|
|
Post by pennylane on Aug 8, 2005 8:52:19 GMT -5
'If tomorrow you opened a copy of the Sun and saw the headline "Jane - Wot a Scorcher" by Paul McCartney, would you then spill the beans?' 'Nice try', she says, 'but no, I wouldn't, not under any circumstances. Her silence is deafening. I don't think we can expect 'The memiors of Jane Asher' anytime soon  |
|
|
|
Post by missvagabond on Aug 8, 2005 9:26:35 GMT -5
'If tomorrow you opened a copy of the Sun and saw the headline "Jane - Wot a Scorcher" by Paul McCartney, would you then spill the beans?' 'Nice try', she says, 'but no, I wouldn't, not under any circumstances. Her silence is deafening. I don't think we can expect 'The memiors of Jane Asher' anytime soon True, Penny!  As disappointing as that is, I'd settle for the memiors of Bill (His Life As Paul McCartney, Not!) ;D |
|
|
|
Post by missvagabond on Aug 8, 2005 14:59:36 GMT -5
"Life is bloody dark and awful," says Asher, finally dropping the game-playing. "It doesn't mean I go round being permanently depressed. But I would if I really started to think about things. I don't think there's any meaning to anything. I have slightly more of an acceptance that you're hurtling towards the abyss. At least you won't know anything once you're in it."
``We have all got a dark side if one has any kind of sensitivity at all. There are things going on every second of every day which bring about black clouds in our lives. But you've just got to get on with living.''
There is no doubt that she has suffered tragedy in her life. 'It's not that there's a dark side of me bursting to get out,' she says. 'But I've glimpsed the other side of the coin. My world is not perfect,' she says ' Life is "Bloody awful and dark". We all have a "dark side". But it's not like Jane has a dark side "bursting to get out"... I'm not criticizing Jane's POV, experiences or her feelings. I just find that it's a continuing theme for her. First she acknowledges"darkness" in herself, people and life in general as a natural thing. Then she denies it's an issue. Is it me or is Jane saying something here without actually saying it... |
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Aug 8, 2005 17:43:29 GMT -5
Missvaggie, maybe she's a case of a person saying all that they can say, for whatever reasons, whether from fear, duty, loyalty, not knowing everything herself, obligations, or legal limits. It sure looks like her lips are sealed, from
some kind of pressure, sufficient to last 40 years time.
|
|
|
|
Post by missvagabond on Aug 8, 2005 17:52:35 GMT -5
Missvaggie, maybe she's a case of a person saying all that they can say, for whatever reasons, whether from fear, duty, loyalty, not knowing everything herself, obligations, or legal limits. It sure looks like her lips are sealed, from some kind of pressure, sufficient to last 40 years time. Good points, Doc. And probably all of the above. I feel very bad for Jane. She didn't do anything, or know what would happen. She just got caught up in it. That really makes her a victim in all of this, IMHO. |
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Aug 8, 2005 19:31:56 GMT -5
That really makes her a victim in all of this, IMHO. Ya of course..... I've always looked at jane as a major victim in all this. She first lost her husband & then had to play this part during the worst time of her life, & then go on as if nothing big had happened. That would be tough. I can completely understand her silence & would do the same thing. |
|
|
|
Post by beatlies on Aug 14, 2005 23:13:08 GMT -5
What exactly was James Paul McCartney's relationship with Jane?
I've read they were "together" from 1963 onward, and they lived together during all this time?
I've also seen it said on these forums that Jane was his "secret wife." What is the source of this information? If he and Jane wanted to get married why keep it a secret? Absurd.
This also raises the question of why they would be together so long, with her as his official girlfriend, without getting married or setting a wedding date.
What about Paul's other girlfriends during this time? Or did he have others? Or did he have any?
Forgive me all these questions but I think you'll agree that nothing about the Jane-Paul relationship makes sense, and this is probably an important piece of the puzzle.
Then there's Sylvie Vartan the Cold War trophy girl represented on the back cover of Abbey Road with her trademark blue dress, walking, like the Beatles ...
If Paul was in love with her as some say why not just drop Jane, who didn't really seem all that in love with Paul anyway, and take up with Sylvie --neither were married SO WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?
Johnny Halliday would get jealous? Sorry I don't buy that as a serious impediment. Maybe Paul was not in love with Sylvie but did find something of a different sort intriguing in her.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Aug 15, 2005 4:09:52 GMT -5
What exactly was James Paul McCartney's relationship with Jane? I've read they were "together" from 1963 onward, and they lived together during all this time? I've also seen it said on these forums that Jane was his "secret wife." What is the source of this information? If he and Jane wanted to get married why keep it a secret? Absurd. This also raises the question of why they would be together so long, with her as his official girlfriend, without getting married or setting a wedding date. What about Paul's other girlfriends during this time? Or did he have others? Or did he have any? Forgive me all these questions but I think you'll agree that nothing about the Jane-Paul relationship makes sense, and this is probably an important piece of the puzzle. Then there's Sylvie Vartan the Cold War trophy girl represented on the back cover of Abbey Road with her trademark blue dress, walking, like the Beatles ... If Paul was in love with her as some say why not just drop Jane, who didn't really seem all that in love with Paul anyway, and take up with Sylvie --neither were married SO WHAT'S THE PROBLEM? Johnny Halliday would get jealous? Sorry I don't buy that as a serious impediment. Maybe Paul was not in love with Sylvie but did find something of a different sort intriguing in her. Actually, I'm beginning to get a certain vibe about all this along the lines you suggest. Could they have been hiding Paul's sexuality? The early-to-mid 60's.....certain things were just NOT discussed. Jane seems to be the understanding companion; it does not appear to be a hot romance. Perhaps Paul would have never married.......Now, I am just sure that William is as hetero as it goes. Paul's general body language in some early interview footage, is, now that I have seen a little more, a lityle bit.......er, uhm.....a little bit 'light and mannerly'. Which means nothing to a Brit, except, you know, occasionally, when it does..........catch my drift? |
|
|
|
Post by pennylane on Aug 15, 2005 4:57:27 GMT -5
I've also seen it said on these forums that Jane was his "secret wife." What is the source of this information? If he and Jane wanted to get married why keep it a secret? Absurd. Absurd... your joking right? A married Beatle is a hell of alot less marketable than a single Beatle! Now what is absurd is Sylvie Vartan! mmm... where did all the Sylvie Vartan talk first appear.. hmmmm.. oh yeah.. 60IF, NOW THAT'S ABSURD! I am sick to death of hearing that stupid womans name. *please excuse me while I vomit profusely all over my keyboard* ugh.. i know, that was just gross. apologies. Sylvie pollution.. i beg you.. put it here.. invanddis.proboards29.com/index.cgi?board=connection away from my untainted eyes! As for Paul and Jane's relationship, yes I agree it was a little odd that they lived together for such a long time and never married, or so they say. The way I figure it, he was either married to her (secretly.. which is not absurd) or he was gay. It's never crossed my mind seriously that he was gay, but of course it is a possibility. Where as John.. well I don't care what anyone says.. my opinion is that he was 100% homosexual, I think it's something he struggled with his whole life.. and would've been a hell of a lot happier if he came out. Actually.. come to think of it.. if John and Paul were lovers, I think the world today would be a better place  |
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Aug 15, 2005 5:22:44 GMT -5
I've also seen it said on these forums that Jane was his "secret wife." What is the source of this information? If he and Jane wanted to get married why keep it a secret? Absurd. Absurd... your joking right? A married Beatle is a hell of alot less marketable than a single Beatle! Now what is absurd is Sylvie Vartan! mmm... where did all the Sylvie Vartan talk first appear.. hmmmm.. oh yeah.. 60IF, NOW THAT'S ABSURD! I am sick to death of hearing that stupid womans name. *please excuse me while I vomit profusely all over my keyboard* ugh.. i know, that was just gross. apologies. Sylvie pollution.. i beg you.. put it here.. invanddis.proboards29.com/index.cgi?board=connection away from my untainted eyes! As for Paul and Jane's relationship, yes I agree it was a little odd that they lived together for such a long time and never married, or so they say. The way I figure it, he was either married to her (secretly.. which is not absurd) or he was gay. It's never crossed my mind seriously that he was gay, but of course it is a possibility. Where as John.. well I don't care what anyone says.. my opinion is that he was 100% homosexual, I think it's something he struggled with his whole life.. and would've been a hell of a lot happier if he came out. Actually.. come to think of it.. if John and Paul were lovers, I think the world today would be a better place I didn't think so before lately, but I suspect now there were issues with John, repressed things. I think he was more or less straight enough to be happy with a woman, but maybe had some occasional conflicting feelings. What has stopped making sense is the picture of straigt Paul, chasing every skirt from Tokyo to Timbuktu, having paternity suits in every other berg, living in the house with Jane and her family, and dating her when home and she acting like no big whoop and continuing this platonic looking relationship on and on and into 1967. Well, the last year, I understand that more. And yet, one bizarre article I found had a detail that McCartney had been living in the "shadowy demi-world of homosexual London clubs...." or some such. I will say that I met a number of "straight" musicians while I was younger, and I used to go frequently to the clubs. They would be sort of attracted to the wild ambiance of all night dance clubs, and sort of ambivalent about who they hung out with. When they got older, they settled down and married or took up with a nice girl. So, there are a lot of "in-between" scenarios possible.......Kinsey used to say that some males were 60%-40% or even 85%-15% straight-gay. Perhaps John was like 90%-10% and wasn't happy about the 10%.......... Maybe not.....just speculating. But, five-'ll getcha'-10 that something about this played into the mix....... You know, they didn't hold back on John being married to Cynthia..and George's wedding was known, too. Why hide Paul's wedding if so to Jane? Ringo's marraige was known fast; the first baby was well publicized. But, anyone got another take? |
|
|
|
Post by pennylane on Aug 15, 2005 5:30:22 GMT -5
You know, they didn't hold back on John being married to Cynthia..and George's wedding was known, too. Why hide Paul's wedding if so to Jane? Ringo's marraige was known fast; the first baby was well publicized.  yikes.. I never thought of that. Now you've completely thrown me! |
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Aug 15, 2005 9:24:51 GMT -5
Yikes, what will a certain person (we know who she is) say about this? I think I just heard a computer being thrown out a window..  Continuing this speculation a bit, it may have been the plan to put an occasional bit in the paper that they were secretly married, all the while keeping the idea firmly planted that they were going to married in the near future, even if them being actually married was "just a rumor". I do know this, that even in this day and age, there are guys and young women who get married, even though doing so makes them profoundly unhappy. (never mind 40 years ago) Of course a lot of straight guys marry just because they cave into the pressure of friends/family/future spouse but.. As for John, I'm reminded of the book by Fred Seaman, whose motivations of course turned out to be rather dubious, since he "borrowed" Lennon's yearly journals and tried to sell them to the highest bidder. (and then later claimed it was all a big misunderstanding) But anyway, he mentioned something about catching young guys hanging out with John, (although not seeing anything compromising) and he remarked that John "liked older women and younger men".. Yoko successfully sued to get this book out of print.. A magazine that I lost out on on Ebay, too bad.. The description: VICE SQUAD Vol. 4, #3, published by Natlus, Inc., Long Island City, NY, August, 1964, 66 pages. Picking up where magazines like Confidential & Crime left off, Vice Squad was a down & dirty no holds barred mag with coverage of murders, white slavery, abortion mills & the world's most "sinful" cities. Although celebrities were rarely featured, the U.S. was in the throes of "Beatlemania" in August, 1964- so Vice Squad came up with a unique angle "The Sex Life of the Beatles"- an 8 page expose on what was supposedly going behind closed doors during their recent U.S. tour. Let's just say that they disproved Dr. Joyce Brothers observation that they "...display a few mannerisms which almost seem a shade on the feminine side." Interesting pix of Ringo's night out at the Peppermint Lounge & the Fab 4 frolicking with some bikini clad "peaches" while vacationing in Miami.
Condition is MINT. Cover shows no wear & the pages show minimal aging but are in great condition. No cuts or writing in this hard to find issue. Obviously this magazine is waaayyy over the top, but I'm curious about Dr. Joyce Brother's comments. |
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Aug 15, 2005 9:29:43 GMT -5
Interesting. I've got a similar type sixties mag about the faux-DORIS sexing up a "negro" baseball player. Been too much a lazy selfish bastard to scan it in though...
I have the Seaman book also, but I don't recall that passage.
|
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Aug 15, 2005 9:32:29 GMT -5
Interesting. I've got a similar type sixties mag about the faux-DORIS sexing up a "negro" baseball player. Been too much a lazy selfish bastard to scan it in though... I have the Seaman book also, but I don't recall that passage. Unfortunately, I don't own it, but my local library has it. I'll make a run there tomorrow, but even if I'm paraphrasing, I'm pretty sure something like that is in there. (I'll retract if I'm wrong) |
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Aug 15, 2005 10:08:38 GMT -5
Yikes, what will a certain person (we know who she is) say about this? I think I just heard a computer being thrown out a window.. Continuing this speculation a bit, it may have been the plan to put an occasional bit in the paper that they were secretly married, all the while keeping the idea firmly planted that they were going to married in the near future, even if them being actually married was "just a rumor". I do know this, that even in this day and age, there are guys and young women who get married, even though doing so makes them profoundly unhappy. (never mind 40 years ago) Of course a lot of straight guys marry just because they cave into the pressure of friends/family/future spouse but.. As for John, I'm reminded of the book by Fred Seaman, whose motivations of course turned out to be rather dubious, since he "borrowed" Lennon's yearly journals and tried to sell them to the highest bidder. (and then later claimed it was all a big misunderstanding) But anyway, he mentioned something about catching young guys hanging out with John, (although not seeing anything compromising) and he remarked that John "liked older women and younger men".. Yoko successfully sued to get this book out of print.. A magazine that I lost out on on Ebay, too bad.. The description: VICE SQUAD Vol. 4, #3, published by Natlus, Inc., Long Island City, NY, August, 1964, 66 pages. Picking up where magazines like Confidential & Crime left off, Vice Squad was a down & dirty no holds barred mag with coverage of murders, white slavery, abortion mills & the world's most "sinful" cities. Although celebrities were rarely featured, the U.S. was in the throes of "Beatlemania" in August, 1964- so Vice Squad came up with a unique angle "The Sex Life of the Beatles"- an 8 page expose on what was supposedly going behind closed doors during their recent U.S. tour. Let's just say that they disproved Dr. Joyce Brothers observation that they "...display a few mannerisms which almost seem a shade on the feminine side." Interesting pix of Ringo's night out at the Peppermint Lounge & the Fab 4 frolicking with some bikini clad "peaches" while vacationing in Miami.
Condition is MINT. Cover shows no wear & the pages show minimal aging but are in great condition. No cuts or writing in this hard to find issue.Obviously this magazine is waaayyy over the top, but I'm curious about Dr. Joyce Brother's comments. "The Madam Who Ruled the Sin Life of Suburbia?" That'll sell you some papers back then! Well, I am for sure not wanting to "invert anyone" incorrectly, or start a "closeted gay" rumor trend for any Beatle. I take your sources as, in the main on that issue, reliable, and consistent with history both before and after the big mystery......... Now, people (well, and guys as well as girls) could have been "flinging" themselves at all four of the Fabs, a situation they would have to "handle carefully" to avoid a looney story blowing up out of nothing at all. No doubt that man who was trying to sell and profit from John's personal effects was without scruples or tact. The Brian rumors I guess were inevitable because Brian probably DID have more than a passing interest in John, who most likely had to on accasion side-step a little approach. I suppose I just took notice of the easy way Paul seems to have had with his wrist; John as well, but then, what's that really significant of? As I said, I think there is a slightly different style of body language acceptable to straight British men than we have in America. In America, a strictly hands down at your sides and no wrist bending policy----seems to be in the code. If I had ever even said, "Would you care for a spot of tea?," among certain fellows I knew in high school, I'd either have been scorned or thrashed after school. It was, "Hey man, you thirsty? Want somethin' out o' the fridge, dude? We got some homemade iced tea in a pitchur'. You wan' that over some ice?" (Keep the forearms low, talk southern, drawl, slow it down, keep it in a low monotone, stare at the floor, spread your feet and expand your chest like Foghorn Leghorn, clear your throat loud, spit, cough , and burp a lot..........talk about football, huntin', guns, and fast cars.) If you were a guy, one did not say words like: Fabulous Extraordinary Divine Christian Dior Lovely Be Sweet Anyway, that's enough of that. Most likely JPM and JWL were total straight men. I gotta go. I want some quiche. I mean, egg pie. |
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Aug 15, 2005 20:44:37 GMT -5
I remember seeing a special on the Beatles' wives and I think Cynthia Lennon commented on how John had slept with over 300 women in his Beatle days. That sounds to me like the sexual appetite of a heterosexual male taking advantage of every situation possible. But I must say I am ignorant in these areas and who knows what really went on behind closed doors.
It seems to me, and I agree with Doc, that both John and Paul were heterosexual men. Paul was in my mind, for sure. John, I can't say 100%. So much gets written about people that isn't true though. There are many convinced that Tom Cruise is gay and he keeps dating these lovely women. Surely he is smart enough to be true to himself and come out. The way I see it is he is straight, however, there are many people in Hollywood that people think are straight but are really gay! We may never know who they are. That's how it works imo, just go the opposite of the rumours and you will be on the money many times.
|
|
|
|
Post by pennylane on Aug 15, 2005 22:16:23 GMT -5
A friend of mine is a 'beatles slasher' and I get it pretty much forced down my throat every time I speak to her hehe. She's convinced that John and Paul were infact lovers. She has alot of stuff indicating it.. alot of it is from interviews, they say it all in a joking way.. but it's there, and I guess it does make you wonder. As John aked in the Playboy interview "Why didn't they ever say, "How come those guys don't split up? I mean, what's really going on backstage? What is this Paul and John business?"
I can post a heap of the little quotes and stuff they have said that would make you wonder.. if you's want.. let me know!
|
|
|
|
Post by beatlies on Aug 16, 2005 0:04:01 GMT -5
Penny Lane, as Doctor Roberts pointed out, all the other Beatles had married by the beginning of 1966 and Paul was beginning to stand out as the one remaining single guy in the group. At a press conference the Beatles were asked about this and one of them said something to the effect of "three down one to go" --so it appears Paul was beginning to feel some pressure.
His unmarried status was made odder by his longterm pairing with Jane Asher, with no public talk of marriage. They only became "engaged" in 1967 after Paul had been replaced with an imposter. In photos of Jane and real Paul together they look formal and posed, like an act. Sometimes Jane looks unhappy or even angry. I haven't seen one image of them having a private type of intimate moment or romantic scene together.
When real Paul and Jane went to Tunisia together on vacation they stayed at the British Embassy --the government was keeping tabs on them and accomodating the show. If Paul was gay they would have had to cover it up --the Beatles were too important.
Paul's behavior was definitely effeminate. Although he had a deep baritone voice, his speech, gestures, singing affectations, hobbies all seemed the most feminine of the Beatles.
Watch the JoJo shoebox 1966 press conference video. At the Los Angles August 1966 press conference Paul seems almost Paul Lynde level effeminate at times.
Paul had been living in the Ashers' house but apparently did not share a bed with Jane --he had his own small room! He also had a separate London apartment. Doctor Roberts, do you remember where this article appeared -- "article I found had a detail that McCartney had been living in the "shadowy demi-world of homosexual London clubs..." "
This is important --I am trying to get an idea of what Paul McCartney's daily life was like and it's shrouded in silence and lack of the usual basic information.
I read on some far-right wacky guy's website that Paul had been hanging out with "communists" in London --this may have been a garbled interpretation of the Brian Epstein world of Bohemian gay London (that overlapped with Marxists, leftists etc.)
What was Paul's relationship with Tara Browne? Doctor Roberts -"Tara" means hill; same as "Brian" is "hill".
John was a heterosexual who had some homosexual relations, with Brian Epstein for example. I think that's been definitely established. In books, Albert Goldman and Peter Brown go into detail on this.
Any information on Paul's pre-Jane girlfriends / sweethearts? This is never talked about.
|
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Aug 16, 2005 0:32:20 GMT -5
For my part, post whatever you like PL, a few quotes may or may not mean something, but I never liked the suppression of ideas.. I figure we're big boys and girls, it won't curl our hair or anything. I was wondering if the comment I made about Fred Seaman's book was perhaps from the Goldman book, which I do own, so I got it off the shelf. Of course THAT book made Lennon's fans go completely ballistic, because it tends to knock him off his pedestal, if that's where you place him in your mind. From re-reading it, the early years material seems well researched, it was the info from Fred and others around John the last year that brought on the accusations of bad motive on their part, that they were looking for a payday. (anything other than believe what they had to say) I think the big issue was the portrayal of John as a recluse in his bedroom for most of the day, paying more attention to his Persian cats than to Sean, with Yoko not the love of his life, actually secretly scoring heroin behind his back. (and much much more along those lines) I dunno, there are probably way more secrets in the lives of celebs than what we are allowed to see publicly. I doubt we ever would have known about Rock Hudson, had he not succumbed to aids. |
|
|
|
Post by -Wings- on Aug 16, 2005 0:32:51 GMT -5
If Paul was married to Jane Asher, then I think there'd be more effort to keep that under wraps. He was, arguably, the most popular Beatle among females at the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Aug 16, 2005 0:43:55 GMT -5
Beatlies, is this the wacky site you were talking about? chiapas.mediosindependientes.org/display.php3?article_id=114578I was surprised this turned up in the "news" section of Google. To say they are misinformed is a serious understatement. Paul Lynde? Heh, well that's a stretch now cmon.. Only Paul Lynde could outdo Paul Lynde.. |
|
|
|
Post by pennylane on Aug 16, 2005 3:49:40 GMT -5
okies.. i grabbed a few from her.. There are some post 66 stuff amongst here, but make of it what you will From AHDN Norm: "Leave him alone, Lennon, or I’ll tell them all the truth about you." John: "You wouldn’t." Norm staring at John hard: "Oh, I would, though!" PLAYBOY: "To bring up another topic that's shocking to some, how do you feel about the homosexual problem?" GEORGE: "Oh yeah, well, we're all homosexuals, too." JOHN: "Yeah, we're all queer." PAUL: "But don't tell anyone." Q: "What would you like to do after you're finished singing?" PAUL: "Don't know. Probably John and I will carry on songwriting." JOHN: (jokingly) "I'm not doing it with you." PAUL: "Oh, no?" At the Elton John concert in 1974 John got on stage and performed 'I saw her standing there' with this introduction: "This goes out to an old estranged fiancee of mine called Paul." John on Paul 1965: "We were recording the other night, and I just wasn't there. Neither was Paul. We were like 2 robots just going through the motions. We do need each other alot. When we used to get a month off, then we would see each other again, we used to get embarressed about touching each other. We'd do elaborate handshakes to hide our embarressment. Or we did mad dances. Them we got into hugging." John: I don't want it to sound negative, like I didn't need Paul, because when he was there, obviously, it worked. But I can't -- it's easier to say what I gave to him than what he gave to me. And he'd say the same. John: Nobody ever said anything about Paul's having a spell on me or my having one on Paul! They never thought that was abnormal in those days, two guys together, or four guys together! Why didn't they ever say, "How come those guys don't split up? I mean, what's really going on backstage? What is this Paul and John business? How can they be together so long?" We spent more time together in the early days than John and Yoko: sleeping in the same room, practically in the same bed, in the same truck, living together night and day, eating, shitting and pissing together! All right? Doing everything together! Nobody said a damn thing about being under a spell. From the bio "McCartney": "Eight days after Paul and Linda had plighted their thoth, John lennon and Yoko ono were similarly married. It also explained much of the subsqequent acrimony, particulary on John's part: for he had been free to marry Yoko since Nov. 8 of the previous year when his divorce from Cynthia had been finalized. Yet it seems no coincidence that John remarried only a week after Paul, the ceremony seems like something close to an on-the-rebound reaction to the loss of his first great love, Paul McCartney. In his later years, John would admit that Paul had been the first love of his life, and Yoko the second." Q: "If John Lennon could come back for a day, how would you spend it with him?" PAUL: "In Bed." John Lennon Interview - Hit Parader - 1975 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." Q: This is a double-barrelled question directed at both George And Paul, who are the two remaining... George: [Anticipating the question] We're not getting married, no. [Laughter] Q: You're both the only bachelors, and you're not gonna give us any indication of what your matrimonial plans might be? George: No. Well, soon we're just gonna get an answering service for press conferences for that question. Paul: [Jokingly] We're both queer anyway, you know. [The room fills with laughter] Paul: Write that one in your magazines! Quote from a George interview (i think this is also in anthology.. some of it anyway) One time Paul had a chick in bed and John came in and got a pair of scissors and cut all her clothes into pieces calling her a whore and what not. He got like that occassionaly. Harry Nillson: 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." Q: What was the inspiration behind Eleanor Rigby? John: That one's about a couple o' queers! Aug 19 '64 -- San Fransisco, CA Q: How do you like not having any privacy? Paul: We do have some. John: We just had some yesterday, didn't we, Paul? Tell them. Ruth McCartney; 'He(Paul) and the world had just lost someone very dear to them. I had lost my Uncle John, the myopic, misunderstood, manipulative, mystifying Mop-Top who had helped me to learn to ride a bicycle; Julian and Sean had lost a father; Cynthia, her knight in shining armour; Yoko, a fellow artist, contemporary and house husband...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 porpoises (as John would have put it), what they had was a marriage.' A story from an Apple Scruff; 'Paul rang the studio one morning and told George he wasn't coming in today because it was his and Linda's anniversary, and George said thats fine, have a lovely day, but John jumped on the phone and asked what was going on, then next second he racing down the stairs of Abbey Rd studio and sprinted all the way to Paul's house, climbed over the gate, banged on the front door, pushed and shouted obcenities at Linda, screamed at Paul 'how could you do this, blah blah, your a f*cking c*nt blah blah' took a painting that he previously painted and given to Paul as a gift, put his foot through it, shouted some more and left!' Here's a picture:  George on John & Paul: 'There was a deeper love there, that I think both of them struggled with' There is actually a really interesting book called "The Queer Sixties" by Patricia Juliana Smith. There is a whole chapter done on the Beatles called "Give Us A Kiss, Queer Codes, Male Partnering, And The Beatles" interesting stuff!! again.. make of it what you will ;D |
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Aug 16, 2005 12:07:14 GMT -5
From AHDN Norm: "Leave him alone, Lennon, or I’ll tell them all the truth about you." John: "You wouldn’t." Norm staring at John hard: "Oh, I would, though!" What I think this means is this: the truth about Lennon is that he was really an insecure person...and not a even a tremendously gregarious person that everyone thought he was. He was basically insecure and not the magnanimous person that he displayed publicly. His confident public persona was very different from the real Lennon. I believe this was meant to be a joke. When asked if they wore wigs, they said "We're all bald...don't tell anyone"and John said "I'm deaf and dumb too" Does that mean John was also deaf and dumb? No. They were constantly joking like this. Paul also said "I'm bald." Well he still had his hair at this point. What does this mean? It sounds like a joke on Lennon's part to me. Again, a joke imo. Songwriting is a very intimate thing because you are exposing a part of yourself. That's very interesting. Many would agree that Lennon was the better songwriter. What he was giving more to Paul was his artistic contribution. They actually used to lay on top of each other to keep warm while traveling/touring in their non-heated van through Britain. You have to understand the mentality of European males compared to American males. We think European males are gayish but we don't understand many things. They are not homophobes per se so laying on top of each other to keep warm is no big deal. But does it mean a sexual love? That is the question. Was this Paul or Bill that said this? Remember John had a bed-in for peace. Again, a joke, as he and the other Beatles were constantly doing. if they were really involved they wouldn't joke this much imo. Is George is gay too? Lennon had issues with women for sure! He used to beat Cynthia, that is documented. He missed Paul for sure. Did he love him, of course. Did he love him romantically? Maybe. A joke imo. haha Just being witty John. No special meaning imo. It still doesn't mean they were sexually involved. But they were quite close. Poor John. Well I think this story is either grossly exagerrated or totally made up! I understand this. Can they have a deep love for each other while being heterosexual? Yes. Look at the love a father has for his son. And some people have real difficulty loving others. The "give us a kiss" quote was weird but funny. |
|
|
|
Post by pennylane on Aug 16, 2005 17:21:09 GMT -5
I agree with all your points Darkhorse.
But you just never know...
|
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Aug 16, 2005 17:57:58 GMT -5
I agree with all your points Darkhorse. But you just never know... Ya.... excellent points there, Dh. But on the other hand, if John was willin' to give trepanning a try & actually contemplated havin' a hole or 2 drilled thru his skull, gettin' drilled from the other end suddenly doesn't seem so bad! |
|
yikes.. I never thought of that. Now you've completely thrown me!
