“‘You See,’ He Says, Snuffing Out His Cigarette With A Defiant Jab, ‘what I Have To Combat Is

Get Back Narrative

I’ve received a couple of asks seeking clarification regarding my earlier post about how the Get Back documentary was redefining the Beatle narrative.

I’ll try to summarize. 

1. Media articles like this, this and this regarding Ono’s presence. While it’s obvious that the band was heading toward dissolution with or without Ono’s presence, Ono’s continued presence in the studio, her unsolicited participation in band business (no, she didn’t just sit there and read, as some would claim), and her willingness to speak on John’s behalf is hardly exculpatory. Even Time magazine, which at least attempted a more considered analysis of the Beatle break-up era, claimed, after watching Get Back, that ‘Yoko’s presence was not a huge negative factor, and that none of the band members appear much bothered by her constant presence; they joke and talk with her comfortably”.  This is a shocking claim, given that a) the documentary clearly depicts the deleterious effect of Yoko’s presence upon band members during the failed meeting at George’s house, and b) George, Paul, and Ringo have all gone on record regarding their discomfort in Ono’s presence and the disruptive nature of her involvement in band business. 

(As an aside, I would also like to know in what workplace, no matter how creative or unorthodox, it would be acceptable to bring your lover or spouse to work everyday and insist that the presence of that person was absolutely benign.)  

2. The exclusion of information which would provide context to behaviour, such as John and Yoko’s heroin addiction. “By the advent of the “Get Back” sessions, Ono openly joked about taking heroin being the couple’s form of exercise”).  This was excluded in the Get Back documentary and, as a consequence, from mainstream media. Obviously the inclusion of this information would more accurately contexualize John’s behaviour in the band, including his insistence on Yoko’s presence.  

Another compelling piece of information that was not included in the documentary was that Patti Harrison briefly left George around the time of George’s departure from the band.  Since there was no mention of this event during filming, Peter Jackson decided not to share it, claiming he didn’t want to make any “moral judgements.” To whatever extent his brief estrangement from Patti affected George’s judgement we’ll never know (George didn’t even mention it in his diary of that day), but its exclusion in the documentary is regrettable. 

3.  Editorial Choices by the filmmaker.  Peter Jackson has gone on record that he was not influenced by Ringo or Paul, and nor by Olivia or Yoko at any point in the making of the Get Back Documentary. And there’s no reason not to believe him.  But:  the Get Back documentary reflects his editorial choices–what he believed was important to leave in, and what he believed was acceptable to leave out.  As Erin Torkelson Weber indicated in this earlier post, “the reality is that, without unrestricted access to the hundreds of hours of actual audio and visual tapes Hogg and Jackson used to make their films, fans are still being offered only someone else’s interpretation/vision/translation of the primary source material…so we have to rely on evidence that has already been framed and filtered.” 

And that reality–that we are watching someone’s else’s version of the truth, has escaped mainstream media and a certain cohort of Beatle fans who either find the Get Back version of the Beatle break-up era more commensurate with their own beliefs, or simply don’t know any better. 

Mirabelle: George Harrison tells his own life story. (October, 1963)

Hi girls, George Harrison here, lead guitar.

I’m not taking any notice of course, but the other three are skipping around the room, saying, “Hi girls! George Harrison here, lead guitar.” Well, I’ve got to introduce myself some way, haven’t I? 

One thing about us Beatles is that we’re just as nutty now as we ever were. Our chart success hasn’t changed us, thank goodness. I remember the first time I ever met Paul was on the bus home from school. He was sitting laughing to himself. I thought, “We’ve a right case here,” and then I realised he could see his own reflection in the window. Well, I thought, that explains it!

John, I recall, was eating fish and chips, but his hair being so long kept getting in the way! Ringo, who I met in a club, looked moody. Then when we started talking he explained he’d been talking hard and the effort was too much for him. He can’t help it, poor lad.

I was never officially introduced to myself. In accordance with the natural custom I was born, at the time being fairly small (about twenty inches long). My mother insists that I was brought into the world singing and playing a guitar, but I think she’s joking.

Keep reading

John & Paul

I just love hearing Paul sing Oh Johnny Johnny over and over and over again

So I just spent the last 4 hours painstakingly updating the lyrics to I don’t know (Johnny Johnny).

I only subbed what I could confidently hear and what I thought was really accurate. Please do enjoy :)

Also I have no idea if this is gonna get removed by tumblr or something but it’s worth a shot 🤷🏻‍♀️

54 years ago…It was Mad fucking Day Out for The Beatles

I like when Mimi stands up for John

‘“It makes me livid when people make snide remarks about John’s millions and ask what he ever did for Liverpool,” Mimi blasts. “To set the record straight, he gave away one-tenth of his income every year secretly to a charity for spastic children. He didn’t make a big fanfare about it. It was just something he wanted to do without a fuss. If people have the chance to make money, they would be mad not to. The secret is to make sure it doesn’t ruin your life and make you swollen headed. John still cared deeply about people and about the world. In his last letter to me, there was one paragraph that summed it all up. It read, ‘so many people are dying so young from getting cancer or some other such horror. I count my blessings, Mimi. Believe me.’ Sometimes it worried me that he cared so deeply about things.”’

- Aunt Mimi Smith on John Lennon (c. Feb. 5th 1981), from The Dream Is Over: Off The Record 2 by Keith Badman (pg. 288)

Note: While I think we all can recognise both the good and the bad side to john in the beatles fandom - I think theres a lot of sort of “outsiders” who’ll see Johns peace movements and charity work as a solely public facade. And yeah, it partly was and we’d be naive to say otherwise - but I still think there was something genuine about that image; and stories like this are evidence of that.

On September 19, 1964, Paul McCartney, along with his fellow Beatles, found themselves on a much-needed respite from the whirlwind of Beatlemania in Alton, Missouri. In the midst of their first American tour, the group spent a rare moment of downtime, taking in the country life and seeking solace in the tranquil setting of rural Missouri. McCartney, ever the charming and approachable star, was seen indulging in a bit of fishing—a simple pleasure far removed from the screams of adoring fans and the hectic tour schedule. This moment of calm in Alton stood in stark contrast to the intense public scrutiny and pressure that had followed The Beatles across the globe. The experience of living through such a frenzy made these fleeting moments of peace all the more valuable. It is often said that the chaos of the early years was a driving force behind McCartney’s continued creativity, inspiring some of the most iconic music of his career. As The Beatles' legacy continues to resonate across generations, the image of a young McCartney, quietly fishing in a Missouri stream, offers a rare glimpse into the life of one of the most influential musicians of all time, outside the glitzy stage lights. His personal connection to moments like these, though rarely spotlighted, showcases a more grounded, human side of a legendary figure who still holds a place in music history.

Happy Birthday Ringo

When we got off the plane at some airport or another, Ed got off a plane there around the same time having never heard of us and not knowing anything about us. But he knew about thousands of kids standing on a roof screaming at us, and so he just booked us. Or maybe it was his assistant. We could have come to America and not made a big splash, but thanks to Murray The K and Cousin Brucie and early Beatles believers like that, they played our damn record and we had a #1 when we landed. Honestly, I don’t remember any big conversations with Ed. And in my eyes, the funny thing is that for all that, Ed kind of threw us away when he introduced us. It was just like, “Here they are…the Beatles.” NOT a lot of hype when you think back on it now. But for a pretty stiff guy, Ed sure gave us a very big shot.

-Ringo Starr (Lifted)

I agree with this except I think it is very likely there was a physical relationship, although who can say. Well I wish someone could say. But I know it's none of my business. But still ...

Discussing McLennon's opponents arguments

Disclaimer: By writing McLennon in the title of this post, I made a simplification. I understand "believing in McLennon" as believing, or even contemplating / leaving a window to the possibility that John and Paul's relationship was not purely platonic. This includes variations: that John was unhappily in love with Paul, that they were secret lovers, and - most likely in my opinion - that their feelings for each other were (at least in part) romantic, but they didn't do anything about it. Often, especially in general (non-Mclennon) Beatles groups, I am faced with disbelief or even outright dislike when someone starts this topic. Today I will try to look at what the opponents of our thesis say.

"You're just sexualizing everything! There may be a close friendship between men" (in a more ridiculous and nasty version that I saw in the comment on YT: "Only women and gays believe in McLennon because straight men know that there can be close friendship between men") Well, we start with a difficult topic. There are two different harmful points of view in society. The first is amatonormativity, according to which the only important relationship in a person's life is a romantic one, and friendships are less important. In this context, our critics might be right. BUT! There is also another harmful mechanism that must not be forgotten - homophobia. According to it, being an LGBTQ person is something wrong and a disgrace. Therefore, we cannot think of our idols (e.g., musical idols) as having (or contemplating) romantic and / or sexual relationships/feelings with people of the same sex. Homophobia permeates society as a whole, including historians who often interpreted two men who were close to each other as "just friends" (for example, Alexander the Great and Hephaestion). We are dealing with the same at McLennon. So we should be prudent and, where possible, fair when trying to judge any relationship considering the existence of both homophobia and amatonormativity.

"Who cares? What does it change if these two guys were in love?" Well, it changes a lot. If we accept that Lennon and McCartney were in love, we adopt a slightly different view of the breakup of the Beatles. That would explain (at least to some degree) why John was so ostentatious about his relationship with Yoko, why they got married just eight days after Paul, why he disliked Linda so much, and, most of all, why he attacked Paul so fiercely in 1970 and 1971. Of course, anger, jealousy, greed and insecurity can cause different behaviors (e.g. Gilmour and Waters fighting), but John and Paul fought each other like lovers. They wrote songs for themselves. In one of them, Paul, wanting to ease the battle, writes: "I'm in love with a friend of mine." Why? And why, for instance, does Lennon mention fucking McCartney in 1970s interviews? Broadening your horizon and accepting that the two guys had a romantic friendship would help with the analysis. Isn't that what being a historian/scholar is all about?

"It's impossible because they were both straight" This is something I wrote about above - plugging your ears and shouting: "Lalalala, my idol can't be gay!". Even if you don't think it is likely that two people had a non-platonic relationship, please be at least open to that eventuality. As for John not being straight - I'm preparing a masterpost on it, which will be released this month. Of course, I'll link it here later. As for Paul, the case is more difficult. I think I'll also make a post about it. I suspect (and would like to emphasize that this is only my interpretation, which may not be true) that Paul has been and is attracted to women all his life, and that the only man Paul has looked at romantically is John. It's like in this meme: "I'm straight but John Lennon is John Lennon" :D

"How can you discuss this? Isn't that interfering with their private lives?" Firstly: In my opinion, we can discuss the private life of celebrities, especially if they themselves decide to share it with us. John, Paul and those around them have largely decided to do so. Anyway, people have always analyzed the private life of the Beatels. Here, for example, we see a girl asking Paul in 1964 about his relationship with Jane Asher. And the most important thing: I've noticed that McLennon's opponents are quite okay with analyzing the private lives of the Beatles until the topic of homosexuality / bisexuality comes up. Only then do they say: "Leave them, it's their business!", not before. Do you know what it's called? Queerphobia. Secondly: Just read this post. That's all for now. What do you think? Feel free to comment.

It’s such a feelin’ that my love                                   I can’t hide…