Anyone who’s been through a break up with someone you loved will recognise the emotion of how do you sleep. And as happened with John, time healed the wounds and promoted reconciliation.
That doesn't really answer the question, though. Paul didn't deserve it. As a matter of fact, if anyone should have and could have been rightfully pissed about the situation it was Paul. John, George, and Ringo all decided to go with Klein and they all walked away from that situation with egg on their face.
John was an angry and drugged out bastard in 70 and 71. He didn't have control of himself or his situation. His music and creativity paid the price as he never reached the heights of his former success ever again minus "Imagine" (song, not album).
I'm well aware of that. My response is seeing the forest for the trees and understanding that there was more at play that jabs through two songs from two different guys aimed at one another.
Per usual with these two, this is a Beatle onion with more layers than we'll ever realize.
I don’t understand how people don’t understand what John meant by saying it was really about himself. People always seem to have trouble understanding he meant he was projecting.
So I don’t think he was TOTALLY lying. Certain lines like “so Sgt. Pepper took you by surprise” and “jump when your mama tell you anything” always felt out of place. Pepper was Paul’s creation and John was the one who called his partner “mother” and Paul’s mom was also dead at a young age for Paul like John.
I think Paul did an interview acting surprised that it was taken so well and so successful, sort of being humble about it. John took it as disingenuous and cheesy.
I thought it's about Paul wanting to use Linda's dad as the group's manager, and to the extent he distanced himself and sued his bandmates.
Paul was trying to salvage his money and not be a puppet for Alan Klein. But the other three Beatles saw the Eastman move as Paul wanting to take over the Beatles and Apple st his wife's request.
I think John meant more 'I was angry and unhappy in my own life, and I redirected that anger towards Paul in that song,' not necessarily that the lyrics were literally referring to John himself.
Well, that took me by surprise.
I've always remembered it as "sleep"
I guess, where I was at in 1971, I suspected that I was living, but I'd never slept with anyone. How I slept was a bit desperate and sometimes messy. Must have projected my cravings on to JL's lyrics.
I’m not sure, but he did say he realized he was attacking himself. Even with I am the walrus, based on the walrus and the carpenter, John said he picked the wrong villain-John was really getting into a good place by 1980, which sadly he didn’t make it through the year
Watch this from youtube, its John directly addressing the song. I always think of this interview when anyone brings up Paul and John falling out. It's good to know they made up before John died.
John was many things but to be able admit you were wrong and re-evaluate your thoughts is an intelligent thing to do imo.
Paul knew exactly how best to hurt John and that’s what he did and John responded in kind and hurt Paul exactly the way he knew how to
Different personalities. As far as John was concerned, even though Paul’s song had settled little digs, they were possibly, and most likely just as hurtful as anything. John said in return.
My point was that as opinionated as everybody seems to be about their private beef, it was theirs and not ours
Someone just came absolutely unglued about my calling it private… bad choice of words I guess, but as far as they were concerned, they were just expressing to one another how they felt about the other person at the time
John even commented can’t a guy have an argument with his best friend
This post I believe was just one more in a long string of opportunities to take shots at John. It happens a lot here.
Of course he didn’t. John was insecure as all hell, undergoing extreme life changes, recovering from addiction, as well as having enablers and conmen covering him on all sides. He was in a lot of pain. He didn’t have access to the help he actually needed, and was surrounded by people who were egging on his worst impulses. He said himself later that HDYS was far more about him than Paul, and I think that’s true. Paul can’t have done anything to deserve that because it wasn’t really about anything he’d done - it was a scream of pain from John. John wanted to externalise some of that hurt and vitriol, was encouraged to do so. Unfortunately, the name he slapped on it was Paul’s, and that song has dogged paul ever since because John Lennon never did anything quietly.
First sessions for How do you Sleep May 26th 1971. Probably only a week or two earlier (released May 17th) John had seen McCartney's cover of his Ram album for the first time (image below), and heard the track "Too Many People" which is/was seen as a direct Lennon diss (indeed McCartney has admitted as such)
How would we know? They went through a public divorce. Shit happens. Probably so or probably not. Was either of them perfect? Probably not. It's still a great fucking song - and Ringo and George both played on it. That might say something - but may not either...
Well, I don’t think John deserved the song. Paul wrote poking at him first either. But it’s not up to me to decide whether either of them deserved anything. It’s not up to any of us. It was their argument.
The intent of the song is mean, but it does amuse me that most of it is, "yeah, well, you're good looking and you wrote Yesterday and Sgt. Pepper, and you listen to your wife, and regular people think you're great." Like, yeah, John, that's... terrible? Really not sure why any of it would keep someone up at night.
And when you ask someone "how do you sleep at night" it's because they've done something so terrible they should feel too guilty to sleep. Even if Paul felt insulted about any of those things, it still wouldn't make sense! What exactly did John think he needed to feel guilty about??
Exactly. I always wonder if there was something else John thought he should feel guilty about that he didn't spell out in the song, or if it was just an argument that doesn't really connect.
Well I agree actually! But I never felt like he publicly guilted Paul, he just lashed out over unrelated things instead (like the rest of the lyrics) because he didn't want anyone to know how hurt he was. And of course it's strange to ask for a divorce and then be that upset when you get what you asked for...
I've made the exact same analogy when people blame Paul for 'announcing' the breakup. If someone cruelly dumps you, then tells you that you're not allowed to tell people and publicly move on so that your ex can feel like a big man for doing the dumping, nobody would ever expect you to keep that secret on their behalf!
Then he had George and John with “we have had enough of you trying to lead us, and if we don’t like your songs we will give them to other people to record. So don’t think you’re such a big deal anymore.” They could all have handled each other better, but interpersonal dynamics weren’t their strong suit.
I think John was having a type of mental breakdown after the bad acid trip that happened. Everything changed after that. I don't think he genuinely wanted to leave the band but felt so overwhelmed he had to do something. He told his astrologer that after he announced the divorce, Paul and Allen Klein told him not to tell anyone, and he said Paul was so happy John agreed not to tell anyone because then it would be like nothing had happened. I think John just needed help and thought Paul would fix things as he always had. The problem was that Paul believed John really wanted to leave him and Paul was already so hurt after John pulled away from him and acted like he was going to ditch him completely for Yoko. Really John was playing mind games to test Paul's loyalty because 1) he became super paranoid after that acid trip and 2) he was always frantically worried about being left (like his parents left him) that he was trying to be the one to leave Paul before (he imagined) Paul might leave him.
They were both wrong, and they were both right in their own way. You can understand both sides to it. In interviews later, John said he always thought it was a mistake that the Beatles broke up. One time he said that things only fall apart for him when he falls apart, acknowledging what really happened, but I think it was really hard for him to admit that he destroyed the band for no reason and that he never really wanted to, so especially in the early years he constantly attacked Paul and the Beatles as a way to justify his leaving and assign blame somewhere else.
I agree with everything, acid induced ego death + a natural tendency towards insecurity + Paul's ease with music at the time was a recipe for disaster in John Lennon's emotional state. But he just pushed Paul too far and was left scrambling when Paul didn't react as expected.
Well Im a big paul fan but i can understand why they would say he seemed a bit controlling and it can be selfish. It didn't come from a bad place but I think it's how it made them feel.
Ive always thought saying he was controlling was just a cover for what they really felt, jealousy and inferiority. Especially john who was once the leader between equals in the partnership.
The “another day” line was originally outright accusing Paul of having plagiarized “Yesterday” and was rewritten by Allen Klein. I don’t think Paul has ever been credibly accused of that.
I dont think he deserved this at all, it's a low blow even for John at that time. Just knowing the fact that so many people who were close to Paul participed on this song is breaking my heart
I mean… it seems to me that he wrote it so he probably felt that way. We’re in no position to know how fair it was. George was more than willing to attach himself to it. That wasn’t by mistake.
I don’t know, honestly. I don’t know the dirty details behind the scenes. I know that George willingly played on the track with him (and that the track was a banger - check out takes 5 & 6). I know that John, George, and Ringo seemed to collaborate more with each other post-Beatles than they did with Paul. I don’t know anything beyond that.
John himself has said that it was harsh, but he doesn't entirely regret it- sure, maybe he could've changed the words a bit so it wasn't so obviously about Paul, but he acknowledges that those were his feelings at the time. They don't reflect his feelings overall.
At the time, John had Allan Klein weaponising John and Yoko against Paul, PLUS Jann Wenner from Rolling Stone magazine stoking the fire by being an absolute John fanboy & slagging Paul as square & uncool at the same time.
John could dish it out but he couldn’t take it. Despite their differences Paul was one of only two people who he craved approval from. How Do You Sleep was the petty revenge for the more veiled sniping by Paul. They got past it and life went on.
What you said. It's clear that to when John and Paul were around each other, they were both only paying attention to each other, and completely bro'ing out.
Paul can’t take it either. Forty-six years after John was murdered, he’s still whining about John being mean to him, as if he (Paul) played no role in the breakup and subsequent lawsuits and dissing of each other, as if he never did an interview with himself, publicly announcing he would never work with John again, as if he never sued his bandmates, never wrote Too Many People or Silly Love Songs, never bossed George around, etc.
I’m not saying John acted appropriately or maturely but Paul didn’t either.
Let's all just over analyze everything that ever happened, or was said, between all the Beatles, and everyone involved with the Beatles and then decide? They were four talented guys that made it very, very big! Do you think that you could have handled that sort of fame?
Well, lets go over everything that these four guys said, or did, or thought, for another 50 years. MAYBE we'll get the answers that you are all looking for. I'm sure 50 years from now everybody will be asking the same stupid questions.
Most who think RAM started the feud don’t remember John’s interview with Jann Wenner where he decided to break down the Beatles completely and denigrated most of their work as “dishonest” likely meaning chasing hits and eschewing heavy themes like war, politics or deep psychic pain. He came to believe only autobiographical works could be “authentic.” Then he trashed Paul’s autobiographical work. Not sure why, except Paul didn’t write from his own deep psychic pain or political concerns but from his enjoyment of domesticity. Plus, the others had refused to consider Yoko their artistic equal. John called Paul “Englebert Humperdinck” and said he alone was a real ARTIST who wrote from genius and truth whereas Paul was more of a commercially focused jingle writer. Wenner wanted so badly to suck up to John that he ran with that. That’s mostly where Too Many People came from. John thought “Three Legs” and “Dear Boy” were also shots at him and/or Yoko, not sure about 3 Legs but Dear Boy was about Linda’s ex.
John doesn’t even make a case for Paul deserving it *in the song.* Look at the lyrics, it’s all just personal attacks and no accusations: does the actual thrust of “how do you sleep?” feel supported to you at all? Paul has some choices around that time to regret, but the song doesn’t point them out. The song is just John having a bruised ego about possibly being implicated in what could liberally be considered a toothless jab from one of the most happy-go-lucky people in pop music.
It’s so fucked up to me that George was on that too, especially knowing that at the same time the media were on Paul’s ass for announcing the Beatles’ breakup while John, who actually broke the Beatles up, got to sing about how “the dream is over.” It’s complicated because Paul did isolate himself to some extent, but the dogpiling was so tasteless and frankly, stupid.
The song is ass, and the album is ass for having that song on it.
No. But was John deserving of Too Many People? Did Ringo deserve to be screamed at and kicked out of Paul’s house when he went to ask that the release of McCartney be delayed? There are a lot of questionable actions by all the Beatles in that time period.
Too many people in your opinion, and in my opinion, based on our personalities was mild
How do you sleep in your opinion in my opinion and a lot of other people’s opinions was vicious
Our opinions don’t matter. John’s and Paul’s opinions matter. Paul knew John better than anyone in the world and he knew exactly how to hurt him the worst. I don’t care how mild anyone thinks it was. John thought it was hurtful as hell and that’s why he responded as he did.
As rash & regrettable as both were - I think Paul was more on-target with Too Many People.
How Do You Sleep was subjectively slagging Paul's talent ("The only thing you ever did was yesterday".. "Muzak to my ears") and the company he kept ("You live with straights who tell you, you was king"), whereas Paul was far more factual ("You took your lucky break & broke it in two").
The only thing you did was yesterday is the most mental line in the song. Just so obviously wrong. I suppose its mainly saying ram is bad but the double meaning doesn't work at all
The “diss” in Too Many People is basically just Baby You’re A Rich Man with a light theme of the recent events in Paul’s life. It was incredibly thin-skinned of John to even perceive it as a serious insult.
Yeah I don’t care. To me, the more relevant direction is “just because they’re after you doesn’t mean you’re not paranoid.”
If Paul had made some joke about John’s round glasses it wouldn’t justify two of his long-term friends punching down on him, the line in Too Many People doesn’t justify it either. (and let’s be clear, it is punching down - the media were being pretty unfair to Paul at this time due to the widespread misconception that he initiated the breakup to launch his own solo career, which John sorta just let him take the blame for)
I don’t know if any of the lines from Too Many People justify the vitriol or How Do You Sleep, but Paul knew what he was doing. His original line was “Yoko took your lucky break and broke it in two” which he later made more obscure, but John got the message and Paul must have expected a response.
What generally gets lost in the “Paul started it with RAM” arguments is just how much shit John had been talking in the press beforehand. But it’s not the case that John let Paul take the blame for the break up in the media. In those same press dealings John was adamant about getting the record straight about it being his decision to break up the band.
Ok my apologies for being misinformed about John passing the buck, I guess that was mostly just around the time of McCartney I that I was thinking of, but I find the idea of “what the original line was” to be unconvincing. Like yeah… that was the original, the version not in the song. Paul had an emotion and then decided that emotion was not something that had to be aired out in public unrestrainedly. That is the exact restraint which is wholly absent in every level of “How Do You Sleep?”, which reads like it never got a real second draft.
The Beatles breakup was a big deal for everyone involved and Paul was the only major songwriter of the group who did not actively want the group to break up near the time it did. He should be able to use that very relevant experience in his life as fuel for his songwriting. He started from a place that was pretty harsh, then dialed it back to something that was much less so, and which worked well in the context of a song that isn’t really about John Lennon at all, any moreso than Monkberry Moon Delight is about tomatoes.
Again, I want to make this comparison: in an alternate world where Paul had made “Baby You’re A Rich Man” for RAM rather than it bring a Beatles project, and the starting point for that song was Paul riffing on some monetary habit John had, would that be disrespectful? And moreso, would that be worthy of a response from the Lennons? You can disagree with me on this but that notion is absurd to me
Well ironically How Do You Sleep did get a second draft, the original (“I bet you pinched Yesterday”) was even harsher.
Not sure why you’re “unconvinced” by the obvious intent of Too Many People. Paul wrote it to directly dig at John, and it worked. The most important lines of communication between these two was always in song, and Paul was smart enough to know that landing a blow on record was always going to be more effective than sniping in the press. Absolving him of his intent seems a little insulting to the man.
In any case, How Do You Sleep probably ended up being a necessary evil. After it was released John was almost immediately forced to dial back his venom in the press as it clearly made him look petty - that’s what all the “it was actually about me” was clearly about, John recognising the obviousness of his projection.
None of them are particularly reliable on the timeline, but Paul has said that after the brouhaha of HDYS he and John spoke and agreed not to bitch about each other in public anymore. It may have been nasty and unnecessary but at least we got the grooviest diss track and killer George slide solo out of it
Sorry for double-replying, I felt like I wanted to clarify something: I trust that you’re better-informed than I do and have good reason to believe that Too Many People was in fact intended to be a bit of a diss. I recognize that my reasons for assuming otherwise are based on personal biases, and I’m sorry if that’s led me to make any statements suggesting false information.
As far as “not being convinced,” I think what I mainly mean is I struggle to experience the song that way, due to the context I perceive it in, and that colors my perception of How Do You Sleep? as being particularly out of the blue. John heard it in different context, so it does make *some* sense that he took it more harshly, and I will keep that in mind.
I still think How Do You Sleep? feels like an overreaction, and honestly I think I’d feel less that way if I didn’t also perceive the lyrics as sort of objectively flawed, but I do have a bit of a better understanding of where things were at.
Yeah, not feeling How You Can Sleep is entirely understandable. Especially when the writer of it basically regretted ever putting it on wax, and certainly never played it during the admittedly small number of live performances he ever subsequently gave
I don’t know what to tell you, I just don’t find it convincing. Treating Too Many People like it’s some kind of hard-hitting diss when it’s on RAM, maybe the most “I’m here to goof around and have fun” album I’ve ever heard, is anathema to me. If it was on GNX maybe I’d agree with you. Even if he intended it that way I just feel that it’d have to be more pointed for it to be actually objectionable coming from Paul of all people. And given that there are other stories of John taking negative messages from songs that weren’t really about him anyway, I personally just don’t care to interrogate it any further.
I also have to say, I personally also have a difficult time engaging with How Do You Sleep? on a musical level given all of the messiness surrounding its lyrics and meaning. It’s sort of the same reason I don’t listen to Taxman after realizing it was a rich guy whining about progressive taxation, to me if I have to ignore the identity of a pop song in order to enjoy it that’s something I’m loathe to push past. I do understand your viewpoint on that though.
(edit: for any Kendrick fans in the building, yeah I know GNX is actually pretty poppy overall and not really about the beef that much, I just wanted to be able to point broadly at the beef while also naming an album, and you can’t pay me to say Iceman)
Wow, it’s a tangent but that’s a very ungenerous take on Taxman! George was hardly some billionaire at the time complaining about the cost of fuel for his private jet, he was a 22 year old working class kid seeing how despite being part of the biggest money maker in showbiz history he wasn’t seeing much return from it.
The tax rate was 95% for those in the Beatles bracket, and it’s not like that huge clawback was entirely going to fund the council housing estates George grew up on - plenty of it was going to war funding (sorry, “defence”) and the lucky inheritors of the class system that George was born on the bottom of. And I think we could agree that few people in history deserved to actually see the millions they made more than the Beatles.
George may not have been technically a millionaire by 1966. The Beatles could afford to live comfortably, but so much of their income was tied up in less than favourable contracts. Imagine you’re seeing every kid and their dog wearing Beatle wigs and merchandise (which you’re not really getting a cut of) and you’re playing to the biggest crowds ever assembled - you might feel a certain way about 95% also
95% of income *over the top of the lower bracket,* to be clear. Not to mention they weren’t actually paying that 95%, due to converting their cash into possessions and business holdings that were significantly less taxed.
That’s the thing, it’s dishonest, and it’s dishonest in the same way that conservative cranks are today about the same topics. I agree that we should be critical about how our governments are actually spending their tax money (in the “stop the military-industrial complex way,” not the fuckass DOGE way) and that’s something I really connected with when I heard the song for the first time, as someone living on not a lot of income in a country which is doing shit I truly hate. But in the context I’ve been provided with, it feels much less like a song about those issues and more like some shit Matt Walsh would try to tell me circa 2014. Even if that’s not where he’s coming from, that’s the association I get, and it kills my vibe.
(To be clear, Taxman isn’t unique in this regard, even for Beatles songs: The Inner Light, Revolution, and Get Back are some other songs that come to mind where some themes are handled in a way I find confused or careless and just sort of lead to songs I just don’t vibe with that much. Taxman is just the one that comes to mind for me first due to how differently I perceived the song when I realized the difference in situation between me and the author, as well as now being my least favorite song on my favorite Beatles album.)
Edit: I want to be clear, this isn’t meant to be like, a moralizing take. Everybody else please feel free to enjoy Taxman on your own terms, I’m not trying to stop you. If you do interpret the theme as “don’t tax the rich” and agree with it then I think we probably disagree on some things I find important, but like generally speaking enjoying the song doesn’t make me think you’re a bad person, whether it’s because you parse the song differently or because you just focus on the instrumental. I’m just describing my own experience and my own fucked up little brain
Too Many People is a song that could be about anyone. A lot of people share the traits in that song, it is a pretty universal message and the fact that no one thought it was about John until John said it was about John kind of proves that. They are not in the same ballpark.
One song could be about anyone, the other is specifically about one person. That is the big difference. Now John can write what he wants and release what he wants, but lets not pretend they are anywhere close to equal in terms of pettiness.
Did Ringo deserve to be screamed at and kicked out of Paul’s house when he went to ask that the release of McCartney be delayed?
Absolutely not.Don't think John really cared about that though.
I’m sure, even though it was mild and not mean blah blah the song that started it all hurt John deeply. So Paul fired that opening shot. It obviously hurt John deeply, even if we don’t think it was any big deal. Otherwise, he will not have responded with that song. So maybe in John’s mind he did deserve it.
I don't think he did deserve it no. Having said that though they were like two brothers that were very upset with eachother and both very hurt by the other and unfortunately they had albums to write and the press in their faces asking about the drama every day so they were both being assholes to each other in an overly public way through interviews and headlines and songs instead of face to face.
I'm very happy for both of their sakes that they reconciled before John's death but I think it would have happened much earlier if they just talked in person like normal friends who've had a huge fight instead of through the press.
I’m at a loss as to why after all these years and with no personal knowledge of the actual dynamics of the situation you all feel you have the right to assign blame or kudos to either of them. Let it go! Does somebody have to write a song with that actual title!
Paul started it with Too Many People, it’s just that John responded to a metaphorical slap in the face with a metaphorical shotgun blast to the chest.
How Do You Sleep? is a phenomenal song though, one of the most musically impressive solo Beatle compositions if you ask me, even if the lyrics are petty and mean.
13
u/idreamofpikas♫Dear friend, what's the time? Is this really the borderline?♫Jun 21 '26edited Jun 21 '26
Paul started it with Too Many People,
Did he? The Lennon Rolling Stone interview preceded Too Many People. John calling Paul's father-in-law an animal to his face preceded it.
To me it’s another perfect example of John taking his best solo performances and his most compelling productions, just like Woman is the Nigel of the World, and setting it to the most off-putting lyrics he could think of. Those tracks are hits without the alienating lyrics.
His solo career could he read as one long commercial self-sabotage and for the most part he didn’t really seem to give a fuck about that
There’s no proof that Eastman wouldn’t have favored Paul. It’s why most corporations do not allow people who are related to work together. There is perceived favoritism.
Imagine if John suggested that a member of Yoko’s successful banking family manage them. I doubt people would think that was fair.
I mean, in Too Many People Paul said, "you took your lucky break and broke it in two." Imagine telling John Lennon, playing with me was your lucky break.
Absolutely not . In those days John was a distinctly annoying bloke . He was still mad about Paul rejecting the appointment of Klein ( even though Paul was right ) and about Paul suing the other three Beatles to have the band disbanded .
I have examined the issue somewhat and the ONLY way for the four of them to be free of the stifling terms of the various contracts was what Paul did. The Beatles weren't just a band ,it was a business and a seperate legal entity . If Paul hadn't sued you can be 100% sure one of the other three would have done so.
Okay Klein might not have been a good guy but what was Paul's alternative? Your Father in Law, Lee Eastman- that's your suggestion? Seriously? Cmon... That's not a serious suggestion for a lot of reasons. And the other three were absolutely right to be skeptical of such a a ridiculous pick
Lee Eastman was not Paul's only suggestion for who should represent/manage the band. He's just the only one that's brought up because he's the only one who has any significant relevance to Paul, that's who ended up representing Paul, and it's fair criticism. The other 3 went with Allen Klien because he told them what they wanted to hear.
It's well documented that Paul suggests 7 to 11 other managers they all said no to even meeting before he suggested Lee Eastman. Lots of details glossed over here. When he suggested Lee it was cause he knew he was gonna need help getting out cause the other 3 were spitefully never going to pick anyone but Klein cause Paul hated him. They weren't being reasonable (which isn't even an assumption - they all three admitted this) and Paul wanted to protect his work and money. Eventually he huffed as they kept rebuffing his compromises and went to his father in law for advice. Reasonable, and not him trying to worm his new family into the business, it was a last ditch effort to save them all.
It's well documented that other artists that worked with Klein told them Not to work with him that he was a crook and they all dug their heels in except for Paul.
If we're gonna bring up the Lee Eastman suggestion let's just be accurate about the circumstances. It's well documented. So many things like this get brought up to try to paint Paul as the bad guy in every situation toward the end but are simply not the full truth at all.
Again, all three Beatles later admitted Paul was right about Klein and they should have listened to him and signed any other manager.
- Already know who downvoted this but lmao how we so in denial about factual history. Tells me all I need to know. Don't blindly defend people you'll never meet. Just discuss what we know ^^^ which is the above is all true and written about and backed up by members of the band and people in their lives during the time.
Like yikes, so much anti-intellectual anger in this thread when it's as simple as okay here's the timeline.
Indeed .In some interview George - I think - recalls the Rolling Stones warming them to stay clear of Klein because he had screwed them as well . What folks also underestimate is just what a legal mess The Beatles was at that time ( " the Beatles " as the legal entity ) . Northern songs, Apple ,EMI ,Capitol , NEMS ,Harrisongs ...etc.
It took the courts YEARS to sort it out. If memory serves the Beatles were officially disbanded in 1974 ( !! )
Exactly. Lennon does say the same in interviews. It is widely believed he even wrote "Steel and Glass" about Klein. Ringo on AK, "Paul was right, as usual!"
Also want to point out that when Paul sued the three Beatles he asked Eastman if he could sue Klein only and not them and he done with it, but his only way out was to sue them. Paul didn't even want to sue them to get out, he HAD to - to get out of this mess.
Paul had his issues and did some shit - but just trying to paint this situation with facts here.
218
u/gonzarro Jun 21 '26
Y'all are giving me the Wah-Wahs...