Why did Paul refuse...
Sir Zeus
why he refused? The only thing I've ever heard was Paul refused so John
didn't give him songwriting credit. And this was the first Lennon song not
to be credited as Lennon/McCartney. I'm just curious as to WHY Paul refused
to play on it. It's a great song.
chocolate jesus.... .
Sir Zeus <sir...@the-doors.com> wrote in message
news:rsfmon...@corp.supernews.com...
my take:
it was too fukin serious and real for paul to involve himself in.
the popmeister had a rep to protect.
bubblegum and smack don't mix.
JLW44
>
>the popmeister had a rep to protect.
>
>
>bubblegum and smack don't mix.
>
>
You must be so 'cool' to make a statement like this.
Lionel Postman
<mrs...@hell.com> writes:
>bubblegum and smack don't mix.
>
>
Don't knock it until you've tried it.
Makes a great gargle.
Eric Clapton
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Three times a day, as the average, we use of thee among of our foods.....Along
by our knowledge of the well-kept adage by the more of all helpin' with the all
of coulds"- Thomas Guygax, "At the time", circa 1970's
Secret Agentman
JLW44 <jl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990828104427...@ng-fi1.aol.com...
> >it was too fukin serious and real for paul to involve himself in.
> >
> >the popmeister had a rep to protect.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Danny Caccavo
> Sir Zeus <sir...@the-doors.com> wrote in message
> news:rsfmon...@corp.supernews.com...
> > ..to play on "Cold Turkey"? Has John or Paul himself ever publicly stated
> > why he refused? The only thing I've ever heard was Paul refused so John
> > didn't give him songwriting credit. And this was the first Lennon song not
> > to be credited as Lennon/McCartney. I'm just curious as to WHY Paul
> refused
> > to play on it. It's a great song.
>
> my take:
>
> it was too fukin serious and real for paul to involve himself in.
>
> the popmeister had a rep to protect.
>
>
> bubblegum and smack don't mix.
Oh, get over it...<g>
DC
--
Danny Caccavo
"Where's Elvis?"
Chris L
Danny Caccavo <dan...@interport.net> wrote in message
news:danielj-2808...@usrts1p188.port.net...
Ken D Long
my opinion (and maybe Paul's), it goes on way too long. Considering the iffy
state of their relationship at the time, I can understand why Paul wouldn't
want to suggest that John shorten it. This is just speculation, though.
Chris L
funny!!!!!!
lstoll
>
> ..to play on "Cold Turkey"?
It's my recollection that George also didn't want to record it. I don't
think any of the other Beatles played on it, did they? I always assumed
they were uncomfortable with the subject matter. I think it's a bang-up
(that's a good thing) recording though myself. -laura
Barb Alan Atkinson
single. Both George and Paul obviously felt the song and subject matter were
not commercial enough for a Beatle single, so John went off and recorded it
with Clapton, Voorman, and Starr.
Barb
Sir Zeus
>think any of the other Beatles played on it, did they? I always assumed
>they were uncomfortable with the subject matter. I think it's a bang-up
>(that's a good thing) recording though myself. -laura
Ringo played on it. And so did Eric Clapton and Klaus Voormann.
Tom
>It's my recollection that George also didn't want to record it. I don't
>think any of the other Beatles played on it, did they?
Ringo played on it. George played on the live version included on Some Time
in New York City.
Maitland
Chris L wrote:
> I said"Probably because paul was a vegetarian".......alright, it's not that
> funny!!!!!!
> Sir Zeus <sir...@the-doors.com> wrote in message
> news:rsfmon...@corp.supernews.com...
> > ..to play on "Cold Turkey"? Has John or Paul himself ever publicly stated
> > why he refused? The only thing I've ever heard was Paul refused so John
> > didn't give him songwriting credit. And this was the first Lennon song not
> > to be credited as Lennon/McCartney. I'm just curious as to WHY Paul
> refused
> > to play on it. It's a great song.
> >
> >
--
-Maitland
Beatles For Trade@
http://members.xoom.com/backbeat2
Gallard
could argue that any song recorded by The Beatles was defacto a Beatles
song. I would like to have seen them do it.
It was no *harder* a song than Helter Skelter was. I also think that if the
Beatles had done Johns song, he may have not become so ready to disband the
Beatles.
Barb Alan Atkinson <b...@webzone.net> wrote in message
news:37C86B33...@webzone.net...
> John presented the song to the band and wanted to record it as the band's
next
> single. Both George and Paul obviously felt the song and subject matter
were
> not commercial enough for a Beatle single, so John went off and recorded
it
> with Clapton, Voorman, and Starr.
> Barb
>
> Sir Zeus wrote:
>
Danny Caccavo
It's my recollection that it's Alan White playing drums, not Ringo.
Sir Zeus
>could argue that any song recorded by The Beatles was defacto a Beatles
>song. I would like to have seen them do it.
>It was no *harder* a song than Helter Skelter was. I also think that if
the
>Beatles had done Johns song, he may have not become so ready to disband the
>Beatles.
The Beatles not recording John's song only added to the frustration that
John was having with being in the band. I think even if Paul and George HAD
agreed to do Cold Turkey (Ringo did agree and played on it), it wouldn't
have changed John's decision to disband the group. I do think however that
The Beatles not wanting to do it was the last draw for John. He stayed with
The Beatles ALOT longer than he wanted to.
Sir Zeus
No it is Ringo. Eric Clapton and Klaus Voormann play on it too.
andy749
was all John. It doesn't really sound like EC on it...sounds like John
could've handled all that easy enough.
I like the live one in Toronto better.
Brian & Mary Jo Budde
remember hearing or reading about this. Did John offer the song to the
group and where is the documentation? Did I miss this in Paul's book????
JSeraf7064 <jsera...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990828232100...@ng-cb1.aol.com...
> >..to play on "Cold Turkey"? Has John or Paul himself ever publicly stated
why
> he refused? The only thing I've ever heard was Paul refused so John didn't
give
> him songwriting credit. And this was the first Lennon song not to be
credited
> as Lennon/McCartney. I'm just curious as to WHY Paul refused
> to play on it. It's a great song.
>
> Paul didn't simply refuse to play on it, both he and George blocked it's
> inclusion on 'Abbey Road'.
>
> I dislike this song intensely. I can't say how glad I am that it wasn't
> included on 'Abbey Road'... It would have been a scar on that fine album.
I
> find it musically painful, and the only way I can describe it is the
> equivalent of a wretching noise.
>
> It's bad enough John was so weak he got himself hooked on this shit, I for
one
> ain't interested in celebrating his withdrawal (which I don't believe
lasted
> long anyway).
>
> You can like it if you want... I'm not trying to take that from you. I
despise
> it and always have.
>
> -JS
Sir Zeus
I'm
>Amazed' was rejected, as was 'Teddy Boy', an early version of 'Too Many
>People', etc.
Yeah but Paul was the only one not sick of the group. He was trying to keep
the band going. So he didn't care if a couple of his songs were rejected. He
had enough songs on Abbey Road as it was. It was a bigger deal to John. Plus
Cold Turkey was a very personal song. Even if it was about smack.
>John was a junkie. That was bad enough. He didn't need to permanently stamp
>that scar on the Beatles' name by putting this song out as a Beatles song.
The song is great and if anything, it's a song to lure people away from
smack. In the song, John's basically saying "I've been through it and it's
hell. Stay away from it." It would've, in no way, "scarred The Beatles'
name." That's just ridiculous to say. If it was a song praising smack then
maybe you'd have a point.
>Dope messed him up. Dope messes people up. It took a decade for his head to
>clear. Perhaps if it didn't, if he hadn't gotten himself hooked in the
first
>place, he might not have been in a situation where the group was no longer
fun
>for him, and maybe he wouldn't have felt the need to get away from it.
John got into smack after he met Yoko. John's excitement being in The
Beatles started going away during Beatlemania, LONG before he got with Yoko.
By the time the events in mid 1966 occurred (Philippines, "Bigger than
Jesus" mix-up), John was to the point of being fed up with being a Beatle.
Smack may have fucked him up, but it didn't in any way change his opinion of
being a Beatle.
chocolate jesus.... .
> >
> >the popmeister had a rep to protect.
> >
> >
> >bubblegum and smack don't mix.
> >
> >
>
yeah sure, if you say so
chocolate jesus.... .
Secret Agentman <has...@takethisouthome.com> wrote in message
news:qGSx3.3251$r92....@news2.rdc1.on.home.com...
> Oh yea and "yer blues" which Paul played on was a happy jingle wasn't it
it wasn't about heroin now was it ?
chocolate jesus.... .
Danny Caccavo <dan...@interport.net> wrote in message
news:danielj-2808...@usrts1p188.port.net...
> In article <37c7e...@news.highway1.com.au>, " chocolate jesus.... ."
> <mrs...@hell.com> wrote:
>
stated
> > > why he refused? The only thing I've ever heard was Paul refused so
John
> > > didn't give him songwriting credit. And this was the first Lennon song
not
> > > to be credited as Lennon/McCartney. I'm just curious as to WHY Paul
> > refused
> > > to play on it. It's a great song.
> >
> >
> > it was too fukin serious and real for paul to involve himself in.
> >
> > the popmeister had a rep to protect.
> >
> >
> > bubblegum and smack don't mix.
>
get over what?
JSeraf7064
he refused? The only thing I've ever heard was Paul refused so John didn't give
him songwriting credit. And this was the first Lennon song not to be credited
as Lennon/McCartney. I'm just curious as to WHY Paul refused
to play on it. It's a great song.
Paul didn't simply refuse to play on it, both he and George blocked it's
JSeraf7064
>the popmeister had a rep to protect.
>bubblegum and smack don't mix.
Maybe it was common sense and strength that didn't mix with with the fukin
smack.
As I said and will continue to say, you are the bile of this newsgroup.
-JS
JSeraf7064
!!!!
>yes it was
I peed me pants.
-JS
JSeraf7064
John was having with being in the band. I think even if Paul and George HAD
agreed to do Cold Turkey (Ringo did agree and played on it), it wouldn't
have changed John's decision to disband the group. I do think however that
The Beatles not wanting to do it was the last draw for John. He stayed with
The Beatles ALOT longer than he wanted to.
John wasn't the first Beatle to have songs rejected by the group... 'Maybe I'm
Amazed' was rejected, as was 'Teddy Boy', an early version of 'Too Many
People', etc.
John was a junkie. That was bad enough. He didn't need to permanently stamp
that scar on the Beatles' name by putting this song out as a Beatles song.
Dope messed him up. Dope messes people up. It took a decade for his head to
clear. Perhaps if it didn't, if he hadn't gotten himself hooked in the first
place, he might not have been in a situation where the group was no longer fun
for him, and maybe he wouldn't have felt the need to get away from it.
-JS
chocolate jesus.... .
> In article <eTD#xUb8#GA.265@cpmsnbbsa03>, "Tom" <Blac...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > >It's my recollection that George also didn't want to record it. I don't
> > >think any of the other Beatles played on it, did they?
> >
> > Ringo played on it. George played on the live version included on Some
Time
> > in New York City.
>
>
get over it <g>
;p
chocolate jesus.... .
> >it was too fukin serious and real for paul to involve himself in.
>
> >the popmeister had a rep to protect.
>
> >bubblegum and smack don't mix.
>
> Maybe it was common sense and strength that didn't mix with with the fukin
> smack.
i'm sorry, i didnt mean to burst in on a John Birch Society thread.
>
> As I said and will continue to say, you are the bile of this newsgroup.
>
> -JS
personally i take that at as a compliment coming from you....:).
why don't you just leave me alone instead of pushing your ultra-conservative
rdneck blinkered view onto me and everyone here?
or go to church and pray for my sins, or do something uselfull.
sheesh you're a boring old fart.
i know, it was the crack about the balding middle aged software employee
that was outta line wasn't it?
chocolate jesus.... .
> Dope messed him up. Dope messes people up. It took a decade for his head
to
> clear. Perhaps if it didn't, if he hadn't gotten himself hooked in the
first
> place, he might not have been in a situation where the group was no longer
fun
> for him, and maybe he wouldn't have felt the need to get away from it.
yeah and married people never fuck around and one day the robins will sing.
anyhow, acording to you it was "john's bitch" what done it.
;p
Tom
>> >It's my recollection that George also didn't want to record it. I don't
>> >think any of the other Beatles played on it, did they?
>>
>> Ringo played on it. George played on the live version included on Some
Time
>> in New York City.
>
>It's my recollection that it's Alan White playing drums, not Ringo.
>
Karma single. Ringo played on the Cold Turkey single.
Tom
>Dope messed him up. Dope messes people up. It took a decade for his head to
>clear. Perhaps if it didn't, if he hadn't gotten himself hooked in the
first
>place, he might not have been in a situation where the group was no longer
fun
>for him, and maybe he wouldn't have felt the need to get away from it.
>
And maybe, if his head had been clear, he would have left the group even
earlier.
chocolate jesus.... .
Tom <Blac...@msn.com> wrote in message news:ewA9#Vf8#GA.218@cpmsnbbsa03...
some people function better on smack.
*scratch*
*nod*
Paul Snelling
they didn't record it, I'ts not that a good song, it depresses me, mind you
I think it was supposed to!!
--
Regards......Paul
d. <nort...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:northcut-290...@user-37ka2qd.dialup.mindspring.com...
> In article <37c8a...@news.highway1.com.au>, " chocolate jesus.... ."
> <mrs...@hell.com> wrote:
>
> > JSeraf7064 <jsera...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:19990828232256...@ng-cb1.aol.com...
> > > >it was too fukin serious and real for paul to involve himself in.
> > >
> > > >the popmeister had a rep to protect.
> > >
> > > >bubblegum and smack don't mix.
> > >
> > > Maybe it was common sense and strength that didn't mix with with the
fukin
> > > smack.
> >
> > i'm sorry, i didnt mean to burst in on a John Birch Society thread.
>
>
> I can't believe I'm agreeing with JSeraf (!), but I have to point out that
> disapproving of heroin use doesn't equal membership in the John Birch
> Society.
>
> I also feel obligated to point out to the both of you that Paulie dabbled
> in the ol' horsie himself, rendering a lot of this little argument moot.
> I think the answer to the "why didn't Paul participate in 'Cold Turkey'"
> lies elsewhere, and it involves the Beatles/LenMac dynamic circa 1969
> rather than moral outrage on Paul's part.
>
>
> - d.
paramucho
>in the ol' horsie himself, rendering a lot of this little argument moot.
>I think the answer to the "why didn't Paul participate in 'Cold Turkey'"
>lies elsewhere, and it involves the Beatles/LenMac dynamic circa 1969
>rather than moral outrage on Paul's part.
La Beatles had a committe approach to choosing singles. Cracks in
the consensus began appearing on the "Lady Madonna" single
and became overt when the band knocked back "Revolution 1".
Lennon remade the fast "Revolution" to get it out, but by then
"Hey Jude" was in the can. Lennon agreed fully with the decision
to go with "Hey Jude" but said they could have had both.
Then Lennon made his own single, "Give Peace A Chance".
The Beatles (not just Paul) rejected "Cold Turkey" as a single as
a business decision, so Lennon made it himself and released it.
One of my favorite tracks but it was not #1 material.
Lennon then guilt-tripped them into "The Ballad Of John & Yoko"
which did hit #1.
A little further down the road and his solo "Instant Karma" and
the Beatles "Come Together" were up the top of the charts.
Lennon was playing both sides of the fence and had no reason
to complain.
At the end of his Beatle career Lennon had released just about
every track he had proposed. Harrison was stuck with enough
material for half a double album. McCartney had "Junk", "Teddy
Boy" and some others (I'm not sure he ever offered "Maybe I'm
Amazed" to the Beatles).
Let's imagine they had tried to broaden the appeal from Lennon's
politico rock to Paul's granny rock. Could we have had an album
with "Cold Turkey", "Mother", "I Found Out" and "Maxwell's
Silver Hammer" and "Teddy Boy"?
Strangly enough, Macca seems to have stopped writing these
twee tracks like Maxwell as soon as the Beatles splat in four.
Or are their tracks like these on his solo albums that I've missed?
--
ian
JSeraf7064
politico rock to Paul's granny rock. Could we have had an album
with "Cold Turkey", "Mother", "I Found Out" and "Maxwell's
Silver Hammer" and "Teddy Boy"?
How broader could it get??? Put personal musical preferences aside, and listen
to how broad their catalog of music is. I can't think of any other band with a
spectrum this broad. From string quartets to screeching metal, and everything
in between.
>Strangly enough, Macca seems to have stopped writing these
twee tracks like Maxwell as soon as the Beatles splat in four.
Or are their tracks like these on his solo albums that I've missed?
>--
>ian
Are you shitting me? He released 'Mary Had A !@#$%& Little Lamb' !!! I still
can't get over that one!
One of the solo-music versus beatles music conclusions I have drawn is that
Paul continued this path of 'broad' appeal.
-JS
JSeraf7064
I'm Amazed' was rejected, as was 'Teddy Boy', an early version of 'Too Many
People', etc.
>Yeah but Paul was the only one not sick of the group. He was trying to keep
the band going. So he didn't care if a couple of his songs were rejected. He
had enough songs on Abbey Road as it was. It was a bigger deal to John. Plus
Cold Turkey was a very personal song. Even if it was about smack.
Ok, I won't reject this angle.
>>John was a junkie. That was bad enough. He didn't need to permanently stamp
that scar on the Beatles' name by putting this song out as a Beatles song.
>The song is great and if anything, it's a song to lure people away from
smack. In the song, John's basically saying "I've been through it and it's
hell. Stay away from it." It would've, in no way, "scarred The Beatles'
name."
>That's just ridiculous to say. If it was a song praising smack then
maybe you'd have a point.
No, that's not ridiculous. It was bad enough when they admitted to using acid
and smoking pot. But for John to use 'The Beatles' as a vehicle to admit he had
become a junkie would have been a permanent scar on the group. It was best
coming from him personally if he had to say it.
>>Dope messed him up. Dope messes people up. It took a decade for his head to
clear. Perhaps if it didn't, if he hadn't gotten himself hooked in the
first place, he might not have been in a situation where the group was no
longer fun for him, and maybe he wouldn't have felt the need to get away from
it.
>John got into smack after he met Yoko. John's excitement being in The
Beatles started going away during Beatlemania, LONG before he got with Yoko. By
the time the events in mid 1966 occurred (Philippines, "Bigger than
Jesus" mix-up), John was to the point of being fed up with being a Beatle.
Smack may have fucked him up, but it didn't in any way change his opinion of
being a Beatle.
Being fed up with 'being a Beatle' and being self-destructive are two separate
matters.
If you listen carefully at what John was saying post-68, up until about '73,
you might see that it wasn't simply that he was SICK of being a Beatle, but on
and off he was trying to DESTROY the group, just as he was destroying himself.
-JS
JSeraf7064
clear. Perhaps if it didn't, if he hadn't gotten himself hooked in the
first place, he might not have been in a situation where the group was no
longer fun for him, and maybe he wouldn't have felt the need to get away from
it.
>And maybe, if his head had been clear, he would have left the group even
earlier.
Maybe. Unlikely, but maybe.
-JS
Tom
Why is it unlikely? As has been pointed out previously, he was dissatisfied
with being a Beatle as early as 1964. By the mid sixties, he was rich, he
was famous, he could walk into any record company in the world and they
would have bent over backwards to accomidate him. Why would he continue
doing something he didn't enjoy?
Elsewhere in this thread you make a distinction between John not wanting to
be a Beatle, and John trying to destroy the Beatles as though The Beatles
were a seperate entity from the members. That's just the sentimentality of a
fan. The Beatles were nothing more or less than something the members did
together. The Beatles were "destroyed" when they no longer wanted to
continue doing it.
The mistake you're making here is in assuming that if John were thinking
clearly, he would have had the same perspective that you do today, and would
have made the same decision that you would.
Is it really so hard to believe that if he were stronger, he would have said
to himself, "Wait a minute, I don't need these people to make me sound
good."
huzzlewhat
jsera...@aol.com (JSeraf7064) wrote:
> >The Beatles not recording John's song only added to the frustration that
> John was having with being in the band. I think even if Paul and George HAD
> agreed to do Cold Turkey (Ringo did agree and played on it), it wouldn't
> have changed John's decision to disband the group. I do think however that
> The Beatles not wanting to do it was the last draw for John. He stayed with
> The Beatles ALOT longer than he wanted to.
>
> John wasn't the first Beatle to have songs rejected by the group... 'Maybe I'm
> Amazed' was rejected, as was 'Teddy Boy', an early version of 'Too Many
> People', etc.
I don't think Maybe I'm Amazed was proposed as a Beatles song . . . I
could be wrong. Can't imagine it being rejected. Teddy Boy, on the other
hand . . . ;-) I know, I know, give a song a few listens before making up
your mind . . . but I've listened to this song exactly twice. Once on
McCartney, the first time through, and once on the Anthology. That's
enough for me!
> John was a junkie. That was bad enough. He didn't need to permanently stamp
> that scar on the Beatles' name by putting this song out as a Beatles song.
Seriously, I think Cold Turkey is more an anti-junk song than anything.
There's nothing like a first-person, "I've been there" commentary to lend
authority and persuasiveness to the message that heroin is something to
stay away from. Nancy Reagan can stand on a pedestal and wag her finger
and tell people to "just say no" all she wants . . . but it's a joke.
Listening to Cold Turkey takes the romance out of drug use. There is
nothing about this song that makes taking heroin sound in the least bit
tempting to me.
That said, it wasn't a Beatles song.
There's a unanimity to Beatles songs . . . they were songs that all
members of the group could live with, could stand behind. (Sort of the
musical equivalent of Ringo's comment on the Two Virgins cover -- whatever
one of them did, they all had to answer for.) Whether or not John
understood what Paul was thinking when he wrote a song like Let it Be or
Lady Madonna, they were songs that he could comfortably get behind. Same
thing with George's Here Comes the Sun and Something. There's a strong
current of personal expression in all of these songs, but they're not so
overtly autobiographical as to backbench the group as a whole. John was
the first to really break away from that -- his need for individuality was
stronger, and his most overtly autobiographical material didn't really fit
the group. I think that's the case with The Ballad of John and Yoko . . .
I like the song, but I've never really bought it as a Beatles song. I get
the impression that it's a Beatles track because Paul's on it, and he's on
it because John needed to record -- fast -- and at the time, the Beatles
*was* his outlet for songs. But it has nothing to do with the other
Beatles, Paul included -- and the fact that it's so autobiographical
*excludes* the group. I get the same feeling from Cold Turkey. It was
entirely disconnected from the group and any suggestion of collective
expression.
Hazel
--
The most fun you can have without doing anything
immoral, illegal, or unhygenic.
Barb Alan Atkinson
by the band. He said he wanted to release it as the next Beatles single and Paul
and George vetoed it. So he released it under the Plastic Ono Band name. I think
it is one of the most powerful rock songs of all time. Marc Bolan did as well.
Barb
Brian & Mary Jo Budde wrote:
> I'm not disputing the header, but where does this info come from? I don't
> remember hearing or reading about this. Did John offer the song to the
> group and where is the documentation? Did I miss this in Paul's book????
>
> JSeraf7064 <jsera...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:19990828232100...@ng-cb1.aol.com...
Gondola Bob
> some people function better on smack.
>
> *scratch*
>
> *nod*
A-ha! Is *this* the explanation for your wildly schizophrenic posting
style?
GB
Lionel Postman
writes:
>Then Lennon made his own single, "Give Peace A Chance".
>The Beatles (not just Paul) rejected "Cold Turkey" as a single as
>a business decision, so Lennon made it himself and released it.
>One of my favorite tracks but it was not #1 material.
>
>Lennon then guilt-tripped them into "The Ballad Of John & Yoko"
>which did hit #1.
>
Cold Turkey was introduced as "the newest song that John wrote" in September
1969, and appears to have been written around that time, several months after
the recording and the chart run of Ballad of John and Yoko.
>A little further down the road and his solo "Instant Karma" and
>the Beatles "Come Together" were up the top of the charts.
>Lennon was playing both sides of the fence and had no reason
>to complain.
Instant Karma was written and recorded after Come Together completed
is chart run.
Bob
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Three times a day, as the average, we use of thee among of our foods.....Along
by our knowledge of the well-kept adage by the more of all helpin' with the all
of coulds"- Thomas Guygax, "At the time", circa 1970's
Sir Zeus
acid
>and smoking pot. But for John to use 'The Beatles' as a vehicle to admit he
had
>become a junkie would have been a permanent scar on the group. It was best
>coming from him personally if he had to say it.
For one thing, it was Paul who had admitted to taken LSD, not John. And it's
not Paul's fault because he had a good point. And who gives a shit about
them admitting they smoke pot? Pot is pot. There's nothing wrong with it. In
fact, shortly after Paul's LSD interview, The Beatles and Brian Epstein made
a public announcement that they were putting in their 2 cents about pot
being legalized. And more power to them! And no, I still say, "Cold Turkey"
being released as a Beatle song would NOT have put any kind of scar on The
Beatles' name. He wasn't using them as a vehicle to admit that he had become
a junkie, he was warning people about the effect of smack and what it does
to you. It's an anti-heroin song. The lyrics may be depressing but you don't
expect somebody singing an anti-heroin song to make the song happy do you?
Jeez, get into the 90's why don't cha? Oh no they admitted to taking LSD and
pot! Big fucking deal! You sound like the parents did back in the 60's.
>Being fed up with 'being a Beatle' and being self-destructive are two
separate
>matters.
>
>If you listen carefully at what John was saying post-68, up until about
'73,
>you might see that it wasn't simply that he was SICK of being a Beatle, but
on
>and off he was trying to DESTROY the group, just as he was destroying
himself.
Trying to destroy the group my ass! If he was trying to destroy the group,
then why did he stay with The Beatles alot longer than he wanted to. Why did
he agree to do "Let It Be" when he AND GEORGE AND RINGO didn't want to. No,
he was SICK of being in the group. He wasn't trying to destroy the group!
What a ridiculous thing to say! And he wasn't trying to destroy himself
either. He got hooked on smack for a while. Most rock stars do. He quit
using smack COLD TURKEY because he didn't want to destroy himself anymore.
Sure, after his smack addiction, he was using coke but jesus he's human!
Have you not learned yet that most people in that business get into drugs
alot stronger than the "devil pot"? He wasn't TRYING to destroy himself, the
drugs were just out there like they still are! I'm not advocating the use of
heroin, coke, or even LSD. It's just a fact that it's widely available in
the music business. Your views are ridiculous. Welcome to the 90's!
paramucho
>writes:
>
>>Then Lennon made his own single, "Give Peace A Chance".
>>The Beatles (not just Paul) rejected "Cold Turkey" as a single as
>>a business decision, so Lennon made it himself and released it.
>>One of my favorite tracks but it was not #1 material.
>>
>>Lennon then guilt-tripped them into "The Ballad Of John & Yoko"
>>which did hit #1.
>>
>
>Cold Turkey was introduced as "the newest song that John wrote" in September
>1969, and appears to have been written around that time, several months after
>the recording and the chart run of Ballad of John and Yoko.
>
>>A little further down the road and his solo "Instant Karma" and
>>the Beatles "Come Together" were up the top of the charts.
>>Lennon was playing both sides of the fence and had no reason
>>to complain.
>
>Instant Karma was written and recorded after Come Together completed
>is chart run.
My chronology sucks at about 2:00 AM on Monday mornings.
--
ian
Lionel Postman
writes:
>My chronology sucks at about 2:00 AM on Monday mornings.
>
>
Everything sucks at about 2:00 AM on Monday mornings.
Well, except one catagory, everything sucks.
paramucho
wrote:
Searching the wordlist of the Beatles' lyrics is a fascinating
exercise. They solve a great humanistic equation: they are very
positive and very real all at the same time. They are about love, but
not of the "stick you head in the sand" sort. It's "real love" for
everyday rather than chocolate box love for special days.
That's why they may have had a problem with "Cold Turkey" but didn't
have an issue with "I Want You" which is sonically just as
challenging.
That's also why they had problems with Paul's schmooze songs which
went to far in the other direction. There's a conversation where
Lennon (and Harrison) are telling Paul that he should give those songs
away because they aren't "real" in some sense. I can't remember the
details (it was in "One Day At A Time" I believe).
So, yes, there was this jury that decided: is this us, or not. On the
whole it produced an aesthetic that looks like it's going to survive
for a long period. An interesting application of a "group".
--
ian
|--paramucho------[para...@hammo.com]---[www.beathoven.com]------|
|----[alt.ato]---[alt.non.sequitur]---[rec.music.beatles]----------|
chocolate jesus.... .
d. <nort...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:northcut-290...@user-37ka2qd.dialup.mindspring.com...
> > > >it was too fukin serious and real for paul to involve himself in.
> > >
> > > >the popmeister had a rep to protect.
> > >
> > > >bubblegum and smack don't mix.
> > >
> > > Maybe it was common sense and strength that didn't mix with with the
fukin
> > > smack.
> >
> > i'm sorry, i didnt mean to burst in on a John Birch Society thread.
>
>
> I can't believe I'm agreeing with JSeraf (!), but I have to point out that
> disapproving of heroin use doesn't equal membership in the John Birch
> Society.
>
> in the ol' horsie himself, rendering a lot of this little argument moot.
> I think the answer to the "why didn't Paul participate in 'Cold Turkey'"
> lies elsewhere, and it involves the Beatles/LenMac dynamic circa 1969
> rather than moral outrage on Paul's part.
>
>
chocolate jesus.... .
> > > >bubblegum and smack don't mix.
> > >
> > > Maybe it was common sense and strength that didn't mix with with the
fukin
> > > smack.
> >
> > i'm sorry, i didnt mean to burst in on a John Birch Society thread.
>
>
> I can't believe I'm agreeing with JSeraf (!), but I have to point out that
> disapproving of heroin use doesn't equal membership in the John Birch
> Society.
its not got to do with approving of heroin.
it's got to do with accepting that true artists can and in fact should
speak out about any and all manner of subjects, good and bad.
to ask that an artist limits him or herself to "correct" subjetc matter is
prudish and "anti-art".
>
> I also feel obligated to point out to the both of you that Paulie dabbled
> in the ol' horsie himself, rendering a lot of this little argument moot.
> I think the answer to the "why didn't Paul participate in 'Cold Turkey'"
> lies elsewhere, and it involves the Beatles/LenMac dynamic circa 1969
> rather than moral outrage on Paul's part.
point taken.
yet paul being as conscious of his image as he had always been, would no
doubt have been shy of such a harrowing and raw examination of a
"controversial" subject.
chocolate jesus.... .
Gondola Bob <gb...@deltanet.com> wrote in message
news:290819991325255798%gb...@deltanet.com...
> >
> > *scratch*
> >
> > *nod*
>
> A-ha! Is *this* the explanation for your wildly schizophrenic posting
> style?
>
> GB
*yawn*
Ehtue
>Everything sucks at about 2:00 AM on Monday mornings.
>
>Well, except one catagory, everything sucks.
;-)
paramucho
>worked better as a solo John song, but the thought of a Beatles treatment
>is mighty intriguing.
There's a few points to be made:
This was Klaus Voorman's first bass line for Lennon and I think it's the
best he ever did. I don't think Macca would have come up with that.
Claptons only solo job for Lennon. They play the backing together as
a duet (as Lennon does on the live performance). Great sound that
I can't find on a Beatles' track, although there are elements of it on
a number of tracks.
The spartan arrangement can be heard on "Revolution", but it works
better here.
Now, Lennon did reuse ideas and there is a song which does
compare at points:
For sample consider:
Cold Turkey
To gether
has got me
right now-how
on the run
over me
You could swap the chorus treatments between the songs
without much problem.
But the verse arrangements are another matter because the
lyric wouldn't match. However, there's just as much frenzied
pain in "I Want You", which is as close as the Beatles got
to this sound.
Lennon's production was great on "Cold Turkey".
--
ian
huzzlewhat
> So, yes, there was this jury that decided: is this us, or not. On the
> whole it produced an aesthetic that looks like it's going to survive
> for a long period. An interesting application of a "group".
Um . . . ian?
Looks like we're agreeing again!
paramucho
>
>> So, yes, there was this jury that decided: is this us, or not. On the
>> whole it produced an aesthetic that looks like it's going to survive
>> for a long period. An interesting application of a "group".
>
>Um . . . ian?
>
>Looks like we're agreeing again!
Another bloody group aesthetic building up!
Little Richard never got anywhere by agreeing with anyone.
:-)
--
ian
Camatelfoo
OK, I think we can safely qualify that answer as "unresponsive."
>>
More like appropriate.....
Camatelfoo
Then wait an hour until 1:00 AM.
paramucho
><< My chronology sucks at about 2:00 AM on Monday mornings. >>
>
>
>Then wait an hour until 1:00 AM.
You must have the same dealer as me.
--
iannzzzzzzzz
chocolate jesus.... .
> In article <37c9a...@news.highway1.com.au>, " chocolate jesus.... ."
> <mrs...@hell.com> wrote:
>
> > > I can't believe I'm agreeing with JSeraf (!), but I have to point out
that
> > > disapproving of heroin use doesn't equal membership in the John Birch
> > > Society.
> >
> >
> > its not got to do with approving of heroin.
> >
> > it's got to do with accepting that true artists can and in fact should
> > speak out about any and all manner of subjects, good and bad.
> >
> > to ask that an artist limits him or herself to "correct" subjetc matter
is
> > prudish and "anti-art".
>
"madonna" versus "john lennon"?
"spice girls" versus "nick cave"?
"tom waits" versus "rikki martin"?
all are all called artist by their record companies.
but yeah sure, i take your point, and i of course realise one must be as
succint a possible on usenet.
it was a momentary lapse......:)
>nor should there be guidelines about what an artist can or can't explore.
so are you in agreement with me here?( not quite clear on your meaning)
>Cezanne spent most of his life focusing on pure technique while using the
very
> traditional subjects of nature, still life and figure work; it doesn't
> make him less of an artist than Goya with his powerful, controversial
> political and psychological statements. It is just as "anti-art" to try
> to force someone to explore subject matter they aren't interested in as it
> is to tell them they *can't* do something.
so i take it you agree with my point then?(ducking and weaving)
> If you're criticizing Paul for supposedly wanting to limit John's
> self-expression,
no d., i am not critisizing paul at all.
sheesh, i was "opining" that paul, as a very aware media man, may have been
more sensitive than someone like, but not neccesarily limited to, john in
regards what he thought was "acceptable" or "passable" subject matter in the
pop music idiom at the time in question.
> it bears reminding that the Beatles weren't John's backup
> band - the others were artists too, with their own interests, and they had
> democratic say so in their sound and image. If his experience wasn't
> theirs, they had every right to distance themselves from that.
my point exactly.
> It wasn't as if he had no way to express himself aside from the Beatles.
He could,
> and did, release the song on his own. So much for supression.
of course there was suppression at all levels of the fabs careers, it's
inherant in any democratic process. it is not neccessarily a malevolant
notion. if someone is outvoted, they are suppresed are they not?
i believe in your eagerness to point out my erroroneous assumption, you
*may* have missed the thrust of my point.
especially since you have made it so eloquently yourself.
>
> > point taken.
> > yet paul being as conscious of his image as he had always been, would no
> > doubt have been shy of such a harrowing and raw examination of a
> > "controversial" subject.
>
> That may or may not have been a reason
that's right
i can only say what my take is on it, no one else's.
>, however I tend to believe that
> there were more complexities involved at that point. For instance, George
> didn't want to release it as a Beatles single, either - what are your
> thoughts on that?
ok, my thoughts would encompass but not be limited to the notion that george
may have shared paul's views on the suitability of the *subject matter* of
the song at that time in their careers, given the concerns they held in
relation to the stability of the group, the acceptance of the public in
regards the beatles singing a blatant smack song, and their individual
interests regarding their personal future post-beatles.
please tell me what you tend to believe.
>
> FWIW, I think the song is great
i reckon its a standout song.
>- I agree with Hazel that it probably
> worked better as a solo John song,
i also agree with this view.
>but the thought of a Beatles treatment
> is mighty intriguing.
not to me.
i cannot even imagine it as the beatles may have played it to be honest with
you.
chocolate jesus.... .
> > > I can't agree that there is any definition of a "true" artist
>
> > "spice girls" versus "nick cave"?
>
> would be the big winner in this round!
you got me there!
>
> > "tom waits" versus "rikki martin"?
>
> Hmmm, I dunno about art, but Ricky Martin is a hell of a lot more easy to
> dance to.
you haven't head the latest tom waits cd.
i had the prime minister of vanuatu dancing to "filipino box spring hog"
just a few days ago..:)
> > all are all called artist by their record companies.
>
> Don't be condescending with me, sir.
i like the "sir" bit.
>Unlike JSeraf, my understanding of
> art and the creative process is a bit deeper than an empty wading pool.
oooo nasty!
> I
> think we can be adults here and assume that both of us understand that
> John, Paul and Paul are "real" artists by definition, hmmm?
yep, that is what i said.
>
>
> > >nor should there be guidelines about what an artist can or can't
explore.
> >
> > so are you in agreement with me here?( not quite clear on your meaning)
>
> You are criticizing the decision of the others to not release "Cold
> Turkey" as a Beatles single on the grounds that all limits on subject
> matter is "anti-art."
i dont think i was critisisng the others as being "anti-art" per se(in and
of themselves).
without wishing to labour the point, i said something very much like:
>to ask that an artist limits him or herself to "correct" subject matter is
> prudish and "anti-art".
i was questioning the relative and perceived suitability of the subject
matter in terms of their idiom.
at least i think i was.;)
> I don't agree that within a group situation that
> applies so much. (Now if the band was in total agreement but the record
> label refused it ... that's a different story.) So no, I'm not in
> agreement with you.
ok. i think that's clearer.
>
> [snip]
> > no d., i am not critisizing paul at all.
>
> *fanning* Oh, goodness! I thought you WERE!
smelling salts!
step back, give her some air!
>
> [snip]
> > > it bears reminding that the Beatles weren't John's backup
> > > band - the others were artists too, with their own interests, and they
had
> > > democratic say so in their sound and image. If his experience wasn't
> > > theirs, they had every right to distance themselves from that.
> >
> > my point exactly.
>
> Uh-huh.
right on!
>
> > > It wasn't as if he had no way to express himself aside from the
Beatles.
> > He could,
> > > and did, release the song on his own. So much for supression.
> >
> > of course there was suppression at all levels of the fabs careers, it's
> > inherant in any democratic process. it is not neccessarily a malevolant
> > notion. if someone is outvoted, they are suppresed are they not?
>
> In some cases, yes, but not in all. If there is a viable option and they
> choose to follow it, they are not suppressed.
well, i would have thought the failed option by definition is suppressed,
but hey, why quibble over a few words.
> We're sitting here
> discussing the song, aren't we?
we all wonder sometimes don't we...:)
> In 1969 John wasn't tied to the Beatles
> as his only outlet. He was not supressed.
but *the song* may have been, ne'st pas?
>
> > i believe in your eagerness to point out my erroroneous assumption, you
> > *may* have missed the thrust of my point.
>
> Or maybe you were highly unclear and came off as trollish and flame-y.
*shrug*
oh so now i'm a troll and flamer?
how is it that anyone else in this ng can argue till they're blue in the
face using all sorts of far fetched views and tangents, but you happily
decree me a troll and a flamer when all i have been doing is conversing with
you in what could only be called a polite and respectfull way?
you make many opinionated claims and i respect that and try to discuss the
points you raise, then suddenly i'm a troll?
if your words are unclear to me, i ask you to please clarify.
i don't immediately call you a troll and a flamer.
> [snip]
> > ok, my thoughts would encompass but not be limited to the notion that
george
> > may have shared paul's views on the suitability of the *subject matter*
of
> > the song at that time in their careers, given the concerns they held in
> > relation to the stability of the group, the acceptance of the public in
> > regards the beatles singing a blatant smack song, and their individual
> > interests regarding their personal future post-beatles.
> >
> > please tell me what you tend to believe.
>
> I tend to believe it was rejected on stylistic or even personal grounds
the same personal grounds i mention or others?
> rather than purely content-based grounds; I don't think either George or
> Paul was as prudish as you seem to think they were.
my pararaph above makes clear reference to several contributing factors to
my idea.
these include personal grounds.
so where do we differ?
i made passing mention of the notion of artistic control or "suppression"
as being prudish when talking about the general concept of an artist's right
to express all manner of subjects freely.
i at no point made a sweeping reference to paul or george being prudish.
these are two very seperate notions.
>
>
> [snip]
> > >but the thought of a Beatles treatment
> > > is mighty intriguing.
> >
> > not to me.
> > i cannot even imagine it as the beatles may have played it to be honest
with
> > you.
>
> You shouldn't limit your imagination that way.
peoples imaginations work in diffent ways d.
you can't imagine dancing to tom waits.
that's cool.
i don't tell you to broaden your horizon do i?
i don't think i deserve that sort of comment.
and for the record, lack of imagination is definitely not one of my many
short comings.
you know, you've called me condscending, a troll, a flamer, lacking in
imagination, and labelled me guilty of calling paul and george prudes when i
did no such thing.
maybe i'm over sensitive, but i was only trying to talk about the fukin
beatles and some aspects of how i percieve a certain song in the context of
those same beatles with an open mind and some goodwill.
you chose to respond to my post and then suddenly i'm a flamer, a troll and
a million other things.
if that's what you think, then i think i'd prefer it if you didn't bother
trying to talk to me, because from here it feels like you did so simply so
that you can let me have it at every opportunity.
if i misunderstood you, i'm sorry.
but that's the affect your words have on me.
and that all i have to go on, as you have so rightly pointed out in previous
posts.
> You might be headed down
> that anti-art path. ;-)
yeah right.
Lake Rat
>John got into smack after he met Yoko. John's excitement being in The
>Beatles started going away during Beatlemania
I know that John himself said this for a long time, but I just don't believe
it. From the beginnings of Beatlemania to the final effective dissolution of
the group spans a good six years. Does a volatile type like John Lennon stay
in a job for *six years* if he really he hates it? No, I don't think so, not
at all. I think John had a lot better time as a Beatle than he wanted to let
on....
---
Rod
Email address altered to deter spam.
Michael Wayne Davis
> Claptons only solo job for Lennon. They play the backing together as
> a duet (as Lennon does on the live performance). Great sound that
> I can't find on a Beatles' track, although there are elements of it on
> a number of tracks.
>
Ah, no wonder I don't find more Clapton clues on the recording. He doubles
John. I thought he only played the heavy vibrato lead lines in the solo and
fadeout.
I assume the duet you mean is the '72 MSG shows, or the late '69 POB stuff I
haven't heard. I know in Toronto Lennon plays a really cool Am-D rhythm
part.
> But the verse arrangements are another matter because the
> lyric wouldn't match. However, there's just as much frenzied
> pain in "I Want You", which is as close as the Beatles got
> to this sound.
>
> Lennon's production was great on "Cold Turkey".
I think he was a very underrated producer. Aside from Ringo, he relied on
outside producers more than any other Beatle. I believe that is a shame,
because this single and a few of his later albums prove he knew how to get
his sound. Not to mention the fact he could tame Phil Spector's natural
tendencies.
Mike Davis
******************************************************************************
"Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality
can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
--George Washington, 1796
davi...@pilot.msu.edu, michae...@usa.net, dav...@pa.msu.edu
http://www.pa.msu.edu/~davism -- NEWLY MODIFIED!
******************************************************************************
bongo
> John wasn't the first Beatle to have songs rejected by the group...
> 'Maybe I'm Amazed' was rejected,
What's your source on this? I have never heard this alleged, nor
do I find it likely, as it's the best song he had at the time.
> as was 'Teddy Boy'
I'm not sure if they explicitly told Paul, "we're not going to do it",
but they should have. I'm not sure which event three out of four
Beatles found scarier: John showing up in the studio with Yoko, or
Paul showing up with Teddy Boy.
> an early version of 'Too Many
> People', etc.
Again, what is your source for this? That a song is known to have
existed in 1969 and yet did not appear on Abbey Road is not evidence
that it was presented and rejected. Paul had tons of half finished
songs in 1969, and it seems some of his better songs in 1968 were
not even seriously put forward (Junk, Step Inside Love).
> Dope messed him up. Dope messes people up.
True, but incomplete.
Religion messes people up. Politics messes people up. Egotism messes
people up. Bitterness messes people up. Jealousy messes people up.
Stubborn allegiance to narrow minded paradigms messes people up.
Unquestioning acceptance of anything which doesn't fit inside these
narrow minded paradigms also messes people up. Two dimensional views
of multi-faceted realities messes people up. The inability to
question previously held positions in the light of new evidence
messes people up. Lots of stuff messes people up.
It's a dangerous world, dude. A song such as Cold Turkey is merely
a warning.
> Perhaps if it didn't, if he hadn't gotten himself hooked in the first
> place, he might not have been in a situation where the group was no
> longer fun for him
Isn't it conceivable that people become addicted to compelling
substances and/or situations partially because they are already
unhappy?
Contrary to what Nancy Reagan may have told us, we're never going to
be free of substance abuse problems as long as we insist that the only
reason human beings resort to substances is that "they're weak."
There's more to it than that, and strutting around waving a big
judgemental stick will do nothing except fill the prisons to
overflowing. If anything, the song you condemn as "disgusting"
because of its "celebrating" addiction served as a greater public
service warning about the dangers of heroin than any dimwitted
denial the War On Drugs ever produced.
Saying that Cold Turkey "celebrated" heroin is about as accurate
as saying that Gimme Some Truth advocated reelecting President Nixon.
I'm not saying that it should have been a Beatles song. Along
with Teddy Boy, it probably shouldn't have been. But the moralistic
disgust strikes me as pretty unrealistic.
cheers,
--bongo
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
paramucho
<dav...@pa.msu.edu> wrote:
>On Mon, 30 Aug 1999, paramucho wrote:
>
>> Claptons only solo job for Lennon. They play the backing together as
>> a duet (as Lennon does on the live performance). Great sound that
>> I can't find on a Beatles' track, although there are elements of it on
>> a number of tracks.
>>
>
>Ah, no wonder I don't find more Clapton clues on the recording. He doubles
>John. I thought he only played the heavy vibrato lead lines in the solo and
>fadeout.
>
>I assume the duet you mean is the '72 MSG shows, or the late '69 POB stuff I
>haven't heard. I know in Toronto Lennon plays a really cool Am-D rhythm
>part.
Toronto was before the recording. The vestiges of the Am-D pattern can
still be seen in the song.
Sir Zeus
>still be seen in the song.
Cold Turkey was recorded in September
Toronto was in December
Barb Alan Atkinson
Barb
Barb Alan Atkinson
always believed it to be John. It's certainly not characteristic of Clapton as
it is made up of wailing sounds as opposed to lead fills. A typical Clapton
solo would have been extremely out of place. The solo by John on Walking on
Thin Ice always reminded me of the Cold Turkey solo.
Barb
paramucho wrote:
> >FWIW, I think the song is great - I agree with Hazel that it probably
> >worked better as a solo John song, but the thought of a Beatles treatment
> >is mighty intriguing.
>
> There's a few points to be made:
>
> This was Klaus Voorman's first bass line for Lennon and I think it's the
> best he ever did. I don't think Macca would have come up with that.
>
> Claptons only solo job for Lennon. They play the backing together as
> a duet (as Lennon does on the live performance). Great sound that
> I can't find on a Beatles' track, although there are elements of it on
> a number of tracks.
>
> The spartan arrangement can be heard on "Revolution", but it works
> better here.
>
> Now, Lennon did reuse ideas and there is a song which does
> compare at points:
>
> For sample consider:
>
> Cold Turkey
> To gether
>
> has got me
> right now-how
>
> on the run
> over me
>
> You could swap the chorus treatments between the songs
> without much problem.
>
> But the verse arrangements are another matter because the
> lyric wouldn't match. However, there's just as much frenzied
> pain in "I Want You", which is as close as the Beatles got
> to this sound.
>
> Lennon's production was great on "Cold Turkey".
>
> --
> ian
chocolate jesus.... .
bongo <bong...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:7qeo1g$821$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
e had at the time.
>
> > as was 'Teddy Boy'
>
> I'm not sure if they explicitly told Paul, "we're not going to do it",
> but they should have. I'm not sure which event three out of four
> Beatles found scarier: John showing up in the studio with Yoko, or
> Paul showing up with Teddy Boy.
truly giggling hard down here....):
> > Dope messed him up. Dope messes people up.
>
> True, but incomplete.
>
> Religion messes people up. Politics messes people up. Egotism messes
> people up. Bitterness messes people up. Jealousy messes people up.
> Stubborn allegiance to narrow minded paradigms messes people up.
> Unquestioning acceptance of anything which doesn't fit inside these
> narrow minded paradigms also messes people up. Two dimensional views
> of multi-faceted realities messes people up. The inability to
> question previously held positions in the light of new evidence
> messes people up. Lots of stuff messes people up.
i think that goes close to covering it bongo.
you'll note beer escapes that list rather magnificently.
(all of australia breathes a collective sigh of relief)
> It's a dangerous world, dude. A song such as Cold Turkey is merely
> a warning.
>
> > Perhaps if it didn't, if he hadn't gotten himself hooked in the first
> > place, he might not have been in a situation where the group was no
> > longer fun for him
>
> Isn't it conceivable that people become addicted to compelling
> substances and/or situations partially because they are already
> unhappy?
there's a strong and valid argument for the dope/grog being symptomatic.
there's a lot of ignorance in the general populace about the reasons, whys
and wherefores of drugs.
there is a great and stunning ignorance of the varying degree and types of
situations in which drugs play a part.
just as there is a stunning ignorance of differentiation in regards levels
of subtsance abuse.
taken to the extreme, most of us drink coffee or tea yet jump up and down
about pot leading to heroin.
not only is this absurd, it is damaging.
> Contrary to what Nancy Reagan may have told us, we're never going to
> be free of substance abuse problems as long as we insist that the only
> reason human beings resort to substances is that "they're weak."
exactly.
every single culture on the face of the planet, in the past and present has
had and continues to have a relationship with organic substances that in
some way alter the user's state of being and perception.
you have to ask the question, why is that?
>
> There's more to it than that, and strutting around waving a big
> judgemental stick will do nothing except fill the prisons to
> overflowing. If anything, the song you condemn as "disgusting"
> because of its "celebrating" addiction served as a greater public
> service warning about the dangers of heroin than any dimwitted
> denial the War On Drugs ever produced.
bravo bongo!
the wowsers who for the most part use the drug ballyhoo for their own
advancement should be held responsible for the misinformation and pain they
have dissemintaed for so many years.
of course drugs are a problem.
but they are only part of the problem.
a small part.
> Saying that Cold Turkey "celebrated" heroin is about as accurate
> as saying that Gimme Some Truth advocated reelecting President Nixon.
bingo again!
you are on the money here mate.
but i can understand why people with limited exposure to the real thing are
frightened and brain washed about these issues.
it's not their fault.
they have bought the party line and happily march along thinking they're
safe if the just say no.
it's bullshit.
if in fact something needs to be done, sticking your head in the sand and
blaming someone else is not it.
sending a kid to angola for 300 years is not the answer.
throwing money at it is not the answer.
we need to do a radical and rudimentary re-think about the whole big picture
if we are ever going to make any progress.
and the wowser brigade is the main impedement simply because they are not
being honest with people about the real issues.
you wanna wipe out the heroin trade?
nuke every poppy field in the world.
two days later they'll be back at it.
dope is the biggest cash business in the world.
ever.
why is that?
> I'm not saying that it should have been a Beatles song. Along
> with Teddy Boy, it probably shouldn't have been. But the moralistic
> disgust strikes me as pretty unrealistic.
well said bongo.
a lot of truth and truths are contained in your post.
if more people could be helped to begin to understand what the real problems
are, we wouldn't have these ignorant self seving nancy reagan types making
an industry out of misinformed people.
cj
--
call me a liberal if you want, but don't call me late for breakfast... ;p
paramucho
>> imagination, and labelled me guilty of calling paul and george prudes when i
>> did no such thing.
>
>the mouth of a fat redneck at a tractor pull at the Dixie Speedway. The
>crusty junk that makes up the ring around my ex-boyfriend's bathtub.
>Lower than that, even.
I'll have to save that lot for future use.
>[snip]
>> you chose to respond to my post and then suddenly i'm a flamer, a troll and
>> a million other things.
>
>A *million*?!
>
>Sir, I object. You are obviously suggesting that I am a 'bot, an
>insidious 'AI' program that torments unsuspecting Usenet participants with
>my ability to spin out millions of insults per second and break people
>with my infallible logic. HOW DARE YOU PUT THIS RUMOR OUT ABOUT ME! My R
>& D/PROGRAMMING TEAM WILL BE CONTACTING YOU VERY SOON, I assure you.
>Would you mind filling out a questionnaire regarding how my future
>versions might be better, and would you like to participate in beta
>testing for my next version release (D-NORTHCUTT 33.01b)?
>
>Look anyway, sorry if I offended you, Nick.
Very talented stuff. How long have you been out here in Usenet d.?
And is "d." the correct appellation?
--
ian
paramucho
>always believed it to be John. It's certainly not characteristic of Clapton as
>it is made up of wailing sounds as opposed to lead fills. A typical Clapton
>solo would have been extremely out of place. The solo by John on Walking on
>Thin Ice always reminded me of the Cold Turkey solo.
>Barb
I'd love to think it was John's solo but I've always guessed it was EC.
Does anyone have any more specific information on this topic?
--
ian
paramucho
The album was released in December. The concert was earlier.
--
ian
Beatlfilms
The Toronto Rock 'N' Roll Revival concert was staged September 13, 1969.
"Cold Turkey" was recorded in the studio on September 25, 1969.
"Cold Turkey" was released as a single on October 20, 1969 in the US and on the
24th in the UK.
The "Live Peace In Toronto" LP was released December 12, 1969 in both the US
and the UK.
Sir Zeus
Oops my mistake. You're right.
Sir Zeus
>Don't be condescending with me, either dearie.
>
>Is an empty wading pool deeper thasn one that is full?
You just have very weak analogies.
JSeraf7064
and the creative process is a bit deeper than an empty wading pool.
Don't be condescending with me, either dearie.
Is an empty wading pool deeper thasn one that is full?
-JS
JSeraf7064
how is it that anyone else in this ng can argue till they're blue in the
face using all sorts of far fetched views and tangents, but you happily
decree me a troll and a flamer when all i have been doing is conversing with
you in what could only be called a polite and respectfull way?
Nick, why don't you go back and read what your first post was in this thread?
Maybe you didn't mean to. but it sounded like a flame to me.
Which is why I replied the way I did.
-JS
Tom
Perhaps the pool itself (the style) isn't, but the water inside (the
substance) is.
Paul Robertson
why the band broke up. When you look back at 1967, you see four
musicians in basic agreement about what 'the Beatles' stood for and
should appear as before the public. But by 1969 this unity is gone.
I think John wanted the Beatles to do "Cold Turkey" because he wanted
the Beatles to write songs that were *about* something. John was
unhappy just being a "big-time rock star," and he wanted to kick the
Beatles - if he was going to stay in the band at all - out of being
fat and lazy. IMHO, songs like "Cold Turkey" were an attempt to move
in this direction. For John, the 1969 Beatles had to become relevant
or die.
For Paul, I think he recoiled from the song for similar motivations,
though from opposite tastes. He *also* had a vision of the 1969
Beatles and what they should be all about, and while it included
intriguing or beautiful music, or thrilling rock & roll, it did not
include what he found to be ugly subject matter and all the screaming
- not musical screaming, but in mock-pain - at the end.
Just a thought,
Paul R
JSeraf7064
and the creative process is a bit deeper than an empty wading pool.
>>Don't be condescending with me, either dearie.
>>Is an empty wading pool deeper thasn one that is full?
>Perhaps the pool itself (the style) isn't, but the water inside (the
>substance) is.
I don't know if you are trying to be sarcastic here Tom, I hope not.
Have you ever tried to fill a wading pool with water without the wading pool?
-JS
Tom
>>>>Don't be condescending with me, sir. Unlike JSeraf, my understanding
art
>and the creative process is a bit deeper than an empty wading pool.
>
>>>Don't be condescending with me, either dearie.
>>>Is an empty wading pool deeper thasn one that is full?
>
>>Perhaps the pool itself (the style) isn't, but the water inside (the
>>substance) is.
>
>I don't know if you are trying to be sarcastic here Tom, I hope not.
>
Just trying to illuminate the metaphor with a comparison that you'd find
familiar.
My years of Yoko-study have greatly enhanced my understanding of things
filled with water. (ok, I know at least two people out there got that joke.)
Ehtue
>My years of Yoko-study have greatly enhanced my understanding of things
>filled with water. (ok, I know at least two people out there got that joke.)
Maybe there's more of us than you think.