The Beatlesboard

REVIEW- SHOUT! THE TRUE STORY OF THE BEATLES

BY PHILIP NORMAN

*** (or **** if chapters 21 and 22 are not included)

Shout! The True Story of the Beatles is the definitive version of the Beatles story, according to the London Sunday Times. This claim is total bollocks of course, since half the band members and so many of the main players in the story are dead, and can’t comment on whether it treats them fairly or not. However, it is for the most part a superbly researched, structured and written tome, which in places held my eyes to its pages with almost magnetic force. What a pity the author, Philip Norman, took the easy way out when revising and updating it for the 2003 edition, which followed earlier editions in 1981 and 1993.

The Prologue starts brilliantly. Norman uses the unspeakable horror of September 2001 in New York as a fulcrum to introduce John, who of course lived and was also murdered there, then Paul, who responded to the atrocity with a stunning concert appearance to help rally the stricken Americans. We are then reminded that George’s death before year’s end turned the world’s attention away from Dubya’s War On Terror and back yet again to the greatest popular music phenomenon of all time. Truly stirring stuff, and a great way to hook any reader in.

Unfortunately, by the end of the 19-page prologue I was heartily wishing Norman had trimmed off the last 15. With turgidly overblown prose he tries to sum up the way society and culture has changed since the Beatles breakup and how the band’s legacy has remained so strong even in the midst of so much traumatic change in the decades since the split. He understandably gives himself credit for the respect earned by Shout! since its first publication in 1981, and admits he is biased toward John over Paul, but then puts his head in the noose with the statement:

“Any writer would hope to have improved over a span of more than 20 years”

Frankly, I was not looking forward reading further at this stage, because if the language of the new prologue was better than the originally written body of the book, then it would be a grim read indeed. And if the newly written parts of the book were actually worse than the original body, well, then I would have no trouble kicking the stool away, in a metaphorical sense, of course!

Anyhow, I am happy to report that any fears raised by the strangely unsatisfactory prologue were well and put to the back of my mind once I got stuck into the book proper. There is no doubt that Norman in 1981 put together one of the very best accounts of the story of the Beatles, if not the best, set against an ever changing background of UK and world events and developments. He weaves together a beautifully flowing narrative that keeps you wanting to turn the next page. The early struggles of the band receive the full treatment they deserve. No important character is introduced without a concise summary of their background, and the myriad line-up changes that occurred before Pete Best took up his ill-fated spot behind the drums for the first Hamburg trip are painstaking detailed. The Hamburg years are described with a novelist’s flair, and Norman brings out the full tragedy of Stuart Sutcliffe’s illness and death.

Unfortunately, I feel Norman does not do full justice to the spectacular rise of the Beatles after their signing by George Martin. There is lack of analysis of the songs and albums before Revolver. He doesn’t really unlock the secret of the forces within the group that made Beatlemania inevitable. Yes, he convinces us how and why the UK and USA were ripe for the picking from the band’s viewpoint, but does not delve deeply enough into the amazing creative synthesis of John’s and Paul’s very individually different musical gifts. He also neglects the crucial supporting roles of George’s guitar and Ringo’s drums, and in fact it is generally a major fault of the book that two of the four Beatles are sadly neglected in terms of space given. The crucial year of 1963 in the UK is related in chronological fashion, when Norman could have stopped the narrative and devoted a bit more space and how exactly the music of the Beatles was so different to all the pretenders.

Furthermore, I have a particularly personal bugbear with this book. It does a grave injustice to George and his unique musical talents. Time and again Norman portrays George as a plodder devoid of personal graces, virtually entirely reliant on his association with John and Paul for all he has achieved in life. Every time he comments on George’s attributes as a guitarist, it seems give him pain, like his teeth are being pulled out one by one. Even basic facts known to anyone with a collection of Beatles records are almost willfully ignored in Norman’s apparent eagerness to put down George. In his rather immodest comments about the book in the prologue, Norman insists he has corrected mistakes from the 1981 edition. If that is the case, why then does he still claim that (before Revolver) George was restricted to one song per LP? Did the Liverpool Echo journalist who by strange coincidence was also named George Harrison help out with the two songs so credited on both Help! and Rubber Soul? Do explain please, Mr Norman!

Notwithstanding such annoyances, the book continues as a riveting read as it covers the remaining years until the split. At last, there are at least adequate discussions of albums, from Revolver onwards. The turbulent years after Brian Epstein’s death are handled with a masterful touch. Norman plots a sure course through the increasingly destructive political machinations that eventually tore the group apart, carefully avoiding attributions of blame for the split to any one member of the band or those closest to them. There is no doubt that this book is essential reading for anyone wanting to get an insight into how and why the Beatles were self-destructing even as they continued to awe the world with their music.

As the 1981 edition of Shout! did not go beyond the death of the Beatles in 1970, Norman has updated the stories of John, Paul, George and Ringo to include events up until 2003. Annoyingly, he does not bother with much meaningful discussion of the best albums of their respective solo careers. The space given to each ex-Beatle again reflects the unfairly wide gap in both the public’s and certain biographers’ perceptions concerning the so-called 1st and 2nd divisions of the Beatles: John and Paul get 24 pages each, George just 14, and poor old Ringo gets not even four.

I found the chapter on John fascinating. Norman gained the trust of Yoko after the original edition appeared in 1981, and he uses it beautifully to paint a balanced portrait of John and Yoko and their relationship. The book is at its very best when John is the subject of discussion, because Norman is at his most sympathetic and understanding. Some annoying omissions are still there. Amazingly, he refers in passing to “an album with the Plastic Ono Band” when discussing John’s “new acrid solo voice” as displayed on the song God, not even giving the full name of one of the most shatteringly personal solo albums of all time. But on the whole, the best standards of the earlier chapters of the book are displayed. I particularly appreciated the way John’s killer and assassination is not dwelt on, but related with tasteful brevity. Yoko is given the fair treatment she richly deserves right to the end of the last chapter about John. One of the cruel ironies that Norman emphasizes is that it took John’s pointless and tragically premature death to win Yoko the public acceptance and goodwill she was denied for so many years.

You would think that considering his status as the most successful song-writer ever, a serious author would be prepared to work as hard as possible to get under the skin of James Paul McCartney. Unfortunately, in spite of his challenge to himself to improve as a writer for the latest edition of Shout!, Norman has gone backward concerning Paul. The second last chapter is nothing short of a character assassination, basically portraying Paul as a sort of enormous self-contained ego that puts on a human face sometimes to pretend he’s like the rest of us. He shows a sad misunderstanding of Paul’s music, falling into the obvious trap of labeling it too cute and trite, and showing a infuriating lack of research, basically giving up on it after Band On The Run. Albums like Tug Of War and Flowers In The Dirt barely rate a mention, and Flaming Pie is only brought in for a predictable complaint about how it was John that originally dreamed up the title. In similar petty vein, he gives far too much discussion to Paul’s silly attempt to claim the sole writing credit for Yesterday. At this point I was almost tempted to check the front cover to make sure the full title wasn’t in fact: Shout! The True Story of Lennon’s Beatles And How That Bastard McCartney Stole His Legacy. Honestly, this chapter is that bad!

And what of George? Well I’m actually glad now that Norman only gives him 14 pages, because frankly there is only so much less trite, unprofessional misrepresentation of a richly talented, often misunderstood artist I can put up with. As with the previous chapter, we are given laughable, barely researched pap concerning an ex-Beatle’s solo career. Maybe Norman picked up Somewhere In England and Gone Troppo from a bargain bin and thought, yep, that’ll do for my Dark Horse years listening. Oh, he mentions the success of Cloud 9 in passing, but nothing about whether it is any good. Maybe lots and lots of people suddenly decided to buy a crap record because Jeff Lynne produced it, Mr Norman? Since you don’t say otherwise I can only assume that’s what you think. And I’m almost glad you think the Wilburys are just “corn prone”, because if you’d said any more I would have killed myself laughing at your total ignorance of one of the few “supergroups” worthy of the tag. Later Norman has the hypocrisy to actually take Paul’s side concerning George’s admittedly rather unbalanced and petty complaint that Paul ruined his guitar technique. But I guess the Untalented One should have appreciated the tuition of the Vain One, shouldn’t he have, Mr Norman? I mean, even a dog loves a horrible person who pets it and walks it. And whoops, I guess Brainwashed came out too late (in 2002) for the publication deadline(in 2003). It was too much trouble to wait a bit longer to take into account an annoyingly posthumous album, eh, Mr Norman?

I suppose I’d better calm down a bit and admit I appreciated in a sad way learning more about how and why George was so devastated by John’s death. In his autographical coffee table book I Me Mine George failed to acknowledge how close he and John were in the early years, an omission which upset John greatly not long before he died. Maybe guilt over this was the main reason George failed to go to New York after John’s death. In any case, I will never be reconciled to the absence of both Paul and George at John’s farewell. They should have been there beside both Ringo and Yoko, whatever had happened in the past. Norman shows sensitively to George at this point, though that doesn’t stop him making a silly comparison between All Those Years Ago and Elton John’s overblown tribute to John, Empty Garden.

Well, I guess I’ve put you all off this book by now, apart perhaps from those who think as Norman does that John was indeed three-quarters of the Beatles. But I must freely admit this is an unbalanced review by a tetchy fan of the Tetchy One, because I’ve not given enough credit for insights and understandings Norman demonstrates concerning most of the important players and events of the Beatles era. His portrayals of Brian Epstein and Alan Klein, for example, seem outstanding to me (note please I am still a novice in terms of Beatles lore!). This is an essential book for those who like me tend towards obsessive interest in the Fab Four, because its faults, while serious, do not overshadow its merits. Honestly, I mean that! If you read the book you’ll enjoy most of it, just try not to dwell on the poorer sections at the very front and very back (as I have!). You can’t say I haven’t warned you about them! And I enjoyed the last four pages, on Ringo. Again Norman fails to do justice to him, but as I said before, better a too-short section than a more misrepresentative long section. The great thing is that Ringo’s naturally warm and attractive personality closes the book, and you can’t get more Beatley than that.

That was really fascinating neil, thanks for reviewing it. I don't actually own the book but it sounds like it's a good read. If I may ask a question or two, what sort of way deos he describe the beatles years - does he focus on the relations of the group, the songs they wrote and a chronological description, or sort of a mixture of various things?
I know you say you're biased in the way you write, but i think that was pretty balanced. It's ludicrous that he spent so little time writing about george and ringo and so i think you're perfectly within your right to complain about it even though you're a george maniac

He tries to keep it chronological, Ben, which helps make the book easier to follow, but he does bring in different ways of looking at the group. Writing a book on the Beatles is a massive balancing act, of course, with their immeasurable influence on the world, their fascinating personalities, the huge amounts of money at stake, and of course the sheer volume of incredibly brilliant songs they wrote. Generally he's pretty good on how the relations within the group affected the group as a whole, and the influence of key people like Brian Epstein and Alan Klein, both positive and negative. I'm wondering if Norman is a business journalist, actually, because he explains the money side of it so well. The period from the founding of Apple to the breakup in 1970 is probably the best part of the book, it certainly is the most rivetting, I found.

I'm conscious that I'm praising the book a lot now, but in a slightly guilty way I'm glad I'm doing it, because I criticised Norman so much in the review post. But there is no doubt he doesn't get inside the hearts and minds of Paul and George as much as he should, and he fails to do justice to the songs. I think the only time he mentions Revolution at all is to say that John couldn't make up his mind on the count me out/in bit so he did more than one version. Also he talks about the sucess of Hey Jude as a single, when of course he should be aware that it was just one side of the double A sided Hey Jude / Revolution.

Get Shout!, you won't regret it, but also get Revolution In The Head, thats definitely top of my list now, to get all the info I can on the songs. And I'd like to get decent biographies of Paul and George, of course.

This is a really great review neil. Ive got some thoughts onthis and will back with them soon

Firstly Neil, I'll say congratulations on an excellent review. Very well written and interesting to read.

I havent read the updated version and I read the original book back in 1981 and havent picked it up since,so obviously i remember a lot less about the finer details than you . I can remember my overview of though and that was that there is a ridiculous bias towards john in the book that even Lennon himself, Im sure would find laughable. that seems to tie up with youre own impression.

I suppose we have to put ourselves back in 1981 when this book first appeared. As you can imagine following the events of December 1980, there was a whole glut of shoddy beatles books released in the early months of 1981 to cash in on the interest in lennon following his death. However i dont think Shout was one of them (not a shoddy cash in i mean).

To have written a book in that depth, Norman must have started work on this book well before john died and that raises a couple of questions for me.

Firstly, why didnt he bother to interview any of the beatles for this book (i believe thats the case). Did he want to put his own slant on it and not really interested in the truth or did he ask and they refused and if so why?

the other thing that i have always wondered was did he completely re write sections of this book following johns death to canonise him further as the dead beatle? Although I realise now that making John out to be a saint is completely wrong, I remember at that time that I needed this book to be overly kind to John whilst all around the tabloid media were digging up whatever lies they fancied printing about him because john couldnt hit back. (yoko did but thats another story.)

I also remember being very impressed with the text prior to the release of love me do. he was very strong on Hamburg and Liverpool and all the characters. It was only later when I re-read Alan Williams book - The Man That Gave Away The beatles (1978) that i realised that Norman had stolen alot of material from that book ( i beleive williams went for the out of court settlement).

i think youre right where you say that there has to be a balancing act between all the different aspects of the beatles career and agree that you cant really write a book about the beatles without it discussing all the music in great depth. Norman is not a music journalist and maybe thats why he skimps over so much important stuff, musically. However the fact that he isnt a music journalist can give us some comfort in the knowledge that any views he might have on George as a guitarist are of no consequence whatsoever. he doesnt understand music and wouldnt recognise a good guitarist if one slapped him round the face and said "hello im a good guitarist"

I too get really really frustrated when authors just cant be bothered to look up facts. things that we know from memory and have been out in the public domain for ever. Why do they do that? Surely its the first thing you learn as a journalist- Do your research and get your facts right. i touched on this in my review of Patties book where she makes some right howlers. Some are laughable but getting the date of George death wrong is unforgivable. this is the 3rd re write from normans book, why hasnthe corrected these things by now.

The level of bias in the book is best indicated by the number of post 1970 pages that you have told us that have been dedicated to each beatle. why does john have equal billing with paul and more than george and ringo. he only lived for 10 years after 1970 so surely there must be more to say about the others.

I think all in all this is a decent book but like you say, it is complete bollocks to consider this the true story of the beatles. that sub title annoys me. i think the fortunate thing for Norman was that this book came out at just the right time for him. A time when there were no real contenders. i dont think this is as good a biography of the band as Hunter Davies book, that is still the best one for me.

Ive also read Normans book on The Rolling Stones ( The Stones) which i enjoyed more that this book but i dont read non beatle books with the same critical eye. i dont know enough about the stones to spot where the errors are but he did a similar thing in that book where he canonises Brian Jones. Whilst jones was by far and away the best musician in that band, the stones were very much a 5 peice effort. it seems that norman's books always need a hero.

Just as little aside and this doesnt justify ignoring Revolution because its fantastic but it was the B side to hey jude, they didnt get equal billing on that release.

Thanks for the kind words, Tony.

I didn't realise Hey Jude / Revolution was not a double A side, I just assumed , so oops, I skimped on the research too . Strange that it wasn't. I know John really admired Hey Jude but its hard to understand why he didn't fight harder for the record to be a double A side. Maybe EMI were worried about the political connotations of Revolution so they insisted on it being "just" a B side, and John thought, oh well, the song's still getting out there.

Yeah, the presence of seemingly obvious mistakes in even the better Beatles biogs does seem unfathomable. Obviously the publishers value the profits more than accuracy so they don't edit the manuscripts well enough. There are so many original Beatles fans out there who are walking encyclopedias when it comes in the hard facts, but I guess the publishers are too tight fisted to bring even one or two in for even a basic check. It must be left to the old poor writer who is up against deadlines to finish the whole book, and being human lets errors though. I'm currently reading the Alan Clayson book on George and it is unbelievably extensively researched, but even I have spotted the odd howler. I reckon the writers sometimes can't see the woods for the trees because editing your own work must be a awful, boring and extremely onerous task.

Great review St George. I think id like to read this book again