The McLennon Thread: what were The Beatles really about? (evidence presented for consideration)

God bless the kids on tumblr for coming through and documenting all this material while the rest of Beatledom steadfastly refuses to acknowledge the most important and interesting thing about this band!

John: Hey! Did you dream about me last night?
Paul: I can’t remember.
John: Very strong dream. We both dreamt about it. It was amazing! Different dreams, you know, but I though you must’ve been there. (inaudible speech) I was touching you. Nothing sexy, though.
Paul: Nothing to worry about, though?
John: Nothing to worry about, no?

(Peter Jackson chose to exclude this exchange from his film)

"There was a deeper love there that neither of us could admit to." - McCartney

"John never looked at anyone the way he looked at Paul." - Cynthia Lennon

"I’m sure that if [Paul] had been a woman or something, he would have been a great threat – because there’s something definitely very strong between John and Paul.” - Ono, 1968

"Lennon himself was alleged to have had affairs with both men and women, and although he never openly admitted it to me, his condemnation of Britain as a land which feeds on a homosexual subsculture persuades me at this late stage that he was speaking from experience. I am sure that the break-up of the Beatles, or, more specifically, of John and Paul, must have been more traumatic than any of us suspect." - Sandra Shevey

"I used to say to him, 'I think you're a closet fag, you know.' Because, when we started to live together, John would say to me, 'Do you know why I like you? Because you look like a bloke in drag. You're like a mate.'" - Ono, 1981

"An overheard dialogue between John and Paul just after John and Yoko had first slept together and recorded Two Virgins in May 1968: ‘Do you hate me?’ John asked repeatedly. ‘I’m crazy, you know.’ ‘No, I don’t hate you.’ McCartney spoke with his face partly averted from Lennon’s rapt gaze. ‘Aren’t you pissed at me now, Paul? Not even a little bit?’ ‘I’m very proud of you.’ John eased off. ‘Maybe I won’t split.’" - Christopher Stanford

"Indeed, John’s wounded anger was more that of an ex-spouse than ex-colleague, reinforcing a suspicion already in Yoko’s 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 — on the principle that bohemians should try everything — he had contemplated an affair with Paul, but had been deterred by Paul’s immovable heterosexuality. Nor, apparently, was Yoko the only one to have picked up on this. Around Apple, in herhearing, Paul would sometimes be called John’s Princess. She had also once heard a rehearsal tape with John’s voice calling out “Paul… Paul …” in a strangely subservient, pleading way.'I knew therewas something going on there,' she remembers. 'From his point of view, not from Paul’s. And he was so angry at Paul, I couldn’t help wondering what it was really about.'" - Philip Norman

"John said that no one ever hurt him the way Paul hurt him." - Ono, 1981

"It’s just handy to fuck your best friend. That’s what it is. And once I resolved the fact that it was a woman as well, it’s all right. We go through the trauma of life and death every day so it’s not so much of a worry about what sex we are anymore." - Lennon, 1971

"It’s a plus, it’s not a minus. The plus is that your best friend, also, can hold you without… I mean, I’m not a homosexual, or we could have had a homosexual relationship and maybe that would have satisfied it, with working with other male artists. [faltering] An artist – it’s more – it’s much better to be working with another artist of the same energy, and that’s why there’s always been Beatles or Marx Brothers or men, together. Because it’s alright for them to work together or whatever it is. It’s 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?" - Lennon, 1972

"To find somebody that you can go and get pissed with, and have exactly the same relationship as any mate in Liverpool you’d ever had, but also you could go to bed with him, and it could stroke your head when you felt tired, or sick, or depressed. It could also be Mother. And obviously, that’s what the male-female – you know, you could take those roles with each other." - Lennon, 1971

"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 couldn’t stand in the way of someone who’d fallen in love. You can’t say, 'Who’s this?' You can’t 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 – I mean, I didn’t say anything, but I could see that was the way it was going to go." - McCartney, 1985

"Brian was very hard to live with, y’know, to take. He had a lot of tantrums and things like that—like most fags do, y’know, they’re very insecure." - Lennon, 1970

"And [Wooler] was saying, 'Well, come on, John, tell us,' something like that, 'Tell me about you and Brian, we all know,' like that. And obviously, I must have been un– uh, f– frightened of the fag in me to get so angry at that. You know, when you’re twenty-one, you want to be a man, and all that." - Lennon, 1972

"The Beatles’ first national coverage was me beating up Bob Wooler at Paul’s 21st party because he intimated I was homosexual. I must have had a fear that maybe I was homosexual to attack him like that and it’s very complicated reasoning." - Lennon, 1980

“[John and Janov] talked…about Brian Epstein…‘He knew Brian had adored him, and there was a lot of guilt there about the way he’d depended on Brian yet mistreated him,’ Janov recalls. They talked about John’s notorious Spanish holiday with Brian in 1963 and the (to John) insignificant physical encounter that had resulted." - Philip Norman, 2008

"We don’t advertise and make outrageous claims about homosexuality or anything else. We have 'cured' some homosexuality. We didn’t start out to cure anything but two or three of them came to me after some time in therapy and said, 'My orientation has changed.' I said fine. If it makes them happy so much the better" - Arthur Janov, 2009

"So if homosexuality is normal it cannot ever be treated and changed? I have found that not to be true. A few of my homosexual patients do change after many many months of therapy and very deep probing into the brain and the unconscious … If patients could be helped back into their remote history we would see the pain involved into homosexuality." - Arthur Janov, 2012

"I felt resentment, so I used that situation the same as I used withdrawing from heroin to write Cold Turkey, I used my resentment and withdrawing from Paul and the Beatles to write How Do You Sleep?" - Lennon, 1980

"I hope [my new music] is for workers, and not for tarts and fags." - Lennon, 1970

"In the early days, we didn’t count lyrics at all. As long as it had some vague theme – she loves you, he loves him, and they love each other – it was the hook and the line and the sound that we were going for." - Lennon, 1980

"It’s 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? It’s still love, but it’s different. So there’s 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 it’s happening. One takes to drugs, to drinks, to knock oneself out… [...] 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 Beatles’ songwriting, or of John and Paul’s contribution to the Beatles, in the late Sixties was more pronounced; it had a more mature, more intellectual – whatever you want to call it – approach. We were different. We were older. We knew each other on all kinds of levels that we didn’t when we were teenagers. The early stuff – the “Hard Day’s Night” period, I call it – was the sexual equivalent of the beginning hysteria of a relationship. And the “Sgt. Pepper–Abbey Road” period was the mature part of the relationship. And maybe, had we gone on together, maybe something interesting would have come of it. It would not have been the same. It would have been a different thing. But maybe it wouldn’t either. Maybe it was a marriage that had to end." - Lennon, 1980

"In a marriage, or a love affair – when the seven-year-itch or the twelve-year or whatever these things that you have to go through – there comes a point where the marriage collapses because they can’t face that reality, and they go seeking what they thought they should be having, still, somewhere else. I get a new girl, it’ll all be like that again; I get a new boy… But for all marriages, all couples, it’ll all be the same again. But what you lose is what you put into that… relationship." - Lennon, 1980

"I’ve only selected to work with – for more than a one night stand, say with an odd thing with Bowie, or an odd thing with Elton, or anybody who was hanging around – two people. Paul McCartney, and Yoko Ono. Okay?" - Lennon, 1980

"Actually it was really nice after John died, Yoko was quite kind in telling me that he did really love me. Because it looked like he didn’t.’" - McCartney, 1987

"She volunteered the information that he had… really liked me." - McCartney, 1984 (interviewer's ellipsis)

"In the week after Lennon’s death, Andy Peebles (who had interviewed John just prior to his death) was contacted by George Martin. 'I got a phone call from George, who I’d never met before, asking me to come round to Air Studios in London as Paul would like to meet you,' recalls Peebles. 'Forgive me, Paul, if I got this wrong but what Paul wanted me to tell him was that John still loved him. And Paul? Well, call me crazy, but he lost the wife. I’m certainly not implying anything of a carnal nature here, but to almost all intents and purpoises (as John would have put it), what they had was a marriage" - Ruth McCartney

"The 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 no end, because I was just some chick from New York when I walked into all of that. God, if I’d known what I know now…. All I could do was sit there watching them play these games…” - Linda McCartney

"It has been insinuated that John was drawn to Epstein. I believe there was no such relationship between them. John was macho. But if John was a homosexual, it would have made no difference to me. I’ve asked Paul McCartney, who laughed and said: ‘Why not me? I’m handsome.’" - Julia Baird, 1988

"I just saw a girl who said she saw John Lennon walking down the street in New York wearing a button that said, 'I love Paul.' She asked him: 'Why are you wearing an ‘I love Paul’ button?', and he said: 'Because I love Paul.' [...] In a late wee-hour-of-the-morning talk, he once told me: ‘I’m just like everybody else, Harry, I fell for Paul’s looks.' - Hary Nilsson

"…It’s 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. Someone’s going to read significance into that: Paul and John on Menlove Avenue. Come onnnnnnn." - McCartney, 2014

"John had beautiful hands.” - McCartney

"Well, that’s another thing. John and I had a big talk about it, saying, basically, all of us must be bisexual. And we were sort of in a situation of thinking that we’re not because of society. So we are hiding the other side of ourselves, which is less acceptable. [...] I think he had a desire to, but I think he was too inhibited. No, not inhibited. He said, ‘I don’t mind if there’s an incredibly attractive guy.’ It’s very difficult: They would have to be not just physically attractive, but mentally very advanced too. And you can’t find people like that.” - Ono, 2017

“John is a central figure in my life. I will always be grateful for having so much intimate time with him. The more distant his stuff becomes, the greater he seems. I used to do caricatures of John. He was the only person I knew with an aquiline nose. When I painted him recently, I found myself saying: ‘How did his lips go? I can’t remember.’ Then I would think: ‘Of course you know, you wrote all those songs facing each other.’ ” - McCartney

"[If I Fell] That’s my first attempt at a – at a ballad. Proper. That was the precursor to ‘In My Life’. [...] And uh, it’s… semi-autobiographical, but not that conscious, you know. It’s really about – it’s not about Cyn, my first wife. If I fell in love with you, would you promise to be true… " - Lennon, 1980

"After a late lunch, Linda launched into a long paean to the joys of living in England. When she was finished, she turned to John and said 'Don’t you miss England?', 'Frankly', John replied, 'I miss Paris.'" - May Pang

"We just got it on. We were hot. You can’t replace someone like John, and I don’t think he could’ve replaced someone like me." - McCartney

"in mid-January 1973 Lennon and Ono quarrelled publicly at another party. 'I wish I was back with Paul,' Lennon reportedly said." - Peter Doggett

"John didn’t want to fuck Linda, he wanted to fuck Paul!" - Harry Nilsson

"John Lennon built a mosaic of what looked like an alien in the garden which was surrounded by roses named after Paul McCartney" - Derek Mann

John: I was trying to put it 'round that I was gay, you know– 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 I’ve only heard that lately about Paul.
John: Oh, I’ve had him, he’s no good. [Laughter]

Q: If John Lennon could come back for a day, how would you spend it with him?
McCartney: In bed.

are you being sarcastic? because discussions about this have happened for eternity.

of course and the usual responses are things like it's bullshit, it's slander, it's trivial, it's an interesting thought experiment, or maybe it's true but it's never taken seriously as *the* major factor in the story of the band

don't tell me that this is already widely accepted, I know what lennon fans are like and how they react when people bring up this stuff

you'd think a queer love story driving in the biggest band in the world would be a big deal but apparently people just like to brush it off if they're not denying it

The Tufnel/St. Hubbins Thread should make interesting reading.

it's weird what fans think is important, what john pretended to think of some song in 1980 or how loud the bass is on the latest remix are subjects worthy of serious discussion, but this topic is treated as inherently unserious even by people who are willing to entertain it. I think people are afraid to take it seriously

Maybe that's because it really is just bullshit.

did you fucking read the quotes

Yes, and none of them support your bizarre theory.

tldr lennon couldn't handle his feelings for mccartney, tried to use ono to provoke or upset or make mccartney chase him, it backfired and mccartney left, lennon went into primal scream therapy which was conversion therapy, then went on a PR blitz furiously rewriting his history, asserting his heterosexuality and attacking his ex, the rock press and fans mostly bought it until fairly recently when some prominent people started questioning it but he did such a good job that his narrative still dominates and people still get very defensive when it's questioned

it's all fairly transparent but the beatles fandom is so fucking conservative that everyone refuses to see what's right in front of them

"In a marriage, or a love affair – when the seven-year-itch or the twelve-year or whatever these things that you have to go through – there comes a point where the marriage collapses because they can’t face that reality, and they go seeking what they thought they should be having, still, somewhere else. I get a new girl, it’ll all be like that again; I get a new boy… But for all marriages, all couples, it’ll all be the same again. But what you lose is what you put into that… relationship." - Lennon, 1980

"I’ve only selected to work with – for more than a one night stand, say with an odd thing with Bowie, or an odd thing with Elton, or anybody who was hanging around – two people. Paul McCartney, and Yoko Ono. Okay?" - Lennon, 1980

"Actually it was really nice after John died, Yoko was quite kind in telling me that he did really love me. Because it looked like he didn’t.’" - McCartney, 1987

"She volunteered the information that he had… really liked me." - McCartney, 1984 (interviewer's ellipsis)

I've read this before, many times, and guys in bands say shit like this often. It's homoerotic and fun to speculate about because when you're 19 or 21 or whatever you're full of ambition and sperm and suddenly after a few beers your best mate next to you in the touring van looks like you'd want to jump in. John might've been bisexual. It doesn't change a thing.

it changes a hell of a lot about the narrative of the band and the meaning of the songs if lennon was in love with mccartney, how could it not?

every quote I included has plausible deniability to it for sure but if the pattern isn't obvious then I don't know what to say

the tumblr teens get it and this newer narrative isn't going away

it changes a hell of a lot about the narrative of the band and the meaning of the songs if lennon was in love with mccartney, how could it not?

― Left,

You mean they could've titled the song "He Loves You"?

sure except the one thing i'm not sure of is how reciprocated it was

No mention of "You've Got to Hide Your Love Away" yet?

that's too obvious

"girl" could also be titled "paul" and probably captures their dynamic to some extent

so does "i'll be back"

"i'm a loser" became much more relevant retroactively

You know, I'm gay. When 98 percent of art isn't created for me, I learned early how to queer the art. I don't give a good goddamn whether John was queer. I don't care about biographies, motives, intentions. If you do, awesome.

ok well this thread is about those things

i'm not particularly thrilled to have john lennon as "one of us" myself, that's not what I'm trying to do, I'm trying to understand the real story of the band because the big name beatle writers tend to be emotionally clueless and brush over all this stuff as if it's nothing like most fans do

also come on art is way more than 2% gay

i'm more than willing to believe john was bisexual, but i don't understand how it changes "the narrative" of the band. who cares? what is the current narrative, anyway? that they wrote a lot of awesome music together? and now, it would be totally different because what if john had a lot of feelings for paul the whole time? is the thought that there are lots of references to this embedded in the lyrics and it would change how many of the songs are understood? or is it that who john wanted to sleep with led to the beatles breaking up or something?

i remember reading some john bio a long time ago, forget who wrote it, but it talked a lot about john's potential bisexuality. i kind of just forgot about all of that, because again, who cares? how is it more important than, say, lsd? or even just weed? marijuana was 100x more important to the beatles music

why isn't everyone talking about how the beatles were high

my narrative is that tomorrow never knows happened because they were high, not because of how the boners happened

I’ve been listening to the early Beatles a lot lately and the girl group factor / “feminization” of rock/noise really can’t be overstated wrt to their revolutionary sound and energy

it's a pity they never made Joe Orton's 'Up Against It'

I liked this article which charts the history of John and Paul talking about beating off together:

https://www.vice.com/en/article/vbnmx4/the-beatles-have-been-talking-about-jerking-off-together-since-the-60s

iirc, in 'Many Years From Now' McCartney also reminisces about being turned on when his mother would walk past his bedroom in her underwear when he was a child, think you can make the case that the 'real story' of the band is oedipal desire rather than homosexual desire

"it would be totally different because what if john had a lot of feelings for paul the whole time? is the thought that there are lots of references to this embedded in the lyrics and it would change how many of the songs are understood? or is it that who john wanted to sleep with led to the beatles breaking up or something?"

yes, yes, maybe sort of to some extent

if no one cares then stop replying, if you don't think it's a big deal you don't need to keep asserting that it isn't and implying that it's stupid or pointless to care about. that's about as convincing as lennon saying he didn't care about mccartney and hated his music

the current narrative is messy and transitional - it it used to be john lennon's hero origin story which people of a certain generation (along with younger fans who buy the lennon mythology) are still very attached to but that's been chipped away at for a while. there's still a lot of crap about how desperate mccartney was to keep the band together and how desperate lennon and harrison were to leave, although that's also being challenged. the narrative i'm promoting explains a lot including why everything changed (music, band dynamics) so radically in 1968, which other narratives either ignore, attribute to superficial things, or treat as somehow inevitable

john and paul both wanted to fuck their dead mothers it's true

John and Paul may have “come together”, but did the Beatles ever think to name an album GASMS? I rest my case.

i think this points to a larger truth that strong homosocial bonds & energy are a creative driver for like .. maybe almost all .. bands that are all men.

there's some interesting stuff in Lennon's 1980 Playboy interview where he gives the impression that McCartney wanted the two of them to have the same relationship they did when they were teenagers, but Lennon felt he'd moved past that (I sometimes get the impression that for McCartney it never got any better than those early days and he kept trying to recreate them, I think he semi-explicitly talked about 'Get Back' and forming Wings and touring small venues in terms of attempting to recreate the early days of the Beatles)

PLAYBOY: "Were falling in love with Yoko and wanting to leave the Beatles connected?"

LENNON: "As I said, I had already begun to want to leave, but when I met Yoko is like when you meet your first woman. You leave the guys at the bar. You don't go play football anymore. You don't go play snooker or billiards. Maybe some guys do it on Friday night or something, but once I found the woman, the boys became of no interest whatsoever other than being old school friends. 'Those wedding bells are breaking up that old gang of mine.' We got married three years later, in 1969. That was the end of the boys. And it just so happened that the boys were well known and weren't just local guys at the bar. Everybody got so upset over it. There was a lot of shit thrown at us. A lot of hateful stuff."

LENNON: "Oh, yeah. Paul and I were together watching [Saturday Night Live]. He was visiting us at our place in the Dakota. We were watching it and almost went down to the studio, just as a gag. We nearly got into a cab, but we were actually too tired."

PLAYBOY: "How did you and Paul happen to be watching TV together?"

LENNON: "That was a period when Paul just kept turning up at our door with a guitar. I would let him in, but finally I said to him, 'Please call before you come over. It's not 1956 and turning up at the door isn't the same anymore. You know, just give me a ring.' He was upset by that, but I didn't mean it badly. I just meant that I was taking care of a baby all day and some guy turns up at the door... But, anyway, back on that night, he and Linda walked in and he and I were just sitting there, watching the show, and we went, 'Ha-ha, wouldn't it be funny if we went down?' but we didn't."

Two of us riding nowhere

because of how the boners happened
the girl group factor / “feminization” of rock

cool title. am interested to read the whole book.

why isn't everyone talking about how the beatles were high

― Karl Malone, Sunday, January 29, 2023 12:46 PM

...excuse me???? surely by "high" you mean "high on life", right?

xps you have to read lennon against himself, he's projecting when he says mccartney was desperate to get back to how things were. maybe he was, but the implication that lennon was too cool and progressive to want that and was more interested in sitting at home "baking bread" is more bullshit mythmaking

lol I had somehow missed all the Beatles wanking stories until now, so this thread has delivered that at least. But Lennon's repeated use of relationship and marriage metaphors don't mean anything much I don't think, that's how lots of people talk about long-running collaborative relationships. (Because there are a lot of similarities. But also differences, like probably not having sex with each other.)

also to not be a complete jerk and address the subject—

it's possible for a man to experience, and express, romantic feelings towards another man but never have the confidence / ability / desire to act on those feelings in a physical / sexual way. it's probably a lot more normal than what has been anecdotally shared, especially in a white male dominated society (which i'm assuming most beatles fans originate from). it's possible that something like that was happening between john and paul, just as it's possible that john was even higher on drugs than paul and acting accordingly. like the rest of us, i do believe john had been a bit mad since at least his early teens. so that, compounded by drugs+touring+fame weirdness, probably drove him absolutely gone to the point that his worldview became something that may have been in great contrast with others; even those very close to him.

they were obviously very close friends and shared an uncommonly strong bond for several years. of course at least one of them was emotionally in love with the other. did it influence their music? sure, why not?

I’ve been listening to the early Beatles a lot lately and the girl group factor / “feminization” of rock/noise really can’t be overstated wrt to their revolutionary sound and energy

― not too strange just bad audio (brimstead),

otm

Really not understanding the fuss here, anyone with even a passing interest in the Beatles as people knows that John and Paul were in love and that Macca was jealous of Ono. Trying to work out whether they did anything sexual has no bearing on the importance of that relationship to the group, seems more like wanting a license to imagine them doing it. Which if that’s your thing go ahead, but don’t act as if it’s the great undiscovered truth about a band whose emotional dynamics have been dissected to the atomic level.

yeah but think of the kids on the interwebs discussing it

the tumblr teens get it

i have identified a key issue with your analysis

next you'll be telling me that they've elaborated about it on Tik Tok

OK go back to talking about the latest mix of dig it if this emotional stuff is too squishy for you

I think these quotes matter, that they absolutely should inform how we see lennon and mccartney's relationship and that lennon was likely queer. absolutely.
but I also think the brusqueness and statements like ""girl" could also be titled "paul"" aren't gonna help make the case. no offence intended.

I'm confident the story will be told eventually (maybe paul and yoko have to die first) so I'm not too bothered about overreaching

it’ll be told, but it’ll be told by people who were not present and that will be a huge barrier to it becoming the general consensus.

other relevant songs, a non-exhaustive list: and your bird can sing, the fool on the hill, I'm so tired, I want you, don't let me down, I will, here there and everywhere, hey bulldog, I don't want to spoil the party, look at me, helter skelter, nowhere man, best friend, I know I know, starting over, instant karma, jealous guy

the songs aren't literally about one thing, they never are, they're about many things but they all touch upon relevant themes

It's already been told by people who were there, and other primary sources (eg john lennon) are full of shit anyway. I don't trust lewisohn with this stuff either

and what's the evidence for all of those songs being relevant to this?
otherwise I mean it's just "revolution in the head: mclennon edition"

john *was* full of shit - he was incredibly impulsive in everything he said and did.
but i mean, you quoted him extensively in the first post, so you must be making your own call on when he wasn't being full of shit.

this load of hot air is Harristarr erasure

OK so the split in 68 was twofold - an emotional break between lennon-mccartney and a spiritual break between harrison and the beatles which may be related or unrelated to the former (the two issues collide in the india scene in get back when there are at least two conversations happening at once)

the songs themselves I'm just throwing out there, people can look for it or ignore it at their leisure

I quote lennon because he tells on himself all the time and once you recognise his patterns he's pretty easy to read- mccartney is much more opaque

full disclosure I've gone through long periods of hating the beatles (including on this board) but a lot of it was to do with how the mainstream discourse is so boring and repetitive and clueless about emotional dynamics - this is the thing that brought me back in (and I'm not the only one)

I hope some day etc

I know you're not the only one, I've seen a lot of this on twitter etc.
It is true that beatles discourse has become stale, but I also like the lewisohn approach of trusting the paper trail over everything else (though he does clearly have his own biases). consequently, I guess if beatles historians do their jobs correctly, the emotional content is likely always gonna be a bit lacking.

I'm sure lewisohn's research is great but he also claims lennon was never a real heroin addict because he wasn't drooling with a needle in his arm in get back so his position as the official beatle historian is troubling, if he's treated as just another source it's fine but the exhaustiveness gives the illusion of being the final word on the subject

in "tune in", he dubs jim dale's "jim!" (1958) the first british rock and roll album and praises george martin for this.
but it wasn't at all. he's ignoring two 1957 tommy steele albums which undeniably contain more rock and roll music, whatever one thinks of steele or british rock and roll.
that irked me!

look, I don't care too much if people don't believe this stuff, think it's a stretch or exaggeration or conjecture or partial truth

what bothers me is the attitude (which I was expecting, it's the usual reaction) that the subject itself is silly, trivial, pointless, unimportant, irrelevant, changes nothing, who cares - especially coming from people who think how many takes they did of maxwell's fucking hammer is an important part of the story. if you don't care why the need to shit on people who do?

I don't really care about proving lennon was gay/bi (probably) or that there was sex (who knows) but I am interested in whether things like that impacted the emotional relationship between the principal songwriters (to the point of precipitating the breakup) - which is where the music came from so you'd think beatlefans might give half a fuck about it but for some reason they prefer talking the times paul was annoying in the studio and john or george made some snarky comment

but the emotional relationship is known, and acknowledged, as love - both in the fraternal and the "you are my world" senses. I don't see what else you're trying to establish here, who touched whose dick? or that the songs which appear to be about loving a girl could actually be about loving a guy? almost as if love between two people is pretty much just love and their genders are not that relevant?
or is it the notion that this love was prevented its full expression was fuel for the band's creative fire? which, c'mon, every fucking band ever.

I think it's obvious what I'm trying to establish and why it matters and people are being deliberately obtuse so fuck it

have fun arguing about whether the sitar is mixed too loud on the next rubber soul mix

above all, it is heartwarming to read all those genuine heartfelt expressions of love that John had for Paul

left, you haven’t really made any arguments.
you’ve presented a load of quotes and every time someone engages and wants to discuss what you’re getting at, you just respond with “have fun with your 12 alternative takes of rocky raccoon” or whatever.
what’s the point then?

I hoped the argument would make itself that's why I used the quotes. I think it's clear enough for anyone who wants to see it, google the quotes for more context

people have made it clear they're not very interested in taking it seriously so I can't be bothered right now and I'd rather have the conversation elsewhere. I should have known how this would go based on another recent thread

what is your argument? that john and paul were actually in a clandestine homosexual relationship?

maybe, probably not, lennon wanted it, some real or perceived rejection in 68 was the start of the breakup

is that substantially different from the idea that mccartney & lennon's relationship was at the very least, a very close, emotionally intense friendship, the sort where the boundaries between it and romance are often ambiguous (with the exception of sex), which i think is pretty well accepted beyond maybe weird homophobes who reject any possible notion of ambiguity in such a case and insist everyone was 100% straight

no except bringing romantic or sexual desire into it explicitly suddenly makes everyone go weird about it but it's also the crux of why lennon felt the need to rewrite himself to such an extreme degree in the late 60s/early 70s so it's a relevant distinction

there were different expectations between them about their relationship and lennon resented mccartney being more guarded about his boundaries than he was being which he took as a rejection

after india angry dickhead lennon comes back with a vengeance after the relative softness of the pepper era when he and mccartney were living together

? I thought John lived in Weybridge and Paul in St John's Wood (wait a second) at the time

he was also devastated by the failure of "the dream" which seems to be wrapped up in mccartney, the beatles, acid and/or meditation, communal living - which mccartney probably killed for good when he hooked up with linda (who lennon seems much more jealous over than mccartney ever was over yoko)

xp they lived together for the recording of sgt pepper and maybe some time after idk. they also lived together with yoko after john hooked up with her for some fucking reason

source? the latter sounds wildly improbable to me

well, did some reading and Macca did put J&Y up for three weeks apparently. I’m interested to know what the source is for asserting they lived together during Pepper tho.

"Does this bother you Paul?"

I don't know about the pepper thing google isn't helping but a couple of books mention lennon staying in st johns wood for the recording

John and Paul may have “come together”, but did the Beatles ever think to name an album GASMS? I rest my case.

― the shaker intro bit the shaker outro in the tail, hard (breastcrawl), Sunday, 29 January 2023 21:04 (yesterday) bookmarkflaglink

I don't know if I ever made the connection between Come Together and the circle jerk stories before, but it seems obvious now - hold you in his armchair you can feel his disease

other relevant songs, a non-exhaustive list: and your bird can sing, the fool on the hill, I'm so tired, I want you, don't let me down, I will, here there and everywhere, hey bulldog, I don't want to spoil the party, look at me, helter skelter, nowhere man, best friend, I know I know, starting over, instant karma, jealous guy

the songs aren't literally about one thing, they never are, they're about many things but they all touch upon relevant themes

Look At Me is interesting because there are a whole load of McCartney songs from the mid 60s with anxious lyrical references to seeing and looking and being seen - 'You Won't See Me', 'Tell Me What You See', 'I've Just Seen A Face', 'I'm Looking Through You' and then the anxiety is made semi-explicit on the next album in Eleanor Rigby, Here There And Everywhere and For No One - 'how do I know I really exist if you are not there to see me?'("and in her eyes you see nothing" "watching her eyes and hoping I'm always there). I always assumed that this was primarily about his dead mother rather than Lennon, though (the same with Martha My Dear and this desperate pleading that she remember him - because he ceases to exist if she doesn't remember him - and all those McCartney lyrics about repairing and mending something that's been broken, it's important for him to part with people on good terms)

the lyrics to Look At Me have some similarities with those mid-60s McCartney lyrics, but "Who am I? Nobody knows but me" is almost the opposite sentiment, maybe?

(other Lennon lyrics about looking and seeing: Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds, and that begins "picture yourself", no need for anyone to see you to convince yourself that you exist? But there's also the stuff about kaleidoscope eyes and looking glass ties, but this is probably trying to read to much into his drug addled ramblings, and this stuff about not knowing if you are looking at something or experiencing something while imagining someone looking at you goes in the "because they were high, not because of how the boners happened" category)

_John and Paul may have “come together”, but did the Beatles ever think to name an album GASMS? I rest my case.

― the shaker intro bit the shaker outro in the tail, hard (breastcrawl), Sunday, 29 January 2023 21:04 (yesterday) bookmarkflaglink_

I don't know if I ever made the connection between Come Together and the circle jerk stories before, but it seems obvious now - hold you in his armchair you can feel his disease

Beatles lyrics are a kind of Rorschach test for whatever theory you want to “prove”. This thread isn’t for me - but may look in occasionally to check Left hasn’t gone full Charles Manson.

I think every Beatle fan who's spent any time learning about the band as people would agree that this was an incredibly intense friendship and creative partnership that no one else could completely understand or get inside of, and that left deeply hurt feelings on both sides when it ended. I'd reckon for most folks on this thread, it seems possible or even probable that one aspect of the intensity and the hurt would be one-way, two-way, fulfilled or unfulfilled romantic love and/or sexual attraction. It doesn't surprise me that this is instantly rejected by a wider swath of Beatle fans, because of generalized homophobia. That was certainly the case back when I last looked at rec.music.beatles in the 90s so I'm sure it's still overwhelmingly the car in 2023.

However, I don't think that's what's actually happened itt, Left. I also don't think it's inherently homophobic for a Beatle fan to not buy any particular version of the narrative - or to buy it, but not find it rearranges how they relate to the band, either because they always read the band this way, or because they're not as invested in authors/bio/narrative.

The story as articulated by the congress of invisible twitter teens, and presented here by Left, seems plausible (if impossible to verify at the same level as other pieces of Beatles lore). I could see it changing some things for me, tbh! I'm gonna let the collated quotes rattle in my head as I listen in the future. But then again, I'm someone for whom the Rumours backstory is a fact I know but can never remember the details of, and have never attached to anything particular about any of the songs, beyond knowing "this was a very fraught time in this singer's life, they were all breaking up or cheating with each other or something, and yet made such beautiful music." Closer to the Beatles, there are times when thinking about Linda's death makes Flaming Pie and Run Devil Run especially moving to me, and times when it doesn't. So who knows where I'll find myself with John and Paul. Maybe just talking about alternate takes of Rocky Raccoon again - that's a thing I love about listening to and talking about music so it's gonna happen.

If you're looking for people to say these quotes add up to a complete airtight case for one very specific narrative of what went on between this group of people and how they felt about it, then that's a tougher sell. Again, I don't think one has to be homophobic to just have different evidentiary standards. But I'm open to being schooled by someone who's done more work on queer histories, and how claims can be made without "knowing" (when any conventional evidence would naturally have been suppressed by nature of the situation).

Left, if you want to get deep into it, there’s an excruciatingly long podcast series called One Sweet Dream that picks up the quotes from your OP and more, and delves into song analysis and emotional speculation to present a case for this argument. Although there’s lots of things to gripe about with the podcast (foremost among them on the level of entertainment, where they fail spectacularly as they delve largely unedited into circles & whirlpools and repeat themselves over and over, and one of the hosts interrupts ceaselessly — one of my “two folks talking” format bêtes noire) they ultimately do, I think, make a strong case for the “John & Paul in love” theory. They do an excellent job of connecting the threads hinted at by the disparate quotes and they follow the timeline meticulously to weave a real story of a relationship broken by mixed signals & social pressures — ultimately a compelling one, despite the maddening way they go about getting there.

I only post this video to lighten the mood of the thread: Howard Stern and Paul snarking on the gay rumor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSN-bTY5q1s

it's a nice story if you can make it stick

It’s a really interesting theory, I’ve heard it before although never discussed so seriously.

I guess my question with it is: does it substantially change anything if it was true? And also, assuming one-sidedness in this theory, it’s moving from the realm of sublime artistic heights to something more. There’s been billions of gallons of ink spilled on writing about Lennon & McCartney and it’s probably an underreported subtext of the relationship if anything.

Actually the writers I always thought might have had something similar to this going on were Morrissey towards Marr, particularly with Angel, Angel, Down We Go Together being confirmed to be about Marr and other songs assumed or debated to be. But like with the Beatles, I can’t say it makes a huge difference in the outcome: the Smiths were breaking up due to differences in future direction.

I don’t know. I think it’s a theory with some evidence to it but I don’t know how much it matters to the outcomes and how significant it might be.

https://media3.giphy.com/media/JHfwzh1fBWKkvz3Y86/giphy.gif

Like Bobby Fuller? Allegedly.

xps being seen seem to be preoccupations for all of them - when mccartney occasionally lets his guard down he's complained that no one really knows him and everyone always gets him wrong. with lennon it seemed more literal, he needed to be seen and heard all the time (by the beatles, paul, brian, yoko, the media) to feel real and important and relevant, if it took putting his dick on an album cover (and getting paul to cosign it) he'd do it. meanwhile one of harrison's biggest grievances seemed to be how he became invisible when lennon-mccartney were locked in with each other (lennon calling him the invisible man and calling his music nothing in that interview was an attempt to hurt him, the tell being that he protests so much about how he doesn’t want to do that)

the drug addled stuff doesn't necessarily take away from the emotional stuff since the drugs really bound them together (speed, weed, acid in 67) and drove them apart (heroin, but also acid at first, the whole 3 vs paul thing)

I've heard bits of that 100 hour podcast - they're a presence on tumblr- I'll have to wait until I'm ill or something to dig through the whole thing - I think I agree with about 80% of their claims but even I'm less irritated by fandom than they are, probably because I engage with it less

xps I think it does change a lot, for example (first thing that came to mind, not necessarily the most important) lennon's alleged contempt for mccartney later on still tends to be taken at face value and just attributed to mccartney being lame or lennon being a dick or both but it changes a lot if it's spurned or unrequited or repressed desire and jealousy driving it

or incredibly bizarre behaviour like lennon & ono posing to recreate old john & paul photos with her in mccartney's place (which isn't something you'd do about a mate you just had a falling out with, it's like he's trying to overwrite something), or lennon's predictions in the 70s about when the mccartneys' marriage would fall apart (fucking weird, especially to repeatedly say it in public)

or even if the early love songs were partly written to or for or about each other (consciously or otherwise) that matters to me at least

It changes somewhat. These guys had been working together but honestly, ordinary people experience unrequited love or whatever in their own lives all the time. If it was the case here, Lennon being contemptuous towards someone he loved is still dick behaviour.

re: morrissey/marr

i saw a really cool interview with jm a long time ago where the interviewer asked him about that, and specifically if he thought / knew if "there is a light that never goes out" was about that dynamic. jm paused, kind of smiled, and basically said the standard answer: jm wrote the riffs, moz wrote the words, they never really questioned each other. he ended it with (paraphrasing) "...but if that's what he wrote that song about, great! it's still a beautiful song that millions of people have connected with and whatever the original inspiration behind it was, that will never change." jm always on point and i think his is a fine perspective to keep in mind while thinking about "mclennon."

Marr in the early '90s said (in Select, I think) the two most intense relationships of his life were with his wife and Morrissey.

i've seen it speculated that the famous "double decker bus" line is about moz and marr returning from a record shopping trip.

so i believe him 100%.

xps I think it does change a lot, for example (first thing that came to mind, not necessarily the most important) lennon's alleged contempt for mccartney later on still tends to be taken at face value and just attributed to mccartney being lame or lennon being a dick or both but it changes a lot if it's spurned or unrequited or repressed desire and jealousy driving it

this is helpful i think --- though i would note that you open by offering this as an example of how it "change(s) a lot," and conclude by saying that if this were the case, "it changes a lot." so the question remains: what does it change? (and i don't mean that as a dismissive rhetorical question!) nonetheless but it does sort of help me locate where you think the "change" happens --- in biography, in re-examining well-trodden quotes and having them line up and make sense in a way they didn't before. that is, the focus seems less on the musical products of this relationship, and more on the saga of the breakup and how the protagonists felt or spoke about each other in the 1970s. that's a well-developed branch of Beatleology! and for real, one that would really be transformed by revisionism on the order of "John was romantically in love with Paul," or even just by admitting a fuller picture of the spectrum of homosocial bonds in dude-bands (which i think everyone itt, if not in Beatle fandom, is very willing to do).

to be clear, i'm definitely not a hard-liner for "only the music and what i hear on the records matters." so again, with this in mind, maybe i will hear something different in "Girl!" (which would be cool, since it's easily in my bottom five Beatles songs and i'm usually just waiting for it to be over.) in part, though, my use of "maybes" throughout is also because i'm not 100% convinced by the accumulated evidence, so right now i'm taking it more like a popular fan theory or 'take' about a movie. like the reading that the Marty in Back to the Future II and III is gradually 'fading in' as the altered Marty who grew up with the bizarro yuppie family created at the end of the first film. i find it really interesting to watch with that in mind, and it might even become my 'preferred' narrative, without it becoming something i share with others as a 'fact' that must be accepted, on the order of "Robert Zemeckis directed these movies and they star Michael J. Fox and Christopher Lloyd." does that make sense?

xps I'm never going to argue that john lennon wasn't a massive cunt or that his love redeems him; he hurts everyone who's on the receiving end of it in some way. but much of his behaviour including some of his worst and weirdest is less inexplicable (not more excusable) if his toxic ways of processing and demonstrating "love" are taken into account

xp Wait, tell me more about this BTTF theory – the idea is that the Marty we see, whom we think is Marty Prime, is slowly changing into nu-timeline Marty (who otherwise disappears into the unknown at the end of the first film)?

xxp sure

what it changes is how the story of the band is told because at the moment it's very dry and relies on a bunch of tired tropes, it doesn't help that despite the diversity of the fanbase the writing has been dominated by a handful of older british/american men who are not the most emotionally perceptive people in the world

as far as the music goes how much it changes largely depends on the listener and whether they're interested in these dynamics or not

left you're a good poster and i like you (and this thread even) but dude: this was a kickass rock band in the early days of when that started being a thing. there's never going to be a clear-cut, no-nonsense, non-mythologized version of anything they ever did in front of other people. and i mean, not to be insulting, but not all the dudes in the ramones had the surname "ramone" either. it's art, and just like anything else creative, you can choose when and where to exercise your suspension of disbelief.

i mean think about this: there's people who actually believe the "paul is dead / FAUL" theory. and that shit sounds absolutely preposterous, doesn't it?

(also another example of how it doesn't affect my thoughts about the music whatsoever. but hey sure if it enhances that person's enjoyment of the music, yeah fine the "REAL" guy died in 66 or whatever. "d'ya like the early albums? `cuz i do." sorry just talking to that strawman there. it's okay, friend. i'm only here to judge one thing: the quality of the music. hope you're having a nice day, my new imaginary strawperson.)

and all that being said: yeah, nobody really wants a queer love story out of the beatles. not then, not now. makes for some spicy thoughts in retrospect and things like peter jackson's recent documentary come with possibly highly renewed interest based on the idea, but yeah: just an idea. a smarter man than myself once said, "it's a nice story if you can make it work."

re: BTTF: i don't know if there's a shorthand name for this theory but it's been around for a while. here's Tuomas glossing it in 2016:

This would also kinda validate the fan theory that at the end of Part I Marty doesn't just return to a horrific new reality where everything he knew is changed, but that he gradually gains the memories of the Marty who grew up in this changed timeline, where his dad is actually self-assured. Marty's "chicken" trigger doesn't appear at all in Part I, so it could be that he only gained it after he changed his past, after he was raised by a dad who taught him to always stand up against bullies. So what he needs to learn in Parts II and III is that reacting to aggression with aggression is not necessarily the best choice, which actually contrasts nicely with the fairly problematic moral of Part I, which seems to be saying that violence is the answer.

― Tuomas, Tuesday, July 19, 2016 4:16 AM bookmarkflaglink

@ Austin: i think the thread itself is evidence that more people than "nobody" want this story out of the Beatles! if they contain enough multitudes for Paul Is Dead then certainly John Loved Paul is not much to add to the vast, vast grab-bag of interpretations...

xp Huh, that's interesting (I recently posted on that thread... the fate of nu-Marty has been a preoccupation of mine for a while)

xps the multiple fan blogs these quotes were sourced from (with attributions if you like that kind of thing) would suggests you're wrong about what people do and don't want

as far as popular alternative beatle narratives lennon being killed by the CIA is far more plausible than paul is dead and this is far more plausible than that one, it's just disingenuous to pretend they're all equally wacky

however it is relevant to this thread that the walrus was paul

xpost to doc: hence my inclusion of "paul is dead"<—other fan theories that i think are ridiculous and probably not true, but fun. i mean, my point is that i don't care but nicely.

also idk why, but the opening to this post has become a meme in my head over the past 24 hrs:

You know, I'm gay.

lol

https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/rutlesriki/images/e/e9/Dirk_deaf.png/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/1000?cb=20200926035424

i guess for me this rises way above "ridiculous" or Paul is Dead, without hitting the rung of settled fact.

hmm, try that again

https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/rutlesriki/images/e/e9/Dirk_deaf.png

I am willing to buy the idea of John loving / being in love with / being attracted to Paul, and the possibility of laddish horseplay.

The verb I am skeptical about is "like." John loved Paul. He does not seem to have liked Paul.

Think I'd respect the troll more if Left revived the main Beatles thread instead of making up a new one. If you want this to be part of the official history instead of a side show for cranks, that is.

Nah, never get that logic personally. It is a discrete topic and the thing of people being supposed to bump some two decades old discussion out of, what, deference to people who no longer post here?

Nothing to do with deference. Those ppl are mostly gone.

If you want this love story to be more than the backstory and break what you perceive to be the original you should give the old threads a bump.

Who gives a shit? Far worse offenders.

Left does.

I’m talking about you and your stupid diversion itt.

I am.

Just saying Left has good material for a great diversion in a proper Beatles threads.

I never knew the thing I was missing from ilx was Beatles shipping. Pasted from tumblr.

It's the truth!

Morrissey admitted that "He Knows I'd Love to See Him" was about Marr, fwiw.

The only new thing itt is the idea that Lennon went to Arthur Janov to curb his homosexual tendencies... which sounds like a lot of baloney to me.

xp for some reason I thought this was about his dad, but yeah…That makes sense

Iirc “carry that weight” is about Paul inviting John to hold his penis.

But can you present evidence ?

"The Ballad of John and Yoko" is about John's relationship with Paul

The BBC banned “happiness is a warm gun” because they thought the “warm gun” was a phallic symbol and the were correct.

Legend has it that the phrase came from the title of an article of a gay magazine that George Martin showed Lennon called “ the America Rifleman”

When John sings “I’m going Down” and how he feels safe with his hands in the trigger of this warm gun he’s singing about how he loves giving head to Paul.

The whole “paul is dead” thing was an inner joke between them because John knew how to get him stiff.

So when Paul felt horny he’d joke with John about Paul being dead as an invitation to bury his stiff body in the dirt.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InRjbbDegD4

I feel like the:

tried to use ono to provoke or upset or make mccartney chase him

aspect here bothers me somewhat. It's not really cool to view Yoko Ono as someone who would either be interested in being a beard or oblivious to the fact that she is one, and in a weird way this circles back around to the conventional sexist "she broke up the Beatles!!" narrative. I think you can believe John and Paul had a romantic relationship and that this got Complicated without assuming that John couldn't also be into women. Of course I understand its usefulness within a shipping context - if you want John and Paul to be the Only True Love it's necessary - but it's not at all integral to the queer narrative imo.

I agree.

I also feel that, regardless of how one feels this thread is, it’s an intriguing discussion regardless of how you see it. And I don’t even support this theory, but deeply unnecessary to troll the thread because you think it’s inherently ridiculous.

Ok this thread rules

"tell the Beatles to fuck"

They didn't need telling by the sounds of it.

"John Lennon! I command you to....

"john and paul were in the recording booth making babies and i saw one of the babies and the baby looked at me!"
-ringo's account

All those interview excerpts are fascinating, plus Left's got me steady thinkin about a Lennon/Macca mutual j.o. sesh, I think we should ask ourselves what we brought to the table on ILX yesterday

Lads, did you all know that Kurt Cobain was trans?

“So we were doing a press tour and we had to stay in Frankfurt for a night. Lovely place, but not much to do really, so we stayed at the hotel. I was switching channels and made a joke observation to Paul and John; how come there was no porn on the telly in any of these so called five star hotels? John says, “who says there is no porn in this hotel, mate?” and pulled Paul’s trousers down and proceeded to start giving him a mean head in front of me. Anyways, that’s how “with a little help from my friends” came to be.”

- Ringo Starr for Vogue france, october 1968

All those interview excerpts are fascinating, plus Left's got me steady thinkin about a Lennon/Macca mutual j.o. sesh, I think we should ask ourselves what we brought to the table on ILX yesterday

gyac you don't seem to enjoy ILX very much based on how contentious and argumentative the tone of your posts often are, so I wonder why you spend time here.

that said I have no issue with people starting new threads about things, there is no 'main beatles thread' to revive, and this isn't the steve hoffman forum.

gyac you don't seem to enjoy ILX very much based on how contentious and argumentative the tone of your posts often are, so I wonder why you spend time here.

All those interview excerpts are fascinating, plus Left's got me steady thinkin about a Lennon/Macca mutual j.o. sesh, I think we should ask ourselves what we brought to the table on ILX yesterday

Fully aware that you meant this in a cunty way, but fuck, so much of this site is utterly dead and boring. People leaning into their stale shticks and bumping threads nearly as old as I am to make fart jokes, fuck off. Maybe people should make better fucking posts or threads so there’d be more interesting activity on here and then you wouldn’t get tons of bored aggro people showing up to shit on this subject they clearly have zero interest in because it was made by a person they don’t like! Seriously, I manage to stay out of 99% threads that don’t interest me because I hope the threads will die, so why can’t the rest of you? That’s a serious question. This thread is not great but it’s really not that offensive either. Will always default to “put up or shut up” personally!
― here you go, muttonchops Yaz (gyac), Tuesday, January 31, 2023 9:03 AM (eight minutes ago) bookmarkflaglin

This is the best thread on ilm in a while, I'm not joking

Historical details, wild theories, bickering, jokes, it's got it all

I HOPE THE THREADS WILL DIE

(no shots gyac, that's a solid quote)

lmao

Yoko Ono was in the car!!

Close call for @PaulMcCartney on the Abbey Road crossing!

In this clip from @MaryAMcCartney’s new documentary, a car narrowly misses Paul as he recreates the ‘Abbey Road’ album cover. #IfTheseWallsCouldSing is now streaming worldwide on @DisneyPlus | https://t.co/6v6YyJjJjb pic.twitter.com/qUsfi2AzOW

— Abbey Road Studios (@AbbeyRoad) January 25, 2023

then you wouldn’t get tons of bored aggro people showing up to shit on this subject they clearly have zero interest in because it was made by a person they don’t like

Also I would like to state I think Left is a good poster and bear them no ill will

second that ums. just jokes left. please tell me if i'm being a dick.☮️

Seriously, I manage to stay out of 99% threads that don’t interest me because I hope the threads will die, so why can’t the rest of you? That’s a serious question.

Because of the agreement on unfettered access - no new checks on posts crossing thread borders.

it's weird what fans think is important, what john pretended to think of some song in 1980 or how loud the bass is on the latest remix are subjects worthy of serious discussion, but this topic is treated as inherently unserious even by people who are willing to entertain it. I think people are afraid to take it seriously

― Left, Sunday, January 29, 2023 12:02 PM (two days ago) bookmarkflaglink

The projection is strong with this one.

I haven't read this whole thread but I think I got it. The Beatles were Air Supply?

https://phoebenorth.medium.com/the-beatles-album-ranked-in-order-of-gayness-be7c6ad02f88

Vote pro-Left, anti-snark. Like, engage with the subject, make a good joke, or fuck off.

Lol no, absolutely not.

https://phoebenorth.medium.com/the-beatles-album-ranked-in-order-of-gayness-be7c6ad02f88

― ✖✖✖ (Moka), Wednesday, 1 February 2023 bookmarkflaglink

Explains Paul's Abbey Road revisit.

Gayest cover ever. And he quietly addresses the "Paul is dead" theory at the same time.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Paulmccartneyalbum-paulislive.jpg

pertinent scene from Prick Up Your Ears

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZqqXjTHQPc

oh, I linked that at the wrong place. relevant bit begins at 1:21:14

Left i haven't said anything in this thread because i don't give a fuck about the Beatles but just wanna offer solidarity given some of the eye-rolling levels of sniggering it's provoked

I really liked that scene in Prick Up Your Ears, also have a vague memory of that Epstein convo being mentioned in the Orton Dairies but it is so long since I read it - could be my fucked old unreliable brain making it up.

Alfred Molina was so good in Prick Up Your Ears, Oldman wasn't bad either but obv he got all the plaudits at the time.

(Diversion) When Morbs visited London and asked for “things to see”, I suggested he visit the public toilets in South End Road Hampstead as one of the rare existing historical Orton landmarks that is worth seeing. He wouldn’t be drawn from Shaftesbury Avenue theatre land though.

Islington is the place to come to for those interested in sites of celebrity 1967 murder/suicides, Orton & Halliwell's flat is a 10-15 minute bus journey from Joe Meek's flat/studio.

the beatles may be gay, but are they gay (pejorative)

Vintage year: if time permits, that itinerary could include Brian Epstein’s town house in Chapel St Belgravia.

last time I walked past the Orton pad in the 90's it still seemed a bit of a scruffy area from memory, in that illusory London style where "scruffy" = a grand a week rents you a box room in a Georgian terrace

It is quite swanky these days, though the've put the plaque way up on the third floor iirc so as not to bring down property values with bad vibes.

Yes, it's very swanky. Poor old Joe Meek had it worse, he didn't have a plaque for years and when they did give him one it was covered up by an estate agent's signs for years.

Agreed with Noodle Vague, except I do care about the Beatles (they got to me young, what can I say).

In theory I agree with NV, but I dislike the tone of posts that assume a superior attitude/greater moral or virtuous authority. And posts that attempt to thread-police like gyac's (pvic) are anathema to me.

ILM is a smorgasbord and it's better to take the foie gras and the wagyu beef with the pig swill rather than try to police it too tightly imo.

You’re right, nobody should realise ilx is a community and say anything about anyone’s behaviour. Better to silently drop off. Better to hold grudges about jokes that didn’t quite work for a year, that’s obviously completely normal.

ILM is a smorgasbord

joking aside (and to be clear, my joke and the related one I made previously were made in a good-natured #onethread manner and not meant as sniggering, although I am aware that’s in the eye of the beholder), I agree with Noodle Vague as well.

also, when delving into a smorgasbord I’m sure you wouldn’t put anything that looked mouldy or rotten on your plate and would probably alert (or complain to) the staff about it

In as far as ILX is a smorgasbord angry quality control has always been an integral part.

Reckon NV likes The Beatles more than poster Left, and that's the problem.

For Left this isn't about "we are all missing something out when this isn't taken into account", it's "how can I score points from people".

Score what kind of points?

I mean whatever you think about the theory, the quotes compiled in the first post are pretty interesting! That was a good read.

I don't think poster Left's posts suggests they dislike the Beatles. They do suggest Left hates wide swathes of the Beatles' fanbase (not exactly uncommon on ILX), but the points are argued in a way that clearly goes beyond simple provocation/trolling.

It's a little game to them. No evidence they like very much stuff.

Left looks at a film or a record and it's "how have the people who made this behaved badly" like we might not know, and there they are, pointing it out!

It would be good to listen, or watch sometime.

That is not remotely what the thread is about?

I saw they had posted elsewhere on ilx today, I don’t really blame them for not coming back to this shitheap!

Reckon NV likes The Beatles more than poster Left, and that's the problem.

The problem is Left does like the Beatles!

Lol nah I think this thread is more like an extension of what they do. That's why some ppl have responded as if it's trolly.

You happy to be in the fine company of terfs like everything and other people making backward jokes?

I post for myself. I am not in anyone's company.

I wouldn't go to the time and effort Left's gone on this thread, neither would NV, neither of us care about the subject enough to do so. In any case, the way I read it Left's problem is with John Lennon, not the Beatles and that's a very common attitude with younger people these days I've noticed.

just wanted to pick up on a couple of points:

"The Ballad of John and Yoko" is about John's relationship with Paul

this may a joke but it's true - more the content than the context. Lennon getting McCartney to cosign his new relationship/persona and not bothering to wait for the others is important. It's similar to what he did with 2 Virgins

about Yoko being oblivious or a beard - absolutely not which is why she and McCartney have always had such a weird relationship. the love between John and Yoko isn't fake (it's their whole romance of the century mythology that is). Lennon seemed to want McCartney to do something, maybe it was inviting her into the band and/or becoming Lennon-McCartney-Ono (which she may have wanted, it's hard to tell) or else to prove he loved him more than she did (and more than he loved Linda), or something less specific which he probably couldn't decide or understand himself. Whatever it was he believed they "shared in each other's minds" so McCartney should have known. McCartney now seems to wish he had done something differently (even if it was just being more emotionally available) but at the time he just sort of bristled and disengaged from the relationship and eventually the band at which point Lennon became desperate to prove to him and the public that he'd already done that first, and Yoko became both a scapegoat and an alibi in that regard

That makes sense Left, thanks for the clarification.

I wouldn't go to the time and effort Left's gone on this thread, neither would NV, neither of us care about the subject enough to do so. In any case, the way I read it Left's problem is with John Lennon, not the Beatles and that's a very common attitude with younger people these days I've noticed.

― Maggot Bairn (Tom D.), Wednesday, 1 February 2023 bookmarkflaglink

Suspicious given past behaviour, but fair enough.

I like 90% of the beatles music, I grew up with it. I like lennon in that context too (as an artist and to some extent as a persona, as a human he's harder to defend). It's only when he becomes the jesus of rock and roll and his sanctimony and self-regard overtakes his imagination and ability to write tunes that I have a problem, the dead eyed man of peace version of lennon is boring as fuck and I also think his personal failings and hypocrisy wouldn't attract so much scorn from younger folks if this version of him hadn't been sanctified to such an extent

I got content and context the wrong way round in the other post

John actively liked Yoko. Perhaps the only person he both liked and loved. He mostly spoke of her with tenderness and respect. Respect for her intellect and creativity.

Even at their closest, John's visible personal relations with Paul were ladding about, joshing, goofery, ironic mockery, hijinx. Not tenderness or respect or easy affection. Perhaps that laddishness - born of extended adolescence - is what he felt like he could get away with without being accused of being gay. One could argue this was all internalized homophobia, plausible deniability, "no homo."

John's very few post-Beatles compliments about Paul or his basslines or grudging compliments to one or two songs get loads of attention, precisely because of their rarity. Hence I return to the initial quotestorm:

"Actually it was really nice after John died, Yoko was quite kind in telling me that he did really love me. Because it looked like he didn’t.’" - McCartney, 1987

"She volunteered the information that he had… really liked me." - McCartney, 1984 (interviewer's ellipsis)

I believe the first but not the second.

(I draw a distinction there between the personal and the musical. John obviously liked making music with Paul, and liked the music they made, because that was their job. Perhaps they were both more comfortable jamming, doing songs in silly voices, trading wisecracks. etc., because they didn't need to appear genuinely engaged with one another as poeple. FWIW I have been in a lot of bands, and often that is the way it goes - when there'es someone I don't actively like / would never have a beer with - we can set that aside when the music starts and just communicate that way.)

I attribute this to blokes being blokes I don't think it's all there was. I think JL wanted tenderness but lashed out when he didn't get it as well as when he was afraid people would think he was soft for wanting it, which made it worse for him and everyone else

That makes sense, Left.

He could have been less of a dickhead. But then he wouldn't be him. Ourobouros.

Yes, that makes sense, Left.

However this: Lennon seemed to want McCartney to do something, maybe it was inviting her into the band and/or becoming Lennon-McCartney-Ono (which she may have wanted, it's hard to tell) or else to prove he loved him more than she did (and more than he loved Linda), or something less specific which he probably couldn't decide or understand himself. Whatever it was he believed they "shared in each other's minds" so McCartney should have known.

is pure speculation.

I'm with you on dismissing "the dead eyed man of peace version of lennon" as "boring as fuck," though. But no one on this thread -- and few biographers at this point -- espouse that version of Lennon .

Yes, I don't know who does that anyway, other than sone soppy boomers or maybe younger people who don't know very much about John Lennon.

I agree it's pure speculation there are other parts I'm more certain about

although the ESP part is well documented (the belief in it I mean)

and there's a reason mccartney won't shut the fuck up about the need to tell people you love them whenever he talks about lennon (I don't know what it is but I know it isn't nothing)

to be fair, Left, i would probably say that a lot if i had a friend who meant a lot to me, who was murdered before we'd completely reconciled or gotten closure on all the bad blood from a really long crazy breakup of friendship/creative partnership.

yeah lol I was gonna say: that's the reason!

IIRC he also says something similar about Ringo in the Beatles anthology doc, re: the day Ringo quit the band --- "you don't tell people often enough, 'hey, you're really great, you know?'" something like that.

Fortunately Peter Jackson can just make a big CGIstravaganza where all four/five/seven Beatles just sit around for three hours saying, "You're great, Ringo." "No, YOU'RE great. And by the way I love you guys." "Back at ya, pal. And you know who else is great? Yoko."

*newspaper boy bicycling by an abbey road window that's cracked open slightly*

".....and George Martin is great as well!!....."

https://decider.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/george-quits-beatles.jpg?quality=75&strip=all
"Speak for yourself, I hate you all."

It's only when he becomes the jesus of rock and roll

I don't know anyone besides boomers and 15 year olds just discovering The Beatles that think this way. Lennon's martyrdom in 1980 is such a huge factor: like other rock stars who died early, he got frozen in amber. Even with that, I think the far more prevalent view is that Lennon had a weird solo career that would have been far better if he hadn't engaged in political stunts and stuck to the music.

post-Beatles Lennon's trajectory feels like an analogue for post-60s culture--forays into dogmatic politics, oddball therapy sessions, descent into addiction, finding some kind of stasis in family/domesticity. The music is almost beside the point.

Lennon’s solo career only proves McCartney was the real factor behind their success.

And vice versa, some say

Lennon was not even the best drummer in the Beatles.

lennon's solo career is proof that george was the quiet one.

lennon's solo career has higher highs

HIGHLY RELEVANT DIGRESSION: Some years ago, I heard They Might Be Giants on an NPR show. This exchange touches on the similarity between musical partnership and marriage. Of course, it also takes a jocular derisive swipe at Saint Ringo. And in a twist, they are both named John.

SAGAL: You compose, you write, you sing, you perform together, but which of you is the musical genius and which of you is the hanger-on?

a John: I think we both secretly think of ourselves as the hanger-on...

SAGAL: Really?

a John: ...actually. Right.

a John: Aw.

SAGAL: Really?

a John: That's a good relationship.

SAGAL: I like that. I mean you're both...

a John: Two Ringos, no waiting.

a John: That's right.

a John: You know, they say about - a good marriage is one where each partner thinks he or she is the lucky one, so you guys are in like, a good musical marriage there.

SAGAL: Yeah.

M: Right. I didn't say lucky one, I said hanger-on.

^ Note: I do not wish to enter into speculation about whether John Flansburgh and John Linnell were totes gay for one another.

Metanote: I'm still not used to the idea that this thread isn't about Robert Forster and Grant McLennan. If you wish to speculate about their sexual tension, go ahead.

That's kind of an awkward question to ask; in what world is John Linnell not the musical genius in that band?

Well, yeah, but one can understand why Linnell exhibits an admirable humility under the circumstances.

I am no Beatles historian but this thread is very interesting to me because it touches on something perhaps not said enough, that long term musical partnerships are intensely intimate relationships, not necessarily sexual but yeah Fleetwood Mac is maybe the tip of a large iceberg, I don't know how many of y'all have been in a band but it is an unbelievable pain in the ass and kind of a miracle that anyone can manage it at all, to that end the death of "band managers" probably deserves a separate thread

otm

https://imgur.com/gallery/DDBlRAn

opening yourselves up to each other creatively is an incredibly intimate thing to do and it's surprising it doesn't cross into romantic or erotic all the time, unless it does, I haven't really been in those relationships. even if it does maybe for some people that's enough (like creating together *is* the sex for them?) but for a specific type of person it may imply or suggest or demand more and it eventually somehow seems fake or a lie to them if it never actually comes to anything else?

i-high-solation

I want to hear the new guy's take on this (no, I do not).

I don't expect you to understand after you've caused so much pain

like all this time I thought we really had something but it turns out you were just leading me on with your tunes and your jokes and your eyes. well I don't believe in us anyway how about that. in fact I never did and I'm going to tell that to jann wenner

Paul is a concept

opening yourselves up to each other creatively is an incredibly intimate thing to do and it's surprising it doesn't cross into romantic or erotic all the time, unless it does, I haven't really been in those relationships. even if it does maybe for some people that's enough (like creating together *is* the sex for them?) but for a specific type of person it may imply or suggest or demand more and it eventually somehow seems fake or a lie to them if it never actually comes to anything else?

makes sense to me

maybe unrequited is not the right word or concept to use, it's a bit too simple, but intense relationships like in which there are strong mutually shared feelings *as well as* different expectations or understandings or desires between parties about that relationship it can become v painful without anyone necessarily doing anything wrong (in this case people involved did do things wrong but those things are not necessary for the rift to happen). there's something so lopsided about lennon-mccartney in the 70s (in much more complex ways on either end than is typically presented) which to me what I have been gesturing at is the most plausible explanation for but there can be others. the dynamic that a lot of fans and writers seem to love in which lennon is above it all and mccartney is desperate to reconcile is transparently *not* it though

I have seen this situation close at with two nominally straight guys who almost kind of modelled themselves on Lennon & McCartney and, yes, there was something going on there that everybody else was excluded from, including girlfriends, maybe especially girlfriends! The fact that they used to take lots of acid together was a major factor too. When one of the guys left it was definitely treated like a betrayal. At one point, years later, when a radio station wanted to play some of their music the "betrayed" guy sent in a tape of one their songs where he had edited out the bits the other guy wrote!

When acid heads sing about all night pillow fights with their flatmates they are being literal. LSD relationships like that are about trust not sex.

Xpost so by that reckoning, Rog Waters was incredibly close to his PF band mates once...

opening yourselves up to each other creatively is an incredibly intimate thing to do and it's surprising it doesn't cross into romantic or erotic all the time, unless it does
― your original display name is still visible (Left), Wednesday, February 8, 2023 4:16 PM (yesterday) bookmarkflaglink

Sorry to say this a little crudely, but this kind of assumption bordering on fantasy dismisses more than it helps your case ? People open up to each other all the time without fucking, of course people also fuck all the time, I just don't see the overlap that leads to the weird fallacious conclusion that "of course they did, because how could they not".

I don't think there's any "of course they did" about any of the posts itt. It's "they might have", at most.

Indeed. Personally love when people repeat a point I already made in a worse way, too!

There is some speculation being disguised as a "thought experiment".

op explicitly rejects thinking of it as a thought experiment, why's everyone's reading comprehension so shot these days

Indeed. Personally love when people repeat a point I already made in a worse way, too!
― here you go, muttonchops Yaz (gyac), Thursday, February 9, 2023 10:29 AM (three minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

Great. I shall appoint you as my spokesperson on ILM and you shall provide me with weekly talking points.

xp I know what Left is saying but that's how the thread ends up.

I think it's speculation, no one's pretending it's anything else, and I think that's fine?

Left talks about it as being a big factor, with no thought about what is being dismissed.

So...this needs some work, is what some people are saying.

Nah.

Guys, it’s shorter just to post NO HOMO

op explicitly rejects thinking of it as a thought experiment, why's everyone's reading comprehension so shot these days

Lol @ how you are all happy with this bit of copy pasta sludge from Tumblr.

why's everyone's reading comprehension so shot these days

I know you love copy pasta. Yes.

I'm not pretending to be a historian or journalist here so I don't know what excuse people who are have for doing such a bad job with this material

I could have been clearer about what is assertion and what is speculation on my part but I hope people can think for themselves. whether the beatles fucked each other (ruling it out is as narrow minded as asserting it as fact) and the whole gay angle is not even the most important thing here though it's obviously the most salacious - but the default no homo attitude in beatleography does extend to a lack of consideration of love in general (including philia/storge/whatever) even though its the central message of the band if they ever had one

I think the One Sweet Dream gals have the right approach — building a narrative based on the emotional arc of the MacLennon relationship based on the available evidence and using emotional intelligence to ask questions like “what would that have felt like for them, at that time, in that situation?” — even if their execution is all fucked up.

they seem to really get things about lennon-mccartney (the individuals, the partnership, the relationship) that are too often ignored or misinterpreted. they spend way too much time trying to persuade the unconvinced (from my pov, im sure some people need it) and there are big gaps in their analysis so far (george, ringo, yoko, the early years) but I'd do a much worse job of it if i had a podcast- they/someone else could probably make a great 3-4 hour edit of the breakup series to streamline the narrative and make it more accessible

they definitely influenced me to take the lyrics more seriously and it's hard not to read too much into all of them now (is ISHST about john? of course not. but maybe?)

Yes! To the 4-hour edit of the series. I thought the same, and I wanted to take it on since I found the good parts so compelling… but I’m sure I couldn’t take listening to them (Phoebe in particular, the sneering interrupter) enough to actually finish the job.

I don’t know if it’s meant to be funny, or it’s just funny to me, that so many of the arguments in this thread are raised against “ruling it out” [that LenMac fucked] or a NO HOMO stance. Neither of which I can see in the thread. Instead the counter view, over and over, is that it doesn’t actually matter or that people don’t care. Seems hard to accept that it’s genuine indifference rather than erasure.

I don’t know why Beatle fans are so obsessed over whether the Beatles loved each other. To this day if someone posts a photo of John and Paul or modern day Paul and Ringo on Facebook, you can guarantee a high level of responses that “they really loved each other like brothers”.

I think Ringo has said recently that he’s not actually that close to Paul- and that they might meet for dinner if they’re in the same city, or join up to promote events, but they “don’t hang out”.

The greater mystery of the Beatles is why so many fans are obsessed and so vehement that they must have loved each other.

ITT: Tell The Beatles to Fuck

I'm sure they loved each other; like family they don't have to like each other.

Xpost I did, already, upthread

It’s pretty clear to me that SOMETHING HAPPENED prior to Rishikesh that John saw as a betrayal. It could have been as simple as Paul getting kind of weirded out by John’s neediness and turning a bit cold, or it could have been John making a pass at him & being rebuffed, or (I honestly don’t think it very likely) they fucked and it got awkward after… or none of the above or something else entirely. But mattkkk OTM.

*kkkk (!!!)

I don’t know why Beatle fans are so obsessed over whether the Beatles loved each other. To this day if someone posts a photo of John and Paul or modern day Paul and Ringo on Facebook, you can guarantee a high level of responses that “they really loved each other like brothers”.

I think Ringo has said recently that he’s not actually that close to Paul- and that they might meet for dinner if they’re in the same city, or join up to promote events, but they “don’t hang out”.

The greater mystery of the Beatles is why so many fans are obsessed and so vehement that they must have loved each other

I think there’s been a gradual realisation in the last few years from fans and so on that many musicians in many renowned acts past and present don’t really hang out as much as you would assume when not on band duty.

I think it’s also key that most examples probably aren’t from antipathy but that the band takes up enough time as A Job and it doesn’t really occur to those on the inside to socialise outside of it; said job - which they may love - takes enough of their time already.

well they were inseparable for long periods in the 60s including years after touring. they considered various forms of communal living (paul seems to have been the biggest holdout). the beatles were much closer than most bands, that's what attracted people to them and why people care about their feelings more than other bands, especially as their feelings are basically our feelings because of cultural saturation

Minor diversion for self-indulgence:

I think the public’s view is often at odds with the reality. During the Blair Labour Party years, Tony and Gordon had an infamously difficult or torturous working relation (the “TBGBs” as it was named by informed commentators )

It’s amused me when Labour pollsters reported that the public really didn’t like to see such obvious tensions and disagreements - and labour polled much better when it was thought they got on well.

To the horror of both, they were promptly despatched together on the campaign trail for visits and media interviews to show just how how well they were getting on. And I seem to recall some completely cringeworthy media footage of them buying ice cream at the seaside with fixed smiles and fake bonhomie as if in holiday mode.

the beatles were much closer than most bands, that's what attracted people to them and why people care about their feelings more than other bands, especially as their feelings are basically our feelings because of cultural saturation

Not convinced any of that is true btw. Mind you, Beatles fans are weird, especially in the US.

I don’t know if it’s meant to be funny, or it’s just funny to me, that so many of the arguments in this thread are raised against “ruling it out” [that LenMac fucked] or a NO HOMO stance. Neither of which I can see in the thread. Instead the counter view, over and over, is that it doesn’t actually matter or that people don’t care. Seems hard to accept that it’s genuine indifference rather than erasure.

― assert (matttkkkk), Friday, 10 February 2023 bookmarkflaglink

This is quite OTM. Though I am not indifferent otherwise I wouldn't post. I do think the material is not without interest but it would be one of many moving parts in their story. So my question is one of integration into the rest of the story.

And as talked about its something that is often happening with bands so where you end up is something very tabloid-y, or a possibly dark place. It might explain why no one has done as much with it (or it could end in a place where lawyering happens too, I don't know).

I wonder if it has something to do with the music as well. If you compare this to the similar questions surrounding the Stones and the Jagger/Richards partnership, I'm much more invested in Mick Jagger's feelings for Keith Richards than Lennon's feelings for McCartney, because those feelings - whatever they were - are everywhere in the songs. It feels like an essential part of who the Rolling Stones are as a band. Whereas, for all the pop love songs the Beatles wrote, there's something sort of chilly and intellectual and aromantic about their music in my mind, so that the question of who loved whom, and how, and how much, feels almost separate from the music to me, a question for biographers more than for listeners.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tb1BHc7aG10

*kkkk (!!!)

also great post as always Lily Dale

_the beatles were much closer than most bands, that's what attracted people to them and why people care about their feelings more than other bands, especially as their feelings are basically our feelings because of cultural saturation_

Not convinced any of that is true btw. Mind you, Beatles fans are weird, especially in the US.

i'm the most normal beatles fan in the US

just yesterday for me, what a track!

I have zero problems with the idea that perhaps the most famous and celebrated songwriting partnership in recorded history may have been more than a couple straight as an arrow lads "opening up to each other"

why anyone would care or if it matters at all is another question, but again, I do think that great music is very often hampered by interpersonal relationships that may or may not be sexual but are certainly very intimate in a way that is difficult to describe beyond swingers or a polygamist cult if it was also a public entertainment and a job and didn't necessarily involve genitalia...or something like that?

rock n roll is hard, sometimes VERY hard, wink wink also I am asexual so I hope this comes off more exasperated and tired than creepy

why anyone would care or if it matters at all is another question

You haven’t spent much time around Beatles fans nuts, have you? There’s a huge tendency to treat the music and the story as an intertwined whole (which they are ofc), especially when you get past the basic received narrative of like The Compleat Beatles or whatever. And for those people (of which I’m one, albeit not an obsessive partly due to the fact that I have a shit memory & so can’t keep all the nerdy details properly filed & partly because I know it doesn’t really matter & that nothing’s more of a drag than someone who bangs on & on about the goddamn Beatles) the knowledge that there’s a story behind the story — or multiple stories behind the story — that there’s more to discover about a band we thought we knew everything about — that matters & we care.

When the Let It Be doc came out, I tried texting a little about it with my uncle, who is a huge Beatles fan… I couldn’t really get him to engage with talking about the music, he was solely interested in all the little relationship details, the “flowerpot conversation,” etc.