My Mormon Beatles: How I Lost my Faith in Paul McCartney

Minisode

Posted August 25th, 2015

Glenn projects many of his Mormon-formed biases onto the One True Band: The Beatles, and compares his changing view of The Beatles to his changing view of The Mormon Church.

mad088-letter-alfred-beatle

Glenn

  • Lou

    Hey! What the eff happened to “The Little Apologist” episode? Super creepy and entertaining and awesome. Did someone figure out who it was?

    • SachmoJoe

      Wow they took it down? Lucky I listened to it straight away. That guy was a little weird though.

      • Zelph

        I couldn’t get through it, utter boredom to the max.

    • Glenn

      Yes. He asked us to take it down. We’ll address it in a future episode.

      • Lou

        Cool. That’s what I figured. Poor guy just wants to be accepted. I genuinely felt sorry for him.

      • DANG IT i didn’t grab it in time!

      • sotteson

        That’s too bad. That was a great episode. I’m guessing it was a lot of work to go through and disguise his voice and dub over the names as well.

  • Orrin Dayne

    I think it was Glenn who said that Mormonism likes the look of itself in the mirror. If Mormonism likes the look of itself in the mirror, the next best thing is seeing itself in pop culture. No better example of this is a younger Glenn seeing Mormonism in the Beatles. Awesome. Loved this minisode.

  • SachmoJoe

    Loved it Glenn. You can indulge your Beatles obsession any time as far as I’m concerned. You even kicked it off with ‘Don’t Let me Down’.

    That, my friend, is inspired.

  • JRon

    Holy Crap the deepthroat episode dissappeared?? The liitle apologist has vanished. Glad I caught that one

  • EE

    Absolute best minisode ever!!! Thanks Glenn! The links you drew between Mormonism and Beatles lyrics are way too hilarious. Paul says Word of Wisdom and John says moon, stars, sun?? lol And thank you for recognizing George (my favorite Beatle) with Beware of Darkness and Give Me Love. Paul was always jealous of George for being younger than him and lower class and yet a better musician, ever since that time George played that song on the bus when they were kids. Also, George had inner peace that Paul could never reach because Paul was too ambitious and vain. But there is no Ringo love in the episode?

    • SachmoJoe

      George a better musician? That’s a bit dubious. He may have been the better guitarist, but by the end of the Beatles, Paul was an excellent bassist, guitarist, pianist and drummer (that’s his drumming on The Ballad of John and Yoko), and while George became a decent songwriter in his own right, his catalogue pales in comparison to the Lennon and McCartney’s.

      I totally get the criticism on Paul’s personality, particularly the arrogance Glenn mentions, but there’s just no way you put George ahead of him in musicianship.

      • EE

        I agree its arguable and of course determining a metric for “better musician,” an incredibly vague term controls the debate. Paul played a bunch of instruments very well, George excelled at only the guitar and ukelele 🙂 In my mind George’s work is so much richer, powerful, moving, etc. Paul has an excellent ear for putting songs together that are perfectly good songs but somewhat superficial. All Things Must Pass album is the best post-Beatles album, in my opinion, but I can’t be objective about it. My emotions tell me that George is the one true Beatle and therefore I know it is true.

        • In the “bonus material” for a Traveling Wilburys collection I have, George explained that his songs sounded distinctive because he wasn’t afraid to use the “naughty chords” (a bunch of augmented and diminished things with flatted ninths and such) that most people would purposely shy away from. His writing was “deep” and very distinctive right up through the Traveling Wilburys which was by far my favorite post-Beatles Beatle effort. With Dylan, Petty, Orbison and Lynne in the band it was hardly a solo effort, but it out-shown anything the other post-Beatles ever did.

          • Oh, and, yes, George IS the one true Beatle.

          • SachmoJoe

            Yet without George, the Beatles would still have been the Beatles, perhaps without half a dozen special songs. Take out Lennon or McCartney, and its game over. Especially because they needed each other to filter out all the dud songs and to create the most epic songwriting partnership/rivalry in history.

            Sorry George fans, I love him too, but putting him ahead of the Big Two just doesn’t hold water. Of course, I will never argue your right to *like* him best, to each his own 🙂

          • EE

            The Beatles wouldn’t have been the Beatles without Paul, but Paul without the Beatles is kinda meh. I disagree that they would have been the Beatles without George. The synergy they had was too perfect, plus they needed his guitar skills in the beginning.

          • SachmoJoe

            I totally agree with you re Paul without the Beatles. The thing about the Lennon-McCartney combination is that they acted as a respected junk-filter to eachother, so if Paul wrote a dud song, John would tell him it was a dud and that was the end of it, and vice-versa. Once the moved on to solo careers there was no one around them trusted and/or ballsy enough to tell them when what they were writing was shit.

          • I was talking post-Beatles. Outside of Lennon’s single, “Imagine,” I was never fond enough of any post-Beatle material to actually purchase it till Traveling Wilburys. I do have a copy of “Dark Horse” from which I listened to “It Is He” a few thousand times and nothing else on the album, sort of the musical equivalent of a facial tic that really doesn’t count. The Beatles, as a band, were absolute magic for about six years. Magic like nobody else before or since and I can’t explain it. “Rubber Soul” literally changed me, and I’m not the kind of person that usually says goofy stuff like that. The Beatles were a ride that we all went on and the exciting part was that we didn’t know where it was headed; every album was new and totally unique. And, yes, McCartney and Lennon were the main drivers, but the whole band was a phenomenon. I doubt the Beatles would have been the Beatles without George or even without Ringo, but that’s coming from someone who was gobsmacked by the whole phenomenon at age eleven. And probably why I didn’t follow them after they broke up. It wasn’t Beatle music anymore.

    • Thomas Moore

      I am a Beatles’ aficionado and I don’t believe Glenn is old enough to appreciate them as I did when growing up. Now some facts that may be useful when writing a comparison theme/thesis (much like many Mormons do for “How The Lord of The Rings and Mormonism” relate. Or “How Narnia’s Chronicles are all about the different Churches and Church’s times/eras.”
      1) Ringo was not the best drummer musician. He was hired because of his flamboyant ways and less attractive face. Pete Best was their drummer at first, but he was too good looking and John and Paul didn’t want the girls swooning over him and the band just for looks. Also Ringo was left handed, so many times the drums were set up for a right-handed drummer. So the Beatles would have a unique “non-beat” sound on their songs because Ringo couldn’t cross arms to hit the drum at the right time.
      2) Just as Joseph was not respected/loved in N.Y. area; so the Beatles made their real fame in Germany then in the U.S. “Beatle Mania” was not a real thing, George Martin tried to make them into a Pop band more like the doo wop 50’s bands that were going on. He pushed/promoted them for their catchy little diddies like “I want to Hold Your Hand”. It was the Fifth Beatle Brian Epstein who changed it all.
      3) Stuart Sutcliffe was part of their “gang” and circle of friends from Liverpool. He never had been a great musician and was their bass player; but he was part of the Liverpool beginnings. He however left the band after having suffered from injuries from a Teddy Boys Gang attack on the band. He later died from those injuries.
      4) Brian Epstein was never abandoned by the Beatles even though they knew that he took (or earned, depending on your point of view) so much of their wealth and merchandising. He really was the Fifth Beatle explaining to them how to dress, how to handle reporters, where to play and where not to play, etc…

      • Glenn

        It’s not a competition, Thomas. But even if it was, I would still win, even if you are Paul-ish-ly older than me. 😉

        Who is William Campbell? What did Leggy Mountbatton do that caused so much shock and stunned-edness? And what exactly was it about their trousers???

      • I’d always heard that George Martin was the “fifth Beatle.” Does Brian Epstein make Martin the sixth? Help, my world view is melting!

      • SachmoJoe

        I disagree with your take on the Pete Best story. He was dumped because George Martin didn’t like him, both for his (lack of) personality and his technique. That’s why they had a session drummer appear on their first single, George had already arranged him even though they’d given Ringo a last minute call up and he’d made it all the way down to London. Since Pete was never really part of the core group they were only too happy to let him go if it meant getting signed by EMI.

        Given Epstein had no musical influence on the group at all, I’m going with George Martin as the 5th Beatle. He had a massive amount of studio input.

  • Malachi

    Did you see Paul’s song commissioned for the video game Destiny? The “pinnacle of his career” if you ask me
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=163_C5UVU-I

    • hetaira

      Wow. This song/video could evoke either LDS or Scientology progression doctrine.

      • Malachi

        I didn’t think of that. Is this further proof of his secret LDS membership? The rabbit hole is deeper than I thought!