Here There And All Over The Place
Mick Francis reviews Philip Norman's
new biography of Paul McCartney.
Philip Norman's new biography of Paul McCartney, The Life comes with
“tacit approval” from McCartney. Basically he gave approval for
Norman to interview many people in his life while he himself would not
interfere or cooperate. So far, so good!
Firstly, I must say that, for me, there are some good qualities to the
biography. I like the focused structure of the short chapters...
The photos are nice and captioned accurately... The cover is also
nice, but we all know that old saying... God, I must dig deeper.
There are a few interesting adventures in Paul's life which are
now elaborated on with the aid of fresh interviews, such as
the struggle to get the Liverpool Institute of Performing Arts
off the ground in the 1990s; Paul's place at the centre of the
Summer of Love in '67;
Maggie McGivern's many insights into life as Paul's
secret girl... Interesting stuff. What is equally interesting
is the author's 180 degree turn from previously bashing
Paul since the 1970s. Now he apparently gets what the 'cute
Beatles' was and is all about. Let's see...
I don't at all mind an author or critic not liking or
appreciating everything that a musical legend has
produced, as long as the writing
is informed and does not come across as being hypocritical
or insincere. One of many reasons why I continually
recommend Howard Sounds' Fab
biography of McCartney is that the author doesn't
suck up to its subject, nor mask any dissatisfaction with
some of Paul's weaker moments on and off record.
But, you can tell that the writer is a full-on fan and
a most curious one at that. It is also a well written and
researched book.
Let's begin on page one of Paul McCartney:
The Life, where Philip Norman recalls that in his
youth, “My daily fantasy was to swap life with
a Beatle. Paul was the most obviously good looking.
John, for all his magnetism could never be
called that, while George had good bone structure
but unsightly teeth and Ringo was... Ringo.”
Was poor Philip the most grotesque looking kid
in school? Was he told that he was ugly by the sweetheart of
his dreams? We don't know. Sure,
kids can be silly and shallow, but most of us develop
beyond such trivia and fantasies as we grow. We get over it.
What we do know is that Norman
is just one year younger than McCartney, so he was
harbouring these feelings when he was nineteen or twenty,
not nine or ten.
One comment from Norman which I found particularly
interesting, early on in the book, was this, which
I gather refers to his totally imbalanced
and ludicrous point of view in his 'Shout' bio of the
Beatles, published in 1981 - “If I'm honest, all those
years I'd spent wishing to be him had
left me feeling in some obscure way that I needed
to get my own back.” To me, that seems a rather peculiar
and narcissistic trait which has seemingly done
no service to Norman as an author, nor as a man. On the other
hand, Paul, his subject, could put the writer's previous
failings and insults aside to give a distant approval
to him writing this 816 page biography.
I like factual books on the Beatles, so I, not surprisingly,
love the Special Extended Edition of Mark Lewishon's
Tune in. Philip Norman recently
declared on a Beatles radio show (Something About
the Beatles) that he had discovered Lewisohn, who had
been a mere “office clerk” before he had been
taken on board as a researcher for Norman's Shout
biography of the Beatles. Norman, in his own words,
had created a monster in Lewisohn, who went on
to write books overloaded with factual information
at the expense of telling a story. Is that a fact?
Read Tune In (the extended edition) and you will
discover the greatest story ever told, beautifully written,
while enjoying a factual and meticulously researched
account of history. The pupil became
the master, by all evidence.
If you seek an accurate account and understanding
of the Beatles' Irish roots, go to Tune In and steer clear
of Norman's laughable, ignorant and safely
brief account. Here is an example of how a ten year
old might write and better present an essay on McCartney's
Celtic roots. On page 25, Norman informs
us that - “(the Scots and Irish) overlap in numerous
ways, from their shared Gaelic language to their fondness
for whiskey and the passion and sentimentality
of their native music, which both make with the aid
of bagpipes... One of the most controversial songs
Paul ever wrote was 'Give Ireland Back to the Irish' –
yet in truth his forebears were deprived of their
homeland willingly enough.”
'Willingly enough'? I get the impression that Philip
is too cool for school. He also appears to be either unaware or
dismissive of a horrific famine which
forced millions to flee to ports such as Liverpool and
New York in utter desperation. Instead he mentions “Ireland's
horrific poverty...” Thanks for the all
too brief history lesson there, Philip. By the way, the
Irish equivalent of bagpipes are uilleann pipes. For
the simplest of history lessons regarding
Ireland under British occupation, I would recommend
listening to John's song, Luck of the Irish (the version
without the Yoko parts, of course).
Let's stick with bagpipes for a moment. At the time
when Mull of Kintyre was fast becoming Britain's
best selling single in 1977 (knocking She Loves You
off the top spot), Norman penned and published a wee
verse in the Sunday Times which went so -
“Oh, deified Scouse with unmusical spouse
For the cliches and cloy you unload,
To the anodyne tune may they bury you soon
In the middle-most midst of the road.”
Did Paul and Linda happen to read that at the time?
Probably. Now, in Norman's book, he has nothing
but admiration for Paul for releasing a Scottish waltz
with bagpipes during the height of the Punk scene
in the charts. Now Norman gets it. I'm all for people
finally seeing the light and realising that there
was perhaps a lot of merit and balls and gifted talent
to an artist, but I sense no sincerity in Norman's
awakening what so ever. By the way, the song is
not “based on only two chords.”
The 1970s, in particular, are littered with inaccuracies
and old myths in the book. Norman has obviously not
bothered to read or believe May Pang's account
of her time with John, who was not at the Dakota
when the ex-Beatles were due to sign the dissolution
papers in the Plaza Hotel in '74 and Ringo wasn't
even in New York at the time. There are examples in
each and every chapter of lazy researching but what does
the entire book more damage than that is the
recurring evidence that Norman is not a curious author.
While Mark Lewisohn's presence in the pages of Tune
In is minimal and warm when noticed, Norman's
prose and smarmy voice is annoying and often baffling
throughout the McCartney biography. Norman doesn't
appear to like the song, Band on the Run, for instance.
Fair enough, but - “The 'Sailor Sam' had
evidently been left on the beach since Yellow
Submarine.” What? Do better, please.
When seemingly everything in a life is described on the
page as being ironic or odd, one wonders what a grasp
of life experience the writer has had, aside
from wanting to be the cutest Beatle when he was
twenty years old. Oh the irony, that not everything about
Paul's incredible life has been so ironic or odd.
These are just some personal peeves about the book,
but what is even more frustrating is the sloppiness
of the writing, editing and research. Solo albums
are given incorrect years of release; “She” is printed
as being “he”; there are at least a dozen typos... Am
I being too picky for a book which is being
billed as THE book on McCartney? Fuck, no.
Norman claims to have had eleven expert researchers
fact check this book meticulously. It is an impressive list
of names, but they were either drunk or just didn't
give a damn for nothing more than a pay cheque
and a name check if they can't spot the most obvious
of errors.
Were any of them at all familiar with the John song,
'Now and Then'? It's an unfinished beauty from the late
'70s which was given to Paul, George and Ringo
to finish off for the Anthology in the '90s. Unfortunately
they never got to complete it. George apparently didn't
like the song. In Norman's book this song
is titled 'Here and There'. Now and Then is Here and
There. How fucking careless and lazy can an
author, eleven paid Beatles experts and a publisher get?
I mention such stupid and insulting mistakes to
give an impression of the care and research which
was not at all invested in this book.
It doesn't end there. Norman later describes
McCartney's concerts in the U.S. in 2002, when
Heather Mills was firmly in the picture - “Every night on the
tour, Paul dedicated the song 'Heather' to her with
its declaration of undying love, 'I could spend
eternity inside your loving flame'.”
There is even a clue as to the correct title of the song
in the lyric which is quoted by the author! The
melodic joy in song, 'Heather' from Driving Rain
has never, sadly, been performed live. 'Your Loving
Flame' had been performed every night on that tour.
This is nothing less than yet another example of
utter carelessness by a sloppy author in a hurry
to make amends with Paul fans while presenting us
with a bouquet of plastic flowers wrapped in yellowed
newsprint. Also, does the divorce from Heather really
deserve eighty or so pages? Surely there are more
interesting avenues down the rabbit holes to explore
than how much money he has or has not accumulated
from his own talents over the years.
So, the author doesn't manage to get the titles of songs
right. He also misquotes lyrics from songs, but
does he get the music? Let's take a look at the
McCartney album from 1970 as an example -
“There was a puzzling emphasis on guitar-led
instrumentals whose underlying message
seemed to be 'Anything George
can do, I can do better.'” What is so puzzling about
Paul playing guitar on a solo album? Had he not
already proved himself to be a mighty fine guitarist
on so many Beatles records? Does the same go for the
“puzzling emphasis” of drums on the album? Was
he attempting to outshine Ringo behind a kit, or simply
enjoying playing? 'Maybe I'm Amazed' is described as
- “A soaring ballad whose unspoken eroticism
matched the best of Cole Porter.” What? It certainly is
unspoken.
Some episodes are stale in their inaccuracy by now,
such as the time George left the group during the Let it
Be sessions in January '69. We are all
familiar with the footage of Paul and George having a
heated, almost head on collision in front of the cameras,
so we might well assume that George left
the group because of Paul's seemingly dominant attitude.
But, for an author to accept that story, it displays laziness
and a complete lack of research,
when there is a much more revealing story to tell.
Even when the Beatles were not being filmed during
those sessions, much of their conversation and
rehearsals were recorded, and later brilliantly
documented, day by day, take by take, in the book,
Get Back – The Beatles' Let it Be Disaster, by Doug
Sulpy and Ray Schweighardt. Paul and George are
as much to blame as lazy writers are for the misconception
that George left because of a falling out with Paul. They
both said so in the Anthology, but
I would imagine that they would rather have forgotten
the details of the time. The details, recorded on tape,
reveal that they had that particular
conflict on January 6th 1969. Within an hour of that
occurring they were merry on booze and singing Dylan songs.
They both compromised and realised that
they had hurt each other. They then united and had
a go at John, their leader, who was suddenly not producing
many new songs or communicating much at all.
It was actually worse the following day. George's apathy
toward the group in general was alarming and it is
surprising that they even made it to January
10th, when he finally walked out because of an
argument with John.
George did feel bossed about by Paul, because their
General had taken a hit. No pun on heroin use intended
there, but Yoko was also speaking for John,
while distracting him from his duties in the band, and
that was too much, understandably, for George to accept.
For me, that would be a more interesting
and fresh read than the same old lazy story. That is a
major issue with Norman's book. He doesn't bother to
explore many rabbit holes. He just prances
on by them, noting where they are and missing opportunities.
It may be of comfort to George fans to know that Norman
does not plan to follow this trash with a bio of him next.
George is (according to Norman) far
too “grim and humourless” a character to write about in
depth. Check out the bitter and bitchy obituary that
he penned for George.
We can't blame Philip Norman alone for the factual
error regarding George leaving the Beatles, which most
likely won't be corrected in stone until Mark
Lewisohn gets to (God willing) eventually complete his
third of a trilogy of unique books. Perhaps Norman
should have bothered to study “office clerk”
Lewisohn's book, The Complete Recording Sessions, to
discover if the session for You Know My Name (Look Up
the Number) was in fact the last time that
John and Paul ever had fun together in a studio.
There is a much less trivial moment in Norman's
biography where he half laments the realisation that,
after John's murder, Paul would have to live with
the simplistic and false perception that John had been
the experimental and deep one, while Paul would forever
more be viewed to have been the safe and
shallow one. “The guy who just booked the studio”, as
Yoko would later put it. That ridiculous perception was
due, in large part, to Philip Norman's
Shout book from 1981, which, as I see it, sent Paul off
on a decade or two of trying to justify himself and
his artistic achievements in interview
after interview, to the point that he felt the need to
redress the perceived balance of creativity within the
Beatles in the book, Many Years From Now.
Norman's latest account of Paul and his life does not
read as being a sincere assessment of a most incredible
life and career. I get the impression
that the author is biting his tongue while numbly repenting
for previous sins of ignorance. I remember well, watching
Sky News in 1992 as Paul's 50th
Birthday was being celebrated. Norman was on a panel of
talking heads, remarking that Paul's Liverpool Oratorio
classical work was rubbish and that,
perhaps, to save face and all that, it would be an appropriate
time for Paul to retire, with what little grace he still had
left. This says a lot about
the author's judgement and knowledge of his book's subject.
As recently as 2003, Norman had this to say in an
open letter to Paul, published in the Daily Mail -
“Recently, you refused a music industry lifetime
award because you said it implied your career was
over and you had nothing left to give to music. But
hanging onto youth is only part of the reason why,
despite all your colossal achievements, you continued to
push yourself to such an extent, touring for months
on end and pumping out records as well as
writing classical symphonies, exhibiting your (not very good)
paintings and publishing your (at best mediocre)
poetry. It seems you cannot rest until
you've persuaded us that our typecasting of The Beatles
all those years ago was so completely wrong; that you
weren't just the 'nice' one while John
Lennon was the arty and edgy one; that you can do
anything John ever did, and still more.”
As I pointed out, the typecasting of John and Paul is in large
part Norman's own fault. Another point to make in
relation to Norman's opinions in the
quote above, it that in his new biography, he praises and
compares one of Paul's poems about the loss of Linda
to the lyric of 'Yesterday', although
he bites his tongue and passes no opinion on his paintings
when they were finally exhibited.
So, it has taken the author 35 years to conveniently come round
to the fact that Lennon was not ¾ of the Beatles. I found
it to be in extremely bad
taste that he would pull such nasty punches on Paul just after
John's murder. They were cheap shots from a shitty writer
out to make a quick buck and
to mislead readers. He has made a career out of bashing Paul
for decades while also turning Lennon fans against
Paul and Paul's fans.
He still doesn't get it, no matter how hard he may try to
convince the reader that he does. He may claim to be a
fan but he displays himself to be
more of a narcissistic and insincere child with deeper
lingering issues than who might be the prettiest Beatle to
become. He has become a jaded old
man who seemingly doesn't care (along with his team of
eleven fact checkers) for the difference between a
fact and a fib-fest of sloppy errors, which
gives just an iota of the regard which he has
for his profession and his subject.
There is a most telling end to the book... Spoiler alert,
as if you didn't see this coming. Norman gets to meet
Paul backstage before a concert in
Liverpool last May. Paul instantly remembers him
and shakes his hand, before getting a vibe and wishing
him well before moving on to greet others.
Norman then watches the concert and... well...
“After three hours on my feet, I decide I've had
enough and head for the exit. But inside the Echo Arena
no one else is going anywhere. “You're not
leaving are you?” Says the elderly security man who
unbars a door for me. “He's still got another six songs to do.”
There are two main characters in this book. One is
Paul McCartney and the other is Philip Norman.
One you might like. One you may loath. Nice cover though!
*****
You can listen to Mick's Radio show, Beatle bug radio show
Every Wednesday from 4-5pm (GMT) at
www.radiomade.ie
