Most Helpful Customer Reviews
69 of 77 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Overrated, dated and too slanted., July 19, 2007
I'm a little surprised by the ratio of good reviews for this book. I have to chime in with a strong negative for Norman's book. I appreciate the research and craftsmanship that went into the book and the portrait of the Beatle's years in Hambug is vivid and well done, yet frankly Norman's bias undermines the credibility of the writing in certain chapters, it's uneven in places. Honestly, I even suspect John Lennon would have been dismayed by the mythologizing that goes on in Norman's book.
I feel that Norman's book added the mythologizing of the relationships between Lennon, McCartney, Harrison and Starr. Lionizing Lennon while treating Paul as the shallow, soppy, conservative one, or treating Harrison as a lucky third party with passable talent. That's not to say that any member of the band is above criticism, John was very much about being honest and being honest about oneself. Have people forgotten that Lennon's solo out-put could be surprisingly uneven and inconsistent? Mind you, this is coming from a huge Lennon fan, who wasn't a part of that era, I'm 39. So, I look at this with a different take.
Frankly I'm tired of third party books about the Beatles from writers whom, because they had limited access to the band in the Apple years, convince themselves they know what went on privately between them. The best example of the problem with Norman's book can be found with the new chapters concerning the post years, the portraits of McCartney is often overkill. Yes, Paul can be a little much, you could say he's guilty of attempts to re-write history. Yet, Paul does deserve some credit for what's he's accomplished outside the band. Paul's biggest crime after the Beatles was wanting to remain a pop star? I noticed that all of the post Beatles careers leaned towards a lighter pop faire, including Lennon's "Double Fantasy". What does it matter. Norman treats Paul's dabbling in classical opera as though it's a sacrilege.
I just don't care for Norman's dismissive attitude about George Harrison. A man who completely re-invented his sound after the Beatle break-up with "All Things Must Pass", As well as financing Handmade Films, a studio that helped the British film industry at a time it needed help and jump started Terry Gilliam's career. Harrison's solo career I found to be the most interesting, there's a consistent evolution of his albums that makes sense, even if some never cared for Harrison's spiritual hymns or his leanings towards ballads. It's also true that Harrison's solo out put could be uneven, yet the tendency is to dismiss him without any objective assessment. Harrison managed to co-front one of the more enjoyable super groups produced, The Traveling Wilbury's, mostly because they didn't take themselves too seriously and it was refreshing. Every band members post career had their share of great, good and bad songs, that's reality.
Furthermore, Norman seems to feel Harrison had no right to criticize a band like Oasis for their own swipes. Sorry to say this, I like Oasis, but the band simply is not innovative enough to believe they are above criticisms from Harrison. The Gallagher brothers are a little too arrogant to place themselves on equal par to the Beatles. Their recent track record for memorable hits, proves this.
Yet, what really raises my hackles is the portrait of Allen Klein. Many biographers give Klein a pass. First everyone vilified Yoko and Linda, and then the trend has been to the vilify Paul.
Yet if there was anyone who cemented the nail in the coffin of the Beatles, it was Allen Klein, a man who was a ruthless, manipulative bully. There was ample evidence that Klein was fleecing the Beatles fortunes. If Klein had gotten his way with his business negotiations, there might have been little left to the offspring, heirs of Lennon, McCartney, Harrison and Starr. McCartney's legal suite against Klein and the band members was rather brave and McCartney's instincts about Klein were correct in hindsight. It's overkill to rely on Lennon's bias on this issue.
Norman's book was first published in 1981 and you would think that some hindsight or wisdom would have filtered through the recent revisions, yet Norman maintains the same cynical tone and demonstrates little growth. There's the adage - Three sides to every story, yours, mine and the truth. All of the members of the band were complex individuals, adding to the stereotypes, or myths about The Beatles and their career doesn't help. Norman's ignorance about music and what it means to be a musician doesn't help either.
You'll get more from 'The Beatles Anthology' book or Barry Miles / McCartney book 'Many Years From Now', or even Bob Spitz's biography, Tony Bramwell's 'Magical Mystery Tours'. Mark Lewisohn's 'Beatles Recording Sessions'. I cannot in good conscious recommend this, don't bother. Unless of course you're exclusively a Lennon fan then you'll probably love it. I'd rather seek more and objective material. there's too many false myths about the band, I'd rather move on.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
20 of 22 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Biased, flawed, & outdated, May 27, 2008
This review is from: Shout: The Beatles in Their Generation (Paperback)
At the time it was originally released, this was hailed, with some justification, for being the most accurate biography to date of the Beatles. However, today, no Beatles fan neeed bother with it. There are far better, more balanced books available. The primary problem with "Shout" is its lack of balance. Phillip Norman dispises Paul McCartney and never hesitates to take a cheap shot at him. In fact, when it was orginally released, Mr. Norman made the astonishingly idiotic statement that John Lennon was "80% of the Beatles." In my view, a person with that kind of mindset is incapable of writing a balanced book about the band. In a preface to the most recent edition, Norman attempts to address this criticism by admitting that he was a big John Lennon fan (while never adequately explaining why that requires him to hate McCartney)and stating that it was not his intention to belittle McCartney. But, Phil being Phil, just can't seem to help himself and then proceeds to again trash McCartney, presenting tabloid material about his marriage to Heather Mills, wondering why he has so much aminosity to Yoko (I don't know Phil, do you think that her involvment in his Japanese pot bust may have something to do with it?), and criticizing Paul for being overly defensive about his Beatles contributions (which according to Phil's math is "only" somewhere between 0 to 20 percent). At the same time, John Lennon gets a free pass, his flaws (bad father to Julian, disinterested band leader, bad friend to Paul) are rarely discussed. The bottom line is tht you should forget this book - its flaws are too numerous and its vitures no longer worthwhile. If you want to read some really good, balanced books on the Beatles, I suggest "The Beatles: 10 Years That Shook the World" or "The Rough Guide to the Beatles." They present a far more balanced, honest portrait of the band. Phil Norman's book belongs on the ash heap of history.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
12 of 13 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Some virtues, MANY faults -- there are now far better Beatles books, June 16, 2009
Philip Norman writes well; he crafts a narrative about the Beatles that reads more like a novel than a standard work of history. The early part of the book, in which he describes the Beatles' origins and early career, is quite good. But it's straight downhill, and rapidly, from those first chapters.
In an interview Norman credited John Lennon with being "80 percent of the Beatles," and this perspective prevents him from being able to understand the band's dynamics or appreciate what Paul, George, and Ringo brought to the group. All the Beatles were gifted, all were imperfect, all behaved surprisingly well at times and horribly at others. Anyone who wants to write a history of the Beatles that helps readers understand why the band was able to create such timeless music and why the group came apart needs to be able to take a balanced view of all its members. Bob Spitz's "The Beatles" is a vastly better account of the band, in terms of accuracy and objectivity (sadly, it's not as well-written), and the Beatles' own "Anthology" is a much better place to start for anyone newly interested in the band. "The Beatles: Ten Years That Shook The World" is an excellent, fair-minded, and far-ranging resource. For those who want in-depth understanding of the Beatles' music, Tim Riley's "Tell Me Why" is the best book.
"Shout!" is a third-rate book at best when compared with those just mentioned. As someone who likes some of all four of the Beatles' solo albums, it dismayed me to see Norman dismiss George and Ringo as lucky, rather than talented, and to watch him pour contempt on Paul (this last gets worse in later editions, as Norman gloats over each of Paul's missteps).
The reality is that without George's talent as a guitarist, openness to Eastern music, and later songwriting skill, the Beatles' legacy would have been greatly impoverished. As for Ringo, Tim Riley points out in "Tell Me Why" that Ringo's fills were nothing short of revolutionary, that his steadiness was a crucial underpinning to the band's inventiveness, and that he deserves credit as one of the founders of rock drumming. And John chose Paul as a songwriting partner and virtual co-leader for good reason: he recognized Paul's musical versatility and melodic ability, and knew that Paul was just as ambitious as he was. They both had outsize egos and did and said some stupid, cruel things, especially when sniping at each other after the breakup. But the Beatles are unimaginable without the push-and-pull of their close, competitive relationship, and Norman does neither of them a favor by vilifying Paul and his solo music.
Far, far better to read a book by someone who combines Norman's willingness to criticize the members of the Beatles with what he conspicuously lacks -- the ability to illuminate their music, and some compassion for all of them as flawed human beings like the rest of us.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
