|
Post by Jim Boylston on Aug 26, 2010 20:16:34 GMT -5
I'm just about finished with Peter Doggett's, "You Never Give Me Your Money: The Beatles After the Breakup," a fascinating, if depressing, look at the collapse of the Beatles and how they were tied together for years by their various business holdings.
I've read most of the Beatles related canon, but Doggett's book sheds light on a byzantine area that is usually left untouched by biographers: the Beatles financial empire. It's a lot to take on, but "Money" does a good job of navigating and explaining the maze of lawsuits that followed the group's break up.
It's an unflinching look at a group of young guys that made some very bad business decisions, and let those choices color their relationships for the rest of their lives. Doggett is sympathetic and chalks a lot of this up to naivete, but no one comes out of this looking very good.
A very interesting new perspective on a story I thought I knew pretty well. Recommended for fans of the Fabs.
Jim
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Aug 26, 2010 21:38:02 GMT -5
I never really took an interest in that phase of their career, which is why I wanted to focus on the music in my own book. I know fans want to know this stuff and, at one time, I did too. In fact, I tried my best to summarize/simplify all of those business dealings, since my book was a day-by-day account of their career(s) and whatever impacted that. It was difficult to draw a clear line sometimes between what constituted "music-related" issues and what was either unrelated or simply trivia, minutia, or gossip. So a lot of that (Allen Klein, the Apple fiasco, the stupidity in pissing away their own song publishing rights, etc.) did get in.
Be careful what you wish for; I really, really wanted to do that book and to know everything there was to know about the Beatles and, in the end, I think I pretty much did. But I never wanted to hear a Beatles song again after three editions of that book and I sure couldn't read something like this anymore. For me, the Beatles are over. Ironically, I've been listening to a lot of Clapton the past few days and it led me back to Harrison's solo stuff. For some reason, that's all I can stand to listen to anymore, and then only rarely.
OK - I also listened to Lennon's "Walls and Bridges" not long ago, by far my favorite of his solo efforts. Frankly, I would find it painful to listen to most of McCartney's solo stuff and, as to Ringo -- well, you know about him.
Allen
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Aug 27, 2010 10:13:10 GMT -5
That's interesting, Allen. I've often said that, in my opinion, the Beatles weren't that exceptional individually. But together, it was something magical and special. I have never been into George Harrison. I mean, a couple of songs are quite good, but his guitar playing just doesn't do much for me. Between the four of them, I guess I'm a Lennon guy. Brilliant and witty and so on. I'm not saying I liked everything he did, but I think musically, he was the one that went outside the box in everything he did.
But even "back in the day" I was drawn more to the music of blues-infuenced British Invasion groups like the Animals, early Yardbirds and Stones, and so on. Some of the ealy Zombies tunes ("She's Not There") and Them ("Mystic Eyes", "Baby Please Don'T Go") and the first Moody Blues tune ("Go Now") all hooked me on the blues for life. Forty-something years later, it's still the music I play/perform and listen to.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Aug 27, 2010 10:49:59 GMT -5
I agree that the Beatle's solo output wasn't nearly as impressive as the group material but, after reading Doggett's book, it's almost understandable. I think their solo releases are spotty...there are highs and lows for each of the four (McCartney's last few albums have, IMO, been some of the best work of his solo career, though they haven't sold for beans). They all, however, wasted far too much energy sniping at one another through their songs. It's amazing these guys were able to tap into a creative spark at all, considering the amount of time that was eaten up with all the lawsuits. And the legal wrangling went on for decades! The Beatles were locked into a contract that stipulated they share earnings, even on one another's solo recordings. So, when Harrison's "All Things Must Pass" became an enormous hit, Paul, John, and Ringo got a cut of the profits. That made for some bad feelings, especially since most of this Harrison material had been rejected by the Fab Four.
Jim
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Aug 27, 2010 11:57:23 GMT -5
Well, if there is one cliche that is true it's that the whole exceeded the sum of its parts. I agree with Paul; Lennon's stuff was the best of the solo lot, when he didn't go off the deep end with Yoko Ono. I still enjoy Harrison's stuff for the most part, but it's not really great or transcendent music by any means. I'll have to take your word on McCartney's more recent stuff, Jim. To my ears, the breakup and solo years showed that Lennon was the real spark and fire in that group. In fact, as Lennon himself said, the latter Beatles years were really solo years as they often recorded on their own or simply brought in their songs and had the others serve as a backing group when recording them.
I think the blues will long survive the Beatles; I honestly see their music becoming dated and locked into that particular time. Some of it's very good music that will, no doubt, survive. It's hard to classify, too. Is it really rock & roll? Harrison once said he didn't think the Beatles ever really did rock & roll beyond the early covers they cut. As I've gotten older I find other music, including the blues and particularly jazz more compelling.
I think their business decisions were loony and they were not in good hands there even from the beginning under Epstein. He was a good marketer and promoter, but had poor judgment re: money and business in general. But a lot of their own arrogance went into some of the loonier stuff, like Apple. It seemed as if they thought anything they touched would magically turn to gold because they were the Beatles. They paid for that hubris. I think it was a combination of Yoko Ono's arrogance and McCartney's cheapness that blew the deal when Michael Jackson outbid them for their own songs. Absolutely mind boggling. Apparently, Ono persuaded McCartney she could get them on the cheap. And they were all grownups who were responsible for what they did and shouldn't have whined so much when it turned out to be something other than they thought it would, like having to split the take on their solo stuff.
I can't help believing that a lot of it could have been avoided if they had simply sat down like a group of adults, who had known each other and worked together for years, and made an honest effort to come to some new arrangement. Somehow, they weren't able to do that and ended up with characters like Allen Klein. At least McCartney had sense enough to go to the Eastmans once the battle lines were drawn.
Allen
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Aug 27, 2010 14:28:40 GMT -5
A lot of the problem was that each member decided to take offense at virtually anything any other member said, even when no offense was intended. Of course, offense was sometimes the intent.
The band break up really was like a nasty divorce. All 4 guys knew each other very well, and knew which hot buttons to push. A lot of what went down was very juvenile.
I'm drawn to blues-based music more than any other, but the Beatles music occupies a niche all its own. I don't find myself listening to their albums all that often, mostly because they're too familiar at this point, but also because my favorite records tend to hit me on a visceral level.
"Revolver" would be on my all time top 10 list, but it's there alongside Sam Cooke's "Night Beat," Skip James', "Devil Got My Woman," Coltrane's, "A Love Supreme," and Muddy Waters', "Folk Singer." Throw in Mississippi John Hurt "Today" and Rev. Gary Davis', "Harlem Street Singer" too, come to think of it.
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Aug 27, 2010 14:49:49 GMT -5
A lot of the problem was that each member decided to take offense at virtually anything any other member said, even when no offense was intended. Of course, offense was sometimes the intent. . . . All 4 guys knew each other very well, and knew which hot buttons to push. A lot of what went down was very juvenile. What you are describing, Jim, is typical "band" weirdness, whether it's the Beatles or some bar band out in the sticks. I've seen it myself in all its ugly glory a few times.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Aug 27, 2010 15:06:55 GMT -5
A lot of the problem was that each member decided to take offense at virtually anything any other member said, even when no offense was intended. Of course, offense was sometimes the intent. . . . All 4 guys knew each other very well, and knew which hot buttons to push. A lot of what went down was very juvenile. What you are describing, Jim, is typical "band" weirdness, whether it's the Beatles or some bar band out in the sticks. I've seen it myself in all its ugly glory a few times. Throw in a generous helping of drugs, ego, and being the biggest thing show biz ever saw, and you have anything but normal. Allen
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Aug 27, 2010 16:41:40 GMT -5
Yeah, me too. It can get nasty. One of the things I don't miss about being in a band. Another would be dealing with club owners.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Aug 27, 2010 19:35:02 GMT -5
Gosh, isn't that the truth (the band stuff)? I still enjoy making music with a special handful of friends I've known and played with off and on for decades. Me and my bass buddy up in Maine go back 37 years, to when we met while stationed at an Air Force radar site together. When we get together it's magic -- we just know what the other is going to do, even though we never play the same song the same way twice. But we have respect for each other and play for the fun of it, not for money. That's why our relationship has endured, as friends and musical brothers. Both of us had many, many offers to sign on with other bands, and neither of us have done so. I have a drummer here in Nashua that shares the same perspective on making music. But .....
... I played in plenty of bands way back when where it was all ego and about money. Head trips, juvenile temper tantrums, too much interest in drugs and booze. There is way too much of that in the biz today.
Paul
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Aug 27, 2010 20:16:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Aug 27, 2010 20:35:11 GMT -5
"Revolver" is my favorite Beatles album by a long shot.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Aug 28, 2010 11:55:36 GMT -5
I've enjoyed a few of the newer books that have been released about the Beatles. Bob Spitz's bio, "The Beatles" offered a lot of new information and an objective POV. I read it and Geoff Emerick's book back-to-back and found the different perspectives interesting.
Emerick was clearly a "McCartney guy," but it's understandable in light of the fact that Paul took over the reigns when Lennon became hopelessly lost in an acid haze and then spiraled into heroin addiction.
Emerick was, I feel, unjustly harsh in his opinion of George Harrison, whom he seemed to believe was completely talentless. His book offers, nonetheless, a unique perspective, since he engineered many of the Beatles sessions from Revolver forward.
I recently acquired Philip Norman's biography of Lennon, which is in my "to read" pile. I enjoyed Norman's Beatles bio, "Shout," and his books on Buddy Holly and Sam Cooke.
Yeah, my Beatles library rivals my Alamo library. Color me obsessive.
Jim
|
|
|
Post by Seguin on Aug 28, 2010 16:30:17 GMT -5
"Revolver" is my favorite Beatles album by a long shot. I think all the albums from, "A Hard Days Night", and onwards are great, especially the later albums starting with, "Rubber Soul". As for favorites, "Sgt. Pepper", has always been one of mine. So far, I´ve only got one book about the Beatles, and that´s Ian McDonald´s, "Revolution In The Head - The Beatles Records And The Sixties", in which McDonald analyses every song they ever made. I think it´s a great book, although some say he does´nt give George Harrison his due.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Aug 28, 2010 20:24:29 GMT -5
Interesting how many people have dissed Harrison, particularly his ability as a guitar player. I'm not a musician, and can only judge by my own ears and individual taste, so I'll rely on you musicians to weigh in on that. He wrote some good songs, but was no singer, except that no one really expects rock & roll guys to necessarily be "good singers" in order to be effective. I like the hooks on some of his solo stuff and, for some reason, connected with his music way back then.
That list of Beatles pop hits convinces me I'm right about Lennon being the prime force in that group. Having #1 hits is not a good measure of lasting song quality and I would rank nearly every one of those Lennon songs way above the McCartney stuff. I found most of his stuff comparatively light-weight pop, although often likable and/or infectious. I mean, "Magical Mystery Tour"? C'mon.
I interviewed Emerick a couple of times and found him to be a pretty square shooter and nice guy, but anyone working in that place must know that, for a long time, McCartney has been the guy you have to keep happy.
For a long time I thought Norman's book on the Beatles was not that reliable; it has a number of factual errors, but I don't think those are fatal to his major arguments. They are more the kind of thing Beatles fanatics fixate on, like dates of gigs. I had thought he was being too harsh on McCartney and had it in for him because he refused to cooperate with Norman and, I'm guessing, really rubbed Norman the wrong way in doing that. However, I now find his portrait of McCartney to be pretty accurate - a phony, and a social climber with royalist pretensions. I think he laps up that "Sir Paul" crap. I can't see Lennon doing that, can you?
I always thought that Lennon was still on heroin when he died. He was incredibly thin and gaunt, with sunken features that looked like he hadn't eaten in weeks. He led a very effective PR campaign to promote that last album, but I think a lot of the picture he painted of domestic bliss was fiction.
Allen
|
|