Log In
Register
4.34pm
8 January 2015
Offline
Ludwig said
Hi allThree questions re: Beatles books
2. I love Revolution in the Head so have been surprised to read on here that there are many errors. Can anyone tell me just what these errors are and how we know them to be errors?
Revolution is one of those books, if you are new to Beatles books in general, seems amazing. It had the good fortune to be one of the earlier investigations of Beatles music and tries to be a critical and artistic appreciation of the songs. But unfortunately, it fails to live up to the higher standards of today’s Beatle scholarship. The errors are simply too numerous to list, and range from guesswork as to who played what instrument and what instruments are there, to outright myths about songs and the songwriting. It is neither objective nor accurate and is often contradicted in better works like Lewisohn’s. To add to the mess, MacDonald died and the last revision of the book published after his death; the publishers had a vested interest in many of the worst excesses of the book remaining, particularly his character assassination of Lennon and Harrison. The book also tries to place the Beatles within the culture of the time with an involved essay on the matter that isn’t bad reading but still so opinionated that it’s worthless as scholarship. And when MacDonald decided that a songwriting method called ‘random’ is to blame for half the Beatles output and it all went downhill after Sgt Peppers and it’s all that druggie Lennon’s fault, well, what conclusion are you likely to reach about his “scholarship”? Compare earlier entries to the later ones: there’s simply no consistency, and he completely loses interest in even the semi-musicological approach he started with.
These days we expect a lot more of our Beatles books than we did then, and although Revolution was a step in the right direction, it is still a misstep and unlikely to be revived. Go get the Complete Beatles Chronicle by Mark Lewisohn and read about the songs by someone who actually cared to get it right and backs it with sources.
The following people thank ewe2 for this post:
Beatlebug, RobGeurtsen, Dingle LadI'm like Necko only I'm a bassist ukulele guitar synthesizer kazoo penguin and also everyone. Or is everyone me? Now I'm a confused bassist ukulele guitar synthesizer kazoo penguin everyone who is definitely not @Joe. This has been true for 2016 & 2017 
but I may have to get more specific in the future.
6.41am
14 June 2016
Offline Does anyone have Harry Benson’s On The Road book?
1.The Beatles 2.Sgt. Pepper 3.Abbey Road 4.Magical Mystery Tour 5.Rubber Soul 6.Revolver 7.Help! 8.Let It Be
9.A Hard Day’s Night 10.Please Please Me 11.Beatles For Sale 12.With The Beatles 13.Yellow Submarine
Most Avid John Fan 2020 and 2021: 
3.31am
11 September 2018
Offline I was just typing up a new topic where we could recommend/discuss the definitive Beatle books witihn a number of categories and a Google-search lead me to this thread.
I guess I’ll go back and look through these 10 pages. I’m mostly on the lookout for an critical study of the band’s music, but one that’s accesible for even non-musicians/ isn’t particularly weighed down by technical terms.
The following people thank Tony Japanese for this post:
RobGeurtsen1.03pm
18 April 2013
Offline Timothy said
Does anyone have Harry Benson’s On The Road book?
Yes, I have the Taschen edition.
"If you're ever in the shit, grab my tit.” —Paul McCartney
7.06pm
17 October 2013
Offline ewe2 said
Ludwig said
Hi all
Three questions re: Beatles books
2. I love Revolution in the Head so have been surprised to read on here that there are many errors. Can anyone tell me just what these errors are and how we know them to be errors?
Revolution is one of those books, if you are new to Beatles books in general, seems amazing. It had the good fortune to be one of the earlier investigations of Beatles music and tries to be a critical and artistic appreciation of the songs. But unfortunately, it fails to live up to the higher standards of today’s Beatle scholarship. The errors are simply too numerous to list, and range from guesswork as to who played what instrument and what instruments are there, to outright myths about songs and the songwriting. It is neither objective nor accurate and is often contradicted in better works like Lewisohn’s. To add to the mess, MacDonald died and the last revision of the book published after his death; the publishers had a vested interest in many of the worst excesses of the book remaining, particularly his character assassination of Lennon and Harrison. The book also tries to place the Beatles within the culture of the time with an involved essay on the matter that isn’t bad reading but still so opinionated that it’s worthless as scholarship. And when MacDonald decided that a songwriting method called ‘random’ is to blame for half the Beatles output and it all went downhill after Sgt Peppers and it’s all that druggie Lennon’s fault, well, what conclusion are you likely to reach about his “scholarship”? Compare earlier entries to the later ones: there’s simply no consistency, and he completely loses interest in even the semi-musicological approach he started with.
These days we expect a lot more of our Beatles books than we did then, and although Revolution was a step in the right direction, it is still a misstep and unlikely to be revived. Go get the Complete Beatles Chronicle by Mark Lewisohn and read about the songs by someone who actually cared to get it right and backs it with sources.
A very scholarly reply……
Gosh I love ‘Rev in the head’…Read it twice and learned a lot.
I have Lewisohn’s The complete Recordings and like that too……..Have to admit I’ve not gotten into Tune In yet…..Keep saving it and never getting round to it…..
However, can you point out the actual worst, most erroneous and undermining to his credibility gaff in RITH in your opinion?
Thanks for the recomendation……I must get hold of the Complete Chronicles I feel like a good catch-up..Always sends me to the songs.
The following people thank Wigwam for this post:
RobGeurtsen7.22pm
9 March 2017
Offline One error that really grabs my attention is that he claims that John plays acoustic guitar on Strawberry Fields Forever , even though there’s no acoustic guitar part anywhere in the song.
If you're reading this, you are looking for something to do.
1.06am
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline 
Lewisohn states guitars being used on the basic track before all the overdubs were added and Joe lists acoustic guitar.
The following people thank meanmistermustard for this post:
Wigwam, Leppo"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
5.09am
11 September 2018
Offline I’m currently reading RitH again. There may be times where I disagree with MacDonald’s opinions, but that doesn’t spoil my enjoyment of the book and his ‘errors’ no doubt based on the evidence he had available to him at the time.
The following people thank Tony Japanese for this post:
Wigwam1.06pm
6 July 2016
Offline meanmistermustard said
Lewisohn states guitars being used on the basic track before all the overdubs were added and Joe lists acoustic guitar.
Yes I always thought the rough demo version which was spliced together with the studio version had acoustic guitar on it because all the early demos were on acoustic and it was also written on acoustic guitar in Alicante.
Pivotal Moments in Beatles History No.118: Yoko helps herself to one of George's digestives.
3.23pm
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline Leppo said
meanmistermustard said
Lewisohn states guitars being used on the basic track before all the overdubs were added and Joe lists acoustic guitar.
Yes I always thought the rough demo version which was spliced together with the studio version had acoustic guitar on it because all the early demos were on acoustic and it was also written on acoustic guitar in Alicante.
Wait (it’s not been that long)! What demo? It was the finished take 7 along with take 26.
"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
4.05pm
24 March 2014
Offline Leppo said
meanmistermustard said
Lewisohn states guitars being used on the basic track before all the overdubs were added and Joe lists acoustic guitar.
Yes I always thought the rough demo version which was spliced together with the studio version had acoustic guitar on it because all the early demos were on acoustic and it was also written on acoustic guitar in Alicante.
Not in Alicante. It was written in Almería indeed 
"I Need You by George Harrison"
8.12pm
6 July 2016
Offline Wait (it’s not been that long)! What demo? It was the finished take 7 along with take 26.
Yes I guess you’re right. Perhaps it was a rough take which I was thinking was a demo.
Not in Alicante. It was written in Almería indeed
Yes I guess you’re right. I meant to say “In Spain”.
Why is everyone picking on me? 
Pivotal Moments in Beatles History No.118: Yoko helps herself to one of George's digestives.
2.11am
7 September 2019
Offline I don’t recall the title of the book. It was a reference book of Beatles material. I believe it had a yellow cover.
When I was a teenager, I sat with that book in the morning and when I got back from school—reading every word, letter and punctuation; rinse and repeat, over and over.
After a couple years, the binding was having a difficult time keeping up with me.
5.14am
24 March 2014
Offline Leppo said
Wait (it’s not been that long)! What demo? It was the finished take 7 along with take 26.
Yes I guess you’re right. Perhaps it was a rough take which I was thinking was a demo.
Not in Alicante. It was written in Almería indeed
Yes I guess you’re right. I meant to say “In Spain”.
Why is everyone picking on me?
Sorry, didn’t mean to bother you or be rude. 
"I Need You by George Harrison"
10.34pm
24 June 2019
Offline I really enjoyed Cynthia’s original autobiography “A Twist of Lennon” which basically ended just after she broke up with John. Clever book title as her married name when she wrote it was Cynthia Twist.
The Beatles: An Illustrated Record as a great source of info on the original song / album releases and other info. It was expanded just after Lennon’s murder, but I don’t think it’s been added to since.
I found John’s own books a great read into his twisted humour.
Turn off your stream, relax and float down mind
9.19am
28 February 2020
Offline I’ve always tried to keep a copy of Revolution In the Head even though I think MacDonald was a complete ass. A better, more balanced, book of Beatle criticism is Tell Me Why by Tim Reilly.
What is happening? And tell me how you've been.
11.51pm
28 February 2020
Offline 
Three books I should have read in my formative years. If I had, I would’ve known that the copy of Beatles VI that I had was Apocrypha. I also would have known that in some warped alternate universe their first album was called We’re Gonna Change the Face of Pop Music Forever.
What is happening? And tell me how you've been.
1.44am
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline I have ‘The Beatles On Record’ and I read it so often as a kid I had to get my father to rebind it. Loved it.
"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
5.51pm
28 February 2020
Offline ewe2 said
Ludwig said
Hi all
Three questions re: Beatles books
2. I love Revolution in the Head so have been surprised to read on here that there are many errors. Can anyone tell me just what these errors are and how we know them to be errors?
Revolution is one of those books, if you are new to Beatles books in general, seems amazing. It had the good fortune to be one of the earlier investigations of Beatles music and tries to be a critical and artistic appreciation of the songs. But unfortunately, it fails to live up to the higher standards of today’s Beatle scholarship. The errors are simply too numerous to list, and range from guesswork as to who played what instrument and what instruments are there, to outright myths about songs and the songwriting. It is neither objective nor accurate and is often contradicted in better works like Lewisohn’s. To add to the mess, MacDonald died and the last revision of the book published after his death; the publishers had a vested interest in many of the worst excesses of the book remaining, particularly his character assassination of Lennon and Harrison. The book also tries to place the Beatles within the culture of the time with an involved essay on the matter that isn’t bad reading but still so opinionated that it’s worthless as scholarship. And when MacDonald decided that a songwriting method called ‘random’ is to blame for half the Beatles output and it all went downhill after Sgt Peppers and it’s all that druggie Lennon’s fault, well, what conclusion are you likely to reach about his “scholarship”? Compare earlier entries to the later ones: there’s simply no consistency, and he completely loses interest in even the semi-musicological approach he started with.
These days we expect a lot more of our Beatles books than we did then, and although Revolution was a step in the right direction, it is still a misstep and unlikely to be revived. Go get the Complete Beatles Chronicle by Mark Lewisohn and read about the songs by someone who actually cared to get it right and backs it with sources.
I think MacDonald’s essay tieing the Beatles into the 60s culture is brilliant, but his music writing is b.s. I’ve wondered why so many people love this book.
What is happening? And tell me how you've been.
5.54pm
28 February 2020
Offline meanmistermustard said
I have ‘The Beatles On Record’ and I read it so often as a kid I had to get my father to rebind it. Loved it.
The book by Mark Wallgren or the one by J.P. Russell?
What is happening? And tell me how you've been.
1 Guest(s)