Alan Clayson

Well that's that. Finished the final book and thank God I'll never have to read anything by Clayson ever again. When I reviewed the Harrison book, I questioned whether Clayson even liked the Beatles. Now I'm convinced...he does not.

He rips great albums like Sgt Pepper, dismisses Ringo's talent as a drummer, and generally portrays him as a lazy, directionless vagabond, lost once he lost his band.

As per usual, Clayson seems more interested in discussing all the other people around the Beatles show more more than the member who's name is on the cover of the book.

As per usual, Clayson uses the same phrasing from book to book, from section to section. In all four novels, he relates the story of how Pete Best was unfairly attacked by Jim McCartney (Paul's father) when, after a gig, the other Beatles were able to sign a few autographs and escape, but Pete was mobbed by the female fans. Clayson's point? Aside from being a better drummer and a more industrious person overall, he was also the best looking of the group by far...and it's implied that that's why he was tossed from the band.

He also uses the "Ringo's pudding drums" description all four times he gets to the Free As a Bird sessions and equates the weight of the Anthology book with that of a paving slab. Four times.

I've come to the conclusion that Clayson only wrote these four books to muckrake the Beatles a touch while, at the same time, glorifying the bands that didn't make it, such as Rory Storm and the Hurricanes, or those that didn't see the same level of success, such as Gerry and the Pacemakers or the Dave Clark Five and all the others.

At the same time, his favourite Beatles were obviously Stu Sutcliffe and Pete Best.

There's a lot of Beatles books out there. Some are good, some are not. Seek out the good ones, leave the crap like this to the discount bins. show less

Well there's 2 versions of this book -The Quiet One the original text, and this one, one that is updated to include the events of the stabbing, but I could not separate them or add that version which is the one I read. That edition is listed up here, in a parallel universe, but I could not add it -I'd always come back to this.
There are now a number of Harrison biographies by other authors, but this is the one that was in the house, so it's the one I read. I've read a great deal about the show more music of the Beatles and know their story from any number of presentations, but have never sat down to read any bios after the infamous Goldman thing about Lennon from years ago.
I felt this was a thoughtful presentation, full of information that I did not know. The author seeks to put Harrison and the Beatles in the regional and cultural environments that they occupied and that is exactly what I wanted to read. He has a great deal of respect and admiration for George and is clearly celebratory about his efforts like the concert for Bangledash. He is less enthusiastic about a number of George's muscial peers -he does not like Delaney and Bonnie Bramlett, Leon Russell, Melanie, James Taylor, and the coterie of California cool musicians that were the rage at that time and in post -breakup Beatles', and Clapton's bands. He's not the biggest fan of Clapton either. If that irks you, you've been warned.
This is part of a 4 book set of Beatles biographies penned by Clayson. From what I've read, the Ringo one is also well done, so I'll be on to that one next. show less

Alan Clayson's book on George Harrison is a thoughtful and well-documented biography of the "quiet" Beatle, whose song writing abilities were always overshadowed by the talents of John Lennon and Paul McCartney. Clayson details Harrison's evolution as a musical force within the Beatles and his steady progress as an individual within the personality maelstrom of that animal called the Beatles. Touching and challenging in its insights, Clayson evokes a spirit in Harrison that struggled to show more transcend being simply the Beatles' lead guitarist. show less

I don't know if it's a case of getting used to Clayson's horrid writing, or if he just liked Paul more than John. Either way, this book was a touch...just a touch, mind you...more palatable than Lennon's.

Still, Clayson's annoying habit of bouncing around in time for no apparent reason, his habit of name-checking other bands to the point where I wonder exactly who the man is writing about, while giving short shrift to the things that actually apply to McCartney...things like the "Paul is show more dead" rumor, or his fractious relationship with various members of the Beatles and Wings...while focusing more on events or people only peripherally related to him, I found this annoying as hell.

Ah well two more to go. Wonder if he'll break out the same worn expressions yet again for George? show less