Log In
Register
7.03pm
8 August 2013
Offline
acmac said
DrBeatle said
^yep, I remember that, and the scathing (and honestly, petty and needlessly personal) attack on him was written by none other than…Philip Norman, who is well-known for his Paul hatred, and is now working on a Paul bio for 2015. That’s one of the reasons I think it should be an “interesting” read…“Interesting” is right, lol! Philip Norman undermined his own credibility long ago, first with Shout!, then with his various random screeds against Paul (including a limerick that “jokingly” wishes Paul an early death) and that absolutely disgusting “obituary” he wrote for George. And then he had the gall in his Lennon bio to play innocent and be all “Gosh, I just can’t IMAGINE why anyone would think I don’t like Paul!” Sheesh.
Frankly, short of a foreword acknowledging he once had an irrational vendetta against any non-John Beatle and explaining how and when he got over it (like, hopefully with the help of therapy), I just won’t be able to take the Paul bio seriously.
This is soooo true. I HATED Shout. I’ve read it twice, once about 10 years ago and once just recently. I’d forgotten how boring and dry it is and his dislike of Paul screams out every time he mentions him. Even when he is writing about a good deed or something nice Paul has done he has to counter it with something negative. How it is described as the definitive story of the Beatles baffles me because almost every Beatles fan dislikes it (may be generalising here, sorry if you anyone on here likes it, it does have it’s good points I suppose!) acmac, I’ve never read the obituary to George, what does he say about him? He wasn’t very complimentary in Shout. Sorry for straying off topic!
8.39pm
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline I started reading Shout but only got about a quarter through, found it to be unreadable drivel.
"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
9.45pm
1 August 2013
Offline Hannah said
acmac, I’ve never read the obituary to George, what does he say about him? He wasn’t very complimentary in Shout. Sorry for straying off topic!
Here’s a link to it:
http://www.beatlelinks.net/for…..11294.html
Proceed with caution, tho, it’s quite hateful. Like Norman’s letter to Paul that Inner Light posted earlier, it’s not necessarily factually incorrect, but it’s grossly unfair, snide, and compassionless. And of course what makes it worse in this case is that it’s supposed to be an obituary, for Pete’s sake. Just totally inappropriate.
If you’re interested, here’s a link to a great discussion of Norman’s work over at Hey Dullblog. You can see the cruel limerick I mentioned earlier there.
http://heydullblog.blogspot.co…..ecide.html
10.34pm
21 November 2012
Offline What’s wrong with that guy? Did he even like the Beatles?
I was planning to order that book in the library, as it always receives so much praise over the internet, but reading all your reactions on it, I think I’ll rather stay away from it.
11.13pm
20 December 2010
Offline acmac said
Hannah said
acmac, I’ve never read the obituary to George, what does he say about him? He wasn’t very complimentary in Shout. Sorry for straying off topic!
Here’s a link to it:
http://www.beatlelinks.net/for…..11294.html
Proceed with caution, tho, it’s quite hateful. Like Norman’s letter to Paul that Inner Light posted earlier, it’s not necessarily factually incorrect, but it’s grossly unfair, snide, and compassionless. And of course what makes it worse in this case is that it’s supposed to be an obituary, for Pete’s sake. Just totally inappropriate.If you’re interested, here’s a link to a great discussion of Norman’s work over at Hey Dullblog. You can see the cruel limerick I mentioned earlier there.
http://heydullblog.blogspot.co…..ecide.html
Just finished reading this article. It’s like he is telling us the truth and we have all been deceived so he is setting the record straight. None of the Beatles were saints. I don’t believe Harrison was ever trying to come across like one. His wife once said: ‘George never said he was a saint but he did say he was a sinner’. Maybe someone needs to write a biography on Phillip Norman! HA!
The further one travels, the less one knows
11.28pm
21 November 2012
Offline Had never read that orbituary either, thanks for posting that.
Though everything that’s in it may be true, it’s very disrespectful and completely unnecessary. Even those last few lines which are supposed to be empathic or something are just so belittling. How can you write something like that after someone has died?
12.10am
16 July 2013
Offline The galling thing is that these writers usually pride themselves on being the ones to tell the real truth! Trouble is, they only tell part of the truth or their version of it. They leave out balance and context.
Interested to read that about Shout! – I also had that on my list of must-reads because it got such a good rap elsewhere. I probably won’t waste my time now especially with my huge back-log of Beatles reading.
"Try to realise it's all within yourself - no-one else can make you change"
5.40pm
1 August 2013
Offline 
Inner Light said
Maybe someone needs to write a biography on Phillip Norman! HA!
My thoughts exactly. Hey Norman, if George was a “misanthrope,” what does that make you? 
3.53am
Moderators
Members
Reviewers
20 August 2013
Offline Parts of this discussion make me think about my interpretation of “Mr. Bellamy”. I think Bellamy is Paul. Other singers want him to come down from his perch so they can be more popular, but Bellamy is telling them he still has a lot more in him to write, sing, and perform.
Can buy Joe love! Amazon | iTunes
Check here for "how do I do this" guide to the forum. 
(2017) 
(2018)
12.52pm
8 August 2013
Offline acmac said
Hannah said
acmac, I’ve never read the obituary to George, what does he say about him? He wasn’t very complimentary in Shout. Sorry for straying off topic!
Here’s a link to it:
http://www.beatlelinks.net/for…..11294.html
Proceed with caution, tho, it’s quite hateful. Like Norman’s letter to Paul that Inner Light posted earlier, it’s not necessarily factually incorrect, but it’s grossly unfair, snide, and compassionless. And of course what makes it worse in this case is that it’s supposed to be an obituary, for Pete’s sake. Just totally inappropriate.If you’re interested, here’s a link to a great discussion of Norman’s work over at Hey Dullblog. You can see the cruel limerick I mentioned earlier there.
http://heydullblog.blogspot.co…..ecide.html
Thanks acmac! Sorry I’m a bit late with my thanks, I’ve been away for a while.
I’ve read that before, I think it’s in the revised edition of Shout (2002 edition maybe?) and he uses it for the final chapter on George. Incidentially he devotes loads of pages to John’s final chapter, lots for Paul’s (although most of it is insults) considerably less for George and about 2 pages for Ringo! I was completely disgusted with what he said about George. It’s so negative and nasty! When George died so many people gave touching tributes and spoke at length about what a wonderful human being he was. Of course he wasn’t a saint but none of us are (not even Mr Norman I shouldn’t think!) Why focus on the negative? Why not concentrate on all the great things he did and the impact he had on the world instead of portraying him as a bitter angry man? I don’t know if i’ll be able to read his Paul biography when it comes out, it will probably just make me incredibly angry. I may just leave it alone!
4.48pm
9 July 2013
Offline I’m shocked, horrified, irrate, and disgusted over the obit for George! (By the way, thanks for posting it). I have seen nicer obits for serial killers. Why would anyone write something so negative and worthless (and in some instances…completely untrue! He was not the only Beatle to write a tribute to John). I personally plan to boycott any and everything Norman writes. He clearly has no interest in the truth or in human decency. I’m outraged!
"And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make."
5.03pm
8 August 2013
Offline Very good points mccartneyalarm. He obviously just wants to be controversial. The sad thing is though there would have been people who aren’t as in to the Beatles who read that drivel and believed every word. Which comes back to the negative image of Paul. It’s people like Philip Norman who perpetrate it. My mother in law HATES Paul even though she doesn’t know that much about him and isn’t a Beatles fan. I suppose its because of the negative way he is sometimes portrayed thats she’s picked up on. Theres so many myths about him like he’s mean with money, he’s fake and only cares about his public image. And of course that John was the most important one in the Beatles and Paul is nothing without him! True Beatles fans know that is absolute rubbish but the casual observers probably think thats the truth. John was the true talent, Paul was just Mr Showbiz who could only write catchy love songs, George was quiet and miserable and Ringo wasn’t important at all and wasn’t even a good drummer! WE NEED CHANGE THIS SORT OF THINKING!!!!!! (Sorry for that, got a bit carried away there!) It annoys me no end when people say Paul never writes anything deep like John did. Have they listened to She’s Leaving Home ? Or Maybe I’m Amazed ? Or countless others???????
9.23pm
9 July 2013
Offline Excellent points, Hannah. People make judgments about the group, often turning positives into negatives. It is a fact that Paul was/is image-concious and business-minded…but it is a good thing he is/was ‘cuz that really helped the group after Brian died. And people chose to remember certain songs and ignore others according to their perception of the musician. If you just listened to Paul Simon’s “Graceland”, you would probably think Paul Simon was from Africa! Macca has incredible depth and talent. They ignore his symphonies and the ballet he composed. And what about “Calico Skies” (I love that song). What if John was just remembered for “Woman is the N####r of the World?” We do need to change the perceptions people have, but I don’t know how to do it. I hate it when George is called the quiet one. He was hardly quiet! What can you do?
"And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make."
9.42pm
8 August 2013
Offline I know, George had a fantastic sense of humour! As someone said earlier all you have to do is look at footage and interviews of George and you can see he’s smiling and making jokes in nearly every one. His humour was dry, he wasn’t loud and in your face and he was very witty and intelligent.
That’s such a good point you made about what if John was just remembered for songs like “Woman is the N****r of the World”. The sentiment behind the song was admirable but its hardly a great song. They both composed hundreds of songs, there are bound to be some turkeys in there somewhere! I agree about Calico Skies, that’s such a beautiful, beautiful song. When I listen to it I think of Paul and Linda and that incredible love they had and I sometimes get a little teary eyed! Another thing Paul’s not given enough credit for. Paul and Linda would have still been together today had she lived, no question. That was the most beautiful, loving relationship ever seen in the public eye. He wasn’t caught cheating on her (and I’m sure girls still threw themselves at him) and they brought up a family together in a normal stable way. They even sent their kids to the local state schools and didn’t have a nanny! That’s virtually unheard of in the celebrity world. All the evidence points to Paul being a wonderful human being who, while being flawed (as we all are) the good far outweighs the bad.
7.03pm
1 November 2012
Offline I found that Norman article rather interesting. Sure, he seems a bit enamored of himself and a bit too clever for his own good, but he seems to have a good eye for details and what their broader significance could be. No doubt some of these broader “lessons” he draws (and a priori assumes) about George and the Beatles are subjective and rather tainted by his wry jaundice; but that’s no cause, I think, to reject everything he says as “hateful”.
Faded flowers, wait in a jar, till the evening is complete... complete... complete... complete...
7.37pm
8 August 2013
Offline Sorry Funny Paper i’m going to have to disagree there! I take your point that Philip Norman has a wry way about his writing which makes it seem like he is slightly sneering at everything, but it’s not just that. He clearly has issues with Paul and George, idolises John and thinks Ringo was just lucky. The fact is, the Beatles wanted Ringo not only because his personality fit completely with theirs, but because he was the best drummer in Liverpool! He was well respected as a drummerand had a massive impact upon the Beatles yet Norman seems to think he could have been replaced by anyone and it wouldn’t have mattered! I understand that when you are writing a biography of the Beatles you have to show the bad as well as the good. I have read many biographies which show Paul and George’s negative sides but balanced it with all the good. Norman just focuses on the negatives. The way he finishes the George section, describing how bitter he is and he should have been grateful was appalling. George was alot more than just a member of the Beatles. While he had his gripes and I dislike the way in which he continued to bear a grudge with Paul, pretty much until he died, I’m sure he didn’t spend his whole life moaning about the Beatles and being bitter and twisted about it all! Listen to something like When We Was Fab, he clearly had somewhat fond memories of that time of his life.
Sorry for going on so long!
4.52am
1 November 2012
Offline Hannah, no doubt Norman is kind of weaving together a mythology about the Beatles, and making it seem like it’s all factual but requires his own perceptive talents to see and describe. In one sense, probably all biographies are that way, whether they revere their subjects or not. I think though that it’s not a black and white thing, but that there are some truths to what he’s writing. One shouldn’t of course read only Norman for a balanced picture, but I think he’s not worthless on the other hand.
P.S.: I found amusing his description of Paul as having “cow eyes” (I say that as a McCartney fan!)
Faded flowers, wait in a jar, till the evening is complete... complete... complete... complete...
6.15pm
8 August 2013
Offline Funny Paper said
Hannah, no doubt Norman is kind of weaving together a mythology about the Beatles, and making it seem like it’s all factual but requires his own perceptive talents to see and describe. In one sense, probably all biographies are that way, whether they revere their subjects or not. I think though that it’s not a black and white thing, but that there are some truths to what he’s writing. One shouldn’t of course read only Norman for a balanced picture, but I think he’s not worthless on the other hand.P.S.: I found amusing his description of Paul as having “cow eyes” (I say that as a McCartney fan!)
We’ll have to agree to disagree, but I do get what you’re saying. I agree about the “cow eyes” thing though, it is pretty funny! Aww poor Paulie!
9.52pm
1 December 2009
Offline
I’m with Funny Paper on the “mythology” thing. Also, although I don’t care much for Norman as a writer either, I don’t think he was all that mean-spirited about George in that obit, aside from a questionable comment or two in the penultimate paragraph.
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.
1.38am
1 November 2012
Offline Hannah — perhaps as an animal lover, Paul wouldn’t mind that remark about his eyes!
vonbontee and others — I do think Norman should have waited to publish this many months later. The timing was … “unseemly”.
Faded flowers, wait in a jar, till the evening is complete... complete... complete... complete...
1 Guest(s)