|
Gerry Smith |
What do people here think of Philip Norman's book, The Stones?
I've just finished reading the revised (2001) edition. He's not overfond of Michael Philip Jagger of Dartford, Kent, is he? |
|
gypsy |
Which book? I just got two of his..."The Life and Good Times of The Rolling Stones" and "Symphony for the Devil."
I'm reading "Blown Away" right now, so it will be a while before I can get to either of those... |
|
Gazza |
The original 1984 version wasnt too bad..although nothin to write home about either. its certainly NOT the classic its made out to be by any stretch of the imagination. Its pretty much nothing you wouldnt have read before elsewhere.
however he's reissued "updated" versions every few years to cash-in (sorry..."coincide") on a new tour and in each case made the book worse by doing so in a half assed manner with about 4 pages covering a decade of the bands career,and littered with factual errors to boot. Its a hideously sloppy effort which in each acse must have taken half an hours work to update (about 2 minutes of which was spent on research)
Buy his Beatles biography instead ("Shout!") if you can get it. He at least seems interested in THEM and knows a little about them. The same doesnt apply to the Stones. |
|
Carl The Lobsterman |
Couldn't agree with you more GAZZA.
As a side note, I think Lewishon did some research for Norman which led to "THE BEATLES LIVE" and his (Mark's) own legendary status.
Is this correct Gazza? It's been a while, but I think so. |