I found the book to be well written,well researched and truly informative.Along with Al kooper's Backstage Passes Book,it is the most in depth Rock n roll bio I have ever read. I would like to make a few comments if I may. Obviously alot of effort has beenput forth by Randy and his fellow Joey Groupies to discredit Dan Matovina,probably taking orders from Joey's speech writer Kathie.All they have done is espoused that the book is untrue without ever backing up the claims with one shred of fact.They claim the book is hearsay ,blah blah. All I can say to this is that the book had one person after another saying the same things:That Kathie and Joey arent exactly the nicest people and they did some pretty lousy things.Hey you may not like it people but you know what?,history is history and corroboration is corroboration.You can deny it all you want-you just cant Change it. So as Randy would say-lets get back to the music.

"Without You" certainly has many of the important elements necessary in any work of literature. There are front and back covers, page after page of words, and some nice pictures for good measure. The author has clearly identified his subject in the title of his work and sets off on a course to singlehandedly chronicle their story. Now, even the best research and intentions don't make a fan into a good writer. Here, because the former items are in question, the merits of the latter are self-evident. Imagine that the first book you ever read about The Beatles was by Geoffrey Gulliano instead of say... Hunter Davies, Nicholas Schaffner, Phillip Norman or any good writer. Your impression of them would be very different indeed. I am glad a book about the group has materialized, but it will be left to future writings to balance the accounts of their lives and illuminate the whole picture.

I really loved so much of "Without You", and it was so great to have anything that filled in a lot of the blanks in the group's history. I don't mind saying that I cried bitterly at the parts when Pete and Tommy died. But a good read and accurate may be two different things. My problem was that Dan constantly seemed to bend over backwards to try to explain away and reinterpret anything negative about Pete or Tommy, but when it came to negatives about Joey there were no interpretations, no explanations. This became very obvious to me as I read on. And then, stuff like the ASCAP incident, which at the time it happened was not taken badly by anyone involved, was presented in a way that was so clearly meant to hurt Joey (no one who was there was ever quoted on the subject, were they?). It just left me with the nagging suspicion that the whole story was not being told, and even called the whole book into question.

Kent, what makes you so sure that no compliments were printed about Joey because "they just weren't there"?

The idea that something cannot be biased if quotes are used is nonsense. Check "The Lives of John Lennon" to see how quotes can be used to paint any picture you want.

The survivors have gone through periods of friendliness and fighting, as do any group of people who have so much history. But some people seem to be exploiting the current atmosphere, in which there is a legal wrangle between the principles, and turning it into a permanent split between Joey and everyone else. Would you like to see everyone make up and get together? I would. Do you believe that there are people who want to make sure that never happens? Why would they want such a thing? Put two and two together.

Everyone has an opinion. One person may believe in alien kidnappings, another may believe O.J. is still looking for the real killers on the 18th green. Still others believe Dan Matovina managed to put words in people's mouths and/or misquote them incessantly. Perhaps the reason he used so many quotes in his book is because he didn't think readers would believe what so many people had to say. If he had capsulized them, he would have been accused of bias. So he quoted them, and he is still accused of bias. His opinions of Joey's later work was only in comparison to what Joey had done earlier - where he praised him quite often. And Mike Gibbins wasn't ignored. Unfortunately, Mike didn't have much to say about many topics, so he wasn't quoted as often as Dan would have liked. Plus Mike had given "yes" or "no" answers to many questions, which couldn't really be used as quotes. As for Pete and Tom being martyred, it depends on how you read it. Pete left behind an 8-month pregnant girlfriend, hardly a saintly action. And Tom painted himself into a corner every chance he got; he was his own worst enemy. If Joey didn't receive the compliments Pete (and even Tom) received, it wasn't because they were edited out. They weren't there to begin with.

well, here goes. of course i liked the book. i like everything about badfinger, the music is the thing but it's interesting to learn stuff about people you admire.[not worship] if there are more badfinger books on the way, then they will express whatever feelings the author chooses to be his own. such is the way of writeing. i may have differences of opinion about the book with you or you or you, but who cares, it's just my view. still it's like they say "any publicity is good"

I thought the book was deeply researched and a lot of the holes were filled in as to what happened when and why. The author did interview many, many people for the book. My only beef with the book is that the author imposes his opinion that Joey Molland's solo albums and projects are all bad and "worth seeking by fans of his music" I guess this means that the author is not a fan of Molland's music..However he does seem to be a fan of the music of the other members of the band....Why is he so biased in the latter part of the book, almost scolding Molland for carrying on the Badfinger legacy just because two of the other members are deceased? Why? I wish I knew.

I was told by Morten the Pagemaster I was not precise on my last entry so I will comment again here. Please remove my last entry as not qualifying and so I do not post twice as per the conditions. THANKS! On page 320 Ken Harck the drummer discusses how Kathie interfered with the band during rehearsal for the Airwaves sessions and wanted to play tambourine. Is that fact? This was coming from a guy who was fired from the band. Joe Tansin "didn't want to go up against that force." Is that a fact and was this another relevant part to the story and a key element to his final departure? If I did not know any better I would have to believe that Kathie was detrimental to the band at that time. Lots of hot air here yet little substance (or am I not reading this right?). The author is trying to convey his version of Badfinger history based on thorough research backed up by his interviews. Most readers assume this story is based on research, which was done professionally and with thorough knowledge of the subject. This is just one page. Either the author is withholding key elements for volume II or there is purposeful intent at the direction of the story? Either way this poses an incredible problem and highlights the legitimacy of the work. To bad the author was not there to witness the work and lives of the subjects of his passion he so wants to accurately portray! **** four stars to the author for his help in getting the Pete Ham demos out to the public!

I didn't have time to read the long list of condiditons, but I will give an opinion. The part of the book that really affected me was the story of the early Iveys. I guess many of the fans didn't know a lot about Pete's background...his knowlewdge of electronics and so on. Pete seemed to have worked so hard to create the Iveys. The book is filled with recording, relationship and litigation facts and great photos...over 200! However, the book gets a bit sensational. It seems obvious that Joey was unfairly targeted from what I remember. I think many of the fans are grateful that this book came out, as there was so much time lost, that the public forgot who Badfinger was! As time moves on, Badfinger's story will more readily be told, and the boys will get the adulation they deserve!

Sure are a lot of conditions to go through in order to leave an opinion in here. Hopefully this will pass the editing committee. The book is a nice place to start for the novice Badfinger fan. Too bad it is the only book out right now as those devoted fans hungry for knowledge on their favorite band get a fun read but also get an incredible misinformation crusade. This is not the book to get to learn about true Badfinger history. The book does offer a relatively detailed chronologically of events based on what this Badfinger fan turned author felt was important. The problem begins around 50 pages into the book when the author begins to show his true intentions and lack of comprehensive knowledge of the subject he wants to convey to the reader. The research and interviews become very directed showing the focus of the authors intent. Continuously, emotionally based interviews were presented as facts and unsubstantiated accusitory inflamitory statements were more important to his story than the actual facts and events which were often overlooked. I have publicly and privately questioned page after page, quote after quote, to the author who's main responses were as follows: {I am being too Myopic in my analysis. He was only reporting what he researched. How could everyone say one thing and the Mollands say another. There is so much more I could have used but did not.} This was obviously self directed research not authorized or verified by anyone in the band. Luckily for Badfinger fans his failing as an author historian for Badfinger has not affected his universally applauded efforts at getting Pete Ham demos released to the public.

There is alot of good things to say about this book. The fact that there is a Badfinger book at all is a good thing. There are major flaws with the book, however. Dan's personal agenda of favouring the estates of Ham and Evan's (in particular regarding the royalties of "Without You") has ostracized himself from the surviving member's and their family and friends. Instead of being a book about Badfinger, it reads more like a book about the martrydom of Pete and Tommy. Most of the quotes are from family and friends of the two estates. Gaylor Gibbins is quoted here and there but it's usuall in reference to Pete. Mike is all but ignred in the book. It is well known that Tommy went through a troubled period his last few years (Drugs, Drink, static behavior and infidelity) Although touched on slightly in the book, Dan somehow spin doctors it around so that it appears to be appropriate behavior because Tommy is such a nice guy. It's definately not my intent to vilify Tommy. We all have faults. I am merely pointing out the spin Dan would put on these situations to make Tommy look better. This shows a definate bias and partly accounts for the one sided view the book takes. Admittedly, if I were to have written a book on the band, I would have done my best to make them ALL look like saints.

I think Dan did a wonderful book. A great read. The book is based on interviews given by the members of Badfinger and their closest family! I see it as THE Badfinger book, and I have doubts that noone ever will do a better job. I don't think Matovina has an axe to grind as some might say.I havn't yet found a place in the book where anybody is called a "?&%&=?=(&" by the author. Also the book is a great source for facts like dates, producers etc.