The Beatles After the Breakup by Peter Doggett (2011-10-04)

For Beatles fans, Doggett's book follows the Fab Four from their break up in 1969 to the present day. The book was most interesting covering the years immediaetly after the break-up - alot of deals on the financial mess but necessary to understand why the split became permanent. Where I had problems with the book is the relentlessly negative attitude towards the four individuals during the second half of the book - none of them seemed to do anything worthwhile. Also, Doggett goes back and forth on peripheral figues - sometimes Allen Klien is good, sometimes Allen Klien is bad - sometimes Yoko is good, sometimes Yoko is bad - without coming to a integrated sense of the person. An awful lot of Beatles writing falls into the nostalgia conundrum of wanting the Beatles to always remain the four loveable Moptops. Doggett is better than some writers, but has seems to want to judge their post Beatles output against the golden age of the 1960s. Things change.

Doggett assembles numerous reports, anecdotes, and documents to tell the post-1969 tale of the Beatles. Unfortunately, the story he weaves is one full of villains, without a hero in sight. It's truly a tale of human beings feeding lawyers to avoid the tax man, and each other, but through it all, the music is not given over to shine brightly. Knowing that Doggett is a long-time fan of the Beatles, and has written extensively about them for various publications, one could infer that here he made a decision to write as though he were indifferent to the band. There are sections where he writes as though he would have preferred they all just went away. Some of the elements of the book, such as recounting the sad incident of George Harrison's doctor forcing the dying George to sign a guitar, do nothing to add to the story. It's a rich era, 40 years of lawyers, wives, mixed substances, changing record companies, hinted reunions, and deaths. But in all of it, there are only villains: Klein, O'Brien, Eastman, Ono, Aspinall (yes, even the ever-loyal Neil gets his turn under the lamp), Mills, and John, Paul, George, and Ringo. The great music that was made, and continues to be made, is dismissed in favor of tawdry tales and sad stories. In places, it's a step above the gossip column. I don't mean a standard riser, either. I mean a small step, one a child could climb.
Gotta have it for the library, but when used as reference, I'll have to remember that there are at least two sides to every story, and this book does not deliver a fair hearing to all parties.

Always wondered what happened to the Beatles after their breakup.
Had chance to see then in 60's when they came to Atlanta. Great show,
Well written book. Received via Kindle. If you don't have a Kindle....get one...you will not regret it.

Wow, what a book. Being unfamiliar with the trials and tribulations of the Bealtes after their breakup, I was completely amazed by their consistently disgusting behavior as thoroughly documented by Doggett. It's a testament to the author (or any Bealtes fan, really) that he could keep up on everything that happened, although "everything" is basically a repetition of the same events and personal decisions. In fact, about 2/3 of the way through the book, I started to lose interest because each Beatle kept doing the same disgusting things over and over again.

What did they do? First, John. Perhaps the worst was his hateful, irrational attacks on his one-time friend and fortune-maker McCartney ("Those freaks were right when they said you were dead" and "The only thing you've done is Yesterday", from the song "How Do You Sleep"), although there are plenty of others (e.g. his complete dependence on Yoko and other authority figures, his turning his back on people and causes he supported, his hypocritical lifestyle in light of his pleas in the song "Imagine").

Next, Paul. Definitely the worst thing he did, and this really started much of the mess, was sue his former friends and bandmates. He didn't agree with the other three's decision to use Allan Klein as their manager, despite the fact that Klein had a good track record, and so decided to take legal action instead of giving Klein a try. The trial and it's many subsequent counter-trials started and maintained, in the Beatles' lives and minds, an antagonism and a focus on money that was abhorrent (given their fortunes and previous closeness).

Next, George. I can't decide what was worse: the hypocrisy in his spirituality or his obsession with money. George preached and often lived the Hare Krishna religion, yet frequently indulged in drugs, sex and materialism. He also tried a plentora of ways, some barely legal, to make his money grow, brimmed with anger when others threatened his money, and then spent a zillion dollars on a huge estate. Given his spirituality, you would think he wouldn't be such an angry, money-obsessed person.

Finally, Ringo. Ringo didn't really do anything disgusting, just disappointing. According to Doggett, Ringo spend much of the 70's and 80's in a drug & alcohol stupor.

The backdrop to all of this is each Beatle's complete loss of ability to write great songs with any consistency after 1972 or so. Given how many great songs John and Paul (and later, George) consistently cranked out over the previous 8 years, you would think that each Beatle would be able to make great albums. Yet after their end-stage Beatle songs were released, by 1972, none of the Beatles made any great albums. A few hits here and there, but nothing close to what they did before. Creativity may beget creativity, but so overwhelmingly so?

Doggett does a very good job documenting all of the events, covering not just what happened but why, and sometimes gives his opinion of the Beatles' actions. He managed to keep me interested, despite the repetition of the events. Unfortunately, the end result is that I lost all respect for each of the Beatles.

Second time reading this excellent book! GREAT book. Puts you inside the breakup of the band in a way that reveals the financial reasons why - given the new management team - the Beatles' break-up was inevitable.

This was a very complicated read. I've read almost everything there is about the Beatles and this was very hard to follow. The names of the people were thrown out there in the way my mom refers to day time talk show hosts - like they're her best friends. I had a really hard time understanding the time line as well. Quite confusing.

OK BOOK NOT ANY SURPRISES HERE. TO GET THE 'TRUTH' ABOUT THE BEATLES YOU HAVE TO BE LIKE 'COLUMBO' GATHERING CLUES AND SIFTING THROUGH THE BS TO FIND THE TRUTH. EVERYONES BEEN LEAD TO BELIEVE IT WAS TENSION BETWEEN JOHN,YOKO & PAUL WHEN IN REALITY IT WAS GEORGE'S PROBLEMS WITH JOHN'S WITHDRAWAL,PASSIVE AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR TOWARDS THE BAND & YES YOKO ONOS PRESENCE 24/7.

LISTEN TO THE 'NAGRA' TAPES,DOES THAT SOUND LIKE AN UNHAPPY GROUP? EXCEPT FOR A FEW INSTANCES OF JOHN MOCKING GEORGES SONGS,"this is a rock & roll show son" & "you should make a solo album" ETC. IT WAS A BAND THAT HADN'T BEEN A BAND IN YEARS TRYING TO RECAPTURE 'THE MAGIC' & I THINK THEY WERE GETTING THERE,THERE WAS JUST NO UNITY IN DIRECTION,'where to we go from here'.

FOR THE MOST PART THEY ARE HAPPY, JOKING, (smoking some good stuff) & HAVING A GOOD TIME.

WE'LL NEVER KNOW BUT I THINK THE ALLEN KLEIN,JOHN EASTMAN,APPLE,NEMS,NORTHERN SONGS,EMI CONTRACT, WAS A MASSIVE MESS CAUSED BY THE MIS-MANAGEMENT OF BRIAN EPSTEIN WHICH WAS GOING TO RESULT IN A MASSIVE TAX LIABILITY TO THE GROUP. HENCE THE PLAYING OUT OF THE 'SOAP OPERA' FARCE OF THEIR BREAK-UP. AFTER ALL,IT'S ALWAYS ABOUT THE MONEY ISN'T IT??

This book offered some new insights, but was skimpy on facts and information. There were holes in the narrative, and the emphasis was on the author's opinions. He was excessively critical of the humans who formed the Beatles.

I've probably read a couple hundred books about music and musicians, but only about 15 or 20 on the Beatles. Out of all those books I can't say that this one was the most enjoyable, but it was certainly one of the most profound, the one that made me think the most about the vast chasm between myth and reality. Peter Doggett has been researching and writing and living the Beatles for decades so he is as qualified as anyone to write this book. It is the story of the actual men behind the phenomenon, what they have had to live (or die) through day by day and year by year. I'm not an expert but I don't suppose that there is much in the way of new revelations here but the presentation is certainly different. It doesn't spend a lot of time in exaltation of the music. We all know, the author as much as anyone, what this music and this band has meant both to popular culture and to us individually. We all understand, and there have been countless books and articles detailing it, the sense of joy, freedom, and hope that came from those songs. That's not discussed much here. What is discussed is the day to day reality of these men (flawed as you and I), the repercussions of being one of THE BEATLES, the unrealistic hopes and dreams of millions constantly laid on their all too mortal shoulders over decades. Seen for what it is, stripped of the myth, I often found it more brutal than desirable. Doggett simply reports what happened. He doesn't often draw conclusions for us.

From the beginning the Beatles were a vast source of untold wealth and everybody wanted a piece. Bad business decisions abounded from the beginning. The worst was probably turning things over to Allen Klein after Brian Epstein's death. Much of this book is given over to the repercussions of this action and the subsequent fallout between McCartney and the others. It was tedious to just read about all the lawsuits and legal maneuvers over many years. I can only imagine the stress living through it, month after month, year after year.

We get a sense throughout the book how ill equipped the individual Beatles were to deal with their lives - the insecurities mostly hidden from the public. Ringo struggling through decades battling alcohol and drug addiction, all the while creating work that no one really noticed except as nostalgia because he was a Beatle. Paul - constantly insecure by the comparisons between him and Lennon in which he always seemed to come up short (often unjustly). This was only magnified by John's death and Yoko Ono's constant subtle, passive aggressive comments that put Paul second to John in everything. John - fearful and directionless, subject to following his whims to ridiculous extremes in both his personal life and recording career. George - holding a grudge against Paul for years because he felt slighted and controlled for most of their time in the Beatles. After John's death in constant fear for his safety - a fear that turned out to be all too justified when a man broke into his fortress and tried to take his life. George's deliberately humorous comment was that the man wasn't there to try out for the Traveling Wilburys. The harsh reality was that George came very close to death that day, being stabbed 40 times in a brutal attack. This is exactly the thing that the author ably reveals - the vast difference between the carefree fantasy perpetuated and believed, and the truth of their lives. The constant questions and speculations about a Beatles reunion, even after John's death. It's all quite relentless and, when presented in this manner, seems to indicate the fame of these 4 men was more of a burden than a blessing. But that's just my impression; as I said the author doesn't draw conclusions or tell you how to feel. The most heartbreaking thing to me was how George could not even get any peace during his actual time of dying. One of his medical staff insisted on subjecting him to a song played by the man's son on guitar. He then practically forced him to sign an autograph and had to hold his hand since George didn't have the strength to sign by himself.

I think we have all, to some extent, looked at The Beatles through rose colored glasses - as if their lives were lived in some kind of golden haze, that anyone lucky enough to be in their inner circle was blessed to dwell among the gods. This book certainly shows how wrong we were.

Mojo and Q writer Peter Doggett tackles one of the most difficult subject in The Beatles mythology in You Never Give Me Your Money: The Beatles After the Breakup. Doggett focuses on the hurricane of success that led to the band's break up and kept these four friends who went through the excitement/hell of Beatlemania together apart--the business of The Beatles, their own egos and all the baggage they carried into and out of their relationship(s) as former partners. The Beatles was truly always bigger than all of them separately and for them to carry on in the shadow of a monster was difficult--they were always individually measured against the sucess of The Beatles something much bigger than John, Paul, George and Ringo individually.

The first third of the book is devoted to The Beatles before and on the cusp of the break up including a discussion of Allen Klein, the Eastmans and the legal issues/conflicts between those outside of the Beatles camp and inside. The majority of the book though focuses everything from the petty (George stating sarcastically suggesting that Paul talked about recording some of John's songs because he ran out of good ones himself) to the major (the conflict between George, Ringo and Yoko when Paul set up a higher royalty rate that tied into his solo career but also effected his Beatles recordings as well that the other three weren't privy to).

"You Never Give Me Your Money" focuses on the legal squabbles and difficulties that John, Paul, George and Ringo faced in the aftermath of their massive success. The band faced friends who robbed them, each other in courtrooms,EMI the company they recorded for and their own personal demons of living up to the reputation that was bigger than all of them. Dogget documents McCartney's struggle with standing in the shadow of a former collaborator who suddenly became an icon; Harrison's attempt to escape being just a Beatle and Ringo surfing on his charm only to fall into a pit of drugs and alcohol. This isn't the first book to focus on the business/legal/ego issues that surrounded the Beatle money making machine (The Longest Cocktail Party and Apple to the Core both did to some degree) but this is the first one to give us a comprehensive look into their post-Beatle lives/business dealings with each other.

Doggett's book is well researched covering everything from the difficult conflict for control of the band between business savvy Allen Klein and the Eastman family to Harrison's financial troubles and McCartney's massive publishing empire. He details the cold/warm relationship between McCartney and Ono quite well. While Doggett does discuss the music he doesn't focus on it--instead he focuses on the people who made it and how they struggled to survive in the wake of one of the most successful and ripped off bands of all time.

Even though it is well researched there are a couple of minor errors that weren't corrected from the British edition--former Wings member at one point is referred to as a guitarist (he was the drummer and later is referred to in another section as the drummer for Wings), "The Beatles-Alpha & Omega" which had commericals airing on TV in 1973 in the U.S. is referred to as "The Beatles Story" (an album title for a 1964 Capitol Records release)and the ads are mentioned as airing on ABC-TV (it wasn't on the networks but on the affiliates). There's also no mention of the lawsuit that George Harrison filed against Ringo Starr related to Ringo recording his song "I'll Still Love You" or the fact that Ringo razzed George about it in an interview. It's possible that these might have been dropped for one reason or another during the editing stage of the book) but on the whole Doggett does an excellent job.

There's a mix of new and older information that's collated nicely by Doggett. Doggett brings it all together with some new insights into the situations The Beatles faced. You Never Give Me Your Money gives us a peek into the insanity (sometimes of their own making sometimes not)that continued to surround The Beatles after their "divorce". Recommended.

As a rabid classic rock fan, I always wondered why the Beatles seemed to have completely ignored the CD era. Almost every band of the sixties saw their CDs issued two, three, four or more times in the 20 plus years CDs have existed. Until 2009, the Beatles saw theirs issued once. Why would the band pass up the opportunity to make money on their songs? Why would they deny their fans the opportunity to hear the CDs cleaned up with bonus tracks and other goodies?

After reading You Never Give Me Your Money, the answer becomes clear. From the late 60's on, the Beatles were rarely on the same page on anything, and with the exception of Ringo, all three seemed to be on opposite sides of ambivilent or excited about the propsects of reuniting at any given time.

You Never Give Me Your Money opens on the event that forever ensured that the Beatles would be shattered, the death of John Lennon. This event becomes the turning point for the group not just because the co-frontman for the group is dead, but because his widow, Yoko Ono, essentially becomes the fourth Beatle in negotiations and discussions. By the end of the book, it is clear that Yoko controlled John in life, and her grip in death ensured that any activity envolving the Beatles would not be for the joy of making music, but a business transaction in which the image of John was the most important thing.

Truthfully, no Beatle comes off great here. Paul is seen as the consumate hard working musician who leads a life of diminishing musical returns. He's bossy, a bit delusional, and always trying to boost his self esteem and position with his mates in the band. As portrayed here, Paul fancied himself the most talented, but always had an inferiority complex when it came to John, something Yoko Ono did her best to exploit. Still, Paul seems to distance himself from the party and hard drugs lifestyle that the others sought in varying amounts. He also seems the most business savvy, pleading in the final years of the group for the rest of them not to go with the shady Allen Klein, and then investing in both himself and others to build a publishing empire that would make him far wealthier than any of the group.

John comes off as a bit of a waste himself, submersing himself in drugs and the attention seeking of Yoko Ono, he gains a reputation as being the socially conscious Beatle, but appears bored with embracing any message for too long. He rejects the Beatles at first, but then seems to warm to a reunion, apparently ready to work with Paul again during his "lost weekend" when he was estranged from Yoko, only to have her reel him back in at the last second and essentially see him retire from music. He seems to toy with Paul, who wants to stay friends, by bringing him close then rejecting him with equal ease. Much is made of John's need for a strong domineering woman in his life, a role Yoko fills incredibly well

George appears to be the Beatle most resentful of their legacy. Angry at John for dismissing his talent and Paul for Paul's ego and domineering nature, George seems to relish being out of the band and their shadow. He embraces the mystical and the secular in equal order and seems mostly to feel that the Beatles are part of his past that he need not revisit. Only when money becomes tight does he embrace the idea of a reunion, and then only on his terms with his producer.

Ringo comes off the kindest but most lost. With minimal songwriting or solo talents, and little hope of hooking back up with his friends, he pursues his addictions with a vengeance, eventually sobering up, but finding sobriety hard to keep when there is so little to occupy his attention.

But ultimately it is Yoko who is the person that shapes the post breakup years of the Beatles. From You Never Give Me Your Money, you get the sense that Yoko essentially threw the balance off in the Beatles. Whereas the other three had wives and girlfriends, they seldom became part of the music or the group's scene. Yoko joined John at the hip and rode his coattails the entire way. When John died, with him died the chance that the Beatles could reunite, with him or without him. One gets the sense that had he lived, the four might eventually have decided to bury the hatchet later in life and reform, or at least play together occasionally. Instead, Yoko created the image of John as Lennon first, Beatle second, and worked to cultivate the myth that he was the leader, the most talented, and the most historically significant Beatle.

Ironically, the moment that sums up what Yoko is like comes not in the narrative of the book at all, but in a brief note in the acknowledgements. Writer Peter Doggett provides a summary of people he talked to for the book and a bit about the circumstances he met them in. Under Yoko, he mentions that he met her at the Hyde Park Hotel. "Just as she was telling me that she would now have to face the world alone without John, there was an ill-timed male cough from her bathroom. She looked embarrasedly in that direction and changed the subject." For Yoko, the image of John's memory and her as his widow seems more important than the man or his music. It's as though Priscilla Presley morphed into Colonel Parker.

You Never Give Me Your Money is an excellent portrait of the post breakup Beatles. Recommended.

As a rabid classic rock fan, I always wondered why the Beatles seemed to have completely ignored the CD era. Almost every band of the sixties saw their CDs issued two, three, four or more times in the 20 plus years CDs have existed. Until 2009, the Beatles saw theirs issued once. Why would the band pass up the opportunity to make money on their songs? Why would they deny their fans the opportunity to hear the CDs cleaned up with bonus tracks and other goodies?

After reading You Never Give Me Your Money, the answer becomes clear. From the late 60's on, the Beatles were rarely on the same page on anything, and with the exception of Ringo, all three seemed to be on opposite sides of ambivilent or excited about the propsects of reuniting at any given time.

You Never Give Me Your Money opens on the event that forever ensured that the Beatles would be shattered, the death of John Lennon. This event becomes the turning point for the group not just because the co-frontman for the group is dead, but because his widow, Yoko Ono, essentially becomes the fourth Beatle in negotiations and discussions. By the end of the book, it is clear that Yoko controlled John in life, and her grip in death ensured that any activity envolving the Beatles would not be for the joy of making music, but a business transaction in which the image of John was the most important thing.

Truthfully, no Beatle comes off great here. Paul is seen as the consumate hard working musician who leads a life of diminishing musical returns. He's bossy, a bit delusional, and always trying to boost his self esteem and position with his mates in the band. As portrayed here, Paul fancied himself the most talented, but always had an inferiority complex when it came to John, something Yoko Ono did her best to exploit. Still, Paul seems to distance himself from the party and hard drugs lifestyle that the others sought in varying amounts. He also seems the most business savvy, pleading in the final years of the group for the rest of them not to go with the shady Allen Klein, and then investing in both himself and others to build a publishing empire that would make him far wealthier than any of the group.

John comes off as a bit of a waste himself, submersing himself in drugs and the attention seeking of Yoko Ono, he gains a reputation as being the socially conscious Beatle, but appears bored with embracing any message for too long. He rejects the Beatles at first, but then seems to warm to a reunion, apparently ready to work with Paul again during his "lost weekend" when he was estranged from Yoko, only to have her reel him back in at the last second and essentially see him retire from music. He seems to toy with Paul, who wants to stay friends, by bringing him close then rejecting him with equal ease. Much is made of John's need for a strong domineering woman in his life, a role Yoko fills incredibly well

George appears to be the Beatle most resentful of their legacy. Angry at John for dismissing his talent and Paul for Paul's ego and domineering nature, George seems to relish being out of the band and their shadow. He embraces the mystical and the secular in equal order and seems mostly to feel that the Beatles are part of his past that he need not revisit. Only when money becomes tight does he embrace the idea of a reunion, and then only on his terms with his producer.

Ringo comes off the kindest but most lost. With minimal songwriting or solo talents, and little hope of hooking back up with his friends, he pursues his addictions with a vengeance, eventually sobering up, but finding sobriety hard to keep when there is so little to occupy his attention.

But ultimately it is Yoko who is the person that shapes the post breakup years of the Beatles. From You Never Give Me Your Money, you get the sense that Yoko essentially threw the balance off in the Beatles. Whereas the other three had wives and girlfriends, they seldom became part of the music or the group's scene. Yoko joined John at the hip and rode his coattails the entire way. When John died, with him died the chance that the Beatles could reunite, with him or without him. One gets the sense that had he lived, the four might eventually have decided to bury the hatchet later in life and reform, or at least play together occasionally. Instead, Yoko created the image of John as Lennon first, Beatle second, and worked to cultivate the myth that he was the leader, the most talented, and the most historically significant Beatle.

Ironically, the moment that sums up what Yoko is like comes not in the narrative of the book at all, but in a brief note in the acknowledgements. Writer Peter Doggett provides a summary of people he talked to for the book and a bit about the circumstances he met them in. Under Yoko, he mentions that he met her at the Hyde Park Hotel. "Just as she was telling me that she would now have to face the world alone without John, there was an ill-timed male cough from her bathroom. She looked embarrasedly in that direction and changed the subject." For Yoko, the image of John's memory and her as his widow seems more important than the man or his music. It's as though Priscilla Presley morphed into Colonel Parker.

You Never Give Me Your Money is an excellent portrait of the post breakup Beatles. Recommended.

Of course, there are counless books about each one of the Beatles, some of them focusing on specific phases.

Peter Doggett managed to put a lot of pertinent information of the Beatles after 1967 in just one book, foscuing mainly on the legal web that plagued them years and years after the band was already finished. Sometimes one can even think that the beloved innocent musicians from the sixties grew up to became obnoxious greedy men. Or maybe they were just fighting for what each one of them thought it was right.... Who knows? The final balance was that they lost a lot of energy, friendships and money with the legal battles through the years.

This Beatle book is interesting -- in spots -- and informative, if you're a Beatles fan of long standing, as I am.

But it doesn't seem to me to provide a whole lot of information that wasn't available from earlier biographies, either of the Beatles as a group or of the individual members. If Peter Doggett is preaching to the already converted, his sermon is one most of us have heard before, and often.

He does clear up a few "urban myths" about the Beatles. One is the canard that, just after one verbal clash between John Lennon, George Harrison and Ringo Starr, on the one hand; and Paul McCartney, on the other, during their 3-on-1 battles over the break-up of the group, Lennon, Harrison and Starr drove over to McCartney's house, near the Abbey Road studios, and Lennon proceeded to smash one of the windows with two rocks. It never happened, Doggett says, and seems pretty certain about it.

But like several other authors who had previously written biographies of John Lennon -- in this case, "The Art and Music of John Lennon" -- Mr. Doggett seems to have a visceral dislike of Paul McCartney, and a desire to "bring him down a peg" with subtle slights, snubs and smears when writing about the group. Even when acknowledging McCartney's awesome musical talent as he does -- possibly the most in one individual in the 20th Century, as Doggett declares, he tries to make that quality seem like one of the reasons that Lennon and Harrison complained, publicly and repeatedly, about McCartney's being "bossy" at recording sessions. The possibility that McCartney saw the need for someone to be in some kind of charge, and decided to appoint himself in place of the drug-addled Lennon, is never suggested.

Doggett does give each musician his due in terms of their talents -- as he certainly should. But his personality profiles of each reveal the nasty, hurtful edge that Lennon and Harrison often had about them, especially in their public utterances about the Beatles after the group had disbanded. McCartney often comes off as being too "commercial" for the tastes of Doggett and other baby boomers who were the Beatles' earliest fans. Lennon and Harrison, in later years, often complained about their partner along those lines. But apparently they didn't turn down the millions in cash their membership in the band earned them.

Starr -- who Doggett always refers to by his real name, Richard Starkey -- comes off best as an individual, as he often has in books about the group. A gentle, very likeable man who got along with everyone, Starkey never really got the credit he deserved as the only drummer for the Beatles who most people have ever heard of.

All in all, this book is worth a read. But if you have a special fondness for Paul McCartney, there are many treatments of him that appeared to me to be very unfair, and which will probably raise your ire.

Unlike many books on the Beatles, where the author has a subliminal agenda, this book maintains a relatively impartial tone throughout. Doggett usually resists betraying any bias toward or against any individual Beatle. He points out character flaws and weaknesses quite frequently from all of them--when describing the debacle of the breakup and ensuing lawsuits how could he not?--but he gallops through the years and leaves some chronological gaps. I only discovered one obvious inaccuracy--Paul's album Chaos and Creation in the Back Yard was released in 2005 but Doggett states that it came out in 2003.

I have a clearer understanding of the tangled net of legalities in which they inadvertently placed themselves. If they had been as united in their management strategies and who to trust to manage business affairs as they had once been in creating outstanding music their drama might have taken some different turns.

I hoped that Doggett would have written some in-depth critical analysis of the musical output of each of them. He touches on it in a few instances but neglects entire sequences of albums that contained at least two or three outstanding tracks. In particular, he seems oblivious to the fact that Ringo has exceeded expectations, which were close to zero, to produce a few albums within the last 10-15 years that are extremely well-crafted and played and retain echoes of the Beatles sound--Beatles Lite, in essence. I suppose I'll have to look elsewhere for critical assessment of the music. Doggett's major accomplishment is to make sense out of the chaos of the lives and affairs of the post-breakup Beatles--no small accomplishment when you have forty years of conflicting details to sort through.

To navigate the field of Beatles literatue/biographies is akin to navigating that of Lincoln's...quite frankly way too much has been written and to stand out is difficult to say the least. Anyone with even a moderate knowledge of music history knows the backstory of The Beatles. Peter Doggett focuses his pen primarly on 1968-1980 and then a chapter on the last thirty years 'which I thought was very, very interesting' all of which focus on the financial and personal interactions of The Beatles leading up to, and after their breakup.

You will quite frankly learn more about the respective Beatles' solo careers here than you will from many of the run-of-the-mill biographies published yearly, especially the haphazard Lennon biographies. I rank Doggett's work here with Ian Macdonalds sacrosanct "Revolution in the Head" as one of the definitive books on the Fab Four.

Definitely an interesting look into what happened to the Beatles post break-up. That said, I do found myself agreeing with some commenters here over the author's bias. While every Lennon's, McCartney's and Starkey's actions leading to/after the break-ups were followed by generous helpings of armchair psychology analysis from the author himself, he seemed to shy away from doing the same to Harrison. Instead the author offered anecdotes from his close friends and wife that were full with nothing but praises for the man. Harrison's success was glorified and his missteps were quickly glossed over or presented in a neutral manner, meanwhile the others' success received backhanded compliments at most, and again, another dollop of analysis towards their psyche over their missteps.

Doggett's effort to strip the Beatles from their almost untouchable, decades-old caricatured personas down to their human self with all their flaws laid bare is commendable, but it's hard not to be cynical over the author's intentions when one ex-Beatle was clearly spared from the same scrutiny. To add irony to the mix, Doggett also criticised Goldman's Lennon autobiography that were littered with suggestive terms and speculations, while seemingly oblivious to his own similar actions in this book.

Whenever The Beatles are brought up, it evokes those in the conversation to enter a time machine in their mind that takes them back to another time and place. I find it to be truly fascinating that a band who in their final configuration (McCartney, Lennon, Harrison, and Starr) essentially played together for 7 years from 1962 to 1969. For many bands, they would simply be unable to make any sort of meaningful mark. Yet, The Beatles came to represent the 1960s for better or for worse unlike any entity. Their music evolved perfectly to represent the early 1960s, mid-1960s, and the late 1960s. It was truly a stunning achievement that they accomplished. They absolutely reaped the rewards from their creativity and musical genius during those 7 years. Sadly one could never have predicted that in the 40 years after they last played together as a group in Abbey Road Studios, they would be subjected to a wide range of misfortunes. There were good times for each member as individuals, but it seemed there were more bad times for them.

Peter Doggett lays down the story of the Beatles from the late 1960s through the present day. It is perhaps the most honest assessment of the band that has been put into print. Make no mistake about it, Doggett does acknowledge he is a big Beatles fan, but the book does not turn into a hagiography which can happen quite easily. In spite of his preference for the band, he simply lays down a story backed with facts, and it never feels as if he is telling the reader what to believe. Certainly some may disagree with things he says, but the reader can read the book without feeling pushed into accepting a certain view of the group. Many have chosen to remake the image of the late John Lennon so he appears as a saint. Doggett's book while not a look at Lennon specifically, shows a man who was quite human and made mistakes just like the rest of the members did, or even any one of us. People often lament the fact that the band never got together for a true reunion before Lennon's death in 1980, but Doggett's story makes it clear as to why it never happened. In some regards it probably was for the better even though many may disagree with that assessment.

Their end in 1969 was facilitated by several factors from Yoko Ono to Allen Klein to the Apple Corps. There was no one specific cause for the breakup of the band. It took several factors that when combined made it really impossible for the band to continue on due to the bickering over financial issues. Doggett does a wonderful job of laying out the problems that the Apple Corporation created for the group. The company was created with the best of intentions, yet it turned into a never-ending legal nightmare for the members after 1969. It helped to breed discontentment with one another as well as a lack of general trust among each of the men. While Ringo, John and George decided to go with Allen Klein as their manager in May 1969, Paul never wanted to go with Klein. Ironically ties would be ended with Klein who turned out not to be the ideal manager that the 3 members thought he would be.

While the legal and financial problems do take a center stage in the book, the story does not simply gloss over the solo careers of the band members or even their personal problems. We are treated to the constant sniping at one another throughout the 1970s and even into the 1980s and 1990s. Drug usage, alcoholism, failed marriages, and death play a role in their life after 1969. Even though the solo careers of Paul and George were very successful by most standards, they were simply unable to escape the past. George Harrison was a man who wanted nothing more than to leave his years as a member of The Beatles behind, but he was never quite able to. The curse for all the men was that no matter what they did in their solo careers, the comparisons to what they did together from 1962 to 1969 forever haunted them. It was always right on their heels nipping at them.

This is a book that simply must be read if you are a fan of the Beatles, or a music fan in general. The lasting influence of the band simply cannot be measured in quantifiable terms. But their story was not all fun and games. It shows how men who achieved so much together, could simply be reduced to bitterness in the face of success most can only dream of accomplishing. They represented the spirit of the 1960s unlike no one else and embodied the idea of living for the moment. Yet in living for the moment, many mistakes were made as a result and the mistakes would ultimately end their run together.

"And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make."

If only they had paid attention to their own song.

Peter Doggett has done the near impossible in "You Never Give Me Your Money." He deconstructed a myth without destroying it. The Beatles as a group was far greater than the individual sum of its parts, no disrespect intended to John, Paul, George, & Ringo. Even though they stopped making music together as a four-some, they were forever bound by the legalities that governed their jointly-created empire. More importantly, they were even more tightly bound by the myths that grew out of the Beatles' artistic legacy.

Time may erase the individual personality pecadillos that dictated their communications with each other, but it can never change the timelessness of their music. Doggett's well written, fascinating study on the Beatles as a "company" is a page turner. The company, call it the Beatles or call it Apple, continues to dominate the music industry today, almost 50 years after its initial creation.

Very highly recommended, especially for Beatle fans.

This book is so well written, so well documented, so succinct, relevant and consistent, it's instantly and already a reference book both for the Beatles scholars and fans.

The author's dedication and knowledge is obvious: in 350 pages he sums up facts, observations and (conclusions of mature) reflections around the main themes related to the Beatles breakup, in a perfectly cohesive and easy-to-read narrative.

I read it in a hard day's night. Why "hard"? Because of the content's inherent sadness. The speedy read is due to the book's obvious qualities and interest, but also to the general lack of serious, reliable current literature related to the subject. This one is serious. And reliable.

The note of skepticism of the last pages (referring to the latest Beatles "products" like the LOVE or Let It Be... Naked releases) is understandable: nothing can level the original releases; nothing compares to the fever of unpacking the latest Beatles vinyl LP, to the first (ever) listening to the Abbey Road album, or Let It Be, or Revolver or...

I look forward to re-reading this book with a cooler head, now that curiosity is fulfilled.

I also want to thank the author for his dedication. It's a rare thing.

This book tells the interesting saga of The Beatles business life from the death of their manager, Brian Epstein, until about 2005. In other words, from The Beatles idealistic and youthful worldview in the 1960's to the down and dirty dealings of businessmen and lawyers in the 1970's and beyond. It's not a pretty picture and nobody comes out smelling like a rose. It is a sad story that lifts the veil to reveal how human and phony our heroes could be in their private/public personas.

It is a quick read and is a nice compendium to the book 'Can't Buy Me Love'; the 2007/08 cultural history of the band by Jonathan Gould.

Also, the author is a rather interesting person, in that he personally knew or interviewed a wide range of the usual, peripheral characters in The Beatles story i.e., Derek Taylor and some of the McCartney children. In fact, as a fan, he had met three out of the four Beatles, themselves. However, do not mistake me. He is critical and objective about his subjects throughout. For instance, he provides a far more nuanced characterization of Allen Klein, who continues to be the consummate rock villain.

Although there have been other books written about the break-up of The Fab Four and its aftermath, this is one of the best that I've read. Beginning with the death of John Lennon, the narrative reverts back to the events leading up to the eventual break-up and then continues in roughly chronological fashion up to the present time.

Although the book details the various legal disputes that took place in the years subsequent to 1970, mainly between Paul McCartney and the other former Beatles, I found the stories of the on-again, off-again relationships between the former friends and band members outside of the court rooms much more interesting.

The author pulls no punches and reveals each Beatle as having the both good and bad qualities as any other human being. Those expecting to have their stereotypical views of Paul as the Cute One, John as the Clever One, George as the Spiritual One and Ringo as the Lovable One (or whatever he was supposed to be) reinforced should look elsewhere. The reader will find no particular heroes or villains here, only a tale of four individuals of varying talents placed in the impossible situation of trying to move forward in their separate lives, musically, financially and sometimes spiritually, while all the world wanted nothing other than for them to continue working together as a band regardless of their own feelings. Although John Lennon told us in a lyric early on that, "the dream is over," few wanted to listen. The other Beatles echoed that sentiment at various times in subsequent years.

In reading this book you will find that none of the Beatles led truly happy lives in the years following the break-up. Anyone who ever took part in trying to pressure them into an unwanted reunion will have to decide for themselves what part their own actions contributed to the unhappiness of their idols.

Nicely written look into the sad humanity behind the carefully crafted image of the Fab Four. One walks away believing that only two, Harrison and Starkey, had anything akin to a real friendship (despite Harrison's immense betrayal). The idea each held of a reunion was nothing more than a high school fantasy fueled not by friendship but by memories of a terrific creative spark achieved almost exclusively when all four worked together. In reality, any reunion and any creative spark would have been done away with by either age or by the fact they simply didn't really like each other all that much and with good reason; by turns their behavior ranges from lousy to lousier.

McCartney comes across as an often petty musical genius who is driven by competition and the need to win, seemingly at all costs; Lennon as an almost equally brilliant but insecure and gullible man completely dependent on either drugs, the band or Yoko to function with any sustained degree of normalcy; Harrison was bright, acerbic and unable to let go of slights experienced at the hands of McCartney and Lennon, forever vying for respect from them and unwilling to recognize their greater hit making talent, and Starkey, the only one who truly enjoyed the others despite their faults, while struggling to sustain his loveable but shallow "Ringo" image outside the band.

The usual cast of villains from Yoko, the professional widow who should be applauded for thwarting several reunion attempts, to Allen Klein are here too. In all, a fascinating and ultimately sad tale of four individuals linked together by nothing more than music, legal contracts and memories that seem nicer in retrospect than they really were.

The last sentence of this book is: "Their collective genius created something that not even money could destroy." But the entire focus here is on the money and the squabbling over it that allegedly undermined any continuation of `Beatles genius' past the 1960s.

The whole thesis of the book is just plain wrong. Squabbles over money is what it took for an artistic break-out from the Beatles box. Would fans really have been better served by John, George, Ringo and even Paul straining indefinitely to preserve the Beatles in their 1960s form. I think not. In fact, splitting was the only way for that Beatles genius to continue without largely recapitulating what they had already done. They were bored to death with their own schtick, even if most fans weren't.

That Beatles genius would be channeled individually over the decades that followed, but onlysporadically. It may have been hard to appreciate at the time, because no one enjoyed paying full-price for an album with only a couple of Beatlesworthy tracks. But that isn't a problem at all, in retrospect, because now it is so easy to obtain the best of the solo Beatles via `best of' CDs and downloading individual tracks. The music was the thing that really counted with the Beatles and the Beatles' music transcends both its 1960s heyday and all the fourth-rate journalism that has tried to one-up the Beatles by interpreting everything that has happened post-1969 (or even as early an Jan. 1969's `Get Back' sessions) as a descent into an artistic wasteland, with money and litigation over it becoming the most interesting parts of the saga.

But there is no good reason for fans to follow journalists down that sewer. The post-1969 Beatles works are a bonanza of overlooked, under-rated and undiscovered gems that beg for repackaging as something along the lines of a `Beatles Releasing Collective'. Imagine that Allen Klein was terminated as manager by early 1970, and a more imaginative less-divisive candidate found. The Beatles could conceivably have transformed themselves into a more conceptual band, a `next stage' after their prior transformation from touring band to recording-only band.

They could have continued recording, but more-or-less separately, while releasing collectively. If there were too many practical considerations for this to have been feasible at the time, these are irrelevant in 2011, so it could be done now--retrospectively. More than half of the Beatlesworthy output of John, Paul, George and Ringo comes after 1969, but you would never know this from one dreary account after another about the supposed decline that set in as of the `Get Back' sessions--in fact one of pop music's most productive-ever 19 days of work. That said, some readers are more interested in the litigation than the music, so this book is perfect for them.

Doggett notes along the way that the Beatles' renewed recording deal of January 1967 entailed a promise by the Beatles to deliver x number of recordings through to 1976--collectively OR individually. It assumed not that the Beatles would carry on collectively for 10 years , but that they might very well start making `Beatle' rather than `Beatles' records at some point. Which is exactly what happened. Doggett remarks on page 92 that John's Plastic Ono band was "an open-ended entity which offered a refuge from the restrictive dimensions of the Beatles." So it did, but a Beatles taken to the `next stage' could have served just as well or better. As George said, "[I]t has now got to the point where [the band] was stifling us. There was too much restriction." And as John put it, "The Beatles were a monument, and had to be either changed or scrapped." In reality, it was scrapped. In retrospect we can instead view the Beatles as merely having changed.

It's nice to see the author debunking the groundless assertion repeated by countless journalists that when the other three Beatles got mad at Paul for forcing a legal dissolution of the group, they drove over to Mac's house where John got out and heaved a few bricks through the windows.

But why, on page 284, does Doggett devote an entire 9-line paragraph to the babblings of some wannabe psychic supposedly channeling John's post-assassination thoughts from the beyond?

One could nitpick endlessly here, but I WAS mortified at Doggett's denigration on page 303 of George''s film output with HandMade Films. Why does every music journalist feel obliged to characterize the unfortunate `Shanghai Surprise' as somehow representative of what that studio produced in its last several years? It wasn't. HandMade did great work post-Shanghai.

The author quotes George Martin on his initially unpromising foray into the Beatles archives in search of unreleased gems for the `Beatles Anthology'. "There are one or two interesting variations, but otherwise it's all junk." Well, there WAS more than that, but mostly stuff that EMI had once intended to release on a `Beatles Sessions' album. The rest was indeed an archeological dig, with results barely worth a second listening. But the Anthology sets were hyped to the MAX while far worthier `Beatle' music from beyond 1969 has remained relatively ignored. That said, Doggett informs us that after the Anthology series aired, "`Free as a Bird' and `Real Love' slipped out of memory, as if they had never been, or ever should have been." What rot! For instance, in Spignesi and Lewis' `100 Best Beatles Songs' (2004) , the authors rate these songs 25th and 74th respectively. Unworthy and forgotten. Hardly.

Doggett tells us that after Paul's knighthood, suppposedly "his fellow Beatles now addressed him as `Your Holiness', but that sounds like the invention of a PR man." No, George did call him that.

Speaking of George, why is it that Doggett keeps on calling his sense of humour "sly," again and again to the point of irritation. Is there an editor in the house?

Doggett totally dismisses George's "freshening up" of `My Sweet Lord' in 2000, whereas for many of us it's a welcome variation on a timeless masterpiece.

Doggett also refers to Mac's `Chaos and Creation in the Backyard' as `Chaos and Confusion in the Backyard', and tells us that though a good CD, "it was quickly buried beneath the debris of his marriage [to Heather Mills]." This is merely another example of journalists drinking their own bathwater.

Sincs Doggett's book has many redeeming features as an account that follows the money and litigation Beatles-wise, I've only mentioned a handful of its numerous objectionable statements. Four stars despite the above.

While the Stones exiled themselves to avoid the crushing British income tax, the Beatles attempted a more creative approach of pooling their assets in a limited partnership and financing everything from the outlandish imaginations of "Magic Alex" to signing such innovative new talent as James Taylor. This insightful study follows the implications of this structure from its inception up until the current time. Sprinkled throughout are glimpses of the personal lives of the Beatles with an extraordinary and touching account of the night John was murdered.

All in all one of the best books about the Beatles and their empire that I've ever read.

First, though this book is subtitled "The Beatles after the breakup", it should be noted that a good portion of the book is devoted to the events prior to and surrounding the breakup itself. A bit more time than perhaps is necessary is spent detailing the events of the late 1960s in the Beatles' Apple empire. But for those (like me) who are not intimately acquainted with Beatles history to an obsessive degree, this isn't much of a problem, and the book never fails to be interesting.

Doggett manages to encapsulate the high (and low) points of the ex-Beatles' solo careers and business lives beginning in the 1970s and continuing up until the present. Although a great deal of attention is devoted to the intricacies of multinational litigation, I don't think the narrative is ever dull or boring.

The narrative of John Lennon's "Lost Weekend" of 1973-74 is of particular interest, as it was probably the last good chance the world would ever see for a full-fledged Beatles reunion during Lennon's lifetime. Despite its repeated acknowledgement of the possibilities for reunions that were passed up, this book is light on sentimental "might-have-beens", and uncompromising in its portrayal of the four Beatles and their supporting cast as fully mortal and imperfect human beings.

There's a lot of Beatles factoids here that I certainly never knew about. Paul McCartney's repeated attempts to produce a film to be written by Isaac Asimov, for example, or Lennon's recounting of a sex dream involving George Harrison, or George's own desire to stage a tour in the 1970s alongside the Monty Python troupe. However, I do feel (without being able to say with absolute certainty) that the majority of the subject matter in this book has been covered before, and the most interesting bits probably in more depth.

Despite this, Doggett's book does not skimp on interesting anecdotes and stories, and it's clear that a lot of research and hard work went into it. Doggett's portrayal of the Harrison/McCartney relationship leading up to, and during, the Anthology period stands out as nicely informative and well-written.

Peter Doggett's "You Never Give Me Your Money" is good, cleverly written, and likely to be both informative and entertaining to the average Beatles fan, though it may be redundant for the more thoroughly read.

Peter Doggett deserves credit here for writing about The Beatles from a unique and different perspective. He shows that while creative differences may have broken up the band, it was the bitterness of many legal fights and personal side fights which kept the band apart. He takes the history of the band and focuses in on and doesn't treat it like some final chapter in an otherwise glowing book on Beatles history.

I greatly appreciated how he showed both the vices and virtues of all the individuals in the band. Most interesting was how he showed that each member of the group had their own struggles with finances or other legal issues after the breakup. He is not afraid to point out each band members foibles either but he doesn't turn this into a slam or an opportunity to destroy the myth of the band.

I can't say it is perfect or five stars only because I find it is short on some episodes which happened during the last five years such as Harrison's death, McCartney's classical music foray and more detail on how much his children opposed his second marriage. Still if you enjoy the Beatles this is a very enjoyable book to read.

ok..ive been reading beatles books for a long time. and its hard to find as well as totally satisfying to find a beatles book so page turning a full of little unbeknownst details and tidbits that you are left totally satisfied. you may well know the larger picture,as many hardcore fans know,about many of the topics in this book,but doubtful in such great detail. enthralling comes to mind. the detail in peters book book makes it obvious how exaustingly researched this book is.post beatles era books tend to gleam over and summerise those years. this book doesn't. and shows that the beatles era never really ended. for instance there was far more bitterness between them in post beatles days but also far more reconcilliations and get-togethers and near reunions than one would normally know.the later years are especially interesting: georges involvment with handmade films,the lennon/mccartney publishing rights fiasco,neil and his gaurdianship of the beatles legacy til he died as well as the relationships among all the 'shareholders' of the beatles legacy.A great read.HIGHLY reccomended!!

Doggett doesn't paint a portrait, he takes a clear and revealing picture.

Few writers can match the intelligence, dedication to research and accuracy, and
the ability to write with such elegance...as Peter Doggett.

The author takes no obvious "positions" in his gentle but firm dissection into The Beatles.

I learned more than I could have imagined from this brilliant book.

Many more dedicated to The Beatles than I may have had fewer surprises but there are
many for the fan.

First, you find on every page that love is a very painful thing. I found myself positioning myself among friends, fans and family to see how this book might be written if I were one of the subjects.
You know that you don't become angry with the guy three doors down, you become angry with your wife, your kids, your parents and the guy next door. Those in closest proximity to you are those you eventually have a long term love/hate relationship with.

To me it was a revelation that Lennon was as addicted to heroin as he was. His genuine dislike to the point of hate cloaking envy and sometimes respect of McCartney was stronger than even I had imagined.

I didn't know Lennon and McCartney ever shared moments together except for the California late night jam at a party that much later became available on underground cassette years ago and I wasn't absolutely convinced after listening to it that it was both of them. In fact they met several times after 1969 though never to record.

And if it weren't for Harrison's financial difficulties in the 90's, Anthology probably wouldn't have been released...at least not as an official Apple release.

The TV tribute to Harrison led by his son Dhani seemed to show a very uncomfortable Paul McCartney onstage and this book explains why. Although Harrison couldn't command the artistic respect of either Lennon or McCartney, he found it easier to have John walk out of recording sessions when it was his song than he did when McCartney would school him. Interestingly neither seemed to aid Harrison during the 60's in his songwriting as they did Ringo.

I was very interested to find that what seemed obvious from later records that the groups shift was from Lennon's leadership to McCartney's. What was a bit surprising was how this was not just about ego or Yoko's divisive presence, but also that only McCartney was serious about the final movie, albums and the general continuity of the success of Apple and The Beatles.

He must have felt terribly hurt when the other 3 selected one "manager" and he his Father-in-law.

To Doggett's credit, he handles all of these "feelings" and "emotions" with the dignity of a Walter Cronkite (high integrity/no axe to gring) sense of journalism all wrapped into an absolutely truthful but not over the top speculative revelations.

For example Doggett could have gone into greater detail of what was in John's personal diary and what he wrote that was so slanderous of Paul (one assumes) but he didn't. Perhaps it was because he didn't see them or couldn't confirm the veracity of two authors who claimed to have seen them. no

What you experience when reading this book is what comes off as real slices of real lives as opposed to those that have been slanted toward one band member or another.

Perhaps Linda comes off as "better" than I might have guessed. John harsher and more insecure, Paul significantly more insecure and a bit more arrogant, George more arrogant and far more resentful and much, much more sardonically and sarcastically humorous than I would have thought. Only Ringo seems to have matched my image for the man.

Sadly, the number of times one artist would intentionally snub another by not showing up at a televised event or a concert when they promised to be there, was seemingly a regular happening. It seemed that if someone said they'd be there for sure....they may...or may not show up. Had there ever been a scheduled reunion, two members probably would have said they were traveling and couldn't make it.

This is a complex book to review in part because it covers so much territory. It is like reading an encylopedia at times and even though you often wish you had more details you're almost glad you didn't because fascination could easily turn to obsession.

Would *you* find this book fascinating? Probably. But if your gods must be pure and white, then it's probably best to not read this. This is no expose or tabloid project. This is real journalism written by a truly gifted and talented writer who, while favorable to each person in the story....perhaps experiencing The Beatles with an appreciation and understanding for what they all went through and how it shaped them as opposed to simply writing a post 1970 "tell all." The book however is not ingratiating at any point. And I suspect much more could have been and will be told in time...

One thing is certain, just when you think THIS story is over...it seems something interesting happens...

Kevin Hogan
Author of The Psychology of Persuasion

The first respsonse I can offer about "You Never Give Me Your Money" is that it is one of the more interesting books I have read in months. I does certain garner and keep your attention. There is a little clutter with business dealings and percentages regarding the four. Don't let that you to think that it isn't compelling writing, for it is. What is a stronger thesis, more than dollars and cents, is that the Beatles were never in the same room together ever since January of 1969. Serendipity, manipulation, or dumb luck, you pick the reason, but there is time and time again when a reunion could have taken place. Anyone that lived through the Beatles growing to infamy, dissolution, and subsequent rekindling to reunite will finally realize that they should never reunite, ever.

As compelling is that realzation that the four never actaully saw money. They spent money, mostly on lawyers, but many times they were relegated to live like Royalty. They were cash poor. As compelling, but saddening, are some realizations that the author shows. Lennon doesn't come off as a benevolent member of the Rock and Roll World. Harrison is shown to be "smaller" than life, almost dull to a point. Paul doesn't show well under the bright light of business interspection, either. Surprisingly, Starkey, for it's is never Ringo, is truly a troubled star, but he stays as close to the human element we all adored. Other shocks are not pleasant to discover. I always regraded highly "The Concert for Bangladesh", and I recall specifically when it appeared in stores for Christmas. I was shocked to find out that one of the things, certainly not the only hinderence to publishing, was that Dylan's record company was holding out for 25% of the profits. It was unusual for an artist to perform a benefit then, and Dogget expalins very well how it was accomplished.

You have to love the Beatles, and you probably will enjoy this. If you revel in the nostalgia of the 1960's and you want to hang onto the myth that was propogated by the Beatles skip this book. For you, it is far more pleasurable to think that the album art for Abby Road was not a photo taken because the four guys couldn't stand to be in the same room at the same time to sit still for a photo.

Besides the gross profanity, which is disgusting, the book details the dismal and vitriolic implosion of The Beatles. It is a sad read. There are insights that help one understand how 4 people struggle with a fame and wealth that 99% of mankind will never deal with. 'They carried that load a long time.'

I enjoyed this book overall, and learned a lot of new info despite the number of Beatles books I've already read. I found a few factual inaccuracies, but only a few. The four stars instead of five is mainly because Doggett plays critic where he should just play journalist and toward the end of the book EVERYTHING the Beatles have released from the ANTHOLOGY releases on is (according to Doggett) pretty much crap. The recent remasters, the Beatles LOVE show in Las Vegas (that I've seen twice), all worthless. His bitchy tone (that is, fortunately, subdued through MOST of the book) becomes so unrelenting (and unnecessary) it got grating. But MOST of the book is first rate.

For Beatle fans, this is a well-researched and generally well-written book. Doggett has good overall knowledge of the Beatles. It sounds as though he interviewed quite a few of the participants, which lends some credence to his conclusions. Unfortunately, Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr weren't among them. Any history or biography that doesn't have actual interviews with the subjects is limited at best, but Doggett has put together a very readable and interesting narrative to go along with the rest of the hundreds of books written about the Beatles. Other reviewers have noted he doesn't write much about the music itself. My one main criticism is Doggett either needed to write more about the music or not at all. When he does toss in an opinion about the music, it's either ill-informed, not very illuminating or too vague. For example, he dismisses Ringo's All-Starr Bands as getting worse with each succeeding group, and that the members were bored to death. The band with Peter Frampton, Jack Bruce, Simon Kirke and Gary Brooker was amazing, and they all had a great time, even extending the tour for another year. And after all, the main reason we read about the Beatles is because of the music! There are the errors that palgue any such book (Paul's contribution to the "Ringo" album was "Six O'Clock," not "You're Sixteen." There's not a lot that's new here, but there's enought o make it worth reading, and for the new or casual fan, this is a good encapsulation of the various squabbles the Beatles grappled with through the years. One comes away with a lot of "what-ifs" that makes you wish some things had gone differently,and of course the pain of losing John and George hits us again and again. Not the best Beatle book ver written, but I enjoyed it nonetheless.

Wow, this book is so gorgeously written that you might just read it for the finely-wrought prose. The story is a killer, too. Do you love the Beatles? Kind of like the Beatles? Have heard of the Beatles? Then this book is for you. A complex, tragic, hopeful examination of genius, friendship, business, love and loss. Thank you, Peter Doggett. I can't recommend it highly enough.