a kind of magic!

Yes, Paul took the initiative and managed a lot of the projects like MMT etc. and especially John and George were pissed off by this, but when you think about it for literally two seconds, you realize why Paul did it. He's always said how important the Beatles were to him, has called them his second family. He never expressed any interest in managing the band while Brian was still alive and after the Beatles broke up, his focus was always on making music, not the managing part of his job. Everyone makes him seem like this power hungry demon who was just waiting for his turn at the steering wheel, but there are so many things that point to him just trying to literally save what was most important to him: this band.

He's been known to throw himself into projects when grieving, mourning by not mourning. John was devastated by Brian's death and (I assume) in no fit state to think about what project would make the most money or whatever. While everyone was sitting on their asses (I know this is a mean way to put it, but I'm pissed off), Paul actually took matters into his own hands.

"He was too bossy". Was he bossy? Probably, yes. But someone fucking had to be, or the Beatles would have crashed and burned. I do understand why everyone wasn't happy with how things were going, George who already felt like the little brother who was sort of tagging along but not being taken seriously enough was obviously pissed that this "power dynamic" for lack of a better word was only increasing, and John, who had always been equal to Paul in literally anything didn't like the idea of Paul having power like that and being "above" him. But really, what would have been the better scenario? John managing the band? The same person who pissed off entire countries in like every second interview and had to make public statements and apologies about half the things he said? I think John was very smart and I find his wit and candor very endearing, but if he had been the one in charge, chances are the Beatles would have blown up. He's a fantastic artist, but not very smart about money etc etc, so not exactly the perfect fit for the role of a temporary manager. George? Perhaps he’s smarter about money (although he apparently didn’t understand the importance of paying taxes?) and publicity, but at that time he was completely infatuated with India, Hinduism and meditation and so on. I don't mean to say that was inherently bad, but I think Paul was the one with the most common sense. He knew how to charm the press to keep from getting into scandals (I mean, even when he was arrested for weed, he managed to sort of wiggle out of it. Nobody gave a shit). If Paul hadn’t been born a musical genius, I think being a manager would be a good fit for him. As for Ringo, I love the guy more than I can say but half the time in Get Back while decisions were being made he was completely zoned out, staring at walls. I honestly don't think he was very much interested in managing. So, perhaps a democratic regime where everyone gets a vote? Sure, if you want to get absolutely nothing done at all you let many people decide. I don't mean to sound like a monarchist, but I very much doubt an anarchistic management would have worked.

Sources under the cut:

july 15th - geoff emerick quits working on the white album bc he’s sick of the beatles fighting during sessions. (supposedly the last straw is john and paul bitching at each other about oh-bla-di, oh-bla-da).

july 17th, (2 days later) - yellow submarine premiere: john, and yoko, and paul go together, (presumably from cavendish where they are all living). paul is the only beatle going stag.

july 20th, (3 days later) - paul goes to liverpool with francie schwartz and jane announces the end of her and paul’s relationship on live tv while they are there. per francie’s account, paul’s real sore about it.

july 28th, (1ish week later) - mad day out: paul Behaves Like That. john joins him.

Hello!  Allow us to elaborate.  Firstly, the name isn’t an indictment on denim.  :)  

Jean Jackets refers more to a specific mentality, really.  The type that believes the Beatles were “John’s band,” and that John was always both right and righteous.  They romanticize John’s childhood and struggles with mental illness as qualities that make him “deep” and earn him a free pass for the worst of his behavior.  Because they see John as a savior, they tend to characterize his bullying and vitriol as a righteous man doling out justice.  Therefore they consider it unfair to discuss how John’s behavior was damaging to others and would prefer to find fault with his targets and normalize all of it (usually at the expense of McCartney).  To them, John was perfect in his “imperfection” and the idea that subsequent generations might have a different, more complex and less reverential take upsets them.  Jean Jackets essentially believe that their personal experience is empirical reality, making “outside” perspectives irrelevant and unwelcome.  They are deeply invested in hierarchy and maintaining Lennon’s perceived supremacy within the band.

These are the people who have dominated 99% of all Beatles discourse, authorship, etc for the past 50 years (Rolling Stone is a great example).  They are fiercely protective of this privilege and hostile towards anyone who challenges the traditional narratives (i.e. invades their turf).  In my experience, their love of Lennon is sincere.

While the term “Jean Jackets” evokes a SWM baby boomer with a ponytail in denim outerwear, the Jean Jacket mentality can transcend age, sex or race.  So this isn’t specifically against boomers, or men as a whole or even people who believe the traditional narrative.  It’s about people who fiercely cling to and perpetuate the traditional narrative, even when confronted with new ideas, evidence or insight that might shed a different light on the story.  Don’t be a Jean Jacket!

Again, we aren’t trying to demonize a fabric.  :)  All the Beatles could look cute in said clothing:

The Rolling Stones performing You Can’t Always Get What You Want or as this one youtube comment put it very nicely:

AESTHETIC  »  the beatles

“I thought when we went into News Of The World, we couldn’t reinvent ourselves as a punk band, but we wanted it a little bit more simple. Of course, we thought these really grandiose things weren’t really quite what was happening then. To be more of the time, I guess we made a more straightforward record.” — Roger Taylor

“When they dug in to do something mean or hard, they could do it better than anybody. News Of The World has ‘Fight From The Inside’, one of my favorite Queen songs, and also the brilliant ‘Get Down Make Love’. This is just my favorite end-to-end Queen record.” — Slash

“I don’t know why this isn’t regarded as real classic – one of Queen’s best albums. For me it certainly is. But perhaps we’ve gotten so used to ‘We Will Rock You’ and ‘We Are The Champions’ that we take them for granted, and therefore we also take the album for granted.” — Taylor Hawkins