John Lennon: Albert Goldman v Hunter Davies. (1 of 2)

[August8th1969]

As one Beatle author noted, no author can write the definite history on the Beatles. Not only have the Beatles contradicted each other over the years, but they have contradicted themselves over the years. For a good look at John's maternal side of the family, I found one of Julia Baird's books very interesting (though I think it can be argued that while she criticizes some of her maternal aunts, she might have given her mother a free pass.

[August8th1969]

Off topic: I can't pick up a Beatle book these days without finding some very basic error within a very short time. Even in the Hunter Davies book something was written about the Beatles first concert at the Washington Coliseum as having been attended by 20,000 fans (when most sources list it anywhere between six to eight thousand [though they certainly could have sold out an arena that large]). I've read that the Beatles didn't let Davies include the stuff about the Lennon-Epsten holiday.

[Korn1holio]

I've read Goldman's book. There's nothing there that made me change my view on John. Moreover I've always thought that people are nasty creatures and any "goody-two-shoes" biographies are, in fact, lacquered lies.

[ktrout17I]

So, you're not a Boy George fan? Pull the other leg, it has bells on. I'm sure though if John Lennon was alive today that he would be devastated about your scathing critique of his music "post 74", and probably cry himself to sleep every night. I'll bet you are so "bad ass" that you take the lids off soda bottles in the supermarket too, because you just don't care.

[Zebonka]

Goldman was Captain of the USS Make Shit Up.

[procommenter]

“The subconscious has another singularly elusive but elusive but vitally significant function that you must comprehend—

[Fr. p. 99 of Joseph Whitfield's The Treasure of El Dorado, 1981]

[photoamnesia]

Notive how he is no able to look directly at the camera? These are the eyes of a lier, someone able to feed himself from a corpse.

[edmund184]

His book on Elvis is actually very well written with many cultural references. He is pompous but that is secondary.

[TheVicAndHelenShow]

Cops enforce the laws despite the fact that they don't know the laws...leave it to Lumpy, leave it to Beaver, leave it to Rexford Tugwell...make room for daddy, make room for renovation...pardon my sarong, pardon our progress, pardon Bohemian Grove member Nixon.

[TheVicAndHelenShow]

I'll commune with nature but I'll not commune with communists.

[RowdyRodimus]

The best Lennon biography is Ray Coleman's two volume set, I think it's now one volume, followed by Philip Norman's. Goldman's book is a good book if you want a sensationalized version of the mans later years, is it fiction? Hard to say. Is it embellished? Most certainly.

We'll never get the whole story, but the best thing to do is read a number of books and where the majority intersect we can take that as most likely true. After that you have to use a process of elimination to get facts.

[2000everett4]

Goldman seems like a pompous ass. Simply full of himself.

[PAULLONDEN]

@2000everett4 Might be, but he was the first ,not to treat Lennon as the second coming, but as a highly confused artist,warts and all. Just take a look at some of the later Lennon footage,and his boring post '74 music,and it was high time for a critical assessment.Compared to asslickers like Cavett & Frost,this was a relief.

[ktrout17I]

@PAULLONDEN I'm sure it was a relief to all Boy George fans the world over.

[PAULLONDEN]

@ktrout17I The fact that you mention that twat in the same breath as Lennon,is proof enough.

[tdaschel]

jeez, am i the only person here who's read Goldman's Lennon bio? (G8 cheerleader BONO certainly didn't ..). is the book prejudiced? sure .. but the victims are Yoko Ono and Paul McCartney. i can understand them launching a campaign against the book for being "anti-John," but they should've been honest about why they found it offensive.

[Moonserpent9]

Goldman's biography was the only Beatle/Lennon book I could'nt finish. It made me want to fucking puke.

[j0nnyism]

you fuckin idiots why cant a man talk about world peace and take heroin how do these two acts conflict?

[01HILARYKEEGAN]

It is fact that Lennon had a bad heroin addiction from 1975-80!

[MalusDeo]

Gol'man wanker.

[MarieNC2]

Wow, this is fascinating.

[wworldwide]

what fag... he sounds like he just wanted to get famous

[tilburyelephant]

So its okay for him to dump his own flesh and blood and have NO CONTACT with him for over three years?

Isnt it hypocritical that the man talked about peace and love yet he cheated on his wife,abandoned his child and was a heroin user?

He wanted the world to love one another but didnt show his first born son love,something which Julian still struggles to deal with as of this very day.

[edmund184]

yes it is hypocitical, but this sort of hypocracy is not unusual. Lennon was a great songwriter but NOT a great human being.

I want to say how great The Late Show was and how terrible it is that this sort of seroius programme is not on anymore. British TV is rubbish now, why was this taken off the air? The BBC is nothing but a commercial channel paid for by the British people.

Bring back the OLD BBC.

[MJimiD]

John had problems. We all do. It's human. However, it's of no concern to any of the 2 biographers. John could play instruments. Rather conspicuous to claim that he magically can't play an instrument after having been in the Beatles. However, that's trivial. All that matters is that John's music was laced with love and truth.

[certificate18flix]

Only 2000 views for this? How can that be? Thanks for uploading. Great vid.

[beatleworld1]

Albert Goldman, Mr. Poopy Pants

[blinksmilewink]

naked gun FTW

[tripper85]

he says john could not drive well (true fact) cause of his lack of coordination and so for that same reason he goes on to say that john could not play the guitar perfectly and so most of the his guitar rhythms , riffs solos were not mostly done by him..which is total bullshit..john did a bunch of excellent solos and riffs like in 'i feel fine' , 'get back'..and if thats no enough proof then watch the whole let it be movie with john playing guitar on all songs

[door2yourheart]

Well, it seems to me that Mr G is just cashing in yet again on a famous dead person. Manufacturing a book based on hearsay after the event!

[sakalan]

And he's the only writer who "cashed in"? All bios on JL are hearsay, repeated anecdotes, and chosen parts of Johns official interviews/statemeants/PR. Goldmans book was the first to tear down that false untouchable saint-like aura that surrounded John after his death. Goldman allowed Lennon to be a more interesting person. More real. Based on interviews with people who lived at the Dakota and ohers. Paul, Yoko or aunt Mimi would and or could not give a "true" story of Lennons life in 1978.

[leemus1988]

Nothing but a racist homophobe pedaling stereotypes and dirt to make himself a sad little living.

[PsychicKnife]

Goldman not only makes up "facts", he can' t even get the titles of the Beatles' songs right, as when he calls "Yellow Submarine", "(We All) Live in a Yellow Submarine" and other goofs. And all that shit about Lennon "Dancing in the light" with "Anytime At All", reading nonsense into a song John knocked off in 5 minutes and the Beatles recorded in 3.

[phillydog17]

The best books on Lennon and Elvis were by Albert Goldman in my opinion.

[tripper85]

thats cause you retarded

[phillydog17]

But I can spell.

[eleanizzle1]

are you maaahhhhd?

.

[tilburyelephant]

the book was brilliant..i love john but i love him for his music...i dont care what he was like...he was a bastard many people have said he was and goldman was right...elvis was a bastard but i still love his music also.

[eleanizzle1]

Noone's a saint. But for what John Lennon did for music and the world how he treated people shouldnt matter.

He was just cynical and sarcastic, hed never go too far.

[generalstaben]

Only losers comments on books that they haven't read. Read Albert Goldman's book!!!

In 2008 Albert Goldmans book remains the best John Lennon biography ever. Now we know. Albert Goldman: You were right. Thank you for writing this brilliant biography.

[Ze18613]

Only losers make comments like yours. I had the bad taste of buying and reading that book and its so bad I even ceremonially burnt it.

I can only imagine your personal library. Probably your favorite book of all time is something like Harry Potter or Danielle Steele. You make me kinda sad; a sadness for those poor of spirit who really don't know any better and don't even realize it.

[sakalan]

Ze, your answer speaks volumes. Goldmans book is the best bio. JL was great but also human. Goldamn didnt lie.

[Keruaran]

Goldman's idea of primary sources didn't include:

Yoko Ono...

George Harrison...

Or Ringo Starr...

Among other's who were never out of contact with John Lennon during the years Goldman claims to cover in his portrayal which is not a biography, its a distorted mutilation.

[sakalan]

It's a biography one of many. There are many historical persons portrayed in various books and most of these were dead and buried at the time of the publishing. Our perception of famous people change over time, it's natural. You dont have to talk to Yoko Ono if you write a book about John Lennon. She has given several very simple portraits of Lennon. None of them realistic, she's the widow. G. happened to be the first who didnt re-publish the same old stories by the Beatles or their paid crew.

[magegirl8]

Or Paul McCartney. He just said in this video that Paul McCartney had NO DIRECT EXPERIENCE of John Lennon. WHat sort of utter bullshit is that?  These boys became friends at 14/16. They would go to each other's houses, and skip class together, and go on holiday together - how were those NOT direct experiences???

[JimHewittWhite]

No... he said he had no direct experience of JL for many years prior to Lennon's death.

[jazzole24]

It isn't true that George Harrison was in direct contact with John during the last 6-7 years of his life. Paul had more contact than George in that period, he and Linda visited John and Yoko at the Dakota in 1976. George and John hadn't spoken to one another for years. The people who would know John's state of mind during these years are Yoko and their staff.

[sakalan]

Goldman was 100% right. Noone disputes the facts today. Noone sued. Everybody cared becasue he was a "saint". Just like Elvis.

[Keruaran]

Goldman is the idiot who thought that The Beatles first single, 'Love Me Do', was a 78RPM record.

[sakalan]

So that's what upset the diehard fans?

[Ze18613]

So to you not being sued is the same as the truth?

I'm suing the Bible!

[sakalan]

Everybody threatened to sue him and noone did. Guess why.

[Ze18613]

Please tell me.

[sakalan]

Because Yoko&co knew that the diaries, Seaman, the housekeepers, letters, doctors etc would have to testify for the defence. Goldman wasnt lying. Besides, the book isnt shocking anymore. It was in 1988 because people thought JL was a saint who baked bread from 1975 to 1980. C'mon, get real. He was a genius, and he was a very troubled man. Greatest songwriter ever.

[Ze18613]

My main problem with the book isn't the portrayal of Lennon's later life, which is based on some truth but largely just sensationalism, the fucker Goldman main characteristic.

But fuck that, my problem is the characterization of him as an artist.

After you red the book, did you think this book was about a man who'd write a classic every month from 1963 to 1971?

Everybody knows Lennon was very difficult (aren't all good artists?), but the truth is that most people who met him loved him.

[sakalan]

Is that the truth? And what has that to do with the book? Goldmans book helped change an image that Yoko manufactured for years. He made Lennon more human. He never said it's a definite bible or anything, it's just one of many books about Lennon and it meant a great deal in the 80s. But yes, you have to read other books as well if you want a more full understanding in his Beatle-era.

[Ze18613]

Now we're entering the realms of conspiracy. So, only Yoko is responsible for the John Lennon myth? I don't think she is one of the most important people in creating that. Remember that she is actually hated by most Beatles fans, don't you agree?

Of course she tries to portray him as nothing short of a saint, which he definitely wasn't (he is, after all her golden goose).

By the way, I'm all for myth busting, of all kinds.

[sakalan]

No conspiracyt. Yoko did what most family members do when their famous husband/father dies.

[JimHewittWhite]

I haven't been able to get hold of this book yet.... but his ultra-loyal first wife Cynthia has confirmed some of the stories that Goldman is said to have put in the book. Egs., the bread-baking househusband image was pure PR.

[sakalan]

Yes, it was pure PR becasue John was a PR-genius from the very start. He was a great genius composer, singer etc etc but also a PR-man. The breadbaking image was just anther phase in the official story of Lennon, written by himself thru interviews. In 1980 there was no internet, rock stars were untouchable and reporters just printed what Lennon said. When asked what the heck he had been doing the last five years he had to give a "shocking" answer. It's PR for Double Fantasy.

[Chrisdrumz]

I'm a Lennon and Beatles fan and the book didn't bother me. The book did NOT claim Epstein and Lennon had a long sexual relationship. It did acknowledge Epsteins attraction to John and the two supposedly "fooled around" on a trip together. John was not gay and Goldman never said he was.

[yellyman]

He just about did. He wrote a crap book about Lennon, just as he did when he wrote about Elvis.

[Chrisdrumz]

So you read them. What did you think? What was your biggest problem with them?

[kittenready]

the lies.....