Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2014 5:36:52 GMT -5
And finally, they were not, as such "rejected" by Decca. The Decca guy (name escapes me now) loved them, went to the Cavern to see them, thought they were great, thought they were ready to record. Even at the audition on Jan.1st 1962, the fact that 14 songs were laid down suggests that, that day, Decca expected to select two songs to release as a single. There were other factors at work that prevented the Beatles' being on Decca, but their being 'rejected' as not-good-enough was not really one. I found this... Dick Rowe later became known as “the man who turned down The Beatles.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Apr 30, 2014 6:11:46 GMT -5
In fact, in the year 1961, according to available evidence, neither John nor Paul completed a single song during this entire calendar year. They had written a bunch of 1/2-finished, teenage song sketches in 1958-1960, and then basically stopped. In 1961 they wrote nothing. At the time of the Decca audition, they played a few originals only because they had no current songs. The only Lennon song they did was 'Hello Little Girl', which was already 3 or 4 years old. But they also did two Paul songs at the Decca Sessions, "Love Of The Loved" and "Like Dreamers Do". OK, so then if they had any backlog of self-written songs, they were somewhat old. I'm only going by what has always been said by Paul and John, as well as George Martin. In the LET IT BE movie, even, you hear Paul say "John and I would go back to my house and write songs like "Too Bad About Sorrows", and there were about a hundred from this period that we'd never reckoned, because they were all sort of unsophisticated songs" (and ONE AFTER 909 was another). I'm not sure what kind of "evidence" we require other than what John and Paul and Martin have maintained? Do we need to find Paul's physical notebook or pieces of paper where he usually wrote "ANOTHER LENNON AND McCARTNEY ORIGINAL" on top of the page? (This factoid is also in Lewisohn's new book). Lewisohn also notes in his book that there were four different goals to the songs chosen at The Decca Sessions -- one was to showcase current popular cover hits, (for example) and two other reasons -- but one was also to show that they also wrote their own material. The reason they only played 3 L&M compositions was because they wanted to do other covers for the sessions. It would really have been suicide for the band to only perform their own material at the audition. Now I think I am starting to know what Paul means when he sings on his "Early Days" song about: "Now everybody seems to have their own opinion who did this and who did that but as for me I don't see how they can remember when they weren't where it was at". Suddenly, now here is the latest book out there on THE BEATLES, and we have yet more new "facts" that we're expected to forever take as gospel, and throw everything else out. They recorded 15 songs, but even if the intent was to choose two songs which were good enough for a single, it doesn't mean they felt there were two that were worthwhile out of the batch. I read much from TUNE IN last night. I sat down actually around 11pm, and read everything from the January 1st Decca Audition up to now where they're hooking up with EMI and George Martin (or should I say hooking up with "Kim Bennett"?? ). It's such a well-written work, with a lot of careful sources to back up everything (and I frequently checked the footnotes to see where certain information came from). So now we're supposed to believe that they were never truly "rejected" by Decca as legend has always gone. Yet later on in the story, Mark does return to using the word "rejection" a lot, and how Brian Epstein felt about that. Lewisohn said something about Brian actually rejecting Decca, not the other way around. All I can say to that is... "Hmmm". I'd still like to know what people think about this Kim Bennett business? For over 40 years this man has kept silent, then Lewisohn interviews him back in 2003 and we're suddenly to believe that it was all thanks to Bennett loving the hell out of "Like Dreamers Do" that the Beatles got to record at Parlophone and became legends? Again I must ask -- is this revelation ONLY put forth by Bennett, or is this point backed up by other people? If we're not to believe John, Paul, and Martin about things like how many songs L&M had written up to that point, why do we believe Bennett for his "I discovered The Beatles with 'Like Dreamers Do' " implication*? *(And once more, I have no personal bias at stake in any of this. Whatever is the real truth is the real truth; I would actually PREFER that an original song such as "Like Dreamers Do" and securing copyrights was the key factor in The Beatles getting a recording contract -- it's certainly a much better tale than George Martin's only signing them up cuz he thought they were charming but their music sucked).
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Apr 30, 2014 8:57:27 GMT -5
Likewise, while I applaud his energy in tracking down hitherto voiceless observers of certain things, it's occasionally hard to tell why he trusted certain people so much (apparently). One example is the guy who witnessed John's parents meeting north of Liverpool to decide who would take him. Lewisohn basically debunks the myth that John had to choose between his parents. All well and good, but I was left wondering -- "Why does the author so completely trust the account by the man in Australia that he tracked down?" We all know that certain Beatle-related witnesses have spouted B.S. on occasion.. I was wondering about this too, so I was re-reading this thread and I was glad I found this quote. This is basically what I'm saying. So now we are forever to toss out the dramatic story of John being left to choose between his mom and dad -- just because some "eyewitness" somewhere claims it never happened? This is precisely the sort of thing that has always unsettled me so far as Beatle Books are concerned.
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on Apr 30, 2014 10:59:58 GMT -5
I'm assuming Mark has used this information because it fits the puzzle. The whole story was fragmented and memory and paper never quite matched. The June session being a classic example. They were signed before that session and paid as such. Brian Epstein's telegram to the band was right and George Martin's memory wasn't.
Go with the researcher till new info turns up.
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on Apr 30, 2014 11:11:06 GMT -5
Joe it's probably the same with the story of John as well. Something may not quite have added up or there was a lack of information that led Mark to investigate further. Where did the dramatic story of the events originate? What do we have? Can I find more and what does it tell us?
How about the example of John's poem for Mimi on the death of her husband George. Never hidden away but published and not seen since then. No one else had gone the extra mile. We would never have known about that if Mark hadn't been on the case.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Apr 30, 2014 11:31:53 GMT -5
I'm assuming Mark has used this information because it fits the puzzle. The whole story was fragmented and memory and paper never quite matched. The June session being a classic example. They were signed before that session and paid as such. Brian Epstein's telegram to the band was right and George Martin's memory wasn't. I certainly believe that physical evidence, such as a telegram or a recording session documents, almost always would outweigh personal sketchy recollections. I hate to say this so near the end of George Martin's life... but I always respected the man until now when I am thinking he fabricated a lot of things. The most glaring of all is his story about not knowing who Ringo was at the September 11th session, even though he had already met Ringo at the September 4th session. I think he may have kept cultivating that myth to spare Ringo's feelings... but doesn't Ringo know Martin had already heard Ringo on 9/4? I guess this is all we can do, but it hardly means that anything is the truth just because no new evidence has yet turned up.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Apr 30, 2014 11:36:31 GMT -5
Joe it's probably the same with the story of John as well. Something may not quite have added up or there was a lack of information that led Mark to investigate further. Where did the dramatic story of the events originate? What do we have? Can I find more and what does it tell us? How about the example of John's poem for Mimi on the death of her husband George. Never hidden away but published and not seen since then. No one else had gone the extra mile. We would never have known about that if Mark hadn't been on the case. I don't know how many times I have to repeat my support, respect, and appreciation for Mark Lewisohn; I say once again here that I think he's a great guy, a fine writer, and an invaluable researcher... as well as a real treasure as #1 Beatles Authority. Still, that doesn't mean I'm not sometimes going to question certain 'findings' or 'witnesses' . I still would like someone to address that Kim Bennett question.
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on Apr 30, 2014 11:38:30 GMT -5
I guess this is all we can do, but it hardly means that anything is the truth just because no new evidence has yet turned up. Yep, it's the best we've got I'm afraid.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Apr 30, 2014 11:39:50 GMT -5
I guess this is all we can do, but it hardly means that anything is the truth just because no new evidence has yet turned up. Yep, it's the best we've got I'm afraid. Fine. But then fans ought to take the "latest update" as such; not spout them as indisputable "facts".
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on Apr 30, 2014 11:45:17 GMT -5
I don't. I'm happy that we know more than we did previously.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Apr 30, 2014 12:19:29 GMT -5
Well Joe, even the gospel cannot be taken "as gospel". It was, after all, written by humans who had to recall what they heard or experienced, and is their interpretation of what they think happened.
Since Kim Bennett, Sid Coleman, and Dick James are all dead now, one can only go on the interview Lewisohn did with Bennett back in 2003.
On Page 1469 of the unabridged version is a detailed footnote about the whole issue of the roles all these men had in obtaining the publishing rights to The Beatles song catalogue; chiefly the L&M Catalogue. It comes after the moment the Beatles finally recorded their first #1 PPM in Nov. 1962. Lewisohn here kind of sums up the whole affair of Bennett/Coleman and their early relationship with the band.
I guess it is really up to G, Martin now to comment (if he can remember) on this episode. If he still thinks he was responsible for signing The Beatles with no pressure coming from upstairs at EMI, then it is his word against what Lewisohn has uncovered in his interviews, and the reader has to decide what is most plausible.
I don't think that even if you take Lewisohn's story as plausible, it diminishes Martin's role in Beatle history. It really does not matter who decided to sign the band to a Parlophone contract. What matters is Martin had the ability and knowledge to take the raw talents of the band and help shape and channel them into recording some of the greatest music of the 20th Century over the relatively brief period of less than 8 years. That achievement alone is why when he came to lecture about his involvement with The Beatles in the USA about 7 years ago and I saw him in The Count Basie Theatre in Red Bank, NJ, upon his introduction to the audience, he received a standing ovation that went on for almost 10 minutes before we all finally sat down to listen to his stories. He is, and always will be The Fifth Beatle, no matter what happened at the beginning of their relationship. Ringo is still pissed off at him to this day over the way he was treated those two weeks in Sept. 1962. After reading Lewisohn's account, I guess I would be too! But it all worked out for the best didn't it? (OOPS, bad pun there not intended!) No matter what really happened......
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Apr 30, 2014 12:20:27 GMT -5
I don't. I'm happy that we know more than we did previously. Me too.
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on Apr 30, 2014 12:23:03 GMT -5
Lewisohn does have one fact wrong though. He says they wore headphones in the studio during those early sessions and they didn't. No headphones till 1966. Backed up by EMI staff and photographic evidence. He let that one slip and he wrote the introduction for Recording The Beatles as well. Naughty boy!
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Apr 30, 2014 13:01:38 GMT -5
Since Kim Bennett, Sid Coleman, and Dick James are all dead now, one can only go on the interview Lewisohn did with Bennett back in 2003. Okay, well then I guess it's just a matter of individual Beatles Fans believing whatever story they like to believe. It's a pity there is nothing definitive. Kim Bennett decided in 2003 - after 41 years of quiet - to dazzle Lewisohn with a tale of his loving "Like Dreamers Do" and trying to persuade his partner(s) that it might be a good idea to sign the Beatles to have their copyrights. As I said earlier, this is a story I would like to believe because after all, it means that the strength of the L&M partnership is what actually attracted the publishers. So this is one idea. I have the shorter US book, and I wonder if this is also covered? Because I sure would like to invest more evidence if I am to forever forget the notion that George Martin signed The Beatles himself even though their music stank, because they were very charming guys. I think either account is plausible. It's just a matter of which is accurate. I don't think George Martin would want to own up to having an affair at this point. Yes, I would agree with this. Obviously it all worked out great - but that's beside the point, isn't it? We're trying to determine how The Beatles "made it", and that's pretty important. The thing about the whole Ringo debacle of 9/62 is that apparently George Martin DID meet Ringo, on September 4th, and he did not like Ringo's performance, which is why he had Andy White ready on September 11. However, didn't I read somewhere that Martin already had Andy White scheduled for the 9/11 session sometime after the June 6 session and before the September 4th? .. So I wonder if Martin wanted the professional drummer as a result of Pete Best's weak performance -- or Ringo's? Is there room for some valid mis-remembering of events in Martin's recollections?
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on Apr 30, 2014 15:48:17 GMT -5
I'm not sure on that Joe. I remember discussing the issue of Andy White (couple of years back maybe?) and even though George Martin said he was already booked we found a source that said he wasn't booked before Sept 4th.
Am I remembering that correctly?
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Apr 30, 2014 17:42:49 GMT -5
Who was the writer a few years back who wrote the book that showed that Pete Best was the real talent in the Beatles? If it weren't for Pete, they would not have had all of the success they did.
If I remember right, the book had some pretty impressive foot notes with a lot of eye witnesses. He even had quotes from an ex-Beatle. Pete Best, I think. If he hadn't come out with that new info, we'd never had known.
Lewisohn has all these stories that really just flesh out the accepted stories. Yet he presents them, from what you guys are saying, as proving the earlier historic accounts as false.
Why couldn't Martin had been getting pressure to record the Beatles and to use their original songs and still decide to sign them because of their charm. And if they can bring in an original song as good as HDYDI, he'd produce it and make it the single. I would assume at any point, he could still make the call on such issues. Or they could find someone else.
I'd say it is more likely Bennett exaggerated his story. By the time Martin was asked these questions, he didn't have to impress anyone.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Apr 30, 2014 17:56:37 GMT -5
I don't think the matter of who is responsible for initiating The Beatles to get a recording session at EMI is of any great importance. Obviously, Bennett has his version, G.Martin has his 1/2-remembered version (never likely to be accurate given the people's reps at stake)... and that's about it -- everyone is either dead or was clueless in the first place (like The Beatles).
But who cares? The Beatles did not "make it" because Kim Bennett liked "Like Dreamers Do", any more than they made it when they cut "My Bonnie" (which was their 1st single in the UK, not "Love Me Do"). The most likely outcome of the first EMI sessions was a flop single, which was George Martin fully expected after being 'charmed' by The Beatles and after recording them.
What IS important is that "Love Me Do" struck a chord and became a hit.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Apr 30, 2014 18:37:32 GMT -5
I don't think the matter of who is responsible for initiating The Beatles to get a recording session at EMI is of any great importance. What IS important is that "Love Me Do" struck a chord and became a hit. If it wasn't important, why write the book? And why so many other Beatles historical books over the decades, with no end in sight? And why are we as fans so rabidly interested in all this? Couldn't we all just be satisfied that 'Love Me Do' became a modest hit and The Beatles went on to be superstars.... call it a day, and be spared all the billions of pages written about the "why's" and "how's"? And of all the details, how they managed to get a contract with Parlophone is probably in the Top Three. Come on now... of course these details are important. At least when concerning the phenomenon known as The Beatles. And Elvis. And probably also Bob Dylan.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Apr 30, 2014 18:44:40 GMT -5
...any more than they made it when they cut "My Bonnie" (which was their 1st single in the UK, not "Love Me Do"). I thought My Bonnie was a German import in the UK until after the Beatles hit it big.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Apr 30, 2014 18:53:11 GMT -5
...any more than they made it when they cut "My Bonnie" (which was their 1st single in the UK, not "Love Me Do"). I thought My Bonnie was a German import in the UK until after the Beatles hit it big. Speaking of My Bonnie, didn't it come out that the 'girls asking for My Bonnie in the NEMS store, thereby leading Brian to have interest in the band' story turned out to be made up? Is this mentioned in Lewisohn's book?
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Apr 30, 2014 18:59:21 GMT -5
Speaking of My Bonnie, didn't it come out that the 'girls asking for My Bonnie in the NEMS store, thereby leading Brian to have interest in the band' story turned out to be made up? Is this mentioned in Lewisohn's book? Turns out everything before this book was made up. How else do you get new interest in a book? Seriously - I'd like to know too. Anyone know? I started reading the book and got to when John and Paul were first meeting and going to Paul's place to write songs... then I jumped ahead to Jan. 1962, after getting intrigued by this topic. I'm sure I'll return to the earlier parts.
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on Apr 30, 2014 20:16:09 GMT -5
I think Lewisohn found Raymond Jones and interviewed him to confirm the story. Obviously I would need to check the book!
The question to be answered was why George Martin signed them when he had previously rejected or not been interested in them. I seem to recall that being the sequence of events.
Anyone help me out?
As I've said the paper trail didn't match memory recall. It never did.
Now we have a logical sequence. Look at who published the first single before Dick James etc.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Apr 30, 2014 20:46:41 GMT -5
Since Kim Bennett, Sid Coleman, and Dick James are all dead now, one can only go on the interview Lewisohn did with Bennett back in 2003. Okay, well then I guess it's just a matter of individual Beatles Fans believing whatever story they like to believe. It's a pity there is nothing definitive. Kim Bennett decided in 2003 - after 41 years of quiet - to dazzle Lewisohn with a tale of his loving "Like Dreamers Do" and trying to persuade his partner(s) that it might be a good idea to sign the Beatles to have their copyrights. As I said earlier, this is a story I would like to believe because after all, it means that the strength of the L&M partnership is what actually attracted the publishers. So this is one idea. I have the shorter US book, and I wonder if this is also covered? Because I sure would like to invest more evidence if I am to forever forget the notion that George Martin signed The Beatles himself even though their music stank, because they were very charming guys. I think either account is plausible. It's just a matter of which is accurate. I don't think George Martin would want to own up to having an affair at this point. Yes, I would agree with this. Obviously it all worked out great - but that's beside the point, isn't it? We're trying to determine how The Beatles "made it", and that's pretty important. The thing about the whole Ringo debacle of 9/62 is that apparently George Martin DID meet Ringo, on September 4th, and he did not like Ringo's performance, which is why he had Andy White ready on September 11. However, didn't I read somewhere that Martin already had Andy White scheduled for the 9/11 session sometime after the June 6 session and before the September 4th? .. So I wonder if Martin wanted the professional drummer as a result of Pete Best's weak performance -- or Ringo's? Is there room for some valid mis-remembering of events in Martin's recollections? According to Lewisohn; I believe Martin did not decide on a session drummer until after Sept. 4. Have to go back again and look.Not sure if he knew Best had been replaced before they showed up at EMI on the 4th. But apparently Ringo's bungling of the first attempts at PPM and Martin not being impressed with him too much on HDYDI and Love Me Do on the 4th, I think that is the point Martin decided to bring in a session drummer? Joe, I will copy out the footnote on pg. 1469 you are missing in the short version. It is long, so can't do it right at this moment.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Apr 30, 2014 20:49:16 GMT -5
Who was the writer a few years back who wrote the book that showed that Pete Best was the real talent in the Beatles? If it weren't for Pete, they would not have had all of the success they did. If I remember right, the book had some pretty impressive foot notes with a lot of eye witnesses. He even had quotes from an ex-Beatle. Pete Best, I think. If he hadn't come out with that new info, we'd never had known. Lewisohn has all these stories that really just flesh out the accepted stories. Yet he presents them, from what you guys are saying, as proving the earlier historic accounts as false. Why couldn't Martin had been getting pressure to record the Beatles and to use their original songs and still decide to sign them because of their charm. And if they can bring in an original song as good as HDYDI, he'd produce it and make it the single. I would assume at any point, he could still make the call on such issues. Or they could find someone else. I'd say it is more likely Bennett exaggerated his story. By the time Martin was asked these questions, he didn't have to impress anyone. You might want to read the book before deciding who you think is not being accurate. Lewisohn makes a very compelling argument for the conclusions he has come to.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Apr 30, 2014 21:35:36 GMT -5
Who was the writer a few years back who wrote the book that showed that Pete Best was the real talent in the Beatles? If it weren't for Pete, they would not have had all of the success they did. If I remember right, the book had some pretty impressive foot notes with a lot of eye witnesses. He even had quotes from an ex-Beatle. Pete Best, I think. If he hadn't come out with that new info, we'd never had known. Lewisohn has all these stories that really just flesh out the accepted stories. Yet he presents them, from what you guys are saying, as proving the earlier historic accounts as false. Why couldn't Martin had been getting pressure to record the Beatles and to use their original songs and still decide to sign them because of their charm. And if they can bring in an original song as good as HDYDI, he'd produce it and make it the single. I would assume at any point, he could still make the call on such issues. Or they could find someone else. I'd say it is more likely Bennett exaggerated his story. By the time Martin was asked these questions, he didn't have to impress anyone. You might want to read the book before deciding who you think is not being accurate. Lewisohn makes a very compelling argument for the conclusions he has come to. Fair enough. What is presented is all just conjecture on my part, not having read the book. But I wasn't questioning the accuracy of the facts presented. I was just saying there are two sides to some stories. Sometimes the truth is in the middle, but often both sides are true.
|
|
|
Post by scousette on Apr 30, 2014 22:08:33 GMT -5
I think Lewisohn found Raymond Jones and interviewed him to confirm the story. Obviously I would need to check the book! The question to be answered was why George Martin signed them when he had previously rejected or not been interested in them. I seem to recall that being the sequence of events. Anyone help me out? As I've said the paper trail didn't match memory recall. It never did. Now we have a logical sequence. Look at who published the first single before Dick James etc. You're right, Andy, Lewisohn found Raymond Jones and confirmed that Jones came into NEMS and asked for the My Bonnie single. Alistair Taylor, in his book, claims that he was really Raymond Jones. I guess poor Alistair was looking for an angle to sell his book. When Lewisohn was in San Francisco on his US book tour, he said that he was determined to write an accurate and true history. Where he wasn't able to independently corroborate someone's story, he didn't use it. If Lewisohn were to have footnotes about everything he researched, the book would be another 1000 pages (at least).
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on May 1, 2014 11:17:55 GMT -5
I bought the import deluxe version last year but haven't cracked it open yet.
I am nearly done with my second complete reading of The Hobbit and The Lord of The Rings trilogy and I am just a one book at a time guy.
I look forward to starting this Lewisohn Vol. 1 soon. I have not read any substantive reviews or posts here because I don't want spoilers!
Do The Beatles break out!? I want to be surprised!
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on May 1, 2014 11:53:16 GMT -5
Hurry up and get it read you silly sausage. The English speaking world is divided into those who have read Tune In and those who are about to read Tune In.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on May 1, 2014 18:40:40 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."
My take on this; So you have to think The Beatles only knew what Brian thought he knew. And it seems to make sense why Martin decided to always state he was responsible for signing the band and choosing Love Me Do as the first record.
The footnote on Pg. 1469;
"The final act in the exclusion of Ardmore & Beechwood was a covering of the tracks. Coleman and Bennett's role in getting the Beatles a recording contract was rewritten as if Coleman directly recommended Epstein to Martin, something Bennett insisted his boss would never had done. It was said the Beatles were offered the Parlophone deal after their artist test on June 6, when actually they were already signed and it was their first session proper. Bennet's exceptional efforts to promote Love Me Do were reduced to barely no effort at all, Dick James was introduced into the story on the basis of How Do You Do It almost becoming the Beatles' second record and not their first, a Tin Pan Alley song being needed because Love Me Do had only made the top twenty. This retelling started as early as 1963, and by the time of Brian's autobiography in 1964 and the Beatles authorized biography in 1968, the picture was throughly muddied - a situation that would persist long enough for principal figures to remember it that way. Neither Coleman nor Bennett aired publicly their considerable grievance about what had been done to them: they were EMI employees and it was just business. They swallowed the situation and moved on to other songs, other writers, and other manager...the sheer enormity of what they'd been forced to swallow would become apparent very quickly."
My take; This could have been a likely scenario. Martin is the only person left alive now to comment on it. Paul (and Ringo & Pete) would have absolutely no idea about any of this. Without a comment by Martin, it is left up to the reader to accept this or accept what Brian always thought happened or Martin's often shaky recollections of that period.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on May 1, 2014 19:19:11 GMT -5
I basically believe Lewisohn. He's my Beatle guru now. Where the reported "facts" don't add up, he says so. Where two or more principles have conflicting stories, he says so. He's not pushing any agenda, and he's not iconoclastic with Beatle-history. He simply worked far harder than anyone else to get at the truth.
Before Lewisohn, I'd NEVER felt, when reading a Beatles' history, that the author was reliable (with notable exceptions being Simon Leng, who wrote about George's music only, and maybe Bob Spitz, but he revealed nothing new). I've always thought Philip Norman's book was highly suspect, and the release of Anthology, the bootlegs, and a wealth of previously uncovered evidence proved that it was. Books like his, despite their wealth of info, provide countless statements with no evidence, most of which are false. The surviving Beatles themselves have never had any interest in forensic study of their own history or in the accuracy of it, and their memories are highly faulty (interesting and important.. but not accurate). George Martin's memory / storyline from the very early period has always been suspect, and is increasingly being proved faulty (indeed, when Lewisohn presented George Martin with clear, factual evidence that Martin's version of history was apparently wrong, Martin was stymied and didn't know what to say).
There may be one or two cases in the book where Lewisohn appears to 'trust' a certain interviewee more than he should, or perhaps form too hasty a conclusion, but based on his voluminous research for decades and his own scholarly / academic knowledge and attention to detail, I strongly believe that he would not put anything in his main text as history UNLESS HE WAS COMPLETELY CONVINCED BY A WEALTH OF INFORMATION that it happened. The person most suspect of oral histories of The Beatles is Lewisohn. He is hard to convince, and does not believe any received wisdom.
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).
It's probably inevitable that a few points here and there in 'Tune In' are not correct, and Lewisohn, while a wonderful historian and fine writer, is not particularly strong musically or 'culturally' (his comments about Jews and blacks in Tin Pan Alley being "immigrant classes" I found kind of odd; likewise his referring to Gary US Bonds exclusively as 'US Bonds', etc., etc. but these are trifles) BUT if there is something incorrect in his book it's not for lack of effort in trying to make it accurate. No one else has done more, or done it better, than him.
|
|