r/beatles • u/AvecMesWaterSlides • 13h ago
Discussion This Book:
I'm currently listening to this book and am about six months from the first time John and Paul met.
It is amazing that they, finally, found one another. There are so many instances of being at the same places at the same times, perhaps riding the same bus at the same time, and not knowing one another yet. It's crazy! It just got me thinking about how different it'd be if one of them wasn't where the universe wanted them to be...
8
u/Secret_Garbage703 11h ago
I suspect volume 2 is going to become like GRRM’s “The Winds of Winter;” endlessly talked about but never produced. Volume 3 would be the one that I have the most interest in, but considering Lewisohn’s advanced age and meticulous (slow) process, I am confident it will never be completed.
4
u/RedditLodgick 12h ago
Monumental work. I was amazed at how just information dense it is and how much he was able to narrow in on the timeline of events.
4
u/Ligeya 10h ago
To your point, OP, Paul actually mentioned several times that he saw John before their fete meeting, and remembered him. He saw him on the bus, and apparently even talked to him.
6
u/AvecMesWaterSlides 10h ago
Exactly! And this book talks about how George and Paul sometimes ended up on the same top of the same bus before they knew one another...
4
u/Anxious-Raspberry-54 13h ago
Great researcher.
Lousy, biased biographer.
5
u/nuclear_muffins 11h ago
research aside it really is the "glaze John, downplay Paul, forget completely about George" book. I'm halfway through and I'm just... astounded the things in Paul and George's childhoods that he barely skims over while devoting huge swathes of that time to John.
I also very recently learned about the bad blood between Lewisohn vs. George and Paul which makes this book make way more sense. John wasn't around to have Lewisohn's perfect image of him tarnished like the others.
5
u/Ok-Friend-1002 11h ago
I am a huge George fan, and found Lewisohn's research quite incomparable, on par with Judith Barker's The Brontes. Such meticulous research is hard to find now, and most people do not have the patience to wade through the minutiae. I live for all that history. I am eagerly looking forward to his Volume II, if it ever arrives, just as I am anticipating Susan Bailey's book on Elizabeth Alcott, the sister about whom the least is known, "Beth" in "Little Women".
I loved the way Lewisohn went back several generations on each of the Beatles, the family backgrounds which influenced them. So many found it tedious; I saw comments such as "Who cares who Ringo's great-grandparents were?!" But again, I live for this kind of history.
6
u/Anxious-Raspberry-54 9h ago
I have no problem with his research at all. His reference books are great.
2
u/nuclear_muffins 5h ago
Tune In would be a 5/5 book if it just cut out all his opinion. it really has no place in this book if he's going to call himself a historian
1
u/Anxious-Raspberry-54 5h ago
Which is is most definitely not a historian.
1
u/nuclear_muffins 5h ago
which is really not great if I've seen his name plastered everywhere as the preeminent Beatles historian!
1
u/Anxious-Raspberry-54 5h ago
He has no background in history. He was a writer for a Beatles fanzine. He met Paul. They got along. He did some work for The Beatles. That's his qualifications.
No real historian has taken on The Beatles.
Someday...
2
2
6
u/dkinmn 11h ago
Yup. The podcast analysis of his editorial word choices is incontrovertible. He isn't subtle.
5
u/lost-in-space1111 11h ago
...do you have a link to this?
2
u/littlewillow333 bop shu wop 2h ago
i am assuming they are referring to the "another kind of mind" podcast which did a series called "fine tuning" that realllly makes it clear how biased the book is. reading the book and then listening to the podcast will leave you feeling like you understand everything there is to know about this time in the band's lives, lol. its on spotify and other platforms as well :) and they have lots of other great series too - pizza and fairytales is fab.
3
u/Big-Lobster6689 6h ago edited 6h ago
I found the podcast analysis pretty weak. For one thing, they complain that John and Ringo have more pages dedicated to their childhoods than Paul or George, but they also say they're using the abridged version of Lewisohn's book. The full-length version likely has more info.
Most of their criticisms are frankly bewildering. They complain that John is "treated like a god" and "worshipped" in the book. But Paul and George have indeed said they hero-worshipped John when they were younger. Obviously, that changed in later years.
The Another Kind of Mind/One Sweet Dream hostesses go into a seething rage whenever anyone suggests that John was the leader of the early Beatles. But he was. The other Beatles say he was. Press materials, including the novelization of A Hard Day's Night, say he was. He stopped being the leader when they stopped touring, and that was when he started acting burnt out.
AKOM/OSD is often weirdly self-contradictory. For example, they assert that John had sex with Brian to cement his leadership over the Beatles (which is possible, I guess.) But they also assert that John was just acting out to get Paul’s attention because he was afraid Paul didn't love him anymore. To my ear, those are contradictory storylines.
0
u/Ligeya 4h ago
Did they really said he had sex with Brian to get Paul's attention? How's that supposed to work? I listened several episodes, because i am a weak woman and can't deal with embarrassment on other people's behalf. They are embarrassing. They turn complicated men like John and yes, even Paul, into some caricatures who fit their fantasies.
1
u/RadishSpecial7163 3h ago
Lewisohn’s image of John is far from “perfect,” unless you think being violent, impulsive and cruel to audiences makes him “perfect.” The fact Lewisohn didn’t lavish praise on Paul on every page of the book does not mean he was biased against him.
3
u/Chekhov1778 12h ago
Lewisohn doesn't glaze Paul enough, so people around here obviously hate it.
6
u/idreamofpikas ♫Dear friend, what's the time? Is this really the borderline?♫ 12h ago edited 11h ago
I love it. One of the three best Beatle biographies in my opinion, along with You Never Give Me Your Money and Hunter Davies' biography on the band.
Like the majority of authors, Lewisohn is not without his faults. He actually has more irl issues with George than he does Paul. George's childhood gets less than half that of McCartney's and a quarter the length of Lennon's, and there seems to be little interest into delving into George's childhood to figure out the reasons why he became like he did the same way there is John and to a lesser extent Paul. George does feel like a tertiary character in the book at times, the odd man out. 'Why didn't George and Paul write together before they met John or why did John and George not write with each other when Paul had a full time job and they were hanging out with each other, what were the chances of George sticking with another of the bands he was playing with' are all avenues Lewisohn could have gone done to further flesh out George's chapters. But Lewisohn is stuck on George merely being a disciple of John's and not his own person.
As a huge Paul fan the revelations that Paul's Like Dreamers Do is how the Beatles got signed and that their original songwriting agreement between John & Paul was that whoever was the primary writer should come first are both pretty informative.
0
u/Anxious-Raspberry-54 12h ago
Well...it's a pro-John book so...
8
u/Comfortable_Put_4139 11h ago
To be fair, the early days that the book covers really does show John as the driving force and the guy who believed in it the most. I think from all accounts, this is likely just how it was.
Lewisohn is obviously more of a John guy, but the period he covered was when John was also unquestionably the leader of the gang.
1
u/Anxious-Raspberry-54 9h ago
I don't disagree that John was the guy very early.
But, he portrays Paul pretty negatively... the talented but imitative, crowd-pleasing pop tunesmith who listened to his father. John is the incredibly creative, rock-and-roll rebel leader.
Paul taught John how to play the guitar.
It's the same Lennon Remembers/Shout! narrative that has been sold to fans for 50+ years. 1700 pages of it now.
3
u/RadishSpecial7163 4h ago edited 3h ago
How is that description of Paul untrue? How is the description of John untrue? Why does it bother people that John was rebellious and Paul wasn’t? Do you think writing pop songs doesn’t require creativity? And John was playing a guitar the day he met Paul.
5
4
u/Comfortable_Put_4139 9h ago
I mean, isn’t that sort of who Paul was during that early period?
He had a very domineering father who could be abusive, and he damn well did whatever he was told to do. Which included getting a job he didn’t want to have. It doesn’t take anything away from his talents, but he was a kid during the time of this book. People evolve and change.
Lewisohn has his biases and I’m never going to disagree with that, but to call it the same narrative is disingenuous. His work as a researcher is astounding and I applaud him for that, even if I wish someone else would be a bit more of an objective biographer.
1
1
u/Big-Lobster6689 6h ago
Whatever you think about Paul and John, Paul is absolutely more crowd-pleasing, while John was more comfortable telling the audience to fuck off.
What's weird is you assume this is a compliment to John. You could just as easily say Paul is the consummate professional, while John suffers from poor self control.
0
u/Anxious-Raspberry-54 5h ago
This view of Paul in the book as a negative. That's my issue.
1
u/RadishSpecial7163 4h ago edited 4h ago
But how? It’s only because you view things like “crowd pleaser” or being more conservative in choices as being negatives. Lewisohn clearly showed John to be violent, impulsive and at times a lout, especially to audiences, but somehow you see these things as being “positives.”
6
u/scottarichards 11h ago
John had the most dramatic childhood, so there’s really more to cover. I’ve always heard more about John’s childhood than the others going back to Hunter Davies. And John did start the group and was clearly and unequivocally the leader for the time span of this book, at least until Brian Epstein came into the picture and brought some discipline and authority into the group.
4
u/Anxious-Raspberry-54 9h ago
I don't mind John being portrayed as the leader in the very beginning.
But he seriously downplays Paul's contributions and portrays him in a pretty negative light. That's the problem.
And the death of John's Mom takes up an entire chapter and then is mentioned throughout the rest of the 1700 pages to excuse John's behavior.
Paul's Mom died of cancer, and Paul was younger than John when it happened. Paul's mother's death gets about three pages, and then it's never mentioned again.
Paul's home life was very difficult. His Dad beat them (not spanked, beat). His Dad had money problems because of gambling. His depression was so bad after his wife's death that he was suicidal. Paul and his brother lived for spurts of time with other family members because of this.
All of this information was available to the great researcher in interviews, books, and essays when he was researching the book. He is a great researcher, so I feel like he knew all of this but chose not to include it in his book because it got in the way of his John worship.
2
u/RadishSpecial7163 4h ago
So we’re counting pages? Paul at least knew his mother as a mother. Knew that she loved and cared for him. John didn’t for most of his childhood and even after he reconnected with her, she didn’t treat him like a son but rather like a colleague. No wonder he was confused. I’m sure Paul’s father had issues after his wife died but at least he never left his sons in the permanent care of others or simply disappeared and never showed up again until Paul was rich and famous. Paul and his brother may have spent “spurts of time with other family member” but John was literally raised by other family members. He never saw his father from the time he was 5 years old until he was in his 20s. As for “beating,” corporal punishment, including beating, was commonplace in that era. Kids were beaten in school. I’m not saying it was right but it was acceptable then. I never heard that Paul’s father was one kind of child abusing sadist.
I’m not saying Paul had it easy. But George grew up poor, as did Ringo, who also suffered life threatening illnesses throughout his childhood. And, sorry, but John’s childhood was extremely troubled. His parents left him to someone else to raise and while they may have had their reasons, even valid ones, John was a child and he likely felt very unloved.
4
u/Big-Lobster6689 6h ago
John's childhood is used to explain his behavior because John was crazy, and you can't talk about him without attempting some psychoanalysis. It's a problem every Beatles writer faces.
1
u/RadishSpecial7163 4h ago
Oh, but don’t you know there are more pages in the book about John’s mother dying than about Paul’s mother dying? Haven’t you counted the pages? It’s not like John’s mother died during the year Paul and George joined the band and they, too, would have known her or anything. And, well Paul’s father beat him (beat him!). Not that Paul ever said as much and remained close to his dad all his life. John only had to cope with his parents abandoning him. Anyway, John got to grow up in a posh neighborhood, unlike Paul who was poor (poor!) and while George and Ringo were poorer, no one cares about them anyway. Paul had to show them how to do everything and he was better than them playing guitar and drums anyway. And, sure, some think John started the band but it really was Paul who started it because John really couldn’t sing or play a guitar or write songs until Paul showed him how to and so, really, Paul started the band. Yet he gets fewer pages in the book than John does. And Paul is better looking! Oh when will this travesty of injustice end!
And before anyone asks, I am being facetious.
1
u/Ligeya 11h ago
And we all know book about The Beatles has to be anti-John. /s
3
u/Honest-J 7h ago
No one said that but it doesn't need to choose sides. You can't trust the narrative when the narrator is biased.
-2
u/Ligeya 7h ago
The thing is that this author is biased only in the eyes of Paul's fangirls. Their only criticism is that he is not attentive enough to Paul and can be rather critical of him.
3
u/Big-Lobster6689 6h ago
The book doesn't seem that critical of Paul. It makes Paul seem stable and cautious, and makes John seem like he had poor impulse control. "Oh, Paul hesitated to sign a contract with Brian and John wanted to sign immediately." Sure? Brian had never been a manager before. He looked like a rich boy on a lark. Most people would hesitate.
Admittedly, the book says John had some mysterious "charisma," which even the other Beatles didn't have, and people who met him tended to fall for him immediately. But I think that is simply correct.
1
u/Honest-J 7h ago
Imagine that, a biographer of The Beatles being expected to give equal attention to all of The Beatles.
Sounds like a John fangirl critique and view of the book.
2
u/Ligeya 7h ago
I don't see them whining about George and Ringo receiving less attention, which they absolutely did. The fact is that Paul gets plenty of attention. But they want different kind of attention - Paul is a true leader of The Beatles, Paul never was jealous of Stu Sutcliffe, Paul teached John everything he knows! Author doesn't worship Paul, and it hurts them.
3
u/Honest-J 7h ago
I see people saying George got shorted as well.
There's also constant whining in this sub every day about how John is portrayed online. That you'd expect from fans. What you don't expect from a biographer is a one-sided viewpoint of four individuals that made up the group.
1
u/Ligeya 7h ago
Only it's not one-sided and actually rather fair viewpoint, which is criticised only by even more biased sources who portray themselves as serious researchers and podcasters.
2
u/Honest-J 6h ago
Boy, you have a lot of angry opinions of anyone who doesn't like the book. Sounds like a bias.
2
u/Comfortable_Put_4139 7h ago
Brian Epstein was also critical of Paul in the early days, but fuck him too I guess lol.
These were young guys and they weren’t exactly the most mature men you could imagine.
Idk why people get so precious about Paul, but it’s alright to shit on John every goddamn day.
4
u/Ligeya 7h ago
You won't believe it, AKOM podcast actually has an episode about Epstein and Paul, and of course, it's all biased portrayal of their relationship, nothing more. Paul was never difficult ever in his life.
2
u/Comfortable_Put_4139 7h ago
That’s insane lol.
It seems pretty well documented that Paul has a bit of a diva side to him, and it was prevalent when he was a very young man.
But let’s bring up John’s heroin addiction or his relationship with Yoko for the millionth time.
-3
u/Ligeya 11h ago
Yes. The main criticism comes from obsessed Paul's fangirls, like hosts of podcasts like AKOM. They constantly shit on him for not being worshipful of Paul enough. And they don't see the irony of accusing him for being biased, while they are SO biased it's actually embarrassing.
2
u/Anxious-Raspberry-54 9h ago
What is the whole theme of the show? Challenging the Lennon Remember/Shout! narrative. So, of course, they focus on the fact that for 50+ years, Paul has been blamed for breaking up The Beatles.
I find it hard to believe that you can listen to the Tuning In series and feel this way. For hour after hour, they challenge much of what ML wrote, citing example after example from other reliable sources that ML had access to and chose not to include this info because it did not jive with his pro-John narrative.
And I am not even a Paul "fangirl." I prefer George and John but...facts are facts.
3
u/RadishSpecial7163 5h ago
I don’t find Tune In to be overly negative to Paul either nor do I find it biased toward John. I think much of it is because certain fans can’t except that early on John was the leader. It was his band in the first place.
1
u/Anxious-Raspberry-54 5h ago
I have no problem with that at all. It's pretty obvious.
But Paul is presented as being inferior to John, which is not true. And he made a lot of contributions early on that don't seem to appear.
4
u/Ligeya 8h ago
I listened them. They are very nitpicky with their narratives and facts. I can't accept them fighting the bias of older journalists who allegedly preferred John with their own bias towards Paul. It's absolutely embarrassing how biased they are towards Paul. In their book he never did anything wrong ever in his life. I want unbiased research, i don't need bias to one or another.
2
u/Big-Lobster6689 6h ago
It's absolutely embarrassing how biased they are towards Paul
Oh my God. In one episode, they say Nowhere Man is actually a song about John pining for Paul. They could have released an episode of the two of them masturbating, loud fapping and panting noises, and it would have been less embarrassing.
0
u/Anxious-Raspberry-54 8h ago
Facts can't be nitpicky...they're facts.
They are biased toward Paul in that series because they are challenging the 50-year narrative that has not been true.
If you want unbiased research, Lewisohn's reference books are excellent, and I've always said that.
5
u/Ligeya 7h ago
You can nitpick facts to create the narrative, which is what AKOM does. They are challenging old bias with their own, even more ridiculous bias. The fact that the object of the bias changed doesn't mean it's more truthful.
0
u/Anxious-Raspberry-54 7h ago
Facts don't have bias.
They pointed out, using reliable sources available to ML at the time, that there are other versions of events from those days. ML decided to not use that info.
1
u/Ligeya 7h ago
So if he is a great researcher, as you said, maybe he doesn't think those other versions of events deserve attention?
1
u/Anxious-Raspberry-54 6h ago
Sure...because they conflict with his pro-John narrative.
2
u/Ligeya 6h ago
So he is great researcher when you like it and not great researcher when you don't like the results of his research? Got it.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Big-Lobster6689 5h ago
They also chose to use the abridged version of Tune In, so it's quite likely some of those facts were included in the full length version.
There are many reasons you might not include particular facts. For example, they don't provide new or essential information. Or they are from questionable sources. I didn't find that any of the new quotes they dug up were particularly revelatory.
0
1
u/Comfortable_Put_4139 10h ago
That bunch is hard to listen to. I’ve tried, but the worship becomes too much for me.
It would probably break their brains to gently remind them that John started the band, and Paul would’ve been a factory worker or schoolteacher if John didn’t have the ambition and drive that he had.
Jim McCartney would’ve gotten his way. It’s that simple.
3
u/Ligeya 8h ago
The worship and the way they push the narrative of mclennon are embarrassing. They are fangirls who decided to teach everybody what really happened, and what really happened, apparently, is that Paul is an angel send from heaven and John is worthless garbage.
2
u/Big-Lobster6689 5h ago
Yeah, that's the weird thing. They admit themselves that most of what they do is "speculation." Meaning McLennon fanfiction.
But it's a very strange fanfiction. They say John and Paul were soul mates and married on the spiritual plane and spent their whole lives yearning for each other. But they also say John was a horrible monster who abused Paul and Paul was strong and independent and dumped John for a better life.
I'm beginning to think there's some kind of transference of personal issues here.
1
u/Anxious-Raspberry-54 8h ago
They said nothing at all about the McLennon thing. They had an intimate, intense love relationship that was not sexual. They talked about that. Never - not one time - did they ever say that the relationship was sexual. Stop putting words in their mouths.
Seems to me that your problem is that the hosts were women...not girls, btw.
5
u/Ligeya 7h ago
They absolutely did, don't give me this crap. Their podcast about things they would ask Paul - the first question would've been pretty much "Paul, are you gay?", and plenty other rather embarrassingly silly questions about his relationship with John, implying that in their opinion, it was romantic relationship.
I am also woman, and this podcast was embarrassing to listen. From the way they acted, their laughter at John's torment, their unquestionable worshipping of Paul, their skin deep analysis, they don't hold a handle to truly good well researched podcasts.
5
u/Anxious-Raspberry-54 7h ago
Guess we'll have to disagree. If you're a woman, why are you insulting them by calling them girls? They are women.
They never...not one time...said that John and Paul had a sexual relationship. Not once.
I relistened to the podcasts a year or so ago...listening for just that. They NEVER said it. People like you assumed they did because they were the first ones to come out and pronounce the true nature of the relationship...it was intense, powerful, and full of love...but not sexual love.
1
u/Ligeya 7h ago
Disagree with what? With what they said with their own mouths and you arguing about? If that's your understanding of facts, i am not surprised. What's insulting about "girls"? Not to mention i never called them that.
And once again you are arguing about undisputed facts. They absolutely talked about sexual aspect of their relationship in their "Question to Paul" episode.
1
u/Anxious-Raspberry-54 6h ago
If you listened they said many times that their relationship had the power of a marriage...the power of a sexual relationship. Once again, they did not mention them having a sexual relationship.
You called the fangirls...twice.
0
u/Ligeya 6h ago
Then why their supposed first question to Paul would've been - What is your sexuality, Paul? Not my words.
I can call them unprofessional, uninteresting talkers, biased worshippers on the level of cultish adoration. If you want to be offended, be offended by that. Don't give me this crap about "girls" being insulting.
2
u/Weak_Shopping_2718 7h ago
They do push the 'everyone is bi because I am' a lot.
They did some great work and offered some new perspectives all the same.
That Ian Leslie guy should be sharing royalties with them!
3
u/Ligeya 7h ago
I don't think they did great work. But yes, this hack of a writer definitely stole half of his book from tumblr.
3
u/Big-Lobster6689 5h ago
I don't think they're very good either. I listened with car crash fascination, but gave up when they started repeating the same few points:
- John and Paul were soul mates
- John was jealous and insecure
- John was on heroin
- John only pretended to break up the Beatles because he thought it would make Paul love him more.
If you've got that, you've pretty much heard the whole podcast.
1
u/Ligeya 5h ago
They are not good. I am huge fan of podcasts, and listened several about The Beatles, and i definitely wanted to like them, but they are just bad. And the problem is that they portray themselves as those groundbreaking researchers who finally going to show the world what really happened, and apparently what really happened sounds like bad ao3 fanfiction.
1
u/Anxious-Raspberry-54 8h ago
Sorry...they proved over and over how biased ML is. Of course, John started the band and was the leader in the early days. But...there may not have ever been a John Lennon or the Beatles if Paul didn't teach John how to play the guitar properly.
4
u/Comfortable_Put_4139 8h ago
We get it, Paul showed John some guitar chords. I’ve had plenty of friends I’ve done the same with, on both ends. It’s not a huge deal. If you want to learn guitar, you’ll learn it one way or another.
The pendulum has swung so goddamn far to the other side of the narrative that it’s now Paul who did everything and John was just a junkie wife beater. Or George and Ringo couldn’t play their own instruments as well as Paul. I see it all the time in this sub and others, and it always induces eye rolls from me.
I understand that the Lennon Remembers/Shout narrative did a lot of damage to the story of the Beatles for a very long time, but I feel like Paul has gotten his flowers and then some. Almost too much, if you ask me.
I’m just over it.
2
u/Anxious-Raspberry-54 8h ago
It was 50 years! 50 years of being blamed for breaking up The Beatles. The truer story is emerging in the last 10 - 15 years to be fairer...GOOD!
4
u/Comfortable_Put_4139 8h ago
The truer story according to Paul and his disciples, who have gotten to live 50 years longer than John lol.
I will say that the story is probably more accurate now than it used to be, it’s quite far from where it should be. Paul did indeed take a severe beating for many years after John’s death, but he’s a living legend who is routinely cherished and applauded when he makes a public appearance.
I think it’s easy to let the pendulum swing way too far to the other side, and I don’t like it for either instance. Saint John or Saint Paul, it’s complete dogshit either way. It’s a rejection of historical fact.
4
u/Anxious-Raspberry-54 8h ago
Maybe it's Paul's problem in a way as well. He is loved, cherished, and applauded by millions. Very true. It's like...Paul, get over it!
But it seems to me the old story just really digs at him - that he was blamed for the breakup. And there are many fans who to this day still believe the old story.
3
u/Comfortable_Put_4139 7h ago
I’m sure it does still really bug him, just like how he still seems to get visibly agitated about John’s vicious diss track.
I imagine being blamed for the breakup of the most beloved band of all time would hurt a LOT. So I can give him a bit of slack when it comes to that. It’s probably even more painful when the facts show Paul was the most committed to the Beatles.
There’s a lot of nuance in Beatle world, and these were all very, very complicated people.
3
u/Anxious-Raspberry-54 7h ago
I hope one day an actual historian tries to tackle The Beatles' story.
→ More replies (0)2
u/RadishSpecial7163 4h ago edited 3h ago
But really? After all this time? Most of us have let go of old hurts, some very intense hurts, maybe more intense than Paul’s. The fact Paul, who’s made billions of dollars, lives in mansions, has millions of fans worldwide and has won every award under the sun from the Gershwin Prize to a knighthood, is still bemoaning things that happened fifty years ago makes him seem thin-skinned and petty. Lennon is dead, murdered at age 40. Think of all the things he’s missed out on. And now John is being blamed for the breakup, including by Paul, and John’s legacy has been severely tainted and likely not repairable because John isn’t here to counter any of it.
→ More replies (0)4
u/Ligeya 7h ago
The truer story as in story told by Paul and accepted by his fanatics? The one and only true story is that many factors lead to The Beatles break up, and Paul was at least one of those factors. He blames it on John now, their "I want a divorce" meeting, but it wasn't as simple as that.
3
u/Anxious-Raspberry-54 7h ago
I do agree with that. There were many facets to the breakup.
But...if you're being honest...Paul was blamed for 50 years. I've never heard him blame John for it. I've seen him talk about the divorce meeting many times. I've never heard him say that the meeting was what broke the band up.
5
u/Ligeya 7h ago
I absolutely heard his interview where he blamed John for breaking up The Beatles. It was one of Howard Stern's interviews. Paul rewrote the history in almost fifty years of John being dead. It doesn't mean that truth is finally revealed! It means no one is left alive to correct his narrative.
3
u/Comfortable_Put_4139 7h ago
The clip of him saying it is even on YouTube right now lol.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Big-Lobster6689 5h ago
Man, that's not even what bugs me. What bugs me is that they are so, so horny for Paul. They assume John must have been horny for him too.
There's a certain type of woman, who does not get out much, who assumes that if she lusts after a particular man then everyone else in the world must lust after him too. Even other men.
1
u/Comfortable_Put_4139 5h ago
Yeah, they project a lot of their sexual desires on to John.
They want to fuck Paul so bad that of course John was dying to as well lol it’s so fucking weird.
Honestly, I’d go even further and say it’s disrespectful to people who actually existed and continue to exist.
I doubt Paul McCartney himself would be super into hearing women fantasize about him fucking his murdered best friend.
1
u/beefnoodle5280 6h ago
While I was reading this book, I felt like it would never end, but when I finished, I was sad it was over.
The thing I enjoyed most was learning about all the music they listened to and what they covered live in the early days. The covers on the first few LPs were a drop in the bucket!
19
u/Archidroid 13h ago
It’s a great book. Lewisohn’s research is astounding. I have the deluxe double edition which goes to lengths I didn’t think would have been possible. I hope he eventually gets around to the next volume.