Entertainment For Lively Minds
Paul and George
I was given the excellent Beatles Anthology set of DVDs for Christmas & have enjoyed the first couple of programmes very much. One detail, however, has struck and puzzled me. Paul keeps saying that the age difference between him & George was a year and a half, which, he emphasises, was a lot then, i.e., when they first met. George, meanwhile, says, more accurately, that the age difference between them was nine months ("He was nine months older than me then - and he's STILL nine months older than me!").
In fact, the difference between them is a mere eight months; Paul was born in June 1942, George in February '43.What puzzles me is how Paul could possibly imagine that he was a year and a half older than George, given that he was born in the summer and they went to the same school, so, presumably, he knew that he was not two school years ahead of George?
It's a small detail, I know, but it bugs me.
- More from Raymo.
- Login or register to post comments
-
I got that for Christmas too!
I have seen it before (but it was a few years ago and I've not started on it again yet). I do remember Paul stressing that George was younger, I think he still does. Strange that it's so little difference, given that John Lennon was a full 1year+8months older than Paul!
Looking forward to watching it again.
Just One Theory
Maybe, Paul is confusing school-years and actual years, and mixing them together? This meaning that George would've been in the year below Paul at school; in addition to which, Paul knew George was born halfway through the school-year so he put 2 and 2 together to get 5.
Anybody know how Paul did in his Maths O-Level?
Tom, that makes sense
and would answer my question, but there is, of course, another reason for finding this blind spot of Paul's puzzling. OK, let's assume he gets confused for the reason you give, still, many, many people have raked over the details of the Beatles' early history over & over again. Surely, someone at some time would have pointed out to him that the distance between June '42 and February '43 is NOT a year and a half, especially as Paul and John were always so keen to draw attention to George's relative youth. My theory is that Paul and John had built up a myth about George being "just a kid", and were too attached to it to let facts stand in its way.
Whoever it is/was, good luck with...
... that "pointing out to Paul that he's wrong" thing...
Good subject
Another way of looking at it is that John and Paul were together as a unit before George was asked to join. Now John would have been 2 years and four months older than George. Considering they met when JL was 17-18 and GH was 15, that's quite a difference. That would have put Paul in between and he's probably averaged/extended the age gap in his head. But the axis of John and Paul together would have just been older . Plus George would have reinforced his youthfulness by being kicked out of Germany. That's my 2 cent anyways.
It was like a f**kin' turban!
My favourite line in the recent George documentary comes from Macca when he recalls, in broad Scouse, how one of their Liverpool pals would describe George's impressively bequiffed hairstyle of the late 50s
"It was like a f**kin' turban!"
Don't worry...
I'm sure one of the monthlies will do a 20 page article on the matter before long.
Reminded me of this...
'Paul and George and Ringo, just a fraction of the Fab Four... The Beatles are forever, it's like John never got shot...'
What Gives by Loudon Wainwright III (1997 BBC Session)
Very much responding to the 90s Beatles revival, and other things rockular and popular. I hope you enjoy Anthology - it's a great series. *thumbs aloft*