"I had [John] down as a coffee-boy layabout, as I used to call him, and thought he was rather arrogant. But when I got to know him – it's quite tragic really. I had an unhappy childhood, too, so there was a bit of an understanding there, although we never talked about it. I remember Stuart Sutcliffe saying that he once saw John at the top of the stairs at art school, crying on his own. That, to me, was the real John, but on stage, of course, he was arrogant."
Allan Williams, (link to article)
304 notes
·
View notes
So whats like the general consensus about Stu and John? Do we think they ever messed around or not?
Ooooh, I won't burn and scar my typing fingers on anything like "general consensus," and my cop-out answer is: depends on who you ask. I mean, if you're living in a world where 'a man being with a woman' = straight, or 'a man who never came out unequivocally as queer' = straight, then John and Stu very much never messed around, and, more importantly, didn't feel the desire to.
But I think if you look at it with an open mind, without being afraid of the possibility, you'll see it's more likely they did than that they didn't.
First, you have John, with his life-long romantic idea of being in love with your creative partner (see: his comments on Yoko and Paul)—an idea that fits Stu seamlessly, and perhaps even started with him. In the Hunter Davies bio, John (in '67) calls Stu Paul's predecessor in the 'my trusted partner in art' role.
There is also this conversation with Stu's girlfriend, Astrid Kircherr, as related by Backbeat director Iain Softley:
Paying tribute to Astrid this week, film director Iain Softley revealed her moving words from his interviews with her when he made 1994 movie Backbeat about her and Stuart’s romance.
They hint at a complex relationship between her, Stuart and John. She said it was only after Stuart died that she and John “took a load of pills” and talked for 12 hours about “all the things on our minds about Stuart”. “‘He was jealous when Klaus and I fancied Stuart more, and took him home and left John out,” she told Iain.
“He told me he really loved Stuart, but was afraid of the feeling.”
Iain adds: “I think she thought he meant as a friend, I don’t think there was any suggestion they were in a relationship. But Stuart had always been John’s best friend, they shared a flat in Liverpool. John would write to Stuart as ��Jesus Christ to John the Baptist’, in the sense Stuart was showing him the way. He looked up to him.
“There was a sense John didn’t want Stuart taken away from him, he didn’t want Stuart to stay in Hamburg.
“At the same time he was very fond of Astrid, but I think there was a conflict there.”
If John was afraid of the feeling, then I'm thinking he felt something that, at the time, and probably still today, was a scary thing to feel. I'll leave it at that.
Also, they were, what? 18, 19, 20 years old? At that age, odds are you do fool around, even if you regret it afterwards. Nothing wrong with that.
Look at this picture of Stu (r.) with Astrid and Astrid's ex, Klaus Voormann. Klaus, who later said he and Astrid didn't work as a couple because she wanted him to be exactly like her image of him, and whose marriage (to a woman) was a platonic marriage of convenience, according to himself. We have now reached the beautiful stage of come onnn! "Straight" was at the party, but so were many others. These relationships were messy! That's awesome!
And how do we feel about John feeling up Gene Vincent, while Paul and George look on knowingly, and Pete Best blanks out? We feel joyous and unsurprised.
A word about Paul vs. Stu, since we're (sort of) at it.
It's possible (what an understatement) to think of their rivalry as sexual rivalry. This is, once more, hinted at in Backbeat, where Stu is more or less giving away John to Paul.
And yet. I think it was more than that. I think everyone, back then, was fighting for more than a bed-partner. They were fighting for their future, for a life unlike their parents'. Paul was fighting for the band, Stu was fighting for John to join him on his artist's way (even giving 'rock'n'roll' a try), and John..
John was, on the one hand, the person either of the others felt he needed in order to realize his dream. But on the other hand, he was the least decided of the three. He may have perceived that, within the trio, he had the fewest fall-back options: Stu had his obvious, much-mentored artistic talent. Paul had a possible academic future bwxt to his musical talent, plus a clear determination to make it in music. John had talent in spades, but perhaps less of a clear-cut idea of where and how to apply it. So he tried keeping both of them close...?
With fun scenes like these as a result:
John sure is feeling campy/cuddly, while Paul is incandescent with rage. A hot look for both of them.
In the end, we don't know if they ever did fool around. My usual reply in those cases is: I hope they did, if they both wanted it. I hope it was good.
I need to check out this book:
John and Paul look happy.
49 notes
·
View notes
Chris Hutchins - John's This Photo Kills postcard and Stuart
It was a warm June day in 1965 when the postcard landed on the desk of my office at the NME, deep in the heart of Covent Garden. The card was addressed to me but John, whose unmistakable handwriting marked him out as my correspondent, began 'Dear Mick', clearly alluding to Mick Jagger [...]. The message went on in typical Lennon vein: 'Woke up this mornin' - cornflakes - brown sugar - dig? Shoes - mac - raining down - still digging? ... Folk fingers - brass coffee - couldn't sleep - broke my line. Won't be back in time. DIG??? He signed it 'THE BIFOLKALS'.
I read it over and over again but never could work out half of what he was trying to say. Except, that is, for the 'brown sugar' bit. It was the term in those days - and this was Sixties, remember - for heroin [...].
But it was the picture on the other side that was most interesting - a photograph of himself, Paul, George and Ringo. Over each face he had inked-in dark glasses and on his one hand showing, a black glove. There was more: in the center of the group he had drawn a fifth person, a fifth Beatle and it was none other than the late Stuart Sutcliffe. Stuart had always worn dark glasses.
The card had been sent from Genoa mid-way through the Beatles' Italian tour. [...] But the conversation had become maudlin when I reminded him that he was going to talk to me for an article about Stuart.
[...]
In that sad telephone conversation before they set off for Milan, I asked him if he was happy: 'I'd be a lot happier if Stuart was still part of us,' he said, 'The Beatles would be complete.' And before he rang off he said 'Ill send you something.'
[John showing Hutchins around recently purchased Kenwood.]
There were John Lewis style paintings everywhere, but hung in one of the guest bedrooms were just two drawings and our host became clearly emotional when he explained they were there for 'sentimental reasons'. They were in fact works by his late dear friend, the man who helped him found the Beatles, Stuart Sutcliffe.
In that moment all John's feelings for the one man he had most liked and admired became apparent, he turned away but not before I saw his eyes welled up with tears. John never liked looking back when it exposed his feelings [...]. But even he could do nothing to hide the sadness brought on by such reminders of the past as hung before us.
We left the 'Sutcliffe room' and I noticed that he locked the door behind him. The room had become a shrine.
103 notes
·
View notes
He say I know you, you know me, one thing I can tell you is you got to be free
Astrid Kirchherr remembers taking this picture in 1962, John requested her to take a picture of him like she did with Stuart, in the attic of her mother's house which Stuart had used as his atelier while he was alive. She remembers John's immense sadness and George's strength, George seeming quite protective of John who was very affected by Stuart's death.
In connection with this closeness and brotherhood. We take on John's description of George from his song "Come Together" where he repeated George telling him that they know each other well and that he has to be free.
At this stage, he had divorced Cynthia, married his new wife, collaborated with different artists (Dirty Mac and The Plastic Ono Band) while being politically active in his messaging. John was freer than he could've ever been.
But why was George's message to him like this?
I pose this question, but I think most of us know the answer and it's heartbreaking.
82 notes
·
View notes