The Love You Make by Peter Brown and Steven Gaines | Page 3 | Fab Forum | The Beatles Bible

PeterWeatherby said 

A few more examples: he says that George had been “diligently studying” the sitar ever since filming Help !, and used it on both “Norwegian Wood ” as well as “Rain ,” which “closed with one of George’s neo-Indian ragas.” George didn’t really begin to get serious with the sitar until mid-1966 when he became Ravi Shankar’s student, and even on “Norwegian Wood ,” he was so unfamiliar with the instrument that he had to re-tune it “to Western notes” according to The Beatles on the Record. And no reputable source I’ve ever read has claimed that anyone played the sitar on “Rain ,” much less that the song featured a “neo-Indian raga” at the end.

Yeah, I didn’t read Brown’s book to be educated on their recording history, but if you wanna put so much emphasis on these paltry details then what about The Beatles’ ‘Anthology’?  Ringo asks “Which one of his (George’s songs) was on ‘Revolver ‘?”  Should we discount everything that Ringo says during the ‘Anthology’ simply because he couldn’t recall the name of even “one” of three George Harrison songs on ‘Revolver ‘?  George didn’t even remember visiting Shea Stadium more than once during the ‘Anthology’, I guess we’d better dismiss everything he says throughout as well then.  Every volume/documentary on The Beatles has conflicting/inconsistent information, that I’ve come to expect, but when you line up Brown’s book with Neil Aspinall’s ‘Anthology’ memoires in addition to John, Paul, George & Ringo’s own comments, there’s a lot of corroborating accounts that are just told from each different person’s personal viewpoint…:-)

DrBeatle said

  
 
For me, it’s more to do with the fact that there are so many inaccuracies in the book, and sections where he is writing AS THOUGH IT WERE FACT what was said and done when he was not even THERE and no one who was has gone on record about it.

“so many inaccuracies”?  Some things are perhaps open to debate based on the fact that it came through second-hand information, but what about the many accuracies presented throughout that were brought to light here for the very first time?  Take Peter Brown’s account of their horrific experience in The Philippines, which up until this book’s release had been reduced to a simple “Beatles Snub President” headline with very little details about what had actually happened there by anyone before.  Peter Brown’s “tale” proved to be spot on when the subject was later covered on The Beatles’ ‘Anthology’, Neil Aspinall confirmed his story about the Authorities taking the boys out to sea via a surprise boat ride immediately upon their arrival to separate them from their luggage & equipment where it was believed that their marijuana supply had in fact been discovered but overlooked to avoid a National Incident, and even Paul McCartney one of Brown’s staunchest critics verified that Mal Evans, while being removed from the plane sitting on the tarmac trying to get them out of the country, did indeed turn around in tears and instruct them to tell his wife that he loved her out of fear for his life.

Peter Brown gave, what I feel, about as accurate as possible account based off of the interviews by the rare select group of individuals who WERE THERE interviewed specially for the occasion, not to mention that he WAS THERE for many of the events accurately described in this book.  He doesn’t always paint The Beatles as Deities and many simply don’t want to believe that they could be so Human, in some cases.   Rather than retelling a different version of their story, Peter Brown for me personally, simply filled in a lot of the blanks that had been long kept from the public by design…:-)

DrBeatle said
We’re going around in circle about this book…we’re never gonna agree.

That’s all very fine, but you’ve failed to effectively demonstrate what exactly you mean by “so many inaccuracies”.  Your “he was not even THERE” statement isn’t nearly enough to uncategorically dismiss all of Peter Brown’s claims, if that were the case, then we should all reject Mark Lewisohn’s diatribes for he most certainly “was not even THERE”.  Even Sir George Martin all but confirms many of the writings contained in this book when going by the quote given by someone earlier on in this thread.  So, you have The Beatles, their Road Manager & their Producer, among many others personally verifying what’s written here, yet some of you seem to prefer an external “paper trail” analysis by an “outsider” instead, go figure…:-)