|
Post by acebackwords on Nov 21, 2011 16:38:56 GMT -5
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. What you say is quite true, Steve. Considering all that the Beatles went through its miraculous that they got through it with their souls reasonably intact. Look what happened to Elvis and Howard Hughes and Phil Spector and countless others. I can't imagine how I would've reacted if I had had the whole world at my feet at age 20. And the constant pressure they were under must have been unbelievable. It never surprised me that Lennon went slightly berzerk. The surprise was that he didn't go even more berzerk.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Nov 21, 2011 17:31:56 GMT -5
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. What you say is quite true, Steve. Considering all that the Beatles went through its miraculous that they got through it with their souls reasonably intact. Look what happened to Elvis and Howard Hughes and Phil Spector and countless others. I can't imagine how I would've reacted if I had had the whole world at my feet at age 20. And the constant pressure they were under must have been unbelievable. It never surprised me that Lennon went slightly berzerk. The surprise was that he didn't go even more berzerk. And that Paul and Ringo aren't lunatics today. Sure, Ringo's a little grumpy at age 70. Big deal. But considering all the crap they went through, they're both lucky to be sane.
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on Nov 21, 2011 18:09:08 GMT -5
Too true. Every room you walk in to all eyes are on you plus the countless times you're asked to talk about yourself. That way madness lies.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Nov 22, 2011 7:54:46 GMT -5
It never surprised me that Lennon went slightly berzerk. The surprise was that he didn't go even more berzerk. John Lennon even from childhood was always a tad berserk. I'd say that in the final years of his life he was much less berserk and much more refined.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Nov 23, 2011 17:53:27 GMT -5
It never surprised me that Lennon went slightly berzerk. The surprise was that he didn't go even more berzerk. John Lennon even from childhood was always a tad berserk. I'd say that in the final years of his life he was much less berserk and much more refined. Lennon was expelled from kindergarten for attacking his classmates. So I guess he was an explosive character from the word go.
|
|
|
Post by Zander on Dec 27, 2011 21:12:10 GMT -5
Haven't read this book in awhile but remember being fairly impressed with it, forgetting the odd occasional inaccuracy. I do remember in the early stages it sometimes would go a little too in depth with the Lennon family tree for my liking etc...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2012 5:57:10 GMT -5
I looked up wanker in the dictionary and it said " Philip Norman".
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Mar 21, 2012 9:28:43 GMT -5
I looked up wanker in the dictionary and it said " Philip Norman". ...due to what exactly?
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Mar 21, 2012 11:16:15 GMT -5
I looked up wanker in the dictionary and it said " Philip Norman". ...due to what exactly? Without speaking for fabfour, I am guessing fab feels that Norman has in the least downplayed George Harrison's contribution to the Beatles(and his subsequent solo career) or at worse absolutely insulted Harrison and his legacy. Many people, from differing Beatle camps even, disliked Norman's writings on George in Shout!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2012 4:46:39 GMT -5
Regardless of my Philip Norman quote previously , i do own this book, i've had it for quite some time so after i've finished reading my 5th straight book on Watergate i'm going to read this, Joe suggests i need to brush up on Lennon...... ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2012 8:58:14 GMT -5
Ok..I've started it....
|
|
|
Post by winstonoboogie on May 20, 2012 10:46:14 GMT -5
Ok..I've started it.... {Assuming best headmaster's voice} Well, done, lad. Here's your (virtual) cookie. {Looking down at you over my spectacles while holding on to my suspenders} But we expect a full report once you're done. Understood? ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2012 1:00:12 GMT -5
Currently reading about John's new relationship with Paul , Mr Pobjoy and his time at Art College.....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2012 4:16:32 GMT -5
Does anyone believe the part of the story where it's alleged Mimi and George never consummated their marriage. She didn't lose her ummmm cherry until it was ummmmmmm popped by Michael Fishwick. Funny name that when referring to sex, may well be apt though.. here is a snippet from the Daily Howl. It appears that Mimi, whose reputation as a puritan has always rested on her refusal to consummate her marriage to husband George, went to her grave nurturing a dark secret. After George's death in 1955, when John was still living with his 50-year-old aunt, the supposedly virginal Mimi embarked on a wild affair of her own with one of her lodgers who was half her age - and this time the relationship was consummated. So passionate was Mimi about this young man, 24-year-old biochemistry student Michael Fishwick, that she was planning to marry him and emigrate to New Zealand. here is a pic of Mr Fishwick..
|
|
|
Post by winstonoboogie on Jun 17, 2012 9:58:27 GMT -5
Does anyone believe the part of the story where it's alleged Mimi and George never consummated their marriage. She didn't lose her ummmm cherry until it was ummmmmmm popped by Michael Fishwick. Funny name that when referring to sex, may well be apt though.. here is a snippet from the Daily Howl. It appears that Mimi, whose reputation as a puritan has always rested on her refusal to consummate her marriage to husband George, went to her grave nurturing a dark secret. After George's death in 1955, when John was still living with his 50-year-old aunt, the supposedly virginal Mimi embarked on a wild affair of her own with one of her lodgers who was half her age - and this time the relationship was consummated. So passionate was Mimi about this young man, 24-year-old biochemistry student Michael Fishwick, that she was planning to marry him and emigrate to New Zealand. here is a pic of Mr Fishwick.. Fab, I found that hard to believe as well, but stranger things have happened....
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Jun 17, 2012 10:35:11 GMT -5
Does anyone believe the part of the story where it's alleged Mimi and George never consummated their marriage. She didn't lose her ummmm cherry until it was ummmmmmm popped by Michael Fishwick. Funny name that when referring to sex, may well be apt though.. here is a snippet from the Daily Howl. It appears that Mimi, whose reputation as a puritan has always rested on her refusal to consummate her marriage to husband George, went to her grave nurturing a dark secret. After George's death in 1955, when John was still living with his 50-year-old aunt, the supposedly virginal Mimi embarked on a wild affair of her own with one of her lodgers who was half her age - and this time the relationship was consummated. So passionate was Mimi about this young man, 24-year-old biochemistry student Michael Fishwick, that she was planning to marry him and emigrate to New Zealand. here is a pic of Mr Fishwick.. His character appears in the film "Nowhere Boy", but only implies Mimi enjoyed his company as a boarder, and the fact that he helped with yardwork chores. No implication that it went beyond that. I think the director of the movie had no need to speculate on that issue in the movie. Yoko would probably know from John what went on regarding his Aunt's personal life, but probably would not have passed that on to be displayed in the movie, regardless of what John might have known to have happened. Curious; how would John have known whether his Aunt and Uncle ever consumated their relationship? I don't imagine the subject ever came up around John's presence. And unless John walked in on his Aunt and the boarder "in flagrante" at some point, how else would he know about that, and why would he feel the need to tell someone else about it, that it would wind up in a book? John had a lot of respect for his Aunt Mimi.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jun 17, 2012 11:13:23 GMT -5
I am going by memory from the book but per Norman, John had no idea about the sex life or lack there of between Mimi and kindly Uncle George(a true good guy in John's life) but it was Mimi's family who whispered it as she casually admitted that to one of her sisters and you know how well those secrets are kept, even in a close family!
Also, John had no idea about the border and Mimi per Norman or John might have killed the guy as this affair lasted for years, even when John was a teenager and very bitter about Julia's death. Even a sharp guy like John(or the rest of us) wouldn't want to think that someone he loved and looked up to was doing something rather scandalous. ;D
Anything would have set John off and it was speculated in the book that he would have been horrified and mad if he knew the boarder was shagging his auntie!
|
|
|
Post by winstonoboogie on Jun 17, 2012 18:44:07 GMT -5
I am going by memory from the book but per Norman, John had no idea about the sex life or lack there of between Mimi and kindly Uncle George(a true good guy in John's life) but it was Mimi's family who whispered it as she casually admitted that to one of her sisters and you know how well those secrets are kept, even in a close family! Also, John had no idea about the border and Mimi per Norman or John might have killed the guy as this affair lasted for years, even when John was a teenager and very bitter about Julia's death. Even a sharp guy like John(or the rest of us) wouldn't want to think that someone he loved and looked up to was doing something rather scandalous. ;D Anything would have set John off and it was speculated in the book that he would have been horrified and mad if he knew the boarder was shagging his auntie! I thought the boarder shared the story and that was how Norman found out. I'll re-check the book when I have time....
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jun 17, 2012 18:56:18 GMT -5
I am going by memory from the book but per Norman, John had no idea about the sex life or lack there of between Mimi and kindly Uncle George(a true good guy in John's life) but it was Mimi's family who whispered it as she casually admitted that to one of her sisters and you know how well those secrets are kept, even in a close family! Also, John had no idea about the border and Mimi per Norman or John might have killed the guy as this affair lasted for years, even when John was a teenager and very bitter about Julia's death. Even a sharp guy like John(or the rest of us) wouldn't want to think that someone he loved and looked up to was doing something rather scandalous. ;D Anything would have set John off and it was speculated in the book that he would have been horrified and mad if he knew the boarder was shagging his auntie! I thought the boarder shared the story and that was how Norman found out. I'll re-check the book when I have time.... Probably. My point was that John didn't know about it at the time(if ever).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2015 4:32:12 GMT -5
I finally got around to finishing this book. I found it to be a great read from start to finish. I re-read this thread and i don't recall the reason i called Mr Norman a wanker, however, it would have been something i had read early in the book. JSD is probably on the money suggesting it was George related.
|
|
|
Post by nicole21290 on Mar 16, 2015 8:17:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Mar 17, 2015 3:29:11 GMT -5
God, that was awful -- mean, error-laden, spiteful journalism of the worst kind. Note that all the quotations used as pointed barbs against George are "according to an insider", or "Sources tell me"; i.e., he quoted nobody who knew George. One thing that becomes painfully clear when reading Philip Norman's writing about The Beatles is that he knows nothing about music. He must have overheard George on the Delaney & Bonnie tour saying something like, "I couldn't even play the D7 chord right" or something, because he's been hawking that (mis-)quote around since Shout! in 1981. (In Shout!, it was the D7 chord that George could barely remember to play; in this article, it becomes G7 -- Norman clearly not aware of the difference.) I won't go on, but the entire article is a towering pile of stinky feces.
|
|
|
Post by IMdeWalrus on Aug 12, 2015 23:40:38 GMT -5
My first post here on this forum.....
I haven't read Norman's Lennon bio, although I've thumbed through it in the bookstore. But I did read "SHOUT" -- the revised 2003 version -- and, since I'd seen the original version referred to as "the definitive biography" by a number of magazine articles, I was quite disappointed.
Although it claims to be exhaustively researched, it actually had much the same sort of gossipy tone as Peter Brown's "THE LOVE YOU MAKE", and yes, Philip Norman really does not like George Harrison. All through the book, from beginning to end, you read about "unsmiling" George and what a miserable, sour person he was. (In fact, much of that "obituary" that nicole linked here is just re-written from that 2003 version.)
If a "source" had a "crabby George" story, you'll find it in "SHOUT". But if someone like publicist Tony Barrow says "I found George the easiest-going and most amiable of the group" and "he smiled a lot and was a good listener" (from Barrow's book "JOHN, PAUL, GEORGE, RINGO.. AND ME"), you won't see it in Norman's book -- because after all, he's already decided that George was a "miserable git" so that's the George you're going to read about. Likewise, if a buddy of George says "he was rubbish on the ukelele", it's in the book -- but if someone like Tom Petty says he was great on it, nope!
It's true that George Martin wrote the guitar solo that Harrison played in "Michelle", but Norman takes that to mean that Martin dictated ALL of Harrison's playing. And we're also told that George wasn't allowed to really contribute anything until he started playing sitar in 1965 and 1966. (We won't talk about the 12-string Rickenbacker guitars George introduced to rock music in 1964, or the acoustic intro that Paul admits George contributed to "And I Love Her".)
And he writes how miserable George was around 1965 and 1966 -- including in the recording studio -- and yet George himself always described RUBBER SOUL and REVOLVER as very happy albums for him (although it's true he hated touring).
I've never enjoyed books that try to put anyone on a pedestal -- everyone has warts -- but going the other way, where a person like George becomes relentlessly, chronically bitter, is a bit much.
Of course, George wasn't Norman's only target -- Ringo was basically a bit player in the whole Beatles story while Paul is a lying egomaniac. And the noisy birth of Beatlemania was just hype, according to Norman, who quotes a photographer (Dezo Hoffman) as saying there were virtually no girls at all waiting after their concert at the Palladium in 1962 and that all the newspaper photos were cropped to make it appear as if there were (surprising, considering they were mobbed just about everywhere else -- maybe he's right but I would have liked to have seen those pictures as some sort of proof).
Given all that, I'm not too surprised that the Lennon bio contains stories of an affair Aunt Mimi supposedly had with a boarder. Perhaps they're true -- but it sure sounds like gossip to me.
I suppose one of these days, I'll get around to reading it -- and perhaps will even enjoy it or learn something from it. But I have to admit I don't expect a whole lot.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 13, 2015 6:48:21 GMT -5
George may have been amiable to Tony Barrow, but I've always seen him as rather crabby and sour, especially in later years.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Aug 14, 2015 0:58:15 GMT -5
My first post here on this forum..... I haven't read Norman's Lennon bio, although I've thumbed through it in the bookstore. But I did read "SHOUT" -- the revised 2003 version -- and, since I'd seen the original version referred to as "the definitive biography" by a number of magazine articles, I was quite disappointed. Although it claims to be exhaustively researched, it actually had much the same sort of gossipy tone as Peter Brown's "THE LOVE YOU MAKE", and yes, Philip Norman really does not like George Harrison. All through the book, from beginning to end, you read about "unsmiling" George and what a miserable, sour person he was. (In fact, much of that "obituary" that nicole linked here is just re-written from that 2003 version.) If a "source" had a "crabby George" story, you'll find it in "SHOUT". But if someone like publicist Tony Barrow says "I found George the easiest-going and most amiable of the group" and "he smiled a lot and was a good listener" (from Barrow's book "JOHN, PAUL, GEORGE, RINGO.. AND ME"), you won't see it in Norman's book -- because after all, he's already decided that George was a "miserable git" so that's the George you're going to read about. Likewise, if a buddy of George says "he was rubbish on the ukelele", it's in the book -- but if someone like Tom Petty says he was great on it, nope! It's true that George Martin wrote the guitar solo that Harrison played in "Michelle", but Norman takes that to mean that Martin dictated ALL of Harrison's playing. And we're also told that George wasn't allowed to really contribute anything until he started playing sitar in 1965 and 1966. (We won't talk about the 12-string Rickenbacker guitars George introduced to rock music in 1964, or the acoustic intro that Paul admits George contributed to "And I Love Her".) And he writes how miserable George was around 1965 and 1966 -- including in the recording studio -- and yet George himself always described RUBBER SOUL and REVOLVER as very happy albums for him (although it's true he hated touring). I've never enjoyed books that try to put anyone on a pedestal -- everyone has warts -- but going the other way, where a person like George becomes relentlessly, chronically bitter, is a bit much. Of course, George wasn't Norman's only target -- Ringo was basically a bit player in the whole Beatles story while Paul is a lying egomaniac. And the noisy birth of Beatlemania was just hype, according to Norman, who quotes a photographer (Dezo Hoffman) as saying there were virtually no girls at all waiting after their concert at the Palladium in 1962 and that all the newspaper photos were cropped to make it appear as if there were (surprising, considering they were mobbed just about everywhere else -- maybe he's right but I would have liked to have seen those pictures as some sort of proof). Given all that, I'm not too surprised that the Lennon bio contains stories of an affair Aunt Mimi supposedly had with a boarder. Perhaps they're true -- but it sure sounds like gossip to me. I suppose one of these days, I'll get around to reading it -- and perhaps will even enjoy it or learn something from it. But I have to admit I don't expect a whole lot. Welcome imdewalrus! I agree that Norman was dismissive of George, Ringo and even Paul in Shout! But he is nothing compared to that ass kisser Geoff Emerick who basically says Lennon, Harrison, Starr and George Martin were idiots and it was the "Paul McCartney" show. Since Paul is alive and still uses Emerick from time to time(unlike the other Beatles), there was nothing ever so blatantly self-serving as his book. He was just trying to curry favor with Paul. Emerick today is a tool!
|
|
|
Post by IMdeWalrus on Aug 14, 2015 22:20:24 GMT -5
My first post here on this forum..... I haven't read Norman's Lennon bio, although I've thumbed through it in the bookstore. But I did read "SHOUT" -- the revised 2003 version -- and, since I'd seen the original version referred to as "the definitive biography" by a number of magazine articles, I was quite disappointed..... Welcome imdewalrus! I agree that Norman was dismissive of George, Ringo and even Paul in Shout! But he is nothing compared to that ass kisser Geoff Emerick who basically says Lennon, Harrison, Starr and George Martin were idiots and it was the "Paul McCartney" show. Since Paul is alive and still uses Emerick from time to time(unlike the other Beatles), there was nothing ever so blatantly self-serving as his book. He was just trying to curry favor with Paul. Emerick today is a tool! Thanks for the welcome John. I've been reading through some of the discussions here in this forum and it's been very interesting! I haven't gotten a chance to read Emerick's book yet either, but I certainly have seen it quoted often -- and Emerick himself seems to be the go-to guy whenever any magazine these days does a profile of SGT PEPPER. I did read some pretty negative comments about his memories though, from fellow engineer Ken Scott, who thought Emerick was trashing George Harrison unfairly. (Scott admitted to having a fondness for George, and in fact engineered ALL THINGS MUST PASS.) Emerick called George's solo in "I'll Follow the Sun" embarrassing, since it was simply a brief playing of the main melody of the song, but frankly I think it's perfect for what is essentially an acoustic ballad -- you really wouldn't have wanted anything flashy for that song. (It's also fair to say that Emerick had very positive things to say about George in the later years -- espy his contributions to ABBEY ROAD.) But you're right -- it's clear Emerick was a huge McCartney fan, and has worked a lot for Paul over the years, so it'd be hard to consider him unbiased. I have no doubt he was a major source for Philip Norman. I myself have often wondered how the "other" George -- George Martin -- felt about the book. Martin has often been considered the key element in making PEPPER what it was (to the annoyance of Lennon and McCartney in later years), but Emerick seems to take credit for much of the album's sound (and for REVOLVER too). I was also very surprised to read his comments that George Martin wasn't at all impressed with "I Am The Walrus" when John first demo'ed it for him ("well what do you expect me to do with THIS?", Emerick quotes him as saying). Any comments about the song I've seen from George Martin have always been very positive. You just never know how much you can trust about what's been written about The Beatles -- even from "insiders". I do intend to read his book one of these years -- whatever else he was, Geoff Emerick certainly seemed to be a first-rate recording engineer.
|
|
|
Post by IMdeWalrus on Aug 14, 2015 22:45:11 GMT -5
George may have been amiable to Tony Barrow, but I've always seen him as rather crabby and sour, especially in later years. I think there's no doubt that George COULD be that way sometimes. He did seem to be a pretty sardonic character from time to time. But when you read comments from people who knew him well (Tom Petty, the Monty Python crowd, etc), he was also a guy with boundless energy and ideas and a very enjoyable man to be around. If you search YouTube, you can find numerous interviews with George over the years, which reveal both sides of his personality -- but they also revealed his humour, which is something you don't see at all in the Philip Norman books. For example, one interviewer asked George about Madonna (when talking about the SHANGHAI SURPRISE debacle) and he described her as "a woman who thinks she's famous", which made me laugh. He did seem to like Sean Penn, though. What bothers me about the Norman bio is that you only see the crabby side -- all the "unsmiling George" stuff. When the band was trying to recruit Ringo, "his mother opened the front door one day to George Harrison's pale, unsmiling face..."; when they're in New York for the first time and journalist Sheila Graham is waiting to interview one of them, "only George put his serious face around the door.." And later in the book, when talking about George's "crabbiness" in recalling the 1965 awarding of the MBE, Norman writes "most bitterly did he seem to resent.. that they received no collective national honour" and then quotes bitter old George as saying -- or rather, SNEERING -- "After all we did for Great Britain, selling all that corduroy and making it swing, they gave us that bloody old leather medal with wooden string through it". George indeed does say that -- you can see it yourself on ANTHOLOGY -- but he chuckles sardonically after he says it. He didn't seem sneering to me, he seemed more to be laughing at the silliness of it all. I always said if I was ever to become a biographer, the biggest challenge would be to write a balanced, fair bio about someone I don't like -- I'd be tempted to write only the negative stories that prove my point that the guy (or gal) was a total jerk -- I'd have to avoid the temptation to leave out anything positive if I was to call it "the definitive biography" of that person. And that's where I think Philip Norman fails -- not just about George but the whole Beatles story. So while some of what he writes is undoubtedly correct (and he really does have a gift for words), I tend to dismiss a lot of it because a simple search of archival interviews on You Tube (plus great sources like Mark Lewisohn's RECORDING SESSIONS) reveals Norman got a lot of his stories wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Aug 19, 2015 16:21:48 GMT -5
Fantastic posts by IMdeWalrus! I think maybe Philip Norman's reputation got unfairly inflated by an accident of timing -- his 'Shout!' book came out right after Lennon's murder, and sort-of became the gospel of "St. John" that then dictated the tone writers took to The Beatles in the 80s.
What's weird about his two big books is that 'Shout!' is fairly insulting to Paul, and then 'Lennon' kisses Paul's ass from here to eternity. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, Norman got a bit of assistance from Paul (and has clearly met and interviewed him more in recent years) on it, so I guess that explains the about-face, but it sort of underlines that Norman really didn't know what he was doing in the first place.
His hatred of George is certainly odd, though. There must have been some incident where George dismissed him or something. Norman also strikes me a 'very British', and the British, as we all know, detest anyone who is earnest about anything -- for example, rock stars talking about religion.
|
|
|
Post by lenmac on Aug 19, 2015 16:39:22 GMT -5
Could be this but I'm not sure
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2015 8:33:04 GMT -5
Could be this but I'm not sure
Good find
|
|