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

When you will meet this person you imply to know, will he possibly have "three copies" of the second volume of the book with him? Or will he will have to make clear he doesn't actually know the person claiming that, like in 2013?



(Beatles Biography by Mark Lewisohn (the second edition) )



(It won't be long: Author Mark Lewisohn shows off first copies of new Beatles bio )

 

Has anyone got a copy of that New Yorker article Mark mentions? "Letting it Be" in the January 24 1994 edition.

 

Or how he said, how Mark was "just starting to write the second book" back in August '17 and November '17, but now, just a couple months ago, he said how Mark was "probably starting this year." Does he even know the guy?

 

Maybe the "Paul is dead" hoax wasn't a hoax?

 

One thing I'll say about this is that Mark did say this on Twitter a few years ago. I remember seeing it and being happy - obviously it wasn't right, but it was definitely there. So even if you don't know Mark, you can get to see his mistakes in public on Twitter

However, Mark is now much more circumspect - he tells everyone that he's currently still researching and hasn't started writing. I tend to believe Mark.

 

Maybe Bernard Purdie will be shocked ...

 

Politics. Spin. Nice you've got so much free time.

 

Oh wow, we are stepping into Brainwashed territory here! So many insiders, so little truth

 

Yes, I'm sure it's something like this. They just reached a point where they distrusted any biographer or 'expert', and that's the end of it.

Lewisohn also told the story, recently, of how when he met George the first time (prior to Anthology), George was very accommodating and they (and one or two others) all went to a pub together and had a nice chat. But a few years later, when he encountered George again during Anthology, George was crusty and had gotten (so Lewisohn thought) the impression that he was a "Paul guy", in the knowledge that Lewisohn had been employed by MPL for a short time.

 

This kind of comment annoys me. What is the point of making such a provocative quote about a book that is YEARS from publication? Just to promote yourself? Tease future readers?

 

Got it in one!

 

Just posting this photo. No particular reason, but I might not have seen it before:

 

The problem here is: "A watched pot never boils."
I remember the days when you found out about a new release by going to the store and seeing it on the shelf.
Volume Two will get here when it gets here. Hey, I ain't the youngest guy around, but I'm not worried.

 

I didn't listen to the interview but perhaps he was answering a question, such as: Are readers going to find out/learn anything surprising from Vol. 2? (Or maybe question even used the word "shocking").

I don't find anything untoward about his comment. Of course, he wants to gin up interest in the book.

 

Well, I am the oldest person here, so I am WORRIED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"No, you're not", said Little Nicola ...

 

He was responding to the host's comment at the end, as he was wrapping up the interview, "We think we all know the story, but to actually bring it to life...."

We know it was a crazy time but maybe he's implying that we don't really appreciate just how insane and dangerous it actually was, rather than a specific scandal we know nothing about. It's the stuff going on behind the scenes, for example Derek Taylor told that story about the mother who encouraged her daughter to cry rape so that they could blackmail them, there were paternity claims, there were death threats etc. Neil Aspinall may have told him what happened on the Australian (Satyricon) tour and according to Paul Gambaccini, Macca did go to the police at the time of the Yewtree investigation saying "You will hear stories about me", so he was obviously paranoid - as a lot of celebrities were, but Mark has said that he hasn't found anything untoward there. I'd anticipate that, as we read it, we'll feel an increasing sense of exhaustion and disbelief and by the end of it, you'll have come as close as it is possible to actually living it and that's what will shock you.

 

Thank you. An interesting thought, well said.

 

I like yours better. My opening sentence was going to be:

It was a dark and stormy night...

 

About the best pic from that time period on stage that I've ever seen

 

Although he wasn't a biographer, I expect the major betrayal of Denis O'Brien didn't help either. In the 80s he might've been ok, but by the time of the Anthology I think George's level of tolerance for any breach of trust had become very low.

I'd never really thought about that kind of thing being an issue, but I guess it makes sense given the obvious bias Philip Norman and others showed. It's a real shame they weren't able to patch things up before George died. When he worked for the Beatles Book Monthly, Lewisohn wrote some very nice things about him and even went to the Carl Perkins and Friends special.

 

And if I go before the next installment is published, I'll get the rest of the story first hand from John.

 

Now that is funny.

 

Ain't that the truth.

 

But she didn't "break up The Beatles"......

 

Olivia broke up the Wilburys though ...