I’m glad that these days Paul has the respect he deserves, but do you think it’s appalling that the majority of Beatles bios still paint him as the pretty face singing light-weight ballads? I find it annoying that Paul’s look is something journalists and biographers tend to use to demean him. Rolling Stones or some other rock magazine even called him the girl of the group! That’s some outright sexist attitude there. If Paul looked like George I think this would never happened.
~ Our Tumblr Asks
Well. I don’t know that modern Beatles bios paint him as a pretty face so much. Most of that is gone I think. What has remained are all the other cliches- John was the Alpha Male and the leader and innovator and always in control (except when he relinquished control, which is the only way Paul could’ve ever taken over) and that every move John made was decisive and pro-active whereas Paul was constantly reactive and powerless and tagging behind John, both personally and artistically.
The reason we’ve focused on the light-weight, girly, “pretty face” shit is because it was basically the foundation of all these other bullshit ideas. We have got to resolve that particular issue before we can move forward and challenge all those other tropes.
We're a collective of artists, musicians, and professionals across a spectrum of fields who dissect and challenge established narratives about the band with irreverent, fearless, and thought-provoking analysis. We are on iTunes, Spotify, Podbean, and many other podcast platforms: tinyurl.com/akomonitunes tinyurl.com/akomonspotify anotherkindofmind.podbean.com - Website: anotherkindofmind.com - Facebook: @anotherkindofmindpod Twitter: @akompodcast Instagram: @anotherkindofmind Email: firstname.lastname@example.org