Autobiography?
-
Reading the new Beatles biography by Mark Lewisohn (part 1, Tune in) I wonder whether Paul will ever write his autobiography. Is anything known about a plan he might have for this? Thanks for your answers. Anny
-
He kind of already did, "Many Years From Now," (w/Barry Miles) from 1997. Although frustratingly, he really doesn't go beyond the Beatles' break-up in 1970.
-
Does he go into things extensively though? I haven't read the book. Would be good to hear more from the man himself, especially as it is already another "Many years from now", don't you think?
-
didnt i read somewhere maybe even on this board that phillip norman had been comissioned to write his biography and it was due in 2015
-
I would never, ever take the word of a Paul McCartney autiobiography over a Mark Lewisohn biography.
-
steveramon:
didnt i read somewhere maybe even on this board that phillip norman had been comissioned to write his biography and it was due in 2015
I don't think it was commissioned by Paul. But it was OK'd by Paul. Anyway, I don't think Paul has time to write his autobiography, and has said as much in interviews. Many Years From Now is an excellent biography on the Beatles and Paul. I just wish we could get an exhaustive biography on his years after The Beatles that is approved by Paul. Hopefully, Phillip Norman gets this approval.(But I'm not holding my breath)
-
steveramon:
didnt i read somewhere maybe even on this board that phillip norman had been comissioned to write his biography and it was due in 2015
Norman is writing it and Paul OK'd it, shockingly, given his feelings about Norman's Beatles book (which is not one of the better bios, honestly), but it's not authorized in the true sense. If it's as good as Norman's Lennon bio, I'll be happy.
-
Anny Rock:
Does he go into things extensively though? I haven't read the book. Would be good to hear more from the man himself, especially as it is already another "Many years from now", don't you think?
He mainly goes into detail about the songwriting and recording of the Beatles years, so for that alone it's great. Where the book gets bogged down is where Miles go on and on at great and rambling length to detail Paul's participation in the London underground arts scene in the 1960s which end up being more a way for Miles to celebrate his own involvement at that time. It comes across like him butting in "hey, I was there TOOOOOOOOOO!" in the middle of a book about Paul.
-
moptops:
I would never, ever take the word of a Paul McCartney autiobiography over a Mark Lewisohn biography.
-
He recently said in a Rolling Stone interview he was too busy working to write his memoirs. I'd welcome a truly encompassing bio that doesn't just focus on the Beatles years, as they all seem to.
-
beatlesfanrandy:
He recently said in a Rolling Stone interview he was too busy working to write his memoirs. I'd welcome a truly encompassing bio that doesn't just focus on the Beatles years, as they all seem to.
-
I don't want Paul's revisionism, however I'd love to clap my peepers on that long tome he wrote while in that Tokyo jail in 1980. It still exists.
-
moptops:
I don't want Paul's revisionism, however I'd love to clap my peepers on that long tome he wrote while in that Tokyo jail in 1980. It still exists.
I'm really not trying to follow you around here disagreeing with you. Really I'm not. But I find it very discouraging when Paul fans repeat this nonsense about Paul "rewriting" history. Many Years From Now is actually a really terrific read. And it gives Paul's take on this period of his life. He has every right to give his side of the story -- especially given that he was faced with Philip Norman (author of Shite, I mean Shout) who went around saying that "John was the Beatles." Now THAT was revisionism. Why is it that when John Lennon went around claiming that he wrote most of Eleanor Rigby, no one kept accusing him of "revisionism" -- or worse, outright lying since John didn't contribute to the song at all? There are many, many cases where John "rewrote history" and we all know that all of the Beatles did that to some degree and yet Paul is the only one ever accused of that. In his cranky 1970 interview John actually insisted that he and Paul had stopped writing together "very early on" -- like 64 or 65. Why doesn't anyone ever call out John about that for "rewriting history" and, again, outright lying? Especially since, in 1980, after letting that lie hang out there for 10 years, John finally admitted he'd lied about that. They collaborated to the end, as late as Don't Let Me Down (to which apparently Paul contributed both lyrics and arrangement). Sorry to go off on a rant but this is one of those deeply unfair slams that Paul gets hit with that is just downright unfair. The man has his share of faults but he's no more prone to revisionism than any of the Beatles were, than George Martin was (as Mark Lewisohn's book has shown) than Brian Epstein was, than Yoko continues to be (sure, Yoko, you "didn't know who John Lennon was"
: 
. -
Michelley:
moptops:
I don't want Paul's revisionism, however I'd love to clap my peepers on that long tome he wrote while in that Tokyo jail in 1980. It still exists.
I'm really not trying to follow you around here disagreeing with you. Really I'm not. But I find it very discouraging when Paul fans repeat this nonsense about Paul "rewriting" history. Many Years From Now is actually a really terrific read. And it gives Paul's take on this period of his life. He has every right to give his side of the story -- especially given that he was faced with Philip Norman (author of Shite, I mean Shout) who went around saying that "John was the Beatles." Now THAT was revisionism. Why is it that when John Lennon went around claiming that he wrote most of Eleanor Rigby, no one kept accusing him of "revisionism" -- or worse, outright lying since John didn't contribute to the song at all? There are many, many cases where John "rewrote history" and we all know that all of the Beatles did that to some degree and yet Paul is the only one ever accused of that. In his cranky 1970 interview John actually insisted that he and Paul had stopped writing together "very early on" -- like 64 or 65. Why doesn't anyone ever call out John about that for "rewriting history" and, again, outright lying? Especially since, in 1980, after letting that lie hang out there for 10 years, John finally admitted he'd lied about that. They collaborated to the end, as late as Don't Let Me Down (to which apparently Paul contributed both lyrics and arrangement). Sorry to go off on a rant but this is one of those deeply unfair slams that Paul gets hit with that is just downright unfair. The man has his share of faults but he's no more prone to revisionism than any of the Beatles were, than George Martin was (as Mark Lewisohn's book has shown) than Brian Epstein was, than Yoko continues to be (sure, Yoko, you "didn't know who John Lennon was"
: .I have and have read Many Years from Now too. Yep, pretty good read. I should have expanded my comments to say that ML's book(s) makes any autobiography pale, in my opinion. Anyone who writes an autobiography will have a skewed take on events. Memory lapses, intentional or unintentional bias, an "agenda" etc. I like biographies, and when they're done like ML's, well, I can't argue.
-
DrBeatle:
Where the book gets bogged down is where Miles go on and on at great and rambling length to detail Paul's participation in the London underground arts scene in the 1960s
Funny, that's still one of my favorite chapters in the book. parlance
-
Michelley:
I'm really not trying to follow you around here disagreeing with you. Really I'm not. But I find it very discouraging when Paul fans repeat this nonsense about Paul "rewriting" history. Many Years From Now is actually a really terrific read. And it gives Paul's take on this period of his life. He has every right to give his side of the story
parlance -
I was just thinking the same thing.
-
Michelley:
moptops:
I don't want Paul's revisionism, however I'd love to clap my peepers on that long tome he wrote while in that Tokyo jail in 1980. It still exists.
I'm really not trying to follow you around here disagreeing with you. Really I'm not. But I find it very discouraging when Paul fans repeat this nonsense about Paul "rewriting" history. Many Years From Now is actually a really terrific read. And it gives Paul's take on this period of his life. He has every right to give his side of the story -- especially given that he was faced with Philip Norman (author of Shite, I mean Shout) who went around saying that "John was the Beatles." Now THAT was revisionism. Why is it that when John Lennon went around claiming that he wrote most of Eleanor Rigby, no one kept accusing him of "revisionism" -- or worse, outright lying since John didn't contribute to the song at all? There are many, many cases where John "rewrote history" and we all know that all of the Beatles did that to some degree and yet Paul is the only one ever accused of that. In his cranky 1970 interview John actually insisted that he and Paul had stopped writing together "very early on" -- like 64 or 65. Why doesn't anyone ever call out John about that for "rewriting history" and, again, outright lying? Especially since, in 1980, after letting that lie hang out there for 10 years, John finally admitted he'd lied about that. They collaborated to the end, as late as Don't Let Me Down (to which apparently Paul contributed both lyrics and arrangement). Sorry to go off on a rant but this is one of those deeply unfair slams that Paul gets hit with that is just downright unfair. The man has his share of faults but he's no more prone to revisionism than any of the Beatles were, than George Martin was (as Mark Lewisohn's book has shown) than Brian Epstein was, than Yoko continues to be (sure, Yoko, you "didn't know who John Lennon was"
: .Michelley, I mostly agree with you, but funny I just read something where Paul said John helped him with Eleanor Rigby! I'll have to see if I can find the quote.
-
Nancy R:
Michelley, I mostly agree with you, but funny I just read something where Paul said John helped him with Eleanor Rigby! I'll have to see if I can find the quote.
I'll be interested to see what Paul said. I'm sure it's possible that John could have helped a bit. But what I was referring to was the quote from John in the 70s where he claimed to have written most of the lyrics for Eleanor Rigby. He didn't. And it was John's close friend, Pete Shotten, whose book writes about Paul bringing in Eleanor Rigby and looking for help with a few lines. Pete Shotten happened to be there, as was Ringo, George, and John. Pete Shotten says Ringo offered a line, George offered a line, Pete Shotten offered a suggestion. But Pete says John didn't contribute anything. And Pete Shotten is not a Paul ally, he's John's good friend. At any rate, the rewriting history was John claiming he'd written most of the song's lyrics, when he did not.
-
Michelley:
Nancy R:
Michelley, I mostly agree with you, but funny I just read something where Paul said John helped him with Eleanor Rigby! I'll have to see if I can find the quote.
I'll be interested to see what Paul said. I'm sure it's possible that John could have helped a bit. But what I was referring to was the quote from John in the 70s where he claimed to have written most of the lyrics for Eleanor Rigby. He didn't. And it was John's close friend, Pete Shotten, whose book writes about Paul bringing in Eleanor Rigby and looking for help with a few lines. Pete Shotten happened to be there, as was Ringo, George, and John. Pete Shotten says Ringo offered a line, George offered a line, Pete Shotten offered a suggestion. But Pete says John didn't contribute anything. And Pete Shotten is not a Paul ally, he's John's good friend. At any rate, the rewriting history was John claiming he'd written most of the song's lyrics, when he did not.
Oh, no, you're right about that. This thing I read (which I can't find again!) just said that Paul said John helped out with a few lines.
