Shout! by Philip Norman

[Lord Reith]

Started reading this again the other day for the first time in 40 years and am highly impressed. This is a very easy and pleasant book to read and he has a lovely way of describing things. He seems to be able to bring the scene to life far better than any of the other biographers. You really feel like you're there. I am enjoying it. Great book.

[beatlesondvd]

A young Mark Lewisohn was his researcher on that book.

[jpgr0420]

Yea I reread the book a few years back and it was a quick very entertaining read, but I really, really, really didn't like the anti-Paul vibe of the whole book.

[Bumblebee]

The Craig Brown book, 1 2 3 4, is really very good. He has no axe to grind and manages to bring out the humour that was ever present. One bit, of many, that sticks in my mind is the time that the Beatles entered the orbit of Tory criminal, Jeffrey Archer. An ever astute Ringo summed him up as ‘I don’t know who that was but he’d sell your piss if he could bottle it’. There’s also a very good chapter on the time Paul M was interviewed by a snarky Noel Coward.

[C90]

Shout! was my gateway drug into the Beatles. In 1982-83 I was a casual fan, knew the hits, had seen the films on TV in the 70s, sort of knew the basic history, but that was it.
I borrowed a copy from a friend, just for something to read. In fact, it seemed so lengthy I thought I'll never get through all this, but I'll just dip in to odd bits now and again.
Instead, i was completely hooked at whatever section I started to read, the writing was that engrossing, and I just found myself starting at the very beginning. I even found the chapter titles were captivating!
And it inspired me to really dig into the Beatles back catalogue... to take notice of what records were on sale or in libraries, or what I could borrow from friends... and the rest is history.
I know it has some inaccuracies and is indeed biased at times (Lennon good, Macca not so) but as a first-timer's intro to the Fabs saga it does a grand job.

Philip Norman's book on the Stones is also very good.

[fab4gear]

I also really enjoyed Craigs '1234' Book & another great read was Steve Turners 'Beatles 66' Book

[Kwai Chang]

I read all the books when they came out.
I don't remember who said what...but SHOUT! was hyped for its authentic proximity to the truth!
Now ain't that a new one?!?! No two are alike and they don't all have pictures! But, you have to read all of them ONCE and then never think about it. That's the only way to get an accurate average to stay abreast of. We already know that the music is sometimes misrepresented. Why wouldn't the history be the same? If Stuart had written a book called POUT!!!, it would compare everything to Astrid and it would never credit himself and it would say I love you Astrid for 20% of the text. It might even all be true! But whose context is it, anyway? So, we wouldn't get some of the meat and potatoes that IS in the 'Stuew'! Then just eat the noodles! I wish Two Virgins had been a book! Or magazine...with some really good article songs! Unfinished Publishing! You know there's going to be 'artificial' books about The Beatles very soon. If you think the book is accurate...wait til you read the reviews. The Beatles Muskateers by Richard Templar...The Clear Beatles by The Invisible Man...
Are you reading me?
Thank you, for the weather. This is just a lull. It'll be stormy again!
KC

[Fast lucky]

The first question is which edition of 'Shout!' because the content has been revised ... to please Queenie.

Then there is this very obvious and unpleasant bias against Paul. Still very much present in his book on Paul.

Otherwise the book is a good read.

I urge every fan to read the book 'The Beatles and the historians'. It is an analysis on the books written about the Beatles from an historian point of view. Two authors come very badly out of it : Wiener and Norman because they are sticking with their assertions and their obvious bias even though they were prooved to be false.

[Lord Reith]

I never saw any bias against Paul to be honest.

[skynet]

Yea I reread the book a few years back and it was a quick very entertaining read, but I really, really, really didn't like the anti-Paul vibe of the whole book.

Those are one of my favorite parts (just behind the 65/68 era parts of the book)