Log In
Register
2.57am
10 August 2011
Offline
So just for the sake of stirring things up a bit, what makes anyone think that the upcoming Lewisohn book will be less biased than any other book?
Don’t get me wrong: I’m sure Lewisohn has made every effort to be even-handed. But what author decides that he/she is going to sit down and write a biased book (unless he/she is paid by an interested party or is writing an “authorized” book)?
Surely many of us in school have had to write an essay on the topic “Is there such a thing as an unbiased history book?”
The items you choose to include/exclude are subject to bias, and the amount of ink you devote to each topic is completely biased in the strict sense of the word.
Bias isn’t necessarily bad. For example, nearly every astronaut involved in the race to the moon has written a book. Each book essentially tells the same story: the Americans started way behind but eventually won. Yet you can read each book without being bored because each astronaut focuses on his involvement. So an event that’s given one line in one book gets three pages in another. But that’s good. You WANT to hear different perspectives.
With Beatle books, it’s a bit the same thing. Those who were there don’t remember things exactly the same way. The (apparent) bias only comes through when you feel that someone you like has been dissed or someone you dislike has been sugar-coated.
Lewisohn is probably closest to McCartney (or am I wrong about that?). Does anyone think that won’t ever so slightly color his book?
"Into the Sky with Diamonds" (the Beatles and the Race to the Moon – a history)
3.21am
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline I think the last thing Lewisohn will want is to have his book(s) tarred in the same way as Shout! I also believe you are wrong about him being closest to McCartney. It is true he has had more contact with Paul, then probably Ringo, then probably George, and none with John. How could that be otherwise given events?
I see no sign in either Live, Recording Sessions or Chronicle of a leaning toward Paul. I’d go the opposite way if asked to choose, and say he lent towards John. However, I do believe, with All These Years (still HATE the title), he is aiming to shoot as straight an arrow as he can.
"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
7.07pm
Reviewers
29 November 2012
Offline 
Lewisohn’s books (including his upcoming ones) are the closest, I think. Hunter Davies’ authorized bio and Peter Doggett’s books I would say are fair and unbiased, too. They are honest and don’t sugarcoat the guys, for the most part.
"I know you, you know me; one thing I can tell you is you got to be free!"
Please Visit My Website, The Rock and Roll Chemist
Twitter: @rocknrollchem
Facebook: rnrchemist
3.13pm
21 November 2012
Offline I don’t think there’s such thing as a completely unbiased book, but I think he will try to stay as neutral as he can. As long as the truth isn’t twisted and all relevant facts are being described, it’s all fine by me.
The following people thank Linde for this post:
parlance, trcanberra12.29am
5 February 2014
Offline
It’s likely true that there isn’t a truly unbiased author. If you’re already inclined to write a book on a subject, you probably have a developed bias. However, after reading Tune In, I really can’t say which one of them Lewisohn has a bias for. It seems he made sure to give equal measure to each of them, given that there’s much more to cover with Lennon and McCartney, because of their partnership in both the formation of the band and the songwriting that followed. But there is certainly a terrific amount of detail and I probably learned more about Ringo’s early history from this book than any other I’ve read. The same for Brian Epstein, George Martin, Neil Aspinal, Mal Evans, Pete Best, et. al. I’m sure others can find a bias. I wasn’t looking for one.
11.28pm
21 November 2012
Offline I agree with C.R.A., and can now say that I was right with my last reply, nearly a year ago. Having read the majority of it, I can say that Lewisohn has tried to be as neutral as possible, and has tried to balance the information. Indeed, there is more to cover on Lennon/McCartney, and so the information on them is more too. But does that mean he is biased? Or does that simply mean there is more information on them? I mean, you can say so much more interesting stuff about them than about Ringo for instance but he has tried to balance it. But still, there is more information. I’m glad he did it like this and didn’t decide to try fill up the Ringo bits (just taking Ringo as an example here) with useless and uninteresting information.
The following people thank Linde for this post:
C.R.A.11.39pm
Reviewers
14 April 2010
Offline Yeah, I’ve read Tune In twice and did not notice any bias whatsoever. He just reported facts (albeit as his interviews remembered them). Even when he blew up misconceptions, he tempered his thought with phrases like “possible, but not likely”. It’s the only book I’ve read of his and was quite impressed.
The following people thank Zig for this post:
C.R.A.To the fountain of perpetual mirth, let it roll for all its worth. And all the children boogie.
12.08am
Reviewers
1 November 2013
Offline Agreed with Zig and Linde. And now if you’ll excuse me I have to go read Tune In again.
The following people thank IveJustSeenAFaceo for this post:
Ahhh Girl, C.R.A.(This signature brought to you by Net Boy and Net Girl. Putting messages in modems since 1996.)
1 Guest(s)