phoneybeatlemania-bit-the-dust

[phoneybeatlemania-bit-the-dust]

okay ive moved to @phoneybeatlemania so catch me there from now on

#this account makes me sad #not gonna delete it #but just #i cant stand being me any longer

[phoneybeatlemania-bit-the-dust]

please don't delete your blog🥺i always love to see you on my dashboard❤️

Thank you!! I think what im gonna do is probably just make a shiny new account but leave this one up, so that I can still have fun looking back at it in future, and also so that people can still navigate quotes and things ive posted here. But I just really fucking need a fresh start yknow? Ill link my new account (when I get round to making it) on here so that people who like me can still find me (like you, my dearest anon 😌❤️) but also, I just wanna rebuild my identity. Like I made this account when I didn't have a solid understanding of the beatles, but still wanted to have fun and talk about them - but now I just feel like people judge me off of things I said 8 months ago, and I dont know. I just need to start all over. Hope that makes sense!

#ooooh im gonna quit #also ive been saying for weeks now and then I fucking dont #and im sure everyones sick of hearing me say that by now haha #so like #fresh start #whenever I get round to making that account

[phoneybeatlemania-bit-the-dust]

I can assure you not every McLennon is a Linda hater. I blocked a blog not long ago that hates on Linda and Paul/Linda and it wasn’t a McLennon. It can be anyone and in this case, it’s just some edgelord who dislikes how loved Paul and Linda are. I can respect if people don’t like or care for them or acknowledging they weren’t perfect but actively hating, they’re just being obnoxious. Sorry, didn’t mean to vent. 😅

re: linda haters

Oh yeah I definitely know the types of blogs you mean anon! I dont bother with them either tbh - im like you in that I fully respect and understand if someone is just indifferent to Linda (like no one has to care about her just because they care about Paul; I like her in her own right, not as a byproduct of Paul). And when I come across interesting and fair discussions concerning her personality and marriage to Paul, that aren't whitewashed and/or idolising her, then ill read them (sometimes I agree with them, sometimes I dont). I dont have any issue with that stuff. But I just tend to stay away from people who hyperbolise any of their marital difficulties and any of Lindas flaws; like just in general, I stay away from people who seem overly-aggressive on here (and typically ive found people get excessively angry with Paul cause I just dont understand the contempt but im at a point where I just think: "whatever") (obviously theres John haters, but firstly, it feels fairer to me tbh, and secondly, the John-haters dont seem to be quite as actively involved in the fandom)

#asks #anon #linda mccartney

[phoneybeatlemania-bit-the-dust]

the feminine urge to delete this blog and start all over again

#I dont know #maybe ill just save the posts im proud of #and delete everything else #kinda wanna keep this up just for memories tho #but also im like: would everyone just forget who I am or do people remember or what would happen???????

[phoneybeatlemania-bit-the-dust]

some of you have really good blogs but they're Fucking Impossible to navigate, and yet, im being so bold about it

[phoneybeatlemania-bit-the-dust]

[phoneybeatlemania-bit-the-dust]

literally nobody understands this highly popular character like i do

#ME WITH JOHN LENNON ISTG #everyone who has John as their fave is like this tho #like were all convinced were the only ones who understand him #you know im right

[phoneybeatlemania-bit-the-dust]

John’s negative views of his own songs - how seriously can we take him?

After the break-up, John, more than the other Beatles, had a tendency to severely dismiss songs in the catalogue, especially songs that he'd primarily written. I've collated some of John's songs criticised, which I've listed below:

It’s Only Love

And Your Bird Can Sing

Glass Onion

Dig A Pony

Some of John's comments on the above songs can be found below:

It's Only Love

"IT'S ONLY LOVE: Me. That's one song I really hate of mine. Terrible lyric.

Hit Parader Interview, 1972

‘It’s Only Love’ is mine. I always thought it was a lousy song. The lyrics were abysmal. I always hated that song.

All We Are Saying, David Sheff, 1982

And Your Bird Can Sing

AND YOUR BIRD CAN SING: Me. Another horror

Hit Parader Interview, 1972

Another of my throwaways... fancy paper around an empty box

All We Are Saying, David Sheff, 1982

Glass Onion

That’s me, just doing a throwaway song, à la ‘Walrus’, à la everything I’ve ever written. I threw the line in – ‘the Walrus was Paul’ – just to confuse everybody a bit more. And I thought Walrus has now become me, meaning ‘I am the one.’ Only it didn’t mean that in this song. It could have been ‘the fox terrier is Paul,’ you know. I mean, it’s just a bit of poetry. It was just thrown in like that.

All We Are Saying, David Sheff, 1982

Dig A Pony

I was just having fun with words. It was literally a nonsense song. You just take words and you stick them together, and you see if they have any meaning. Some of them do and some of them don’t.

Hit Parader Interview, 1972

The fascinating thing about John's reaction to the four songs above is how similar they are. John's issues with the songs seem to be because he perceives them as "throwaway" with particularly "abysmal" lyrics, perhaps the melodies of the songs were okay but there seems to be an implication that anything good musically with these songs was just "fancy paper around a paper box", these songs were all pretty meaningless to John - or so he wants us to believe.

A lot of John's comments on the Beatles song catalogue come from his 1980 interviews with David Sheff. John also made the following comment to Sheff regarding how he approaches lyrics in his songs:

"I always had an easier time with lyrics, though Paul is quite a capable lyricist who doesn't think he is. So he doesn't go for it. Rather than face the problem, he would avoid it. 'Hey Jude' is a damn good set of lyrics. I made no contribution to the lyrics there. And a couple of lines he has come up with show indications of a good lyricist. But he just hasn't taken it anywhere. Still, in the early days, we didn't care about lyrics as long as the song had some vague theme... she loves you, he loves him, they all love each other. It was the hook, line and sound we were going for. That's still my attitude, but I can't leave lyrics alone. I have to make them make sense apart from the songs."

All We Are Saying, David Sheff, 1982

In the above quote John is explaining his facility with lyrics in comparison to Paul "I always had an easier time with lyrics" and explains that although in their early career they didn't "care about lyrics", for him, they had to "make sense apart from the songs". So John's comments about his views on his own lyricism is in direct contrast to his dismissal of a lot of songs as "nonsense".

John, of course, died a few weeks after his interview with David Sheff so we're never going to get an elaboration from him in terms of what his motivation was for writing these songs and why he rejected them so harshly after the break up. I do think there's a dissonance between the view of John as a gifted lyricist and the stacks of songs that he went out of his way to get people to believe were nonsense throwaway songs. I definitely think John's dismissal of these songs was to mask something (I think primarily vulnerability, especially in relation to you know who) so I think it's long past time that a lot of the mainstream fandom stops taking John at his word at all times and starts to challenge his view on these "nonsense" songs, John's not around to tell us what the meaning behind these songs is but that doesn't stop anyone from speculating and getting to the core of why John wrote these songs, what their potential meaning was and why, particularly after the break-up, he did his best to disassociate himself from them.

#definitely agree with @odearjohn here #kind of what I mean as well when I say lyrics are meaningless as evidence #I dont mean that literally #because I do think lyrics have the capacity for major insight and introspection and we CAN learn a lot about people from their lyrics #but saying that #sometimes lyrics are just meaningless #like they sound good #and the voice and words are essentially just being used as another instrument #yknow? #and sometimes songwriters themselves dont even know what the fuck they're on about #I think with John its something we should consider especially on a case by case basis #song talks #beatles psychology #johns psyche #lyrics analysis

[phoneybeatlemania-bit-the-dust]

Something I find interesting about Lennon's attitude toward his sexuality is that it's so similar to many other rock stars of his generation. You have David Bowie who proudly comes out of the closet as bi, goes immediately back in during the 80s, and never really manages to come back out, and you have Pete Townshend who still flip flops on his attraction to men. Even Elton John went back in the closet at one point.

Glad you brought this up anon, cause it was something I was chatting to @odearjohn about a few weeks back.* I feel like something that gets somewhat undervalued by the fandom, is that John seemed to have had a more convoluted relationship with his sexuality then we give him credit for at times. In my mind, I was actually comparing him to people like David Bowie, and thinking about how he was able to outrightly "come out of the closet" (even if he did go back in later), whereas John was never really able to. I think he probably would've had he not died - or if an interviewer were to have followed up certain comments and/or questioned his sexuality with some seriousness, its plausible that John also might have *genuinely* come out. But with the way that John often spoke about bisexuality, I think its actually quite well-evidenced that there was some sort of hesitance there. Was it shame? confusion? denial? I dont know. But id imagine it was a combination of all of them.

(*in dm's tho so I dont have any post to link you guys to; also, wouldn't wanna put words into their mouth, so im not saying they agree with Every Single Thing im saying here necessarily, just that, like, we did talk about this and I wanted to give them credit for any of their insights ok)

Ill preface this btw by saying that I do believe John was bi, but this is really just about exploring johns own relationship with his sexuality because I promise I haven't become a jean jacket over the past 24 hrs

I just think that, at times John gets portrayed as though he was proudly and confidently bisexual, when it just seems evident that that wasn't totally the case. John for the most part only spoke vaguely about his sexuality, typically through quick quips (which could be interpreted as a joke and nothing more) or when he did speak with more sincerity, theres still a lot of confusion surrounding What The Fuck He Actually Meant - for example, "...it was almost a love affair, but not quite. It was never consummated. But it was a pretty intense relationship." (x). Imo this quote actually further validates Pete Shotton's anecdote - but at the same time, I can see why the jean jackets would interpret this as being a denial of anything happening between John and Brian (note that I dont agree with them there, I just understand the argument). Its this whole "teetering on coming-out but never quite saying it" which makes me think John probably did struggle with accepting his sexuality - not even just out of shame (though I do think that that was a component) but I assume also out of an actual confusion surrounding who he was attracted to, and how much.

How it appears to me is as though there were times throughout Johns life where he was pretty confident in being bisexual, and prepared to come out even (*ahem* the lost weekend period). And then there were times where he was more ashamed and/or outright denying it (from himself even!) (I think this was especially true for John during the early 70s); and then there were times where he was just plain confused, and didn't even understand it himself: like perhaps at times he saw his bisexuality as a purely emotive thing that would never be sexually fulfilled? And then perhaps at other times he saw it at times as something that he could only experiment with "for fun", and which could never been emotionally fulfilled (but then he probably thought to himself "oh yeah but what about that Paul guy id totally marry him")

I think he just swung between all these different eras with his sexuality, and this general confusion (mixed with some shame for some extra spice) largely factored into why he never did just say to the public "yeah, I like guys AND girls :)". Like I think he often just didn't even know for himself if he was bi - which imo largely explains the: "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." comment.

Reiterating what I said before, I think there were times he was confident enough in his sexuality to make jokes and perhaps even confident enough to come out to the people around him (such as John Reid, Bowie, Yoko etc. although how reliable some of these claims are is very much in question) - but overall, I just feel like we occasionally neglect Johns inner conflict concerning his sexuality.*

(*although, I do recognise as well that theres a lot of queer people who might see themselves in John, and so I imagine that for for some people its comforting to see this guy - who they might idolise in some shape or form - as relatable, or an inspiring queer historical figure, or something to the effect of that; and so I by all means dont want to gatekeep and rain on anyones parade here. I dont really have an issue with this portrayal of John (as "the confident bisexual") but its mostly just that im fascinated by that inner conflict John had with his sexuality).

#literally gonna get a comment #saying #actually the fandom never does THAT and we always talk about THIS #which might be true #but tbh when I say I just mean I haven't seen as much discussion around that topic as I would've liked too #but yknow #im new-ish #so theres only so much ive seen #so its by all means possible that ive just missed an important in depth disussion #anyway #glad I got this ask so I can finally give some thoughts on johns sexuality #I get a million asks about Pauls sexuality but not that many on johns #and johns sexuality I just find to be so much more interesting to be totally honest #but yeah #I have more thoughts on this but HEAD EMPTY SO JUST GONNA POST ok #:) #asks #anon #johns sexuality #john lennon #beatles #opinion #sexuality

[phoneybeatlemania-bit-the-dust]

yeah so id say im somewhere between groupie and scholar

#meta #shit posts

[phoneybeatlemania-bit-the-dust]

Favorite hobby is listening to the Beatles and pretending to be a teenage boy from the 60s

#same tbh #lmao

[phoneybeatlemania-bit-the-dust]

*listens to an album for the first time and enters a new era in my life*

#me and ram for this past year #its not an album its a lifestyle guys

[phoneybeatlemania-bit-the-dust]

Yeah - although I enjoyed McNabs book, I did find it problematic for the same reason you listed (tbh tho, its something that irritates me about most writings on the beatles; a lot of writers are just prone to making sweeping statements, without providing adequate evidence to support them).

I was wondering if with him saying things like “John was sabotaging the sessions” or “John was treating them all with contempt”, perhaps he was just referring to Johns lack of work ethic during that era? Partially of course due to heroin, but also, when I was watching GB with my dad he pointed out that in ep 2, after Billy (literally the very cool but still controlled parent of the group) left, they all went back to mostly just messing around, or at best working on “meh” tracks like ‘Dig A Pony’ - which I suspect they worked on mostly because they look like they’re all just have a lot of fun playing it, more-so then some of the better tracks on the album that they could’ve been working on. My dad mentioned that, yeah, they’re all messing around - but it seems as though John has especially poor concentration skills here? And I think that aligns somewhat well with what ive generally heard of his work ethic (considering his poor grades at school, but also ive heard in passing that John was impatient with rehearsals and practices etc. - I think he was very much an “in the moment” kind of musician, if that makes sense? Like he just wanted to get on and play)

Id have to go back and rewatch whatever John was doing on Jan 10th in GB, to see if any of McNabs inferences are remotely supported here - but that would just be my guess as to what he’s referring to. It still seems hyperbolic to say John was being “contemptuous” (at least in ep 1, it felt like he was mostly just being indifferent to everything, presumably due to heroin) or to blame john as the only person who was messing about whilst everyone was just trying to concentrate. But again, this is just what I think McNab might’ve been getting at.

so wait. how do we know it was an argument between george and john on the 10th that led to george leaving again?

#dont wanna fall into the trap of saying “John didn’t care about the band anymore blah blah blah” #but i think with his attachment to tracks like mother #theres some evidence that he was just someone who preferred not having to work tirelessly at a song #he just sort of wanted to get on and play it #think I might’ve got of topic here actually lol #johns psyche #ken mcnab #and in the end #john and george

[phoneybeatlemania-bit-the-dust]

This is from And In The End by Ken McNab - I dont know if its quite as insightful as youre looking for, but its something :)

‘On 10 January, Harrison’s tolerance snapped. Lennon was sabotaging the sessions, putting his own self-interest before that of the band, was continuing to patronise him personally and was treating them all with contempt. He railed bitterly at Lennon for his put-downs of George’s of George’s new songs, and brusquely added that he was leaving the band.

‘When?’ asked a startled Lennon.

‘Now,’ snapped Harrison. ‘See you round the clubs. Put an ad in the NME.’’

(pg. 9-10)

Wish McNab would have included some examples of John and George interacting in this manner (eg. examples of John patronising him) tbh.

But he does also goes onto write about accounts from people like George H and Lee Parrott (cameraman), who both allude to this being a leaving a long time in the making (to no ones surprise). So I get the impression that there wasn’t so much as a particularly significant argument which occurred between them, but literally, after John had just been a bit of a knob, George just thought: fuck this shit, im out (<< although if anyone has evidence to contradict that, feel free to add).

Hope this helps!

so wait. how do we know it was an argument between george and john on the 10th that led to george leaving again?

#ken mcnab #and in the end #beatles breakup #john and george #let it be #johns psyche #georges psyche

[phoneybeatlemania-bit-the-dust]

#oh GOD #constantly torn between “should i laugh or fucking BAWL” #beatles get back #beatles memes

[phoneybeatlemania-bit-the-dust]

Radicalized by Dolly Parton’s 9 to 5

#same tbh

[phoneybeatlemania-bit-the-dust]

ABOUT TO WATCH GB PT 2 GUYSSSSSS