Is McCartney's "image" a whitewash-?
dlarsson
McCartney's "Mr. nice guy" image has always been a little hard
to take at face value take given .. oh ... some little things like:
1. Repeated infidelity during his relationship with Jane Asher
and demands that she stop and end her career (and just stay at
home).
2. Breaking the unity of the Beatles by insisting on separate
individual legal representation (by his in-laws, the Eastmans)
after John,George,Ringo had all decided on a new manager
which set off business complications and an added rivalry
that led to the breakup of the band.
3. Being the one guy among the Beatles that neither George
nor John ever wanted to ever re-form another band around
again.
4. Putting out a dishonest press interview to trick the whole World
into thinking that he was the guy who quit the Beatles
(after Lennon had already done so and broke up the band).
5. Acting in a strangely punative and disrespectful manner
towards John Lennon after his violent murder (including
calling Lennon a "manuevering swine" in the press,
thumbing his nose at and boycotting serveral Lennon
"tributes", declining to be interviewed or participate in
the "Imagine" movie, publically damning him with feint praise,
etc.
6. Trying to rewrite Beatles history and claim the 'creative
credit' for many of John's songs, concepts, innovations, etc
and diminish Lennon's leadership role in the band.
7. Badgering John's widow to allow him to legally reverse the
Lennon & McCartney songwriting credits around and then
blaming her publically (for leaving the band's history alone).
It looks like now the dirty laundry of his relationship with Heather
Mills is coming out in public. Not a very pretty sight.
Now, I know that many people choose to believe that Heather is a witch
(Yoko redux attitude) and prefer to blame her for everything (the
divorce)
or assume that she is just lying. But, given McCartney's track record
at dishonesty ( re; Lennon, Beatles, self-promotion issues) and his
well-known "control freak" type of personality, the jury is still out
on
McCartney's own behavior here.
______________________
Exclusive: Heather and Macca's divorce battle intensifies over attack
claims
18th October 2006
Heather Mills is accusing her estranged husband Paul McCartney of
repeated violence against her.
Explosive court papers lodged by her lawyers in their £1billion
divorce battle portray him as a 'vindictive' man who once tried to
choke her and even attacked her while she was pregnant.
Last night, Sir Paul's spokesman refused to comment on the allegations,
but it is understood he denies them and that they will be fiercely
contested in court.
In an extraordinary escalation of their dispute, Miss Mills claims in
the documents that the ex-Beatle:
. Subjected her to four violent attacks, including one in which he
stabbed her in the arm with a broken wine glass.
. Continued to use illegal drugs and drink excessively, despite
promises made before they married.
. Hurled abuse at his wife, calling her an 'ungrateful bitch'.
. Tried to prevent her breastfeeding, even saying: 'They are my
breasts.'
. Made her cancel a crucial operation because it interfered with his
holiday plans.
. Objected 'vociferously' when she asked to buy an antique bedpan to
save her crawling to the toilet at night.
In the papers, which will form the basis of her bid for a share of Sir
Paul's estimated £1billion fortune, she claims he became 'physically
violent' and acted in a 'vindictive, punitive manner' towards her.
A series of episodes are described in which she alleges he physically
attacked her.
In Los Angeles, in November 2002, the papers say, he 'grabbed her by
the neck and pushed her over a coffee table'.
He then went outside and, in his allegedly drunken state, fell down a
hill, cutting his arm, which remains scarred Later, in May 2003, while
Miss Mills was four weeks' pregnant, she claims Sir Paul became 'angry
and pushed' her into a bath. She says she suffered 'shock and
distress'.
On Long Island, in August 2003, Miss Mills asked Sir Paul if he had
been smoking marijuana and claims he became 'very angry, yelled at her,
grabbed her neck and started choking her'.
In April 2006, as the marriage neared collapse, Sir Paul allegedly
tipped red wine from a bottle over his wife's head and then threw what
remained in his glass at her.
The divorce papers claim that Sir Paul 'then reached to grab the
respondent's (Miss Mills's) wine glass, and broke the bowl of the glass
from the stem.
'He then lunged at the respondent with the broken, sharp stem of the
wine glass, which cut and pierced the respondent's arm just below the
elbow, and it began to bleed profusely.
'He proceeded to manhandle the respondent, flung her into her
wheelchair and wheeled it outside, screaming at her to apologise for
"winding him up".' Miss Mills 'still bears the scars of the assault',
the papers say.
The papers allege that Sir Paul humiliated his wife, or ignored her
needs. After the birth of their daughter Beatrice in 2003, he forced
his exhausted wife to 'accompany him everywhere' still with no regard
to her physical or disability needs, they claim.
'Forced to crawl on hands and knees'
In April 2006, it is claimed, Miss Mills - who lost a leg in a road
accident in 1993 - was forced to crawl on her hands and knees up the
steps of a plane because they were not wide enough for her wheelchair
and Sir Paul had not made other arrangements.
Sir Paul allegedly told his wife during her pregnancy she should not
breastfeed because 'they are my breasts'. He is alleged to have told
her: 'I don't want a mouthful of breastmilk.'
She breastfed for six weeks, but gave up because Sir Paul would
constantly interrupt her during feeds which left her 'miserable and
demoralised', the papers say.
In November 2005, Sir Paul is alleged to have forced her to defer an
essential and already once-cancelled operation on her leg because it
'interfered with his holiday plans'.
The papers claim Sir Paul vomited on himself after a drinking session
towards the end of their relationship and staggered home drunk and
slurring, demanding his dinner.
On April 28 this year, with the Sir Paul has signalled his marriage
'irretrievably broken determination not to be down', Miss Mills left
the family painted as the villain. His divorce petition allegedly cites
his wife's 'unreasonable behaviour'.
His claims that she was 'argumentative' and 'rude to staff' during
their marriage were leaked, along with the assertion that she reneged
on a deal to take £30million in exchange for a painless divorce.
Miss Mills has hired the lawyer who won Princess Diana her £17million
settlement from Prince Charles.
She replaced her long-standing lawyer Stephen Taylor with Anthony
Julius, of Mishcon de Reya. Sir Paul will be represented by Fiona
Shackleton, who took Charles's side in 1996. Last night, a spokesman
for Sir Paul refused to comment. Mishcon de Reya said it would not
comment on leaked or allegedly leaked documents.
But a statement added: 'The law firm can however confirm that Lady
Heather Mills McCartney stands by everything that has been filed at
court on her behalf and intend to prove its truth in due course, should
this be necessary.
terra
And remember these are unproven, unreported allegations, nothing more.
Since she never went to the police there is no there there, just her word.
How good is that?
"dlarsson" <derek_...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1161186349....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
McCartney's "Mr. nice guy" image has always been a little hard
to take at face value take given .. oh ... some little things like:
<snip derek's inevitable macca blast>
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Martin Hofner
She said he said.
Me
Derek is one of the very few men anywhere who suffer from battered
woman syndrome. Unfortunately, he's the one who's always beating on
himself.
pcdoc2010
Bernie Woodham
"pcdoc2010" <pcdo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1161197040....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
technically, Ringo quit first :-)
Nice to hear somebody point that out.
Not to be morose, but if Ringo dies before Paul, I'm sure we'll hear another
Paul interpretation of the Beatles yet.
Ringo is the last check on Paul.
dlarsson
> technically, Ringo quit first :-)
Ringo "quit" and then came back two days later
after John had sent him some flowers with a note
saying that he was "the greatest drummer in the world".
It was just a sympathy move (Starr wasn't going solo or anywhere
else).
Sixties Gen
Haven't you ever watched "Judge Judy"?
UsurperTom
> She's almost 10 yrs older than McCartney
I think Yoko will outlive all of the Beatles. She had her astrologers
put a cancer hex on Paul, George and Ringo's families...
Dale Houstman
But I don't think she has a charm to keep her name alive as any of the
Beatles - including Pete Best...
dmh
terra
"UsurperTom" <Usurp...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1161208214....@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Whew. Right.
Lookingglass
"terra" <te...@news.com> wrote in message
news:453699df$0$31001$8826...@free.teranews.com...
>
> "UsurperTom" <Usurp...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1161208214....@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> johnny b. love wrote:
>>
>>> She's almost 10 yrs older than McCartney
>>
>> I think Yoko will outlive all of the Beatles. She had her astrologers
>> put a cancer hex on Paul, George and Ringo's families...
>
> Whew. Right.
All of this 'gossip' reminds me of that great line Katherine Hepburn speaks
from "The Lion In Winter"...
...I paraphrase..."What family doesn't have it's problems."...this spoken as
each one of the family is busy trying to stab the other in the back...in
some cases, literally.
dancin' dave (...cry baby, cry...)
www.Shemakhan.com
ontherocks
MikeSo
"ontherocks" <on....@rocks.net> wrote in message
news:npGdnS6kjf5vUKrY...@lyse.net...
One can't imagine John sitting and chuckling about Pauls current state of
affairs, even if Derek can't keep from wetting himself while laughing.
--
Thanks,
Mike
(With your puerile insults and general pedantic and
condescending tone, I'm beginning to wonder why I read your posts)
fatt...@yahoo.com
dlarsson wrote:
> McCartney's "Mr. nice guy" image has always been a little hard
> to take at face value take given .. oh ... some little things like:
>
>
> 1. Repeated infidelity during his relationship with Jane Asher
> and demands that she stop and end her career (and just stay at
> home).
SNIP
Agreed. And this is why Paul and Heather probably don't get along.
She is a type A personality. She wants her own career.
>
> 3. Being the one guy among the Beatles that neither George
> nor John ever wanted to ever re-form another band around
> again.
There were times John spoke off handedly about perhaps one day working
with the other Beatles. I think George was the most bitter.
>
> 4. Putting out a dishonest press interview to trick the whole World
> into thinking that he was the guy who quit the Beatles
> (after Lennon had already done so and broke up the band).
SNIP
Paul wasn't nice. Plus, Paul and Klein convinced John to keep his big
mouth shut! Paul stole John's thunder and John was correctly pissed.
>
>
> 6. Trying to rewrite Beatles history and claim the 'creative
> credit' for many of John's songs, concepts, innovations, etc
> and diminish Lennon's leadership role in the band.
Yes. As I have stated here, that really annoyed me. And of course Paul
did this after John died and could not defend himself.
.
>
> 7. Badgering John's widow to allow him to legally reverse the
> Lennon & McCartney songwriting credits around
That annoyed me too.
>
> Now, I know that many people choose to believe that Heather is a witch
> (Yoko redux attitude) and prefer to blame her for everything (the
> divorce)
> or assume that she is just lying. But, given McCartney's track record
>
> at dishonesty ( re; Lennon, Beatles, self-promotion issues) and his
> well-known "control freak" type of personality, the jury is still out
> on
> McCartney's own behavior here.
I don't believe all of Heather's claims . . . she has a bad rep. But
IMHO Paul is not a total innocent either.
fatt...@yahoo.com
LOL! Yes . . . except if there are engineers or others who worked
closely with the Beatles in the studio, they might be able to act as a
"check."
fatt...@yahoo.com
Based on Ringo's statements, I thought it was George and John who
begged Ringo to return. When Ringo got back to the studio, his drums
were covered in flowers.
Paul send him a postcard "apologizing" about one year later.
fatt...@yahoo.com
johnny b. love wrote:
> Ringo <g>.
>
> Not that Paul's side is so bad, but it is so incredibly self-serving
> with no checks and balances.
Exactly.
fatt...@yahoo.com
If it is true that Yoko asked her "witches" to put such a hex on Paul,
George and Ringo's families, that would be a awful thing to do.
fatt...@yahoo.com
MikeSo wrote:
> "ontherocks" <on....@rocks.net> wrote in message
> news:npGdnS6kjf5vUKrY...@lyse.net...
> >
> > "dlarsson" <derek_...@comcast.net>
> >
> > says the leader of Church of st.Lennon......
> >
>
> One can't imagine John sitting and chuckling about Pauls current state of
> affairs, even if Derek can't keep from wetting himself while laughing.
>
> --
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
I would think John would be sympathetic given his own experience.
UsurperTom
> I think George was the most bitter.
George did invite John and Paul to the Concert for Bangladesh and all
of them apparently agreed to "The Long and Winding Road" (albeit George
would later demand that the title be changed) documentary while John
was alive. I think George's openness toward a reunion (as well as John
and Paul's) changed with the wind. George's problem during the 70's
was that there was always somebody he wasn't getting along with (Paul
in the early 70's, Ringo in the mid 70's and John in the late 70's).
UsurperTom
> If it is true that Yoko asked her "witches" to put such a hex on Paul, George and Ringo's families, that would be a awful thing to do.
I was joking in light of what happened to all three of them. I also
remember thinking at the time that Yoko can no longer claim to have a
monopoly of grief.
Bernie Woodham
<fatt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1161338470....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
That Ringo came back into the group, or how he came back is besides the
point. The fact that he quit the group is evidence of the fissures within
the band reaching their breaking points.
John, Paul and George couldn't allow Ringo to quit anymore than John and
Paul could allow George to quit. Anymore than Paul could allow John to
announce that John quit.
MikeSo
<fatt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1161335554.6...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> dlarsson wrote:
>> McCartney's "Mr. nice guy" image has always been a little hard
>> to take at face value take given .. oh ... some little things like:
>>
>>
>> 1. Repeated infidelity during his relationship with Jane Asher
>> and demands that she stop and end her career (and just stay at
>> home).
>
> SNIP
>
>
> Agreed. And this is why Paul and Heather probably don't get along.
> She is a type A personality. She wants her own career.
Linda was able to maintain her own career as a photographer, author, etc.
Heather has also maintained her career heading her charities. The
difference may be in that Linda was always able to put Pauls needs ahead of
her career, building her career during the in-between times of Wings and
solo musical projects.
>
>
>>
>> 3. Being the one guy among the Beatles that neither George
>> nor John ever wanted to ever re-form another band around
>> again.
>
> There were times John spoke off handedly about perhaps one day working
> with the other Beatles. I think George was the most bitter.
>
>>
>> 4. Putting out a dishonest press interview to trick the whole World
>> into thinking that he was the guy who quit the Beatles
>> (after Lennon had already done so and broke up the band).
>
> SNIP
>
> Paul wasn't nice. Plus, Paul and Klein convinced John to keep his big
> mouth shut! Paul stole John's thunder and John was correctly pissed.
>
>>
>
>>
>> 6. Trying to rewrite Beatles history and claim the 'creative
>> credit' for many of John's songs, concepts, innovations, etc
>> and diminish Lennon's leadership role in the band.
>
>
> Yes. As I have stated here, that really annoyed me. And of course Paul
> did this after John died and could not defend himself.
Song credits are not as clear cut as either the Lennon Playboy interviews or
McCartneys 'Many Years From Now' would have you believe. Most songs that
John or Paul discussed in these publications were given little more than a
sentence or two. Hardly the details that I would be willing to hang either
one with. History (and Yoko) have done a fine job of keeping Johns
innovations within our memories. I see no reason why Paul cannot promote his
own accomplishments any more than Ringo can proclaim his accomplishments to
whomever and whenever they want. The general public still has an interest in
these things and does not have the fans memories of all things Fab to draw
upon so the oft repeated story that bores us may still engage and enthrall
the masses.
Those here in RMB know what John brought to the Beatles and recognize he was
a brilliant and invaluable piece of the Beatle puzzle. Paul is a no less
brilliant and invaluable piece, although shaped differently and bringing
different qualities.
> .
>
>>
>> 7. Badgering John's widow to allow him to legally reverse the
>> Lennon & McCartney songwriting credits around
>
>
> That annoyed me too.
>
Badgering may be over the top in describing the situation. Paul did lobby
unsuccessfully to have the credits reversed on Beatles releases but he has
intermittently done so on solo McCartney releases since 1976.
>
>>
>> Now, I know that many people choose to believe that Heather is a witch
>> (Yoko redux attitude) and prefer to blame her for everything (the
>> divorce)
>> or assume that she is just lying. But, given McCartney's track record
>>
>> at dishonesty ( re; Lennon, Beatles, self-promotion issues) and his
>> well-known "control freak" type of personality, the jury is still out
>> on
>> McCartney's own behavior here.
>
The divorce will not be a jury trial! :-)
>
> I don't believe all of Heather's claims . . . she has a bad rep. But
> IMHO Paul is not a total innocent either.
>
Rarely is either party in a divorce totally innocent. Given that, it is
still pretty difficult to accept some of these claims of hers as anything
more than an attempt to sling mud and discredit Paul for her own financial
gain. My own personal hope is that she does not gain any advantage from
these tactics and that the divorce is completed as quickly and silently as
possible.
--
Thanks,
Mike
(Boy am I glad I'm not famous so my dirty laundry doesn't get publicized)
cr...@earthlink.net
> > Not to be morose, but if Ringo dies before Paul, I'm sure we'll hear another
> > Paul interpretation of the Beatles yet.
> >
> > Ringo is the last check on Paul.
>
> LOL! Yes . . . except if there are engineers or others who worked
> closely with the Beatles in the studio, they might be able to act as a
> "check."
Oh yeah, the Beatles, Paul's backup band.....
tambler
women. Particularly women of the anglosphere: US, UK, Australia,
Canada. These women are no good for men anywhere, and this fact will
become crystal clear to increasing numbers of men in the coming years.
Anglo women are in real trouble.
dlarsson wrote:
> McCartney's "Mr. nice guy" image has always been a little hard
> to take at face value take given .. oh ... some little things like:
>
>
> 1. Repeated infidelity during his relationship with Jane Asher
> and demands that she stop and end her career (and just stay at
> home).
>
> 2. Breaking the unity of the Beatles by insisting on separate
> individual legal representation (by his in-laws, the Eastmans)
> after John,George,Ringo had all decided on a new manager
> which set off business complications and an added rivalry
> that led to the breakup of the band.
>
> 3. Being the one guy among the Beatles that neither George
> nor John ever wanted to ever re-form another band around
> again.
>
> 4. Putting out a dishonest press interview to trick the whole World
> into thinking that he was the guy who quit the Beatles
> (after Lennon had already done so and broke up the band).
>
> 5. Acting in a strangely punative and disrespectful manner
> towards John Lennon after his violent murder (including
> calling Lennon a "manuevering swine" in the press,
> thumbing his nose at and boycotting serveral Lennon
> "tributes", declining to be interviewed or participate in
> the "Imagine" movie, publically damning him with feint praise,
> etc.
>
> 6. Trying to rewrite Beatles history and claim the 'creative
> credit' for many of John's songs, concepts, innovations, etc
> and diminish Lennon's leadership role in the band.
>
> 7. Badgering John's widow to allow him to legally reverse the
> Lennon & McCartney songwriting credits around and then
> blaming her publically (for leaving the band's history alone).
>
>
> It looks like now the dirty laundry of his relationship with Heather
> Mills is coming out in public. Not a very pretty sight.
>
> Now, I know that many people choose to believe that Heather is a witch
> (Yoko redux attitude) and prefer to blame her for everything (the
> divorce)
> or assume that she is just lying. But, given McCartney's track record
>
> at dishonesty ( re; Lennon, Beatles, self-promotion issues) and his
> well-known "control freak" type of personality, the jury is still out
> on
> McCartney's own behavior here.
dlarsson
HEATHER: I'VE GOT SECRET TAPES OF VIOLENT ROWS WITH MACCA
Heather Mills has taped evidence to back up claims that Sir Paul McCartney
physically attacked her, say friends.
When her explosive court divorce papers accused the ex-Beatle of violently
attacking her during their four year marriage she was branded a 'fantasist'
and a 'liar'. But, according to supporters of Miss Mills, she is ready -
and able - to back up her claims with recorded, indisputable evidence.
'Suggestions that Heather simply made up the accusations about Paul
attacking her are, understandably, incredibly upsetting for her,' said a
source close to Miss Mills. Whatever she says or does now, Heather feels
she cannot win - people are siding with Paul.
'But she is confident that she can actually prove these claims. Without
going into specifics, she reckons to have tangible evidence showing that
Paul not only verbally attacked her but was also physically aggressive.
'As well as charting much of the marriage breakdown on her digital
camcorder, and having witnesses who will testify to her claims, Heather has
another killer piece of evidence in the form of an audio recording.
'She is being quite cagey about it, but it seems that she may also have some
kind of video recording of the pair rowing. 'It has never been Heather's
intention to use the tapes, which she feels prove that Paul raised his hands
to her, but if she has to, she will. It is dynamite stuff and if used,
really could destroy Paul.'
The existence of the 'Macca tapes' emerged as Miss Mills visited her London
lawyers Mishcon de Reya yesterday. Smartly dressed in green velvet jacket
and matching beret and skirt, she left their offices saying nothing. But
the bitter war of words will only intensify with news of the potentially
vital tapes.
This latest revelation comes five days after the court papers accusing
McCartney of repeated violence against his 38-year-old wife were published.
It is claimed in the documents - exclusively revealed by the Daily Mail -
that the former Beatle, 64, subjected Miss Mills to four violent attacks.
In one such outburst he allegedly stabbed her in the arm with a broken wine
glass and in another he is accused of pushing her into the bath, causing her
'shock and distress'. Sir Paul has already flatly denied the allegations
and issued a defiant statement saying he will 'vigorously and appropriately'
contest her claims all the way to court if necessary.
While publicly maintaining a dignified silence friends say he is privately
'incandescent with rage' at the allegations.
It is not known which alleged attack, or attacks, Miss Mills is thought to
have documented on tape.
Such a recording is likely to be used by Miss Mills' lawyers as a key
bargaining tool in the increasingly acrimonious £825 milion divorce battle.
But news of the recorded evidence follows an alleged phone bugging incident
in which a private conversation between McCartney and his fashion designer
daughter, Stella, was taped. In it, the pair are understood to talk
explicitly - and in derogatory terms - about Miss Mills. Over the past year
Miss Mills has also been seen using a hand-held video recorder. Whilst
initially it was used to film the paparazzi, she has reportedly been using
it over the past few months to film, in technicolour detail, the breakdown
of her marriage. Again, if called upon, it could be used in court to help
Miss Mills gain a larger divorce settlement. And earlier this week, former
newspaper editor Piers Morgan - who introduced McCartney to his second
wife - revealed the existence of a mobile phone answerphone recording in
which the singer is heard 'pleading' with his wife. The message was
apparently left by McCartney following a furious row with Miss Mills which
prompted the former model to flee to India.
Miss Mills's spokesman refused to deny that his client had video or audio
taped evidence supporting the court paper claims. Last night he said:
'Heather has got independent corroborating evidence for what she has
claimed. 'In some cases this is in the form of witnesses but she has other
corroborating evidence, but I'm not sure what it is.' Rumours that Miss
Mills hit McCartney - not the other way around - have been vehemently denied
by her spokesman.
In the court document she claims he refused to allow her to surface in the
mornings before he was ready.
In her book Miss Mills writes: 'As a working wife and mother I have learnt
that setting the alarm 30 minutes earlier each morning can make all the
difference. It allows me little bit of personal space before the day
begins.'
And at the time of publication - within days of the couple announcing their
separation - Miss Mills writes in her book that she has 'a very loving and
open relationship' with her husband.
In contrast, the leaked court papers suggest that at this time Miss Mills
'avers that the marriage [had] irretrievably broken down.' In the legal
documents Miss Mills also complains that she was expected to prepare two
dinners every night, one for baby Beatrice and one for McCartney, without
assistance 'despite her disability.'
abe slaney
> HEATHER: I'VE GOT SECRET TAPES OF VIOLENT ROWS WITH MACCA
So high-minded in your eternal defense of John Lennon and his ideas and
ideals, but when it comes to his pal McCartney you're right down there
in the gutter with the rest looking for some scraps of filth, aren't ya
big boy?
fatt...@yahoo.com
LOL! Yoko having a "monopoly of grief"?! Given her relationship
with Havadtoy and her behavior when John was alive, I think she made a
very quick "recovery." There were times Yoko seemed miserable when
John was alive.
Indeed, once she started getting all the positive attention she craved
(after John's death) and critics stopped "picking on her," she felt a
lot better.
fatt...@yahoo.com
Bernie Woodham wrote:
> <fatt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1161338470....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > dlarsson wrote:
> >> > technically, Ringo quit first :-)
> >>
> >> Ringo "quit" and then came back two days later
> >> after John had sent him some flowers with a note
> >> saying that he was "the greatest drummer in the world".
> >>
> >> It was just a sympathy move (Starr wasn't going solo or anywhere
> >> else).
> >
> > Based on Ringo's statements, I thought it was George and John who
> > begged Ringo to return. When Ringo got back to the studio, his drums
> > were covered in flowers.
> >
> > Paul send him a postcard "apologizing" about one year later.
> >
>
> That Ringo came back into the group, or how he came back is besides the
> point. The fact that he quit the group is evidence of the fissures within
> the band reaching their breaking points.
True. And it seems surprising that it was Ringo who quit first . . .
.IMHO he seemed to be the most easy going and the one with the smallest
ego.
>
> John, Paul and George couldn't allow Ringo to quit anymore than John and
> Paul could allow George to quit. Anymore than Paul could allow John to
> announce that John quit.
If one reads Paul's book Many Years from Now, his attitude seemed a bit
strange to me . . . there are a couple of lines in that book which
essentially said "Well if Ringo or George quit, we could still carry on
as the Beatles. But when John quit I knew it was over."
fatt...@yahoo.com
MikeSo wrote:
> >
> > Yes. As I have stated here, that really annoyed me. And of course Paul
> > did this after John died and could not defend himself.
>
> Song credits are not as clear cut as either the Lennon Playboy interviews or
> McCartneys 'Many Years From Now' would have you believe. Most songs that
> John or Paul discussed in these publications were given little more than a
> sentence or two. Hardly the details that I would be willing to hang either
> one with. History (and Yoko) have done a fine job of keeping Johns
> innovations within our memories.
SNIP
First of all, thanks for your very thoughtful comments. As far as the
song credits, IIRC in Many Years from Now or some other book, Paul is
quoted as saying that he read John's comments regarding song writing
credits and agrees to a large degree with John's observations.
I see no reason why Paul cannot promote his
> own accomplishments any more than Ringo can proclaim his accomplishments to
> whomever and whenever they want. The general public still has an interest in
> these things and does not have the fans memories of all things Fab to draw
> upon so the oft repeated story that bores us may still engage and enthrall
> the masses.
When John died, there were occasional comments in the press which I
believe unfairly downplayed Paul's contributions or made him seem to be
a "lightweight." Plus Yoko had made some comment that to the effect
that Paul was Salieri to John's Mozart and that John was the real
innovator, etc. which hurt Paul's feelings. Paul was made to feel
defensive as he revealed to Hunter Davies in an off the record
discussion that Davies printed in his Beatles book. I don't blame Paul
for speaking up to an extent.
However, on the other hand, there is such a thing as overkill, and I
think Paul passed that point at least 10 years ago. One think that
annoyed me is Paul's book Many Years from Now which says MANY downright
derogatory things about John. I find it odd that people criticize the
Goldman book yet Many Years from Now is not subjected to the same
scathing comments. I think it is almost as bad.
I remember reading Many Years from Now and thinking "Gee with friends
like these, who needs enemies?"
>
> Those here in RMB know what John brought to the Beatles and recognize he was
> a brilliant and invaluable piece of the Beatle puzzle. Paul is a no less
> brilliant and invaluable piece, although shaped differently and bringing
> different qualities.
We agree.
>
> > .
> >
> >>
> >> 7. Badgering John's widow to allow him to legally reverse the
> >> Lennon & McCartney songwriting credits around
> >
> >
> > That annoyed me too.
> >
>
> Badgering may be over the top in describing the situation. Paul did lobby
> unsuccessfully to have the credits reversed on Beatles releases but he has
> intermittently done so on solo McCartney releases since 1976.
>
> >
> >>
> >> Now, I know that many people choose to believe that Heather is a witch
> >> (Yoko redux attitude) and prefer to blame her for everything (the
> >> divorce)
> >> or assume that she is just lying. But, given McCartney's track record
> >>
> >> at dishonesty ( re; Lennon, Beatles, self-promotion issues) and his
> >> well-known "control freak" type of personality, the jury is still out
> >> on
> >> McCartney's own behavior here.
> >
>
> The divorce will not be a jury trial! :-)
>
> >
> > I don't believe all of Heather's claims . . . she has a bad rep. But
> > IMHO Paul is not a total innocent either.
> >
>
> Rarely is either party in a divorce totally innocent. Given that, it is
> still pretty difficult to accept some of these claims of hers as anything
> more than an attempt to sling mud and discredit Paul for her own financial
> gain. My own personal hope is that she does not gain any advantage from
> these tactics and that the divorce is completed as quickly and silently as
> possible.
Well, the purpose of these claims IS to gain an advantage. According
to yesterday's NY Post, one very hot issue is custody of Beatrice.
Paul reportedly wants custody and does not think Heather is fit. IMHO
the problem Paul has is his age and his history regarding drugs.
Heather according to her PR is anti drugs.
If one looks at the accusations in Heather's papers, IMHO she is trying
to paint Paul as disqualifed to get custody. She is making accusations
regarding drug and alcohol abuse.
IMHO, unless Paul has something really "juicy" on Heather, I would
think that a British judge would give custody to Heather who is a) the
mother b) much younger c) has no known history of drug abuse or
alcohol abuse.
Bernie Woodham
<fatt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1161414931....@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Bernie Woodham wrote:
>> <fatt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1161338470....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > dlarsson wrote:
>> >> > technically, Ringo quit first :-)
>> >>
>> >> Ringo "quit" and then came back two days later
>> >> after John had sent him some flowers with a note
>> >> saying that he was "the greatest drummer in the world".
>> >>
>> >> It was just a sympathy move (Starr wasn't going solo or anywhere
>> >> else).
>> >
>> > Based on Ringo's statements, I thought it was George and John who
>> > begged Ringo to return. When Ringo got back to the studio, his drums
>> > were covered in flowers.
>> >
>> > Paul send him a postcard "apologizing" about one year later.
>> >
>>
>> That Ringo came back into the group, or how he came back is besides the
>> point. The fact that he quit the group is evidence of the fissures
>> within
>> the band reaching their breaking points.
>
> True. And it seems surprising that it was Ringo who quit first . . .
> .IMHO he seemed to be the most easy going and the one with the smallest
> ego.
>
dumped on. So, his leaving was a sign that things were getting unbearable
among them all.
fatt...@yahoo.com
I gather you read Geoff Emerick's book. :)
fatt...@yahoo.com
I appreciate your insightful comments. I am not aware that Ringo
"took" the most or that he was frequently "dumped on." I thought the
only one who gave him aggravation was Mr. Perfectionist Paul.
Could you elaborate?
Lookingglass
"Bernie Woodham" <birnh...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:V4OdnbfNCtyJUaTY...@insightbb.com...
>> .IMHO he seemed to be the most easy going and the one with the smallest
>> ego.
>>
> Right. And for that reason he "took" the most. He was the one everybody
> dumped on. So, his leaving was a sign that things were getting unbearable
> among them all.
I can't speak to any fact that the others 'dumped' on Ringo. They may have
'had some fun' at Ringo's expense, but he was good natured.
That was a very sad period in their career. Ringo, being the one Beatle with
the most to lose if the Beatles broke up, was courageous in his decision to
leave. After all the years of 'joy' that the four of them had created, to
arrive at such a dismal (though not unusual) state of affairs... they did
say it was like a marriage...! It must have been a very 'bitter medicine' to
swallow at the time...after all they had been through... TOGETHER.
I'm not surprised that Ringo was the first to leave...he being a 'good soul'
and all. The rest were wrapped up in their egos as has been stated. It
really HURT Ringo to see his friends at each other's throats.
...my humble opinion.
dancin' dave (...look in my direction...I'll be 'round...)
www.Shemakhan.com
Gavin
with just cause - so many songs would be so much the less without his
brilliant self composed guitar breaks - for which he often got no
composer credit.
Surely no one could suggest that George got involved with Anthology for
any reason other than the stuff he gave the Taxman
Gavin
with just cause - so many songs would be so much the less without his
Manfred Noland
sorry if it breaks your hearts that McCartney is a bastard.
I can't say I agree with his goldigging wie's claims because they sound
like BS.
Salvador Astucia
could work out their differences if they weren't being agitated so much
by outsiders. Let's face it, a lot of powerful people hate Heather
because of her interest in banning landmines. That's what's driving
this.
S. A.
Eric B.
news:1161439944....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Did those powerful people force her to prostitute herself and pose for
pornography?
--
Eric B.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
(Edmund Burke)
Salvador Astucia
Eric B. wrote:
> "Salvador Astucia" <cropdu...@cs.com> wrote in message
> news:1161439944....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > Look. Enough already with the Heather and Paul bashing. Perhaps they
> > could work out their differences if they weren't being agitated so much
> > by outsiders. Let's face it, a lot of powerful people hate Heather
> > because of her interest in banning landmines. That's what's driving
> > this.
>
> Did those powerful people force her to prostitute herself and pose for
> pornography?
>
> --
> Eric B.
It's obvious that you use multiple screen names, whoever you are. And
IMHO, only a homosexual male would write the kind of garbage you're
writing about a lady. Is someone paying you to trash Heather because of
her past, or because she's trying to get landmines banned?
S. A.
Eric B.
>
> Eric B. wrote:
>> "Salvador Astucia" <cropdu...@cs.com> wrote in message
>> news:1161439944....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> > Look. Enough already with the Heather and Paul bashing. Perhaps they
>> > could work out their differences if they weren't being agitated so much
>> > by outsiders. Let's face it, a lot of powerful people hate Heather
>> > because of her interest in banning landmines. That's what's driving
>> > this.
>>
>> Did those powerful people force her to prostitute herself and pose for
>> pornography?
>>
>> --
>> Eric B.
>
>
> It's obvious that you use multiple screen names, whoever you are.
Oh? I wrote every post in this newsgroup, did you not realize that? :o)
> And IMHO, only a homosexual male would write the kind of garbage you're
> writing about a lady.
Is that your expert opinion? Perhaps you would be more convincing if you
didn't have J. Edgar Hoover's dick in your ass as you said that :o)
> Is someone paying you to trash Heather because of
> her past, or because she's trying to get landmines banned?
Make me an offer and perhaps I will stop. :o)
fishan...@aol.com
Eric B. wrote:
> "Salvador Astucia" <cropdu...@cs.com> wrote in message
> news:1161454976.3...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Eric B. wrote:
> >> "Salvador Astucia" <cropdu...@cs.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1161439944....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >> > Look. Enough already with the Heather and Paul bashing. Perhaps they
> >> > could work out their differences if they weren't being agitated so much
> >> > by outsiders. Let's face it, a lot of powerful people hate Heather
> >> > because of her interest in banning landmines. That's what's driving
> >> > this.
> >>
> >> Did those powerful people force her to prostitute herself and pose for
> >> pornography?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Eric B.
Eric............he's off the meds, poor fuck
Bernie Woodham
"Eric B." <smart...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:RZx_g.3140$Fw5....@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
hee hee.
fatt...@yahoo.com
I think George had many logical reasons to be bitter . . . By 1968 or
1969 he became a serius composer in his own write, yet had to fight to
get his songs on an album. I don't think John, Paul or the engineers
treated George with the same respect. Plus Paul's bossiness could
probably drive almost anyone crazy.
And I also believe once JOhn started forcing Yoko on everyone, the
other Beatles became resentful. (this is documented in Bob Spitz's
book and elsewhere)
Danny Caccavo
fatt...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Bernie Woodham wrote:
> > "pcdoc2010" <pcdo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1161197040....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > technically, Ringo quit first :-)
> >
> > Nice to hear somebody point that out.
> >
> > Not to be morose, but if Ringo dies before Paul, I'm sure we'll hear another
> > Paul interpretation of the Beatles yet.
> >
> > Ringo is the last check on Paul.
>
> LOL! Yes . . . except if there are engineers or others who worked
> closely with the Beatles in the studio, they might be able to act as a
> "check."
>
Funny though - have you read Norman Smith's comments from "Recording The
Beatles?" He said that Paul essentially became a second producer, or
their musicial director. And he's talking 1965....
dc
Danny Caccavo
fatt...@yahoo.com wrote:
Funny how some folks accept first hand accounts only when it fits their
agenda....
dc
terra
"Danny Caccavo" <dcaccav...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:dcaccavonojunk-CE8...@news.west.earthlink.net...
Anthology book.
First hand accounts are all well and good, but each one is still only one
viewpoint of what happened. The more corraboration one has the better, but
many events simply have little to no actual witnesses to give us definitive
historical data.
So the only thing one can do is get as much information as one can, digest
it into your own third-hand viewpoint, but don't claim things as fact when
it is simply your digested opinion, someone else's one-facet
opinion/observation (first-hand) or even from a beatle themselves (both PR
reasoning, memory vagueness/contradictory statements and being in the middle
of the storm rather than observing from the outside makes even the Fab's
statements not the last word on anything except perhaps their own personal
lives/motivations).
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Danny Caccavo
fatt...@yahoo.com wrote:
> dlarsson wrote:
> > McCartney's "Mr. nice guy" image has always been a little hard
> > to take at face value take given .. oh ... some little things like:
> >
> >
> > 1. Repeated infidelity during his relationship with Jane Asher
> > and demands that she stop and end her career (and just stay at
> > home).
>
> SNIP
>
>
> Agreed. And this is why Paul and Heather probably don't get along.
> She is a type A personality. She wants her own career.
>
>
> >
> > 3. Being the one guy among the Beatles that neither George
> > nor John ever wanted to ever re-form another band around
> > again.
>
> There were times John spoke off handedly about perhaps one day working
> with the other Beatles. I think George was the most bitter.
>
> >
> > 4. Putting out a dishonest press interview to trick the whole World
> > into thinking that he was the guy who quit the Beatles
> > (after Lennon had already done so and broke up the band).
>
> SNIP
>
> Paul wasn't nice. Plus, Paul and Klein convinced John to keep his big
> mouth shut! Paul stole John's thunder and John was correctly pissed.
>
> >
>
> >
> > 6. Trying to rewrite Beatles history and claim the 'creative
> > credit' for many of John's songs, concepts, innovations, etc
> > and diminish Lennon's leadership role in the band.
>
>
> Yes. As I have stated here, that really annoyed me. And of course Paul
> did this after John died and could not defend himself.
> .
>
> >
> > 7. Badgering John's widow to allow him to legally reverse the
> > Lennon & McCartney songwriting credits around
>
>
> That annoyed me too.
>
>
> >
> > Now, I know that many people choose to believe that Heather is a witch
> > (Yoko redux attitude) and prefer to blame her for everything (the
> > divorce)
> > or assume that she is just lying. But, given McCartney's track record
> >
> > at dishonesty ( re; Lennon, Beatles, self-promotion issues) and his
> > well-known "control freak" type of personality, the jury is still out
> > on
> > McCartney's own behavior here.
>
>
> I don't believe all of Heather's claims . . . she has a bad rep. But
> IMHO Paul is not a total innocent either.
>
Ahh, you're falling for Derek's propaganda, I see.
dc
Danny Caccavo
"MikeSo" <mike...@hotmail.comma> wrote:
> Song credits are not as clear cut as either the Lennon Playboy interviews or
> McCartneys 'Many Years From Now' would have you believe. Most songs that
> John or Paul discussed in these publications were given little more than a
> sentence or two. Hardly the details that I would be willing to hang either
> one with. History (and Yoko) have done a fine job of keeping Johns
> innovations within our memories. I see no reason why Paul cannot promote his
> own accomplishments any more than Ringo can proclaim his accomplishments to
> whomever and whenever they want. The general public still has an interest in
> these things and does not have the fans memories of all things Fab to draw
> upon so the oft repeated story that bores us may still engage and enthrall
> the masses.
>
> Those here in RMB know what John brought to the Beatles and recognize he was
> a brilliant and invaluable piece of the Beatle puzzle. Paul is a no less
> brilliant and invaluable piece, although shaped differently and bringing
> different qualities.
Thanks for that bit of pragmatism.
dc
Danny Caccavo
fatt...@yahoo.com wrote:
> However, on the other hand, there is such a thing as overkill, and I
> think Paul passed that point at least 10 years ago. One think that
> annoyed me is Paul's book Many Years from Now which says MANY downright
> derogatory things about John. I find it odd that people criticize the
> Goldman book yet Many Years from Now is not subjected to the same
> scathing comments. I think it is almost as bad.
>
> I remember reading Many Years from Now and thinking "Gee with friends
> like these, who needs enemies?"
Funny how I came away with a completely different take on the book.
It's not because (as some here believe) I'm a "Paul Fan" and "Can't
stand John." What I can't stand is the black and white arguments about
"who was the genius" etc.
Interesting how many people take the "Oh, it's horrible for Paul to say
negative things about John, since John isn't here to defend them."
Rubbish. Paul knew John more than almost anybody, and vice-versa. Just
because John is dead is not a reason to call a moratorium on negative
comments. Anyway, it's well-documented that John could be a bastard -
why is it such a sin if Paul says it?
Comparing MYFN to the Goldman book doesn't make sense to me at all. MYFN
if anything humanizes John, while Goldman's agenda is quite different.
dc
Danny Caccavo
"UsurperTom" <Usurp...@aol.com> wrote:
> fatt...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > I think George was the most bitter.
>
> George did invite John and Paul to the Concert for Bangladesh and all
> of them apparently agreed to "The Long and Winding Road" (albeit George
> would later demand that the title be changed) documentary while John
> was alive. I think George's openness toward a reunion (as well as John
> and Paul's) changed with the wind. George's problem during the 70's
> was that there was always somebody he wasn't getting along with (Paul
> in the early 70's, Ringo in the mid 70's and John in the late 70's).
>
Funny how if you read the Sulpy book, it seems as if George's leaving
during the Get Back sessions was more predicated on John's behavior than
Paul's, but the general assumptions have been that Paul "drove" George
out.
dc
Danny Caccavo
"Gavin" <gavi...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> UsurperTom wrote:
> > fatt...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > > I think George was the most bitter.
> >
>
> with just cause - so many songs would be so much the less without his
> brilliant self composed guitar breaks - for which he often got no
> composer credit.
One could also say that John and Paul didn't get credit for their
contributions to George's songs. Was that unfair?
Danny Caccavo
fatt...@yahoo.com wrote:
The Sulpy book has a very interesting take on all this. According to
that book, the root of the problems during those sessions really seemed
to be John's behavior - his lack of participation, having Yoko speak for
him, and having to address him through Yoko, his heroin habit. But I
imagine that if Paul had been the one who was smacked out and
uncommunicative, the sessions and rehearsals would have had similar
problems. A major portion of The Beatles partnership was barely there.
It may be that Paul was no more "bossy" than he normally was - but with
John not caring, George and Ringo didn't care much either. Paul's main
fault, from where I see it, was his desperation to keep things going
when no one else wanted to - he was still driving towards a
concert/album/film (the goal seemed to morph) - and in hindsight perhaps
the best thing to do (rather than continue with rehearsals) would have
been to just pull the plug on the whole idea of a film or concert, have
everyone take 2 months off, and reconvene. Of course, they ended up
doing that after the fact anyway, but the Get Back sessions were likely
what made them fully realize that the end was near - much like those '66
concert appearances made them see that touring had to end.
dc
Bernie Woodham
That's what I've always thought too. I did'nt read the Sulpy book, but the
Get Back Sessions and things I'd read about that, definitely made it seem
like John was the problem.
But that left the question: why did George keep blaming Paul and not John?
And I think it's because George and John had just been friends too long and
George was in denial of the real problem. He compensated by deflecting his
anger even more to Paul.
UsurperTom
> But that left the question: why did George keep blaming Paul and not John?
Probably because George blamed mostly Yoko for his problems with John.
George did say unfavorable things about John in a couple of interviews
promoting Cloud Nine (when George was more accessible to the public
than usual) and in the Anthology book. George also complained about
John's heroin addiction (which George blamed Yoko for) to Peter Brown
in 1980 and Brown's book includes a quote from Yoko where defended
herself from George's criticism.
terra
> In article <1161335554.6...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> fatt...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> Ahh, you're falling for Derek's propaganda, I see.
>
terra
John was scathing to Paul publicly for years after the breakup. Paul said
nothing.
terra
Doubtful. Goerge blamed Paul for being too pushy and bossy with the musical
end. Goerge blamed John for Yoko.
fatt...@yahoo.com
I don't understand your point.
fatt...@yahoo.com
Danny Caccavo wrote:
> In article <1161415680.3...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> fatt...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > However, on the other hand, there is such a thing as overkill, and I
> > think Paul passed that point at least 10 years ago. One think that
> > annoyed me is Paul's book Many Years from Now which says MANY downright
> > derogatory things about John. I find it odd that people criticize the
> > Goldman book yet Many Years from Now is not subjected to the same
> > scathing comments. I think it is almost as bad.
> >
> > I remember reading Many Years from Now and thinking "Gee with friends
> > like these, who needs enemies?"
>
> Funny how I came away with a completely different take on the book.
Really? The book claims that Paul and the other Beatles considered
John to be a "manuvering swine." (the reality is only Paul said that
in private to Hunter Davies. . . I know of no interview where George
and Ringo said that.)
The book in writing about events in about 1967 or 1968 said something
to the effect of "In the past John was always lazy" and then suggested
now he was even lazier being in a drug induced stupor all the time. (I
remember thinking to myself how could he say that! Certain early on in
their career John worked his ass off)
The book mentions John's One to One Concert, claiming that it was not
sold out so John and Yoko or Klein spent tens of thousands of dollars
to fill the empty seats. Of course, different people have a different
spin on the same event. I personally attended that concert, and the
host (Geraldo Rivera) announced that John and Yoko were so supportive
of this charitable cause, they had donated $60,000 of their own money.
Other accounts I read suggested that concert organizers made sure
certain seats were set aside so they could later be filled with
mentally retarded people and their aids.
I have a video of the concert and there is a shot or two of the
audience which shows obviously handicapped people in the audience.
Do you see how the same event can be spun in a positive way or a
negative way? Many Years from Now in many places spun things in a
negative way.
I recall another part of the book where Miles/McCartney accused John of
trying to subvert the groups usual democratic process of getting things
done. In order to "prove" this point, Miles/McCartney then pointed to
some Lennon quote where John essentially said to Paul, "I'm tired of
fighting with you all the time about which song gets on an album so I
submerged myself . . . . At this point I just want to get my usual 3 or
4 songs on an album." I don't have the exact quote in front of me, but
when I read it I thought to myself "Huh? How does this show John to be
undemocratic? To me it shows that John was getting weary, that he was
tired of being bossed around and brow beaten, and he was caving in.
And that is why he wasn't as productive . . . . he was getting sick of
the whole thing. (as was George)
I also read an interview with Barry Miles, a primary author of Many
Years from Now . . . . I remember there was some discussion about
John's promotion of peace and Miles made some comment to the effect
that John's peace efforts or interest in piece was bull.
Anything I ever read from Miles that touched upon Lennon was negative.
> It's not because (as some here believe) I'm a "Paul Fan" and "Can't
> stand John." What I can't stand is the black and white arguments about
> "who was the genius" etc.
>
> Interesting how many people take the "Oh, it's horrible for Paul to say
> negative things about John, since John isn't here to defend them."
> Rubbish. Paul knew John more than almost anybody, and vice-versa. Just
> because John is dead is not a reason to call a moratorium on negative
> comments.
I disagree. If Paul were truly John's friend, he WOULD call a
moratorium on bad comments. IMHO if an unhappy ex wife, reporter, or
casual acquaintance wants to say bad things about John, I can
understand. But Paul of all people is Mr. PR. Mr. Diplomacy. Look at
all the nice things Paul tried to say about Heather when news of the
divorce first broke. Throughout his career, Paul has consistantly
taken the high road, even if it means telling white lies. How often
does Paul say nasty things about anyone? IMHO he seems to take the
gloves off in Many Years from Now. And I don't understand why, unless
he was truly angry.
Anyway, it's well-documented that John could be a bastard -
> why is it such a sin if Paul says it?
>
> Comparing MYFN to the Goldman book doesn't make sense to me at all. MYFN
> if anything humanizes John, while Goldman's agenda is quite different.
>
> dc
I don't see that the agenda is so different. Indeed, Paul has more to
gain from knocking John than Goldman did. Paul and John were
competitve when John was alive. Once John died, espeically since his
death was so tragic and sudden, Paul found himself boxing with John's
ghost. Of course this was not Paul's fault. However, I believe Paul
was/is jealous and wanted to make sure John was knocked off his
pedestal. (did I spell that right?) This is demonstrated by his
comments to Hunter Davies where he essentially said something like
"Ever since he died, he's become Martin Luther Lennon."
IMHO in Many Years from NOw, Paul wants to make sure that the world
knows that John was NOT Martin Luther Lennon.
fatt...@yahoo.com
IMHO it is not a matter of assumption. George has said he got fed up
with Paul. (this is quoted in one of Keith Badman's wonderful books
The Beatles Off the Record")
Of course if one reads MYFN, Paul blames John a nd Yoko for George's
exit.
Perhaps the truth is that George was fed up due to a number of reasons
. . . .however there is no question in my mind he got tired of Paul
bossing him around. He may have also been mad at Yoko's presence.
After the Beatles broke up, George said many times publicly "Paul
ruined my guitar playing" and "I will never play again with Paul
McCartney." He was obviously pissed.
UsurperTom
> Of course if one reads MYFN, Paul blames John and Yoko for George's exit.
The Sulpy and Schweingart book predated Many Years From Now.
UsurperTom
> He may have also been mad at Yoko's presence.
Here's an interesting excerpt from page 302 of The Love You Make.
It was at Montague Square, feeling more than a little bruised and
already like outlaws, Yoko says, that they began to take heroin. As
Yoko later put it, they took heroin "as a celebration of ourselves as
artists." "Of course," Yoko says, "George says it was me who put John
on heroin, but that wasn't true. John wouldn't take anything he didn't
want to take."
abe slaney
> It was at Montague Square, feeling more than a little bruised and
> already like outlaws, Yoko says, that they began to take heroin. As
> Yoko later put it, they took heroin "as a celebration of ourselves as
> artists." "Of course," Yoko says, "George says it was me who put John
> on heroin, but that wasn't true. John wouldn't take anything he didn't
> want to take."
So all she has to do is get him to want to try it, and then she's off
the hook? Uh, somehow I don't think that George meant that she held John
down and physically forced him to take heroin.
I think everybody in the world is aware that John Lennon did what he
wanted to do, and didn't do what he didn't want. The flip side of that
though is that he seems to have been quite easily influenced by certain
people regarding what he did want to do.
pepperman
Yes, Paul being the one musical director of the Beatles looks funny.
Annie
Danny Caccavo wrote:
> Interesting how many people take the "Oh, it's horrible for Paul to say
> negative things about John, since John isn't here to defend them."
> Rubbish. Paul knew John more than almost anybody, and vice-versa. Just
> because John is dead is not a reason to call a moratorium on negative
> comments. Anyway, it's well-documented that John could be a bastard -
> why is it such a sin if Paul says it?
Well said. MYFN does relate some negative things about John. You know
what? They're probably true. It also takes pains to show John's good
side, and Paul reiterates again and again how he _loved_ John. In
short, it portrays something we call a real human relationship. Paul
knew John as a person, the good and the bad, and loved him anyway.
Those of us who know and love John only as an icon or as an artist need
to shut the hell up about how Paul chooses to discuss _his_ friend.
Danny Caccavo
fatt...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Danny Caccavo wrote:
> > In article <1161415680.3...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> > fatt...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > > However, on the other hand, there is such a thing as overkill, and I
> > > think Paul passed that point at least 10 years ago. One think that
> > > annoyed me is Paul's book Many Years from Now which says MANY downright
> > > derogatory things about John. I find it odd that people criticize the
> > > Goldman book yet Many Years from Now is not subjected to the same
> > > scathing comments. I think it is almost as bad.
> > >
> > > I remember reading Many Years from Now and thinking "Gee with friends
> > > like these, who needs enemies?"
> >
> > Funny how I came away with a completely different take on the book.
>
> Really? The book claims that Paul and the other Beatles considered
> John to be a "manuvering swine." (the reality is only Paul said that
> in private to Hunter Davies. . . I know of no interview where George
> and Ringo said that.)
Well, he WAS, wasn't he? Is that such a sin to say? Lennon would
probably agree...
>
> The book in writing about events in about 1967 or 1968 said something
> to the effect of "In the past John was always lazy" and then suggested
> now he was even lazier being in a drug induced stupor all the time. (I
> remember thinking to myself how could he say that! Certain early on in
> their career John worked his ass off)
Well, it's well documented that John started getting lazy when he moved
out to the 'burbs, and then even more so with the acid, then heroin.
>
> The book mentions John's One to One Concert, claiming that it was not
> sold out so John and Yoko or Klein spent tens of thousands of dollars
> to fill the empty seats. Of course, different people have a different
> spin on the same event. I personally attended that concert, and the
> host (Geraldo Rivera) announced that John and Yoko were so supportive
> of this charitable cause, they had donated $60,000 of their own money.
> Other accounts I read suggested that concert organizers made sure
> certain seats were set aside so they could later be filled with
> mentally retarded people and their aids.
>
> I have a video of the concert and there is a shot or two of the
> audience which shows obviously handicapped people in the audience.
Did John call for Mal to take care of them? (sorry, tasteless joke)
>
> Do you see how the same event can be spun in a positive way or a
> negative way? Many Years from Now in many places spun things in a
> negative way.
Sure. I'll have to give the book a second read. But my general
impression was that it wasn't a trash fest.
>
> I recall another part of the book where Miles/McCartney accused John of
> trying to subvert the groups usual democratic process of getting things
> done. In order to "prove" this point, Miles/McCartney then pointed to
> some Lennon quote where John essentially said to Paul, "I'm tired of
> fighting with you all the time about which song gets on an album so I
> submerged myself . . . . At this point I just want to get my usual 3 or
> 4 songs on an album." I don't have the exact quote in front of me, but
> when I read it I thought to myself "Huh? How does this show John to be
> undemocratic? To me it shows that John was getting weary, that he was
> tired of being bossed around and brow beaten, and he was caving in.
> And that is why he wasn't as productive . . . . he was getting sick of
> the whole thing. (as was George)
Again, I'll have to go back and review that section.
>
>
> I also read an interview with Barry Miles, a primary author of Many
> Years from Now . . . . I remember there was some discussion about
> John's promotion of peace and Miles made some comment to the effect
> that John's peace efforts or interest in piece was bull.
I've heard that from a number of places. Doesn't mean it's true or it's
false.
>
> Anything I ever read from Miles that touched upon Lennon was negative.
Again, not my impression.
>
>
> > It's not because (as some here believe) I'm a "Paul Fan" and "Can't
> > stand John." What I can't stand is the black and white arguments about
> > "who was the genius" etc.
> >
> > Interesting how many people take the "Oh, it's horrible for Paul to say
> > negative things about John, since John isn't here to defend them."
> > Rubbish. Paul knew John more than almost anybody, and vice-versa. Just
> > because John is dead is not a reason to call a moratorium on negative
> > comments.
>
> I disagree. If Paul were truly John's friend, he WOULD call a
> moratorium on bad comments.
Oh, THAT's bull, now! John had his turn, and what Paul has said is mild
in comparison.
> IMHO if an unhappy ex wife, reporter, or
> casual acquaintance wants to say bad things about John, I can
> understand. But Paul of all people is Mr. PR. Mr. Diplomacy. Look at
> all the nice things Paul tried to say about Heather when news of the
> divorce first broke. Throughout his career, Paul has consistantly
> taken the high road, even if it means telling white lies. How often
> does Paul say nasty things about anyone? IMHO he seems to take the
> gloves off in Many Years from Now. And I don't understand why, unless
> he was truly angry.
>
>
> Anyway, it's well-documented that John could be a bastard -
> > why is it such a sin if Paul says it?
> >
> > Comparing MYFN to the Goldman book doesn't make sense to me at all. MYFN
> > if anything humanizes John, while Goldman's agenda is quite different.
> >
> > dc
>
>
> I don't see that the agenda is so different.
You've GOT to be kidding!
> Indeed, Paul has more to
> gain from knocking John than Goldman did. Paul and John were
> competitve when John was alive. Once John died, espeically since his
> death was so tragic and sudden, Paul found himself boxing with John's
> ghost. Of course this was not Paul's fault. However, I believe Paul
> was/is jealous and wanted to make sure John was knocked off his
> pedestal. (did I spell that right?) This is demonstrated by his
> comments to Hunter Davies where he essentially said something like
> "Ever since he died, he's become Martin Luther Lennon."
>
> IMHO in Many Years from NOw, Paul wants to make sure that the world
> knows that John was NOT Martin Luther Lennon.
Because he wasn't. And there are many people who think he WAS. I can
certainly understand how Paul would want to set the record straight.
Look what happened when I objected to John being called a humanitarian!
dc
>
Danny Caccavo
fatt...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Danny Caccavo wrote:
> > In article <1161361734....@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> > "UsurperTom" <Usurp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > > fatt...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > I think George was the most bitter.
> > >
> > > George did invite John and Paul to the Concert for Bangladesh and all
> > > of them apparently agreed to "The Long and Winding Road" (albeit George
> > > would later demand that the title be changed) documentary while John
> > > was alive. I think George's openness toward a reunion (as well as John
> > > and Paul's) changed with the wind. George's problem during the 70's
> > > was that there was always somebody he wasn't getting along with (Paul
> > > in the early 70's, Ringo in the mid 70's and John in the late 70's).
> > >
> >
> > Funny how if you read the Sulpy book, it seems as if George's leaving
> > during the Get Back sessions was more predicated on John's behavior than
> > Paul's, but the general assumptions have been that Paul "drove" George
> > out.
> >
> > dc
>
> IMHO it is not a matter of assumption. George has said he got fed up
> with Paul. (this is quoted in one of Keith Badman's wonderful books
> The Beatles Off the Record")
>
> Of course if one reads MYFN, Paul blames John a nd Yoko for George's
> exit.
As does the way that Sulpy's book reads. Interesting.
>
> Perhaps the truth is that George was fed up due to a number of reasons
> . . . .however there is no question in my mind he got tired of Paul
> bossing him around. He may have also been mad at Yoko's presence.
Both. But it was amazing how obstinate George was being at the Get Back
sessions, based on those transcripts. It wasn't always Paul's bossiness
or Yoko's interference that created bad vibes.
>
> After the Beatles broke up, George said many times publicly "Paul
> ruined my guitar playing" and "I will never play again with Paul
> McCartney." He was obviously pissed.
Yeah, well, I never bought that "Paul ruined my guitar playing" line. I
can understand how all his frustration built up, though. George wasn't
one to stand up to John or Paul - it seems his status as the "younger
one" and the less-talented one was cemented years before, and it just
didn't change. He certainly did have a lot of contenders for Get Back
that were just passed over. But I also think that since John didn't
care, nobody did (except Paul) - and trying to work under those
conditions must have been horrible.
dc
>
Danny Caccavo
fatt...@yahoo.com wrote:
Both Emerick and Norman Smith have come out and said how much Paul was
directing and pushing the band in the studio. My point is that if
someone thinks that it's bullshit how much Paul led the band in the
stuidio, they cite the comments in his book as falsehoods, or "kissing
ass."
dc
Lizz Holmans
<carlisle...@teranews.com> wrote:
>fattass is all about propoganda. of course they mesh well.
I'd rather have a proper gander than an improper goose.
'Ten cents to anyone who can identify this internym: What's that man
doing in my drawers?' Holmans
--
Rumpeta, rumpeta, rumpeta
Lookingglass
"Lizz Holmans" <di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:e5qoj2pd0mp503irp...@4ax.com...
> 'Ten cents to anyone who can identify this internym: What's that man
> doing in my drawers?' Holmans
> --
> Rumpeta, rumpeta, rumpeta
...the Foxtrot...?
dancin' dave (...tuned to A, naturally...)
www.Shemakhan.com
pepperman
Well, Ringo has said that Paul was not the musical director of the
band. He observed the band pretty closely, he should know. Ringo has
also said that John and Paul were very much producing their own music.
This sounds reasonable. I believe Paul was the leader in his songs,
John was the leader in his songs, and maybe also George in his own
songs.
Of course they were working together, they were a BAND. But from all
these books and interviews I get the feeling that Paul McCartney really
wasn't or isn't a good team player, certainly not as good as John.
Maybe that is one of the reasons why for me, John's Beatles music
remains so much stronger. There you can find The Beatles BAND working
in all four cylinders.
fatt...@yahoo.com
The Yoke's been saying that bull for years in different interviews
because she knows taking heroin was stupid, so now she wants to blame
John. John was open to suggestion (especially if it came from Yoko) and
she knew it.
fatt...@yahoo.com
Well said.
fatt...@yahoo.com
Danny Caccavo wrote:
> In article <1161560242.3...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> fatt...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Really? The book claims that Paul and the other Beatles considered
> > John to be a "manuvering swine." (the reality is only Paul said that
> > in private to Hunter Davies. . . I know of no interview where George
> > and Ringo said that.)
>
> Well, he WAS, wasn't he? SNIP
I think he treated his women badly at times. But how do you think John
was a maneuvering swine? I am not aware of that. Frankly, I think he
was naive about business things.
Please give me some examples of how John was a "maneuvering swine."
What about some of the things Paul did like buying stock of Northern
Music behind John's back? Or Paul trying to get his in laws to manage
the Beatles? Or Paul getting his in laws to be the Beatles lawyers?
That sounds like a heck of a conflict of interest right there no matter
how good they are.
Plus, even if this is true, why does Paul have to say it? It seems to
me if Paul really loved John, he would not say all these negative
things.
Paul doesn't say nasty things about Linda, does he?
> >
> > The book in writing about events in about 1967 or 1968 said something
> > to the effect of "In the past John was always lazy" and then suggested
> > now he was even lazier being in a drug induced stupor all the time. (I
> > remember thinking to myself how could he say that! Certain early on in
> > their career John worked his ass off)
>
> Well, it's well documented that John started getting lazy when he moved
> out to the 'burbs, and then even more so with the acid, then heroin.
The book says John was always lazy.
I do agree that John, sadly, became very involved with drugs and it
affected his ability to work. But IMHO a friend who respected John
might say "John became depressed" or "John was becoming fed up with the
Beatles so he wasn't motivated to work much." Again, it is a matter of
how one words it. The word "lazy" is derogatory.
>
> >
> > The book mentions John's One to One Concert, claiming that it was not
> > sold out so John and Yoko or Klein spent tens of thousands of dollars
> > to fill the empty seats. Of course, different people have a different
> > spin on the same event. I personally attended that concert, and the
> > host (Geraldo Rivera) announced that John and Yoko were so supportive
> > of this charitable cause, they had donated $60,000 of their own money.
> > Other accounts I read suggested that concert organizers made sure
> > certain seats were set aside so they could later be filled with
> > mentally retarded people and their aids.
> >
> > I have a video of the concert and there is a shot or two of the
> > audience which shows obviously handicapped people in the audience.
>
> Did John call for Mal to take care of them? (sorry, tasteless joke)
Sorry, I don't get it.
By the way, I thought the comment about the One to One Concert not
being a sell out was just a cheap shot. What was the point of saying
that? Clearly in the context of Paul's book the point was to show that
John was not very successful while Paul could go on tour and sell
thousands upon thousands of tickets.
> >
> > Do you see how the same event can be spun in a positive way or a
> > negative way? Many Years from Now in many places spun things in a
> > negative way.
>
> Sure. I'll have to give the book a second read. But my general
> impression was that it wasn't a trash fest.
Yes, you are right. It wasn't a trash fest at all. But I was bothered
by the negative remarks, and it especially troubled me coming from
McCartney.
>
> >
> > I recall another part of the book where Miles/McCartney accused John of
> > trying to subvert the groups usual democratic process of getting things
> > done. In order to "prove" this point, Miles/McCartney then pointed to
> > some Lennon quote where John essentially said to Paul, "I'm tired of
> > fighting with you all the time about which song gets on an album so I
> > submerged myself . . . . At this point I just want to get my usual 3 or
> > 4 songs on an album." I don't have the exact quote in front of me, but
> > when I read it I thought to myself "Huh? How does this show John to be
> > undemocratic? To me it shows that John was getting weary, that he was
> > tired of being bossed around and brow beaten, and he was caving in.
> > And that is why he wasn't as productive . . . . he was getting sick of
> > the whole thing. (as was George)
>
> Again, I'll have to go back and review that section.
Sure. Actually another thing that is so ironic about that section . .
. George, John and Ringo voted to make Klein the manager but Paul held
refused. He felt so strongly about it, he then sued the other 3 to
officially bust up the Beatles. Talk about subverting the democratic
process!! I guess the democratic process works as long as Paul gets
his way.
>
> >
> >
> > I also read an interview with Barry Miles, a primary author of Many
> > Years from Now . . . . I remember there was some discussion about
> > John's promotion of peace and Miles made some comment to the effect
> > that John's peace efforts or interest in piece was bull.
>
> I've heard that from a number of places. Doesn't mean it's true or it's
> false.
Well, of course. But I read the quote and it was attributed to Miles.
That is the best we fans can do. Of course not everything we read is
true. Who knows, perhaps MYFN is total fantasy! :) (that's a joke)
But why would Paul McCartney (of all people) be so interested in
setting the record straight by making sure the world knows that John
was a "bastard" or a "maneuvering swine"? Do you believe Paul is
purely altruistic and wants the world to know "THE TRUTH"? How does
that show Paul to be John's friend?
fatt...@yahoo.com
You raise a good point.
People can only discuss things based on their point of view and
personal experiences. Perhaps from Geoff Emerick's point of view, Paul
was "the leader" because Paul was much more interested in the
production end of things . . . .I get the impression Paul was more
technically advanced and wanted to learn that stuff. Presumably this
made a nice impression on George Martin and the engineers.
I can't recall Emerick's exact words, but he essentially describes John
as a technological klutz.
George Martin has said if Paul wanted a certain sound or arrangement on
a song, he could speak more with a musician's precision . . . . "I want
this instrument" "I want these notes" etc. John was more vague and
emotional . . . he would tell George Martin, for example, that on the
song Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite he wanted the song to have a
sound so listeners could smell the circus saw dust. Or on Tomorrow
Never Knows John would tell Martin "I want to sound like the Dali Lama"
or "I want to sound like a choir of monks up on a hill."
It seems based on Martin's book, Emerick's book and others, Paul was
more into fine detail and was more CONTROLLING and was fussier. John
wasn't as knowledgeable or interested in how the sound or effect was
produced. In a way, I get a sense of two different personalities and
two different methods of "leadership."
One leader (Paul) was like a fussy taskmaster . . . . i.e. "You will
play 2 D chords, 3 e chords, etc." I guess that's good if you are
leading a group of children who are learning ther instruments or if you
are leading people who enjoy being browbeaten.
The other, (John) was more laid back. He would inspire people to
create. He might say "I want to evoke a certain mood, a certain idea.
This is the mood I want; you are the musician-- create it." I get the
impression (and again, this is my opinion) that an experenced musician
like Ringo or George would enjoy working with John.
Leadership can take different forms and have different styles.
fatt...@yahoo.com
pepperman wrote:
> Well, Ringo has said that Paul was not the musical director of the
> band. He observed the band pretty closely, he should know. Ringo has
> also said that John and Paul were very much producing their own music.
> This sounds reasonable. I believe Paul was the leader in his songs,
> John was the leader in his songs, and maybe also George in his own
> songs.
>
> Of course they were working together, they were a BAND. But from all
> these books and interviews I get the feeling that Paul McCartney really
> wasn't or isn't a good team player, certainly not as good as John.
> Maybe that is one of the reasons why for me, John's Beatles music
> remains so much stronger. There you can find The Beatles BAND working
> in all four cylinders.
Your remarks remind me of an endearing "John story " told by Ringo in
an interview. I recall Ringo stated that one time he was working with
John on a song and John was explaining the drum sound he wanted. John
mentioned another song and essentially said to Ringo "You know how the
drums sound on that song? I want the same sound on this new song."
Ringo listened to the song John mentioned and told John something like
"But John, it's obvous that song has two different drummers playing
together." And John's respone was something to the effect of "Yeah,
so?" I guess if John wanted it, he wanted it, and it was up to his
fellow musicians or the engineers to get it.
Lizz Holmans
<Shem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>"Lizz Holmans" <di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:e5qoj2pd0mp503irp...@4ax.com...
>
>> 'Ten cents to anyone who can identify this internym: What's that man
>> doing in my drawers?' Holmans
>> --
>> Rumpeta, rumpeta, rumpeta
>
>
>...the Foxtrot...?
Feh. I thought you were a movie fan.
Lizz 'you just made as Asta of yourself'
--
Rumpeta, rumpeta, rumpeta
Bernie Woodham
I don't see an 'internym'. Are you talking about "The Thin Man"?
Lizz Holmans
<birnh...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>>
>> 'Ten cents to anyone who can identify this internym: What's that man
>> doing in my drawers?' Holmans
See the bit between my first name and my last name? It's an internym,
also known as a epenthetic. I usually include one when I post. When I
don't, or leave the quotation marks empy, that means I am either angry
or sad. I almost always include a literary, movie, or music reference
somewhere in my posts as well. Girls just want to have fun, y'know.
>
>I don't see an 'internym'.
Now you have. And you win a virtual shiny dime for guessing it came
from 'The Thin Man', the second best movie ever made.
Lizz ' I can bore about the best one for the American Olympic team'
Ehtue
> See the bit between my first name and my last name? It's an internym,
> also known as a epenthetic. I usually include one when I post. When I
> don't, or leave the quotation marks empy, that means I am either angry
> or sad. I almost always include a literary, movie, or music reference
> somewhere in my posts as well. Girls just want to have fun, y'know.
>
>>
>>I don't see an 'internym'.
>
> Now you have. And you win a virtual shiny dime for guessing it came
> from 'The Thin Man', the second best movie ever made.
The first?
-Ehtue
(ps, the music in The Thin Man is too loud)
Lizz Holmans
>
>The first?
'The Philadelphia Story'. Don't ask me to explicate--it would take
*years*, and it's so off-topic.
Lizz 'the best money Howard Hughes ever spent' Holmans
--
Rumpeta, rumpeta, rumpeta
abe slaney
> On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 18:37:28 -0500, Ehtue <a...@e.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>The first?
>
>
> 'The Philadelphia Story'. Don't ask me to explicate--it would take
> *years*, and it's so off-topic.
>
> Lizz 'the best money Howard Hughes ever spent' Holmans
"oh, C.K. Dexter Haven! ...OH, C.K. DEXTER HAVEN!!"
Ehtue
>>The first?
>
> 'The Philadelphia Story'. Don't ask me to explicate--it would take
> *years*, and it's so off-topic.
>
> Lizz 'the best money Howard Hughes ever spent' Holmans
Okay, but I'll go with The Third Man as the better of the two.
-Ehtue
abe slaney
Except that now it's the better of the Three.
Sixties Gen
Love the "Thin Man", have never been able to understand what is so
great about "the Third Man".
I'd put my money on "Duck Soup", and "Vertigo".
Sixties Gen
My God, how could I forget "The Maltese Falcon"...although most people
can never follow the "logic" of the plot. Watched it not long ago,
specifically to follow the plot, and not the wonderful characters, and
I think I pretty much understand it...but there is still one thing
about it that defies explanation.
Lizz Holmans
wrote:
>
>Love the "Thin Man", have never been able to understand what is so
>great about "the Third Man".
That single shot where we first see Orson Welles in three-quarter
profile. That so makes the movie.
>
>I'd put my money on "Duck Soup", and "Vertigo".
I don't like Alfred Hitchcock very much. He used to scare the pee out
of me on his TV show when I was little.
ObBeatles: I first saw 'A Hard Day's Night' at a drive-in theater in
Tulsa the day before school started.
Lizz 'Whatever it is, I'm against it' Holmans
--
Rumpeta, rumpeta, rumpeta
Lizz Holmans
wrote:
>
>My God, how could I forget "The Maltese Falcon"...although most people
>can never follow the "logic" of the plot. Watched it not long ago,
>specifically to follow the plot, and not the wonderful characters, and
>I think I pretty much understand it...but there is still one thing
>about it that defies explanation.
Probably Dashiel Hammett. Do you know what happened to Sam Spade the
week after he solved the case?
Still, considering it was both Sydney Greenstreet's and John Huston's
first movie, it was extraordinary.
ObBeatles: I liked 'Help', too.
Lizz 'Here's looking at you, kid' Holmans
--
Rumpeta, rumpeta, rumpeta
Sixties Gen
OK, I give up, what happened to Sam Spade the week after he solved the
case?
And then explain to me why Brigid O'Shaughnessy killed her
confederate, the guy who brought the Falcon to America on the ship,
when she could have brought it to America herself. I mean that's the
murder that Miles Archer went to investigate and was killed over. If
Brigid had brought the Falcon into the States herself...no one would
have been killed at all...of course, then there would be no story, but
that's the big incongruity about the film for me.
Sixties Gen
Lizz, you can't fool an old Groucho Marxist like me..."Whatever it is,
I'm against it" is from "Horse Feathers", not "Duck Soup".
Lizz Holmans
wrote:
>
>OK, I give up, what happened to Sam Spade the week after he solved the
>case?
He was shot and killed a week laterl by Mrs. Miles Archer.
>
>And then explain to me why Brigid O'Shaughnessy killed her
>confederate, the guy who brought the Falcon to America on the ship,
>when she could have brought it to America herself. I mean that's the
>murder that Miles Archer went to investigate and was killed over. If
>Brigid had brought the Falcon into the States herself...no one would
>have been killed at all...of course, then there would be no story, but
>that's the big incongruity about the film for me.
Perhaps that's the Maguffin.
Lizz 'I still wonder what the Continetal Op's name was' Holmans
--
Rumpeta, rumpeta, rumpeta
Annie
johnny b. love wrote:
> This has always mystified me as well. I took as projection on
> mccartney's part since he's clearly more of a "maneuverer" as far as
> basic personality goes. What was he talking about specifically? (Anyone
> know?)
Well, here's the deal with the original "manuevering swine" comment (I
don't remember how it was phrased by Barry Miles in MYFN). Paul called
up Hunter Davies (that guy who did the "authorized bio" of the Beatles
back in '67) a few months after John's death. Yoko had just made a
comment in an interview about how "Paul hurt John more than any other
person did" (not sure if that's verbatim; but her intent was very
clear). I can't remember how Davies was connected... perhaps he was the
actual interviewer, or just known to be in touch with Yoko at the time?
I dunno. Anyway, for some reason, an extremely upset Paul called the
guy, wanting to know what THAT was about, WHY would she say that, WHAT
did she mean, etc. This escalated to a full-blown rant. Paul spilled
his guts about how sad/angry/hurt he was feeling about John's death and
about how John was suddenly the poster boy of honesty and integrity,
while Paul was being cast as a manipulative villain. Paul said, "The
truth is, he could be a maneuvering swine." Ummm.... which is _true_,
regardless of Paul's own comparative maneuvering tendencies. It's true
of most people (note the "could be").
Unfortunately for Paul, Davies was scribbling notes of the conversation
like mad, which he later typed up and released to the press (I'm
thinking to publicize the reissuing of the '67 bio?). Yeah. That sucks.
But anyway. I think it is _hardly_ something to take Paul to task on. I
haven't read the entire transcription (it is loooooooong), but since
that quote was the one thing the press zeroed in on to make headlines
out of, I assume it's the worst thing he said about John in the entire
conversation. Which ain't so bad, in my book.
terra
>
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
fatt...@yahoo.com
johnny b. love wrote:
> fatt...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Danny Caccavo wrote:
> > > In article <1161560242.3...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> > > fatt...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >
> >
> >
> > > > Really? The book claims that Paul and the other Beatles considered
> > > > John to be a "manuvering swine." (the reality is only Paul said that
> > > > in private to Hunter Davies. . . I know of no interview where George
> > > > and Ringo said that.)
> > >
> > > Well, he WAS, wasn't he? SNIP
> >
> > I think he treated his women badly at times. But how do you think John
> > was a maneuvering swine? I am not aware of that. Frankly, I think he
> > was naive about business things.
> >
> > Please give me some examples of how John was a "maneuvering swine."
> >
> > What about some of the things Paul did like buying stock of Northern
> > Music behind John's back? Or Paul trying to get his in laws to manage
> > the Beatles? Or Paul getting his in laws to be the Beatles lawyers?
> > That sounds like a heck of a conflict of interest right there no matter
> > how good they are.
>
>
>
> mccartney's part since he's clearly more of a "maneuverer" as far as
> basic personality goes. What was he talking about specifically? (Anyone
> know?)
I don't know what Paul had in mind when he called John a "maneuvering
swine."
I recall one incident that Paul mentioned which apparenty stuck in his
craw for years . . . . During the very early Beatles recordings,
sometimes the songwriting credits were McCartney/Lennon and sometimes
Lennon/McCartney. Paul related how one day he went to see Brian
Epstein and Brian said something to the effect that Brian spoke with
John and from now on all songwriting credits will be Lennon/McCartney.
Paul said something to the effect "Why not McCartney/Lennon . . . I
think is sounds better" but the Lennon/McCartney moniker stuck. Paul
was unhappy about that from day one.
fatt...@yahoo.com
SNIP.
Thanks for the interesting post. I wanted to add that IIRC Paul thought
he was having an "off the record" discussion and was upset that Davies
published his comments.
>
> But anyway. I think it is _hardly_ something to take Paul to task on. I
> haven't read the entire transcription (it is loooooooong), but since
> that quote was the one thing the press zeroed in on to make headlines
> out of, I assume it's the worst thing he said about John in the entire
> conversation. Which ain't so bad, in my book.
But you know what is so strange? Although Paul wanted his remark to be
off the record, why did he allow Miles to mention it again in MYFN?
And in MYFN Miles/McCartney directly calls John a maneuvering swine.
He makes the point loud and clear.