Lord Reith wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2023 12:21 am
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.
i agree with you, i find out about this book through a fellow Beatlemaniac friend when i was about 15 or something, loved the book, later i grabbed a copy on a record flea market in Mexico City (the spanish edition), and later a got a British copy of it, still have both, one of my favorite books
jpgr0420 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2023 5:49 am
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.
Paul didn’t like it either. His referred to the author in interviews as Norma Philips. I think they’ve since buried the hatchet
jpgr0420 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2023 5:49 am
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.
Paul didn’t like it either. His referred to the author in interviews as Norma Philips. I think they’ve since buried the hatchet
Paul indeed reacted several times to the book, including when he said that some autors claimed that he wanted Stu out so that he could be the bass player. Could also be about Norman when he sings that some pretend to know better even when they were not around. His overal criticism is that the book is unbalanced and biased in favour of John.
Paul gave Norman a chance to rebalance things when he gave him the go ahead for his biography but Norman miserably failed. I almost threw the book through the window a dozen times.
Last edited by Fast lucky on Thu Oct 12, 2023 6:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
Lord Reith wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2023 9:45 pm
I never saw any bias against Paul to be honest.
Yea, it's there. Do an internet search. It ruined his credibility for me. Shame, because it was a good book otherwise, but he seemed to have an ax to grind and that took over the book for me.
Yeah, he is definitely anti-Paul throughout. I read it as a teenager and it was my first 'grown-up' book I read cover to cover. It's fundamentally made me against Paul and it took years - decades - for me to un-learn that.
I don't see it as any sort of anti-Paul bias, rather that he is just plainly stating known things about his character. Paul indeed was eager to please, careful with money and liable to pick on band members he didn't see as pulling their weight. But you could interpret those as strengths. Paul has admitted to being all those things and made no apology for it.
Would John or Paul ever admit Stuart was miles ahead of EVERYONE. See how much non-musical Art Stu accomplished concurrently...most of it of very high caliber. John used Stu for confidence(however false) because John's Art wasn't anything like Stu's. John wanted Stu in the band to control and hoard him. He could use Stu to make Paul feel inferior by talking art or theory of nuance! And use your imagination. They would never have known how to stride into the INDRA without Stu! They wouldn't even have a bass without him. And he didn't care about music. And before they could grasp such concepts Astrid stole him.
Paul MvcCartney is great but his memory is no better than mine! Didn't Anthology teach us 4 Beatles can equal 7 or 8 opinions!
Norman was trying to give Stuart some protection. There is no way to be John Lennon or Paul McCartney and not be intimidated by Stuart Sutcliffe! He didn't aspire to anything except torment! His art bears that out every so often. I don't understand insecurity. Stuart could be famous already but THEY aren't letting the cat out of the bag. He will only legitimize the image and authenticity...
Could that be a problem? Now, think what it's like being George Harrison. It's simple deduction.
KC
Fast lucky wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2023 11:45 pmPaul gave Norman a chance to rebalance things when he gave him the go ahead for his biography but Norman miserably failed. I almost threw the book through the window a dozen times.
Why? I read this book and it was fine. Nothing really new, but still it's quite a good biography.
Lord Reith wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2023 8:30 am
I don't see it as any sort of anti-Paul bias, rather that he is just plainly stating known things about his character. Paul indeed was eager to please, careful with money and liable to pick on band members he didn't see as pulling their weight. But you could interpret those as strengths. Paul has admitted to being all those things and made no apology for it.
See, I think that's a false caricature, and I think Philip Norman is responsible for it. That's how he paints Paul but it's not supported by facts. Eager to please - he was a Hamburg rocker, later came out admitting he'd taken LSD, explored the avant-garde, made music with backwards tapes, etc. Careful with money - he was co-director of Apple which virually gave money away to artists and people like Magic Alex. He signed off the Apple Boutique, and then participated in the great give-away. Picking on band members? No. If anything he looked after them. It's just not a realistic assessment of the man.
