#l.s.d | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

torchlitinthedesert · 7 months ago

Text

Kenneth Tynan and the Beatles

Shout out to @mmgth for noticing Beatle mentions in the letters of Kenneth Tynan - including working with John Lennon, Paul's 1960s reputation, and glimpses of the breakup. (Alas, no George or Ringo.)

Tynan was a drama critic and later worked with Laurence Olivier at Britain's National Theatre. Philip Norman calls him "the most rigorous cultural commentator of his age": he championed working class plays in the 1950s, supported progressive art (and was widely believed to be the first person to say "fuck" on British television). So he's an interesting perspective: well connected, arty, eager for cultural change, but from an older generation, and outside the immediate rock/pop world.

The first mention is 1966, when Tynan is already working at the National Theatre.

28 September 1966

Dear Mr McCartney,

Playing 'Eleanor Rigby' last night for about the 500th time, I decided to write and tell you how terribly sad I was to hear that you had decided not to do As You Like It for us. There are four or five tracks on 'Revolver' that are as memorable as any English songs of this century - and the maddening thing is that they are all in exactly the right mood for As You like It. Apart from 'E. Rigby' I am thinking particularly of 'For No One' and 'Here, There and Everywhere'. (Incidentally, 'Tomorrow Never Knows' is the best musical evocation of L.S.D. I have ever heard).

To come to the point: won't you reconsider? John Dexter [theatre director] doesn't know I'm writing this - it's pure impulse on the part of a fan. We don't need you as a gimmick because we don't need publicity: we need you simply because you are the best composer of that kind of song in England. If Purcell were alive, we would probably ask him, but it would be a close thing. Anyway, forgive me for being a pest, but do please think it over."

Paul replied that he couldn't do the music because, hilariously, "I don't really like words by Shakespeare" - he sat waiting for a "clear light" but nothing happened. He ended, "Maybe I could write the National Theatre Stomp sometime! Or the ballad of Larry O."

It's interesting that Tynan approaches Paul individually - because they had theatre connections in common? Or did Tynan assume that John wrote the words and Paul the music, so Paul's the guy to ask for settings of Shakespeare lyrics? (Though he does correctly identify Paul songs in his letter, plus the musical setting of Tomorrow Never Knows, so he might just be asking because he's a Paul girl. He also wants Paul to know that he's cool and hip and has done acid.)

Tynan definitely is a Paul girl. On 7 November that year, he pitched possible articles (I think for Playboy). He offers articles on the War Crimes Tribunal (set up by Bertrand Russell on the US in Vietnam), an interview with Marlene Dietrich, or:

"Interview with Paul McCartney - to me, by far the most interesting of the Beatles, and certainly the musical genius of the group."

It's a reminder of how drastically Paul's reputation changed, between cultural commentators of the 1960s and post-breakup.

Tynan didn't get his Paul interview, but he worked twice with John.

On 5 February 1968, he's sorting out practical details for the National Theatre's company manager about about the stage adapation of John's book In His Own Write (which had already had a preview performance in 1967). It's a very Beatle-y affair:

Victor Spinetti and John Lennon will need the services of George Martin, the Beatles A & R man to prepare a sound tape to accompany the Lennon play. Martin did this tape as a favour for the Sunday night production, but something more elaborate will be required when the show enters the rep, and I feel he should be approached on a professional basis as Sound Consultant, or some similar title. I have written to him to find out if he is ready to help and will let you know as soon as he replies.

...John Lennon says that as far as his own contract is concerned, we should deal directly with him at NEMS rather than his publisher.

So John prefers to work within the Beatle structure: George Martin, Victor Spinetti, plus NEMS, rather than pursuing closer ties with his book publisher.

On 16 April 1968, Tynan writes to John about his ideas for a wanking sketch.

Dear John L,

Welcome back. You know that idea of yours for my erotic revue - the masturbation contest? Could you possibly be bothered to jot it down on paper? I am trying to get the whole script in written form as soon as possible.

John's reply is very John:

"you know the idea, four fellows wanking - giving each other images - descriptions - it should be ad-libbed anyway - they should even really wank which would be great..."

Oh John.

Tynan still wanted to interview Paul - and was noticing changes in Beatle dynamics. On 3 September 1968, Tynan pitched another feature on Paul, this time for the New Yorker:

In addition to pieces on theatre, I'd love to try my hand at a profile (I remember long ago we vaguely discussed Paul McCartney though John Lennon is rather more accessible)...

Accessible because Tynan had already worked with him, or because John was already flexing his PR muscles? The New Yorker was interested, because Tynan follows up on 14 October 1968:

4. A few days in the life of Paul McCartney (which we agreed should come at the end of the series of articles, because of the current overexposure of the Beatles.)

Why does he see the Beatles as "overexposed" in autumn 1968, when he hadn't in 1966? Was it the Apple launch? The JohnandYoko press campaign? The cumulative impact of a lot of Beatle news?

Tynan was still trying on 17 September 1969:

...I'd like to go on to either Mr Pinter [playwright Harold Pinter] or Paul McCartney... I incline towards McCartney who has isolated himself more and more in the past from the other Beatles and indeed from the public: he seems to have reached an impasse that might be worth exploring. On the other hand Pinter is a much closer friend and would be more accessible to intimate scrutiny."

I'm fascinated by this - that Paul's isolation was visible to those outside the Beatles circle (the letter is dated three days before the meeting of 20 September 1969, where John said he wanted a divorce).

But Tynan was right about Paul being inaccessible. On 5 January 1970:

I'm saddened to have to tell you that Paul McCartney doesn't want to be written about at the moment - at least, not by me. I gather that for some time now the Beatles have been moving more and more in separate directions. Paul went to a recording session for a new single last Sunday which was apparently the first Beatles activity in which he'd engaged for nearly nine months. He doesn't know quite where his future lies, and above all he doesn't want to be under observation while he decides.

So while Paul "doesn't want to be under observation", he's surprisingly open about the breakup - less blunt than "the Beatle thing is over", which he told Life in November 1969, but still frank.

Trying to persuade Paul to open up to "intimate scrutiny" in 1969 does suggest another reason why 1970s interviewers adored John. Tynan works for an older, more established press, but he's offering the kind of profile John would make his own - discussing his inner life and personal/artistic conflicts with cultural commentator who respects him as an artist. And Paul can't run away fast enough. As a journalist, you'd absolutely go for the guy who makes himself accessible and is eager to bare his soul, over Mr Doesn't Want To Be Written About At The Moment.

#kenneth tynan #the breakup #john lennon #paul mccartney #george martin #victor spinetti #oh! calcutta #john's pr genius is so underrated #tag for mine or my addition

67 notes · View notes

girl4music · 2 years ago

Text

Spot on! It’s definitely a combination of her school life and home life that has made Willow develop this extremely concerning behaviour pattern of ignoring/disregarding/taking away consent. It’s hard to believe that she actually has any purposeful or ill intent. Easier to believe she’s just very un-self aware and emotionally immature and just doesn’t check herself. I’m done with the whole “she was always evil” perspective now. I do think that she was always abusive but, once again, in a very unconscious way. Which is completely human and therefore relatable.

I mean even in her Season 6 arc (her darkest arc), she’s explaining how she doesn’t really understand. She’s confused as to why her actions are bad/wrong and it makes total sense why she is when literally everybody in her life gives her constant mixed signals. I wouldn’t even say that it’s that she doesn’t know right from wrong or is morally unconscious. It’s just that she doesn’t seem to comprehend how her own actions and choices are what is causing problems. She genuinely seems to believe they’re what help or if they don’t help at the time, will be what will help in the long run. They’re quick and easy fixes for the moment. But they have no potential lasting success. And that’s what’s not getting through to her at all. And this extreme lack of self-awareness and emotional intelligence results in her believing that’s she’s saving the world by completely destroying it. That’s how bad it gets believing the way she believes. It is very much the Hitler scenario going on with her arc just without the monstrous intent and personality. I mean when you think about all the real life stories of power corruption - one in particular stands out. Hitler. And there’s a very fucking clever and well-made character study video for this exact interpretation.

It’s like one of my favourite things created by a fan. And just like Hitler’s whole horrific story this character’s arc is endlessly thought-provoking. I live for characters like Willow Rosenberg. Honestly I do.

youtube

Willow Rosenberg and her relationship with consent - An essay on the theme of ‘consent’ in ‘Buffy the Vampire Slayer’ (BUFFY REWATCH - S01E01/E02 - Welcome To The Hellmouth/The Harvest)

*Outside at school. Willow is sitting on a bench alone in front of a wall taking out her lunch. Buffy approaches her*

BUFFY: “Uh, Hi! Willow, right?”

WILLOW:

*Looks up*

“Why? I-I mean, hi! Uh, did you want me to move?”

BUFFY: “Why don't we start with 'Hi, I'm Buffy,' and, uh, then let's segue directly into me asking you for a favour.

*Sits next to her*

It doesn't involve moving, but it does involve hanging out with me for a while.”

WILLOW: “But aren't you hanging out with Cordelia?”

BUFFY: “I can't do both?”

WILLOW: “Not legally.”

I never actually did a BUFFY REWATCH recap for the pilot episode ‘Welcome To The Hellmouth’ or the 2-parter episode ‘The Harvest’…. but there is an interaction in the first episode that’s significant to the characterization, representation and development of Willow Rosenberg that I really wanted to write about. In fact it’s the very first one-on-one conversation Willow has with the lead protagonist Buffy Summers. This interaction and conversation is so important to knowing and understanding Willow Rosenberg. And it’s very difficult to explain why in a short and simple sentence. It requires a deep dive analysis to explain why this specific interaction connects to the theme of ‘consent’ and Willow’s entire relationship with it. This is going to be an essay in the effort to do just that.

The theme of ‘consent’ is often mentioned in reguards to sexual situations. Most people, when they talk about consent, they’re most likely referring to situations of non-consensual sex. As in situations of sexual assault and/or harassment or even full out rape. And this is certainly valid to talk about with the show and with the character Willow Rosenberg, as I have done so many times already and will continue to do so… however, Willow’s issues with consent expand wider and go far deeper than just sexual situations. Very early on in the show it becomes apparent that Willow does not know or understand the meaning of consent. Of any situation involving or surrounding the theme of consent whatsoever - sexual or otherwise. And there’s many characters that don’t to be quite honest. But with Willow, in particular, this is so interesting to me because she is one of the purest characters in the whole show. Arguably second to the character Tara Maclay - who I reguard as the personification of purity. And a lot of Willow’s issues with consent revolve around Tara and her relationship to her as her girlfriend. But it’s a problem that can be noticed before Tara even makes an appearance in the show. It’s a problem that can tell us so much about Willow.

In order to comprehend where I’m going with this essay we have to acknowledge and address the theme of ‘consent’ directly. What it is, how it works, why it matters. Giving consent is the same thing as giving permission, acceptance or willingness to something happening either to yourself or someone else you’re responsible for that may or may not be able to truly give it themselves. Giving consent to something happening to you or someone else means that if it’s happening to you or them without you having given it - it is a violation against you or them. Unless of course, in the latter circumstance, that person can give consent themselves - in which case,… you might just be violating them by claiming only you can give consent for them - which is often an occurrence in abusive domestic relationships. This opens up a whole other area of conversation in questioning of what actually constitutes as giving consent as the person might express giving it but may still not mean to give it or might be too mentally unstable to give it. But just to address this area of conversation quickly and then close it. Giving or not giving consent is less about saying “yes/no” in the moment and more about whether you have the ability or the option to make a choice of one or the other in any moment. That is to say, is it your choice and is your choice viable or is your choice safe? Are you in a situation or circumstance where your choice to do something or have something being done to you puts you in danger or has you compromise or make a sacrifice in any way, shape or form? If it does, then your “yes”/“no” is not safe or viable to give. It is not true consent. True consent is or should be free of limitation or restriction. It should not be based in stipulation. You are not giving true consent if you are forced to give, if you are not aware of giving, or if you are under the influence when giving in any way, shape or form. This is why the theme of consent is so often mentioned in reguards to sexual situations. Because an agreement/disagreement to the contact with or use of the body is one of the most important human rights there is. And bodily autonomy is the main deciding factor in what constitutes as giving true consent. Simply saying “yes”/“no” is not necessarily giving it because you might not have all of the information as to why you should say “yes”/“no” at the time. You might have made an informed decision at the time… but there might be information you haven’t considered or may be missing or might have even been purposefully obstructed from to influence or encourage you to say “yes”/“no” at the time. To coerce you into agreeing/disagreeing at the time. If so, your giving consent is not viable or safe. Nor it is really YOUR choice because your choice is an on-going part of your right to self-government. That means you have a right to change what your choice is at any time if it directly affects or involves you. Absent information from an informed choice validates and allows for that change of that informed choice. Your “yes”/“no” is not a contract. It does not expire. And any alterations to it can only be verified by yourself or by someone else that you have directly appointed to make alterations for you at a time and place when you can’t make them or verify them for whatever reason.

Right so now we’ve covered that, as I’m sure you can imagine, ‘Buffy the Vampire Slayer’ is rife with situations and circumstances where characters do not give or have not given true consent to something they do or is being done to them. I mean … you could say the entire concept of the show is problematic with this because Buffy Summers never made a choice to be ‘The Slayer’. It was forced upon her as her destiny or fate. She simply learns to live with it being as such. But Buffy is not the character I want to talk about here. Willow Rosenberg is actually the character with the deepest, most problematic and complicated relationship with the theme of consent. And the reason why is imbedded within the lines of dialogue in Willow’s first ever one-on-one interaction with Buffy. And it is so nuanced that you would not pick it up on a first watch or even several. It requires stringent observation and interpretation. Reading between the lines and studying Willow’s character development. Willow’s character development is immense. Her evolution from the shy, soft-spoken sidekick to Buffy to the confident, powerful hero and villain in her own right is without a doubt one of the greatest character evolutions I have ever known in art/entertainment and that I have ever had the pleasure to interact with. I am so happy and grateful for this character being conceived, written, performed, developed as consistently and conscientiously as she is. It really is a rarity to come across a female character in TV with this much realism and depth to them. Especially now. Late 90’s/early 2000’s TV had its ways to go in female representation, sure… but the likes of Buffy, Xena and Charmed stood out and were made a staple for it going forward in TV art/entertainment. And while I can say the representation has gotten better, the writing of it most definitely has gotten worse. If you’re lucky enough to find a female “sidekick” character like Willow or Gabrielle - with this level of written development in today’s day and age of TV - you should appreciate and covet it because they just don’t exist anymore. Either the duration of the TV show is too short for it to exist, or they simply don’t last long enough in the show to develop this much. It’s not necessarily a lack of writing talent or skill that’s the problem. It’s this “cancel” culture. It really limits the potential for well-written and performed female character representation and development like Willow or Gabrielle. And I’d go as far as saying that unless the female character is the lead main protagonist and the show is all about them,… there’s no chance of finding or having it. And that’s if the show lasts longer than one season. If it is only contracted for 10-12 episodes and then just gets cancelled then it’s not even worth investing in. That’s the pro to twentieth century (or a little thereafter) TV art/entertainment. A show in a season was usually contracted to 20-22 episodes. If it succeeded in ratings and popularity, it was usually contracted to 2-3 extra seasons equally as long. There was the time and the budget to develop all side, season regular or supporting/recurring characters all the while developing the plot. There was the capability and capacity to focus on characterization as well as story. And there was the genuine passion to do so as well because writers weren’t as pressured to.

Why are Buffy, Xena and Charmed classics in pop culture TV? They’re character driven over plot driven. And they’re specifically female-represented driven over male-represented driven… which was a big deal when networks would not provide financial support for a show without at least one male protagonist character (likely the love interest/lover for the female protagonist character). It was a whole other kettle of fish to fry… but the writing was always top quality if the representation always wasn’t. Now it’s the opposite. Good female representation but mediocre writing of that female representation. Thus, extremely poor writing of development for that female representation. So… I hold on to Willow and Gabrielle with a vice like grip because these are characters that start off with preliminary arcs. They’re there to aid the lead female protagonist character the show is all about. That literally has their name in the title of the show. Buffy and Xena. But they grow to become characters that are as important, if not more, than the lead female protagonist character. They grow out of the “sidekick” persona and become the heroes themselves. And especially with Willow, become both the hero and the villain and that’s… remarkable. That’s female representation that we don’t even have now, never mind then. That’s something that just stands out in and of itself. That is something that is extremely significant to knowing and understanding the character Willow Rosenberg when it comes to their issues and relationship with the theme of consent because the character is written as somebody that believes they are absolutely nothing. Mean nothing to anyone or anything. Therefore, why would their consent to anyone or anything matter?

The conversation I’ve quoted above is just a couple of lines of dialogue but there’s so much behind them and so much characterization that can be found in them. Willow has only known Buffy for a couple of hours and she already feels like she’s someone she has no right to or business in knowing because Buffy is someone. Granted she doesn’t know how much of a someone yet… but just based on principle of being Cordelia’s friend… she knows that that’s someone that matters. And why on Earth would someone that matters come to talk to someone that doesn’t matter? Ask for her help? Want to be friends? That inherent understanding of Buffy being someone that matters and she doesn’t matter makes her automatically assume that Buffy just wants her out of the way when she introduces herself to her. This is very significant. From the first episode that we are introduced to Willow we notice that she is isolated and secluded. Someone isolated and secluded not by choice but by the deeply imbedded belief that they don’t belong in a crowd so why should they even bother to put themselves out there will automatically understand and accept that their opinion on anyone or anything doesn’t matter. That their choice doesn’t matter. And if they’re told to do something or something is done to them, their giving their consent to it doesn’t matter. How this manifests into Willow ignoring, disregarding or taking away somebody else’s ability to give consent to something she tells them to do or something that she does to them is where it gets really complicated to explain. But I’ll try my best.

People think of low self-esteem as if it’s just a small and simple thing. That it doesn’t have multiple layers to it. These same people do not understand the relationship and connection between mind and matter or between thought and form. Willow was always taught her own wants, needs. emotions, choices and actions didn’t matter. And instead of understanding that teaching as all wants, needs, emotions, choices and actions for EVERYONE matter, she internalizes it as and believes only HERS don’t matter. Introduce someone like Willow - who believes that they have no power or control - that they mean nothing - that they don’t matter - to someone like Buffy - who’s just coming to find out that they have power and control - that they do mean something - that they do matter. That’s incredibly significant to Willow’s entire characterization. Their issues with the theme of consent in ‘Lover’s Walk’, ‘Wild At Heart’ and ‘Something Blue’ stem from it. Their eventual showdown with Buffy in ‘Two To Go’ and ‘Grave’ is built from it. Their final decision in ‘Chosen’ is encapsulated in it. As someone who has always had a very high self-esteem despite also being bullied in school, despite also being abused and neglected by my parents and despite also being a loner, I understand Willow very fucking well. And thus, I understand why she doesn’t understand the meaning of consent and therefore why she ignores, disregards and takes the ability to give consent away. The reason why is because her human right to self-government becomes the main objective for her to accumulate power and take control beyond that of what she can being a human. Being un-super. That’s why using magic becomes her bread and butter for this. She has a natural talent for willing and intending things to go her way but her insecurity and mentality with being the “loser”, “geek” or whatever pushes that natural talent into a more darker and corrupted place because she ignores and disregards that willingness and intention with everyone else. It’s not that she thinks they shouldn’t have it or don’t deserve it. It’s just automatically forgotten about because improving on hers is the goal to achieve. She completely tips the scales from one side to the other. She’s that tormented and tortured in the early days for being the “spaz” (as she puts it) of her society she essentially just corrupts herself. There’s no external or outside influence corrupting her, as least not an intentional one. It’s just years and years of unchecked and unaddressed chronic emotional complex trauma. Basically - to use an analogy - the balloon went pop before anyone noticed it was filling up with any helium. And that’s including the balloon itself. And there’s so many instances throughout the show of this unconscious suppression of violence and rage but no one ever notices it because Buffy is ‘The Slayer’. You never notice danger or threat in the harmless one because you’re so focused on the one that is actually dangerous and threatening. The one that harms a lot. And you would never think for a second that the Scorpio would sting if it is in need and asks for your protection. But that’s just how the story goes…

#buffy the vampire slayer #willow rosenberg #consent #l.s.d. comments #Youtube

33 notes · View notes