the f in rpf stands for fact

finally made a sideblog after relapsing into beatles obsession for the 3rd time since 2017. decided i'm beyond saving follows from @emo-communism

[beatlescomments]

[undying-love]

Personally, I don't believe they had a relationship, but there are some things in the songs that I can't explain. Like "She loves you" being written in a way that sounds like the speaker using the 3rd person about themselves (John's song, correct me if I'm wrong) and "And I love her" being a direct answer to that (that's why there's "and" in the title, also - Paul's song). Or the song Press with blatantly sexual lyrics and "Oklahoma was never like this". What could it be refering to but the musical, written by a famous duo that was a predecessor to Lennon-McCartney? ("It was never like this with their writing"). But then again, there is "Lovers that never were", impying they didn't take the chance. What are your thoughts on those?

Press does actually stand out to me, given how it talks about a secret code, which Paul now brought up again in Days We Left Behind. So yes, if that song is about John, then it's indeed very hard to explain away. But to be honest, I don’t believe either "She Loves You" or "And I Love Her" have much (if anything) to do with John and Paul's relationship. Most of their early 60s love songs feel like exactly that: straightforward pop numbers without too much subtext to analyze. "She Loves You" falls squarely into that category for me, and I firmly believe "And I Love Her" was written about Jane Asher. I don't see any real connection between the two tracks. Regarding "The Lovers That Never Were," I am actually much more reserved about that song than most people in this fandom. I am always careful not to draw sweeping conclusions from co-written tracks, and Elvis Costello was heavily involved in that one. Because we don't know who wrote which lines, or who came up with the title phrase, we can't definitively use it as proof. It could easily be a standard, melancholic love song about no one in particular that they just happened to pen together. Taking the title to mean that John and Paul "never went there" or never took a physical chance is simply more than we can comfortably deduce.

That being said, there are absolutely songs from both of them that (when you scrutinize the lyrics and the context in which they were written) clearly seem to be inspired by one another. These are the tracks that are rather hard to explain away if you believe their relationship was strictly platonic. Take "Arrow Through Me" (written in 1979). It was written at a distinct low point in Paul and John's relationship, and Wings drummer Steve Holley noted that Paul was visibly depressed about missing John while they were recording it. Interestingly, in The Lyrics book, Paul includes the song but spends 95% of the entry talking about entirely unrelated topics. When he finally acknowledges the track in the very last paragraph, he vaguely mentions that "the character" in the song has been wounded and cheated on, cryptically adding that "there was nobody more down" than him at that moment, without ever elaborating. Another song you should really pay attention to is "However Absurd" (1986). Most of the track is complete nonsense, which Paul has acknowledged was similar to John’s "I Am the Walrus" style. But the middle verse completely stands out, as it isn't nonsense at all:

"Something special between us. When we made love the game was over. I couldn't say the words, words wouldn't get my feelings through, So I keep talking to you..."

This mirrors a recurring and deeply self-aware theme in Paul's songs about John: his profound difficulty with vocalizing his feelings, or regret over not telling John "I love you" enough while he was alive. If this verse is indeed about John, well, you can interpret the "when we made love the game was over" as you wish, haha. If I were to draw any connection between that line and another song, then I'd say that concept of a "game" echoes his line from "Here Today": "we were playing hard to get." But for me, what really cemented my belief that neither of them viewed their relationship as just a friendship aren't even any of these songs. Lyrics can always be dismissed as "poetic license" (using romantic language to elevate intense but platonic emotions). What cannot be easily explained away is the way they actively taunted each other through their songs by weaponizing their new relationships. In the early 70s they were throwing jabs that essentially amounted to, "Ha, I have someone new now who has replaced you." You see it clearly in the last verse of Paul's "Too Many People" ("Now what can be done for you? She's waiting for me"). Conversely, look at how John immediately took "Dear Boy" personally. Regardless of who Paul actually had in mind when he wrote it (whether it was John or Linda’s ex-husband), the fact that John instantly assumed Paul was taunting him is incredibly revealing. It is simply not usual behavior for a man to use his new marriage as a petty dig at his former best friend, nor is it casual for that friend to interpret the song as a message that he "fumbled" the relationship and is now missing out. If they were constantly using Linda and Yoko to signal that they had replaced one another, they were acutely quite aware of the exclusive space they used to occupy in each other's hearts. They knew exactly how much it would hurt the other to see that space filled. This matches Paul's own admission that they "spurred each other into marriage", or John recreating the David Bailey photos with Yoko. Whatever the nature of their relationship was, it was clearly not a normal "platonic" friendship, and neither of them seemed to perceive it that way either, judging by both the things they said about each other and the songs they wrote. There are simply too many aspects of their relationship that you have to either downplay or explain away in order to dismiss the romantic undertones.

[necroko]

posting this while he's still holding the Elf Stones for himself is so utterly fucked up. im going to be sick.

[harrisonarchive]

George Harrison and Paul McCartney in the studio, 1967; photo from The Beatles Anthology (2000).

“I just said to Paul the other night when we got back to his house and we started playing this little harmonium of his. And I started trying to sing ‘She’s Leaving Home’ and I suddenly thought, This must have been really interesting if you were trying to write this song — it’s all this big stretch over one Seventh, a C Seventh or something — and I suddenly said to him, ‘Now who wrote that bit? Was that you or was that John?’ And he said, ‘I think what probably happened as I wrote the first bit, right, then John came in…’ Then I suddenly thought, This is stupid. I’m asking Paul who wrote which bit of ‘She’s Leaving Home’ twenty years later! [Laughs] Who cares anyway?” - George Harrison, Q, 1988 (x)

[beatlescomments]

[sgt-paul]

PAUL MCCARTNEY and JOHN LENNON on stage during the last concert on the Beatles’ final tour, at Candlestick Park, in San Francisco; August 29th, 1966. © Koh Hasebe

[st-johns-wood]

Beatles haters in the 60's: the beatles are gay!!! 😠😠

Beatles fans in 2026: the beatles are gay!!! 😍😍😍

[m1ssunderstanding]

hi! I love all your various meta about john and paul and I feel like you’re my go to when thinking about pauls psychology. So I was wondering what your thoughts are on the whole Heather Mills debacle? I think it was a very perilous time for paul ofc he was grieving, and while because of Mills reputation shes not exactly the most credible source yet i also find it uncomfortable to outright deny all her claims. Especially in a circumstance where thjngs were especially hard for paul and I don’t think (given his upbringing) it would be unreasonable for him to be violent under the influence of substances and his own heavy emotions. I really wanted to hear what your opinion and thoughts are on this

Wow thank you so much!! I mean I should be everyone's go to because no one understands him like me so clearly you're very smart and correct;) I agree with you. It feels wrong to be so dismissive of her as much of the fandom -- and frankly the world -- is, despite her tenuous credibility.

I actually hadn't looked into the whole Heather Mills thing much before this ask. I have now watched a few of her interviews and a mini doc on her, and read through the court proceedings. Here are my thoughts based on what little I know.

Heather's Accusations

Her claims are generally summed up in that Paul was neglectful and demanding. Do I believe that? 1000%. Those are things John and George complained about as well as some people like Danny Fields who were concerned about Linda in their marriage.

Heather said she was his "full time wife, mother, lover, confidante, business partner, and psychologist." I have no problem believing every word of that except "business partner." Paul wants all his partners to also be his mommy, and Heather is absolutely right to call him out on that. I also think there's another layer when the partner is a woman where Paul feels entitled to certain things. Like Paul would never have asked John or Robert or Donavon or whoever to put his career to the side to take care of him.

She said Paul was constantly drinking and smoking weed. I also find this very very believable. Paul, we know, uses those substances heavily to cope with pain he has no idea how to deal with in a healthy way. He likes to be in a doped up or lethargic or dissociative state rather than actually feeling or processing anything. Ringo always gets the alcoholic label and John gets the drug addiction label and while I think they both struggled the most with those things respectively, it doesn't mean the others had little to no problems. Paul shows clear signs of being drunk or out of it during get back. Linda described him as a drunk who wouldn't take a bath. We talk about Ringo being black out drunk at the age of nine -- and we should! But we should also talk about Jim teaching Paul and Mike how to get away with underage drinking at pubs and pouring out quadruple measures of undiluted liquor for everyone at parties where Paul and Mike were only supervised in passing by a lot of other drunken adults. We should also talk about the level of addiction it takes for a guy as career-driven and conscientious and careful as Paul to be in as much and as consistent trouble as he was in the 70s and into the 80s with weed. I know we don't take pot seriously like we do other drugs, but anything can be an addictive substance. A person can develop a chemical dependency on anything. The bronchial spasm that almost killed him in 73 didn't stop him. The fact that Paul was busted for pot at least once AFTER the terrifying Japan ordeal is very very telling to me. So yes. I have no doubt Heather is completely correct that during this intense grieving period for Linda Paul would've been using heavily. And Heather claims due to his drug use, Paul was unable to care for her following a surgery the way a spouse should, and he was unable to care for their daughter at times the way a father should. While I'm sure Paul had every intention of being the best support for his family he could be, and while I'm sure most of the time -- as Heather admits -- he was a very caring and dedicated husband and father, I have no doubt he failed a lot as well. Addiction will do that to anyone.

She said Paul got physically abusive while he was under the influence of alcohol. She recounts him grabbing her by the neck and choking her when she asked him if he'd been smoking marijuana, grabbing her by the neck and pushing her over a coffee table, shoving her into a bathtub, and throwing a broken wine glass at her. She also says he once fell down a hill and cut his arm.

When Paul's legal team said they would counter all her conduct allegations with their own conduct allegations in the financial settlement, she chose not to include hers.

Paul was the one who filed for the divorce citing unreasonable behavior on her part.

What we know about Paul and Violence

In the video clip where she playfully swats at him, his knee-jerk, instinctive response is the very opposzite of what a guy who habitually throws his wife around would do. He looks scared. He steps away from her into a protective position. Then, embarrassed, he quickly puts himself back in a normal attitude. But what you would expect from a guy who chokes this woman and throws things at her would be a reflexive offensive stance rather than defensive. You would expect a hand to fly up or a fist to clench or a step toward her with his weight aggressively forward, you know. At the very least, that guy laughs it off. Now, I am not saying this is definitive proof that he never hurt her. What I am saying is it does provide a glimpse into that dynamic between them and it is not cut and dry abuser/victim.

I also definitely think if Paul was capable of choking someone and throwing them over furniture and throwing things at them, especially when they did not behave violently toward him, he would have done that to Francie and she would've made an "I survived" chronicle out of it and never ever shut up about it. But of all the terrible things Francie catalogued Paul doing to her during their time together, she doesn't have one violent story. Paul did push her into a bathtub full of water while they were having sex, and that is included in the book, but nothing angry or violent.

On the other hand, Francie said Paul told her he hit Jane once and she was turned on by it and he was baffled. So there is an account of him hitting his romantic partner, but he was clearly more upset by it than she was. Francie herself has admitted to struggling with mental health issues and she was certainly trying to write the most attention-grabbing exposé she could. So even that story might not be true. But it could be. Paul and Jane definitely fought a lot and Paul was experimenting with all kinds of drugs during their relationship. There is also Paul's own quote about being disgusted with himself over how naturally it came to him to punish Martha physically. So we know he has that side to him, no matter how much he hates it.

There is also the fact that in every account of Stu attacking Paul on stage, Paul never even took a swing at him to defend himself. George and Stu had lots of fist fights according to George himself. Pauline Sutcliffe said John beat Stu bloody and Paul "could do nothing" to stop him, just stood there and watched it happen and helped Stu home. In that story where the boys are jumped, John, Stu, and Pete all join the fight and Paul is just dancing around dodging swings. When they were touring with another new act, John picked a fight and Paul took the hit for him and then calmed the guy down. When Paul finally got his dad to stop hitting him, he says he "just stood there" (presumably rather than the dodging or cowering he would normally do) and calmly dared Jim to "do it again." All this to say Paul's response in the face of violence seems not to be to come back with more violence himself. In the options of "fight, flight, freeze, or fawn," Paul seems to go in the opposite order, especially when it comes to actual physical violence.

But that's not to say he isn't capable of violence, that certain situations might pull it out of him. Remember, I'll say this as many times as I need to, it wasn't Jim smacking Paul in an occasional argument. That was Mary. Mary, who, by all accounts, Paul idolized, would smack Paul and Mike "when the need arose" whatever that means. Jim was the scary one she would threaten with, and he stayed scary at least until Paul was in his late teens. That kind of thing leaves deep interior scars. I would not be surprised if for Paul that means freezing up in the face of violence or conflict 90% of the time and then there's still that 10% where one of the other responses is triggered. There's a reason trauma is generational. Sometimes people are able to swing that pendulum. Sometimes people are stuck. Sometimes it's somewhere in between. I grew up in a violent home not half as bad as Paul's and I have had to work really hard in therapy. As far as we know, by the time Paul met Heather, he'd been to a little therapy after Linda's death, but most likely it was nowhere near enough. Who knows if they even touched on Jim's violence, there would've been plenty else to cover.

I'm so sorry I don't have a conclusive take for you on this. What I will say is my theory is there's got to be at least some truth to what she's saying. I bet she's exaggerating and not showing her own poor conduct BUT it is definitely within the realm of possibilities that every word is true.

Heather's Credibility

People point to the fact that Paul's kids hated her as evidence that she must be bad. I think you would just hate her no matter what if you were his kid. Your beloved mother dies of cancer and a year later your dad is hooking up with a pornstar who is your age? You'd hate her. The correct response would be to hate your dad, but you love your dad and it's the 2000s, so you can't hate him. You put all that hate on the new woman.

Lots of her stories have been supposedly debunked, the clearest example being the kidnapping story. She said she and her childhood best friend were imprisoned in their swim teacher's basement for three days before cops broke down the door and rescued them. The best friend says they were sexually abused by this man, but never imprisoned. My hangup there is: why say someone else was there at all if you know it's a lie that person will turn around and deny? I think Heather must genuinely have believed that happened. Memory is a crazy thing. There are things my sister swears by that I have not the foggiest recollection of. You'd think the friend would remember something like that but it's possible she blocked it out. Then again, there should be a police record of the event that Heather could get her hands on and prove her story with, right?

The court documents say she claims her pre-Paul home was worth 500k but it shows she sold it for 325k. She said she made way -- like astronomically -- more money than her tax documents show. She said she was up for a peerage for her charity work by a Lord McDonald. All Lord McDonalds denied this claim.

The judge did find her claims and evidence "inconsistent" and "less than impressive" etc. but he also said Paul's statement that Heather liked attention was "telling". The judge's whole opinion is clearly filtered through a lens of misogyny. He sounds like a Beatle Bro talking about the Paul v John divorce.

Heather's Personality

Attachment theory says you will always be drawn to relationships with people the same level of disorganized as you and/or you will create that level of disorganization in your relationships. That is to say Paul attracts crazy people and/or being in a relationship with Paul will make a person crazy because he is insane levels of unhealthy.

If you watch her interviews when she's upset it is jarring, unnerving, downright scary how much she sounds like John when he's upset. 2007 Heather is 1971 John I'm not even kidding.

She gets accused of being a scheming, conniving, gold digger. She totally is. And you know what? So is Paul! And the only time Paul gets flack for it is when he's compared to the other Beatles because he's been made the girl of the group. With Heather it's made out to be her whole personality all the time, even in court, because she's a woman.

She was married before Paul and engaged twice. She broke off one of the engagements the night she met Paul. Linda was married before Paul. Paul was engaged while dating three-four other women and at least two men.

Heather and Paul are both ambitious little whores and I love them both for it. Poor B probably has more personality disorder than water in her blood.

She comes off as very very emotional and erratic. She threw her engagement ring out the window the night before the wedding. She dumped a pitcher of water over Paul's lawyer's head. She bugged Paul's phone and leaked his conversations after the split. All very John Lennon things to do.

Paul says in court she is a very good mother and he's very willing to split custody with her. We know Paul has inhumanely high standards for mothers. That is high praise indeed.

She looks hot as fuck in her court suit and she speaks confidently and determinedly to reporters who absolutely hate her after being treated like a crazy person and gaslit in a courtroom that is supposed to protect her rights.

Rather than back down or try to hide in the face of almost universal hatred, she keeps fighting for what she believes is right. She has this initiative to force honesty from the press and she's gathering public support for it. She goes on dancing with the stars and performs beautiful athletic dances. She skis.

She continues to bitch about Paul for years and years. Also very John coded.

She has genuinely dedicated so much of her life to charity and activism and she deserves to be praised for that.

Heather's Hardships

She had a very very tough childhood and she's an amputee with a broken pelvis. If that's not enough, she had to be married to Paul -- a hardship at any time in his life no question -- right after Linda. If that's not enough, she says she got worse treatment in the press than a pedophile or a murderer and she is absolutely correct. I found it extremely chilling when Geoff Baker said the public needed to show "this woman" that they will not be moved by her accusations of domestic violence. As well as the police minimizing her fear. The woman has a very very young child and she's receiving death threats and when she calls the cops too much they tell her she's being dramatic and crying wolf.

Bibliography

Paul McCartney Speaks Out About Domestic Abuse Allegations | Access Online

(October 18, 2006)– Paul McCartney has broken his silence and issued a statement regarding domestic abuse allegations made against him

The court files I read are publicly available. Let me know if you want them.

[m1ssunderstanding]

Hello! I found your post on Heather absolutely phenomenal. In reading the comments I found you mentioning John’s interesting and perhaps unhealthy behavior within his relationship with Paul. Would you be willing to elaborate on that?

Hi friend, thank you so much!

Caveat: John is not more crazy than Paul. Paul just keeps his crazy locked down with all his other feelings.

Crazy things John did at or about Paul

- putting Stu in the band

This one is only insane if you see Paul and John's early relationship the way I do: equal partners with a shared dream having already made special secret promises to each other and pushing toward their goals together.

It is my theory that something went wrong emotionally with Paul and John around the time of Julia's death and John really leaned on Stu (and/or John wasn't sure what Paul was up for sex-wise yet and Stu made it abundantly clear what he was up for). Paul won John back by mid 59 or so. John kept Stu around just in case things went bad with him and Paul again or Paul couldn't give him what he needed. But he puts him in the band. Something that makes absolutely no sense to anyone, including Astrid. It's partially for a security blanket for himself, partially to keep Paul fighting for him proving to him how committed he was, how much he loved him, etc.

- telling Paul he has to quit his job

This one is more insane if you think John understands Paul's financial situation and/or the abusive power Jim held over Paul. I don't think John could ever understand either of these things fully, but I think he was aware of them to a certain extent.

Either way, telling the person who already gave up being the first one in their family to go to college and get a job that pays decent and doesn't break a body down to run away with you, who now says he has to have a steady income after this stint in Germany ended with him in jail and deported, that he has to quit his job or you'll kick him out of the band he helped you build from a high school joke to a real functioning group is crazy crazy work. Even if you have no idea his dad told him he'd kick him out if he didn't get a job, even if you have no idea his dad is a violent gambling addict, that's insane. If you know those things? I mean ... There's no words.

Edit: how could I forget the cut up clothes and the stabbed wardrobe?

- Paris

Literally who in their right mind -- having a serious girlfriend, mind you -- gets $2,000 (maybe a birthday present maybe an inheritance) and says to their buddy "what are we gonna do with this money?" And then goes with the buddy's stupid, frivolous plan -- which, by the way, puts in jeopardy years of hard work and dedication by blowing off important commitments to the point that your band literally thinks it's over -- And takes the friend on an all-expense-paid trip to the most romantic city in the world. Who fucking does that? What the actual fuck???

- hooking up with Brian

This one depends on the reason you think John went to Spain.

John could've gone because he was into Brian. He could've gone to take advantage of Brian and get his name first on the songwriting credit. He could've gone because he felt pressured into it by Brian. I think it's all three.

So obviously before the Spain trip it's McCartney/Lennon on their first album but before that they'd write "Another Lennon/McCartney Original" in Paul's notebook so maybe Paul was playing with switching it up, John saw how the producer thought Paul was clearly the most musically talented, and he decides it's time to capitalize on the fact that the manager has been trying to get into his pants since day zero. John doesn't want the thought in Paul's mind that he might be fine without John to ever solidify. If it's Lennon/McCartney on every single song, it'll be that much harder for Paul to feel independent and strong. So one angle is John takes his pants down and tells Brian to "go on then" and stick it up his ass so he can keep Paul dependent and attached. I do think that's part of it and I do think that's absolutely insane.

I also think John would've felt pressured by Brian and interested in Brian. Those angles are not insane.

- his treatment of Yesterday

So John gets to write a book (with Paul's help and with almost no credit to Paul) and then a sequel. John gets to be marketed as the literary intelligent Beatle and bring up his book ("what about my book then?") in every interview. He even goes on TV shows about his book. And Paul is photographed reading John's book, talks about how John must be the intelligent one because he's written a book when a fan asks Paul if he's the smart one, talks John up every chance he gets ("isn't that John really something?") and writes a dedication. Very loving, supportive, kind. You can see how much Paul adores John's mind and looks up to him and is very happy for John to be perceived as better than him and have his own thing where he stands out.

VS John and Brian refusing to let Yesterday be a single, and John mocking yesterday so much Paul is visibly hurt by it, to the extent that it's taken out of their setlist even though it's their most popular song.

- pressuring Paul about lsd

No explanation necessary. It's crazy to bully your best friend/partner/boyfriend so he'll do this scary drug with you no one knows much about yet

- telling the world about their secret code and telepathy

I mean that Hunter Davies quote is really something. Letting the world know, in your authorized biography as the biggest band in ever who everyone's dying to know all about, that you have a secret language. That you don't even need to talk sometimes because you know each other so well. Just so everyone can get an idea of how special your bond is. And he tells the world too that he cannot stand to be without the others. If you think about the fact that it took Paul until this year to admit they had a secret code, John being so vulnerable and exposing himself like that is crazy.

- the Greek Island

The man wants them isolated from the world by an ocean with tunnels connecting their houses. I mean. And he throws out other locations, too. He's like 'and if we don't like Greece, I've got another island we could use, or we could do Ireland, or ... 'John wants all the access he can get and he wants Paul to himSelf.

- Sub John sex tape

Not really the fact that they made that but the fact that John was chill with it laying around the office where lots of people besides Yoko probably heard it.

- saying he's Jesus

I mean straight-faced, in a business meeting, just. I am the second coming of the Son of God. I died for all of you and I'm back now to run a rock and roll communist business set up to avoid taxes. Knowing how Paul felt about John he was probably sitting there like actually contemplating that this might be real, no drug trip needed, but the thing about Paul is he's not going to say it in front of God John and everyone, you know?

And then when he gets no reaction, John goes and hooks up with his stalker for the second time in his life. (First stalker->wife was Paul but who knows if John knew that at the time. He does know Yoko's been stalking him.)

- bringing Yoko to the studio

Similar to the thing with Stu but much more blatant and much harder for Paul to fight.

- playing a sex tape

At a business meeting. Again. John, time and place. He's just trying to provoke Paul and it's just not working. Pulling out every move he's got, poor guy. Kudos to Yoko for not coming with him to that one.

Bonus Points: "did you dream about me last night? . . . . I was touching you." Right after talking about Paul's "strong left arm".

Bonus Points: deep throating a mic while making direct eye contact with Paul and alluding to more sex tapes between them two while cameras are rolling recording their every move

- scaling Paul's wall

When John's late to the studio and no one can contact him, Paul's terrified because he's just lost Brian to an overdose and he knows how John is with drugs and he knows heroin is serious even if he doesn't understand it the way we do now. And still he does Nothing. Because Paul is the opposite kind of crazy. He just sits there "on pins and needles" shaking and tearing up because he's scared he might be losing John.

VS John, when Paul doesn't come in on time during their next album and when called says he's celebrating with his wife, John sprints down the street, jumps the wall, and potentially throws a brick and/or breaks a painting. I personally don't believe the brick or the painting bit, but it could've happened, it's not too out of character for John, it's just disputed between sources. I do believe the rest of it. Thank you apple scruffs!

VS John, when George quits the band: well we'll just get Clapton in. (Don't at me I don't think he meant it but it's still very very different)

- Allen Klein's Trap

Getting George and Ringo to agree to go with a known conman is crazy, but I don't think that was directed at Paul. Just magic Alex typical John craziness.

No the Paul-crazy thing is John inviting Paul to come play with them during the legal proceedings even though that was a major betrayal of their friendship because that way Paul would be trapped, unable to break off legally from the rest of them and Klein. John wants Paul chained to him whether he likes it or not. And I think that's crazy.

- taking a swing at Linda

This one is contested. The source is an apple scruff who says she saw it through a window at Apple. She says Paul stepped in front of Linda and John stopped himself. I doubt John actually tried to hit pregnant Linda. I could see him getting in Linda's face and Paul being worried about his wife and baby, given John's track record, and getting between them and that being like a cold drink in John's face.

Edit: how could I forget wedding funeral?

- Primal Scream

It's crazy that he has to lock himself in an impatient facility for months right after the loss of "Paul and the Beatles and the relationship with Paul". It's crazier if you see it as I do. I don't think the timing was a coincidence. Yoko said John's screaming was all about Julia, Mimi, Alf, and Paul. I think John used primal scream as a means of coping with the loss of Paul, of detoxing, of trying to rid himself of that desire to be with Paul, of that intense love for Paul that was now bringing him so much pain.

- Post Breakup Era

So many crazy things said during this time. Paul is characterized as an emotionless conservative money hungry cunt who writes muzak for "tarts and fags." Paul is also a drug comparable to heroin that John has had to force himself to quit, as well as of course a God John used to worship the way some people worship Jesus. Paul could choose to come be a working class hero if he wanted to join John's higher cause but he won't because he's a whipped Mama's boy evil person who shouldn't be able to live with himself because he sucks at writing songs. Paul is also John's best friend, why are people being so weird about that?

Predicting when Paul will leave Linda multiple times to the press.

What's libel about calling Paul camp?

Posing with that pig even though he was scared to death of it

"I wish I was back with Paul!" Insane behavior. You don't shout that at your wife during a party, especially when you've worked so hard convincing the world your wife and your magical connection to her freed you from the mundanity of working with such a loser.

"when I look at Jack Lemon, I'm in love again. I feel him coming all over me." An insane thing to say the minute your ex walks into a room full of your friends and with his wife.

- the "smoking cure"

John was gung ho about going to New Orleans and working with Paul again until he did this hypnotist "smoking cure" and came back from it smoking cigarettes, talking about throwing up after someone would "do it to [him]" and how it was just like primal scream. He decided not to go, got back with Yoko, and isolated himself. I think this is the second time John got scared of his love for Paul and decided to try and cure himself of that.

- isolation weirdness

It is insane to turn your best friend, who lives in another country and shows up at your door, away. I have been the mom of a new baby with no help. I know John was not too tired to talk to Paul. If my best friend lived across the ocean and showed up randomly I wouldn't care what was going on, we'd be hanging out! Unfortunately, John can't be normal about Paul. That's some kind of like 'it hurts too bad to be around him' craziness going on.

During this time, John also has tarot readings about Paul's marriage, he's filling diaries with thoughts about Paul, telling people about their psychic bond and how if he hears Paul's music it means Paul is close by. He also is too scared (that Sean will love Paul the way John fears Julian loves Paul?) to let Paul hold Sean. He installs a whole new home stereo system to better experience Paul's new single. Continuing to oscillate between singing Paul's praises and tearing him down in the same interviews all the way until he died

[beatlessideblog]

How the Sunday People chose to advertise new Beatles book release 'The Love You Make' by Peter Brown and Steven Gaines, 4th September 1983.

[beatlescomments]

[decadent-hag]

Happy Mclennon Monday/Woolton Fete Anniversary. Here is my favorite jp pic.

[mcbeardymullet]

🧵in this thread i will explore The Historiography of the 6th of July 1957, aka when John Lennon and Paul McCartney met (part i)

(part ii) (part iii)

(note: this has been formatted for twt)

As the legend goes, on the 6th of July 1957, a young John Lennon performed at a church fete in Woolton, watched by a younger Paul McCartney. Thereafter, younger Paul showed off to young John and the rest was history…

Usually in these source busting threads i have something to, y’know, investigate but for this special edition we are just going to traverse the history books of see how this momentous meeting has been reported on, point out bits of interest, glaze over repetitions etc.

I’ve examined the usual books noted as the ‘canon’ of Beatles history texts, as well as whatever other books I have copies of and found interesting. I’ve focused on monographs rather than articles & interviews. That’s it. That’s the methodology. 

I’ve included page numbers where possible but some of my collection are e-books and hence nae page numbers

So let’s kick off with the John Lennon’s ‘In His Own Write’ (1964, p. 11)

Short n sweet from ar Paul. Paul labels himself a ‘fat schoolboy’ (be kind) & says John was drunk. He also states ‘we were twelve’, but i think this is paul trying to do a funny and highlight they were but wee ‘uns rather than literal twelve year olds. also sideboards = sideburns 

next up, Billy Shepherd’s ‘The True Story of the Beatles’ (1964, pp. 11-12)

Oh, Billy. June 15th 1955? You’re a month and two years out of date! We’ll blame Paul for the whole ‘we were 12’ thing. Other than that, we have Ivan being the key person to bring Paul to the fete (for music reasons) and introducing him to John. 

oh i’m sure you’ve been waiting for this one: Hunter Davies, ‘The Beatles: The Authorized Biography’ (1969, p. 23, pp. 35-36) 

June 15th, 1956? I don’t think! Beyond that faux pas, Davies’s rendition of events became the blueprint for beatle books and introduced some key beats of the story: (1) John dressed full teddy boy and Mimi disapproved (2) John got ‘roaring drunk’ 

(3) Ivan took Paul to the fete [paul thought there would be girls there] (4) Paul wore a white sports coat and drainies (5) They met in the Church Hall (6) Paul showed off his skills (7) John’s beery breath (7) Shotton not impressed (8) Paul looked like Elvis

roll on everyone's favourite biased “expert”, Philip Norman’s ‘Shout!’ (1981, pp. 42-44)

FINALLY! THE CORRECT DATE! (probs cheers to lewisohn for that, who was a researcher for shout!). Other than that, the main beats are similar to Davies’s rendition, but with some fleshed out details. 

(1) Mimi visited the Fete unaware John was performing and was shocked to see him there (2) Shotton recalls the introductions were stiff (oo-er) and Paul was cocky (oh i say) 

a couple of years later, Peter Shotton described the meeting in ‘John Lennon: In My Life’  (1983, p. 53-54)

Shotton reiterates a standoffishness but, in contrast to his view in ‘69, says he was impressed by Paul's 'cool reserve'. He also states Paul had his own guitar (wrong) and that John was immediately impressed by Paul.

next up we have the paul crab truthers Peter Brown & Steven Gaine’s ‘The Love You Make…’ (1983, pp. 21 - 22)

Brown & Gaines mainly focus on Paul. tho the initial date of the fete is correct, B&G then state Paul was 14. Doh. They iterate Paul went to pick up the ladies, segue into his first sexual escapades, and then say the fete was in 1956. Silly mistakes, boys.

We then get the familiar details of Paul wearing a white sports coat and black drainies, borrowing a guitar to show off, and John’s beery breath. This time, John is ‘begrudgingly impressed’.

onto the completely agreeable and non-controversial Albert Goldman ‘The Lives of John Lennon’ (1988, pp. 67-68)

Goldman largely keeps to the status quo of the story/regurgitates Davies’s work. He stresses Mimi’s disapproval of John’s garb, and highlights Paul’s outfit of the white sports jacket with SPARKLES and TOIGHT black drainies. Then we have John’s beery beery breath once again.

going off the beaten path of The Canon, we have Geoffrey Giuliano’s ‘The Lost Beatles Interviews’ (1994, pp.289-292)

This is a printed version of a 1986 interview between Julia Baird, John’s sister, and ar Paul. Paul admits to being terrible with dates (we know) but otherwise is consistent with his earlier recollections - the songs, minor beery breath, sports coat etc. The most interesting tidbit comes from Julia who states John’s family (sans Mimi) went to the fete to see John perform.

We also get a lovely long bit about how suave and Buddy-holly like John looked, swooooon.

next up Ray Coleman’s ‘Lennon: The Definitive Biography’ (1995, pp.157-160) 

The outliers In this version include john buying beers from the office and getting lightly inebriated for the fete. Though initially shocked, Mimi says she was *happy* to see John perform, contrasting with John’s well documented recollection.

(cont. here)

[paulic]

the love was there I think, until the end even

[epiphainie]

69 years ago today, they invented rpf, yaoi, and kinda majority of pop music. happy birthday, mclennon.

[pauls1967moustache]

fete day is kinda like wow happy birthday all of modern pop culture

[hands-across-the-sky]

Paul McCartney, age 15, hearing a gingery teddy boy in red plaid singing in Simlish and playing banjo chords on a guitar made out of a tissue box and rubber bands: