|
Post by Huxleys_halo on Dec 8, 2014 19:11:17 GMT -5
This has puzzled me for years, back to when I was a conventional Beatles fan with no idea of PID and other controversies, but - all the boys had really rough and traumatic upbringings, EXCEPT George. Hunter Davies even comments on this in his book (who's read that, by the way?).
John - parental split, has to choose between them, father disappears, lives with aunt and uncle, uncle dies, mother dies, best friend dies.
Paul - mother dies when he is just 14, is around for Stu's death and must have been impacted by it
Ringo - parents divorced and father played little role in his life, spent most of childhood in hospital with life-threatening illnesses
George - ......
Nothing!
He had a nice, normal, stable (if not materially rich) childhood. Parents happily married, several siblings (John, Paul and Ringo were from very small families for the time - only Paul had a full sibling, and just one at that). No major dramas or traumas.
I think the fact of John, Paul and Ringo's traumatic childhoods was very significant in the paths they took, so I'm left wondering about George. Being so "normal", how did he fit in? Why was he chosen, when surely a more damaged young man would have fit the narrative better? (A reason I think people are selected for fame is their level of damage - damaged people are easier to manipulate and control, and tend to have less scruples about doing or going along with bad things, like covering up Paul's death)
|
|
|
Post by LOVELYRITA on Dec 13, 2014 21:20:29 GMT -5
Perhaps if the Beatles had been a band that required a "lead guitarist" type who was "wild", "crazy" or some other such characteristics, they may have found a more "abnormal" type. But they needed a talented guitarist, but they didn't need the focus on lead guitar playing. The purpose of the Beatles was not to have an "out there" guitar, but it was more the vocals and the collective "sound".
It did seem that he was the only one with a functional type of home. Most of the rock stars came from dysfunctional homes.
|
|
|
Post by cherilyn7 on Apr 13, 2015 18:43:44 GMT -5
People are often chosen for their Zodiac signs to make them fit together; some birth signs simply do not mix together well. Also, as with Pete Best they did not need a "moody, good looking one" on the drums at the back; they did need an amiable smiling guy who would "go with the flow" Leo Richie Starkey (Ringo "Rings of Saturn"; George, was the good looking but deep thinking, spiritual guitarist, the sign of the fishes Pisces; John the sexy lead vocalist, artist/intellectual/writer type, diplomatic Libran driven by success and money to be the leader and Paulie, Geminian sign of the twins "two people in one"....how appropriate. John's home life was not dysfunctional; it was very stable in fact.
|
|
|
Post by B on Apr 13, 2015 19:52:24 GMT -5
Ringo was a Cancer, actually (July 7, 1940), so he was a water sign match to George. John and Paul, working together as air signs were also a good match. John would, by definition, have been the leader of the band.
|
|
|
Post by cherilyn7 on May 3, 2015 18:54:18 GMT -5
Ringo was a Cancer, actually (July 7, 1940), so he was a water sign match to George. John and Paul, working together as air signs were also a good match. John would, by definition, have been the leader of the band. Sorry, that was remiss of me so there was a Crab; a Fish swimming in two directions; a Scales of Justice and the Twins (2 people in one). Sounds very appropriate to me! Of course, this was the originals so we do not know what the replacements were. John was the leader, founder and spokesman for the group until Faul took over which seems very unlikely in the normal scheme of things.
|
|
|
Post by B on May 26, 2015 13:55:05 GMT -5
|
|