DM's Beatles forums
Beatles forums => The Beatles => Topic started by: Kevin on June 11, 2007, 01:38:31 PM
-
Ever since I read my first Beatle book I was led to believe that John and paul were exceptionally close, "brothers" and "soul mates" with a relationship that was only dissolved (and temporaraly some believe) by the inevitable break up of the band.
But it is clear that in the Hamburg days John's one real close relationship was with Stuart. They seem to have bonded in a way he never did with Paul.
In the maelstrom that was Beatlemania (like that?) all four were thrown together in an unreal situation that can never reflect how they really felt or have given them time for any meaningful outside relationships.
But the moment it ended John was off looking for his soulmate and found it (unfortunately) in Yoko.
Soon they (J&P) were in open conflict and John had nothing but contempt and disdain for Paul.
As soon as they didn't The Beatles it seems they didn't need each other (friendship wise)
Some say they reconciled, but I don't think there was ever a relationship of any depth in the first place.
I now think that competition, rivalry (and maybe jealosy) weren't just sidelines of their relationship but by far the main factor.
Not all John's fault. He obviously needed a soulmate, and found it in Stu and then Yoko. Paul, from what I've read, is a distant hard-to-know kind of guy who probably didn't need one, despite what people think of his relationship with Linda. (the undue haste with which he was able to shack up with someone else so soon after her death.)
Any thoughts?
-
From the books I have read (particularly Lennon biographies), it definately suggested a real depth of John and Stu's friendship which I don't believe Paul could match. They may have known each other extremely well from being in such close contact for so long, and both living in the imprisoning circumstances of beatlemania, but this doesn't mean they emotionaly connected in a big way. I agree with Kevin, and would say they never did connect emotionally to a great extent. Or maybe they did, but never achieved anything as strong as John and Stu's friendship which was something extremely unique. But then as I always say, it's hard to know or speculate having only been able to draw conclusions from books and TV footage. George said a good quote once abot History and how it is just compromised facts and often doesn't hold the absolute truth. Wise man- wish i could find that quote But luckily for us, theres so many Beatle-related sources and resources that we can get a pretty accurate overview!
-
I read somewhere on the net that "J & P were not as close as it seemed in public. On tours, John was George's room mate, and Paul was Ringo's room mate."
There are not so many songs written together by J & P (O.K., the songs are recorded together, the signature is Lennon - McCartney, but we all know who wrote which song.) Two of Us, for example, is "written by Paul and sung as a duet with John" (the Anthology booklet). The part in John's "A Day In The Life" where Paul sings - was ment to be for some other song...
John once said that he would NEVER write the song "When I'm Sixty Four" ("That's Paul completely.") Different points of view... Two strong personalities....
BUT... "He (John) performed it (song Julia) solo but was bolstered in his endeavours by Paul, up in the studio two control room, cummunicating with him by way of the talkback keys." (Antology 3 booklet). Paul wrote Hey Jude for Julian...
After the breakup, Paul send some messages thru his "RAM" to John. John answered with a song "How do you sleep": The only thing you've done was Yesterday... A pretty faceman might last year or two - but pretty soon we'll see what you can do..." In 1974. they performed together in studio (John was recording R'N'R and they sang Stand by Me together).
Here's the proof to the saying that there is very little difference between love and hate...
Paul once said, that they talked on the phone during the last year of John's life....
John in one of his interviews said about the time before the Beatles: "George came later; but my partner that I picked was Paul..."
-
John was sometimes angry if Paul's song ended on the A side... (I think that was the thing with Hey Jude / Revolution).
I think that John marked "Hey Jude" as Paul's best song.
And for Sgt. Pepper, John: "It was Paul's idea. MY song could be on any other album - A DAy In The Life, Mr. Kite..."
-
I don't think John and Paul were soul mates , i think they liked each other and respected each other deep down , but maybe if it had'nt been for The Beatles they might have just been acquaintance's in real life .
Paul was much closer to George .
I used to go along with the John was the hard one and Paul was the soft one ,but as time's gone on i think , maybe Paul was the hard one, and it's John who was the more gentel out of the two , think maybe a lot of us got that wrong ?
What i do think is both were closer to the women in their lives .
I suppose because of the music they were bound together like Siamese Twins , but i suspect when The Beatles split their was a sense of relief ,that they could both get on with their separate lives.
I see their relationship more like work college's than bosom buddie's.
Interesting topic for discussion, will be interested to read other people's take on this . :)
DaveRam :)
-
Wow, seriously cool discussion. :)
The way that I've view this story, John and Paul really bonded after John's mother was killed. That gave them a "we don't have a mum" thing in common. So I believe that was a point of genuine closeness. John was big into acting out at that time, but I think they were both wildly suppressing their emotions about this, albeit in different ways. It must've been a relief just to be around someone who understood.
That said, I believe that John's relationship to Paul has always been primarily a working one. With Stu and Yoko both, John admired their artistry. With Paul, it was more like "let's write some songs". They did take that trip to Paris together, showing some initial friendliness. Still, I think it was friendly in the context of songwriting and playing. When their songwriting began to take different directions, they discovered that they didn't have all that much in common. John was arty and rebellious, Paul was smooth and trendy.
Having said that, I really do think these guys were very much alike in their basic attitudes and views. They all honestly believed in hard work, peace, love, mind expansion, bucking the trends, pushing the creative envelope, love of nature, and of course music. We get fine distinctions; John said that he and George both preferred more underground music, whereas Paul preferred more pop. I think the frustration that they felt with each other was the frustration of people who were so very close on so many things, but cannot come to a final agreement. With somebody that you know so well, this must drive you wild after time.
a distant hard-to-know kind of guy who probably didn't need one, despite what people think of his relationship with Linda. (the undue haste with which he was able to shack up with someone else so soon after her death.)
Aw, I'm willing to give Paul a pass on this re-marriage business. People who have had a successful marriage sometimes don't realize their good fortune. They naively think that the next marriage will be good, because the first one was so good! Bitter experience proves them otherwise. There are some people who are the "marrying kind", and I think Paul is one of these. He always wanted to have a long-term relationship going on. I hope he's able to discover a worthy partner in the future.
as time's gone on i think, maybe Paul was the hard one, and it's John who was the more gentel out of the two , think maybe a lot of us got that wrong ?
Nice way of putting it, DaveRam! Paul has got iron self-control. John's control was... not so iron. ;D So in lots of ways Paul was strong where John was weak. As for the rest, I think we're on the same wavelength. Cheers.
-
I don't think you can ....ummm.. how do i want to say this....you can't put an oppion or view from reading a book.. the only people who were in a room when it was one on one with them was them (john and paul).... they were what they were, sadly you can't change that now... i feel that they did love each other...they had a feud and i feel that it would have been resovled if john was still alive...
i also think... that you don't write music like that and hate the other person your writing with...it just isn't possible...
look at the way paul acts when he talks about john he deeply deeply cared for him...he still does...and i think deeper deeper down john felt the same for paul...but it was john... so ... he couldn't exactly so it the same way....
*****oh i just wanted to add.... i don't think john was the soft one... if john was the soft one he wouldn't treat is kids the way he did.... john always was peace and love but he never showed it in his own family... maybe it was just ressure... but paul is just a naturally sensitie guy...*****
-
I've always really marvelled at the fact that Paul and John put up with each other for as long as they did - they seem like complete opposites. Still, I think that creatively, they really needed each other because of their differences. They provided a balance for one another, and because of that connection, they did love and care about each other, although this was expressed in different ways because they were so different.
Because they were the two dominant forces in the band, they obviously were always in competition with one another, which was definitely off-putting to their relationship, but the fact that they were able to stay friends for so long despite this attests to the fact that they really depended on one another and trusted each other. I wouldn't call them 'soulmates' either, though. Their relationship wasn't really about friendship: it was about needing the other to make up their songwriting team. I remember reading something that Paul wrote that said that he felt that he never really met John and that he only caught glimpses of him underneath his armour, that John was always tough, tough, tough, and he never let up enough to open up to Paul. Then again, Paul wasn't the kind of person that he (being John) could open up to, for various reasons, but they kind of understood each other anyway.
I've always thought of the two closest friends in the best sense of the term in the Beatles as George and Ringo, frankly. Again, they were very different, but in this case I think both of them were willing to open up to the other and could connect better than John and Paul could.
-
I don't think you can ....ummm.. how do i want to say this....you can't put an oppion or view from reading a book.. the only people who were in a room when it was one on one with them was them (john and paul).... they were what they were, sadly you can't change that now... i feel that they did love each other...they had a feud and i feel that it would have been resovled if john was still alive...
i also think... that you don't write music like that and hate the other person your writing with...it just isn't possible...
look at the way paul acts when he talks about john he deeply deeply cared for him...he still does...and i think deeper deeper down john felt the same for paul...but it was john... so ... he couldn't exactly so it the same way....
*****oh i just wanted to add.... i don't think john was the soft one... if john was the soft one he wouldn't treat is kids the way he did.... john always was peace and love but he never showed it in his own family... maybe it was just ressure... but paul is just a naturally sensitie guy...*****
I just think thats a bit of wishful thinking that they were the greatest pals. I believe Paul only says that he and John were so close is because thats what people want to hear and Paul has always always been a people pleaser. I mean yeah they were friends but I think people think they wrote songs together and were best pals is because of the credit 'Lennon-McCartney'. To me it seems like Paul got along better with Denny Laine than he did with John. I consider the 'Lennon-McCartney' credit as the ultimate rivalry as opposed to the ultimate songwriting team. They wrote excellent songs because they wanted to outdue each other every time.
-
I think John and Paul had a quite complex relationship. They had a lot in common (as already mentioned), they shared the Quarrymen-memory and had experienced the lows of the Beatles together. It is not strange that Ringo felt he was the outsider, even up to A Hard Day's Night. John and Paul (and George) had strong bonds, and John said (read above) that he choose Paul to be his partner. And at that time certainly Paul was the most competent musician. John was the natural of The Beatles, so there's the team. It was more a songwriting team and driving force than a deep friendship, I think. They could easily be friends as long as the Beatles train kept going and I'm pretty sure that in the early days, their bonds were quite strong. But maybe that was because they shared a dream. Their competition made great songs and they accepted the competition, for they could see that I got them further.
-
I think that John and Paul were very close. Beyond the songwriting thing. The dual credit was an outward sign of the bond that began when they were teenagers. I think of them more as brothers than soul-mates. Brothers who fight, but who love each other. I don't think John felt like a brother to Stu--he looked up to him as an artist-figure/soul-mate that he couldn't match (as a painter, for instance). There might even have been some "attraction" towards Stu. I think he looked to Yoko as his missing mother--and the "genius artist" that he wasn't.
It took a brother to get through to John--Stu's got to go if we're gonna be a real band. John was used to being the leader of the band (even if the band was full of second-raters). When Paul came along, he realized that here was a guy as talented as himself. An equal. I don't think John ever had that experience again in his life. Stu was the great artist, Yoko was the great mother.
Paul was his brother.
Neither of them was completely the same after that brotherhood was broken. John was "crippled inside" with self-doubt that his equal-brother could help overcome with creative competition/cooperation. (Who wouldn't want to lay down tracks with Paul singing backup and playing bass and whatever else you need? I'm thinking of "The Ballad of John and Yoko" which the two of them took from a slight song into a number #1 single).
Paul, for his part, needed the depth of John. He wouldn't have written Penny Lane without Strawberry Fields there to force him to engage with his childhood and the development of the selfhood which is ultimately an artificial or art-ful construction.
As soon as they split, how did they communicate? Like angry brothers writing songs at one another. From the slyly obscure Too Many People to the blunt overdone How Do You Sleep?
It's hard to lose a brother (whether blood or adopted). Because in losing a brother you lose a part of yourself that was united with that brother. Both Paul and John, I think, made the mistake of trying to make their wives into their brothers (Linda as a member of Wings, Yoko's "collaborating" on various albums).
-
i don't think any two members were the closest... i mean ringo gets along with anybody... he's just a lovable guy!
8)
-
i don't think any two members were the closest... i mean ringo gets along with anybody... he's just a lovable guy!
8)
I think John and Paul were definitely the closest. They were the core of the Beatles. George and John connected through acid, but George was still a junior partner. Witness John's "let's call Eric" when George stormed off during a "Let it Be" (?) session.
Brotherhood doesn't mean always agreeing with the other guys, or partying with them all the time. It's an almost physical bond. That's what the Beatles was based upon--with George and Ringo and George Martin (et al) part of the family too.
But the respect and love between John and Paul is plain to see--even in front of the Let it Be cameras they seem to be enjoying themselves, knowing that the Beatles are doomed. Singing stuff like "One After 909."
If you've ever been in a band or serious long-term creative enterprise with someone, you grow these attachments that are deeper than words. They may p*ss you off, you may want to clout them on the head, but if you are able to achieve magic in the studio or onstage you realize that there's something transcendent about your relationship with this person.
Not to downplay the importance of George and Ringo (and George Martin) in this magic circle of creativity. But John and Paul (separate but equals) were the dynamo of the Beatles.
I just don't buy this stuff that the guys really didn't like each other. Having been in bands, you get way beyond the point of liking/disliking someone. It's deeper than that. And I think the depth of love that the Beatles had for one another is reflected in the generally positive outlook of their material. Compare it to the 60s Stones who were contantly battling each other for power. I don't think there's a single unambiguous love song in their whole catalog. Nothing like "Here, There and Everywhere" or "All You Need is Love."
The Beatles actually got along quite well until the last year or so of their active collaboration. Compare that to the warfare of the Kinks, the Stones, and so many other great bands of the era.
These guys, first and foremost, seemed to be friends, not just business partners. Until the friendship--like Camelot--broke up.
-
Hi Adamzero. Don't you contradict yourself a bit there?
you say that people in bands form special relationships "deeper than words" yet you then go on and cite bands that existed in states of "warfare."
What about Waters and Gilmour. Sorry - but I don't think successful bands require or bring about deep relationships at all. In fact the opposite seems true - most of the great acts exist (and prosper) in atmospheres of tension and rivalry.
-
What about the the Kinks or Oasis or the Who in their relationships?
I heard the Pete Townshead was always annoyed with John Entwhistle for just
standing with his bass looking board? :-/
I defintley think all the beatles were as close as anyone. hell, they went through it
all together. John & George were (i think) close by the end as George played on
the Imagine album but also Ringo played on Plastic Ono Band.
John always said that he only worked with two great partners in his life, Paul & Yoko.
I think it shattered John so much when Stu died & its strange how he never spoke
about him again in interviews or whatever. :-/
-
well ive got a friend well i say friend but we were music friends similiar i think to the mccartney and lennon, we were total opposites in every respect but when we where playing music whether writing or just jamming we were really close and happy in each others company but as soon as the guitars were down we just clashed ppl would be like how are you guys in band together you cant stand each other which was true i was a dreamer and outgoing and he was very hard willed a realist and didnt enjoy conversations like imagine etc.... in the end its was that fact we couldnt communicate otuside off music the band split up we were both the songwriters i would write the music to start then he would add his lyrics to it then wed work on it. But as i said when we put the guitars down we couldnt talk to each other wed almost be on edge around each other all the time waiting for the other one to snarl or blow up at the next person comment well that was more on his side i just tip toed on egg shells which in the end led to be really quite when we werent playing but i was the more outspoken when it came to how the song should sound even though he was the band leader i was always guiding to his disliking. so basically i think j+p were two different ppl in terms off personality and humour..... but they had the similiar personalitys when it came to making music but probably couldnt go each other as much after the guitars were put down
-
also i got the felling watching let it be that when they were playing like the one after 909 they were really bonding but once they were just chatting that each others conversations bored each other paul was still in music mode even when they werent playing discussing music and how everything should sound but john would want to shut off from the music and discuss other things
-
Hi fendertele. Hope you're enjoying yourselves and thanks for posting. Just a question: could you please try and use some interpunction in your lines to make your posts easier to read? Thanks in advance and keep on posting.
-
so basically i think j+p were two different ppl in terms off personality and humour..... but they had the similiar personalitys when it came to making music but probably couldnt go each other as much after the guitars were put down
Personality... maybe. But then look at their backgrounds and close people in their life (ie wives).
Humour- it was quite the same (I think). I mean John did have The Lennon humour but McCarteny and Lennon did write a story together in In His Own Write. And then Lennon did regard McCartney as his best freind untill SHE came into the picture.
-
First of all, I'd like to state that none of us knew the Beatles personally, and reading books or watching Let It Be or even analyzing songs will never show us who the Beatles really were on the inside or tell us what went on behind closed doors. However, it's natural to wonder and make judgments based on what you know. So here's my theory.
John and Paul were friends. Not just songwriting partners. Close friends. In the very beginning, and in the Hamburg days, they were playing mostly cover songs and very little original material. They went through a lot of crap in those days, and you don't stay friends with someone through all that just because they're a good songwriter.
When you become really good friends with someone- I mean really close- there comes a point when you feel like you don't have to act nice and you call them on all their a**hole behavior. I think this is what John and Paul had in their later years. Look at John's "How Do You Sleep?". It's a very nasty song, but you can also tell from it how personally hurt John was by Paul. You can only be hurt that much by someone if you really cared about them. If they just had a professional relationship, the break-up wouldn't have been so messy. Each would've said, "Oh well mate, we had a good run. On to the next project." Compare this to a group like the Ramones who actually grew to hate each other but still recorded and toured together. Although there were tensions in the group (which is totally understandable- I would be p*ssed too if my bandamate stole my spouse) they were able to maintain a professional relationship. The reason the Beatles never got back together was because there was so much animosity in the break-up, but mostly between Paul and John. All four Beatles worked with the other one at some point, but Paul and John never worked together again (and don't bring up the lost weekend because we all know that was a one-off and nothing ever became of it).
Basically what I'm trying to say here is that John and Paul both had huge egos, and when they insulted each other, it really hurt because it came from someone that the other really cared about.
-
First of all, I'd like to state that none of us knew the Beatles personally
You forgot about djinn! ;D
Your post makes pretty much sense Mairi.
-
You forgot about djinn! ;D
LOL! Thanks, Bobber. Welcome back. :)
Nice post, Mairi. You bring up some good points. Cheers.
-
i think in the beginnings john had all the control and for him to let paul take some was hard for john...john probally got paul in to reducing local competition as is speculated...and maybe paul was jealous of stu in the start......i think paul is a control freak and john was having a good time....it is always iffy when you are in business with friends....money divides the loyalty....i do believe they were crappy to each other because they did care alot about the other.....stu and john may have shared sexual experiences together as inferred by pauline,i think thats stus sisters name....if we believe that then john and paul would have never have been as close as stu and john....there is another story that say julias boyfriend may have tampered with john also...the homosexual underlayments are there thru out johns adult life...i am not saying he was a homo but he did experiment with the male gendered....i would say that paul never did...and that could make paul feel superior to john and even look down his nose at him...i think paul fed johns ego more than john fed pauls....egos are complex buildings....you can bruise one or break it so easy...i think they were similar in many ways but used different levels of extremes..their relationship wasan ever changing one......