I have just finished Peter Doggett's meticulous examination of what happened to the Beatles' financial empire after the band broke-up in 1969, and have to tell you it was one of the most interesting yet painful reads I've had in a long time. The pain mainly comes from a fan's perspective, and having to realise that my musical icons were not such angelic humans after all. This isn't really a surprise, but to have it confirmed with anecdote upon anecdote of pettiness, vengefulness, and manipulation just managed to change my view of these four talent individuals forever. I do have tremendous sympathy for them, however, and for the ridiculous situations they were placed in as the "saviours of their decade" and the last hopes for the music business. It was likely not easy for their record companies to watch them bicker and eventually drift in 4 separate ways, but the wrangling and deception that followed, not just from them but between them now makes me understand some of the decisions that followed from the age when I was old enough to follow their solo careers and see the re-issues of their older catalogues. I was 7 when they walked away from each other, and so have no recollection of the group as anything but a thing from the past, but found this book fascinating in its research and attention to detail. As a huge fan of their music, I really appreciated finding out how certain pieces came to be, and as a student of mass media at university, the long and winding road through the press in the last 40 years held my attention throughout because I was reading a historical account of some of the greatest (and sometimes not so great) PR stunts of the music business.
If you're a Beatle fan, this is a must-read, although you might end up wincing here, there and everywhere at the callousness of behaviour. No one, perhaps with the exception of Neil Aspinall, comes out looking very good in this expose, least of all the three major songwriters of this formidable band. I'd be curious to see what Paul's reaction might have been to its release.
12 comments:
Oh Anne Marie, how hard it is sometimes to separate our love of music from the behaviour of the musicians themselves. In the case of the Beatles, I read enough about their acrimony towards each other after their break up to not want to know any more, as I didn't want it to affect my appreciation of their music. It's silly that it should do so, I know, but sometimes, it is hard to maintain the balance, music being such an emotionally responsive art form.
Koos and I were talking yesterday about George Michael and what a brilliant singer he is, although neither of us particularly likes the person he has portrayed himself to be. Elton John too. After seeing a documentary about him some years ago, it took a long time before I could listen to his music without thinking of the rather unpleasant character the film showed him to be. I can appreciate both these artists for their brilliance now, but the Beatles are so connected with my youth, I think I'd rather just leave (what's left of) the mystery be :)
People aren't saints...for the most part ;-) So I have no problem with the truth, I am a fan of creativity.
I am quite well informed via the exposes in the Goldman book on Lennon and various other texts. I really think Neil Aspinall was the only person who was truly devoted to each of them. (Did you know Neil Aspinall had a child by Pete Best's mum? Something that hardly gets a mention in discussions about Pete's sacking). Brian Epstein screwed them for sure, as did the music publisher Dick James. And, mostly due to the stupidity of John, George, Ringo, Klein screwed them more.
In public Lennon always said he wanted to part company. But he repeatedly dodged the official signing of the papers. Yoko gets richer on McCartney's standards.
Ian, I did not know that about Neil. I always avoided Goldman's book, which is perhaps why this one seemed surreal in terms of its nastiness towards each other.
Val, I am usually able to separate the two, although it was really hard to listen to Michael Jackson after all those allegations came out.
George Michael, whose 1990 Listen Without Prejudice, Vol. 1 is still one of my favourites, seems to have never recovered emotionally from the death of his partner in the late 80s from AIDS. It's almost like he has survivor's guilt that makes him do dangerous, destructive things to himself. Sad for such a major talent. Elton John is just a big old princess- I do know which doc you mean, and yeah, what a tyrant.
Anne Marie, it's almost like the old saying, "you should never meet your Icon, or person you admire, such as an entertainer etc" cause it could be a let down for the fan.
I do remember hearing tiny bits and pieces of the bad blood running between them over the years, but in reading your review here, I had no idea how nasty it was. Must have been such rivalry. Sounds like a very interesting read indeed.
It's and odd thing, we hear the music we love, but the behind the scenes stuff, wow, a whole other entity.
Thank you for your most beautiful comment at my blog. I had to run and get some Kleenex!
xo
ps: I am going to see my Orthopedic Surgeon, on the 30th. Not for surgery, he usually gives me the shot for my shoulder. I am having issues with my knee, but....I did tell you that I would find out what he used in the shot he gave me. So I will ask then and let you know, I promised you that information some time ago.
Just ordered the book. It also has rave reviews on amazon.
I think you are really going to enjoy it, Ian. I ploughed through it in less than 2 weeks, which was pretty fast considering how busy I am this month.
Didn't know about this one. And, you write so well I am begging my impressions and imagination, my presumptions and heartache that if George was in any way....
Fame sucks. I'll read the first testament here once I'm able to spoil myself again. soon. xo
I think books about artists or bands or other persons you are a fan of can be a mixed bag. If they are well-written and informative, they can give an added "bonus" to the artist's work and make you appreciate it even more. On the other hand, it can be quite a crash if you learn that the person you admire does not seem to be very pleasant after all. Because however much you'd like to think otherwise, it does affect your perspective of the artist's work as well. Because how could an artist be a total w****r yet make such beautiful, moving music? Isn't the music a reflection of the person's soul, so how could it be separate from what kind of a person he or she is? But, in reality, I think in most cases it's not that a book reveals an artist to be/have been a w****r, just... a human being. And that may be healthy for fans to learn, because very often fans have a tendency to elevate their idols to a marble pedestal and not allow them any human weaknesses.
I enjoyed this book.
Thought you might like to know the author writes a blog about the Beatles, with the same title, here:
http://peterdoggettbeatles.blogspot.com/
Post a Comment