Hunter Davis on writing the Beatles Bio
-
Hi everyone, I watched this video on Hunter Davis and I thought it was really insightful on the background of writing the Beatles Bio in the 60s. He also gives a background into his other book, the John Lennon Letters. I wish, though, that the video included his home movie of Paul and Linda in Portugal at the end!!
-
I've read this and it was a pretty good bio very interesting. One day am going to get the updated version of it. Thanks for the interview btw.
-
Your welcome, maclover2013 Both (the Lennon Letters or the Authorized Beatle Bio) are at my local library and I think the bio is from 1985, so it's the updated version. I haven't read either books but I want to/planning to.
-
That was a great video! I love the part where he talks about Paul, Linda & Heather coming to visit in Dec. 1968 and Paul grabs the cab with no money so of course Hunter has to pay the cab! By my calculations, it was during this visit that Linda became pregnant with Mary!
-
Hi everyone, I have been reading Hunter Davies authorized bio on the Beatles and I am enjoying it. ( I love all the direct quotes from the Beatles and their family). But I am wondering how accurate it is. I know it is authorized and each of the Beatles read through it for their approval before it was sent to be published, so I figured it was pretty accurate. But last night, I read two things that I wondered about: it stated that Astrid influenced their Beatle hair cut, cut Stu's hair in Hamburg that way, then George and Paul's. John was the last one to cut his hair that way (I think he did it a year later). But that is not true. Maybe they saw that new hair-cut for the first time by hanging out with Astrid and maybe she cut Stu's hair, but I checked in the Beatles Anthology and both John and Paul say that the Beatle-do came from a trip they took to Paris and their friend Jurgan gave it to them. When they came back to Liverpool, everyone thought their hair was funny looking, but eventually George did it too, Pete never did. Also, the collar-less suits, I always thought it was inspired by Paris fashion, something Brian suggested to them, but in the book it says it was Astrid who influenced the collar less suit. I know the author had to alter some stories etc. (like Brian's homosexuality and John's aunt Mimi wanted him to change some accounts John told...) but basic stuff like where the Beatle hair cut came from is pretty basic. Just wondering what other Beatle fans think about this book (I know it is well-liked in general by Beatle fans) and maybe it is normal for even an authorized bio to get things wrong, I was just surprised that part was not accurate.
-
Apple Scruff:
Hi everyone, I have been reading Hunter Davies authorized bio on the Beatles and I am enjoying it. ( I love all the direct quotes from the Beatles and their family). But I am wondering how accurate it is. I know it is authorized and each of the Beatles read through it for their approval before it was sent to be published, so I figured it was pretty accurate. But last night, I read two things that I wondered about: it stated that Astrid influenced their Beatle hair cut, cut Stu's hair in Hamburg that way, then George and Paul's. John was the last one to cut his hair that way (I think he did it a year later). But that is not true. Maybe they saw that new hair-cut for the first time by hanging out with Astrid and maybe she cut Stu's hair, but I checked in the Beatles Anthology and both John and Paul say that the Beatle-do came from a trip they took to Paris and their friend Jurgan gave it to them. When they came back to Liverpool, everyone thought their hair was funny looking, but eventually George did it too, Pete never did. Also, the collar-less suits, I always thought it was inspired by Paris fashion, something Brian suggested to them, but in the book it says it was Astrid who influenced the collar less suit. I know the author had to alter some stories etc. (like Brian's homosexuality and John's aunt Mimi wanted him to change some accounts John told...) but basic stuff like where the Beatle hair cut came from is pretty basic. Just wondering what other Beatle fans think about this book (I know it is well-liked in general by Beatle fans) and maybe it is normal for even an authorized bio to get things wrong, I was just surprised that part was not accurate.
As with all stories of the past, the truth is probably somewhere in between. The statement that "Astrid influenced their haircut and cut Stuart's the same way" is probably the most accurate, as you can see in pictures of them both at that time that she had her hair cut in what became known as the "Beatle" haircut before any of them, and then eventually they all did it that way. So John and Paul probably met up with Jurgen on their trip to Paris and decided to do it that way also, because Stu had it that way. Whether she actually "cut" their hair is beside the point. Astrid is the one who had the haircut that changed the look of men forever. That is the important point! As for the Bio it is well known that Davies made The Beatles look good and left things out. Lennon pointed out in interviews that it was a "whitewash" of true facts and real events, partly out of protecting their image and sparing their families.
-
Which book was it that John was quoted as saying that the Beatles' tours were like "Fellini's Satyricon?" That was as far as anyone went to describe what really went on behind closed doors. I've seen that movie (back in the '70's) and all I can say is WOW!
-
Nancy R:
Which book was it that John was quoted as saying that the Beatles' tours were like "Fellini's Satyricon?" That was as far as anyone went to describe what really went on behind closed doors. I've seen that movie (back in the '70's) and all I can say is WOW!
That was what he described in the Rolling Stone Interviews of 1971 where he punctured every myth and legend there ever was about The Beatles. He was mad as hell at Paul and the others and he let the whole world know it!
-
The first authorized bio of the Beatles & he messes up the day John & Paul met?!? How did no one catch that before they went to press? Embarrassing.
-
JoeySmith:
The first authorized bio of the Beatles & he messes up the day John & Paul met?!? How did no one catch that before they went to press? Embarrassing.
Because John and Paul couldn't remember the year they met up either
-
The updated versions are so worth reading.
-
Kathryn O:
The updated versions are so worth reading.
I agree. I have both the original and later reprint.
-
I read this as a kid... Somehow I procured a 10-15 year copy of it, worn and tattered, with some pages missing...All I can remember is it being very good. But cannot recall too much more. ...Might need a refresher.... Although to me, the Nicholas Schaffner book 'The Beatles Forever' is the best thing I've read on the group (plus 70's solo stuff).... Better than all the sycophantic, sensationalist bio's that succeeded it... Of course I bought them not knowing that was the case, but it illustrated to me that one has to be very careful what they chose to read....
-
toris:
I read this as a kid... Somehow I procured a 10-15 year copy of it, worn and tattered, with some pages missing...All I can remember is it being very good. But cannot recall too much more. ...Might need a refresher.... Although to me, the Nicholas Schaffner book 'The Beatles Forever' is the best thing I've read on the group (plus 70's solo stuff).... Better than all the sycophantic, sensationalist bio's that succeeded it... Of course I bought them not knowing that was the case, but it illustrated to me that one has to be very careful what they chose to read....
ps. I can only presume there have been many threads already that discredit a couple of "authors" who've tried to cash in on Lennon and McCartney. Two spring to mind immediately.
-
Kathryn O:
The updated versions are so worth reading.
Yep. I've got not the most recent one but the one from before (1998 or so?). Excellent book that I always go back to. As far as non-Lewisohn Beatles bios, it's by far the next best one, miles ahead of Norman and Shitz (I mean, Spitz).
-
Hunter Davis has donated some John Lennon papers he had to the British Library so he won't have to pay $190,000 in taxes--a letter from Lennon to Stuart Sutcliffe with poems and sketches, other letters and some handwritten song lyrics including "A Day in the Life" and "Strawberry Fields Forever."
-
Hunter Davies mentions 15 June 1957 as the day that John met Paul, also in The John Lennon Letters. I think Mark Lewisohn says it's 6 July. To be hones, I trust Mark more than Hunter. The John Lennon Letters is a must-have book, nevertheless.
-
Foxx54:
Hunter Davies mentions 15 June 1957 as the day that John met Paul, also in The John Lennon Letters. I think Mark Lewisohn says it's 6 July. To be hones, I trust Mark more than Hunter. The John Lennon Letters is a must-have book, nevertheless.
It is definitely July 6, 1957. I've been there and they (of course!) have a plaque up on the outside of the building to commemorate the day:
-
I read someplace (http://daytrippin.com/2013/11/08/book-review-of-tune-in-the-beatles/)) that Mark Lewisohn in his Beatles biography Tune In says that John and Paul may have met (briefly) earlier than 6 July 1957. Cannot check this in the book , because MY COPY OF TUNE IN IS LOST IN THE MAIL...... aaaargh!
-
Foxx54:
I read someplace (http://daytrippin.com/2013/11/08/book-review-of-tune-in-the-beatles/)) that Mark Lewisohn in his Beatles biography Tune In says that John and Paul may have met (briefly) earlier than 6 July 1957. Cannot check this in the book , because MY COPY OF TUNE IN IS LOST IN THE MAIL...... aaaargh!
According to Tony Bramwell, Paul was aware of John before their actual meeting. (not sure if John was aware of Paul's existence)