Log In
Register
6.10am
1 November 2012
Offline
I couldn’t post this topic in the Lennon section, or in the McCartney section, since I’m referring to a certain level on which the two of them were fused in artistic synergy, during those “golden years”.
The allegory my title refers to may make some of you chuckle with amusement. There was an old Star Trek episode (from the original series) where Captain Kirk gets split into two Kirks — a good Kirk, and a bad Kirk. The problem with the good Kirk, however, was that although he had qualities of kindness and intelligence, he was too wimpy and passive and could not take charge when the ship needed him.
The problem with the bad Kirk was that although he was quite capable of being aggressive and taking command, he was also arrogant, rude and sometimes hot tempered.
I think you guys know where I’m going with this…
At the end of the episode (if memory serves me) the two Kirks confront each other, and they realize that neither one of them alone is any good, and that they need to “fuse” again into one.
Of course, the post-Beatles McCartney is the “good Kirk”, and the post-Beatles Lennon is the “bad Kirk”.
As for George, I think he would have made a good Spock.
(I’m sorry I have no place for Ringo on board the Enterprise — unless “Scotty” the engineer would do: We all live in a Yellow Star Ship, a Yellow Star Ship, a Yellow Star Ship…)
Okay, I’m going now.
Faded flowers, wait in a jar, till the evening is complete... complete... complete... complete...
4.59pm
23 January 2011
Offline I think most people who have worked with Paul would probably argue that he has lots of the “bad Kirk” qualities, such as bossiness (ask George), controlling tendencies (again, ask George), and ego (according to George M.).
While interesting, I feel this scenario plays right into the old trope that Paul was the soft, good guy, while John was the badass, edgy guy. They could both be both, I think.
I watched the 2009 Star Trek movie around the time I started listening to The Beatles, and I always saw Paul as Kirk and John as Spock.
"You can manicure a cat but can you caticure a man?"
John Lennon- Skywriting by Word of Mouth
7.22pm
1 November 2012
Offline kedame said
I think most people who have worked with Paul would probably argue that he has lots of the “bad Kirk” qualities, such as bossiness (ask George), controlling tendencies (again, ask George), and ego (according to George M.).While interesting, I feel this scenario plays right into the old trope that Paul was the soft, good guy, while John was the badass, edgy guy. They could both be both, I think.
I watched the 2009 Star Trek movie around the time I started listening to The Beatles, and I always saw Paul as Kirk and John as Spock.
Yes, but my point is that Paul was that way because he was “with John” in the Beatles context. The post-Beatles context is where their imperfect selves began to flounder, because each one was “less than whole” without the other.
That’s the theory, anyway. I realize it’s exaggerating things, but I think on a certain level they were kind of that way. It’s a way certain lovers feel — they are so close they feel as though one. John probably felt that way about Yoko, Paul about Linda — but on a certain unique level, perhaps no one in the universe could have supplied for Paul what John did, and vice versa, during those golden years of music-making.
Faded flowers, wait in a jar, till the evening is complete... complete... complete... complete...
7.31pm
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline You cant put John into this category and Paul into this as thats not how people are.
Paul was very capable of taking command and to be in the beatles you couldnt be passive. You cant call Paul passive when he stood up to the other 3 beatles when he believed, correctly they were being screwed by Klein; his refusal to sign caused a huge division between the 4. It would have been easier to bend and give in.
And John had a very tender, loving side to his character.
"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
7.37pm
1 November 2012
Offline meanmistermustard said
You cant put John into this category and Paul into this as thats not how people are.Paul was very capable of taking command and to be in the beatles you couldnt be passive. You cant call Paul passive when he stood up to the other 3 beatles when he believed, correctly they were being screwed by Klein; his refusal to sign caused a huge division between the 4. It would have been easier to bend and give in.
And John had a very tender, loving side to his character.
That’s what I said in my reply to kedame above. I’m not saying Paul — during part of the Beatles time — was wimpy and passive; that’s because he was “fused” with John. Obviously, I don’t mean that literally, and I’ve already expressed all the caveats I could possibly express, yet people will still misinterpret. Oh well.
Faded flowers, wait in a jar, till the evening is complete... complete... complete... complete...
11.23pm
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline Paul was very controlling over most things Wings related and that caused issues between himself and other members leading to some quitting plus he has built up a very prolific business empire worth hundred of millions. Plus you could say John was very passive with all things related to Yoko thru-out the 70’s.
Again even if its outside of the beatles era you cant put people in a bracket and say this is them, no person works to a forumula. Undoubtedly John and Paul had different personalities, fitted beautifully together as a friendship and partnership, and offered different aspects to the beatles but you cant say that they didnt have the other qualiities after the split. Paul could be a bigger ass than John and talk down to people outside of the beatles; he was a manipulator in being able to make people agree with him and get his way.
I remember reading a story that the guy who played the solo in My Love, cant remember his name, wanted to do it differently every night when Wings played it live. Paul stubbornly refused and insisted that the solo must match the record, the guy got pissed off but played it straight however it added to the flames and eventually he quit. And Paul didnt bend to the public and not add Linda to Wings.
"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
2.35am
8 November 2012
Offline This is the closest I could find to a thread about the Lennon/McCartney relationship, so, x-posting from the news thread:
A new article on the Lennon/McCartney relationship at The Atlantic.
And @Ahhh Girl smartly pointed out that the article was written by this BBF poster.
parlance
2.49am
1 November 2012
Offline “This is the closest I could find to a thread about the Lennon/McCartney relationship”
wow, that’s odd that this forum has had no other threads on that!
Faded flowers, wait in a jar, till the evening is complete... complete... complete... complete...
2.53am
Moderators
Members
Reviewers
20 August 2013
Offline Do you think we create one or re-title your thread @Funny Paper?
Can buy Joe love! Amazon | iTunes
Check here for "how do I do this" guide to the forum. 
(2017) 
(2018)
4.41am
8 November 2012
Offline Funny Paper said
“This is the closest I could find to a thread about the Lennon/McCartney relationship”
wow, that’s odd that this forum has had no other threads on that!
Yeah, that really surprised me as well.
parlance
11.14am
31 March 2008
Offline
parlance said
This is the closest I could find to a thread about the Lennon/McCartney relationship, so, x-posting from the news thread:
A new article on the Lennon/McCartney relationship at The Atlantic.
And @Ahhh Girl smartly pointed out that the article was written by this BBF poster.
parlance
I’m glad to see this finally published. I’ve exchanged emails with Josh over the years, helping him with contacts and facts for his book (of which this is just a part). It’s a good article. I also loved the unintentionally hilariously pompous first comment beneath.
Can buy me love! Please consider supporting the Beatles Bible on Amazon
Or buy my paperback/ebook! Riding So High – The Beatles and Drugs
Don't miss The Bowie Bible – now live!
2.10pm
8 November 2012
Offline Joe said
I also loved the unintentionally hilariously pompous first comment beneath.
Yes! I was so tempted to say “You are, of course, bloviating,” but bit my tongue. So I’m saying it here. 
It’s a terrific article. I’m glad to see someone bust the myth of Paul and John hating each other. Even the person who got me back into the Beatles was of that opinion, and it kind of shocks me every time I hear that since I didn’t grow up with that opinion.
parlance
5.20pm
8 November 2012
Offline 7.16pm
21 November 2012
Offline It is surprising that there aren’t a lot of threads about their relationship, as there are threads about George’s relationship with John and Paul and probably some of Ringo too.
Anyway, thanks for posting the articles. I’ve always found this an interesting subject, so will definitely read them!
The following people thank Linde for this post:
parlance7.26pm
1 November 2013
Offline
I think it is cause the John and Paul relationship is everywhere and the other relationships are under explored.
3.15pm
8 November 2012
Offline 7.10pm
15 June 2014
Offline Don’t think this belongs here but here I go: I was wondering as to why Paul included Linda in the Wings and wiki tells me that Paul wanted Linda to be always around him which resulted in Linda joining the band. So, while the other three had a problem with Ono being in the studios during the recording (which I understand would have been, and was, very stifling) Paul did the same thing when asking Linda to join him. Which just makes me realize that John and Paul were, in short, the two sides of the same coin.
Nothing against Paul. On the contrary I just wanted to highlight how brotherly they were all throughout and I now sort of understand the ‘brotherly competition’ they both had. And how difficult it must have been for Paul to realize what hit him when John left. Probably much more than Ono.
1 Guest(s)
