Log In
Register
8.04pm
Reviewers
29 November 2012
Offline
parlance said
DrBeatle said
he did say many times that it was the UK press’s “fault” they started doing heroin (which I think is a bunch of BS)Wait , what? Any links? That’s amazing.
parlance
It’s in the Lennon Remembers Rolling Stone interview from 1970, IIRC…something to the effect that they started doing it because of “all of the pain” from the press slagging Yoko. I’ll see if I can dig up the quote.
"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
8.11pm
1 November 2012
Offline Yes, that sounds like the one. The interview I saw was in the 1990s I believe, interviewed at her home John bought her I think.
Faded flowers, wait in a jar, till the evening is complete... complete... complete... complete...
8.12pm
Reviewers
29 November 2012
Offline Here’s the quote, parlance:
“Heroin. It just was not too much fun. I never injected it or anything. We sniffed a little when we were in real pain. I mean we just couldn’t – people were giving us such a hard time. And I’ve had so much s**t thrown at me and especially at Yoko. People like Peter Brown in our office, he comes down and shakes my hand and doesn’t even say hello to her. Now that’s going on all the time. And we get in so much pain that we have to do something about it. And that’s what happened to us. We took H because of what The Beatles and their pals were doing to us. And we got out of it. They didn’t set down to do it, but things came out of that period. And I don’t forget.”
"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
9.58am
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline 
I’m on my second go round with the book. Annoying me first time around was the lack of what John was replying to, and the light that other half of the conversation might have had on his responses, but this time round it’s the silly mistakes annoying me. Hunter’s usually pretty good, but there are errors in here that just have you shaking your head when you notice them.
Two examples.
Page 16, end of the “Brief Biography of John Lennon ” chapter, is a full-page picture of John at the mic which by the look of him was taken in 1962, picture captioned on page 17, John at the microphone in his early Quarrymen days – no way! Nobody looking at that who has some knowledge of The Beatles would think they were looking at Quarrymen John and not Beatle John.
Even worse, jumping up to page 228 (I could have gone earlier but this one is so obviously wrong in the way Hunter describes it). The chapter is “1971” and it’s a postcard to Julian (reference Letter 156). The postcard used is the Imagine –Ram parody, which would also point to it being 1971. However Hunter admits that occasionally he’s not entirely strict with the chronological order, which might explain the problem I’m about to highlight, but in his description Hunter clearly places it in 1971. “Julian, being only eight, did not appreciate the underlying message…” My problem with this? The postcard is signed “John Yoko Sean”! Was John really including Sean in his sign-off four years before he was born?!!! The key dating evidence ignored! The earliest the postcard can be, because of it’s content, is late summer 1976. The very earliest.
Hunter talks about how hard it was to convince Yoko to allow him to do the book, you’d think he wouldn’t have allowed such basic errors to make it to the published work. It’s not hard to realise that if John’s including Sean in the signature, it can’t be before October 1975, and that Julian would have been at least thirteen.
stupid mistakes from those who should know better annoy me!
"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
11.53am
31 March 2008
Offline
Well spotted. I’ve been skimming through the book because, frankly, a lot of it’s quite dull. I’ve also stuck to reading the transcripts rather than Lennon’s own handwriting, as it saves a lot of time. But I haven’t really bothered with any of Hunter Davies’s writing – I know Lennon’s story anyway, and what I did read was pretty basic stuff. I didn’t realise there were some basic factual errors though.
Can buy me love! Please consider supporting the Beatles Bible on Amazon
Or buy my paperback/ebook! Riding So High – The Beatles and Drugs
Don't miss The Bowie Bible – now live!
1.25pm
Reviewers
29 November 2012
Offline This book has been on my to-buy list for a while but errors like that are inexcusable! It’s one thing if he misdated a picture from 1966 as being from 1965, for example…something only we hardcore fans would pick up. But a card signed John Yoko Sean from ’71? That’s just basic common sense gone missing!
"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
2.09pm
8 November 2012
Offline There are quite a few errors in Davie’s authorized bio on the band from the 60s, so not surprised by the lack of rigor in research this time around.
BTW, thanks, Dr. Beatle for digging up that quote. I missed it earlier.
On a side note, even though it’ll never happen, someone should compile the anonymous postcards Paul was sending around during the Beatles’ demise/his apparent meltdown. According to the Sounes bio I’m reading right now, some of them were off the rails.
parlance
2.19pm
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Online There will be errors in every beatles book out there if you look hard enough for them, even the offical Anthology. Even that Lewinsohn tome thats coming out will have some errors despite taking an age to get released. Some are annoying, some you overlook. An offical pack of Beatles Playing Cards dated the Revolution promo as 1966.
I started out reading the Lennon Letters and enjoyed it but dont find a lot of time to read so its been added to the evergrowing tower of ‘to be read but probably never will’. The last Beatles book i couldnt put down was You Never Give Me Your Money and the next will probably be the aforementioned upcoming Lewinsohn release – tho it’ll probably kill me.
"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
3.03pm
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline It is a very bad mistake, meanmistermustard. I accept lots of mistakes in Beatle books, including from them themselves (there are two McCartney quotes that he’s made more than once, at least one of which made Anthology, that have me screaming “Bullsh*t!”). I accept Hunter’s mistakes in the Authorized, because that’s how they wanted it told then. Had it just been the picture miscredit I would have passed it by, but page 228 is such a huge basic mistake, it would be doing others such a disservice were I not to say, “What do you make of this? Does it seem as strange to you as it does to me? Am I missing something here?” The only thing I could be missing is that the front and back are two different postcards, but Hunter claims them as one. Once you chuck in the signature, you cannot get away from something being seriously wrong.
"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
3.04pm
Reviewers
29 November 2012
Offline parlance said
There are quite a few errors in Davie’s authorized bio on the band from the 60s, so not surprised by the lack of rigor in research this time around.BTW, thanks, Dr. Beatle for digging up that quote. I missed it earlier.
On a side note, even though it’ll never happen, someone should compile the anonymous postcards Paul was sending around during the Beatles’ demise/his apparent meltdown. According to the Sounes bio I’m reading right now, some of them were off the rails.
parlance
You’re welcome for the quote 
And Davies bio does have some errors (I still like the book), but he also had the manuscript heavily edited and redacted by the band before he was able to publish it…in one of his forewards to the updated editions, he mentions some juicier bits that got chopped…I’d love to see more of a “author’s cut” version of it with all that stuf added back in, but it probably won’t happen.
And meanmistermustard, You Never Give Me Your Money was that good, wasn’t it? I couldn’t put it down either, read it in 3 days!
"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
3.10pm
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline DrBeatle said
This book has been on my to-buy list for a while but errors like that are inexcusable! It’s one thing if he misdated a picture from 1966 as being from 1965, for example…something only we hardcore fans would pick up. But a card signed John Yoko Sean from ’71? That’s just basic common sense gone missing!
I’d still say there’s some interesting stuff in there, just that the commentary leaves something to be desired. I wouldn’t not have it, I’m just approaching with care.
"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
3.17pm
Reviewers
29 November 2012
Offline It’s a bit pricey, though, isn’t it? The iBooks version is only $13 and after glancing through the sample, if it’s that rife with errors, I may be fine with just that instead of the more expensive print version (even though I tend to like the print versions better for my Beatles books if they’re quality/worthwhile ones).
"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
3.19pm
8 November 2012
Offline DrBeatle said
And Davies bio does have some errors (I still like the book), but he also had the manuscript heavily edited and redacted by the band before he was able to publish it…in one of his forewards to the updated editions, he mentions some juicier bits that got chopped…
Yes, I’m glad the library had the latest edition. I enjoyed the book overall.
Generally, I’m forgiving of errors in books and I’ll still read them (though I appreciate fan efforts to point them out for my own information). The only one I’m avoiding right now is the Spitz bio because he was so unprofessional when politely told about the errors, I just don’t feel like rewarding him with time/energy and certainly not money.
Eventually I’ll track down the letters book. It’s low on the list of Beatle book priorities. I’m assuming there’s more that’s interesting about them than the vitriol that’s been excerpted?
parlance
3.49pm
31 March 2008
Offline I didn’t find the book all that interesting. The most juicy stuff had already been reprinted in the press, and there was quite a bit of familiar stuff if you’ve read the biogs (eg letters to Cynthia and Paul). A few early letters to fans were good to see, as John seemed like a lovely bloke in the early days, but the fame years are either well documented or the letters contained quite boring everyday details or business decisions. Still, worth it if you’re a completist. And I’d definitely rather have a paper copy than an ebook – the reproduction and paper qualities are high.
Can buy me love! Please consider supporting the Beatles Bible on Amazon
Or buy my paperback/ebook! Riding So High – The Beatles and Drugs
Don't miss The Bowie Bible – now live!
4.55pm
Reviewers
29 November 2012
Offline parlance said
DrBeatle said
And Davies bio does have some errors (I still like the book), but he also had the manuscript heavily edited and redacted by the band before he was able to publish it…in one of his forewards to the updated editions, he mentions some juicier bits that got chopped…Yes, I’m glad the library had the latest edition. I enjoyed the book overall.
Generally, I’m forgiving of errors in books and I’ll still read them (though I appreciate fan efforts to point them out for my own information). The only one I’m avoiding right now is the Spitz bio because he was so unprofessional when politely told about the errors, I just don’t feel like rewarding him with time/energy and certainly not money.
Eventually I’ll track down the letters book. It’s low on the list of Beatle book priorities. I’m assuming there’s more that’s interesting about them than the vitriol that’s been excerpted?
parlance
I’m glad to see someone else who hates that Spitz bio as much as I do. Loaded with errors, and he was/is a massive arsehole when presented with all of the errors. And not all of them are even errors only a hardcore fan could pick out…my mum who is an original Beatles fan from the 60s but is by no means a diehard like I am was even able to pick many of the goofs out. If the casual/commited fan can find them, you’ve done a bad job. And he’s not even a Beatles fan, he does these drive-by bios on loads of other artists (IIRC his Dylan bio was similarly pilloried).
And Joe, I agree that the print version is typically better…I guess what I forgot to say is that the book is not interesting enough in its own right for me to bother 
"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
7.22pm
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Online I agree mja that its a really idiotic mistake by Hunter, if i had gotten that far it would probably have been thrown across the room in disgust.
A google search brings up this 2005 Beatles News article that talks about the errors in Spitz’s bio.
One book i despise due to incredibly stupid mistakes is Bill Harry’s Beatles Encyclopedia. How can you omit Penny Lane from the Blue Album tracklist?! He’s updating and expanding it for a future release so hopefully someone will sit him down and say correct this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this and then we’ll consider publishing it. They werent corrected in a later, smaller sized version i also have for some daft reason.
And if he could add George’s version of how Dont Both Me came about that would be great instead of only noting his recollection that he was the one who pestered George to start writing. I wouldnt mind if both were in but dont neglect what the author says.
"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
7.33pm
Reviewers
29 November 2012
Offline I bought that Bill Harry encyclopedia back in, geez, 1992 or so. It’s been in a box in my basement the last several years, but I do remember it was filled with mistakes. Maybe worth digging out again to revisit. You’d think he of all people would have a book with very few errors in it!
And I have to 
at that article about Spitzer’s book. It really is a load of rubbish (the book, that is)
"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
7.47pm
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Online Since its a moment of book slating i’d like to name ‘The Mammoth Book of the Beatles’, read it in Waterstones over a period of around 3 weeks. Have regretted it ever since. A worthless piece of s**t i found it to be the more i read, especially the album and track reviews, thats what really got to me. I kept reading it because the beatles book selection was incredibly poor and i had a load of time to waste. Stupid i admit.
"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
9.59pm
1 December 2009
Offline (shrugs) Eh, I liked that Spitz book myself, thought it was well-written and novelistic and that the errors were relatively trivial ones.
But yeah, there were indeed quite a few of them; and yeah, he was quite a dick when called on them.
GEORGE: In fact, The Detroit Sound. JOHN: In fact, yes. GEORGE: In fact, yeah. Tamla-Motown artists are our favorites. The Miracles. JOHN: We like Marvin Gaye. GEORGE: The Impressions PAUL & GEORGE: Mary Wells. GEORGE: The Exciters. RINGO: Chuck Jackson. JOHN: To name but eighty.
11.13pm
17 January 2013
Offline bikelock28 said
I feel angry that John wouldn’t empathise with Paul, but then again he must’ve felt pretty betrayed when Paul sued him, George and Ringo.
Its so sad that such a wonderful friendship ended so bitterly
I’m sure it didn’t feel too good to get sued, but Paul had to do it. He couldn’t sue Klein, so he had to sue the other three Beatles to dissolve the partnership. Years later the other three ended up suing Klein too, because he’s a goddam snake. Paul just knew that before anyone else did I guess.
"Please don't bring your banjo back, I know where it's been.. I wasn't hardly gone a day, when it became the scene.. Banjos! Banjos! All the time, I can't forget that tune.. and if I ever see another banjo, I'm going out and buy a big balloon!"
3 Guest(s)