I remember when The Love You Make was released in 1983. It did polarize fans as it was so revealing that the Beatles were human beings like everybody else. The Beatles had egos, flaws and warts, but the book also showed they were immensely talented, empathic, & caring people as well.
Another great interview. I haven't read The Love You Make in 40 years, maybe time for a re-read. It went over my head that it was so controversial, and Brown was considered a traitor at the time, with the book being known as The Muck You Rake. Paul was on the defensive at the time, also feeling attacked by Philip Norman in 1984.
I read it at the library in 1986, and it was my favourite Beatle book at the time because it was so intimate and I felt it let me get to know them. I didn't know it was controversial either until recently, so I would like to re-read it to find out what made Paul feel so betrayed. Not sure where to get it now though. I saw an interview where he said that he'd let Peter into their home and cooperated with the book, which he wouldn't have done if he'd known what Peter was going to say... or something like that. And Paul was calling the other one Norma Philips... which is kinda childish, but he was right to feel attacked, since Norman did actually imply he was a liar and Ringo was irrelevant, so... The exact quote was that you had to look to George for the truth, because Paul wouldn't tell you and Ringo didn't know it.
A really nice interview and I was pleased to see that weren't reluctant to ask Steven some challenging questions about both books. I own many dozens of Beatles books and I must say that I learnt lots of new things. What's great is that it is a contemporaneous record of what people thought, felt and remembered in 1980/81, and before the death of John Lennon. I found it fascinating to read the words of people who gave few interviews about their association with the Beatles, such as Dick James, Neil Aspinall, Magic Alex, Allen Klein, and Maureen Starkey. Ron Kass's interview was revelatory. It's a shame they didn't get to interview John Lennon and I would have loved to hear what the likes of Jane Asher, Linda McCartney, George Martin, Geoff Emerick and Billy Preston thought at the time. Even so, I really enjoyed this book and your interview.
I don't think Paul likes or speaks to Peter Brown anymore based on his last book 'the love you make'. Super impressed with all your interviews and guests. Love it. 🤩
Pete Shotton should have been interviewed. He was John’s’ best friend. Pete’s book does say what happened between Brian and John. He said John told him.
John and Paul always still loved each other deep down. And John in a car just hours before that crazy horrible one time Beatles fan since he was 11 and John had been his favorite Beatles,even called Paul his brother and said he loved him and that he would do anything for him and vice versa.
I just read the NYTimes interview with Peter Brown and I have some thoughts about why people felt betrayed. Here Steven mentioned being surprised by the vehemence of Paul's reaction because in his interview he had been very open and forthcoming. One could infer that perhaps this supports the idea that Paul had a different understanding of the nature of the project, since he may not have been so candid had he realized that everything could end up in the book. However, Peter makes the point that everyone KNEW what they were getting into. He'd understand their reactions if it had been just him at the interviews, but he'd introduced everyone to Steven and all the interviews were recorded on tape, so what did they expect? Well, I think they expected it to be an authorized history of The Beatles as told by an a trusted insider who would show discretion. Like Steven said, "Omerta." This wasn't a memoir where Peter could say whatever he liked because it was HIS story. He conducted widespread interviews with ALL the players. I think they believed it would be like an update of Hunter Davies' book, but with the insight of an insider, so that they could be confident of the truth. With the example of the affair between Maureen and George, they say they went back to George and Patti. But they admit that it was to confirm the story, not to get permission to publish it. They neither confirmed nor denied, which they took as confirmation, but when someone doesn't want to talk about something, it means they don't want it published either. Steven recounts that the story that most upset Paul was the one about his VD. I think this is telling, because it was Alastair Taylor who told that story, not Paul. Paul would've understood that whatever he said was fair game, but he must have felt that anything someone else said about him, would get checked, that they would come to him to A. Confirm it is true and B. Ask permission to publish it. So I think the point of misunderstanding between everyone was whether or not this was to be an authorized or unauthorized book. The Beatles believed it would be authorized and it wasn't.
George Martin said in his autobiography All You Need Is Ears that there's no doubt that Lennon and McCartney were good musicians they had good musical brains and that's where music originates it has nothing to do with your fingers. He then said that as it happened they could all play their own instruments very well and he said that Paul is an excellent music all-rounder a brilliant guitarist, probably the best bass player there ever was,a first rate drummer and a competent piano player. George Martin also said that in the Beatles early years he tried to learn to play the guitar in order to have better communication with them but he said he couldn't learn to play it so he gave it up. He said that John and Paul learned to play the piano far more quickly than he was able to master their instrument. George Martin also always said that John Lennon and Paul McCartney were incredibly talented people and that they both were extraordinarily talented song writers and great singers. He also said that he never worked with anyone as brilliant as The Beatles and he produced quite a few other music artists after them but he never had the same success again as he did when he was working with them. Neither did Brian Epstein.
Fans have little appreciation for The Love You Make not only for its fictionalized episodes but also for being sensationalist and biased. It is in the same league with Philip Norman's 'Shout' and Albert Goldman's 'The Lives of John Lennon'. It was the narrative of the eighties...😒
Except their drug use and all of the young women groupies and many were the teen girls who they had sex with who were screaming in their early concerts during their touring years of 1963-1966 was totally true. Infact Paul McCartney in the GQ in his 2018 interview called The Untold Stories of Paul McCartney, he admitted that he had sex with two women prostitutes at the same time when the Beatles played in Las Vegas and the only time they played there was August 1964.
Of course, Allen was charming! The man could kiss ass like no one else. No one would've been taken in by him otherwise. It's funny Steven saying that Ringo at the time of his interview ( late 70s -- 1980?) was still under Allen's spell, since when you watch Get Back, Ringo's first impression of him was that he was a con man -- but that it would be nice to have a con man on THEIR side for once. :D
Didn't he say that they can't put out a live tape of an interview without the interviewee giving their permission.. Paul won't agree & that why they wrote the book.
@@johnmichaelson9173 I realize that, but I was just expressing the absurdity of it. The transcripts are going out without permission (though they granted permission at the time of the interviews, so you'd think that would cover BOTH transcript and tape), but it would help to hear the tapes, because sometimes you can get the wrong idea from a transcript. For example, when Paul said that it would be a thing for George to perform All Things Must Pass by himself for the Get Back TV special, people read the transcript and misinterpret it to mean that he had no faith in George's ability to play alone, but when you hear it on the Nagra tapes, it is clearly the opposite. He's saying this would be a great moment for him to shine. But from a perspective of who's alive or dead, what difference should it make to them whether it's on tape or by transcript? It is still being released. I was saying that if I were them, I'd prefer it come out while I was still alive, since after you're gone, it could get confusing with AI.
I remember when The Love You Make was released in 1983. It did polarize fans as it was so revealing that the Beatles were human beings like everybody else. The Beatles had egos, flaws and warts, but the book also showed they were immensely talented, empathic, & caring people as well.
Have the book on order and really enjoyed this interview with Steven Gaines, forthcoming and engaging.. Thank you very much.
Another great interview. I haven't read The Love You Make in 40 years, maybe time for a re-read. It went over my head that it was so controversial, and Brown was considered a traitor at the time, with the book being known as The Muck You Rake. Paul was on the defensive at the time, also feeling attacked by Philip Norman in 1984.
I read it at the library in 1986, and it was my favourite Beatle book at the time because it was so intimate and I felt it let me get to know them. I didn't know it was controversial either until recently, so I would like to re-read it to find out what made Paul feel so betrayed. Not sure where to get it now though. I saw an interview where he said that he'd let Peter into their home and cooperated with the book, which he wouldn't have done if he'd known what Peter was going to say... or something like that. And Paul was calling the other one Norma Philips... which is kinda childish, but he was right to feel attacked, since Norman did actually imply he was a liar and Ringo was irrelevant, so... The exact quote was that you had to look to George for the truth, because Paul wouldn't tell you and Ringo didn't know it.
A really nice interview and I was pleased to see that weren't reluctant to ask Steven some challenging questions about both books. I own many dozens of Beatles books and I must say that I learnt lots of new things. What's great is that it is a contemporaneous record of what people thought, felt and remembered in 1980/81, and before the death of John Lennon. I found it fascinating to read the words of people who gave few interviews about their association with the Beatles, such as Dick James, Neil Aspinall, Magic Alex, Allen Klein, and Maureen Starkey. Ron Kass's interview was revelatory. It's a shame they didn't get to interview John Lennon and I would have loved to hear what the likes of Jane Asher, Linda McCartney, George Martin, Geoff Emerick and Billy Preston thought at the time. Even so, I really enjoyed this book and your interview.
I don't think Paul likes or speaks to Peter Brown anymore based on his last book 'the love you make'.
Super impressed with all your interviews and guests. Love it. 🤩
What a fantastic video have a wonderful weekend ❤❤❤❤❤❤😊😊😊😊😊😊
Pete Shotton should have been interviewed. He was John’s’ best friend. Pete’s book does say what happened between Brian and John. He said John told him.
John and Paul always still loved each other deep down.
And John in a car just hours before that crazy horrible one time Beatles fan since he was 11 and John had been his favorite Beatles,even called Paul his brother and said he loved him and that he would do anything for him and vice versa.
This book already has become a best seller on Amazon months before it even came out with people pre-ordereing it!
Edited or unedited transcripts? It's the latter we'd be interested in, yeah?
I just read the NYTimes interview with Peter Brown and I have some thoughts about why people felt betrayed.
Here Steven mentioned being surprised by the vehemence of Paul's reaction because in his interview he had been very open and forthcoming. One could infer that perhaps this supports the idea that Paul had a different understanding of the nature of the project, since he may not have been so candid had he realized that everything could end up in the book.
However, Peter makes the point that everyone KNEW what they were getting into. He'd understand their reactions if it had been just him at the interviews, but he'd introduced everyone to Steven and all the interviews were recorded on tape, so what did they expect?
Well, I think they expected it to be an authorized history of The Beatles as told by an a trusted insider who would show discretion. Like Steven said, "Omerta."
This wasn't a memoir where Peter could say whatever he liked because it was HIS story. He conducted widespread interviews with ALL the players. I think they believed it would be like an update of Hunter Davies' book, but with the insight of an insider, so that they could be confident of the truth. With the example of the affair between Maureen and George, they say they went back to George and Patti. But they admit that it was to confirm the story, not to get permission to publish it. They neither confirmed nor denied, which they took as confirmation, but when someone doesn't want to talk about something, it means they don't want it published either.
Steven recounts that the story that most upset Paul was the one about his VD. I think this is telling, because it was Alastair Taylor who told that story, not Paul. Paul would've understood that whatever he said was fair game, but he must have felt that anything someone else said about him, would get checked, that they would come to him to A. Confirm it is true and B. Ask permission to publish it.
So I think the point of misunderstanding between everyone was whether or not this was to be an authorized or unauthorized book. The Beatles believed it would be authorized and it wasn't.
There was no HATE between the Beatles . If there was a fifth Beatle, it was George Martin.. Very interesting listen.. thanks
George Martin said in his autobiography All You Need Is Ears that there's no doubt that Lennon and McCartney were good musicians they had good musical brains and that's where music originates it has nothing to do with your fingers.
He then said that as it happened they could all play their own instruments very well and he said that Paul is an excellent music all-rounder a brilliant guitarist, probably the best bass player there ever was,a first rate drummer and a competent piano player.
George Martin also said that in the Beatles early years he tried to learn to play the guitar in order to have better communication with them but he said he couldn't learn to play it so he gave it up.
He said that John and Paul learned to play the piano far more quickly than he was able to master their instrument.
George Martin also always said that John Lennon and Paul McCartney were incredibly talented people and that they both were extraordinarily talented song writers and great singers.
He also said that he never worked with anyone as brilliant as The Beatles and he produced quite a few other music artists after them but he never had the same success again as he did when he was working with them. Neither did Brian Epstein.
The early Beatles were a great rock and roll band too not just later!
After the Lennon Remembers interview I wonder how many fans could have thought The Beatles had ‘unscuffed shoes’? 🤔
Fans have little appreciation for The Love You Make not only for its fictionalized episodes but also for being sensationalist and biased. It is in the same league with Philip Norman's 'Shout' and Albert Goldman's 'The Lives of John Lennon'. It was the narrative of the eighties...😒
Except their drug use and all of the young women groupies and many were the teen girls who they had sex with who were screaming in their early concerts during their touring years of 1963-1966 was totally true.
Infact Paul McCartney in the GQ in his 2018 interview called The Untold Stories of Paul McCartney, he admitted that he had sex with two women prostitutes at the same time when the Beatles played in Las Vegas and the only time they played there was August 1964.
It's really true that sensationalistic lies and extreme exaggerations sell the most books.
Of course, Allen was charming! The man could kiss ass like no one else. No one would've been taken in by him otherwise. It's funny Steven saying that Ringo at the time of his interview ( late 70s -- 1980?) was still under Allen's spell, since when you watch Get Back, Ringo's first impression of him was that he was a con man -- but that it would be nice to have a con man on THEIR side for once. :D
Yes, I thought exactly the same!
Wouldn't it be better to put out the tapes while people are still alive so they confirm it's really them? Otherwise people may think they're AI fakes.
Didn't he say that they can't put out a live tape of an interview without the interviewee giving their permission.. Paul won't agree & that why they wrote the book.
@@johnmichaelson9173 I realize that, but I was just expressing the absurdity of it. The transcripts are going out without permission (though they granted permission at the time of the interviews, so you'd think that would cover BOTH transcript and tape), but it would help to hear the tapes, because sometimes you can get the wrong idea from a transcript. For example, when Paul said that it would be a thing for George to perform All Things Must Pass by himself for the Get Back TV special, people read the transcript and misinterpret it to mean that he had no faith in George's ability to play alone, but when you hear it on the Nagra tapes, it is clearly the opposite. He's saying this would be a great moment for him to shine. But from a perspective of who's alive or dead, what difference should it make to them whether it's on tape or by transcript? It is still being released. I was saying that if I were them, I'd prefer it come out while I was still alive, since after you're gone, it could get confusing with AI.
@@Kieop Fair enough, no problem.
Allen Klein seems like such a slimeball to me. Good thing he never ran for president. 🙄
How could these guys be taken in by the likes of him? Scary.