Time-Lapse Photography

I’ve seen those before and all I can say is “Wow.” John knew exactly what he was doing when he took those photos with Yoko, assuming it was his idea for those poses. We all know that he favored one of the Bailey photos that was hanging at his studio in Kenwood. Cut to a few years later, and here he is in the same poses with Yoko. Looks like he’s sending a message out to Paul saying, “Look! You’ve been replaced!”. Paul did say in an interview at the time that “John’s in love with Yoko and he’s no longer in love with the three of us.” We all know that when he said “the three of us”, he really meant to say “me”.

Ok, I’m not going to beat around the bush. I’m a huge Beatles fan and I have to say that I truly believe that John was in love with Paul and possibly vice versa. I think this caused major problems and things went terribly wrong which is what ended the Beatles. There have been breakups in many bands but the Beatles breakup was so intense, emotional and brutal. I can’t think of any other explanation besides the nature of the Lennon/McCartney relationship. Whether or not it was a romantic/sexual relationship doesn’t matter. It was obvious that these two men had very complex and intense feelings for each other.

Anyone out ther have these kinds of thoughts?

Oh absolutely, @Anon, and I think people who focus on the romantic/sexual possibility are missing the forest for the trees—nobody has ever seriously suggested that they were getting it on, but that’s beside the point. These two guys had an incredibly intense, emotional relationship forged by a kind of pressure that nobody but them could understand.

Think about it: every time you write a hit, the pressure builds for the next song. And YOU know there’s no magic behind it, just a lot of work; and YOU know your own weaknesses. Your partner saves your ass over and over again, in public, and you save his.

Add to this their common background, the time they spent together when they were young, all the shared experiences, and the fact that even George and Ringo couldn’t really relate to what they were going through/what was expected of them, and the fact that they really loved each other’s work…I have no doubt that they were in love with each other. If “being in love” doesn’t describe how John Lennon felt about Paul McCartney and vice-versa, it’s so limited a phrase as to be useless.

Here’s an interesting, provocative statement: maybe what happened when Brian died was that John suddenly needed more from Paul than Paul was comfortable giving…and Paul rejected John. That would explain a lot, wouldn’t it? John would reject Paul back, and replace him, and try to sabotage the thing they’d built together, and slag him in public…There is a vitriol in Lennon towards McCartney (and The Beatles) post-India that simply has never been adequately explained. This could be it.

It’s interesting how discomforted some Beatles fans get when you suggest that John and Paul were “in love” with each other. (And I’m with Michael in that I doubt “in love” ever meant anything romantic/sexual.) Philip Norman in his books on the Beatles and on Lennon keeps stupidly insisting that John and Paul’s relationship was purely “professional” — even in the face of those quotes from Yoko about Paul being “John’s princess” and about John saying Paul’s name in a subservient kind of way, Norman still refuses to see the personal bond between John and Paul. Lots of Beatles fans are like that. And again, I’m not talking about sex here; I’m talking about love.

Absolutely. The opposite of love, as they say, is not hate, it’s indifference. They were never indifferent to each other — ever. Something happened in that post-India period — something that had nothing to do with Yoko. She just became Paul’s replacement. And John was so passive-aggressive in forcing her presence on the group — as is evident from the Let It Be tapes where he keeps insisting that Yoko speak for him, and the idiocy of “lets bring her bed into the studio.” John was TRYING to piss off Paul. And when did John most lash out in his life? When he felt abandoned and rejected.

There’s a great book to be written here about all this. But I’m afraid that only 2 people know for sure. One of them is dead and his wife has no doubt burned any evidence that the John/Paul bond was as deep as the John/Yoko bond. And the other is still with us but ain’t talking.

— Drew

John was obviously a fan of the photos from this session. He had one of the pictures hung in his Kenwood recording studio.

Drew said:
There’s a great book to be written here about all this. But I’m afraid that only 2 people know for sure. One of them is dead and his wife has no doubt burned any evidence that the John/Paul bond was as deep as the John/Yoko bond. And the other is still with us but ain’t talking.

So true. I’ve always wondered why critics, writers, filmmakers, fans, musicians never focused on the obvious. The John and Paul story needs to be told. Who wants to write it?

I don’t think we’re going to see a good in-depth treatment of the Lennon/McCartney partnership, for a number of reasons. First, as others on this thread have pointed out, our culture generally doesn’t know what to do with passionate, nonsexual friendships–especially those between men. And then, as Drew said, neither Yoko nor Paul is interested in telling the full story. Without their full cooperation, it can’t be completed adequately. And even if they did cooperate, John’s absence would make it at best only partial.

I wonder if Paul doesn’t talk about it in depth because he’s had such mixed experiences with the press: in his place, I don’t know that I’d speak freely about something so emotionally charged and difficult to explain. Add to that the fact that downplaying the Lennon/McCartney partnership is central to much Lennon mythologizing, and Paul’s got every reason to lie low.

For an example of what I mean about Lennon mythologizing, here’s Robert Christgau and John Piccarella in Rolling Stone’s “The Ballad of John and Yoko” (1982): “It’s the fecund if often theoretical Lennon-McCartney songwriting partnership that makes it especially hard to sort John out from the band. That’s why it’s important to remember that John chose Paul, deliberately encouraging this alien alter ego to modify and distort his music.”

Here’s a counter, from Wilfred Mellers’ “Twilight of the Gods: The Music of the Beatles” (1973). Writing about the musical fighting between Lennon and McCartney, which ends with “Dear Friend,” Mellers says this: “It would seem that between John and Paul the sparks still fly; and that even in separation and mutual hostility they still need one another as impetus to their finest work.”

I think Mellers gets it right.

“I look at early pictures of meself, and I was torn between being Marlon Brando and being the sensitive poet – the Oscar Wilde part of me with the velvet, feminine side. I was always torn between the two, mainly opting for the macho side, because if you showed the other side, you were DEAD.” John lennon – The Last Rolling Stone Interview: By Jonathan Cott, Rolling Stone Magazine 1980

@Drew, I actually think the conventional story is just nuts. In February 1968, Lennon’s as much of a Beatle as he ever was. By May, he’s essentially left the group (which he still leads) and is determined to sabotage it. It’s a violent change.

Now you can say, “John acted like that,” but he didn’t before India. He was basically the same guy from 1962 to 1968. More or less the same friends, same outlook, same beliefs. Then India happens, and he does a complete 180 about all major aspects of his life: his wife and kid, his job, his politics, even his music.

Why? What happened? John gave lots of reasons after the fact–“I was miserable” “I was trapped” “Paul was bossy” etc. But none of these–not one–were being reported at the time, and more importantly, this supposed depression ISN’T reflected in his work. It’s in India that he’s writing “I’m So Tired”; In ’67, he’s writing peace anthems and psychedelic story songs. None of his ’66 or ’67 work has been decoded to say “I am miserable,” by him or anybody else. In Spain, when he’s supposedly going through a dark night of the soul, he’s writing Strawberry Fields, not Cold Turkey or Mother or even Help!

The only way you can believe John Lennon about the mid-Beatles period is if you believe him when he says he was putting on a front for all of it–in other words, lying. But if he was lying then, might he not be lying NOW?

I’m hardly an expert, but I know enough about meditation to suspect that what John was doing in Rishikesh was bringing up a huge amount of internal turmoil, conflict, and pain. These kinds of traditions come with LOTS of pre-training, sometimes years, and to take a rich, famous, drug-addicted English rock singer and dump him into an Indian village for talks and marathon meditation sessions was not wise, or kind to him. He was stripping away a lot of coping mechanisms, and a lot of things that he’d sublimated were probably right in front of his eyes. It was probably pretty terrifying, and certainly emotionally wrenching.

There was no way for the Maharishi to know what he was dealing with, in John Lennon; John himself didn’t know. But opening up that box, having one’s demons pop out, then freaking out and running back to England and drugs and Yoko resulted in him basically being a raw nerve for the rest of his life–totally reactive. Not really functional, in the way he’d been before.

So, what can we surmise from this? Was one of the things that popped up in India, sexual desire for Paul? Impossible to say; if so, it would’ve been difficult to reconcile–and it does seem to track with some things that Yoko has said. Never underestimate the cultural taboo against male/male emotion and friendships. “Mates” is OK, but anything more than that–well, he nearly beat Bob Wooler to death with a shovel. It’s fair to say that John Lennon was not a stranger to gay panic.

Is there any doubt that John and Stu were in love? Then why doubt that John had those kind of feelings for Paul (and probably vice-versa)? And imagine the stakes against ever ever EVER admitting anything of the sort. John seems to RUN to Yoko in May 1968–someone he’d known for a year–and that is interesting to me. More than that is impossible to know, but as usual I am left with a feeling of compassion and gratitude that these guys produced what they did.

I think it’s also possible that in India one of the things John realized was that his leadership of the band was slipping away — that Paul and George were no longer consistently looking to him for direction. India was George’s idea. And “Sgt. Pepper’s,” with its huge popular and critical success, was Paul’s idea.

One of the major things that shifted from ’62 to ’68 was that Paul and George came into their own. Once George was recognized as a peer by people like Eric Clapton, he wasn’t going to be put back into the #3 Beatle slot. And once Paul realized that it was often his songs becoming hits, and his ideas driving the band after “Revolver,” he wasn’t going to play John’s second in the same way.

We’ve discussed on this blog before the way that John’s actions around the breakup look like an attempt to reassert control (something Mikal Gilmore analyzes in his “Rolling Stone” piece, and that Peter Doggett also gets at in his book). And Paul was the one who wouldn’t fall into line, the one who wouldn’t agree to Allen Klein and who kept pushing for live performance.

I don’t think you need an explicit sexual dimension to explain John’s actions, although I agree that there are things that suggest a strong erotic charge, at least — and particularly on John’s part.

John could forgive Stuart Sutcliffe for leaving the band. He couldn’t forgive Paul for staying in the band but refusing to do what John wanted. I think that’s why John felt so betrayed by Paul, and vice versa. John felt that Paul broke the unspoken rule that John was always the leader, and Paul felt disrespected by John and as if the band moved away from him.

I remember the first time I saw that set of photos and I went “Holy Shit! not so sublte my dear John, not so subtle.”

I agree with @anon that John was trying to send a message to Paul, a message that Paul surely got and understood.

I also agree with the ones who believe that John was in love with Paul and I wouldn’t doubt that Paul loved him back.

Paul was utterly hurt when Yoko came into the picture and you can hear/read that in the “let it be sessions” transcripts and audios. I guess, in the beginning he didn’t really thought of Yoko as a real threat, he thought it was just a phase and it would go away. When she stayed and fought her place in the studio and in John’s life he wanted to get John back, but he didn’t know how to do it. By then, John was on heroin and sharing that habit with Yoko which I think somehow made them bond. You can hear Paul trying unsuccesfully to get to John. And it’s a really sad thing to hear.

I also think that John was not madly in love with Yoko in the beginning. If I am honest, I think that as some of you say, something happened in India, and that something had a lot to do with Paul and their feelings for each other, and probably the not being able to sort things out and make them work. If my mind isn’t playing games on me, I think that homosexuality was not illegal in England anymore. I think that John probably wanted a slightly more open relationship with Paul, not so secret (telling family and close friends) but Paul didn’t. Plus, Paul always wanted kids, and with John that was not going to be possible, at least not kids of his own. He would have Julian somehow, though. That’s when, like Michael says, back in England John goes to Yoko.

The break up was not a band’s break up. It was John and Paul’s break up and everyone around them (including their wives) had to put up with it and deal with it. Thank God Paul found Linda, she really helped him through all that mess.

There are many things to look at in this relationship. Their weddings so close in time to one another. The way they spoke about the other and how it was very common for them (more for John, I guess) to compare their wives to their ex partner. There are also many quotes from people who were really close to them that makes you think that what they had went way beyond friendship.

I’m not saying that they had a sexual relationship, but I do believe that they were in love, as in “couple in love” not just a deep emotional feeling that you have for someone.

In my humble opinion we are discussing one of the most epic, yet sad love stories of all times. Two man that for being who they were (two beatles) and being born and raised in a time when being in love with another man was not acceptable and was considered an illness had to go on different paths.

Gaby

I don’t have any doubt that John and Paul’s relationship was so psychologically and emotionally intense that it was, as Michael puts it, “charged”—whether outright erotically charged or not is almost beside the point. It was something more complex, and harder to categorize than, say, John’s friendship with Ringo. John always needed an ally, and Paul replaced Pete Shotton and Stu Sutcliffe, but as a true partner and compliment, not a sidekick or a mentor. In a way, I think it’s tempting to posit that something of a sexual nature affected things in early 1968, since it would help explain the dramatic change, but I think it overlooks how emotionally repressed and deeply screwed up John Lennon was by February 1968 even if he was completely heterosexual.

“I think one has to account for it, and I don’t think a new lover is enough to do that, really.”

Possibly. But don’t forget that Lennon spent the previous two years eating acid all the time. As soon as he got off the treadmill of the Beatlemania era, he avoided confronting the massive amounts of pain (and, possibly, undiagnosed mental illness—there’s at least as good a case for John Lennon having clinical depression or even manic-depressive/bipolar disorder as there is for anything else) by tripping constantly. Constantly. From there, he goes to India, and at that point, a man who had been relying on drugs—alcohol, speed, pot, LSD—almost every single day of his life since age seventeen to distract him, numb him, whatever, was sitting alone and confront himself. I don’t think it’s too implausible that the combination of multiple withdrawals (God knows what pills he was taking), plus all of that time in self-contemplation, was more than his (arguably LSD-affected) psyche could handle. Throughout this period, Yoko—who he’s already made love to, mind you, and invited to the “Fool on the Hill” recording session—is sending him notes. How likely is it that John Lennon the needy romantic can’t stop thinking about this strange, strong, controlling woman, even as he’s in close quarters with Cynthia for the first extended period of time since, what, 1961? 1960?

Lennon was probably sitting on levels of repressed rage that most of us can’t really imagine—the 1970 interviews and music only hint at it, I think. I think what happened in 1968 is more like what Nancy’s suggesting. John the bully, the insecure kid who had to compensate for all his own vulnerability by lashing out at others, re-emerged, fueled, upon his return to England, by absolutely insane drug binges. This is when he began doing heroin, before he got together with Yoko, not in July or August 1968. He was in a total crisis, a crisis that had been delayed or averted since late 1964 by the Beatles’ relentless schedule, then by pot, then by acid. The longer he went, though, the more he overloaded his psyche. In India the dam broke.

In a way, I think the John-wanted-Paul theory makes it too easy. I don’t doubt that their relationship’s intensity and, put simply, their love made the breakup and aftermath as complicated and fraught as it was, but the idea that John discovered he desired McCartney sexually and the rest of the breakup was him recoiling in horror from that doesn’t really add up, to me. It might make more sense if he hadn’t been abandoned by his mother and father and then his mother died and Aunt Mimi wasn’t so withholding of affection and Uncle George hadn’t died and Stu Sutcliffe hadn’t died and Brian Epstein hadn’t died and Cynthia didn’t understand him anymore. But Lennon’s entire life was a mess.

Also, for contrast, look at Jagger and Richards. I fully believe there’s some erotic charge there; one look at them sharing a mic in the early Seventies reveals waaaaay more sexual energy between the two than anything with Lennon and McCartney. I think John may well have been frightened by his dependence on Paul, though.
-Michael

@Anon,
Do people here REALLY think it’s appropriate to discuss the Beatles’ sexual practices? Why? Would you want people speculating about your bedroom habits on a blog?

Here are my feelings about this:
1) What artists do in bed has an impact on what they create. So–within common-sense boundaries, which spring up naturally out of a proper empathy and respect–speculation on sexual matters is in-bounds to me. It is, or should be, no more incendiary than speculating on dietary practices or religious beliefs. It’s not the speculation that’s sticky, but the negative beliefs some can attach. Saying, “I wonder if John was bi” is perfectly acceptable; saying, “If John was bi, there was something wrong with him” is about the speculator, not John Lennon.
2) People speculate about other people’s bedroom habits all the time. It’s totally natural human behavior and harmless, unless it’s done in an unkind way. Even if HD could say “out of bounds! no thinking about Beatle sex!” it’s the intent that counts.
3) Speculating is not the same as demanding to know. It really, truly, DEEPLY doesn’t matter to me what sexuality J/P/G/R were/are–except in how it might explain their work. Knowing that they were all born in Liverpool during WWII, for example, is interesting and valuable context.
4) It’s not the sex, but the society around the sex. The thing about Brian Epstein wasn’t that he was (mostly) gay, or liked rough trade (so they say), but that those preferences put him in contact with unsavory types, got him beat up, etc–which had a direct impact on The Beatles’ story. If Brian had gotten married to a nice boy named Steve in 1961, and they’d lived in domestic bliss just like a happily married hetero couple, things would’ve been vastly different for The Beatles.
5) Respect for the people involved. Just because someone is famous doesn’t mean they have no rights. Dullblog has high standards in this area, and while Devin, Ed, Nancy and I can take some credit for setting that tone, it’s been the commentariat that’s done 95% of the work. The reason I think people are reacting to @G’s comment of yesterday is that it’s not the usual thing here. Since it would take many, many more commenters like that to change the tenor of the site, so I am interested in bringing @G to our level of discussion–respectful, often sourced, always thoughtful, and built on a base of real affection for these four men and their work.

These are just my immediate thoughts, @Anon. Please feel free to rebut/continue talking–we love comments and I am grateful for the opportunity to put all this into words.

And BTW, folks–my periodic requests that people don’t post as “Anonymous” is designed to damp down trolling and create a sense of community. Of course it’s all right if you choose not to use a name, just know that’s why I prefer you do.

All fair points, 10:02 Anon, and it’s commenters like yourself that have made HD pretty darn unique on the web. Thanks for chiming in, and please write more!

@Stew, great comment. Much to ponder.

Paul’s supportive and maybe rescuing behaviors

This sounds exactly right to me. Things that Paul did from 1957-68–the rules of the friendship that had been set down by both of them–were suddenly “bossy” and “stifling” post-India.

It is axiomatic that a meditation practice–like any significant personal/spiritual investigation–shakes up one’s close relationships. As I’ve said before in the thread, I don’t think Maharishi was responsible in how he ran that process for the four guys. Was that because he, as an Indian person involved in spirituality for decades, had no clue what the experience would be like for hyper-famous, wealthy, drug-using English rockstars? Or was this where he was using The Beatles and their fame?

It does explain Lennon’s rage towards him. If you’re experiencing a LOT of discomfort during something like that (and I can attest that it’s a particularly icky kind), it’s natural to turn on the person advising you. That makes a lot more sense than John getting exercised over Maharishi’s absolutely typical seduction of an acolyte.

I have to agree with Drew. “G”‘s comment sounds like creepy trolling, making the claim that folks in the industry know about bottoms, etc. I’ve been obsessively reading about the Beatles for forty years, and I’ve never come across anything like that. Sometimes people troll to get an angry reaction out of the host, and seeing Mr. Gerber’s desire to elevate “G” into the conversation is a reminder to me why I love the tone of this blog so much.

But why was John so pissed in ’68? Why did he go from a functioning member of our Beatles to an enraged saboteur? Here’s my opinion: Because Paul George and Ringo didn’t show the respect he wanted when he introduced them to Yoko.

Before that, he was the “leader” of the lads. Whatever he was enthusiastic about, the others followed, or at least respected. So he believed that when he brought Yoko around, the others would say “wow John, you’re right, she’s so cool! Such a creative artist, and highly desirable as well! Once again, you’ve shown us all!” Instead, they sniggered behind her back. George said she gave off “evil vibes.” How humiliating for John.

About 25 years ago (if you’ll pardon the personal reference), I married outside of my “race.” Most of my friends were accepting. A few people (who I’d thought of as friends) reacted in weirdly racist ways, making comments that I found offensive. I remember the rage I felt toward them, and my desire to cut off all contact with them.

Maybe I’m projecting here, but I think when the other Beatles failed to appreciate Yoko, and went as far as to be insulting, it was like a slap in the face.

– Hologram Sam

Stew: I don’t know what world you live in. It must be nice there. But I live in the real world. And it’s naive at best to think that rumors like this, if spread, would do anything but wreck McCartney’s reputation.

Plus it’s just common decency. (1) you don’t “out” people anonymously; (2) you don’t spread rumors about people without foundation or evidence and (3) and you don’t pretend that a married rock legend wouldn’t be ruined if people started to believe these unsubstantiated idle gossip. And you certainly don’t spread that gossip just because you want everyone to think you’re an insider.

“Sometimes people troll to get an angry reaction out of the host.”

And sometimes people troll because they get a kick of being perceived as having some secret knowledge that they don’t actually have. They want to be the focus of attention so they disrupt a conversation. And somehow we all let the troll take over.

I feel like this thread has gotten less and less valuable the more it’s focused on G’s creepy post. Disappointing because this thread started off so well.

— Drew

Are we all so convinced of Paul McCartney’s pleasant insincerity that we can’t listen to what the man said about John Lennon’s sexuality? Paul said that he had spent numerous nights in John’s company and NEVER saw any indication of homosexuality in John.

As for Paul’s sexuality: Over the past fifty years, numerous women have come forward admitting to sexual relationships with Paul McCartney. In that same time, not one man has come forward with a similar admission.

@Michael Gerber – Yes, I enjoyed the book immensely, and I can certainly relate to how hard it is to write that character. Occasionally people do a nice job – there was a fun piece in Vanity Fair on Lennon’s 70th birthday, for example – and when they do, I find it to be great fun.

I did feel you left room for a nuanced view of John’s sexuality. Have you read Skywriting by Word of Mouth? Were there some intentional references to it in your book with character names, etc., or was that coincidence?

I think you have it right about @G. I know him from elsewhere on the Internet, and he definitely believes what he is saying, and is a huge Paul fan. His comment, IMO, is harmless gossip, not to be taken too seriously as either gospel or a threat to anyone’s reputation. @Anon – bigger “threats” to Paul’s sexual reputation have already been made by Howard Stern, who wrote in his book that he couldn’t believe Paul stayed with Linda for so long, and that she must have “f*cked him in the *ss really well for 10 years,” and by Geoff Baker, who wrote about being a press agent for a closeted rock star, formerly of a famous group, with an estranged ex-songwriting partner, ahem.

@Michael Gerber – I think Baker’s character is an amalgam of Lennon and McCartney, and, of course, fiction.

J.R.: You make some good points but I think you’re underestimating how close John and Paul were to a great degree. John and Paul didn’t make a move without consulting each other. John may have socialized more with George and Ringo (as per John’s usual of needing a male posse around him) but the one John DECIDED things with was Paul. And perhaps Paul went his own way to some degree because he saw himself as John’s equal — not just a member of John’s posse, but a partner.

At any rate Paul spent a lot of time driving out to Weybridge to work with John on songs, or having John at Paul’s house.

Also, I think the distance you site between Paul and the other 3 can be explained in two ways.

(1) Paul liked being taken care of. A filthy bachelor pad was not his idea of being taken care of. Even in Liverpool, his aunties had made things homey at his Dad’s house. He was always seeking that comfort. And he found a cozy home — and a mother — at the Asher home where Jane’s mom supposedly doted on him. It really is amazing when you think about Paul — at the height of the Beatles in the 60s — living at his girlfriend’s house for three years.

(2) Paul didn’t want to move out to suburbia. He was always the most social Beatle. He wanted to be part of the happening scene in London — not hanging out in boring suburbia. I’ve seen quotes before from Ringo about how Paul was so restless, couldn’t sit still, and always wanted to know what’s next, what’s next? Like a relentlessly hyper and curious labrador. 🙂 That is, no doubt, why John, who tended toward the lazy, chose to go on vacation with a more laidback George. Maybe John couldn’t relax with Paul saying “let’s go here” or “lets write a song” or whatever.

“In the Norman book, Yoko says that John said he couldn’t see himself having a sexual relationship with a man unless he was in love with that man. Then, a few paragraphs later Norman drops the bomb that John had contemplated having sexual affair with Paul. … So, honestly, by the logic laid down by Norman in the book, John had to have been in love with Paul in some way to have at least contemplated the idea of wanting to have a sexual affair with him.”

Interesting. I had never made that connection before. Huh.

— Drew

“In the Norman book, Yoko says that John said he couldn’t see himself having a sexual relationship with a man unless he was in love with that man. Then, a few paragraphs later Norman drops the bomb that John had contemplated having sexual affair with Paul. … So, honestly, by the logic laid down by Norman in the book, John had to have been in love with Paul in some way to have at least contemplated the idea of wanting to have a sexual affair with him.”

—-Huh, very interesting. There is a youtube video of an interview with Phillip Norman and he is asked about John’s “lust for Paul” and Norman plays it down saying that John was not sexually attracted to Paul. He said John was a bohemian and experimental and Paul was a convenient choice because he happened to be around at the time. I don’t think I buy this. So why not George? Ringo? Neil? Mal? The mention of Paul in the book is significant even if he tries to backtrack.

I definitely believe the Lennon/McCartney relationship was intensely close, intensely deep, and intensely… well, intense. This is well-established by numerous quotes from numerous people who actually knew them.

@JR, I don’t find your examples convincing. IMO, they merely illustrate Paul’s wariness of becoming too enmeshed in John’s dysfunctional need for symbiotic codependence (come on — an ISLAND?!), which seems perfectly rational — wise even, to me. Far from undermining the “depth” of their relationship, it shows how well Paul understood John, and his ability to walk a fine line was probably key to the partnership lasting as long and being as productive as it was.

For the record, to my mind, a sexual/romantic element answers a lot more questions than it raises.

Forth: We honestly have NO IDEA why Paul left India when he did. Sure, the “official” line is that Paul just wanted to get back to work, but why are we just buying the “official” line here? The official line for why John and George left is because the Maharishi was flirting with the girls . . . but then we have Mick Jagger saying it was because the Maharishi hit on one of The Beatles. Not to mention, years later, George actually went back and visited the Maharishi and apologized for the way they acted and then left.

*Shrug* Maybe it’s me, but I just don’t by the “official” lines when it comes to the whole “leaving India” incident.

I think the two of them were very close – closer than some people care to see – but the intensity of it all meant that even *they* needed a break form each other now and then. (Which is something Cynthia also said about them). Plus, like I said, I doubt we know of every single time they may have taken time off together – as the Maggie McGivern story shows.

@Michael – I’m saying nothing happened between John and Brian in Spain. In fact, I tend to think something did. I just don’t think it was an ongoing thing *after* Spain. Yeah, John loved Brian, but I don’t think he was *in* love with him. That’s the difference. And I just don’t think John was that confortable with his sexuality to actually have some ongoing affair with him for years.

— MGAnon

John and Paul also took a motorcycle road trip together in the US at some point. I will go try to dig up the source on that, sorry, don’t have it at the moment.

This comment has been removed by the author.

Michael Gerber said:
“Whatever those guys were, they were it together, and that was especially true for John and Paul.”
YES.

“John Lennon will be remembered for is the result of JohnandPaul, not JohnandYoko.

Honestly, this is so obvious, I really do wonder if there’s some homophobia behind it. Like “those guys were TOO close.” It’s time to see JohnandPaul for what they were, at least in public–whatever they were in private.”

I CONCUR!
—
I’m really enjoying this discussion folks, keep it going. It’s a much more refreshing direction than the old and tired “John vs Paul”debate. Let’s talk more about J and P when they were TOGETHER. Like Paul says, when they were working together, they were “shit hot”. haha! I’m sure Paul has a lot of info that he is keeping from the public and he has his reasons. His relationship with John was very special and meaningful to him. I don’t blame him if he wants to keep those memories to himself. But at the same time, it’s fascinating for us to talk about it and look at their relationship from different angles. The Beatles story has been told over and over again and I’m sure it’s like that game Telephone. As it goes down the line, the story twists and turns and at the end is probably not the whole and complete truth anymore. Oh, but it’s fun to use our detective skills to try and figure it all out!

Good point @Drew. Jane Asher never liked John, and she was Paul’s official girlfriend during the majority of The Beatles era. So any vacations they went on, I’m sure she wouldn’t want John around, whom she didn’t like. (And I can’t totally say I blame her for her dislike of him, give what he reportedly said to her when they firs met).

And, of course, the vacations he went on with Jane would be more well reported – and well known – than the ones that, for example, Maggie took with them to Paris. And, from what little is known, John and Maggie got along fine.

-MGAnon

As far as the vicious teasing: Wasn’t Lennon like that with everyone? Even Jack Douglas said Lennon kept up a constant teasing banter with him, whenever he’d run into him at the health food store, or wherever. And he was constantly on Ringo about his nose, if you listen to the early recorded interview horseplay.

Here’s a thoughtful essay I just saw about Lennon, and about learning to hate:

http://therumpus.net/2013/06/hateful-things/

What I’ve come to understand about myself (after years of thinking I would have been Lennon’s best buddy if I’d been born in a different time and place) is that I would have absolutely loathed John in person. Because my experience in school and work and with family; I truly dislike passive-agressive types who confuse being verbally abusive with being witty.

People who scan others for any physical or emotional weakness, then create unwanted comedy routines. When I see it being done to someone else, I get mad, when someone tries to do it to me, I get mad and then real tired.

And this was Lennon, right up to the end of his life, no matter what role he was playing (contented househusband, political activist, charming entertainer). So naturally, when confronted with Epstein in 1962, how could he refrain from doing “queer jew” comedy bits? The words must have tumbled out of him before he realized what he was doing.

But why? My experience with the verbally abusive; I’ve noticed they come from families where such “teasing” is acceptable, even encouraged. Older siblings, sadistic fathers, uncles and mothers. Where did Lennon learn his behavior patterns? His uncle was quiet and mild-mannered. From Mimi? He wasn’t bossed around by older brothers. How did he become such a bully?

– hologram sam

@hologram sam,

I think he got it from Mimi, primarily. Several sources suggest she could be cold, narcissistic, cruelly critical. I think John came by those faults honestly.

@Sam, I think Mimi was a much nastier, angrier person than has come down to us. Which is totally OK with me. 🙂

That’s interesting, @Nancy; especially how it was evenly spaced–every so often, another photo like that would appear. Don’t think if it as love and romance, think of it as branding/marketing, then it makes sense. It’s not sharing a private moment, it’s an advertisement–they were describing the relationship to the public (whatever it was in private) in the way they wished people to perceive it.

I hate to go the “childhood trama” route wrt John and his cruel streak, but I don’t think we can underestimate how the kind of childhood he had affected how he acted with people later.

Plus, remember the times he was growing up in. I’m sure he encountered mean comments from people asking why he didn’t live with his mom and dad, but with his aunt and uncle. So a lot of that cruel streak he had probably developed as self-defense mechanism.

Has anyone here heard abou the Jim Taylor incident. Taylor was the bass player for the band The Turtles. While in a London club, but band got to meet The Beatles, and John bullies and was so cutting to Taylor – who viewed Lennon as a hero – that Taylor quite the band and quit music that night. He never played music again.

You can read a short account of the incident here: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/books/happy_endings_P7tVbGfYOOjRfuIkTchM5J

There was also a movie made about it called My Dinner with Jimi.

Why did John bully Jim Taylor that night? I think it was a cross between seeing a weakness in Taylor, along with Taylor’s obvious hero-worship of John. Not to mention probably also being drunk and/or high at the time as well. So I think , especially coupled with drugs, John could lash out quite cruelly at people, especially if someone pushed any emotional vulnerable buttons he tried to hide or suppress.

So yeah, to go back to @MichaelGerber original question on this about John’s teasing of Brian, at least over Brian’s sexuality, some if might have come from John’s own mixed-up/confused feelings about his own sexuality. Especially if he and Brian really did have a sexual encounter in Spain.

–MGAnon

Lennon had a totally distorted sense of self–that’s what “part of me suspects I’m a loser and part of me thinks I’m God Almighty”–which came from not having parents who reflected a reasonable sense of self back at him: “You have talents and challenges and we love you regardless of either.”

This is why he would lash out at fans, because they would be disagreeing with who he thought he was at that moment–either “I’m a loser, and you’re a fool for not seeing it” or “I’m God Almighty, and you’re NOTHING, don’t bother me.”

And of course the drink and drugs and fame and money and leeches and pressure didn’t help. He had some stuff to work on, as we all do, but the circumstances of his adulthood made it almost impossible for him to grow. A really tough break.

Great question, Michael. At first thought, however, I would say that Yoko was a combination of both Mimi and Julia for John. She seems to have a stern, Mimi-like, resolve coupled with a wilder, more whimsical, Julia-ness. I might argue that Paul’s two sides, the controlling taskmaster and the breezier, artsy bloke reflect both of John’s formative influences and were lodestones for John.

My take on things, for what it’s worth.

I think something we have to factor in here is John’s childish rebellious streak and resentments. Mimi was “you have to be adult and follow the rules”. Julia was “laugh at rules”. Early on, Brian was Mimi. Intellectually, John knew that he had to make compromises to be famous, but he resented it, so Brian became the authority figure to rebel against and be mean to. All well and good, as the Beatles needed Brian as their parental figure to rebel against AND to take care of them.

As to Paul. John was a “are you better or worse than me?” sort of person. When Paul was a teenager, he was just the really clever, talented high school kid while John was the art school rebel. Then, fame hits and suddenly, Paul is living the life John would have wanted for himself: talented, gorgeous girlfriend, popularity, and hanging out with artsy types. John was stuck in the suburbs with responsibilities. So, there was tension there.

Paul wouldn’t initially screw himself up by taking acid, so John could look down at Paul for not being “hip”. More tension. But then John takes way too much acid and can’t keep up with the sheer number of songs and ideas Paul has. John resents Paul pushing him to write songs. More tension. Pepper is an artistic triumph. All of a sudden John isn’t the artsy one, Paul is. Brian dies. Paul starts telling the Beatles that they need to grow up and run the business of Apple. Uh oh, Paul is now Brian, which means he’s now Mimi, which means John gets rebellious and even more resentful.

In India, whatever happened, John is let down by a father figure. John’s lost. Then Yoko starts feeding John’s ego. “You’re the artist. Paul’s a middle-brow entertainer,” she tells him. Paul says, “We need to get serious about doing an album.” Yoko says, “You’re an artist. Even your most self indulgent noodlings are art.” Who would John rather be with? The guy that says that you have to work and grow up? Or the woman who’s willing to do hard drugs with him and do crazy stunts that get John, as opposed to the Beatles, all the attention?

Yoko was Julia. So was Paul. But each of them in their own way was also Mimi, trying to make John get off his butt and do something. They had to be because John, for all of his brilliance and talent, emotionally was a small child who didn’t want to grow up and take responsibility for his life. I see the hatred towards Paul as the child inside John saying, “No one tells little Johnny what to do.”

While I’m enjoying this part of the discussion about what Paul represented to John — ‘Was Paul Mimi or Julia or some combination?” — I wonder about the other side of the coin:

What did John represent to Paul? Why did young Paul — who people back in Liverpool described as confident, gregarious, charming, and ambitious — need John at all? Who does John represent to Paul?

I read a quote from John once where he was talking about how none of the Beatles would have made it on their own. About himself, he said something like, “I wasn’t attractive enough” (he meant in the teenage idol sense). And John said Paul wouldn’t have made it on his own because “he wasn’t strong enough.”

I’ve always wondered what John meant by “strong.” And perhaps that’s what John represented to Paul: strength in the face of rejection, criticism, setbacks. I suppose John also represented freedom — from his parents’ expectations, freedom to dream, freedom to pursue rock-and-roll rather than a university career. Thoughts on this? What did John mean by Paul wasn’t strong enough?

— Drew

@ Annie: Yup, don’t think it was Paul of Tarsus that Lennon was referencing in “I Found Out.” And a good point about Lennon’s applying the POS/God dichotomy to those he was close to.

@ Drew, on what John represented to Paul: freedom, smarts, art, humor, true friendship, heroism. It was Paul who contributed the “”When two Saints meet it is a humbling experience. The long battles to prove he was a Saint” tagline for “Two Virgins,” after all. [Barry Miles says Paul picked it randomly from the newspaper, but Paul went with it as a public statement about John (& Yoko).]

I think Paul was emotionally devastated by the meltdown of his and John’s partnership, precisely because of all the things that partnership meant to him. Those photos of Yoko literally occupying his former place with John must have hurt terribly.

“John and Paul didn’t make a move without consulting each other.”

REALLY? Then why was John so surprised and outraged when he found out Paul bought several thousand shares of Northern Songs without informing him?

And let’s leave the John and Paul slash fiction out of this discussion. There is NO primary or secondary source that backs up a claim that John and Paul took a motorcycle trip across America!

I think that Lennon was really feeling the pressure of turning out great work with the Beatles, especially with Paul and George at the top of their respective games. I can’t even imagine what that would have felt like, with expectations so high for each new release. With Yoko, he had the opportunity to make difficult music that would baffle and anger fans… I think that appealed to him in a big way. He had a ready ‘out’ of having to innovate and keep up with the other boys, and he could piss fans off and feel like a SERIOUS ARTIST all at the same time. As well as do his own pop music, of course. Which suffered greatly from the absence of the others… esp. Paul and George Martin. Turns out he mostly still did mainstream rock and songwriterly stuff, even after the heavily Yoko/avant inspired years of 1968-69. Go figure.

Well, IMO, there’s not that much interesting to say about the John/George relationship. It’s easy to analyze why it fell apart. George idolized John and supported John in his power struggle against Paul. Then, after George had done everything John wanted (and taken sides with John and Klein against Paul), John made clear that: (1) he didn’t view George as an equal musically or intellectually, (2) wasn’t interested in writing songs with George, (3) wasn’t interested in creating a new band with George, and (4) had decided to replace Paul with Yoko.

George was pissed. And his relationship with John suffered throughout the 70s because George had hoped to be the one to replace Paul as John’s partner. George’s jealousy of Paul and idol worship of John helps explain why George always blamed Paul for everything and overlooked John’s dismissive attitude toward George’s songs.

I can’t say that I blame George for feeling betrayed by John after he got what he needed from George in the epic John/Paul War. Still I also think George had a bad tendency to feel sorry for himself and failed to understand that just because he wanted to talk endlessly about religion didn’t mean everyone else did, and it didn’t make him a superior being.

The John/Paul relationship is much more mysterious and, thus, much more fascinating. IMO of course.

— Drew

I think Lennon never forgave Paul for becoming his equal, and I think he felt the same way about George in the 70s. And that’s why he and Ringo remained friends.

I think it was possible that, had Brian not died and the balance remained the same, that John could’ve accepted Paul at the height of his powers, not been threatened by him. That’s how it seemed to be trending in 1967. And if he’d been able to do that with Paul, he could’ve done it with George. Both Paul and George seemed to be admiring and supportive to John–until he began cutting them unfairly. I don’t know, but I get that sense.

Sadly, in summer/fall 1968 John Lennon made a bunch of decisions, all at once and not really thinking any of them through very well, that basically ensured that The Beatles would end, and that he’d become a dried-up self-loathing hermit during the 70s. But all they were, were decisions–he could’ve changed his mind at any time if he were able to say, “I was wrong. I’m sorry.” My sense is that in 1980, that process had begun.

After a bit of thought, I think there is something interesting to say about the John/George relationship: I think John saw George’s genuine religious interests as incompatible not only with the status quo he preferred within The Beatles (John is God), but the beliefs he practiced post-Yoko (John and Yoko are God, with Yoko being more God than John is).

The moment that Lennon broke from Maharishi, he was also breaking from Harrison, and knew it, and that made the cleaving to Yoko that much more necessary and violent. As with Paul, admitting any part of that decision as a mistake opened the door to all sorts of other mistakes…so he just let the friendship be one-sided until George got pissed off–just like John did with Paul.

John’s post-Maharishi persona depended on him being a secular guru–that’s what the Year of Peace, the white suits, and “Imagine” are all for–and it was impossible for that to appear authentic next to all of George’s holy men. Who, whatever their flaws, are people who dedicated their lives to spiritual pursuits, not making rock music. John felt insecure, just like Bono feels it when he stands next to the Dalai Lama. What’s more, George wasn’t shy about saying it: Swami so-and-so was the real thing, whereas John was just his friend John. Whatever one believes about George’s religion, it wasn’t simply something he and his wife made up between interviews. For better (it’s a time-tested authentic lifepath that seems to have nourished George for the rest of his life) and worse (his endless Gita-thumping).

This may be simplistic, but I think there’s a case to be made that George, the hero-worshipper, simply moved from Lennon to various gurus, with Ravi Shankar as a half-step. This explains Lennon’s disdain for George’s solo success, need to belittle him, and hurt at not being more prominent in I, Me, Mine. And it explains a lot about Yoko–how John insisted she was entitled to the same kind of reverence George gave HIM; that George seemed to treat her as a species of fraud; and that Yoko treated George as a second-class citizen, just as John did, but without the vast friendship underneath all that.

The real source of the rancor between John and George–as with John and Paul–was the similarity of the two men’s natures, and quest. But it’s implicit in finding The Answer that the other guy’s Answer is wrong. When John was willing to entertain that George might be onto something–in 1967, certainly, but even into 1968 and 69–the two men could be as close as they ever were. But the moment that John’s Answer became Yoko, the common ground between he and George had to grow smaller and smaller, until finally each was a convenient version of the enemy. Answering a fan’s questionnaire in 1976, John called George “lost.” I suspect George felt the same way about John, for the very same reasons.

This comment has been removed by the author.

@Stew, I don’t know anything you don’t on this topic, but my personal experience is that men who “tease” constantly about one topic aren’t really teasing. This even goes for professional comedy people.

There’s a boundary-crossing element, but I don’t think John joked about homosexuality simply for that frisson–just as I don’t think John’s jokes about “cripples” and “spastics” were just for the fun of breaking taboo. I think that John joked about what he was afraid of. He was afraid of physical weakness, he was afraid of being gay.

I also think John was genuinely frightened of anybody in authority over him. Brian and John were close, and loved each other and had each other’s back; but Brian was John’s boss, and John knew it and resented it, and used “teasing” to put Brian down. That is, in his place, under John. (Take that however literally you wish.)

I think Brian put up with it because 1) John was making him a lot of money, 2) there was genuine affection between the two men, and 3) he liked being humiliated by men of a lower class than himself. Don’t overestimate 3)–I don’t think the teasing was overtly sexual–but it does fit with Brian’s major kink, and John’s too. So it worked for both of them, but I don’t think it was affectionate, I think it was rough. If it had been affectionate, it wouldn’t have scratched either man’s itch to dominate/be dominated.

As to Lennon’s putting on campy voices and such, that seems to be pretty straightforward Goon-like humor to me. I can see lumping it in with “Rich Fag Jew” but to me, it feels different. And I think it’s telling that I’ve never heard/seen/read of Lennon dressing in drag, which is the standard British comedy trope (see Monty Python, or John’s friend Peter Cook dressed as Greta Garbo). Lennon wasn’t very campy, not in the way I understand that term; in fact he seems to have been quite quick to dismiss something as “faggy.” Weybridge doesn’t look campy, especially the sunroom; John’s studio doesn’t either. I just don’t think John was sure enough of his sexuality to allow himself to be campy; and his public expressions of sexuality–Two Virgins, the lithographs, the “Woman” video–are all the opposite of camp, carefully managed expressions of hyper-HETERO behavior.

This is all just a theory and YMMV, of course. What do YOU think?

@Michael Gerber – I agree with you that an obession with “joking” on a few particular topics is not a coincidence, but belies some kind of preoccupation. (btw I’m totally envious of your access to comedy gossip, but anyway …) I do think John’s focus on “cripples” and sexual/gender transgression says something about his psyche, but I’m not sure I’d call it “fear” exactly. To me, the “cripple” stuff was a way of mocking the worshipful reaction of the crowd, similar to his impulse to give a Hitler salute when he found himself on a balcony above an adoring crowd. It wasn’t because he feared the Nazi in himself, IMO. It’s more like, he loses respect for people as soon as they seem to adore him too much, and begins to demonstrate that they don’t even know who it is they’re cheering. Not sure if this is making sense, but to me it fits in with a lot of his behavior toward fans and other admirers.

IMO, the obsession with homosexuality was because he was bisexual (among other naughty things) and thought it hilariously funny and surreal that he became a teen idol, played for the queen, took over the British economy, etc.

I’m surprised you say that John had an itch or a kink to dominate. Many first-person accounts claim otherwise – pointing out his need for strong women and mother figures, and even in how they characterize the Lennon/McCartney dynamic. Many of the bios say that, while John needed to be seen as the leader, Paul was pulling the actual strings, and if you wanted something done, you’d better make sure Paul was on your side. Paul himself says he used to boss John around, and there must be a reason he was called “princess” around Apple.

I agree Lennon wasn’t effeminate, and I’ve never seen anything about him using drag, although there are accounts and photos of him enjoying spending time with others in drag. A friend of mine says he wore drag from the waist down to the premier of the Rocky Horror show, but that is unsubstantiated rumor. Campy, though, is different, and I have heard plenty of studio outtakes of John camping or using “effeminate affectations” as Doug Sulpy calls it. But I take your larger point – this doesn’t necessarily mean anything. It does seem to be an extremely common form of British humor. Then again, how many British comedians are straight? (Come on, tell me. Just kidding.) And yes, the hyper-HETERO stuff speaks volumes, to me. But, again, not necessarily about Lennon’s own denial. Being an unprecedentedly famous sexual deviant can be dangerous. The more hetero naked pictures out there, the better.

Just my thoughts, and inchoate at that. Remember, you asked! 🙂

Well, hell, @Sam, if you’re going to bring in actual EVIDENCE… @Both of you: I may need to rethink my thinking on this. Thanks for such a great back-and-forth.

(@Stew, my store of comedy gossip is rather meagre but is about to explode, I’m launching a new national humor magazine. But to the topic at hand.)

I think John’s humor changed around the time we’re talking, 1967-68. John’s spastic impersonation seems to be a prominent feature of his humor consistently in the early days, and my guess is that it was (in part) encouraged by the disabled people in the front row of their concerts. But the other part was a genuine fascination with/horror of misshapen or “different” people, which comes through in his drawings and prose quite clearly. It’s kid stuff, like drawing junk in the back of class, and doing a bit to crack up your friends. (Full disclosure: I have a slight case of cerebral palsy, so John’s cripple bits always make me wince.)

The Hitler saluting thing is, I think, 100% situational–that’s the joke ANY funny person of John’s generation would think of when on a balcony in front of a mass of fans. The difference is, only a really ballsy person would do it, and if someone did it today, TMZ and Twitter would effing BREAK. Compare John Cleese, John’s contemporary, doing impressions of Hitler as a boy. This doesn’t mean he’s a Nazi; but if Cleese had worked up a Marilyn Monroe impression, I would look at that a little differently.

he loses respect for people as soon as they seem to adore him too much
This is the key to understanding John Lennon during the Beatlemania years, IMHO. When you loathe yourself, as I believe he did (and so many of us do), adoration either strikes you as absurd or as “falling for the act.” This explains Lennon’s two settings towards the fans: Olympian bemusement, or a kind of rage.

an itch or a kink to dominate
Absolutely. Earlier in the thread, someone asked about John’s comment that Paul was too soft to succeed on his own. Showbiz is very, very hard, and to get your shot requires an incredible reserve of…well, “will to power” is the best way I can put it. John had a tremendous drive to be successful as a young man, and would not let anything stand in his way. Furthermore, his whole stage persona is about domination, dominating the audience–not seducing them like Paul, or playing hard to get like George, or charming them like Ringo. It’s pure “I’m in charge and you’re gonna lay there and enjoy it” type stuff.

That is the drive to dominate I’m talking about, and it would’ve been expressed sexually, as well; to work, it’s gotta be who you are. It would not have been expressed within the group–“let Paul do it”–as long as he was the unquestioned alpha dog. But the moment he felt he wasn’t, it would’ve come back. (And did.)

People who are very dominant in their public persona are often more passive privately, and vice-versa. This makes sense in that people are a mix, a balance. So I think that John was definitely very aggressive, very dominant, from 1957 to 1966 or so; dominant in public, passive in private. Then, with the help of acid, first got in touch with his softer side, then overcorrected into it (which necessitated Yoko, the “bloke” that did all the hard stuff and allowed John to be the dreamy one). The problem was, Yoko wasn’t temporary, and so by the mid-70s, you have a situation where John either has to be passive all the time, or have it out with his wife. Which he didn’t want to do, for lots and lots of reasons.

But with all this stuff, the first thing that has to be recognized is that the Lennon pre-1968 is simply a different guy than he was later, and the world is changing, too. So I am perfectly willing to believe that John could’ve been a super-aggressive, homophobic, gay-panicky a-hole in 1964, and gone to Rocky Horror in a dress ten years later.

A very brief clip of happier times:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGOcn4hKkWY

– hologram sam

NME poll winners’ concert 1965.

“will to power” is the best way I can put it. John had a tremendous drive to be successful as a young man, and would not let anything stand in his way. Furthermore, his whole stage persona is about domination, dominating the audience–not seducing them like Paul, or playing hard to get like George, or charming them like Ringo.

Yes. In addition (or, in other words?) John had that ineffable quality of inspiring people to follow him. He as an individual seemed able to inspire the same sort of filial love that people usually reserve for institutions — their countries, kings, family names, etc. Some potent mix of charisma, talent, enthusiasm — all qualities the other Beatles had, but John had that something extra. I honestly can’t think quite how to express it.

Of course, this dynamic played out in all sorts of unhealthy ways — the classically narcissistic power-play of “I’m divorcing my wife, so everybody else better cut her off, too” comes to mind. John threw his weight around for plenty of petty reasons, and the fact that people were so willing to follow his lead is, frankly, a bit alarming.

And the unhealthiness seemed to increase as time went on. It’s like a corruption crept in as more and more John claimed authority/leadership/whatever, not as an Artist, based on personal merit (which must be continually proven and proven again), but as a Political Leader/Guru, based on his already-established fame and fortune. It’s as if things started falling apart once John began seeing himself as an institution.

But that kernel of pure inspirational leadership was always there, and is tremendously rare and special and I believe it’s a big part of why he is so beloved by so many.

I have no idea if this is what John meant when he said Paul needed him because Paul “wasn’t strong enough” on his own. Paul is more effective and more comfortable in the First Officer position; he’s said so himself. He too brought something to the table that John couldn’t — discipline, diplomacy, his own artistic vision, sure, but at the end of the day I think Paul had more true wisdom than John ever did.

“When he hooked up with Yoko, I don’t think he really wanted to go on. For reasons only he knew, he seems to have felt so utterly defeated by the circumstances of his life post-India that Yoko’s idea of turning them both into icons–a type of living art–seemed like a lifeline. It was something to do, and a way to create victory out of defeat. But if you’re a sensitive person, as John Lennon was, that’s no place to live.”

This cuts to the quick of it, I think—more than debates about whether John wanted to put the moves on Paul, or whatever. Who knows what he confronted up in the mountains in India, or how much he invested in the Maharishi as a father figure/Brian replacement, or what, but the way India ended seems to have kicked off a crisis that we really don’t hear too much about because drawing too much attention to the fact that John Lennon returned to England and started behaving in ways that weren’t just reckless, like his acid binges had been, but utterly self-destructive, even suicidal, puts his hooking up with Yoko in a weirder light. I personally think he, in all his naïveté, truly believed that the Maharishi was going to “slip him the answer”, at which point all of the problems—ALL of them—that had been bedeviling him would be solvable. The anger he felt toward the Maharishi is the betrayal of someone who went into that situation expecting salvation, not simply of a pop star who felt duped.

Now, why would John have expected that from the Maharishi? Michael’s absolutely right that the 1964 Lennon wouldn’t have. I honestly think LSD sapped him.
-Michael

I think John was an androgynous person, with both masculine and feminine characteristics. I think it both flattered him and freaked him out that both men and women found him attractive. I also think he was bi-curious. When Brian fell for him, John so welcomed love and attention, he probably thought, “Why not try it?” As to John’s subsequent cruelty towards Brian, I think it was possibly because he saw that Brian was uncomfortable with his own sexuality and John always targeted people’s most vulnerable spots.

But it’s also soo complicated. It wasn’t always just anti-homosexual jibes against Brian on John’s part. The jibes were often anti-Jewish, too. I wonder sometimes if there isn’t a class thing going on here, too. Brian was of “the merchant class”. The closest America has is the concept of the nouveau-riche. In the British class system of that time, the best that you could usually expect was to do was to become just a little better off than your parents. But Epstein’s family was quite well off, not because they came from money, but because they worked for it. And Epstein had those posh manners and that upper-crust accent, so did John dig at Brian for trying to have airs? Did he see Brian as less than genuine or trying to hide what he was? John would have hated that or might have resented the idea that Brian, by cleaning up the Beatles’ image, sort of hid parts of who they were. John was willing to do anything to break out of the class system, but that didn’t mean he liked what he had to do.

I think initially there was a push on Brian’s part to make them a bit more acceptable, a bit more like Cliff Richard, “the all-around entertainer” type. I just listened to a BBC documentary where Pete Best said that Brian picked the Decca demo songs and did so to show their “versatility”. I’m not blaming Brian. Before the Beatles, teenaged music/pop music was so young that pop idols either had a few hits and then faded away or took the route that Sinatra and even Elvis eventually did of becoming more “all-around entertainers”. It’s always amazed me that the Beatles paved a totally new way for pop stars to have long careers. John’s cruelty could have been just another way to say to Brian, “Stick to your percentages”.

I once saw a press conference with the Beatles. Towards the end, Brian whispered in John’s ear that it was time to end it. John put his fingers to his own chest as if to say, “Me? How can I stop this craziness?” But then he did as Brian asked. That made me think, “There were very few people John listened to in his early years. Stu, Paul, Brian, and to a lesser extent, George Martin. Brian must have understood how special that made him. John only listened to those he respected (and could get him what he wanted out of life). That respect must have made a lot of difference to Brian.”

Yes, Brian loved John. But remember, Brian failed at many things he tried before he made a success of NEMS. So like John and the Beatles themselves, he had something to prove. He had to prove that he could be a success on his own terms, doing things his own way. If I had something that important to me to prove, I could imagine myself putting up with some harsh words here and there, especially if I understood that underneath it all, I mattered. And that I didn’t just matter in terms of affection, that I mattered in making something I believed in a massive success. Maybe that’s why Paul put up with John, too. It wasn’t just friendship and love. They also built something amazing together; something that at times must have seemed like an impossible dream.

—Barb

Paul’s wisdom may be small-w wisdom–thoughtfulness on a human scale–whereas what John seemed to be seeking was Grand Eternal Wisdom, but the first seems to me to be a necessary precondition for the second.

Yes, exactly. There’s no shortcut to enlightenment. And there’s a fine line between seeking enlightenment, and seeking to Be A Grand Wise Enlightened Person. You can’t get far with the latter; you’ve sabotaged it by making it all about yourself.

What made/makes John Lennon so meaningful to people was the whole of who he was and what he did, and clothing his son in his symbols is an attempt to confer reverence Sean has not, and cannot, earn.

Thank you for articulating this so well. I’ve tried my best not to feel skeeved by all that stuff, because who am I to tell Yoko and Sean how to treat John’s memory? He was much more theirs than mine to lose and to remember. But yeah. It’s odd.

I wasn’t sure where to post this, but I thought it was interesting, and this is the most recent “massive John thread”.

WENNER: What do you think was going on with [Jonh]? What do you think motivated him?
JAGGER: Wanted to be the most famous person in the world [laughs].
WENNER: I think he said as much.
JAGGER: Did he really?
WENNER: Along that line. “We want to be more famous than Elvis.” Something like that.
JAGGER: Yeah. Elvis just did it all wrong, didn’t he? Put all these silly ideas into people’s heads. And John picked up on it.
WENNER: Do you think that drove him?
JAGGER: It seems incredibly crass and superficial, doesn’t it?
WENNER: Yeah, but if you feel you have this big message for everybody… and at the end, he did.
JAGGER: Yeah, he did have a big message. I don’t think he had a message in the beginning, although he might have thought he was gonna get one. Or you think the message is to be famous, and then I’ll think of the message later [laughs].

Jim Tucker debunked that story in this interview:
http://eterritorialdispatch.blogspot.com/2013/06/interview-with-turtle.html

To clarify why he left the group was one of the things Jim wanted to explain. He states that much has been made of the fact that he was a big Beatles fan and that he had quit the band because he was so greatly disillusioned after meeting the Beatles in London . Jim says that is not true.
.

.
So if it wasn’t a rude remark by a Beatle that made Jim leave the group, what was it? Jim says he was tired of touring and recording. While they were touring in early 1968 the stress of continual touring and the pressure to record new album tracks caused Jim to have a panic attack. Jim says, “There was no time for myself and everybody wanted a piece of me. We never fought or argued. I just needed a break.” Also, he was homesick for California .

Just to throw in a quick addition to this thread – Paul mentions in MYFN (and possibly elsewhere) that they would sneak a joint at the ashram (comparing it, in his downplaying way, to cigs behind the bike shed at school) – so weed was definitely available in India.

However, I have also read – though I now can’t find the source – that John symbolically buried his personal stash – a huge quantity of acid and possibly other drugs – in his garden as a sign of his commitment to meditation. Knowing John this would probably have been done with the full blazing intensity of short-term obsession, so maybe he *was* almost sober, or at least fully intending to be, when they headed to Rishikesh.

Some things interesting things to look at regarding John and Paul’s relationship:

First – what happened in India, then up to the final New York trip in May of 1968.

I believe John and Paul did have an ongoing affair that was very special, private, and something that was just for them to know- not to be shared with anybody else. Yes, I think it was sexual as well. I think both men were sophisticated enough to maintain their relationships with the women and groupies, but have their affair be something separate and special. Paul was better at hiding his feelings from the public than John, and he is still a PR pro. So, they were already very close after touring, and by 1967 Sgt Pepper, they were even closer. I think John in particular was VERY attached to Paul by now.

John’s marriage was really over, and Paul was his primary emotional relationship. I believe that Paul was aware that John’s attachment to him was growing, and that the seriousness of John’s feelings was something he needed to seriously contemplate regarding what he wanted in his life as well. (Refer to Many Years From Now and the part about how much they were staring at each other, also the part about not being comfortable with Jane Asher is interesting). As much as Paul loved John, I think he was still primarily planning on being a family man and getting married.

As long as John and Paul had a mutual understanding and agreement about their relationship things would work between them. Unfortunately, what was probably at first an illicit, exciting secret (do you want to know a secret) relationship began to mature, and serious decisions had to be made.

Though Paul was engaged to Jane, and he could refer to her as a steady relationship to the Press (to keep away gay rumors), she was away a lot over the five years. Paul was also busy sleeping with many, many women, (John too) and nobody would suspect anything between John and Paul. But I believe they understood that these were only flings and one-night stands that meant nothing compared to what they had with each other which was special.

However, as John was getting even more attached in 1967 (let’s live on an island together!), Paul really had to consider the consequences of anybody finding out about the true intensity of their relationship. If anybody found out, it could be ruinous (money stability is a big stress trigger for Paul). John had a more difficult time than Paul hiding his emotions from the public. Just refer to the various videos of Press interviews over the years. Many McLennon fans have had a fun time spotting the signs of their relationship. It is John who is overtly affectionate to Paul, and Paul often looks uncomfortable when John teases or touches him. (I have never believed Paul’s line about not seeing any clue that John was bisexual. It just doesn’t make since when you look at their body language. Apparently, this was obvious enough that they started having John and Paul sit apart during later Press interviews.) Paul is not stupid. I think he was completely aware of how they could be perceived as a couple, and actively worked on making sure people would not catch on.

Fun Note: Check out the Paris 1965 concert. Interesting body language and interaction between Paul and John. On the 3rd verse of “I’m a Looser”, John affectionately changes the words. What is originally “I lost someone who’s near to me”, John changes to “I LOVE someone who’s near to me”. Paul smiles.

Back to the main point, so even though Paul is uncomfortably engaged to Jane Asher, I think he is still trying to figure out what to do about John. I think he loves John, but is also aware of John’s volatility, emotional instability, and attachment issues. John and Paul are tied together in this situation, and each knows how being in a homosexual relationship out in public would be detrimental to The Beatles and their public image (and an embarrassment around their circle of friends and family- if they knew the true nature of their relationship).

I think this is made even more difficult because they are sexually involved (I suspect they had at least been physically involved since the 1964 Miami, crying, “I love you” confessional, if not earlier.) John may see Paul’s engagement to Jane with skepticism and believes it really won’t work out based on how long Jane and Paul have been off and on over the years. (Perhaps, Jane suspected the intensity of their relationship with her “jealousy of their spiritual experiences together” comment.) Anyway, I think John is still hopeful of them making something work so he and Paul can be together without drawing suspicion, and Paul needs to have a serious and difficult talk with John.

Finally, getting to India and New York Apple trip in 1968.

The couples go to India. For John, he is detached from his wife, and also sees Paul engaged and giving his attention to Jane again. This has been their pattern for years. Hang out with their wife/ long term girlfriend for holidays and events, then come back together. But perhaps John is also concerned the with the engagement going through, and he and Paul’s relationship having to change permanently. The years of attachment/ detachment of Paul and John seems to take a greater toll on John’s emotions and jealousy than Paul’s emotions.

Often people speculate that the two had a BIG talk in India. Also, based on the hinting of John in the “Get Back” documentary with the microphone blow job, they were still sexually active. But I think they may have discussed the need for the nature of their relationship to change. John, now contemplating such a big change in his life, was maybe looking to meditation, and spirituality for meaning and comfort since things were changing so dramatically.

Paul leaves with Jane, and John is left to contemplate what it all means (lonely – want to die). Whatever goes on for John in his head, once Paul leaves, things really go downhill. At first John contemplates trying to save his marriage and be a good family man, but this is ultimately this is ruined by an immediate backlash and reversion to the angry, hostile John. He finds an excuse to leave the Maharishi, tells Cynthia about how unfaithful he has been to her, and goes on a crazy alcohol and drug binge to kill his pain.

So, John gets back home, and by all accounts, remains very messed up and has to rebuild his destroyed ego. While this is going on, John also needs to pull himself together to help with the new business he set up with Paul – APPLE. As has fit the pattern in the past, Jane leaves long term again for her acting, and John is back with Paul, not having to share Paul’s attention with anybody else. This situation may have given John hope that his relationship with Paul may NOT have to change much after all. They will be together running APPLE.

I think it is possible that John was also contemplating making their relationship known to the public, and what it would mean if everybody knew they were together. By 1968, homosexuality was no longer illegal. I think that John was so much in love with Paul that he was coming to the decision that it would be worth it for his happiness, consequences be dammed. John wanted things to be real and true, may have been on the brink of taking the risk and making that step.

Paul on the other hand was still contemplating Jane, who was once again away, being independent of him. Perhaps, subconsciously, Paul had enjoyed their off and on relationship as a way to remain non committed and deal with his own conflicting emotions. As much as he loved John, I think Paul could NOT sacrifice so much for their relationship. He wanted to get married and have a family. Jane wasn’t working out, and his relationship with John had him in an even more difficult position. Not to mention, Paul was still enjoying being promiscuous sleeping with other women – something he did not tell either Jane or John.

Now we get to New York Apple trip in May of 1968. This would be the end of the line for John and Paul.
If you follow the progression of the events, and interviews, it is obvious that something very traumatic happens between John and Paul.

So, John and Paul go on this trip to New York City and share an apartment together looking like quite a power couple. The first 2 days, they hang out together with their group and have some meetings. If you watch the interview where they are still getting along on May13th – Paul in green jacket looking stoned, and John in white making Paul laugh – they ARE getting along just fine. They do some more interviews for the day, then there is a party in the evening. Apparently, Linda Eastman is at this party, and or Paul has kept her number and contacts her. Whatever happened on the evening of May 13th, there is a dramatic change in John on May 14th. They do the Americana Hotel press conference. He is obviously VERY upset.

Part 1: Here is a more concise version of thoughts about the John and Paul relationship. The original, more detailed post seems to have vanished into the ether, so I will try it this way:

Yes, I believe that John knew exactly what he was doing with those photos, and was sending another message to Paul. They most likely had a romantic sexual relationship from at least the Miami 1964 “I love you” crying confessional (as told by Paul), if not earlier. I tend to think they had something going on as early as the Paris trip though. I believe they had their own agreement between them about what their relationship meant, and it was personal and definitely not to be shared with ANYBODY. This arrangement worked fine until John became too possessive and jealous of Paul. I think they were enough in love with each other in the moment that they may not have seen how such an arrangement could get more difficult as time went on. They end up being very emotionally attached to each other but ultimately needed to go different directions, thus the reason for The Beatle’s break up.

Paul only hints at stuff through his songs and “girlfriend” “ex-wife” analogies in interviews, while John with his (Paul as “ex-fiancé” comments) obviously let enough info slip to Yoko (and others?) that she knows a thing or two. She was already suspicious over the true nature of their relationship from the beginning. I believe John used her (and heroin) to break his addiction to Paul.

Linda was there for Paul when everything was falling apart, so that solidified their relationship, and he quickly found the family man role he desired through her. Obviously, he could never have this life with John. Though John and Paul loved each other, I think that Paul was NOT willing to take the difficult step of bringing the relationship to a new level of commitment with John – exposing the true nature of their relationship was really impossible. Ultimately, John needed more from the relationship than Paul could give to him, nor could they be open about their relationship. There were just too many issues, and it was never going to work. End of the relationship was the end of The Beatles. Other than their own words in interviews, there is really just watching how they interact on film, and looking at the details of their story. There was way more going on in their relationship, but I suppose Paul will never really be completely honest.

Interesting info to consider:

Paul claims he had “no hint” of John’s bisexuality, yet it is obvious in their interactions on film that John is very attentive to Paul and likes to stare, tease and touch Paul. Paul often reacts with either nervousness or a very controlled, low-key flirtation during these interactions. John was NOT great at hiding his emotions. Paul is an expert at this and way more self-aware. The McLennon fans have a fun time capturing some of these interactions. For fun: check out 1965 Paris concert for interesting body language, and the “word exchange game” John liked to play while singing song lyrics. The verse of “I’m a Loser” is originally ” I lost someone who’s near to me”, and at the end, John changes it to “I Love someone who’s near to me”. Paul hears it and smiles. Paul had many, many, many, many clues.