|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Mar 8, 2010 17:22:04 GMT -5
And compare Cynthia with Yoko. Frankly, if I didn't know better, you'd figure Cynthia was the ideal girl. But obviously, she wasn't, at least in his eyes. But why would she appear to be the "ideal girl"? Because she was more wholesome, conventional, and liked being a "pipe and slippers wife"? That's not what John wanted and needed. There is nothing even remotely stimulating about Cynthia, in order to keep up with John's enthusiasm and love of experimentation. She was a bore to him. Yoko was much more exciting, and challenging.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Mar 8, 2010 17:28:08 GMT -5
Even if we conservatively average that to 30 shows a tour, that's 1200 shows. Is one show in Atlantic City in 1989 really a basis to form any opinion? maybe it's better to say, "I'm not in a position to judge the Stones because I only saw them once. I didn't like it, but maybe it was an off night for them, so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt." It's interesting that you said that you preferred the Stones sound on record than in concert. Hmmm. I think the consensus is that the Stones are a live band first. That is their strength. Not saying you are wrong, but again, after seeing them only once . . . Well, we were talking about the "Latter Stones". I've seen concert films of them and heard live albums too, obviously (besides the Atlantic City show I went to). Some have been better than others. But as I always say with any band, for me personally, I want the performances to be close to the records. I've liked their shows better when they do.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Mar 8, 2010 17:40:03 GMT -5
Now, here is THE question. Is it because the solo songs were not as good or that the solo songs were not produced and arranged as well? Between '62 and '70 they had, what, 10 - 12 albums or so? Okay, so put together 10 albums worth of the best solo songs and you have pretty competitive stuff. My Sweet Lord, It Don't Come Easy, Cloud 9, Number 9 Dream, Tug of War, Blow Away, etc. I have always argued that the solo songs weren't that bad, but the way they arranged them was lacking. All those horns that John and George used. The Elephant's Memory Band. No "Beatle" harmonies. Cheesy keyboards. Gazillion musicians. I think that if the Beatles had stayed together and STILL enjoyed playing with each other and if George Martin stayed on, we would be rethinking a lot of those solo, now Beatle songs. But I wouldn't want them recorded any other way, since that's how I've always known them and loved them. I like the horns and all the things you mentioned; those songs wouldn't be themselves, so to speak, without it. I'm perfectly happy moving on from "The Beatles" and hearing those songs as they were solo-recorded.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Mar 8, 2010 17:53:07 GMT -5
And compare Cynthia with Yoko. Frankly, if I didn't know better, you'd figure Cynthia was the ideal girl. But obviously, she wasn't, at least in his eyes. But why would she appear to be the "ideal girl"? Because she was more wholesome, conventional, and liked being a "pipe and slippers wife"? That's not what John wanted and needed. There is nothing even remotely stimulating about Cynthia, in order to keep up with John's enthusiasm and love of experimentation. She was a bore to him. Yoko was much more exciting, and challenging. Joe: I agree with you. She did appear more wholesome, but that's not what John wanted.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Mar 8, 2010 18:15:53 GMT -5
As Paul put it: "Cynthia wasn't strong enough to dominate John." Even Cynthia conceded in her book, the first time she saw the two of them together she knew they were exactly right for eachother, and that she had lost John.
Geoff Emerick has a very interesting first-hand account of the sudden and drastic effect of Yoko on the Beatles scene from the second she made her entrance during the recording of the White Album. Recording sessions that were instantly dubbed "the tension sessions." Emerick was stunned at the sudden change. The jokes, the fun, the light-hearted tomfoolery, all that vanished with Yoko's presence. As Emerick put it: "It was like John was angry all the time."
Again, its unfair to blame Yoko for this. As Joe pointed out, this was probably pent-up emotions from the whole Beatlemania phenomenon, as well as years of repressed psychological problems.
|
|
|
Post by stavros on Mar 8, 2010 18:36:39 GMT -5
OK I'm going to throw a spanner in the works here. I think John did truly have great love for Yoko and I also think that she did save him from self destruction.
However was that love totally reciprocated? Did Yoko truly, madly, deeply love John as he loved her? Or was it something of a career move for her?
I am perhaps being really cynical here. But whenever I hear an interview with "John&Yoko" it almost feels as though Yoko has to constantly interrupt and get her say in. Maybe that was just the way things were in the relationship and it was accepted they spoke as one. Or maybe not?
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Mar 8, 2010 19:22:14 GMT -5
However was that love totally reciprocated? Did Yoko truly, madly, deeply love John as he loved her? Or was it something of a career move for her? ? I feel slightly weird and gossipy for even commenting on other people's private lives. But then, with personal-type artists like John and Yoko -- where their lives are their work, and vice versa -- it can be hard to separate critical commentary on their artwork from their personal lives. That said, I think John summed up Yoko's attitude towards other people in the Playboy interview where he said (words to the effect): "Yoko basically sees men as assistants." Keep in mind, Yoko was raised in a pretty emotionally-barren, loveless home. Basically raised by nannies as a rich, spoiled brat, surrounded by servants paid to do her bidding. Throughout her life, she was described as someone who had to always be the center of attention. Almost ruthless disregard for the feelings of others. In a typical move, John had given a house to one of his relatives -- I forget who, a half-sister or a cousin or somebody. They lived in the house for years. Until one day, after John's death, they got a notice from one of Yoko's lawyers telling them that Yoko was taking the house back and they had 30 days to get the hell out. Just about completely ruined their lives. Why would Yoko -- a person who always preened in the spotlight of her charitable work -- do something like that? I'm sure she needed another home like a hole in the head.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Mar 8, 2010 19:38:18 GMT -5
There's a revealing account in Pete Shotton's book about his first interactions with Yoko. They're at an Apple party and John and Yoko needed a ride home so he asked Pete if he would give them a lift. Which he did as a favor to John. Unfortunately, being unfamiliar with the streets of London, he got lost. And Yoko, in the back seat, immediately began screaming at him, calling him a dolt, and etc. Basically treating him like a chauffeur. Which is how Yoko basically treated everyone. Pete immediately stopped the car and told Yoko that if she didn't stop screaming at him, he'd kick them both out of the car. A perfectly understandable reaction.
From that point on, Yoko did everything in her power to completely cut Pete Shotton out of John's life. Which she did. Because what Yoko wanted, Yoko got. Keep in mind, Pete was John's closest and most trusted friend. But this would be a pattern throughout the Yoko years, where she purged John from just about every one of his friends. To the point where, in his last years, he was completely friendless, surrounded only by people on the payroll ("sychophants" as John called them), and completely dependent on Yoko. Was Yoko truly acting in John's best interests? I doubt it.
Personally, I think Yoko struck a devil's bargain when she married John. She wanted power and fame. Which she got. But she always lived in the shadow of John. For someone as completely self-centered as Yoko was, that must have been a very painful situation.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Mar 8, 2010 22:18:28 GMT -5
. . . you'd figure Cynthia was the ideal girl. But obviously, she wasn't, at least in his eyes. She should have "pleased" him like he "pleased" her.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Mar 9, 2010 6:21:40 GMT -5
There's a revealing account in Pete Shotton's book about his first interactions with Yoko. They're at an Apple party and John and Yoko needed a ride home so he asked Pete if he would give them a lift. Which he did as a favor to John. Unfortunately, being unfamiliar with the streets of London, he got lost. And Yoko, in the back seat, immediately began screaming at him, calling him a dolt, and etc. Basically treating him like a chauffeur. Which is how Yoko basically treated everyone. Pete immediately stopped the car and told Yoko that if she didn't stop screaming at him, he'd kick them both out of the car. A perfectly understandable reaction. I'd say it was a proper reaction as well - if it happened. And I don't believe many of these tell-all books which were written after John's death, and particularly to bash Yoko, by whatever means. Yoko, for all her faults, usually sat around rather quietly and meek, and I can't imagine her "screaming at Pete". Also, John himself became completely bound to Yoko of his own will. Yoko hardly needed to rope him in; John was all too willing to give up everyone else and be hers, all on his own. This happens in many marriages, not just ones where the man happened to marry Yoko Ono. Yet the thing is, only Yoko gets chewed out for it - because it's Yoko Ono. I have seen friends of mine become just like that once they're married -- the wife starts to dominate, the man becomes kind of whipped. And in some cases (as I believe in Lennon's) the man is content that way and doesn't even really want to see the boys much anyway. My continuing beef is that people always single Yoko out and go overboard because it's her. I don't see how someone as charitable as Yoko could be considered "self-centered". And you haven't met her yourself, you've only heard these negative stories because it's become her lot in life to forever be "The Evil Dragon Lady Of The World Who Took John Lennon Away From The Beatles". Talking about being self-centered, the World (I'm not saying you personally) at large hated this woman because she drove a wedge in between them and their Beatles/John, and they didn't want it that way. They wanted it their way. I've met a lot of celebs in New York City over the years, and that includes Yoko two times. She was one of the most quiet, easygoing, meek, and giving famous people of all of them. Was happy to stand and pose for pics and sign autographs with fans. Never screamed, never raised her voice, always smiled and giggled sheepishly with appreciation. Now, I'm not trying to say that I can draw an entire picture of anyone's whole personality by these meetings - but I am saying I have witnessed OTHER celebrities yelling and screaming and being self-centered and rude to fans - to begin with, Paul McCartney - who was a right bastard when he didn't like seeing fans waiting outside one of his hotels, and ranted and physically refused a gift one girl handed him through the limo window by throwing it out of car and onto the street. So think about that.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Mar 9, 2010 6:34:20 GMT -5
However was that love totally reciprocated? Did Yoko truly, madly, deeply love John as he loved her? Or was it something of a career move for her? She wouldn't have been the first and she wouldn't be the last, if it was a career move. Yet she is the only person who gets the grief, is my point. I do believe Yoko loved John, or came to love him if you prefer. But Yoko Ono as a person was always rather strong and independent, and didn't seem like the type who really needed any man the way some women might. But Yoko was already an established artist in her own right, even without John. After all, they met at one of Yoko's "happenings". So if she felt that John was cut from the same creative mold as herself, and felt he would make not only a good partner but also fellow artistic collaborator who could promote their work as well, I see that as a good thing for her. But you can see in her eyes and hear in her voice when she's interviewed about John since he died that she really loved him. She almost breaks down at times and gets nearly choked up. I think John liked her participation and encouraged it ... they were together and they were both artists working with each other. He preferred it to be JohnandYoko. By now, people should just accept that and let it go already -- the Beatles broke up in 1970, John died in 1980. Take that bitch Heather Mills. Now, Paul McCartney was a real hog for the limelight and never seemed comfortable with a "PaulandHeather" arrangement. Whenever they'd be in interviews together and Heather would speak up, Paul always seemed somewhat uncomortable with that. Nowhere was this clearer to me than when they both appeared on a show (Larry King, I think?) about the clubbing of the seals. Paul sat there a lot of the time like a good child biting his tongue and looking ill at ease, while mom spoke out.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Mar 9, 2010 6:38:02 GMT -5
In a typical move, John had given a house to one of his relatives -- I forget who, a half-sister or a cousin or somebody. They lived in the house for years. Until one day, after John's death, they got a notice from one of Yoko's lawyers telling them that Yoko was taking the house back and they had 30 days to get the hell out. Just about completely ruined their lives. Why would Yoko -- a person who always preened in the spotlight of her charitable work -- do something like that? I'm sure she needed another home like a hole in the head. Why, indeed! Answer: Because I think a lot of this is gossipy bullsh%t, which is fabricated just to keep the reputation of Yoko as the Evil Dragonlady alive. And many Yoko-hating fans eat it up and accept it all, unconditionally.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Mar 9, 2010 9:05:36 GMT -5
There's a revealing account in Pete Shotton's book about his first interactions with Yoko. They're at an Apple party and John and Yoko needed a ride home so he asked Pete if he would give them a lift. Which he did as a favor to John. Unfortunately, being unfamiliar with the streets of London, he got lost. And Yoko, in the back seat, immediately began screaming at him, calling him a dolt, and etc. Basically treating him like a chauffeur. Which is how Yoko basically treated everyone. Pete immediately stopped the car and told Yoko that if she didn't stop screaming at him, he'd kick them both out of the car. A perfectly understandable reaction. People who are constantly rude to drivers, waiters, store clerks, etc., really show their true selves: bad, bullying people. That anecdote from Pete always bothered me. Such conduct is not unique to Yoko however and we have all read that John picked on people that he felt he could get away with.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Mar 9, 2010 15:48:39 GMT -5
. . . Now, I'm not trying to say that I can draw an entire picture of anyone's whole personality by these meetings . . . Unlike seeing the Stones once and making a generalization about whether they should have packed it in a long time ago. I kid.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Mar 9, 2010 16:08:47 GMT -5
In a typical move, John had given a house to one of his relatives -- I forget who, a half-sister or a cousin or somebody. They lived in the house for years. Until one day, after John's death, they got a notice from one of Yoko's lawyers telling them that Yoko was taking the house back and they had 30 days to get the hell out. Just about completely ruined their lives. Why would Yoko -- a person who always preened in the spotlight of her charitable work -- do something like that? I'm sure she needed another home like a hole in the head. Why, indeed! Answer: Because I think a lot of this is gossipy bullsh%t, which is fabricated just to keep the reputation of Yoko as the Evil Dragonlady alive. And many Yoko-hating fans eat it up and accept it all, unconditionally. The house story was taken from a straight interview. In a Giuliano book. So consider the source (that guy's been known to lay it on thick). But yeah, Joe is right, you have to take ALL these stories with a big grain of salt. I was in the media biz for years, and am all too familiar with how much crap gets passed off in the guise of facts. The best thing one can do is "consider the source" and get as many different versions as possible. While researching my "ACID HEROES" book I read literally hundreds of Beatles books. And my take on Yoko -- who I certainly don't hate and don't go out of my way to bash (if anything I see her as a tragic, sympathetic figure) -- is culled from hundreds of accounts. Sort of a composite. With my own axe to grind, of course. But yeah, I think John's quote summed her up in a way: "Yoko sees men as basically assistants." Thats just how she was raised: surrounded not by friends but by nannies and servants. Which is how she seems to treat people: like servants who are there to do her bidding.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Mar 9, 2010 16:12:42 GMT -5
P.S. The Pete Shotton book has the ring of truth to me. And he paints a largely sympathetic picture of Yoko. He was there at John's place, tripping on acid with John, the night John invited Yoko over to his house for the first time and they stayed up all night making love and making what turned out to be the "Two Virgins" recordings. The next morning John told Pete that he had finally found "the one." And Pete was ecstatic for John. And in fact John immediately dispatched Pete to go out house-hunting to find a new house for John and Yoko to live in.
By Pete's account, his only beef with Yoko was the intense dislike that Yoko seemed to have for him.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Mar 9, 2010 16:38:22 GMT -5
P.S. The Pete Shotton book has the ring of truth to me. And he paints a largely sympathetic picture of Yoko. He was there at John's place, tripping on acid with John, the night John invited Yoko over to his house for the first time and they stayed up all night making love and making what turned out to be the "Two Virgins" recordings. The next morning John told Pete that he had finally found "the one." And Pete was ecstatic for John. And in fact John immediately dispatched Pete to go out house-hunting to find a new house for John and Yoko to live in. By Pete's account, his only beef with Yoko was the intense dislike that Yoko seemed to have for him. It seemed back then Yoko didn't like anyone from John's present or past circle of friends ; musical or personal. That was the tragic side of their relationship, though John never saw it that way.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Mar 9, 2010 16:51:40 GMT -5
Personally, I think Yoko struck a devil's bargain when she married John. She wanted power and fame. Which she got. But she always lived in the shadow of John. For someone as completely self-centered as Yoko was, that must have been a very painful situation. She also inherited John's fortune in Beatle royalties which has kept her in comfort all these years. That eases a lot of "pain".
|
|
|
Post by stavros on Mar 9, 2010 17:20:07 GMT -5
I know Mick Jagger has said that he and John used to party a lot again during the lost weekend but after he got back with Yoko he was shut out again as if he (Jagger) was a bad influence. Plus who's idea was it to move to New York? That certainly gives distance between the past family and friends.
As Joe Karlosi says though some people will give everything up in their life for a partner. I know many people this happens to. In a lot of cases it happens to both partners and they cut themselves off from their past friends to concentrate on their new life together. John also had Sean to concentrate on once he was born. John appeared happy to concentrate on his new family. He certainly seemed happy and re-vitalised in interviews given in 1980. Got to feel sorry for Julian though.
I don't blame Yoko for anything particularly. But when the butterfly flaps it's wings.... And we cannot deny she had an impact on the Beatles lives and careers. If she hadn't have arrived on the scene then one of my favourite songs "Don't Let Me Down" may never have been written. Neither may another "Woman" which sounds like it should have been a Beatle song (even John said that). And it think he was rightly proud of both.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Mar 9, 2010 17:43:31 GMT -5
I've met a lot of celebs in New York City over the years, and that includes Yoko two times. She was one of the most quiet, easygoing, meek, and giving famous people of all of them. Was happy to stand and pose for pics and sign autographs with fans. Never screamed, never raised her voice, always smiled and giggled sheepishly with appreciation. Now, I'm not trying to say that I can draw an entire picture of anyone's whole personality by these meetings - but I am saying I have witnessed OTHER celebrities yelling and screaming and being self-centered and rude to fans - to begin with, Paul McCartney - who was a right bastard when he didn't like seeing fans waiting outside one of his hotels, and ranted and physically refused a gift one girl handed him through the limo window by throwing it out of car and onto the street. So think about that. Joe: I'd be fascinated to hear more details about meeting Yoko face-to-face. Your impressions, and the circumstances, and how other people reacted. (I'd also be fascinated to hear from any other Beatles fans about their flesh-and-blood encounters with Beatles or Beatles people.) One thing I've heard repeatedly is that Yoko is much more beautiful in person than she comes across in photos. So much of our impressions of the Beatles is second-hand, filtered through the media machine. First hand impressions can be so much more revealing.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Mar 9, 2010 17:58:59 GMT -5
. . . Now, I'm not trying to say that I can draw an entire picture of anyone's whole personality by these meetings . . . Unlike seeing the Stones once and making a generalization about whether they should have packed it in a long time ago. I kid. No, you don't kid. You may have added the smiley to take the edge off, but you meant it. But I already elaborated on this in a follow-up post -- didn't you read it? And I will stand by my perfectly well-founded opinion that I have heard enough of the Stones' latter music and live shows to feel they should have packed it in a long, long, LONG time ago.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Mar 9, 2010 18:35:43 GMT -5
Unlike seeing the Stones once and making a generalization about whether they should have packed it in a long time ago. I kid. No, you don't kid. You may have added the smiley to take the edge off, but you meant it. But I already elaborated on this in a follow-up post -- didn't you read it? And I will stand by my perfectly well-founded opinion that I have heard enough of the Stones' latter music and live shows to feel they should have packed it in a long, long, LONG time ago. Agreed. Even their good days now don't come close to the good old days. One reason I'm really looking forward to the "Exile" reissue with the 10 unissued tracks.
|
|
|
Post by jimc on Mar 9, 2010 19:16:26 GMT -5
Unlike seeing the Stones once and making a generalization about whether they should have packed it in a long time ago. I kid. No, you don't kid. You may have added the smiley to take the edge off, but you meant it. But I already elaborated on this in a follow-up post -- didn't you read it? And I will stand by my perfectly well-founded opinion that I have heard enough of the Stones' latter music and live shows to feel they should have packed it in a long, long, LONG time ago. But of course, Ringo shouldn't "pack it in."
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Mar 9, 2010 21:37:13 GMT -5
No, you don't kid. You may have added the smiley to take the edge off, but you meant it. But I already elaborated on this in a follow-up post -- didn't you read it? And I will stand by my perfectly well-founded opinion that I have heard enough of the Stones' latter music and live shows to feel they should have packed it in a long, long, LONG time ago. But of course, Ringo shouldn't "pack it in." ;D Touche! While I find myself agreeing more with JoeK than sayne about the quality of Rolling Stones' studio albums these past 20 years, I must also agree with Jim's point that those newer Stones' albums are about a billion times better than Ringo's albums in this same period(or in any period!). If the Stones are being asked to retire than Ringo should have too but much sooner. [As I am sent back to the Ringo Re-Education Camp at an undisclosed location.]
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Mar 9, 2010 22:04:22 GMT -5
Here is an interesting YouTube video of John and Yoko from the early days of their coming out publicly, it could be May or June 1968 from the sunny, warm weather. They are at Kenwood in Weybridge. John looks good, no heroin yet it seems.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Mar 10, 2010 1:58:33 GMT -5
Plus who's idea was it to move to New York? That certainly gives distance between the past family and friends. I believe it was John's idea to re-locate to New York. He mentions a lot that New York was where he felt things were happening in the early 70's, and he seemed to identify with its fast pace.
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on Mar 10, 2010 5:59:44 GMT -5
Why does everyone assume that the Beatles would not have made even better albums in the 70's had they stayed together ?
I agree with Sir Paul, they could have kept going onto bigger and better things.
No downhill for me, they were still climbing that mountain.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Mar 10, 2010 6:36:59 GMT -5
Hear hear.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Mar 10, 2010 6:46:08 GMT -5
Why does everyone assume that the Beatles would not have made even better albums in the 70's had they stayed together ? I agree with Sir Paul, they could have kept going onto bigger and better things. No downhill for me, they were still climbing that mountain. Because it would have been naturally impossible to maintain that sort of consistent "A" quality forever. Eventually they would have to hit some low point with their albums and produce a turd or two. They ended before that occurred, thankfully.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Mar 10, 2010 6:50:20 GMT -5
Here is an interesting YouTube video of John and Yoko from the early days of their coming out publicly, it could be May or June 1968 from the sunny, warm weather. They are at Kenwood in Weybridge. John looks good, no heroin yet it seems. Aww, why trust a seeing-is-believing video or the Lennons themselves? Surely some gossipy tell-all book on this would be more reliable? ;D
|
|