Paul's decision to try to get the others to accept his in-laws actually reminds of the whole betting busted for pot in Japan. I mean, really, what was he thinking?
The pot busts (not just but especially the Japan one; you could throw the other 1970s one as well) are more evidence of not thinking at all. Or, more seriously: of the hubris that comes with having been a global superstar for (by then) almost two decades. I mean, of course there are far worse examples - people who shall remain Keith Richards snorted away thousands of dollars with the cops standing by because He's A Rebel, You Know - but Paul is by no means immune to the syndrome. Whereas he evidently did think about the management question, he just didn't come to the right (and yes, likely, I admit) conclusion.
Re: John's statement, he is being a bit less than thruthful, there, considering that he himself did test the waters with the "the Beatles are no more" news before Paul did, and no, I don't mean the "I want a divorce" private scene at Apple - I mean he did when later journalist Ray Connolly, while he and Yoko were in Toronto. Connolly sat on the announcement because John had said it was confidential, and John was incensed post Paul's McCartney release self interview ("But you told me not to!" "you're the bloody journalist", according to Connolly, was how the dialogue went).
Mind you, in general my guess is most of both of their decisions in the 60s were done on instinct (of which PR instinct certainly was one aspect) and, let's not forget, in a druggy haze. It's periodically worth remembering we're talking about two people who consumed A LOT of drugs in those key years. I remember one fan observing with black amusement that their most dangerous drugs of choice were also telling and eye roll worthy - John tries heroin because that's just what a naturally lethargic guy already paranoid and introspective needs, and Paul takes coke because clearly, that's just the thing for someone who is already a hyper workoholic with bossy tendencies. And before that, LSD for John that (according to John) almost destroyed his ego and sense of self), and through it all and for decades more, lots and lots of marihuana for Paul.
Tangentially related, something you brought up in your original post, that John in none of his rants ever went after Paul for Apple in general, despite it having been Paul's baby. I think that probably did fall under their code of publically supporting each other in these matters - see none of the gang critisizing John for "bigger than Jesus" (and ensuing disasters), Paul (in public at least, no matter how much they grumbled privately) for "I've taken LSD three times", and while John ranted about the Maharishi once he was disenchanted, he didn't say at any point "why did George have to drag us to the guy in the first place?"; and then there's Paul going with John and Yoko to Sir Joe to get "Two Virgins" released even though he was less than thrilled with that record himself. (You know, the "if it's art, why don't you put Paul on the cover instead? You two aren't very attractive" Sir Joe from EMI.) And providing John with the "When two saints meet" quote, for that matter.
(I suspect that event Michael Lindsay-Hogg describes in his memoirs, of John playing the recording of him and Yoko having sex to the rest of the gang plus their harrassed director, Ringo and George staying silent, non-plussed, and Paul finally saying "well, that's...interesting", but none of them making a critical comment, probably also still fell under that category. Whether or not MLH is correct in the interpretation of this being John's way of saying "this is where I am now, with her, I don't want to hold your hand anymore".)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Re: Management Issues II
Date: 2016-12-11 02:38 pm (UTC)The pot busts (not just but especially the Japan one; you could throw the other 1970s one as well) are more evidence of not thinking at all. Or, more seriously: of the hubris that comes with having been a global superstar for (by then) almost two decades. I mean, of course there are far worse examples - people who shall remain Keith Richards snorted away thousands of dollars with the cops standing by because He's A Rebel, You Know - but Paul is by no means immune to the syndrome. Whereas he evidently did think about the management question, he just didn't come to the right (and yes, likely, I admit) conclusion.
Re: John's statement, he is being a bit less than thruthful, there, considering that he himself did test the waters with the "the Beatles are no more" news before Paul did, and no, I don't mean the "I want a divorce" private scene at Apple - I mean he did when later journalist Ray Connolly, while he and Yoko were in Toronto. Connolly sat on the announcement because John had said it was confidential, and John was incensed post Paul's McCartney release self interview ("But you told me not to!" "you're the bloody journalist", according to Connolly, was how the dialogue went).
Mind you, in general my guess is most of both of their decisions in the 60s were done on instinct (of which PR instinct certainly was one aspect) and, let's not forget, in a druggy haze. It's periodically worth remembering we're talking about two people who consumed A LOT of drugs in those key years. I remember one fan observing with black amusement that their most dangerous drugs of choice were also telling and eye roll worthy - John tries heroin because that's just what a naturally lethargic guy already paranoid and introspective needs, and Paul takes coke because clearly, that's just the thing for someone who is already a hyper workoholic with bossy tendencies. And before that, LSD for John that (according to John) almost destroyed his ego and sense of self), and through it all and for decades more, lots and lots of marihuana for Paul.
Tangentially related, something you brought up in your original post, that John in none of his rants ever went after Paul for Apple in general, despite it having been Paul's baby. I think that probably did fall under their code of publically supporting each other in these matters - see none of the gang critisizing John for "bigger than Jesus" (and ensuing disasters), Paul (in public at least, no matter how much they grumbled privately) for "I've taken LSD three times", and while John ranted about the Maharishi once he was disenchanted, he didn't say at any point "why did George have to drag us to the guy in the first place?"; and then there's Paul going with John and Yoko to Sir Joe to get "Two Virgins" released even though he was less than thrilled with that record himself. (You know, the "if it's art, why don't you put Paul on the cover instead? You two aren't very attractive" Sir Joe from EMI.) And providing John with the "When two saints meet" quote, for that matter.
(I suspect that event Michael Lindsay-Hogg describes in his memoirs, of John playing the recording of him and Yoko having sex to the rest of the gang plus their harrassed director, Ringo and George staying silent, non-plussed, and Paul finally saying "well, that's...interesting", but none of them making a critical comment, probably also still fell under that category. Whether or not MLH is correct in the interpretation of this being John's way of saying "this is where I am now, with her, I don't want to hold your hand anymore".)