Book Review You Never Give Me Your Money PART 3 by Peter Doggett |  

Yeah, it's a wonderful quote!

Yes, several have suggested the 'divorce' as a power move and perhaps John pushed Paul too far.

​@@popgoesthe60s52whoa really??? I never ever thought of it like that. Are there any sources that suggest that?

@@prettyshinyspaghetti8332John showing up at Paul’s house and breaking a window after Paul made the announcement is a pretty big hint that John wasn’t happy with the breakup

@@jpollackauthor What your describing there though is an abusive relationship. If you try to leave you get your windows smashed. McCartney is far from perfect, but perhaps he was sick of a workspace where he was seen as the bad guy. I wish they’d just taken a bloody holiday!

Yeah, we've referenced that clip on Glass Onion. Howard throws John a proverbial curveball by asking if the Beatles are going to reunite. I wonder if John's maid used to ask him that every morning, seems everyone was at it... 😁

It does give another dimension to the John And Yoko story. It's hard to know what was really going on in that house but lots of testimony offers some interesting glimpses.

A joint podcast - "Two Peas Across the Pond" 🤓🌏

@@buddyneher9359 Hells Yes!

I appreciate the compliment, Lex. More to come!

Lennon away from Yoko was certainly more fun and interesting, but he also was on a very destructive path. It's still possible even without Yoko he could have gotten himself off that path. Unfortunately we will never know.

Hey 4-D! I am interested in feedback on the new McCartney book series. Not something I'm interested in buying but I am interested in how he is portrayed by the writers. As for Paul being the one to hold out on the idea of the rooftop performance, I have Mark Lewisohn speaking about this in a pod cast at the 49:20 mark (ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-F8r5pWxT9V0.html). This account was taken from the nagra reels the day before the roodtop concert and is quite revelatory. I was surprised at this too but Paul indeed was most against the rooftop initially and then bought into the idea by the following day.

We appreciate the feedback, Tim - thank you!

Thanks for watching, Paul! You'll love the book.

I didn't know the Bee Gees had been considered! Thank you for that.

Yes, that is another great Doggett 'zinger'!

I don't know why he left early. I'll have to look into that.

Thank you, Richard - I just found out. What a loss.

Thank you, Gail!

It appears that Sean Lennon will be continuing the censorship of his dad's legacy. The thwarting of the Peter Doggett's book Prisoner of Love last year is an ominous sign. As for McCartney, I assume his kids, or one kid, would be sitting on the Apple board? When it is up to multiple kids, it seldom goes well. I understand Paul has some unreleased recordings that he didn't fork over for the Anthology project. Maybe some will eventually come out. Thanks for watching Norwegian Blue!

Hey Lynda! Thank you for the warm comments!

Very good observation. This lyric does stand out among the other songs as being less rosy and perhaps more realistic. Thanks Ken!

He's alive, I'm told but he has been out of circulation apparently since 1983. I'd certainly have questions for him!

Yes, some people want to give Lennon a pass for every wrong doing because "he is so honest." They'll brow beat you with his "feminism" but not tell you that he physically choked May Pang. This is like enabling an addict. Unlike John, the one thing we never hear George do is admit when he is wrong.

Hey 4-D, I am interested in the new McCartney book from the narrative perspective. I won't buy it but it will be interesting to hear opinions on the writing. The rooftop account given by the writers is accurate. It is taken directly from the nagra reels the day prior to the rooftop performance and, surprisingly, McCartney is not in favor of the roof. Mark Lewisohn goes through that account in detail at the 49:20 point in this podcast: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-F8r5pWxT9V0.html. I'm not sure why there would be no citation as it would be easy to give!

​@@popgoesthe60s52 Thanks, Matt. I just heard the Lewisohn podcast at the mins:secs referenced...but all I hear is Lewisohn telling me that PM didn't want it, but no sampling of nagra reels. Whereas in both Let It Be/Get Back, it's clear to me, visually and on the soundtrack, that PM wants it (at that stage anyway) and evidence for this conclusion is in the sequence. I wonder if Lewisohn is interpreting PM curtailing the debate in front of LET IT BE's crew (after GH has reservations about going up on "the chimneys" but "I'll do it" says GH if the rest want it) as indicative of PM's resistance. If that's all Lewisohn is going off, he's wrong - - watch PM's reaction at the fragility of GH's concession, and watch PM's affirming response the next second when Ringo says he'd like to play up there. PM's holding onto that by shutting off further debate on camera. So even if PM Legacy authors had cited this podcast as evidence, what they'd actually be citing is hearsay, not primary or even secondary sources. I know Lewisohn has nagra tapes and rare recordings of meetings, but being gatekeeper is not nearly enough: I need to hear the dialogue if not see it that proves his assertion. There's a danger that historians/commentators are now too worshipful of Lewisohn as Beatles oracle because he is, I think, the best Beatles writer in his twin (strike that: triple) strengths of fluency, scene-setting and fine-detail research. But when Lewisohn gets it wrong, who's gonna say? This dogma phrase now going around, calling Tune-In the Beatles "Bible", is itself a red flag. I find it smugly presumptuous of Lewisohn in the podcast to expect his fellow panelists, after quizzing them as if HE knows the actual answer and all they can do is guess, to accept his corrective judgment on PM's position. Not one of the panelists asks, "Wait a minute - - how do we KNOW?" It would be the first thing I asked him. Lewisohn's reasoning is plausible - - that showman PM would want a bigger venue or at least a more interactive one - - but that's not enough to warrant so assertive a statement. Had I been that cavalier with polemic in my viva I'd have been sent back to the drawing board, so I'm unimpressed with Lewisohn here. I want to see/hear the evidence, in the way I see/hear evidence to the contrary in LET IT BE, and, more inferential, in GET BACK. I'm 60 pages into PM Legacy. Writers couldn't get PM to give an interview though they interviewed him years before for articles. PM did give permission for insiders to grant them interviews, the likes of Voorman. The research is wide-ranging and they cite most things. The writing is clear - - but not as ambitious as their original mission statement which they say was inspired by Lewisohn, to stay in the Now. They don't have the talent to be that immersive, turns out, getting dragged back to conventional habits. When a new character enters, the authors stop everything and give a typical 2-para info-dump bio on the character beyond what, say, The Beatles would know about Klein going in. They'd know the Stones misgivings, they'd know of a few deals, a general sketchy background of a dodgy dude from Eastman's checking - - but the authors encapsulate Klein's whole bio, forgetting their declared remit and not for the first time. Their research makes it worthwhile and it's easy enough a read, but their opening declaration raised my hopes that we had a literary landmark on our hands. And I see now, 60 pages in, that we don't. Doesn't have the immediacy to be found in THE BEATLES 1963 by Dafydd Rees, say.

@@4-dman464 Great comments, 4-D. First let me address the "Lewisohn's writing as ‘biblical’." We certainly have to be careful of canonizing Lewisohn's work. You are right to ask for source material. I will have to look in my files for the part in the nagra reels Lewisohn speaks of because I can't confirm what Lewisohn said with confidence. I do expect authors to pull a boner now and then. I find Lewisohn a bit looser when he speaks on podcasts than I find in his writings but I would hold him to the same standard of any writer to provide the source. Even providing a source often times doesn’t make it a lock but it is a reference point to start. I just had an un-famous podcaster comment on a recent video of mine, giving me a hard time about praising Peter Doggett's You Never Give Me Your Money. The commenter took 2 lines from Doggett's book and said, "I can't take this book seriously." I replied, "Then what books DO you take seriously?" The point is that if 2 lines can discount an entire book, then why read anything? When Lewisohn gets it wrong, I will certainly say it! There are other bloggers and podcasters who have already called him out on bias so I am not too worried that he will be some kind of “untouchable.” It’s the fanboys who perpetuate the sainthood of their heroes and are often times too flattered to hold the interviewee’s feet to the fire. I typically stay away from the authorized books on the Beatles nowadays, they are bland and uninteresting. When I hear the writers peddling their wares on podcasts, they usually talk me OUT of buying the book.

@@popgoesthe60s52 I'm with you, Matt. Let me know if you find any sources for the PM thing. As for writing styles, yes indeed. I've been spoiled by New Journalists like Hunter Thompson (talk about immediacy!), Tom Wolfe, Norman Mailer, Kurt Vonnegut, Gay Talese, George Plimpton, McGinnis...and it's idealistic of me to hold these Beatle writers to that standard, and I think editors should take some blame too. Keep the broadcasting coming, Matt: what you do, which I never do, is put yourself out there on the air, on the spot, which takes some courage. I got up and sang in a jazz club once. Never again!

@@4-dman464 You have guts to sing in a jazz club - We're even!

Much thanks, ML! The evidence we have certainly points to Ono keeping information from John from family and friends, not unlike Aunt Mimi keep letters from John's dad from him.

Elliot Mintz

Just got the book delivered, really enjoying it. Thank you.

Maybe he wants to not upset Yoko for business reasons?

Thank you Gerald! I agree... having a 'ball' is not how I would describe my feeling while reading.

Wow, I don't think so, at least not successfully. It's hard enough doing a long form documentary (Anthology)!

Albert Goldman wrote the very controversial "The Lives of John Lennon" in the 1980s. The redemption period is referencing his "canonization" immediately following his murder. I would recommend Erin Webber's The Beatles and the Historians, a great book that explains the biases in the Beatles history.

Yes I have no idea who Goldman is

That's a good request, thank you!

@@popgoesthe60s52 best channel around, thanks

No, I haven't seen that. Thank you for the recommendation, Kyle.

Many of these hippie musicians adopt the "do as I say not as I do" lifestyle. A lot of what we see is pure image. People mistake this for personality.

Next Christmas for Lou and Alvin!

I think that is nitpicking. When referring to all the band members, Doggett is consistent and formal, using surnames throughout. As for the Bowie thing, I would have used 'Bowie' because it's a book on the Beatles, not Bowie. It is presumptuous to assume that Beatle fans would know who David Jones is without explanation. It's likely people would think of David Jones of the Monkees, which was the reason Bowie changed his name in the first place.

We didn't claim to comprehend psychedelics. Your comment is rather presumptuous and I often get the stoner point of view that suggests I am not worthy of having an opinion on the topic. You don't have to be a Buddhist to know about it or comment on it. This is a forum where discussion is encouraged. I could be dismissive and simply say, "Using your logic, there are reasons stoners can get what straights are talking about," but that would be patronizing.

You will love it!