the book club: New books dissected over e-mail.

The Beatles Anthology

the book club
entries

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

from: Erik Tarloff

Flirting with Solipsism

Posted Monday, Oct. 9, 2000, at 10:46 AM ET

Chris,

To get the ball rolling, it might be useful simply to describe the artifact in question, without too much in the way of critical commentary. The Beatles Anthology is a companion to the TV series of the same name produced back in 1995 (other merchandise associated with the series includes three marvelous two-disc CD sets). It is a compendium of pictures of and quotations by the Beatles, arranged chronologically from 1960 to 1970. A genuinely massive affair, it weighs in at over six pounds and contains more than 1,000 photographs and over a third of a million words.

My guess is our discussion of the book as a book will be relatively limited. Unlike last week's Ishiguro or the Gore Vidal of three weeks ago, it obviously has no literary pretensions. And unlike the divorce books of a fortnight ago, it raises no questions of public policy and carries no argument (other than the implicit and incontestable argument that the Beatles are worth the fuss).

There are reasonable reportorial observations to make about it: It is very handsomely produced. The print is eye-strainingly small (at least for us boomers whose vision has begun to deteriorate). Very few of the photographs are captioned, a serious omission whenever non-Beatles turn up. And little in it is especially new. It is, essentially, a clip job. Many of the quotations from the three living Beatles come from the aforementioned TV series. These quotations are supplemented by John Lennon comments derived from a variety of interviews he gave over the years (I recognized several from the Rolling Stone interview conducted by Jann Wenner, just re-issued in book form under the title Lennon Remembers). There is also a smattering of quotations from various members of the Beatles entourage.

It does not, at least for those of us familiar with the very extensive Beatles literature, contain a lot of surprises. This is, by now, an oft-told tale: The working-class Liverpool roots, the early enthusiasm for skiffle and Elvis, John and Paul's first encounter at a church fete in Woolton, the younger George's conscription into the group, the raffish days in Hamburg, the EMI contract, Pete Best's cold-blooded last-minute ouster and Ringo's hiring, Beatlemania, the conquest of America, assorted drugs, two films, the Maharishi, and so on through to the breakup. There is only a glancing mention of wives, friends, and girlfriends and very little examination of the shifting relationships and alliances among the four members of the group. (The novelist in me keenly regrets this latter absence.)

Nevertheless, as oral histories go, it's an impressive assemblage; it tells the story coherently (no small feat, given the editors' organizing method) and in the Beatles' own words. There are plenty of small insights and modest revelations along the way. You and I may be the only two people on the planet who read it from cover to cover, but it's excellent for dipping and would grace any coffee table.

We'll probably be flirting with solipsism in the course of our discussion this week. It just can't be helped. Despite the difference in our ages, the music of the Beatles is, for both of us, the music of our youth--music that punctuated, illuminated, and defined the formative events of our lives--and is therefore almost impossible to disentangle from our personal histories. But that's likely true for most of our readers as well and one of the reasons the music plays such an important role in 20^th-century cultural history. So, I hope we'll be forgiven any autobiographical excess.

I've tried to be uncontroversial in this posting, merely setting the stage. But this is a subject that arouses extravagant passions. So, I herewith hand it over to you, and let's see if sparks start to fly.

Erik

the book club
entries

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

from: Erik Tarloff

Flirting with Solipsism

Posted Monday, Oct. 9, 2000, at 10:46 AM ET

DISCUSS

E-MAIL

This week, our Book Clubbers take on The Beatles Anthology. Click here to learn more about the critics and here to buy the book.

Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum

What did you think of this article?

POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Reader Comments from The Fray:

[Reaction to Monday's entry:]

Solipsism, shmolipsism. It's heartening to note how much this bunch of boomers were affected by the Fab Four, and thought about them, and take the Paul vs. John weltenschaung, or the "Revolution" vs. "Revolution" posture. Under the influence of hormones and vast quantities of various pharmaceuticals around about 1970 I was sure the Beatles were aliens, among us with special knowledge to impart to the illuminati. But in that state I spent too much time trying to decipher the code in the moving letters in the fabric of my jeans.

The time changes and key changes and technical details were probably George Martin.
The angst was John.
The walrus was Paul.
Just enjoy it.

--Brian Levy

(To reply, click here.)

You must learn about Liverpool: its status and impact on northern England, the impact of its history as a port city and shipyard center. These factors created a unique socio-economic environment for Liverpool, different from Manchester, different from Leeds. The Liverpool culture as it was in the 1950s helped shape the outlook of its youth, and the Beatles represent that cultural heritage. Starkey had the poorest upbringing, and Harrison the closest thing to middle class of any of them. Because of McCartney's closeness to his musical family extending before him, he is the most rooted in Liverpool's heritage of the embarkation point of American popular music into Britain, during the post-war era. Ask Paul about the music, that's what John would have said.

--Jono

(To reply, click here.)

I enjoyed reading your exchanges here, and I agree that Rubber Soul, rather than Revolver, has plenty to offer in the way of Lennon/McCartney musical experimentation and maturity. But it had begun even earlier than that. Listen to Help and you'll notice a sudden departure from the purely simple boy-loves-girl stuff. Indeed, even different instrumentation such as the use of the sitar began to make its appearance there.

--Paul Splett

(To reply, click here.)

Say what you want about John vs. Paul or Revolver vs. White but "Hamburg that most romantic of northern european cities"!!!!! Eh?!!!! Ever actually been to Hamburg? Must have been one helluva girl if you found it romantic! Try Copenhagen or Stockholm next time.

--simon warner

(To reply, clickhere.)

I just got back from four years in Hamburg and I totally disagree with you two. Hamburg is a beautiful city! Maybe you never got away from the Reeperban and surrounding St. Pauli district? I've never seen a city with so many parks and trees, the general architecture is elegant, there's a white sand beach along the Elbe, bicycle paths everywhere, there are more canals than in Venice and the bars never close ( I lost count of how many times I walked out of a bar into full daylight--not recommended).

--Maldwyn

(To reply, clickhere.)

In discussing the quality of "Martha My Dear" (definitely my favorite song on the White Album), Erik Tarloff mentions an effective rhythmic shift in the melody. I think it worth mentioning that unusual rhythms, phrasings, and chord progressions previously unknown, or at most little seen, in pop music were characteristic of the Beatles' songs from the beginning.

One of the first serious critical appreciations of the Beatles as songwriters was by the musicologist Deryck Cooke, who analyzed the phrasing in "Yesterday" (a McCartney song, of course) with great admiration for its creativity, originality, and imagination. (The essay is in Cooke's collection Vindications.)

I think this characteristic deserves to be mentioned along with the sheer beauty of the melodies and the breadth of the musical influences: The classical references Tarloff finds in "Penny Lane" and "Eleanor Rigby" were at least possibly and partially from George Martin, who arranged the guest instrumentalist parts of those songs, which I suspect are what's being referred to. But the melodies of the instrumental parts were evidently Paul's own, and the suggestions of instruments were at least partially his as well.

--Meriadoc

(To reply, clickhere.)

I agree with this posting. George Martin, who, unlike the Beatles, was musically literate, played a major role in plotting out and writing down the musical arrangements. But usually the ideas came from the original song writers (according to Martin, Paul was far more specific in his instructions than John, who tended toward the impressionistic). Thus, for example, Paul, having heard a Brandenberg Concerto on his car radio en route to the Abbey Road studio one day, requested a piccolo trumpet for "Penny Lane." On the other hand, the suggestion of a string quartet accompaniment for "Yesterday" came from Martin--this story is in The Beatles Anthology, the book under discussion, incidentally--but McCartney then sang some of the lines he wanted the individual strings to play.

I also agree that a certain harmonic freshness distinguished the Beatles' song writing from very early on, although it was certainly more venturesome in the later albums than their earlier efforts.

If you like the Deryck Cooke essay (did you know he's the same Deryck Cooke who prepared the performing version of Mahler's unfinished 10th symphony?), you should also check out a book by another British musicologist, Wilfred Mellers, called Twilight of the Gods. It has some very good material.

--Erik Tarloff

(To reply, clickhere.)

Another book must be mentioned when it comes to analyses of Beatles music: Revolution in the Head, by critic and Shostakovich biographer Ian MacDonald, much of which was over my head, especially the talk of harmonics. But it was enlightening even for those of us who slept through Music Appreciation (for instance, the simple comparison of Lennon's "horizontal" melodies with McCartney's "vertical" melodies).

Here's a variation on the "desert island" game that we used to play (and of which George Martin would approve): Edit the White Album down to a single LP. You then have the greatest Beatles album ever, bar none (wait--let me listen to Revolver one more time). For the record, "Martha, My Dear" makes my cut. And how about "I Will"--what a tune! Do you know that's Paul singing (not playing) the bass line? Stop me before I start blathering...

--cazzie

(To reply, click here.)

A Fraygrant writes:

Before he was killed John did an interview with Playboy where he gave detailed opinions and the origins of nearly every Beatles song. Is this article available anywhere on the web?

Yeah, yeah, yeah. There are several, including this one. But before you reach any conclusions about the authorship of Lennon-McCartney tunes, you should consult a book called Paul McCartney: Many Years From Now, which came out a few years ago. It's an odd, fascinating, sloppily-edited book, but at the heart of it are interviews Paul gave to a long-time friend (the book's author is Barry Miles). In these quotes, McCartney discusses the writing of every single tune they wrote, and gives a percentage breakdown on who did what. (He'll say, "That was maybe 60 percent mine, 40 percent John.") Sounds a little self-serving, but his assessments ring absolutely true. His memory seems quite clear, and he recalls little tidbits on the songwriting that support his case. Beatles fans (especially those dismissive of Paul) should read it because they'll learn a lot. (e.g., Paul wrote the tune for "In My Life," and it was Paul's tape-loop experimentation that produced the astonishing sound of "Tomorrow Never Knows." Hey, I love John, but it's time to give Sir Paul credit.

--Bill

(To reply, clickhere.)

[Reaction to Tuesday's "Book Club"]

I always listen to the acoustic "Revolution" as a warmup to the electric take. It takes on a sort of Led Zeppelin dynamic, acoustic blues before the thunder erupts. And of all Beatles songs, this is the biggest eruption of them all. The guitars howl like the damned, the drums 'n bass lock in thundering goose-step, and Lennon sounds righteously pissed off. If I was in a band I'd cover it that way too. Open with the acoustic shuffle and harmonies and then split some skulls wide open going electric. But then maybe I've listened to too much Led Zeppelin.

--Jerol

(To reply, click here.)