Through your interviews, Erin has established herself as an extremely knowledgeable and credible author with impeccably high standards and a quest for providing an accurate and truthful history of the Beatles. My favorite quote today: “He’s also not on drugs”, concerning George Martin. Erin’s not “on drugs” either. She is a serious historian who has finally straightened out the mess of the varying accounts of the Beatles for us. I’ve already ordered my copy of her book and can’t wait to read it.
@@wildman9922 I think that’s a prerequisite for REALLY appreciating the new series. Erin is a historian and George Martin was the perennial “adult in the room” so their drug-free behaviors are appropriate for their chosen roles.
she has learned all about the pitfalls of falling into certain weak narratives. she's learned from others' countless mistakes. I will read her now, definitely. balancing a fan's love for this band, and being completely objective can't be as easy as it sounds.
Fantastic overview of the major biographers. Please bring Erin back for more! The intelligence of the questions and the conversation is a breath of fresh air.
I love how during Get Back it’s depicted that they ask an open question about what all material they have prepared and suddenly George Martin pulls a piece of paper out of his pocket and unfolds it and he has every single song they’re working on listed… he was still their producer.
I thought Shout was a terrible book when it came out. BTW Geoff Emerick has some issues I read his book and I surprised no one took him to task when he was alive. Erin, you are awesome!!
I was wondering what issues you have with Geoff Emrick's book. I know that he may have harbored some resentments, as the Beatles moved on from him in 1970, however I found his biography to be illuminating and insightful. He focuses on the music, the sound and specially the innovations. His sudden departure during the White Album shed light on the group's dysfunction.
@@GOGOLH Not as unhappy as George Harrison!!! Boy he eviscerates him on a few occasions. I remember him telling the story of recording 'Ill Follow the sun' (I think it was) and 'poor George Harrison' trying and failing miserably to come up with a solo for it and having to resort to simply playing the melody which they all thought was awful... I think the fact that McCartney worked many times with Emerick after the break up and the others didn't skews his perspective but its still got some great details in it..
@@65TossTrap It's really interesting, he was obviously a brilliant engineer, but there's not-so-subtle disparagement of George Martin throughout the book. It must have been galling that GM got all the credit for production, of course, but he seems to have disliked Martin. There seemed to be rather a lot of petty squabbles and resentments at EMI.
@@brendantallon283 It's almost as if he has to make up for it by describing George laying down that beautiful solo for Something with the orchestra. Arguably, George had the most challenging role in the band - I wonder if Emerick was capable of seeing that.
McCartney is a pragmatic. As of Emerich it seems he and McCartney wanted to explore the technical aspects of recording/overdubbing/tweaking the sound - they had paralel interests - and the rest of the group was more into recording the Beatles as a band, thats my take on it.
I have read that indeed by the time John Lennon was killed there was supposed to be a concert in conjunction with the still unfinished documentary, the long and winding road. John Lennon was supposed to get back together with Paul George and Ringo and film a couple of new songs to go with the documentary. Makes you wonder if free as a bird was intended for that earlier incarnation of anthology
Matt ,you and Erin are excellent and thoughtful! Very interesting! May Pang is very honest and helped John get beck with Julian and Paul ( was going to New Orleans to help Paul record!
I know after watching "Get Back" I am reassessing how I feel about each of them. My opinion of Paul has changed the most. I think a lot of us are guilty for writing Paul off as a sell out. I was happiest to see John so pleasant and funny. It is sad that George was an introvert because it benefited John and Paul and they seem to play down George's worth. George learned to play the part John and Paul gave him. It really was big brother little brother relationship. Ringo is great and was a true friend to them all. But it is like he didn't play favorite even George was his favorite.
Great series of interviews which further prove that your channel is the best source for intelligent Beatles' content. Great final question asking Professor Weber about opportunities for future research. I really wish you had more time to delve in depth into the plethora of Beatles' writers ranging from Peter Brown to Peter Doggett to Mark Lewisohn. Your choice of May Pang is interesting and important. May Pang, much like Cynthia Lennon, is largely silenced. The dominant narrative preferred by the estate of John Lennon (Yoko Ono) is that John and Yoko were the love story of the 20th century and that they were the loves of each others' lives. Most Beatles' fans excuse John Lennon's history of domestic violence to the one incident of Cynthia Powell dancing with someone else at a party, a close reading of the Davies' biography obliquely shows it to be a recurring problem, and May Pang's assertion of John strangling her in a hot tub until stopped by Harry Nilsson shows domestic violence to have been a long time problem. John wasn't the only Beatle with such a problem as Barbara Bach and Heather Mills can attest, but fans really don't want that story. I hope you have a restful holiday season, you've certainly earned it with all the Beatles content relating to Get Back and now these three fine interviews. I am certainly looking forward to your deep dives of sixties' bands in the upcoming new year.
Thank you, Brian. I will certainly be talking about Peter Doggett, Lewisohn, and possibly the Peter Brown book. Ian MacDonald too. Have a great holiday season too!
@@popgoesthe60s52 When the Peter Brown book came out, we fans thought it must be very cool. I don't think anyone then distinguished much between Brown and Neil Aspinall or Mal Evans. Instead, the book clearly had an ax to grind. Still, though, some of those stories, such as George with Maureen Starkey, seem to have held up. So perhaps the criticism of Brown is less what he got wrong and more than he was telling private tales out of school.
I'm so happy that Lewisohn's books, Get Back, And Paul's new songwriting book are here as I can remember when I first got into The Beatles in 1980 so many of the books (and Lennon Remembers) were so negative and didn't really have the great joy that The Beatles brought into the world., which is the most important part of their story. Thanks for clarifying why this happened.
I've read several Beatles books, and enjoyed most of them. The ones I liked best were the ones that weren't biographies, but rather were memoirs of people who were associated with them, telling us their own stories. Hearing these people describe the impact that these people had on them, and the shadows that they cast, tells us something that a biography doesn't. I particularly liked Cynthia's and Emerick's books, although I don't remember all that much of the former, as I read it so long ago. Regarding Emerick's book and it's supposed pro-Paul bias, I felt that reading it, the Beatle about whom I learned the most bad stuff was Paul, the most good stuff was John, and the one for whom I developed the most understanding was George. And I got a better appreciation of Ringo as well. But along the lines of my earlier point, the fact that Paul became friends with the engineer tells us something about Paul. Emerick's favoritism towards Paul is a reflection of Paul's interest in the work the Emerick was doing. And it was also likely a consequence of many long nights with just the two of them, endlessly refining Paul's lines. When you're as driven and obsessive as Paul clearly was, you're going to get to know the engineer. And that gives us some insight into him.
I LOVE that she brought up Pete Shotten's great book which, at the time, loomed WAY bigger than Goldman's or Coleman's for me. I always thought it was one of the great memoirs, and co-written with Nicholas Schaeffner....possibly his greatest contribution! And wow, she really nailed what "Shout" was like when it came out, and how great a writer Norman was. We all read that book in the daze and the shock of Lennon's death, talk about killer timing. I actually met Pete Shotten and he mentioned Philip Norman and how he felt duped by him! It was the impetus for him writing his own book! Hey, one of the greatest Beatle books I've ever read is hard to get: Al Aronowitz's book "The Beatles, Bob Dylan And Me", highly recommend that one, if you see it, snatch it up!!!! I'm assuming Erin has read it, of course!
First of all, this 3 part series with Erin Weber was amazing , I'm going to read her book now, it's not only a refreshing approach, a fascinating way to introduce not only The Beatles to the masses, but historiography as well, which is the basis of how we as a species collectively define our reality. I know thee have been so many bio's written by the majority of those who resided inside The Beatles' circle so I'm not surprised there was no mention of Peter Brown's book The Love You Make, but I'm interested in knowing if either of you are familiar with his book and what your thoughts on it are. I believe it's one of the first non-Lewisohn books of the Lewisohn era written around 1990, I've read it several times and gotten a lot out of it. I've read reviews from other Beatle writers who have called it "heavily-sesnsationalized" all though I don't know that I would exactly make that claim. His either research or recollection does get a little hazy, or lazy whichever the case may be, concerning The White Album sessions onward through the break-up of the band in that, even though he was often in the same room as the band, if not usually somewhere nearby, his memory ressembled that of many Beatle historians whose claims were that the band was in non-stop turmoil after Brian Epsein's death and could barely get along well enough to record together in the same room, which we now know of course simply is not true. Although he does a very good job of explaining the paticulars behind the legal dissolution of the band and Apple and the ensuing lawsuits, he ends on a very depressing note alleging apart from Paul's kind gesture to John in helping him to mend his relationship with Yoko Ono, and the longstanding friendship and collaborations between George and Ringo, that the once tight frienddhips that were forged between them in the early days were all but nonexistent by the time of John's assassination in 1980, which I find bothersome and not easy to believe. I hope that historians will uncover more showing that besides a longstanding grudge George held over Paul from the seventies into the early nineties, the other three maintained their friendships with the other members throgh visits, letters, and regular phone calls over the years. As always, you're doing great work Matt, and please keep it up!
I read the Goldman books on Elvis and Lennon. In the former Goldman openly states his hatred for Rock n Roll and resents it for replacing Swing. He felt Swing was a more sensible and mature genre. He said something about it being music with the goal of being an adult in New York. Whatever that means. He seemed to really hate Elvis. Years back the UK Channel Four did an interesting documentary on him and his book. Goldman withdrew all cooperation from the project when they started analyzing him. In the end, they sort of drew a comparison between him and Mark Chapman saying Goldman was the literary equivalent of Chapman. One murdering the man the other an attempt to destroy his reputation. Then both merged their identities with Lennon through their literal and physical assassinations. I read the books and saw the documentary a long time ago so if I've made any errors regarding recall I apologize. When I read the Goldman books I wasn't offended but there was something creepy about Goldman. Since then I have come to believe there is a possibility that there is more involved with Lennon's death than reported in the media at the time. Many also believe that there are strange circumstances around Elvis's death. Goldman even wrote a follow-up book, now forgotten claiming Elvis committed suicide. I'm not claiming that to be true or false.
@@jnagarya519 Maybe, but I don't think Lennon being taken out by the newly elected Reagan administration is all that far-fetched. Certainly less far-fetched than the Paul is Dead nonsense.
This has really been a great series Matt. One of marks of a good interviewer is that he/she asks both the questions that the listener would like to hear, but also raises the questions and topics that the listener has not yet thought of. In other words, a good interviewer delivers the listener both an opportunity to hear the answers to questions, but also to learn by stretching out into other questions/thoughts/discussions. You have been doing both of these things very nicely in this series--great work!
I was going to mention Goldman's hatchet job of Elvis. When he announced his plans for a Lennon book, Goldman, already hated for the Elvis book, tried to allay people's fears by saying the Lennon book would be different, but if course that didn't prove to be the case. I appreciate a probing book included by hero worship, but Goldman's book completely lacked balance.
Great series, thank you, Matt! There's one point I'd like to make; it's about the limited usefulness of the term historiography. It is quite clear that many people writing aboutthe Beatles don't qualify as historians (and never claimed they did). That includes Hunter Davis and of course most of the first-hand journalists who covered a pop phenomenon and couldn't have cared less about 'methodology'. Still, they contributed bits of information, and a huge part of serious biographers' work consists in sifting through that material and evaluating it. It seems to me that serous historiography only began with Mark Lewisohn (his very very few books scattered over decades) and a few books written in the present century. But there is one more thing: the Beatles were not only part of history, their place in history is defined by their impact, and that impact is primarily due to their music. One of the shortcomings of most Beatles biographies (and I'm afraid that we will have to include Mark Lewisohn, to some degree at least) is that they don't offer a consistent or at least plausible view on the Beatles musical merits. That's why I find books that marry a musicological approach with a sociological angle the most rewarding. Ian MacDonald's Revolution in the Head and particularly Jonathan Gould's Can't Buy Me Love come to mind, (The latter must also be surely among Erin's top 5 stylistically, no?) In other words: What is most interesting about the Beatles is less the who, when, and where -- it's the why. And if you want to answer that you need to have a grasp of the music and its historical (cultural) setting as it evolved.
I think both are needed. I think it's more important to understand the cultural history & impact over the music because the music is so subjective. I love the MacDonald book but I continually get push back from the fans who get butt hurt that he would dare to be critical of the Beatles in any way. I am trying to give some of those fans a different perspective and those who don't want it, can hang with the fanboys. Great comment, Aurelian DE!
@@popgoesthe60s52 Absolutely agree. It's human to feel a twinge when someone who is so astute dismisses a favourite song but grown ups attempt to get beyond knee jerk reactions. One aspect of the MacDonald book which I think is critical but may not be appreciated by many people, and especially those from outside the UK, was the massive influence on British pop music in the 1960s and 70s of the Art College. They were further education options for kids who were bright/unusual but not necessarily academically-minded enough to go to University (at the time when Universities had very rigorous entry requirements). It wasn't just painters and sculptors which they produced but also, pretty much by accident, musicians who went on to form the basis of many of the most influential acts of the British pop music scene: The Beatles, The Stones, The Kinks, The Who, The Move, The Pretty Things, Pink Floyd, Cat Stevens, Roxy Music, David Bowie, Ian Dury... the list goes on. Previously, British pop stars appeared to have no apparent interest in wider culture or, if they did, rarely expressed it. An early 1960s TV interview with Adam Faith revealed that he was thoughtful, articulate and read Dostoevsky and it caused a sensation. The idea that a pop star could be interested in a culture outside of pop music and the odd cowboy film was then unheard of. By the end of the 1960s it was almost expected, and that was mainly due to the influence of The Beatles etc and the Art Colleges. As I understand it, Art Colleges in the US were very different, more craft orientated and less conducive to free-form creative endeavour. That, I am sure, led to some of the major differences between the UK and US music scenes.
@@johnnhoj6749 I covered this a bit in my Yardbirds videos and yes, the art school pursuit in the UK was far more literary than in the US and the strength of MacDonald's book goes into cultural commentary, which quite frankly, is over the heads of many Beatles fans.
For me, it was natural Geoff Emmerick has a preference direct to Paul McCartney, in comparison with the other three. It must be considered that Emmerick was a sound engineer, and too much early in the Beatles' carrer Paul revealed his interests in production and arrangements. This interest, in my opinion, was in a higher degree than John, George or Ringo.
In the parlance of our time, Dig it. Love Erin's perspective. Regarding Goldman, dude was a great writer. In spite of all the negativity and questionable accuracy.
Of course he was a great writer. He did much the same hatchet job on Elvis, but it was "well written"... The other side of it is research, and "Abbey Lane" is a basic schoolboy error; like Norman he knew little about popular music, though in his case he seemed to regard pop as inferior, but nevertheless thought he could cash in. He was a hack, in other words.
Thanks Matt and Erin for these great discussions. I Look forward to more in the future and a review on Paul McCartney’s Lyrics book. I’m waiting for a library copy.
Wonderful series of discussions with Ms. Weber…thank you Matt! I love the fact that you mentioned that all Beatles books have some value, even some of the more poorly researched books. I do think there is value in books like the Lives of John Lennon even if Goldman’s journalistic spin is quite negative. It’s like walking though a maze trying to investigate this history. Please continue to make these videos which hold people accountable in terms of what is being put out there. Thanks so much for sharing!
As a cranky old Mid-Boomer, I like how you're approaching this in an historical sense, since those of my generation are too close to the source and can't help our bias' influence our judgment. Goldman was a hack and a hit artist, though he heaped praise for his Lenny Bruce bio, his portraits of Lennon and Elvis were overwhelmingly panned. I listened to talk radio(a much different thing back then) personalities that would have him on just to cut him off after one word. Of course, to some folks, there's no such thing as "Bad" publicity.
I'm not sure what I've missed as to look for in new revelations concerning the Beatles, but Mark Lewisohn's 1st volume was to me eye opening in how their music developed up to the point of their Please, Please Me single recording and planned release. Volume 2 & 3 could be that "next step'" to open eyes to the unknowns. Thanks for this interview with Erin. You two hopefully will do more of these. Especially once volume 2 of Lewisohn's release comes out.
I would love to see Erin pull together a definitive Beatles biography and getting Ringo and Paul to sit down and get it all out, the good the bad and the angst, the truth the whole truth.. Beatles fans are so devoted getting the unvarnished accurate truth would finally let us sit at the feet of our idols
It has been a long time since I read the Goldman book, but I do remember it being something of a hatchet job. Not that it's completely inaccurate- some of what was alleged and seemed really shocking at the time was confirmed at least in part by Lennon himself, among others. But Goldman seemed out to interpret things in the most negative light possible.
I had not a chance to read it. Only a few parts. I read when he talks about John travelling to Barcelona with Brian. And it sounds rather homophobic to me. But to be sure I had to read everything. I do hope what I captured was wrong.
I think it is a pity there are no autobiographies - if that were the case we wouldn't be so reliant on these biographies - there is of course George's I Me Mine, Ringo's postcards book and Cynthia's book are of interest and Paul has recently said his Lyrics book is as close as we are all ever going to get to an autobiography. Paul's issue that whilst John was being canonised he was being given second billing.
I read Goldman's book when it came out, he was excessive in quite a bit of attacking John but also interesting in his regard to John's songs which many he thought were brilliant. Some of things he was attacked for have actually been proven in later years to be true. His analysis of Strawberry Fields is very compelling as was the insight of John's wanting to be known as the leader but John didnt lead the Beatles from late 66 onward. Paul certainly didnt want to be leader but he was a workaholic who wanted the band to keep busy and was a songwriting machine always.
Great information, thank you. Matt you and Erin are a great team. I grew up with the "bad" Beatles books and loved them. However, wow, so much new information. The Beatles will be discussed for many years to come.
True Beatles psychopaths like me can sit and listen to this stuff for hours. Erin sounds like she’s studied the Beatles like a geologist examining sedimentary rock and it’s really bloody fascinating
That's interesting about Martin. The "Get Back" film surprised me that he was hovering over the sessions, especially at Apple Studios, but sort of was out of the creative loop in a general sense, as if waiting for one of The Lads to say, "what do you think, George?". He could get a bit caustic later. I recall an interview where he was scathing of Harrison's songwriting abilities in a response to the "My Sweet Lord" lawsuit.
No, that is merely the British pronunciation - same for Ray Davies, Rick Davies, Dave Davies, etc. We say it in North America as spelled. There are scores of different pronunciations between the two, this is merely one of them.
Good conversation here. I've watched all the Goldman interviews on UA-cam. He was incredibly arrogant and mean spirited. Despite the malice, Goldman's book is quite the page turner. Shotton's book was the first Beatles book I read as a 14 year old and it was quite the eye opener.
Cant wait to see Erin on there again, so much insight on writing and the Beatles and more. One of my fav Beatles books in my collection is a few of photographer Dezo Hoffmann books.
Sorry Erin no cultural historian, literary critic of any merit in the UK takes Philip Norman seriously. As for Norman being a "masterful writer, top five Beatles stylist', I find that claim spurious even absurd. Maybe in America but in Europe/UK Norman and his tabloid style as seen as vacuous, lacking in insight and beyond dull.
This is not about cultural historians or literary critics taking Norman seriously. It's about the millions of fans who where taken in by Norman's writing, who's influence is still felt with his multiple revisions. Sales of his book were especially strong in Britain, so they were taken in as well.
If Torkelson Weber ever needs my assistance on the Beatles families, I did some Beatles Genealogy, including first cousins, uncles, great uncles as well as the direct lineage. I contacted through ancestry several people in my research that turned out to be relatives of the Beatles, confirmed by them.
@@mark9058 There is no evidence about that. In fact so many misconceptions have been made about John Lennon’s grandfather who is also named John Lennon. The Genealogy found in Geoffrey Giuliano’s book is mostly wrong as well. In fact many of the Genealogy’s in his Beatles books are absolutely inaccurate except for George Harrison’s
Re George Martin and others on how depressing the Let It Be sessions were: The received wisdom used to be that they were nothing but hell on earth. I think that after the Get Back series we are in some danger of flipping our perceptions too far the other way. In Get Back we necessarily get the most interesting highlights but in reality, for anyone not intimately involved in developing each song, it must have been potentially very tedious for long stretches. In the documentary we get a few of the most interesting run-throughs of each song they were working on and a lot of jolly rolling out of old favourites. In reality there were often dozens of halting attempts at the same new song over and over and over again. The problem was that The Beatles were taking songs from sometimes literally nothing to a stage where they were honed and they were practiced enough to play live. That was very unusual for The Beatles. In the early days they already knew the songs and came in ready to record. Then in later phases they only had to know the songs well enough to record a basic track once (or not even that, as they might combine different takes), often without vocals, solos, bass lines etc before moving on to overdubs. I don't think there had ever been a phase before when they started with nothing and took a song to being playable on stage all in the studio. There is no wonder that George Martin and others were bored.
Though there is some concern that Get Back may 'flip perceptions too far the other way', but to do so, that flip would have to overlook all the negative aspects used in Get Back. Virtually all known 'negatives' were used, and we still have the original film as a source, so the negatives are still up front. Will some overlook them or simply take them in context? We'll see.
@@popgoesthe60s52 Agreed. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough that I meant that it would be easy to dismiss, after watching Get Back, the perception of some of those present that much of the sessions were depressing. Even the negative bits in Get Back were, of course, the more interesting edited highlights (sic) of the negative bits - but it's not actually those bits I am talking about. What we (completely understandably) didn't see were most of the very repetitive faltering attempts at forming and learning songs, often from scratch. There is a saying in the film industry to the effect that your first day on a film set is the most exciting day of your life, the second day is your most boring. I suspect that the Let It Be sessions were probably the same for those not intimately involved in crafting the songs. I'm suggesting that the onlookers who found the whole affair tortuous weren't necessarily living in some form of false consciousness which has been totally debunked by Get Back.
Norman wrote his book at a time when the music press in the UK was anti-Paul. They felt that he was uncool & that Wings were middle of the road, and they resented his success (Mull of Kintyre was a huge seller in the UK when punk was supposed to be ruling the waves). Paul was a soft target and Norman made his name by obliging with his version of the Fab story. The research was carried out by Lewisohn, which gave it a credibility it doesn't merit.
The only research Lewisohn did that was used was the actual date John met Paul. Norman didn't need much of Lewisohn's research, which he kept for later use.
Incidentally, it's worth looking back at the singles charts of the punk era. There were actually remarkably few punk records which were popular enough to get anywhere near the top of the charts. The charts were dominated by the likes of ABBA and a lot of music which could easily have been popular pre-punk. My theory is that most big fans of punk were in the media and in smallish but vocal and visible clusters in metropolitan centres. The punk labels hit all the right buttons with PR, the tabloids loved the sensation and with every rock journalist having to rave about punk or seem like a dinosaur it all contributed to a myth of punk being all-pervasive. It really wasn't. PS I'm using singles as the measure of general popularity because Punk (unlike Prog) was overwhelmingly a singles phenomenon.
@@johnnhoj6749 Totally agree. Important to see that new generations are much keener on 70s disco & Abba than they are on punk. The impact of punk was much more felt in fashion & culture than in music.
@@johnnhoj6749 Excellent point regarding punk. I do believe that success of singles is a huge criteria when discussing musical value, influence, and artistic appraisal. Punk singles seemed hugely important in a vibrant sub genre of rock music, even though as you point out, they did not chart. The timing of punk was capitalized on quickly and nature of punk didn't require deep analysis, which was probably a breath of fresh air after all that prog stuff.
Interesting interview throughout. The part I found most interesting was the Philip Norman section. Shout was the first major Beatles bio I read.......and yeah, with hindsight and decades worth of more information.....my view of the book has changed drastically over time. And I think Erin is totally right about Norman's Paul book.
yes, right now, somewhere, everywhere, someone's starting a book about the BEATLES. I don't see them ever stopping. 'A Day in the life' ,mostly about studio work on all their records, was outstanding. the passage I love is when, at the height ,maybe, of their acrimony, Lennon & McCartney decide to show up w/ out George or Ringo, who were both (I think) out of town, to try and wrap up 'the Ballad of John & Yoko'. Paul plays drums as you know. knowing that little story, and putting it on to hear Paul's harmony stands out for me. on a Lennon song. it's apparent after seeing 'GET BACK', that the music came first, usually.
I distinctly remember Goldman when he was on...(w/ Tom Snyder?) plugging his ELVIS book, and at the end, he even says (paraphrasing), " my next book is about John Lennon, who I happen to admire". well, he already had alienated ELVIS's fans, so after the Lennon book he might as well just have dug himself a hole and hid in it. NOT a popular author. also worth mentioning is a little known work called 'the last days of John Lennon' by John & Yoko's personal gopher, Fred Seaman. not a hatchet job, and not a canonization. a decent book. he & John (Yoko always seemed to be off somewhere in her office controlling the estate ,and things) smoked reefer and tripped on mushrooms while on a Bahamas vacation. Sean was just a little guy then.
Speaking of clarity of perception, there's a book of interviews with Paul McCartney where Paul reveals he has a rather distressing problem with chronology. IIRC he had to think if John Lennon was alive during the Wings Over America tour.
I am also a big Doors fan. And I stopped reading and buying there books. Only a few show the truth of jim. The movie aswell. (👎🏻👎🏻). Robbies new book though 👌 😍 it hits a 11.
Exceptional episode. Long term Beatle biography reader here and I’ve read most of these books myself (but wait… Norman Smith wrote a book?) and it’s been great to watch you both contextualize them. Just top drawer stuff. Reading Goldman’s biography at a young age really did a number on my view of John, I have to admit. Obviously I’ve recognized the sleazy nature of the book for decades now, but the phenomenon you describe of Goldman being a bit more credible these days is interesting to me. It seems like some of his revelations - like John’s heroin use, his behavior during the Lost Weekend, his treatment of Cynthia - are pretty much considered confirmed now, but were considered hatchet work at the time. The historiography of this group is just fascinating in itself.
I always thought that Goldman was focused more on Yoko as villain, John as hapless, damaged nowhere boy. I was interested in John's drug use during his house husband period.
Some people don't like to hear that there is accurate material in this book. It's too bad that Goldman presented it so one-sided. He didn't do himself any favors.
Re Paul "collaborating" with Philip Norman: i think it's more accurate to say that Paul gave Norman his qualified blessing in principle, and gave him permission to talk with people, but I think Norman makes it clear that Paul himself had virtually no input into his project. In which case, suspicion of Paul's motive for "collaborating" would seem misplaced.
Having read most of the books myself, I have to say they're pretty close in their opinions to mine. I liked Pete Shottons book alot tho it was mostly about John...the Geoff Emerick book,George Martin...the Phillip Norman and Ray Connelly books were essential but a fairly dry read Goldman was a snivelling twat who apparently didn't find enough dirt to rake up so he made his own salacious suggestions
I'm curious what your opinion on the "Good Ol Freeda" documentary is. She is clear she is not there to expose any dirt on the Beatles, but she has some great anecdotes and insights into the band and she does seem to give equal time to all four of the guys.
There was a 'making of' mini documentary on Good Ol' Freda that was better than the 'Good Ol' Freda' documentary. I liked it and she had some very charming memories of them. Her story of not talking about it for years is also interesting.
Matt, You and Erin batted three for three. I meant to comment before about writing/not writing about people who are still alive. Historians and readers deplore the fact that people of the past burn important documents to preserve an image (Martha Washington burning George's letters). And some famous people will not allow publication of certain writings until 50 years after their death. Maybe something interesting will show up - after we are gone.
Coleman's cloying and no doubt myth building intentioned work wasn't brilliant, but Goldman's was spiteful. Considering his attacks on Yoko Ono, whatever the opinion of Yoko Ono as a person is, his attacks are upon her alleged character traits due to being Japanese. It made me put the book down.
All I can say is to thank God I haven’t read ANY Beatles books or books about Lennon or McCartney. What a waste of time and money, just enjoyed the music! Since the Peter Jackson’s release of Get Back that’s all the “History of The Beatles” I will ever need to see! See them just as the normal people they were, case closed. Maybe it took 50 years to see it.
This was a great series of interviews! I’d love to see you do a video on things left unsaid by Paul McCartney. He has this reputation of being a charming interviewee but, while not necessarily dishonest, manipulative with what he says. I’m curious to see specific examples of this.
The beatles have added great happiness to my life and I dont ever want that to change based on something about the past. I really like Erin's info seen her before. What a fan!!
I think the psychiatrist's association would frown on a professional doing a psychiatric evaluation on a subject they've never treated -- goes back to the guy that did a psyhcoanalysis of Nixon way back when and I believe the profession came down hard on him
33:16 me too. Especially on Ringo, I know he is a very private person but I think because he has been left out of discussions for so long, it's like his version of things is dismissed every chance someone gets. It's awful. For example him not being educated is ridiculed as if John and Paul and George all had PhD .. or drug use and forgetfulness is regarded when people are talking about his version of events as a way to dismiss all of what he is saying .. as if George and John and Paul weren't using drugs just like him. It's hilarious
Gotta defend Emerick . I think you're not going to find a better primary source outside the Beatles/George Martin- than Emerick. As for not keeping diaries wouldn't the songs themselves and the production credits be a form of diary? I feel like we're getting lost in the weeds of semantics here. In the end , even a historian writing 50 years later still has to go back to primary sources to get the most accurate account of what happened.
Matt, what is/was your job outside of this channel? Your content is a huge step up from the sort of discussion The Beatles typically generate on UA-cam. I really hope you have a chance to pick Lewisohn's brain by the time Volume 2 shows itself
It is such a shame that these discussions were not done when all Beatles were still alive so all sides could be corroborated with each one. How anyone could now remember with all honesty what went on is not realistic. You will always get people to believe what they want to believe. Any book written by these rouge writers should have been pushed back before publishing. Unfortunately books with conflict sell, like newspapers.
Also a shame that Shotton's books are so expensive! Norman' has "nae class", as we would say in Scotland. In a Sunday Times piece a few years back he was gratuitously nasty about George Harrison, calling him a misanthrope killed by his nicotine addiction (though the latter is no doubt correct). He may be a masterful writer but he doesn't know about popular music - I picked up his Lennon biog and the first thing I read was "Phil Spector, the Tamla Motown producer". Perhaps later editions have corrected that schoolboy error.
Yes, Norman is particularly hard to take with his prissy opinions and shameless interviews. One recent on (on Something About the Beatles podcast) he was challenged on his facts and he replied That "Americans are too concerned with facts and not good writing."
Really enjoyed your interviews with Erin Weber. Ordered her book to read over the holidays. Have seen two other videos discussing the subject of what to believe from different books especially the Lennon Remembers one. It seems to be a sore topic for a lot of people. Hope to hear more from her on your channel. Have a good holiday and take care.
The Lennon Remembers is only a sore topic to Lennon lovers who don't want to be challenged on the validity of those interview, which John himself even said some things were not true.
I've been prompted by this to do the same Sharon (buy Erin's book as a holiday read)! It isn't cheap here (UK) either, but I suspect it'll be an excellent read. Peter Brown's book (The Love You Make) doesn't get mentioned very often in discussions of this type, but I have to say that I found it to contain some interesting if controversial perspectives. It needs to be read knowing that he was an Epstein family and Apple insider of course and has been accused of character assassination amongst other charges, but he WAS there.
I have Peter Browns book as well. It is one I need to reread as its been awhile but I do remember it as being a bit controversial at the time. Take care and enjoy your book!
Good interview! Would love to hear more. I was surprised that Rolling Stone Magazine’s pro John and anti Paul editorial angle wasn’t talked about. The rogues gallery should include interviewers as well as authors.
I’d be curious to hear her opinions on the UA-cam documentary “Understanding Lennon/McCartney”…I wouldn’t expect it to hold up methodologically next to written works by professional historians, but I wonder what she’d think of the overall impression it gives of their relationship.
Those videos are not history, nor documentary. They are art collage narratives created from primary source materials: video, music and interviews. They are wonderfully insightful, but they are art.
Great episode again Matt. Goldman's book was deliberately over the top negative in an attempt to stir controversy and create sales. Emrick was even more negative towards Ringo than George. He clearly had an axe to grind. "Shout" was good reading and a good introduction to the Beatles for someone who is just getting started on their own Beatlemania. Bob Spitz was pretty good not great. The Peter Brown book was a good insider's look at Epstein and the Beatles.Lewisohns "Complete Beatles Recording Sessions" is a must have for any serious Beatles fan. That's just my opinion.
I thoroughly enjoyed this (and your whole series with Erin) I have to agree that any author who is dismissive of any of the Beatles (and Martin for that matter) immediately loses creds. I’ve found all the interviews with George Martin very riveting. Maybe when he mentioned how hurt he was by the let it be sessions he was more referring to the Twickingham part. He seemed much happier at Apple studio… Get back shows him actually playing with them. And Erin if you write that needed book about George I will preorder it now! :) (I have received your book and plan to knock it down during the holidays…Thank you in advance)
I watched the 3 episodes ....two last night.... 12/22/22 and the 3rd just now. Erin, if you see this at some point , You totally blew me away with your recall of dates, places, other authors, etc. and NOT ONCE did I see you look away from the camera to check notes! :) Amazing! Two things struck me hard: Matt said that your book (which I'll order today--Are autographed copies available?) is 250 pages and yet your approach is completely different, detailed and precise. Incredibly impressive. :) Despite what I'm about to ask able to easily be misunderstood, I'll ask it anyway. You and Matt talked about many authors.....and yet I didn't hear any Female names in that list. Beatlemania was largely Screaming Young Girls so I'd expect more input from Women but it doesn't appear to be there.....I'd love to know both Your thoughts as well as Matt's on any reason behind tha....although I have my own very strong feelings on why that is. Thanks so much to both of you for a Spectacular amount of Information. Bass-ically Yours, Rich. 🍎
Hi Matt - I know this is a very late comment, but, I wanted to thank you for this 3-part series plus for your initial review (#047) of Erin's excellent, must-read book. I bought and read it shortly after it was published in 2016, and, I have been telling every Beatles fan that I know about it ever since. I was able to exchange a few emails with Erin about the book a year or 2 ago, so, that was cool, being able to thank her personally. So great to have the Rolling Stone and Wenner -skewed BS exposed! It's unfortunate that the "Dreaming The Beatles" book came out after Erin's book, because it would have been "interesting" seeing that book analyzed and dissected. Anyhow, thank you for these videos regarding Erin's book. Mike
Hello, Mike! Thank you for watching the Erin videos. I hope to have her back. I don't know about the Dreaming the Beatles book, I'll have to check that out.
This is HIGH LEVEL DIALOGUE. Mrs. Weber is a brilliant mind. She gives light at topics that are crucial in understanding Beatles history. Matt, as always you do an amazing job. Thank you both for this piece of intelligent conversation. O and by the way, I´ve seen and heard the three parts of this conversation.
Excellent series. I remember reading Emerick's book and being shocked at his dissing of George Martin. This was a guy who gave him big breaks a couple of times, yet Geoff was pretty insulting. Understandable that Martin was offended. I wondered if there had been a falling out between them at some point, (which would explain the bitterness), but I never heard of any. I guessed that for some reason, Emerick was jealous of Martin and resorted to this pettiness. Too bad, because it's an interesting book. Every Fab Four book has some sort of bias and a need to settle some (real or imagined) score. It sometimes tells you more about the author than the subject.
They worked together...sometimes a boss just deserves a bit of you resentment. Ppl have different personality n temperament. You'd have to ha been tgere
@@ddub1253 True. I was taken aback by some of the comments though. It's one thing to be a little resentful, but this was serious criticism. As much as I admire GE's work with the Fabs and others, I was disappointed with what I consider his pettiness. Anyway, my opinion for what it's worth.
I don't recall him dissing George Martin at all. As for Harrison there was clearly a personality clash there- but he does give him credit for coming up with some great songs and guitar parts on the later Beatles albums.
What a fascinating discussion. I bought The Lives Of Lennon in 1988 when it came out and was it ever a blast of (non)reality. John was a real and slightly damaged human like us. Then years later when I began reading reactions to this book I realized that there are lots of books out there that pursue an agenda or a certain narrative. The first book I read was Nicholas Schaffner's The Beatles Forever. I found that a very positive book. In hindsight and in view of this video I realize it was very 'fan boy' and I felt there was nothing wrong with that. I remember he was briefly in 'The Compleat Beatles' doc. Speaking of which I also have the Compleat Beatles books. Partially for the articles but mainly for the chords for all the songs. I read through that a lot. I've read and own others like FAB about Macca. I read Geoff Guliani's book about Paul which I found very dark and sensationalist. I have SHOUT. I've read numerous times, Hunter Davies' book. I have an original hardcover and the 1985 reprint with the new McCartney rant about hie place in history mainly because of the cannonisation of Lennon in recent years. I read Pete Best's first book which was a bit hollywoodish, sensational, like it was a project for a payday. I have his brother's book about the Casbah club. That's a very warm story about the club and late 50s Britain. I still found it interesting. I've got The Beatles Gear, Tell Me Why (Tim Riley), And Macca's 'Many Years From Now with Miles. 'You Never Give Me Your Money' was, to me a very real look at the damage that being Beatles did to the four of them. Mainly because Paul had to sue the group to keep Klien at bay etc... and that took decades to sort out. But my favorite books ever that I've read multiple times are Lewisohn's The Beatles Recording Sessions and Tune In. I read those two so many times. I got Recording Sessions when it came out and was totally enthralled with the day to day mechanical job of recording Beatles. And I've read Tune In about 5 times while I wait patiently for Vol 2! That's it I think. www.mixcloud.com/Amadeus99/
You seem to dismiss Philip Norman's McCartney book as some kind of protective career move... but I found it as an effort to honestly recognize his mistake.
It's not a dismissal, merely a comment on Norman's biases and the trajectory of his Beatles books. His chronology matters when looking his overall work on the group. I may do a full review of his work at some point where I can really get into details.
When Goldman's book came out, I was repulsed by the negativity of the biography. It seemed that every ugly incident in John's life was amplified. 32 years later and I find Goldman's book the second-best book on the Beatles. The author did the leg work and did not rely upon secondary sources. He spoke to the lady who lived next to Aunt Mimi for 20 years. He reached out to Yoko's employees who lived in the Dakota for years. Paul could have rectified a lot of the misconceptions if he had just talked to Goldman for a couple of hours.
I was given a copy of the Philip Norman's book which I found boorish, clearly biased and completely unilluminating particularly from an author who promised to break through the well-worn myths and offer some truth. What did I learn that I didn't know? That Neil Aspinall had an affair and love child with Pete Best's mother? Who cares! The most revealing thing I got out of it was a statement he got from Yoko after the fact when she granted him an interview after publication which he mentioned in the preface of the second edition which gratefully was the one I read where she said "John always used to say no one ever hurt him like Paul did!" To Norman it was another fiery dart to be hurled at Paul to show what a terrible person he was. To me it told me volumes about their relationship and what a clod Norman was in his handling of valuable information. That John would make such an observation and do so repeatedly tells me just how important Paul was to him. He didn't say that about George or Ringo and George was the more outspoken against Yoko in the Beatle days. Paul was John's partner. He didn't leave Cynthia for Yoko, he left Paul for Yoko. Paul's ability to hurt John speaks profoundly about how important Paul was to him. John was raised essentially by women. Paul was the first and most important male figure in his life. I note the incident I mention is referenced in your interview. I did not l know Paul pressed Norman about what John was referencing but got no answer. I'm betting Norman did not know the answer and odds are did not even seek one himself. I imagine he was gleeful enough just to walk away with such a quote from Yoko. Geoff Emerick's book is enormously entertaining but flawed both in bias (worshipping Paul and very hard on John George and Ringo) and in basic historical things he could have checked and verified. His account on the Beatles first recordings at Abbey Road contradict factual logs from Lewisohn's Recording Sessions book. I also noted, going back to read the section on the Abbey Road album that he suggests the anvil addition with Mal's performance on Maxwell's Silver Hammer was a feature born out of that session, a fact contradicted by both Let It Be and now Get Back where we see Paul dispatching him to get a hammer and anvil without explanation in real time just as they break for lunch during the Twickingham rehearsals. I learned early on to take his accounts with a grain of salt and again as entertaining but unreliable. His suggestion that Linda was distant with Yoko ("All the other Beatles-even John-had a cordial relationship with Linda, but I never saw her reach out and try to start a conversation with Yoko beyond saying hello or good-bye...") is utter rubbish. I've seen photos of Linda, Mal, and Patti Harrison sitting and visiting on Yoko's studio bed. And we have all seen now thanks to Get Back, the two women huddled together getting along and whispering with each other at Twickingham. Granted Emerick could have missed both. He wasn't there for Let It Be/Get Back, obviously and sent he split the Abbey Road sessions with Phil McDonald he could conceivably have missed the "bed-in." But he is wrong none the less. But worse than Geoff's inaccuracies is ungracious comments in print toward George Martin, the man who gave him much of his celebrated career bringing him in as the Beatle engineer and giving Geoff a job for many years when he set up his own independent studio post EMI. If he had some complaints about Martin he should have kept them to himself. You don't treat people that way. He also pats himself on the back far too much. In the end, no source is wholly reliable, whether it's the Beatles or you or me. I have an impeccable memory but my brain's housekeeping is indiscriminate sometimes in what it discards or packs away in places that things don't belong. I just saw this link today (ua-cam.com/video/ia8OyJp5NsY/v-deo.html) where Peter Jackson said he tried to persuade Ringo that George's leaving was based on the argument with Paul referring Jackson back to Let It Be. Ringo's memory of the incident is not personal, it seems but based on Lindsey-Hogg's cut of footage rather than the actual sequence of events which Jackson shows were separated by numerous days with George leaving at the end of the week. Between his tiff with Paul is his arrival a morning or so later where he shares I Me Mine to a very receptive Paul and John comes in and shits on it.
Great comments, DAYHOMEONE. I'm not sure how Paul "hurt" John but I just take that quote as one of John's bipolar/abandonment issues that he was projecting. It is shameful that Norman used that to screw Paul more. Norman is a hard writer to like. Good point on the Ringo memory. I can't remember even 10% of my life! George's memory of these sessions now seems very selective, so it is good to have a Get Back film to help sort out some of the inaccuracies repeated ad nauseam for decades. It take multiple sources to achieve some sort of reliability.
Good information, pleasantly presented always a uplifting change to the day. Creativity to me means changing my mind. Also known as learning. Refreshing to hear someone beside myself consider the power of fame has on people. I like to wish success for people but I wouldn't wish fame on my worst enemies. (enemies are actually friends in disguise if one can learn from them. That's a different topic though.) More shows together please. I think it would be cool to go back over what you guys discussed already, but after thinking about what was offered in the conversation. A response to your own and each others statements after a short passage in time would be awesome. Revisit with clarifications,expansion and explanations of methodology, criteria,bias, citations, sources and why those things matter. I wouldn't mind learning more about learning. I spent my life working in the building trades, but I need to learn tons of new things each day. I wouldn't mind learning why it's wrong to say, "She's pretty" when my intention is the kindly making of respectful funshine.
Just a comment about Paul cooperate with Norman and Coleman. Well, you can hold that against him and wondering how he could do that. But you can also see that as a sign of Pauls wisdom as a person. He knows, that the best thing to do with your enemy, to disarm him, is to show him your friendship. Treat him as good as you can! Show him that you are a loveable person. He did the same thing with Howard Stern. In early programs Stern hated Paul, he wasn't worth a penny, he put a lot of knives in Pauls back. What is the best way to put an end to it? Well, come to the program and be nice to Howard. Otherwise it will continue. And Paul is talking about that when he comes to the program. About how he had been warned: Don't go to Howard Stern, it will be nasty! And after that he has been visiting the program several times. And now Howard Stern loves Paul. I admires Paul for this. It is a great wisdom he shows: give love to your neighbour and he will give love back to you. And you can see it in his relation to the others in The Beatles. He never says a bad word about them. And he never done it. John and George, especially George, always slammed Paul in public. In every interview George says something bad about Paul, that he's a hypocrite etc. And George that gives the image of himself as the great guy who's talking about peace and love and the love of God. I mean, who's the hypocrite? George, the unfaithful husband. And the story when Paul introduced him to a friend at school: "George, this is" ... Bang! George just knocked the guy! Without reason. And the story he told himself, when he and a Hare Kristna guy began to fight in George's house. You can also see it like this. The ones that talks most of peace and love, is maby the ones who needs to hear about it the most. Two violent guys in The Beatles who spread the massage of peace and love the most: John and George ... Sorry for my bad english. PS And Paul also did the same thing with Jann Wenner and The Rock'n Roll Hall Of Fame, the way I see it.
I would agree. Paul has always said he loved being a Beatle and what they created, and he loved his brothers. Get Back has shown it. I have a better understanding of George of why he slams Paul, but not John. He had insecurities about his playing and jealous of Paul's friendship with John. Paul has never gone into the public boxing ring because he loved his brothers. PS: I loved Paul's letter to John during the Hall Of Fame. It was as moving as Here Today.
Although it has been mentioned briefly in this series, I'd love to hear more input on Many Years From Now. It's one of my favorite Beatle Books and I always appreciated Paul's couching of the book: “I’ll give it to you as I remember it…a sequence of events that did happen within a period. So it’s my recollection of then.” Basically he's offering a reasonable disclaimer. He is not purporting to give the definitive account but simply his own recollection. You cannot do better than that. It has as much validity as anybody's recollection of the past ever does. And the fact that he acknowledges it simply as his recollection rather than gospel is a plus. I saw a recent interview with him where the interviewer argues about a version of events came from the Barry Miles books to which Paul jokingly and self-effacing replied, "Well then it must be true!" Other books I'd like to hear on and not covered here were Peter Brown's the Love You Make, which most interestingly does not hold a Beatle bias but more shockingly derides them all as simpletons. For me, the freshest information of the Beatles over the years is in Beatle Anthology Companion book. It actually has a lot of revelations that never made it into the documentary. How studied are you on that one?
I'm quite studied on the Anthology book having read it 3 times. I find the book far better thank the video but as a whole, the entire project is now dated and I will be doing a review of that project. The other books you mention I also feel are important to review, so expect those in the future as well.
It's worth remembering that Albert Goldman was an unpopular figure among many pop fans even before he lifted a pen on the Lennon book as he had already written a similarly critical/venomous book on Elvis Presley.
The Emerick book was heavily biased towards Paul and a big disappointment. I found it dismissive of John, George and Ringo. He made little effort to depict them accurately. At one stage he calls John "the hook-nosed lead singer" or words to that effect. When I read that I knew where he was coming from. I got the impression he was not very sophisticated when it came to character discernment.
Those came out the same year a month apart so I doubt Ono was thinking of Imagine as a retort to the Lives of John Lennon. Oddly Ono didn't sue Goldman, which I always found telling.
Through your interviews, Erin has established herself as an extremely knowledgeable and credible author with impeccably high standards and a quest for providing an accurate and truthful history of the Beatles. My favorite quote today: “He’s also not on drugs”, concerning George Martin. Erin’s not “on drugs” either. She is a serious historian who has finally straightened out the mess of the varying accounts of the Beatles for us. I’ve already ordered my copy of her book and can’t wait to read it.
@@wildman9922 I think that’s a prerequisite for REALLY appreciating the new series. Erin is a historian and George Martin was the perennial “adult in the room” so their drug-free behaviors are appropriate for their chosen roles.
she has learned all about the pitfalls of falling into certain weak narratives. she's learned from others' countless mistakes. I will read her now, definitely. balancing a fan's love for this band, and being completely objective can't be as easy as it sounds.
I really like your interviews with Erin, she's very good.
Fantastic overview of the major biographers. Please bring Erin back for more! The intelligence of the questions and the conversation is a breath of fresh air.
Thank you Lucie, I will pass this along to Erin. I hope to have her back in the future.
@@popgoesthe60s52 Are you aware of John Heaton? He talks about books you guys haven’t mentioned.
@@davidkornblatt991 Lord John Heaton and I know each other pretty well and we have a joint video coming out soon so stay tuned!
absolutely. more Erin!
I love how during Get Back it’s depicted that they ask an open question about what all material they have prepared and suddenly George Martin pulls a piece of paper out of his pocket and unfolds it and he has every single song they’re working on listed… he was still their producer.
I thought Shout was a terrible book when it came out.
BTW Geoff Emerick has some issues
I read his book and I surprised no one took him to task when he was alive.
Erin, you are awesome!!
I can understand George Martin not being happy about Emerick's book.
I was wondering what issues you have with Geoff Emrick's book. I know that he may have harbored some resentments, as the Beatles moved on from him in 1970, however I found his biography to be illuminating and insightful. He focuses on the music, the sound and specially the innovations. His sudden departure during the White Album shed light on the group's dysfunction.
@@GOGOLH Not as unhappy as George Harrison!!! Boy he eviscerates him on a few occasions. I remember him telling the story of recording 'Ill Follow the sun' (I think it was) and 'poor George Harrison' trying and failing miserably to come up with a solo for it and having to resort to simply playing the melody which they all thought was awful... I think the fact that McCartney worked many times with Emerick after the break up and the others didn't skews his perspective but its still got some great details in it..
@@65TossTrap It's really interesting, he was obviously a brilliant engineer, but there's not-so-subtle disparagement of George Martin throughout the book. It must have been galling that GM got all the credit for production, of course, but he seems to have disliked Martin. There seemed to be rather a lot of petty squabbles and resentments at EMI.
@@brendantallon283 It's almost as if he has to make up for it by describing George laying down that beautiful solo for Something with the orchestra. Arguably, George had the most challenging role in the band - I wonder if Emerick was capable of seeing that.
McCartney is a pragmatic. As of Emerich it seems he and McCartney wanted to explore the technical aspects of recording/overdubbing/tweaking the sound - they had paralel interests - and the rest of the group was more into recording the Beatles as a band, thats my take on it.
I have read that indeed by the time John Lennon was killed there was supposed to be a concert in conjunction with the still unfinished documentary, the long and winding road. John Lennon was supposed to get back together with Paul George and Ringo and film a couple of new songs to go with the documentary. Makes you wonder if free as a bird was intended for that earlier incarnation of anthology
Matt ,you and Erin are excellent and thoughtful! Very interesting! May Pang is very honest and helped John get beck with Julian and Paul ( was going to New Orleans to help Paul record!
I know after watching "Get Back" I am reassessing how I feel about each of them. My opinion of Paul has changed the most. I think a lot of us are guilty for writing Paul off as a sell out. I was happiest to see John so pleasant and funny. It is sad that George was an introvert because it benefited John and Paul and they seem to play down George's worth. George learned to play the part John and Paul gave him. It really was big brother little brother relationship. Ringo is great and was a true friend to them all. But it is like he didn't play favorite even George was his favorite.
Great series of interviews which further prove that your channel is the best source for intelligent Beatles' content.
Great final question asking Professor Weber about opportunities for future research. I really wish you had more time to delve in depth into the plethora of Beatles' writers ranging from Peter Brown to Peter Doggett to Mark Lewisohn.
Your choice of May Pang is interesting and important. May Pang, much like Cynthia Lennon, is largely silenced. The dominant narrative preferred by the estate of John Lennon (Yoko Ono) is that John and Yoko were the love story of the 20th century and that they were the loves of each others' lives. Most Beatles' fans excuse John Lennon's history of domestic violence to the one incident of Cynthia Powell dancing with someone else at a party, a close reading of the Davies' biography obliquely shows it to be a recurring problem, and May Pang's assertion of John strangling her in a hot tub until stopped by Harry Nilsson shows domestic violence to have been a long time problem. John wasn't the only Beatle with such a problem as Barbara Bach and Heather Mills can attest, but fans really don't want that story.
I hope you have a restful holiday season, you've certainly earned it with all the Beatles content relating to Get Back and now these three fine interviews. I am certainly looking forward to your deep dives of sixties' bands in the upcoming new year.
Thank you, Brian. I will certainly be talking about Peter Doggett, Lewisohn, and possibly the Peter Brown book. Ian MacDonald too. Have a great holiday season too!
@@popgoesthe60s52 When the Peter Brown book came out, we fans thought it must be very cool. I don't think anyone then distinguished much between Brown and Neil Aspinall or Mal Evans. Instead, the book clearly had an ax to grind. Still, though, some of those stories, such as George with Maureen Starkey, seem to have held up. So perhaps the criticism of Brown is less what he got wrong and more than he was telling private tales out of school.
@@jackeppington6488 Yes, Brown was kickout of the Beatle family for this one.
I'm so happy that Lewisohn's books, Get Back, And Paul's new songwriting book are here as I can remember when I first got into The Beatles in 1980 so many of the books (and Lennon Remembers) were so negative and didn't really have the great joy that The Beatles brought into the world., which is the most important part of their story. Thanks for clarifying why this happened.
@@jnagarya519 Yes I think the secret to being a great songwriter is to BECOME music as you said.
I think PGTS replied to you on a different comment
I've read several Beatles books, and enjoyed most of them. The ones I liked best were the ones that weren't biographies, but rather were memoirs of people who were associated with them, telling us their own stories. Hearing these people describe the impact that these people had on them, and the shadows that they cast, tells us something that a biography doesn't. I particularly liked Cynthia's and Emerick's books, although I don't remember all that much of the former, as I read it so long ago. Regarding Emerick's book and it's supposed pro-Paul bias, I felt that reading it, the Beatle about whom I learned the most bad stuff was Paul, the most good stuff was John, and the one for whom I developed the most understanding was George. And I got a better appreciation of Ringo as well. But along the lines of my earlier point, the fact that Paul became friends with the engineer tells us something about Paul. Emerick's favoritism towards Paul is a reflection of Paul's interest in the work the Emerick was doing. And it was also likely a consequence of many long nights with just the two of them, endlessly refining Paul's lines. When you're as driven and obsessive as Paul clearly was, you're going to get to know the engineer. And that gives us some insight into him.
Well said.
Gotta read that book! Sounds boss :)
I LOVE that she brought up Pete Shotten's great book which, at the time, loomed WAY bigger than Goldman's or Coleman's for me. I always thought it was one of the great memoirs, and co-written with Nicholas Schaeffner....possibly his greatest contribution! And wow, she really nailed what "Shout" was like when it came out, and how great a writer Norman was. We all read that book in the daze and the shock of Lennon's death, talk about killer timing. I actually met Pete Shotten and he mentioned Philip Norman and how he felt duped by him! It was the impetus for him writing his own book! Hey, one of the greatest Beatle books I've ever read is hard to get: Al Aronowitz's book "The Beatles, Bob Dylan And Me", highly recommend that one, if you see it, snatch it up!!!! I'm assuming Erin has read it, of course!
First of all, this 3 part series with Erin Weber was amazing , I'm going to read her book now, it's not only a refreshing approach, a fascinating way to introduce not only The Beatles to the masses, but historiography as well, which is the basis of how we as a species collectively define our reality. I know thee have been so many bio's written by the majority of those who resided inside The Beatles' circle so I'm not surprised there was no mention of Peter Brown's book The Love You Make, but I'm interested in knowing if either of you are familiar with his book and what your thoughts on it are. I believe it's one of the first non-Lewisohn books of the Lewisohn era written around 1990, I've read it several times and gotten a lot out of it. I've read reviews from other Beatle writers who have called it "heavily-sesnsationalized" all though I don't know that I would exactly make that claim. His either research or recollection does get a little hazy, or lazy whichever the case may be, concerning The White Album sessions onward through the break-up of the band in that, even though he was often in the same room as the band, if not usually somewhere nearby, his memory ressembled that of many Beatle historians whose claims were that the band was in non-stop turmoil after Brian Epsein's death and could barely get along well enough to record together in the same room, which we now know of course simply is not true. Although he does a very good job of explaining the paticulars behind the legal dissolution of the band and Apple and the ensuing lawsuits, he ends on a very depressing note alleging apart from Paul's kind gesture to John in helping him to mend his relationship with Yoko Ono, and the longstanding friendship and collaborations between George and Ringo, that the once tight frienddhips that were forged between them in the early days were all but nonexistent by the time of John's assassination in 1980, which I find bothersome and not easy to believe. I hope that historians will uncover more showing that besides a longstanding grudge George held over Paul from the seventies into the early nineties, the other three maintained their friendships with the other members throgh visits, letters, and regular phone calls over the years. As always, you're doing great work Matt, and please keep it up!
Thank you, Josh. I may do a review of Brown's book. It is one of the very first I read back in the early 80s.
I read the Goldman books on Elvis and Lennon. In the former Goldman openly states his hatred for Rock n Roll and resents it for replacing Swing. He felt Swing was a more sensible and mature genre. He said something about it being music with the goal of being an adult in New York. Whatever that means. He seemed to really hate Elvis. Years back the UK Channel Four did an interesting documentary on him and his book. Goldman withdrew all cooperation from the project when they started analyzing him. In the end, they sort of drew a comparison between him and Mark Chapman saying Goldman was the literary equivalent of Chapman. One murdering the man the other an attempt to destroy his reputation. Then both merged their identities with Lennon through their literal and physical assassinations. I read the books and saw the documentary a long time ago so if I've made any errors regarding recall I apologize. When I read the Goldman books I wasn't offended but there was something creepy about Goldman. Since then I have come to believe there is a possibility that there is more involved with Lennon's death than reported in the media at the time. Many also believe that there are strange circumstances around Elvis's death. Goldman even wrote a follow-up book, now forgotten claiming Elvis committed suicide. I'm not claiming that to be true or false.
@@jnagarya519 Maybe, but I don't think Lennon being taken out by the newly elected Reagan administration is all that far-fetched. Certainly less far-fetched than the Paul is Dead nonsense.
@@jnagarya519 I said it wasn't all that far-fetched, and I didn't put it forward as a "theory", so get off your high horse.
This has really been a great series Matt.
One of marks of a good interviewer is that he/she asks both the questions that the listener would like to hear, but also raises the questions and topics that the listener has not yet thought of. In other words, a good interviewer delivers the listener both an opportunity to hear the answers to questions, but also to learn by stretching out into other questions/thoughts/discussions.
You have been doing both of these things very nicely in this series--great work!
Thank you for the warm comment, Neal. I did do some pre work with her to build a rapport. The planning and outlining really do work, I'm glad to say!
Goldman hated rock&roll music. He wrote a negative , nasty book about Elvis Presley .
I was going to mention Goldman's hatchet job of Elvis. When he announced his plans for a Lennon book, Goldman, already hated for the Elvis book, tried to allay people's fears by saying the Lennon book would be different, but if course that didn't prove to be the case. I appreciate a probing book included by hero worship, but Goldman's book completely lacked balance.
*of* course
*unclouded* by hero worship! Autocorrect is killing me tonight!
Great series, thank you, Matt! There's one point I'd like to make; it's about the limited usefulness of the term historiography. It is quite clear that many people writing aboutthe Beatles don't qualify as historians (and never claimed they did). That includes Hunter Davis and of course most of the first-hand journalists who covered a pop phenomenon and couldn't have cared less about 'methodology'. Still, they contributed bits of information, and a huge part of serious biographers' work consists in sifting through that material and evaluating it. It seems to me that serous historiography only began with Mark Lewisohn (his very very few books scattered over decades) and a few books written in the present century. But there is one more thing: the Beatles were not only part of history, their place in history is defined by their impact, and that impact is primarily due to their music. One of the shortcomings of most Beatles biographies (and I'm afraid that we will have to include Mark Lewisohn, to some degree at least) is that they don't offer a consistent or at least plausible view on the Beatles musical merits. That's why I find books that marry a musicological approach with a sociological angle the most rewarding. Ian MacDonald's Revolution in the Head and particularly Jonathan Gould's Can't Buy Me Love come to mind, (The latter must also be surely among Erin's top 5 stylistically, no?) In other words: What is most interesting about the Beatles is less the who, when, and where -- it's the why. And if you want to answer that you need to have a grasp of the music and its historical (cultural) setting as it evolved.
I think both are needed. I think it's more important to understand the cultural history & impact over the music because the music is so subjective. I love the MacDonald book but I continually get push back from the fans who get butt hurt that he would dare to be critical of the Beatles in any way. I am trying to give some of those fans a different perspective and those who don't want it, can hang with the fanboys. Great comment, Aurelian DE!
@@popgoesthe60s52 Absolutely agree. It's human to feel a twinge when someone who is so astute dismisses a favourite song but grown ups attempt to get beyond knee jerk reactions.
One aspect of the MacDonald book which I think is critical but may not be appreciated by many people, and especially those from outside the UK, was the massive influence on British pop music in the 1960s and 70s of the Art College. They were further education options for kids who were bright/unusual but not necessarily academically-minded enough to go to University (at the time when Universities had very rigorous entry requirements). It wasn't just painters and sculptors which they produced but also, pretty much by accident, musicians who went on to form the basis of many of the most influential acts of the British pop music scene: The Beatles, The Stones, The Kinks, The Who, The Move, The Pretty Things, Pink Floyd, Cat Stevens, Roxy Music, David Bowie, Ian Dury... the list goes on.
Previously, British pop stars appeared to have no apparent interest in wider culture or, if they did, rarely expressed it. An early 1960s TV interview with Adam Faith revealed that he was thoughtful, articulate and read Dostoevsky and it caused a sensation. The idea that a pop star could be interested in a culture outside of pop music and the odd cowboy film was then unheard of. By the end of the 1960s it was almost expected, and that was mainly due to the influence of The Beatles etc and the Art Colleges.
As I understand it, Art Colleges in the US were very different, more craft orientated and less conducive to free-form creative endeavour. That, I am sure, led to some of the major differences between the UK and US music scenes.
@@johnnhoj6749 I covered this a bit in my Yardbirds videos and yes, the art school pursuit in the UK was far more literary than in the US and the strength of MacDonald's book goes into cultural commentary, which quite frankly, is over the heads of many Beatles fans.
For me, it was natural Geoff Emmerick has a preference direct to Paul McCartney, in comparison with the other three. It must be considered that Emmerick was a sound engineer, and too much early in the Beatles' carrer Paul revealed his interests in production and arrangements. This interest, in my opinion, was in a higher degree than John, George or Ringo.
In the parlance of our time, Dig it. Love Erin's perspective. Regarding Goldman, dude was a great writer. In spite of all the negativity and questionable accuracy.
@@jnagarya519 That's a mistake anyone could make. My point wasn't whether or not he was accurate. He was a very good writer.
Of course he was a great writer. He did much the same hatchet job on Elvis, but it was "well written"... The other side of it is research, and "Abbey Lane" is a basic schoolboy error; like Norman he knew little about popular music, though in his case he seemed to regard pop as inferior, but nevertheless thought he could cash in. He was a hack, in other words.
Thanks Matt and Erin for these great discussions. I Look forward to more in the future and a review on Paul McCartney’s Lyrics book. I’m waiting for a library copy.
Wonderful series of discussions with Ms. Weber…thank you Matt! I love the fact that you mentioned that all Beatles books have some value, even some of the more poorly researched books. I do think there is value in books like the Lives of John Lennon even if Goldman’s journalistic spin is quite negative. It’s like walking though a maze trying to investigate this history. Please continue to make these videos which hold people accountable in terms of what is being put out there. Thanks so much for sharing!
Thanks, Bill. I hope to do some future videos with Erin. She's so solid.
Please have Erin on again sometime. She's awesome!
As a cranky old Mid-Boomer, I like how you're approaching this in an historical sense, since those of my generation are too close to the source and can't help our bias' influence our judgment. Goldman was a hack and a hit artist, though he heaped praise for his Lenny Bruce bio, his portraits of Lennon and Elvis were overwhelmingly panned. I listened to talk radio(a much different thing back then) personalities that would have him on just to cut him off after one word. Of course, to some folks, there's no such thing as "Bad" publicity.
I'm not sure what I've missed as to look for in new revelations concerning the Beatles, but Mark Lewisohn's 1st volume was to me eye opening in how their music developed up to the point of their Please, Please Me single recording and planned release. Volume 2 & 3 could be that "next step'" to open eyes to the unknowns. Thanks for this interview with Erin. You two hopefully will do more of these. Especially once volume 2 of Lewisohn's release comes out.
I would love to see Erin pull together a definitive Beatles biography and getting Ringo and Paul to sit down and get it all out, the good the bad and the angst, the truth the whole truth.. Beatles fans are so devoted getting the unvarnished accurate truth would finally let us sit at the feet of our idols
The first clue that John suffered from depression: " HELP!!!!!! "
He was performing at Shea Stadium feeling down. Which tell you being a mega rock star is not what you think it is.
Emerick is, as they talk about, is a completely biased book. John and Ringo are treated as buffoons. So glad Erin has come to the scene!
I like Erin, she's beautiful and intelligent and I respect her opinion.
John Lennon "lost weekend"....should be called "Lost Weekends!" 72 of them.
I just LOVE your channel...can't say it enough!
Michael Jackson did the same thing to producer, Quincy Jones . As the Beatles did to George Martin.
Dr Weber: you are wonderful. And of course, likewise avoid peccatography...
(Nb: "haɡɪˈɒɡrəfi")
It has been a long time since I read the Goldman book, but I do remember it being something of a hatchet job. Not that it's completely inaccurate- some of what was alleged and seemed really shocking at the time was confirmed at least in part by Lennon himself, among others. But Goldman seemed out to interpret things in the most negative light possible.
i've read Shotton's book, and I"d recommend it. one of Lennon's closest friends, and no axe to grind, pro or anti John, that I could see.
I had not a chance to read it. Only a few parts. I read when he talks about John travelling to Barcelona with Brian. And it sounds rather homophobic to me. But to be sure I had to read everything. I do hope what I captured was wrong.
I think it is a pity there are no autobiographies - if that were the case we wouldn't be so reliant on these biographies - there is of course George's I Me Mine, Ringo's postcards book and Cynthia's book are of interest and Paul has recently said his Lyrics book is as close as we are all ever going to get to an autobiography. Paul's issue that whilst John was being canonised he was being given second billing.
Many Years From Now by Barry Miles is essentially a Paul autobiography.
Harrison privately published I Me Mine, which I imagine is hard to come by.
I read Goldman's book when it came out, he was excessive in quite a bit of attacking John but also interesting in his regard to John's songs which many he thought were brilliant. Some of things he was attacked for have actually been proven in later years to be true. His analysis of Strawberry Fields is very compelling as was the insight of John's wanting to be known as the leader but John didnt lead the Beatles from late 66 onward. Paul certainly didnt want to be leader but he was a workaholic who wanted the band to keep busy and was a songwriting machine always.
Great information, thank you. Matt you and Erin are a great team. I grew up with the "bad" Beatles books and loved them. However, wow, so much new information. The Beatles will be discussed for many years to come.
Thanks for the comment, Chris!
True Beatles psychopaths like me can sit and listen to this stuff for hours.
Erin sounds like she’s studied the Beatles like a geologist examining sedimentary rock and it’s really bloody fascinating
That's interesting about Martin. The "Get Back" film surprised me that he was hovering over the sessions, especially at Apple Studios, but sort of was out of the creative loop in a general sense, as if waiting for one of The Lads to say, "what do you think, George?". He could get a bit caustic later. I recall an interview where he was scathing of Harrison's songwriting abilities in a response to the "My Sweet Lord" lawsuit.
Just for the record, Hunter Davies surname is pronounced as "Davis", as in "Miles Davis"....not as "Day-veez".
No, that is merely the British pronunciation - same for Ray Davies, Rick Davies, Dave Davies, etc. We say it in North America as spelled. There are scores of different pronunciations between the two, this is merely one of them.
Good conversation here. I've watched all the Goldman interviews on UA-cam. He was incredibly arrogant and mean spirited. Despite the malice, Goldman's book is quite the page turner. Shotton's book was the first Beatles book I read as a 14 year old and it was quite the eye opener.
Cant wait to see Erin on there again, so much insight on writing and the Beatles and more. One of my fav Beatles books in my collection is a few of photographer Dezo Hoffmann books.
Sorry Erin no cultural historian, literary critic of any merit in the UK takes Philip Norman seriously. As for Norman being a "masterful writer, top five Beatles stylist', I find that claim spurious even absurd. Maybe in America but in Europe/UK Norman and his tabloid style as seen as vacuous, lacking in insight and beyond dull.
This is not about cultural historians or literary critics taking Norman seriously. It's about the millions of fans who where taken in by Norman's writing, who's influence is still felt with his multiple revisions. Sales of his book were especially strong in Britain, so they were taken in as well.
Fascinating interview. I loved Erin's book. One of the better one's on the Beatles. Really thorough analysis
If Torkelson Weber ever needs my assistance on the Beatles families, I did some Beatles Genealogy, including first cousins, uncles, great uncles as well as the direct lineage. I contacted through ancestry several people in my research that turned out to be relatives of the Beatles, confirmed by them.
@@mark9058 There is no evidence about that. In fact so many misconceptions have been made about John Lennon’s grandfather who is also named John Lennon. The Genealogy found in Geoffrey Giuliano’s book is mostly wrong as well. In fact many of the Genealogy’s in his Beatles books are absolutely inaccurate except for George Harrison’s
Re George Martin and others on how depressing the Let It Be sessions were: The received wisdom used to be that they were nothing but hell on earth. I think that after the Get Back series we are in some danger of flipping our perceptions too far the other way. In Get Back we necessarily get the most interesting highlights but in reality, for anyone not intimately involved in developing each song, it must have been potentially very tedious for long stretches.
In the documentary we get a few of the most interesting run-throughs of each song they were working on and a lot of jolly rolling out of old favourites. In reality there were often dozens of halting attempts at the same new song over and over and over again. The problem was that The Beatles were taking songs from sometimes literally nothing to a stage where they were honed and they were practiced enough to play live.
That was very unusual for The Beatles. In the early days they already knew the songs and came in ready to record. Then in later phases they only had to know the songs well enough to record a basic track once (or not even that, as they might combine different takes), often without vocals, solos, bass lines etc before moving on to overdubs.
I don't think there had ever been a phase before when they started with nothing and took a song to being playable on stage all in the studio.
There is no wonder that George Martin and others were bored.
Though there is some concern that Get Back may 'flip perceptions too far the other way', but to do so, that flip would have to overlook all the negative aspects used in Get Back. Virtually all known 'negatives' were used, and we still have the original film as a source, so the negatives are still up front. Will some overlook them or simply take them in context? We'll see.
@@popgoesthe60s52 Agreed.
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough that I meant that it would be easy to dismiss, after watching Get Back, the perception of some of those present that much of the sessions were depressing. Even the negative bits in Get Back were, of course, the more interesting edited highlights (sic) of the negative bits - but it's not actually those bits I am talking about.
What we (completely understandably) didn't see were most of the very repetitive faltering attempts at forming and learning songs, often from scratch.
There is a saying in the film industry to the effect that your first day on a film set is the most exciting day of your life, the second day is your most boring. I suspect that the Let It Be sessions were probably the same for those not intimately involved in crafting the songs.
I'm suggesting that the onlookers who found the whole affair tortuous weren't necessarily living in some form of false consciousness which has been totally debunked by Get Back.
Norman wrote his book at a time when the music press in the UK was anti-Paul. They felt that he was uncool & that Wings were middle of the road, and they resented his success (Mull of Kintyre was a huge seller in the UK when punk was supposed to be ruling the waves). Paul was a soft target and Norman made his name by obliging with his version of the Fab story. The research was carried out by Lewisohn, which gave it a credibility it doesn't merit.
The only research Lewisohn did that was used was the actual date John met Paul. Norman didn't need much of Lewisohn's research, which he kept for later use.
Incidentally, it's worth looking back at the singles charts of the punk era. There were actually remarkably few punk records which were popular enough to get anywhere near the top of the charts. The charts were dominated by the likes of ABBA and a lot of music which could easily have been popular pre-punk.
My theory is that most big fans of punk were in the media and in smallish but vocal and visible clusters in metropolitan centres. The punk labels hit all the right buttons with PR, the tabloids loved the sensation and with every rock journalist having to rave about punk or seem like a dinosaur it all contributed to a myth of punk being all-pervasive. It really wasn't.
PS I'm using singles as the measure of general popularity because Punk (unlike Prog) was overwhelmingly a singles phenomenon.
@@johnnhoj6749 Totally agree. Important to see that new generations are much keener on 70s disco & Abba than they are on punk. The impact of punk was much more felt in fashion & culture than in music.
@@johnnhoj6749 Excellent point regarding punk. I do believe that success of singles is a huge criteria when discussing musical value, influence, and artistic appraisal. Punk singles seemed hugely important in a vibrant sub genre of rock music, even though as you point out, they did not chart. The timing of punk was capitalized on quickly and nature of punk didn't require deep analysis, which was probably a breath of fresh air after all that prog stuff.
Interesting interview throughout. The part I found most interesting was the Philip Norman section. Shout was the first major Beatles bio I read.......and yeah, with hindsight and decades worth of more information.....my view of the book has changed drastically over time. And I think Erin is totally right about Norman's Paul book.
Philip Norman is an odd duck. Which makes Albert Goldman a petulant duck.
yes, right now, somewhere, everywhere, someone's starting a book about the BEATLES. I don't see them ever stopping. 'A Day in the life' ,mostly about studio work on all their records, was outstanding. the passage I love is when, at the height ,maybe, of their acrimony, Lennon & McCartney decide to show up w/ out George or Ringo, who were both (I think) out of town, to try and wrap up 'the Ballad of John & Yoko'. Paul plays drums as you know. knowing that little story, and putting it on to hear Paul's harmony stands out for me. on a Lennon song. it's apparent after seeing 'GET BACK', that the music came first, usually.
I distinctly remember Goldman when he was on...(w/ Tom Snyder?) plugging his ELVIS book, and at the end, he even says (paraphrasing), " my next book is about John Lennon, who I happen to admire". well, he already had alienated ELVIS's fans, so after the Lennon book he might as well just have dug himself a hole and hid in it. NOT a popular author. also worth mentioning is a little known work called 'the last days of John Lennon' by John & Yoko's personal gopher, Fred Seaman. not a hatchet job, and not a canonization. a decent book. he & John (Yoko always seemed to be off somewhere in her office controlling the estate ,and things) smoked reefer and tripped on mushrooms while on a Bahamas vacation. Sean was just a little guy then.
Speaking of clarity of perception, there's a book of interviews with Paul McCartney where Paul reveals he has a rather distressing problem with chronology. IIRC he had to think if John Lennon was alive during the Wings Over America tour.
I am also a big Doors fan. And I stopped reading and buying there books. Only a few show the truth of jim. The movie aswell. (👎🏻👎🏻). Robbies new book though 👌 😍 it hits a 11.
Such a paradox. Albert Goldman made his subjects (Elvis, John Lennon and Yoko) look awful, and yet I've read each of those books three times each.
Exceptional episode. Long term Beatle biography reader here and I’ve read most of these books myself (but wait… Norman Smith wrote a book?) and it’s been great to watch you both contextualize them. Just top drawer stuff.
Reading Goldman’s biography at a young age really did a number on my view of John, I have to admit. Obviously I’ve recognized the sleazy nature of the book for decades now, but the phenomenon you describe of Goldman being a bit more credible these days is interesting to me. It seems like some of his revelations - like John’s heroin use, his behavior during the Lost Weekend, his treatment of Cynthia - are pretty much considered confirmed now, but were considered hatchet work at the time. The historiography of this group is just fascinating in itself.
I always thought that Goldman was focused more on Yoko as villain, John as hapless, damaged nowhere boy. I was interested in John's drug use during his house husband period.
Some people don't like to hear that there is accurate material in this book. It's too bad that Goldman presented it so one-sided. He didn't do himself any favors.
Goldman is particularly hard on Ono.
@@popgoesthe60s52 I love your podcast! Keep up the good work.
Re Paul "collaborating" with Philip Norman: i think it's more accurate to say that Paul gave Norman his qualified blessing in principle, and gave him permission to talk with people, but I think Norman makes it clear that Paul himself had virtually no input into his project. In which case, suspicion of Paul's motive for "collaborating" would seem misplaced.
Having read most of the books myself, I have to say they're pretty close in their opinions to mine. I liked Pete Shottons book alot tho it was mostly about John...the Geoff Emerick book,George Martin...the Phillip Norman and Ray Connelly books were essential but a fairly dry read
Goldman was a snivelling twat who apparently didn't find enough dirt to rake up so he made his own salacious suggestions
I'm curious what your opinion on the "Good Ol Freeda" documentary is. She is clear she is not there to expose any dirt on the Beatles, but she has some great anecdotes and insights into the band and she does seem to give equal time to all four of the guys.
There was a 'making of' mini documentary on Good Ol' Freda that was better than the 'Good Ol' Freda' documentary. I liked it and she had some very charming memories of them. Her story of not talking about it for years is also interesting.
@@popgoesthe60s52 I will have to check that out. Thanks.
Matt, You and Erin batted three for three. I meant to comment before about writing/not writing about people who are still alive. Historians and readers deplore the fact that people of the past burn important documents to preserve an image (Martha Washington burning George's letters). And some famous people will not allow publication of certain writings until 50 years after their death. Maybe something interesting will show up - after we are gone.
Coleman's cloying and no doubt myth building intentioned work wasn't brilliant, but Goldman's was spiteful. Considering his attacks on Yoko Ono, whatever the opinion of Yoko Ono as a person is, his attacks are upon her alleged character traits due to being Japanese. It made me put the book down.
All I can say is to thank God I haven’t read ANY Beatles books or books about Lennon or McCartney. What a waste of time and money, just enjoyed the music! Since the Peter Jackson’s release of Get Back that’s all the “History of The Beatles” I will ever need to see! See them just as the normal people they were, case closed. Maybe it took 50 years to see it.
This was a great series of interviews! I’d love to see you do a video on things left unsaid by Paul McCartney. He has this reputation of being a charming interviewee but, while not necessarily dishonest, manipulative with what he says. I’m curious to see specific examples of this.
It is worth remembering that Emerick walked out during the sessions for The Beatles aka The White Album, so, they may be part of it.
The beatles have added great happiness to my life and I dont ever want that to change based on something about the past. I really like Erin's info seen her before. What a fan!!
I think the psychiatrist's association would frown on a professional doing a psychiatric evaluation on a subject they've never treated -- goes back to the guy that did a psyhcoanalysis of Nixon way back when and I believe the profession came down hard on him
33:16 me too. Especially on Ringo, I know he is a very private person but I think because he has been left out of discussions for so long, it's like his version of things is dismissed every chance someone gets. It's awful. For example him not being educated is ridiculed as if John and Paul and George all had PhD .. or drug use and forgetfulness is regarded when people are talking about his version of events as a way to dismiss all of what he is saying .. as if George and John and Paul weren't using drugs just like him. It's hilarious
Gotta defend Emerick . I think you're not going to find a better primary source outside the Beatles/George Martin- than Emerick. As for not keeping diaries wouldn't the songs themselves and the production credits be a form of diary? I feel like we're getting lost in the weeds of semantics here. In the end , even a historian writing 50 years later still has to go back to primary sources to get the most accurate account of what happened.
Matt, what is/was your job outside of this channel? Your content is a huge step up from the sort of discussion The Beatles typically generate on UA-cam. I really hope you have a chance to pick Lewisohn's brain by the time Volume 2 shows itself
I'm in marketing. I would love to pick his brain for volume 2! I'll have to work on that.
Norman "Hurricane" Smith had some hit singles in the UK in the early 70s..e.g. Don't Let it Die
A bit pedantic, but the British disc jockey who was the final person to interview John Lennon name was Andy Peebles, not Peoples/Peeples.
Pang didn't get much media space because, I guess, she wasn't this greedy gold digger. But she is very loved by the fans.
It is such a shame that these discussions were not done when all Beatles were still alive so all sides could be corroborated with each one. How anyone could now remember with all honesty what went on is not realistic. You will always get people to believe what they want to believe. Any book written by these rouge writers should have been pushed back before publishing. Unfortunately books with conflict sell, like newspapers.
Paul sent a bottle of Champagne to Martin on his 64th birthday. now Paul's waaay past that. I hate time!
Also a shame that Shotton's books are so expensive! Norman' has "nae class", as we would say in Scotland. In a Sunday Times piece a few years back he was gratuitously nasty about George Harrison, calling him a misanthrope killed by his nicotine addiction (though the latter is no doubt correct). He may be a masterful writer but he doesn't know about popular music - I picked up his Lennon biog and the first thing I read was "Phil Spector, the Tamla Motown producer". Perhaps later editions have corrected that schoolboy error.
Yes, Norman is particularly hard to take with his prissy opinions and shameless interviews. One recent on (on Something About the Beatles podcast) he was challenged on his facts and he replied That "Americans are too concerned with facts and not good writing."
@@popgoesthe60s52 LOL! I've just read that McCartney called THAT book Shite. Who can blame him?
@@popgoesthe60s52 Wow... The lack of self-awareness is deafening. He might as well have said: "I never let the truth get in the way of a good story".
@@Luthiart And he's in a video having a go at Albert Goldman for HIS distortions and errors!
Another great debate here Matt sound stuff totally enjoyed this
Really enjoyed your interviews with Erin Weber. Ordered her book to read over the holidays. Have seen two other videos discussing the subject of what to believe from different books especially the Lennon Remembers one. It seems to be a sore topic for a lot of people. Hope to hear more from her on your channel. Have a good holiday and take care.
The Lennon Remembers is only a sore topic to Lennon lovers who don't want to be challenged on the validity of those interview, which John himself even said some things were not true.
I've been prompted by this to do the same Sharon (buy Erin's book as a holiday read)! It isn't cheap here (UK) either, but I suspect it'll be an excellent read.
Peter Brown's book (The Love You Make) doesn't get mentioned very often in discussions of this type, but I have to say that I found it to contain some interesting if controversial perspectives. It needs to be read knowing that he was an Epstein family and Apple insider of course and has been accused of character assassination amongst other charges, but he WAS there.
I have Peter Browns book as well. It is one I need to reread as its been awhile but I do remember it as being a bit controversial at the time. Take care and enjoy your book!
Good interview! Would love to hear more. I was surprised that Rolling Stone Magazine’s pro John and anti Paul editorial angle wasn’t talked about. The rogues gallery should include interviewers as well as authors.
We covered that topic in part one.
I’d be curious to hear her opinions on the UA-cam documentary “Understanding Lennon/McCartney”…I wouldn’t expect it to hold up methodologically next to written works by professional historians, but I wonder what she’d think of the overall impression it gives of their relationship.
Those videos are not history, nor documentary. They are art collage narratives created from primary source materials: video, music and interviews. They are wonderfully insightful, but they are art.
@@Kieop that's fan fiction and mostly b.s.
@@sethrogaine Yeah, kinda my point.
Goldman was correct. There, I said it.
Great episode again Matt. Goldman's book was deliberately over the top negative in an attempt to stir controversy and create sales. Emrick was even more negative towards Ringo than George. He clearly had an axe to grind. "Shout" was good reading and a good introduction to the Beatles for someone who is just getting started on their own Beatlemania. Bob Spitz was pretty good not great. The Peter Brown book was a good insider's look at Epstein and the Beatles.Lewisohns "Complete Beatles Recording Sessions" is a must have for any serious Beatles fan. That's just my opinion.
Thank you Joe. Yes, I will certainly continue to talk about Beatle books and writers so stay tuned!
These three interviews are amazing! I have learned so much about histography and evaluating Beatles biographies.
Thank you for watching, Rita!
cute little dog, Matt. he passes thru from time to time.
I thoroughly enjoyed this (and your whole series with Erin) I have to agree that any author who is dismissive of any of the Beatles (and Martin for that matter) immediately loses creds. I’ve found all the interviews with George Martin very riveting. Maybe when he mentioned how hurt he was by the let it be sessions he was more referring to the Twickingham part. He seemed much happier at Apple studio… Get back shows him actually playing with them.
And Erin if you write that needed book about George I will preorder it now! :)
(I have received your book and plan to knock it down during the holidays…Thank you in advance)
I thank you and Erin thanks you!
I watched the 3 episodes ....two last night.... 12/22/22 and the 3rd just now. Erin, if you see this at some point , You totally blew me away with your recall of dates, places, other authors, etc. and NOT ONCE did I see you look away from the camera to check notes! :) Amazing! Two things struck me hard: Matt said that your book (which I'll order today--Are autographed copies available?) is 250 pages and yet your approach is completely different, detailed and precise. Incredibly impressive. :) Despite what I'm about to ask able to easily be misunderstood, I'll ask it anyway. You and Matt talked about many authors.....and yet I didn't hear any Female names in that list. Beatlemania was largely Screaming Young Girls so I'd expect more input from Women but it doesn't appear to be there.....I'd love to know both Your thoughts as well as Matt's on any reason behind tha....although I have my own very strong feelings on why that is. Thanks so much to both of you for a Spectacular amount of Information. Bass-ically Yours, Rich. 🍎
Thank you for watching all three episodes, Rich! I hope to have Erin back on in 2023, so stay tuned!
Ya shoulda mentioned Fred's book...the sequel to May's. Utterly brilliant.
Danny
Hi Matt - I know this is a very late comment, but, I wanted to thank you for this 3-part series plus for your initial review (#047) of Erin's excellent, must-read book. I bought and read it shortly after it was published in 2016, and, I have been telling every Beatles fan that I know about it ever since. I was able to exchange a few emails with Erin about the book a year or 2 ago, so, that was cool, being able to thank her personally. So great to have the Rolling Stone and Wenner -skewed BS exposed! It's unfortunate that the "Dreaming The Beatles" book came out after Erin's book, because it would have been "interesting" seeing that book analyzed and dissected. Anyhow, thank you for these videos regarding Erin's book. Mike
Hello, Mike! Thank you for watching the Erin videos. I hope to have her back. I don't know about the Dreaming the Beatles book, I'll have to check that out.
This is HIGH LEVEL DIALOGUE. Mrs. Weber is a brilliant mind. She gives light at topics that are crucial in understanding Beatles history. Matt, as always you do an amazing job. Thank you both for this piece of intelligent conversation. O and by the way, I´ve seen and heard the three parts of this conversation.
Thanks for watching all 3, Eduardo!
Excellent series.
I remember reading Emerick's book and being shocked at his dissing of George Martin. This was a guy who gave him big breaks a couple of times, yet Geoff was pretty insulting. Understandable that Martin was offended. I wondered if there had been a falling out between them at some point, (which would explain the bitterness), but I never heard of any. I guessed that for some reason, Emerick was jealous of Martin and resorted to this pettiness. Too bad, because it's an interesting book.
Every Fab Four book has some sort of bias and a need to settle some (real or imagined) score. It sometimes tells you more about the author than the subject.
They worked together...sometimes a boss just deserves a bit of you resentment. Ppl have different personality n temperament. You'd have to ha been tgere
I think you mean Emerick was envious of Martin. Possibly he was. But, we can not be sure about it.
I was quite taken aback at Emerick's opinion of George Harrison. From what I remember, he said he didn't like him at all.
@@ddub1253 True. I was taken aback by some of the comments though. It's one thing to be a little resentful, but this was serious criticism. As much as I admire GE's work with the Fabs and others, I was disappointed with what I consider his pettiness. Anyway, my opinion for what it's worth.
I don't recall him dissing George Martin at all. As for Harrison there was clearly a personality clash there- but he does give him credit for coming up with some great songs and guitar parts on the later Beatles albums.
What a fascinating discussion. I bought The Lives Of Lennon in 1988 when it came out and was it ever a blast of (non)reality. John was a real and slightly damaged human like us. Then years later when I began reading reactions to this book I realized that there are lots of books out there that pursue an agenda or a certain narrative.
The first book I read was Nicholas Schaffner's The Beatles Forever. I found that a very positive book. In hindsight and in view of this video I realize it was very 'fan boy' and I felt there was nothing wrong with that. I remember he was briefly in 'The Compleat Beatles' doc. Speaking of which I also have the Compleat Beatles books. Partially for the articles but mainly for the chords for all the songs. I read through that a lot.
I've read and own others like FAB about Macca. I read Geoff Guliani's book about Paul which I found very dark and sensationalist. I have SHOUT. I've read numerous times, Hunter Davies' book. I have an original hardcover and the 1985 reprint with the new McCartney rant about hie place in history mainly because of the cannonisation of Lennon in recent years.
I read Pete Best's first book which was a bit hollywoodish, sensational, like it was a project for a payday. I have his brother's book about the Casbah club. That's a very warm story about the club and late 50s Britain. I still found it interesting. I've got The Beatles Gear, Tell Me Why (Tim Riley), And Macca's 'Many Years From Now with Miles. 'You Never Give Me Your Money' was, to me a very real look at the damage that being Beatles did to the four of them. Mainly because Paul had to sue the group to keep Klien at bay etc... and that took decades to sort out.
But my favorite books ever that I've read multiple times are Lewisohn's The Beatles Recording Sessions and Tune In. I read those two so many times. I got Recording Sessions when it came out and was totally enthralled with the day to day mechanical job of recording Beatles. And I've read Tune In about 5 times while I wait patiently for Vol 2!
That's it I think.
www.mixcloud.com/Amadeus99/
I plan to review some of the books you mention, especially Schaffner's The Beatles Forever.Thanks for the comment!
You seem to dismiss Philip Norman's McCartney book as some kind of protective career move... but
I found it as an effort to honestly recognize his mistake.
It's not a dismissal, merely a comment on Norman's biases and the trajectory of his Beatles books. His chronology matters when looking his overall work on the group. I may do a full review of his work at some point where I can really get into details.
When Goldman's book came out, I was repulsed by the negativity of the biography. It seemed that every ugly incident in John's life was amplified. 32 years later and I find Goldman's book the second-best book on the Beatles. The author did the leg work and did not rely upon secondary sources. He spoke to the lady who lived next to Aunt Mimi for 20 years. He reached out to Yoko's employees who lived in the Dakota for years. Paul could have rectified a lot of the misconceptions if he had just talked to Goldman for a couple of hours.
Yes, this book seems to be gaining in stature as the years go by.
I was given a copy of the Philip Norman's book which I found boorish, clearly biased and completely unilluminating particularly from an author who promised to break through the well-worn myths and offer some truth. What did I learn that I didn't know? That Neil Aspinall had an affair and love child with Pete Best's mother? Who cares! The most revealing thing I got out of it was a statement he got from Yoko after the fact when she granted him an interview after publication which he mentioned in the preface of the second edition which gratefully was the one I read where she said "John always used to say no one ever hurt him like Paul did!" To Norman it was another fiery dart to be hurled at Paul to show what a terrible person he was. To me it told me volumes about their relationship and what a clod Norman was in his handling of valuable information. That John would make such an observation and do so repeatedly tells me just how important Paul was to him. He didn't say that about George or Ringo and George was the more outspoken against Yoko in the Beatle days. Paul was John's partner. He didn't leave Cynthia for Yoko, he left Paul for Yoko. Paul's ability to hurt John speaks profoundly about how important Paul was to him. John was raised essentially by women. Paul was the first and most important male figure in his life.
I note the incident I mention is referenced in your interview. I did not l know Paul pressed Norman about what John was referencing but got no answer. I'm betting Norman did not know the answer and odds are did not even seek one himself. I imagine he was gleeful enough just to walk away with such a quote from Yoko.
Geoff Emerick's book is enormously entertaining but flawed both in bias (worshipping Paul and very hard on John George and Ringo) and in basic historical things he could have checked and verified. His account on the Beatles first recordings at Abbey Road contradict factual logs from Lewisohn's Recording Sessions book. I also noted, going back to read the section on the Abbey Road album that he suggests the anvil addition with Mal's performance on Maxwell's Silver Hammer was a feature born out of that session, a fact contradicted by both Let It Be and now Get Back where we see Paul dispatching him to get a hammer and anvil without explanation in real time just as they break for lunch during the Twickingham rehearsals. I learned early on to take his accounts with a grain of salt and again as entertaining but unreliable. His suggestion that Linda was distant with Yoko ("All the other Beatles-even John-had a cordial relationship with Linda, but I never saw her reach out and try to start a conversation with Yoko beyond saying hello or good-bye...") is utter rubbish. I've seen photos of Linda, Mal, and Patti Harrison sitting and visiting on Yoko's studio bed. And we have all seen now thanks to Get Back, the two women huddled together getting along and whispering with each other at Twickingham. Granted Emerick could have missed both. He wasn't there for Let It Be/Get Back, obviously and sent he split the Abbey Road sessions with Phil McDonald he could conceivably have missed the "bed-in." But he is wrong none the less. But worse than Geoff's inaccuracies is ungracious comments in print toward George Martin, the man who gave him much of his celebrated career bringing him in as the Beatle engineer and giving Geoff a job for many years when he set up his own independent studio post EMI. If he had some complaints about Martin he should have kept them to himself. You don't treat people that way. He also pats himself on the back far too much.
In the end, no source is wholly reliable, whether it's the Beatles or you or me. I have an impeccable memory but my brain's housekeeping is indiscriminate sometimes in what it discards or packs away in places that things don't belong. I just saw this link today (ua-cam.com/video/ia8OyJp5NsY/v-deo.html) where Peter Jackson said he tried to persuade Ringo that George's leaving was based on the argument with Paul referring Jackson back to Let It Be. Ringo's memory of the incident is not personal, it seems but based on Lindsey-Hogg's cut of footage rather than the actual sequence of events which Jackson shows were separated by numerous days with George leaving at the end of the week. Between his tiff with Paul is his arrival a morning or so later where he shares I Me Mine to a very receptive Paul and John comes in and shits on it.
Great comments, DAYHOMEONE. I'm not sure how Paul "hurt" John but I just take that quote as one of John's bipolar/abandonment issues that he was projecting. It is shameful that Norman used that to screw Paul more. Norman is a hard writer to like. Good point on the Ringo memory. I can't remember even 10% of my life! George's memory of these sessions now seems very selective, so it is good to have a Get Back film to help sort out some of the inaccuracies repeated ad nauseam for decades. It take multiple sources to achieve some sort of reliability.
Good information, pleasantly presented always a uplifting change to the day. Creativity to me means changing my mind. Also known as learning.
Refreshing to hear someone beside myself consider the power of fame has on people. I like to wish success for people but I wouldn't wish fame on my worst enemies. (enemies are actually friends in disguise if one can learn from them. That's a different topic though.)
More shows together please. I think it would be cool to go back over what you guys discussed already, but after thinking about what was offered in the conversation.
A response to your own and each others statements after a short passage in time would be awesome. Revisit with clarifications,expansion and explanations of methodology, criteria,bias, citations, sources and why those things matter.
I wouldn't mind learning more about learning. I spent my life working in the building trades, but I need to learn tons of new things each day.
I wouldn't mind learning why it's wrong to say, "She's pretty" when my intention is the kindly making of respectful funshine.
Thank you Peter. I hope to do further collaborations in the future so stay tuned!
Just a comment about Paul cooperate with Norman and Coleman. Well, you can hold that against him and wondering how he could do that. But you can also see that as a sign of Pauls wisdom as a person. He knows, that the best thing to do with your enemy, to disarm him, is to show him your friendship. Treat him as good as you can! Show him that you are a loveable person.
He did the same thing with Howard Stern. In early programs Stern hated Paul, he wasn't worth a penny, he put a lot of knives in Pauls back.
What is the best way to put an end to it? Well, come to the program and be nice to Howard. Otherwise it will continue.
And Paul is talking about that when he comes to the program. About how he had been warned: Don't go to Howard Stern, it will be nasty!
And after that he has been visiting the program several times. And now Howard Stern loves Paul.
I admires Paul for this. It is a great wisdom he shows: give love to your neighbour and he will give love back to you.
And you can see it in his relation to the others in The Beatles. He never says a bad word about them. And he never done it.
John and George, especially George, always slammed Paul in public. In every interview George says something bad about Paul, that he's a hypocrite etc. And George that gives the image of himself as the great guy who's talking about peace and love and the love of God. I mean, who's the hypocrite? George, the unfaithful husband. And the story when Paul introduced him to a friend at school: "George, this is" ... Bang! George just knocked the guy! Without reason. And the story he told himself, when he and a Hare Kristna guy began to fight in George's house.
You can also see it like this. The ones that talks most of peace and love, is maby the ones who needs to hear about it the most.
Two violent guys in The Beatles who spread the massage of peace and love the most: John and George ...
Sorry for my bad english.
PS And Paul also did the same thing with Jann Wenner and The Rock'n Roll Hall Of Fame, the way I see it.
I would agree. Paul has always said he loved being a Beatle and what they created, and he loved his brothers. Get Back has shown it. I have a better understanding of George of why he slams Paul, but not John. He had insecurities about his playing and jealous of Paul's friendship with John. Paul has never gone into the public boxing ring because he loved his brothers. PS: I loved Paul's letter to John during the Hall Of Fame. It was as moving as Here Today.
Although it has been mentioned briefly in this series, I'd love to hear more input on Many Years From Now. It's one of my favorite Beatle Books and I always appreciated Paul's couching of the book: “I’ll give it to you as I remember it…a sequence of events that did happen within a period. So it’s my recollection of then.” Basically he's offering a reasonable disclaimer. He is not purporting to give the definitive account but simply his own recollection. You cannot do better than that. It has as much validity as anybody's recollection of the past ever does. And the fact that he acknowledges it simply as his recollection rather than gospel is a plus. I saw a recent interview with him where the interviewer argues about a version of events came from the Barry Miles books to which Paul jokingly and self-effacing replied, "Well then it must be true!" Other books I'd like to hear on and not covered here were Peter Brown's the Love You Make, which most interestingly does not hold a Beatle bias but more shockingly derides them all as simpletons. For me, the freshest information of the Beatles over the years is in Beatle Anthology Companion book. It actually has a lot of revelations that never made it into the documentary. How studied are you on that one?
I'm quite studied on the Anthology book having read it 3 times. I find the book far better thank the video but as a whole, the entire project is now dated and I will be doing a review of that project. The other books you mention I also feel are important to review, so expect those in the future as well.
It's worth remembering that Albert Goldman was an unpopular figure among many pop fans even before he lifted a pen on the Lennon book as he had already written a similarly critical/venomous book on Elvis Presley.
Very true. He had a reputation
You should get Mike Williams Sage Of Quay on. That would be hilarious.
Ps. Erin 's great.
The Emerick book was heavily biased towards Paul and a big disappointment. I found it dismissive of John, George and Ringo. He made little effort to depict them accurately. At one stage he calls John "the hook-nosed lead singer" or words to that effect. When I read that I knew where he was coming from. I got the impression he was not very sophisticated when it came to character discernment.
Yes, it's too bad he let personal feelings get involved.
I think Yoko's pushback to Goldman was the Imagine: John Lennon movie.
Those came out the same year a month apart so I doubt Ono was thinking of Imagine as a retort to the Lives of John Lennon. Oddly Ono didn't sue Goldman, which I always found telling.
Very enjoyable... More, please,!