|
Post by Joe Karlosi on May 1, 2014 19:37:16 GMT -5
For Joe, et al; From Pgs. 1468-1469 of Lewisohn; "George Martin would say, in print, 'Ardmore and Beechwood did virtually nothing about getting the record Love Me Do played,' but if he believed this, he wasn't acquainting himself with the available facts. Kim Bennett had moved heaven and earth to help make Love Me Do a hit. No man could have done more, and George did himself a lot less. After extreme efforts, Bennett's successes were beginning to mount up - but one way or another, Brian would conclude that Ardmore and Beechwood had been lazy and of no use to them, and that he should take John and Paul's business to a publisher who'd actually work hard on the songs. George was sidelining Ardmore & Beechwood. He needed to draw a line under the past and be free to work with The Beatles on his own terms - because he wanted them, not because he'd been forced to take them. He was, at a stroke, cutting adrift the awkward circumstances that had brought him to this point. Brian didn't know the full extent of Ardmore & Beechwood's hand - he didn't know that without Sid Coleman and Kim Bennett, the Beatles wouldn't have had a recording contract and wouldn't have had a L&M song as their first record. Brian only knew of his promising first meeting with Coleman and then, three months later, the contract offer from G. Martin - and was encouraged to believe a direct link." Thanks very much for taking the time to post this. I don't know what to think, though. I don't mean to get repetitive about it, but I still don't like this idea that just because Kim Bennett decided in 2003 to speak with Mark and claim all this, now suddenly everything George Martin said (and Brian Epstein too) is dismissable. Or am I still missing something here -- is this ONLY the word of Bennett alone that Lewisohn is going by, in this case? I mean, this scenario above is quite likely and it makes sense; --- but if both Martin and Epstein felt that 'Ardmore and Beechwood' were lazy and did virtually nothing ... and then Bennett decides to speak out as late as 2003 to suddenly claim " WE did it!" ... who is correct? Here again -- this makes sense and it can work as a possible scenario if one wants it to. But how do we know that Bennett is the one to go by? We do know now that the whole bit with June 6th being an audition is pretty much disproven ... and we know that George Martin is full of beans regarding his "not knowing who Ringo was at the September 11th session". I can't help feeling that if Coleman and Bennett had really been so slighted, once the enormity of THE BEATLES became legend, they would have put the record "straight" ages ago -- no? Once more, I'll accept the truth whatever it is. I just wish there was a more definitive way to know the truth, rather than only Bennett's last minute take on it. (Again, IF Lewisohn was only relying on his interview with Bennett).
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on May 1, 2014 19:47:21 GMT -5
Therefore, if Lewisohn decided that John's late 2nd uncle, or whoever he was, in Australia, had in fact witnessed the Lennon/Alf/Julia scene personally and he believed him, then he only did so because of numerous interviews over time that gradually convinced Lewisohn of the accuracy of what the man was saying. In other words, Lewisohn is not the kind of author who would talk to someone once for 5 minutes and then report whatever the person said and put it in print as fact. Indeed, he says himself that lots and lots of interviews he conducted went into the garbage bin immediately and were never used because the interviewees were full of shit (as tends to be nature of people decades later who have agendas and bad memories). Lewisohn is indeed a professional at this, and I do trust him. I think you're right that Mark is "the man", so to speak. I wish to make my feeling on that clear as often as necessary, since I don't want to discredit the man just because I may have some questions or concerns... Regarding the incident with John and his parents -- where did the original story of John being asked to choose come from? Was it from John himself? And this thing about -- who was it -- John's "2nd uncle from Australia"...? .. being conveniently on hand to witness this crucial moment in young John's life. .. Was the moment this uncle witnessed "THE" actual moment that has so often gone down in history? No argument there.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on May 1, 2014 21:51:24 GMT -5
For Joe, et al; From Pgs. 1468-1469 of Lewisohn; "George Martin would say, in print, 'Ardmore and Beechwood did virtually nothing about getting the record Love Me Do played,' but if he believed this, he wasn't acquainting himself with the available facts. Kim Bennett had moved heaven and earth to help make Love Me Do a hit. No man could have done more, and George did himself a lot less. After extreme efforts, Bennett's successes were beginning to mount up - but one way or another, Brian would conclude that Ardmore and Beechwood had been lazy and of no use to them, and that he should take John and Paul's business to a publisher who'd actually work hard on the songs. George was sidelining Ardmore & Beechwood. He needed to draw a line under the past and be free to work with The Beatles on his own terms - because he wanted them, not because he'd been forced to take them. He was, at a stroke, cutting adrift the awkward circumstances that had brought him to this point. Brian didn't know the full extent of Ardmore & Beechwood's hand - he didn't know that without Sid Coleman and Kim Bennett, the Beatles wouldn't have had a recording contract and wouldn't have had a L&M song as their first record. Brian only knew of his promising first meeting with Coleman and then, three months later, the contract offer from G. Martin - and was encouraged to believe a direct link." Thanks very much for taking the time to post this. I don't know what to think, though. I don't mean to get repetitive about it, but I still don't like this idea that just because Kim Bennett decided in 2003 to speak with Mark and claim all this, now suddenly everything George Martin said (and Brian Epstein too) is dismissable. Or am I still missing something here -- is this ONLY the word of Bennett alone that Lewisohn is going by, in this case? I mean, this scenario above is quite likely and it makes sense; --- but if both Martin and Epstein felt that 'Ardmore and Beechwood' were lazy and did virtually nothing ... and then Bennett decides to speak out as late as 2003 to suddenly claim " WE did it!" ... who is correct? Here again -- this makes sense and it can work as a possible scenario if one wants it to. But how do we know that Bennett is the one to go by? We do know now that the whole bit with June 6th being an audition is pretty much disproven ... and we know that George Martin is full of beans regarding his "not knowing who Ringo was at the September 11th session". I can't help feeling that if Coleman and Bennett had really been so slighted, once the enormity of THE BEATLES became legend, they would have put the record "straight" ages ago -- no? Once more, I'll accept the truth whatever it is. I just wish there was a more definitive way to know the truth, rather than only Bennett's last minute take on it. (Again, IF Lewisohn was only relying on his interview with Bennett). I am sure Lewisohn wishes he had more evidence to support his suppositions, but he used what was available and spent a considerable amount of time and effort on this moment in time because it is so crucial to the band's history. You just have to decide for yourself Joe if it seems the most likely way the story unfolded based on what is available out there to source on the subject. I find it fascinating that here we are 50-60 years later still trying to understand how events truly unfolded for the most famous pop music band of the last century. And the survivors of that band, of which there are three, do not have all the facts surrounding what happened to them at some of the most crucial moments in their evolution. Paul's lyric in "Early Days" fall hollow when you see that even he cannot possibly know everything surrounding his time in that band. Lewisohn is not trying to usurp Paul or his memory of those early days. He just wants to try and uncover to the best of his ability what most likely occurred based on all the evidence there is to examine. Paul, and the others still alive from that era, who are really interested in the band's history, owe it to themselves to at least read these books and consider what is presented in them. They may actually fill in what surely have to be blank spaces in such a long and incredible journey that this band embarked on all those years ago. This band's place in musical history deserves more than just the remarks of those who lived it for sure, in the interest of historical accuracy. The survivors should be thankful a man of integrity such as Lewisohn has decided to dedicate his life's work to trying to get the story right, or as close to right as is humanly possible, becasue like the rest of us, he thinks this band was the best there ever was and is worth the effort.
|
|
|
Post by scousette on May 1, 2014 22:45:01 GMT -5
Thanks very much for taking the time to post this. I don't know what to think, though. I don't mean to get repetitive about it, but I still don't like this idea that just because Kim Bennett decided in 2003 to speak with Mark and claim all this, now suddenly everything George Martin said (and Brian Epstein too) is dismissable. Or am I still missing something here -- is this ONLY the word of Bennett alone that Lewisohn is going by, in this case? I mean, this scenario above is quite likely and it makes sense; --- but if both Martin and Epstein felt that 'Ardmore and Beechwood' were lazy and did virtually nothing ... and then Bennett decides to speak out as late as 2003 to suddenly claim " WE did it!" ... who is correct? Here again -- this makes sense and it can work as a possible scenario if one wants it to. But how do we know that Bennett is the one to go by? We do know now that the whole bit with June 6th being an audition is pretty much disproven ... and we know that George Martin is full of beans regarding his "not knowing who Ringo was at the September 11th session". I can't help feeling that if Coleman and Bennett had really been so slighted, once the enormity of THE BEATLES became legend, they would have put the record "straight" ages ago -- no? Once more, I'll accept the truth whatever it is. I just wish there was a more definitive way to know the truth, rather than only Bennett's last minute take on it. (Again, IF Lewisohn was only relying on his interview with Bennett). I am sure Lewisohn wishes he had more evidence to support his suppositions, but he used what was available and spent a considerable amount of time and effort on this moment in time because it is so crucial to the band's history. You just have to decide for yourself Joe if it seems the most likely way the story unfolded based on what is available out there to source on the subject. I find it fascinating that here we are 50-60 years later still trying to understand how events truly unfolded for the most famous pop music band of the last century. And the survivors of that band, of which there are three, do not have all the facts surrounding what happened to them at some of the most crucial moments in their evolution. Paul's lyric in "Early Days" fall hollow when you see that even he cannot possibly know everything surrounding his time in that band. Lewisohn is not trying to usurp Paul or his memory of those early days. He just wants to try and uncover to the best of his ability what most likely occurred based on all the evidence there is to examine. Paul, and the others still alive from that era, who are really interested in the band's history, owe it to themselves to at least read these books and consider what is presented in them. They may actually fill in what surely have to be blank spaces in such a long and incredible journey that this band embarked on all those years ago. This band's place in musical history deserves more than just the remarks of those who lived it for sure, in the interest of historical accuracy. The survivors should be thankful a man of integrity such as Lewisohn has decided to dedicate his life's work to trying to get the story right, or as close to right as is humanly possible, becasue like the rest of us, he thinks this band was the best there ever was and is worth the effort. We need an applause emoticon for lowbasso's post.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on May 2, 2014 5:19:23 GMT -5
I am sure Lewisohn wishes he had more evidence to support his suppositions, but he used what was available and spent a considerable amount of time and effort on this moment in time because it is so crucial to the band's history. You just have to decide for yourself Joe if it seems the most likely way the story unfolded based on what is available out there to source on the subject. I find it fascinating that here we are 50-60 years later still trying to understand how events truly unfolded for the most famous pop music band of the last century. And the survivors of that band, of which there are three, do not have all the facts surrounding what happened to them at some of the most crucial moments in their evolution. Paul's lyric in "Early Days" fall hollow when you see that even he cannot possibly know everything surrounding his time in that band. Lewisohn is not trying to usurp Paul or his memory of those early days. All these (and other points) are well taken. Now -- so, is Kim Bennett the only source for the whole Ardmore and Beechwood thing? Do you know? Or do we wait for the next guy's personal recollection (whoever that may turn out to be) ?
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on May 2, 2014 11:50:19 GMT -5
I am sure Lewisohn wishes he had more evidence to support his suppositions, but he used what was available and spent a considerable amount of time and effort on this moment in time because it is so crucial to the band's history. You just have to decide for yourself Joe if it seems the most likely way the story unfolded based on what is available out there to source on the subject. I find it fascinating that here we are 50-60 years later still trying to understand how events truly unfolded for the most famous pop music band of the last century. And the survivors of that band, of which there are three, do not have all the facts surrounding what happened to them at some of the most crucial moments in their evolution. Paul's lyric in "Early Days" fall hollow when you see that even he cannot possibly know everything surrounding his time in that band. Lewisohn is not trying to usurp Paul or his memory of those early days. All these (and other points) are well taken. Now -- so, is Kim Bennett the only source for the whole Ardmore and Beechwood thing? Do you know? Or do we wait for the next guy's personal recollection (whoever that may turn out to be) ? Well, Sid Coleman died in 1965 so that is only as The Beatles are reaching the peak in world fame, so I guess he wasn't interested in claiming any credit since EMI had The Beatles under contract, and Martin was producing their hit albums at a rate of two a year, as well as singles topping the charts. Maybe he was happy with that. I think Dick James had some comments on Ardmore & Beechwood as well, which Lewisohn includes in the book. But he is dead now as well. I think Lewisohn exhausted every source that is still alive on the subject. My guess is he is hoping Martin will have a comment on the story, but so far no luck. Maybe George has no recollections of it anymore or does not want to open the subject which was for him was a can of worms.
|
|
|
Post by joeyself on May 2, 2014 17:04:28 GMT -5
You are ahead of me--I am reading just a few pages at a time, and am now up to where Decca said "no, thanks" to the Fabs--so this question may be answered when I get there: What documents support the Bennett account? To me, one of Mark's great strengths is finding paper to support the oral history.
JcS
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on May 2, 2014 20:00:45 GMT -5
You are ahead of me--I am reading just a few pages at a time, and am now up to where Decca said "no, thanks" to the Fabs--so this question may be answered when I get there: What documents support the Bennett account? To me, one of Mark's great strengths is finding paper to support the oral history. JcS You are getting close so It's more fun to discover all this yourself along with all the detailed footnotes. The story behind them getting their contract at EMI and the sessions in summer and fall of '62 are the best and most enlightening stories of the first volumes of this project.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on May 5, 2014 11:03:20 GMT -5
After criticizing G. Martin a lot here over the early Beatles sessions and stories behind their first single lets not forget how amazingly talented this man is.
Here is a moment where Martin visits Brian Wilson in his home in L.A. (Love that rental car George!) and the two go into the studio and pull out the original tapes for the song God Only Knows, which Martin says is one of his favorite BB songs. Immediately upon playing with the mix, Brian exclaims that Martin has made a better mix of the song than he did all those years ago when they recorded it!
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on May 31, 2014 14:15:14 GMT -5
The "Look Inside" option is available for Lewisohn's book on amazon.com. I don't know if it had been up to now. I'm just noticing it.
|
|
|
Post by winstonoboogie on Jun 4, 2014 21:01:43 GMT -5
After criticizing G. Martin a lot here over the early Beatles sessions and stories behind their first single lets not forget how amazingly talented this man is. Here is a moment where Martin visits Brian Wilson in his home in L.A. (Love that rental car George!) and the two go into the studio and pull out the original tapes for the song God Only Knows, which Martin says is one of his favorite BB songs. Immediately upon playing with the mix, Brian exclaims that Martin has made a better mix of the song than he did all those years ago when they recorded it! That was cool, lowbasso! Too bad Sir George didn't do a whole mix of the song....or did he?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2014 8:12:16 GMT -5
Loved that clip of George and Brian, loved even more where that clip linked me, Brian was a genius, too bad he ended up a wacko, i'm surprised Brian and John never teamed up, they could have created a Looney Tunes label..
|
|
|
Post by winstonoboogie on Jun 8, 2014 11:30:11 GMT -5
Well, I finally finished the book - excellent! Quite a page - turner - reads like a novel! But it was so rich in areas I had to put it down to "savor" it. Can't wait for Volume II (BTW, I read the "edited" version).
|
|
|
Post by joeyself on Jun 17, 2014 16:43:56 GMT -5
I just got to the part where Stuart died. I've known all along that the Beatles were between 19 and 21 at the time, but just how much impact it had on them hadn't really sunk in for me until events of the past month. My son is 16, and was swimming with a group of friends one night; we live on a lake. One of them drowned right in front of my son, and it has had a profound impact on him. My wife and I knew the kid--he'd spent many nights at our house over the past school year--but we are 55, so we are more emotionally prepared to deal with things of that nature. The shock John, Paul, George and Pete must have felt is more obvious to me now.
JcS
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jun 24, 2014 16:34:13 GMT -5
Mark Lewisohn will be at the Chicago Fest For Beatles Fans in August as will other cool guests.
|
|
|
Post by scousette on Jul 9, 2014 21:47:29 GMT -5
Not gonna be able to go to the Chicago Fest. I might go to the Los Angeles Fest but I am waiting to see if Mark Lewisohn is going to be there. Has anybody else read the extended version?
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Nov 2, 2014 14:04:41 GMT -5
Another gem from the book; Spring 1958 and John Duff Lowe's Liverpool Institute friend Neil Aspinall .hears The Quarrymen for the first time and his reaction; "I thought they were useless. They could play about five chords. I wondered why I had gone across town when I could have seen more local groups."
|
|
|
Post by lenmac on Oct 10, 2015 17:08:52 GMT -5
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Oct 13, 2015 21:01:03 GMT -5
Steve, I recommended the "Tune In" Lewisohn book to an old friend who loves the Beatles and noticed on the Amazon.co.UK website the cheapest extended version price was a whopping 245 UK Pounds, and on the American Amazon.com site it was also going for USD $349.00!!!! And that was for a used copy! A new copy was close to $800!! Has the extended version gone out of print and no longer available at the moment? Those are absurd prices! What gives?
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Oct 13, 2015 23:38:42 GMT -5
Steve, I recommended the "Tune In" Lewisohn book to an old friend who loves the Beatles and noticed on the Amazon.co.UK website the cheapest extended version price was a whopping 245 UK Pounds, and on the American Amazon.com site it was also going for USD $349.00!!!! And that was for a used copy! A new copy was close to $800!! Has the extended version gone out of print and no longer available at the moment? Those are absurd prices! What gives? I don't think so. But because it's not available here, the price gets pretty crazy. I paid $150 for mine, as I recall, back when they reprinted it. I'll ask Mark if it's going to be reprinted again.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Oct 14, 2015 5:51:16 GMT -5
Yeah, I'd like to get the extended version too. As I live in Japan, this is likely to cost about $500, so NOT BLOODY LIKELY.
Seriously, what's available out there...?
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Oct 14, 2015 19:46:55 GMT -5
Steve, I recommended the "Tune In" Lewisohn book to an old friend who loves the Beatles and noticed on the Amazon.co.UK website the cheapest extended version price was a whopping 245 UK Pounds, and on the American Amazon.com site it was also going for USD $349.00!!!! And that was for a used copy! A new copy was close to $800!! Has the extended version gone out of print and no longer available at the moment? Those are absurd prices! What gives? I don't think so. But because it's not available here, the price gets pretty crazy. I paid $150 for mine, as I recall, back when they reprinted it. I'll ask Mark if it's going to be reprinted again. Ok, thanks. Tell Mark there are fans out who would still like to buy the book, and the extended version at that, but asking them to fork over 250-400 UK Pounds (USD$300-$800) for it is just absurd. He should know he is losing sales as a result and maybe ought to kick his publishers butt a few times over losing sales for whatever reason. If the book isn't available to purchase, no wonder he has no money to hire assistants to help him gather the research that maybe would cut in half the time he needs to finish this project. It is kind of weird he needs 20 years or so to write a book about a band that only existed in one form or another for about 13 years. We all really appreciate what he is doing, but with a little help from his friends we all might be lucky enough to still be alive to read the finished project while we still have our wits about us and haven't drifted off into senility or worse.... And hopefully the next volumes won't cost hundreds of pounds or dollars.....
|
|
|
Post by winstonoboogie on Oct 14, 2015 21:11:36 GMT -5
I agree with everyone. Maybe some Daddy Bigbucks out there will bankroll Mark so he can hire assistants? (I'd do it but I'm too poor.)
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Oct 14, 2015 21:24:40 GMT -5
I agree with everyone. Maybe some Daddy Bigbucks out there will bankroll Mark so he can hire assistants? (I'd do it but I'm too poor.) I'd do it but I'm too cheap.
|
|
|
Post by lenmac on Oct 14, 2015 21:52:33 GMT -5
I think he should start a kickstarter to raise money to help him out.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Oct 15, 2015 3:35:34 GMT -5
Unless he already has a contract with his current publisher and has received an advance for the next volume/s.
|
|
|
Post by dcshark on Oct 15, 2015 7:43:06 GMT -5
Wow, I just bought it at $166.00 CDN. I was reluctant to buy it at that price. Good thing I did.
I wanted to buy the ebook extended edition but I can't find it anywhere.
Any idea if the extended edition will be released as an ebook?
|
|
|
Post by lenmac on Oct 15, 2015 22:47:53 GMT -5
The extended edition is a ebook but only in the UK.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Oct 16, 2015 10:25:26 GMT -5
It makes no sense to me that when your book comes out and is lauded as the best, most accurate biography (unauthorized) on the most famous band of the last 100 years, and it goes off the market because the publisher(s) decide not to print enough copies of the full version. This book has been growing in popularity among the general public interested in reading about The Beatles since its release in 2013. I have friends, casual Beatlefans, asking me where to get it now, and I tell them you can't get the extended (complete) version unless you shell out the equivalent of a monthly mortgage payment for a new copy from scalpers on the internet selling through the Amazon website. And Apple is planning to release a potentially big selling remixed Beatles 1 CD and a 2DVD/Blu-Ray set of the bands best videos in three weeks which could spur sales of Lewisohn's book, and it just won't be available except in the abridged edition.
Just doesn't make sense to me. Lewisohn needs to re-examine his relationship with his publishers. Makes no sense why a second printing is not out there to be available while another potentially large Beatles product is about to be released....
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Oct 19, 2015 13:51:20 GMT -5
It makes no sense to me that when your book comes out and is lauded as the best, most accurate biography (unauthorized) on the most famous band of the last 100 years, and it goes off the market because the publisher(s) decide not to print enough copies of the full version. This book has been growing in popularity among the general public interested in reading about The Beatles since its release in 2013. I have friends, casual Beatlefans, asking me where to get it now, and I tell them you can't get the extended (complete) version unless you shell out the equivalent of a monthly mortgage payment for a new copy from scalpers on the internet selling through the Amazon website. And Apple is planning to release a potentially big selling remixed Beatles 1 CD and a 2DVD/Blu-Ray set of the bands best videos in three weeks which could spur sales of Lewisohn's book, and it just won't be available except in the abridged edition. Just doesn't make sense to me. Lewisohn needs to re-examine his relationship with his publishers. Makes no sense why a second printing is not out there to be available while another potentially large Beatles product is about to be released.... Yeah, hopefully this crap won't happen with the second book.
|
|