4 ms·

It’s totally the opposite. John absolutely did care what the others thought, that’s exactly why he brought her there. He knew it would bother them, and that’s e

It’s totally the opposite. John absolutely did care what the others thought, that’s exactly why he brought her there. He knew it would bother them, and that’s exactly what he intended and cared to do. He wasn’t unconcerned whether they would feel one way or another. He was entirely aware he was pushing boundaries, and he was doing it to see where he stood with the other band members, and how bad they wanted/needed him. Once again, I think your perspective reflects a lack of emotional development w/r/t how you imagine Yoko and John i.e. that they are simply just self-obsessed and oblivious to anything besides their own desires. It’s clearly the opposite, John knew exactly what he was doing, and why he was doing it and the risks it brought. Your other point also reflects emotional immaturity. If my bandmate brought his gf to practice, I wouldn’t sit there and seethe at her (and it’s funny you describe it this way when the obvious takeaway from get back is how much her being there was a non-issue despite the visual and conceptual absurdity of her sitting there reading a book about the Beatles), I would bring it up with my bandmate. Like I pointed out before, and in Yoko’s case, she’s trying to do the right thing by her life partner, her lover, her husband, future father of her children, someone she was deeply into a heroin addiction with, which to her, supersedes anything she would owe to Paul or any other Beatle. It's pretty absurd for you to have suggested I was the one taking away her agency or infantilizing her, while you reject basic human emotions. You act like John passively asked her "Hey, wanna come to band practice?" wherein what he actually did was tell her that he needed her there in order to actually do it in the first place. This is all post-white album. That’s why you seem especially emotionally immature, if not outright just selfish. You (a) project it onto Yoko and John in order to eschew any other reasonable explanation, and (b) think that your bandmate’s partner owes you more than she owes your bandmate and that to do otherwise would just reflect not caring or being “dense”. I’d like to think you’d be a better partner to a potential better half of yours, but hey, clearly you don’t care! I hope they don’t either!

least 4y ago
> It’s totally the opposite. John absolutely did care what the others thought, that’s exactly why he brought her there. He knew it would bother them, and that’s exactly what he intended and cared to do. He wasn’t unconcerned whether they would feel one way or another. He was entirely aware he was pushing boundaries, and he was doing it to see where he stood with the other band members, and how bad they wanted/needed him. Once again, I think your perspective reflects a lack of emotional development w/r/t how you imagine Yoko and John i.e. that they are simply just self-obsessed and oblivious to anything besides their own desires. It’s clearly the opposite, John knew exactly what he was doing, and why he was doing it and the risks it brought. I find it remarkable that you wrote all this out and didn't once think that this is remarkably selfish, self serving, and narcissistic. Most people would condemn this type of behavior, but you're trying to elevate it into something greater than what it is. Stop proselytizing. > think that your bandmate’s partner owes you more than she owes your bandmate and that to do otherwise would just reflect not caring or being “dense”. I’d like to think you’d be a better partner to a potential better half of yours, but hey, clearly you don’t care! I hope they don’t either! I think that there's a time and place for things. If you're in a space to write music with your band then you defer to what is good for the band. If I'm visiting their home, that's a completely different story and I defer to what they want, because that's their space. Yoko has done this a lot throughout her career. She's injected herself in places that she clearly wasn't welcome and made it about her. Perhaps she is making an artistic statement but it hardly matters, because in doing so she's disrupting everyone else who in some cases often are trying to make their own art.
- freejazz 4y ago
  >I find it remarkable that you wrote all this out and didn't once think that this is remarkably selfish, self serving, and narcissistic. Most people would condemn this type of behavior, but you're trying to elevate it into something greater than what it is. Stop proselytizing. I don't think so at all, because it's not in service of the self, it's service of their partner. Maybe you are projecting. >I think that there's a time and place for things. If you're in a space to write music with your band then you defer to what is good for the band. If I'm visiting their home, that's a completely different story and I defer to what they want, because that's their space. But a band member invited her in. You keep inserting your own version of a hypothetical that totally runs against what actually happened. >Yoko has done this a lot throughout her career. She's injected herself in places that she clearly wasn't welcome and made it about her. Perhaps she is making an artistic statement but it hardly matters, because in doing so she's disrupting everyone else who in some cases often are trying to make their own art. She didn't inject herself. John literally told her he needed her there, I'm not sure what is so difficult for you to understand about this. Seems like you don't even understand the concept of an invitation, which makes total sense to me given your behavior here.
  - least 4y ago
    > I don't think so at all, because it's not in service of the self, it's service of their partner. Maybe you are projecting. It's almost as if people are capable of doing things under one pretense while their aim is another. The NY Times' article's author certainly seems to think that Yoko had ulterior motives, not that it matters, since the discussion stems from you being unable to understand why people would be annoyed with Yoko, despite the fact that they were. > But a band member invited her in. You keep inserting your own version of a hypothetical that totally runs against what actually happened. I'm not really inserting any hypothetical. She was in the studio. She annoyed the other Beatles, as confirmed by one of the other Beatles. > She didn't inject herself. John literally told her he needed her there, I'm not sure what is so difficult for you to understand about this. Seems like you don't even understand the concept of an invitation, which makes total sense to me given your behavior here. She injected herself in things outside of John and the Beatles. I'm sure you know this because you seem to be a fan of hers... but also because of this, you probably think she wasn't. You seem to be incredulous that anyone could be annoyed with her, which is your own personal failing. The reality is people were, regardless of whether or not it was justified in your head.

least 4y ago

> It’s totally the opposite. John absolutely did care what the others thought, that’s exactly why he brought her there. He knew it would bother them, and that’s exactly what he intended and cared to do. He wasn’t unconcerned whether they would feel one way or another. He was entirely aware he was pushing boundaries, and he was doing it to see where he stood with the other band members, and how bad they wanted/needed him. Once again, I think your perspective reflects a lack of emotional development w/r/t how you imagine Yoko and John i.e. that they are simply just self-obsessed and oblivious to anything besides their own desires. It’s clearly the opposite, John knew exactly what he was doing, and why he was doing it and the risks it brought. I find it remarkable that you wrote all this out and didn't once think that this is remarkably selfish, self serving, and narcissistic. Most people would condemn this type of behavior, but you're trying to elevate it into something greater than what it is. Stop proselytizing. > think that your bandmate’s partner owes you more than she owes your bandmate and that to do otherwise would just reflect not caring or being “dense”. I’d like to think you’d be a better partner to a potential better half of yours, but hey, clearly you don’t care! I hope they don’t either! I think that there's a time and place for things. If you're in a space to write music with your band then you defer to what is good for the band. If I'm visiting their home, that's a completely different story and I defer to what they want, because that's their space. Yoko has done this a lot throughout her career. She's injected herself in places that she clearly wasn't welcome and made it about her. Perhaps she is making an artistic statement but it hardly matters, because in doing so she's disrupting everyone else who in some cases often are trying to make their own art.

freejazz 4y ago
>I find it remarkable that you wrote all this out and didn't once think that this is remarkably selfish, self serving, and narcissistic. Most people would condemn this type of behavior, but you're trying to elevate it into something greater than what it is. Stop proselytizing. I don't think so at all, because it's not in service of the self, it's service of their partner. Maybe you are projecting. >I think that there's a time and place for things. If you're in a space to write music with your band then you defer to what is good for the band. If I'm visiting their home, that's a completely different story and I defer to what they want, because that's their space. But a band member invited her in. You keep inserting your own version of a hypothetical that totally runs against what actually happened. >Yoko has done this a lot throughout her career. She's injected herself in places that she clearly wasn't welcome and made it about her. Perhaps she is making an artistic statement but it hardly matters, because in doing so she's disrupting everyone else who in some cases often are trying to make their own art. She didn't inject herself. John literally told her he needed her there, I'm not sure what is so difficult for you to understand about this. Seems like you don't even understand the concept of an invitation, which makes total sense to me given your behavior here.
- least 4y ago
  > I don't think so at all, because it's not in service of the self, it's service of their partner. Maybe you are projecting. It's almost as if people are capable of doing things under one pretense while their aim is another. The NY Times' article's author certainly seems to think that Yoko had ulterior motives, not that it matters, since the discussion stems from you being unable to understand why people would be annoyed with Yoko, despite the fact that they were. > But a band member invited her in. You keep inserting your own version of a hypothetical that totally runs against what actually happened. I'm not really inserting any hypothetical. She was in the studio. She annoyed the other Beatles, as confirmed by one of the other Beatles. > She didn't inject herself. John literally told her he needed her there, I'm not sure what is so difficult for you to understand about this. Seems like you don't even understand the concept of an invitation, which makes total sense to me given your behavior here. She injected herself in things outside of John and the Beatles. I'm sure you know this because you seem to be a fan of hers... but also because of this, you probably think she wasn't. You seem to be incredulous that anyone could be annoyed with her, which is your own personal failing. The reality is people were, regardless of whether or not it was justified in your head.