Skip to content


Anonymous asked:

I was wondering if you had any thoughts on any tension that existed between John and Paul’s dad Jim. Particularly John’s “and in the end he chose me.” comments in 1971. We know that Paul in Michael McCartneys words “always did what Dad told him to” and this was obviously a source of tension with John. But was it a control issue? Concern for Paul (we know Jim was still physically disciplining Paul up to the age of 17, but did John?) or was it rooted in something else?

~ Our Tumblr Asks

Hello anon!

Wow, this is a humdinger of a question which opens up a much larger discussion. Perhaps better suited for a full episode than a quick post.

Short answer is that John most likely had both: Jealousy over Jim’s influence and anger at anyone hurting Paul.

It’s not difficult to understand why John would be resentful towards a man who hits a person he loves. Easy to understand why John’s resentment would be exacerbated by Paul’s obvious adoration and loyalty for Jim.

I also agree that John enjoyed a certain influence over Paul simply in terms of John and Paul being like-minded besties who dressed alike, talked alike and loved all the same things AND in terms of encouraging Paul to misbehave, skip school, etc (although again I think this is greatly overplayed because Paul has always been a daredevil with a rebellious streak, even if he didn’t tend to openly defy his father).

I don’t think “control” was the issue because I don’t think John ever controlled Paul! That idea is pure science-fiction to me (even if does make a lot of jean jackets horny). However there is no doubt that John was a major influence on the appearance and demeanor of both Early Beatles and Early Lennon/McCartney.

John’s comment about Jim’s controlling behavior concerned Paul’s hair and clothing, which is something John had particular interest in; John and Paul fused their images almost immediately after hooking up in 1957, and John would understandably want his better half looking cool and fresh to death, both for his own benefit (i.e. Paul’s appearance is a reflection on John) and for his own gratification (John likes looking at Paul and takes pleasure in Paul looking good).

The bigger issue to unpack (which I won’t get into here) is John’s resentment and jealousy over Paul and Jim’s close father-son relationship (imperfect though it may be).

And how John wishes Paul (in his words!) to choose John over his own family, in either a sort of pseudo-star-crossed-lovers or pseudo-devoted-parent scenario (take your pick, it’s a matter of interpretation).

As always with these two, there’s a lot going on.

Thanks for the ask!

Anonymous asked:

I think that as soon as insiders and people who were actually there with the Beatles show even the slightest bias that isn’t towards John without claiming to be impartial, most people (especially boomers and Jean jackets) get riled up and dismiss their stories as false and revisionist.And I agree with you that authors who claim to be objective should not favour one over the others and pick sides.

~ Our Tumblr Asks

Well, it’s usually John but I suppose it could be about whoever your favorite Beatles is (but yes, 99% of the time it’s John, haha).

For instance, I think F. Schwartz’s book is totally trashy and sensationalized (not to mention it’s super dirty to write an expose of someone you knew for a mere three months at one of the most vulnerable times of their life), but it’s still a piece of the enormously complex puzzle of Who is Paul McCartney (albeit one that should be taken with a massive grain of salt).

Likewise with some of the wilder memoirs about John and Yoko, such as Dakota Days by John Green, or even some of the accounts in The Lives of John Lennon. They are small pieces of a broader picture and shouldn’t be given more weight than they deserve. We always have to consider through who’s eyes these lurid stories are told. Even though our brains tend to magnify upsetting pieces of information, it’s best to balance them alongside the less-sensational stuff we know too. A person’s life is long and complex and inevitably includes highs, lows, moments of darkness and shame along with the more glorious moments.

And of course some people are going to have more affection for Paul than John or vice verse. Just as some prefer one’s music over the other’s. That’s just common sense.

Anonymous asked:

Which was the episode you discuss Jane and Paul’s relationship? They were so low-key about their relationship after the breakup, I like hearing people analyze the specifics! The one where you talk about the long vacation they took just the two of them, in Scotland I believe? Was that when they came back engaged? Also do you have a source on their vacation story? I find it fascinating for some reason, I think because beatles often usually went on long vacations together

~ Our Tumblr Asks

Hi anon!

Diana and I discussed the Scotland/engagement vacation in episode 1 of the Break-up Series (which premiered on AKOM but can now be found at Diana’s One Sweet Dream podcast).

Thalia and I also discussed Paul and Jane and the song For No One (written on another Paul/Jane holiday in Switzerland!) in the Female Protagonists episode of AKOM.

Enjoy! 🙂

Anonymous asked:
Rolling Stone has been tweeting about How Do You Sleep these last couple days and it kind of really pisses me off.
~ Our Tumblr Asks

Anonymous asked:

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.

Anonymous asked:

Ok, fairly controversial, but I’m dying to hear what you guys think about the Fred Seaman memoirs. I just finished it and… wow. And it’s almost impossible to research the situation due to the legal gag order. Seaman doesn’t even have a Wikipedia page. I figured since you guys have read so many books, you might be able to shed some light. Thanks for this great podcast and all the interesting essays on tumblr!

~ Our Tumblr Asks

I enjoyed it. I mean, Fred isn’t the sharpest or most insightful person of all time, but I appreciated his recollections.

I totally understand (and support) Yoko’s hatred of him- he violated his non-disclosure which besides being illegal would surely be a personal betrayal. And then he literally stole personal items of John’s (most notably his diaries!).

OTOH, I’m infinitely grateful for his accounts because without Fred (and May Pang) we would have no idea what John’s post-Beatles life was really like. The PR version of the Dakota Years issued and maintained by The Estate and Rolling Stone (and oddly perpetuated by people like Ken Womack, etc) is obviously complete bullshit. It’s a semi-fictional alternate storyline that is happier and more palatable to fans/media. I suppose it’s Yoko prerogative to invent and tell whatever story she wants. Obviously we feel no obligation to preserve her narratives.

I understand that it’s hard to suss out the motives of various players in this game (Who is trying to protect John? Who’s trying to tell John’s story honestly? Who is trying to cover their own ass? Who’s out to make a buck? grind an ax? etc) But IMO John didn’t come off too badly in Fred’s book! He was often anxious/neurotic, emotionally frail, bitter, paranoid, superstitious, etc. But he also came off as funny, creative, interesting, insightful and charismatic also. I think this portrayal is pretty consistent and realistic.



A while back I’ve seen an interesting comment on Reddit about The Fool On The Hill, in which the OP argued that the song could have been The Beatles’ magnum opus, if it wasn’t for the odd way the song is produced (the ridiculous recorders to start with).

What gets me about this is that I kind of agree with the OP that if other choices were made during the making of the song to what we know today (like chosing different instruments, taking more epic approach, making it longer), the song would be much bigger than it is in this timeline. It has interesting thought behind it and the melody itself is perfect.

However the fact that this smart, thought producing song is hidden behind a dreamlike and foolish, practically ridiculous recording with flutes and bird-like tape loops actually makes it even better because it sends the same message as the lyrics themselves, even if it makes it less appealing to the masses, but it, again, reinforces the initial point by doing that and I-

Anyway, The Fool On The Hill is briliant. Go listen to her.


Thru the AKOM Lens: Magical Mystery Tour

Learn all about the much-maligned Magical Mystery Tour with Phoebe and Kristen.  They discuss the film’s influences, broader cinematic context and lasting cultural impact.

You won’t want to miss this in-depth look into an important but much over-looked milestone in the Beatles oeuvre! (x)

Another Kind of Mind is available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, Podbean, and most other podcast platforms.

Anonymous asked:

Another wonderful and insightful episode! And extremely refreshing to hear a discussion focused on the women in the beatles story and the important part they played. Really looking forward to the rest of your Lennon/McCartney break-up series and anything else you have planned for the future.

~ Our Tumblr Asks

Thank you so much! I think this ask was in response to our Female Protagonists episode. If so, we’re glad you enjoyed it!

If not, we’re glad you enjoyed whatever this was in reference to. 🙂

In terms of future episodes, we’ve got some fun topics ahead as well as some heavy-duty stuff!

Anonymous asked:

How do you ladies feel about Geoff Emericks book? It seems quite controversial in the fandom.

~ Our Tumblr Asks

Personally I really enjoyed it. Found it well-written (or ghost-written, or ghost-edited or whatever) and entertaining. I have no idea why it would be controversial, except I guess that people are upset because Geoff prefers Paul to John and doesn’t care much for George Harrison. Of course that’s just Geoff’s POV. People who like and respect Paul are allowed to say so and can dislike George Harrison (just as people dislike Paul, John, Ringo, etc). I DO understand why this would bum people out, or be a thing they’d not take pleasure in reading but again it’s a memoir, from Geoff’s POV, so it naturally reflects his opinions and feelings.

I think people sometimes expect memoirs to have the same objectivity as a historical narrative, which IMO isn’t realistic or even appropriate. Memoirs are based on personal accounts and subjective impressions. We don’t have to agree with Geoff’s opinions, but his observations on his personal experiences are valuable. As Kristen observed in our AHDN/Maysles episode, there are many versions of these famous individuals, and all of them are true. I love the books written by Cynthia, Pete Shotten, May Pang, George Martin, etc because they are personal and subjective and they provide important puzzle pieces to our understanding of these complicated individuals.

On the other hand, biographers that claim to be objective like Lewisohn, Doggett, Norman, etc. should not pick sides, play favorites, elevate one person’s POV above the others’ etc. Obviously that’s something we do push back on because we hold those books to a higher standard in terms of bias. Readers assume those books are objective and factual. Aspects of history that are ignored in these books are assumed to be unimportant. It’s vital that they be subjected to peer review.

Thanks for the ask!

Anonymous asked:

Hi, I just wanted to thank you all for your great and informative podcast. I’ve really seen a change in the way people discuss the beatles (paul particularly) on tumblr over the last year and I think much of it is down to you guys. People no longer seem to refer to paul as “feminine” or “a diva” as they once did, and I’ve seen more posts delving into his musicianship and things that the jean jackets ignore like his poor treatment during the breakup. Anyway, thank you, and keep up the good work!

~ Our Tumblr Asks

Well, thank you very much for this terrific ask. We really appreciate this! I posted on the whole feminization issue recently because I’d seen it pop up.

We’re aware we have very vocal haters too (which is flattering in its own way), but if we’ve had a positive influence on tumblr-Beatles discourse, we’re thrilled and humbled.

Thanks again ❤️


Anonymous asked:

You guys are my heroes! What does it take to be a “Beatles Expert?”

~ Our Tumblr Asks

Thanks, buddy! We aim to please.

What does it take to be a Beatles expert? Depends on who you ask! According to most fans, it just requires reading a lot of books. We think reading Beatles books is the bare minimum for forming your own opinions and theories. Beyond that we use our own research, critical thought, personal experience and consideration of others’ POVs. Then we weigh all of that against the Beatles’ own words/perspectives. Finally, we try to remain open to evolving our own ideas and opinions according to new information, persuasive evidence or the well-reasoned arguments from people we respect.

All that said, none of us at AKOM consider ourselves “Beatles experts.” (nor do we even consider that a real thing!) We are just informed, opinionated fans who like to discuss the Beatles and encourage people to read and think critically.


Anonymous asked:

Hello, your podcast is excellent and really eye-opening for me, even though I’ve been listening to The Beatles for like what, 20 years? I’m so happy that you guys are debunking so many myths built by them “jean jackets”! The rock journalism environment is just so full of toxic masculinity I swear.

~ Our Tumblr Asks

Agreed! Toxic masculinity blows. Let’s all be groovy and sensible from now on.

Anonymous asked:

Thanks for another great episode! I almost sent you an ask recently to ask if something was coming soon but I didn’t want to bug you.. Well I got what I wanted!

~ Our Tumblr Asks

Happy to oblige!

“Feminizing” Paul

There is a difference between A) calling a man pretty or admiring his graceful body language or his feminine features (although I don’t personally think eyelashes and lips need to constantly be gender-labeled as “masculine” or “feminine” – they can just be “long” or “lush” etc) and B) mocking a man for having what you perceive to be “feminine” traits (even if you think your jokes are not mean-spirited because Hey! feminine guys are awesome!) and especially C) making insinuations about a person’s sexuality based on external mannerisms or physical features.  The last example is homophobic behavior.  Even if you love gay people or fetishize them or personally identify as LGBTQ, it doesn’t matter! It’s still exactly the same thing homophobes do.

Paul McCartney is not a sassy queen. If he was, and he self-identified that way, it would be totally cool to call him that and celebrate his fabulousness!  But as far as we know, Paul identifies as a straight man. Maybe not a super “macho” one- he wore ladies’ clothing in the 70s and sometimes he likes to playfully prance and twirl and stuff like that, which I agree is endearing and cute! But it’s questionable, at the very least, to make joke after joke about how OMG!feminine! the guy is.

Of course you can admire his physicality (option A)- that’s what fans do with celebrities.  But please do so without taking a different sexuality and applying it to this person in a mocking way (as if everyone is in on the joke except Paul, who doesn’t realize what a flamboyant queen he is, LOL).

I think it’s fine to speculate on an artist’s sexuality, too, so long as it’s based on their own words or even their art. But not when it’s second-guessing someone’s own identity based on your own judgments about their posture or bone structure (or worse yet, their interest in theater or having gay friends- like do you realize how homophobic that is?).

Can you imagine a group of men coming on Tumblr and making post after post about a straight female celebrity, talking constantly about how butch she is and how hard she would fuck basically every woman she’s ever been photographed with? Lord knows there’s nothing bad about being butch or W/W but it would be a WEIRD thing to keep harping on about a straight woman!  Wishful thinking and fangirling/fanboying is fine.  “I wish she would top me” is different than calling a straight woman “such a power dyke.” The first is just a fun wish, the second is… weird and inaccurate and it just strikes me as maybe only half-way thought-through.

I don’t think I have all the answers or claim that we’re perfect either. In our episode on Yoko we made a joke about her “big dick” – which we meant as a compliment, but that could be seen as problematic too. And maybe it was? The whole concept of a dick as being where power is stored is pretty lame, even if we all enjoyed making “big dick energy” memes and jokes for a year or so. 

And yeah, Paul’s so-called “femininity” (which I put in skeptical quotation marks because again, we’re talking about gender-labeling both physical traits AND personality traits that DO NOT INHERENTLY BELONG TO ANY SEX) has been historically used to undermine everything from his intelligence to his artistic depth to his credibility (”diva” anyone?).  It’s not mine or anyone’s job to police and gatekeeper and tell people how they’re supposed to talk, I just urge us all to be a bit more thoughtful with how we use words and how we appropriate gay culture so voraciously.

Also, please stop this tiresome straw-man argument of “there’s nothing wrong with being femme!” Of course there isn’t.  There’s nothing wrong with being anything!

But everyone on this site knows better than to purposely mis-label a person’s gender or sexuality. Everyone also knows better than to characterize a person’s sexuality or gender identity in a way that would upset that person or make them uncomfortable. If someone prefers “Black” to “African American,” call them Black. If they prefer “Brown” to “Black,” call them Brown, etc. It’s not your place to make a judgment call about these terms, it’s for people to choose for themselves and it’s our place to respect them.

I know I’ll probably get pushback that “this is just fandom” and “it’s not that serious.” And to an extent I agree because none of the Beatles would appreciate being called assholes or hearing our shitty opinions about their songs either and we all feel free to criticize them for all kinds of stuff that is essentially none of our business. I just think we need to pump the brakes from time to time when it comes to throwing labels on people.  

And yes, perhaps I’m sensitive about this topic because I grew up in a much, much more homophobic era than our current one and I’ve definitely got scars from it. But I also believe that it’s OK to encourage everyone to think about this stuff and talk openly about it without attacking each other or getting overly defensive.