Beatles Biography by Mark Lewisohn

People are still writing biographies about George Washington and Andrew Jackson.

 

And they haven't released records in YEARS!

 

Bowel movements, when they took a leak, how often, etc.

 

Someone, somewhere heard Tomorrow Never Knows for the first time today.

 

Considering how lengthy this biography will be, it better have some new info for the masses. Of course, it will probably still sell well.

 

I'm sure it will have some new stories and info - but more importantly, it will correct misinformation that has been reported and repeated in authoritative "books" for years. We'll get hard dates and facts on early sessions, early touring and the beatles' childhood years. It will be a must have reference book as well as a readable biography I hope.

 

"Beatle" biographies seem come out as frequently as books on the Kennedy's. Still this seems like a "major" work, so I would hope there could be some things that we don't know or haven't heard before. I can't think of what that would be, but as a Beatle fan, I will want to read it.

 

Of course you can't think of what you haven't heard about. There's really no way to guess what new information will be revealed in these books because it will be new and nobody will have heard of it, by definition! Honestly, people...

 

I think we're already well past the point where any significant new information will be revealed. As with most other historical writings, from now on the meaningful works will be evaluations and revaluatons of the facts to assess their accuracy (as well as possible) and conclude how much weight those facts should be given in the overall picture. I will look to the Lewisohn biography for its accuracy and perspective, not for new revelations.

As far as consigning the group to the past is concerned: as someone who has loved them (and not ashamed to say it) since I was a boy in 1964, it breaks my heart to acknowledge that The Beatles became part of the past on the day in April, 1970 when Paul announcced that he had left the group. The hope that carried us through the '70's, that we would see a second chapter, was lost forever on December 8, 1980.

 

One big difference is that nearly 50 years after the fact there are items from the Kennedy presidency and assasination that are still "sealed" either by the FBI/CIA or at the request of the Kennedy family itself (and no, I'm not a conspiracy theorist) that presumably will be revealed someday. Unless Apple Corps or the remaining Beatles have a secret archive somewhere, I don't think there's anything intentionally hidden from the public at this point.

 

On the contrary, I think there are still a lot of unanswered questions about what happened to John Lennon from 1966 onwards. How often was he using acid before the 1966 world tour? Was he "eating it every day"? What about during the Pepper period and after? What was his mental and emotional state up to and when he got together with Yoko. The chemical effects of Lennon's psyche and decisions are not a well-told part of the Beatles' story, but they're crucial to piecing together what happened. What about after the break-up? Is there any truth to the story that the househusband years were marked by continued depression and drug abuse, not just bread-baking?

 

And also someone, somewhere heard "We All Stand Together (Humming Version with The Frog Chorus)" for the first time today.

....Arnie

 

But of course, there is a wealth of unreleased music that is prime material for another 50-100 books!

 

I thought Tony Bramwell's book "Magical Mystery Tours - My Life With The Beatles" was a good one.

and for technical info "Recording The Beatles" can't be beat.

 

Thanks for making that so clear for me! Anyone who writes a new biography will try to come up with some fresh information. Considering how the Beatles have been covered over the last 40+ years, what is there left to unearth that would suprise a big time fan? Something about Ringo's 3rd cousin on his mother's side? That's not going to interest too many people. "Honestly, people..." Sorry for trying to think outside the box.

 

That all depends on your definition of significant, doesn't it? Besides, I think that at least one example you provided proves my point - would it be news that Lennon took acid for a period beginning in 1966, and that it affected his professional and personal life? No. But a good work will research that, verify it, weigh the importance of it, then put it into perspective. To some extent, the same would be true about Lennon's house husband years - there is the claim he was strung out and allowed himself to be controlled/oppressed by his wife, but a verification of that would not reveal a new fact, only debunk a known allegation.

 

Excellent points all around. So many of these things would indeed be hard to verify. But your thoughts are on the money.

 

...not if you read discussions about this when the Anthology series was issued. We were told then that they had pretty much mined all the significant and even halfway decent stuff for that project. Even before that, the consensus was that the Beatles left relatively little in the way of finished product lying in the vaults. Even something they considered half-assed, the Get Back tapes, weren't left lying in the vault for too long before they hauled Spector in to cobble them into an album.

Of course, no one would be much more excited than I would be to hear the great lost Beatles double album! White Album Volume II, anyone?

 

I didn't mean it so harshly. I just thought it was funny that you couldn't think of any unknown information. It's unknown! Maybe I'm the only one who gets it.

 

I am sure you are big Beatles fan as well as I am. I have really so many Beatle things over the years. There cannot be any large relevations at this point in time. That was basically my point. I am sure there are some "minor" things here and there.

 

Haha I get what you're saying. And yes, while I am a big Beatles fan, I only have the Anthology book, Paul's "Many Years From Now", George's "I Me Mine", the Lewisohn sessions, and the newest Lennon book about Double Fantasy. I tend to only read "official" books or books with a Beatle directly involved because I have the feeling that some of the other authors will be wrong on some facts and I won't know which ones are right or wrong and I'll be going around with false information in my head. That's why I'm really looking forward to this. Lewisohn is easily the world's foremost expert on the Beatles. I absolutely trust every word he writes.

 

I just finished the Albert Goldman Lennon biography. I think Goldman was a fantastic writer, but was he a good reporter? Was this book in keeping with the facts?

 

For the fan who doesn't know much about Lennon the Goldman book is garbage. If you read about 100 books like me about Lennon, Goldman had some exclusive info that has been proven true over the years. You just have to overlook many other things in the book that aren't true to make the book worthwhile

 

The Goldman book has to be the most controversial Beatles-related book ever published. I cant tell you how much of it is in keeping with the facts because I wasnt there.
There are certainly are a lot of things in that book that most people would not think are in line with who John Lennon was. What are those things? Well, there are a lot and its probably best to detail them in another thread. I've often thought to myself that I should re-read that book and stop everytime I read something that sounds amiss and note it. I dont know when or if I'll ever do that. But I'm sure that others will tell you there is a lot of rubbish in that book and I agree. I just cant believe all of it. Personally speaking, I'm still waiting for the definitive Lennon bio. I'd like to read more about his 70s recording sessions. Seems like he worked with a lot of people then who may not have done in depth interviews and there should be a lot more stories about this time frame than we usually read about.