Skip to content

A few notes on Peter Jackson’s “Get Back”

Last night I watched Part 1 of Get Back, Peter Jackson's epic Beatles documentary put together from 60 hours of film that was shot while the band was creating and rehearsing a set of songs for a live BBC special in 1969. Regardless of anything else, it's fascinating in a historical sense for anyone who even likes the Beatles, let alone reveres them.

But aside from that, how good was it? I'm a big Beatles fan, and I've read quite a bit about them, but raw documentary footage is almost always a bit of a slog and this was no exception. Honestly, if it were about any other band I don't think I would have made it to the end.

Going into it, I was under the impression that it put paid to the notion that the Beatles were at each others' throats by 1969. But it didn't really. They had agreed to do the TV special, of course, but beyond that it was pretty obvious that no one was having much fun. Here are some random observations.

  • To say that Paul McCartney was the engine of the band at this point is to massively underrate him. As near as I could tell, he was almost literally the only one actively interested in making music during these sessions.
  • Except for George Harrison, that is, who tried to bring in a few songs he'd written at home. These got a tepid response, eventually leading to his famous 12-day "resignation" from the band. (McCartney eventually decided that Harrison's songwriting had improved enormously, but it was too little too late.)
  • John Lennon spent the sessions apparently stoned and completely disengaged. He smiled amiably and played his parts, but that was about it.
  • Ringo Starr was Ringo Starr. He mostly just hung around while the others figured out the music. This is the fate of many drummers.
  • The whole thing was remarkably haphazard. They were rehearsing in a huge, bare film studio just because someone offered it to them. They wanted certain kinds of equipment and had a hard time getting it. The acoustics were terrible. These were the Beatles! Nobody could be bothered to set up a nice rehearsal space for the greatest rock band of all time?
  • At one point McCartney says he's been acting as sort of the leader of the band and doesn't feel comfortable with it. This may or may not have been disingenuous on his part, but the only one to even respond was Harrison.
  • All this said, except for Harrison storming out at the end of Part 1, there was no real animosity on display. Just a bunch of guys trying to put together a bunch of new music on an insane timetable and seeming a little dispirited about it. And yet, they'll do it!
  • The only times when the foursome seem to be really enjoying themselves is when they're jamming on old classics written by someone else. When the pressure of creating music is off, they still get a kick out of playing with each other.
  • It's surprising not just how unprepared they are, but that over the course of a decade they still haven't settled on how to do recording sessions. These habits usually emerge over time and then become stable just through inertia. In this case, if you didn't know who these guys were, you might guess that it was the first time they had ever made a record together. I imagine this was partly because there was no firm leader of the band that everyone looked up to.
  • One of the problems with Part 1 is that it shows the period when the songs are just barely taking shape. This is historically interesting but musically a bit tedious. I'm genuinely curious to see how Parts 2 and 3 shape up, when the lads are trying to resolve their personality conflicts and are playing their songs in more recognizable form. I will watch them shortly.

For years, people have been arguing about why the Beatles broke up. There are loads of standard theories:

  • The death of manager Brian Epstein in 1967 left the band with no one they respected who could rein them in.
  • Yoko Ono. Nuff said.
  • Growing disagreement between John and Paul about the kinds of songs they wanted to play.
  • After a decade, they just generally got tired of each other.
  • John's heroin addiction starting in 1968 made him unreliable and prone to temper tantrums.
  • The band went through a serious business disagreement during 1969, which led to John, George, and Ringo hiring Allen Klein as the Beatles' business manager. This was done against the vehement wishes of Paul.
  • Rather famously, everybody else got tired of Paul's perfectionism, which led to endless takes and grueling recording sessions.
  • Toward the end, George wanted more of his songs on Beatles records than the usual two he was allotted by John and Paul. He didn't get what he wanted, which pissed him off considerably.

But why pick one? They were all true, and were more than enough reason for any group to call it quits. And it worked out: the Beatles are the quintessential 60s band, and it seems only right that when the 60s ended, so did they.

57 thoughts on “A few notes on Peter Jackson’s “Get Back”

  1. kenalovell

    Getting old has many disadvantages. One is that most music eventually wears out its welcome if you listen to it often enough. I can't remember the last time I played a Beatles album, and I doubt I'll ever listen to Beethoven's Fifth again in my lifetime.

    Thang God for the internet, which has provided a seemingly inexhaustible supply of interesting new music.

    1. iamr4man

      I have been listening to Stravinsky’s Rite Of Spring as performed by the USSR State Symphony Orchestra conducted by Evgeny Svetlanov since 1968 and I’ve never tired of it. A woman I worked with who was in to classical music said that I listened to classical music the way most people listen to rock. She didn’t mean it as a compliment but I took it as if it was one. Years later in reading interviews with my favorite rock musicians they all indicated they were influenced by Stravinsky.

      1. gyrfalcon

        Stravinsky was an almost incomprehensibly musical genius. I often think of him as like Picasso. Both creators experimented and evolved incredibly rapidly. IOW, some day, listen to earlier and later Stravinsky than Rite of Spring.

        1. iamr4man

          I agree and I have and do listen to many things by him. It’s just that that particular performance has stayed with me for a very long time and I never tire of it. The problem is that I’ve heard it enough that other performances are hard for my ears to accept. It will be “oh, that was nice, but not as good as Svetlanov.”There are actually several compositions like that. I have a recording of Beethoven’s 9th by Eugene Ormandy that I’ve listened to since I was young. Also a recoding of E. Power Biggs playing Bach at the Thomaskirche and a Boston Symphony Orchestra version of The Planets.
          Perhaps you will note a certain Rock and Roll quality to my youthful musical tastes, particularly when played very loud.

    2. haddockbranzini

      Sort of how I feel about The Clash. They were my favorate band as a teen and college student and still well into my late 20's. While I enjoy catching a song now and then it has probably been a decade or more since I pulled out a CD. I've never even once set up a Pandora playlist for much of the music that I once loved.

      Now I just put on a local radio station that plays oldies (ie. more Perry Como and less Beatles) and I am plenty happy.

    3. Toofbew

      "I doubt I'll ever listen to Beethoven's Fifth again in my lifetime."

      Not me, I love the 5th, but fortunately, Beethoven wrote a LOT of music, so you can listen to string quartets, cello or violin sonatas, even the most popular piece during his lifetime, the septet, Op. 20. And don't forget that different performers can make the same piece sound different. Unless you suffer from Weltschmerz ...

      1. kenalovell

        In the case of 'White Christmas' and 'Silent Night', I'm at the stage where different performers do make the same piece sound different. They make it sound even more intolerable.

        I really got a lot of enjoyment out of a few new Beethoven symphony recordings over the last 30 years, for example Norrington, Gardiner and Dausgaard. But the ones I play occasionally tend to be the less popular even-numbered ones and the seventh.

  2. CaptK

    Excellent KD.. as always. I've been enjoying your increase in words and thoughts since you left MOJO...I think I speak for all of your fans when I point this out...cheers.."And in the end.."

  3. kendouble

    Honestly Kevin you really should watch the whole thing before sounding off. The Twickenham period was difficult for everyone. Part 2 covers the move to the new studio at Apple in Saville Row where things get back on track with an energised John and a mollified George. It’s a fascinating look at their process and particularly the deep creative bond between Lennon and McCartney, still vital even at that stage. (It’s so intimate you can see why George is jealous of it.) And no, not ”nuff said” about Yoko. Paul actually mocks the public’s attitude to her, remarking “in 50 years time they’ll say the Beatles broke up because Yoko sat on an amp.” She keeps a low profile throughout and the band show her complete respect. It’s remarkable how much you learn about the Beatles by observing them at work. I’m not interested in nostalgia but this is an intimate document of the world’s pre-eminent rock and roll band doing the thing that made them famous. It’s priceless. Watch the rest.

    1. appalachican

      Exactly. Just finished part two, and it’s a total shift. Amazing what a change in location will do. And I’m primarily here to ensure Yoko isn’t the villain.She never was, and thankfully in this she isn’t!

        1. colbatguano

          Haven't seen part 3 yet, but parts 1 and 2 could have been cut down to a single 3 hour chunk. Way too much of them just sitting around strumming their guitars (or bass) without getting anywhere.

      1. tribecan

        Agreed she wasn't the villain, but she did suck the air out of the room. Maybe Lennon needed her there as a security blanket, but she just sat there, never saying hello to another Beatle when they got there, just planting herself in the middle of the band and contributing nothing. I'd be weirded out by that sort of thing, in any creative situation. Who knows what shape Lennon was in, he seems almost entirely passive, and maybe that was drugs, but it's hard not to wish he'd had the maturity to leave her at home and engage more with his bandmates. She wasn't the villain, but it's hard watching it not to wish she'd had the sense to stay away.

  4. Traveller

    Well, I really enjoyed this Read...Kevin can always return to do some back 'n fill. Moreover, because he wrote this, he will have have greater insight in his second take on the Beetles, and with Part 3, maybe a third.

    Mr. Drum could write a phone book and I'd read it.

    Best Wishes, Traveller

  5. KinersKorner

    I watched all 3 parts and loved it. To me it showed they were old friends, plenty of laughs, plenty of groans but perfectly civil to one another. None appeared as assholes demanding things. They mostly worked it out the way old co-workers do, tolerate stuff and get it done. Loved the way it showed the song writing style they all employed and getting a first hand look at how they worked them out. McCartney and Lennon were musical geniuses and the film showed that genius. I didn’t realize many of the songs ended up on Abbey Road. Really found it a treasure of a film. YMMV

  6. Matt Ball

    Peter Jackson clearly threw in with the Beatles Completists. He spent so much time with the material he couldn't bear to not use it. You could read a paragraph about part one and be fine going into part two, which is where it gets good. I think you'll like it from here, Kevin. Thanks!

    1. wvmcl2

      Pete Best is usually seen as a pathetic might-have-been, but his story is not so sad. Later in life he received significant royalties from Beatles compilations that included early recordings on which he played. He apparently was able to buy a vacation home in Spain as a result. In short, he come out better financially than most musicians ever do. And he has outlived two of his former bandmates.

      If you listen carefully to his playing on those recordings and others he did on his own, the fact is that he wasn't a very good drummer - not good enough for the Beatles. Ringo is a very capable ensemble drummer and much more appropriate for the Beatles' music.

      1. wvmcl2

        I'm a huge Lennon fan and most of my favorite Beatles' songs are Lennon songs, but I recognize that McCartney's pop sensibility and fertile imagination were a big factor in making the Beatles what they were. Lennon alone was not enough.

        1. erick

          Yeah its easy to see the difference in Lennon's solo stuff vs his Beatles stuff. While the solo stuff has some great songs none rise to the level of his Beatles work. Paul to a degree as well needed John but not quite as much maybe its like John's best solo stuff gets to 75% of his best while Paul's gets to 90%

          George of course was mostly on his own anyway and was just starting to peak when they broke up so not surprising that All Things Must Pass is so great.

        2. pflash

          Agree on probably favoring John's songs. (OTOH, Abbey Road medley was a winner for Paul. No slouch in the writing dept. of course.) But Paul's vocals, especially early on, and his inimitable bass work throughout, went a long way toward cementing their sound and getting them notice.

      2. MontyTheClipArtMongoose

        Clearly, that wasn't from the Tesco Vee signature line. Otherwise, all four Beatles would have been on that shirt. #2down2togo

  7. ruralhobo

    Almost all great composers and songwriters worked alone, or had a band or orchestra in which they totally dominated. Duos of equally high talents like Lennon/McCartney are extremely rare. On a slightly lower level I can think of Jagger/Richards, who perhaps could stick together because their respective domains were so different. Or of Davies/Hodgson of Supertramp, who also broke up. Morrison and Krieger don't count since their collaboration was prematurely ended by the former's death. Like in a divorce, you'll always find immediate reasons which were not the underlying cause. The real story of the Beatles, I think, is not why they broke up but how they managed to stick together for as long as they did, endowed as they were with not one but two musical geniuses.

    1. Jasper_in_Boston

      Almost all great composers and songwriters worked alone, or had a band or orchestra in which they totally dominated. Duos of equally high talents like Lennon/McCartney are extremely rare.

      Not in musical theater, where duos tend to be the rule, not the exception. Also, in modern pop music John/Taupin come to mind (for my money the equal of Lennon/McCartney: what they lacked in volume compared to L/M they make up for in complexity, breadth and sophistication). There's also Bacharach and David.

      1. ruralhobo

        I dunno. Taupin and David were lyricists, not musical composers as far as I know. It's a collaboration but a bit like Spielberg filming stories by Stephen King. As for musical theater, I don't know enough about it, but the names I do know like Webber/Rice (and I could mention the musical Hair too) were again a composer with a writer, or in the case of Hair two writers.

        1. Jasper_in_Boston

          Taupin and David were lyricists, not musical composers as far as I know.

          I guess I misunderstood you. Your comment referred to composers and songwriters "who work alone." Clearly Elton John (like Burt Bacharach) didn't work alone. He (they) worked with a lyricist.

    2. realrobmac

      John and Paul were not "composers" except in the most literal sense of the word. They were songwriters and members of a rock band. 100% of rock bands have similar dynamics.

  8. DFPaul

    8 hours of it was enough to last even a fairly big Beatles fan such as myself for several months. I thought it was fascinating but a little unshaped.

    2 random points:

    -- With all those hangers on hanging around, it's amazing they could get anything done

    -- Feels significant that (at least as the documentary portrays it) the song Paul is most fixated on is "Get Back". He really wants to get back to the old days of rock and rolling live. Meanwhile John is focused on "Don't Let Me Down". John is saying "I'm off on a new thing with Yoko. Better support me in this because I'm serious even if she seems nuts."

    My last irrelevant comment is that in this world of youtube and editing movies on your laptop, how long will it be before Disney releases the 50 hours of video and 150 hours of audio and invites anyone who wants to to make their own cut? I'm a bit skeptical the Peter Jackson cut is the best cut of this material. (Though it was slick and professional, for sure.) I'd like to see someone with some actual documentary experience cut it. Like maybe Errol Morris or the guy who did "Hoop Dreams", Steve James. In particular, someone with the courage not to chop up the material trying to make "scenes" with a "point", but rather let takes play longer and let us the audience decide what's going on.

    1. DFPaul

      Oh also... I'm really glad they had the good sense not to do that Libya Roman Arena performance! That's really something for the Rolling Stones or Queen or some group like that. What Beatles' fans love is that even at their most creative and crazy they were very down to earth ("She Came In Through the Bathroom Window" after all... not though the Louis Vuitton store...). Lunchtime on the roof for free in downtown London was the perfect choice for them.

  9. Gilgit

    Enjoyable read.

    For the record, I like that you are giving me your thoughts after watching one part. While bingeing isn't bad, you are often left with only a final impression. You often forget what it was like early or in the middle of watching the show. So keep these episodic reviews coming.

  10. djp1955

    I have watched just the first installment too.

    And I strongly disagree with Kevin Drum’s dour opinion.

    The concentration of why the Beatles broke up is not what this documentary is all about.

    It’s about the unprecedented ability to watch how the greatest musical group in history, interacted, wrote and crafted songs that every other artist of our time could not come close to duplicating.

    If one takes a handful of (what are considered) the “worst” Beatles songs, that would constitute a fabulously successful career for mere mortals.

    When Kevin writes "One of the problems with Part 1 is that it shows the period when the songs are just barely taking shape. This is historically interesting but musically a bit tedious.”....in a word all I can say is BALONEY!!!

    I did not find it “tedious” in the least. It was revelatory to actually see what, before this, a mysterious process that is close to answering the equivalent of “what is life”, in that it is equally perplexing on how extremely popular songs are written.

    When I went to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame for the first time, it was shortly after the Beatles exhibit was unveiled in 2017.

    I was mesmerized by handwritten lyrics to songs that provided a small glimpse of the creative process.

    In Get Back Part 1, we get to see and experience the full creative process of songs that we know by heart....at the very BIRTH of the rough beginning before the interaction of the group molded them into cherished melodies and lyrics that are so ingrained in our lives we tend to take them for granted.

    What I saw in part one, was four extremely (genuius-level) talented and connected parts of a family, knowing each other so well (because of that unique shared experience of being a Beatle) that they spoke in code where just a word or two revealed a shared reality.....like a married couple that after 50 years can finish each other’s thoughts and sentences.

    And we were invited into this world in all it’s humanity, quirks, and inspiration that sometimes took a long road to fruition.

    Too bad Kevin was looking for the wrong thing and ignoring the glorious experience that is so rarely revealed.

  11. royko

    Here's my take from what I've read/watched (haven't seen the PJ documentary):

    By the end, Paul was the one most creatively engaged and trying to fill the leader role. Lennon wasn't enormously productive at that point and never really was again, and there are many theories why, but drugs and general disposition strike me as the main factors. Ringo was Ringo. George was becoming more creatively productive but didn't have John and Paul's respect (unfortunately). So out of a combination of personalities, dynamics, and where they were, Paul was the driving force at the end. Which was probably another factor in the breakup.

    Epstein's death and somewhat haphazard financial management left them with a pretty big void and mess, and they tried to solve the financial issues with Apple, but being creative types couldn't just leave it as a tax shelter but tried to make it a record label/production company/whatever idea popped into their heads. But they weren't good managers -- they had too many ideas with no good way to sift through them and were surrounded by people who liked to say "yes". This led to a lot of wheel spinning which must have made being a "Beatle" frustrating.

    After the slog that studio-only recording had become, there was a real desire to get back (ha!) to their roots and do a concert again. I know Lennon had wanted to do more raw rock 'n roll stuff, although Paul's songwriting to me seemed to be going to longer, more conceptual ideas. Anyway, with Paul leading the way, the idea was to do a big concert and film it. Obviously that didn't end up working out. They were too disjointed creatively, professionally, and emotionally at that point.

    And that's my main theory of why they broke up the way they did. Losing Epstein, the financial and organizational mess they created, being unable to agree on a new manager (personally, I think they should have looked for a different consensus option since they couldn't agree on Klein/Eastman. They needed someone they could all trust and never found that person), the creative tension between Paul trying to be leader, John being less engaged, and George not getting to grow, it all led to them just being tired of it all.

    Yoko shouldn't have gotten as much blame as she did, she's more symbolic of the different directions their lives were going in. I suppose from some perspective she wasn't great for Lennon, at least creatively, but his diminished output is really his problem, not hers. She's a polarizing figure, definitely, but the public perception of her did seem a little tainted by both sexism and racism.

  12. Meaniemeanie_tickle_a_person

    A few things struck me about Get Back;
    1) Out of 60 hours of film, and 150 hours of audio, if this is the best 7 hours, the remainder must be some real crap.
    2) Jackson spliced chunks together seemingly randomly at times, creating a sort of whiplash video experience.
    3) Did John really constantly mug for the cameras, or did it just tickle Jackson to include so much of it?
    4) By far the most fascinating thing in the whole show was the way Paul, and to a lesser extent John, assembled a song out of thin air, seemingly one random word at a time. ("Scrambled Eggs", if anyone remembers that).
    5)Paul's writing style sometimes consists of just playing the chords that stuck in his mind, and willing words to fit. There's a recording I heard ages ago where John is trying to teach George to do that: "keep playing, don't stop, just keep going, the words will come", or words to that effect. Did Paul teach that to John, or did they just develop it together as a working method? Seems like John was trying to pass it on to George. At any rate, it gave us "Get Back"...

    1. erick

      yeah there is a scene where George is working on Something and he's hung up on what to say after She attracts me like... Which we of course know eventually becomes no other (which is like duh kind of obvious and does fit perfectly in the song in its simplicity, but I guess he was trying to find something more, pun intended:-))

      John says just put in any word like cauliflower and eventually it will come to you

      In another scene George comes in and says he couldn't sleep and the beginnings of a song came to him and he remembered what John had told him 10 years ago (when they would have been all of 18 and 15!) once you start don't stop, keep writing until you run out of ideas. That song was Old Brown Shoe which he then plays and its pretty close to the final version.

  13. Larry Jones

    Haven't seen the movie, but...
    The music of your youth usually turns out to be the music of your life, and so it is for me with The Beatles. Some of their work is on the highest level that pop music has ever achieved. But what resonates for me after all these years is The Miracle: Those four guys coming together at that moment as the baby boom came of age, the worldwide explosion of creativity in all the arts, the clothes, the attitude, even the drugs. It ignited so fast, burned so bright, changed the world, and ended abruptly. I'll see the film some day, because I can't get enough of The Beatles and their times.

  14. Pittsburgh Mike

    Have to disagree that John was checked out. I've only seen the first 1.5 episodes so far, and part of the fun is watching how Lennon and McCartney interact.

    And I definitely disagree about having worn out listening to the Beatles. Still *love* Abbey Road.

    But so far I haven't seen anything that dissuades me from believing that Richard Starkey was the luckiest man in the 20th century.

    1. hankgillette

      “But so far I haven't seen anything that dissuades me from believing that Richard Starkey was the luckiest man in the 20th century.”

      I’d place him second, to Bill Gates.

  15. Pingback: More notes on Peter Jackson’s “Get Back” from Parts 2 & 3 – Kevin Drum

Comments are closed.