#beatles analysis

[illogicalconclusions]

what are your favorite paul songs then? :0

I’m assuming this is in response to some posts I’ve made about how I don’t like “Eleanor Rigby” so I’m going to start by talking about why I dislike it aside from the basics of “I don’t like how it sounds” and “my parents didn’t like it and passed that on to me.” Then I’m going to get into some Paul songs I really do love.

Okay so as for “Eleanor Rigby,” to my understanding, the mythos surrounding it is that it proved “Yesterday” wasn’t a fluke - It’s another heart-wrenching song that shows Paul could go beyond his granny music, it’s got the strings, etc. It’s practically “Yesterday” the sequel, only now instead of it being personal to Paul it’s about a character that everyone can kind of project themselves onto. I personally really hate this idea, and honestly think it detracts from Paul’s talents.

Now this part is purely speculation on my part - how I read the song - but bear with me. Knowing the context of Revolver, how it was a time where John and George were getting particularly close and becoming “enlightened” via LSD, and how Paul felt both left out, frustrated, and scared of messing up somehow if he were to take LSD with John, “Eleanor Rigby” feels to me like an attempt by Paul to “catch up” with John and George by making a melancholy mature song instead of another “silly love song.” However, to me, it feels like the song falls flat and is even a regression since Paul had already done this with “Yesterday” two albums beforehand. In my opinion Paul is at his best when he’s confident in himself and overall in Revolver I think his songs by and large feel very insecure, and within Revolver to it just sounds very out of place. “For No One” feels the same way to me.

As much as I read Paul’s music during the Revolver sessions to be mostly insecure, or at the very least mirroring how Paul was left out, he really had some amazing contributions. His solo on “Taxman,” the tape loops he provided for “Tomorrow Never Knows,” etc., which makes it even more frustrating me. Like, we know that Paul was talented and it shows within Revolver. It’s just that during this album it was far more in the background, which was perhaps strange for Paul since he was usually one of if not the main Beatle.

Now onto Paul songs I love.

1 - Here There and Everywhere

Part of why it’s so good to me is the story behind it: Paul hearing “God Only Knows,” which I believe to this day he still says is his favorite song, and then writing this at John’s house while John was sleeping. It’s a beautiful story that also plays very well into the McLennon myth whether you read them as besties, romantic and/or sexual partners, or toxically codependent. Sound wise, it fits Revolver really well. With Paul’s voice sounding so dreamy, it feels perfectly in line with “I’m Only Sleeping,” “Love You Too,” and “Tomorrow Never Knows.” The concept of needing someone everywhere plays into a Beatlism that George in particular was really good at, this sense of love that’s so overwhelming it’s possibly even detrimental (side note, but now I need to write about how George used this as well), and I love seeing Paul’s take on it. I especially love how this concept of all encompassing love is contrasted with the slow pacing and simple instrumentals. As I’m writing this I keep having to go back to listen to it because it’s just so beautiful. It may be my favorite Paul song full stop.

2 - I Will

Okay so I’m not sure if this is how they intended it, but when I took a class on the Beatles my professor discussed “Julia” and “I Will” as sort of sister songs, and I haven’t stopped thinking about them that way since. Just these really soft beautiful love songs that are so intimate and explore John and Paul’s respective complicated feelings about love. I’m not going to get into it here but I think “Julia” is really interesting because it’s pretty obviously inspired if not about his mom, but also has traces of Yoko in there (Ocean child), and it’s sort of a love song and we know John had really complicated freudian feelings about his own mother.

To me the best part about “I Will” is how honest it is. On the one hand, it’s about a love that will last forever, but it also starts with “Who knows how long I’ll love you.” Paul was in a very strange spot around the time this song was written, being engaged to Jane Asher and then subsequently dumped, meeting Linda while still with Jane and then eventually getting together with Linda (and eventually marrying her). This song, to me, is an acknowledgement by Paul that he wasn’t a perfect partner. He’ll wait for you forever, but at the same time he’s honest and says he doesn’t know how long he’ll love you. I could go on more about how I think this also reveals how Paul went about relationships in general, where I think he needed someone that he could completely surround himself with while simultaneously not always being able to give the same amount of devotion back, but this post is already so long.

3 - Silly Love Songs

First, the way the song starts with that weird mechanical sound loop, I absolutely adore. It’s very proto-Devo to me, and then it transitions into something completely different instrumentally, way more groovy, and I love it. As for the lyrics, I just have to say again Paul is at his best when he’s confident, and I’d go as far as to say I think Paul is even better when he’s a bit cocky or petty - and this song is obviously petty! After so many years of his music being labeled granny music or silly or immature, he fully embraces it and asks directly, “what’s wrong with silly love songs?” And it’s perfect. The lyrics admittedly are kind of simple, a large part of the song just being the words “I love you” over and over again, but I think that makes it better.

Some other songs I love by Paul but unfortunately don’t have very concrete thoughts on are:

Michelle - The lyrics admittedly sound kind of lazy to me but I think that adds to the slow pace. I don’t know if it was intended this way but this is a song McCartney weed song to me and I love it. It reminds me of “Sleazy Bed Track,” for some reason.

For No One - I know I said I think it has the same problems of Eleanor Rigby, and I stand by that, but there’s a story about it’s creation that is so funny to me I love it purely for that. Apparently Paul wanted french horn, so George Martin went through the trouble of getting the best French Hornist at the time, Alan Civil, and Paul gave Civil the tune he wanted him to play. The highest note in the solo is notoriously an extremely hard note to play for the french horn, because with the instrument honestly a lot of the playing comes from your mouth and not so much the buttons (at least that’s what I’ve been told). So Civil does this solo while George Martin is worrying in the corner because of Paul’s audacity to ask such a thing, and Civil manages to get the note in one go. Paul doesn’t think the take is good enough, and asks the guy to do it again, and George Martin had to step in and tell Paul off because he didn’t understand that he’d asked a potentially impossibly task of Civil and somehow managed to get his way.

Junk - if you haven’t already then go listen to the anthology version

Man We Was Lonely - the part particularly from 00:47 - 01:13.

Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey - not much to say, I just love it.

Thanks for the ask!

[alba17]

John and Borderline Personality Disorder: My Pet Theory

This quote fits my pet theory that John had Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD). I know some people don't like this sort of psychoanalyzing or diagnosing famous people. In John's case, I think it helps explain a lot of his irrational behavior.

To simplify, people with BPD usually have a "favorite person," whom they latch onto to create a sense of self because they feel empty inside and have no innate sense of identity. They look to others to provide it. Paul was John's favorite person until he switched to Yoko. (The million dollar question is why he did that. #something happened in India.)

People with BPD need constant attention and validation, specifically from their favorite person. They have intense emotions that are difficult to manage unless they learn specific coping skills in therapy (e.g. DBT, dialectical behavior therapy, which was developed in the 80's). They are highly sensitive to feelings of rejection. They take everything personally and interpret behavior as rejection when healthy people would not. These feelings of rejection can be overwhelming and obsessive.

TW: Suicide for discussion under cut.

Like John, a large proportion of people with BPD experienced childhood trauma. Like John, they often try to manage their overwhelming emotions with substance abuse (and/or self-harm). Suicidal ideation and attempts are also common. Based on his songs, it's likely that John felt suicidal at times.

The quote above demonstrates John's need for validation from the other Beatles, mostly from Paul. He wants Paul to come to him and ask him to write songs, to show John that Paul needs him. Think about that for a moment. It's ridiculous, right? John's job is to write and perform songs. Why does he need The Beatles Paul to ask him to do that? It doesn't make any sense to a mentally healthy person. But for a person with BPD, it makes total sense. The favorite person has to constantly demonstrate their love or else it doesn't exist. He's basically blackmailing Paul by withholding his songwriting efforts until Paul gives him the attention and love he seeks. John sees Paul's failure to ask as rejection. He's constantly on guard and looking for signs of rejection.

"Write some more 'cause we like your work." WHAT? in 1969, he needs the other Beatles Paul to tell John he likes his work? After 10 plus years of songwriting together and as one of the most successful groups in the history of pop music? That's mind-blowing. That makes no sense and sounds crazy. But it shows how little sense of self and self-worth John has. In DBT lingo, he needs to "check the facts" to get some perspective and reduce the intensity of his feelings of worthlessness and rejection.

John has an internal story about himself through which he filters and tries to make sense of the world: "I'm worthless and I don't even truly exist unless my favorite person constantly validates me." Probably Paul's abundant creativity at this time and the competitive aspect of their relationship increased John's need for validation. Perhaps he ultimately had to wrench himself away from Paul as his favorite person because the dissonance became too great between Paul as his competitor against whom he couldn't win in the songwriting contest (as drugs took over his life), and Paul as his favorite person from whom he needed constant attention and validation.

Obviously you can see how John and Yoko's relationship fulfilled his BPD needs given their total enmeshment. It wasn't healthy and it probably would've been better for him to be with someone who could hold boundaries. But that's another topic.

I guess I have to put a caveat that I'm not trying to put him down. Mental illness is an illness just like cancer or a virus. You have no control over it. It's just striking how well BPD fits John and I think it helps in understanding his weird behavior and patterns. And ultimately, even why The Beatles broke up. BPD is a horrible condition and very difficult to live with, both for the sufferer and their loved ones. The suicide rate is actually pretty high. I speak from personal experience. I wish he'd been able to get the help he needed. DBT is the major therapeutic method for helping people with BPD and it wasn't developed until the 80's.

Thanks for coming to my TED talk.

[pie-of-flames]

This is so interesting and I totally agree. Paul is definitely coded female.

[tocrackerboxpalace]

everyone moved on but i’m still here

[javelinbk]

Four Beatles, three rooms… makes sense

[good-to-drive]

Tbh in terms of discussion/analysis Paul's relationship with John REALLY overshadows every single other relationship in his life, it's like mclennon is the trainwreck we can't look away from even when there are at least two or more other trainwrecks just a few feet away

[mattnben-bennmatt]

Matt & Ben || John & Paul

Here’s a story. Matt Damon told it. But it’s not about Matt Damon. It’s about Bono. But it’s not really about Bono, either; it’s about Paul McCartney. But Damon heard it from Bono. One day, Bono flew into Liverpool. Paul was supposed to pick him up at the airport, and Bono was shocked when Paul picked him up at the airport alone, behind the wheel of his car. “Would you like to go on a little tour?” Paul said. Sure, Bono said, because Bono, you see, is a fan of Paul’s, in the same way that Damon is a fan of Bono’s. “Bono’s obsessed with the Beatles,” Damon said at the table in the lobby of the gated hotel in the little town in Germany. “He’s, like, a student of the Beatles. He’s read every book on the Beatles. He’s seen every bit of film. There’s nothing he doesn’t know. So when Paul stops and says 'That’s where it happened,’ Bono’s like, 'That’s where what happened?’ because he thinks he knows everything. And Paul says, 'That’s where the Beatles started. That’s where John gave me half his chocolate bar.’ And now Bono’s like, 'What chocolate bar? I’ve never heard of any chocolate bar.’ And Paul says, 'John had a chocolate bar, and he shared it with me. And he didn’t give me some of his chocolate bar. He didn’t give me a square of his chocolate bar. He didn’t give me a quarter of his chocolate bar. He gave me half of his chocolate bar. And that’s why the Beatles started right there.’ Isn’t that fantastic? It’s the most important story about the Beatles, and it’s in none of the books! And Paul tells it to Bono. Because he knows how much Bono loves the Beatles.”

— Matt Damon, interviewed by Tom Junod for Esquire (August 2013).

-

Ben Affleck and I actually had a joint bank account, and the bank account was money that we’d made doing local commercials, and we could only use it on trips to New York to audition […] If one kid had enough for a candy bar, then the candy bar was bought and split in half — that’s just the way it’s been.

— Matt Damon, interviewed by Piers Morgan for CNN (March 2011).

-

First of all, I think I should say that we pale by comparison to The Beatles. But my understanding of how [Lennon and McCartney] worked was that they would go off and work separately. Matt and I worked together in the same room most of the time, riffing off of one another’s ideas for scenes or certain lines of dialogue.

— Ben Affleck, interviewed for eDrive (February/March 1998).

-

Q: But you didn’t compose your stuff separately, as other accounts have said? JOHN: No, no, no. I said that, but I was lying. [Laughs.] By the time I said that, we were so sick of this idea of writing and singing together, especially me, that I started this thing about, “We never wrote together, we were never in the same room.” Which wasn’t true. We wrote a lot of stuff together, one-on-one, eyeball to eyeball.

— John Lennon, interviewed by David Sheff for Playboy (September 1980).

-

[Ben and I] have been bizarrely close for a long time. You know, I was watching Get Back—the Peter Jackson documentary—and at the end of that you see the Beatles playing on the roof in London and it says, “This is the last time that they ever played together, live.” And it made me so sad to think of; because you look at them and they’re so happy! And Ben and I, I called him and said, “Look man, we were talking about doing this and it’s been 25 years or something since Good Will Hunting. What are we doing? We both kind of hit the lottery! Why aren’t we working together more often?” And after my dad passed in 2017—and Ben was very, very close with him—it’s like it changed something in us, I think. You start to see the end game and to feel like, “I want to make every second count.” I don’t want to fritter away time anymore.

— Matt Damon, interviewed by Chris Wallace for CNN (July 2023).

-

I needed to make this post because way before the Matt & Ben brainrot had the chance to set in, John & Paul had already taken complete hold of my being. And even if this hold has gentled in recent years, they nevertheless rewired my neural circuits. And thus, everything now inevitably leads back to Lennon/McCartney. One day I'll make a (probably very tinhatty) post highlighting specific parallels between Matt & Ben and John & Paul. Today is not that day.

For now, I merely wanted to marvel at how it's not only me who inevitably sees same-sex friendships and creative partnerships through the Lennon/McCartney goggles, but, being Lennon/McCartney arguably one of the most famous same-sex friendships and creative partnerships in history, they influence how other friends who are also creative partners—such as Matt and Ben—see themselves.

For example, the Chocolate Bar story. First of all, I can't believe I only realized yesterday that one of my favorite bits of Beatles lore—a story so special Paul hasn't told it anywhere else—was made public by Matt Damon (which is kind of ironic, given how private and protective he is over his own friendship with Ben). But then, it made me re-evaluate one of Matt's quotes. You see, I thought Matt saying "If one kid had enough for a candy bar, then the candy bar was bought and split in half" about him and Ben was one of those crazy coincidences I could see thanks to my Lennon/McCartney vision. Rather, Matt seems instead to be directly referencing the Chocolate Bar story, even if only a handful of people would understand the reference at the time. By drawing this comparison, a candy bar is no longer just a candy bar. It represents the founding principles of generosity and equity on which a great partnership can be built. Like John and Paul before them, Matt and Ben chose to tie their fates together and share what they had so they could make it.

And as soon as they made it, the world started comparing them to Lennon/McCartney, as we can see by Ben's quote. And it's interesting to think how the generalized perception of Lennon/McCartney at the time might have influenced how they felt about the comparison. Imagine you and your best friend/writing partner just achieved your wildest dreams. But that also means the eyes of the world are now turned on you, and your very real friendship is being used as a marketing ploy and starting to be ravenously consumed by the public. Now imagine that people start comparing you to The Beatles, and the very famous songwriting partnership at its core, Lennon/McCartney: two friends who rocketed to the toppermost-of-the-poppermost, but who broke up very acrimoniously in less than a decade. The Beatle-People will know that they deeply loved each other throughout it all, but that was not the prevailing narrative until a few years ago, when Get Back came out. So no wonder Ben's first instinct was to go "RIP to John and Paul but Matt and I are different."

And then, Get Back comes out and it makes them realize that they both are and are not different. They are not different in the sense that the pressure of fame did affect their relationship. Not to the extent of John and Paul's, whose private troubles were made public. Whatever conflicts Matt and Ben might have had throughout the years, they gracefully kept it private, which allowed their relationship to naturally heal without the press poking at the wounds. However, I do believe the intensity of the public gaze made them shy away from collaborating again. They mention working on numerous projects throughout the years (particularly after their Oscar win with Good Will Hunting), but none of these saw the light of day. And even though they say they were working so much they did not have time to write, it's odd that it took them over two decades to even co-star in another movie again. I think that, much like John and Paul in the 70s, the pressure placed on an eventual reunion was so great—both in terms of living up to their past success and of inviting all that scrutiny again—that Matt and Ben opted to remain private friends, at the sake of their creative partnership. Which makes total sense, because, like John and Paul, there's no partnership without the friendship. But this sacrifice is tragic in its own way, because the creative partnership was a big part of their friendship. Acting, writing, directing—creating—was what drew them together in the first place! It's like asking them to amputate one of the fundamental components of their relationship.

Which is why I find the last quote so incredibly moving. While watching Get Back, Matt was not only reminded of the joy of creating with his best friend—he was confronted with the preciousness of it. Because this is where Matt and Ben are most different from John and Paul: Matt and Ben have been granted the luxury of time. Unlike John and Paul, Matt and Ben could get to their 50s and realize, "What are we doing? We both kind of hit the lottery! Why aren’t we working together more often?" They could realize that they didn't give a fuck about what anyone said or thought anymore. That being together doing something they loved was more important. And so, unlike Paul, Matt got to hear his wife say that writing with Ben was the most she'd seen him laugh in many years. And Ben, unlike John, got to feel that total happiness was seeing his children every day and working with his best friend, and that there's nothing more that he wants in life. In fact, working together on Air made them feel so profoundly accomplished and realized, that both Ben and Matt thought they were about to die, since they'd apparently reached the "mountain top".

And so, it is with great joy that I await what lies in store for Ben and Matt. They have just created their own studio, Artists Equity, and are slated to collaborate in some of its future projects. Nothing will ever replace John and Paul in my heart, and their love story is ongoing in its own way; oh, but how wonderful is it to be able to witness a creative partnership and friendship whose future is still ripe with possibility! And how poetic that the tragedy of John and Paul's story played a part in ensuring that?

[nothing-to-say-okay]

And Your Bird Can Sing - The Thesis

Tell me that you got everything you want and your bird can sing, but you don’t get me

Caught up in thinking about this song that we have conflicting reports and opinions on what it’s actually about and ready to present my thoughts.

TLDR: And Your Bird Can Sing is about a cycle of torment (or cycle of abuse, but I prefer to be careful with usage of that word for various obvious reasons).

Disclaimer: It is not my intention for my take to be seen as the ultimate reading, you can agree or disagree and I will be happy to discuss!

WARNING: THIS IS GONNA BE LONG!

INSPIRATION

First person to claim they served as an inspiration for this piece is Marianne Faithful in her relationship to Mick Jagger (sorry Marianne, the song can’t be inspired by you, you and Mick weren’t even together when it was written - AYBCS was recorded in April 1966 and written probably earlier, Marianne and Mick got together in November 1966. That does not mean that she cannot identify with something in it though).

Then we have Cynthia who said it’s about a golden bird cage that she says she gifted to John and while this seems a bit absurd as Cynthia does not appear to match the person addressed in the song, I wouldn’t be quick to disregard her as a partial inspiration for this song. I will talk about it later when applying a plausible autobiographical reading.

There’s also a theory that it’s actually inspired by an interview with Frank Sinatra and his criticism of The Beatles. We know that there was some sort of a rivalry going on between him and the band, a representation of a generational clash between the old world and the new. I actually like this interpretation and as Paul once said, “most of our songs start as a newspaper article”. I do think that this news piece probably inspired some lines and in a way, it is also about that - you can actually view the lyrics that way - remember that a song can be about multiple things at once. But I don’t think this is the ultimate reading.

More under the cut.

THE LYRICS

First of all, let’s forget all about the supposed inspiration and take a look at who’s who in these lyrics.

We have what looks like three characters in the song: the narrator, the ‘you’ that’s being addressed and a bird that seems to belong to the ‘you’.

Over the course of the song, the character of the narrator is chastising the ‘you’ character for manifesting several unflattering character traits akin to narcissism and not understanding them.

The ‘you’ person is:

materialistic (prized possessions, got everything they want) 

sort of know-it-all (they claim to have seen seven wonders and heard every sound there is)

yet they don’t get the narrator (to “not get” can either mean “not possess” or “not understand”, I assume it’s supposed to be both)

don’t see them and don’t hear them (therefore they don’t understand them or completely miss them and their point). 

Now, let’s take a look at the ‘bird’ character that belongs to the ‘you’ (I assume that I don’t have to remind Beatles fans that ‘bird’ can be synonymous to ‘woman’).

The bird:

can sing (which could mean this person is literally a singer or they are capable in doing something else, anything they are supposed to do), important takeaway - it makes noise that can be heard

is green (green is usually synonymous with jealous/envious or alternatively inexperienced, although I don’t think the latter makes sense for this song in particular. It can also be something else as ‘green bird’ is a recurring character in the lennon/mccartney-verse - hello, chica ferdi/Sun King), important takeaway - by being colored green the bird makes a visual impression that can be seen

can swing (the most puzzling part, I saw people interpret this in connection to the swinging London in the 60s and maybe), important takeaway - the bird can move independently to its ‘you’ """"owner""""

Now, I’m going to propose something a bit out there. The bird and the narrator could be (but also don’t have to be at the same time) interpreted as the same person.

Considering the important takeaways from the ‘bird’ character section:

your bird can sing (you can’t hear me)

your bird is green (you can’t see me)

your bird can swing (you don’t get/own me)

The narrator further complains:

When your prized posessions

Start to weigh you down

Look in my direction

I’ll be ‘round, I’ll be ‘round

The narrator worries that the ‘you’ prefers money/material things over them (and their spiritual experiences). But once they decide that the narrator means more than the prized possessions, they can come around. The narrator will be waiting.

When your bird is broken

Will it bring you down

You may be awoken

I’ll be ‘round, I’ll be ‘round

This gets a bit dark, I must admit, but it reads to me like the narrator is imposing some emotional manipulation here (either they are straight up threatening with self-harm or not so subtly reminding to the ‘you’ that their mental well-being is dependent on them and if they won’t clean up their behavior and wake up, shit will go down, yet the narrator doesn’t intend to leave). But the narrator is also doubtful that the ‘you’ will care - will it [even] bring you down?

This song is thematically very reminiscent of two particular songs on the preceding album Rubber Soul:

Girl - where the narrator also describes a person with narcissistic traits that they cannot leave and Nowhere Man (he’s as blind as he can be/can you see me at all?) about two lost characters who don’t understand each other. And Your Bird Can Sing is like these two songs were combined together but the stakes are higher.

AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL READING

First of all, I want to say that not every song has to be based on the author’s life. And if it is, maybe it’s a metaphor or an exaggeration due to poetic license. That said, let’s take a look at two likely subjects in John Lennon’s life and his relationship to them that could have inspired him to write this because I think it’s easier to understand the song that way. Also if you are uncomfortable discussing real life relationships in this way, I guess it's time to quit reading now.

CYNTHIA

Yes, Cynthia herself suggested that this song is about her. But how could that be? It doesn’t seem like her to be chasing prized possessions and ignoring John in the process and I don’t get the vibe that she would be emotionally manipulative like that though of course, we don’t know the reality. And I doubt she would have claimed to see “seven wonders”, even if it is a hyperbole.

What I think is more likely is that if Cynthia, in her relationship to John, is someone in this song, it’s the bird trapped in her golden cage (that she literally gave him or… he metaphorically gave her in some way?) and John is the ‘you’ who treats her poorly as well as he is the narrator. He is chastising himself for how he treats her. He knows he hurts her. He understands that she’s her own person who is strong and can do her own thing without him (sing, swing). And he doesn’t like it. He understands that he will break her if they will go on like this (when your bird is broken, will it bring you down?).

For this interpretation to be true, it requires a great deal of self awareness but also inability and/or lack of willingness to change and put his words into action. In my opinion, that tracks perfectly with what he said about himself in the interviews over the time. It’s cruel but also kind of soul crushing and difficult to live with, if he felt guilty about the situation at all (I want to say he probably did).

Cynthia is kind of a satisfactory answer for the second character casting in this song, although I don’t think this is all there is to it. And the second subject that likely had influence on this song is…

PAUL

Unpredictably. Now, I feel like I will get stormed by both skeptics (not every song has to be about Paul!) and Paul fans (he wouldn’t treat John like this!) for what I’m insinuating here. But give me a chance to explain.

Well first of all, John is the POV, feelings are subjective and the narrator, real or fictional, is not always reliable. It might as well be that the harm that is being inflicted on John is only perceived that way by himself because of his own issues which I won’t be getting into here. But also maybe not? Or not fully (something about the intent).

That said, the narcissistic traits described in the lyrics of both this song and the song Girl match up with traits John would later ascribe to Paul and explain John’s own Jealous Guy (green guy, hah) sort of behavior. It is not far-fetched to me to hypothetically assume this is how he could feel about him. Give it a couple years of bottled up hurt, some sort of a ‘final straw’ kind of action (not only leaving the Beatles but John flipping about Paul buying the prized possessions Northern Songs shares to "one up" him, something happening in India or whatever), a questionable primal scream therapy or whatever else went down and you might as well get resentful 70s Lennon.

If this is indeed about Paul, then I think John sees himself as the narrator and the bird. Paul is the ‘you’ in that case, just to be clear.

One more thing I want to propose as a part of their lyrical dialogue, let’s say, is the connection to another Rubber Soul special, I’m Looking Through You, a song largely recognized as a piece depicting a quarrel between Paul himself and his girlfriend, Jane Asher. I am not disputing that at all (as well as I’m not disputing Cynthia being an inspiration for this song), but a song can be about more things at the same time (let’s say, in this case, Paul’s general attitude towards people he loves but who in his opinion also mistreat him).

I’m looking through you, where did you go?

You can’t see me

I thought I knew you, what did I know?

You don’t get me

Your lips are moving, I cannot hear

You can’t hear me

Funny how that works, eh? And then you have this.

You’re thinking of me the same old way,

You were above me but not today,

The only difference is you’re down there,

I’m looking through you and you’re nowhere

Because he's a real nowhere man, sitting in his nowhere land.

(And I’m Looking Through You is also about perceived harm - why did you not treat me right? - caused by the subject of the song, it’s a cycle of… miscommunication and vindication, I hurt you, you hurt me, you won’t be above me, i won’t give you the pleasure, I won’t resign myself to you). It’s like a game of pride. Who’s going to give in first? Who will be the first one to be broken (or break the cycle)?

I also think it’s interesting, assuming I got things correct, to contrast how John views Paul and Cynthia as different characters in his inner world/the song, Paul views John and Jane as the same character.

IT'S ABOUT BOTH...

…and that’s the crux of my thesis. The song is, in my opinion, about both John’s relationship with Cynthia and with Paul. But whereas in his relationship to Cynthia, John sees himself as the tormentor but he also doesn’t want to let her go, in his relationship to Paul he sees himself as the person who’s being harmed but cannot make himself leave. (There’s three characters in this play after all). And my interpretation of Girl is similar, although it’s thematically a bit different as it concerns torment and desire (Girl is how John sees Paul but Girl is also a part of John’s personality who mistreats people).

(There’s also a part of me who believes that John on some level wanted his dream girl to treat him like that due to his self-deprecating turn on connected to oedipus' complex and him sort of fancying being a tortured artist but that would also make for a separate post).

Pain will lead to pleasure.

It’s a vicious cycle that repeats itself not only vertically within John and Paul’s relationship (and to them from their parental figures’ mistreatment). But also horizontally as it spreads from them to their respective partners (or rather from John to Cynthia - from his own POV, we don’t know much about Paul’s relationship with Jane and I am not insinuating he abused her!!! but if I’m Looking Through You is about her as well, he was looking through her, just like he was looking through John - he was ignoring them in a way - passive aggressive way - to feel in control - rather than facing the issue head on) and perhaps others (enter annoyed George). (I also think ILTY is meant to mirror Paul’s behavior with a behavior of his father Jim towards himself when he was younger based on the information available where Jim would be the emotionally unavailable character that also doesn’t treat Paul right - love has a nasty habit of disappearing overnight).

I want to also go back to the theory about Frank Sinatra as a representative of the old generation and generational abuse inflicted by parents on their children because I do think ultimately think the song is about that too. We are at the cusp of summer of love and the new generation that the Beatles represented is about to start a revolution - a fight for liberty of all kinds and freeing themselves of the old established rules. I already mentioned John’s abandonment issues but maybe he’s also being more general? Maybe he feels like the old conservative world is hurting him (and other young people) for whatever reason.

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE GIGGLING TAKE?

You know, fair question… The easiest explanation is that they just got high and forgot about their problems for a moment, it was not all dire (just like it wasn’t between John and Cynthia) - to paraphrase John, sometimes it was fun and sometimes it was not.

Maybe the autobiographical reading is not as biographical as we are lead to believe. Or it’s highly dramatized. Maybe it has nothing to do with real life J&P, really. Maybe they are just projecting their struggles with their girlfriends on each other in their made up fantasy world. I mean, who knows? Plausible explanations are many. It is not my goal to give an interpretation of their relationship as my take on the lyrics applies to many possibilities, in my opinion. Though I think it's meant to be connected like I suggested.

THAT'S ALL FOLKS

What do you think? And have you ever noticed something about Revolver and cycles?

[igorvinyls]

Why I Believe John Lennon is Asuka Langley

Hello everyone! I originally created a thread about this over on Twitter, though I also want to post it here just because. I want to preface this by saying while this is mostly a joke, I still want to point out the similarities between the two. I find that both John and Asuka are very complex people/characters that happen to heavily relate to each other. Obvious spoilers for Neon Genesis Evangelion. TW FOR TOPICS SUCH AS SUICIDE AND DEATH.

CHILDHOOD TRAUMA

Both John and Asuka lost their mothers from a young age, with Asuka losing her mother at 4 and John losing his mother just before his 18th birthday. It’s known that John’s mother wasn’t exactly mentally stable as Mimi, John’s aunt, was given custody of him. Similarly to John’s mother, Asuka’s mom, Kyoko, was also mentally unstable. Kyoko lost her mind after surviving a failed experiment with Evangelion Unit-02. This experiment would also end up taking the life of Yui Ikari, Shinji’s mother (this is important info for later.) Kyoko ultimately committed suicide after losing her mind and her husband in the process. Though it is ambiguous how Asuka’s father felt towards her, he did indeed drive his daughter away by cheating on Kyoko while hospitalized. It’s also known that John’s father wasn’t very involved with him up until the height of Beatlemania. Both John and Asuka were never very close with their parents due to many different factors.

(It can also be argued that John and Asuka were both adopted, but Asuka being adopted was only canon in the manga. For the sake of this post, I’ll only mention canon events from the anime going forward.)

I would also like to bring up this video.

RELATIONSHIPS WITH LOVERS

John and Yoko will probably be the most recognized celebrity couple in the world. It’s also recognized that John had an Oedipus complex which was sometimes discussed. The same can be said for Asuka, considering the fact that she romantically latched onto Kaji, a 30 year old special inspector for NERV. Asuka does this to fill the void of a perfect father figure in her life, as well as filling the role of a lover. John mentions doing this with Yoko numerous times. John and Yoko would even go as far as calling each other mommy and daddy. Moving onto other romantic relationships, I will now discuss Shinji, Asuka, John, and Paul. Shinji and Asuka have this strange dynamic throughout the story of Evangelion. Asuka is secretly in love with Shinji (you can already see which direction this is headed in), though Shinji has a hard time reciprocating his feelings due to his own personal struggles. Asuka’s rudeness and constant bullying also confuses Shinji, leaving him to wonder what Asuka truly feels for him. In this scenario, Paul would be in the same boat as Shinji. Shinji and Paul both lost their mothers at a young age. Paul and John bonded over the loss of their mothers. In a way, this also happens with Shinji and Asuka. It’s easy to tell that Shinji is more drawn towards Asuka after she tells him that her stepmom isn’t her actual mother. John and Paul go on to have a rivalry as they grow older, which also happens to Asuka and Shinji, though their rivalry was highlighted since day one. This rivalry between the two characters progresses all the way to the finale of the series. You can say that Asuka finally accepts Shinji when she lifts her hand up to his cheek while he is brutally strangling her. This act is seen as her accepting him into her heart after everything that they’ve been through. John and Paul also reconcile towards the end of John’s life. In Evangelion, the world is quite literally destroyed at the end of the series when the two finally reconcile. I’m not gonna be cheesy and say the same for John and Paul, but yeah. MOVING ON NOW.

OTHER FACTORS

John and Asuka have a habit of trying to appear more “mature” than they truly are. Asuka constantly boasts about being the best and most mature out of everyone. Same can be said for John. We also see this with his marriage to Cynthia Powell, John’s first wife. In my eyes, John’s first marriage was a rush to maturity considering the fact that he was only 21. I could say the same for John having a child with Cynthia at such a young age as well. John and Asuka, though trying to seem mature, are ultimately vulnerable people who tend to regress. Asuka acts like a young, lovestruck girl with Kaji. John acted in a similar fashion with Yoko. Asuka and John had massive egos. What else is there to say, really?

FINAL SUMMARY AND A FUN FACT

This is gonna be a quick one that basically ties together the points of my threads.

John and Asuka were seriously neglected as children which had a massive impact on their social development, as well as behavior.

Both had large egos, yet low self esteem.

The only fun fact about the two I have is that they both know German and Japanese.

THANKS FOR READING!

[thewalrusespublicist]

Stress Testing Song Lyric Theories: Real Love/Real Life/Stepping Out Demo Meta

What's this? Another long-ass essay analysis on a piece of John Lennon's media that keeps getting taken down by the Ono Lennon estate? More likely than you think (especially when you're this autistic).

As a history obsessive and a grizzled, mood ruining, eternal hater/skeptic, I have misgivings when people in the Beatles fandom look at song lyrics only through one specific lens/focus as it can lead to a myopic and potentially inaccurate take of the subject matter. This I've noticed is particularly bad with older Beatles fans looking at John's work through just the Yoko lens and other fans looking at it just through the Paul lens. (This ain't a lecture btw, I am as guilty as anyone when it comes to doing both.)

When dealing with contentious things like interpreting feelings and songs (nothing could POSSIBLY go wrong with that combo lol), it's important to get at least the facts we do have straight, which is why I wanted to go through some of the fandom's darlings and take them apart to see if the theories about them actually hold up to scrutiny.

To start out, I'd thought I go big with having a proper look at John Lennon's 1977 real life/real love/stepping out demo. I wanted to tackle this one as this is one of only three unconfirmed songs in John's catalogue that I was 100 % convinced was about Paul. As I've mentioned before, this was to me the smoking gun to end all smoking guns, my golden calf, Real Love demo my beloved etc. Got to say, I'm glad I did, as the outcome was a lot more complicated than expected! So let's get to the demo:

Analyzing songs for a fixed specific meaning or one coherent subject is always ... challenging. Songs are a medium to express both real or imagined concepts, feelings and events. You can't know everything about the artist's thought process and therefore their work, especially in regards to what is fictional/metaphorical and what is real (pun intended). What's special about this demo though (and what makes it easier to work with) is the fact that its less of a fully crafted song and more one long stream of consciousness ramble. The line between subject and artist is dissolved as we sit at the piano with John as he tells us about his miserable morning:

Woke up this morning. Blues around my head. Ain't no need to ask the reason why. Went to the kitchen. Lit a cigarette. Blew the smoke rings in the sky. Just got to let it go. Just got to let it go.

The song (or ramble) carries on like that for a while as we get to John reading the newspaper (keep this bit in mind, it might come in handy later):

Picked up the paper. Read the Daily News. Nothing doing anyway. Same old BS. Doot doot doot doot cruise. Nah nah nah nah now. Let go. Let it go. (laughs) No, what am I doing? Why don't you let it go? Why don't you let it go? Mm, it's real life. It's real. Yes, it's real life. It's real. Let go. Let the mighty river flow. Let go. Let go. Oh, rock your balls, you...

As we can see in the stanza above, John is bored and clearly agitated/embarrassed about something.

Then more stanzas about boredom and a lack of fulfilment wherever he goes and then we get to the stanza that everyone here is probably familiar with:

Was I just dreaming or was it only yesterday? I used to hold you in my arms. And now a baby, and another on the way (laughs) la la la la la farm (laughs) Why must we be alone? Wah wah wah wah wah wah wah. (scats)

If it don't feel right, don't do it. If it don't look right, look right through it If it don't feel right, don't do it. Just call him/them on the phone.

People go insane over this stanza and for good reason. It's a confession of lost intimacy with someone who:

Is clearly important to John

He is now more distant with

Is connected to babies or having a baby

Is connected to a farm

The mystery of course is, who is this person? Realistically, there is only really three people we know of who even somewhat fit these specific categories. Let's go through them:

First potential subject: Yoko!

This one has some legs. More than I was expecting. At this point John and her:

Do have an infant

Are purchasing a farm together (I think the sale went through 1978 so they should be talking about that in 1977.)

Distant from one another (their marriage was rocky throughout the mid-late 70s)

With Yoko as the subject, the stanza could be a reflection of their lost intimacy:

Was I just dreaming or was it only yesterday? I used to hold you in my arms. - self explanatory, the yesterday here has no significance but to signify nostalgia. The dream in this circumstance could be the dream of their relationship, The Ballad of John and Yoko.

And now a baby, and another on the way (laughs) la la la la la farm (laughs) - A long time has passed, they have a kid now. Now this takes some manipulation but is the farm 'the baby on the way'? The new shared project that will take further attention away from their marriage? The laugh might indicate a sense of irony there, a bitter joke. Yoko and John have struggled to conceive, Sean is very likely their only shared child. Is the laugh brought about by a sad reflection of the farm replacing the gap of children?

Why must we be alone? Wah wah wah wah wah wah wah. (scats) - we are in this marriage but we are alone OR why are we alone? Their marriage was a cocoon, all-consuming but stifling. Maybe both of them needed air from time-to-time.

So this stanza alone works quite well to be about Yoko, if you go quite metaphorical. It works somewhat with the beginning as well, he's down and depressed, over the state of their marriage? He needs to let something go, an argument? Is he waking up to the fact that reality isn't this marriage fantasy?

What it doesen't straightforwardly answer is why he is SO mad/embarrassed/avoidant of these feelings? In the records we have of their conversations, John is usually VERY vocal about not seeing Yoko enough. So why is he holding feelings of distance back and wanting to forget about it?

It also doesn't answer why the person he is calling in the following stanza on the phone is a him/them. (It's hard to hear at a normal volume. but if you are an insane person and blast your headphones to an ear bleeding level, it sounds a lot more like him than them. For the sake of caution and covering all bases however, let's consider both for now.) Why would he have reticence calling his wife or refer to her as them? In all accounts of that time period he has no issue calling her or hell, just going and talking to HIS WIFE who lives in their shared flat. It's a weird, dangling thread. The only explanation that would fit the stanza being inspired by Yoko is John realising he needs connection outside of his fading marriage. (I want to raise and partially dismiss here that it could just be a separate train of thought, a reminder to himself that he has to call someone for a chore/service. Yoko handled most of the admin stuff so its not like he's doing any of that and he isn't doing anything professionally so its unlikely to be a random call).

Second potential subject: May Pang!

Now I almost dismissed May outright but girl you know what, good for you, this might actually be about you! Our dear May is:

Important to John (she's also in the diaries and he dreams about sleeping with her a lot, he is REALLY into May)

Distant now he and Yoko are back together

But not baby nor farm adjacent

Taking May in mind, there is a certain logic there. John allegedly does dream about May and sleeping with May so whilst the Yesterday has no significance, the dreaming would. She was his romantic partner and still into her so holding in arms makes sense. The next lines also make sense if you follow the same logic as Yoko's but more distanced. Time has passed and his circumstances with the baby and the farm is now massively different to before, maybe he wants an escape from responsibility represented by May?

With May in mind, the stanzas work a lot better than it does Yoko. It's real life, he can't be with her and he's got to let it go. But he can't so he wants to call 'them'. Or maybe he's had a fight with Yoko and is being reminded of May in his agitation.

So May works from an emotional standpoint and as long as that last line is really 'them'. (It begs the question of why not 'her' but anyway.) As it stands, May seems like a stronger candidate than Yoko in terms of the songs emotional logic.

So currently, May is in the lead but wait ... there's another contender...

Third potential subject: Paul!

Now this one is I think the fan favourite opinion on this site for this song and there's merit to it. Paul is:

Important to John

Relationship now distant (but not apparently distant enough for John to ALLEGEDLY stop dedicating pagggess to him in his diary/meet for dinner when they are in town/visit for Christmas).

Doesen't have a baby but he is expecting one with Linda.

John's got problems and those problems are usually projected onto a Paul shaped target. But beneath all that, was there any softness left, any tenderness?

Well yes, its fucking John Lennon, the man was a giant marshmallow with knives sticking out.

But in this song? Let's look at the stanza with Paul in mind:

Was I just dreaming or was it only yesterday? I used to hold you in my arms. - in the first line we have the 'oh shit Paul feelings incoming' klaxon of yesterday. Of course, John is allowed to reference yesterday without it necessarily being about Paul, but it's something to make a note of. Another is the dreaming. John often associates the Beatles/Paul with a dream, a fantasy, an illusion. Was his time with Paul/their closeness a dream? He is also ALLEGEDLY dreaming of Paul a lot during this period. The distance implied by yesterday also suggests a time period more applicable to Paul than Yoko/May.

The holding in arms with Paul in mind is ... well. There's no two ways about it it's unusual to think about a best friend like that. Taking out romantic implications for the sake of argument, firstly it doesn't have to be literal (just the idea of closeness) and second of all it would be like the fiftieth weirdest thing John said about Paul John has expressed similar sentiments of enjoying physical touch and closeness with a close mate.

And now a baby, and another on the way (laughs) la la la la la farm (laughs) - also needs manipulation here but still works. John's got a baby with his wife now Paul has a baby on the way with his wife yet their lives are completely separate. John could also be talking in extremes, Paul has just had a kid now another (he exaggerates the number of kids Paul has often). Paul lives on a farm, which John has been very focused on before (stttreeetch but maybe this is a point of comparison, they are still mirroring each other). The laugh here in this reading is a acknowledgement of vulnerability of the feelings he's singing about.

Why must we be alone? Wah wah wah wah wah wah wah. (scats) - harder to reconcile with Paul but could be John's projection hours, I am feeling alone therefore Paul must ALSO be feeling alone (unagi or some shit).

So the stanza also works well if we take it to be about Paul. I've said this in a prev post but being about Paul also makes the rest of the song more coherent. John is upset about something he is trying to let go of but is struggling with, he references being everywhere yet remains depressed and troubled by something in his past. All of this fits with John's relationship with Paul. With Paul in mind, the call line at the end makes a lot more sense. He wants to call him, or them, his friends who he hasn't spoken to and misses.

The big supporting evidence for this one is of course the newspaper articles for the Daily News found by a user on here who has sadly deactivated.

To be honest, these are a bit of a holy grail find. With the newspaper articles in mind, a coherent, nearly perfect narrative falls neatly into place. John has woken up in a bad mood and upon reading the paper he sinks into a worse mood as he reflects back on his old time with the Beatles. He feels the need to let it go yet is resentful and embarrassed about doing so. The articles also explain a few oddities of the song, namely why John just comes out with the word cruise just after discussing the paper:

Picked up the paper. Read the Daily News. Nothing doing anyway. Same old BS. Doot doot doot doot cruise. Nah nah nah nah now. Let go. Let it go. (laughs) No, what am I doing? Why don't you let it go? Why don't you let it go? Mm, it's real life.

If we consider that the newspaper contained the article about cruises, it makes sense for it to come out as a subconscious/conscious association (have checked btw as the audio isn't clear and it's absolutely cruise, it's much clearer when you decide your hearing is worth less than a parasocial fascination with a dead dude). The newspaper containing info about Paul also illuminates the potential reference to Paul's song 'Suicide' in the Nothing Doing line and why the stanza seems to go off the rails once the newspaper is mentioned. It's all BS apparently (classic John defense mechanism in play) but once it gets brought up, John laughs, starts questioning what he's even doing writing this song and then gets angry with himself, cutting off the first half of the take. The derailment there could be he can't believe he's singing about the news OR that the newspaper contains the emotional point he's trying to get away from. He then does a few pithy lines about the beach and mountain before circling to actually what's bothering him, the lost intimacy with the person who has a baby on the way and renewed desire to call him. The way it all fits and slots together is borderline unreal.

Buuuuttt ... there's a problem. No matter how fitting, how magically perfect, how right-seeming a theory is, it doesen't necessarily mean it's true. For it to work fully, John would have had to have recorded this on one (or two at a stretch) specific day(s) out of the whole year. It could still be about Paul of course if you take out the newspaper article element, however there are other timing issues as well. According to Dogget, this demo should date to a recording collection from late 1977 when John was going through a depressive episode, the article is dated to early 1977. Shortening the window further, the Ono-Lennon's took a trip to Japan from Summer to October and the Mccartney's third child was born in September, meaning that if it is from late 1977, its unlikely to be about Paul.

Now Dogget could very well be mistaken and this demo is from earlier on in the year. From research, the only thing I could find about John and Yoko in February 1977 is them going to visit a friend a few hours away on the 16th, so from the limited evidence I have at my disposal, there isnt a reason why it couldn't have been produced in February (if anyone has any info on early 1977 please let me know and I'll amend accordingly). Additionally, John's moods were mercurial and his mental health never great, it wouldn't surprise me if he had bad days pretty consistently throughout the year.

To wrap this whole ass dissertation up, from the context within the song, context of the major players in his life, the emotional logic of the song and the repeated references in addition to the newspaper clipping, I am 70% confident that this demo is about Paul and that Dogget was incorrect in his attribution of the demo to late 1977. I believe instead that this was recorded in early 1977, specifically on February 9th 1977 as indicated in the newspaper article. However, I am more than willing to concede that I am working on less information than I would like about John's movements at that time in early 1977 and why Dogget placed all of these in the late 1977 grouping (I think just vibes but wasn't sure, the google books page had that bit blocked lol). Therefore I think that a less likely but still plausible second option is that the subject is May or even Yoko in late 1977 during John's extended period of depression.

Power to all of you who made it this far, let me know if you want me to take a hatchet to any more fandom darlings or if you have any thing to add! Also remember this is only my analysis so feel free to disagree (but like in a fun friendly way pls, it isn't that serious)!

[alba17]

This is so interesting and I totally agree. Paul is definitely coded female in the public consciousness.

My Beatles side blog @pie-of-flames.

[foryouwereinmysong]

I think the last line is, ‘Now we will start as friends’. Which makes sense, as I always heard the song as a reply to Dear Friend. It’s the same tempo, the same melancholic tone and he answers the question, ‘Is it really true?’ with the opening line, ‘You know it’s true’. I was always a bit on the fence with McLennon, but I think the line, ‘I’m still in love with you’ settles it actually. It’s official now, and in the end, they let John say it to the world, which seems fitting.

Thank you! „we will start as friends“ hinting to "Dear Friend" is really interesting! There are quite a lot of years between the songs, but I can clearly see the conversation in the lyrics: Dear friend, what's the time? Is this really the border line? And if I make it through  It's all because of you

Does it really mean so much to you? Are you afraid, or is it true? I know it’s true it’s all because of you (I'm still in love with you)

Dear friend, throw the wine I'm in love with a friend of mine If we must start again well we will know for sure that I love you (that we will start as friends)

Are you a fool, or is it true? Are you afraid, or is it true? I don't wanna lose you, oh no  Abuse you or confuse you 

[biblicalsserafim]

true fans know that the best beatles jukebox musical ever made is not across the universe. it's The Big Time Movie (2012). the beatles themselves made goofy ass, unserious, action-adventure movies about four friends that were in a band together. that is exactly what the big time movie delivered on. dry humor, god awful puns that make even the characters groan, a dastardly villain with a plot to ruin the boys' career (even if indirectly), and a healthy dose of running down streets avoiding teenage girls, because they're a world famous boy band for god's sake. any beatles fan that Hasn't seen The Big Time Movie (2012) is missing out on the greatest beatles tribute in film form.

[idontwanttospoiltheparty]

"The world going by my window" – A Lennon-McCartney Microcosm

Or: Over-analysing the melodic and harmonic structure of one line from The Beatles' "I'm Only Sleeping" (1966) and discussing how it reflects the very essences of the musicians and people singing it.

Preface: The following is an extremely self-indulgent deep-dive into one of my favourite moments of harmonization in musical history. It is both a relatively music theory-heavy analysis (though relevant concepts are explained with visual as well as audio examples) as well as a free-form riffing on what distinguishes Lennon from McCartney as a composer on the one hand, and what distinguishes Paul from John as a person on the other. Of course, like the duo's melodies intertwine, so did their lives.

DISCLAIMER: I think it's lovely how the music reflects their lives but that doesn't mean I think the music was created because it reflects their live (irrespective of artistic intention).

1. Homesy John and His Strange Close Melodies

"Keeping an eye on the world going by my window" forms the beginning of the bridge of "I'm Only Sleeping". John, the main songwriter and lead vocalist of the track, sings a tight melody, which is sprinkled with several dissonances.

For those who don't know, dissonances occur either due to a dissonant interval – that is, when two or more notes that don't "go together" are played at once – or when a note that is not part of the current key is played.

In this example, the dissonant interval (on the left) is a second, that is the two simultaneously played notes are very close – so close that stacking their notes on sheet music becomes awkward, as seen above. The dissonant note is a B note (on the right), which has been elevated up a half-step from B♭ (in the middle), through usage of the ♮ symbol, preceding the note. B is not part of the usual 7 notes of the key, and thus adds a feeling of displacement within this harmonic context. You can listen to the interval as well as the transition from B♭ to B in the following file and notice the sense of discord these note combinations tend to invoke in a listener.

Now, back to John's melody:

Just looking at the score, we can see how close together John keeps everything; there are no larger jumps. He favours small intervals, even using dissonances to reduce the distance his voice has to travel to a minimum. The dissonances give a feeling of strangeness to the overall melody.*

*(arguably it isn't that strange, since he is following a blues scale, which includes notes considered "dissonant" in classical music theory; that being said I would argue that the frequency of the note-usage in this particular line is still of note in the context of this song and The Beatles' general discography.)

This is, in my opinion, one of the staples of John's melodies. Think of the intro to If I Fell, or even the siren-inspired wail of the I Am The Walrus verses. These are all close melodies that have at least somewhat dissonant qualities.

It is also an interesting reflection of him and his mid-60s situation. With his early-twenties behind him, John was known to have become more reclusive during this time; going out less often, preferring the comfort of his private home. Simultaneously, his interests became more eccentric and he began finding it more difficult to relate to "ordinary" people, for reasons ranging from disillusionment with society as a whole to mental health and addiction issues. Just like his melodic lines, he built a strange surreal world for himself, without stepping too far out his comfort zone.

2. Adventurous Paul and his Warm Leaps

"Keeping an eye on the world going by my window" is also the moment in the song where Paul, who up until this point was a mere co-background vocalist, is briefly promoted to co-lead. For the first part of the line – up until the word "world" – he joins John in unison, before breaking off to find his way to the highest note of "I'm Only Sleeping".

Unlike John's melody, Paul's unique part is much warmer and features no dissonances. This doesn't make it less complex though; for one, it covers a range that is two half-steps wider than John's melody and features the largest interval jump: a perfect fourth ("my win-[dow]").

Paul's songwriting is known for its wide tonal palette, his outstanding vocal range making melodic climbs and leaps second nature to him when compositing. At the same time, his tunes have over the years, it seems, almost been faulted for how intrinsically pleasing they are to the ear.

This, in turn, contains traces of Paul's personality; a constant thirst for life, a great skill of adaptability, an ambition that verges on destructive over-zealousness – he has risen too high, where no one can follow, perhaps inadvertently left someone behind. Yet, through it all, he maintains a pleasant sweet nature.

3. (Never) The Twain Shall Meet

Both of these aforementioned melodic lines combine to form a whole in the song (note that because they begin in unison at first only one note is played at a time – that's how pianos work sadly :-( ):

Now before we take a closer look at what happens in the score when these two melodies are united, I'm gonna need to give some background on harmonic arrangement.

Typically, when harmonizing, the most common interval between two melodies is a third (minor or major). The third is considered to be a very pleasant-sounding interval; the notes are as close to each other as possible without sounding dissonant and overall the tone is warm.

See above two melodies set exactly a third apart at each note. It's an adaptation of a Mozart piece I played a few years ago and can be listened here:

The second most typical interval for harmonies is the perfect fifth. It's a bit more "hollow"-sounding, one might say, less warm generally, but does not, as such, sound "wrong" to the Western ear.

(asterisk elaborated further down)

The above sequence can be heard here:

You may be wondering why the two notes in the middle are not a fifth a part. This is because, for hundreds of years, Western music theoreticians have discouraged the use of parallel fifths. This is when two melodic lines maintain a perfect fifth interval between each other over multiple consecutive notes. It's considered to have a harsh and slightly strange sound, and also dilutes the wanted distinction between both melodies.

Here's the same arrangement as above, only this time utilizing parallel fifths.

Again, an audio example – however, this may not sound especially harsh or strange to an untrained ear. (Just know that if Johann Sebastian Bach saw any of this, he would tear the score to pieces!)

Now with all this acquired knowledge, how do the John and Paul's individual melodies in fact form a whole?

(grey highlight denotes unison)

Look at that.

Paul, once mirroring his partner flawlessly, suddenly stubbornly refusing to follow John – whether it be to Surrey, Greece or that natural D-note. Instead, he lingers on the E♭ for a few more beats, as if contemplating. John, on the other hand, repeats the first half's walk-down, marinading in his strange claustrophobic world. Together, they create a dissonant second, two notes in a row, a disturbance.

Then, Paul jumps, and they are both singing in opposite directions; Paul upward and John downward. Only suddenly, it's almost like they've created a healthy distance, a perfect fifth apart.

Next, they start moving in tandem again, both rising, utilizing a dreaded parallel fifth. But it works here – and, notably, sounds a lot better in the song than on my piano recording. As mentioned, one of the problems with parallel fifths is that they keep the melodic lines too similar; however, these lines are not being played by perfectly tuned instruments. These are two men with voices sometimes so distinct from each other, they're described as polar opposites. They bend their notes and the rules of composition to create an otherworldly beauty. The harmonies seem to accentuate the contrast between their vocal styles, but this doesn't worsen the sound in the least. Instead, it seems that it is in their opposite nature that they find each other.

And then, as if coming down from a high, Paul jumps down to join John, a beautiful, warm third above him.

They are one; they are so close they bring out the worst in each other; they drive each other apart; they reach for each other even when distant; and then, when all is said and done, they fall back together in the end.

To finish off I recorded a slower version of the harmony. Come bask in the infinite glory of every single note with me!

"Keeping an eye on the world going by my window."

[heartsinthebasement]

I’ve been thinking about Dear Friend and how Paul said about it “I don’t write anything consciously.”

I'm in love with a friend of mine.

Really truly, young and newly wed.

Mostly I think Paul is insane for writing this lyric and additionally then claiming he didn’t write it consciously. But after many listens to this song, well it hit me that these lines could hold another layer, could be harking back to a different time.

Paul cleverly doesn’t identify exactly who is young and newlywed. It could be John or Paul or both, as they were both recently married. I think that is intentional. Vagueness abounds! It could be either, and/or it could be referring to an earlier time. That feeling is strengthened by Paul’s vulnerable, high vocal that he uses in other songs about earlier days, like ‘Carrying’.

Because this isn’t the first time John’s been newlywed. He was actually truly young and newlywed in 1962 when he married Cynthia.

Paul standing in the registry office, dying inside as the friend he is in love with gets married. JUST A THOUGHT.

This specific scenario is such a trope in Mclennon fic: John’s marriage to Cyn is crushing in terms of John and Paul exploring their sexuality and relationship. And here it is, so easily surfacing in Paul’s John-centric love song.

I was in love with you then, back before we were famous.

[lingeronyourhazeleyes]

thanks for your tags on that nowhere boy post! I'm so curious what your thoughts are on the movie. When did you first see it? Are you a John girl? What are your thoughts on Mimi and Julia?

aww thank you for this ask 🥰🥰 (and i'm terribly sorry, i'm gonna leave a wall of text here, cuz I just can't resist the opportunity to yap about my Beatles-related experiences and opinions xd)

first of all, i don't really get why this movie tends to get so much hate (aside from the part where John hits Paui, and i really liked your insight that it was necessary to make the subsequent hugging and crying on each other's shoulders less gay - god i hate you late 2000's), because tbh this is my favourite Beatles biopic. Aaron Taylor-Johnson captures John's whimsical spirit quite well imo and even though Thomas Brodie-Sangster wouldn't have been my first choice for Paul, he's really good at being a charming motherfucker and a lil shit at the same time :D

i think i saw it for the first time in my late teens/early 20s with my mom and her husband, but i didn't pay much attention to the details then (given that i only had a very surface level of Betales-knowledge back then). I rewatched it last November though (in the midst of a full-blown Beatles brainrot).

Am i a John girl? Huh, i guess i'm something that people around here would call a John-coded Paul girlie xd nevertheless I aspire to be a Ringo in the lives of my loved ones

And omg your last question led me very far, but I'll try to be brief (edit: i failed lol) :D so, as i read your notes, i was very surprised that it's considered an anti-Julia and pro-Mimi film (and seeing the points you have raised, now i can totally understand why). For me (even on my first viewing) it was never a Julia vs. Mimi thing. I've read it as a John vs John conflict (and this is the point where i start talking bullshit and/or total banalities. Feel free to correct me or argue with my points :D i always fancy a good argument). I've always seen him as a man with two conflicting sides: one is the whimsical, creative, free but overly emotional (consequently kinda unintegrable (i'm not sure if it's a real word lmao i hope it is :D) into modern western society) side (enabled by Julia), and the other one is the abandoned little boy who only wants to be loved, and is therefore ready (or even needs) to be controlled and steered in "the right direction" by others, hoping that they would not abandon him this way (and this side of him is fed by Mimi in a way in my opinion).

In my reading, both mother figures embodied and enabled one side of John, while actively trying to suppress or outright hurt the other side -- as, I think, John did in his own mind, constantly berating and hurting himself in the process. I thought Julia was so antagonistic (and i guess i was waaay more forgiving of her than i think an average person would be, because unfortunately in many ways her behaviour reminded me of myself), because imo society tends to frown upon overly emotional, somewhat detached and destructive, but free-spirited and creativity-enhancing behaviour, while supporting Mimi's "behave according to unspoken social rules and expectation, don't change the status quo, and suppress your emotions"-mindset, that she represented in the movie and tried to instil in John. (Seeing Mimi handle (and making John handle!!) Uncle George's death with coldness and complete suppression of emotions was just as painful and infuriating for me as the scene where Julia sent John away after all the (sometimes creepily inappropriate) lovebombing.) I have a theory that Paul was so important to John because he not only accepted but straight-up embraced (dare i say served) both sides of him. But probably i just see too much into all this xd

Sorry for the long, messy (and probably borderline meaningless) reply 🫣 i happened to have waaaaaay too many thoughts 😭😭