What did Paul say about John?
Greg C
>
> Never said that (criminal) about him,
> but he is a joyful, self-serving distorter and
> misrepresenter of Beatles history and has
> done a real disservice to Lennon - a
> one-of-a-kind guy who deserved better.
Could you list some of the things Paul has said?
I've never heard Paul say anything negative about John since his death.
I always thought Paul went a little overboard with his "I worked with a
genius in John" and thought this was because he didn't want to beat up
on a dead person. I've always wondered if Lennon would have been as kind
and he has always seemed more sour towards Paul.
MacBeatle
> > > >3. Paul McCartney is a criminal."
> >
> > Never said that (criminal) about him,
> > but he is a joyful, self-serving distorter and
> > misrepresenter of Beatles history and has
> > done a real disservice to Lennon - a
> > one-of-a-kind guy who deserved better.
>
>
>
> Could you list some of the things Paul has said?
>
> I've never heard Paul say anything negative about John since his death.
Then you've been living on Planet Macca.
> I always thought Paul went a little overboard with his "I worked with a
> genius in John" and thought this was because he didn't want to beat up
> on a dead person. I've always wondered if Lennon would have been as kind
> and he has always seemed more sour towards Paul.
He's been dead for 24 years, pal... so it would be tough for him to
answer some of the incredible outright lies Paul has told about him
since his death.
And where on God's green earth did you get the idea John was
"more sour" towards Paul?
Please, do yourself a favor. Get a copy of "Milk & Honey" (CD)
and listen to John's last interview, ever. He has very nice
things to say about Paul (but that is only a fraction of the
interview).
If you don't believe me, listen to what John *did* say on
December 8, 1980.
Francie Schwartz
Rich Forman
> >
> > Never said that (criminal) about him,
> > but he is a joyful, self-serving distorter and
> > misrepresenter of Beatles history and has
> > done a real disservice to Lennon - a
> > one-of-a-kind guy who deserved better.
>
>
>
> Could you list some of the things Paul has said?
>
Now you've gone and done it.
> I've never heard Paul say anything negative about John since his death.
> I always thought Paul went a little overboard with his "I worked with a
> genius in John" and thought this was because he didn't want to beat up
> on a dead person. I've always wondered if Lennon would have been as kind
> and he has always seemed more sour towards Paul.
Paul has heaped as much respectful, loving praise on John since his
death as has anybody. But Derek can still pick out some choice quotes
he didn't care for and distort them through the prism of his
preconceptions (wow that was good!), to back up his ridiculous
argument.
And now we all have to sit back and listen to it again!
richforman
Cam
waro...@yahoo.com wrote on 3/17/04 08:38 AM:
>> I always thought Paul went a little overboard with his "I worked with a
>> genius in John" and thought this was because he didn't want to beat up
>> on a dead person. I've always wondered if Lennon would have been as kind
>> and he has always seemed more sour towards Paul.
>
> He's been dead for 24 years, pal... so it would be tough for him to
> answer some of the incredible outright lies Paul has told about him
> since his death.
Geez, Francie, it seems pretty clear that the poster meant IF the situation
were reversed and McCartney had been killed and Lennon survived.
I would speculate that Lennon would've probably been very kind in talking
about Paul. He seemed to be secure in the knowlegde that it was his band for
as long as he was into it, and by the time Paul stepped up his influence and
'stewardship' I don't think the title of 'leader' couldn't have mattered
less to John. So the 'need' to shape his legend after the fact probably
wouldn't have gotten in the way, the way it has for McCartney.
Francie, did McCartney ever speak about or around his competitive
relationship with Lennon while you were around?
MacBeatle
Just skip over the derek posts, man... it's easy once you get the hang of it!
;-)
Greg C
MacBeatle wrote:
> >
> > I've never heard Paul say anything negative about John since his death.
>
> Then you've been living on Planet Macca.
No, I just haven't followed the Beatles or Paul for the last 25 years.
>
> > I always thought Paul went a little overboard with his "I worked with a
> > genius in John" and thought this was because he didn't want to beat up
> > on a dead person. I've always wondered if Lennon would have been as kind
> > and he has always seemed more sour towards Paul.
>
> He's been dead for 24 years, pal... so it would be tough for him to
> answer some of the incredible outright lies Paul has told about him
> since his death.
Do you understand the words "if" and "would have"? I'm talking if roles
were reversed.
> And where on God's green earth did you get the idea John was
> "more sour" towards Paul?
>
I've read one book on Lennon and zero on Paul. So, I admit, I don't know
nearly enough, but from what I've seen in clips and quotes, from a
person that's not consumed with the Beatles, it seems Paul has praised
John a lot more than John did about Paul. Of course, this is after
John's death, but I don't see Lennon's personality being so humble had
the roles been reversed. It seems like Paul is more consumed in grooming
the Beatles image than John ever was...
From the book I read many years ago, John didn't seem to care too much
for Paul. Didn't Paul try and be friends and told him he had some good
weed, and then John went and ratted him out to the Japanese and got Paul
busted? I don't see Paul doing that to John.
Greg C
here is nowhere wrote:
>
> We also know that at this time, John was very annoyed at George Harrison
> for failing to mention John is his book 'I, Me, Mine'
>
So what did George ever say in response? Did he secretly not like John
all those years?
MacBeatle
> in article 23e30c12.0403...@posting.google.com, MacBeatle at
> waro...@yahoo.com wrote on 3/17/04 08:38 AM:
>
> >> I always thought Paul went a little overboard with his "I worked with a
> >> genius in John" and thought this was because he didn't want to beat up
> >> on a dead person. I've always wondered if Lennon would have been as kind
> >> and he has always seemed more sour towards Paul.
> >
> > He's been dead for 24 years, pal... so it would be tough for him to
> > answer some of the incredible outright lies Paul has told about him
> > since his death.
>
> Geez, Francie, it seems pretty clear that the poster meant IF the situation
> were reversed and McCartney had been killed and Lennon survived.
>
Gosh, I didn't pick that up at all! I mean, saying that Paul "didn't
want to beat up on a dead person." doesn't sound like a reverse on
what really happened... or is it me. What John would say if Paul had
been gunned down in front of his house with Linda standing there? What
John would say if Paul had been killed in a car crash on December 8,
1980?
Silly question.
> I would speculate that Lennon would've probably been very kind in
talking
> about Paul. He seemed to be secure in the knowlegde that it was his band for
> as long as he was into it, and by the time Paul stepped up his influence and
> 'stewardship' I don't think the title of 'leader' couldn't have mattered
> less to John. So the 'need' to shape his legend after the fact probably
> wouldn't have gotten in the way, the way it has for McCartney.
>
That last sentence is excellent. What we *can* discuss,
without dissing Paul, is the vast difference between the
two young men as far as "thinking about my legacy."
You're right (imnsho) about John always being quite
secure about who founded the band, who introduced who...
in fact, in the 12/8/80 interview John does a fairly
complete summary. I know, it seems terribly convenient,
seeing as how his life would end just a few hrs after he
gave this very happy interview...
You can hear the affection in John's voice as he "does"
Paul's reaction to being asked if he would like to join the band.
> Francie, did McCartney ever speak about or around his competitive
> relationship with Lennon while you were around?
Yes.
Greg C
MacBeatle wrote:
> > > He's been dead for 24 years, pal... so it would be tough for him to
> > > answer some of the incredible outright lies Paul has told about him
> > > since his death.
> >
> > Geez, Francie, it seems pretty clear that the poster meant IF the situation
> > were reversed and McCartney had been killed and Lennon survived.
> >
>
> Gosh, I didn't pick that up at all! I mean, saying that Paul "didn't
> want to beat up on a dead person." doesn't sound like a reverse on
> what really happened... or is it me. What John would say if Paul had
> been gunned down in front of his house with Linda standing there? What
> John would say if Paul had been killed in a car crash on December 8,
> 1980?
>
> Silly question.
>
What's so silly about it? I still haven't heard one negative thing Paul
has said since John died. The best I can up with is that Paul wanted
Yesterday to be McCartney/Lennon. Big whoop. It probably should be since
no other Beatle performed on it.
Sorry, I don't see John lavishing the praise on Paul if the roles were
reversed. John has a history of saying what's on his mind and I don't
think Paul being in the grave would have changed that. If anything, I
think John would have attacked Paul even more after his death, knowing
Paul couldn't defend himself.
Didn't you see that interview with John when he had that bed-in and he
tells the reporter for no reason when he gets frustrated, "You still
want me to be the mop top from the Beatles and smiling for the cameras.
That's not what I am sister" (or something like that) John comes off as
an asshole and much less tactful than Paul.
All these posts later and still not one bad quote that Paul said about
John, just a bunch of arrogance and back-pedaling. I asked a simple
question and didn't get any answers, just an attitude.
Markshark989
>has said since John died.
Well, there *was* one interview some time in the early 1980s (if I recall
correctly) where Paul McCartney said John Lennon was "a maneuvering swine." And
that quote got taken out of context and reprinted all over the place and he got
a lot of crap for it. I don't remember the context of the actual interview, but
it seems like he had been referring to a specific incident or time period, and
I seem to recall it may have been a reference to the "Get Back" sessions.
RBigbonita
>
>"It's a drag"
that's not how paul answered that question. that was his parting comment after
that reporter asked several pointless questions in a row.
dlarsson
> Could you list some of the things Paul has said?
>
> I've never heard Paul say anything negative about John since his death.
> I always thought Paul went a little overboard with his "I worked with a
> genius in John" and thought this was because he didn't want to beat up
> on a dead person. I've always wondered if Lennon would have been as kind
> and he has always seemed more sour towards Paul.
MacBeatle
> MacBeatle wrote:
>
> > >
> > > I've never heard Paul say anything negative about John since his death.
> >
> > Then you've been living on Planet Macca.
>
>
> No, I just haven't followed the Beatles or Paul for the last 25 years.
>
> >
> > > I always thought Paul went a little overboard with his "I worked with a
> > > genius in John" and thought this was because he didn't want to beat up
> > > on a dead person. I've always wondered if Lennon would have been as kind
> > > and he has always seemed more sour towards Paul.
> >
> > He's been dead for 24 years, pal... so it would be tough for him to
> > answer some of the incredible outright lies Paul has told about him
> > since his death.
>
>
> Do you understand the words "if" and "would have"? I'm talking if roles
> were reversed.
>
Again, I just don't see where you are speaking about role reversals
here. Sorry.
I did, however, respond to your speculation about Paul "not wanting to
beat up
on a dead person."
> > And where on God's green earth did you get the idea John was
> > "more sour" towards Paul?
> >
>
>
> I've read one book on Lennon and zero on Paul. So, I admit, I don't know
> nearly enough, but from what I've seen in clips and quotes, from a
> person that's not consumed with the Beatles, it seems Paul has praised
> John a lot more than John did about Paul.
Well, my dear, Paul has had almost 24 years more than John to say
whatever the hell he wanted to.
And I could quote him in about 100 examples of outright lies he has
told since John's murder.
Of course, this is after
> John's death, but I don't see Lennon's personality being so humble had
> the roles been reversed. It seems like Paul is more consumed in grooming
> the Beatles image than John ever was...
>
And this is supposed to be a *good thing*?
> From the book I read many years ago, John didn't seem to care too much
> for Paul.
Good God. Someone please clue this poor boy in?
Um. let's see. How about you buy yourself a copy of the Beatles
Anthology...
Didn't Paul try and be friends and told him he had some good
> weed, and then John went and ratted him out to the Japanese and got Paul
> busted? I don't see Paul doing that to John.
Another urban legend, straight from the convicted liar and thief, Fred
Seaman, primary source for ALbert "I Eat Dead Celebs" Goldman more
than 20 years ago... <gagging noises>
Don't worry, dearie. The truth will out in the end... it always does.
Francie
Marston Moor
·.·´¨ ¨)) -:|:-
¸.·´ .·´¨¨))
R. Stevie Moore
((¸¸.·´ ..·´
-:|:- ((¸¸ ·.·
UsurperTom
>"It's a drag"
The "It's a drag," remark was not first and only reaction to John's murder that
day. Paul gave a longer to reporters who gathered at his Sussex home earlier
that day.
Usurper
UsurperTom
>one interview some time in the early 1980s (if I recall correctly) where Paul
McCartney said John Lennon was "a maneuvering swine."
On May 3, 1981, Paul said that to Hunter Davies in a private conversation.
This was in reaction to an interview Yoko gave to Philip Norman in the Sunday
Times which was published on that very day where he said that Paul hurt John
more than any other person in John's life. The "maneuvering swine" quote
wasn't published until four and a half years later when Davies excerpted his
1985 edition of "The Beatles" in New Musical Express. Paul disowned Davies as
a friend after that.
Usurper
UsurperTom
>I could quote him in about 100 examples of outright lies he has told since
John's murder.
Document them.
>Another urban legend, straight from the convicted liar and thief, Fred Seaman,
primary source for ALbert "I Eat Dead Celebs" Goldman more than 20 years ago
Actually, the story said that Yoko ratted out Paul without John's knowledge and
that John was initially amused by the arrest, but he became concerned about
Paul after a few days. Fred isn't the only person who claimed that Yoko
arranged the bust. Sam Green, Yoko's lover, and John Green, Yoko's tarot card
reader, also claimed that Yoko tipped off a cousin in customs. Besides,
wouldn't Francie like Yoko better if the story was true?
Usurper
UsurperTom
>Anyone know?
On December 12, 1987, George was interviewed on the US TV show "West 57th
Street" by British celebrity journalist Selina Scott. George, who was
promoting "Cloud Nine," commented publicly for the first time about John's
anger at George after the publication of George's autobiography, "I Me Mine."
Here are the excerpts.
Scott: In an interview before his death, John said he was really hurt by you,
that you never mentioned in your autobiography any of the influence he had on
you.
George: He was annoyed 'cos I didn't say that he'd written one line of this
song "Taxman." But I also didn't say how I wrote two lines of "Come Together"
or three lines of "Eleanor Rigby," you know, I wasn't getting into any of that.
I think, in the balance, I would have had more things to be niggled with him
about than he would have had with me.
Scott: He said, that you idolized him as a young boy...
George: That's what he thought. I liked him very much, he was a groove. He
was a good lad. But, at the same time, he misread me. He didn't even realize
who I was, one of the main faults of John and Paul. They were so busy helping
John and Paul, they failed to realize who else was around at the time.
END
Also, Derek Taylor, who was involved in writing the book, said in a 1984
interview with legendary New York DJ and longtime Beatle friend Scott Muni that
John was exaggerating things as usual. I don't have the exact quote in front
of me, but it's in Muni's book, "Ticket to Ride."
Usurper
UsurperTom
> Paul has strangely boycotted each of the few Lennon "tribute"
Paul and Ringo sent videotaped performances to Yoko's Liverpool tribute concert
in 1990. George boycotted the concert and said it was "in poor taste."
Usurper
UsurperTom
>I had just finished a whole day in shock and I said, 'It's a drag.' I meant
drag in the heaviest sense of the word, you know: 'It's a--DRAG.' But, you
know, when you look at that in print, it says, 'Yes, it's a drag.' Matter of
fact."
Paul should have done a better job defending himself on this. The fact is that
Paul's first statement on December 9 talked about how he loved John and John
will be missed by the world. Both the New York Times and Rolling Stone
reported Paul's official reaction without even mentioning the "It's a drag,"
comment.
Usurper
misterdave
> Could you list some of the things Paul has said?
>
> I've never heard Paul say anything negative about John since his death.
> I always thought Paul went a little overboard with his "I worked with a
> genius in John" and thought this was because he didn't want to beat up
> on a dead person. I've always wondered if Lennon would have been as kind
> and he has always seemed more sour towards Paul.
Yeah, even in some of his final interviews, Lennon's full of resentful
remarks about McCartney. Personally I think the resentment was based
on envy (over McCartney's superior solo career and marriage).
misterdave
>
> Paul has heaped as much respectful, loving praise on John since his
> death as has anybody. But Derek can still pick out some choice quotes
> he didn't care for and distort them through the prism of his
> preconceptions (wow that was good!), to back up his ridiculous
> argument.
True, true. But does anyone actually take Derek seriously?
abe slaney
here is nowhere wrote:
<my biggest snip ever - snipmeisters please give extra points>
Hey, I thought that was a very touching interview, Will.
TA
MikeSo
>> Could you list some of the things Paul has said?
>>
>> I've never heard Paul say anything negative about John since his death.
>> I always thought Paul went a little overboard with his "I worked with a
>> genius in John" and thought this was because he didn't want to beat up
>> on a dead person. I've always wondered if Lennon would have been as kind
>> and he has always seemed more sour towards Paul.
>
>
> Well, first of all ever since Lennon's death Paul has
<snip>
I bet you just love it when someone asks these kinds of questions just so you
can get out your "cut and paste" clippings that you have assembled over the
years.
*sigh*
Don't let the fact that most of what you write is conjecture and personal
opinion get in the way of a good story.
Do you work for Fox?
> - Derek
>
--
Thanks,
Mike
"God grant me the serenity to accept the postings of fucking idiots,
to post back succinctly to the fuckers who piss me off
and the wisdom to know when to stop arguing with the really nutty fucks "
MacBeatle
That's a lie. Completely false.
Chocolate Jesus
"MacBeatle" <waro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:23e30c12.04031...@posting.google.com...
no, it's a personal view, you imbecile.
MacBeatle
> MacBeatle wrote:
>
> >I could quote him in about 100 examples of outright lies he has told since
> John's murder.
>
> Document them.
>
LOL! Sorry tom, all I have time for right now is to repost Fred's
Apology...
you don't want me to do that, now do you?
> >Another urban legend, straight from the convicted liar and thief, Fred Seaman,
> primary source for ALbert "I Eat Dead Celebs" Goldman more than 20 years ago
>
> Actually, the story said that Yoko ratted out Paul without John's knowledge and
> that John was initially amused by the arrest, but he became concerned about
> Paul after a few days. Fred isn't the only person who claimed that Yoko
> arranged the bust. Sam Green, Yoko's lover, and John Green, Yoko's tarot card
> reader, also claimed that Yoko tipped off a cousin in customs. Besides,
> wouldn't Francie like Yoko better if the story was true?
> Usurper
Why would I like Yoko better if she had ratted out Paul?
Once again: Lies. Sorry, but your "sources" are ridiculous... next
thing y'know, you'll be quoting that stupid ex-nanny (Hay?). Don't
you get it about disgruntled former employees who talked to Albert
"Wannabe Hip But Just Can't" Goldman, who now roasts in Journalist
Hell, with Elvis, Lenny Bruce, and John Lennon applauding from Heaven?
francie
J.
You're welcome to disagree with this opinion but to call it a lie is lame.
There is a reasonable basis for this point of view, IMO. John's jealousy
and paranoia got the better of him sometimes--he would have been the first
to admit that--and in fact he did admit that and even wrote a song about
it. He said a few complimentary things about Paul in those final interviews
but also accused Paul of wrecking his songs, subconscious sabotage and
dismissed completely 10 years worth of Paul's music when he opinined that
his last gasp was 'The Long and Winding Road'. Can you imagine Paul ever
saying something like this about John's music? On the contrary, when George
said during the Anthology sessions that he thought John's writing was going
off a bit at the end there, Paul thought that opinion was presumptuous and
that there was still something in John's music for him. Given the hurtful
slagging off in public Paul took from John and rarely answered in the 70's,
he's been remarkably kind and generous in return.
J.
"here is nowhere" <flu...@foodbowl.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94B08ED6...@140.99.99.130...
> usurp...@aol.com (UsurperTom) wrote in
> news:20040318010238...@mb-m29.aol.com:
> that it got.
>
> The sad thing is that history has this response marked in concrete from
> that terrible day.
Well, I personally would not call whatever anybody said in a state of shock
and terrible grief studip. It was regrettable because it has nothing to do
with his feelings for John and what had happened--what he meant by it was
fuck-off reporter. I don't understand why even knowlegeable Beatle fans seem
to ignore the first statement and continually bring up the sensational one
which Paul has explained years ago.
>
>
Cam
>> Francie, did McCartney ever speak about or around his competitive
>> relationship with Lennon while you were around?
>
> Yes.
Aw, c'mon!
MacBeatle
> > Could you list some of the things Paul has said?
> >
> > I've never heard Paul say anything negative about John since his
> death.
> > I always thought Paul went a little overboard with his "I worked with
> a
> > genius in John" and thought this was because he didn't want to beat up
> > on a dead person. I've always wondered if Lennon would have been as
> kind
> > and he has always seemed more sour towards Paul.
>
>
> Well, first of all ever since Lennon's death Paul has
> strangely boycotted each of the few Lennon "tribute"
> concerts that took place,
<snip stuff very few people
can handle>
Dear Derek:
You do know that you and I have always been 180 degrees
opposed on all things political... and yet we have been lumped
together ever since I posted here, my first topic being something
about the unhealthy obsession America seems to have with
the Beatles.
I now confess that one of your wacko anti-Paul theories
had something to do with my coming over here from the
macca-list (private): The Girls (you know who I mean altho
most of them are gone from here following my "lynching"
in 2001) were posting links to your posts about the possibility
that Paul murdered Linda. Please, don't get upset about me
mentioning this but rather, let me speak to that idea...
Danny Fields and I taped about 90 minutes on the phone
in March 1999. He agreed to let me tape because he was
charming me into giving him some fairly intimate details
-- about Paul, not Linda.
I suspected he would run with what I gave him, but I
wasn't exactly sure where...
Coincidentally, my book "The War on Sex Drugs &
Rock & Roll: Life After Paul McCartney" was in direct
competition with his Linda book at his US publisher,
Renaissance Books. So he and I were talking during the
period of his deal, and I was actually helping him with
his book well past his first deadline. I tried to get him
to write about Lin's personal photos, which were on
display on an art site, sponsored by a Swedish gallery...
Her images were made in the studio of Francis Bacon
(late painter of screaming popes etc) -- he was a client
of Lin's father, and so undoubtedly allowed her to work
without restriction, so the images were absolutely
stunning... one that I viewed in 1999 was of a small
Christmas tree, decorated with naked baby doll parts.
Danny chose not only to ignore my lead, but he reversed
a lot of the things I told him about me and Paul, and
about Yoko... he is an indiscriminate gossip, and was
proud to say he was climbing on Paul's shit list even
as we spoke... he bragged to me that he was close with
Mary, who had opened up her treasure trove of family
photos for him when he made his original book deal
with Little Brown in the UK... they had published Lin's
photo books before her death... he had caught Paul
in his acute grief phase... and gotten permission.
Let's skip over the movie. I suppose Danny made
a couple hundred thousand from the sale to the tv
producers, and that he had to split some of it with
Renaissance, and so forth... but do you know what
Danny Fields is doing today?
No, you don't. Because he was Lin's personal friend,
Paul tolerated him for all those years... Danny met
Linda when he missed the boat that took her to sea
with Mick Jagger. He wanted to buy the pictures
Lin took that day (although it turns out Bridget Berlin
took more of the famous pictures than Lin did --
she was busy arranging a date with the Mickster!)
He was never a serious writer, never concerned
about accuracy in print. He had worked as a publicist
and he was living with Brian Epstein's last lover when
the Beatles broke up. Peter Brown was intercepting
his letters to Linda and it was all just too too much.
Anyway, long long story short, I got a different
kind of insight into Lin in 1999.
Which brings me back to you and me, Derek...
I see Paul McCartney as a kind of lost soul today.
The point I think we can agree upon is that Paul
has been attempting to cheat John out of his rightful
legacy as the founder of the group, by taking
credit for being the avant garde one, the responsible
family Beatle, and yada yada...
Note: Attempting.
Paul was always insecure. About himself as a writer,
with or without John. About his "legacy" and most
importantly, About the Money.
He stumbled awkwardly through his relationship with John
as if he was blind, and in a way he was... love is blind.
He is probably one of the richest men in the world,
but it's not enough. He has never got over his poor
childhood, poor guy!! He is also one of the tightest.
They don't get as rich as Paul without pinching those
early pennies... accumulation of obscene wealth is
as much of an addiction as heroin, for some guys.
John never gave a shit about the money.
John was all about the work, the art and the
music and the politics of pacifism. And all
about loving Yoko, always and forever.
In 1968, John just didn't get it: why wouldn't Paul
do the solo album they'd been talking about for
"years" (according to what John told me one night
in Paul's living room) - the one called
"Paul McCartney Goes Too Far"???
In John's own words to me (yes, Yoko was also there -
about ten feet away on the green velvet couch):
"He's too hung up on us bein' Beatles."
So Paul was hung up on his Beatle identity, and John
had shed his, and was just keeping up appearances...
Paul continued to fuck up his relationship with John
all during the WA sessions. I was there, for a dozen
sessions, and a dozen more nights when John and
Yoko came home with Paul and played the rough
mixes.
At Apple, when Paul first laid eyes on John and
Yoko's Two Virgins picture: He said "We could
never put out anything so ugly." This he said in front of
Derek Taylor and Richard DeLillo and me and Jeremy
Banks.
It was all too crazy for me.
But now I only feel sorrow, because Paul persists in his
claim on the love the world feels for John, in spite of,
or perhaps *because* he was an imperfect human being
who said dumb things sometimes... probably an
untreated bipolar, hey whatever floats your boat,
cos John's long gone. He hated sentimentality, that's
for sure. He would have been amazed at how long
Paul keeps on touring and raking in the bucks...
Despite nearly a quarter of a century in his quest
to be remembered as the UniBeatle, Paul suspects
he will never be loved the way John will. And it's
killing him.
His continuing and persistent lies about who invited
who to which memorial/9/11 fundraiser and his political
promiscuity (he supported the President in 2001, he
likes Kerry now?) compound the impression that he is
now an old man with a young wife who fancies himself
some sort of royalty... and he is far too powerful and
too rich to have anyone near him to say, "Hey Fatface,
please be quiet! Go write a song! Go take care of your
wife and child like a good husband should! Leave John
the fuck alone! Stop asking for the credits to be switched
on "Yesterday" and stop blaming Yoko for everyfuckingthing.
Enough already.
Remember the wife and mother who gave her absolute
best to care for this man. Honor that memory, because
Paul sure as hell didn't.
And Derek -- please don't send me any more Kerry stuff.
I support the military, and the Commander in Chief.
Francie
Chocolate Jesus
wow, this one's a keeper!
Rich Forman
> strangely boycotted each of the few Lennon "tribute"
> piece "Love Me Do"
In never heard of this but I'd like to hear the performance, sounds
interesting, has anybody heard it?
richforman
UsurperTom
>Why would I like Yoko better if she had ratted out Paul?
Because it was perfect revenge for all the terrible things Paul did to John and
Yoko.
>our "sources" are ridiculous
Yoko amended John's will to make Sam Green Sean's legal guardian in case
something happened to both John and Yoko.
Usurper
MKato
> Once again: Lies. Sorry, but your "sources" are ridiculous... next
> thing y'know, you'll be quoting that stupid ex-nanny (Hay?). Don't
> you get it about disgruntled former employees who talked to Albert
> "Wannabe Hip But Just Can't" Goldman,
He could have learned some stuff about being hip from the people who
post in here all day.
UsurperTom
>all I have time for right now is to repost Fred's Apology...you don't want me
to do that, now do you?
Go ahead. I've read it before and it reveals nothing new;-)
Usurper
misterdave
>
> You're welcome to disagree with this opinion but to call it a lie is lame.
> There is a reasonable basis for this point of view, IMO. John's jealousy
> and paranoia got the better of him sometimes--he would have been the first
> to admit that--and in fact he did admit that and even wrote a song about
> it. He said a few complimentary things about Paul in those final interviews
> but also accused Paul of wrecking his songs, subconscious sabotage and
> dismissed completely 10 years worth of Paul's music when he opinined that
> his last gasp was 'The Long and Winding Road'. Can you imagine Paul ever
> saying something like this about John's music? On the contrary, when George
> said during the Anthology sessions that he thought John's writing was going
> off a bit at the end there, Paul thought that opinion was presumptuous and
> that there was still something in John's music for him. Given the hurtful
> slagging off in public Paul took from John and rarely answered in the 70's,
> he's been remarkably kind and generous in return.
Thank you. Good post.
dlarsson
Well, not quite.
1. Ringo sent in a tape performing John's "I Call Your Name"
that is correct.
2. Paul sent in a tape just promoting his own work
a "Love Me Do/PS I Love You" paul-melody.
3. Paul also made a public announcement that morning
about his own concert plans. Now, out of all the days
to pick from - Paul chooses John's day to go to
the press about his own concert ( and switch the
press attention over to him ). What a guy.
So the bottom line is - Paul's response hardly qualifies
as the same type of sincere "tribute" as the way
he reacted when George had died.
I'm glad to see people come together and play
and perform George's music as a tribute.
The question then is why did this
not happen when it was John Lennon -?
- Derek
================================
EMail: derek_...@comcast.net
================================
MacBeatle
You got it. I am reposting this from the " ...former Beatle" thread
for reasons that are obvious to you, but perhaps may not be so obvious
to some of our newer posters... and you DO know it is nothing
personal Tom. You have never really flamed me even when I disagreed
violently. For that I thank you.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
David Male <sends...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> On 15 Mar 2004 21:15:02 GMT, stomp...@aol.com (StompMyFoot) wrote:
>
> >I thought
> >Fred's book held together pretty well and, to the best of my knowledge, hasn't
> >been contradicted in any of its major points.
>
> Me too, actually, he seemed to tell it like it was...
Courtesy of Ono.web (Richard Joly)
:
COURT TV - SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ONLINE
(Entered September 27, 2002)
The Court TV website is currently showing the 11-page document which
details the settlement agreement between Yoko and former Lennon aide,
Fred Seaman. In that agreement, Seaman is "permanently and
perpetually enjoined from divulging, exploiting, or publicizing,
commercially or otherwise, in any manner or medium, now and hereafter
devised whatsoever, any information, facts, anecdotes, or other
statements relating in any way to John Lennon, Yoko Ono Lennon or
Sean Lennon...For the avoidance of doubt, this injunction includes,
without limitation, statements made in books, fiction or non-fiction,
magazine articles, press interviews, television reports,
documentaries, radio interviews, audio recordings, film or video
recordings, or any other medium of public dissemination."
A public statement of apology to the Lennon family was also agreed to
by Fred Seaman in the settlement. It reads:
*******"I wish to offer this public apology to Yoko Ono; I did wrong
by you
and indeed am guilty of violating your trust. After more than 20
years, it is time for me to ask your forgiveness for my actions. I
did in fact steal items from you that once belonged to you and John.
These items include diaries, documents and more. I wrote things
about you and your family in my book and various tabloids that were
factually inaccurate and I now realize how much pain and
embarrassment I have caused. It is impossible to undo what has taken
place. But it stops here and now. I will return any remaining
things that I have that are yours. I will refrain from ever writing
anything about you or your family or about my time in your employ. I
offer no excuse for my conduct and only ask that you can find it in
your heart to forgive so I can move on with my life."*******
Matt Bean reported for Court TV that Fred Seaman planned to exploit
John Lennon from the day he was hired as a personal assistant. He
asked a friend to collaborate on a book, began stockpiling John's
personal items and then eventually raided his collaborator's house
looking for them.
Excerpt from Court TV.com Thursday, September 26:
"I was naive. It was not 100 percent clear to me what was going on
until I came home and found my house ransacked," said Robert Rosen,
who testified Thursday in a civil suit brought against Seaman by
Lennon's widow, Yoko Ono. "Then it was very clear what was going on."
According to Rosen, Seaman said he was "carrying out a sacred mission
on behalf of John Lennon" when he ferreted away the late Beatle's
materials at Rosen's house. When he wanted the items back in 1982, he
sent Rosen on a vacation sponsored by a backer for their book, then
burgled his house. The incident marked an abrupt turn in the
relationship between the two men, who had been friends since their
days at the City College of New York newspaper in the early 1970s.
Seaman later admitted to Rosen that he had sacked his house.
"[Seaman] said he did it, what was I going to do about it?" Rosen
testified. "He inquired if I was going to sell my body on the street
or commit suicide. I went into a state of shock."
~~~~~
I believe Seaman's signed court document says it all.
Francie Schwartz
dlarsson
> that Paul murdered Linda
> I support the military, and the Commander in Chief.
Mister Charlie
For some reason Tom chooses to believe the lies and exaggerations of the
Seaman/Rosen/GG crowd.
There is little of anything they have to say that is valid. Why someone
as sharp as Tom would choose to buy into the fiction I don't know.
Especially the way the Seaman/Ono case resolved.
MikeSo
>>> Paul has strangely boycotted each of the few Lennon "tribute"
>>
>> Paul and Ringo sent videotaped performances to Yoko's Liverpool tribute
>> concert in 1990. George boycotted the concert and said it was "in poor
>> taste." Usurper
>
> Well, not quite.
>
> 1. Ringo sent in a tape performing John's "I Call Your Name"
> that is correct.
>
> 2. Paul sent in a tape just promoting his own work
> a "Love Me Do/PS I Love You" paul-melody.
Let me get this straight ...
Ringo sends a video tape of a Beatles song, and he is okay. Paul sends a video
tape of two Beatles songs, and he is a jerk trampling upon Lennon's memory.
Hmmmmmm.
> 3. Paul also made a public announcement that morning
> about his own concert plans. Now, out of all the days
> to pick from - Paul chooses John's day to go to
> the press about his own concert ( and switch the
> press attention over to him ). What a guy.
And politicians made laws and sports teams played games and movie stars released
films ... imagine that!! The world didn't stop because Yoko held a tribute
concert for John.
Obviously, Paul (and myriads of others) were all jerks trampling on Lennon's
memory.
> So the bottom line is - Paul's response hardly qualifies
> as the same type of sincere "tribute" as the way
> he reacted when George had died.
Nor was Ringo's response for the Lennon tribute the same as his response at the
George tribute.
> I'm glad to see people come together and play
> and perform George's music as a tribute.
Yes, it is a fantastic show!
> The question then is why did this
> not happen when it was John Lennon -?
A question that only _YOU_ seem to raise.
Different times, different minds.
dlarsson
> The point I think we can agree upon is that Paul
> has been attempting to cheat John out of his rightful
> legacy as the founder of the group, by taking
> credit for being the avant garde one, the responsible
> family Beatle, and yada yada...
> Despite nearly a quarter of a century in his quest
> to be remembered as the UniBeatle, Paul suspects
> he will never be loved the way John will. And it's
> killing him.
I think Paul was actually treated with far more
adulation, oogling, affection, and warmth by the
many "garden variety" Beatle fans.
Lennon, after all, was slimed by the twisting/sensationalizing
of his well-intentioned remark about Jesus ( deploring the
Beatles level of mass popularity), mocked by his anti-war activism,
given hateful abuse about his wife, deported and harrassed
by the U.S. government, and finally shot to death.
It was only the intellectuals that were going in
for John - typically.
But even if John was regarded as a more
serious artist and the most significant
band member ( which he deserved to be),
dishonesty by Paul -- is just a pathway
for messing up and spoiling the one thing
that Paul ever cared about -- the Beatles
legacy -- and his own.
Paul could have greatly enhanced his image
and gained public stature and substance
by talking up John's accomplishments
and enthusiatically embracing John's unique
role in the band - openly and freely, doing
a "George"-like tribute concert for him.
Being big ... makes you big.
Paul had too much of his own material
to ever be forgotton or overlooked.
People like classy behavior and acting
this way would have established Paul
as the formost spokesman for the
entire band and also of the 1960s era.
Instead, he forfeited that chance and only
established himself as a completely unreliable
source of information about the Beatles,
about John, about himself, about Yoko,
and just made a big mess.
dlarsson
> > Well, not quite.
> >
> > 1. Ringo sent in a tape performing John's "I Call Your Name"
> > that is correct.
> >
> > 2. Paul sent in a tape just promoting his own work
> > a "Love Me Do/PS I Love You" paul-melody.
> Let me get this straight ...
>
> Ringo sends a video tape of a Beatles song, and he is okay. Paul sends a
video
> tape of two Beatles songs, and he is a jerk trampling upon Lennon's
memory.
>
> Hmmmmmm.
You missed the whole point.
This was a Lennon tribute concert.
Ringo did a John-written song.
Everyone else did a John-written song
Paul did a Paul-melody -- no John songs.
So, exactly who is he tributing?
> > 3. Paul also made a public announcement that morning
> > about his own concert plans. Now, out of all the days
> > to pick from - Paul chooses John's day to go to
> > the press about his own concert ( and switch the
> > press attention over to him ). What a guy.
> And politicians made laws and sports teams played games and movie stars
released
> films ... imagine that!! The world didn't stop because Yoko held a
tribute
> concert for John.
There are 365 days in a year. John was dead for 10 years.
Now, the one single day, in the one single year where
there was a "Lennon day" - Paul chooses that day
to go and arrange a big press headline thing about himself.
I think other options were available.
THE SON OF TRUTH
>From: "dlarsson" derek_...@comcast.net
>Date: 3/18/2004 10:58 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <K5v6c.39465$po.332307@attbi_s52>
>
>
>> The point I think we can agree upon is that Paul
>> has been attempting to cheat John out of his rightful
>> legacy as the founder of the group, by taking
>> credit for being the avant garde one, the responsible
>> family Beatle, and yada yada...
>
>> Despite nearly a quarter of a century in his quest
>> to be remembered as the UniBeatle, Paul suspects
>> he will never be loved the way John will. And it's
>> killing him.
>
he had this great group, Wings.
But as soon as that fizzled for good, out came the Hofner bass and Broadstreet.
Poor Ringo.
"........ Ah, but a parade of you fancy lion tamers, highwire firy flamers,
ravers of every kind........"
Grace Slick "Dreams"
UsurperTom
>For some reason Tom chooses to believe the lies and exaggerations of the
>Seaman/Rosen/GG crowd.
These 3 guys are not a monolith. Fred said here that he hates GG and Rosen
admitted under oath that Yoko put him on her payroll. There are so many other
sources who corroborated their assessment of Yoko, such as Harold Seider,
John's lawyer who negotiated the dissolution agreement, May Pang and Jack
Douglas. Do you have a problem with using the testimony of Sammy the Bull
Gravano to convict John Gotti?;-)
Also, you didn't separate the post from the poster.
Tom
R.A.G. Seely
news:105ktpp...@news.supernews.com:
>> I'm glad to see people come together and play
>> and perform George's music as a tribute.
>
> Yes, it is a fantastic show!
>
>> The question then is why did this
>> not happen when it was John Lennon -?
>
> A question that only _YOU_ seem to raise.
>
> Different times, different minds.
Actually, it's a good question. Partly the timing is relevant - we were in
a state of shock after John's murder, whereas with George's death there was
a period of expectiation leading up to it. So a Concert for John in the
style of the Concert for George just never really had a chance to get off
the ground at the time. And Yoko has never invited those people who were
close to John during his life - including that part of his life before her
entry into it - to organize such a concert, and hasn't (AFAIK) expressed
any wish to get such a concert going. It'd be too late probably now
anyway. In addition, too many of the obvious participants are no longer
with us. But "Different times, different minds" seems to sum it up pretty
well.
-= rags =-
--
To reply by email, use "@" not "__A@T__"
<rags AT math . mcgill . ca>
<http://www.math.mcgill.ca/rags>
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
ron miller
When people learn. Don't read books, just listen to the music. If
you have to read a book, read Coleman. Never read any of the others.
Karma, kids. Karma.
MacBeatle
It's his choice, and it doesn't bother me at all, as long as the Court
documents are available through Court TV. It took a long long time. It
will take a lot more years to undo the damage... but fortunately, Sean
is a man any mom or dad can be proud of, and at 25, he's wise beyond
his years. Yoko has done a fine job, despite everything!
MacBeatle
> > posting links to your posts about the possibility
> > that Paul murdered Linda
>
>
> First of all, this was never at any time: "my theory".
>
> I posted a news report, word-for-word that
> discussed strange issues about the circumstances
> of Linda's death.
>
Derek, you missed the entire forest for that one tree.
Never mind, Derek... I just used your post to say what needed to be
said, about honoring Linda.
Ignore it if you like.
Francie
abe slaney
Sean is a man any mom or dad can be proud of, and at 25, he's wise
beyond his years.
28
MacBeatle
How time flies when your having fun getting corrected by such a nice guy!
MacBeatle
> Mister Charlie wrote:
>
> >For some reason Tom chooses to believe the lies and exaggerations of the
> >Seaman/Rosen/GG crowd.
>
> These 3 guys are not a monolith. Fred said here that he hates GG and Rosen
> admitted under oath that Yoko put him on her payroll.
No, Rosen did not "admit under oath" that Yoko put him on her payroll.
Give it up. Read the statement, Tom. Rosen's own words. He was a
co-conspirator in Operation Walrus, and Fred sent him away on a
vacation paid for by the backer of their book so Fred could rob Rosen.
No honor among thieves.
Anything Fred said here may be taken as a lie. A liar in one thing is
potentially a liar in all things.
Fred's lies and libelous statements were the primary basis for
Goldman's book on John, and as several
other posters have pointed out, Goldman never went for the truth, as
he himself was a liar, and spread his venom not just over John Lennon,
but also over Elvis Presley and Lenny Bruce.
If Fred said he hated GG in here, it's only because GG has never been
prosecuted for his own nefarious dealings... and Fred is naturally
jealous of anyone else whose name may be connected with the memory of
John Lennon. I don't think we need worry much about these moral
nothings... as three separate losers, or as a monolith. They are the
scum of the earth, and will be forgotten long before anyone realizes.
While John and his music will be forever treasured by people all over
the world.
There are so many other
> sources who corroborated their assessment of Yoko, such as Harold Seider,
> John's lawyer who negotiated the dissolution agreement,
What dissolution? What lawyer?
May Pang and Jack
> Douglas. Do you have a problem with using the testimony of Sammy the Bull
> Gravano to convict John Gotti?;-)
>
John Gotti was not the founder of a great band.
The comparison is in itself, ludicrous, Tom. Ludicrous.
Mister Charlie
"dlarsson" <derek_...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:K5v6c.39465$po.332307@attbi_s52...
>
> Instead, he forfeited that chance and only
> established himself as a completely unreliable
> source of information about the Beatles,
> about John, about himself, about Yoko,
> and just made a big mess.
Only in your little mind, derek.
Mister Charlie
"UsurperTom" <usurp...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040319010951...@mb-m03.aol.com...
You also quote John Green who was a slimy as any of the above. Frankly
one just believes what one wants to believe, whether true or not (ala
derek). I'm sure I'm no better for fulfilling my own beliefs where I
can but I know enough to see that with *proven* liars as these shitballs
there is NO way to know what they said is true and not.
Witnesses are known to be deleted because they are not trustworthy, mob
ties or not.
Martin Hofner
>
> Don't let the fact that most of what you write is conjecture and personal
> opinion get in the way of a good story.
>
> Do you work for Fox?
>
====More likely CNN or CBS
Martin Hofner
If Francie is on Yoko's payroll then this cut a paste junior high
student must be getting a weekely CD allowance from Terry Mcauliffe.
I'd love to read one of his term papers. "Sorry Derek, a D - no
original thoughts here." Too bad his mom gives him this kind of access
to the internet.
Let's start survey now. What's derek's last completed level?
Grade 6__7__8__9__10__
Derek, I am just trying to be didactic, not recalcitrant.
(That ought to keep him busy for a while....)
kevlang
> You missed the whole point.
>
> This was a Lennon tribute concert.
>
> Ringo did a John-written song.
> Everyone else did a John-written song
>
> Paul did a Paul-melody -- no John songs.
>
> So, exactly who is he tributing?
Love Me Do/PS I Love You is not just a "Paul melody" or medley.
First, it was the Beatles first single and it was written with John
during the Quarrymen days, making it a great tribute to John. Up until
it was recorded, it was always sung entirely by John-they had to
change the arrangement for the harmonica to be played during the
recording, so Paul was forced to "nervously" sing the "Love Me Do"
bit. Now, Derek, would John sing the entire song if it were a just a
"Paul" song? Would John, "the leader", allow the first Beatle single
to be a double-sided Maccathon?
> > > 3. Paul also made a public announcement that morning
> > > about his own concert plans. Now, out of all the days
> > > to pick from - Paul chooses John's day to go to
> > > the press about his own concert ( and switch the
> > > press attention over to him ). What a guy.
>
> There are 365 days in a year. John was dead for 10 years.
>
> Now, the one single day, in the one single year where
> there was a "Lennon day" - Paul chooses that day
> to go and arrange a big press headline thing about himself.
>
> I think other options were available.
>
Big press headlines? I must have missed the front page news that day.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and state that this was the same
tour in '90 that Paul sang Strawberry Fields/Help/Give Peace a Chance
as a tribute to John. How horribly crass of Paul!
Part of the mystery of John (to try to paraphrase George) is that he
could be a saint and a bastard. Why you can't forgive Paul for having
any of the same weaknesses is an odd mystery.
Kevin L.
Mister Charlie
"Martin Hofner" <yearo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:883a78b8.04031...@posting.google.com...
Hm. Francie is worthy of your forgiveness but not Derek, huh?
MKato
Jimbo
Correct...there is no way to "know"...there is no "truth"...there
never will be...ever...nuff said
All I can is these people are slimeballs...how dare them write "books"
about our John....they are in Hell fer this....burnin and smokina and
sc reamin and beggin john fergivemants...
Dont read books....dont ever read books....
unless you want to go where they went...
HELL.
amen.
UsurperTom
>No, Rosen did not "admit under oath" that Yoko put him on her payroll.
Oh yes, he did! I've seen the transcript and I do have inside information on
the case.
>What dissolution? What lawyer?
The dissolution of the Beatles and Co in December 1974.
>John Gotti was not the founder of a great band.
I was joking! The point is that testimony from unsavory witnesses do carry
weight.
Usurper
UsurperTom
>You also quote John Green who was a slimy as any of the above.
I don't believe in Tarot, but Yoko did. She hired the guy and was in constant
consultation with him for 6 years.
I notice that nobody mentioned Sam Green. Not even Elliot Mintz went after
him. His name is in John's will. The Newsweek review of the Goldman book
pointed out that Rolling Stone and other defenders of Yoko were being dishonest
by not acknowledging Goldman's use of Sam as a major source because they don't
want to mention the name of a guy who had an affair with Yoko while she was
married to John.
Usurper
dlarsson
> >
> > This was a Lennon tribute concert.
> >
> > Ringo did a John-written song.
> > Everyone else did a John-written song
> >
> > Paul did a Paul-melody -- no John songs.
> >
> > So, exactly who is he tributing?
> Love Me Do/PS I Love You is not just a "Paul melody" or medley.
> First, it was the Beatles first single and it was written with John
> during the Quarrymen days, making it a great tribute to John.
Nice try - but way off.
Love Me Do was Paul's infantile, dopey song
that John salvaged into something pretty decent
with his hard-edged, bluesy harmonica playing.
It only barely made the top 20 due to Brian
Epstein skewing the charts by ordering up
box loads of the song for his record shop.
If Paul was serious about a tribute for John
he would have played - a John written song.
I mean, that was the whole point of the show...
--
- Derek
dlarsson
This was what I could not ignore!!
> And Derek -- please don't send me any more Kerry stuff.
dlarsson
> > Instead, he forfeited that chance and only
> > established himself as a completely unreliable
> > source of information about the Beatles,
> > about John, about himself, about Yoko,
> > and just made a big mess.
>
> Only in your little mind, derek.
Nonsense, Paul's book was panned by a whole lot of
people ( even the customer reviews on Amazon show this ).
In addition, people have publically rejected a lot of his claims
and Paul himself stated that John's 1980 Playboy account
was "very accurate" ( thereby invalidating about 70% of
the stuff that he put in his own book ).
And finally, there is Ringo himself.
"Paul WANTS to be known as the one
who did it all -- which I think is not true."
-Ringo Starr
"People SAY that Paul was on the fringe of
this, that, and the other -- but the point is
John WAS the fringe, and say what you
will, it was his band."
-Ringo Starr
Paul's mendacity and revisionism is no secret folks ....
THE SON OF TRUTH
>Message-id: <YUO6c.45199$_w.670973@attbi_s53>
>
> Then you support Halliburton being paid multi-billion
> dollar contracts with your own money ( taxes ) -- based
> on public lies.
And isn't this the second time around with them and a Bush?
UsurperTom
> you also support making Lennon's "Imagine" and "Give Peace A Chance"
banned songs
and explicitly blacklisted on Clear Channel radio networks ( another monopoly
)
This story turned out to be a hoax. The classic rock station I listen to is
owned by Clear Channel and it plays those 2 songs.
Usurper
UsurperTom
>there is Ringo himself.
I'd love to see the source and the quotes in context. When Ringo was on the
Howard Stern show in 2001, he said that if the issue of reversing the
songwriting credits on certain songs came to a vote, he would vote with Paul.
Usurper
RBigbonita
>Howard Stern show in 2001, he said that if the issue of reversing the
>songwriting credits on certain songs came to a vote, he would vote with Paul.
>Usurper
sometimes i wonder if all of them (paul, ringo, yoko, john and george before
their deaths, linda, geoff baker, and who ever else) say the crap they do, then
have a laugh with each other afterwards at our expense.
J.
That's interesting. Although, it doesn't matter now anyway.
Here's the correct source, quote and context for one of them; Derek said
previously that the quote came from Musician Magazine but it's actually from
a Rolling Stone interview, July 9th, 1992, p.89
beginquote:
But does it bother you to see John become an icon for people like Goldman to
attack?
Ringo: John wasn't an icon when he was still here. He was just a man, you
see. An amazing man, but that's what happens. If James Dean was still
around, maybe he'd be a fat old man. It's harder for those who stick around.
Is that why Paul McCartney has done so much press trying to change the
perception of him as the lightweight of the pair?
Ringo: Yeah, but that's Paul's problem. He wants to be known as the arty
one, the one who did it all -- which I think is not true. But it's also not
true that John did it all either..
endquote;
Please note Derek; Ringo thinks it's harder for those still around and knows
John didn't do it all either----which is really all Paul has been saying. I
don't recall him ever claiming he 'did it all'...
Mister Charlie
"J." <janba...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:3wY6c.106177$TxJ....@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
Context is everything. Unless one is a cut and paste, meaning-snipping
demagogue.
>
dlarsson
> Here's the correct source, quote and context for one of them; Derek said
> previously that the quote came from Musician Magazine but it's actually
from
> a Rolling Stone interview, July 9th, 1992, p.89
> beginquote:
> Ringo: Yeah, but that's Paul's problem. He wants to be known as the arty
> one, the one who did it all -- which I think is not true. But it's also
not
> true that John did it all either..
>
> endquote;
> Please note Derek; Ringo thinks it's harder for those still around and
knows
> John didn't do it all either----
But Ringo is clear here.
Paul WANTS to be known as the arty one - but is untrue
Paul WANTS to be know as the one who did it all - untrue
This is discussing Paul's intent.
Nobody ever said John did it all so that addition is
both an obvious point and irrelevant.
The significant part is that Ringo has described that
Paul's intent is to give a false portrayal and a false history.
That's exactly the point.
Mister Charlie
>
> > Here's the correct source, quote and context for one of them; Derek
said
> > previously that the quote came from Musician Magazine but it's
actually
> from
> > a Rolling Stone interview, July 9th, 1992, p.89
>
> > beginquote:
>
> > Ringo: Yeah, but that's Paul's problem. He wants to be known as the
arty
> > one, the one who did it all -- which I think is not true. But it's
also
> not
> > true that John did it all either..
> >
> > endquote;
>
>
> > Please note Derek; Ringo thinks it's harder for those still around
and
> knows
> > John didn't do it all either----
>
>
> But Ringo is clear here.
>
> Paul WANTS to be known as the arty one - but is untrue
> Paul WANTS to be know as the one who did it all - untrue
> This is discussing Paul's intent.
No, this is DISSECTING one sentence. Without context. Naughty and
dishonest.
>
> Nobody ever said John did it all so that addition is
> both an obvious point and irrelevant.
No, it is not. It modifies what he says about Paul. Nice try.
>
> The significant part is that Ringo has described that
> Paul's intent is to give a false portrayal and a false history.
>
> That's exactly the point.
No, the point is you are a totally dishonest discusser, you always have
been, and you cannot even admit when you are caught out (as with your
ISP). Just what this place needs...*another* dissembling stubborn cut
and paster, someone who disregards ANY feelings but his own.
Your number is up, you've been called and found wanting.
Son of Jones
said it on the way to writing session with John, and that Ringo said it
offhand once.
Paul did make a statement around 1985 that the press treated John like
Martin Luther Lennon.
"First of a ball" for "first of all" is lousy word play. Try "First of
Awful" or "Thirst of owl" or "fist stuff fowl" or "burst a ball".
SO Jones
MikeSo
Thanks Charlie. Saves me from having to bang my own head against the "Derek"
wall.
:-)
--
Thanks,
Mike
"God grant me the serenity to accept the postings of fucking idiots,
to post back succinctly to the fuckers who piss me off
and the wisdom to know when to stop arguing with the really nutty fucks "
Mister Charlie
"MikeSo" <mike...@hotmail.compost> wrote in message
with his one-way rants and html-in-your-face attitude.
J.
>
> "MikeSo" <mike...@hotmail.compost> wrote in message
> >
> "Derek"
> > wall.
> >
> Well, we are hardly the only ones this guy has offended over the years
> with his one-way rants and html-in-your-face attitude.
My thanks too Charlie. The html-in-your-face may be gone, but how much you
wanna bet he still put's up his prized Ringo quote...(eyes rolling...)
>
>
Mister Charlie
He's way ahead of you. He already has! :-)
>
> >
> >
>
>
stavros
consequences be...?
Would Lennon have carried on with his career as Paul did ..would he have
done an 'Anthology' with George and Ringo and would McCartney be a revered
'God' of modern music ?
Too much is conjecture and the Lennon of 1980 does not mean he would be the
same guy now and in the years that have passed. But here's a complete and
utter guess and just a bit
of fun :
Dec 1980 - Paul McCartney is gunned down whilst visiting New York by madman
Mork Chopman. World
in mourning "Yesterday" goes to number one and albums "Back to the Egg" &
"McCartney" are No.1 and 2 with "Coming Up" & "Waterfalls" also re-entering
single charts. John, George & Ringo state intention to go to funeral but
John fails to show stating Sean was violently ill and Yoko away on business.
Media sees it as a slur on McCartney.
1981 - John agrees to play for the first time since mid-70s with George and
Ringo on a tribute to Paul "All Those Years Ago" and it goes straight to
number one. Rumours of a Threetles album begin to grow. But this is later
proved to be false. The "McCartney Collection" reaches number one.
1982 - John releases "Milk & Honey" his final album with "Yoko" including a
tribute to "Paul" - "Absent Friends".
1984 - All has been quiet on The Beatles front until Dec 1984 when John
secretly agrees to appear at Live Aid back in the UK for the first time in
years.
1985 - John sings "All You Need is Love" and "Imagine" at the closing
ceremony in London for Live Aid. Afterwards he announces he's splitting with
Yoko and wants to return to England. Apparently rumours of him getting back
with Cynthia and Julian may be true as Yoko appears to be seen more & more
with a multi-millionaire businessman.
1987 - After 2 years back in the UK John releases a new album "Seen Here in
England" which although sells reasonably well is criticised for sounding
stuck in the 70s ,how he lacks the melodic influence of the great McCartney
and he's lost his touch that made those Beatles tracks great. The title
track reaches No. 18 in the UK despite this. A collection of John's solo
stuff including "Imagine", "Mind Games" and "Starting Over" is released
called "Northern Folk Songs- the best of Lennon". It reaches No. 2 in the UK
charts and never quite beats Bros to number 1. Meanwhile a film of
McCartney's life "Mother Nature's Sun" is released to cinemas..... a
controversial book by Herbert Silverman "McCartney beyond the Myth" slating
him as a heavy pot user and control freak is published quoting the surviving
Beatles as hating the monster. John, George & Ringo sue him.
1989 - Lennon agrees to work with Elton John again on a new album "The Other
Half of the Sky" ;son Julian also plays on a few tracks. Critically and
commercially it proves his biggest success since "Mind Games". John plans a
World Tour and announces he will sing a collection of Beatles songs as well.
1990 - John tours the US, UK, Europe, Australia and Japan and Ringo joins
him on stage at the finale in hometown Liverpool. They both (along with
George) refuse to show for the "McCartney Tribute" as they feel it is "in
poor taste" , John does however agree to let them show footage of him
singing "I Saw Her Standing There" at the show taken from his live set.
1994 - Rumours of a Beatles re-union are confirmed (in sort) as John,George
and Ringo agree to produce "The Long & Winding Road" their story of the
Beatles career. They are also secretly working on tracks handed to them by
Linda McCartney to produce a new "Beatles" album produced by George Martin
and Jeff Lynne which will also include unheard tracks from the Beatles
past..
1995 - "The Long & Winding Road" is announced as an 9 episode TV series with
the finale being a complete making of the new Beatles album. John says "It
was really tough listening to Paul after all these years and we just had to
put it out of our minds and pretend he'd gone out for a drink and left us to
finish the tracks off"..."But Ringo & George have been great and we just
hope we can do his songs justice". The first single is released in Dec 1995
"No Values" and sounds more like the Rolling Stones than The Beatles. George
says "John & I" had to work a bit on the lyrics and harmony but basically
it's Paul's song given a full Beatle production. We love it because it
rocks..."..Commercially it reaches number one but some have doubts that this
really is as good as the originals and has it tarnished the memory of
McCartney.
1996 - The second single "Tug of War" which had already been heard in it's
sparse demo form in "Mother Nature's Sun" comes out. Given a full George
Martin production it sounds like a classic McCartney ballad but fails to get
to No.1 again. John says "it wasn't our intention to get to number one with
this one , I've had enough of those years ago. It would have been nice, but
this was just a tribute to Paul"...
The much awaited album is also released with the tracks :
1. No Values
2. Come & Get It *
3. Not Guilty *
4. Waterspout
5. No More Lonely Nights
6. What's the New Mary Jane *
7. Watchin' Rainbows *
8. Tug of War
9. The Devil and The Deep Blue Sea
10. While My Guitar Gently Weeps (acoustic version)*
11. I Lost My Little Girl
12. Carnival of Light
A second CD also includes alternate takes of earlier Beatles songs in the
package.
Then a box set is released from all the alternate out takes shown in the
Video releases of the "Long Winding Road"
However the rumoured "We All Stand Together" track has never surfaced (aka
The Bom Bom Bom Song) ..John says "We heard Paul's demo..but it was worse
than Maxwell's Silver Hammer and we just couldn't make anything out of
it..we really hated it "
2001 - After what appeared to have been retirement it is discovered that
John has secretly been releasing experimental music over the internet under
the pseudonym "Goo-Goo-Ga-Joob". George sadly passes away and John gives a
fitting tribute "..I've now lost two of my best mates. We sort of drifted
apart for a time but I'm glad I made music with him again. He had a
wonderful spirit and outlook and all he ever wanted was peace and happiness.
Let's hope he now has it. We all will miss him"
2002 - John announces a world tour and he will play more Beatles songs than
ever before. His set list includes :
"Strawberry Fields Forever", "Gimme Some Truth", "Don't Let Me Down", "In My
Life", "Day Tripper", "Help", "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" , "Instant
Karma", "Revolution", "Nobody Told Me"and "Because" as well as a finale
featuring "Imagine" and "Give Peace a Chance" ....He
also sings an affectionate tribute to Paul & George "Absent Friends" and
"All Things Must Pass". to rave reviews. However controversy flares when the
album is released and the Beatles songs are credited to John Lennon with
Paul McCartney ommitted. Media and fans so he is trying to belittle
McCartney's role
in the Beatles. Paul's daughter Stella says "My dad wrote those songs with
John and that's what it says on the original albums why can't he just "Let
it Be". However , Paul's son James does not exist because he was never
born...........
CharlesBunch995
>born...........
>
James was born before 1980. That was a funny little parody, though.
Chuck
UsurperTom
>But it's also not true that John did it all either..
Of course, Derek omitted the next sentence while quoting Ringo.
Usurper
dlarsson
> > you also support making Lennon's "Imagine" and "Give Peace A Chance"
> banned songs
> and explicitly blacklisted on Clear Channel radio networks ( another
monopoly
> This story turned out to be a hoax. The classic rock station I listen to
is
> owned by Clear Channel and it plays those 2 songs.
> Usurper
No Tom, you are absolutely wrong here.
There was a blacklist after Sept. 11 and throughout the
run up to the unnecessary attack on the non-al-Qaeda
country of Iraq.
Lennon's songs were on it -- and they were not
being played by policy on Clear Channel stations.
It may be possible that some DJ at some station
somewhere responded to a call-in request or
forgot and played one of these songs sometime.
But there was a blacklist and it was a documented
policy. And this is profound -- because you have
a country that regards songs like Edwin Star's
"War - What Is It Good For?" and John Lennon's
"Imagine" as a bad influence on society -- while
simulataneously regarding violence-promoting
Arnold Schwartzenagger movies as approved
and admired forms of entertainment ( even
justifying a promotion to Governor of California ).
http://radio.about.com/library/weekly/blCCbannedsongs.htm
dlarsson
>
> There was a blacklist after Sept. 11 and throughout the
> run up to the unnecessary attack on the non-al-Qaeda
> country of Iraq.
>
> Lennon's songs were on it -- and they were not
> being played by policy on Clear Channel stations.
>
> It may be possible that some DJ at some station
> somewhere responded to a call-in request or
> forgot and played one of these songs sometime.
>
> But there was a blacklist and it was a documented
> policy. And this is profound -- because you have
> a country that regards songs like Edwin Star's
> "War - What Is It Good For?" and John Lennon's
> "Imagine" as a bad influence on society -- while
> simulataneously regarding violence-promoting
> Arnold Schwartzenagger movies as approved
> and admired forms of entertainment ( even
> justifying a promotion to Governor of California ).
>
> http://radio.about.com/library/weekly/blCCbannedsongs.htm
Other links:
http://www.lipmagazine.org/articles/featwishnia_142.shtml
dlarsson
> > > Ringo: Yeah, but that's Paul's problem. He wants to be known as the
> > > arty one, the one who did it all -- which I think is not true. But
it's
> > > also not true that John did it all either..
> > The significant part is that Ringo has described that
> > Paul's intent is to give a false portrayal and a false history.
> >
> > That's exactly the point.
> No, the point is you are a totally dishonest discusser, you always have
> been, and you cannot even admit when you
I'm sorry that you cannot read.
Did Ringo say that Paul WANTS to be known
as the one who did it all? Yes or No?
The answer is clearly YES:
"Yeah, but that's Paul's problem. He wants to be known as the
arty one, the one who did it all -- which I think is not true."
That was the point here -- and it was 100% accurate.
> > Nobody ever said John did it all so that addition is
> > both an obvious point and irrelevant.
> No, it is not. It modifies what he says about Paul. Nice try.
Nonsense. It modified absolutely nothing.
Ringo was adding simply a already known fact
that John did not "do it all" ( we knew this ).
This does not constitute a -retraction-
of any remark he had made about Paul's intent.
Ringo's sentence above this - stated that Paul
had a "problem" [ PROBLEM ] and the problem
was that: "he WANTS to be known as"
something that is false and not true.
> Your number is up, you've been called and found wanting.
Your emotional logic does not change what Ringo said.
He also stated ( as I also had posted ) that:
"John was the fringe"
( "People SAY that Paul was on the fringe of
this, that, and the other -- but the point is
John WAS the fringe, and say what you
will, it was his band."
-Ringo Starr )
and rejected the many overblown claims being made
about Paul.
Both of these quotes are what Ringo stated.
I think you are the one having the problem
with admission and with dishonesty.
dlarsson
> >But it's also not true that John did it all either..
>
> Of course, Derek omitted the next sentence while quoting Ringo.
> Usurper
That's due to the fact that it was an obvious point
that was not being challanged.
Ringo was not commenting on John's behavior
was or what John WANTED to be know as or
that John had a "problem".
Ringo was addressing the fact that Paul
has a problem with his "history"
because it is not true.
Gee -- I think THAT'S the more significant point
here.
Lets look at it one more time:
Q: Is that why Paul McCartney has done so much press
TRYING TO CHANGE THE PERCEPTION OF HIM
as the lightweight of the pair?
Ringo: Yeah, but that's Paul's PROBLEM.
He WANTS TO BE KNOWN AS
the arty one, the one who did it all
which I think is NOT TRUE.
Ringo: But it's also not true that John did it all either..
Again:
The significant part is that Ringo has described that
Paul's intent is to give a false portrayal and a false history.
That's exactly the point.
- Derek
================================
EMail: derek_...@comcast.net
================================
dlarsson
Lets look at it one more time:
Q: Is that why Paul McCartney has done so much press
TRYING TO CHANGE THE PERCEPTION OF HIM
as the lightweight of the pair?
Ringo: Yeah, but that's Paul's PROBLEM.
He WANTS TO BE KNOWN AS
the arty one, the one who did it all
which I think is NOT TRUE.
Ringo: But it's also not true that John did it all either..
Again:
The significant part is that Ringo has described that
Paul's intent is to give a false portrayal and a false history.
That's exactly the point.
- Derek
================================
EMail: derek_...@comcast.net
================================
UsurperTom
>There was a blacklist after Sept. 11 and throughout the run up to the
unnecessary attack on the non-al-Qaeda country of Iraq.
This is from the Charlotte Observer on September 20, 2001.
Clear Channel: banned playlist a hoax
Clear Channel -- the world's largest radio network and owner of seven South
Florida stations, including WZTA-FM (94.9) and WHYI-FM/Y-100 (100.7) -- is
denying that it has issued to its U.S. stations a list of 150 "lyrically
inappropriate" songs in response to last week's attacks.
The network issued the following statement Tuesday:
"Clear Channel Radio has not banned any songs from any of its radio stations.
Clear Channel believes that radio is a local medium. It is up to every radio
station program director and general manager to understand their market, listen
to their listeners and guide their station's music selections according to
local sensitivities."
"It's not true," says Tom Poleman, senior vice president of programming for
Clear Channel Communications in New York. "No one has told us what we can or
cannot play from a corporate level," In fact, he says, one of the songs on the
alleged list is Frank Sinatra's New York, New York, which Clear Channel station
Z-100 in New York City has actually been playing "almost nonstop."
Some of the songs on the list, which has circulated on the Internet and by
e-mail:
--Beatles -- A Day in the Life.
--The Clash -- Rock the Casbah.
--Phil Collins -- In the Air Tonight.
--Neil Diamond -- America.
--Doors -- The End.
--Drifters -- On Broadway.
--Bob Dylan -- Knockin' on Heaven's Door.
--The Gap Band -- You Dropped A Bomb on Me.
--Kansas -- Dust in the Wind.
--Led Zeppelin -- Stairway to Heaven.
--John Lennon -- Imagine.
--Don McLean -- American Pie.
--Steve Miller -- Jet Airliner.
--Rage Against the Machine -- All songs.
--R.E.M. -- It's the End of the World As We Know It.
RBigbonita
> Paul's intent is to give a false portrayal and a false history.
>
> That's exactly the point.
the problem here is that paul has never claimed to be the 'one' who was more
'artsy'. he only said that he was more involved in that scene than what people
made it out to be. he also never said that john wasn't artsy, but that when he
(paul) was getting into that stuff, john was still married and spending time at
home. but obviously, john got divorced and began to experiment more. ringo is
not clear as to what made him comment in that manner, because it sure the hell
wasn't a public comment from paul. maybe paul said things to him in private and
if that's true, then so be it. however, as i said, paul has never offered a
public statement where he takes *sole* credit for being the 'artsy' one. so
unless ringo is prepared to disclose that paul personally admitted to him that
he(paul) thought of himself as the one and only 'artsy' member of the group, he
has no real right to go on record stating what paul wants to be known as.
dlarsson
> The network issued the following statement Tuesday:
>
> "Clear Channel Radio has not banned any songs from any of its radio
stations.
> Clear Channel believes that radio is a local medium. It is up to every
radio
> station program director and general manager to understand their market,
listen
> to their listeners and guide their station's music selections according to
> local sensitivities."
Oh .. I guess that takes of care of Tom.
A rote, "cooperate denial" to make the bad publicity go away?
Notice: even if you look carefully at that statement, all it
does is declare that the Clear Channel company
radio station program director and the general manager
set the rules on music selection.
So this means that DJ's are not making up to the minute
decisions about music choices and DJ's and the music fans
themselves do not determine what gets played.
Two executives in an office "guide music selections".
I'm sure they'll be playing Edwin Star's
"War: What is it Good For ?" any minute now ...
NOT!!!
MikeSo
> Lets look at it one more time:
>
> Q: Is that why Paul McCartney has done so much press
> TRYING TO CHANGE THE PERCEPTION OF HIM
> as the lightweight of the pair?
>
> Ringo: Yeah, but that's Paul's PROBLEM.
> He WANTS TO BE KNOWN AS
> the arty one, the one who did it all
> which I think is NOT TRUE.
>
> Ringo: But it's also not true that John did it all either..
>
> Again:
>
> The significant part is that Ringo has described that
> Paul's intent is to give a false portrayal and a false history.
>
> That's exactly the point.
Are you talking to someone or are you just ranting?
Try quoting someone sometime.
Mister Charlie
"RBigbonita" <rbigb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040320215909...@mb-m17.aol.com...
And of course it was John from an early time who claimed to be a
'genius'. Whether he was one or not doesn't matter, Paul was not saying
things like that.
Mister Charlie
>
>
> Oh .. I guess that takes of care of Tom.
> A rote, "cooperate denial" to make the bad publicity go away?
OK, watch my lips and I will try to speak slowly and clearly enough for
even you to grasp:
>
> Notice: even if you look carefully at that statement, all it
> does is declare that the Clear Channel company
> radio station program director and the general manager
> set the rules on music selection.
>
> So this means that DJ's are not making up to the minute
> decisions about music choices and DJ's and the music fans
> themselves do not determine what gets played.
And they have not for a very long time; fans-never...radio is not a
jukebox, and DJ's? not for decades. The PD/MD is responsible
(*especially* in a corporate situation) for what gets played. And has
been most of your life. So you have no point.
>
> Two executives in an office "guide music selections".
> I'm sure they'll be playing Edwin Star's
> "War: What is it Good For ?" any minute now ...
>
>
> NOT!!!
>
>
And here is your constant problem. Posing supposition as it were fact
("I'm sure they'll be playing...").
Mister Charlie
>
> > > > Ringo: Yeah, but that's Paul's problem. He wants to be known
as the
> > > > arty one, the one who did it all -- which I think is not
true. But
> it's
> > > > also not true that John did it all either..
>
>
> > > The significant part is that Ringo has described that
> > > Paul's intent is to give a false portrayal and a false history.
> > >
> > > That's exactly the point.
>
> > No, the point is you are a totally dishonest discusser, you always
have
> > been, and you cannot even admit when you
>
>
>
> I'm sorry that you cannot read.
>
> Did Ringo say that Paul WANTS to be known
> as the one who did it all? Yes or No?
>
> The answer is clearly YES:
>
> "Yeah, but that's Paul's problem. He wants to be known as the
> arty one, the one who did it all -- which I think is not true."
>
> That was the point here -- and it was 100% accurate.
It can't be accurate. He said "I think", therefore he has no 100%
reasonable assurance that his statement is true. And if HE doesn't
know, YOU are going to claim to know better? LOL! I think not!
>
>
> > > Nobody ever said John did it all so that addition is
> > > both an obvious point and irrelevant.
Only to you. Those who actually have discerning thoughts can read
perfectly fine without your helpful misinterpretations.
You're an intellectual liar. A fraud.
>
> > No, it is not. It modifies what he says about Paul. Nice try.
>
> Nonsense. It modified absolutely nothing.
Yes, it does. But then, why would reality intrude upon your fevered
little universe?
> Ringo was adding simply a already known fact
> that John did not "do it all" ( we knew this ).
Don't play at being stupider that you are. Ringo CLEARLY was adding
this comment to modify his mild criticism of Paul, and yes, it was true
John didn't do it all, but that does NOT make what he said irrelevant.
Again, nice try. You may as well quit while you're so far behind.
> This does not constitute a -retraction-
> of any remark he had made about Paul's intent.
I said -modification-, sorry about your reading problem. And yes, it
is a modifier and it is entirely tied to his prior sentence about Paul,
otherwise WHY would he say it? Why would he throw a totally unrelated
comment about John, something everyone already knows, for NO reason???
>
> Ringo's sentence above this - stated that Paul
> had a "problem" [ PROBLEM ] and the problem
> was that: "he WANTS to be known as"
> something that is false and not true.
and John did not do it ALL either. You forgot to continue capitalizing.
You really *are* an asshole, y'know? You have the balls to bluster your
way thru more of your bullshit after trying to pass off being warned by
your ISP as an 'agreement'. I mean, really! What a fatuous ass you
are!
>
>
> > Your number is up, you've been called and found wanting.
>
> Your emotional logic does not change what Ringo said.
My emotions, no. My logic, yes. And anyone reading this can see it.
Unless you have a sock puppet in the wings ready to back you up.
>
> He also stated ( as I also had posted ) that:
>
> "John was the fringe"
>
> ( "People SAY that Paul was on the fringe of
> this, that, and the other -- but the point is
> John WAS the fringe, and say what you
> will, it was his band."
> -Ringo Starr )
>
>
> and rejected the many overblown claims being made
> about Paul.
Paul was on the fringe. John WAS the fringe. Paul was behind John on
the 'leap-off-the-cliff' sort of mentality it took to be the sort of
artist he was, but Paul was not far behind him. And he had the musical
chops. Of course, after 1969 it would be really hard to argue based on
his music and film out put. THAT much I can admit.
>
>
> Both of these quotes are what Ringo stated.
> I think you are the one having the problem
> with admission and with dishonesty.
suuuuure. It MUST be me.
J.
Well, John probably sensed he was different or special from an early age,
and he certainly was that.... If Paul said something like that (even if he
thought it) he'd be seen as even more arrogant than he's already assumed to
be. Anyway I agree. With all due respect to Ringo, I've seen no public
evidence of Paul wanting to be known as doing it all or the ONLY artsy one.
Perhaps Ringo was just irritated with the whole issue (as many of us were)
or this Rolling Stone interview (never a big supporter of Paul) was edited
in such a way as to obscure Ringo's comments. There's a scene in the First
US Visit dvd, where Paul's is reading a newspaper account of their initial
US press conference, and he says...'ummm.. who said that?? They never seem
to get it right do they??"
>
>
UsurperTom
>The PD/MD is responsible (*especially* in a corporate situation) for what gets
played. And has been most of your life.
I'm surprised someone as well-read as Derek was unaware of the fact that DJ's
never select the songs that they play. Music stations have been going by
playlists for decades.
Tom
dlarsson
> > I'm sorry that you cannot read.
> >
> > Did Ringo say that Paul WANTS to be known
> > as the one who did it all? Yes or No?
> >
> > The answer is clearly YES:
> >
> > "Yeah, but that's Paul's problem. He wants to be known as the
> > arty one, the one who did it all -- which I think is not true."
> >
> > That was the point here -- and it was 100% accurate.
> It can't be accurate. He said "I think", therefore he has no 100%
> reasonable assurance that his statement is true. And if HE doesn't
> know, YOU are going to claim to know better? LOL! I think not!
First of all - you never answered the ( simple) yes or no question.
The answer was yes
And you cannot admit that Ringo said what I posted
he had said - even though it is a documented quote
and a proven fact.
Secondly, "I think" is not in anyway ambiguous.
If Ringo says that he thinks Paul is misrepresenting things
than - it is clear he thinks Paul is wrong.
Ringo said: "which I think is not true".
So if Ringo Starr doesn't believe what Paul says
Why possible reason should anyone else -??
Ringo was there - and you were not!!
He knows Paul is NOT telling truth about the Beatles.
That was the key point!!!!!!!
> Paul was on the fringe. John WAS the fringe. Paul was behind John on
> the 'leap-off-the-cliff' sort of mentality it took to be the sort of
> artist he was, but Paul was not far behind him. And he had the musical
> chops. Of course, after 1969 it would be really hard to argue based on
> his music and film out put. THAT much I can admit.
Well, this is also an important acknowledgement
because Paul has been claiming that he was
"the avant garde" Beatle and that John was only
"very square in his mind" and didn't do
anything experimental "until he met Yoko" ( false ),
and, as Ringo stated, that he was the "arty one".
All of these are false ( as Ringo indicated )
This is not the true history of the band.
Those traits were John Lennon's whole imprint
on the Beatles and the 1960s.
So again, Paul McCartney remains on the
wrong side of the truth and on the wrong
side of his intentions about public commentary
about: the band/himself/Lennon.
Those were the key points made.
They're true, and as Ringo said,
Paul's stuff is the stuff that is: not true.
abe slaney
> abe slaney <abesl...@itagain.com> wrote in message news:<Upx6c.33812$Fh4...@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
>
>>MacBeatle wrote:
>>
>>Sean is a man any mom or dad can be proud of, and at 25, he's wise
>>beyond his years.
>>
>>28
>
>
> How time flies when your having fun getting corrected by such a nice guy!
Nothing personal - I do it at home too. Not one of my wife's favorite
characteristics. :)
Mister Charlie
>
> > > I'm sorry that you cannot read.
> > >
> > > Did Ringo say that Paul WANTS to be known
> > > as the one who did it all? Yes or No?
> > >
> > > The answer is clearly YES:
> > >
> > > "Yeah, but that's Paul's problem. He wants to be known as the
> > > arty one, the one who did it all -- which I think is not
true."
> > >
> > > That was the point here -- and it was 100% accurate.
>
>
> > It can't be accurate. He said "I think", therefore he has no 100%
> > reasonable assurance that his statement is true. And if HE doesn't
> > know, YOU are going to claim to know better? LOL! I think not!
>
>
> First of all - you never answered the ( simple) yes or no
question.
>
> The answer was yes
> And you cannot admit that Ringo said what I posted
> he had said - even though it is a documented quote
> and a proven fact.
There was no reason to answer it. It was absurd. And your creative
snipping and cut and paste style is one of great ommissions, so I
wouldn't be pointing any fingers, MR. Lars.
>
>
> Secondly, "I think" is not in anyway ambiguous.
>
> If Ringo says that he thinks Paul is misrepresenting things
> than - it is clear he thinks Paul is wrong.
>
> Ringo said: "which I think is not true".
> So if Ringo Starr doesn't believe what Paul says
> Why possible reason should anyone else -??
>
> Ringo was there - and you were not!!
Nor were you, so quit foaming.
> He knows Paul is NOT telling truth about the Beatles.
>
> That was the key point!!!!!!!
Yes, of course it was. Wrong, but it was YOUR key point.
>
>
> > Paul was on the fringe. John WAS the fringe. Paul was behind John
on
> > the 'leap-off-the-cliff' sort of mentality it took to be the sort of
> > artist he was, but Paul was not far behind him. And he had the
musical
> > chops. Of course, after 1969 it would be really hard to argue based
on
> > his music and film out put. THAT much I can admit.
>
> Well, this is also an important acknowledgement
> because Paul has been claiming that he was
> "the avant garde" Beatle and that John was only
> "very square in his mind" and didn't do
> anything experimental "until he met Yoko" ( false ),
> and, as Ringo stated, that he was the "arty one".
Where's the quotes for all these grand pronouncements? I gather Paul
was saying that John was more middle class than most people took him
for. Because he was. Paul knew John better than you, HE WAS THERE and
YOU were not!!! :)
>
> All of these are false ( as Ringo indicated )
> This is not the true history of the band.
> Those traits were John Lennon's whole imprint
> on the Beatles and the 1960s.
Again, you only know the public image. Paul knew the man and so your
entire point is null and void. You project FAR to much.
>
> So again, Paul McCartney remains on the
> wrong side of the truth and on the wrong
> side of his intentions about public commentary
> about: the band/himself/Lennon.
Uh...that would be YOU, derek, on the wrong side, but again don't let
reality kick you in the ass too much.
>
> Those were the key points made.
> They're true, and as Ringo said,
> Paul's stuff is the stuff that is: not true.
LOL
RBigbonita
> Why possible reason should anyone else -??
>
> Ringo was there - and you were not!!
> He knows Paul is NOT telling truth about the Beatles.
ringo said that paul wants to be known as the only one who was 'artsy'. infact,
he called that 'his problem'. paul has never publicly said that. if ringo was
claiming to have 'insider's information' or some bs like that, he should come
right out and say it. otherwise, he's just throwing a bone for people like
derek to chew on.