Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2016 17:14:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by winstonoboogie on Jan 23, 2016 22:06:06 GMT -5
It will be interesting to see how "fair and balanced" it is... (to coin a phrase)
|
|
|
Post by coachbk on Jan 23, 2016 23:08:04 GMT -5
I consider SHOUT to be among the weaker Beatles biographies. Lots of bizarre opinions. Hopefully the McCartney bio is better.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2016 23:18:04 GMT -5
Well,please click on the highlighted link I posted for a very good description of this book.But also please see what I posted tonight in the topic about his John Lennon:The Life book.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2016 7:27:53 GMT -5
I consider SHOUT to be among the weaker Beatles biographies. Lots of bizarre opinions. Hopefully the McCartney bio is better. Please click on the highlighted link to this very good description of this book.It's probably going to have a lot of his typical sensationalism and some exaggerated and or made up stuff he writes to sell his books like in his Lennon The Life book. It interestingly says in the highlighted link about it I posted, that some of Paul's greatest songs were Wings songs so after he had unjustly minimized Paul in his book Shout,maybe he's finally giving Paul the credit he very rightfully deserves. artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/16/author-who-annoyed-mccartney-will-write-his-biography/?_r=0
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Jan 24, 2016 21:58:57 GMT -5
Oh great, so that hack Norman gets one more chance to buy Paul's approval and one more chance to insult George Harrison.
I can't wait for this one: Chapter 2 -- "At school one day, Paul meets a boy one year below him -- the extremely untalented George Harrison." Chapter 3 -- "Paul and George practice guitars together. Paul is better than George." Chapter 8 -- "George achieves his life's ambition to write a song that sounds exactly like John or Paul." Chapter 10 -- an entire chapter devoted to Paul playing the solo on 'Taxman'.
Etc. As insulting as 'Shout!' and 'Lennon: the Life' were to George Harrison, nothing beats what Norman wrote about him right after he died.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jan 29, 2016 23:33:31 GMT -5
Oh great, so that hack Norman gets one more chance to buy Paul's approval and one more chance to insult George Harrison. I can't wait for this one: Chapter 2 -- "At school one day, Paul meets a boy one year below him -- the extremely untalented George Harrison." Chapter 3 -- "Paul and George practice guitars together. Paul is better than George." Chapter 8 -- "George achieves his life's ambition to write a song that sounds exactly like John or Paul." Chapter 10 -- an entire chapter devoted to Paul playing the solo on 'Taxman'. Etc. As insulting as 'Shout!' and 'Lennon: the Life' were to George Harrison, nothing beats what Norman wrote about him right after he died. LOL! Chapter 15 -- Paul "letting" George put the two best songs on Abbey Road, "Something" and "Here Comes The Sun." Geoff Emerick's book was also insulting to George. Actually, he insulted George Martin, John Lennon, George Harrison and Ringo Starr. They were all sidemen to Paul, who happens to be the only ex-Beatle who continued to use Emerick in the studio.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jan 31, 2016 6:39:45 GMT -5
Geoff Emerick's book was also insulting to George. Actually, he insulted George Martin, John Lennon, George Harrison and Ringo Starr. They were all sidemen to Paul, who happens to be the only ex-Beatle who continued to use Emerick in the studio. There are many Macca Mad Hatters who still believe that, even though they pretend as if they are fans of all four Beatles! I have run into many of them. No wonder they love Emerick's book and are always quoting it!
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jan 31, 2016 12:28:58 GMT -5
Geoff Emerick's book was also insulting to George. Actually, he insulted George Martin, John Lennon, George Harrison and Ringo Starr. They were all sidemen to Paul, who happens to be the only ex-Beatle who continued to use Emerick in the studio. There are many Macca Mad Hatters who still believe that, even though they pretend as if they are fans of all four Beatles! I have run into many of them. No wonder they love Emerick's book and are always quoting it! Joe, what did you think of Norman's book on John? I know Yoko withdrew her support of it while Paul curiously cooperated as noted above despite Paul's hatred of Shout!I thought one strength of Norman's book was illustrating why John fell so deeply in love with Yoko and why that relationship was essential to John, not detrimental. I thought that Yoko should have approved of that part of the book at least. He really went into detail on her artist credentials pre-John which I thought important. Yoko had a career in the arts before John! But yeah, Norman could not let go of the anecdote that George's refusing to allow Yoko to perform with John at Bangladesh killed the two men's friendship forever. He goes back to that several times in the book.
|
|
|
Post by lenmac on Apr 17, 2016 13:19:20 GMT -5
Phillip Norman talking about his book about Paul
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Apr 17, 2016 17:27:52 GMT -5
It's extremely worrisome that the book is "written... with Paul's approval", and, in the same blurb, is described as being about the "long-misunderstood genius".
Looks like another work of revisionism.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Apr 17, 2016 22:39:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Apr 18, 2016 1:27:17 GMT -5
Well, that Daily-News article is encouraging as it doesn't seem to be white-washing anything. Then again, maybe Paul has paid-off Norman to make Paul look like a raging stud....
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Apr 18, 2016 2:19:41 GMT -5
Speaking of raging studs, I had no idea Paul had been shagging Peggy Lipton back in the 60s: Although, seeing these pictures, you can see why! Jane Asher and Linda are not to my taste (nor Francie Schwartz), but Peggy is solid. Paul seems to have a thing for moneyed, frecklie, Jewish girls.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Apr 18, 2016 10:30:58 GMT -5
I think Peter Brown first broke that Peggy Lipton story because he may have been out in California when Paul was bedding her.
She married Quincy Jones and were married from 1974 to 1990. LOL, that had to be awkward when Paul worked with MJ and Quincy in the glory days of 1982-1984(or thereabouts)!
Quincy: "Paul, I would like you to meet my wife, Peggy, she was a star on The Mod Squad."
Paul[looking a little flushed}: "Yeah right, about that Quince, to be honest Peg and I did it a lot in L.A. in 1968, you know, it was The Swinging Sixties.
Quincy: "No problem man, she told me all about it{chuckles] and besides, you two weren't doing it as much as Mick says he, Keith and Brian were doing it with Linda!"
|
|
markc
Very Clean
Posts: 447
|
Post by markc on May 4, 2016 15:27:24 GMT -5
I quickly checked the George references in the book. Norman still grinding his axe.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on May 6, 2016 14:35:23 GMT -5
A review of Philip Norman's Paul McCartney: The Life as appearing in The Economist. www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2016/05/musical-biographyThe writer asserts that Norman is once again tone-deaf to his subject's music but quite skilled in telling all other aspects of the subject's life. Overall the writer is supportive of the book but there are two profound things I took away from this review from specific passages: 1. "For its time, “Shout!” was essential for Beatles followers, and Mr Norman’s research was carefully laid out. But Mr Norman rarely missed a chance for a dig at Mr McCartney while obvious in his admiration for Lennon, adding bad blood to shared grief."I knew Paul hated the book "Shout" but I guess I never put two and two together and it is Philip Norman that we must blame for causing Paul to reveal the ugliest side of his nature and go on his historical revisionist tear that has lasted from then up to today! "Shout's" claim that John was 3/4 of the Beatles is not only wrong but it scarred and damaged Paul the rest of his life up to where I can barely feel admiration for the man himself although I still love the music. 2. But it remains unclear if Mr Norman has come to like his subject, or merely to embrace him as a venerable British institution, worthy of attention—even respect—if not warmth." This is tied to the above but I will raise my hand and say that through the years, I have come to not "like" Paul the person but I fully, "embrace him as a venerable British institution[hell, a world musical institution], worthy of attention—even respect—if not warmth." I have now come to dislike Philip Norman more than post-1980 Paul McCartney because Norman's words so long ago took my beloved hero Paul McCartney away from me forever by planting the false seeds of jealousy into Macca so he became someone I could not love or feel warmth for!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2016 0:13:46 GMT -5
This is a great August 1986 hour long Paul McCartney interview by Barbara Hower from Entertainment This Week. She asked him a lot of great intelligent questions including how he felt about John Lennon's horrible,tragic murder and she got a rare great interview out of him and he comes across as very likeable intelligent,funny,serious and charming. I still have this interview on an old VHS tape from the time. It's not on youtube though for some reason. Unfortunately it gets interrupted by advertisements but then the interview resumes.But I just watched it again and there were no commercials now,I hope they don't include them again. Paul also says in this interview that soon after John died Yoko called him up and told Paul that John really loved him. Notice how uncomfortable Paul's face expression is for about a minute in this interview by Barbara Hower from Entertainment This Week when she says to him,probably your first great love before you married Linda was Jane Asher,it struck a chord.I'm sure that Paul was really in love with Jane too,you don't write the beautiful love songs such as And I Love Her,Things We Said Today, and Here There Everywhere,(plus the great songs he wrote about his arguments with her,which was his own fault because of his sexism constantly trying to get Jane to give up her acting career she loved so much and that she had been doing since she was 5 years old.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2016 3:43:44 GMT -5
I bought this book today, it's a big read.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on May 21, 2016 14:20:25 GMT -5
We interviewed Philip Norman on this week's Things We Said Today.
Here's the YouTube link:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2016 3:48:35 GMT -5
We interviewed Philip Norman on this week's Things We Said Today. Here's the YouTube link: Thanks for this.Did you all feel Philip's long overdue new appreciation of Paul is really genuine?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2016 4:24:30 GMT -5
Philip really plays down Paul's love of Jane Asher,Paul wasn't writing beautiful love songs for other women he was having affairs with he was writing them for Jane,such as Things we Said Today,And I Love Her, She's A Woman, Here There And Everywhere and songs about his arguments with Jane which were all his fault,We Can work It Out,You Won't See Me,For No One,and I'm Looking Through You.
A man doesn't write beautiful love songs like that for a woman unless he's really in love with her. Also he told Hunter Davies in 1967 in the only authorized biography,The Beatles that Jane met a boy friend once and left him and that it was shattering to be without her.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2016 4:35:23 GMT -5
Also Philip is really wrong and very unjust to John to say that John wasn't really unwanted,and that he had numerous family members fighting over who would raise him. See what John says about this in this great 1971 interview, www.beatlesinterviews.org/db1971.0121.beatles.html When John and Yoko co-hosted The Mike Douglas show in January-February 1972,Mike also asked John about his painful childhood,and how his father left him when he was 5,and John said how he only came back into his life when he was successful and famous(20 years later!),and John said he knew that I was living all those years in the same house with my auntie,but he never visited him.He said when he came back into his life all those years later,he looked after his father for the same amount of time he looked after him,about 4 years. John's psychologist Dr. Arthur Janov told Mojo Magazine in 2000( parts of this interview is on a great UK John Lennon fan site,You Are The Plastic Ono Band) that John had as much pain as he had ever seen in his life,and he was a psychologist for at least 18 years when John and Yoko saw him in 1970! He said John was a very dedicated patient. He also said that John left therapy too early though and that they opened him up,but didn't get a chance to put him back together again and Dr. Janov told John he need to finish the therapy,he said because of the immigration services and he thought Nixon was after him,he said we have to get out of the country.John asked if he could send a therapist to Mexico with him,and Dr. Janov told him we can't do that because they had too many patients to take care of,and he said they cut the therapy off just as it started really,and we were just getting going. urthepob.byethost24.com/pob/pob11.html?ckattempt=1
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2016 4:37:59 GMT -5
John Lennon said in his very last radio interview (just hours before he was so cruelly, insanely shot and killed by a crazy,horrible piece of sh*t who used to be a big Beatles fan since he was a teenager, and John was his favorite Beatle) that like most young men he was more involved with his career than with his children,and he said he regretted not spending enough time with Julian. He also said that he and Julian would have a relationship in the future but sadly they both were deprived of this. And John didn't do the same horrible thing to Julian that his father did to him. John's father literally totally abandoned him and literally didn't see, or talk to John from the time he was 5,until he was a successful famous 24 year old.John did see Julian sometimes, and spoke with him on the phone and sent him post cards,birthday and Christmas cards and presents and he bought Julian a guitar when he was 11 as a Christmas present. John's father never did any of these things and John said it was like his father was dead.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Jun 12, 2016 1:49:23 GMT -5
We interviewed Philip Norman on this week's Things We Said Today. Here's the YouTube link: Thanks for this.Did you all feel Philip's long overdue new appreciation of Paul is really genuine? I think we basically all felt there were a lot of problems with it and that he wrote along his idea of history without even admitting other things were possible. There's been a lot of criticism that he's tried to make Lewisohn less significant. I think while you don't have to accept everything he's written, you can't not discuss it, which is what he's done. There's also a lot of criticism that it isn't about the music. I'm not as bothered about that as some. There are plenty of music books from people more qualified. There are some new things in the book, but it could have been better.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 12, 2016 5:08:02 GMT -5
I think we basically all felt there were a lot of problems with it and that he wrote along his idea of history without even admitting other things were possible. There's been a lot of criticism that he's tried to make Lewisohn less significant. I think while you don't have to accept everything he's written, you can't not discuss it, which is what he's done. There's also a lot of criticism that it isn't about the music. I'm not as bothered about that as some. There are plenty of music books from people more qualified. There are some new things in the book, but it could have been better. I heard your show with Norman, Steve. Thanks to you guys I now really have no interest in him nor his book. He just seemed like he made errors and isn't as well-versed on Paul and The Beatles as he would like to have people think he is. I liked that you guys didn't seem afraid to deal with him honestly, and didn't feel compelled to give him the "star treatment", and so you actually took him on regarding certain things. As for his trying to make Mark Lewisohn less significant, that will never happen; Mark is THE MAN.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2016 4:13:30 GMT -5
I think we basically all felt there were a lot of problems with it and that he wrote along his idea of history without even admitting other things were possible. There's been a lot of criticism that he's tried to make Lewisohn less significant. I think while you don't have to accept everything he's written, you can't not discuss it, which is what he's done. There's also a lot of criticism that it isn't about the music. I'm not as bothered about that as some. There are plenty of music books from people more qualified. There are some new things in the book, but it could have been better. I heard your show with Norman, Steve. Thanks to you guys I now really have no interest in him nor his book. He just seemed like he made errors and isn't as well-versed on Paul and The Beatles as he would like to have people think he is. I liked that you guys didn't seem afraid to deal with him honestly, and didn't feel compelled to give him the "star treatment", and so you actually took him on regarding certain things. As for his trying to make Mark Lewisohn less significant, that will never happen; Mark is THE MAN. Thank you for your answer Steve. Maybe Philip is actually jealous of Mark Lewisohn because he became a much more popular respected acclaimed Beatles expert writer than him.Philip very strangely now says the reasons he unjustly underrated and trashed Paul for decades is because he was jealous of Paul's great looks and great talent and wished he was Paul and because he blamed him for the Beatles break up.
|
|
|
Post by joeyself on Sept 18, 2016 14:34:53 GMT -5
I picked this up at the library this week. I decided to start in 1969. I know the story of the Fabs pretty well, and wanted to see how the post-Beatles years are handled. I've read about 50 pages so far, and like it.
JcS
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Sept 19, 2016 14:03:13 GMT -5
I picked this up at the library this week. I decided to start in 1969. I know the story of the Fabs pretty well, and wanted to see how the post-Beatles years are handled. I've read about 50 pages so far, and like it. JcS I need to buy this book as I really liked his John Lennon book.
|
|
|
Post by joeyself on Oct 8, 2016 20:18:38 GMT -5
I finished the 1970-2015 (or wherever it stopped) part of it, and liked it OK. It wasn't the fault of the author that I wanted the Heather Mills portion to come to an end sooner than it did. Norman did include large portions of the letter of accusations made by Mills that was leaked prior to the divorce hearing, and I thought he should have used only that which could be verified by a reliable source--Mills certainly isn't one.
I'm spot reading some of the pre-1970 material. I read the Dot Rhone mentions, the brief account of meeting Dylan and Presley, and the Francie Schwartz part. I think I'll look at some of the Jane Asher references as well. Asher interests me because of how little she has said over the near half-century since they split. But honestly, I've not read SHOUT in over 30 years, so I don't recognize when Norman has changed his tone where Paul is concerned.
JcS
|
|