Mike Driver
taylor price
trying on a metaphor
One Nice Bug Per Day

titsay

tannertan36

No title available
Stranger Things
macklin celebrini has autism

No title available
art blog(derogatory)

JVL
Sade Olutola
sheepfilms
Show & Tell
d e v o n

Kiana Khansmith

ellievsbear
š
Monterey Bay Aquarium

seen from Malaysia

seen from Algeria

seen from Belgium
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States
seen from Canada
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from Australia
seen from United States
seen from Brazil

seen from Türkiye
seen from Bangladesh

seen from Australia
seen from United States
seen from Spain
seen from Australia

seen from United States

seen from United Kingdom
@bewareofdarkness
Beatles 1965 playboy interview excerpts
I canāt take them anywhere can you act normal
THEY WERE LOVERSSSS
JOHN: Hey! Did you dream about me last night?
PAUL: [long pause] I canāt remember.
JOHN: Very strong dream. We both dreamt about it. It was amazing! Different dreams, you know, but I thought you mustāve been there. [inaudible] I was touching you. [inaudible]
PAUL: Nothing to worry about, though?
JOHN: Nothing to worry about, no.
John Winston Lennon please stop eye fucking him in front of everyone, have some decency for once.
Let's talk about whose handwriting this is:
As much as possible, we will be using handwriting samples from 1963-'65 since handwriting changes and we want samples from as close as possible to when the above dedication was written on the valentines card (i.e. February 1964, right before/otw to the Beatles' first Ed Sullivan appearance). I have done handwriting analysis as part of my job, but I am not a handwriting analysis EXPERT and as such take this all with a grain of salt.
Preliminarily, it bears noting that the word "love" appears to be in all caps. We can see that when one letter is upper case and the others are in lower case, as in "Paul," the upper case letter is written larger, whereas "with" which is all lower case, has same sized letters. Similarly, it is clear that L and E in "love" are both capitalized, and since O and V are written in the same size as them, we can assume that "LOVE" is in all caps.
With that established, let's start with John and whether we can really rule him out as some are suggesting.
JOHN
The best frame of reference for John's 1964 handwriting is of course the If I Fell lyrics themselves, which were definitely written very close to when the dedication was written.
First thing of note is that the way "with" is written in the above lyrics and the dedication are not similar. For one thing, in the dedication the "t" is clearly crossed, while in the lyrics it is not. Here's a closer look:
Having said that, John is inconsistent with lower case Ts in the "If I Fell" lyrics. You can see it side by side here in "heart" and "to":
It would appear he does write curved and crossed lower case Ts (and does so several times in the lyrics). So the dissimilarities between how "with" is written in the If I Fell lyrics and the dedication does not really definitively establish that John did not write the dedication.
John's lower case Ls are also inconsistent, sometimes with large loops, sometimes thin as in the dedication. Thus the lower case L in "Paul" is not all that informative.
On the other hand, the lower case "au" in "cause" in the lyrics is similar to the lower case "au" in "Paul" in the dedication. Of particular note is that the "a" in both appearances of "cause" in the above lyrics has a faded top half as though the press of John's pen on the paper is consistently lighter when writing this part of the letter, or in the alternative when John's in a hurry his lower case cursive As look like lower case Us as he failes to connect the two ends. This same phenomenon can be observed in the dedication.
The "If I Fell" lyrics do not give us any frame of reference for the capital letters, but another set of lyrics John wrote in 1964 do:
This is from John's handwritten lyrics for "If You've Got Trouble." Here we can see John's capital "L" and "VE" in "LEAVE" are similar to the capital "L" and "VE" in the dedication. "LEAVE" here is written in a similar pseudo script style as "LOVE" so the slight curve connecting the V to the E is especially striking.
Given this, it appears that we CANNOT rule John out of contention. It's still possible he wrote the dedication. There are enough similarities between handwriting samples of his from 1964 and the dedication.
JANE
The trouble with Jane is our handwriting samples for her are limited, the best I could find was a note she wrote in 1966:
Her lower case L is thin and never has a big loop unlike John. This is similar to the L in "Paul" in the dedication. Her upper case P in the note also resembles the P in Paul in the dedication. Her lower case "au" in "autograph" in the above note is somewhat similar to the "au" in the dedication, but Jane's handwriting is curvier, the strokes in the dedication are sharper than the laxer strokes in the above note written by Jane. In contrast, the curve in Jane's lower case h are consistently sharper than the very curved h in the dedication.
Notice also that when she writes a lower case T, the next letter is connected not to the base of the letter (as it does in the dedication) but with the cross/horizontal line. Even when the base ot the "t" and the next letter connect, as in "that" this is clearly more accidental then intentional. Jane's lower case Ts consistently do not have a curved bottom. In contrast, the lower case T in the dedication not only has a curved bottom, it is clearly purposefully connected to the next letter (h).
I am inclined to think the dedication was not written by Jane, it's not completely impossible that it was her, but in my considered opinion it is unlikely.
GEORGE (HARRISON)
My favorite wild card theory. For his handwriting sample, lets use George's 1964 letter to Astrid:
Like Jane, the biggest problem with the George theory is his lower case Ts. Both in "think" and in "anything" the bottom of his lower case T is not curved and it connects to the H through the cross, not the base. He sometimes curves his lower case Ts when theyre the last letter of a word, as in "put", but this is the single instance of a curved lower case t in the entire letter to Astrid. His cursive "V" also curves inwards (as in "everyone" and "love") while the V in the dedication curves slightly outwards. In other words the way George's hand moves when he writes a cursive V seems slightly different from the way the person who wrote the dedication does it. George's capital Es are also consistently angular in the above sample, though its worth noting that he sometimes has curved capital Es in later handwriting samples, such as the handwritten lyrics of Something from 1969. Still, in so far as 1964, that does not seem to be the usual case.
Moreover, while his lower case Ls are inconsistent (sometimes thin, sometimes with big loops), he seemed to write the lower case L in "Paul" with big loops. Here is a letter he wrote to an Atlanta DJ, Paul Drew in 1966:
Notice also the slightly curvier capital Es, and the inward curving capital V.
A point in favor of the George theory however can be seen in his letter to Astrid. That is, George ended some of his letters with "x x x", especially in '63-'64, and the dedication also ends with x x x. Here's another example from 1963 of George ending a letter in this manner.
But the thing is... George isnt the only one who signs off letters with "x x x," John did this on occassion in the late 50s, early 60s. He does it here in a letter to Cynthia (sent from Hamburg, 1959):
Another letter to Cynthia in 1962 also shows John signing off with multiple Xs, and he also signs off with "xxxx" in an alleged letter of his to George's mother, Louise from the early 60s. That said, George is more consistent with using just three Xs. So the sign off is still a point more in George's favor than John's, but it is definitely not a point AGAINST John.
CONCLUSION
If we are to rank our three main "suspects" based on this discussion, John would be the most likely writer of the dedication, followed by George. Personally I would have loved if it was Jane, and John wrote the lyrics on the card in a jealous frenzy lmao; but it does still seem more likely that it was John.
Side Note: I checked some Brian, Mal, and Ringo handwriting samples and they were all too dissimilar to the handwriting on the dedication to merit serious consideration. I don't think anyone else in their inner circle would send Paul a Valentines Card either, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Tgc vumtq
every now and then i think about the mccartney I press release and how scathingly bitchy it is. some of my favourite bits:
"fuck you john. and fuck everyone else too for never agreeing with my cool ideas. luckily i agree with MYSELF"
"why did you play all the instruments yourse-" "BECAUSE I CAN."
completely random uncalled for ringo diss. like he was PISSED
he was so real for this one tbh. Say That!
"and for the record i'm never setting foot in an office ever again. fuck off"
"kill yourself allen klein."
"Brian didn't want to go to gigs dressed as Mr. Epstein from NEMS," says Peter Brown. "He didn't want to look like a prick in a suit, so he put on a turtleneck and a leather jacket to seem more like the boys." Bill Harry recalls him at the Cavern one night, "with his hair combed forward, looking completely ridiculous." He was experimenting, looking for ways to square himself with the Beatles, to square himself with himself.
The Beatles by Bob Spitz.
john and paul being each other's favourite entertainment
why is it so difficult/controversial for certain people to admit that John (probably) wrote If I Fell for Paul?
Some insist the card was from Jane because of the "To Paul with love xxx" but doesn't that make it even more sus for John to just take the card and write those lyrics? Not considering the fact that phrase was from his own hands, but I'm not an expert in calligraphy. And from what I've heard he put down the lyrics while they were on a plane, I think in the US, so what did Paul always had the card on him?
I remember the first time I saw it was in one of Hunter Davies' books and of course he was adamant that John was talking about Cynthia and felt sorry for her, okay, it was the acceptable conclusion for the times, but now? Especially with Ian Leslie's book (idk why he left out the card part though) I guess more people feel comfortable giving in to speculation, but some remain so obtuse (including the guy who owns the actual card, I read he's convinced it's from Jane).
I suppose it's a lost cause asking knowing Paul, but did he ever acknowledge the card/song in some way? Or someone close to him and John, it's still the one song together with In My Life (from the band) that is so discussed about being mclennon.
The few people who have actually publicly discussed the Valentine's card, like Bill Maher and his guest who brought it, they either genuinely have no idea what to make of it because the idea of John writing that for Paul doesn't fit how they view their relationship (so they think there must be a more logical explanation), or they privately think itās "sus" but don't want to publicly air their speculations. Because most general audiences don't know the deep lore behind John and Paul, they immediately reach for the "safest" theory that makes sense to them: that it must have been Jane (or a fan) who gave it to Paul. Yes, in the last decade, following Get Back, Now and Then, and the release of Leslie's book, there has been a noticeable shift. More people are publicly discussing John and Paul's relationship in a far more intimate way than ever before. But you do sometimes get the feeling they are still walking on eggshells. They always frame it as a "platonic love affair," carefully tiptoeing around it without ever explicitly suggesting anything more (regardless of what they might actually believe). And it makes sense, as none of us can know for sure what happened between them, but they completely avoid even jokingly mentioning the (however unlikely) possibility of it being more than a standard friendship. Look at how some of them handle it:
Peter Jackson, Giles Martin, and Brian Ray (Paul's guitarist) have all publicly stated that they believe that Now and Then is a love letter from John to Paul. Yet, they never elaborate on the implications of that statement, considering the song's lyrics are romantic.
Morgan Neville directly told Paul that Man on the Run is basically "two love stories": Paul and Linda, and Paul and John. Neville looked somewhat shy saying it (looking down briefly and trying not to smile), like it was something heād been planning to say to Paul for some time. Paul actually nodded, seemingly accepting it since Neville framed it metaphorically.
Howard Stern, when discussing "Now and Then," was prompted by a co-host who said, "You know how you've been trying to talk to Paul about being in love with John, and it being like a love affair?" Howard immediately agreed: "Yes, John and Paul had the greatest love affair in history," before quickly adding, "it just wasn't a physical thing."
Bob Spitz on the OSD podcast in 2021 said he was "convinced" they were "in love" from the moment they met, describing their first meeting as an instant "this is it for me" moment. But he immediately qualified it: "very platonic, but..."
Bill Maher, speaking to Julian about Get Back, stated that "John and Paul were in love" and that "all the women were third wheels," before quickly adding, "and I don't mean there was a gay element there, by the way."
Chris Salewicz argued in is book that Johnās sudden wedding to Yoko was a knee-jerk reaction to Paul marrying Linda, essentially a panic response to "losing the first love of his life". Yet on the OSD podcast, he added: "Iām not saying anything happened between them, Iām sure it didnāt."
Ian Leslie has consistently described their dynamic as a "platonic, non-physical romance," though sometimes pushing the envelope by suggesting John might have wanted something more while Paul was simply too straight or oblivious. Sometimes he's a bit more bold and says that the relationship was actually romantic but not sexual (and that it might have had a "physical or erotic component"...)
Itās clear that no matter what these commentators privately believe, they all carefully walk around it. They either genuinely believe it was an incredibly intense but strictly platonic bond, or they suspect there was more to it but feel highly uncomfortable publicly speculating on the private lives of two public figures (I think both reasons are valid). This self-censorship is why I think Ian Leslie left the Valentine's card out of his book entirely. I am almost certain this was a deliberate choice rather than an oversight. Leslie toned down or ignored several suggestive elements in his book, even editing and cutting short some of Paul quotes (like the one where Paul says he knew exactly what John was doing when he publicly trashed him, calling it Johnās way of confessing his old affairs and proving to Yoko how much he loved her). When asked about the If I Fell card in interviews, Leslie acknowledged that it was "nicely suggestive", but he kind of talks around it without exploring its massive implications (he mostly says that he sees it as John expressing to this "person" how much they mean to him). I can see why. After all, if it's true that John wrote the lyrics to a deeply vulnerable, romantic song on a Valentine's card and addressed it "to Paul with love," then this could complicate his thesis that their relationship was platonic and that Paul was entirely oblivious to John's feelings, as he claims. I also don't buy the idea that Leslie is simply completely ignorant of most of the lore, even though he has claimed in press conferences to have no clue about things like the mating beetles on the RAM album cover. Years before his book came out, Leslie was on the OSD podcast calling the Paris trip their "honeymoon" and saying other suggestive things. When I first listened to that OSD episode, I came away thinking that he believed their relationship wasn't entirely platonic. For the book, in my opinion, he toned the rhetoric down to avoid alienating mainstream readers (who would write off a book hinting at romance as "shipper nonsense"), and possibly to avoid drawing any legal or personal ire from MPL and Paul himself, or anything that would complicate the publishing of his book.
Even Christieās auction house got caught up in this rationalization. In their official lot description for the card, they claimed John suddenly got the inspiration for the song on a plane and, finding no other paper, used Paulās Valentine's card. Their explanation is faulty for a couple of reasons:
They have absolutely no way of knowing that sequence of events. It's all speculation.
The lyrics written on the card are absolutely pristine. There are no scratch-outs, and they are 99% identical to the final recorded version. It is clearly an almost finished presentation, not a rough, spontaneous draft. But because it likely didn't make sense to them that John would write If I Fell on a valentine for Paul, they theorized that John suddenly got the inspiration for the song but couldn't find a regular piece of paper on the plane (which is also kind of hard to believe).
Paul, expectedly, has never addressed the card, but he has indeed mentioned If I Fell. Back in 1964, he was asked about what was his favorite song from AHDN, and he said "If I Fell". Over forty years later, in the mid-2000s, he privately told a journalist that it was probably his favorite John song of all time. Yet, whenever Paul is publicly asked about his favorite Lennon songs, he sticks to: "Strawberry Fields Forever," "Julia," "Beautiful Boy," "Imagine," or "Across the Universe." But itās clear he hasn't forgotten If I Fell considering he recalled it being his favorite more than four decades after its release. Maybe itās simply too personal for him to name as his favorite publicly, or maybe he thinks that people would over-analyze the implications of it. Of course, it's also possible he just changed his mind over the years and that it's no longer his favorite. We will likely never know for sure, because I just don't picture Paul addressing it (or anyone asking him).
P.S. Now that I see the card more clearly, the exchange between Maher and the other guy is even funnier. When Maher asked why John would write those lyrics on a Valentine card for Paul, the guest tried to explain it away by saying, "Actually, I think it was Jane who wrote that, because it is signed 'J'." But that doesn't seem to be an intentional "J" on that card: the curved line under "To Paul with Love" seems to be a decorative underline, not a letter. And even if it were a J... John also starts with a J! It being a "J" doesn't just automatically prove that it means "Jane". It was a completely unconvincing explanation he came up with at the moment. Also, it would be kind of odd for Jane to give a card to Paul that only says "to Paul with love", without writing anything else inside. It just seems like whoever wrote 'To Paul, with love' intended the lyrics themselves to be the actual message to Paul, instead of simply writing the usual romantic dedication people write in Valentine's cards.
š¶ "... when she learns we are two" š¶
photos by Jürgen Vollmer
In the end, I think John had some tough breaks. He used to say, "Everyone is on the McCartney bandwagon." He wrote "Iām Just A Jealous Guy," and he said that the song was about me. So I think it was just some kind of jealousy. I had to try and forgive John because I sort of knew where he was coming from. I knew that he was trying to get rid of the Beatles in order to say to Yoko, "Look, Iāve even given that up for you. Iām ready to devote myself to you and to the avant-garde." I donāt know if itās true. One thing Iām really glad about is that I didnāt answer him back. Itās very difficult to do that when someone is attacking you. But I would have felt sick as a dog now if I had.
Paul McCartney interviewed for Playgirl, February 1985.
apparently theres now a high res image of the if i fell card bc itās being put up for auction?
i still desperately want to know who wrote the āto paul with loveā i wish i knew handwriting analysis lol
No I donāt think Iāll ever get over the Apple Corps photographs because it truly was the closest thing to what a McLennon wedding pictures could be.
If you ever feel like youāre making shit up, just remember who pioneered the cause!
the thing about The Beatles is that they're this ultramegafamous band everyone and their mother knows... but ONLY by becoming a hard-core fan you get to unlock the real truth: apart from being a band, The Beatles were a toxic codependant polycule.