#erin torkelson weber

[lonely-soul-02]

Any Beatles fans out there, I urge you to listen to Erin and check out her fabulous work, if you're not already aware of her. She's analytical and level-headed, yet deeply empathetic. She's a much needed breath of fresh air in a male heavy fandom, many of whom have a bizarre love/hate fanship over Paul McCartney, emphasis on the hate. Indeed, some of them have written books about him.

#I'm looking at you Philip Norman you complete weirdo #Hunter Davies you're not much better after I saw your talk last year #The Beatles #Paul McCartney #Erin Torkelson Weber #one sweet dream podcast #The Beatles and the Historians #some interesting parallels with Liam and the way some Liam stans position Liam

[mydaroga]

So as you may know, I finished Tune In a few weeks ago. And then I dove into The Beatles and the Historians by Erin Torkelson Weber. And finishing both of those, while the AKOM series is still going, and having discussions here and in the discord, has been a really fortuitous sequence for myself, personally, and my understanding/exploration of Beatles history, bias, and the history of bias.

The thing I wanted to point out, to myself if no one else, is the reminder that while I think the current discussion around Lewisohn's (IMO) clear and present bias in his purportedly neutral biography is that Mark Lewisohn is a large part of the reason we know what we know about Paul McCartney.

I think we're all aware of the 70s-80s narrative promulgated by people like Philip Norman and Lennon himself that tucked McCartney (not to mention anyone else) conveniently out of the creative center of the Beatles (and post-Beatles) story. And I think I, like many, react to what I see in Tune In with that narrative in mind. That is to say, defensively, because we all know (now) that Paul brought in those tape loops, that Paul was exploring the avant garde, that Paul played a huge role in the Beatles creative development in the studio. So how do we know that, and what changed?

Well at least according to Weber, and I see no reason to distrust this, in large part that is due to Lewisohn's The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions and The Complete Beatles Chronicle. It was actually ML's research that uncovered a lot of the day by day, in studio and out doing that corrected this narrative. Of course, Paul began to correct this in the late 80s with his touring literature and then with Many Years From Now, but it's Mark's authority on the recordings and dates that gives that reassessment the factual basis it does. And I had kinda forgotten that.

Of course I'm not saying this changes my assessment of Tune In. But the reminder does reaffirm, for me anyway, that whatever is going on it's not like, a planned vendetta that's been going on for decades or anything. We don't have to take Paul's word for his attempt to correct the narrative in part because Lewisohn provided the evidence. And I simply think it's an interesting thing to hold in mind along with our questions about his research and writing choices.

#i've moved onto Truant Boy which is basically EXACTLY what I needed to read next #just by chance #love when synchronicity provides the best path #kris talks a lot #kris reads tune in #beatles books

[thestarsarecool]

hi theree! what are your thoughts on john writing the word funeral on top of a photo of pauls wedding? ive just found this out and honestly i dont quite believe it.

Hmm, I guess my take is that it feels pretty in line with John's 1971 behavior to me. Here is the Associated Press article on the book John, uh, annotated: Lennon’s resentment of McCartney reflected in book notes. (July 20th, 1986). What he's writing reminds me very much of How Do You Sleep. You know, "those freaks were right when they said you was dead."

There's also the added element of his marriage to Linda being his "death". That could be about Linda specifically, but it could also be about the Eastmans in general. In 1970-72ish, John had a less than positive view of the Eastmans (him calling Lee Eastman an animal in "Lennon Remembers," the 1971 Melody Maker letter, etc.). Also, there was just the entire idea that Paul was betraying his values by siding with the "bourgeoisie" Eastmans ("fucking stupid middle-class pigs"). John's views of Linda specifically also seem to mesh with this funeral statement. Erin Torkelson-Weber has a great write-up on John and Linda where she summarizes John's statements re: Linda as such:

"Lennon’s prevailing view of Linda McCartney appears to have consisted of three major elements: First, during the breakup period, he tended to equate her with her father and brother, with all the legal, political and financial disputes that entailed. Part of this included blaming Linda, and the Eastman family, for at least some of McCartney’s actions; particularly his rejection of Allen Klein. Second, he repeatedly expressed surprise at not only McCartney’s choice of Eastman, but also at the couple’s ability to stay together: on at least three separate documented occasions, Lennon implicitly or explicitly predicted the early demise of the Eastman/McCartney marriage. Third, despite his repeated surprise at McCartney’s choice of Eastman, and his predictions that the marriage would not last, Lennon cannily pinpointed, (in the same interview where he declared the marriage would dissolve after five years), part of her appeal for McCartney; her ability to provide the other musician with a stable, domestic home and family life similar to what McCartney had experienced and enjoyed growing up."

So, you know, it matches up quite nicely with "You live with straights who tell you you was king, jump when your momma tell you anything."

#my thoughts #my asks #my quotes

[banjoandthepork]

They're actually playing the audio diary, interspersed with commentary.

#gimme some truth podcast #the beatles #paul mccartney #john lennon #george harrison #ringo starr #yoko ono #'I'm sure that if he had been a woman or something he would have been a great threat�� #Yoko's 1968 audio diary

[no-reply95]

“Some of those who eulogised Lennon seemingly could not do so without denigrating McCartney, Harrison and Starr or devaluing their contributions to the Beatles. “He [Lennon] stood for a mixture of tough minded realism… wit and intellect. Paul on the other hand was a pretty boy.” The most famous example of this came from the Village Voice’s Christgau, one of America’s most powerful rock critics. In a piece shortly following Lennon’s death, Christgau referred to the three remaining Beatles as “hacks” and blamed their refusal to accept Ono into the band for the breakup. He also repeated a number of misconceptions about Lennon that, while widely accepted, were untrue. This included praising Lennon, the only middle-class born Beatle, as a “working-class” hero and declaring that Lennon had always been the only artistic, avant-garde Beatle because “the others just didn’t have the stuff.” His obituary of Lennon stated that the wrong Beatle had been killed. “Why is it always Bobby Kennedy or John Lennon? Why isn’t it Richard Nixon or Paul McCartney?”

Erin Torkelson Weber, The Beatles and the Historians

#the beatles #john lennon #paul mccartney #george harrison #ringo starr #1980 #robert christgau #erin torkelson weber #the beatles and the historians

[onesweetdreampodcast]

In one of your earlier episodes, you mentioned J/G/R's testimony in the high court case, and that it had been disingenuous in some way. Do you recall in what way, exactly? Or if not, do you remember the source you got that take from? (ie please dont make me read the actual court transcripts...lol) Love you guys! keep being awesome!

Hello! Thank you! :) I believe this issue was discussed in my conversation with Erin Torkelson Weber—although I'm sure we addressed it in the Breakup Series as well (btw to answer another message, part 2 of my conversation with Erin will be up in the next month).

The gist of what John, George, and Ringo communicated/implied was that the band COULD continue if only Paul would be reasonable and accept Klein; that it was Paul who was breaking up the Beatles with his diva-like behavior and unreasonable demands. Erin argues they did this for PR reasons, I would argue that there is evidence to support the possibility that John, George, and Ringo would have been open to a reconciliation. On the other hand, they lied through their teeth in their affidavits so...? Still, lying on their affidavits doesn’t eliminate the possibility that they would have been open to discussions with Paul had he bowed and accepted Klein. Since then, writers have backed the assertion that Paul broke up the Beatles WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY PROMOTING the story that John 100% quit the Beatles first, effectively breaking up the band (as was his right as commander-in chief/leader-at-every-moment Lennon). I don't know why WHY authors are so sure that John was out in September 1969...but I guess that gives him the agency while also blaming McCartney?

Excerpt from the Beatles and the Historians: "Lennon, pivoting away from the Lennon Remembers interview of only a few months earlier, also argued that while McCartney was acting selfishly and unreasonably any personal or musical disagreements between them could be overcome. In stark contrast to Lennon's statements to Rolling Stone that there was "not a chance" of the Beatles recording together again, Lennon declared that the group still could perform as a functioning unit once McCartney simply bowed to the majority rule and accepted Klein. (Diana's comment: McCartney disputed the “majority rule” concept, arguing that traditionally Beatles’ decisions were unanimous; McCartney also quoted the song GOD to prove that Lennon no longer identified with the group). From Doggett (who I don't recommend, nevertheless his book contains good information): " Lennon's affidavit...from our earliest days in Liverpool, George and I on the one hand and Paul on the other had different musical tastes. Paul preferred "pop type" music and we preferred what is now called "underground". This may have led to arguments, particularly between Paul and George, but the contrast in our tastes, I am sure, did more good than harm, musically speaking, and contributed to our success.' The truth was being stretched beyond the laws of physics. The contrast of 'musical tastes' was not only inaccurate and intended to denigrate McCartney's work, but Lennon's claim that he welcomed the mix of styles was sharply at odds with his scathing comments about his partner in his recent Rolling Stone interview. Fortunately for Lennon, the magazine's distribution network did not extend to the High Court." From Erin's book again (The Historians and the Beatles): "The testimony of all four Beatles, which quickly became public, made a lasting impression on the public perception of the group's artistry and its inner workings. As with Lennon Remembers, parts of Trial testimony were used by Beatle's' writers for decades to explain the group's working relationship as well as its dissolution, but few authors addressed the very real agendas or omissions that the testimony contained. There were no irresolvable conflicts within the Beatles; and while Lennon, Harrison, and Starr wanted to save the band, McCartney wanted to end it. This was the initial version of the breakup that searched into the public consciousness. ...at the time McCartney's distrust of Klein was widely viewed as unreasonable — reporters described it as "irrational" while Lennon, Harrison, and Starr's reluctance to being managed by McCartney's in-laws, the Eastmans, was perfectly understandable. ... McCartney had unequivocally won the first crucial round in the Beatles legal battle, even if he now found himself hated by the press, the fans and the other band members Klein, unable to personally defend himself at the trial, went on a press offensive, ...he identifies McCartney as the instigator "if anyone broke up the Beatles, it was him" and does not mention Lennon's September 1969 departure. He downplays the intimacy of the men's friends, blaming McCartney's behavior for any distance "every time John let his guard down McCartney hurt him" — and pronounces Lennon's supremacy in the Lennon/McCartney partnership"John had written most of the stuff. Kelin repeatedly reassures reads of Lennon, Harrison and Starr's personal and professional happiness and their eagerness to credit him for it. Kelin portrays himself as a champion of artists...Klein repeated many of these arguments in his interview with peter McCabe. He attributed their loss at the trial not to legitimate questions regarding his financial deals but to his "anti-establishment" status, buttressing his and Lennon's reputation as rock and roll rebels. Reinforcing the message that the major disagreement lay with the Eastmans. He reassured everyone he would be happy to accept McCartney back and speculated that it would take two years for the other man to see the error of his ways.

#One Sweet Dream Podcast #The Beatles Trial #The Beatles Breakup #The Breakup Series #Akom #erin torkelson weber #Historians and the Beatles

[longforyesterday]

Cleave found Starr sensible and uncomplicated; Harrison was revealing if uncompromising once he had made up his mind. McCartney, in contrast, was a puzzle. According to her analysis neither his “sweet” looks nor his music provided a true picture of the man’s character. Her portrayal of his personality extended beyond the rote description of merely “charming” that dominated the public perception. According to Cleave McCartney displayed “shriveling wit, a critical intelligence and enormous talent.” Harrison had told Cleave that he had not deliberately pursued fame, but McCartney openly embraced it. Cleave acknowledged his geographic separation from the other Beatles as the only London-based member: “He is half-Beatle and half not.” Immersed in a self-admitted “‘self-improvement kick,’” as Cleave labeled it, McCartney made it clear he was determined to be viewed as more than the band’s prettiest face and sweetest singer.  McCartney peppered the interview with art and literature references, citing his fascination with avant-garde figures Stockhausen and Luciano Berio and his drive for radical artistic stimulation: “People are saying things and painting things and writing things and composing things that are great, and I must know what people are doing.” Decades later in his semiautobiography, McCartney criticized what he viewed as the inaccurate portrayal of him in that period, possibly offering motivation for why he discussed his avant-garde art interests so extensively with Cleave: “At the time I was known as the cute Beatle, the ballad Beatle or whatever. I hate to think what I was known as. John was the cynical one, the wise Beatle, the intellectual. In fact at that time it was wildly in reverse.” In Starr’s profile he had expressed affection for the United States, but McCartney was more critical, lamenting America’s lack of a BBC and harshly condemning its history of racial discrimination.

Erin Torkelson Weber, The Beatles and the Historians

#i love this #self-improvement kick #maureen cleave #paul mccartney #erin torkelson weber #the beatles and the historians

[the-nerktwins]

Karen Hooper (on Paul McCartney) - July 13, 2016: I tend to think he’s not as vulnerable to all the blatant obsequious gestures that Klein used on John.

Erin Torkelson-Weber - July 14, 2016: I agree; by January 1969, I don’t think anyone would argue against the reality that Paul was more mentally stable, and less vulnerable to flattery, than John was. In addition, Pete Shotton remarks how John was always the sort of person to do something, and then never want to/expect to deal with the result of his decisions. In 1969, John wanted to hand off all of Apple’s financial problems to someone else and say “Here, solve this; but make sure you do it in an anti-establishment way.” John wanted someone else to be the adult. Klein could fill that role as well as ensure that John remained a rebel at the same time.

But here’s what continues to interest me: Flattery was part of Klein’s standard formula, as were extravagant promises: I’ll fund Yoko’s art shows; I’ll get Ringo movie parts, I’ll pay more attention to George than Brian did; I’ll tell John that he wrote 70% of Eleanor Rigby. And that’s true, not just with the Beatles, but with all his clients, from Sam Cooke to the Stones. As I mentioned on an earlier post, that was Klein’s first step to management, and step two was bullying those who didn’t fall in line.

But we have no proof that Klein ever pursued step one with Paul, whether or not Paul would have fallen for it to the same extent the others did. Where are Klein’s promises to get Linda photo exhibits in NY museums, as he got Yoko art exhibits? Where are his gushings over Paul’s work? The most blatantly obsequious behavior directed towards Paul by Klein comes from Paul’s trial testimony, when he declares that Klein told him that Paul came out looking better than John did in the “Let it Be,” film, and indicated that Yoko was the problem, causing tensions in the band. That’s nothing coming from a guy like Klein. Whether because he already viewed Paul as a lost cause due to the Eastman’s, or due to personality clashes, or because he already had three Beatles and therefore figured he didn’t need the fourth, Klein seemingly skipped right over the praise/flattery stage with Paul and went right to the bullying stage.

#quoted: erin torkelson-weber #quoted: karen hooper #blog: the historian and the beatles #discussion quotes #my posts #the beatles #paul mccartney #john lennon #linda eastman #linda mccartney #yoko ono #allen klein #the beatles break up #apple corps #the divorce

[idontwanttospoiltheparty]

I want to make a Beatles biopic but actually it's a meta commentary on all the different narratives, and it'll like switch POVs and suddenly John goes from alpha macho mean male to delicate sensitive flower and Paul goes from bossy to artistically vapid to creative genius and the narratives will be coded with colour palettes and Erin Torkelson Weber can be the executive producer.

#omg this could be so good guyssssss #mine #bugs

[eppysboys]

Could you, or anyone else that is knowledgeable in the subject, put into precise words what is wrong with the John Lennon estate and the myth and business they've built around John?

There is......so much... I've just been sitting here with your question spinning like a rotiserie chicken in my skull. It's decades and decades worth of myth building that I have an issue with, and that I think has limited John's work (in terms of outreach, timelessness, etc).

I think the best place to start would be with Rolling Stone, which is really the main structure of this particular myth around John. Here's a lovely video about it, by breathless345: McCartney, Lennon and Rolling Stone. Another very worthy read is The Beatles and Their Historians by Erin Torkelson Weber. Here's handy quote from her book!

In essence, the marketing of John has always been: John the authentic rebel, John the no-bullshit poet, John the working class hero, John the artsy peace advocate, John the enlightened one. Which, ok, sure. A little cringeworthy given he adopted these personalities like new hats and tossed them out (publicly, because he did own up to his mistakes and phases one way or another) when they weren't giving him the 'enlightenment' he was seeking... Don't get me wrong! I think John was all those things to a certain degree, but not in quite the same flavour, if that makes sense? I think after years and years of being his fan, when I think of John I see a sensitive man, endowed with great talent and beautiful warm charm, but also a great deal of trauma that had him on the run for answers and comfort his whole life. I don't see his anger in the context of 'this genius is mad at the world because of insane people and their insane objectives and tried to change the world with his soulmate', but more 'this really gifted and beautiful man is terribly confused and scared but has found comfort in this cause'. I don't think his pursuits for world peace were empty!! I just think they're framed in a way that makes him look like he was so rigidly deciated to the cause, like it was his life purpose, when he's said himself on so many occasions that he's just trying to find himself and make a world that will accept and be kind to people just like him. But that's not as cool to market to people as 'peace advocate genius man', because 'the tortured artist' is only marketable in certain ways - they have to live fast, die young, and have deep quotes to post on facebook 40 years later. No one wants a wishy washy icon, that's harder to sell.

But why is portraying John this way not a good thing? What's wrong with a bit of shorthand for marketing purposes? Well, such a big part of the marketing of John's solo work has been also partly rooted in putting Paul - his best friend, his partner, often his muse - down. Down as the fake, charming, poppy and preppy, empty, less talented one. The one who wrote granny songs and took over the beatles to make it less cool and arty. The estate (to some degree it's slightly better these days, but eh) makes out that pre-1968 was John Lennon, lost and confused and aimless. Rolling Stone pushes the manic interviews by John as John being the truthful, authentic genius ex-Beatle, though there's a wealth of instances where John has discounted those specific moments in time as how he felt in the moment, and that he feels ___ way now.

He was not 'Imagine' personified. He did care about Paul McCartney and admired him from head to heels. He did love The Beatles - not just in a 'what a great fucking band we were' sort of way but literally 'he loved those guys with all his heart, he depended on them and would defend them to the ends of the earth, he believed in them together and apart no matter what' way. He did write great  and meaningful music before 1968. He was a great musician, he loved rock n roll and he was working himself out. If you set someone up to be 'authentic poet peace icon who wrote imagine' you're going to get backlash when anyone who has internet access or a John Lennon biography handy reads about his life and realises he could be extremely un-like that. If John's image was similar to Brian Wilson's, for example, this wouldn't be such an issue. And maybe, just maybe, he would be more intriguing and endearing to a generation of people disillusioned by celebrity activism and rich people lecturing us about life's great pains.

Watch this series, specifically this episode for how John's image has been shaped and it's impact.

Also, this sucked.

Hope that any of that made any sort of sense!

Stream Walls and Bridges.

#i ramble i rumble #this...is a mess #someone more articulate is very welcome to reply and mend my broken explainations #asks #the lennon estate

[monkberries]

“I think, if Peter Jackson has got one eye on a popular audience, if he’s swinging for the fences (in your good phrase, Robert), it leads me to consider one of the phrases that appeared in that Vanity Fair article recently. Jackson is quoted as saying, ‘If this were a fictional movie about a fictional band, having one of the band members walk out at the end of the first act—it’d be the ideal thing that you’d actually write into the script. And then the triumphant third act, where, against all odds, they’re up on the roof playing—fantastic.’ And that suggests to me he’s conceiving of these three episodes as the beginning, middle, and the end of a traditional narrative. And there’s nothing fundamentally wrong with that; I think you expect a degree of narrative structure from even a documentary film. But if you wanted to be a hardcore historian—if any of us were maybe Erin Torkelson Weber—we might be pointing out that to impose any kind of narrative structure like that on history essentially creates an artificial sense of completion around it.”

— Duncan Driver, Something About the Beatles episode 220

#podcast blues #listening to this ep again

[phoneybeatlemania]

Phoneys Reading List

essentially just books/essays on the beatles (or somewhat relevant to them) because i just love lists

Read (in *roughly* chronological order):

1. John Lennon: The Life by Philip Norman

2. I, Me, Mine by George Harrison

3. A Day In The Life by Mark Hertsgaard

4. Exposing The Voice Of Truth: A Psychological Profile Of John Lennon by Deborah Fade

5. Imagine This by Julia Baird

6. Who Killed John Lennon? by Lesley-Ann Jones

7. My Long And Winding Road by Angie McCartney

8. The Chemistry of Lennon and McCartney by Ruth McCartney

9. With The Beatles by Alistair Taylor

10. Plastic Jesus by Bobby Z. Brite

11. And In The End by Ken McNab

12. Sun Prints by Linda McCartney

13. John Lennon: The Illustrated Biography by The Daily Mail (ok i know theyre satan but its essentially just photos)

14. Lennon & McCartney: Lennon (Part 1) by Mojo Magazine

15. Reading the Beatles as a Challenge to Discourses of Hegemonic Masculinity by Martin King

16. Debunking Primal Therapy: A warning about Janov’s primal theory, and other repressed memory therapies by John Smith

17. All Too Much: The Untold Story of a Hollywood Actor's Two Months with the Beatles in India by Judd Klinger

18. Beatles ‘66: The Revolutionary Year by Steve Turner

19. The Teatles Magazine: book(s) 9-16 by Teatlemania

20. Venus and Mars: Paul McCartney over America 1975/1976 by Fortune James

21. All Roads Lead To Lennon by Philip Kirkland

+ abstract:

1. How To Be Famous by Caitlin Moran

2. Charles Manson: The Man Who Murdered The Sixties by David J. Krajicek

3. Norwegian Wood by Haruki Murakami

5. Moranthology by Caitlin Moran

6. Yeah, Yeah, Yeah: The Story of Modern Pop by Bob Stanley

7. Alma Cogan by Gordan Burns

Bought but haven’t read/finished:

1. McCartney: The Biography by Chris Salewicz (currently reading)

2. The Primal Scream by Arthur Janov (currently reading)

3. Daddy Come Home by Pauline Lennon (currently reading)

4. The Dream Is Over: Off The Record by Keith Badman

5. 'Nothing You Can See That Isn't Shown': The Album Covers of the Beatles by Ian Inglis

6. Love Me Do by Michael Braun

7. The Beatles Authorised Biography by Hunter Davies

8. Skywriting By Word Of Mouth by John Lennon

9. Lennon Remembers by Jann Wenner

10. Many Years From Now by Barry Miles

11. The Complete Beatles Chronicle by Mark Lewisohn

12. "Helter-Skelter"?: The Beatles, the British New Left, and the Question of Hegemony by Oded Heilbronner

13. Men, Masculinity & Responsibility (and AHDN) by Dr Martin King

14. The Dream Is Over: Off The Record 2 by Keith Badman

To read (don’t own):

1. Pre: Fab! The Story of One Man, His Drums, John Lennon, Paul McCartney and George Harrison by Colin Hanton & Colin Hall

2. In My Life by Pete Shotton

3. The Lives Of John Lennon by Albert Goldman

4. As Time Goes By by Derek Taylor

5. Allen Klein: The Man Who Bailed Out the Beatles, Made the Stones, and Transformed Rock and Roll by Fred Goodman

6. You Never Give Me Your Money by Peter Doggett

8. Crazy Stories of Primal Therapy: Cautionary tales to chill the bones from participants in Janov’s cultlike therapy by John Smith

9. The Queer Sixties by Patricia Juliana Smith

10. Lennon & McCartney: McCartney (part 2) by Mojo Magazine

11. Loving John by May Pang

12. The Beatles Anthology by The Beatles

13. One, Two, Three, Four by Craig Brown

14. John by Cynthia Lennon

15. The Beatles and the Historians: An Analysis of Writings About the Fab Four by Erin Torkelson Weber

16. The John Lennon Letters by John Lennon

17. Wonderful Today by Pattie Boyd

18. Here Comes The Sun: The Spiritual and Musical Journey of George Harrison by Joshua M. Greene

19. The Lyrics by Paul McCartney

20. Get Back by The Beatles

21. Brian Epstein by Ray Coleman

22. The Brian Epstein Story by Deborah Geller

23. Man On The Run: Paul McCartney in the 1970s by Tom Doyle

24. The Beatles' Shadow: Stuart Sutcliffe & His Lonely Hearts Club by Pauline Sutcliffe

25. Days That Ill Remember: Spending Time With John Lennon & Yoko Ono by Jonathan Cot

26. Apple To The Core by Peter McCabe

27. Daddy, Come Home: The True Story of John Lennon and His Father by Pauline Lennon

28. Magical Mystery Tours by Tony Bramwell

29. Come Together: Lennon and McCartney in the Seventies by Richard White

30. Linda McCartney by Danny Fields

31. Living In The Material World by Olivia Harrison

32. Ticket To Ride by Larry Kane

33. Powers of Two: Finding the Essence of Innovation in Creative Pairs by Joshua Wolf-Shenk

34. The Beatles and Fandom by Richard Mills

35. The Mersey Sound by Adrian Henri, Brian Patten, and Roger McGough

#because I love lists #a lot #I really really *really* love making lists #beatles books #meta #reading list

[mydaroga]

I Read some Beatles Books, AMA

So ever since college, I've had a HUGE problem with like. Reading. I majored in reading and it killed reading. For twenty years. But here's what I've read since January 29 of 2022: Shout! by Philip Norman Love Me Do! The Beatles Progress by Michael Braun 150 Glimpses of the Beatles by Craig Brown The Beatles by Hunter Davies Many Years from Now by Barry Miles John: a Biography by Cynthia Lennon You Never Give Me Your Money by Peter Doggett Riding So High: The Beatles and Drugs by Joe Goodden Tune In (the expanded edition) by Mark Lewisohn currently working on The Beatles and the Historians by Erin Torkelson Weber Basically my point is, the Beatles cured my inability to read. Ask me anything or tell me what to read next!

#kris talks a lot #beatles books

[anotherkindofmindpod]

New Episode!

Paul and Linda McCartney’s RAM, now often referred to by many as the “first indie pop album” had its 50th birthday on May 17, 2021!  To commemorate this important milestone anniversary, join Thalia as she gives “An AKOM Toast!” to RAM at 50!  Happy #RAMiversary! 

Available now on most podcast platforms!

SHOW NOTES under the cut

Playlist: 

Part 1: RAM by Paul and Linda McCartney

Too Many People

3 Legs

Ram On

Dear Boy

Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey

Smile Away

Heart Of The Country

Monkberry Moon Delight

Eat At Home

Long Haired Lady

Ram On

The Back Seat Of My Car

Part 2: "Indie Pop Medley"

“Prairie Fire the Wanders About” by Sufjan Stevens 

"Home Again" by Michael Kiwanuka

“Will Do” by TV on the Radio 

“Where Gravity is Dead,” by Laura Veirs 

“The Infanta” by the Decemberists 

“Soul Meets Body by Death Cab for Cutie” 

"Eugene" by Arlo Parks

“Suddenly Everything Has Changed” by the Flaming Lips

"Stella Brown" by Jelani Aryeh

“The Breeze” by Dr. Dog 

“Golden Days” by Whitney 

"Sunrise" by Kenny Elrod

”Let’s Get Lost” by Elliot Smith 

"Pass the Hours" by MorMor

"Lord Only Knows" by Beck

Part 3: Covers of RAM by various artists

“Dear Boy” cover by Death Cab for Cutie

"Too Many People" cover by Dave Depper

 "The Back Seat of My Car" cover by the Damn Crystals

“Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey” cover by Novelty Island

"Ram On" cover by Found Wandering

"Zpívám si jen tak" (Heart of the Country) cover by Martha & Tena

“Ram On" instrumental cover by They Might Be Giants

“Monkberry Moon Delight” cover by Robbers on High Street

"Ram On" cover by R. Stevie Moore

Links for RAM covers (not found on Spotify): 

“Dear Boy” cover by Death Cab for Cutie: https://youtu.be/kP3z785ebdY 

“Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey” cover by Novelty Island: https://youtu.be/mtG9j1T3KcI and https://noveltyisland.bandcamp.com/track/uncle-albert-admiral-halsey-paul-linda-mccartney-cover 

“Ram On" instrumental cover by They Might Be Giants https://youtu.be/ouk7p_ambx8 

"Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey" cover by Holly Henderson: https://youtu.be/9fKg5m5j7M4

"Monkberry Moon Delight" cover by Club Helmbreker https://youtu.be/0m7ydfWqzgk

Spotify Playlist: 

https://open.spotify.com/playlist/5zX162a3FLBpmEtcIhp6sA?si=d80ac33fd1484698

Instrumental covers:

Ryohei Kanayama on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5nrctquJucCKcYLrfB4euxU4RMjeGuu8 

Marcel Lichter on YouTube: https://youtu.be/L3vQrh1Xbeg

joehlers on YouTube: https://youtu.be/mmccz9WzHZk 

Recommendations and mentions:

Understanding McCartney Documentary Series by Breathless345 on YouTube: https://youtu.be/kjjqUCvHNIs 

Why Paul McCartney’s RAM is the first Indie Pop Album by Elliot Roberts on YouTube: https://youtu.be/CRZHvvYsc5w

Interview with RAM & Wings drummer Denny Seiwell celebrating Ram On! by Elliot Roberts: https://youtu.be/nx4Lgf-nmKA 

Paul McCartney - Ram (full album) REACTION by Welp Here We Are On YouTube: https://youtu.be/7XU_VpeIUl8

Mentioned: 1971: The Year That Music Changed Everything by Apple TV+

Other Sources:

 Sticky Fingers: The Life and Times of Jann Wenner and Rolling Stone Magazine by Joe Hagan, pg 169, and "Book Review: Sticky Fingers" by Dr. Erin Torkelson Weber,  www.beatlebioreview.wordpress.com  

Ben Gibbard of Death Cab for Cutie: May 7, 2020 quarantine livestream: https://youtu.be/hfLEvRY1kcA

Dave Depper of Death Cab for Cutie, The Ram Project: https://www.davedepper.com/the-ram-projec

The Damn Crystals on their Pure McCartney project: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6Gk4KUn-vs

“The Eternal Sunshine of Harry Styles.” Rolling Stone Magazine.  Rob Sheffield.  August 26, 2019. https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/harry-styles-cover-interview-album-871568/

“My Favorite Album: Fred Armisen on Paul and Linda McCartney’s ‘RAM.’”  Under the Radar Magazine. Joshua M. Miller. Jun 22, 2020.  http://www.undertheradarmag.com/interviews/my_favorite_album_fred_armisen_on_paul_and_linda_mccartneys_ram

“Another Day: Paul McCartney’s Once-Maligned, Now-Adored ‘Ram’ at 50.”  The Ringer.  Ben Lindbergh.  May 14, 2021. https://www.theringer.com/music/2021/5/14/22435675/paul-mccartney-ram-50th-anniversary-legacy

The All McCartney Podcast.  Interview with Eirik Wangberg. http://www.allmccartneypodcast.com/episodes/2017/5/25/episode-14-pauls-norwegian-connections-fredrik-skavlan-and-eirik-the-norwegian  

Paul McCartney quotes on working with Linda McCartney as a vocalist. RAM Deluxe reissue liner notes.  Released May 2012. https://www.paulmccartney.com/news-blogs/news/paul-and-linda-mccartneys-legendary-album-ram-set-for-deluxe-reissue 

#paul mccartney #linda mccartney #paul and linda #RAM #RAMiversary #50th anniversary #new episode #indie rock #indie pop #1971

[mccartneysguitar]

“Christianity will go…. It will vanish and shrink. I needn’t argue about that; I’m right and I will be proved right. We’re more popular than Jesus now; I don’t know which will go first— rock ’n’ roll or Christianity.” British readers ignored or agreed with Lennon’s comments about religion when the original article appeared in March 1966; negative reaction was small. But when his statements (as well as McCartney’s calling America “a lousy country”) were re-printed immediately prior to the band’s 1966 American tour in Datebook, an American teen magazine, a fierce backlash erupted. The American press called attention to Lennon’s comments about religion and anti– Beatles protests spread. 

When the group arrived in America they faced death threats, radio boycotts, record burnings and protest marches from a small but vocal minority. The American press hounded Lennon about his statements. Away from the cameras, overwhelmed by the threats and the possibility they might have to cancel the entire American tour, the musician broke down in tears. Some preachers denounced the group from their pulpits. It was the greatest blow to the Beatles’ favorable image during the official narrative.

 - Erin Torkelson Weber, The Beatles and the Historians: An Analysis of Writings about the Fab Four

#beatlesedit #beatles history #the beatles #john lennon #beatles #this just in your local history major is now reading books about the beatles #the us during the 60s is something else #its my favorite period to study #my gif

[no-reply95]

Revisionism A Study: Get Back

One of the sites that I used to browse before I started my Tumblr account, earlier this year, is Hey Dullblog. I’m sure a lot of you are aware of the site, if you're not it’s a Beatles discussion forum with articles on discussion points ranging from whether or not John and Paul were lovers, the role of Yoko Ono in the Beatles story and, more recently, discussions on the upcoming Get Back documentary series. I’ve pulled a quote from a recent Get Back article that be viewed in its entirety here I’ll pull sections out one at a time which will form the basis of my discussion:

When I was coming up in the Beatles fandom, nobody had any problem with “Let It Be.” We didn’t like it — how could you? — but we didn’t think it was lies. We didn’t have the same relationship to our obsessions as people do today. The Beatles made this movie, it seemed to show certain things, you might have opinions about those certain things, but it was accepted as the movie The Beatles gave us, and thus as factual as the tracks on Revolver. Now, fans have a very different relationship to all this stuff; there’s definitely a sense of “fan as customer” working here. A significant number of fans don’t like the story, so Peter Jackson has been brought in to see if there’s another story in the footage, one that fans will like more. And pay for — while at the same time, the Official Narrative becomes a little more forgiving. Paul will be less bossy, Yoko less weird and controlling; both will be more sympathetic. Like those WWI soldiers.

Michael Gerber, Hey Dullblog

“When I was coming up in the Beatles fandom, nobody had any problem with “Let It Be.” We didn’t like it — how could you? — but we didn’t think it was lies.“

This quote outlines the fact that Get Back is not the first time we’ve seen footage from the Get Back/Let it Be sessions. The first presentation of the sessions was the Let It Be movie from 1970, directed by Michael Lindsey-Hogg. The general reception of the Let It Be movie, both at the time and in the decades following, was that it showed the miserable disintegration of a once great band, John looked disinterested, Paul was hectoring George while he bristled under Paul’s tyranny, and Ringo dragged solemnly on cigarette after cigarette, seemingly hoping to be transported anywhere but there. That was the original perception of these sessions that was further bolstered by the principals, John called it “the most miserable sessions ever” and George likened it to their “Winter of Discontent” so that must mean that Let It Be was a true reflection of the sessions then, as the quote above states, fans “didn’t think it was lies” so if Get Back tells us a different story, that must make it proof of Apple and Disney Plus’ duplicity right?

What this quote appears to be making a case against is that of revisionism. Anything that comes first must be true and anything subsequent to that is inherently false and less credible, but is that a historically sound argument?

I recently shared Erin Torkelson Weber’s quote with regards to revisionism but it seems relevant again here:

"Each camp in Beatles historiography has accused the other of revisionism. Yet revisionism is a part of historiography, and simply because a narrative has been revised does not mean that the new, revised version is incorrect. In historiography, official narratives are inherently suspect and early narratives are always incomplete and often incorrect. Condemning later narratives simply because they did not come first excludes sources and perspectives essential to understanding the truth of the subject."

Erin Torkelson Weber, The Beatles and the Historians

As Erin states, revisionism is essential to a better understanding of the truth of any historical subject, taking the Let it Be movie as the whole and only truth of that period of the Beatles history is, in my opinion, a myopic view to have. A lot of what Peter Jackson has highlighted in the new Get Back series we’ve known from bootlegs from the Nagra reels for decades, that there was a lot more camaraderie and fun during the sessions than was originally relayed. The footage that Peter Jackson used as his basis for the Get Back series is exactly the same footage that was available to Michael Lindsey-Hogg in 1970, the footage is one and the same, making more available doesn’t muddy our understanding of that period in the band’s history, it enriches it.

“The Beatles made this movie, it seemed to show certain things, you might have opinions about those certain things, but it was accepted as the movie The Beatles gave us, and thus as factual as the tracks on Revolver”

Again, this appears to be insinuating that the first account of the story we've been presented with must the correct one. Of course, the Beatles were there so we can’t dismiss their accounts of the negativity of the sessions but Get Back is not trying to do that - just from the trailer alone (not to speak of the 6 hours of footage we've yet to see) the new documentary appears to be more transparent on the most negative aspects of the period that were "whitewashed" from the original movie: George quitting is literally circled in the trailer - this is something that isn't even referred to in Let It Be and Get Back also outlines the friction that was caused by Yoko’s presence, something suggested in Let It Be but never as explicitly as in Get Back: "It’s such a comical thing…In 50 years time…They broke up because Yoko sat on an amp."

Something I think we need to remember is that just because John and George, in particular, were so negative about Let It Be in the immediate aftermath, that doesn't make Get Back less authentic or even mean that their original comments are wholly credible. Many of John's comments on Let It Be come from Lennon Remembers which was the first extensive account of the disintegration of the band and how it operated. If we follow the premise that the Beatles', and particular John and George's, contemporaneous view is the most accurate, we should also believe that the Lennon-McCartney songwriting partnership stopped being collaborative in 1962 and the majority of their songs were written separately - the whole interview was later downplayed by John as per his comments from 1980:

"Yeah, I was lying. It was when I felt resentful, so I felt that we did everything apart. But, actually, a lot of the songs we did eyeball to eyeball"

John Lennon, Playboy Interview 1980

Historical distance is such a crucial aspect when analysing historical events, John and George's original comments on the Let It Be sessions came from the emotionally charged time of the break-up when they were keen to portray the most negative aspects of the band and to break the myth so they could allow themselves to move on. As we see from John's quote above, the resentfulness he felt impacted the statements he was giving to the press in 1970 and 1971 so when we analyse his and any of the other Beatles' statements from that time we need to be aware that their comments come from an emotionally charged place so may not be reliable.

“A significant number of fans don’t like the story, so Peter Jackson has been brought in to see if there’s another story in the footage, one that fans will like more. And pay for — while at the same time, the Official Narrative becomes a little more forgiving. Paul will be less bossy, Yoko less weird and controlling; both will be more sympathetic.”

There seems to be an insinuation that Get Back is fan service for Beatle fans eager to see the Beatles having fun, not squabbling and hating each other’s guts. There’s also a reoccurrence of the suggestion that, as Paul is one of the last Beatles standing, that this happier depiction of January 1969 is purely at his direction (presumably with Ringo, Yoko and Olivia’s sign off too).

It's possible that the remaining Beatles wanted a happier portrayal of Get Back, but if the reality was that the sessions did have happier moments, showing those moments to us improves our understanding of that point in time, it doesn’t diminish it. Paul, Ringo and Yoko aren’t jumping into time machines to make their actions in 1969 more palatable to 2021 audiences, the happier moments being shown in 1969 were produced in the same context as the more downbeat ones that we’ve seen already in Let it Be, seeing more of the picture just helps us to get to a more nuanced view of that time, is that such a bad thing?

The thing that I think we all need to remember is that Get Back isn’t the only project that may have been impacted by agenda. Let It Be would have also been shaped with by the agenda of the day. When the film was released in 1970, the band's break up was now public knowledge, in that context is it really so surprising that Michael Lindsey-Hogg decided to show more of the negative side of the sessions than the more upbeat side? If Let It Be was meant to provide the answer to fans to explain why the band had broken up, the early cut makes more sense but cutting the film to fit the climate of 1970 doesn't make it any more accurate than a film cut to fit the climate of 2021. The sessions took place in January 1969, over a year before the breakup announcement in April 1970, - why should Let It Be explain an event that happened in April 1970 better than the more harmonious Abbey Road sessions that directly followed it in 1969?

Conclusion

I don’t have anything against anyone that holds the view that Get Back is a whitewash, unless they release all 56 hours of footage and all the available audio, we'll never know what they've chosen to show us, and more importantly, what they've decided to keep in the vaults forever. But I do think we need to understand that revisionism isn’t a bad thing, not only has it improved our understanding of the Beatles, it's also improved our understanding of all historical topics.

The Get Back/Let it Be sessions were a broad canvas showing the band at their worst but also at their best. Why should we be beholden to a view of those sessions based on the tiny corner of the picture that we got in 1970 when the band was broken up and the world needed a film to explain why? Getting more of that picture only increases our understanding and highlights the nuances of that point in time. The factual reality is that the Get Back/Let It Be sessions may have been the last canonical word on the Beatles' recording career but they were not the last word on them as a band, after the sessions they continued seamlessly on into Abbey Road, if the Get Back/Let it Be sessions were as miserable as the original film and comments from the principals suggested, why didn’t they break up in January 1969? Why were they all so happy to continue working together? We haven’t seen Get Back yet (or the 56 hours of available footage) but I think the film will more accurately fit into the Beatles story and explain why they all still felt able to continue as a band in 1969, rather than why it all came crashing down over a year later. Get Back isn’t a lie any more than Let It Be was a lie, both films get us closer to a more true understanding of the band so I for one am glad we get to see more of the picture and gain a better insight.

#the beatles #get back #paul mccartney #ringo starr #yoko ono #john lennon #george harrison #hey dullblog #revisionism #historiography #erin torkelson weber #i would happily watch all 56 hours #you can never have too much beatles #thoughts