|
Post by Panther on Sept 13, 2008 15:12:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Sept 13, 2008 15:37:16 GMT -5
I was amazed to read that Yoko and Paul gave Norman interviews for this book, especially the latter as he felt dissed by Shout. The article panther provides by link says the two have now distanced themselves from the book and are furious about it.
Well duh! Once bitten they should have been twice shy and not talked to him. Norman hosed Paul again and again through the years.
Anyway, this allegation of John having sexual fantasies about Paul and even trying to act upon them(although frustrated in that regard) would go a long way to explaining the history between John and Paul as it actually played out.
I have always felt that those two's falling out seemed so intense for guys who were just bandmates and sometime songwrting partners. There was something much deeper going on there. Was it sexual tension, how the hell do I know? That would make sense though if true and would explain a whole lot of other things.
I would not be bothered in the least if this new allegation was based in truth.
|
|
|
Post by sexysadie on Sept 15, 2008 4:05:11 GMT -5
Paul claims John never made a move on him, even when they shared a bed. Of course, had it been otherwise, he wouldn't likely be rushing to talk about it, would he?
I recall a writer in The Guardian saying that he found Paul's use of the expression "top'n'tailing" to be the gayest thing he had ever heard. The mental image is enough to bring laughter to even the darkest of days.
You can't deny this was an uncommonly intense friendship between two males, and there are certainly ways to explain it that don't involve a sexual component. But I agree, John. Wouldn't bother me either if there were an element of truth.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2008 8:20:46 GMT -5
So...John wanted some action but Paul wouldn't bend...
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Sept 15, 2008 8:24:54 GMT -5
So...John wanted some action but Paul wouldn't bend... Paul was no "Little Willow" even though John might have been "Norwegian Wood."
|
|
|
Post by superhans on Sept 15, 2008 10:21:54 GMT -5
So...John wanted some action but Paul wouldn't bend... Paul was no "Little Willow" even though John might have been "Norwegian Wood." LMAO!! ;D Bravo, JSD!
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Sept 15, 2008 10:27:06 GMT -5
I recall a writer in The Guardian saying that he found Paul's use of the expression "top'n'tailing" to be the gayest thing he had ever heard. Except that before the sixties you often had quite big families with relatively little living room, and topping and tailing was quite commonplace, both as a practice (although, I think, not for any of the Beatles) and, more importantly, as an expression. Paul would have been familiar with it from childhood, as am I. Plus I tend to discount Grauniad writers anyway!
|
|
|
Post by stokesyla on Sept 19, 2008 16:18:11 GMT -5
I just wanted to comment on "Paul's quote in the UK Sun" - as I spent most of my life in Britain before moving here in 2000, anyone should take anything printed in that rag with a pinch of salt. They have been sued in the past (successfully) for making up stories about people, so anything quoted from it means nothing.
I met Millie Sutcliffe around about the time SHOUT came out and got a distinct impression that Philip Norman was very anti-McCartney - she had spoken to him extensively about Stuart. I guess he's just out to make a fast buck now he's dissing Lennon.
It's actually quite annoying when these sensationalist stories rear their heads about any of the Beatles - with the amount of books/magazines, etc. that have been published about them in over 40 years, is there anything really new to say about their personal lives?
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Sept 19, 2008 17:22:57 GMT -5
I just wanted to comment on "Paul's quote in the UK Sun" - as I spent most of my life in Britain before moving here in 2000, anyone should take anything printed in that rag with a pinch of salt. They have been sued in the past (successfully) for making up stories about people, so anything quoted from it means nothing. I met Millie Sutcliffe around about the time SHOUT came out and got a distinct impression that Philip Norman was very anti-McCartney - she had spoken to him extensively about Stuart. I guess he's just out to make a fast buck now he's dissing Lennon. It's actually quite annoying when these sensationalist stories rear their heads about any of the Beatles - with the amount of books/magazines, etc. that have been published about them in over 40 years, is there anything really new to say about their personal lives? I met Pauline Sutcliffe at Beatlefest and although I don't recall it there, she became extremely defensive of Stu later, even going so far to suggest John caused the head injury that Stu died from. Which, of course, is b.s., as far as I'm concerned. But what's happening with the sensationalist stories now is that tabloid sites (like Contact Music aka BANG Media, the source for this story) are taking any story they can and taking things out of context because people will read them. No matter if they're right or not. Taken in context, these stories are not as sensational as they're being made out to be. I linked to Paul DuNoyer's review of the book www.wordmagazine.co.uk/content/the-curious-life-of-john-lennonwhich puts the whole thing in context. These idiots who blow these things up just to get attention tick me off. Don't believe them. I underplay them on the site for a reason.
|
|
|
Post by scousette on Sept 19, 2008 17:25:51 GMT -5
Paul was no "Little Willow" even though John might have been "Norwegian Wood." LMAO!! ;D Bravo, JSD! What superhans said! ;D You guys, all you think about is sex.
|
|
|
Post by stokesyla on Sept 19, 2008 18:11:50 GMT -5
I used to read the NME a lot, but I don't remember if I thought Paul Du Noyer was a good writer or not. It sounds to me like there is a lot of reading between the lines done in Norman's manuscript.
Sorry to name drop again, but I know Alan Clayson well and he told me that when he and Pauline Sutcliffe were working on Backbeat there was no suggestion and no proof whatsoever to back up any attack that John had made on Stuart, and he was shocked when she came out with the story.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Oct 3, 2008 18:18:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Oct 4, 2008 0:09:42 GMT -5
From the UK Mirror, two excerpts from the book, plus a new, to me, anyway, color photo of John and Yoko The caption to the photo says it was taken 6 months before John's murder but it appears to be from 1971.
|
|
|
Post by Riff Raff on Oct 4, 2008 9:02:32 GMT -5
Thanks for posting that, John. A great photo!
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Oct 4, 2008 14:27:01 GMT -5
Yes, the photo is clearly from 1971 (or 1972 at the latest). Gotta love quality fact-checking from corporate media.
|
|
nine
Very Clean
Posts: 840
|
Post by nine on Oct 6, 2008 1:41:35 GMT -5
Paul claims John never made a move on him, even when they shared a bed. Of course, had it been otherwise, he wouldn't likely be rushing to talk about it, would he? I recall a writer in The Guardian saying that he found Paul's use of the expression "top'n'tailing" to be the gayest thing he had ever heard. The mental image is enough to bring laughter to even the darkest of days. You can't deny this was an uncommonly intense friendship between two males, and there are certainly ways to explain it that don't involve a sexual component. But I agree, John. Wouldn't bother me either if there were an element of truth. John and Stu's relationship was pretty intense too I think. Nine
|
|