New Book: Paul McCartney, The Life
-
Thisbe211:
From the Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/books/the-fullest-biography-of-paul-mccartney-ever/2016/05/03/dc0da324-0ca5-11e6-a6b6-2e6de3695b0e_story.html
That reviewer makes it seem like Macca hasn't done anything great since the Fabs and Wings
This critic doesn't appreciate Paul solo songs. 
-
SusyLuvsPaul:
Thisbe211:
From the Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/books/the-fullest-biography-of-paul-mccartney-ever/2016/05/03/dc0da324-0ca5-11e6-a6b6-2e6de3695b0e_story.html
That reviewer makes it seem like Macca hasn't done anything great since the Fabs and Wings
This critic doesn't appreciate Paul solo songs. What a scathing review. Its the same old argument, expect 40 years later. In the 70s, reviewers were basically saying, "Yeah, Wings is o.k., but it's not inventive like the Beatles. Paul could do so much better." Today, reviewers are saying. "Paul's solo output is o.k., but nothing like he did with Wings." Paul can't win!!
-
DrBeatle:
Here's my review...I had to sit on it (by request of the publisher) until today when the book was released here in the US http://rnrchemist.blogspot.com/2016/05/book-review-paul-mccartney-life.html
Honestly, I'm surprised Paul gave his "blessing", with all the details about his girlfriends (McGovern, Lipton, etc. ) while dating Jane, paternity suits, etc.
-
JoeySmith:
DrBeatle:
Here's my review...I had to sit on it (by request of the publisher) until today when the book was released here in the US http://rnrchemist.blogspot.com/2016/05/book-review-paul-mccartney-life.html
Honestly, I'm surprised Paul gave his "blessing", with all the details about his girlfriends (McGovern, Lipton, etc. ) while dating Jane, paternity suits, etc.
None of that is new info.
-
prudence1964:
JoeySmith:
DrBeatle:
Here's my review...I had to sit on it (by request of the publisher) until today when the book was released here in the US http://rnrchemist.blogspot.com/2016/05/book-review-paul-mccartney-life.html
Honestly, I'm surprised Paul gave his "blessing", with all the details about his girlfriends (McGovern, Lipton, etc. ) while dating Jane, paternity suits, etc.
None of that is new info.
Exactly...and it's been out there in some form or other, if not in as much fine detail, for at least 30 years. It doesn't really matter because it all changed when he met Linda, anyway.
-
DrBeatle:
prudence1964:
JoeySmith:
DrBeatle:
Here's my review...I had to sit on it (by request of the publisher) until today when the book was released here in the US http://rnrchemist.blogspot.com/2016/05/book-review-paul-mccartney-life.html
Honestly, I'm surprised Paul gave his "blessing", with all the details about his girlfriends (McGovern, Lipton, etc. ) while dating Jane, paternity suits, etc.
None of that is new info.
Exactly...and it's been out there in some form or other, if not in as much fine detail, for at least 30 years. It doesn't really matter because it all changed when he met Linda, anyway.
But it didn't change when he met Linda in May 1967. It only changed over a year later when she came to London in Sept. 1968 and they were then together ever since.
Even after he & Linda's weekend together in Beverly Hills in late June 1968, he was still with Francie Schwartz, Maggie McGivern and numerous groupies that summer. -
Ah, you obviously know what I meant!
-
-
I'm just gonna read this book and enjoy it without reading any reviews first. I will decide for myself if I like it. And so far, so good.
-
SusyLuvsPaul:
Thisbe211:
From the Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/books/the-fullest-biography-of-paul-mccartney-ever/2016/05/03/dc0da324-0ca5-11e6-a6b6-2e6de3695b0e_story.html
That reviewer makes it seem like Macca hasn't done anything great since the Fabs and Wings
This critic doesn't appreciate Paul solo songs. Yes! And if lennon is his hero go and write more boooks about him. And let Paul alone.
-
ValeRigby:
SusyLuvsPaul:
Thisbe211:
From the Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/books/the-fullest-biography-of-paul-mccartney-ever/2016/05/03/dc0da324-0ca5-11e6-a6b6-2e6de3695b0e_story.html
That reviewer makes it seem like Macca hasn't done anything great since the Fabs and Wings
This critic doesn't appreciate Paul solo songs. Yes! And if lennon is his hero go and write more boooks about him. And let Paul alone.
Then that's what the critic is saying, because that ain't what's in the book.
beatlesfanrandy:
I'm just gonna read this book and enjoy it without reading any reviews first. I will decide for myself if I like it. And so far, so good.
I wish more people did this, instead of declaring judgment on something without experiencing it for themselves. -
DrBeatle:
Ah, you obviously know what I meant!
Yeah I did, but some people think he met Linda and boom, he completely changed his "wild oats" ways.
-
Has this already been posted here?
-
It really bothered me to read on the dust jacket that this book is "...the last word..." on Paul. I just don't like the sound of that; couldn't they have phrased it differently?
-
Thisbe211:
It really bothered me to read on the dust jacket that this book is "...the last word..." on Paul. I just don't like the sound of that; couldn't they have phrased it differently?
Yeah, I know what you mean there. But Paul isn't going to write his own, and since he participated in this one it may be the definitive biography for years to come. I mean, think about it. The Beatles "Authorized" biography was first published in 1968, and look how many other Bios of the group have been written since. This won't be the last book on McCartney.
-
Paul will be featured prominently in the next two installments of Mark Lewisohn's book(s). Of course that will only cover up to 1970! Maybe Mark will write a Paul bio covering 1970 and on when he's about 80! Most of us will be in assisted living by then.
: -
Nancy R:
Paul will be featured prominently in the next two installments of Mark Lewisohn's book(s). Of course that will only cover up to 1970! Maybe Mark will write a Paul bio covering 1970 and on when he's about 80! Most of us will be in assisted living by then.
:While in assisted living, we'll have to get the audio books but we will fall asleep listening.
-
DrBeatle:
Here's my review...I had to sit on it (by request of the publisher) until today when the book was released here in the US http://rnrchemist.blogspot.com/2016/05/book-review-paul-mccartney-life.html
____________________________________________________________R Dr. Beatle, Thank you for your review of Mr. Norman's new book...Paul McCartney, the Life. I especially appreciated your detailed background as to why is was a surprise (almost shock) that this book made the light of day considering the aftermath of Mr. Norman's book on the Beatles...Shout. My problem with Mr. Norman actually goes back to "Shout" and why I lost my respect for the author. To cut to the chase, I thought that Mr. Norman's assertion that John was 75% of the Beatles was ludicrous and illogical (more on that later). With Mr. Normans new book being released about Paul, Mr. Norman not surprisingly is going out of his way to make amens about his previous positions about Paul. He is now admitting his earlier animosity about Paul was wrong and that he now has a new appreciation for Paul's career and place in musical history. If I am right, he now admits that he was jealous of Paul while he wrote "Shout" and that he realizes now what good an loving person he is. My initial thought is that this seems kind of disingenuous to me. Whether right or wrong about the author's sincerity, my question is this: Has Mr. Norman said that his original assertion in "Shout' about John being 75% of the Beatles was wrong. For me, if he doesn't specifically admit that he was wrong to the above question, then I still don't have much respect for the man as an objective writer and biographer. My biggest problem with his "75% John" assertion is that it is not based on "fact" in any way. It shows the side of a lot of John zealots whose claim is that John was the Beatles and that Paul (also George/Ringo) were just sidemen. The facts are just not there to even begin to make that John assertion. Here are a couple of points I would like to clarify. Shout was published in 2004. When Mr. Norman starts talking about Paul's Post Beatles career (especially Wings) he went on and on about Paul and Wings being so lightweight compared to the Beatles. Even if you totally buy into that belief (and I by and large tend to agree) this has nothing to do with comparing John with Paul during their Beatle years. If you make a statement that John was 75% of the Beatles, then you must stay with the Beatle years in order to make that declaration. 2nd and even more important, you must detail why John's Beatle career was so much better than Paul's. I suggest that "factually" that is impossible to do. Whatever list or objective poll of greatest Beatle songs, most popular Beatle songs, biggest selling Beatle songs, most known Beatle songs etc. you could compare...Paul's songs would at least be an equal percentage compared to John's. In fact, it might be a little weighted towards Paul. Certainly not 75% John. Another crucial fact is that the Lennon-McCartney brand is totally misleading in that they wrote few of their biggest songs together or fact to face. A lot of the media likes to portray this but in fact it was just on some of the early songs (I Want to Hold Your Hand, She Loves You and a few others) that were totally written together. And as the Beatles career went into their middle and last phase, John and Paul wrote totally separate in almost all cases. In fact many were 100% written by one OR the other. Mr. Norman knows this and this is why his 75% John assertion is not based on real facts from a music perspective. Yoko certainly loves Mr. Norman and the reason is obvious. Unfortunately, when people read "Shout" they think that the assertion is "gospel". No wonder Paul openly despised the Book. If I were in Paul's shoes, I would have gone nuts too. Dr. Beatle...so my question is back to his "assertion". Has he admitted he was wrong in making that statement.
-
There is a great book out there that breaks down the number of songs each member wrote & Lennon came out on top by a fair margin. In particular, Lennon dominated the early years, especially A Hard Day's Night. Perhaps that's how he came to the conclusion that Lennon was 75% of the Beatles. I'm just speculating (& I dont agree with the statement).
-
Some assert John dominated the early to mid-Beatles, while Paul took the ball and ran with it in later years. (George, of course, was sitting on a pile of great songs, secretly, though he did suggest some of his for Beatles albums and they were turned down.) A recent writer suggested the bigger question and mystery is, how did the Fabs music improve so radically all of a sudden, accelerating their artistic output both in creative quality and quantity, within a relatively short period of time and how could they walk away from it all at the height of their artistry, with the band lasting only eight years or so. Or ten. The writer considers this a mindboggling mystery. And miracle, actually, one supposes. Even acknowledging their huge talents and persistent hard work.
