Should "Free as a Bird" and "Real Love" count as canon Beatles Songs? | Page 7 | Fab Forum | The Beatles Bible

@Wigwam makes an interesting argument, however it is contradictory.

He points to how certain teachings of the church have changed over the centuries (to varying degrees in different branches of the faith), and posits this supports his and others arguments that things can change.

Whilst undoubtedly true, but it has nothing to do with the Christian canon other than the arguments it can and can’t be used to uphold. The Christian canon used by the majority of Christian churches remains the same as it ever was, the same twenty-seven books that were agreed upon and were collated at the New Testament in the 4th and 5th centuries AD are the same twenty-seven books that make up the New Testament.

These “lost gospels” and early writings are better known now, as the church is no longer in the all-powerful position of being able to suppress them, but not one of the major branches of Christianity have argued that any of them should now be considered “canon” and added to the New Testament.

Wigwam makes the argument that the changes in the teachings of various branches of Christianity show a facility for change, and that this somehow relates to the “canon”. It palpably doesn’t as the “canon” remains identical to the one agreed around fifteen-hundred years ago. The lessons to be taken from the “canon” may have changed over those fifteen-hundred as society and understanding have changed, but the text, the Christian “canon”, remains the twenty-seven books agreed upon at a Synod all those years ago. Only the interpretation of that “canon” has changed.

Exactly the same can be said of The Beatles’ “canon”, that the opinions on, and understanding of, has changed over the years, but that the recordings that make up that “canon” are (in the opinion of many) unchanged by any of the post-1970 releases.

Wigwam says to look to the teachings of the Christian churches and how they have changed, while I say look at the texts considered “canon” and see how they remain exactly the same.

But who decides what is arbitrary?

To my mind it is arbitrary to consider a song they rejected, such as If You’ve Got Trouble , or them goofing around in the studio, such as Step Inside Love/Los Paranoias, or the many songs taped only for the BBC, should be approached as if they are no different to those recordings that made up the albums, singles and EPs they released while they were an active band.

Should the rejected early take of Norwegian Wood  on Anthology, for instance, be viewed in the same way as the approved master on Rubber Soul ? Obviously, in my opinion, not. I love the rejected take, I often marvel at how they could record such a wonderful version and then reject it, scrap it, rearrange it, believing they could do it better. Should an abandoned work be viewed in the same way as the one they decided they’d got right? Nice as it is to have the alternate version, only the version they considered the version is “canon”, “core catalogue”, or whatever other term you use, so far as I’m concerned.

You suggest that our approach is arbitrary, @trcanberra, even though it follows a set inviolable rule that has left the canon unchanged since May 1970, whereas you have a fluid view which I view as much more arbitrary. What is logical, for instance, based on your statement above, about the Polydor (not their “official” label) Ain’t She Sweet , available legally for decades before it appeared on an album (Anthology 1 ) on the official album? On the bare bones of your statement, it only became “canon” when it was released on Anthology. In my world it remains non-canon.

Another example, based on your definition as stated above, the once legal Star Club recordings remain non-canon for both of us. Were the upcoming Live project to include any of it on any soundtrack, would whatever tracks they chose to include suddenly become “canon”? To me they wouldn’t. A release on Apple wouldn’t have any impact on the rule I use to define the “canon”, yet your definition seems to suggest you make any of the Star Club recordings issued suddenly “canon”.

Which is more “arbitrary”? A canon that follows a clear set of rules, or one that suggests that legally-available recordings, even hits under their name (Ain’t She Sweet  was a minor hit when released as a single in the UK and US in 1964), do not become “canon” until they feature on an EMI/Apple release? That seems incredibly arbitrary to me.

“Which is more “arbitrary”? A canon that follows a clear set of rules, or one that suggests that legally-available recordings, even hits under their name (Ain’t She Sweet was a minor hit when released as a single in the UK and US in 1964), do not become “canon” until they feature on an EMI/Apple release? That seems incredibly arbitrary to me.”

If it was legal on release then it’s canon – easy. You are stretching your case beyond breaking point. The “clear set of rules” is severely flawed as it is dealing poorly with new releases across the years – the fact that you consider it inviolable is proof of that.

Anyway. The discussion has gone around in circles enough for me – like any religious debate between belief and evidence. Nice discussion but I’m out of it for another six months or so. Let me know if I break my rule.

I always enjoy this thread when it crops up.

Though always passionately argued, it is (nearly) always respectful and I believe both sides understand each other’s arguments to a degree. It’s good to see it remain a discussion and not drop into the disrespect seen in other threads.