Yoko brings peace to the Middle East
Here, There and Nowhere
>
> >I *think* even Yoko detractors realize Yoko didn't "break-up" the Beatles.
> >At this point, it seems to be the press who give her that moniker,
> >whenever they write a story about her.
>
> What better way to invoke pity, to perpetuate the perception of Yoko as a
> hapless victim?
grrrrr
D 28IF
>break-up of The Beatles, made a wish for peace and
> unity in the new millennium at an exhibition today showcasing
>her avant-garde art.
Diana
>At this point, it seems to be the press who give her that moniker,
>whenever they write a story about her.
What better way to invoke pity, to perpetuate the perception of Yoko as a
hapless victim?
- - - - -
Hari Scruffs: http://www.hariscruffs.com
Beatles' upcoming releases:
http://hometown.aol.com/amaranth56/myhomepage/index.html
DavisK
paramucho wrote in message ...
>
>> Now 66, the diminutive Japanese artist, singer and composer,
>>says she wants to be recognised for her work in her own right,
>> almost nine years after the death of the former Beatle.
>
>Is it already nine years?
>
>It seems like nineteen.
>
It feels closer to twenty for me.
DavisK
Diana wrote in message <19991125184856...@ng-fr1.aol.com>...
>>I *think* even Yoko detractors realize Yoko didn't "break-up" the Beatles.
>>At this point, it seems to be the press who give her that moniker,
>>whenever they write a story about her.
>
>What better way to invoke pity, to perpetuate the perception of Yoko as a
>hapless victim?
>
I disagree. I think people want to look for external reasons to explain why
the Beatles broke up. They can't deal with the fact that the group broke up
because internally they felt it was time to move on. Granted, I thought
that Yoko's singing at Lennon's gigs should not have been allowed (she
instead should have had her own venue, with John playing in the backup
band), but unfortunately cramming her music down the throats of
Lennon/Beatles fans has made her a 'devil' in the eyes of those fans. I
think she's been given a bad rap. I think those people who think badly of
her will continue to be cynical about her intentions until the day she dies.
Too bad.
Here, There and Nowhere
excellent post. Sums my feelings up too.
Will
Osborne,
Source: AFP | Published: Friday November 26 1:20:51 AM
JERUSALEM, Nov 25 - Yoko Ono, the woman blamed by many for the
break-up of The Beatles, made a wish for peace and
unity in the new millennium at an exhibition today showcasing
her avant-garde art.
"I am here because my work has a lot to do with healing the soul
and I hope that it would help and serve to heal some of your
pain and mine," John Lennon's widow said at a press conference
to launch a four-decade retrospective Yoko Ono: Have You
Seen the Horizon Lately?
The work ranges from a series of photographic self-portraits to
a single green apple sitting atop a clear perspex case, a
chequerboard photo-montage of golden-hued breasts and pubic
hair, and a half-chair that once sat in board meetings of The
Beatles' Apple record label.
Now 66, the diminutive Japanese artist, singer and composer,
says she wants to be recognised for her work in her own right,
almost nine years after the death of the former Beatle.
"I could never be totally independent from John Lennon," she
said.
"I feel that on many levels I am still working with him but at
the same time it is unfair to some of the work to connect too
strongly with John Lennon."
Nevertheless she said she hoped the words of Lennon's peace
anthem Imagine - a world of no religion and no hunger - would
come true as the world approached the next millennium.
"All my work is a form of wishing for better times in our lives
and in the world and my wish for world peace."
The exhibition, on its first tour outside Europe, will be
showing at the Israel Museum in Jerusalem for at least three months,
organisers said.
A separate exhibition is being held at Umm el-Fahm, a large and
radical Arab town in northern Israel, but Ono said it carried no
political connotations.
paramucho
> Now 66, the diminutive Japanese artist, singer and composer,
>says she wants to be recognised for her work in her own right,
> almost nine years after the death of the former Beatle.
Is it already nine years?
It seems like nineteen.
--
ian
Daniel
knows it is."
Osborne, <Osbo...@Sydney.BTAP.BT.com> wrote in message
news:383D99A0...@Sydney.BTAP.BT.com...
> Yoko Ono's art-felt wish for peace
>
> Source: AFP | Published: Friday November 26 1:20:51 AM
>
> JERUSALEM, Nov 25 - Yoko Ono, the woman blamed by many for the
> break-up of The Beatles, made a wish for peace and
> unity in the new millennium at an exhibition today showcasing
> her avant-garde art.
>
> "I am here because my work has a lot to do with healing the soul
> and I hope that it would help and serve to heal some of your
> pain and mine," John Lennon's widow said at a press conference
> to launch a four-decade retrospective Yoko Ono: Have You
> Seen the Horizon Lately?
"John Lennon's widow said at a press conference"?! What the hell's that?! I
think this is just what John said a lot, she is not "John Lennon's widow,"
she IS a person, namely Yoko Ono.
>
> The work ranges from a series of photographic self-portraits to
> a single green apple sitting atop a clear perspex case, a
> chequerboard photo-montage of golden-hued breasts and pubic
> hair, and a half-chair that once sat in board meetings of The
> Beatles' Apple record label.
>
> Now 66, the diminutive Japanese artist, singer and composer,
> says she wants to be recognised for her work in her own right,
> almost nine years after the death of the former Beatle.
As another reply points out, only nine?
paramucho
>paramucho wrote in message ...
>>
>>>says she wants to be recognised for her work in her own right,
>>> almost nine years after the death of the former Beatle.
>>
>>
>>It seems like nineteen.
>>
>
>
There is a closeness about it.
--
ian
RGrimes10
>the same time it is unfair to some of the work to connect too
> strongly with John Lennon."
Clue.
Diana
And not a very subtle one at that ;-)
I've found 3 articles on this subject. Here's how each begins:
Reuters: "John Lennon's widow Yoko Ono...."
Los Angeles Times: "Yoko Ono invoked memories of her late husband's most
famous song for a new exhibit."
AFP: "Yoko Ono, the woman blamed by many for the break-up of the Beatles...."
I'd be hard-pressed to find an article that focused solely on the present when
describing Yoko, minus the false accusations of 30 years ago and references to
Yoko as a widow and her status as John's widow. Never something like, "Artist
Yoko Ono...." There always has to be a reference to Yoko as a victim. Did the
press came up with this SOP by themselves, or is it a PR stratagem? By Yoko's
own words, I think we can take a pretty good guess at whose idea it is.
Strange coming from a woman who complains about how having been married to John
ruined her identity, and how she's snubbed by other former members of Fluxus
because of her marriage to John. Whatever suits her purpose.
Diana
>>>At this point, it seems to be the press who give her that moniker,
>>>whenever they write a story about her.
>>
>>What better way to invoke pity, to perpetuate the perception of Yoko
>>as a hapless victim?
>
>I disagree. I think people want to look for external reasons to explain why
>the Beatles broke up. They can't deal with the fact that the group broke
>up because internally they felt it was time to move on.
Could be. Guess that's human nature. And unless someone's a real fanatic,
chances are they won't take the trouble to look into it.
>Granted, I thought
>that Yoko's singing at Lennon's gigs should not have been allowed (she
>instead should have had her own venue, with John playing in the backup
>band),
Well, that was John's choice (really, they were John and Yoko concerts), and
surely he knew she'd do that. Since 1969 Yoko injected her own performance
into the Beatles' recording sessions, and she continued to do so at John's. So
John was well-aware of Yoko's behavior.
I would have *liked* for Yoko to have found her own musical venue and have John
be backup, as they did with Yoko's films, but what is, is.
>but unfortunately cramming her music down the throats of
>Lennon/Beatles fans has made her a 'devil' in the eyes of those fans. I
>think she's been given a bad rap. I think those people who think badly of
>her will continue to be cynical about her intentions until the day she dies.
>Too bad.
Just speaking for myself, I don't hold this against Yoko at all. I made my
reasons for being cynical about Yoko's actions very clear in a post from about
3 months back. It has to do with relatively recent actions and behavior; with
Yoko's treatment of John and his Liverpool family and not with her art.
If you e-mail me, I'll send you the post. I won't repeat it here. NO WAY will
I repeat it here! LOL!
paramucho
>If you e-mail me, I'll send you the post. I won't repeat it here. NO WAY will
>I repeat it here! LOL!
<i'm having a good ole fashioned carthartic giggle here!>
--
ian
Steve Marinucci
>>I *think* even Yoko detractors realize Yoko didn't "break-up" the Beatles.
>>At this point, it seems to be the press who give her that moniker,
>>whenever they write a story about her.
>
>What better way to invoke pity, to perpetuate the perception of Yoko as a
>hapless victim?
I'd say it's some hack wire reporter tossing off a quick story in an
automatic fashion. In an effort to get through the story quickly (one
of many they've probably go to do), the writer goes back through past
news clips and rehashes what they find. A bit insensitive on the
writer's part. Interpreting it as a plot to make Yoko a victim
accomplishes a lot more than the writer ever intended. :)
steve
--------------------------------------------
ABBEYRD'S BEATLES PAGE
http://www.best.com/~abbeyrd
In-depth Beatles news and info, plus info
on the Byrds, Beach Boys and '50-'60s music.
---------------------------------------------
Diana
>>will I repeat it here! LOL!
>
><i'm having a good ole fashioned carthartic giggle here!>
So your intention *was* to intimidate me from posting facts and opinions. Hope
you're real proud of yourself.
Tom
D 28IF wrote in message <19991125163724...@ng-fs1.aol.com>...
>> JERUSALEM, Nov 25 - Yoko Ono, the woman blamed by many for the
>>break-up of The Beatles, made a wish for peace and
>> unity in the new millennium at an exhibition today showcasing
>>her avant-garde art.
>
At
>this point, it seems to be the press who give her that moniker, whenever
they
>write a story about her.
>
breaking up the Beatles to me just the other day.
Tom
>I'd be hard-pressed to find an article that focused solely on the present
when
>describing Yoko, minus the false accusations of 30 years ago and references
to
>Yoko as a widow and her status as John's widow. Never something like,
"Artist
>Yoko Ono...." There always has to be a reference to Yoko as a victim. Did
the
>press came up with this SOP by themselves, or is it a PR stratagem?
Most likely the press came up with it by themselves. Why? John is more
famous than Yoko, so it's a quick identifier. It works both ways. If there's
ever a mention of Fluxus for some reason, they're sure to mention that Yoko
was a part of it, regardless of whether she has anything to do with the
subject of the article, because her name is more recognizable than George
Macunias'.
By Yoko's
>own words, I think we can take a pretty good guess at whose idea it is.
>Strange coming from a woman who complains about how having been married to
John
>ruined her identity, and how she's snubbed by other former members of
Fluxus
>because of her marriage to John. Whatever suits her purpose.
This is how people get the impression that you go out of your way to believe
the worst in these situations.
BTW, both those statements are somewhat misleading. She never claimed that
being married to John "ruined her identity." She has complained that it
caused people not to take her seriously as an artist and that she felt
overshadowed by John's image. I'm not aware of her complianing about being
snubbed by FLuxus artists either, since she continues to take part in fluxus
works and events.
In fact, John is considered to have been a Fluxus artist as well because of
the work he did, both with Yoko and alone, in the seventies. I believe he
and Maciunas were on fairly friendly terms.
Diana
>snubbed by FLuxus artists either, since she continues to take part in
>fluxus works and events.
I know sometimes I misremember things, but I can almost see the article. Maybe
"snubbed" wasn't the right words, but Yoko said that she was no longer
considered a part of Fluxus and she blamed her marriage to John, how it damaged
her career. The phrase "sold out" may not have been used, but what I recall as
the basis of the accusations. Yoko appeared more than a little upset by the
situation.
I'll try to find the interview, but don't want to promise anything.
Tom
>
>I know sometimes I misremember things, but I can almost see the article.
Maybe
>"snubbed" wasn't the right words, but Yoko said that she was no longer
>considered a part of Fluxus and she blamed her marriage to John, how it
damaged
>her career. The phrase "sold out" may not have been used, but what I
recall as
>the basis of the accusations. Yoko appeared more than a little upset by
the
>situation.
>
Well, I would be too, if I'd worked at something and was being dismissed
because of who I married. The question is who it was that didn't consider
her to be part of Fluxus. For the most part, the artists seemed to accept
her and John as part of the group, (and there is the definition of Fluxus as
"whatever Maciunas said it was").
Reviewers and critics, the people who write the histories might have left
her out (and I have seen pieces on conceptual art that ignore her part in
it, even though they give credit to artists who came after her) because of
her association with The Beatles.
I know that seems to contradict what I said earlier about her being used to
identify Fluxus, but I'm talking about specialized critics in one situation
and mainstream media in another. It's similar to the way an article about
Blues in, say, the Daily News, might use Eric Clapton as an example of a
Blues musician while an article in a magazine that focused on the Blues
might dismiss Clapton as a rock star.
Don Rife
"paramucho" <i...@hammo.com> wrote in message
news:s3ubrl...@news.supernews.com...
>
> In retrospect, I still disagree with the list, but I disagree even
> more with my own pursuit of the matter and I apologise for that. I
> hounded you, and that was wrong of me.
>
> If you want to post it, go ahead. You won't hear from me on the
> matter again :-) We need more "live and let live" around here.
>
>
> --
> ian
>
>
Ian,
I know what I think doesn't mean much here in rmb but I was still very happy
to read the above post from you.
Let's hope others will "live and let live" too.
Don
.
Tom
>>You might think that, but you'd be wrong. Someone said something about her
>>breaking up the Beatles to me just the other day.
>
>Then that person was extremely ill-informed.
True, but that level of (mis)knowledge is fairly common. People read the old
stories and there's no reason for anyone other than the more extreme fans
(ie, us) to bother finding out more.
>I guess this is why any article
>mentioning John, Paul, George or Ringo has to include "ex-Beatle," just in
case
>someone doesn't know that, either.
>
Exactly. It's like a food chain. Everyone is identified by their association
with someone bigger. When Nam June Paik passes away, I wonder if the
headline will read "associate of widow of ex-Beatle dies."
paramucho
>>>>If you e-mail me, I'll send you the post. I won't repeat it here. NO WAY
>>>>will I repeat it here! LOL!
>>>
>>><i'm having a good ole fashioned carthartic giggle here!>
>>
>>So your intention *was* to intimidate me from posting facts and opinions.
>>Hope
>>you're real proud of yourself.
>>
>
>
>Sad that it worked, but I don't blame you.
No, I wasn't giggling out of any sense of achievement at all.
Mister Charlie
"Don Rife" <rif...@uswest.net> wrote:
>
> "paramucho" <i...@hammo.com> wrote in message
> news:s3ubrl...@news.supernews.com...
> >
> > more with my own pursuit of the matter and I apologise for that. I
> > hounded you, and that was wrong of me.
> >
> > If you want to post it, go ahead. You won't hear from me on the
> > matter again :-) We need more "live and let live" around here.
> >
> >
> > --
> > ian
> >
> >
>
>
> I know what I think doesn't mean much here in rmb but I was still
very happy
> to read the above post from you.
> Let's hope others will "live and let live" too.
>
> Don
>
> .
>
>
LOL it's just finally quieted down from two other well known
miscreants!
--
--------------------------------------------
"...I've had a drink or two and I don't care..."
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
D 28IF
>You might think that, but you'd be wrong. Someone said something about her
>breaking up the Beatles to me just the other day.
Then that person was extremely ill-informed. I guess this is why any article
Mister Charlie
I'm kinda tired of hearing about it on my news all the time.
That would explain why Ringo is always there, tho. Can't say as I
would keep using the same phony name for as long as he has though if he
wants to keep the fans away...where did he ever come up with Yassar
Arafat anyway? P U
Diana
>
>more with my own pursuit of the matter and I apologise for that. I
>hounded you, and that was wrong of me.
>
>If you want to post it, go ahead. You won't hear from me on the
>matter again :-) We need more "live and let live" around here.
Agreed! Sorry I misunderstood your meaning, Ian. That's what happens when ya
jump to conclusions!
Nah, I wouldn't have re-posted that anyway, but will e-mail it to anyone who
asks. Of course, if someone has something *informative* to say about it,
that'd be cool. (nudge, nudge, hint, hint you-know-who :-))
Diana
Yes, quotes can be found to the contrary, in this very thread if I'm not
mistaken. Nonetheless, Yoko stated clearly -- more than once -- that her
marriage damaged her art career.
I found what I perceive as oblique references to Fluxus -- nothing direct. But
these must've been what I had in mind.
(Tom, this is *not* meant for you!) Before quoting Yoko, I'd like to say
something. There's a general presumption here that if I or certain other
people say something about Yoko, it must be bad, whereas if certain other
people say something about Yoko, it must be good. I would like these quotes to
be read and understood impartially, without pre-judgment. READ THEM FOR THEIR
INTRINSIC MEANING WITHOUT REGARD FOR WHO'S POSTING THE QUOTES. Keep an open
mind. This is NOT a negative post! It's NOT about anything bad Yoko has done.
These are direct quotes from Yoko about how she feels having been married to
John affected her career. (Yeah, I know -- for a few people, I just wasted my
time and bandwidth.)
Reuters, Dec 8 1998: The article states, "...she [Yoko] made most of the
sacrifices in the relationship. 'I lost credibility as an artist. My ideas
were not killed but were ignored.' "
The Irish Times, Nov 13 1998: "I could have had a life as an artist and I was
nearly getting there when I met John. I was glad to leave my little mountain
and just have fun - rock and roll was fun." [In the last article, Yoko
describes her art after marrying John as having "rolled around in the mud."]
Liverpool Echo, Nov 4 1998: "It's funny, when I first married him, I resented
the fact that everything was about John. I was an established artist myself, I
had my own career. I fought so hard to keep my own identity, not just to
become part of John Lennon."
I carelessly neglected to note a source for the following. It's a long, very
pro-Yoko article with many quotes from her. At the bottom, it states: "This
article first appeared in 146 (April 96). 1998 The Wire." The article states:
"Choose your cliche: Yoko the cold, calculating bitch who leeched on Lennon's
fame and fortune, or Yoko the martyred wife who sacrificed her brilliant career
for her husband. The reality, as usual, wavers between these two extremes."
Later, "Yoko met John Lennon in 1966. At the time she had showings at two hip
London galleries; after years of critical neglect she was finally hitting her
stride as an art star. Which is why critics have suggested that, in terms of
her career, meeting Lennon was the worst thing that could have happened to
her." Yoko then disagrees with that, but goes on to say, "If I had insisted on
staying there, I could've been known as the person who never budged from her
belief, and been canonized by now..." [dots are in article] 'Like LaMonte
Young?' "Yeah. But the fact that I rolled around in the mud, so to speak, was
very good for me. <snip> YES, ON A CAREER LEVEL MAYBE I LOST MY CREDENCE
TOTALLY.... [caps added] I always had this innate confidence that my artistic
activity will not be killed. <snip> ALL MY AVANT GARDE FRIENDS DROPPED ME
[caps added] because I got a tremendous amount of attention and reviews. This
nice avant-garde artist couple had a dinner party, and the wife told me, 'My
husband feels like you sold out and we're not inviting you for dinner...' "
====================================
Mister Charlie
---------
I think it's clear that neither John was aware of Yoko, nor Yoko aware
(much) of John. And Yoko DID in fact have a career building in avante-
garde. What happened when they married is what unfortunately happens a
lot still, but even more so then, and that is the wife's life was
sublimated to her husband. John, being a good old Northern boy, was
not about to let his life long upbringing allow her to totally take
over their lives. Culturally then it just wasn't done.
AND if it was any woman but Yoko she would have simply been Mrs. Lennon
#2.
However, strong as she was, and as accomodating as John was gradually
becoming, Yoko was, after the breakup, almost never totally
sublimated. She put her art and ideas out through John. And his art.
Making an odd, and not totally satisfactory mix for either's.
She has a valid point. Had she remained an arm's length from John, her
art may well have become famous on it's own, a smaller version of Andy
Warhol perhaps. At the same time, John's lack of having Yoko's input
into Beatle things in the last days might have changed John's career as
well, keeping the Beatles together even longer. (I said "might").
Yoko was strong enough to leak through John. She has not had
to 'suffer' the way millions of wives over time have had to suffer
losing themselves into their husbands totality, just to be married.
And then there's a funny thing called love. People will do many things
to get it and keep it. Can't discount that one, either...
D 28IF
>>>If you want to post it, go ahead. You won't hear from me on the
>>>matter again :-) We need more "live and let live" around here.
>
>Huh. That just seems odd to me. When I objected to your "hounding" of her,
>I
>got attacked by about five of your bully friends.
>
>Now you seem to say I was right to object.
>
>Oh well.
>
Hey, hey, hey! Stop that. Remember Ian's new edict - live and let live.
D 28IF
>>Hey, hey, hey! Stop that. Remember Ian's new edict - live and let live.
>>
>Not my point. Actually, Ian has shown a side of himself to me recently that
>I
>hadn't seen before, so I'm not looking to tweak HIM over this. I just wonder
>why there had to be such a huge blowup if he is acknowledging my criticism
>was
>spot on.
>
>
Oh, I see. Then my apologies.
Tom
>Reuters, Dec 8 1998: The article states, "...she [Yoko] made most of the
>sacrifices in the relationship. 'I lost credibility as an artist. My
ideas
>were not killed but were ignored.' "
>
She was ignored by many of the people who later wrote the histories.
>The Irish Times, Nov 13 1998: "I could have had a life as an artist and I
was
>nearly getting there when I met John. I was glad to leave my little
mountain
>and just have fun - rock and roll was fun." [In the last article, Yoko
>describes her art after marrying John as having "rolled around in the
mud."]
>
But in a good way. She generally mentions the ability to have fun and not be
serious as something positive that she got from John (though I'd guess
that's on a personal level, her art before John wasn't exactly solemn.).
>Liverpool Echo, Nov 4 1998: "It's funny, when I first married him, I
resented
>the fact that everything was about John. I was an established artist
myself, I
>had my own career. I fought so hard to keep my own identity, not just to
>become part of John Lennon."
>
Can you imagine anyone who wouldn't have been in this situation?
An article once said that she's too famous for her art to be judged on its
own merits. In a way, that's true. When you look at her work, is the fact
that she was John Lennon's wife completely absent from your mind?
>But the fact that I rolled around in the mud, so to speak, was
>very good for me. <snip> YES, ON A CAREER LEVEL MAYBE I LOST MY CREDENCE
>TOTALLY.... [caps added]
In some ways she did. (I think she means credibility here, but...)
Aside from an elitist snobery, "she can't be a serious artist, she's too
famous," one of the things that might have contributed to this was that her
involvement with John cause her to become less involved with Fluxus
activities. In response to a question on Fluxlist a while back, someone said
something to the effect that "Yoko didn't have too much to do with it, she
was off being a Beatle."
It's interesting how all the changes that their relationship brought about
in John's life have parallels in Yoko's life.
I always had this innate confidence that my artistic
>activity will not be killed. <snip> ALL MY AVANT GARDE FRIENDS DROPPED ME
>[caps added] because I got a tremendous amount of attention and reviews.
This
>nice avant-garde artist couple had a dinner party, and the wife told me,
'My
>husband feels like you sold out and we're not inviting you for dinner...' "
>
Well, that's one friend who did. Obviously, some didn't. Maybe it's just a
question of how she looked at it on the day she was giving the interview.
D 28IF
>Oh please! The day YOU owe me, or anyone, an apology is the day Ian and I
>become buddies. :)
>
If you don't stop being so nice, people will get the wrong idea and change
their opinion of you! ;-)
FrancieToo
>I
>got attacked by about five of your bully friends.
And had you gone down on Paul McCartney in a car on the way to Liverpool,
written a book about it, then tried to come off as an expert source on the
recording of R9, instead of sticking up for your friends, he probably would
have ignored the thread entirely.
But...it's not who you know, but who you blow with some people.
Tom
>>
>>But...it's not who you know, but who you blow with some people.
>>
Really? I thought it was a cheap shot at Ian and/or Francie.
Doesn't make you look good either. Judged by the company you keep and so on.
tp
Diana <amara...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991127173332...@ng-bd1.aol.com...
> Mark this day in rmb history: A civil conversation took place about
Yoko!!
> Thank you, Tom and Charlie!
Most refreshing : - )
> How can one person be extremely likeable and extremely unlikeable at the
same
> time?? (Rhetorical question, but if anyone cares to take it on, should be
> interesting :-))
Well, having read about the Beatles for so many years now it seems that, as
with all of us, sometimes we are the cat's meow and at other times we're in
the dog house.
Yoko's music with John during those early years has always intrigued me. I
enjoy it.
Yoko as a personality has always given me pause. Sometimes she does things
I admire and at other times I question her motives. But, I have had similar
feelings with each of the Beatles as well.
All comes down to perspective and quite often personal biases. So often I
find that if I'm upset with someone it's because they are reflecting a
character trait within myself I dislike. Sort of an outer manisfestation of
inner turmoil.
I tend to sympathize with Julian and think that perhaps Yoko is greedy in
not giving more to him. Is this a reflection of my own feeling about wealth
and distribution, tending to root for the underdog, or is it simply a desire
for justice and standing up for principle? I don't really know.
We're all human and should try and forgive one another's faults. With Yoko
it's like we feel this is a woman who is so powerful. She has the money,
the fame, etc and she seems remote-almost like a goddess at the top of the
mountain-one so far removed from our daily reality. There is a tendency to
believe that one in such a high position may be abusing her power. In many
ways, I think those who have so much should be scrutinized more closely.
All depends on how they got there I guess. If one has worked very hard to
get to that position then we tend to be more forgiving, but if one has
married into the fortune and fame there is a natural tendency to be more
judgmental of that person.
What is fair? I don't have a clue.
I'm back at square one. I like Yoko's music with John in the early days and
agree with much of her life philosophy, but I am still puzzled over
statements she makes to the press at times and her behaviour is not always
agreeable to me.
Oh, well. I had the same feelings about my late father.......so.....it's an
expression of universal emotions involving the complex creatures we are I
guess
> Hari Scruffs: http://www.hariscruffs.com
Love this site Diana! Especially the chronology sections
cheers,
tp
interstate5
<19991127125910...@ng-fb1.aol.com>, bjk...@aol.com stated:
>
>
>>>Oh please! The day YOU owe me, or anyone, an apology is the day Ian and I
>>>become buddies. :)
>>>
>>
>>If you don't stop being so nice, people will get the wrong idea and change
>>their opinion of you! ;-)
>Not likely.
Right. Not likely.
interstate5
D 28IF
>>>their opinion of you! ;-)
>>]
>>Not likely.
>
>Right. Not likely.
>
>interstate5
>
And that, of course, is just your opinion.
interstate5
<19991128153912...@ng-cp1.aol.com>, d2...@aol.com stated:
I'm not sure how to take that.
If you mean "its just your *opinion*" in the sense that its the polar opposite
of demonstrable, unshakable fact, I'd have to disagree. It's at neither end of
that spectrum, neither completely unsupported pettifoggery nor stone-set truth.
I'd say it sits at something more than an educated guess.
If you mean "its just *your* opinion", i.e., its a view not shared by anyone
else, well, wake up and smell the marmalade, jack.
interstate5
Tom
>>>>>If you don't stop being so nice, people will get the wrong idea and
change
>>>>>their opinion of you! ;-)
>>>>]
>>>>Not likely.
>>>
>>>Right. Not likely.
>>>
>>>interstate5
>>>
>>
>>And that, of course, is just your opinion.
>>
>
>I'm not sure how to take that.
>
>If you mean "its just your *opinion*" in the sense that its the polar
opposite
>of demonstrable, unshakable fact, I'd have to disagree. It's at neither
end of
>that spectrum, neither completely unsupported pettifoggery nor stone-set
truth.
>I'd say it sits at something more than an educated guess.
>
It's good to see that a thread which started out about someone's (fairly
quixotic) attempt to help bring about peace in the middle east has moved on
to the important business of RMB in-fighting.
Tom
the maverick chinaman wrote in message ...
>
>interstate5 <interstat...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>news:81smcv$e...@edrn.newsguy.com...
>> On 28 Nov 1999 20:39:12 GMT, in article
>> <19991128153912...@ng-cp1.aol.com>, d2...@aol.com stated:
>> >
>change
>> >>>>their opinion of you! ;-)
>> >>>]
>> >>>Not likely.
>> >>
>> >>Right. Not likely.
>> >>
>> >>interstate5
>> >>
>> >
>> >And that, of course, is just your opinion.
>> >
>>
>> I'm not sure how to take that.
>>
>> If you mean "its just your *opinion*" in the sense that its the polar
>opposite
>> of demonstrable, unshakable fact, I'd have to disagree. It's at neither
>end of
>> that spectrum, neither completely unsupported pettifoggery nor stone-set
>truth.
>> I'd say it sits at something more than an educated guess.
>>
>anyone
>> else, well, wake up and smell the marmalade, jack.
>>
>
>
>
Pass the claret, Barret.
Or for those in your native land, "so we tanned his hide when he died Clyde,
and that's it hanging on the shed."
hair in the gate
D 28IF <d2...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991128153912...@ng-cp1.aol.com...
> >>>If you don't stop being so nice, people will get the wrong idea and
change
> >>>their opinion of you! ;-)
> >>]
> >>Not likely.
> >
> >Right. Not likely.
> >
LOL!
freds...@my-deja.com
d2...@aol.com (D 28IF) wrote:
> > JERUSALEM, Nov 25 - Yoko Ono, the woman blamed by many for the
> >break-up of The Beatles, made a wish for peace and
> > unity in the new millennium at an exhibition today showcasing
> >her avant-garde art.
>
> I *think* even Yoko detractors realize Yoko didn't "break-up" the
Beatles. At
> this point, it seems to be the press who give her that moniker,
whenever they
> write a story about her.
>
> Life is so unfair...
freds...@my-deja.com
"Here, There and Nowhere" <w.mulholl...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Diana wrote:
> >
> > >I *think* even Yoko detractors realize Yoko didn't "break-up" the
Beatles.
> > >At this point, it seems to be the press who give her that moniker,
> > >whenever they write a story about her.
> >
as a
> > hapless victim?
>
> grrrrr
>
WHEEEEEEE......
freds...@my-deja.com
paramucho <i...@hammo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>If you e-mail me, I'll send you the post. I won't repeat it here.
NO WAY
> >>>>will I repeat it here! LOL!
> >>>
> >>><i'm having a good ole fashioned carthartic giggle here!>
> >>
> >>So your intention *was* to intimidate me from posting facts and
opinions.
> >>Hope
> >>you're real proud of yourself.
> >>
> >
> >Heh, how true, how true....
> >
> >Sad that it worked, but I don't blame you.
>
>
> In retrospect, I still disagree with the list, but I disagree even
> more with my own pursuit of the matter and I apologise for that. I
> hounded you, and that was wrong of me.
>
> matter again :-) We need more "live and let live" around here.
>
> ian
>
OK, now that it's safe to post this explosive item, let's have it!
How bad can it be? Inquiring minds demand to know...
-FS
freds...@my-deja.com
bjk...@aol.com (BestOfOne) wrote:
>
> >>Oh please! The day YOU owe me, or anyone, an apology is the day Ian
and I
> >>become buddies. :)
> >>
> >
change
> >their opinion of you! ;-)
> ]
Chapman, worse
> than Khaddafy, worse than Hussein.
I think You forgot Hitler...
I am Tim's worst nightmare
apparently.
>
> Fascist dictator? Not so bad, what about MAREK?!!!
>
> Lennon's murderor? Not so bad, what about MAREK?!!!
>
> And people wonder why I take this SOOOO seriously. :)
freds...@my-deja.com
"Tom" <Blac...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
> >>You might think that, but you'd be wrong. Someone said something
about her
> >>breaking up the Beatles to me just the other day.
> >
> >Then that person was extremely ill-informed.
>
the old
> stories and there's no reason for anyone other than the more extreme
fans
> (ie, us) to bother finding out more.
>
> >mentioning John, Paul, George or Ringo has to include "ex-Beatle,"
just in
> case
> >someone doesn't know that, either.
> >
association
> with someone bigger. When Nam June Paik passes away, I wonder if the
> headline will read "associate of widow of ex-Beatle dies."
>
> No, it will read "Associate of topless cellist Charlotte
Moorman..."/-FS
freds...@my-deja.com
paramucho <i...@hammo.com> wrote:
>
> > Now 66, the diminutive Japanese artist, singer and composer,
> >says she wants to be recognised for her work in her own right,
> > almost nine years after the death of the former Beatle.
>
> Is it already nine years?
>
> It seems like nineteen.
>
> --
> ian
>
> ---
See? You can't believe anything you read...
freds...@my-deja.com
freds...@my-deja.com
"Daniel" <d_h...@canada.com> wrote:
> And Cebes, lapsing into his own dialect, laughed quietly and said:
"Zeus
> knows it is."
> Osborne, <Osbo...@Sydney.BTAP.BT.com> wrote in message
> news:383D99A0...@Sydney.BTAP.BT.com...
> > Yoko Ono's art-felt wish for peace
> >
> > Source: AFP | Published: Friday November 26 1:20:51 AM
> >
> > JERUSALEM, Nov 25 - Yoko Ono, the woman blamed by many for
the
> > break-up of The Beatles, made a wish for peace and
> > unity in the new millennium at an exhibition today
showcasing
> > her avant-garde art.
> >
soul
> > and I hope that it would help and serve to heal some of your
> > pain and mine," John Lennon's widow said at a press
conference
> > to launch a four-decade retrospective Yoko Ono: Have You
> > Seen the Horizon Lately?
>
> "John Lennon's widow said at a press conference"?! What the hell's
that?! I
> think this is just what John said a lot, she is not "John Lennon's
widow,"
> she IS a person, namely Yoko Ono.
>
> Yes, but she thinks she's John Lennon...
> > The work ranges from a series of photographic self-portraits
to
> > a single green apple sitting atop a clear perspex case, a
> > chequerboard photo-montage of golden-hued breasts and pubic
> > hair, and a half-chair that once sat in board meetings of The
> > Beatles' Apple record label.
> >
> > Now 66, the diminutive Japanese artist, singer and composer,
> > says she wants to be recognised for her work in her own right,
> > almost nine years after the death of the former Beatle.
>
> As another reply points out, only nine?
>
> >
> > "I could never be totally independent from John Lennon," she
> > said.
> >
> > "I feel that on many levels I am still working with him but
at
> > the same time it is unfair to some of the work to connect too
> > strongly with John Lennon."
> >
> > Nevertheless she said she hoped the words of Lennon's peace
> > anthem Imagine - a world of no religion and no hunger - would
> > come true as the world approached the next millennium.
> >
> > "All my work is a form of wishing for better times in our
lives
> > and in the world and my wish for world peace."
> >
> > The exhibition, on its first tour outside Europe, will be
> > showing at the Israel Museum in Jerusalem for at least three months,
> > organisers said.
> >
> > A separate exhibition is being held at Umm el-Fahm, a large
and
> > radical Arab town in northern Israel, but Ono said it carried no
> > political connotations.
freds...@my-deja.com
rgri...@aol.com (RGrimes10) wrote:
> Yoko says >"I feel that on many levels I am still working with him but
at
> >the same time it is unfair to some of the work to connect too
> > strongly with John Lennon."
>
>
Or perhaps clueless...?
freds...@my-deja.com
amara...@aol.com (Diana) wrote:
> >Yoko says >"I feel that on many levels I am still working with him
but at
> >>the same time it is unfair to some of the work to connect too
> >> strongly with John Lennon."
> >
> >Clue.
>
>
> I've found 3 articles on this subject. Here's how each begins:
>
> Reuters: "John Lennon's widow Yoko Ono...."
>
> Los Angeles Times: "Yoko Ono invoked memories of her late husband's
most
> famous song for a new exhibit."
>
> AFP: "Yoko Ono, the woman blamed by many for the break-up of the
Beatles...."
>
> I'd be hard-pressed to find an article that focused solely on the
present when
> describing Yoko, minus the false accusations of 30 years ago and
references to
> Yoko as a widow and her status as John's widow. Never something like,
"Artist
> Yoko Ono...." There always has to be a reference to Yoko as a victim.
Did the
> press came up with this SOP by themselves, or is it a PR stratagem?
By Yoko's
> own words, I think we can take a pretty good guess at whose idea it
is.
> Strange coming from a woman who complains about how having been
married to John
> ruined her identity, and how she's snubbed by other former members of
Fluxus
> because of her marriage to John. Whatever suits her purpose.
> ============
Right on Sister Di! You should see her deposition transcripts...
D 28IF
>quixotic) attempt to help bring about peace in the middle east has moved on
>to the important business of RMB in-fighting.
Which is pretty much what I was commenting on. Some good-natured exchanges took
place, with someone else interjecting something seemingly negative.
the maverick chinaman
good natured exchanges?
LOL!
D 28IF
>> Which is pretty much what I was commenting on. Some good-natured exchanges
>took
>> place, with someone else interjecting something seemingly negative.
>
>good natured exchanges?
>
>LOL!
>
>
I'm glad you see how amusing it was.
That's precisely what it was, until it degenerated.
the maverick chinaman
interstate5 <interstat...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:81smcv$e...@edrn.newsguy.com...
> On 28 Nov 1999 20:39:12 GMT, in article
> <19991128153912...@ng-cp1.aol.com>, d2...@aol.com stated:
> >
change
> >>>>their opinion of you! ;-)
> >>>]
> >>>Not likely.
> >>
freds...@my-deja.com
"Tom" <Blac...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> >I'd be hard-pressed to find an article that focused solely on the
present
> when
> >describing Yoko, minus the false accusations of 30 years ago and
references
> to
> >Yoko as a widow and her status as John's widow. Never something
like,
> "Artist
> >Yoko Ono...." There always has to be a reference to Yoko as a
victim. Did
> the
> >press came up with this SOP by themselves, or is it a PR stratagem?
>
> famous than Yoko, so it's a quick identifier. It works both ways. If
there's
> ever a mention of Fluxus for some reason, they're sure to mention that
Yoko
> was a part of it, regardless of whether she has anything to do with
the
> subject of the article, because her name is more recognizable than
George
> Macunias'.
>
> By Yoko's
> >own words, I think we can take a pretty good guess at whose idea it
is.
> >Strange coming from a woman who complains about how having been
married to
> John
> >ruined her identity, and how she's snubbed by other former members of
> Fluxus
> >because of her marriage to John. Whatever suits her purpose.
>
believe
> the worst in these situations.
>
> BTW, both those statements are somewhat misleading. She never claimed
that
> being married to John "ruined her identity." She has complained that
it
> caused people not to take her seriously as an artist and that she felt
> overshadowed by John's image. I'm not aware of her complianing about
being
> snubbed by FLuxus artists either,
I don't know if she complained publicly, but she sometimes complained
privately. Indeed, most Fluxus artists (many of them long dead)
considered her a charlatan & a fraud who ripped off the work of more
established artists (eg george Brecht, Kusama & other lesser, more
obscure members of the dadaist scene). Some tolerated her because she
made herself useful by making her Chambers St. loft available as a
performance space. She also gained acceptance in Fluxus after she had
affairs with LaMonte Young & Maciunas (who fell in love with her), men
who promoted her work & gave her status within Fluxus, access to shows,
etc. Like a latter day Pamela harriman, Yoko has throughout her life
used men (Toshi Ichiyanagi, Maciunas, Tony Cox, Lennon & Havadtoy) to
advance her career. When they were no longer useful to her (or when
somebody better came along) she discarded them. Perhaps not
surprisingly, JL has turned out to be more valuable to her in death than
when he was alive.
since she continues to take part in
fluxus
> works and events.
>
> In fact, John is considered to have been a Fluxus artist as well
because of
> the work he did, both with Yoko and alone, in the seventies. I believe
he
> and Maciunas were on fairly friendly terms.
the maverick chinaman
Tom <Blac...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:KCn04.13470$Di3.1...@news2.mia...
>
> the maverick chinaman wrote in message ...
> >
>
> Or for those in your native land, "so we tanned his hide when he died
Clyde,
> and that's it hanging on the shed."
"keep me wallaby fed, fred, keep me wallaby fed..."
Tom
Didn't Yoko say that?
make way for ducklings
>>
>>
>Didn't Yoko say that?
(ouch!)
alley
freds...@my-deja.com
"Tom" <Blac...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >I know sometimes I misremember things, but I can almost see the
article.
> Maybe
> >"snubbed" wasn't the right words, but Yoko said that she was no
longer
> >considered a part of Fluxus and she blamed her marriage to John, how
it
> damaged
> >her career. The phrase "sold out" may not have been used, but what I
> recall as
> >the basis of the accusations. Yoko appeared more than a little upset
by
> the
> >situation.
> >
> Well, I would be too, if I'd worked at something and was being
dismissed
> because of who I married.
Well, some might say that she was being dismissed BEFORE she married
JL & that she became someone to be reckoned with only after she hooked
up with J...
The question is who it was that didn't
consider
> her to be part of Fluxus. For the most part, the artists seemed to
accept
> her and John as part of the group, (and there is the definition of
Fluxus as
> "whatever Maciunas said it was").
>
> Reviewers and critics, the people who write the histories might have
left
> her out (and I have seen pieces on conceptual art that ignore her part
in
> it,
That's because most informed critics (eg Roberta Smith) know that she
had very little to do with it. She latched onto Concept Art, like a
mantra, long after other artists pioneered the actual art. Just because
she & some of her supporters insist on hailing her as the inventor (or
whatever) of CA does not make it so, Y herself has playfully refered to
it as "Con Art". She knows how easy it is to fool some of the people
(including critics). Sometimes she even fools herself...
-FS
freds...@my-deja.com
> >
> > Reuters, Dec 8 1998: The article states, "...she [Yoko] made most
of
> the
> > sacrifices in the relationship.
Yeah, J only gave up the Beatles, no big deal...
'I lost credibility as an artist.
> My ideas
> > were not killed but were ignored.' "
> >
> > The Irish Times, Nov 13 1998: "I could have had a life as an artist
> and I was
> > nearly getting there when I met John. I was glad to leave my little
> mountain
> > and...
...climb atop the Big Beatle Mountain, he he...
just have fun - rock and roll was fun."
I guess she wasn't having as much fun (nor getting as much attention)
when she was inventing Concept Art with Fluxus
> >
> > Liverpool Echo, Nov 4 1998: "It's funny, when I first married him,
I
> resented
> > the fact that everything was about John. I was an established
artist
> myself, I
> > had my own career.
Yeah, babe, that's all well & good, but JL was a BEATLE fet Chrissake!
(what a beautiful example of Y's grandiosity, eh?)
I fought so hard to keep my own identity, not
> just to
> > become part of John Lennon."
> >
> > I carelessly neglected to note a source for the following. It's a
> long, very
> > pro-Yoko article with many quotes from her. At the bottom, it
> states: "This
> > article first appeared in 146 (April 96). 1998 The Wire." The
> article states:
> > "Choose your cliche: Yoko the cold, calculating bitch who leeched
> on Lennon's
> > fame and fortune, or Yoko the martyred wife who sacrificed her
> brilliant career
> > for her husband. The reality, as usual, wavers between these two
> extremes."
> > Later, "Yoko met John Lennon in 1966. At the time she had showings
> at two hip
> > London galleries; after years of critical neglect she was finally
> hitting her
> > stride as an art star. Which is why critics have suggested that, in
> terms of
> > her career, meeting Lennon was the worst thing that could have
> happened to
> > her." Yoko then disagrees with that, but goes on to say, "If I had
> insisted on
> > staying there, I could've been known as the person who never budged
> from her
> > belief, and been canonized by now..." [dots are in article] 'Like
> LaMonte
> > Young?' "Yeah. But the fact that I rolled around in the mud, so to
> speak, was
> > very good for me. <snip> YES, ON A CAREER LEVEL MAYBE I LOST MY
> CREDENCE
> > TOTALLY.... [caps added] I always had this innate confidence that
> my artistic
> > activity will not be killed. <snip> ALL MY AVANT GARDE FRIENDS
> DROPPED ME
> > [caps added] because I got a tremendous amount of attention and
> reviews. This
> > nice avant-garde artist couple had a dinner party, and the wife told
> me, 'My
> > husband feels like you sold out and we're not inviting you for
> dinner...' "
> >
> > ====================================
> >
> > >>I know sometimes I misremember things, but I can almost see the
> article.
> > >Maybe
> > >>"snubbed" wasn't the right words, but Yoko said that she was no
> longer
> > >>considered a part of Fluxus and she blamed her marriage to John,
> how it
> > >damaged
> > >>her career. The phrase "sold out" may not have been used, but
what
> I
> > >recall as
> > >>the basis of the accusations.
Well, she did sell out (eg: sacrificed her purist "art" for the sake
of money, fame & power...)
> ---------
> I think it's clear that neither John was aware of Yoko, nor Yoko aware
> (much) of John.
I think it's clear you don't know what you're talking about. She was
very aware of who JL was, which is why she made sure he attended a
private "preview" of her first "major" art exhibit (Indica Gallery Nov.8
'66)-FS
And Yoko DID in fact have a career building in
avante-
> garde. What happened when they married is what unfortunately happens
a
> lot still, but even more so then, and that is the wife's life was
> sublimated to her husband.
It's the natural order of things, after all...
John, being a good old Northern boy, was
> not about to let his life long upbringing allow her to totally take
> over their lives. Culturally then it just wasn't done.
>
> AND if it was any woman but Yoko she would have simply been Mrs.
Lennon
> #2.
>
> However, strong as she was, and as accomodating as John was gradually
> becoming, Yoko was, after the breakup, almost never totally
> sublimated.
you mean SUBJUGATED, don't you?
She put her art and ideas out through John. And his art.
> Making an odd, and not totally satisfactory mix for either's.
>
> She has a valid point. Had she remained an arm's length from John,
her
> art may well have become famous on it's own,
Nah, very unlikely...
a smaller version of Andy
> Warhol perhaps.
Hmmm, a female Warhol, without a dick or a wig...Interesting thought!
At the same time, John's lack of having Yoko's input
> into Beatle things in the last days might have changed John's career
as
> well, keeping the Beatles together even longer. (I said "might").
>
> Yoko was strong enough to leak through John.
LOL!
She has not had
> to 'suffer' the way millions of wives over time have had to suffer
> losing themselves into their husbands totality, just to be married.
>
> And then there's a funny thing called love. People will do many
things
> to get it and keep it.
...UP (including taking VIAGRA)
> --------------------------------------------
> "...I've had a drink or two and I don't care..."
i THINK YOU'VE HAD MORE THAN A DRINK OR TWO. I think you probably
ingested a massive quantity of ibogaine OR SOME OTHER POWERFUL
PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCE & it has fried your brain! I think you need to
read The Lives of JL. It is the only known antidote...
> Cheers, mate!
-FRED SEAMAN
paramucho
>> >says she wants to be recognised for her work in her own right,
>> > almost nine years after the death of the former Beatle.
>>
>>
>> It seems like nineteen.
>>
>> --
>> ian
>>
>> ---
>
> See? You can't believe anything you read...
I must being seeing double
--
ian (apologies to dylan)
paramucho
>Tom <Blac...@msn.com> wrote in message
>news:KCn04.13470$Di3.1...@news2.mia...
>>
>> the maverick chinaman wrote in message ...
>> >
>> >interstate5 <interstat...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>> >news:81smcv$e...@edrn.newsguy.com...
>> >> On 28 Nov 1999 20:39:12 GMT, in article
>> >> <19991128153912...@ng-cp1.aol.com>, d2...@aol.com stated:
>> >> >
--
ian
paramucho
> bjk...@aol.com (BestOfOne) wrote:
>>
>> >>Oh please! The day YOU owe me, or anyone, an apology is the day Ian
>and I
>> >>become buddies. :)
>> >>
>> >
>change
>> >their opinion of you! ;-)
>> ]
>Chapman, worse
>> than Khaddafy, worse than Hussein.
>
> I think You forgot Hitler...
>
>
>I am Tim's worst nightmare
>apparently.
Actually, you make a great team.
--
ian
the maverick chinaman
>
>
> >> >> >>>>If you don't stop being so nice, people will get the wrong idea
> and
> >> >change
> >> >> >>>>their opinion of you! ;-)
> >> >> >>>]
> >> >> >>>Not likely.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>interstate5
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >And that, of course, is just your opinion.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm not sure how to take that.
> >> >>
> >> >> If you mean "its just your *opinion*" in the sense that its the
polar
> >> >opposite
> >> >> of demonstrable, unshakable fact, I'd have to disagree. It's at
> >neither
> >> >end of
> >> >> that spectrum, neither completely unsupported pettifoggery nor
> >stone-set
> >> >truth.
> >> >> I'd say it sits at something more than an educated guess.
> >> >>
> >> >> If you mean "its just *your* opinion", i.e., its a view not shared
by
> >> >anyone
> >> >> else, well, wake up and smell the marmalade, jack.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >shouldnt that be "marmalade, jade"?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Pass the claret, Barret.
> >>
> >> Or for those in your native land, "so we tanned his hide when he died
> >Clyde,
> >> and that's it hanging on the shed."
> >
> >"keep me wallaby fed, fred, keep me wallaby fed..."
> >
> >
*ba- bing!*
LOL!
Diana
We've been wondering about the lawsuit over photographs. Can you talk about
it, Fred? There's been nothing in the news since it was first reported.
- - - - -
Hari Scruffs: http://www.hariscruffs.com
Beatles' upcoming releases:
http://hometown.aol.com/amaranth56/myhomepage/index.html
paramucho
>> If you want to post it, go ahead. You won't hear from me on the
>> matter again :-) We need more "live and let live" around here.
>>
>> --
>> ian
>>
> OK, now that it's safe to post this explosive item, let's have it!
>How bad can it be? Inquiring minds demand to know...
You could have focussed a *little* more on the 'live and let live'
bit.
Oops...
--
ian
|--paramucho------[para...@hammo.com]---[www.beathoven.com]------|
|----[alt.ato]---[alt.non.sequitur]---[rec.music.beatles]----------|
Tom
freds...@my-deja.com wrote in message <81t3ha$sto$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
And I bet they'd call Moorman "naked cellist." Rolling Stone (those twits)
did.
Tom
>> Reviewers and critics, the people who write the histories might have
>left
>> her out (and I have seen pieces on conceptual art that ignore her part
>in
>> it,
>
> That's because most informed critics (eg Roberta Smith) know that she
>had very little to do with it.
Then why do they credit people who came after her with pioneering it. (That
was the part of my post that you snipped)
Mister Charlie
"Tom" <Blac...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> the maverick chinaman wrote in message ...
> >
> >interstate5 <interstat...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
> >news:81smcv$e...@edrn.newsguy.com...
> >> On 28 Nov 1999 20:39:12 GMT, in article
> >> <19991128153912...@ng-cp1.aol.com>, d2...@aol.com
stated:
> >> >
--
--------------------------------------------
"...I've had a drink or two and I don't care..."
make way for dick lings
"Tom" <Blac...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
"so we tanned his hide when he died
> >Clyde,
> >> and that's it hanging on the shed."
> >
> >
> >
> Didn't Yoko say that?
>
>
reference of some type? and who is fred? enquiring minds want to know!
Mister Charlie
freds...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > >
> I
> > resented
> > > the fact that everything was about John. I was an established
> artist
> > myself, I
> > > had my own career.
>
> Yeah, babe, that's all well & good, but JL was a BEATLE fet
Chrissake!
very good point
> > ---------
> > I think it's clear that neither John was aware of Yoko, nor Yoko
aware
> > (much) of John.
>
> I think it's clear you don't know what you're talking about.
I said "much", Fred, read the words. I am aware that she set out to
get John, and that she knew he was a celebrity with power. I was
referring to her seeming non-awareness of the Beatle music itself.
She was
> very aware of who JL was, which is why she made sure he attended a
> private "preview" of her first "major" art exhibit (Indica Gallery
Nov.8
> '66)-FS
>
> >
> > However, strong as she was, and as accomodating as John was
gradually
> > becoming, Yoko was, after the breakup, almost never totally
> > sublimated.
>
> you mean SUBJUGATED, don't you?
No. I mean sublimated. They're both "S" words, Fred, what difference
does it make?
>
> > --------------------------------------------
> > "...I've had a drink or two and I don't care..."
>
> i THINK YOU'VE HAD MORE THAN A DRINK OR TWO.
on many occassions, yes
I think you probably
> ingested a massive quantity of ibogaine OR SOME OTHER POWERFUL
> PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCE
on many occassions, yes
& it has fried your brain!
not yet, still working on it. But thank you for your expert diagnosis,
Phred.
I think you need to
> read The Lives of JL.
done it. been there. vomitted copiously (or do I mean subjugated?).
It is the only known antidote...to what...LIFE?
> > Cheers, mate!
oh, you too, fred, you too, dude.
>
> -FRED SEAMAN
> >
>
(hey...try one of those psychotropic substances...would do you some
good)
Lyn Dowling
make way for dick lings wrote in message <81u2dg$hlo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>Did yoko say "keep me wallaby fed, fred?" Is that a *pornographic*
>reference of some type? and who is fred? enquiring minds want to know!
Yeah, if you play Rev 9 backwards. It's this thing from a tape loop . . .
Happy holidays to one and all,
ld
interstate5
<TGm04.13375$Di3.1...@news2.mia>, "Tom" stated:
>
>
>
>>>>>>If you don't stop being so nice, people will get the wrong idea and
>change
>>>>>>their opinion of you! ;-)
>>>>>]
>>>>>Not likely.
>>>>
>>>>Right. Not likely.
>>>>
>>>>interstate5
>>>>
>>>
>>>And that, of course, is just your opinion.
>>>
>>
>>I'm not sure how to take that.
>>
>>If you mean "its just your *opinion*" in the sense that its the polar
>opposite
>>of demonstrable, unshakable fact, I'd have to disagree. It's at neither
>end of
>>that spectrum, neither completely unsupported pettifoggery nor stone-set
>truth.
>>I'd say it sits at something more than an educated guess.
>>
>quixotic) attempt to help bring about peace in the middle east has moved on
>to the important business of RMB in-fighting.
>
>
Not much in the world is less important than RMB in-fighting. Yoko's attempts
to bring peace to the Middle East are in that rare company.
interstate5
interstate5
<TGm04.13375$Di3.1...@news2.mia>, "Tom" stated:
>
>
>
>>>>>>If you don't stop being so nice, people will get the wrong idea and
>change
>>>>>>their opinion of you! ;-)
>>>>>]
>>>>>Not likely.
>>>>
>>>>Right. Not likely.
>>>>
>>>>interstate5
>>>>
>>>
>>>And that, of course, is just your opinion.
>>>
>>
>>I'm not sure how to take that.
>>
>>If you mean "its just your *opinion*" in the sense that its the polar
>opposite
>>of demonstrable, unshakable fact, I'd have to disagree. It's at neither
>end of
>>that spectrum, neither completely unsupported pettifoggery nor stone-set
>truth.
>>I'd say it sits at something more than an educated guess.
>>
>It's good to see that a thread which started out about someone's (fairly
>quixotic) attempt to help bring about peace in the middle east has moved on
>to the important business of RMB in-fighting.
>
>
Hey! There's nothing more quixotic than what's going on in this thread -- on so
many levels.
interstate5
interstate5
<KCn04.13470$Di3.1...@news2.mia>, "Tom" stated:
>
>
>the maverick chinaman wrote in message ...
>>
>>interstate5 <interstat...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>>news:81smcv$e...@edrn.newsguy.com...
>>> On 28 Nov 1999 20:39:12 GMT, in article
>>> >
>>> >>>>If you don't stop being so nice, people will get the wrong idea and
>>change
>>> >>>>their opinion of you! ;-)
>>> >>>]
>>> >>>Not likely.
>>> >>
>>> >>Right. Not likely.
>>> >>
>>> >>interstate5
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >And that, of course, is just your opinion.
>>> >
>>>
>>> I'm not sure how to take that.
>>>
>>> If you mean "its just your *opinion*" in the sense that its the polar
>>opposite
>>> of demonstrable, unshakable fact, I'd have to disagree. It's at neither
>>end of
>>> that spectrum, neither completely unsupported pettifoggery nor stone-set
>>truth.
>>> I'd say it sits at something more than an educated guess.
>>>
>>anyone
>>> else, well, wake up and smell the marmalade, jack.
>>>
>>
>>shouldnt that be "marmalade, jade"?
>>
>>
>Pass the claret, Barret.
>
And the Bordeaux, Gordo!
interstate5
"A bordeaux *is* a claret!"
"Oh yes, a *bordeaux* is a claret . . ."
--- Fawlty Towers
paramucho
>> >Clyde,
>> >> and that's it hanging on the shed."
>> >
>> >"keep me wallaby fed, fred, keep me wallaby fed..."
>> >
>> >
>> Didn't Yoko say that?
>>
>>
>reference of some type? and who is fred? enquiring minds want to know!
"right" said fred, climbing up a ladder.
--
ian
Tom
Mister Charlie wrote in message <81u21u$hgi$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>Clyde,
>> and that's it hanging on the shed."
>>
>>
>--
Camatelfoo
>this
>newsgroup to you. YOu don't deserve it, but he has left me no choice.
Who are you, Linda Blair? Any stupid retribution perpetrated by YOU is YOUR
responsibility. Please stop, wait a week before posting, and THEN act. Kinda
like the brady law for usenet. Otherwise, your actions will most likely
displease me and I'll be forced to retaliate by spitting on my next door
neighbor. He's a really nice guy. Please don't make me do such a
thing..........
John
Alabama Man
moondog
Tom wrote:
> <snip>
> , well, wake up and smell the marmalade, jack.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >shouldnt that be "marmalade, jade"?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Pass the claret, Barret.
> >>
> >> Or for those in your native land, "so we tanned his hide when he died
> >Clyde,
> >> and that's it hanging on the shed."
> >>
> >>
> >TOM: LOL! (shoot the juice to me bruce!)
> >--
> Pass the crimson, jimson.
More piss, Miss!
Alabama Man
moondog <Osbo...@Sydney.BTAP.BT.com> wrote in message
news:3842EC90...@Sydney.BTAP.BT.com...
What's in the wallaby stew, Blue?
>
moondog
WALLABY, ya doh-wacker!
"I wanna be just like Alabama Man!"
(Comes with eveything you see here. Wife doll sold seperately)
Alabama Man
freds...@my-deja.com
Mister Charlie <cc...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <81t937$ih$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> freds...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > resented
> > > > the fact that everything was about John. I was an established
> > artist
> > > myself, I
> > > > had my own career.
> >
> > Yeah, babe, that's all well & good, but JL was a BEATLE fet
> Chrissake!
>
>
> > > ---------
> > > I think it's clear that neither John was aware of Yoko, nor Yoko
> aware
> > > (much) of John.
> >
> > I think it's clear you don't know what you're talking about.
> get John, and that she knew he was a celebrity with power. I was
> referring to her seeming non-awareness of the Beatle music itself.
>
> > very aware of who JL was, which is why she made sure he attended a
> > private "preview" of her first "major" art exhibit (Indica Gallery
> Nov.8
> > '66)-FS
> >
> > >
> gradually
> > > becoming, Yoko was, after the breakup, almost never totally
> > > sublimated.
> >
> > you mean SUBJUGATED, don't you?
> does it make?
>
> >
> > > "...I've had a drink or two and I don't care..."
> >
> > i THINK YOU'VE HAD MORE THAN A DRINK OR TWO.
>
>
> I think you probably
> > ingested a massive quantity of ibogaine OR SOME OTHER POWERFUL
> > PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCE
>
>
> & it has fried your brain!
diagnosis,
> Phred.
>
> > read The Lives of JL.
>
>
> It is the only known antidote...to what...LIFE?
>
> > > Cheers, mate!
>
> oh, you too, fred, you too, dude.
>
> >
> > -FRED SEAMAN
> > >
> >
> (hey...try one of those psychotropic substances...would do you some
> good)
aH, YES...gOOD DRUGS ARE HARD TO COME BY...sigh...
Mister Charlie
freds...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <81u38g$iel$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Mister Charlie <cc...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > In article <81t937$ih$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > freds...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > resented
> > > > > the fact that everything was about John. I was an established
> > > artist
> > > > myself, I
> > > > > had my own career.
> > >
> > > Yeah, babe, that's all well & good, but JL was a BEATLE fet
> > Chrissake!
> >
> >
> > > > ---------
> > > > I think it's clear that neither John was aware of Yoko, nor Yoko
> > aware
> > > > (much) of John.
> > >
> > > I think it's clear you don't know what you're talking about.
> > get John, and that she knew he was a celebrity with power. I was
> > referring to her seeming non-awareness of the Beatle music itself.
> >
> > > very aware of who JL was, which is why she made sure he attended a
> > > private "preview" of her first "major" art exhibit (Indica Gallery
> > Nov.8
> > > '66)-FS
> > >
> > > >
> > gradually
> > > > becoming, Yoko was, after the breakup, almost never totally
> > > > sublimated.
> > >
> > > you mean SUBJUGATED, don't you?
difference
> > does it make?
> >
> > >
> > > > "...I've had a drink or two and I don't care..."
> > >
> > > i THINK YOU'VE HAD MORE THAN A DRINK OR TWO.
> >
> >
> > I think you probably
> > > ingested a massive quantity of ibogaine OR SOME OTHER POWERFUL
> > > PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCE
> >
> >
> > & it has fried your brain!
> diagnosis,
> > Phred.
> >
> > > read The Lives of JL.
> >
subjugated?).
> >
> > It is the only known antidote...to what...LIFE?
> >
> > > > Cheers, mate!
> >
> > oh, you too, fred, you too, dude.
> >
> > >
> > > -FRED SEAMAN
> > > >
> > >
> > (hey...try one of those psychotropic substances...would do you some
> > good)
> > ============
>
> aH, YES...gOOD DRUGS ARE HARD TO COME BY...sigh...
>
> > Before you buy.
> >
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
--
--------------------------------------------
"...I've had a joint or two and I don't care..."
freds...@my-deja.com
paramucho
<interstat...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 28 Nov 1999 23:52:01 -0500, in article
><KCn04.13470$Di3.1...@news2.mia>, "Tom" stated:
>>
>>
>>the maverick chinaman wrote in message ...
>>>
>>>interstate5 <interstat...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>>>news:81smcv$e...@edrn.newsguy.com...
>>>> On 28 Nov 1999 20:39:12 GMT, in article
>>>> <19991128153912...@ng-cp1.aol.com>, d2...@aol.com stated:
>>>> >
>>>> >>>>If you don't stop being so nice, people will get the wrong idea and
>>>change
>>>> >>>>their opinion of you! ;-)
>>>> >>>]
>>>> >>>Not likely.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>Right. Not likely.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>interstate5
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> >And that, of course, is just your opinion.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure how to take that.
>>>>
>>>> If you mean "its just your *opinion*" in the sense that its the polar
>>>opposite
>>>> of demonstrable, unshakable fact, I'd have to disagree. It's at neither
>>>end of
>>>> that spectrum, neither completely unsupported pettifoggery nor stone-set
>>>truth.
>>>> I'd say it sits at something more than an educated guess.
>>>>
>>>> If you mean "its just *your* opinion", i.e., its a view not shared by
>>>anyone
>>>> else, well, wake up and smell the marmalade, jack.
>>>>
>>>
>>>shouldnt that be "marmalade, jade"?
>>>
>>>
>>Pass the claret, Barret.
>>
>
>And the Bordeaux, Gordo!
And the Chardonnay, Marmalade
--
ian (ain't no confiture)
Tom
>>
>> >> Reviewers and critics, the people who write the histories might
>have
>> >left
>> >> her out (and I have seen pieces on conceptual art that ignore her
>part
>> >in
>> >> it,
>> >
>> > That's because most informed critics (eg Roberta Smith) know that
>she
>> >had very little to do with it.
>>
>> Then why do they credit people who came after her with pioneering it.
>(That
>> was the part of my post that you snipped)
>>
>> HUH?
>
snipped. It means something that you deleted rather than reproducing in your
reply.
make way for ducklings
CBunch1070
>bit.
>
My motto is Live and Let Die.
Chuck
freds...@my-deja.com
> >
> >
> >
> >>>>>>If you don't stop being so nice, people will get the wrong idea
and
> >change
> >>>>>>their opinion of you! ;-)
> >>>>>]
> >>>>>Not likely.
> >>>>
> >>>>Right. Not likely.
> >>>>
> >>>>interstate5
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>And that, of course, is just your opinion.
> >>>
> >>
> >>I'm not sure how to take that.
> >>
> >>If you mean "its just your *opinion*" in the sense that its the
polar
> >opposite
> >>of demonstrable, unshakable fact, I'd have to disagree. It's at
neither
> >end of
> >>that spectrum, neither completely unsupported pettifoggery nor
stone-set
> >truth.
> >>I'd say it sits at something more than an educated guess.
> >>
(fairly
> >quixotic) attempt to help bring about peace in the middle east has
moved on
> >to the important business of RMB in-fighting.
> >
> >
>
attempts
> to bring peace to the Middle East are in that rare company.
>
> interstate5
That's funny (& true...) Let's get real, boyz & girlz: Y. isn't really
trying to bring peace to the Middle East (although she would no doubr
be very pleased if she were to be nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize...)
Really, though, she's just trying to get some publicity for herself &
her "art". It's just another hustle...Jerusalem is the place to be these
days (the cradle of the world's religions, etc.)
-Fred Seaman
freds...@my-deja.com
freds...@my-deja.com
idea
> and
> >> >change
> >> >> >>>>their opinion of you! ;-)
> >> >> >>>]
> >> >> >>>Not likely.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>Right. Not likely.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>interstate5
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >And that, of course, is just your opinion.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm not sure how to take that.
> >> >>
> >> >> If you mean "its just your *opinion*" in the sense that its the
polar
> >> >opposite
> >> >> of demonstrable, unshakable fact, I'd have to disagree. It's at
> >neither
> >> >end of
> >> >> that spectrum, neither completely unsupported pettifoggery nor
> >stone-set
> >> >truth.
> >> >> I'd say it sits at something more than an educated guess.
> >> >>
shared by
> >> >anyone
> >> >> else, well, wake up and smell the marmalade, jack.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >shouldnt that be "marmalade, jade"?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Pass the claret, Barret.
> >>
died
> >Clyde,
> >> and that's it hanging on the shed."
> >
> >
> >
> Didn't Yoko say that?
Who's wallaby? & Why is it so hungry?
paramucho
> That's funny (& true...) Let's get real, boyz & girlz: Y. isn't really
>trying to bring peace to the Middle East (although she would no doubr
>be very pleased if she were to be nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize...)
>Really, though, she's just trying to get some publicity for herself &
>her "art". It's just another hustle...Jerusalem is the place to be these
>days (the cradle of the world's religions, etc.)
Let's get real: Yoko is not the only person in the world to link
publicity and good deeds. Quite a few Nobel Peace Prizes have been
handed out to those who were more quietly efficient with their
publicity than others equally deserving. In fact, the Nobel Peace
Prize is, in itself, all about publicity.
So, publicity is not the issue.
It's what one chooses to do for publicity. I don't see what Ms Ono is
doing as a bad thing, in that sense.
--
ian
paramucho
>Can I just point out that when I started this thread, I merely pasted a wire
>service item about Yoko's exhibition...the Title on the post was my comment
>on it
Okay, now Pete's trying to get the Nobel Peace Prize.
--
ian
Tom
> That's funny (& true...) Let's get real, boyz & girlz: Y. isn't really
>trying to bring peace to the Middle East (although she would no doubr
>be very pleased if she were to be nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize...)
>Really, though, she's just trying to get some publicity for herself &
>her "art". It's just another hustle...Jerusalem is the place to be these
>days (the cradle of the world's religions, etc.)
>
I think it's nice that despite all that's happened between you and Yoko, the
two of you still have such in-depth conversations that you're familar with
the motivation for everything she does.
interstate5
<newscache$enz4mf$mki$1...@news.accsoft.com.au>, "spike stated:>news:3846FCFB...@Sydney.BTAP.BT.com...
>>
>>
>> freds...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>> > > Not much in the world is less important than RMB in-fighting. Yoko's
>> > attempts
>> > > to bring peace to the Middle East are in that rare company.
>> > >
>> > > interstate5
>> > > =============
>> > trying to bring peace to the Middle East (although she would no doubr
>> > be very pleased if she were to be nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize...)
>> > Really, though, she's just trying to get some publicity for herself &
>> > her "art". It's just another hustle...Jerusalem is the place to be these
>> > days (the cradle of the world's religions, etc.)
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Can I just point out that when I started this thread, I merely pasted a
>wire
>> service item about Yoko's exhibition
>
>
>
I agree. You may NOT point that out, my little moondoggie. Sit!! Heel!!!!
(No, I didn't say "shitheel").
interstate5
Nowhere Man
>
> interstate5 <interstat...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
> Heel!!!!
> >
> > (No, I didn't say "shitheel").
> >
>
> backstabbing hypocritcal bald faced(how can you be bald faced btw?) two tone
> winklepicking no good ornery two bit cave swinging varmint you!!!
>
> oh well...
dessssspicaaaabullllll
<said with serious face and saliva eminating from all sections of
animated mouth>