John Lennon Biography

[Dave James]

The only Lennon bio I've ever read is Albert Goldman's hack job. If anyone can recommend a balanced and informative alternative, I'd sure appreciate it.

Thanks.

[Harold_Z]

Goldman was atrocious. This is a guy who never should have written ANYTHING about music. He pissed me off so much that I wrote on the inside of a library book of his "This guy knows NOTHING about music" before I returned the book. It's the only time I've ever done that with a library book.

[jostber]

Here is a new one that might be interesting:

http://www.amazon.com/Cynical-Idealist-Spi...482&sr=1-40

[Brad]

There's also the Phillip Norman book although I can't vouch for it. However, it appears to be comprehensive.

[Christiern]

Goldman was atrocious. This is a guy who never should have written ANYTHING about music. He pissed me off so much that I wrote on the inside of a library book of his "This guy knows NOTHING about music" before I returned the book. It's the only time I've ever done that with a library book.

Here's what he wrote inside his own book—I won't comment on it, except to say that the book rests on my shelves, largely unread.

[Teasing the Korean]

Actually, a very good Lennon bio is the Brian Epstein bio. Lots of interesting Lennon detail that gets overlooked elsewhere.

[skeith]

I have read both the Ray Coleman and more recent Philip Norman biographies and liked both.

Norman has the benefit of some more recent info., but Coleman's book is great too.

THere are some different emphasis, Norman's book caused a lot of uproar about whether Lennon may have been interested in Paul in the biblical sense - but he doesn't spend much time on it.

[colinmce]

I liked the Norman alright, but he's a tad opinionated and a bit tawdry.

[Brad]

I had read that Yoko cooperated with the Norman book but then also heard that she then withdrew any cooperation. Don't know if the latter is true or not.

[colinmce]

He says in the introduction that she cooperated, but withdrew her support after reading it, though not her contributions. She decided that it was "mean" to John. I'm torn on this; it's no secret that John was a complicated guy who could definitely be cruel and made dubious decisions regarding his treatment of the women in his life, but like I said above, I think Norman is more tawdry than he needs to be with regards to the latter and is liberal in his psychoanalysis of the former.