#understanding paul

[fizgabzi14]

hi so im trying to understand paul mccartney. I thought, what better way but to BE him? So i present, me imitating paul mccartney.

hi i am paul mccartney i loveee to sleep with john lennon but i am immovably heterosexual obviously. john was beautiful really and i loved him and oh also do you wanna listen to all my songs about john that are each laced (or doused) with the overwhelming love i feel for him? not in the gay way tho. duh.

ok update (im me again) im only more confused.

[get-back-homeward]

...John had always been the one of them to wear his heart on his sleeve.

Nobody knows me, do they?

From McCartney, Christopher Standford [x]

[paulic]

The dirty weekend really reminds me of Dorian Gray by Oscar Wilde lmao, Paul really flew out to L.A. with his boys (not his boys people would think are equal to him, but his boys who worked for him) was cheating on every single one of his multiple girlfriends/situationships, rented a boat, bought his pretty little velvet jacket and a shitton of sunglasses and just spent four days spending money, having obscene amounts of sex, looking pretty and not giving one shit about any of the people he was screwing over. truly iconic behaviour, I admire how awful he can be and somehow this does not make me less fond of him

[mydaroga]

I like writing sad songs, it's a good bag to get into because you can actually acknowledge some deeper feelings of your own and put them in it. It's a good vehicle, it saves having to go to a psychiatrist. Songwriting often performs that feat, you say it but you don't embarrass yourself because it's only a song, or is it? You are putting the things that are bothering you on the table and you are reviewing them, but because it's a song, you don't have to argue with anyone.

I was a bit flipped out and tripped out at that time. It's a sad song because it's all about the unattainable; the door you never quite reach. This is the road that you never get to the end of.

Paul McCartney on "The Long and Winding Road," Many Years From Now

[victorian-miner]

Obsessed with how Paul seems to consistently refer to John as “soft” while George nearly always referred to him as “hard” and I would really love to figure out where the disconnect is. Or rather, why Paul focuses on one aspect of John and George on the other.

[paulic]

I’ve been wondering whether if anything happened between John and Paul in India, how much Ringo and George knew about it.

I feel like it would’ve been hard for them to keep it under covers (lol) and just say ‘oh we had a row’, because they all had rows all of the time. They needed something to explain a reaction that strong (Paul leaving early, John writing happy songs and then the most heartbreaking ones the second Paul leaves). Ringo left early too and I know it’s always said it was because of his issues with the food but somehow it would be very like him to support Paul like that.

There are so many scenes of ringo and Paul in get back where ringo is quietly supporting him and showing him affection which you can clearly see the man desperately needed (‘and then there were two’, ringo hugging him, ‘good morning rich!!!’ and then playing their happy tune on the piano together, ringo saying he wants to go on the roof after George gets pissed off at Paul who’s trying to keep everyone happy etc etc)

I’m not saying everything Ringo did was to soothe Paul but he does seem very aware of what’s going on? I think ringo’s view on everything is the least discussed which is kind of sad, really.

Something else that really stuck out to me is the expression on Ringos face after Paul seems to say ‘the cameras’ when ringo is hugging him. Paul indicates that he wants ringo to stop but not because he’s not comfortable, but because it’s dangerous for them to be seen so comfortable. Ringo doesn’t seem afraid of that one bit, he hugs the others all of the time. But Paul’s paranoid and ringo respects his wishes immediately. I think Paul’s very weird about touching men so he might have said that because he wasn’t comfortable? I don’t buy that, though, he and ringo hugged a lot and still do, their relationship seemed more physical than for example Paul’s and George’s. So, if Paul truly only meant ‘hey man we can’t be seen like this’ and he was more paranoid than ringo, why was that? They were both in heterosexual relationships at the time and I’m guessing both had only brotherly feelings towards each other. Ringos expression seems annoyed in an empathetic and understanding way, as if he’s thinking ‘paul you idiot you have nothing to worry about’ with an eye roll and a platonic kiss on the head.

So it made me think, if something happened in India, might the others even have known about it? Might ringo have thought back to it and been like ‘Paul nobody thinks you shagged John’ (which…I mean they do) in an affectionately annoyed way? I really don’t know please someone discuss

[mydaroga]

That creative moment when you come up with an idea is the greatest, it's the best. It's like sex. You're filled with a knowledge that you're right, which, when much of your life is filled with guilt and the knowledge that you're probably not right, is a magic moment. You actually are convinced it's right, and it's a very warm feeling that comes all over you, and for some reason it comes from the spine, through the cranium and out the mouth.

Paul McCartney, Many Years From Now

I've actually talked about this before. And I didn't even have this quote to support it yet! And I get what he means, actually.

[mydaroga]

hi! your tags on that paul and mick post about the thing that ppl cant handle about paul is that he doesn’t really need you, i was wondering if you could elaborate more on that?

Hello nonny! Thanks for asking. I'm going to of course say up front that I am not Paul McCartney, nor do I know him, and all this is pure speculation/interpretation on my part and others might be equally valid. But!

My overwhelming impression of Paul is that he does not let people close easily. We hear this from many quarters, that his friendliness masks an intensely private nature. By his own admission, he is not free with his emotions; there are even times he calls his relationship with John into question and implies it was more proximity/accident than not. When Jane broke up with him, even with as far apart as they'd grown as people, he was left without an emotional confidante. This implies he didn't really avail himself of the multitude of people around him for emotional support. He is intensely loyal to a core group of people, but that circle is fairly small.

Ugh I am so wordy apologies, I'll make a cut for everyone's convenience...

I'd have to look up the quotes and I'm not sure where to begin, but we hear from later colleagues that the intimacy fostered by working together didn't really extend, for Paul, into a real emotional bond. I say this because we've heard from Wings members over the years who complained/lamented that they thought they were closer to Paul than he was to them. Many of those who worked with him, like Elvis Costello, saw their relationship sort of disappear without leaving much of a lasting trace. There is nothing wrong with having working relationships with no fuller emotional bond--my point is, over the years people seem to have thought they had more of one than they did. I suspect Paul being eager to seem open and friendly, his ability to listen and draw you out, could lead to an impression you were closer than you really were.

As for his social life, while obviously there are friendships Paul maintained for long periods of time, and while he always seems to like having someone there, he feels like an out of sight, out of mind sort of person. He and John are very close when in proximity. But when John moves to Weybridge, Paul goes over to work, but we don't hear about them really socializing (until John is practically living with him). With his girlfriends, like Maggie, he'd disappear for awhile and then just sort of turn up when he wanted her. Francie reported Jim asking her to convince him to call home more often. Even as a child, Paul's need for friends was noticeably low, and he relied primarily on Mike and his family for society, despite being chummy with other boys.

What the Mick story brings home, for me, is that while Paul is capable of maintaining friendships and relationships and obviously cares deeply, and he's happy to enjoy your company and indeed wants some company about, he's not going to seek you out specifically. I think he's an intensely private person, and his requirement for close relationships is lower than that of some people. For example, once he's with Linda it's clear his need for anyone else goes way down. And he keeps her within arm's reach until her death.

Where this gets him--or others, really--"in trouble" is where his sociable and gregarious nature might be seen to imply a closeness that is not actually being offered. I think it's easy to fall under his spell and think, "oh I'm special to him" when really, he's just being charming. So he's not going to Mick Jagger's house because he doesn't particularly care about Mick or Marianne. He doesn't dislike them. But he can't be bothered to go out of his way, because it's not their company specifically he's seeking. And if company comes to him, it's just as well because it doesn't really matter as much who it is.

This is way too long, I'm sorry, but as usual I want to make sure I'm hitting enough points to make an argument. My point is, there's nothing inherently wrong with Paul being charming and sociable, but I think with most people it's impersonal, and if you're on the wrong side of that and think his friendliness is an invitation, it might be easy to get hurt. John is similarly known to move on from certain people, but I think it feels different because John is not invested in making it seem like he likes everyone.

Of course, I could be making some unwarranted leaps, so as always I invite you or anyone to weigh in!