Actually my thought was Paul sure was pretty. Plus, I believe Paul only bought about 1000 shares, which was a drop in the bucket even IF they did have equal shares. They both started out with I believe 750,000 shares and John had to sell about I think it was a 100,000 shares because he wanted to divorce Cynthia quickly and needed the money for the settlement, so Paul had more shares anyway. What's a thousand shares when he had 100,000 more anyway? If anything it just shows how John was ready to believe anything against Paul, basically he was at the "bitch eating crackers" phase of things(or perhaps "you've got the tambourine all wrong!" phase). He was looking for reasons to find fault and feel betrayed.
I was thinking exactly the same thing, but I guess once again it's just a matter of them emerging into adulthood at a time when cameras and interest in photography as both an artform and a hobby were becoming accessible to the mainstream of society, almost hand in hand with guitars! So Mike McCartney, Richard Matthews and Astrid were right there on the spot when The Beatles were gearing up to emerge. Television as a medium, in the UK at least, would act in the same way a few years later with the emergence of BBC2 and regional ITV stations, all of whom wanted a piece of the Beatle pie. That uncanny coincidence of being in the right place at the right time. And they were very photogenic. And sang and played pretty good too.
One other thing: The Beatles, at least John, Paul, and George, were constantly together starting in 1958. They lived and breathed music. That means that they had 5 years worth of photos during their PRE-Fame history. This was a very unique situation. Most of the other British bands from that time barely had a few months together under their belts. It is why the Beatles were the catalyst. They were the ones who logged in those 10,000+ hours of playing together prior to their record contract. No other British band even came remotely close. They also got lucky in meeting two fine photographers, Astrid (especially) and Jürgen Vollmer, who were willing to "waste" much precious film on a bunch of nobodies.
No, it is not Stu. A - he looks very different, and B - the photo is another one from the fancy dress party ( or rather Künstlerfest of the art school at Lerchenfeld) , check Astrid's clothes and hairdo! And the champagne glasses.
I'm constantly amazed at how much they didn't come out of nothing before the whole world got to see them. That something had always been there.
He looks older than 18 there. I wish there was a good biopic all about Brian. There was one made for TV on the BBC a few years ago but it wasn't all that great (and the actor looked nothing like him which didn't help).
The original description of the photo also says his companion was 16 (?!). They both look about 30, but there you go. I would love a good biopic on Brian. I keep saying, Lewisohn should sell the TV rights of Tune In to Netflix. Then he'd have the dough to get us Volumes 2 & 3 and we'd get the basis of a good Beatles/Brian/George Martin story.
