More Misinformation. Paul Was Creatively In The Lead Because He Was Happy And Yet He Was So Unhappy During

Yes let’s perpetuate the myth that one of the greatest songwriters of all time didn’t know how to work hard. I know it’s supposed to be cute but John produced his own albums in the 70s. He contributed the majority of songs on the Beatles early albums. John wasn’t a workaholic like Paul but he was a hard worker. He learned those chords because he was determined to learn the guitar properly. Music was his passion too you know

John learning to play upside down for Paul... Something about that always gets me, John is the guy who allegedly didn't like work and wouldn't stick to anything. But he learned to play upside down because he would need to borrow Paul's guitar or to learn how to play something... he put that extra effort in just because Paul is left handed...

It's a small gesture but it means so much

🥺

I know Anon, he really did that.

It was love 💕

“Do you get to see much of any city that you visit?”

I agree! The reality is that all these authors have bias but if it’s in favour of Paul McCartney it’s ok because he’s seen as being victimised by the rock journalists of an earlier era. Erin Torkelson Weber has a quote I’ve often seen here that just because something came later it’s not necessarily untrue. But the important thing to keep in mind is it’s not necessarily true either. Paul McCartney has a huge advantage over John Lennon in that when he tells his story, the emotions of the situation have settled which makes him seem like a more rational source, unlike John who was still working through his emotions in the 70s as the events were still in recent memory. Paul has also had time to think about how to make his story palatable to today’s audiences where times have changed, which John never had given he died 40 years ago. He also has his legacy to preserve and of course will twist things to his advantage as who is going to challenge him? Yoko is ill and Sean doesn’t know the full story as he was only 5 when his dad died. I just think people need to think critically about this and realise that just because this is the latest version of events doesn’t necessarily make it true. The truth is always something in between

“Some of those who eulogised Lennon seemingly could not do so without denigrating McCartney, Harrison and Starr or devaluing their contributions to the Beatles. “He [Lennon] stood for a mixture of tough minded realism… wit and intellect. Paul on the other hand was a pretty boy.” The most famous example of this came from the Village Voice’s Christgau, one of America’s most powerful rock critics. In a piece shortly following Lennon’s death, Christgau referred to the three remaining Beatles as “hacks” and blamed their refusal to accept Ono into the band for the breakup. He also repeated a number of misconceptions about Lennon that, while widely accepted, were untrue. This included praising Lennon, the only middle-class born Beatle, as a “working-class” hero and declaring that Lennon had always been the only artistic, avant-garde Beatle because “the others just didn’t have the stuff.” His obituary of Lennon stated that the wrong Beatle had been killed. “Why is it always Bobby Kennedy or John Lennon? Why isn’t it Richard Nixon or Paul McCartney?”

Erin Torkelson Weber, The Beatles and the Historians

As per usual high praise for every Beatle except John. And then these write ups get bandied around as being even handed. Seems like he wanted the get in with John and be part of the cool kids crowd and because John was selective about who he opened up to, he was off handed or referred to as brooding. Where is mention of John’s intelligence, humour, daring/pushing the boundaries and kindness that we know existed in abundance? This crap pisses me off

The Beatles and Martha during the Mad Day Out photoshoot (1968)

Q: Give a brief thumbnail sketch of each Beatle as you perceived him.

Ken Mansfield: Paul was the energetic one, the one that seemed like the popular kid in high school. He was the one whom you would cruise main street with your arms hanging over the car door edge, pressing tight to make your muscles look bigger. He would be the guy who would wave at the girls and slow down so they could jump in the back. I never felt a strong personal agenda coming from Paul, and by that I mean that it didn’t feel like you had to figure out who he was or where he was coming from. He was always presenting the next project or place to go. It was the sheer impetus of purpose that put things in motion so what you saw was an idea and a goal, and none of it needed complicated examination. “Here’s what we are about to do and that was exactly what we were about to do.”

Keep reading

Sorry I didn’t realise it didn’t originate with you. I just get frustrated sometimes as I see the same 2 biased sources-this guy and Erin Torkelson Webber continually reblogged. I do apologise though. Hope you are having a good Saturday

“When John got the drift about how the others felt, instead of keeping Yoko away out of sensitivity for their feelings and out of concern for the group dynamics, he said, “I don’t want to play with youse lot anymore.” Paul desperately wanted things to work out. He was enormously patient. It was only his great love for John and for the whole Beatles thing that stopped it from blowing up sooner than it did. I remember the exasperation on his face away from the studio. At the time he was Abbey Road far more than John, who mostly kept away. John’s input was minimal, except on his tracks, or the ones he featured on. George’s input was pretty strong, but Paul was the most visible one, perhaps to the point of being overwhelming. Not in a nasty way, but just being creatively in the lead. I think this was because his personal life was very happy. John, newly obsessed with Yoko, should have been happy, but was exhausted and in torment. Looking for some release, he and George had even taking up chanting together.”

— Tony Bramwell, Magical Mystery Tours

Finally an acknowledgment that the Eastman dynamic was pretty toxic to the Beatles too, not just Klein. So many people think Paul was offering sone kind of reasonable alternative to Klein when in reality his management offer was his in laws who had no desire to represent the other Beatles and their interests. Klein may have been a bad choice but in my opinion the Eastmans would have been a disaster for the other Beatles in terms of representation

wait re your tags what do you mean by wives of two members having more influence. on the group? or on those two members?

Linda and Yoko were basically the other two Beatles for the remainder of 1969. Everyone talks about Klein and the fact he offered Yoko a successful career being the main reason John stuck with him at all, but Linda was the one who brought her dad into it, and the clash of titans between Eastman vs. Klein was just as big a reason the group broke up as the psychosexual crossfire of Lennon/McCartney, possibly an even bigger one. I’m not saying Linda was scheming in any way, but obviously her father was one of the best lawyers in American entertainment business, and her boyfriend was the biggest rockstar on the planet who was in a shitstorm of legal/money problems. Of course the two would meet, and Linda soon went from black sheep of the family to Golden Daughter.

But as the year went on, the JohnandYokoandKlein monster grew stronger against John Eastman’s aggressive and selfish business tactics. Sure, Klein and the others tried to pressure Paul into going with him, but Eastman wasn’t even remotely interested in taking on the rest of the band (was listening to a 71 Paul interview, and he said his father-in-law wouldn’t have managed the others if they paid him, and Paul still went with him. Hm). Yoko obviously tried to meddle in as much as she could, and John helped her do so; Linda found herself tangled in a web of shit that she originally wasn’t planning to get into, but she’s no pushover and so she went to meetings and was her husband’s only source of strength for the rest of these cockfights (to her own detriment as well).

My point was: where do George and Ringo fit into his? John didn’t turn to anyone in the studio for help except his wife, and Paul confided in no one else except his own spouse and her family of lawyers (who were managing Paul Solo from the start). George’s mother had been diagnosed with cancer that same year too, it was a hard time for him and he had no real voice (and I think patience) to deal with the whole Eastman vs. Klein debacle. George and Ringo went with John and Klein because they were the ones actually giving them what they wanted, not the Eastman-McCartneys.

♪ And you know what it's worth ♪

John Lennon, Eric Clapton and Keith Richards from The Dirty Mac performing Yer Blues (1968)

This whole quote is hilarious. I know Paul is a smart man so it’s frustrating to see him will fully misunderstood John’s quotes. When he talked about the Beatles being bastards, he’s referring to the fact that they had to be tough and have think skins to withstand the hard core Hamburg days and the insane beatlemania days to make it and survive. And he wasn’t always dark about the Beatles. Yes he was dark in the early days when he was hurting but he mellowed so much through the 70s. It makes me understand why John didn’t trust Paul given his willingness to undermine John in subtle ways so he could get ahead. Also if he’s referencing cynicism and darkness, why does George get a pass. That man was far more bitter about his Beatle days but of course Paul doesn’t view George as his competitor in the same way he does John

Q: Do you have days now when you never once think of the Beatles?

PAUL MCCARTNEY: Oh, yeah. Most days. When the Beatles broke up it was painful to talk about. It was just hard. So you found yourself thinking about it. Now, having come all this way, I can remember only the good stuff. I know one or two spicy stories and I have my bitch now and again, but generally I always did dig it; I always did think that what we were doing was great. Even when we broke up, I never thought like John did. Who knows why he thought that! John’s pretty complex. He possibly didn’t even mean it. All the stuff about how we were “bastards”… He brought out the worst side, as if to exorcise it. But I really didn’t agree. It was pretty good, you know. But there are days when I don’t think about it because I’m doing all sorts of other stuff.

— Paul McCartney, Rolling Stone, March 30th 1979

It’s nice to see something about John on here. John and Sean had a beautiful relationship and I do think he and Julian would have gotten there. I’m sorry both of them were robbed of their father because of a madman.

It’s almost that awful day again. Rest in peace Johnny! We will never ever forget you