Customer Reviews

The Love You Make: An Insider's Story of the Beatles

5 star:		(17)
4 star:		(12)
3 star:		(10)
2 star:		(5)
1 star:		(6)

 

 

I first read this book in 1986 and found it very engrossing and a well written insider's account of what Beatlemania was really about behind closed doors. However, that's the problem. Today I look at the book as a "tell all" that makes the Beatles nothing more than greedy sex/drug addicts that created music on the side.

If you read the book, then you know he is not too flattering about Paul's escapades. In a 1984 interview with Playboy, Paul & Linda disowned the book and felt betrayed by Brown, whom they had once considered a good friend. The interview also says that Brown tricked them into spilling the beans, claiming he was writing a book on the 1960s music scene, and not The Beatles specifically. If you read the intro to the book, Brown claims he had "full" cooperation of the surviving Beatles and Yoko Ono, and that they willing let the cat out of the bag for the information that makes up most of the juicy details of the book. As a result of this book, you hardly see Peter Brown mentioned by any of the Beatles these days, much less anyone else. For someone who was also close to the band, you wonder why it's full of factual errors and such. And Brown tries to make it appear he was there 24/7 with all the Beatles. A lot of the material seemed to have been lifted off various articles and interviews done around the time the book was written, and re-written into narrative form as if he were there.

Brown also clumsily ends the book with that poem John wrote Stu Sutcliffe in 1961 ("I can't remember anything without a sadness..."). However, that is taken out of context, since it only contains the first verse. If you read the actual full poem, it becomes full of Lennon's trademark "color metaphors" (if you will) that hardly fits his epitaph, since the book concludes with his assassination.

Stick with Nicholas Schaffner's "The Beatles Forever."

...A Fountain Of Misinformation."
One of the things that I found the most agitating about this book is the fact that the author, Peter Brown, titled it after one of the Beatles' most profound lyrics, when he obviously doesn't LOVE the Beatles like you or I do. In fact, he seems to have an apparent axe to grind against most of the Beatles and their associates. Upon nearly every mention of Brian Epstein's, George's, Ringo's, and especially Paul's name, Brown manages to slip in a subtle (and occasionally blatant) put-down. John also gets his share of the smack, but it is far less vicious and accusatory. The reason for John's somewhat (for lack of a better word) "gentle" treatment, I believe, is because his tragic death occured when this book was about halfway finished, therefore making this book probably one of the first writings to have that "John was smart and always right and Paul was dumb and wrong about everything he did" attitude. Brown's favoritism towards John is too obvious (perhaps because John "immortalized" him in song), especially in the final three chapters where he discusses each of the Beatles' lives after the breakup--Paul, George, & Ringo share one chapter between them, while John gets a full two!
Some of the more annoying characteristics of Brown's words include his selling himself and this book on the fact that he was an "insider" and building up his own importance. ("I told Paul to junk it . . . but Paul's ego wouldn't let him consider this.") The phrase "revealed here for the first time" also becomes quite irritating. The worst thing, however, is that most of his "facts" are completely or at least partially wrong! (I rolled my eyes quite often throughout this book.) The book reads like a fictional story rather than a biography. What I mean is, Brown retells the stories of events that happened as if he were there, which, for at least 95% of them, he wasn't. (For example, in his story of George's visit to Haight-Ashbury: "Out of the crowd came a guitar, which was thrust into George's hands. 'No...no, please,' George stammered, trying to return it. 'Play!' someone shouted in the crowd . . . George gave Pattie a sick look. He began to strum a few chords, but the acid made the cheap guitar feel like a lump of cheese in his hands . . . George insistently returned the guitar, with profuse apologies, and they tried to make a break for it back to the car. Angry hoots were heard as the mood of the rejected crowd turned malevolent." I know it's been long documented that George had a bad time there, but there is plenty of literary and photographic proof that Brown's version isn't accurate.) Reading this book reminded me a lot of the kids in grade school who'd tattle about every little thing, usually making up lies. To give Brown his due, I do admit that his first-hand recounts of the terrifying incidents in Japan and the Phillipines which happened during the Beatles' final tour are excellent.
Brown's strong point is obviously his knowledge of the financial aspect of the Beatles' lives, as he quotes quite a few figures throughout the book (how accurate they actually are can't be certain). However, when discussing their songs, lyrics, or phyches, he appears rather foolish. Unprofessionally for a biographer, he can't seem to keep his personal opinions to a minimum. (What I found most hilarious was that, towards the end of the book, he mentions a project comprising of video footage of the Beatles being put together by Neil Aspinall. Brown calls it "pathetic." Well, 15 years later, this "pathetic" project turned out to be The Beatles Anthology...something much bigger and much better than Peter Brown's little storybook.)
I rate this book 2 stars because, inaccuracies aside, it actually IS entertaining. However, believe in many of Brown's words and you'll end up feeling depressed, I'm sure, as he absolutely does NOT focus on ANYTHING positive. If you haven't read many Beatles books yet, this is definately not recommended. For an unbiased look at the Beatles, try Nicholas Schaffner's "The Beatles Forever," which came out a few years before "The Love You Make."

As the paperback cover states, longtime Beatle insider Peter Brown dishes out the dirt, National Enquirer style. Written with the cooperation of the Beatles, their wives/girlfriends etc., there was nonetheless a backlash when they read what went to print (though they didn't deny much of it) and he was forever cut from the Beatles' inner circle. Lots of information about the drug and sexual habits of those cuddly Liverpudlians, as well as the antics of manager Brian Epstein. Nice to know these things, but I think I'll just listen to their music.

Of all the Beatle books I've read, this is the most disappointing. Peter Brown gained immortality when he was mentioned by name in "The Ballad of John & Yoko", and I expected to get a good feel for what it was like to be inside the maelstrom of Beatlemania -- and for what the Fab Four were like in person. But Brown's portraits are one-sided and facile. John Lennon is described as relentlessly sarcastic and drug-crazed. We never see the warm side Paul and George often talk about, nor do we glimpse the creative man behind the songs. In this book, Paul is a sex-crazed skirt chaser, George an ignorant lout who is called "his lectureship" behind his back, and Ringo a lovable incompetant -- a "poor little man" who lucked into the bigtime, but was no longer good enough to play regularly for the band in the latter years. Brian Epstein is even more pitiable in Brown's descriptions, and we're told (without proof) of a sexual encounter between Epstein and Lennon. We're also told (again without proof) of an affair between George Harrison and Ringo's first wife, Maureen. Road manager Neil Aspinall also doesn't escape Brown's condescention -- his efforts to compile a Beatles retrospective from archival films is described as "pitiful" as he watched flickering images of his younger self during the heights of Beatlemania. (Wouldn't I love to be able to look at films of myself in my 20's cavorting with the Fabs!) The book is also full of inaccuracies, making me wonder if Brown ever actually listened to Beatle music. Sorry Peter, John does NOT say "I buried Paul" at the end of "Strawberry Fields Forever", he says "Cranberry Sauce"; and George does NOT play a "neo-Indian raga" at the end of "Rain". When you're presented with "facts" like this that you know are wrong, you're never sure how much else is right. Certainly, this book is not as sensationalistic or smutty as Albert Goldman's "The Lives of John Lennon", but then, Goldman wasn't pretending to give an "insider's view" of the band. After reading this, I can fully understand why Paul and Linda McCartney burned their copy in the family fireplace.

I'll freely admit that I enjoyed this book. It's a dishy, gossipy, tabloid biography of the first order, and I found myself staying up till 5 am to finish it.

That being said, TLYM is not a particularly reliable history of the Beatles, and it's rife with glaring inaccuracies. Much information is presented as fact with no corroboration, and Peter Brown's credibility isn't exactly stellar -- as others have pointed out, the remaining Beatles and their associates were highly critical of the book, viewing it as a betrayal of trust by Brown. Still, even with the book's self-conscious sensationalism (the authors have an annoying tendency to hugely overuse variations of the phrase "revealed here for the first time") many of the anecdotes are amusing, and the insight into the life of Brian Epstein and detail about the workings of Apple Corps. are interesting.

Overall, this book is not the worst Beatles tome out there; certainly more biased accounts than this have been penned about the fab four over the years. If some of the more unlikely tales, as well as Brown's claim to ultimate insider status, are taken with a grain of salt, TLYM makes for an interesting diversion for any Beatles fan looking for more than just analysis of songs and recording procedures.

WARNING: don't let this be the first Beatle book you read.

Although the book is said to be about the Beatles, it's really about John, John and his first wife Cynthia, John and his second wife Yoko, Brian Epstein, more John, some Paul, Cynthia after her divorce, a little more John, and then those other two Beatles, George and what's-his-name. John is a drug-addicted maniac, but even while trashed on heroin he's still a better person than Paul, who is an ego-centric sap whose every song is "saccarine," and George, who's boring and bitter. Oh, and Ringo...all I remember about him from the book is that he was incredibly spendthrift and really in the end was just lucky to be there. There is also a significant amount of the book dedicated to John's first wife, Cynthia, and their supremely awful relationship. Much of it was painful to read.

I don't think a biography has an obligation to make the protagonists look better than they are, but this book seems to go out of its way to villianize people and make them look awful. Ironically, of course, the two people who come out of the book looking the best are John and Yoko, who just about everyone agrees were incredibly destructive individuals. I don't think it's a coincidence that Peter Brown was name-checked in a John Lennon song, and not a Paul or George song.

On a positive note, the insight into Brian's life is the most complete of all the Beatle books I have read; some people complain the book makes him look awful, but in reality he did the best he could with his limited knowledge of how to manage a band. And there are plenty of fun stories about the boys...to have been mentioned by name in a Beatles song means that he was definitely in the right places at the right times.

Although my guess is that because the original edition of this book was released very soon after John's death, the editors wanted more John content to appeal to the renewed interest in his life. However, decades later, the book is uneven and unfairly dismissive of Paul, Ringo and George. Paul really gets the shaft in this book...Lord knows he's not perfect but this book makes him look worse than Allan Klein, who is regarded by just about everyone as the devil himself. And Ringo and George don't really look bad...or good...it's hard to look like anything when you're given about a paragraph in every chapter, if that. Cynthia Lennon gets mentioned more than they do.

And what about the music? Obviously Peter Brown wasn't involved in the music production side of things, but to only rarely MENTION their songs or anything about them seemed a little ridiculous. I don't want Billboard charts or technical breakdowns of the song structures, but some insight into the songwriting, their personal feelings about the songs, or the guest artists they brought in (Eric Clapton's guest stint on "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" is given a one-sentence mention; Billy Preston's guest appearance on the "Let It Be" album is totally ignored) would have been nice.

While this book did have a lot of secrets and stories and other content unknown before it was published, that was years ago, and there are newer books on the Beatles that have all the information from this book, as well as more inside stories and more factual information about the music, and are more pleasant reads and are fairer to the boys. "A Day in the Life" by Mark Hertsgaard provides information about the boys and will fill you in on the musical side of things as well. And my favorite Beatle book so far has been "Magical Mystery Tours" by Tony Bramwell, a friend of the boys and eventual Apple employee, gives generous insight into the lives of the boys, while being honest and fair.

First of all let me say, if you like reading about the Beatles, this isn't a bad book. That said, this is a bit salacious for my tastes. Brown carries an obvious torch for Lennon at the expense of everyone else. The phrase "revealed here for the first time" gets overused and gives the book the feel of a "Geraldo In Al Capone's Vault" tv spectacular.

This book, which I bought at a book sale,was interesting enough to read in two days flat, so I can reccomend in to anyone on that level. However, I've got issues with a lot of it. Firstly, the author, Peter Brown, is extremly subjective, to put it lightly. He likes some Beatles, and dislikes others, and makes it extremly obvious who he favors. According to the book, Paul's an arrogant control freak, Ringo's a talentless lout, and George barley figures in anywhere. The book focuses on John most of the time. There's also a lack of infromation on music and albums, most of it is personal, which brings up the question: How could Brown be aware of all this? I, personally, never trusted the contents of the book, after Brown stated John was the oldest, when it is common knowlege that Ringo is older. Also, the story he tells on how George got into the skiffle band completely contridicts what I read in the Beatles anthology. If you can deal with those issues, buy it. As I told you, it is extremely entertaining.

When I bought this book, I hoped to learn more about the efforts that went into their making of the music. Part of the problem there is that the Beatles apparently didn't want people in the studio when they were making the music, but still I hoped that something would have been pieced together from interviews. Instead, the book is an unflattering account of the worst events in each Beatle's life (as well as the lives of their significant others). If someone knew nothing about the Beatles and read this book, he/she would surmise that these four guys are schmucks who somehow made a lot of money on their music despite being totally dysfunctional. That said, if you are interested in what a lousy father and husband the drug-addicted John was, what a hapless loser the religious fanatic George was, how the Beatles succeeded in spite of a no-talent Ringo, and what a ruthless tyrant the egocentric Paul was, this is the book you're looking for!

I read this book three times through out my life. It does a really great job of making a reader feel as if they were right there, and actually know the Beatles. The author has no problem gossiping over the Beatles' use of groupies and drugs, which may seem kind of harsh to some, for someone who was a trusted friend to the Beatles. I am interested to know what all the "inaccuracies" claimed by other reviewers are.