Remarkable work for such a young writer, but this Beatles fan and retired editor wants to blue pencil the begeezus out of this. Lots of verbatim repetition, and the only mention of George and Ringo is a snarky one-paragraph putdown with nothing to back it up. I get that the topic is John v. Paul, but if you are going to bring George and Ringo into the larger discussion of the Beatles, do some research and acknowledge Ringo as a highly respected, innovative rock drummer. Recall that George was quietly compiling All Things Must Pass as John and Paul largely ignored his attempts to contribute, while Here Comes the Sun and Something are undeniable classics.
Anyway, thanks for making this available, Gene. I've been trying to track this down since you posted the excerpt.
Good article; poorly organized. It only scratches the surface and finds strength of argument largely through repetition. As a life-long fan and consumer of vast amounts of Beatle commentary and examination, this is (at best) a jumping-off point for people wanting to explore how they came to write the most popular music of the 20th century. What I would really like to explore, and maybe could be a future Invitational, is the connection between substance abuse and creativity. I've noticed I can only overcome my acrophobia by drinking 4 cans of beer quickly... and then can scoot up a 32' extension ladder and even bounce it along the roof rather than climb down to move it. Point being, it overcomes inhibitions and probably is a driver of creativity. The Invitational would be, write (whatever you choose) under the influence of (personal choice of intoxicants) and then you and Rachel choose the best after getting wasted.
This was an interesting entry: "The four great American writers of this century, Hemingway, Faulkner, Fitzgerald and Weingarten, were constantly drunk." Considering it was a number of years before Gene's first Pulitzer, I guess that Joel can say that he saw it first.
FWIW, I saw Paul in concert at the then MCI Center in DC some 20 years ago. I'd put it in the top five I've been to.
The Joel A article was an interesting read, albeit he seemed to be a John guy (at the time??). Obviously, he was mistaken about Michael Jackson's body of work - music and masterful videos- , but that was 35 years ago. What does Joel think now? Does he wish to reflect on his 1990 article now for The Gene Pool crowd?
I saw Paul at Fenway Park in Boston in the early 2000s and he was AMAZING. I was completely blown away by his energy and stamina. I think he went for four hours without stopping?? It's easy to see from even their earliest recorded concerts that he was always a consummate performer - he made a point of relating to the audience and really playing off their joy and enthusiasm. It's wild to me that he's back out on tour again, right now! He's 77!
I think there's plenty of good writing in there, even if I firmly disagree with its John-Good-Paul-Bad thesis, but there's one thing that does need to be addressed: Achenbach's reduction of Michael Jackson to being a voice for other people's songs. Aside from the fact that Jackson was the sole credited writer for many of his hits, he was by many accounts deeply involved in creating the arrangements as well; while not an instrumentalist, he would craft things with his voice.
Thanks for posting. One thing the eventual posthumous biography will have to take into account is this fantastic resurgence he's had in touring. He's getting due credit now, as if he needed to prove anything. Did you attend the McCartney concert at Nats Field in 2014 or so?
I think they were creating opiates in a way. People became so addicted to their music that it kept them from from doing more worthwhile things (this goes for other types of pop music as well). It seems to go way beyond an appreciation of great music and triggers some sort of primal response.
Too tedious to read online. Recommend highlighting the whole thing, paste into word, and cut out the extraneous stuff (photos, etc.). Still comes to 16 pages.
The most important takeaway for me was this line: The four great American writers of this century, Hemingway, Faulkner, Fitzgerald and Weingarten, were constantly drunk.
other than that, an interesting read by someone who I will always read (I have long wanted to meet Mr. Achenbach because of how he translates science into something understandable)
Bangs may be the great critic. But as I disagree with Edmund Wilson about Tolkien, I find his view are not ones that I share. What do I know? Burbeck, Lewis and Fleetwood Mac are my favorites. And the Doors, of course.
Let's talk about "genius," shall we? No? Too late. Despite the word genius as used today deriving from the Latin for innate ability, my view is that geniuses are largely "made" not born. They are of a time and place with its influences (although not necessarily recognized as such at the time or in the place). And yes, my bias (in case you haven’t guessed…) is to the "nurture" side of the nature/nurture continuum of human existence, although I am willing to accept that a certain mental or intellectual predisposition does play a role. Strikes me, having been around a few certified ones and, more importantly, fitting neatly into my "environmental" theory of genius, is that a big part of being a genius is stimulation of one kind or another. Whether that's a "blue pencil" literally or figuratively wielded by a Gene Weingarten, critics, audiences or in Holmes' case, his sidekick and "biographer," Dr. John Watson, as he (condescendingly?) points out in "The Hound of the Baskervilles."
"'Really, Watson, you excel yourself,' said Holmes, pushing back his chair and lighting a cigarette. 'I am bound to say that in all the accounts which you've been so good as to give of my own small achievements you've habitually underrated your own abilities. It may be that you are not yourself luminous, but you are a conductor of light. Some people without possessing genius have a remarkable power of stimulating it. I confess, my dear fellow, that I am very much in your debt.'"
And of course, it was not only Lennon and McCartney who picked up the necessary cues and "suggestions" from audiences that established their genius; the best entertainers and performers have been doing that since the first story was told around a fire. Take Mozart, the "boy genius" himself.
Writing to his father, he complained that after the first movement of a new piano concerto, the audience did not, as usual, leap to its feet, shower him with gold coins and jewelry while shouting "bravissimos." "I was terribly upset by this," he allowed, "and have added considerably more virtuoso passages to the end of the movement so this lamentable occurrence should not happen again."
Did Achenbach figure out a way to call you a drunkard in print and get away with it?
Remarkable work for such a young writer, but this Beatles fan and retired editor wants to blue pencil the begeezus out of this. Lots of verbatim repetition, and the only mention of George and Ringo is a snarky one-paragraph putdown with nothing to back it up. I get that the topic is John v. Paul, but if you are going to bring George and Ringo into the larger discussion of the Beatles, do some research and acknowledge Ringo as a highly respected, innovative rock drummer. Recall that George was quietly compiling All Things Must Pass as John and Paul largely ignored his attempts to contribute, while Here Comes the Sun and Something are undeniable classics.
Anyway, thanks for making this available, Gene. I've been trying to track this down since you posted the excerpt.
"The four great American writers of this century, Hemingway, Faulkner, Fitzgerald and Weingarten"
Eh, what?
I loved that!!!
Was that in the original article as a shout-out from Achenbach to his editor, or did Gene change it for substack?
If the writer had had more time, he would have written a more concise article.
“Paul conformed. John conformed differently.” - E. Hemingway
Have always loved Joel A’s writing, never read this before. So many interesting takes on creativity and rock music. Also “necrobiographer.”
Good article; poorly organized. It only scratches the surface and finds strength of argument largely through repetition. As a life-long fan and consumer of vast amounts of Beatle commentary and examination, this is (at best) a jumping-off point for people wanting to explore how they came to write the most popular music of the 20th century. What I would really like to explore, and maybe could be a future Invitational, is the connection between substance abuse and creativity. I've noticed I can only overcome my acrophobia by drinking 4 cans of beer quickly... and then can scoot up a 32' extension ladder and even bounce it along the roof rather than climb down to move it. Point being, it overcomes inhibitions and probably is a driver of creativity. The Invitational would be, write (whatever you choose) under the influence of (personal choice of intoxicants) and then you and Rachel choose the best after getting wasted.
This was an interesting entry: "The four great American writers of this century, Hemingway, Faulkner, Fitzgerald and Weingarten, were constantly drunk." Considering it was a number of years before Gene's first Pulitzer, I guess that Joel can say that he saw it first.
FWIW, I saw Paul in concert at the then MCI Center in DC some 20 years ago. I'd put it in the top five I've been to.
The Joel A article was an interesting read, albeit he seemed to be a John guy (at the time??). Obviously, he was mistaken about Michael Jackson's body of work - music and masterful videos- , but that was 35 years ago. What does Joel think now? Does he wish to reflect on his 1990 article now for The Gene Pool crowd?
I saw Paul at Fenway Park in Boston in the early 2000s and he was AMAZING. I was completely blown away by his energy and stamina. I think he went for four hours without stopping?? It's easy to see from even their earliest recorded concerts that he was always a consummate performer - he made a point of relating to the audience and really playing off their joy and enthusiasm. It's wild to me that he's back out on tour again, right now! He's 77!
He's not 77. He's 82!
Holy crap you're right!!
I think there's plenty of good writing in there, even if I firmly disagree with its John-Good-Paul-Bad thesis, but there's one thing that does need to be addressed: Achenbach's reduction of Michael Jackson to being a voice for other people's songs. Aside from the fact that Jackson was the sole credited writer for many of his hits, he was by many accounts deeply involved in creating the arrangements as well; while not an instrumentalist, he would craft things with his voice.
Michael Jackson is overrated.
not really relevant to my comment.
I agree with Joel's characterization of Michael Jackson.
you're welcome to do that but "he wrote a lot of his songs" is not a matter of opinion.
Thanks for posting. One thing the eventual posthumous biography will have to take into account is this fantastic resurgence he's had in touring. He's getting due credit now, as if he needed to prove anything. Did you attend the McCartney concert at Nats Field in 2014 or so?
I think they were creating opiates in a way. People became so addicted to their music that it kept them from from doing more worthwhile things (this goes for other types of pop music as well). It seems to go way beyond an appreciation of great music and triggers some sort of primal response.
The scale for judging The Beatles didn't go far enough; it should have ended with Overrated
Too tedious to read online. Recommend highlighting the whole thing, paste into word, and cut out the extraneous stuff (photos, etc.). Still comes to 16 pages.
The most important takeaway for me was this line: The four great American writers of this century, Hemingway, Faulkner, Fitzgerald and Weingarten, were constantly drunk.
other than that, an interesting read by someone who I will always read (I have long wanted to meet Mr. Achenbach because of how he translates science into something understandable)
Bangs may be the great critic. But as I disagree with Edmund Wilson about Tolkien, I find his view are not ones that I share. What do I know? Burbeck, Lewis and Fleetwood Mac are my favorites. And the Doors, of course.
Let's talk about "genius," shall we? No? Too late. Despite the word genius as used today deriving from the Latin for innate ability, my view is that geniuses are largely "made" not born. They are of a time and place with its influences (although not necessarily recognized as such at the time or in the place). And yes, my bias (in case you haven’t guessed…) is to the "nurture" side of the nature/nurture continuum of human existence, although I am willing to accept that a certain mental or intellectual predisposition does play a role. Strikes me, having been around a few certified ones and, more importantly, fitting neatly into my "environmental" theory of genius, is that a big part of being a genius is stimulation of one kind or another. Whether that's a "blue pencil" literally or figuratively wielded by a Gene Weingarten, critics, audiences or in Holmes' case, his sidekick and "biographer," Dr. John Watson, as he (condescendingly?) points out in "The Hound of the Baskervilles."
"'Really, Watson, you excel yourself,' said Holmes, pushing back his chair and lighting a cigarette. 'I am bound to say that in all the accounts which you've been so good as to give of my own small achievements you've habitually underrated your own abilities. It may be that you are not yourself luminous, but you are a conductor of light. Some people without possessing genius have a remarkable power of stimulating it. I confess, my dear fellow, that I am very much in your debt.'"
And of course, it was not only Lennon and McCartney who picked up the necessary cues and "suggestions" from audiences that established their genius; the best entertainers and performers have been doing that since the first story was told around a fire. Take Mozart, the "boy genius" himself.
Writing to his father, he complained that after the first movement of a new piano concerto, the audience did not, as usual, leap to its feet, shower him with gold coins and jewelry while shouting "bravissimos." "I was terribly upset by this," he allowed, "and have added considerably more virtuoso passages to the end of the movement so this lamentable occurrence should not happen again."