Paul McCartney biography by Philip Norman due in May

A "digital" piano ???

 

I will wait with breathless anticipation for the Super Deluxe Edition with tote bag, thank you very much.

 

True. I recall an early book review for Sounes's book focused on the part about Paul's divorce from Heather Mills, but that was just a small part of the book.

 

I thought Sounes' book was weak. No interesting insights to the man at all. And any book on Paul that doesn't even mention his bass playing is a lousy book.

 

On the other hand, well done him for shagging Peggy Lipton.

 

Philip Norman denies that Shout! was anti-Paul and promises that the new book won't be either. Hurry up and buy his book about "the adorable bass player in the Beatles", to quote the man himself.

 

Looks like it's going to be a Paul McCartney summer with this and his new comp(s) due out.

 

I'm not sure about his writing skills, but that Norman is kinda cute!

 

I'm sold.

 

This is not reassuring me. "Adorable"? Seriously?

 

Don't get me wrong, for as much as Norman claims to have gotten over his anti-Paul bias, I will definitely be still keeping it in mind when I read the book. But I'm not going to outright dismiss the book as a piece of crap before I've read a single page because of that.

 

Pssst I have a preview copy of this book!

 

And? Thots? Quick impressions?

 

Haven't been able to read it yet, but I can tell you that his solo career starts around page 375 and the book has about 750 pages.

 

Never mind chatting on here. Get it read!

 

Are there lots of photos in the book? Any unusual ones? For the lucky so and so's with advance copies.

 

Clearly you've made up your mind (is it Ray Coleman for you? Goldman?). And, having read every nearly every book about Lennon written, I have mine. I stand by my statement unequivocally in spite of your reasoned, thoughtful and persuasive thoughts on the issue as quoted above.

 

Yes, there are numerous adorable photos of cute doe-eyed Paul...

 

Could I show what you said to my mother? I sent her MY book about Paul, and she outright dismissed the book as a piece of crap before reading a single page. Maybe you could convince her to take it out of the trash. ...

 

I thought Peter Cox's McCartney revelations were very interesting. They benefited from not being at all sensational and from the fact that Cox clearly didn't need to sell his story. They amounted to a fascinating sketch of Macca as a kind of Citizen Kane figure, isolated in a Sussex Xanadu.

 

I recommend taking some breaths until it comes out...

 

But they were sensational. Cox chose to talk to a tabloid (the Daily Mail) about Paul & Linda's marriage -- something Cox only knew about for 2 short years in 87-89 -- some 20 years later at the height of the headlines about McCartney's divorce. It doesn't get more sensational than that. The only reason people glom on to Cox's comments is because he trashed Paul and raised questions about his marriage to Linda. I didn't find Cox's one-dimensional negative portrait of Paul much more accurate than all of the one-dimensional negative portraits that emerged about Linda being some "manipulative groupie determined to catch Paul."

Is it too much to expect a bit of nuance?

By the way, I do think McCartney was/is isolated. But I think John, George, Ringo, Bowie, Bob Dylan, Mick, and any number of other legends live these isolated bubble existences. I can't see how that is particular to Paul.

 

By the way, I do think McCartney was/is isolated. But I think John, George, Ringo, Bowie, Bob Dylan, Mick, and any number of other legends live these isolated bubble existences. I can't see how that is particular to Paul

Yes, and I think that's a useful corrective to the idea that these people live lives of 'unimaginable happiness'

To be fair to Cox, I don't think he did 'trash' Paul. He acknowledged Macca's talent and how positive he was about his (Cox's) advocacy of vegetarianism while admitting that he didn't really get on with Paul and found him a bit 'cold'. Much, much worse has been written about McCartney by people who have known him better, or less well, than Cox. And Cox stops short of saying he thought the first McCartney marriage was unhappy - he didn't exactly lay it now it a trowel. That's why I think these revelations are interesting - and held my attention more than some other stuff that's emerged.

 

Well I'll wait to read the book to decide. I think he's a minor figure. But I always thought Cox's motives and timing were suspect in waiting to comment for 20 years -- until the midst of Paul's divorce. And then he decides to talk to a tabloid? That's a guy looking to do some damage. Plus, Norman's new book quotes Cox saying "only 2 people could say 'no' to Paul -- George Martin and Stella." How the heck would Cox know that? He hasn't been involved in the McCartney family for more than 20 years and was never in the studio with Paul and George Martin. Cox is way over-reaching, based on a very narrow window into Paul's life, which makes him seem like a questionable source, as well.

 

I read that, too. Norman knows how to write. But, it was like a made for TV movie "based on actual events".