Upon Further Review

There were two questions I was asked at the Pepper conference which I wish I could have further, and better addressed. The first involved the suitability of applying historical methods to secondary sources which were never intended to be anything but frivolous Beatles books designed to sell copies. The second involved John’s explicit reference to Pepper — “So Sgt. Pepper took you by surprise” in “How do you Sleep?” Having had the luxury of time to think about these questions, I’d like to flesh out those two issues further.

The first question, regarding the fairness of applying historical methods to non-academic works by Norman, Coleman, Flippo, Goldman, etc. is one that, due to the predominantly popular nature of Beatles historiography, is a delicate one to unpack. The question was whether it is fair or legitimate to judge non-academic works by academic standards, and whether a distinction should be made between them. Given that The Beatles and the Historians is a historiography of the Beatles which also applies historical methods analysis to many of these non-academic works, my answer is obviously yes; such application is fair. Evidently there’s a review of The Beatles and the Historians in the new edition of Beatlefan which also presents this exact same question, but disagrees with my answer. (I don’t have a copy of the review with me; but a fellow presenter kindly let me skim his copy, and this application of academic standards to non-academic books was their main sticking point — history is less sexy than biography, as they said — in what was, otherwise, an overall good review. When my publisher sends me the review, I’ll post it here). While I do regard the application of such methods as fair, I also agree that officially distinguishing between various types of works could be helpful. The issue of explicitly distinguishing between popular and historical intrigues me; perhaps, if I ever revise another edition of The Beatles and the Historians, that distinction should be more clearly drawn.

Here I want to stress the distinction between historiography — the story of how an event or individual has been told over time — and historical methods, which use established standards to determine the accuracy or credibility of a source. In my response, I focused on the historiographical aspects, and argued that any accurate analysis of Beatles historiography has to include any number of heavily influential (in some cases, seismic)   popular, non-academic works: Coleman, Norman, Goldman, etc. The reality is, you can’t write about how the Beatles story has been told over time without discussing these absolutely crucial sources, the same way you can’t discuss King John of England’s historiography without acknowledging the impact the Robin Hood legend had on his popular depiction. In addition, the historiography of multiple subjects often display similar patterns: initial narratives tend to be incomplete; many subjects never achieve historiographical orthodoxy but instead find themselves subject to ongoing debate. etc. If we fail to apply historiographical analysis, we run the risk of ignoring these patterns. In addition, applying historiographical analysis solely to those established academic works would provide only a very chronologically limited and ultimately deeply incomplete version of how the band’s story has been told over time. In this scenario, the first secondary work to be analyzed would presumably be Wilfrid Meller’s Twilight of the Gods, from 1972, followed by enormous gaps in the 1970s and 1980s, only picking up again with works by Lewisohn, Riley, Everett, etc. in the late 1980s. This would also be a historiography which is almost exclusively dominated by musicologists and academics steeped in music theory, as they are the disciplines which have published the most on Beatles. Like the larger field of overall Beatles historiography, it would also be completely dominated by a single demographic.

I remain convinced that any such limited historiographical analysis of the band would be incomplete. As a supplement to the greater overall study, perhaps, it could work: focusing exclusively on the role academic/legitimate writing has had on Beatles historiography and its narrative shifts sounds fascinating — at least to me. How and why some such sources wield such influence and others don’t would be a provocative question.

The application of historical methods is, I think, a little more complicated. While its impossible to write Beatles historiography without crucial, non-academic secondary sources, it is easier to make the case that it is almost an anachronism to apply historical methods standards to non-historians who were not even attempting to write legitimate biographies, but rather sell copies of hack works by piggybacking off the Beatles’ popularity.

When the question was offered at the conference, my primary response was that the influence of those non-academic works is so pervasive and has been folded into and influenced so much of the academic work on the band that historical methods analysis is necessary and legitimate. As the conference went on, various presenters inadvertently proved the point; there were several academics who referenced or quoted both Norman and Coleman in their presentations, and various others had used them as sources in earlier publications.

In addition, I find it curious to argue that we should apply historical methods source analysis to primary sources — I haven’t yet encountered anyone who disagrees with that approach, although the reality that most standards pre-date the rise of mass media and Beatles’ historiography is dominated by mass media must be noted — but not apply those same standards to a certain subgroup of secondary sources. What standards, then, should we apply to them? Journalistic ones? I can understand the rationale there, especially as so many pivotal works were written by journalists. However, many of the issues I noted in various Beatles’ works — such as particularly flagrant, admitted bias, or selective use of evidence — also violate journalistic standards.

Finally, the reality is that millions of fans and readers bought millions of books over the decades, believing they were getting accurate or credible accounts of Beatles history. What they got, instead, were highly inaccurate and in some cases heavily flawed versions of the band’s story. I tend to agree with Paul and Lewisohn on this one; when you spend your own money on something, be it a record or a book, that’s a big deal. You should get your money’s worth.

As for the “How Do You Sleep” question, my answer at the time was that Sgt. Pepper never failed to provoke strong emotion in John, and particularly during the breakup period, by John’s own admission, spurred feelings of resentment, insecurity and envy. (See his statements in the 1980 Playboy interview). Anger, as I’ve noted before, per Marc Bloch, lessens a source’s credibility and accuracy. However, if you combine this with John’s 1973 interview where the downplays the viciousness of “HDYS” by arguing that he really wrote the song about himself, then that puts a whole new spin on Pepper’s inclusion in the song. (Whether John’s 1973 comment was a genuine insight into his own psyche (and all that implies for the lyrics of HDYS as applied to John — “Jump when your Momma tells you anything,” anyone?) or simply a means for John to avoid the consequences of his statements is, of course, impossible to determine). The question at the conference was whether that line “Sgt. Pepper took you by surprise” was true: was Paul surprised at the acclaim that Pepper received? And did John realize that? I don’t think I offered a satisfactory answer to that question. Now, I’d turn the question around: if you go by the premise that John was, at least to an extent, telling the truth in 1973, that puts  a new spin on the line: was it John who was taken aback/surprised at Pepper’s acclaim? Was it John who was “taken by surprise?” at the critical acclaim to what he later labeled “Paul’s album?” Or was it both of them? Thoughts or comments on any of these questions and discussions are welcomed.

 

---

I’m going to be on vacation all next week, leaving Sunday, so no new post. But, hopefully, I will have my long-awaited review of “The Beatles Forever” up within two weeks.