Latest Posts by tasryn1 - Page 3

My favourite album is Rubber Soul! Yes! I like to think I’m both deep but approachable. I kind of wish my favourite was Let it Be if only for the description

hiya! how would you describe someone based on their favourite bugs album?

Hello my darling, sorry this took ages. But, here we go:

Please Please Me: Hipster who thinks they are the only one to truly understand The Beatles. Or you just think Ringo singing so joyously about Boys is worthy of the top spot. Maybe you're right

With The Beatles: You think the whole Lennon/McCartney thing is overrated and they were just a neat little rock group. So, in other words, and independent thinker. But not necessarily in a good way

A Hard Day's Night: Perhaps you were irrevocably fucked up from watching the film on repeat with your childhood best friend where you'd pretend to be married to Paul and John (don't look at the author). Or, you're a happy-go-lucky good time boy/girl and I think we should be friends

Beatles for Sale: Depressed and here for a pity party

Help!: Depressed but better at hiding it

Rubber Soul: Deep, but in a fun, approachable way

Revolver: Deep, but in a sort of off-putting yet compelling way

Sgt Petter: Just straight up fun but not that deep

Magical Mystery Tour: Another flavour of hipster, but one that wants to explain the dream they just had to me in great detail.

White Album: A freak that cannot be satisfied by staying in one lane. I like you

Yellow Submarine: A George Martin stan that thinks he should have been able to have his own album, as a treat

Abbey Road: You like pain, but in a suffering is beautiful sort of way. Like a renaissance painting come to life

Let It Be: You like pain, but in a horny way. We should be best friends

Okay, how did I do?

Give me the John one!! Pretty please??

scans from 1960s magazines

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

Today's really strange lyric theory...

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

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

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

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

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

I love (eye roll) this generation of writers who think they are being edgy by going in the other direction by trashing John because he didn’t want to be best buddies with every single person. It reminds me of Fred Seaman’s book where the captain who took John to the Bahamas insisted on moving himself and his family into johns rented apartment, forced John to sleep in the floor and pay for all their outings and meals for a month while the captain pretended he was Johns’ best friend. Fred thought John was being petty for not wanting to be best friends with this clear user and wanting to get away from him. Just silliness

Shevey could have just said ‘I was intimidated by his confidence, wit and physical appeal’ but instead she decided to write a whole slanderous trashy book. 

I’m now crying. He is killing me

Paul McCartney sings “I Got a Feeling” with John Lennon in first encore of the new tour!

April 28, 2022

Yup which is why George found him so annoying lol

Paul mccartney has the unique ability to mansplain to other men

Yes!! Beautiful Johnny led via the fact that he inspired deep love in his friends

[THE BEATLES: GET BACK] John Lennon sharing his opinion on Martin Luther King Jr's most famous speech to George Harrison and Paul McCartney. S1.E2.

Lol! To be fair a group hug after throwing a brick through the window would make for a great story. I’m just protective of my Johnny. My husband says I collect broken people. Even at the pound I have to rescue the runt if the litter who looks the saddest. Hence why he love John and fight the good fight for him as even though he did so many annoying friends someone has to give him unconditional love you know? Yes I’m sad

Wholesome moment! ❤️ love to see it

(From McCartney by Christopher Sandford)

Weekly reminder this never happened. Even Paul said it didn’t happen. John also didn’t go in Paul’s house and smash a painting and he didn’t piss on Nuns. Also I love how John, George and Ringo are painted like some kind of Thelma and Louise type characters out for revenge. Like somehow in the year when they put out some of the best albums in rock n roll history they found the time on Paul’s anniversary to roll up to his house and damage it. Seriously? They had much better things to do (and were doing them!)

Wholesome moment! ❤️ love to see it

(From McCartney by Christopher Sandford)

Paul McCartney circa 2022 in the Lyrics book: A Day in the Life-that was all me and I’m not even going to mention the other guy at all.

— John Lennon, Hit Parader: Lennon-McCartney Songalog – Who wrote what. (extracts) (April, 1972)

I love this take! Also I agree diagnosis of a mental health disorder is something between and patient and therapist and not something for an observer. Speculation is fine but formal diagnosis is not.

Hello! Your reblog just now about John’s thinking re: Paul made me think of something I read the other night on Borderline Person Disorder. I am sure none of us feel comfortable diagnosing John and if you want to ignore this question bc it’s a bit sensitive, I understand. But I was reading about the “favourite person” aspect to BPD, in particular the tendency to put that person on a pedestal but then be very hurt if that person does anything wrong, and it did seem to fit the John/Paul dynamic. Do you have an opinion about that? I always love reading your takes on things.

Hello, yes. I think that it’s not something we can know from a distance and without training. Like, it’s clear that John wanted and needed more support than he got. But we can’t say any more than that, and I’m not sure what it would even achieve to do so. Even with a diagnosis, every case would be different so I don’t know what it’d even tell us.

I will say that this behaviour is also just something that a lot of people do. Some people just prefer to have very close, intense relationships than having loads of acquaintances. John also kept a lot of friends throughout his life (Paul included with more or less good will depending on the time period). I think it’s just as fair to say that John was impulsive and loud in his emotions. So when he liked something/someone he’d going to let everyone know, but then he’d also do the opposite

I also wonder how much John did put Paul on a pedestal. Like, he adored him, but the vibe I get from John isn’t so much, “Oh God you betrayed me by being something you pretended not to be”. It’s more, “You never really cared and I should have known that sooner but you kept me around unfairly.” There was also so many ups and downs between them, that I don’t think it’s as simple as John idolised Paul right up until he didn’t any more. I agree with Paul that his impulse to shit all over Paul is more about affirming to Yoko that she’s the only one he cares about. That, I think we know, is a pattern that Mimi likely helped install in him. But anyway.

It’s nice to see something about John on here. John and Sean had a beautiful relationship and I do think he and Julian would have gotten there. I’m sorry both of them were robbed of their father because of a madman.

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

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

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

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

Robert Freeman, The Beatles: A Private View

I love this. This is why I struggle with people holding a particular book or author up and saying this is the true story of the Beatles or John Lennon or whatever. People have spotty memories and people have a tendency to remember things in a way that minimises their faults or presents them in the best light or removes negative memories. You have to take everything with a grain of salt.

he's not right for you -- but right for each other

she often had to lend him the fare -- he's usually offer to pay my fare

...

Cyn and Phyllis remembering mirror pasts.

As per usual high praise for every Beatle except John. And then these write ups get bandied around as being even handed. Seems like he wanted the get in with John and be part of the cool kids crowd and because John was selective about who he opened up to, he was off handed or referred to as brooding. Where is mention of John’s intelligence, humour, daring/pushing the boundaries and kindness that we know existed in abundance? This crap pisses me off

The Beatles and Martha during the Mad Day Out photoshoot (1968)

Q: Give a brief thumbnail sketch of each Beatle as you perceived him.

Ken Mansfield: Paul was the energetic one, the one that seemed like the popular kid in high school. He was the one whom you would cruise main street with your arms hanging over the car door edge, pressing tight to make your muscles look bigger. He would be the guy who would wave at the girls and slow down so they could jump in the back. I never felt a strong personal agenda coming from Paul, and by that I mean that it didn’t feel like you had to figure out who he was or where he was coming from. He was always presenting the next project or place to go. It was the sheer impetus of purpose that put things in motion so what you saw was an idea and a goal, and none of it needed complicated examination. “Here’s what we are about to do and that was exactly what we were about to do.”

Keep reading

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

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

Not a weird question at all!

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

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

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

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

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

Always happy to hear other’s thoughts though.

I always love this because due to Paul’s narcissistic tendencies? Arrogance? Insecurity? All of the above? he can’t even be honest about his own feelings of sadness about not telling John he loved him before he died. See it is really GEORGE who made this error and he was so moved abut GEORGE’S mistake that he had to write an entire song about it

Did paul really say THIS ONE was about john? First time I know!

being paul, he didn't say that directly, but he said this: "When you get those moments, and you always think, 'well, I'm saving it up, I'll tell them one day', and what happens with a lot of people, something like John for instance, he died, and I was lucky that for the last few months that he was alive we'd managed to get our relationship back on track [...] but George actually didn't, I don't think, get his relationship back, I think they were arguing right up until the end, which I'm sure is a source of great sadness to [George]. And I'm sure, in the feeling of the song, that George was always planning to tell John he loved him, but time ran out. So that's the song is about, it's like, 'there could never be a better moment than this one', now. Take this moment to say... I love you." (source)

Say it louder for the people in the back!

You’re right to gatekeep John. What are the worst takes on him you tend to see? Or your own takes your particularly attached to?

I typed an entire answer and tumblr deleted it so I'll keep this one brief: the worst takes are the ones involving his addiction. To see people disregard his entire work and being the driving force behind the White album (and Help! and AHDN! and Rubber Soul!) recorded months earlier only because he wasn't an obsessive workaholic but a depressed, grieving, worn out man suffering from a heroin addiction is unreal. Seeing motherfuckers like Barry Miles talk about how they were all relieved he was on it because it got him off LSD shows you the way people talk about John differently than anyone else.

The ask I got days ago where someone proudly claimed to have no empathy for John & Yoko (and was glad that Kyoko was kidnapped never to be seen again) because of their addiction shook me up quite a bit. Not because I'm surprised, because I'm grown enough to know 98% of people have no empathy for addicts, but because another couple in the Beatles also claimed to be proud potheads while taking care of their 4 kids was ? Some drugs are funny & cool to be addicted to while others are not, I guess.

This is such a weird take that John’s mom dying horrifically in a car accident right underneath his bedroom window counts as hagiography regardless of whether the driver was drunk or not. It was still a traumatic thing for John. Also why is it never acknowledged there is massive hagiography for Paul “everything can be explained away as his actions are always right” McCartney?

It’s also massively problematic for anyone to diagnose anyone else without a formal mental health evaluation and even more wrong for a mental health clinician to do it via taking pieces of biographies out of context. Also Erin Torkelson Weber is biased. Ugh. So many things I hate about this and once again it’s taking a complex person like John and taking out his worst pieces out of context to form a half baked conclusion.

Hi :) my friend just sent me a link to a podcast episode called "The Psychology of John Lennon" by Psychology in Seattle. I'm kind of interested but seeing as the episode so awfully long and I have no experience with that podcast idk if it's worth a listen. So I wanted to ask if you have given that one a go and if so what are your thoughts on it? Is it insightful?

P.S.: I love your blog, I really appreciate all the hard work that goes into your posts and they're always so interesting to read!!

Hiya anon!

Thank you for the lovely “PS” message btw — I really appreciate hearing that!! :)

I have listened to this podcast a few times, and I’ve actually recommended this specific episode (which can be found here (x)) quite a bit – so I’m pretty familiar with it! The short answer here is that I would recommend it. It’s a decent illustration of the key arguments concerning a diagnosis for borderline personality disorder, albeit, not a comprehensive one. But id say the host gets the job done, and it’s a good starting point for wider discussion.

The long answer, is that the episode does have a handful of flaws. There were two main issues I recall having with it, the first being that Dr Honda assumes Mimi’s parenting was not in any way problematic or abusive. He discusses Julia’s parenting, establishing it as chaotic, and also discusses Alfred's parenting —or lack thereof, really— and illustrates how both these early abandonments would have affected John. He even mentions an intergenerational aspect to the family-line which I thought was interesting (I’m actually working on whole post dedicated to that topic!). But then he brushes off Mimi’s parenting as “good-enough”, when it evidently had a more substantial impact on John.

In discussing how a borderline personality might have developed for John throughout his childhood, I just don’t believe you can dismiss Mimi in this way, since she was such a pivotal figure in the formation of his personality. Her treatment of him appears to have been emotionally and verbal abusive — and that isn’t a judgement of her, nor is it to say that she didn’t love him (or that he didn’t love her), but simply that if you read the various accounts of her parenting styles, it seems fairly apparent that it is what would be considered abusive today. I do appreciate that John was probably always going to be difficult, and that she had her own issues largely stemming mainly from her father — but these things don’t ultimately dispel the argument that her parenting could be abusive. So essentially, Mimi's needed to be discussed in more depth for this to be a comprehensive outlook on John’s childhood. As well as this, the episode would have been improved had he dedicated more time into discussing the impact of Uncle George and his death.

The second issue I had with the episode, was that the host largely neglects to discuss John’s relationship with Paul. There are parts of the podcast where he does discuss their closeness, but overall it didn’t feel to me as though he had really recognised the depth of this relationship. Im aware that he recently did an episode on Get Back, which I haven’t gotten round to listening to just yet — but I’m interested to see to see if perhaps his perspective has changed/grown.

There are other things in the podcast which I take issue with (for instance, his understanding of the relationship between John and Yoko could be fairly shallow and one-sided), but it seems to me as though these things tended to be more-or-less related to a problematic historiography. I appreciate that Dr Kirk Honda has done dozens of these kinds of episodes, where he analyses the psychology of various celebrities and characters, and offers potential diagnosis’s for them – and therefore, I’m not expecting him to be an absolute expert on John Lennon. When you’re running a podcast which is fairly miscellaneous in its subjects, there’s an extent to which you can research each topic, and so I cant really expect the host to have studied practically Every Single Area of John Lennon’s life. There are things which I would have been more attentive towards — but I’ve dedicated, frankly, an amount of time into researching him which therapists would find concerning (*kidding*…..but not really). Additionally, I would presume that the shows hosts haven’t read most of the biographies in which they gathered their information from with much critical thought, because they’re not The Almighty Great Erin Torkelson-Webber. So effectively, their understanding of John Lennon is going to blindsided by hagiography — an example of this would be when the host cites that John’s mother was killed by a drunk-driver, which contemporary reports would disagree with. But I wouldn’t say that this flaw is so much so that it spoils their entire overarching argument, its just a notable blindspot and something to keep in mind when listening to their analysis’s.

On a more positive note, there were merits to this podcast. As a professional psychologist, he is able to offer valuable insights into things such as Janov’s Primal Scream Therapy, and illustrate in laymen’s terms, essentially why its a quack. And despite his arguments being, in my opinion, fundamentally flawed since they neglect to account for two massively crucial figures (Mimi and Paul), he’s still able to conclude with a solid, evidenced argument for John having had BPD.

If you happen to be someone fairly ‘iffy’ about diagnosing (or suggesting diagnosis’s) John with a mental illness—especially something as complicated as borderline personality disorder—id definitely recommend giving this as a listen! You might still conclude that diagnosing him is not the right course of action, or that it has little value, or that its just plain wrong etc. but I still think its a good thing for people to at least understand the arguments here, since I know that in the past when I have mentioned that I think John was a strong candidate for BPD, I am often met with a response telling me that I'm just projecting onto him, which does make me wonder if they’ve really understood the objective outlook in this discussion.

Someday I’ll have to sit down and write up an entire post on all this, collecting the strongest arguments for him having had BPD (and someday I will, I swear!) but for now I’ll just leave you a few other relevant links to this topic:

An overview of the John and BPD argument (x) — @thecoleopterawithana

Exposing the voice of truth: a psychological profile of John Lennon — Deborah Fade (x) + additionally you can read the @anotherkindofmindpod critique of it here (x)

A quote from Lesley Ann-Jones and (a more important) addition from @walkuntilthedaylight (x)

This is beautiful lol. Paul has good taste

butt-gate 

Finally an acknowledgment that the Eastman dynamic was pretty toxic to the Beatles too, not just Klein. So many people think Paul was offering sone kind of reasonable alternative to Klein when in reality his management offer was his in laws who had no desire to represent the other Beatles and their interests. Klein may have been a bad choice but in my opinion the Eastmans would have been a disaster for the other Beatles in terms of representation

wait re your tags what do you mean by wives of two members having more influence. on the group? or on those two members?

Linda and Yoko were basically the other two Beatles for the remainder of 1969. Everyone talks about Klein and the fact he offered Yoko a successful career being the main reason John stuck with him at all, but Linda was the one who brought her dad into it, and the clash of titans between Eastman vs. Klein was just as big a reason the group broke up as the psychosexual crossfire of Lennon/McCartney, possibly an even bigger one. I’m not saying Linda was scheming in any way, but obviously her father was one of the best lawyers in American entertainment business, and her boyfriend was the biggest rockstar on the planet who was in a shitstorm of legal/money problems. Of course the two would meet, and Linda soon went from black sheep of the family to Golden Daughter.

But as the year went on, the JohnandYokoandKlein monster grew stronger against John Eastman’s aggressive and selfish business tactics. Sure, Klein and the others tried to pressure Paul into going with him, but Eastman wasn’t even remotely interested in taking on the rest of the band (was listening to a 71 Paul interview, and he said his father-in-law wouldn’t have managed the others if they paid him, and Paul still went with him. Hm). Yoko obviously tried to meddle in as much as she could, and John helped her do so; Linda found herself tangled in a web of shit that she originally wasn’t planning to get into, but she’s no pushover and so she went to meetings and was her husband’s only source of strength for the rest of these cockfights (to her own detriment as well).

My point was: where do George and Ringo fit into his? John didn’t turn to anyone in the studio for help except his wife, and Paul confided in no one else except his own spouse and her family of lawyers (who were managing Paul Solo from the start). George’s mother had been diagnosed with cancer that same year too, it was a hard time for him and he had no real voice (and I think patience) to deal with the whole Eastman vs. Klein debacle. George and Ringo went with John and Klein because they were the ones actually giving them what they wanted, not the Eastman-McCartneys.

This is adorable somehow. Why am I obsessed with these little moments?

a) Science boy johnny

b) something about the way paul responds at first…

Photo shoots like this make me realise how good John looked again an autumn backdrop. With his pale colouring and the auburn in his hair, he looks amazing against the reds and oranges of the leaves. It makes me think of the Beatles were seasons, John would be autumn (going to the darker part of his nature but lots of light underneath the surface), Ringo is definitely summer (warm and enjoying the simple things in life). George is winter because he likes the idea of tearing things apart to rebuild and Paul is spring (trying to repress his darker side to focus on the light but still fighting that darkness underneath). It also explains why Paul and John were so similar yet different-both individuals with darkness and light but reflected in different ways)

Photo session for the “Beatles For Sale” album. Photos by Robert Freeman in London’s Hyde Park, in the autumn of 1964 .

Such a beautiful friendship! We all need friends who inspire us to push our boundaries of what we think we can do

George Harrison & John Lennon | 1971

"I think that one of the things that I developed just by being in The Beatles was being bold and I think John had a lot to do with that. Because John Lennon, if he felt something strongly, he just did it. I picked up a lot of that by being a friend of John’s. Just that attitude of, 'Well, just go for it, just do it.'" ~ George Harrison

Ah the hypocrisy. Lewisohn gives Paul some light criticism (along with Stu!) about his letter format? and this is unacceptable. Paul takes numerous pot shots at John (criticises his lack of literary nature, lack of handiness around the home, takes credit for Ticket to Ride for some reason) in the lyrics book and anyone who questioned it was completely shot down. Surely this double standard is apparent?

“On 27 March, Stuart wrote a letter looking to get the group a holiday camp booking … and as if in competition, which he was, Paul also wrote one that same day or soon after. Both are indicative of their hopelessness, for - as Rory Storm and the Hurricanes thrillingly knew - summer seasons had already been tied up a month or more. Paul’s was another masterpiece of dressing: this time he made no mention of personnel, obscuring altogether the question of a drummer, and added one to every calculation - the boys were ‘eighteen to twenty’ and had been together for four years, time in which they had ‘acquired three very importance things - competence, confidence & continuity’. Stuart’s letter was also verbose, and more intense. The recipient couldn’t have had many letters from rock groups that began 'Dear Sir, As it is your policy to present entertainment to the habitues of your establishment…’”

— The Beatles: Tune In, by Mark Lewisohn, on Paul McCartney and Stuart Sutcliffe’s attempts to book a spot at a holiday camp for the band to play

Yes thank you!! The man is treated like a God. I especially like how everyone else’s actions are appalling but if Paul acts in a similar way there is always an excuse. The Beatles were all amazing and all bastards in equal measure. They all had flaws and sometimes were just plain wrong regardless if circumstance

The endless circle jerk of Paul discussion going on around here has made me roll my eyes to the point of a nauseated headache.

Going to dip out for a while

I agree-they both needed each other. What’s most frustrating in this fandom is that some people think saying Paul needed John or vice versa somehow takes away from their individual talents and achievements but surely it only enhanced it? There is nothing wrong with needing people in this life otherwise we would all be recluses living a nomadic existence. Both John and Paul were wildly talented on their own but with each other they went further then they would have alone not just musically but through giving each other the love, support and confidence to succeed.

I’m asking you this question because I really value your opinion. Judging from some people’s opinions;some without knowledge and some with knowledge seem to feel that Paul didn’t need John, that he never needed John. Paul was IT. My question is , do you think he was just humoring John or did Paul feel that they were equals? I find it interesting that Paul felt that John was being credited for everything after he was killed, but now,IMO, it has gone WAY overboard in the other direction. Your thoughts? Thanks.😎

This is a very in depth question ha! Sorry I have been M.I.A lately things have been a little crazy...

Anyways... We all know that once John met Paul, and Paul met John, something magic just clicked. They were discovering things within each other that no one previously had been able to bring out. Yes, Paul was more "musically talented" in technical terms at the time, but John added that special something that made them excellent. Even after John’s passing, Paul still says he “looks to John” for guidance when he's stuck with a song, melody, or whatever it may be he needs a trusted opinion on... John was virtually the other half of Paul’s brain in human form, as was he to John.

Moral of the post, to make it short and sweet, I do believe they needed each other to a point. Then after that point ended, hanging onto each other (musically) would have held them back. Both boys branched out to what they wanted to do after the split, however continued to be influenced by each other, they did their own thing and thrived while doing so. If John was alive today, I know we would have gotten loads of more beautiful music, and whatever else his unique mind came up with. John and Paul set eachother up for greatness, yet always had each other to fall back on if need be <3

Apologies for the quickly thrown together response, but thank you for writing in! I love sharing my thoughts and opinions on the 4 boys we love the most!

Tbh I saw that same anon a few weeks back and was annoyed the first time but didn’t want to start drama. I am all for speculation and what ifs (after all this is tumblr!) but I’m not cool with baseless speculation. There is nothing in John’s words or actions that indicates John would be a conservative nut job if he lived today and I’m not really enjoying one person’s feelings being presented as fact as it might not be clear to people new to the Beatles that there is no evidence to back up this persons point of view . A large part of why we have so much anti vaccine craziness is because feelings have been presented as fact in the news media and people latch onto it. Sorry if I fired as I know you were making a joke and I perhaps took it wrong. I just wanted to explain why I felt the need to respond. But I get just your blog and I appreciate it was just a joke.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John’s theme song is clearly You’ve Got to Hide Your Love Away. It’s literally his life story both from the LGTBQ angle and in general with his difficulty allowing himself to get close to people and show how much he loved them

the way While My Guitar Gently Weeps is such a George song like it's his theme song it encompasses his personality!!!