Through your interviews, Erin has established herself as an extremely knowledgeable and credible author with impeccably high standards and a quest for providing an accurate and truthful history of the Beatles. My favorite quote today: “He’s also not on drugs”, concerning George Martin. Erin’s not “on drugs” either. She is a serious historian who has finally straightened out the mess of the varying accounts of the Beatles for us. I’ve already ordered my copy of her book and can’t wait to read it.
@@wildman9922 I think that’s a prerequisite for REALLY appreciating the new series. Erin is a historian and George Martin was the perennial “adult in the room” so their drug-free behaviors are appropriate for their chosen roles.
she has learned all about the pitfalls of falling into certain weak narratives. she's learned from others' countless mistakes. I will read her now, definitely. balancing a fan's love for this band, and being completely objective can't be as easy as it sounds.
I love how during Get Back it’s depicted that they ask an open question about what all material they have prepared and suddenly George Martin pulls a piece of paper out of his pocket and unfolds it and he has every single song they’re working on listed… he was still their producer.
Fantastic overview of the major biographers. Please bring Erin back for more! The intelligence of the questions and the conversation is a breath of fresh air.
I'm so happy that Lewisohn's books, Get Back, And Paul's new songwriting book are here as I can remember when I first got into The Beatles in 1980 so many of the books (and Lennon Remembers) were so negative and didn't really have the great joy that The Beatles brought into the world., which is the most important part of their story. Thanks for clarifying why this happened.
I have read that indeed by the time John Lennon was killed there was supposed to be a concert in conjunction with the still unfinished documentary, the long and winding road. John Lennon was supposed to get back together with Paul George and Ringo and film a couple of new songs to go with the documentary. Makes you wonder if free as a bird was intended for that earlier incarnation of anthology
Great series of interviews which further prove that your channel is the best source for intelligent Beatles' content. Great final question asking Professor Weber about opportunities for future research. I really wish you had more time to delve in depth into the plethora of Beatles' writers ranging from Peter Brown to Peter Doggett to Mark Lewisohn. Your choice of May Pang is interesting and important. May Pang, much like Cynthia Lennon, is largely silenced. The dominant narrative preferred by the estate of John Lennon (Yoko Ono) is that John and Yoko were the love story of the 20th century and that they were the loves of each others' lives. Most Beatles' fans excuse John Lennon's history of domestic violence to the one incident of Cynthia Powell dancing with someone else at a party, a close reading of the Davies' biography obliquely shows it to be a recurring problem, and May Pang's assertion of John strangling her in a hot tub until stopped by Harry Nilsson shows domestic violence to have been a long time problem. John wasn't the only Beatle with such a problem as Barbara Bach and Heather Mills can attest, but fans really don't want that story. I hope you have a restful holiday season, you've certainly earned it with all the Beatles content relating to Get Back and now these three fine interviews. I am certainly looking forward to your deep dives of sixties' bands in the upcoming new year.
Thank you, Brian. I will certainly be talking about Peter Doggett, Lewisohn, and possibly the Peter Brown book. Ian MacDonald too. Have a great holiday season too!
@@popgoesthe60s52 When the Peter Brown book came out, we fans thought it must be very cool. I don't think anyone then distinguished much between Brown and Neil Aspinall or Mal Evans. Instead, the book clearly had an ax to grind. Still, though, some of those stories, such as George with Maureen Starkey, seem to have held up. So perhaps the criticism of Brown is less what he got wrong and more than he was telling private tales out of school.
This has really been a great series Matt. One of marks of a good interviewer is that he/she asks both the questions that the listener would like to hear, but also raises the questions and topics that the listener has not yet thought of. In other words, a good interviewer delivers the listener both an opportunity to hear the answers to questions, but also to learn by stretching out into other questions/thoughts/discussions. You have been doing both of these things very nicely in this series--great work!
I thought Shout was a terrible book when it came out. BTW Geoff Emerick has some issues I read his book and I surprised no one took him to task when he was alive. Erin, you are awesome!!
I was wondering what issues you have with Geoff Emrick's book. I know that he may have harbored some resentments, as the Beatles moved on from him in 1970, however I found his biography to be illuminating and insightful. He focuses on the music, the sound and specially the innovations. His sudden departure during the White Album shed light on the group's dysfunction.
@@GOGOLH Not as unhappy as George Harrison!!! Boy he eviscerates him on a few occasions. I remember him telling the story of recording 'Ill Follow the sun' (I think it was) and 'poor George Harrison' trying and failing miserably to come up with a solo for it and having to resort to simply playing the melody which they all thought was awful... I think the fact that McCartney worked many times with Emerick after the break up and the others didn't skews his perspective but its still got some great details in it..
@@65TossTrap It's really interesting, he was obviously a brilliant engineer, but there's not-so-subtle disparagement of George Martin throughout the book. It must have been galling that GM got all the credit for production, of course, but he seems to have disliked Martin. There seemed to be rather a lot of petty squabbles and resentments at EMI.
@@brendantallon283 It's almost as if he has to make up for it by describing George laying down that beautiful solo for Something with the orchestra. Arguably, George had the most challenging role in the band - I wonder if Emerick was capable of seeing that.
I LOVE that she brought up Pete Shotten's great book which, at the time, loomed WAY bigger than Goldman's or Coleman's for me. I always thought it was one of the great memoirs, and co-written with Nicholas Schaeffner....possibly his greatest contribution! And wow, she really nailed what "Shout" was like when it came out, and how great a writer Norman was. We all read that book in the daze and the shock of Lennon's death, talk about killer timing. I actually met Pete Shotten and he mentioned Philip Norman and how he felt duped by him! It was the impetus for him writing his own book! Hey, one of the greatest Beatle books I've ever read is hard to get: Al Aronowitz's book "The Beatles, Bob Dylan And Me", highly recommend that one, if you see it, snatch it up!!!! I'm assuming Erin has read it, of course!
I've read several Beatles books, and enjoyed most of them. The ones I liked best were the ones that weren't biographies, but rather were memoirs of people who were associated with them, telling us their own stories. Hearing these people describe the impact that these people had on them, and the shadows that they cast, tells us something that a biography doesn't. I particularly liked Cynthia's and Emerick's books, although I don't remember all that much of the former, as I read it so long ago. Regarding Emerick's book and it's supposed pro-Paul bias, I felt that reading it, the Beatle about whom I learned the most bad stuff was Paul, the most good stuff was John, and the one for whom I developed the most understanding was George. And I got a better appreciation of Ringo as well. But along the lines of my earlier point, the fact that Paul became friends with the engineer tells us something about Paul. Emerick's favoritism towards Paul is a reflection of Paul's interest in the work the Emerick was doing. And it was also likely a consequence of many long nights with just the two of them, endlessly refining Paul's lines. When you're as driven and obsessive as Paul clearly was, you're going to get to know the engineer. And that gives us some insight into him.
I know after watching "Get Back" I am reassessing how I feel about each of them. My opinion of Paul has changed the most. I think a lot of us are guilty for writing Paul off as a sell out. I was happiest to see John so pleasant and funny. It is sad that George was an introvert because it benefited John and Paul and they seem to play down George's worth. George learned to play the part John and Paul gave him. It really was big brother little brother relationship. Ringo is great and was a true friend to them all. But it is like he didn't play favorite even George was his favorite.
I would love to see Erin pull together a definitive Beatles biography and getting Ringo and Paul to sit down and get it all out, the good the bad and the angst, the truth the whole truth.. Beatles fans are so devoted getting the unvarnished accurate truth would finally let us sit at the feet of our idols
McCartney is a pragmatic. As of Emerich it seems he and McCartney wanted to explore the technical aspects of recording/overdubbing/tweaking the sound - they had paralel interests - and the rest of the group was more into recording the Beatles as a band, thats my take on it.
Matt ,you and Erin are excellent and thoughtful! Very interesting! May Pang is very honest and helped John get beck with Julian and Paul ( was going to New Orleans to help Paul record!
Great series, thank you, Matt! There's one point I'd like to make; it's about the limited usefulness of the term historiography. It is quite clear that many people writing aboutthe Beatles don't qualify as historians (and never claimed they did). That includes Hunter Davis and of course most of the first-hand journalists who covered a pop phenomenon and couldn't have cared less about 'methodology'. Still, they contributed bits of information, and a huge part of serious biographers' work consists in sifting through that material and evaluating it. It seems to me that serous historiography only began with Mark Lewisohn (his very very few books scattered over decades) and a few books written in the present century. But there is one more thing: the Beatles were not only part of history, their place in history is defined by their impact, and that impact is primarily due to their music. One of the shortcomings of most Beatles biographies (and I'm afraid that we will have to include Mark Lewisohn, to some degree at least) is that they don't offer a consistent or at least plausible view on the Beatles musical merits. That's why I find books that marry a musicological approach with a sociological angle the most rewarding. Ian MacDonald's Revolution in the Head and particularly Jonathan Gould's Can't Buy Me Love come to mind, (The latter must also be surely among Erin's top 5 stylistically, no?) In other words: What is most interesting about the Beatles is less the who, when, and where -- it's the why. And if you want to answer that you need to have a grasp of the music and its historical (cultural) setting as it evolved.
I think both are needed. I think it's more important to understand the cultural history & impact over the music because the music is so subjective. I love the MacDonald book but I continually get push back from the fans who get butt hurt that he would dare to be critical of the Beatles in any way. I am trying to give some of those fans a different perspective and those who don't want it, can hang with the fanboys. Great comment, Aurelian DE!
@@popgoesthe60s52 Absolutely agree. It's human to feel a twinge when someone who is so astute dismisses a favourite song but grown ups attempt to get beyond knee jerk reactions. One aspect of the MacDonald book which I think is critical but may not be appreciated by many people, and especially those from outside the UK, was the massive influence on British pop music in the 1960s and 70s of the Art College. They were further education options for kids who were bright/unusual but not necessarily academically-minded enough to go to University (at the time when Universities had very rigorous entry requirements). It wasn't just painters and sculptors which they produced but also, pretty much by accident, musicians who went on to form the basis of many of the most influential acts of the British pop music scene: The Beatles, The Stones, The Kinks, The Who, The Move, The Pretty Things, Pink Floyd, Cat Stevens, Roxy Music, David Bowie, Ian Dury... the list goes on. Previously, British pop stars appeared to have no apparent interest in wider culture or, if they did, rarely expressed it. An early 1960s TV interview with Adam Faith revealed that he was thoughtful, articulate and read Dostoevsky and it caused a sensation. The idea that a pop star could be interested in a culture outside of pop music and the odd cowboy film was then unheard of. By the end of the 1960s it was almost expected, and that was mainly due to the influence of The Beatles etc and the Art Colleges. As I understand it, Art Colleges in the US were very different, more craft orientated and less conducive to free-form creative endeavour. That, I am sure, led to some of the major differences between the UK and US music scenes.
@@johnnhoj6749 I covered this a bit in my Yardbirds videos and yes, the art school pursuit in the UK was far more literary than in the US and the strength of MacDonald's book goes into cultural commentary, which quite frankly, is over the heads of many Beatles fans.
First of all, this 3 part series with Erin Weber was amazing , I'm going to read her book now, it's not only a refreshing approach, a fascinating way to introduce not only The Beatles to the masses, but historiography as well, which is the basis of how we as a species collectively define our reality. I know thee have been so many bio's written by the majority of those who resided inside The Beatles' circle so I'm not surprised there was no mention of Peter Brown's book The Love You Make, but I'm interested in knowing if either of you are familiar with his book and what your thoughts on it are. I believe it's one of the first non-Lewisohn books of the Lewisohn era written around 1990, I've read it several times and gotten a lot out of it. I've read reviews from other Beatle writers who have called it "heavily-sesnsationalized" all though I don't know that I would exactly make that claim. His either research or recollection does get a little hazy, or lazy whichever the case may be, concerning The White Album sessions onward through the break-up of the band in that, even though he was often in the same room as the band, if not usually somewhere nearby, his memory ressembled that of many Beatle historians whose claims were that the band was in non-stop turmoil after Brian Epsein's death and could barely get along well enough to record together in the same room, which we now know of course simply is not true. Although he does a very good job of explaining the paticulars behind the legal dissolution of the band and Apple and the ensuing lawsuits, he ends on a very depressing note alleging apart from Paul's kind gesture to John in helping him to mend his relationship with Yoko Ono, and the longstanding friendship and collaborations between George and Ringo, that the once tight frienddhips that were forged between them in the early days were all but nonexistent by the time of John's assassination in 1980, which I find bothersome and not easy to believe. I hope that historians will uncover more showing that besides a longstanding grudge George held over Paul from the seventies into the early nineties, the other three maintained their friendships with the other members throgh visits, letters, and regular phone calls over the years. As always, you're doing great work Matt, and please keep it up!
As a cranky old Mid-Boomer, I like how you're approaching this in an historical sense, since those of my generation are too close to the source and can't help our bias' influence our judgment. Goldman was a hack and a hit artist, though he heaped praise for his Lenny Bruce bio, his portraits of Lennon and Elvis were overwhelmingly panned. I listened to talk radio(a much different thing back then) personalities that would have him on just to cut him off after one word. Of course, to some folks, there's no such thing as "Bad" publicity.
I'm not sure what I've missed as to look for in new revelations concerning the Beatles, but Mark Lewisohn's 1st volume was to me eye opening in how their music developed up to the point of their Please, Please Me single recording and planned release. Volume 2 & 3 could be that "next step'" to open eyes to the unknowns. Thanks for this interview with Erin. You two hopefully will do more of these. Especially once volume 2 of Lewisohn's release comes out.
Wonderful series of discussions with Ms. Weber…thank you Matt! I love the fact that you mentioned that all Beatles books have some value, even some of the more poorly researched books. I do think there is value in books like the Lives of John Lennon even if Goldman’s journalistic spin is quite negative. It’s like walking though a maze trying to investigate this history. Please continue to make these videos which hold people accountable in terms of what is being put out there. Thanks so much for sharing!
I read the Goldman books on Elvis and Lennon. In the former Goldman openly states his hatred for Rock n Roll and resents it for replacing Swing. He felt Swing was a more sensible and mature genre. He said something about it being music with the goal of being an adult in New York. Whatever that means. He seemed to really hate Elvis. Years back the UK Channel Four did an interesting documentary on him and his book. Goldman withdrew all cooperation from the project when they started analyzing him. In the end, they sort of drew a comparison between him and Mark Chapman saying Goldman was the literary equivalent of Chapman. One murdering the man the other an attempt to destroy his reputation. Then both merged their identities with Lennon through their literal and physical assassinations. I read the books and saw the documentary a long time ago so if I've made any errors regarding recall I apologize. When I read the Goldman books I wasn't offended but there was something creepy about Goldman. Since then I have come to believe there is a possibility that there is more involved with Lennon's death than reported in the media at the time. Many also believe that there are strange circumstances around Elvis's death. Goldman even wrote a follow-up book, now forgotten claiming Elvis committed suicide. I'm not claiming that to be true or false.
@@jnagarya519 Maybe, but I don't think Lennon being taken out by the newly elected Reagan administration is all that far-fetched. Certainly less far-fetched than the Paul is Dead nonsense.
In the parlance of our time, Dig it. Love Erin's perspective. Regarding Goldman, dude was a great writer. In spite of all the negativity and questionable accuracy.
Of course he was a great writer. He did much the same hatchet job on Elvis, but it was "well written"... The other side of it is research, and "Abbey Lane" is a basic schoolboy error; like Norman he knew little about popular music, though in his case he seemed to regard pop as inferior, but nevertheless thought he could cash in. He was a hack, in other words.
This is HIGH LEVEL DIALOGUE. Mrs. Weber is a brilliant mind. She gives light at topics that are crucial in understanding Beatles history. Matt, as always you do an amazing job. Thank you both for this piece of intelligent conversation. O and by the way, I´ve seen and heard the three parts of this conversation.
I read Goldman's book when it came out, he was excessive in quite a bit of attacking John but also interesting in his regard to John's songs which many he thought were brilliant. Some of things he was attacked for have actually been proven in later years to be true. His analysis of Strawberry Fields is very compelling as was the insight of John's wanting to be known as the leader but John didnt lead the Beatles from late 66 onward. Paul certainly didnt want to be leader but he was a workaholic who wanted the band to keep busy and was a songwriting machine always.
Thanks Matt and Erin for these great discussions. I Look forward to more in the future and a review on Paul McCartney’s Lyrics book. I’m waiting for a library copy.
True Beatles psychopaths like me can sit and listen to this stuff for hours. Erin sounds like she’s studied the Beatles like a geologist examining sedimentary rock and it’s really bloody fascinating
Great information, thank you. Matt you and Erin are a great team. I grew up with the "bad" Beatles books and loved them. However, wow, so much new information. The Beatles will be discussed for many years to come.
In an internet (hell, media in general) full of opinion and misinformation, it was so refreshing to listen to Erin and to find someone who champions methodology and fact over sensationalism and scandalmongering.
yes, right now, somewhere, everywhere, someone's starting a book about the BEATLES. I don't see them ever stopping. 'A Day in the life' ,mostly about studio work on all their records, was outstanding. the passage I love is when, at the height ,maybe, of their acrimony, Lennon & McCartney decide to show up w/ out George or Ringo, who were both (I think) out of town, to try and wrap up 'the Ballad of John & Yoko'. Paul plays drums as you know. knowing that little story, and putting it on to hear Paul's harmony stands out for me. on a Lennon song. it's apparent after seeing 'GET BACK', that the music came first, usually.
Cant wait to see Erin on there again, so much insight on writing and the Beatles and more. One of my fav Beatles books in my collection is a few of photographer Dezo Hoffmann books.
Interesting interview throughout. The part I found most interesting was the Philip Norman section. Shout was the first major Beatles bio I read.......and yeah, with hindsight and decades worth of more information.....my view of the book has changed drastically over time. And I think Erin is totally right about Norman's Paul book.
The beatles have added great happiness to my life and I dont ever want that to change based on something about the past. I really like Erin's info seen her before. What a fan!!
Good conversation here. I've watched all the Goldman interviews on RU-vid. He was incredibly arrogant and mean spirited. Despite the malice, Goldman's book is quite the page turner. Shotton's book was the first Beatles book I read as a 14 year old and it was quite the eye opener.
That's interesting about Martin. The "Get Back" film surprised me that he was hovering over the sessions, especially at Apple Studios, but sort of was out of the creative loop in a general sense, as if waiting for one of The Lads to say, "what do you think, George?". He could get a bit caustic later. I recall an interview where he was scathing of Harrison's songwriting abilities in a response to the "My Sweet Lord" lawsuit.
Matt, You and Erin batted three for three. I meant to comment before about writing/not writing about people who are still alive. Historians and readers deplore the fact that people of the past burn important documents to preserve an image (Martha Washington burning George's letters). And some famous people will not allow publication of certain writings until 50 years after their death. Maybe something interesting will show up - after we are gone.
For me, it was natural Geoff Emmerick has a preference direct to Paul McCartney, in comparison with the other three. It must be considered that Emmerick was a sound engineer, and too much early in the Beatles' carrer Paul revealed his interests in production and arrangements. This interest, in my opinion, was in a higher degree than John, George or Ringo.
Really enjoyed your interviews with Erin Weber. Ordered her book to read over the holidays. Have seen two other videos discussing the subject of what to believe from different books especially the Lennon Remembers one. It seems to be a sore topic for a lot of people. Hope to hear more from her on your channel. Have a good holiday and take care.
The Lennon Remembers is only a sore topic to Lennon lovers who don't want to be challenged on the validity of those interview, which John himself even said some things were not true.
I've been prompted by this to do the same Sharon (buy Erin's book as a holiday read)! It isn't cheap here (UK) either, but I suspect it'll be an excellent read. Peter Brown's book (The Love You Make) doesn't get mentioned very often in discussions of this type, but I have to say that I found it to contain some interesting if controversial perspectives. It needs to be read knowing that he was an Epstein family and Apple insider of course and has been accused of character assassination amongst other charges, but he WAS there.
I have Peter Browns book as well. It is one I need to reread as its been awhile but I do remember it as being a bit controversial at the time. Take care and enjoy your book!
Exceptional episode. Long term Beatle biography reader here and I’ve read most of these books myself (but wait… Norman Smith wrote a book?) and it’s been great to watch you both contextualize them. Just top drawer stuff. Reading Goldman’s biography at a young age really did a number on my view of John, I have to admit. Obviously I’ve recognized the sleazy nature of the book for decades now, but the phenomenon you describe of Goldman being a bit more credible these days is interesting to me. It seems like some of his revelations - like John’s heroin use, his behavior during the Lost Weekend, his treatment of Cynthia - are pretty much considered confirmed now, but were considered hatchet work at the time. The historiography of this group is just fascinating in itself.
I always thought that Goldman was focused more on Yoko as villain, John as hapless, damaged nowhere boy. I was interested in John's drug use during his house husband period.
Some people don't like to hear that there is accurate material in this book. It's too bad that Goldman presented it so one-sided. He didn't do himself any favors.
I had not a chance to read it. Only a few parts. I read when he talks about John travelling to Barcelona with Brian. And it sounds rather homophobic to me. But to be sure I had to read everything. I do hope what I captured was wrong.
I just finished Erin’s book. For such a slight book it took me awhile as it was so full of information. I am so glad for her debunking of some awful myths. With Tune In (read the 1700 page version twice) and the film Get Back I feel I do not need more Beatles information (though I am currently making my way through McCartneys Lyrics). I love those guys. I love the band. I love their music. I can not imagine a world without them. Will now watch parts 2 and 3 of your interview with Erin.
These interviews put me onto Erin Weber's book, a refreshing, must-read critique for any Beatles buff. Weber uses a keen sense of discernment and an impressive command of language to provide a grounded, balanced amalgam of existing narratives that treats the subject with deserved respect. Thanks, Matt, your presentations are always excellent and your resourceful content stands out for its integrity and genuine love for the music.
I think it is a pity there are no autobiographies - if that were the case we wouldn't be so reliant on these biographies - there is of course George's I Me Mine, Ringo's postcards book and Cynthia's book are of interest and Paul has recently said his Lyrics book is as close as we are all ever going to get to an autobiography. Paul's issue that whilst John was being canonised he was being given second billing.
It has been a long time since I read the Goldman book, but I do remember it being something of a hatchet job. Not that it's completely inaccurate- some of what was alleged and seemed really shocking at the time was confirmed at least in part by Lennon himself, among others. But Goldman seemed out to interpret things in the most negative light possible.
Hi Matt - I know this is a very late comment, but, I wanted to thank you for this 3-part series plus for your initial review (#047) of Erin's excellent, must-read book. I bought and read it shortly after it was published in 2016, and, I have been telling every Beatles fan that I know about it ever since. I was able to exchange a few emails with Erin about the book a year or 2 ago, so, that was cool, being able to thank her personally. So great to have the Rolling Stone and Wenner -skewed BS exposed! It's unfortunate that the "Dreaming The Beatles" book came out after Erin's book, because it would have been "interesting" seeing that book analyzed and dissected. Anyhow, thank you for these videos regarding Erin's book. Mike
Hello, Mike! Thank you for watching the Erin videos. I hope to have her back. I don't know about the Dreaming the Beatles book, I'll have to check that out.
Re George Martin and others on how depressing the Let It Be sessions were: The received wisdom used to be that they were nothing but hell on earth. I think that after the Get Back series we are in some danger of flipping our perceptions too far the other way. In Get Back we necessarily get the most interesting highlights but in reality, for anyone not intimately involved in developing each song, it must have been potentially very tedious for long stretches. In the documentary we get a few of the most interesting run-throughs of each song they were working on and a lot of jolly rolling out of old favourites. In reality there were often dozens of halting attempts at the same new song over and over and over again. The problem was that The Beatles were taking songs from sometimes literally nothing to a stage where they were honed and they were practiced enough to play live. That was very unusual for The Beatles. In the early days they already knew the songs and came in ready to record. Then in later phases they only had to know the songs well enough to record a basic track once (or not even that, as they might combine different takes), often without vocals, solos, bass lines etc before moving on to overdubs. I don't think there had ever been a phase before when they started with nothing and took a song to being playable on stage all in the studio. There is no wonder that George Martin and others were bored.
Though there is some concern that Get Back may 'flip perceptions too far the other way', but to do so, that flip would have to overlook all the negative aspects used in Get Back. Virtually all known 'negatives' were used, and we still have the original film as a source, so the negatives are still up front. Will some overlook them or simply take them in context? We'll see.
@@popgoesthe60s52 Agreed. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough that I meant that it would be easy to dismiss, after watching Get Back, the perception of some of those present that much of the sessions were depressing. Even the negative bits in Get Back were, of course, the more interesting edited highlights (sic) of the negative bits - but it's not actually those bits I am talking about. What we (completely understandably) didn't see were most of the very repetitive faltering attempts at forming and learning songs, often from scratch. There is a saying in the film industry to the effect that your first day on a film set is the most exciting day of your life, the second day is your most boring. I suspect that the Let It Be sessions were probably the same for those not intimately involved in crafting the songs. I'm suggesting that the onlookers who found the whole affair tortuous weren't necessarily living in some form of false consciousness which has been totally debunked by Get Back.
Great chat Matt (and Erin) tough to cover so many topics in one discussion but it was a good one. Only wish you'd had her share her thoughts on Lewisohn as well, perhaps for the next chat. Cheers
These 3 videos were so informative and fascinating. I wish you could do one a week!!! Erin is so well spoken and knowledgeable and the interaction between Matt and Erin is first rate. I actually purchased Erin's book and can't wait to read it.
Matt, what is/was your job outside of this channel? Your content is a huge step up from the sort of discussion The Beatles typically generate on RU-vid. I really hope you have a chance to pick Lewisohn's brain by the time Volume 2 shows itself
If Torkelson Weber ever needs my assistance on the Beatles families, I did some Beatles Genealogy, including first cousins, uncles, great uncles as well as the direct lineage. I contacted through ancestry several people in my research that turned out to be relatives of the Beatles, confirmed by them.
@@mark9058 There is no evidence about that. In fact so many misconceptions have been made about John Lennon’s grandfather who is also named John Lennon. The Genealogy found in Geoffrey Giuliano’s book is mostly wrong as well. In fact many of the Genealogy’s in his Beatles books are absolutely inaccurate except for George Harrison’s
Good interview! Would love to hear more. I was surprised that Rolling Stone Magazine’s pro John and anti Paul editorial angle wasn’t talked about. The rogues gallery should include interviewers as well as authors.
What a fascinating discussion. I bought The Lives Of Lennon in 1988 when it came out and was it ever a blast of (non)reality. John was a real and slightly damaged human like us. Then years later when I began reading reactions to this book I realized that there are lots of books out there that pursue an agenda or a certain narrative. The first book I read was Nicholas Schaffner's The Beatles Forever. I found that a very positive book. In hindsight and in view of this video I realize it was very 'fan boy' and I felt there was nothing wrong with that. I remember he was briefly in 'The Compleat Beatles' doc. Speaking of which I also have the Compleat Beatles books. Partially for the articles but mainly for the chords for all the songs. I read through that a lot. I've read and own others like FAB about Macca. I read Geoff Guliani's book about Paul which I found very dark and sensationalist. I have SHOUT. I've read numerous times, Hunter Davies' book. I have an original hardcover and the 1985 reprint with the new McCartney rant about hie place in history mainly because of the cannonisation of Lennon in recent years. I read Pete Best's first book which was a bit hollywoodish, sensational, like it was a project for a payday. I have his brother's book about the Casbah club. That's a very warm story about the club and late 50s Britain. I still found it interesting. I've got The Beatles Gear, Tell Me Why (Tim Riley), And Macca's 'Many Years From Now with Miles. 'You Never Give Me Your Money' was, to me a very real look at the damage that being Beatles did to the four of them. Mainly because Paul had to sue the group to keep Klien at bay etc... and that took decades to sort out. But my favorite books ever that I've read multiple times are Lewisohn's The Beatles Recording Sessions and Tune In. I read those two so many times. I got Recording Sessions when it came out and was totally enthralled with the day to day mechanical job of recording Beatles. And I've read Tune In about 5 times while I wait patiently for Vol 2! That's it I think. www.mixcloud.com/Amadeus99/
This was a great series of interviews! I’d love to see you do a video on things left unsaid by Paul McCartney. He has this reputation of being a charming interviewee but, while not necessarily dishonest, manipulative with what he says. I’m curious to see specific examples of this.
I watched the 3 episodes ....two last night.... 12/22/22 and the 3rd just now. Erin, if you see this at some point , You totally blew me away with your recall of dates, places, other authors, etc. and NOT ONCE did I see you look away from the camera to check notes! :) Amazing! Two things struck me hard: Matt said that your book (which I'll order today--Are autographed copies available?) is 250 pages and yet your approach is completely different, detailed and precise. Incredibly impressive. :) Despite what I'm about to ask able to easily be misunderstood, I'll ask it anyway. You and Matt talked about many authors.....and yet I didn't hear any Female names in that list. Beatlemania was largely Screaming Young Girls so I'd expect more input from Women but it doesn't appear to be there.....I'd love to know both Your thoughts as well as Matt's on any reason behind tha....although I have my own very strong feelings on why that is. Thanks so much to both of you for a Spectacular amount of Information. Bass-ically Yours, Rich. 🍎
I'm just coming to this interview now, after the Xmas period and the non-stop Get Back coverage everywhere (including here!) This is a great-great interview by Matt with Erin. Very engaging and interesting. The 37 mins felt like 10, it just flew by. :)
Although it has been mentioned briefly in this series, I'd love to hear more input on Many Years From Now. It's one of my favorite Beatle Books and I always appreciated Paul's couching of the book: “I’ll give it to you as I remember it…a sequence of events that did happen within a period. So it’s my recollection of then.” Basically he's offering a reasonable disclaimer. He is not purporting to give the definitive account but simply his own recollection. You cannot do better than that. It has as much validity as anybody's recollection of the past ever does. And the fact that he acknowledges it simply as his recollection rather than gospel is a plus. I saw a recent interview with him where the interviewer argues about a version of events came from the Barry Miles books to which Paul jokingly and self-effacing replied, "Well then it must be true!" Other books I'd like to hear on and not covered here were Peter Brown's the Love You Make, which most interestingly does not hold a Beatle bias but more shockingly derides them all as simpletons. For me, the freshest information of the Beatles over the years is in Beatle Anthology Companion book. It actually has a lot of revelations that never made it into the documentary. How studied are you on that one?
I'm quite studied on the Anthology book having read it 3 times. I find the book far better thank the video but as a whole, the entire project is now dated and I will be doing a review of that project. The other books you mention I also feel are important to review, so expect those in the future as well.
Thank you, Matt, for this series with a real historian. I enjoy your show because you try to take an objective view of your subjects and provide historical facts and context. I appreciate you bringing in an actual historian to discuss The Beatles and their chroniclers.
I read Geoff Emerick's book maybe three times but that was quite a few years ago. If I were to go by impulse-memory, it feels like his book was very much Paul-centric, in the sense of giving Paul the most praise. He also seemed to paint George as an inept guitarist. Mind you, this is an old impression lingering in my mind after years of not having looked at the book. With that said, I found much of his elucidation of the innovations that happened in the studio to be utterly fascinating. Such as his idea of turning a speaker into a microphone to be placed against Paul's bass cabinet (used only on Rain and Paperback Writer, if memory serves me.) Most of the argument behind many of these biographies is about the Beatles' 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱𝘴 with one another. Thankfully, during 'their most dismal sessions ever,' we discover the truth about their relationships by way of the recent Get Back documentary. As has now been revealed, it really wasn't as bad as the stories that were told. There are so many angles to look at in a bio. Emerick's telling of the technical innovations, for example. For me, as a musician, I'm most curious about the processes they went through to write songs together. To watch, for example, Paul, writing Get Back out of thin air is truly a rare example of the songwriting process in action. Of course, only the Beatles themselves can disclose that process. As we've seen, John and Paul sometimes have contradictory memories of how a particular song was created, including whose idea was whose. I suppose I'm hoping that some biographer will come along to do some deep research about their actual composing process. Great talk, as always, Matt. Erin really has it all together. Lately, a theme that's going through my mind--since one of my deepest concerns at the moment is the future of the human race itself--is how humanity is truly maturing out of the 20th century into a higher level of intellectual awareness. (Not to sound idealistic because I can also see a good part of the population descending into lower levels as well.) My meaning here, when looking at the subject of the Beatles, is how crystallized, stuck concepts of who they were, how they were with each other, and how they were as individuals, are now becoming shattered through years of research like yours and Erin's. I believe a similar process is also happening at the moment in geopolitics, spirituality, philosophy and social trends. We are now looking back at our history and gaining wisdom from it--at least from those of us who 'have eyes to see and ears to hear.' How we are now looking at the Beatles is almost a metaphor for this process of maturation.
Yes, Vinnie. I do believe that those of us who 'have eyes to see and ears to hear' what history has to tell us can be scary as well as offer wisdom. But that truth only seems to be for those who seek it. Some not only don't seek it, but avoid it! That is the parallel I see with geopolitics, spirituality, and philosophy. I hope to do more with Erin in future.
@@popgoesthe60s52 "The Truth only seems to be for those who seek it." I may have to put that quote on my Facebook series, "Random Comments From The Internet." The beauty of that statement is that its, well...true!
@@popgoesthe60s52 Believe it or not, I use it from what I learned in NLP. I studied it some years ago. It can be used for nefarious purposes, obviously enough, but it's only a tool. As such, it can be used for good purposes as well. The idea of quoting someone else makes the reader believe it's not coming from me. Because of this, people can't attack me for what I'm saying. My Random Quotes can be from comments sections of RU-vid or elsewhere but also, they are often my own concoctions. I can say what I please without being attacked by trolls because, after all, it's someone else. I find this to be a pleasing way to express my opinions without having to go into battle. And my ultimate hope is that people begin to sit up and think about what's being said.
How the hell was Paul pulling get back out of the air not included in the original Let it be movie? Edit: it was a new song, not yet a classic, but still.
It's worth remembering that Albert Goldman was an unpopular figure among many pop fans even before he lifted a pen on the Lennon book as he had already written a similarly critical/venomous book on Elvis Presley.
I've put Erin's book on my Christmas wish list. I'm really hoping it will be under the tree. A fantastic interview with her, Matt. For me, every minute was compelling.
Greetings Matt ✌ Happy 2022 ( Lets Hope Its A Good One!!!) -Over the holidays I started reading Erin's book and I have to say Im really dig this book-Its a must read for every true Beatles fan!!! One thing that stuck with me on this 3rd segment with you interview with Erin is that We as readers of ALL these Beatle Books must look at them as a piece of a puzzle when reading them. -The first book I ever read about the Beatles was Peter Brown's The Love You Make, Which I found very intriguing, I must have read this book about a dozen times, Only to find out later that Peter Brown (an assistant to Brian Epstein) became Persona Non Grata by The Beatles (especially Paul) and then from there I read Lennon by Ray Coleman, Pete Shotton's Lennon and me, Nicholas Schaffner's The Beatles Forever, A Day in the Life by Mark Hertsgaard and Shout by Philip Norman. -The One book that I just could never read was Albert Goldman's book, I remember when this book came out how it stirred ALOT of controversy, and Paul as well as Keith Richards spoke out in protest about how toxic this book was. -One of my favorite books is Geoff Emerick's Here, There and Everywhere, I know that that alot of people have come out to say how biased this book is, but I found it very fascinating on how the Beatles worked in the studio and how they crafted their songs like Tomorrow Never knows, Within You Without You and Im the Walrus, also interesting is Geoff's description of The Beatles demeanor when they returned from India and started working on the White Album. -I also liked May Pang's book Loving John, Peter Doggett's You Never give Your Money and even Fred Seamen's book The Last days of John Lennon. -Also Matt loved your discussion on My Inner Grove with Paul and John Heaton in regards of Erin's Book 👍
I absolutely did believe Albert Goldman’s account of when John Lennon screamed at his father and told him to get him out of his life in 1970. Because I have read Alfred Lennon’s widows book “daddy come home”, and it matched exactly the account in the Goldman book. By the way, John Lennon‘s uncle Charles Lennon even came out with a book about the family to bring his family back in good standing. But you have to remember the John Lennon had gone through primal therapy, and he never really got over his childhood and feelings of abandonment, although technically really wasn’t entirely his fathers fault, but because he canonized his mother, he felt his father was the root of all of his mental issues that he experienced in his life his life
I thoroughly enjoyed this (and your whole series with Erin) I have to agree that any author who is dismissive of any of the Beatles (and Martin for that matter) immediately loses creds. I’ve found all the interviews with George Martin very riveting. Maybe when he mentioned how hurt he was by the let it be sessions he was more referring to the Twickingham part. He seemed much happier at Apple studio… Get back shows him actually playing with them. And Erin if you write that needed book about George I will preorder it now! :) (I have received your book and plan to knock it down during the holidays…Thank you in advance)
Another compelling conversation with Erin. Bring her back someday soon. I do like the idea of balanced, well-researched and documented books being written about George Harrison and Ringo Starr. And, fresh looks at Paul McCartney, especially while we still have Starr and McCartney. Dare I say, maybe an unbiased book about how the Lennon-McCartney songwriting relationship (friendship) propelled them to be the most influential songwriting team in music history. I’m weary of the biased, fanatical, hero-worshiiping (I love John or Paul) books. And, the reverse. Here's a notion: You and Erin collaborate on books with the depth, breadth and complexity missing from previous books on The Beatles, encompassing and expanding your discussions here. Just give me credit somewhere, in these books, for being the muse and inspiration for these literary masterpieces. I seriously loved this series between You and Erin. Thanks!
I must add… I have read most all of the books that you two have discussed, but sporadically here and there without a running sense of narrative as to how they evolve from each other and how they fit into the larger narrative. Now I feel the need to go back and methodically reread them all to bring me to where we are with the greater-picture narrative provided by PJ’s Get Back and people like you and Erin. SO… would you consider doing a special post in which you recommend your top ten must-read Beatles books in chronological order, and perhaps spend a 2-3 minute synopsis of each one???
I may. I have several other books I would like to review and many others I have not yet read, so I have a lot of work ahead of me before I give a top 10. Good request.
Excellent series. I remember reading Emerick's book and being shocked at his dissing of George Martin. This was a guy who gave him big breaks a couple of times, yet Geoff was pretty insulting. Understandable that Martin was offended. I wondered if there had been a falling out between them at some point, (which would explain the bitterness), but I never heard of any. I guessed that for some reason, Emerick was jealous of Martin and resorted to this pettiness. Too bad, because it's an interesting book. Every Fab Four book has some sort of bias and a need to settle some (real or imagined) score. It sometimes tells you more about the author than the subject.
They worked together...sometimes a boss just deserves a bit of you resentment. Ppl have different personality n temperament. You'd have to ha been tgere
@@ddub1253 True. I was taken aback by some of the comments though. It's one thing to be a little resentful, but this was serious criticism. As much as I admire GE's work with the Fabs and others, I was disappointed with what I consider his pettiness. Anyway, my opinion for what it's worth.
I don't recall him dissing George Martin at all. As for Harrison there was clearly a personality clash there- but he does give him credit for coming up with some great songs and guitar parts on the later Beatles albums.
really loved the interview I just wish these type of conversations delved more into specifics. there were so many times there would things said like "certain arguments Goldman made" and I just kept saying "like what"
Yes, I may cover Goldman's book in another video. Sometime we take for granted that the viewer know some of this stuff. It's very hard for me to keep these videos at a reasonable length. I appreciate the comments!
@@popgoesthe60s52 Appreciate the response, completely understandable. Yeah I would definitely be in the market for a Goldman episode, that's an awesome idea.. Could lead to a larger discussion about the broad Reactionary response to the Beatles as reflected by people like William F Buckley.
After getting the RU-vid notification, I saved this up all day to be my evening treat and the wait was, predictably, worth it (even though your dog stole the show for a little while there 😉)! It was a good lesson for me when Erin opined that no book, however flaky (Hurricane Smith's?) should be completely disregarded out of hand.
Another amazing interview guys. Erin is just brilliant in her analysis. Emerick's book does seem mostly from memory, as is Tony Bramwell's, but some of these books contain personal perspectives from people actually present that are invaluable to putting the pieces of the puzzle together - McCartney liking nothing better than to spend the day drinking in a pub on days off! I remember Goldman's book as being the first book that wasn't a puff piece but I certainly didn't get such a negative feel from it and I'm not surprised it has remained relevent to subsequent authors. I think its proximity to his death after which he was being sainted plus the fact that it may have been the first serious biography to shatter the Hard days night narrative. As you've discovered that can be a thankless task so imagine what it was like for Goldman back then!! BUT IMO Pete Shotton's book is an absolute MUSThave. Absolutely one of the best books about Lennon ever.. Hes not Yokos biggest fan but there are stories in it that are so detailed its hard to imagine he isn't telling it as it was albeit from his perspective, most notably Pete visiting NY and calling John and John being very excited to see him. They make an arrangement the next day for Pete to call to the Dakota which he does but Lennon tells him over the intercom that Yoko says the numbers aren't aligned for meeting an old friend. As you can imagine Pete is pretty disappointed not be able to see his old best mate since school but he can hear Yoko in the background shouting at John to 'get rid of him'. John sheepishly makes his apologies and they never see each other again. Very sad.
@@popgoesthe60s52 My personal feeling about Yoko is she's a descent but very highly motivated and ambitious person. A very good contemporary artist in her own right but once she hooked in John, he was as much a project as much as it was 'the great romance'. As a performance artist her whole relationship with him was exactly that - a kind of living Art piece, literally a performance piece in itself. They were only together basically for 10 years and 18 months of that were spent n romantic relationships with other people plus if you look at Double Fantasy its very, very problematic in that - their PR approach was it was all love and fantasy but the actual songs, ESPECIALLY Yoko's, are of a relationship that is less than perfect if not in trouble. The difference between Paul and John is most apparent in their love life's. John and Yoko is the legendary couple but their relationship was turbulent and a huge amount of PR whereas Paul and Linda were low key but far more stable and dedicated and much more in love with each other, barely ever spending any time apart or having extra martial affairs PLUS bringing up a big and close family.. In other words Lennon was all talk but McCartney did the walk when it came to loving his wife. As you say just because John 'seemed' more 'open' it does NOT equate to truth. Basically John was very self righteous and not beyond an enormous amount of BS.
@@brendantallon283 The love life difference is a great observation. The John-Yoko-Double Fantasy PR spin is totally cringe and too many fans simply want to believe that.
Excellent discussion again Matt and Erin! Definitely look forward to these when they pop up. One ‘rogue’ that sadly never got to put his memories to print was Mal Evans he was probably the closest in many ways. It was nice to see him writing down the lyrics and making suggestions too in Get Back. He always seemed to be at the recording sessions. Also Cynthia’s book is a bit lightweight.
Good information, pleasantly presented always a uplifting change to the day. Creativity to me means changing my mind. Also known as learning. Refreshing to hear someone beside myself consider the power of fame has on people. I like to wish success for people but I wouldn't wish fame on my worst enemies. (enemies are actually friends in disguise if one can learn from them. That's a different topic though.) More shows together please. I think it would be cool to go back over what you guys discussed already, but after thinking about what was offered in the conversation. A response to your own and each others statements after a short passage in time would be awesome. Revisit with clarifications,expansion and explanations of methodology, criteria,bias, citations, sources and why those things matter. I wouldn't mind learning more about learning. I spent my life working in the building trades, but I need to learn tons of new things each day. I wouldn't mind learning why it's wrong to say, "She's pretty" when my intention is the kindly making of respectful funshine.
Thanks so much for doing this. This was just great. Whatever the discussion, it always needs to come back to not just what evidence is available, but the nature of the evidence. How it is weak, how it is strong and how it stacks up when surrounded by the rest of the story. Theories about these guys are great, but theories don't mean much when unsupported by the facts that are available. My biggest curiosity is about how the break up evolved from 1967-1970. The day by day calculus from 1967-1970 of whether the Beatles would split or continue is a super interesting topic.
@@popgoesthe60s52 Sweet! Some suggestions as to themes and sources. Sources: Shotten, Dogget, Cythia Powell, Patti Harrison. As wells the usual sources. My biggest curiosity- what the heck is going on form Sept 1969-Dec 1970 with all four of them. Themes 1. John as the laziest man on the planet. A. Shotten. Powells book. Lennon's own interviews 2. The change/withdrawal of John post Jesus comment and Day Tripper not being a sole A side; and the acid of course 3. The ascendency of Paul as a front man. 4 The Death of Brian 5. The tensions post the Lady Madonna sessions 6. The divorce of Lennon the ending of the Asher relationship and it's contributions to tensions in the White Album 7. The blow back on George for India 8. Lennon introducing Yoko t recording sessions 9. Lennon's attempt to re-assert dominance during White Album. 10. Blow back on Paul for MMT, Let it Be and most of all Apple 11. The titanic power struggle over the Beatles management 12. The influence of Linda in pumping the tension. 13. The influence of Yoko pumping the tension 14. The pros/cons of the Eastmens as managers 15. the pros/cons of Klien as manager. 16. Harrison's role at apple post Klien's appointment. 17. Spector 18. The battle of record release dates in Early 1970 19 Northern songs and how the Beatles blew it. 20. Their record deal 21. NEMS and how that was resolved. 22. so many more :)
Norman wrote his book at a time when the music press in the UK was anti-Paul. They felt that he was uncool & that Wings were middle of the road, and they resented his success (Mull of Kintyre was a huge seller in the UK when punk was supposed to be ruling the waves). Paul was a soft target and Norman made his name by obliging with his version of the Fab story. The research was carried out by Lewisohn, which gave it a credibility it doesn't merit.
The only research Lewisohn did that was used was the actual date John met Paul. Norman didn't need much of Lewisohn's research, which he kept for later use.
Incidentally, it's worth looking back at the singles charts of the punk era. There were actually remarkably few punk records which were popular enough to get anywhere near the top of the charts. The charts were dominated by the likes of ABBA and a lot of music which could easily have been popular pre-punk. My theory is that most big fans of punk were in the media and in smallish but vocal and visible clusters in metropolitan centres. The punk labels hit all the right buttons with PR, the tabloids loved the sensation and with every rock journalist having to rave about punk or seem like a dinosaur it all contributed to a myth of punk being all-pervasive. It really wasn't. PS I'm using singles as the measure of general popularity because Punk (unlike Prog) was overwhelmingly a singles phenomenon.
@@johnnhoj6749 Totally agree. Important to see that new generations are much keener on 70s disco & Abba than they are on punk. The impact of punk was much more felt in fashion & culture than in music.
@@johnnhoj6749 Excellent point regarding punk. I do believe that success of singles is a huge criteria when discussing musical value, influence, and artistic appraisal. Punk singles seemed hugely important in a vibrant sub genre of rock music, even though as you point out, they did not chart. The timing of punk was capitalized on quickly and nature of punk didn't require deep analysis, which was probably a breath of fresh air after all that prog stuff.
Hello- I enjoyed your new show #3. " I just had to laugh.." when I heard the talk about Albert Goldman. There were also factual errors and a review once randomly picked pages. I dont recall hearing about Nicholas Schaffner's Beatle book ( also wrote "The British Invasion". I'm learning alot (and yet chose to unlearn certain things) from the 3 series of shows. See kids it pays to do your homework. 😀
Speaking of clarity of perception, there's a book of interviews with Paul McCartney where Paul reveals he has a rather distressing problem with chronology. IIRC he had to think if John Lennon was alive during the Wings Over America tour.
I’ve been looking forward to part 3 I’ve enjoyed both previous parts and this third part is just as enjoyable. Thank you Matt and Erin for three great videos. I look forward to future comparable high quality videos in the future. Thanks again Happy Christmas to you both from the UK 👍
Great video! Nice to see your take on Geoff's book. I really enjoyed this series you and Erin did. I just finished One, Two, Three, Four by Craig Brown. It was a strange book but had a lot of stuff I'd not heard or read about before.
