Happy Birthday Ringo

Gorgeous

gay anime clearly.

John & Paul

Nice

1976

So ridiculous.

Psychotherapist Hugo G. Beigel analyzes the sexual appeal of the Beatles. Circa 1964.

Good lord, they're so cute together.

Paul and Ritchie - best buddies

More ✨McLennon✨!!!!

This song by Paul was just too perfect not to use!

Based on “Love Me Do: The Beatles’ Progress” by Michael Braun for The Observer (5 July 1964).

Scotch and music:

“Uh, I need another drink, baby,’ says John.

Paul goes to the phone. ‘Hello? Yeah, send us six single Scotches - No, make it doubles, yeah, doubles.”

“The last time John Lennon set foot on a concert stage, it was Thanksgiving 1974, making a surprise appearance with his friend Elton John at a sold-out Madison Square Garden. When he and Elton cut “Whatever Gets You Thru” together, Elton proposed a bet - if it hit Number One, John would sing it with him live. John agreed, never thinking he’d get called on it. But he was. The performance sounds shaky - John’s all nerves after a few years of hiding from live shows - but he steps up there to mach shau with Elton, doing the hit as well as Elton’s remake of “Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds.“ John announces, “We thought we’d do one last number so I can get out of here and be sick. This is a number of an old estranged fiancé of mine called Paul.” They do “I Saw Her Standing There,” their big finale. Even in the raw recording Elton released as a B-side, you can hear John get caught up in the crowd’s excitement. It’s his night to shine - onstage in New York, for the first time in years and the last time ever. Why is he doing a Paul song? Why is he making this moment about him and Paul, when all anybody wants is to cheer and shower John with love? But in the middle of the crowd, he calls Paul’s name.”

— Dreaming the Beatles by Rob Sheffield

Get Back Narrative

I’ve received a couple of asks seeking clarification regarding my earlier post about how the Get Back documentary was redefining the Beatle narrative.

I’ll try to summarize. 

1. Media articles like this, this and this regarding Ono’s presence. While it’s obvious that the band was heading toward dissolution with or without Ono’s presence, Ono’s continued presence in the studio, her unsolicited participation in band business (no, she didn’t just sit there and read, as some would claim), and her willingness to speak on John’s behalf is hardly exculpatory. Even Time magazine, which at least attempted a more considered analysis of the Beatle break-up era, claimed, after watching Get Back, that ‘Yoko’s presence was not a huge negative factor, and that none of the band members appear much bothered by her constant presence; they joke and talk with her comfortably”.  This is a shocking claim, given that a) the documentary clearly depicts the deleterious effect of Yoko’s presence upon band members during the failed meeting at George’s house, and b) George, Paul, and Ringo have all gone on record regarding their discomfort in Ono’s presence and the disruptive nature of her involvement in band business. 

(As an aside, I would also like to know in what workplace, no matter how creative or unorthodox, it would be acceptable to bring your lover or spouse to work everyday and insist that the presence of that person was absolutely benign.)  

2. The exclusion of information which would provide context to behaviour, such as John and Yoko’s heroin addiction. “By the advent of the “Get Back” sessions, Ono openly joked about taking heroin being the couple’s form of exercise”).  This was excluded in the Get Back documentary and, as a consequence, from mainstream media. Obviously the inclusion of this information would more accurately contexualize John’s behaviour in the band, including his insistence on Yoko’s presence.  

Another compelling piece of information that was not included in the documentary was that Patti Harrison briefly left George around the time of George’s departure from the band.  Since there was no mention of this event during filming, Peter Jackson decided not to share it, claiming he didn’t want to make any “moral judgements.” To whatever extent his brief estrangement from Patti affected George’s judgement we’ll never know (George didn’t even mention it in his diary of that day), but its exclusion in the documentary is regrettable. 

3.  Editorial Choices by the filmmaker.  Peter Jackson has gone on record that he was not influenced by Ringo or Paul, and nor by Olivia or Yoko at any point in the making of the Get Back Documentary. And there’s no reason not to believe him.  But:  the Get Back documentary reflects his editorial choices–what he believed was important to leave in, and what he believed was acceptable to leave out.  As Erin Torkelson Weber indicated in this earlier post, “the reality is that, without unrestricted access to the hundreds of hours of actual audio and visual tapes Hogg and Jackson used to make their films, fans are still being offered only someone else’s interpretation/vision/translation of the primary source material…so we have to rely on evidence that has already been framed and filtered.” 

And that reality–that we are watching someone’s else’s version of the truth, has escaped mainstream media and a certain cohort of Beatle fans who either find the Get Back version of the Beatle break-up era more commensurate with their own beliefs, or simply don’t know any better. 

JOHN LENNON: "When the Beatles were depressed -thinking the group was going nowhere, and this is a shitty deal, and we're in a shitty dressing room- I'd say, 'Where are we going, fellas?' And they'd go, 'To the top, Johnny!' And I'd say, 'Where's that, fellas?' and they'd say, 'To the toppermost of the poppermost!' and I'd say, 'Right!' Then we'd all sort of cheer up."