|
Post by Snookeroo on Jan 21, 2011 22:43:44 GMT -5
I'm currently reading the excellent autobiography by Keith Richards, and there's quite a few mentions of John Lennon in it. Keef talks about many of his drug taking ventures including a period of time when John and Yoko visited him often. Keff describes John's desire to try to really go far with the drugs, but his inability to handle it - always ending up on all fours in Keith's bathroom. But there's one interesting bit where John is hurrying to the toilet again and a worried Yoko says to Keith that John should not be doing this stuff, to which Keith basically says, "hey, I didn't force him to". I know that the die-hard Yoko critics paint a picture of her turning him on to heroin and steering him down the destructive path. I got a real feeling reading this stuff that John really was beyond anyones control - even hers. In reality she probably saved his life. He may well have gone the route of Janis, Jimi, and Brian Jones.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jan 22, 2011 6:38:50 GMT -5
Thanks, Snookeroo. Another one to trip up the kneejerk Yoko Haters.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Jan 22, 2011 10:14:45 GMT -5
That's heartening stuff. I'd always assumed that JohnandYoko went into heroin on equal footing. It's warming to learn that Yoko was trying to hold him back from it.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jan 22, 2011 12:50:37 GMT -5
Not to disrupt the good feelings over one anecdote(and I do love Yoko) but Yoko confiding her concerns of John's drug use to Keith Richards is like confiding one's concerns for the hens' safety to the wolf guarding the henhouse!
Too little, too late and to the wrong person! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Snookeroo on Jan 23, 2011 0:04:18 GMT -5
Thanks, Snookeroo. Another one to trip up the kneejerk Yoko Haters. Hey Joe - as the Rolling Stones said - "take it easy babe". I'm not trying to trip anyone up. I'm also not trying to miraculously change anyone's opinion of Yoko. That's nearly impossible. The distaste people have for her is stronger than almost anything I've seen. And it gets passed down to younger Beatles fans. It's sad. That said - I do think that she's a bit misjudged and I do like to attempt to show examples that contrast that image of the "evil bitch". The only reason these kinds of discussions get nasty is if we let them. So let's "take it easy babe". The Keef story isn't making it look like Yoko was an angel and that she didn't indulge in plenty of drugs. I just thought it was a good example of how off-the-wall John could be, and that even Yoko, who was supposed to absolutely control his every move, could not in fact. And she really did worry and care about the man. That's all. You know what fires me up - when I see comments about her on forums where I'm reading about John. These comments - often from kids - talk about how she should have been murdered on Dec 8th instead of John, and even milder crap like that. I really wish that history would show that she came into John's life and she became the most important thing to him. Even more important than the band. Her very presence in his life helped him decide to wander down a different path. A path that ultimately filled alot of voids that even the Beatles were not filling anymore. Instead she's portayed as a domineering-witch-evil-ugly-hurtful-gold digger. I just don't buy it. I find the subject very interesting if the participants can refrain from being an asshole in expressing their thoughts. And that comment is NOT directed at anyone here.
|
|
|
Post by Snookeroo on Jan 23, 2011 0:07:58 GMT -5
That's heartening stuff. I'd always assumed that JohnandYoko went into heroin on equal footing. It's warming to learn that Yoko was trying to hold him back from it. Hmmmm. I wish I could see your facial expression as you typed that. I have read where Yoko is solely blamed for John trying herion. The Keef story didn't have her trying to "hold him back" - but rather just being very concerned, and unable to at least reign him in a little.
|
|
|
Post by brothermichael on Jan 23, 2011 0:39:03 GMT -5
Did John use heroin before he met Yoko?
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jan 23, 2011 5:16:36 GMT -5
Did John use heroin before he met Yoko? I don't know. Maybe he did. Maybe he didn't. Maybe Yoko was the first who suggested trying it. Maybe John was the first who suggested trying it. Maybe the two of them decided to try it together. Does it really matter now? Did it really matter for very long back then? John was someone who was into experimenting with drugs (something I don't believe in by the way), and he was game for trying EVERYTHING at the time. I have no problem suspecting that he would have gotten to H eventually. So he had a brief fling with heroin, but did not die from it and he ultimately quit it and wrote a song about withdrawal from it. It was here today, gone tomorrow. Not that big a deal, thank goodness, in retrospect.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jan 23, 2011 5:25:46 GMT -5
You know what fires me up - when I see comments about her on forums where I'm reading about John. These comments - often from kids - talk about how she should have been murdered on Dec 8th instead of John, and even milder crap like that. I really wish that history would show that she came into John's life and she became the most important thing to him. Even more important than the band. Her very presence in his life helped him decide to wander down a different path. A path that ultimately filled alot of voids that even the Beatles were not filling anymore. Instead she's portayed as a domineering-witch-evil-ugly-hurtful-gold digger. I just don't buy it. Yes, but the thing is, the history IS right there in front of their faces and it DOES show the relationship in the way you suggest. Yet for whatever reason, people still elect to view Yoko in that negative way. And if they feel that way, then they simply are not really understanding John Lennon as a person and, IMO, are not really genuine fans of his. I know those are stirring words to read, but it's how I see it. But the question is, 'why do people still hold onto their hatred of her?'. And I believe it's for selfish reasons that they did not like John's attention being swayed away from The Beatles, and also because people need a scapegoat, someone to unload their own frustrations on.
|
|
|
Post by Snookeroo on Jan 23, 2011 17:04:47 GMT -5
You know what fires me up - when I see comments about her on forums where I'm reading about John. These comments - often from kids - talk about how she should have been murdered on Dec 8th instead of John, and even milder crap like that. I really wish that history would show that she came into John's life and she became the most important thing to him. Even more important than the band. Her very presence in his life helped him decide to wander down a different path. A path that ultimately filled alot of voids that even the Beatles were not filling anymore. Instead she's portayed as a domineering-witch-evil-ugly-hurtful-gold digger. I just don't buy it. Yes, but the thing is, the history IS right there in front of their faces and it DOES show the relationship in the way you suggest. Yet for whatever reason, people still elect to view Yoko in that negative way. And if they feel that way, then they simply are not really understanding John Lennon as a person and, IMO, are not really genuine fans of his. I know those are stirring words to read, but it's how I see it. But the question is, 'why do people still hold onto their hatred of her?'. And I believe it's for selfish reasons that they did not like John's attention being swayed away from The Beatles, and also because people need a scapegoat, someone to unload their own frustrations on. I know what you mean Joe, but the whole "genuine fan" thing is dangerous. Someone can certainly be a huge fan of John's music, but not like Yoko at all. That's fine. I think that if you become fascinated by John's life as well, then you get a slightly different view of Yoko. I also think that many fans that were around when the band split had it tattooed on the brain that she was clearly to blame - and tattoos are pretty much permanent. And trying to show another side of her seems to usually make the Yoko hater dig in even deeper. Even folks who find the wherewithal to mildly say a positive thing about her preface it with something like, "well, I'm not a fan of hers but....." Actually, when I became a Beatlemaniac I took in all that anti-Yoko stuff too. But I guess as I learned about the band I saw it differently. One real turning point was John describing how people shouted to them in the street saying things like "She's ugly" and "Cynthia's better". As a Lennon fan that bothered me. There's a photo of John and Yoko coming through a crowd in which someone grabbed, and tore out some of Yoko's hair. That's just plain f***ed up. That's the stuff that younger fans immediately seem to buy into. Even when Double Fantasy came out I knew plenty of people that were hating that Yoko had songs on it BEFORE they even put it on the turntable. Even in 1980 they couldn't deal with the idea of John AND YOKO. I myself was, uh, concerned about the record until I played it and heard music instead of screeching. I don't like her screeching. It was common practice for me to play side one of "Live Peace in Toronto" - but NEVER side two. Still is. I also relaxed on Yoko with "Some Time in NYC". Her stuff on there is terrific IMO. I also totally relate to the dislike of her constant presence in the Beatles studio sessions. I can see how that must have driven Paul, George, and Ringo insane. I blame that squarely on John though. She could have walked out and told John she'd see him later, but can you imagine how Lennon would have reacted to that? The band might have split two years earlier. Basically, for me – I don’t hate her. I don’t think she broke up the Beatles. I don’t think that she harmed John Lennon. I think that she has handled the hate in a very brave and classy way. And, except for crap like baby clothing with John’s lyrics on it, I think that she’s handled his legacy pretty well since his death. I also think she really did love the man.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jan 23, 2011 17:38:09 GMT -5
That's a great photo, Snooks, of John and Yoko in the studio!
No question that Yoko loved John and I always felt her love of John was more healthy(or normal) than his love of her(clingy, desperate, whiny).
No wonder she kicked his ass out for the lost weekend of 18 months.
I don't buy everything John and Yoko say(said) about themselves but she did love John and he loved her.
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on Jan 23, 2011 19:26:16 GMT -5
Yes, but the thing is, the history IS right there in front of their faces and it DOES show the relationship in the way you suggest. Yet for whatever reason, people still elect to view Yoko in that negative way. And if they feel that way, then they simply are not really understanding John Lennon as a person and, IMO, are not really genuine fans of his. I know those are stirring words to read, but it's how I see it. But the question is, 'why do people still hold onto their hatred of her?'. And I believe it's for selfish reasons that they did not like John's attention being swayed away from The Beatles, and also because people need a scapegoat, someone to unload their own frustrations on. I know what you mean Joe, but the whole "genuine fan" thing is dangerous. Someone can certainly be a huge fan of John's music, but not like Yoko at all. That's fine. I think that if you become fascinated by John's life as well, then you get a slightly different view of Yoko. I also think that many fans that were around when the band split had it tattooed on the brain that she was clearly to blame - and tattoos are pretty much permanent. And trying to show another side of her seems to usually make the Yoko hater dig in even deeper. Even folks who find the wherewithal to mildly say a positive thing about her preface it with something like, "well, I'm not a fan of hers but....." Actually, when I became a Beatlemaniac I took in all that anti-Yoko stuff too. But I guess as I learned about the band I saw it differently. One real turning point was John describing how people shouted to them in the street saying things like "She's ugly" and "Cynthia's better". As a Lennon fan that bothered me. There's a photo of John and Yoko coming through a crowd in which someone grabbed, and tore out some of Yoko's hair. That's just plain f***ed up. That's the stuff that younger fans immediately seem to buy into. Even when Double Fantasy came out I knew plenty of people that were hating that Yoko had songs on it BEFORE they even put it on the turntable. Even in 1980 they couldn't deal with the idea of John AND YOKO. I myself was, uh, concerned about the record until I played it and heard music instead of screeching. I don't like her screeching. It was common practice for me to play side one of "Live Peace in Toronto" - but NEVER side two. Still is. I also relaxed on Yoko with "Some Time in NYC". Her stuff on there is terrific IMO. I also totally relate to the dislike of her constant presence in the Beatles studio sessions. I can see how that must have driven Paul, George, and Ringo insane. I blame that squarely on John though. She could have walked out and told John she'd see him later, but can you imagine how Lennon would have reacted to that? The band might have split two years earlier. Basically, for me – I don’t hate her. I don’t think she broke up the Beatles. I don’t think that she harmed John Lennon. I think that she has handled the hate in a very brave and classy way. And, except for crap like baby clothing with John’s lyrics on it, I think that she’s handled his legacy pretty well since his death. I also think she really did love the man. Nice post but this part is not necessary, And, except for crap like baby clothing with John’s lyrics on it, I think that she’s handled his legacy pretty wellThere's nothing wrong with that IMO, merchandise is not for everyone and there are people out there who like and buy this stuff. As long as she oversees this part of the business and makes sure no tacky products are attached to John's name or image then I'm all for it.
|
|
|
Post by brothermichael on Jan 23, 2011 20:09:45 GMT -5
Nice post but this part is not necessary, And, except for crap like baby clothing with John’s lyrics on it, I think that she’s handled his legacy pretty wellThere's nothing wrong with that IMO, merchandise is not for everyone and there are people out there who like and buy this stuff. As long as she oversees this part of the business and makes sure no tacky products are attached to John's name or image then I'm all for it. I think Snookeroo is saying exactly that -- the baby clothes = "tacky products." Only with John and Yoko can a discussion go from Keith Richards and heroin to baby clothes. ;D
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Jan 23, 2011 22:39:15 GMT -5
Did John use heroin before he met Yoko? John wasn't on heroin until after he met Yoko. However, that doesn't mean Yoko got him on heroin.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jan 23, 2011 23:05:37 GMT -5
I think Snookeroo is saying exactly that -- the baby clothes = "tacky products." . . . I think baby clothes with John references is way cool, and I think John would have loved it. Now, if they used the music to I'm Only Sleeping to promote Lunesta or Run for Your Life to sell Pepto-Bismol or put John's face on a jar of strawberry jam or eyeglass cleaner, THAT would be tacky.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Jan 24, 2011 5:28:27 GMT -5
You mean you missed out on the What's The New Mary Jane jockstraps?
|
|
|
Post by Jason I on Jan 24, 2011 7:05:10 GMT -5
Some of the Lennon merchandise/advertising I still find tacky, in some cases more then others. Sorry.
The Ben & Jerry's JL flavoured ice cream, with his signature all over the box? Yuck.
The John Lennon advert for the Citroën? Where they put words into JLs mouth in support for this new car? Disgusting.
I'd be interested to see if anyone here is in favour of the above, the car advert especially.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jan 24, 2011 7:50:43 GMT -5
I know what you mean Joe, but the whole "genuine fan" thing is dangerous. Someone can certainly be a huge fan of John's music, but not like Yoko at all. That's fine. I'm talking about being a fan of John Lennon, the Man. It's basically very much like John talked about in PLAYBOY, which I've partly quoted below in my signature. If anyone feels any connection to John as a person that goes beyond just enjoying some of his music, then I still say I don't believe they can be a genuine fan of "John Lennon" and yet not accept Yoko and how much she enriched him in every way. And actually, for this matter, I also don't understand how they could be a fan of his MUSIC - especially the solo material - and somehow not accept his love and need for Yoko, which is a theme that runs throughout it. One thing - I'm not saying anyone has to "like" Yoko. But there should be some understanding and acceptance of their love, and they should not just automatically dislike virtually anything & everything about her, just because it's always the popular thing to do or because she's unconventional, or because John loved her and wanted her more than the Beatles, as fate panned out. It should happen, yes. It would be natural for that to happen. Right. But hopefully people can grow up and learn. There's so much now, over 41 years after the Beatles split, to understand and hear from the ex-Beatles themselves regarding that period. Only a very stubborn person, IMO, would latch onto Yoko as "the evil force who broke up the Beatles". It's a psychological wound to them that they suffered in the '60s, and which might benefit from counseling. Exactly. But you said it yourself here - " as a Lennon fan that bothered me". It SHOULD bother a Lennon fan. Anyone who is not bugged by such a thing, or especially anyone doing the namecalling themselves, is not a true Lennon fan as far as I'm concerned. Same here. I never wish to listen to Yoko's screeching and noises, but however I do think they add to things when they're modestly placed, such as in KISS KISS KISS or WALKING ON THIN ICE. But I also think they can be fun in songs like WE'RE ALL WATER. Same here. I even began a thread on this, saying how wrong I think it was for Yoko to be in the studio. John should not have encouraged that, and Yoko should never have willingly been a part of that. Of course, there's always the other side of the coin where, if someone as desperate as John was, actually "needed" to be with this woman 24/7, there could have been a little more support and understanding from his friends... however, that's just looking at it from another point of view (John's). Overall, I think he was wrong. Here's a question I don't think anyone's ever asked -- if John had decided to quit the band and be with Yoko in 1968, instead of having her at all the sessions, would the fans have preferred that? Or would you say it was better to still have Lennon in the Beatles with Yoko at his side in 1968 and 1969, rather than not at all? I mean, John could have just walked away all together and focused on his new love. That's becoming more and more the bottom line for me. It's never really bothered Yoko as much as it does some of us. Yes, she was definitely upset about it, as she has said, but overall she's been very strong in spite of it. (BTW - nice pic of John and Yoko above. How anyone can look at Yoko's genuine adoration there for John and still not believe she loved him, is beyond me).
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jan 24, 2011 14:06:29 GMT -5
Not to disrupt the good feelings over one anecdote(and I do love Yoko) but Yoko confiding her concerns of John's drug use to Keith Richards is like confiding one's concerns for the hens' safety to the wolf guarding the henhouse! Too little, too late and to the wrong person! ;D Ha ha. Now thats a great line. Enjoyed Keith's book. Plenty of back-hand slap-in-the-face compliments by Keith to John. Who he obviously respected as a musician and an artist, but so many of his comments seem to imply Lennon was a bit of a lightweight personally. Like Keith felt a competition with John on some level of heaviness and street cred and rebelliousness. Liked Keith's thumbnail comparison of the Beatles and Stones. "The Stones were a musician's group whereas the Beatles were a vocalist group." (or something like that)
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jan 25, 2011 23:42:40 GMT -5
. . . Liked Keith's thumbnail comparison of the Beatles and Stones. "The Stones were a musician's group whereas the Beatles were a vocalist group." (or something like that) I know what he's implying, but it is as much a myth as the Paul vs John/pop vs rocker comparison. I would tend to believe him if he had said the Stones were more about performing and the Beatles were more about recording. But, as far as the Stones being a musicians group, it's interesting which band jazz groups and classical musicians instrumentally gravitate towards when they do covers. I bet even more rock bands to Beatles songs than Stones songs. Why? Because they are better songs, they are fun to play, and it shows off their musicianship better.
|
|
|
Post by Snookeroo on Jan 26, 2011 0:48:09 GMT -5
Dispite Jagger being a first-rate front man and singer, the Stones couldn't touch the Beatles on vocals. I think they were all great musicians. The best pure musicians in the Stones were probably Ian Stewart, and Brian Jones. But out of all of them - from both bands - I'd have to give the nod to Paul McCartney. I think Keith might have meant musicians in the sense of a bunch of guys getting down-and-dirty with the bare-bones bluesy/rootsy stuff. As far as constructing pieces of music The Beatles claimed the top of that mountain with Sgt Pepper.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jan 26, 2011 1:18:47 GMT -5
Dispite Jagger being a first-rate front man and singer, the Stones couldn't touch the Beatles on vocals. I think they were all great musicians. The best pure musicians in the Stones were probably Ian Stewart, and Brian Jones. But out of all of them - from both bands - I'd have to give the nod to Paul McCartney. I think Keith might have meant musicians in the sense of a bunch of guys getting down-and-dirty with the bare-bones bluesy/rootsy stuff. As far as constructing pieces of music The Beatles claimed the top of that mountain with Sgt Pepper. Having said what I said, I have to say that if most people were to start a band, Keef would be the first draft pick. Looks, attitude, riff machine . . . He, to me, defines what rock and roll is all about.
|
|
|
Post by Snookeroo on Jan 26, 2011 12:07:35 GMT -5
Dispite Jagger being a first-rate front man and singer, the Stones couldn't touch the Beatles on vocals. I think they were all great musicians. The best pure musicians in the Stones were probably Ian Stewart, and Brian Jones. But out of all of them - from both bands - I'd have to give the nod to Paul McCartney. I think Keith might have meant musicians in the sense of a bunch of guys getting down-and-dirty with the bare-bones bluesy/rootsy stuff. As far as constructing pieces of music The Beatles claimed the top of that mountain with Sgt Pepper. Having said what I said, I have to say that if most people were to start a band, Keef would be the first draft pick. Looks, attitude, riff machine . . . He, to me, defines what rock and roll is all about. There's no doubt that Keith would be an asset to any rock band. There really is so much more to him than that drugged-out image he has. In fact, he's very aware of the image and markets it very well. But is is a musicans musician. The man has come up with some of the greatest riffs off all time for sure. His talk in the book about his riffs and his open-tuning is very interesting IMO.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jan 26, 2011 18:48:55 GMT -5
Having said what I said, I have to say that if most people were to start a band, Keef would be the first draft pick. Looks, attitude, riff machine . . . He, to me, defines what rock and roll is all about. There's no doubt that Keith would be an asset to any rock band. There really is so much more to him than that drugged-out image he has. In fact, he's very aware of the image and markets it very well. But is is a musicans musician. The man has come up with some of the greatest riffs off all time for sure. His talk in the book about his riffs and his open-tuning is very interesting IMO. So true. Read a great quote about Keef from another musician. "When Keith shows up, music happens." Some people are like that. Natural catalysts.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jan 26, 2011 22:11:42 GMT -5
I am forced to watch American Idol tonight. I wish someone would jump up at the auditions and sing Yoko's "Don't Worry Kyoko (Mummy's Only Looking for Her Hand in the Snow)."
Steven Tyler might dig it, it rocks!
It might be too much to hope for a Yoko night on AI where the top contestants spend the night singing her songs. "You're The One" from Milk And Honey is one of my favorites and of course "Walking On Thin Ice" would be a biggie.
|
|
|
Post by Snookeroo on Jan 27, 2011 2:03:31 GMT -5
Here's a good one for someone to try on AI. It's from Yoko's, "Season of Glass" LP - the one with "THAT" cover that she released in 1981. I think you can guess where her inspiration for the lyrics came from.
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Jan 29, 2011 1:53:23 GMT -5
Here's a good one for someone to try on AI. It's from Yoko's, "Season of Glass" LP - the one with "THAT" cover that she released in 1981. I think you can guess where her inspiration for the lyrics came from. Goodbye sadness hello madness. I just went mad. There is no music in her voice. She cannot sing. She would fail an American Idol audition. And that faux jazz backing is excruciating and has nothing to do with the style of her vocals.
|
|
|
Post by Jason I on Jan 29, 2011 7:28:37 GMT -5
Here's a good one for someone to try on AI. It's from Yoko's, "Season of Glass" LP - the one with "THAT" cover that she released in 1981. I think you can guess where her inspiration for the lyrics came from. Goodbye sadness hello madness. I just went mad. There is no music in her voice. She cannot sing. She would fail an American Idol audition. And that faux jazz backing is excruciating and has nothing to do with the style of her vocals. Failing an American Idol audion should not be the criteria for an artist, and never will be hopefully. Dylan or Kurt would have failed an audition with Simon Cowell and co. Just saying. I'm not Yokos biggest fan but she has done some good stuff. Approximately Infinite Universe & Yoko Ono/Plastic Ono Band are both interesting (worth checking out the latter for John/Ringos/Klaus great jams). I think I like her Double Fantasy stuff best though. 'Kiss Kiss Kiss' was just ridiculously ahead of its time. I love this version on ' Double Fantasy Stripped':
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jan 29, 2011 13:00:12 GMT -5
Failing an American Idol audion should not be the criteria for an artist, and never will be hopefully. Dylan or Kurt would have failed an audition with Simon Cowell and co. Just saying. Right on! Or Neil Young, or Tom Petty, or...or... There's something you and I can agree completely on! So many people who "made it big" would have failed an audition on AMERICAN IDOL. I can name dozens of them. Means absolutely NOTHING. As for Yoko, the offbeat nature of her singing and avant garde style is what those people who enjoy her stuff are enjoying. Not everything has to be Ms. Streisand! There's more that goes into what people want to buy than just a classically trained singing voice.
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Jan 29, 2011 13:41:23 GMT -5
Failing an American Idol audion should not be the criteria for an artist, and never will be hopefully. Dylan or Kurt would have failed an audition with Simon Cowell and co. Just saying. Right on! Or Neil Young, or Tom Petty, or...or... There's something you and I can agree completely on! So many people who "made it big" would have failed an audition on AMERICAN IDOL. I can name dozens of them. Means absolutely NOTHING. As for Yoko, the offbeat nature of her singing and avant garde style is what those people who enjoy her stuff are enjoying. Not everything has to be Ms. Streisand! There's more that goes into what people want to buy than just a classically trained singing voice. I see what you are saying and I actually like some of her songs. But she didn't execute that one very well. Or should I say she slaughtered it.
|
|