|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jul 6, 2013 19:32:23 GMT -5
Lennon did the invaluable Playboy interview where he went through every Beatles song. So John's take is part of the permanent record no matter how much Paul, or anybody, tries to revise. Oh, but so many times John just quickly zipped through songs and would say stuff simply, like "That's Me". "That's Paul"... "That's just a piece of nothing".
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jul 6, 2013 19:36:11 GMT -5
Speaking of "Eleanor Rigby" there's a fascinating account of how that song was written in Pete Shotton's book. They were all hanging out at Lennon's house one afternoon, mostly having a decidedly "unmagical and unmysterious" afternoon sitting around watching television (as Shotton wryly put it). When they decided to have a songwriting session. Everybody, including Pete and Mal, kicked in with their suggestions, many of which were taken. It sort of had the feel of a bunch of people lazing around working on a big jigsaw puzzle together. Originally, Paul had written it as "Father McCartney" but they all agreed that would be a mistake. So they leafed through the "Macs" in the telephone book until they found a McKenzie which they all agreed sounded right. Shotton claims that he was the one who came up with the idea to bring the two lonely people together at the end (but too late) by having the minister preside over Eleanor's funeral. Which is a pretty neat poetic devise and really makes the song complete. John -- who according to Pete was listless and unproductive during the whole session, possibly suffering from a drug hangover -- angrily denounced Pete's suggestion, maintaining that Pete had no concept of where they were going with the song. Much to Pete's ire. He also claims that Paul has acknowledged his contribution to the song. While modestly maintaining that he deserves no credit, that the Beatles would have eventually come up with the lines no matter who happened to be hanging out at the time. I'd like to ask Paul about this and see what he says. I have the Pete Shotton book too. That's the trouble with these things - you never know what's true and what is not, or what is true but skewed in the retelling. The problem is, fans from that day forward tend to take it all verbatim, as gospel. I wouldn't take Pete's account to the bank. I heard an interview with Mal Evans where he claims he wrote the SGT PEPPER song and FIXING A HOLE with Paul, completely 50-50, so who knows...
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jul 6, 2013 20:11:54 GMT -5
You're right Joe no need to rehash this. And i didnt bring up the subject. But i will add this. John's much vaunted "honesty" on the subject of drugs most certainly didnt kick in until after the Beatles had disbanded. During their career as far as i know Johns only public comments on drugs was to sign a petition to legalize pot. And the big announcement that the Beatles had renounced drugs for the greater glories of TM. Which we all know turned out to bbullshit.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jul 6, 2013 20:20:12 GMT -5
I think you really had to be around in 1967 to understand the fury that "Lucy" in particular provoked. That was the song more than any that parents felt was enticing their kids to experiment with drugs. I can certainly understand why John would want to distance himself from that interpretation'............. Do you really think Paul brought it up just to make John look bad? And by the way Paul said "we" were writing about drug experiences. Not just John.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jul 7, 2013 6:57:25 GMT -5
I think you really had to be around in 1967 to understand the fury that "Lucy" in particular provoked. That was the song more than any that parents felt was enticing their kids to experiment with drugs. I can certainly understand why John would want to distance himself from that interpretation'............. Do you really think Paul brought it up just to make John look bad? And by the way Paul said "we" were writing about drug experiences. Not just John. Paul should not speak for John. That's part of this problem again, that John is no longer here to speak for himself and refute or clarify such things if necessary. Why would John admit to writing songs about drugs but lie about LUCY? Makes no sense. On the 'Old Grey Whistle Test" interview, John clearly admits to using drugs when telling people to look at the album cover: " You'll see two people who are flying, and two who aren't... two wouldn't share it". Lennon was more of an "In your face, and I don't care" kind of guy, especially when it came to his music. He never felt he had to "distance himself" from his songs. I didn't and wouldn't say that Paul was trying to make John "look bad" -- I just think Paul, as is well-documented, tends to re-write history (and these days usually to his own benefit), and takes far too many liberties in speaking for others like John. Ace, I just think that you, for whatever your reasons, have a real WANT for 'Lucy' to be all about drugs. I mean, even though I have never had an acid trip myself, of course I could see how the words to LUCY could simulate an acid trip. I'm thinking you loved to get high yourself, and you grew up with LUCY as a drug-oriented opus, and you don't want to ruin it for yourself. But the bottom line for me is, I absolutely believe that Julian's surreal drawing with the lady flying all around inspired John to write the song (was Julian on acid when he drew the picture?).
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jul 7, 2013 7:08:54 GMT -5
You're right Joe no need to rehash this. And i didnt bring up the subject. But i will add this. John's much vaunted "honesty" on the subject of drugs most certainly didnt kick in until after the Beatles had disbanded. During their career as far as i know Johns only public comments on drugs was to sign a petition to legalize pot. And the big announcement that the Beatles had renounced drugs for the greater glories of TM. Which we all know turned out to bbullshit. You call it "bullshit" as if it was a deceptive thing. So maybe they tried to get by only with meditation instead of drugs, but it didn't last and they went back to dope later. Nothing wrong with making a noble effort to try, anyway. I've never needed that crap -- always got high on my hobbies, and still do. Why do you think it's so "significant" that John really only got forthcoming on the drugs thing after the Beatles disbanded? There was so much going on from 1967-1969, I don't see where there was much opportunity or how often they were asked. When Paul was asked in 1967 if he'd taken LSD, he admitted it in a very rare "Lennon-esque" moment. (One of my favorite ballsy Macca Moments ever). But I could see the whole drugs thing being kept ambiguous or a mystique at the time of the late '60s. But there was no need to keep it quiet or "lie" in the '70s -- and certainly not by the time Lennon stuck to his guns on LUCY even in 1980... you gotta be kiddin' .
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Jul 7, 2013 10:02:35 GMT -5
...So maybe they tried to get by only with meditation instead of drugs, but it didn't last and they went back to dope later. Nothing wrong with making a noble effort to try, anyway. I've never needed that crap -- always got high on my hobbies, and still do. ... That explains a few things. I don't see how using meditation instead of drugs is noble.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jul 7, 2013 12:26:57 GMT -5
I don't see how using meditation instead of drugs is noble. Really? I think it's much more respectable to try and learn to relax oneself through meditation, rather than putting dangerous poisons into one's system.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Jul 7, 2013 13:01:12 GMT -5
Respectable?
Back in the day when most young people were using, we didn't think much of the folks who didn't. ("Short haired son of tricky Dicky's".)
Most things are poisonous in high quantities. Too much water can kill you but I'm not quitting it.
With all the drugs I did in the '70s, I didn't die once.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jul 7, 2013 14:21:55 GMT -5
Back in the day when most young people were using, we didn't think much of the folks who didn't. ("Short haired son of tricky Dicky's".) But now you're older and wiser... right? Bad example. Drugs are poison even in low quantities. I'm glad to hear that. Wish everyone who rolled those dice were as lucky as you, though...
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Jul 7, 2013 14:32:08 GMT -5
Many, many more people lived than died.
How much marijuana is poisonous? Are pharmaceutical drugs poisonous? If they are, why do people still use them?
Just curious, do you drink?
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jul 7, 2013 16:57:01 GMT -5
. . . Drugs are poison even in low quantities. Since you don't know the real definition of "poison," school is in session again. Take notes. Debjorgo is right about water. Air, for that matter, can be a poison. Yes, some poisons are more toxic or venomous than others, but anything taken in the wrong amount - for that person, can be a poison. Just ask someone with a peanut allergy.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jul 7, 2013 17:23:54 GMT -5
You're right Joe no need to rehash this. And i didnt bring up the subject. But i will add this. John's much vaunted "honesty" on the subject of drugs most certainly didnt kick in until after the Beatles had disbanded. During their career as far as i know Johns only public comments on drugs was to sign a petition to legalize pot. And the big announcement that the Beatles had renounced drugs for the greater glories of TM. Which we all know turned out to bbullshit. You call it "bullshit" as if it was a deceptive thing. I hate to play the Old Fogie card ("You'd understand if you were older and wiser like me, you youngster you.") but I think our different perspective on this one is because I'm one of those old farts that experienced the Beatles career in real time, following each record as it was released. By "bullshit" what I meant was: During the entire Beatles career (and this ties in with your notion that the Beatles were "honest" about their drug use) the official party line spouted by them Beatles was: "Yes, we had a brief period of drug experimentation but we quickly learned the error of our ways and now renounce drugs." Which was their official public position all the way through "Let It Be." Which, to put it frankly, was patently bullshit. A completely false representation of the Beatles actual drug use. It wasn't until "Lennon Remembers" after the Beatles disbanded that Lennon started flashing his famous "honesty" on the subject. Of course, ten years too late. I guess our differing opinions on this one stems from our vastly differenct impressions of John Lennon. Where you see "honesty" and "truth-telling" I see a guy who constantly put his own spin on the truth depending on what was in his self interests.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jul 7, 2013 17:27:03 GMT -5
On the subject of Lennon's truth-telling re LSD, in fact, Lennon and the other Beatles were quite upset with Paul when he publicly told the truth about their LSD use.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jul 7, 2013 17:35:44 GMT -5
I think you really had to be around in 1967 to understand the fury that "Lucy" in particular provoked. That was the song more than any that parents felt was enticing their kids to experiment with drugs. I can certainly understand why John would want to distance himself from that interpretation'............. Do you really think Paul brought it up just to make John look bad? And by the way Paul said "we" were writing about drug experiences. Not just John. Paul should not speak for John. That's part of this problem again, that John is no longer here to speak for himself and refute or clarify such things if necessary. Why would John admit to writing songs about drugs but lie about LUCY? Makes no sense. On the 'Old Grey Whistle Test" interview, John clearly admits to using drugs when telling people to look at the album cover: " You'll see two people who are flying, and two who aren't... two wouldn't share it". Lennon was more of an "In your face, and I don't care" kind of guy, especially when it came to his music. He never felt he had to "distance himself" from his songs. I didn't and wouldn't say that Paul was trying to make John "look bad" -- I just think Paul, as is well-documented, tends to re-write history (and these days usually to his own benefit), and takes far too many liberties in speaking for others like John. Ace, I just think that you, for whatever your reasons, have a real WANT for 'Lucy' to be all about drugs. I mean, even though I have never had an acid trip myself, of course I could see how the words to LUCY could simulate an acid trip. I'm thinking you loved to get high yourself, and you grew up with LUCY as a drug-oriented opus, and you don't want to ruin it for yourself. But the bottom line for me is, I absolutely believe that Julian's surreal drawing with the lady flying all around inspired John to write the song (was Julian on acid when he drew the picture?). I have no doubt "Lucy" was inspired by Julian's drawing. Just like "Mr Kite" was inspired by a poster, and "Good Morning" was inspired by a breakfast cereal commercial. But to imply that that is what those songs are about makes as much sense as saying "Yesterday" was about scrambled eggs, and "Let it Be" was about roadie Mal as a mother figure. Beatles songs often started out with a kernel of inspiration which they went on to embellish and expand upon. I also think John was telling the truth when he said he had no idea that "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" spelled out LSD. I chalk that up to one of those weird coincidences, one of those bizarre bits of sychronicity that so often go hand in hand with the psychedelic experience. But the fact is, at the exact time John was writing "Lucy" he was going on hundreds of acid trips, eating the stuff like candy, expounding on its virtues to all his friends and associates, lauding it as a profound and life-changing experience where he was struck by great "visions." And he was in the middle of what is commonly referred to as the Beatles trilogy of "psychedelic" albums, as in psychedelic drugs (Revolver, Pepper, MMT). And Lennon was an artist famous for his journalistic approach to writing where his songs more often than not intimately reflected his daily experiences at the time. So yeah, I think its hardly a stretch to say that Lennon was writing about his psychedelic drug experiences in the song "Lucy." And that Paul was merely pointing out the obvious when he pointed that out.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jul 7, 2013 18:37:54 GMT -5
On the subject of Lennon's truth-telling re LSD, in fact, Lennon and the other Beatles were quite upset with Paul when he publicly told the truth about their LSD use. Where did you read that? There is actual film footage when John and Paul came to New York to promote Apple in 1968, interviewed by Larry Kane at the St. Regis hotel where John is vehemently defending Paul and saying how the press kept hammering at him for admitting to taking LSD, and that it wasn't Paul's fault but rather the news man who was spreading it by reporting it. Lennon even blatantly answers the question as to how their trip was by saying: "The journey was terrible -- but the trip was all right". So really, Ace, I think you're misinformed about John and his open attitude toward drug use...
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jul 7, 2013 18:42:46 GMT -5
. . . Drugs are poison even in low quantities. Since you don't know the real definition of "poison," school is in session again. Take notes. Debjorgo is right about water. Air, for that matter, can be a poison. Yes, some poisons are more toxic or venomous than others, but anything taken in the wrong amount - for that person, can be a poison. Just ask someone with a peanut allergy. Oh, stop with the semantics and straw man arguments. We're not talking about someone drinking 10 gallons of water. We're not talking about the rare people who have to live in a plastic bubble or something. You can blab on forever, but the fact is, man-made drugs were not meant to be consumed by humans. It's utterly idiotic to make some kind of case for taking LSD, Heroin, Cocaine, or things of that nature. I would tend to come down easier on marijuana because it's natural, but dirt too is natural and it is not recommended that you digest too much of it, either. All I ever learn from your "classes", sayne, is that I'm much smarter than you are.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Jul 7, 2013 18:49:13 GMT -5
John "What's this then, Julian?" Julian "It's my new drawing. It's Lucy, my friend at school." Immediately John thinks "Lucy ~ LSD". John "Where is she then? What's all this?" Julian "These are stars." John "Why is there stars around Lucy?" Julian "She's in the sky." John "So it's Lucy in the Sky, ...with Diamonds. Ha ha, hee hee..." !Smack! John "Oh, sorry kid."
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jul 7, 2013 19:17:06 GMT -5
Many, many more people lived than died. Even one person dying from drugs is a tragedy. So you rolled the dice and won -- congratulations to you. Others like John Belushi and some famous rockers didn't fare as well. To me, life should be more sacred than that. Yes, they're man-made poisons. the body was never meant to ingest them, and they have side effects. Why do people use them? Because people by and large have always been stupid. They want a quick relief for a headache, or other ailment. My younger sister (and only sibling) died in 2011 from taking prescription drugs -- but that's not why I am against them; I had been against them for decades before she had her problems. Rarely. I have a beer or two at a barbecue maybe twice a year, and only if I'm invited to a barbecue. I am not a drinker, and my biological father was a drunk. He also smoked cancer sticks his whole life and I heard he died at age 63 (he outlived smoking George Harrison by 5 years). I'm not too proud to admit things. I am not perfect -- I am presently taking prescription medications that I have fought against taking for the last several years of my life. I eat and drink processed garbage that I shouldn't eat and drink, I will admit with open humility. My weight has gone up and down through my life and I am presently overweight and in need of reducing. Once I reduce as i used to be, then I generally have no need for those damn prescriptions... But here is my point, Ace. I KNOW I am doing wrong here -- I KNOW this is not the right stuff to put into my system. I don't go around saying "it's all harmless", or "everything is fine within moderation". I am practicing what I preach in the sense that I recognize some of this stuff as crap and poisonous to the body, and not what it was meant to ingest. I went through a considerable period of my life where I avoided all sugars and processed foods and additives -- but I have slipped back. The point is, I recognize that these are not good things. However, I still think eating a candy bar is less harmful than ingesting a mind-altering drug like Acid.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jul 7, 2013 19:22:19 GMT -5
Well, i love the guys music. I'm not so wild about certain aspects of his personality. If that makes me anti-Lennon so be it.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jul 7, 2013 19:27:35 GMT -5
PS. Read the Anthology book for starters where the Beatles bemoan Paul's honesty re LSD and the grief it brought into their lives.
But yeah, nuff said.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Jul 7, 2013 19:51:04 GMT -5
You should try shrooms, Joe. They're natural.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jul 7, 2013 20:36:24 GMT -5
Joe on shrooms. Thats a frightening thought. Hes enough of a handfull as it is straight. Ha ha.
When i lived up in Humboldt we used to pick a garbage bag full of those things in a couple of hours. Followed by long nights of shroom tea and whiskey and endless jams of Hendrix ans Stones songs on fuzztone amps (I think our brains provided most of the fuzz). For the record i wish i had followed Joes example and stayed straight.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Jul 7, 2013 20:50:30 GMT -5
Joe on shrooms. Thats a frightening thought. Hes enough of a handfull as it is straight. Ha ha. When i lived up in Humboldt we used to pick a garbage bag full of those things in a couple of hours. Followed by long nights of shroom tea and whiskey and endless jams of Hendrix ans Stones songs on fuzztone amps (I think our brains provided most of the fuzz). For the record i wish i had followed Joes example and stayed straight. You can stay straight in the next life. This one, you had a little fun.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jul 7, 2013 21:13:10 GMT -5
This life has been a trip thats for sure. In more ways than three. Ha ha.
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Jul 7, 2013 22:19:04 GMT -5
OK, I'll try and keep that in mind :-) Anyway, it's NOT TRUE that John will be forgotten. On the contrary, Paul's efforts bring more attention to the Beatles AND John. Look here: www.lastfm.de/music/John+LennonJohn has 10 Million more listeners than Paul has, still. Sorry zemargla, your measurement of popularity is flawed. First of all, if you could the scrabbles for Paul under Paul McCartney and Wings, Wings, Paul and Linda McCartney, Fireman in addition to Paul McCartney you will find they are about even in popularity. Secondly, that site is decidedly scewed toward the UK and away from the Americas. It is really a flawed sample when you take into account the entire world. Most importantly, I have never dragged John through the mud as another poster and friend wrote. I defy you or anyone on this site to find where I have personally or professionally attached John. What I do that is such a sin is defy Beatles mythology and point out facts about Paul's contributions. By doing so, some very fervent very hard core John fans or possibly not so fond Paul detractors take this as sacrelige and take these facts as attacks. That I should question any Beatles lore with facts is not acceptable. Sorry, I don't apologize for shedding light where there is darkness.
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Jul 7, 2013 22:21:30 GMT -5
I teach high school kids and I see a lot of kids wearing Beatles t-shirts. Without fail, there are always rebels and/or misfit types who wear John Lennon shirts too. I see more Lennon shirts than McCartney shirts. John is not going to be forgotten and I don't think Paul will be either. John's rebel attitude would of couse appeal to kids in that age group. In the end, at other ages it all evens out. I don't think one is much ahead of the other in praise and respect and notoriety.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jul 7, 2013 22:24:41 GMT -5
No I'm with you Joe. As Huey Newton or some other Huey said, "Its hip to be square."
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jul 7, 2013 22:31:51 GMT -5
I've seen so many drug and alcohol casualties over the years the last thing i want to do is romanticize my drug and alcohol use. Even as i went down that path. And a lot of it was, as an artist i wanted to experiment with different modes of consciousness. And a lot of it was indeed great fun. But I've seen the needle and the damage done. As Loretta Young or some other Young once put it.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jul 7, 2013 22:39:14 GMT -5
My favorite line is from the poet Charles Bukowski, the patron saint of drunks (and signed to Zapple Records in 1968 to tie this back to the Beatles even though he was an old fart that hated the Beatles):
"When something good happens I drink to celebrate. When something bad happens I drink to commiserate. And when nothing happens I drink to make something happen."
|
|