Re: Emerick book

jt10824@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Slip Kid wrote:
But, can we really expect a teen-ager with his short time with them
provide much in the way of insight to their character or attitudes?
Isn't it a stretch to believe they'd let him see much more of themselves
than anyone would reveal to a kid you works for you?

Seven years with the Beatles as a group,

OK, I thought he was on for Revolver, Pepper WA and AR.
I didn't count seven years in that run.

followed by a few more years
with them as four individuals running (or trying to run Apple), then
another quarter-century or so with Paul McCartney as a solo artist is
NOT a "short time."

If (I checked and I'm stickin' with Revolver - - AR, for now) he was only with all four at a young age, in the capacity of an employee (not a buddy/confidant to all four?) and worked for 4 'bosses' as well as his own superiors in the studio?
If he was able to break through all business, social, family, political, artistic & still not only remain subjective but have an equal/balanced insight on each of them?

Then after the break-up he really thinks that they are reacting to him (as individuals) but not conscious that he's also dealing with the others?

I think that would be extraordinary if he was able to achieve equal trust with them before the fracture let alone after.

So, I'm less concerned what he knew and more conscious of all he could not know.


Don't forget that Emerick worked with the
surviving "Threetles" as recently as '94-'95, compliling the Anthology
project and engineering "Free As A Bird" and "Real Love."

He has a lot of info and yet it may not be as above reproach because 'years with them' is only one factor in judging the reliability of what he reported. Consider? One had been dead for a long time (by '95) and Emerick is continuing to make judgments of the remaining three, fifteen years after they ceased to work together?
Was he seeing GPR in an unguarded state?
Or
Might they have differed in how they perceived him & revealed a different side of themselves to him?

So, no, it's not a stretch. I've spent a lot of time in recording
studios myself, as an engineer, and I can tell you from personal
experience that you learn a LOT about the clients you're working with,
especially when you're with them, alone, in a small control room at 4
in the morning after the entourage and hangers-on have long gone home.

Excellent point!
So, they go home and the spouse, kids do/don't know 'that person' or what might they know that you don't?
How about he guy from Wichita, who was a family guy and a big-shot in his church (and tying women up, torturing them and killing them)?
Were JPGR more or less complicated than that wackjob?

That was Emerick's experience with the Beatles -- not traveling with
them on the road, not partying with them in nightclubs -- but in a
serious working environment, a protected environment where, out of
earshot of journalists and photographers, they could let down their
hair (sic) and be themselves.

I admitted he was a piece in a large puzzle and of value if we wish to have a more complete puzzle.

It's up to each person to weigh his perceptions against as many others as possible or it isn't likely that the fairest conclusion can be drawn. Does his opinion veto Martin's or do three or ten other observations need to be considered?

THOSE are the real people he saw and interacted with over a very long
period of time, and I for one found it to be utterly fascinating and
compelling reading. As Emerick says in the book, he literally grew up
with the Beatles, starting with them when he was just a teenager (and
they were barely older) and growing old with the two of them that were
lucky enough to make it that long.

The family of the killer in Wichita thought one thing of pops for 25 years. A small part of the ol' man's behavior (torture, rape, murder) ended up being a not so insignificant character flaw which they didn't account for.

And it's the refreshingly honest way that he presents them as those
human beings -- without an agenda, without an axe to grind, admitting
his own human flaws as much as he does theirs (over and over again, he
talks about being "in a panic," or being "terrified" -- hardly the
words an egomaniac would use) -- in a way that benefits us, the readers
curious to know about the real lives of these cultural icons... icons
who, at the end of the day, put their pants on one leg at a time, same
as we do.

One of the benefits of experience has been my willingness to "not be surprised". I thought I'd become more narrow minded as I got older & I've found that I am unable to see much at all in black and white. The more willing one person is to "define" another. the more I wonder what they may not know. See, experience has taught me that people aren't "not honest" but it's more difficult for them to report the truth than they believe.

A memoir is by its very definition the subjective recollections of an
individual. That's what this book is -- it's not advertised as being a
textbook, and it doesn't present itself as a "definitive" anything.

And even a personal memoir (autobiography) may or may not be a big piece in a person's "puzzle". You know that FDR did write his story? One of the centuries most interesting individuals and the best authors, closest friends and his relatives don't agree, yet we don't even has "his side of the story".

It's just one man's memories -- supplanted by the memories of his
colleagues (according to Emerick's co-author, former assistants and
co-engineers Phil McDonald and Richard Lush apparently played a big
role in the book, adding their memories to Emerick's in order to
provide a more holistic perspective). But what memories they are...
and of what historic times!

I don't know if you responded to agree with me or not.
I wrote:
"Whether he has an ax to grind is less important than admitting (us and him) few personal recollections reveal much more than an individual's perception.
Maybe? Just maybe? If one read a pile of 'personal perspectives' from varied sources it's possible to get a vague idea about people we don't know. I don't know if we ever end up "knowing" less than we do "know".
(I meant "less than we think we know)

Look, if you or anybody on this board take the time to actually read
Emerick's book and decide you dislike it, then fine, you are of course
entitled to your opinion. My gripe is with this sick little mob
mentality that seems to rear its ugly head every now and then on this
board: people who mindlessly adopt the opinions of others as gospel,
questioning the veracity of the book and even attacking this amazing
individual personally, based on little or no knowledge or what he
actually wrote.

Well, "people who mindlessly adopt the opinions of others as gospel" are best ignored. Any effort to reason with the irrational probably shaves years off of you life.
I didn't mean Emerick was wrong, just that he could not be "right enough" to use in an discussion as some sort of overriding proof. I don't want to become one of the "people who mindlessly adopt the opinions of others as gospel". Anything but a serious effort to weigh what he offers against other sources is probably mindless.

Wasn't it Harrison himself who wrote the lyric, "Think For Yourself"?
That's all I'm advocating for here.

I'm generous but I hang onto my own thinking process.

I don't intend to leave the impression that I believe Emerick is wrong.
But his challenge was to provide a profile of the most complex people in a single book.
So long one recognizes the limits of that effort, it has potential value.

However, as one relies more on any single source:
They endow more power to the source than any person should candidly accept.
&
A person's search for the truth ceases.

CDBaby:
http://cdbaby.com/cd/lathropgiller
Amazon:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V597211EC <------<<<< Pick up a nickel per post, ez money

Michael


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: BBC confirms Tennants swan song as extra-length episode
    ... I Am voting with my finger by posting my opinion Here. ... Torchwood but you don't have the balls to complain directly to ... So stop watching it. ... so you'll keep watching it as long as the character you hate ...
    (rec.arts.drwho)
  • Is Big Ol Meaty right? Does rgfd really suck?
    ... Ed isn't too far below average for article quality these days. ... As far as I'm concerned (you did once mention you valued my opinion:) ... chance to read the latest few books that sounded like they could be ... character and run or play in the campaign, ...
    (rec.games.frp.dnd)
  • Re: Comedy/tragedy
    ... It starts, in my opinion, with the characters. ... supportive but THEY think that she is funny. ... She wasn't going to be a major character but people who ... Nicky (fed up with all the non writing threads) ...
    (rec.arts.sf.composition)
  • Re: OT - I just attended my first sexual harrasment siminar today........
    ... It's called an opinion and everyone gets to have one. ... an attack on Ken's character was not ... Steve Hawkins ... I'd say attacks on his character are always warranted... ...
    (rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic)
  • Re: Y&R Agreeing with Diva, Liking Reality, Barbara Bloom
    ... that's called a difference of opinion in my mind. ... the same as voicing an opinion about thin lips. ... set eyes etc. ... thought he was a Hell of a good actor, great character etc., but I hated ...
    (rec.arts.tv.soaps.cbs)
Loading