#the beatles long post

[nikidontsurf]

THE BEATLES attend an introductory course on Transcendental Meditation in Bangor, Wales, August 1967.

[ghostfrog81]

I drew this while listening to the Rolling Stones greatest hits on CD

[foryouwereinmysong]

“Now and then, I miss you / Now and then, I want you to be there for me / Always to return to me,” (...) It’s a passage where Lennon’s yearning for McCartney intertwines with Paul’s mourning for John, a shared grieving for the partnership that defined both their lives. link

"Now and Then" is 81-year-old Paul McCartney finishing a song of John Lennon, who has been gone for almost 43 years.

But it is also 15-year-old Paul finishing a song of the boy who wandered around Liverpool with him, talking about their future and love of music.

It is 18-year-old Paul finishing a song of the guy who picked him as his partner and took him to play nightclubs in Hamburg.

It is 20-year-old Paul finishing a song of the lad who wanted to write song after song with him.

It is 23-year-old Paul finishing a song of the man he made history with.

It is 24-year-old Paul finishing a song of the soulmate who shared his visions.

It is 26-year-old Paul finishing a song of the person who serenaded him eating a cupcake.

It is 31-year-old Paul finishing a song of John, who loved him in his own way.

And it is 39-year-old Paul finishing a song of the friend he just lost.

gif source

[bambi-kinos]

Thank you so much for replying to my ask! Sorry for the long reply back but I just love discussing these two.

Yes the rock and roll lifestyle and Paul’s infamous cheating before Linda has me very sceptical about him being 100% faithful to Linda too. That Jane Asher story is insane! The idea of Wings being a way to keep an eye on it is very interesting and not implausible at all. However in my opinion, Linda gives me the impression of someone with a strong sense of self, who would decide to walk instead of being disrespected in that way.

I also find it strange that decades and decades on, no one has said anything other than Paul being absolutely devoted to Linda. Not even anonymously, someone who doesn’t like Paul could seriously hurt his reputation spilling that information, not to mention the potential money, fame from it ect. This goes hand in hand with having a sexual relationship with John. I mean, surely they couldn’t have hidden it from everyone. Some people must of known, and not just an inner circle of loyal friends. Take tour managers or hotel staff for example.

So why do you think nothing has come out all these years later?

What comes to mind is the phone call Paul had with a biographer very soon after John’s death (I’m sorry I’ve forgotten his exact name) where he secretly recorded all he said and later published it. (Ouch!) Paul’s completely baffled at Yoko’s statement that no one had hurt John more than Paul had. (Said by John himself)

If they had a sexual, emotionally intense relationship, wouldn’t Paul have known that it was this John was referring too? He comes across as very smart, surely he could have put the dots together? His bewilderment seems completely sincere, not a pr trick. What’s your opinion?

I honestly go back and forth on this because I can see a relationship between those two being way more than just platonic. On and off hook ups in the 70s amongst the angst could also explain John’s sporadic comments about Paul throughout this decade. One day praising him, the other cursing him. Both parties not being brave enough (and a whole host of other factors) to not commit or acknowledge what was going on fully would have been very confusing to say the least.

But I still can’t get my head around the points I made earlier that counter this argument. Would love to hear your take on things!

EXTREMELY based ask anon, your mind is very sharp and I love it!

okayyyy there's a lot here so let's take it bit by bit

However in my opinion, Linda gives me the impression of someone with a strong sense of self, who would decide to walk instead of being disrespected in that way.

If we're anywhere close to the ballpark then Linda nearly called off the wedding when Paul told her about him and John. But then after that, she would chaperone Paul when he went to see John and hang out with him like when they went to LA. It's hard to say what Linda would or wouldn't stand for IMO because she saw the real Paul, all of him, and stuck that out for over twenty years.

I don't think that Linda would be okay with Paul cheating on her necessarily but I wouldn't write off her pretending not to see when he was sneaking out under her nose. It's not the same thing as having an open relationship but she and Paul had agreed to try for Mary sometime in 1968 before she knew about him and John and witnessed the messy break up. She doesn't strike me as the vindictive type so I wonder if knowing she was pregnant and wanting her kid to know who her father was played any role in her decision. And Linda purportedly didn't like the idea of getting married again according to a quote floating around here -- Paul had to convince her it was a good idea, not the other way around. There's reason to believe that Linda may have been happy just being a common law couple or whatever the UK's equivalent is and that Paul insisted on getting married.

I'm not saying definitively one way or another, Linda is much more opaque than Paul. But I'm hesitant to say that she wouldn't tolerate cheating or she wouldn't look the other way on it, because why else did she let Paul visit John so much otherwise? She knew what was going on.

Just something to think about I guess.

I also find it strange that decades and decades on, no one has said anything other than Paul being absolutely devoted to Linda. Not even anonymously, someone who doesn’t like Paul could seriously hurt his reputation spilling that information, not to mention the potential money, fame from it ect. This goes hand in hand with having a sexual relationship with John. I mean, surely they couldn’t have hidden it from everyone. Some people must of known, and not just an inner circle of loyal friends. Take tour managers or hotel staff for example.

So why do you think nothing has come out all these years later?

The biggest reason is that The Beatles worked very hard as a unit to cover up their infidelities. Paul was two paternity accusations lodged against him, one was the German girl and the other was Liverpool girl. Blood tests proved that both of these paternity claims were false (and Anita later admitted that she had a second boyfriend concurrent to Paul at the time, she just didn't think he was actually the dad until her son spilled the beans that Paul's paternity test proved false.) Despite these two paternity suits being lodged against Paul, he still paid the girls hush money through Brian. There's another story of a paternity claim being lodged against John that Brian paid to go away. The hookers they engaged with in the hotels were also paid for their time and to not launch any paternity suits against The Beatles. And so on.

The most encompassing answer is simply that Paul and the other Beatles paid off their babymamas AND that they have lots of legal representation on their side to make offers that can't be refused. I have long thought that the sudden muzzling of Heather Mills was the result of a super injunction, a feature of British law where a person with enough money and influence can forcibly shut someone up. A super injunction is, to put it mildly, a massive pain in the ass to obtain yet Paul is well positioned to have used one to make her shut her mouth and stop libeling him in the press. If Paul is ruthless enough to use something like that against his ex wife and mother to his child then he is absolutely willing to turn it on lays from the 1960s and 1970s. Most of the time I would bet he does not have to; we all have a price and for a sufficient amount of money, I wouldn't bother Paul with a paternity suit either.

Then there's just love and personal loyalty. The Beatles inspire incredible loyalty in their fans and their hook ups. Peggy Lipton went completely insane for Paul after meeting him only a handful of times including showing up at his hotel in a swimsuit hoping to be taken on Paul's Dirty Weekend with Linda. Now imagine that loyalty in a 19 year old girl who hooked up with Paul during 1966. Why would she say shit to anyone about having sex with Paul or getting pregnant by him? She would absolutely feel inspired to protect him. I think this would be just as true in 1976, the loyalty that the boys inspired in their fans is remarkable.

And think about it: if you had slept with one of the Beatles, would you out him to anyone? Or would you keep it a secret? Think carefully about it. By outing him, you are also outing yourself. Especially if Paul was married at the time. Do you want to admit you're complicit in Paul McCartney's adultery? That sounds like a very unpleasant prospect to me and besides, you want to keep a little piece of him to yourself.

Tour managers and hotel staff likely suspected something but it was truly a whirlwind for them too and I think a lot of them just second guess what they know. Homosexual activity was completely unthinkable and virtually unknown in the 60s and 70s. The only people who would truly know is the housekeeping staff. They would see the telltale signs of who slept where and what they were doing; those room manifests don't tell us shit because we can be sure that the boys swapped beds and rooms all the time depending on what they wanted. For John and Paul especially, I imagine there was a lot of wandering in the night and seeking each other out.

Take that story of Ringo disappearing during the 1964 tour to go on a joyride with a police man with Paul waking up and alerting Mal and Neil that he was gone. Why was Paul awake in the night? Why didn't he just go ask John and George where Ringo was first thing? Surely if your third band member goes missing your first instinct would be to ask the other two if they've seen him but instead Paul, for some reason, seems to have known immediately that Ringo was not with John and George in their hotel room and promptly tattled to the roadies. This is despite the room set up which was supposed to be Paul/Ringo and George/John. Hm!

Only housekeeping would know the truth of the situation and those men and women are dead or lost in the crowd. However even then we don't have reason to think they had proof: John and Paul being intimate would only leave behind the remains of...sex. And the truth is that The Beatles liked having sex with girls while they were in the same room together, including switching. What reason was there to think that it was just two guys boning instead of two guys and two girls?

What I'm driving at is that tour managers and hotel staff and housekeeping servicewomen had a lot of circumstantial evidence but unless they caught John and Paul in the act, then they had no reason to understand what they were seeing. Anyone who did catch them would have been paid off with the brown paper bag money Brian picked up from the bootleg merch vendors that sold fanmerch outside their concerts. And if that failed then yes legal action would have been launched through Capitol's legal arm because Capitol had plenty of superstars before The Beatles that had to be managed. They knew the drill, they weren't angels. Managing sex addicts and homosexual activity was business as usual for a suit even in 1964. They wouldn't want to scuttle that secret either because if Paul throws a fit and buys out his song catalogue then it's good night Felicia.

So in between those three things -- personal loyalty, bribes, and the threat of legal action especially since Paul has rich boy privileges -- no one is saying shit. Not any of the groupies, none of the women Paul was probably hanging out with while married, no one who ever caught him with John. It's just not worth it.

What comes to mind is the phone call Paul had with a biographer very soon after John’s death (I’m sorry I’ve forgotten his exact name) where he secretly recorded all he said and later published it. (Ouch!) Paul’s completely baffled at Yoko’s statement that no one had hurt John more than Paul had. (Said by John himself)

If they had a sexual, emotionally intense relationship, wouldn’t Paul have known that it was this John was referring too? He comes across as very smart, surely he could have put the dots together? His bewilderment seems completely sincere, not a pr trick. What’s your opinion?

Hunter Davies. The phone call with Hunter Davies is very interesting because he was someone Paul knew...but otoh he's still a reporter. Paul knows that. Hearing more about the Lennon McCartney feud soon after John's death was a hot story so could Paul reasonably assume that Hunter would write up the story.

I posit that Paul, in an act of true cynicism and spite towards Yoko, deliberately leaked some of his issues with John in order to spit in Yoko's eye. Especially with that pointed line about how he knows things about John that Yoko never knew...and that he won't publish them until after she is dead. You want to talk about ouch?!

I think that Paul is being genuine when he's confused about how he could have hurt John which makes me think @menlove is right and that India may have been a nothingburger or didn't feature Paul getting cold feet about John.

There are a couple of candidates for "John said no one hurt him like Paul did." We'll probably never know what they are but these are my personal options:

John asked for a relationship with Paul in India; Paul did something John interpreted as a rejection especially in light of Paul self destructing and John going on a multi-day bender when he got home.

Paul suddenly bringing Linda into the limo during the New York City trip to promote Apple. John seems genuinely baffled and confused about this with the "and next thing I know she's married to him" line. It was completely out of left field and John was caught by surprise.

Paul getting the drop on John with regards to announcing the Beatles break up. John expressed bitterness about this (because it was a ploy to force Paul to stay with him, Paul wasn't actually supposed to follow through with it) because it humiliated him publicly.

John was still hung up on the Family Way score and was destroyed by that and by Paul going "fuck it we'll do it live" and recording so much stuff solo for the White Album.

You may have spotted a problem with this already: there are multiple instances where Paul could have profoundly hurt John that would linger in John's memory. How can you possibly choose just one?

What if it was all of these and that eventually the hurt and abandonment mounted and John couldn't take it anymore?

Ultimately though I think Paul is/was confused and angry because the narrative was all about how Paul hurt John, and nothing about how John hurt Paul, another thing Paul brought up with Hunter during the interview. If John was pissy about Paul announcing the break up first, then why was no attention paid to John announcing "I want a divorce"? Why is it so important to sweep John being a dickhead under the rug? I think that's what had Paul so confused and pissed off, to the point that he couldn't really pinpoint one single thing that could have hurt John. 'Are you serious, I hurt him when he's the one who abandoned me multiple times through out our relationship and never apologized for any of it?' That would piss me off monumentally if I were Paul, I'd deny all knowledge of hurting John too since he refused to own up to hurting Paul in the first place.

I honestly go back and forth on this because I can see a relationship between those two being way more than just platonic. On and off hook ups in the 70s amongst the angst could also explain John’s sporadic comments about Paul throughout this decade. One day praising him, the other cursing him. Both parties not being brave enough (and a whole host of other factors) to not commit or acknowledge what was going on fully would have been very confusing to say the least.

That's pretty much it. Keeping in mind that Yoko kept John hooked on drugs to keep him from making up with Paul as well.

I think the confusion and frustration Paul expressed/expresses is a byproduct of the fog of war. He's too close to the subject matter, he can't figure it out because he can't see the big picture.

[vizreef]

EMI TG 12345 Mk I // Recording Console (UK, 1967)

used on The Beatles 'Abbey Road' & much more

via

[tyrelluvr]

lennon mccartney 👍

[neilphen]

NOW AND THEN (2023): The final Beatles recording-

Atlantic City: Bruce Springsteen / P.S I Love You: The Beatles / Photograph: Ringo Starr / Mind Games: John Lennon / I'll Be Seeing You: Billie Holiday

[paulmccartneyexplodingonstage]

classic rock rpf but it’s who is allowed to hit my vape

(i have a crippling addiction and it’s not cool don’t vape kids ❤️)

#1. Paul McCartney - No

as a fellow oral fixation girly this hurts me a bit to do but he’d take a hit and then i’d “mysteriously lose it” five minutes later. also once he learns he can do tricks w it he’s gonna get better at it than i am and i need to have something in this world.

#2. John Lennon - Yes

ok. now listen. he’s also a stealing risk and i trust him maybe even less than paul but i want to see the light enter his eyes when he hits the cool mint geek bar for the first time. after that tho he’s gonna be an incessant rip stealer. so maybe not such a good idea after all

#3. George Harrison - Yes

he’s a POLITE YOUNG MAN. he would even use his words to ask instead of just making grabby hands. he gets a hit whenever he wants.

#4. Ringo Starr - Yes

he gets whatever he wants forever. i honestly don’t think he’d like it very much tho, which is why he can have a hit whenever. he’s not fiending for it like the blowjob brothers over there.

#5. Brian - yes

yes. but he doesn’t even need to ask cuz he has his own 😌✨

#6. George Martin - yes

if anything I’M asking HIM to rip it. puh leez put your mouth on it sir

#7. Robert Fraser - no

he has 6 pod systems but he’s still gonna ask to hit mine. fuck outta here

#8. Bob Dylan - yes

im risking life and limb w him putting his germs on there but whatever he needs some momentary joy. im gonna buy him three of his own

#9. Mike Nesmith - no

if he asks i’m ramming it down his throat (affectionately)

#10. Micky Dolenz - yes

if i say no he’s gonna find a way to hit it anyway so i might as well cut out the middle man. plus he’s a homie and he can do whatever he wants forever

#11. Peter Tork - yes

he’s gonna cough a lot and i’m gonna feel bad but i’m still gonna say yes whenever he asks.

#12. Davy Jones - yes

whatever you say, beautiful. (he’s gonna try to ghost and fail hard)

#13. Joan Baez - yes

im handing all of them over in an instant.

[thefairyfellermasterstroke]

Reasons why ❤️BRIAN❤️ should be your favorite Beatle.

1) He had amazing hair

Like??? Look at that????

2) He was a very kind person and an advocate for peace

"Brian believed sincerely in the philosophy of flower-power, of love and peace and bells. Often he dressed in a psychedelically-patterned shirt, and frequently referred to his friends in letters as 'beautiful people' This was not merely a affectation of the period. Before entering the army had talked of being a conscientious objector to military service he had always evangelized for world peace." - Ray Coleman

3) He loved

FASHION DESIGN

MUSICAL THEATRE

4) He stated (referring to his book), that the only reason people would read his autobiography was because of the Beatles, not himself. But that is not true because Brian Epstein was so much more than the Beatles Manager, and we love him and admire for him for that!!!

5) He was incredibly brave and strong, being born in a Jewish family (and he was an homosexual too!) while WWII was still happening.

AND YEAH if anyone was the "Fifth Beatle" it was Brian. He was such a good soul, the impact he brought to music, to culture and TO THE WORLD is insane, and he deserved so much better from his lifetime. He only deserves love and only beautiful things. Let's give him some of the recognition he deserves!!!

[torchlitinthedesert]

1964: eyes of the storm

At the weekend I went to the Paul McCartney exhibition at London's National Portrait Gallery.

I'd seen some of the pictures, but I still wasn't prepared for just how fond it is. Tumblr is enchanted by Soft John, and yes, absolutely - but the whole exhibition has this warmth and freshness to it. I'm sure some of it's smart curation and hindsight, but the observation and attention and choice of subjects is so full of affection.

Some of the earliest shots are at a London gig. There are portraits of George's mum and dad, visiting their boy, looking alert and intelligent and bursting with pride. Because of course they are, and of course Paul took pictures of them.

It's late 1963, but the Finsbury Park Astoria looks stuck in the 1950s, all post-war austerity and support acts with towering teddy boy hair. Backstage looks cramped and freezing and dark: no wonder they went to the pub to try to do a photoshot. Then they go to Paris and the world opens up around them.

And Paul is so thrilled by it all. He's trying arty camera angles (some don't work). He's putting little crosses on his contact sheets, using a special pencil like he's seen the proper photographers do, because he's a complete nerd. And of course they were all arty nerds, trying out techniques and watching other artists (in whatever medium), getting excited and doing their art projects and trying to be cool.

Some are technically not-very-good photographs: Brian laughing right into the camera, George trying to waterski, both out of focus and both radiant with joy. Some are genuinely good portraits (Ringo particularly).

By the time they get to America, he's more confident and some of the on-the-hoof pics are striking: photographing the photographers, alarmed by armed police (with like. real guns. and ammunition. right there, on the other side of the car window, right there).

And so much people-watching. He watches them, and they watch back, looking up as the Beatle circus goes past. Airport workers with their hands over their ears because the screaming's so loud, or catching Paul's eye to mime playing the guitar. A lovely one of a railroad worker smiling back at him, another of a girl in a headscarf, absorbed in her own thoughts. One of their security falling asleep on the job (it's on a boat, they're probably fine). Mal, and Neil, and George Martin with Judy, and Cynthia. He's interested in people. He's amazed by sunlight. He's happy.

[zilabee]

Derek Burrell-Davis - memo to BBC (May 67): “I had a satisfactory two-hour meeting with all four members of the Beatles Group this evening��..I don’t think it is over-stating it to say that they are enthusiastic about their participation in the ‘Our World’ programme and fully aware of the responsibilities they carry. Their approach is extremely professional and they are in complete agreement with the basic idea, which is that they are undertaking a recording session in the Number One Studio at E.M.I., Abbey Road. They cannot yet forecast what they will be doing in any great detail, but they propose writing a new number. Since this number will be heard in 30 countries, they are going to write the lyric in basic English. They suggest that they should use such words as “Hello, love, you, me, us, them, together, we”. They are wondering if it might be possible to use some of those words in different languages and are receptive to the idea that words such as “love”, “together”, etc. might be shown on large cards at appropriate moments in several languages”.

The BBC/broadcasters briefing meeting on 4 June 1967 to co-ordinate the international co-operation for the Our World Broadcast

The lyrics sheet given to the cameramen before broadcast. They were not impressed. On being told the Beatles wrote the music, they only asked "did they write the words as well?"

“...the day before, the doors were thrown open for a free-for-all picture session, at which I managed to have a quick word with — PAUL: Someone’s just asked if I’m leaving the group. And there seems to be another rumour I’m moving. Both are very wrong. I’ve just finished my house and like it a lot. No, I haven’t bought a kilt yet. GEORGE: We will do a TV show before we do a film. Nothing new to tell you about the film project. No script yet. RINGO: My garden is looking great now. Got some of my building men to help the gardening contractor and everything’s okay. JOHN: This song will be our next single. This TV show will give it a nice send-off.

Indeed, with some 6,500 TV workers and 1,000,000 miles of telephone wire working for the disc, it couldn’t be bad!” - - Andy Gray, NME

“When the musicians and TV crew took a meal break the Beatles tried out the musical instruments left lying around [...] Ringo and George try the trumpets, whilst Paul has a go at the trombone and John plays Jack Emblow’s accordion. In the background, in the left side far corner, the large weight box on the back of the Mole Crane is visible, with one of the white painted Murphy TV monitors on its trolley over on the right of the picture.” - - David Taylor, Postfade

“The BBC want a live trail”, Derek told me suddenly over my intercom. No one knew this had been planned, in fact to this day few people seem to know that such a promotion ever took place. [...]

“I had a few words with each of them in turn. What was the song called? Whose idea had it been? (“His”, they said, pointing to each other). And then I put the question to John that was intriguing me. Ninety-five percent of all popular music is in 4-time, but there was more than a hint of unfamiliar 7-time in “All You Need ls Love“.

“Did you know your song was in 7-time?” I asked. I still remember the cool, serious look he gave me as he replied, “Yes, I know”. Then he indicated Paul, adding “- but blame him”.

“Paul himself, alert as ever, noticed how, against my own instincts, I was trying to inject some breezy gaiety into the proceedings. He spoke encouragingly in my ear. “Yock it up, Steve ! ” he said. He knew that it was my preference to be in the narrator’s box doing a technical job, rather than “yocking it up”. I duly yocked.”

“This was the biggest group in the world, but when they went to the canteen, it was just four guys having a cup of tea. Underneath it all, these were ordinary guys who were in a band.” - - David Magnus (photographer)

“There was a real party atmosphere, similar to what we had witnessed during previous real ‘happenings’, but Richard and I were struck by how visibly nervous John was, which was quite unusual for him: we’d never seen him wound up so tightly.” - - Geoff Emerick

“I did sense that John in particular felt rather apprehensive the nearer to transmission we got. However George seemed to be enjoying the moment, while Ringo and Paul showed no apprehension whatsoever.” - - David Magnus

______________________________

Almost this entire post is stolen from postfade.co.uk, written by David Taylor. It's a wonderful write up because it's only actually interested in the cameras used and the technical setup, but it's so interested in those that it covers every moment in glorious detail and pulls together lots of quotes. If you're interested in the ins and outs of outside broadcasting, oh my. There's a cut out diagram of the OB scanner van, and they've taken the video of the entire broadcast and marked up up to show the different camera shots and cuts and equipment used. There's a bit where they read in a book that some of the broadcast wasn't live, and so the author tracks down who wrote that and he says he copied it from Mark Lewisohn, so they track down ML and ask him why he wrote that and ML can't remember but says 'I wouldn't have written it down if there wasn't evidence for it', which they think is a bit weak, so they decide not to believe it. It's nice to see them belittling ML's lifework because they want to believe in the magic of live outside broadcasting, the same way we do when we want to believe in love.

[good-to-drive]

The Lady Bugs Re: Names

I always think we miss a trick giving The Female Beatles (or, if I may, The Lady Bugs) names like Paula and Georgia instead of something new. What follows is a detailed proposal (not really) for The Lady Bugs Re: Names.

RINGO

I always like the idea of Roxanne Starkey -> Roxy Starr (as a little pun on rockstar), but I think you also have to consider the possibility that she just goes by Starr all by itself. I'm not sure mononymous celebrities were a thing back then, but maybe she starts an early trend and next thing you know everyone's doing it. Like all trends, it would eventually become cringey, but Starr wouldn't notice or care.

GEORGE

Given that this is The Catholic Beatle, my first thought is Geo -> Jo -> St Joanna. But imho the female counterpart to St George is actually St Margaret, who, while she never fought a dragon, was eaten and barfed up by a dragon. I know that doesn't sound too great, but female saints almost never get to do anything cool so dragon vomit is actually pretty exciting.

PAUL

Wouldn't it be SO fucked up if her name was Julia? To just crystallize in the most heavy-handed, on-the-nose way possible that all of Girljohn’s relationships with women are in the shadow of her grief for never having had a positive maternal figure. But this is supposed to be about Girlpaul, not Girljohn, and Paul's full name is James Paul McCartney II so Girlpaul can be named Mary Patricia after her mother and go by Patricia or Patty.

JOHN

It’s tempting to give her an alluring, urbane name, but I really do feel she's one of these girls who wasn't given a name that suits her and has to cycle through a few options before she hits a good one. Kind of a Ladybird thing, except Girljohn would never idolize Ladybird Johnson, who is the only Ladybird I can ever think of. As a teenager she'd favor names from mythology and literature, Cassandra and Morganna and such, and then settle on something elegant, unique, and a tiny bit salacious, like Electra (a la the Electra complex). Regardless, Mimi will pointedly call her Marge, and Electra won't stand up to her.

[paulmcutiecutie]

but I’m not the only one

Zoomin cuz I liked his face and stuff just not the background

[bambi-kinos]

Hopefully, this ask is a fun one! I've noticed that a lot of times you mention Paul is a bottom, and honestly, I agree 1000% per cent, but I'm curious how you came to that conclusion

For me, I feel like it was a result of tons of reading up on him, body language + his lyrics, and I think the whole control freak (misleading in a way too) part makes some fans think he's a top. Meanwhile, I sit here and think, nope, he's totally a bottom lmao

A lot of it is just wish fulfillment as a result of Paul's bus-sized ass. We're not the only ones thinking about it:

Like it would be a crime if John didn't fuck Paul in the ass. Right??? So it's easy to think "yeah Paul is a bottom" rofl.

But more seriously, I view Paul as a bottom for a number of reasons.

The first is simply how long John and Paul knew each other and how they naturally shaped each other's interests and desires. Paul may not have been that 'swishy' (i.e. effeminate) if he had never met John in the first place. It's easy to see how John and Paul's understanding of homosexuality would have shaped their presentation and the roles they took with one another. Like, in modern times two gay guys can just be Guys Being Dudes. They can both take shirtless selfies of themselves holding up fish with the 🤙 going "shaka braaahhh." In the mid 20th century this idea was not terribly widespread so even among gay people there was an impression of "well someone has to be the woman and it's not going to be me."

So I think that's a big part of it. It's impossible to know how conscious a decision this was but IMO John and Paul reached a consensus of some sort that Paul would take up the feminine role in response to John's masculine one. It's a natural (for a given value of 'natural') position for the feminine half to be the one who is penetrated. Paul, who has demonstrated a number of times his sharp awareness of homosexual activity and how society perceives it, would know this. And he took up that position anyway and kept with it, voluntarily. (And to be clear I think Paul stimulated John's butch attitude and grew that to make John more overtly masculine as well. This goes both ways.)

It's not hard to see why this happened. John is a lot more naturally traditionally masculine than Paul is, no matter what John said about being "soft velvet" and "le Oscar Wilde!!11!!1!" He's the one who got into bar fights and hammered the shit out of other men. He's the subject of a rumor about kicking Stuart in the head, not Paul. Personally I think Paul is perfectly capable of violence, even extreme violence, but he simply isn't perceived that way due to his feminine appearance. Meanwhile John is overtly aggressive and in your face about it, even when going through his druggie periods, which is simply a more traditionally masculine trait no matter how you slice it.

I guess what I'm saying is, Paul responded to and was shaped by John's personality and preferences. John likes to fuck, Paul leans more towards feminine expression, feminine = 'the one who is fucked' not necessarily 'the one who fucks.'

I don't believe they were thinking about this as teenagers (and I don't think they did anything besides circlejerking before Hamburg.) And Paul likes using his dick! However it seems obvious to me that John woke something up in Paul that would have naturally lain dormant under other circumstances. John had a habit of doing this for people, he woke them up to their higher inclinations that got them out of their boxes and I 100% believe that he nudged Paul's 'swishiness' awake and that Paul quietly used this to get out of the box other people wanted to keep him in. He was able to embrace this more fully while with Linda. For Paul, that swishiness comes packaged with a certain set of implications and to me there's no reason why he wouldn't embrace that.

That's not to say that he was completely gung-ho from the start. People who write Paul going 'wtf I'm not doing that' in response to John wanting to fuck him are writing material that feels 'real' for lack of a better word. But I also don't think it would be that hard of a sell once he got used to the idea. Really look at this gif:

John's interest in Paul's backside is overt. Paul seems surprised and a little overwhelmed in the moment but he also smiles a little in response to John checking him out. It seems to me that there's interest there, albeit tentative. In other words Paul seems okay with being the one who is piped.

It's a lot to surmise from a single gif, I know, but otoh we don't have a lot of these moments where John's feelings are overt and Paul responds to them.

In addition to all this, Paul is a curious hedonist. I think John could prevail on him to at least try it. Then I think Paul would enjoy it greatly. Anal orgasms are somewhere between clitoral and vaginal for me but anal sex is satisfying in a way that PIV isn't, and I think Paul would actively seek it out once he tried it and realized how good it is. Anal sex is extremely intimate and John paid close attention to his lovers, Paul is guaranteed a good time once John takes him to bed. And John would want to make that special for Paul especially once Paul did 'break down' and go 'alright I'll do it' as part of their kinky power game. John did like to make things sweet for Paul.

Paul has this whole thing about wanting to be John's second and not necessarily the leader. He enjoys being lead and dominated by powerful men who are at the top of their industry. Check out this quote from McCartney Legacy Vol. 1 in Chapter 26:

Paul explicitly giving in to a "strong and demanding" male after putting up a perfunctory fight that he had no intention of sticking to? What does this remind us of?

And look, Paul invites this himself very deliberately:

Paul is doing this on purpose. He shows his ass off to entice us, the viewers, into imagining his hole and putting our dicks inside said hole and inside him. Women appreciate a nice ass but lack the equipment to fuck it properly. Men do have the equipment and by 1965 Paul knows his effect on heterosexual men. He's very much dangling the fuckability of his ass as a carrot in front of everyone who wants to look. No other Beatle displays this kind of overt neediness for this specific kind of attention. Paul knows what he is doing.

Paul is a bottom. A needy and bratty bottom who enjoys being put in his place and has a thick kinky streak to be sure, but a bottom nonetheless.

The insistence that Paul is a top has always smacked of contrarianism, to me anyway lmao. It's always packaged with making fun of McLennon fanart where Paul is yassified and John is butch or with complaints that Beatle fandom is making Paul "too feminine" and John "too masculine." There's a lot I could say about it but for now I'll just leave it at this: it's usually paired with bitching that McLennon fans are having too much fun. Many are guilty of it.

John and Paul themselves acknowledged this dynamic between them in oblique ways. John, Paul, and even Yoko always imagined Paul as being a woman as well as acknowledging that Paulina would have been romantically attached to John. Paul acknowledged it with the "if I were a woman maybe I could have...." thing, Yoko said that Paul would be a "great threat" if he was a woman in her audio diary that she recorded in 1968/1969, and John also has a quote floating around about the potential that lay in Paul being a woman though I'll be damned if I can't find the stupid thing. And then there's the insulting "Lennon's Princess" nickname from Apple staff. They perceived the dynamic as well.

John and Paul, consciously or not, actively pursued this dynamic with one another. They enjoyed it and Paul voluntarily stayed in that role even during a time period where he might have been justified in going "okay we've hit the big time, no more of that!"

Just look at Paul's posture here lmao. John is shoving his erection into Paul's shoulder. Yeah he's trying to hide it but Paul is fine with it, shoulders relaxed with no tension in him at all. Paul wasn't just John's princess, John was also Paul's knight, and that comes with certain responsibilities as well as privileges.

John was overtly more stable when he had sex on tap. John and Paul actively lived together for months at a time where few people could get to them. Seems to me that Paul not only did his job but took a lot of pleasure in doing it and John reaped the benefits. Notably John didn't start falling apart until they stopped touring and his sexual access to Paul was bottlenecked. Then 1967 rolls around and John just sorta, moved in with Paul and noticeably got back on an even keel.

Many thunks are to be had my friend! Many thunks indeed and one of them is that Paul is a bottom. Not just that, an enthusiastic one that likes courting powerful and even emotionally unstable males capable of overpowering him.

Much to consider!

[overchromatic]

bitches love me for my Allister doodles

[friends2go]

paul mccartney concert thoughts except they make no sense

First of all, this mf is ADORABLE. like he's so cute i can't. i want to hug him so BAD

at one point he made hearts at the crowd like a kpop idol it was so 😭😭😭

his spanish is a 10/10 he called us "chulapos" and said we were "de puta madre" RAAAAH ESPAÑAA !!!

the way he sang here today was so.... i want to say dignified?

like when he first sang "i love you" in here today the crowd cheered and clapped and he sort of acknowledged it by pausing a sec....... it was beautiful i cried even more

the let it be songs HIT SOOOO FUCKIG HARD LIVE i alr love them but i was full on DANCING in my seat

let me roll it, jet, band on the run, and maybe im amazed also had me vibing especially

and let us not forget the best song ever obla-di obla-da.. if you hate this not only are you boring but you're WRONG !!!!!!!! its so good live i cannot describe how happy it made me

the medley was an otherwordly experience, period. just beautiful from start to finish. shoutout to the AMAZINGGG performers

and he kissed the cam at the end of course !!! forever flirting with the audience knowing we can't reciprocate

overall, this was literally the best concert experience of my life. im a new person now. there's probably more i haven't said that i just couldn't get to bc this post would be longer than the bible. i love paul mccartney so much and i hope you all get a chance to see him if you haven't yet