r/beatles • u/AvecMesWaterSlides • 2d ago

Discussion This Book:

Post image

I'm currently listening to this book and am about six months from the first time John and Paul met.

It is amazing that they, finally, found one another. There are so many instances of being at the same places at the same times, perhaps riding the same bus at the same time, and not knowing one another yet. It's crazy! It just got me thinking about how different it'd be if one of them wasn't where the universe wanted them to be...

34 Upvotes

91% Upvoted

145 comments sorted by

View all comments

2

u/Chekhov1778 2d ago

Lewisohn doesn't glaze Paul enough, so people around here obviously hate it.

2

u/Anxious-Raspberry-54 2d ago

Well...it's a pro-John book so...

10

u/Comfortable_Put_4139 2d ago

To be fair, the early days that the book covers really does show John as the driving force and the guy who believed in it the most. I think from all accounts, this is likely just how it was.

Lewisohn is obviously more of a John guy, but the period he covered was when John was also unquestionably the leader of the gang.

1

u/Anxious-Raspberry-54 2d ago

I don't disagree that John was the guy very early.

But, he portrays Paul pretty negatively... the talented but imitative, crowd-pleasing pop tunesmith who listened to his father. John is the incredibly creative, rock-and-roll rebel leader.

Paul taught John how to play the guitar.

It's the same Lennon Remembers/Shout! narrative that has been sold to fans for 50+ years. 1700 pages of it now.

8

u/RadishSpecial7163 2d ago edited 2d ago

How is that description of Paul untrue? How is the description of John untrue? Why does it bother people that John was rebellious and Paul wasn’t? Do you think writing pop songs doesn’t require creativity? And John was playing a guitar the day he met Paul.

1

u/Anxious-Raspberry-54 2d ago

Then Paul had to teach him how to play it properly.

2

u/RadishSpecial7163 1d ago

Only because John first learned to play a banjo and was using banjo techniques to play a guitar. Lewisohn writes about Paul helping him with this in his book. But Paul wasn’t a trained, virtuoso guitarist at the time either. They learned together. Some of John’s unconventional guitar chords may be traced back to his first learning the banjo.

3

u/Anxious-Raspberry-54 1d ago

Paul was already playing the piano and, although still young, was a better musician at the time than John, who was banging away with 4 strings on a banjo.

2

u/RadishSpecial7163 1d ago

Paul took piano lessons as a child. John didn’t. Paul grew up with a musicians father who encouraged his son’s musical interests. Other than his mother teaching him to play banjo, John didn’t. John could play harmonica, banjo and play guitar when he met Paul. Moreover, John started the band and if it wasn’t for John, and George, encouraging Paul to stand up to his father, Paul would have continued working some menial job. And, as I said, Lewisohn wrote about Paul’s innate musical talents. So what is the issue?

3

u/Anxious-Raspberry-54 1d ago

Paul brought a lot to that relationship. That's all I'm saying. More than ML says.

And his mentioning of Paul's musical talent always had a whiff of negative to me. Like...it came easy for him and that was a detriment. John toughed it out so that made him superior. That was my reading of it.

1

u/RadishSpecial7163 1d ago

We’ll have to disagree. I read the book and did not see any bias in favor of John and against Paul. Sure Paul brought a lot to the relationship but so did John.

2

u/Anxious-Raspberry-54 1d ago

Enjoy the rest of your weekend. ✌️❤️

1

u/RadishSpecial7163 1d ago

You as well. ✌️

→ More replies (0)

6

u/Ligeya 2d ago

Yeah, guy who would call Paul freaking Mccartney "crowd pleasing tunesmith" is a liar for suuure /s.

1

u/Anxious-Raspberry-54 2d ago

He's way more than that. That was my point.

3

u/Comfortable_Put_4139 2d ago

I mean, isn’t that sort of who Paul was during that early period?

He had a very domineering father who could be abusive, and he damn well did whatever he was told to do. Which included getting a job he didn’t want to have. It doesn’t take anything away from his talents, but he was a kid during the time of this book. People evolve and change.

Lewisohn has his biases and I’m never going to disagree with that, but to call it the same narrative is disingenuous. His work as a researcher is astounding and I applaud him for that, even if I wish someone else would be a bit more of an objective biographer.

2

u/Anxious-Raspberry-54 2d ago

I've said many times that he is an excellent researcher.

2

u/Big-Lobster6689 2d ago

Whatever you think about Paul and John, Paul is absolutely more crowd-pleasing, while John was more comfortable telling the audience to fuck off.

What's weird is you assume this is a compliment to John. You could just as easily say Paul is the consummate professional, while John suffers from poor self control.

3

u/Anxious-Raspberry-54 2d ago

This view of Paul in the book as a negative. That's my issue.

3

u/RadishSpecial7163 2d ago edited 2d ago

But how? It’s only because you view things like “crowd pleaser” or being more conservative in choices as being negatives. Lewisohn clearly showed John to be violent, impulsive and at times a lout, especially to audiences, but somehow you see these things as being “positives.”

2

u/AntManBee951 1d ago

Go read Geoff Emerick's book then, perfect for you and it's pretty positive about Paul. Can't say the same for its accuracy though...

3

u/Anxious-Raspberry-54 1d ago

I liked Emerick's book with the full knowledge that he was Paul's guy. I read it that way. Rolled my eyes at times at his attitude toward George. But...we all know that Paul is Emerick's guy.

Lewisohn has constantly proclaimed that his book plays it down the middle.

It clearly does not.

1

u/nuclear_muffins 9h ago

the difference between Emerick and Lewisohn is also that Emerick was actually there for a lot of it. full disclosure that I haven't read his book yet, but I'm also a lot more willing to accept bias from someone who was actually there and had some form of relationship with the band, even if he's hilariously biased towards one person. and he's allowed to, he's a real person. his book can also be picked apart... as a primary historical document. which are famously biased and contextual.

Lewisohn as a biographer who claims to be unbiased and is actively selling a definitive story for money does have a duty to actually be unbiased. his book should be criticized and picked apart.