BEATLES NARRATIVES and the LIES WE'VE BEEN TOLD |
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 тра 2024
- Erin Torkelson Weber's book THE BEATLES AND THE HISTORIANS: An Analysis fo Writings About the Fab Four outline the four Beatles narratives that have shaped the telling of Beatles history. This book review offers highlights and an overview of the book.
Purchase the book: THE BEATLES AND THE HISTORIANS: An Analysis fo Writings About the Fab Four - amzn.to/2JoPUJV
SUPPORT Pop Goes the 60s on PATREON: rb.gy/nhcy3
Lennon even says at the end of the Wenner interview something like, "if you talk to me again in an hour I may say something completely different." He was quite open about it.
Yes, it was rare to catch him being consistent.
@@Fool3SufferingFools the description posted by Snyder is a description of a what most people considered a normal personality.
Evidently Fool3 and you have not been around many geniuses if you have you would know they are not sitting still waiting for the next thought.
John in the 1980 Playboy interview, a summary: "I said that, but I was lying".
@@jessetwo1 Well, sure, many people are inconsistent (genius or not), but Lennon gets points for the vociferousness with which he would voice things that he could contradict an hour later.
@@matthewsnyder6127 So you can psychoanalyze John Lennon’s whole life on one flippant comment he made in a interview.
Lets not forget that we are talking about guys who were still in their twenties when broke up .
I really like your approach to Beatles historical events. No spin, no agenda, just facts 👍🏻
McCartney has said more recently that because credits now get truncated online, younger generations find "Yesterday" apparently only credited to Lennon, as "McCartney" gets left off. That would be a reasonable premise, I think, to flip the credits on that song.
I don't believe that at all and I think it's more like another phoney excuse and a ploy by PeePeePaul in his never ending quest to get everything.
@@rudolphguarnacci197 Yep!!
On one hand, I think Paul's being unreasonable because it's revisionist. On the other hand, there are credits very early on that read McCartney/Lennon. But he just makes himself look bad pursuing it. I think he finally let it go, IIRC.
Didn't Paul come out later saying....nevermind on that? He regretted it?
@@paulaelizabeth_ShamanStar
His new-found greed supercedes any magnanimous action he may take. In other words, he's full of sh--.
You made me feel so old. I can remember when the Beatles were an actual band and now it's getting analyzed by historians!!
You’re gonna start getting analyzed by historians next! Haha just kidding
We were just a band that made it very very big.
@@maxg1836 Analyzed or revised?
@@josephmayotte8879 maybe I side with the revisionists. These guys want to sell books. So why not just make something up and fine a quote or two to try and prove it. How does the maker of this video tell us we have been lie to about the history of “The Beatles,” well he could be right but who’s history are you going to believe. To hell with, The Beatles private lifestyle. All you need to know about them is their music. It took all four of them not one or two.
@@jessetwo1 all four , yes i agree ,
"Sounds like journalism today" Very well said! I don't know how I ended up on your channel but its great!
Welcome! Plenty more to come.
The only Beatles history that rings true is their music. I’ve always loved the Beatles, the greatest band of all time. John, Paul, George, and Ringo each contributed to the amazing song catalogue we all know and love. It’s pretty easy (and common) to see other bands change personnel from time to time, but there’s no way to begin to envision the Beatles without all members. Books can take liberties with the truth, but in the end it’s their music that marks them down in history as the greatest band of all time.
Agreed..........Everything else is speculation based on individual perspectives
Very well put---objective!
Not even this works as this ignores early recordings and the part played by other musicians in creating "their" music.
@@ChrisBrown-ig5ip
The Beatles themselves have openly acknowledged their musical influences and have paid homages to them many times over the decades.
Bill Jones
It's so true. They wouldn't have made it with any one of them not in the band.
The fact that four guys from Liverpool have this many narratives recounting the minutia of only 10 years as a band, and subsequent breakup, is fascinating in and of itself.
They have achieved such a mythical status that people cease to believe these four guys from a small town created such a legendary catalog that still thrives and continues to influence 50 years later. The fact is they were real people who worked very very hard, had incredible talent and drive and like with the rest of us had faults, controversies and insecurities. In my mind that’s what makes them even more great. They were not Gods, they were ordinary people who make amazing achievements through hard work and perseverance.
Liverpool isn't a small town
As a seventy- year- old musician who was impacted by the Beatles, I have not read any of the titles mentioned for a reason. It is their MUSIC which survives the test of time. Not writers taking liberties with twice told tales. I respect the massive task Mark Lewisohn has taken on to provide facts, not fallacies. Some dive deeply into memory pools, looking for treasure, when the songs speak to the hearts and souls of those standing on shore.
That is a very healthy approach. Focus on the music. Thanks for the comment.
Mark Lewisohn's biography abounds in fallacies. You say you're interested in their MUSIC - check out The Songwriting Secrets of the Beatles or the much more challenging The Beatles As Musicians. These are probably the two best. The very first fine musical analysis Twilight Of The Gods is also worth looking into, if only from an historic perspective.
Songwriting Secrets is such a great book that you can actually use it to learn (modern) music theory.
@@gumbycat5226 Thanks for the info. Their raw musicality was and is a pleasure to listen to to this day. Perhaps you might like a song I wrote. All the best! ua-cam.com/video/0JywK0u2Q90/v-deo.html
@@jamesdrynan That was awesome. Thanks for sharing it with me and my three dogs!
James, I saw a small youtube run down on whether the guys knew any music theory. About music, yes, but still an interesting historical discussion. They knew the concepts of music theory, but didn't know that they knew. That was an eye opener and made the music what it is.
Generally speaking, by Lennon's own admission, he was a chameleon. He adapted to whomever he was with, saying sometimes he'd tell the truth, sometimes he'd lie, or sometimes he'd talk shit in the moment. Also of note was his penchant for being wholly reactionary, truth be damned if he could get a dig in. The only saving grace here, is he would be the first to admit when he did such a thing. Pick an interview, and you'll get a "I wasn't that close to Paul", or "he was my best friend". It's all in the moment, and as such, not very reliable. As random and unguarded as Lennon was, McCartney is generally shielded and as diplomatic as can be. Somewhere in the middle, lies the truth. Interesting video.
Great observation. Thanks for the insightful comment.
"Chameleon" is not the word I'd use. Lennon was tendentious, but in a way that often cut both ways. I agree that he labored to provide a narrative that put Yoko Ono in the best possible light. McCartney's description of her as just another groupie seems more likely than Lennon as a fanboy at one of her exhibitions. But what makes Lennon's testimony more compelling and McCartney's more suspicious is that Lennon often makes himself out to be in the wrong. A Lennon interview is a snap shot of what was going on in his head at the time. A McCartney interview is an exercise in public relations.
@@Kermit_T_Frog I don't buy this. Clearly, Paul regarded his "brand" different than John did, Paul did not like John's random distructive behavior against his fellow Beatles. I believe they all cared for each other its just that John didn't want to admit it. Paul is not perfect, but it's much clearer than John's.
@@paddle_shift Nonsense. John rebelled against "brand." That would be why he was always changing his skin. Paul does little else other than work on his brand.
@@Kermit_T_Frog Your describing the difference between Trump and Biden 🤪
To this day McCartney often does not get the recognition he deserves because of those narratives you described. But things are changing and for people who are interested it's easy to find out what huge an impact McCartney had. Great video!
And he's always accused of rewriting history!
@@simosa5842 a ridiculous claim made popular by this one Lennon-biographer.
@@simosa5842 The funny thing is he’s just setting the record straight but whatever he says will just be seen as revisionism
hannah...you must be really young to think mccartney didn't get the recognition he deserved. i was around when the beatles were they hit north america. lennon and he got enormous credit....harrison and starr less so.
@@brupic8968 You don't have to had been around then to know that Paul doesn't get the recognition he deserves sometimes. Right from the start of the breakup, false narratives have been pushed in support of John and against Paul. These narratives have been perpetuated by Rolling Stone, other media, and multiple authors. These false narratives have made many people automatically see Paul a certain way and overlook his contributions to the Beatles and music in general. Although new books with more reliable information have come out against these false narratives and there is easy access to any information you want on the internet, there are still many who believe these lies.
Forget "Stardom lifestyles" of the Beatles. They were human beings with faults, egos and failures. What's MORE important is the music they created in their early days. Their music was so simple and is STILL loved by millions today. Good music stands the test of time whilst the rest of the mediocre stuff just fades away. Thank you guys 👍
So true. When one thinks about it, what is true or false about any of our lives? It is all very subjective, even if one was there and a part of the events. Psychologists today will point out that our memories of events in our lives are quite faulty. All humans tend to make up stuff that goes into memories to replace fuzzy recollections. We can't trust our own memories, interestingly.
I was around during the breakup years and was following the Beatles closely . We all were dismayed with Lennon’s discouraging accounts in those years especially any having to do with Rolling Stone magazine. You have to look no further than the Rock and Roll hall of fame to see how some ( Jan Wenner) are trying to manipulate musical history .
That Jann Wenner controls the RnR HoF is an absolute travesty. Couldn’t think of a worse guy to be in control of such a thing. He’s never cared about the truth he only cares to serve the false narrative he pushes.
Alistair Taylor anybody. Conveniently rubbed out of very important Beatles history.
Why, what did they do to Alistair Taylor?
Even reading ‘shout’ as a kid I couldn’t understand the bashing of McCartney and the saying Lennon done everything. It didn’t fit with the music I was listening to. Even then I could pretty much tell who wrote what and it didn’t seem that Lennon done everything. It always seemed to me McCartney was every bit a genius. ... nice video dude .
Ditto, man!
McCartney more so the genius
@nice nice nice nice nice nice nice nice nice let's just be happy no publisher wants his number!
@nice nice nice nice nice nice nice nice nice
Hope that prick is wearing red high heels now. I don't care that he was a Manchurian candidate.
@nice nice nice nice nice nice nice nice nice
I agree with you on all points. I still think dubious sources put him up to it.
Great vid; very interesting. Lennon was never reliable, it seems to me. His views swung dramatically with his shifting moods.
Thank you! As George Harrison said in the Anthology, "I don't think we realized the extent to which John was screwed up."
As an armchair psychologist,John might have been bi polar.
@@PC4USE1 If you read Cynthia Lennon's Book. You get the feeling she never knew what personality would be shown from day to day. She called him very complicated. So I always thought after reading that he had a lot of issues maybe bipolar.
@@leaflnstream. I too never took anything Lennon said very seriously, which is kind of sad because he should’ve been more straightforward and honest wh3n it came to talking about the Beatles, but NOOOOOOOOOOOO........ he was always exaggerating and stretching the truth and actual facts, which is surprising because he had a reputation of always “telling it like it is” which is so far from the truth. Gimme some truth, yeah right.
Look for the girl with the STONE in her eye and she's gone.
I'm a history major and when I first heard about that book I knew we were finally entering a truly academic and scientific study of The Beatles. It's a great read and I look forward to Lewisohn and Weber leading the way for proper analysis.
I'm on the side of you doing more videos like this.
I was thrilled to read this and feel like we are finally getting the truth after all these years. Thanks for watching - more to come!
I figure the Beatles were four guys with a lot of creative musical talent, lots of ambition and an unusual ability to stay true to themselves and grow artistically and personally. This was all laced with a big streak of fun and mischief that was infectious. And I say this as an outside observer, a fan, who has had no actual contact with "The Fab Four", or with anyone who has... that I know of. My only claim to fame is I sat behind Paul at a Broadway show a few years back. I spent the entire show looking at the back of his head, throughly amazed that this was the same guy I saw on The Ed Sullivan Show... all those years ago.
I agree with you. That´s why her website is my favorite Beatle site:
beatlebioreview.wordpress.com/category/erin-weber/
Well said Paul. The time is ripe for rigorous scholarship to, at the very least, separate myth from reality.
@@Peter7966 Agreed💯🖌BTW This funny image just came to come to mind~ could'nt Help..! picture you sitting there trying to watch a show whilst👤👥, this head of his🦳(Paul)caught your attention for a brief periode of time. Damn,that headshape looks sort of familiar to me.Any idea..?🤔...Ed's a bit more oval shaped,What about..Oh,just let it Be🤨🧐😲...atles Paul of all😃☺️,literally sense the notes...(Might sound insane..Yet this somehow gave me a roadtrip(free of charge🎟🎫;)through memory lane🎞🥿👟👡👢~The power of real music...(🗣🎙📻🎶📺🙅🏽♂️🥁🎵💁🏻♂️🎹🎤🙎🏻♂️👬🎸🙋🏻♂️🛵🚶🏻♂️🦶🏼🚬👦🏻👩🏼🦰🧘🏻♂️👨🏻🧑🏻🧖🏻♂️🤹🏻♂️🕺🏾🎼🧔🏻🧥🤵🏻💐👰🏼🤱🏼🏞🌾🤸🏼♂️👩👧🚜🏡👨🏻🌾🐎👨🏻💼💃🏻💏💍👨🏼🦳📚💿📀🙂!!)Sorry'just loved the way you told your story😉✌🏼
McCartney seems like the motor who kept the band running, who pushed them forward.
In the early days it was more Lennon as the driving force, in the latter days it was more McCartney, but it was always both of them.
@Hank Hendrix because artist saying things about each other and people in the studio have nothing to do with it? I guess we can't say that Alexander the Great ever founded an Empire or that the American Civil War never happened?
Were you there to see those things?
@Hank Hendrix This person did not reinforce anything. Stop your stupid trolling.
@@jimmymelendez1836 I don't think he's trolling. It seems like he's a genuine idiot
@@crazy224488 When he thinks this person is reinforcing his point when he really isn't. That's an idiot. You're not wrong there.
I'm relieved to know that I haven't missed much by not reading every book that's been published about the Beatles.
John during early 70s tried to hide the fact of McCartney's talent , so by 1980 John started admmiting how great Paul is because it was so obvious, John was just so insecure
I don't think that's really the case. John probably attacked his own talent more than anyone during the 70s. He also said Band on the Run was great when it came out. For whatever reason, Lennon was all over the place. Seemed his state of mind controlled his actions and at any time he might go off on someone or something. I don't see any evidence of him trying to hide McCartney's talent, but when he was pissed at Paul he would go off and attack some of his music.
@@stickman1742 John was not happy about Paul not trying to reunite The Beatles as he did in the 60s , all the Beatles albums were a Success thanks to the dedication of Paul to keep the group together, John never had the same success and he was never happy about that, with the Double Fantasy John finally came back to be the talented guy he was in the 60s and never tried again to speak against Paul, in his last Playboy interview he admits how great was Paul during The Beatles and also after The Beatles because is the truth.
I find it unfortunate how John turned on Paul during the 70's. Paul had his reputation thoroughly dragged by journalists, critics, and John. I think that John's narrative is still present today because many still think of Paul as a simple pop artist, when he was much more sophisticated than that. Phillip Norman in his biography of Paul flips from his "Shout!" view and portrays Paul as being the true avant-garde Beatle. Very interesting point that you made! John was very insecure and would lash out at others because of it. I am thankful that in his final years he was able to make peace with Paul and with himself.
@@nerktwin I agree with you, that's exactly the truth.
Hmmm.. I didn't like ANYTHING McCartney did after Band on the Run... at all.. but I sure liked Lennon's (part of his) last album. I felt that he stepped away, came back, and wrote BETTER songs than McCartney did in his ensuing 7 years between Band on the Run and Lennon's Double Fantasy in '80. Now, when I saw McCartney in 2002, he did 95% of his concert on songs from Band on the run BACK. So very little after it which I REALLY enjoyed in its absence.
Great to see Erin's book getting so positively showcased. Her contributions to the "Something About The Beatles" (SATB) podcasts are a true highlight of an already excellent show.
Brilliant Podcast as is Robert Rodriguez' wondrous Revolver book XX
what a gift to find this channel!
I have always been embarassed by all this Mac Cartney's bashing going on. My opinion was that Paul was acting much more like a real gentleman. John was such an Alpha Male and obviously jealous. But... they were the Gods of this Epoch. No wonder this fooled their minds.
It makes my piss boil that With John and Paul its you either like one or the other, they were both brilliant in different ways but together they were unstoppable!
Peter Brown's book was very condescending towards all the Beatles, especially all his snide references to them being "Northern" men as if that was a bad thing. I will never forget that the caption under a picture of John laying on his back to sing in a different way said: "John, so stoned he had to lay on the floor". John was NOTORIOUS for always trying to get his voice to sound different.
Peter Brown was from Liverpool.
@@gumbycat5226 Then I don't understand his condescending attitude.
@@SuperGogetem It's possibly how you read him. He is certainly cynical but that is fairly common in the North of England. I read his book as a gossipy "show and tell" and the thing that most impresses me is its correlation with Pete Shotton and Ray Coleman. It has two of the most revealing stories about the Beatles, the episode in the lift (which Brian Epstein vaguely alludes to in his memoir) and the birds on curtains. It also comes to an assessment that John's heroin use and not Yoko was the largest factor in their breakup, an interesting perspective in a topic that will always be debated, and this from their Mr. Fixit.
That book depressed me when I read it as a teenager. You'd think being a Beatle was the worst thing ever.......
Very interesting. Something we should all remember, none of us were there; none of us could ever comprehend the stresses and complications that came with being thrusted into the mega-super-stardom that is "The Beatles". No one on Earth could ever know who these guys really were, besides themselves.
I love reading personal accounts, because if you weren't there, you learn from who was.
"Honesty" is NOT the same thing as "truth".
@@pheresy1367 who said it was?
@@pheresy1367 oh what is the differnece
@@oldermusiclover
Honesty is only your personal view of what YOU believe how things are.
Truth is ACTUALLY how things are.
There can be an immense gap between the two.
@@pheresy1367 ok never thought of it that way
The simple truth is that these four ridiculously talented, brilliant, strong willed and healing songwriters and performers wrote the soundtrack of our lives and influenced every band that came after (whether those bands know it or not), were the most important band in the history of rock & roll, and their songs are sacred ground for those of us left to absorb those amazing songs. Losing John Lennon in such a horrific way, and then losing the tragically and often overlooked George Harrison to cancer has made me very defensive of these four giants of the world 🌎 of music! They were the first BAND, the best BAND, and the BAND we're all still talking about some fifty years after they broke up! That should say enough about them by itself!
The truth is this world 🌍 would be a much darker, lonelier, and emptier place without the Beatle's music! Nuff said! ✌🏼😎❤️
Nuff said and well said too.
Saw McCartney at Fenway Park maybe 7-8 years ago. Paul McCartney’s performance speaks for itself. His musical prowess was exceptional - I think he played 4 or 5 different instruments - Sensational Concert.
You aren’t kidding. On his first solo album, he played pretty much every instrument by himself.
Back when the Book "Shout" was released, I was friends with and around some of the Beatles and their families. I mentioned at the time I had just read it to one of the Beatle wives, who rolled her eyes, shook her head and said "Don't believe everything you read in it!" She was not at all happy about the portrayals of them in that book.
I can imagine! I also note that you didn't (dare?) mention it to any of the Beatles themselves!
which one?
@@SpamEggSausage I think if the man was lame enough to need to gratuitously name drop, he would've done so when he posted his comment in the first place. (Which is just the sort of thing that I was thinking when I nearly knocked Sean Lennon into a table at a Grand Royal Records VIP party at SXSW a few years back...)
@@kenlieck7756 I was curious because he says some not very nice things about most of the Beatle wives. They don't come off at all well in the book (for example, he makes Cynthia seem really dense)
am curious do you have any idea or know why George and Ringo and George and Eric stayed such good friends after each one of them had stolen or tried to seal the others wives. maybe i'm old fashioned but i would not have trusted a friend after that
John Lennon didn't want LENNON REMEMBERS PUBLISHED, THE PERSON FROM THE ROLLING STONE SAID HE WOULDN'T AND WENT AND PUT IT IN ROLLING STONE MAGAZINE ANYWAY.
Glad that Rolling Stone magazine has become more and more irrelevant as they have a VERY leftist agenda. Same with SNL..haven't watched it for over 20 years. At some point, most people grow up.
www.vanityfair.com/style/2017/09/jann-wenner-john-lennon-and-the-greatest-rolling-stone-cover-ever
@@Cryo837 The first stuff that pissed me off about Rolling Stone was the dogged insistence of sniffing up Bruce Springsteen's butt ever issue or two, or Tom Petty. I mean, why ? Really.. why???? It went downhill from there...
@@silasmarner7586 They also used to trash Led Zeppelin on a regular basis.
@@Cryo837 La-De-Da
I have been in bands since I was 16 years old (69 now). I been in bands with roadies ,and bands where we carry our own equipment. It's very, very hard for 4 or 5 guys to get along and keep a successful band together. The Beatles lasted about 11 years. The rolling stones are still together. I admire them both.
larry....stones are kind of still together. two of the original members quit or died decades ago and poor old watts recently
Band shit!
I've never joined any band in over 40 years, and the downside is, I never get any roadies, but the upsides are, I get all the money and none of the hassle.
I don't see The Stones as being "brothers" like The Beatles were..Also I don't think they were subjected to quite the same level of fame/hysteria? The Stones were...and still are ..really Jagger and Richards ..and they've never been as close as The Beatles were. Just my opinion.
larry....only mick and keef are 'still together'
'Revolution in the head' is one of the best books on music that I've ever read.
If you want an example of why you cannot rely on one of the Beatles testimony to the exclusion of the others, listen to the part in the Beatles Anthology where they talk about visiting Elvis Presley. All 3 of the remaining Beatles give wildly different accounts of what happened and during the conversation they admit that all three accounts cannot be reconciled with one another.
That's a very good point. That part of the Anthology is dealt with a bit of humor, which I appreciate but it really shows a Rashomon scenario with every remembering the incident differently. Thanks for the insightful comment.
@@popgoesthe60s52 Many miscarriages of justice have demonstrated how fallible witness testimony can be and it is probably the least reliable form of evidence, despite seeming compelling.
There has also been a growing amount of study of false memories and the most vividly remembered incidents can be proved to be wrong. Looking at it from the other side, it's frighteningly easy to instil a false memory.
And this can all happen without any necessary intent to deceive, ill-will, self-justification or any emotional investment at all.
@@johnnhoj6749 well put, sir, thank you!
And John's recollection is a fourth version.
I would be willing to bet that all four of them were stoned on some high quality herb when they met Elvis and along with that, Elvis was probably, at that time, so full of uppers and downers that he was also just as stoned. How any of them could remember details of that day is beyond me.
You have a great voice for this. Love the Beatles stories. Can't get enough. The Beatles were so groundbreaking it's hard to believe it was real.
Thank you Gregory!
Very interesting analysis except what in my opinion knocks all other Beatle books for six - Mark Lewisohn's Tune In - only gets a brief mention at the end. Tune In is a tremendous work towering above all others and the only biography which reveals the truth about how The Beatles ended up at Parlophone which was NOT because of George Martin.
Brain Epstein! What a LEGEND!
@@markhoyle2988 They couldn't have made it without Brian, for sure, but it is also true that Brian didn't really understand such things as merchandising licensing and thus failed to capitalize on untold millions of pounds of more money they were all actually due. The Beatles themselves ended up not too keen on Dick James because of his incredible personal wealth gleaned off publishing their songs. So, I'm not necessarily blaming Epstein for them getting ripped off, because in fact he was just somewhat naive about some aspects of the business, but that naivete did cost them millions.
I've read a LOT of Beatles books including the entire "Anthology" book. I've developed my own impression of the band members over the past 50+ years I've been listening to them.
Paul is the natural musician, he know how to get the sound in his head down on tape. He's also a people pleaser and can be difficult to work with (ask the members of Wings).
John was the intellect, the wordsmith, the poet and the humorist. He's more an instinctual if undisciplined musician who needs help creating the sounds he hears in his head. I think that flaw is a gift in disguise because he was more willing to accept input from other members of the group. He's a better lyricist than Paul most days, Paul tends to be lazy in that regard. I find his song the most creative and the ones I most look forward to listening to on each album.
George may not be a guitar god or master songwriter but he is undervalued. His songs bring peace and calm for the soul (All Things Must Pass, Here Comes the Sun, Blow Away) and his humor often shines through. His solos are imprinted on each Beatles song he played on. He works better with a strong producer.
Ringo is a natural drummer but not a natural songwriter. His voice isn't the greatest but it's likable, there's a relaxed charm to it that you trust. Some of his drum fills on Beatles songs are truly iconic. His "Ringo" album had the most help from the other Beatles and that says a lot.
I remember asking myself if I was the only one to see the irony of the title? 'Lennon remembers' he keeps forgetting names of albums, and their order of release, stuff like that . I figured ,''reefer and LSD mess up your memory''.but I tore thru it so many times it fell apart (paperback.)I was a fascinated BEATLE fan.
Very true. You're waiting for him to say, "Now which one was George again?"
Dude, this kind of content is what makes UA-cam so powerful! Well researched, engaging, and easy to follow. Please keep making stuff like this man!
Thank you, Edgar. There is plenty more to come!
Having read all the books mentioned plus many more, I come back to the centre, as one will do. The new "Get back" movie will be a good example of how a movie director can angle a film (or book) to fit a current narrative, the break up of the Beatles. The Beatles were four human beings dealing with all the stresses of life equal to all of us, but with massive fame, money, drugs, sex, and rock n roll added. God bless them.
Add on wife’s & kids & extended family. The crazy tabloid photographers & fans, they couldn’t move w/o an audience- this hasta be distracting at best. They all were under pressure & growing up with responsibilities & really big $$$ that others like Allen Klein (Paul didn’t trust him & was right, but Linda’s dad & brother where Pauls choice & the others resented that) had their eyes on. Apples other artists were costing their company money. A lot of shit.
Man, I have a channel in Portuguese about the Beatles. More than 30k people here. I just found yours and what a pleasure it has been. Congratulations! You are an inspiration. Cheers from Brazil. I just posted on Instagram how great is your channel
I just read that book and it is EXCELLENT! It’s really a must read for any Beatles fan. This guy did a great job giving a synopsis of the book.
I come from a family of eight. When the 6 kids got together and started to talk about some of the incidents that we all shared there were at least 4 different takes on what really transpired Police often find. Eye witness testimony
The term for this line of analysis is historiography- roughly the history of history. The citations of Bloch and Gaddis are fairly standard. Remember that the lens through which we view the past says as much if not more about us and our time than it does about that which we view.
"kinda sounds like journalism today" - so true!
Hey man this video was excellent, great job and thanks for helping set the record straight!
Great video about a very important book to help Beatle fans to critically evaluate books about the Beatles. For those who haven't read Erin Torkelson Weber's, The Beatles and the Historians: An Analysis of Writings About the Fab Four, it will help you come to your own conclusions not only about the topics discussed but also about a host of topics ranging from the role of Allen Klein, Yoko Ono, and Linda Eastman in breaking up the Beatles.
A couple of points. There are some qualitative differences between the Lewisohn narrative and the other three. The Fab Four narrative and the Lennon Remembers narratives were basically public relations campaigns. Another commonality with the earlier Beatles biographies is that they were frequently written by rock journalists. It wasn't until the Hertsgaard's book in 1995 that any sources were cited. The key to the Lewisohn narrative is unlike Davies, Norman, etc. Lewisohn had access to the hundreds of hours of tapes at EMI which demolished Norman's assertions about Lennon being the sole genius within the group. Unlike the others, Lewisohn's work is more like history in that he bases his arguments upon verifiable evidence.
It has been decades since I read the Peter Brown book, but I am curious what choice did the Beatles have but to disavow the book. If they hadn't and if they hadn't also banished Brown from the circle of trust forever, every insider would have published until every wart had been exposed. I'm not sure Brown's book can be totally dismissed. It's not like Paul McCartney wasn't above endorsing Geoff Emerick's book since it was very favorable to McCartney's agenda. Not to say there isn't some truth but there are easily found errors both of fact and interpretation.
What makes your current video so timely, is that Peter Jackson released his Get Back montage a few days ago. Will Jackson's access to over fifty unseen hours of film footage lead to a new revision of the Get Back sessions or will it lean on resurrecting the Fab Four narrative? (Ron Howard didn't break any new ground. He played it safe and commercial.) John and Yoko certainly don't seem zonked out on heroin in the Jackson clip, and the Beatles seem to act like a 1969 version of the boys from A Hard Day's Night. What will the success of his project say about the Beatles' fandom's desire for a happy narrative? I bring this up, only because I have waded through some of the nagra tapes from the Get Back sessions, and those tapes along with the Let It Be movie seem to contradict much of the narrative Jackson appears to be pushing. Perhaps you'll have something to say about the upcoming Jackson project.
I look forward to your future videos.
Thank you Brian. You make good observations and I’m finding more and more fans taking a balanced view of the past and being accepting of new (or unpublicized) information. I think the Peter Jackson film will merely be a part of this. You are going to see a spat of Rolling Stone Mag writers flip flopping and tripping over themselves to “get with the winning team.” I’m not sure they care about truth.
Paul, Ringo and Yoko will be gone soon and I think there may be a new acceptance of history. I remember people criticizing Albert Goldman for writing what he did “after John was dead, when John couldn’t defend himself.” Many Beatle fans were delusional and didn’t realize that most history is written after the passing of the principals. Goldman’s book was a rough read but does the bias mean it’s all wrong? Same for Philip Norman. Peter Brown’s book was the first bio I read and I still think it has value. You’re right, the Fabs had to dismiss it, which is understandable even if only small parts were sensationalized. I wouln’t want to be written about, but I guess that’s the price of mega fame.
My plan for many months has been to continue to delve into the Get Back / Let It Be sessions. I’ve listened to 97.5 hours of those sessions and feel that I have an understanding of that time better than nearly every two-bit writer/journalist/biographer that has ever written about it, so I feel that I can offer something new. No need for me to draw conclusions, just to present the evidence. Beate fans are lazy. I’ve been lazy. I’ll try laying it out in a digestible fashion and let the chips fall where they may! Thanks for the comment, Brian.
This is the most interesting and informative UA-cam channel for music history EVER!!!! Great job!!
Very high praise, indeed! Thank you - more to come!
@@popgoesthe60s52 Yes!!! Matt, you are doing a great job. Well-prepared, informative and "no agenda".... keep up the wonderful work. And - Happy New Year to you Matt.
This is a great channel, been a Beatle fan since 1978, and I still learn things, keep up the great work you are doing
LOVE this. I've never seen this kind of analysis of Beatledom on UA-cam before. I've read a lot of these books over the decades, going all the way back to when I was 14 in the early 80s, and it's trippy to look back on them all now with the knowledge you outline here. Definitely picking up Erin's book.
I am so grateful to her for researching and writing this book. After reading it, I instantly understood the overall historical picture better. Thank you for the warm comment.
Why did people never write a book about george martin and interviewed
him about the beatles in the studio from 62 to 70. That would have been
the most reliable book of all time because he was closer to them than anyone else. End of story
From Wikipedia - In 1979, Martin published a memoir, (co-written with Jeremy Hornsby), that described his work with the Beatles and other artists (including Peter Sellers, Sophia Loren, Shirley Bassey, Flanders and Swann, Matt Monro, and Dudley Moore), and gave an informal introduction to the art and science of sound recording. In 1993 he published Summer of Love: The Making of Sgt Pepper (published in the U.S. as With a Little Help from My Friends: The Making of Sgt Pepper, co-authored with William Pearson)
@@peterwhite ok but I hoped that he was so close to them that he could say in details on what did john, paul, george, ringo exactly contribute
to the music other than bass, guitar, drums etc. so we can get rid of the 200 books by people claiming they were close to them its just so ridiculous and by the few books ive read it became obvious that paul became the workhorse in the studio collaborating with martin a lot from rubber soul and onwards because john was in a very laid back mood and had nothing against paul doing the hard work in the studio due to johns discovery of lsd so he was on that journey from 65 to 67 and it gave him a new perspective on life and ringo has said oh no! paul has called! he wants us to come to the studio and work, so paul pretty much was the driving force in the band in the later years cause he was worried that they might drift apart if they were not working. its not that paul was a dictator but he's just so fucking musical with ideas coming out of him all the time he can play any instrument he put his hand on, he can arrange anything produce anything so if one of the others didn't show up at the session he just played their part by himself and that happened a lot during the white album but paul was a workaholic during the sessions for rubber soul, revolver, sgt.pepper and magical mystery tour but paul is so modest he wont take the credit for it other than saying "we were a good little band" and john couldnt care less about arranging and producing. he said at one point "i like keeping it simple basically i love rock'n'roll. for him the most important thing in a song is the expression more than the production and you can hear it on his first two albums of 70 and 71 but in 68 john was reborn after meeting yoko and suddenly he wasnt laid back and easy going any more and the smooth band dynamics of the last two years changed immediately and for many people in western society 68 was the direct opposites to 67 it was like ying and yang peace vs revolution/confrontation and it was exactly what happened in the beatles working environtment in 68 john said that he Likes his songs on the white album a lot more than the ones on the previous albums cause they were more "him" and what happened with john in the studio was that he wanted to have more of a say in how he wanted his songs to sound he wasnt going to take advice from anyone but himself about his music or his lyrics cause they were all grown up by the time so it wasnt one for all and all for one anymore and I dont think they depended on george martin that much as they used to and he took a break from the sessions and the simple reason was that they were not young anymore and they could speak for themselves but that was the beginning of john as a soloartist where he was in total control of his own music and you cant blame him or anyone for that, cause thats just the way life is but that didn't sit very well with paul cause paul is very much a team player but that was the start of the slow separation between the bandmembers even though paul still was the work horse with a lot of selfconfidence musically he too was shaken by this new situation cause the strong bond between them was in turmoil and at the same time John's head were on a lot of other things you can get a sense of john and Pauls personalities with the single "hey jude and revolution paul cares about the world wanna paint it with beautiful colours give the world a big hug and john wanted to change the world but being realistic about it which you can sense in later songs such as" give peace a chance "," power to the people "woman is the nigger of the world" "happy xmas" "imagine and john said it's easier to sing about love than to practise it "but paul could make anything universal even his own turmoil with" let it be" "the long and winding road" maybe i'm amazed" when he cared "blackbird" unlucky in love "yesterday" and so on but as they grew older it became apparent that they were never gonna be able to go back to the beatles as a unit cause 1967 were never going to come back but that belongs to another book which will probably be written. i dont know know if people have interviewed geoff emerick or Ken scott cause they are still alive i think and alan parsons was only on the abbey road sessions. I hope one day i can give a shorter commentary
@@martinkristensen8398 Thanks for the reply - there are a few interviews with Geoff Emerick on UA-cam which are quite interesting. I especially loved his book 'Here There and Everywhere" which details his work with the Beatles.
@@martinkristensen8398 Agreed. John wasn’t into anything but rock-n-roll. You are right about the last few albums. I remember the difference from the white album on. Their songs went back to rock-n-roll. Everybody noticed it.
Mark Lewisohn has been trying to revise the myths for over 30 or more years. I trust his books the most out of all the Beatles books. I’ve even helped him out with some Beatles Genealogy for some of his work
I can't wait the sequel to "Tune In". I checked today Amazon to see if there's something new. Tell Mark to hurry up! :D
I dream of Tune in 2 XX
Really glad I found this channel! Keep up the good work!
Dude, I've seen several of your videos, and I've become a big fan. You really analyze this stuff like a detective (i mean that in a good way), and leave the viewer with a better understanding of what really happened. Good job.
Thank you, Josh. I'm having fun doing this so stay tuned for more!
You did an excellent job with this video! Thank you so much, I hope many people watch this.
In the beginning was the word and it was John, but as I have come to realise, there were really for parts,some far from equal. They were not even 4parts until Richie sat in and came to stay,Mr showbiz really is a great and bright talent, even still as you can be if you are "still alive" I sum up::-- " They did pretty well "
I’m currently re-reading Tony Bramwell’s book, Magical Mystery Tours : My Life with the Beatles. It’s enjoyable even if there are gaps in it due to him not being present at certain events such as their trips to Hamburg. It’s obvious that Paul was his favorite but still comes across as an honest account.
I enjoyed it to a certain extent but balked when he stated he was there when George played Raunçhy on the Bus!!
All i can say is that- over the past decade or so, i've really come to appreciate and respect Paul much more than i used to - in terms of musicainship, songwriting, character, work ethic, etc.
Me too!
Wonderful essay with a hell of a lot of research work. Well played sir!
The Beatles Anthology book was really good. Told by the guys that lived it John Paul George and Ringo, not so and so who knew so and so heard so and so...
It is amazing that Paul is such a nice guy after all the mud slinging. It would have wounded him deeply he was betrayed by John no doubt.
Paul was VERY hurt by the things john did, basically 1970-74 ish. They patched it up by 1980, basically because John owned up to his foolishness and Paul persisted in trying to maintain the friendship/relationship. There was 'someone' actively thwarting Paul through the entire time.... who saw him as a personal threat. YO
@@timothysullysullivan2571 Paul is on record as saying YO asked him to talk to John about coming back to her during his 'lost weekend'. Paul could be re-writing history, wonder if that's in the book!
@@graniterhythm53 she's quite happy to use anyone in pursuit of her goals. one of the things the NY art crowd disliked about her.
@@graniterhythm53 I've heard Yoko confirming this somewhere. She had given an interview minimising their split, omitting Paul's involvement. Paul then gave the interview complaining. Then Yoko accepted it but said John returned"months later" so it wasn't to do with Paul (as I recall).
I have also heard the Paul spoke to John story from May Pang and Chris O Dell. Who were there when Paul arrived. May who was John's gf of the time says Yoko approached others including Mimi. So the balance of testimony is in Paul's favour
I have a feeling that in their long friendship, John had hurt everyone from time to time. He was NOT a nice person - he had serious fractures and I think his songwriting was full of those exposures. I think he really tried to at least say the right things... I still wonder how hurt he was with Paul's HEY JUDE song. "Why aren't I writing that song about my own son?" You don't talk about someone's momma. You don't talk about someone's kids. HEY JUDE, DON'T MAKE IT BAD... uh... it was already bad and John never changed.
i haven't researched their accuracy but my two favorite Beatle books are Tony Bramwell's Magical Mystery Tours and Geoff Emerick's Here, There, and Everywhere. Tony knew them from their Liverpool school days to Apple and beyond.Geoff engineered their sessions from Revolver on and would try new technique's like the Beatles wanted. Both books give a good glimpse of what it was like in those days, as when some girls broke into EMI's Abbey Road studio and were running around inside, dodging security as the Beatles were recording She Loves You. These books made me feel like i was there.
I've seen a number of your histories and you're killing it! Keep up the good work.
Thank you, Thomas! Much appreciated.
My personal favorite Beatle stories are the ones that discuss the nuts and bolts of how they, George Martin, and the engineers, created various albums.
That's why I like Geoff Emerick's book. It primarily concerns the creation of the music, not personal stuff.
Jan Wenner should have been covering professional wrestling.
Don't insult wrestlers like that!
I heartily agree!
Wenner is such a scumbag. He deliberately keeps people out of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame that he doesn’t like. I remember Peter Tork going off on a tirade about how much he hates Wenner for keeping him and the other Monkees out.
I have White Album on cassette, the 2000 Anthology and my childhood/preteen/teen memories. Good enough for me. I always want to keep them in highest perspective as I do with all my loved ones. They're like family. Such lovely vibes. Thank you for the update.
As both a history major and a Beatlemaniac, Erin Weber's book was a real treat. I can't recommend highly enough. It gives great insight not only into the historiography of the Beatles, but also the study of history itself- good methodology vs. bad methodology and how historical narratives form and change over time.
Tune In by Lewishon is excellent. I can’t wait for the next two books.
Yeah, if he ever finishes them!
Another great presentation. I remember "You Never Give Me Your Money" as being an excellent read. Pete Shotton's book also had a fairly balanced view as well.
Yes, both of those are considered quite credible and dispenses with the usual biases found in other books.
Excellent overview of the various historical narratives that have developed arounf the Beatles in the last 50 years and why we should be more rigorous in examining how grounded in facts they all are. Have to say very very grateful for the work of Mark Lewisohn and cannot wait for the next two volumes of Tune In
Hi: I wrote a couple of days ago about The Association doc, I find this documentary absolutely fascinating. I have all of the books you mentioned and read them a long time ago. Unfortunately, many fans tend to read these books as gospel so your deconstruction is amazing and being an English Lit grad - I am very grateful for it. I am in London (in quarantine) or lockdown or whatever you want to call it - part of the reason I ended up in London (from California) was falling in love at 16, moving to Germany and back and forth to London to work - was also because of The Beatles and the Stones. Talk about madness!!! Lennon, Ono and I probably passed in the sky - they going to NY me coming to Europe!!! This was in early 1973. I have always been a total music fanatic and it has always been a major force in my life. Sorry to go on - but your uploads are great. I am also fascinated by your record collection in the background - what would I give to go through that!!! However, now 65 my creaky spine and legs will not afford such a journey. Thanks again!!!
Thank you for the generous comment, David. The deeper you go on the Beatles story, the better it gets!
I think another factor in the “Lennon Remembers” narrative was the fact that he had just been through primal scream therapy. This therapy seemed to tear through his psyche and made him get in touch with his sense of being a wounded child. I think he carried his sense of victimization into the Jan Wenner 1970 interview.
I recently found out that he never completed the therapy program. Janov wanted him to stick it out but he and Yoko may have had to chase the whereabouts of Yoko's daughter. In the Wenner interview John seems to want it both ways - be the genius artist and be the victim.
@@popgoesthe60s52 That’s true, I think that was mentioned in the book “You Never Give Me Your Money”. It’s possible not completing the Primal Scream program may have been harmful as it was a rather extreme form of experimental therapy that probably needed to be seen the whole way through (like how one needs to complete a prescription to have it be effective). John was certainly in a fragile/edgy state at the time of “Lennon Remembers”. In the audio of that interview, John voice gets very high and shrill at times and he seems extremely angry. As you indicate though, John’s tone and perspective on the breakup would change. In fact by the time of the first John and Yoko appearance on the Dick Cavett Show in the fall of 1971, John already seems like he is less angry towards Paul and the whole Beatles experience. Of course by 1974, John was downright charming/nostalgic when anything Beatles or Paul was brought up. John did throw a bit of piss and vinegar at Paul in his 1980 Playboy interview (released after his death) but overall Lennon was more or less in a more conciliatory headspace regarding Paul.
@@drummer78 It's interesting to look at John's interviews and his tone regarding the Beatles and Paul from 1970-80. It does follow a path that does soften.
@@popgoesthe60s52 His 1974 interviews are among his warmest in regards to Paul and The Beatles legacy. I know some business issues were being cleared up at that time but part of me wonders if John was trying to soften his image a bit due to the immigration battle and also he was in promotional mode towards the fall of 1974, so perhaps he was being all things to all people because he wanted to sell some records (especially since he was coming off a bit of a down period with “Sometime in NYC” and to a lesser degree with “Mind Games”).
@@drummer78 That's another good point. His immigration was his new project and I think he was learning that being anti-Beatles is bad for business of all kinds!
Very informative Matt! I think you nailed it. For my money, the Lewisohn narrative, once its done!! Ha! Will be the definitive story IMHO. Cheers Matt
Just finished reading The Beatles and The Historians. A very useful overview of The Beatles historiography - many of which I have and have read (and re-read). Thanks Matt for reviewing the book and bringing it to my attention.
You sir have inspired me to reread a lot of my books. Also I need to pick up the Beatles and the historians! Thank you.
No wonder McCartney refers to that book as "Shite"
I agree I'm a PC user myself.
The Rolling Stones magazine is just like the Rock'n'Roll hall of fame : CRAP !
Amen.
That was fascinating 👏 I just found your videos today and subscribed immediately! I can't wait for more!!
Welcome aboard!
This video finally has brought together all the disparate views of The Beatles and brings much more understanding to how outside forces through their "journalism" helped mold so many people's impressions of these 4 guys mostly inaccurately. I think Paul showed so much restraint for so many years while he was being wrongly maligned. I've read Peter Doggett's book and yes it is the best I've found in regards to explaining the different personalities in the band and how they responded to the stress of their breakup. And definitely the most detailed description of what despicable people Allan Klein and Phil Spector were as well. A must read. One other read I would personally recommend would be Ken Mansfield's The White Book. Another fascinating read from a group insider that not many people know about.
Interesting video, indeed! When I was a Beatles fan in the '60's - 70's (and now, really), I cared less about the details of their lives than I did their music. I was in a band or three, and we all loved performing Beatles songs. We felt no need to dive deeply into their biographies. I still have not read many of the books you discussed. I'll probably read Weber's. I know that truth is important. I'd welcome an accurate Beatles narrative, but not as much as I'd welcome some new Beatles songs. I do not really care if Napoleon lost at Waterloo because he had hemorrhoids, and I'll bet Wellington didn't, either. I'll leave the academic hissy fits to the academics.
My God. the beatles used swear words, and drank. How shocking. Well thank God, they never did drugs.
I think that in their early days before they became a phenomenon that they were probably worse behaved and had more illicit adventures than anything the Stones did once they - the stones got world wide notoriety. That's mainly because I compare their early days to my own youth as they are contemporary. So I'm not slinging mud - just being realistic.
@@2011littlejohn1 My answer was meant to be sarcastic.
@@irish66 Oh yes I got your meaning alright. :) The mudslinging bit was a reference to the article - I meant that an awful lot of us were like that not just our famous contemporaries - it was sort of par for the course.
@@2011littlejohn1 Ok. So I'm a bit confused. I responded to this 3 months ago. I can't remember if that was a response to something the guy in the video said, or something he quoted from. Also I am not sure if you are the guy in the video, or someone else.I see the names Matt Williamson, and Jack Freeman. I have not watched the video again. Okay, so you (guy in video) tell us The Beatles swore, and drank. What exactly was the reason you? thought this information was relevant. Is it because they were once the loveable moptops, and you? were under the impression that telling us they weren't innocent was going to be a shocker.
@@irish66 No I was saying that the Beatles were my contemporaries and all of us were prone that way so it's only realistic to think that they were no different. Their first gigs in Europe were in disreputable establishments full of drunken sailors and understandably a variety of characters thus related. My first gigs were in Singapore and the audiences included drunken sailors, prostitutes, transvestites, and other interesting characters. So I was saying let's be realistic about this. This was a rock band not the participants of a vicarage tea party. :)
This is so cool! Thanks for some realistic perspective in pop journalism
I've read a few of those books on your table, and others by the same writers about other pop stars, but Hunter Davies book of The Beatles was easily my favourite. I heard about it on the Radio One show in the UK the day that John Lennon was killed, when DJ Mike Read presented a full show which I taped on cassette. I listened to the stories unfold, and Mike Read said that his favourite book was the Hunter Davies one, so I had to check it out... so glad I did. Unfortunately my car was broken into one night and that cassette was lost forever. Nice video and hope to enjoy more with you.
I am a little surprised that you left out "McCartney: The Life" where in the prologue, Norman goes into pretty good detail concerning his past writing of Beatles history. He explains some of his opinions and tells how he came to write this work with McCartney's blessing.
I left out a few mentionable books simply due to length. The video went a bit long so I may need to do some individual book reviews which would allow me to go into each with more care and detail. Thank you for watching!
@@popgoesthe60s52 Agree with Sharon on this. It's important if Lennon's acknowledgment that the Rolling Stone interview was inaccurate to also state Philip Norman's reviewed opinions on McCartney.
Norman's McCartney biography is terrible. Right in the intro you sense its falseness in the way it infers that Paul gave permission for it by not stopping it (as if he could, or would).
@@gumbycat5226 Thanks for the review. That is one book I should read but I'm wondering if there is even a point.
@@gumbycat5226 Yeah, and I thought the Barry Miles biography was full of holes, to put it mildly.
"Shout!" is a very readable book that uses the Lennon murder to recast the Beatles narrative, but it's not a pro-Lennon book so much as negative of the other three. He does criticize John and Yoko somewhat as being out there and strange, but the real problem with it is the distance from the music. Philip Norman didn't understand it and focused on their celebrity instead. It's a tremendous missed opportunity in that way, not to mention its bizarre take on Brian Epstein's death. I really like Norman's style, but it does feel like a step back from really knowing the band.
No question the boy can write. I may do a review just on that book because I think his biases will overshadow the whole of the book and it does have its moments. You hit the nail on the head when you compare Norman's infatuation with celebrity vs. his musical limitations. Thanks for the informative comment, Bill.
@@popgoesthe60s52 Agree.
Bill, I am not sure whether I agree with you. Every biography that is meant for an audience in pop-music has to do with a fake celebrity life-style. That is why Goldman's book on Lennon was as good as it could get. Still, Norman is undeniably negative of the other Beatles. Norman's description of Hamburg-days is magnificent.
@@Lopersgezwets Norman's descriptions throughout "Shout!" are brilliant. I think he did a lot to establish a baseline for understanding the formation of the band, particularly its Quarrymen days. He's great drawing from his first-hand sources, but falters when it comes to the Beatles themselves, who fall into tidy buckets not any different from the cartoon Beatles.
I read Norman’s book on McCartney & it was extremely pro-Lennon/anti-McCartney.
Thank you for this very insightful and well-organized literature review of Beatles lore. I remember growing up in the 80s as a huge fan, and the only bio I had read was Shout. As a teenager, I really believed Paul McCartney was booted out of Hamburg "for burning a condom[inium]."
I'm halfway through this book right now and loving it! Thank you for making this!
the public making John a saint would make even Lennon laugh....and cringe
A sick evil communist wife beater who abandoned his son…I don’t think sainthood is in the cards.
The greatest Beatle narrative is The Rutles!😂
I remember George being asked in an interview which documentary about the The Beatles was the most accurate and he said, "The Ruttles."
Rutles...with one T. Like Beatles 😀
Richard Gratton got it right.
I think the reason why the Beatles did not wanna speak for the Phillip Norman book was because they were working on their own documentary, which was Called the long and winding road, which eventually turned into the Beatles anthology documentary
I'm a huge Beatles fan, being the youngest of six, literally being born into a family that were not only Beatles fans, but their music being played around me all my life. This video really opened my eyes regarding a lot of information I've heard about the Beatles over my entire life, and the author of the book "The Beatles and the Historians: An Analysis of Writings about the Fab Four Paperback" should be very greatful - especially since after watching this video, I followed the Amazon link and purchased the book.
Thank you Ron. I feel this book is every bit as valuable as Mark Lewisohn's work. Thanks for purchasing her book. It deserves more attention.
I always referred to the Wenner interview as Lennon forgets.
Awesome comment. With your permission, I may have to use that!
@@popgoesthe60s52 absolutely!
I think Torkelson Weber herself refers to the interview as Lennon Remembers: Everyone sucks but me and Yoko.
You guys read far too much into this stuff,it's bizarre
@@tomstirling2882 want to elaborate on that comment? Have you read the interview in question?
As far as Paul wanting his name first on especially on Yesterday his name should be first. I dont think its petty at all. Yes we all know he wrote the song but when someone goggles the song it will come up a Lennon McCartney with half of tittle cuts McCartney name in half. So we all know Paul wrote it but what about in 50 years from now when a new generation discovers The Beatles music will never know Paul was the main songwriter.
Very good. This guy is the most reliable on The Beatles.
Thanks for your insight. Much appreciated your POV.
I've always felt that the best Beatles book is by Bob Spitz published in 2005. At least it's my favorite and seems very balanced and backed up with a huge amount of research and interviews. I really like the aspect of learning about each Beatle's background before they came together. Including some decent information on Brain Epstein, Peter Best, and Stuart Sutcliffe. I also like that it is told more in narrative form. Makes for a good read. You don't mention that one here and I wonder if you have a take on it.
I've not yet read it and it is on my list to buy. Spitz is known for not coming from rock music circles which is looked upon as a benefit, but Torkelson Weber says it suffers from the same type of bias Shout! espouses while not using proper citations. This bias in Spitz book however is in the other direction vs Lennon-Ono. I know Spitz used lots of Albert Goldberg's research, which may account for the heavier bias.
I read many of these books and always took them with a large grain of salt. Too many agendas and angles to sell books. Great point about citations. My favorite Beatles book was and still is "Growing Up With the Beatles" by Ron Schaumburg...:)
i don't know that one! I'll have to check it out - thank you Jonathan.
@@popgoesthe60s52 Its a personal account of a Teenager growing up in the 60s in Kansas City, and the impact the Beatles made on his life. Sweet story. Great channel BTW.
@@jonathanappel8047 Thank you sir! I will check it out.
@@popgoesthe60s52 Along those same lines, Nicholas Schaffner's "The Beatles Forever". That was one of the first Beatles books, along with Ron Schamburg's "Growing Up With The Beatles" that I came across early on. Ron's book, however deals with himself as a kid when The Beatles were becoming popular, and what The Beatles meant to him as a kid growing up in the Midwest. Both books are good reads though.
@@amb2745 I'm a mid-westerner too so I think Schamburg's book would appeal to me. I love the Schaffner's book. That one and the Beatles Illustrated Record were my first two books and many that came after paled in comparison.
Thank you. Great job always. I love your unstated passion and preparation.
Thank you, BRI, much appreciated.
Thank you, great ..cant wait ,love this , more serious approach. Great show, as usual xxxR
Thank you as always, Pela.
In many of the newer UA-cam documentaries Joh complimented Paul with being mor "avant gard" than he was early on. Paul like going out and around experiencing all the eclectic goings on.
That's true, but it seems to me that while Paul loved to explore the avant garde, John actually WAS avant garde.
One thing's for sure....way too many Beatle's books.
I agree - and I will be covering that viewpoint in volume 7 of my 24-part work on books about The Beatles.
Look, there are three groups of people who will NEVER stop having books written about them: Hitler and the Nazis, the Kennedys, and the Fab Four. We'll just have to live with it.
Another excellent presentation. You can definitely tell the how their own characters really shaped the narrative and perpetuated certain myths to suit their own egos and status particularly after 1966.
Thank you, yes they definitely all has axes to grind. I guess that is to be expected from the biggest band in the world! Thank you for commenting!
Being in the "eye of the hurricane", The Beatles saw "The Beatles" in a completely different way than any writer or fan could. We saw all the "storm" around them while they simply lived their lives within it. While John may recall a reason Paul did something, Paul may have had a completely different take on it and his own take may be mistaken! We often see clips of our own lives when we recollect something, yet so much detail is forgotten. There is a reason so many of us see psychiatrists or psychologists to try and understand our own lives. There will always be novel narratives that take up some nuance of a theme, yet the ultimate truth to so many questions can only be subjective. Because The Beatles had so much influence on our culture/lives, we yearn to understand what they meant. We will only perceive the overall picture as people's lives are far too complex for even the individual to understand themselves.