A few quick book reviews.

The Beatles Literary Anthology; Mike Evans, Ed. I enjoyed this collection ofserious and not so serious writings about the Beatles; balanced, occasionally insightful and occasionally amusing. Worth bothering with by serious Beatles students.

Band on the Run: A History of Paul McCartney and Wings; Garry McGee. I give this a VERY low score on accuracy. More then a sentence here without acknowledgement are taken verbatim from either Solewicz or Flippo (neither of whom are more then occasionally accurate as well as being more hostile to Paul then not. It does have a few nice Photos. The chart statistics gathered in the back are interesting as his analysis of them. Very light weight and a good 20 years out of date.

Paul McCartney; 20 Years on His Own; Edward Gross. Except for a few nice quotes I havn’t seen elsewhere, copy the above review.

In My Life, Encounters with The Beatles; Edited by Robert  Cording, Shelli Jankowski-Smith and EJ Miller Laino. Another collection that in no way stands equal in interest to the above Anthology nor Read the Beatles. The ONLY book about the Beatles that plunged me into immediate and rather deep depression! A true loser in my opinion. Worn to transparency, they are the lost surviving examples of late-blooming pseudo intellectualists with sad, blurred pretensions of cool.

Paul McCartney; Behind the Myth; Ross Benson; The accurate subtitle would be “How Paul Destroyed the Beatles and Was A Failure Alone.” Possibly the ugliest of all the carefully chosen photos of Paul on the cover. The author is obsessed with the idea that Jim McCartney was what was wrong with Paul — a theory that gets old fast. his antipathy for Paul hints at a personal grudge. Among other problems, like ‘edited’ material offered between quotation marks and some untruths that appear to be the author’s own, it’s an inept hatchet job considered against similar books.

McCartney, Christopher Sandford.  It would be far easier to mark the true statements rather then the errors. Unflattering photographs abound He combines the prose of a WWII war correspondent for Hustler with the hysterical hatred as intense as the Pope’s toward Martin Luther. All in all, I wonder what the name of his failed garage band was.

Meet the Beatles, A Cultural History of the Band That Shook Youth, Gender, and the World; Steven D. Stark.  I strongly disagree with some of his sociological theories and many of the quotations  are grossly time-shifted — without acknowledgement of that fact. He attributes most jointly composed songs to John alone. Included are several weird “what ifs” that are completely pointless. He greatly overrates the “sexless” image of the early Beatles — which is NOT the way he came over to most young females! Not a bad read and he does have some interesting theories. Of the lot I reviewed this morning, only this and the Literary Anthology seem to me to be worth reading.

Memory Almost Full – Review

So, am I ready to write a review of Memory Almost Full? I’ve got several thousand words done already from commenting on the album, the individual songs, the reviews, the critics themselves and what the album means to me. Thousands of words and I suspect even I am not really interested in reading them all. Worse yet, they don’t even begin to communicate how I feel about this album. In the year and a half I’ve been seriously learning about the Beatles, learning their history–that of the Band as well as that of each member and close associate–I’ve come to have a lot of respect for McCarthey’s talent and ability. Perhaps one of the most attractive thing about this album is that it showcases those talents in their full maturity without loosing his playfulness and humon.Play McCartney (I) right after listening to Memory; yes, it’s very much the same man with almost 40 more years practicing his art.

First of all, the album absolutely blew me away. I now truly understand that most difficult of Beatle words; “gobsmacked.” I’m confident that it means the way I felt the moment when the album really hit me. That wasn’t the first time I listened to it or even the second; it was either the third or fourth. I was sitting right here in front of my computer with the speakers neatly aimed at my ears while it played and built and quite suddenly it crashed into me.

It’s more then just difficult to write a review of this album; if you’ve really listened to it, your mind and emotions are, at the very least, a bit unsettled. Not necessarily by what is said but by the way he leads you into and out of the songs, tweeks your own memory bank and finesses you into a look back at your own life. Truly listening to this album puts you on a mad, dark roller coaster ride; helter skelter you’re up and then you’re down—serious, happy, puzzled, abandoned. Who else would write a song for mandolin and work-boot? Who else could?

Paul’s voice, as always, is confident and pure (when that’s what he wants.) The album is full of music difficult to sing well. Considered simply as an additional music instrument, the human voice has more variety and flexibility then any other. The possessor of a remarkably elastic and true voice, Paul exploits it fully from a clear, warm, open low to an equally warm and pure high and an assortment of rocker-raucous inbetweens. Knowledge and practice beat youth and beauty most days.

I’ll take Paul at his word; that he generally isn’t thinking about what’s going on in his own life when he writes a song; he just makes up a song. He knows that some of his fans can’t resist trying to link the love songs up with his wives or children or somebody and his sad songs with whatever. I don’t think it seriously irritates him but if he ever did write any songs about HM, I suspect they’ll never be recorded and the demo tapes are ashes. On the other hand, I wasn’t able to resist making some tentative and not really serious connections in House of Wax—the Beatles were the House, Beatlemania the walls and who each of them really is/was are the secrets hidden in the yard. Anyway, if you need to know, House of Wax is my favorite (at the moment) in the album. I was on the verge of getting angry about the women “scream and runn around,” let’s not get into the female hysteria bit, but he pulled a major save with “Like wild demented horses.” Now that’s some imagry I can really dig!

I’m not going to go through this album song by song. It opens with a bounce, a gentle rocker (albeit with words to think about) and a 100% solid gold McCartney silly love song of unusual beauty. (Though I’d like to know where he found those butterflys that buzz) Having made his polished bow to expectations and the past, Paul proceeds to bounce our heads off the floor, walls and ceiling! This album could just as well been titled “It’s About Time” in more ways then one. While I’ve found that a lot of people who really liked Chaos and Creation in the Backyard don’t like this one as well, and visa versa, I’ll admit to being very, very fond of both.

As a whole, the album is definitely disturbing. It is crafted to arouse mixed emotions and it surely must have been deliberate. It comes close to setting up a dissonance in your brain the way the Beatles used subtle dissonance to help the girls scream. Did Paul deliberately select songs that would have this effect? Is the somehow a concept album? Not an album for people who hate thinking.

Also not an album safe for the knee-jerk (you can leave the “knee” out, I don’t mind) McCartney haters. Number 3 on the Billboard chart in the US, number 1 on the internet album sales, number 2 in downloads and number 5 in Britain, either means that Paul has managed to accumulate a vast number of devoted fans OR it’s a damn fine album. Doesn’t make the whiners look too good as the waffle around citing one of Paul’s early solo albums as his best work – we remember how much those same albums were hated at their release.

Paul’s Date

I’m not going to make a habit of commenting on newspaper stories about “the divorce” (shades of the 1930s) but one in the March 25, 2007 — The Mirror Is more then just a bit too much.
MACCA: OUT OF THE FRYING PAN by Carole Malone
But the biggest drawback is that Ms Guinness, 52, has spent most of her adult life ricocheting from one unsuitable man to another. There was a time when she had relationships with almost every top-ranking musician ever to have a hit – Rod Stewart, Mick Jagger and Bryan Ferry to name but a few.
I realize it’s too much to expect a tabloid editor to draw the line at puerile accusations based on abysmal ignorance. That’s their basic stock in trade. Not only does Ms Malone obviously consider dating rockers and princes for fun (and no doubt for games) is the equivalent of putting out to Arab arms dealers for cash; she tries to reanimate the fictional feud between The Beatles and the Rolling Stones – which only existed in the imaginations of earlier tabloid geniuses and a second-rate record company that dropped the golden ball on The Beatles.
She also is apparently oblivious to the fact that Paul’s “good wife” Linda had her own flings with many of the same rockers before she married Paul. Or that Paul could manage a pretty darn good fling his ownself.
Frankly, I think any single woman of 50-something who doesn’t have a “past” can safely be assumed to be too boring for Paul.

Music and the Human Brain

While there has been a lot of research on the nature of the human brain in recent years–primarily due to MRI and other new methods of getting images from within the body–I haven’t seen much on how music affects us. There was something about heartbeat and drums – which has been well known for a very long time although not ‘scientifically proven”. Science also is saying that music affects all parts of the brain in contrast to most human activities that tend to affect specialized areas. They also believe that some music can aid infant development and can help students learn.

“Music researchers are finding correlations between music making and some of the deepest workings of the human brain. Research has linked active music making with increased language discrimination and development, math ability, improved school grades, better-adjusted social behavior, and improvements in “spatial-temporal reasoning,” – a cornerstone for problem solving.” http://www.amc-music.com/musicmaking/thebrain.htm

What I’m not finding is any papers on effects on brain, nervous system and emotions – preferably divided between pre- and early-teens, later teens and adults as well as males and females. I have the strong impression that music affects men and women differently. Thinking back over a lifetime of listening to music chosen by a male and conversation about music with males, it seems to me that they have a more intellectual approach to it, that the words are very important to them and that moving to the music is less important (essential) to them then it is to women.

It’s clear when following the Beatles music that while they began addressing young teens their music developed in a way that began to really catch the attention of older teens, young adult and even the occasional unprejudiced grownup. It’s also clear that girls do react differently then boys of comparable ages to being present at a Beatles performance. I am NOT saying that the boys are less enthusiastic, film clips in Anthology make it clear that there are a lot of males (and grown-ups) present and that they are thoroughly enjoying it, just differently.

We’ll have to wait for more research into the questions I’ve raised here and in my last post. I’ve sort of tacked on my thoughts about music, age and gender, but it’s not going to fit anywhere else. I’m sure that some of my readers will disagree and I’d like to encourage them to comment. While wiring people up to fancy machinery and sticking their heads into a MRI (or other) scanner provides a lot of solid information; I’m personally rather fond of personal accounts and other such informal data even though science doesn’t like to trust folks to have accurate perceptions about themselves.

Review of Magic Circles; The Beatles in Dream and History

I”m sorry for not keeping up with a daily post for those few of you who have found this blog. I’ve been trying to set up the little bit of code that would let you request updates by email. Unfortunately, the softwear is doing something strange and I’ve asked support to see if they can fix it. Meanwhile, I’m going to stop frustrating myself and shall attempt to begin publicizing this blog a bit. There’s an incomplete subscription opportunity in the margin that is the trouble maker. I’m leaving it as it is for the moment in the hope that support will be able to find the glitch. Certainly I’ll do my best to get that and the feeds installed as soon as I can figure out the FAQs while I keep reminding myself that programmers aren’t writers.

I gave myself a few Beatles books this month and have read one of them: Magic Circles, The Beatles in Dream and History by Devin McKinney;Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 2003. I looked Mr.McKinney up and the only biographical information I found is that he is “an independant scholar living in Brookelyn.” Google’s results indicate that he frequently reviews books, movies and music.

The book is driven by long, hard-hitting adjectives and surely crashes by faster than most tomes produced by the presses of a great universitiy. One problem with Freudians is that they become so relentlessly Freudian. Why is it that phallic symbols are always tall, straight things pointing at the sky? Seems to me the last four or five inches of a sun-warmed garden hose hanging off the edge of the porch looks at least as much like a penis as the Washington Monument does. But no, it’s always something tall, slim and straight like the middle finger pointing at the heavens.

One very strange chapter intercuts an account of the Paul Is Dead madness with the Manson murders, separated by quotes from a book titled Holes and Other Superficialities, a book by two philosophers managing to discuss the history of philosophy in terms of holes in things. Goes with all the phallic stuff at any rate! The reason for mixing up these two situations appears to be the author’s desire to call attention to the fact that both aberations were fantasies others have about the Beatles, not something the Beatles had anything to do with. Seems to me there really are less confusing ways to accomplish this. Paragraphs on some Beatle imitation songs got in there also.

This book is in very little danger of being ravaged by us fan-addicts for mistakes in the Beatlesl history as it relates almost none of it. The book is an attempt to find how much of the relationship between the Beatles and the events of the later 60s were matters of cause and effect and if so, which way it flowed. There are some good ideas in it although most of the best are in the first chapter where they tend to get covered by the author’s purile enjoyment of toilet references.

He makes a very valliant attempt to understand the 60s. but as he says, it’s impossible to recreate the feelings if you weren’t there. Unfortunately, he concentrates on the 60s types that got in the news a lot and the everyday lives of most people floats under his radar. Less excusable is his almost total avoidance of the feminist movement which is left off the the lists of ‘what was going on’ in almost every instance. That’s rather a sad omission as it and integration are just about the only movements that were successful in the long run.

I’m not going to recommend this book to anyone; it’s very difficult reading and information isn’t all that thick on the ground. He does have a few ideas and interpretations and I’m not at all sorry to have read it. It’s quite possible in the end I’ll decide it’s the funniest book ever written about the Beatles. Only time will tell that though. I’m still sorting through his suggestions to see if any of them ring true for me.