|
Post by hoffa_nagila on Jul 21, 2020 2:53:30 GMT
I should be ashamed to admit that not only did I read all of Tune In, I read the unabridged version. No, I didn't buy it, that version was the ebook file I found on a tracker. What amazes me about this book is that I have seen virtually no criticism of it. Probably because no one in their right mind is going to slog through it. Since I have slogged through it, I must say that 1) it is badly written. Lewisohn is a piece of wood and writes with all the personality and excitement of one. 2) For all its bloated, endless, fact-checked trivia, there really is next to nothing in this book that you didn't know already. Did you know that John was broken up over his tumultuous childhood and the subsequent death of his mother sent teenage rebel Johnny into an emotion-laden tailspin? Why, no, Mr Lewisohn, I never knew that. Did you know that Tiny Tim, I mean Ringo, was a sickly child given little to no prospects for the future? Boy, did Lil' Richy prove those doctors and nurses wrong! You don't say! What? Paul was an irrepressible bastard twerp with a twinkle in his lying eyes and some shitty little song in his heart? George had a certain, how do you say, quiet and moody determination and a pile of Chet Atkins LPs? Yes, from even such an early age, you sure can tell that that's our George! What Mr Lewisohn has achieved with this tome is the painfully dull chronicle of every fucking boring detail of every single male, middle class boring teenager of the western world who just happened to be born in the 20th century. He could have written an equally weighty bio of the Hollies or the Rolling Stones or Freddie and the Dreamers or the Kingsmen or the Association and it would read pretty much exactly the fucking same. (At least Murry Wilson provides some deranged pizzazz to the Beach Boys' infinitely more entertaining, dysfunctional life story.) As for the thousand page prelude detailing the history of potato famine-fleeing Beatle ancestors, no one cares, and no one even knows how true any of it even is, because no one is insane or bored enough in life to begin fact-checking any of THAT stupid fucking shit. The only single thing, the one story in all the thousands of pages of dullard prose and eye-glazing, regurgitated facts, that Lewisohn presents that is actually new, unknown information is the true story of how and why the Beatles really got their EMI contract. And that's a boring story, too — one that could have been more readily conveyed in a two-and-a-half page Mojo article in one of their biweekly Beatard issues. Honestly, this book is shit. It is not well-written at all, it is bloated beyond belief, its critical content is nil, and its ponderous smugness is frankly unbearable. But I guess it does actually accomplish what it sets out to be: a peerless, gargantuan testament of boomer arrogance and delusion. I may have exaggerated about stopping at the genealogies... I too have a copy of the unabridged e-book. I forget just how far I got, but I think Pete Best was already in the picture? It was something I wanted to take on during a layoff season but it quickly turned into a chore and I kept putting off before deciding just to give up altogether.
I think I've said here before how the personal lives of these guys generally don't interest me much. I care about the professional and artistic sides more. An in depth look at their gigs and sessions would at least potentially interest me although even then I just don't know if I give that much of a shit to read about them. And Lewisohn's style certainly doesn't do the reader any favors. Slane on the Shiteboard ran a very interesting thread about the early Beatles recordings that I thoroughly enjoyed. My favorite Beatle books are Deeper Undercover and Eight Arms to Hold You. They don't have any narrative, just information (about them playing on other people's records, and about bootlegs, respectively.)
Also a nod to Drugs, Divorce, and A Slipping Image. When I relistened to the Get Back sessions last year, I would get through a few hours or so a day, and then come home and read the passages regarding what I heard. The book on its own is lacking, if only thanks to the lawyers who insisted the book couldn't use any direct quotes from the tapes. But used in conjunction with the actual recordings, it's very good. There were plenty of references to things that I didn't quite understand but the book explained. It greatly enhanced the whole experience.
You really hit the nail on the head with your review. Surely even the biggest Beatards couldn't have enjoyed it (or, judging by how they write, even have fully understood it). Lewisohn is wise to put off releasing volume 2. Enough time needs to pass for people to forget how underwhelming it was before they shell out for another.
|
|
|
Post by hugofuguzev on Jul 21, 2020 6:35:34 GMT
The Beatles are not a sacred cow to me, so I have no problem with approaching the book in an objective manner, which, as far as I have seen, hardly anyone else has. The critical response (such as it is) to the book has been either undying praise from tearful Beatard retards who are equally happy and discerning with a "When was Paul's mullet/moustache combo at its best?" SH.tv thread or "real" critics giving it the vague, half-hearted thumbs up as "the definitive exhaustive biography." Meaning that they weren't about to waste their time actually reading the thing. Not that I blame them, really. One problem with the Beatles is that the personalities and their actual stories are pretty fucking boring and unremarkable, although that is true for most musicians' biographies. Whatever was interesting about the Beatles was in the work that they did and certainly not in the mundane details of their dreary day to day lives. Lewisohn, however, apparently doesn't seem to know that. Or thinks there's a difference. I can think of only two Beatles books that are worth reading: Love Me Do: The Beatles’ Progress by Michael Braun (the first Beatles book, from a skeptical albeit not entirely unsympathetic cultural outsider) and Ian MacDonald's Revolution in the Head, which concentrates solely on the work itself; not trivial bullshit about Irish great grandfathers fresh off the Victorian boat, teenage Paul's summer job, or what they ate for breakfast in Hamburg. I don't really see what is supposed to be so great about Mark Lewisohn. He has never demonstrated any critical faculties whatsoever. He's a pub trivia champion and list maker who "made good" by managing to ingratiate himself as much as he could into his idols' world. That's about it, really. I want to see somebody write a book about The Beatles describing how they REALLY were: immoral, arrogant, egotistical pricks who were too fucking cute and clever for their own good. Talented musicians, yes, but it all went to their heads in a big hurry. Not one of the books written by their many sycophantic former employees dared to tell how it really was with those four assholes, fifty years later these guys are still kissing Fab ass. John, Paul, George and Ringo were and are pretty unpleasant people, not nice guys at all, and certainly nothing to aspire to as role models, kids. Somebody needs to write a Beatlebook about THAT aspect of their lives, and I'd be brazen to say that as flawed as his book was only Albert Goldman really came close...
|
|
daved
Better than Steve
Posts: 10,579
|
Post by daved on Jul 21, 2020 8:56:53 GMT
I own it (xmas gift) and never read it.
I’ve heard plenty of podcasts with Lewisohn and he’s bland and devoid of personality. The Recording Session book was mostly thanks to the hard work of that poor bastard that died of cancer. The inaccuracies in that book have been well documented, and don’t get me started on his TNK take 1 hyperbole.
|
|
daved
Better than Steve
Posts: 10,579
|
Post by daved on Jul 21, 2020 10:07:23 GMT
It seems this isn't true anymore? I think I read that he is persona non grata now.
|
|
|
Post by braindead on Jul 21, 2020 12:30:05 GMT
'As for the thousand page prelude detailing the history of potato famine-fleeing Beatle ancestors, no one cares, and no one even knows how true any of it even is, because no one is insane or bored enough in life to begin fact-checking any of THAT stupid fucking shit.'
Except for "Brainfucked Ron" and Arnold Grove.
|
|
Felonious Spunk
Grant
Digitals downstairs to push the anal logs upstairs
Posts: 1,192
|
Post by Felonious Spunk on Jul 21, 2020 13:37:06 GMT
I want to see somebody write a book about The Beatles describing how they REALLY were: immoral, arrogant, egotistical pricks who were too fucking cute and clever for their own good. Talented musicians, yes, but it all went to their heads in a big hurry. Not one of the books written by their many sycophantic former employees dared to tell how it really was with those four assholes, fifty years later these guys are still kissing Fab ass. John, Paul, George and Ringo were and are pretty unpleasant people, not nice guys at all, and certainly nothing to aspire to as role models, kids. Somebody needs to write a Beatlebook about THAT aspect of their lives, and I'd be brazen to say that as flawed as his book was only Albert Goldman really came close...Agreed. There was a book I read in high school that was an objective look at the many Beatles "facts" which are uncritically accepted, like that the Beatle saved the charts from the bland "Bobby" singers and other wimpy pop. Unfortunately, I am almost certain the book was called "The Hammer of the Gods?" which had made it impossible to find again (though I'm pretty sure it was older than the LZ book.) That's the closest I've seen to anything like that and considering all of the other books around the time were pretty fawning (except for Goldman's, which was dismissed as a hit job) it was pretty eye opening in the pre-Internet days. It wouldn't quite meet the mark even if I could find it, but it would be a nice antidote to "The Beatles were first at everything" SHite attitude. FWIW, Howard Kaylan had a pretty unvarnished retelling in his book of meeting the Beatles while in the Turtles. (Spoiler alert: John was a bully and the others weren't much better.) One of the few instances I've seen of a contemporary not falling over themselves to praise the Fabs.
|
|
|
Post by audiopro on Jul 21, 2020 15:16:26 GMT
I want to see somebody write a book about The Beatles describing how they REALLY were: immoral, arrogant, egotistical pricks who were too fucking cute and clever for their own good. Talented musicians, yes, but it all went to their heads in a big hurry. Not one of the books written by their many sycophantic former employees dared to tell how it really was with those four assholes, fifty years later these guys are still kissing Fab ass. John, Paul, George and Ringo were and are pretty unpleasant people, not nice guys at all, and certainly nothing to aspire to as role models, kids. Somebody needs to write a Beatlebook about THAT aspect of their lives, and I'd be brazen to say that as flawed as his book was only Albert Goldman really came close...Agreed. There was a book I read in high school that was an objective look at the many Beatles "facts" which are uncritically accepted, like that the Beatle saved the charts from the bland "Bobby" singers and other wimpy pop. Unfortunately, I am almost certain the book was called "The Hammer of the Gods?" which had made it impossible to find again (though I'm pretty sure it was older than the LZ book.) That's the closest I've seen to anything like that and considering all of the other books around the time were pretty fawning (except for Goldman's, which was dismissed as a hit job) it was pretty eye opening in the pre-Internet days. It wouldn't quite meet the mark even if I could find it, but it would be a nice antidote to "The Beatles were first at everything" SHite attitude. FWIW, Howard Kaylan had a pretty unvarnished retelling in his book of meeting the Beatles while in the Turtles. (Spoiler alert: John was a bully and the others weren't much better.) One of the few instances I've seen of a contemporary not falling over themselves to praise the Fabs. This one? Title is taken from a Brian Matthew introduction on Saturday Club (or possibly Top Gear.) www.amazon.co.uk/Gods-Hands-Beatles-Parker-1990-04-06/dp/B01K9016K8
|
|
Felonious Spunk
Grant
Digitals downstairs to push the anal logs upstairs
Posts: 1,192
|
Post by Felonious Spunk on Jul 21, 2020 15:37:20 GMT
Agreed. There was a book I read in high school that was an objective look at the many Beatles "facts" which are uncritically accepted, like that the Beatle saved the charts from the bland "Bobby" singers and other wimpy pop. Unfortunately, I am almost certain the book was called "The Hammer of the Gods?" which had made it impossible to find again (though I'm pretty sure it was older than the LZ book.) That's the closest I've seen to anything like that and considering all of the other books around the time were pretty fawning (except for Goldman's, which was dismissed as a hit job) it was pretty eye opening in the pre-Internet days. It wouldn't quite meet the mark even if I could find it, but it would be a nice antidote to "The Beatles were first at everything" SHite attitude. FWIW, Howard Kaylan had a pretty unvarnished retelling in his book of meeting the Beatles while in the Turtles. (Spoiler alert: John was a bully and the others weren't much better.) One of the few instances I've seen of a contemporary not falling over themselves to praise the Fabs. This one? Title is taken from a Brian Matthew introduction on Saturday Club (or possibly Top Gear.) www.amazon.co.uk/Gods-Hands-Beatles-Parker-1990-04-06/dp/B01K9016K8I don't think so. The other problem was I think it was a library edition so it was just a green cover with gold writing.
|
|
|
Post by audiopro on Jul 21, 2020 16:14:56 GMT
As you probably already know, I did some tape research for Allan Rouse in the early 2000s and went out for a few pints with him one lunchtime (not lunch, though.) He told me that I should ask George Martin the real story why Andy White was brought in. Apparently, Ringo's first session didn't go well. The Beatles were clearly underrehearsed and Ringo's drumming seemed to be the sticking point. After a second fruitless session, Martin said he'd had enough and was going to get a ringer in.
He said that for all the criticism Pete Best got, that dodgy arrangement of Love Me Do was the one the whole band had been rehearsing. It wasn't just Pete going off on one.
|
|
|
Post by mintyjackhole on Jul 22, 2020 2:37:33 GMT
And yet no sycophantic Beatard book will ever be as bad as Stanley Crouch's Charlie Parker biography.
|
|
|
Post by hugofuguzev on Jul 22, 2020 7:27:55 GMT
I want to see somebody write a book about The Beatles describing how they REALLY were: immoral, arrogant, egotistical pricks who were too fucking cute and clever for their own good. Talented musicians, yes, but it all went to their heads in a big hurry. Not one of the books written by their many sycophantic former employees dared to tell how it really was with those four assholes, fifty years later these guys are still kissing Fab ass. John, Paul, George and Ringo were and are pretty unpleasant people, not nice guys at all, and certainly nothing to aspire to as role models, kids. Somebody needs to write a Beatlebook about THAT aspect of their lives, and I'd be brazen to say that as flawed as his book was only Albert Goldman really came close...Agreed. There was a book I read in high school that was an objective look at the many Beatles "facts" which are uncritically accepted, like that the Beatle saved the charts from the bland "Bobby" singers and other wimpy pop. Unfortunately, I am almost certain the book was called "The Hammer of the Gods?" which had made it impossible to find again (though I'm pretty sure it was older than the LZ book.) That's the closest I've seen to anything like that and considering all of the other books around the time were pretty fawning (except for Goldman's, which was dismissed as a hit job) it was pretty eye opening in the pre-Internet days. It wouldn't quite meet the mark even if I could find it, but it would be a nice antidote to "The Beatles were first at everything" SHite attitude. FWIW, Howard Kaylan had a pretty unvarnished retelling in his book of meeting the Beatles while in the Turtles. (Spoiler alert: John was a bully and the others weren't much better.) One of the few instances I've seen of a contemporary not falling over themselves to praise the Fabs. I believe the book yer thinking of is "Twilight Of The Gods" ("Hammer Of The Gods" is the infamously sleazy Led Zeppelin biography). I want to say it's written by the same guy who came up with that "Aeolian cadences" bullshit about With The Beatles back in the day. And, fucking hell, once again I am almost ashamed to admit I remembered that. Once a goddamn Beatles anorak, always a goddamn Beatles anorak
|
|
|
Post by My Avatar Is A Hot Babe on Sept 23, 2020 18:17:04 GMT
Reports from the early 80s revealed that Paul had meetings with Yoko about the M&H tapes. The word was that the Threetles were going to finish those John's songs for a brand new Beatles album, as a tribute to John. Sadly in 1983 Yoko vetoed the project and released the M&H album. Maybe the biggest mistake she ever made about the John's legacy. Both artistical and financial. Just imagine Nobody Told Me as a Beatles single in 84...
|
|
daved
Better than Steve
Posts: 10,579
|
Post by daved on Sept 23, 2020 18:25:29 GMT
Reports where? In wolrus' head? Never heard ANYTHING about this. Weren't they still suing each other then?
|
|
bradman
Better than Steve
Posts: 5,142
|
Post by bradman on Sept 23, 2020 19:35:40 GMT
His dad works for Nintendo, he knows things.
|
|
|
Post by hoffa_nagila on Sept 23, 2020 20:39:14 GMT
I think those reports came out on Oprah.
|
|