DeputyDave

I’ve been a huge fan of the Beatles since I was 11 years old (ironically the first album I ever bought with my own money was Sgt. Pepper, a couple of months before John Lennon died). I’ve owned every album or CD and simply loved them for their music. It wasn’t until last week when I got finished watching the Anthology on DVD that I really wanted to learn more about the Beatles as real people.

I bit the bullet and ordered the huge Anthology book, which I know is considered by most to be the most complete history available. While reading the reviews on Amazon several people complained it was too sugar coated and that Paul was “re-writing history” to make himself seem like the true creative genius behind the band, minimizing Lennon (I didn’t see this at all during the 10 hour documentary). Some of these reviewers pointed at “Shout” and “The Love You Make” as better representations of the truth.

So the question is: can any of you true Beatles fans recommend some books? Can anyone point me away from books to avoid?

Michael Parks

The Anthology book is slightly sugar coated, but I never got the impression that Paul was trying to re-write history. People say it's the best book out for a reason. I can't imagine anybody being disappointed in it. I thought it was much, much more interesting than the Anthology documentary, personally.

"Shout," of course, is great. Covers a lot of stuff that the Anthology book doesn't. Definitely worth a purchase.

Another book I liked quite a bit was "A Hard Day's Write," which deals with the songs, specifically. I'm always amazed at how many Beatles' books don't get into the music at all. That was a huge problem I had with the Anthology series, too. Ian MacDonald's "Revolution in the Head" is even better, but it's absolutely impossible to find.

"Lennon: The Definitive Biography" is an absolute must-read, if you're even remotely interested in Lennon.

DeputyDave

Thanks, I'll try both "A Hard Days Write" and "Lennon", "Revolution" was reccomended as well, but I couldn't find it in print. What exactly does "Revolution in the Head" cover? and what do you think about "The Love You Make"? Sleazy gossip or do people take it seriously?

Michael Parks

Sorry, I haven't read "The Love You Make," so I can't comment on it.

Where "A Hard Day's Write" covers the stories behind the songs, "Revolution" delves into how the actual music was made, and what took place in the studio. I found it to be absolutely fascinating, personally. Definitely worth tracking down. You might want to check Ebay.

The Antipodean

I really like "The Love You Make," it's my fave Beatles biography -- it's a little out of date with George's death, etc. but it's an "insider" view that wasn't too scandal-mongering. I like "Beatles Anthology" quite a lot, it's a beautiful looking book, but I've never loved oral history that much so "Love You Make" is more informative IMHO. I haven't read "Shout."

Now if you want sleazy gossip there's always "The Lives Of John Lennon" by Albert Goldman, that's as sleazy as they come -- of course, I took it with a great deal of salt when I read it years ago. It was a decent read, I'll have to admit, but probably mostly fiction.

The Antipodean

Also in terms of the songs, I like "Tell Me Why" although some critics think it's anti George Harrison, but I enjoyed the song-by-song, album by album look it offered.

Buttmunker

There are many books available on the band The Beatles, but I don't want to pick one that really isn't as good as, say, another one.

Which is the definitive book covering the story of the Beatles?

Nefarious

http://www.amazon.com/Beatles-Anthol...4292693&sr=8-5

Oliver Clothesoff

The Anthology book is good. I'd also recommend Bob Spitz's biography (which came out in paperback recently). It's pretty thorough... almost exhaustingly so.

benedict

I think the two my brother has are often regarded as among the best. Not sure whether or not that also means definitive.

1) Revolution in the Head by Ian MacDonald which looks primarily at the music. I think a reprint is coming this September.

2) The Beatles by Hunter Davies which was well-researched a 1967 biography written with co-operation from the Beatles.

M Riesenbeck

If you're interested in a song-by-song analysis, I suggest
The Playboy Interviews with John Lennon and Yoko Ono . I suspect the book is out of print, but you may have good luck at used bookstores or auction sites. The book only provides John's take on the writing of the songs, but his is an interesting take. David Sheff walks Lennon through a good bulk of Beatles songs as well his solo work.

If you want background on George's work, his autobiography I, Me, Mine has a section devoted specifically to information on his compositions.

The Antipodean

The recent book just called "The Beatles" by Spitz is a very good all-in-one biography, I learned a lot of things I hadn't seen covered in other books. Particularly excellent coverage of the pre-Beatlemania years. Only thing I didn't like is that it *just* covers the Beatles years, not the solo careers after. But other that that, excellent.

wendersfan

I haven't read the Spitz book but I understand it's great. Traditionally, Shout is the definitive band bio, but it may have been superseded by Spitz's work. Right now I'm reading Geoff Emerick's Here, There, and Everywhere, which is wonderful but not a band bio.

Turd Ferguson

That's funny- I just finished it last night. Great book. I definitely got the feeling he felt George Martin was a bit of a glory hog.

obscurelabel

Going back to the thread title, I will recommend two books by Mark Lewisohn:

The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions: The Official Story of the Abbey Road years
Fascinatingly detailed account of every day that the Beatles spent in a recording studio (not just Abbey Road). It also details what the Beatles were doing outside the studio on those days, so it also works as a kind of diary. Since they recorded so much, it seems that there is never more than a couple of month gap when they were out of the studio.

The Beatles' London
Purports to document every location in London (and environs) where anything significant happened to the Beatles. A bit depressing in that many of the places have sine been completely razed or turned into private, gated enclaves where pedestrians aren't welcome.

These both may be out of print but the Recording Sessions especially is worth seeking out IMO.

InnocentBlood

i was about to recommend Shout! also. The same author also wrote another good book about the Stones.

wendersfan

And Buddy Holly.

Buttmunker

He may not have been trying to re-write history, but if I were George Harrison, I'd have been pissed over the TV documentary - as soon as you got to a part where Harrison would go into a solo (All My Loving), it would cut to a modern McCartney interview.

As far as the mammoth book is concerned, it wouldn't even fit in my book shelf. They really need to shrink it in order for me to consider it.

I picked up the Lennon/Ono Playboy Interviews, and The Spitz book (which I'm currently reading - I'm still in "childhood" phase; he discussed Lennon and McCartney, I'm currently in McCartney, and I wonder if he spends as much time discussing Harrison and Starkey's childhoods).

I also, as a blind-buy, picked up the Cynthia Lennon memoir about "John," which I will read after.

Buttmunker

Looks like this is going to be re-released in September:

http://www.amazon.com/Revolution-Hea...5307855&sr=1-1

Nesbit

Like 10,000 spoons when all you need is a knife?

Buttmunker

I'm reading and enjoying this book immensely. However, I find it to be very anti-George Harrison and quite pro-Paul McCartney. The thing is, Geoff Emerick makes no secret to being "tight" with McCartney, and being "on the outs" with Harrison. The way Emerick portrays Harrison in the book is like an incompetent, unworthy of being a Beatle. Many times, he says Harrison's solos were so bad that McCartney had to go in and do it for him. With a lead guitarist like Harrison, why didn't they fire him and get someone in who could do the job with the same amount of competency as McCartney or Lennon? Or save costs and have McCartney do both lead and bass guitars, considering that by 1966 they quit touring.

But the thing is, I don't believe Harrison was as bad as Emerick makes him out to be. Before reading this book, I used to think Harrison was an essential ingredient in Beatles music, mainly because I loved the guitar solos. I don't think reading Emerick's book will change that, mainly because I'm taking what he's saying about Harrison with a grain of salt. Harrison isn't here to defend himself, is he? Same thing with Lennon - many times in the book he said that McCartney was definitely the leader of the Beatles.

Good book, despite the biased slant. I love the details he provides for each album and song he was involved with. Funny thing, though. If Emerick was so a part of the Beatles legacy, how come he wasn't included in the "Anthology" TV show?