|
Post by joeyself on Oct 5, 2013 18:37:57 GMT -5
I haven't really kept track of the books I've been mentioned in. Besides Allan, I know Keith Badman mentioned me. My first one was by Howard DeWitt. I really haven't cared much if I get mentioned. I'm not seeking it out, though I appreciate when it happens. The mention by Allan Kozinn was a surprise because we haven't met in person. I've been mentioned in a couple of foreign books, too. I know what you mean about not seeking it; Allan's caught me by surprise, too, simply because I never thought about him doing that it. JcS
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Oct 5, 2013 19:23:08 GMT -5
I read in the Mark Lewisohn interview online at his website that Macca has declined to be interviewed and contribute to this project. My question to joeyself and Steve; Does that also include Ringo, Pete Best, George Martin, Cynthia Lennon, and the surviving Quarrymen? Are any of them contributing in any way to this first book thru interviews or whatever? I will be looking forward to Paul's reaction to the book (I am sure he will be reading it)as well as the other individuals mentioned above, who are a vital part of the early years covered in this first part coming out. Their opinions on the book will go a long way in validating what we read about in the book and accept as factual. As George Harrison once said to Lewisohn; (paraphrased) "You weren't there when this all happened so how can you write about it accurately?" I am planning to buy the extended edition (the 75 Pound price) coming out in November in the UK to get the full story, but I am hoping there will be comments from the major players in this story prior to that, which will help fans justify paying the expensive price the book will cost, especially the extended version. These opinions will go a long way towards validating Lewisohn and ensuring the next two parts of the book sell when they are eventully released (if all us 1st generation fans aren't dead by the time they come out!). I was right. A lot of us may never get to read this entire trilogy; From a recent interview in the London newspaper The Telegraph with Lewisohn on the upcoming first part; "Although this first volume ends only on the last day of 1962, as Love Me Do heralds the first, faint stirrings of fame, it is close to 1,000 pages long. It has taken a decade to research and write, and Lewisohn, who is now 55, and busy with book two, fully expects to be in his seventies before completion." So we have at least 15-20 years to wait before the book is completed. Silly. What happens if Lewisohn kicks the bucket before he makes it to his seventies? I might be pushing 80 when this is finished. Most First Generation Beatlefans will be dead. Paul & Ringo will be touring the big concert halls in the sky with John & George by then.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Oct 5, 2013 20:22:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Oct 5, 2013 21:32:16 GMT -5
So about the new book. Tell me ... does the story turn out differently this time? I hear Paul was behind it all in this version.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Oct 5, 2013 21:43:16 GMT -5
OK, here's a list of a few of the people Mark interviewed: Tony Barrow, Neil Aspinall, Tony Bramwell, Pete Best, Iris Caldwell, Maureen Cleave, Louise Harrison, Freda Kelly, Astrid Kirchherr, Sam Leach, Angie McCartney, Jurgen Vollmer and Klaus Voormann.
And he has interviewed McCartney, Harrison, George Martin, Cilla Black and Alistair Taylor in the past.
It's also wrong that he didn't talk to McCartney for the book. He says McCartney answered questions by email. Yoko also cooperated.
|
|
|
Post by joeyself on Oct 6, 2013 0:55:30 GMT -5
. It's also wrong that he didn't talk to McCartney for the book. He says McCartney answered questions by email. I'm assuming you emailed or talked to Mark about this? This is from the official site: You have a long professional association with the Beatles, and some of them individually. Are they involved in Tune In and is this book authorised?
"No. I received the odd tiny bit of help which I specifically asked for and they didn't have to give – but substantially no, they're not involved. That's fine, because it's what I expected and what I wanted. This has to be an independent and impartial book. But are the all main players appearing and speaking at the book's core? Yes, constantly. Paul McCartney decided not to talk to me for this particular project, and I completely respect and understand his reasons – but I've interviewed him maybe fifteen times in the past and I've also sourced other quotes of great strength and immediacy for all the players." I'm having trouble squaring the two. Seems like it is splitting hairs to say "Paul didn't TALK to Mark, but he emailed him." JcS
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Oct 6, 2013 5:51:30 GMT -5
Nicely written. No great revelations, but it brings things together really well and is very even handed, rightly so.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Oct 6, 2013 9:54:50 GMT -5
. It's also wrong that he didn't talk to McCartney for the book. He says McCartney answered questions by email. I'm assuming you emailed or talked to Mark about this? This is from the official site: You have a long professional association with the Beatles, and some of them individually. Are they involved in Tune In and is this book authorised?
"No. I received the odd tiny bit of help which I specifically asked for and they didn't have to give – but substantially no, they're not involved. That's fine, because it's what I expected and what I wanted. This has to be an independent and impartial book. But are the all main players appearing and speaking at the book's core? Yes, constantly. Paul McCartney decided not to talk to me for this particular project, and I completely respect and understand his reasons – but I've interviewed him maybe fifteen times in the past and I've also sourced other quotes of great strength and immediacy for all the players." I'm having trouble squaring the two. Seems like it is splitting hairs to say "Paul didn't TALK to Mark, but he emailed him." JcS No, Joey, that's in the book.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Oct 6, 2013 12:23:37 GMT -5
. It's also wrong that he didn't talk to McCartney for the book. He says McCartney answered questions by email. I'm assuming you emailed or talked to Mark about this? This is from the official site: You have a long professional association with the Beatles, and some of them individually. Are they involved in Tune In and is this book authorised?
"No. I received the odd tiny bit of help which I specifically asked for and they didn't have to give – but substantially no, they're not involved. That's fine, because it's what I expected and what I wanted. This has to be an independent and impartial book. But are the all main players appearing and speaking at the book's core? Yes, constantly. Paul McCartney decided not to talk to me for this particular project, and I completely respect and understand his reasons – but I've interviewed him maybe fifteen times in the past and I've also sourced other quotes of great strength and immediacy for all the players." I'm having trouble squaring the two. Seems like it is splitting hairs to say "Paul didn't TALK to Mark, but he emailed him." JcS Thanks Joey. I knew I had just seen it somewhere that Lewisohn said Paul had decided not to talk to him about this project. I know Lewisohn has said that everything in this book is backed up by quotes or comments from sources surrounding the particular subject matter. That nothing is just conjecture on his part based on what "might have happened" or rumours that are unsubstantiated. Interesting that Paul declined to do any further interviews with Mark based on new information he uncovered. Only e-mails. I believe it will be so important to have especially Paul, Ringo, and Pete in the first part (the only surviving Beatles), not to mention George Martin, and others validate what is put into this book. Otherwise, the sales could plummet, especially on the ensuing parts that will be published in the future. Many of the currently living individuals who experienced this story may be dead by the time the rest of this story is published over the next 15 years or so. I want this project to succeed as I really admire the work Lewisohn did in The Beatles Recording Sessions project. But it needs Paul and Ringo's approval.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Oct 6, 2013 12:38:44 GMT -5
Nicely written. No great revelations, but it brings things together really well and is very even handed, rightly so. There is a bit of revelation in one of the other excerpts where it says Paul, in his teenage years, apparently got a girlfriend pregnant, however she miscarried, so the situation never progressed any further like it did with John and Cynthia when she became pregnant with Julian. I don't recall hearing that story before.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Oct 6, 2013 13:05:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by scousette on Oct 6, 2013 16:32:31 GMT -5
Nicely written. No great revelations, but it brings things together really well and is very even handed, rightly so. There is a bit of revelation in one of the other excerpts where it says Paul, in his teenage years, apparently got a girlfriend pregnant, however she miscarried, so the situation never progressed any further like it did with John and Cynthia when she became pregnant with Julian. I don't recall hearing that story before. Dot Rhone's pregnancy was covered in Bob Spitz's book. It was the first time I ever read about it.
|
|
|
Post by scousette on Oct 6, 2013 16:34:23 GMT -5
Kudos to Mike for the Howard Kaylan thingy and to Joey for another mention.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Oct 6, 2013 20:00:50 GMT -5
Kudos to Mike for the Howard Kaylan thingy and to Joey for another mention. Mine was absolutely nothing, was making a comment on Nilsson on my musician friend's post, and I guess he is friends with Howard. Cool to me though!.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Oct 6, 2013 22:56:10 GMT -5
For those living in the NYC area;
At The Paly Center For Media 25 West 52 Street • New York, NY 10019 • 212.621.6600
The Beatles Meet America: An Evening with Beatles Historian Mark Lewisohn
Friday, October 25, 2013 6:30 pm ET New York
In Person
Mark Lewisohn, Author, The Beatles—All These Years Volume 1: Tune In Allan Kozinn, Critic, The New York Times Al Maysles, Filmmaker
Before the Beatles conquered America in early 1964, they had been fascinated with this country through films and music. Beatles expert Mark Lewisohn in discussion with New York Times music critic Allan Kozinn will examine what the Beatles’s conceptions of the States were before they arrived. Lewisohn will screen highlights from movies the Beatles watched, including The Girl Can’t Help It, and videos of musicians who influenced them, notably Little Richard and Eddie Cochran. After the conversation, legendary documentary filmmaker Al Maysles will discuss his filming of the Beatles when they first arrived in February 1964.
Lewisohn has just written the first volume of his definitive trilogy on the history of the group, covering the Beatles’s formative years through 1962. His book is by far the most exhaustive study of the group’s Liverpool and Hamburg years.
Funding for this event is provided by The Blanche and Irving Laurie Foundation.
Tickets on sale to Members Wed. Sept. 25 at noon. On sale to the general public Fri. Sept. 27 at noon.
This Event
Members: $15 General Public: $20
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Oct 7, 2013 10:41:57 GMT -5
I had assumed (or taken for granted) that Paul and Ringo were at least cooperating with Mark Lewisohn in terms of making documents available, perhaps even interviews.
That is an interesting twist to me that they are not but I compliment Mark Lewisohn for his research skills as I have been outspoken in questioning Paul's memory in 2013 of events taking place 50 years ago. I'd rather have ML research what Paul may have said in 1960 on a given topic than ask Paul in 2013 how he felt on that same topic in 1960. It is human nature to let known historical context shade one's memories.
I am now wondering about this quote from Paul in the recent MOJO cover story:
“It’s a constant niggle, the fact is there’s only a given body of people who really know inside out what goes on, and other people analyse it and that’s fine. But when they get it wrong, you just have to live with it.”
Paul has said that often before and apparently so has George per lowbasso's passage above. Yet I am glad we have historians who research historical events and gather facts from many different sources. It is important, for instance, to read what Robert E. Lee wrote himself about the CSA's loss at Gettysburg because Lee was there and was the major player for the South. Yet he is just one piece of a larger puzzle and to stop with just his words on that three day battle subjects the reader to Lee's rationalizations, excuses, biases, perhaps speculation on parts of the battle he didn't have first hand knowledge of(such as everything going on over on the North's side).
To get as accurate a re-telling of Gettyburg as possible, the historian must draw from many sources and countercheck accounts to try and verify facts as best as he/she can.
Same with telling the story of The Beatles and I have never subscribed to the theory that only John, Paul, George and Ringo can tell that story. They are large pieces to the puzzle but not all of the pieces and each brings his own biases and prejudices to the table when telling that story.
I did order the expanded first volume although my account has not been charged yet.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Oct 7, 2013 16:50:22 GMT -5
This reminds me of Paul talking with Jimmy Kimmell about meeting Elvis. Paul's say's "No, I don't think it was our first visit". Kimmell says "It was. I know." Paul's says "You're using research but I was there." The Beatles played the Hollywood Bowl in August 1964. They met Elvis in August 27, 1965.
Score one for Paul's memory over research.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Oct 7, 2013 22:26:03 GMT -5
This reminds me of Paul talking with Jimmy Kimmell about meeting Elvis. Paul's say's "No, I don't think it was our first visit". Kimmell says "It was. I know." Paul's says "You're using research but I was there." The Beatles played the Hollywood Bowl in August 1964. They met Elvis in August 27, 1965. Score one for Paul's memory over research. As I learned on the Kimmel Thread, Kimmel is not a Beatles fan and that was a stupid mistake on his part to argue. But did Paul play bass with Elvis?
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Oct 8, 2013 11:49:13 GMT -5
www.mojo4music.com/7455/is-this-the-best-beatles-book-ever/Lewisohn book review by Mojo Magazine. Calls it the best book on The Beatles ever. John Lennon disciples are gonna love this review. Some rare photos from the book included in the review that you may not have seen before. Particularly a shot at Liverpool Airport as the Fabs prepare to fly to London to make their first record at EMI with G. Martin in Sept. 1962. Ringo's white streak in his yet-to-become moptop hair and George's black eye from the Cavern incident over Pete Best's dismissal clearly evident.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Oct 8, 2013 12:39:04 GMT -5
The two reader comments to lowbasso's link to Mojo are Paul fans bitter about the review, that's for sure! The thing about Little Richard hating John's farts is kind of funny and there was another book, I forget which one, that said John was very obnoxious in that regard. That is not information that effects the music in any way but if fans want to know what it was really like to be around John up close and personal that anecdote is very descriptive and lets us know John could be disagreeable to be around. But we all know people like that, down to the public flatulence. I cannot imagine though that ML is anti-Paul and I look forward to this first Volume and I suspect we will learn things we approve of and disapprove of as to these four men. They are still human even though Rock and Roll gods!
|
|
|
Post by joeyself on Oct 9, 2013 9:43:58 GMT -5
Ok, thanks Steve. So Ringo is not participating either? Though in this first part he doesn't enter the story until just before the first part ends, which is Dec. 1962 I believe. Ringo as part of the band doesn't enter until the summer of '62, that's true, but since Mark is going back over 100 years before that time to start the story, Ringo's back story can be explored before he became a Beatle. I suppose that while Mark is writing volumes 2 and 3, any of the principles could decide to talk to him. Of course, as each day passes, so do a goodly number of brain cells. If any interviews are going to be done, sooner rather than later would seem to be the better plan. JcS
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Oct 9, 2013 19:17:13 GMT -5
rnrchemist.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/book-review-beatles-all-these-years.htmlThe reviews are really overwhelmingly positive. This one delves into how the book was constructed and that it is a must for any true beatlefan. A shame we (I) have to wait until late November before I will receive the extended edition, which has to be shipped from England and is not available to purchase until Nov. 14. Crown Books in the USA, which is publishing the book here, must have its head up its ass for not offering this edition to all the American Beatlefans who will want it in their possession. Reminds me of all the silly Capitol Beatle albums we got in the 60's that had nothing to do with the format or sequencing of the British Parlophone albums that came out in England the way The Beatles wanted them released. We didn't have an internet then to purchase the British versions. You had to know somebody over there who would either ship or physically bring the albums back to the USA. When I finally got the CD versions of the original British Albums in the mid 1980's, I realized how silly the Capitol albums were with their mixed up orders and fewer tracks per album. I never listened to my old capitol albums again after that. I wanted to know the songs in the order the Beatles had intended them to be heard, which made much more sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Oct 9, 2013 20:14:27 GMT -5
I'm not interested at all in an abridged version. Yet I'm not interested in paying out a lot for a book right now. But if I were going to buy it, I would want the full version. I've got the BBC albums coming and Paul's album. The Yoko haters on this site have got me wanting the new Yoko. Steve has got me wanting the new Julian album. Still waiting on Venus and Mars/At the Speed of Sound and Let it Be is probably out before Christmas (if I can get the money out of Hell's Bank before the door freezes shut). I might have to wait for the paperback. But it sounds like Howards been reading the book or the excerpt. www.examiner.com/article/howard-stern-mccartney-interview-a-lovefest-while-fallon-plays-it-coolOne question sound's like a follow-up. Howard asks Paul about his dad not allowing John in the house. Paul disagrees and implies he was already out of hand by then.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Oct 9, 2013 20:33:52 GMT -5
Also, a little off topic here but the subject keeps popping up on different threads, in the interview with Howard, Howard asks Paul if Rubber Soul was a turning point in their songwriting. Paul misspeaks and says no, it was the album before that, Revolver. (Memory loses to research.) I think he is more used to saying "not Revolver, it really started to happen in with Rubber Soul". He corrected someone who got it right.
Kind of like people in Louisville saying "No, it's not "Louis-ville", it's Louie-ville". People started getting it right and then Louisvillians started saying "No, it's not Louie-ville, huh, ah,... it's Lou-a-vul". Not too many intelligent people in Louisville would tell you to pronounce it Lou-a-vul. (That's my stand on that , anyway.)
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Oct 9, 2013 22:32:28 GMT -5
There may not be a paperback version of the extended version, but you can get an e-book standard version on Kindle. Probably the cheapest version?
|
|
|
Post by joeyself on Oct 9, 2013 23:07:39 GMT -5
Also, a little off topic here but the subject keeps popping up on different threads, in the interview with Howard, Howard asks Paul if Rubber Soul was a turning point in their songwriting. Paul misspeaks and says no, it was the album before that, Revolver. (Memory loses to research.) I think he is more used to saying "not Revolver, it really started to happen in with Rubber Soul". He corrected someone who got it right. Kind of like people in Louisville saying "No, it's not "Louis-ville", it's Louie-ville". People started getting it right and then Louisvillians started saying "No, it's not Louie-ville, huh, ah,... it's Lou-a-vul". Not too many intelligent people in Louisville would tell you to pronounce it Lou-a-vul. (That's my stand on that , anyway.) For no particular reason other than I just thought of it, there is an old joke that goes: How do you pronounce the capital of Kentucky? Louis-ville, or Louie-ville? Scroll down for answer Farther Still going I pronounce it Frank-fort. JcS
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Oct 9, 2013 23:12:41 GMT -5
So what exactly is the U.S. price of the extended first Volume? I pre-ordered it through amazonUK with the pounds listing and stuck my head in the sand, not doing the actual conversion from pounds to dollars! It has not been charged to my account yet.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Oct 10, 2013 1:55:52 GMT -5
So what exactly is the U.S. price of the extended first Volume? I pre-ordered it through amazonUK with the pounds listing and stuck my head in the sand, not doing the actual conversion from pounds to dollars! It has not been charged to my account yet. £74.40, which is $118.57 (it's on sale for almost $75 off the list). (Use this link to order, please: amzn.to/15UJ9o2)
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Oct 10, 2013 10:12:31 GMT -5
Thanks Steve. That is a much better price and in reviewing my pending order, amazon.co.uk has given me that lower price in my order number. It was 120 pounds and 7 more for shipping when I ordered it on July 1, 2013.
That is quite a savings.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Oct 10, 2013 11:21:58 GMT -5
Thanks Steve. That is a much better price and in reviewing my pending order, amazon.co.uk has given me that lower price in my order number. It was 120 pounds and 7 more for shipping when I ordered it on July 1, 2013. That is quite a savings. I have it ordered as well thru Amazon.com/UK and at the current price of 74.40 Pounds + shipping which brings the total to 81.38 Pounds. Amazon will not charge your credit card until the item ships. Since it is not scheduled to be released until Nov. 14, the price could change between now and then. Amazon guarantees you will get the lowest price listed at the time of the release, or at any time up until the release, if you have pre-ordered it. As to converting what you are paying in dollars, you can get an estimate now, BUT the conversion rate to US dollars will be determined by what the rate is when you are actually charged, somewhere around November 14. The conversion rate between US Dollars and UK Pounds fluctuates constantly, so there is no way to know what it will be a month from now when you make the purchase. And depending on what credit card you use, they will tack on a bit in the conversion as well. So you can only estimate your actual costs, even right up to the purchase dates. That is always the case when buying something in a foreign currency. That's why it pisses me off that Crown Books, which is publishing the book in the USA is not offering an extended version of this book. If they did, it would be priced in US Dollars. We are at the mercy of the conversion rates as well as the publisher's price in the UK for the extended version. If you were buying the book today it would be about USD $136. Today's published conversion rate is about 1 Pound = $1.59. But that is the published rate in the newspapers for conversions of more than $1 Million. Tack on about 3-5% more for the rate you will actually get. About 1 Pound = $1.65. The rate will be different one month from now on Nov. 14. I deal with conversion rates all the time in my business of singing, when I sing overseas and get paid in foreign currencies.
|
|