Beatlemania from the Inside

Guest post by Tom Burke

Last August I visited the exhibition of Paul McCartney’s photographs at the National Portrait Gallery in London, Paul McCartney Photographs 1963–64: Eyes of the Storm. I’d like to give you my thoughts.

First, a bit of context about the exhibition. The images all date from the period October 1963 through to February 1964, during which time The Beatles transformed from major pop stars in the UK and parts of Europe to being a global phenomenon. The images were taken during British tours and TV shows in the autumn and winter of 1963; a short tour in Paris in January 1964; and the first visit to the US in February 1964. Most are black-and-white, but the later ones from the US segment are in colour—McCartney responded to a short stay in the sunshine of Florida by switching to colour film. For the mono images he had the films professionally developed and contact sheets produced at the time. He then reviewed the contacts and selected his favourites, but it seems that prints were not produced at the time (or if they were, they’ve been lost). I’m not sure what the procedure was with the colour material—it could have been the same, of course. Somehow, most of the negatives and contact sheets survived, and most of the images in the show are new photographic prints from the negatives. In some cases the negatives have vanished but the contact sheets were preserved, and in these cases the selected images on the contact sheets were scanned and prints produced via digital printing techniques. I don’t know how the new colour prints were produced. The exhibition (and the accompanying book) were of a selection of about 200 images from over 1,000 that he took, and for which either negatives or contact sheets still existed.

As for equipment, he was using a Pentax 35mm SLR, but there was no information on which model or anything about the lens. That said, the images looked like they were taken with a 50mm.

Informal moments
So, what about the images? Let’s talk about the style first. The early ones, taken in Britain during the last months of 1963, are mainly informal portraits. These are mostly of the other group members, in informal moments such as dressing room and backstage shots. Some are on-stage shots of their support acts, including Billy J. Kramer and the Dakotas, and Peter Jay and the Jaywalkers, taken from the side of the stage; and some are onstage shots of the Beatles, including McCartney, which were taken with his camera by a member of their team (probably Mal Evans). There are similar stage-side performance images from the Paris trip in January 1964.

Courtesy National Portrait Gallery, London

There are quite a number of images of members of their entourage—Mal Evans features in quite a few, often with a group member; Brian Epstein is there; the Beatles’ fan club secretary is shown; and other members of "Team Beatles." Then there are also pictures of group members’ families! Some of the images were taken while preparing for their appearance on the UK TV show "Sunday Night at the London Palladium" (perhaps the biggest TV show in the UK at that time) and George’s mum and dad turned up and were photographed. (McCartney captured the look of parental pride.) Jane Asher is pictured several times, and these pictures make you realise just how young she was. Born in 1946, she would have been barely 17 when she and Paul became "boyfriend and girlfriend."

Then there are pictures of group members just goofing around. Some of this was obviously to relieve the boredom of the endless waiting around in dressing rooms, etc, but in Paris especially they wandered the streets, had fun, and McCartney recorded it.

The US images continue these styles, but add something new and very different. McCartney found a new style—he started taking pictures through car (and train) windows. There are some in New York, taken out of a car’s back window, when they were hurriedly being driven away from enthusiastic fans; and in Florida (through the front window) when they are approaching their hotel which was already overrun with enthusiastic fans. Then there are some when he simply saw something arresting through the window and grabbed the shot. One of these was a picture of a young (pre-teen?) girl on the sidewalk, framed by the car’s side window. Another was of the torso and hip of a police motor-cycle outrider who was keeping pace with their car for a while, very close to it; McCartney took a shot which clearly shows the officer’s weapon plus bullets for reloading it in his holster belt. Police officers in Britain at that time were unarmed, and the exhibition includes a comment from him expressing his shock at seeing armed police with weapons carried so visibly. The train shots came about because their flight from New York to Washington had been cancelled due to bad weather, and they went by train instead. Again, McCartney pointed his camera out of the window during the journey and captured some arresting images, of both railroad workers and railroad hardware.

The exhibition catalog

The Florida pictures, all in colour, mainly capture group members, relatives, and friends relaxing on a beach, on a fishing trip, and around the hotel pool. These are again very informal. There are also some images taken from a high point in the hotel, pointing directly downwards onto the beach, and these essentially show geometric patterns that must have attracted his eye. The genesis of these shots might have been messages to the group written in the sand by fans: both the fans and the beach were visible from the upper floors of the hotel.

The most famous people alive
Finally, the big question: how good are they? Well, in some regards this doesn’t matter. It’s a fact that a portrait of a significant person will possess a status that it wouldn’t have if the subject wasn’t significant. If the photographer is also a significant person, then an even higher status will apply. And these images are intimate pictures of very famous people, The Beatles, at an important moment in their trajectory, and taken by one of them. It’s difficult today to remember just what a big deal they were—by February 1964 they may have been the most famous living people in the world.

I think the images also have important documentary significance as well. This is how people were in the early '60s; for example, regardless of how informal the portraits were, in almost every shot all of the men are wearing shirts and ties, and often jackets as well (the Florida images are exceptions.) Then there are the non-portrait images. Some of these possess significant photographic quality. I really liked the "car window" images, for example—they are powerful and artistic.

But—if you took away the fame aspect, then truthfully most of the images are nothing remarkable. In my view, with the exception of the car/train window shots, and some of the "geometric pattern" images, they’re quite ordinary pictures. It’s the subjects’ identity that makes them significant. I’m glad that Paul McCartney decided to stick with the music!

There’s an interesting (to me) coda to this. There are three images by other photographers in the exhibition, two by Paul's brother Mike, who has worked as a photographer, and one by Astrid Kirchherr. All three are significantly better, technically, than almost all of Paul’s images. The Kirchherr image is a publicity shot of the group which was used in marketing material for the Paris tour. The two by Mike McCartney were taken at the McCartney home. One is a portrait of Paul, and it’s very good. The other is of Paul and (presumably) John, both sitting opposite Mike on a settee, heads slightly down, playing guitars—probably working on a Lennon-McCartney song. A view of the creative process in action; and (in my opinion, of course) the image of the exhibition.

And a final disclaimer—I was, and am, a Beatles fan. I grew up with them. Born in 1950, I was 13 when "She Loves You" was released, and I thought that was the best thing I’d ever heard. Subsequently I bought every Beatles single, on the day it was released, from then until "Get Back,"so I was always going to be a sucker for this exhibition. It didn’t disappoint; but at times I had to get out of my "Beatles fan" head and try to view the images more dispassionately.

Tom

Original contents copyright 2024 by Thomas Burke. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

David B.: "There was a great colour photo of John, with a blurry hotel balcony(?) background. Just a small snap, like an old Ilford Films sub-postcard-size 'Enprint' enlargement. John looks almost wistful, looking straight at the camera, with an almost blank face, as if wondering what Paul wants him to do. I bought a print of it...here it is.... But I don't know how to paste a link here...let's see if this works."

[Ed. note: Works for me.]

John Bennett: "Good review! I agree with your assessment that a photo of/by a well-known person is judged on different criteria. When looking at my own work, I often think, 'Well, if this person was famous...or it was being viewed a hundred years from now...the photograph would be much better.'"

louis mccullough: "There was a great Beatles photographic exhibition in Vienna last year. The website has photos. I thought it was excellent although not a big beatles fan. It included prints of all 5 images taken at Abbey Road and was about their first 5? years only. It also had Album covers for their LPs from around the world plus FAN magazine photos. Very comprehensive imagery. There were also photos taken by the Beatles themselves but I'm not sure if it included any of the images in the OP. Blog post on my website. "

Adam Isler: "As a photography MFA student in Britain at the time this exhibition opened, I had the good fortune to be invited to a session in a small auditorium at the National Portrait Gallery in which Sir Paul was interviewed by Stanley Tucci about the photographs. He told stories about the circumstances surrounding the taking of some of the pictures and surprised us by talking rather more (and more knowledgeably) about photography generally than I had hoped (of course, both his wife Linda was, and his daughter is, a photographer). Throughout, he displayed the customary wit and charm for which he’s well known. The event was very hush-hush. We were not allowed to tell anyone about it in advance; our phones were sealed in envelopes beforehand; questions, which we had submitted in advance, were dispensed with by Tucci and the the two of them disappeared behind a stage door with a laugh and a wave. I was only six or seven when the Beatles made it in America. I remember debating with my cousins whether it was really possible for men to grow their hair that long—hard to believe 60 years have elapsed since then…."

Dave: "Wow, Tom! I felt as if I had personally viewed the exhibition, thanks to your column. I was only about two years old when they made their first visit to the U.S. Most of my knowledge of them came from older cousins or just hearing their songs on the radio. I wouldn't have known about anyone outside the group, besides Brian Epstein or George Martin. Thank goodness contact prints were made to take the place of the missing negatives! Thanks for the terrific review!"

Comments

[Alan]

"Police officers in Britain at that time were unarmed" - They still are unarmed.

[Albert Smith]

Could you imagine... If cell phones were at the current level of evolution and popularity back then? We'd most likely be so burned out by over saturation that we wouldn't care to look at anymore photos from this or any pop culture thing.

The access that Paul had and the rarity of decent cameras in the hands of amateurs back then makes this a thing.

[Lex Stewart]

For those in the US interested in seeing this exhibition ‘in person’, it should be noted that it will be coming to the Brooklyn Museum in New York City next week (https://www.brooklynmuseum.org/exhibitions/paul-mccartney).

[martyn elwell]

A great "guest" post. I have this book and also a Beatles fan from their beginning. I agree with all Tom says but fundamentally this collection is akin to someones record of their job. Photographs are subjective and should be.I have always believed subject matter is the most important thing and how you go about portraying it ie snap and go, framing for effect or abstract interpretation come second. Here we are looking at mostly "snap and go" especially with the circumstances and the results are as Tom says an historical record. Paul at that time obviously could not have known that in 60 years these would be out there for all to see and the impact they have. Also the interest people still have for the Beatles and Photographs of the band. Yes Mike McCartneys and Astrid Kirchherrs photos are technically better they should be because of their skilled backgrounds. Their music however is not as good as Pauls (I have seen Scaffold Live).
So, it is a great book a snapshot of their time showing the pace of life they had to live to get where they eventually got to - the top.

[Stephen Jenner]

Interesting read Tom, many thanks.

I don’t know why, but sadly, I missed this exhibition, I think I would have enjoyed it, but not because they were the “Fab Four”. I was a bit young, aged 7-8 in 1963, however the Beatles were a constant presence in my home, my sister born in 1951, was a fan of them and was among the screaming girls that followed them around. My favourite song from that period was “You can’t do that”. A really strong Lennon single, that from memory had the equally robust “She’s a Woman” on the other side. I think the Beatles used to refer to these records as “double A sides”.

However, I was at the Portrait Gallery last week to see one of my favourite photographers, Julia Margaret Cameron with her albumen prints and previously unknown to me, Francesca Woodman who made silver nitrate snaps.

The former’s use of albumen seems to be what made her images that sepia colour and rather than being by design, was unavoidable, due to the light sensitive materials that were available or discovered at the time.

What stands out though is the fantastic condition of the Cameron pictures, it is the Woodman snaps that seem to have deteriorated much more.

Presumably there were a lot of yolk-rich omelettes being consumed on the Isle of Wight in the mid 19th century :).

I don’t have many cameras, but I have nearly always had one, from a 126 Instamatic initially, and my first real camera, a Yashica 35 GTN at about 12 years old.

I sometimes wonder whether it is photography that I am obsessed with, or the cameras themselves and the science behind the phenomenon? I certainly don’t regard myself as a good photographer.

When I go out and about, I nearly always carry (or as Thorsten says, wear) a camera (at least one) and most often, even though I have an expensive (Veblon) Leica Q2, my most carried cameras are my Sigma Quattro DP3 and the little Olympus Trip 35, that my father had in a drawer that I found when I cleared his house after his demise.

The Sigma, in my view is the nearest digital camera that one can get to a traditional camera, down to the slow and deliberate nature that is required when using. It is unfortunate that I chose to buy the DP3 as it is not ideal for city/landscapes which seem to comprise the majority of my snaps, ideal for portraits though. I keep looking for a reasonably priced Sigma Quattro SLR, or a DP0 or DP1, but by the time a suitable lens is acquired it is becoming unaffordable for this pensioner. The Foveon Sigmas are not only holding their value, their prices are increasing above inflation.

—————————————————————————

Having warbled on about the above, I reckon that my favourite camera of all time is the Hasselblad SWC, with the fixed 38mm f4.5 lens. At least, that is the camera with which I have taken my favourite snaps. The great thing about the Hassy is that one can interchange B&W with Colour mid roll. Dark slide in, film carrier off and swap at will. My Hassy was picked up for less than £200, but now you would be lucky to find one for less than £2000

—————————————————————————

Anyway, I am this morning going off to Parallax Photography in Brixton to buy some alkaline fixer and some photo-flo to develop my rolls that I took of the Gilbert and George exhibition that is currently on in Heneage Street between Whitechapel and Shoreditch. I am going to use 510 Pyro for development, and I have discovered that universal fixer is no good with Pyro, it removes the shadow detail at best and removes everything at worst.

Finally regarding blogs, apart from your good self, my favourite blogger was Tim Van der Weert who died last year after a long battle with cancer. The reason behind this, is that one could never see the picture with a glance, one had to look, really look, before you could see.

I may, or may not be right, but I think he named his blog after one of your essays Mike, namely Leicaphilia, despite the fact that he used a Nikon S series camera and lens (of some sort) nearly all of the time.

[Paul Emberger]

From the gallery wall photo there appears to be another trend in the photos: The double head portrait. Almost thankfully, The photo is so low resolution that when I zoom in to look at it, the most apparent thing that sticks out is the geometry of the shots first, and the tones second. By this reduction, these images appear to be quite nice to me.

[Grant]

A very well thought out review. Thanks Tom.

[Paul]

The documentary recording on film in black and white of unremarkable ordinary life is often the most interesting subject matter in all of photography.

[Sean]

Is it unfair to say that Paul’s contribution to photography wasn’t as great as Linda’s to the tambourine?

[darlene]

Tom, thanks for the well-written review.

I would like to see this exhibit if it came closer to where I live, but NYC has not been my home for decades.

Oddly enough, I've never been a big fan of Beatles music, except for the "Abbey Road" album, which I received as a Christmas gift the year it came out. However, I appreciate each Beatle's music as individual musicians. Funny how that works!