7.22am
27 April 2015
^^^ ML did say that Paul disclosed this to a very trusted few. I don’t really see any of them wanting to talk to biographers, so maybe ML was one among them. But it does seem pretty clear that Paul didn’t want it to get out. Perhaps at that time Paul didn’t know that he was going to write this detailed a biography coz he had already done that with the Complete Beatles Chronicle.
For tomorrow may rain, so I'll follow the Sun
8.34am
8 January 2015
That’s not answering my question. Why be this secretive about such an obscure and unimportant detail?
I'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.
9.09am
27 April 2015
2.04pm
28 June 2013
From what I can recall, the story about Paul and John ‘meeting’ before the fete is an anecdote that Paul used to tell to friends when he gave them a guided tour of the city (although how he would have done this in recent years is a bit of a mystery because the Liverpool that the Beatles knew barely exists now). I don’t think they actually met, it was more that John was the scary-looking Ted that Paul had seen at the Abba newsagent and on the bus. Paul would have to be very precious to feel annoyed with Mark at letting this out. In a way, it adds another dimension to the story – a little bit like the question of whether Brian was aware of The Beatles before he went down to the Cavern. He definitely recognised them as a group of boys who frequented his shop and did a lot of listening in the browseries but maybe not as much buying. Perhaps there was the same fleeting recognition in Woolton that day but this was overshadowed by the performance that Paul put on, showing that he was streets ahead of the other Quarrymen as a singer, guitarist and impersonator of Little Richard. And the events which followed.
I actually wonder if one of the real reasons for Paul’s disdain is that Mark details in full just how mean Paul was to Stuart Sutcliffe. In the Anthology, Paul off-handedly refers to the fact that there was a little bit of tension between Stuart and him, Paul wanted the band to be really good musically etc. The reality, according to Mark L, is that Paul deeply resented Stuart on a number of levels, and was particularly horrible to him, to the extent that he couldn’t face Astrid after Stuart died. Just a theory.
What puzzles me is that Mark interviewed Paul on many occasions. Many of these interviews feature in the book for the first time. What reason did Mark give for wanting to interview him? Was it for Many Years From Now? (apparently, Lewisohn was the original choice for co-author before Barry Miles but was sacked when he disagreed with Macca about the date of some gig they’d played in Wallasey in 1961. Or something!).
The following people thank guitarman for this post:
Shamrock Womlbs, pepperland, Beatlebug, Zig, ewe2, O BoogieSomebody spoke and I went into a dream
4.11pm
Reviewers
14 April 2010
All of the above could lend credence to @pepperland ‘s assertion that Paul was indeed miffed at ML specifically and not just Beatle book authors in general. I had forgotten about the Paul/Stuart revelations mentioned by @guitarman (although I don’t know how I forgot having read the book twice). This could have been the inspiration for Early Days .
But, chew on this and let me know what you think. We heard that All These Years… was originally due out in September 2011. It did not get released until October 2013. So, just when did Paul write the song? Did he really hang on to it for 2+ years to coincide with the book’s release? Could he have possibly been that petty, waiting for the right time to snub his nose at ML? I’d love to hear what everyone’s take on that is.
This is a really interesting topic.
The following people thank Zig for this post:
ewe2To the fountain of perpetual mirth, let it roll for all its worth. And all the children boogie.
8.54pm
8 January 2015
guitarman said
I actually wonder if one of the real reasons for Paul’s disdain is that Mark details in full just how mean Paul was to Stuart Sutcliffe. In the Anthology, Paul off-handedly refers to the fact that there was a little bit of tension between Stuart and him, Paul wanted the band to be really good musically etc. The reality, according to Mark L, is that Paul deeply resented Stuart on a number of levels, and was particularly horrible to him, to the extent that he couldn’t face Astrid after Stuart died. Just a theory.
This is far more understandable to me. I’m just speculating but I suspect that ML’s questions were very detailed, perhaps too detailed, revealing this kind of knowledge that Paul would much rather smooth over. I can imagine Paul feeling uncomfortable to the point of looking for a reason to find a more congenial biographical partner. Whatever the timing it surely is a background for Early Days .
The following people thank ewe2 for this post:
ZigI'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.
1.13am
27 April 2015
Well, maybe. But then I saw Early Days as something very John & Paul, and not Beatles as a whole.
The following people thank O Boogie for this post:
Zig
For tomorrow may rain, so I'll follow the Sun
1.53pm
28 June 2013
I just took a shufty at the lyrics and you’re right, the John and Paul relationship is at the heart of it. It’s also possible that the song was written with the knowledge that ML was writing the book and perhaps Paul was just reacting to/anticipating someone who he perceived as trying to take control of the story.
The following people thank guitarman for this post:
ZigSomebody spoke and I went into a dream
7.16pm
Moderators
Members
Reviewers
20 August 2013
Last sentence p. 376 of the first volume of the extended edition of Tune In “As Mike McCartney (now only one school year behind his kid brother) would recall:…”
Why does he call Paul Mike’s kid brother? The way I know it, Mike would be Paul’s kid brother.
Just a minor thing.
Can buy Joe love! Amazon | iTunes
Check here for "how do I do this" guide to the forum. (2017) (2018)
5.56am
3 August 2012
Ahhh Girl said
Last sentence p. 376 of the first volume of the extended edition of Tune In “As Mike McCartney (now only one school year behind his kid brother) would recall:…”Why does he call Paul Mike’s kid brother? The way I know it, Mike would be Paul’s kid brother.
Just a minor thing.
I don’t know why, but Mike always referred to Paul as “our kid”. I guess it was some sort of joke between them but it could be something else.
Times I find it hard to say / With useless words getting in my way
6.11am
Reviewers
17 December 2012
pepperland said
Ahhh Girl said
Last sentence p. 376 of the first volume of the extended edition of Tune In “As Mike McCartney (now only one school year behind his kid brother) would recall:…”Why does he call Paul Mike’s kid brother? The way I know it, Mike would be Paul’s kid brother.
Just a minor thing.
I don’t know why, but Mike always referred to Paul as “our kid”. I guess it was some sort of joke between them but it could be something else.
However, while Mike has often used the quite common (at least then) Northern term “our kid” to refer to Paul, he has never referred to Paul as his kid brother, nor does it appear in quotation marks to indicate he’s using a term Mike used for his brother. Were ML referring to the phrase Mike used for Paul, that in the brackets should read “now only one school year behind ‘our kid'”. I agree with AG that it reads as if ML has reversed their ages.
The following people thank Ron Nasty for this post:
pepperland, Zig, Beatlebug, Ahhh Girl"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
5.06pm
27 April 2015
5.14pm
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
5.21pm
27 April 2015
5.28pm
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
1.33am
27 April 2015
5.09am
27 April 2015
12.27pm
14 March 2016
I have been reading through the Standard (US) version and it has been very enjoyable. I am about done. It’s a well written book and I really want to read the next two when they arrive. I was thinking it might be worth it to read the special editions for the next ones because it will be “the more well known time” for The Beatles career. It may be even more a smoother read and richer with details than this volume is.
The following people thank Reklo87 for this post:
pepperland"No Beatles collection is too big or age restricted!"
10.30pm
28 February 2016
10.15am
14 March 2016
Don.W said
Can anyone share a break down of the differences between the standard and the deluxe version
Check out post #160:
https://www.beatlesbible.com/f…..8/#p110994
Check out post 619 of this thread.
There are others but those are some good ones to look at for starters.
The following people thank Reklo87 for this post:
Ahhh Girl, Beatlebug"No Beatles collection is too big or age restricted!"
2 Guest(s)