Weekly Reminder This Never Happened. Even Paul Said It Didn’t Happen. John Also Didn’t Go In Paul’s

I somehow have the feeling if John was alive and didn’t turn up at the Hall of Fame for whatever personal reason, people would have no problem calling him petty and immature. The media had no problem throwing him under the bus for years. Once again the daily reminder Paul at a human being and it’s ok to criticise him. And yeah taking more than his cut makes him the asshole. These weren’t his solo songs, this was music he made as part of a group. It doesn’t matter how much cash he thought he earned, he can’t pull a surprised pikachu face when he gets sued.

This is probably a weird question so apologies, but do you think Paul should have gone to the Beatles Hall of Fame award show? I know he didn't and I've seen it described as the petulant act of a child and understandable given the legal situation and hurt feelings. I would love to know what you thought of it?

Not a weird question at all!

I don’t think Paul should ever do anything he doesn’t want, to be honest. He’s earned being as petty as he wants. Not that I think that’s what he was doing, but even if he was, so what? I wouldn’t want to hang out with three people that were all suing me either. I’m sure he felt it was The Breakup 2.0 and I can’t imagine how shitty that must have felt. Also, this should have been such a special moment for him and then they sued him right before and ruined it. I doubt that was on purpose (the timing) but… I can see how it might have felt pointed.

I don’t know if George’s speech should be taken at face value. Personally it seems a little… disingenuous of him to suggest he’s surprised. But, perhaps he genuinely assumed Paul would always just roll over and put a brave face on/wasn’t capable of being hurt by that sort of thing/there was no reason for him to take it personally because really they were suing EMI/Capitol and not him.

Do I think Paul should have gone to make himself/The Beatles look better? Maybe? They had sort of been suing each other and everyone else for nearly two decades by that point, so perhaps they should have all just carried on like it was business as usual and that would have stopped some of the backlash. But it is also possible that people would have slagged him off for daring to be there when he was shitting all over their legacy for ‘stealing their money’.

I guess the other question is if Paul was trying to get one over on them with the royalties and therefore should have been there (or not been there) to apologise. I mean, if Capitol was just giving him more out of its own profits and it wasn’t taking anything from the others, he certainly had less to feel bad about. Of course I’m sure they all thought (and John almost certainly would have felt) there was a gentleman’s agreement not to take more. But, who can say. Paul was making a lot of money for Capitol and obviously it’s his right to negotiate whatever he wanted. I do get why people would feel that a) he didn’t need more money and b) The Beatles should be a completely separate thing and it’s almost petty to ask for a bigger cut of that because he (arguably) can’t deserve more of it now than he did before. I say arguably because there’s something to the idea that Paul being as successful as he was, was keeping the Beatles more in the public eye and therefore selling more. But how you figure out THAT I have no idea because John dying did as much as anything for that, and obviously Ringo and George released music too (along with other things).

But in summation, Paul often couldn’t win in the eyes of the press so it was almost certainly just better for him to do what made him personally happiest.

Always happy to hear other’s thoughts though.

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?

"I mean that is so special for me. I know it's virtual, but there I am. There I am singing with John again. We're back together."

Ah yes the typical tumblr experience. Thousands of posts where John is reduced to nothing more than the sum of his faults…crickets. One article about Paul that throws a few softball shots (in a sea of articles defending Paul’s every action as being completely justified) and the comments are full of essays defending Paul. And yet people around here keep saying that Paul is a victim that needs defending because of what happened back in the 80s when John had just been murdered and people in their horror may have gone too far one way. It’s kind of silly when you think about it.

Paul liked to keep his options open and this applied to friendship. Just when you thought you were getting to know him, to feel a commitment from him, he'd slip behind a smiling mask. Finally I came to accept this aspect of his nature and we worked together, travelled together in a relaxed fashion, but never with any developed contact.

Paul had a real appetite for life -- an exuberant optimism and a buoyant enthusiasm that was admirable even if at times it overwhelmed his sceptical partner, John.

...He lived in his head to create music or lived to create music in his head. This process or activity could account for a certain distance in his contact with people, however pleasant and engaging he might appear.

Robert Freeman, The Beatles: A Private View

Give me the John one!! Pretty please??

scans from 1960s magazines

Yes thank you! Why if he claims to love this man do nigh is every single article about how he really did everything in the Beatles and John was just there?

Paul McCartney, I love you but I hate you so much right now.

Stop trashing John (who can’t defend himself because he’s been dead for 41 years) just to make yourself seem more important. You did your best and most important work TOGETHER. 

If people want to say Mark Lewisohn is a John Lennon fan boy and to take everything he says with a grain of salt, it’s only right to say that Erin Torkelson Weber is the same for Paul McCartney. She’s often quoted on tumblr and she may use real life quotes but please understand that quotes, interviews and anecdotes can be arranged in a way to result in implicit bias toward a particular subject and excluding other anecdotes that contradict your version of events is a bias in and of itself.

“Some of those who eulogised Lennon seemingly could not do so without denigrating McCartney, Harrison and Starr or devaluing their contributions to the Beatles. “He [Lennon] stood for a mixture of tough minded realism… wit and intellect. Paul on the other hand was a pretty boy.” The most famous example of this came from the Village Voice’s Christgau, one of America’s most powerful rock critics. In a piece shortly following Lennon’s death, Christgau referred to the three remaining Beatles as “hacks” and blamed their refusal to accept Ono into the band for the breakup. He also repeated a number of misconceptions about Lennon that, while widely accepted, were untrue. This included praising Lennon, the only middle-class born Beatle, as a “working-class” hero and declaring that Lennon had always been the only artistic, avant-garde Beatle because “the others just didn’t have the stuff.” His obituary of Lennon stated that the wrong Beatle had been killed. “Why is it always Bobby Kennedy or John Lennon? Why isn’t it Richard Nixon or Paul McCartney?”

Erin Torkelson Weber, The Beatles and the Historians

Firstly this anon is posting me off claiming they have a crystal ball and know exactly how John would have been politically had he lived and even insinuating it’s good John died so they wouldn’t have to see it. This is bullshit. If you want to pick on John, pick something from his life that actually happened instead of inventing fantasies of how you think John would be in the modern age and using them as a comparison against Paul who luckily didn’t get murdered and got to live in this era. Secondly Julian posted on Instagram when he got his vaccines. You can look it up. He is not anti vaccine at all. I thought when he posted the picture of ivermectin he was doing so out of sarcasm. I got nothing from his post he was being serious. Thirdly Sean has not posted anything anti vaccine so stop pulling him into this. Fourthly even if you disagree with Julian, this has nothing to do with John and his views. This whole argument is pathetic and I can’t believe people are buying into this rubbish.

“Would John have gotten politically weird if he lived” anon here and FRUSTRATED. I’m not saying I told you so, I’m just telling at these idiot men through the screen.

Also I do not understand how these rich famous people don’t know the difference between a parasite (what ivermectin treats) and a fucking virus. They are different.

Listen to your uncle Paul boys. Be cool, get vaxxed.

I have no clue where Julian gets this from tbh I don't know his social circles. I'll say that from what I can tell most of John's weirdness seemed to come from Yoko and her circle (not saying it's entirely her fault, just saying I feel like that might be why Sean's like this, though he may also be just trying to be supportive of his brother).

It's so hard to talk to these types of people cause they're so terrified generally and for whatever reason feel completely justified in their distrust of science. I don't know Julian or Sean's full educational background but often I think it's people who get overwhelmed about biology and don't have an intuition for it (see: people who clearly don't really know what RNA even is freaking out about it)

Honestly, probably Paul is also non-confrontational about this type of thing though, so I'm not sure he's the best bet to try and convince Julian and Sean otherwise.

This whole quote is hilarious. I know Paul is a smart man so it’s frustrating to see him will fully misunderstood John’s quotes. When he talked about the Beatles being bastards, he’s referring to the fact that they had to be tough and have think skins to withstand the hard core Hamburg days and the insane beatlemania days to make it and survive. And he wasn’t always dark about the Beatles. Yes he was dark in the early days when he was hurting but he mellowed so much through the 70s. It makes me understand why John didn’t trust Paul given his willingness to undermine John in subtle ways so he could get ahead. Also if he’s referencing cynicism and darkness, why does George get a pass. That man was far more bitter about his Beatle days but of course Paul doesn’t view George as his competitor in the same way he does John

Q: Do you have days now when you never once think of the Beatles?

PAUL MCCARTNEY: Oh, yeah. Most days. When the Beatles broke up it was painful to talk about. It was just hard. So you found yourself thinking about it. Now, having come all this way, I can remember only the good stuff. I know one or two spicy stories and I have my bitch now and again, but generally I always did dig it; I always did think that what we were doing was great. Even when we broke up, I never thought like John did. Who knows why he thought that! John’s pretty complex. He possibly didn’t even mean it. All the stuff about how we were “bastards”… He brought out the worst side, as if to exorcise it. But I really didn’t agree. It was pretty good, you know. But there are days when I don’t think about it because I’m doing all sorts of other stuff.

— Paul McCartney, Rolling Stone, March 30th 1979

This is the stupidity I know and love on tumblr. Ooo Paul. What a hero for sending a LETTER to Maggie Thatcher. Never mind the years he has kissed the ass of the royals and the establishment in general. Bonus points for throwing Johns name in to shit on him for no reason. No one in Johns camp ever compared the incident with the MBE to Paul’s no doubt slightly less than vanilla letter but Paul’s camp has to sling arrows that Paul is the true hero TM. Lol

“Did you know Paul sent a telegram to Margaret Thatcher in 1982? He did. It wasn’t friendly. He lost his temper over her treatment of health workers and fired off a long outraged message, comparing her to Ted Heath, the prime minister (tweaked in “Taxman”) felled by the 1974 coal strike. McCartney warned, “What the miners did to Ted Heath, the nurses will do to you.” This controversy is a curiously obscure footnote to his life—it seldom gets mentioned in even the fattest biographies. He doesn’t discuss it in Many Years from Now. I only know about it because I read it as a Random Note in Rolling Stone, not exactly a hotbed of pro-Paul propaganda at the time. (The item began, “Reports that Paul McCartney is intellectually brain-dead appear to have been premature.”) But the telegram was a major U.K. scandal, with Tory politicians denouncing him. In October 1982, Thatcher was at the height of her power, in the wake of her Falkland Islands blitz. Many rock stars talked shit about Maggie—Elvis Costello, Morrissey, Paul Weller—but Paul was the one more famous than she was. He had something to lose by hitting send on this, and nothing to gain. What, you think he was trying for coolness points? This is Paul McCartney, remember? He was in the middle of making Give My Regards to Broad Street. He could have clawed Thatcher’s still-beating heart out of her rib cage, impaled it on his Hofner on live TV, and everybody would have said, “Yeah, but ‘Silly Love Songs’ though.” Why did he feel so intensely about the nurses? He didn’t mention his mother in the telegram, but he must have been thinking of Mary McCartney’s life and death. So he snapped, even though it was off-message. (He was busy that week doing interviews for the twentieth anniversary of “Love Me Do”—the moment called for Cozy Lovable Paul, not Angry Paul.) He didn’t boast about it later, though fans today would be impressed that any English rock star of that generation—let alone Paul—had the gumption to send this. You can make a case that it was a braver, riskier, and more politically relevant move than John sending his MBE medal back to the Queen in 1970. Still, John’s gesture went down in history and Paul’s didn’t, though his fans would probably admire the move if they knew about it. He couldn’t win. He was Paul. All he could do was piss people off.”

—

Rob Sheffield, Dreaming the Beatles. (2017)

This is one of the best books I’ve read on them. Go get it.