John Lennon: The Life
by Philip Norman (Ecco)
As he said about the Maker of All Things in the song he called "God," which was really about himself, John Lennon is a concept by which we measure our pain. Lennon made a great many things both miraculous and ungodly during his foreshortened and intensely public life, and much of what he did brought us grief, in the multiple meanings of the word, or granted us the effect of grief's denial: ecstasy. Lennon and the three mates for whom he served as semi- official leader came to America just in time to provide gleeful relief from our famous post-Kennedy malaise. He proceeded to outrage conservative Christians who were protective of the bigness of Jesus; he vexed aesthetic fundamentalists who were reluctant to accept rock and roll as art; he infuriated rock traditionalists who were even more reluctant to accept the conceptual avant- garde; he irritated Paul fans; he conferred upon us the irrepressibly unpleasant Yoko and released "Whatever Gets You Through the Night"; and then he abandoned us, withdrawing from public life for nearly five years. Finally, through his death at the hands of a crazed fan in 1980, he made us face the darkest potential of the mixed-up, out-of-control feelings of love and fury that he had stirred and refracted with a smirk.
His admirers and his detractors--there are no others in this case--have been talking and writing fervently about Lennon since the first days of Beatlemania, in Liverpool all those years ago. I do not know exactly how many books have been published about the Beatles, but I own fifty-eight, and I am not a collector by the standards of Beatle fandom. The number of newspaper, magazine, and journal articles about the group and its music is essentially unknowable; the major indexes cite tens of thousands, and those lists exclude fanzines, newsletters, teen mags, and the alternative press, in which much of the most obsessive and revealing documentation of Beatledom has taken place. (The current issue of Beatlefan, a magazine now in its thirtieth year of publication, has the first of a two-part interview with Ringo's former fiancee, Nancy Andrews, as well as an illustrated history of "Yellow Submarine" memorabilia.) In 1971, Dick Cavett had John and Yoko as guests on his late-night talk show; by way of unnecessary introduction, Cavett described the Beatles as "the most written-about, the most listened-to, and the most imitated" musicians of their time. And now we find published 822 additional pages bound in hard covers as John Lennon: The Life, by Philip Norman. To note that Lennon and the band he founded have enduring capacities to ignite the public imagination is to commit an obviousness that is aptly painful.
Norman, a British journalist and author of breezy novels and nonfiction books on pop-culture subjects, is best known for another book about the moptops, called Shout!: The Beatles in Their Generation, which appeared in 1981. It was notable as a fairly serious, if flawed, attempt to humanize the Beatles and to factor the elements of timing and money into their legend. Shout! was good on the convoluted, ultimately catastrophic business end of the Beatles' life, which Norman had once covered as a reporter, and the book was thorough in its treatment of Brian Epstein, the group's deliciously eccentric business manager. (Among the anecdotes that Norman relayed was one about how Epstein, as a boy, would smash a toy rather than share it with other children.)
Shout! luxuriated in the supposition that Epstein had been not-so-secretly in love with Lennon, and it betrayed a parallel in the heart of its own author. (If, for a writer, respectful affection can open windows on a subject, infatuation leads inevitably to closing the shades and turning off the lights.) The first sentence of Shout! began: "John Lennon was born on October 9, 1940," and Norman went on to characterize Lennon as "eighty percent" of the Beatles. Throughout Shout!, Norman derided Paul McCartney as a cunning square, and he dismissed George Harrison and Ringo Starr as so-so musicians with luck at finding friends. Generous to marginal figures such as Lennon's first bandmates, the drummer Colin Hanton and the bassist Len Garry, who had given Norman interviews for the book (and for its follow-up, the new Lennon biography), Norman smashed the Beatles that he could not have all to himself.
After some forty years covering the Beatles beat, Norman appears to have little enthusiasm left for any of the four--and least of all for the subject of his new book, the former object of his ardor. Like a submissive lover who has been in an inequitable marriage for too long, Norman seems to have had enough of John Lennon. He conducted relatively few new interviews for an ostensibly major work on an important artist of the recent past; he has summoned little in the way of revealing insights into Lennon or his time; and his prose is repetitious and, for the most part, bloodless. Such tepidity is, in this case, not just misguided but also misleading, because John Lennon was many things, but none of them was dull.
Like Shout!, Norman's biography of Lennon is nicely detailed on the Beatles' brief apprenticeship in Liverpool and Hamburg, as well as on the much-told story of Beatlemania. Norman is skillful at deciphering the class dynamics among the Beatles--John, the self-proclaimed workingclass hero, was raised half a station above Paul, and George and Ringo were of lots considerably below the other two. ("He's a real wacker," Lennon's aunt Mimi said after meeting George, as Norman quotes her.) Norman properly casts the early success of the Beatles in England as not merely a triumph for the lower orders but also as part of a larger collapse of class structures throughout the United Kingdom in the postwar era. Yet like many British writers on the subject of the Beatles, he mistakenly transfers the function of class in the group's rise at home to their success in the United States.
Print
COMMENTS (24)
Great point made about Lennons' continuing ability to write Beatles quality music after the break up
(unlike his pal McCartney). I wonder whether we could continue to have more of these kinds of reviews of the music of our era--I see some super ones at www. babyboomreview.com
Great point made about Lennons' continuing ability to write Beatles quality music after the break up
(unlike his pal McCartney). I wonder whether we could continue to have more of these kinds of reviews of the music of our era--I see some super ones at www. babyboomreview.com
At the apogee of their influence, right after the release of Sgt. Pepper, The Beatles rolled out a type of religion before a live audience of a quarter billion people in the form of a song entitled "All You Need Is Love." This was no mere band.
At the apogee of their influence, right after the release of Sgt. Pepper, The Beatles rolled out a type of religion before a live audience of a quarter billion people in the form of a song entitled "All You Need Is Love." This was no mere band.
Dude, Paul never made any good music after the Beatles? Have you listened to McCartney, his first post-Beatles album, lately? It's damn good. And some of the Wings stuff was awesome.
Dude, Paul never made any good music after the Beatles? Have you listened to McCartney, his first post-Beatles album, lately? It's damn good. And some of the Wings stuff was awesome.
Typical of the far-too-spoiled "I'm a dope (in more ways than one - yeah!yeah!yeah!); let me mope; help me cope (I'll sit down, walk around for me!)" generation of whiners, bitchers and complainers who still think all this Lennon drivel is relevant. The Lennon to whom I tip my hat is the one who stated in the midst of the euphoria: "We're just con men!!". For that, he deserves credit. The rest is all horse manure!! Get a life all you pseudos and quasis or...get lost!
Typical of the far-too-spoiled "I'm a dope (in more ways than one - yeah!yeah!yeah!); let me mope; help me cope (I'll sit down, walk around for me!)" generation of whiners, bitchers and complainers who still think all this Lennon drivel is relevant. The Lennon to whom I tip my hat is the one who stated in the midst of the euphoria: "We're just con men!!". For that, he deserves credit. The rest is all horse manure!! Get a life all you pseudos and quasis or...get lost!
One of the comments from the book included in the review refers to the so-so musical ability of George Harrison. Nothing could be further from the truth! He could have been the leading musical presence in almost any other band of that era, as it was he had to settle for third-string behind Lennon and McCartney due to the embarrasment of riches that the Fab Four had in musical talent.
One of the comments from the book included in the review refers to the so-so musical ability of George Harrison. Nothing could be further from the truth! He could have been the leading musical presence in almost any other band of that era, as it was he had to settle for third-string behind Lennon and McCartney due to the embarrasment of riches that the Fab Four had in musical talent.
Granted, "McCartney" was good - everything else was bubblegum. Paul stopped making good music, say, around the White Album - thank god I can program around the Paul songs
Granted, "McCartney" was good - everything else was bubblegum. Paul stopped making good music, say, around the White Album - thank god I can program around the Paul songs
"Double Fantasy ... had as much fine Lennon music as any Beatles albums." Damning with faint praise - or is Hajdu just a true fan.
"Double Fantasy ... had as much fine Lennon music as any Beatles albums." Damning with faint praise - or is Hajdu just a true fan.
McCartney never made any good music post-Beatles? What a joke. You "I'm too cool to like both John and Paul" fans are a bloody joke. Paul wrote just as good as John, was just as creative and was every part the genius John was... and that is being conservative at best. His musical output post Beatles was excellent too... had a lot of junk but had a lot of absolute gems... You Lennon lovers are so naive and un-hip!
McCartney never made any good music post-Beatles? What a joke. You "I'm too cool to like both John and Paul" fans are a bloody joke. Paul wrote just as good as John, was just as creative and was every part the genius John was... and that is being conservative at best. His musical output post Beatles was excellent too... had a lot of junk but had a lot of absolute gems... You Lennon lovers are so naive and un-hip!
I was amused to read that Yoko observed this book was "mean to John". After reading Beatles Manager Peter Brown's more concise history of the Beatles, it appears that John was pretty mean to everyone in his life.
I've spent enough time around musicians to know that most of them believe that George Harrison was one of the top guitar players in rock (they never talk about Lennon). However, most of them believe that noone can touch Lennon as a songwriter.
I was amused to read that Yoko observed this book was "mean to John". After reading Beatles Manager Peter Brown's more concise history of the Beatles, it appears that John was pretty mean to everyone in his life.
I've spent enough time around musicians to know that most of them believe that George Harrison was one of the top guitar players in rock (they never talk about Lennon). However, most of them believe that noone can touch Lennon as a songwriter.
Of course, Paul has written wonderful music since the demise of the Beatles. The music has been more mannered, contrived, and idiosyncratic, less spontaneous, less consistently good, less adventuresome, less edgy. But, there are gems here and there for sure (much of Tug of War, for example, in which Paul teamed up again with George Martin).
With 58(!) Beatles books in his library, it's too bad that Mr. Hajdu doesn't recommend a better book on John. For example, I really enjoyed Barry Miles' book on Paul (Many Years From Now), which is the best description of the music and times that I've come across. So why not recommend a good book about John?
Of course, Paul has written wonderful music since the demise of the Beatles. The music has been more mannered, contrived, and idiosyncratic, less spontaneous, less consistently good, less adventuresome, less edgy. But, there are gems here and there for sure (much of Tug of War, for example, in which Paul teamed up again with George Martin).
With 58(!) Beatles books in his library, it's too bad that Mr. Hajdu doesn't recommend a better book on John. For example, I really enjoyed Barry Miles' book on Paul (Many Years From Now), which is the best description of the music and times that I've come across. So why not recommend a good book about John?
The book about the Beatles' music that is great is "Tell Me Why" by Tim Riley. It sounds like it's sort of the mirror image of this one: lots and lots about the music, and almost nothing about the biographies of the musicians.
The book about the Beatles' music that is great is "Tell Me Why" by Tim Riley. It sounds like it's sort of the mirror image of this one: lots and lots about the music, and almost nothing about the biographies of the musicians.
People who can actually read TNR articles all the way to their termination perhaps need to be directed if not where to look for accessible insight (indeed where?) other than these kinds of "over volume of the house system" observations, then to question why, in the advanced educated land that we suppose ourselves to live in, are boring platitudes and beige generalizations passed off as interesting? John Lennon may not be a trivial subject but you wouldn't know it (unless perhaps you go on to read The Rolling Stone). Tell the miscreant who is now editor I got the message a long time ago: "TNR is not what you think".
People who can actually read TNR articles all the way to their termination perhaps need to be directed if not where to look for accessible insight (indeed where?) other than these kinds of "over volume of the house system" observations, then to question why, in the advanced educated land that we suppose ourselves to live in, are boring platitudes and beige generalizations passed off as interesting? John Lennon may not be a trivial subject but you wouldn't know it (unless perhaps you go on to read The Rolling Stone). Tell the miscreant who is now editor I got the message a long time ago: "TNR is not what you think".
How does someone enjoying the unique music of the Beatles make the leap from experiencing their artistry to seeing them sing "together into a shared microphone, their lips nearly touching"? All I can say is that being alone at a keyboard brings out true sickness in guys like you.
How does someone enjoying the unique music of the Beatles make the leap from experiencing their artistry to seeing them sing "together into a shared microphone, their lips nearly touching"? All I can say is that being alone at a keyboard brings out true sickness in guys like you.
I wonder what Mr. Lennon would think (if he were alive) about the hordes of writers who have tried to disect and analyze his life over the years, much less his music. I have a suspicion that he might say something like "Who bloody gives a damn". The music he made speaks for itself. All the rest that's been written is just cheap window dressing for a man that needed none of it to be what he truely was, a phenomenally gifted artist and perhaps the most iconic musician of his generation.
I wonder what Mr. Lennon would think (if he were alive) about the hordes of writers who have tried to disect and analyze his life over the years, much less his music. I have a suspicion that he might say something like "Who bloody gives a damn". The music he made speaks for itself. All the rest that's been written is just cheap window dressing for a man that needed none of it to be what he truely was, a phenomenally gifted artist and perhaps the most iconic musician of his generation.
I think we have had enough previously with Albert Goldman's vindictive prose at John Lennon's expense we don't need Norman's as well. Leave the man in peace already. He accomplished more in a short lifetime here than most do who live till 80 and left us with great music to be enjoyed always by all generations. Remember, it is always writers like this who can only write about talented people like John and diss them because they don't have one-tenth of the talent of the subject they are writing about.
I think we have had enough previously with Albert Goldman's vindictive prose at John Lennon's expense we don't need Norman's as well. Leave the man in peace already. He accomplished more in a short lifetime here than most do who live till 80 and left us with great music to be enjoyed always by all generations. Remember, it is always writers like this who can only write about talented people like John and diss them because they don't have one-tenth of the talent of the subject they are writing about.
The truth is that the chemistry of the group, and the alchemy of the Lennon/McCartney song writing, with the considerable contributions of George Martin (arguably the fifth Beatle), and also the incredible time and place of the band, is impossible to sort out. So afterwards, the accomplishments of Lennon and McCartney individually seem diminished, but those of Harrison seem greater. Well, that's the magic of collaboration, and although it is pointless to argue for the greatness of one over the other, it is clear to me at least that the spirit of McCartney is always discernible in contrast to Lennon's. It has a humor and easiness about it, and a lyricism, whereas Lennon's is angrier, topical, ... view full comment
The truth is that the chemistry of the group, and the alchemy of the Lennon/McCartney song writing, with the considerable contributions of George Martin (arguably the fifth Beatle), and also the incredible time and place of the band, is impossible to sort out. So afterwards, the accomplishments of Lennon and McCartney individually seem diminished, but those of Harrison seem greater. Well, that's the magic of collaboration, and although it is pointless to argue for the greatness of one over the other, it is clear to me at least that the spirit of McCartney is always discernible in contrast to Lennon's. It has a humor and easiness about it, and a lyricism, whereas Lennon's is angrier, topical, satirical and just a bit sour. Which do you prefer?
"Till There Was You" isn't IMO, a deathless masterpiece, but there's nothing "goofy" about it.
"Goofy" seems more appropriate for "Norweigan Wood." What IS Norweigan Wood?
"Till There Was You" isn't IMO, a deathless masterpiece, but there's nothing "goofy" about it.
"Goofy" seems more appropriate for "Norweigan Wood." What IS Norweigan Wood?
Any artist that persists will create some good art and some bad art and if they're really clever, a few bits of great art. John was, like most artists, the canary in the coal mine. Half of what he did was us, not him. It's enough for me to know that his heart was in the right place. (I didn't have to live with him or spend Christmas with him or anything)... None of the Beatles were particularly great musicians, but there was a chemistry that made it work in a way that was greater than the sum of its parts. Same way that bad chemistry has made other bands so undershoot their potential, (I'm thinking of Cream for one). Witness how much their music suffered as the band hit the rocks. I'm remin ... view full comment
Any artist that persists will create some good art and some bad art and if they're really clever, a few bits of great art. John was, like most artists, the canary in the coal mine. Half of what he did was us, not him. It's enough for me to know that his heart was in the right place. (I didn't have to live with him or spend Christmas with him or anything)... None of the Beatles were particularly great musicians, but there was a chemistry that made it work in a way that was greater than the sum of its parts. Same way that bad chemistry has made other bands so undershoot their potential, (I'm thinking of Cream for one). Witness how much their music suffered as the band hit the rocks. I'm reminded of this: Its not what you've got, its what you do with what you've got. I am grateful to have shared the world with him for a time.
Lennon was a fascinating person. Losing him still hurts. To have Paul in the same band, let alone George, and to have the musical chemistry they had, is a cosmic coincidence for which I will forever be grateful. You can't make me dislike any of those guys.
Lennon was a fascinating person. Losing him still hurts. To have Paul in the same band, let alone George, and to have the musical chemistry they had, is a cosmic coincidence for which I will forever be grateful. You can't make me dislike any of those guys.
When did John ever sing To Know HIM is to Love HIM? It was always To Know HER Is To Love HER. On the Decca audition tapes; live at the Star Club; the Beatles Live at the BBC; and Menlove Ave. Also Paul made a lot of good music after the Beatles! How about Band on the Run, Tug of War, Flaming Pie, Run Devil Run and his last 2 CDs, just to name a few!
When did John ever sing To Know HIM is to Love HIM? It was always To Know HER Is To Love HER. On the Decca audition tapes; live at the Star Club; the Beatles Live at the BBC; and Menlove Ave. Also Paul made a lot of good music after the Beatles! How about Band on the Run, Tug of War, Flaming Pie, Run Devil Run and his last 2 CDs, just to name a few!
Good review.
Good review.
Someone will make a definite JOHN "life story" movie someday and make a $gazillion. I used to think Yoko, and perhaps Paul and Ringo, needed to be involved, but now I'm convinved that someone like Oliver Stone will find a way, even without authorization to use John's music.
Someone will make a definite JOHN "life story" movie someday and make a $gazillion. I used to think Yoko, and perhaps Paul and Ringo, needed to be involved, but now I'm convinved that someone like Oliver Stone will find a way, even without authorization to use John's music.
"knowing she wood"
"knowing she wood"
Hajdu is a great writer, but somethings need correction. Particularly the suggestion that " the spirit of Eros was palpable in the sight of John and Paul standing face to face.....-as they sang together into a shared microphone, their lips nearly touching."
John and Paul never shared a microphone - they were always separated by George.
And the suggestion that The Beatles - even Love Me Do - is as ancient as Jolson was in the 60s is ludicrous. Chronologically yes. But I visit my kids in college and there are Beatles posters up on the wall. I had two teacher from Asia visiting me and among their many purchases were t-shirts featuring The Beatles.
There truly is something transcendent about Beatle ... view full comment
Hajdu is a great writer, but somethings need correction. Particularly the suggestion that " the spirit of Eros was palpable in the sight of John and Paul standing face to face.....-as they sang together into a shared microphone, their lips nearly touching."
John and Paul never shared a microphone - they were always separated by George.
And the suggestion that The Beatles - even Love Me Do - is as ancient as Jolson was in the 60s is ludicrous. Chronologically yes. But I visit my kids in college and there are Beatles posters up on the wall. I had two teacher from Asia visiting me and among their many purchases were t-shirts featuring The Beatles.
There truly is something transcendent about Beatles music. George and Ringo may not have been the forces that John and Paul were, but there is little doubt that their contributions to the overall sound of the group were essential too. It's had to imagine any other drummer who could go from If I Fell to Strawberry Fields and beyond.