I Somehow Have The Feeling If John Was Alive And Didn’t Turn Up At The Hall Of Fame For Whatever Personal

I know a lot of people will say How Do You Sleep, but I’d love to see John’s reaction to Mother. I think 1964 John would be amazed he allowed himself to get so vulnerable and have it be so public

Beatle (John) Hypotheticals #15

If you could show John four of his solo songs in 1964, which one of the following songs do you think would most surprise him and why?

Mother

How Do You Sleep

Woman Is The Ni**er of the World

Watching The Wheels

Are there any songs not listed above that you think would be more shocking to John? If so, which ones?

Shout out to @odearjohn for the inspo!

Behold my purchases from the Eyes of the Storm exhibition at the National Portrait Gallery on Saturday. I had a discussion with the women on the till in the gift shop about how hot John looked in his sunglasses 😎

what a time to be alive and a beatlemaniac.

BEATLES ARE FOREVER! ✌️💗

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

Ugh I love the sentiment but I’m so fed up of this take that Paul was the patient hero who held on until he just couldn’t before he was forced to let go? How about this-they were all assholes at different times. They all were rubbing each other the wrong way. They all had different goals and objectives. They also at different moments thought they didn’t belong in the band end this exacerbated tensions. I just hate this boring view that Paul And to a certain extent Ringo were sitting around saving the day and the wayward children of John and George. Ringo quit the band first. Paul was off trying to get his biased in laws to be the bands manager and was more and more disconnected from the band in terms of the creative process. In other words all band members contributed to the break up and there was no hero. Agree it was a tragedy though as it could have been resolved and with communication

What breaks my heart (though a lot breaks my heart about these two) is that, whatever had transpired between John and Paul during the escape-hopefully-this-fixes-it trip to India, it's that neither had wanted the outcome of it to be what ended up happening.

I mean even with John clearly spiraling out of control of his mind and emotions, trying to deal with it all from childhood to then and now with drugs and alcohol and sex—I can't bring myself to believe he wanted to have the falling out, the divorce, the interpreted separation of connection from the soul, from Paul.

All complicated and dramatic and bluffing and lying to himself evidently points to no, he didn't.

He burned down the temple he loved so much because he loved it so much. He burned down the Beatles—and with it, he burned down what he and Paul essentially created together (as George said, it was in 1967 that John and Paul became a duo... That is, not super on the nose dig at apparently the innate dynamics of the Beatles George was privy too... Or at least believed he'd witnessed become the inevitable outcome of his band in 1967. Remember, 1967 was like, peak John and Paul attached-at-the-hip proximity probably similar to that of when they were just teenagers in Liverpool together)

Not to exclude the other two, because John was so desperate and in need of his friends, the people he had grown up with, he'd wanted them to buy an island and live together on it, just them, houses connected through tunnels.

But, as harsh as it sounds, John could live not working with or necessarily having George and Ringo... But Paul.

Now Paul and him, in many interviews, confidently proclaiming once The Beatles went bust, then that's alright—it'd be John and Paul, Paul and John, still writing music together, still creating together. Paul helping John with his books, John and Paul writing music together as old farts to so graciously hand off for younger musicians to play; John and Paul even having the audacity to mention maybe dabbling in creating a musical play, even when John apparently had no interest in musicals whatsoever.

It was John and Paul, JohnandPaul, and it was since 1957. George was just speaking the truth of it all out loud:

HADDAD: Then, your musical ambitions didn’t really begin to take form until the two of you joined with John Lennon?

GEORGE: Paul and John were the spark that ignited The Beatles. Of course, we weren’t The Beatles then, and we didn’t have Ringo, but that was the start. The air was filled with excitement, and even though we went through silly names like The Quarrymen Skiffle Group, The Moondogs, The Moonshiners, and The Silver Beatles, before evolving into that group everyone grew to know and love, the crucible was in 1967 [sic; 1957] when John and Paul became a duo.”

— George Harrison, interview w/ M. George Haddad for Men Only. (November, 1978) [X]

John and Paul were the spark that ignited The Beatles. The Beatles were John and Paul's, and George was simply aware of it. By 1967, John and Paul were a duo, at least in George's viewpoint: the inevitable happened, what George suspected to be, anyway.

So to tell me that John had actually wanted to burn it all down and destroy this Thing that was in fact his and Paul's, essentially burning Paul (and himself) in the proces, because he loved them, it, him, too much. He wanted that.

I refuse to believe it.

I refuse to believe it because even John couldn't buy in to his own lies about why he had actually been the one to finally bring an end to Lennon-McCartney. Yoko's validation of his lies and encouragement of letting go of the past and all those that hurt him (Paul) might've enabled him, but it didn't make the lies of it all stick. He couldn't justify it in the end, he couldn't let go.

It's heartbreaking to think how neither of them wanted it to go the way it did.

Paul probably didn't even fathom it. He's gotten into enough rows with John, and while this one could've definitely been different, been worse, been something that even stable and strong and level headed and perfectly centered Paul McCartney couldn't even withstand, he couldn't control, he couldn't neatly deal with. What he couldn't do for John. What he might not have been able to understand, for John, for whatever reason.

But they've had fights, they've had their trials and tribulations together... What's another one? Why wouldn't they be able to climb over it or sweep it under the rug? Or even come to a compromise, at some later date.

Paul certainly didn't want what ended up happening, with The Beatles, with John.

It damn near tore him up and left him a pitiful, pathetic, alcoholic of a man. He agonized over this impending doom of another loss he couldn't stop.

Of course the main strain between John and Paul after the India excursion was only made worse and exacerbated by other outside forces and John's dwindling psyche and general stability.

No matter how hard he tried, truly fought for it all, it was set up for failure by the inside out.

Ringo was the only one trying at points and Linda was literally his saving grace.

Paul felt he had to divorce The Beatles (divorce John) because he felt he had no choice. John tapped out. George was angry. John wasn't even trying, after all Paul did was try and try and try.

What I'm trying to say is, and not just beat this potential dead horse: what is truly heartbreaking, is that John and Paul since the time of their boundless partnership, friendship, collaboration, and essentially finding their soulmate in each other (Paul's word, not mine) they had it set it would be them, together, forever, creating and inspiring and being together, during and after The Beatles.

You could say it was unrealistic, that it was just the faulty and frivolous daydreaming boyish promises young men barely in their twenties make in the heat of the hour of that day and week and month and year.

But they meant it. You can tell they meant it, you can tell, especially from Paul, that he meant it truly and earnestly and with shameless affection and fondness for his relationship with John, that he wanted to continue whatever this was with him, after The Beatles and on.

It's heartbreaking, because whatever was transpiring between John and Paul and which came to a head in India, whatever happened in India, they didn't want it to turn out and end in the way that it had.

John and Paul loved each other, indescribably so.

It's so heartbreaking when two people who clearly loved each other and are like soulmates, can't end up staying together, have a falling out or life finds a way to tear them apart because life isn't fair.

It's tragic.

There's an extra heaviness to it when you come to fully realize "Nobody wanted what happened to happen."

Neither John or Paul planned for it, for that kind of falling out, for a divorce. By all accounts and records, it hit like an agonizing and sudden septic natural disaster.

Such a beautiful friendship! We all need friends who inspire us to push our boundaries of what we think we can do

George Harrison & John Lennon | 1971

"I think that one of the things that I developed just by being in The Beatles was being bold and I think John had a lot to do with that. Because John Lennon, if he felt something strongly, he just did it. I picked up a lot of that by being a friend of John’s. Just that attitude of, 'Well, just go for it, just do it.'" ~ George Harrison

I agree-they both needed each other. What’s most frustrating in this fandom is that some people think saying Paul needed John or vice versa somehow takes away from their individual talents and achievements but surely it only enhanced it? There is nothing wrong with needing people in this life otherwise we would all be recluses living a nomadic existence. Both John and Paul were wildly talented on their own but with each other they went further then they would have alone not just musically but through giving each other the love, support and confidence to succeed.

I’m asking you this question because I really value your opinion. Judging from some people’s opinions;some without knowledge and some with knowledge seem to feel that Paul didn’t need John, that he never needed John. Paul was IT. My question is , do you think he was just humoring John or did Paul feel that they were equals? I find it interesting that Paul felt that John was being credited for everything after he was killed, but now,IMO, it has gone WAY overboard in the other direction. Your thoughts? Thanks.😎

This is a very in depth question ha! Sorry I have been M.I.A lately things have been a little crazy...

Anyways... We all know that once John met Paul, and Paul met John, something magic just clicked. They were discovering things within each other that no one previously had been able to bring out. Yes, Paul was more "musically talented" in technical terms at the time, but John added that special something that made them excellent. Even after John’s passing, Paul still says he “looks to John” for guidance when he's stuck with a song, melody, or whatever it may be he needs a trusted opinion on... John was virtually the other half of Paul’s brain in human form, as was he to John.

Moral of the post, to make it short and sweet, I do believe they needed each other to a point. Then after that point ended, hanging onto each other (musically) would have held them back. Both boys branched out to what they wanted to do after the split, however continued to be influenced by each other, they did their own thing and thrived while doing so. If John was alive today, I know we would have gotten loads of more beautiful music, and whatever else his unique mind came up with. John and Paul set eachother up for greatness, yet always had each other to fall back on if need be <3

Apologies for the quickly thrown together response, but thank you for writing in! I love sharing my thoughts and opinions on the 4 boys we love the most!

Weekly reminder this never happened. Even Paul said it didn’t happen. John also didn’t go in Paul’s house and smash a painting and he didn’t piss on Nuns. Also I love how John, George and Ringo are painted like some kind of Thelma and Louise type characters out for revenge. Like somehow in the year when they put out some of the best albums in rock n roll history they found the time on Paul’s anniversary to roll up to his house and damage it. Seriously? They had much better things to do (and were doing them!)

Wholesome moment! ❤️ love to see it

(From McCartney by Christopher Sandford)

More misinformation. Paul was creatively in the lead because he was happy and yet he was so unhappy during this period he grew a beard and nearly drank himself to death. Just like I don’t like how people oversimplify John to be either a saint or a wife beater, I also hate how they oversimplify Paul to be a hero saving the day or a hack. Can we please enable these men to exist as 3D human beings?

“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