I did notice a bit of an anti-George bias in the book, and his relationship with John seems like many people’s- he recognized Lennon’s genius but found him difficult. It’s clear Paul was his favorite from the beginning.
But a lot of those critiques about his faulty memory can be levelled at anybody writing about fifty years ago. I still thought it was interesting mostly for the character descriptions and the easily verifiable bits like the fact that they just reused Paul’s solo on Taxman for the outro of the song by primitive copy and paste...
That fellow may be right about some of the errors, but I would expect a few mess ups here and there. The Penny Lane mistake about the flourish at the end should probably have been caught by an editor, but most Beatle fans know that it’s the other way around since the flourish ending only appeared on US promo copies of the 45. That was obviously the one that was nixed for the general release as all other versions are missing the coda.
Anyway, erors and all, it’s still interesting to get an insider’s view of the proceedings, IMHO. But maybe some fans will be bothered by the misinformation about timelines and track listings...
Unlike some Beatle books, it moves along quickly and I find one of its strengths is it doesn’t get too bogged down in serial numbers while telling about how a lot of the songs were made. But I suppose if I were George’s friend I might be a bit tiled by some of the descriptions of him as “dour” etc. I just figure Emerick had his personal take like everbody else.