Review: George Harrison: The Reluctant Beatle

9 Responses

  1. Andreas Rohde says:

    This is a fair review, thanks for posting it here. It is ridiculous though to state that Norman may well be the world’s top Beatles scholar. Amongst other things he claims George does not sing on “Horse to the Water” and was relegated to backing vocals as he was too weak at that stage. Who does Norman think sings “Horse to the Water”? Has he ever heard it?

  2. “Shout” was so appalling biased, and Norman’s obituary of George was so disgusting that I can’t bring myself to even look at Norman’s biographies of the individual Beatles. There are plenty of other biographies out there that I don’t have to hold my nose while reading.

  3. Norma Phillips says:

    I started reading but couldn’t get past the prologue’s meanspirited mockery of Jeff Lynne’s hat.

    • Andreas Rohde says:

      He mentions the hat a second time, which is completely ill-advised and shifts the focus on his subject to his own vanity. Apparently, he thinks his mockery is funny. Well, it isn’t.

  4. Stephen says:

    If even the review quotes a few things that are wrong, then the book can easily be dismissed. Brainwashed wasn’t credited to “R.I.P. Music Ltd” it was Horse to Water – not on the album – that was credited to “RIP Ltd 2001”. I remember it at the time. Easily googleable. Horse was released before George passed. Brainwashed wasn’t. This is basic stuff.

    • James Peet says:

      Horse To Water was part of a Jools Holland album. If Philip Norman had bothered to look, or paid somebody else to look, he might have avoided annoying niggles of facts being missed for the sake of time/money or his attention to detail. I have Shout, read it over 20 years ago, but didn’t really fall for the biased narrative that spoilt it (for me, at any rate).

  5. Blakey says:

    George’s antagonism to Paul was baffling. OK, they clashed during the Beatles later years. But George saying he would never be in a band with Paul again was well over the top. It was John who disrupted the Beatles dynamic by bringing in both Yoko and Klein. Yet George seemed to resent Paul more. George saying he would join Lennon in a band any time, but also saying he would never be in a band with McCartney again must have hurt Paul.

    He also said nasty things about Paul’s solo work. Making out Wings was a Beatles re-hash. And also saying that Paul did Beatles re-workings for Broad Street because his (Paul’s) solo songs weren’t any good.

    He was a spiritual man, but he could also be very mean,

  6. Tim Wilson says:

    Yes, George could be caustic, no doubt. What was telling towards the end of his life was that during one of his final interviews, I recall he was asked if Paul McCartney was annoying to him at times. He responded yes, but he was sure he ‘could be annoying to Paul as well’. George knew of his faults and negativity. From time to time, I would hear him blurt out negative things during interviews and later try to modify his comments. But speaking in public about not wanting to be in a band with Paul was unnecessary and insensitive. There were always post Beatle lawsuits and minor tiffs going on and off between the Fabs off and on. It was conflict you find in any family.

    Interestingly, I saw videos of George at the Venus and Mars launch party and later telling someone he liked “Take It Away” from Tug of War. Granted, he didn’t want to be in a band with Paul but that was probably driven by his own experiences with the Fabs. George had also probably heard of the numerous angry defections from Paul’s various versions of Wings/bands from musicians who felt they had been disrespected or mistreated. They didn’t want to be in band with Paul either.

  7. Ant Man Bee says:

    I’ll never read anything by Philip Norman, his work sucks. The obituary he wrote about George Harrison is everything you need to know about this man. Go find it on Google and read it for yourself. Really nasty and disrespectful for George. Norman is a sad and pathetic individual only preoccupied with having an axe to grind. His books about Paul and George strikes me as nothing more than to find a way to sidetrack people’s criticisms about his work.

Leave a Reply