Hello Readers;
Erin’s latest podcast interview with Robert Rodriguez, host of Something About The Beatles, is available here and on the SATB website.
You can listen to the podcast here.
Hello Readers;
Erin’s latest podcast interview with Robert Rodriguez, host of Something About The Beatles, is available here and on the SATB website.
You can listen to the podcast here.
The Historian and The Beatles 
Sarah, thank you for bringing this to our attention. I have no idea why this is happening but will check our spam filter. If anyone else is having this problem, please let Erin or I know.
LikeLike
Sarah, I’m very sorry. Karen and I had no idea that was occurring. How utterly bizarre.
LikeLike
I listened to the podcast interview yesterday, and want people to know that, if they have any questions, they’re welcome to bring them up for discussion.
Also, I realize the sound quality isn’t all that great; that’s entirely my fault. The last interview I did with Robert was via an online service, and the sound quality was great. We tried to do that again this time, but Robert told me I sounded like I was underwater, so we had to do the interview over the phone. The best I can figure is that my kids have dropped our laptop on the floor one too many times (it’s currently being held together with — I’m not exaggerating — black electrical tape) and damaged its microphone. Here’s to upcoming black Friday sales/cyber Monday sales on laptops.
LikeLike
I really enjoyed the podcast, Erin. Something I’ve been thinking about is how some Beatles fans may have read only or two books about them and got locked into an early version of the historiography, maybe only having read Coleman’s book about Lennon or Norman’s Shout. Not everyone keeps up with the later and better books. The incomplete narrative will live forever for some people, I guess. I know this is not a question, just an observation.
LikeLike
It’s a good observation, Steve, particularly when those early works (like Shout!) are still lauded as being the definitive authoritative source.
LikeLike
Thanks for commenting, Steve: I’m glad you enjoyed the podcast.
That’s a particularly valid point, regarding fans who either may have only read the early, so-called “definitive” works, such as Coleman and Norman, and then either stopped because they believed they had received enough of the story, or those who became locked into that view and refused to revise their interpretations of events and individuals, even as Beatles historiography itself shifted. That’s one of the reasons (and I’m repeating myself here) I emphasize how reputations of works shift over time. If its 1985, except for some minor criticism of Shout!’s dismissal of Paul McCartney, that book is considered the definitive group bio. Fast forward thirty years, and its reputation is precipitously declining and its own author has denounced aspects of his interpretation. Reading it as a fan in 1985 and believing it made you an informed fan is understandable, (although a close analysis would obviously indicate fundamental issues) but doing the same in 2015 and believing you are now a better informed fan for having read it, and only it, is myopic at best.
LikeLike
Sarah, I contacted WordPress support and will email you with their instructions.
If anyone else is having this problem, please email me using the address in the “About” section.
LikeLike
Excellent interview, Erin – every bit as fascinating as your previous SATB interviews.
About Paul’s claim that he hadn’t meant his comments to Davies to be made public, I wonder if he considered him safe to talk to because his Beatles bio was authorized. John had had Davies remove some material from the first edition because Mimi objected, so Paul may have thought that arrangement was still in place.
LikeLike
Thanks, Laura. I’m glad you enjoyed it.
That’s a great point, too, about Davies previously sitting on quotes/information from earlier, some of it quite inflammatory — and Paul perhaps entering into that very raw, emotional conversation with that expectation that the same arrangement was in place. That’s also the same time period of Paul’s phone call to Philip Norman regarding the “no one ever hurt John as much as Paul did” quote Yoko had recently given Norman, which Norman then chose not to respond to.
LikeLike
Hi Laura; Paul and Hunter have a bit of a history, having met back in 1966, in addition to the experiences they shared in the writing of the Beatles’ bio, so I think you’re probably right in assuming that Paul assumed privacy. I also think, though, that Paul would expect privacy and confidentiality because a decade of experience with reporters–who do manage to keep their silence–has taught him that.
LikeLike
That was another fun podcast with Robert – you both are always very interesting and entertaining. I was a little surprised you both gave Mike M. a pretty big pass on being non-biased in his book as the brother of Paul especially since I think there is implicit bias by him not commenting on Paul once he became famous. That said, not a lot “controversial” issues before the Beatles hit it big in his book. I think the comments around Ray Connolly’s portrayal of Lennon as someone who spoke “in the moment” and not necessarily historically factual was spot on – its really hard to take everything he said as literal depending on the context. Finally, hope you and your husband are enjoying the fun and joy of parenting – much more important than even the Beatles!!
LikeLike
I’m glad you liked the podcast, Tim.
I completely agree that there’s an implicit bias in Mike not addressing the life of famous Paul, and keeping what he witnessed of post-1963 pretty close to the vest: I should have done a better job of expressing that in the podcast: I honestly didn’t mean to give him a free pass on the issue. (Again, I’ve yet to give a podcast interview where I don’t go back later and wish I could re-phrase or contextualize about a dozen statements). This is actually something we’ve discussed on the blog before: sometimes what’s left out of someone’s memoir or biography or history is just as significant as what’s included, and sometimes agenda driven works can hyperfocus on less significant issues that support their version of events while ignoring more significant events and evidence. (In the context of the American Civil War/Reconstruction, one of our poster recalled how his childhood textbooks skimmed over some Confederate behavior, but spoke extensively about the scourge of carpetbaggers). Mike’s reticence on Paul’s post fame life, and what Mike witnessed, is one I can both understand, as a sibling, and find utterly frustrating, because of the value of Mike as a source.
I’ve always enjoyed Connolly’s work — if you haven’t read his The Ray Connolly Beatles Archive, I really can’t recommend it enough. That contains so many articles/interviews/observations that reinforce how essential it is to contextualize John’s statements. Last I knew, it was only available as an ebook, while I prefer hard copy, but its a great read. And thanks for the parenting well-wishes: I’ll say this: I am never bored.
LikeLike
Hi Karen and Erin. I just finished the podcast. What do you make of the total, complete, and absolute silence of Jane Asher? And, that Paul never talks about his relationship or time with her, and that it never comes up in interviews? There is definitely a backstory there. I get the impression the two of them came to some sort of an agreement long ago, and the press/media too. But, suppose she were to break her silence. What would Jane Asher bring to the table that would be of any historical value to Beatles scholarship that we don’t already know?
LikeLike
Hi, Tom. Thanks for the comment.
If memory serves, we do have a gracious, but relatively short interview with Jane in later 1968/69, which contains her only post-breakup comments on the relationship with Paul. She says that she was naïve regarding the girls on tour, but also ends with saying that she had five good years in the relationship. But other than that, it has been utter silence. My understanding — and Paul mentions this in the Anthology book — is that there’s never been an official agreement, but he declares that, since Jane has always kept silent regarding their relationship, he considers it only fair that he do the same. Your comment about the press/media response and lack of digging into the relationship is an interesting one, though. I believe Doggett comments, when contrasting the press coverage of Paul’s breakup with Jane, as opposed to his divorce from Heather Mills, that perhaps Paul didn’t realize how much the British press had changed in the intervening time period. Many in the press weren’t happy with the Paul/Jane breakup — they were the darlings of the media, in Paul’s own words — but they evidently didn’t go after the story with the same fervor they did regarding the end of his second marriage. Not being British, or having much knowledge of the British media, I can’t speak with much authority on the issue, although if anyone with knowledge of those issues wants to jump in, be my guest.
As for what Jane could contribute, the first and foremost would probably be fly on the wall recollections of watching the Beatles together; events she participated in — India, Greece — and I would have to assume she witnessed songwriting sessions, either with John and Paul together or with Paul alone. It’s unclear how immersed Jane was in the avant-garde world, but she certainly could have been a good introductory source for the authors who utterly ignored that aspect of Paul’s creative process and its influence on Beatles songwriting. I think Jane, being a celebrity herself, could also give us a good idea of how Paul individually coped with achieving such stratospheric fame in such a short amount of time. How the individual Beatles reacted to their fame (psychologically, emotionally, practically) is a subject Karen and I have been discussing, and there’s probably few better witnesses on the subject than Jane, who started her relationship with Paul as probably the more famous of the two but was quickly eclipsed in that regard. She makes comments on it in — is the Authorized Biography? — how Paul adores the audience’s/fans adoration, but doesn’t seem to understand that because they don’t really know him, it’s not the same quality as her own affection for him. Or maybe that’s in Braun. I can’t recall at the moment. What are your thoughts?
LikeLike
That was in Hunter Davies’ authorized bio. I recall that section well. The other thing I would add is that unlike the other Beatle wives (thinking of Pattie Boyd and Cynthia Lennon here), Jane had her own successful career and didn’t have the need, financial or otherwise, to issue a tell-all. I think that would have be counterproductive for her, professionally.
LikeLike
Ah, thanks Karen. It is a striking comment from Jane, demonstrating not only her maturity at a younger age than Paul — and probably her own experience with fame — but also given our upcoming post.
Excellent point too, about Jane not being in the position of financially needing to an issue a tell-all. (Was Pattie ever in that position, or was it more an effort on her behalf to tell her side of the Clapton/Harrison/Boyd story?) My impression (again, not British, and not a subject I have so far devoted an immense amount of research to) is that the portrayal of Jane is almost universally positive in the English press; admired for her talents, her looks, and her dignity. As Tom says in his most recent comment, she’s not the type to issue a kiss and tell and, as you point out, it would seem to counter her prevailing image. I do recall Paul discussing in MYFN how Jane had her own fan newsletter through the 90s.
LikeLike
My impression, just a hunch, really, was that Pattie wrote her book because she simply had a story to tell and the money wouldn’t hurt either. I imagine that if she felt that her choices needed explaining, an interview in a magazine would have sufficed. I never read her book, so I don’t know if she explained her intention in a preamble of some sort–although those preambles are not necessarily truthful. I recall Cynthia Lennon doing the same thing in her second book, claiming that she wanted to set the record straight–as if there wasn’t a first book, countless interviews and tv show appearances, etc, where she did exactly that.
LikeLike
My impression from the second Cynthia book is that she also wanted to heavily push back on the sanctification of John that occurred after his death, whereas her first book was published prior to his death. That’s why you have lines regarding John’s failure to practice his public message of peace with his ex-wife and oldest son, or Julian’s fairly harsh declaration that he regarded his father as a hypocrite. I’m sure the money didn’t hurt either, but certainly there was a new, post-1980 motivation that hadn’t existed earlier.
LikeLike
For sure the second book covered ground not covered in the first (since it was post-John’s death), but my impression of the second book’s motivation (and, interestingly, one echoed in reviews of the book at the time of its publication), was that Cynthia wanted to push back from the extent to which she portrayed her own victimhood in the first book.
In the first book, readers were presented with a one-sided, loveless marriage, something I don’t think she anticipated in her attempt to portray her victimhood. In the second book, she attempted to correct the record by taking great pains to declare that John did love her, that they had a good marriage, but got derailed with drugs.
Here’s a link to a couple of the reviews of the second book, which I think are pretty accurate.
LikeLike
And John certainly fed us information regarding his lack of love/regard for Cynthia, so it wasn’t only her initial portrayal that left us with that impression. His comments to Ray Connolly — which Connolly dismisses, in his latest John bio — that he never really loved her are contradicted by contemporaneous evidence, letters, etc.
LikeLike
True, that.
LikeLike
At the end of the day, if Jane Asher never breaks her silence, I respect that. But, her (and Paul’s) total reticence all these years is a bit noteworthy. She does strike me as a very private and dignified person, and that’s fine. Jane was from a sophisticated and cultured family from the outskirts of London, right? Kiss-and-tell ain’t her speed. And, that’s not even what I would be looking for. I’d be much more interested in the songwriting sessions or the creative process, as you say.
But the part of the podcast that seemed to stick with me was when you and Robert talked about 3 people close to Paul (his brother Mike, John Eastman, and Jane Asher) and the frustration with the fact that each one of them has totally clammed up all these years. It is a little odd, … in an interesting way. Maybe it’s a sign of their deep respect for Paul. I don’t know. Maybe I admire that.
LikeLike
And John Eastman, as well as Mike, is always going to be evaluated in the context of his familial relations to Paul, even if the material he can provide, simply from a business/legal perspective on the breakup, is immensely valuable in and of itself. Eastman’s few interviews are pretty standard: they deal almost entirely with the legal aspects of the breakup and follow the narrative that Klein was a poor choice for Beatles manager, for any number of reasons, and that the Eastman’s were attempting to limit Klein’s financial damage to either the band or to Paul himself. Paul’s hardly going to object to that portrayal of Klein, even if there’s a gentleman’s agreement between Paul and John Eastman to largely avoid the Beatles subject and/or refuse to give interviews.
But just as Mike largely confines himself in interviews to the pre-fame childhood stories, John Eastman largely confines himself to breakup era business, offering a version of events which largely supports the “Blame Klein” version of the breakup. The untapped potential of Eastman as a source in other areas is immense, but odds are we will never see it. (And there may be legal issues regarding Paul as John’s client that prohibit such revelations, after all). John Eastman is uncle to three of Paul’s four children, so obviously the familial relationship didn’t just stop when Linda died. Giving a tell all interview on Paul not only doesn’t seem to be Eastman’s style — he has other famous clients, after all, who then might begin to doubt his discretion — but would possibly lead to a rift in the extended family, depending on Paul’s stance on close family members giving interviews he believes breach a certain level of trust. Its certainly a multi-faceted issue, and while I can understand why Eastman would choose not to reveal what he knows, it’s just frustrating for me as an historian, given what he probably does know.
LikeLike
Think you missed a kid. 🙂 He’s uncle to Heather, Mary, Stella, and James. Not an uncle to Beatrice, Paul’s daughter with Heather Mills.
Re the goldmine that is the untold stories from Jane Asher, et al: It’s amazing that one doesn’t even hear from friends of friends. Neil Aspinall, Jane Asher–all have friends and their kids have friends. Yet no-one has whispered a peep. That’s loyalty (and/or Jane et al are very tight lipped.)
LikeLike