccuracy of the song credits in question, and I think the quotes should have been left in. ;-) Greg's response to my letter: "[Joan, thanks for your letter! I'm sure this will be a subject that will continue to fester even after McCartney and Ono are long gone. Despite the documentation, without Lennon here today, it'll still be a rat's nest getting the credits changed. --- Ed.]" Why is that? If Yoko and Paul realize it's in the interests of both of them (Yoko representing what's best for John's musical legacy), I see no reason that these false credits can't be corrected.

Paul McCartney discusses false songwriting credits, specifically "Yesterday"

Paul McCartney Rolling Stone Twentieth Anniversary Issue - Nov.5-Dec.10, 1987 Excerpts from Interview by Anthony DeCurtis ".....(Q): In terms of your regard for the Beatles' work, how did you feel about the use of "Revolution" in a Nike commercial? (PM): I was not pleased with that, because the Beatles never did any of that. We were offered everything.  We were offered Disney, Coca-Cola, the hugest deals in Christendom and beyond. And we never took them, because we thought, "Nah, kind of cheapens it."  It cheapens you to go on a commercial, I think.   The trouble is that our management at the time was not farsighted enough. Our management never had enough foresight to say, "We'll renegotiate the record contract after three years."  When you did a deal in those days, it was, like, fifteen years. We said, "We won't be alive then.  What do you mean?"  The year 1987 was forever away.  But, of course, you stick around long enough and it arrives. (Q): Since you've worked with Michael Jackson, and he owns rights to most of the Beatles song catalog, would you say something to him about it? (PM): I really would not know what to say.  I mean, we worked, and we had a nice relationship, but Michael's the kind of guy who picks brains.  We worked together - I don't think he'd even had the cosmetics then.  In fact, I know he hadn't because I've got photos of me and him at our house, and he looks quite different.  He's had a lot of facial surgery since then, as I think most people on the planet know.  He actually told me he was going to a religious retreat - and I believed him.  But he came out of that religious retreat with a smashing new nose.  The power of prayer, I guess. But the thing is, we did talk.  I gave him a lot of advice, and you know, a fish gets caught by opening its mouth.  I advised him to go into publishing. And as a joke, he looked at me and he said [imitates Michael Jackson's voice], "I'm going to buy your songs one day."  And I just said, "Great, good joke."  I really treated it as a joke. And I just couldn't believe it, you know, someone rang me up one day and said, "Michael's bought your..." "What?!!" So you know, I haven't spoken to him since.  I think he thinks it's just business.  I think it's slightly dodgy to do things like that - to be someone's friend and then to buy the rug they're standing on. (Q):Couldn't you have bid on the Beatles songs at that time? (PM):Well, there was a complication with me and Yoko.  Yoko thought she could get it for a bargain-basement price.  I imagined a price halfway - which is what it was going for - between what she imagined and what Michael Jackson finally paid for it.  I said that she and I ought to go for it.  And she said, "I can get it for..." and named a very low figure.  And I said, "Oh, really?"  I knew it was wrong, but what could I say?  I couldn't say, "No you are wrong."  I just had to say, "Oh, okay," you know?  So it kind of stalled at that point.  And then, without really telling anyone, he just....the joke came true. (Q): Are you bracing yourself for other commercials? (PM): What the hell?  You know, there was a point in the Beatles where you just had to let it all go. EMI owns all the recordings anyway - we don't own any of it.  Northern Songs [which published much of the Beatles' music] owned all the songs.  We made fortunes for all those people, but they never came back and said, "We think we'd like to give you back half of 'Yesterday.'" Seriously, why wouldn't they do something like that after you'd earned so much for them? But I think the point about Northern Songs was that we were always cheated, and I don't care who likes or dislikes that statement.  From the word go, our songs were always "Lennon-McCartney."  That could have been altered somewhere along the line, but it never was.  So even a totally self-written song like "Yesterday," which John had nothing to do with - only I played on the record, it was me and a string quartet - there you start to think, "Well, maybe I've got a tiny right to....something."  Civil rights, maybe, or...human rights? Isn't there one piddling little right I can claim?  But there isn't. I don't have any rights whatsoever.  I just get a tip. But I get a handsome tip, and I have to be happy with that. But it does have strange little quirks. For instance, there's one that has just come up.  In publishing in America, you have renewals; we don't have them here.  After twenty-seven years - and believe it or not, twenty-seven years for some of the Beatles songs is imminent - you as a composer get the chance either to go with this publisher again or not.  And so John's renewals will all be coming up, and Yoko can get the rights back.  But my renewals don't come up, because I'm still alive and we signed our renewal rights away for life.  So, pretty soon, I think Yoko will own more of "Yesterday" than I will. (Q): Are you talking with Yoko about it? (PM): Like, what can I say?  All I can say is "You'll have more of our songs than I do pretty soon."  The reason I mentioned "Yesterday" is because I wrote that song, but it was our deal that we'd split everything down the middle.  So that is one particular case in point, and it just happens to be the most covered song in history. But you know what?  Having said all this - it's great to get it off my chest - I really don't care.  I've done great, and it's just churlish to...I mean, it niggles a little bit, but generally I just think, "Aw, come on, I was part of this fabulous thing. I wrote those things.  I was there with John while we did them all."  So what the hell, I gave a bit too much of it away.  Big deal. I can live with that and still sleep at night...."

******************* I'm sure Paul sleeps fine at night but in the years since the above interview, he's shown that he still feels exploited by the false credit for "Yesterday" - as well he should! Here's a recent example: Sunday, October 14, 2001 'Yesterday' credit behind McCartney-Ono rift LONDON (AP) -- Paul McCartney has urged Yoko Ono that "there's still time" to mend a rift between the two over the Beatles song "Yesterday," according to a magazine interview. McCartney revealed earlier this year that he and John Lennon's widow had argued over the writing credit to the song during the making of the Beatles "Anthology" album. "Yesterday," like most of the Beatles songs, was officially credited to McCartney and John Lennon. But McCartney maintains none of the other Beatles had anything to do with the song. He said in May that he asked Ono to put his name first on the credit, but she refused. "It actually is one of the reasons that we're not the greatest of friends," McCartney told Reader's Digest. "But if you're reading this, Yoko, there's still time." ++++++++++ Of course, the credit shouldn't read "McCartney-Lennon" either, but rather "Paul McCartney." Also the performer credit for the song should be changed from "The Beatles" to "Paul McCartney." Paul isn't the only victim of this legalized fraud; the music-listening public, everyone who loves this song now and in future generations, has a right to know the true identity of the song's creator. Until this and many other such false credits are corrected, we're all being defrauded by the music publishing business.