|
Post by debjorgo on Jan 13, 2014 22:52:52 GMT -5
I don't know if eveyone has read their copy of this month's Rolling Stone or not, or if you've seen the commemorative The Beatles Feb. 9, 1964 nmagazine but a couple of articles caught me eye.
In the Stone, it has a quote from John Badman's The Beatles: Off the Record where British journalist Ray Coleman says that in Scotland, McCartney tired of hearing his partner's complaining about the demands on the Beatles' lives said to John "Hey, I've had enough of you blsting off, John".
John immediately retorted "You say what you want to say and I'll say what I want to say, OK?"
Paul replied "You're bad for my image".
John answered "You're soft! Shurrup and watch the telly, like a good boy".
In the commemorative issue, it has an article on Dave Dexter, the man at Capitol who rejected the Beatles. He was also the same guy in charge of re-mixing and sequencing the Beatles' music for the Capitol releases. He wrote an article 12 days after John was shot called "Nobody's Perfect: Lennon's Ego and Intransigence Iritated Those Who Knew Him". He says Lennon was the most musically gifted of all the pop artists since the early 1960s. "And of the four Beatles, Lennon was, among those in the industry who worked with him - the most disliked".
I think we all know John was not at all guarded and could be hurtful with the things he said. That's one of the things we like about him. But in the sixties where smoozing was the name of the game, he probably alienated a lot of people. Paul probably felt like he had to be extra polite/pleasant to make up fo him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2014 2:37:03 GMT -5
I don't know if eveyone has read their copy of this month's Rolling Stone or not, or if you've seen the commemorative The Beatles Feb. 9, 1964 nmagazine but a couple of articles caught me eye. In the Stone, it has a quote from John Badman's The Beatles: Off the Record where British journalist Ray Coleman says that in Scotland, McCartney tired of hearing his partner's complaining about the demands on the Beatles' lives said to John "Hey, I've had enough of you blsting off, John". John immediately retorted "You say what you want to say and I'll say what I want to say, OK?" Paul replied "You're bad for my image". John answered "You're soft! Shurrup and watch the telly, like a good boy". In the commemorative issue, it has an article on Dave Dexter, the man at Capitol who rejected the Beatles. He was also the same guy in charge of re-mixing and sequencing the Beatles' music for the Capitol releases. He wrote an article 12 days after John was shot called "Nobody's Perfect: Lennon's Ego and Intransigence Iritated Those Who Knew Him". He says Lennon was the most musically gifted of all the pop artists since the early 1960s. "And of the four Beatles, Lennon was, among those in the industry who worked with him - the most disliked". I think we all know John was not at all guarded and could be hurtful with the things he said. That's one of the things we like about him. But in the sixties where smoosing was the name of the game, he probably alienated a lot of people. Paul probably felt like he had to be extra polite/pleasant to make up fo him. I have the Beatles in America 50th Anniversary magazine, not sure if you are referencing that or if my mag is yet another on the subject.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Jan 14, 2014 6:48:45 GMT -5
My copy just says "the Beatles". At the very top it says "Celebrating 50 Years of Beatlemania in America". It has the Beatles on the ramp coming down from the airplane and "Feb. 9, 1964: 73 million people watched The Beatles' American debut..." on a circle in the middle to the right.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jan 14, 2014 6:56:56 GMT -5
I don't know if eveyone has read their copy of this month's Rolling Stone or not, or if you've seen the commemorative The Beatles Feb. 9, 1964 nmagazine but a couple of articles caught me eye. In the Stone, it has a quote from John Badman's The Beatles: Off the Record where British journalist Ray Coleman says that in Scotland, McCartney tired of hearing his partner's complaining about the demands on the Beatles' lives said to John "Hey, I've had enough of you blsting off, John". John immediately retorted "You say what you want to say and I'll say what I want to say, OK?" Paul replied "You're bad for my image". John answered "You're soft! Shurrup and watch the telly, like a good boy". In the commemorative issue, it has an article on Dave Dexter, the man at Capitol who rejected the Beatles. He was also the same guy in charge of re-mixing and sequencing the Beatles' music for the Capitol releases. He wrote an article 12 days after John was shot called "Nobody's Perfect: Lennon's Ego and Intransigence Iritated Those Who Knew Him". He says Lennon was the most musically gifted of all the pop artists since the early 1960s. "And of the four Beatles, Lennon was, among those in the industry who worked with him - the most disliked". I think we all know John was not at all guarded and could be hurtful with the things he said. That's one of the things we like about him. But in the sixties where smoosing was the name of the game, he probably alienated a lot of people. Paul probably felt like he had to be extra polite/pleasant to make up fo him. So another "John vs. Paul" post. OK then, if you insist -- well, I don't like Dave Dexter and I don't know why we should care what he thought, when he obviously despised The Beatles and Rock music in general. I like that back and forth where John was being real and Paul was pandering and being fake, and worrying about his "image". John basically telling him to shaddup and be a good kiss-ass boy. Meanwhile, in a Ringo TV interview in 1992, when he was asked to come up with one word off the top of his head to describe his band mates, he said "Kindest" for John. For Paul, Ringo came up with "Melodic" . And Ringo really knew these men.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Jan 14, 2014 7:29:10 GMT -5
I think we all know John was not at all guarded and could be hurtful with the things he said. That's one of the things we like about him. Not all of us.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2014 7:42:54 GMT -5
I think we all know John was not at all guarded and could be hurtful with the things he said. That's one of the things we like about him. Not all of us. Nice quote work, unfortunately, I didn't make the comment you've quoted me for .
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Jan 14, 2014 7:44:46 GMT -5
So another "John vs. Paul" post. OK then, if you insist -- well, I don't like Dave Dexter and I don't know why we should care what he thought, when he obviously despised The Beatles and Rock music in general. I like that back and forth where John was being real and Paul was pandering and being fake, and worrying about his "image". John basically telling him to shaddup and be a good kiss-ass boy. Meanwhile, in a Ringo TV interview in 1992, when he was asked to come up with one word off the top of his head to describe his band mates, he said "Kindest" for John. For Paul, Ringo came up with "Melodic" . And Ringo really knew these men. This could have fit with the other post or with the Beatlemania 2014 post. I just picked up the two magazines and those passages struck me as unheard trivia. I did not know that the guy who rejected the Beatles, he said Please Please me with the harmonica, was the worse thing he'd ever heard, was the guy they put in charge of putting out product for America. "Yeah, put Dave in charge, he hates the Beatles!" But I don't get how you think John being negative was real and Paul being positive was fake. I get so tired of negative people in real life. They just bring it down for everybody. Yeah, touring was hard for them. Constantly bitching about it would only make it worse. My point was to note how John's attitude must had been even more startling in the '60s, when being the good guy was in vogue. Some of the people working the Beatle machine who weren't in the inner circle must had thought "Why are we doing this? Let's get someone who would appreciate it."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2014 7:45:18 GMT -5
My copy just says "the Beatles". At the very top it says "Celebrating 50 Years of Beatlemania in America". It has the Beatles on the ramp coming down from the airplane and "Feb. 9, 1964: 73 million people watched The Beatles' American debut..." on a circle in the middle to the right. Mine has "Presented by Smithsonian and the Grammy Museum" at the very top.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jan 14, 2014 18:39:42 GMT -5
But I don't get how you think John being negative was real and Paul being positive was fake. I get so tired of negative people in real life. They just bring it down for everybody. Yeah, touring was hard for them. Constantly bitching about it would only make it worse. Well, Paul mentioned an "image" in the quote you posted. That to me sounds like some picture he is trying to paint, and that he wants to "look good, not come off badly". The thing I feel here is, if touring was hard for you -- then say so (like John did). Don't pretend it's great or fun or good, only because it's more important for you to be liked than to convey how you truly feel about it. I can understand how you feel about "negative people bringing it down for everybody", but I personally prefer people to be straight with me when something's bothering them, or something is negative and needs to be stated. You are not alone here, because I'm sure 75% (if not more) of the humans on this planet much prefer to hear only good stuff all the time. The thing is, not everything can be 100% positive, all of the time -- so any time someone (take Paul here) tries to erase the 'negative', it's not really realistic, IMO. Now, I'm not saying one ought to sit around being a sad sack all the time, but tell it as you feel it. I guess, but I found it refreshing. And I would like to add that this is kind of being blown out of proportion again about John ... that he was always a downer, always violent, always negative, or whatever. Both of them were genius songwriters, but different as personalities.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jan 14, 2014 18:43:21 GMT -5
I think we all know John was not at all guarded and could be hurtful with the things he said. That's one of the things we like about him. Not all of us. OK, vectis. But here again, John was not always the 'bad guy who said the wrong things'. He was also sometimes a good guy who said nice things as well, and tried to help people out at times, too.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jan 14, 2014 22:45:52 GMT -5
. . . In the commemorative issue, it has an article on Dave Dexter, the man at Capitol who rejected the Beatles. He was also the same guy in charge of re-mixing and sequencing the Beatles' music for the Capitol releases. He wrote an article 12 days after John was shot called "Nobody's Perfect: Lennon's Ego and Intransigence Iritated Those Who Knew Him". He says Lennon was the most musically gifted of all the pop artists since the early 1960s. "And of the four Beatles, Lennon was, among those in the industry who worked with him - the most disliked" . . . If one is talking about "suits" and "old-school" record company dudes, that may be so. Probably generational. However, if one looks at all the people willing and wanting to play with John, as opposed to Paul, I would think that John was very well liked and respected. George, John, and Ringo traveled in the same circles and had all the same people on each others album. People from Mick to Keith to Townsend would always try, to visit him when they were in New York, or at least try. Paul, on the other hand, was on his own. Yes, I know he had friends like Townshend and he, by 1980 was able to rustle up a bunch of guys for Rockestra Theme, but that was a one-off. My sense is that for the most part, John was more liked and easier to deal with than Paul, even with John's bursts of assholiness.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Jan 15, 2014 4:29:27 GMT -5
OK, vectis. But here again, John was not always the 'bad guy who said the wrong things'. He was also sometimes a good guy who said nice things as well, and tried to help people out at times, too. And there is bags of evidence to that effect, and I love the man for that. I'm just saying that a blanket assertion that we all love John for being unpleasant - "we all know John was not at all guarded and could be hurtful with the things he said. That's one of the things we like about him" - is not true in my case because that's an aspect of him which I found very dislikeable. I find it dislikeable in Paul, too, when he acts like that.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jan 15, 2014 6:46:11 GMT -5
I'm just saying that a blanket assertion that we all love John for being unpleasant - "we all know John was not at all guarded and could be hurtful with the things he said. That's one of the things we like about him" - is not true in my case because that's an aspect of him which I found very dislikeable. I find it dislikeable in Paul, too, when he acts like that. That is what it means to be HUMAN, vectis. Nobody is a saint all of the time. I think some fans expect their Beatles to behave that way, to forever be the happy go lucky and sweet Beatles we saw prancing about in A HARD DAY'S NIGHT (as John scolded a reporter for in the IMAGINE JOHN LENNON film when he sent back his MBE). Even George and Ringo had their moments of being not nice. And I know you don't like when I say this either, but I do applaud John for being the most candid and real, down to Earth one. It is a crucial part of why his scores of fans around the world gravitated toward him and why his more personal music spoke to them.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Jan 15, 2014 10:41:39 GMT -5
I'm not arguing, Joe - I'm as human as the next bloke and overflowing with flaws myself - and I can see the value of truthfulness, of course I can. But I think it is possible to be truthful, frank, honest etc., to communicate exactly the same information, in an unpleasant way or in a pleasant way. I don't care for gratuitous unpleasantness and greatly prefer harmony to discord. I am inclined to censure for unpleasantness and parise for generosity of spirit, whoever it is: arses merit kicking and slack merits cutting accordingly, whether it is John, Paul, me, you or anyone else. Yes, kick his arse for doing it, then cut him slack for being human, for sure.
But please don't say it's one of the things we all love about him when it's one of the things I conspicuously don't love about him. Or Paul. Or anyone else.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Jan 15, 2014 10:45:10 GMT -5
I recall reading somewhere about emotional index as applied to the way things are expressed, how the way you express things generates a different emotional reaction in people. What you would prefer to eat (assuming you're not veggie) - a nice succulent rare beef steak, or a chunk of scorched muscle tissue from a dead cow?
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jan 15, 2014 22:49:41 GMT -5
I'm not arguing, Joe - I'm as human as the next bloke and overflowing with flaws myself - and I can see the value of truthfulness, of course I can. But I think it is possible to be truthful, frank, honest etc., to communicate exactly the same information, in an unpleasant way or in a pleasant way. I don't care for gratuitous unpleasantness and greatly prefer harmony to discord. Imagine all the people living life in peace. I'm just saying that this branding of John as a rotten SOB has gotten blown out of proportion.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Jan 15, 2014 23:16:22 GMT -5
My point was John probably seemed even more blunt to these old stoodgies used to being kissed up to.
|
|
|
Post by lee on Mar 28, 2014 22:49:17 GMT -5
i think lennon would've cheered dexter having the balls to write that article. he loved it when anyone did something that went against the majority
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Mar 28, 2014 23:21:00 GMT -5
i think lennon would've cheered dexter having the balls to write that article. he loved it when anyone did something that went against the majority I'm not sure what Lennon's final feeling on Dexter and what he did to the Beatles' catalog in America was. But chances are, he would not have had time to appreciate the nuance of the rebellious nature of the article. He was a foe to Lennon. He was an old foggy in the scheme of things. I personally think he put a little needed flash on some of the Beatles' recordings. I recently purchased an internet article that I thought was coming in the mail but ended up being just a pdf file. It's saved on my desktop and just asked me for a password to open. But anyway, this article raves about every US track and claims that this version is much better than any of the original UK tracks. I agree to an extent. This is an interesting thread that I apparently didn't spend enough time on it. There were several points in this thread that I would have made, but let pass. I might yet come back and visit. Thanks for bringing it back to the top, lee.
|
|