David, as the publisher of a fan magazine, you rely on people’s memories for the interviews you conduct. You ask questions and print the answers verbatim. You don’t have any other significant context. Consequently, you don’t know if the person is giving you an accurate account, a personal agenda, or both. Those firsthand accounts are one of the main things you publish in ESQ. I get that, and it’s important.
Dean’s firsthand accounts will always be important. But relying solely on Dean’s memories, especially after 50-some years, is unacceptable. For one thing, Dean has muddied the waters significantly by telling differing stories over the years (and I’ve broached that subject with him).
The documentary record that was generated in the ‘50s and ‘60s, hardcore historical evidence that still exists today, especially as it relates to Jan’s career, will almost always trump Dean’s memories or personal agenda. The majority of the business and legal correspondence for Jan & Dean was not addressed to Dean, nor was it generated by Dean, and he didn’t have a major say in how things unfolded. That’s just the way it was.
At the same time, however, the documentary record can in many cases corroborate Dean’s accounts. On the whole, I do think it all meshes together quite well—more often than not.
Dean will always have insight that we don’t have. But Dean’s insight does not exist in a vacuum. Putting it all together is crucial.
