Text
seeing everyone else's photo selections makes that so much funnier. chose the most godlike photos of george possible and then everyone else got wikipedia photos or the worst picture you've seen in your life. look. george is hot you don't have to rig the game like that
#i unironically love it when someone's beatle bias is super obvious#extra points because it's not Paul for once#i think based on my post history here and on ao3 I'd assume my bias is George or Ringo#but they're lowkey just the easiest to write#the deeper question is my president bias#i won't admit this on my president blog but it's Lincoln#sorry not sorry#fdr is maybe objectively more important but fuck him i like Lincoln#I'm from Illinois it's not my fault 😭
23 notes
·
View notes
Note
weird question but if the beatles got matching tattoos, what would they be, where would they be, when would they have got them done and why would they eventually regret it? thanx!
not weird at all, very cute!
my first thought was tattoos in Hamburg bc that'd very much be a prelllies and pints sort of night. and it'd be laughably on-brand to leave Pete out and get a tattoo with the bloke who isn't even your drummer yet.
but! my decided answer is a tattoo for the Sgt. Pepper launch. I'm imagining the logo on the inner forearm they're never beating the cult allegations with this one but nothing too huge and garish. they'd come to mean more after Brian's death, and feel like a physically unifying grief.
years later, there would be mixed reactions on the decision.
George will regret it bc "I don't want to go on the roof" and in a year he'll prefer something more religious anyway - something as religious as wishing he had no tattoos at all. at a certain age he becomes too old and content to care about it, though.
in that way, he'll finally be catching up to Ringo, who laughs about it now as he laughed about it when it seemed like an ironic commitment in 1970. it could've been worse anyway. at least the design is a drumhead and they didn't permanently stick him with an instrument he doesn't even play.
Paul, on the other hand, will get nit-picky about the design, the placement, the shading, but he won't regret the tattoo. with time the lines will fade as their youth does - as their friends do - but in their old age he and ringo will always see it while playing at a piano or drum kit, and they'll smile that a piece of their old bandmates should still be there with them, if not in the flesh then on the flesh.
John spends a decade oscillating between his fondness and disdain for it, all dependent upon his status with Paul at the time. after the split, he'll say it was all paul's daft idea and at the very least, they'd all imagined something different, better. but that's only bc now it stings as if it were as fresh and inflamed as when he got it. by the last half of a long decade, though, it'll always be the only thing that stays up with him through sleepless nights at the Dakota. and he'll remember that it's not so bad - things weren't always so bad. when he touches it, can Paul feel it too...as in a dream? hm, regret seems like such a strong word.
(oh, and John and Paul already have matching ones that they got in Paris but never told anyone about.)
#i love thisssss#op you're a damn genius#only note is that paul would be showing off the paris tattoo all the freaking time#the whole point of that relationship was to show it off so no way paul kept their 'friend' tattoo secret#especially after john passes away#'i have a tattoo with him and you were just his wife/son so maybe shut the fuck up'#and of course any time he needs to make an interview really land he'll be showing the tattoo#if they don't swoon for the let it be dream then the tattoo is coming out#is it insincere and performative? yes of course#it's also extremely sincere and extremely real#and there's not a dry eye in the house#and if it makes you cry then you don't really get to complain about it do you?#but God poor George would regret the beatle tattoo so much#tangible manifestation of the level of self hate and self doubt he is capable of#it's not a tattoo it's a brand that tells everyone he's capable of being property#but then he gets over it#yeah the system was sick and toxic and abusive but it was also the defining element of his youth#so learn to be happy about it or learn to forget it#I think he mostly decided to forget it but he also partly decided to be happy about it#queue
18 notes
·
View notes
Note
Hi!
I have some rather detailed stuff I'm hoping you can help me with, since you know the Beatles so well.
I'm confused about the details with George's songwriting royalties. Were Paul and John actually making more money on his songs than he was? And why on earth would he agree to that? I get he was young, but wouldn't common sense tell him it was a bad deal?
My one thought is it was JUST that lucrative to hitch his star to John and Paul's wagon. But then it also feels a bit like "your songs wouldn't be successful if they weren't being released under a brand built by John and Paul," which is potentially true? I guess? Except that George and Ringo contributed the brand too, and it's not entirely nice to act like they should be cowtowing to a brand they contributed to. Still, this deal wouldn't have happened if it didn't make some kind of financial sense.
Anyway, I'm sure you know more about this than I do, and more about the context at the time. Thank you for reading!
Hi! Sorry for taking a while to get to this, I'm rather busy these days. Please take everything with a grain of salt because I'm speaking from a slightly limited understanding myself.
I believe there were two parts to the earnings from the song publication rights: 1) the songwriting royalties themselves and 2) the earnings on the shares of the publishing rights. Since John and Paul owned a much greater stake in Northern Songs than George did, it panned out that they made more money off his songs than he did.
It seems George agreed to it because he was convinced he would get a bigger tax advantage out of it, I suppose because there weren't plans to turn Harrisongs into a public company. That's why Northern Songs went public in 1965.
For what it's worth, here's George speaking about the situation to Billboard magazine in 1996:
Now, nobody ever sat down with me, no manager or lawyers—we never had any lawyers, and nobody ever gave us any advice, that was the thing. And in a way, Brian Epstein was slightly in cahoots with Dick James. But James never actually sat down and said, "I'll publish your songs, and when you sign this piece of paper, I will be stealing your copyrights; I will own it for the rest of my life." Billboard Magazine: March 9 1996 p. 89
So he basically jots it down to him not really knowing better. He also doesn't appear to blame John or Paul, though the fact they were making more money than him probably made him slightly resentful.
#oh dang a lot of new information here#the business side is so complicated and I never quite know what's going on#but this is really interesting and adds some context
15 notes
·
View notes
Text
the thing about yoko ono is like. is she a good person? oh absolutely not. but we're all beatles fans so I think you can deal with a woman being a little evil when every single one of your pet white men is like the devil incarnate but we're all collectively calling them our pookies
#it's fascinating how the things we find endearing in john and paul make yoko an abusive monster#and in all honesty if abuse was a hard line for you then you wouldn't be a beatles fan#people say 'oh im allowed to have preferences'#and yes of course you are not morally obligated to like yoko or jane or pattie as human beings#but you don't get to be transparently racist and misogynistic because of your preferences#and taking 60s/70s era commentary on a Japanese woman as fact is honestly pretty much just endorsing their racism and xenophobia#our relationship with japan has changed SO much that it's hard to understand how deeply hated japanese women in particular were post ww2#but almost every contemporary criticism of her falls into the 'sneaky sexually manipulative pretends to be sweet but actually evil' cliche#that defined the american perspective on japanese women after pearl harbor#you also have to keep in mind the majority of american ww2 veterans served in the pacific#and saw HORRIFIC war crimes by the japanese that were on par with Hitler's crimes in Europe#we fought ww2 against the japanese not for the europeans#it's not how the country has chosen to collectively remember it but it's true#bottom line if you live in a country that kept your people in concentration camps a few years ago-#-you are not getting a fair shake in the media#so lets cool it on saying she was sneaky and evil for (checks notes) speaking her native language with her children in her own home#you're just being a 60s-level xenophobic asshole and you know it#i know i get triggered by this because my extended family is japanese#and as a white person the most intimately I'll ever know racism and bigotry is seeing it happen to my family#and i get activated and I'm too harsh to people who don't mean any harm#but the way this fandom talks about yoko just gets under my skin#don't get me started on 'john and paul are so special that they turned yokoing a band into a verb teehee'#yeah that wouldn't have fucking happened if she was named elizabeth
358 notes
·
View notes
Text
On the anniversary of his death, Olivia and Dhani mounted a wonderful memorial concert for George at the Royal Albert Hall in London. Never have I seen so many grown men in tears. George had a capacity to reach in and take your heart.
-- Eric Idle, Always Look on the Bright Side of Life: A Sortabiography
#Eric is ironically so damn touching#he has the capacity to take your heart too#but hey maybe that's why they clicked who knows
92 notes
·
View notes
Text
I don't know if it's the religious trauma or the dead mom trauma but the conservative christian insistence on not teaching children about their bodies in school and insistence that this knowledge should be private in all circumstances with no exceptions should be seen as suspicious at best and criminally malicious at worst
#makes me crazy how hard christians work to convince you liberalism is a trojan horse for pedophilia#when there is a real trojan horse for pedophilia in the united states and it is the catholic church#no it wasn't designed for child sex abuse#it was designed for sexually abusing adult women but the same framework works for children and they are VERY aware of this#i respect my parents for abandoning the church after it came out that they were raping little boys#but nothing has changed and they are ABSOLUTELY still doing it#they haven't been caught yet but they will be#and all these 'liberal catholics' need to explain to me in writing why child rape is the hill they chose to die on
101 notes
·
View notes
Text
Like I saw a very sweet post recently that was lauding Ringo for refusing to participate in HDYS as the only one of the Beatles with the strength to stand up to bullying, and that's a very nice sentiment, but you are literally talking about someone who by his own admission spent decades beating women. I'm not saying he doesn't also have a very nice and kind side to him, but the idea that he doesn't abuse power when given the chance is pretty misguided. I think the takeaway from HDYS isn't so much that he's incapable of participating in this passive aggressive back-and-forth or that he would never abuse power if he had it, but that he has a very, very keen sense for when 'misbehavior' will have consequences and when it won't.
I love talking about how nice Ringo is but also if we're being real his ability to appear sweet and calm and aw-shucks despite being so thoroughly known is proof that he has incredibly good media instincts
#also the assumption that he would have perceived hdys as significantly meaner than too many people is a bit of a jump#to the average viewer then sure the one that takes it from sub disses to real disses is much more significant#(and to many people the first real shot)#but for people who recognize sub disses (who the sub disses were written for) I doubt it would have registered as a significant step up#so it's more the fact that it's intensely public and brings their little game into the limelight that would have turned him off#and that speaks to his media instincts and ability to always come across sweet and harmless#the beatles#op#ringo starr
58 notes
·
View notes
Text

#I know I just wrote a long ass post about how weak it is to build plotlines out of reaction shots#but this is peak George and always will be and I don't even care
356 notes
·
View notes
Text
I love talking about how nice Ringo is but also if we're being real his ability to appear sweet and calm and aw-shucks despite being so thoroughly known is proof that he has incredibly good media instincts
#he stays out of trouble like it's his job because it lowkey is his job#see also: hdys#ringo starr#op
58 notes
·
View notes
Note
I’m not sure “manipulative” is the correct term. Art is literally for the purpose of making you feel something, and especially music. Maybe “manufactured” is the correct term, or “disingenuous”.
That's a solid note. I think disingenuous and manufactured are also correct, but I do stand by manipulative because the nature of manipulative art is literally that it manipulates your emotions without earning them. There's a difference between feeling something because your emotions are being manipulated and feeling something because your emotions have been seen, captured, and understood by a piece of art.
Also, I know this is nit-picky, but I wouldn't say that the purpose of art is to make you feel something. Good art is telling the truth about things that matter. Cultivating an emotional reaction is secondary to this. Or, rather, it is in service of it.
It's the difference between killing the dog at the end of your story so people will cry and have big feelings and think you wrote something amazing, and killing the dog at the end of your story because you are genuinely allowing yourself to delve into the emotional experience of love and loss and share this with your audience. The former is disingenuous and manufactured, but I'd say it's also manipulative to instill an emotional response in people that is ultimately hollow, just so they'll care, or think they care, about your story. It's not manipulative in a malicious or calculating way, but for me the term still applies.
That being said, there's definitely a place for manipulative art. Anyway, thank you for sharing your perspective! It's a really interesting and valid note.
#i see manipulative being used most often to describe narrative art forms rather than poetry or music#but i do think it can still apply#ask#anon
2 notes
·
View notes
Text
June 18th 1942 • Happy birthday, Paul McCartney!
I got lots of good things to do Like hear the high clear robin sing
84 notes
·
View notes
Text
Happy Birthday, Paul McCartney (b. 18th June 1942)
And when I think that all this stuff, Can make a life, it's pretty hard to take it in, That was me.
254 notes
·
View notes
Note
Hi!
I have some rather detailed stuff I'm hoping you can help me with, since you know the Beatles so well.
I'm confused about the details with George's songwriting royalties. Were Paul and John actually making more money on his songs than he was? And why on earth would he agree to that? I get he was young, but wouldn't common sense tell him it was a bad deal?
My one thought is it was JUST that lucrative to hitch his star to John and Paul's wagon. But then it also feels a bit like "your songs wouldn't be successful if they weren't being released under a brand built by John and Paul," which is potentially true? I guess? Except that George and Ringo contributed the brand too, and it's not entirely nice to act like they should be cowtowing to a brand they contributed to. Still, this deal wouldn't have happened if it didn't make some kind of financial sense.
Anyway, I'm sure you know more about this than I do, and more about the context at the time. Thank you for reading!
Hi! Sorry for taking a while to get to this, I'm rather busy these days. Please take everything with a grain of salt because I'm speaking from a slightly limited understanding myself.
I believe there were two parts to the earnings from the song publication rights: 1) the songwriting royalties themselves and 2) the earnings on the shares of the publishing rights. Since John and Paul owned a much greater stake in Northern Songs than George did, it panned out that they made more money off his songs than he did.
It seems George agreed to it because he was convinced he would get a bigger tax advantage out of it, I suppose because there weren't plans to turn Harrisongs into a public company. That's why Northern Songs went public in 1965.
For what it's worth, here's George speaking about the situation to Billboard magazine in 1996:
Now, nobody ever sat down with me, no manager or lawyers—we never had any lawyers, and nobody ever gave us any advice, that was the thing. And in a way, Brian Epstein was slightly in cahoots with Dick James. But James never actually sat down and said, "I'll publish your songs, and when you sign this piece of paper, I will be stealing your copyrights; I will own it for the rest of my life." Billboard Magazine: March 9 1996 p. 89
So he basically jots it down to him not really knowing better. He also doesn't appear to blame John or Paul, though the fact they were making more money than him probably made him slightly resentful.
#from what I've heard john was willing to cut george a better deal in 69 but paul wasnt#and that was part of what led to the schism between paul and the rest of the band#though i believe that information comes from mimi who has an interest in painting John in a good light#regardless Paul was a bit of a Jay Leno#absolute standup guy except when you're doing business with him and then you better watch your fucking back#there was a lot of nonsense with wings too and the phrase “cartoonishly evil” gets tossed around#they say no one becomes a billionaire by accident and frankly it's surprising it took him as long as it did#but it's a lot more sympathetic when you remember he was raised by a gambling addict#and would have lived in absolute terror of poverty and insecurity from a very young age#when his mother died one of the first things he said was “what will we do without her money?”#which people for some reason interpret as paul being cold#because i guess it's fun to bully a child whose mom just died#but really i think it means he was carrying an ENORMOUS burden to protect the family's finances at far too young an age#and poverty and even food insecurity were never far from his mind and the fear would have absolutely tormented him
15 notes
·
View notes
Text
decades of paul mccartney 🪞
340 notes
·
View notes
Text
we all need to start giving a fuck about ringo starr. fascinating man
84 notes
·
View notes