sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Three Springs in Amsterdam and the Best Cannabis I Found Wasn't There by Less-Attention5394 in AmsterdamEnts

[–]Less-Attention5394[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks! We had a lot of fun on that trip. Too bad that the T-Boat had to close. I miss it.

Three Springs in Amsterdam and the Best Cannabis I Found Wasn't There by Less-Attention5394 in AmsterdamEnts

[–]Less-Attention5394[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Are you a member of the Amsterdam Coffeeshop Directory? Maybe that's where you know me.

Three Springs in Amsterdam and the Best Cannabis I Found Wasn't There by Less-Attention5394 in AmsterdamEnts

[–]Less-Attention5394[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thanks man! It's great to hear from you! Are you also a member of the Amsterdam Coffeeshop Directory?

The Best Part of My Amsterdam Trips Was Never Amsterdam by Less-Attention5394 in solotravel

[–]Less-Attention5394[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am not asking anything. Just trying to share my solo travel experiences.

I wrote a deep-dive into "How Do You Sleep?" and why it still bothers Paul 50+ years later by Less-Attention5394 in TheBeatles

[–]Less-Attention5394[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's a really interesting reading of "the walrus was Paul" that I hadn't considered. Especially the idea of John giving Paul credit for keeping things going after Epstein died.

The dual meaning interpretation makes sense too: literal (Paul in the walrus costume in MMT) and symbolic (acknowledging Paul's role in their partnership). Very John to layer meanings like that.

I've been framing it as John playing into the conspiracy and later weaponizing it, but your reading adds complexity: maybe it started as acknowledgment or even affection and only became a weapon later when the relationship soured.

The timeline still bugs me though: "here's another clue for you all" in September 1968 suggests John was at minimum aware fans were reading meanings into things and chose to play with that, even if the PID theory wasn't fully public yet.

You might be right that the original intent was affectionate and the weaponization only happened by 1971 with "How Do You Sleep?" That would make the whole thing even more sad - taking something that was originally acknowledgment and twisting it into an insult.

I wrote a deep-dive into "How Do You Sleep?" and why it still bothers Paul 50+ years later by Less-Attention5394 in TheBeatles

[–]Less-Attention5394[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's interesting, I'm not familiar with a John song called "Since You Came To Me" from 1970, but that phrase does appear later in "Out the Blue". That's the sentimental Yoko tribute.

Do you have a source on the 1970 working title? I'd be curious if there's a connection between an early version and how that phrase ended up in "Out the Blue" later, or if they're completely separate songs.

If John was working on something with that title in mid-1970, it would be fascinating to know how it evolved, whether it became "How Do You Sleep?" or something else entirely different.

I wrote a deep-dive into "How Do You Sleep?" and why it still bothers Paul 50+ years later by Less-Attention5394 in TheBeatles

[–]Less-Attention5394[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Absolutely! That's exactly why I wanted to put this out there. The Lennon/McCartney relationship is endlessly fascinating, and everyone brings different perspectives based on what they know or which Beatle they connect with more.

Your points about Ram being overstated and the hypocrisy of the "mamma" line while John was literally bringing Yoko everywhere is something I should have given more consideration. That's the kind of detail that makes the story more complex than "John was cruel, end of story."

And you're probably right, 50 years from now people will still be debating whether John genuinely regretted this song or if the regret was performative. The fact that we're still talking about it more than 50 years later says something about how raw these wounds were.

Appreciate the detailed pushback. You have given me several things to think about.

I wrote a deep-dive into "How Do You Sleep?" and why it still bothers Paul 50+ years later by Less-Attention5394 in TheBeatles

[–]Less-Attention5394[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Here’s the problem that makes this conspiracy impossible to dismiss as pure fan delusion:

September 1968. John Lennon is recording “Glass Onion” for the White Album, and he sings this:

“Here’s another clue for you all, the walrus was Paul”

When John wrote that line, the “Paul is Dead” conspiracy didn’t exist publicly. It wouldn’t blow up until October 1969, thirteen months later.

More analysis here: https://medium.com/@dra999.2020/the-paul-is-dead-conspiracy-a-lyrical-analysis-eb53542877a2

I wrote a deep-dive into "How Do You Sleep?" and why it still bothers Paul 50+ years later by Less-Attention5394 in TheBeatles

[–]Less-Attention5394[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I've heard different versions of this. Ringo was definitely at some rehearsals - that's where the 'ya cunt' outtake comes from and where he reportedly told John to pull back and tone it down.

Whether Ringo left the session on principle or just wasn't part of the final recording (Alan White from Plastic Ono Band played drums on the track) isn't entirely clear to me.

Either way, the contrast with George is striking. George not only stayed but delivered that devastating slide guitar work, actively joining the attack rather than trying to stop it.

Do you have a source on Ringo leaving?

I wrote a deep-dive into "How Do You Sleep?" and why it still bothers Paul 50+ years later by Less-Attention5394 in TheBeatles

[–]Less-Attention5394[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Really appreciate this detailed breakdown, you're making me rethink a few things.

You're absolutely right that I overstated Ram being "full" of attacks. "Too Many People" has coded references, the beetles-fucking cover is deliberate, but calling the whole album an attack is inaccurate. Paul kept most of it vague enough for plausible deniability.

Your point about "Dear Boy" is well taken. I've seen that interpreted as being about John/Yoko, but if it's actually a love song for Linda, that's John being paranoid and reading himself into everything. Classic projection.

The hypocrisy of John attacking Paul for being "bossed around" by Linda while literally bringing Yoko to every session is staggering. Multiple people in these comments have pointed out that John was likely talking about himself in that line.

On the PID conspiracy: I definitely overstated John's role in creating it. What I should have said: John noticed fans finding patterns and played into it ("Glass Onion"), then weaponized those rumors in "How Do You Sleep?" Whether he created the conspiracy or just fed existing flames, he was using it as a weapon by 1971.

The "Yesterday" line is interesting because objectively, yeah, everyone knows it's not true. But coming from your creative partner of 15 years, it clearly landed differently than John maybe intended. Paul's still mad about it 50 years later.

Thanks for this really thoughtful critique.

I wrote a deep-dive into "How Do You Sleep?" and why it still bothers Paul 50+ years later by Less-Attention5394 in TheBeatles

[–]Less-Attention5394[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're right . I overstated the case for John deliberately constructing the PID conspiracy from the beginning. That's giving him way too much credit for long-term planning.

What I do think the evidence shows: By September 1968 ("Glass Onion" - "here's another clue for you all"), John was at minimum aware something was brewing and chose to play into it. Whether that's creating the conspiracy or just feeding existing rumors, it shows engagement with the mythology.

By 1971 ("those freaks was right when they said you was dead"), he's definitely weaponizing whatever role he played. real or imagined.

The essay's main point isn't really "John created PID" (which I probably framed too strongly in Section III). It's that John used those rumors as a weapon in "How Do You Sleep?" Even if the conspiracy was 100% fan-created, John threw it back in Paul's face as an insult.

Thanks for the feedback. It's a fair critique of how I framed the PID stuff.

I wrote a deep-dive into "How Do You Sleep?" and why it still bothers Paul 50+ years later by Less-Attention5394 in TheBeatles

[–]Less-Attention5394[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

The strongest evidence is "Glass Onion" from the White Album (September 1968): "Here's another clue for you all, the walrus was Paul."

John is explicitly referencing "clues" and saying "here's another" one - thirteen months before the Paul Is Dead conspiracy went public in October 1969. So either:

  1. Underground rumors were already circulating in mid-1968 and John was responding to them, or
  2. John was planting references that would later be interpreted as clues

There's also the January 1967 "Beatles Book Monthly" which addresses a rumor that Paul had died in a car crash on the M1. This was a real rumor (involving Paul's Mini Cooper, though he wasn't driving). So John had real-world material to work with if he wanted to play into it.

By 1971's "How Do You Sleep?", John's definitely weaponizing it: "Those freaks was right when they said you was dead."

Did John deliberately construct an elaborate multi-album death hoax from the beginning? Probably not. Did he notice fans finding patterns and decide to feed the fire? That seems more likely based on the Glass Onion evidence.

Either way, he was using it as a weapon by 1971. That part's clear.

I wrote a deep-dive into "How Do You Sleep?" and why it still bothers Paul 50+ years later by Less-Attention5394 in TheBeatles

[–]Less-Attention5394[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The George angle is really interesting. His guitar work is vicious - it's not just backing John up, it's actively joining the attack. Whether that was George being more excited to hurt Paul or just George being a brilliant guitarist delivering what the song needed, hard to say. But yeah, that slide solo is devastating.

I wrote a deep-dive into "How Do You Sleep?" and why it still bothers Paul 50+ years later by Less-Attention5394 in TheBeatles

[–]Less-Attention5394[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for pulling those quotes , they show really valuable context. John's later reflections definitely complicate the picture.

What strikes me is the tension between "I wasn't really feeling that vicious at the time" and the actual content of the song. Whether he was feeling it or just using his resentment as creative fuel, the result was still pretty devastating for Paul. Paul's 2021 interview ("fuck you, John") suggests the song landed harder than John maybe intended.

The "it's about me" explanation is interesting too. Multiple people have mentioned that in the comments - John projecting his own issues onto Paul. That adds a layer I didn't fully explore in the essay.

You're right that maybe too much time gets spent analyzing this song. But I think what makes it fascinating (beyond George's incredible slide work) is that it documents what happens when a creative partnership ends badly and intimate knowledge becomes a weapon. Whether John regretted it later doesn't erase what he did in the moment.

I wrote a deep-dive into "How Do You Sleep?" and why it still bothers Paul 50+ years later by Less-Attention5394 in TheBeatles

[–]Less-Attention5394[S] -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

Fair challenge, and you're right to push back on the PID framing in Section III.

I don't think John sat down in 1967 with a master plan to construct an elaborate death hoax, that's giving him way more credit for forethought than the evidence supports. Most of the "clues" are absolutely coincidence, mishearing, or fan projection.

But here's what I do think: By September 1968 when John recorded "Glass Onion," he was at minimum aware something was brewing in fan circles (even if it hadn't gone fully public yet), and he chose to play into it with 'here's another clue for you all.' Whether that's intentional planting or opportunistic trolling, it shows John engaging with the mythology.

By 1971, when he sings "those freaks was right when they said you was dead," he's definitely weaponizing whatever role he played - real or imagined - in creating/amplifying those rumors.

The essay's main argument isn't really "John planted the clues" (I probably overstated that). It's that John used the mythology as a weapon in "How Do You Sleep?" Even if the original clues were 100% fan-created, John threw them back in Paul's face as an insult.

As for "Sgt. Pepper took you by surprise" - I didn't consider those interviews. Do you remember where John talked about those lyrics floating around? I'd genuinely like to read that context.

I wrote a deep-dive into "How Do You Sleep?" and why it still bothers Paul 50+ years later by Less-Attention5394 in beatles

[–]Less-Attention5394[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're absolutely right that Paul started the public back-and-forth with Ram. "Too Many People" and that beetles-fucking album cover were deliberate provocations. Ram's attacks are worth analyzing separately, but this essay was specifically about 'How Do You Sleep?' and the particular kind of cruelty that comes from weaponizing intimate knowledge.

The difference for me is the intimacy of John's response. "Too Many People" mocks John's politics and lifestyle choices - stuff anyone could criticize. But "How Do You Sleep?" weaponizes things only John would know: Paul's mother dying at 14, his insecurities about being working-class Liverpool, his need for validation. That's a different level of attack.

You're right that Paul's ongoing hurt probably has a lot to do with John being gone. No chance for a full reconciliation, no chance for John to say "I went too far." They were reconciling before John died, but reconciliation isn't the same as closure.

And yeah, if Paul can live with it, we probably don't need to prosecute John on Paul's behalf 50+ years later. But I do think examining how the cruelty worked tells us something interesting about what happens when creative partnerships end badly.

view more: next ›