Allen Klein

Ya follow?

Michael Gerber

Publisher at The American Bystander
is Blogmom of Hey Dullblog. His novels and parodies have sold 1.25 million copies in 25 languages. He lives in Santa Monica, CA, and runs The American Bystander all-star print humor magazine.
Michael Gerber
Ya follow?

Latest posts by Michael Gerber (see all)

Allen Klein dies

Commenter @ChelseaQW sent in this interesting tidbit this morning, which I just had to share. It’s from Allen Klein’s November 1971 interview in Playboy magazine:

VETTER: You make it sound as if they [John and Paul] were never really close.
KLEIN: I can only tell you what John said when I asked him who he would call among the Beatles if he was in trouble—you know, if he had a real problem. He said he’d call George. That surprised me. Then I asked him if he’d ever been really close with Paul and he said no. Not that he didn’t love him; he did. He just said every time he let his guard down, McCartney hurt him.
VETTER: Did he say how?
KLEIN: Not specifically. But you know, it’s the kind of hurt where you open up to someone, really reach out, and then they’re just not there. A couple of times I thought Paul and I really had something going and then the next day, it was like it all just slipped away.

— Allen Klein, Playboy: A candid conversation with the embattled manager of the Beatles. (November, 1971)

Now, naturally, this interview was conducted at least three months, and possibly closer to six, before the publication date.

“So what do you think?” ChelseaQW wrote. “Was Paul emotionally unavailable for 12 years? Or was John the neediest person on Earth? 🙂
Is Allen Klein the devil?”

Discuss.

If you liked this, share it!
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter
Share on StumbleUpon
StumbleUpon


73 Comments

  1. Avatar Chantal wrote:

    How does the saying go? A picture says more than a thousand words. One need only look at the photos to see an extraordinary closeness between John and Paul. The way those two lads behaved around each other, the physical proximity they’d seek – when they just as easily could have sat or stood apart, the way they looked at each other… If that wasn’t a very close friendship, then such a thing does not exist at all.

    And it’s not just that, is it? Watch and listen to their interviews and the little inside jokes they shared. Or that one shortly before the concert they cancelled becaus Paul was ill; John at some points blatantly ignores the interviewer to ask Paul if he’s alright. Why would he, if they were just band mates?

    Of course the studio tapes confirm all of this as well. So does the fact that John and Yoko stayed at Cavendish for a while.

    So, what’s the deal here? I think that sure, Paul may very well have been emotionally unavailable at times. Brian Epstein once stated Paul could close himself off completely if he didn’t want to hear something, and Brian resented that about him. We also know that out of the four, Paul had compartmentalised his personality the most. They each distinguished between their real selves and their Beatle selves, and Paul apparently was able to switch between the two the easiest. So yeas, I’m sure he let the others down emotionally sometimes.

    However, there might also be truth in the ‘was John too needy’ part. Just look at the evidence: he would latch onto someone and never let go. Until he was done with them, of course, because then that person could basically piss off. He probably needed Paul more than Paul needed John, on different levels. It’s not surprising after what John lived through. He clearly had abandonment issues, and who can blame him? He’s also a known revisionist (although people always like to call Paul that) and he has told many lies, in interviews and off the record.

    As for Klein… He has every reason to badmouth Paul. He knows the problems he caused, so in order to save face, someone else has to be the villain. Cue Paul, people’s favourite scapegoat since 1980, and even before that. He’s an easy target, and Klein knows it. He also knows Paul won’t lash out at John, George, and Ringo; he’s basically a sitting duck. Denying Klein’s claims would equal calling John a liar, and everyone knows Paul is not likely to do that. So, is Klein the devil? Let’s say he’s a scheming, underhanded, calculating shark.

  2. Avatar Drew wrote:

    “He just said every time he let his guard down, McCartney hurt him.”

    John liked being surrounded by minions and Paul refused to be John’s minion, refused to suck up to him like George Harrison did, refused to cater to his every whim like Ringo did. Paul was his own man and expected John to respect him as an equal so of course John had trouble with that. This is a guy used to being the star of his own gang of boys.

    At any rate, I would guess that Paul could easily say the same thing about Lennon — “Every time I let my guard own, John hurt me.” And there are plenty of examples of that, starting with Stuart, moving on to John going off to Spain alone with Brian Epstein, who comes back and pressures McCartney to agree to a “Lennon-McCartney” song credit when John and Paul had privately agreed that whoever was the main songwriter would get his name first.

    But of course John never seemed to see any of those things as a betrayal because he thought he was the genius and the only one who mattered. What frustrated him, no doubt, was: Why won’t Paul fall in line — like all the others?

  3. Avatar Rob Geurtsen wrote:

    The first thoughts that came up after this tidbit are:

    2. Is there anybody out there who can provide me with a copy of the Playboy interview, I would love to be able read it, haven’t found it yet.

    3. Allen Klein’s comment ” A couple of times I thought Paul and I really had something going and then the next day, it was like it all just slipped away.” doesn’t mean a thing, when your force to being in a relationship, and his might offer advantages you’re going to make sure you’re in rapport with that person. That doesn’t mean you’re close and that it is something beyond the moment… if you’re having a conversation for let’s say 15 minutes with charismatic connectors like Bill Clinton or Paul McCartney you are really connected – they have this natural ability, which most of us and Allen Klein lack… we run the risk to perceive these moments very different from what they really are.

  4. Avatar Hologram Sam wrote:

    In that photo of Klein, does he have a right hand? Or did he evolve a lobster claw for grasping big bags of money?
    Oh, wait, on closer examination I see it’s the interviewer’s hand holding a 1971 microphone.
    .
    What a strange thing, for someone who wants to manage a band, to speak on the record against a prominent band member. What an evil bastard Mick Jagger was, if he was the one to recommend this crustacean to John.
    Not sure if Klein was the devil. I think of him more as a brain surgeon who gets paid up front (double billing the patient) and then uses a sledge hammer to pound the skull into mush.

    • Avatar Annabelle wrote:

      Well Sam the interview is from November 1971 so this is roughly 7 months after Paul won his suit and Klein was removed as Manager of the Beales when Apple was placed in receivership by the court. So Paul McCartney was in Klein’s view the man who took away his dream gig five minutes after he got it. Klein and Lennon were in revenge mode in late 1971 and spouted a lot of **** whenever they got within spitting distance of a media outlet.

  5. Avatar Nancy Carr wrote:

    Michael, can you (or ChelseaQW, can you) tell from the context of the article whether that last sentence [A couple of times . . . . slipped away”] is Klein paraphrasing Lennon, or Klein speaking for himself?
    .
    About the “was Paul emotionally unavailable for 12 years” question: I think this is breakup-era Lennon projecting the recent situation onto the past. Given what we know of actual events (the trip to Paris, Manila, etc.) and from observers (George Martin, Cynthia Lennon) I don’t buy Lennon’s assertion that he was never close to Paul. What I hear is that in 1971 he wants that to have been the case. I think Lennon always believed whatever he was saying at the time he said it, but that he had a tendency to convince himself that what he wanted to be true was.
    .
    I also take anything Klein says about Lennon, McCartney, or the Beatles with a shovelful of salt. This is the guy who said he was going to “roast McCartney’s ass” after the breakup lawsuit, after all. How better to hurt Paul than to say in an interview that John and Paul were never close?
    .
    Klein’s assertion also doesn’t match the way the breakup played out. Paul was clearly devastated by John’s declaration that he wanted “a divorce” from the band — devastated enough that he created the childish, hurtful “self interview” he put in the McCartney album. Mikal Gilmore put it best when he said “[Paul] had loved the Beatles more than the others had — he had certainly loved John more than John had loved him.”
    .
    Link to Gilmore’s notes on the RS article on the breakup, from which the above quote is taken: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/why-the-beatles-broke-up-the-story-behind-our-cover-20090818

    • Avatar Ruth wrote:

      “Michael, can you (or ChelseaQW, can you) tell from the context of the article whether that last sentence [A couple of times . . . . slipped away”] is Klein paraphrasing Lennon, or Klein speaking for himself?”

      I’m not Michael or Chelsea, but I think I can answer your question, Nancy. Having read the entire article, its safe to say that Klein was referring to his own difficulty with his relationship with Paul rather than paraphrasing Lennon, at that point. Given that we have a (very) few general assertions of Klein’s goodwill towards Paul such as this on the one hand, and bucketloads of evidence, including eyewitness accounts, discussing Klein’s immediate antagonistic approach to Paul, a few example examples from Klein of their supposed moments of closeness would have been helpful.

      • Avatar Nancy Carr wrote:

        Thanks for that clarification, Ruth. If Klein’s talking about his own dealings with Paul, “a couple of times I thought Paul and I really had something going and then the next day, it was like it all just slipped away” seems hard to believe. As you say, eyewitness accounts are heavily weighted on the side of Klein’s antagonism to Paul virtually from Day One.

  6. Avatar Ruth wrote:

    I agree with Nancy that this or anything Klein, or John, says regarding Paul during the breakup–era needs to be absorbed with a shovelful of salt. This interview needs to be put into context: Klein was, in every way except by name, on trial during the 1971 Beatles trial, which took place just a few months before this interview, and he lost. Terribly. His reputation as a business manager was damaged, the judge compared his testimony to “the patter of a second-rate car salesman,” it was proven he was taking commissions in excess to what he was entitled, and his position as manager of the Beatles evaporated. After losing at trial, Klein went on a press-offensive; this Playboy interview — along with Klein’s interviews in Peter McCabe’s “Apple to the Core” — were his primary weapons. His agenda is screaming off the pages.

    I’ve read this Playboy interview in its entirety — I don’t have a scan of it, sorry — and the theme is to blame Paul, and particularly the Eastman’s, for the breakup. In it, Klein brushes off any and all accusations of mismanagement on his part, leaves out crucial information in an attempt to paint Lee Eastman as unstable (he talks about when Lee lost his temper at their initial meeting, but fails to discuss how he and John provoked Lee by calling him vicious names) and out-and-out lies, saying they lost the “Northern Songs” chance because Lee and John Eastman insulted the shareholders, when it was actually John’s “I’m not going to be fucked around by men wearing suits,” or something to that affect. Since its 1971, Klein argues that they lost the trial because they were anti-establishment figures, and constantly reiterates John, George, and Ringo’s happiness with him, and in general. He also continuously portrays the Eastman’s, and Paul’s blind obedience to them, as the major impediment to reunification, and predicts that Paul will come back in a few years.

    Klein’s quote about John’s comment reinforces Klein’s underlying agenda throughout the interview; it presents Paul’s selfish, uncaring obstinacy (as well as his middle-class social climbing) as the sole reason he refused to trust Klein, agree with the other three, and accept Klein as his manager. (That’s a constant point of emphasis throughout the interview; that Paul’s distrust and dislike of Klein is wholly unreasonable and selfish, and that there is no truth whatsoever to any accusations of Klein’s financial mismanagement or shady practices). That’s not to say I don’t think John actually said it; I’m just reinforcing how suspect the source is, and how convenient it is for him to say it. (IIRC, while John, George and Ringo are in and out of the room throughout the interview, none of them were with Klein when he made this particular comment).

    Having said all this, I think its highly likely John may have said something like this concerning his relationship with Paul. Numerous sources around the Beatles — Pete Shotton, Peter Brown, Neil Apinall, Hunter Davies, among others — all acknowledge that Paul was the hardest to get to know, and the first to demonstrate any distance between himself and the other three, both geographically (staying in London while the others moved out to the suburbs) and in other ways — such as refusing to take LSD. Given what we know of John’s psychology, and that one of the joys of his relationship with Yoko was their total immersion into each other (at least initially) I think its very possible that John regarded Paul’s efforts to maintain *any* sort of distance between them as a betrayal.

    • Avatar linda a. wrote:

      Numerous sources around the Beatles — Pete Shotton, Peter Brown, Neil Apinall, Hunter Davies, among others — all acknowledge that Paul was the hardest to get to know,

      I’ve heard this about the others you mention but I don’t know why Hunter Davies would have said it. It seems to me that of all the Beatles he was the closest to Paul. There are numerous occasions that point to that. They even went on vacation together. And of course when Paul was upset about Norman’s book and the canonization of Lennon it was Hunter that he called to pour his heart out to. So I’m kind of scratching my head as to why Hunter would say that Paul was hard to get to know. Does he mean initially he was hard to know? As in he didn’t offer to bare his soul within the first week like John was known to do?

      • Avatar Ruth wrote:

        Davies stated it in The Authorized biography:

        “Paul is the easiest to get to know for an outsider, but in the end he is the hardest one to get to know. There’s a feeling that he is holding things back.” I think eventually Paul and Davies became closer, however. But it fits with the overall impression of many first-hand accounts of Paul’s reserve.
        —-
        I do agree with you that, overall, Davies appears to have been closest to Paul: if you read between the lines of the later editions, when he discusses interviewing John — who would spend days at a time while Davies was there to interview him, not talking at all — and George: “He hated, even then, the Beatles days” — it sounds like interviewing those two was a miserable experience. And Paul, as you noted, vacationed with Davies, although Davies was distinctly and initially very unimpressed with Paul’s replacing Jane Asher with Linda. Despite the fact that Paul was very upset about Davies publishing Paul’s phone conversation with him in the 1982 re-edition of the Beatles Authorized Biography, Davies still describes them as friends as late as 2002 or so.

        • Avatar linda a. wrote:

          Paul is the easiest to get to know for an outsider, but in the end he is the hardest one to get to know. There’s a feeling that he is holding things back

          I once read a book the exact title of which has unfortunately faded from memory, but it was about the impact emotionally, psychologically, and socially, on children aged 10-17 whose mothers had died during the 1950’s. It studied the lives of several men and women but what was so striking is that every single one of them suffered in identical ways. One thing that every one of them said is that the death caused them to be closed off emotionally. They had trouble revealing themselves to people and letting others in. They couldn’t let people close. I found that interesting in light of everything that has been said about Paul over the years. The book was eye opening for anyone who is interested in understanding Paul.

          Davies was distinctly and initially very unimpressed with Paul’s replacing Jane Asher with Linda.

          I remember that. Davies entire recollection of that trip was really interesting. He said a lot of things that were never said in the bios.

          • Avatar Ruth wrote:

            I’m sorry that the title has slipped your mind, Linda; the book sounds very interesting, and its analysis sounds spot-on, at least regarding Paul. Given that, in Anthology, he sums up his emotional response to his mother’s death as “I put a shell around myself,” it certainly corresponds with the numerous first-hand accounts attesting to Paul’s reserve.

          • Avatar linda a. wrote:

            http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004D7TWZU?keywords=Impact%20of%20mother%27s%20death&qid=1453573808&ref_=sr_1_3&sr=8-3

            I did a search on Amazon and this is the only book that fits the description. I think this is it because that cover looks very familiar. The only thing I question is that I don’t remember it being about father’s, only mother’s and I remember the recollections were of losses that only occurred from the early 50’s to the mid 60’s. (There’s an obvious sociological reason for that of course) But I don’t see that mentioned on the cover. Anyway I really do think this is the book.

  7. Avatar Karen Hooper wrote:

    Typical John malarky repeated by Klein.
    .
    I’ve just finished reading “Get Back: The Beatles’ Let it Be Disaster” (stay tuned for a book review), and the main source of conflict and the primary displays of resentment within the band, overtime, occurred between John and George, not John and Paul. There was simply no reason for John to claim that Paul hurt him or turned his back on him. John seemed to manufacture reasons to resent Paul, simply to 1) appease Yoko, who was threatened by the Lennon/McCartney relationship, and 2) justify the splintering of a personal and professional relationship which he himself orchestrated and (likely) later regretted.

    • Avatar Nancy Carr wrote:

      Karen, I’m thinking #2 especially. Paul had to be a monster, in John’s retrospective review of the situation, in order to justify John’s treatment of him.
      .
      Also, I can’t agree strongly enough with Ruth that Klein had EVERY reason to paint Paul as the bad guy in these post-lawsuit interviews. The facts were not on Klein’s side. If your taking over management of a band is quickly followed by the band’s public, vitriolic breakup and a lawsuit which you lose, you have a lot of ‘splaining to do, as Ricky Ricardo would put it. It was necessary for Klein to blame Paul for the breakup, and to downplay the importance of the Lennon/McCartney friendship, because the alternative would have been accepting a good bit of responsibility for breaking up the band, and the Lennon/McCartney axis on which it rotated, himself.

  8. Avatar Ruth wrote:

    The nature of how close John and Paul were and had been throughout their relationship varies wildly across the spectrum of all John’s breakup-era and post-breakup interviews. John’s given agenda at the time (and who was interviewing him) tended to make a difference in his responses. I could easily see Klein, during this time period, complaining about his inability to connect with or become close to Paul, and John commiserating in kind. John has already demonstrated a susceptible memory and desire to agree with Klein, on certain issues (the authorship of “Eleanor Rigby,” anyone?) when it suited the version of events he wanted to believe.

    Yet, when some people used John’s own words to express the belief that he must truly dislike Paul, he usually dismissed the importance (and often the unfair viciousness) of his own previous words. He did it when “Imagine” was released: when asked about the vicious nature of “How Do You Sleep” he dismissed it as a fight with his “best friend.” John’s public and private conversations with Ray Connolly during the breakup era are demonstrably more generous to Paul, both as a person and as a musician, than any of John’s interviews with, say, Jann Wenner. (Connolly was friends with Paul’s brother, Mike, and also got along well with Paul; so Connolly never attempted to provoke John into a Paul-inspired rant the way Wenner did. Wenner’s questions in “Lennon Remembers” are notably designed to provoke anti-Paul quotes from John). There are multiple instances where, when a reporter mentions the vicious things John said regarding Paul during the breakup era, John shrugs off his previous statements by emphasizing the close nature of their relationship, describing Paul as his “best friend” or “brother,” and arguing that outsiders didn’t understand the nature of their relationship. How much of that was John conveniently not wanting to have to answer for his previous unfair and disproportionate behavior, and how much of it was true — George Martin has noted how cruel the Beatles could be to each other in a dysfunctional family dynamic — is up for interpretation.

    • Avatar Annabelle wrote:

      “How much of that was John conveniently not wanting to have to answer for his previous unfair and disproportionate behavior

      I would say a lot to be completely honest. Because whilst John would say he didn’t feel like this any more in 74/75 we have Yoko’s “June and spoon” story, John’s diary tape from 1979, his comments in interviews in 1980 that show the resentment lingered. The sad thing is I like to cut John slack on the grounds he was somewhat disturbed in the late 60’s early 70’s but, this behaviour and this clever deflection technique he used whenever called out on these things, shows such calculation. Why not just say, I’m sorry about that or Paul didn’t deserve it, but John was always busy saying I didn’t attack him it was about me instead of admitting he did attack him and taking what he said back? He could have said a million other things that would have set the record straight even a little, but all of the things John said about Paul hang heavy to this day because John never took any of it back, he just made those little comments but he never undid any damage. Selfish to the end.

      • Avatar Ruth wrote:

        Every example you provide is a good one, Annabelle, and yet for every one you give, I can think of another one, from the same time period, where John publicly and/or privately expresses admiration for/defends Paul: according to Alice Cooper, during the “Lost Weekend,” John responded violently to any outside criticism (as in, any criticism that didn’t come from him) and would hit and or threaten anyone who insulted Paul in his presence; you have John asking Art Garfunkel whether he should reunite and write with Paul again in, I think, 1974, and both John’s 1980 studio band as well as Jack Douglass have argued that John would talk about how much he loved the Beatles and was talking about wanting to write with Paul again. Because of John’s inconsistency, his tendency to cater his statements depending on who he was talking to, and his psychological issues, its impossible to take any one quote — including the one that prompted this thread — and use it as the Rosetta Stone that will translate John Lennon. Which is why the tendency of some writers — such as Coleman or Norman — to take everything that John says at face value, and pick and choose the quotes that further their particular thesis — is laughable and irresponsible. John didn’t just contradict himself from week to week; he contradicted himself from day to day and sometimes, contradicted himself on the same subject within the same interview.

        As for why John never said ‘sorry’ or admitted that many of the breakup-era things he said regarding Paul, George Martin, etc. were lies, I’d argue that, to an extent and at certain times, he did. I am convinced that John wrote “I Know (I Know)” for Paul, and partially convinced that “Jealous Guy” was for Paul as well. John later dismissed the importance of “Lennon Remembers” to George Martin, as well as Glynn Johns, and publicly denounced it in a 1974 interview with George Harrison. His contradictory statements on “How Do You Sleep” alone could fill a chapter. And by 1980, John was freely admitting that he lied about his songwriting partnership with Paul several times in “Lennon Remembers” because he had been angry.

        Having said that, I think John’s refusal to unequivocally renounce his breakup-era version of breakup and the Lennon/McCartney partnership, have a lot of reasons. Renouncing it would have meant, in part, renouncing “The Ballad of John and Yoko,” and John’s 1980 interviews make it clear that John had no intention of doing that. It would require John to eat an awful lot of crow. It would require John to acknowledge that he was not the sole victim of the Beatles, and this perception of victimization seems to have been a significant part of John’s psychological makeup. John justifies a lot of his rants as “just blowing off steam” and while there is an obvious lack of responsibility in that excuse, a lot of people who knew John well, including May Pang, and Ray Connolly, and Derek Taylor, all agree that that was how *John* perceived it. How much did John really understand about the longstanding consequences of what he said in 1970/1971, during a time when he’s probably on heroin and cocaine? And, of course, John had no way of knowing that his last chance to offer his thoughts would be December of 1980.

        • Avatar Annabelle wrote:

          I’m afraid almost all of those examples are private. And song lyrics? I’m really talking about the need for a clear public apology/retraction in line with the clear public insults and character assassination.

          ———————————–

          It is good that John admitted the he lied about how much they wrote together so at least that’s one item from the list of damaging things he said that was corrected.

          ————————

          I will give Alice the benefit of the doubt and assume that his quote is based on first hand experience but there are examples from people like Tony Visconti of them going to John with criticisms of Paul and finding an eager listener and supporter in John. So as you say John was hardly a consistent guy. He flipped and flopped.
          ———————–

          Yes he denounced Lennon Remembers in general and I think he had too because it’s an embarrassing piece really. However, did he address specifics I thought not? Did he denounce the other quotes, the letter to Melody Maker and the many other outlets he used to attack Paul – attacks that were not open to interpretation or veiled but were direct and clearly understood by all?

          ———————————————————-

          It’s nice if John spoke well of the Beatles and wanted to write with Paul but that actually has nothing to do with what I’m discussing which is the tremendous damage that was done to Paul McCartney through clear public character assassination in the early 70’s and how that has dogged his career and impacted his life and the fact John never said anything clear on the public record in an equivalent way to retract any of it. Just a couple of sentences apology in contrast to the hundreds of sentences that had been insulting and demeaning. I’m not asking for much of a ratio here.

          ———————————————

          Sometimes I think Beatles fans are so desperate to make excuses for John that they set the bar lower for him than they would almost anyone.

          ——————————————–

          I mean, you claim he said things that showed his admiratiion but then you give no examples of anything he said in public that was admiring. John was in the Beatles, and he spoke well of the Beatles and yes by 1980 he was well aware that he’d done his best work with Paul so he was considering returning to that well. It’s true that on a radio show he once said on air that he liked Monkberry Moon delight. I mean no offense but I’m very familiar with everything in your post and pretty much all of what John has said in public and was rumoured to have said in private… but these are crumbs. I’m sorry but you’re trying to make something meaningful out of a handful of crumbs. None of these things even begin to resemble setting the record straight or undoing the damage he did. Sorry.

          —————————————–

          I see his inability to eat crow and his need to maintain his sole victim status, regardless of the damage that was done to his former friend, someone that had helped him many times, as reasons not to respect him.

          ———————————————-

          You’re right he couldn’t know that when he was saying things like “TLAWR was Paul’s last gasp” etc that it was going to be his last opportunity to say anything on the record and I’d like to think he would have chosen not to say some of those things in 1980 had he known. However it was 7 years by then since he’d realised he’d made a mistake with Klein. I think a 7 year window is actually a reasonable timeframe for a man’s John age to make an apology. To make some gesture of setting the record straight. Of course we all wish events had not overtaken him but unlike some fans I do not assume John was about to become a nicer or better person. I know plenty of people who live into their old age and don’t gain self-awareness, or wisdom or the courage to apologise for their mistakes. It’s impossible to say how it would have gone with John.

          ——————————————-

          If you were the one owed the apology if you had had to live with an unflattering image of yourself deliberately concocted by others, if you had gotten close to drinking yourself into oblivion and needed someone else to help save you. If the only way you could handle all the negativity even hate, was to heavily self-medicate and isolate – would you think the things you point too would have been enough, in seven years?

          —————————

          I see the failure to apologise, redress to make even a small gesture as important. I’m not a first or second generation fan so I admit I never bought any of the Lennon mythology and I just see him as very flawed. I love the Beatles music and I find the story interesting but I don’t see Lennon as admirable in any way outside of his music.

          • Avatar Ruth wrote:

            Annabelle, I think we seem to have a problem communicating clearly with each other. It happened on another of my posts on this thread, when you implied I made a biased generalization that I did not, in fact, make, and I’m hoping we can straighten the communication issue out.

            My purpose behind the initial section of my post was to provide examples for the overall argument that using any one quote from John as the “end-all-be-all” definitive account of John’s P.O.V. is both foolish and irresponsible. I was not attempting to argue that the examples I provided are the definitive truth of John’s thoughts vis-à-vis Paul, but rather illustrations of his mercurial and widely diverse statements. If you want public expressions of John’s admiration for Paul, I can think of three off the top of my head: he refers to him as a “brilliant songwriter” in Lennon Remembers, he praises Paul’s bass playing in 1980, and refers to “Band on the Run” as a “Great Album,” in the mid-70’s. Now I’m sure you can provide an equal number of quotes where John criticizes Paul, and that reinforces the overall point I am trying, and perhaps failing, to make: if we traded quotes on John about Paul, in an attempt to pin down John’s thoughts, we’d be here all night, and this thread would never end, and we’d be no closer to the truth.

            In the second part of my post, I clearly stated that some of John’s actions could be seen as attempts to apologize and offer a mea culpa “to a certain extent and at certain times.” At no point did I ever argue that what attempts John did make were adequate, or undid the damage his previous statements had done to Paul’s critical and popular reputation. The “crumbs” obviously did not satisfy you as sufficient, because you evidently expected a blanket renunciation of all his breakup-era behavior from John that he never gave. Again, I could go into greater detail regarding Johns statements in his 1974 interview and the fact that private sources are actually regarded as more credible than public ones, but I think we would just wind up talking in circles.

            Finally, you appear to make the assumption that I am an apologist for John’s behavior. Anyone who has read any more than one thread containing my posts will know I am nothing of the sort. I agree wholeheartedly with you that John’s behavior during the breakup was excessive, vicious, manipulative and disproportionate, and that many of the things he said during this period did massive damage to Paul’s critical and popular reputation. I sincerely wish that he had offered a point-by-point renunciation of “Lennon Remembers” rather than a blanket dismissal, but he did not, and that allowed Beatles authorities, such as Wenner, Christgau, Norman and Coleman to continue to diminish Paul’s reputation.

      • Avatar Karen Hooper wrote:

        “Why not just say, I’m sorry about that or Paul didn’t deserve it, but John was always busy saying I didn’t attack him it was about me instead of admitting he did attack him and taking what he said back?”
        .
        Because he couldn’t do so as long as he was with Yoko. In his mind, he couldn’t keep Yoko unless he maintained his public acrimony towards Paul. It was part of his personal psychology, learned from childhood. You cannot love two people and have both of them. You had to choose.

        • Avatar Nancy Carr wrote:

          “You cannot love two people and have both of them. You had to choose.”
          .
          Damn is that a depressing, and convincing, assessment of John’s internal dilemma vis a vis Yoko and Paul.

        • Avatar Annabelle wrote:

          Sorry I don’t think that makes a lot of sense. I mean the acrimony did stop for a time, it’s just no apology came. He could keep his distance from Paul, he did not have to declare love and he did not need to keep them both, an apology doesn’t necessitate re-establishment of a working partnership in any form.

          I mean I don’t recall reading a sincere apology or any correction on the record during the years John and Yoko were apart? I think Yoko gets too much blame in Beatledom. I mean she was sitting there when John came so close to getting it right – he actually said I regret the association and seemed to be going to apologise but then he (and Yoko did not have her hand up the back of his shirt, it was not an act of ventriloquism) said “what’s to regret’. Well I think there was quite a bit to regret and he could have been less of an emotional coward and actually said so and he could easily have retracted some things.

          John left Yoko for a time. He could have easily maintained his “Paul creatively died and Yoko is my true creative soulmate’ stance if he so chose and at the same time have said he regretted certain things and retracted some of the especially nasty things he’d said in the press. It was cowardly not to do it. I don’t think he wanted to face it. I think too many excuses get made for John. He was an adult, there has to be some accountability. Nearly everyone is carrying baggage, sadly far too many people don’t have good childhoods and many have terrible ones, we all go through life limited and damaged people, there is still some requirement for us to either apologise for our most egregious errors or be seen as the sort of person who couldn’t. I’m not about to hold people to a different standard than I would my friends, family and neighbours just because they wrote some songs I like.

  9. Avatar Hologram Sam wrote:

    Why is it every photo I see of Klein looks like he’s in the middle of telling a lie?

  10. Avatar ChelseaQW wrote:

    So so much here!

    First of all, I think it’s nuts that, in my 763 years as a fan I’ve never seen this quote before, since it has the potential to shed an enormous amount of light on the John-Paul break-up.
    Secondly, I read this: “A couple of times I thought Paul and I really had something going and then the next day, it was like it all just slipped away” as a paraphrase of John’s statements to Klein. I think the reporter/interviewer did a shitty job of indicating that, but I absolutely took it as John’s statement, not Klein’s. Why would Klein be talking about having lost intimacy with Paul? That makes zero sense. (But if you do believe Klein was talking about himself, you might as well ignore the rest of my comment, because it hinges on the above quote being John’s) If I was Allen Klein and John said that to me, I’d think “Oh, I get it. You two would occasionally sleep together and then the next day Paul would be distant and pretend nothing happened.” Right? I mean, that’s what John just said, right? Am I the only one who heard that? Please tell me I’m not nuts. 🙂
    Thirdly, I think it’s INSANE that anyone would take that quote and try to imply indifference on John’s part. There is a massive difference between “we were never close and I don’t care” and “We were never as close as I wanted because Paul would not allow us to be” which is what he ACTUALLY said. That’s very significant! (And so of course it has been conveniently ignored because deciphering John Lennon is hard and sometimes takes us places we don’t wanna go) Given that… I just don’t know how else to interpret the comment about the intimacy disappearing with the harsh morning light. It would explain so, so much….
    Lastly, Allen Klein is a fucking VULTURE and reading this just made me realize how EASY it must’ve been for him to exploit John’s hurt feelings and pit him against Paul. I mean, Jesus! John gave him a TON of ammo. I don’t even care about Klein. He is the devil.

  11. Avatar ChelseaQW wrote:

    Ok. As a Beatles archeologist, I feel like this quote is very significant to understanding the break-up, so I wanted to elucidate my line of thinking. To me, John’s comment about how their closeness “just slipped away” the day after (and the implication that this was some sort of pattern or repeated incident) implies something physical. What exactly? Who cares. I mean, the details aren’t important, right? So let’s just assume it was something intimate and that afterwards PM was weird and distant and they never talked about it. Here’s a short list of things that make more sense if all this is true:
    -John’s passive-aggressive distancing of himself from Paul post-India
    -Paul’s reaction to Yoko
    -all of John’s weird sex-laden comments about Paul
    -the fact that Paul LOSES HIS MIND during the break-up and is clearly still in love with John
    Here’s another thing, which is not at all scientific, but worth noting: I always got the feeling that pre-India John (Beatle John) felt oddly powerless in his personal relationship with Paul, and never really understood why that was. But if this quote is true… it makes sense of that feeling. It’s the same in any relationship where you fear you love more than you are loved, which I think is what John is expressing to Klein (albeit in an angry, blaming fashion).
    John breaking things off with Paul is his way of regaining personal power. His inserting Yoko so adamantly and desperately into their professional relationship is just so much passive-aggressive posturing. It’s very obvious that the power dynamics shift drastically between John and Paul once Yoko enters the scenario. And it’s apparently perplexed everyone for decades, but it makes sense if you think of Paul being suddenly cut off from everything he holds dear: creative intimacy with John and personal intimacy with John, without explanation or much warning (although John referenced Brian Epstein’s death several times as a breaking off point for him; I think this is a real moment of Paul being emotionally unavailable that has legit repercussions for John)
    Would Paul agree that he was never emotionally present? I highly doubt it. But being emotionally present or emotionally involved is different form being emotionally available to another person. Perhaps he was sometimes available and sometimes not due to whatever reasons (personal insecurity/vulnerability, internal homophobia, normal human survival, etc)… But what it all comes down to is the same thing, over and over again: Too much love, miscommunication, hurt feelings. These guys get an A+ when it comes to expressing feelings in song, but C- when communicating them directly. 🙂

    • Avatar Nancy Carr wrote:

      “John referenced Brian Epstein’s death several times as a breaking off point for him; I think this is a real moment of Paul being emotionally unavailable that has legit repercussions for John.”
      .
      That makes sense, Chelsea. One thing that I think runs throughout Lennon’s life is the need for a partner/sidekick he can believe 1) is absolutely loyal to him and 2) will consistently put him first emotionally. He had that kind of bond with Pete Shotton, then with Stu Sutcliffe, and then with Paul. (Never with Cynthia, sadly.) During Brian Epstein’s management of the band, it looks like Paul and Brian filled that role together. When Brian died, it seems as if John turned to Paul with more intensity (sexual or not; I remain agnostic, leaning not). And Paul’s being “emotionally unavailable” may well have been “not up for that level of intensity.” Hence Yoko’s powerful appeal to John: she’s a strong personality, loyal to him, will put him first emotionally, and combines emotional intensity and sexual pleasure in a way that’s new to him. No wonder his mind was blown by her.
      .
      Paul in the late 60’s seems to have been hankering for a stable domestic arrangement that would include not only romantic love but also children. I’d say he was “broody.” Paul’s being on a different emotional/life course trajectory from John may well have felt to John like a betrayal.
      .
      Also completely agree with your A+, but I might downgrade the direct expression of emotion to a D-.

  12. Avatar Annabelle wrote:

    I agree with you Drew but I would make a distinction, when Paul was very young he was part of “John’s gang”. He was 15 and John was an older boy at 17 when they met. However, by 1965 or so Paul had begun to become independent and that only increased in the following years. He was very much his own man. I think that caused tension between them and it seemed to increase the intensity of their rivalry. However, Paul did still often compromise or give in to John wishes to appease him until Klein – an issue he couldn’t compromise on – at which point it was the end of the band.

  13. Avatar Ruth wrote:

    Here are some more gems from this same Playboy interview:

    Klein: “If Paul McCartney doesn’t get his way, he bitches. He may have a choirboy image in the press and with fans, but I’m here to tell you its bullshit. If anybody broke up the Beatles, it was him.”

    John: “Allen’s really beautiful. He handles everything and I can trust him.”

    Ringo, on being asked if there was a possibility the Beatles would ever play together again: “There’s no reason we shouldn’t all play together again if we want to … I love Paul, you know. I really do.”

    Ringo:: “We had too many people in nice suits with nice manners looking after us. Klein was a hustler … and I figured it was about time I had someone hustling for me.”

    Klein: “All I wanted was what was good for the group — all the boys, not just Paul.”

    Klein, on Paul: “I don’t know if we could ever have been good friends. I’m not sure that’s possible with McCartney.”

    Klein, on his first meeting with John: “I thought John was losing confidence in himself, and I really didn’t know who had written exactly what, so I couldn’t give John the encouragement he needed. If Paul was really the main factor in the making of records — I mean, if things were really going to fall apart without him — I needed to know that and be able to deal with it. It turned out, of course, that John had written most of the stuff. He’d forgotten a lot of what he’d contributed … John wrote … 60 or 70 percent of Eleanor Rigby. He just didn’t remember till I sat down and had him sort through it all … Everybody thought McCartney was the genius songwriter who did it all by himself and it wasn’t true.”

    On John, George, and Ringo’s feelings regarding Paul after the lawsuit: “They love (Paul) you know, they really do — no matter what. But Paul McCartney can and does do whatever he damn well pleases … he just thinks differently about the democratic philosophy of partnership than I do.”

    Klein’s crowning advice to Paul, regarding the Eastman’s, his music and business situation: “I’d tell him to think for himself.”

    Make of those what you will.

    • Avatar Karen Hooper wrote:

      ” I really didn’t know who had written exactly what, so I couldn’t give John the encouragement he needed. If Paul was really the main factor in the making of records — I mean, if things were really going to fall apart without him — I needed to know that and be able to deal with it. It turned out, of course, that John had written most of the stuff. He’d forgotten a lot of what he’d contributed … John wrote … 60 or 70 percent of Eleanor Rigby. He just didn’t remember till I sat down and had him sort through it all.”
      .
      Thank you, Allen Klein, for so clearly demonstrating your ignorance.

      • That leaped out at me as well, @Karen. There is no way that Allen Klein could’ve believed any of that; he was present for the making of Let It Be and of Abbey Road.

        But even if AK had been blissfully ignorant of how those two albums were made, and who was the driving force behind them –which Beatle always showed up to work– it’s impossible to paint Paul as both the controlling bossy studio dictator AND a no-talent tag-along.

        I think what’s happening here is two insecure people are convincing themselves of something that wasn’t so, so they can better convince us. For PR reasons John HAD to make Paul into the bossy substitute parent figure, once Yoko came on the scene. Similarly Klein HAD to believe that his friend, the guy who he had charmed, the only reason he had anything to do with the Beatles, was the main driving force behind the group.

        TL; DR– everything in this interview is kabuki. Get your lies straight, Allen.

        • Avatar Karen Hooper wrote:

          “But even if AK had been blissfully ignorant of how those two albums were made, and who was the driving force behind them –which Beatle always showed up to work– it’s impossible to paint Paul as both the controlling bossy studio dictator AND a no-talent tag-along.”
          .
          THIS.
          .

          ” Was Klein deliberately playing Lennon, recognizing his insecurity about Paul’s increased role in the band? “
          .
          and THIS.
          .
          Klein wanted to manage the biggest band in the world and had to figure out how to win them over. He didn’t have and couldn’t rely upon an unimpeachable reputation, so he resorted to manipulation and subterfuge. He accurately assessed the group dynamic of the time, and probably realized that by winning John over, he would get George and Ringo too. Paul was the fly in the ointment and a potential threat, so Klein set about to discredit him—in the public and with his fellow Beatles. I think Klein actively and purposefully fuelled the flames between John and Paul, something which both of them alluded to in later years.

      • Avatar Nancy Carr wrote:

        That quote makes me wonder what the dynamics of the Lennon and Klein relationship really were. Was Klein deliberately playing Lennon, recognizing his insecurity about Paul’s increased role in the band? Or were Klein and Lennon engaged in a kind of folie a duex, where each told the other what they wanted to hear? Sounds like they convinced each other that Paul wasn’t that important to the band, and that if he didn’t fall in line he could be replaced.
        .
        I think it says a LOT about Lennon’s insecurity at this time that he was so vulnerable to this type of thing. The critical acclaim for “Eleanor Rigby,” for example, must have really bothered him.

        • Avatar Ruth wrote:

          “Was Klein deliberately playing Lennon, recognizing his insecurity about Paul’s increased role in the band? Or were Klein and Lennon engaged in a kind of folie a duex, where each told the other what they wanted to hear?”

          I’d argue it was some toxic and yet un-quantifiable mix of both, Nancy. Klein had clearly done his research prior to his first meeting with John, because much of his pitch was to emphasize his belief in John’s pre-eminence and alpha-status. There are numerous references to John’s primal need to be the dominant figure in any hierarchy throughout The Beatles: The Authorized Biography, which was published months before John and Klein met. Klein picked up on those to woo John. Yet John and Klein (and Yoko) reinforcing what the others wanted to hear in their mutual admiration society must have been a powerful element to their thinking, especially once John got George and Ringo on his side, business wise.

  14. Avatar ChelseaQW wrote:

    Paul is famous (famous? you know what I mean. famous amongst obsessives like us) for being emotionally guarded. I read an interview he did recently for his album “New” and he was describing how unbearably difficult it was for him to say “ILY” to his wife. TO HIS OWN WIFE, people. So yes, he can be guarded/slow to open up, but ultimately he is perfectly capable of intimate human relationships.
    Additionally, “Hiding” is a recurring motif in both Paul’s work and John’s work when it (presumably) concerns Paul. So yeah, I can believe there is a kernel of truth to what John told Klein. At least from John’s POV. But this quote: “every time he let his guard down, McCartney hurt him” speaks specifically to rejection, IMO. Or at least perceived rejection! Again, no one knows the details (or Paul’s take, since he never responded to these charges), but what else would it mean? George Martin said Paul would “do just about anything for John.” Allistair Taylor described them as “closer than any two men I’ve ever known.” (not two straight men, two MEN) It’s a bit of a stretch to think that Paul would just blow John off (multiple times) when he was vulnerable. To me, it’s VERY believable that Paul would handle physical intimacy with a combination of denial, distance and awkward silence. Especially if it was intermittent, undefined and/or unplanned. When you don’t have boundaries or definitions in relationships, hurt feelings are almost ALWAYS the result. The less frank communication you have, the worse it’s going to get. That’s just human nature.

    I don’t want to hammer this physical aspect, because it really seems to trip people up for whatever reason. Again, I have no idea what it entailed, so I just used the phrase “sleeping together” as a blanket euphemism for whatever may have occurred (or not occurred). The reason I think it’s important, though is that… if you allow the idea that there was non-heteronormative contact of some kind… it opens up more possibilities in terms of understanding the complicated dynamic and motivations involved. In my opinion, the standard narrative about John and Paul just FAILS. It’s been 45 years and this break-up is still a confusing mess with mysterious undercurrents. So, maybe we need to examine the undercurrents, right? I really don’t think it’s so far fetched. (And If you think it’s far fetched, we know that they slept in the same bed and did that eye-thing, so that’s pretty much tantamount to sex, IMO)

    • Avatar Annabelle wrote:

      He found it difficult to say ILY to Nancy because of what happened with Heather. He had no difficulty saying it to Linda or to Jane. He did get over it with Nancy but after that bad marriage and bitter public divorce from Heather Paul was in once bitten twice shy mode for a while. He was conscious of having trouble because he never had before but Heather well she left a scar. That’s all.

    • Avatar Nancy Carr wrote:

      “Hard to say ‘I love you’ to his own wife” made me think of “Maybe I’m afraid of the way I love you.” Definitely sounds like Paul.

      • Avatar Chantal wrote:

        I’m scared to say I love you
        Afraid to let you see
        That the simplest of words
        Won’t come out of my mouth
        Though I’m trying to set them free
        Trying to let you see
        How much you mean to me

        I have to say I’m sorry
        Don’t feel sad for me
        But the beautiful birds
        Won’t fly out of their cage
        Though I’m trying to set them free
        Trying to let you see
        How much it means to me

        I remember the first time we met
        Tears in our eyes, reflecting
        Something connecting
        From so long ago
        It might have been told in the stars
        Maybe that’s what it was
        It doesn’t matter because

        I’m still too scared to tell you
        Afraid to let you see
        That the simplest of words
        Won’t come out of my mouth
        Though I’m trying to set them free
        Trying to let you see
        How much it means to me
        How much you mean to me
        How much you mean to me
        Now

        It’s the hidden track on NEW, and to me, it’s always been a very poignant message to Nancy.

  15. Avatar Ruth wrote:

    “The reason I think it’s important, though is that… if you allow the idea that there was non-heteronormative contact of some kind… it opens up more possibilities in terms of understanding the complicated dynamic and motivations involved. In my opinion, the standard narrative about John and Paul just FAILS.”

    I agree its foolish to summarily dismiss the idea because it makes some fans uncomfortable, and I agree that the standard narrative regarding John, Paul, and the breakup does not hold water; there are some pretty obvious gaps.

    If we apply the evidence we know regarding the issue of “sleeping together” to certain aspects of the breakup, it does allow a way to evaluate old evidence in new ways. Let’s apply the evidence we *do* have regarding the issue and assume that its accurate — that Yoko’s statement that John indicated to her he was interested in pursuing a sexual experience with Paul, but nothing happened due to Paul’s refusal to experiment, is 100% true. That indicates that A. Either John approached Paul on the issue and Paul explicitly rejected John’s proposition or B. John wanted to proposition Paul but didn’t because he was convinced he’d be summarily rejected. Either one is a rejection, explicit or implicit, of John, by Paul. If we extrapolate that out, and view old evidence through this lens, it changes the view a lot. Take, for example, John’s response to “Ram.” *IF* we assume that John felt explicitly or implicitly sexually rejected by Paul, as in the above scenario, How on earth do you think John would have reacted upon seeing the picture of two beetles screwing on the cover of “Ram?” John was immersed in the depths of paranoia at that point, scrawling “I’m perfect” on pictures of Paul at the Apple Offices — might John have seen the Ram cover as a sexual taunt by Paul? That would go a long way towards explaining the disproportionate viciousness of “How Do You Sleep.”

    • Avatar annabelle wrote:

      It is my fondest wish that the real story, the verifiable fact based story, will at least be told one day. Canon is about 30% fabricated and even the best Beatles books are full of inaccuracies. When the true story, the boring verifiable stuff is actually told and hopefully Lewisohn will be able to do this, then we will be in a much better position to start theorising and extrapolating our own explanations.

      I don’t think jealousy, competition, insecurity, inferiority complexes, sibling rivalry, mental health issues and a million other ordinary human emotions and conditions can be ruled out as an explanation for the story either of course.

      Obviously no one knows. However not everyone who questions the idea of a sexual element as explanation does so because they are ‘uncomfortable’ that’s reverse bias, really. The assumption that those who see it differently are just coming from a position of homophobia is very reductionist, it is possible to be familiar with the story and to reach a different conclusion and to do so for reasons that have nothing to do with being uncomfortable with the idea.

      I mean I look at quotes like this one from Pete Townshend and I have many questions

      “I really came to know Paul so much better & to love him & to accept him in a way that I don’t think I would have done had he had a more traditional kind of showbiz marriage. (…) Linda was very, very pro-active in their social life. When they were driving through this town, she was the one who used to get him to come & visit, even made a couple of surprise visits. She was the one who would call me & then put him on the phone, & we would talk. Then he would be open & entirely accessible, but it was Linda who was always reminding him that he really had friends, that he was likeable as a person, that he could reach & be reached . . . she was constantly there with the idea that there is love between people when the tape stops running & the curtain is down.”

      I have far more questions than answers about the type of relationship they had.

      • My goal is to come up with a version of the John and Paul relationship that explains most efficiently how the two acted towards each other, and I do not care at all — not one little bit — whether that explanation includes sexual contact or not. (I have more to say on this but my mother is visiting my wife and I. I’ll skip through the thread dropping opinions like posies tomorrow. Meanwhile, thanks for a great discussion everyone!)

        • Avatar Karen Hooper wrote:

          “My goal is to come up with a version of the John and Paul relationship that explains most efficiently how the two acted towards each other, and I do not care at all — not one little bit — whether that explanation includes sexual contact or not.”
          .
          I am SO waiting on that, Michael!

  16. Avatar Ruth wrote:

    “However not everyone who questions the idea of a sexual element as explanation does so because they are ‘uncomfortable’ that’s reverse bias, really. The assumption that those who see it differently are just coming from a position of homophobia is very reductionist, it is possible to be familiar with the story and to reach a different conclusion and to do so for reasons that have nothing to do with being uncomfortable with the idea.”

    Which is why I specified “some” in my comment “its foolish to summarily dismiss the idea because it makes some fans uncomfortable.”

    • Avatar Karen Hooper wrote:

      It’s so funny how the whole sex thing gets some fans riled up—even ones who otherwise don’t seem homophobic. I don’t see how anyone can miss it, though (whether there was Proof Of Sex Happening or not.)

      .
      If you watch the early tapes of their interactions, John and Paul couldn’t keep their his eyes off each other. When Paul spoke, John’s face lit up and he studied Paul’s face (and mouth) like a Renoir painting. Paul looked at John like he was some kind of god. They were clearly smitten with each other.

      • Avatar Karen Hooper wrote:

        (I’ve got to stop typing without my font enlarged. That should read “couldn’t keep their eyes off each other, minus the “his”.)
        .
        Wanted to add–funny how any discussion of J and P evolves into the SEX discussion. 🙂

      • Avatar Drew wrote:

        “If you watch the early tapes of their interactions, John and Paul couldn’t keep their his eyes off each other. When Paul spoke, John’s face lit up and he studied Paul’s face (and mouth) like a Renoir painting. Paul looked at John like he was some kind of god. They were clearly smitten with each other.”

        Or … they were just best friends and not “smitten” at all. Just two people who liked and depended on each other, and looked to each other as a form of support in a period of high stress and craziness. We can’t reach any factual conclusions about the nature of someone’s relationship from tapes taken at a press conference or a concert — unless they are sex tapes. 😉

        I think the risk in reaching any such conclusions is that we’re seeing what we want to see in them. People want to see romantic/sexual intimacy, so they do. Doesn’t mean it’s there. Doesn’t mean it isn’t, either. Those photos/tapes aren’t evidence of anything but that moment in time. There’s a long history of people reaching misleading conclusions based on a tape or a photograph. It just reminds me of all the PID folks who see what they want to see in side-by-side comparison photos of Paul’s ears or the famous tape of Kennedy’s shooting.

        For example: You might see a tape or a photo of Paul and John staring at each other’s mouths/lips as they sing and think, “Aha!” But in reality, many many singers who are trying to sing in harmony watch each other’s mouthes as they sing to get the harmony right, to be on the same note. It’s what singers routinely do. Sure, the singers could be sleeping with each other. Or not. Their staring at each other’s mouths as they sing is not evidence of anything either way — except that they are trying to sing in harmony.

        “Couldn’t keep their eyes off each other?” There are loads of taped interviews where John and Paul have no trouble keeping their eyes off each other. And other tapes/photos where they’re clearly amused by each other. I’ve seen photos of myself staring fondly at some of my best friends but I didn’t want to sleep with them — then or now. Why shouldn’t the Beatles stare fondly at each other at a press conference? They WERE fond of each — at that time. I’ve seen pictures of Paul staring fondly at George and Ringo, too, and of them staring fondly at him or John. Maybe they were all sleeping together. 🙂 Or not. Again, you can’t reach any such conclusions — either way — from tapes/photos taken at press conferences and concerts.

        I have no dog in this race either way. I think John and Paul having a sexual/romantic relationship would be one way of explaining the bitterness of their breakup. But there are plenty of other ways to explain that bitterness as well. I know of many professional partners who broke up very bitterly and sex had nothing to do with it. The difference with John and Paul is that — unlike most professional breakups — theirs took part in the press and the public eye. And THAT alone changes the dynamic entirely, and invites people to reach thinly based conclusions.

        At any rate if you want the homoerotic aspects of John and Paul’s relationship to be taken seriously, they have to be evidence based — not based on people seeing what they want to see (or not) in 50-year-old tapes and photos.

        • Well said and argued, @Drew, but here’s the fly in the ointment:

          “I think the risk in reaching any such conclusions is that we’re seeing what we want to see in them.”

          The act of concluding is inherently interpretive. Funny you should bring up the Kennedy assassination(s) — the Dictabelt recording that purported to reveal a shot from the grassy knoll was at first judged persuasive enough to reverse the HSCA’s entire conclusion. The Committee was ready to release its report, then the Dictabelt recording was analyzed, and oh shit. And then much money and time has been spent attacking that piece of evidence, as if it were the single scrap pointing towards a conspiracy. But it isn’t.

          If you talk to someone who defends the Warren Commission’s report, it’s very tiresome — you give them fact after fact, and they spin theory after theory.
          “The sequence and number of shots aren’t a problem because…”
          “The ‘head snap’ isn’t a problem because…”
          “The ‘magic bullet’ isn’t a problem because…”
          “The Parkland doctors aren’t a problem because…”
          “The cracked windshield isn’t a problem because…”
          “Oswald’s history of involvement in intelligence isn’t a problem because…”
          “The Secret Service’s deviation from S.O.P. isn’t a problem because…”
          “The people with false credentials in Dealey Plaza isn’t a problem because…”

          At some point you have to stop and say, “Jesus Christ. If this were simple it would be simple. But it’s fishy, from every angle you approach it. You must explain that.

          No piece of evidence that’s going to convince someone like that. It’s an act of faith, and they realize this, so they turn it around and say, “You’re paranoid! Tin-foil hat! Bigfoot! UFOs!” It’s particularly disheartening to see so-called “skeptics” lumping in a perfectly plausible theory of a crime with belief in the Windsors’ reptilian overlords.

          Who did what to JFK? I don’t know. But decades of marinating in that information has given me a pretty good idea of the relationship of facts to reality, proof and belief. To me, it is perfectly plausible that John Lennon and Paul McCartney were getting it on for years, without any hard evidence of that relationship being created or surviving. Is it likely? Not in my view — but possible. The only thing we can do is gather what we know, and arrange it in a way that fits with our worldview. But we’re describing our worldview, not reality.

          If you’re restricting reality to what leaves traces, you’ll miss most of what people do, especially in the sexual realm. Humans are furtive about their sexual behavior; they hide, obscure, destroy evidence of it. Today, we catch much more of it, for better and worse. That we know about Brett Favre’s dick pics is a function of technology, not of modern debauchery; what Bart Starr did on the road wasn’t preserved. And if Brett Favre could’ve destroyed those pics before they became public — if a Brian Epstein could’ve paid someone off — he would’ve. Humans hide their sexual activities, just like they hide crimes. “Getting away with it” doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

          We don’t know what John and Paul’s relationship was like; we can’t know, so we each make our guess as best we are able. But to me, discussing the possibility of sexual contact is in bounds, because it efficiently explains much that is difficult to explain. It’s an interesting hypothesis, no more no less. But “people seeing what they want to see (or not) in 50-year-old tapes and photos” is the only way to address the issue. Paul McCartney is not going to make a deathbed confession of carnal love with John Lennon. And even if he did, there would be millions of fans all too willing to say, “It was the medication! He had Alzheimer’s! He was joking! Someone blackmailed him!” and so forth.

          People believe what they want to believe, and any search for truth is a personal, private thing.

          • Avatar ChelseaQW wrote:

            Well put, Michael.
            Here’s the other thing about this, and I’ll try my best to make this coherent… The entire “Lennon was the Beatles; Lennon was a genius; McCartney was a no-talent, coat-tail-riding hack” narrative is predicated on the idea (lie) that Lennon never even liked McCartney to begin with. All of Lennon’s insane break-up behavior was spun (by John and Yoko) as Paul’s fault, and Lennon-as-True-Genius was constructed out of the myth that Lennon/McCartney was never a true or “real” partnership. Obviously, this isn’t only unfair, it’s UNTRUE. So why would John Lennon spend so much time and energy trying to destroy Paul’s career/reputation/emotional existence? Does anyone really believe it’s because Paul was bossy? Doesn’t it make more sense that John acted the way he did (lying and viciously attacking Paul’s reputation in public) because he was hurt, jealous and very possibly rejected by Paul? Fuck John’s feelings for a moment… Doesn’t history owe PAUL an unbiased look at John’s motivations? As another posted stated upthread, John did real damage to Paul. And everyone in the media/public lapped it up because they assumed John must’ve had pure motivations. Well, in hindsight we can see that he apparently didn’t! So yes, the nature of the Lennon/McCartney is important because understanding it goes a long way to setting the record straight on so much else.

          • So why would John Lennon spend so much time and energy trying to destroy Paul’s career/reputation/emotional existence? Does anyone really believe it’s because Paul was bossy?

            This is the entire debate, in a nutshell, and it really leads to every major fissure in Beatlefandom. All but the most thoughtful Beatle fans pick sides between John and Paul because, after May 1968, John insisted that they do so. He really is like Mao, the revolutionary who, after he wins, uses the kids to attack his fellow revolutionaries because — revolution’s the only thing he knows how to do. Maybe John attacked Paul simply because the world had capitulated?

            Remember how we got to this discussion: if Paul wasn’t a no-talent hack; if he wasn’t forcing John to do anything John didn’t want to do; if he wasn’t unfairly sticking it to the other three but in fact sincerely trying to protect himself from Klein; if the Ballad of John and Yoko isn’t really accurate and John’s slavish statements re: Yoko hid a much more conflicted reality; why did John suddenly and viciously turn on Paul?

            Sometimes we investigate the theory it’s because John had emotional damage and mental illness, exacerbated by drug use.
            Sometimes we investigate the theory Yoko made him do it, because she was controlling and he was susceptible.
            Sometimes we investigate the theory that John was jilted by Paul, sexually.

            None of these theories are really provable; and none of them really 100% fit. But the question hangs there. For me it divides the whole story into two — a part I love, and a part I really don’t love. For me, The Beatles after May ’68 are dreadful to be around, nasty self-indulgent hippies frittering away “their lucky break” and ours, too. What beautiful music they made was increasingly in spite of themselves. And it’s all because of John’s utter war on Paul, which is in full swing by the release of White in November ’68, and really doesn’t end until 1973. What is up with that? Something’s up. To not try to answer the question — or to take John’s word for it all, which is the same thing — is, to me, a marker of somebody who doesn’t really give too much of a shit about the Beatles. Fair enough, but I do, and so I keep tussling at it.

          • Avatar Chantal wrote:

            Just latching on to this part of the debate for a bit.
            .
            As I explained elsewhere, I am not a Beatles old timer. I have only truly gotten involved in everything Beatles-related within the last two years or so. And when I started identifying as a fan, I only had a fairly rudimentary (and flawed) idea of their history. I knew they were from Liverpool, but I didn’t know about the Hamburg days, or how insanely young they were through all of it. I knew they’d broken up acrimoniously, but I also thought the Beatles as a band were making hit records for 15 years or so, and was shocked to learn all of that music was made in just 7 years, and that the Beatles from beginning to end only lasted 10 years. I thought Yoko broke up the band, and I could identify John and Paul’s voices on many of the records, but I felt they all rather looked and sounded the same. I couldn’t identify George’s voice if I tried! How things have changed for me…
            .
            I was also utterly unaware of the McLennon fandom, so I had no reason to see things that weren’t there. But I did see things. As I watched interviews and photos, I did notice the loving glances, the physical proximity, and even the suggestive lyrics. Why would I pick up on something like that without anyone pointing it out to me?
            .
            One might argue: ‘You’re Dutch, so being exposed to and open minded towards those things is in your cultural upbringing.’ Well yes, that’s true, but I don’t generally go around gauging people’s sexuality. One of my best friends is gay, and it took me months to realise that about him because it wasn’t an issue. I just accept people for who they are, rather than what they are. It doesn’t matter to me either way if John and Paul were more than friends. As others have said: I don’t have a dog in that race.
            .
            If hard evidence (ooooh, how I love a good pun in the morning) is the only way to determine the existence of a relationship, then I must still be a virgin too. Because I never publicly announced my sexual activity to anyone. In fact, my mother may even think I’m still a virgin. Sorry mum, I’m not… So anyway, why should a declaration, or physical evidence be the only factor in this debate? Don’t humans rely mostly on their observational skills, deductive reason, and logic to answer many questions?
            .
            Like I said, I don’t really care either way. Do I truly believe J&P got their freak on together? Nah, probably not. Do I think they could have? Sure, why not? I’m not going to insist they definitely did, nor am I going to categorically deny the possibility. The tension was there, at least I can see it. And it would seem many people caught a whiff of that. People close to the Bestles have implied things. John and Paul have made dubious comments. Yeah, they were friends first and foremost. But what they had went much deeper. Did anything ever come of it? We’ll never know..
            .
            But, to bring this back to the Klein debate, the presence of a certain tension does explain much of the viciousness. It also explains why John latched onto Klein the way he did. No, it doesn’t explain everything. There was so much that went wrong at the same time. But to me, categorically dismissing even the slightest possibility of homosexual feelings equates taking away some of John and Paul’s humanity. After all, isn’t love, in all its many forms, what makes us humans do the things we do? John and Paul loved each other, be it purely platonically, or not. Love explains why they fell out the way they did, and I don’t care one iota if their love included sex or desire. I’m perfectly fine with it if it didn’t, either. I do care that Allen Klein helped destroy the intense bond between the Beatles.

          • @Chantal, your mother just called me and she’s pissed. 🙂

            To build on what you just said, I’m going to quote an email I wrote last week on this issue:

            “[T]here’s a type of person who wouldn’t believe it unless there was a signed notarized statement attesting to certain feelings, from John and Paul, co-signed by George Martin (or some other sensible person) and naturally, that fount of all accuracy, Mark Lewisohn.

            When of course the obvious response to that is, “think about your own life and love affairs. Do you have any such documents? Even with the relationships that lasted and became primary in your life? Even ones that society and God and your grandmother thought were hunky dory? And now think about how devastating any such public admission of attraction (reciprocated or not) would’ve been and amazingly still might be to the legacy of the Beatles, to John and Paul’s perception by the public. And how, with those stakes, they actually were shockingly open about how emotionally close they were. With all due respect, it’s somewhat intellectually immature, or perhaps just unthoughtful, to hold the shadow world of attractions and reciprocation to the same type of documentation as the buying of a house. And yet: think about how powerful those motivations are in your own life; how the major decisions (and lots of minor ones) come from that shadow world of the heart, not the public, documented one.”

            What we see and know about others is supported by a vast iceberg of private thoughts, unseen actions, unrecorded life. That’s just how people work, and to assume/insist that John and Paul work differently just because they are public figures–when in fact it’s logical to assume that as public figures they’d have a bigger shadow world, not a smaller one –that is so silly I can only think it comes from not wanting to see. Wanting to keep things simple, when we know they are not. Never were, cannot be.”

            Yes, I have just block-quoted myself. 🙂

        • Avatar Karen Hooper wrote:

          But it’s all about interpretation, @ Drew. The reason we’re even having this discussion 50 years later, with old and new fans, is because there IS something to see. What precisely that ‘something’ is, we will never know.

  17. Avatar ChelseaQW wrote:

    Yup. Any of those 3 theories work, but none of them explain everything. Sometimes I think all 3 are true and interdependent. Sometimes when I think about this too hard, my brain hurts too much and I really hate everyone involved….
    The other mystery besides John is, of course, Paul. How does Paul love John as much as he does? It’s really mind-boggling. I mean I find it genuinely confusing. How is it possible that he suffered all that abuse from John and is still completely loyal to him? Yes, I know he looked up to John (and wanted his approval) when he was younger…and probably part of him still did for a long time afterwards. But surely John would’ve fallen off his pedestal at some point. And even Paul being blindly in love doesn’t explain things, because eventually that type of thing fades as well.
    I honestly think Paul loves John like a parent loves a child: endlessly forgiving, protective and totally unconditional. And not just in the 70s fallout; I feel like even Beatle Paul had sort of a paternal affection for John… he always seemed so mindful of John’s upbringing and other various stressors in his life. And now he’s had a lifetime of opportunity to trash him, but he never does. He just consistently defends him.
    That’s so extraordinary to me. And it suggests that unless Paul is a masochist or the world’s biggest chump, he must’ve gotten a lot out of that relationship when it was still good.
    …So interesting, these two!

    • Avatar Michael wrote:

      Oh man, I don’t have time to type everything I want to add to this thread at the moment, but I just want to add another factor in response to “why is Paul still loyal?”. As we explored a few months ago, Paul may very well have come from an alcoholic family structure—whether Jim was an alcoholic or whether he had the behaviors without the addiction is almost beside the point. If Paul did grow up in that kind of family, sticking with and, more importantly, defending someone who was unpredictable, sometimes abusive, often belligerent, emotionally hot and cold, against the outside world would not even be something he thought about and interrogated on a conscious level. It would simply feel right. It’s what you do. The Beatles were surely a surrogate family for John and Paul in particular, and so when the dynamics Paul had observed and internalized as a boy reappeared in his relationship with John, he did what he knew how to do. It was surely all the easier because he and John loved each other in some way, sexual or romantic or platonic, and were each the most exciting and rewarding person the other had ever met, in the long run.

      As for “what drives John to change in May ’68?”, my vote is for emotional damage + extremely conflicted romantic/acted upon or repressed sexual feelings -> drugs -> Yoko -> more drugs -> more repression -> more damage -> repeat ad infinitum.

      • If Paul did grow up in that kind of family, sticking with and, more importantly, defending someone who was unpredictable, sometimes abusive, often belligerent, emotionally hot and cold, against the outside world would not even be something he thought about and interrogated on a conscious level. It would simply feel right.

        In my experience, people from alcoholic families tend to pair up with people also from alcoholic families, and replicate the patterns that they grew up with, because it “simply feels right.” Romantic or platonic, it is an intoxicatingly powerful feeling of kinship — of understanding — that you have from the moment you meet someone. It is rocket-fuel for a friendship at the beginning, and helps make it strong for as long as it lasts. The trick is using the good aspects of the kinship, while breaking the negative parts of the pattern.

    • Or, Paul McCartney is one type of product of an alcoholic family, and John is another, and they fit together. Reenacting family patterns is a way that friendships become very, very deep; add in shared experience, admiration, and simple commercial necessity (we make a lot of money writing together, probably more than we could apart), and you have a really intense bond.

    • Avatar Ruth wrote:

      I don’t doubt Paul’s affection and admiration for John. But I think if we were privy to Paul’s “private” conversations with those he trusts, rather than interviews with reporters, we’d discover that Paul’s reaction to John’s behavior — particularly during and immediately following the breakup-period — is a lot more nuanced, and negative, and angry, and defensive, than what Paul has revealed publicly. Linda — or possibly Paul’s brother, Mike — is probably the only person who Paul *really* expressed his true feelings to.

      The best, most credible source we have regarding Paul’s thoughts, post-breakup, on his relationship with John is his 1981 phone conversation with Hunter Davies, because Paul intended it as a *private* conversation. That Paul is still emotionally raw, defensive, angry, *still* baffled at the others support of Klein, unsure about the final state of his and John’s friendship and willing to cast blame back at John: “No one ever talks about the times John hurt *me”; describing John as a “maneuvering swine,” etc. Again, I want to stress that I don’t doubt Paul’s love and admiration for John, but Paul could not be fully honest in public after the breakup; he was trapped in an impossible position, both before and after John’s death. Paul lost the breakup–era narrative, and has said he chose to keep quiet of cowardice, not wanting to challenge the acerbic John to a verbal battle that Paul knew he’d lose. (Paul also adopted the same publicly silent strategy in his divorce from Heather Mills). If Paul had gone around in 1971 criticizing John, talking about John’s bad behavior, discussing how much John’s behavior had hurt him and talking about some of John’s less than stellar behavior, John would have retaliated by upping the rhetoric 1000%. We have examples of this: their respective letters to Melody in Fall 1971, and “Too Many People” and “How Do You Sleep.”

      After John’s death, Paul still can’t be too openly critical of John; the press and public reaction would quickly turn against him, criticize him for complaining about the behavior of a murdered man, accuse him of jealousy, etc. Which is a very long-winded way of saying that I would bet that Paul has been far more critical of John and John’s treatment of him in private than he ever was/could be in public. Finally, as time has gone on, I believe Paul has come to realize the severity of some of the psychological issues John was (probably) struggling with. Oddly, that realization may have helped Paul in both explaining John’s behavior and prompting Paul’s seemingly ingrained protective instincts regarding John.

  18. Avatar Ruth wrote:

    “And it’s all because of John’s utter war on Paul, which is in full swing by the release of White in November ’68, and really doesn’t end until 1973. What is up with that? Something’s up. To not try to answer the question — or to take John’s word for it all, which is the same thing — is, to me, a marker of somebody who doesn’t really give too much of a shit about the Beatles.”
    —-
    Michael, you make a crucial point that I think bears reinforcement: People — both fans and Beatles authorities who don’t ask “why” John suddenly turned on Paul, or who “take John’s words for it” *Don’t* “really give too much of a shit about the Beatles.”
    —-
    That’s because, oddly, some of the most influential writers really *don’t* care/give a shit about the Beatles; they only care about John. Not caring about the Beatles — not only rejecting/overlooking Paul, but also George and Ringo, and the crucial figure of George Martin — is one of the fundamental tenets of the key Beatles writers who promote the blatantly partisan pro-Lennon narrative. Doggett said it, point blank, about Norman: “He doesn’t seem to cherish the Beatles very much, does he?” In 1967 ,Christgau is defending Sgt. Peppers against other critics; in 1981, he’s describing it as “Paul McCartney’s folly … cute, contrived, dinky.” After they left the band, Christgau found little to like in either George’s work, or Paul’s, but praised the mediocre “Double Fantasy” to the skies. Norman’s infamous assessment that John was three-quarters of the Beatles is obviously a swipe at Paul, but its also insulting to George and Ringo. Coleman is a classic example of the previous narrative, blindly accepting John’s breakup-era statements and not asking why, and certainly not delving into any of the psychological, drug, relationship issues (let alone hinting at any form of sexual tension between John at Paul) which may have instigated the split. Coleman’s justification for the way John behaved during the breakup is a blanket, and ridiculous, generalization contradicted by mounds of evidence: “At the root of it” (the bitterness they displayed towards each other during the breakup) “lay the fundamental truth which millions of Beatles fans still find unpalatable: John and Paul never had much in common.” Some writers seem to believe that Beatles history has to be a zero sum game, and that recognizing John’s genius requires demeaning Paul’s, and ignoring George and Ringo’s contributions. Some seem to regard everything John said as gospel and excuse/ignore even his most despicable behavior. When you approach Beatles history with that mindset, either as an author or a fan, you really don’t give a shit about the Beatles. You care only about reinforcing your own preconceptions.

    Back to the topic everyone is actually discussing: I’d argue that Paul’s public elevation to the band’s de-facto leader, as well as the dominant figure in the recording studio, the most productive songwriter, the almost bachelor, the most-natural-musical talent, along with the other issues writers have mentioned, fueled John’s massive insecurity, his primal need for alpha male status, and some of his disproportionate behavior during the breakup. John’s need to be kingpin was an ingrained part of his personality, demonstrated repeatedly throughout his life, and Shotton describes it in the 1968 Authorized Biography, how John acted when he felt his preeminence threatened, even as a schoolboy: “He had to be the leader at all times, either by fighting everyone or, if they were big, by undermining them by abuse or sarcasm.”

    • Avatar ChelseaQW wrote:

      Has anyone been to the “Beatles Story,” that little Beatles museum at the Mersey Dock? I stumbled upon it in Liverpool; didn’t even know it existed before I arrived. Anyway, you basically take the Beatles journey chronologically through several rooms, like a funhouse, tunnel of love [insert your preferred metaphor]. And the last room is the break-up. This museum delves into NONE of the infamous break-up details or issues; it’s basically an empty room with one picture* and this is the only explanation they offer (paraphrasing): “There were always power struggles within the group.”
      I think that’s the most honest, succinct way anyone could summarize things.

      *At least this is how I remember it. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.

      • Avatar Ruth wrote:

        That’s fascinating, Chelsea. Not just the quote they used to sum it up, but that they choose to delve into *none* of the breakup. How museums depict historical events and people is a crucial part of a subject’s historiography — there are some excellent articles on the 2000 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame exhibition on John, and how it presents a skewed and inaccurate image of John and the Beatles — but avoiding the topic entirely is a stark abdication of responsibility, as I see it.

    • Avatar Nancy Carr wrote:

      Ruth, I haven’t read Coleman’s biography of Lennon — is that where the line “John and Paul never had much in common” comes from? Now THAT’S revisionism. As you say, this assertion is “contradicted by mounds of evidence.” And, people ending a partnership/friendship where they never had much in common don’t act the way Paul, and especially John, did. The intensity of emotion they displayed belies that view at every turn.

      • Avatar Ruth wrote:

        Yes, that quote is a direct lift from Ray Coleman’s 1985 biography of John. (Which I don’t recommend; in some ways, Coleman’s work is even *more* biased, speculative, and methodologically inferior to Shout!). Coleman uses it — “John and Paul never had much in common” — to explain the anger both sides, but particularly John, exhibited towards the other during the breakup, and reinforces his claim by arguing that John was a genius, whereas Paul was too commercial and only a brilliant talent. Interestingly enough, neither the “John and Paul never had much in common” nor the “John was a genius; Paul was only a brilliant talent” quotes are present in the last editions of Coleman’s John bio. I believe Coleman was attempting to backtrack, without specifically disavow.

    • Avatar Karen Hooper wrote:

      “Back to the topic everyone is actually discussing: I’d argue that Paul’s public elevation to the band’s de-facto leader, as well as the dominant figure in the recording studio, the most productive songwriter, the almost bachelor, the most-natural-musical talent, along with the other issues writers have mentioned, fueled John’s massive insecurity, his primal need for alpha male status, and some of his disproportionate behavior during the breakup. John’s need to be kingpin was an ingrained part of his personality, demonstrated repeatedly throughout his life, and Shotton describes it in the 1968 Authorized Biography, how John acted when he felt his preeminence threatened, even as a schoolboy: “He had to be the leader at all times, either by fighting everyone or, if they were big, by undermining them by abuse or sarcasm.”
      .
      This. And to piggyback two other anecdotes: there’s the interview about the breakup when John says “I started the group and I ended it” and then there’s a press interview of The Beatles while in (I believe) Australia. At one point the interviewer asks who the leader is, and while stating ‘no-one’ John simultaneously stands up. It’s all tongue-in-cheek, but he’s made the point clear–he’s the leader. The look of Paul’s face was interesting. If I were to put it into words, it would be “there he goes again, poor guy.”

  19. Avatar Karen Hooper wrote:

    “I was also utterly unaware of the McLennon fandom, so I had no reason to see things that weren’t there. But I did see things. As I watched interviews and photos, I did notice the loving glances, the physical proximity, and even the suggestive lyrics. Why would I pick up on something like that without anyone pointing it out to me?”
    .
    Exactly, Chantal (and you cracked me up with that comment about your mother!)
    .

  20. Avatar Berganza wrote:

    “I honestly think Paul loves John like a parent loves a child: endlessly forgiving, protective and totally unconditional.”

    Yes, Chelsea, he absolutely does and he has said so himself 🙂 :

    “I always find myself wanting to excuse John’s behaviour, just because I loved him. It’s like a child, sure he’s a naughty child, but don’t you call my child naughty. Even if it’s me he’s shitting on, don’t you call him naughty. That’s how I felt about this and still do.”
    (Paul McCartney in Barry Miles’ Many Years From Now)

    I love this blog and the thoughtful input it gives me, especially concerning John’s and Paul’s relationship. It fascinates me without end as so many here. Sorry für being chronically late in the discussion.

%d bloggers like this: