An interesting thing about John's suburban life is this was when he spent a lot of time with George and Ringo. He and George would drop acid together and go deep into spirituality together, and they got musically closer too which came through on Revolver. When you think about it this was very important to the development of his music at the time. It was the start of him branching off from Paul into different sounds. But because fans hold less value in his relationships outside of Paul, it's seen as him wasting his time. I bet if it was Paul he was bonding with fans would consider it a deeply creative period.
There's also this element - idk how to say this - I think sometimes fans don't know what they're talking about, but they'll be impressed by something because superficially it seems so cool and artistic. Like, the line about Paul being in London engulfing himself in "culture" is used over and over again to prove he was engaging in a higher level of thinking. As if merely being present in that scene made him so much more sophisticated. And sure, maybe it did open his mind, but as someone who knows a lot about the art world my reaction is: So what?
60s London was very cool. Sure. Sure. We agree on that. But Paul was 23 and hanging out with guys in the art scene who loved doing coke. The weirdest most challenging thing artistically to have seemingly come out of it was Carnival of Light, which allegedly sounds awful. The Family Way soundtrack isn't exactly groundbreaking. Most of his songs from that time came out of his love for Tin Pan Alley and showtunes which he had before London.
To me it's sort of like the way a Noah Baumbach-loving 22 year-old hipster living in early 10s Brooklyn was perceived as having a deep knowledge of culture that no one else could comprehend.
If I had to choose I would say what George and John were bringing to the table at that same time was far more exciting and fresh.
Ahaha okay I do totally get what you mean about Paul. London in the 60s has such an allure to it, and this image of Paul as a young, charming sophisticate who lived and breathed this revolutionary cultural moment and was on the absolute bleeding edge of art and philosophy is just SO appealing. It's one of many personas that he takes on in the beatles fandom, and for some people it's their favorite version of him. But tbh it doesn't feel super grounded.
That comparison to a 22 year old hipster in Brooklyn in the 2010s is perfect lol. Paul was talented and creative and famous and doing lots of drugs and having lots of casual sex, and that's all very glamorous, but it doesn't necessarily mean he acquired this unique and profound understanding of art or ✨society✨ that people who weren't there will never understand.
I don't hate artsy types but they do have a tendency to take themselves seriously in a way that literally anyone else would be embarrassed by, and they always feel like they're doing something revolutionary and profound, and a lot of the time they're just creative and talented 20-somethings doing lots of drugs and having lots of casual sex in a very expensive city. It's romantic and appealing, but it's not inherently more illuminating of the human condition than, say, raising a family or having a job.
For me, Paul's London sophisticate persona also feels like something he tried on briefly while he was with Jane, and then pretty much discarded entirely. Which I don't think is in any way bad, nor does it make it inauthentic. The family man persona he put on with Linda seems like it lasted longer, but the young, bohemian, carefree part of your life is naturally going to pass more quickly than the raising a family part. He's very good at reinventing himself and mining new parts of himself to create a persona that is fresh and appealing. I think this was part of that.
