• Some Thoughts on The Boys of Dungeon Lane Comment by Michael Gerber on Jun 8, 11:45 @J.D., you’ve summed my thoughts on solo Paul pretty precisely. After Tug of War — that is to say, after Paul’s solo work loses the tension of a possible reunion with John or the other three — he becomes an Inoffensive Tunesmith that I am happy exists, but no more than that. I will say I felt a stirring of interest when he collaborated with Elvis Costello, which is interesting.
  • Some Thoughts on The Boys of Dungeon Lane Comment by Michael Gerber on Jun 8, 11:42 “it won’t happen the same way, but hope, as fragile a filament as that is, leads me to keep an eye and ear open” Excellently said. “four of the songs should be considered among the very best that Paul has ever released as a solo artist” This is not about the music. This is about fans’ need to be present at the creation. Since this is the album that came out when they were furiously fanning, it MUST be equal or better to any previous work. Not to be a jerk, but this immature reflex is exactly why I keep doing this blog — to examine, and thus become comfortable with, the idea that The Glorious Moment happened before I was born. Since the arrival of the internet, people seem to resent history, because it was a party they weren’t invited to. And so we must endure an endless stream of “this [new thing] is the greatest ever!” Fans, man.
  • Some Thoughts on The Boys of Dungeon Lane Comment by J.D. on Jun 7, 20:00 Neal, for many years I found it difficult to appreciate almost any of Paul’s solo stuff because I found myself automatically comparing it to his work with the Beatles. But I’ve found it more rewarding to approach it on its own terms, as the deeply idiosyncratic, almost stream-of-conscious creations of a genius who felt free to indulge whatever weird musical whims popped into his head. I can’t think of any hit songs of the 1970s as profoundly odd as “Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey,” and only Paul could have a hit in the New Wave era with “Mull of Kintyre,” a song that sounds like it could be hundreds of years old. Then there’s “McCartney II,” which gives us a Paul who sounds like he’s already anticipated the music of the 1980s before that decade was even a year old. I will say that my interest in Paul’s music rapidly declines after “Tug of War,” and I don’t have a ton of interest in his later stuff. I’m delighted that he’s still around and making music, and the stuff he’s doing is inoffensive enough that I don’t think it will mar his legacy. 
  • Some Thoughts on The Boys of Dungeon Lane Comment by Neal S. on Jun 7, 14:55 @Michael Thank you. Your reasons are very much along the lines of what I have been looking for in a discussion regarding Paul’s quite devoted fan base. I can understand that they do like him, but it all too sadly, just supposed to be taken as a given that he deserves such a fervent/adoring/zealous following. While we as humans are unable to tease out the exact ingredients and in what measure they went into the test tube to create the magic of the Beatles years, we fortunately are able to recognize, and then enjoy, what occurred. This seems to be the case with Paul and reading your response it made me think that the “magic” is different for every listener. The time, the place, the individuals, the cultural cross-currents, the technology. It all was part of a talent that, as you say, cannot be recreated and so remains personal, and treasured, by us. There are many reasons though that I think that the nil chance of it reoccurring might not be so bad. While we might bemoan the slack tides in which we are musically and culturally sailing at the moment/decades, I find the diversity a good thing. If talent, like energy, is neither created nor destroyed but is just stored and transmitted in various ways, perhaps the fracturing of things and the 1001 diverse directions in which they have scattered is something that might provide the impetus for an ultra-generational talent to emerge. Since, as you say, the mono-culture is no longer intact any upcoming talent has a very high bar to clear of course, but I am not sure that such revolutionary ideas/persons set out to change the world, but then it suddenly occurs. Not that it “just happens,” but it ends up making the things that went before almost unrecognizable from how things are now. That, though, is of course both the problem and the joy. A problem in that we feel as if we have been becalmed, but a joy in that something might very well come along and just pin everyone’s ears back. Perhaps a long way to say that it won’t happen the same way, but hope, as fragile a filament as that is, leads me to keep an eye and ear open. Btw. Just for fun I looked across a few sites that have covered the release of the album and the comments I read led me to that uncomfortable moment that you realize that you are at a gathering that you should not be or don’t want to be—that moment when you grab your hat and coat and back slowly toward to door. One commenter said that he/she has listened to album 40 times already. Another opined that four of the songs should be considered among the very best that Paul has ever released as a solo artist. Yikes!
  • Some Thoughts on The Boys of Dungeon Lane Comment by Michael Gerber on Jun 5, 19:42 @Neal, I must admit I recognize a lot of myself in this comment, especially: “I am once again, as is always the case when I assess anything by Paul post Ram and anything at all post 1970 by the other Beatles, feeling oddly guilty in not liking so much of it.” So why is Paul so very beloved? Why does he get such a pass? In a world of marketing and fraudulence, Paul is the real deal; in a world that denies history, he embodies it; in a world that insults and disrespects craft, especially the kind painstakingly built over a lifetime, he exudes that. We do not respect our elders in this society — we do not even know what to do with them — but Paul has had the good fortune and good sense to remain productive and well, still cranking out tunes like it was 1965 or something. He is not stuck in a Malibu nursing home, ranting about “the great replacement theory,” but gallivanting around the world, sound of mind and nimble of fingers. Unlike John or even George in their later years, he does not bring up any uncomfortable questions, and one hopes his demise will do the same. One could look at Paul McCartney and say, “What are you talking about? Late-state capitalism WORKS.” But for the vast majority of us, it doesn’t, and hasn’t. There are no Beatles because the current world cannot produce them. The absurdly prosperous peace that was a necessary precondition for The Beatles is no longer. The post-Cold War English-speaking WW II-nourished monoculture — what I have called “mid-Atlanticism” — has been replaced by something much more tenuous, much more splintered; potentially freer and more diverse, but only if you have the personal wealth to pay for a musician’s career. Today’s Paul McCartneys likely work in tech, and they do not dream dreams of conquering the world’s women with love songs. I think the praise we heap upon Paul is in some sense our guilt over what we have allowed the world to become over his lifetime. Or perhaps not, but I don’t think it’s much about the music, and that’s okay, and I’m glad for anybody who wants to snap up his work. I think Paul isn’t simply a nostalgia act (not that there’s a bit wrong with that); I think he represents a time when popular culture was vibrant, almost impossibly rich, and acted powerfully to shape our world in (mostly) positive ways. I think people CRAVE that, and wonder where it’s gone, and rightly sense that we now live in a time that desperately needs what The Beatles made, and embodied, so effortlessly. And our feelings towards Paul are shot through with that longing, and the awful sense that, when he is gone, there will never be another like him, ever again.
  • Some Thoughts on The Boys of Dungeon Lane Comment by paul on Jun 4, 17:15 Well said. Now I have to buy the album.
  • Some Thoughts on The Boys of Dungeon Lane Comment by Neal S. on Jun 4, 15:24 George Orwell is reputed to once have said that he is more interested in how you think than in what you think. Obviously, there are caveats galore with this, but I have always hedged an appreciation for that ideal as it forms the basis of intelligent and constructive critique. In other words, if one is going to look at a topic from 360 degrees, then I would like to know the thought process behind the likes and dislikes and not just that “I really like it” or “I listened to it twenty times in the last two days.” I am not at all saying that this is what this reviewer has done—not at all. Instead. I am merely using the recent drop of The Boys of Dungeon Lane album as a springboard as a chance to howl at the moon and to try to sort out some of the thoughts that have been, for better or worse, buzzing through my head recently regarding Sir Paul, fandom, and what I see as a reflexive inclination among many to praise him without holding him to the very high standards that he created so many decades ago. I am once again, as is always the case when I assess anything by Paul post Ram and anything at all post 1970 by the other Beatles, feeling oddly guilty in not liking so much of it. I admit that I can be a rather thick-foreheaded cultural non-entity who is perhaps no further enlightened than the men of the Cro-Magnon Era, but I honestly wrestle with why almost none of it (Paul’s or the others) post-Beatles work piques my interest. This problem requires a full disclosure: I don’t even like music that much, but I very much enjoy reading about the artists, the history, and the cultural changes they wrought. This is exactly what Michael and his readership do on the HeyDullBlog site and I am an eager reader of all of it even if I am that guy who could drive across the country and never once turn on music. To be even more honest, I am envious of those who have (many at a mere four or five years old if the Internet is to be believed!) had transformative musical experiences that forever set them on a course of listening, playing, and even performing. I lacked the musical gene and therefore there was no seedbed in my life where nascent interests would grow into forests of musical expression and experience. Worse, I grow very weary of so much music. I find it to be achingly repetitive and I bemoan songs that might have a snazzy hook, beat, and intro, but then make a four-minute lunch out of saying the same things over and over again. My Sweet Lord anyone? It is the definition of repetition, but then my Cro-Magnon dictionary only has a few entries as reading was not quite in vogue thousands of years ago. I think of my unsophisticated musical horizon as that of a small garden ornament and thus limited to cool drumming (think of the jazz influences of John Densmore’s work with the Doors) or what we enjoyed on Friday nights in college with beer and the likes of Van Halen’s Outta Love Again or Queen. Not to say that I cannot be moved at all. The early Beatles and Beach Boys catalogs were bursting larders of the eerily evocative and ethereal sounds of 1960s AM radios and dreams of worlds just over the horizon. Yet, like all the music we hear in our youth, these songs had a time and a place even if they, fortunately, can still bring us great pleasure. Ok, I engage in this prolix, and fully unsolicited, confession to say that I am genuinely curious as to what other listeners are hearing, and enjoying, when they say they just love everything Paul has written. I am obviously missing a great deal but I do not know exactly what or where to start to remedy those shortcomings. I am being neither snarky nor snobby here. I genuinely do not understand and since I do not understand then I cannot appreciate. My nephew, the art student, once explained to me the artistry behind Gustav Klimt and Egon Shiele and once he did, I have been an eternal aficionado of that style. Yet yesterday my better half and I listened to snippets of a few of the tracks from The Boys of Dungeon Lane. She, with a musical ear, could handle more than I as I had to tap out after only 15 seconds of each song. Was I indeed hearing the man who resides on the Mount Olympus of pop music? I felt bad as to me it was just the cloying and anodyne whispers of an 84-year-old man—and that is not age discrimination as I am not too far off the pace in the years-gone-by sweepstakes. I have read that those who do not like the music should instead focus on Paul’s magisterial lyrics, deep reflection, and the skill with which he plumbs the emotional deep. Uh…ok. Was this the Freshman dorm poetry reading? Granted, no one expects the chops of a Heinrich Heinne, John Donne, or Siegfried Sassoon, but seriously. Is no one at all in a position to play the foil of John Lennon? Wait, ignore that question has been open since 1969 and the last time John played the foil to Paul’s ideas. Paul is an entertainer of the absolute first rank who lives for the public eye. Good for him and good on him. To paraphrase the Black Eyed Peas – That’s what he does it’s who he be. Nor can one begrudge those who spend a few thousand to go see him in concert. I say this with every intention of compliment when I say that he is a living museum and to witness an actual Beatle on stage must be, for many who are ardent in their fandom, truly a life’s experience. Often this human quest to maintain a link with the past is admirable in paying homage to the greats of yesteryear while at times it can shackle us into smothering the object of our adoration with hagiographic phrases that have a weight but no longer any meaning such as when the media has to immediately report that this is an “excellent” album. Why is it? Tell me, says Orwell, how you came to that conclusion. Paul is not a jello mold, he is an artist and the art demands clear viewing. I have watched one too many videos today of YouTube influencers who are shedding diluvian tears in real or imagined emotional release over this new album. I just wish they could spare a dime for those in the corps of the Philistines and tell us why this is good music and not just because “It was released on what would have been my Nan’s 95th birthday, or “he is as good as he was when he was 25.” In the meantime, I will fall back on the words of Aldous Huxley and his worry that silence in the 20th century would be completely pushed to the side. I would have liked to have driven across the country with him. Maybe Sir Paul could have benefited as well. Thanks, as always, Michael for having this great site! It is, by a mile, the best Beatle one out there.
  • “Hope You Got That” Comment by Justin McCann on Jun 4, 09:08 The same. Just had the privilege of seeing Purple Rain & SOTT as a double feature in one of my favourite music venues, and was reminded all over again what a genius he was.
  • Quick Housekeeping Note re: Moolah Comment by Michael Gerber on Jun 3, 17:44 Oh that fucking MADE ME DAY! Thank you @Jarret!
  • Quick Housekeeping Note re: Moolah Comment by Jarret Cooper on Jun 3, 17:37 Done and done — took the money out of Patreon and started a monthly company-matched donation to UCP.
  • “Hope You Got That” Comment by paul on Jun 3, 17:31 I just watched this yesterday! It must have been on Apple News. Even my wife, who’s not a huge music fan stopped and watched for a while. He is nothing if not charming, always has been. one of the few men I would marry if I were single. The Beatles were always people you felt you could hang out with, without feeling inferior, even though you are. Was it Liverpool? Britain? It’s impossible that four guys that talented and charismatic just happened to stumble on each other. Karma? Instant karma?
  • “Hope You Got That” Comment by Michael Gerber on Jun 3, 17:28 …Prince?
  • “Hope You Got That” Comment by Justin McCann on Jun 3, 13:28 It’s no wonder pretty much all the other major artists of the time made snide comments about them – what, they’re better than we are AND better-looking AND sell more than the rest of us combined? And of course you had the same dynamic reproduced within the band, naturally directed at the uber-Beatle who looked the best, wrote the catchiest, played the tastiest, and sold the most. He was even the tallest, for God’s sake! I can only think of one other great 20th century musician who combined that much raw everything, plus he could dance circles around all the Beatles put together – but he sure wasn’t the tallest man in the room 😉
  • Did Paul “Save The Beatles”? Comment by Jck on Jun 2, 13:58 I think you’re right; John started an escalating game of chicken. With phases based on (devolving) circumstances and John’s state of being. Post-India Yer Blues White sessions John needed propping up and a buffer between he and Paul. With Yoko as a life preserver more than calculated provocation. But John definitely ran with the provoking. So we get John yanking Paul off a vocal for Yoko, Yoko inserting her commentary but also lots of time apart in separate studios. With Get Back, John limps in prodded by Yoko, heroin and mind games—and minus the bag of songs he brought in ‘68. Now we have everyone in the same room, on camera, with Yoko sitting between John and Paul, Yoko grabbing the mic and Yoko speaking for John. John plays the sex tape the day before sessions begin, a mic drop of intent: How far back on your heels can I drive you, pal? Phase II, heroin encroaching, is where John gives himself a second vote and tries to install Yoko in The Beatles with no one’s consent but hers. By the time John asks for a divorce, does he know from up? I think John meant to knock Paul down some pegs, not break up the band. After months of deferring to Yoko, heroin and Klein, Paul was such a wavering figure I doubt John could formulate him walking away. For a crucial period, it looks like John was persuaded any Beatles future should follow his dictates, as the outfit’s messiah. Which makes it even sadder if the hints John dropped for months in Instant Karma, interviews, etc., were sincere efforts to reel Paul back in. The more I learn, the more I suspect it was genuine.
  • My Yoko Problem… and yours? Comment by Michael Gerber on Jun 2, 01:45 Well said, @Jck. The tragedy of Johnandyoko wasn’t that they ran into rocky patches, struggled with addictions, or anything else. It’s that they were both so trapped in maintaining their public personas, and the paranoia of wealth, that they couldn’t avail themselves of non-mystical help. As a witchy friend of mine says, “Yes, do the spell — but first, take the antibiotics!”
  • My Yoko Problem… and yours? Comment by Jck on Jun 1, 09:11 The more concrete information joins the discourse (despite Yoko’ and The Estate’s decades of suppression and propaganda efforts), the more tragic I find it that the two of them never sought the mental health treatment—and, yes, conjoint counseling—that could’ve expanded their lives. Coercive control, addiction, codependency and what looks like twin misery shape the better part of a decade. Yikes. It would be depressing to see, as lump sum statistics, how much time and effort was dropped on astrology, numerology, the occult, shopping, fortune-telling and drugs instead. Dodging mirrors. I’m as surprised by anger and judgment uncut by compassion towards Yoko as I am the number of people who watched Get Back and missed (or deny the profound impact of heroin addiction and johnandyoko trying to insert her as another Beatle had on the general stress level and blowing the band apart. Yes, John chose to bring her. But Yoko chose to sit in the middle of the circle and speak for John—as if a full Beatle collaborator, not just John’s. I love a nuanced post asking us to interrogate our own (sometimes visceral) reactions. One of Yoko’s teachings, imo, is how hard it can be to see someone beyond their over-loud agenda.
  • John and Mimi Comment by Marnie on May 31, 05:43 In fact, according to “Revolution A Secret History Of The Beatles – Strictly Unauthorized” (Audiobook here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEW1iX9Jcpw&t=4115s) Apparently John did tell someone, just one person. Not saying it’s 100% true but definitely interesting.
  • Quick Housekeeping Note re: Moolah Comment by Michael Gerber on May 29, 16:01 @Katherine, I have always reflexively liked Beatles fans — I find they are an interesting, thoughtful tribe — and so it is my pleasure to offer the space. Please keep adding your 2c!
  • Quick Housekeeping Note re: Moolah Comment by Michael Gerber on May 29, 15:59 @Paul, your donation to UCP has genuinely made my day, thank you. And with my eternal battle to fund Bystander, I really really appreciate that, too. We’re just about to launch an initiative that we hope will put the magazine on firm footing permanently. I am just delighted you (and others!) find this site meaningful. I in turn appreciate each and every one of you.
  • Quick Housekeeping Note re: Moolah Comment by paul on May 29, 13:22 Hi Mike, I’m sorry to hear that we can’t compensate you directly. I will do it with the bystander, and just dropped a C note with UCP, and will continue with them yearly when I do my annual charitable giving. I’m sorry to hear about your CP. as one with a chronic illness, I can relate wholeheartedly. As I said before, you helped get me through covid, and anything I can do to return the favor is a blessing. I love your writing, and hope you are able to keep going for a long, long time. all the best!
  • Quick Housekeeping Note re: Moolah Comment by Katherine on May 28, 23:38 I’ve been so pleased to see this site up and running again! I’ve spent many, many hours reading the archives and all the comments – it’s truly an unparalleled resource in Beatledom. Thank you for creating and maintaining such an interesting discussion space.
  • Quick Housekeeping Note re: Moolah Comment by Michael Gerber on May 28, 19:07 You’re very welcome — and thank YOU for all your wonderful comments (and a few posts, too!). Let’s catch up soon!
  • Quick Housekeeping Note re: Moolah Comment by Michael B. on May 28, 18:41 Just wanted to say thank you for the work and expense involved in running this site, including bringing it back from dormancy!
  • Heroin and the Beatles’ Breakup Comment by Michael Gerber on May 28, 12:23 Removed! Thank you @Anon!
  • I’d Love to Turn You On Comment by Michael B. on May 27, 05:46 @Michael G., your description of Paul in 1968 sounds about right to me, and it generally seems to me that the typical addict’s timeline you sketched out also tracks how Paul’s infectious creativity around the time of Pepper turns into demanding 70-odd takes of Rocky Raccoon, Ob-la-di, and Maxwell’s by 1968-69. You guys WILL work on these songs until they are PERFECT because they are FUN, dammit. (As an aside – I don’t think those songs would be so infamous if Paul had taken the approach of “let’s bang this out in one or two takes and have a good time” — there’s a rehearsal of Maxwell’s in the Get Back movie with some whistling and a looser atmosphere, and the song both works in that context and is much weirder.) I don’t get the impression that December 1966 McCartney would’ve done that, any more than I think December 1966 John Lennon would’ve shown up as disengaged and out of it as January 69 John Lennon. As to heroin in London, I recall reading something like that as well. It seems like the vanguard of the drug addicted rock world in England were becoming addicted to heroin by late 1968 – the Dirty Mac performance of Yer Blues looks like four junkies.
  • Heroin and the Beatles’ Breakup Comment by Anon on May 27, 00:34 Just an FYI that there’s a spam link in the text! “He had Detox insurance…”
  • How We Got Here Comment by Michael Gerber on May 25, 12:51 Bless you for the encouragement!
  • How We Got Here Comment by Justin McCann on May 24, 05:15 Exactly why there’s a gap in the market for more expansive writing that situates the band in a broader cultural and intellectual context, say I 🙂
  • How We Got Here Comment by Michael Gerber on May 23, 18:09 Oh thank you for liking the Nazis piece; as I recall it was Christmas Week or something, and I was sitting there writing about how knowing the history of Weimar makes me worry all the time. Fascism makes it hard for me to get into the Holiday spirit. That’s an interesting idea about the additional content, @Justin. Of course I go in the other direction and think, “Can I use my publishing wiles to talk to Significant Beatle Authors as a way to generate exclusive content?” I do think you’re right that people just subscribe. I am so grateful for that — I am stretched incredibly thin and have so many projects in air that I can freeze up. I am going to take a catnap now (6:00 pm) so I can spend this Saturday night writing. Weekend? What’s a weekend? I’m coming around to the idea of putting Dullblog on Substack simply to give people a way to support, but also to have Substack readers know about us. I’m honestly a little sheepish about it because the Beatle content over there is…well, it’s very obsessive, and that’s never been my jam. But I take everyone’s continued interest in the site as proof that maybe some people would enjoy Dullblog on Substack.
  • How We Got Here Comment by Justin McCann on May 23, 15:23 Your piece about the Nazis at the time was one of my favourite things you’ve written btw, cut through all the Discourse and hit the nail right on the head. IMO there’s just something about Substack, where you get all these enthusiastic and loyal readers who are there because they love writing and writers, and see themselves as patrons of the arts more than as traditional consumers (similar to Patreon I guess). I have a subscriber who keeps giving me a fiver a month even though I haven’t posted for months & months now, continuing to even after I offered to reimburse him for his wasted money. (I also kept up payments to the HD Patreon for a good while after the site went on its indefinite hiatus, as a sort of ongoing thank you for the hours of enjoyment I’d already had :-)) I think the Internet has basically shattered the old ‘I provide X product and charge Y amount’ model; in an era where people can get practically *everything* for free they basically give money to people they like because they like them. All that said, I never paywall on Substack, and know that if I did (on top of posting more in general) I’d attract more payers. So there’s something there for sure. One idea might be to do a paywalled post at regular intervals of however many weeks, available only on Substack? I know that’d add more to a workload that probably can’t take any more adding to, but what if the paywalled posts were more shoot-from-the-hip, freewheeling, less edited, more personal, hell, even the dreaded listicles…in other words, the kind of thing that’d take 2 seconds to do and you likely wouldn’t want on the main HD site anyway. That very offhandedness might well drive paid subs by being *more* likely to appeal to the kind of person who loyally reads HD and would like to get to know its creator better – seems to me like the slicker mainstream culture gets, the more a certain type of person is drawn to stream-of-consciousness articles and spontaneous one-take videos! So a Substack could be a “McCartney I & II” to the main site’s “Pepper”. Just a thought 🙂
  • How We Got Here Comment by Michael Gerber on May 22, 14:50 I’ve found Substack OK for Bystander — we left after it was discovered to be platforming Nazis, but were forced to come back when Ghost simply didn’t grow our readerbase. I want Dullblog to remain free on the web, as HeyDullblog.com; but I might test a Substack version to monetize the content. What I’d call “the Dullblog approach” to Beatle fandom is, I think, much more common on Substack. But I would love love love for new readers to be able to dive into our archives/comments. The question is, will anybody pay $5/mo for something they could also get on the web for free?
  • How We Got Here Comment by Justin McCann on May 22, 06:41 I’ve found it to be a handy way of building a dedicated audience myself – over the years I’ve attracted hundreds of subscribers with next-to-zero promotion and vast gaps between posts, and have seen other homemade publications growing much quicker and gathering a fair few paid subs along the way. It makes me sad to think of a passion project costing someone thousands rather than making them thousands (maybe because that’s exactly what recording music does to me?), so thought I’d throw the idea out there. Curious what you mean by ‘does the content live on the web for free’ – are you talking in a philosophical sense? 🙂 I know Bystander has a Substack presence so you’ve some experience with the platform, how have you found it so far?
  • A Few Thoughts on Beatles Scholarship Comment by Michael Gerber on May 17, 12:30 I think this is very good: “ I think a lot of what makes the Internet the Internet is that it’s disproportionately used by young people, who are disproportionate about just about everything. Their obsessions become the standard for enthusiasm, their lusts become the standard for romance, & their cancelling fury becomes the standard for righteous anger.” I would also add something I find particularly intense in younger people today: reshaping the past into something new that they like. People under 35 consider themselves consumers more than anything else, and so to be acknowledged at all, the past must deliver pleasant feelings, or confirm contemporary visions of people and the world that make them feel right. So you get the Beatles and their story remixed as if they are current college students. Have all generations done this? Well, the concept of generations is itself a new idea; you can’t engage with the past as a cohort before the cohort idea doesn’t exist. And even within the generations some are much more empowered than others. I’m Gen X, and it has never seemed that we needed to claim/remake the fabs in our own image—and indeed to do so would seem fraudulent. I think we are more a chronicler generation. The other issue is the outsized cultural impact of younger generations caused by the internet and social media. Social media is so much about taking public stands on issues to define oneself. So Lennon’s wife-beating is teased out of his larger life because it’s useful in this way. “I love the Beatles but Lennon was a shit because he beat his wife” is a stance that does a certain kind of work for the poster, so that’s what people say; that becomes a dominant opinion on the group among a certain cohort; McLennon is similar. These are perfectly fine opinions, as far as they go—but my issue is always that they don’t go very far, and history—that happened and who people were—doesn’t care about “believing women” or “love is love” or any of the many other proper stances on social. Many of these stances are, to me, sensible and appropriate, but if one uses them as a lens through which to look back, one sees less, and less accurately. For example, if Lennon is simply a wife-beater, you can’t see that his strategy of metered self-revelation is probably quite central to how celebrities use socials, and thus how we ALL use socials. I truly believe if Lennon hadn’t lived, we would engage with celebrity differently today. And as celebrity dominates our culture now and more, his influence grows. To engage with the past on its own terms is to become an adult; to insist that it reflect YOU is a way to remain a child. And there is a LOT of money determined to keep people as childlike as possible, for as long as possible.
  • How We Got Here Comment by Michael Gerber on May 17, 11:55 Yeah I wasn’t liking them either. MANY THANKS for your pledge! Really appreciate it.
  • How We Got Here Comment by Michael Gerber on May 17, 11:54 I HAVE thought of cross-posting HD to Substack, but haven’t done so because I don’t want to divide the audience. And does the content live on the web for free? Any opinions?
  • A Few Thoughts on Beatles Scholarship Comment by Justin McCann on May 17, 03:40 Very interesting. Personally, it’s never occurred to me to think that the Beatles were particularly important, or that it’s imperative that their story is gotten 100.00% right, or that my unreasonably large knowledge about them represents anything more than a handy pool of data I can map my own personal dramas onto, or man back onto the dramas. I think a lot of what makes the Internet the Internet is that it’s disproportionately used by young people, who are disproportionate about just about everything. Their obsessions become the standard for enthusiasm, their lusts become the standard for romance, & their cancelling fury becomes the standard for righteous anger. They get a little older, calm down a bit, stop posting so much. So all you see online is people at their most extreme. It sounds condescending to say it, but the main feeling I have always gotten off SM etc is silliness (‘You are not serious people’). And with AI things have just got much, much sillier. It’s easy for all of that to rub off on even older people if they’re too exposed to it, which is why it can be so refreshing to go outside and realise most people over a certain age aren’t online all that much and don’t care so very much about whatever it is you’ve just been jumping down a rabbit hole about.
  • Will the Beatles Last? Comment by Justin McCann on May 16, 17:09 Asking the Big Questions, I love it. That’s what blogs are for. Pasted from my comment on “Beatles Folk Memory”, as it’s even more relevant to this post: [Every recent music series & film has been heavily sanitised & Disney-fied.] If we’re not careful, the Beatles could end up the “Beatles, Beatles” in the same way that England became “England, England” in the Julian Barnes novel. But personally, I think the music’s ultimately strong, quirky and inventive enough to survive all that. You made an analogy with Shakespeare elsewhere, and I think it holds: enduring institution, conjures a different time, somehow part of the air we breathe, possessed of enough depth, human spirit and transgressive daring that scholarly types will always delight in unearthing the original intent and “making it new” again (‘To understand how new the Moog would have sounded at the time, imagine the part played on an iSynth 203!’).
  • Old Draft: Beatles Folk Memory 1970-1995 Comment by Justin McCann on May 16, 17:01 Next Big Event after the Anthology / Britpop revival era has to be the Internet, right. Message boards, forums, endless Greatest Album rankings, amateur reviewers like George Starostin, John McFerrin, Piero Scaruffi, Wilson & Alroy. Power to the people. The people speak and…the Beatles get re-canonised all over again. The fandom’s always been diverse, but in the decades after this, that diversity makes itself heard more than at any point since macho rock critics stole music appreciation from teenage girls. The public’s take on the band is fleshed out by all these different perspectives, most notably the female one. The Fabs’ cred climbs even higher as it finally becomes possible to say that they aren’t just more fun to listen to than Led Zeppelin or Nirvana, they might actually be cooler too. Paul’s star rises. The SM-driven rise of cancel culture – a phrase that gets thrown almost exclusively at the left, even though the right invented the principle right about the time we discovered agriculture – and a reckoning concerning the Beatles’ conduct. John’s star fades. The 2012 Summer Olympics. An endless stream of YouTube reaction videos. Rick Beato naming his child Lennon. Paul McCartney’s undying commitment to the legacy: tours, chat shows, Rick Rubin, Carpool Karaoke. The Beatles are firmly part of History, Universally Likeable, thoroughly cute again. Seemingly unassailable International Treasure status. Think the Queen or James Bond. Lately, the Get Back phenomenon, and now these 4 movies coming out in the wake of the Queen, Elton, Dylan & Springsteen movies. IMO every single one of these projects has had the same sanitised “Disney” vibe, which is a major cause for concern (although the Elton one managed to depress the hell out of me anyway). I’m not even talking primarily about whitewashing the personalities, though that’s in the mix as well – after all, Chalamet’s Dylan wasn’t particularly sympathetic – it’s more this silly Day-Glo aura that flattens the world surrounding these icons and uses every cheap trick in the book to maximise the impact of the performances, which ends up obliterating exactly what made them important and special. If we’re not careful, the Beatles could end up the “Beatles, Beatles” in the same way that England became “England, England” in the Julian Barnes novel. But personally, I think the music’s ultimately strong, quirky and inventive enough to survive all that. You made an analogy with Shakespeare elsewhere, and I think it holds: enduring institution, conjures a different time, somehow part of the air we breathe, possessed of enough depth, human spirit and transgressive daring that scholarly types will always delight in unearthing the original intent and “making it new” again (‘To understand how new the Moog would have sounded at the time, imagine the part played on an iSynth 203!’).
  • Memories of Nicholas Schaffner and The Beatles Forever Comment by Justin McCann on May 16, 16:00 Aw, good on her. Stevie Wonder is joy. He is life. He is love. The early Beatles, to me, are car rides to school and orchestra practice with my dad. Those who listen to Beatles for Sale and hear only silly old-fashioned pop songs aren’t getting all the darkness and light and sadness and joy and mystery and magic I got at 11 years old on the Wicklow N11 at night.
  • Memories of Nicholas Schaffner and The Beatles Forever Comment by Justin McCann on May 16, 15:21 On commenting: I was asked to put in my name & email address the first time, after which my browser has been auto-filling them without any further instruction from me. It’d be nice to have the ability to edit comments after leaving them – especially as I’ve discovered that if you try to insert phone emojis they don’t survive the posting process, leaving you with a weird-looking sentence without a full stop, haha. But hey, gives me a chance not to indulge my own perfectionism. On Lennon: yeah, I’m just weary of the cancellation at this point. This Tolkien quote means more to me than anything in his books: ‘For myself, I find I become less cynical rather than more – remembering my own sins and follies; and realise that men’s hearts are not often as bad as their acts, and very seldom as bad as their words.’ And of course these things are always so selective. I had a friend justify his Beatles dislike by invoking John’s wife-beating, in the same breath as saying he preferred the Stones, i.e. a band with Brian Jones in it. I mean, are you kidding me? Of course Ringo was a wife-beater as well, but it’s never become a meme, and no-one seems bothered to look it up; Paul and George: not violent like the other two, but nowhere near feminists by modern standards; The Who and many other contemporaries: don’t even get me started. You’re right that Lennon’s legacy will survive regardless. You’ve pointed out before that he’s a master communicator to Paul’s master musician, which hits the nail on the head. (Obviously these things are relative: John’s musicality and Paul’s ability to convey meaning are top-tier compared to 99.9% of songwriters ever, at least when they have each other as editors.) Towards the end of that Starostin Pepper review, when he finally gets to “Day in the Life”, he points out something I’ve never properly noticed before – that *John is a master of writing songs where the lyrics flow conversationally without sacrificing the melody*. He says exactly what he wants to say, without compromising for the sake of prettiness on the one hand, or lapsing into Dylanesque speak-singing on the other. Sometimes that means verging on rapping (“Walrus”), or making the meter do all kinds of crazy things (“Good Morning”), but catchiness and a basic likeability are *always* maintained. Balancing just enough playfulness with just enough seriousness; grit with warmth; form with message; pop with rock. It’s just occurred to me to put it this way: Lennon is what happens when you put the other two greatest songwriters ever, McCartney and Dylan, in a blender. The one isn’t gonna write “Lucy in the Sky”; the other couldn’t do “If I Fell”. Can’t resist quoting Starostin at length: ‘One thing that’s striking is the phrasing. He blew his mind out in a car, he didn’t notice that the lights had changed. A crowd of people stood and stared — they’d seen his face before, nobody was really sure if he was from the House of Lords…Throw in a couple of you-knows and uh-ehs in there, and you got yourself a realistic piece of dialogue, something you’d be liable to hear from anyone simply describing the event. That was John’s fairly unique gift — to take something like this and present it not even just as poetry, but as song, where each next line smoothly and logically flows out of the other and forms a perfect rhythmic and harmonic contour. This explains why so many of John’s vocal melodies feel odd and challenging (but so impactful) from a conventional point of view: he is not trying to squeeze the words into a preset pattern (like McCartney, who usually works from the musical melodic line), he is molding the pattern to fit the words, even when it does not seem to fit at first. Who else but John would have come up with that fast ascending line (”…nobody was really sure if…“) to end the verse? It’s the kind of stuff you typically encounter in classic progressive rock — say, Peter Gabriel, or Peter Hammill — but John does a better job of adapting that style to catchy pop music patterns. From ‘She Said She Said’ to ‘Mr. Kite’ to ‘Sexy Sadie’, it’s always the same thing; ‘A Day In The Life’ is simply the most portentous of examples.’
  • How We Got Here Comment by Justin McCann on May 16, 11:54 Btw I’m sure you’ve considered a Substack Mike? Decent interface, stand up for their writers, free to run, publications with lots of subs can do quite well out of it…Might be an interesting way to have the HD brand start making as opposed to costing money, or at least break even.
  • How We Got Here Comment by Justin McCann on May 15, 19:15 The silver lining is you’ll hopefully end up making more money this way Honestly, I found the ads very intrusive on my phone and am very happy to pay the 4.50 p/m rather than see them any more (oh, plus there’s the whole supporting the arts thing).
  • How We Got Here Comment by Michael Gerber on May 15, 17:44 Thank you, @Paul — I’ll fix the Patreon next week!
  • How I’d publish Tune In Vol. 2 and 3! Comment by Michael Gerber on May 15, 17:43 @Nancy, please do post! You are missed. I agree, especially with your sentiment that the story gets harder to tell accurately (and much more contentious!) the further along one gets. And also, a significantly younger collaborator (say, someone in their 30s) would make sure that all the volumes are written.
  • How We Got Here Comment by paul on May 15, 17:04 I’m sorry to hear all this Mike, what a mess. If you bring back the dullblog patreon, I’m onboard!
  • How I’d publish Tune In Vol. 2 and 3! Comment by paul on May 15, 17:02 @Nancy Carr, I was hoping you would be back! I have enjoyed your writing and well thought out posts. I look forward to more of your insights, thank you!
  • How I’d publish Tune In Vol. 2 and 3! Comment by Nancy Carr on May 15, 12:39 I hope Lewisohn is listening! This seems like a workable plan and it would be great if he’d get behind it. I’m not sanguine about the prospects of ever getting an additional volume, because Lewisohn seems to me like a born researcher who has trouble getting to the writing stage. It would be interesting if he were willing to work with a partner who could help with the writing and editing, not just to get the project moving more briskly but also to help liven up the prose. Compounding Lewisohn’s deep-dive researching challenge is that the further one gets into the Beatles story the steeper and rockier the terrain. I don’t envy anyone trying to build a definitive history out of so many conflicting and deeply-entrenched readings of events (and disagreements about some of the events). Glad to see HD back and I may even begin posting myself!
  • Did Paul “Save The Beatles”? Comment by Michael on May 14, 19:00 A good point, and like Michael Gerber, one I hadn’t really thought of. It seems plausible. I think I’ve posted somewhere on here before (or maybe I’ve just *meant to post*) that by 1968, John Lennon is the only one of the people who founded and led major band who isn’t completely sidelined – Brian Wilson and Brian Jones did not really survive 1967, and Bob Dylan at least metaphorically crashed out and was trying to figure out a way forward that didn’t kill him. John’s acid reverie is maybe his version of the “motorcycle crash” but McCartney/Epstein/George Martin/the Beatles family seem to have cushioned him from something as drastic and life-threatening as what happened to Dylan. Anyway, that’s a long way of saying – thinking about it more, it does sound plausible that he would be. Especially, perhaps, once he gets to India and isn’t constantly trying to destroy his ego.
  • My Yoko Problem… and yours? Comment by paul on May 14, 18:31 Just the amount of comments here tells me everything I need to know. I’ll let it at this: I agree with Sir Huddleston
  • Eleanor Rigby But The Beatles Step On A Lego Comment by Alejandra Castro on May 14, 16:44 Did it hurt John more, or is he doing primal therapy?