a

in my 20's || No pronouns i don't deserve respect || McLennon apologist || I saw Paul chewing gum IRL || just art at @painmccartney

[beatleskinkmeme]

Paul finds a perfume in Paris he loves the smell of, it reminds him of one of his early memories on envying something traditionally feminine for himself when he smelled the light smell of his mother’s perfume she saved for special occasions, but masks under the guise of saying John should gift to Cyn so she can wear it for him. Leads to JP first time sex in Paris.

.

[undying-love]

Interesting that Paul has stopped using marriage metaphors. I was under the impression that he did and still does a lot for some reason. I guess media and outsiders still do so maybe that's why?

Do you know when he stopped? Do you have the last time he did? (that's probably hard to find, sorry) Do you have any hunches as to why? My impression was that he was getting more open about this if anything

Yeah, it is easy to get the impression that Paul still uses these metaphors to this day because he has grown increasingly open about his love for John, and the media frames their relationship as a love story more than ever before. However, the surprising truth is that he hasn't actually used them since the late 80s (if any of you has an example that proves otherwise, please let me know). While he still occasionally refers to The Beatles' breakup as a "divorce," that is always in reference to the band as a collective entity, not his specific relationship with John. Paul’s usage of romantic and marriage language was strictly confined to a window between the early 70s and 1987. Immediately following the band's split, his analogies were raw: “You just don’t want to know about your ex-wife or ex-husband. After all the bitchiness, you feel the desire for a complete break.” A bit later, he echoed this: “There’s no hard feelings or anything, but you just don’t hang around with your ex-wife. We’ve completely finished.”

The 80s, however, brought his most explicit and surprisingly candid romantic analogies:

1981: "I understood what happened when he met Yoko. He had to clear the decks of his old emotions. He went through all his old affairs, confessed them all. Me and Linda did that when we first met. You prove how much you love someone by confessing all that old stuff. John's method was to slag me off."

1984: "Then also we were like married, so you got the bitterness. It’s not a woman scorned this time, it’s two men scorned — probably even worse. And I had to make way for Yoko. My relationship with John could not have remained as it was and Yoko feel secure."

1985: "Really all that happened was that John fell in love. With Yoko. And so, with such a powerful alliance like that, it was difficult for him to still be seeing me. It was as if I was another girlfriend, almost. Our relationship was a strong relationship. And if he was to start a new relationship, he had to put this other one away."

1987: “It’s just like divorce. It’s that you were so close and so in love that if anyone decides to start talking dirty — great, then Pandora’s box is open. That’s what happened with us.”

Though he did seem to hesiate a little when it was the interviewer who used that terminology, as we can see in this 1982 interview (though he did ultimately agree with the comparison):

Q: When the rift started [between you and John], it was more like a divorce, like a love/hate relationship, coming apart. Is that true? PAUL: Yes. It sounds weird when you use that analogy because then it takes on another meaning. But yes, it's true. What I mean is that there was that kind of deep feeling and deep heat [laughs].

lso worth noticing is that this was also the only period in which Paul claimed John told him "Jealous Guy" was written about him, which is something he has never repeated since. By the 90s, the shift began. In the Anthology documentary, he did say, "I can't just let John take control of the situation and dump us as if we were jilted girlfriends," but here he utilized his now classic, protective plural "us," softening the phrase into a rather playful analogy. Since then, that specific category of romantic language has vanished from his vocabulary. Granted, Paul has become incredibly open in other ways recently. For example, he now openly admits that the reason they cried together in Key West was simply because of how much they loved each other (whereas in the early 2000s, he cautiously rationalized it as "probably" being about their mothers' deaths). He also speaks about John far more frequently and fondly today than he did in the 80s. In the immediate aftermath of John's death, it was likely too painful to open up, and Paul was still actively doubting whether John had truly loved him. Yet, paradoxically, that painful '80s era was the only time he used no-nonsense, openly romantic metaphors.

So, what changed after 1987? It is probable that the release of Albert Goldman’s biography in 1988, claiming that John was homosexual, had some impact on this. Paul then began making defensive counterclaims that John was very straight and that he had "slept with John a million times [sharing hotel rooms] and nothing happened", and "why not me? I'm handsome!", a defensive mantra he repeated consistently up until around 2015. He would also say things like, "If I saw John doing something, it would be ass bobbing up and down, fucking some chick." Now, in 1983, Peter Brown's book The Love You Make did strongly imply that John slept with Brian, but he didn't explicitly claimed that John was gay. When asked about it in the early 80s, Paul’s tone was much more relaxed and less defensive, saying things like: “I mean, the trouble is that he’s not here to fend for himself... John sometimes said, 'I may be gay one day, if some fella really turns me on.' He was that open about it... As far as I'm concerned, he didn't. I mean, was Peter in the room with them?” But after Goldman's book in 1988, Paul suddenly inserted himself into the narrative as proof of John's straightness, arguing that John was most likely not gay because he never made a pass at him. Coincidentally, the 90s marked the beginning of Paul's unprompted "I'm secure in my sexuality" and "I'm completely ungay" talking points.

Probably to avoid the media running away with the gay subtext, Paul permanently retired the highly revealing terms he used in the '80s ("his old affairs," "I was like another girlfriend," "in love", "ex-husband", "we were like married"). Instead, he opted for safer, more carefully chosen words that still acknowledged their profound love without inviting speculation. Fortunately, since 2016, Paul has let his guard down again. And the cultural shift surrounding the Get Back documentary and "Now and Then", which redirected the media's focus toward their deep affection rather than their late 60s and 70s acrimony, has probably made him more comfortable. I remember being very surprised when I saw him admit that he liked the idea of John writing Now and Then about him (I can't picture him saying that in the 2000s and early 2010s).

And now that I think of it, despite the media now often using this sort of language, the only interviewer who dierectly referred to their relationship using romantic terms (other than Howard Stern), right in front of Paul, was Morgan Neville: "In this documentary, there are kind of two love stories: one is you and Linda, and one is you and John." Because it was asked with genuine respect rather than Howard Stern-style sensationalism, Paul didn't get defensive; he simply offered a quiet nod (though he did raise his eyebrows a little, lol).

[unreliable-narratives]

do you ever pay attention to the lyrics of a paul mccartney song concearning john and go “damn, and he's the straight one in this shit show?”

[strawberryfieldsmclennon]

"When was Lennon at his best? When he was sleeping."

"A lovely little baby, John was. A delicious broth of a boy."

Paul McCartney This picture is often cited as being taken in Paris. It was taken in George Harrison's house.

[yangleeeh]

1980!

[undying-love]

it’s not the most mclennon-coded album but at least there was something (crumbs as always, we happily eat those crumbs.)

If We Two, Never Know, and even parts of Lost Horizon are about John (which I think they probably are), then it's not something I would consider a crumb. Just read these lyrics while picturing that Paul is talking about John:

"Over, over again, my thoughts return to you"

"Always, always, my friend, you'll be my only one"

"Last night, I dreamed of you, and all that we could do together, side-by-side"

"Over, over again, I'll be in love with you"

"Lying in the sun again, I want to feel your touch"

"I want some love and peace, we need it right now"

"I've got to make you see, I'll always be there, I only want to be with you"

"Where every memory we shared brought us closer together, and every day we spent there was the start of the first day of forever"

However, I do understand why it feels like crumbs, because Paul (in contrast to the rest of the songs in the album) hasn't said anything at all about them other than technical details, which, as I've said many times before, is quite telling in its own way. But if none of these songs have anything to do with John at all then that would be rather odd, since I find it unlikely that Paul would dedicate entire songs to almost everyone from that early period—Ringo, George, his parents, a childhood crush, etc.—except John, aside from a single verse in Days We Left Behind.

[michonnegrimes]

Paul McCartney and John Lennon interviewed in New York (May 1968)

[bebx]

[yoursjustasitwas]

peoples princess octogenarian paul mccartney

[abbeydaisy]

Paul talking about Paris, recently

[walruspeppermint]

I'm watching early Beatles interviews and I found this. happy pride month <3

reporter: I noticed the two married men are sitting together and [inaudible]

John: that's because we're queer

[irisnectar]

“Blossoms” by Emma Rose

[imasqueradeasmyself]

My insane analysis on like the most important McLennon moment ever caught on film

IN THIS ANALYSIS, I will compare the original 1969 footage of the Beatles discussing India with the edited footage of the same moment in the 2021 “The Beatles: Get Back” documentary.

The original footage has significant historical relevance, where Lennon makes explicit references to the Bob Wooler incident and the holiday with Epstein in Spain. What’s more is, he does this after Epstein’s death. It’s a risky thing to hint at in casual conversation, and that’s knowing that they’re being filmed.

In mentioning these two incidents, Lennon simultaneously alludes to an, ahem, moment between him and McCartney in India.

Of course, the remarks Lennon makes could be ironic, self-sardonic witticisms - he was wont to make those.

But I find it interesting that exactly these remarks have been so heavily edited and / or entirely omitted. To me, this signals that the documentarists were aware that what Lennon said, if heard in its entirety, would lead to serious speculation.

Throughout the transcript below, there are some highlights to showcase where the documentary deviates from the original recording. I will explain these highlights:

Blue is when original audio has been left in, but as voiceover, meaning original visual footage is left out

Green means original footage has been moved and edited around

Red means original footage has been left out completely

The amount of highlights give a sense of how insanely heavily edited this moment is.

The 1970 documentary “Let It Be” is also guilty of this, but to avoid confusion, I only directly compare this transcript with the 2021 documentary.

If you watch the documentary, additional footage has also been added to the original recording. I don’t include these additions since this is a transcript of the original conversation, but I do point to moments where significant additions have been made in the footnotes.

(Edit: Added some more thoughts here)

Beatles transcript, original India discussion, Jan 25th, 1969, compared with the 2021 “The Beatles: Get Back” documentary:

Paul, John, George and Ringo are rehearsing, surrounded by sound- and film-crew. Paul is having an inaudible conversation with Ringo.

JOHN: (singing, unintelligible)

PAUL: Oh, I saw that film last night.

JOHN: What?

PAUL: Of us at the Maharishi’s - I’ve got all the film of it-

JOHN: Oh, yeah.

PAUL: And we all saw them(?) together. Incredible. It’s just got a great opening. (Nods at something) Yeah, (inaudible).

JOHN: The helicopter one, up in the sky.

PAUL: Yeah, I noticed you taking it, so I thought, “oh, I’ll get that.”

JOHN: Well that was the idea, you know, ‘cause you said you were making a film.

PAUL: Yeah. But it’s incredible - the opening is great, it’s just(inaudible) (1)

Paul goes on to talk with the others a bit - it’s mainly inaudible. Meanwhile, John talks about the reels.

JOHN: And on each of my two reels, “by John Lennon - Productions” written on those two reels.

SOMEONE: (Inaudible).

JOHN: I’ve had it - he’s got a few reels, too. But these are(?) my reels, luv, “By John Lennon” all through ‘em, with like subtitles. John Lennon’s reel.

SOMEONE (Paul?): (Laughing) Shut up, John. (2)

GEORGE(?): Here’s a little bit, it’s (inaudible) together, and they make a great… (?)

PAUL: Yeah, sure.

SOMEONE: So, uh… Great-

PAUL: (Talks about the film again, directed at John) It’s incredible, you know, to just sorta(?) see us. What we’re doing. It’s unbelievable.

GEORGE: What were you doing?

JOHN: (Teasingly) Yes, what were we doing?

Paul scratches his head and combs his fingers through his hair.

PAUL: Well, uh- I don’t really know, you know, but it’s like- we totally sort of put our own personalities under, for the sake of it, and you’d(?) really see, you know-

Paul pantomimes a stereotypical obedient school-boy.

JOHN: Who was that writing all them songs?

PAUL: (taken out of it) Oh that was uh- that was probably (inaudible)-

JOHN: In your room…

PAUL: Yeah, right. (Laughs and nods at John) I remember, yeah. (Serious again) But just sort of, uh- there’s a shot- there’s a long shot of you walking (points at John)-

GEORGE: (To Paul) Do you regret having gone there?

PAUL: No, no. Oh, no, no. I mean, you know-

GEORGE: Well, I feel as though I (inaudible).

PAUL: No, I just think what we did there-

JOHN: I don’t regret anything, ever… Not even Bob Wooler. (3)

PAUL: (Facing George but looking at John) No, I just think what we did there- we did, we uh, we didn’t take-

Close-up of John - he looks directly at Paul while he begins to fellate the microphone lewdly. (4)

PAUL: We weren’t sort of really truthful. You know. I mean, we could’ve, I mean- Rishikesh(?), you know there’s things like sneaking behind his back and sorta saying, “it’s a bit like school, isn’t it?” But you can see on the film that it is very like school, and that really we shoulda sorta said-

JOHN: (stops mouthing the mic) You wanna call it-

PAUL: Like we needed(?)-

JOHN: You wanna call it, “what we did on our holidays”. (5)

PAUL: (Glances at camera) Well, you know.

JOHN: (Laughs) I bet you’d love(?) (inaudible) to get it over(?).

PAUL: (Looking away) Yup, yeah… (At John again) But it is very like- there’s a long shot of you sort of walking with him, and it’s just not you, you know-

John also pantomimes an obedient school-boy.

PAUL: It’s just- (laughs) Yeah! Sort of all, “tell me, O’ master.” And that-

JOHN: (Amused) “Tell me, old master.”

PAUL: And that thing- Linda remembered that thing you said the other night as well (laughs) about when you went in the helicopter with him- you just thought he might slip you the answer.

They all laugh.

JOHN: I thought he might fly home.

(1) In the 2021 doc, at this point, additional footage is included, where we see the film from the reels with a voiceover of Paul describing them in greater detail.

(2) They’re saying that Paul didn’t film, so John thought to do it instead. At some point, Paul noticed John filming during a helicopter ride and decided to keep the tapes. Someone is confused and asks John whose tapes they were; he then goes on to clarify that they both used the camera, but jokes about his proprietary rights of the bits he filmed.

(3) The incident at Paul’s 21st birthday party, where John beat Bob Wooler in a drunken fit of rage over Wooler insinuating John and Epstein had had an affair on their holiday in Spain - John apologised for it but despite this, it still made the press. In 71, Lennon said this about the incident: “[...] obviously I must have been frightened of the fag in me to get so angry. You know, when you’re twenty-one, you want to be a man, and all that. If somebody said it now, I wouldn’t give a shit. [...]”

(4) In the 1971 film “Let It Be”, this footage is replaced with another clip of Lennon, where he wears a multi-coloured striped shirt - a shirt he did not wear on January the 25th and does not wear in any of the other clips from this conversation (instead, he wears a white t-shirt and vest). The audio has not been replaced, though, and one can still hear him mouthing at the microphone. The original footage is first included in the 2021 documentary series, where you can see from all the highlights that most of the actual conversation that took place is either edited out or moved around. This is significant, because in both films, at this moment, where Lennon refers to the Bob Wooler incident and then fellates the mic, he is directly referring to a significant historical incident in Beatles history - and yet both films choose to reframe this moment to obscure what Lennon is hinting at.

(5) It is interesting that the 2021 doc leaves this innuendo and the fellatio in, a clear reference to what Lennon and Epstein allegedly did on their holiday in Spain (and a potential double-meaning of what he and Paul did on their holiday in India), yet the mention of the Bob Wooler incident is removed. Was it an attempt to find a middle-ground, where they could include some reference to the alleged affair and simultaneously obscure it? There must have been discussions about what to include and what to leave out, and one can only wonder what the reasoning behind the final end result must have been (and who may have had final authority in the editing room…)

[speed-drive]

HOLY SHIT

[mobynick]

Jealousy

[michonnegrimes]

SGT. PEPPER’S LONELY HEARTS CLUB BAND

The musical papers that we used to read started to slag us off because we hadn’t done anything. It took five months to record Sgt. Pepper. I remember with great glee seeing in one of the papers, “Oh, the Beatles have dried up. There’s nothing coming from them. They’ve been in the studio and they can’t think of what they’re doing.” I was sort of sitting and rubbing my hands saying, “You just wait.” – Paul McCartney, 1992

[slightlyoffaxis]