What´s the best McCartney bio? | Page 2 | Fab Forum | The Beatles Bible

Just finished the book. I enjoyed it immensely. Once I had a good chunk of time on my hands, I couldn’t put it down. This is one of the few bios I felt safe committing some time to, as it’s comes directly from a Beatle, with the help of someone who knew him well, and doesn’t bear the stain of sensationalism like so many Beatle bios (of course this is more an autobiography where the ghost-rider got credit). Of course it has Paul’s spin (what bio doesn’t?), and Paul frequently glosses over the details of the break-up, but overall, he seems pretty frank throughout. I felt I got a more intimate picture of the man and his motivations. And I think Miles does his best to put Paul’s comments into perspective through his own observations and interviews with surrounding players. The book’s well-written and it brings the 60s vividly to life.

Favorite parts: as previously mentioned, the avant-garde scene; the sections involving his relationships with the Ashers (it amazes me he was able to live like that at the height of his fame); the discussion of Paul’s paintings; and to my surprise, the section on his exploring New York with Linda incognito. Also, Paul’s description of the first time they tried pot made me laugh out loud.

As for criticisms, I do wish Paul had spent less time on the whole songwriting contributions/percentages game, which is where he comes across his most defensive (and, frankly, boring). I know that started with John, and should have been dropped. I also wish there were more of Paul’s post-Beatles life, but that’s only an afterword. I was also hoping he’d had talk more about his relationships with George and Ringo, but it seems this book was written mostly to set the record straight about his partnership with John. There are  some factual inaccuracies; most notably Paul chalks up “I Don’t Want To Spoil The Party ” as being sung by Ringo, and Miles didn’t catch the error.

Despite the criticisms, though, I think it’s essential reading for a Beatle fan. It’s a quick, fascinating read, so don’t let the length intimidate you.

parlance

Yeah, John also claimed 70% credit for “Eleanor Rigby ,” and I take many things he said in the heat of battle with a grain of salt.

As the book mentions, those 2 songs are the only ones where there’s discrepancy in L/M contributions, which is pretty extraordinary.

parlance

^^ I agree with you, Zig (except for my loving the chapter on the avant-garde scene), and I almost bought a copy at the record store yesterday. Decided to hold off so I’m not tempted to go back to re-read it when I have other Beatle books from the library to go through.

One example was recording a symphony orchestra that was not playing any music…just sitting there making normal human noises (coughing, sniffing…whatever). This to me, is where Avant-garde borders on bullshit.

That part tickled me, imagining Paul so earnestly contributing, rolling a coin along a radiator, lol.

parlance

^^ Ever since you recommended that book I’ve been trying to find it, but I don’t know if it even got published in the US. I’ll probably have to order from Amazon UK.

parlance

vonbontee said
That’s interesting how Paul misremembered “Spoil the Party” as being sung by Ringo. I wonder if they’d considered giving it to him to sing originally?

I was wondering that myself.

Or maybe Paul was confusing that song with “Act Naturally ” – those two aren’t dissimilar.

Oof. Spoil the Party’s one of my favorites. I just don’t see much resemblance.

parlance