Has anyone else here read this book? I'm up to page 400 - almost halfway. Its a big book!!
I've read a bit before on the Beatles............being pretty ancient myself it revives memories of my first introduction to music that was for me and not for my parents. When I was a lad if someone mentioned that a music programme was on TV I would think "Billy Cotton Bandshow" - or Perry Como - or Vera Lynn!! Then came Elvis, Holly..........and the Beatles!
Anyway, its a great read. I have a good friend whose first love is the Rolling Stones. And she has often spoken of how the Stones were more "authentic" in their early days - more "rough and tumble" when compared to the Beatles who appeared "ready packaged" for the media in their little mop-top haircuts and buttoned collar-less suits. Good grief, reading this book dispells that particular illusion! After playing the Liverpool club/pub and "dive" scene, then the "red-light" district of Hamburg, The Beatles were not "babies" anymore!! It does seem amazing to me just how Brian Epstein packaged the group for popular consumption, with a eye to what would be considered acceptable behaviour and what would not. What had been going on in Hamburg was beyond the pale........
The book has also revived my taste for early rock. Now playing the Buddy Holly singles collection - The Best of Jerry Lee Lewis - Chuck Berry! Music that inspired the Beatles.
Well, I would recommend the book to anyone with a love of the Beatles, or popular music in general.
:guitarist :guitarist :guitarist :guitarist
(Sorry Ringo! Couldn't find a drummer!)
The Beatles by Bob Spitz
The Beatles by Bob Spitz
[QUOTE=Tariki;456280]Has anyone else here read this book? I'm up to page 400 - almost halfway. Its a big book!!
I read "The Love You Take" many years ago. Interesting, to me, how Epstein and Andrew Oldham marketed them and the Stones as alter egos.
That book painted Epstein as a bumbling fool with a crush on John Lennon, whose mismangement cost them over $100 million.
Also said that Ringo's drumming was so bad that McCartney would go back into the studio and re-record the drum tracks himself.
What I also found interesting was the drug of choice among English musicians of that day, vs. the drug of choice of the American musicians who were influenced by them.
The predominant drugs, initially, for the Brits were amphetamines. The Beatles lived on them. Not that they didn't discover psychedelics, but their early days were dominated by uppers.
I've read interviews with Pete Townsend, Jeff Beck and Kim Simmonds, where they all said that this had the effect of creating a competitive, separatist mindset that hindered cooperative creativity. Simmonds said that most British musicians spent most of their time, "pilled up and pissed off".
The Americans who followed, particularly in the Bay area, were using psychedelics, which, according to Phil Lesh, fostered a cooperative, collective gestalt. These bands were always jamming together and supporting each other.
There's a film called Fillmore, which chronicles the closing of the Fillmore West in 1971, where most of those bands appear. In listening to this film, I was taken by how homoginized their sounds were. The influence they had on each other was obvious.
For good or ill, Cream sounds different than the Who, sounds different than the Beatles, sounds different than the Stones, sounds different than Savoy Brown, etc.
It's neither right or wrong, just different. It's just fascinating to me how art is influenced by the social setting that it's created in.
I read "The Love You Take" many years ago. Interesting, to me, how Epstein and Andrew Oldham marketed them and the Stones as alter egos.
That book painted Epstein as a bumbling fool with a crush on John Lennon, whose mismangement cost them over $100 million.
Also said that Ringo's drumming was so bad that McCartney would go back into the studio and re-record the drum tracks himself.
What I also found interesting was the drug of choice among English musicians of that day, vs. the drug of choice of the American musicians who were influenced by them.
The predominant drugs, initially, for the Brits were amphetamines. The Beatles lived on them. Not that they didn't discover psychedelics, but their early days were dominated by uppers.
I've read interviews with Pete Townsend, Jeff Beck and Kim Simmonds, where they all said that this had the effect of creating a competitive, separatist mindset that hindered cooperative creativity. Simmonds said that most British musicians spent most of their time, "pilled up and pissed off".
The Americans who followed, particularly in the Bay area, were using psychedelics, which, according to Phil Lesh, fostered a cooperative, collective gestalt. These bands were always jamming together and supporting each other.
There's a film called Fillmore, which chronicles the closing of the Fillmore West in 1971, where most of those bands appear. In listening to this film, I was taken by how homoginized their sounds were. The influence they had on each other was obvious.
For good or ill, Cream sounds different than the Who, sounds different than the Beatles, sounds different than the Stones, sounds different than Savoy Brown, etc.
It's neither right or wrong, just different. It's just fascinating to me how art is influenced by the social setting that it's created in.
The Beatles by Bob Spitz
alobar51;456371 wrote: [QUOTE=Tariki;456280]Has anyone else here read this book? I'm up to page 400 - almost halfway. Its a big book!!
I read "The Love You Take" many years ago. Interesting, to me, how Epstein and Andrew Oldham marketed them and the Stones as alter egos.
That book painted Epstein as a bumbling fool with a crush on John Lennon, whose mismangement cost them over $100 million.
Also said that Ringo's drumming was so bad that McCartney would go back into the studio and re-record the drum tracks himself.
What I also found interesting was the drug of choice among English musicians of that day, vs. the drug of choice of the American musicians who were influenced by them.
The predominant drugs, initially, for the Brits were amphetamines. The Beatles lived on them. Not that they didn't discover psychedelics, but their early days were dominated by uppers.
I've read interviews with Pete Townsend, Jeff Beck and Kim Simmonds, where they all said that this had the effect of creating a competitive, separatist mindset that hindered cooperative creativity. Simmonds said that most British musicians spent most of their time, "pilled up and pissed off".
The Americans who followed, particularly in the Bay area, were using psychedelics, which, according to Phil Lesh, fostered a cooperative, collective gestalt. These bands were always jamming together and supporting each other.
There's a film called Fillmore, which chronicles the closing of the Fillmore West in 1971, where most of those bands appear. In listening to this film, I was taken by how homoginized their sounds were. The influence they had on each other was obvious.
For good or ill, Cream sounds different than the Who, sounds different than the Beatles, sounds different than the Stones, sounds different than Savoy Brown, etc.
It's neither right or wrong, just different. It's just fascinating to me how art is influenced by the social setting that it's created in.
Thanks for your interest and views. Brian Epstein was certainly an amateur when it came to management, learning (or not!) as he went along. And his attraction to the four Beatles - especially John - certainly had a sexual dimension, rather than having just a commercial aspect. What seems to come across from Bob Spitz's story is the mutual vulnerability of both John Lennon and Brian Epstein - even though John would cover his own by aggression towards the world in general; barbed comments and even the use of fists! Whatever, some referred to the little holiday in Spain that John and Brian enjoyed in the early days as a "honeymoon".
Yes, some of the contracts signed during the early days were certainly a little stingy when it came to the Beatles own share of the royalties etc! However, at first - without the gift of hindsight - the contracts gave the immerging group what seemed at the time their only chance. And looking at the eventual bank balance of all four, they could afford the loss!!
I'm not an expert on drums. Ringo replaced Pete Best just before stardom hit because the other Beatles were not too impressed with Pete's drumming skills. So far I have not read anything to suggest that they were equally unimpressed with Ringo - although he was relaced for one recording session in the early days by the producer. In many ways Paul was a perfectionist.
As far as the drug scene is concerned, whatever was being taken never seemed to disturb the creativity of the Beatles. And the sharing of their songs with other groups was extraordinary. From what Bob Spitz says, the Beatles were constantly learning from others in terms of technique, attitude (!) and delivery as well as from the constant flow of records from the USA. Yet eventually - to say the least - they had their own unique sound and direction.
I read "The Love You Take" many years ago. Interesting, to me, how Epstein and Andrew Oldham marketed them and the Stones as alter egos.
That book painted Epstein as a bumbling fool with a crush on John Lennon, whose mismangement cost them over $100 million.
Also said that Ringo's drumming was so bad that McCartney would go back into the studio and re-record the drum tracks himself.
What I also found interesting was the drug of choice among English musicians of that day, vs. the drug of choice of the American musicians who were influenced by them.
The predominant drugs, initially, for the Brits were amphetamines. The Beatles lived on them. Not that they didn't discover psychedelics, but their early days were dominated by uppers.
I've read interviews with Pete Townsend, Jeff Beck and Kim Simmonds, where they all said that this had the effect of creating a competitive, separatist mindset that hindered cooperative creativity. Simmonds said that most British musicians spent most of their time, "pilled up and pissed off".
The Americans who followed, particularly in the Bay area, were using psychedelics, which, according to Phil Lesh, fostered a cooperative, collective gestalt. These bands were always jamming together and supporting each other.
There's a film called Fillmore, which chronicles the closing of the Fillmore West in 1971, where most of those bands appear. In listening to this film, I was taken by how homoginized their sounds were. The influence they had on each other was obvious.
For good or ill, Cream sounds different than the Who, sounds different than the Beatles, sounds different than the Stones, sounds different than Savoy Brown, etc.
It's neither right or wrong, just different. It's just fascinating to me how art is influenced by the social setting that it's created in.
Thanks for your interest and views. Brian Epstein was certainly an amateur when it came to management, learning (or not!) as he went along. And his attraction to the four Beatles - especially John - certainly had a sexual dimension, rather than having just a commercial aspect. What seems to come across from Bob Spitz's story is the mutual vulnerability of both John Lennon and Brian Epstein - even though John would cover his own by aggression towards the world in general; barbed comments and even the use of fists! Whatever, some referred to the little holiday in Spain that John and Brian enjoyed in the early days as a "honeymoon".
Yes, some of the contracts signed during the early days were certainly a little stingy when it came to the Beatles own share of the royalties etc! However, at first - without the gift of hindsight - the contracts gave the immerging group what seemed at the time their only chance. And looking at the eventual bank balance of all four, they could afford the loss!!
I'm not an expert on drums. Ringo replaced Pete Best just before stardom hit because the other Beatles were not too impressed with Pete's drumming skills. So far I have not read anything to suggest that they were equally unimpressed with Ringo - although he was relaced for one recording session in the early days by the producer. In many ways Paul was a perfectionist.
As far as the drug scene is concerned, whatever was being taken never seemed to disturb the creativity of the Beatles. And the sharing of their songs with other groups was extraordinary. From what Bob Spitz says, the Beatles were constantly learning from others in terms of technique, attitude (!) and delivery as well as from the constant flow of records from the USA. Yet eventually - to say the least - they had their own unique sound and direction.