THE BEATLES: THE BIOGRAPHY

[garth cartwright]

Sometimes I surprise myself: seeing this huge (900+ page) tome in Peckham library i decided it was about time i read a book on The B's. It's written by an American called Bob Spitz who i've never heard of before but appears to write books on popular music superstars. If badly written i would have packed the tome in early but Spitz is a gifted enough journalist to weave together The B's story from a huge variety of sources (published in 96 several of the major characters were dead and others not giving intvs). As a writer he is straightforward and only occasionally dips in cliche - "ruggedly handsome" "chilling drug abuse" et al.

While being familiar with the arc of the B's story I was in no way familiar with their overall story - i read Albert Goldman's biog of Lennon but never Philip Norman's Shout. Spitz doesn't go in for psychobable or even try and unearth new ways of seeing/hearing the most famous pop band of all time, he just tries to report what the public opinon was at the time. Interesting to see that Nik Cohn and Richard Goldstein were giving them a hard time critically with Sgt Pepper and White Album. While he suggests that Pete Best's sacking was due to his limited abilities he makes it apparent that the others - McCartney especially - were jealous of his popularity with female fans.

As for the Beatles as people - well, outside of Ringo, you probably wouldn't fancy them as neighbours: George is pompous and sour, Paul manipulative and a control freak and John . . . where to start? having read Goldman's biog I realised John L was a very flawed human being but I knew that was written from a perspective where he wanted to bash the dead artist but Spitz attempts to document the band's day to day behaviour and Lennon is most definitely a monster. One who seemed to find it amusing to chide manager Brian Epstein with "fag-Jew" jokes all the time and treated everyone - except Yoko - with contempt.

Did this book make me reappraise the B's music? No. I did relisten to what i own of theirs and still feel they made some great singles but were vastly overrated. But to read of their rise to the very very top amongst the musical and social situation of the day is fascinating.

So for anyone with time to waste and a desire to understand how The B's went from teenage no-hopers to megastars this is a decent read. While Spitz doesn't suggest it I still believe that right place, right time, right manager, right producer were essential in establishing The B's and this book is rich enough in detail to hint that indeed this was so.

[Charlie]

I still believe that right place, right time, right manager, right producer were essential in establishing The B's and this book is rich enough in detail to hint that indeed this was so.

What other criteria can there be, Garth, in establishing the worth of a popular music act? But you seem to have missed their unprecedented and unrepeated ability to capture the spirit of the day and throw it out to us in a song - I Feel Fine, Can't Buy Me Love, We Can Work It Out, Help and A Hard Day's Night. Hard to explain how incredible those optimistic songs sounded as they burst out of the radio. Dylan was more self-preoccupied, the Stones more surly, and nobody since has come close to those three. Earlier, Chuck Berry had done it a few times, but he didn't have the same wide range of moods.

Thanks for pointing out a book I had never heard of, by a writer who is also new to me.

[garth cartwright]

I'm not denying how optimistic and fresh the B's sounded in the early 60s, Charlie - Spitz spells this out clearly - just remember that by the time i got a radio it was the solo B's who were having hits. I will always love Band On The Run and Jet cos I heard them when I was 9 and boy did they sound exciting! Beyond that, yes, those early Beatles singles are easily their best - they captured the spirit of rocknroll so well. The band began losing it when they started to get selfconcious ala Rubber Soul as far as I'm concerned and only released one more great single - Strawberry Fields/Penny Lane. i'm guessing Spitz's book is the definite Beatles biog but perhaps somehow has another nomination?

[mike gavin]

Not a fan of biogs in general so for me the best beatles book is Ian Macdonald's extraordinary songography (sorry) Revolution in the Head which provides insights into their political and economic milieu, the song writing process and the technical genius of the Beatles team (including the studio and production crew) which lead to a former Butlins band drummer (Ringo) being held in awe by the Stax rhythm section, for instance.

[Hugh Weldon]

The other standard reference fabs fans need is Mark Lewisohn's comprehensive Complete Beatles Chronicle.

Philip Norman's Shout and Hunter Davies's The Beatles were the standard straight biogs for many a year, maybe Spitz has improved on them, don't know as I'm not familiar with him. Adam??

Garth:

I still believe that right place, right time, right manager, right producer were essential in establishing The B's

Right place and right time are indeed the hardest to pin down. Why Liverpool circa 1961/62? That's the question that preoccupies me sometimes. It's something to do with a live circuit on which they could earn enough to make a full time living, unlike the rest of the largely semi pro Merseybeat lot - butcher Kingsize Taylor et al. And the Hamburg connection as well I think.

But besides being a better group than the rest, they did have better songs, which would have broken through somehow eventually, even if there had been no Epstein or George Martin.

[Adam Blake]

. Adam??

Sorry, Hugh. I'm not getting into this discussion.

[Hugh Weldon]

As Adam is keeping mum on this I just went to Spencer Leigh's website, as he is the person I generally measure all things fab against, and sure enough, for those really interested, he has two long pieces (2005 and 2008) on all the recent Beatles books.

Spencer gives Spitz fairly short shrift:

"Timing is everything in the Beatle world and now there is The Beatles – The Biography by Bob Spitz. This is perfect timing because there is a gap in the market for a solid, decent and lengthy biography. So why did he blow it?

Because the Beatles story is ipso facto very dramatic, The Beatles – The Biography is a good read but ultimately disappointing. I learnt no new facts of any significance; the copyreading is atrocious; and there are no musical, cultural or sociological insights. How can this possibly represent seven years of research: more likely, one of research and six of indolence. Despite its length, it is short on details and makes several mistakes. For example, the manager of the Star-Club, Horst Fascher does not three fingers missing: I have the photographs to prove it. Being an American does not help: the Beatles did not take their name from the film, The Wild One because the Marlon Brando film was refused a certificate in the UK and they never saw it. I was irritated by references to the young Beatles meeting up in “malt shopsâ€

[john poole]

I've not read the Bob Spitz book, but the consensus of opinion amongst Beatles fans appeared to be that it was worth reading - but only up until 1962. Almost all Beatles books have errors in them - I think the story about the group's name being taken from The Wild One may have first appeared in Albert Goldman's Lennon book, but by the time of the Anthology TV series / book even George Harrison appeared to have accepted it as true. Not sure how important the number of Horst Fascher's fingers are to the story. Recently I keep reading that John said that Ringo was not even the best drummer in the Beatles, but I don't believe that he ever in fact said this.

I'd agree with Hugh's comments about Mark Lewisohn's The Complete Beatles Chronicle (the one essential book on The Fabs) and consequently the Beatles biog to look forward to is the three volume epic that Lewisohn has been working on for the past few years - Wikipedia claims that the first volume will be out in 2010, with the project to be completed by 2018 (some will have us believe that books will no longer exist by then...).

In the meantime I'd mention The Beatles Off The Record ("Outrageous Opinions & Unrehearsed Interviews") compiled by Keith Badman mainly from quotes dating from the 60s from the group and their associates - may still be available in bargain book stores. (Downside - no index). The Man Who Gave The Beatles Away by Alan Williams is an amusing read on the early days - some of it might even be true. And The Longest Cocktail Party by Richard DeLillo is a good account of the Apple era from the "house hippie".

I'd agree that place, time, manager, and producer were all essential to the Beatles, but also talent ... and luck. Had they signed to Decca at the beginning of 1962 maybe they would have become Brian Poole and the Tremeloes. If George Martin had insisted that they release How Do You Do It as their second single perhaps they would have been Gerry & The Pacemakers. Even replacing Pete with Ringo may have been crucial.

Someone (can't remember who) said that the Beatles had the ability to not just meet, but consistently exceed, their fans expectations - and I think that's true, at least prior to The Magical Mystery Tour which was probably their first false step (although it could have edited down to a fine 30 minutes including all the musical segments). Even then with the group beginning to disintegrate during 1968 they still produced Hey Jude / Revolution and The "White" Album which were high points for me.

Ultimately I think the most important factor was having both Lennon and McCartney in same the group and their friendship / partnership / competition / rivalry - each one complementing the others strengths and weaknesses.

[garth cartwright]

Interesting responses. Spencer's seems likes sour grapes - fussing over American slang is being very trivial if that's what u find wrong with a 900 page book! yes, the pre-fame days are the most compelling to read about and Spitz describes the Hamburg clubs brilliantly. he makes Tony Sheridan sound like a brilliant singer and guitarist, apparently he turned the B's onto a lot of blues and really inspired them. Did he ever make any good records or do much else?

I've read far too many music biogs and while this is not a great one it's pretty decent. I say that even tho i have reservations about the author's enthusiasm for their product - he raves on about Revolver, to me one of the most overrated albums ever! Did i learn a lot about the Beatles and Epstein and George Martin and how they worked and what they were like and how they handled fame and family and Liverpool and London and the UK entertainment industry of the time? Yes.

What's most interesting to me - in the abstract sense - is how the UK, an island that had made not much memorable popular music pre-1963, went on to make so much for the next 15 or 20 years. Spitz describes The B's first seeing the unsigned Stones playing in Richmond and how exciting they sounded (to their audience and to the B's). At the same time the likes of rod stewart, Van Morrison, Peter Green and many others were getting ready to make music I love to this day. I guess there's a sociologist out there who can try and explain this - a mix of baby boomers, material well being, access to US culture and musical instruments being part of it.

[Hugh Weldon]

Garth:

the UK, an island that had made not much memorable popular music pre-1963

An amateur sociologist writes....

There's a big word to explain why such a comment is erroneous, but it's late and I can't think of it. Suffice to say that "popular music" as we came to know it for the subsequent 30 years or so, only really began in 1963.

Up till then, popular music was a more accurate term in that it was much more "of the people", not just something that a lot of people liked. Not just the folk tradition but pianos in the front parlour, dancing to dance bands, sing songs in pubs etc.

What you had in the sixties was that the conditions were ripe for a mass market in record sales to take off, with young people with money to spare and full employment. The sheet music charts were more important than the record charts until the early fifties.

Although there was a healthy pop tradition in the UK before that, it was called either tin pan alley or music hall or dance band music. Overshadowed by American achievement of course, but the best songs and bands matched the quality of the Yanks.

What's fascinating about the early part of the Beatles story (and, I would guess, why the early part of the Spitz book is what has received the biggest acclaim) is they grew against the background of a lively live scene. They were playing venues largely set up for dancing, but for the first time perhaps (?) people stopped dancing and started listening. They were that good.

They then of course became massive recording artists, among all the other names you mention. The popular music had always been there, but the British response to American rock and roll occasioned not merely a new chapter: the fabs started a whole new book. And the market was ready, and the time was ripe. (Check out Ian Macdonald's intro to Revolution in the Head again.)



Aintree Institute circa 1960 - they're watching and listening, not dancing.

[john poole]

Re - Tony Sheridan

Pete Frame records in The Restless Generation that in June 1960 Sheridan and four mates "took a train to Harwich and a boat to Hamburg, where - as the Jets - they became the first British band to play Der Kaiserkeller and the Top Ten Club...... Sheriden never came home again"

I guess that by that stage Sheridan had burned his bridges at home. He did make a few records in Germany including of course the LP with 'The Beat Brothers', but his onstage presence probably didn't translate well to records.

Similarly, those present in Liverpool in the early 60s generally tend to say that The Big Three, rather than The Beatles, were the outstanding live group of the time, but it's difficult to hear this on record - even on their live At The Cavern EP. Of course they did not have a Lennon & McCartney.

Naturally I can't agree with Garth about Revolver - a great album, culminating in Tomorrow Never Knows which still sounds astonishing 43 years on. It may though be true that it now always seems to be the Beatles album that appears at or around the top of those Mojo-style critics polls of the 100 greatest albums of all time, whereas alternative arguments could be made for say Rubber Soul, Sgt Pepper or A Hard Day's Night instead.

As for why Britain in 1963 I think that it would be necessary to go back to the 1950s for the answer, although it would take a better man than me to explain. Listening to the compilations of the records that constituted mid 50s British Hit Parade that Acrobat have released gives the impression that teenagers either were not buying or did not have the money to buy records. Then came the skiffle boom, creating a large number of young musicians who were then hit hard by rock'n'roll. So, perhaps Lonnie Donegan, who I remember as being a man who sang novelty songs about dustmen and chewing gum, was the impetus for everything that came afterwards (Van would probably agree).

When the Beatles managed open the door slightly, a lot of others were able to push their way through. Had Decca, after telling Brian Epstein that groups were finished, not had cause to regret not signing the Beatles would they have contemplated signing either the Stones or Them?