|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Mar 10, 2010 6:58:20 GMT -5
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. There's not much to tell. In April of 1994 on a beautiful spring day my wife and I decided to visit the city and head over to the Dakota. As long as we were there we decided to wait to see if we could say hello to Yoko, so we waited a bit and she came outside. There were about 10 or so fans, and she greeted us happily and posed for pictures with everyone and spoke to fans. Another day we went back and I got an autograph, the same way. There was a humorous moment where Yoko had finished signing an autograph and handed the pen back to me, and then another fan asked to borrow my pen so I passed it to her, who passed it around back to Yoko. And Yoko giggled at winding up with the pen again after having just returned it. She seemed friendly, though a little shy. I've talked about my negative 1995 encounters with Paul and Ringo at length somewhere, either here or on the old board. Very unpleasant to see, but that's the risk you take when trying to meet your favorite celebrities. Ringo just bounded out of a limo and into his hotel, brushing past the fans and mumbling under his breath. When he exited the hotel later, he just walked past again and ignored everyone when getting back into the car. Paul was pissed because three of us were waiting outside his hotel when he arrived, so he shouted at one girl who approached his open-windowed limo that she "wasn't supposed to be here!!!" and when she gently insisted on handing Linda a small crystal gift through the window, Paul angrily snatched it from Linda and threw it out of the window and it crashed to the ground. I just turned away in disgust. But I had I managed to get an indirect autograph from Paul in 1993 when he was in town doing Saturday Night Live -- albeit when his assistant came outside Paul's hotel on a freezing cold February day in 1993 and collected all the waiting fans' personal items, and Paul signed them from inside and they were later returned to us. We'd been waiting there for hours in the freezing cold... each time Paul would kindly say "Hello" or "Good morning" as he came and went to and from the limo and in and out of the hotel at various times to go here and there, but would never stop. Mercifully, he ultimately allowed fans' items to be collected from inside.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Mar 10, 2010 7:01:04 GMT -5
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. Big difference is, Ringo was always just Ringo. Even when he got lucky with his RINGO 1973 album, he was always merely the bit player drummer of "The Beatles". I don't hold him up to the same standards of a John, Paul, George, Beatles... or Stones. Ringo is being pretty consistent for Ringo, and his new album Y NOT is one of his finest in years.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Mar 10, 2010 9:38:27 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 Don't RTP me, Joe. I've softened on Yoko so don't make me regret it! Are MTV videos reality? Are movies reality? Can people clean-up and smile and hug when they know they are being filmed? Do we really know what is happening behind closed doors when the cameras aren't rolling? See, you're egging me back to the dark side and I don't want to go there.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Mar 10, 2010 14:27:46 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 Actually, I suspect there's more home truths in gossipy tell-all books, than in home videos and glossy, air-brushed press releases from the stars.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Mar 10, 2010 14:51:02 GMT -5
I will add, since this subject has come up a couple times already, I've read just about every Beatles book I could get my hands on, from the "gossipy" to the urbane. As well as just about every Beatles interview so I could hear it from their perspective as well.
For my money (and I'm sure this will spark controversy) the 3 most insightful books I've read in regards to John Lennon's character (as well as his relationship with Yoko, in keeping with the subject of this thread) are the books by 1.) Pete Shotton, 2.) May Pang, 3.) Fred Seaman. Why? Because all three of them lived intimately alongside Lennon behind the media screen. And all 3 seemed to deeply love John Lennon. Unlike so many tell-all books, they didn't seem inspired by a need to drag an idol off his pedastool and into the dirty, but by people who loved John Lennon but struggled to understand who the hell he was. He was a pretty enigmatic, multi-faceted fellow. No?
And besides, Joe, I know you think Fred Seaman is a sack-o-manure. And maybe he is. But do you think we'd get more home-truths from a paid flack like Yoko's mouth-piece Elliot Mintz. Or from Yoko Ono's carefully air-brushed version of John Lennon?
|
|
|
Post by stavros on Mar 10, 2010 16:02:05 GMT -5
I will add, since this subject has come up a couple times already, I've read just about every Beatles book I could get my hands on, from the "gossipy" to the urbane. As well as just about every Beatles interview so I could hear it from their perspective as well. For my money (and I'm sure this will spark controversy) the 3 most insightful books I've read in regards to John Lennon's character (as well as his relationship with Yoko, in keeping with the subject of this thread) are the books by 1.) Pete Shotton, 2.) May Pang, 3.) Fred Seaman. Why? Because all three of them lived intimately alongside Lennon behind the media screen. And all 3 seemed to deeply love John Lennon. Unlike so many tell-all books, they didn't seem inspired by a need to drag an idol off his pedastool and into the dirty, but by people who loved John Lennon but struggled to understand who the hell he was. He was a pretty enigmatic, multi-faceted fellow. No? And besides, Joe, I know you think Fred Seaman is a sack-o-manure. And maybe he is. But do you think we'd get more home-truths from a paid flack like Yoko's mouth-piece Elliot Mintz. Or from Yoko Ono's carefully air-brushed version of John Lennon? I think that's fairly good assessment ace. John was often a man of great contradiction. I never really bought his radical "peace movement" ideals which seemed to fade away after a few years. But, forgetting Yoko, the media like to paint this picture of him forever singing "Imagine" and preaching peace on Earth. Then there is the image of him the "rocker" and Paul as the "balladeer" when in fact both could write good old fashioned rock and roll and a decent ballad. The truth is that John & Paul were a couple of old mates who sometimes viewed things differently. But once Yoko came along the boys were all at that point in your life when those small differences start to get bigger and you face those choices as to where your life is going. John chose Yoko and sidelined the Beatles. Paul still felt comfortable as a Beatle and then realised he was now in a very difficult situation. As for George I think it spurred him on to finally unleash the shackles and go it alone. George has always spoke frankly about his relations with the other Beatles and although he accepted his time as a Beatle he never felt he was regarded as an equal. Ringo was always happy to be a Beatle and at times the only link between all four when they were all still alive. However the Beatles relations with each other is for another thread.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Mar 10, 2010 16:44:28 GMT -5
I think that's fairly good assessment ace. John was often a man of great contradiction. I never really bought his radical "peace movement" ideals which seemed to fade away after a few years. But, forgetting Yoko, the media like to paint this picture of him forever singing "Imagine" and preaching peace on Earth. Oh yeah, I gotta agree with you on that one. John Lennon? Brilliant artist, fascinating guy. But peace guru? 'scuse me while I wretch. Fred Seaman said (and I believe him on this one) that John repeatedly told him that he felt he was destined to die a violent death because he had lived a life "filled with violence in both thought and deed." And when you study the man's life, those sentiments surely ring true. Or as Lennon conceded in his Playboy interview: "Its always the violent ones who are always going on about peace." Or as McCartney described him in his famous quote: "Since his death he's become sort of Martin Luthor Lennon. He wasn't some kind of holy saint. He could be a manuevering swine."
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Mar 10, 2010 16:48:14 GMT -5
Or as McCartney described him in his famous quote: "Since his death he's become sort of Martin Luthor Lennon. He wasn't some kind of holy saint. He could be a manuevering swine." Where does this quote come from, if I may ask?
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Mar 10, 2010 17:00:18 GMT -5
For my money (and I'm sure this will spark controversy) the 3 most insightful books I've read in regards to John Lennon's character (as well as his relationship with Yoko, in keeping with the subject of this thread) are the books by 1.) Pete Shotton, 2.) May Pang, 3.) Fred Seaman. Why? Because all three of them lived intimately alongside Lennon behind the media screen. And all 3 seemed to deeply love John Lennon. Unlike so many tell-all books, they didn't seem inspired by a need to drag an idol off his pedastool and into the dirty, but by people who loved John Lennon but struggled to understand who the hell he was. He was a pretty enigmatic, multi-faceted fellow. No? Yes. And I just feel John was plainly open about who he was all around, no real need for "tell-all" books. That's what made him so special, and why I'd always gravitated toward him as the most flawed, most human, most candid of the four Beatles. He always showed his warts, and when he was depressed he wrote and sang about it. No big mystery waiting to be unearthed there by others. All three of these authors, I think, at least had definite axes to grind against Yoko, if not John. In Fred's case, he did steal John's belongings (including his journals) and was a thief. Not the greatest pal when it came right down to it. I don't think he was such a respecting friend of John's, but more of an opportunist. I'm no fan of Elliot Mintz either. He's at the exaggerated opposite pole from Fred Seaman and Albert Goldman. Where Elliot lays the "sainthood" on way too thick (even though I've heard him condemn John as "stupid" on Entertainment Tonight, for getting into heroin), the other lays on the "negative". But as I've always said, I did like what Elliot Mintz said on the GERALDO show in 1992 (where he appeared with Seaman) which I think sums up the whole case. Mintz said something like: "Pay no attention to Fred Seaman -- he's just another guy with a book to hawk. Pay no attention to me, Elliot Mintz -- as Fred points out, I do work for the Lennon Estate. What I suggest is, listen to John. Put on a John Lennon record. It will never lie to you. Listen to his voice, look into his eyes ... you'll know the truth".
|
|
|
Post by stavros on Mar 10, 2010 17:08:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Mar 10, 2010 17:09:08 GMT -5
Actually, I suspect there's more home truths in gossipy tell-all books, than in home videos and glossy, air-brushed press releases from the stars. Maybe, maybe not. It's interesting that most of the time these books are written after a person dies and isn't around to defend themselves or set the record straight, if there is indeed any untruth or exaggeration. And you can bet that if some of that garbage was slung at John while he was alive, he would have spoken up as he always had. But I just think it's so unfortunate that so many fans take practically everything they read in such books as "The Word". Sometimes maybe it is -- but others, maybe it's not.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Mar 10, 2010 17:09:48 GMT -5
Or as McCartney described him in his famous quote: "Since his death he's become sort of Martin Luthor Lennon. He wasn't some kind of holy saint. He could be a manuevering swine." Where does this quote come from, if I may ask? If I'm not mistaken it was from a McCartney interview in Rolling Stone. And its been widely reprinted in reputable books. I even used it in my own pot-boiler. Hard for me to dig up my bilbiography these days -- I'm homeless and all my notes are stashed in a storage locker on the other side of town. So bare with me.
|
|
|
Post by stavros on Mar 10, 2010 17:15:35 GMT -5
Where does this quote come from, if I may ask? If I'm not mistaken it was from a McCartney interview in Rolling Stone. And its been widely reprinted in reputable books. I even used it in my own pot-boiler. Hard for me to dig up my bilbiography these days -- I'm homeless and all my notes are stashed in a storage locker on the other side of town. So bare with me. No need pal. articles.latimes.com/1985-11-05/news/mn-4304_1_martin-luther-lennonFound it for you a minute or so before you posted. The Beatles were bastards sometimes. Just like most human beings are.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Mar 10, 2010 17:17:17 GMT -5
Yeah, apparently Macca first made the comments to Hunter Davies for an updated version of his Beatles bio.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Mar 10, 2010 17:20:45 GMT -5
Are MTV videos reality? Are movies reality? Can people clean-up and smile and hug when they know they are being filmed? Do we really know what is happening behind closed doors when the cameras aren't rolling? In a Paul McCartney's case? No. In a John Lennon's case? Absolutely. Are you and I talking about the same man? The man was candid, wrote about all his experiences and pains and fears and depressions and flaws, was an open book, said what was on his mind at the time, even when not to his best advantage. Doesn't mean I think he " never withheld anything", but again I am amazed even at having to point this out, because I would think it's so obvious to all his fans that this was just John Lennon. (and I wasn't talking about staged "MTV videos or The Movies", but personal footage and interviews).
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Mar 10, 2010 17:24:12 GMT -5
Actually, I suspect there's more home truths in gossipy tell-all books, than in home videos and glossy, air-brushed press releases from the stars. Maybe, maybe not. It's interesting that most of the time these books are written after a person dies and isn't around to defend themselves or set the record straight, if there is indeed any untruth or exaggeration. And you can bet that if some of that garbage was slung at John while he was alive, he would have spoken up as he always had. But I just think it's so unfortunate that so many fans take practically everything they read in such books as "The Word". Sometimes maybe it is -- but others, maybe it's not. What you say is quite true. What I like about the Pang and Shotton books is, at least according to them, Lennon urged both of them to tell their stories. He half joked to Pang: "When are you going to write "Pang Remembers." And he urged his childhod pal Shotton to cash in on the Beatles thing if he could. Hell, everybody else was. An offer Shotton declined until well after Lennon's death. And hell, Lennon hired Fred Seaman -- a goddam journalism major -- to observe him closely from behind the scenes. He'd have to be pretty naive not to think a book would come out of it. And in fact, I strongly suspect thats why he hired a guy like Seaman, because he WANTED his story told. But it was an ironic position, even for the Beatles themselves when it came to tell-all stuff. McCartney has said that he always felt hesitant to talk about Jane Asher -- though talk about her he did -- because she was just about the only person in the whole Beatles circle that didn't cash in with a tell-all book. And Lennon himself, criticized most of the books, not for their scurrilous nature, but like with the Hunter Davies bio -- he criticized it for "not going far enough." For sanitizing and excizing all the dirty home truths.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Mar 10, 2010 17:38:33 GMT -5
Yes. And I just feel John was plainly open about who he was all around, no real need for "tell-all" books. That's what made him so special, and why I'd always gravitated toward him as the most flawed, most human, most candid of the four Beatles. He always showed his warts, and when he was depressed he wrote and sang about it. No big mystery waiting to be unearthed there by others. I would have to say I think you're only half right here. Half the time Lennon was debunking the Beatles myth and showing himself "warts and all." But the other half of the time, in my opinion, he was the great spinner of the Beatles myth. That, to me, is one of the great enigmas, the great contradictions, about the man, John Lennon. That he seemed equal part truth-teller, and b.s. dispensor. Keep in mind, Lennon was an absolute master at media manipulation. He could project just about any image, any face, any impression, onto the media screen. Lennon often likened his approach to art to that of TV commercials (a medium he loved). Just as he famously compared his peace campaign to "advertising and selling peace, just like a product." And I think we all know the commercial advertising medium, at best, specializes in half-truths only. Just as I think most of the people on this board, would agree that there was probably a pretty big difference between the public image of the John-and-Yoko romance as presented by John and Yoko, as opposed to the real, behind-the-scenes story.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Mar 10, 2010 18:28:37 GMT -5
Yes. And I just feel John was plainly open about who he was all around, no real need for "tell-all" books. That's what made him so special, and why I'd always gravitated toward him as the most flawed, most human, most candid of the four Beatles. He always showed his warts, and when he was depressed he wrote and sang about it. No big mystery waiting to be unearthed there by others. I would have to say I think you're only half right here. Half the time Lennon was debunking the Beatles myth and showing himself "warts and all." But the other half of the time, in my opinion, he was the great spinner of the Beatles myth. That, to me, is one of the great enigmas, the great contradictions, about the man, John Lennon. That he seemed equal part truth-teller, and b.s. dispensor. Keep in mind, Lennon was an absolute master at media manipulation. He could project just about any image, any face, any impression, onto the media screen. Lennon often likened his approach to art to that of TV commercials (a medium he loved). Just as he famously compared his peace campaign to "advertising and selling peace, just like a product." And I think we all know the commercial advertising medium, at best, specializes in half-truths only. Just as I think most of the people on this board, would agree that there was probably a pretty big difference between the public image of the John-and-Yoko romance as presented by John and Yoko, as opposed to the real, behind-the-scenes story. Well said and that is pretty much where I fall on the candidness issue of John Ono Lennon. I still admire the heck out of the guy, contradictions and all. He is my favorite music artist. I went from being a Yoko admirer as a young Beatles' fan to a Yoko skeptic but back now to someone who at least respects her. She is a talented woman who obviously gave John what he needed. I just don't think that John was ever completely content in any aspect of his life nor could he ever be. That man had too many storms brewing in his head to ever be completely satisfied and that probably explains his genius. I wrote Yoko a condolence letter in December 1980 and I was pleasantly surprised when I got a signed postcard from her several years later. The postcard was plugging her 1985 Starpeace album but there was my first name and a little handwritten thank you note for my letter and a real signature(of course I can only presume it was Yoko's and not an aide's but it doesn't matter as it is the thought that counts). It was an awesome gesture by her and/or her staff.
|
|
|
Post by jimc on Mar 10, 2010 19:23:05 GMT -5
One need only look at the PR surrounding Lennon's return with Double Fantasy to recognize that he could hardly be called Mr. Truth. All of the house-husband, making-bread nonsense was image creation. There was a kernel of truth in it, but mostly it was illusion.
McCartney didn't have to create an illusion about the family life he and Linda led, did he?
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Mar 10, 2010 20:06:48 GMT -5
One need only look at the PR surrounding Lennon's return with Double Fantasy to recognize that he could hardly be called Mr. Truth. All of the house-husband, making-bread nonsense was image creation. There was a kernel of truth in it, but mostly it was illusion. McCartney didn't have to create an illusion about the family life he and Linda led, did he? Thats it exactly. Thats the truly weird thing about Lennon as so-called truth-sayer. And he did it constantly throughout his career. First he'd come out with some phony-baloney image (the Beatles "myth" if you will). Then next year, he'd debunk that myth as bullshit. And then he'd come out with -- no not the truth but -- yet another brand new myth. Only to be debunked next year, of course. Starting with Beatlemania -- this supposedly wholesome, clean-cut, fun-loving thing (only to be debunked later as a "Satyricon of pills and orgies" as well as nerve-wracking pressure). And it would go that way for the rest of his career. Projecting the myth of the psychedelic Beatles as cosmic shamans (only to be debunked later as "I was reading that stupid book by Leary and all that shit.") Followed by the Maharishi -- the Beatles had finally met a true spiritual master who got them off of drugs and showed them the true path (only to be debunked next year as Sexy Sadie, and back to drug-swilling for them Beatles). On and on. In his solo career, hooking up with radical activist Jerry Rubin as the guy who's going to help lead America to a bright new political future (only to be debunked next year: "Rubin got what he was always looking for all along, a cushy job in the system." And etc. So yeah, the whole myth of John as the happy, contented house-husband baking bread and warming the hearth, more b.s. wasn't it?
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Mar 11, 2010 3:17:18 GMT -5
But it was an ironic position, even for the Beatles themselves when it came to tell-all stuff. McCartney has said that he always felt hesitant to talk about Jane Asher -- though talk about her he did -- because she was just about the only person in the whole Beatles circle that didn't cash in with a tell-all book. IMO; The one person in the Beatles inner circle who did not cash in with a tell-all book and knew just about everything was Neil Aspinall. His respect for the privacy of all four was never compromised. Neal (and to a lesser extent Mal Evans), probably knew more about each Beatle's private affairs more than the Fabs knew about each other. He was the only one who could have painted an accurate picture to most of the controversial aspects of the bands experiences during their time together. And he took it all with him to his grave. RIP Neil. Your loyalty to the band was unquestioned, unshakeable, and non-judgemental. How lucky the Fabs were to have you as their confidente.
|
|
nine
Very Clean
Posts: 840
|
Post by nine on Mar 11, 2010 4:04:40 GMT -5
Where does this quote come from, if I may ask? If I'm not mistaken it was from a McCartney interview in Rolling Stone. And its been widely reprinted in reputable books. I even used it in my own pot-boiler. Hard for me to dig up my bilbiography these days -- I'm homeless and all my notes are stashed in a storage locker on the other side of town. So bare with me. I definitely remember this quote and I think it was from the 1980s. It would have been from when Macca was promoting Press To Play. I believe Keith Badman mentions the quote in is book.
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on Mar 11, 2010 5:06:11 GMT -5
If I'm not mistaken it was from a McCartney interview in Rolling Stone. And its been widely reprinted in reputable books. I even used it in my own pot-boiler. Hard for me to dig up my bilbiography these days -- I'm homeless and all my notes are stashed in a storage locker on the other side of town. So bare with me. No need pal. articles.latimes.com/1985-11-05/news/mn-4304_1_martin-luther-lennonFound it for you a minute or so before you posted. The Beatles were bastards sometimes. Just like most human beings are. Just read the article and those were pretty shocking things Paul said about John after he died. Quite sad actually. Just no need to be like that. I never got the impression from any of John's interviews that he was jealous of Paul, didn't appreciate his musical gifts etc.. none of that reads like that to me.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Mar 11, 2010 6:41:57 GMT -5
One need only look at the PR surrounding Lennon's return with Double Fantasy to recognize that he could hardly be called Mr. Truth. All of the house-husband, making-bread nonsense was image creation. There was a kernel of truth in it, but mostly it was illusion. McCartney didn't have to create an illusion about the family life he and Linda led, did he? Thats it exactly. Thats the truly weird thing about Lennon as so-called truth-sayer. And he did it constantly throughout his career. First he'd come out with some phony-baloney image (the Beatles "myth" if you will). Then next year, he'd debunk that myth as bullshit. And then he'd come out with -- no not the truth but -- yet another brand new myth. Only to be debunked next year, of course. Well, I'm afraid you guys aren't going to like this ... nobody does whenever I say this ... but then in my opinion you've completely missed who and what John Lennon was all about, and it's puzzling to me that you could actually be fans of his. John Lennon did not construct this "phoney wall of illusion", and I think it's a disgrace, quite frankly, that you believe that. If you honestly believe that his songs on DOUBLE FANTASY, for example, were all "fake jobs," then I just give up. IMO, you people have completely misjudged John. The whole "Beatles Image" thing was not John's idea. What are you even talking about? It was Brian Epstein who smoothed their image and presented them that way, the "squeaky clean moptops in suits". Paul was eager to go along, but it was always John who grudgingly conceded but was never comfortable with that bull, and always wanted to "break the myth". Do you follow the same Beatles history that I do? Are you sure we're talking about the same man here? Whenever there was a chance to show that the Beatles themselves were humans just like everyone else, he would do so -- whether it was shooting hismouth off with the "Jesus Quote," or championing the "Butcher Cover".... John was always confined within that "Happy go lucky Moptops" image. Wow, you really don't get John at all. Maybe I do because I am similar in that way -- that is, being really keen on something one moment, and then later going onto something else and changing your mind. I'm always changing my mind, getting really motivated and into something one time, then later re-thinking it and changing my views. Growing, changing, re-considering. Seeing life as a series of "grays" instead of all matters being in "all black and whites". Bottom line -- it wasn't that John was "lying" during most of these journeys; it was honestly how he felt about things at the time he was doing them, but perhaps later changed his stance. Having different takes on things and learning or changing one's mind and then going back and disavowing something you once said earlier isn't lying; it's changing and rethinking. I recently re-watched John's Dick Cavett interviews, and he admitted something to this effect. He said something like: "The press and everyone tries to hold you down to what you've said, but then you wake up and it's a different day. Your mood has changed, and your views are different". I understand what he means completely. It's not "lying". And the whole house husband thing - I think the problem here is that some of you need to have it all one way or the other. You think that if John was truly "as happy as he claimed", that you think he should never be down and instead should be bouncing off the walls all the time! When John says he was happy, that doesn't mean he wouldn't have his dark days as well. Doesn't mean that he "only" baked bread all day and did nothing else. Doesn't mean he didn't get holed up in his bedroom and was bored on many days, too - even had some bad ones. There are interviews with so many people who were close with the Lennons in that last period, and they all say John was really happy. You should listen to Ringo's near-tearful Barabra Walters 1981 interview too, saying "Oh man, they were happy" when Barabara asks if the Lennons were. What, did John put on some kind of PR act for Ringo too? Do you claim that John not only "lied" throughout all his songs on DOUBLE FANTASY, but also walked around "pretending" to act like a happy little kid in a candy shop all day long just for the sake of his associates and acquaintances?
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Mar 11, 2010 6:54:53 GMT -5
And hell, Lennon hired Fred Seaman -- a goddam journalism major -- to observe him closely from behind the scenes. He'd have to be pretty naive not to think a book would come out of it. And in fact, I strongly suspect thats why he hired a guy like Seaman, because he WANTED his story told. You're not being very consistent in your charges then. On the one hand you're claiming John Lennon was this huge fake who only devised "illusions", and then you're saying John wanted Fred around to observe and write about him, and that would mean Fred would be "exposing him as a fraud who was always unhappy and miserable" (if John was indeed in some sort of perpetual dark cloud of depression as Fred the Thief claims). And by the way -- how do we know that John wanted Fred for this? Because Fred says so? Not good enough for me. More power to him - but that's always been my point. Lennon was open and frank, and didn't go around trying to paint some phoney image of himself. Why would John allegedly "lie" or "put on some phoney illusion", if the man was always candid and WANTED all the dirt to be out there? You're being inconsistent. I say that whatever "dirty truths" there were, there were - and we'd know most of them, if not all of them. John would have wanted it that way and wouldn't have promoted an album to be some kind of "false and fabricated fairytale lie". I'd also wager that - while John was a fan of "dishing the dirt and having the dirty home truths exposed" - he would only want that when they were factual, not made up or exaggerated. And whores like Fred the Thief and Albert Goldman made things up, lied, and distorted. If John were alive and could read Fred's book, I'm betting he'd say: "Now Fred, I'm all for exposing myths and telling the dirty truths - hell, I do it all the time -, but you've made a lot of this stuff up."
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Mar 11, 2010 7:03:15 GMT -5
Where does this quote come from, if I may ask? If I'm not mistaken it was from a McCartney interview in Rolling Stone. And its been widely reprinted in reputable books. IF this came from a RS interview, then I'd believe it. Or if it came from Paul on camera, or with his own voice. It's just that I don't usually hear Paul being as open and honest as this, which is refreshing to hear if it's his real words. As for the Beatles "also being human and could be right bastards", certainly I agree. I wasn't denying that John Lennon could be -- just that Paul would have the balls to say it publicly in some form.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Mar 11, 2010 7:12:13 GMT -5
I just don't think that John was ever completely content in any aspect of his life nor could he ever be. That man had too many storms brewing in his head to ever be completely satisfied and that probably explains his genius. I tend to be the same way (please, guys - there's no need to accuse me of "trying to think I'm John Lennon"; I'm not -- I'm just saying I have some similar personality traits ) . I also have a lot of storms brewing in my head, and I am not always satisfied in life. My mind is always going; I'm always more pre-occupied than I'd like in order to just relax and enjoy life to its fullest. Which is perhaps why I can understand and better relate to the Lennon Mystique, if you will. JSD - my opinion is that Lennon finally DID find that "satisfaction" he'd been searching for during the end of his life, or let me say he came as close to finding as much satisfaction as John Lennon would ever be able to find. That is part of the tragedy that, just at this time, John's life was taken away. But had he lived, he would probably have grown disastisfied again at some later point -- but that wouldn't mean he had been "lying" in 1980.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Mar 11, 2010 10:35:05 GMT -5
I just don't think that John was ever completely content in any aspect of his life nor could he ever be. That man had too many storms brewing in his head to ever be completely satisfied and that probably explains his genius. I tend to be the same way (please, guys - there's no need to accuse me of "trying to think I'm John Lennon"; I'm not -- I'm just saying I have some similar personality traits ) . I also have a lot of storms brewing in my head, and I am not always satisfied in life. My mind is always going; I'm always more pre-occupied than I'd like in order to just relax and enjoy life to its fullest. Which is perhaps why I can understand and better relate to the Lennon Mystique, if you will. JSD - my opinion is that Lennon finally DID find that "satisfaction" he'd been searching for during the end of his life, or let me say he came as close to finding as much satisfaction as John Lennon would ever be able to find. That is part of the tragedy that, just at this time, John's life was taken away. But had he lived, he would probably have grown disastisfied again at some later point -- but that wouldn't mean he had been "lying" in 1980. I think John was at a happy point right when he was murdered and I agree with you that that could have changed in the future. I think that John was really happy when he got his songwriting muse back in Bermuda in 1980. Even John himself has said that when he had to steer that sailboat through the storm something reignited in him. John did something very important on his own for once: seeing that he and a crew of strangers stayed safe at sea during a storm, a true life or death experience. Now John was writing songs, he had a healthy, beautiful four year old boy and Yoko seemed to have been inspired by John's resurgent artistry. Let's face it, John and Yoko were artists happiest when creating their respective art. I think John needed at first the househusband break of 1975 to mid-1980 but once Sean was safely born and growing, he and Yoko got terribly restless being in self-imposed exile. Once John's songwriting muse came back as it apparently did in Bermuda, he had the best of both worlds. Yoko could then create music too and both were happy. So I believe that about half of the househusband years were weird, unsatisfying ones for John and Yoko whether or not they publicly admitted it. My opinion is formed on the many different books I have read. I fall in the group which believes that the truth is somewhere in the middle for those five years. But yeah, John seemed pumped and happy from Bermuda to December 8, 1980. I could be all wet either way though. It is just my take.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Mar 11, 2010 12:07:58 GMT -5
You're not being very consistent in your charges then. On the one hand you're claiming John Lennon was this huge fake who only devised "illusions", No, I'm saying John was HALF fake. Which is a much better batting average than most people in the media biz. But don't get me wrong. I think John Lennon was an artistic genius. A rare, one in a million genius. All the stuff I'm quibbling about and criticizing here is just minor league shit compared to that fact. One of the great things about the Beatles is, you can engage them on whatever level you want to enter. A person can simply enjoy all that great music without having to know anything about the Beatles personally. Or somebody else might be fascinated by the year and day the Revolver album was released, and how George Martin's assistant miked Paul's bass guitar sound and what brand of bass strings he was using, and what exactly Paul was referring to in the third line of "Eleanor Rigby" and how it culturally impacted on a generation of Baby Boomers. And etc. Personally, I find it interesting to dig a little bit behind the facade of the generally accepted Beatles myth. Its just a weird party sport with me. Lennon was the "dream-weaver" in more ways than one. Sometimes he seemed to get lost in the illusions of the dream images he himself was culling up.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Mar 11, 2010 12:19:01 GMT -5
I think John was at a happy point right when he was murdered and I agree with you that that could have changed in the future.. I think thats true. In Seaman's book he writes about one of John's final days. A VILLAGE VOICE type newspaper had just published a big cover story interview with Yoko entitled "Yoko Only." And they both sat at the kitchen table avidly and joyously reading the thing. And you got the sense it made John happier seeing Yoko getting some much deserved credit for a change than if he himself was getting the credit (they ended up buying up 50 copies of the paper for themselves). Though it was hellishly ironic a day or two later, after the murder, when Seaman is walking through the streets of New York seeing the headline "Yoko Only" blaring out from all the newspaper racks. Its also worth noting that in Lennon's pocket the day he died -- another terrible irony -- was a cassette dub of Yoko's song "Walking on Thin Ice" which they had been working on mixes in the studio that day. One of the best pieces of work by Yoko in my opinion. And it kinda' makes you sigh at what might have been, seeing that they seemed to be working together so well near the end and working towards a new peak.
|
|