Failing the 60's - no proof for central control of the 'Fab Four Narrative' - a critique of The Beatles’ historiography. Part 3.

a critique of The Beatles’ historiography. Part 3

... standing in the corner just me and my Beatles’ related books 

on January 6th 2021

distracted by perturbing sounds of a mob and the anxious commentators reporting about the events in the Capitol in Washington DC

it inspires me to explore, 

find ideas 

and write them up

now seven weeks later I realize observer-bias might have gotten the best of me

As a rapacious explorer of Beatles and pop culture, and gifted with a skepticism fed by curiosity, some of my behavior is at least odd.

Books and authors reveal themselves to me through the foot- and endnotes, the bibliography, and reference lists. [1] 

Every piece of art deserves a chance. 

There are conditions though. 

No interference, no explanatory notes, just me and you, the object, and I.

Art and I are meeting in privacy, we are in this together. 

I want to find out how the object affects me, and what that effect means for me. 

The creative process intrigues and elicits tremendous respect. The magic process from observation, the creative impulse, and then creation; alone or in cooperation with artisans and experts is almost sacred to me. [2]

My explorations to understand and find answers in Pepperland were motivated by curiosity but also to cut through the myth and the celebrity whoopie, and societal change, and to discern what was the relevant context and what had agency in the historical period of The Beatles. 

The other, related, theme park that opened its doors for me was history. It came through Erin Torkelson Weber's historiography 'The Beatles and the Historians'. [3]

My historiographic travels are based on years of personal experience, acquisition, and study of source materials, and most importantly, the research done by others.

The challenge with the research by others is that, dealing with cultural phenomena, especially from a recent past, or still alive, like The Beatles are, authors often dwell a bit too much in their own nostalgia. They take their topic so deeply personal, that the word bias becomes a meaningless concept. So I come in with a suspicious mind, as I suspect a 'mal d'archive' (Derride), an unhealthy death and birth celebrity confined mesmerized past, bursting with unexpressed emotions. This kind of suspicion ought to have no place in academia, where what counts are the arguments and the evidence in the texts. 

The key to the craft of practicing history is the ability to read, write and think critically, and with empathy about the past. Resources should be evaluated for proof of the use of a reasonable level of historical method, and, preferably, the oeuvre of historians should prove 'historical literacy'.  

In the case of The Beatles as persons, and as a phenomenon, it is not easy to recognize whether authors and producers of nostalgic content aim for 'progressive nostalgia' (looking back to look forwards). Mark Duffet, a scholar exploring fandom for over two decades, points out the way scholars deal with our experience of The Beatles' image and the story can be something of "a Rorschach test for concerns of an academic environment shaped by grant-friendly buzz words like 'participation' and 'wellbeing' ". [4]  The need to be careful with our sources is critical to our success and credibility as researchers and producers of content. 

Like every thinker, writer, broadcaster, and all academics I rely upon professional colleagues, friends, and unknown partners in online conversations for ideas, assistance, stimulation, and criticism while pursuing production.

Academic interest in The Beatles

There exists a large body of international academic work on The Beatles phenomenon, their lives, and their art. 

And it is growing. 

The Beatles ignite an animated discourse among scholars, publishers, and teachers. [5] 

Topics may vary from business and economics [6], legalities, fandom [7][8], socio-cultural influences [9][10], music [11][12][13][14], and yes, biography and history.

Recently Aaron Krerowicz explained that a dominant focus on The Beatles' music or history, in teaching, is not always appreciated by students. [15] Younger generations are very much aware of The Beatles' art and the cultural, musical, and mass-media phenomenon. And yes it deserves attention, and there is much more depth (musically, legally, economically) than they can dream up, really, but they prefer the context of other timeless examples and sources. 

To view The Beatles as one of many subjects of study in a course could actually be a wise didactical decision. 

So I prefer a college senior-level class on 'the history of rock'n'roll' and 'pop music in the sixties'. There are teaching resources available for that purpose. In 2009 Walter Everett produced a resource that focuses on the musical foundations of rock music. It mentions The Beatles probably over 600 times, and mostly in the context of other musical examples. Everett takes us from 'Blue Suede Shoes' from the fifties, to 'Crosby Stills & Nash' in 1969. [16] Everett explains the musical elements that shape rock music. Those sounds that we hear, are aware of, or remain below the threshold of consciousness but still build our listening experience, he shows where amazing licks and sounds fit in the genre. The really good thing is that the numerous examples allow us to compare and to learn to listen. Long live Spotify. A semester-course with this book and the musical examples is probably a better idea than a semester-long course that exclusively focuses on 'The Beatles', and aims to convince students how The Beatles changed our world. 

From 2009 until a few years ago, The Beatles were the subject of a post-graduate master's programme at Liverpool Hope University. It was designed and managed by Dr. Michael Brocken [17]. Mary-Lu Zahalan-Kennedy said on BBC Radio Merseyside:

“It’s (...) academic (…) an examination of how The Beatles came to be. What the political and social climate was and the cultural aspects that helped to facilitate an environment where The Beatles could happen. (It was) very much having to understand all of the history of British music, British politics and the economic state of the country at the time and what people were doing to stay positive and how music impacted on everyday life.” [18]

Early this year the University of Liverpool announced students may apply to participate in a newly designed master programme: ‘The Beatles: Music Industry and Heritage MA’. The programme starts autumn 2021 [19], and Dr Holly Tessler [20] is the ‘MA programme leader’ [21]. 

For historiographic research, we tend to dig long and deep into archives, so it has become my reflex to voraciously study the work of those who cross my path. The announcement of this new Beatles' master triggered a review of the work of Dr. Holly Tessler, inevitably with Erin Torkelson Weber's historiography of The Beatles in mind. This posting presents the first results.  

To make sure we are all on the same page let me first share with you Weber's operational definition of ‘historiography’:

“ ‘Historiography’ seeks to understand the ‘how’ of a story—how it’s constructed, by whom, using which data sources and with what objectives.” [22]

Improving The Beatles' historiography

Tessler's thesis ‘Beatles for Sale : The Role and Significance of Storytelling in the Commercialisation and Cultural Branding of the Beatles since 1970’ (2009) [23] offers insights that useful for evaluation and improving Weber’s historiography of The Beatles.

Tessler's indications, on how to edit and enhance the current version of The Beatles’ historiography, match with some of my criticism of Weber’s work on The Beatles’ historiography:

1.        Most of The Beatles’ related books from the seventies are left unconsidered. Some are best-sellers; some remain unmentioned, others are tossed aside and left unanalyzed.

2.   With John Lennon, Weber surmised that the image of the ‘clean’ Fab Four in the sixties a. was firmly under control in the media, by Brian Epstein and his NEMS staff, and b. lasted until Lennon vented his frustration in the Rolling Stone interviews in promotion of his ‘John Lennon / Plastic Ono Band’ album. 

3.        Weber’s historiography ignores the business, cultural and political contexts in which The Beatles’ history emerged and evolved, and were influenced.

Let’s get after it.

Holly Tessler :

“(The) Beatle storytelling was not just a process that happened in books and documentaries, but was alive and dynamic, implicated with places and people and events, happening in ways and through means which extend far beyond The Beatles themselves. Realising that the Beatles were autochthonously bound up with the wider cultural, material and historical frameworks of not only Liverpool, but also places like London, Hamburg, New York, and even more broadly still of British popular history and culture, catalysed me into thinking more substantially about the further implications of Beatle storytelling.

At the same time, I also began to think about the inverse - how all of these Beatle storytelling enterprises impacted on the group themselves. It is in consideration of all of these observations that I undertook the research presented here.” [24] 

Tessler's work informs efforts to move beyond the approach of ‘book reviews by historical methodology’, which dominates Weber’s first edition (2016) of The Beatles' historiography. 

To isolate the marketing efforts by Epstein, NEMS, and The Beatles themselves, as the main (only relevant) cause for The Beatle brand and image cannot provide sufficient explanation for their success. In the nineteenth century Karl Marx, as a social and political historian coming from his materialist conception of history, offered relevant insight and guidance for historians [25]:

“Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past.”

Mutual correlated and causal interactions between the storytelling, branding, and commercialization of The Beatles need to be an essential line of exploration in any future analysis of The Beatles’ historiography.

Tessler’s thesis is available since 2009, and an article, condensing some of her thesis-findings, was published in 2010/2011. [26] Why has this thesis escaped attention and is missing from Weber's source-list?

The article challenges Weber’s description of The Beatles’ story of the sixties:

“ 'The Fab Four Narrative’ covers the officially approved version of the Beatles story, which lasted from 1962 until 1970. (…) The official mythology of the Beatles was both deliberately engineered and, like the band’s music, almost universally popular. This powerful official mythology is the first major narrative in Beatles historiography. From 1962 until their public dissolution in 1970, the Beatles promoted a singular version of their story.” [27]

Left to right: Holly Tessler, Brian Epstein and Erin Torkelson Weber.

Tessler specifically challenges Weber’s suggestion that in the sixties, whilst The Beatles were together, central control of the narrative of the Fab Four was executed and controlled by the NEMS staff, or The Beatles themselves, first with, and (after his death on 27, 1967) without the strategic direction of manager Brian Epstein.

“Taken in consideration of the group’s immense popularity at the time, the number of historians/storytellers contemporary with The Beatles’ 1960s success appears disproportionately smaller than would be expected.” [25]

Even though the media were frantically pushing Beatles’ news, and the fact that the unique worldwide commercial success put The Beatles in the league of the most famous people of the world, Weber insists on this formal central control. She also concludes no influential books or documentaries narrating the history of The Beatles’ were published during the sixties. 

Tessler makes the case that the apparent lack of interest in documenting The Beatles whilst they were together, except of course for an endless stream of current news-reporting, may, in part, be attributed to the following causes [25]: 

1.        the fact The Beatles were such prominent contemporary musical and cultural figures [28] (cf. Inglis 2000; Gould 2007; Womack and Davis 2006) left little narrative or cultural space for others to supplement The Beatles’ own dominant voice.

2.        Another reason why there were so few narratives about The Beatles during their time together, is according to Tessler, maybe that, popular music biography, as a literary sub-genre, did not become a widely accepted narrative form until the 1970s, almost in tandem with (and perhaps, in part, because of) The Beatles’ disbandment.

3.        In the 1960s, publishers would see very little benefit to commissioning work on a teenage fad with a presumptively short ‘shelf life’. Similarly, even had such texts been published, there would likely have been negligible consumer demand from 1960s teenagers who would have had little experience of biographies and histories of pop acts and popular music.

Intermezzo

Both Tessler and Erin Torkelson Weber suggest that during the sixties only a few relevant books about The Beatles were published. They both seem to adhere to the idea, with different arguments though, that this was for the most part caused by The Beatles dominating the media.

In a couple of months, we will discuss in detail the evidence Tessler and Weber offer, and why I think they are wrong.

To lift a tip of the veil, I briefly discuss three publications from the sixties to give an impression of the context in which The Beatles were happening and to indicate how these books are improperly rated or understood in The Beatles' discourse, especially by Weber.

1. The True Story of The Beatles (1964)

‘The True Story of The Beatles’ [29] and ‘The Beatles Monthly’ (a magazine) were exclusively devoted to The Beatles. These publications sold hugely among the fans. The book was a best-seller across the whole world, lasting many years after its original publication in 1964. It is flawed to ignore the influence of this book. Because of its sales, it reached so many fans, and thus it must have had an influence on the shared public perception of The Beatles’ story.

The publishers, editors, and writers had complete editorial independence. Of course, owner, publisher, and editor Sean O’Mahony (alias Johnny Dean) was in some sort of a tit-for-tat situation with NEMS and The Beatles. O’Mahony promised to report positively. His crew was granted full access to The Beatles, including photography and interviews, plus articles from the sidemen e.g. Mal Evans, Neil Aspinall, etc., NEMS fed them stories too. It is quite sure that even though the publisher, authors, and editors were close to The Beatles, plus Brian Epstein may have had the channels for influence, the public Beatles' narrative in 'The Beatles Monthly' and 'The True Story...' never ever was under the effective control of Epstein, nor of The Beatles or anyone else at NEMS. 

The dismissal of books like Billy Shepherd's 'The True Story...' seems like an echo of a long-forgotten paradigm, which Beatles' scholars are familiar with, and was broadly expressed in the mainstream media right into the seventies. A fascinating early example is the tirade against 'Menace of Beatlism' by Paul Johnson, in New Statesman (February 1964). [30] The 'critiques of mass culture' originates from arrogant snobbish elitism, which is probably of the ages. In the twentieth century, the deductive and polemic treaties from the Frankfurter School and the American Left questioned the merits of commercial media. In the methodological prescriptive approach, which Erin Weber applies for The Beatles'  historiography, most commercial books are dismissed or ignored with similar arguments. Others in 2021, i.e. Joe Wisbey in his podcast BeatlesBooks called this book a 'hack'.[31] Things have not changed much.

2. Love Me Do! The Beatles' Progress (1964)

Initially, during the sixties, a less influential book, because it did not sell so well, was ‘Love Me Do! – The Beatles’ Progress’ [32]. The author Michael Braun covers The Beatles on tour during late 1963 and early 1964. ‘Love Me Do!’ presents a fully independent view, with literary qualities. Michael Braun was a bloody good journalist, sometimes well-connected, and had artistic sensitivities. 

Even though Lennon suggested in the ‘Lennon Remembers’ [33] interviews ‘Love Me Do!’ portrayed The Beatles as they really were, 'bastards', in reality, Braun's sketch did not deviate much from what Weber calls the formal Fab Four Narrative. There is nothing salacious or bad about the boys in the book. Predominantly 'Love Me Do!' evokes the young Beatles' relative innocence, and yields interestingly forthright comments on various social topics. Braun shows none of the four Beatles were naive nitwits.

Michael Brocken and Melissa Davis annotated 'Love Me Do!' in their ‘The Beatles Bibliography: A New Guide To The Literature’ [17]:

“Braun, a renowned journalist of the day, travelled with the Beatles on their British tours; as such he created an early piece of critical social anthropology and observational ethnography as a way to understand the phenomenon of the Beatles and their fan base. This book, therefore, is both historically and scholarly interesting via its consideration of Beatlemania in situ. The book was re-issued in 1995 (long overdue) and remains highly recommended as an engrossing and atmospheric (yet erudite) piece of work from the 1960s. It was Braun who was responsible for John Lennon obtaining the publishing deal that resulted in the publication of 'In His Own Write', according to Bill Harry.”

3. The Beatles (1968)

      Hunter Davies is a good journalist. The famous first authorized biography 'The Beatles' [34] was commissioned in early 1967, including an agreement with Brian Epstein and The Beatles. A little over 12 months later he turns in the manuscript. 'That is no mean feat.' [31] 

      He was an ambitious reputable young successful journalist who convinced McCartney, then Epstein, and subsequently the other boys that a book about The Beatles was a good thing to have. Hunter Davies created a really fine piece of journalism.

      The template Hunter created with this biography, especially the beat of the story in presenting the facts, is the golden standard most other Beatles biographers are working from. 'The Beatles: All The Years', [35] which is hopefully going to be Mark Lewisohn's magnum opus, is a massively augmented version of Hunter Davies' story, using the same beat. [31]

      Critics should open up, and stop believing that the information in the book is a useless 'cleaned-up' version as The Beatles had final editorial approval. I bet these critics can't remember the scenes in the studio, or Paul's honesty about his emotions and culpabilities, or that readers of fifteen years old would read he lost his virginity at the age of fifteen to a babysitter.

      The book describes composing and recording sessions, through Hunter Davies, we can observe the boys creating their art. In those scenes, Hunter Davies is as good if not better than Michael Braun in 'Love Me Do!'. The reportage of these scenes is incredibly important. To read the scenes is still spinetingling. The story zips along with such energy and impact, he captures them and the moments so nice.

      This is one of the best depictions of the personalities of The Beatles there is available. There is so much about their personalities and their perceptions of private and Beatle life. Hunter presents it with journalistic curiosity; no negativity, no sanctification. Less judgemental than most of what I've read in all of the other books that came later, and that really includes 'Tune In'. 

      There is no way I can appreciate how Weber as a historian dismisses the book as a prime source. It has so much contemporary careful reporting she totally neglects. The dismissal is based on the contractual provision that allows parties to weigh in, e.g. tweaking by Mimi, John, and Epstein's family, because Brian had died in the summer of 1967. 

      Whatever the quibbles you may have with this book, it should not prevent historians and fans from carefully assessing and appreciating the unique quality of this book, as a prime and contemporary secondary source.

      How can somebody miss this prime source of unique quality? 

      I am going to read the book again, and you dear reader, I advise you to do the same. 

       And here is some other advice: listen to the conversation Joe Wisbey had with Andy Miller on Hunter Davies' book, these are two cool cats.[31] 

      Many observations you just read are actually from Joe and Andy, and I wholly agree with these, their conversation is so inspiring that I guess the observer-bias got the best of me.

No 'branding' for The Beatles in the 1960s.

In reviewing the English music business of the sixties, Tessler finds that expansive storytelling-as-history was not yet part of branding and marketing strategy for pop and rock groups. Her observations:

“While critical in contemporary industrial practice, awareness of these types of activities largely did not exist at the time of The Beatles’ success.” [25]

A.        ‘No Logo’

Naomi Klein in ‘No Logo’ confirms Tessler’s observation: ‘although it was understood in the corporate world that bolstering one’s brand name was important, (until the 1980s) the primary concern of every solid manufacturer was the production of goods’.[36]

B.        The NEMS archives

Was Epstein the unique great strategic outlier among his ‘velvet’ colleagues? In absence of evidence in various biographies, books, documentaries, etc. which discuss Epstein’s contributions and activities, we will have to wait for analyses, of the 'marketing' documents in what is left of the NEMS archives. Wherever they are. Let's root for Mark's perseverance and his historian's luck.

C.        ‘Tune In’ by Mark Lewisohn

Mark Lewisohn’s ‘Tune In’ [35], Volume one in the ‘All These Years’ biography of The Beatles, follows history until December 31st 1962. In no way it offers support for Weber’s conclusion that there was full control of The Beatles narrative in the media. Neither does the book offer evidence that branding in the broadest sense was a conscious effort by Brian Epstein or anyone else on the NEMS-staff.

D.       Stramsact / Seltaeb, the merchandising deals

The analysis of the Stramsact / Seltaeb deals for Beatles’ merchandise, in Blaney’s ‘Beatles for Sale’ [37], offers evidence for the assertion that brand-oriented and strategic directives from Brian Epstein were absent from the business planning in the broadest sense.

Based on contract and court documents, Stan Soocher provides funny, fascinating, factual accounts of courtroom proceedings, and sideshow shenanigans in ‘Baby You're A Rich Man - Suing The Beatles for fun and profit’. [38] 

Brian Epstein had good advisors, e.g. David Jacobs, Brian's chief solicitor, with Brian's power of attorney. Initially, they seem to have made a bad deal for the exploitation of The Beatles' merchandise. Brian Epstein does not really strike me as a terrible businessman, yet Colonel Parker had previously done a much better job for Elvis. 

NEMS executive director, Peter Brown reports, in his memoir 'The Love You Make', how the deal and choice of business-partners, none of whom were experienced in the merchandise business, happened. [39] 

The arrangement was lopsided and ill-advised. It allows for speculation that perhaps somebody was muscling Brian Epstein.

When Brian found out how much money he had given away, he was sick and feared what The Beatles would say. Peter Brown "When it dawned on Brian what had happened, it started to make him physically ill. He couldn't think of it without wanting to vomit". [39]

Epstein's prime concern was to avoid risks to his boys' image. In legal terms, NEMS had reserved ‘the right to reasonably object to any items calculated or likely to lower the reputation of The Beatles in the mind of the public’. 

Conclusion

Tessler's observations indicate NEMS did not act from “a unified and deliberate marketing or branding plan”.[26] Other sources confirm this kind of thinking did not occur. 

All indications described above undermine Weber’s hypothesis that during the sixties the clean and friendly mop-top image as part of the Fab Four narrative and myth was the result of editorial control and/or careful strategic considerations by Brian Epstein and his NEMS-staff. 

In the words of Holly Tessler:

“… in the case of The Beatles, and indeed of most of 1960s popular music in general, industry personnel had comparatively little understanding of or regard for the considerable long-term potential of ancillary revenue streams generated through documenting the life histories of popular music acts.

Thus, it can be expected that both Epstein and The Beatles’ focus was primarily attuned to the production of records and songs and not on cohesive and deliberate development, marketing and promotion of The Beatles brand.” [26]

Other episodes in the series 'A critique of The Beatles' historiography':  

Part 1. Failing the 70's - a critique of The Beatles’ historiography.

Part 2. Failing the fans in the 70s - a critique of The Beatles' historiography.

---

[1] Those entry points should make things easier - but that is not always the case.

Erin Torkelson Weber blames Walter Everett for drawing information from Philip Norman's 'Shout!' (a). She concludes, that musicologist Walter Everett "cites Shout! numerous times and offers interpretations apparently influenced by Norman's conclusions".(b) 

Weber is critical and makes it appear as if Philip Norman's 'Shout!' is Walt's main source and that he is at fault here. She offers no specifics, except generalizations. So, why on earth did she write down this frivolous statement?

Well here is good news and bad news. The good news is Weber gets it wrong. In Everett's book 'The Beatles as musicians: The Quarrymen through Rubber Soul' (c), references to Philip Norman are rare. In 'The Beatles as musicians: Revolver to the Anthology' (d), there are fewer than twenty references to 'Shout!'. Everett delivers more than 600 pages of text, without appendices, tables, etc. In these pages e.g. Tim Riley (e), Mark Lewisohn (f), and Hunter Davies (g) are referenced individually more often than Philip Norman. It seems Walt Everett spreads his wings wide and far, to catch the wind he needs to make his argument. This is good. It proves competent scholarship.

To get a better understanding of the quality of use of sources every reference deserves scrutiny. A lot of work indeed, for historians these evaluations are essential and the key to the quality of their conclusions or statements. The bad news is that Erin Torkelson Weber should and could do a better job for the next edition of her Beatles' historiography.

Authors about The Beatles don't make life easy for readers and researchers. In his 'Selected Sources' for his essay on the cooperation between John Lennon and Paul McCartney, in his brilliant 'Powers of Two : finding essence of innovation in creative pairs' (h), Joshua Wolf Schenk mentions almost 40 (excluding websites, and interviews) sources, mostly all known primary sources, and some more. 

Sources:

(a) Norman, Philip (1981). Shout! The True Story of The Beatles. Elm Tree Books. ISBN: 978-0241103005. Print.

(b) Torkelson Weber, Erin (2016). The Beatles and the Historians. An Analysis of Writings about the fab Four. McFarland & Company. ISBN: 978-1-4766-2470-9. E-book. pp.438.

(c) Everett, Walter (2001). The Beatles as musicians: The Quarrymen through Rubber Soul. Oxford University Press. ISBN: 0-19-514105-9. Print.

(d) Everett, Walter (1999). The Beatles as musicians: Revolver to the Anthology. Oxford University Press. ISBN: 0-19-512941-5. Print.

(e) Riley, Tim (1988). Tell Me Why. The Beatles: Album by Album, Song by Song, the sixties and after. Random House Inc. ISBN: 9780394550619. Print. 

(f) Lewisohn, Mark (1989). The Beatles: Recording Sessions. Harmony, New York. ISBN: 9780517570661. Print.

- Lewisohn, Mark (1992). The Complete Beatles Chronicle. Harmony, New York. ISBN: 9780517581001. Print.

(g) Davies, Hunter (1968). The Beatles. William Heinemann Ltd. ISBN: 434176044. Print.

(h) Schenk, Joshua Wolf (2014). Powers of Two: finding essence of innovation in creative pairs. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. First Mariner Books Edition. ISBN: 978-0-544-03202-6. E-book.  

[2] 'The Thinking Head' from Juhani Pallasmaa is revealing about the process of creation in a way I understand it to be relevant for many artists.

Source:

- Pallasmaa, Juhani (2009). The Thinking Head. Existential And Embodied Wisdom in Architecture. Wiley. ISBN: 978-0-470-77929-3. Print.

[3] Torkelson Weber, Erin (2016). The Beatles and the Historians. An Analysis of Writings about the fab Four. McFarland & Company. ISBN: 1476662665. Print.

[4] Duffett, Mark (2020). REVIEW | The Beatles and Fandom: Sex, Death and Progressive Nostalgia. Richard Mills. Journal of the International Association for the Study of Popular Music. Vol.10 no.1 (2020). DOI 10.5429/2079-3871(2020)v10i1.10en. Online.

[5] Jenkins, Paul O. and Jenkins, Hugh; editors (2018). Teaching The Beatles. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. ISBN: 978-0-203-70240-6. E-book.

[6] Rezak, David (2018). Teaching Beatles business. In ‘Teaching The Beatles’. Editors: Paul O. Jenkins and Hugh Jenkins. Routledge / Taylor & Francis Group. ISBN: 978-0-203-70240-6. E-book. pp.61-71.

[7] Mills, Richard (2019). The Beatles and Fandom: Sex, Death and Progressive Nostalgia. Bloomsbury Academic. ISBN: 978-1501346620. Print.

[8] Womack, Kenneth and O’Toole, Kit; editors (2021). Fandom and The Beatles: The Act You've Known for All These Years. Oxford University Press. ISBN: 978-0190917869. Print.

[9] Collins, Marcus (2020). The Beatles and Sixties Britain. Cambridge University Press. ISBN: 9781108477246. Print.

[10] Womack, Kenneth; editor (2020). The Beatles in context. Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/9781108296939. ISBN: 978-1-108-41911-6. Print.

[11] Pollack, Allan (1989/2001). Allan W. Pollack’s ‘Notes On’ Series.

Assessed January 2021: https://www.recmusicbeatles.com/public/files/awp/awp.html. Online.

Another online location for this invaluable musical resource:

Assessed January 2021: http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/awp-notes_on.shtml. Online.

These song analyses were originally published on The 'Official' rec.music.beatles Home Page.

Several articles have been published in the online magazine Soundscapes.info, ISSN 1567-7745, journal on media culture:

- Tillekens, Ger (1999). A Beatles’ Odyssey. Alan W. Pollack's musicological journey through the Beatles songs. Soundscapes.info, Volume 1, March 1999. Assessed January 2021: http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/VOLUME01/A_Beatles_Odyssey.shtml. Online.

- Tillekens, Ger (1999). The official Beatles’ canon. A list of all 212 Beatles’ songs and covers officially released on record between 1962 and 1970. Soundscapes.info, Volume 2, December 1999. Assessed January 2021: http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/awp-beatles_canon.shtml. Online.

- Hammond, Ian (2000). ‘I was nervously awaiting …’ An interview with Alan W. Pollack. Soundscapes.info, Volume 2, February 2000. Assessed January 2021: http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/interview.shtml. Online.

This ‘Notes On’ series deserves praise and scrutiny. I propose a commemorative publication, containing critical essays describing the sources, history, content, exploitation and experts should comment on and evaluate the content of these ‘Notes On’.

[12] Tillekens, Ger (1998/2010). Het Geluid van The Beatles. Het Spinhuis (1998). Groningen (2010). ISBN: 90-5589-112-6. Print and PDF.

[13] Everett, Walter, and Riley, Tim (2019). What Goes On: The Beatles, Their Music, and Their Time. Oxford University Press, USA. ISBN: 9780190213176. Print.

[14] Brothers, Thomas David (2018). Help! : The Beatles, Duke Ellington, and the magic of collaboration. W.W. Norton & Company, Inc. ISBN 978-0-393-24624. e-Book.

[15] A focus on The Beatles is not always appreciated by students. Musicologist Aaron Krerowicz recently reported that some of his students suggested it would be nice to have a broader scope of musical examples than The Beatles.

Source: facebook, February 25, 2021. Assessed February 2021: https://www.facebook.com/MonkeyCoconut/posts/10158563512268937?comment_id=10158564810493937. Online.

[16] Everett, Walter (2009). The Foundations of Rock. From "Blue Suede Shoes" to "Suite: Judy Blue Eyes". Oxford University Press. ISBN: 978-0-19-531024-5. (pbk.). Print.

[17] Michael Brocken produced many articles and books about the historical development of music, places, and people. The work mostly referred to is his ‘The Beatles Bibliography’:

- Brocken, Michael, and Davis, Melissa (2012). The Beatles Bibliography : A New Guide to the Literature. The Beatle Works Limited, Manitou Springs, Colorado. ISBN 9780615670652. Print.

In 2014 a supplement was published:

- Brocken, Michael, and Davis, Melissa (2014). The Beatles Bibliography: A New Guide to the Literature, Supplement 2013. Manitou Springs, CO: Beatles Works.

After this supplement, the project seems to die a slow death, with complete neglect of email and orders, by both authors. In 2019/2020 Melissa Davis announced she intends to pick up the project. However, as of February 2021 I am not aware of any progress.

‘The Beatles Bibliography’ is a major work in The Beatles’ historiography. This is the most recent and most extensive ‘annotated bibliography’. It is unique from the perspective that it contains serious assessments of primary and secondary sources and, at times, offers conclusions regarding their overall credibility and accuracy. According to Erin Torkelson Weber the authors did not apply a historical methodology to the sources, they did not consider the various books’ roles in The Beatles’ historiography, neither did it place them in their respective phases and narratives, nor does they examine the arc of Beatles historiography as a whole.

Whatever the criticism; this book is good. It is very good, and deserves additional funding and smart people for a major overhaul to get a new and updated edition published,

[18] BBC Staff (2011). First Master of Beatles graduates. BBC.com, January 26, 2011. Assessed February 2021: http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/liverpool/hi/people_and_places/newsid_9376000/9376984.stm. Online.

[19] From the website of University of Liverpool:

Applications for the MA in The Beatles: Music Industry and Heritage are now open. To find out more about the programme, including how to apply, visit www.liverpool.ac.uk/study/postgraduate-taught/taught/beatles-ma/overview/.

[20] BBC staff (2021). The Beatles: University of Liverpool offers master's degree in Fab Four. BBC.com/News February 24th 2021. Assessed February 2021: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-56182212. Online.

[21] University of Liverpool, Department of Music (2021). World's only Masters in The Beatles, Music Industry and Heritage launched. University of Liverpool, February 24, 2021. Assessed February 2021: https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/music/news/articles/world-first-masters-in-the-beatles-music-industry-and-heritage-launched/. Online.

[22] Weber, Erin Torkelson Weber (2016-2020). ABOUT THIS BLOG. On ‘The Historian and The Beatles. Reviews of Beatles Biography’. Assessed February 2021: https://beatlebioreview.wordpress.com. Online.

[23] Tessler, Holly (2009). Beatles for Sale : The Role and Significance of Storytelling in the Commercialisation and Cultural Branding of the Beatles since 1970. Thèse de doctorat, University of Liverpool. Unpublished.

[24] Tessler, Holly Susan (2009). Abstract of: ‘Beatles for sale : the role and significance of storytelling in the commercialisation and cultural branding of the Beatles since 1970’. PhD/Doctoral thesis at University of Liverpool. ISNI: 0000 0004 2680 4955. Assessed February 2021: https://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.510946. Online.

[25] Marx, Karl (1852). Der 18te Brumaire des Louis Napoleon. (Original German title) In 'Die Revolution', New York Joseph Arnold Weydemeyer. 

English online text, assessed March 2021: https://web.archive.org/web/20170303190424/http://www.marx2mao.com/M&E/EBLB52.html 

The events of January 6th 2021 in and around the Capitol in Washington D.C. can be viewed through the lens of Marx' 'Der 18te Brumaire des Louis Napoleon' and the fascist traits of the dynamics and events including the rise and fall, and (yeah 'rise' what will happen in 2021/2022?) of T**** become obvious.

[26] Tessler, Holly Susan (2020). The role and significance of storytelling in the creation of the ‘post-Sixties’ Beatles, 1970–1980. Popular Music History, 5.2. pp.169-189. doi:10.1558/pomh.v5i2.169. Online.

[27] Torkelson Weber, Erin (2016). The Beatles and the Historians. An Analysis of Writings about the fab Four. McFarland & Company. ISBN: 978-1-4766-2470-9. E-book. pp.15+47.

[28] Source:

- Womack, K., and T. F. Davis, eds. (2006). Reading The Beatles: Cultural Studies, Literary Criticism, and the Fab Four. State University of New York Press. ISBN: 978-0-7914-6715-5. Print.

- Inglis, Ian, ed. (2000). The Beatles, Popular Music and Society. A Thousand Voices. Macmillan Press Ltd. ISBN: 978-0-333-73205-2. Print.

- Gould, Jonathan. (2007). Can’t Buy Me Love: The Beatles, Britain, and America. Harmony Books. Crown Publishing Group. ISBN: 978-0-307-40549-4c 

[29] Shepherd, Billy (1964). The True Story Of The Beatles. Beat Publications Ltd. Print.

[30] Johnson, Paul (1964). The Menace of Beatlism. New Statesman, February 28, 1964. 

Source:

- Evans, Mike (2009/2014). The Beatles: Paperback Writer: 40 Years of Classic Writing. Plexus Publishing Ltd. ISBN:978-0-85965-8966. Kindle Edition. pp.103-107.

[31] Wisbey, Joe and Miller, Andy (2021). Hunter Davies - 'The Beatles- The Authorised Biography' with Andy Miller. On 'Beatles Books' podcast, February 19, 2021. Assessed March 2021: https://www.podbean.com/site/EpisodeDownload/PBFB33DC8N2T5. Online.

[32] Braun, Michael (1964/2016). ‘Love Me Do!’ The Beatles’ Progress. Graymalkin Media. ISBN: 978-1-63168-079-3. E-book.

[33] Lennon, John; Wenner, Jann (1971). Lennon Remembers - The Rolling Stone interviews. Straight Arrow Books, ISBN: 978-0-879320096. Print. pp. 61 and 74.

[34] Davies, Hunter (1968). The Beatles. William Heinemann Ltd. ISBN: 434176044. Print.

[35] Lewisohn, Mark (2013). The Beatles: All These Years #1. Tune In.  Extended Special Edition, 1728 pages. Little, Brown. ISBN: 9781408704783. Print. 

[36] Klein, Naomi (2000/2009). No Logo. Vintage Canada. ISBN: 978-0-307-36631-3. E-book.

[37] Blaney, J. (2008). Beatles for Sale: How Everything They Touched Turned to Gold. Jawbone Press. ISBN: 9781906002091. Print.

[38] Soocher, Stan (2015). Baby You're A Rich Man. Suing The Beatles For Fun & Profit. ForeEdge, University Press of New England. ISBN: 978-1-61168-380-6. Print.

[39] Brown, Peter, and Gaines, Steven (1983). The Love You Make. An insider's story of The Beatles. Penguin Publishing Group. ISBN: 978-1-440-67407-5. Kindle Edition. p.117. 

© 2021 The Beatles Review of History. The work of the original interviewers and publishers is gratefully acknowledged and excerpts are reproduced on this site under allowances for fair use in copyright law. If anything on this blog constitutes an infringement on your copyright, please let us know, and we will consider removing the materials.

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

Last changes made on 09/03/2021,01:50 CET.