Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2010 7:34:39 GMT -5
And I don't believe that Yoko didn't love John from the very beginning and was out to snag John for other reasons besides loving him.Ignorant people who actually still claim that Yoko keeps putting out John merchandise just to make money(she doesn't really need more money anyway,John was a millionaire,and she made and still makes some of her own money from her work as an artist herself in addition) off of his memory are so totally wrong! I always knew that she does it because she still loves John very deeply,and she wants to keep huis memory alive as the great music artist and art artist he really was because he was so tragically killed at only age 40 by a crazy fan.And I was always right,because I recently read an old interview with her on this very site where she says pretty much excatly what I said. Right on. Lucy, I need you on this board! I hope you'll join me and Snookeroo in the good cause of defending JohnandYoko from some of their self-titled "beast friends", when the circumstances require it! Well, Joe I don't really understand why you have to need me and Snookeroo on this *Beatles* fan board to defend JohnandYoko in the first place at all.It just doesn't make any sense that fans hate Yoko,and or don't get their great love and relationship which clearly changed John for the much better! And I feel so sorry for Yoko that she not only lost her great and only love,but in such a horrible cruel brutal way and like Jackie Kennedy was right there to witness it! And she raised Sean from age 5 pretty much by herslf and look how good he turned out in spite of Sean losing his father at only 5 and in such a horrible way.And even though she had a boy friend for many years after John died,nobody ever seems to notice or give her credit for the fact that she *never* married again,even after 30 years since John died and that is because she still loves him deeply and is still loyal and devoted to him!
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Nov 25, 2010 8:35:03 GMT -5
She continues to release his stuff with fanfare because it gets her in the spotlight which was what she always wanted but didn't have the talent to do. Yeah, she is all over the place. Just like Lady Gaga or Jennifer Aniston. Every day, on every TV station, on every magazine cover. Right? Wrong. The woman is practically a recluse. Why do you not slap the wrists of other people who keep the memories of other people alive after they're dead? Would you respect Yoko any more if she had not released one single thing in memory of John during the past 30 years? And yeah, she was John's equal. At least that's how they both saw it, and that is how a relationship is supposed to be.
|
|
nine
Very Clean
Posts: 840
|
Post by nine on Nov 25, 2010 9:06:14 GMT -5
She continues to release his stuff with fanfare because it gets her in the spotlight which was what she always wanted but didn't have the talent to do. Yeah, she is all over the place. Just like Lady Gaga or Jennifer Aniston. Every day, on every TV station, on every magazine cover. Right? Wrong. The woman is practically a recluse. Why do you not slap the wrists of other people who keep the memories of other people alive after they're dead? Would you respect Yoko any more if she had not released one single thing in memory of John during the past 30 years? And yeah, she was John's equal. At least that's how they both saw it, and that is how a relationship is supposed to be. I meant artistic level.
|
|
nine
Very Clean
Posts: 840
|
Post by nine on Nov 25, 2010 9:10:03 GMT -5
Right on. Lucy, I need you on this board! I hope you'll join me and Snookeroo in the good cause of defending JohnandYoko from some of their self-titled "beast friends", when the circumstances require it! Well, Joe I don't really understand why you have to need me and Snookeroo on this *Beatles* fan board to defend JohnandYoko in the first place at all.It just doesn't make any sense that fans hate Yoko,and or don't get their great love and relationship which clearly changed John for the much better! And I feel so sorry for Yoko that she not only lost her great and only love,but in such a horrible cruel brutal way and like Jackie Kennedy was right there to witness it! And she raised Sean from age 5 pretty much by herslf and look how good he turned out in spite of Sean losing his father at only 5 and in such a horrible way.And even though she had a boy friend for many years after John died,nobody ever seems to notice or give her credit for the fact that she *never* married again,even after 30 years since John died and that is because she still loves him deeply and is still loyal and devoted to him! She's an old dragon. Get over it. I'm not going any further on this because nothing anybody says is gonna change my opinion. 'though I must say I laughed at this.. "she raised Sean from age 5 pretty much by herslf and look how good he turned out" What about the 5000 nannies they had? ;D
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Nov 25, 2010 9:17:34 GMT -5
She's an old dragon. Get over it. I think you need to get over the Beatles breakup. Oh, I can see that for sure! It's why people love to comfortably and stubbornly cling to their old scapegoat: "I hate evil Yoko (well, I don't really 'hate' her, because I don't 'hate' anybody) and I think she sucks - it's what I like to believe and I don't wanna look at this properly! Waaaaahhhh!!! Waaaaahhhh!!!" LOL! ;D That's right, keep up those desperate exaggerations. 5,000 nannies. Yep. Maybe it was more like 10,000...?
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Nov 25, 2010 9:19:16 GMT -5
I got that. And I think both J&Y thought they were "artistic equals". It could be said that when it came to Yoko's type of avant garde conceptual art, she was "At the Top Of Her Game" in that area. One of the "best", so to speak. Just as John was "one of the best" in music.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2010 9:20:56 GMT -5
It was *not* insensitive of Yoko at all,if she didn't do as *John requested* of her to go with him to The Beatles recording sessions,he likely would just not have gone at all anymore! And I don't believe that Yoko didn't love John from the very beginning and was out to snag John for other reasons besides loving him.Ignorant people who actually still claim that Yoko keeps putting out John merchandise just to make money(she doesn't really need more money anyway,John was a millionaire,and she made and still makes some of her own money from her work as an artist herself in addition) off of his memory are so totally wrong! I always knew that she does it because she still loves John very deeply,and she wants to keep his memory alive as the great music artist and art artist he really was because he was so tragically killed at only age 40 by a crazy fan.And I was always right,because I recently read an old interview with her on this very site where she says pretty much excatly what I said. If she clearly recognised that he was a great artist why did she think she was his equal? She continues to release his stuff with fanfare because it gets her in the spotlight which was what she always wanted but didn't have the talent to do. You are very wrong, and what I said is what is the truth! If you or any other members can't see this, I can't really understand why you consider yourselves John/Beatles fans! And Yoko,was already a successful Avant- Garde artist years before she met John,(that is after all how he met Yoko at one of her own shows at the Indica Gallery in November 1966)and as rock photographer,and John's friend and photographer for 9 years Bob Gruen pointed out in his great book,John Lennon The New York Years, the fact that Yoko already had her own woman show by the time she met John was an incredible acclomplishment,and he says that for a woman to be included in a art show of many would have been impressive for a woman at the time and he said but for a woman to have her own show was almost unheard of. And *John* himself always said he regarded Yoko as his equal!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2010 9:31:32 GMT -5
Well, Joe I don't really understand why you have to need me and Snookeroo on this *Beatles* fan board to defend JohnandYoko in the first place at all.It just doesn't make any sense that fans hate Yoko,and or don't get their great love and relationship which clearly changed John for the much better! And I feel so sorry for Yoko that she not only lost her great and only love,but in such a horrible cruel brutal way and like Jackie Kennedy was right there to witness it! And she raised Sean from age 5 pretty much by herslf and look how good he turned out in spite of Sean losing his father at only 5 and in such a horrible way.And even though she had a boy friend for many years after John died,nobody ever seems to notice or give her credit for the fact that she *never* married again,even after 30 years since John died and that is because she still loves him deeply and is still loyal and devoted to him! She's an old dragon. Get over it. I'm not going any further on this because nothing anybody says is gonna change my opinion. 'though I must say I laughed at this.. "she raised Sean from age 5 pretty much by herslf and look how good he turned out" What about the 5000 nannies they had? ;D As I said Yoko *pretty much* raised Sean by herself as a single widowed parent. And Sean only has great loving things to say about his mother! Transcript 26/5/2000 Yoko Ono on John Lennon KERRY O'BRIEN: What do you say about Yoko Ono? Figure of controversy as avant-garde Japanese artist who became a figure of hatred to many John Lennon fans because she was an independent-minded woman who dared to marry one of the Beatles in the '60s, and who was blamed by many for the band's break-up. Lennon's assassination at the front of their New York apartment 11 years later was one of those moments seared into the souls of a generation. Now, the Beatles are about to re-enter the limelight with a book written by the three remaining band members and drawing on previously unpublished materials of Lennon. Still a very active artist at 67, and one of the wealthiest women in America, Yoko Ono is in Australia for the Sydney Biennale. I spoke with her at the Art Gallery of NSW. Yoko Ono, given the rather startling backdrop here today, it would be foolish of me to start this interview with anything other than talking about your work, so what is it that coffins and trees have in common, apart from wood and perhaps the fact that one is about death and that the other is still living? YOKO ONO: Well, that's precisely the point, that we all have to one day pass over, pass away, but I thought that it's nice to sort of show that there is a regeneration, that the trees would be growing anyway. KERRY O'BRIEN: How do you define what is at the core of your art, and has that changed over the years? YOKO ONO: Well, I just can't be that objective about my work, so you'd better ask the critics about that, maybe, but usually it works. I mean, usually something that comes from my life itself, it's very biographical, I think. KERRY O'BRIEN: You've talked once about one thing that you and John had in common -- that while you were both shy and insecure as people, you were arrogant as artists, and that that arrogance gave you a confidence in your work that allowed you to tough it out, if you like. Is that so? YOKO ONO: Yes, Kerry. I think that -- you're right, that the fact that I have so much confidence in my work has helped me through, and in that sense, I have an easier time with my work than my true life, my life itself. KERRY O'BRIEN: As a person, how tough has it been for you being painted as the evil woman who broke up the Beatles, the woman who dared to marry John Lennon and even dared to influence his life? YOKO ONO: Well, yes, I was surprised that people were so interested in the fact that we got married, and of course they were interested. Now I understand why. But surprised at the extent of intense hatred towards me, because I didn't think I deserved that, and there are still some people like that. KERRY O'BRIEN: It really struck me that even Sean has felt forced to defend you over the years. One of his lines, "She is the antithesis of evil. How she ever got the reputation of being a dragon lady I'll never know." YOKO ONO: That's true. KERRY O'BRIEN: Sean has also said of you, Yoko -- he rejects that you're lost in the past. "She's a realistic person and she knows John is gone, but his presence is very strong in the apartment and in our lives. It's overwhelming. "Everywhere we go, we're looked at in terms of him. "He is everything. We haven't said goodbye to him on that level." Do you empathise with that? YOKO ONO: Oh, my son! KERRY O'BRIEN: It sounds pretty insightful, doesn't it? YOKO ONO: I think so, and very articulate. It's true, John's still with us in a way, and our apartment is full of memories. KERRY O'BRIEN: But again, it's that giant shadow, like wherever you go, you may be Yoko Ono, but you will always be John Lennon's widow. YOKO ONO: Well, I don't mind that so much. I think that if anything -- well, living under a beautiful shade like him is great, I think. KERRY O'BRIEN: John clearly went through a lot of pain in his life, and in the 11 years with you he was obviously still suffering torment at times -- I mean, the primal therapy, the efforts to find himself, that extraordinary song, 'Mother' -- "Mother, you had me, But I never had you." How would you describe his state of mind by the end of his life? YOKO ONO: Well, I think that he had a lot of anger in him and restlessness and all that, and towards the end, I think he suddenly blossomed into somebody who was really very peaceful and beautiful. I know that sounds sort of like, "Oh, yes, really?" ..but I think that happens to some people just before they die, or something like that, and of course I didn't know that that was to do with death, but there's something about him that was sort of much clearer, wiser, hmm. KERRY O'BRIEN: I read that while he was making 'Double Fantasy', that he asked for a tape to run virtually non-stop over the period of the sessions in the studio, and it almost became a kind of oral history of many aspects of his life -- is that so? YOKO ONO: Well, that's a myth. Of course the tape was running, but it was to do with what we were doing at the time, so it was like he would be instructing the engineer what to do, or whatever. KERRY O'BRIEN: Is there material on tape of John being reflective about aspects of his life? YOKO ONO: Oh, definitely, definitely. I think that that book is going to be very interesting, because John's part was constructed by getting all the interview bits that he did instead of just kind of putting together something. It was really precisely the quotes, and so I think that's very interesting. And some of the quotes I'm sure that I was even surprised at -- "How did they dig that up", you know? It was good. KERRY O'BRIEN: Yoko Ono, thanks very much for talking with us. YOKO ONO: Nice talking to you, Kerry. Transcripts on this website are created by an independent transcription service. The ABC does not warrant the accuracy of the transcripts. Front Page Coming Up | Story Archive About Us Top Sites Around Australia email: using this form. © 2010 ABC Privacy Policy
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Nov 25, 2010 9:33:50 GMT -5
If you or any other members can't see this, I can't really understand why you consider yourselves John/Beatles fans! As you may or may not know, Lucy, the mods here (well, I'm not sure about Steve but I know in the case of John S. Damm) don't care for the "I can't really understand why you consider yourselves fans" thing. Of course, I happen to agree with you completely on this ... I cannot for the life of me "understand" this either. But the reason I am writing this is to explain just that. All we are saying is that "we cannot UNDERSTAND". We're not denying others their right to still be "fans". In particular I mean I cannot understand John Lennon Fans.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Nov 25, 2010 10:40:27 GMT -5
LOL. This documentary may have turned people off Lennon! A good friend of mine, a songwriter herself, has always been an enthusiastic John Lennon fan even though she has not read a lot about his life. She goes 99% by his music in her enthusiasm about him. Well, she watched this documentary last night and now she thinks that John was a big egomaniac "prick" and it lessens her opinion of his music! She totally sympathizes with Yoko to the extent of writing John off. Hmm. I am not sure that is the effect they were going for with this documentary but you mentioned your surprise too, lowbasso, about John's behavior and you are a hardcore fan! I just chuckled as John lost at least one fan by this documentary. That is totally different from what I saw as the real John,I felt this great documetary showed what I always understod,and what award winning music journalist and former editor of THe Melody Maker for 20 years,and close friend of John's for 18 years from 1962-1980,Ray Coleman so empathetically wrote about John in his great thorough John biography,Lennon.John was emotionally scarred and messed up for most of his life and in a lot of pain because of the traumas he had in his childhood and teens,but I'm sure he was not a bad person for the most part,I think he was really a sensitive good person underneath all along,just mentally sick for most of his life,but he was definitely much more emotionally together and sweet at the end sadly.And that is who the *real* john really always was under all of the emotional pain and anger. I love John *more* as a person(and artist)(and made me feel even sadder that he was taken away and so horribly) after seeing this show. I knew for years already about how he cheated on Yoko when she was right there,and yes that was terrible and it's not an excuse but this is an explaination which even Yoko herslef said she uncerstood,he was in a bad emotional state and very drunk,and as Jack Douglas said(and Eliot Mintz says this in Lennon by Ray Coleman) that John and alcohol were a very bad combination he never could handle it well and it had a really bad effect on him,thank God he eventually cleaned up and got off of it during the last 5 years of his life.And he had a good conscious,he felt very guilty about the things he did including this which was made very clear in this program.At least he did have a concious and regretted and felt sorry for the wrong things he did and actually worked on himself and changed for the better,that is a lot more than a lot of men(and some women do),many wife beaters and rapists never feel any remorse and never try to work on themseles and change! Paul McCartney for the most part isn't a bastard,but a sweet person,but after he and beautiful British red haired actress Jane Asher were lovers for five years from April 1963 when she was only 17 and a virgin,and Paul was 21( and far from a virgin since he lost his virginity at only age 15 in 1957 which was not common then with a girl who was bigger and older than him) and she and Paul lived together in their own house from 1966-Spring 1968 when after they were engaged to be married for 7 months,Jane came home unexpectedly early from touring with her theatre company,she found Paul in their bed with another woman and she left Paul for good! George cheated on Pattie including with Ringo's first wife Maureen,and John,George, and Ringo all also cheated on their first wives with tons of young women groupies,many who were teenage girls,when they were touring from 1963-1966 and this was a very common part of the rock and roll life style especially in the 1960's. John said in his last interviews that he regretted being violent getting into fights with men and hitting women,and said that is why he felt so strongly about being peaceful and promoting peace.Yoko changed him for the better,because of their love,and great relationship and her feminism,John went into scream therapy with psychologist Dr.Arthur Janov and dealt with his traumas for the first time,and he made a brilliant album out of it,his first solo album,John Lennon Plastic Ono Band and he became a feminist,and a nurturing caring husband and father to Yoko and his son Sean.If you listen to the radio interviews he did hours before it happened,he sounded much more together,and happy and not angry and bitter any more.He talked about how he regretted not spending enough time with his first son Julian and that he was in his 20's like most men too involed with their careers to be a real involed father.He said that he regretted this and that he and Julian would have a relationship in the future. And it was also very brave and great of John to co-write and sing on The Dick Cavet Show and in the Madison Square Garden concerts both in 1972 the powerful and sadly still true,feminist song,Woman Is The Ni**er of The World,and it was banned off of the radio,and on The Dick Cavet show,shown in LENNONYC he sweetly and clearly explained what this song was really about and why he and Yoko wrote it and performed it. As a poster on Paul McCartney.com said in discussing this great show,that Tom Hayden pointed out how John and Yoko worked hard on behalf of many different social injustices.And John's great live performance of John Sinclair at that concert on his behalf,helped get him out of jail 48 hours later! And as many problems John had,he(and Paul McCartney) gave millions of people happiness with their musical brilliance,and John never would have shot and killed anyone! You are preaching to the choir! But thank you for tha! I was commenting on a friend who was a casual fan who saw the documentary and now thinks John was an egomanic "prick." I am right to say the makers of this documentary probably didn't want to turn people off John; that wasn't their intention. And my friend came away really liking Yoko so this was no Yoko bashing thing. I wasn't happy that my friend felt like this and I explained the whole "Saint Lennon" thing that built up after John's murder and that John himself never considered himself a saint and recognized his flaws(of course after the fact, after he'd hurt Yoko, Julian, Sean or whoever). I defended John along the same lines as your post. I wan't gloating about my friend being mad at John, to the contrary, I was just thinking that wasn't the intent of the filmmaker! Happy Thanksgiving everyone!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2010 11:14:35 GMT -5
That is totally different from what I saw as the real John,I felt this great documetary showed what I always understod,and what award winning music journalist and former editor of THe Melody Maker for 20 years,and close friend of John's for 18 years from 1962-1980,Ray Coleman so empathetically wrote about John in his great thorough John biography,Lennon.John was emotionally scarred and messed up for most of his life and in a lot of pain because of the traumas he had in his childhood and teens,but I'm sure he was not a bad person for the most part,I think he was really a sensitive good person underneath all along,just mentally sick for most of his life,but he was definitely much more emotionally together and sweet at the end sadly.And that is who the *real* john really always was under all of the emotional pain and anger. I love John *more* as a person(and artist)(and made me feel even sadder that he was taken away and so horribly) after seeing this show. I knew for years already about how he cheated on Yoko when she was right there,and yes that was terrible and it's not an excuse but this is an explaination which even Yoko herslef said she uncerstood,he was in a bad emotional state and very drunk,and as Jack Douglas said(and Eliot Mintz says this in Lennon by Ray Coleman) that John and alcohol were a very bad combination he never could handle it well and it had a really bad effect on him,thank God he eventually cleaned up and got off of it during the last 5 years of his life.And he had a good conscious,he felt very guilty about the things he did including this which was made very clear in this program.At least he did have a concious and regretted and felt sorry for the wrong things he did and actually worked on himself and changed for the better,that is a lot more than a lot of men(and some women do),many wife beaters and rapists never feel any remorse and never try to work on themseles and change! Paul McCartney for the most part isn't a bastard,but a sweet person,but after he and beautiful British red haired actress Jane Asher were lovers for five years from April 1963 when she was only 17 and a virgin,and Paul was 21( and far from a virgin since he lost his virginity at only age 15 in 1957 which was not common then with a girl who was bigger and older than him) and she and Paul lived together in their own house from 1966-Spring 1968 when after they were engaged to be married for 7 months,Jane came home unexpectedly early from touring with her theatre company,she found Paul in their bed with another woman and she left Paul for good! George cheated on Pattie including with Ringo's first wife Maureen,and John,George, and Ringo all also cheated on their first wives with tons of young women groupies,many who were teenage girls,when they were touring from 1963-1966 and this was a very common part of the rock and roll life style especially in the 1960's. John said in his last interviews that he regretted being violent getting into fights with men and hitting women,and said that is why he felt so strongly about being peaceful and promoting peace.Yoko changed him for the better,because of their love,and great relationship and her feminism,John went into scream therapy with psychologist Dr.Arthur Janov and dealt with his traumas for the first time,and he made a brilliant album out of it,his first solo album,John Lennon Plastic Ono Band and he became a feminist,and a nurturing caring husband and father to Yoko and his son Sean.If you listen to the radio interviews he did hours before it happened,he sounded much more together,and happy and not angry and bitter any more.He talked about how he regretted not spending enough time with his first son Julian and that he was in his 20's like most men too involed with their careers to be a real involed father.He said that he regretted this and that he and Julian would have a relationship in the future. And it was also very brave and great of John to co-write and sing on The Dick Cavet Show and in the Madison Square Garden concerts both in 1972 the powerful and sadly still true,feminist song,Woman Is The Ni**er of The World,and it was banned off of the radio,and on The Dick Cavet show,shown in LENNONYC he sweetly and clearly explained what this song was really about and why he and Yoko wrote it and performed it. As a poster on Paul McCartney.com said in discussing this great show,that Tom Hayden pointed out how John and Yoko worked hard on behalf of many different social injustices.And John's great live performance of John Sinclair at that concert on his behalf,helped get him out of jail 48 hours later! And as many problems John had,he(and Paul McCartney) gave millions of people happiness with their musical brilliance,and John never would have shot and killed anyone! You are preaching to the choir! But thank you for tha! I was commenting on a friend who was a casual fan who saw the documentary and now thinks John was an egomanic "prick." I am right to say the makers of this documentary probably didn't want to turn people off John; that wasn't their intention. And my friend came away really liking Yoko so this was no Yoko bashing thing. I wasn't happy that my friend felt like this and I explained the whole "Saint Lennon" thing that built up after John's murder and that John himself never considered himself a saint and recognized his flaws(of course after the fact, after he'd hurt Yoko, Julian, Sean or whoever). I defended John along the same lines as your post. I wan't gloating about my friend being mad at John, to the contrary, I was just thinking that wasn't the intent of the filmmaker! John Lennon Happy Thanksgiving everyone! Thanks John but why then don't you show your friend my posts ;D. Also,ask her to please read Ray Coleman's excellent biography,Lennon and he knew and loved John and totally understood him and his faults and why he was that way,and ask your friend to listen to John's very last radio extensive interview done hours before he was killed,there is going to be a new rebroadcast all over the country December 3-10 now called,John Lennon:The Final Interview of this long December 8,1980 radio interview by Dave Shollin and Laurie Kaye etc from RKO Radio that was orginally called,John Lennon:The Man,The Memory that was aired December 14 1980.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2010 11:25:39 GMT -5
If you or any other members can't see this, I can't really understand why you consider yourselves John/Beatles fans! As you may or may not know, Lucy, the mods here (well, I'm not sure about Steve but I know in the case of John S. Damm) don't care for the "I can't really understand why you consider yourselves fans" thing. Of course, I happen to agree with you completely on this ... I cannot for the life of me "understand" this either. But the reason I am writing this is to explain just that. All we are saying is that "we cannot UNDERSTAND". We're not denying others their right to still be "fans". In particular I mean I cannot understand John Lennon Fans.I'm sorry but if someone is a Beatles/John Lennon fan on a fan board,it's really incomprehensible how they can(irrationally) hate Yoko and they can't accept and understand something very simple,John really deeply loved Yoko and Yoko really deeply loved and still loves John,and they made each other really happy and Yoko clearly changed John very much for the better! And I can't understand what you mean Joe,when you said you cannot understand John Lennon fans and you even have a picture of John as your avatar.Do you mean you can't especially understand how John Lennon fans would be this way?
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Nov 25, 2010 12:40:08 GMT -5
And I can't understand what you mean Joe,when you said you cannot understand John Lennon fans and you even have a picture of John as your avatar.Do you mean you can't especially understand how John Lennon fans would be this way? I don't understand how people can be "John Lennon Fans" and yet not realize all these things you and I have said about him, like his need for Yoko and their special JohnandYoko bond. I am in agreement with you. When I said "especially" John fans, I meant that I can understand people who are primarily "Beatles Fans" sometimes resenting Yoko (they feel she broke up their "precious band") . However, if they're especially "John Lennon Fans," they ought to accept her and feel happy for John. The John fans refusing to accept Yoko confuses me more than the Beatles fans' refusal to accept her.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Nov 25, 2010 12:42:28 GMT -5
I am right to say the makers of this documentary probably didn't want to turn people off John; that wasn't their intention. But I'd guess that aside from your friend, nobody else was turned off to him from the documentary. She's probably one in a million. Like me, they probably could never fathom that this would turn people off to him.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Nov 25, 2010 14:59:49 GMT -5
Joe, I saw the doc last evening as well and I have to say it does put Yoko in a different light for me. Now I still think she was out to snag John in 1968 for reasons more than just love at first site, she knew exactly which "buttons" to push to get John interested in her, as well as her insensitivity at putting herself in the studio with the band during the making of their last three albums, making the others very uncomfortable. Even if John wanted her there, she knew it was not the right thing to do and should have insisted John go to the studio alone when working with the others. But watching last evening it certainly showed John for the insensitive prick he was when Nixon won re-election in 1972, and John and Yoko went to the party where John grabbed a girl and proceeded to have sex with her in an adjacent room while Yoko and the others had to "listen" to the activity through the walls, completely embarrassing Yoko. I would have done more than send him off to LA on a Lost Weekend with his secretary as "punishment" for the event. But we all know how insensitive John could be toward just about anybody, friend, foe, even wives. It's no wonder he had relatively few close friends. After seeing "Nowhere Boy", one can see how screwed up John was, given his upbringing, and the chips on his shoulder were quite sizable as a result. Everyone he knew paid a price for those chips. Yoko came across quite well in last evening's documentary, probably better here than anything else written or filmed about her association with John. Kudos to her for her mature commentary on all subjects she spoke about in the documentary. BTW, It's a shame Paul was not interviewed for the documentary to give his opinions on John during this period, given he did see him occasionally in NYC and LA. Yoko's plea at the end of the documentary of "He was an artist, why did you have to kill him?" is quite moving and jarring in its delivery, especially as she was off camera at the moment she made this comment. It left me speechless at the end of the show for quite a while. It is quite a good essay on John's decade after The Beatles, and I believe it is already available on DVD at PBS' website if you want to order it. It was *not* insensitive of Yoko at all,if she didn't do as *John requested* of her to go with him to The Beatles recording sessions,he likely would just not have gone at all anymore! And I don't believe that Yoko didn't love John from the very beginning and was out to snag John for other reasons besides loving him.Ignorant people who actually still claim that Yoko keeps putting out John merchandise just to make money(she doesn't really need more money anyway,John was a millionaire,and she made and still makes some of her own money from her work as an artist herself in addition) off of his memory are so totally wrong! I always knew that she does it because she still loves John very deeply,and she wants to keep his memory alive as the great music artist and art artist he really was because he was so tragically killed at only age 40 by a crazy fan.And I was always right,because I recently read an old interview with her on this very site where she says pretty much excatly what I said. Yoko first hit on Paul trying to get him interested in her work before she turned to John. Yoko is a very intelligent and shrewd individual. John, in 1966, was a very famous, on his way to becoming very rich, individual. He was also very insecure, unhappy in his marraige, and desparately looking for a female to replace his Aunt Mimi and his mother, who had died 9 years earlier as a dominant "mother" figure in his life. Cynthia could not provide this to him. John gave Yoko a venue to bring her avant guarde interests to a much larger public. So both of them had needs the other provided. And yes, they did fall in love as well. Yoko should have respected John's role and work with The Beatles. She had no business sitting in on their recording sessions in '68-69'. And she was smart enough to know that. And insist to John she would not interfere with his work in that direction. And if John had decided to not attend Beatles recording sessions because Yoko wanted to stay away, then he could have made that choice. I doubt he would have. Until that period, John had, along with the others, always insisted the band worked alone in the studio, aside from Mal & Neil. They even made Brian feel uncomfortable when he would occasionally attend sessions. He used Yoko by insisting she attend the sessions, knowing it would irritate the others and aggravate everyone. And Yoko could see that for herself when she was at the sessions. But did she insist to John that she would prefer not to attend? No. Yoko did not break up The Beatles. But she should have known better what her presence was doing to the band. And I think John would have respected her decision to not attend if she had insisted, because he really did love her. So, IMO, she was very insensitive when it came to this affair. So was John as well. But John was insensitive about a lot of things and especially to his friends his whole life. Yoko should have known better.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Nov 25, 2010 16:57:56 GMT -5
Yoko first hit on Paul trying to get him interested in her work before she turned to John. Oh, let that go already. Whatever happened in the beginning, the end result was that once Yoko and John hooked up together, it was fireworks -- GENUINE fireworks. It doesn't matter that Yoko wanted to see Paul for some help first, or whatever it was. But OK, so she looked to Paul for a handout first. First of all, this is largely Paul's story, and I've recently re-watched my tape of him on the Howard Stern TV show in 2001 saying "This is how I remember it", completely taking into account that he may have gotten it wrong, but this was his recollection. As you admit, they DID fall in love and that's all that matters. I agree. And I started an entire thread conceding that. However, this was 42 years ago! Can't you just let that go? Yoko DID hang around the recording studio, John DID allow it to happen, and that's that. What's done is done. This is the problem with Beatle fan discussions (and I do include myself here as well). We all have different "viewpoints and opinions" about what happened or what would have happend "if".. But you know, it could also be that John was naive. He often admitted to being naive, and he claimed that he had no idea he was going to be so disapproved by his beast friends. So do we really "know" that John set about to irritate and annoy the others, or that he just wanted his "mother" there? OK, true. But it happened. Now what? The Beatles broke up 40 years ago. John died 30 years ago. Yoko still is here and tries to do the best she can for his memory. Can't we all just get along with the whole JohnandYoko thing?
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Nov 25, 2010 17:32:52 GMT -5
Yoko first hit on Paul trying to get him interested in her work before she turned to John. Oh, let that go already. Whatever happened in the beginning, the end result was that once Yoko and John hooked up together, it was fireworks -- GENUINE fireworks. It doesn't matter that Yoko wanted to see Paul for some help first, or whatever it was. But OK, so she looked to Paul for a handout first. First of all, this is largely Paul's story, and I've recently re-watched my tape of him on the Howard Stern TV show in 2001 saying "This is how I remember it", completely taking into account that he may have gotten it wrong, but this was his recollection. As you admit, they DID fall in love and that's all that matters. I agree. And I started an entire thread conceding that. However, this was 42 years ago! Can't you just let that go? Yoko DID hang around the recording studio, John DID allow it to happen, and that's that. What's done is done. This is the problem with Beatle fan discussions (and I do include myself here as well). We all have different "viewpoints and opinions" about what happened or what would have happend "if".. But you know, it could also be that John was naive. He often admitted to being naive, and he claimed that he had no idea he was going to be so disapproved by his beast friends. So do we really "know" that John set about to irritate and annoy the others, or that he just wanted his "mother" there? OK, true. But it happened. Now what? The Beatles broke up 40 years ago. John died 30 years ago. Yoko still is here and tries to do the best she can for his memory. Can't we all just get along with the whole JohnandYoko thing? Joe, I was simply responding to Lucyin thesky's comments she made to me regarding my observations on the documentary. I am not trying to dig up old negative stories. I am simply pointing out some of the reasons I, and others, are not able to forget some of the actions Yoko took, particularly involving the band when they still were producing albums in the 60's. I am fine with Yoko running John's estate (financially and musically) and she was quite honest in her recent comments in LennonNYC. However, back in the 60's; there are some things she did that are controversial, as was her treatment of Julian regarding John's estate settlement in the 1980's. Some people forget those aspects of Yoko's personality. BTW, where was Julian in the recent Lennon NYC? He especially should have been included in the documentary. Was he even asked to give his recollections?
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Nov 26, 2010 6:13:44 GMT -5
Some people forget those aspects of Yoko's personality. Are you kidding? Most people NEVER forget, as far as I am concerned. First thing you should know is that this project was NOT controlled by Yoko Ono, and it was not somehow dictated by her demands. I just learned this from listening to the excellent Fab Fourum Podcast where they discuss this documentary. So beware of those urges to paint Yoko as a "baddie" at every turn, spinning this and that or leaving this or that person out. Back to Julian. No, he was not interviewed, obviously. Neither was Cynthia. Neither were Paul or Ringo. But it apparently was not Yoko's idea to leave Julian out, or anything. After all, how much purpose does Julian serve during the NY years? The doc does at least include photos of him, along John's comments and regrets about not seeing him much as a child. So don't worry, there was some compassion paid again to "poor ol' Julian" and how he got the short end of the stick, which is about all he likes to whine about. What about Sean? Sean was not interviewed either. Isn't he John and Yoko's "favored son"? So what's your point, really?
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Nov 26, 2010 13:29:10 GMT -5
Some people forget those aspects of Yoko's personality. Are you kidding? Most people NEVER forget, as far as I am concerned. First thing you should know is that this project was NOT controlled by Yoko Ono, and it was not somehow dictated by her demands. I just learned this from listening to the excellent Fab Fourum Podcast where they discuss this documentary. So beware of those urges to paint Yoko as a "baddie" at every turn, spinning this and that or leaving this or that person out. Back to Julian. No, he was not interviewed, obviously. Neither was Cynthia. Neither were Paul or Ringo. But it apparently was not Yoko's idea to leave Julian out, or anything. After all, how much purpose does Julian serve during the NY years? The doc does at least include photos of him, along John's comments and regrets about not seeing him much as a child. So don't worry, there was some compassion paid again to "poor ol' Julian" and how he got the short end of the stick, which is about all he likes to whine about. What about Sean? Sean was not interviewed either. Isn't he John and Yoko's "favored son"? So what's your point, really? I don't believe I implied the documentary was controlled by Yoko. Upon seeing it, it is pretty obvious anyway that she didn't. My point about "poor" Julian was he wasn't in the documentary. Was he even approached by the producers? Most of his relationship with his father occurred in the 70's when he made numerous visits to NY and LA. I would have thought his reflections would be as important to the documentary as most of the other people who were asked to contribute. I didn't expect to see Cynthia; her relationship with John was quite minor after their divorce. And yes, where was Paul? Was he asked to participate? It's fairly obvious he was still a large part of John's world in the 70's. I have not listened to the Forum podcast on the doc yet, but I am sure they would agree some important people in John's world were left out of the documentary. BTW, I will try very hard not to "paint" Yoko as a "baddie", spinning this or that in my comments. Yoko's actions speak for themseves. She came across very well in the documentary. Would I be correct in assuming you feel the documentary was quite good enough and people such as Julian, Sean, Pete Shotton, Paul, Ringo (or taped comments by George) were not important enough, or just not necessary to complete a portrait of John in this period to be included?
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Nov 26, 2010 14:26:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on Nov 27, 2010 21:01:07 GMT -5
Also, it appears Yoko has aged much better than May has. Yoko's plea at the end of the documentary of "He was an artist, why did you have to kill him?" is quite moving How did you guys miss this ? It's obvious Yoko is saying that John was assasinated as opposed to murdered. She knows but she won't say anything as she doesn't want anything to happen to Sean. Yoko will not come out and say it and she may not even say anything before she dies but I am sure that when the time comes Sean will. The comment does not make sense if MDC was just a 'deranged' killer.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Nov 28, 2010 7:00:39 GMT -5
How did you guys miss this ? It's obvious Yoko is saying that John was assasinated as opposed to murdered. She knows but she won't say anything as she doesn't want anything to happen to Sean. Yoko will not come out and say it and she may not even say anything before she dies but I am sure that when the time comes Sean will. The comment does not make sense if MDC was just a 'deranged' killer. I guess we "missed" it because it doesn't ring as anything like Yoko feeling the goverment was involved. Not at all. I know you still harbor that bizarre belief, but I still think it's outrageous. I would have been more prone to believing this silly "conspiracy" if John had been murdered in 1972 under Nixon. But certainly not in 1980, when John was no longer politically motivated and controversial. Just absurd, IMO. It's obvious Lennon's killer did what he did because he was unhinged and had an identity crisis, among other things. Go seek out the book LET ME TAKE YOU DOWN, by Jack Jones. Let me ask you -- what reason would the goverment have to kill John in 1980, in your view?
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Nov 28, 2010 14:05:13 GMT -5
Yoko's plea at the end of the documentary of "He was an artist, why did you have to kill him?" is quite moving How did you guys miss this ? It's obvious Yoko is saying that John was assasinated as opposed to murdered. She knows but she won't say anything as she doesn't want anything to happen to Sean. Yoko will not come out and say it and she may not even say anything before she dies but I am sure that when the time comes Sean will. The comment does not make sense if MDC was just a 'deranged' killer. I did not read into Yoko's plea anything along the lines of implying he was assassinated. To me it was a plea to all of us about the violent aspect of our society that still exists and contains such animals as the scum that killed John. The man was not just a deranged killer. He killed John to attain notariety for himself because of his sad existence as a nobody. He had a copy of "Catcher in the Rye" in his posession when he was arrested. The book is about a young man who cannot assimilate himself into society properly and fails to mature correctly. Read the book if you want to see where this guy was coming from. He needed to commit a violent crime in order to feel like he was important and John became his obsession since he was a Beatlfan. And John was easily accessible to just about anyone with the lifestyle he chose to live in NYC. I just don't see Yoko blaming John's death as politically motivated with her remark. She is just trying, like all of us, to make some sense out of a senseless act. I did appreciate the filmakers decision not to mention John's killer by name. I only wish everyone else would do the same, especially with the upcoming 30th anniversary of his murder in about a week. It only serves to give the man exactly what he craves; more notariety for committing the act.
|
|
|
Post by OldFred on Nov 28, 2010 17:09:08 GMT -5
For those in the New York City area, PBS Channel 13 will re-broadcast 'LennoNYC' on Wednesday, December 1st at 8pm, EST. Throughout the country, check your local PBS listings for re-broadcasts of the documentary.
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on Nov 29, 2010 6:15:55 GMT -5
How did you guys miss this ? It's obvious Yoko is saying that John was assasinated as opposed to murdered. She knows but she won't say anything as she doesn't want anything to happen to Sean. Yoko will not come out and say it and she may not even say anything before she dies but I am sure that when the time comes Sean will. The comment does not make sense if MDC was just a 'deranged' killer. I guess we "missed" it because it doesn't ring as anything like Yoko feeling the goverment was involved. Not at all. I know you still harbor that bizarre belief, but I still think it's outrageous. I would have been more prone to believing this silly "conspiracy" if John had been murdered in 1972 under Nixon. But certainly not in 1980, when John was no longer politically motivated and controversial. Just absurd, IMO. It's obvious Lennon's killer did what he did because he was unhinged and had an identity crisis, among other things. Go seek out the book LET ME TAKE YOU DOWN, by Jack Jones. Let me ask you -- what reason would the goverment have to kill John in 1980, in your view? In my view John Lennon was more dangerous to the government in 1980+ than in the early 70s as he could command airtime on TV, radio and any of the major print publications. The mass media era was in full swing so the government would always have to contend with the loud voice of John Lennon condemning every illegal action by the US government to start wars in other countries and expose their grubby and hypocritical policies. If John Lennon spoke everyone would listen especially now that he was making a comeback. I am not saying John was powerful enough to stop wars but he would be able to counter the propaganda out of the govenment and the largely government controlled media. You have to remember that the US was about to embark on alot of wars during this time especially in the middle-East and the last thing the US government wanted was a huge public outcry against them which would make them one term governments.
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on Nov 29, 2010 6:22:15 GMT -5
How did you guys miss this ? It's obvious Yoko is saying that John was assasinated as opposed to murdered. She knows but she won't say anything as she doesn't want anything to happen to Sean. Yoko will not come out and say it and she may not even say anything before she dies but I am sure that when the time comes Sean will. The comment does not make sense if MDC was just a 'deranged' killer. I did not read into Yoko's plea anything along the lines of implying he was assassinated. To me it was a plea to all of us about the violent aspect of our society that still exists and contains such animals as the scum that killed John. The man was not just a deranged killer. He killed John to attain notariety for himself because of his sad existence as a nobody. He had a copy of "Catcher in the Rye" in his posession when he was arrested. The book is about a young man who cannot assimilate himself into society properly and fails to mature correctly. Read the book if you want to see where this guy was coming from. He needed to commit a violent crime in order to feel like he was important and John became his obsession since he was a Beatlfan. And John was easily accessible to just about anyone with the lifestyle he chose to live in NYC. I just don't see Yoko blaming John's death as politically motivated with her remark. She is just trying, like all of us, to make some sense out of a senseless act. I did appreciate the filmakers decision not to mention John's killer by name. I only wish everyone else would do the same, especially with the upcoming 30th anniversary of his murder in about a week. It only serves to give the man exactly what he craves; more notariety for committing the act. Well we will never know, MDC always maintained he was innocent and did not shoot John and pleaded not guilty. At the very last minute he changed his plea to guilty so an investigation into John's death was never officially conducted. It was considered and open and shut case based entirely on MDC changing his plea at the last minute. The autopsy report on John has never been released. The NY Times changed their story from one day to the next as to where MDC was allegedly standing when he shot John. The two police officers that arrived on the scene did not think that MDC was the killer.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Nov 29, 2010 9:58:59 GMT -5
You have to remember that the US was about to embark on alot of wars during this time especially in the middle-East and the last thing the US government wanted was a huge public outcry against them which would make them one term governments. The U.S. had no shooting wars during the Administration of Ronald Reagan. There was a military encounter in Grenada, a defensive bombing of Libya after it was shown Libya masterminded a bombing that killed U.S. servicemen and a peacekeeping role in Lebanon, a country threatened by all of its neighbors. The First Gulf War was nearly a decade later when Iraq illegally invaded sovereign Kuwait. I disagree with your theory, ursa, about the U.S. Government killing John Lennon but I do agree with you that Yoko may believe that and Sean certainly does as he has stated in past interviews. Yet, Yoko actively seeks to keep MDC behind bars so that has confused me.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Nov 29, 2010 12:33:24 GMT -5
You have to remember that the US was about to embark on alot of wars during this time especially in the middle-East and the last thing the US government wanted was a huge public outcry against them which would make them one term governments. The U.S. had no shooting wars during the Administration of Ronald Reagan. There was a military encounter in Grenada, a defensive bombing of Libya after it was shown Libya masterminded a bombing that killed U.S. servicemen and a peacekeeping role in Lebanon, a country threatened by all of its neighbors. The First Gulf War was nearly a decade later when Iraq illegally invaded sovereign Kuwait. I disagree with your theory, ursa, about the U.S. Government killing John Lennon but I do agree with you that Yoko may believe that and Sean certainly does as he has stated in past interviews. Yet, Yoko actively seeks to keep MDC behind bars so that has confused me. Don't forget Reagan also ordered down an escape plane containing terrorists to land in Italy after Leon Klinghoffer was shot in his wheelchair during a cruise. But I don't think he was involved- perhaps some extremist faction of the Government could have been behind it- but I doubt it. And how about that Monday Night Football game: The December 9, 1974 contest featured a rare instance of two celebrities entering the booth, with Lennon being interviewed by Cosell and California governor Ronald Reagan speaking with Gifford, with Reagan explaining the rules of American football (off-camera) to Lennon as the game went along. Frank Gifford quoted how Reagan had his arm around John like he was explaining the game of football to his own son.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Nov 29, 2010 18:00:31 GMT -5
Well we will never know, MDC always maintained he was innocent and did not shoot John and pleaded not guilty. At the very last minute he changed his plea to guilty so an investigation into John's death was never officially conducted. It was considered and open and shut case based entirely on MDC changing his plea at the last minute. The autopsy report on John has never been released. The NY Times changed their story from one day to the next as to where MDC was allegedly standing when he shot John. The two police officers that arrived on the scene did not think that MDC was the killer. I'm from the NY area and was 18 when it happened and I bought and read every paper, and watched the TV news constantly. I have several hours' worth of news coverage on VHS from the day(s) afterward. There was none of this "maybe he wasn't the shooter" nonsense. None at all. And there was at least one witness -- the doorman at the Dakota, named Jose. And Yoko, as well. There weren't any other shooters lurking about the entranceway of the Dakota that evening just before 11pm. I thought you were suggesting that the killer was just a "tool" of someone else; but you actually do not believe he pulled the trigger?? I think some people just get off on "conspiracy theories".
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Nov 29, 2010 20:26:16 GMT -5
I did not read into Yoko's plea anything along the lines of implying he was assassinated. To me it was a plea to all of us about the violent aspect of our society that still exists and contains such animals as the scum that killed John. The man was not just a deranged killer. He killed John to attain notariety for himself because of his sad existence as a nobody. He had a copy of "Catcher in the Rye" in his posession when he was arrested. The book is about a young man who cannot assimilate himself into society properly and fails to mature correctly. Read the book if you want to see where this guy was coming from. He needed to commit a violent crime in order to feel like he was important and John became his obsession since he was a Beatlfan. And John was easily accessible to just about anyone with the lifestyle he chose to live in NYC. I just don't see Yoko blaming John's death as politically motivated with her remark. She is just trying, like all of us, to make some sense out of a senseless act. I did appreciate the filmakers decision not to mention John's killer by name. I only wish everyone else would do the same, especially with the upcoming 30th anniversary of his murder in about a week. It only serves to give the man exactly what he craves; more notariety for committing the act. Well we will never know, MDC always maintained he was innocent and did not shoot John and pleaded not guilty. At the very last minute he changed his plea to guilty so an investigation into John's death was never officially conducted. It was considered and open and shut case based entirely on MDC changing his plea at the last minute. The autopsy report on John has never been released. The NY Times changed their story from one day to the next as to where MDC was allegedly standing when he shot John. The two police officers that arrived on the scene did not think that MDC was the killer. The doorman, Jose Perdomo, saw the killer standing outside in the shadows. Upon hearing the gunshots, he approached the killer, shook the gun from his hand, and asked him "Do you know what you've done?" And the killer replied "Yes, I just shot John Lennon." He then sat down with the copy of the Salinger book in his hand and waited for the police. The first police on the scene arrived to see him just sitting there with only the book in his hand, not the gun, so of course they thought he was not the killer. The accused always maintained he had shot Lennon. The gun had his prints on it. His lawyers wanted him to plead not guilty to give him an insanity defense, but he chose to plead guilty. Of course he did, he wanted the credit and notariety of the crime. There is absolutely no evidence of a conspiracy or of the killer being a government agent. The man was an idiot, and a loser, who had a fascination with John Lennon and a desire to do something that would make him feel important to society, much like the character in Salinger's book "Catcher in the Rye" which seemed to "inspire" the shooting. End of story. Perhaps we can "inspire" Oliver Stone to do a movie version of the shooting and make it look like the government was behind the incident. He loves to change history in his movies so subsequent generations get the wrong impression of what really happened at a momentous event in history. Until that happens, we'll just have to accept what really happened and the evidence which backs it up.......Not imagine what could have happened if we distort the facts. www.scribd.com/doc/4895151/Mark-David-Chapman-Parole-TranscriptAbove is a website that contains the transcript of the killer's 2008 parole hearing in which he describes the event of Dec. 1980 as he remembers them. You might want to read the transcript. My apologies to John's family and all Beatlefans that the name of the killer appears in the website address.
|
|