Reblogging For The Link At The Very End. I Didn’t Even Know This Existed! Thank You!

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’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

100 percent agree. People aren’t even allowed to change. That’s the sad part

i know you're done with this topic, but i just want to get some things out of my system: you're right in saying that kids don't care about women/victims and i bet they have no idea about what cynthia, may or yoko etc have had to say about that subject and they wouldn't care to find out anyway. plus: what happened to the concept of restorative justice? i guess the kids aren't aware of it, but the whole "cancelling" philosophy is pretty silly anyway. i don't think kids on twitter/tik tok have the right to destroy someone's life and/or legacy forever because of colossal mistakes they made in the past, no matter how big and serious they were... kids seem to believe they do have that right nowadays, but that only serves to stroke their ego, to make them believe in their moral superiority. but is that behavior actually changing the fucking world? is that feminist activism? is that helping change men's systemic treatment of us? no, it isn't, but if kids want to continue to be self-indulgent and childish, so be it.

I am done with this topic but this was a nice ask so I’m posting it :)

I’m also so immune to internet activism thinking that calling a dead guy a wifebeater makes them woke or that disliking his annoying ass wife is misogynistic or whatever. When you’re actually doing things to try and help disenfranchised women, like I was doing before the pandemic, you’re just open to a whole new reality. It’s insane how whole movements have been reduced to jokes bc of this type of """activism""". Like, my 15yo tiktok addicted sister genuinely can’t hear the word feminism without laughing and tbh, I’m pretty close to that as well. How activism, instead of actively and practically trying to improve people’s lives, became a fucking punchline. Like yeah, this guy was violent to women decades ago. He was shot dead in front of his house. There, misogyny solved, except for the fifteen thousand jokes about his abuse (making fun of the victims!) and the fact he died from gun violence.

This 100 percent nails how I feel. Who is attacking Paul’s talent now? Why do people think he needs defending? The thing that really annoys me is you are apparently never allowed to criticise anything Paul does. If you found him annoying at times in Get Back, people will come at you with pitchforks. But it’s perfectly ok to call George a whiner or criticise John’s whole existence and it’s fine. Lol!!

Re: the Paul divide; I always find it so strange how people are so either/or about the whole thing. I think people need to understand that yes, Paul is absolutely a brilliant, visionary creative figure, but that doesn't mean he isn't also a weird, neurotic gay mess, and vice versa. Both are true. Also that those things aren't mutually exclusive - it's actually not that unusual a combo. This isn't really directed at you per se, just a general observation.

Oh, no worries. You put it brilliantly, really, better than I could.

Going to go on a bit of a tangent here, because I'm trying to understand this a bit better lately, but I do wonder when precisely the either/or attitude towards Paul in fandom really started? And exactly what purposes it serves. Because, like you said, neurotic gay and visionary genius aren't mutually exclusive; often those two sets of characteristics come hand in hand (Bernstein is there to prove that, after all. Tchaikovsky, too.) Obviously, within fandom spaces, we are all trying to have fun in different ways, and friction is bound to happen, but it's still interesting to me to try and figure out whether this dichotomy based view re: Paul actually does still come from the Lennon Remembers etc. fallout (as reaction to it) or if its current incarnation is a more or less new construct based on the idea of "rehabilitating" Paul's image, but made more intense (and bound to get into echo loops) by internet fandom spaces, when whatever or whoever called Paul "villain" in the first place has long left the room, and the material consequences of that have been more or less neutralised (I would argue this has been the case since the 90's, since a lot of Paul Sympathy hinges on Beatles Popularity.) I dunno! I spent 10 years very deliberately liking the four of them on my lonesome, someone tell me what the fuck happened here lmao

It feels to me like something of that either/or attitude (which goes beyond just, he was gay and neurotic vs. he was a normie genius, which are both fairly Positive views) comes from an almost... hilarious translation of the Lennon-McCartney competitive game to Beatles fandom as a whole. And a translation of a very specific moment of their competition, when it was less playfully antagonistic and more Mozart vs. Salieri Showdown Picking One or the Other Will Show How Good You Are, Morally. The origins of the thing seem easy enough to understand, but its usefulness now, in 2021, when Paul is a billionaire and has been more than recognised for his brilliance, is what escapes me. Shouldn't we now move to a deeper understanding of him, now that the external validation bit has been taken care of? Shouldn't we move on and talk about how In Spite of All the Danger is such a beautiful song of gay teenage longing and loyalty look at him go his flat PR image was constructed in the first place? How the push for him to be seen as The genius (it's his turn to be 3/4 of the Beatles now!) isn't actually that helpful at all in terms of allowing him depth? I guess the thing I'm trying to understand is, who exactly do we think is attacking Paul now, or have we based our defence of him on things that got solved in 1997.

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!

Say it louder for the people in the back!

anti john lennon propaganda is so lame how is paul supposed to appeal to anyone can't a crazy air sign just have his greatest beatle status like he literally already paid for his crimes who cares. he wrote help so get over it

Give me the John one!! Pretty please??

scans from 1960s magazines

The most shocking one for Paul would be Here Today. Imagine the pain of 1964 Paul finding out his creative partner was going to die

Beatle (Paul) Hypotheticals #16

If you could show Paul four of his solo songs in 1964, which one of the following songs do you think would most surprise him and why?

Kreen Akore

Monkberry Moon Delight

Dear Friend

Temporary Secretary

Are there any songs not listed above that you think would be more shocking to Paul? If so, which ones?

lennon and mccartney, a collection of pictures