|
Post by vectisfabber on Feb 14, 2015 15:01:55 GMT -5
I will try to retain the dignity appropriate to my elder statesman status.
I think Heather Mills was an opportunist who used an unplanned meeting with Paul to instantly switch her plan to him as he was a much better bet than her current target. I don't think there is an ounce of truth in the woman unless it serves her purpose. I don't think she is misconstrued by anyone: rather, she is skewered by her own record of saying whatever was most expedient at the time irrespective of whether it was true or not.
Linda and Yoko - I'm simply saying that Linda was happy for Paul to remain a Beatle, Yoko sought to drive a wedge between John and the others.
I make no comment as to Paul or John and their individual motivations, just those three things:
Heather - lying manipulator, not misconstrued; Linda - happy for Paul to be a Beatle; Yoko - sought to separate John from the others.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Feb 14, 2015 15:42:44 GMT -5
I will try to retain the dignity appropriate to my elder statesman status. I think Heather Mills was an opportunist who used an unplanned meeting with Paul to instantly switch her plan to him as he was a much better bet than her current target. I don't think there is an ounce of truth in the woman unless it serves her purpose. I don't think she is misconstrued by anyone: rather, she is skewered by her own record of saying whatever was most expedient at the time irrespective of whether it was true or not. Linda and Yoko - I'm simply saying that Linda was happy for Paul to remain a Beatle, Yoko sought to drive a wedge between John and the others. I make no comment as to Paul or John and their individual motivations, just those three things: Heather - lying manipulator, not misconstrued; Linda - happy for Paul to be a Beatle; Yoko - sought to separate John from the others. Agree with you completely.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Feb 14, 2015 16:50:15 GMT -5
I will try to retain the dignity appropriate to my elder statesman status. I think Heather Mills was an opportunist who used an unplanned meeting with Paul to instantly switch her plan to him as he was a much better bet than her current target. I don't think there is an ounce of truth in the woman unless it serves her purpose. I don't think she is misconstrued by anyone: rather, she is skewered by her own record of saying whatever was most expedient at the time irrespective of whether it was true or not. Linda and Yoko - I'm simply saying that Linda was happy for Paul to remain a Beatle, Yoko sought to drive a wedge between John and the others. I make no comment as to Paul or John and their individual motivations, just those three things: Heather - lying manipulator, not misconstrued; Linda - happy for Paul to be a Beatle; Yoko - sought to separate John from the others. I will have to respectfully disagree with you vecisfaber on Heather and Yoko but I recognize that you have experienced much more life than the rest of us so I do respect your take on things. I have this crazy feeling, "I've gotta feelin,'" that someday, somehow Paul and Heather will be together again maybe by the time Beatrice is in her teenage years. Nancy will tire of veggie burgers and the ever present past, James, always hanging around and flee back to NYC. Paul has a really beautiful, rare song called "Twice In A Lifetime" and it just strikes me as Paul reconnecting with Heather. It will be an older, wiser, calmer Heather and a gentler, kinder Paul! Hey, it is Valentine's Day, can't a fan wish happy romantic thoughts for one of his musical heroes who does not seem very happy these days?
|
|
|
Post by bluecake on Feb 14, 2015 17:49:50 GMT -5
John, your posts are so full of inaccuracies that it's literally too big of a job for me. You always regurgitate skewed impressions you seem to have heard years and years ago, and post them OVER and OVER again despite other posters repeatedly correcting you with the actual facts. You also pick and choose. For example, why did you just focus Heather's porn shot and not the multitude of other things posted about? Am I to take it, for example, that you are perfectly fine with the fact that she lied about being molested? Are you fine with the fact that the highest court in the land officially branded her an unreliable witness who was prone to make believe and who couldn't differentiate between fact and fiction? These are not rumors, these are things that were found as fact in a court of law.
Heather's lies and crimes were well documented, and MOST of them were from before she even met Paul. You can pretend it's a PR scheme of Paul's all you want, but the facts don't lie. Paul didn't get Heather arrested for stealing long before they met, Paul didn't force Heather to lie about abuse before they met, he didn't force her to lie about donating money to charity years before they met, he didn't force her to lie about her assets, etc. She did those things all on her own, years before Paul ever laid eyes on her.
Linda was not a groupie, calling her so has just been a way for misogynists to try and smear her because she was a sexually active woman before she met Paul (though not to the scale of Paul's activity, which is of course never mentioned). And yes, John, I include you in that. Your comments about Linda have been consistently misogynist.
I also do not understand your obsession with the "Linda Tapes." Nicole has posted repeatedly the link to the Daily Mail article where Peter Cox, who recorded the tapes, and the DM reporter recapped the content of the tapes. There is no blockbuster in them (most of it is Linda talking about recipes and cooking). Cox confirmed there was no hint of domestic abuse. The absolute worst thing he said was that he thought Linda sometimes got depressed and she and Paul argued sometimes, mainly about touring. That is zero shock to anybody, especially as Paul and Linda THEMSELVES talked about such things in interviews. And Peter Cox was not only the one who recorded Linda, but he admitted that he did not like Paul, and he also admitted that he sometimes goaded Linda about Jane Asher to rile her up. So even with the absolute worst spin on them, the comments still were absolutely run of the mill relationship complaints. Paul bought the tapes because Linda did not know she was being recorded at the time and did not know about their existence, but she was dead and would have no rights unless her family bought them.
You can try and try, John, but you're tilting at windmills.
|
|
|
Post by bluecake on Feb 14, 2015 21:31:01 GMT -5
Paul & Jane did not break up over her refusal to stay at home. Jane worked throughout their entire relationship and Paul was supportive, attending all her plays when Beatles' touring allowed. In fact, Jane was coming back from an acting tour when she caught Francie Schwartz in the house, which was the final straw.
Nor was Jane opposed to giving up work for family. After breaking up with Paul, she got with Gerald Scarfe and promptly gave up working totally for 10-15 years to raise their children.
Nor was Jane faithful to Paul. Roger Corman (who directed her in The Masque of the Red Death) said he had a longterm affair with Jane while she was Paul's girlfriend. Besides, John, George & Ringo also all had stay at home wives during the Beatles years and cheated at them, so how exactly was that a guarantee of fidelity?
Paul and Jane broke up for several reasons, mainly his friends (who she disliked, including the other Beatles), his drug use, and his cheating. But mostly it seems they broke up because they were simply incompatible. For most of their years together, they rarely saw each other because either Paul was touring or Jane was touring. They were very young (17 and 20) when they got together and never had stability through the whirlwind of the Sixties. Hardly anyone stays with the person they dated in their late teens/early twenties, especially through much upheaval.
|
|
|
Post by scousette on Feb 14, 2015 21:43:33 GMT -5
bluecake, please cite credible sources for your claim that Roger Corman and Jane Asher had an affair.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Feb 14, 2015 22:25:22 GMT -5
Inaccuracies?
Linda has been called a groupie by some of her pre-Paul friends like Danny Fields and Lillian Roxon. You've read Danny Fields' book I am sure. And Danny even spoke at her New York memorial so he was clearly an insider! Targeting Rock Stars almost exclusively to shag in the hopes to bag is being a groupie. She won, she bagged the most elgible Rock Star of all!
Hey, I was proved very accurate on the reclusive and tattered Heather Louise McCartney earlier in this Thread so I do my homework too. Speaking of Heather Louise and why she might be so messed up, I am reminded by Danny Fields' book that little Heather walked in on Linda smoking dope and engaged in wild sex with Jim Morrison of The Doors, a good role model for any child, and per Fields:
"Morrison later recalled: 'Linda said 'Mommy is busy dear, go back to bed'. I dig that chick, she's smart.'"
Nice!
And I have never said the very real and very buried by Paul Linda Tapes reveal physical abuse but then again, you and I wouldn't know because Paul bought them and buried them deep! I have read that they were Linda's confessional of being very unhappy in her marriage by the 1980's, having had to give up her independence and career to be Beatle Paul's wife and that they fought and Paul could be verbally harsh. Poster JoeK has related to hearing of possible physical abuse not me! Everything I just described on the Linda Tapes is what you also described. We are on the same page as to the Linda Tapes.
The Linda Tapes are significant though because Paul and Linda's relationship has been romanticized beyond belief and they are portrayed to be perfect by an adoring, celebrity obsessed media and public. All I want is the truth, just gime some truth! I wish Paul would release the contents to the Linda Tapes to prove once and for all that nothing sinister is revealed there!
As to Heather Mills, she would be in prison if just a fraction of the allegations against her were true. The divorce case means little to me because Courts can be biased and Paul's money could easily bury Heather with better attorneys and better accountants to hide and conceal assets! Courts have made bad decisions before and will do so forever. But even then, the Macca Mad Hatters were so mad that Heather was awarded any property award so I guess the Court found that she wasn't all bad, that she earned something as Paul's wife!
You can continue to call me names and engage in your pseudo-psychoanalysis of me but I am just stating my beliefs based on what I have read on various Paul topics. Danny Fields is an expert on Linda and he called her a groupie in the 1960's. Howard Sounes researched for years Paul's life after the Beatles and he discovered that Heather Louise is an unhealthy recluse! I do not make this stuff up but the MPL PR machine would like these things, and maybe even Heather Louise, to go away!
|
|
|
Post by bluecake on Feb 14, 2015 23:31:06 GMT -5
scousette, Roger Corman wrote about his affair with Jane in his memoir "How I Made a Hundred Movies And Never Lost a Dime." (pages 87-89 if you want specifics). He said he was dating Jane while they filmed The Masque of the Red Death when one day, she asked if her "friend" Paul could visit the set because he'd never been on a movie set before and was curious. Roger said sure. They chatted and he was told Paul was in a singing group to make their debut in London the next day. Roger told him good luck and bought him lunch. It wasn't until the next day when the Beatles were on the front page of the newspaper that Corman realized how famous Paul was, and also that Paul and Jane were dating. But Corman said that since Paul was away on tour Jane felt no qualms about having a relationship with him in London (Corman didn't seem to have a problem with it either, though he didn't know beforehand that Jane and Paul were together).
Actually, John, you were proved wildly inaccurate about that. You not only had your facts wrong but you also twisted them using your draconian views of mental health.
Heather Mills DID go to jail, John. And other things I cited were proven in a court of law.
First, John, if you read the divorce judgment you would know that Paul did not hide any assets. An independent financial firm examined his assets and provided their findings to the court. Unlike Heather, Paul also produced all the records that the court requested.
Second, how is that any relation to the fact that tax records showed Heather donated zero amount of money to charity before meeting Paul? Heather herself gave the court those tax records! The court even offered to accept receipts or letters from charities in addition (after she claimed she didn't declare the donation). Heather could not produce those either. That information about her assets came from Heather herself, so if you don't believe them, then I guess you agree Heather is a liar.
As for "better attorneys," Heather had excellent attorneys, the same ones who successfully represented Princess Diana and got her an excellent settlement from the most powerful people in the country, the Royal Family. However, Heather was so dishonest and badly behaved that those attorneys took the unprecedented step of firing her as their client. She was then so egotistical that she decided she, with zero legal experience, could represent herself. The court not only bent over backwards and offered her extra legal help, but the judge made every allowance for Heather, including pushing back deadlines for her to submit evidence and giving her every break. And she STILL failed miserably.
As for Danny Fields' book, yes, John, I have it right here. As usual, you have misrepresented its content. Danny denies that Linda was a groupie, and devotes a whole chapter to it, in fact (chapter 4). Here are some direct quotes:
Danny Fields then quotes Richard Goldstein, editor of the Village Voice, about whether Linda was a "groupie":
Danny quoted Linda herself on the word groupie:
Sam Anderson, guitarist and member of Big Brother & The Holding Company:
Pete Townsend also debunked the story about Linda "wanting to bag a Beatle." It was a joke that he repeated and he later said he felt awful people took it seriously. Here's Pete's quote (Chris is Chris Stamp, Linda's then boyfriend and manager of The Who):
As for Lillian Roxon, if you truly read Danny Fields book as you claimed, John, you would know that Danny devotes considerable time to her. According to Danny, Lillian was one of Linda's best friends - and Lillian was also, in Danny's opinion, in love with Linda romantically. Lillian never got over the fact that Linda was straight, and furthermore Lillian was REALLY mad when Linda got together with Paul and left New York. When she was single, Linda confided in Lillian but that understandably stopped after she got married. Lillian wrote a nasty article insulting Linda and Paul (who she'd never met) including calling Linda a groupie (which Danny notes Lillian knew wasn't true).
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Feb 15, 2015 0:09:19 GMT -5
Sam Andrew, guitarist for Big Brother and the Holding Company. He just passed away Friday.
|
|
|
Post by scousette on Feb 15, 2015 0:35:52 GMT -5
Really? Corman says he started "going out" with Jane Asher on page 87 of his memoir. That hardly constitutes evidence of an affair.
Macca Had Hatters will stop at nothing.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Feb 15, 2015 0:47:23 GMT -5
Really? Corman says he started "going out" with Jane Asher on page 87 of his memoir. That hardly constitutes evidence of an affair. Macca Had Hatters will stop at nothing. How is Jane having an affair evidence of Mad Hatter obsession? I'm a McCartney fanatic and I would prefer to think Jane was faithful.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Feb 15, 2015 0:48:58 GMT -5
Actually, John, you were proved wildly inaccurate about that. You not only had your facts wrong but you also twisted them using your draconian views of mental health. Wrong again, I accurately summarized Howard Sounes on Heather Louise being a recluse with mental health problems as proven in my quote directly from Sounes, a source you conceded was accurate but accused me of misstating which I proved a false charge by you! I own and have read the Fields book(just as I read Sounes) and your assertion that Fields denied Linda was a groupie is not even borne out by your quotes and I have kept the quote from Goldstein who in fact says there were different levels of groupies and Linda was a classy groupie. Fields endorses that line of thinking as shown in your quotes. Linda herself doesn't really deny it but she would prefer not to be thought of like that. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is a duck. Linda pursued Rock Stars for sex and hoping to bag one which she did. That is a groupie under any common sense, common usage of the phrase. I did describe Lillian Roxon as a pre-Paul friend unlike Danny who, as I noted, even spoke at her NYC memorial, because I know there was a huge falling out between the two women when Linda blew Lillian off once she bagged her Beatle. Lillian is important to any telling of the making of Linda McCartney story because Mrs. McCartney blew her friend off completely once she met Paul. Lillian was hurt but as a rejected friend who helped open doors to Linda into the Rock world. I said Lillian called Linda a groupie which you admit! You try to smear Lillian and discredit her but again I was completely accurate to quote Lillian saying that. And Lillian knew the Rock Scene and she knew Linda very well, unlike you and I, so her calling Linda a groupie is more informed than me saying Linda was a groupie but it is also more informed than you denying that Linda was a groupie. And Danny Fields basically says, in those passages that you have quoted, that there are various degrees of groupies and Linda was the classy kind. I stand by my Danny Fields reference as evidenced by his reliance and agreement with Richard Goldstein's quotation. By the way, I wasn't wrong was I on Danny Fields' quoting Jim Morrison who thought Linda a "smart chick" because she, without missing a beat, shooed little confused Heather Louise out of the room as Linda was getting boned by The Lizard King!
|
|
|
Post by bluecake on Feb 15, 2015 2:28:34 GMT -5
John, your slurs against Linda say far more about you than they do about her. Your history is full of posts idolizing men who had many sexual partners and treated women like used tissues while you make lecherous comments about women. I think Linda's sexual history titillates and threatens you.
Your continued silence about Heather Mills' greatest hits. I take it you endorse her lying about being molested, among other things?
Scousette, sure. Because Roger Corman took the women he dated to Bible meetings. No sex involved whatsoever when he dated his actresses.
|
|
|
Post by nicole21290 on Feb 15, 2015 3:15:52 GMT -5
The way Sounes treated Linda in terms of her sexual experiences pre-Paul was the actual primary turn-off for me, in terms of interest in reading his book. The rank hypocrisy, misogyny and double standards I've seen are ridiculous. For Paul, I think much of his relationship with Jane and the benefits of it was actually tied up in Jane's family - they were intelligent, witty, inclusive, curious, artistic, socially advantaged, structured, warm people. He'd always gravitated to his girlfriend's mothers, or even Rosa in Hamburg, and this was no different.
For interests' sake, here's Paul discussing their past sexual histories. A little disingenuous and defensive from Paul in the 1998 one, but I think it's relevant in terms of how they viewed their pasts
CH: This is what the Yanks want to know. They want to know all this stuff -- all the family values -- it's important to them.
PM: Another thing is, unlike some people in power -- we don't really need to name -- Linda and I got all of our wild oats out of the way before we met. We were very fortunate. I know a lot of girls.
CH: Linda less than you did?
PM: No. Well, maybe.
CH: You were in sort of an advantageous position.
PM: Yeah. Well, OK. I don't mind that, because that's probably true. But hey, look, we both played the field quite widely. The good thing is when we got married, we told each other. That was a big decision. I thought, "Should I just kind of not say anything, and she not say anything?" But, we thought, "No. We are going to really have a relationship here. We've got to clear this up." I said, "I've got to tell you all this stuff. I hope you really can handle this." It was good, because she told me all of her stuff. We really did tell all of the stuff. We were painfully open about it. But it got it out the way. And it's like, "Now we can maybe have a marriage. Maybe we now don't need to be unfaithful." And that was the case, which is beautiful. But I think that it was that we got it out the way. So many people marry young, and wonder what it's like the rest of their life. So they've almost got to have affairs just to see what it's like. Luckily we got all of that out of the way before we got married, which I think was another great blessing. - Paul McCartney, 1998
"I understood what happened when he [John] met Yoko. He had to clear the decks of his old emotions. He went through all his old affairs, confessed them all. Me and Linda did that when we first met. You prove how much you love someone by confessing all that old stuff. John's method was to slag me off." - Paul McCartney, 1981
|
|
|
Post by nicole21290 on Feb 15, 2015 3:22:55 GMT -5
The Linda Tapes are significant though because Paul and Linda's relationship has been romanticized beyond belief and they are portrayed to be perfect by an adoring, celebrity obsessed media and public. All I want is the truth, just gime some truth! I wish Paul would release the contents to the Linda Tapes to prove once and for all that nothing sinister is revealed there! Maybe you haven't read many interviews with Paul and Linda because they've both said MANY MANY times that their relationship had problems, that it wasn't perfect, that they were/are fallible people and spouses, etc. Paul's been quite open about how he sought counselling after Linda's death, and that one of the primary reasons was because of the guilt he had over not being perfect, over dwelling on the arguments and not the good times, etc. Paul's been surprisingly open about being imperfect for someone you think spends all his time being PR-conscious and covering up his sinister depths... Paul is a VERY private man, and doesn't feel the need to tell you and the public everything. Good for him. I think his way of managing his private and public selves has been good for his mental health, frankly. And I value that over the public's desire for every detail about his 29 year perfectly normal (as much as possible, given who Paul is) marriage, with its various ups and downs. Everyone who has known them has spoken about theirs being an extraordinarily warm, loving and supportive marriage, considering everything. I think the kids bear witness of that as well.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Feb 15, 2015 4:58:54 GMT -5
John, your slurs against Linda say far more about you than they do about her. Your history is full of posts idolizing men who had many sexual partners and treated women like used tissues while you make lecherous comments about women. I think Linda's sexual history titillates and threatens you. Your continued silence about Heather Mills' greatest hits. I take it you endorse her lying about being molested, among other things? Scousette, sure. Because Roger Corman took the women he dated to Bible meetings. No sex involved whatsoever when he dated his actresses. Your calling me a misogynist is a personal attack, going beyond debating my points and is an attempt to embarrass or shame me into silence. I respect Yoko Ono and Olivia Harrison, I worship Pattie Boyd Harrison Clapton(and would drink her bath water) and if you have read my posts know I hate Eric Clapton because he lured her from George only to treat her horribly, worse than she ever perceived George did. I respect Jane Asher who you clearly seem to disrespect. There are a lot of things I respect about Linda, but not her behavior leading up to meeting Paul, including dumping Heather Louise with friends and sometimes mere acquaintance while she pursued her Rock Stars. Once she married Paul she put that all behind her. My point though is don't attack Heather Mills for pursuing Paul for his wealth and fame when Linda did the exact same thing and made some misrepresentations too like being an heir of the camera fortune! She at least didn't always correct people on that point! Your summary rejection and dissing of Lillian Roxon was stunning to me. Her feminist credentials blow Linda Epstein's out of the water but of course Lillian has been dead since 1973 so she is forgotten now! If I am a misogynist why do I lament that Linda and Nancy were/are doormats to Paul while praising Jane and Heather for not being such? If in the past I said that I admired dudes who shagged tons of beautiful women then it is because I am jealous of them but I never cheered at men who treated the women badly. Again, my condemnation of Eric Clapton's terrible treatment of Pattie Boyd is well known. Was it because I admire Mick Jagger and Keith Richards? I mostly like their music and devil-may-care attitudes and Keith is a sweetheart, a softie, to the women he loves. Yeah, Mick is a tool to women but I have never praised that in him, ever. I have certainly slammed certain women I do not like just as you have slammed certain women you dislike, such as any woman who would dare break-up with Paul like Jane Asher or speak ill of Paul after Paul left her like Heather Mills. I have made disparaging remarks about certain men too so I do not see myself gender biased. I do not like fakes and frauds and we get a few of those in this Beatles story of ours. I also like underdogs and Heather Mills is the chief underdog in Western pop culture! Heather Mills is Beatrice's mother so we fans need to reconcile that she is part of the post-Beatles story from here on out. My respect of Heather Mills is indeed anti-misogyny!
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Feb 15, 2015 5:13:53 GMT -5
The Linda Tapes are significant though because Paul and Linda's relationship has been romanticized beyond belief and they are portrayed to be perfect by an adoring, celebrity obsessed media and public. All I want is the truth, just gime some truth! I wish Paul would release the contents to the Linda Tapes to prove once and for all that nothing sinister is revealed there! Maybe you haven't read many interviews with Paul and Linda because they've both said MANY MANY times that their relationship had problems, that it wasn't perfect, that they were/are fallible people and spouses, etc. Paul's been quite open about how he sought counselling after Linda's death, and that one of the primary reasons was because of the guilt he had over not being perfect, over dwelling on the arguments and not the good times, etc. Paul's been surprisingly open about being imperfect for someone you think spends all his time being PR-conscious and covering up his sinister depths... Paul is a VERY private man, and doesn't feel the need to tell you and the public everything. Good for him. I think his way of managing his private and public selves has been good for his mental health, frankly. And I value that over the public's desire for every detail about his 29 year perfectly normal (as much as possible, given who Paul is) marriage, with its various ups and downs. Everyone who has known them has spoken about theirs being an extraordinarily warm, loving and supportive marriage, considering everything. I think the kids bear witness of that as well. Oh I have read the interviews where they admit to not being perfect, for instance: Paul: Linda always said I was too loving, too caring, and had too much empathy! What did Paul claim once, that he only spent one night away from Linda in all of those years married? But someone later noted that he was in jail in Japan for over a week by himself! Don't throw out the kids as an example of their great marriage. There are at least two pretty dysfunctional examples there!
|
|
|
Post by nicole21290 on Feb 15, 2015 6:19:56 GMT -5
I have made disparaging remarks about certain men too so I do not see myself gender biased. I do not like fakes and frauds and we get a few of those in this Beatles story of ours. I also like underdogs and Heather Mills is the chief underdog in Western pop culture! Heather Mills is Beatrice's mother so we fans need to reconcile that she is part of the post-Beatles story from here on out. My respect of Heather Mills is indeed anti-misogyny! Wow. Is that like 'I have some black friends and I condemn the KKK, therefore I'm not racist'!? You really don't think it's possible you're 'gender biased'!? I am stunned. Even if you're not A misogynist all the time, I would be willing to bet that sometimes you're misogynistic or sexist, even if you don't intend to be. Microaggressions are a big part of this. I'm not just pointing at you in particular. I'm fully aware that sometimes I talk in a way which could be considered ableist, for example, and I probably am also silent on transphobia, homophobia or racism when it crops up in my life, when I ought to speak up. Feel free to check out the 'gender' tag here: www.microaggressions.com/ And this: www.xojane.com/issues/everyday-sexism-chronicles-those-small-but-meaningful-acts-of-casual-sexismHeather being Beatrice's mother (and any good qualities she does have - being a good mum, helping others, etc) DO NOT wipe the slate clean of all the terrible things she has done, which you keep dismissing or ignoring. There is plenty of evidence that she has stolen, lied, manipulated, etc, and yet apparently we're meant to 'support' her because she's an 'underdog'? It is not misogynist to call Heather a liar, or to provide evidence that she has committed crimes. I am perfectly reconciled to her place in Beatles history. I'm not trying to pretend she and that relationship never existed. Rather, I want people to be educated on WHY she is (justifiably) disliked. I would be the first to shut anyone down who criticised her because of her disability, her gender, her bossiness, or her mothering. However, I think pretending she's simply a sweet angel, and that Paul is the Big Bad Guy isn't quite an accurate picture of what went on either.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Feb 15, 2015 6:23:06 GMT -5
Paul is a VERY private man, and doesn't feel the need to tell you and the public everything. Good for him. As I have said in the past, I think this will turn out to be bad for Paul after his death, and his image will be tarnished... because there will be posthumous accounts of the "bad side of Paul McCartney" that the public "never knew about". Tell-All Books are always peddled after a celebrity's passing, and Paul will be no different -- in fact, it will be even more juicy in the sense that Paul always came across as a squeaky-clean PR man, who never wanted to air his dirty laundry. Not the person my record store owner is friendly with, who was part of Paul's road team in the '70s; that guy says Paul openly humiliated Linda verbally all the time, and his quote was "Paul is a nice guy when the cameras are on". I can easily believe this latter quote myself, having personally witnessed Paul yelling and being a jerk and throwing a fan's gift out the limousine window. I didn't see him abuse Linda, although the fan did give her gift to Linda, and Paul snatched it from his wife and tossed it out the car.
|
|
|
Post by nicole21290 on Feb 15, 2015 6:25:36 GMT -5
I have this crazy feeling, "I've gotta feelin,'" that someday, somehow Paul and Heather will be together again maybe by the time Beatrice is in her teenage years. Nancy will tire of veggie burgers and the ever present past, James, always hanging around and flee back to NYC. Paul has a really beautiful, rare song called "Twice In A Lifetime" and it just strikes me as Paul reconnecting with Heather. It will be an older, wiser, calmer Heather and a gentler, kinder Paul! Hey, it is Valentine's Day, can't a fan wish happy romantic thoughts for one of his musical heroes who does not seem very happy these days? Sometimes I feel like you're playing a really protracted practical joke on people reading this because WOW. Do you really think Paul doesn't look very happy these days!? These past few years, he's seemed far happier than he's done in a long time. Whenever I've seen him interviewed, he seems very contented in his personal and family life, actually. Certainly, it's a marked difference from his public appearances/autobiographical songs during much of 2005 and 2006, when he lost weight and appeared quite sombre and drawn on several occasions. To me, he looks far more comfortable with Nancy than he did with Heather. In my opinion, of course.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Feb 15, 2015 6:29:27 GMT -5
As far as the Linda/Yoko thing is concerned, the distinction I make is that Linda was happy for Paul to be a Beatle, Yoko had it in mind to stop John being a Beatle. Another myth regarding Yoko. Lennon himself had grown fed up with The Beatles, and he was just as pleased to be involved with projects between Yoko and himself. They were both very fulfilled doing their own things, even if selfish Beatle fans didn't approve. The Beatles needed to break up, with or without Yoko even being involved. Even if you are correct, I'd also like to add that it seems that (as a First Generation Fan) you somehow base the worth of a relationship on "who supports The Beatles"?? That strikes me as moot, and rather bizarre. If Yoko had encouraged Lennon to "only be a Beatle", wouldn't that be more like Yoko "trying to leech off The Beatles' popularity and money"? Of course, she wouldn't win either way. Vectis, you said earlier that you offer your view "having no romantic leanings toward The Beatles", but I do think as an elder Firstie you have definitely "romanticized" them in a different way.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Feb 15, 2015 6:34:46 GMT -5
Heather - lying manipulator, not misconstrued; Linda - happy for Paul to be a Beatle; Yoko - sought to separate John from the others. Aww, how sweet --- Linda was a Beatles Fan, and thus would have wanted the Beatles to stay together. Who cares, when true love should have nothing to do about "the status of The Beatles", and should be concerned with a one-on-one relationship? By the way, Linda was equally just as supportive of Paul going solo, and that's why "Maybe I'm Amazed" was written.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Feb 15, 2015 6:41:38 GMT -5
Sometimes I feel like you're playing a really protracted practical joke on people reading this because WOW. Do you really think Paul doesn't look very happy these days!? These past few years, he's seemed far happier than he's done in a long time. Whenever I've seen him interviewed, he seems very contented in his personal and family life, actually. To me, he looks far more comfortable with Nancy than he did with Heather. In my opinion, of course. You and I may not agree often, Nicole, but I agree with you completely here! What is JSD smoking?? Maybe he needs to play the NEW album over and over and over, because on that album alone it's blatantly obvious that Paul is revitalized, thrilled to have a "new" relationship, and is easily the most relaxed and content with his life than we have seen since he had been with Linda. Compare this to the gray and miserable works on DRIVING RAIN and CHAOS AND CREATION. Paul never looked at ease or comfortable when he was living under Heathen's thumb! He was visibly uncomfortable. As for JSD, I luv the guy -- but I agree that he comes up with wild ideas and sometimes I too think he's messing with our minds. He can't seriously believe some of the stuff he tells us, such as thinking Paul will marry Miley Cyrus, or reunite with Heathen.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Feb 15, 2015 7:03:01 GMT -5
Now vectis, you are clearly a respected Elder on this Board, a U.K. Firstie nonetheless, who knew and dug the Beatles before our American Firsties had ever even heard of them or seen them on Ed Sullivan Kind of off the point here, but I'd like to suggest that I think that being an "Elder Firstie" often skews fair-minded thinking about the four members in their solo careers. That's because those who were older and experienced The Beatles in their adolescent and teenage years couldn't really let go of The Beatles, and are not often able to accept the directions they branched off to. Good point here. It's hilarious to me when Paul or Linda discusses their meeting (like in WINGSPAN) and act like "our eyes met", and all that romantic hogwash. Paul McCartney was a BEATLE, for God's sake!! Of course Linda would look at him, desire him! I love also the bit about how Linda having to think about whether or not she wanted to marry Paul -- LOL! Right On! And if Yoko had not been so unconventional and "weird", more people would have been accepting of this.
|
|
|
Post by nicole21290 on Feb 15, 2015 7:36:54 GMT -5
Oh I have read the interviews where they admit to not being perfect, for instance: Paul: Linda always said I was too loving, too caring, and had too much empathy! What did Paul claim once, that he only spent one night away from Linda in all of those years married? But someone later noted that he was in jail in Japan for over a week by himself! Don't throw out the kids as an example of their great marriage. There are at least two pretty dysfunctional examples there! Oh my... I'll deal with the latter comment first, then the first one. You think 'dysfunctional' children (which I don't think you can accurately assess them as) prove a marriage might not have been great? Okaaaaay then. Now, onto your snarkiness about how them discussing their imperfect marriage. Enjoy the length of this one...
"So I knew a particular [therapist], who I talked to. He was a good help. It was mainly to get rid of some of my guilt. When anyone you love this much dies, one of the first things is that you wish you could have been perfect -- every minute of every day. But nobody's like that. I would say to Linda if we were arguing, "Look, I'm not Jesus Christ. I'm not a saint. I'm just some normal man. I'll try to do something about it but that's who I am, that's who you're married to." So I had quite a bit of guilt and probably still have. You remember arguments. When you're married you don't remember them so much, you just get on the next day and as long as you don't have too many and they're not too bad you figure it evens itself out. But when someone dies, you remember only the arguments in the first couple of weeks and the moments when I wasn't as nice as I would have wanted to be. So I need counseling with that. I found that really helpful."
Question: Linda’s death seemed to rattle the public because everyone assumed such an epic love story could never end. Was it a fairytale marriage? Paul McCartney: That is the beautiful thing. We were so bloody tight with each other. I lost my parents, and I loved them dearly, but losing both wasn’t as difficult as losing Linda. I was unloading to a friend this morning about how difficult it was. This friend said, “Yeah, but it was so beautiful. You’ve got to remember that.” It’s true. Shoot, we didn’t screw up in a major fashion, and we did love each other immensely.
“We just fancied each other. That was the whole root, the whole essence of our love. It wasn’t always idyllic. It was a marriage and we had rows. It was nearly always my insecurities that caused the rows between us which has left me with quite a bit of guilt. The guilt’s a real bugger. Whenever anyone dies you do think, oh I wish I’d been an angel for the whole of my life. But I wasn’t, so I was getting into heavy guilt when she died. “Then I thought, hang on a minute. We were just human. That was the beautiful thing about our marriage. We weren’t king or queen someone or other. we were just a boyfriend and girlfriend having babies.”
They can also, quite understandably, sound a little smug on the subject of their marriage. “It’s very organic,” Paul says. “It changes all the time. One day Linda will be very sort of wifey. Then on other days, she’ll say, ‘Sod this, let’s groove.’ And we’ll be off in the woods doing things together that you might not expect from a middle-aged couple.” (He rolls his eyes suggestively.) But in fact they are not half as self-congratulatory as they might be about their 23-year marathon. Perhaps out of superstition, both insist on recognizing that their gingerbread house could fall apart yet. “If you’d seen our marriage at any point throughout the last 23 years,” Paul says, “you would always have said, ‘It might not last.’ I mean, [it] has always been quite a fragile thing.” "It still might not last," Linda says. When Paul leaves the room to return to the studio, she continues. “People have said I’m possessive of him, but actually my attitude is ‘Hey, fuck off, do what you want to do, I’m not your jailer.’ I mean, I read these letters in the women’s magazines: ‘My husband left me for his lover, but now he’s come back. What shall I do?’ And the woman’s writing back, saying, ‘Why don’t you sit down and discuss your problems.’ I think, Talk to him? I’d just say fuck off. None of this ‘Oh please, dear.’ If Paul were to go, O.K., I’d move on to something else. If we want to be together, then let’s be together, but if either of us doesn’t, then all the heart pain isn’t going to stop it.” She stretches and smiles a wide smile. “The relationship isn’t the whole world. Hey, even at my old age, I’d still be able to have some fun.”
Karen Fox: What is your secret to a happy marriage? McCartney: When you love one another you have a happy marriage because you care enough to work out the problems. If one of you is in a bad mood one day you put up with it because you love the person. It isn’t easy. Men in marriage, and I don’t mean this in my marriage, get a much better deal. They get a live-in-cook and all that. “There’s a bit of dirt on my shirt, honey.” Women are often suppressed in a marriage. Their fathers still dominate them; then they go into a marriage and let their husbands dominate them. It’s frightening. So many women say, “I’d like to be a vegetarian but my husband would never let me,” and you think God, that’s so sad, men are still thumping women. But back to marriage, I believe in a loose rein. Being a rider, I also believe in tightening it and giving it some slack. I’ve captured that art, being so horse-oriented.
Paul also stresses the normality of his marriage. “It’s a real marriage: anyone out there who’s really married can sympathize. We love each other, but we’re male and female animals living in the same quarters. She does everything different form how I do it.” “We’re total opposites,” Linda agrees. “I’m a girl from Scarsdale, New York, and he’s a boy from Liverpool, England, and we’re actually living in the same house, living life, getting up in the morning and making a cup of tea and looking at each other and the kids…and people think, ‘Showbiz, they lived happily ever after.’” “No one has any illusions, really,” I say. “Don’t they?” she counters with a smile. It has been hard, she admits, but it’s getting better all the time. Earlier in the marriage, the background differences created more obvious problems; for instance, back home she never even had to make her bed and, well, Paul’s mother was a nurse midwife who, Paul says, “was hygenic to the point of craziness. I mean, my class likes to polish. You can’t tell a modern woman she should like to polish.” But he did just that, much to Linda’s horror. “At first, I thought Paul was so old-fashioned, with this tidiness, and this doing your own laundry and your own ironing.” “Why did you have to?” I ask. “Well, when you read the little storybooks, it was the mother and the father and the kids…it wasn’t ‘and then the cleaning lady came and…’” “Paul was saying that there’s a lovely pleasure in laundering something and smelling it, or ironing something. He remembers the smell in his house, of his mother, his auntie. And his mother died when he was young. So to have a wife who is intelligent, independent, artistic — but who also fills that role — was important. He thought I was missing something: I thought, come on, I want to be outdoors with my horse. "It’s all teamwork,” she goes on. “If I were working, believe me, I wouldn’t take this, ‘You’re the wife, this is your role.’ Oh, no, thank you. But he goes to work at nine and comes home at five, so it’s fair, really. It’s all changing, so I can’t say it’s bad any more. Men and women used to be lovers, not fighters,” she says, suddenly bringing in her usual peace motif. There is no doubt that Linda is Paul’s staunchest supporter. “She’s so pro-me it’s incredible. Unbelievable, really.” I believe it. I believe she is the emotional backbone of the relationship, that the feeling side of Paul is largely generated by her. I tell her this, that I have a hunch the things he talks about —animals, vegetarianism, life, love — are because of her. “Say no more,” she says. To my own embarrassment I add that he’s lucky to have her, and worry that I sound obsequious. “That’s what the kids say,” she says frankly. “He is lucky to have me. Cause when I met him, let me tell you: he was down at the club boozing — for a kid from Liverpool with a lot of roots and family, he certainly had been led away from it. He’s right, I am nicer than he is. I care about the right things, things that need caring about.” Suddenly we are talking about men who don’t reciprocate, who don’t love back, who don’t understand their wives. Linda is passionate on the subject. “Some men make women feel so guilty: they’re their wives’ worst enemies — and that is death,” she says. “And these women keep saying to themselves, ‘But I’ve got a good heart. I am good.’ Imagine fearing your husband coming home!” She looks as if maybe she once did, long ago, but she quickly says, “I don’t like to talk about my first marriage, because it was crazed, and I started going crazy. All I know is that a woman has to say to a man, ‘I have to love myself one hundred percent, and you have to help me love myself just as I am helping you to love yourself.’” Paul and Linda have been learning to help each other for years, and it’s taken, says Linda, “staying power and a lot of tears. I’ve got a long way to go; I’m still learning.” Has it taken all this time to know Paul?” “Yes,” she says, “and all this time to know myself.”
This is one of my favourite descriptions of them. I think it captures some really important elements of Paul and Linda's respective characters: He wariness of words (“I hate them,” she says) next to Paul’s easy, offhand way with them belies the fact that she seems more open, more emotionally accessible than her charming husband. After 20 years of being interviewed, he has mastered an ostensible warmth and polish she doesn’t have: he is “on” throughout the interview, she wanders in and out. Paul moves away quickly, deftly, wittily from places he doesn’t want to go, while she lights up when a subject moves her, becomes vaguely preoccupied when it doesn’t. She is most comfortable talking about her feelings, even though she doesn’t believe they’re of interest.
“Linda is a nicer person than I am,” Paul says of his wife. “Women are usually nicer,” he adds, “and I have a theory about that: it’s because they’re closer to nature. They get their periods and have babies.” His theory seems to be a new one to him, leading me to believe the whole issue of men and women and their interaction is also probably new — about 15 years old, dating from the time Linda came into his life.
Paul is still not at home with emotional issues, sometimes sounding trite or uninterested when he talks about them. If any emotion subject is likely to elicit a cheerfully dismissive crack from Paul, it is the subject of John Lennon’s death. He is reported to have said to a reporter who stuck a microphone in his face after the shooting, “It’s a drag,” and was thereafter accused of both flippancy and indifference.
The offhand remark, however, is indicative of Paul’s style, not a measure of his feelings, and to this day he gets that raised-eyebrow, defensive expression when Lennon is mentioned. “If he were alive,” I asked him, “would you want another conversation with John?” “I’ll have two, if you don’t mind,” he says, wit at the ready. Then, more seriously, but slightly agitated, “You know, I can’t even really think about it; it’s like a dream. It’s all just too far out for me. The saving grace of it all was that in our final conversation we weren’t arguing about business, which we had done for about ten years. We just talked about our families, we laughed, we smiled.” We leave the subject quickly.Not only does Paul admit failings within his own marriage, he's copped to other 'crimes' like bossiness in the studio, not treating Ringo and Geo as well as he ought to have, saying the wrong thing, and being purposely commercial and wanting to sell well. He's even admitted to lying, which I know you'll be pleased about. How honest of Paul....
And finally, one of my favourite interviews with them: Linda and Paul insist that theirs is an entirely equal relationship. “We’re like mates,” Paul says. “From the beginning, she was like this funky New York photographer - a bit of a groover, a little bit naughty - and we’ve always had a bit of mischief going on between us. We’ve always had this little escape mechanism in each other.” This is cute stuff, but insufficient to explain how the two of them have survived 23 years in each other’s pockets. Haven’t these people ever heard the one about familiarity breeding contempt?
"People ask, ‘Why are you still together?’" Paul says. "And we honestly don’t know. Why don’t I want to go off to L.A. for a couple of weeks without her? I’m really not sure - but I don’t….People say Linda won’t let me see other women, which is a lovely fallacy. It’s generally other women who say that. There’s one or two, not mentioning any names, who’ve been trying to get me over the years and they tend to say, ‘Ooh, she’s very possessive.’ But it’s not that - I’m just a married man."
"And, hey, why don’t I want to go off on my own?” Linda says.
"Listen, I like her!" Paul continues. "She’s great, man - she’s great. I like sleeping with her. She’s very warm in bed. I’d rather be sleeping with her than in some cold Holiday Inn without her."
"Well, what about a warm bed in, say, Beverly Hills?" Linda prods.
"What, with a little starlet?" Paul asks. "Oh, hang on, Linda. I’m warming to this idea…" He shakes his head. "Nah. Look, it’s just not what I do anymore."
Watching the two of them banter, one is struck by how genuinely interested in each other’s responses they seem to be - how entertained by each other’s company. On each of Paul’s subsequent exits and entrances, Linda stops what she is saying in order to swap ootsie-tootsie endearments with him.
The cynic might suspect that they are hamming it up for the lady from the press, but numerous friends and colleagues attest that is standard behavior. “Yeah - holding hands, lots of private jokes, giggly little conferences - that’s them,” Paul De Noyer, editor of the British rock journal Q Magazine, confirms. “You have to concede that it’s touching.”
"If the phrase means anything anymore," Brian Clarke says, "I think they are in love."
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Feb 15, 2015 9:32:52 GMT -5
Even if you are correct, I'd also like to add that it seems that (as a First Generation Fan) you somehow base the worth of a relationship on "who supports The Beatles"?? Not at all. I was simply offering an observation on how I perceived Linda and Yoko approaching the positions of their respective husbands (to be) in those days vis-à-vis hubbies' day jobs. It always seemed to me that Linda was happy with Paul being Beatle Paul, whereas Yoko couldn't get a wall up between John and the others fast enough (something I have seen happen sometimes when friends join up with a new partner). The extent to which John was happy with this isn't relevant to the point itself. You may be right, but I hope it doesn't have a bearing on the relatively simple observations.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Feb 15, 2015 10:49:02 GMT -5
I have made disparaging remarks about certain men too so I do not see myself gender biased. I do not like fakes and frauds and we get a few of those in this Beatles story of ours. I also like underdogs and Heather Mills is the chief underdog in Western pop culture! Heather Mills is Beatrice's mother so we fans need to reconcile that she is part of the post-Beatles story from here on out. My respect of Heather Mills is indeed anti-misogyny! Wow. Is that like 'I have some black friends and I condemn the KKK, therefore I'm not racist'!? You really don't think it's possible you're 'gender biased'!? I am stunned. Even if you're not A misogynist all the time, I would be willing to bet that sometimes you're misogynistic or sexist, even if you don't intend to be. Microaggressions are a big part of this. I'm not just pointing at you in particular. I'm fully aware that sometimes I talk in a way which could be considered ableist, for example, and I probably am also silent on transphobia, homophobia or racism when it crops up in my life, when I ought to speak up. More personal attacks when you do not know anything about me. You or I are not the point anyway. This is a Beatles Board and we can gush about or argue about the Beatles(or related issues) but this is not a forum to personally attack and try to hurt or label other posters. You despise many traits of Heather. I respect many traits of Heather. Why the name-calling and labeling of me because we disagree? bluecake noted last week that she was sure that I would like the "FourFiveSeconds" video in response to my praise of the video. You tagged that post as a "Like." I thought that was all good-natured because Rihanna was deliberately trying to arouse and tantalize her viewers with her open jean jacket. I was not the only man or woman who felt that was hot and I said so. Now I feel that is a further indictment of me when I was responding how Rihanna, most clearly a woman, wanted me and millions of people to respond. I do not believe it is your job to label posters here as you feel is your duty in the last sentence I quoted. Believe me, I don't go to church as I was raised and I last looked at the Bible when I was a kid but I do subscibe to the old: "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."
|
|
|
Post by scousette on Feb 15, 2015 11:55:48 GMT -5
Paul & Jane did not break up over her refusal to stay at home. Jane worked throughout their entire relationship and Paul was supportive, attending all her plays when Beatles' touring allowed. In fact, Jane was coming back from an acting tour when she caught Francie Schwartz in the house, which was the final straw. Nor was Jane opposed to giving up work for family. After breaking up with Paul, she got with Gerald Scarfe and promptly gave up working totally for 10-15 years to raise their children. She didn't give up working totally for 10-15 years. film.famousfix.com/tpx_32256/jane-asher/filmographyWhat do John, George and Ringo's marriages have to do with Paul and Jane? I agree that Paul and Jane were ultimatly incompatible.
|
|
|
Post by scousette on Feb 15, 2015 12:03:55 GMT -5
Really? Corman says he started "going out" with Jane Asher on page 87 of his memoir. That hardly constitutes evidence of an affair. Macca Had Hatters will stop at nothing. How is Jane having an affair evidence of Mad Hatter obsession? I'm a McCartney fanatic and I would prefer to think Jane was faithful. debjorgo, I'm not taking aim at you. Macca Mad Hatters who dredge up vague stuff about Jane Asher to make Paul's tomcatting behind her back seem OK.
|
|
|
Post by scousette on Feb 15, 2015 12:12:29 GMT -5
John, your slurs against Linda say far more about you than they do about her. Your history is full of posts idolizing men who had many sexual partners and treated women like used tissues while you make lecherous comments about women. I think Linda's sexual history titillates and threatens you. Your continued silence about Heather Mills' greatest hits. I take it you endorse her lying about being molested, among other things? Scousette, sure. Because Roger Corman took the women he dated to Bible meetings. No sex involved whatsoever when he dated his actresses.
|
|