Intro. [Recording date: March 11, 2025.]
Russ Roberts: Today is March 11th, 2025, and I am joined by the insightful author Ian Leslie, whose Substack is titled The Ruffian. This marks Ian’s fourth appearance on EconTalk; he last joined us in January of 2023 to discuss the nuances of being human in the era of artificial intelligence.
Today, we delve into his latest work, John & Paul: A Love Story in Songs. Ian, itâs a pleasure to have you back on EconTalk.
Ian Leslie: Hi, Russ. Itâs fantastic to be back.
Russ Roberts: This book is truly remarkable. I feel itâs essential for our listeners to understand the perspective I brought to it. To be frank, Iâm not your typical Beatles enthusiast. Iâve never read a book about the Beatles nor anticipated doing so. However, your extraordinary essay, â64 Reasons To Celebrate Paul McCartney: After All These Years, Heâs Still Underrated,â which weâll link to, captivated me. Itâs a 10,000-word pieceâabout 40 pagesâand I devoured it. That essay not only earned you the contract for this book but also inspired me to invite you here for a discussion about John and Paul. As I prepared for our conversation and began reading your book, I found it utterly engrossing.
I wonât lavish more praise on it, but I genuinely encourage listeners to read it if they have any interest in the Beatles, music, friendship, or the complexities of fame and popular culture. My wife has gotten tired of my insistence that everyone should read it. So, thatâs my rare commercial for a bookâone that I truly enjoyed. Congratulations on your work.
Ian Leslie: Thank you so much! I really appreciate that.
Russ Roberts: Letâs jump in. Your book is far from the first to explore the Beatles. Although I havenât read many, I know thereâs an abundance out there. Could you share your personal connection to the band and their music, as well as the research journey you embarked on for this book? The narrative you crafted is engaging and beautifully paced. How did you maintain focus amid the vast amount of material available, deciding what to include and what to leave out?
Ian Leslie: Those are big questions, indeed. To start with my relationship with the band, Iâve been a Beatles fan for most of my life. I discovered them when I was about seven or eight years old, coming from a classic Gen X background. My parents had Beatles LPs scattered throughout our house, as was common in British and American homes of that era. Naturally, I grew to love their music.
In the 1980s, I began reading about them extensively and became fascinated not just by their music but by their story. I never envisioned writing a book about them until that essay on McCartney went viral. I genuinely didnât expect many people would read a 10,000-word piece on why Paul McCartney is musically gifted. However, the emotional responses were overwhelming.
That prompted me to consider writing a book about a band I’ve cherished for so long. I knew I wanted to go beyond the original blog post. I was particularly interested in delving into the dynamic between John and Paul, as I had withheld much of that relationship analysis in the essay to keep it concise.
It struck me that no one had written a book focused solely on the chemistry between these two intensely brilliant individuals. Despite the existence of over a thousand books on the Beatles, none had centered on their relationship, the core of their creative explosion. This gap in literature was an opportunity I couldnât resist.
To keep the narrative focused, I decided to anchor the story in their music. Each chapter begins with a song that holds significance for both of them, constructing a chronological narrative from their first meeting in 1957 to Johnâs tragic death in 1980. Understanding their music is essential to understanding John and Paul themselves, as their feelings and communications were often expressed through their songs. Likewise, the music’s emotional depth is rooted in their relationship.
Russ Roberts: As I began the book, I noticed that while each chapter is titled after a song, one might mistakenly assume youâd only analyze the most famous tracks. Whatâs striking is that many of the songs you discuss are relatively obscure, yet they reveal the intricacies of John and Paulâs friendship and partnership. Itâs a remarkable approach.
Ian Leslie: Absolutely. Consider their songwriting partnership; they began composing together as teenagersâan uncommon practice at the time. Mark Lewisohn, a leading Beatles scholar, notes that very few teenagers in Britain were writing their songs, even if they were into rock and roll. Yet, John and Paul decided to carve their own path.
Their emotional lives became intricately intertwined with their creativity. Sharing ideasâwhether songs or poemsâis a vulnerable act, and their music is steeped in emotion: yearning, desire, jealousy, and more. Their songwriting was an intimate dialogue, a face-to-face communication over guitars during their formative teenage years. They forged a strong bond, further solidified by the shared experience of losing their mothers during that time, which deepened their understanding of each other’s pain.
This shared loss reinforced their sense of being special and different from their peers, fueling their determination to seize the moment and create a world of their own, one that could shift at any time.
Russ Roberts: Thereâs a prevailing narrative surrounding the Beatles, particularly regarding John and Paulâs respective talents within the group. The common perception is that Lennon was the primary creative force, the more talented of the two. Can you discuss how this narrative emerged, especially in the wake of the bandâs breakup and Johnâs subsequent murder, and why itâs misleading? What crucial elements are missing? Your book serves as a kind of revisionist history of the most influential band of the 20th century. Could you succinctly articulate your aims without exceeding 10,000 words?
Ian Leslie: Youâve accurately summarized the essence of the book. This isnât revisionist history for its own sake; rather, it highlights a misconception that has persisted since the Beatlesâ breakup. The narrative has been shaped largely by a generation of music critics, particularly from Rolling Stone, who idolized John Lennon. Lennon embodied their concept of genius: a complex, tortured soul. He was charismatic and often self-referential, presenting himself as the bandâs driving force, with McCartney merely as a talented sidekick who focused on commercial appeal.
This portrayal, however, is a gross oversimplification. While Lennon was undoubtedly a genius, he was only half of the creative duo. McCartney was equally innovative, often pushing the boundaries of musical expression. The myth of Lennon as the sole artistic genius was largely reinforced by his persona, while McCartneyâs domestic lifeâa family man and a nurturing fatherâdidnât fit the archetype of the tormented genius.
Our contemporary understanding of masculinity and genius has evolved significantly over the past several decades, and itâs time the Beatlesâ narrative reflected this shift. We need to revise our understanding of their partnership.
Russ Roberts: To put it another way, Lennon was the iconoclast; McCartney was the conformist. Lennon projected a sense of hipness, having been part of the avant-garde alongside other remarkable performers of the 1960s, like Bob Dylan and the Rolling Stones. McCartney, with his wholesome image, didnât fit that mold visually.
Russ Roberts: One astonishing aspect of your book is the brevity of the Beatlesâ active timeline. I was born in 1954, and I distinctly remember their 1964 appearance on the Ed Sullivan Show at the age of 10. They released their first album, Please Please Me, in 1963, and their final recording session together occurred around 1969 with Abbey Road. Itâs remarkable to consider that their public phenomenon lasted only six or seven years, yet they produced 13 studio albums, including a double album, The White Album, during that time. They effectively lived multiple lifetimes of musical evolution in just seven years.
How did they manage to navigate such an intense journey, and what do you think contributed to their eventual breakup? There are countless rumors surrounding Yoko Ono and the disbandment, but the very notion that they stayed together through such a whirlwind of fame and creativity for as long as they did is mind-boggling.
Ian Leslie: Iâm thrilled you brought that up. You articulated it beautifully. One of my goals with this book is to rekindle our sense of wonder surrounding the Beatles. Theyâve been woven into the fabric of our culture for so long that we often take their achievements for granted. Yet, itâs essential to step back and acknowledge the unprecedented nature of their journey. Seven years of recording, incredible fame, and then they vanishedâat the height of their powers, mind you.
Itâs remarkable to think of any other band achieving such success and then choosing to step away voluntarily. The question we ought to ask is not why they broke up but rather how they managed to stay together for so long. Itâs particularly relevant given their volatile personalities and the intensity of their relationship, which was both close and tumultuous.
Lennon, in particular, struggled with psychological instability stemming from a difficult childhood and substance abuse. Despite his tumultuous nature, Paul played a crucial role in keeping him grounded and channeling his immense talent into the group. However, as they entered their late twenties and faced mounting pressures from personal and business matters, the strain on their relationship became increasingly evident, ultimately leading to their disbandment.
The closeness of their bond was a double-edged sword; it held them together but also set the stage for an explosive parting. Their split was always destined to be fraught with tension, given the intensity of their collaboration.
Russ Roberts: As music fans, we often wish our favorite bands could remain together indefinitely, continuing to produce music. We fantasize about seeing them perform in casual settings, even if one member is absent, filled in by a substitute. The Beatles never went through that phase, and when they pursued solo careers, they rarely performed together. Their relentless pursuit of innovation is unparalleled; they reinvented themselves numerous times in just seven years.
To illustrate, in 1964, while watching their Ed Sullivan Show performance, my father confidently declared they would never last. Itâs hard to fathom the sheer intensity of the Beatlesâ popularity and the frenzied passion they incited worldwide. We had glimpses of this with icons like Frank Sinatra and Elvis Presley, but the Beatlesâ phenomenon was entirely different. The screams from fans during their concerts were a visceral expression of longing and excitement thatâs hard to describe; it was something new and extraordinary.
Yet, my fatherâs prediction was misguided. If the Beatles had settled into a specific sound and style, they might have been remembered as an evolution of the Everly Brothersâbetter, perhaps, but not revolutionary. What set them apart was their refusal to remain stagnant. Their productivity, even amid their experimentation with drugs, is astonishing. The continuous reinvention you detail in your book reveals the toll it took on them as artists and as friends.
Ian Leslie: Exactly. They essentially had to invent the concept of reinvention within popular music. In the book, I point out that it was significantly more challenging for the Beatles to navigate their creative journey since they lacked a precedent to follow. Every artist that came after them had the Beatles as a reference point, but they were blazing a new trail.
The sheer volume of their creative output is staggering. Faced with commercial pressures in their early years, they harnessed that drive to produce remarkable music. Interestingly, in 1969, during their final year as a group, they recorded more songs than ever before, despite the tensions arising from their impending breakup. Music became their outlet for processing emotions, so the more stressed they became, the more they created. Their legacy extends beyond their songs; it encapsulates the ethos of being a popular artist willing to evolve.
Russ Roberts: Watching their early performances on shows like Ed Sullivan or at Shea Stadium, itâs mind-boggling to realize they stopped touring in 1966. The notion that they would become a studio band was unprecedented. Looking back at those old clips, itâs challenging to comprehend the hysteria they inspired. Part of it is that weâve grown accustomed to their legacy; theyâve become part of the cultural backdrop. However, if we analyze what set them apart in 1963 and 1964, itâs clear they had exceptional harmonies, style, and a rebellious spirit that resonated with the zeitgeist of the time.
Their early lyrics may not have been particularly profound, yet thereâs something magical about the sound of their voices togetherâparticularly how John and Paul harmonized. Would you agree?
Ian Leslie: Absolutely! Rediscovering their music is a vital part of appreciating their artistry. We often overlook that John and Paul were not just exceptional songwriters; they were also phenomenal singers. Their vocal chemistry is unique, reminiscent of other great harmonizing duos. Their voices blend seamlessly, creating a sound that is both distinct and captivating, serving as a hallmark of the Beatlesâ identity.
Russ Roberts: Bob Dylan is a counterexample to that; while he’s a brilliant songwriter, his vocal abilities aren’t typically lauded.
Ian Leslie: Exactly. Both John and Paul emerged as outstanding vocalistsâeach deserving a place among the top rock singers. Their harmony and vocal interplay are integral to the Beatlesâ sound, creating a continuity that persists throughout their career.
Regarding their early songs, I believe they were more innovative than they are credited for today. The chords they employed were groundbreaking for their time. Dylan recognized this early on, noting how their unusual chord choices, combined with their harmonies, made the music resonate. Their early tracks, such as âShe Loves Youâ and âI Want to Hold Your Hand,â are deceptively sophisticated, packed with hooks and emotional depth that may not be immediately apparent.
Moreover, those early songs encapsulate raw emotion, a departure from the polished pop of the day. They sought to revive the spirit of early rock and rollâartists like Little Richard and Elvis Presleyâinfusing their music with urgency and passion that resonated deeply with teenagers, who were experiencing the same emotional tumult.
Russ Roberts: Recently, we had Dana Gioia on the program discussing the intersection of opera and songwriting. Historically, songwriting often involves a lyricist collaborating with a composer. While a few individuals can excel in both areas, they are rare. Paul and John, however, wrote both lyrics and music together, which is a distinctive aspect of their partnership. Is there a parallel to this type of collaboration in music history?
Ian Leslie: Yes, indeed. As you pointed out, they both wrote lyrics and music, which is quite unusual. While not every song was written equally by both, their collaboration remained significant throughout their career. Brian Epstein, their manager, frequently found himself clarifying that both contributed to both the lyrics and the music.
Itâs a rarity in music history; most partnerships have a clear division of labor, with one member primarily responsible for lyrics and another for music. Lennon and McCartney, however, defied that norm, producing exceptional work in both areas. They each had the capacity to write profound lyrics and innovative melodies, further highlighting their uniqueness in the world of music.
