Customer Reviews

Meet the Beatles: A Cultural History of the Band That Shook Youth, Gender, and the World

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

If you are looking for a pleasurable trip down memory lane, you won't be disappointed -- and you may be suprised to find that this book is much more than that. The author is an astute observer of modern culture, and he discerns the influence of the Beatles in places I had never thought to look, particularly gender roles. And likewise his treatment of how the 60's continue to reverberate in today's world -- not just the conventional "sex, drugs and rock-and-roll" but some thought-provoking views on how the culture wars began. Hardly a hagiography, the book is unflinching in its descriptions of the Beatles' backgrounds and behavior(but never sensationalized.) Stark weaves insight and humor throughout, making it a book I found hard to put down.

I read this book just a few weeks after finishing "Magical Mystery Tours" by Tony Bramwell. "Meet the Beatles" made a nice, though somehwat underwhelming, compliment to Bramwell's enjoyable romp thru Beatles lore. As Stark says in the preface, his goal is to dissect why the Beatles ruled the world rather than just to rehash the "day-to-day" experiences of the Beatles as most other biographies do. He does a pretty nice job of taking specific happenings in the Beatle's history and theorizing on why they meant so much to the "boomers" entering their teenage years. He discusses how their look, humor, and song lyrics created a sense of fun,freedom, and an atmosphere of unlimited possibilities for all of us. We get a fresh analysis of why the "Sgt. Pepper" album, in spite of a few weak songs, redefined the future of albums to come. And why the eventual break up brought an entire generation back to reality.

If you are looking for the details of "Beatlemania," go with Bramwell's book. But if you are interested in a discussion of exactly why the Beatles affected us then and why they are still so popular today, this book is a decent enough read.

While I do agree with some of the author's insights, the book for the most part doesn't live up to his own stated goals in the introduction: to tell the "why" of The Beatles phenomenon as opposed to the "what". Mr. Stark definitely wastes far more paper on the latter rather than the former.
After reading halfway through the book I am exhausted by the too many instances of over-indulgent and sloppy writing (Donovan's "Catch The Wind" a protest song?, "Anytime At All" is a dark and honest song?, "She's A Woman" displays rock's traditional attitude to women?, etc., etc.) and faulty fact-checking.
I've said it before in my other reviews and I will keep saying it: the book publishing industry desparately needs more editors.

I literally couldn't put this book down once I started it. That hardly ever happens to me.

Having only been 4 when the Beatles exploded on the U.S. scene in '64, I have only vague memories of the early Beatles--I do remember skipping across the playground at Our Lady of Providence School, circa '66, and singing "She Loves You, yeah, yeah, yeah" with playmates. And I remember circulating the riddle du jour: "What did the boy octopus sing to the girl octopus? I wanna hold your hand, hand, hand, hand..."

If you're already a fan who knows every bit of minutiae about the Fab Four, this book probably isn't for you. But this is THE book to read if you're a new fan or if you were too young for the Beatles Experience when it was happening or especially if you question WHY the Beatles became a virtual religious experience when no other bands did.

My only complaint is that author Stark far too often overlooks my two fave Beatles -- George & Ringo. They receive precious little ink with regard to their own biographies. In that respect, the book should really be titled _Meet Paul & John_.

Not having read any other Beatles books, I've been recently informed that this is typical of books about the Beatles. That's really too bad. Perhaps it's because (as I learned in this book) George had the most normal and loving childhood of the four and was the only Beatle with a fully intact family in which a parent neither fled nor died. Maybe that's why Stark gave us so little info. about George. Perhaps George was too boring because of this--too few sensational stories.
(Do read the new, '06 biography of Harrison, _Here Comes the Sun_ if you long to know more about him.)

As for Ringo, God love him, the little that is in the book helps one understand his incredible "everyman" appeal and also why he's always seemed the most empathic of the four. It's because he was an only child who spent most of his childhood sick, in bed, at the doctor, and/or in hospital. But his mum was quite steadfast and loving (dad wasn't around), and little "Richie" seems to have coped by developing quite the sense of humor as well as a sensitivity to the downtrodden "little guy" which he both figuratively and literally was in the Beatles.

Overall a great read. I just wish Stark had more info on the two "economy class Beatles" (George Harrison's term, not mine.)

The Author assumes some working knowledge of the Beatles - which I hardly had. But from the preface the author, and subtitle, explicitly state that this is not a comprehensive, or even an abridged, history of the Beatles. Instead this book aims to explain the cultural status at the time of the Beatles and their impact on that culture.

This is my first book on the Beatles that I have read. Since I was born in the late 70's, I was looking for a book that would help explain the cultural context of the Beatles. The book delivers on this point.

The writing style was engaging, and the book was pleasant to read. I reccomend it.

Being a Beatles fan,I am wary of how the "lads" are portrayed in books & media. I like a balanced POV of a band that was both a musical & cultural phenomenon and whose music(for the most part) still sounds as fresh and exciting as the day it was recorded. That being said,I think the author did a fairly balanced job of portraying them as talented,intelligent yet without mythologizing them. I especially liked how he showed the unique contributing factors of their native Liverpool & later,Hamburg's) influence on their music & look. They were originals,(the first rock band to work as a collective unit,for example)which we take for granted now and this book reminds of us this fact.(though the author's description of them as "androgynous" is a bit extreme,in my opinion(perhaps "boyish" is a better term)& their effect on the women's movement is an interesting concept,if a bit over-stated. That being said This book is a fast,highly involving read that does make you appreciate the band's contributions to popular music even more.

This book is an in-depth look at how the Beatles' arrival in America on February 7, 1964 (also known as Beatles Day) was generally met with great joy and rave reviews. Arriving in the U.S. less than 3 months after President Kennedy was assassinated, the Beatles breathed new life and fresh fun into a grieving world.

Stark examines Liverpool England, the Beatles' home town from a rather sociological standpoint. While Ringo was the only Beatle who was raised by a single mother due to divorce, the premise of absentee fathers does not necessarily apply to the Beatles as a group. On the other hand, the nod to "strong mothers" certainly applies to the Beatles, including John's mother Julia who had her sister and brother-in-law raise him and who also taught him to play stringed instruments. John's maternal aunt Mimi was quite an indomitable lady indeed and John would say at different points throughout his life that the women in his family were very strong. This would be revisited in each Beatle wife as each one was a strong woman in her own right.

The Beatles did, through no design of their own encourage some gender-neutral, androgynous fun and fashion. Their trademark Moptops are a rather unisex cut and added to their visual appeal. The Beatles have indeed raised the musical and cultural bar and remain a timeless and permanent cultural fixture. Their music and personal milestones had a strong influence on the 60s protest movements; e.g. lyrics and transcendental meditation in India in 1967. Other groups of disenfranchised persons and the issues of the day are often tied directly to Beatle songs, e.g. 1968's "Revolution" and "Piggies" and 1966's Harrison gem, "Taxman."

Including trivia as well as long reported facts help round this book out and make it distinct. Stark is a very astute man and his analyses of the Beatles' relationships with their spouses and each other provides much rich thought. As for needing another book on the Beatles, as Stark asks in this book, the Beatles are a fascinating topic of conversation and having different input from more people proves once again that the group and the individuals who were part of that group can be discussed and intellectually explored from many different angles. His inclusion of thoughts expressed by other Beatle experts supports this finding.

As a child of the 60s, the Beatles' music can be recalled in my mind more easily and indelibly than any other tunes. This both hinders my objectivity as a listener and heightens my pleasure at reading about them. This modest book, a sort of condensation of the detail that can be found within such newer studies as the weighty Bob Spitz biography (also reviewed by me) and Jonathan Gould's 2007 social history "Can't Buy Me Love," (which will be reviewed by me, and which does not mention Stark!), efficiently retells the familiar story. Where, as the author admits right away, it differs remains in the stress given the cultural factors.

Not a professional scholar of the group, and not a hagiographer of the band, Stark writes with less passion than Spitz and less range than Gould. The book does move over the later years too rapidly, and while it lists many sources consulted, the references within the text are less easily cross-referenced. This does ease readibility but may frustrate those wishing for more exactitude. The music, likewise, appears but cursorily covered compared to the social impact. Songs remain understated. You will not find the day-by-day chronicle or the musical cut-by-cut analyses; Stark cautions us early on that other books have done this already. So, any reader needs to understand that this book offers instead an overview, if chronologically ordered, of the wider implications of the Beatles upon their decade. John and Paul gain the most notice; relatively little to Ringo and George has been given. There is very little attention paid to the songs. Artistic trends and packaging of the band and its records receive little direct interpretation. For instance, the discussion of "Revolver" ignores totally its cover art!

But, for a relatively brisk read, Stark does add nuances that pleased me. For instance, reminding us of the power of the limited range of TV and radio, the single-sex enrollment of English schools that encouraged students to imitate in drama the (absent) opposite sex, nostalgia and romanticism as literary forces in Britain, the gender-bending tradition of British humor and fashion, Liverpool's ties to the American South but not the African American diaspora, the ambiance of the art school, or the influence of drugs of various types on the band. The Hamburg years and the fact the Beatles played a thousand gigs before coming to America make clearer their musical and psychological development before 1964.

Also, rarely noticed points to those of us less than totally obsessed, such as that Ed Sullivan did not even learn of the band's fame prior to the show until he had been delayed on a plane due to the band's landing ahead of him causing congestion, make this a worthwhile version of another explanation for the band's prominence. He explains why they made it when Elvis, the Stones, or earlier musicians did not. He emphasizes the group dynamic that changed how audiences regarded collective endeavor in the arts. Most of all, Stark shows why in regard to the counterculture, gender roles, intellectual currents, and their quasi-religious allure, the four young men were able to lead the boomers into a revolution after all-- not the one Yoko might have expected, but one that changed hairstyles, demeanors, LPs, and the process of how artists relate to and are in turn changed by their fans.

Yes, the Beatles were the greatest rock/pop band the world has ever seen and represented the first great shift in music after Elvis that lasted until Kurt Cobain came on the scene to wipe away the 20 years of decadence that followed their demise. But Steven D. Stark makes some overblown assertions about their importance in world history, culture, and the feminist movement, along with a liberal use of the Beatles Anthology, in this purported scientific and sociological study of the band.

Stark's history of the Beatles themselves is slipshod and shallow, and features such supporting characters as Brian Epstein, Yoko Ono, and the mother of Pete Best as crucial figures. While they played their own small parts in the Beatles story, Stark loses sight of the fact that the music the four young men made is what it was all about. Here we see John and Paul as the chivalrous knights of all womanhood because of the death of their own mothers when they were teenagers. Stark writes that besides a handful of songs, Beatles songs supported positive images of women and empowered the women's movement during the 1960's. I fail to see how going to a concert and screaming your lungs out in a hormonal rage advanced the cause of females around the globe! Girls just found them attractive. Simple as that. And their music touched a nerve with girls, much as any singer, even today can tap into the feelings of kids at times 10 or 20 years younger than them.

Stark believes that history itself was changed by the Beatles, which is also a pipe dream. I am hard-pressed to name one event that would have happened differently without the Beatles. Osama Bin Laden would still be crazy, Vietnam would still have happened. Perhaps John Lennon would not have been shot by a crazed fan? The only effect I think the Beatles have had is to inspire other songwriters and musicians to attain the quality of their work and to see the group as the pinnacle of what fame can bring if you have the right look and talent. The Beatles have also consoled billions of people around the world with their songs. Yes, if you like music, that soundscape of 20th century music would have been more bleak, but the Beatles as cultural event was not very important compared to the rise of Ancient Greece, the publication of the Bible, or even as much a revolution in culture as Elvis and the arrival of Rock and Roll.

Stark's woeful attempt to connect the Beatles to gay culture through their asexual makeover by Brian Epstein also lacks a convincing argument. It almost seems as if the writer himself realizes how little is left to be said about the Beatles and his having to riff on his own thoughts in supporting baseless hypotheses. To an avid Beatles fan who has read a lot of books about the group or seen the Anthology collection, there is nothing new here. The addition of fan memories is especially unnecessary. So what if someone "thinks they're great" or "felt liberated". The only point that I agree with Stark is that John and Paul never attained the heights of art that they had in their competitive partnership in the Beatles and that music was the poorer for it.

I've read a lot of books on the Beatles and this one took a different approach and it pays off...really interesting reading.