theyāre only sleeping

blake kathryn
taylor price
h
Monterey Bay Aquarium

Kiana Khansmith
occasionally subtle
tumblr dot com
sheepfilms

@theartofmadeline

#extradirty

Origami Around
Cosmic Funnies

Janaina Medeiros
let's talk about Bridgerton tea, my ask is open
No title available
Keni
Mike Driver
NASA
we're not kids anymore.
Show & Tell
seen from Switzerland

seen from Thailand
seen from Estonia

seen from Singapore
seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom

seen from Malaysia
seen from Singapore

seen from United Kingdom
seen from Finland

seen from United States
seen from Canada
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Japan

seen from Sri Lanka
seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States
seen from Trinidad & Tobago
@packyourromanticmind
theyāre only sleeping
can we all mutually agree that is tweet is actually INSANE, especially because of the 2015 interview that just got released
he knows things...
be more like your dad sean, he wouldnāt hold back is all iām saying
Oh Sean honey. We here on Tumblr would believe you.
I feel for Sean because heās obviously being held back by saying what he knows (and wants to say). We can make a pretty educated guess about what heās talking about, given the timing of āwas John Gay? No, and I slept with him a lot so I would knowā
From things heās said in the past, I think Sean would love to tell the world that he had a queer/bisexual dad. And that it was cool. And that doesnāt take away from his marriage to Yoko. But he canāt say anything, heās telling us that. So itās not just about the question of āwas John into/involved with other menā because itās the other men part of this that stops Sean from speaking. Which is a shame, because I think the world needs to be properly introduced to Queer John Lennon. Itās time.
XIV. Temperance
by the wonderful @monkeymir
X. Wheel of Fortune
by the wonderful @taepomme
Here the poster version!!!
An incredible thank to all the artists of the project, @i-am-the-oyster and @packyourromanticmind ā¤ļø
So I've been thinking a lot recently about John's relationship with Yoko and Paul's relationship with Linda and how those two relationships played key roles in the way things broke down between John and Paul. I guess I'm trying to mentally 'suss out' this closing era of The Beatles story due to watching Get Back and wanting to write in this time frame. But I also feel I know so, so little about it.
I'm aware there are so many of you who have a considerably deeper knowledge base about the band and this final chapter of theirs than I do so I guess I'm wondering if anyone would mind sharing thoughts and feelings about it with me?
Some things I want people's knowledge/opinion on:
- What is the timeline for when John met Yoko versus when Paul met Linda? It seems to me John and Yoko become considerably more whole and solid as a couple long before Paul and Linda ever did, and yet later in '71 John seems to say something along the lines of 'Paul will come out of that relationship in 2-5 years and we'll get him back' as though *Paul* was the one who detached himself and disappeared into a relationship when actually to my (inadequate) knowledge it seems like it was John who did this?!
- To me it appears that John's relationship with Cyn and Paul's relationship with Jane were never 'threats' to the JohnandPaul dynamic but those with Yoko and Linda were. Is this other people's understanding of it?
- After watching Get Back it's so obvious to me that the magic that was JohnandPaul was still very much there at times, their eye contact was still absolutely electric, they still had a deep connection. And yet somehow also that relationship was no longer compatible with life - I feel as though Paul desperately wanted to hold on to it and John possibly didn't, or cared less about it (which was 100% not my belief before watching Get Back) but then John was clearly shocked and bitter and furious like a scorned lover after The Beatles fell apart. And his reactional hatred was aimed at Paul. So why was this the case when it was Paul trying to hold onto things?
- I'm aware there business and money side of things was the final nail in this particular coffin but I'm so much more interested in the psychological aspect of John and Paul's parting and the break up of their closer, obviously more intimate relationship. I don't think, for instance, that Alan Klein stopped them fucking. (If indeed they were actually fucking in the first place.)
This is a long, rambling post and I apologise for that - I suspect Tumblr isn't actually the place for these discussions but sadly LiveJournal no longer exists as a space for this kind of chat really. I'm aware that people may not want to discuss their thoughts in a comment form so please feel free to either via direct message or ama. Or indeed ignore this altogether.
TLDR - would like to have thinky thought chats about 1967-1970.
I too have Big Thinky Thoughts about that time period. Itās a shame that Tumblr is so poorly laid out for discussion, because this is a topic that needs a LOT of viewpoints and thoughts, but here we are, so I guess this stupid format has to do.
Iām also fascinated by whether there was a Big Bang to their breakup or a general erosion made worse by poor communication, societal expectations and circumstances that kept John and Paul apart when they should have been together, and a lot of rejection phobia and misunderstandings. People with a lot more savvy than myself have mooted a theory that it could be a mixture of both and perhaps started with Brianās death and Gay Panic setting in. (Adding drugs and their own form of karmic spiritualism to the brew).
- After watching Get Back it's so obvious to me that the magic that was JohnandPaul was still very much there at times, their eye contact was still absolutely electric, they still had a deep connection. And yet somehow also that relationship was no longer compatible with life
This is along the lines of something that permanently gnaws at my brain⦠the scene where John says in code āI love youā and then at some point shortly after, Paul tells him (as a reply?) āanytime is paradise when Iām with youā and John says āyes anytime, anytime at allā ⦠WHAT IS GOING ON?! first of all, why exactly are they declaring this in code? For the cameras? Or because Yoko is ever present? And perhaps Iām missing something but is the vibe a āitās such a shame that we love each other but now we have to inevitably part because we have pledged allegiance and devotion to our soon to be wives. Again, WHY? Why has John Lennon of all people suddenly decided to be monogamous (if this is a romantic and sexual relationship he is disentangling himself from), or at the very least, prioritise someone.. a woman over Paul? Same for Paul really.. when have these two self involved chauvinistic men ever decided that the women come first?! Also, their relationship, in whatever form it takes, is the nucleus of the band. Itās what makes them and everyone around them very rich. So why isnāt it being prioritised over all else? (I can already hear the answer in my head that itās because Brian is gone). Even if we take into consideration that John is restless or dissatisfied or bored or wants to do projects with Yoko, he is excitedly creating new incarnations of the throuple (plus Billy) all making music together (such as their freak out which he very pointedly points out is NOT the Beatles, but John and Paul and Yoko and Billy. He also demonstrably still has heart eyes for and loves Paul, so what exactly is it that makes all of this go tits up by the time of the divorce announcement? Why has he become a scorned ex lover? It makes no sense to me. I think we are missing crucial bits of information, and also, as Oysters points out in the notes, they arenāt exactly in the best emotional state, so looking for logical explanations to their behaviour or statements can be a dead end street. But something bigger happened and it didnāt happen in India or their NYC trip (although perhaps a lot of things shifted and or ruptured).
Edited to add more thinky thoughts! ; Klein has to have been a huge aggravating and disrupting factor for the two of them. And then Paul bringing in The Eastmanās would have convinced John that Paul has left him for good. Also, the psychology of John and Paul is vital in the fast moving avalanche of catastropheās including the Northern Songs share dispute. YMMV but I truly believe that John would have perceived a financial imbalance as proving his greatest fear: that Paul wasnāt in it (ie them and their cosmic partnership) for the love, but for the money. (Which I donāt believe but anyway). Well, perhaps the money itself isnāt the greatest fear, but Johnās psychological makeup is primed and ready to be proved right that he is ultimately unloveable, and about to be rejected. And even years later, itās still a sore spot for him as seen in the Starting Over demo ājust take your clothes off honey/and stick your nose in moneyā. I genuinely think that Paulās thinking could be āso what if Iām feathering my nest, itās only sensible and prudent to do so (and also sparks my very real childhood fear of loss of money)ā whereas John would have been like āoh my GOD! Youāve only gone and ripped the cosmic fabric of our soul partnership you bastardā
Your book about John, Prisoner of Love, that was due to come out a few years ago, tells a little bit about the book first of all, what happened to it?
I'm not even sure I can answer that question. No, have a look online. I can't add anything to that. I can't tell you about it. I can't tell you why I can't tell you about it. And I can't tell you why I can't tell you why I can't tell you about it.
And I'm prepared to go on. People know. Everything's out there. Everything that anybody needs to know, it's there. You just need to find it.
From Beatles Books: Peter Doggett on Peter Doggett, 22 Aug 2025 (link)
ā Part 1.
Summary: Interpreting Lennon/McCartney in the context of an open secret, based on concepts of social psychology, queer theory and marketing. [Written without any scientific intent.]
Word count: +15K
āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā
I.
āIn the entertainment scene, an open secret refers to a situation where a couple (or romantic/sexual involvement) is widely known or strongly suspected by insiders, the press or even the fans, but never officially confirmed by the people involved. These relational dynamics break free from traditional social labels and operate in a gray zone where visibility and invisibility overlap, being recognized by some specific groups while remaining unacknowledged in the dominant culture.Ā
Open secrets are rarely referenced in formal statements, press releases or marketing materials. Because they are never socially acknowledged, they occupy no sanctioned space within mainstream media narratives. This absence of explicit acknowledgment is an intentional and powerful cultural act, not merely an oversight or omission. By refusing to name them, communication channels actively shape how these relationships are perceived and experienced in the broader community. Consequently, they are excluded from public discourse and erased from collective memory, remaining in a scenario of social marginalization and existential invalidation.
Especially in contexts where LGBTQ+ identities or non-normative relationships are stigmatized, this paradoxical contradiction exemplifies what queer theorists describe as a glass closet. Unlike the traditional version, which implies total secrecy, the glass closet points to a more complicated reality. Rather than a space of absolute concealment, it functions as a stage where queerness is performed and experienced, but without formal recognition or cultural legitimacy. Behavioral practices that reinforce this mode of self-presentation to society are expressed in various ways. Some people can read them clearly, noticing cues and subtext, while others may genuinely fail to perceive or consciously choose to ignore them. This duality allows queer existence to persist within a culture that otherwise represses it, even only under certain conditions where survival depends on identity erasure and the constant risk of denial.
Open secrets ā not very different from a glass closet ā are sustained by everyoneās participation in maintaining the ambiguity. No one fully confirms or denies it, which allows it to persist. More than simply as a form of repression, both can also be understood as a survival strategy: It makes space for queer intimacy while avoiding the dangers of direct exposure; breaks the binary between being completely āoutā and being completely āhiddenā; and allows the couple to manifest their relationship in a publicly semi-open sphere, revealing themselves on their own terms without ever crossing the threshold of formal disclosure. Yet, this partial invisibility provides a subtle mechanism of resistance, enabling the relationship to be authentically lived within intimate or subcultural spaces, beyond the reach of mainstream narratives.
In short, an open secret is:
Known, but unspoken: Many people in the relevant circle (friends, colleagues, industry insiders and sometimes even fans) know the truth, but itās never officially confirmed. The unspoken rule is to let the secret stay āsecretā in name only.
Maintained by silence & etiquette: Those āin the knowā choose not to talk about it publicly. This can be out of respect, fear of scandal, legal or contractual issues, or cultural norms.
Protected by institutions: Media outlets, studios or organizations may actively avoid publishing proof, either to protect reputations, preserve marketability or avoid lawsuits.
Hints and signals: The truth often clues through indirect signs, but never with full confirmation.
Mutual agreement: Even without formal discussion, thereās often a tacit agreement among insiders to āplay alongā and keep the appearance intact.ā
āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā
II.
āAn open secret persists because a complex mix of personal, cultural, legal and economic forces work together to maintain its status as āunofficialā, even when it is widely known by many. These combinate factors act collectively to ensure that the relationship remains unconfirmed and unacknowledged, creating a delicate balance between private knowledge and public silence, and constructing a protective barrier that allows it to exist in plain sight yet never cross into formal recognition. The result manifests as a paradoxical space where knowledge circulates silently ā shared but unspoken, tolerated but never legitimized.
Contributing to the maintenance of the open secret, this multifaceted phenomenon is closely related to:
Privacy concerns or emotional safety: Some artists simply want parts of their personal life to remain theirs alone, especially if publicity would invite judgment, harassment or intrusion. In Hollywoodās golden age, even straight relationships were sometimes hidden to maintain mystery and avoid public interference. Beyond this, choosing not to confirm a relationship can also be an act of self-protection.
Image management: Public figures are ābrandedā by shaping their public image into a marketable persona ā like a character type. A relationship (especially one outside norms) can clash with that brand and risk alienating audiences. Studios in the past were notorious for arranging or hiding relationships to protect a starās marketability.
Contractual obligations: Some stars had clauses in their contracts controlling public appearances, relationship disclosures or morality clauses that could terminate employment if certain āscandalsā became public. This gave studios legal power to suppress information.
Social taboos: In earlier decades, queer relationships, interracial couples or partners with big age gaps often faced intense stigma. Even rumors could destroy careers, so silence was a survival strategy.
Cultural norms of the time: Whatās āshockingā changes over time. In one era, being divorced was controversial; in another, being openly queer was career-ending. People navigated their relationships according to the risks of their own period in history.
Strategic branding considerations: Sometimes secrecy is part of creating intrigue and mystery is used to fuel interest. The āare they or arenāt they?ā dynamic can fuel publicity without confirming anything. This works for romantic rumors as well as creative partnerships.
Control over reality: By avoiding explicit confirmation, people can choose which version of reality to live in. This gives a sense of autonomy, once you engage with the version that best serves your needs ā whether itās truth, half-truth or pretense.ā
āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā
III.
āIn marketing contexts, ātesting the watersā helps manage uncertainty, minimize potential fallout and adapt strategies based on real-time feedback, measuring the extent to which information can be disclosed. By carefully observing audience reactions, brands are able to gauge tolerance levels, identify emerging opportunities and adjust their positioning without committing to irreversible choices. This process creates a buffer against risk, allowing experimentation while preserving credibility, and transforms uncertainty into actionable insight. Ultimately, testing the waters operates as both a protective mechanism and a strategic tool, ensuring that innovation does not outpace acceptance, but instead stretches the limits in a calculated, sustainable way.
A similar logic applies to the management of open secrets, particularly in social or cultural environments where direct recognition could lead to exposure. In this scenario, the expression refers to the deliberate practice of sending out subtle signals or tentative messages to observe how the public or a particular audience reacts before making a full, explicit commitment or announcement. This approach allows individuals or groups to gauge the level of acceptance, resistance or interest without fully exposing themselves to risk or backlash. By doing so, they can determine whether a later, more direct acknowledgment or action would be safe, strategically advantageous or even welcomed. These subtle signals might take the form of carefully worded hints, indirect references or ambiguous statements that can be interpreted in multiple ways. This ambiguity provides plausible deniability if the reaction is negative while opening the door to further engagement if the response is positive.ā
āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā
IV.
āWhen the couple themselves in an open secret deliberately communicate through coded language during interviews, this interaction typically functions as a carefully choreographed mutual performance ā serving simultaneously as a private game and a calculated public strategy. These signals can vary widely in their subtlety, ranging from almost imperceptible hints to bold, theatrical gestures, yet they always maintain a crucial element of plausible deniability. This built-in ambiguity allows the couple to engage with the subject without ever making direct admissions, preserving their privacy while still acknowledging shared truths with those attentive enough to decode the messages. This communication model is made up of:
Layered messaging: Superficially, words and anecdotes that seem innocent or casual to most listeners, so it doesnāt raise suspicion (i.e., public layer). Beneath the surface, certain references, phrasing, stories, inside jokes or ways of saying things carry a special and hidden meaning that only people āin the knowā can understand (i.e., insider layer). This creates a āsplit audienceā effect ā different groups take away different meanings.
Control of narrative: By choosing when and how to āslipā hints, the couple can shape public perception without ever openly confirming anything. It lets them manage curiosity and speculation rather than be passive subjects of it.
Emotional & relational function: This kind of coded communication can be a bonding ritual ā like an inside joke stretched across years. It can also be a way to claim a subtle public acknowledgment of the relationship in an environment where direct affirmation isnāt possible or safe.
Defensive plausible deniability: If pressed, they can insist the code āmeant nothingā, which preserves privacy and avoids professional or social repercussions. The āgray zoneā is maintained ā itās never official, but itās never entirely hidden either.
The open secret is sustained not only by the coupleās own signals but also by the involvement of friends, colleagues and journalists. In this setting, the press contributes to the layered communication through their own use of coded language when interacting with the couple. The style and purpose of these codes depend on the specific context of the interview. Interviewers often adopt a nuanced or suggestive manner, enabling them to address sensitive subjects or hint at underlying realities without stating them outright. This shared linguistic dance creates a dynamic in which both parties convey meaning beyond the surface, preserving professionalism and discretion while engaging in a subtle exchange of information and knowledge. It raises the topic without prompting public confirmation or denial, keeping the interaction socially acceptable and avoiding direct confrontation. The questions framed by them tend to share certain traits:
Indirect phrasing: They address the topic without naming it directly, employing general, allusive or suggestive terms that hint at the subject while preserving deniability. This approach allows communication of meaning without committing to an explicit statement.
Euphemisms and soft language: Direct words are replaced with neutral, romantic or softened expressions, reducing social pressure or potential discomfort. By choosing language that is less confrontational, the speaker maintains subtlety while still signaling awareness.
Playful or joking tone: Humor serves as a protective shield. If the person being addressed refuses to respond, the statement can be dismissed as a joke, allowing the speaker to gauge reactions safely and maintain social cohesion.
Rumor-based framing: Statements are framed as circulating gossip or āwhat people are sayingā, creating distance between the speaker and the claim. This strategy enables discussion of the topic while avoiding direct responsibility for the assertion.
Metaphors or comparisons: Open secrets are transformed into analogies, turning sensitive or taboo subjects into interpretive scenarios. By using metaphorical language, the communicator provides insight while leaving room for multiple readings, preserving ambiguity and plausible deniability.ā
āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā
V.
āIn the context of an open secret, insinuations function as a form of strategic ambiguity ā a device for the press, industry insiders, and at times even the individuals involved, to signal the truth without ever āofficiallyā declaring it. They operate through subtle communication, enabling those āin the knowā to recognize the situation while preserving plausible deniability. This communicative posture emerges through a blend of coded messaging, selective storytelling and careful framing.
When insinuations part from the couple themselves or people of his social circle, it adds a whole new layer of complexity and purpose to the open secret dynamic. Instead of just being external hints or speculation, these are deliberate smoke signals ā often called āleaksā or ābreadcrumbsā ā that are strategically placed to influence public perception, while keeping the tension alive without crossing the line into full exposure. In essence, the use of insinuations itās a deliberate dance between visibility and secrecy, leveraging the power of suggestion to engage the audience while keeping control over personal and professional boundaries.
These insinuations operate through mechanisms such as:
Indirect language and social reinforcement: Colleagues or friends might hint at the relationship through jokes, metaphors, euphemisms or double meanings, rather than explicit confirmation. They join in the winking references, cementing the open secret status.
Strategic ambiguity: Comments are framed so they could be interpreted innocently or as coded confirmation ā depending on the listenerās knowledge. This protects both speaker and subject from accusations of āspilling the secretā.
Narrative control and protect privacy: By hinting at the truth themselves, they steer the story on their terms, deciding what to reveal and what to keep private. Insinuations also maintain boundaries by never fully confirming, preserving some personal space.
Test the waters or create buzz: Subtle signals gauge public reaction without full commitment, letting them see if a public acknowledgment is safe or desirable later. Keeping the mystery alive can work as a deliberate marketing strategy because humans are naturally curious ā when something is left unexplained or only hinted at, people want to know more.
Signal solidarity: To fans and insiders, hints are a way of showing connection and authenticity without words. Sometimes insiders intentionally feed information to the press in a way that keeps it unofficial. These leaks are a marketing tool ā the open secret can keep public interest alive without the risks of a public confirmation.
Psychological tension as stimulation: Oddly, the not saying can make life more interesting. The unspoken creates intrigue, subtle drama and a sense of playing in a coded social game. Some even enjoy the cat-and-mouse of pretending not to know.ā
āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā
VI.
# Euphemism: is a softened, indirect or playful way of describing the real situation so it can be acknowledged without being openly admitted. In an open secret it works like a social magic trick, hiding the truth in plain sight and allowing people to communicate sensitive realities safely, smoothly and with shared understanding. Euphemisms serve as signs that let people ātalk about it without talking about itā, avoiding direct confession. For example, if everyone knows two co-workers are romantically involved but itās unofficial, instead of saying ātheyāre datingā, someone might say ātheyāre very closeā or āthey spend a lot of time togetherā. To the uninformed, it sounds casual. To those āin the knowā, itās a wink.
# Minimization: sometimes called mitigation or softening, is closely related to euphemism and often operates in conjunction with it in the context of open secrets. Itās the process of using language or behavior to reduce the impact, harshness or seriousness of the matter when itās discussed. This makes it feel more acceptable, less threatening or scandalous ā usually by choosing softer words or phrases and framing the situation in a positive or neutral light, while downplaying negative aspects or introducing humor and understatement. This āsoft filterā tones down negativity and makes it easier to discuss or hint at the subject, without a full confrontation.
# Euphemism and minimization: are two complementary sides of the same coin. Together, they create a strategy that allows people to acknowledge sensitive truths indirectly while preserving social harmony and protecting everyoneās face. Euphemisms offer coded, indirect language that conceals the matter in plain sight with masquerade wording, turning potentially awkward or controversial realities into expressions that sound casual, neutral or even charming to an uninformed listener. Minimization softens how that wording is delivered, ensuring that even if the underlying meaning is guessed, it arrives wrapped in politeness, warmth or humor, reducing its emotional weight. This framing aims to ease discomfort, prevent conflict and make delicate realities safer to address within social groups, allowing communication to flow without confrontation and helping everyone preserve dignity, privacy and respect.
# Generalization: is the act of extending something in a particular situation to apply more widely. When a couple is in the spotlight but keeps their relationship officially unconfirmed, they often rely on generalizations as a softening tool ā avoiding direct confirmation and creating socially acceptable ambiguity that allows them to navigate public curiosity. These strategic linguistic choices preserve the gray zone, where everyone senses that something is happening but no official statement is required, keeping the mystery alive and fueling speculation while still maintaining plausible deniability. They shift the focus of questions or responses and redirect the narrative toward safer topics, using careful phrasing to subtly guide the tone of the conversation. When journalists or fans press for details, generalizations help ease external pressure and act as an emotional shield, protecting the couple from having to issue a direct and unequivocal denial. This approach minimizes unnecessary exposure, reduces the risk of damaging misunderstandings and allows the couple to conduct the situation on their own terms, deciding themselves when ā or if ā the truth will ever be made public.
# Metaphor and comparison: They represent some of the most elegant and nuanced forms of ācodeā that can be employed in interviews or other media contexts, allowing only those aware of the situation to truly understand the underlying message. These linguistic tools enable the couple to speak publicly and openly, while carefully avoiding any explicit or āofficialā admission of the truth. Such mechanisms hold particular power within the framework of open secrets because they operate on a dual-track level of communication: on the first track, the general public hears a romantic or flattering comment that appears straightforward; on the second track, the private audience perceives a subtle confession. Beyond this, metaphors and comparisons help create a shared, coded language that the couple can revisit and reuse across multiple interviews, or even over many years, effectively transforming these phrases into a quiet but distinctive trademark. Their strategy functions through hiding in plain sight, where a metaphor sounds like normal artistic or personal expression but carries a second, private meaning for those āin the knowā allowing deniability ā since, if questioned, the speaker can claim itās ājust an imageā or ājust poetryā ā and helping them feel emotionally safe, because talking indirectly about love or intimacy makes it harder for outsiders to weaponize the information.
āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā
1. Floating in a gray zone: Not officially āoutā but not exactly āhiddenā either
āPARKINSON: Was it always a spiky relationship? I mean, you say you loved him and that love comes through in the book. Did he love you? PAUL: Yeah, I think he did actually. Weāll check, excuse me for a moment⦠āJohn, come on baby, did yaā¦? Yes!ā ā No, I think he did, yeah. It wasnāt actually a spiky relationship at all. It was very warm, very close and very loving, I think, of all The Beatles. We used to say ā I think we were amongst the first men to come out openly, ācause remember, you know, it was quite strange in those days and it was a long time ago. Homosexuality was still sort of largely illegal. We used to say I love him on interviews and interviewers would get slightly taken aback, you know, a man saying he loves him. But I think, quite generally, I think we really did and I still do.ā
ā Paul McCartney, interview w/ Michael Parkinson for Parkinsonās Sunday Supplement [21:53] on BBC Radio 2. (October 12, 1997)Ā
On John Lennonās birthday, Sir Paul McCartney takes bride No. 3
Sir Paul McCartney is expected to wed his American fiancee Nancy Shevell on Sunday, at the same venue where he married his first wife Linda
āSir Paul McCartney is expected to wed his American fiancee Nancy Shevell on Sunday, at the same venue where he married his first wife Linda 42 years ago. The date the couple have chosen ā Oct 9 ā is particularly poignant because it would have been John Lennonās 71st birthday.ā
Sir Paul McCartney remembers pal John Lennon at wedding reception
Sir Paul Mccartney raised a toast to his friend and former bandmate John Lennon during his wedding reception and also dedicated a speech to
āWashington: Sir Paul McCartney raised a toast to his friend and former bandmate John Lennon during his wedding reception and also dedicated a speech to the star. The singer married American heiress Nancy Shevell on Lennonās 71st birthday. Shevellās cousin, newswoman Barbara Walters, mentioned in her chat show that there was a toast that McCartney made to John. āThere was a party later on in the tent at Paulās house, (itās a) beautiful backyard. There was a toast that Paul made to John Lennon, his 71st birthday it was, and Paulās son James made a toast and Nancyās son (did too)ā.ā
āThen also we were like married, so you got the bitterness. Itās not a woman scorned this time, itās two men scorned ā 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.ā
ā Paul McCartney, interview w/ Duncan Fallowell for Chicago Tribune: āPaul McCartney today? A content and wealthy daddyā. (October 14, 1984)
āIād like to thank Elton and the boys for having me on tonight. We tried to think of a number to finish off with so I can get out of here and be sick, and we thought weād do a number of an old, estranged fiancĆ© of mine, called Paul. This is one I never sang, itās an old Beatle number, and we just about know it.āĀ
ā John Lennon introducing āI Saw Her Standing Thereā at Madison Square Garden in New York City, at Elton Johnās concert. (November 28, 1974)Ā
āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā
2. Collective confidentiality: A tacit agreement of silence
āQ. Have you ever fucked a guy? A. Not yet, I thought Iād save it til I was 40, life begins at 40 you know, tho I never noticed it. Q. It is trendy to be bisexual and youāre usually ākeeping up with the Jonesā, havenāt you ever... there was talk about you and PAUL... A. Oh, I thought it was about me and Brian Epstein... anyway Iām saving all the juice for my own version of THE REAL FAB FOUR BEATLES STORY etc... etcā¦ā
ā John Lennon, āInterview with by/on John Lennon and/or Dr. Winston OāBoogieā for Interview Magazine. (November, 1974)
āI have some juicy stuff I could tell about John. But I wouldnāt. Not when Yokoās alive, or Cynthia. John would. He would grab, go for the action, say the first thing in his head. We admired him for that. It was honesty; but it could hurt. And it wasnāt really all that honest. He knew he could hurt.ā
ā Paul McCartney, private phone conversation w/ Hunter Davies. (May 3, 1981)
āI knew in my heart that John and Stu had a sexual relationship. [...] Iāve wondered many times over the years if thatās what some of the antagonism between Stuart and Paul might have been about, whether Paul suspected something. None of us directly connected to the Beatles have publicly acknowledged that John had less than conventional sexual attachments. We all thought that to ignore such things would go down better with the world, forgetting that to deny these parts of John ā and John had been open to others about himself ā would be to deny another level of complexity to Johnās personality.ā
ā Pauline Sutcliffe, Stuart Sutcliffeās sister. (āThe Beatlesā Shadow: Stuart Sutcliffe & His Lonely Hearts Clubā, 2001)
āāThe Love You Makeā was first published in 1983, having been written by Steven Gaines and Peter Brown, who was the personal assistant to the bandās manager Brian Epstein and stepped in to oversee the bandās affairs when Epstein died. But the band were left āfuriousā by the revelations made in the book, with Gaines recalling: āPaul and Linda [McCartney] tore the book apart and burned it in the fireplace, page by page. There was an omerta, a code of silence around the Beatles, and they didnāt think anyone would come forward to tell the truth.āā
ā Jacob Stolworthy for Independent: āBeatles book reveals John Lennon encounter that made Mick Jagger āvery uncomfortableāā. (April 6, 2024)Ā
āQ: Youāre planning on another book to focus more on Beatle material. What will that book have that āBody Countā doesnāt? A: My publisher in 1972 asked virtually no questions about John & Yoko. He ignored all the information I would have gladly shared [...]. Nevertheless, he may have done me a favor, because I didn't have the skills I have now, and I was still quite worried about breaking the unwritten, unspoken vow of silence, in case it would upset Paul! The Beatles āinside worldā was and is sort of like a Cosa Nostra. Iām the only woman who talked.ā
ā Francie Schwartz, interview for Abbeyrdās Beatles Page: āAn interview with Francie Schwartz | The author of āBody Countā talks about life with John, Yoko, Ringo, George and Paulā. (1999?)
āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā
3. Communication as strategic ambiguity: A deliberate dance between visibility and secrecy
āREPORTER:Ā How do you like not having any privacy? PAUL: We do have some, you know. JOHN: We just had some. We just had some before, didnāt we, Paul? You tell them.ā
ā The Beatles, Press Conference & Silent B-Roll [2:36] in San Francisco Airport. (August 18, 1964)
āWe were away. The boys had relaxed. As we walked off to do the next scene, I heard them joshing each other, like schoolboys on the way to class. āAre those jeans tight, Paul?ā That was John.Ā āWhat do you mean tight?ā āI can see your suspender belt through āem and your stockings. Youāve got ladders in them.āā
ā Victor Spinetti, āUp Frontā¦: His Strictly Confidential Autobiographyā. (2006)
āPLAYBOY: Do you stick pretty much together off-stage? JOHN: Well, yes and no. Groups like this are normally not friends, you know. Theyāre just four people out there thrown together to make an act. There may be two of them who sort of go off and are friends, you know, but⦠GEORGE: Just what do you mean by that? JOHN: Strictly platonic, of course. But weāre all rather good friends, as it happens.ā
ā The Beatles, interview w/ Jean Shepherd for Playboy: āA candid conversation with Englandās mop-topped millionaire minstrelsā. (February, 1965)
āJOHN: Well I read more about myself than you probably do, and Iāll tell you there was [newspaper articles about his separation from Yoko]. I see them all, because Iāve got a clipping service and I get all the newspapers, and you can bet your life somebodyās going to send you the clippings⦠Q: Yeah, your friends⦠JOHN: Yes, all your best friends let you know whatās going on. I was trying to put it āround that I was gay, you know ā I thought that would throw them off... dancing at all the gay clubs in Los Angeles, flirting with the boys... but it never got off the ground. Q: I think Iāve only heard that lately about Paul. JOHN: Oh, Iāve had him, heās no good. [We laugh]ā
ā John Lennon, interview w/ Lisa Robinson for Hit Parader: āA conversation with John Lennonā. (December, 1975)
āThe next night Elliot took us out with a friend of his, Sal Mineo, and we all went to a gay cabaret/discotheque. John was oblivious to the gay ambience. He was curious about everyoneās sexuality and liked to gossip about who was sleeping with whom, whether they were gay or straight. John made no judgments about homosexuality but was really curious about who was and who wasnāt gay.Ā He knew that his appearance at a gay club might start rumors about his own sexuality, and it made him laugh. He told me that there had been rumors about him and his first manager, Brian Epstein, and that he usually didnāt deny them. He liked the fact that people could be titillated by having suspicions about his masculinity. Then I was the one who was laughing. āHow could anyone believe a man who likes women as much as you do is gay?ā, I told him.āĀ
ā May Pang, āLoving John: The Untold Storyā (1983)
āJOHN: Well, thatās rubbish, you know. Because nobody controls me. Iām uncontrollable. The only one that can control me is me, and thatās just barely possible. But thatās what life is about. And thatās the lesson Iām learning. Because nobody ever said anything about Paul having a spell over me, when I was with him for a long time. Or me having a spell over Paul. They didnāt think that was abnormal, two guys together.Ā YOKO: They might have. [laughs] JOHN: Or four guys together. In those days? Why didnāt anybody ever say, āHow come those guys donāt split up? I mean, whatās going on backstage? I mean, what is that Paul and John business? Why ā you know, how can they be together so long?ā. YOKO: [laughs] Yes.Ā JOHN: We spent more time together than John and Yoko, in the early days, the four of us sleeping in the same room, practically in the same bed, in the same truck... living together night and day, doing everything together. Nobody said a damn thing about being under the spell.ā
ā John Lennon, interview w/ David Sheff for Playboy. (September, 1980)
āI donāt actually know the truth of the John rumor. [Almost laughing] I mean, all I can ever say about that is that I slept with John, a lot. Just ācause you had to sleep and, you know, you didnāt have ā you know, more than one bed. And to my knowledge, John was never gay.ā
ā Paul McCartney, āThe Brian Epstein Storyā [1:00]. (1998)Ā
āSum up John Lennon in one sentence⦠A wild and woolly genius who it was my pleasure to [work with, walk with, talk with and] occasionally sleep with.ā
ā Paul McCartney for Q Magazine: āJohn Lennonās 70th Birthday Issueā. (November, 2010)
āQ: If John Lennon could come back for a day, how would you spend it with him? [Mark Wilson, Deeside, Flintshire] A: In bed.ā
ā Paul McCartney, answering fan questions for Q magazine: āCash For Questionsā. (January, 1998)
āQ: What was John Lennonās special quality?Ā A: Balls! Mind you, in putting it in one word, āballsā is a helluva quote, but itās incomplete. There was balls. But there was smart. The real truth is that it was balls with smart.ā
ā Paul McCartney, interview w/ Duncan Fallowell for The Magazine: āYou get on with Yoko? āMediumā, says Paulā. (January 20, 1985)
āOpposites attract. I could calm him down, and he could fire me up. We could see things in each other that the other needed to be complete.āĀ
ā Paul McCartney, āThe Lyrics: 56 to the Presentā. (2021)
āI was the polar opposite to John. If there was a cliff to be jumped off, John would jump! He would just dive into things, and I would sometimes have to rescue him [...]. But then it was very exciting to be around someone with such a different personality. That was part of the fun and attraction.ā
ā Paul McCartney, āYou Gave Me The Answer: What has been your biggest professional risk?ā. (March 3, 2023)
āĀ THE PICTURE OF TWO BEETLES COPULATING IN THE BACK COVER OF RAM. (1971)
āQ: Do the copulating beetles on the sleeve of RAM stand for F**k The Beatles? [Luc Van de Wiele, Wemmel, Belgium] A: It happened to be a picture Linda had taken. We couldnāt resist it just because of the way it looked. Sheād caught these two beetles f*king, and then the significance hit us. We saw that pun, yeah, thought why not?ā
ā Paul McCartney, answering fan questions for Q magazine: āCash For Questionsā. (January, 1998)
āāPlease Please Meā was a John idea. John liked the double meaning of āpleaseā. Yeah, āpleaseā is, you know, pretty please. āPlease have intercourse with me. So, pretty please, have intercourse with me, I beg you to have intercourse with me.ā He liked that, and I liked that he liked that. This was the kind of thing weād see in each other, the kind of thing in which we were matched up. We were in sync.ā
ā Paul McCartney, āThe Lyrics: 56 to the Presentā. (2021)
āIn a marriage, or a love affair ā when the seven-year-itch or the twelve-year or whatever these things that you have to go through ā there comes a point where the marriage collapses because they canāt face that reality, and they go seeking what they thought they should be having, still, somewhere else. I get a new girl, itāll all be like that again; I get a new boy... But for all marriages, all couples, itāll all be the same again. But what you lose is what you put into that... relationship. [...] The early stuff ā the Hard Dayās Night period, I call it ā ⦠what Iām equating it to is the sexual equivalent of the beginning of a relationship, of people in love. And the Sgt. Pepper-Abbey Road period was the period of maturity in the relationship. And maybe had we gone on together, maybe something more interesting would have come out of it. It would not have been the same. It would have been a different thing. But maybe it wouldnāt either. Maybe it was a marriage that had to end. Some marriages donāt get through that phase. Itās hard to speculate about what would have been.ā
ā John Lennon, interview w/ David Sheff for Playboy. (September, 1980)
āAnd yet... a different kind of thing comes in. Itās like a love affair. When you first meet, you can have the hots twenty-four hours a day for each other. But after fifteen or twenty years, a different kind of sexual and intellectual relationship develops, right? Itās still love, but itās different. So thereās that kind of difference in creativity too. As in a love affair, two creative people can destroy themselves trying to recapture that youthful spirit, at twenty-one or twenty-four, of creating without even being aware of how itās happening. One takes to drugs, to drinks, to knock oneself out⦠[...] Well, [the period between 1966 and 1970] it was fertile in the way a relationship between a man and a woman becomes more fertile after eight or ten years. The depth of the Beatlesā songwriting, or of John and Paulās contribution to the Beatles, in the late Sixties was more pronounced; it had a more mature, more intellectual ā whatever you want to call it ā approach. We were different. We were older. We knew each other on all kinds of levels that we didnāt when we were teenagers. The early stuff ā the āHard Dayās Nightā period, I call it ā was the sexual equivalent of the beginning hysteria of a relationship. And the āSgt. Pepper-Abbey Roadā period was the mature part of the relationship. And maybe, had we gone on together, maybe something interesting would have come of it. It wouldnāt have been the same. But maybe it was a marriage that had to end. Some marriages donāt get through that phase. Itās hard to speculate about what would have been.ā
ā John Lennon, interview w/ David Sheff for Playboy. (September, 1980)
āIāve compared to a marriage a million times and I hope itās... understable. For people that arenāt married. Or any relationship. It was a long relationship. It started many, many years before the American public, or the English public for that matter, knew us. Paul and I were together since he was 15, I was 16.ā
ā John Lennon, 1976. (āUnderstanding Lennon/McCartney: The Last Danceā [1:18:52])
āQ: If you got ā I donāt know what the right phrase is... āback togetherā now, what would be the nature of it? JOHN: Well, itās like saying, if you were back in your motherās womb... I donāt fucking know. What can I answer? It will never happen, so thereās no use contemplating it. Even if I became friends with Paul again, Iād never write with him again. Thereās no point. I write with Yoko because sheās in the same room with me. YOKO: And weāre living together. JOHN: So itās natural. I was living with Paul then, so I wrote with him. Itās whoever youāre living with. He writes with Linda. Heās living with her. Itās just natural.ā
ā John Lennon, interview w/ Peter McCabe and Robert Schonfeld at the St. Regis Hotel. (September, 1971)
āIn 1958, the notion of āLennon and McCartneyā came from Rodgers and Hammerstein, Lerner and Loewe and the other songwriting duos of renown, but by September 1962 it was much more Goffin and King, the young New York husband-and-wife team whose songs, all post-1960, John and Paul revered like no others. [...] Their influence on the music of Lennon and McCartney ā especially the songs of the next couple of years ā would be pronounced. John could not have made the connection or aspiration any clearer when he said (in 1971), āWhen Paul and I first got together, we wanted to be the British Goffin and King.āā
ā āThe Beatles: All These Years: Tune In [Vol. 1]ā by Mark Lewisohn. (2013)Ā
āI always had this dream of meeting an artist woman that I would fall in love with, and all that, even from art school. [...] I just realized that [Yoko] knew everything I knew, and more, probably, and it was coming out of a womanās head. It just sort of bowled me over, you know? And it was like finding gold or something. To find somebody that you can go and get pissed with, and have exactly the same relationship as any mate in Liverpool youād ever had, but also you could go to bed with him, and ā it could stroke your head when you felt tired, or sick, or depressed. It could also be Mother. And obviously, thatās what the male-female ā you know, you could take those roles with each other.ā
ā John Lennon, interview w/ Peter McCabe and Robert Schonfeld at the St. Regis Hotel. (September, 1971)
āThe only thing ever lacking in working with another artist and they were usually male ā whether it was Stuart Sutcliffe (my art school friend) or Paul McCartney (my musical friend) ā is that the relationship only goes as far as the front door and after that you are alone in bed. Itās a plus not a minus. The plus is that your best friend can also hold you.ā
ā John Lennon, āThe Other Side of Lennonā by Sandra Shevey. (1990)
āItās a plus, itās not a minus. The plus is that your best friend, also, can hold you without⦠I mean, Iām not a homosexual, or we could have had a homosexual relationship and maybe that would have satisfied it, with working with other male artists. An artist ā itās much better to be working with another artist of the same energy, and thatās why thereās always been Beatles or Marx Brothers or men, together. Because itās alright for them to work together or whatever it is. Itās the same except that we sleep together, you know? I mean, not counting love and all the things on the side, just as a working relationship with her, it has all the benefits of working with another male artist and all the joint inspiration, and then we can hold hands too, right?ā
ā John Lennon, interview w/ Sandra Shevey in New York City. (Mid-June?, 1972)
āIāve only selected to work with ā for more than a one night stand, say with an odd thing with [David] Bowie, or an odd thing with Elton [John], or anybody who was hanging around ā two people. Paul McCartney, and Yoko Ono. Okay? I brought Paul into the original group, The Quarrymen, he brought George in, and George brought Ringo in. I had a say in whether they did join or not, but the only initial move I ever made was bringing Paul McCartney into the group. The second person of that much interest to me as an artist, and somebody who I could work with, was Yoko Ono.ā
ā John Lennon, interview w/ Jonathan Cott for Rolling Stone. (December 5, 1980)Ā
āI was saying to somebody the other day, āThereās only two artists Iāve ever worked with for more than a one night stand, as it were. Thatās Paul McCartney, and Yoko Ono.ā And I think thatās a pretty damned good choice! [...] Now George came through Paul, and Ringo came through George, although of course I had a say in where they came from. But the only ā the person I actually picked as my partner, who Iād recognised had talent, and I could get on with, was Paul.ā
ā John Lennon, interview w/ Dave Sholin for RKO Radio. (December 8, 1980)
āQ: Letās talk about the Beatlesā breakup, and the falling out between you and Paul. A lot of people think it had to do with the women in your lives. Is that why the Beatles split up? JOHN: Not really. The split was over who would manage us ā Allen Klein or the Eastmans ā and nothing else really, although the split had been coming from Pepper onward.ā āQ: When did you first meet Linda? JOHN: The first time I saw her was after that press conference to announce Apple in America. We were just going back to the airport and she was in the car with us. I didnāt think she was particularly attractive, I wondered what he was bothering having her in the car for. A bit too tweedy, you know. But she sat in the car and took photographs and that was it. And the next minute sheās married him. Q: Was it the suddenness of Lindaās arrival on the scene that disrupted things? JOHN: Well, Paul had met her before [the Apple press conference], you see. I mean, there were quite a few women heād obviously had that I never knew about. God knows when he was doing it, but he must have been doing it. Q: So, John. You and Paul were probably the greatest songwriting team in a generation. And you had this huge falling out. Were there always huge differences between you and Paul, or was there a time when you had a lot in common? JOHN: Well, we all want our mummies ā I donāt think thereās any of us that donāt ā and he lost his mother, so did I. That doesnāt make womanizers of us, but we all want our mummies because I donāt think any of us got enough of them. Anyway, thatās neither here nor there ā but Paul always wanted the home life, you see. He liked it with daddy and the brother⦠and obviously missed his mother. And his dad was the whole thing. [...] So it was always the family thing, you see. If Jane [Asher] was to have a career, then that's not going to be a cozy family, is it? All the other girls were just groupies mainly. And with Linda not only did he have a ready-made family, but she knows what he wants, obviously, and has given it to him. The complete family life. Heās in Scotland. He told me he doesnāt like English cities anymore. So thatās how it is. Q: So you think with Linda heās found what he wanted? JOHN: I guess so. I guess so. I just donāt understand⦠I never knew what he wanted in a woman because I never knew what I wanted. I knew I wanted something intelligent or something arty, whatever it was. But you donāt really know what you want until you find it. So anyway, I was very surprised with Linda. I wouldnāt have been surprised if heād married Jane Asher, because it had been going on for a long time and they went through a whole ordinary love scene. But with Linda it was just like, boom! She was in and that was the end of it.ā
ā John Lennon, interview w/ Peter McCabe and Robert Schonfeld at the St. Regis Hotel. (September, 1971)
āāWhen we sang togetherā, John went on, āPaul and I would share the same microphone. Iād be close enough to kiss him. Back then, I didnāt wear me specs onstage ā Brian Epstein said they made me look old. So weād be playing these concerts, in front of thousands of people, but the only thing I could see was Paulās face. He was always there next to me ā I could always feel his presence. Itās what I remember most about those concertsā. āPaul and I had our differences early on, mostly creative ones, but we always got over them. Then I met Yoko and we fell in love. When I invited her to the recording studio during the Let It Be sessions, none of them took it well. This was a menās club, and no women were allowed in the recording room. But Paul seemed the most bothered about Yoko, and part of me felt it was because he was jealous. Because up till then, he had all me attention, all me love when we were recording. And now there was another. Now there was Yoko.āā
ā Elliot Mintz, āWe All Shine On: John, Yoko, and Meā. (2024)
āMeeting Paul was just like two people meeting. Not falling in love or anything. Just us.ā
ā John Lennon, āThe Beatlesā by Hunter Davies. (1968)
āIn a late wee-hour-of-the-morning talk, [John] once told me: āIām just like everybody else, Harry, I fell for Paulās looks. George knew more chords, so he was in. And Ringo, he's just Ringo.āā
ā Harry Nilsson, āThe Ballad of John and Yoko: Harry Remembersā. (Rolling Stone Magazine, 1984)
āI 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. Johnās method was to slag me off.ā
ā Paul McCartney, private phone conversation w/ Hunter Davies. (May 3, 1981)
āIt simply became very difficult for me to write [with John] with Yoko sitting there. If I had to think of a line I started getting very nervous. [...] Iām not blaming her. Iām blaming me. You canāt blame John for falling in love with Yoko any more than you can blame me for falling in love with Linda. We tried writing together a few more times, but I think we both decided it would be easier to work separately.Ā I told John on the phone the other day that at the beginning of last year I was annoyed with him. I was jealous because of Yoko, and afraid about the break-up of a great musical partnership. Itās taken me a year to realise that they were in love. Just like Linda and me. [...] Last year John said he wanted a divorce. All right, so do I. I want to give him that divorce. I hate this trial separation because itās just not working. Personally, I donāt think John could do the Beatles thing now. I donāt think it would be good for him. Johnās in love with Yoko, and heās no longer in love with the other three of us.ā
ā Paul McCartney, interview w/ Ray Connolly for Evening Standard: āPaul on āWhy the Beatles broke upāā. (April 21, 1970)
āSALEWICZ: Well, I always found it interesting the fact that he got ā I mean, it seemed too much like coincidence to me, the fact that he got married a week or month after you. You know what I mean? PAUL: Yeah. I think we spurred each other into marriage. I mean, you know. They were very strong together, which left me out of the picture. So I got together with Linda and then we got strong with our own kind of thing. And I used to listen to a lot of what they said. I remember him saying to me, āYouāve got to work at marriageā, which is something I still remember as a bit of advice. I still remember that. And then yeah, I think they were a little bit peeved that we got married first. Probably. In a little way, you know, just minor jealousies. And so they got married [...]. SALEWICZ: āand then one of them finds a girl and then the other ā or maybe the other one does, or whatever. Thereās like a lot of ā you know, the friendship often breaks up. Thereās quite a lot of bitterness and acrimony that goes down, and it seemed like one of them.ā
ā Paul McCartney, interview w/ Chris Salewicz. (September, 1986)
āINTERVIEWER: But your relationship with John, in every way, as a Beatles ā as a band, you were very, very close. I mean, that must have been very painful in that respect, not only the Beatles breaking up, but I mean that particular relationship breaking up. PAUL: Mm. It was, yeah. Um, in our songwriting, I had signs that the group was gonna break up, because⦠I mean, I think really what it was, 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. And I understood that. I mean, I couldnāt stand in the way of someone whoād fallen in love. You canāt say, āWhoās this?ā ā You canāt really do that. If I was a girl, maybe I could go out and⦠But you know I mean in this case I just sort of said, right ā I mean, I didnāt say anything, but I could see that was the way it was going to go, and that Yoko would be very sort of powerful for him. So we all had to get out the way. I donāt blame her. You know, you canāt blame her for being the object of his love.ā
ā Paul McCartney, interview for German TV show Exclusiv. (April 3rd?, 1985)
āCOSTAS: You were an ex-Beatle by the time you were twenty-nine, so this extraordinary rush of world-wide fame, and extraordinary experiences had happened to you and John Lennon as very young men. And ever since that time, people ā some with knowledge, some without knowledge ā have speculated on the nature of that collaboration, the nature of that relationship. What sense are you about to make of it now? PAUL: Well, you know, I think in life itās not that easy to... analyze your relationships with people. Not just John, I think with anyone, itās not that easy. And as you say, when thereāsā when fameās in there, as one of the factors, it can get even more complicated.ā
ā Paul McCartney interview w/ Bob Costas. (October 24, 1991)
āWell, Iām sure Brian was in love with John, Iām sure thatās absolutely right. I mean, everyone was in love with John; John was lovable, John was a very lovable guy.ā
ā Paul McCartney, interview w/ Danny Fields: āLinda McCartney: A Portraitā. (2001)Ā
āThe theory is that when John went off to Spain on holiday with Brian, thatās what it was about ā John trying to get his position clear as leader of the group. Also, Iām sure Brian was in love with John. We were all in love with John, but Brian was gay so that added an edge.ā
ā Paul McCartney, āThe Beatles Anthologyā. (2002)
āI think, largely looking back on it, I think it was mainly John [who] needed a new direction [...]. And you canāt blame him. Because he was that kind of guy, [the kind who] really wanted to live life and do stuff, you know. There was just no holding back with John. And it was what weād all admired him for. So you couldnāt really say, āOh, we donāt want you to do that, John. You should just stay with us.ā We felt so wimpy, you know. So it had to happen like that.ā
ā Paul McCartney, interview w/ DJ Roger Scott for Capitol Radio. (November, 1983)
āMCKAY: But other groups of the same period have survived and gone on, perhaps with some changes ā The Who, The Rolling Stones⦠PAUL: Yeah. True. But we broke up. Although I think it was a natural thing, I donāt think we couldāve. Think the thing was we were eighteen, kids, growing up, and we did sort of our ten years in the army thing, and then we had to go our separate ways. We had to look at life, instead of just this group. We had to find women, for one, uh, which we all sort of did. And then we had to give time to that new life, you know, because with the Beatles it prohibited any other thing. You just had to go with the group and there wasnāt any time for anything else.ā
ā Paul McCartney, interview w/ BBC reporter Mike McKay for the 20th anniversary of āLove Me Doā. (October[?], 1982)
āQ: 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, itās true. What I mean is that there was that kind of deep feeling and deep heat [laughs].Then we started arguing about the business and we just started to drift apart, as you say, like a kind of divorce. [...] So it started to split apart. We got very estranged because John went to live in New York with Yoko and they were very much their own couple and there werenāt many people that could get into that thing. [...] It wasnāt too easy for all of us, because he was sort of leaving us and going off on a new life and, whether you like it or not, we felt that each one us had been each otherās crutches for a long time.ā
ā Paul McCartney, interview w/ Ray Bonici for Music Express. (May, 1982)
āHe came to live in New York, he kind of threw over all his English contacts and everything. And, you know, canāt blame him! Thatās what he wants to do in his life. So we had to kind of⦠fade into the background to allow [John and Yoko] to have their relationship. What were we going to do, ringinā him up ā āHey, John!ā Yāknow,Ā āHey, come and see me.Ā Leave Yoko!ā. I mean, that was obviously never gonna happen.āĀ Ā
ā Paul McCartney, interview w/ Bob Costas. (October 24, 1991)
āThereās no hard feelings or anything, but you just donāt hang around with your ex-wife. Weāve completely finished. āCos, you know, Iām just not that keen on John after all heās done.ā
ā Paul McCartney interviewed by student journalist Ian McNulty for the Hull University Torch, May 1972. [From The McCartney Legacy, Vol. 1: 1969 ā 1973 by Allan Kozinn and Adrian Sinclair (2022)]
āThe end of the Beatles, he says, was like getting a divorce. āYou just donāt want to know about your ex-wife or ex-husband. After all the bitchiness, you feel the desire for a complete break.āā
ā Paul McCartney, interview w/ Richard Williams for The Times: āThe Times Profile ā Paul McCartneyā. (January 4, 1982)
ā[āDear Friendā] was written for John, to John. It was like a letter. With the business pressures of the Beatles breaking up itās like a marriage. One minute youāre in love, the next minute you hate each otherās guts.ā
ā Paul McCartney, āThe Paul McCartney Encyclopediaā by Bill Harry. (2002)
āItās just like divorce. Itās that you were so close and so in love that if anyone decides to start talking dirty ā great, then Pandoraās box is open. Thatās what happened with us.ā
ā Paul McCartney, interview w/ Anthony DeCurtis for Rolling Stone: The Paul McCartney interview. (November 5, 1987)
* According to author Mark Lewisohn: āPaul sometimes says āweā in interviews when he means āIāā. (Footnote in āThe Beatles: All These Years: Tune In [Vol. 1]ā, 2013)
āThatās my first attempt at a ballad. Proper. That was the precursor to āIn My Lifeā. [āIf I Fellā] itās⦠semi-autobiographical, but not that conscious, you know. Itās really about ā itās not about Cyn, my first wife. [ā¦] So that shows that I wrote sentimental love ballads ā silly love songs, as you call them ā way back when.ā
ā John Lennon, interview w/ David Sheff for Playboy. (September, 1980)
āBut I always heard [āHey Judeā] as a song to me. If you think about it... Yokoās just come into the picture. Heās saying, āHey, Jude ā hey, John.ā I know Iām sounding like one of those fans who reads things into it, but you can hear it as a song to me. The words āgo out and get herā ā subconsciously he was saying, āGo ahead, leave meā. On a conscious level, he didnāt want me to go ahead. The angel in him was saying, āBless you.ā The devil in him didnāt like it at all because he didnāt want to lose his partner.āĀ āAt that time I was still in my love cloud with Yoko. I thought, āWell, Iāll just say something nice to Paul, that itās all right and you did a good job over these years holding us togetherā. He was trying to organize the group and all that, so I wanted to say something to him. I thought, āWell, he can have it, Iāve got Yoko. And thank you, you can have the creditā. The line [āthe Walrus was Paulā of āGlass Onionā] was put in partly because I was feeling guilty because I was with Yoko and I was leaving Paul. Itās a very perverse way of saying to Paul, āHere, have this crumb, this illusion, this stroke ā because Iām leaving.āā
ā John Lennon, interview w/ David Sheff for Playboy. (September, 1980)
āIām not aiming, I am not aiming at 16 year olds. If they can dig it, please dig it. But when I was singing and writing [ā(Just Like) Starting Overā] and working with her, I was visualizing all the people of my age group from the 60s. Being in their 30s and 40s now, just like me, and having wives and children, and having gone through everything together. I am singing to them! I hope the young kids like it as well, but Iām really talking to the people that grew up with me and saying: āHere I am now, how are you? Howās your relationship going? Did you get through it all? Wasnāt the 70s a drag?ā You know, āHere we are, letās try and make the 80s goodā, you know, ābecause itās still up to us to make what we can of it. Itās not out of our controlā.ā
ā John Lennon, interview w/ Dave Sholin for RKO Radio. (December 8, 1980)
āI was a very possessive and jealous guy, and the lyrics explain that pretty clearly. Not just jealous towards Yoko, but towards everything, male and female ā incredibly possessive.ā
ā John Lennon, interview w/ David Wigg for BBC radio show Scene And Heard [0:02:06]. (February 6, 1970)
āIt was a weird time. [...] In the end, I think John had some tough breaks. He used to say, āEveryone is on the McCartney bandwagon.ā He wrote āIām Just A Jealous Guyā and he said that the song was about me. So I think it was just some kind of jealousy.ā
ā Paul McCartney, Interview w/ Diane de Dubovay for Playgirl Magazine.Ā (February, 1985)Ā
āI think [John] was very hurt. There were people turning him against me. It was his way of defending himself. He was quite pissed off about theĀ āMcCartney bandwagonā as he once called it, yāknow? He was a jealous guy. [ā¦] And I think we would all have continued the Beatles, but Yoko came along, John fell wildly in love with her, he needed a big, big change in his life and he got it!ā
ā Paul McCartney interview w/ Bob Costas. (October 24, 1991)
āIf Iām writing a song and Iām stuck, I might then go, āOK, what would we have done?ā But itās not like, āJohnny, help me baby.ā You know, itās not quite like that. āYes, Paul, put that word in.ā You know, itās actually come out a little bit like that, so Iām playing that down now. You know, it always informs you.āĀ
ā Paul McCartney, interview for CBS Newsās Sunday Morning: āNow heās 64ā. (September 17, 2005)
āQ: There is a very beautiful song called āThe End Of The Endā, the way you talk about your whole ending, and the lyric goes: āItās a start of a journey to a much better place.ā You mean, better than England? PAUL: Itās basically a start of a journey to France. Or Spain through France. Yeah, thatās what it is. Itās a much better place, Paris.ā
ā Paul McCartney, interview w/ Antoine de Caunes for Canal Plus [6:52]. (October 22, 2007)
ā... but the main thing [about āEarly Daysā] is itās a memory song. Itās me remembering walking down the street, dressed in black, with the guitars across our back. I can picture the exact street. It was a place called Menlove Avenue. [Pauses] Someoneās going to read significance into that: Paul and John on Menlove Avenue. Come onnnnnnn. Thatās what itās like with the Beatles. Everything was fucking significant, you know? Which is okay, but when you were a part of the reality, it just wasnāt like that. It was much more normal.ā
ā Paul McCartney, interview w/ Simon Vozick-Levinson for The Rolling Stone: āThe Long and Winding Q&Aā. (July 17, 2014)
āJust because I was involved with Jane at the time doesnāt mean this song [āI Willā] is addressed to, or about, Jane. [...] Itās a declaration of love, yes, but not always to someone specific. Unless itās to a person out there whoās listening to the song. And they have to be ready for it. Itās almost definitely not going to be a person whoās said, āThere he goes again, writing another of those silly love songs.ā So, this is me in my troubadour mode.ā āāI Want to Hold Your Handā is not about Jane, but it was certainly written when I was with her. To tell you the truth, I think we were writing more to a general audience. I may have been drawing on my experience with a person I was in love with at the time ā and sometimes it was very specific ā but mostly we were writing to the world.ā
ā Paul McCartney, āThe Lyrics: 56 to the Presentā. (2021)
āBIAL: Thereās a lot of speculation about Johnās inspiration for the lyrics of āNow and Thenā. But when you sing āIf I make it through, itās all because of youā, who are you thinking of? PAUL: [...] Iām thinking of the group. Iām thinking of four men, boys, who made the record. I donāt know if John was making the song for Yoko, which is possible. Or if he was making it for us. And that itās the speculation that you are talking about. Some people ā a lot of good people⦠Peter Jackson thinks this was John speaking to me directly ā and you know what? Itās very nice for me to think. So Iāll have that. Thank you John!ā
ā Paul McCartney, interview w/ Brazilian journalist Pedro Bial for talk show Conversa com Bial. (December 2, 2023)
āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā
4. Suspicious public interactions (beyond all the ones we already know)
ā JOHN FLIRTING WITH PAUL AT EVERY OPPORTUNITY HE HAD.
āI could even hear what they were saying off-mike; āOh Paul, youāre so cute tonightā. was met with the reply āSod off, Lennon.āā
ā Joan Baez on accompanying The Beatles to their concert in Red Rocks Amphitheatre, Denver. (August 26, 1964) |Ā Mojo Magazine: The Beatles Red Issue 1962-1966.
āI remember we were going down to the studio [...] and there was a great crowd pressing against the car. John was sitting in the back and he said, āPush Paul out first. Heās the prettiest.āā
ā Victor Spinetti in the documentary āYou Canāt Do That! The Making of A Hard Dayās Nightā [35:53]. (1995)
āREPORTER: Hey, go a bit down.Ā PAUL: Oh, yes. Go a bit down. REPORTER: Go a bit down. Yeah. JOHN [in the background]: Go down on me.ā
ā Press conference with The Beatles in Hamburg, Germany. (June 26, 1966)
ā JOHN SINGING āIF I FELLā TO PAUL (WHILE KNEEL IN FRONT OF HIM).
ā JOHN AND PAUL POSING LIKE A COUPLE IN DAVID BAILEYāS 1965 PHOTOSHOOT.
āThere was no set dressing, few props, and little sense of artifice. Instead, just people, invited to pose however they wished, emanating charisma.āĀ
ā Alastair Sooke for The Thelegraph: āBaileyās Stardust, National Portrait Gallery, reviewā. (February 4, 2014)
ā JOHN AND PAUL OPENLY CALLING EACH OTHER BY AFFECTIONATE NICKNAMES.
āJOHN: Iām playing, baby! Donāt stop me now. PAUL: Oh, no⦠JOHN: Iām not looking at you, am I? PAUL: You were! I know! JOHN: Well⦠I can laugh. PAUL: I know I canāt stop laughing when youāve got tears(?) in your eyes. JOHN: Well, Iām laughing over here. PAUL: I know, but I can see ā(?) and everything.
ā The Beatles, Studio Outtake of āIāll Follow The Sunā. (1964)
PAUL: Whatās the matter, John love? Blue meanies?
ā All Together Now | Special Edition Film Master. (1968)
PAUL: Are you listening, babe?
ā Introduction of āHere Todayā in tribute to John at the first show of the āGood Evening Europeā tour in Hamburg. (December 2, 2009)
PAUL: Well, happy birthday John. We miss you, baby. I miss you.
ā Massage for the āImagine: John Lennon 75th Birthday Concertā. (2015)
ā JOHN POSING IN WHAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE PAULāS āFAMILYā PHOTOSHOOT WITH JANE (?).
* Paul framed the photo they took together and hung it on the wall of his personal Apple office.
ā JOHN AND PAUL NATURALLY ACTING LIKE A COUPLE (SOMETIMES EVEN IN FRONT OF JOURNALISTS).
āāUh, I need another drink, babyā, says John.Ā Paul goes to the phone. āHello? Yeah, send us six single Scotches ā No, make it doubles, yeah, doubles.āā
ā Michael Braun, āLove Me Do!: The Beatlesā Progressā. (1996)
* Michael Braun was an American journalist who spent time with the Beatles during their 1963 tour of the UK and also accompanied them on part of their early travels, gaining a behind-the-scenes look at their lives before they exploded internationally with Beatlemania.
āAt the Sheraton, Malcolm Searle was given privileged access for his daily 3AK bulletins. Reporting from the kitchenette of the penthouse suite, he chatted to Paul, John and George, as Paul cooked steak and spuds for his and Johnās dinner. The conversation turned playfully camp when Searle called Paul āa regular little housewifeā and described the gingham apron he was wearing. āDoes he cook for you very much?ā John (indignantly): āDonāt say it like that, it sounds funny.āā
ā āWhen We Was Fab: Inside the Beatles Australian Tour 1964ā by Andy Neill and Greg Armstrong. (2024)
* Malcolm Searle was an Australian radio and TV host active in the mid-20th century. He conducted an interview with John Lennon at Melbourneās Southern Cross Hotel in June 1964, and provided on-site radio reports from the suite where the Beatles were staying.
āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā
5. Private acknowledgment and widespread awareness
āThe sad thing is that John and Paul both had problems and they loved each other and, boy, could they have helped each other! If they had only communicated! It frustrates me to no end, because I was just some chick from New York when I walked into all of that. God, if Iād known what I know now⦠All I could do was sit there watching them play these games.ā
ā Linda McCartney, interview w/ Joan Goodman for Playboy: āPaul and Linda McCartneyās Whole Storyā. (December, 1984)Ā
āThey werenāt opposites, they were so alike. The sad thing is John isnāt with us anymore and who knows what would have happened. You know, itās the press. You read about history and you know itās not really what happened⦠thatās why Iām glad I got pictures of them smiling together and I got to show people that, you know, they loved each other⦠they were friends, and it was deeper than any of us will ever know.ā
ā Linda McCartney. (198ā?)
āAfter the initial embarrassment, now Paul is being very nice to me. Heās nice on the level, straight sense. [...] And like, I can see that heās just now suddenly changing his attitude, like heās being ā heās treating me with respect. Not because itās me ā but because I belong to John. I hope thatās what it is, because that would be nice. [...] Iām sure that if he had been a woman or something, he would have been a great threat ā because thereās something definitely very strong between John and Paul. And probably among those three people of George and Ringo and Paul, Paul is the only one that I can sort of feel the vibration [from]. Like, sort of sense it, you know, that something is among that.ā
ā Yoko Ono while The Beatles are recording and mixing āRevolution 1ā at EMI Studios. (June 4, 1968)
āTo sum it up, Paul is a good songwriter and also he was Johnās partner before I became Johnās partner. And as John put it: āThe first I picked Paul as a partner and next Yoko. First Paul McCartney and next Yoko Onoā, something, I think, he said.āĀ
ā Yoko Ono. (November, 1985)
āI think that itās like [John] was married to Paul, and now he was married to me... So it was a situation that he didnāt feel like he wanted to go back, really. John had a lot of respect for Paul, and of course, love.ā
ā Yoko Ono, interview for BBC Radio 6. (1990)
āIām sure that in the case of Paul thereās that feeling that Iām the woman who took away his partner ā itās like a divorce.ā
ā Yoko Ono [around the year 2000], āYou Never Give Me Your Money: The Battle for the Soul of The Beatlesā by Peter Doggett. (2009)
āIndeed, Johnās wounded anger was more that of an ex-spouse than ex-colleague, reinforcing a suspicion already in Yokoās mind that his feelings for Paul had been far more intense than the world at large ever guessed. From chance remarks he had made, she gathered there had even been a moment when ā on the principle that bohemians should try everything ā he had contemplated an affair with Paul, but had been deterred by Paulās immovable heterosexuality. Nor, apparently, was Yoko the only one to have picked up on this. Around Apple, in her hearing, Paul would sometimes be called Johnās Princess. She had also once heard a rehearsal tape with Johnās voice calling out āPaul⦠Paulā¦ā in a strangely subservient, pleading way. āI knew there was something going on thereā, she remembers. āFrom his point of view, not from Paulās. And he was so angry at Paul, I couldnāt help wondering what it was really about.āā
ā āJohn Lennon: The Lifeā by Philip Norman. (2008)
āThe disruption really came with the women anyway. Where you have very close personal relationships between two men, and one of them goes off and gets a girl, and the other one goes off and gets another girl, and the two women donāt particularly like each other⦠then thereās a divergence. I donāt think Paul minded YokoĀ ā Yokoās fine, nothing wrong with YokoĀ ā except that she was always there. [...] I think that was the beginning of it. And almost in self-defense, Paul got Linda.āĀ
ā George Martin, interview w/ Chris Hodenfield for The Rolling Stone: āGeorge Martin Recalls the Boys in the Bandā. (July 15, 1976)Ā
āI wasnāt involved in the arguments, I was just hurt by it. I mean, I was a bystander. And I knew darn well that if I got involved, on either side... It was like a marital breakup. You know, if a husband and wife are fighting it up and someone tries to interfere, then both the husband and wife gang up on the other guy interfering: āGet out of our business!ā.āĀ
ā George Martin, Lost Lennon Tapes | Episode #155: The Disintegration Of Lennon & McCartney. (July 1st, 1991)
"I think they were all feeling a little paranoid. When you have a rift between people ā if you go to a party and the husband and wife have been having a row ā thereās a tension, an atmosphere. And you wonder whether you are making things worse by being there. I think that was kind of the situation we found with Ringo. He was probably feeling a little bit odd because of the mental strangeness with John and Yoko and Paulā¦āĀ
ā George Martin, The Beatles Anthology. (2002)
āWhen I first auditioned them I said, āWhoās going to be the leader, is it John or Paul?ā Such an odd couple really, because they were different and yet very similar, both had big egos, both very good songwriters, but they needed each other like mad.ā
ā George Martin, interview w/ Jim Irvin for The Mojo Magazine: āSir George Martin: The Mojo Interviewā. (March 2007)
āMore important to Paul than his relationship with Jane, was his partnership with John Lennon, whom heād met shortly after his mother died of breast cancer when he was 14. [...] And when Johnās mother was also to die in a road accident just over a year later, the friendship had intensified with a shared sense of loss. And so it was to remain as adulthood and fame arrived, and the girls came and went. And, in Johnās case, a wife as well.ā āExactly a year after their first encounter, Paul met Linda again when he contacted her while he and John were on business in New York. [...] A few weeks later Paul called and invited Linda to join him at another business meeting in Los Angeles. [...] Slowly but surely, they were coming together, just as certainly as John and Paul were breaking apart.Ā John had fallen in love with Yoko Ono, and, increasingly fuelled by hard drugs, seemed bent on destroying what Paul saw as their creation. Losing interest in the Beatles, John had less time for Paul. The two could no longer write or record freely together without Yoko offering advice. Her presence put Paul off and John didnāt care. Paul was finding himself abandoned. Outwardly super-confident, inwardly he was growing increasingly insecure. There were girls all around him, of course. He couldnāt get rid of some of them, but he needed someone special at his side. He sent for Linda. [...]ā ā[...] Paul had always played on stage with his best friend. He couldnāt play with John Lennon anymore, so he turned his new best friend, Linda, into a keyboard musician in his new group, Wings.āĀ
ā Ray Connolly, āThe Ray Connolly Beatles Archiveā. (2016)
āItās like a marriage, you know. These two broke up. Paul took a long time to get over it. And probably John too, although he was too macho to show it. They had a marriage before Yoko arrived, you know. Although they both had girlfriends, a lot of girlfriends, and all that stuff.ā
ā Ray Connolly, interview for One Sweet Dream Podcast: āNew Lens Series | Beatles go-to journalist Ray Connolly on his time with Lennon, Ono and McCartneyā [00:26:00]. (March 24, 2021)
āOne week and one day after Paul married Linda, I received a phone call from John. He and Yoko were at the HĆ“tel Plaza AthĆ©nĆ©e in Paris and wanted to get married, immediately. People believe that Johnās desire to get married so soon after Paulās marriage was a knee-jerk reaction. Perhaps it was psychologically about breaking up with Paul. [...]ā āIn the inner circle of Liverpudlians, we thought of Cynthia as family, and Yokoās ascension as First Lady of the Lennons was jarring. Johnās pal Magic Alex asks in his transcripts, āWhy her? [...]ā. The reason, many people believed, was that more than a trophy wife, a model or an actress, John needed a chum. His love affair with Paul McCartney was ending.ā
ā Peter Brown, āAll You Need Is Love: The Beatles in Their Own Wordsā. (2024)
āI didnāt realise how sensitive the other Beatles were to Johnās opinion. Paul worried about what John would say [in the event Lennon died before being interviewed] and was still longing for his friendship. [...] Those interviews were done before Johnās death and Paulās heart was broken, even then. It wasnāt just the break-up of the Beatles. It was more personal than that.ā
ā Steven Gaines, interview w/ Will Hodgkinson for The Times: āWhy the Beatles split up ā in their own wordsā. (April 6, 2024)
ā[Yoko] was a very strong influence on John, and may well have been telling him that he could do best on his own, but I still think that on the back of Johnās mind would be this sort of fascination with wanting to get back with the first girlfriend, if youād like [laughs], and it was to get back with Paul that he had so much history with.ā
ā Tony Barrow, āThe Beatlesā Biggest Secretsā. (2004/2007)
* Others quotes [but with no source]:TONY BARROW: They loved each other more than most couples do, and when they split it was more wrenching than most divorces.
āMy impression is that Paul and John kind of knew that they were growing apart. And Let It Be was almost like a marriage thatās failing, and they wanna go on their date nights again.ā
ā Giles Martin, interview for 60 Minutes. (2021)
āJohn and Paul can shoot looks at each other and exchange thoughts. John, full of Da Vinci-esque chutzpah and Lewis Carroll whimsy and Joycean logic, projects authority, sovereignty. Can you dig that Paul is his princess?ā
ā Francie Schwartz for Rolling Stone Magazine #46: āMemories of an Apple Girlā. (November 15, 1969)
āPaul wasnāt happy. But the big things that were driving him mad were beyond me. He kept on working and writing, but when John came over, all he could talk about was how much he loved Yoko. That disturbed Paul. In spite of Johnās obvious happiness, Paul stifled his jealousy with not-very-cute bursts of racist crap.ā
ā Francie Schwartz, āBody Countā. (1972)
* Danny Fields, who was Lindaās friend for 30 years until her death, said in the biography that he wrote: āFrancie Schwartz has memories of Yoko that are kinder than most other peopleās. But her account of the Big Rupture between Paul and John is probably quite accurate. The same story was told many times by John himself. Francie wrote a version of it in āBody Countā, and she told it to me.ā
āI think once Paul and Johnās differences came to the surface, the vibe really changed. Once that division had happened, they were finally able to articulate their hostility towards each other. Are we looking at a divorce, here? Are Mom and Dad going to be breaking up? And whatās gonna happen to us?ā
ā Richard Di Lello, Apple Records press assistant | āZ is for Zappleā: BBC Radio documentary narrated by Barry Miles. (June 18, 2004)
āāJohn was in love and happyā, she said. āPaul wasnāt happy at all.ā His own relationship was crumbling... For Paul [...], the breakup with Jane was yet another blow at time when he had both to deal with John and Yoko and try to (at least as he saw it) to keep the group going the wake of Brianās death. āHe was desperate to settle downā, said Maggie McGivern. āHe was terribly lost ā he needed that foothold of security.āāĀ
ā āMeet the Beatles: A Cultural History of the Band That Shook Youth, Gender, and the Worldā by Steven D. Stark. (2013)
āThatāsĀ very hard to delve into. They were great friends, and had great mutual respect, but they were also quite different from one another. I donāt know. Human relationships are tough to analyze. Itās like trying to talk about someone elseās marriage.āĀ
ā Peter Asher, interview w/ Russell Hall for The Gibson: āPeter Asher Talks ā60s, Beatles and Appleāā. (November 19, 2010)
āHe and the world had just lost someone very dear to them. I had lost my Uncle John [...]; Julian and Sean had lost a father; Cynthia, her knight in shining armour; Yoko, a fellow artist, contemporary and house husband⦠and Paul? Well, call me crazy, but he lost the wife. Iām certainly not implying anything of a carnal nature here, but to almost all intents and purposes (as John would have put it), what they had was a marriage. Mark David Chapmanās selfish quest for his Warhol-esque fifteen minutes of fame was the fatal wound to an injured relationship that had lasted almost 23 years. This unconventional partnership, much like a paradigmatic marriage, had endured its sundry situations⦠[like] itās honeymoon period [and] the tender temptations of Jane, Cynthia, Yoko, Linda, May Pang and others.ā
ā Ruth McCartney for Absolute Elsewhere Articles: āThe Chemistry of Lennon and McCartney | An Essayā. (2002)
āQ: How did you view the troubles the Beatles have been going through these last few years? SMITH: I donāt know all this business between John and Paul is about and I donāt dare ask John. [...] Iām sure theyāll get back together soon. This is just a phase theyāre passing through.ā āQ: What do you think changed John so much from his early days as a carefree kid? SMITH: Sheās responsible for all this, Yoko. She changed him, and Iām sure she and Linda are behind the split between John and Paul.ā
ā Interview w/ Aunt Mimi Smith. (Bournemouth, 1970)Ā
āRemember, [John] was twenty-one when he married Cynthia; he was twenty-eight when he married Yoko. Now, at the cusp of thirty-three, for the first time in his adult life, he didnāt have a wife (or, for that matter, three other partners) who made up his extended family. He was a free man.ā
ā Elliot Mintz, āWe All Shine On: John, Yoko, and Meā. (2024)
āLennon had attitude, and, taking his lead from Lennon, McCartney could be similar. At times, they reminded me of those well-to-do Chicago lads Leopold and Loeb, who killed someone because they felt superior to him. Lennon and McCartney were āsuperior human beingsā.ā
ā Bob Wooler, āBest of Fellas: The Story of Bob Wooler | Liverpoolās First D.J., The Man Who Introduced āThe Beatlesāā by Spencer Leigh. (2002)
* Leopold and Loeb were two wealthy University of Chicago students who, in 1924, kidnapped and murdered 14-year-old Bobby Franks in what they called the āperfect crimeā. There is strong historical evidence that Leopold and Loeb had a romantic and sexual relationship.Ā
āPAULINE: What do you think [The Beatles] did to one another? What do you think Paul and Johnās current feud is still about? Q: Probably money. Whatever feud exists between Paul and Yoko maybe centers around billing⦠who gets top billing. Instead of Lennon-McCartney; McCartney-Lennon. PAULINE: Well, theyāve got enough money, donāt you think? I suppose enough is never enough for some people.ā
ā Pauline Sutcliffe, interview w/ Gary James for Classic Bands.
āThe trial and acquittal bonded Mick and Keith ā but it created a very odd dynamic. For Keith it was just an alliance within a group, but for Mick it was a lot more than that. It has all the irrationality and passion of a love affair. Lennon and McCartney had a similar bond between them. Not as strong, of course, but both groups had these duennas, these strange bisexual ā almost witchy ā figures as managers. Brian Epstein and Andrew Oldham.ā
ā Marianne Faithfull, āFaithfull: An Autobiographyā. (1994)
āAs the meeting was drawing to a weary close, John, not this day with Yoko, who hadnāt seemed particularly connected with what was going on, said he wanted to play us a tape he and Yoko had made. He got up and put the cassette into the tape machine and stood beside it as we listened. The soft murmuring voices did not at first signal their purpose. It was a man and a woman but hard to hear, the microphone having been at a distance. I wondered if the lack of clarity was the point. Were we even meant to understand what was going on, was it a kind of artwork where we would not be able to put the voices into a context, and was context important? I felt perhaps this was something John and Yoko were examining. But then, after a few minutes, it became clear. John and Yoko were making love, with endearments, giggles, heavy breathing, both real and satirical, and the occasional more direct sounds of pleasure reaching for climax, all recorded by the faraway microphone. But there was something innocent about it too, as though they were engaged in a sweet serious game. John clicked the off button and turned again to look toward the table, his eyebrows quizzical above his round glasses, seemingly genuinely curious about what reaction his little tape would elicit. However often theyād shared small rooms in Hamburg, whatever they knew of each otherās love and sex lives, this tape seemed to have stopped the other three cold. Perhaps it touched a reserve of residual Northern reticence. After a palpable silence, Paul said, āWell, thatās an interesting one.ā The others muttered something and the meeting was over. It occurred to me as I was walking down the stairs that what weād heard could have been an expression of 1960s freedom and openness but was it more likely that it was as if a gauntlet had been thrown down? āYou need to understand that this is where she and I are now. I donāt want to hold your hand anymoreā.ā
ā Michael Lindsay-Hogg, āLuck and Circumstance: A Coming of Age in Hollywood, New York, and Points Beyondā. (2011)
āThe Beatles were having severe problems then, with Yoko Ono apparently having driven a wedge between Paul McCartney and the most important person in his life, John Lennon.ā āIt was clear to Paul by this point that Yoko had become by far the most important person in John Lennonās life; even were she to somehow vaporize, John would not come running back to Paul after that unfortunate disappearance.ā āThe wedding [of Paul and Linda] was front-page news all over the world [...] and, like an answering move in a chess game, John and Yoko were married in Gibraltar eight days later.ā
ā Danny Fields, āLinda McCartney: The Biographyā. (2001)
āIt was a divorce. It was, no doubt, both classic and inevitable ā unless they had all refused to grow up into their adult lives. It was certainly hardest for Paul. He and John were emotional partners in a powerful, creative and loving way.ā
ā Paul Saltzman, āThe Beatles in Indiaā. (2005/2018?)
āI didnāt realise how sensitive the other Beatles were to Johnās opinion. Paul worried about what John would say and was still longing for his friendship. [...] Those interviews were done before Johnās death and Paulās heart was broken, even then. It wasnāt just the break-up of the Beatles. It was more personal than that.āĀ
ā Steven Gaines, interview w/ Will Hodgkinson for The Times: āWhy the Beatles split up ā in their own words the sunday timesā. (April 6, 2024)
ā [BONUS]: RINGO COMMENTING THAT PAUL HAD A FRAGILE MASCULINITY.
āPAUL: George... Iāve got to see him. INTERVIEWER: How you did? PAUL: A short time before he died. [...] We sat and just stroking hands like this. And this is the guy, you know. I known since I was a little kid. We donāt stroke hands with guys like that, you know. It was just beautiful. RINGO: Not unless youāre secure. [Both look at each other and laugh at the same time.]ā
ā Interview with Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, Yoko Ono, Olivia Harrison and Guy LalibertĆ©: First Anniversary of Cirque du Soleilās The Beatles LOVE Show | Larry King Live (CNN) [7:34]. (June 26, 2007)
* Pattie Boyd and Elton John have also made āstrangeā comments about John and Paul.
āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā
6. What are they planning to do (and why)?
ā PAUL ADMITTING THAT HE WATCHES FAN-EDITED YOUTUBE VIDEOS OF HIMSELF AND JOHN. (2017)
PAUL: Iāve seen a couple of YouTube videos that fans made that just reminded me of how good friends we were.
ā JOHNāS INSTAGRAM ACCOUNT MAKING A SEQUENCE OF POSTS WITH THE LYRICS OF āIN MY LIFEā ON PAUāS 80TH BIRTHDAY. (June 17, 2022)
ā SEAN LENNON CONFIRMING THAT HE IS AWARE OF EVERYTHING WE DISCUSSED ON TUMBLR. (June 2, 2024)Ā
FAN: You should look through the McLennon tab on Tumblr and report back to us if you care this much. SEAN: Iāve seen everything. Trust me.
ā MIKE McCARTNEY REACTING TO THE SUNDAY TIMES MAGAZINE COVER FEATURING PREVIOUSLY UNPUBLISHED EXCERPTS FROM āJOHN & PAUL: A LOVE STORY IN SONGSā. (March 16, 2025)
MIKE: My fab pic on the cover of The Sunday Times Magazine 2day. I hope u like it. ā¤ļø
āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā
ā Personal comments.
(1) The concepts of open secrets and the glass closet are historically and culturally specific. They emerge from entertainment industries, media practices and heteronormative social systems, particularly in Western societies during the 20th and 21st centuries. Norms of public acknowledgment, visibility and legitimacy vary across time, geography and social contexts. What counts as an open secret or glass closet in Hollywood or pop culture may look different in other countries, cultures or historical periods.Ā
In this case, weāre talking about the sixties. And we know that homosexuality was criminalized and stigmatized in Great Britain, so open secrets served both as protection and as a survival mechanism for the LGBTQ+ community. For many, the glass closet became the only viable way to exist, as it allowed a public ā albeit limited ā expression of their sexual identities. It was almost an absolute necessity, not merely a strategy, to navigate the system without being completely erased. At that time, this relational pattern made sense for John and Paulās reality. It seems that, from what I could gather, the main problem was always that this information reached the fans in general.
(2) The Beatlesā style marketing communication ā especially in their prime years ā was unusually layered and self-aware, with sarcastic jokes and puns. They didnāt just answer interview questions: they treated press conferences, TV spots and fan interactions as performances in their own right. If you stop to think, it maps surprisingly well onto open-secret communication, because both rely on double layers of meaning and audience segmentation.
Beyond this, all of them also had a playful ā and sometimes mischievous ā relationship with the public, often blurring the line between truth and deliberate misdirection. Two famous examples are the song āI Am the Walrusā and the āPaul is Deadā conspiracy theory. In both cases, The Beatles demonstrated their talent for myth-making. Whether through lyrical chaos or mysterious visual symbols, they cultivated an aura of enigma that kept the press chasing stories and the fans searching for secrets ā turning misdirection into an art form.
Havenāt you ever wondered why they only released the previously unpublished sketches of āNow and Thenā, with the line āIām still in love with youā, in 2023? They deliberately kept them hidden for decades ā and our first glimpse only came through Johnās header on his official X/Twitter account. It seems to me that they have control over everything and intentionally play with our minds, because they knew we would notice these āsignsā.Ā
(3) As we can see, the majority follow a similar behavioral pattern, maintaining ambiguous communication. However, this doesnāt mean everything is rehearsed, scripted or planned. Sometimes these processes can happen unconsciously, while people are in autopilot mode or even acting spontaneously. An open secret is established through a combination of mechanisms that gradually āteachā everyone involved how to handle it ā often without a single explicit conversation. Itās less about a formal agreement and more about a shared set of cues, incentives and unspoken rules that solidify over time. Eventually, this behavior stops feeling like a conscious choice and becomes ājust how things areā, like any natural phenomenon in our daily lives. All that was presented is yet another reason why we shouldnāt consider Yokoās quote that Paul rejected John as an absolute truth. Like the others (e.g., Ruth McCartney and Marianne Faithfull), she also maintains an ambiguous narrative pattern of insinuation accompanied by minimization.Ā
(4) Did you see how John and Paul act like a married couple in Michael Braunās presence, with Paul automatically knowing ābabyā refers to him and obeying Johnās commands? This is one of my favorite moments of them. Itās so casual and domestic. It seems to me that, in certain situations, they simply were what they were, and saw no need to formalize it to anyone around them. After the Beatles broke up, and John was murdered, everything between them kind of became public. It shocks me that in 2025 many fans continue to choose not to see it.
(5) If you pay attention, youāll notice that John and Paul ā as well as the other people close to them, like Yoko and Sean ā practically use the same communication strategies when speaking about their sexualities. The lyrics of songs that they wrote for each other in the 70s also can be read as a form of open communication, but coded so that only they (or those who āknowā the truth) can understand it.
(6) Something interesting I accidentally realized is that, when you gather all the material about Johnās affair with Brian, youāll see that it was also an open secret because of the way both ā and the Beatlesā social circle in general ā acted around the subject.
㠤㠤㠤㠤㠤㠤㠤㠤㠤㠤㠤㠤㠤㠤㠤㠤㠤㠤㠤㠤㠤㠤PART 2 [SOON] ā
š£ļøOpen Call for Beatles artwork!! š£ š£
Calling the incredible and talented artists in the Beatle fandom!!
My good friend @i-am-the-oyster has come up with the amazing idea of creating a Beatle themed tarot card deck. We are looking for 22 illustrators to help us on this exciting project, (one artist per card in the deck) and it is a PAID commission š Unfortunately I canāt message the artists directly as Tumblr thinks Iām spam š„. So Iām going to tag a few artists and if you see this message and would like to take part, please respond to either me or Oysters and we can give you more information. We know that there are SO many amazing artists on tumblr so if you donāt see your name, it just means that we havenāt (yet) come across your beautiful art but would still love to hear from you! ā¤ļø
Ideally, if you are interested, please drop us a line by August 25th , thanks š«¶
@endyillustration
@upton-green
@taepomme
@artylla
@mccartballs
@nerolikestowander
@monkeymir
@ramgirlpaul
@pondanimal
@helga-oko
@astronauthp
@charolinsz
@blu3jayway
@sadeyedladyofthelowland
@klyceart
@starzzmissthesun
@yeoman-lawyer
@mxmorel
@paulmccartneyexplodingonstage
@gothpaulmccartney
@colourofthesuncutflat
Any artists up for being commissioned to make this Tarot deck for me?
probably best to just not interact with blondecasino she called you a weirdo for feeling entitled to the ins and outs of john and yokoās marriage. i thought you both sound like you hold strongly to your convictions just on different sides of the coin. i thought you were respectful though so the name calling sucks but yeah some people just donāt want the engagement which is fair too.
Thanks kind Anon! š
Awwww, thatās very sweet of Bret to share one of his biscuitsā¦.even if it was begrudgingly. š¤£
I find the āPaul turned down John in Indiaā theory unpersuasive for several reasons, but particularly this:
It requires me to believe that 1969 John Lennon was capable of laughing and joking about what would have been one of the biggest rejections of his life. This is a man who had intense, traumatic abandonment issues and lashed out over anything he read as rejection. Yes, he was mercurial, but he was also very, very consistent about his own hurt feelings. (For instance: he never got over Paulās insensitivity over Eleanor Rigby, and was still going into bitter rants about it 14 years later). But here he is, flirting and giggling while *checks notes* remembering that time he laid his heart on the line, only for Paul to throw it away. No.
Mersey Beat | 30 July 1964
anyone else ever think about the little hotel in Montauk where they used to screw and start dissociating
Dissociating this very moment!
I wish it was standard for everyone to put John girl Paul girl George girl etc in their bios just so I know
Iām a George coded George girl but ultimately find the drama of John and Paul more interesting; because George coded people donāt burn down the temple and destroy everything in it; we just spend our lives being mildly irritated and muttering under our breath.
Hundreds of people killed, including many children, as Israel carries out extensive air attacks across Gaza.
At least 404 people, including many children, have been killed in renewed Israeli attacks that have shattered a fragile ceasefire in Gaza. The Health Ministryās toll is expected to rise as many victims remain under the rubble.
BEST WORST UK PLACENAMES: THE FINAL
Fingringhoe, Essex
Woodford cum Membris, Northamptonshire
Booby Dingle, Herefordshire
Shitterton, Dorset
Cuckold's Green, Suffolk
Cock Mountain, County Down
Great Cockup, Cumbria
Lord Hereford's Knob, Powys
Tickle Cock Bridge, West Yorkshire
Boysack, Angus
Oldman Botton, Northumberland
Its the moment you've all been waiting for!!!!! the grand final is upon us!!!! Who will be the champion of champions???!!!