|
Post by acebackwords on Aug 11, 2011 12:29:50 GMT -5
This kind of surprised me. According to Lennon's half-sister Julia Baird, Mimi's last words were: "I'm terrified of dying. I've been a wicked woman."
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Aug 12, 2011 11:58:17 GMT -5
Where's RTP to argue that Mimi's last words should actually be credited to Paul?
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Aug 12, 2011 12:32:17 GMT -5
Certain elements of society will see that deathbed statement as proof that some Omen-like switch occured at John's birth like what happened with old Damien.
|
|
|
Post by scousette on Aug 12, 2011 12:39:21 GMT -5
Where's RTP to argue that Mimi's last words should actually be credited to Paul? I thought maybe she was crying out for Michael Fishwick.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Aug 12, 2011 14:21:01 GMT -5
Where's RTP to argue that Mimi's last words should actually be credited to Paul? Ha ha.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Aug 12, 2011 18:06:10 GMT -5
There's another typical Yoko Ono story in Julia Baird's autobiography. After the Beatles hit it big, Lennon bought a house for his Aunt Harriet and Uncle Norman Birch. After Lennon died, Yoko basically repossessed the house, gave the elderly couple 30 days notice and kicked them out.
Baird later confronted Yoko, asked her how she could do something like that. Yoko had no answer. Maybe some of the Yoko supporters on this board have an answer. I myself came up with a simple answer. Yoko Ono was a miserable sack of shit.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Aug 12, 2011 20:26:55 GMT -5
There's another typical Yoko Ono story in Julia Baird's autobiography. After the Beatles hit it big, Lennon bought a house for his Aunt Harriet and Uncle Norman Birch. After Lennon died, Yoko basically repossessed the house, gave the elderly couple 30 days notice and kicked them out. Baird later confronted Yoko, asked her how she could do something like that. Yoko had no answer. Maybe some of the Yoko supporters on this board have an answer. I myself came up with a simple answer. Yoko Ono was a miserable sack of shit. They shouldn't have remodeled and ruined the feng shui. Those second bathrooms are a bitch.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2011 6:01:34 GMT -5
There's another typical Yoko Ono story in Julia Baird's autobiography. After the Beatles hit it big, Lennon bought a house for his Aunt Harriet and Uncle Norman Birch. After Lennon died, Yoko basically repossessed the house, gave the elderly couple 30 days notice and kicked them out. Baird later confronted Yoko, asked her how she could do something like that. Yoko had no answer. Maybe some of the Yoko supporters on this board have an answer. I myself came up with a simple answer. Yoko Ono was a miserable sack of shit. Who got extremely lucky
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 13, 2011 6:50:50 GMT -5
If you want to go there, it may also be said that George got lucky too, what with his limited guitar ability and whiny vocal range. Thank God for George that he could play "Raunchy"! ;D Yoko Ono was already well-to-do and popular in the Art field.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 13, 2011 6:52:54 GMT -5
There's another typical Yoko Ono story in Julia Baird's autobiography. After the Beatles hit it big, Lennon bought a house for his Aunt Harriet and Uncle Norman Birch. After Lennon died, Yoko basically repossessed the house, gave the elderly couple 30 days notice and kicked them out. Baird later confronted Yoko, asked her how she could do something like that. Yoko had no answer. Maybe some of the Yoko supporters on this board have an answer. I myself came up with a simple answer. Yoko Ono was a miserable sack of shit. My answer is that you believe every fucking thing you read. And that Julia Baird was not even heard from until 1988 when she jumped on the "John Lennon Bandwagon" of that year and over-emphasized her importance in Lennon's life, to make a buck. Julia Baird used John -- so she's a sack of shit too, right?
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Aug 13, 2011 12:05:57 GMT -5
I wouldn't say Yoko is a "sack of shit", but numerous of her ideas and actions -- in the public realm -- relating to John Lennon's legacy, life, and family/friends have been in very bad taste and highly questionable. She's probably an interesting person one-on-one and personally, but I suspect her privileged upbringing and lifelong comfort with the lifestyle of the elite had always put her well outside the comfort zones of the average Lennon/Beatles' fan, and probably made The Beatles' thing that much harder for her to understand.
One could admire her chutzpah in doing things like shouting atonally in the background while John performed on TV as being an assertion of both her artistic creativity and her womanhood -- or one could look at it as a giant ego-wank by someone neither qualified nor wanted (except by John, arguably) to be there. Yoko's legacy (to Beatle/Lennon fans) will thus always be hard to define.
And of course it's unfair that perception of Yoko is entirely down to her relation to "Beatle John", when only a dozen of her 70+ years were spent with him. But then again, she has taken every opportunity to play-up his devotion to her rather than more accurately portray his two marriages (and her three...or more). So again, divided legacy.
I'm not aware that Yoko was "well-to-do" and "popular" in the art field in New York. My understanding is that she was financially supported by her family through her Sarah Lawrence years and, some years later, was in very bad financial straights (around the time she met John). As for her popularity, I think she was a relatively minor figure in the art world of the 60s. I'm sure she had her supporters, but certainly a lot of detractors (so, nothing really changed when she married John!).
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Aug 13, 2011 12:16:40 GMT -5
. . . I'm not aware that Yoko was "well-to-do" and "popular" in the art field in New York . . . I'm sure she had her supporters, but certainly a lot of detractors (so, nothing really changed when she married John!). Can't comment on the "well-to-do" part, but detractors or not (the Beatles have detractors, too) she is an important name in the Fluxus movement. Whether one likes post-Modern art or not, it was an art movement that had an important perspective. It's concepts of "happenings" can be seen today, in a manner, with those "flash mob" events that take place today. Anyway, fair is fair. Yoko may have a lot to question, but her pre-John career was authentic in her own right.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 13, 2011 14:56:33 GMT -5
Bottom line on Yoko (since I haven't had cause to say this in a long time) is that Beatles Fans hate her guts ... PERIOD. So she is not the perfect person -- who is? So she's done some bad things -- who hasn't?
But it's YOKO, and thus she's always the scapegoat by which everyone can take their frustrations out and bash her. After all, they still believe she broke up their precious Beatles, right?
But I promised myself that other than saying a few words on this (which I just have), Yoko does not need me or anyone to defend her. She has always been a strong woman, and has long survived the sour grape indignities hulred her way for decades - and she is like an unshakable rock.
You want to bash a wife for how she handles a late Beatle's legacy? Slam Olivia Harrison -- she hasn't done shit since George has passed, and we're fortunate to finally be getting a bone in that Scorsese documentary.
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Aug 13, 2011 18:31:27 GMT -5
Why is it okay to bash George to defend Yoko? I never understand this kind of response.
One could say John and Paul were lucky to have George, considering what he added to their songs, sans credit.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Aug 13, 2011 20:15:37 GMT -5
The Yoko-bashing above was nothing to do with the Lennon musical legacy and how she has handled it, her art, how she got involved with John, or anything similar. It was related to her repossessing the house John bought for Aunt Harriet and Uncle Norman to live in. If true, and in the absence of further information in mitigation, that appears to have been a mean spirited thing to have done.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2011 5:22:38 GMT -5
If you want to go there, it may also be said that George got lucky too, what with his limited guitar ability and whiny vocal range. Thank God for George that he could play "Raunchy"! ;D Yoko Ono was already well-to-do and popular in the Art field. She was a very small part of the avant garde art world that needed to be found ,or needed a benefactor...She didn't do too badly really
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Aug 14, 2011 22:44:25 GMT -5
Bottom line on Yoko (since I haven't had cause to say this in a long time) is that Beatles Fans hate her guts ... PERIOD. ...it's YOKO, and thus she's always the scapegoat by which everyone can take their frustrations out and bash her. I dunno, is it just me, or is this totally off-base? Maybe in the late 60s, in Britain, it was somewhat true. Certainly Yoko (and John) were subjected to a brutal press campaign for a couple of years. But to people of my generation, Yoko has never been thought of as a witch. In fact, she's quite popular and everyone seems to like her. For example, when I was in high school, Barenaked Ladies' song "Be My Yoko Ono" was a bit hit in Canada. But I promised myself that other than saying a few words on this (which I just have), Yoko does not need me or anyone to defend her. If only RTP would take the same attitude towards Paul! She has always been a strong woman, and has long survived the sour grape indignities hulred her way for decades - and she is like an unshakable rock. Why don't you just go one step further, and declare her your personal god and the saviour of the human race? I mean, c'mon, she's a mixed bag -- you get the good and the bad. Deal with it. (The finances of John's estate might have also helped her deal with those indignities. The poor, poor, woman...) You want to bash a wife for how she handles a late Beatle's legacy? Slam Olivia Harrison -- she hasn't done shit since George has passed, and we're fortunate to finally be getting a bone in that Scorsese documentary. Well, this is where you lost me completely. So now it's okay to attach George's wife, but not John's, and all because Olivia has kept a quiet dignity, entirely in keeping with George's personality and preferences? Nice one. As someone said, your "defend Yoko at all costs by attacking anyone else" position reveals your juvenile perspective on this issue (actually, it's a non-issue but you're trying to make it one).
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 15, 2011 7:01:54 GMT -5
Why don't you just go one step further, and declare her your personal god and the saviour of the human race? I mean, c'mon, she's a mixed bag -- you get the good and the bad. Deal with it. Oh, give me a break. Any time I stand up for Yoko I get this response that I "love Yoko", or that she is "my god and savior for the human race" (though, truth be told, she has done a lot of good to help people). It's not that *I* have any problem accepting that she's got her bad points too ...it's that the baby Beatle fans who can't have it the way they want it always pick on every damn thing she does - she can't even fart properly to suit them. It's called pointing out Hypocrisies and Double Standards. I don't want to attack Olivia or anyone else -- but hopefully you're bright enough to understand where I'm going with this. It's that if you're gonna slam Yoko for how she's handling John's Legacy, then slam Olivia where she's failed, too. (Personally though, I feel Yoko's done a very admirable job in respecting John's legacy and giving fans a lot of enjoyable product). We all have our own ideas of what's juvenile. In my book "juvenile" is constantly attacking Yoko for every damn thing she does or does not do, just because people can't stand her in general. And for childishly holding a grudge because your precious pop band didn't stay together 40 years ago, and John found more interest with her. I don't think it's me who need to grow up.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 15, 2011 7:04:37 GMT -5
Why is it okay to bash George to defend Yoko? I never understand this kind of response. No, I guess you don't. It's the old "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" thing. When you get a guy who loves George saying "Yoko got lucky", it's a sharp observation to point out to them the ways in which his precious George got lucky. too.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 15, 2011 7:15:48 GMT -5
The Yoko-bashing above was nothing to do with the Lennon musical legacy and how she has handled it, her art, how she got involved with John, or anything similar. It was related to her repossessing the house John bought for Aunt Harriet and Uncle Norman to live in. If true, and in the absence of further information in mitigation, that appears to have been a mean spirited thing to have done. Exactly - "IF TRUE". And what makes that leech Julia Baird so innocent? Everyone here is conveniently overlooking how she road on John's coat tails in 1988, when IMAGINE: JOHN LENNON was coming out. She appeared on all sorts of TV talk shows from out of the woodwork, and hawked her book on John. She unconditionally hates Yoko as many do (I have VHS tapes recorded from 1988 of her various appearances, because I recorded everything Beatle-related in those days) and it's not as though she's Mother Mary. So to make everyone happy - yes, if Yoko did what Julia Baird claims, that's a mean-spirited thing on the surface of it. But I'd like to know the facts, not just what some blood-sucker claims. And if it IS true, then oh well --so Yoko did a not nice thing. John Lennon himself did rotten things too now and then. I'm sure Julia Baird was no angel. I know a girl who asked George Harrison for his autograph and he told her to "get a job". Is that nice? There was also a report I read once where George was asked for an autograph and he sarcastically signed it "Rod Stewart". Nice, huh? (I wonder if those George accounts are even true? Maybe I or Julia Baird or Panther can put it in a book and then everyone can make it historical "fact").
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Aug 15, 2011 9:43:35 GMT -5
I have no idea why you're coming at me. Have I said anything rude about Yoko, in this thread or ever? No, I haven't. This is a good example of how you're making up enemies and Yoko-haters where there aren't any.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Aug 15, 2011 9:56:41 GMT -5
The key point here, and in so many Beatles-related (and other!) stories is "If true."
If it's sitting there on a bit of celluloid where I can see it and hear it, then I'm tentatively prepared to accept it as face value. Otherwise, pretty nearly all the rest of it is one person's recollection. Sometimes someone else's recollection will corroborate, in which case I am (again) inclined to lean towards acceptance if the point in question is quantitative rather than qualitative.
But sometimes the other person's recollection will contradict, and then we're in a right old fix and no mistake!
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Aug 15, 2011 11:29:04 GMT -5
There's another typical Yoko Ono story in Julia Baird's autobiography. After the Beatles hit it big, Lennon bought a house for his Aunt Harriet and Uncle Norman Birch. After Lennon died, Yoko basically repossessed the house, gave the elderly couple 30 days notice and kicked them out. Baird later confronted Yoko, asked her how she could do something like that. Yoko had no answer. Maybe some of the Yoko supporters on this board have an answer. I myself came up with a simple answer. Yoko Ono was a miserable sack of shit. My answer is that you believe every fucking thing you read. And that Julia Baird was not even heard from until 1988 when she jumped on the "John Lennon Bandwagon" of that year and over-emphasized her importance in Lennon's life, to make a buck. Julia Baird used John -- so she's a sack of shit too, right? And you apparently disbelieve just about anything thats critical of JohnandYoko. Which is your right. You treat the Julia Baird story like its opinion or hearsay. When in fact its commonly accepted fact. Its referred to in Cynthia's book as well as countless other sources and is disputed by no one (except for you, apparently) not even by Yoko. Who ended up donating the house to the Salvation Army (what a charitable act) after throwing the elderly couple out of their home. Yoko isn't just widely hated by Beatles fans but by a large cross section of human beings in all walks of life who happened to have the misfortune to cross paths with her. She just strikes many many people as a vile person. Possibly because she is a vile person. But thats merely my opinion. As for her "well to do" art career, I personally liked a lot of her early ideas. The bottom movie. The rape movie. Some imaginative stuff. I will add she was widely disliked by the Andy Warhol crowd and much of the New York avant-garde scene in the early '60s. But she had her supporters, too. I doubt Yoko made a penny off of most of her art (not a standard for judging "art" but for judging "popular" and "well to do"). Personally, I think she had a largely possitive effect on Lennon as an artist as well as providing a strong and stable person as a mate and partner. But throwing an elderly couple out of their homes is despicable in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Aug 15, 2011 13:08:37 GMT -5
What we have here is one extremist (Joe = Yoko is Jesus) and another extremist (Acebackwords = Yoko is a sack of shit) meeting, and trying to drag everyone else into their netherworlds.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Aug 15, 2011 14:01:14 GMT -5
What we have here is one extremist (Joe = Yoko is Jesus) and another extremist (Acebackwords = Yoko is a sack of shit) meeting, and trying to drag everyone else into their netherworlds. Well then lets just all resolve this and conclude that Yoko was a sack of Jesus.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 15, 2011 15:49:58 GMT -5
But throwing an elderly couple out of their homes is despicable in my opinion. What happend to them? Did Julia Baird take them in? Also - is it despicable to make much more out of your half-relationship with your half-brother after his passing, just to suck his dead blood and rake in some bucks?
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Aug 15, 2011 16:01:56 GMT -5
But throwing an elderly couple out of their homes is despicable in my opinion. What happend to them? Did Julia Baird take them in? Also - is it despicable to make much more out of your half-relationship with your half-brother after his passing, just to suck his dead blood and rake in some bucks? I don't know what happened to them except for what Cynthia said, that the situation caused all sorts of problems within the family for a long time. I know we differ on these "tell-all" books, Joe. My feeling is that aside from being great musicians, artists and entertainers, the Beatles were also very important cultural and historical figures. So I personally am grateful that there are as many books from as many different people to give us as many different sides of the Beatles as possible. Or as Lennon wryly put it: "Every chauffeur and every ex-girlfriend gets a book." P.S. Lennon himself was an incredible devourer of books and magazines and had a great love for the gossip rags, too.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Aug 15, 2011 18:11:23 GMT -5
I'd recommend Mike McCartney's books to anyone. Excellent in their own right, but terrific Beatles-insight books too.
|
|