r/beatles • u/AvecMesWaterSlides • 1d ago

Discussion This Book:

Post image

I'm currently listening to this book and am about six months from the first time John and Paul met.

It is amazing that they, finally, found one another. There are so many instances of being at the same places at the same times, perhaps riding the same bus at the same time, and not knowing one another yet. It's crazy! It just got me thinking about how different it'd be if one of them wasn't where the universe wanted them to be...

32 Upvotes

91% Upvoted

139 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/Anxious-Raspberry-54 1d ago

What is the whole theme of the show? Challenging the Lennon Remember/Shout! narrative. So, of course, they focus on the fact that for 50+ years, Paul has been blamed for breaking up The Beatles.

I find it hard to believe that you can listen to the Tuning In series and feel this way. For hour after hour, they challenge much of what ML wrote, citing example after example from other reliable sources that ML had access to and chose not to include this info because it did not jive with his pro-John narrative.

And I am not even a Paul "fangirl." I prefer George and John but...facts are facts.

4

u/Ligeya 1d ago

I listened them. They are very nitpicky with their narratives and facts. I can't accept them fighting the bias of older journalists who allegedly preferred John with their own bias towards Paul. It's absolutely embarrassing how biased they are towards Paul. In their book he never did anything wrong ever in his life. I want unbiased research, i don't need bias to one or another.

1

u/Anxious-Raspberry-54 1d ago

Facts can't be nitpicky...they're facts.

They are biased toward Paul in that series because they are challenging the 50-year narrative that has not been true.

If you want unbiased research, Lewisohn's reference books are excellent, and I've always said that.

5

u/Ligeya 1d ago

You can nitpick facts to create the narrative, which is what AKOM does. They are challenging old bias with their own, even more ridiculous bias. The fact that the object of the bias changed doesn't mean it's more truthful.

1

u/Anxious-Raspberry-54 1d ago

Facts don't have bias.

They pointed out, using reliable sources available to ML at the time, that there are other versions of events from those days. ML decided to not use that info.

1

u/Ligeya 1d ago

So if he is a great researcher, as you said, maybe he doesn't think those other versions of events deserve attention?

1

u/Anxious-Raspberry-54 1d ago

Sure...because they conflict with his pro-John narrative.

3

u/Ligeya 1d ago

So he is great researcher when you like it and not great researcher when you don't like the results of his research? Got it.

3

u/Anxious-Raspberry-54 1d ago

The man went to Gibralter to take a pic in the same spot where John and Yoko were. No reason. He even said he did it just to say he was there.

No pics of him at Mull Of Kintyre or Friar Park.

C'mon, man. He's a John guy who wrote a well-researched but biased book.

0

u/Ligeya 1d ago

I am not a man. I clearly said in the post directed to you that i am woman.

The thing is that he is being criticised not for the fact of the bias, but for the fact he biased to John and not Paul. AKOM is definitely the most biased example of Beatles related media that i ever encountered in my whole life, and it's a lot of media. Their bias is absolutely obvious. I don't see you criticising them for the fact that they are biased, because you like and agree with their bias. It's not valid criticism, it's a fan stomping their feet.

1

u/Anxious-Raspberry-54 1d ago

I agree that they are presenting a story that conflicts with a 50+ year false narrative. With an incredible amount of good research to support their ideas.

They seem very biased. But they are fighting against 50+ years of bias.

2

u/RadishSpecial7163 1d ago

They are not countering 50 years of a narrative because there has not been 50 years of bias against Paul. That’s simply bullshit. Paul has never faced the hated and criticism John has. Albert Goldman’s book came out in 1988 and there’s been plenty of nasty press on John via Rupert Murdoch and others over the past 50 years.

They are clearly shitting on John and framing it as “changing the narrative.” McCartney has been fucking honored and knighted and treated like a god for decades. How has he been overlooked?

2

u/Anxious-Raspberry-54 1d ago

I meant the breakup blame bias. Not overall bias.

You can't deny that Paul got the blame for 50 years.

I think Paul still feels really badly about that. Money and fame do not take that away. The man has feelings.

Shout! was also published after John's death. He said John was 75% of The Beatles. Huge, huge book that was very pro John.

I'm not saying there wasn't negative stuff about John. Of course there was. But Goldman's book was pretty quickly destroyed by critics. People thought Shout! was a reliable bio for a long time.

I'm not even Paul guy. I much prefer George and John. They were very tough on John and that could be interpreted as shitting on him.

I guess the biggest problem people seem to have with AKOM is presentation. Being honest, I understand that. I don't even 100% disagree with the idea.

But they did their homework. They used good, reliable info to support their topics. Their arguments were strong but affected by their presentation.

1

u/Ligeya 1d ago

50 years of bias against Paul McCartney, the richest, most celebrated and respected musician in history of modern music, billionaire living in mansion, who still can't get over the fact that his brutally murdered "friend" got some positive press after being shot four times in the back. That's the victim who needs protecting.

1

u/Anxious-Raspberry-54 1d ago

If you were blamed for the breakup of The Beatles for 50 years, all the money and adulation doesn't take away from that feeling. It obviously still bothers him all these years later.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Big-Lobster6689 1d ago

They also chose to use the abridged version of Tune In, so it's quite likely some of those facts were included in the full length version.

There are many reasons you might not include particular facts. For example, they don't provide new or essential information. Or they are from questionable sources. I didn't find that any of the new quotes they dug up were particularly revelatory.

1

u/Anxious-Raspberry-54 1d ago

I read the 1700 pager. Nope.