Erin Weber Interview 01 The BEATLES AND THE HISTORIANS |
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 чер 2024
- Erin Weber joins Matt Williamson for a candid talk about her book The Beatles & the Historians, An Analysis of Writings About the Fab Four. In this book Erin pinpoints the 4 narratives in Beatles history and we discuss them at length in this part one of three.
Help support this channel and Erin Weber. Pop Goes the 60s is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, a program designed to earn advertising fees through advertising and linking. I thank you!
The Beatles & the Historians, An Analysis of Writings About the Fab Four
• BUY IT HERE! paperback book or Kindle edition: amzn.to/3EnQUFr
SUPPORT Pop Goes the 60s on PATREON: www.patreon.com/user?u=81879771
![[柴犬ASMR]曼玉Manyu&小白Bai 毛发护理Spa asmr](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0TsXQ7z2Dh4/mqdefault.jpg)
I've heard Erin discuss her book once before, but this is better - great interview! And perfect timing, as I reevaluate some of what I have believed to be Truth for 50 years. There are going to be certain authors hoping that a Scotch and Coke will make a big hunk of humble pie go down easier.
I like to think I would be thrilled to see all 60 hours of video and listen to all 150+ hours of audio, even if I could find the time to do that, but I've got a feeling there is a lot that is in the watching paint dry category, much that is too garbled to understand, and a great deal that is repetitive or - and it seems sacrilege to say this about anything Beatle related - boring. So I am very grateful to Peter Jackson.
I understand why some found the documentary to be in need of further editing, but I would welcome more. If you are still reading this comment, you understand.
I was planning to go to bed early until you posted this. I'm not complaining about being up a couple of extra hours. Nice job, Matt. I don't know how you find the time to do such amazing work, but I am grateful for it.
Thank you, R&R. I don't know where I find the time either!
Great discussion especially the part about people clinging to old narratives
I'm always fascinated how much minutiae about The Beatles is widely known. For instance, before I even got into The Beatles heavily in college, I somehow knew Pete Best was the drummer they ditched for Ringo Starr. Like why would I know that? He was never the drummer during the crux of their career, yet I knew about him
You certainly wouldn't have learned it from listening to that 2-LP set that Capitol Records put out in 1964 called (ironically) "The Beatles' Story" (cause very little in it was true)...like George saying they got their Beatles hair style when he went swimming and his hair just dried that way ???
What an intersting point. Relevant.
I think that's because of the sheer cultural osmosis of The Beatles history you get from other forms of media through references and the like. For example, the classic Simpsons episode where Homer and co form a band that's just filled to the brim with Beatles references, down to sacking Wiggum for Barney like Pete Best and Ringo. The popularity of the band is so huge that it makes people who aren't really fans aware of them to some degree.
@@zero-pl3tt
They're aware without "being" aware. As you call it, "cultural osmosis," it's similarly termed collective unconscious. I love your term.
@@zero-pl3tt I think you are correct
Great interview Matt. A book I highly recommend is "The Longest Cocktail Party" by Richard Dilello. It's rather obscure but absolutely fascinating. The Apple years for the boys were rudderless and reflect the 60's as a whole. The Beatles business affairs were simply out of their control. The book is funny and has plenty of details I haven't seen anywhere else.
That was a good one!
I read Dilello's wonderfully dishy book about the rise and fall of Apple when I was a kid and I can't believe years later, Beatle historians/buffs never mention it in their Beatles bibliography.
Ian Macdonald,s book - Revolution in the head- must be considered near the top of books that place The Beatles in the historical context of the 1960s.
Great book, although it can be a bit dense. I think that book isn't for most people. Lines like "Lennon all but torpedoed his universalism" might go over the average person's head.
@@MrOctober44 Agreed yet of all the books I have read on the lads his writing sets the songs in context of what was happening in their lives.
Ian Macdonald does two things very well: like you said he places the Beatles in their historical (and cultural) context, and secondly he writes very well about Sgt Pepper’s. But his musicological writing is at times very stubborn, and he also has a tendency to intertwine facts with his own opinions and musings. It’s clear when you read the book that he sort of revels in his own knowledge of the sixties, and sometimes it almost feels like he excludes the reader (that him and his book are having a great time together, and us the readers aren’t really in on the jokes). The book is actually pretty strange, obstinate and somewhat frustrating, but it’s a must read nevertheless. Although I would not recommend it as someone’s first Beatles book.
If you simply listen to the audio, this is like a really great NPR interview. Very well done.
Much better than typical NPR fare imo.
It is actually better to listen to just the audio in this case. And a whole lot better than the rubbish spewing from that once lofty but now forsaken institute.
Wow! Matt, this was such a great discussion! I loved Ms. Weber’s book and I hope more people will do their research and not just buy into the old narratives. I loved how you mentioned Paul’s new Lyrics book. There has been a lot of talk on the internet about Paul revising history. The question I ask is “who’s history is he revising?” All Beatles history is based on research and opinion and bias. Unfortunately it’s more bias and opinion with most books. I do think Mark Lewisohn has helped with the Beatles more recent narratives although I don’t think anyone can escape bias as Lewisohn himself is a passionate fan although I think he is trying to remove his own opinions from his research. I look forward to the next discussions. Thanks again!
The first thing I remember being taught about at university was bias.
As a historian you have to be aware of bias in the information you are looking at and try to find the truth in what you are looking at or listening to.
This applies to the Beatles as much as it applies to accounts of a great historical event such as D Day.
Watching get back you can see how some ideas about who broke up the group and how things happened that many have believed are incorrect.
Exactly, thank you for the comment, Nige.
@@popgoesthe60s52 thank you for your interesting well presented videos I’ve been watching them for a while now and always enjoy them nice to see your dog wander by too 😊 👍
Matt, I chose your video when I got home from my gig because I just knew you would present something on this subject that would be substantive, informative and interesting. And after watching "Get Back" it's obvious that you were for the most part correct in your very careful assessment of the raw tapes that you had access to. BTW this woman that you are talking to is obviously highly intelligent and objective in her narrative. WELL DONE!
Thanks for staying up to watch! Yes, Erin is the first author I reached out to because of her command of the subject and her careful articulation. I appreciate the comment!
@ I'll look that up next week. I like Peter Jackson. He comes across as a true fan.
I've this on in the background, NO OFFENCE still listening. Man you guys need to do more together. I found this really entertaining, non bullshit news baiting and relaxed.
Keep it up guys.
Stay tuned for parts 2 & 3! Coming soon.
I agree. This appeals to people who are open-minded and willing to consider new and different ideas, stories or narratives. I think a lot of hosts in any medium tend to miss that their audience is quite hip and dumb their shows down to what they think the average intelligence of their listeners is. Good for Matt bringing this up instead of down. I, too, hope to see similar discussions in the future.
Very much agreed. Great discussion!
The thing about old and new narratives is so interesting and beautiful. Those events that occurred during the Beatles run were so impactful that they will be analyzed from every perspective for longer than we can imagine. I once heard George Harrison say in an interview something like "we all have different versions of a documentary that presents the story in different ways and can trick you into something other than the truth:" the way he said that wasn't as much in a way where he was upset that we didn't get the straight truth but as if he thought it was cool that there were different possible storylines within all of it. To end this long wordvomit I'll just say I think its great how the recent doc gave us a concrete narrative and its going to be amazing in 50 years when they make a new doc with footage from the same sessions and we get a whole new narrative.
Thank you, Bobby and please stay tuned for parts 2 & 3 with Erin!
T
@@popgoesthe60s52 Definitely will. Love your videos Matt.
Wow. Who would have thought you'd present such a fascinating discussion like this on a 60s channel? Yet it is relevant on many levels. Her reference to the WW1 trench soldier can be applied to the grunts in Viet Nam, as their stories were only beginning to be told until after we pulled out in 1973. Fascinating discussion, Matt.
No, not poor Ringo. Time has been the kindest to Ringo, as he would now have the most fans behind him.
Thank you for the warm comment, Rudolph!
Thankfully acknowledgement, respect and accolades for Ringo have grown over the past several years. Dozens of famous drummers and other musicians have provided appreciation and analysis of his talent and contributions. We also have comments from the other three Beatles, singing his praises and emphasizing his importance in the band.
Ringo has also never slagged on his mates. He’s stayed enthusiastic, witty, involved and continues to project positivity in a world that seems hellbent on dragging everyone and everything down. He looks and sounds great clear into his eighties.
God bless Ringo Starr!
@@edwindavies875 the post card which Paul sent Ringo after the rooftop ''show'' was a sincere ,thoughtful piece of his mind. he didn't have to send it, but he loved Ringo just as the others did. we only think we know these guys.
When I first got into the Beatles, circa 1977, I didn’t like Paul and saw him as the “villain” that caused the Beatles’ breakup. Well, as time moved on and I got older and more material was available, I discovered that it was Paul who most wanted the band to stay together. Well, as I read more material ( too numerous to mention) another scenario and picture started to emerge that was contradictory to what various people (including Lennon) wanted to present as “official” Beatles history. I haven’t read this (Weber’s) book, but now I am going to read it as soon as I can.
Matt, you continue to knock it out of the park. Another thoughtful, respectful discussion. It was absolutely fascinating
Well, I have to give credit to Ms. Weber on this one, but thank you so much!
@@popgoesthe60s52 but w/ out you, man, there is no interview. I haven't even seen all of her conversations w/ you ,but I look forward to it. please, pet the little guy for me.
I have read that Alfred Lennon was furious with the Beatles Hunter Davies book because it indicated that he abandoned John when it was in fact Julia who, while he was away at sea, got pregnant by another guy, and then asked for a divorce. It was Julia who wanted sole custody of John, even Alfred‘s brother Sydney tried to adopt John without success. Alfred refused to divorce her and she was legally married to Alfred Lennon when she was killed in that sidewalk accident
Wow!
I haven’t heard that before
I think it was one of Bill Harry's books where this was explained in detail for the first time.
@@winston4339 Alfred’s widow, Pauline wrote a book called “daddy come home” which also explored that as well
@@mark9058 Well thankfully, Mark had an unbiased witness, Alf’s merchant seaman bud. His writing about the incident is probably a little more accurate.
Ms.Weber work is invaluable. Her use of Historians methodology is now sorely needed in the BEATLES saga. I have read all the books mentioned starting with Hunter Davies back in 1968 when I was 15! Briefly commenting, when I Read LENNON REMEMBERS when it first appeared in Rolling Stone I knew 90% of it was hyperbole from Lennon who is want to make sweeping exaggerated statements! For instance at one point he states George is 10 years younger than me ! Now I knew immediately this was nonsense, George is only 2 years 4 months younger...The point is a lot of people took Lennon Remembers as unimpeachable Gospel , it is anything but! I hope to read more from Ms. Weber.
Rolling Stone interview was made in December 1970 and John was in a pretty emotional mood after his Janov therapy. He did not give his consent to the publication of the book (Lennon remembers), but Wenner didn't care. It's definitely not a reliable source. In the 1980 interviews, John’s views are much more balanced and well thought out. Of course, Wenner book is often citated…
Maybe ask her if there is going to be a "fifth narrative", The Get Back Narrative. This has been all over the news, along with Paul's pointing out that John left first, and Paul's new book. All this has definitely shifted people's perspectives and I'm guessing it's bigger than the "Mark" narrative as it's probably reached more people than his wonderful material has.
John leaving first has been common knowledge for decades and been included in all biographies for decades.
@@johnp515 definitely true and I was going to say that, but, for years immediately after 1970 everyone believed Paul split the Beatles.
The Paul broke up the Beatles is the shout narrative. Generally the more modern books that use referencing(and better methodology) mention John leaving (although he only announced it) , these have pushed back on the Paul blame narrative, Lewisohn himself generally doesn't talk about blame (he is many decades away from covering the breakup in his book series, but his work has highlighted many flaws in the shout and official narrative.
I've been delaying making this same post! The Get Back Narrative. Yes.
I am only 31 so I wasn't around in the 1970's to witness the effects of the "Lennon Remembers" interview and all the anti Paul biases that shaped the way fans viewed his solo albums which IMO were amazing albums, but because of the biases with people in the press people were pro John and acted like Paul was a hack. I'm so glad Erin wrote a book to debunk the myths.
Great interview and Erin was a wonderful and informative guest. I haven’t purchased a new Beatles book in years (My last purchase was about Beatles gear), but I will definitely purchase her book. Many thanks to Erin for agreeing to participate in this interview and sharing her extensively-researched knowledge with us. This was a real treat.
She will appreciate the purchase! Thank you.
@@popgoesthe60s52 I think I speak for a lot of people who could see from the interview that Erin’s book is the first fresh look and comprehensive analysis of The Beatles history in a long time. Hers is so much more than just another Beatles book, and I am really looking forward to getting my copy. Thanks again to both of you for the great content.
About the most interesting and freshest look at the band. The history of the history of the Beatles! If you live long enough perspective can develop. She has a well-organized schema for examining these evolving narratives.
The Beatles Gear by Andy Babiuk is a fab book!
She blinded me with science! Excellent interview, very informative.
Great discussion. I need to get her book. I've read most of the key books on The Beatles over the years. I had reached the point where there didn't seem to be many new insights to be found. The Get Back series was a true revelation. I really feel like I know them better as people now. I didn't think such a significant reappraisal was possible this late in the game. While the Get Back sessions are a snapshot of them during one brief tumultuous time, I feel there are broader implications that extend to and inform other parts of their timeline. I look forward to the other parts of this conversation.
Thank you for watching, Cats!
I am about halfway through. If you are a Beatles fan and into Beatles history it is well worth it. Also agree with your view of the Get Back series. Such a revelation! Felt like in some ways I was getting to actually know them for the first time. One thing that couldn’t get over is how grounded and normal they came across to me considering all they had been through.
Alistair Taylor is a primary source, now written out of Beatles history, his book is a jolt to the senses.
@@briankennedy1192 Sounds like something to look into. Thanks!
I am both a history major and a Beatle-manic, so Erin's book was a wonderful treat for me. Seeing these videos and hearing her discuss the book and the Beatles' history in detail is a wonderful bonus.
This interview holds particular fondness for me as I grew up in the late 70's/early 80's hearing all of these original narratives. Thanks for providing this for us!
My pleasure, Kenneth.
As an almost life time Beatle fan (I began when I was 13 in 1975) and as a teacher of history (Eastern and Western Christianity), I found this interview to be quite fascinating. I love Weber's emphasis in primary sources vs secondary sources, as well as the motive behind the author providing the sources. As I often tell my students, "You cannot treat Gospel as gospel." :)
Well said, Monkof Magnesia! Thanks for the comment and the best of luck teaching!
There are two other narratives of major concern:
1) The new revisionist history that Paul was the artistic Beatle that introduced John to Avant-grade, and modern art.
2) That John, if not all the Beatles, were stoned 365 days a year from 1965 until the breakup.
The first theme is presented by Steve Turner, “Beatles ’66, the Revolutionary Year”, in which Paul is seen as being far ahead in the art curve, even after John met Yoko, and that John basically stayed home with Cynthia and watched TV while single man Paul hit the galleries and art scene of London. Interesting to note in “Get Back”, episode one, when the drawings for the live performance plans are presented to Paul, to paraphrase, he says to give them to John, he’s the artist.
Also in the book, Paul is given credit for the White Album concept, so I guess John and Yoko wearing white, his white balloon release party at the Indira Gallery, his white Rolls, his white piano, his white painted home in London, his white everything, were just him following Paul’s directions?
The second theme is presented by Peter Brown and Steven Gains, in his 1983 book “The Love you Make", which claims the Beatles were always stoned after 1965. It is interesting to note that George Martin has said he never saw the Beatles in the studio stoned or drunk. That’s not to say he denied them taking drugs, only that in the studio they were sober and alert. Note also, the forgotten book,” Up and Down with The Rolling Stones”,1980, written by pseudo drug dealer Tony Sanchez, mentions he was the source for Lennon’s heroin, and mentions Lennon was only dabbling in the drug. Lennon’s personality, especially in “Get Back”, does not appear to be even remotely that of a junkie or addict of herion.
Well, Paul WAS hanging with (and supporting) the artistic circle centered in the Indica Gallery, Robert Fraser, Barry Miles, etc, regardless of whether it influenced John or not. ua-cam.com/video/65wpqFrwB18/v-deo.html
@@matthewsnyder6127 Yes, Beatles '66 delves much deeper into Paul's art support at the Indira than the documentary; but the book pushes back on John by creating an image of Paul initiating and fostering this artistic side of the Beatles. It was Jane Asher and her brother who were involved in the Gallery first, and Paul was simply going along, but later got involved, like John.
It was John who was the art school student along with Cynthia. John and the Daily Howl, and Stu Sutcliffe and his painting, along with John's continuous sketches and poetry/pros published in a couple of his books earlier. It was John, Stu and Astrid when it came to early Beatle art. '66 virtually says that John was spending his time watching TV at home while Paul was exploring art. Of course the book emphasizes that Paul developed the design concept of the White Album, (considering the book is called The Beatle's '66, it covers 1965 through 68.)
I feel the book is revisionist, basically painting a picture that Paul was the source for the artistic dynamics of the Beatles. But, John and Yoko were actual artists outside of music: in film, visual arts and conceptual art; McCartney’s roll was more of a gallery patron! '66 leaves the reader thinking Paul made it all happen.
@@murray1067 I don't know , Lewis. It doesn't seem the way you think. You are confusing things here. The fact Paul was the one more interested in Art in general, and really involved in avant garde in the middle of the sixites doesn't mean John was not interested when younger in Liverpool, though it was his aunt Mimi who made him go to the Art School. However, when he became famous and married living in the suburbs he had not the same chance as Paul to involve himself. Not that he lost his interest, but only he could not. Paul opted to live in the center of London and made friendship with lots of people from the counter culture and would be with them all the time! It is possible John wanted to do just the same things Paul was doing maybe with him! Going to the same places with him. Only he, for a reason, used to stay at home.
It is not revisionist. Changing it now saying Paul was not like that is revisionist. Because we all know Paul was involved during those days. There is a documentary that I had never a chance to see except a kind of trailer for that here on youtube. It is called something like The British Underground Movement, Paul McCartney and The Beatles. And I am almost sure it was filmed in the sixties. So that is the real story. Paul really pushed back. He was the one who suggested the loops for Tomorrow Never Knows. He was the one who had the idea for Sgt Pepper's. He was the one who thought about all of them filming, directing by themselves. And as you see, he would suggest and they would accept because all of them really directed parts of MMT. He was full of revolutinaries ideias all the time. Once John said he had gone too far. But they would follow him. That is the story we all knew since the sixities, so a book saying about it now is not doing any revision, it is only saying what really happened.
But that doesn't mean at all John was not artistic. All of them were artistic. That is why they were callle The Fab Four. Four! But Paul was not a painter at that time, not a plastic artist. John had very original drawings. That is why he said John was the artistic as we see in Get Back.
@@matthewsnyder6127 Yes. There are several interviews to George Martin that also back this up. It's not just Paul's narrative. Other people back up this part of history. Yes, John was an artist but Paul was living in London and was too much in that too. He was even friend with some film directors and famous writers. George sometimes was with Paul in those underground veneus
If all of the Beatles were always stoned they'd have never been so prolific and productive 1965-1969. There are many sources, including primary, which state that apart from when the Beatles were in India in '68, John was notably hampered by his drug use. The creative driving force up to and including 1965, John began to cede leadership duties to Paul year on year.
Being the most willing to do PR doesn’t mean you are good at it. I agree with Matt.
Thoroughly enjoyable and very interesting. Thank you for this Erin and Matt. I cannot wait until the release the next parts.
Nobody here yet! I'm here :-) Looking forward to this interview! Edited: Fascinating conversation! I would love to hear her talk about the Peter Jackson/ Get Back narrative and how that may shift the terrain.
Thank you for being the first, Buddy! I hope this will be the first of several discussions with Ms. Weber.
Great interview! To finally learn the truth is a wonderful thing, and to learn how experts like you both discern the truth is fascinating.
I'd be interested to hear her thoughts on the Albert Goldmsn Lennon book. After 1980, everyone thought John was a saint, but his book pushed back on that idea, much to everyone's horror and derision. But in the years since, with everything we've learned, it was probably much closer to the truth than anyone would have believed in 1988.
We do talk about that in an upcoming interview, so stay tuned!
@@popgoesthe60s52 excellent. I heard her on Something About the Beatles a while back. She's endlessly fascinating.
Erin is such an interesting and informative listen
Once again...so impressed by your content. In a week when I am still 'high' from watching Get Back (3 times now...remember I am an old retired invalid and Peter gave me all the content I will ever need)...your channel never disappoints this old rocker!
That's good to hear, you ol' rocker!
Dont forget John was in Art school..he knew about Modern Art and the Avant Gard..Paul didnt turn John onto it..!
As a current middle school social studies teacher and grad school student, I found this video (like the rest) to be insightful, thoughtful, and compelling. I’ve been trying to teach my students the importance of digging deeper and using primary and secondary sources to help them discover the truth. The ability to research is an essential 21st century, and you all just proved. I’m halfway tempted to show segments this in my class next week! Thank you for another wonderful video-look forward to seeing the next one, and I especially cannot wait to hear you go into greater detail of the Get Back film!
Adults need to understand primary and secondary sources too! There are two other videos with Erin coming out in the next 2 weeks so stay tuned. The Beatles are as good as any way to teach!
Great guest and interview, Matt. I'll be ordering Erin's book.
Thank you, Christopher - I'm sure Ms. Weber will appreciate that!
Wow. What a fantastic interview. I will be sure to read Weber’s book and I am eagerly awaiting the rest of Lewisohn’s trilogy.
Excellent interview. Thanks to both of you.
Absorbing and compelling discussion. I was so captivated by this exchange that I bought Erin Torkelson Weber's book and find it riveting not only for it's Beatles content but perhaps even more as an introduction to historical method and historiography. Brilliant book.
Great to hear! I'm sure she'll appreciate it.
Matt, thank you for talking about Weber’s book! A thorough research which yields fine revelations! Thank you again Ms Weber and Matt
Seeing Matt and Erin tackle this subject re assures this old timer that it won't be as twisted and shredded as I'd feared as time goes forward and all those that lived in those times disappear...well done Matt and I MUST get your book Erin. I've been trying to write a little something on it all but I enjoy the research process so much I keep stalling about actually knocking out the several chapters i've all but writtin in my head...hey ho
Hey Johnny you’ll love her book!
@@popgoesthe60s52 yes, i intend to try order it at the Cambridge Waterstones...but they started being awkward getting me my stateside requests...have listened to more of her superb interviews....maybe we should start a fund to get her some nannies to cover for her toddlers so she can head for the type writer a little sooner to knock out those coming masterpieces...wonderful...so great to hear people talking sense on this subject, i was beginning to think it would never happen
I found this last night...... Erin is a real Breath of Fresh Air. I'll be ordering the book Today. Thanks to you both for what you do.. 🍎
Great discussion Matt! I will have to get Ms. Weber’s book!
Great Guest. Great Interview, Matt. Makes Me Want to Watch This Again.
I bought this book like two days before this video came out and i saw it pop up in my recommended, So i just read through her book super fast so I could watch this interview with full knowledge of her book.
Thanks for purchasing Erin's book. A great one to have on your shelf for any Beatles fan!
I think Ms. Weber's book is one of the best of ALL the books I've ever read. Not only is the subject matter itself fascinating, her explanation of historical methodology applies even beyond the subject.
Great discussion. Thank you!
Greetings Matt ✌fantastic conversation with Erin Torkelson Weber, Upon your recomendation from your past video I bought Erin's book, along with Doug Sulpy's book, Im midway finishing Sulpy's book (Im enjoying this read!!!) so cant wait to start tearing into Erin's book. I like to add that ever since I started viewing your channel I immediatley noticed that what makes your videos so different and your content great is these intelligent conversations and the analizing of these stories and (mostly myths) that many of us Beatle fans have been led to believe for All these years, and you Matt (along with people like Mark Lewisohn and Erin) have really added to this narrative of the Beatles history, So very grateful for All your work and many thanks, Looking forward to part 2 of your interview with Erin.-Cheers 🍺
Thank you Ernie!
Awesome discussion Matt. Erin Weber proves the value of scholarship. I share the belief that any historical account that lacks a catalog of the source material does ask the reader to fly blind. I am so glad you are planning on having her on for more shows. By the way, as a historian she'll appreciate that she was able to follow Alfred McCoy and keep me engaged. Cheers.
Fascinating interview. Can't wait for the next part!
Hell yes. This is exactly what needs to be front and center whenever discussions on the Beatles (or any history subject) are held. Keep doing this. But then combine it with discussions/videos about different Beatle narratives. It would be awesome to go through different story lines and see how they hold up. The Allen Klein narrative would be a great one to start IMO. A. That guy gets blasted from all sides. Except, interestingly enough, from Ringo. B. What did he actually do, what DIDN'T he do. C. For example, the 20% always talked about Paul isn't actually 20%, if I recall correctly, it was 20% above their previous profits. Not 20% o the group. Which is a big difference. He does lose the chase for their publishing. He does get them an awesome new contract. He does not try an steal their catalog. He makes them a ton more money. He also gets busted doing a side deal on George's Bangladesh. Which he also screws up the tax status on. D. God forgive me for offering up a potential conspiracy theory. I have always found it super coincidental that all the British pop stars busted by Pilcher were also clients of Klein: Donovan, Stones, Beatles. (where is Lewisohn when you need him?). E) We all here stories about how he screwed the Stones, how did he screw over Sam Cooke , Donovan and his other clients?
You are spot on correct. I'd love to hear all of your points discussed
I didn't realize the connection between the Klein clients and the busts. Very interesting.
Great post about Allen Klien 👍 good food for thought.
@@popgoesthe60s52 It's probably coincidence, but it's a pretty striking coincidence considering that PIlcher was more than likely planting evidence. My point with Klein is that the whole thing just seems really overblown. Sure he hustled Lennon and then Lennon hustled George and Ringo to go along, but the alternative of Eastman is equally ridiculous. But I think it was the Beatles themselves and their hubris that really screwed them. They treated James like a pariah in the Let it Be Film. He may have been the most unhip man in London , but he's also holding a huge percentage of the Golden Goose. What were they thinking? They should have kissed his ass and bought the publishing. He's obviously shopping it.Why else would he be showing them his songbook. If you want it, buy it. Or learn how to get along with him. One more thing, they still got/get royalties from the songs being played. That always seems to be left out of the equation. Also, I always seem to hear murmurs of Linda's role in all of this. Why do I get the feeling that maybe she had a bigger role than we are led to believe in adding to the tension? But that is a subject that has always felt like it is wayyyyy off limits, more so now that she has passed away.
Great points!!
Many thanks to you both. A fascinating and well researched interview. Great work.
Thank you both for a great interview! It was fascinating to hear about all these levels of historical perspective, the controlled narratives and biases, how they come to be, how they can change and how to put them into perspective. It proves history as a living, breathing thing and insight in it can continue to develop over (a life)time. Looking forwards to hearing more from Erin!
Great interview! Lots of information. Thank you.
Matt, another great video. Good information, amazing how much there is to learn about the fab four.
Excellent Interview!!!! Do not pay attention to the haters. Most of the Beatles' history has been updated with this tremendous Documentary.
Thanks Matt, another fascinating video---I find I need to watch these more than once to get all the information discussed, hard to think of a higher complement, kudos on the channel!!!
Very high praise indeed! I really appreciate it.
Your channel, beatles-wise, is one of the very best, honestly. The way of dealing with the topics and the detail in which the subjects are analyzed are fascinating. Thanks and never stop doing this.
Thank you, Winston!
Another great video! 👍 can't wait for 2 and 3!!
Very interesting discussion!! I’m looking forward to the next one.
Thanks for watching, Danica!
Tuned in and saw it was 40+ minutes and thought I will listen for a couple of minutes but didn't expect to watch the whole interview. Was I surprised this was so informative and Erin was great!! Can't wait for parts 2 and 3. Will definitely look into getting her book.
That's high praise! Thanks for watching.
Great interview. I’d love to hear more about the impact on various narratives that come from people with big axes to grind.
One example would be when you showed how the Rolling Stone folks wrote about the Get Back / Let It Be sessions like the Beatles were at each others throats the whole time & arguing constantly where the Nagra recordings totally contradict that. Particularly with the “full of shiat” out of context quote. Another example being your video on the narrative that all of George’s songs were rejected and never given a serious chance during the Get Back sessions.
Thank you. Love your work and can’t wait to see more!
One of our next videos together will be _The Beatles Rogues Gallery of Biographers_ so stay tuned!
@@popgoesthe60s52 , hey, I'm looking forward to that one! But then, I look forward to all your vids, Matt.
Matt really digs deep. My favorite is the way he took Pete Worst's narrative of, "i have no idea why i was fired," to task. Hey Pete, they needed a better drummer.0
@@rudolphguarnacci197 interestingly,there's an audio/video clip out there,from I think the 70s,where Best says he quit the band because he though they wouldn't amount to anything!
@@anthonymunn8633
If you watch Matt's video he totally exposes Worst for what he is. I saw him play in a small bar in Gramercy Park (nyc) about 15 years ago and found it exciting. Went back a year later, it was completely immemorable.
Wonderful discussion. The Beatles are the greatest English-language band of all time.
I don’t do comments often, but I love this channel and enjoy the depth’s it takes us to. Thanks!!
Thank you, ToteBrown!
Excellent book. Great interview thanks. Can't wait to read the extended editions of Mark Lewisohn's next two volumes...
This is great Matt. The Hard Day's Night screenplay/film was a *product* of an actual phenomenon -- Beatlemania. It was a filtered reenactment of events which bolstered, solidified and amplified a narrative-mythology that was still in progress -- with concerts and newsreels as evidence. Fans fell in love with not just the music, but the film narrative and characters to a degree that the lines blurred. Was it documentary or actual historical events? Intuitively fans may have known the film was a larger than life representation. But who cared? Not conquered young souls. The longevity of the myth is incredible. Anyway, good point about the evolution of the various narratives.
All salient talking points.
Good point about 'it documentary or isn't it?' More to come!
great interview, matt; good work here, and very interesting; thanks so much for doing this
Thank you Matt for that great interview ! 👍
I first learned of Dr. Torkelson Weber's book through your narratives video. Really eye-opening stuff, especially for those of us who weren't alive for the first three dominant narratives. And it's a useful framework for looking at new projects, like "Get Back."
Just want to add my voice, Matt, to the many others who appreciate your work in general and this fascinating interview in particular. Keep up the great work!
Much thanks, Pete. I appreciate the support.
I became a huge Beatles fan in early 1970 at age 8. Initially, my data sources were my sister’s old issues of 16 magazine and the novelized ‘A Hard Days Night’, which I read before actually seeing the movie. That summer I got a better rounded view by reading the authorized biography by Hunter Davies plus Julius Fasts book on The Beatles. A couple years later, my perspective changed yet again after I read Lennon Remembers (I still remember trying to figure out what Fellini’s Satyricon was-a bit of an eye-opener for a 5th grader). My favorite book on the Beatles was probably ‘The Beatles Forever’ by Nicholas Schaefer. Thanks for this interview-For a band that was together for 7-8 years more than 50 years ago, the Beatles have continued to be a source of fascination and curiosity!
I've read most of Erin's book- it's so good! It's just funny in some cases- like the Paul John debate who wrote "Eleanor Rigby" .It has been said Paul picked Rigby from a phone book as he wanted his surname ( not Sir name lol). In a 1984 interview I read don't ask me the source. Paul said he was inspired by Bernard Hermann to compose" Eleanor . Rigby".
The staccato strings are reminiscent of Psycho, but they're the string arrangement, not the song's melody. Paul has said that the song's title is a combination of the actress Eleanor Bron (who was in the film Help! the previous year) and a shop in Bristol named Rigby's, but that discounts him possibly subconsciously remembering Eleanor Rigby's grave in St Peter's Church cemetery in Woolton.
I really love The Complete Recording Sessions.
I’m a Huge Beatles fa. Ty for this interview, how interesting.
Thanks so much for this interview! I am in the middle of the book now and I'm engrossed by it, particularly in light of Get Back.
Glad it was helpful!
Great discussion. I'm looking forward to the future offerings. I had to immediately recommend this podcast to James because the work that Erin does is similar to what James does except his work, of course, is in the area of geopolitics. I think he'd vibe to this especially well. Thanks again, Matt.
Hey Vin - yes, I've followed some of James' stuff and it does aligned with Erin's work. I always appreciate the comment!
Excellent interview. I bought and read Torkelson-Weber's book after seeing your review of it. Glad I did. Fantastic book to help sort out the myriad views of the Beatles' story - especially the main four. Thanks for going to the trouble to have her on. Erin's analytical, critical, academic approach was something lacking on my already over-corpulent Beatles bookshelf. Looking hugely forward to your next installments with this author.
Thank you for buying her book!
I have nothing much to add to the thoughtful and informed comments below, except to commend you for setting up this interview with Ms. Weber. Your presentations on this topic have been first-rate, but bringing in a professional historian who's worked on this material is invaluable. I look forward to your further discussions with her on the channel.
Her valuable work makes my job much easier! Thanks for commenting, Joe.
I got this book after watching your original video. I’m halfway through and had to stop due to forgetting to pack it while I’m away for a few months. And meantime, Get Back has just been released and the traditional wisdom had been turned on its head. And even that’s only a small part of the “real truth”.
Glad to hear you bought the book, Eric!
Great interview, look forward to the next ones!
Just as a trial jury only hears the case that the trial judge allows them to hear, the reader only gets the narrative that the author allows them to see. I guess the only remedy is to cross reference as many sources as possible and try to come as close to the "truth" as you can. A FASCINATING INTERVIEW! Thanks so much!☮☮☮
My pleasure, G MAN!
Matt, Needless to say, another great episode. I read the book based on your review of it and was mightily impressed. Music and history are probably my two favorite topics of study. Well, baseball is right up there, and there is a lot of history there as well - including bogus facts such as who invented baseball, Not Abner Doubleday, but the Hall of Fame ended up in Cooperstown based on that belief.
Erin's book made me toss out some of my so-called knowledge of the Beatles, and made me reflect on my own biases. Speaking of biases and revisionist writing, I saw in today's paper that Putin has 'scholars' rewriting Russian history books for students. Gotta trust those primary sources.
I think her book is one of the best on the group.
Matt ,Great interview ! Erin is terrific!
Interesting conversation. I would like to add/ask:
While choosing to illustrate according to WWI, this is not an ideal example. The book ‘In Stahlgewittern’ by soldier Ernst Jünger was published in 1920 (shortly after the war). It is a first-hand narrative of a soldier experiencing the trenches and the front, without delving into any of the political causes of that time. The book was first embraced but then lambasted by historic researches, since it could be read as pro/anti/neutral at the same time.
This brings me to a larger point of this discussion: what are we looking for when trying to establish a ‘definite’ narrative? What do we get out of it? Is it excitement, information or lessons on how to be a musician ourselves?
With the first motivation - which is the motivation of most as a fan or bystander - I would argue it is to the benefit of any source or writer to enlarge the oppositions and establish a ‘good guy-bad guy’ narrative. With the second and third, it is a more neutral look, not looking to blame, but looking to apply to one’s own life/creative endeavors.
Now, I would argue - especially in this case - that there is no such thing as a primary source. Even if you were to be able to access the diaries or thoughts and experiences of each individual band member, it would still be a very convoluted, nuanced whole. And press outings or writings always have a goal.
This brings me back to the WW1 story. Because we see in that example that a nuanced, largely un-opinionated publication will always lose out to the more ‘tasty’ narratives that are the driving forces of most people even delving into these topics.
The idea that each Beatle would have an equal part to contribute to such narratives, is part of that fallacy. Not because the were unequal, but because this all was not important to them. Case in point: Ringo. Each member had its own motivation to make music/be involved in music. And when asked about the recent documentary, Ringo doesn’t start about the story, but about ‘I don’t remember those sessions being that bad, it was general good vibes, I thought the original documentary was a bit of a bummer’.
And that’s where you get into psychology. Having played in quite a number of bands, there are a lot of musicians that are interested in ‘the experience/the moment’, which is what makes them energetic and good. They are - unconsciously - writing their own narrative by doing, by creating. And for text-based researchers, these are often less interesting as they are also generally not interested in furthering any narrative. (there are even some psychology-publications connecting personality-types to specific instruments: drummers are energetic, bassists are somewhat laid back and calculated, guitarists are show-offs/skill based, etc etc) . Now, those are of course debatable, but there are patterns, and a member more interested in narratives and writing, will always be able to represent themselves more effectively and prominently when mass media are involved.
And that’s what it comes back to for me: besides each member developing at a different rate and in several directions (which: to be fair, happens in each and every collective: at first you developments are largely identical through shared interests, but differences exponentially increase over time) it was also the need to grapple with these mass media - willingly or unwillingly - that advanced the end of the group.
How would the ‘get back’ sessions have gone differently without a constant camera-presence/pressure? Or did they contribute to concrete discussion? For Paul, they are clearly both a goal and frustration, as per discussed here. (Btw: I would argue he is very good at media, but only by virtue of all the stumbles at the beginning, imagine this being a period where starting to exact some control by the artist themselves was unheard of).
My own perspective is that of the working artist (painter) and musician, trying to learn some lessons and pick out the cherries. And with the songs that have the largest emotional impact on me, I want to understand how that works, without taking away the mystery. And to be honest: the new ‘Get Back’ docu is the greatest at that: you see where the lightning strikes, but also where they are drifting at see - and how they support each other to get through that.
Interested to know from people/the author here: what do you personally get from it? Does it expand/confirm your experience, does it excite you? Do you want to help establish their historical presence? Etc.?
Ah, Matt finally got the girl haha. I'll listen to this with great interest. This could be the finest trilogy since 'Get Back' (definitely better than Lord of the Rings!)
Jackson isn't the only one with a Trilogy up his sleeve! Thank you, Antony.
Excellent show PG 60s !!
This is great stuff Matt.
On your advice I read her book and enjoyed it, especially the 2nd half as the first half delves into the fab four narrative. Seems to be pretty harmless - marketing PR narrative.
The sweet spot in Erin's book is The "Lennon remembers" and "Shout" narrative...It's hard NOT to see those older narratives as malice now.
Lennon saying he is 75% of the beatles?? Come on John... and Phillip Norman appears to have brought the national enquirer to rock biographies..
I'm thankful for scholars like Lewisohn, Erin Weber and you who are taking the time to look at these things without the tinted lenses of the past.
Such a great time to live in and be a Beatles fan.
Great conversation. Matt, what I love about your channel is you are about the facts. You can love The Beatles and their music, but if you’re too much of a fanboy or fangirl you become blind to truth. I see The Beatles as human. I like that they were flawed as musicians and as people. And, I love hearing the truth about what really happened instead of someone’s bias.
Thank you, Jay. I agree. The truth doesn't detract from the music at all. I have many a fanboy come after me because I dare to offer something truthful they just don't want to hear. The fanboys are separating themselves from more academic Beatle fans like myself and the chasm is growing wider between the two groups.
@@popgoesthe60s52 everyone of course is entitled to their own “mythology” of the Beatles, so to speak, and god knows that I myself have one of those. That being said, it’s SO refreshing to read something like Tune In or watching your channel.
Matt ,your intelligence is what makes your u tube channel great...enjoy every single post...BE WELL
Very nice of you to say, Joe. Thank you.
Interesting, fascinating, to hear Erin talk of the way George and Ringo have not, until recently, had their roles properly examined.
I recall reading somewhere someone saying that 'George never had the power, but he had the influence', which has always stuck with me, on the basis that there's possibly a 'George narrative', if you will, to be written down the line.
Consider that the 12-string Rickenbacker in the 'Hard Day's Night' era pretty much invents electric-folk music (Byrds etc...with ripples throughout musical history to, say, REM and beyond), that the sitar in 'Norwegian Wood' comes from it being a prop in an Indian restaurant scene in 'Help', and leads on to -arguably- the pure Indian music of 'Within You, Without You' and the trip to Rishikesh, Ravi Shankar's 'Woodstock' appearance and so on.
George, you could argue, pretty much invents 'world music' right there.
Without researching it in context, the sitar on their records frames up a scenario where BBC Radio 3 (the UK's original classical station) can now broadcast lunchtime concerts of Indian classical music and shift an entire 'them and us' mindset towards the UK's Asian immigrants towards them being an enriching of Britain. 'Their' (Indians) music was now 'cool' music, courtesy of George. Today, the BBC has an entirely separate station 'Asian Network', which broadcasts music of the Indian sub-continent, including its more modern variants like bhangra, (something originating in the Punjabi diaspora) to the UK. Does George lay the foundations for this? I think, at least, he trowelled some cement into the first brick!
I've actually written to the BBC and asked the question: 'Remember those sitar recitals you used to broadcast live from Birmingham [Warwickshire, not Alabama, US readers] in the early 70s? Any chance of re-broadcasting them?'
That extends to George's patronage of the whole 'Hare Krishna' movement in the UK: both as issued on Apple Records and in general society (he donated Bhaktivedanta Manor to the movement, their centre in the UK for many years).
And all of this reminds me, with the broadcast of the Jackson films, that The Beatles were very much at the forefront of an enriching of the Asian (Indian) experience in the UK. George is inviting the 'Hare Krishnas' to Twickenham. The whole band engage in 'The Commonwealth Song/No Pakistanis', a satire on a speech by by British politician Enoch Powell, who foresaw 'rivers of blood' by having these 'foreigners' in the UK. And then drop it, realising that an audience probably wouldn't understand satire: although the line 'Get Back to where you once belonged' does have a future in Beatles-lore. The Beatles *got* the whole immigration debate whereas, ironically, Eric Clapton who was going to get George's guitars when they divvied them up (good Scouse word, divvy) after he walked out, *didn't*, ranted a bit on stage with the assistance of...cocaine?...and is still being reminded of the fact. ('Enoch was right', he fumed from a stage...)
George, more than John or Paul, is the Dylan acolyte throughout (and beyond) The Beatles career, although I'd be loathe to suggest that George (or John or Paul) pretty much 'broke' Dylan to a UK audience. Dylan was coming anyway, but George was a champion, and remained one until his death.
George invents 'Unplugged', kind of, with the Kinfauns demos.
And towards the end, after hanging out with The Band (and to a degree very much responsible for bringing them to the greater attention of the UK media and buying public) absolutely gets this 'roots music' idea, some of which is very evident in the Let it Be/Get Back 'back to basics' approach. Damn, they even end up recording in the basement of Savile Row, not a million miles away from Dylan/The Band woodshedding in the basement of Big Pink. I'm not clear whose idea it was for the 'no overdubs' approach to Let it Be/Get Back sessions, but with his mindset at the time, George was clearly going to buy into it.
George introduces, to some degree, 'the synthesiser in pop' with his purchase of one of the first Moogs in the UK, and it's utilised on some of 'Abbey Road'.
Some day, someone is going to write a 'George Harrison and his influence on the 60s and beyond' book...and it's going to frame him in the context of being as important, in a different way, to Lennon and McCartney.
Two brilliant, excellent Zoom conversations so far. Thank you Matt, thank you Erin. Looking forward to the third instalment.
Thank you for the substantive comment! I have one more video with Erin coming, so stay tuned!
Hi- one year later am rereading the book. Aren't we forgetting the " Beatles Fan Club" fanzine version?. At least there are Factual events listed- for instance tours and recording dates. Most people know every Christmas Beatle fans we're given a Christmas single- not available to the public. Although there was an album compilation of these songs. Lennon released Happy Christmas War is Over much later and Harrison released Ding Dong Ding Dong. I'm enjoying the book!!!
Erin is surely the most objective writer about the Beatles, and eclipses all in that objectivity. Looking forward to getting her book, though it's currently a bit on the pricey side.
Who lives, who dies, who tells the story?
Great discussion.
(Concerning Galveston. Isaac's Storn was a best seller. But Al Roker's book is more recent and includes many details left out in earlier books.)
Great video once again! What's the old line: "History is an agreed upon set of lies." Throughout Fab history there are various versions of stories. Did the Beatles jam with Elvis in 1965? Lennon and the Memphis Mafia said yes but Paul, George and Ringo said no. One of the few big stories that is virtually verbatim in all books, videos, etc. is the time they met Dylan. (Dylan mistaking the lyric "I can't hide," Ringo....of course it was Ringo.....lighting the torch, and Paul's "seven levels" revelation.
Great video once again!
Very interesting subject. Even though ultimately the history of a rock band isn’t the most important thing in the world (even the greatest rock band of all time), we have to remember that the version of history we learn is only a certain telling. That history isn’t just an objective account of what happened, but that it’s a narrative that was created about what happened based on certain sources. We see that now with discussions about the Civil War. Age old politics are still influencing the narratives we tell about things that we thought we knew from history class. In many cases, we were told outright lies to fit a particular narrative. That’s why history is so important in general.
I think that's the point she's making, that how one goes about researching and reporting history is as important as the historical event itself.
You,sir, are a great interviewer.Hope you do more like this.
Plenty more to come! Thank you for the comment.
Don’t even get me started regarding ‘historian-Rolling-Stone’ guided rewrites of history!
This is exactly what I cover in my review of Get Back.
This is an incredible interview - thank you!
Thank you, Ted!
A flash synopsis of her book: Beatles, minus the slant, P.R. pablum, interpersonal bias, and presented with as much context and as many vetted facts as was scholastically possible for someone who wasn't standing alongside the four subjects from 1960-70.
If nothing else, the book is an overdue red flag to Beatles fans (or fans of any entity, really) that every topic is subject to the predispositions, biases and blatant self-interest of the author, and possibly worse, his sources -- vetted and otherwise.
The reality of the publishing world is that a regurgitation of old facts or recycled storylines only works once per generation (hence, three remakes of "A Star is Born"). So, in order to sell books to even the most hardcore fans, the author has to find a new hook. These days, that's often accomplished by picking at nerves, throwing sidearm (baseball term) and changing the rhythm of the song altogether. It's the equivalent of using a screaming Yoko.
Well done, Erin.
By the way, as a related aside, with many county libraries going digital to save money and space, you can find tons of Beatles books by getting a library card and establishing an online log-in. You can read many of these books on your phone, tablet or desktop. Happy hunting, fans!
I appreciate the knowledgeable comment, Steve!
Agreed Steve, i happened to find Ringo's Photo book at the Library and loved it. Library is a great resource and who has unlimited $$ anyways..
Regarding secondary sources in "Shout," in the preface, Norman writes, "I would like to thank John, Paul, George and Ringo for their help with this book. However, I can't because they didn't."
Great discussion guys. This should be used as an example in high schools learning about the pros and cons of primary and secondary sources.
I agree with you Matt that I felt Paul wasn’t a great PR man that John said but was the better out of the rest. He was never that outspoken or unpredictable and most at ease. He often answered interview questions with: Er I dunno 😂
Like Erin, I specialized in American History in University. If you ever want to know about U.S. Grant, I can probably help you out. LOL I also took a course on Historiography and although it was a bit pedantic it was very useful when working on my graduate degree. You recommended this book to me earlier, Matt, and I REALLY do need to give it a read. Thanks to Erin for this.
Hey Paul, I've heard some of the U.S. Grant narratives and they will make one's head spin! We'll have to talk more history in our upcoming chats.