|
Post by Panther on Oct 25, 2011 22:39:43 GMT -5
Hey, I haven't seen a thread about Philip Norman's John Lennon bio yet. I resisted this one for a long time because (a) Do I really need to read another Lennon/Beatles bio?, and (b) I didn't like Norman's take on a lot of things in Shout!. I'm only on page 120, but I must say that I'm pleasantly surprised so far. Norman himself states that he made some errors before in his judgement of Beatle stuff, and he had to change his way of thinking about certain things. He really is good (being British and of the Beatles' age) at recreating 1950s Liverpool. That's his strength, as it was in Shout!. He even garnered interviews of sorts with Yoko, Paul, and George Martin, among others. Of course, there are a few boners here and there. When talking of John's reading, circa 1951, of Lewis Carrol and 'Jabberwocky', Norman states that the coda at the end of the second Alice book would "twenty-five years later" inspire "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" (25 years later being 1976). And I'm still waiting for his judgement of George Harrison, whom Norman basically dismissed as an untalented simpleton in Shout!. Nevertheless, so far, so good! (It's also remarkable how much Norman -- in the sleeve photo -- resembles Paul McCartney.)
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Oct 25, 2011 22:41:16 GMT -5
I forgot to mention that, according to Norman, Yoko gave her blessing to him at first and even helped him out; but later, upon reading the draft, she removed all support because she said he'd been "mean to John".
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Oct 25, 2011 23:32:34 GMT -5
I forgot to mention that, according to Norman, Yoko gave her blessing to him at first and even helped him out; but later, upon reading the draft, she removed all support because she said he'd been "mean to John". Yeah and I don't understand that charge at all. It was Norman's book that made me rethink my often hostile position towards Yoko. And did he dig into John's youngest years when the Lennon side of the family was as important in raising John as the Stanley family. In Hunter Davies book and even Shout, one would think that the Lennon family were all deadbeats as to John. I liked the book a lot.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Oct 29, 2011 13:49:56 GMT -5
I'm up to page 377 and it's going well, but you can tell that Norman is going to skip faster and faster through the Beatle and especially the 'solo' years. I mean, it's page 280 before The Beatles record their first single, and then it's the same number of pages from there to 'Hey Jude'. Flipping ahead, it appears that John's entire life in the US will be dispensed with in 126 pages...
Norman continues to show that math is not his strong point. He writes somewhere, about the emerging Beatles in 1960, that "twenty-five years later the punk rock movement would do the same thing" or words to that effect... so, apparently punk arrived with Live Aid...
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Nov 3, 2011 0:40:04 GMT -5
I'm up to page 576 (and we're just at the point of the White Album's being released)!
Seriously, what does Philip Norman have against George Harrison? Shout!, back in 1981, was full of insults to George, culminating in George's going on tour with Delaney and Bonnie and desperately fumbling to "find the easy B7 chords" or somesuch -- Norman's last, desperate attempt to describe George as an incompetent.
Here's some further swipes in the Lennon book:
1) "On December 29, just back from the Magical Mystery Tour, [John] and George together submitted to gentle probing about their conversion on David Frost's ITV chat show. Despite the earnest matters under discussion, John remained his familiar droll, artless self -- a knack that eluded George, and, alas, always would."
2) When Yoko makes the Beatles' scene, George was kind to her at first (reportedly), but later hardened when she sat in the studio and offered musical advice to the Beatles. Here's how Norman describes it:
"George... despite long-marinading in soft-tongued Buddha-speak, was his most bluntly charmless."
(to say nothing of the fact that Norman is incapable of discussing anything Asian without stereotyping it as exotic, bizzarre, or mystical.)
3) [Re: The White Album:] "George Harrison's stronger-than-usual presence was a further sign of changing times. Since Revolver, spurred on by the two super-talents he was lucky enough to play with, George had made increasing strides as a writer." Norman then states that 3 of the 4 songs by Harrison clearly had John as their "mentor". (To say nothing of the fact that 2 songs per vinyl disc hardly makes a quantum leap from 3 songs per disc on Revolver!)
Norman always fails big-time in attempting to describe Bob Dylan's ethos and music, which he clearly has a poor appreciation of.
Despite my small gripes, this is certainly the best full-length bio of Lennon I've come across. Not so good in depicting certain other people, perhaps, but a wonderfully rounded portrait of Lennon does emerge.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Nov 4, 2011 7:17:35 GMT -5
I'm up to page 576 (and we're just at the point of the White Album's being released)! Seriously, what does Philip Norman have against George Harrison? Shout!, back in 1981, was full of insults to George, culminating in George's going on tour with Delaney and Bonnie and desperately fumbling to "find the easy B7 chords" or somesuch -- Norman's last, desperate attempt to describe George as an incompetent. I don't even know music and I can sense that George struggled and was not the greatest guitar player. The common Beatles outtakes and sessions bear this out repeatedly.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Nov 4, 2011 11:41:44 GMT -5
It continues, regarding "The Ballad of John and Yoko":
"Thus, thanks to pairing with an indifferent George Harrison song, "Old Brown Shoe", the truant [Lennon] had his first A-side with the band in two years...".
indifferent...? WTF?
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Nov 4, 2011 11:43:07 GMT -5
I don't even know music and I can sense that George struggled and was not the greatest guitar player. The common Beatles outtakes and sessions bear this out repeatedly. Joe, is it your mission in life to argue with every post I make? No one, including George's biggest fans, would argue that he was the greatest guitar player from a technical point of view. This point in no way contradicts anything I wrote above.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Nov 4, 2011 13:42:44 GMT -5
Hmmm... on page 619, Norman credits John with playing lead guitar on "Cold Turkey" and omits any mention of Clapton. Surely, that's not right?
Then, the next page, he mentions Dylan's appearance at the Isle of Wight in August 1969 and mistakenly credits a few Lennon quotes about Dylan in 1966 to 1969 (such as "we were both in shades and both on fucking junk").
I expect better...
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Nov 4, 2011 14:10:31 GMT -5
Norman is starting to let me down...
Page 623: "'Something,' especially, was far beyond George's recent range: passionate, sophisticated, and devoid of his usual Indian preachiness."
Whether or not George's few songs prior to this point had been "preachy" is a debatable point, but to label it "Indian preachiness" is just wrong. (Also, was "Something" really that much more passionate and sophisticated than 'While My Guitar Gently Weeps' and 'All Things Must Pass'?)
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Nov 4, 2011 14:56:31 GMT -5
Regarding the McCartney album (in early 1970): "nobody else involved but his wife, Linda, on backing vocals (for which she received the same cobilling that John now gave Yoko). Titled simply McCartney, its front cover a head shot by Linda, the album was..."
1) Linda didn't receive co-billing at all, and she only appears vocally on a few tracks. 2) "a head shot by Linda" -- WTF?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2011 21:19:57 GMT -5
Somehow i've ended up with this book twice..
first one i bought...second one was a gift...i didn't tell them i already had it....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2011 21:23:00 GMT -5
It continues, regarding "The Ballad of John and Yoko": "Thus, thanks to pairing with an indifferent George Harrison song, "Old Brown Shoe", the truant [Lennon] had his first A-side with the band in two years...". indifferent...? WTF? Old brown shoe is a great song....one of the highlights of the tribute to George concert.....Mr Norman is clearly a knob jockey
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Nov 4, 2011 21:56:12 GMT -5
More 'errata' in the latter part of the book:
"The just-released Imagine was climbing the American charts to its eventual high of number three (number one in Britain)." (p.682)
False! It peaked at #1 in both the UK and USA. Norman is getting the album's chart peak confused with the single, which reached #3 in the USA.
These are minor points, of course, but don't these reputable publishers ('Ecco', apparently, in Britain, although I'm reading the Doubleday Canada version) hire people to actually check this stuff??
|
|
|
Post by winstonoboogie on Nov 5, 2011 20:59:08 GMT -5
I also remember him stating that "Across the Universe" was inspired by the India trip. Hello! It was recorded in February, 1968 - before they went to India!
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Nov 5, 2011 23:22:46 GMT -5
I'm "getting very near the end". And yet another swipe at George as we get towards 1980:
"George, too, had failed to sustain his early solo success, following All Things Must Pass..."
First of all, this is plainly false. Obviously, George was never going to maintain the level of success of ATMP over several albums, but the Concert for Bangladesh (featuring George as vocalist or band-leader) was US#2 on the charts and won the Grammy for album of the year. Two years later, Living in the Material World was #1 for five or six weeks, and spawned another #1 hit single.
Even after this, George didn't exactly flop. Dark Horse was #4 in the US and went Gold. The late '74 tour was a sell-out and despite Rolling Stone's best efforts to denigrate it, drew standing ovations at venues like Madison Square Garden. Extra Texture made the top 10, and 33&1/3 and George Harrison were critically acclaimed and hit the top 20.
By any standard but an ex-Beatle's, these sales returns would be considered spectacular. It could also be argued that George's post-ATMP career was more commerically successful than John Lennon's, so Norman is again talking out of his ass.
Anyway, he then goes on:
"...following All Things Must Pass with a succession of uninspired albums (uninspired, that is, by Lennon and McCartney)..."
And there you have it, folks -- Norman states his case that George Harrison was utterly worthless unless he was trying to imitate Lennon and McCartney.
"...alienating concert audiences by his humorlessness and tendency to preach..."
Gee, Philip, do you think you could find a way to mention "preaching" just one more time in relation to George?? I guess those standing ovations at MSG were from alienation.
Seriously, do you guys think George slighted Philip Norman at some point? I can't figure out why he takes every available opportunity to denigrate George.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Nov 6, 2011 11:47:26 GMT -5
The only other writer who knocks George Harrison more(and Ringo and John and George Martin) is Geoff Emerick but I shouldn't honor Emerick with title of "writer" as his book was a ghost-written job.
|
|
|
Post by winstonoboogie on Nov 6, 2011 14:19:47 GMT -5
The only other writer who knocks George Harrison more(and Ringo and John and George Martin) is Geoff Emerick but I shouldn't honor Emerick with title of "writer" as his book was a ghost-written job. Hmmmmm...never heard that, John! What's your source?
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Nov 8, 2011 17:47:37 GMT -5
Anyway, I finished the book on the weekend and I certainly recommend it. For now, it'll have to suffice as the best Lennon bio. It succeeds in restoring Lennon to a human and doesn't engage in mythology or Yoko-bashing or anti-Paul propaganda, etc. But the main thing is that it restores the humanity to John Lennon.
I just wish Norman had done some fact-checking and not used every single opportunity to get in baseless digs at George.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Nov 8, 2011 17:58:13 GMT -5
Anyway, I finished the book on the weekend and I certainly recommend it. For now, it'll have to suffice as the best Lennon bio. It succeeds in restoring Lennon to a human and doesn't engage in mythology or Yoko-bashing or anti-Paul propaganda, etc. But the main thing is that it restores the humanity to John Lennon. I just wish Norman had done some fact-checking and not used every single opportunity to get in baseless digs at George. How can you recommend it when all you've done is consistently complain about how mean old Norman keeps attacking poor, quiet George?
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Nov 8, 2011 22:28:49 GMT -5
The only other writer who knocks George Harrison more(and Ringo and John and George Martin) is Geoff Emerick but I shouldn't honor Emerick with title of "writer" as his book was a ghost-written job. Hmmmmm...never heard that, John! What's your source? Howard Massey actually wrote the book. One of Emerick's many detractors says Geoffy can barely remember what he has for breakfast that day let alone conversations 45 years ago.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Nov 9, 2011 0:54:57 GMT -5
How can you recommend it when all you've done is consistently complain about how mean old Norman keeps attacking poor, quiet George? "For now, it'll have to suffice as the best Lennon bio. It succeeds in restoring Lennon to a human and doesn't engage in mythology or Yoko-bashing or anti-Paul propaganda, etc. But the main thing is that it restores the humanity to John Lennon."
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Nov 9, 2011 9:55:39 GMT -5
Anyway, I finished the book on the weekend and I certainly recommend it. For now, it'll have to suffice as the best Lennon bio. It succeeds in restoring Lennon to a human and doesn't engage in mythology or Yoko-bashing or anti-Paul propaganda, etc. But the main thing is that it restores the humanity to John Lennon. I agree with that summary on this book. I thought that it was breathtaking as to John's early childhood as it rightfully restored the strong role of the Lennon family in John's early life before Mimi muscled in. Yet it does make Mimi a monster and Norman is the first writer I have ever read who portray's Yoko in a positive but honest light that really caused me to change my opinions on her. There are many writers who portray Yoko as a demon yet there are writers who portray her(and John) as a saint. Norman tells the story as honestly as I've read it told. Norman is very hard on George and perhaps he has, in his prejudice, overstated the post-Bangladesh riff between John and George but Norman did come around on Paul from where he was in Shout! but again that might be because Paul seems to have cooperated early on in the reseach part of this book. George couldn't. I know many very casual Beatles/John fans who have read, and enjoyed, this book. For the life of me, I don't see why Yoko was so disappointed or upset about the final version of it. Sure there are obvious errors in some technical facts(some pointed out by panther) but overall it painted a very decent portrait of John and especially of Yoko.
|
|
|
Post by winstonoboogie on Nov 9, 2011 21:37:30 GMT -5
Hmmmmm...never heard that, John! What's your source? Howard Massey actually wrote the book. One of Emerick's many detractors says Geoffy can barely remember what he has for breakfast that day let alone conversations 45 years ago. Again, where did you hear that?
|
|
|
Post by winstonoboogie on Nov 9, 2011 21:38:23 GMT -5
Hmmmmm...never heard that, John! What's your source? Howard Massey actually wrote the book. One of Emerick's many detractors says Geoffy can barely remember what he has for breakfast that day let alone conversations 45 years ago. Again John, what is your source? Do you have "connections" like Steve?
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Nov 10, 2011 0:19:33 GMT -5
Howard Massey actually wrote the book. One of Emerick's many detractors says Geoffy can barely remember what he has for breakfast that day let alone conversations 45 years ago. Again, where did you hear that? It is on the jacket. Massey is a professional writer. Emerick is not. I don't remember who told that anecdote, one of the Abbey Road employees who didn't think much of the book.
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on Nov 10, 2011 11:09:44 GMT -5
I think it was Ken Scott. If you google their names you should get the info needed. Ken felt he'd treated George badly in the book and had a few facts wrong.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Nov 21, 2011 14:02:37 GMT -5
I think it was Ken Scott. If you google their names you should get the info needed. Ken felt he'd treated George badly in the book and had a few facts wrong. I love the line in Geoff's book where George indignantly says to some low-level Abbey Road employee: "You don't talk to a Beatle like that!" To a certain extent Geoff portrays the Beatles as gifted brats. Is anybody really surprised by that characterization?
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on Nov 21, 2011 15:02:37 GMT -5
I think it was Ken Scott. If you google their names you should get the info needed. Ken felt he'd treated George badly in the book and had a few facts wrong. I love the line in Geoff's book where George indignantly says to some low-level Abbey Road employee: "You don't talk to a Beatle like that!" To a certain extent Geoff portrays the Beatles as gifted brats. Is anybody really surprised by that characterization? Didn't George say that to Yoko. ;D Followed swiftly by "hey you, giz me chuffing biscuit back".
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Nov 21, 2011 15:33:46 GMT -5
I think it was Ken Scott. If you google their names you should get the info needed. Ken felt he'd treated George badly in the book and had a few facts wrong. I love the line in Geoff's book where George indignantly says to some low-level Abbey Road employee: "You don't talk to a Beatle like that!" To a certain extent Geoff portrays the Beatles as gifted brats. Is anybody really surprised by that characterization? Not at all. They owned the world when they were in their 20s. Compare them to any celebrities today (the Kardashians come to mind, though the Beatles obviously had a ton more talent, not to mention intelligence). It's been said the Beatles weren't angels. Not surprising, even if we'd like to think otherwise.
|
|