• Smile vs. Sgt. Pepper Comment by Michael Gerber on Apr 22, 20:03 @DD, that’s an interesting take. I think SMiLE was made much, much colder-feeling by Van Dyke Parks’ lyrics. The music, to me, is gorgeous, but the lyrics are self-consciously artsy in a very 1967 way, especially when you compare them to Tony Asher’s quite approachable and personal lyrics for Pet Sounds.
  • Go Fug Yourself: John and Yoko at Cannes with matching couple shirts Comment by Michael Gerber on Apr 22, 20:01 Fixed! Thank you, Victoria.
  • Happy 50th Birthday to McCartney’s “Ram” Comment by Lauren on Apr 21, 02:47 I just discovered that on the original Ram album cover, the colourful zig zag border was designed by McCartney himself. Embedded among the zig zags is the acronym L.I.L.Y. Yes, a secret message. It turns out that L.I.L.Y. stands for Linda I Love You. Pretty gosh-darn romantic. To Ram fans out there, is (was) this common knowledge? In 1971, did fans notice the L.I.L.Y. and were they trying to figure it out? https://www.udiscovermusic.com/stories/paul-mccartney-album-covers-explained/?amp
  • Happy birthday, Paul! (with a few notes on style) Comment by Lauren on Apr 21, 02:07 RE: https://liverpoolbeatlescene.com/70birthday.html Fun site. Thanks for the link. There’s even one picture in which he’s wearing nothing but a baby. I guess that’s the “at home” look LOL. “he had the most wonderful legs and always had the tightest trousers” I can really see what you mean after going to the above site and scrolling down the 2nd column from the left to the pic of him in his swim trunks (looks to be about 1969/70). My word! I didn’t know a guy could have such graceful legs… but now I know it’s possible.
  • Something Happened Comment by Ruth on Apr 19, 21:22 I grew up in the 60’s and 70’s; I’m turning 65 soon and because of that, and having lost my mother last year, I have been very nostalgic. I really can’t tell you what it meant, growing up during that time, only what it meant to me. There’s a lot I don’t remember, but I do recall growing up with black and white images of war – all the time – on the TV. Later, I learned that it was in Vietnam, and it was not popular, but in my suburban world no one went to war that I knew of, and no one protested. But what I absorbed as a kid was that there were remarkable things going on all the time. I knew about women’s lib, bra burnings, we knew that Anita Bryant was wrong about homosexuals, and that people of all colors were equal, though I only saw white people (except when going into the city to see my grandparents). There was just this sense in the air that exciting things were happening while we lived our ordinary lives. I wanted to be a hippy. By the time I was old enough to know what a hippy was, it was too late, but in high school we wore bright colors, stripes, crocheted tops, bell bottoms, said things like “far out” …later, we learned about marijuana, though I didn’t try it until I was 18. Underlying everything was the music, the soundtrack! I was talking to my sister recently, and wondering how did we get our awareness about everything, because our parents didn’t talk about current events much. She said ‘I think it was the music’. Yeah yeah yeah! While I was only 4 when The Beatles were on Ed Sullivan and don’t know if I saw them, their music was everywhere, for years. I remember my neighbor blasting “Don’t Let Me Down” over and over – I’m sure it drove the adults crazy but I liked it. We had TV but what was most prevalent in our lives was the radio; it was always on, at home, on transistors, in cars, and we just soaked up all those sounds – The Beatles, Dylan, all the protest music. Then there were the Monkees and later the Partridge Family and yes, the Brady Bunch. Well, I was the middle girl of three, like Jan. For some unknown reason I don’t remember having a lot of records, but when I was in high school I asked for The Beatles red and blue albums for Christmas. Then came Pink Floyd…. So I wish I knew how to sum up, or how to put into words what it was like growing up during that time. But it influenced me in so may ways and still does. I took LSD numerous times after I graduated high school, as well as many other drugs and alcohol. I felt I had just missed out on the excitement, but the substances were easy to get. I’ve now been clean and sober 33 years, around the same amount of time as Ringo. In later times in my life, I became an activist, helped with community organizing, marched in many marches, worked at non profits (including with kids who were in gangs) became a social worker, and am now a therapist. I wanted to change the world in a big way but now content myself with helping individuals. And here I am revisiting some of my past, and especially all that great music.
  • My Yoko Problem… and yours? Comment by Victoria on Apr 19, 00:31 According to the internet, the quote is: It was said that I never loved Cyn. That’s far from the truth. We were young, bigheaded and got into a physical relationship too soon. Perhaps if we took things slow we would have made it. I know we would have made it. This is apparently from 1974 (so during the split from Yoko), though I can’t find the source. Does anyone know?
  • My Yoko Problem… and yours? Comment by Victoria on Apr 18, 23:52 For those curious, here’s the quote: Paul: He’d found Yoko. And John loved strong women. His mother had been a strong woman, his auntie who brought him up was a strong woman. And, bless her, but his first wife – wasn’t. She’d once said to me, you know, all I want is, sort of, a guy with a pipe and slippers… Howard: Right, stay home… Paul: do that, and I thought, wooh, that’s not John. He goes on to talk more about Yoko, so in context, to me it comes across as saying Cynthia didn’t have a strong personality compared to Yoko, not a slam on her inner strength. Of course, YMMV.
  • My Yoko Problem… and yours? Comment by Victoria on Apr 18, 12:56 @Jesse, That was indeed Paul’s exact answer. Reddit AMA, December 2020. The question was: QUESTION: I Love McCartney III. I bought two of the colored vinyl (pink and the exclusive yellow from your website). Can you please finally clear up for all of us when the last time was you actually saw John Lennon in person? Some argue it was the infamous night where you two almost went down to Saturday Night Live in 1976. But, your son James has said John held him as a baby so that 1976 date can’t be right. There’s also the rumor that you and John and Linda and Yoko went to see the movie called Pretty Baby in 1978. Would you mind clearing this up for both history and for the fans? Paul’s answer, frustratingly vague: I think it was on a visit to New York and unfortunately I don’t remember the year, so I’d have to say ‘Some Time in New York’.
  • My Yoko Problem… and yours? Comment by Victoria on Apr 18, 03:58 I got curious about this and looked it up. James McCartney’s words were, I know John held me as a baby. Then I have memories of the Dakota building, very white, lots of sunlight pouring in. People have (plausibly) suggested that his memories of the Dakota relate to visits made after John’s death. The original source was apparently an article in The Sunday Times in 2012. It seems likely that it’s this one (“Macca Mark II”, 1 April 2012), but since it’s paywalled, I can’t confirm that. I didn’t have any luck finding an archived copy either.
  • Go Fug Yourself: John and Yoko at Cannes with matching couple shirts Comment by Victoria on Apr 18, 01:33 Heads up, the last paragraph has a spam link (and appears to be inserted text): They had this beautiful photo shoot with matching gear couple shirts that everyone enjoyed. Many people was influenced on their style and fashion. I’m not sure if the Wikipedia link to ‘balloon’ is meant to be there, either.
  • Smile vs. Sgt. Pepper Comment by DD on Apr 17, 06:38 Very late to the discussion, but Smile to me always sounded like it was made by people who did not love each other while Sgt. Pepper sounded like it was made by people who did love each other. Cold versus warm.
  • "Genius Is Pain" Comment by Lynn Harper on Apr 14, 20:46 My new favorite song.
  • The Beatles’ 13th Album? Comment by Bai Lang on Apr 14, 06:04 @Lara nad @Michael To be fair, this whole thing started with Michael defending George from accusations that his ATMP album was in fact only good in those places where it was worked on by Paul and George Martin. So Michael tried to show that all Beatles had different strengths, and this is where this split: “John and George had cultural value” / “Paul has musical value” started. But the thing is: EACH of them had ALL those values, musical and beyond-musical. All of them wrote some great music and all of them wrote some crap music as well. We all have our favourite Beatles, but the thing is, as @Lara said, that if, for example, someone loves John for being a feminist, they still in the first place love John for his music and for what he did as a Beatle. On the other hand we all choose our favourite Beatles based on our own temperament and character and so we will see their “cultural values” beyond the music in different aspects. I am not offended by anyone stating that George had a hand in making “Eastern religions” popular (although “Eastern religions” are all very different, and martial arts or attentiveness practice have nothing to do with George’s beliefs), I am sure that his influence was important for some people; but on the other hand it was not important for others. Equally, Paul’vegetarianism didn’t impress some people, but may have had some influence on others. George is not just a “spiritual inspiration”, he is also a musician; Paul is not just a musician, he is a whole complex person who is liked/loved for different aspects of his life, just as in case of John and George. What I am really trying to say is that all those “cultural influences” that can be ascribed to John and George, are also present in Paul’s case, and what kind of made me (kind of) oppose Michael is that I felt that he was telling me (Paul’s fan, obviously) how *I* feel about Paul. And I know that if John’ fans and George’s fans love John and George for reasons beyond their music, exactly the same can be said about *my* love for Paul. And thank you @Lara, @Michael, @Tasmin, @Nancy for your knowledge and this discussion, I find it great and also helpful in claryfying my own views…
  • The Beatles’ 13th Album? Comment by Tasmin on Apr 12, 19:37 Excellent comment Lara. And yes, singing “Hey Jude” along with fellow concert goers IS a spiritual experience. I think many of us have a spiritual connection with the Beatles. Beyond the music, that’s the glue that bonds us to them.
  • Ethical Reflections on John/Paul Comment by Nancy Carr on Apr 12, 10:56 Maddingway, I’m officially done with this subject. I don’t know how many times I can say that I have no problem with fanfiction about real people that announces itself as fiction, that I think it’s worth differentiating between what we can know happened (with all of the many caveats that entails) and what we’re speculating about, and that talking about how “alternative facts” of various types are significant in our culture amounts to saying that all “alternative facts” and their purveyors have the same level of seriousness. They obviously do not and I have never said they did. I was also asking in good faith when I inquired if there was any legal evidence of McCartney having an illegitimate child or children. The one legal case I was aware of (Bettina Huebers) was dismissed as far as I know. It’s not a subject I’ve investigated in depth, and it would not surprise me at all if he does have one or more illegitimate children. I simply wondered if any had been legally established as such. All I can say at the end here is that I’m not the enemy you seem to think I am. I’m not coming for you or your community, and if you find good things there I’m genuinely glad about that.
  • The Beatles As They Were Heard: KHJ 93 Los Angeles Comment by Jim on Apr 11, 20:31 Idon’t know about Radio Veronica, but Radio Caroline is online
  • Ethical Reflections on John/Paul Comment by Maddingway on Apr 11, 00:05 I am disappointed in this reply. Here we go. >To the point about “alternative facts,” I continue to think it’s important to draw distinctions about what is provable reality and what is not. That the Beatles themselves engaged in mystification or lies doesn’t change my conviction on that score. “Provable reality” is a lot more tenuous than you might think especially considering you and Michael have both admitted that the Beatles worked very hard to make sure that their reality of being sex addicted pill heads was not provable. Just as an example, we only know that John was a heroin addict and emotionally dependent on LSD because he admitted that he was a heroin addict and that he was emotionally dependent on LSD. However his drug bust only found about 200 grams of hashish, a cigarette rolling machine with traces of marijuana, and half a gram of morphine. None of those things are heroin or LSD, therefore *they are not provable reality.* This is because the Beatles PR machine moved heaven and earth to keep these things under wraps. How do we know that George and John’s dentist spiked their drinks with LSD? Because someone told us about it, not because there was a pharmacological analysis of the coffee they drank. Without such a report the “reality” of their coffee being spiked simply isn’t provable, we only have their recollections to go on. And yet this is taken as “fact” despite there being no material evidence! We only know about the heroin and LSD and marijuana because the Beatles themselves admitted to it. Otherwise there’s very little *provable reality* to back up that their drug usage truly happened. Yet everywhere you find a Beatles history nerd you will find chatter about the usage of these drugs. Mark Lewisohn, God bless his pointed head, has been breaking his back trying to figure out what is true and what is not true and apparently he is the only person on Earth that is interested in doing so. Everyone else seems content to live off of Paul’s repetitive storytelling and accusing their rhetorical opponents of not behaving rationally. And what is this all the result of? The “alternative facts” established by the Beatles themselves that were heavily promoted as part of their PR image as a band. Once again, I must reiterate: you are borrowing trouble and being patronizing. It’s silly. >What I am saying is much more basic and observable: J/P fanfiction focuses on two men and not on the women those men were engaged in long-term relationships with. This is what shipping culture is about, Nancy. Check out X-Files fandom sometime, the Mulder/Scully fandom is still going strong there. Are you wringing your hands because Mulder/Scully fanfiction inherently excludes characters like Alex Krycek or Walter Skinner? Here’s one more closely related to Beatledom and RPF as a genre: there is a very intense Current Year subculture of John/Yoko fandom that promotes a lot of Lennono garbage including tinhatting and writing fanfiction and creating silly little “proof posts” trying to verify that Yoko actually did love John and that she wasn’t using him as a walking wallet. Are you going to write a Very Special Episode about how John/Yoko fanfiction is inherently misogynistic because it writes out poor Cynthia? (which Lennono shipping does with great glee. Even in death poor Cynthia can’t catch a break.) Or, God, poor Alma Cogan, the woman who is alleged to be the actual love of John’s life and whose death sent him into a depression spiral in 1967? No one ever stands up for Alma Cogan even though she was a vital piece of John’s life. Where is the worry about all the other women who were important to John being excluded from his life? That’s what the Lennon Estate has been doing for decades at this point, and yet there has been very little complaint about this besides some grumbling about how Julian has never been treated right. Where are the posts about Yoko contributing to the imminent collapse of the United States? Yoko has done very tangible harm and perpetuated many lies and yet somehow she doesn’t get linked to the profound political problems in the United States. McLennon tinhatters are not using johnlennon dot com to sell dopey avante garde art projects and make money off McLennon. Yoko Ono does use johnlennon dot com to sell her dopey avante garde art projects and makes money off Lennono. I find it interesting that this does not stir up as strong a reaction as tinhatters saying “John and Paul were gay and in love with one another and here’s a free story I wrote about it.” >I also believe those motivations are worth examining. That would be a neat post to read and respond to. I look forward to you writing that so long as you do research on your topic beforehand and avoid trying to link the behavior of me and my community to political upheaval. >Finally, I think there are lies of varying seriousness. I agree that the Beatles told plenty of lies, for a lot of different reasons. Much depends on motivation and on whether the lie hurts anyone else. This is the point where I’ve moderated my stance the most. All lies do damage. They’re not always equal in damage, that is true, but they always cause some measure of hurt and pain. >I’m genuinely interested to know if any paternity claims have been legally established. Either a) you’re playing games with me re: human biology or b) you genuinely don’t know about the paternity claims brought against Paul and the money spent on them. More about a credible paternity claim brought against Paul during his Beatle years: > But that was hardly the end to the complications of Paul’s love life. In the spring of 1964, during the shooting of A Hard Day’s Night, an even more delicate situation of the same nature arose. A young girl in Liverpool had given birth to a baby boy she claimed was Paul McCartney’s son. Paul denied being the father, and the young girl was referred to an acquaintance of David Jacobs in Liver-pool, a man named D. H. Green. She and her mother visited Green’s office in late March. Green told Jacobs that he found them quite decent and reasonable. He felt that the girl had no intention of trying to hurt Paul and that her only concern seemed to be getting enough money to buy a pram for the infant. > Jacobs was in the midst of negotiating a small settlement for this purpose when the girl’s mother confessed her plight to a friend. He knew how much the child was worth and intended to see the mother was properly looked after. He eventually made contact by telephone with David Jacobs in London. Jacobs’ greatest concern was that even if they gave the girl a large settlement it would in no way ensure that the newspapers would not get hold of the story, or that more wouldn’t be demanded later. Jacobs advice to Brian and Paul was that the less money they paid, the less culpable they would appear if the story did come out. Brian agreed that the best they could do was pay the girl a small sum and hope that the matter would be kept quiet. > Jacobs drew up the agreement. For the mother, with the stipulation that Paul should continue to deny being the father of the child, and that this payment did not in any way represent an admis-sion, there was a four-figure sum. The deed stated that in the eventuality of a prosecution and trial that proved to the satisfaction of the court that the child was indeed Paul McCartney’s, the maximum payment the court could order for the maintenance and education of the child was £2.10s a week until he was twenty-one. > In consideration for the money paid to her, she was never to make any claim against Paul in the future or allege that he was the father or disclose the terms of the agreement; otherwise she would be liable to return the payment. > By this time, however, the newspapers had heard hundreds of all sorts of crank rumours and accusations about all four of the Beatles. > Cynthia Lennon later summed it up: *It appeared from the evidence on the solicitor’s desk at this time that Paul had been a bit of a town bull in Liverpool. Claims for paternity suits rolled in. He found himself in great demand in more ways than one. Whether the claims were true is anybody’s guess.’ Brown, Peter. The Love You Make: An Insider’s Story of The Beatles. London: Macmillan, 1983. More: > The only sour note to the day came from the uncle of Anita Cochrane, who plastered Liverpool with 30,000 leaflets recounting his niece’s affair with Paul and its outcome. Anita, an 18-year-old Beatles fan, discovered that she was pregnant after partying with Paul at Stuart Sutcliffe’s flat in Gambier Terrace. Unable to contact him by registered letters and telegrams, she eventually retained a lawyer who threatened legal action… Brian Epstein is said to have intervened personally and offered £5000 in exchange for renouncing all claims on Paul (published figures vary depending on the source). The agreement said that Anita must never bring Paul to court or say or imply that he was the father of her child, Philip Paul Cochrane… Miles, B. The Beatles diary volume 1: The Beatles years. Omnibus Press, 2009. However I always found this long quote about the Australian tour to be much more illuminating rather than a single case out of Liverpool that was hushed up with brown paper bag money: > The night was not entirely without its compensations though. > That evening, and indeed every evening of the tour, the Beatles partook of one pleasure they had discovered in Hamburg as unknown teenagers and developed to an obsessive sport over the next three years. > Lennon, in particular, must have been consumed with perverse delight by the grand confidence trick which he and his colleagues were perpetrating upon the whole western world. By day they won the hearts of mum, dad and the garden gnome with their cheeky, innocent charm and by night, according to more than a few observers, they hurled themselves in bacchanalian orgies beyond the comprehension of the humble folk who paid them homage. The “satyricon” scenes which John referred to in an Australian context in his milestone 1971 interview with Rolling Stone’s Jann Wenner certainly did occur, though such was the wall of absolute secrecy that only those tour party members accepted into an exclusive inner sanctum ever witnessed them. > Tour manager Ravenscroft carefully concedes, “They had girls in their room, yes. That was in the hands of Mal Evans, who was very good at picking the right girls. It was all very discreet and well organ-ised. When they were getting involved in that sort of thing I kept right out of the way.” > “That sort of thing” is more frankly explained by journalist Jim Oram: “John and Paul, particularly, rooted themselves silly. A seemingly endless and inexhaustible stream of Australian girls passed through their beds; the very young, the very experienced, the beautiful and the plain. In fact, I can vividly remember one spoilt virgin in Adelaide who proudly took her bloodstained sheet home with her in the morning.” > “Yes it all went on, and more,” admits Bob Rogers, “there were just so many women. The boys never, to my knowledge, repeated the dose. They’d rather have a less attractive woman than the same one twice. They had become supremely indifferent to it all, as women and girls continually prostrated themselves in their presence. You see I’d always thought that the one great thing about womanizing was the challenge and I couldn’t believe it could be so casual. Rather than getting into hallucinogenic drugs, I was convinced that they would all end up homosexuals, out of sheer boredom with conventional sex. There was no pill in 1964 and with the amount of Beatle screwing that went on I just can’t believe that there wasn’t an explosion of little Beatles all over Australia in 1965. Maybe there was.” > Jim Oram has a theory in that regard: “John once told me, ‘We’ve got the best cover in the world. If a girl comes home after being out all night and breaks down under the old man’s questioning and admits that she had spent the night with one of the Beatles, he tells her not to lie and goes up the road to kick the bum of the boy next door.’ It must have worked because there were no instances of angry parents on the tour, which was almost unbelievable.” Baker, Glenn A. The Beatles down under: The 1964 Australia & New Zealand Tour. Pierian Press, 1985. From all of this, there are two possibilities: 1) Paul has been pretending that he doesn’t have illegitimate children. All four of them did this. He has had sex with thousands of women through out his career as a Beatle. It is simply unthinkable that there weren’t any broken condoms, missed birth control pills, or other prophylactic failures. We have at least one case of a woman who had Paul’s baby and was quietly paid off out of fear that it was true. And before you try to assert “provable reality,” please keep in mind that civilians had absolutely *no idea* about the Beatles’ LSD usage before Paul blabbed on national television. The Beatles PR machine is unstoppable lmao. We don’t know about them because the people involved do not want it to be known. This is the power of the “brown paper bag money” that Mr. Gerber has discussed in other posts. 2) Paul McCartney has achieved what millions of men and women have desired for years: he has figured out how to have sex without accidentally knocking someone up. He can stop himself from impregnating women at will thus enabling him to have sex with hundreds if not thousands of women without ever producing an illegitimate child. He has transcended time, space, and the laws of physics and biology. Linda Eastman is the only woman he has ever had children because of his perfect control over his own sperm. I have to be honest. Now that I’ve typed this all out… Option 2 really does seem like the most likely conclusion. I would delete all those quotes up there now that I’ve realized that Paul McCartney’s perfection extends to controlling his sperm count and not just his musical ability but I went through a lot of work grabbing them from my books so uh yeah they’re staying lol. My conclusion to this reply: I live in Ground Zero for political instability in the United States so I will say this: McLennon tinhatting is not even in the same league as the political instability that you cited at the end of your post. I find your linking my friends and community to this movement of “alternative facts” to be a repugnant one. McLennon tinhatting can be cringy, eyebrow raising, or just plain weird, but it is absolutely not in the same realm as “alternative facts” and it does not hold a candle to the political problems you mentioned. It is remarkably insulting for these two things to be compared. McLennon tinhatters never incited a riot at the capitol building in Washington DC. The “alternative facts” crowd did. After reflecting on this for the past week I think this is the part of your post that annoyed me the most. If you want to take a stand for “ethical standards” then you should really start there.
  • Interview with Jay Goeppner of the the Beatle Brothers Comment by andy cason cason on Apr 10, 10:45 dear jay geoppner for easter igot some more bubles your friend andy
  • Review: RAM (Paul McCartney Archive Collection) Comment by Victoria on Apr 10, 00:48 It’s pretty cool how Ram has been rehabilitated over time – definitely the trendy choice these days for best solo Paul (and maybe even best solo Beatles record?) I’d never realised that David Spinozza played on Ram! A couple of years later he worked with John on Mind Games and Yoko on Feeling the Space. (And apparently had an affair with Yoko hahaha).
  • The Beatles’ 13th Album? Comment by Lara on Apr 7, 19:44 @Peter, I think fans fall into the trap of each Beatle eyeing the others as in “would this song I wrote be suitable on a Beatles album”. They weren’t writing for each other any more. Who cares if they didn’t like each others work? Other people did and we don’t know if some solo songs as Beatles songs would have been better or not. George, John and Ringo wouldn’t have wasted any time on Ram either, as they scorned it at the time. All three certainly got that wrong considering how well Ram has been reappraised. George was worried about putting The Inner Light as a B-side to Lady Madonna because of his voice. Paul: “you MUST sing it, George, you can do it, it’s such a beautiful melody”. I think this selective negativity around Paul and George should stop.
  • The Beatles’ 13th Album? Comment by Lara on Apr 7, 18:51 I’m struggling as well over such descriptions of treasured and meant. I think this is really doing Paul down. It buys into the stereotypes of each member that Beatle culture itself thrives upon to survive. Whatever cultural weight John and George supposedly possessed won’t affect Paul’s legacy or standing. The many tributes I read from other artists on the eve of Paul’s 80th if anything point to McCartney belonging to his very own subculture simply by being Paul McCartney. Whether from his peers or from young musicians, one word above all others describe him: inspirational. A musician who has written songs from the age of 14 until 80. He is a one-off. Take that Cole. When joining in singing the coda of Hey Jude at McCartney’s concerts, I’ve heard several people describe it as a spiritual experience they never found in any church or prayer room. A sense of oneness, however fleeting, but difficult to describe in words or intellectualize. That’s Paul; that’s HIS connection to people. Outsiders looking in might find that something to ridicule or mock but that’s their problem. If some people mention George on their spiritual journeys and how he’s important to them nobody’s going to begrudge them for that. Or to begrudge George himself. But their spiritual journeys are theirs alone. There are as many spiritual journeys in life as there are people. Why, specifically is the sitar culturally more important than any other instrument, or the practice of Hinduism more meaningful than any other faith or belief? How many Islamic, Buddhist, Catholic or Jewish fans took up Hinduism or Eastern interests simply because George did? Or agnostics and atheists? It doesn’t mean the rest of us, including Paul, are all somehow spiritually, emotionally, and intellectually bereft because we didnt. Cat Stevens converted to Islam. If he had been a Beatle, perhaps that may have had an impact as well. I can’t really answer that. But unlike George, Yusuf Islam dedicated himself entirely to Islam and his albums are as relevant and meaningful today as they were 1967 to 1978, and I’d argue to a much greater extent than any of George’s solo work. Cultural weight alone is not enough to hold anyone up if there is no substantial creative body of work for anyone outside Beatles fans. It’s understandable that ATMP has resonance for many today – today it is accessible to the Indian subcontinent that was not possible in the 70s and the potential to draw fans from a population of one billion. How can any other artist possibly compete with that? But as Bai Lang said (and correct me if I perceived wrongly) why would anything need a Beatle to validate it. Today people are increasingly sensitive to any rich white guy speaking on behalf of women or of anyone’s culture or religion. Attitudes and tastes change and what is considered important to one generation is not necessarily so for the next. That’s why I think it’s important not to lose sight of what it REALLY was that made the world sit up about the Beatles. Regardless of who you were or where you were from, it was the music, their irreverance, their raw energy, their musical and intellectual curiosity and willingness to explore, and above all the joy they gave to people. This was what they MEANT to people. Which led, ironically, to music becoming almost a religion unto itself that has gone beyond traditional concepts of anything before. Whatever isms they collected on the way to some extent ultimately reflected their sense of self-importance in the belief they could influence others.  People speak of Paul’s normality or stability today as if he is unique. All rock stars mellow with age. Dylan has, as have some of the wildest rockers (if still alive) and if John and George had lived then they would have too. It’s simply impossible to compare a 70 to 80 year-old to 40 to 50 year-olds frozen in time. That is their ‘mystique’ – by not living long enough to say or do dumb things or become sometimes embarrassing with old age.
  • The Beatles’ 13th Album? Comment by Tasmin on Apr 6, 10:36 Nancy and Bai Ling, I agree 100% with your comments. Good point about Paul and Linda’s influence with vegetarianism awareness, which Is being carried on today by Mary and Stella. I just don’t agree with the premise that Paul is culturally not as important as John and George. .
  • The Beatles’ 13th Album? Comment by Nancy Carr on Apr 6, 09:58 Bai Lang, same on finding “meaning” in McCartney. He and his music are far from perfect, but he’s the Beatle I connect with most. In addition to the elements you mention (being an involved husband and father, who took his whole family on tour when that wasn’t cool, for example) I love his penchant for storytelling in his songs. I also agree that his vegetarianism has influenced a good number of people.
  • The Beatles’ 13th Album? Comment by Bai Lang on Apr 6, 05:43 @Michael and @Lara I’ve been following your discussion with interest, awe and respect, knowing that it is so much above my head, but some things Lara said in her posts gave me courage to say something as well. It is interesting that while Michael in his long said that John and George MEANT something to millions of people, Paul is only to be “treasured, for sure, but only as….”, which, lets be honest, ultimatley means that he is a much less interesting and meaningful figure. Well, it got me the first time I read it, because actually Paul MEANS something to me, and I am not sure why his (capitalized) MEANING something to me should be of a lesser kind that in the case of John and George. He (capitalized) MEANS more to me than just “as a showbiz figure”, he actually MEANS something. And while I don’t know all those hyperbolic millions who find John and George so meaningful in their lives, I’d say that there are literal and checkable thousands on the Internet who seem to be reacting to the news about Paul as if he MEANT something to them as well. As for the Eastern religions, being a little bit from the Mysterious East myself, I would humbly venture to say, that maybe those religions gained their following in the West based on their own merits, and they were just fine even without George. George wasn’t the first follower and I would say that there were people more instrumental in bringing the ex oriente lux to the West. In this respect I don’t understand why it is OK to say that George was a part of the great cultural change in the area of religion, but Paul meant nothing in the change that took place in the area of morally motivated vegetarianism. In the end it seems that what you say is based on the people you actually know, and I would counter that with “well, I know quite a number of Buddhists, age from 20 to 40 and absolutely none of them ever mentioned George (I know George wasn’t a Buddhist, but you brough Buddhism yourself), and the 20 year olds don’t even know who he is”. Whereas my vegan friends all nod their heads approvingly when I mention Paul. If some find John and Yoko’s marriage “feminist”, that’s fine, but I would argue that Paul and Linda’s marriage was just as feiminist, and Paul certainly was a much more hands on father to his 3 girls, than John ever was to his boys, and all 3 Paul’s girls turned out OK (even as feminists themselves). Also, I am very grateful to @Lara for mentioning one more thing – California is not the whole world. I come from a background as different from California as can be, being both from behind the iron curtain and the bamboo curtain, and so maybe my perceptions would and could be different. Even though I look up to the Brits and Americans as the sources of the real knowledge of the Beatles, if we are talking about their influence “in the world” then maybe we should look a little bit towards the world beyond the UK and USA.
  • Something Happened Comment by Michael Gerber on Apr 5, 20:56 Love this, @Baboomska. I’m definitely Italian.
  • The Beatles’ 13th Album? Comment by Michael Gerber on Apr 5, 20:54 @Lara, Western culture has indeed become increasingly diverse and that is a factor, but I can only tell you what friends or strangers tell me when I say I run a Beatles blog. If they are meditators or martial artists or otherwise interested in Eastern philosophies/practices, they *almost invariably* speak of the impact that George Harrison had on their personal journey. Boomers, mostly, but not always. I didn’t think he was nearly so instrumental in kindling so many people’s interest in this way. But hearing this over and over has fundamentally changed my opinions about George, especially his solo years. I did not used to think that his spiritual journey had any impact past his own family, but now I do, based on what others have told me he meant/means to them. Similarly, people have regularly mentioned John and Yoko to me as models of a feminist marriage. I used to counter with all the facts I knew about that marriage, pointing out that it wasn’t really such a model. This would never cut any ice; they treasured that “two equal artists” vision of J&Y and, rightly or wrongly, they used it as inspiration in this way. And so even though I quite agree with you that there are a hundred–a thousand?–many thousands?–of people who are more appropriate inspiration to people looking to remake society in a way not marred by patriarchy, I also have to acknowledge that John and Yoko’s effort to impact the Boomers in that way seems to have been successful. And this likewise has been factored into my opinions about their post-Beatle careers. Paul is treasured, for sure, but strictly as a showbiz figure, a musician like, for example, Cole Porter. Whereas John and George were musicians but culturally have come to be viewed more like…Timothy Leary? Ram Dass? It’s difficult to pin down precisely, but it’s there, and essential to weighing John and George’s post-Beatle lives, IMHO.
  • The Beatles’ 13th Album? Comment by Michael Gerber on Apr 5, 20:21 @Peter, this is so well said: “As much as I want to like solo Beatles records, the studio musicians and collaborators they chose never achieved that elusive, compelling quality that their best work as a band did. And some of their best solo work is marred by mediocre or dated production (Mind Games, Walls & Bridges, Double Fantasy, Cloud Nine, Ringo, Band on the Run) and the worst ones have songs that they would never have dared played for the rest of the band. It’s hard to imagine George, John, or Ringo wasting two seconds on Paul’s songs on Wild Life or London Town, and there isn’t much on Sometime In New York City or Dark Horse to get the band all revved up.”
  • “Lennonology: Strange Days Indeed” a Lennon/Ono data feast Comment by Michael Gerber on Apr 5, 20:10 It infuriates me that I cannot buy this print and give it to The Yale Record in honor of its 150th anniversary.
  • Fred Arnold’s Beatle Memorabilia Collection Comment by Michael Griffin on Apr 5, 16:43 Fred was my friend in the 80’s when He owned the Prism Record Store on King Street in Historical Battery Charleston, SC and the Riverside Drive store – I did Punk art for Fred for his Punk-a-Rama show on Saturday Night on the USS Yorktown Aircraft Carrier Public Radio WSCI 89.3 around 1987 the radio show was replaced by first Space Ambient Music yet he was contracted to do the show on Charleston’s new Rock Station. He was the Rodney on the ROQ ”Rocks” of LA for the Southeast America and he met a lot of the great bands including Ian from the Cult he interviewed when he was in America as Southern Death Cult. Ian stayed with Fred. Michael Griffin aka Skinhead ”Reggae Punk type”
  • Discovered! Another bad Beatles lyric Comment by Baboomska McGeesk on Apr 5, 13:45 I have no problem with the “whim” lyric. The song seems to be from the point of view of a guy who is frantic because the girl he likes is only thinking of some other dude, who seems to be ghosting her. The girl is most likely deeply in love with the other dude, but the frantic guy is insisting “it’s only a whim!” because he can’t accept the truth. A little two-minute soap opera, that song is.
  • “Lennonology: Strange Days Indeed” a Lennon/Ono data feast Comment by Baboomska McGeesk on Apr 5, 05:59 Many years ago I saw a photo of Harpo Marx wearing a bunch of eyeglasses on his face. He looked just like Lennon’s “Walls and Bridges” album cover. Recently I saw another photo of Harpo (from the set of Horsefeathers 1932) and he seems to be anticipating John’s “Two Virgins” album: https://www.julienslive.com/lot-details/index/catalog/467/lot/203638 Warning: NSFW (Not Safe For Work)
  • Fred Arnold’s Beatle Memorabilia Collection Comment by Michael Griffin on Apr 5, 02:26 I knew Fred well during Punk Hardcore 80’s. He did a Punk-a-Rama show on WSCI 89.3 in Charleston South Carolina on Public Radio aboard the USS Yorktown Aircraft Carrier and owned two punk record stores – The shows name was named after the song with same name by Venus and the Razorblades and he used the song for the beginning theme to his show. We was removed by a new Ambient Space Music the first time around 1987 and he went to do the show on the local new Rock station in Charleston, South Carolina. I did a lot of art for concerts, fanzines, etc and for his show. He is a legend in the southeast Punk era and needs to be remembered for his influence he did in promoting Punk and Hardcore- he was the Rodney in the Rocks of the Southeast America and a very good friend. I had all the shows taped yet my cousin has them now. Michael Griffin from Pawleys Island SC aka Skinhead my artist name –
  • Discovered! Another bad Beatles lyric Comment by Lara on Apr 4, 19:41 Reading some of these back comments reinforces how opinions and interpretations are still alive and well ten or so years later! The ‘and how’ line from Something doesn’t bother me at all, but that ‘stick around’ part must be one of most unromantic lines ever written in a love song. I don’t really enjoy Across the Universe; it’s lyrics are too New Age late sixties hippy dippy for me. The couplet in She’s A Woman, presents/peasant, has gone around the block a few times. It must be one of the most misunderstood ever. Use of the word ‘peasant’ as a pejorative wasn’t at all unknown in the North of England at the time the Beatles were growing up, and probably something most non-Britons are aware of. If the word really was that dire I suspect John would have culled it immediately at the time. Similarly the oft criticism of Jailor Man/Sailor Sam from Band on the Run misses the play on references to the British comic book culture Paul grew up with in the fifties. Sailor Sam, Desperate Dan, Harris Tweed. They’re as valid as anything from American popular culture with which the song shares its lyrics. The dustbin lid phrase is another one that has been explained and reexplained constantly over in the Steve Hoffman forums. I think Paul’s biggest downfall was sometimes drawing from a personal world of memories too obscure for most people to understand. An exercise in pointlessness from him in inviting ridicule. In 1965, fine; 1975 pretty ok; 1985, just out of touch. Some of Paul’s solo lyrics are awful, agreed, but I think he is also a target for lazy criticism as someone pointed out earlier. Many post 1970 rock lyrics in general are pretty awful in my opinion and far too many are given weight they don’t deserve. From faux philosophizing to self-conscious posturing, some of the lyrics from rock star pencil chewers sound like they’ve just walked out of one of those clunky creative writing courses popularized in the seventies. Perhaps the Beatles solo or otherwise were sometimes guilty too, but in their favour they at least kept them mercifully short.
  • The Beatles’ 13th Album? Comment by Neal on Apr 4, 18:17 @Lara You made three points in your reply that I particularly enjoyed. The first was about the student riots in Europe in 1968. Lots of causes for these as you know, but I agree that John and Yoko were not exactly in the van when it came to protest. At this stage I view their actions as nothing more than Yoko’s performative art and a desire for attention rather than a serious engagement of the issues. Second, like a lot with celebrity and even part of the Beatles story, I find it creepy to read of all those “best mates with John” stories. Maybe I am misreading all the literature, but John Lennon strikes me as one who didn’t have a lot of friends in his last years. That is perfectly fine if that was his choice, but after 1975 he didn’t seem to be collaborating on anything with anyone other than Yoko. I don’t mean to imply that after his death that critics, musicians, and contemporaries should have dissed John, but forty years on the hagiography was thick from people who hadn’t given him a moment’s thought in ages. The third point is your mention of Paul’s musical peers and competitors in the seventies and eighties. It seems than many forget that while there certainly a lot of dross on the airways, it was a creatively fecund period for many artists and he had new challenges to face.
  • Ethical Reflections on John/Paul Comment by Laura on Apr 4, 18:00 @Maddingway, Nancy responded to the overall thrust of your post, whereas I just have a few nitpicks/ questions about claims you made. (Perhaps you were being purposefully inflammatory to make a point.) @Maddingway said, “When Paul’s bad behavior around Linda’s attempt at writing a biography is discussed (“There’s only room for one rockstar in this house,” I believe that’s what he said?)…” I’ve never heard Linda attempted to write an (auto?)biography. Got anything to substantiate that – and Paul’s alleged reaction? @Maddingway said, “They lied to their fans about being single. They lied to their fans about being on drugs (at least for a while.) They lied about being swingers. They lied about all the women they slept with. They lied about the women they impregnated. They lied about their manager being gay. John lied about being happy with Yoko. Paul lied about the children he abandoned and refused to acknowledge.” John, on the advice of their manager, did briefly lie about being single – is that what you’re referring to? What did they ever say (or not say) about being swingers (or not?)? How do you mean they lied about all the women they slept with/impregnated? As in lies of omission? When did they lie about using drugs? More omission? When did they say Brian wasn’t gay? As for John lying about being happy with Yoko, i don’t think he was in their later years, but neither of us knows. (I’d say he was entitled to lie about his personal happiness unless he did so to sell records.) What proof is there that Paul abandoned and refused to acknowledge children?
  • Book Review: “The Beatles & Bournemouth” Comment by Baboomska McGeesk on Apr 4, 16:11 Breaking news: “How a schoolboy recorded one of the earliest UK performances of the Beatles” The hour-long quarter-inch tape recording was made by 15-year-old John Bloomfield at Stowe boarding school in Buckinghamshire on 4 April 1963 when the band played a concert at the school’s theatre. Here’s a link to the story: https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-65167799
  • All is well! Comment by Victoria on Apr 4, 02:12 It’s Giuliano though… a lot of what he says should be taken with a large grain of salt.
  • All is well! Comment by Victoria on Apr 4, 02:04 @Michael Gerber, As always, thank you for the detailed reply! I’m a bit younger than you (15-20 years?) and from a different cultural context, so your points are well taken. This is a long way of saying I think the power dynamic in their relationship was absolutely acknowledged by both of them and whatever they called it, it occupied the same psychological space we assign to “kink”; they practically talked about nothing else in joint interviews. Were they conscious and careful in all the ways contemporary D/s people seem to be, based on digital knowledge sharing and general “best practices”? Probably not. I think they were both impetuous in the extreme and making it all up as they went along. I agree with you in all this. Add to that, neither of them seem like emotionally stable people. I guess my main point is that I don’t think that their practice of kink can really be separated from the maladaptive aspects of their relationship, which is… unfortunate.
  • From Victoria: Oracle’s spoken: John Green’s Dakota Days (1983) Comment by Victoria on Apr 4, 01:51 I’ve read May Pang’s book, I think that the documentary would be an interesting watch. Maybe one of the commentariat is willing to write up a review?
  • Ethical Reflections on John/Paul Comment by Nancy Carr on Apr 3, 13:05 Maddingway, thanks for your comments. Here are my (brief) thoughts, a bit moderated after three years but not much. To the point about “alternative facts,” I continue to think it’s important to draw distinctions about what is provable reality and what is not. That the Beatles themselves engaged in mystification or lies doesn’t change my conviction on that score. The key to my “unacknowledged wish fulfillment” point is the “unacknowledged” part. I’d amend your statement that “Fanfiction is not fact and fanfiction writers know this” by inserting a “most” before “fanfiction writers.” It’s that group I’m talking about here. It’s one thing to tell a story you and others enjoy about people who actually exist (or existed) — great! It’s another to insist that the fundamentals of it are true. For examples of that, take a look at some of the comments on the “Were John and Paul Lovers?” thread. I think you have misunderstood what I mean when I say that John/Paul fanfiction writes out women. I certainly am not arguing that “slash fandom must be inherently rooted in hatred of women and desperate attempts to write women out of the narrative.” What I am saying is much more basic and observable: J/P fanfiction focuses on two men and not on the women those men were engaged in long-term relationships with. I believe the motivations for doing that are both various and complicated, and can’t be boiled down to “hatred of women.” I also believe those motivations are worth examining. Finally, I think there are lies of varying seriousness. I agree that the Beatles told plenty of lies, for a lot of different reasons. Much depends on motivation and on whether the lie hurts anyone else. This is the point where I’ve moderated my stance the most. Also, is there proof that McCartney fathered children he then abandoned? The only case I’m aware of is one where the claim was disproven. I’m genuinely interested to know if any paternity claims have been legally established.
  • Discovered! Another bad Beatles lyric Comment by Baboomska McGeesk on Apr 3, 12:03 Here’s my nomination for the wittiest line in a Beatle song: Time after time, you refuse to even listen I wouldn’t mind, if I knew what I was missing. Not a great rhyme, but clever as hell anyway.
  • The Beatles’ 13th Album? Comment by Peter Macmillan on Apr 2, 19:40 I’ve been following this post on and off, and there are a couple of things that interest me about the difference between a Beatles song and a solo Beatle’s song. Lots of solo songs started as demos (or even recording attempts) for the group but ended up on solo records. There are different categories, but “rejects” interest me the most. George played “Isn’t it a Pity” for Paul during the Get Back/Let it Be sessions, and mentioned his backlog of songs. Paul told him he should record them, which is definitely a rejection. If he’d said, “WE should record them,…” or “I will help you record them,” that would be something other than a rejection. “All Things Must Pass” got a fair number of rehearsals, but didn’t end up in the movie or on the record. “I Me Mine” got finished, but only because it was in the movie and thus had to be on the record, which is why George, Paul, & Ringo put it on tape in January 1970. I’m not sure if John & Paul rejected George’s songs because of ego or because they didn’t like them, but my impression is that while neither was enthusiastic about them, it was John who lost interest in them fastest. ATMP, Isn’t it a Pity, and other songs that The Beatles heard, and rant though as a group aren’t “Beatles” songs to my ears; the band was learning them, sometimes halfheartedly. “Not Guilty” on “George Harrison” (1979) has a very different feel and arrangement than the 102 takes The Beatles recorded in 1968. Those outtakes sound like The Beatles, but then again, so do other rejected recordings like “IF You’ve Got Troubles.” I don’t think anyone is surprised that neither song got released. The Beatles rejected some of Paul’s songs, too. “Teddy Boy” is a good example of a song that John, Ringo, and George disliked, and even if it’s in the movie, it was not a contender for the record. “Junk” is an Esher demo; it could easily have fit on the White Album, but didn’t. Other Paul songs that were briefly demo’d during Beatles sessions (“Back Seat of My Car,” for instance) didn’t get much attention from the band. There are more songs by Paul, and a few by John, that the author played for the others in a session, or that they briefly jammed on, that I would not call Beatles songs (“Child of Nature/Jealous Guy”) but none of them sound like The Beatles to my ears. I agree with the cliche that The Beatles were greater than the sum of their parts, and George Martin’s production (and the great engineers, the acoustics of Abbey Road, and the sound they captured) are unique. The magic didn’t always happen, although one fan’s duds are someone else’s favorites. Late Beatles songs were mostly written by John, Paul, or George, and completed and arranged in the studio. Occasionally, John & Paul combined half finished ideas, but there wasn’t much collaborative writing. None of the songs on All Things Must Pass got the attention or contributions that “Something,” “Here Comes the Sun,” or even “I Me Mine” received, and the production is miles away from anything recorded by The Beatles. None of the songs on McCartney sound much like The Beatles, either. To the extent that they do, it’s because Paul’s Beatles songs were often written, arranged, and occasionally recorded, by him with little or no group participation. As much as I want to like solo Beatles records, the studio musicians and collaborators they chose never achieved that elusive, compelling quality that their best work as a band did. And some of their best solo work is marred by mediocre or dated production (Mind Games, Walls & Bridges, Double Fantasy, Cloud Nine, Ringo, Band on the Run) and the worst ones have songs that they would never have dared played for the rest of the band. It’s hard to imagine George, John, or Ringo wasting two seconds on Paul’s songs on Wild Life or London Town, and there isn’t much on Sometime In New York City or Dark Horse to get the band all revved up.
  • The Beatles’ 13th Album? Comment by Lara on Apr 2, 16:38 @Michael, to add to what I have already said, I’d argue that there is an emotional over investment in the Beatles now, to an extent that the fandom irritates many outside of it in making claims on the Beatles behalf, or its individual members, which are often dubious at best. “Fascination with eastern religion had declined considerably by 1974”. What I meant, and I think you know that, was the decline of interest of Eastern influences amongst young westerners within popular MUSIC and popular culture – fashion, etc. The growth of glam, boogie, disco, punk and new wave and other advances throughout the seventies and beyond drew little upon either George or John’s cultural beliefs. But they did, as is generally acknowledged, from the Beatles themselves, which has had greater lasting impact. Likewise, the growth of Buddhist temples and other examples you gave was and is due to the increasing diversity of our societies through immigration and interpartnerships. That has nothing to do with George Harrison or the Beatles. That is not what they were about. ‘Similarly, it’s impossible to understate how many feminists look at John and Yoko as a model–rightly or wrongly!’ That is objectively nowhere near the truth. As a teenager at the time it was the feminists Germaine Greer (particularly so, given her widespread media coverage), Betty Friedan and others who radically changed the landscape by tapping into the discontent girls and women were already feeling about their lot. John’s sexist remarks towards his band mates women ‘dolly birds hanging on the arms of their men’ was insulting. Feminist indeed.
  • The Beatles’ 13th Album? Comment by Tasmin on Apr 2, 13:19 Very good discussion @Lara and Michael. Michael wrote: “Paul is respected as a songwriter and loved as an ex-Beatle, but the affection simply doesn’t run as hot for him.“ I know this was stated in the context of boomers you know, but I have had a different experience. For instance, I’m a subscriber to the Washington Post and a frequent commenter. Whenever there has been a Beatle/Paul story, the comments are overwhelmingly positive about Paul. The commenters are mostly aged 50+. People LOVE him, and have great affection for him. It goes beyond just admiring him as a great musician. His life OFF the stage is just as admirable. By all accounts Paul is an excellent father, and his kids love and respect him. He had a long and successful marriage with Linda, and has a seemingly good marriage with Nancy. Those qualities may not be as interesting as George’s spiritual quests, or Johns idiosyncrasies, and maybe that’s why some folks don’t think of him in the same way. He’s pretty normal, or strives for normalcy. Additionally, if you’ve ever seen Paul live, (3x for me) the emotions by the audience are overwhelming. Pure joy and excitement and amazement. And love. Even from the younger folks, of whom there are many. “All three were different people, with different interests and different talents, and I don’t think any of them are well served by being compared to the others. They are each too unique.” That’s the bottom line, and I think if someone loves Paul a little more, or George, that’s ok, but we ultimately really love The Beatles. The four of them together.
  • Something Happened Comment by Baboomska McGeesk on Apr 2, 09:01 I saw this joke tweet from the talented cartoonist of Haus of Decline: The Marx Brothers represent the four major male archetypes: Wiseass, Moron, Italian, Blank Slate It made me wonder if this is how non-Beatle fans (or maybe fans who are only preoccupied with John) regard the Beatles. John: Wiseass Paul: Moron George: Italian Ringo: Blank Slate I think this is just my brain looking for patterns in random noise, though.
  • The Beatles’ 13th Album? Comment by Lara on Apr 2, 06:29 @Michael, I can’t help but feel disappointed with your very long response. However much you think Paul is great, I think your biases are showing. What Holly said were not my views and nor did I make any comparisons between George and Paul. Lennon and Harrison the lasting cultural icons and McCartney the pop star who has never done much for 60 years and never explored anything beyond pop music (but he is still great). Where do I even begin? Who is burnishing who? If you personally don’t connect to Paul then that’s your choice, but that doesn’t mean others don’t, or even worse, imply that they can’t.  I’m getting fed up with point scoring but nevertheless: ‘First, Paul unabashedly continued to play the exact same game, and making very much the same kind of music in the same style, as the Beatles had. Whether they were sincere or not, both John and George actively tried to distance themselves from their Beatle years, and immediately made music in 1970 that was decisively different than what they’d been doing before.’ If any one of them actively distanced themselves from the Beatles it was Paul in the 1970s. John did his very best to ‘distance’ himself in Lennon Remembers. Apart from refusing to discuss the Beatles in his early interviews, Paul’s songwriting style changed RADICALLY as a result of the pressure from John and Yoko to be quasi-political or quasi-profound like George. Give me one song from his Beatles years that sounds remotely, lyrically at least, like Jet or Monkberry Moon Delight. I guess we can all cherry pick. And where exactly is the Beatles baroque pop that Paul made a name for himself (and the Beatles) in his 70’s solo career and beyond? One could argue that John’s Plastic Ono Band songs follow EXACTLY on from his Beatle songs I Want You/She’s So Heavy and Yer Blues, and that George’s songs from ATMP follow EXACTLY his Beatle songs Within You Without You and Love You To.  The point of which is? I think we all know that Paul’s early albums were underhandedly savaged by critics at the time in a way that the others weren’t. Come on. When Paul set up his second career his contemporaries were David Bowie, Elton John, Queen, Pink Floyd amongst others. They were his competitors, not his fellow Beatles; they were gone. That’s how it was perceived by the general public in the 70s. If John and George thought they were above or better than the Beatles, or bored with them, then that was their choice. Or loss. Because nobody can tell me if they hadn’t been members of the biggest cultural musical phenomenon of the last hundred years nobody would have taken a blind bit of notice of either of them. The relentless comparison of the solo Beatles and who was better and who did what is very much a post-1980 pastime amongst Beatles fans. The cultural aspects of John and George are overstated because essentially they are romantic ones – and nothing wrong with that – but unpopular as it may be, I’d argue that Paul including Beatles songs in his repotoire carried John, George and Ringo in keeping the Beatles flame alive and introducing their music to new audiences. And it kept the royalties and endless remasters coming in. Why wouldn’t they retire? Paul was so traumatized by the Beatles breakup (and he was) he could have easily hung up his guitar straps for good and left them to it. And further traumatized by John’s murder in a way George and Ringo weren’t. There was something so very obsequious about the reaction of the rock community to John’s death. They all had a claim on him, even Paul’s own brother, on how they felt John was their best mate, how CONNECTED they felt to him. Yet NONE of them had worked with him so closely the way Paul had, not even George or Ringo; NONE of them were on the receiving end of Lennon’s sharp tongue and his slings and arrows. I found it nauseating. The eighties were a low point for Paul. How could they possibly not be?  ‘He has been generally loathe to collaborate with any artists anywhere near his caliber’. What artists did John collaborate with apart from jamming or with the lesser Yoko Ono? Paul was never given the opportunity to team up with Jimi Hendrix and Miles Davis because he never received the invite. Are you saying Paul wouldn’t have and are you implying that Dylan and Orbison are of the same calibre as George? ‘Paul was never really counterculture’. I disagree. It was Paul who in 1965 helped fund and set up the Indica bookshop in London for alternative voices. Being in the book trade for most of my life I know that has had far more ramifications beyond the sixties than meditation ever has. Of which, ironically, publications on that topic have sat on their shelves for decades. Not to mention the very underground culture that went beyond that decade. True, Paul never flaunts it. Does he have to? You may say this is disingenuous; perhaps so, but no less disingenuous to imply that everything eastern was all down to George Harrison. Abby Hoffman doesn’t mean much to me. Should he? But Allen Ginsberg was a lot more connected to the Beatles particularly to Sgt Pepper and particularly to Paul until his death in the 90s. George and John did not include any of their back Beatles catalogue for the simple reason they did not tour. The reason why Paul started performing some of his Beatles songs was in part audience expectations. Cultural icon Bob Dylan also performs from his back catalogue. So do Pink Floyd, the Rolling Stones, Elton John and countless others. But Paul is exempt? That seems incredibly unfair to me.  You may well have boomer friends with attachments to John and George but you are seeing that from an American perspective that is not necessarily unique to the rest of the world. California is California not Liverpool or Paris or Brisbane. From my experience what I remember is that the student riots and political unrest in Europe and the big anti-war demonstrations were happening well before John and Yoko hooked up and embarked on their campaigns to their boomer followers. ‘I personally think late-period George–the Wilburys, Cloud Nine, and Brainwashed–stands up to any solo McCartney.’ So not to solo Lennon then? Why Blow Away (not that I’m blown away myself) to Let Em In from 1979 but not to anything of Lennon’s from the same period? The Wilburys – Bob Dylan, Tom Petty, Jeff Lynne and the fabulous Roy Orbison were just as much the Wilburys as George. It was Orbison that gave them that special sound and it’s why they disbanded after his death. ‘Ok, so, you’re interested in Paul and what Paul’s done’. No, and that’s where you misunderstand. Call me devils advocate if you like but I’m no more into Paul’s solo stuff and what he has done than I am of the others. Rather, as a Beatles fan, it is the hypocrisy that one has to be a McCartney fan to be interested in what he does, yet one does not have to be a Lennon or Harrison fan to follow or engage in what they do. Aren’t your Californian friends an example? They are Harrison or Lennon fans and there is no difference. Doesn’t it say something about us as a society? That we need to be asked by celebrities or rock stars to donate to good causes (as an aside it was Ravi Shankar, not George, who asked for a concert for Bangladesh) or to take up eastern philosophy/vegetarianism/meditation/ whatever, simply because a famous person does? I seriously don’t think most people do. My own father took up yoga when the Beatles had barely left for Hamburg. He practiced it every day of his life until he died. In truth, it was the little figure of giggly Maharishi Mahesh Yogi that captured the world’s imagination at the time and the Beatles association with him. Paul has profoundly affected the lives of many, including younger Beatles fans, and no less than John or George, and something that goes well beyond politics and religion. Perhaps people will be more likely to admit it publicly once he has gone. ‘
  • The Beatles’ 13th Album? Comment by J.D. on Apr 2, 00:11 While George’s star has undeniably risen in the last decade or so, I don’t think it’s at all similar to the post-1980 canonization of John. I think it’s perfectly understandable why George’s reputation has improved. The style of his best music–from 1968 to 1971 or so–is very much in tune with a lot of modern indie music, and so is his low-key personal style; the George of that era feels very modern to me. His spiritual bent seems to resonate with a lot of younger listeners. He’s arguably got the two best songs on the Beatles’ most popular album, and he made the album that many people (me included) regard as the best solo album by any Beatle. And apart from its heavy-handed production (the recent remix helped), ATMP has aged very well–those songs are marvelous. (The other day I heard the mix of “What Is Life” without vocals from one of the rereleases, and it reminded me of something from Pet Sounds.) It’s also an accessible album, in a way that–say–Plastic Ono Band isn’t. I hold POB in high esteem, but hand that album to someone who doesn’t know anything about John Lennon, and I’m not sure how impactful it’s going to be. And while I love much of Paul’s solo work (I really do), Paul’s stuff is so all over the place in terms of style, quality and approach that I’m not sure there’s really an easy way into it for younger listeners. If someone has a high tolerance for Paul’s brand of idiosyncratic silliness (I say that affectionately), I’d recommend Ram; if they like Bowie and Eno, I’d recommend McCartney II. But I don’t think that the acclaimed albums–Band on the Run, Tug of War–that people used to single out as his strongest work have as much resonance anymore. So while I agree that George really only made one exceptional album on its own, I think it’s more than sufficient: Most songwriters never make an album as good as ATMP.
  • Various musings on Lennon and Addiction Comment by Michael Gerber on Apr 1, 20:39 @Martin, that’s an interesting notion, but not something that can be proven, really.
  • The Beatles’ 13th Album? Comment by Michael Gerber on Apr 1, 20:34 @Lara, Shooting from the hip on all this… “why expectations of Paul are held up to the Beatles to a far greater extent than for the other three” Two reasons. First, Paul unabashedly continued to play the exact same game, and making very much the same kind of music in the same style, as the Beatles had. Whether they were sincere or not, both John and George actively tried to distance themselves from their Beatle years, and immediately made music in 1970 that was decisively different than what they’d been doing before. Whereas Paul was still making pop music aimed at a wide audience. Even when Lennon and Harrison made pop songs (“Instant Karma” or “My Sweet Lord”) they did so within the context of their own personalities (politics, religion, etc). And second, of them all Paul was most comfortable with the mantle of The Beatles, and while Lennon did sing some Beatles tunes with Elton John on stage, it’s difficult to express how seismic it felt in 1976 when Paul sang a bunch of Beatles tunes during the American tour, and then put them on his record. So IMHO not only does Paul court these comparisons with The Beatles, they’re also a lot easier to make. How does one compare Bangladesh, or Double Fantasy, even George’s Dark Horse tour, to the Beatles thing? They are fundamentally different enterprises. Whereas Wings’ ’76 tour of the States was not so different than what The Beatles would’ve done…right down to Paul singing “Yesterday.” “John’s solo career is still viewed through rosy specs, and however subpar George’s may have been, critics were never unkind” John was dismissed as a non-entity after about 1974, and it was only his assassination that caused critics to reassess. I agree that John gets extra slack because we all feel terrible about how his life ended. Similarly, George was viewed as a damp squib after the Dark Horse tour–which was SAVAGED–had a brief flash of relevance with “All Those Years Ago,” and then a period where he was as retired as John had been in 1976-80. I personally think late-period George–the Wilburys, Cloud Nine, and Brainwashed–stands up to any solo McCartney except perhaps RAM and some singles. I like solo Paul; but I also like solo George, and it’s really difficult to compare the two. Two very different types of person making very different music for different reasons. If Wings Over America had started out with an hour of bagpipe music because Paul liked it, Paul’s notices would’ve been as bad as George’s. But just as that seems insane to suggest for Paul, it’s also completely in character for George to haul out Ravi Shankar as his opening act. “To be very clear Paul was and is an extraordinary ARTIST.” Nobody’s arguing that; my point was that he has been generally loathe to collaborate with any artists anywhere near his caliber, with the exception of Costello. That may be one reason why his solo catalog is very large, but very slack. “I know that George was NOT seen in any cultural sense at the time.” My experience has been vastly different. Out here in California, George Harrison STILL has resonance with any person interested in Eastern religions or meditation, even people under 30. Additionally, most Boomers of my acquaintance have strong affections for John and George as people, based on their having touched them via their personality. Paul is respected as a songwriter and loved as an ex-Beatle, but the affection simply doesn’t run as hot for him. John and George’s early deaths certainly have something to do with this, but I also think that John’s political interests, and George’s spiritual ones, both influenced and participated in two aspects of the generation-wide Boomer counterculture which individual Boomers connected to. Paul–and this is not a fault–was never a countercultural figure, and so does not seem to kindle the same nostalgic affection. I expect this to change after he dies. “He has highly regarded recordings under The Firemen label and forays into classical music.” With all due respect, these aspects of Paul’s career are only of interest to McCartney fans. (Of which I am one.) Shall we call John a playwright because his books were put on at The National Theatre in 1968? Or a great artist because of his wonderful, student-caliber doodles? Paul is like Woody Allen; he is a compulsive creator who has lived a long and productive life. And like Allen, he had a period where he absolutely led the culture, then a period where every release was an event, and then a long period where his audience was much smaller and his influence primarily for stuff he did decades earlier. That’s not a crack on either Paul or Woody–it’s a wonderful career arc–but nor should we be so enthralled with either guy to think that they are leading the culture today. Neither are. But their earlier work still has a huge influence. “Whether people like them or not is besides the point” To me, it is very much the point. This blog exists and we are talking because people liked and still like The Beatles. Solo Paul–like the other three–is a footnote to his major work, which was with The Beatles. And we know The Beatles are his major work because many more people love and connect with that, than with his solo work. “People liking it” is how you judge success in the idiom of popular art. Just that Paul keeps making stuff isn’t in itself something to celebrate; I’m glad he does, but for him making records for him is like doing crosswords is for you and me. “Wow he’s made so MUCH!” Woody Allen has made 45 movies since Annie Hall, but it’s a good bet that Annie Hall will be what people remember. Just as Paul will be remembered for Yesterday and Pepper. “Ram is right up there with All Things Must Pass and Plastic Ono Band – three very different statements.” I would agree with this, and I would further say that it’s really interesting that, IMHO, all three musicians’ careers decline from this point. “Pursuing a cause or an ideology did not make them cultural figures in the truest meaning of the word nor did it give them a unique, more interesting personal view. It was not some trade-off to McCartney’s musical chops.” I would disagree; time and energy spent pursuing religion or politics is time and energy NOT spent writing, honing, or recording songs, or touring. After the breakup–really after The White Album–John and George seemed to be more interested in doing other things, whereas Paul still wanted to be a Beatle, and do Beatle-like things. That’s not a criticism of Paul; I’m glad he did. But neither can we downgrade John or George for choosing a different path. That’s no more fair than calling Paul “a square” in 1972 because he DIDN’T have a guru or hang out with Abbie Hoffman. “If that’s cultural influence, then no thanks.” Ok, so, you’re interested in Paul and what Paul’s done. He’s the Beatle that you connect with, and that’s great. But my point is that other people, lots of them, connect with John over his politics and art and J&Y stuff, and George over his religious/philosophical stuff. “I don’t think anybody here has denied George his due as a musician or writer.” Lara, @Holly just blew in here saying that ATMP–George’s main statement and success as a solo artist–should be considered a Beatle record because of the influence of John, Paul, and George Martin. That’s a huge claim I’ve never heard anybody say, and a textbook example of denying George his due as a musician and writer. And by the way, I think Paul is a better musician and writer than George, and a better musician than John. But there’s no need to diminish George or John to burnish Paul. Paul’s great. He’s literally the most successful musician in history. Nobody’s dissing him. “Fascination with eastern religion had declined considerably by 1974” Not so fast! From where I am sitting in downtown Santa Monica, a medium-sized suburb of Los Angeles, I can see a massive Buddhist temple. This morning I attended qigong lessons in a local park, taught by a legendary karate master; next to us was a tai chi class. Yesterday, I got Taoist acupuncture from a man who studies yet another branch of Eastern philosophy. Now I am an outlier for sure — but does your town have a karate school or other martial arts school? Probably. Did you see “Everything Everywhere All at Once” starring the famous martial artist Michelle Yeoh? Can you take yoga or mindfulness meditation classes at your local senior center? Probably. The Beatles’ foray into Eastern religions, led by George, and George’s cultural prominence as probably the most famous Western convert to Hinduism, were instrumental in a vast cultural change throughout the West during the 60s and 70s. Similarly, it’s impossible to understate how many feminists look at John and Yoko as a model–rightly or wrongly! Paul did not seek, nor did he achieve, these kinds of cultural impacts. He, instead, wrote great pop music and succeeded at that. Everybody’s got their skills and interests. “None of John’s songs would be any more memorable than Jet or Silly Love Songs (a satire) if not for the extensive radio play they received in the wake of his death.” Perhaps, but in that alternate future John would’ve been alive and producing music, so who knows what else he would come up with? “Out of interest I’d like to know what John and George’s solo songs were as good or better or memorable than what they did as Beatles. For me, none spring readily to mind. But Maybe I’m Amazed is EASILY of that calibre.” Maybe I’m Amazed has never been to my taste–it’s “Hey Jude” without the exquisite restraint–but it is very well-loved and I can hear why. For George, I think “My Sweet Lord” and “The Light That Has Lighted The World” equal his Beatle best. I don’t really like solo John, but I think “Imagine,” “Jealous Guy,” “Isolation,” “God,” and “Mother” and perhaps “Beautiful Boy” are Beatle-worthy. Nobody is arguing Paul isn’t great! He’s great. All three were different people, with different interests and different talents, and I don’t think any of them are well served by being compared to the others. They are each too unique.
  • The Beatles’ 13th Album? Comment by Michael Gerber on Apr 1, 19:23 Thanks for stopping by, @Holly.