From: dmaclaug@agsm.ucla.edu (saki)
Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles
Subject: Re: what about a LIES intro file?
Summary: A brief cogitation
Date: 10 Apr 92 04:57:22 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Anderson Graduate School Of Management

In article <1992Apr8.153027.6591@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcodogno@isis.cs.du.edu (Maurizio  Codogno) writes:
>I was thinking at all the misinformation about the Fabs (metropolitan
>legends and so on). Wouldn't be nice an INTRO file which collects some of
>these, to be added to saki's distribution?

Ah, you'd like me to be the *purveyor* of misinformation. Do you
have me confused with the Bush administration? :-)

If it's real disinformation you're after, Albert Goldman and Fred
Seamans are already in the winner's circle. These are men with an
agenda---all of it negative. In my field, when a tome is written
with such complete disregard for documentation and fact-checking,
we tend to ignore it, more or less. But are there curious readers
who don't feel settled unless they give every Beatles theoretician his
or her due? That's fine with me; but it's definitely not the approach
of a reader who has only finite time to spent on sourcebooks. And I
don't want to rehash their suppositions even with qualifiers---unless
someone writes me into their advertising budget! :-)

We discuss the biggest urban legend here regularly, sometimes twice
a week: the "Paul is dead" myth. When a bit of folklore has such
remarkable staying power, it behooves us to start asking more
in-depth questions about it---not merely trying to establish its
veracity (which can't be done anyway) but focusing on *why* it
still exists. Barbara Suczek, writing twenty years ago in a journal
called "Urban Life and Culture" (it's since been reprinted in
Pierian Press' "A Beatles Reader"), suggests that the "Paul is
dead" story carries with it some revealing hallmarks of folkloric
generation: its stable content, suggesting a "trustworthy" news story;
its empirical and logical irrelevance (viz., actual basis in fact
is non-essential; :-) a preoccupation  with death and the occult,
"twin themes that are fundamental to myth".

Over time the strength of this mythic story has changed. While
Suczek thought that the story was an attempt to replicate other myth
cycles such as those of Osiris, Dionysis, Jesus, I think it's clear
to everyone now that Paul is certainly alive. Rather what continues to
fascinate is the idea that the Beatles planned and carried out this
elaborate hoax under the watchful eyes of a world of fans...and this,
I think, is more a reflection on *our* cynical age than it is a viable
explanation for what the Beatles did during their spare time. :-)

Most illusions are past us now; few rock stars believe in their own
game anymore...and how are we to value what *they* produce if, ultimately,
they devalue their own art? As tired as the Fabs became during their
years of relentless touring and LP production, I don't think they
ever believed their songwriting was the stuff of buffoonery. It makes
for a very cynical message indeed if their music was constructed to play
out an elaborate practical joke.... But see, this is its own topic. :-)

What about other untruths? The need to devalue the past via rumor---
that Ringo never did his own drumming, that John and Brian were
lovers, that Pete Best was sacked because he was so talented---is a
nifty way to smash the perceived golden age. There must be holes in the
Fabs' fabric, so it seems...or if not, we'll invent some. :-)  (Thus
Phillip Norman's probably-innocent attempt to reevaluate Beatlemania's
impact in England, asserting that it was far less significant than it
actually was.) I wonder too if there isn't a rampant need to turn
the past into a medium for our current obsession with political
correctness. But seeing Brian's passion for the Beatles merely as
a sexual one---or trying to explain John's naivete on that Spanish
Holiday as a clear element of his unexpressed bisexuality---ignores
cultural and biographical realities of those times. It was only thirty 
years ago...but in some ways we're centuries down the line.

And the Beatles themselves were quite the little mythmakers. John
was writing parodies of their history as early as 1961 in Mersey
Beat ("A Short Diversion on the Dubious Origins of Beatles") but 
soon they were facing such fanzine prose for real. Once fame became
the goal, John trotted off meekly to Bill Harry to ask the return of
any embarrassing photos. And the publicity mill (staffed by Tony Barrow
and Derek Taylor) spawned newly invented lists of "likes and dislikes"
(because every other pop idol had them), and "answers" to such mysteries
as: wherefrom their strange haircuts, Ringo's predilection for rings,
their name. In interviews, the Beatles had to recite their memorized
patter or make up equally inane responses on the spur of the moment.
Much of this, too, has passed into legend as substantive "history".

But is a specialized information note on "lies" the answer?

I fear that repetition of rumors, folklore, and outright lies will
burn them into impressionable minds. This doesn't mean that people
here can't think for themselves; of course they can. But when one
sees an assertion in print, one is apt to remember the vivid myth
rather than the humble truth. The latter is so dull, anyway. That's
why the Dodo Bird recites history to Alice, who's just emerged from
a pool of tears: "It's the driest thing I know", says the bird. But
rumors? In cold, hard type (even the electronic kind) it's tough to
know what's real. So said singer Joe Jackson, quoting a devotee of 
tabloid journalism: "They wouldn't print it if it wasn't true."

I wouldn't want anyone to have to guess on which side this esteemed
newsgroup stands. :-)
--
"Listen to this! I'm going to give it expression as well."
-------------------------------------------------------------
saki (dmaclaug@agsm.ucla.edu)