- From Faith Current: “The Sacred Ordinary: St. Peter’s Church Hall” - May 1, 2023
- A brief (?) hiatus - April 22, 2023
- Something Happened - March 6, 2023
Hey there, folks.
Last night, I had an epiphany—I was sitting here typing away at 12:30 am, crafting long, thoughtful, hopefully thought-provoking responses to a person I didn’t know and would never meet, about a topic I’ve probably written 100,000 words about. They didn’t seem to like me, and my considerable personal affability (ask anyone!) was beginning to wear thin. Why? Because I’d been here tens, hundreds of times before. I knew that nothing I’d write would ever convince them, and that if necessary they’d just switch the topic to some other thing — some other fact, some other era, some other band—to prove that I was wrong. I mean, maybe I AM wrong; but I’ve spent forty years delving into the nuances of the Beatles, and that should be respected…plus I’m one of the proprietors of this site, so people should be polite to me, at least. Not for the first time I thought, “I used to like Beatles fans. I should’ve just written a book, cashed the check, and gone onto the next project.”
Then I realized something…
This blog belongs to Nancy and me. I’ve been running it since 2008, she joined in 2010, and all told, we’ve spent about $25,000 to keep it running over the last 14 years. Hey Dullblog is not Twitter. Hey Dullblog is not for the commenters, nice or nasty. It’s a hobby of OURS, Nancy’s and mine, to give US pleasure. If other people want to chime in, fine, but they’re going to do so only when it interests us, and in ways we want. Dullblog is a way for us to explore Beatle-related topics we’re interested in, without apology or even a thought to anybody else’s obsessions or fascinations. If a commenter expresses an interesting viewpoint very well, we might go down that path a bit with them. Or not, but it’s always going to come back to what Nancy and I are interested in.
Fewer and fewer people are commenting, and those few are commenting more and more, about the same topics. We know this site is read by hundreds of people a day, and suspect that the toxicity of the comments are discouraging new, more interesting commenters. Our commenters seem to be engaging in less and less nuance, and threads—even when they stay on topic, which is rare—never reach any kind of synthesis, which used to happen a lot. I used to learn quite a bit from our commenters; now, not so much.
So, as of today, 2/22/22, here are the rules commenters must follow:
- Certain topics are done, because we’ve already addressed them fully. If you are interested in them, go read the previous posts about them, and the comment threads under those posts, which are beyond voluminous. These topics are:
- McLennon. We are done discussing whether John Lennon and Paul McCartney had a sexual relationship, romance, or love affair.
- The breakup. The breakup was a complex, multi-year process between four complicated, egotistical people who didn’t/don’t always tell—or know—the truth. We’re especially sick of comments slagging Paul on this because that has been the story since “Lennon Remembers.” We are slightly less sick of the mid-2000s counter-narrative, put forward by Mikal Gilmore and here on Dullblog as well, that John broke the group up, but regretted it immediately. But really? We’re sick of all of it.
- John’s sexuality and/or psychological disorders. We have talked this to death and frankly, most of the comments about it don’t bring any data, just the commenter’s personal need to portray John Lennon as psychopath or saint. I am particularly sick of having to explain why it’s not mean or unfair to delve into these matters. John was a public figure whose seeming honesty invited this kind of speculation. He wanted to control it, but that was impossible then and immaterial now. John was likely bi-curious, but that’s well-trodden ground and, in the absence of new information, doesn’t seem to have impacted his career or art in any meaningful way.
- John vs. Paul. Who was better? Who gets treated unfairly? Who was a genius, and who rode on the other’s coattails? Swear to god, if you think about The Beatles for more than six months and don’t conclude that both guys were amazing, unique, and divinely complementary, you’re either 13 years old or need therapy.
- You are welcome to submit a comment for moderation. Comments are expected to be well-written, concise, thoughtful—and funny if you’re a good enough writer for that. They must be polite to us—you don’t know us, and this is OUR place—and respectful to the community. Comments can and will be trashed by us for any reason, without explanation. If this seems harsh or unfriendly, please remember that Nancy and I are both professional writers/editors, and we have just read your work without compensation. Over the decades, that adds up to a fair bit of unpaid labor. We won’t charge you, because this site is a hobby we do for fun, but our rule is law, because this site is a hobby we do for fun. If you feel aggrieved, start your own Beatles blog. Opportunities to communicate are beyond plentiful, and there’s no reason we should pay to host one single comment we don’t like.
- You have no right to freedom of expression. This is our website and we are not the US Government. We are not “censoring” you. We are editing our website. If you burn to express something, go put it on YOUR website, Twitter, or scream it out your window.
- Comments are more likely to be trashed if they are abusive, reactionary, or addressed to another commenter. The quality of comments on this site, which used to be ferociously high, has declined in proportion to the amount of cross-talk. State what you have to say to and for the group.
- Even when approved, comments may be edited in any way Nancy and I see fit. Don’t like it? Don’t comment.
- Nancy and I will, in certain cases, declare a thread closed, or tell a commenter to “move on.” This can be “move on to another topic,” or “move on to another site, please.” You’ll know; we’ll be clear.
I can’t stress enough that these rules apply to commenters, not to Nancy, myself, or anyone we invite to post to the blog. We can talk about anything we like, in any way we like, for as long as we like. Because this is our site (you may sense a theme developing).
I don’t mean to come off as mean or aggressive, but you have no idea how wearying it is to moderate comments on this blog. It’s literally one of the worst parts of my day. It has been infuriating and saddening to see our once-high level of mutual investigation and respect decay and decay as the standards of friendliness and propriety on the internet have declined. I am beyond fed up with a few of you, yet have continued to engage out of Midwestern politeness, but enough is enough. Why on Earth you’d continue to lob in your opinions is beyond me—it’s clear we don’t see eye-to-eye. Just go start your own thing.
There is so much good writing and interesting Beatle-thought on this site. Nobody should really be commenting before they’ve read—at a minimum—our “best of” posts. You will enjoy them and read more deeply, or hate them and move on. Either is fine, but the commenting culture here WILL change, even if it’s just Nancy and I talking to each other.
Thanks for reading.
Related posts:
Commenting Standards on Hey Dullblog
Lennon Murder Conspiracy Open Thread
New Commenting Policy
Our Comment Policy, and the Future of Dullblog
Like the new Comments?
Contact/Submit
Call for Submissions!
George Starostin on music today
“You, my pal, ROCK!”: Inspiration from the spam filter
Comment Policy
Is internet Beatle culture toxic?
Off to the Fest for Beatles Fans! And a nugget…
I’d like to add that I’ve learned a lot from people who’ve commented over the years, but that I concur with Michael about the direction the site has taken lately.
In a 2018 interview the author Anne Lamott said something that really made me think. She’s talking specifically about giving advice to others in the context of addiction recovery, but wow do I find this only too applicable in my own life:
“So if someone asks, I’m really glad to listen, and I’m really glad to share my experience, but if they don’t, boy, there’s a great acronym in recovery: ‘WAIT — “Why Am I Talking?”
The thing that has made HD work well, when it has, is that people were talking to clarify what they thought and to connect meaningfully with the ideas of others. And in fairness, those things are really, really hard to do online. So much of internet culture militates against openness and reflection. Internet culture rewards and reinforces dunking on others and “winning” against them. It doesn’t value listening or reconsideration. That’s not to say that internet culture makes those activities impossible, just that it makes them harder.
I hope we can go forward with more of the habits of mind and communication that the internet is unfortunately making rarer.
Bless your cotton socks, Michael Gerber and Nancy Carr. You’ve shown superhuman patience for a long time and I want you to enjoy your website.
Thank you, @Annie! We genuinely do wish everybody well. It’s just…we’re the people who have to read all the comments and it’s been a LOT. 🙂
Great move guys. I’m more of a reader than a poster, but I haven’t read many of the recent comment threads due to feeling a bit jaded of some attitudes.
If I want one-eyed belligerence, I’ve got the rest of the Internet for that.
Thanks for the support, @Marlo. Like I wrote, we’re hoping that this will actually increase the diversity and vigor of the comments here, by clearing a bit of space.
I came across this quote today, and I thought it applied here:
“One does not become enlightened by imagining figures of light, but by making the darkness conscious.” — Carl Jung
Michael and Nancy are trying to enlighten us through discussions of the Beatles, and how examining them, can maybe help us examine ourselves. That means searching for the truth, even if we have to suspend some our existing beliefs.
Keep up the great work!
@Tasmin, that’s a great quote. I am primarily trying to enlighten MYSELF, and learn from you guys as well.
I think anything can confer self-knowledge, if peered into deeply enough. Let’s see if that’s true! 🙂
I’m all in! 🙂
In all honesty, while I understand the rules and personally find them reasonable, I have to tell you that I think you should probably invite someone to help with the moderation process instead of trying to control the flow of conversation by banning certain topics.
Yes, it’s yours and Nancy’s site, with guest contributors here and there, but that doesn’t mean it has to be all on you, which seems to be the main issue here from both your comment and hers when I read between the lines — namely, that both of you personally don’t want to discuss these things anymore yourselves, even though that’s where the flow and focus of discussion may lead organically for others, and you’re tired of feeling obligated to join it to make the same ole point because it’s your site and you should “do the thing,” as the kids say.
If you cede some of that housekeeping responsibility to another person, maybe with some sort of moderation-specific account for the party in question instead of all-access admin (which is doable; I work with a site that runs on WordPress and am happy to have my tech person lay that out for you), maybe you would be able to continue to engage at the level and the amount you wish, covering only the topics you personally aren’t burnt out on, while not feeling the pinch as much.
Just a thought…
That’s a good thought, @g_i_b; thank you. we’ll consider it. But a separate mod doesn’t change the fact that the site is increasingly filled with topics that (to be brutally frank) reflect poorly on Nancy and me professionally.
Here’s what I mean:
Several times in the last couple of years, I’ve had an opportunity to make an approach to Paul McCartney. (Friends of friends.) An exclusive interview on Dullblog? He might well do that…except that the site’s activity, and the resultant SEO, makes it clear that it’s FULL of “John and Paul fucked” material. Five minutes after an assistant loads the site, they would say, “Don’t do this, boss.”
The initial post? That would not have been a problem; we were discussing a fan phenomenon. Now? I literally *cannot approach* Paul, Ringo, or any other high-level person. Nancy and I will likely never be invited to speak or be part of panels at any convention. Because outside of the internet, the topic seems nutty and disrespectful. Juvenile.
So my trying to restrict topics here — IOW, encourage people interested in certain things simply to gather someplace else — is also an attempt to rebuild Dullblog into what it was: a respected site where smart, really literate Beatles fans discussed the group and their era. We had plenty of frivolous posts then, too; but we didn’t wallow in the pools.
Sadly, this site’s rep is probably not salvageable. While this does allow me the freedom to say, “Lennon Murder Conspiracy–GO!”, it has at least for the foreseeable future really restricted what we can do here, who we can invite, etc. I kept hoping things would shift back, but they have not.
See, maybe it’s just me (and bear in mind I say this as an industry pro myself who has been at it for over a decade), but I don’t think the site ever lost what it was. The comments section, which seems to be where most of the discussion you characterize as ‘frivolous’ is going on, reflects most of all its readership, not its authors. The writing featured on the site is assuredly still the work — and quality work, at that — of “smart, really literate Beatles fans discuss[ing] the group and their era,” regardless of where the readers take things in replies. You can’t really control who reads your stuff short of not publishing it, and if you attempt to control how they respond to it, then shutting off the comments section, as you’ve periodically done on certain posts, is kind of the only way to rigidly police where the discussion leads.
Additionally, while I understand what a feather in the cap it would be to have exclusive interviews with high-profile people on Dullblog, and it’s wonderful that the opportunity to open that door periodically exists, I must be honest with you in saying that — frivolous posts or not — the odds of them saying yes are not terribly likely, something I assume you’re probably already aware of but that certainly bears pointing out. Even without the frivolity, you still participate in the kind of nuanced thinking and commentary that all signs indicate they just aren’t ready to engage with, to the extent they ever were or will be. In Paul’s case, in particular, we’re talking about a celebrity who has previously thought nothing of cutting a live interview short if the interviewer went off-script or touched on a sensitive topic that wasn’t on the agenda. This is the site that’s not afraid to get dirty and examine things critically (witness the recent resurrected threads about Goldman, for example), and I can’t imagine the Fabs or their associates not blanching a little bit even if the site’s readership didn’t speculate about whether or not half the band knocked boots (presumably with chiseled Cuban heels).
Whether it’s a good or a bad thing is in the eye of the beholder, but I don’t think things are going to shift back, regardless of sanctions imposed, and maybe that’s what comes with being “people who think about The Beatles maybe a little too much.” Then again, I could be wrong.
Those are sound thoughts, as always, @g_i_b. Thank you. (My dinner came and a friend called in the midst of this reply, so sorry if it’s a bit scattered.)
You’re probably right about Paul, but my own experience with I Famosi suggests that, were Dullblog what it was earlier, after one week’s worth of emailing I could freakin’ load this site up with interesting characters from the Beatles story, and more importantly, top-quality writers and artists who love The Beatles. There is a dearth of what I’d call “old fashioned” media outlets online, and if you create a reasonably attractive and weighty venue, amazing contributors come, especially with my address book. But Klaus Voorman won’t be interviewed on a site obsessed with McLennon. And I think that’s a shitty trade, because there are lots of places people can talk McLennon, and very few that could talk to Klaus about his drawing technique, and how graphic design overlaps with bass-playing, and whether he thinks John could’ve made it as a painter…
That is what’s being lost in the era of no gatekeepers; if there isn’t a corporation paying to make high-quality curated content — usually as promotion — high-quality curated content doesn’t get made, and the gap is filled with crowdsourcing and cheap stuff. In the eye of this beholder, that’s BAD. I’m an editor, I make and run magazines; I gather content, and shape it as my profession. This is a skill and it’s one that the world desperately needs, but no longer pays for. In addition to the dearth of editors, high-quality content is getting rarer too. The ability to make it is the result of many, many years of training and practice, which must be paid for, and the difference between that and all the various workarounds people attempt these days…it’s vast. In comedy, it’s the profusion of improvised mockumentary (cheap) over endlessly rehearsed sketch (expensive). So we’re not going to GET another “Young Frankenstein” or “Life of Brian,” because that’s not how comedies are made anymore, and not how people are learning to make them. The very idea that one should not express every thought — this is increasingly alien. Finally, I simply reject the contemporary idea that we are weirdly powerless to shape content — which is to say, culture. It is terribly important that we DO shape it.
I’m not interested in paying $1000/year to run a Beatles bulletin board. Our world is drowning in — arguably being driven mad by — an endless torrent of unfiltered, anonymous vox-pop opinion which invariably, inevitably descends to the level of the least nuanced, least mentally healthy, least respectful people in the discussion. This isn’t a good thing, and it’s not natural, inevitable, or the will of the market, either. It’s a predictable consequence of the corporate advertising-based media model, and that model has remade the entire internet in its image. Commenting is free content; editorial is expensive content; both can be monetized, but the former is pure profit. If Dullblog was for-profit, I would feel differently; heck, if everything was behind a paywall and commenting cost $5/month, I’d feel differently. As it is, we suffer the editorial decay, without the monetary benefit. Dullblog isn’t Twitter; and because Twitter and all the other social channels exist, it doesn’t have to be.
We’re not alone in this; in fact we’re ‘way on the smart-and-respectful side of things. I simply question whether a forum like we’ve been running is really educating people about The Beatles in any meaningful sense, and furthermore whether it’s good for them to spend time obsessing about whether John and Paul fucked, or whether John was bipolar, or whether gatekeepers have distorted The Official Version in X or Y way, or whether [x minor character] holds the one true key to the Beatles story. It’s a whole mental mode that reminds me more of the obsessed, unhappy JFK assassination people I used to know than the Dullblog commenters I loved and learned from. I don’t like it, and don’t want to read it, or moderate it, but if I saw evidence of people coming away from these comments discussions with anything other than HARDER opinions and MORE rigid senses of self, I’d consider leaving it alone. Nancy and I have been discussing this for years, and we’ve really struggled with it.
As someone who was talkin’ Beatles in 1980, this particular flavor of discourse is new. It isn’t “fans discussing The Beatles in the offhanded, personal way fans have always done.” Public and defiant and entitled, it is a distinct mindset that seems to encourage certain types of topics to be discussed obsessively in only certain types of ways. Ways which do not lead to nuance or greater understanding, but greater obsession and attack/defend over trifles. It is a narrowing, a hunkering down. People have been trained to feel that their attention is valuable and that any publication they pay attention to owes them service in return. And what I’m hoping is that there will be advertising supported places for fans to chatter to their hearts content, and everyone will feel valued and respected. But Dullblog, not being ad-supported, doesn’t run like that.
So as editors — as people who shape content — what are my and Nancy’s obligations here? I can’t speak for her, but for me, it’s become quite clear that something drastic was necessary. I am determined to wrench back the wheel here and — at a bare minimum — make this a site that I’M interested in again. One that doesn’t feed people’s insanity and make them fight each other over trifles. We shall see if it works, but I know that it already feels a lot better than it did a week ago. And your comments are a part of that, @g_i_b. Thanks again.
Michael, just want to second what you’ve said here and say that I’m very grateful to the commenters who post substantively.
I thank you and Nancy for sticking with this. I love reading the intelligent commentary and learning from it There are certain commentators I know to skip over because they tend to rant about certain things in an emotional way that doesn’t advance anything.
Everyone’s a content creator these days, but as you said, high quality curated content is in short supply. Old-school magazines and newspapers performed a vital curatorial function – in general you weren’t allowed to unleash your opinions on the world until you had developed a sensible framework for doing so.
It’s your site, and if you want to impose quality control then that’s your prerogative.
Hi there, I’m someone who has been backreading this site a lot since discovering it a few months ago, but have not yet commented. I find this place quite unique, and I really enjoy the discussions here – it’s a lot more in-depth than you’d find on Reddit or on social media, and it discusses the Beatles and co and their lives in a detailed and analytical way, but the reactionary narratives and fights that typically crop up; also without the ‘shippy’/McLennon-infused approach that you’ll find in fan spaces like Tumblr.
Honestly, I’m really quite impressed that you engaged with the whole McLennon discourse … and I completely understand why you’re done with that whole line of discussion now. It sounds like you may regret having gone there? I suppose you could consider archiving those posts on the Wayback machine and deleting them, if it’s really holding you back from the kind of opportunities you mention.
Anyway, I really just wanted to say that I appreciate this site a lot. Aside from your posts, I’ve also read many, many of your comments, and I find what you have to say astute, interesting, and always calm. That’s a rare thing in today’s internet.
I just wanted to say the same thing. I too recently found this site and have been lurking and catching up. I’m enjoying the discussions tremendously and am looking forward to hopefully contributing in a meaningful way.
Thank you, Michael, Nancy et al, (and nice to meet you!) for creating this space for us.
@Katie, thank you. @Nancy and I are glad you like the site and your experience is exactly the one we hope readers will have. Seek out posts by Devin McKinney. He doesn’t post here anymore, but his thoughts are particularly incisive and beautifully written. And Nancy’s a tremendous critic as well.
If you’re asking me, personally — I do not at all regret posting “Were John and Paul Lovers?”. I think it’s an interesting idea, a human idea, a strangely sweet idea, a valid idea, something completely worth examining. I also think it’s fascinating that so many contemporary fans do seem to gravitate towards it, regardless of whether it happened. I don’t think a site like this could do a full and honest representation of the Beatle phenomenon and its fandom without at least bringing up this issue. I do not like how it tipped the comments for a time, but (mirabile dictu!) that seems to be tipping back.
C’mon Mike, don’t JINX IT! 🙂
I’m not sure where to post this, so, I’m posting it here, please move as it’s not really relevant to this discussion.
But, as is my custom when meal prepping for the week I was listening to music. I try to keep relevant and up to date by listening to the latest things, but I only do it out of duty and rarely hear anything that I like. So I decided to listen to what is my fave Beatles album, Help.
Odd choice maybe, but it was first album I bought of my own volition. Mum had Please please me and With the Beatles from her own Beatles days, which I both adored. I also listened to her Sgt Peppers, which at age 7 was nearly a bit too far out for me to understand, but I loved that too, just because it was Them.
Relistening to Help though, I was struck by the maturity of these early 20 somethings.
You’ve got to hide your love away particularly broke my heart. It out Dylan’s Dylan .And Yesterday, which I have not ever really liked , I thought about it. A boy 23 years old wrote that.
I couldnt even write a dirty limerick if I tried. And poetry is pouring out of these young men.
And let’s not forget about George who is warning about getting too close. You love me too much and yeah, I guess I kinda like ya.
I’d be very interested to hear what everyone else’s fave album is .
Not from trendiness, but what was your first exposure.
@Marlo, my first exposure to the Beatles was as a child, probably about 6-7. My father had an album collection, and I remember looking through them, being very intrigued by the covers.
I was especially intrigued by Rubber Soul, which is my favorite Beatles album.
I must have heard it when my father played it, but I don’t remember. I do specifically remember being so intrigued by the cover, which remains iconic today.
I love all the songs on Rubber Soul, and especially John and Paul harmonizing, which is one of my favorite things about the Beatles.
To me, it’s the album in which the Beatles are leaving the Mop Tops behind, and is the beginning of a new, richer period. I never get tired of hearing it.
I also wanted to add that one of my favorite songs on Rubber Soul is “Norwegian Wood”, which of course features the sitar, and George’s budding love and fascination with Indian music.