And Why John Specifically? Were George And Ringo Master Electricians? I Know John Was Paranoid Too Often

It’s nice to see a music critic put into words how I have felt as some of these excerpts from the book have come out. As a John fan, I’ve had to scroll past people calling John an evil wifebeater on my dash, people diagnosing him with a variety of mental illnesses despite no diagnosis in his lifetime and then diagnosing people around him with mental health issues just for associating with him. They then use these mental health issues he may have had to discredit his thoughts and feelings or even worse infantilise him, particularly in relation to Paul. I haven’t called these things out as everyone has a right to their opinions. But when a few people have called out Paul for some of the hurtful things he has said regarding John, they have been shouted down, blocked or told they have no right to their opinions and aren’t being team players in the fandom. I think that due to Paul having a tough treatment after John’s death, there’s a need to put Paul on a pedestal as he is seen as needing defending and consequently either minimise John’s accomplishments or grossly highlight all of John’s flaws (while conveniently ignoring those of the other Beatles.) Paul, like john, is human and it’s should be ok to point out elements of his behaviour you find problematic and by the way many of John fans completely are aware of both John’s flaws and Paul’s wonderful points too. If we call out the Jean jackets who put John on a pedestal and treat him like a God surely we shouldn’t be encouraging that behaviour for the fans of the other Beatles. Ted talk over

McCartney, With and Without Lennon

In “The Lyrics: 1956 to the Present,” Paul McCartney and the poet Paul Muldoon present the words to 154 of the former Beatle’s songs.

  Posting this, because it’s a pretty balanced review. The reviews have been generally pretty favourable, but they do (and rightly so) call out Paul for his (intentional?) inconsistency and revisionism. I’m not too familiar with the author, but a quick wikipedia search says he has been on the musicology/ music critique writing scene since the 70s. Some will probably say “oh he’s just one of those male rock journalists who favoured John and therefore his criticism of Paul is invalid”. But I think he makes some really excellent points about the flawed elements of this book. 

  “The best of the songs collected here (“For No One,” “She’s Leaving Home,” “When Winter Comes,” “On My Way to Work” and quite a few more) reflect eyes fixed on the small niceties and curiosities of everyday life and a mind that bounces freely, taking childlike pleasure in that freedom. “The Lyrics” makes clear that McCartney has written on a high level long past his Beatles years, and even the weakest lyrics in the books have a character all their own: a feeling of giddy playfulness and unguarded experimentation. They’re a joy to read because they exude the joy their maker took in their making.” “Over and over, McCartney shows how deeply he is steeped in literary history and how much his output as a songwriter has in common with the works of the likes of Dickens and Shakespeare. “John never had anything like my interest in literature,” he announces at the top of his commentary on “The End,” before pivoting to a mini-lecture on the couplet as a form. “When you think about it, it’s been the workhorse of poetry in English right the way through. Chaucer, Pope, Wilfred Owen.” Apropos of “Come and Get It,” the trifle he wrote and produced for Badfinger, McCartney notes, “When you’re writing for an audience — as Shakespeare did, or Dickens, whose serialized chapters were read to the public — there’s that need to pull people in.” Aaaah … we realize: Paul really is a word man, the more literary and cerebral Beatle.”  “As one would expect from the pop star who posed with his baby tucked in his coat on his farm for his first post-Beatles album, McCartney talks with ardor and respect for his parents, his extended family in Liverpool, and the traditional values of hearth and home in general. He attributes the buoyant positivity of his music to the happiness in his family life and, by extension, ascribes the bite and cynicism that distinguishes much of Lennon’s work to the domestic upheaval in John’s early years. To McCartney, a dark view of humanity is a failing and must be a mark of suffering, rather than an attribute of thought.”  “While pronouncing his love for Lennon as a longtime friend and creative partner, Paul is pretty rough on him at points in “The Lyrics.” His main crime is one of omission, passing on opportunities to point out Lennon’s signature contributions to songs they wrote collaboratively, such as “A Day in the Life.” In the context of conflicts between the two of them, McCartney describes Lennon as “stupid” or an “idiot.” Yes, we all know that McCartney can’t help defining himself in relation to Lennon. Still, as he shows convincingly throughout “The Lyrics,” you don’t have to make the other guy out to be an idiot to prove that you’re a genius.   

My beautiful Johnny. This is why he was so beloved

Find someone who can make you laugh like this

My issue with this statement is that 1) there was no reason to mention John at all to make the statement Paul was inspired by literature 2) why did he single out John specifically? Presumably George and Ringo weren’t Shakespeare fans or if so I haven’t heard it. The only reason he did this was to take a pot shot at John being known as the “smart” Beatle. And it’s kind of unnecessary. After all Lennon never criticised Paul’s love of literature in the Lennon Remembers interview or in any interview in the 70s so it’s not like Paul is responding to anything from John. So why do it? It just seems kind of cruel and unnecessary and no I don’t think I’m being divisive in calling that out. This isn’t about giving Paul the benefit of the doubt or not. This is calling out crappy behaviour

“John never had anything like my interest in literature, though he was very keen on Lewis Carroll and, in particular, Winston Churchill. His Aunt Mimi had lots of books by Churchill in the front parlour. Not a bad basis for an education. In my case, I was always fascinated by the couplet as a form in poetry. When you think about it, it’s been the workhorse of poetry in English right the way through. Chaucer, Pope, Wilfred Owen. I was particularly fascinated by how Shakespeare used the couplet to close out a scene, or an entire play. Just taking a swing through Macbeth, for example, you’ll find a few humdingers, like: 'Receive what cheer you may: The night is long that never finds the day.’ or ‘I go, and it is done; the bell invites me. Hear it not, Duncan; for it is a knell / That summons thee to heaven or to hell.' This was Shakespeare’s way of saying, ‘That’s it, folks,’ and ‘The End’ was our way of saying the same. 'And in the end the love you take / Is equal to the love you make’ This is one of those couplets that can keep you thinking for a long time. […] I often muse upon what might have happened, had I not ended up in a band that rather took over my life. I wonder about the path I thought I was on with my A level in English literature and where that might have led me.”

— Paul McCartney, about “The End”. In The Lyrics (2021).

He looks so good. My God. That is all

John in 1965

Paul being a narcissist again. I’m just as funny as John but only when I’m in a bad mood. So remember I’m just as funny as John but also John is a bad man/asshole. I’m over this man

“With me, how I wrote depended on my mood. The only way I would be sort of biting and witty like that was if I was in a bad mood! I was very good at sarcasm myself. I could really keep up with John then. If I was in a bad enough mood, I was right up there with him. We were terrific then. He could be as wicked as he wanted, and I could be as wicked, too.”

—

Paul McCartney to Playboy, 1984

The Beatles being menaces in Ireland, 7th November 1963 - part 1 (part 2)

Just look at Paul’s life flash before his eyes…

Dear friend! We already know his thoughts on Coming up from a few interviews and the same for Too Many People. I don’t entirely buy that Call Me Back Again is a McLennon song. But Dear Friend is 100 percent about John and given it came during a period of infighting, I want to know what John truly felt hearing that for the first time. Can I get Paul reacting to I Know, I Know as a bonus? And both of them reacting to I Don’t Know (Johnny, Johnny)?

Beatle (John) Hypotheticals #11

If you could be a fly on the wall when John listens to a song for the first time, which one of the following songs would you choose and why?

Too Many People

Dear Friend

Call Me Back Again

Coming Up

If you could choose another song, that isn’t listed above, which one would you choose and why?

Friendly reminder that John wrote Ticket to Ride and obviously due to Paul revisionism some people have fallen for a different story. So annoying

Today's really strange lyric theory...

We all know now that Paul wrote Ticket to Ride about trips to Ryde with John because he literally said it in "The Lyrics" and when he says a song is about John I'm inclined to believe him.

But you know what other song has "ride"? "Got to Get You Into My Life"

I was alone, I took a ride I didn't know what I would find there Another road where maybe I Could see another kind of mind there Ooh, then I suddenly see you Ooh, did I tell you I need you Every single day of my life?

I'm not saying the song isn't about weed, but I think it's also about John and that trip too.

I mean...this is Paul, fucking every song he's ever written since his first song is about John in some way.

♪ And you know what it's worth ♪

John Lennon, Eric Clapton and Keith Richards from The Dirty Mac performing Yer Blues (1968)