What do you think?
Rate this book
The Beatles and the Historians: An Analysis of Writings About the Fab Four
Hundreds of books have been written about The Beatles. Over the last half century, their story has been mythologized and de-mythologized and presented by biographers and journalists as history. Yet many of these works do not strictly qualify as history and the story of how the Beatles' mythology continues to be told has been largely ignored. This book examines the band's historiography, exploring the four major narratives that have developed over The semi-whitewashed "Fab Four" account, the acrimonious breakup-era Lennon Remembers version, the biased "Shout!" narrative in the wake of John Lennon's murder, and the current Mark Lewisohn orthodoxy. Drawing on the most influential primary and secondary sources, Beatles history is analyzed using historical methods.
268 pages, Paperback
First published April 14, 2016
41 people are currently reading
379 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews
July 27, 2021
This is perhaps the most important Beatles book out there, because it sorts out the issues with earlier influential works. It arose from Weber’s lectures on historiography, using the Beatles as a topic she thought would be interesting to her students. It’s now a lesson for all Beatles fans nerds.
Weber focuses on the two major debates in Beatles history, using historical methods, such as source analysis, in critiquing several published accounts. Her major complaint is the lack of documentation, of sources not being cited, in most of these works.
I read a Kindle copy and there are several punctuation missteps, things like missed apostrophes for plural possessives and the like, but I won’t fault the writer for those. In an interview she addressed a glaring brain-dead mistake in her book (naming Oliver Stone when she knew it was Martin Scorsese) and said it would be corrected in later print editions. She was told it can’t be corrected in the Kindle edition. If that can’t be fixed, neither can anything else, I imagine.
Especially as the book nears its end, there’s some repetition, which might seem like padding to a careful reader, but it’s understandable in an academic work. I’m giving it the full 5 stars for Weber’s bringing much needed sanity to this topic.
Instead of putting out a supplementary edition, she’s posted reviews of other Beatles books in her blog called The Historian and the Beatles. The day after I finished her book, in which she predicts there’ll be more academic writing about the group, she and a co-host announced their first episode of a new podcast that will provide “the same level of analysis you would receive if you were taking a graduate-school level reading seminar on the Beatles.” I’ve already listened.
Weber focuses on the two major debates in Beatles history, using historical methods, such as source analysis, in critiquing several published accounts. Her major complaint is the lack of documentation, of sources not being cited, in most of these works.
I read a Kindle copy and there are several punctuation missteps, things like missed apostrophes for plural possessives and the like, but I won’t fault the writer for those. In an interview she addressed a glaring brain-dead mistake in her book (naming Oliver Stone when she knew it was Martin Scorsese) and said it would be corrected in later print editions. She was told it can’t be corrected in the Kindle edition. If that can’t be fixed, neither can anything else, I imagine.
Especially as the book nears its end, there’s some repetition, which might seem like padding to a careful reader, but it’s understandable in an academic work. I’m giving it the full 5 stars for Weber’s bringing much needed sanity to this topic.
Instead of putting out a supplementary edition, she’s posted reviews of other Beatles books in her blog called The Historian and the Beatles. The day after I finished her book, in which she predicts there’ll be more academic writing about the group, she and a co-host announced their first episode of a new podcast that will provide “the same level of analysis you would receive if you were taking a graduate-school level reading seminar on the Beatles.” I’ve already listened.
August 18, 2017
I received this book for free through LibraryThing’s Early Reviewers.
When I first started reading this I was not a fan because the introduction was very academic and a bit boring. However, once I got into the different narratives it got so much better. The historiography part was also fascinating. Exploring how history is written is something I just love.
When I first started reading this I was not a fan because the introduction was very academic and a bit boring. However, once I got into the different narratives it got so much better. The historiography part was also fascinating. Exploring how history is written is something I just love.
July 23, 2017
I think of this book as an introduction to the techniques of historical analysis that happens to use the story of the Beatles as its example. There is a lot here for Beatles fans (and for both Paul and John partisans), particularly those who have not read all the major books by Davies (The Beatles: The Authorized Biography), Wenner (Lennon Remembers), Norman (Shout!), and Lewisohn (Revolution in the Head). This book explains how each of these narratives influenced the public perception of the Beatles even by those who didn't read them, and shows the biases, assumptions, and limitations of each. The author is admirably even-handed and ultimately provides what seems likely to be a truer picture of the group and its members than any narrower work could hope to give. I would love to take a class in historiography from her, and to ask her about some of her own seeming biases, such as her repeated use of the word "excessive" to describe the Beatles' drug use. No one (I hope) doubts that the Beatles used a lot of recreational drugs, but at what point does historical analysis justify the jump from the factual "many" to the judgmental "excessive"? This is the kind of critical thinking that the book itself encourages.
It's remarkable that a book that is primarily about scholarship also paints such vivid pictures of Paul McCartney and John Lennon. Weber repeatedly shows how the various narratives of the Beatles story all served to inflate or deflate the characters of Paul or John, often dramatically, with few providing the balanced picture that her overview creates, simply by thoroughly examining the narratives to date. This makes her book a pleasure to read for anyone who has enjoyed the Beatles' music enough to wonder about the people who created it.
It's remarkable that a book that is primarily about scholarship also paints such vivid pictures of Paul McCartney and John Lennon. Weber repeatedly shows how the various narratives of the Beatles story all served to inflate or deflate the characters of Paul or John, often dramatically, with few providing the balanced picture that her overview creates, simply by thoroughly examining the narratives to date. This makes her book a pleasure to read for anyone who has enjoyed the Beatles' music enough to wonder about the people who created it.
February 25, 2019
Some Beatles books are for everybody, some are for fans, and some are for obsessive fanatics. This is the latter, and you'd have to be a fanatic about history itself, too, for this book to reach you.
The Beatles and the Historians isn't just a look at the Beatles and how history has measured them. This is an academic study (maybe academic-lite) about the changes in how the Beatles were covered and regarded in books and articles, from their beginning to now.
The author identifies four distinct phases of Beatles coverage: the Fab Four era, the "Lennon Remembers" era, the "Shout!" era and the latest era, identified best as the Lewisohn era. Each era is named for the distinct idea or book that defined the coverage.
For example, the Fab Four era was the myth around the band when they were together, with the magazine interviews and official statements of the Loveable Lads from Liverpool. This was reflected in the authorized biography by Hunter Davies released in 1969. That book pushed the sanitized version of the Beatles story, only barely touching on controversy.
When the Beatles broke up, John Lennon's interview with Rolling Stone, gathered into a book called "Lennon Remembers," exploded the Beatles myth, but put a spin on it that made John look good and Paul look bad. That book was influential throughout the '70s and informed much of what was written for the decade.
When Lennon was killed, the narrative changed again, and the publication of "Shout!" soon thereafter helped deify John and destroyed Paul further. "Shout!," for all its flaws (and there were many), became the new orthodoxy of Beatles information.
Finally, in the 1990s, Mark Lewisohn gained access to the archives and started setting the record straight on the Beatles and their roles in the group. His influential books have become the latest word, and the most complete, on the group.
The book delves into these eras deeply, and discusses the process of historiography, which is a challenge if you're just here for the music.
Again, not a book for the mere fan, but more for the obsessive fanatic.
I received this book in advance for review.
See more of my reviews at Ralphsbooks.
The Beatles and the Historians isn't just a look at the Beatles and how history has measured them. This is an academic study (maybe academic-lite) about the changes in how the Beatles were covered and regarded in books and articles, from their beginning to now.
The author identifies four distinct phases of Beatles coverage: the Fab Four era, the "Lennon Remembers" era, the "Shout!" era and the latest era, identified best as the Lewisohn era. Each era is named for the distinct idea or book that defined the coverage.
For example, the Fab Four era was the myth around the band when they were together, with the magazine interviews and official statements of the Loveable Lads from Liverpool. This was reflected in the authorized biography by Hunter Davies released in 1969. That book pushed the sanitized version of the Beatles story, only barely touching on controversy.
When the Beatles broke up, John Lennon's interview with Rolling Stone, gathered into a book called "Lennon Remembers," exploded the Beatles myth, but put a spin on it that made John look good and Paul look bad. That book was influential throughout the '70s and informed much of what was written for the decade.
When Lennon was killed, the narrative changed again, and the publication of "Shout!" soon thereafter helped deify John and destroyed Paul further. "Shout!," for all its flaws (and there were many), became the new orthodoxy of Beatles information.
Finally, in the 1990s, Mark Lewisohn gained access to the archives and started setting the record straight on the Beatles and their roles in the group. His influential books have become the latest word, and the most complete, on the group.
The book delves into these eras deeply, and discusses the process of historiography, which is a challenge if you're just here for the music.
Again, not a book for the mere fan, but more for the obsessive fanatic.
I received this book in advance for review.
See more of my reviews at Ralphsbooks.
August 6, 2017
A concise read on writings ABOUT the Beatles, viewed through the lens of historical methodology. As someone who has spent most of my adult life training and studying history, the focus of this book was of prime interest to me. And my opinion upon completing it supports my initial interest. Weber assesses the authority of various works, the biases that are present in each, and the degree of source citations included.
My only complaint involve two minor errors - a misspelling of 'Profumo' as 'Profrumo' - and attributing the film about George Harrison (Living in the Material World) to Oliver Stone; the filmmaker was Martin Scorsese. The first may be a typo - ok, blame poor proofing. But a fact that clearly was NOT checked, mistaking Stone for Scorsese, is rather inexcusable. Wanting to email the author, I could not find contact info at the college she is listed as teaching at, and no other academic affiliations. Disappointing. Mqybe I am being overly picky, but when an historian allows this sort of error in a work that emphasizes accuracy in writings on a particular topic, it set my teeth on edge. Always leads to pondering what other errors may be present.
Still - a worthwhile read, in my estimation.
My only complaint involve two minor errors - a misspelling of 'Profumo' as 'Profrumo' - and attributing the film about George Harrison (Living in the Material World) to Oliver Stone; the filmmaker was Martin Scorsese. The first may be a typo - ok, blame poor proofing. But a fact that clearly was NOT checked, mistaking Stone for Scorsese, is rather inexcusable. Wanting to email the author, I could not find contact info at the college she is listed as teaching at, and no other academic affiliations. Disappointing. Mqybe I am being overly picky, but when an historian allows this sort of error in a work that emphasizes accuracy in writings on a particular topic, it set my teeth on edge. Always leads to pondering what other errors may be present.
Still - a worthwhile read, in my estimation.
January 2, 2021
If you want to learn more about The Beatles, you need to start with this book. It gives an excellent overview of the Beatles bibliography. It tells you what books you should read, and most important it gives context to all of them.
December 15, 2021
The Beatles and the Historians looks at the history of the band by employing the methods of historical research (historiography) as a way to investigate the changing cultural narrative surrounding them. Historiography is the study of historical writing and interpretation over time, a valuable approach to learning the past that's often neglected in the teaching of history.
Weber synthesizes the historiography of the Beatles and identifies four major narratives: The Fab Four Narrative, Lennon Remembers, The Shout! Narrative, and the recent work of historian Mark Lewisohn that's moving towards an orthodoxy. These stages are marked by changing public perceptions, historical events, and the discovery of new information relating to The Beatles.
The Fab Four Narrative was shaped during the active years of The Beatles from their rise to fame in 1963 to their break up in 1970. This narrative was directed by the Public Relations machine of the group, a sanitized story, more mythology than fact. The 1964 film A Hard Day's Night forever shaped the band's public image with each member being coded with a personality type: John Lennon's sarcastic wit, happy go lucky McCartney, introverted George, and nice guy Ringo. The Beatles presented themselves as a united front with no internal conflict The songwriting partnership of Lennon/McCartney was presented as the foundation of the group's success. In 1968 The Beatles: The Authorized Biography by Hunter Davies came out, which remains useful for an early account of the group, but the content was heavily controlled so a lot of negative information was left out.
The breakup of band in 1970 ruptured the Fab Four narrative, dividing fans and the media into Lennon and McCartney camps. Weber singles out the 1971 interview John Lennon gave to Rolling Stone, earth shaking in its attempt to destroy the image of The Beatles. Much of Lennon's anger was directed at McCartney. He dismissed much of the band's music and claimed he and Paul had stopped writing songs together as far back as 1962. He spoke of the group's disdain for their fans and each other. He was open about the band's dependence on drugs, sex, partying while on tour, a far cry from the squeaky clean image of the past. But Lennon's main agenda was to prove he was the sole genius in the group, the driving force behind all their success and greatest music. As Weber points out, Lennon was angry and possibly under the influence of drugs during the interview, a few years later Lennon himself said as much.
Nevertheless, the Lennon Remembers narrative took on a life of its own. McCartney's reluctance to speak openly with the press during he 1970s led many to believe most of Lennon's claims were true: Paul was the more commercial songwriter who would always be in Lennon's shadow. The rock press also sided with Lennon, Rolling Stone trashed every new McCartney album, while their coverage of Lennon through the 1970s bordered on sycophantic.
The Lennon/McCartney war originated for complex reasons. Legal and business issues often intruded, such as Paul's refusal to accept Allen Klein as the new manager of The Beatles and his public announcement of the break up in 1970. John's 1971 song "How Do You Sleep" dismissed his old partner as a hack, even resorting to hurtful personal insults. Yet sources that emerged later suggested their conflict was only public, in private they remained close and often spoke on the phone. Each flirted with the idea of getting back together when the time was right. Yet there was a rivalry between them. An example is the song "Eleanor Rigby" which Lennon claimed was all his, something McCartney took as disrespectful and went to great lengths to discredit. In later years McCartney emphasized how he was the driving force behind the band's most adventurous music.
John Lennon's tragic death in 1980 brought on further changes to the narrative. Weber points to Shout!: The Beatles in Their Generation (1981) by Phillip Norman as a transitional book, despite its obvious bias towards Lennon. But it did provide historical context and perspective. The circumstances of Lennon's death elevated him to legendary status alongside JFK and Martin Luther King as icons of the 1960s, and for a time his martyr status placed him above all criticism. By the late 1980s biographies of Lennon, most infamously The Lives of John Lennon by Albert Goldman, assailed the saintly image of John. The book portrayed him as a depressed drug addict during his later years, prone to violence towards his wife Yoko Ono, and riddled with resentment towards his old band mates. Those charges only scratched the surface. Weber points out Goldman depended on one questionable source for many of these claims, while the most outrageous ones lacked supporting evidence.
Since the 1990s more nuanced studies of The Beatles have emerged as time and distance have allowed for balance and accuracy. The 1995 documentary The Beatles Anthology produced by the surviving members introduced their music to a new generation although (Weber criticizes the film for not being open enough). McCartney also worked to preserve the band's legacy, presenting a more balanced view of his friendship with John. Most books now consider them to be creative equals, in fact it was the camaraderie and tension between them that fueled their collaboration. Historians and critics are also starting to finally devote more attention to George and Ringo, acknowledging their contributions have always been ignored and undervalued in past narratives.
Mark Lewisohn has emerged as the preeminent historian of The Beatles. By having access to all the files and having interviewed hundreds of people in the group's orbit, he's currently writing the most detailed history to date. Doing his best to avoid bias and rely strictly on the facts, his work will shape the band's narrative for decades to come.
The Beatles and the Historians is not just a valuable work for Beatles fans, but also on how historical study and research works. Weber's writing is precise and clear, each chapter is clearly organized into sections. One may not learn anything new about The Beatles, but it will provide valuable insights on The Beatles as historical figures and how historical narratives are shaped (an important tool to have these days).
Weber synthesizes the historiography of the Beatles and identifies four major narratives: The Fab Four Narrative, Lennon Remembers, The Shout! Narrative, and the recent work of historian Mark Lewisohn that's moving towards an orthodoxy. These stages are marked by changing public perceptions, historical events, and the discovery of new information relating to The Beatles.
The Fab Four Narrative was shaped during the active years of The Beatles from their rise to fame in 1963 to their break up in 1970. This narrative was directed by the Public Relations machine of the group, a sanitized story, more mythology than fact. The 1964 film A Hard Day's Night forever shaped the band's public image with each member being coded with a personality type: John Lennon's sarcastic wit, happy go lucky McCartney, introverted George, and nice guy Ringo. The Beatles presented themselves as a united front with no internal conflict The songwriting partnership of Lennon/McCartney was presented as the foundation of the group's success. In 1968 The Beatles: The Authorized Biography by Hunter Davies came out, which remains useful for an early account of the group, but the content was heavily controlled so a lot of negative information was left out.
The breakup of band in 1970 ruptured the Fab Four narrative, dividing fans and the media into Lennon and McCartney camps. Weber singles out the 1971 interview John Lennon gave to Rolling Stone, earth shaking in its attempt to destroy the image of The Beatles. Much of Lennon's anger was directed at McCartney. He dismissed much of the band's music and claimed he and Paul had stopped writing songs together as far back as 1962. He spoke of the group's disdain for their fans and each other. He was open about the band's dependence on drugs, sex, partying while on tour, a far cry from the squeaky clean image of the past. But Lennon's main agenda was to prove he was the sole genius in the group, the driving force behind all their success and greatest music. As Weber points out, Lennon was angry and possibly under the influence of drugs during the interview, a few years later Lennon himself said as much.
Nevertheless, the Lennon Remembers narrative took on a life of its own. McCartney's reluctance to speak openly with the press during he 1970s led many to believe most of Lennon's claims were true: Paul was the more commercial songwriter who would always be in Lennon's shadow. The rock press also sided with Lennon, Rolling Stone trashed every new McCartney album, while their coverage of Lennon through the 1970s bordered on sycophantic.
The Lennon/McCartney war originated for complex reasons. Legal and business issues often intruded, such as Paul's refusal to accept Allen Klein as the new manager of The Beatles and his public announcement of the break up in 1970. John's 1971 song "How Do You Sleep" dismissed his old partner as a hack, even resorting to hurtful personal insults. Yet sources that emerged later suggested their conflict was only public, in private they remained close and often spoke on the phone. Each flirted with the idea of getting back together when the time was right. Yet there was a rivalry between them. An example is the song "Eleanor Rigby" which Lennon claimed was all his, something McCartney took as disrespectful and went to great lengths to discredit. In later years McCartney emphasized how he was the driving force behind the band's most adventurous music.
John Lennon's tragic death in 1980 brought on further changes to the narrative. Weber points to Shout!: The Beatles in Their Generation (1981) by Phillip Norman as a transitional book, despite its obvious bias towards Lennon. But it did provide historical context and perspective. The circumstances of Lennon's death elevated him to legendary status alongside JFK and Martin Luther King as icons of the 1960s, and for a time his martyr status placed him above all criticism. By the late 1980s biographies of Lennon, most infamously The Lives of John Lennon by Albert Goldman, assailed the saintly image of John. The book portrayed him as a depressed drug addict during his later years, prone to violence towards his wife Yoko Ono, and riddled with resentment towards his old band mates. Those charges only scratched the surface. Weber points out Goldman depended on one questionable source for many of these claims, while the most outrageous ones lacked supporting evidence.
Since the 1990s more nuanced studies of The Beatles have emerged as time and distance have allowed for balance and accuracy. The 1995 documentary The Beatles Anthology produced by the surviving members introduced their music to a new generation although (Weber criticizes the film for not being open enough). McCartney also worked to preserve the band's legacy, presenting a more balanced view of his friendship with John. Most books now consider them to be creative equals, in fact it was the camaraderie and tension between them that fueled their collaboration. Historians and critics are also starting to finally devote more attention to George and Ringo, acknowledging their contributions have always been ignored and undervalued in past narratives.
Mark Lewisohn has emerged as the preeminent historian of The Beatles. By having access to all the files and having interviewed hundreds of people in the group's orbit, he's currently writing the most detailed history to date. Doing his best to avoid bias and rely strictly on the facts, his work will shape the band's narrative for decades to come.
The Beatles and the Historians is not just a valuable work for Beatles fans, but also on how historical study and research works. Weber's writing is precise and clear, each chapter is clearly organized into sections. One may not learn anything new about The Beatles, but it will provide valuable insights on The Beatles as historical figures and how historical narratives are shaped (an important tool to have these days).
August 23, 2022
"Ultimately, the reader of any Beatles memoir should first ask one basic question: 'Good historians ask themselves: should I trust what this person is telling me?'"
Reading this book at this point in my Beatles obsession/research journey was the perfect time. Having read Tune In (heavily researched and methodologically sound, says Torkelson), Shout! (wildly biased and methodologically unsound), and watched Get Back where I could draw my own conclusions about the band's relationships, it was honestly incredibly interesting to read this sometimes textbookish account analyzing the way the Beatles story has been told over the years.
The book is separated into four main narratives controlling the Beatles' story: the Fab Four narrative from the 60s, Lennon Remembers from the 70s, the unfortunately prevailing Shout! narrative of the 80s, and what she calls the Lewisohn orthodoxy of more recent years. In the 60s, the Beatles' story was managed by the band members themselves, Brian Epstein and their press team. This was the rather whitewashed image of mop-top boys ignoring all the sex and drugs and tracing the one-dimensional portraits of each Beatle that, unfortunately for them (especially Ringo) has lasted in public memory to this day. Lennon Remembers obviously comes from John's need to rewrite the narrative, launch himself as a solo artist, and direct some anger at Paul while fueled on heroin. A monkey could tell that that source is lacking in credulity, but it was gratifying to read a measured historian's explanation of why it should not be taken seriously. John's later renunciation of most of that damn interview didn't get nearly as much traction as the interview itself. It's truly amazing that any author took it as fact, and so many of them did! After John's murder in 1980, you get the Shout! version, which contributes to the mythologizing of John and continues to put down Paul's contributions. Then you end with Lewisohn's Sharla-approved tomes. Erin Torkelson Weber published this book in 2016 so it didn't include the Get Back documentary, but that only further proves Paul's equal genius and the closeness of the Lennon/McCartney relationship, both of which were under attack in narrative from the 70s and 80s. I would be interested to read an addendum which includes some Get Back analysis actually.
Torkelson spells out the criteria for a well researched historical book: using primary sources when available, weighing the credibility of said source, removing authorial bias, including bibliographies and citations to legitimize research, finding multiple eye witness accounts when possible, and paying special attention to differentiating authorial opinion and interpretation of the research. All of that sounds too textbookish but it really was interesting! She rates different Beatle books that claim to "set the record straight." Lewisohn gets the highest marks, Shout! the least. I was introduced to a whole list of Beatle books that I might read next (with an understanding of the methodology of course.)
She acknowledges how volatile, and paranoid John was during Lennon Remembers. She weighs the credibility of testimony from John's disgruntled employee Fred Seaman (who wrote a truly scathing, sensationalist account in The Lives of John Lennon) and Yoko's sycophantic assistants. She continually praises George Martin as being the most level-headed and credible source. She explains that the passage of time helps to soften high emotions related to a particular event but can blur the memories of interviewees.
She even ventures to touch the third-rail topic of Yoko Ono herself. The "stark division of opinion concerning Ono...pits credible source against credible source, secondary source against secondary source, critical opinion against critical opinion." She points out the misogyny and racism Yoko endured while also acknowledging Yoko's role in John's heroin addiction, intolerance of the rest of the Beatles, several eyewitness accounts of her self-importance, disruptiveness in the studio, rudeness to staff, and controlling nature, and introduces both sides of the debate on her and John's collaborative artistic merits. Some authors are right in her pocket (Jann Wenner, Philip Norman, her own assistant Elliot Mintz) while others have their negative opinions of her ready to go when they get to their chapters on causes of the breakup. What I appreciate about Torkelson is how she offers up all the facts, weighs the source's credibility and the author's methodology and lets the reader make their own conclusions.
As is no surprise, I will gobble up any Beatles writing. But this book treated their story with the same attention and gravity that World War I gets, that a disputed archeological artifact might get. Because they *are* an important part of history! They *were* the 1960s! (And also because Torkelson is eminently fair in her assessment of the breakup and the post-Beatles era, I felt vindicated on the pro-Paul stuff after the absolute dreck that was Shout.) I am prepared for any and all Beatle falsehoods Quora and Reddit might throw at me. (Just kidding, I would never comment on an online forum...but I could with this information!)
Reading this book at this point in my Beatles obsession/research journey was the perfect time. Having read Tune In (heavily researched and methodologically sound, says Torkelson), Shout! (wildly biased and methodologically unsound), and watched Get Back where I could draw my own conclusions about the band's relationships, it was honestly incredibly interesting to read this sometimes textbookish account analyzing the way the Beatles story has been told over the years.
The book is separated into four main narratives controlling the Beatles' story: the Fab Four narrative from the 60s, Lennon Remembers from the 70s, the unfortunately prevailing Shout! narrative of the 80s, and what she calls the Lewisohn orthodoxy of more recent years. In the 60s, the Beatles' story was managed by the band members themselves, Brian Epstein and their press team. This was the rather whitewashed image of mop-top boys ignoring all the sex and drugs and tracing the one-dimensional portraits of each Beatle that, unfortunately for them (especially Ringo) has lasted in public memory to this day. Lennon Remembers obviously comes from John's need to rewrite the narrative, launch himself as a solo artist, and direct some anger at Paul while fueled on heroin. A monkey could tell that that source is lacking in credulity, but it was gratifying to read a measured historian's explanation of why it should not be taken seriously. John's later renunciation of most of that damn interview didn't get nearly as much traction as the interview itself. It's truly amazing that any author took it as fact, and so many of them did! After John's murder in 1980, you get the Shout! version, which contributes to the mythologizing of John and continues to put down Paul's contributions. Then you end with Lewisohn's Sharla-approved tomes. Erin Torkelson Weber published this book in 2016 so it didn't include the Get Back documentary, but that only further proves Paul's equal genius and the closeness of the Lennon/McCartney relationship, both of which were under attack in narrative from the 70s and 80s. I would be interested to read an addendum which includes some Get Back analysis actually.
Torkelson spells out the criteria for a well researched historical book: using primary sources when available, weighing the credibility of said source, removing authorial bias, including bibliographies and citations to legitimize research, finding multiple eye witness accounts when possible, and paying special attention to differentiating authorial opinion and interpretation of the research. All of that sounds too textbookish but it really was interesting! She rates different Beatle books that claim to "set the record straight." Lewisohn gets the highest marks, Shout! the least. I was introduced to a whole list of Beatle books that I might read next (with an understanding of the methodology of course.)
She acknowledges how volatile, and paranoid John was during Lennon Remembers. She weighs the credibility of testimony from John's disgruntled employee Fred Seaman (who wrote a truly scathing, sensationalist account in The Lives of John Lennon) and Yoko's sycophantic assistants. She continually praises George Martin as being the most level-headed and credible source. She explains that the passage of time helps to soften high emotions related to a particular event but can blur the memories of interviewees.
She even ventures to touch the third-rail topic of Yoko Ono herself. The "stark division of opinion concerning Ono...pits credible source against credible source, secondary source against secondary source, critical opinion against critical opinion." She points out the misogyny and racism Yoko endured while also acknowledging Yoko's role in John's heroin addiction, intolerance of the rest of the Beatles, several eyewitness accounts of her self-importance, disruptiveness in the studio, rudeness to staff, and controlling nature, and introduces both sides of the debate on her and John's collaborative artistic merits. Some authors are right in her pocket (Jann Wenner, Philip Norman, her own assistant Elliot Mintz) while others have their negative opinions of her ready to go when they get to their chapters on causes of the breakup. What I appreciate about Torkelson is how she offers up all the facts, weighs the source's credibility and the author's methodology and lets the reader make their own conclusions.
As is no surprise, I will gobble up any Beatles writing. But this book treated their story with the same attention and gravity that World War I gets, that a disputed archeological artifact might get. Because they *are* an important part of history! They *were* the 1960s! (And also because Torkelson is eminently fair in her assessment of the breakup and the post-Beatles era, I felt vindicated on the pro-Paul stuff after the absolute dreck that was Shout.) I am prepared for any and all Beatle falsehoods Quora and Reddit might throw at me. (Just kidding, I would never comment on an online forum...but I could with this information!)
November 12, 2021
This book is a must for every beatle fan. And for every historian fan.
An extraordinary work, a deep and rigorous historiographic and historical analysis on The Beatles. Not only does it offer a new and balanced perspective on the group, but it also does so from the methodological tools of history, which also takes the time to explain in a simple, clear and illustrative way. As a fan of the group, I have read dozens of books about his work. Most of the time I found this books boring (e.g., Phillip Norman´s) because it is evident how the same anecdotes and the same myths are repeated without refuting, discussing, analyzing or providing new evidence. For the first time in many years, I have read this book with the required attention and emotion, from start to finish. That's how well written and interesting it is.
This book is essential to understand the history of the band and to understand, above all, the different ways in which that history has been told and the reasons for those differences. Any fan of the group, its music, and anyone interested in the history of popular culture and history in general should take this essay as a reference. An unprecedented effort.
El libro que hacía falta.
Un trabajo extraordinario, un análisis historiográfico e histórico profundo y riguroso sobre The Beatles. No solo ofrece una perspectiva novedosa y balanceada sobre el grupo, sino que además lo hace a partir de las herramientas metodológicas de la historia, las cuales además se toma el tiempo de explicar de manera sencilla, clara e ilustrativa. Como aficionado del grupo, he leído decenas de libros sobre su obra. La mayoría de las veces repaso las páginas con rapidez, pereza y hastío, porque resulta evidente cómo se repiten las mismas anécdotas y los mismos mitos sin rebatir, discutir o analizar o aportar nuevas evidencias. Por primera vez en mucho tiempo, he ledío este estudio con la atención y la emoción requeridas, de principio a fin. Así de bien escrito y de interesante resulta.
Este libro es fundamental para comprender la historia de la banda y para entender, sobre todo, las diferentes maneras en que dicha historia ha sido contada y las razones para esas diferencias. Todo fan del grupo, de su música, y cualquier persona interesada en la historia de la cultura popular y de la historia en general debe tomar este ensayo como referencia. Un esfuerzo sin precedentes.
An extraordinary work, a deep and rigorous historiographic and historical analysis on The Beatles. Not only does it offer a new and balanced perspective on the group, but it also does so from the methodological tools of history, which also takes the time to explain in a simple, clear and illustrative way. As a fan of the group, I have read dozens of books about his work. Most of the time I found this books boring (e.g., Phillip Norman´s) because it is evident how the same anecdotes and the same myths are repeated without refuting, discussing, analyzing or providing new evidence. For the first time in many years, I have read this book with the required attention and emotion, from start to finish. That's how well written and interesting it is.
This book is essential to understand the history of the band and to understand, above all, the different ways in which that history has been told and the reasons for those differences. Any fan of the group, its music, and anyone interested in the history of popular culture and history in general should take this essay as a reference. An unprecedented effort.
El libro que hacía falta.
Un trabajo extraordinario, un análisis historiográfico e histórico profundo y riguroso sobre The Beatles. No solo ofrece una perspectiva novedosa y balanceada sobre el grupo, sino que además lo hace a partir de las herramientas metodológicas de la historia, las cuales además se toma el tiempo de explicar de manera sencilla, clara e ilustrativa. Como aficionado del grupo, he leído decenas de libros sobre su obra. La mayoría de las veces repaso las páginas con rapidez, pereza y hastío, porque resulta evidente cómo se repiten las mismas anécdotas y los mismos mitos sin rebatir, discutir o analizar o aportar nuevas evidencias. Por primera vez en mucho tiempo, he ledío este estudio con la atención y la emoción requeridas, de principio a fin. Así de bien escrito y de interesante resulta.
Este libro es fundamental para comprender la historia de la banda y para entender, sobre todo, las diferentes maneras en que dicha historia ha sido contada y las razones para esas diferencias. Todo fan del grupo, de su música, y cualquier persona interesada en la historia de la cultura popular y de la historia en general debe tomar este ensayo como referencia. Un esfuerzo sin precedentes.
October 7, 2019
Excellent. I think I learned a lot from this book. Not so much about the Beatles, (I did) but how to objectively look at subject matter. Really well written.
September 3, 2021
Heroic, essential addition to the canon. Cannot wait for these types of analyses to become more mainstream, and the sooner the better. Here's hoping for a second, third, fourth edition!
May 22, 2023
Weber’s writing is clear and engaging as she embarks on a survey of the major historical works and biographies about the Beatles published in the last sixty years. She identifies three major points of stasis and conflict in the ever-shifting public narratives of the Beatles: where the genius of the group lay, how much Lennon and McCartney actually worked together, and who was to blame for the band’s breakup. Then she shows how the answers to these issues have changed and evolved over the decades as the analyses of the band have moved from primary sources to secondary sources, and as the blurring of memory (and in the case of Lennon, near-canonization after his tragic death) has taken its toll. But in other ways the passage of time has brought greater clarity and fairness to the discussion, and Weber lays out all the ways that has happened as well. It’s a fascinating book not just for the discussion of the Beatles’ mythology, but the way it digs into the business of writing history, its pitfalls and its rewards.
December 3, 2021
I read this book very quickly because of the subject matter & that fact I that couldn't put it down. My father was a Record Producer in the 1960's who worked with Beatles. His business partner George Martin needs no introduction. Over the years I asked my Dad about The Beatles because I was a fan & read a number of books on the Fab Four. I have to admit in not being terribly impressed with many of the books excepting one or two & most notably all the work of Mark Lewisohn. His work is proper history. It was great, finally, to come across a book which shares my feelings on the matter.
"The Beatles and the Historians" is actually two books in one. It gives a reader a great summary of the Beatles story & the thinking on the band over the years. Attitudes & opinions among those who chronicle & write about them are many & various. A lot of what has been written is highly colored & very biased, at times, nonsense. From John Lennon downwards there has been a lot of people seeking to create the "Beatles Narrative". Erin outlines this & is not slow in ascribing fault or blame for the creation & spreading of a lot of this nonsense. She also praises those who have done a decent job & identifies the man (Mark Lewisohn) who is coming to our collective rescue.
The other book which is contained in this slim volume is about how historians should proceed when writing history. References to advice on best practice are scattered intelligently throughout the book. Often books on how to be a good historian & how to write history can be a little on the dry side for average intelligent readers but this isn't because the subject that is under scrutiny.
Finally, I want to pass on the response when I asked my father which of the Beatles would be best companion for night out in the pub. My father who knew them all very well said, George. That came as a surprise.
"The Beatles and the Historians" is actually two books in one. It gives a reader a great summary of the Beatles story & the thinking on the band over the years. Attitudes & opinions among those who chronicle & write about them are many & various. A lot of what has been written is highly colored & very biased, at times, nonsense. From John Lennon downwards there has been a lot of people seeking to create the "Beatles Narrative". Erin outlines this & is not slow in ascribing fault or blame for the creation & spreading of a lot of this nonsense. She also praises those who have done a decent job & identifies the man (Mark Lewisohn) who is coming to our collective rescue.
The other book which is contained in this slim volume is about how historians should proceed when writing history. References to advice on best practice are scattered intelligently throughout the book. Often books on how to be a good historian & how to write history can be a little on the dry side for average intelligent readers but this isn't because the subject that is under scrutiny.
Finally, I want to pass on the response when I asked my father which of the Beatles would be best companion for night out in the pub. My father who knew them all very well said, George. That came as a surprise.
May 7, 2022
Almost from the start of the career, the Beatles have been the subject of countless writings. Professor Erin uses historiography to analyze the major works created on the history of the band. She points out in detail and backed with her own primary and secondary source research, what books fall short in providing an accurate assessment of the Fab Four and which works are more reliable.
Although an academic study, this book is written in an engaging style. I was hooked! There are plenty of sources listed in the notes and bibliography that I will turn to for further research. Good read!
Although an academic study, this book is written in an engaging style. I was hooked! There are plenty of sources listed in the notes and bibliography that I will turn to for further research. Good read!
January 9, 2022
For anyone who wants to read the multitude of Beatles biographies, I think this is a necessary companion, as it contextualizes the various narratives. It does not condemn any of the writings, but looks at them critically as historical documentation.
January 23, 2020
Very valuable little book that applies the rules of historiography to the literature about The Beatles.
August 22, 2023
I wish that I had been aware of this book when I began my journey of reading or rereading all of the major titles in Beatles biography and historiography a couple of years ago; Weber does a great job of analyzing and describing the strengths and shortcomings of all of the important primary, secondary and other texts. Philip Norman’s Shout, one of my favorite rock books for years, really comes under the microscope and you can’t escape how salacious and brazen it is despite being beautifully written. She also criticizes (as did John Lennon) the Lennon Rolling Stone interview of 1970 becoming published as a book and transforming into one of the most influential texts about the band. My only objection to Weber’s findings, which are broadly fair and reasonable, is that she often seems to take a dim view toward any kind of integration of criticism into biographical writing, whereas I think that the critical elements in a book like Norman’s are one of its strongest attributes, and also unfairly puts writers like Robert Christgau through the historiography wringer, which given that Christgau knew Lennon personally and is a rock critic rather than a historian I think is very unfair. Critics have no reason to be “impartial,” nor should you want them to. But while this book is a little dry and utilitarian, Weber herself makes a compelling case and does an excellent, extremely helpful job of organizing the conventional wisdom and public perception of the Beatles into its various phases while making the point that most writers, for all their strengths and weaknesses, have missed the bigger picture. Like me, she considers Tune In a game changer — I’m so ready for volume two.
February 15, 2024
This book is both an examination of the historiography of the Beatles (how competing narratives over the group's career and dissolution assumed dominance in popular discourse, and why), and kind of a primer on how professional historians write history, as well- source analysis, interpretation, revisionism, and so forth- because it has roots in the author's pedagogy (she teaches history at Newman University). And it's pretty good at both roles, though obviously this book is going to be of most interest to Beatles fans, and in particular of greatest use to readers familiar with the Beatles literature that is analyzed.
February 27, 2022
A book about Beatles’ books: quite interesting because of its scientific approach. Interesting fact: most books on the Beatles were written by music journalists, not by historians. This explains the biased opinions ventilated by some authors
May 28, 2023
If you like the Beatles and the study of how historians work, you will love this book. The author really does a great job explaining how history changes based on a variety of factors. This book could easily be used in a college-level historiography course.
Read
January 23, 2023if you like books about history, books about the history of history, books about the history of the history of the beatles, and books about the history of the beatles’ then this might be for you
October 5, 2024
A breath of fresh air; great for lovers of proper history writing methodology.
February 21, 2024
Matt Williamson provides an excellent summary of the contents of this awesome addition to Beatles' research.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0etz...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0etz...
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews