Paul McCartney with Cat's Ears, charcoal, 2022
RMH
Cookie Run:Kingdom Official!
YOU ARE THE REASON
I'd rather be in outer space 🛸
todays bird

Kiana Khansmith
No title available
2025 on Tumblr: Trends That Defined the Year
cherry valley forever

Jimmy Eat World
The Bright Sessions
Game of Thrones Daily
PUT YOUR BEARD IN MY MOUTH

titsay
Fieri Frames
The Bowery Presents
🩵 avery cochrane 🩵
Aqua Utopia|海の底で記憶を紡ぐ
No title available
Color Me Curious
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States

seen from Philippines

seen from United Kingdom
seen from Venezuela
seen from United States
seen from Libya
seen from United States

seen from Malaysia

seen from Brazil

seen from Singapore
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Sri Lanka
seen from Jordan
seen from Bangladesh
seen from Netherlands
seen from Kenya
seen from Brazil

seen from Uruguay
@the-paper-apricot
Paul McCartney with Cat's Ears, charcoal, 2022
i hope i'm not only a mutual to you but also someone who ian leslie vagued about 🩷
If you see this you’re legally obligated to reblog and tag with the book you’re currently reading
This is a wonderful article about Allen Ginsberg's paedophilia, because it's by a man arguing that Allen Ginsberg isn't a paedophile, but very fairly giving all the evidence that he probably was. His argument eventually boils down to thinking that 'probably was' isn't strong enough evidence for accusing men of paedophilia, but that's because (in my experience) men don't think anything is strong enough evidence to accuse men of anything.
His argument seems to be:
well he spoke like a paedophile, and he defended paedophiles, but we don't have definitive evidence that he meant what he said
he was part of NAMBLA (north american man/boy love association) but he was so innocent he simply didn't realise that the paedophile organisation had paedophiles in it!
he told all his friends he only joined the paedophile organisation to protest for free speech, not to have sex with children and if it was about having sex with children he'd have definitely told his friends that was what it was about!
he talked about fancying boys but he never SPECIFICALLY SPECIFIED that he meant prepubescent boys, and you're not technically a paedophile if you just sleep with 14 year olds...
speaking of which he did sleep with a 14 year old that one time, but he might not have, maybe he was just bragging
and yes, sometimes he talks about the erotic love of prepubescent boys, but...
his friends didn't think he was a paedophile!
and this one man who had sons said Allen Ginsberg definitely didn't rape those sons, so Allen Ginsberg clearly wasn't a paedophile!
while we're here, it's worth noting that Andrea Dworkin is CRAZY isn't she???? a MILItAnT FEmINAZI, so if she said something with her woman's mouth that's evidence it wasn't true
so in summary, you can't go around calling someone a paedophile just because they were defending paedophiles and hanging around with paedophiles and admitting to having sex with 14 year olds and writing poetry about the erotic love of children.
From the spectator:
"John Dowland was a bit like John Lennon!"
- Adorable Beatles superfan, orchestra founder and superstar lutenist Thomas Dunford, just now, in the Royal Albert Hall
The final encore was 'Hey Jude'... even I didn't see that coming.
"John Dowland was a bit like John Lennon!"
- Adorable Beatles superfan, orchestra founder and superstar lutenist Thomas Dunford, just now, in the Royal Albert Hall
The soundtrack of summer 👐💖✨
Paul: Yes it is! I don't need it provin' to me!
Glass artworks showing Paul and George, in situ in the studio of Brian Clarke.
From the 2011 documentary Colouring Light: Brian Clarke - an Artist Apart (dir. Mark Kidel).
I found an old VHS tape from 1992 of my grandma Jadwiga Jackowska presenting her paintings. It inspired me to paint about her compulsive need to create and her constant search for inspiration in nature. My grandmother painted for nearly 90 years of her life. She never attended art school and never earned a living from her art. She simply couldn’t stop creating.
LINDA McCARTNEY photographed by Norman Parkinson in Jamaica. December 23, 1974. (x)
Joe Smith interviews
In the mid-late 1980s Joe Smith, Vice Chair of Capitol-EMI, interviewed an extraordinary selection of musicians, producers, singers, writers, etc. (mostly men), in preparation for his book on the history of popular music. That archive of interviews is now in the care of the Library of Congress in the U.S. and they made it available to hear on the LOC website. You can also download them for non-commercial reasons.*
Many of us will have heard the interviews with Paul or George, but I thought I'd collate here some of the interviews that have a Beatley connection, in case it's useful.
Paul McCartney "Beat that if you can, my man." *sandwich munching noises*
George Harrison "To me, Dylan makes William Shakespeare look like Billy Joel."
Yoko Ono makes a great, unexpected analogy with Wallis Simpson's situation
George Martin "and I fell in love with them."
Peter Asher is tired and keeps yawning.
Mick Jagger speaks for over six hours!
Donovan "I was singing about the sensitivity of the male."
There are also interviews with precursors like Cliff Richard, later friends like Elton John, and with many of the Beatles' musical influences like Little Richard, Phil Everly, etc.
(*Boooo to the YouTuber who uploaded Paul's interview in full for ad revenue/ clout. When libraries make things available for free, people shouldn't rip them off.)
Paul McCartney on Watch the Sound with Mark Ronson (2021) Ep. 2 "Sampling" Pt. 1
He's not named here by Ronson (he should have been), but I suspect the "French composer" was Pierre Schaeffer. Here's his 'Cinq etudes de bruits' from 1948. The first movement is 'Étude aux chemins de fer', composed of railway sounds.
The third and fourth movements are composed of pre-recorded piano sounds contributed by Pierre Boulez. In the fifties Boulez also composed pieces for magnetic tape. In fact Boulez had a long involvement with the BBC and it's my own headcanon that he and Paul McCartney must have met at some point, with both of them working in London, but it may never have happened. :)
I was wondering whether Gerald Scarfe had revisited the Beatles again in his work after the 1967 image of the group he made. And boy, did he.
This lithograph, named Lennon and Ono, was made in 1970.
In the brilliant Arena documentary on Scarfe, he said something to the effect that he draws things monstrously because he's examining what disturbs him. Obviously I'm familiar with this famous quality in his work, but this image, particularly the almost animalistic look he gives Yoko, is still a shock.
What was he so disturbed by? Their politics? The counter-culture and their place in it? The fact that they were a couple? Considering what he depicts - penetration - it seems far more personal than political, but I suppose it's both.
THE RED SHOES (1948) dir. Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger.
They should have found four unknowns in Liverpool who sounded like them and had some raw emotional intelligence; got the tightest script possible; then paid Em Cooper whatever she asked for for the years of labour it would take to animate the whole masterpiece in oils as she did for the video for 'I'm Only Sleeping'.
typical first day but up to schedule stop our american partners still crazy about amolad still urging us change title love and kisses micky
Telegram from Michael Powell to Emeric Pressburger during the making of A Matter of Life and Death in 1946.
Reproduced in The Cinema of Powell and Pressburger (2023)
The Sexual Offences Act 1967
I wanted to share some information and resources on the changes that happened in the UK laws regarding homosexuality in 1967, because I've seen a few posts on various platforms which word what happened very vaguely. I think it's really important that we're accurate when talking about real laws that affected real people, and also knowing the context people were living their lives only leads to more interesting, fruitful conversations.
Essentially my concern is that we shouldn't be boiling the events of 1967 in to simple statements like 'homosexuality became legal in the UK' because that is incorrect. It sends the wrong message about what was happening in mainstream society, and removes all the nuance from the differences between private and public spaces.
The Sexual Offences Act 1967 permitted homosexual acts between two consenting adults over the age of twenty-one in private. It did not apply to Scotland or Northern Ireland, and it remained illegal for men in the military and merchant navy (x). This is important because men continued to get arrested for sex that didn't take place in strict privacy or if there were more than two people present.
Not only that, but the punishment was also made worse if either of the men involved were under 21, increasing the potential jail sentence from two to five years. To be absolutely clear, this only applied to homosexual men, in the UK age of consent for heterosexual sex was and remains 16.
Additionally, research also suggests that after the 1967 act came into play, the policing of homosexuality actually increased and prosecutions went up in the following years (x). There continued to be undercover police operations, jail time, behavioural aversion therapy, oestrogen 'treatments' and more (x).
Lord Arran, who piloted the bill, also had this to say:
"I ask those who have, as it were, been in bondage and for whom the prison doors are now open to show their thanks by comporting themselves quietly and with dignity. This is no occasion for jubilation; certainly not for celebration. Any form of ostentatious behaviour; now or in the future, any form of public flaunting, would be utterly distasteful and would, I believe, make the sponsors of the Bill regret that they have done what they have done. Homosexuals must continue to remember that while there may be nothing bad in being a homosexual, there is certainly nothing good. Lest the opponents of the Bill think that a new freedom, a new privileged class, has been created, let me remind them that no amount of legislation will prevent homosexuals from being the subject of dislike and derision, or at best of pity. We shall always, I fear, resent the odd man out. That is their burden for all time, and they must shoulder it like men—for men they are." (x).
While what he did was radical for a politician of his time, the message here is very clear; gay men should say thank you, be quiet, and we don't want to have to see or hear anything about this again.
And look, I'm barely scratching the surface here. Naturally, it's a really nuanced subject and of course, it was a stepping stone in the right direction. There are some interesting first hand accounts here which range from feeling there was a shift in perspective, that it got much better, and that it got worse. Some people didn't give a shit about the laws in the first place, some people found their community was getting in more trouble after the law passed, others felt it gave them freedom and opened up the way for much more radical movements. All these experiences are valid and true, and like all queer stories, it's complex and nuanced.
But to stress my point, we do need to be careful about the language we're using. In 1967 homosexual sex was partly decriminalised, homosexuality did not suddenly become completely legal or something celebrated by the general population.
To send on a positive note though, I'll remind everyone of this book I shared the other day, which does have chapters detailing the spaces that queer men and women were spending their time and building community where they could be accepted and loved.
Thank you @sgtpeppers <3
May I add (if anyone's interested) to illustrate a bit of Lord Arran's prophetic remarks about the kind of public sentiment gay men could expect, the concise phrase in the Tom Robinson Band's 'Glad to Be Gay': "The buggers are legal now / What more are they after?" That song was released more than a decade after partial decriminalisation, and it gives you a sense of continuing social pressure and, amongst other things, legal persecution of the gay press.
If Robinson is new to anyone, this episode of the radio programme Great Lives, where he was a guest, may be of interest too. (I'm sure it goes without saying, but no it isn't the far right agitator with a similar assumed name.)