122 posts
Latest Posts by tasryn1 - Page 4
Controversial option but in some ways I think George understood John even better than Paul did
John Lennon & George Harrison | 1969 © Bruce McBroom
"That was the great thing about John and what I got from him, from all those years. He saw that we are not just in the material world; he saw beyond death, that this life is just a little play that is going on. And he understood that." ~ George Harrison
I love this quote. I’m so glad someone could put into words what John contributed and was able to do. I just wish he had more time to do it
“He was one of the major influences on my music life. I just thought he was the very best of what could be done with rock ‘n’ roll, and also ideas. I felt such akin to him in that he would rifle the avant-garde and look for ideas that were so on the outside of, on the periphery of what was the mainstream and then apply them in a functional manner to something that was considered popularist and make it work. He would make it work for the masses and I thought that was so admirable. That was making artwork for the people and not making it elitist.”
- David Bowie (Far Out Magazine. Written by Tom Taylor in 2021)
Everyone reading this focussing on the fire when my first thought was how cruel Mimi was. Calling John fat. Making fun of his way of speaking. Putting down his musical interests. Discouraging him from going to Hamburg. Poor Johnny. Mimi’s impact on his mental health must have been severe
miss auntie mimi and little johnny starting a fire with his gang
It’s almost that awful day again. Rest in peace Johnny! We will never ever forget you
This 100 percent nails how I feel. Who is attacking Paul’s talent now? Why do people think he needs defending? The thing that really annoys me is you are apparently never allowed to criticise anything Paul does. If you found him annoying at times in Get Back, people will come at you with pitchforks. But it’s perfectly ok to call George a whiner or criticise John’s whole existence and it’s fine. Lol!!
Re: the Paul divide; I always find it so strange how people are so either/or about the whole thing. I think people need to understand that yes, Paul is absolutely a brilliant, visionary creative figure, but that doesn't mean he isn't also a weird, neurotic gay mess, and vice versa. Both are true. Also that those things aren't mutually exclusive - it's actually not that unusual a combo. This isn't really directed at you per se, just a general observation.
Oh, no worries. You put it brilliantly, really, better than I could.
Going to go on a bit of a tangent here, because I'm trying to understand this a bit better lately, but I do wonder when precisely the either/or attitude towards Paul in fandom really started? And exactly what purposes it serves. Because, like you said, neurotic gay and visionary genius aren't mutually exclusive; often those two sets of characteristics come hand in hand (Bernstein is there to prove that, after all. Tchaikovsky, too.) Obviously, within fandom spaces, we are all trying to have fun in different ways, and friction is bound to happen, but it's still interesting to me to try and figure out whether this dichotomy based view re: Paul actually does still come from the Lennon Remembers etc. fallout (as reaction to it) or if its current incarnation is a more or less new construct based on the idea of "rehabilitating" Paul's image, but made more intense (and bound to get into echo loops) by internet fandom spaces, when whatever or whoever called Paul "villain" in the first place has long left the room, and the material consequences of that have been more or less neutralised (I would argue this has been the case since the 90's, since a lot of Paul Sympathy hinges on Beatles Popularity.) I dunno! I spent 10 years very deliberately liking the four of them on my lonesome, someone tell me what the fuck happened here lmao
It feels to me like something of that either/or attitude (which goes beyond just, he was gay and neurotic vs. he was a normie genius, which are both fairly Positive views) comes from an almost... hilarious translation of the Lennon-McCartney competitive game to Beatles fandom as a whole. And a translation of a very specific moment of their competition, when it was less playfully antagonistic and more Mozart vs. Salieri Showdown Picking One or the Other Will Show How Good You Are, Morally. The origins of the thing seem easy enough to understand, but its usefulness now, in 2021, when Paul is a billionaire and has been more than recognised for his brilliance, is what escapes me. Shouldn't we now move to a deeper understanding of him, now that the external validation bit has been taken care of? Shouldn't we move on and talk about how In Spite of All the Danger is such a beautiful song of gay teenage longing and loyalty look at him go his flat PR image was constructed in the first place? How the push for him to be seen as The genius (it's his turn to be 3/4 of the Beatles now!) isn't actually that helpful at all in terms of allowing him depth? I guess the thing I'm trying to understand is, who exactly do we think is attacking Paul now, or have we based our defence of him on things that got solved in 1997.
This isn’t a shitpost though. It’s a literal play by play of what happened between these 2 idiots. I wonder if Paul lies in bed late at night and regrets not taking John up on his offer of a repeat performance?
Get Back Part 2 - India Conversation: The Subtext
Paul: "You just sort of see us, what we're doing..." "It's unbelievable, you know?"
Subtext: Boy did we act completely abnormally in India!
George: "What were you doing?"
Subtext: You and John have been acting extremely weirdly since India, what the hell happened between you guys there???"
John: "Yes, what were we doing?"
Subtext: Yes George, something significant *did* happen between Paul and I but we're not going to explicitly tell you what it was.
Paul: "I don't really know, you know?" "But it's like, we totally sort of put our own personalities under for the sake of it..."
Subtext: I do not want to address what happened between us in India, as far as I'm concerned it wasn't the "real" us anyway so I'm not going to acknowledge it, you can't make me!
John: "Who was writing all them songs?"
Subtext: Nice try Paul, if it wasn't really us how did we write all those songs while we were in India???
Paul: "Oh that was- that was..."
Subtext: Damn, you got me there!
John: "In the room..."
Subtext: Don't push me Paul, I'll happily tell George about what we got up to in the privacy of your room...
Paul: "Yeah right, I remember yeah..."
Subtext: I remember *exactly* what happened John, do not say another word!!!!
George: "Do you regret having gone there?"
Subtext: Since neither of you will tell me what the hell happened, can you at least tell me whether it was worth it??? Was it good or bad???
Paul: "No no, oh no no"
Subtext: No I don't regret it, I just never want to acknowledge it ever again
John: "I don't regret anything... ever..." *Intense simulation of d*ck s*cking while staring intensely at Paul*
Subtext: Well, judging from the fact you can barely string a coherent sentence together, I clearly blew your mind... Literally. If you want a repeat performance you know where I am ;)
Reposting because John looks so good in this picture. I don’t even care about the anecdote. This is a beautiful man.
“John and I went hitchhiking. George and I did it a couple of times too. It was a way to get a holiday. Maybe our parents booked holidays, but we wouldn’t have known how to. So we would head out, just the two of us, with our guitars. John was older, but I was in on the decision about where we might go. He’d got a hundred pounds from his uncle, who was a dentist in Edinburgh, for his twenty-first birthday, and we decided we’d hitchhike to Spain by way of Paris. We’d start over on the other side of a particular bridge because that’s where all of the long-distance lorries started. We’d wear little bowler hats to get their attention! When we got the lift, we sat together; we’d experience the lorry driver together. We knew what it was like to go on the cross-channel ferry; we knew what it was like to try and hang out in Paris. We would walk for miles around the city, sit in bars near Rue des Anglais, visit Montmartre and the Folies Bergère. We felt like we were fully paid-up existentialists and could write a novel from what we learnt in a week there, so we never did make it to Spain. We’d been together so much that if you had a question, we would both pretty much come up with the same answer.”
Paul McCartney, “Ticket to Ride” from The Lyrics: 1956 to the Present (2021)
And why John specifically? Were George and Ringo master electricians? I know John was paranoid too often but sometimes with Paul I think it’s justified.
John and Jane would be great but I also wouldn’t mind Paul and Stu lol. You could cut the tension with a knife lol
Beatle Hypotheticals #19
If you could be a fly on the wall in a broken lift for an hour, which one of the following pairs would you want to be trapped in a lift with and why?
John and Jane Asher
Paul and Brian Epstein
George and Magic Alex
Ringo and Pete Best
Is there another pairing not listed above that you would want to be trapped in a lift with? If so, which pairing and why?
The most shocking one for Paul would be Here Today. Imagine the pain of 1964 Paul finding out his creative partner was going to die
Beatle (Paul) Hypotheticals #16
If you could show Paul four of his solo songs in 1964, which one of the following songs do you think would most surprise him and why?
Kreen Akore
Monkberry Moon Delight
Dear Friend
Temporary Secretary
Are there any songs not listed above that you think would be more shocking to Paul? If so, which ones?
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!
This is such a weird take. Why would Julian not love having these memories of his dad? Why, even if John was an imperfect father, is he not worthy of his son’s love? I’m relieved Julian has chosen to let any bitterness go. I’m also even more excited for Get Back as some truly beautiful aspects of John’s personality are clearly on display given Julian’s reactions.
sidenote: julian is such a good person i admire him a lot because if it was me i think i'd be bitter as fuck
Dear friend! We already know his thoughts on Coming up from a few interviews and the same for Too Many People. I don’t entirely buy that Call Me Back Again is a McLennon song. But Dear Friend is 100 percent about John and given it came during a period of infighting, I want to know what John truly felt hearing that for the first time. Can I get Paul reacting to I Know, I Know as a bonus? And both of them reacting to I Don’t Know (Johnny, Johnny)?
Beatle (John) Hypotheticals #11
If you could be a fly on the wall when John listens to a song for the first time, which one of the following songs would you choose and why?
Too Many People
Dear Friend
Call Me Back Again
Coming Up
If you could choose another song, that isn’t listed above, which one would you choose and why?
Reblogging for the link at the very end. I didn’t even know this existed! Thank you!
How are you finding the Lyrics book?
honestly - it's mostly what i have expected it to be. there are definitely a lot of very good and enjoyable parts in it, and i think in many cases it does provide a good insight into how paul constructs his lyrics, his thought-process, his inspiration for a particular song/line etc, these are all interesting to read through, the stories and the photos are lovely, and the inclusion of all the manuscripts and doodles does add a lot to it. and it’s paul. so if you love his weirdo brain and his music, you’re gonna enjoy it! and then at other times you'll want to tear your hair out because this man is the stupidest mfer on earth there aren’t any big revelations, but i didn’t really expect any, so in that respect i wasn’t disappointed. however, it’d have been nice if paul could have been at least a tiny bit more willing to explore the more personal aspects of some songs but i’d be lying if i said i was genuinely expecting him to drastically change the way he’s been discussing these things for the past however many decades...
and... the fact they went for this semi-autobiography route AND put it all in alphabetical order... it means it’s a bit eh sometimes, a bit all over the place. i sort get why this approach was chosen but i just think that overall, they could have done a lot more with the book, the concept and the opportunity were there. (+ it’s a pity that some lyrics, that are actually gorgeous and interesting (i’ve just seen a face, monkberry moon delight, footprints, my brave face, a certain softness, riding to vanity fair, alligator, scared, to name a few) were left out, while others were included basically just so the obligatory historical discussions could be carried out because you know, the book sometimes cannot make its mind up about whether it wants to focus on paul the artist or demand paul to be a quasi beatles historian) but i would think that for people who don’t know that much about these songs or paul’s life, the book could be more interesting to read through and they wouldn’t be so nitpicky about it lmao.
what i will say is that if you want a physical copy , i would buy it at a discount or if having the proper book isn’t that important you could just..... you know....... :)
I feel for Paul here and I can see that he is hurt. I didn’t realise until I moved here to the U.K. that there is a whole sub culture of taking the piss out of your friends which at first seemed really mean to me until I realised everyone did it to each other. It could be George wasn’t meaning to hurt Paul but did it unintentionally which to be fair is the story of the Beatles in a nutshell lol
George making jabs at Paul’s work ethic during the Beatles-era and Ringo laughing with him is a whole-ass mood.
—
cr: EMI records & Apple Corps.
I love this side to Johnny. I especially love him throwing his school report through the window and riding away on his bike to avoid getting into trouble. I could definitely see myself doing that just to avoid the conflict lol
“John can be very tender. I know he has this reputation for being cynical and sharp, but I know him better. I know that beneath all that, he can be very warm. He asks how I am, how my health is, how the weather’s like…Then we’ll start to talk about the old days. The last time he was on, we started talking about his schooldays and the time he came home on the last day of term with his school report. He just rode up to the kitchen window on his bike, threw the report in and shouted, ‘im off out.’ I knew it must be a bad report, so I chased after him, shouting, ‘You come back here this minute, John Lennon,’ but he was off. We had a good laugh about that over the phone. I think, in a way, he’s a little bit lonely…”
- Aunt Mimi Smith (c. 1977) in The Dream Is Over: Off The Record 2 by Keith Badman (pg. 216)
Thanks lovely. I suppose these comments are striking a nerve as anonymous asks are already complaining about these comments. Shrugs. It’s a shame that people can’t critically examine these topics but given how much more popular Paul is on tumblr than John, it’s not surprising. I’ll still look forward to seeing Get Back at the end of the month and having John back in the flesh for even a little bit of time.
“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
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
If people want to say Mark Lewisohn is a John Lennon fan boy and to take everything he says with a grain of salt, it’s only right to say that Erin Torkelson Weber is the same for Paul McCartney. She’s often quoted on tumblr and she may use real life quotes but please understand that quotes, interviews and anecdotes can be arranged in a way to result in implicit bias toward a particular subject and excluding other anecdotes that contradict your version of events is a bias in and of itself.
“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
It’s nice to see a music critic put into words how I have felt as some of these excerpts from the book have come out. As a John fan, I’ve had to scroll past people calling John an evil wifebeater on my dash, people diagnosing him with a variety of mental illnesses despite no diagnosis in his lifetime and then diagnosing people around him with mental health issues just for associating with him. They then use these mental health issues he may have had to discredit his thoughts and feelings or even worse infantilise him, particularly in relation to Paul. I haven’t called these things out as everyone has a right to their opinions. But when a few people have called out Paul for some of the hurtful things he has said regarding John, they have been shouted down, blocked or told they have no right to their opinions and aren’t being team players in the fandom. I think that due to Paul having a tough treatment after John’s death, there’s a need to put Paul on a pedestal as he is seen as needing defending and consequently either minimise John’s accomplishments or grossly highlight all of John’s flaws (while conveniently ignoring those of the other Beatles.) Paul, like john, is human and it’s should be ok to point out elements of his behaviour you find problematic and by the way many of John fans completely are aware of both John’s flaws and Paul’s wonderful points too. If we call out the Jean jackets who put John on a pedestal and treat him like a God surely we shouldn’t be encouraging that behaviour for the fans of the other Beatles. Ted talk over
Posting this, because it’s a pretty balanced review. The reviews have been generally pretty favourable, but they do (and rightly so) call out Paul for his (intentional?) inconsistency and revisionism. I’m not too familiar with the author, but a quick wikipedia search says he has been on the musicology/ music critique writing scene since the 70s. Some will probably say “oh he’s just one of those male rock journalists who favoured John and therefore his criticism of Paul is invalid”. But I think he makes some really excellent points about the flawed elements of this book.
“The best of the songs collected here (“For No One,” “She’s Leaving Home,” “When Winter Comes,” “On My Way to Work” and quite a few more) reflect eyes fixed on the small niceties and curiosities of everyday life and a mind that bounces freely, taking childlike pleasure in that freedom. “The Lyrics” makes clear that McCartney has written on a high level long past his Beatles years, and even the weakest lyrics in the books have a character all their own: a feeling of giddy playfulness and unguarded experimentation. They’re a joy to read because they exude the joy their maker took in their making.” “Over and over, McCartney shows how deeply he is steeped in literary history and how much his output as a songwriter has in common with the works of the likes of Dickens and Shakespeare. “John never had anything like my interest in literature,” he announces at the top of his commentary on “The End,” before pivoting to a mini-lecture on the couplet as a form. “When you think about it, it’s been the workhorse of poetry in English right the way through. Chaucer, Pope, Wilfred Owen.” Apropos of “Come and Get It,” the trifle he wrote and produced for Badfinger, McCartney notes, “When you’re writing for an audience — as Shakespeare did, or Dickens, whose serialized chapters were read to the public — there’s that need to pull people in.” Aaaah … we realize: Paul really is a word man, the more literary and cerebral Beatle.” “As one would expect from the pop star who posed with his baby tucked in his coat on his farm for his first post-Beatles album, McCartney talks with ardor and respect for his parents, his extended family in Liverpool, and the traditional values of hearth and home in general. He attributes the buoyant positivity of his music to the happiness in his family life and, by extension, ascribes the bite and cynicism that distinguishes much of Lennon’s work to the domestic upheaval in John’s early years. To McCartney, a dark view of humanity is a failing and must be a mark of suffering, rather than an attribute of thought.” “While pronouncing his love for Lennon as a longtime friend and creative partner, Paul is pretty rough on him at points in “The Lyrics.” His main crime is one of omission, passing on opportunities to point out Lennon’s signature contributions to songs they wrote collaboratively, such as “A Day in the Life.” In the context of conflicts between the two of them, McCartney describes Lennon as “stupid” or an “idiot.” Yes, we all know that McCartney can’t help defining himself in relation to Lennon. Still, as he shows convincingly throughout “The Lyrics,” you don’t have to make the other guy out to be an idiot to prove that you’re a genius.
My issue with this statement is that 1) there was no reason to mention John at all to make the statement Paul was inspired by literature 2) why did he single out John specifically? Presumably George and Ringo weren’t Shakespeare fans or if so I haven’t heard it. The only reason he did this was to take a pot shot at John being known as the “smart” Beatle. And it’s kind of unnecessary. After all Lennon never criticised Paul’s love of literature in the Lennon Remembers interview or in any interview in the 70s so it’s not like Paul is responding to anything from John. So why do it? It just seems kind of cruel and unnecessary and no I don’t think I’m being divisive in calling that out. This isn’t about giving Paul the benefit of the doubt or not. This is calling out crappy behaviour
“John never had anything like my interest in literature, though he was very keen on Lewis Carroll and, in particular, Winston Churchill. His Aunt Mimi had lots of books by Churchill in the front parlour. Not a bad basis for an education. In my case, I was always fascinated by the couplet as a form in poetry. When you think about it, it’s been the workhorse of poetry in English right the way through. Chaucer, Pope, Wilfred Owen. I was particularly fascinated by how Shakespeare used the couplet to close out a scene, or an entire play. Just taking a swing through Macbeth, for example, you’ll find a few humdingers, like: 'Receive what cheer you may: The night is long that never finds the day.’ or ‘I go, and it is done; the bell invites me. Hear it not, Duncan; for it is a knell / That summons thee to heaven or to hell.' This was Shakespeare’s way of saying, ‘That’s it, folks,’ and ‘The End’ was our way of saying the same. 'And in the end the love you take / Is equal to the love you make’ This is one of those couplets that can keep you thinking for a long time. […] I often muse upon what might have happened, had I not ended up in a band that rather took over my life. I wonder about the path I thought I was on with my A level in English literature and where that might have led me.”
— Paul McCartney, about “The End”. In The Lyrics (2021).
Yes thank you! Why if he claims to love this man do nigh is every single article about how he really did everything in the Beatles and John was just there?
Paul McCartney, I love you but I hate you so much right now.
Stop trashing John (who can’t defend himself because he’s been dead for 41 years) just to make yourself seem more important. You did your best and most important work TOGETHER.
100 percent agree. People aren’t even allowed to change. That’s the sad part
i know you're done with this topic, but i just want to get some things out of my system: you're right in saying that kids don't care about women/victims and i bet they have no idea about what cynthia, may or yoko etc have had to say about that subject and they wouldn't care to find out anyway. plus: what happened to the concept of restorative justice? i guess the kids aren't aware of it, but the whole "cancelling" philosophy is pretty silly anyway. i don't think kids on twitter/tik tok have the right to destroy someone's life and/or legacy forever because of colossal mistakes they made in the past, no matter how big and serious they were... kids seem to believe they do have that right nowadays, but that only serves to stroke their ego, to make them believe in their moral superiority. but is that behavior actually changing the fucking world? is that feminist activism? is that helping change men's systemic treatment of us? no, it isn't, but if kids want to continue to be self-indulgent and childish, so be it.
I am done with this topic but this was a nice ask so I’m posting it :)
I’m also so immune to internet activism thinking that calling a dead guy a wifebeater makes them woke or that disliking his annoying ass wife is misogynistic or whatever. When you’re actually doing things to try and help disenfranchised women, like I was doing before the pandemic, you’re just open to a whole new reality. It’s insane how whole movements have been reduced to jokes bc of this type of """activism""". Like, my 15yo tiktok addicted sister genuinely can’t hear the word feminism without laughing and tbh, I’m pretty close to that as well. How activism, instead of actively and practically trying to improve people’s lives, became a fucking punchline. Like yeah, this guy was violent to women decades ago. He was shot dead in front of his house. There, misogyny solved, except for the fifteen thousand jokes about his abuse (making fun of the victims!) and the fact he died from gun violence.
Just wish I could read an article that praises Paul yet doesn’t crap on John. I’m the member of about 30 John Lennon pages across multiple social media platforms and they are really positive places that celebrate John with photos, video and articles. If the other Beatles are mentioned it’s always with respect and a desire to support their various projects. I can’t remember the last time someone bashed Paul. Why can’t this be the norm?
“Did you know Paul sent a telegram to Margaret Thatcher in 1982? He did. It wasn’t friendly. He lost his temper over her treatment of health workers and fired off a long outraged message, comparing her to Ted Heath, the prime minister (tweaked in “Taxman”) felled by the 1974 coal strike. McCartney warned, “What the miners did to Ted Heath, the nurses will do to you.” This controversy is a curiously obscure footnote to his life—it seldom gets mentioned in even the fattest biographies. He doesn’t discuss it in Many Years from Now. I only know about it because I read it as a Random Note in Rolling Stone, not exactly a hotbed of pro-Paul propaganda at the time. (The item began, “Reports that Paul McCartney is intellectually brain-dead appear to have been premature.”) But the telegram was a major U.K. scandal, with Tory politicians denouncing him. In October 1982, Thatcher was at the height of her power, in the wake of her Falkland Islands blitz. Many rock stars talked shit about Maggie—Elvis Costello, Morrissey, Paul Weller—but Paul was the one more famous than she was. He had something to lose by hitting send on this, and nothing to gain. What, you think he was trying for coolness points? This is Paul McCartney, remember? He was in the middle of making Give My Regards to Broad Street. He could have clawed Thatcher’s still-beating heart out of her rib cage, impaled it on his Hofner on live TV, and everybody would have said, “Yeah, but ‘Silly Love Songs’ though.” Why did he feel so intensely about the nurses? He didn’t mention his mother in the telegram, but he must have been thinking of Mary McCartney’s life and death. So he snapped, even though it was off-message. (He was busy that week doing interviews for the twentieth anniversary of “Love Me Do”—the moment called for Cozy Lovable Paul, not Angry Paul.) He didn’t boast about it later, though fans today would be impressed that any English rock star of that generation—let alone Paul—had the gumption to send this. You can make a case that it was a braver, riskier, and more politically relevant move than John sending his MBE medal back to the Queen in 1970. Still, John’s gesture went down in history and Paul’s didn’t, though his fans would probably admire the move if they knew about it. He couldn’t win. He was Paul. All he could do was piss people off.”
— Rob Sheffield, Dreaming the Beatles. (2017)
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
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
I love your stories and the Rise and Fall of John Lennon is one of my fav stories in the fandom. It was such a great mix of humiliation, angst, fluff and intimacy. I really hope you continue with your stories. I’ve never re read a story more than that one lol
i might elaborate later but fanfic replies literally develop writer’s metacognition and make them better writers
Yes thank you! Also the comments on this post from some commentators are disgusting. They somehow think it’s okay to wish violence on someone because they perceive John to be violent and don’t see why this makes them a massive hypocrite
i really really wish i could just write this everywhere.
I’m Sylvia wanting a lock of John’s hair. Also I’m Donna because I would totally buy Beatles records even without a record player just to have everything they ever produced. Yes I’m sad
tag yourself: beatles fan mail edition
(exert from “150 glimpses of the beatles” by craig brown)