?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Apr. 3rd, 2007 @ 12:07 am Rant #10
"Pretty Perfect Paulie" or "Paul Is a Hack"

I am soooooo annoyed by the stupid "Pretty Perfect Paulie" and "Paul is a no-talent hack" comments/ secrets.

The man obviously had talent (yeah, I'd even go so far as to say that he was the most naturally gifted of the four), so there's no point in even ranting about how he does in fact have talent. Any clear thinking individual can see that.

I will instead elaborate on the "Pretty Perfect Paulie" attitude that is so prevelent in comms. Obviously the man is not perfect, especially during his Beatle days. In fact, before he settled down with Linda, he was the worst womanizer of the bunch! So now, that said, why do I personally forgive him of this (yet I have serious issues with John & Yoko's behavior)? Because Paul was not married. Yes, it was horrible for him to cheat on Jane/all his other girlfriends, but let's not forget that he wanted to marry her; *SHE* was the one who wasn't ready to settle down. She wanted to make a name for herself before she married him; she is the one who decided not to up the commitment level; she is the one who decided that her career was more important then starting a family and settling down.

I'm NOT saying she is to blame for Paul's behavior (because he was horrid for cheating on her like that), but I am saying that she made a choice NOT to be that serious with Paul and to pursue her career. Now before you jump all over me, saying that I'm setting women back 50 years, I am all about women's lib and all that stuff (my job alone would be evidence of that)….I'm just saying when you (man or woman) choose a career over personal life, you have to deal with the consequences. Again, I am NOT saying that it was OK for Paul to cheat on Jane.

Wow, ok, I've totally meandered off my original point, which has that Paul was horrible as a person during his Beatle years (yeah, don't even get me started on his contribution the Beatle breakup), and that this blind devotion and hero worship that I see on the comms is very infuriating. Use your head people, and think!

All that said, why do I love and admire Paul? Because he changed and became a man worth admiring and looking up to. It all changed when he settled down with Linda & The Beatles broke up (I don't think The Beatles left room for "family").

He became a doting, devoted husband and father, who made being with his family priority #1 in his life. Rather than go on and on about how great Paul is though, I think that I'll simply leave it at this: I feel he is someone to look up to and emulate, and I hope to be able to what Paul and Linda did; which is to have the whole family around all the time; kids, dogs and all. Because nothing is more important then family (to me at least), and your children are your legacy…they should priority number one. So I admire the man Paul became, but not the man he was as a Beatle.

Still love the music though. I mean, how could you not? It's the best part right?
About this Entry
macca
abromeds:
From:world_falls
Date:April 3rd, 2007 06:29 am (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
I just wanted to say that out of all the Beatles, Paul is the only one I haven't ever heard anyone say was, essentially, perfect. I've heard John, George, and Ringo fans each go on and on about how great each of them were, ad nauseum, as if they were picture perfect, saintly human begins. ESPECIALLY George fans. I mean, yeah I've heard teens (well, and maybe me sometimes...) go on and on about how pretty he was, but never anything about him being perfect. I'm not saying it hasn't happened, I've just never seen it. Maybe I'm just in the wrong communities though.

which has that Paul was horrible as a person during his Beatle years

I agreed with your rant, still, until I came to this. I guess I just take issue with saying "Paul was a horrible person" because of the things listed. He DID some nasty, mean spirited stuff, but that doesn't make Paul a horrible person. I've made a lot of shitty decisions and definitely hurt some people in my past, but I (pray) that no one is calling me a horrible person for those things.

But, in essence, I agree with your rant. It should be rather obvious to everyone: Paul was neither saint nor all-around sinner. He was simply human.

[User Picture Icon]
From:safelybeds
Date:April 3rd, 2007 07:29 am (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
I just wanted to say that out of all the Beatles, Paul is the only one I haven't ever heard anyone say was, essentially, perfect. I've heard John, George, and Ringo fans each go on and on about how great each of them were, ad nauseum, as if they were picture perfect, saintly human begins.

Really? Never? Um...okay. Because I've heard PLENTY of Paul fans go "on and on" about how great he was (granted I've heard that said about the others too, don't hurt me). I think it's easy to feel like our favorite Beatle gets no respect...but yeah, trust me, there are plenty of Paul fans who behave exactly the way you described some John, George and Ringo fans.
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture Icon]
From:partytimexelent
Date:April 3rd, 2007 07:36 am (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Oh wow, I was going to rant about this four seconds ago, how crazy. I completely agree with you, down to the periods. Even though John is my hands down "favorite", I find Paul's humanity to be something very admirable, and he's my hero on so many levels. That's the beauty of the Beatles, in my opinion. They were above others as far as musical talent went, but they were essentially flawed humans and huge womanizing jerks and ridiculously romantic saps and obsessive druggies and very silly hornies and funny and witty and depressing and inspiring group of guys. And Paul was no acception.
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture Icon]
From:partytimexelent
Date:April 3rd, 2007 07:26 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Hm, I think I might!

Nope, because it's true. :)

No prob!
[User Picture Icon]
From:queenpeladon
Date:April 3rd, 2007 11:28 am (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
I'm a bit puzzled by this rant; you state that your intention is to show that Paul wasn't "pretty perfect Paulie," but then spend a good deal of time elaborating on how he was just about blameless in his disastrous relationship with Jane, and don't really touch on why you think he was instrumental in the Beatles break-up and so on, which I would have liked to see.

"I'm NOT saying she is to blame for Paul's behavior (because he was horrid for cheating on her like that), but I am saying that she made a choice NOT to be that serious with Paul and to pursue her career. Now before you jump all over me, saying that I'm setting women back 50 years, I am all about women's lib and all that stuff (my job alone would be evidence of that)….I'm just saying when you (man or woman) choose a career over personal life, you have to deal with the consequences."

Why should it be a black & white choice? If both people are fully commited to a relationship, it should be perfectly possible for both to maintain separate careers, even if that does involve time apart. I'm sure there are plenty of people in this community who can testify to that, and I personally have a huge amount of respect for Jane for being the only Beatle wife/girlfriend at that early stage who wasn't prepared to jack in her successful career or her independence.

In spite of this, I do agree completely with this statement:

"So I admire the man Paul became, but not the man he was as a Beatle."

I'm also hugely critical of Paul during this period, but greatly respect him for changing and developing as a person.
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture Icon]
From:queenpeladon
Date:April 3rd, 2007 01:02 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
First of all, can we say *facepalm*? :)

"And whether you like it or not, it IS always a black and white choice, depending on the couple."

Isn't that a bit of a contradiction? Either it's always a black & white choice, OR it depends on the couple, surely? :) I still think it's possible for couples to maintain successful careers in separate fields with no sacrifice on either side, although you're right insofaras it certainly does depend on the individuals involved. Wanting the same things in a relationship is crucial, whether that be both wanting one partner to remain at home, or both wanting to pursue careers.

"So, I guess all I was saying that while Paul was a horrible womanizing dog for cheating on Jane, I think Jane was just as responsible for the breakup, and she or he should have probably broken things off sooner, because there was no way that relationship was going to work, unless one of them drastically changed their goals. That was not about to happen on either end."

I do absolutely agree with you on this point; I just don't blame Jane, exactly. Applaud, more like!

"LOL, yup, I certainly can testify to it, though being apart from Ron is NOT what I would choose, if I were given the choice."

You & Ron are the couple I had in mind when I wrote that, as a matter of fact.
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture Icon]
From:padawansguide
Date:April 3rd, 2007 03:11 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
I totally agree with what you said about Jane! Go her for not chucking it all to just be a Beatle girlfriend!
[User Picture Icon]
From:queenpeladon
Date:April 3rd, 2007 05:22 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Woo, yeah!

Seriously, though, when I think of what happened to Pattie's career, it just kills me. I don't think it's ever a sacrifice worth making, to be honest, particularly when you're at the top of your game, as she was.
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture Icon]
From:adaveen
Date:April 3rd, 2007 02:30 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
I actually have NOTHING to say. He's not a hack and his behavior has pretty much been par the course - naughty when he was single, fine when he was married.

(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture Icon]
From:padawansguide
Date:April 3rd, 2007 03:09 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Gee, why would Jane have a problem committing to the "worst womanizer of the bunch"? ;-)

Seriously though, O' Anonymous Ranter (hee hee, I totally know who you are!) - I don't think Jane was in the wrong for wanting to have a career, thoughclearly that had an impact on the relationship, because Paul clearly wanted a certain kind of woman who was there for him in a certain way. I think the 60s were a very different time and many women did have to chose career over marriage. Hopefully there were a few enlightened guys back then who did not make their significant others choose, but I suspect the Beatles were not that enlightened. Today is different and I don't think women have to choose career over relationship, and thank God for that!

I doubt Jane has any regrets over her choice, especially after catching Paul in the act. I don't know why Paul didn't cheat on Linda - either Linda was just the one and Jane wasn't, or Paul was just ready to grow up and move on from that behavior - not sure which. But I don't think Jane and Paul were right for each other.



(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture Icon]
From:zyzzybalubah
Date:April 3rd, 2007 04:24 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
I feel like I always respond to these "Beatle 'fill in the blank' was a jerk/Beatle 'fill in the blank' was perfect" rants the same way but... here I go again!

All the Beatles were jerks at various points in their personal lives. Paul was a control freak, horndog. John was a self centered prick who abandoned his child. George was snooty and had sex with Ringo's first wife. Ringo was an alcoholic...etc. Does that make any of them evil people? No, it just shows that they were normal human beings. I've certainly made many mistakes and have been at jerk a certain times but I'm lucky enough to not have people writing books about it. LOL.

As for talent...all the fabs had their particular strengths and it was the combination of those strengths that made them the greatest musical entity of all time. When they split up, they made some pretty good music but non of it matched the greatness of when they worked together (and with George Martin).

So, once again, I'll go on record as saying it's silly to pit any them against each other. Everyone has their favorite for whatever reason but it took each of them together to make The Beatles.

[User Picture Icon]
From:queenpeladon
Date:April 3rd, 2007 05:23 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Well said.
[User Picture Icon]
From:padawansguide
Date:April 3rd, 2007 05:58 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Nicely said. Though I think they Beatles made some bigger personal mistakes than most people make, and are given more forgiveness for it than a normal person might get.

Was the whole George having sex with Maureen thing ever verified? Just curious!
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture Icon]
From:abromeds
Date:April 3rd, 2007 04:46 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Yeah, the teeny-bopper bubble-gum Paul-adoration does get irritating... mainly to me because it distracts from those of us who love Paul intelligently! But... what can you do? Except wait for 'em to grow out of it, lol.

I agree with you that Paul was a much more tolerable, admirable person post-Beatles, but I disagree that he was a "horrible person" before that. He was certainly young and immature at first, and then the ridiculous fame went to his head as well as screwing with it. He did way too many drugs. He was also, as you said, a rampant womanizer. And I'm sure he was often damn near insufferable in the studio.

But there was also plenty of good in him even then, plenty of sensitivity and gentleness, as I think a lot of his music from that period shows. There's enough inklings of the beautiful person he would become to allow me to absolutely love even Beatle Paul, though if I knew him in real life no doubt I'd want to smack him on occasion. :)

As for Paul and Jane... it's terrible that he cheated on her, and I don't think Jane is to blame for that specifically, though it seems obvious the relationship had other problems as well that were the fault of both parties. I do see your point about marriage, though. It makes the other Beatles' indescretions worse, IMO, as does the fact that John and Ringo had children at the time.

Uhhhhhhh... what was my point again? ;P Don't remember! Oh well, probably said enough for now anyway... :)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture Icon]
From:pauls_left_hand
Date:April 6th, 2007 03:30 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Yeah, the teeny-bopper bubble-gum Paul-adoration does get irritating
I really hate bubble gum. And chewing gum :(

if I knew him in real life no doubt I'd want to smack him on occasion.
I'd spank him anytime ;P Oh, sorry, maybe not quite what you were talking about.
[User Picture Icon]
From:hb_princess
Date:April 6th, 2007 04:27 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
See, this is why these comms are dangerous. I was honestly and completely BAFFLED by this rant when I first read it, and that in turn irritated me beyond all reason, and that in turn made me want to post something really short and snippy in response like "Bitch! Are you HIGH? WTF r u TAWKING about?"...and then I saw who wrote it.

In the immortal words of queenpeladon: *facepalm*

That said (deep breath) it STILL baffles me. And I mean that literally - in the sense that I don't even get where it's coming from. I read this and I thought, "This person actually sees enough 'OMG PAUL IS SOOOOO PERFECT, ALL THE OTHER BEATLES SUCK, PAUL CAN DO NO WRONG' that she's annoyed by it? Where the hell have I been?" 'Cuz I'm obviously missing out on all this crazy blinded Paul-love, you see. ;P Honestly, if you had said, "I just hate all the literary references, polysyllabic words and deep insights into human nature Fergie puts into her songs, she makes me feel so stupid!” I couldn’t have been more perplexed.

Without a doubt, there’s tons of gushing on the comms about teh pretty, but it’s hardly confined to the teeny-boppers. And - aside from a stray “Paul could never hit his wife, just look at that profile!” type of comment during the Heather debacle – I’ve never seen it used as a defense of him personally, or as proof that he’s perfect. If anything, most of the Paul fans on the comms I’m in are too damned apologetic…like there’s some moral ferryman to pay for – gasp! – liking the cute one.

And with regards to Paul’s “womanizing” and “cheating” on Jane…ah, this should probably be a separate rant, b/c it bugs me and it’s bugged me for a long time, but…guys? There is absolutely nothing wrong with having lots and lots and LOTS of sex when you are free and single. There was nothing wrong with it when Paul did it, there was nothing wrong with it when Linda did it…there’s nothing wrong with it if Jane did it (and for all we know she may have). If the average person had the opportunities these very hot people had to screw around with all sorts of other very hot people, he or she would take them.

And Jane? Ho, boy. I’m sorry, but I just have no sympathy for Jane. The bottom line is, Paul liked women and they liked him. And Jane going off and leaving the Most Eligible Bachelor in the world with nothing but her picture and his left hand for weeks at a time is the equivalent of saying, “There’s ten whole fried chickens and a wedding cake in the fridge, honey – good luck with your diet!”

Hmm. Maybe Paul wasn’t the only one in that couple with a slightly over-important image of himself.
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture Icon]
From:padawansguide
Date:April 6th, 2007 07:32 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)

And Jane? Ho, boy. I’m sorry, but I just have no sympathy for Jane. The bottom line is, Paul liked women and they liked him. And Jane going off and leaving the Most Eligible Bachelor in the world with nothing but her picture and his left hand for weeks at a time is the equivalent of saying, “There’s ten whole fried chickens and a wedding cake in the fridge, honey – good luck with your diet!”


Hmm - does this only count if you're married to a Beatle? Or married to a famous person? Or just have an attractive spouse? I don't like the idea that it's the fault of the woman for trusting that her man won't screw around on her while she's out of his sight. That's a pretty sad statement on relationships. And frankly a sad statement on Paul. And if that was true of Paul, then Jane was better off out of it. I'd like to think Paul and Linda not being apart was for more reasons than that Linda couldn't trust him out of her sight...

Did Jane even have to be out of town for Paul to cheat? Wasn't she in town when she caught Paul in the act?