Really, we should have heard enough about The Beatles by now.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
They haven't released anything new since Let It Be in the 1970s. Sorry, that recent Now and Then single and Free As A Bird from 1995 don't count - it's not a new recording if it's made after one or more of the members are dead.
They stopped touring in 1966 and declined all sorts of crazy money to reunite.
And here we are more than 50 years after The Beatles broke up, still clamouring for any new piece of information about them.
Beatles biographer Mark Lewisohn published a 944-page book on the band - which stopped in 1962, because it's the first part of a trilogy.
And that 944-page book was the short version - he later published a 1728-page edition with all the stuff the editors cut out.
Given the shorter version had a tendency to dwell on the most minute, irrelevant facts, I can't imagine how bogged down in minutiae the longer version is.
I tried to read that first volume several times and could never finish it; I found Lewisohn was a writer who never let the story get in the way of a good fact.
You see, one of the tricks in writing is knowing what to leave out. Just because you found out some fact doesn't mean you have to include it.
Then there's the regular re-releases of original albums with remixes and bonus discs full of outtakes - which once you listen to them only go to prove why they were outtakes - and the ridiculous reality that there are more Beatles compilation albums than actual studio albums.
Look, the point I'm making here is that there is already a thoroughly ridiculous amount of information out there about The Beatles.
And did we need to know all of it? As a Beatles fan myself, I'd say absolutely not. Is any of the new information that comes out truly shocking? No.
Does it change the way we feel about the band or their songs? No.
So why do we need to know about it?
There's something to be said for a little mystery. We don't need to know what John Lennon might have been thinking before he wrote Come Together or what was in George Harrison's mind when he wrote Taxman.
The songs are there, let's just enjoy them as they stand rather than feeling the need to pick apart every little thing about them, to try and discover the meaning behind every line.
All of which brings me to McCartney 321, a six-part series where Paul McCartney chats to producer Rick Rubin - all shot in very arty black and white.
It was originally released in 2021 but the ABC, thinking that New Year's Day is a public holiday, has loaded them all up on iView to give Beatles fans something to do on their day off.
That McCartney never seems to get tired of talking about The Beatles is impressive; if people kept asking me about something I did half a century ago I'd have gotten sick of it a long time ago.
The downside is because McCartney has spoken about The Beatles so often he has a tendency to repeat the same standard anecdotes and stories from one interview to the next.
While I don't count myself as a knowledgeable Beatles fan by any measure, there was nothing in the first episode of this series that I hadn't heard before.
Rubin's posture is less of an interviewer and more of an acolyte. Sometimes that's made obvious when he sits on the floor while McCartney is on a chair, and looks up at him in awe.
All the while, Rubin adds in bland phrases like "wow" or "that's awesome", as he lets McCartney talk about whatever the hell he wants, rather than pushing him to get out of the loop of stock stories and deliver something new.
Rubin has a strong insight into the creative process but doesn't seem to use that to tease anything out of McCartney.
The result is a long chat where McCartney isn't challenged to go deeper and deliver any fresh insights.
Though I guess that doesn't really matter; as we've seen over the last 50 years, fans are happy to hear the same old stories over and over again.