Tim has written well about letting circumstances rule our lives. With personal incidents from his own family life and humor he shows us how we can have a better relationship with ourselves and those around us. Recommend for anybody but especially those who sometimes feel like they have no control over their own life.

I've suffered a lifetime of insecurity and a lack of self-esteem. Scared to death about taking any positive steps in my career and personal life. Mr. Riley's book has given me hope and a new perspective on clearing out my clutter. I keep his book at my bedside and reread a chapter every night. I find my spirits have been lifted, a weight off my shoulders and I'm having fun. I can't wait to get started every day. Thank you, Mr. Riley for making a difference in my life.

Larry Wilde Carmel, CA

"I'm Lettin' Go... But I Ain't Givin' Up!" brings humor and delight to the process of how we view ourselves and others in relationships. The book is an easy read reminder that we all have access to simple resources for guidance. As a Hypnotherapist, I would recommend this book to clients who have need of positive reinforcement for similiar issues. J. Simonian, C.Ht., Idaho

With all due respect to Peter Caldwell, I think this book has a lot of value for all Americans, including Vietnam veterans. There are some photos which are propaganda, but they are labelled as such and as the author explains they are part of a larger story. All wars come with propaganda, even our own present war in Afghanistan (remember the US Special Forces soldiers riding horses with the Northern Alliance guys?) The other photos in this handsome book are stunning, especially a very wide panorama of a terribly defoliated Ho Chi Minh Trail. Very touching portraits elsewhere as well as dramatic battle scenes, in addition to the brief histories of the Vietnamese war photographers (in their own words) make this a very valuable and important book. There is something inside for everyone, just dig a little deeper past your first reaction...

This is a tough book to sum up in a few words, since many people will use their background to judge it. If you felt we should have won the war, you will hate it. I was forced to serve in VietNam and I found the pictures very interesting. More than just the US era in VietNam, the photos go back to WWII. There are pictures of the Ho Chi Mih trail which vividly show the difficulty in shutting off that supply line. There are pictures of what the US now calls 'collateral damage' from the bombing in the North. There are some propaganga photos, but they are so stated. But far and away there are photos showing the everyday life of those involved in combat, and for that it is a very valuable book. It is a documentation from the other side. Considering how our drill instructors were wont to describe the other side as a bunch of pj'ed peasants, the quality of the photos is first rate. I can not begin to imagine the conditions under which many of the photos were taken, let alone survived to be developed. If you have an open mind about the war, you will enjoy the book. If you already have decided about the war and felt we were suppsoed to have won 'if only....', then I am sure there are lots of gung ho war movies and books for sale on Amazon.com that will better suit your mindset.

As a former Marine Corps combat photographer and recipient of the Purple Heart and Bronze Star with Combat "V," (I Corps, Khe Sahn, Con Thein, Dong Ha, Vietnam), Peter Caldwell missed the point about the book. The book was not produced to glorify the NVA or the politics (which enough has been written), but simply to add another piece to a broad visual mozaic. Dr. Caldwell would certainly be hard pressed to attend the International Assn of Combat Photographers. Its membership include former Nazi photographers. In our world as combat photographers, then as now, our role was to document war, to present images however controversal or appealing, to the public. Sometimes these images can be bitter medicine for both sides...just like the images of My Lai.

Tim Page did an excellent job compiling a visual treasure of the North Vietnamese photographers. And as a former combat photographer, I was stunned to view their work. Other distinguished photographers and correspondents like Larry Burrows, Bernard Falls, Henry Huet, Sean Flynn, Dana Stone -- to name a few who I had the pleasure to meet and work with and all were killed in Southeast Asia, they would hold this book in high regard. After all, as combat correspondents we did not judge but observed. And that's what this book is all about.

SSgt. F. Lee
Combat Photographer ('66-67)

This book is a masterpiece. I read it when it first came out and just yesterday began re-reading it. (I'm planning to buy a copy for a friend of mine who's a jazz fan, but knows little about rock and roll.) Twelve years later, it still provides me with fresh insight that brings me closer to the essence of songs I've listened to and played most of my life. People who are looking for a "Rolling Stones" interview or a "behind the scenes expose'" have dozen of other books to choose from. This text does not speculate on Paul's motivation or synthesize public relations releases and old interviews. Instead, it is a book about music written by a man who has passion for and knowledge of music and a gift for explaining. Essential reading for anyone who has lost themselves in a Beatle tune. Thank you, Mr. Riley.

What is most important about this is that Riley started out with the notion that making phonograph records is more than going into the studio and letting the tape run, is much more complicated than the idea of celebrities, teen idols cutting the next record to be played on American Bandstand.. but that IS the theory, right?..at least that's the thought that John Lennon comes to in the introduction. It is taken that all four Beatles were astute catalogers of rock'n'roll styles and they enjoyed various records--well known and rare alike--and they never turned away from any type of influences...I don't think they were that much interested in their own influence on the music world, nor did they care what the purists thought of their personal technique or style....actually, a lot of the recordings were like..."let's try it like this or yeah, that'll sound good like this",or it was like the Silver Beatles meeting for rehearsal for a weekend gig at a club in Stuttgart and Paul going, "hey, man. this is what I heard on the telly the other day..." and playing part of a riff from a beer commercial. Lennon, it seems was more in tuned to wordplay and the rhythm of certain phrases even when spoken ("when i was younger, so much younger than today") than McCartney was in the beginning, but at the end, it was indistinguishable who penned what--they say roughly, who ever did the lead vocals wrote the lyrics. Also, near the end, McCartney seemed to be more for the making of records just for the sake of making records, Lennon had to had some emotional or personal connection to write a song let alone make a record. John was ever the poet and remained the poet and in my opinion that was why a song like "A Day In The Life" from Sgt. Peppers' comes off surrealistic (Riley does an excellent descriptive of this): or in other words the poetry of Lennon's "turning you on" smacks right into McCartney and Martin's psychedelic musicianship...Riley also has a good breakdown of why even in their dissolving stages, certain records could not overcome the Beatles' instant karma even if they had to--with emphasis on the likes of, for instance, where Ringo's tom-toms show up in "Come Together" and, for instance, why John's gobbedygoop in "Come Together" means more than Paul's in "Get Back"...but both were equally compelling enough to sell the records. This is the stuff of the nuts and bolts of why "Yesterday" came about and why its a classic to us ol' heads--but also why most school kids love "I Am the Walrus"...

Riley has given us a great gift - a way to listen to these familiar recordings with fresh ears. He sticks to the music itself (a real blessing) and opens up new points of insight and discussion about the Beatles as musicians (not pop icons or celebrities). As an example he convincingly makes the case that the often over-looked Ringo Starr is in fact one of the most musical drummers of the rock era. The technical side of the discussions are minimized although welcome to those with a little musical knowledge. You will not find a more thoughtful, intelligent and entertaining work about the Beatles' music.

This is a poorly researched book. Here's an example - the author seems to be under the impression that George Harrison played the (excellent) guitar solos on 'Taxman' and 'Good Morning Good Morning', unfortunately in both cases it was Paul. This is such a well known fact I can't believe he got it wrong.

If you want a book like this going through all the songs then pick up Ian McDonald's superb 'Revolution In The Head'.

If you don't view this as some sort of last and final word and just read it as a fellow Beatle fan's thoughts on songs you yourself have heard over and over again, it is a good book, filled with an intelligent point of view of someone you realize is qualified to give his version for it.

It's interesting and a good read, and it's not an unobjective as it first appeared. In the beginning, so much praise was heaped on Lennon, I thought this might be a book by a Lennon sycophant, but the praise stopped flowing as it did and went over to McCartney for awhile and then back again. That's when i knew the author did not really prefer one over the other. Actually, as a Lennon fan, I was bit irked over for what I thought was harsh words for "I am the Walrus" and proclaiming "Penny Lane" a masterpiece while reserving a lesser status for "Strawberry Fields," at one point saying it rode "Penny Lane's" coat-tails! But that's my own bias, and I realized it's certainly not the author's fault that he doesn't completely agree with me. In fact, he shouldn't, and I think alot of low scores for the book on this board are prompted by just that factor; people angry he doesn't agree with them!

As for Harrison, he does seem harsh, but I'll tell you, I agree with him there. "Only a Northern Song," "I need you," and some others from George are BAD songs and it's time someone starting SAYING THAT. He's not supposed to be untouchable.

Having said that, there seems to be alot of mistakes in this book that I noticed; and I should not be more informed about Beatle songs than someone who says they have done all this research writing a book on it. The author does not seem to realize that Paul wrote "Every Little Thing" becaue he says it is a Lennon psychodrama- no, it is a Paul psychodrama- Paul wrote it, John sings it- he also says Lennon wrote "Eight Days a Week," which was not true because it is a basically co-written song, with maybe even Paul writing most of it- but at the very least, it was 50/50. I also didn't like him stating Paul wrote the complete tune for "In My life," something Lennon always denied.

On page 312, talking about Come together, "The album's opening moments sinks a muffled "Shook!" into the first downbeat...
Lennon is actually singing "Shoot me!" so just how close is he listening to these songs?

But even taking all this in mind, it's a good book to read just to hear another fan's thoughts- look at it that way.

Though he does occasionally adopt a snippy tone that's off-putting, this is actually a good book. Riley basically wanted to write a book that placed an emphasis on musical analysis, often on a technical level. That's what he tries for, and for the most part, he delivers. It can be very dry if you're musically iliterate, but otherwise, it's a refreshing change of pace from other Beatles books.

In response to some of the inconsistent criticism below (one says there's too much analysis in the meaning of the songs, another says there isn't any outside of the instrumentation), there is a good dose of analysis that isn't strictly on a technical level, but I would hardly call it laughable; it certainly isn't as outrageous as the "Paul Is Dead" analysis that's still floating around, even though it's no longer taken seriously. I don't agree with some of it, but while many rock critics agree on what's a masterpiece, they often don't agree on what the same masterpiece may mean. Take Riley's opinion on what a song may mean as an honest opinion, not as a definitive statement.

Also, the audiophile here has some good comments. Most of you out there may not understand what he's talking about, but his assessment of the MFSL sources Riley listened to are accurate. HOWEVER, Riley does acknowledge that a variety of mixes exist (he gets some of the details wrong, but he gets the big picture right), and in the intro the implied preference to the stereo mixes is that it makes it easier to point out or talk about certain elements of the song because of the added instrumental separation. It would be great to go over the different mixes of a song and the impact it has on that recording, but that's something that would have to come from a record collector or a diehard audiophile as well as someone with an educational background in music.

And to the reviewer from California, first, a lot has changed in the last 30 years. Most rock fans would call Revolver the best album, not Sgt. Pepper, and the fact that Revolver has topped so many "100 Greatest Albums" fans' and critics' polls in the past year is solid proof of that. Second, "Blue Jay Way" is rarely considered a great example of Harrison's work, though it has its fans. Third, Riley is too harsh on Harrison in general, but some remarks are pretty good observations. As great as "Norwegian Wood" is, strictly on a technical level, the sitar playing is not 'good.' Harrison and Ravi Shankar have both stated this is many interviews. Harrison wasn't very familiar with the instrument yet (compare his playing on "Norwegian Wood" with the expert playing on "Inner Light," which isn't a better song but has better playing), but it was still used for the exotic texture it brings to the recording. Harrison's other accomplishments are still praised, like the 12-string on A Hard Day's Night and his massive growth as a songwriter. Sometimes too critical, but he often does give Harrison his due.

To the earlier reviewer, he does find flaws in later work like the White Album and Sgt. Pepper, but it's hardly a dismissal; Riley still thinks they're good, if flawed, works. The praise heavily outweighs the negative comments.

I agree that this isn't worth buying if you have the first edition. The second just adds another chapter that isn't worth reading. As for the analysis of the solo recordings, I agree he's too harsh on George's solo career. However, he doesn't dismiss all of Paul's work. His assessment of Paul's career (that it was very inconsistent and the best stuff often came on singles, not albums), is very consistent with most (except for McCartney fans, who are more forgiving). Even his argument that "Band on the Run" and "Tug of War," Macca's best post-Beatles albums, were overrated is a reflection of the backlash both albums have had over the years. I think "Band on the Run" is a little better than he gives it credit being, but he still makes a lot of valid points.

Overall, this book is still worth reading. It's not nearly as good as Peter Guralnick's Elvis books or Greil Marcus's "Mystery Train," and a real, definitive critical history of the Beatles is still missing, but in the meantime, this book makes for a good, if flawed read.

This book is a waste of paper. You will find dylanoligy at it worst, hidden behind a small amount of credibility. "Tell Me Why" is a fine book (Riley's effort about the Beatles). Riley's commentary here is trite, Vision's of Johanna is not about Heroin, it's about the time I got loaded at my friends house and was thinking about my ex-girlfriend while making out with somebody else. Of course I'm not as old as the song but you should get the point. Dylan just writes 'em. You can not possible dissect Dylan's songs and pick only songs you like calling every thing after "Blood" trash ( that's not his words that's paraphrasing the last half on the book). Some things can not be defended "Knocked and Loaded" but if anybody else put out "Oh Mercy", Riley would have been singing their praises like he sings punk rocks in the last fifty pages of his book about Dylan.

I've read at leat 15 Dylan biographies (out of print and in print). and this one stands out by far as a huge joke, stay clear of this garbage!

Tim Riley's commentary on Dylan focuses on the music rather than the man. This focus starts fairly well, aside from Riley trying to impress us with his vocabulary. Dylan's early work (from his debut until about Highway 61 Revisited) receives a fairly thorough treatment as Riley tries to "get inside" the mind of Dylan (which is probably not a very wise thing to do in the first place). Even if you don't agree with Riley, his ideas are interesting...at least for awhile. After reading the book, it seems that Riley believes that Dylan hasn't written anything worth listening to since "Blood on the Tracks." Unfortunately the author all but ignores some of Dylan's most significant contributions past 1975. (Riley spends nearly 250 pages on the period from Dylan's debut until 1975. From 1975 on only gets 50 pages.) This book was a super disappointment by an author who seems to have an axe to grind. The work is saved by giving a good bibliography and an even better discography.