#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

[thewalrusespublicist]

Re: John and domestic abuse, and your tag: 'John as an abuser is something I don't think the fandom knows what to do with'. 

I think my big thing about why and how it's all so difficult to unpack this is that the stories predominantly stem from and around the Dakota years and that is an incredibly murky time, in terms of straight facts and reliable narrative. Most of what leaks out of there comes via blackmail or disgruntled ex employees who are then silenced with gag orders. I think only May Pang's version of events is the most clear cut, level headed. And for what it's worth, I think she describes a mutually abusive relationship between John and Yoko, which I can believe. (I also take from it that she was in an abusive relationship with John, but that’s my take and I’m not going to put words in her mouth). And I know that you link to AKOM's discussion about John's beatings and abuse of Yoko, where they read from Goldman's book, but I think it's worth saying that AKOM wrote a eleven episode series to highlight how important it is not to take Tune In at face value because of Mark Lewisohn's clear bias in favour of John, and against Paul, and how this bias can inform a narrative and therefore objective facts can become subjective statements... and then go and quote *directly* from Goldman, who plainly and nakedly despises John - even three year old John is held in utter contempt! That doesn't mean that I don't believe the stories aren't true; as you point out, John and Yoko themselves have openly discussed John's violence. But just like I can't use Lewisohn as a source, unless it’s for a specific recording date, say… I can’t use Goldman either. 

So with regards to fandom, yeah, many people don’t know how or where to put John’s violence and abusive behaviour. But that is true of *all* of the Beatles. It’s an undisputed fact that three quarters of the Beatles have been accused of, or admitted to domestic violence, yet it’s airbrushed from Paul and Ringo’s stories. Ringo will forever be a beloved king and no-one will bring up the fact that he beat his wife so hard that he believed he had killed her. And as for Paul and Heather Mills; while those allegations have a right to be strongly contested, it’s a fact (and I am old enough to remember), that Mill’s was utterly destroyed in the British press (Amber Heard has nothing on the sheer hatred that the media had for Mills), to the point that her testimony was obliterated and has been erased from any narrative to do with Paul. But Paul is a Blorbo, and no one wants to fold any negative character traits into his persona. And as for John - I’m not surprised you got it in the neck for saying that John had mental health issues - but I am surprised that it came from John stans! I got yelled at for trying to discuss John’s very likely mood disorder, but the yelling came from influential Beatle people who saw that as an ‘apology’ or defence of his behaviour (which it wasn’t). I actually think of all the arena’s of fandom, Tumblr has the healthiest approach None of them are held in reverence or as Saint’s, and they aren’t just out and out assholes either. 

t/w coercion, abuse, child abuse

Hi anon, thank you for your message and for putting forward your perspective! This is a difficult topic, and I am not an expert in these matters. However, I’m going to try and answer this the best I can and with the amount of sensitivity I think this conversation needs.

Just to start off,I totally agree with you that Tumblr is by far the best place in terms of their approach towards the Beatles and their behaviour. I think in other places like Reddit, some of the fans there are older and grew up with the ‘Saint John’ image put forward by the Lennon estate. If you have that context, the minute it’s revealed that maybe your hero wasn’t perfect, the natural response is to either deny it completely or start to demonise them. It’s not healthy or productive but it’s understandable. I also agree that the fandom does not know how to deal with the allegations of domestic abuse with all the Beatles and that is a widespread problem. In the case of Paul, I think his negative traits are acknowledged and there is good discussion about it, though equally some of these issues are played more for laughs. I’m also not the right person to do a deep dive on the flattening and cinnamon-rolling of Ringo in the fandom but I think one needs to be done. I do however want to put forward an alternative perspective on a couple of points that you mentioned.

Despite my belief that all of the Beatles probably engaged in terrible behaviour towards women (the repeated mentions of Paul’s control issues from multiple sources really concern me), what sets John apart from the others is the consistency and the severity of the allegations. With Paul and Ringo, the allegations or the incidents are, as far as we know, situated in the context of a crisis and not an established pattern. This could be wrong, but we don’t have any further information to dispute it properly (Paul’s long, adoring relationship with his first and third wives and his children suggest not in his case at least). The same can’t be said for John. You raise the point that AKOM cites Goldman and how this could be seen as hypocritical and that a lot of the information comes from the murky Dakota years. I understand where you’re coming from but I don’t think this is is 1000 percent accurate. On the AKOM point, I think this mischaracterises what the ladies were doing as they were citing direct reports from staff in Goldman’s book, not Goldman’s interpretation. As Beatles historian Erin Torkelson Weber states, Goldman was excellent in obtaining information, it’s how he construed the information that raises severe problems for his credibility. As the ladies said as well, whilst they acknowledge Goldman’s problems, the tapes with this information on are available in the archive. Still, he is a dodgy source, so the points need to be cross-referenced with other sources. In this instance, the sources are John and Yoko themselves.

It’s also true that a lot of the allegations for the Dakota years are from the disgruntled employees pack and so are harder to verify, however allegations of violence and abuse both predate this period and are corroborated later on. Whilst John Lennon fanboy of the decade Lewisohn tried to downplay it, John did hurl insults and abuse at one of his early girlfriends to try and force her to sleep with him. John did beat up a random woman in the Bob Wooler incident and barricaded Little Richard in his own dressing room whilst hurling mocking abuse at him. Further, whilst Cynthia said that John rarely hit her, John himself disputes that in Hunter Davies. Post Yoko, we have reports of continued violence from different sources like Nilsson that corroborate stories like John choking May. Mintz, who was/is doggedly loyal to Yoko, was the one to repeat the story of John purposefully humiliating Yoko at the party by loudly sleeping with a stranger. Then you have Sean and Julian’s own recollections of abuse. These aren’t one off incidents, this is a repeated pattern of documented abusive behaviour that exist throughout John’s lifetime as well as the well-worn pattern of victims trying desperately to defend his behaviour in language hauntingly familiar to most abuse victims (‘he didn’t mean it’, ‘he’s sensitive’, ‘he didn’t know what he was doing.’) In this context, it is hard to say why the disgruntled employees narratives should be seen as so outlandish.  This is what sets the conversation about John apart from the others as his pattern of abuse is inescapable and entrenched in all his close interpersonal dynamics (yes, including his relationship with Paul but that’s for another time).

I’m not saying all of this to demonise John, all of this has to be understood in the context of a man with a deeply traumatic childhood, who likely had a severe mood disorder as you said, was in what I believe was a mutually abusive relationship as you and May Pang posit, and was trying his best to improve in a time period that could not give him the support he needed. But this is a lot to ask a fandom to deal with and handle carefully so often it gets shoved down or outright ignored when it’s integral to understanding who John was and why we need to take so much care in certain discussions about him.

[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!!!

[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.

[paulmcutiecutie]

but I’m not the only one

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

[616nightcrawler]

its soooo awesome how i get to read tags like this every other day bc my most popular post made its way into beatles rpf tumblr and they don't have the brain and foresight to understand that i (OP) don't think their headcanons about which beatle is fucking which is funny and quirky and in fact i think its pretty fucking gross

[thebeatlelove]

[carefulzombie]

looking at the few pics of the highlanders that exist and being extremely fixated on jamie’s slightly overgrown disheveled hair. like a normal person

[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!

[wingsoverlagos]

Lewisohn vs. Wenner Pt. 2 of 2

Part 1 // More Tune In analysis

You probably know the drill by now: I'm looking at the quotes from Tune In against the source Mark Lewisohn gives for them, and seeing if they're faithfully reproduced. This post deals with the multi-source Frankenquotes that are partly attributed to Jann Wenner's interviews. Five of the quotes here are from the infamous Lennon Remembers interview, with a sixth from a separate interview for Rolling Stone. Lewisohn combines John's words from these interviews with a myriad of other sources: a televised interview of John by Jean-François Vallée (1975), Hunter Davies’ The Beatles (1968), an interview/cohosting spot on The Mike Douglas Show (1972), and an interview with Lisa Robinson for Hit Parader (1975).

Before I get into it, I wanted to take a moment to discuss how I ‘grade’ Lewisohn’s quotes based on the type of source he cites. If Lewisohn is using a recorded interview, there’s some wiggle room in things like punctuation and word stress. When transcribing the same interview, two people might listen to the same phrase and come away with slightly different versions, e.g. “My favorite color was blue, but that changed after the accident in the paint factory,” vs. “My favorite color was blue. But that changed after the accident in the paint factory.” Both of those could be correct interpretations of the same recorded audio, so I can’t fault Lewisohn for changes along those lines when he’s working from an audio source.

There isn’t the same wiggle room when working from text. If I pull a quote from a book, and the book reads, “Now, I love green. It’s so lush,” I can’t change that to, “Now I love green; it’s so lush.” I’m not actually quoting the person who said those words originally—I’m quoting the transcribed and published version of what that person said.

I've taken this into account with these Frankenquotes. If there are punctuation differences between Tune In and the printed version of Lennon Remembers pictured here, I haven’t made note of them. Those same differences in a quote pulled from Davies’ The Beatles will be noted, since Lewisohn is quoting the printed source and not an original audio tape. This becomes a bit confusing when a single “quote” is compiled from different sources, and the bits from one source are graded on a different rubric than the other, but such is the thrill of fact-checking Mark Lewisohn!

Citations at the end. Time stamps refer to this upload of the Lennon Remembers interview.

Tune In 4-12 vs. Wenner p.76 (2:14:41), 18 (36:24)  + Vallée Interview

I haven't been able to track down the source for the middle section of this Frankenquote (it’s from an interview by Jean-François Vallée for the French TV Series Un jour futur, in the episode “Il était une fois: John Lennon.”), nor did I find the first sentence of the third part of the quote. It isn’t in the printed version of Lennon Remembers, and it doesn’t appear before the final sentence in the audio, though perhaps it’s elsewhere on the tape.

This has several classic Lewisohn offenses: stitching together multiple sources, combining distinct sections of a single source into one quote, and phrases omitted without ellipses. I've noted these on the images above.

What I'd like to bang on about is Lewisohn's choice not to clarify who John is referencing at the start of the quote--the "somebody" discussing black music and white bodies. In the original interview, John credits it to either "Michael X or Eldridge Cleaver" (Lennon Remembers gives this as Malcolm X, but it's clearly Michael X on the tape--see end of post for some background on Michael X and Lennon). It's common practice by many authors to clarify ambiguous references like this; Mark Lewisohn even does it in Tune In. He mostly does this in the endnotes (e.g. P-4, 2-22), but he uses a footnote to clarify a song lyric he himself uses in the prose of Chapter 4 (see footnote 4-c). Lewisohn not only fails to clarify who John is referencing here, he does not quote John's attempted attribution.

But maybe this falls under Lewisohn's inconsistent policy of not referencing the future. Still, even without naming the black activist who John references here, this quote is not a reflection of John's mindset in his adolescence: he wasn't sitting at a Quarry Bank chum's house in 1956, thinking "gee, thank goodness this black music has reconnected me with my middle-class white body!" The use of the above quote is foresight in and of itself, so why not credit the person who originated that line of thinking? Are Lewisohn's footnotes only for pronunciation guides and details of how demonstrably effeminate certain Beatles' relations were? For someone proclaiming their book a "social history", it's a bit of an oversight.

It's Eldridge Cleaver, by the way, in his prison memoir Soul on Ice (1968). It's in the chapter titled "Convalescence," in a discussion about the Beatles and white rock 'n' roll. Be forewarned if you seek it out, that section is also heavily homophobic.

Tune In 6-7 vs. Wenner p.133 (3:53:54) + Davies p.33

Hunter Davies did not record his interviews with the Beatles, as described in the introduction to the 2009 edition (p.lxiii): “I also wish now that I’d used a tape recorder. I never have done, which is silly.” Since we know Lewisohn was working with Davies’ written word, he was not at liberty to make changes like the one we see here: Davies starts a new sentence at the word “But”, which Lewisohn combines with the preceding sentence. There are changes like this throughout the quotes pulled from Davies’ work, but that’s a matter for a later post.

The other change Lewisohn makes here is more consequential. When discussing how Paul came to join the Quarrymen, John says, “That decision was to let Paul in.” Lewisohn gives the quote as “[my] decision was to let Paul in.”

Perhaps you’re thinking, “He’s used brackets! It’s fine!”, but I disagree. Brackets can be used when changing the tense of a quote, or when changing a word to clarify the meaning of a quote, so long as doing so doesn’t change the meaning. Clarification isn’t necessary here: the quote, as stated by Lennon, would make sense in the context Lewisohn provides. There’s no confusion about what decision John is discussing here.

But this change isn’t simply superfluous—it actually changes the meaning of the quote in a way that’s only clear if we look at the source. Here’s what immediately precedes the quote:

“I met Paul, and I made a decision whether to—and he made a decision too—whether to have him in the group or not.” Emphasis mine.

So John is not talking strictly about his decision, he’s talking about Paul and his mutual decision to work together. Without this context, even without the change from “that” to “my”, John seems to be discussing his own decision. Lewisohn’s change is completely unnecessary to get across his point. It’s as if he made this change specifically to push back against John Lennon’s assertion that a young Paul McCartney had autonomy and didn’t simply exist to satisfy John’s whims.

Tune In 8-4 vs. Wenner p.133-4 (3:54:42) + Davies p.44-5

Color-coded to show the absolute chopped salad Lewisohn made of these two sources.

Also of note is Lewisohn’s follow-up to this quote, “Despite this frank if uncharitable purge of his feelings….” Lewisohn does this elsewhere (notably with John’s quote about hitting women): he follows up a self-critical quote from John with an authorial “Aw, don’t be so hard on yourself, buddy!” It’s unnecessary.

Tune In 8-28 vs. Wenner p.140 + The Mike Douglas Show

Lennon: He’s the greatest rock ‘n’ roll poet, and I really admire him. Douglas: Do you feel the same today as you did years ago in Liverpool about rock? Lennon: When I hear rock, good rock, of the caliber of Chuck Berry, I just fall apart and I have no other interest in life. Y’know, the world could be ending if rock ‘n’ roll’s playing, y’know. It’s a disease of mine.

I wasn’t able to find this quote in the interview audio, but I’m sure its there somewhere. I used Lennon Remembers as a guide to find the correct location of a certain segment in the 4+ hour audio, and it is apparent that certain parts of Lennon Remembers have been reordered.

I transcribed this section of the Mike Douglas Show from a video posted on the Shanghai-based streaming app BiliBili - see link in my source list.

Lewisohn uses an ellipsis to indicate a transition between two totally different sources here but does not use an ellipsis to indicate the phrases he left out of the Wenner interview. There are several small changes to the quote from the Mike Douglas show as well, but the meaning is retained.

Tune In 22-78 vs. Robinson 1975 + Wenner p.122 (1:33:20)

The first source here is Lisa Robinson’s 1975 interview with John for Hit Parader. You can find a version of this interview here. Note the lack of ellipsis between the purple and pink sections, despite the lengthy omission between them.

Lewisohn does use an ellipsis in the Wenner-derived portion of this quote, but he doesn’t place it correctly. The omission occurs between “and” and “Brian”, not between the rest of the quote and “and Brian.”

It wouldn’t make sense to include Allen Klein and Yoko Ono in this quote as it appears in Tune In, since they won’t appear until much later in the series, but I do wonder if presenting the quote without their names truly preserves the quote’s meaning. However you feel about them personally, Allen Klein and Yoko Ono are two of the most controversial figures in Beatles’ history. Within a few years of this interview, John would be on the outs with Allen Klein. John describes himself as someone who “make[s] a lot of mistakes character-wise”, and goes on to list three examples of his good judgments. Two of those are Allen and Yoko. Is it intellectually honest to delete those two names from the list and present Brian as the one example of John’s character judgment?

And our final Wenner Frankenquote. This one isn’t from Lennon Remembers, but from a 1970 Rolling Stone article titled “The Beatles: One Guy Standing There, Shouting ‘I’m Leaving’.”

Tune In 22-72 vs. Wenner 1970 + Robinson 1975

This one is audacious enough to warrant its own post—and we’re in luck! I defer to @mythserene's post for proper analysis. You can also find this one discussed in @anotherkindofmindpod's "Fine Tuning: Ep 7 Spanner in the Works."

In brief, in the ‘quote’ lifted from Wenner’s interview, John is using “Epstein” as a stand-in for Klein. John’s not saying “Three of us chose Epstein”—he’s saying “Three of us chose Klein, throw aside your assumptions about him for a minute.” It’s not the sort of quote you can divorce from its context if you have any credibility.

Some Context on Michael X and John Lennon:

Michael X (a.k.a. Michael Abdul Malik, born Michael de Freitas) was born in Trinidad and became a prominent member of the black Power movement in 1960s London. Lennon met Michael X early in 1970 and became a devoted supporter and advocate until Malik’s death in 1975 (Wiener 1991, p.115-123). Here’s a brief rundown of their involvement:

Since you’re the sort of person who reads citation-by-citation analyses of Beatles books, you have probably seen pictures from early 1970 of John and Yoko sporting matching pixie cuts. In January 1970, John and Yoko shaved their heads (as a publicity stunt, I assume?), and kept their shorn hair in a bag. This bag of hair was the centerpiece for their first public interaction with Michael X: in February 1970, Lennon and Ono gave Malik their bag of hair, and he gave them a pair of Muhammad Ali’s shorts. The press was very much present, but they failed to make headlines (Doggett 118). The hair was supposed to be auctioned off at Sotheby’s to support Malik’s Black House, but this fell through (see Lennon on The Dick Cavett show here.) Pictures of the event can be seen at The Beatles Bible.

Malik fled London for his native Trinidad when legal issues loomed in 1971. He started a commune there, which John visited in April of the same year. In 1972, the bodies of Joseph Skerritt and Gale Benson were found on the commune (Weiner 1991, p.118). Malik was convicted of ordering the killing of Skerritt and would be hanged for that crime in 1975 (NYT 1975 May 17).

Malik may or may not have ordered Skerritt’s murder, but regardless, he did not have a fair trial. John and Yoko campaigned from the time of his conviction up until his death for clemency, without result (Weiner 1991, p.119-123).

Sources:

Cavett D [host]. 1971 Sept 11. Interview with John Lennon and Yoko Ono. The Dick Cavett Show. Accessed online on 2024 Feb 23. Available from: https://ghostarchive.org/varchive/7kXCnKfdGOY.

Cleaver E. 1968. Soul on Ice. New York (NY): Dell Publishing Co., Inc. 210p. Accessed online. Available from: https://archive.org/details/soul-on-ice-by-eldridge-cleaver/

Davies H. 1968. 2009 Edition. The Beatles. New York (NY): W.W. Norton & Company. 408p.

Doggett P. 2009. You Never Give Me Your Money: The Beatles After the Breakup. New York (NY): HarperCollins. 390p.

Douglas M [host]. 1972 Feb 16. Season 11 Episode 123. The Mike Douglas Show with John Lennon & Yoko Ono. Accessed online 2024 Feb 23. Available from: https://b23.tv/mQMUDg9

Militant Is Hanged by Trinidad After Long Fight for Clemency. 1975 May 17. New York Times.[Internet] [cited 2024 Feb 24]. Available from: https://www.nytimes.com/1975/05/17/archives/militant-is-hanged-by-trinidad-after-long-fight-for-clemency.html

Robinson L. 1975 Dec. Interview with John Lennon. Hit Parader. Accessed Online from www.beatlesinterviews.org. Available from: https://web.archive.org/web/20230409044146/https://www.beatlesinterviews.org/db1975.1200.beatles.html

Wenner JS. 1970 May 14. The Beatles: One Guy Standing There, Shouting ‘I’m Leaving’. Rolling Stone. Accessed online. Available from: https://web.archive.org/web/20231017203039/https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/the-beatles-one-guy-standing-there-shouting-im-leaving-43403/2/

Wenner JS. 1970. 1970 12 08 John Lennon Interview, Rolling STones Lennon Remembers, Complete Unedited [video]. Youtube. 2022 Apr 18, 4:26:50. Accessed 2024 Feb 18. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YelhzUbrCE

Wenner JS. 1971. 2000 ed. Interview with John Lennon and Yoko Ono. Lennon Remembers. London: Verso. 151p. Accessed online. Available from: https://archive.org/details/lennonremembers00lenn_0/

Wiener J. 1984. 1991 Illini Books ed. Come Together: John Lennon In His Time. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. 379 p. Accessed online. Available from: https://archive.org/details/cometogetherjohn00jonw/