John, because of his upbringing and his unstable family life, had to be hard, witty, always ready for the cover-up, ready for the riposte, ready with the sharp little witticism. Whereas with my rather comfortable upbringing, a lot of family, lot of people, very northern, ‘Cup of tea, love?’, my surface grew to be easy-going. Put people at their ease. Chat to people, be nice, it’s nice to be nice.
— Paul McCartney, in Barry Miles’ Many Years From Now (1997).
Paul grew up in the warm embrace of a loving family. There was hardship, certainly: they were definitely working-class, and the war had been unkind to the cotton exchange business, so it fell on mother Mary to be the main bread-winner of the family, as a domiciliary housewife. Her nursing job also made it so they were always on the move, from one new outskirt council estate to the next, “always on the edge of the world” that was the rebuilding of a war-torn Liverpool. But despite this surrounding instability, the core of the family itself was a safe harbour of reliably loving parents.
I got my compassion for people from my mother. She was a midwife. I think that would probably be the most important quality. Again, respect and caring for others.
— Paul McCartney, interview w/ Jonathan Wingate for Record Collector: Paul McCartney gets back to work (July 2007).
[My mum] was very kind, very loving. There was a lot of sitting on laps and cuddling. She was very cuddly. I think I was very close to her. My brother thinks he was a little closer, being littler. I would just be trying to be a bit more butch, being the older one. She liked to joke and had a good sense of humour and she was very warm. There was more warmth than I now realise there was in most families. […] They aspired to a better life. That idea that we had to get out of here, we had to do better than this. This was okay for everyone else in the street but we could do better than this. She was always moving to what she saw as a better place to bring her kids up.
— Paul McCartney, in Barry Miles’ Many Years From Now (1997).
Not only had this notion of rising out of their current situation been instilled in Paul and his brother Michael from an early age by his mother – by encouraging them to speak “the Queen’s English” and insist on their education, for example – his father, Jim McCartney, also did his best to pass down his values of “Toleration and Moderation”, a good education and a special emphasis on an honest and responsible work ethic.
I think I got my respect and tolerance for people from my dad, which is a pretty cool quality to inherit. He was very big on tolerance, my dad. It was a word he used to use all the time. I think I grew up with that attitude. You know, you’d say, ‘Bloody hell, I hate that guy.’ and then you’d stop and go, ‘Alright, wait a minute, maybe he’s got a point,’ and you’d try and consider it from his or her point of view. I think that was a great lesson.
— Paul McCartney, interview w/ Jonathan Wingate for Record Collector: Paul McCartney gets back to work (July 2007).
He had us out aged about nine. I was virtually a door-to-door salesman by the time I was twelve. […] I was certainly not shy with people, I think because of all these activities my dad encouraged us into. I think it’s probably very good for your confidence with people. It was all right. That was my upbringing.
[…]
My parents aspired for us, very much indeed. That is one of the great things you can find in ordinary people. My mum wanted me to be a doctor. ‘My son the doctor’ - and her being a nurse, too. No problem there. And my dad, who left school at fourteen, would have loved me to be a great scientist, a great university graduate. I always feel grateful for that. I mean, God, I certainly fulfilled their aspirations, talk about overachieving! That was all bred into me, that.
We had George Newnes Encyclopedias. I can still remember the smell of them. If you didn’t know what a word meant or how it was spelled, my dad would say ‘Look it up.’ I think that’s a great attitude to take with kids. It steers you in the right direction. It was part of a game where he was improving us without having had an awful lot of experience of improvement himself. But I always liked that, and I knew I would outstrip him. By going to grammar school I knew I’d fairly soon have Latin phrases or know about Shakespeare which he wouldn’t know about.
— Paul McCartney, in Barry Miles’ Many Years From Now (1997).
Just from these passages alone, we can spot the origins of Paul’s tolerant and caring nature, social skills, self-reliance, and tireless drive for self-improvement (with its nuances of social climbing and fierce competitiveness).
All in all, it was a good solid childhood: exploring the woods outside of his house – “Mother Nature’s Son” through and through – playing and running from Speke teds with his friend George Harrison, going to school and working the occasional odd job, helping his family and making them proud.
And then, Paul McCartney’s secure existence was shattered.
On the 31st of October 1956, Mary McCartney abruptly dies from complications following her mastectomy. She’d been admitted at a far too advanced state of breast cancer after she’d kept working – while in pain – for several weeks, choosing not to divulge this symptom or the fact that she had a lump in her breast to her colleagues.
The whole family is caught unawares, but the boys especially are mostly kept in the dark.
I remember one horrible day me and my brother going to the hospital. They must have known she was dying. It turned out to be our last visit and it was terrible because there was blood on the sheets somewhere and seeing that, and your mother, it was like “Holy cow!’ And of course she was very brave, and would cry after we’d gone, though I think she cried on that visit. But we didn’t really know what was happening. We were shielded from it all by our aunties and by our dad and everything.
— Paul McCartney, in Barry Miles’ Many Years From Now (1997).
The boys are sent away to stay with relatives, noticing that something was wrong but unaware of what was going on, unable to actually say goodbye.
Two days later, it’s too late.
Paul is 14.
As Jim comes to break the news, and his brother Michael breaks down in tears, Paul has an unexpected response.
Mum was a working nurse. There wasn’t a lot of money around – and she was half the family pay packet. My reaction was: ‘How are we going to get by without her money?’ When I think back on it, I think, ‘Oh God, what? Did I really say that?’ It was a terrible logical thought which was preceded by the normal feelings of grief. It was very tough to take.
— Paul McCartney, in Ray Coleman’s McCartney: Yesterday & Today (1996).
It would not be the last time that Paul McCartney’s initial shock response to grief is considered “flippant” or “callous” by the people around him; a fact that has haunted him throughout his life.
I’m very funny when people die. I don’t handle it at all well, because I’m so brought down that I try to bring myself up. So I don’t show grief very well. It actually leads some people to think I don’t care, and I do. I’m not good at it like some people. […] But I’ve always been kind of inward about those things. So I just deal with it myself.
— Paul McCartney, in Ray Coleman’s McCartney: Yesterday & Today (1996).
By virtue of nature or nurture, Paul exhibits from early on an extreme difficulty or unwillingness to deal with his less pleasant emotions.
His response to the alarm that is pain is to deny that it is ringing altogether.
And this manifested not only in inadequate optimism for some situations, it most often took the shape of what appeared to be too hard and cold pragmatism. Some people, unfortunately, saw his defence-mechanism of turning completely rational in the face of crisis and mistook it for him not caring; when, in fact, he cared so much that his only solution was to try and shut it off.
He carried with him a great burden of guilt and regret; not concerning his reaction to his mother’s death but also due to other misdemeanours and minor hurts he’d caused her when she was alive.
There’s one moment that I’ve regretted all my life which is a strange little awkwardness for me. There was one time when she said 'ask’ and she pronounced it posh. And I made fun of her and it slightly embarrassed her. Years later I’ve never forgiven myself. It’s a terrible little thing. I wish I could go back and say, ‘I was only kidding, Mum.’ I’m sure she knew. I’m sure she didn’t take it too seriously.
— Paul McCartney, in Barry Miles’ Many Years From Now (1997).
In retrospect, he even theorized that the lyrics to his acclaimed ‘Yesterday’ were related to his mother’s sudden departure.
With ‘Yesterday’, singing it now, I think without realising it I was singing about my mum who died five or six years previously, or whatever the timing was. Because I think now, “Why she had to go, I don’t know, she wouldn’t say, I said something wrong…”
— Paul McCartney, interview w/ Pat Gilbert for MOJO: Don’t look back in anger (November 2013).
So in the aftermath of life completely pulling the rug from under his feet, Paul was not only struggling to deal with his own emotions, trying to bury them far from sight as best as he could, he was being consumed by terrible guilt for doing exactly that.
More than that, he was under the care of his uncle and aunt for several more days, trying to rally his brother so that they wouldn’t appear ‘softies’ in their cousins’ eyes, while friends and family tried to hold together a shattered Jim McCartney, “whose first thought was to join his wife”.
Seeing his father break down like that had a huge impact on Paul.
My mother’s death broke my dad up. That was the worst thing for me, hearing my dad cry. I’d never heard him cry before. It was a terrible blow to the family. You grow up real quick, because you never expect to hear your parents crying. You expect to see women crying, or kids in the playground, or even yourself crying – and you can explain all that. But when it’s your dad, then you know something’s really wrong and it shakes your faith in everything. But I was determined not to let it affect me. I carried on. I learnt to put a shell around me at that age.
— Paul McCartney, in The Anthology (1995).
This is very important.
Not only had the only reality he’d ever known been destroyed by his mother’s sudden death, his own father – who was supposed to be this strong, unshakable pillar in his life – couldn’t be relied on to hold it together.
Paul had been let down. He was on his own.
Fear steems from a feeling of powerlessness. You feel painfully vulnerable to whatever life might throw at you, at constant risk of being hurt again, and the only solution is to be on the lookout. Be prepared.
Paul was caught unawares because the people he’d counted on to always be there suddenly weren’t. And with his compassionate and reasonable nature, he probably didn’t even blame them at all. But the facts were that Paul had been left hanging, not once but twice, when he needed them the most. So he kind of lost his faith in everything.
Life is chaotic and unpredictable; and people, through no fault of their own, are just as inconstant.
And so, in order not to risk being let down again, Paul took matters into his own hands. He tried to escape the pain and dread of being powerless by seizing control of whatever he could. And that was mostly himself.
And so begins Paul McCartney’s saga of isolating independence and other control-issues.
As Paul said above, he’s “always been kind of inward” about grief and other “negative” emotions. He’d rather be alone at this stage because he doesn’t want to expose his vulnerabilities. Not to others and much less to himself. So he needs a distraction. Something to devote himself to that’ll take his mind off the pain.
The saving grace, as usual, was music.
— Paul McCartney, The Q Interview (2007).
His brother Michael, probably the closest observer we could have of this period, recounts how Paul was like in the aftermath.
Paul was far more affected by Mum’s death than any of us imagined. His very character seemed to change and for a while he behaved like a hermit. He wasn’t very nice to live with at this period, I remember. He became completely wrapped up in himself and didn’t seem to care about anything or anybody outside himself.
He seemed interested only in his guitar, and his music. He would play that guitar in his bedroom, in the lavatory, even when he was taking a bath. It was never out of his hands except when he was at school or when he had to do his homework. Even in school, he and George Harrison used to seize the opportunity every break to sit and strum.
When we left our auntie’s house and returned home, it was agreed that Dad, Paul and I would take it in turns to do the housework.
“We’re a family on our own now,” Dad said. “We’ll all have to help.”
But time after time when I came home from school, I would find that Paul hadn’t done his bit. I would go looking for him and sometimes I would find him, up in his bedroom, perhaps, sitting in the dark, just strumming away on his guitar. Nothing, it seemed, mattered to him any more. He seldom went out anywhere – even with girls. He didn’t bother much with any of his friends except his schoolmate George Harrison and John Lennon, who was at the art school next door. Work and work alone – his school books and his guitar – appeared to be the only thing that could help him to forget.
— Mike McCartney, Woman: Portrait of Paul (21 August 1965).
So Paul takes to complete dedication to work and music to help him ignore his pain. And he’d rather go through this process of burying it on his own. We see him isolate himself from his family and friends, according to Mike socializing mostly with George, also in the context of playing music. John is also mentioned; this could be a smudging of the timeline in Mike’s recollections, as Paul would only meet John the following year. That or Paul’s mourning lasted until the autumn of 1957, when John was enrolled in art college.
We also have a clue about how guarded Paul was with his “negative” emotions – how resilient he always wanted to be – that no one imagined he would be so affected by his mother’s death as he was.
This will also be a repeating theme through Paul’s life: his wish to always be strong, positive and reliable will make others and himself overestimate his imperviousness to trauma. People will then feel free to burden him with their own pain or unload their frustrations on him, without feeling that there would be consequences; because Paul is so tough as to be unaffected by all that. This proved, time and again, not to be true.
His true strength arises, in my opinion, not in the fact that he is unshakable but in his determination to quietly pick himself up again and again.
Losing my mum when I was fourteen was a major tragic event in my life. But, when I think about myself, I am, overall, pretty optimistic, pretty enthusiastic, pretty much into getting on. One of the reasons being, she would want that. I know for certain she would want that. I know Linda would want that. I know John would want that, and George would want that. My dad would want that. They were very, very positive people. And the idea that their deaths would plunge me into some sort of morose depression would bother them. I know that for a fact. So that helps me to not go there.
— Paul McCartney, interviewed by John Colapinto for the New Yorker: When I’m sixty-four (4 June 2007).
But as a 14-year-old Northern lad, his tactic of picking himself up didn’t involve dressing the wounds, which would continue to bleed silently in the recesses of his mind.
I certainly didn’t grieve enough for my mother. There was no such thing as a psychiatrist when I lost her. You kidding? I was a 14-year-old Liverpool boy. I wouldn’t have had access to one and I do now.
— Paul McCartney, interviewed by Nigel Farndale for The Telegraph: Love me do (17 May 2002).
But soon, Paul would find an even greater outlet for his love of music, almost magical in its specialness:
Someone to perform with.
They are so perfect
John Lennon and Paul McCartney behind the scenes of Magical Mystery Tour (1967)
This is really good information
In light of yesterdays ruling on the Miranda rights, now that the cops don't need to read you your rights, I figure it's as good a time as any to make a crash course post on what to do if you get arrested in the US. Know your rights and how to invoke them, because cops will try and trick you into reneging on them whenever they can. Here's my bible on engaging with police, and feel free to add on if you have other tips.
If you encounter police at all, especially if it's for a protest, engage as little as possible. Protests will sometimes have police liaisons; if they do, deflect the cops onto them. They have training for this. Otherwise, say nothing to them if they don't engage first.
If they engage first, do not escalate. Cops are trained to try and escalate situations. It wins them PR, and it makes it easier for them to justify violence against you and in turn, the other protestors. I don't care how punk you think it is, do not escalate.
When they engage, if you think you're being arrested, ask them in no uncertain terms and demand a clear answer. Say "am I being arrested," and if they evade, repeat it until the answer is no or yes. If it's no, walk away and don't engage further. If it's yes, then:
Shut the fuck up. Say absolutely nothing from this point forward until you reach the station. No matter what they say, no matter how serious or casual the conversation is, you say nothing. Zip. No exceptions. This is especially important to remember because they will try and humiliate you and make the arrest process as difficult as possible to try and make you crack, so do the simplest thing and say nothing.
If you are arrested, once you make it to the station, there's a simple three step process to remember. Exact wording isn't necessary, but try and be close. Remember, you don't want to be Lawyer Dogged. Once again, be as clear as you possibly can.
"Am I being detained?" If no, leave. If yes, then say:
"I invoke my right to have a lawyer present." Any time they try and push on that, you say:
"As I am detained, I invoke my right to remain silent until my lawyer is present."
You want it to be 100% undeniable, in as much of the record as possible, that you were being detained, and therefor you need a lawyer. Otherwise, the cops will retroactively decide you weren't actually held there, and therefor you had no rights to invoke, so get that shit down. And once again, aside from saying #3, shut the fuck up. Same principle applies as #4 on the first list: they will do whatever they can to get you talking, and once they do, they'll say "oh, they decided to not use the lawyer after all because they started talking without one." So do. Not. Budge.
Lastly, some general pieces of advice, both for before and during the arrest process:
If you're going to a protest, the sort of thing where arrests can be planned for, there will likely be an organizer with some experience. They may be able to give you specific advice for that protest with regards to things like ID, liaisons, or any specific protocol. Check with them as well.
If you're in a situation where arrests are likely or expected, especially with a protest, plan accordingly. Power off your phone and deactivate the fingerprint or facial recognition unlock options, or leave it at home entirely. Don't bring anything you wouldn't want to be arrested with. Think carefully about leaving your ID at home, though. John Doe-ing can cause extra trouble for the cops (good), but it's also risky, since it can make it harder for you to pay for bail and can make things harder for you down the line.
Police always lie. Let me repeat. Police. Always. Lie. Again, Police. Always. Lie. This should be your fucking mantra. They will tell you you'll get out easier if you cooperate. They will tell you any information they can find about your friends and family. They will threaten you and them. This is all hollow. Your friends have rights as well. All of this is posturing to get you to talk and incriminate you and your friends. Police always lie.
Every American should know this, but it's especially important for any activist, or advocate. Knowing your rights is the only defense you have against cops, so you need to game that system to keep them from gaming it back.
Oh my!
John Lennon's letter to Paul McCartney | 24 November 1971
Friendly reminder that McLennon Week begins tomorrow Monday July 4th!
(For more info check the guidelines and the prompt list posts.)
54 years ago…It was Mad fucking Day Out for The Beatles
Sheff did not ask John a question about Paul's bass skills, but yet we learn about them.
August, 1980: In an interview with Playboy writer David Sheff, John doesn’t take kindly to having his former bandmates’ talents underestimated.
SHEFF: Critics would criticize Ringo’s drumming by saying, you know, “If he wasn’t a Beatle—” JOHN: Ringo’s a damn good drummer. He was – he was always a good drummer. He’s not technically good— SHEFF: But critics used to criticize him all the time. JOHN: Well – yeah. I think Ringo’s drumming is underrating – underrated, the same way as Paul’s bass-playing is underrated. Paul was one of the most innovative bass players that ever played bass. And half the stuff that’s going on now is directly ripped off from his Beatle period. He was always, uh, coy about his bass-playing. He’s an egomaniac about everything else about him, but his bass-playing he was always a bit coy about. He is a great musician who played the bass like few other people could play it.
Now if you compare Paul’s bass-playing with The Rolling Stones’ bass player’s bass-playing, and you compare Ringo’s drumming with Charlie Watts’, they’re equal to, if not better. But the credit has always gone to, uh, Bill and Charlie, and Paul and Ringo didn’t get it. But we got other credits that must have made them feel bad, too, so it all equals out in the end. But I always objected to the fact that because Charlie came on a little more arty than Ringo, and knew jazz, and did cartoons, that he got credit. And I think that Charlie’s a damn good drummer and the other guy’s a good bass player, but I think Paul and Ringo stand up anywhere, any – with any of the rock drummers. Not technically great, and none of us were technical musicians, none of us could read music, none of us can write it, but as pure musicians, as – as inspired humans to make the noise, they’re as good as anybody.
I agree with this except I think it is very likely there was a physical relationship, although who can say. Well I wish someone could say. But I know it's none of my business. But still ...
Disclaimer: By writing McLennon in the title of this post, I made a simplification. I understand "believing in McLennon" as believing, or even contemplating / leaving a window to the possibility that John and Paul's relationship was not purely platonic. This includes variations: that John was unhappily in love with Paul, that they were secret lovers, and - most likely in my opinion - that their feelings for each other were (at least in part) romantic, but they didn't do anything about it. Often, especially in general (non-Mclennon) Beatles groups, I am faced with disbelief or even outright dislike when someone starts this topic. Today I will try to look at what the opponents of our thesis say.
"You're just sexualizing everything! There may be a close friendship between men" (in a more ridiculous and nasty version that I saw in the comment on YT: "Only women and gays believe in McLennon because straight men know that there can be close friendship between men") Well, we start with a difficult topic. There are two different harmful points of view in society. The first is amatonormativity, according to which the only important relationship in a person's life is a romantic one, and friendships are less important. In this context, our critics might be right. BUT! There is also another harmful mechanism that must not be forgotten - homophobia. According to it, being an LGBTQ person is something wrong and a disgrace. Therefore, we cannot think of our idols (e.g., musical idols) as having (or contemplating) romantic and / or sexual relationships/feelings with people of the same sex. Homophobia permeates society as a whole, including historians who often interpreted two men who were close to each other as "just friends" (for example, Alexander the Great and Hephaestion). We are dealing with the same at McLennon. So we should be prudent and, where possible, fair when trying to judge any relationship considering the existence of both homophobia and amatonormativity.
"Who cares? What does it change if these two guys were in love?" Well, it changes a lot. If we accept that Lennon and McCartney were in love, we adopt a slightly different view of the breakup of the Beatles. That would explain (at least to some degree) why John was so ostentatious about his relationship with Yoko, why they got married just eight days after Paul, why he disliked Linda so much, and, most of all, why he attacked Paul so fiercely in 1970 and 1971. Of course, anger, jealousy, greed and insecurity can cause different behaviors (e.g. Gilmour and Waters fighting), but John and Paul fought each other like lovers. They wrote songs for themselves. In one of them, Paul, wanting to ease the battle, writes: "I'm in love with a friend of mine." Why? And why, for instance, does Lennon mention fucking McCartney in 1970s interviews? Broadening your horizon and accepting that the two guys had a romantic friendship would help with the analysis. Isn't that what being a historian/scholar is all about?
"It's impossible because they were both straight" This is something I wrote about above - plugging your ears and shouting: "Lalalala, my idol can't be gay!". Even if you don't think it is likely that two people had a non-platonic relationship, please be at least open to that eventuality. As for John not being straight - I'm preparing a masterpost on it, which will be released this month. Of course, I'll link it here later. As for Paul, the case is more difficult. I think I'll also make a post about it. I suspect (and would like to emphasize that this is only my interpretation, which may not be true) that Paul has been and is attracted to women all his life, and that the only man Paul has looked at romantically is John. It's like in this meme: "I'm straight but John Lennon is John Lennon" :D
"How can you discuss this? Isn't that interfering with their private lives?" Firstly: In my opinion, we can discuss the private life of celebrities, especially if they themselves decide to share it with us. John, Paul and those around them have largely decided to do so. Anyway, people have always analyzed the private life of the Beatels. Here, for example, we see a girl asking Paul in 1964 about his relationship with Jane Asher. And the most important thing: I've noticed that McLennon's opponents are quite okay with analyzing the private lives of the Beatles until the topic of homosexuality / bisexuality comes up. Only then do they say: "Leave them, it's their business!", not before. Do you know what it's called? Queerphobia. Secondly: Just read this post. That's all for now. What do you think? Feel free to comment.