Fab: An Intimate Life of Paul McCartney ---> my book review

http://rnrchemist.blogspot.com/2014/08/book-review-fab-intimate-life-of-paul.html

Not a perfect book, but damn good and probably the best I've read on him as an overall biography of his life. Some things about it annoyed me and there were some inaccuracies, but overall it was quite good.

Anyone here read it? Thoughts?

 

I just got Man on the Run by Tom Doyle. Its better than Fab by a longshot. It does a nice job tracking John and Paul's relations in the 70s and also does a nice job hitting the high points on the formation of Wings, why things ended up happening the way they did.

Fab has one section I like - the Press To Play era stuff - sounds like the author got some good scoop from someone in that era (Eric?)

Actually - for a 1-2 punch, Man on the Run for the 70s and Fab for the 80s you get a fairly complEAt picture.

Some Man on the Run observations-
that Paul is quite eccentric and shy, but does a good job of hiding it in public
how essential Linda was to Wings
Yes, Wings were embarrassed by Mary Had a Little Lamb
Nice section on the university tour by early Wings
You get a good sense of who each member of Wings is personality-wise
Joe English had a heroin problem and fought it throughout Wings, its one reason he left

 

My review? Or jgkojak's? I think he and I both agree, it's an excellent book. My review to Man On the Run is linked in the Fab review above.

I agree that Man On the Run is a better book, mainly because it focuses only on one decade, and also had direct input from Paul. I enjoyed Fab...it certainly wasn't the best bio I've read but I think it did its job adequately. One thing I didn't mention in the review but which I grew tired of was Sounes' continuous carping on Paul's lyric writing...while we can all agree he wasn't as strong a wordsmith as Lennon, I also don't think he's as bad as Sounes kept going on about (although he did give credit where it was due for certain songs that *DO* have excellent lyrics)

 

Yes...Re: Press to Play era, I thought Hugh Padgham's recollections were fascinating.

 

I got this as a present when it came out and enjoyed reading it at the time. Well written and since it goes much deeper than just his music a lot of it was new to me. I also like it when authors aren't afraid to criticize things in biographies. Since I'm not really a die hard fan I can't tell how accurate all the information is, but I'd recommend this to anybody interested in McCartney's music.

 

I've been eyeing this book as well, doesn't look like the library is getting it, so may have to buy it. If I do, I'll get the UK version that came out first - it has more pages <304 vs. 288, although that could be the size of the print>according to Amazon and I like the cover shot/artwork a lot better.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Man-Run-Pau...swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&sr=1-3&qid=1408546636

 

I thought Fab was a dull, badly written book quickly put together by a former tabloid hack who had no actual interest in Paul as an artist, but was more intrigued by his money, sex life, and pot smoking. Lots of rehashed gossip. It's a seriously feeble book and I didn't come away from it with any understanding of Paul as a person or his music. As a biographer, you should at least respect the subject you're writing about. This guy doesn't have any interest at all in Paul's music. He doesn't seem to even like Paul's best work, and is dismissive of even his best Beatles songs. It's bizarre and tells me the guy only wrote this book to cash in on a Beatle, not because he had any real intellectual interest in Paul as an artist or in Paul's music. Gees, the book doesn't even mention Paul's bass playing at all (???). Further, the guy is totally misogynistic and prudish in his treatment of Linda, slut-shaming her for being a woman who (heavens!) enjoyed sex.

I can't believe anyone thought this was a good book. And I'm not sure we need another Macca thread, let alone one about this crappy book.

 

I'd read some of the Padgham stuff in backbeat's Paul McCartney Recording Sessions book, but I agree there were some new bits in this one, too.

Fair enough, and I do agree with you that there was a lot less focus on the music than the other aspects...on the other hand, the music has been written about so much, and so much better, but so many others that in a way I'm glad Sounes didn't get into it. I also agree with you (and I mentioned in the review) that his opinions on much of the music is quite bizarre...he slags things like Band On the Run, "Hi Hi Hi," "Junior's Farm," and Tug of War, but praises the hell out of "Maxwell's Silver Hammer"...to each their own, but he's flying in the face of the majority on many of them! He did also peddle the "Linda was a groupie" thing far too much, but on balance he did go out of his way to point out that everyone who knew Linda, whether he spoke to them for the book or not, had nothing but praise for her. So it's filled with contradictions, sure, but as a stand-alone bio of Paul's life in total, I unfortunately haven't found better (yet)

 

I have the UK edition, and that's the one I reviewed. I agree, the cover is cooler but I don't think the page length is to do with anything not being included, rather just the print size and subsequent page count.

 

I enjoy your reviews DrBeatle, thanks for your effort.

 

Thanks, forthlin!

Have you read this book? Thoughts if so?

 

Especially Yes, I would assume.

 

I have not. I began buying Beatles books in 1964 and bought basically every single book I could lay my hands on until about 5 years ago. I'm becoming more selective in my old age which is why I appreciate your reviews. My next Macca purchases will be the recording sessions book, likely followed by Man On The Run (which I was going to pass on until I read several positive reviews). I am also planning to buy the Shea book which I believe you reviewed positively (if I'm not confusing my reviewers here).

I'm pacing myself on spending money so right now a certain box of mono albums & a couple of archive releases from Sir Paul will be getting the next portion of my expendable income.

 

Yes, the Shea book is a really good and fun book, as are Man on the Run and the Recording Sessions book (and yes, you are correct, I reviewed them all ). Which upcoming archive releases are you plumping for? I'm going to stick to the 2CD sets like I usually do...the extras are cool, but not for that much more $$!

 

Picking up V&M and WATSOS mega deluxe super duper, etc. --the most expensive ones of course.

 

You took the words right out of my mouth. I thought this book was very disappointing and was largely a cut and paste job from other McCartney and Beatle books/interviews/etc that I've read. I don't think I learned one new fact or gained a single new insight. I was really surprised by how bad it was.

If you hadn't read a lot of the existing material, I guess I can understand that it might seem okay. But still......

 

^Huh, I *have* read much of the source material and didn't think it was *that* bad. As far as standalone bios covering his entire life, I think it's the best one out there. That's not to say I think it's a great book! It certainly isn't up there with, say, Tony Fletcher's Keith Moon bio, for example, but it was not a bad book. I can definitely see where you're coming from with your(and Fivebyfive's) assessment, though, all valid points.

 

Nice review, doc

 

Enjoyed Fab for what it was, especially the 80s stuff you don't really get anywhere else. Agreed it's not for the sycophantic types, though. There's some stuff you can't unknow, and no one you go that in depth on is going to come out the other side smelling rosy.

Nice review. White text on dark backgrounds screws with my eyes big-time, though.

 

Thought Fab was rubbish, to be honest. I had a feeling I'd feel that way when the first extract I saw was a piece slut-shaming Linda to ridiculous levels but I'd hoped the book itself would be better. Didn't really think there was much revelatory information in there. I could handle that except that Sounes didn't even seem to like McCartney even a little and his focus seemed to be on 'not being syncophantic' = barely mentioning anything positive unless it had a caveat. People often seem to be surprised by the negative aspects to Paul's character but I've found MUCH of those aspects are things Paul has openly talked about himself; he's not really pretended he's an angel, or that his marriage to Linda was perfect, or anything like that. I don't mind authors not being fond of the subjects but he didn't seem to have much of an understanding of Paul, Paul's character or his music. I thought he misread situations, emphasised certain things too much and others not enough. I didn't think it was terribly written but it certainly didn't hold my attention and have me wanting more.

Really, I don't think there's a particularly great/thorough McCartney bio out there so I keep going back to MYFN though I wish it wasn't 95% Beatles... Often in bios of him, the analysis lacks depth, the authors think HE lacks depth, they focus too much on The Beatles period, they see him as 'uncomplicated' and thus treat him as such, and so on. I guess so far as overall reads go, Peter Ames Carlin's 'A Life' is the best of a relatively bad lot. It's simplistic and short and a bit shallow in places but I think it more balanced and a bit more understanding than a lot of others.

 

Thanks, and yes I agree that it's definitely not for any Paul sycophants (none of them on here, are there? ). I'm a massive Paul fan but am fine with reading about some of the less savory bits, and the stories of how ruthless and relentless he could be we're not surprising, although overall he has been incredibly generous with his money not only for charity, but with friends, family, and various causes he's been involved with (ie LIPA).

 

Carlin's book is on my list so I'm curious to compare that to this one. You and others are right about him banging on (no pun intended!) about Linda as a "groupie" and I got so tired of hearing about how she supposedly planned to "marry a Beatle" from 1965, although to his credit the author did quote Paul as having said (and I've read him having said this in multiple places over the years) that HE pursued HER. The crazy thing is, that's exactly what Sounes details in this book (Paul phoning her, Paul inviting her out, Paul letting her know whenever he was in the States, Paul asking her to marry him, etc) yet he continuously reminds us "she plotted to marry a Beatle years ago." It's like, well which is it? Also it's true he didn't discuss much about the music and I could be ok with it because let's face it, that's been done to death everywhere else, but you bring up a good point that it almost seems like he wasn't familiar with it at all, although he did have the anecdote about having seen Paul in concert several times and loving the experience. So who knows? Very muddled in that respect.

 

The sycophants point is patronizing and off the mark (which is not surprising coming from that particular quarter).

Fab is not a good book. It's often badly written. The author reaches no major or interesting conclusions that haven't been established many times before in Beatles books and McCartney stories/books. The misogyny of the book is appalling yes, but so is the author's prudishness. Paul is a rock star, not a priest.

A good biography doesn't pull its punches but it also offers sharp and often critical insights, compassion, and analysis of the artist's work. Fab fails on all counts. Compare it to perhaps the best music bio out there -- Peter Guralnick's great bio of Elvis. Guralnick was not a sycophant. But he had compassion for his subject and interest in his subject's work -- something Fab's author lacks entirely on both counts. Guralnick was really tough on Elvis but you never had the sense that he had lost his respect and compassion for his subject. Plus, Guralick is a terrific writer. By contrast, Fab is pedestrian writing. It struck me as a drab book put out to make a buck, not because its author had anything to say about Paul or his work.