List of Errors in 'The Love You Make'
Jim Richard
>I found Recording Sessions at the SF main library. I wasn't allowed to check
>it out so went back three times to get through it. Peter Brown's book, though
>listed, was missing. I read Brown's book when it came out and wanted a
>refresher as I've heard since that it had a lot of inaccuracies. Paul, for
>one, made a ceremony of burning it page by page. Don't suppose anyone feel
>like summing up the inaccuracies (or at least some of them)?--Laura
>
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Here's a list of errors I found in Peter Brown's "The Love You Make".
In fairness, I should say that many of these are nitpicks, others I'm
not sure if they really are errors (I note this in the explanations),
and still others (such as the first item) are errors that were only
made known after the book was published. If anybody knows of more serious
errors in the book, I'd like to hear about them. I don't see why this
list of errors would cause anybody to say the book should be avoided.
If you don't want to read the whole list, item 13 is the most egregious,
and item 30 is the most interesting.
1. (page 27) "they wrote over 100 songs that first year".
Since debunked.
2. (page 34) "Paul introduced George to the band in the winter of 1959."
I believe February 1958 is the estimated time.
3. (page 41) "It seemed one of their ever changing band members hadn't
shown up one night, and Mrs. Best had docked his fifteen shilling salary
from their pay. The Beatles stormed out of the [Casbah] club..."
Actually, Mrs. Best paid Ken Brown even though he was sick and couldn't
play. The other Quarrymen felt they should have received his pay.
4. (page 42) "In the end it turned out they stayed [in Hamburg] for over
five months."
The trip was from mid-August to early December, or 3.5 months.
5. (page 49) "It was a few nights before Christmas. . .The audience in the
Casbah was thunderstruck; a remarkable transformation had occurred in
Hamburg."
The concert at Litherland Hall, a few days after Christmas is where
the transformed Beatles first wowed northern England.
6. (page 58) "Although she [Queenie Epstein] would love her second child,
Clive, born 21 months later, he never held for her the same fascination
as Brian."
But on page 63 of Brown's book, "I was actually a friend of his
older brother Clive."
7. (page 75) "The [Star] club alternated music with sex shows and lady
mud wrestlers."
I thought they worked in former sex clubs.
8. (page 76) "One night he [John Lennon] walked on stage naked with a toilet
seat around his neck..."
He had a bathing suit on according to Coleman.
9. (page 87) "None of the Beatles could read or write music, although Paul
was later to teach himself."
Paul learned how to read music when he wrote the Liverpool Oratorio,
several years after this book was published. At least that what
newspaper accounts said when the Oratorio was released, though I've
since heard that he still doesn't know how to read music.
10. (page 89) "and in one 53 hour recording session laid down . . . 'Please
Please Me'"
According to Dowdling, "various accounts report the session as lasting
from 9.75 to 16 hours - but it probably took about 13."
11. (page 91) "'Do You Want to Know a Secret?' It was a line John remembered
that Jimmy Cricket asks Pinocchio."
The line was probably from 'Wishing Well' in 'Snow White and the
Seven Dwarfs'.
12. (page 108) "The only glimpse of them had been on a few seconds' worth
of footage on Jack Paar's NBC series, 'Prime Time'."
I believe they had appeared on CBS news in November, a month earlier.
13. (page 113) "Years later, when Cynthia wrote about her marriage in her
heavily self-censored autobiography, 'A Twist of Lennon', she changed
the date of her marriage to 1962. This inaccuracy has been noted many
times in Beatle biographies. Recently, Cynthia confessed it was an
inadvertant mistake; she has mental block against admitting Julian
was conceived out of wedlock and often still confuses the date."
But on page 81, Brown himself reports that the marriage took place
in August 1962, which is when the wedding did, in fact, take place.
Cynthia's autobiography, which is heavily self-censored, is very
upfront that she was pregnant when she was married and that she
thinks John wouldn't have married her otherwise.
15. (page 134) "Seven months later, when the Beatles assembled to make the
movie [A Hard Day's Night], they were international stars and could
have demanded to renegotiate their contracts. But Brian, ever the
gentleman, had given his word, and financial matters proceeded as
planned."
Brown is saying the Beatles received the original 7.5% share that
Brian negotiated, but, according to "Shout, the rate was renegotiated
upwards.
16. (page 165) "He [John Lennon] was married to a woman he probably never
loved."
It's clear from Cynthia's account and from the lover letters he wrote
to her, that this is not true.
17. (page 167) "After that [a single 20 minute meeting with John] Freddie
[John's long lost father] drifted back into obscurity."
John and Freddie had a intermittent relationship between 1964 and 1970.
On John's birthday in 1970 John lashed out at his father when he came
to visit. At the time, John was reliving childhood traumas in primal
therapy sessions with Arthur Janov. John never met his father again,
but John spoke with his father on his deathbed, and apologized for his
verbal attack.
18. (page 182) "Paul, George, and Ringo were thrilled at this great honor,
but not John Lennon. He hated the idea of receiving an MBE."
Not according to Pete Shotton.
19. (page 183) "The Beatles giggled their way through the elaborate
rehearsal and [MBE] ceremony. . . high on grass."
The surviving Beatles denied this in the Anthology interviews.
20. (page 189) "Later, the Beatles and Elvis jammed."
Also denied by the three surviving Beatles in Anthology.
21. (page 194) "In literal terms, Brian signed over to Dick James 50% of
Lennon-McCartney's publishing for *nothing*."
According to 'Shout', song-writers always give a percentage to their
publisher, and James' deal was very generous.
22. (page 229) "When she [Yoko] was 23, much to her parents' distress,
she eloped with a penniless Japanese composer and pianist named
Toschi Ichiyananagi, and her mother promptly cut her off without
a penny. It was years before they spoke again."
From what I remember of Hopkin's biography of Yoko, I think this
is exaggerated.
23. (page 283) "The Beatles were joined at the ashram by . . . Mia Farrow,
her sister Tia. . ."
It was her sister, Prudence, not Dear Tia.
24. (page 302) "They [John and Yoko] lay in the basement of Montague Square
almost all July that simmering summer, submerged in a self-inflicted
[heroin] stupor."
July doesn't sound right, since there were recording sessions for the
White album that month.
25. (page 303) "In fact, when Paul first played 'Hey Jude' for John in the
studio without telling him he had written the song for Julian, John
mistakenly thought that Paul was writing about the end of his romance
with Jane."
In the Playboy interviews, John said he thought the song was about
his budding relationship with Yoko. Both accounts may be correct.
26. (page 315) "It was Paul's idea to have each [White] album individually
numbered, like fine lithographs."
Paul's intention was to hold a lottery, but he was talked out of the
idea.
27. (page 326) [When George quit the group in January 1969] "But when they
[the Beatles] had a business meeting a few days later, George showed
up with the rest of them as if nothing had happened."
George insisted on cancelling the planned concert in front of a live
audience.
28. (page 354) "He [Paul] played the drum part [on 'The Ballad of John
and Yoko'], the only instrument John could not play himself."
According to Dowdling, Paul also played bass, piano and maracas.
29. (page 357) [After John drove his car into a ditch with Yoko, Julian
and Kyoko as passengers] "John was the most serverely gashed and
received seventeen stitches."
Other accounts say John lept for joy that he had escaped alive. Both
accounts may be true.
30. (page 376) "Inside the [McCartney] album package was an interview
Paul had done with himself, making up the questions as well as the
answers. It was self-serving, vain, and painted him in the poorest
light."
According to 'Many Years From Now', it was Peter Brown who wrote
the interview questions!!! I wonder who's telling the truth on this
one.
31. (page 392) "In his [George's autobiographical] reminiscence of his
days with the Beatles, he omits all reference to John Lennon, as
if he never existed."
All though John did accuse George of doing this, reportedly the
accusation was unfair and the autobiography does mention John
several times.
32. (page 400) "They [Paul, Linda and Denny Laine] would record far into
the night [for the 'Band on the Run' sessions], just the three of
them, with the occasional help of an African drummer Paul hired for
a few sessions."
I've always heard that Paul did all the drumming on 'Band on the Run'.
33. (page 401) 'Band on the Run' sold six million copies, the highest
amount of any ex-Beatle and an amount equaling the group's biggest
success, 'Let It Be'."
I thought 'Abbey Road' or 'The White Album' was the top seller.
I doubt 'Let It Be' was.
34. (page 431) "Playboy asked them [John and Yoko] to be the interview of
their big [1980] Christmas issue."
John and Yoko approached Playboy and needed a special exception to
get the interview published in just three months instead of the usual
six months.
35. (page 437) "A few months after John's death she [Yoko] began an unlikely
friendship with a young man named Sam Habitoy, a sometimes antique
dealer and interior decorator."
His name is Sam Havadtoy.
Here's one more item which I'd like to know if anybody knows anything about.
It regards Stuart Sutcliffe's death. A nurse has posted to r.m.b. (it's on
the Web at http://www.rockmine.music.co.uk/Reaper/StuPM.html) an explanation
of why Stuart's death could not have been caused by a blow to his head. In
this explanation, she dismisses the possibility that Stuart had had a brain
tumor because none was reported in his autopsy. But according to Peter
Brown, evidence of a small tumor was found two years after his death:
(page 75) "It wasn't until two years after his death that a probable
cause was discovered. Stu's mother, Millie, donated his body to
scientific research. In examining the exposed skull and brain, pathologists
discovered a small tumor previously invisible in the X-rays. It was
caused by a small traumatic depression in the skull, probably the result
of a good, hard kick to the head by a Teddy Boy's steel-tipped shoe.
Does anyone know if such scientific research took place, or whether a
kick to the head can cause a tumor?
Jim
--
All follow-ups are directed to the newsgroup rec.music.beatles.moderated.
If your follow-up more properly belongs in the unmoderated newsgroup, please
change your headers appropriately. -- the moderators
Charlie Reinhart
wrote:
>33. (page 401) 'Band on the Run' sold six million copies, the highest
> amount of any ex-Beatle and an amount equaling the group's biggest
> success, 'Let It Be'."
>
> I thought 'Abbey Road' or 'The White Album' was the top seller.
> I doubt 'Let It Be' was.
I do remember in the 70's seeing "Let It Be" in the discount bin with
the corner cut off. It was $1.99. Do these count? I doubt that a
top selling album would have ended up in the cut-out bin. My memory
tells me that the LIB was not well received by the public or critics.
Two of the more popular songs had long since been released as singles.
I think it only sold well to those of us who want/need/must have
everything.
Charlie Reinhart
dots...@my-dejanews.com
jim...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Jim Richard) wrote:
Hi Jim, excellent post. There's just a few things I may have to contest you on
:-).....
> 19. (page 183) "The Beatles giggled their way through the elaborate
> rehearsal and [MBE] ceremony. . . high on grass."
>
> The surviving Beatles denied this in the Anthology interviews.
I seem to remember that first we hear (on the Anthology) an interview from
John talking about how high they were from pot, then George says "Oh yeah,
well we might have just been having a cigarette and as years went on it
turned into a reefer." And then they cut to Ringo saying "I was too stoned to
remember." Hmmm....maybe we'll never know the real answer! They were probably
"too stoned to remember" in general! heehee
> 20. (page 189) "Later, the Beatles and Elvis jammed."
>
> Also denied by the three surviving Beatles in Anthology.
But they do say that John jammed with Elvis, right?
> 30. (page 376) "Inside the [McCartney] album package was an interview
> Paul had done with himself, making up the questions as well as the
> answers. It was self-serving, vain, and painted him in the poorest
> light."
>
> According to 'Many Years From Now', it was Peter Brown who wrote
> the interview questions!!! I wonder who's telling the truth on this
> one.
HA! Good one!
> 31. (page 392) "In his [George's autobiographical] reminiscence of his
> days with the Beatles, he omits all reference to John Lennon, as
> if he never existed."
>
> All though John did accuse George of doing this, reportedly the
> accusation was unfair and the autobiography does mention John
> several times.
I think Brown missed the fact that John was hurt because he felt George did
not seem to acknowledge the fact that he was such an influence and a big help
to his budding songwriting talent in the early years. Brown just spoke in
general terms. It was put rather shoddily ..."omits all reference"?.
Seriously doubt that (haven't read I Me Mine yet).
Well, that's my two cents...sorry I don't have any direct quotes- no
references with me! Just goofing off at work!
Peace,
TC
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
--
Jud McCranie
>28. (page 354) "He [Paul] played the drum part [on 'The Ballad of John
> and Yoko'], the only instrument John could not play himself."
>
> According to Dowdling, Paul also played bass, piano and maracas.
I think you misunderstood his meaning. John could have played the
other instruments (other than drums), although he didn't on this
record.
Jud McCranie
Lizz Holmans
>
>Does anyone know if such scientific research took place, or whether a
>kick to the head can cause a tumor?
The nurse in question was either Livnletdie or me--probably the former,
although we both agreed. Here's the lowdown:
A blow to the head cannot cause a brain tumour.
Stu's symptoms (long-standing complaint of headaches, finally severe
headache, sickness, prostration and finally death) support the idea that
Stu either had an aneurysm (a weakness in the wall of a blood vessel,
which one is usually born with) or an arterio-venal malformation (a bad
junction between an artery and a vein that one is born with). A slow
leak with either condition will cause these symptoms, and will take some
time to kill its victim. I lean toward the a-v malformation, she
preferred the aneurysm explanation, but since both conditions end up the
same way it's really academic.
I have never seen any documentation of an autopsy, but one may have been
done since the death was a young man who had been healthy. Brain tumours
come in all shapes and sizes and degrees of malignancy--even a 'benign'
brain tumour can cause death by simple mechanical compression within the
skull--but they are all easily found on autopsy.
What Stu *didn't* die of was injury from a fight--not a fight with John
Lennon, which Goldman insists and no one else remembers happening, or
with a stranger. The type of brain injury caused by a blow to the head
would probably be a hematoma of some sort--subdural, between the pia
mater and the skull,or intradural--and would have caused symptoms and
death *much* faster than is possible with Stu's death. These are
emergency situations; they don't bake for years while one conducts one's
life normally.
Lizz Holmans, R.N.
--
Visit http://www.urbanlegends.com
Bob Gill
>
> 25. (page 303) "In fact, when Paul first played 'Hey Jude' for John in the
> studio without telling him he had written the song for Julian, John
> mistakenly thought that Paul was writing about the end of his romance
> with Jane."
>
> In the Playboy interviews, John said he thought the song was about
> his budding relationship with Yoko. Both accounts may be correct.
>
In the 1970 Rolling Stone interview, he said that when he first heard the
song, he said, "That's me!" But Paul said, "No, it's me." Which John
accepted, because, as he said, they were both going through a similar phase
at the time.
By the way, I don't think Hey Jude was written for Julian at all. As I
understand it, Paul just started humming a tune that started with "Hey Jules"
as he was driving down for a visit, while thinking of the little kid.
Obviously the first lines "don't make it bad; take a sad song and make it
better" could apply to Julian (or many, many other people), and probably to
that point he was thinking of Julian, but from that point it becomes a much
more adult song. I don't know if I've explained that right, but what I mean
is that Paul was thinking of Julian when he got the idea of the song, but as
he developed it he turned to his own situation for inspiration.
-- Bob G.
Charles Hawtrey
wrote:
>Here's a list of errors I found in Peter Brown's "The Love You Make".
Good post. Brings to mind a pet project I've never gotten around to,
which is to list all the errors I can find in Davies' "Authorized
Biography" -- a list that would be much longer!
>In fairness, I should say that many of these are nitpicks, others I'm
>If you don't want to read the whole list, item 13 is the most egregious,
>and item 30 is the most interesting.
>
>30. (page 376) "Inside the [McCartney] album package was an interview
> Paul had done with himself, making up the questions as well as the
> answers. It was self-serving, vain, and painted him in the poorest
> light."
>
> According to 'Many Years From Now', it was Peter Brown who wrote
> the interview questions!!! I wonder who's telling the truth on this
> one.
Interestingly there's a passage in Richard DiLello's "The Longest
Cocktail Party" that is consistent with this. An unattributed
exchange of quotes (perhaps DiLello and Derek Taylor) goes like this:
"How the f--- did Fleet Street find out what Paul McCartney said in
that interview, anyway? ...I thought we were the only ones who knew
what was in it."
"Well we were."
"How did it come about in the first place?"
" Well, every journalist in town from Kenneth Tynan to the musical
rags has kept up the barrage of requests for an interview with him,
but he keeps saying no. And then he says, 'All right, do this. Have
Derek and Peter and Mavis draw up a list of questions like a straight
interview, and then I'll fill them in and we'll release it with the
review albums...'"
There's a small discrepancy in that DiLello says Derek Taylor and
Mavis Smith made up the questions along with Peter Brown. But the two
sources are consistent on the main point, which is that Paul responded
to a provided list of questions rather than making up both the
questions and answers. It remains possible, in fact probable, that
Paul slipped in a few questions of his own (e.g., "Is it true that
neither Allen Klein nor Abkco have nor will be in any way
involved...")
Jim Richard
<dots...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>
>> 19. (page 183) "The Beatles giggled their way through the elaborate
>> rehearsal and [MBE] ceremony. . . high on grass."
>>
>> The surviving Beatles denied this in the Anthology interviews.
>
>John talking about how high they were from pot, then George says "Oh yeah,
>well we might have just been having a cigarette and as years went on it
>turned into a reefer." And then they cut to Ringo saying "I was too stoned to
>remember." Hmmm....maybe we'll never know the real answer! They were probably
>"too stoned to remember" in general! heehee
To me, it sounded like Ringo was just making an easy joke. But I wouldn't
be surprised if they were stoned.
>
>> 20. (page 189) "Later, the Beatles and Elvis jammed."
>>
>> Also denied by the three surviving Beatles in Anthology.
>
>But they do say that John jammed with Elvis, right?
I took the "Maybe John jammed jammed with Elvis" comment to be a sarcastic
joke.
Diana has posted an impressive list of people who do say there was a jam
(John, Neil Aspinall, Tony Bramwell (?) and Marty Lacker, an Elvis
bodyguard).
Cathy D888
>
>20. (page 189) "Later, the Beatles and Elvis jammed."
>
> Also denied by the three surviving Beatles in Anthology.
People who were at the meeting, such as Marty Lacker, say the jam did take
place.
>21. (page 194) "In literal terms, Brian signed over to Dick James 50% of
> Lennon-McCartney's publishing for *nothing*."
>
> According to 'Shout', song-writers always give a percentage to their
> publisher, and James' deal was very generous.
Dick James gave them a percentage of the publishing royalties. This was unusal
at the time as the songwriter/publisher split was usually 50/50. If I recall
correctly John and Paul received 20% of the publishing royalties. (That's 20%
of the publisher's usual 50%) Effectively John and Paul received 60% of the
total royalties and Dick James received 40%.
la...@lstoll.com
> What Stu *didn't* die of was injury from a fight--not a fight with John
> Lennon, which Goldman insists and no one else remembers happening, or
> with a stranger. The type of brain injury caused by a blow to the head
> would probably be a hematoma of some sort--subdural, between the pia
> mater and the skull,or intradural--and would have caused symptoms and
> death *much* faster than is possible with Stu's death. These are
> emergency situations; they don't bake for years while one conducts one's
> life normally.
>
> Lizz Holmans, R.N.
Lizz, thanks for this assessment. As for the Goldman version (haven't read the
book), geez -- did he have anything good to say about J? I've read in several
other places that there was a brain injury from a fight, but it was always a
fight in which J came to Stu's aid. -Laura
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
--
RasMaster
In article <3671f46a...@news.truserve.com>, chaw...@yahoo.com (Charles
Hawtrey) writes:
>>Here's a list of errors I found in Peter Brown's "The Love You Make".
>
>Good post. Brings to mind a pet project I've never gotten around to,
>which is to list all the errors I can find in Davies' "Authorized
>Biography" -- a list that would be much longer!
>
I think the biggest problem with Brown's book is that he promotes it as
an insider's story and focuses on all the exclusive information. Yet
he gets easily confirmed factual information wrong. Although they
weren't on this list, there were also errors related to dates of release,
critical reaction and popular success (i.e. chart peaks) of certain
records........
Bob Purse
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Ye and me might disagree, but we needent go to shootin' again" -
Pete Seeger, 1973
Lizz Holmans
>
>Lizz, thanks for this assessment. As for the Goldman version (haven't read the
>book), geez -- did he have anything good to say about J? I've read in several
>other places that there was a brain injury from a fight, but it was always a
>fight in which J came to Stu's aid. -Laura
When I read Goldman's book, I was amazed at the number of things he got
wrong. I don't trust it for a second about anything. Alan Kozin did a
significant analysis of the flaws in Goldman's book; I recommend you
look for it in Deja News, or at one of the more reputable web sites.
There were probably some fights that various members of the Beatles were
involved with at various times. It is difficult to document *one* fight
that Stu was in wherein he *might* have suffered a head injury. It is
impossible to trace a line between some speculated head injury and Stu's
very real symtoms and death.
While I wasn't there and therefore cannot tell thee anything definitely,
the evidence available does not support head injury as a cause of Stu's
death. The aneurysm/A-VM explanation is the best one right now.
As far as other sources claiming a fight causing Stu's death, I always
attributed it to the common fallacy of researchers to go to a source and
accept it without further research. If one person claims it, it's very
easy to accept this claim and think no more about it; thus it gets
reprinted in other material.
Lizz 'I like print material--especially the kind with the little duckies
' Holmans
--
Visit http://www.urbanlegends.com
Bearman
Jim Richard wrote in message <74qaq2$l...@elaine0.Stanford.EDU>...
>32. (page 400) "They [Paul, Linda and Denny Laine] would record far into
> the night [for the 'Band on the Run' sessions], just the three of
> them, with the occasional help of an African drummer Paul hired for
> a few sessions."
> I've always heard that Paul did all the drumming on 'Band on the Run'.
Ah yes! Did Paul do all the drumming on BOTR ? Consider the following:
a) An hour or so before they are due to fly out to Lagos, Denny Seiwell,
Wings drummer rings to say he doesn't want tot go.
b) NME reports on 15th Sep 73 that Macca had been accused of "exploiting"
African music and included this line : "Reports suggest that there's been
considerable friction between McCartney and the NIGERIAN MUSICIANS ON THE
SESSION. And Fela Ransome-Kuti former Ginger Baker associate apparently told
McCartney it was his 'patriotic duty' to stop foreigners stealing African
culture".
b) In the 27th October 1973 edition of Sounds, Linda told Julie Webb how
they met Ginger, and also Fela and how Fela came down to the studio with a
lot of heavies making his accusations."
c) In an interview published in the 1st Dec 1973 edition of Melody Maker,
Paul stated that the album
"..was influenced by Africa just because of the atmosphere rather than the
music...." and that "There was just the three of us, on the album, except
for the orchestral overdubs which we didn't play....One guy ..who is from
Lagos ironically turned up in London for a loon and we got him on one track
PLAYING PERCUSSION".
d) In the above interview, Paul neglects to mention the beautiful sax
solo which was recorded in Studio One of Air Studios,Oxford Street in
October. In fact the album not only does not credit any other musicians, it
only lists 2 studios (both EMI, Lagos & London) although parts were recorded
in Air Studios and part in Ginger Baker's /ARC studio.
e) Ginger Baker and some Nigerians also play on the album. Paul later
told Paul Gambaccini "So Ginger , he helped on a few things of it. At the
end , where we go 'Ho, Hey Ho'. We did the cutting up there. Then we got
Ginger and a couple of people from around the studio and we got tin cans
and filled them with gravel from outside the studio and used them as
shakers..so at the end you hear this Shh Shh and that's GINGER AND A BIG MOB
OF US going 'Shh Shh'..."
It has been suggested that Paul, Denny and Linda did use local musicians but
upon the threats by Fela, re-recorded the drum track in Air Studios...in
fact in the Julie Webb article mentioned above, where she visits them in Air
Studios, she (JW) says : "Behind the glass they sit, or stand or
whatever.Can't for the life of me see them. But a slow steady drumbeat is
evidence that someone is kicking in the other room".
Why are no musicians (other than the three Wings members) listed on the
album when even by Paul's own admission, other musicians were used? Why did
none of the photos of P&L with Ginger Baker included on the poster, although
a couple of these were later issued by MPL?
Perhaps Peter Brown and Steven Gaines are right when they say on page 400 of
their book (in the US version, page 357 of the UK version) that an African
drummer was present. We'll have to give them the benefit of doubt on this
one. Perhaps one day the whole story will come out.
Smile Away :o)
Bearman
saki
>
>In article <3671f46a...@news.truserve.com>, chaw...@yahoo.com (Charles
>Hawtrey) writes:
>
>>>Here's a list of errors I found in Peter Brown's "The Love You Make".
>>
>>Good post. Brings to mind a pet project I've never gotten around to,
>>which is to list all the errors I can find in Davies' "Authorized
>>Biography" -- a list that would be much longer!
I have to politely disagree with you there. Brown's and Gaines' book was
much more fraught with errors. What Davies suffered from was being unable
to publish the book he wanted---and that the Beatles originally said they
wanted. There *are* errors in Davies, of course, but I just don't recall
anything like the quantity of them seen in "The Love You Make".
When it came down to editing proofs, the Fabs suddenly became shy about
their authorized biographer revealing certain elements of their private
lives. Even John's Aunt Mimi got into it and refuted some of John's own
recollections. :-)
What Davies' book would benefit from, IMHO, is to have one of the modern
scholars, like Mr. Kozinn or Mr. Lewisohn, go over it with a fine-tooth
comb and annotate the hell out of it. :-) We lovers of footnotes would go
crazy for such a thing!
--
------------------------------------
"Forces' sweetheart, I'm your twin."
------------------------------------
sa...@evolution.bchs.uh.edu
Michael Barrett
(saki) wrote:
>
> I have to politely disagree with you there. Brown's and Gaines' book was
> much more fraught with errors. What Davies suffered from was being unable
> to publish the book he wanted---and that the Beatles originally said they
> wanted. There *are* errors in Davies, of course, but I just don't recall
> anything like the quantity of them seen in "The Love You Make".
>
That may be so, but two errors I recall from Davies (first edition) were
whoppers. He misidentified George's birth year as 1944, and Paul's first
name as John. Perhaps it's an issue of error quality vs. error quantity.
:)
--
baritone
Charles Hawtrey
>In article <19981212174621...@ngol02.aol.com> rasm...@aol.com (RasMaster) writes:
>>
>>In article <3671f46a...@news.truserve.com>, chaw...@yahoo.com (Charles
>>Hawtrey) writes:
>>
>>>>Here's a list of errors I found in Peter Brown's "The Love You Make".
>>>
>>>Good post. Brings to mind a pet project I've never gotten around to,
>>>which is to list all the errors I can find in Davies' "Authorized
>>>Biography" -- a list that would be much longer!
>
>I have to politely disagree with you there. Brown's and Gaines' book was
>much more fraught with errors. What Davies suffered from was being unable
>to publish the book he wanted---and that the Beatles originally said they
>wanted. There *are* errors in Davies, of course, but I just don't recall
>anything like the quantity of them seen in "The Love You Make".
I use "errors" in a broad sense to mean anything that isn't factually
correct. The book's pervasive self-censorship certainly is a handicap
in this regard, as you point out. But Davies also makes plenty of
dumb little oversights, like getting Paul's name wrong. Also he
apparently didn't go out of his way to verify facts, but in most cases
simply reported what he was told.
I do think there is a tendency for us to hold the more critical books
like TLYM and Goldman to a higher standard than more sympathetic
portraits. Don't get me wrong -- I detest Goldman as much as any
other right-thinking person -- but we have to admit that sometimes the
nice guys make mistakes, too.
>What Davies' book would benefit from, IMHO, is to have one of the modern
>scholars, like Mr. Kozinn or Mr. Lewisohn, go over it with a fine-tooth
>comb and annotate the hell out of it. :-) We lovers of footnotes would go
>crazy for such a thing!
Well saki, you're as much a Beatles scholar as any of us, so we're
waiting... :-)