The Beatles’ Reception And the Teleology of the Story

The Beatles’ reception has been hampered in recent decades by four factors: fetishism, sensational journalism, mental vandalism, and secrecy.


Fetishism is represented by biographer Philip Norman who admires The Beatles because he admires John Lennon, who he thinks resembles Bob Dylan. Dylan, on the other hand, is a favourite of 50s American Beatniks, the world’s top taste judges, based on the sociologistical nature of post-World War II values ​​and practices. Sociologism means applying the usual questions and methods of sociology outside of sociology, that is, we want to see sociology everywhere. The world of the 50s was obsessed with gangs that are social entities, and as The Beatles, or like Mick Jagger said, “the four-headed monster,” is too delicious of a gang. The rock band, with its mobile staff, whose professionalism and personalities intersect like in a soap opera, forms an ethnographic unit called the band.


Is it interesting to see when the Beatniks’ spiritual superiority over the world will cease? In Hamburg in the late summer and autumn of 1960, The Beatles became acquainted with young German art students who belonged to a subculture whose members called themselves Exis, short for existentialists. They were young German Beatniks who admired Frenchness. It’s an interesting coincidence that the band first used the name The Beatles when they first performed in Hamburg on August 17, 1960. Earlier that summer in Liverpool, poet Royston Ellis had introduced The Beatles to the world of thought by the Beatniks.


A kind of fetishism is also represented by Paul McCartney in his willingness to present himself as a very artistic type from an early age. That kind of artistry was more of a feature of his younger brother Michael where Paul was, after all, an ordinary lad who played in a band. So The Beatles are good because Paul likes to resemble his brother. Loafing would seem to have been more of a hobby for young Paul McCartney and George Harrison, after all, they weren’t interested in sports either (which is yet another interesting statistical coincidence for The Beatles; none of the four really support any football team).


Sensational journalism is an easy interpretation that relies on roughened views or even misconceptions about, for example, cultural history or the structures of music. The editors of the sensational magazines are masters at riveting together any kind of thought developments that they happen to get some grip on. Keeping mere consensus as an objective fact is a feature of sensational journalism.


Mental vandalism are claims that are actually based on some other claim that is not said because it is known to be potentially false. It seems strongly, for example, that the anti-Beatles campaign launched by American Christian circles in 1966 did not regard The Beatles’ inaccuracy as religious or spiritual in nature but political. But the communist accusations could not be made very much because no evidence was found for them.


What John Lennon said in an interview with Maureen Cleave, a trusted journalist, was a bare estimate of the level of Christianity in English society in 1966. Due to the uproar and campaigning, there was no debate about if Lennon engaged more in criticism of Christianity or non-Christianity?


But the questioners may not be interested in asking that question, because the “dogma” of these judges of taste – Beatniks – involves creating a confrontation between the things and groups of people they perceive as liberal and conservative, and that’s about it. This makes the members of the Beatnik intelligentsia mental vandals, that is, swampy here and there.


And even if the presumed anti-Christianism of Lennon or The Beatles as such would have deserved a smarter treatment?


In the same year 1966, Paul McCartney said in Japan something very remarkable when he blurted that The Beatles were “very traditional.” Such clairvoyance in that mess is very respectable; it is matter of fact and perspective-sustaining to point out that modern things have an inheritance somewhere. Perhaps the crowded behaviour of the audience made the band less traditional in the eyes of many.


The self-censorship or secrecy associated with the Beatles can be explained with business caution but not entirely. It’s hard to see, for example, what connection the business issues would have had with Chas Newby’s, who played bass in the band for a while in December 1960, real reasons for quitting the band.


Newby says he couldn’t realise The Beatles had any real chance of success, which is unbelievable because he happened to play at the very gig during which the Beatlemania phenomenon began, at Litherland Town Hall on December 27, 1960. Liverpool’s bands had more or less enthusiastic supporters but the shock-like behaviour wasn’t due to radio airplay or a television show but something else and it started that night that time.


Home in Liverpool, The Beatles thus had a fanatical crowd and in Hamburg a few supporters who could be described as intellectuals. Otherwise, no major interest was shown to them until February 1963. From the beginning of 1961, the band also got better off as a breadwinner after becoming Cavern’s regular performer. An interesting coincidence is also that Cavern got its name from a French jazz club; after all, in the winter of 1961-1962, The Beatles began to wear French-style costumes (which later began to look more Italian and thus mod) after combing their hair in French manner under the influence of German Exis who admired Frenchness.


And they didn’t sound very English either. The streamlined Fender guitars that came into vogue with Shadows shone with their absence, and instead the band used half-acoustic guitars with a rustling and squeaky sound. The band’s Irish roots can be heard in the music and the influence of older jazz is also notable.


What’s English in the style of the band is represented by the occasional appearance of the Anglican hymn-like melodicism, but in the middle of it all is the American blues. Strawberry Fields Forever is a blues song and a dazzlingly good one. Lennon’s voice and the sound of a half-acoustic electric guitar create an optimal tingling sonority, which speaks at least to the fact that John was used to singing blues in E minor.


The reason for the dismissal of Pete Best has not been made public and producer George Martin has stumbled in his talks on the matter; after all, he had nothing to do with the separation, contrary to what may have been suggested, nor was he unaware of the identity of Ringo Starr when he entered the studio, contrary to what Martin directly says. Martin has had a habit of emphasising his own contribution to things, which may be due to vanity, but could it still be due to the fact that doing so gives integrity to the stories?


(Martin had booked The Beatles for EMI Parlophone without audition, based on the demo alone. The idea that he would have hesitated with the matter cannot be true.)


Martin also said he heard Yesterday, recorded in the summer of 1965, first performed by Paul in a French hotel room in January 1964. Martin along his wife had arrived in Paris to celebrate the band’s recent success in America with the band and their manager.


Martin found the case in no way strange, that is, the fact that a song was recorded a year and a half after it was composed. Something strange, on the other hand, is in Paul McCartney ’s account that he heard the song in his sleep while living in his girlfriend Jane Asher’s family recidence in Marylebone, London, and this would have happened in the late spring of 1965.


Was George Martin perhaps some kind of a chatterbox whose overemphasising of his own role was part of a common strategy; after all, it is psychologically easier to perform a little exaggerated and “about there” if you don’t know how to distinguish between things that are to be kept secret?


What about those businesses then. The Beatles’ business guidelines were piled up in March 1963 the same week their first LPs was released and the media focused on following the consequences caused by and the the hitches of the so-called Profumo scandal. At the heart of the business were Brian Epstein, George Martin, Dick James – whom Martin had recommended to Epstein, John Lennon and Paul McCartney.


At first, the investments were smaller and the activity seemed over-cautious. There’s been reasoning that in the spring of 1963, the huge popularity could not yet be seen, but that’s odd for two reasons: since the February televised appearance, Beatlemania had already started to become a national phenomenon instead of just a local one, and the band had a greatly successful single record that Martin had called, right after its recording at the studio, “the band’s first number one hit.” If he ever sees the matter so clearly and correctly, he will probably share his findings with the manager Epstein so that the latter does not have to engage in dumping?


First, the criticism is rejected because there is no proper forecast and later because the spending is so wild that there are no examples of corresponding solutions in the past. So the forecast is always kind of either too bad or too good. There are worries about not seeing the future or not seeing the past.


The Beatles have always said they left the business to others, and Epstein to run, and focused on the music themselves. As a division of labour, of course, this is understandable, and Lennon and McCartney, as fluffy bohemians, probably weren’t very interested in sitting at general meetings, nor would they usually have had the time.


But they were both the sales item that was traded and whose output was traded. Epstein was adept at marketing the band’s image, and the press really took part in the work. But Epstein’s mental health was completely shattered by the beginning of 1964 at the latest, which gradually paralysed his ability to act and judge, and such cannot have unquestionised the musicians’ respect for him. Above all, he was often prevented from doing his work due to his psychiatric problems, after all, he had institutional periods.


Once Epstein’s work was done for the most part by someone other than him, how on earth did the band members have no opinion on how others handled the things, as it couldn’t have been identical? How on earth would the musicians’ confidence in the business side have been unbreakable when the business was run by a psychiatric inpatient? How did George Martin, who had trained as a precise businessman during his relatively long career as a producer, feel he could handle things with Epstein? It is hard to imagine that anything at all could have been handled by automatic control alone.


The Beatles have continually emphasised the feeling of a lost child after Epstein died in the fall of 1967, in a situation where they have to run their own business. On the other hand, they have said that they have been sincerely interested in it and that they wanted to develop some kind of alternative business. How is such an orphanhood possible in a situation where Epstein had been more or less “out of the game” for four years now?


Roadie Neil Aspinall took over the Beatles’ business. One may wonder how one of the most lucrative music businesses in the world is run with a roadie’s professionalism?


The public has praised Paul McCartney’s activity in preventing Apple’s businesses from running aground. Do people take into account that such activities require much more business expertise than what McCartney himself at the forefront is willing to admit to himself.


So could it be that talk of artistry and incomprehension over business is a big bluff that fits the story.


– – –


Ringo Starr has said he has been steadily drunk all his Beatles time. Something like this can be seen in some of the photographs taken in the second half of 1967. He excelled e.g. as Keith Moon’s drinking buddy, which might have been a little damp. Nevertheless, his memoirs in the Anthology documentary are the most accurate and his everyday conclusions the sharpest.


Like the notion that John went somehow confused at the Shea Stadium gig without coming sane anymore. Lennon was on the verge of a nervous breakdown and the song Help! is no joke for its lyrics. This was the beginning of Lennon’s frantic mixed drug use that culminated in heroinism.


The decision in the late summer of 1966 to end public appearances went largely into account of the U.S. tour’s campaign of resistance and the problems in the Philippines, but it was a matter of longer-term exhaustion. Why was John exhausted? The reason offered is hotel death and being constantly in the centre of interest. Beatles, on the other hand, have said they survived in their right minds because they had each other sharing these experiences, and that there is always calm in the eye of a storm.


My understanding is that in The Beatles as a whole, as it was formed after Stuart Sutcliffe’s departure, there were burdensome factors in which Lennon found himself as the payer.


When the band met Astrid, Klaus and Jürgen in Hamburg, they stepped into an unknown world of artistic intellectuals. Astrid aroused interest in all, on many levels. The charm of the forbidden fruit could be enhanced by her Germanness, for it was only fifteen years after the war. The band’s new German fellows were familiar with classical music, Klaus even knew how to perform it and taught George a little about the technique of playing classical guitar. These Germans considered the rock exotic and enjoyed the humour of The Beatles; Merseyside has lots of these comedians (Lemmy Kilmister states in his book that the early Beatles at Cavern in 1961 were so funny that they might as well have been a comedian group).


Stuart took the candy, Astrid. Stuart also left the band and began to focus on his studies as a painter, but unfortunately died pretty soon.


– – –


The Beatles were an alliance of two gangs; there was the Quarry Bank gang who were at the same time John’s band Quarrymen, whose playing skills were, on average, poor, as was most often the case with the gangs of boys winged by the 50s skiffle craze. After Elvis sang Heartbreak Hotel, these skiffle bands began to weave plots to turn into rock bands, and for doing so they needed electric guitars and decent drum kits that weren’t cheap. John, who had never seen the working class, at least in the mirror, naturally got produced a Rickenbacker guitar and a Fender amp even though he didn’t spend a day of his life at ordinary work.


Paul, George, and Ringo were of the working class but the former two disliked work. Ringo was different in this respect, as well as in the lack of Irish roots! Lazy Paddies, man. It’s been said that Liverpool is the capital of Ireland; after all, it has been the main gateway for the Irish to the outside world and still is the main destination for Irish drunken travel today. The people of Liverpool have developed the skill of directing Irish people, who are prone to brawl, mainly to their own pubs, let them quarrel among each other.


Paul and George attended the Liverpool Institute school in central Liverpool. Quarry Bank is located on the edge of a park, a short walk from both John and Paul’s youth homes and the suburb of Penny Lane.


The sons of the Liverpool Institute had their own gang and one of its members, Ivan Vaughan, also knew Lennon’s gang as John’s childhood friend. He introduced Paul to John and Paul pulled George into the band.


Paul McCartney and Ivan Vaughan went to the courtyard of St. Peter’s Church in Woolton to listen to the Quarrymen gig at a public event on July 6, 1957. That is generally considered the day John and Paul met because after the gig, Paul was aiming to join the band. However, there has been a plaque on the wall of the Jacaranda café that claims the boys first met the night before in Jacaranda. Jac is in Ropewalks, a neighborhood between downtown and Hope Street. There are many educational institutions around Hope Street, e.g. Liverpool Institute, and all kinds of bohemian fuss. There are drunkards in the pubs who look like they have been dug out of the sewer, I guess they would be thrown out elsewhere (because of the smell alone).


(Ropewalks’ name comes from the fact that rope makers used the area’s straight and sloping streets as help at reeling long ropes.)


All sorts of things can be said, but what makes the Jac wall claim interesting is that the founder and owner of the place was Allan Williams, The Beatles’ first manager, whose memory in many interviews has appeared much better than Paul or George’s, and much more accurate than John’s (Lennon moulded his memories a bit too much according to the occasional usage – if he felt like slamming his own songs, he directly said they were almost all bad).


Hardly Williams or any of his partners would have wanted to make a mockery of themselves by hanging on their wall nonsense that they don’t even believe in? Could it be that the account of the virginity of John and Paul meeting in the courtyard of a Wooltonian church is biblical in nature and fits the story?


The boys’ band was far from a professional or even activity reminiscent of an amateur band; it was the use of time by various boys together, cutting school and being away from work. Lennon tried to present it a little more purposefully and probably managed to create such an impression in some direction.


John and Paul began to compare their compositions and try to do something together. John’s aunt Mimi shunned working-class Paul somewhat and it was somewhat easier for the boys to strum at Paul’s home. They dreamed of a career as a famous songwriter team and their relationship developed into a competitive one.


Stuart Sutcliffe was not John’s competitor but an ally. He was John’s best friend. Paul knew how to play bass better than Stu, but John didn’t want to take complaints in his ears because he was the band’s boss, and for the boss, there should be the man entrusted to him. After Stu left the band, John was left with an empty lottery ticket: the ally was replaced by a competitor and the ally was a little questionable because he took the object of common admiration in front of the boss’s nose. And Astrid, as is well known, was the boys’ path to a more intellectual reality.


In a very metaphorical figurative sense, this makes Paul a symbolic lover of John’s, which hardly pleased either. However, the subtle homoerotic nuance produced by the set-up possibly appealed to Brian Epstein, who took off leather clothes from the orchestra and put on costumes instead. At the same time, the procedure stripped the band of most of the features of the stage comedy, further drifting the band away from everything English. See, the Brits don’t traditionally get startled if people throw themselves into being funny.


John and Paul’s competitive position had thus bounced to a super-realistic level, a higher dimension. Soon the duo started producing songs that were so good that they amazed everyone. The psychological pressure increased, especially at the end of Lennon’s, because the resulting situation meant defeat, and loss for him.


(Lennon was an exterminating angel because the key to his success was his loss.)


Stu’s family have been convinced that John and Stu would have had a gay relationship, and that John was jealous and punched Stu in his jealousy, which would have indirectly caused Stu’s early demise. This seems like an obsessive fantasy of family members, looking for an explanation for the “failure” of a talented boy.


– – –


The band’s famous deal with the Vox amplifier brand has also been poorly lit. It obligated the band to use Vox equipment to amplify the guitars. However, the band had no difficulty using a Fender amp at concerts, as evidenced in some photos. The contradiction is strange.


Beatlemania provably raged from the spring and winter of 1963 here and there, but some photographs also tell of very peaceful performances, e.g. on the island of Jersey in August 1963. Still, the performances have been claimed to be sold out.


The Beatles have kidnapped the world and the Beatniks have kidnapped The Beatles. There is no small group of business consultants who train professionals in any field to “succeed like The Beatles.” In our new world, we are all rock musicians; a rock musician has become an ideal image of man. It would make sense to ask why such an ideal image is needed at all and whether a person cannot be who he is.


The reception of The Beatles is thus topsy-turvy, and there are reasons for this, which are based on the Beatnik intellectuals’ conception of liberality and the inevitable clash of liberality and tradition. The Beatniks’ perception of The Beatles dominates not only the remarkably flat narrative of the band itself, but also the paradigms of more general discussion.


– – –




The example of The Beatles encourages people to express themselves artistically, what can be considered an anti-Christian seam. The music of The Beatles is deeply informal, which is not only anti-Christian but also an anti-modern structural matter.


The surface level of The Beatles’ music does not come from the absoluteness of the structures of the music, or any other program or “instruction,” but from the colour sense of the band and the producer. The echo in the upstairs bathroom at John Lennon’s home is something he later tried to emulate on his records and often drifted into long discussions about how this should be done. Such randomness and naturalism is anti-Christianism because it is pure corporeality. More specifically, The Beatles do not seek to construct musical entities in which their various sub-entities seek to serve as justifications for each other, which is antimodern, anti-classical, and anti-Christian in its potential recklessness. A slight exception to this is Sgt. Pepper, which is mainly based on McCartney’s ideas. Pepper, where the fitting details flow from one piece to another. In creating the form, however, the band uses the symbol function as a mediator instead of a straightforward structure, which is antimodern, anti-classical, and, in its ambiguous oriental obscurity, anti-Christian.


The Beatles lyrics have non-Christian features, such as in the song Tomorrow Never Knows, which draws on Buddhism, and several songs that sounder George’s Hindu world of thought. The most significant recurring factor is the presence of a bystander in the lyrics. The presence of a bystander can be considered a Christian trait, though that character is like a woman.


The woman is an expert on instincts, sensuality, the night, the Moon and Dionysus. The Christian world of thought, on the other hand, emphasises apollonism, even though there is not entirely clarity about the apollonism of Jesus. That Diana stares at us in many Beatles songs but we don’t always recognise her presence because she’s on our side to look at. Outsider. Is that woman Astrid, who represents the archetype of the Germanic sun goddess Sunna? The Beatles, by chance, got a super-muse for their music from Astrid, as well as the theme that keeps the lyrics going. The music of The Beatles is music of observation.


It is also a remarkable coincidence that the name of the person who has become a role model for the modern woman is Diana Spencer. The Beatles are, as has been mentioned, a role model for everyone, at least insofar as the Beatniks’ interpretations of the world are valid.


The Beatles’ music in a way seems to breathe out and the bystander is behind it. It is not appropriate to interpret a work of art by The Beatles as a coherent “whole” but as something that takes part in events in the outside world. It is thus a kind of magic that can be considered anti-Christianity (although the scholars of the Christmas story in the Bible may have been Iranian magicians).


Of course, if the figure of Jesus is invented to be considered as Zarathustrian as those sages, the concepts of Christianity and non-Christianity will be redefined. But it is not in accordance with the teaching of the Christian Church, merely theological private thinking (which does not mean that it should be right or wrong).


Paganism, magic, Buddhism and Hindu philosophy. It could be that the band itself ordered an entire American campaign of hatred against themselves in order to get rid of public speculation about the obvious spiritual nature of the music in one fell swoop. This is probably not the case, however, as evidenced by the many meager deliverances of outright death in the summer of 1966.


Thus, in opposing the Beatles, American believers still made their accusations right, but played the game of their ideological enemy because they lost their temper because of a fairly neutral assessment of the social situation that just happened to be published in a newspaper. The liberation of the entire 60s is essentially hatching out of Christianity but in its liberality it forgets whatever it was bringing in its place.


The anti-Christianity of The Beatles will thus be carried to the belief base of the world by the mediation of theatrical liberalism other than their own, which is spiritual vandalism.


So should The Beatles have been invented if they hadn’t invented themselves? The band is such a perfect instrument of ideological warfare that perhaps yes. And I’m still not saying it’s wrong, the Beatnik’s interpretations are just limited, narrow-minded and fanatical.


– – –




There is as little justification for Beatles’ communism as there is for Stu Sutcliffe’s homosexuality. Many journalists probably wanted to ask them directly about the issue but did not ask because they understood they only would have received raffinated answers. Besides, it does no good to sell a magazine if its supplier suspects the best-selling product in the world is spoiled.


Lennon was later a poodle of the American radical left, albeit only transiently. As Ringo said, after the Shea gig, the guy was a bit out of the way and John had already had time to declare himself a working-class hero (in a song whose lyrics are otherwise excellent) on the grounds where the work column reads zero days. John’s attitudes were influenced by his new wife Yoko’s beliefs that Yoko took care of John’s thought activities. Yoko thinks Imagine is equally her song and Yoko also defined how to interpret John’s output. As a result of all this, John began to believe that Yoko was somehow mystically controlling his life, suggesting that Yoko was not really John’s mother figure but a substitute for Astrid and a representative of the embodied Sun Goddess, a wise even if whimsical bystander. From the East, the Sun always rises!


By conventional methods, The Beatles’ communism can, of course, be regarded as full-fledged rubbish because the boys were engaged in business, as has been mentioned above. But on the other hand, communists are skilled businessmen because they have studied the ways of their enemies, that is, done their homework. The good or bad of The Beatles’ business skills is a million-dollar question that is expected to be answered. Hindu philosopher George Harrison complained about taxes in a song called Taxman that sparkles with political populism, not communism either.


Within the radical left, it became customary in the late 1960s to consider rock music as an anti-imperialist movement and rock even an expression of classicalism, if not the crown jewel of classical music. Because of all the anti-classical features of The Beatles, that represents a rather eccentric interpretation of both the classics and The Beatles. However, it has been very easy for these radical leftists to associate their admiration for The Beatles with the political attitudes that led to the ban on all Beatles music in some countries.




Tony Bramwell, once responsible for marketing Beatles records, said Beatles records were sold in Britain alone a quarter of a million a week. It’s every week, every year, for many years. It is obvious that the challenges for the business then lie in production technology and logistics, not marketing. The Beatles were a drug whose need was only increased by the other drugs on offer.


The Abbey Road staff became, in a way, a lower cleric of The Beatles clan. There was no shortage of recording engineers, technicians and scientists if something was to be shortlisted. The main goal of the business was to keep itself running; sensible strategic goals could not much be set in a situation where the whole is on a “warp drive.” The problems of a person like Bramwell were hardly at their biggest end.


Of course, EMI wanted to sell products at regular intervals, and The Beatles’ job was just to produce them. EMI was not interested in artistic goals even though the producer George Martin honestly was. The main thing was that the “mill” put out money, and in the summer of 1967, the idea that the best artists would have become the most commercially successful, could form for many gullible people.


Suddenly, after Epstein’s death, band members became interested in freeing music from excessive business control. The question arises, how is such a change of attitude possible if, until then, they had been purposefully protected from the whole thing, after all, having declared their desire to be in the control of the business without knowing anything about it?


(At the same time, the band created the rock band’s archetype as big babies.)


That is, how can one try to get rid of something from which he has such a flimsy perception. The Beatles had managed to turn their own artistic adventure and ambition into a money-making machine: they wanted to make new records because the records represented the artistic interest of their creators and were sold because everything sold. That’s Novelty. The Beatniks – them again – fed the narrative to the public that as The Beatles “evolved,” the entire conscious youth developed and tilted toward a higher awareness. Which, of course, increased sales.


Starting to resemble the hustle and bustle of the radical left? In the post-war world in general, excellent tricks have been developed to increase sales with communist attitudes.


– – –


Bill Harry was an art student who loved his passion for jazz. He also published two jazz magazines. But in 1960, which coincidentally was the same year the Beatles became Beatles and they became acquainted with the lives of the Beatniks in both Liverpool and Hamburg, he woke up to the fact that something was happening in Liverpool that had happened in New Orleans, America sixty years earlier. Merseyside had four hundred bands that, like The Beatles, ran somewhere between skiffle, entertainment music and rock’n’roll; then there were the jazz bands separately.


Rock music, completed in America in Memphis with the combined effort of a record producer, a few eccentrics and the media, had become a living local culture, not just a hype, somewhere else, outside of America. So is it reasonable to think that rock’n’roll was born in Liverpool? Maybe it would. In Liverpool’s reading, the western swing of old American musicians had been left out and instead Chuck Berry’s twisting style was interpreted more heavily. It could not have been further from London’s agility. London was always looking for something light to identify with, and the Liverpool scousers, whatever they ever came up with, were inevitably something else with certainty.


Bill Harry founded a rock magazine after a couple of jazz magazines, Mersey Beat was the name. Gerry Marsden’s Pacemakers plus The Beatles were the most enthusiastic about getting themselves featured in the magazine. For The Beatles, this was no problem in 1961 because their popularity at the Cavern was well established and great. In England, the lunch hour for high school students was an hour long, and many of them periodically queued in to the Cavern. (Later, Cavern’s bouncer Paddy Delaney saved The Beatles from being lynched by the dismissal of Pete Best, and the one who managed to whip George with a fist was Mick Box (different from Uriah Heep’s guitarist).)


In Mersey Beat’s first release in 1961, The Beatles were the number one topic challenged by Gerry & The Pacemakers. It was clear to the people of Liverpool that The Beatles, who were considered bums and losers just a year earlier, were at the peak of local popularity. That year-long development, in the meantime, had been marked by a time in Hamburg and a remarkable gig in Litherland, during which the bolting of the audience that occurred, later was repeated elsewhere.


If we are serious now, even though Chas Newby was a better bassist than Stu, the band could not have been in any exemplarily trained shape with him. It was these desperate projects of Lennon’s. Then out of the blue, surprisingly, the audience goes completely mad. The girls who have come to seek for evening entertainment are suddenly behaving like priestesses of voodoo!


The popularity and dominance of The Beatles was absolute first in Merseyside, then throughout Britain and then throughout the world. That feels planned.


– – –


The Beatles were John’s band but Paul’s project, which explains their competitive relations. That, of course, fits the idea that there would have been more people appearing in the name of Paul McCartney. What about the fundamental difference between Paul and his brother Michael, and the fact that the brothers as children looked quite similar but not quite as adults?


Paul is a bit of a silly French artist, Mike is James Bond. This is regardless of whether Mike was the artist of the two.


Paul’s peculiar transformation in the second half of 1966 has not gone unnoticed.


– – –


The Beatles themselves wanted to tell their own story in a TV documentary called Anthology, which was mostly made in 1993-1994. Even in the 80s, there would have been no interest in The Beatles or any other rock band wanting to tell their own story. It has a taste for rectification, that is, to refute various sets of arguments that are thought or known to be wrong.


In the 80s, fanzines like Bucketful of Brains were read where enthusiasts thought the deepest knowledge was located. Those magazines were available in shabby second-hand boutiques, ratholes whose owners and merchants resembled a gatekeeper. That’s what they were, gatekeepers of encrypted information. That information was encrypted because it was hardly possible to be interested in it. The activity was legal but had a sense of illegality.


In the early 90s, digital recording and all sorts of retro made a big rush. For example, because of digital television cameras, the nature of the image remains the same whether it was taken recently or years ago. That is, the technical development had moved somewhere which is not reflected in the surface level of the end result. There was a need for clarification and justification. In this perspective, it is a little strange that Paul McCartney’s vagueness and George Harrison’s unispiredness shrouded in cynicism dominate the Anthology documentary. The main merit of the documentary is that now at least it became clear what the members of The Beatles who were alive at the time and producer George Martin wanted to say.


Of course, the documentary has its technical merits, for example, Rain has a better sounding version than the original single or the CD available until then.


The visual essence of The Beatles and the playing surface of the music are characterised by such a unified and excellent elegance that their communication is allowed to be assumed the same. At least it’s allowed to be surprised if it turns out to be the other way around.


Brian Epstein was mentally so ill that he could be nothing but a fiddler. However, he is systematically given the impression of being a steel-strong and extremely responsible person. The Beatles themselves, on the other hand, were nice-hearted, even though they must have had opinions about running a business, even though they couldn’t have terribly much of the skill. After Epstein’s death, they suddenly developed advanced opinions about things they didn’t know anything about before.


The Beatles clan has generally called Epstein’s death suicide. All the factual information on the subject points to an unfortunate coincidence, a contraindication of drugs and alcohol that the body may have endured in the past but this time no longer. It is special that the clan must brand Epstein as having committed suicide, although doing so is by no means necessary. The same people who do their best to polish Epstein’s public image in every other way!


In order for such a spontaneous and at the same time strange manner to emerge, things must either be as it is said or it is agreed to talk about it in a certain way. If Epstein committed suicide, all indications are that he had committed a slow suicide for four years. That is not called suicide. If Epstein did not commit suicide, why are the people who deeply respect him, his main “clients,” that claim such a thing? Could it be a murder about which talks are wanted to be slain by the talks of a suicide.


Epstein always talked about The Beatles as his customers, and under the guise of a customer relationship, of course, you can keep quiet about anything. However, John and Paul were his business partners and at the business level, The Beatles were a collective project, as mentioned earlier.


– – –


A medical doctor in Helsinki said that he had played Tony Sheridan’s My Bonnie on a jukebox in Haaga neighbourhood of Helsinki several times since late 1961. He had been a Beatles fan in 1961. A full two years later, he had wondered if that instrumental band had started singing.


The Beatles’ reception in Finland has thus first been addressed to the instrumental band, it is addressed to the background band of the vocal soloist, it is The Shadows. There were differences in the labels on the German Polydor singles, somewhere on the Sheridan backing band Beat Brothers and somewhere then The Beatles. It is confusing that the name Beat Brothers was used by others.


In any case, in the autumn of 1963, when the band started to become popular in Finland, the band was not completely unknown to us, which makes Finland different from America. Yes, the Finland’s Slot Machine Association  spread its record purchases also elsewhere than to Haaga (which, however, was a suburb at the time, almost in Lapland).


– – –




John Lennon was shot at his doorstep in New York City exactly twenty years after he had played his last gig on his first trip to Hamburg. His bandmates had been deported from Germany, for variety of reasons, except Stu who was left in Astrid’s tails. Lennon had no money or a roommate and his playing buddies were random, unknown to him. John was dragged back to Liverpool by train and ship and two weeks later a commotion began at home.


Probably John would have gained lodging from a German maiden during the last days of his first visit to Hamburg, even as doormat? I guess John was so proud he couldn’t get his mind off the lady grabbed by his ally. Alliance is, of course, risky: if a dispute arises between the allies over something, the dynamics of the larger whole will inevitably falter, allowing the original basis of the alliance to disappear.


The Beatles, as it were, were based on the loss of John Lennon’s and the turn of his gang into an unstable, effervescent one. John was not the anarchist but Paul was.




I hope this form of my narrative is so squiggly that it is not accidentally associated with the story that The Beatles are usually told about. There is a teleology to that usual story that manifests itself in a few things:


  • Lennon was the gang leader in “natural order.” Although he was a lanky and short-sighted type (qualities that Nowhere Boy seeks to brush off).
  • Lennon had an unwavering belief in democracy and a developed sense of collectivity.
  • Lennon may have had temporary sex with just about anyone (woman) but his willingness to give up the relationship with Cynthia was zero (although throwing himself with Yoko at a later stage was quite smooth to him).
  • Some events may be narrated as they are because it’s biblical that way.
  • The Beatles survived the problems because they always had “creative ideas” that were at the same time optimally conducive to performance. All the members of the band in the different line-ups of the band adapted to implement these ideas without any problems and automatically.
  • The Beatles’ foundations were artistic and they already had a strong and diverse cultural background as teenagers.


There is no need for one to be a skilled storyteller to cook up a fascinating storyline from these starting points. Is the ghostliness, in which The Beatles’ story resembles that story (that I’m not telling), a feature of the world or a cosmic change taking place in the world?


Or is there fictionality in the story?


Olen syntynyt vuonna 1968. Olen insinööri, isä, poika ja muusikko.

Ilmoita asiaton viesti


Ilmoitus asiattomasta sisällöstä on vastaanotettu