Beatles Biography by Mark Lewisohn (6th edition)- plus Lewisohn news. *

#patience

When you got a job to do
You got to do it well

 

I'd support his work financially or, better, invest in his work as some kind of shareholder!

 

Mark announced the project in 2005 and All These Years came out in 2013. Assuming he started work on Volume Two right away and follows the exact same timetable, I'd bet on a 2021 release.

Of course, nothing is ever certain.

In the New York Times back in 2013:
"Mr. Lewisohn said he expected the second volume to be out in 2020 (he won’t be pinned down, but guesses it will take the story to 1966), with the conclusion turning up about the time he turns 70. “This is, very literally, my life’s work,”

If he can stick to that, this'll be a major feat!

 

The Mail newspaper article was much more interesting than the first installment of the Radio Merseyside chat. For a radio show devoted to The Beatles, the questions were disappointingly banal, though he did confirm that Hornsey Road was what Abbey Road could have ended up being, without going into detail.

 

You don't remember being 19 or 20 and liking a friend one day and not so much the next because they were a pain in the butt at a particular time? That's how friends can be, especially close ones. What Tune In showed me, which I never picked up on, was McCartney was always the black sheep the entire time of the group. He resisted Epstein back in the day. Him resisting Klein was no different despite he was shown to have picked up on something the others didn't.

 

Different attribution here for the Lennon non quote about Ringo. So it wasn't Jasper Carrott?

 

Yes...live and let write.

 

I don't see McCartney as "the black sheep." I see McCartney as Lennon's equal. That's why their partnership worked. Because Paul, much like John, could not be pushed to do what he did not want to do. That doesn't make him a "black sheep." That makes him his own man.

 

I can understand that but I was talking more about the black sheep in terms of the group. The picture I always had was Lennon was the one who would be resistant to things concerning the group. Not that he wasn't but it seemed to me in Tune In that McCartney was resistant in a way that could've stopped the group from moving forward. In Tune In, I did not get that impression of Lennon. Sometimes being your own man can also make you the black sheep too. It depends on where your resistance or standing up for is coming from; selfishly or for the greater good. In Tune In, I felt with McCartney, it was selfishly. More so than any of the others.

 

That's a pretty selective reading on your part. Paul pushing to get George Harrison into the group as its lead guitarist wasn't resisting the group. It was moving it forward for the greater good. Paul 'professionalizing' the Quarrymen when he first met John Lennon (pushing them to have a certain look on stage, for ex) was moving the group forward. Paul pushing for Stuart Sutcliffe and Pete Best to play better was pushing the group forward. And Paul didn't "resist" Epstein all that much. And in fact it was John who resisted Epstein's ideas (like the suits) more than Paul did. Paul agreeing to play bass when he didn't really want to but no one else would was moving the group forward for the greater good.

The Beatles were all independent minded people who, as Lewisohn made clear, didn't do anything they didn't want to do. I'm not sure why you seem to only see that as a negative trait in Paul.

 

This is my first post here (long time lurker) - I met Mark completely by chance at a pub near the site of the Indica Gallery on my honeymoon (and my birthday!) 2 years ago. My wife and I walked in at about 1pm, and I was standing at the bar when I heard a familiar voice in the back corner chatting away to someone about The Beatles. Couldn't believe my luck. My wife said I was visibly shaken at the coincidence (bought the standard and extended editions of Volume 1 and of course all his previous books).

So we grabbed a drink and perched ourselves one table away and rudely listened in as Mark gave an interview for about 30mins. So as they wrapped up the interview, I got up and introduced myself and had a quick chat (gush). The crazy thing about it was - he was talking mainly about the level of synchronicity which occurred that brought the world The Beatles. And he said to me "I clocked you the moment you walked in, because as I said the words 'From Me To You' and 'She Loves.....' I saw you walk in with that t-shirt on".

I was wearing a totally black t-shirt with large white letters which read "SHE LOVES YOU" (which I bought in Mathew Street, Liverpool a few days earlier).

Anyway, the reason I'm replying to your particular message, is that I offered to quit my job and come and work for him. He said he couldn't pay me but it's a lovely offer. I also seriously offered again in writing when I got back to Melbourne, Australia with an offer of using my long service leave in 2020 to somehow make his life easier in any capacity. He said he'll keep the fantastic offer "on file". So I'm hoping one day, he takes me up on it.

 

One thing that comes out to me in the book that McCartney was far more difficult to deal with and moody than the public perception of him as the “nice “ Beatle later on would have led you to believe. The other thing is that Paul did not make friends easily, unlike John and George, and in some ways was always a “loner.” That is why his relationship with John was so essential to him and jealously guarded. How did he become best buds with John? Despite him being difficult John respected and needed his musical talents and their songwriting partnership.

 

I'm not saying everything Paul did was resistant. Your points are valid. I agree with them, but the book clearly shows he has another side that runs counter to the points you list here. Paul was over an hour late to the meeting of taking on Epstein as their manager for no reason. You don't see that as being resistant and putting the whole group in jeopardy? Paul has also said John did not resist the suits. He may have done little things and talked about it after the fact. That's different to doing something at that time is what I'm saying.

 

Publisher's advances are pittances, and the author is expected to use them for things like fact-checking. (Yes, authors pay for fact checking, not publishers.)

 

Been a while since I read the book, but IIRC, I was struck by how image-conscious Paul was from a young age. There was always that sense of putting on a face to suit the situation and get ahead!

 

If I had a wish, it would be they make a kindle version of the big 2 volume version.

 

173 pages of this. And folks complain about the Day In The Life ahhs threads!

I want to believe....

 

I don't think Paul being an hour late to meet Brian is that big of a deal in the scheme of things. No one knew at that point that Brian Epstein could even manage a band and no one knew the Beatles were going to become THE BEATLES. Showing up late seems to me like a bit of a power play (something both John and Paul took turns pulling throughout the band's history). This was Paul deciding to show that he's not going to be rushed into anything. But does it really "put the whole group in jeopardy"? And given how shady show business was, wasn't it smart to be a bit suspicious of this new guy's interest? They had no way of knowing then that he would turn out to be loyal to the band. They barely knew him. A little suspicion seems to have been in order in that moment.

Was Paul's arriving late for that meeting really any more dangerous to the band's future than, say, John decided to risk nasty gossip by spending a week alone in Spain with their gay manager? Or when John decided that it was a good idea to get really drunk at Paul's 21st birthday and beat the hell out of Bob Wooler? Either of those incidents seem to me to have put the group in far, far greater jeopardy than Paul deciding to take a long bath before he showed up to meet the band's potential new manager.

 

I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm just clarifying my thoughts. We each have our interpretations and that is ok.

 

Absolutely. This really needs to be done. I was disappointed it wasn't available when I bought the stock audio version.

 

Was the first volume lucrative for Mark?

 

Just finished the Daily Mail interview. Is this comment accurate?

“Tune In benefited from The Beatles’ tacit cooperation. Since then, however, he has been frozen out.”

I listened to a podcast during which Lewisohn talked about the *freeze beginning back when he was interviewed by a magazine (I believe...maybe the New Yorker?) and there was a dust up about the writer being allowed to hear tapes from the vaults. George Harrison was the most upset, I remember Lewisohn saying. Lewisohn also said he hadn’t done anything wrong, but one misstep, even perceived, and it was “so long.”
Since George died in 2001, I thought Mark had been out of the circle beginning in the late 1990s. Was there “tacit cooperation” related to Tune In?

 

That had me a bit puzzled too. Did Mark start writing this thing really long ago or did something else happen later on in the mid-2000s that pushed him even further out?

 

It's nice to hear that Macca is tapping him for some sort of work. That might put a few more pennies in Mark's pockets for a while. I can't imagine Paul having a problem with the first volume of the series, in fact I'm sure even he learnt a lot about his family history, so him still being cool with Mark is a nice thing to hear about. Maybe Paul will even 'slip him the answer' (or a few answers) at some point in the future.

 

Realistically thinking, who has the power to kick Lewisohn out?

Paul: Not him, he's tapped Lewisohn for something. Still on good terms.
Ringo: What's his motive?
Yoko: What's her motive?
Olivia: My pick for likeliest candidate. Her husband had a (unjustified) bone to pick with Mark, and Liv is probably just trying to handle his legacy as best as possible.

I'm just spitballing of course.