- Bernie and the Beatles - January 21, 2021
- Speaking ill of the dead: Phil Spector - January 18, 2021
- A few thoughts on conspiracy theories. - January 14, 2021
This morning the following video was dropped on Twitter, and it’s been lighting up our comments, so here:
So, basically, “A Hard Day’s Night,” circa 1969—which is what lots of Beatles fans wanted in 1970, and maybe even more want in 2020. It’s really striking to see them doing the same kinds of cuts and capers they did in 1964, but with High Hippiedom swirling about them, and Yoko playing the role of Patti Boyd.
Anybody who’s ever cut together a film knows that the narrative is created by the editing; and Jackson’s narrative is plainly meant to counterbalance the “Get Back sessions were torture” narrative that has existed since the original movie appeared. Is this is good thing? Well, it’s certainly an entertaining thing, and the Beatles were entertainers then and a brand now. So a happy re-edit makes a certain kind of sense, and I will queue up along with the rest of you and excitedly so.
But I will be keeping two things in mind.
The first is that “Let It Be” was what it was, because of the time in which it was created. 1969/70 popular culture was filled with myth-busters and antiheroes; it was the year of Easy Rider, a year where the spectacularly grubby Midnight Cowboy (!) won Best Picture. Incidentally, the most important British film of that year, the anti-patriotic Oh! What a Lovely War, was nearly a Beatles project. According to producer Len Deighton, he and Paul McCartney had lunch in 1967, discussing a version of the movie starring the Fabs and using new music by them (rather than the period music that forms the emotional center of the play, and eventually, film).
Some part of this late-60s demolition was simply fashion, grist for the mill; but at its best, there was a well thought out, humane philosophy behind it, a belief that myths get people killed. So, what did the Beatles wish to say to their fans, circa 1969? Here is what we really are, here is what it really is. Don’t be fooled (perhaps like we were). I discuss the unremittingly dour Let It Be, and its possibilities, at some length here.
So Let It Be was and will ever be a drag, but a Beatle movie that showed the Fabs “trousers off” was just as in tune as AHDN had been in 1964. In 1969, showing a Beatle with pimples wasn’t mere nihilism, it was an artistic statement, and it was one that Chief Beatle Lennon was 100% committed to, as well as the others. So rather than the footage being edited to prettify it, to shine lime-colored light on the group’s smoothest showman (as Lennon famously groused), I suspect LIB was edited with this verité aspect in mind, skewing a bit towards the negative.
If that’s one thought the other will be this: It wasn’t just how Let It Be was edited that has given it the shabby reputation it has. At/near the time, everybody dismissed that period and those sessions as a godawful drag—that is why we all thought it! We were taking our lead from J/P/G/R, the only people who would know, and their opinion was consistent. If Jackson’s Get Back is a ball and a blast, it’s running counter to what John, Paul, George, and even Ringo said during the 70s and 80s. This is heavy revisionism and should be judged as such. By the time of the Anthology, with no John around to bust myths, and when it was abundantly clear that there would be no new Beatles—hence even downer Beatles was pretty damn great—everyone’s opinions on January 1969 started to soften. That process has ultimately culminated in this project. Our ravening need for Beatle content meant that even Let It Be would inevitably be coated in the honey of nostalgia. It’s only remarkable that it’s taken this long.
One last point: this project was inspired by Peter Jackson’s “They Shall Not Grow Old,” which uses AI and other digital tricks to turn footage from 1914-18 into something more recognizable as reality. For anyone interested in World War I, the modernization of the images performs a tremendous service—we suddenly see those men as real people, not herky-jerky shadows engaged in some ghoulish puppetshow. The digital trickery—from interpolation of frames to colorization to dubbing—turned something made to seem unreal, feel real again.
What’s going on here with Get Back is different. We already know these men; the technology used in Let It Be does not make them feel distant. It’s the content of that story that is alienating, and it was alienating to us because that’s how it felt to John, Paul, George, and Ringo. But as much as we (and they) didn’t like it, there’s nothing in the past 51 years that has suggested the fractious, smothering story depicted in Let It Be was wrong.
It seems that what Jackson and his crew are attempting is to change the content, so that we have a LIB-era Beatles the way we wish they’d been—and maybe the way THEY wish they been—rather than how they really were. As much as I think Lennon and Harrison would’ve enjoyed counting the money—and Get Back post-COVID will be massive—I think those two particularly would’ve had qualms. Stardom was not easy for them; it took big bites out of them, it scarred them. John and George were especially interested in myth-busting because they felt what living as myths had done to their soul, and weren’t sure the trade had been worth it. Perhaps not coincidentally, they were the ones who left us early. So when I’m watching Get Back—and enjoying it—I’ll be hearing cautionary whispers from John and George. Whether they make you go over the top at the Somme, or make you smoke, or walk New York without a bodyguard, myths can get you killed.
Related posts:
Peter Fonda 1939-2019
Follow us on Twitter! @HeyDullblog
John Lennon’s Self-Portrait
Get Back Release Date: September 4, 2020
Astrid Kirchherr, 1938-2020
Rob Sheffield on the Beatles’ breakup and Peter Jackson’s upcoming film
Preview of LENNONYC: Jack Douglas
Johnandyoko Open Thread
Why Your Favorite Celebrity Isn’t Who You Think They Are
A Secret History of The Beatles?
It happened in Toronto
Like the new Comments?
Thank you for this, Michael. So pleased you had time to post your thoughts about this little preview that Peter Jackson posted.
I had read that Richy had already been seeing bits of Jackson’s new film and he was saying how lovely was the film footage of those days. Seems incredible looking at this lovely flowery version of Let It Be. I hated Let It Be and did not retain my video copy of the film. It really made me so sad. So yeah, I will be the little 12 year old Beatle fan and be happy with the August 2021 version of AHDN by Peter Jackson. I know I will be virtually holding hands with Richy who will like it too.
Just seeing them happy and smiling and laughing again is joyous. As Richy said the music is there, the humor, the joy. The pleasure they had in each other’s company is there.
Yoko has said that John wanted to bring her into The Beatles. I never heard him say that. I don’t see how that would have been possible. I can’t see Paul, George or Ringo voting her in. And Yoko wanted to move back to NYC. Which certainly happened a few years later.
I believe there was a scene described in the Doggett book where John, at a Beatles meeting said something to the effect of “Yoko and I are one and the same, the same person at this point…etc” and then Ringo chimes in saying “But John, she never be a Beatle” and John arguing that she is and they’ve absorbed into one person…something weird like that.
I dont know if John ever went as far as to absolutely declare her a Beatle. In his own mind she probably was while the other three rolled their eyes and tried to maintain their wits about them. She was there so often. Truly the tiniest yet most impactful elephants in the room that ever existed.
Yet I also heard him say that he used Yoko as a way out, which I think is closer to the truth. John was a bundle of contradictions; thought it was common knowledge by now that everything shouldn’t be taken at face value.
There’s no contradiction here. The melding WAS the way out.
The other three Beatles didn’t want to be in a group with Yoko Ono (why would they? Yoko wasn’t a rock musician). By insisting that he and Yoko are the same person, John is forcing the other three Beatles to either 1) kick him out, which they’d never do, or 2) leave, which Paul eventually did. Thus, she’s his way out. And this only works if Yoko is a really inappropriate choice; if it’s impossible to incorporate her. John picked Yoko because she could never be the Fifth Beatle. So he could then insist that she be that, and break up the group under cover of love.
It’s a bit like the Big Lie in politics: the more absurd it is, the more of a loyalty test one’s acquiescence becomes. Yoko was the last person on Earth to be the Fifth Beatle; that’s why John picked her, and said he “merged” with her.
There’s infatuation, and we’ve all gone through that. But this is infatuation PLUS politics, the zeitgeist of the time. John used his relationship with Yoko as a weapon to force a choice: either become the backing group for JohnandYoko, or break up the Beatles. There was no middle ground here, and that was the point.
It’s actually pretty astounding that they put up with it for as long as they did — can you imagine John’s reaction if Paul had insisted that Linda be a Beatle? Or George, Patti? Or Ringo, Maureen? It was no more appropriate for John to insist that his new lover, an obscure if well-respected conceptual artist, be a member of The Beatles, and if anybody’s going to argue that it was appropriate, they should be prepared to answer, “So why not Maureen?”
And it wasn’t feminism that made John demand Yoko’s inclusion; he hadn’t ever insisted that another woman be a member of the group. Nor had Yoko ever shown any interest in making Beatle-like music, for a Beatle-like audience. John’s narcissism made him make the demand; Yoko’s narcissism made her acquiesce to it; and neither really thought what life would be like after John didn’t have his band to sell records for him, or that the silly conceit of “merging as a single consciousness” would become a lot less interesting when it was paying the utility bill, not speaking to the international press.
The whole thing is very damaged and dopey, in both senses of that word.
I don’t really agree with this. I think John wanted to merge as a single consciousness with Paul, hence his delight when Paul agreed to take LSD with him and his fury when Paul said no more (in India if I had to guess).
The John and Paul as Lovers thread is interesting, but whether or not they were lovers seems a bit beside the point, or at least, not really irrelevant. For me, it seems clear that John wanted to merge with Paul, and that he used Yoko to try and force Paul to acquiesce, then went completely off the rails when he wouldn’t.
What merging as a single consciousness with John would have looked like for Paul is anyone’s guess, but he obviously had a taste of it when he took LSD with John, and it apparently disturbed him enough that he was willing to walk away from his songwriting partnership and let Yoko have John before going there again.
By 1969, John looked like someone whose soul had been sucked out of him. No doubt that’s the danger of merging consciousness with someone else – you lose yourself in the process. Of course, that’s what John wanted, but he was forced to settle for Yoko in my opinion – partly to save his pride and partly because he didn’t have any other option.
@Elizabeth, it’s an interesting theory, but there’s no evidence whatever that John wanted to “merge into a single consciousness” with Paul. He never said or wrote that to my knowledge (provide a link and I’ll believe it), whereas his JohnandYoko thing of ’68-’69 is well documented.
The Standard Narrative–much of which comes from John himself, and Paul himself–is that John and Paul were increasingly alienated from each other, and viewed each other as competitors. Whether we agree with that or think it’s overstating things, we have to give it pride of place as what they said.
You’re taking a couple of well-known events and knitting them into a Grand Unified Theory, which is fun but do hold it lightly. First of all, dropping acid with someone is no guarantee that you will “merge consciousness” with them (whatever that might mean); as of late ’66-early ’67 John had taken enough trips that he would’ve known that there was really no telling what might happen if he and Paul took acid together, and I think perhaps that was part of the appeal! Regardless, there does seem to be a desire among acid-heads to turn others on, to share their quasi-religious revelatory experience with the people they care about, but it’s not necessarily any kind of “two-become-one” soul-merging. What can happen (so I hear) is a perception of Oneness with the universe, a loss of the ego, a sense of smallness, etc. But even that’s not guaranteed.
If you’re interested in psychedelics, a good place to start is the site Erowid; they are people who know.
In my own experience, via meditation there is definitely a very gentle sense of ego-loss, but it’s not like you’re merging with only your friend on the cushion next to you; I have meditated sitting next to very very dear friends and while you may start out feeling them, pretty soon you’re perceiving yourself and them and everybody in the room and all the trees and animals and grass and cars and quasars as One Thing, i.e. Not Separate. Pretty soon the idea of loving your friend and not loving that squirrel or this planet or the entire Milky Way seems farcical — pure ego.
Once you’ve had that “big oneness” feeling, be it through acid or meditation, accompanying someone into the bathroom because you are One Person seems absurd. It seems like losing your ego, but staying in control so that you merge with Yoko and not Ringo, not your cat, not the desk. If you’re choosing only to merge with your girlfriend, by definition you haven’t lost your ego; what’s making that distinction? Your ego. And you haven’t weakened your boundaries, you’ve strengthened them. JohnandYoko was a game they played, not any kind of authentic spiritual exercise.
Paul said they “dissolved into each other”, perhaps even without the use of a psychedelic agent. But he was disturbed by the long-term effects of LSD, not his trip with John:
In McCartney’s biography, the legendary Beatle detailed his experience with Lennon like two star-crossed poets: “And we looked into each other’s eyes, the eye contact thing we used to do, which is fairly mind-boggling. You dissolve into each other. But that’s what we did, round about that time, that’s what we did a lot,” the singer recalled. “And it was amazing. You’re looking into each other’s eyes and you would want to look away, but you wouldn’t, and you could see yourself in the other person. It was a very freaky experience and I was totally blown away.”
In the book, McCartney also speaks about the effects of LSD and how he struggled to comprehend it’s power. “There’s something disturbing about it. You ask yourself, ‘How do you come back from it? How do you then lead a normal life after that?’ And the answer is, you don’t. After that you’ve got to get trepanned or you’ve got to meditate for the rest of your life. You’ve got to make a decision which way you’re going to go.”
He continued: “I would walk out into the garden – ‘Oh no, I’ve got to go back in.’ It was very tiring, walking made me very tired, wasted me, always wasted me. But ‘I’ve got to do it, for my well-being.’ In the meantime, John had been sitting around very enigmatically and I had a big vision of him as a king, the absolute Emperor of Eternity.”
“It was a good trip. It was great but I wanted to go to bed after a while.”
In my opinion, primal scream therapy probably had more to do with John “losing his soul” than any merged consciousness factor. Once he dropped Janov he was back to his old, albeit drinking, self.
Oh I remember some of this now. Fascinating.
John had been experimenting with stuff like this since he was a kid, looking into the mirror until his face melted, etc. It’s self-inducing trance states.
The thing about this is: when you fuck with your ego, your ego can get scared and start fucking with you in return. That’s what happened in India, I suspect. You can only talk about “ego-death” so much until your ego is like, “we’ll see about that!” 🙂
Well, it is true that it’s just a theory, and that it doesn’t disprove the official narrative. I don’t believe the official narrative, but I also can’t come up with the evidence to disprove it. If I could, I’d write the definitive book (a lot quicker than Lewisohn, by the way) and retire.
However, here’s what I think:
1. Paul took LSD with John in an attempt to reconnect with him. The idea of it (of taking LSD with John, not of taking LSD, which he had already done), frightened him, but he did it, one would presume in an attempt to find a way of reaching John in his drug haze – ‘To get with John’, as George Martin put it.
2. This made John very happy. I don’t have the exact quote, and I’m a bit snowed under with work at the moment, so don’t have time to cross reference, but I believe Pete Shotton said that John was the happiest he had ever been. (Not specifically in reference to Paul taking LSD with John, but during this timeframe.)
3. Jane Asher was jealous of the ‘spiritual experiences’ that Paul shared with John on LSD, and Paul later compared those experiences to ‘looking into someone’s eyes and seeing yourself reflected back so that you merge with the other person.’
From that, I would infer that the spiritual experiences shared by John and Paul involved a merging of consciousness which allowed them to reconnect. But I think the price of that was too high for Paul. Obviously not for John, who didn’t care whether he lived or died, but definitely for Paul, who didn’t want to turn into a junkie like John. So he stopped taking it (even though he knew it was the only way to reach John) and John replaced him with Yoko.
I think John used Yoko to try and provoke a reaction from Paul, once he perceived that Paul had given up trying to reconnect with him. He wanted Paul to fight for him, which Paul knew because he told the others that fighting Yoko was one of the choices available to him. But he didn’t – presumably to save his own sanity. I’m sure he loved John, but he obviously couldn’t save him. That’s the thing about drug addicts – you can try to help, but in the end, you have to walk away to save yourself from being dragged down with them.
I do agree that JohnandYoko was a game they played, or that it started out that way at least. Once John lost everyone else and only had Yoko to cling to, I think it became something darker. But I think it began as a strategy to get a reaction from Paul.
Of course, I could be completely wrong. But I still don’t believe the official narrative, and I don’t think it was about unrequited love or lust or whatever. I just think they were done in by drugs.
@Elizabeth, I think all that’s right on the money. Increasingly I find myself here addressing Grand Unified Theories of the Beatle story, and while I too have many problems with the standard narrative, I think it’s wisest to use it as a baseline.
In my experience, the thing about addicts is that everything lives at a very high tenor of emotionality. They LOVE you or HATE you; they think you LOVE them or HATE them; you must PROVE your undying love; they’ll NEVER speak to you again…That’s what I see between John and Paul after 1966. Then you add in the reality-destabilizing aspects of drug use in general and psychedelics in particular, and really anything is possible. It’s going to be very difficult for us normals to decode, because you have the addict layer, and the fame layer, and the wealth layer, and the drugs layer, and the sexual layer (whatever that might’ve been).
“He wanted Paul to fight for him, which Paul knew because he told the others that fighting Yoko was one of the choices available to him. But he didn’t – presumably to save his own sanity.”
There is an interview with Paul in 1985 on German TV where he says, “If I was a girl” he would have fought for John. Here is the video (the German overdub is enough to drive one crazy, though. Can’t they use subtitles?) Someone was kind enough to transcribe: https://amoralto.tumblr.com/post/165129421967/april-3rd-1985-soho-square-london-paul-talks
‘There’s an interview with Paul in 1985 on German TV where he says, ‘If I were a girl’ he would have fought for John.’
@Michelle – it seems to me that Paul is as anxious to promote the JohnandYoko narrative as John and Yoko themselves. That statement just reinforces the official story – that John fell in love with Yoko and Paul could not stand in the way of that.
The JohnandYoko narrative is a lot more palatable than the alternative, which is John was strung out on drugs and screaming out for help, using Yoko (followed by Allen Klein, followed by Phil Spector) to try and get a reaction out of Paul, but Paul put his own sanity first and did not try to save John.
Not that I think it’s a coincidence that John happened to go completely off the rails when Linda arrived on the scene. He obviously knew he was about to lose Paul, which was why he went for broke with JohnandYoko in my opinion (‘Look, Paul – I’m merging consciousness with Yoko now. You better do something to stop me quick.’)
It doesn’t mean they were lovers (though it certainly wouldn’t surprise me), just that John wanted Paul to save him but Paul walked away to save himself – which is what most people who have to deal with drug addicts end up doing. The price was too high for Paul, who had everything to lose, but not for Yoko, who had everything to gain.
However, if Paul McCartney had attempted to explain this to the media in 1985, he would have been crucified. Much safer to peddle the official narrative.
That’s why I think anyway.
@Elizabeth, that’s pretty much what I think, too, with a heavy overlay of a specific type of psychological discomfort that I am planning to write about on the site soon.
@Michael – I would go a bit further and say that John’s Lost Weekend was LIB, Part Two. Again, he wanted Paul (who had been his caretaker for all those years) to save him, and again, Paul wouldn’t do it. By save, I mean wind back the clock. I think he wanted to go home and for things to go back to the way they had been in the early days. But you can’t go backwards in life, and it’s clear that Paul could no longer be the one person John relied on.
I read one of your comments a while ago about Paul’s role as John’s caretaker and how you thought there was a connection between that and his relationship with his father. It’s an interesting theory, but I don’t get the impression that Paul’s father was that much of a drinker. Don’t get me wrong, hard drinking was a fact of life in post-war Northern Britain, but Paul’s father seems to me to have been a moderate sort of person, who would have known when to stop.
I think Paul became John’s caretaker out of necessity. John was unreliable so Paul had to do whatever was necessary to keep him productive. His own success depended on it.
If anything, I think Paul was motivated by the fear of losing what he’d worked so hard to achieve. He had already sacrificed his education at a top grammar school for the band/his songwriting partnership with John – if it all went tits up, he had nothing to fall back on. So he did what was necessary to ensure success, including being John’s caretaker.
I think Yoko referred to John and Paul’s relationship as ‘unhealthy’, and she was right in this respect. A relationship like that is always eventually going to lead to resentment on both sides.
@Elizabeth, excuse me first while I stop chuckling; the idea of Yoko Ono characterizing ANY relationship as “unhealthy” is…
As to where Paul got his caretaker tendencies, it could’ve been Jim, or it could’ve been Mary, or it could’ve been a pattern established a generation earlier, not rooted out, and taught to him by Jim or Mary. The alcoholic family matrix seems to persist until you identify it and take the difficult psychological steps to remove it intentionally. “X behavior is wrong and hurtful, and instead I’m going to do y, even though y feels strange, unloving and cold and the rest of my family would flip out if they knew.”
“Excessive drinking” is not the marker, necessarily; it’s a set of behaviors, usually well-hidden on purpose. You can act like an alcoholic, and not drink a drop (the so-called “dry drunk” thing). It’s the behaviors that form the people around you. If Jim was teetotal but he was critical, cutting, demanded perfection, etc, that might be good enough. Or it could’ve been Jim’s parent, who formed Jim, and then Jim formed Paul because that’s the only way he knew how to parent. And Jim could’ve done all those things and really loved Paul, too.
Given that Paul is who he seems to be–I think he’s as much The Hero as The Caretaker–it’s a fairly good bet that someone shaped him into that as a child. These are patterns that are taught. Who he learned it from, and why, is a bit of a parlor game. We know he’s a Hero; we also know he was (or could make himself into) a Caretaker because there’s no way to have been in a close creative partnership with John Lennon from 1957-1970 for him NOT to be.
And the level of investment is so intense that it can’t be a gambit. It can’t be, “Well, I’ll prop this guy’s life up to keep this good thing going.” It may well have started like that, but after some date — 1965? — it was clear that Paul could’ve had a tidy little career as a solo act, maybe more than tidy. He stayed close to John, stayed enabling John, because it fed something in him. And when you come from a family with addictive patterns, and you’re the caretaker, caretaking is *deeply satisfying*. Until it goes too far and, as you say, you begin to resent it. I think that’s what was happening in Scotland in 1969 — Paul was FURIOUS at having done his Hero and Caretaker stuff for 12 years, and now he’s getting dumped? Being Paul, he directed that inward. He was so furious, in fact, that he swore never to take care of John again; and he was furious enough to keep that promise to himself.
These are my guesses; take what helps and leave the rest.
@Elizabeth- But it was Yoko who approached Paul to “save” John in LA. As far as John wanting to turn back the clock to the early days, it was Paul who invited him to the V&M sessions, which John agreed to but changed his mind (sadly) when Yoko entered the picture again.
@Michael – I completely agree with you that children are shaped by the behaviour of their parents.
Paul, it seems, was shaped into a child who was extremely anxious about money. He grew up on council estates, of course, but mostly because his mother was housed in the communities she worked in. She was a nurse, his father a salesman – they were solid middle class careers in post war Liverpool.
I grew up in Liverpool, a couple of decades after Paul, but in similar surroundings. But where Paul’s mum was a nurse, mine was a hospital cleaner, and the only salesman I knew was the man who worked in the corner shop. We weren’t rich (obviously), but we weren’t poor either. The cost of living was relatively cheap in those days and we never went without.
A nurse and a salesman would have earned way in excess of my parents, but their outgoings, living in similar surroundings, couldn’t have been that different. Paul’s family couldn’t have been that badly off. So what shaped Paul into a child so anxious about money that the only thing he could say when he found out his mum had died was, ‘What will we do without her money?’
I would guess that his mother, who worked her way out of abject poverty at a time when social mobility was basically unheard of, was traumatised by her poor childhood, and that she passed that trauma onto Paul. I bet she worried about money all the time and that it was the cause of a lot of arguments in what was otherwise a happy home.
Of course, it could be that Mary’s father was an alcoholic and that his behaviour shaped her into a traumatised adult, who in turn shaped Paul into a traumatised child. That would make sense, though I have no idea if he was.
@Elizabeth, another way of looking at this data:
1) Money anxiety is ANXIETY.
2) Mary and Paul are both primarily anxious people who attempt to address this by work and common anxiety-relieving substances. Both lives seem to be well-ordered, and if there’s addiction to those substances, it’s very very high-functioning.
3) Still, anxiety doesn’t explain Paul’s behavior precisely. It doesn’t explain why, of all the people in the world, he picked John Lennon to collaborate with, George to be friends with, and Ringo to get into the band. Alcoholic family patterns DO explain that; not only that these four boys recreated an alcoholic family matrix in their group (John as the addict; Paul as the hero/caretaker; George as the Lost Boy; Ringo as the clown/mascot), but those complimentary, interlocking roles predict how close they were, how they interacted with each other throughout the history of the Beatles, and then what eventually broke them up. They HAD to break up — or change. It was not a healthy system.
So does anxiety, the McCartney family trait, overlap with alcoholism? Would a genetic predilection towards anxiety suggest a higher prevalence of alcoholism in the McCartney family? Here’s literally what came up on Google when I typed in “relationship between anxiety and alcoholism”: “Researchers have found that the risk for having either an anxiety disorder or alcohol use disorder is about three times greater if the other disorder is present.”
So, to me, it makes perfect sense that Paul was an anxious child, with a mother whose anxiety was the engine that drove her to better her financial situation; and his anxiety was the engine to better his financial situation. And Paul, being an anxious child, is three times more likely to have been a child whose family was also marked by alcoholism. And those alcoholic family patterns were the way that the McCartneys looked at the world, how they treated each other, etc.
John Lennon’s exactly the wrong guy to pick as a partner, if you’re anxious. But if you’ve been trained to be a caretaker/hero, you and he will glom together like brothers.
@Michelle – Mmm.
John was in LA giving interviews to Elliot Mintz (of course) about how he was ready to reform the Beatles. He was making an album of songs from his youth. He was telling everyone who would listen how homesick he was.
As for Yoko, do you honestly believe that she didn’t do that to manipulate John? That he didn’t know she was planning to do it? After John had said he wished he was back with Paul?
I think you wrote in a reply to one of my comments that you don’t believe John said that. Maybe he didn’t. But then again, he didn’t need to, did he?
@Michael – But what’s missing from this analysis is the impact of loss on Paul’s behaviour.
If you are a child who has been shaped by a parent to be anxious about money and you then experience a devastating loss which reinforces what you have always been taught – that everything can be snatched away from you in the blink of an eye – then the likelihood is, you will grow up to be an adult who will fight to hang on desperately to what is yours. Someone like that is going to be controlling – of their environment and of the people around them – because they are motivated by the fear that at any minute everything could be snatched away from them.
That’s why Paul was controlling, in my opinion. He was traumatised by the loss of his mother. John was probably drawn to him because his life was chaotic and he needed to be controlled.
Maybe there are overlaps with an alcoholic family matrix. But to me, John and Paul’s relationship was shaped by the way in which they had each been impacted by loss – one of them needy and the other one controlling. That’s why they chose each other, I think.
@Elizabeth- I remember that conversation. While I wish John really said that, and don’t dismiss it as impossible, I’m wary of McClennon quotes being invented and making the rounds as something one of them (or Cynthia) actually said. There are plenty of real quotes they can use. “I wish I was back with so-and-so” sounds like something an ex would say, especially when having an argument with a current partner. Who is the source of that quote? Yoko?
I’ve listened to several of the interviews John did with Elliot Mintz in LA. In one, a Beatles reunion was brought up and he said, “You never know.” In another, he was asked if there was still any hostility between him and Paul, and he said no – that he hopes his album does well, hopes the James Bond theme does well, wishes them all well and much success: “As long as I don’t have to be a part of it, it’s great.” If John wanted a reunion wouldn’t there have been a reunion? Maybe he did at one point, like they all did at certain points (according to Paul) just never all four at the same time.
The Rock ‘n Roll album wasn’t nostalgia so much as John’s obligation as a result of the “Come Together” lawsuit.
“If John wanted a reunion wouldn’t there have been a reunion?”
Oh gosh, there were a whole world of factors surrounding that. Legal concerns for one; financial agreements. Plus John himself seemed to change opinions based on who he’d talked to last. Plus, George would’ve been reluctant in the extreme. I think it could’ve happened–in fact, I think it would’ve happened in the early 1980s–but certainly during the years John was talking to Eliot Mintz, there were huge practical barriers to a four-person reunion.
Now, John sitting in with Paul during the “Venus and Mars” sessions? I think that was going to happen, until John moved back in with Yoko. I was just saying to someone yesterday that “Rockshow” has always sounded to me like the beginning of the next McCartney concept LP, one meant to dovetail with concerts co-starring John Lennon.
JohnandYoko was a game they played, not any kind of authentic spiritual exercise.
.
@Michael G, I have been wanting to pick the Dullbloggers’ brains about Mark Lewisohn’s apparent belief in and admiration for the JohnandYoko love story. And his statement that “there will be readers who will think that Klein was a bit of a hero” after reading the 3rd volume of “Tune In.” And his denial that John (and Yoko) were ever really addicted to heroin.
.
My inner cynic can’t help but notice that the common denominator of all these surprising assertions is: “highly beneficial to Yoko.”
.
Thoughts, anyone?
As much as we might like Lewisohn to be an impartial biographer, and as much as he desperately wants us to think he is, the reality is that he’s The Beatles house scribe. He was super-important—an essential writer—during the pre-Anthology years, when the important job was as much archiving as analysis. Now that the job is all analysis, the very things that make him palpable to the partners cannot help make him biased in equal measure.
Yoko wants to control the story utterly. She has been collecting every available copyrightable Lennon photo for the last 40 years, for example. Leaving aside the question of why – which should be asked — this puts someone like Lewisohn in a bit of a difficult position; if Yoko doesn’t cooperate, or cooperates and then recants her statements, his book and it’s sales are deeply marred. For his project to succeed, Lewisohn needs Yoko on board, 100%.
This reality doesn’t mean that he is lying; he could very well believe The Ballad. But we as readers must keep in mind that a book like this depends on access, and access means that the celebrities control what is said.
” . . . this puts someone like Lewisohn in a bit of a difficult position; if Yoko doesn’t cooperate, or cooperates and then recants her statements, his book and its sales are deeply marred. For his project to succeed, Lewisohn needs Yoko on board, 100%”
Exactly. See also: Philip Norman. When he was writing his Lennon bio, he went out of his way to get Yoko on his side (and he’s said it was his remark that Lennon was “80 percent of the Beatles” that helped him get that access). Then, after the bio was published, Yoko pulled her endorsement of it.
Now, in his more recent McCartney bio, Norman spends the intro explaining this background and essentially disavowing his earlier allegiance to the “Ballad of John and Yoko” version of history and his consequent harsh criticism of McCartney.
“Access” is one hell of a drug.
This is actually to Annie M re Lewisohn, but there’s no Reply button.
I have to admit I got worried when I heard those remarks from Lewisohn.
I get why Paul supports the JohnandYoko myth and the “wedding bells broke up the Beatles” story. The company line is a simple tale that’s in line with what another quarter of the company wants. It’s John’s version without the acrimony.
But Lewsiohn is supposed to be an impartial biographer, and he’s not only offering a slanted view, he’s ignoring facts.
John and Yoko didn’t have a mythical love, but rather a remarkable gift for marketing, you don’t go though cold turkey without being addicted, and Klein as any kind of hero is a joke. He only looked out for number one.
I don’t know that it has anything to do with Yoko though. I think it’s just Lewisohn’s John fanboy side coming on strong. I think those tendencies are present if somewhat under control in Tune In, but it’ll be VERY unfortunate if he’s less able to control them for future volumes.
@Annie M – I agree with Michael that Lewisohn is sucking up to the Lennon estate to gain access to information. This makes a mockery of his quest for ‘truth’, but I seriously doubt whether his motivation for writing the ‘definitive story’ is a noble as he likes to preach.
I’m not really a Lewisohn fan. I think he’s extremely immature and that lacking in emotional
intelligence. What sort of person would claim to know how someone who had suffered a devastating loss was feeling? Who talks like that about anyone? It says so much about Lewisohn that he isn’t able to edit himself – that he has no filter. I can see why he identifies with John and Yoko.
Also, his book badly needed a better editor. It was too long and most of it was boring and irrelevant filler.
While the snippets Jackson and his team have chosen to share certainly portray a bouncier, happier bunch than we’ve seen before, it doesn’t mean it’s not true or it’s only revisionism. I’ve never watched the bootleg hours and hours of footage, but I’ve read a few transcripts and heard several accounts of it and by and large the accounts — and this is pre-Peter-Jackson announcement — said that the footage wasn’t nearly as awful as what had been described and what was shown in Let It Be. AKOM podcast discussed the footage from a John & Paul’s partnership perspective and found lots of attempts to connect. Even Mark Lewisohn made a blog post of some sort, if I recall correctly, saying that once he’d watched it all he realized he’d been wrong about that period of time all along in thinking it was dour unhappiness.
.
I finally watched the full Let it Be movie last year and didn’t love it, despite my affection for McBeardy McCartney. Like you mention about the editing choices at the time, for whatever reason Lindsay-Hogg did what he did, it was just so goddamned dark and shadowy, almost until they get on the roof, when they all seem to come alive. Even normal or even normally grumpy interactions took on this sense of malevolent foreboding in all that chiaroscuro. So then ML-H went and made “Two of Us” to try and revision himself, maybe?
.
Anyway, it seems we all know what happened: the band broke up, there were fights, there were reconciliations and more fights and then some reconciliations, and then John was murdered. So it’s not like they can change the story in essence. And we’re getting something celebrating what made The Beatles The Beatles instead of only enduring the death rattles?
.
I dunno, maybe it’s just been such a terrible year. If happyfuntimes are what they want to sell me at this moment, I’m so buying. Just seeing the brightened, clear footage is worth buckets.
@Kristy, couple thoughts joggled, take them fwiw.
Michael Lindsay-Hogg did exactly what The Beatles wanted him to. The cut we saw was precisely the what The Beatles wanted us to see…which is its own interesting question. Why did THEY want us to see the group coming apart?
Similarly this movie is Peter Jackson doing what the four partners want him to do. The partners, especially Paul and Yoko, have been backing off the “LIB sucked” idea for decades; so much so that LIB hasn’t been available. There’s an obvious reason why.
Second, the “those sessions sucked” idea came from the Beatles themselves. It was only after John’s death—and really after Anthology—was the idea that maybe they weren’t so bad started to be bruited about, and that was Paul and Ringo. Yoko was all for this, too, because those sessions form the linchpin of the “Yoko broke up the group” idea. Happy sessions helps put paid to that’s
In addition to Yoko’s commercial and personal interest, Paul’s instinct is always to put the best face on things, and Ringo’s not the most analytical fellow.
My point is, opinions close to the event should be given more weight than opinions forty years later. And a sophisticated examination of the possible motivations and pressures upon each party makes a reboot with a positive spin completely predictable. Maybe more acccurste, maybe less, but as predictable as how Disney manages Star Wars — history has nothing to do with it.
It’s a revision. And it’s a revision with a LOT of money at stake, managed by a really image-conscious group of celebrities, fifty years after the fact, when the half of the band which was prone to myth busting is dead. So I’m taking it with a grain of salt; as I did the original. But a happy story has massive commercial appeal in a way that a “warts and all” portrayal does not. Any sophisticated view of this has to factor that in. My impatience with most of the analysis out there is that it seems to be wholly armchair psychoanalysis, without much understanding of the business or other pressures afoot.
Michael, I don’t think Olivia Harrison would agree to the project if she felt it was not honest, or trying to erase the past. According to Paul, he and Ringo, plus Olivia and Yoko, must agree to any Beatle projects.
If Olivia hated it, or felt it was trying to rewrite history, she’d say so. She’s not afraid to speak her mind.
George has been dead for twenty years; this will make lots of money; if it got out that Olivia was the sticking point, Beatle fans would HATE her.
There’s a lot of pressure here, and none of it is to make an historically accurate item. You’d have to practically fetishize historical accuracy to get in the way of this train. Even I–with a definite fetish in that direction!–wouldn’t dream of saying no. It’s MORE BEATLES!
Yoko has a commercial interest, but I don’t understand how she benefits personally from Happy LIB.
If Jackson’s cut showed even more bickering, and the title was Get Back: It Was Even More Uncomfortable Than You Thought couldn’t Yoko say “See? They were at each other’s throats. I didn’t cause the breakup, this is what I walked into!”
Instead, Happy LIB is released. Fans love it and believe the boys were as happy as the day was long. “Look at all the fun they’re having in Twickenham! So why on earth did they break up? Yoko?”
I’ve never watched the original “Let it Be” because I know it would make me sad. So, I can’t comment on it, other than what I’ve read.
What I’m wondering is, why can’t both versions be true? Yes, the original shows a band breaking up, but underneath that there was still love for each other. So, it sounds like Peter Jackson is emphasizing the love rather than the animosity. From what I’ve read, it’s not meant to replace the original, it is just a look from a different perspective. Is that wrong?
It’s only “wrong” in how it will be perceived. There’s a huge temptation for fans to prefer the sweet to the sour. Plus it’s going to look better, and many many more people will see it than have ever seen Let It Be, which hasn’t been available for decades. This will become the standard narrative, and replace the old, less-fun one, and everybody will laugh all the way to the bank.
The Beatles are a business. Fans that do not factor this in, are their perfect customer. Within 20 years, The Beatles will be part of Disney.
The Beatles will be part of Disney.
.
Michael Blogmom Gerber! Dyou kiss your mother with that mouth!??
I’ll happily watch the movie, but I’ll pass on the new narrative, which requires some very of-this-moment believing PR over record evidence. So, we’re now to believe that the Get Back sessions were actually fun, and then for some reason Paul had to plead George Martin to produce Abbey Road and promise promise promise the group would behave themselves, and then they made that record, and then they….just broke up and sniped at each other in the press and on their records for ten years?
By the time the Beatles made Get Back, they’d had cameras on them for six straight years. They could turn on “Being Beatles” as needed, the same way that you or I can show up at our jobs and be however we’re expected to be by our bosses—enthusiastic, serious, funny, whatever. That’s what I see the Beatles doing here. Fact is, that’s what they were doing in A Hard Day’s Night, too, since their actual tours were not like that when the cameras were off—a lot more sex and drugs and a lot less jumping around in fields. The difference is, by January 1969, John Lennon is on heroin, incapable of writing a complete song, and looks wrecked most of the time; his girlfriend who hates rock music and probably hates his band is always next to him; Paul, always image conscious, is overweight and overwhelmed; and George is rightfully sullen and resentful about Paul and John, but especially John, treating him with less respect than Bob Dylan does. Like Michael G. said, this is all a matter of historical record. What we are being asked to do is to disbelieve (1) accounts from people who were there, immediately after the fact, and (2) what our own eyes and ears tell us when we see, for example, John, unwashed, unshaven, yellow, and uncommunicative, looking deeply in pain, or hear outtake after outtake of out-of-tone, forcedly-enjoyed oldies being rehearsed. We know what the Beatles look and sound like when they’re having fun; this isn’t it.
The joking around, the oldies, all of that is the Beatles trying something, anything, to give the camera crew something usable to work with. These are all old tricks for the group that had to Mach Shau every night, but the magic isn’t there. It’s like sex after the relationship has run its course but before anyone’s had the breakup conversation.
Agreed 100%. To not understand all this is to not understand the human experience of Beatledom, which is much more interesting and important than Moptops.
(OK, but what about sex and drugs in FIELDS?)
I used to think the White Album sessions were all them hating each other and not being able to work together. Then they released the 50th anniversary rerelease and in the outtakes and jam sessions you would hear John and Paul cracking jokes and the Beatles making each other laugh, or you could hear some of the joy between them in demos.
That’s not to ignore that sh*t times didn’t happen but maybe they were better at compartmentalising for the sake of getting on with recording then they were given credit for. I get The Beatles during Let it Be, despite a reluctant Paul, wanted out, John had pretty much already quit, he and Yoko were on/coming off heroin addiction etc
But I don’t think the fact that they were breaking up at the time and the fact that outside of the editing of Let it Be they actually enjoyed themselves and seemed happy around one is necessarily mutually exclusive.
Given how bitter they all were with each after the breakup it’s not a stretch to think their feelings clouded their perspective on what that time was like and in retrospect after some distance they realised it wasn’t all terrible?
@LeighAnn, what I see in this new footage, or in the jokey audio outtakes, are people who are not having fun trying very hard to not explode from the tension and unspoken anger in that room because they are at work and there are film crews on them. There’s something very exaggerated and unnatural about it that’s markedly different from the Rubber Soul outtakes on YouTube, where we see them casually working and joking at the same time. Or the giggling version of And Your Bird Can Sing. Or the early BBC sessions.
Paul and Ringo might now well genuinely believe, or want to believe, that the sessions weren’t so bad now. They are old men and the Beatles ending was so sad for both of them. It’s also pretty typical codependent/adult child of an addict behavior, and setting their own family histories aside, the Beatles were basically an alcoholic family with John as then addict. People in those families whitewash and remember selectively to survive and help the unit keep going. Especially the pleasers, like Paul had/chose to be.
Even this new cut looks uncomfortable to me. If you asked me what band I’d like to be in up until 1968, I’d easily say the Beatles. But compare this to The Who genuinely goofing their way through A Quick One? The Who looks way more fun to me.
John and Paul are gritting their teeth at each other while singing “Two of Us”. That’s not tension enough for you? 🙂
I don’t think their playfulness is contrived for the benefit of the cameras. They continued to perform great music together until the very end, even as they were fighting. Was that fake too? Or natural chemistry?
Interesting article.
You mention that this happier new look Get Back movie is a revision of the original LIB movie but something being a revision doesn’t make it any less honest a depiction of the event.
In my opinion both the original LIB movie and the new Get Back movies are all a part of the same picture and the different edits are a result of the differing contemporary agendas. When LIB came out the band had broken up so rather than putting out a movie that showed a united front they wanted to show the tensions that had contributed to the break up and the comments from all four Beatles were a reflection of that, it’s probably easier to remember the fights and disharmony in the aftermath of the breakup than otherwise.
Regarding the myth making/ myth busting I don’t think things are as cut and dry as you do. John and George were as in to myth making as the other Beatles, maybe even more so. In John’s haste to breakdown the Beatles “myth” he spun some new ones (L/M stopped writing together in 1962, the LIB sessions were the most miserable sessions ever, the other Beatles treated John and Yoko horrifically with him backtracking on this by 1980 ) and George also spun myths of his own, particularly after the break up when he played up his tensions with Paul and went along with the party line that Paul was the only cause of tensions during the later stages of the band which we now know to be false given that he quit the band after a fight with John and not Paul, which might explain why John’s the one talking about getting Clapton in as a replacement.
All in all I’m looking forward to seeing a more balanced view of the Get Back/ LIB sessions. I hope we see more serious sections of the time period, not just the fun they had as that will be a more accurate depiction of the reality of the sessions.
@Lizzy, you’re right that Lennon and Harrison had an agenda in the Seventies to downplay, and distance themselves from, The Beatles. But it’s worth asking why.
The Beatles myth is hugely powerful, hugely seductive. Shit, even the Beatles REALITY is pretty fascinating. But for my money, when two of the four Beatles take great pains for the rest of their lives to emphasize “The Beatles wasn’t like the myth” — I believe them. And when Apple comes out with a version of LIB that’s Moptops ’69, as part of the fiftieth reunion stuff, that seems like more myth, not reality. And I feel a weird sense of loyalty to John and George, who took really every opportunity to say, “Don’t believe it”…not to believe it. To enjoy it, sure; but not believe it.
Some fans, in their heart of hearts, think AHDN is real. Even more will think Peter Jackson’s cut is real and–listen, it may be. I can’t have a final opinion without watching all 56 hours of tape, in order, with a daybook by my side. But saying that the Get Back sessions weren’t a bloodbath–especially the Twickenham portion–that’s akin to saying, “Actually, the Germans WON at D-Day.” And cutting together a documentary that says D-Day was a strategic retreat, doesn’t make it so. Truth exists outside of our wishes and Apple’s, and the power of visual media to be seen as reality. If a narrative’s been basically stable for 50 years, something that overturns it should be viewed with skepticism, especially if there’s great commercial benefit in that overturning.
Re: John and George as myth-makers/-busters, it’s always worth remembering that one of thier motives in “busting” the Beatles myth specifically was that….neither of them liked the fact that most of their best work had been done with The Beatles. Not saying any of the mythbusty things they said were untrue, just that if we’re going to dive into the topic at length it’s important to look at their motivation, too.
.
Say what you will about Paul’s ego, but he has always been remarkably willing not just to acknowledge this fact but to discuss and explore the topic at length. In fact I just recently read an article (from the early 2000s I think) where almost every single question was about why his output took a dive after the Beatles. At first I was like sure, these are just par-for-the-course Paul questions (because I’m so used to seeing them) until I got to like the 5th or 6th in a row and I suddenly went WAIT. THIS IS NOT NORMAL. This rando who’s never written a hit song in his life grilling PAUL MCCARTNEY on all his failings as an artist! And Paul goes along with it! At length! Like he just sits there earnestly engaging with these questions, looking at the issue from multiple angles and I was like….wow. Does any other artist get this kind of treatment?? I’m asking sincerely — maybe Bob Dylan or the Stones do?
.
ANYWAY. My point is that neither John nor George would EVER have stood for being talked to that way. (To be fair, John might have as he aged. Maybe.) And a good way to achieve that is to preemptively make it known that they will reject the premise of the question, which is that The Beatles really were that great.
.
PS thanks to Nancy & Gretchen for helping me with the icon question 🙂
Annie, good points. I’d add that anti-mythology can be its own powerful mythology. Tearing something down, or being in opposition to it, can be an effective way to create a new persona. I don’t think that’s *all* of what John or George was doing in the LIB era, but I think it was part of it, especially for John.
@Annie, I think you’re right that John had a bias against the Beatles — for lots of reasons — when he was slagging the January 1969 sessions. And if we hadn’t all heard the session tapes ad nauseam, it might be possible to dismiss some or most of John’s gripes as being mere myth-busting. But the music doesn’t lie: except for Paul, it’s by and large the work of a tired band at a low point in its creative arc. Lennon, particularly, is hardly there as a songwriter, and the band has to include songs from its own early days (“909”), scraps of standards (“Maggie Mae”) and reworkings of songs they’d already released (“Across the Universe”) just to fill out an LP’s worth of tunes. Paul’s in fine form on LIB, but the others aren’t.
When you add that irrefutable evidence of creative ebbing PLUS the negative opinions of at least John and George, it’s pretty heavy revision to suggest that the sessions weren’t the drag they seemed to be, and were said to be, and sound like. The question should be, why is there an effort now to revise them? Some pressing historical need? Maybe, but… I mean, as I said to Nancy this morning, I’ll be first in line for the movie, and the line will be millions long — and that right there is all the motive one needs. As commerce, which is what we’re talking about, Let It Be II: Just as Bad as You Remember is not an option, any more than Mandalorian II: Let’s Kill Baby Yoda.
As to Paul coming in for rougher treatment than the others, we must keep in mind that he’s a willing participant in all this. He wants to be interviewed, and if he didn’t want to answer certain questions, he wouldn’t answer them — or more likely, they wouldn’t ask. Questions are often pre-approved. Paul has been working with the press since he was a sophomore in college. He is now 78. Paul McCartney is, and has been for decades now, one of the most powerful people in showbiz; any time you think that something is being done to him, think again.
Paul chooses his level of public exposure; he chooses the time, the place, how much and by whom he is “grilled.” Dylan gets the Nobel Prize and won’t give interviews. Lennon went silent for five years when he was better-known than the President. Paul has always chosen to make himself much more accessible, and part of that is knowing that he can control the narrative; so that if someone says, “Tell me why Wild Life sucked so much more than Abbey Road,” he’s got an answer prepared. And he comes off as the humble genius (which to some degree he is) and the interviewer comes off as an asshole. But it’s a question worth asking, right? How come you didn’t do E=MC2 Part Two, Mr. Einstein?
The Stones may well get asked, “How come you peaked in 1968 and are still touring, Jesus Christ what boring people you are!” I wouldn’t know, I don’t read Stones interviews. But I suspect that if they did get asked that, they’d spike the question; the interesting thing is that Paul doesn’t spike it, and I suspect he doesn’t to elicit precisely the reaction you had. Paul elicits a great deal of protectiveness in his fans; that works for both sides, and it’s real…but it’s also not real, if you catch my drift.
Oh, I tend to agree with you that the Get Back sessions were pretty much as bad as John and George (and sometimes Paul, despite his professional optimism) recounted. I was speaking about exploration of John’s and George’s anti-Beatles-Myth stances in general. I think John and George hated, and would not have tolerated discussing, the fact that the bulk of their best work was done ’63-’71. Might this specifically have colored their memories of Get Back sessions? ..Hmm, I guess maybe, but I’m more inclined to think that particular period was something that didn’t need any coloring, y’know? It really was bad enough to fit the narrative sans revision. (George’s “I ALWAYS hated the fame!!” posture, on the other hand….)
.
As to Paul coming in for rougher treatment than the others, we must keep in mind that he’s a willing participant in all this.
.
I was thinking about this! That surely Paul McCartney can arrange not to be asked any questions he doesn’t want to be asked. I’m reminded of a portion of Danny Fields’s book, where he says that Paul’s intelligence, talent, and wealth make him the proverbial 900 pound gorilla in any room (I highly recommend that book for its unsentimental observations of Paul). So that means Paul is, what, deliberately allowing (inviting? encouraging????) these conversations to happen—over and over again? Or slyly picking *interviewers likely to “go there,” and telling them “go ahead, ask me anything” in advance? Very possible, but it still leaves us with the question of “who DOES that???” I mean it—are there other artists of his caliber who have done this on such a scale?
.
Okay then: for whatever reason he WANTS to get these questions. Is he just a glutton for punishment (he did say he was “heavily into S&M” in the recent LIPA interview, for the inevitable laugh obviously — but maybe it’s also kinda true :/ )? Or is he just attempting to preemptively ward off criticism in the way you suggest? (Like the Japanese press conference where he says “We’re not great musicians. We’re adequate.” I’ve always wondered if the other Beatles were kinda like “gee thanks for that, man,” afterward.)
.
If so tho….is it working? Like it’s worked on ME obviously, but on his reputation in general? I’m not sure it has. He’s still Paul The Ego Beatle in many (most?) minds. Maybe his goal is to carpet bomb the narrative so thoroughly that nobody can be a Beatles fan without having read at least one interview containing some Paul Knows The Beatles Were Better, Thank You Very Much.
.
Maybe it’s simpler than that? Now that he’s accepted the premise, maybe he simply finds the topic interesting! I would if I were him! Once I got over the **blow to my ego, heh. And he just genuinely digs The Beatles so much, considers them a magical phenomenon that was so much more than the sum of their parts. He’s a naturally curious guy. He likes to say he isn’t self-analytical but I suspect that’s more aspiration than reality. So when interviewers (at his behest??) are like “How can you be the same person who wrote ‘For No One’” he’s glad for the opportunity to say “I KNOW RIGHT?? Let’s unpack that a little…”
.
Any which way, I still think it’s one of his better qualities. Admirable, even.
.
*I think this is genuinely the case with Howard Stern who, interestingly, Paul keeps going back to even tho he clearly bristles at some of Stern’s questions. I think he does like a challenge.
.
**There’s an interesting moment in his mid-80s Aspel interview where he broaches the subject and you can see that it does cost him something to admit it. He says “You have to give your audience what they want. You can’t just play your own stuff, or they won’t come.” Blink and you’ll miss it; it’s definitely a micro expression moment. He doesn’t really want to say it, he doesn’t want it to be true. But he says it anyway. Which I can’t help but dig.
@Annie, great comment.
I think John and George hated, and would not have tolerated discussing, the fact that the bulk of their best work was done ’63-’71.
I think you’re right, but for different reasons.
I think John’s self-identity was firmly as a commercial artist in the form of music, and since he was still creating, he hated the idea of being past his artistic prime. He certainly resented the psychological drag created by competing with his younger self and old band, but hadn’t yet really embraced the fact that commercial success, or even the approval of others, isn’t the measure of a piece of work. He tried to say this, but I don’t think he believed it at 40. Telling John he peaked at 26 was saying, “It’s all downhill from here.”
George is more complex. I don’t think George primarily thought of himself as a Beatle, or even as a musician. I think he thought of those things as circumstances largely obscuring his true self, which he was trying to discover and express. So saying to George that he peaked at 26 was saying, “I think you are this thing that you are not, and will force you to remain that thing.”
Paul’s attitude is much different than either of those guys’. He’s a craftsman, not Picasso; and he hasn’t required a great spiritual quest to find meaning.
I do not think Paul is calculating about his public image as much as instinctual. Because of his role in the alcoholic family matrix, he knows how he wants to be perceived, and knows what is most likely to achieve that result. This is not being Mr. Showbiz or “the world’s greatest PR man” any more than a bird sitting on its eggs is being Ms. Nurturing or “the world’s greatest mother.” It is a behavior, learned young, which has become second nature. So pretending that “Fuh You” is as good, deep, meaningful or lasting as “Here, There, and Everywhere” doesn’t help anyone. It would diminish Paul, just as Lennon’s eternally claiming that “this current album is the best thing I’ve ever done” diminished him as an artist. It makes him appear to be an idiot savant, a mere channel, unable to tell good from bad.
Paul may never have even articulated this strategy; I believe such stuff now comes to him as second nature.
I agree with those in the “both/and” camp. That is,I see truth and value in the original hot take, and truth and value in a later perspective.
I think of friends I’ve seen go through terrible breakups or divorces. During and right after the break, the story is understandably that everything about the relationship was awful pretty much all the time. At least in part, that’s because breaking up is difficult and most of us need to remind ourselves why we’re doing it. So a heroes and villains/good vs. evil story helps.
Those same friends ten or fifteen years down the road typically have a different view of those relationships. It’s not that they were dissembling before, or that there was no reality to the original version: it’s that emotional distance and the perspective of years have opened up the story. For at least a lot of people, it gets harder to believe in an all-or-nothing, which-side-are-you-on narrative as we get older. We see that life is more complicated than that, and if we’re lucky, we learn to be wary of our own hot takes. It becomes possible to admit that even relationships that ended in painful ways had some positive elements and good times.
So I tend to see this version of “Let It Be” as sitting beside the other, rather as two slightly different images of the same scene combine to create a 3-D picture when looking through an old Viewmaster. (Dating myself here!)
I also don’t see John and George as pure myth busters. As we’ve discussed elsewhere on the site, John in particular seems to have built a different myth for himself as he left the Beatles. The main thing I see is four men who were still pretty young, and still caught up in the kind of black-and-white thinking and reacting that is more common when people are young. Amplified, of course, by fame on an unimaginable level.
Well said Nancy, and totally agree.
I had a Viewmaster too, and loved it!
Merry Christmas to all Beatle peeps!!
I’d agree with this, except…these aren’t home movies. They are a narrative, paid for and approved by a zillion-dollar company, designed to do what a zillion-dollar company does: make money.
The original sour take and this current sweet one should not be viewed as equal; there is a sour take, which was created and released at/near the time of the events, and now, fully fifty years later, when two of the main subjects are dead and cannot add their opinions, we’re getting a recut that (if the preview is any guide) is basically Moptops.
Now, I freakin’ LOVE Moptops. I LOVE A Hard Day’s Night. I would, if I could, LIVE in A Hard Day’s Night. But a recut of some notoriously bad sessions, sessions that we’ve had hours of audio on for fifty years, sessions that the principals themselves said were shitty, sessions that are cultural shorthand for a group breaking up–a recut of that, which makes it seem not so bad or kinda fun or whatever–I will enjoy it with the rest of you, but I’ll be wary. Because there’s a HUGE commercial motive for offering the fans this version.
Beatle fans desperately want “their boys” to be happy. But “their boys” weren’t always happy, and often it was because of the fans. So visions of the experience that reassure us, the fans, that they, The Beatles, are OK and having fun and it’s a weird life but we wouldn’t have it any other way — whether that’s AHDN, or the townhouse section of Help! or now this new cut of LIB — those visions are really seductive. They are, apart from the music, what The Beatles are selling.
Because here’s the problem: the day after Peter Jackson’s movie comes out, IT will be considered the definitive version of that time, not the documentary that was created, AT THE DIRECTION OF THE BEATLES, in 1969. It will be accepted wholeheartedly into canon and people on here will use it as “evidence” for whatever they want to prove, without any acknowledgment that 1) it’s a commercial product, and 2) is likely to be less authentic than the original product.
When you think about this movie, ask yourself one question: What if Peter Jackson had gone into the footage, and found a bunch of even more dreadful stuff? What would Apple have told him to do? And, given the obvious answer to that question, how do you know he didn’t find all that awful stuff? How would you, as a fan, ever know?
I’m not discounting the money, or the vested interest in creating a more palatable version of the sessions. But I really don’t buy the “bloodbath” narrative either. That version also serves a myth-making purpose, in my opinion.
I suppose I don’t think we’ve ever had a fully accurate version of the whole Beatles picture, and I doubt that we ever will. I see these two versions of the LIB footage as two parts of a large, complicated mosaic.
That’s entirely reasonable. I will be fascinated to talk further with you about it, when the doc is out!
Just a couple more thoughts and questions!
.
One, isn’t what Peter Jackson saw and is working with the exact same stuff that’s apparently been available on bootleg forever? So there’s nothing absolutely earth-shattering and dreadful that hasn’t already been known, is there? Or did he get actual unseen footage?
.
And I guess I didn’t know enough about the edit and release of Let It Be the movie and to what extent the Beatles and MLH were involved/responsible. Is there a good source on that I could seek out to learn more? I do remember reading anecdotes about John being upset after the fact that MLH changed the movie from the last version he saw, removing some of the JohnandYoko content, and John was also ticked off at (at the same time as apparently crying at; how very John Lennon of him) all the Paul close-ups.
.
I agree that George and John went out of their way to trash the Beatles for their own reasons; it’s interesting, like Nancy described, how they tended to back off a little on the hate the further they got from it. And sure, after a year like 2020, the incentive to create a feel-good movie is probably astronomical. 🙂 I wouldn’t mind some interestingly edited sharper moments, though. At least we can know that Peter Jackson has experience with drama.
@Kristy, it’s usual that there is the complete trove of material held in vaults, and then what’s bootlegged is some large or small portion of that. There’s a great book called “Bootleg” which is the best breakdown of the business that I know of. How does it get out? Smuggled out by disgruntled employees? What’s the quality? Pristine, to awful. How complete is it? You can’t really know that until the entire vault is open to scholars.
We can hope that, for example, Mark Lewisohn is seeing all the data there is–but there’s no proving that. And also? Mark L’s going to defend his brand as Official Beatles Guy, so anything that comes out that he didn’t see, he’s going to likely downplay. (No shame in that.)
But the bottomest of bottom lines is that we don’t know what’s out there, can’t know what’s out there, and likely will never see/hear it all. I mean, there’s a tape out there somewhere where John and Yoko catalog all their sexual experiences. I bet that would settle some endless debates! My hope is that at some point in my lifetime, the partners will have decided that there’s really no more money to be made, and so all the vaults will open, and all the material will be assembled in a central location, affiliated with Oxford/Cambridge/Harvard/Yale/ilk. That The Beatles changes from a commercial or even musical affair, to one of history — to be preserved like history. The debates will continue, but the removal of commerce would help.
Regarding LIB, I doubt there’s anything terrible that’s been unseen (and untalked about, for fifty years). And I’m even open to the idea that the sessions weren’t, in hindsight, the shitshow they were said to be. But Peter Jackson, like Michael Linsday-Hogg before him, is creating at the behest of, and more or less under the control of, the four partners. He’s been hired to do a job, which is to recut the LIB footage into a new project. And right there, the pressure to make it different from the original begins. If Jackson’s cut felt the same as Linsday-Hogg’s, it wouldn’t be released, and nobody would make any money. It has to be a different spin, for this to work commercially. LIB is a drag; LIB 2021 can’t be.
My most important point with all this is that we, as fans, tend to assume that the people controlling access to this material are like us, motivated by the same things we are. They aren’t. They are looking at this 1) as a commercial endeavor, and 2) as what story they want out in the world. So whatever reaches us, has gone through lots of board meetings, lots of levels of winnowing and sanitation. And the very popularity (commercial potential) of the Beatles which gives us a lot of data—what other group of that era has 56 hours of studio footage?—also means that an unvarnished, or even complete, view of the phenomenon is unlikely. Ever.
It’s not just the fans that want to believe it wasn’t all depressing. Paul too is pleased to see the “truth” revealed in the footage because he himself “believed the myth” by which he means they couldn’t stand each other at that point. I tend to believe him. Okay, it was a depressing time because the band was breaking up but I don’t think anyone would argue that. I remember this one Beatles book that ended with a couple statements which contained more wisdom than most Beatles books do in their entirety- it was a photo book, go figure. Firstly, that Paul shouldn’t be “blamed” for the breakup because it only made sense that he should be the one to announce it, as he was the one who most wanted to keep them together. And that love doesn’t make for clean breaks, but for messy fractures. So true. I don’t think that bond ever left them. And it’s not like they didn’t argue in 1964.
I loved this new footage and I’m looking forward to seeing the new film. For me this is the Let it Be film that we should have seen in 1969. I personally thought the original Let it Be was boring. Just that…just really boring. I didn’t find it sad or the epitome of a group breaking up. I didn’t think the scene where George and “bossy Paul” have their supposed big blowout fight to be particularly revealing or interesting. I didn’t know what I was watching half the time. The editing was terrible in my opinion and after seeing this other footage I can see it was quite biased in favor of the narrative they were trying to convey. It’s now obvious to me that both narratives were correct.
So I am to assume from this that John was asking to be murdered. I have the feeling that perhaps Paul thinks this way too from something he said to Howard Stern once”Then John goes and gets himself killed” that almost sounded like he was putting at least some of the blame on John.
Gretchen, I saw that clip and I’m almost positive that Paul says, “Then John goes and gets killed” not “gets himself killed.” I did find it a little ehhh… however, to me it sounded like Paul wished John had been more careful in a city like New York, had bodyguards when going out at night, etc. Just my impression.
Yes,you’re right,he did say it that way. There were a few comments on youtube about that,that it sounded a little funny;like Paul was putting the blame on John a little. But,like you said,Paul,like all of us wishes John had had bodyguards that night.
Michael G;
You wrote, “And I feel a weird sense of loyalty to John and George, who took really every opportunity to say, “Don’t believe it”…not to believe it. To enjoy it, sure; but not believe it.”Why do you feel that George and Johns perspectives are right, and Paul and Ringos are wrong?
As has been discussed, fame wasn’t a great experience for John and George. They were both cynical and anxious to debunk most Beatle myths. That doesn’t make them the final arbitrators of the truth. Nor should we hold their opinions higher, just because they are no longer here.
Why can’t Paul and Ringo be believed, and not merely viewed as overly optimistic?
Why can’t the truth lie somewhere in the middle?
Speaking personally? Because on the whole I don’t think Ringo is a very analytical person; I think he is primarily grateful, which is a good thing but not very helpful when you’re an outsider trying to figure out what it was like. Plus I think he, as an “economy Beatle” avoided a lot of the worse aspects of Beatledom and got a lot of the best. Ringo has always been beloved—which is also why his memories of the Beatles thing have been pretty sunny, from 1970 onwards. I’m interested in what he has to say, but what he has to say is exactly what you’d expect from someone (often wrongly) considered to be the biggest lottery winner in history.
Paul is a different story. As the product of an alcoholic family paul rings a lot of bells for me; specifically the member of the family who minimizes, papers things over, keeps everything going, puts a smile on his face and keeps going. I am probably that kind of person myself, so I know it well. Unvarnished honesty is not what you’re going to get, and as much the Paul crowd hates to hear this, he does have a show biz side that’s not his real self. So when he says “oh I don’t think those sessions were that bad”, when the others did, I give his opinion less weight.
Paul as a source has certain advantages—he was one of the main guys, he’s very bright and hyper articulate, he wasn’t into hard drugs or religion or fads that would impact his perceptions, but he also is very committed to the image of himself and his band. Plus there’s the whole psychwar between him and Yoko, which adds another layer.
I could go on ad infinitum but you get it.
Fair enough. Thanks.
As ever, your mileage may vary; your question seemed sincerely asked, so I wanted to give you a sincere answer. And there are certain things–like when Paul is talking about his process, or a beloved project like Pepper, that I trust him 100%. It’s just when you get into the intrapersonal wrangles, or stuff that’s emotionally fraught for him, or something that he’s likely to be judged for, he gets professionally sunny.
It was sincere. In general, sometimes it seems (to me), that Paul and Ringo aren’t viewed as “deep” as John and George. Like because they are more positive or happier, they are somehow shallow.
It still is interesting to me, that the two Beatles who were the biggest cheerleaders of the group, and also the most popular in the early days, are the two who are left to tend to the Beatle legacy. That actually is beneficial to us Beatle fans.
Speaking of Paul being sunny, he has his “rote stories” that never change, bless him, and they work for him and somehow he thinks they work for the world at large, too. He very rarely strays into truly “emotionally fraught” territory.
.
Funny, though, apparently he is doing an AMA on Reddit today and already I’ve seen people joking that they’re going to ask him how he came up with Yesterday and Let It Be, and I give good odds on him answering those things earnestly.
It reminds me of what Colin Firth’s character said in A Single Man: “It’s always the dumbest creatures that are the happiest.”
I wouldn’t go so far as that, but I would say there’s a level of emotional complexity that makes life harder. And I think John and George definitely had that.
I do not think Paul’s emotional life has been so very complicated; I think he’s a pretty lovable guy who knows what he likes, and has gotten that in abundance. When you read about Paul and women, for example, I don’t get the sense that he’s searching for his mom or some other doomed and dooming enterprise. Paul doesn’t expect stardom to do anything but make him a star. He doesn’t need to find the meaning of life. Not a simple person, but not complex to the point of personal pain, either.
@Michelle (no “reply” link), Paul plays dumb at times and he has some blind spots, but he ain’t dumb – he actually plays the long game pretty well.
.
Did he know Yellow Submarine would be a Beatles song equivalent of a gateway drug? And there’s that crazy comment he made during the Let It Be sessions about how in 50 years people we’ll be talking about Yoko sitting on an amp. Maybe he prefers to think there are potential new fans amongst those listening to or reading his interviews… He’s been asked about the Fabs for more than 50 years, but if he acts like everyone has heard about Yesterday, he looks arrogant – plus he only has so many stories he wants to share. (We’ve all seen interviewers ask him the same old questions even when they clearly know the answers themselves. )
.
I think he needs to add a little preamble – sorry if you’ve heard this one before, but in case you haven’t…
.
He also needs to grow a short beard. Why not take advantage of the ability to hide some of the sins of old age?
.
I’m sure he’d appreciate my excellent advice. ,0]
No, definitely not dumb. But probably not happy 24/8 either. I’m sure he has his demons, like the others. And we know he went through depression in ’69. Listening to his latest album, some of it is pretty dark.
Unvarnished honesty is not what you’re going to get, and as much the Paul crowd hates to hear this, he does have a show biz side that’s not his real self.
.
The Paul-crowd circles I walk in don’t hate to hear this at all, it’s one of their primary tenets! 🙂
.
When Paul talks about anything more negative than a bee sting, I just automatically assume whatever it is was worse than he’s saying. (With a few exceptions, such as thinking he would spontaneously perish after Linda’s death.) Determining how much worse is what the deerstalker and microscope are for.
It seems to me that John and George’s great struggles revolved around identity, whereas Paul’s are more about worth and value. “Who am I?” ask George and John. Paul asks “Is who I am good enough?”
.
The Beatles experience muddies the first question more than the second.
.
Or does it? After all, infinite money and vacation time presents a lot of opportunities to explore one’s identity, if one chooses to do so. And while Beatlemania would seem to be a resounding YES to Paul’s question, it also sets a high fucking bar for the rest of your life. When total adulation becomes your norm at 26, what does it mean when it subsides–or worse, turns into disapproval?
Yes Kristy,hug em’ and smack em’ is Johnny to a tee.❤️
Michael I wish there as a tape out there cataloguing all of John and Paul’s sexual experiences(if you catch my drift..sorry!) oh well..maybe some day!
Michael,it all depends on what would constitute “dreadful stuff”
It may well be that the Get Back sessions were more unhappy than happy, that the original film was more accurate than this one will be, and that these new Cute Beatle Hijinks were mostly playacting. But I also believe that the power of “fake it til you make it” should never be underestimated. Playacting might have been exactly what was needed to improve morale and relations, and make Abbey Road possible. So I’m gonna enjoy the hell outta watching it.
this is stupid but is there any way for me to get a different monster avatar?? i feel so misrepresented! haha just kidding…….unless?
Anne, the only way I know of to control your avatar is to create one at gravatar. That avatar then appears next to your name whenever you are logged in under whatever username you use to comment with, and works across the web. Otherwise, the avatars are generated automatically and I don’t think either Michael or I can change them!
I quite like mine. Suits me most days.
Anne, long-time WordPress user here. The monster is autogenerated by WordPress based on your email address. You’d have to post under a different email address to get a different monster.
Well,it’s obvious why Yoko would want a “happier”version of events. I just wonder why it would make that much difference to Paul. Why has it been so important to Paul,especially the last ten years or so,to convince people that he and John were close before he died?
It’s important to keep things in proper context, so when we say that LIB and the White Album were “miserable”, we are comparing it to earlier times. As someone else mentioned, listen to those “Think for Yourself” outtakes. Those are guys who love each other’s company, and are 100% engaged in what they’re doing. And that’s on a George song. Compare to how they received George’s offerings a few years later.
Sitting on that freezing soundstage in 1969 may well have seemed miserable compared to the highs of Rubber Soul or Pepper.
@Beasty, they’re also nearly 30. They’ve done it all, climbed every mountain and part of what they hope that’s bought them is…not having to do stuff like getting up early, driving out to a hangar-sized set, and rehearsing in public. That’s a fucking drag.
Every part of the Beatles experience is them being the first ones to do it, and everybody else learning from their mistakes. That’s why groups like The Stones were able to survive; they saw what not to do. That first part of the sessions was a logistical mistake, and I’d like to think that if Brian had been alive, it never would’ve happened. A properly gemutlich setting would’ve made all the difference.
Not only were they getting up early in the morning to rehearse on a crowded soundstage, they had just spent six months in EMI Studios together making the White Album. And it’s not like those sessions were a picnic, although in 2018 we were told that surprisingly, session tapes revealed that the sessions were fun!
It’s very 2010s that now we’re to believe the Beatles were always having fun, never really arguing, until one day they just broke up. If Paul weren’t behind it, I’d think the motives were more insidious. Because Paul’s still around and endorsing this, I agree with Michael Gerber — this is a combination of codependency and plain marketing.
Regarding the perception that Ringo and Paul have a sunnier (read less honest) take on the Get Back sessions I think it’s important to note that all 4 Beatles categorised it as dire after the fact and the fact that it’s taken 50 years to see the light of day says a lot about their thoughts on it. So given the fact that Ringo and Paul were reminded of the good times during the sessions, why wouldn’t John and George? Were all the good moments play acting? I think it’s unlikely because despite their passable efforts in AHDN and Help they weren’t professional actors and keeping up false appearances for 8 hours a day for a month straight seems a stretch to me, for a day, maybe but a month sounds unlikely.
Then there’s also the fact that John especially seemed to base his memory on his feelings at a given time rather than on what the reality was, remember he admitted that the only reason why he said the L/M songwriting partnership ended in 1962 was because he felt in 1970 that they hadn’t really written together, once he’d calmed down he could remember the reality better. With George of course he’s going to focus on him quitting the band during the sessions so it’s not a shock that he couldn’t remember the sunnier times before and after that. Also, if the sessions were all terrible why did George bother coming back? He’d written plenty of songs that later appeared on ATMP so he could’ve easily gone solo at that point but there was still something worth salvaging with the Beatles.
All in all I think LIB skewed negatively because that’s what the climate at the time of its release called for, it looks like Get Back is skewing more positively as fans have had access to bootlegs for decades now so we know that LIB wasn’t the full picture at all. With the new film we get more of the picture so that can’t be a bad thing.
I agree with Nancy. The new footage is there. It exists. So how is it any less truthful than the 1969 footage? All of it happened. It’s verified on film. I’m not trying to believe The Mop Tops or the myth or anything else. Because like every story there are two sides to this story and it’s complicated because like most people, the people involved are complicated and their relationships are/were complicated. The original footage was edited to prove an agenda. To me, the discovery of this other footage shows that there was in fact another side to the Get Back sessions that the fellows just didn’t want shown at the time because it conflicted with the message they wanted to convey… at that time. They were in their 20’s anyway…enough said lol. I seriously doubt Olivia would veto the release of this new film. I don’t think John and George would either. Why would they? Nineteen sixty nine was a long time ago. I personally think John would want this other footage released because it shows a new perspective. I can even picture him saying, “I guess the sessions weren’t that bad after all”. George probably wouldn’t care either way and after all, it’s still money. This new footage is more in keeping with the roof top footage that shows a tight band who seem to be enjoying themselves after all. I’m not negating the original footage or the original sentiment. It’s the truth. It exists. But the new footage is the truth also.
@Linda, I’m going to be rather direct here, but please understand that you have every right to feel how you feel; I don’t think there’s a right or wrong answer, but this conversation touches on some things that are actually important in our current media-drenched world, and growing more so. Not just applicable to the Beatles, but media literacy in general.
We are not seeing footage. We are seeing a narrative — pieces of footage, edited and arranged in a certain order to convey a certain reality. Not REALITY. A story.
So, you might say, the Beatles in 1969 wanted to present a certain story; and now, in 2020, they want to present another story. And that’s true, but they’re not equally authentic — they can’t be. Back in 1969, certain things happened which had relationships to other things; and certain things did not happen. That Linda and Yoko hugged does not mean that Linda and Yoko were friends. (Maybe they were, but that image isn’t proof.) The ’69 version will capture certain aspects, and the 2020 version other aspects, but the question is: which is more accurate to what really happened in January 1969, and which is more useful to us trying to figure out what happened?
To me, the 1969 cut is accurate because for the majority of the last 50 years, it has reflected the statements and attitudes of the people involved; certainly before Anthology, there was no significant pushback to the believe that the Twickenham sessions were awful, the band was in disarray, etc. After Anthology — and certainly after George’s death — there has been more of a sense of Paul and Ringo saying, “Oh, it wasn’t that bad,” but people tend to do that in middle age.
The negative cut is also useful, because it predicted what happened next: they make little music together, perform mostly separately, Lennon announces he wants to leave the group, and the group splits up acrimoniously.
So a negative cut — which was bad business in 1969, and has been ever since (there is no commercial motive for a negative cut) — is corroborated by the statements of the subjects, and is a consistent data point in a larger story. A positive cut, which will generate billions in new money, assembled 50 years after the fact, when two of the four are dead, is a pleasant experience that should be given less weight, historically.
Finally, it’s not that Peter Jackson found a bunch more footage; he’s recutting Lindsay-Hogg’s old footage. That’s a huge distinction. It’s unseen by US, not Michael Lindsay-Hogg or the Fabs. They saw it. At the time, in 1969, they thought other footage was better, more accurate, more gripping.
In 56 hours of footage of Adolf Hitler, there would be lots of times when he was being nice to his dog, and Eva, and his bodyguards. But that’s not “the story,” is it? And if I wanted to make it the story — for whatever reason — I could edit that 56 hours so that people would come away thinking, “You know, that Hitler was a nice guy. I wonder why everybody thought he was a jerk?” In that case, we certainly can watch the film, but not necessarily believe it. The cynical person always says that people like reading about dirt, and how people are terrible. I don’t think that; I think people like reading/watching stories with heroes. Hence, this new cut.
People are complicated; situations are complicated; images can be used to tell whatever story you want to tell. So we must always ask, “What is the story being told here? Who is telling it? Why are they telling us THIS story?” I will be there, first night. And I will love every minute. But if this cut replaces the original cut — as it is likely to do, because the original movie has been out of print for decades (on purpose) — that will be a distortion of the Beatles’ story for commercial profit.
About the new film replacing the old because the latter is out of print, my understanding is that it will be re-released when the new one comes out. Have they changed their minds about that? If not, I wonder if it’ll still look like crap or be treated with some technical magic of its own.
Your example about Hitler is compelling, but couldn’t it also apply to the old film? I’d like to see it again now that I’ve read Sulpy and various transcripts, but my impression is that it wasn’t terribly accurate – and that it negatively affected how the Fabs themselves remembered the experience. Memory is a very strange bird… Nancy put it better than I can in her up-thread divorce analogy.
If the sneak peek, which is virtually all good times, is representative of the new film, it will indeed be less accurate than the old film. My (probably unrealistic) hope is that Jackson went through all the footage, edited out the boring, repetitive, etc. (which many of us would love to slog through!), and pulled together a balanced narrative. IOW, I hope the sneak peek is NOT representative of the new film. Mostly I can’t wait to find out!
@Laura, I didn’t know that, but hope that it will be re-released; if the ’69 version is present and available, then my concerns are piddling — the ’20 recut can only give a fuller picture and more fun experience.
Whenever one uses Hitler the argument becomes shallow, so I’m glad that’s the way you felt! 🙂 But I do think that there is something fundamentally political about how audiences are encouraged to believe their eyes, so I wanted to use that very political example.
To me, the interesting thing isn’t chasing around some version of The Truth — thinking that there is only one, is a bit of a sorting hat in these discussions. What I am interested most by is that the ’69 film is what the four of them wanted at the time. That was the narrative that they — hyperaware of their public image, hyperadept at manipulating public opinion — wanted their fans to see. That decision, more than any one scene or excerpt, shows a profound desire to get off the merry-go-round. “Let It Be” is almost a cry for help: “Please stop making us be Beatles, it’s all too much.”
So why, by 1969, was it too much?
What was too much?
Why was Beatledom in 1969 too much for those four guys, and (for example) Stonesdom not too much for the Stones? Or Zepdom not too much for Zep?
These are questions at the very heart of this blog. We all know the joy; we all feel it, that’s why we read/write here. But what else was there? What happened to them, as people? We are at a disadvantage here because we love The Beatles so; we want the guys to feel as good as we do. By 1969, it’s clear that they weren’t, in some way, at some times, thriving as people. And in a world increasingly dominated by fame and fandom, it’s an essential study. Why I keep posting and commenting.
We need four movies, one from each point of view ala Rashoman! Seriously, I’d love that. It could be like the Showtime series, “The Affair.” Initially, I was confused because more or less the same thing would be happening, but the female lead would be wearing a different dress. Once I caught on, I thought it was an interesting approach.
I don’t think is necessarily fair to either Paul Ringo John and George to imply they could never be straight forward or honest or authentic in their words and actions. I certainly agree that they could be reactionary (John in particular was a speak first think later kind of guy) and they could/can be showman when business requires, but I don’t think I’d class them as entirely fake.
They were young men in their late twenties who got fed up with being Beatles, who were starting to get fed up with each other, who were feeling creatively restless or confined, and who were starting to move on to the next chapters in their lives that didn’t seem to include being in each other’s pockets, combined with a period of drug addiction, depression, shady managers and hanger ons, business and legal woes.
But they were also friends- best friends even- who practically lived together in Hamburg and who had gone through something massive together that no one but each other would really understand. I don’t think it’s a stretch to believe even through the turmoil of the break up period that they didn’t hate each other for every minute of every day so much so they couldn’t even joke around or enjoy each other’s company while working.
John George and Ringo still spent time together in 1970-71, by 1973-74 John and Paul were back to being friends, and John had soften some of his harsher feelings about the Beatles by the mid to late seventies. The fact that there was enough there for them to salvage a friendship and still stay in each other lives, kind of makes me think that as bad as the 68-69 period was, it wasn’t apocalyptic either.
Added thought: One thing though I tend to agree with that I haven’t commented on is I imagine a John Lennon before his death, would not have been a “sunnier cut” guy- I imagine he would have been a “show all 56 hours and let people judge for themselves” guy. What camp a John Lennon who reached 80 would think I’m not sure.
Would he have agreed to anthology? Would he have made guest appearances on stage at Paul or Ringos concerts or been a Travelling Wilbury with George? Would it have been him doing carpool karoke with James Corden? And would the Beatles still have the same legendary status and significance in 2020 without Johns death giving a James Dean, Marilyn Monroe immortal quality to the Beatles? Things I ponder.
I imagine George Harrison would have been in the “I’ll take the money from this doc and go buy myself a private island where no one can find me” camp. But even he might have lost some of his reticence and mellowed had he the chance to live to old age.
I can sort of answer the question of whether John would have agreed to the Anthology. I recall reading somewhere that he had signed an affidavit allowing for some kind of Beatles reunion in support of The Long and Winding Road, a proposed documentary which ultimately became the Anthology. Also, when did George become the mercenary Beatle? It’s been popping up quite a bit lately. I know he railed against the taxman, but they all did.
I’m more commenting on the fact that George Harrison in his later years seemed to purchase mansions/property in sort of remote private areas. For instance I’m Australian and he purchased a property on Hamilton Island a beautiful and expensive Island in the Whitsundays. I believe he also had a place in Hawaii too.
Not that I blame him after being stabbed in his London/British Home.
Harrison’s primary image was the Spiritual Beatle. I remember him scolding a particularly pungent-smelling audience during a 1970s tour: “You care more about your weed than your God!”
But in Brian’s A Cellarful of Noise he describes George as the one Beatle most preoccupied with the group’s finances. George is almost the accountant of the group, constantly asking questions about how much money is coming in and where it’s going.
I read the book in 1968 and wondered how his image changed so drastically from accountant to guru.
@Sam, that’s not so uncommon in my ramblings among the spiritual set.
The best way for me to think of George is that he was a person of great appetites: great appetite for money/comfort/luxury, great appetite for women, great appetite for God. So his relationship with the Beatles — and specifically John and Paul, whom he felt had “made it all happen to him” — was complex, because it gave him access to all the worldly pleasures he could want. Which both stoked his desire for something more, and made it that much more difficult to attain.
Here in the West, we think of gurus as all one thing, all spiritual. They are not, and in India they seem to be seen as something akin to preachers for megachurches.
He did have a house on Kauai I think, LeighAnn. Some of that was for living; but also for investment. “Buy land — they’re not making any more of it,” goes the saying.
@Michelle, in 1979, all four Beatles signed an agreement to play together in the near future as part of their lawsuit against the Broadway musical “Beatlemania.” Would this have been a half-assed purely contractual obligation as part of the long-threatened “The Long and Winding Road” movie, or would it have been a full reformation? Some days I think the former, others the latter. Anyway, it’s a tantalizing document.
You pose an interesting question though, LeighAnn. People wonder if John would be as legendary if he wasn’t murdered. Would the Beatles themselves be as legendary?
I personally think John- and to a lesser extent Georges- death gave an added element of legendary status to the Beatles. I think had John and George still lived today the Beatles would probably still be respected and admired like other ageing 60’s acts are now but not to the same extent.
But I guess it’s one of those you can’t know for sure since John and George did die.
@LeighAnn, I have a different opinion; I think John and George’s early deaths had that effect on John and George’s legacies, for sure. But the Beatles as a group were already legendary by 1980 — “the next Beatles” was so common it was a joke. In their time, and over the decades, The Beatles were orders of magnitude more culturally important than Bowie or Elton John or Queen, much less 60s groups like The Bee Gees or Cream or Hendrix or The Doors. The Beatles were everything Cream was (musically innovative and loved for that reason), everything Zep was (the biggest band of a decade), everything Bowie was (an innovator in music and film and fashion and masculinity), and everything Queen/Elton were (hitmakers), all wrapped into one band. Lennon’s murder ended the story, but that’s when we started seeing everything more clearly.
It’s impossible to know, but I think it’s defensible to say that a lot of what we now think of as “the 60s” started with, or was best summed up by, The Beatles and their music. The Sixties would’ve unfolded in basically the same way, if one removes any other group; but The Beatles, as the first, the best, the Trojan Horse…unique. Not mere pop culture. Something like Nazism, but in a good way — twelve years of a world-changing mass hallucination.
@LeighAnn, I think the big difference between The Beatles and James Dean or Marilyn Monroe is that the reputations of the latter rest on a handful of movies. Dean, for example, is “Rebel” and “Giant” and what might have been. Marilyn is fascinating as a person, but “Some Like It Hot” is the sole film of hers that really made it into the canon, and she doesn’t carry that picture; “Gentlemen Prefer Blondes” or “Seven-Year Itch” is pretty slight stuff. Even by 1962 Marilyn was mostly done as a mass-cult phenomenon, and while it’s possible she could’ve matured into other roles (and I would’ve loved to see that; I think she was a brilliant comedienne), it was only after 1980 that her iconography became omnipresent.
If The Beatles had died in a plane crash in 1965, then they’d be Dean and Marilyn, IMHO.
Michelle, I supppse there’s no way of knowing, but I do think John’s murder is a big part of what has made the Beatles, as well as John, legendary. A heaviness looms when any telling of their story marches inevitably toward 1980.
Lennon’s murder is strangely fitting–inevitable?–an unbelievable ending to an unbelievable story, but since Anthology, the sweep of the entire phenomenon is more present than Lennon’s murder. It’s the sweep of the story that makes it legendary, not merely the ending of one of the members.
The first generation of fans engage with it all as nostalgia; second generation fans like myself often engage with it historically, as inspiration, or as “what might have been”; but third generation people have their own relationship. People didn’t buy Beatles Rockband because John Lennon got murdered. And as we see regularly on this site, as many contemporary fans are Paul-centered as John-. That wasn’t true in 1982, but a lot of years have passed since Lennon died.
I ran across this interview with Paul at NME.
“He also admitted that he originally questioned why Jackson wished to make the film – which draws from material originally captured by director Michael Lindsay-Hogg for his 1970 documentary of the album.
“I said to him [Jackson] when he was going to trawl through all the footage – like about 56 hours or something – I said, ‘Oh God, it’s going to be boring’ because my memory of the [original 1970] film was that it was a very sad time, and it was a little bit downbeat, the film,” he admitted.”
This suggests to me that Jackson was not commissioned to do this project by The Beatles Inc. Paul was concerned at first because he recalls it not being a happy time.
I don’t know Jackson’s original intention, but unless Paul is lying (doubt it), it was not an idea that originated with him or Ringo.
@Tasmin, that’s interesting! Thank you. I always love comments with data in them.
Knowing nothing more than than average person on the street, I would guess that this project was cooked up at the same time as the rest of the 50th anniversary stuff; after Neil’s death and the hiring of Jeffrey Jones at Apple (Jones had specific experience in repackaging IIRC). How could this asset, this 56 hours of footage, be repackaged? And then after “They Shall Not Grow Old” — which I LOVED btw — Peter Jackson was an obvious choice.
So the idea begins as “we need to do something with Let It Be, just as we did with Pepper, White, and Abbey Road” — and the partners agree of course. Then the specifics emerge as Jackson emerges, not simply as a top-rank director but one with specific experience in this realm. A natural choice.
Having in mind that Peter Jackson is a movie maker – a movie maker of great fantasies- I will see this film with my popcorn, expecting something like LOTR: an adaptation of an original work, epic, dramatic, romantic, comic and fantastic… all in one. That’s what I expect, and it’s ok, instead of a Lennon-McCartney song we’ll get a McCartney-Starkey-Ono-Arias-Jackson film. Anyway part of The Beatles appeal it’s that their story it’s like a movie itself, with plot holes and some plot twists,so, we will never know all the truth (and we must not).
P. S. I think this sneak peek unleashed a beast.
@Alejandra, I agree that The Beatles story, with its unknowables, is entirely gripping.
What’s the beast you think it has unleashed?
I”m referring to this comments section.
“And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?”
Just Mike talking more goofy shit. 🙂
More than goofy it sounds terrifying … Oh, what a poem! by the way.
This is my hope as well, Alejandra. It would make sense to use only the cheery bits for the sneak peak (not even a proper trailer as of yet). I don’t WANT the movie to shy away from the dark and tragic bits — you’ve got Peter Jackson, use him!! Give me George & Paul arguing in delicious HQ! I also hope he cleans up and uses lots of the secret lunchroom tapes. I want John talking about having to smother his ego, and Paul saying how stupid it will be in 50 years when people say “they broke up because Yoko sat on an amp” in glorious surround sound! And John’s “I want more Beatles.” And Paul’s earnest but ever so tired-sounding defenses of Yoko’s presence against people being all “C’mon, you’re the designated John-wrangler, now go wrangle him!!” and Paul being like “LISTEN. I am the John wrangler for a REASON, and I am telling you that in this instance he is unwrangleable. If I try to WRANGLE, he will LEAVE.” Give me all of it, good bad and ugly — except actually not ugly because it will be so crisp and colorful and pretty!
.
The one thing that really can’t be addressed I suppose is the drugs. There’s not going to be a documentary style voiceover. Which is a shame, since drugs (specifically J&Y’s heroin habit) permeated and affected everything.
Geez, when did you guys come back? I ask because years ago, I found that it was impossible to get to Dullblog anymore, the link just timed out – and after a few months I just gave up, figuring you’d gone belly-up or lost interest in posting, or lost your domain or something.
Anyroad, welcome back from the dead.
As for the content of this post: Nothing is ever only one thing. (Not meant to imply you are arguing otherwise.) The White Album sessions were supposed to be a real bummer, and the recording of “Ob-la-di, ob-la-da” in particular was, it is claimed, particularly fraught because Paul wanted to (and did) lavish so much time on it. And we’re told the opening piano chord is by a bored and frustrated John saying, essentially, “HERE’s your freaking opening, now let’s get on with it, already!” And I guess it’s possible to read those little “Ho-ho’s” and “Hee-hees” and “sing” and “ring” echoes as passive-aggressive sabotage by John, and maybe that is all true.
But to MY ear, it has always sounded as though they are having *fun* during that recording. Also during “Birthday” and “Everybody’s Got Something…”. During these bad-vibe, bummer sessions, the Beatles also managed to *sound* as though they were having fun at times. I’m sure that John, overall, probably hated “Ob-la-di” – saw it as Paul’s “granny music” – but in the actual recording, he sounds playful. Maybe I just want to hear it that way. And I am in NO WAY arguing that the sessions overall were fun.
But I am okay with Jackson’s stringing together some of the happier moments from the GB sessions. I won’t be fooled by that into thinking they were actually a real blast for the boys. But to see John jumping around and goofing with his mates, and all of them seeming to have moments of genuine fun…that, too, is true. It may not be the main story, but it is an interesting subplot that I want to see. It couldn’t have been ALL bad, right?
Welcome back to you, @Glaven! The old theme was fighting with updates of WordPress, and after 12 years all the fixes and patches needed to be cleared away. Plus, I was growing really tired of the endless “John and Paul were lovers” roundelay, and the deterioration of our comments into “well I just think X resented Y” psychobabble, instead of the marginally better-supported psychobabble of the earlier HD era. 🙂
Indeed nothing is ever one thing. For example, I’ve heard that “Ob-la-di, Ob-la-da” anecdote beginning with Lennon taking one of his first big jolts of H, then stumbling back into the studio and saying something like, “I’m higher than any of you fuckers have ever been, I’m higher than any of you fuckers will ever be! HERE’s the opening!”
And so the great thing about the Beatles, to me, is the mix of light and dark in that, of camaraderie and conflict, pleasure in being Beatles and being filled-to-the-backteeth about it. That’s what keeps me coming back to the topic, and them as people. In that case, heroin broke the group through; eventually, it would destroy it.
So GB/LIB is a mix, has to be a mix. But “Beatles-as-product” buffs away the rough edges of the story with ever-increasing strength, and that’s not right. Those people did that thing in reality; it’s not a movie or the run of a comic book or some similar batch of IP to be massaged into its most marketable form. As Harrison said, they paid a price for what we got. The dark aspects of GB/LIB are probably the clearest example of that in the historical record, and that has always made a certain type of fan uncomfortable. We should be uncomfortable. We owe them.
I don’t think John hated Obladi Oblada – he’s been described as playing it on his guitar in India. Maybe he came to dislike it due to Paul testing his bandmates’ patience while recording it.
Yeah, I don’t believe John ever called Obladi granny music. I think he liked its reggae style. People seem to confuse it with Maxwell’s Silver Hammer which is the first (only?) instance where he used that description.
I’m with you in the White Album giving vibes that they were having fun when listening to the music that surprised me from what the history books tell me the sessions were like.
If you listen to the Esher Demos from the 50th reissue, in particular the Back in the USSR they all sound like they are in high spirits. Ringo has said on many occasions how Yer Blues was one of his favourites because of how much fun they had recording it.
I particularly liked the outtakes for Julia I think on Anthology 3 where you hear John get excited at how well he played the guitar and Paul muffled in the back ground complimenting him a lot on how great he sounded.
Also “You know my name (Look up the number)” wasn’t that recorded during the Let it Be sessions? And that’s essentially Paul and John joking and pissing around with each other on the studio dime.
@LeighAnn, the Beatles could sound “fun”–they were gifted performers, putting across a feeling to you, regardless of how they felt themselves — and even have fun within lousy sessions. Or vice-versa. Post-Pepper, all their recording sessions are long affairs, for one thing; they contain fun and fighting and everything in between.
When we’re talking about White or Get Back, don’t be surprised by clips of them goofing around, or dancing, or singing with smiles. That happened. But the Standard Narrative is Standard because it reflected the general opinion of the participants. We know that there was some tension during Revolver (Paul left!) but they were generally good; George and Ringo were bored during Pepper, but they were generally good; MMT was them finishing bits and bobs after a hugely productive year, maybe their best year, but everybody shellshocked over Brian; White was artistically rich but tension-filled; Get Back was them tired and going through the motions; and Abbey Road was everybody pulling it together for one last great album, with a carve-up to keep the bickering down.
So the Esher demos can sound fun, and have been fun. The night of making USSR can an enjoyable experience; same with Yer Blues. But that doesn’t change what the White sessions were; remember Ringo (!) actually quit the group (!) in August. Paul has referred to White as “the tension album.” What I’m saying is: listen to what the Beatles said about stuff. Most of the time, there’s no need to look for clues in the songs.
Here’s a good example of how to untangle stuff. As you said, “You Know My Name (Look Up the Number)” sounds like the product of a loose, enjoyable time–to my ear, it sounds a lot like the Christmas albums from 1966 and 1967. And lo and behold, it was the product of precisely that period, mid-1967. From Wikipedia:
“All four Beatles participated in the first three recording sessions on 17 May, 7 and 8 June 1967.[9] A saxophone part, played by Brian Jones of the Rolling Stones, was recorded on 8 June.”
So, instead of overturning Standard Narrative, it supports it. But it was released in 1970! What’s the story about that?
“The recording of the song was left unfinished and untouched until 30 April 1969 when, with the help of Mal Evans, Lennon and McCartney laid down all the vocal tracks and added additional sound effects. George Harrison and Ringo Starr did not participate in this last session. Nick Webb, second engineer on the 30 April session described it this way: “John and Paul weren’t always getting along that well at this time, but for this song they went out on the studio floor and sang together around one microphone. Even at this time I was thinking ‘What are they doing with this old four-track tape, recording these funny bits onto this quaint song?’ But it was a fun track to do.”
So: like, “Ballad of John and Yoko,” completely supports the story we already knew.
Also, don’t forget that the Esher demoes were made before any official recording had begun. How the Beatles all felt about each other, and being Beatles, after India but before White Album sessions began, is not very well documented. I’m not sure if Yoko was at Esher, either. So it could have been the last gasp of the way things were, or an uneasy transition period, or something different altogether.
It’s natural that we want to believe the sessions were fun, but that’s believing in a fairy-tale version of Beatledom that’s so unmoored from the historical record that it’s even more inaccurate than the myth. That’s a dangerous direction to be headed in at a cultural level: the sanitized, but narratively succinct version of the Beatles’ story, the version that suffocated all four and in some way killed two of them, is *no longer sanitized enough* for people. So now we are being told not to believe our eyes and ears.
Michael, that’s a good point about needing to beware of a “sanitized” version of the Beatles story. At the same time, I think it’s important to reserve judgment on this Peter Jackson film until we have the finished version. I’m doubtful about how much can be extrapolated from this “sneak peek,” but we’ll see when the film is released.
“That’s a dangerous direction to be headed in at a cultural level: the sanitized, but narratively succinct version of the Beatles’ story.”
So agree Michael B!
We are at a dangerous time in our society now, with Q-Anon, and all sorts of crazy conspiracy theories about.
Facts are facts, no matter how much we may dislike them.
That includes Beatle facts as well.
Great comment @Michael. To me, Esher demos sound more like the Feb 68 “Bulldog”/”Madonna” sessions than White proper. A transition.
The thing that I keep coming back to in this conversation is: sanitization happens because it’s easiest to sell. Fans consuming Beatle product need to, after a certain number of years of thoughtless enjoyment, realize that they are a market consuming a product meant to appeal to them. Truth ain’t got nothing to do with it, and the danger of that — the force that millions of people desiring something imparts — is why John and George were so seemingly bitter, and often seemed angry at Paul especially for encouraging Showbiz-as-Usual. Showbiz-as-Usual, magnified to Beatles-scale, gets people killed.
I bought the Let It Be single when it came out, and You Know My Name was the B-side.
I have no evidence, but here’s my theory: They needed something for the flip side of Let It Be. But because egos were being ruffled on a daily basis by that point, nobody wanted John or George to be on the “other side” of Paul’s masterpiece. And they didn’t want another Paul vocal on the other side. So they decided to use a novelty track where they can all be heard goofing around. So no hard feelings and no one’s feelings are ruffled.
Yeah, it seemed like “what’s in the can?” filler to me. As much as I like the song. It’s worlds away from 1969/70.
Haha I love that unwrangleable quote. What about Paul seeing links between his and John’s songs: “Don’t Let Me Down… Oh Darling, I’ll never let you down… It’s like a story.” John (jokingly): “It’s like you and me are lovers.”
@Michelle, I’m going to start asking for citations on any and all McLennon quotes. Nancy and I are bored with it.
The audio clip of that exchange can be heard starting at 1:15:24 of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0mpbX4SaY0
Excellent, thank you. From now on, provide links when you get into McLennon territory. We want to keep it from being PID-like.
I believe it’s from the LIB audio tapes: https://thecoleopterawithana.tumblr.com/post/183054384760/amoralto-january-24th-1969-after-john-and-paul
Excellent, thank you. From now on, provide links when you get into McLennon territory. We want to keep it from being PID-like.
@Michelle re: “unwrangleable quote”
.
Oops, in case it wasn’t clear, that wasn’t an actual quote! That was me running the innumerable “look theyre in love we cant just tell them to stop being together 24/7” quotes thru my Paul-to-English translator (patent pending) 😉
@Michelle – I read the comment in a book. I think it was Peter Doggett’s, ‘You Never Give Me Your Money’.
I’m not really interested in ‘McLennon’, whatever that word means. That’s not to say I don’t think it’s likely that John and Paul experimented with sex like they experimented with everything else (I think it’s a lot more likely than not for many reasons that aren’t relevant to this comment); I just don’t think it’s that much of a big deal. So what?
The comment, to me, means, ‘I made a mistake and I want to go home’.
Unfortunately for John, he didn’t have a home to go back to. Cynthia had moved on and married someone else, and he could hardly go back to Mimi. He was obviously incapable of looking after himself, and his family were the Beatles in any case. His best hope was that Paul would forgive him for his appalling behaviour and that things could go back to the way they were before Yoko arrived on the scene.
Yoko, of course, was a bit more astute. She had devoted five years to encouraging John to do things that ensured he could never go home. She knew that his relationship with Paul could never go back to the way it was before her – that Paul would not be John’s caretaker ever again. All she needed to do was prove it to John, which I think she set out to do.
‘If John had wanted a reunion, wouldn’t there have been a reunion?’
No, because there couldn’t be a reunion without Paul. It was Paul who had the power to make a reunion happen, not John.
@Elizbeth, I was with you until the last paragraph. With both the tentative plans to record together in New Orleans in 1975, and his visits to the Dakota, guitar over shoulder, in 1976, doesn’t it seem like Paul could’ve gone either way and it was John’s willingness/availability (read: Yoko) that was the determiner?
@Michael Gerber (reply
.
I tend to agree this aspect of Paul is less calculated than it is organically compelled by his inner…..stuff. The Pleaser role makes sense, and I’ve also seen some compelling arguments on Tumblr lately that he may have ADHD. See here for info on rejecting-sensitive dysphoria, a common manifestation. https://www.additudemag.com/rejection-sensitive-dysphoria-and-adhd/ . Sounds apt, no? And we already KNOW he can’t sit still for 2 seconds.
I like Laura’s idea of having four movies, one from the viewpoint of each Beatle.
It reminds me of the novel Flaubert’s Parrot, about a man who tries to get to the bottom of Flaubert when he discovers different stuffed parrots in museums being called Flaubert’s one parrot:
@Annie said, “Like the Japanese press conference where [Paul ] says ‘We’re not great musicians. We’re adequate.’ I’ve always wondered if the other Beatles were kinda like ‘gee thanks for that, man,’ afterward.”
That was so strange, right? I think he must have been reacting to something that had been said or that he’d read before the press conference. He’s an odd duck and very contrary.
As to whether the LIB sessions were as bad as the band members recalled them, the film crew described the sessions as lively and fun. Did they actually give Michael Lyndsey-Hogg a clue as to what they wanted, or did they just shrug and say it’ll do because they didn’t want to deal with it? And even though the Fabs remembered the white album sessions as tense, don’t the outtakes tell a more fleshed-out story? Not to mention they all went to Paul’s house to watch “The Girl Can’t Help It.”
Off topic, but I liked this:
https://twitter.com/ThatEricAlper/status/1342855218464247811
If this is true, there will be no erasing of history. Fans who prefer unhappy Beatles will still have that version.
John’s murder was a tragedy. The attack on George in his own house was a tragedy, and may have contributed to his early death. This is what upset me then, and upsets me today. But the Beatles bickering during the Let It Be sessions, or being bored with each other? I don’t feel like that’s worthy of getting so worked up over. (Hope and Crosby didn’t always get along while shooting the Road movies. I’m not going to get mad at the studio for pretending they were best buddies.)
Is there a conspiracy today to re-write history and “betray” us fans? A conspiracy between Apple Corp and the surviving Happy Beatles? Maybe. But no one has ordered the destruction of Lindsay-Hogg’s opus.
And speaking of Lindsay-Hogg, I’ve known many film buffs. People who were in love, in absolute fanatical love with various directors… everyone from Hitchcock to Frederick Wiseman. I have my own heroes, mostly creators of the old ’30s screwball comedies. But I’ve never met a Lindsay-Hogg fan. I’ve never seen his name discussed outside of Beatle discussions like this. He’s certainly a successful guy, but… do any of you admire his work? It reminds me of the fuss people made over Steve Allen, the songwriter. “He wrote a thousand songs!” (I can’t name more than one.)
Four wealthy but bored rock musicians pissy because they were tired of each other and had to get up early and rehearse, and so they snapped at each other. And that was captured on film! But then they got it together and recorded more music, and then the band split up. I don’t see it as the epic catastrophe of the century. I don’t feel I owe John anything, so I don’t need to hang onto his version of events, when we now know the double fantasy he created with his wife for our benefit. And George was the resentful baby brother who should have been given more tracks on the albums. I agree with him, but I try to put it in perspective. There’s humor in it. They would have worked out their problems. A murderer, an attempted murderer and cancer prevented it. That’s what I get pissed about.
Were the sessions miserable? Sure. Were they happy, too? Maybe. Maybe the Beatles were pretending to have fun for the cameras, and we’re all being …betrayed… by Peter Jackson and Apple and Paul and Ringo. Maybe they’re all being… phonies! Those liars weren’t really enjoying themselves!
At what point do we all start sounding like Holden Caulfield here?
Well said as always @Sam — for the record, I’m not bothered by any of it. The footage is theirs and they will do with it what they please. I do think that it’s a useful backdrop for a conversation about fandom, memory, myth-making and marketing. The fan-driven discourse of the internet has colonized the world, and given us a politics that’s more like two neckbeards arguing over the Marvel Cinematic Universe than a way to solve problems (often lethal problems).
It’s precisely because nothing relating to the Beatles really matters now (if it ever did), that I think it’s a useful way to speak about these issues.
Peter Jackson’s new cut doesn’t matter, except inasmuch that it sensitizes Beatle fans, who all know the reputation of the earlier film, to think aobut how footage can be used to tell a story. And when 30% of the country is in thrall to a preposterous story — a cult of personality without rival in US history — it says to me that lots of people have never, not once realized how images and editing create a story. People “believe what they see,” especially if it’s what they want to believe.
BTW, did you ever hear the rumor that Michael Lindsay-Hogg was Orson Welles’ illegitimate son?
I never knew the Lindsay-Hogg/Orson Welles connection until I read it here. I don’t know if it’s true. If Lindsay-Hogg believes it, I guess it is.
I’m not sure if Showbiz-as-Usual is what gets people killed. My impression (again, this is just my opinion) is that people (Beatles) get killed when fans want too much from their idols. It isn’t the Myth that kills celebrities, it’s the obsessive tearing down of the Myth. I enjoy mythbusting as much as anyone here.
But there’s always going to be the el lobo solo who takes it too far; who comes to see ordinary showbiz PR as a personal affront (“Because it’s not the truth, man! Why do they keep lying to me?”) and so I worry that if I bitch too much about Mythmaking, I’m adopting the logic of the assassin.
There’s humor in the Beatles being irritable with each other while the pretentious director they hired eagerly captures it on film. It’s even funnier that fifty years later the corporation they created hires someone to re-edit the footage to showcase the rare times they weren’t snarling. Imagine what Peter Sellers and the Goons could have done with a premise like that!
“el lobo solo” — I like that, @Sam!
Off Topic:
There’s a great interview with Paul at NPR about McCartney 111. (Will you guys be doing a review?)
Anyway, Paul talks about a tree that George gave him.
“George was very into horticulture, a really good gardener. So he gave me a tree as a present: It’s a big fir tree, and it’s by my gate. As I was leaving my house this morning, I get out of the car, close the gate and look up at the tree and say, “Hi, George.” There he is, growing strongly. And you know, that takes me back to the time when I hitchhiked with him!”
No matter the fights and lawsuits, the 4 Beatles were forever bonded.
Yes, I would like to hear people’s opinions of MCIII. I enjoy it quite a bit. I like when he gets introspective (others liken it to Chaos which is in a similar vein, but to me MCIII is more fun). His old man’s voice on Kiss of Venus is so endearing. It’s great that he’s still making music.
Here’s the link for the interview:
https://www.npr.org/2020/12/18/947735248/on-mccartney-iii-paul-mccartney-is-a-one-man-show-again
Some thoughtful comments I’ve been reading. Perhaps George and John would have good reason to be bitter if they’d belonged to the generation of men before them who returned from a horrific and devastating war. Seriously psychologically damaged men (likely with physical injuries of their own) who’d seen their best mate’s face blown off in front of them and another one drowning in his own blood crying for his mother. Try paying for your nervous system with that, George, or your ‘shocking’ childhood, John. It makes whining about what an ex-band mate did or didn’t do to them seem unbelievably trite, and, with reference to We Shall Not Grow Old, I would be curious as to what Peter Jackson really feels about this, and why he may or may not pitch this film in a particular way.
I’m not invalidating that all four men suffered serious depression and anxiety at various stages; it was just as real for them as it is for anyone else. But like @Sam said, the Beatles breaking up should not have been the end of the world for fans and it should not have been the end of the world for the Beatles either. Remember at the beginning when they didn’t know when the bubble would burst? A few months? Two years? They got ten.
Entitlement and fan worship got to them in the end. The wheel still turns. Fans are emotionally invested to such an extent they can’t let go, and then complain why their idols turn out the way they do. I don’t even know if Paul and Ringo themselves can separate myth from reality. But I doubt if either of them have any real motive to sanitize this era. Age is part of it, but I think, particularly with Paul, it is lasting and unresolved grief over John’s murder and a deep-seated emotional need to remember things were better than they actually were.
I don’t think it is just sentimentality on Paul’s part. I believe he also is working on his legacy. That is why he is hammering the “we really were friends and equals” trope into people’s heads whenever given half a chance these days – but he also truly believes this ( after a period of doubts in the past), and I think he is right. For some people it is rewriting history, for him it is correcting the false narrative. As long as the old film will also be available and the old books by Norman, Wenner etc. can still be read and used as a source for people to form their opinion, I do not really see a problem. Hunter Davies book was outdated before it was even published…. Shout! was supposed to be the definitive biography…
Since then updated version were issued and masses of new books were written, new i fo has become available and perspectives changed.
I don’t know why everybody else should be allowed to add new findings or different angles to the story, but not the people who lived it.
In the case of Michael Lindsey-Hogg’s movie I also get the impression that it turned out as it did because he himself did not have much fun doing it. He witnessed endless discussions and right up to the end did not know if it would culminate in any sort of live gig. It did in the end, but just going up to the roof was not what he had in mind…. I suppose the whole experience was not at all what he had envisioned when he got the job, so that may have influenced the way he cut his material as well
Change of topic- I just read the 2020 revise of the Rolling stone mag 500 greatest albums and it’s crazy how much the Beatles went from dominating the first list to being pushed back that it seems they were lucky to have made the top ten.
Sgt Peppers went from number 1 to like 26!
I do think it’s could that RS are embracing more current artists and expanding there genres and including more female artists as well (something they’ve been criticised for overlooking) but looking at how far pushed back some of the classic albums of legacy acts like Beatles, Bob Dylan, Pink Floyd, The Who, Jimmi Hendrix etc were on the list I imagine rock purists would have lots of feelings.
Very interesting LeighAnn. Thanks.
I went and checked out the top 100. Interesting that Abbey Road is now higher on the list than Pepper. But if you talk to younger fans, Abbey Road is their favorite Beatle album by far.
I think the list was updated due to Jann Wenner no longer being editor. The new crew at Rolling Stone is probably trying to be more current, and attract a younger crowd.
Abbey Road sounds modern in a way that the rest of the catalog does not. It’s accessible to modern ears. Why is an interesting question.
@Michael G. Solid state mixing desk and more experience with recording on eight track, for one thing. The solid state desk doesn’t sound as warm as the tube ones they previously used, but it does sound more modern. And they started placing mikes and mixing the tracks to approximate the sound of a band playing in real life, something they hadn’t done on the White Album (when they also had 8 tracks). However, mono mixes of earlier songs sound more modern than their stereo counterparts because the drums and bass aren’t squished off to one side.
Personally, I like the way the Beatles sound pre-Abbey Road, and pre-White, better. It’s the epitome of the record as art, rather than as a kind of trick of the ear. But these days I’m in the minority
I also prefer the pre-White sound, @Michael. Abbey Road especially sounds overproduced to me. It’s like The Beatles’ “Dark Side of the Moon” or “Bohemian Rhapsody.”
And the only Paul solo album on the list is Ram. Band on the Run fell off the list completely, despite being his most critically acclaimed and successful album. When did it fall so far out of favor with everyone, including his own fans? If it’s too polished, so is Abbey Road. The revisionism regarding how Ram was regarded in 1971 (a few scathing reviews, but mixed overall – generally on the mark as a decent but flawed album) to its “indie” worship is over the top IMO.
That is interesting about BOTR falling off. The critical tide seems to have turned against it, for reasons that are somewhat obscure to me.
I actually think “Ram” is still underrated! But I’ve accepted that this is just my own taste speaking. I’ll sit in the corner with Jayson Greene, whose Pitchfork review of the remastered version captures the album’s stellar qualities better than I can.
I think for me the thing about BOTR — with the exception of “Jet” — is that when I want to listen to music from that period, something that sounds like that record, I will listen to another artist. Todd Rundgren, maybe, or Bowie or Elton. I have absolutely nothing against BOTR, but…no affection for it, either. If I want to listen to solo McCartney, I adore RAM and like McCartney II; I’ll put on Back to the Egg, even, or (most likely) I’ll put on a greatest hits album. I prefer “Live and Let Die” to anything on BOTR. For the guy who practically invented the LP as unified sonic experience, McCartney’s mostly a singles artist after RAM.
The ironic thing about all solo Beatles is that they can easily be summed up by greatest hits compilations, whereas each Beatles album — even the first couple — are much more than their hits. And the high points of the group, like White or Pepper — there aren’t even any hits on them.
@Nancy Carr, I think it depends on which age group you are looking at. I found that Ram is a huge favorite amongst the younger crowd with a leaning towards Indie music. Wild Life is definitely making a comeback as well. BOTR is still very popular and many still cite it as McCartney´s best solo record. And I found out that there are indeed people who first were Wings fans as kids in the 70s and only later found out that he was an ex-Beatle. I used to think that was just a joke, but no…. I actually like that fact! But I am also probably in a tiny minority, because I actually prefer V&M.
A good way to find out which songs or periods are cool with the kids is to have a look at which songs are being covered by young bands – and older bands as well. Oh, and people in South America or Russia or wherever, that is interesting as well, I think. I was looking for something else entirely on youtube just recently, but I stumbled upon a number of quite good versions that way – sometimes they made me appreciate the original better, you can often hear that even behind the throwaway stuff there is a lot of really good songwriting hidden…
There were a lot of kids in the ’70s who were into the Bay City Rollers before they grew up and started listening to Beatles music. It’s whatever is current. It only seems remarkable in the case of Paul because no band can top the Beatles for historical significance. If that weren’t a fact, there would be no humor in, “Paul McCartney was in a band before Wings?” I’m sure that today, some four decades after Wings’ last album, if there is any band that people become aware of as children, it’s the Beatles. I myself was a kid in the ’70s and knew who the Beatles were long before I heard of Wings. I knew that Paul (and John) released solo music. But that’s all it was to me, solo music by the Beatles. Wings being an actual band simply flew over my head (pun intended). Maybe it’s because my parents had Beatles records in the house and didn’t own anything by Wings, and they only really took us to classical music concerts as kids. You can’t overlook the fact that Paul toured with Wings longer and in bigger venues that he did with the Beatles. So credit to him because I’m sure his longtime fans (Beatles fans) took their kids along to those concerts, hence the little Wings fans. They were a great live band, for sure (judging from concert footage). Since the late ’80s he’s performed mostly Beatles music live.
Sorry spelling error
*I do think it’s good RS are embracing more contemporary artists
@Michael, I’m sorry if this comment pops up in the wrong place – I’m afraid I’m struggling a bit to work out how to reply to a reply!
I think your comment that Paul had made a promise to himself to NEVER go back to being John’s caretaker was spot on. In addition, Paul was in a very good place in 1974 – Band on the Run was a huge commercial and critical success and he was planning his American tour. He was looking forwards, as he always seems to do.
On the other hand, John was looking backwards. He wanted to undo his mistakes and go back to the way things were before Yoko – to the early days even if his choice of music is a clue.
When John told Elliot Mintz that he wanted the Beatles to reform, I very much doubt that what he had in mind was a guest spot on a Wings album. But that is all that was on offer from Paul, who had ostensibly moved on.
Underlying all that of course was the fact that John still needed a caretaker. If Paul had agreed to reform the Beatles – to go back to how things had been before Yoko, as John wanted – he would also have been forced to break his promise to himself. By only agreeing to work with John on a non-exclusive basis, Paul was sending him a very clear message that they could not go backwards.
Yoko, of course, knew that Paul would stand firm, and she sent him on his ‘errand’ to hammer the point home that there was no way back for John – it was either her being the one person John relied on or he was on his own.
I think John held out for a bit to see whether Paul would budge, but once the papers to dissolve the Beatles were signed, it was game over as far as going backwards was concerned. That’s why he went back to Yoko, I think: not because she allowed him to come home, but because he had sunk the boat called Paul so had to get back on the boat called Yoko.
I don’t think Paul would ever have agreed to reform the Beatles. Cynthia made a point in her book that once John cut a person off, that was it, he didn’t look backwards. But actually, I think that’s Paul. He’s a person who always seems to be moving forwards, and he doesn’t forgive anyone who betrays him – he just cuts them out of his life. He was obviously wounded very deeply by the break up of the Beatles, and he didn’t even reconcile with George until the late 90’s, not really. So yes, I think that Paul was the one with the power to reform the Beatles, but that he wouldn’t do it and that this is the thing that hurt John the most.
This is thoughtful and well-argued — and I absolutely buy the central premise that John needed a caretaker, saw Paul as a caretaker, wanted Paul’s caretaking; and Paul, post-breakup and slagging, wasn’t interested. So why was PAUL heading over to the Dakota to hang with John? Play music, smoke pot, etc? I can readily believe that John spun this into a story of him telling Paul to get lost; but none of it happens without Paul making the overture, coming over, etc.
I think John returned to Yoko because of “the smoking cure,” full stop. No other reason.
Do you really think so, Michael, about John coming back only because of the smoking cure? Could you elaborate on why you think that? Because to me it seemed like he was sick of taking care of himself and just wanted his Mother back, and that he already knew about the shady stuff she would pull on him but followed along.
From what I can tell, someone was employing some pretty classic behavior modification techniques. John’s attitude changed very drastically in a very short time, and there’s no clear explanation for that.
There is an interview with Paul that took place during his 1989 tour. It’s on YouTube. The interviewer mentioned how John said he never missed the Beatles. Paul said, “He missed the Beatles. I know for a fact he missed ’em.” I’m sure he was right, but it seemed important to Paul that John missed it as much as he did.
Even if it was a relief in some ways, it had to be painful for Paul to lose the closeness he’d had with John for so many years. Wanting to get together doesn’t necessarily mean wanting to be in a band together. He may have wanted to reform their friendship and maybe work together within limits while Yoko looked after John. Unfortunately, there was no up side in that scenario for Yoko.
@Laura – Yes, that’s how I see it.
I read something a couple of years ago where Paul was quoted as saying that John had phoned him many times in the 70’s, begging him to reform the Beatles. I looked for the quote when I wrote the comment above yesterday, but I couldn’t find it. I know I read it though.
It makes complete sense to me that Paul would have been the one to say no to reforming the Beatles. John was a mess, so the responsibility would have been on Paul to make it happen, and then everyone (including John) would have blamed him if had gone wrong.
Not only that – Paul was married with 3 kids. It wouldn’t have been possible for him to juggle his responsibilities as a husband and father with looking after John, and keeping John productive enough for the band to function.
Which isn’t to say that Paul didn’t want to be John’s friend, or even that he didn’t want to work with John again. He just didn’t want to be responsible for John, or for a band in which he and John were ‘equal partners’, but where it was up to him to make it work. Who can blame him?
“Which isn’t to say that Paul didn’t want to be John’s friend, or even that he didn’t want to work with John again. He just didn’t want to be responsible for John, or for a band in which he and John were ‘equal partners’”
Well said, Elizabeth. Things for both men were different after the break up — marriage and (in Paul’s case) newly being a father were huge. It’s a cliche that “you can’t go home again,” but there’s a lot of reality in that statement. People change, priorities change, and at some point relationships have to be recreated or left behind. Just trying to go backwards never really works.
Paul had a family to raise. What about John? Was his desire to raise Sean, to the point that he put his music career on hold, count for nothing? Being in a band was the last thing he wanted. Paul needed a band thoughout the ’70s, not him. In the 1984 Playboy interview, when Paul stepped out of the room, Linda said: “Paul was desperate to write with John again. And John was desperate to write. Paul could have helped him.” Sometimes the official story is the correct one. I know that you prefer to see John as a grovelling, high-maintenance guy who couldn’t stand on his own two feet (unlike Paul who rushed into marriage with a raving madwoman after Linda’s death because the thought of being alone was so scary to him), but if you can’t find the quote where Paul says that it’s all conjecture. And to top it off, John would blame Paul for… what? Something that’s a figment of your imagination? The fan-generated persecution complex when it comes to Paul – with Klein (still) and Lewisohn (of all people) has no bounds. Paul is doing all right for himself. As for the Lennon Estate, aka as the Evil Empire around here, Yoko apparently isn’t doing very well and Sean has already started to handle John’s business. Does that pass everyone’s approval?
Is Yoko not in good health, @Michelle? I’m sorry to hear that. I’ve sent kind thoughts to her during COVID — all these people, they’re getting up there.
Michelle, speaking for myself, I was thinking mostly of the pre-1975 interactions between Lennon and McCartney, before Sean was born. I don’t have any doubt at all that for both men, family changed them and made it harder to “go back” to what was.
For what it’s worth, I think Klein really behaved like a villain, and that the person in the Beatles story that he hurt most was quite likely Lennon. Lennon wrote “Steel and Glass” about Klein and came to take a very dim view of Klein’s ethics, and I find the tendency in some quarters to gloss over Klein’s behaviors troubling. What Klein did with The Rolling Stones and the whole “Nanker Phelge” business was dirty for sure. As for the Beatles break up, Klein didn’t create the conditions that precipitated it, but he seems to have served as a potent accelerant.
Lewisohn I see as caught between the proverbial rock and hard place: he needs access, and getting access from just about ANY uber-famous and powerful person is complicated.
I have respect for all the Beatles’ children — none of them seem to be destructive, and many, very much including Sean and Julian, are doing things that positively contribute to the world. I think that speaks well of all four members of the band, since those kids were definitely in a high-risk group for flaming out in one way or another.
Allen Klein was a bad dude. He’s a type, one I’m familiar with, and wherever they go, they ruin shit.
Everything he did well, others could do (Stigwood for example). Klein wanted to “Nanker Phelge” The Beatles’ catalog, that’s why he said, “I’ve got ’em!” not “Maybe I’ll call ’em and see if they need any help.”
Epstein turned a bunch of amateurs in leather into the biggest group there ever was; that’s a talent. Klein turned The Beatles into four people who hated each other so much you literally COULD NOT PAY THEM ENOUGH to make music together. If Lewisohn doesn’t call Klein a villain simply for that, he’s too naive to be writing this story. All Klein had to do was keep the band together. That was his only job. Getting them £1 per LP means bupkes if they’re making solo records selling 500,000 units instead of Beatle records selling 20,000,000.
Nancy and Michael (re. “Allen Klein was a bad dude”) – couldn’t agree more.
We may also want to consider that under Klein’s “guidance”, the Beatles failed to take over Nems as desired and lost all control of Northern Songs.
In fact, it appears to have been confirmed on 19 September 1969, the day before John announced that he was quitting the group, that Northern Songs finally and completely fell to ATV.
I’ve read it said that this may have been the final straw for John, but if so, why didn’t he “divorce” from Klein as well?
Because John didn’t want to handle his own business affairs, and had no brother-in-law to turn to. 🙂
After losing control of Northern Songs, John and Paul both sold their shares. Although it would free up cash, it seems short-sighted to me. Does anyone understand the ins and outs of such things?
About AKOM, they’ve recorded three new episodes and I think one will be out in a couple of weeks. (There’s decades worth of Jean Jacketry.)
@Michelle – Sean wasn’t born when John went back to Yoko, so John’s decision had nothing to do with him.
Sadly, I do think that John was a ‘grovelling, high maintenance guy’. I don’t think he started out that way, but it’s what drugs turned him into.
I really doubt whether you want to know what my feelings are about Yoko. I do have a tendency not to sugar coat things, so it’s probably best that I don’t say because I WOULD cause offence. However, I will say this: one of the truest things that Paul wrote was in the end the love you take is equal to the love you make. Paul has brought joy to millions of people, and when he dies, the whole world will grieve. I doubt whether many tears will be shed for Yoko, and that’s on her for the way she’s lived her life and how she’s treated others.
I won’t be shedding any tears for sure.
I don’t think it would matter if Yoko starts to disown Lewisohn at this stage, if anything it would only bolster his image as the sole teller of the true story. George and as a result the Harrison estate fell out with him and Paul has voiced his displeasure in general with outsiders defining the narrative repeatedly, but this only resulted in even more admiration for Lewisohn, because people see it as proof that he is incorruptible ( oh , and of course McCartney is constantly rewritting and whitewashing the story anyway…). The level of worship this guy gets is frightening. And if he continues to write at the same pace, neither Yoko, Paul or Ringo will be around any more to see volume 3 being published, so who is going to challenge his version?
Jesse, one thing that could limit the influence of Lewisohn is the reality that he’s not a good prose stylist. I’ve said before that Philip Norman, for all his faults, knows how to write in a compelling way, and that this is one reason Shout! became so influential. I won’t be surprised if most of Lewisohn’s influence comes from people quoting short passages, rather than from people reading the books themselves.
I was initially excited to read Lewisohn’s first volume, but it turned into a real slog. He seems to struggle with editing, in two senses: 1) He can’t seem to see when he needs to leave less-essential information out, or cut the treatment of it way back, and 2) He’s not a good writer at the sentence/paragraph level.
I say this as a professional editor, by the way.
As another professional editor, I concur on all points.
Remember what brought Mark Lewisohn to prominence: researching and cataloguing. His work is wonderful in that regard, essential. But the Beatles’ story is vast and has been oft-told, so you really need superb fluidity at all levels — grand theme, structure, chapter breaks, even down to paragraphs. My favorite big Beatles book, from a prose style point of view, is Mark Hertsgaard’s, because he’s a superb writer.
If I could wave a wand, I would install Lewisohn at Yale, make him the Paul Mellon Professor of Contemporary British History, and tell him to go research (I think Oxbridge is too snooty to discuss the Beatles for another 50 years, you’d need the prestige to get the access, and there is a strain of Anglophilia at Yale). Then he would do what he’s the best at, which is the digging and compiling, and from that trove other writers more skilled at longform historical narrative could create narratives.
But we must remember: it is precisely Lewisohn’s flaws that make him acceptable to the four parties. Norman is full of questionable opinions, but it’s those very opinions that make him a great writer of his type. Grossman even more so.
I think the definitive Beatles book won’t be Lewisohn’s, but the book AFTER Lewisohn, and after all four are dead.
I agree with Michael and Nancy regarding Lewisohn’s writing. I will usually get through a book in a few days but it took me years to get through his book. The over use of lengthy footnotes was a real problem for me. I have no problem with him citing sources, but including paragraphs in the footnotes that he could have either left out or put in the main story was very annoying and interrupted the flow of the book. I bought it when it came out, couldn’t really get into and put it down, it took me until the pandemic this past March to finally pull it out again.
Yoko, as the martyr’s widow, and the woman wronged by fans, occupies a different place in the firmament from Paul or George.
Ask Philip Norman; he’d spent decades burnishing John as the sole genius, and slagging Paul as a try-hard social climber—exactly the Yoko line—and the moment his book comes out, she pulls support and it’s DOA.
The very same people who worship Mark Lewisohn (and there’s plenty to admire), are the people who believe Yoko is the keeper of the flame.
Why does Yoko seem to hold all the cards? It’s too bad that before George died, the three remaining Beatles didn’t come together and just be totally honest about Johns drug use, and Yokos part in that. They seemed to have skirted around the issue in Anthology.
Do you think it was money? Meaning, without Yokos cooperation, Anthology couldn’t have been made?
I’m wondering if because they all loved John, and wanted to honor his memory, they just acquiesced.
$$$$$$
No Yoko, no rights to John’s image and voice. At the very least a huge legal battle before it all even began. Probably a pro-Yoko competing Anthology, with Wenner’s backing. And so forth.
What sort of person would claim to know how someone who had suffered a devastating loss was feeling? Who talks like that about anyone?
.
@Elizabeth: I remember well my dismay at reading that statement by Lewisohn. For those who don’t know, he said in an interview that when he watched Paul’s face in the “it’s a drag” footage the day after John’s death, he could tell Paul was annoyed by and jealous of all the good press John was getting. For being murdered. (Lewisohn could tell this because he’s such an “astute watcher” of McCartney and has special insight into him somehow, apparently.) Well, my jaw dropped and it rudely dashed my hopes for his objectivity and evenhandedness. In a way it’s good he said it and tipped his hand, so we know where he’s coming from.
As a normal adult, there’s a lot of reasons Paul might’ve been annoyed at that moment, not least of which could be, “My friend just got shot and STILL you’re hounding me? When will I ever get some privacy?”
To assign it to Paul being jealous of a dead man seems…fannish.
He could have called in sick. Just kidding. He was in shock and the only way he knows how to cope is to bury himself in work. And he never shows his feelings. But he didn’t look himself in that video – chewing gum, giving short answers, eyelashes glued together. He said recently that he’s still in denial about John’s death. Really? To me, not having anything to say on the day of a loved one’s sudden death shows a person’s devastation more than delivering a eulogy.
It seems like an assessment Lewisohn made in retrospect, because Paul is often criticized for competing with John’s ghost, complaining about revisionism in the wake of John’s death, etc.
@Annie M – It’s an appalling comment and Lewisohn should have known better than to make it. Not just as a journalist, but as a human being. We can all think what we like, but sometimes we need to keep our thoughts to ourselves. This was one of those times.
That Lewisohn can’t see that makes me question his maturity and/or his emotional intelligence. It’s also obvious that he HATES Paul McCartney, as you wouldn’t say that about someone you didn’t hate. It’s about as appropriate as questioning whether the photograph of Yoko and David Geffen at the hospital on the night John was killed was staged. You might think it to yourself, but it would be extremely inappropriate to make a public statement announcing it – because you are just that clever.
Awful, just awful.