Behold My Purchases From The Eyes Of The Storm Exhibition At The National Portrait Gallery On Saturday.

Paul being a narcissist again. I’m just as funny as John but only when I’m in a bad mood. So remember I’m just as funny as John but also John is a bad man/asshole. I’m over this man

“With me, how I wrote depended on my mood. The only way I would be sort of biting and witty like that was if I was in a bad mood! I was very good at sarcasm myself. I could really keep up with John then. If I was in a bad enough mood, I was right up there with him. We were terrific then. He could be as wicked as he wanted, and I could be as wicked, too.”

—

Paul McCartney to Playboy, 1984

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!!!

As written in the video section :"Paul listens to the song "Beautiful Boy" and tries to hold back the tears. Notice the tribute in the song to Paul ("every day, in every way, is getting better and better"). It's from The Beatles' song "Getting Better" - John's contribution to that song at the time was cynical and witty (his lyric was "it can't get no worse") but here he was sending a little message to Paul that Paul was right, life does just get keep getting better and better."

Seeing Paul holding back his tears makes me want to cry ugly.

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

Hilarious to see Paul fans so triggered by one guy within the whole Beatles fandom who might actually have criticisms of Paul (instead of acting like he is the only Beatle that matters) while us John girls have to deal with people acting like he was the worst human who ever lived in every post or at best a glorified idiot who was lucky Paul took pity on him (eye roll). I’ll be playing the worlds smallest violin for you.

Sending special love to the original OP who thinks anyone who doesn’t agree with her is narrow minded and that there is such a thing as a historian who isn’t biased. I guarantee if this historian was biased towards Paul she wouldn’t complain.

"The Paul of Tune In isn't real, and so he isn't relatable."

Today's AKOM was outstanding. I have so much to write and probably no time to write it until Thursday, but I had to make the time to say that it blew me away. The aspect I expected to influence me least, influenced me most: the death of Paul's mom. The writing about it. All of it. It humanized him and that loss in a way that hit me hard, and made me realize how much I'd been influenced by Tune In, even though I'd done my own critiquing of that section before.

(I want to write about the money part so badly, because I think that was very real for Paul, and I believe all the evidence shows that Jim was — or at least would have felt — much less stable than we really think about. He bet on the horses. He was the fun parent. But no, that's what I don't have time for.)

This was an excellent, excellent episode. The most powerful overall, by far. The most holistic in its picture, the most undeniable, and the one that brings me back to where I started, and with a bullet: "What story is Mark Lewisohn trying to tell? And why?" And why aren't we talking about the fact that he seems to hate Paul McCartney and Apple definitely doesn't like him?"

There are longstanding grievances, and the fact that he makes Paul McCartney into a manipulative ice cube on the page is likely not an accident.

I mean, right??

Lewisohn seems downright deceptive—may I even say manipulative?—after listening to today's episode. And although I have big problems with Lewisohn because studying the text you just have to, I have played Devil's advocate in my head through every episode, but at some point today I lost my ability to find any excuses. It is just impossible to construct any defense of this.

Fucking incredible episode. Brava, ladies.

Reminder clip: Mark Lewisohn on Fans on the Run pod — "the bastards took my name off it"

John Lennon begins to realise that Paul McCartney is broken. The Beatles, interviewed by Jeremy James for Day By Day. Portsmouth Guildhall, 12th November 1963 - part 2 (part 1)

The Beatles being menaces in Ireland, 7th November 1963 - part 1 (part 2)

Just look at Paul’s life flash before his eyes…

Yes thank you! Also the comments on this post from some commentators are disgusting. They somehow think it’s okay to wish violence on someone because they perceive John to be violent and don’t see why this makes them a massive hypocrite

i really really wish i could just write this everywhere.

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 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.