https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XwXliCK19Y

https://preview.redd.it/0aoc7frjb42h1.png?width=276&format=png&auto=webp&s=6d43c94caf650e07bb4ab22b469f9acdf715462c

This morning I was woken up by a friend playing "I'm Only Sleeping". Besides making me feel very nostalgic and pleasant, it got me thinking about the history of this track.

In 1966, John was living in his massive estate in Kenwood, deeply sunk into apathy, and heavy LSD use. Journalist Maureen Cleave (who conducted the famous "More popular than Jesus" interview for the Evening Standard in March 1966) recalled that John could sleep for 14- 15 hours a day. When he wasn't sleeping, he just lay on the sofa, staring into space or reading newspapers. Apparently, in 1966, at the absolute peak of their global popularity, his ultimate comfort zone was sleep- a natural reaction of the brain when a human is exhausted and subconsciously running away from reality.

The physiology of sleep defines this process as a state of decreased sensitivity and isolation from external stimuli. This was exactly what John needed. Burned out by the fame machine and paranoia, he spent 15 hours in a depressive daze on his couch in Kenwood, despising the people rushing around outside.

This lethargy can be seen elsewhere in his work. In "Nowhere Man", he describes himself as a completely blind man without a direction. Years later, on the White Album, his sleeping state  crashed into insomnia and nightmare with "I'm So Tired", where his mind officially refused to function .

But this is where Paul McCartney’s complementary  and saving role comes in . Without Paul, John’s "sleep apnea" would have remained just a messy, fragmented home demo tape. Paul took John’s lethargy and modeled it into a perfect form. Paul built those floating, ghostly backing vocals that mimic a daze, and personally insisted on slowing down the tempo,  to give John’s vocals that heavy, dragging character typical of the first stage of sleep (Mark Lewisohn’s The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions). I can't help but mention Paul's bass, leading the entire song.

The only element that, in my opinion, blurs and stains the perfect line of this track is the forced Indian motifs at the end. It was George Harrison who fought for that wailing, backward guitar solo, spending 9 hours in Abbey Road completely obsessed with Eastern ornamentation. To my ears, this solo feels artificial. It fractures the perfect, lazy bass rhythm from underneath. But that's what happens when you work in a democracy.

For me, "I'm Only Sleeping" is a brilliant song that shows us John’s mind at its most vulnerable biological point. But it is also yet another proof that Paul has the talent to structure a song so that it becomes a masterpiece.

Hitchcock is known for his search for a very specific model  woman. They radiate an icy  and inaccessible distance on the outside, but they carry a volcano inside. If we look at his biography, he was an unattractive, socially isolated man with a huge fear of reality and... women. He could not have these elite women in real life, so he built a cinematic framework to control, manipulate and break them. Is "Hitchcock's blonde" simply a a fixation, expression of the inferiority complex that a powerful director experienced throughout his life?

https://preview.redd.it/fbbo20y04x1h1.png?width=1280&format=png&auto=webp&s=e65a94fb1505cb839e6edf81fd95ec3cec2b809d

We have all been teenagers who thought that life was ahead of us and that we could conquer the world. The music we discovered played a huge part in that. The Beatles and Pink Floyd are absolute favorites for people who had a bit more sensory depth in their ears and courage in their minds. Furthermore, many people, including myself, discover them later in life rather than during their actual peak of popularity due to the age factor, which indisputably makes them classics.

In my case, during my early youth, I was looking for passion, anger and rebellion. That is why John Lennon and Roger Waters looked like gods to me. I believed that their raw, ripped vocals, political slogans, and screaming in pain were the only true signs of "intelligence and depth." We sought salvation in John’s raw, primal scream in "Cold Turkey" and "Mother," or in Roger’s eerie, aggressive madness in "In the Flesh" and "Don't Leave Me Now." But today, I can say that youth confuses concepts quite a bit.

The machine of life grinds us down, takes us through real battles, and ultimately clears our brains- for better or worse- from the illusions of meaningless rebellion.

At that point, some might rediscover the camp of Paul McCartney and David Gilmour. They realize that true strength is not about screaming and throwing mud (like John in How Do You Sleep?), but in the ability to finely  control the form in order to create a divine melody. By control over the form, I mean the artist's ability to govern the emotion instead of letting the emotion govern them. I find the real aesthetics in Paul's composition "You Never Give Me Your Money" or David's gentle  tranquility in "Echoes" and "High Hopes." I just feel  that the complex, beautiful musical composition (like Paul's in Dear Friend, for instance) is light-years ahead of the primal scream. 

Paul in "You Never Give Me Your Money" takes five completely different, fragmented ideas and moods and carefully  welds them into one whole. The emotion is just perfectly  shaped. This is an exact example of powerful impact without force. In general, this masterpiece deserves a separate in-depth post.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpndGZ71yww

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3IhXxeMy4Y

https://preview.redd.it/4z5svjxsfp1h1.png?width=299&format=png&auto=webp&s=d53c47f86a3876581514b7cbc857a4dde5f43df5

At 83, his voice may not be what it used to be, but there's always a big “But” -  his presence is completely haunting. I'm so glad he doesn't overdo it and try to act young. All three are touchingly good performances. Watching Chad Smith play drums as Paul reclaims the stage proves that great things bypass criticism, obstacles and age 

I know this is an unpleasant topic, but life is full of unpleasant realities. Aside from the obvious frontrunner- the gynecologist- I’ve recently realized that a visit to the dentist is the next ultimate test of survival. You are forced into a terrible trap, tilted backward, completely defenseless, and absolutely dependent on another human being. The desire to just escape the chair is overwhelming. Fortunately, modern medical standards are exceptionally high now, which keeps these visits from being completely psychologically traumatizing. But the underlying vulnerability remains.

https://preview.redd.it/dvsxe79w7j1h1.png?width=278&format=png&auto=webp&s=49bd77f27bcbb5299470a7fac843be9d89f2ffef

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-T_ZkacL9A0

Paul McCartney has several songs that he has never performed live. I will not mention them here, because they are all unique, complex musical compositions and the focus would be lost. But when I need beauty and scale, I play "No More Lonely Nights" -  the ballad that David Gilmour's guitar turned into a masterpiece, and Paul refused to tarnish on stage with substitutes.This is one of Paul's most beautiful and commercially successful songs  of the 80s (Top 10 worldwide). And yet, he never sang it at an official concert in his entire life. It remained an absolute boutique, studio exhibit. Why?

In my view, because the heart of this song is David's guitar solo at the end. And Paul, as a perfectionist and a connoisseur of quality, knows very well that not a single guitarist from his band can reproduce the same icy, sensory density that Gilmour possesses. Paul refuses to play the song live with substitutes, so as not to reduce it to ordinary pop.

What is the actual story? From what I've read and  Gilmour's radio interviews, there is something interesting here. David and Paul are old friends. When Paul invites him to the studio, Gilmour plays the solo almost immediately. Paul is so stunned that he decides to pay him a royal fee, but Gilmour refuses and asks for the money to be donated to charity. Here, think for yourselves about words like nobility, broad-mindedness, and legends.

For me, less than three months ago, I watched Peter Jackson's "Get Back", which massively intensified my interest in these legends. Since there is no way to publish long essay posts about Paul McCartney on Facebook, Instagram, or other socials, I created an account here. But I keep encountering pretty strange reactions and attitudes, which I don't give a damn about, of course

https://preview.redd.it/110dqnn6i41h1.png?width=225&format=png&auto=webp&s=3a525c9ceaa204257e3a26336118401d1f358d88

I accidentally came across a photo, which unfortunately I cannot find right now, where Paul is in his studio in Scotland back in 1970, wearing large headphones and I think a white tank top, surrounded by chaos, while baby Mary is crawling at his feet and pulling at his trousers. I instantly felt the entire atmosphere all over again: raising children amidst a mess of milk bottles, diapers, Lego pieces stabbing your feet, a crying baby pulling your leg, and the sheer panic of how you are going to get through the day. Was it really like that for Paul when he was recording the McCartney album? He must certainly possess something to isolate his consciousness when Lego pieces are stabbing his bare feet, and that is the music, which is probably so densely packed inside his head that the surrounding clutter simply does not matter at all.

I wonder how he is capable of recording an entire album, playing every single instrument himself, right in his living room, while his kids are literally tearing him apart. And how he turns domestic chaos into a controlled environment to create masterpieces like "Maybe I'm Amazed".

I noticed the exact same thing in the footage of "1985" from Lagos, Nigeria. He is sitting alone at his piano, with chairs flipped and stacked on top of the tables all around him, completely unfazed by it.
But let's get back to the photo and the McCartney album. Paul bought a 4-track Studer tape recorder and cut the whole record alone in his living room, with zero sound engineers. I will not talk about  "Maybe I'm Amazed" here, which saved the album from failure, but rather about a song that was unfairly rejected during the Get Back sessions.

Paul wrote "Teddy Boy" back in Rishikesh, but John literally killed it in the studio. Maybe for psychological reasons- the boy Teddy living alone with his mother, etc. Whatever the case, the song sounded one way, impactful and sad during Get Back, but the solo version on Paul's first debut album seems to lose part of its emotion.

It might be because Paul took John's criticism to heart- that the song was stupid and just a filler. Or perhaps it was the lack of the band's "fire"? On the McCartney album, Paul plays it alone on acoustic guitar and bass, while Linda sings backing vocals. The version is soft, pastoral, a bit monotonous, and it lacks the dynamic drive that The Beatles would have given it.
In my view, the solo version is more an impulse for  independence than a perfectly produced masterpiece. That is why, to me, the raw, albeit chaotic version from The Beatles' sessions (which later surfaced on Anthology 3) carries a far stronger impact.

I'm posting both versions here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzCaYwpu2yE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xzi2-ApF93E

https://preview.redd.it/5uy19elo9q0h1.png?width=1140&format=png&auto=webp&s=92ff5ef438ed5ecade4ceb440a851a0055b8b75f

We all know the date - July 6, 1957. Woolton, Liverpool. We’ve all read and heard about the first meeting between Paul and John, the guitar tuning, and the rock and roll chords. However, I’m thinking about the details, the spark between Paul and John, and what happened after the "Big Bang."

After that Saturday, John Lennon was definitely impressed because he had just met someone who showed a promise of competence, manners, and style. Paul arrived at the Woolton fete looking remarkably sharp in a white sports jacket with silver pinstripes and black 'drainpipe' trousers (The Beatles: All These Years,Mark Lewisohn), John's ego, however, wouldn't allow him to beg, so he sent a mediator – his friend Pete Shotton, who described everything in detail in his book John Lennon: In My Life.

And here, 15-year-old Paul McCartney made his first strategic move. When he received the invitation to join the band, he didn’t say "Yes" immediately. He said, "I'll think about it." And he left John waiting for two whole weeks. But he sent him notes with song lyrics and chords during that time.

Was Paul that busy?

No. He was weighing the positives and negatives while simultaneously giving himself weight (status). He knew that if he accepted immediately, he would just be "the boy who plays well." By imposing a two-week distance, he created a deficit. He made John "crave" him not just as a musician, but as an equal partner. Paul announced his price even before he stepped into a rehearsal.

While Paul was playing out a "diplomatic siege" for two weeks, George Harrison was the absolute opposite. His story is an example of pure, almost childish persistence. He literally chased John and Paul. Being younger (only 14), John initially perceived him as an "annoying kid."

The contrast: Paul was invited and made John wait. George was not invited – he had to prove himself.

The case of Ringo Starr is perhaps the purest manifestation of business ruthlessness by Paul and John as leaders. If Paul was the "Gray Eminence" and John was the official leader, then Ringo was the "missing piece of the machine" that they simply went and took.

Ringo was the best drummer in Liverpool, played with the most popular band (Rory Storm and the Hurricanes), had his own car, and wore a beard. He was older than them and had "status." They invited him at a time when the Beatles already had a recording contract, and Ringo agreed in seconds. He realized that his band had hit its ceiling, and the Beatles were a rocket taking off.

If Paul stood at the center of the band's management, it means he selected the "tools" for the project with extreme precision. He knew who he needed and when, how to influence whom, and skillfully assembled the puzzle with the right people at the right moment.

Why am I writing all this? Out of sincere interest. There might be minor inaccuracies, but my goal is to unravel the technical, or rather the psychological moves in the hierarchical arrangement and the creation of a global magic. Paul made the wildest boy in Liverpool wait at his gate. And John waited. Because the moment Paul finally said "Yes," he already possessed the cipher of power. I don't know if he foresaw the massive success, but as we can see, he designed it.

https://preview.redd.it/2ip0sa91j40h1.png?width=211&format=png&auto=webp&s=e1e5e9874108c57950c0ad2236fe719eab9477d7

If anyone still believes the cliché that Paul McCartney is just a "master of melodic ballads," they have never truly delved into the depths of his creativity. In 1971, with the album RAM, Paul installed one of his most radical and innovative songs - "Monkberry Moon Delight." It is pure innovation, raw passion, and vocal perfection bordering on controlled madness.

At this moment, Paul McCartney found himself in the most isolated yet strategic period of his life. He was happily married to Linda and already a father of three. He was on the verge of suing the other Beatles, standing alone against a world that accused him of breaking them up. RAM was born out of resentment and rage, filled with coded messages for John. I won't analyze "Too Many People" or "3 Legs" here, but rather the song that literally transports me to another universe with its abstraction, surrealism, and musical structure.

Here, his voice sounds like a demonic bluesman from another dimension. He emerges "naked" and attacks the space with such power that critics in 1971 simply froze. I can't help but highly appreciate the presence of Linda's vocals in the song, which gives an even greater illusionary effect. Unfortunately, аs far as I know, the album wasn't properly appreciated upon its release, but only much later.

The lyrics are an abstract labyrinth. Maybe some people think it  is meaningless, but I see in it the painful chronicle of a man who is coming out of depression but has not yet forgiven. And I am absolutely certain that John most definitely found some codes. Paul uses words not as messages, but as sonic textures. He creates a hallucinatory, hypnotic world where "Monkberry Moon Delight" becomes a symbol of his total detachment from the old world of The Beatles. It is a triumph of form over content. This track is bold, confident, and completely devoid of brakes. Paul proves he is a wilder and freer animal than any self-proclaimed "rebel."

What does Paul himself say about this top track?

Paul has always tried to downplay the song's significance, presenting it as a purely vocal exercise. He explains that the lyrics are just a series of sounds he liked. "Monkberry" was a family name for the milk the kids drank, and "Moon Delight" was a fantasy dessert. He claims the song is a "surrealist painting," not a political message. Regarding the vocal experiment, Paul admits he wanted to see how far his voice could go. Well, we certainly saw (and heard) it 

What does John say?

John never commented on the song directly in an interview, but his actions and reactions to the album RAM speak for themselves. But that is another topic.

I'll conclude by saying that while listening to "Monkberry Moon Delight," beyond the enjoyment, I think that when Paul decides to drop the "nice boy" mask, he doesn't just bite, but  devours everything. This is a song for those who understand that perfection sometimes sounds like a primal scream in the moonlit night.

Forget about the sweet Paul. Listen to the Beast.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLwPzzQXYVg

https://preview.redd.it/eufqfniuxrzg1.png?width=168&format=png&auto=webp&s=629be44fac0ad969caf1585d59712f9138e1f56e

I was reading an article about the Rolling Stones titled "Rock 'n' Roll and Arthritis." It discussed in detail the age-related changes of Mick and Keith, their aches and pains, and how physiology struggles with the legend. But something else struck me: when it comes to Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr, the topic of "old age" and functional changes almost doesn't exist. No one looks for arthritis in Paul's fingers while he's holding the bass. Why?

For some people, age is an unnoticeable detail. When there is a powerful intellect, and in their case, creative genius, the actual years truly get lost in abstraction. Paul and Ringo have long ceased to be just people in the eyes of the world; they are living monuments of the musical culture of two centuries. The fact that they are still here makes people look at them with adoration. And it's not because we are waiting for the next hit, but because we feel the energy that changed the planet.

Their new song "Home to Us" (which comes out tomorrow) is yet another proof that genius is the best anti-aging serum. I am certain that while Paul and Ringo sing about their roots in Liverpool, they won't sound like old men recounting memories. They are sufficiently integrated into modern musical updates.

As long as Paul is on stage, Beatlemania will not die. For Paul and Ringo, age is just a technical detail in an endless creative process.

Tomorrow I will hear "Home to Us." And I am definitely not thinking about wrinkles and arthritis. I will think only about the fact that they are still among us and still have something to say to us.

https://preview.redd.it/7l05dck2ekzg1.png?width=770&format=png&auto=webp&s=f5dd2db8da736bb2c8a3fdb39b96359a025a015d

I recently read somewhere that Paul was a major playboy with allegedly 600 partners. To me, this sounds like pure speculation, even considering how wild things were during the peak of Beatlemania. Personally, I don't see Paul’s erotic drive directed toward people, but toward music itself. While the press was counting "600 women," Paul was actually counting chords. To him, women were companions or muses, but his true libido was entirely invested in the creation of sound.

I’ve read statements by Francie Schwartz suggesting he wasn't exactly a "Terminator" in bed. In fact, she says in her book Body Count that he was "distracted." I can understand that- with a woman like her, he probably just wanted to get back to his piano and his real passion as quickly as possible.

Linda won because she understood she would always come second to the Music, and she accepted that. She became part of his band, Wings, specifically to stay close to his true love and therefore, to him.

600 songs vs 600 women? Paul's real statistics are in the studio, not   in the bedroom, according to me.  His "love affairs" are his melodies- that’s where he was extreme, where he was exhausting, where he was an experimentalist, and where he was a genius.

I think that  Paul wasn't an "exemplary husband" out of a sense of duty, but because no woman was ever as interesting to him as a new recording session, whether in a studio in Scotland or Lagos, Nigeria.

https://preview.redd.it/3nz5fvdcddzg1.png?width=800&format=png&auto=webp&s=3c24dca8c57401a46e15f2d470fc130f78197cd6

The year is 1968, and the tension within The Beatles is thick enough to cut with a knife. What was the personal situation of the four?

John: This is the moment of his radical transformation. He had just started his relationship with Yoko Ono (May 1968), and she was already inseparable from him in the studio. This broke the group’s unwritten "no outsiders" rule and created immense friction.

George: Increasingly alienated, immersed in Indian spirituality, while his marriage to Pattie Boyd began to cool.

Ringo: The family man trying to keep the peace but feeling more and more uncomfortable with the constant bickering in the studio.

Paul: In a period of major emotional transition. His relationship with Jane Asher (his muse for years) was falling apart, she would publicly announce their breakup on the BBC later in July. At the same time, he had met Linda Eastman, but she wasn't a permanent presence yet. Paul was in a "liminal" state- often alone at his home on Cavendish Avenue, searching for a new direction.

The Group Dynamic

Recording for the White Album began on May 30th. For the first time, they were working more as four solo artists with backing vocalists than as a band. Paul attempted to take control to save the project from failure, which the others began to interpret as a "dictatorship." Paul started seeking an outlet in individual creativity. "Blackbird" is his masterpiece of minimalism- one guitar, his voice, and the rhythmic sound of his shoe tapping the floor.

I’ve written about the Silent Witnesses Apple Scruffs before. These girls knew when Paul was sad, when he was inspired, and when he hadn't left the house for days. They were there on the sidewalks, sleeping in sleeping bags.

The Premiere

According to the memoirs of the Apple Scruffs (specifically Margo Stevens, who was there that night), the event was documented in detail. She describes how Paul sat on the windowsill of the upper floor and played the song for them on an acoustic guitar while they listened in total silence from the pavement below. These girls were the first people in the world to hear a song that would become an absolute masterpiece. For Paul it was a moment of pure humanity- sharing something so fragile with the only ones who remained loyal to him.

The song is a Beatles classic. Inspired by Bach, but filtered through Paul’s sense of modernity, it creates an atmosphere that remains untouchable even today.

This premiere symbolizes Paul seeking the pure approval of his most faithful fans while facing only resistance from his friends in the studio. Personally, I don't buy the official version about the "civil rights movement." Paul often used double codes. I believe that the "Blackbird" is Paul himself. But only he knows that. What do you think? Is this  a song of a man whose world is falling apart or a political metaphor?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBSu_ltDu1w

https://preview.redd.it/vwprsnsq5yyg1.png?width=253&format=png&auto=webp&s=8eb9a867e15748e4e36d428c90bf460c8415785f

In October 1967, something interesting happened. During the filming of Magical Mystery Tour, Paul McCartney came up with the idea for a separate music video for The Fool on the Hill as a solo triumph, effectively making a big statement as a solo player. I interpret it as a far-sighted attempt to save the project. He decided that he needed a specific light for The Fool on the Hill that he couldn't find in England. The result? A visit to Nice that defied laws and bureaucracy but created something unique.

Paul left for the plane to Nice and only at the airport realized he had forgotten his passport. In the world of migration authorities, this means deportation. According to The Beatles Anthology, he solved the problem with the sentence: "I said, 'Well, you know who I am'." And suddenly, the laws of France stopped working. He crossed the border without a single document because his existence was... proof of identity.

He is not entirely alone. With him is the loyal Mal Evans and the cameraman Aubrey Dewar. But still, this cannot be called a real film crew. They go to the most expensive hotel in Nice, where the manager tries to act "strict" and refuses a room without documents. Paul doesn't get into arguments,  instead  he sends Mal with a wad of banknotes. Mal literally bribes the staff to "forget" the rules. And they forget them.

The vision for the video was in Paul's head even before takeoff. The choice of that specific jacket is Paul's own. The jacket is slightly "old-fashioned" and "academic", which creates a sense of intellectual distance. He is dressed like a slightly eccentric professor or dreamer. Paul combines the jacket with trousers and shoes that look too formal for climbing hills. This emphasizes that the protagonist is "out of place" physically, but in complete peace with himself psychologically. In my opinion, this was thought out very carefully.

In the morning after the illegal check-in at the hotel, at sunrise, they catch a taxi and Paul climbs a hill above Nice without lighting and without filming permission. These legendary shots that we see in Magical Mystery Tour were entirely directed by Paul, who legally does not exist in France at that moment.

Nice was the precedent that proved there are no boundaries for Paul when he has a creative idea. Although the project was judged by critics as a failure, the genius of the song and the video for The Fool on the Hill has always been recognized. Rolling Stone magazine and the British press describe it as one of Paul's strongest and most philosophical compositions. And for me, it stands in the top 10 as an idea, melody, lyrics, and video of all time.

https://preview.redd.it/6wlxq6ihuryg1.png?width=300&format=png&auto=webp&s=b0c058ec9679e0efc69914f9203c7d338520a2ab

In my opinion, The Beatles' visit to Rishikesh was the last moment of their integrity as a group and as friends. Something broke there, a breakdown that perhaps hasn't been officially shared, but it existed. Why did Paul leave first, and why didn't John like that? But I won’t dwell on that,  I’ll look at the more cheerful side.

The Idea for India
George was the one who became fixated on India and spiritual teachings as far back as 1965. His wife, Pattie, actually discovered Maharishi through his lecture in London, but John embraced the idea and turned the visit to India into something very important for everyone.

Maharishi’s Plan and Requirements
Strict vegetarianism, no alcohol or drugs, total abstinence, and meditation to achieve spiritual purification.

Accommodations: Bungalows for VIP
Forget about sleeping on the floor. The Beatles and their entourage stayed in modern stone bungalows with all the extras for 1968. Every bungalow had electric heaters, running water, and… English toilets. Maharishi had decided not to stress his millionaire stars, and that’s where his mistakes began. The bungalows were on a cliff above the Ganges, surrounded by flowers. In short, they were provided with true comfort, even though the goal was to "kill their Ego."

Sabotage and Smuggling
The ashram had strict requirements: no alcohol and no drugs. But then arrived the creator of chaos, Magic Alex. He boldly supplied  the ashram with forbidden substances hidden in his luggage. John and Alex held their own "private meditations," fueled by London chemistry, while Maharishi thought they were working on astral levels.

The Menu: Vegetarianism until Collapse
The food was strictly vegetarian but prepared by personal chefs. They ate rice, lentils (dhal), lots of fruit, and vegetables. But there is one interesting detail here: Ringo, with his sensitive stomach, arrived with an entire suitcase full of canned beans (Heinz Baked Beans). He didn’t trust Indian hygiene and didn’t give the local cuisine a chance.

The Daily Routine: Extreme Laziness and Meditation

Morning:
Breakfast followed by lectures from Maharishi under the open sky. The Guru spoke about cosmic consciousness while they sat at his feet (until the moment John decided he was more cosmic than the Guru).

Afternoon:
Individual meditation. This was the time for the greatest slacking off. While Maharishi thought they were meditating for 8 hours, they were actually... writing songs. Paul and John visited each other in their bungalows, played acoustic guitars, and created over 30 masterpieces. The day passed in "deep meditation" that looked suspiciously like composing the "White Album" under the shade of the monkeys. In fact, the monkeys were the most honest participants in this adventure.

Evening:
The ashram's official plan included an evening lecture by Maharishi and an early bedtime for "cosmic purification." But for the meditators from London, this was the moment for infiltration. The parties happened mostly in John’s or Magic Alex’s bungalows after sunset. While other students sang devotional songs (bhajans), John and his entourage secluded themselves to consume smuggled whiskey and substances. This was their way of escaping the boredom of asceticism.

The Result:
That was the beginning of the end, but it was also where their most impressive songs were created. My personal opinion is that they were so bright and undisciplined that Maharishi must have had to meditate extra hard just because of the failed plan and the exposure of his machinations.

For this "essay," I used various sources such as "Many Years From Now" by Barry Miles, "The Beatles in India" by Paul Saltzman, "The Biography" by Bob Spitz, and others, but I have filtered the information through my own logic.