#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]

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."

[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

[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.

[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.

[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!

[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.

[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)

[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

[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.

[longforyesterday]

After the band’s breakup and Lennon’s death, Harrison publicly emphasized his spiritual connection with Lennon as the first Beatles to take LSD together. Other sources, including an eyewitness account of a serious private argument between the two, indicate that Harrison continued to resent Lennon’s refusal to consider him as an equal. According to Shotton, “John regarded George almost as a younger brother: he felt genuine affection for him, yet seemed incapable of taking him seriously. [George] remained, like Ringo, little more than an assistant, a second class Beatle.” Journalist Ray Connolly’s accounts of conversations with Lennon reinforce this secondary perception of Harrison in Lennon’s mind. “‘Paul and me were the Beatles,’ he would emphasize to me privately. ‘We wrote the songs.’”

Erin Torkelson Weber, The Beatles and the Historians