#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.

[mydaroga]

Oh nice, thanks! I bought this awhile ago (and haven't read it as I hoped to have a better background in the books she'd be talking about BUT I want to be sure more people see this deal.

Also, I'm very touched you thought of me and you are exactly right, it is of interest!

Of possible interest to @mydaroga ?

(as an aside, with code HOLIDAY22, you can get 40% off, according to the email I got)

[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.

[menlove]

I really recommend The Beatles and the Historians by Erin Torkelson Weber because that book really opened my eyes (and made me sizzle with rage at some points) about how much the Beatles biographers and even the primary sources lie to push their agenda.

She is too nice towards Lewisohn though and we know that Lewisohn also does something weird with quotes. Literally can't trust anyone fully in the Beatles "historian" space.

oooh I'll have to check it out! ty for the rec!

[phoneybeatlemania]

Hi Phoney! Love your blog, you're so knowledgable about the boys❤ Id like to ask you if you could recommend some beatles books? There are dozens (hundreds?) of them and i have no idea which ones are worth picking up and which ones are trash. Peace and love✌😎

Hiya anon! Sorry you sent this in February and im only just answering, hopefully it pops up on your dash anyway tho

So Im pretty sure Erin Torkelson Weber said theres upwards of a 1000 books written about the Beatles, which means obviously theres a lot to get through. Honestly, having read quite a few, there are none that are going to be 100% unbiased, 100% truthful and 100% satisfactory for everyone, but heres a few that I think are worthwhile:

1. A Day In The Life: the Music and Artistry of the Beatles by Mark Hertsgaard

Personally I really enjoyed this book when I read it. Its not the most insightful book about them out there, but I think its a solid starting point for anyone new to Beatles-lore, and the way he writes about the music I found to be quite endearing.

2. And In The End by Ken McNab

As someone who is especially interested in the “breakup era”, this book is pretty useful in establishing a timeline of events for 1969. It goes through the year month-by-month, and I remember there being quite a few niche pieces of information in here, that you might not find in most other beatles books.

3. The Beatles Off The Record by Keith Badman

Theres 2 of these books and id recommend getting a copy of both if you can! They’re both effectively a transcription of quotes and interviews from the band, so it isn’t really a book that you’d sit down and read. But it is useful to keep a copy on your shelf, and you can turn to virtually any page and find something interesting to discuss.

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

I read this book originally to answer an ask I got about 1966, but I dont think I ever actually got round to answering it in full. Either way, I did learn a lot about them during this year, and similar to McNabs book, because its centred on a specific year it does offer a few pieces of information that might get overlooked in broader biographies.

5. John Lennon: The Life by Phillip Norman

Im going a bit against the grain here, and I know a lot of people would disagree with this recommendation, but I don’t personally believe this book is as bad as a lot of other people might. Norman definitely is someone you want to read critically, but I do also think he’s had the opportunity to speak to many beatle-adjacent people, and there are things we can learn from this biography. The problem I think is that he can be quite heavily biased, and a lot of his sourcing can be questionable. But again, just read it critically to the best of your ability, cause there are imo some relevant pieces of info in here.

[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."

[banjoandthepork]

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

[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

[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.

[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

[no-reply95]

I’m actually re-reading the Beatles and the Historians by Erin Torkelson Weber and just wanted to share what she’s included regarding revisionism below as I think it’s pertinent to this discussion:

"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

Just to be clear I'm not accusing anyone in particular of doing this but, generally speaking, I do think there's a tendency to use the word "revisionism" as a dirty word or something that's inherently bad when, in reality, revisionism is crucial to gaining a better understanding of any history.

In Paul's specific case, I think a lot of what he's said over the years that has revised the official, "Lennon Remembers" or "Shout" narratives has been crucial to getting a better understanding of the band, whether that be by reinforcing how close he was with John, how collaborative their partnership was, the role he played in the break-up or the role he played in the avant-garde scene in the mid 60s.

All this isn't to say that we should accept what Paul or anyone else says as a matter of fact because everyone has their own agenda which can, and often does, impact the reliability of the information they give us. One of the prime examples of Paul's revisionism that didn't result in a better understanding of his history is the way he severely underplayed the role Jane Asher and the wider Asher family played in his life in 'Many Years From Now'. Barry Miles (Paul's friend and author of MYFN) was clear in stating that Paul didn't request too many edits to the book but one of the areas he did request edits be made to, was in relation to Jane Asher. Paul didn't want to make the book the "Paul and Jane show" because Linda was sick at the time with cancer and may have been sensitive to that, but irrespective of his intentions, that results in a more inaccurate version of history because he relays information as if he discovered the avant-garde subculture singlehandedly, when in reality, he went to a lot of happenings with Jane and was introduced to the Indica gallery subset (Barry Miles, John Dunbar etc.) through his friendship with Peter Asher, so maybe if it hadn't been for his relationship with Jane, Paul may have never had any involvement with the avant-garde or those associated with it (e.g. Yoko).

So revisionism itself is not a bad thing but, with Paul, and with anyone else, I think we do need to be mindful of their agenda and the evidence they supply before we accept or reject their revisions to the established orthodoxy.

What do you think of the McCartney Revisionist History?

Im not entirely sure what "McCartney Revisionist History" means, but after googling it I think it relates to the idea that Paul rewrites history to fit his own narrative.

Id say thats sort of true, but theres more nuance to it then just "he's a narcissist and rewrites history so that he looks like a great guy and a genius—"

I feel that primarily Paul is just a positive guy, and so I think by now (in 2021) when he looks back at events that happened 40+ years ago, I think he tends to recall the best times, or even with the worst of times, I think he tries to find a positive spin to them. Its been so long that by now id presume a lot of the arguments and the upsets that occurred between the band he can probably just laugh about, because in retrospect all those fights probably just seem so ridiculous.

At the same time though, I don't thinks its as simple or idealistic as "Paul only see's the good in things!". He's a positive guy, but also he has a very wholesome image that he has to protect. So I think thats why he evades talking about heavy subjects like drugs, alcoholism, his chronic cheating on Jane Asher, Johns abuse of his loved ones, groupies etc. And he tends to avoid chatting shit about people too, especially if they're dead - even someone like Allen Klein he won't really speak ill of!

I think its a good and a bad thing that he's like this - its a good thing because if he were to start talking about all the shitty things John or George or whoever had done, they wouldn't be here to defend themselves, and so its a little unfair. At the same time though, in avoiding talking in depth about any difficult subject, it disallows for a realistic and nuanced portrayal of these people. Id personally love it if someone like Julian Lennon were to interview him, because he could ask the uncomfortable questions, and I think Paul would try to be honest with him saying "yeah you're dad was an asshole, but he could also be very kind and gentle etc." But I don't know if Julian (or anyone else who might be in a similar position to him) is particularly interested in doing a public interview with Paul, and so I don't know if we'll be hearing any in depth responses to difficult questions from Paul. Maybe when Get Back comes out, but who knows, he might just end up retelling the whole "My mum came to me in a dream—" story again...and again...and again.

TL;DR - I don’t mind Paul being biased, because its literally impossible for him not to be. But I just wish he would allow himself to have a little more nuance and edge in interviews; saying that however, I think he does tend to be fair when discussing other people. Like even when he says “John broke up the band”, it somehow doesn’t feel bitchy, or even as though he’s actually placing all the blame on John, he’s just calling it as he see’s it.

[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!

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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