Beatle books - Top Five

Started by KEROUAC, Nov 16, 2015, 08:56 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

giveawaychord

QuoteThen again I don't understand the comment about Ian McDonald.

He was born in 1948 which seems to me the ideal time to be born to appreciate the Beatles. In 1963 he was 15 and in 1970 he was 22. If he had been born two or three years later he would have been like me and deemed too young to go and see the Beatles' concerts.

It's just an observation ... People that age reached their puberty without the Beatles and, if musically inclined, liked Elvis and classic rock'n'roll. For those only two or three years younger, life began with the Beatles (and, of course, the appearance of 'beat music' in general). They were 12 or 13 years of age and the Beatles provided the soundtrack for their growing up. They might believe that there had been no music at all before the Beatles appeared on the scene -- a very romantic and self-serving bias that youngsters only a couple of years older were less likely to share. People born in, say, 1945-8 had a broader frame of reference and watched the development of pop music from the mid-sixties on with greater reservation. People like Nik Cohn (born 1946), for example, had an understanding of music that could accomodate the Stones and early Beatles but regarded Sgt. Pepper as the death knell for 'true' rock and pop music (in his famous book Awop-bop-a-loo-la ... -- don't ask me to spell it correctly). And Ian MacDonald shows a great understanding of the scenery into which the Beatles erupted (younger people lacked that background). And while younger people embraced the music of the seventies, people like Cohn and MacDonald saw the seventies as a phase of decay. You can't prove anything by citing two people (especially if they are as different in their approaches as Cohn and MacDonald). Still, I believe there is a certain gap between those born in the late forties and those born early in the fifties. It's not a law, obviously, and there may be overlaps between those two groups. But the general tendency is there. When the Beatles started, they played for their peers, and the very first generation of (local) fans is as old as they themselves were (Cavern, Hamburg). When they conquered Britain, their fans were a bit younger than them, and when Beatlemania erupted as a worldwide epidemic, most fans were 13 or 14 years old.

I also believe that being old enough to be allowed to see the Beatles in concert does not play a part in this. The concerts were not the source of enthusiasm for the Beatles; you didn't go there to get to know them. The concerts were the symptoms of an enthusiasm that had its origin in records, radio, and journalism. People who went to concerts went there to express an enthusiasm they had already developed at home.

I know that it would require more than I can offer here if you want to get a truly convincing thesis out of this; as it is, it's more of a sentiment than hard science.


PS.: I also enjoyed reading Geoff Emerick's book, no doubt about that, but I remain sceptical. I agree that he favours (and flatters) Paul in no uncertain terms, but it's not too difficult to see why. Paul is a producer's Beatle, so to speak.

KelMar

Quote from: zipp on Nov 18, 2015, 11:41 AM

Myself I'd recommend anything by Lewisohn. There's the well known stuff but also "The Beatles' London" which is essential if ever you're visiting.


I'm glad you mentioned that title zipp. Was it out of print for a while? I'm quite sure it's that one that a friend mentioned to me about a year ago but when I went looking for it there was some problem that prevented me from buying it. My chances of making it across the pond don't seem too promising but this is still something I'd love to have.

KEROUAC

#17
You are right Giveawaychord it is difficult to compile a top five without categorising into Biography, Reference, Song analysis etc.

I had forgotten about John C Winn's books which from what I've heard deserve high praise. I didn't know about the inaccuracies in The Complete Recording Sessions but I was reading an old  interview with Mark Lewisohn last night where he mentioned it. He said he was given a deadline to complete the book and wasn't given the time he needed to give it his best effort and that John C Winn had corrected the errors.

Others I might include would be Keith Badman's After the Breakup. I've heard Michael Braun's "Love Me Do" is really good and that Lennon said it was the best or most honest things written about The Beatles.

I just bought "The Beatles and Me On Tour" by Ivor Davis on Amazon. Anyone read it? It sounds like an interesting Fly on the wall account.

Another one I want to get in hardback format is Kevin Howlett's "The Beatles: The BBC Archives: 1962-1970"

Moogmodule

I went through a stage of reading a lot of the song analysis types of books of the Beatles.

My favourites are The Songwroting Secrets of the Beatles by Dominic Pedler and the two volume The Beatles as Musicians by Walter Everett.

All three get a but technical in music analysis terms but I think even with a basic music knowledge you can get a lot out of them. It's easy to skip the more arcane descriptions.

I also liked Tell Me Why by Tim Riley in that vein.

Moogmodule

I found Ken Scott's book Abbey Road to Ziggy Stardust a bit of an antidote to Emericks book. He liked George a lot. Less so Paul although he acknowledged his talent and abilities.  Apparently he and Emerick had a bit of an Internet argument over Emericks attitude to George. Scott's book goes beyond the Beatles (as the title makes obvious) but is a pleasant easy read.

zipp

Quote from: giveawaychord on Nov 19, 2015, 11:01 PMWhen they conquered Britain, their fans were a bit younger than them, and when Beatlemania erupted as a worldwide epidemic, most fans were 13 or 14 years old.

I think this is where we disagree. When they conquered Britain in 1963 all teenagers were fans, plus they conquered a lot of older people with their bright personalities.Maybe in the States the audiences were younger, I don't know.

I think I bought the Beatles' London book on amazon.It's published by Portico. Of course it's also interesting even if you can't go to London since there are photos of how things have changed. My copy is even signed by the authors (Lewisohn, Schreuders and Smith).I can't remember why. I've certainly never met them.

I've got Ken Scott's book but will have to read it again. It's true that there was some tension between him and Emerick. I agree with what's been said about the Emerick book. It's good but not a hundred percent reliable or convincing.

KEROUAC

Also didn't Derek Taylor do a book which is hard to get hold of or did I imagine that?

giveawaychord

#22
Derek Taylor's book is called As Time Goes By, a slim volume of about 150 pages, first published in 1973. I read it years ago and I must confess that I don't remember anything from it! Michael Braun's Love Me Do is a first hand account of the Beatles' rise to international fame. Braun, a journalist, was part of the Beatles' entourage during the first American tour. The book appeared in 1964. The sense of wonder at what was happening is palpable and borders on disbelief, and although Braun tries to be as discreet as possible, his account is more revealing than many later books. A quick read and a historical document!

QuoteI think this is where we disagree. When they conquered Britain in 1963 all teenagers were fans, plus they conquered a lot of older people ...

Do we really disagree? When they conquered Britain, the Beatles were no longer teenagers, but their fans were. They won over older people as well, true, but that was at least partly due to their specific Britishness and does not necessarily apply elsewhere. In other parts of the world they became weapons in the hands of teenagers fighting their conservative parents. Remember all those discussions over 'the generation gap', about youth going to the dogs, of psychologists' warnings etcetera. It's even in the films: the gentleman with the bowler hat on the train (in A Hard Day's Night) who 'fought the war for the likes of you', on the one hand, and the middle-aged housewives in Help, on the other, who like them and wonder if it's proper to wave at them.

In Paris, the Beatles wonder why there was a majority of 14- or 15-year old boys in their audience. And look at the vast majority of teens in the Shea Stadium audience. But maybe you're right and any watershed that separates age groups among the Beatles' fans is more or less artificial.

Here's a link to one source about the controversy Emerick/Scott that Moogmodule and Zipp mentioned:
http://www.macca-central.com/news/2100/

Fab4Fan

Quote from: KEROUAC on Nov 20, 2015, 11:27 AM
Also didn't Derek Taylor do a book which is hard to get hold of or did I imagine that?

Are you referring to "Fifty Years Adrift"? It was a limited edition of 2000 copies published by Genesis and signed by both Derek and George Harrison.

Here are some photos of my copy:

I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together.

zipp

Quote from: giveawaychord on Nov 20, 2015, 03:14 PM
Do we really disagree? When they conquered Britain, the Beatles were no longer teenagers, but their fans were. They won over older people as well, true, but that was at least partly due to their specific Britishness and does not necessarily apply elsewhere. In other parts of the world they became weapons in the hands of teenagers fighting their conservative parents. Remember all those discussions over 'the generation gap', about youth going to the dogs, of psychologists' warnings etcetera. It's even in the films: the gentleman with the bowler hat on the train (in A Hard Day's Night) who 'fought the war for the likes of you', on the one hand, and the middle-aged housewives in Help, on the other, who like them and wonder if it's proper to wave at them.
In Paris, the Beatles wonder why there was a majority of 14- or 15-year old boys in their audience. And look at the vast majority of teens in the Shea Stadium audience. But maybe you're right and any watershed that separates age groups among the Beatles' fans is more or less artificial.

I don't think it's a question of Britishness. The main thing was their sense of humour which worked throughout the world. For example when they arrived in America the first people they conquered were the middle-aged journalists at the airport, not with their music but with their humour.

As for Paris the Beatles were surprised that the audience was mainly male and somewhat effeminate. I don't think they said they were particularly young and I doubt they were.

I also have Derek Taylor's "As Times Go By". Not particularly interesting except for showing it could be difficult to work with Epstein and there's one nice passage about going to a pub with Paul in a small village where he played Hey Jude for the locals before it had even been relesaed.

Mr Mustard

The Beatles: An Illustrated Record by Roy Carr & Tony Tyler (1975) Gorgeously illustrated coffee-table chronology of Beatle lore and record releases and my personal Beatles Bible in the 70s, when their shadow still loomed over all contemporary pop and speculation was rife that they might be about to re-form at any moment.

The Man Who Gave The Beatles Away by Allan Williams (1975) Gripping, no-holds-barred account of the seedy, sweaty slog towards fame as our heroes prowl the burgeoning Liverpool club scene and cut their teeth in Hamburg. Relayed in memorably warts and all style by their original manager who pulls no punches in delivering a fascinating firsthand account.

The Beatles Forever by Nicholas Schaffner (1977) Engagingly written and rather sumptuously illustrated softback which picks up the legend from 1964 and guides us through their global odyssey with emphasis on their cultural impact from an intriguingly American perspective. A treasure trove of memorabilia is explored in pictures and the solo careers and performances examined in some detail.

A Hard Day's Night In America by A.J.S. Rayl (1989) The first book my then girlfriend (now wife) ever bought me. A detailed diary of their first US Tour, it covers key dates and events but is far from a dry itinerary; instead it documents in words and scores of previously unpublished pictures the breathless momentum of their whirligig Stateside adventure and the celebrities, fans, police chiefs and reporters they encountered along the way.

You Never Give Me Your Money by Peter Doggett (2009) Absorbing page turner which chronicles in Machiavellian detail the "almost Shakespearian" power struggle behind their legacy, with each ex-Beatle's helpless inability to escape the voracious gravity of Fabdom brought under the microscope. It corkscrews through a labyrinth of lawsuits, rifts and rapprochements and ruthlessly highlights the blessing/curse of four lives trapped aboard an unstoppable juggernaut of their own making.

"What?? No Lewisohn???" I hear you cry: well, "Tune In" is on my Christmas list, so after 26 years I've dropped a strong enough hint that it's time the missus once again included a Beatle Book in my Yuletide stocking!

Just a note on a couple which disappointed me by the way: "Shout!: The True Story Of The Beatles" by Philip Norman (1981) was too blatantly anti-McCartney to gain my favour and is for me arguably the most overrated Beatles book ever.

My eager anticipation for "John, Paul, George, Ringo & Me", Tony Barrow's 2005 insider account was a huge damp squib and astonishingly managed to make the early flush of fame and those witty press conferences seem - dare I say it - boring.


Normandie

Quote from: Mr Mustard on Nov 21, 2015, 08:34 PM
Just a note on a couple which disappointed me by the way: "Shout!: The True Story Of The Beatles" by Philip Norman (1981) was too blatantly anti-McCartney to gain my favour and is for me arguably the most overrated Beatles book ever.

Completely agree. Norman's book on John (John Lennon: A Life) also was blatantly Paul. On the other hand, Geoff Emerick clearly didn't care too much for George, but he didn't seem as mean-spirited about it as Philip Norman does about Paul.

There are so many good suggestions in this thread. I'm heading to the bookstore later to buy a gift for a friend and am going to be hard put to not pull up this URL on my phone and start digging around in the music section.

Normandie


To clarify....I feel Geoff Emerick had a bit more leeway in regard to expressing his personal opinions given that his book is really a memoir. I get more annoyed with Philip Norman because his books seem to be more reference-style biographies, which IMO should be kept neutral.

giveawaychord

Mr. Mustard, are you a professional reviewer? 'All you need to know about this fall's books -- in five lines each!'

The Illustrated Record was one of my first treasured Beatle books as well. I wouldn't recommend it today, though, because the authors simply didn't have the information that has become available since and make mistakes: 'Only Paul could get away with "Goodnight" ...' I don't know if there's a revised or updated version. There was a second one after the one I've got, and in it they revised some of their judgements (they hadn't liked Walls and Bridges, for example, and now found it had grown on them).

Allan Williams is fun, really great. The only thing is that you can't believe everything he said. So much booze during those years that you can be pardoned for forgetting things and asking a journalist instead to make up convincing and entertaining dialogues for you.

Unfortunately, that's the problem with many collaborations. (See Geoff Emerick!) But not only with collaborations, as we know. People who make up dialogues, or tell us how John or Ringo felt at a given point, or what the expression on Epstein's face was when he talked business with Dick James one day, are not trustworthy. Albert Goldman. Bob Spitz. And probably dozens of others.

Doggett's You Never Give Me Your Money is on my list, but I've heard that it is painful to read and you have to be a very devoted fan to finish it!

giveawaychord

Oh, I forgot to ask ...

Quote from: Fab4Fan on Nov 20, 2015, 10:14 PM
Are you referring to "Fifty Years Adrift"? It was a limited edition of 2000 copies published by Genesis and signed by both Derek and George Harrison.

I think I've never even heard of that book. What's in it? Wasn't Geneasis where George's I Me Mine originally appeared?