I make no apologies for writing my first post on the two Mrs. Harrisons Pattie Boyd and Olivia Arias! As a George fan I have monitored his media coverage the closest, and therefore had a chance to observe how Pattie and Olivia have been treated more than I have any of the other Beatle wives.
Pattie Boyd- the Muse speaks out
The circumstances of the beginning and especially the end of Pattie’s relationship are very well known. Pattie met George on the set on ‘A hard day’s night’ in 1964 when she played a school girl on the train taking the Beatles to London. Pattie has written in her autobiography (more of which anon!) how she was immediately smitten with George, as he was with her. They married in January 1966 and were seemingly a well matched happy couple. George’s most famous song ‘Something’ was widely assumed be inspired by Pattie (this was in no small part due to the promotional film for the song which showed all the Beatles with their then wives). But in 1974 Pattie famously left George for one of his closest friends Eric Clapton, who she had been having a relationship with for some years. He had written ‘Layla’ about their relationship and would also go on to write ‘Wonderful tonight about her. In this paragraph you see the two main issues with the way Pattie has been portrayed. Firstly she is portrayed as the muse of two famous men. Secondly she is portrayed as being fought over by these two famous men. Why are both of these problematic?
A muse is a long standing trope of a person (usually female) who inspires great art in a great artist (usually male). They are in many cases in a relationship. The artist at best appropriates the muses’ voice and personality, and in most cases completely strips them of both. They project their own version of who the muse is upon them. The muse is perceived as how they are portrayed by the artist and valued only for the art they inspire in the artist rather than for anything they may achieve themselves. The relationship is always unequal and often exploitative. Therefore when you consider that the artist/muse relationship is usually that of male artist/female muse you begin ‘the muse’ trope is so problematic for women. There have been successful female ‘muses’ who have gone on to create their own highly respected art like Lee Miller or Camille Claudel. Even then their treatment at the hands of the male art establishment (and men generally) are hardly edifying.
Pattie Boyd had this to say about being ‘a muse’ in a piece for the Observer in 2008 ‘I think I was a romantic inspiration to Eric and George because I gave as much as I could to them both, to the detriment of myself. I was always there for them. Which I think is really what a muse is. You are living your life for somebody else.’ I don’t think I could sum up the whole problem of ‘the muse’ for feminists, and what the experience of being a famous muse actually was better than Pattie herself.
Pattie was also famously the third corner in rock music’s most famous love triangle, the other two corners being George and Eric Clapton. There is a possibly apocryphal story of George and Eric indulging in a guitar duel for Pattie’s hand. This harkens back to old chivalric notions of courtship, but reduces Pattie to an object which two powerful men fought over. Eric even compares the story of the love triangle to the Lancelot/Arthur/Guinevere love triange in the 'living in the material world' documentary. Her own feelings about what she would want do not seem to factor in the whole coverage of the story. Interesting Pattie repeats this story in her autobiography (John Hurt also repeats the story in an article about George in the November 2011 edition of Mojo). Eric Clapton however has denied it.
Pattie Boyd became one of the archetypical ‘dolly bird’s of the 1960’s era along with models such as Jean Shrimpton and Twiggy and singers such as Dusty Springfield, Sandie Shaw and Cilla Black. Young women in the UK and USA had seen the confined lives their mothers lived and were keen not to live such lives. To this end they adopted their own style, rejecting the prematurely middle ages styles of the 1950’s for a more playful and sexy style. This was epitomized by the mini dress, designed by another UK female style icon of the 1960’s Mary Quant. The look of the ‘dolly bird’ quite deliberately looked back to that of the ‘flapper’, a style that grew out of the greater opportunities women had after the first word war. While ‘Dolly bird’ can be seen as a pejorative term, it illustrates how young women in the 1960’s were entering the work force in greater numbers and had disposable income to spend on fashion and music. They looked for style icons such as Pattie for guidance as to what to wear, and wanted music sung by young women that reflected their experiences of relationships. It must also not be forgotten that the contraceptive pill had become available at the beginning of the 1960’s and abortion legalized in the UK in 1967. Young women were afforded greater opportunities to control their fertility and there were beginning to be more liberal attitudes to sex (but this had limits as I will discuss later!)
Pattie and George’s story begins promisingly enough. Pattie came from a middle class background, and George credited her in his interview with Maureen Cleave in 1966 with introducing him to things (such as avocados!) that he had not previously been exposed to. Hunter Davies reflected in the ‘George’ section in his official biography that of all the Beatles marriages George and Patties seemed the most modern and equal. Certainly Pattie shared George’s interest in Indian religion and would accompany him on his fateful trip to India in 1966 when he met Ravi Shankar.
Pattie would eventually get an opportunity to tell her story. In 2007 her autobiography ‘Wonderful today’ was published. This gave a full and frank account of both her marriages. In it she relates tales of George’s infidelities, most notoriously his relationship with Ringo’s wife Maureen in 1974 which played a significant role in ending both George and Pattie’s and Ringo and Maureen’s marriages. However, as Pattie recounts, it was not so much adultery which undermined their marriage (although it played a part) so much as George’s growing emotional distance from Pattie. This was due in part to his growing interest in Indian religion (ironic how given this had been earlier such a bond between the couple), depression and guilt around his enormous fame, heavy workload and drug use. Pattie recounts how this helped push her into the arms of George’s friend Eric Clapton. Both Pattie and Eric admit he was emotionally demanding. Therefore the eventual outcome of Pattie leaving George for Eric was more or less assured. Pattie gives a moving account if how she told George she was leaving him for Eric after Eric issued her with an ultimatum in July 1974. Pattie recounts that George and herself remained on friendly terms and were regularly in contact until his death. She writes that she was always grateful for the way he dealt with the end of their marriage- graciously accepting her decision and leaving the door open if she chose to return. However when in later years Pattie asked George if he regretted they had not reconciled he said it was for the best for them both. Pattie also writes frankly about Eric Clapton’s alcoholism and infidelities, particularly the pain she discovered he had fathered two children by two different women during their marriage. Pattie writes about her infertility and failed IVF attempts during her marriage to Eric. As an infertile woman myself I find this moving and very open and it is sad to read that both Pattie’s marriages suffered because of her infertility.
Wonderful today’ was serialized in the Daily Mail in 2007. The Daily Mail is known for beginning primarily read by women and having a politically and socially conservative agenda. There are several reasons why Pattie Boyd’s story would appeal to the Daily Mail and its’ readers. Firstly it concerns a Beatle and another famous UK musician. Secondly Pattie’s memoirs had some highly amusing/titillating tales of rock star misbehavior. The Daily Mail may have had mixed feelings about George’s involvement in Indian culture and philosophy but he was still a Beatle and therefore a part of one of the UK’s most significant cultural exports of the twentieth century. Similarly while the Daily Mail disapproves of the permissiveness of the 1960’s, it recognizes that the period was one in which British culture was a world leader. Stories of rock star misbehavior from this period allow the Daily Mail to enjoy being titillating by the period while affirming a conservative social agenda. Therefore readers can enjoy Pattie’s story of rock star misbehavior while getting a message that sexual liberation was an excuse for exploiting women (therefore a ‘bad thing’ for them) and that liberal attitudes towards drugs and alcohol lead to addiction. This is illustrated by a piece by Roy Connolly http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/books/article-489273/The-Eric-George-Pattie-triangle.html which reflected on the publications of Pattie and Eric’s autobiographies. This piece while extending sympathy for Pattie condemns her naïve view of 60’s excess. Thirdly it allowed the Daily Mail to publish a story by a woman which testified to how 1960’s permissiveness was an excuse for men to treat her badly so it can be seen as paying lip service to feminism. In particular the interview that Pattie gave to Liz Jones in which Liz was highly critical of George and Eric (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-476091/Pattie-Boyd-Life-George-Harrison-Eric-Clapton.html) shows who the Daily Mail allows some ‘Men are useless’ stories in order to keep its women readers on side and pay lip service to feminism.
Second wave feminists such as Shelia Jeffreys argued from the beginning that the sexual revolution of the 1960’s was an excuse for men to use women and that it brought a new set of issues for women. Pattie’s autobiography also movingly discusses her struggle to find a sense of self worth and of her own identity after her two marriages. While the Daily Mail coverage of Pattie Boyd’s story pays lip service to this, there is actually rather a nasty sting in the tale. The final extract from Pattie’s autobiography was published under the title ‘I burst into tears when George died. Was I right to leave him?’ This final extract concludes with Pattie saying ‘I regret allowing myself to be seduced by Eric and wish I had been stronger. I believed marriage was for ever, and when things were going wrong between George and me I should have gritted my teeth and worked through them’. So in spite of all the many issues Pattie had to deal with in her marriage to George the ultimate message that the Daily Mail wants the reader is that even if your husband is emotionally distant and unfaithful, stay with him as you may end up with an even more unfaithful alcoholic. The interview with Pattie that appeared in the Guardian that I referred makes considerably moreclear Pattie’s conclusion that she should not have been so dominated by her two husbands and the effect this had on her self-worth. http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2008/nov/30/women-pattie-boyd-relationships?INTCMP=SRCH
The Daily Mail ran last year under the title ‘Revealed: the ‘love’ note that shows George Harrison had forgiven Patti Boyd after she left him or Eric Clapton (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1370462/Love-note-shows-George-Harrison-forgave-Patti-Boyd-left-Eric-Clapton.html when she affirms again that George was the love of her life and that she wishes she had been reconciled with George. This story however has a number of critical comments on the web version. These take three forms. 1: If Pattie so regrets leaving George she should not have left him in the first place. 2: Pattie should not be declaring her love for George and her wish they had been reconciled as George was happily remarried to Olivia Arias 3: Pattie should not make public intimate love notes like the one from Eric that was reproduced in the article (however Eric had given permission!)
Pattie’s autobiography was published at the same time as Eric Clapton’s (interesting aside- Pattie was apparently paid a third of what Eric was for her autobiography). The media rubbed its hands with anticipation at this situation, enjoying the ‘battle of the books’ between the ex-spouses. Just whose autobiography would sell more and indeed be believed more? ‘Wonderful today’ debuted at no. 1 on the New York Times best seller list. The book was successful enough that it was re-launched last year as an e-book with additional material. In the end her story was more convincing and gripping for the public.
Pattie recounts that herself and George remained on friendly terms and were regularly in contact until his death. She compares this with difficulties in her post marriage relationship with Eric Clapton. However George remained even closer to Eric Clapton showing the primacy of the male bond in the rock world. She has successfully made a home for herself in Sussex and managed to establish herself a photographer of some note. It is good to see that Pattie has finally established herself as a figure of note in her own right.
Olivia Arias: the saving angel
Olivia Arias was working as a secretary at A & M records in 1974 when George signed to the label. They met shortly after the collapse of George’s marriage to Pattie Boyd and were very soon inseparable. She accompanied him on the ill fated ‘Dark Hoarse’ tour of North America that year (getting to go to the White House with him). George would acknowledge several times over the years that Olivia helped him get his life back on track. When they met his personal life and career were all at their lowest ebb. Olivia would help George find stability and calmest in his life. She would help look after him when he fell seriously ill with Hepatitis at the beginning of 1975. When in an 2004 interview Olivia was asked about George saying that she calmed him down she responded in typically self-effacing matter ‘If he said I calmed him down, then I probably did calm him down’ They would marry in 1978, the same year as the birth of their son Dhani. Goerge would write several songs for Olivia, the most noted of which is ‘Dark sweet lady’. Olivia would keep a low profile along with George, only really emerging to do interviews in 1990 when she became active in performing philanthropic work with orphanages in Romania. I will save discussing Olivia’ later press coverage as I want to focus on the specific issues around the press coverage of the 1999 attack on Olivia and George and her own brave role in deflecting that attack until later….
As with my initial paragraph about Pattie, several issues jump up about the way Olivia has been portrayed that are problematic to a feminist. Firstly there is the way that the media portray Olivia and George’s early relationship. The story of how a humble record company secretary came to the notice of one of the biggest rock stars in the world and got on to marry him would seem to be like something out of a fairy tale. Witness Katie Couric’s interview with Olivia in 2002. This fits nicely into a ‘Fairy tale’ trope where the beautiful, virtuous and above humble heroine eventually wins the hand of the handsome prince through her virtue and beauty. He rescues her from her humble circumstances. One of George’s quotes rather buys into this! "I fell for her immediately. I told her that I didn't want her doing all that typing" This particular trope has been fed to young girls over the years, telling them that all they need do is be selfless and humble and Prince charming will whisk them away to a comfortable life. Little attention is given to the fact that Olivia is a highly intelligent woman with a university degree who was making a career for herself when she met George. It also does not take account of George and Olivia’s mutual interest in Indian religion.
The second trope which the media had chosen to fit Olivia’s story into is that of the ‘Saving angel’. This is where a woman manages to ‘rescue’ her male partner from the woes that surround him and indeed saves him from himself. This trope takes positive qualities associated with women- being nurturing, self sacrificing, pacifying and places them at the disposal of their men folk.
Olivia obviously had to deal with the ongoing fascination with Pattie Boyd and the story of the Boyd-Harrison-Clapton love triangle. There is a slightly racist aspect to this. Olivia remains a strikingly attractive woman in her 60’s. She is clearly Latina, being petite, with dark hair and eyes and olive skin. Pattie Boyd’s beauty conforms to a more Eurocentric view of female beauty, with height, long blond hair and blue eyes. Pattie conforms more clearly in her looks and profession (model) to what a rock wife should be like for the media. However Olivia has her share of Hispanic fans who appreciate that a Mexican woman now plays an important role in the world’s biggest band affairs http://mexicanbeatle.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/normal-0-21-false-false-false.html
Olivia came from a close knit working class Mexican family that had emigrated to Los Angeles when she was young. Her background was quite similar to George who came from a close knit working class Irish-Liverpudlian family. George was very fond of Olivia’s parents who spent a lot of time at Friar Park and the only guests at Olivia and George’s wedding. Olivia was educated at Hawthorne High School (the same school as the Wilson brothers and Al Jardine of the Beach Boys!) and in a 1995 interview with the Daily Telegraph she said she was not exactly cheerleader material (indicating the racism she faced as a Mexican-American).
Olivia kept a very low profile during the 1970’s-1980’s, in keeping with George’s own desire to maintain a low profile himself. The majority of pictures I can find of her in this period are of George, Olivia and later Dhani going through customs at various airports, taken by press photographers. Olivia’s own reticence about appearing in the public eye was probably one of the main reasons for the long term success of the Harrison’s marriage. Olivia was also raising her and George’s son Dhani. Note how the Daily Mail approves of this in this article about the various Beatles children! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1290891/The-Beatles-dynasty-Their-surnames-famous-born--curse-blessing.html. (I would also cite the Sun’s piece about Olivia in the Sun’s obituary feature about George reproduced here http://darksweetlady.tripod.com/mexican.html) In the many comments on various press articles about George and videos on Youtube of George and his spouses, Olivia’s role as Dhani’s mother is frequently cited. So while Pattie may be more glamorous, Olivia fulfilled her role as a wife by ‘giving’ George a son and remaining by his side until his death. As an aside I remember a couple of articles that appeared in the Daily Mail in the early 1990’s under the title ‘The Beatles Dads that got it wrong’ and ‘The Beatles dads that got it right ‘with John and Ringo (products of single parent homes who divorced the mothers of their children) appeared in the former category with Paul and George (products of two parent homes who remained married to the mothers of their children) appeared in the later, the message being that two parent families were better and products of these families will be better parents themselves. Part of Olivia’s reticence of being a public figure may be due to the negative treatment Yoko Ono and Linda Eastman McCartney received at the hands of the press for daring to share their husbands limelight.
In 1990 Olivia entered the public arena when she founded the Romanian Angel Appeal Foundation to help in the many orphanages that were left in post communist Romania as a legacy of Ceausescu’s anti-abortion laws. Olivia and George did several interviews and photo shoots together to publicize the appeal and Olivia spend a considerable amount of time in Romania helping to get the foundation active in the orphanages. This foundation is still active and now performing work in HIV treatment and prevention and reproductive health. Linda McCartney, Yoko Ono and Barbara Bach were also active in this foundation. Olivia began to show that she was a formidable woman in her own right. She wrote a strongly worded letter to The Guardian in 1992 condemning one of George’s unofficial biographers Geoffrey Giuliano after her made comments about George in an interview.
George and Olivia lived quietly in the late 1990’s. No doubt part of this was due to George being diagnosed with throat cancerin 1997. Olivia had spotted the cancerous lump in George’s throat while he was gardening.
Here we must enviably come to the darkest part of Olivia’s story. On the night of December 30th 1999, a mentally disturbed young man Michael Abram broke into Friar Park (the Harrison’s main home) with the aim of killing George. George was stabbed several times in the chest, only narrowly avoiding death. Olivia managed to subdue Abram by hitting him with a lamp. In the police statement that was issued shortly after the news became public the police singled out Olivia for particular praise and commended her courage.
It would only be at Abram’s trial the following year that fuller details of the attack would become public. The public learnt that George had initially tried to disorientate Abram by saying the Hare Krishna chant and that Olivia would come to his aid first with a poker and later the aforementioned lamp. The press took great glee in publishing pictures that had been released of the wounds Abram had sustained in the attack under titles such as ‘What Mrs. Harrison did to the intruder’. One paper even juxtaposed a picture of Abram and his wounds with a picture of Olivia arriving at the trial. The attraction of the picture was many fold. Firstly the press knew that the public would be delighted that someone who had dared to harm a Beatle had been dealt with so thoroughly. Secondly there is an ongoing debate in the UK about the right to defend yourself and your property from attack in the press and the pictures of Abram appealed greatly to the right wing element of the press that want greater rights to defend property by force. Thirdly, there was the astonishing fact that these wounds had been inflicted on a young physically fit man by a petite middle aged woman (thus the ‘What Mrs. Harrison did... headlines and photos). While the press thoroughly approved of Olivia and her actions, I feel that there was a couple of slightly worrying elements of sexism to their coverage, quite apart from the glee that the press took in printing these pictures.
Firstly, the media still has issues around portraying women who use physical force, particularly in the defence of men. Women in the UK, US and some other western countries may have entered the armed forces and seen combat (whatever the dubious morality of that combat) We now have a slew of ‘kickass’ heroines such as Lara Croft, Buffy the vampire slayer, Ellen Ridley from the Alien films, Lizabeth Salander , ‘The Bride’ and Sarah Connors. However women acting in an aggressive manner to defend others is still seen as something exceptional. The press was astonished that a petite, elegant middle aged woman possibly subdue a man half her age and twice her weight. Some looked to Olivia’s working class Mexican roots, to wit Tom Petty’s telegram to George when he heard news of the attack- ‘Aren’t you glad you married a Mexican girl?’ This article comparing the Harrison’s home life to a typical Hispanic family and praising Olivia’s Latina spirit was written by an Hispanic writer http://latinola.com/story.php?story=43. While these comments are obviously commending Olivia they reveal an underlying assumption that working class Latina women are more likely to resort to violence to sort problems than women of European origins.
Secondly, there was an element of condemnation of George for the way he dealt with Abram. The press were obviously sympathetic but surprised that when faced with a homicidal maniac his course of action was to chant ‘Hare Krishna’. This fits in with decades of George facing public pillorying for his religious beliefs. More seriously to the press he had failed in his role as defender of the hearth, leaving it to his wife to take on the male role of fighting a violent intruder. This piece by Deborah Orr both attacks George’s initial actions and the Harrison’s religious beliefs is a good illustration of this
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/deborah-orr/an-unedifying-tale-for-all-concerned-702305.html
Olivia is clearly aware of this criticism and has addressed it in several interviews recently. She points out that George coached her through the attack and that he came to her aid when Abram started to attack her in spite of the fact that he was seriously wounded. Olivia uses a very interesting choice of words during her account of her final subduing of Abram in the Living in the Material World documentary ‘Don’t throw like a girl!’
I find it interesting that most press coverage of Olivia’s actions focus on her use of a lamp (a symbol of the female hearth) and down play her initial use of a poker (a more masculine object)
Olivia would be shown in a more conventional wifely role within months of the trial.
In July 2001 the UK press found out that George was terminally ill with a brain tumour. A picture of a gravely ill and short haired George being cradled by Olivia, dressed in angelic white appeared on the cover of several newspapers. The Press also reported that Olivia was by George’s side as he was recovering from his treatment for the brain tumour. In a reversal of the tradition of wives taking their husband’s surname, the press reported George had assumed Olivia’s surname Arias while receiving treatment. George died on 29 November 2001.
While there was an enormous amount of sympathy for Olivia, she managed to become involved in a minor controversy over the exact location of George’s death. She would also show herself to be formidable by successful taking out law suits against her sisters’ ex-husband Carl Roles, who had stolen some of Georges personal possessions and Dr. Lederman, who had treated George in the final stages of his cancer.
Upon George’s death Olivia inherited several unenviable roles (along with a considerable fortune it must be noted!), as Yoko Ono had done in 1980. However, Olivia at least had an adult son to help her with these roles. She inherited George’s vote in The Beatles’ business affairs. She became George’s representative at events when he was honoured such as his receiving a star on the Hollywood walk of fame and induction into the Rock and Roll hall of fame. She inherited the bulk of George’s estate along with their son Dhani. She also became keeper of Georges’ memory and reputation. Olivia was finally persuaded to allow Martin Scorsese permission to make a documentary about George’s life and allow him access to George’s archives of photos, home movies and letters. This documentary received considerable critical acclaim and several awards. The intensely private Olivia has admitted she found it a challenge to open up these archives and discuss her life with George.
When the documentary was released, there was a large amount of press coverage of comments Olivia made in the documentary about ‘challenges’ in her marriage to George ,. She admitted “he did like women, and women liked him”, and that there had been a number of ‘hiccups’ during their marriage. However she rounded these comments off with saying that “There is a reward at the end of it, There is this incredible reward because you have lived through more and you have let go of something." She won a lot of respect for allowing a rounded complex portrait of George and of their marriage and the dignified way she dealt with and discussed the issues in her marriage to George. Rather than coming across as another story of rock star excess which is how the press portrayed Olivia's comments, they strike me as a description of a marraige that like any other had it's challenges as well as it's joys.
The documentary also allowed Olivia to put on record her account of what happened on the night of December 30 1999. She also admitted in this interview with the New York Times that the documentary was a way of closing a chapter in her life.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/25/arts/television/george-harrison-living-in-the-material-world-on-hbo.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1
Olivia also wrote a very moving piece for the Huffington Post on the process of dealing with George’s terminal illness, death and her deep grief for him and her life administering George’s estate
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/olivia-harrison/material-world-george-harrison_b_988989.html
Note the positive comments from readers.
Olivia has received overwhelmingly positive press coverage, no doubt in large part to the dignified way she has conducted herself over the years and for her role in saving George’s life during the 1999 attack. She does have a reputation for being formidable as the Lederman affair shows. About the most negative press Olivia has received was over a security fence around Friar Park which her neighbour the actor Rodney Bewes objected to. Bewes claimed the wire fencing around Friar Park had seriously injured his cat Maurice. As this Daily Telegraph article notes Olivia kept her counsel until after the affair was settled.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/7883188/George-Harrisons-terrified-widow-hits-back-at-actor.html
There is one significant point that I would wish to reflect on from Olivia’s press coverage. Despite the ongoing enormous media interest in George, Olivia and George managed to make a happy life and home together and managed to make as near to a normal life as possible under the extraordinary circumstances of Georges fame and wealth.
Monday, 30 April 2012
Saturday, 3 March 2012
53: Wedding bells are breaking up that gang of mine...Sexism and Misogyny and the Beatles wives part 1
As I said at the end of the last post, the fact that all four Beatles were raised by strong women does not mean they were immune from sexist attitudes. Indeed to could be argued that having four strong women devote their lives to their upbringings may have given the four young men the idea that women were there to devote their lives to them, and any children that may have come along. As John Lennon confessed he was a ‘male chauvinist piglet’. This is illustrated by the stories of the first marriages of John George and Ringo and Paul’s relationship with Jane Asher. However, all four men got older and somewhat wiser. John, George and Ringo’s second marriages and Paul’s marriage to Linda Eastman show, that while imperfect, they were capable of forming more equal partnerships with women. But Cynthia Powell, Yoko Ono, Linda Eastman, Heather Mills, Pattie Boyd, Olivia Arias, Maureen Cox, and Barbara Bach have all had to deal with the implications of their husbands’ enormous fame and some highly problematic press coverage.
Again first some context! It does not need to be said that he Beatles appealed to young women as hearth-throbs. Young women would choose their favourite Beatle based on the qualities they projected. It was not only that female fans hoped to find a partner with the qualities they perceived in their favourite Beatles. It can also be said that the generation of young women who were responsible for the excesses of ‘Beatlemania’ were looking for something to emulate themselves. Susan Douglas in her excellent book ‘Where the girls are’ calls Beatlemania a ‘collective jailbreak’ of a generation of young women. These young women had seen the constrained lives their mothers had been forced to live and were not prepared to accept the same fate. Their rebellion began by coming together very publicly and loudly to honour their idols. They were going to make their presence felt and claim a public space for themselves.
Therefore marrying one of these young women’s idols was not an easy business. Cynthia Lennon and Pattie Boyd were both physically attacked by mobs of jealous fans. They also both had to travel incognito with John and George (Pattie was able to see the funny side of this in later years). Hunter Davies included a lengthy interview with a young woman who was a John Lennon fan who felt no shame in recounting that she had sent Cynthia a letter telling her to leave John as she was in love with him (she had never met John). This would not have been an isolated letter!
There were quite different reasons why male Beatles fans would turn on at least two of the Beatle’s wives. As Jonathan Gould wrote in ‘Can’t buy me love’ part of the appeal of The Beatles was for young men they were the ultimate boy’s gang. As Mick Jagger put it they were the ‘four headed monster’ seemingly acting and thinking as one for at least the early years of their glorious career. As such they presented a model of male friendship and a way of men being together that had not really been seen before. There was the tradition of male camaraderie of ‘Brothers in arms’(men bonding through military service or working together) .The Beatles were a group of men coming together to create something artistic. John, Paul, George and Ringo’s close bond as individuals translated into the tightness of their music. Into this ultimate boys, gang, there could be little room, if any, for women. This not only went for the fans. For most of the period of the bands fame (until at least 1968), the primary relationship each of the band members had was not with their female partners but with each other. This was not only damaging for each member’s marriages, it was a situation which John, Paul, George and Ringo would all come to find highly confining to themselves as individuals.
In the Anthology documentary, Paul compared John’s marriage to Yoko and his marriage to Linda to a group of army buddies finally getting married and have to settle into their own lives (using the song ‘wedding bells are breaking up that old gang of mine’ to illustrate his point). Fans and the media did not want to aim their anger at the band’s breakup at their idols so took out their resentment on Linda and Yoko. Both women were not overly popular with the Beatles’ fanbase (at least early on) as they were both foreign divorcees who were seen as having usurped two long term English partners (Cynthia Lennon and Jane Asher). To this day Yoko still is the target of misogyny, as I sadly witnesses while reading some deeply unpleasant comments aimed at her on Youtube (but more about this in a later post). As Gould pointed out in his book, both Yoko and Linda had much in common. They both were from very wealthy backgrounds with emotionally distant fathers. They would both have brief marriages in their early 20’s. They both had established careers before meeting John and Paul. They both had young daughters when they started their relationships with John and Paul. They were both ambitious.
Cynthia, Pattie, Jane Asher and Maureen Starkey would all have to deal with a lack of privacy and having their relationships play out so publically. They would all have to contend with trying to live some kind of normal life under highly un-normal circumstances. None of the relationships/marriages that the Beatles were formed before or during the height of Beatlemania survived. This is not surprising given the strain these relationships were put under. Firstly the band had a legendary heavy work load of touring and recording which only began to abate when they gave up touring in 1966. Secondly the bands enormous fame and touring schedule afforded ample opportunity for infidelity. Thirdly and perhaps most significantly, John, Paul, George and Ringo all went through an extreme experience during their time in the Beatles which no-one outside the band would understand. The end of the Beatles would be famously drawn out and bitter, with legal disputes that would go on for decades. John, Paul and George would all try to put their experiences as Beatles behind them. For John and Paul part of this was forming lifelong partnerships with Yoko and Linda. George and Ringo’s marriages to Pattie and Maureen would both finally collapse in 1974 (This was not coincidental but that is for another post!), and John would go his infamous ‘lost weekend’ period when he temporally separated from Yoko. This was the time that the legal wrangling around the Beatles own ‘Divorce’ was at its height. Perhaps it was just too difficult to find a way to make a normal life together after Both George and Ringo would go on to form successful partnerships with Olivia Arias and Barbara Bach.
A significant part of the success of these later relationships was that all four Beatles were able to live somewhat more normal lives. They would all set up homes, and apart from Ringo and Barbara Bach, would have families with these partners. However all four wives had to still deal with the ongoing fascination in their husbands. They would have to put up with press coverage that at times could be hostile, intrusive and very inaccurate.
Tragically both Yoko and Olivia had to witness first hand just how dangerous that level of fame was. Yoko would see John shot dead in front of their home at the age of 40. Olivia had to fight off a murderous attack on George in their home, putting herself in considerable danger while doing so. Both Yoko and Olivia have had to become managers of John and George’s estates and custodians of their memories. They have also had to become John and George’s public representatives (at event such as the launch of the Beatles rock band game) and business representatives on Apple corps.
After Linda’s tragically early death from breast cancer (which had also claimed Mary McCartney) Paul at first withdrew from public life before re-emerging in the early 2000’s. He would remarry in Heather Mills in 2002. This marriage would end in a very public and messy divorce. Paul recently married for a third time to Nancy Shevell.
Pattie, Yoko, Linda and Maureen would all appear in the promotional film for 'Something' with their husbands. Yoko, Linda, Olivia and Barbara would all appear in footage with their husbands in the second version of the 'Real love' video. The original version contains several shots of Yoko, most of which are in the second version, one shot of Linda (there are three in the second version) and none of Olivia and Barbara who appear twice in the second versuon. Presumably Paul, George and Ringo went back to Kevin Godley, who directed the video after the original version was aired and asked for this footage to be added to balance the footage of John and Yoko
I hope to show over the next few posts how the treatment that the Beatles’ wives by the media illustrates ongoing issues of misogyny and sexism in the portrayal of women in the media more generally. This is occasionally complicated by issues of racism and disablism.
Well lets’ get set and go...
Again first some context! It does not need to be said that he Beatles appealed to young women as hearth-throbs. Young women would choose their favourite Beatle based on the qualities they projected. It was not only that female fans hoped to find a partner with the qualities they perceived in their favourite Beatles. It can also be said that the generation of young women who were responsible for the excesses of ‘Beatlemania’ were looking for something to emulate themselves. Susan Douglas in her excellent book ‘Where the girls are’ calls Beatlemania a ‘collective jailbreak’ of a generation of young women. These young women had seen the constrained lives their mothers had been forced to live and were not prepared to accept the same fate. Their rebellion began by coming together very publicly and loudly to honour their idols. They were going to make their presence felt and claim a public space for themselves.
Therefore marrying one of these young women’s idols was not an easy business. Cynthia Lennon and Pattie Boyd were both physically attacked by mobs of jealous fans. They also both had to travel incognito with John and George (Pattie was able to see the funny side of this in later years). Hunter Davies included a lengthy interview with a young woman who was a John Lennon fan who felt no shame in recounting that she had sent Cynthia a letter telling her to leave John as she was in love with him (she had never met John). This would not have been an isolated letter!
There were quite different reasons why male Beatles fans would turn on at least two of the Beatle’s wives. As Jonathan Gould wrote in ‘Can’t buy me love’ part of the appeal of The Beatles was for young men they were the ultimate boy’s gang. As Mick Jagger put it they were the ‘four headed monster’ seemingly acting and thinking as one for at least the early years of their glorious career. As such they presented a model of male friendship and a way of men being together that had not really been seen before. There was the tradition of male camaraderie of ‘Brothers in arms’(men bonding through military service or working together) .The Beatles were a group of men coming together to create something artistic. John, Paul, George and Ringo’s close bond as individuals translated into the tightness of their music. Into this ultimate boys, gang, there could be little room, if any, for women. This not only went for the fans. For most of the period of the bands fame (until at least 1968), the primary relationship each of the band members had was not with their female partners but with each other. This was not only damaging for each member’s marriages, it was a situation which John, Paul, George and Ringo would all come to find highly confining to themselves as individuals.
In the Anthology documentary, Paul compared John’s marriage to Yoko and his marriage to Linda to a group of army buddies finally getting married and have to settle into their own lives (using the song ‘wedding bells are breaking up that old gang of mine’ to illustrate his point). Fans and the media did not want to aim their anger at the band’s breakup at their idols so took out their resentment on Linda and Yoko. Both women were not overly popular with the Beatles’ fanbase (at least early on) as they were both foreign divorcees who were seen as having usurped two long term English partners (Cynthia Lennon and Jane Asher). To this day Yoko still is the target of misogyny, as I sadly witnesses while reading some deeply unpleasant comments aimed at her on Youtube (but more about this in a later post). As Gould pointed out in his book, both Yoko and Linda had much in common. They both were from very wealthy backgrounds with emotionally distant fathers. They would both have brief marriages in their early 20’s. They both had established careers before meeting John and Paul. They both had young daughters when they started their relationships with John and Paul. They were both ambitious.
Cynthia, Pattie, Jane Asher and Maureen Starkey would all have to deal with a lack of privacy and having their relationships play out so publically. They would all have to contend with trying to live some kind of normal life under highly un-normal circumstances. None of the relationships/marriages that the Beatles were formed before or during the height of Beatlemania survived. This is not surprising given the strain these relationships were put under. Firstly the band had a legendary heavy work load of touring and recording which only began to abate when they gave up touring in 1966. Secondly the bands enormous fame and touring schedule afforded ample opportunity for infidelity. Thirdly and perhaps most significantly, John, Paul, George and Ringo all went through an extreme experience during their time in the Beatles which no-one outside the band would understand. The end of the Beatles would be famously drawn out and bitter, with legal disputes that would go on for decades. John, Paul and George would all try to put their experiences as Beatles behind them. For John and Paul part of this was forming lifelong partnerships with Yoko and Linda. George and Ringo’s marriages to Pattie and Maureen would both finally collapse in 1974 (This was not coincidental but that is for another post!), and John would go his infamous ‘lost weekend’ period when he temporally separated from Yoko. This was the time that the legal wrangling around the Beatles own ‘Divorce’ was at its height. Perhaps it was just too difficult to find a way to make a normal life together after Both George and Ringo would go on to form successful partnerships with Olivia Arias and Barbara Bach.
A significant part of the success of these later relationships was that all four Beatles were able to live somewhat more normal lives. They would all set up homes, and apart from Ringo and Barbara Bach, would have families with these partners. However all four wives had to still deal with the ongoing fascination in their husbands. They would have to put up with press coverage that at times could be hostile, intrusive and very inaccurate.
Tragically both Yoko and Olivia had to witness first hand just how dangerous that level of fame was. Yoko would see John shot dead in front of their home at the age of 40. Olivia had to fight off a murderous attack on George in their home, putting herself in considerable danger while doing so. Both Yoko and Olivia have had to become managers of John and George’s estates and custodians of their memories. They have also had to become John and George’s public representatives (at event such as the launch of the Beatles rock band game) and business representatives on Apple corps.
After Linda’s tragically early death from breast cancer (which had also claimed Mary McCartney) Paul at first withdrew from public life before re-emerging in the early 2000’s. He would remarry in Heather Mills in 2002. This marriage would end in a very public and messy divorce. Paul recently married for a third time to Nancy Shevell.
Pattie, Yoko, Linda and Maureen would all appear in the promotional film for 'Something' with their husbands. Yoko, Linda, Olivia and Barbara would all appear in footage with their husbands in the second version of the 'Real love' video. The original version contains several shots of Yoko, most of which are in the second version, one shot of Linda (there are three in the second version) and none of Olivia and Barbara who appear twice in the second versuon. Presumably Paul, George and Ringo went back to Kevin Godley, who directed the video after the original version was aired and asked for this footage to be added to balance the footage of John and Yoko
I hope to show over the next few posts how the treatment that the Beatles’ wives by the media illustrates ongoing issues of misogyny and sexism in the portrayal of women in the media more generally. This is occasionally complicated by issues of racism and disablism.
Well lets’ get set and go...
Thursday, 23 February 2012
52: The Mother(s) of all bands part 2
Of all The Beatles it is John Lennon’s relationships with his mother Julia Stanley Lennon and Mary (Mimi) Stanley Smith, the aunt who raised him from the age of five has received most attention. Indeed it has been the basis of a film ‘Nowhere boy’ which I reviewed in one of my earliest posts.
John would also publicly document his feelings for Julia on several occasions. She would inspire the songs ‘Julia’, ‘Mother’ and ‘my mummy’s dead’. Ian McDonald has perhaps written with most sensitivity about the effect that Julia’s early death would have on John in his acclaimed ‘Revolution in the head’.
Having read Hunter Davies’ biography, what strikes me about Mimi Smith is her treatment of John as male. Mimi told Hunter Davies she was so delighted when Julia gave birth to a boy, she could only think of baby John and forgot Julia. John (as generations of men before and since) would have received the message that a male he was deserving of a privileged position within society. At the same time, Mimi’s strong personality was dominant within the Smith household. John, as many generations of men and women before him received extremely mixed messages about the role that women should play in relation to men.
Mimi Smith, like Mary McCartney, trained to be a nurse. She also shared Mary’s aspirations to be middle class and placed a high premium on social respectability and education. It can be argued therefore that Paul and John were raised by very similar women. This would be repeated when Paul and John would later marry women who shared many similarities (but more of this in a later post- I hope!).
There is the additional issue of John’s unsettled childhood. I will not over the events of John’s childhood. As Gould put it in his book John had an aunt who acted as a mother and mother who acted as an aunt. Mimi Smith has been portrayed as something of a battleaxe, but she gave John a stable home, particularly through his tempestuous teenage years. It is also important when considering Julia’s role in John’s life that she fell foul of the rigid morality of the post war era (having to give an illegitmate daughter up for adoption and losing sutody of John). She was however able to eventually make a home on her own terms with her partner and their daughters and began to rebuild her relationship with John.
The memory of Juliawould haunt John for years after her tragic early death. Several of John's songs dwell on absent/non-responsive women (Yes it is/No reply) and jealous men (Run for your life). Ian MacDonald in his book ‘Revolution in the head’ discusses John’s desire to find a highly intellectual, artistic, assertive woman who would provide him with a fulfilling and equal partnership. John would eventually find this woman in Yoko Ono.
There are additional formidable women in the early story of The Beatles. There is Mona Best, who was Pete’s mother and who ran the Casbah where the Beatles would play some of their early gigs. She would become very embittered about the way Pete was treated by his own time band mates. Hunter Davies was finally reveal in the 2009 edition of the Beatles biography that Mona had been in a relationship with Neil Aspinall, the Beatles school mate and road manager. There was also Queenie Epstein, Brian’s mother.
Astrid Kirchherr was also arguably a mother figure to the group. The band lived in squalid conditions with little money while in Hamburg and Astrid and her mother made sure that they got a decent meal and wash whenever possible. Astrid would also help the band develop their image and greatly assisted their intellectual development by introducing them to intellectual concepts (such as existentialism) that they had not previously been exposed to She also helped the band develop their image (giving them their trademark page boy haircuts) . This care was repaid when Stuart Sutcliffe died of a brain aneurysm in 1962. She remains protective of the band, and has refused many offers to tell her story and artefacts connected to the band. She did act as advisor on the film ‘Backbeat’ which told the story of her relationship with Stuart and the Beatles and helps with Beatles events in Hamburg.
However, as I wrote at the beginning of this post, having a strong female role model for a mother does not translate into viewing women as equals. This will be shown in the relationships that the Beatles had with their first wives. I hope eventually to look at the way that the Beatles partners/wives have been treated by the media
John would also publicly document his feelings for Julia on several occasions. She would inspire the songs ‘Julia’, ‘Mother’ and ‘my mummy’s dead’. Ian McDonald has perhaps written with most sensitivity about the effect that Julia’s early death would have on John in his acclaimed ‘Revolution in the head’.
Having read Hunter Davies’ biography, what strikes me about Mimi Smith is her treatment of John as male. Mimi told Hunter Davies she was so delighted when Julia gave birth to a boy, she could only think of baby John and forgot Julia. John (as generations of men before and since) would have received the message that a male he was deserving of a privileged position within society. At the same time, Mimi’s strong personality was dominant within the Smith household. John, as many generations of men and women before him received extremely mixed messages about the role that women should play in relation to men.
Mimi Smith, like Mary McCartney, trained to be a nurse. She also shared Mary’s aspirations to be middle class and placed a high premium on social respectability and education. It can be argued therefore that Paul and John were raised by very similar women. This would be repeated when Paul and John would later marry women who shared many similarities (but more of this in a later post- I hope!).
There is the additional issue of John’s unsettled childhood. I will not over the events of John’s childhood. As Gould put it in his book John had an aunt who acted as a mother and mother who acted as an aunt. Mimi Smith has been portrayed as something of a battleaxe, but she gave John a stable home, particularly through his tempestuous teenage years. It is also important when considering Julia’s role in John’s life that she fell foul of the rigid morality of the post war era (having to give an illegitmate daughter up for adoption and losing sutody of John). She was however able to eventually make a home on her own terms with her partner and their daughters and began to rebuild her relationship with John.
The memory of Juliawould haunt John for years after her tragic early death. Several of John's songs dwell on absent/non-responsive women (Yes it is/No reply) and jealous men (Run for your life). Ian MacDonald in his book ‘Revolution in the head’ discusses John’s desire to find a highly intellectual, artistic, assertive woman who would provide him with a fulfilling and equal partnership. John would eventually find this woman in Yoko Ono.
There are additional formidable women in the early story of The Beatles. There is Mona Best, who was Pete’s mother and who ran the Casbah where the Beatles would play some of their early gigs. She would become very embittered about the way Pete was treated by his own time band mates. Hunter Davies was finally reveal in the 2009 edition of the Beatles biography that Mona had been in a relationship with Neil Aspinall, the Beatles school mate and road manager. There was also Queenie Epstein, Brian’s mother.
Astrid Kirchherr was also arguably a mother figure to the group. The band lived in squalid conditions with little money while in Hamburg and Astrid and her mother made sure that they got a decent meal and wash whenever possible. Astrid would also help the band develop their image and greatly assisted their intellectual development by introducing them to intellectual concepts (such as existentialism) that they had not previously been exposed to She also helped the band develop their image (giving them their trademark page boy haircuts) . This care was repaid when Stuart Sutcliffe died of a brain aneurysm in 1962. She remains protective of the band, and has refused many offers to tell her story and artefacts connected to the band. She did act as advisor on the film ‘Backbeat’ which told the story of her relationship with Stuart and the Beatles and helps with Beatles events in Hamburg.
However, as I wrote at the beginning of this post, having a strong female role model for a mother does not translate into viewing women as equals. This will be shown in the relationships that the Beatles had with their first wives. I hope eventually to look at the way that the Beatles partners/wives have been treated by the media
Monday, 20 February 2012
51: The mother of all bands Part 1
OK time to justify some Beatles love..
I have recently read Hunter Davies’ official biography of The Beatles and am reading Jonathan Gould’s ‘Can’t buy me love’. Both these books have got me thinking about the role John, Paul, George and Ringo’s mothers (this includes Mimi Smith) played in their son’s musical development.
It has been noted by Gould that Liverpool has a strongly matriarchal culture (at least in the domestic arena). This is due in no small part to the fact that it is a port city. In many households the men earned their living in the shipping industry and would be at sea for long periods of time. Women would both step in the role of heads of household and breadwinners during these periods. Both Alf Lennon and Harold Harrison spend periods working in the shipping industry. In addition Liverpool has a large Irish population. Ireland has a strong domestic matriarchal culture of its own. Both Mary Mohin McCartney and Louise French Harrison were or Irish descent. However while a matriarchal culture may equate with respect for the mother within the domestic sphere it does not necessary translate to respect and equality for women generally!
Richard Starkey aka Ringo Starr was born to Richard Starkey and Elise Gleave Starkey in July 1940. Ringo was brought up in Dingle, one of the most deprived areas of Liverpool. Ringo’s father left the family when Ringo was three (He would send maintenance to Elsie). Elsie was left to raise Ringo by herself. As a result a close bond developed between Ringo and his mother. Elsie worked in a variety of jobs to make ends meet (As Ringo mentions – with respect- in Anthology she would take any down home job to ensure this) . Ringo also spent a lot of time with both his grandmothers as a child, who acted as caregivers while Elsie was working. Ringo had two serious long term illnesses as a child (peritonitis when he was six and pleurisy when he was 13, and found it difficult to settle in at school due to the long absences caused by these illnesses. Elsie got remarried to Harry Graves when Ringo was 13 and Harry and Ringo enjoyed a good relationship. Harry would actually buy Ringo his first set of drums and help Ringo find work when he left school. Ringo would buy a luxury Bungalow in Merseyside for Elsie and Harry. Elsie would live to the age of 72.
Mary Mohin McCartney was the one Beatles mother who managed to establish herself in a career as a nurse and midwife. She also married Paul’s father James at the relatively old age of 31 in 1941. She would become a health visitor upon her marriage to James She managed to combine her role as a health visitor with raising two sons Paul (born June 1942) and Michael (born 1944). She eventually returned to midwifery when Paul and Michael were older.
Mary would be a formative influence on her sons, particularly Paul. She had a strong work ethic and placed strong importance on self improvement (not least in correcting her sons scouse accents), and of being sociable. It is interesting to note the number of similarities between Mary McCartney and Mimi Smith. Mimi Smith had trained to be a nurse, aspired to be middle class and tried to get John to speak with more of a ‘received pronunciation’ accent. Tragically Mary would die of breast cancer when Paul was 14. James McCartney was left to raise two lively teenage boys and run a household by himself. The family also had a considerably reduced income without Mary’s wages. Davies relates the difficulties this period brought for James McCartney. Not least of these was having to take a mother’s role of providing emotional support to Paul and Michael. He also relates how James found it difficult to adapt to chores such as cooking. However he must have done a good job as he always enjoyed a warm and close relationship with his two sons. James McCartney perhaps provided Paul with a more rounded and nurturing version of masculinity, which would allow Paul to form a strong partnership with Linda.
Mary would be remembered with deep affection by both her sons. She is the ‘mother Mary’ of Let it be’ ‘speaking words of wisdom’ comforting her son ‘in my darkest hour’. As I noted in my post about Paul McCartney it is a sign of his particular genius that he takes such a personal experience and turns it into something universal. Paul has explained in interviews that the song was inspired by a dream he had about his mother during the stressful breakup of the Beatles. However some listeners assume that 'Mother Mary' is Mary the mother of Jesus (more about this anon).
George Harrison was not only the youngest Beatle (born February 1943) but the youngest of four children born to Harold and Louise French Harrison. Louise Harrison noted George’s independent nature, intelligence and desire for privacy at an early age. Louise was apparently a no-nonsense person who did not suffer fools gladly – traits that George inherited. Louise was the one parent out of all the Beatles parents who was encouraging towards the band in the early days. She would allow the band to rehearse in the Harrisons small home, despite the noise! James McCartney and Mimi Smith wanted Paul and John to pursue further education. Harry Harrison persuaded George to take on an apprenticeship as an electrician. He did not see a future career in music. Davies notes that the Harrisons had gone through tough times during the depression and Harold was keen to make sure his children had secure futures. Louise however was an ally. Davies writes of her ‘Unlike all the other Beatle parents, she is one of nature’s ravers’. There is a delightful picture in the recent ‘Living in the material world’ book of Louise and a teenage George enjoying a beer together at home, with George proudly showing off his guitars which proves this point.
Davies notes in his book that Louise was the one person in the Beatles circle (apart from maybe Ringo’s wife Maureen Starkey) who took an interest in answering fan mail and interacting with fans. There is a lovely story which appeared in the Guardian about the pen pal relationship that developed between Louise and Lilie Ferrari http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2007/mar/26/popandrock.georgeharrison?INTCMP=SRCH
The Harrisons always enjoyed the celebrity that came with being George’s parents (ironic given George’s own famous dislike of fame) unlike the other Beatles parents. This won Louise a special place in the hearts of Beatles fans.
George remained close to his parents. He would buy them a house outside Warrington in 1965. ‘Living in the Material world’, the recent documentary and book about George’s life contains extracts from several letters George wrote to his mother about his experiences while in The Beatles. In particular the letter George wrote to Louise to allay her concerns when he became involved with the Maharishi shows how much he cared about Louise’s opinion and respected her.
Louise died of a brain tumour in 1970. She was 59, not much older than George was when he himself died of a brain tumour. George helped look after Louise in her final months and was with her when she died. He wrote the song ‘Deep Blue’ about the experiences of watching her decline. There is also a song which has only ever appeared on bootleg in demo form called ‘Mother divine’ which George recorded in 1970. While it is obviously informed by George’s religious beliefs it is clearly also inspired by his grief for Louise. It is interesting that both Paul and George wrote songs about their Irish Catholic mothers that drew however unconsciously on Catholic devotion to Mary, the mother of Jesus, These songs also fit in with an Irish tradition of songs praising the mother figure, who is ususually portrayed as self sacrificing and devoted to her children (particularly male) at her own expense.
I will discuss John's relationship with his mother Julia and aunt Mimi in my next post
I have recently read Hunter Davies’ official biography of The Beatles and am reading Jonathan Gould’s ‘Can’t buy me love’. Both these books have got me thinking about the role John, Paul, George and Ringo’s mothers (this includes Mimi Smith) played in their son’s musical development.
It has been noted by Gould that Liverpool has a strongly matriarchal culture (at least in the domestic arena). This is due in no small part to the fact that it is a port city. In many households the men earned their living in the shipping industry and would be at sea for long periods of time. Women would both step in the role of heads of household and breadwinners during these periods. Both Alf Lennon and Harold Harrison spend periods working in the shipping industry. In addition Liverpool has a large Irish population. Ireland has a strong domestic matriarchal culture of its own. Both Mary Mohin McCartney and Louise French Harrison were or Irish descent. However while a matriarchal culture may equate with respect for the mother within the domestic sphere it does not necessary translate to respect and equality for women generally!
Richard Starkey aka Ringo Starr was born to Richard Starkey and Elise Gleave Starkey in July 1940. Ringo was brought up in Dingle, one of the most deprived areas of Liverpool. Ringo’s father left the family when Ringo was three (He would send maintenance to Elsie). Elsie was left to raise Ringo by herself. As a result a close bond developed between Ringo and his mother. Elsie worked in a variety of jobs to make ends meet (As Ringo mentions – with respect- in Anthology she would take any down home job to ensure this) . Ringo also spent a lot of time with both his grandmothers as a child, who acted as caregivers while Elsie was working. Ringo had two serious long term illnesses as a child (peritonitis when he was six and pleurisy when he was 13, and found it difficult to settle in at school due to the long absences caused by these illnesses. Elsie got remarried to Harry Graves when Ringo was 13 and Harry and Ringo enjoyed a good relationship. Harry would actually buy Ringo his first set of drums and help Ringo find work when he left school. Ringo would buy a luxury Bungalow in Merseyside for Elsie and Harry. Elsie would live to the age of 72.
Mary Mohin McCartney was the one Beatles mother who managed to establish herself in a career as a nurse and midwife. She also married Paul’s father James at the relatively old age of 31 in 1941. She would become a health visitor upon her marriage to James She managed to combine her role as a health visitor with raising two sons Paul (born June 1942) and Michael (born 1944). She eventually returned to midwifery when Paul and Michael were older.
Mary would be a formative influence on her sons, particularly Paul. She had a strong work ethic and placed strong importance on self improvement (not least in correcting her sons scouse accents), and of being sociable. It is interesting to note the number of similarities between Mary McCartney and Mimi Smith. Mimi Smith had trained to be a nurse, aspired to be middle class and tried to get John to speak with more of a ‘received pronunciation’ accent. Tragically Mary would die of breast cancer when Paul was 14. James McCartney was left to raise two lively teenage boys and run a household by himself. The family also had a considerably reduced income without Mary’s wages. Davies relates the difficulties this period brought for James McCartney. Not least of these was having to take a mother’s role of providing emotional support to Paul and Michael. He also relates how James found it difficult to adapt to chores such as cooking. However he must have done a good job as he always enjoyed a warm and close relationship with his two sons. James McCartney perhaps provided Paul with a more rounded and nurturing version of masculinity, which would allow Paul to form a strong partnership with Linda.
Mary would be remembered with deep affection by both her sons. She is the ‘mother Mary’ of Let it be’ ‘speaking words of wisdom’ comforting her son ‘in my darkest hour’. As I noted in my post about Paul McCartney it is a sign of his particular genius that he takes such a personal experience and turns it into something universal. Paul has explained in interviews that the song was inspired by a dream he had about his mother during the stressful breakup of the Beatles. However some listeners assume that 'Mother Mary' is Mary the mother of Jesus (more about this anon).
George Harrison was not only the youngest Beatle (born February 1943) but the youngest of four children born to Harold and Louise French Harrison. Louise Harrison noted George’s independent nature, intelligence and desire for privacy at an early age. Louise was apparently a no-nonsense person who did not suffer fools gladly – traits that George inherited. Louise was the one parent out of all the Beatles parents who was encouraging towards the band in the early days. She would allow the band to rehearse in the Harrisons small home, despite the noise! James McCartney and Mimi Smith wanted Paul and John to pursue further education. Harry Harrison persuaded George to take on an apprenticeship as an electrician. He did not see a future career in music. Davies notes that the Harrisons had gone through tough times during the depression and Harold was keen to make sure his children had secure futures. Louise however was an ally. Davies writes of her ‘Unlike all the other Beatle parents, she is one of nature’s ravers’. There is a delightful picture in the recent ‘Living in the material world’ book of Louise and a teenage George enjoying a beer together at home, with George proudly showing off his guitars which proves this point.
Davies notes in his book that Louise was the one person in the Beatles circle (apart from maybe Ringo’s wife Maureen Starkey) who took an interest in answering fan mail and interacting with fans. There is a lovely story which appeared in the Guardian about the pen pal relationship that developed between Louise and Lilie Ferrari http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2007/mar/26/popandrock.georgeharrison?INTCMP=SRCH
The Harrisons always enjoyed the celebrity that came with being George’s parents (ironic given George’s own famous dislike of fame) unlike the other Beatles parents. This won Louise a special place in the hearts of Beatles fans.
George remained close to his parents. He would buy them a house outside Warrington in 1965. ‘Living in the Material world’, the recent documentary and book about George’s life contains extracts from several letters George wrote to his mother about his experiences while in The Beatles. In particular the letter George wrote to Louise to allay her concerns when he became involved with the Maharishi shows how much he cared about Louise’s opinion and respected her.
Louise died of a brain tumour in 1970. She was 59, not much older than George was when he himself died of a brain tumour. George helped look after Louise in her final months and was with her when she died. He wrote the song ‘Deep Blue’ about the experiences of watching her decline. There is also a song which has only ever appeared on bootleg in demo form called ‘Mother divine’ which George recorded in 1970. While it is obviously informed by George’s religious beliefs it is clearly also inspired by his grief for Louise. It is interesting that both Paul and George wrote songs about their Irish Catholic mothers that drew however unconsciously on Catholic devotion to Mary, the mother of Jesus, These songs also fit in with an Irish tradition of songs praising the mother figure, who is ususually portrayed as self sacrificing and devoted to her children (particularly male) at her own expense.
I will discuss John's relationship with his mother Julia and aunt Mimi in my next post
Sunday, 19 February 2012
50: 10 Tracks from my 1998
This was the year I studied for my MA in librarianship- too many memories!
Many of these tracks I was introduced to by the Mark and Lard radio show on Radio 1 but a couple I was introduced to By the Keith Cameron show on XFM and some by John Peel
1: Richard Davies-Cantina. Saw him live three times this year- he was awesome. Enjoyed hearing this song on Mark and Lard show as I was walking along Brighton sea front
2: Pernice Brothers- Clear spot
3: Elliot Smith- Waltz#2 (X0)
4:Future Bible Heroes- Lonely days
5: Fuzz Townsend- Smash it
6: Ultrasound-Best wishes
7: Salako- go on enlighten me, why doncha
8: Mercury Rev- Goddess on the highway (loved this single- was not so keen on album)
9: Gomes- 78 stone wobble
10:Delakota- The rock
Bubbling under
High Llamas- The sun beats down
Derrero- Radar invader
Delgados-Pull the wires from the wall
Sea Nymphs- Appealling to Venus
Hopkirk and Lee- My line is short
Couple of biggies that are bubbling under-
Space feat. Cerys Matthews- Balld of Tom Jones
The Cardigans- My favourite game
Many of these tracks I was introduced to by the Mark and Lard radio show on Radio 1 but a couple I was introduced to By the Keith Cameron show on XFM and some by John Peel
1: Richard Davies-Cantina. Saw him live three times this year- he was awesome. Enjoyed hearing this song on Mark and Lard show as I was walking along Brighton sea front
2: Pernice Brothers- Clear spot
3: Elliot Smith- Waltz#2 (X0)
4:Future Bible Heroes- Lonely days
5: Fuzz Townsend- Smash it
6: Ultrasound-Best wishes
7: Salako- go on enlighten me, why doncha
8: Mercury Rev- Goddess on the highway (loved this single- was not so keen on album)
9: Gomes- 78 stone wobble
10:Delakota- The rock
Bubbling under
High Llamas- The sun beats down
Derrero- Radar invader
Delgados-Pull the wires from the wall
Sea Nymphs- Appealling to Venus
Hopkirk and Lee- My line is short
Couple of biggies that are bubbling under-
Space feat. Cerys Matthews- Balld of Tom Jones
The Cardigans- My favourite game
49: Ten Tracks from my 1996
I heard the Bluetones’ Slight return’ in a cafe yesterday. This brought back instant memories of my period looking after an elderly day in rural Suffolk. In honour of this here are some tracks that evoke this period and my first few months in my graduate trainee librarian post.
I got into most of these thanks to Mark Radcliffe and his night-time shoe in Radio 1. Kept me sane in this period!
1: Richard Davies- Sign up maybe for being
2: Bluetones-Slight return
3: Super Furry Animals- Hometown Unicorn
4: Combustible Edison- Alright already
5: High Llamas- Sparkle up
6: Divine Comedy- Something for the weekend (saw this on Top of the pops!)
7: Fire Department- Achaeopteryx
8: Ben Folds Five- Underground
9:Lionrock-Fire up the shoesaw
10: Urusei Yatsura- Kewpies like watermelons
And bubbling Under-
Minty- That’s nice
Delgados- Under cover under wraps
And some oldies but oh what goodies!
The Impressions- This is my country (from excellent reissue of two late Impressions albums 'This is my country' and 'The Young Mod's forgotten story'
Beach Boys- Cabinessence- From another great 'double feature' reissue of 'Friends' and '20/20'
Young Holt Unlimited: California montage
Wigan Casino story Vol. 1 (my job allowed me to develop my budding love of Northern Soul!)
I got into most of these thanks to Mark Radcliffe and his night-time shoe in Radio 1. Kept me sane in this period!
1: Richard Davies- Sign up maybe for being
2: Bluetones-Slight return
3: Super Furry Animals- Hometown Unicorn
4: Combustible Edison- Alright already
5: High Llamas- Sparkle up
6: Divine Comedy- Something for the weekend (saw this on Top of the pops!)
7: Fire Department- Achaeopteryx
8: Ben Folds Five- Underground
9:Lionrock-Fire up the shoesaw
10: Urusei Yatsura- Kewpies like watermelons
And bubbling Under-
Minty- That’s nice
Delgados- Under cover under wraps
And some oldies but oh what goodies!
The Impressions- This is my country (from excellent reissue of two late Impressions albums 'This is my country' and 'The Young Mod's forgotten story'
Beach Boys- Cabinessence- From another great 'double feature' reissue of 'Friends' and '20/20'
Young Holt Unlimited: California montage
Wigan Casino story Vol. 1 (my job allowed me to develop my budding love of Northern Soul!)
Sunday, 5 February 2012
48. George Harrison- My personal top ten
My favourite five with The Beatles
1: Long, Long, Long
2: Old Brown Shoe
3: While my guitar gently weeps (although prefer the acoustic demo on Anthology 3)
4: Something (Obvious but classic- love Smokey Robinson and Isaac Hayes’ versions of this)
5: The inner light
Special mention for ‘It’s all too much’ and original Beatles version of ‘Not guilty’
My favourite five George Solo tracks
1: All things must pass
2: Try some, buy some
3: Lay his head ( this and the three other tracks that George was made to remove from 'Somewhere in England' such as 'Sat singing' and Flying hour are great - one up for George)
4: Isn’t it a pity (nb Bettye Lavettes’ awesome verison which I posted a performance of as an earlier post!)
5: Cheer down (a great James Bond theme alike)
Special shout going out for George’s productions for Billy Preston (‘That’s the way God Planned it’ and ‘Encouraging words’ albums) and Doris Troy. Kudos also for having The Stairsteps and Keni Burke on the Dark Horse label
1: Long, Long, Long
2: Old Brown Shoe
3: While my guitar gently weeps (although prefer the acoustic demo on Anthology 3)
4: Something (Obvious but classic- love Smokey Robinson and Isaac Hayes’ versions of this)
5: The inner light
Special mention for ‘It’s all too much’ and original Beatles version of ‘Not guilty’
My favourite five George Solo tracks
1: All things must pass
2: Try some, buy some
3: Lay his head ( this and the three other tracks that George was made to remove from 'Somewhere in England' such as 'Sat singing' and Flying hour are great - one up for George)
4: Isn’t it a pity (nb Bettye Lavettes’ awesome verison which I posted a performance of as an earlier post!)
5: Cheer down (a great James Bond theme alike)
Special shout going out for George’s productions for Billy Preston (‘That’s the way God Planned it’ and ‘Encouraging words’ albums) and Doris Troy. Kudos also for having The Stairsteps and Keni Burke on the Dark Horse label
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)