I was born in’51 and came of age with the Beatles .In those days Canada was much closer to England that it was to the US in terms of culture. We caught on to the beatles wave very shortly after the UK and way before Ed Sullivan. Looking back now , what a blessing .
Yeah, I just now came across this! Only 3+ years behind the times.. Having read Lewisohn's Beatles' Recording Sessions masterwork, I was completely satisfied to know so much about my favourite band. Now I know I can go back to that time and relive The Beatles' story through this latest incredible undertaking! (and my wait for volume 2 won't be as long as it could have been). 😉 wOw! I'm going out to get this book ASAP!...
John didn't make a speech at the luncheon because he was terrified to stand alone in front of people he had zero in common with. It's in Cynthia's book.
It’s a bit jolting to see the presence of the “n-word” in his description of the sketch of the “scotch man” (around 4:35” in), even if Lennon was still not yet an adult at the time.
They have got words for us too y'know? Why don't you take equal exception to a Scots man being called a 'scotch'man? I'm sure to some that would be offensive too but I bet it never even crossed your mind did it?
"Negro/negroes" is not the "n-word". Negro was a term for people of African descent that was in common usage by most people in that era, including prominent black people like Martin Luther King. Jim Morrison used the term in the song Texas Radio & The Big Beat. It was only over time that "negro" became antiquated as "black" became the more common term. Obviously, the REAL N-word is a derogatory variation of "negro", but neither Lennon's use of it, nor Morrison's, nor anyone else's at that time was meant to be derogatory. This is why the whole phenomenon of applying current standards of perceived morality to those from another time period turns into a ridiculous exercise of being overly judgmental and moralistic.
I'm a huge Lennon fan, but the thing that's always confused me - for someone who was a 'voracious reader' from such a young age - was his consistently poor spelling to the end of his life (even spelling 'grammar school' as 'grammer' in an early Beatles Q&A) and his basic misunderstanding of the real meaning of the character of the 'Walrus' in Lewis Carroll. I know in his books he purposely misspelt and twisted words - that's a given - but even in answers to fans and in serious letters during the break-up, his spelling and punctuation is quite poor and eccentric. Maybe just an indication of his lazy inattention to detail, for which he was famous..... who knows. It's just confusing for a guy who was supposedly reading from such a young age..... still a genius though. And still very much missed....
I'm a voracious reader and diarist, and got my degree in English a decade ago, but even so I occasionally have blanks with the spelling of everyday words. I think it's just how some people are.
I was a very early reader, and read a lot because I was confined to bed, but my spelling is not that great ,, I think the reason is perhaps, early readers get over actually reading the words in detail very quickly, learning that noticing every letter is not necessary,. Quickly into speed reading.
I hear you, but history shows he was an impatient sort so probably read more by skimming through to glean the info he felt necessary rather than musing over the details, getting to the point, that was very much how he approached music (and business)
This has not dated well and neither has a lot of Lennon’s ‘literary’ writings. 2016 and ML thinks he can definitively say whether something is offensive or not. You can’t speak on behalf of other people, Mark! And stop using the terms ‘spastics’ and ‘cripples’ as if they still have a place in 21st Century language. His Lennon bias is troubling when it comes to writing All These Years. He surely knows that Cynthia has attested that John was terrified at that Foyles luncheon and they hid their nerves by getting drunk. Lennon felt out of his depth amongst the intellectuals and literary types present. There’s nothing wrong with that. Why does Mark pretend that John was doing something deliberately provocative? He was simply intimidated. ML may be going to the archives for his research but his narrative is re-writing history.
Mark Lewisohn is starting to grate in his fawning and somewhat uncritical gaze on Lennon. It does not bode well for an impartial history, imho. It doesn’t surprise me that his research access has been blocked by Apple, either. JL was of course talented but I have seen a similar standard of writing in otherwise quite average young men of 16 or 17... it’s not that rare actually, and simply derivative of Milligan, Sellers et al. The Goons were enormously influential in the comedy culture of the day, and John was an attention-seeking class clown who stopped writing nonsense when he eventually ‘grew up’. His experimentation allowed for interesting lyrics for Beatles songs, however, for which we can be thankful.
I was born in’51 and came of age with the Beatles .In those days Canada was much closer to England that it was to the US in terms of culture. We caught on to the beatles wave very shortly after the UK and way before Ed Sullivan. Looking back now , what a blessing .
I could listen to Mark all day. Fascinating stuff. Can't wait for Volume 2.
Always great to hear Mark Lewisohn.
He has become the authority on The Beatles. Everyone else is just hearsay.
I could listen to this for hours. I love Beatles' talk, especially when it's as knowledgeable as this.
In 1991, I performed in a play that had a script written around this book and 'ASpaniard In The Works'....it was great fun to work with the script
An enthralling talk. As interesting as his books.
The term “FLANGER” or “FLANGE” is a term used in recording today, that comes from John Lennon.
6:00 Definitely _NOT_ automatic writing (I don't think the host understands the meaning of the term).
ML said one of the photos showed John talking to Kingsley Amis. If I'm not mistaken, it is also KA in the previous slide (17:52).
Yeah, I just now came across this! Only 3+ years behind the times.. Having read Lewisohn's Beatles' Recording Sessions masterwork, I was completely satisfied to know so much about my favourite band. Now I know I can go back to that time and relive The Beatles' story through this latest incredible undertaking! (and my wait for volume 2 won't be as long as it could have been). 😉 wOw! I'm going out to get this book ASAP!...
I'm also wondering if Vol. 2 will be titled "Turn On" and Vol. 3, "Tune Out".
John didn't make a speech at the luncheon because he was terrified to stand alone in front of people he had zero in common with. It's in Cynthia's book.
That is fascinating and unexpected. He seemed so extroverted otherwise.
Was he hungover too?
Amazing video!
&
John was a genuis 7th
It’s a bit jolting to see the presence of the “n-word” in his description of the sketch of the “scotch man” (around 4:35” in), even if Lennon was still not yet an adult at the time.
They have got words for us too y'know? Why don't you take equal exception to a Scots man being called a 'scotch'man? I'm sure to some that would be offensive too but I bet it never even crossed your mind did it?
"Negro/negroes" is not the "n-word". Negro was a term for people of African descent that was in common usage by most people in that era, including prominent black people like Martin Luther King. Jim Morrison used the term in the song Texas Radio & The Big Beat. It was only over time that "negro" became antiquated as "black" became the more common term. Obviously, the REAL N-word is a derogatory variation of "negro", but neither Lennon's use of it, nor Morrison's, nor anyone else's at that time was meant to be derogatory. This is why the whole phenomenon of applying current standards of perceived morality to those from another time period turns into a ridiculous exercise of being overly judgmental and moralistic.
Strange that Stanley Unwin was mentioned and Ogden's Nut Gone Flake by The Small Faces is not mentioned.
Small Faces LP 1967. Unwin a 'media personality’ years before.
Ogden's Nut Gone Flake was released in 1968 four years after the first book was published. @@elgrandwazir1
Do a RUclips search of Colin Unwin/John Lennon
Y ¿cuándo lo traducirán al español? Y ¿cuándo esta entrevista doblada o traducida?
You can tell the Yellow Submarine cartoons were taken from John's cartoons.
No video games back then. Books.
For the lyrics question I suppose Vivian Stanshall and Neil Innes of the Bonzo Dog Do-Dah Band would be good examples.
@MrKaywyn William Shepherd aka Billy Shears who has been playing Paul McCartney since biological Paul died in 1966 was also Vivian!
@@lucytupper69 Haha-I knew a fellow PIDer would be here somewhere :)
@Lucy
Of course he has. Yes.Now take the rest of your life off.😂😂
John evaporating slightly? You must be joking, Mark.
I'm a huge Lennon fan, but the thing that's always confused me - for someone who was a 'voracious reader' from such a young age - was his consistently poor spelling to the end of his life (even spelling 'grammar school' as 'grammer' in an early Beatles Q&A) and his basic misunderstanding of the real meaning of the character of the 'Walrus' in Lewis Carroll. I know in his books he purposely misspelt and twisted words - that's a given - but even in answers to fans and in serious letters during the break-up, his spelling and punctuation is quite poor and eccentric. Maybe just an indication of his lazy inattention to detail, for which he was famous..... who knows. It's just confusing for a guy who was supposedly reading from such a young age..... still a genius though. And still very much missed....
I'm a voracious reader and diarist, and got my degree in English a decade ago, but even so I occasionally have blanks with the spelling of everyday words. I think it's just how some people are.
If he had ADD or ADHD, it is a common trait as they get older
I was a very early reader, and read a lot because I was confined to bed, but my spelling is not that great ,, I think the reason is perhaps, early readers get over actually reading the words in detail very quickly, learning that noticing every letter is not necessary,. Quickly into speed reading.
I hear you, but history shows he was an impatient sort so probably read more by skimming through to glean the info he felt necessary rather than musing over the details, getting to the point, that was very much how he approached music (and business)
There's a difference between a writer and an editor you know
Lucky face?
Gibberish
This has not dated well and neither has a lot of Lennon’s ‘literary’ writings. 2016 and ML thinks he can definitively say whether something is offensive or not. You can’t speak on behalf of other people, Mark! And stop using the terms ‘spastics’ and ‘cripples’ as if they still have a place in 21st Century language. His Lennon bias is troubling when it comes to writing All These Years. He surely knows that Cynthia has attested that John was terrified at that Foyles luncheon and they hid their nerves by getting drunk. Lennon felt out of his depth amongst the intellectuals and literary types present. There’s nothing wrong with that. Why does Mark pretend that John was doing something deliberately provocative? He was simply intimidated. ML may be going to the archives for his research but his narrative is re-writing history.
John Lennon was not much of a reader. He wasn't. Fact.
How do you know? Did you know John?
Mark Lewisohn is starting to grate in his fawning and somewhat uncritical gaze on Lennon. It does not bode well for an impartial history, imho. It doesn’t surprise me that his research access has been blocked by Apple, either. JL was of course talented but I have seen a similar standard of writing in otherwise quite average young men of 16 or 17... it’s not that rare actually, and simply derivative of Milligan, Sellers et al. The Goons were enormously influential in the comedy culture of the day, and John was an attention-seeking class clown who stopped writing nonsense when he eventually ‘grew up’. His experimentation allowed for interesting lyrics for Beatles songs, however, for which we can be thankful.
Did you read Tune In? If so, did you find it to be more hagiography than history? That was not my experience of the book.