YOKO - Still Blamless
Martin Hofner
John to stick with the Beatles after she hooked up with him and she
would continue to pursue her *art*
Said it was *John's* idea to quit the Beatles and pursue art and music
with her.
Said further that *his* decision hurt both their careers.
POOP
Jimbace
"Martin Hofner" <yearo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1173279186....@n33g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
It -was- John's decision to leave the Beatles. Hurt her career? Poop.
>
fatt...@yahoo.com
Yoko claimed in an interview in approx. September 2005 that she was
surprised that John quit the Beatles. She makes it sound as if she had
no idea.
She has been putting out this spin in recent years. She wants to make
sure the world knows she did NOT break up the Beatles.
I don't know what to believe; if it were true, why wasn't this said
20+ years ago?
bessie
Because of assholes like you no doubt
Sean Carroll
> Said it was *John's* idea to quit the Beatles and pursue art and music
> with her.
Gee, you mean John wasn't lying when he said that ten billion times
during his life? Imagine that!
--
--Sean
http://spclsd223.livejournal.com/
'Oh, I stuck that primo! How rad am I?' --Dr Gregory House
Sean Carroll
> Yoko claimed in an interview in approx. September 2005 that she was
> surprised that John quit the Beatles. She makes it sound as if she had
> no idea.
> She has been putting out this spin in recent years. She wants to make
> sure the world knows she did NOT break up the Beatles.
> I don't know what to believe; if it were true, why wasn't this said
> 20+ years ago?
John was saying the moment it happened that it was his idea. His exact
words: 'I started the group, and I disbanded it. Simple as that.' He
*and* all the other Beatles have been on record thousands of times since
then, saying that what 'broke them up' was their evolution as individual
artists in four different directions, and Yoko was merely a popular
scapegoat.
It's not Yoko's fault your memory apparently only records the words of
people who insult her.
Jeff
I believe it to be the truth. It doesn't matter what woman ended up
with what Beatle. The Beatles eventually had to go their own seperate
directions..eventually...and none of the Beatles wives directly caused
their breakup. They did the best thing for themselves...to go solo,
and to do what they needed/wanted to do. Yoko just happened to come
along...like Linda. John wasn't as powerful as a solo artist though,
as he was with the Beatles...to stay on topic with this thread.
Jeff
It was said 20 plus years ago. You missed it.This is nothing new.
fatt...@yahoo.com
> 'Oh, I stuck that primo! How rad am I?' --Dr Gregory House
You missed my point. My point was that Yoko was SURPRISED. That
seems odd to me. Yoko influenced John in many ways; I find it a bit
hard to believe that she had no idea he was going to quit and this was
entirely John's idea and that he never discussed it with Yoko.
Further George and Ringo had quit before and returned. Paul and the
others waited weeks, indeed months, and John never returned.
BlackMonk
"Jimbace" <smoker...@myway.com> wrote in message
news:vRAHh.17599$Sh.1...@newsfe15.phx...
Do you really trust these people to accurately relate what Yoko said?
BlackMonk
<fatt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1173307598.0...@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
If Yoko was surprised, she was surprised when John told her. Why do you
assume that had to be when the rest of the world found out?
> Further George and Ringo had quit before and returned. Paul and the
> others waited weeks, indeed months, and John never returned.
Tell Paul that. He probably still thinks that he's the one that quit the
band.
And if the others had really wanted to continue as The Beatles, or even as a
group with a different name, they would have.
UsurperTom
> Tell Paul that. He probably still thinks that he's the one that quit the band.
You obviously haven't read the Anthology book and saw Wingspan. Paul
has said in every interview where the topic came up that the decision
to end the band was made by John. I find it hard to believe someone
as well-read as you doesn't know this.
fatt...@yahoo.com
Furthermore, IIRC in Peter Brown's wonderful book, and elsewhere
(sorry I forget all the sources) when John declared, "I quit," Paul
was upset, but was hoping that this incident would "blow over."
However day after day and week after week passed with every indication
that John meant what he said. IMO John was influenced by Yoko. That
doesn't mean he would do anything she said, but she was a big
influence. Was she telling John, "You made a mistake; return to the
Beatles."? I doubt it. I believe she was probably adding fuel to the
fire. After all, now she had this rich man who could devote himself
to her career.
dlarsson
> Yoko claimed in an interview in approx. September 2005 that she was
> surprised that John quit the Beatles. She makes it sound as if she had
> no idea.
>
> She has been putting out this spin in recent years. She wants to make
> sure the world knows she did NOT break up the Beatles.
It is not spin.
John Lennon -himself- always, always said that she had nothing
directly to do with the Beatles splitting. He said this in Interviews
during 1971, and also on the David frost show and the Dick Cavett show
and in every interview including his last one in 1980.
And it is the truth.
John made the decision to quit because he felt that the Beatles
were too caught up in serving purely commerical or corporate aims:
[ they had blocked his attempt to release "Revolution" as an
official (A-side) single fearing that it would be "too controversial" ],
and because of the legal wrangling, mistrust, and complications that
arose from McCartney defying the other three and insisting on separate
management representation using his in-laws (the Eastmans). He was
tired of Paul's self-serving attitude in trying to usurp control of the
group
away from him and he thought that the "Let It Be" film was just a phony
contrivance which he resented and felt that the Beatles, as a band, just
weren't really going anywhere anymore.
Once he had recorded "Give Peace A Chance" as a solo artist
(1969) and scored a hit with it that gave John the confidence to make the
break.
Had the Beatles been more supportive with his 'movement songs' like
"Revolution", Lennon might have recorded "Give Peace A Chance" as
a Beatles single - but by then he felt it would have never been allowed
to go out as a single with The Beatles. He then made the announcement
to quit after first doing a live concert at the Toronto Peace Festival
with
Eric Clapton, Klaus Voorman, and Jim Keltner as his band. He was
ready for something new.
Yoko had nothing to do with these developments and these conflicts.
John also had always been interested in Art and had various 'Art' friends
all his life. Art genuis Stu Sutcliff had been his closest and most
intense
friendship. 'The Beatles' was his greatest accomplishment but he never
looked at the band as though it was his whole purpose and identity in life
or as his life raft the way that Paul McCartney does.
- Derek
fishandchips
> > Yoko claimed in an interview in approx. September 2005 that she was
> > surprised that John quit the Beatles. She makes it sound as if she had
> > no idea.
>
> > She has been putting out this spin in recent years. She wants to make
> > sure the world knows she did NOT break up the Beatles.
>
> It is not spin.
>
> John Lennon -himself- always, always said that she had nothing
> directly to do with the Beatles splitting. He said this in Interviews
> during 1971, and also on the David frost show and the Dick Cavett show
> and in every interview including his last one in 1980.
>
> And it is the truth.
> John made the decision to quit because he felt that the Beatles
> were too caught up in serving purely commerical or corporate aims:
now his wife is
fatt...@yahoo.com
Nice to see you Derek! You were gone a while.
You raise some good points . . . . however my point was that Yoko was
SURPRISED by John's decision. I find this claim odd. Don't you think
Yoko knew John wanted to quit or was at least unhappy as a Beatle?
fatt...@yahoo.com
> On Mar 9, 12:20?am, "dlarsson" <derek_lars...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Yoko claimed in an interview in approx. September 2005 that she was
> > > surprised that John quit the Beatles. She makes it sound as if she had
> > > no idea.
>
> > > She has been putting out this spin in recent years. She wants to make
> > > sure the world knows she did NOT break up the Beatles.
>
> > It is not spin.
>
> > John Lennon -himself- always, always said that she had nothing
> > directly to do with the Beatles splitting. He said this in Interviews
> > during 1971, and also on the David frost show and the Dick Cavett show
> > and in every interview including his last one in 1980.
>
> > And it is the truth.
> > John made the decision to quit because he felt that the Beatles
> > were too caught up in serving purely commerical or corporate aims:
SNIP
>
> now his wife is
Good point. Ironic, isn't it? I wonder how John would feel about Yoko
using his name, music or imagine to promote Cup O Noodles, condoms,
dolls, etc.
fishandchips
>
> - Show quoted text -
sick
Jimbace
"fishandchips" <Chippa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1173447969.2...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
sick
No one knows wtf John would think about anything. And for anyone to assume
they do betrays a vast amount of arrogance and ignorance.
Slip Kid
> sick
But consistent.
> No one knows wtf John would think about anything.
Not wholly true.
I saw a guy on Larry King and he can communicate with people who have
been gone longer than JL.
But he only dealt with serious stuff. (Like where grandpa hid the keys
to the '36 Packard.)
Anyone should know "feelings" are impossible to 'read'...even with the
living.
> And for anyone to assume
> they do betrays a vast amount of arrogance and ignorance.
I think finding someone's car keys is neat!
If they're convincing, they can get rich.
See, you prolly got wealthy on yer talent & I gotta be aware of ways to
scam people.
Everyone deserves a cushy life and you shouldn't deny them success
because they lack merit.
Michael
Jimbace
"Slip Kid" <"G-2"@att.net> wrote in message
news:_4fIh.48828$as2....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
OK, I'll try it.
Fatt, I lost a sock, a purple argyle from the 50's (used to be my dad's). I
really miss it and so I wonder if you can tell me where it might be? (And
no, I am not asking you where I should -put- it! ) :)
Slip Kid
You had to think about it...?
> OK, I'll try it.
Cool.
What a champ.
> Fatt, I lost a sock, a purple argyle from the 50's (used to be my dad's).
Yer givin' too much away. Don't make it so easy.
> I
> really miss it and so I wonder if you can tell me where it might be?
Another unnecessary clue.
Be more vague:
"Is it still around?"
> (And
> no, I am not asking you where I should -put- it! ) :)
Yeah, like she's gonna find it...
(It took her two years to find my trap-door)
Michael
fatt...@yahoo.com
> "Slip Kid" <"G-2"@att.net> wrote in message
>
> news:_4fIh.48828$as2....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>
>
> > Jimbace wrote:
Now that is funny too!
Are you sure you want me to look for a PURPLE argyle sock?
Oookkaaaaaayyy
Let me concentrate . . . . . . . . . . .
TAR
I don't know about that. I remember hearing John say something about
Elvis, and how he hated all the commercialism after his death. John
indicated that he wouldn't want that to happen to him after his
passing. I don't know the exact quote, but it was something along these
lines.
- Donna
Jimbace
"TAR" <tom....@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:45F18C...@ix.netcom.com...
it now? What would he have said now? Do you think and feel the same way
about everything as you did a quarter century ago?
The point is no one knows what the John of today would know, think or say.
No one, not even Yoko.
TAR
That's all true... we don't know what he would be thinking today. But
let's just pretend for a minute that he told Yoko to do whatever she
could to prevent something like this from happening if she should
outlive him. In that case, do you think it would be okay to not honor
his wishes now because there's a possibility that he could have changed
his mind over time?
Jimbace
Why? Pretend?
In that case, do you think it would be okay to not honor
> his wishes now because there's a possibility that he could have changed
> his mind over time?
There's no point to even answer this, it's purely hypothetical.
TAR
I wanted your opinion on this, that's why. If you said that in this
case his request should be honored, I'd wonder why you felt this way.
If it were a dying wish, would it carry even more weight?
IMO, if I was Yoko and heard John say that he disliked this type of
thing, I would keep his feelings in mind... and continue to do so...
whether I felt that he might have eventually changed his mind or not.
An Innocent Doorman
> I don't know about that. I remember hearing John say something about
> Elvis, and how he hated all the commercialism after his death. John
> indicated that he wouldn't want that to happen to him after his
> passing. I don't know the exact quote, but it was something along these
> lines.
>
> - Donna
Even if Yoko had not authorized any John Lennon products, there would
have been hundreds of unauthorized products instead. I'd like to think
that some of the profits from authorized John Lennon products go to
charity (or at least to Sean someday) :-). If there was only
unauthorized products available, only pirates would prosper. And after
all, it's the people who like John Lennon who want to buy those products
and who create the market. (Unless iBen buys John Lennon figurines for
target shooting practices.)
Jimbace
IF.
What do you think my opinion would be of it?? If he told her one thing and
she did another than I would find it wrong.
But that's NOT what my point was, I'm discussing real-life, not pretend.
fatt...@yahoo.com
> Jimbace wrote:
>
> > "fishandchips" <Chippandf...@aol.com> wrote in message
It just seems to me that if John thought Lennon condoms, a Lennon
doll, etc. were good ideas, he could have done that when he was
alive. Of course there were all sorts of Beatle things like dolls,
wigs, lunchboxes, etc, but that was in the early days. I was under
the impression that the John Lennon of 1968 until 1980 was not into
such crass commercialism.
fatt...@yahoo.com
> "TAR" <tom.r...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>
> news:45F18C...@ix.netcom.com...
>
>
>
> > Jimbace wrote:
>
> >> "fishandchips" <Chippandf...@aol.com> wrote in message
I disagree that the logical issue is "what the John of today would
think." He's not around today. He died more than 25 years ago. I
would think that Yoko and others who knew him knew what his wishes
would be on the issue. I guess if John told Yoko he wants to be
remembered on condoms and diaper pails, that is between them; however
based on the "public John" and on his statements I don't think that is
what he wanted.
fatt...@yahoo.com
> >news:45F198...@ix.netcom.com...
> > > Jimbace wrote:
>
> > >> "TAR" <tom.r...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > >>news:45F18C...@ix.netcom.com...
> > >> > Jimbace wrote:
>
> > >> >> "fishandchips" <Chippandf...@aol.com> wrote in message
You sound like a devoted spouse. :-)
An Innocent Doorman
> It just seems to me that if John thought Lennon condoms, a Lennon
> doll, etc. were good ideas, he could have done that when he was
> alive. Of course there were all sorts of Beatle things like dolls,
> wigs, lunchboxes, etc, but that was in the early days. I was under
> the impression that the John Lennon of 1968 until 1980 was not into
> such crass commercialism.
Nothing to do with you Fattuchus...but
Is someone actually able to come up with a list of John Lennon products
that Yoko has authorized? If so, can someone point out which of those
products are acceptable and which are not? I mean, what are we (or you)
talking about?
I've heard about a John Lennon figurine (correct ?) and I don't quite
agree with that but I can understand Yoko's motive behind it. I've heard
that there are some Lennon themed furnishing items and some products
related to infants.
I'd like to see a concrete example of a product that violated the
beliefs than John Lennon had. A product that existed before he died.
There's so many things we have to cope with that didn't even exist in
1980. Some people seem to believe that Lennon was a wizard that knew
everything beforehand. The older he had grown the more lost he had been.
Magic Alex - do I have to say more.
Slip Kid
> fatt...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> It just seems to me that if John thought Lennon condoms, a Lennon
>> doll, etc. were good ideas, he could have done that when he was
>> alive. Of course there were all sorts of Beatle things like dolls,
>> wigs, lunchboxes, etc, but that was in the early days. I was under
>> the impression that the John Lennon of 1968 until 1980 was not into
>> such crass commercialism.
>
> Nothing to do with you Fattuchus...but
>
> Is someone actually able to come up with a list of John Lennon products
> that Yoko has authorized? If so, can someone point out which of those
> products are acceptable and which are not? I mean, what are we (or you)
> talking about?
>
> I've heard about a John Lennon figurine (correct ?) and I don't quite
> agree with that but I can understand Yoko's motive behind it. I've heard
> that there are some Lennon themed furnishing items and some products
> related to infants.
>
> I'd like to see a concrete example of a product that violated the
> beliefs than John Lennon had. A product that existed before he died.
>
> There's so many things we have to cope with that didn't even exist in
> 1980.
Consider:
It is not 1980 and you indicted you know the calendar reads 2007.
It's one thing to assume another person may not be on the same page as
you...What if their head is not in the correct year?
> Some people seem to believe that Lennon was a wizard that knew
> everything beforehand. The older he had grown the more lost he had been.
> Magic Alex - do I have to say more.
Say no more, but I know it is 2007.
Undoing that which "Some people seem to believe..." might require more
than words.
I'm thinking chemicals, electricity, intense therapy or a combination of
all three might not do the trick...so I doubt we'll see many beliefs change.
Twenty-seven years is a long time and if a person doesn't grasp reality
after a quarter of a century, they are locked-in a strange fuckin' place.
Michael
fatt...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> fattuc...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > It just seems to me that if John thought Lennon condoms, a Lennon
> > doll, etc. were good ideas, he could have done that when he was
> > alive. Of course there were all sorts of Beatle things like dolls,
> > wigs, lunchboxes, etc, but that was in the early days. I was under
> > the impression that the John Lennon of 1968 until 1980 was not into
> > such crass commercialism.
>
> Nothing to do with you Fattuchus...but
>
> Is someone actually able to come up with a list of John Lennon products
> that Yoko has authorized? If so, can someone point out which of those
> products are acceptable and which are not? I mean, what are we (or you)
> talking about?
I don't have a "list." I'm just going by what I've seen and read.
>
> I've heard about a John Lennon figurine (correct ?) and I don't quite
> agree with that but I can understand Yoko's motive behind it. I've heard
> that there are some Lennon themed furnishing items and some products
> related to infants.
I've seen the Lennon "doll" in person.
The Lennon baby items were made by Carter. I don't know if it is
still available, but if one did an internet search for John Lennon and
Carter, the stuff would come up on different web sites. I"ve seen the
photos. I believe the line may have been called Real Love. There were
all sorts of baby things . . . . linens, wall paper, a baby mobile,
lamp, diaper pail, etc. Actually they looked nice and generally got
positive consumer reviews.
>
> I'd like to see a concrete example of a product that violated the
> beliefs than John Lennon had. A product that existed before he died.
>
> There's so many things we have to cope with that didn't even exist in
> 1980. Some people seem to believe that Lennon was a wizard that knew
> everything beforehand. The older he had grown the more lost he had been.
> Magic Alex - do I have to say more.
I'm not sure I understand your point.
fatt...@yahoo.com
wrote:
Here is a link to a site that has all sorts of Beatle related stuff
including the Real Love baby things.
http://www.buythebeatles.com/c42.html
An Innocent Doorman
I'm not going to say any ugly things because obviously you've never been
a mother. Me either, but I am a father anyway. I mean, God, those awful
things, they must be so soft and comfy:
http://www.buythebeatles.com/c42.html
What kind of a babies they are raising? I mean, is my cat safe anymore?
No one is forcing you to grow up a perfect Beatle John baby. It's ALL UP
TO YOU. HOW EVER SICK YOU ARE. STOP GROWING UP NO MORE BEATLE BABIES!!!
This is no spelling-bee, this is a cry for humanity.
Can you dig it? Or are you just an old fart just longing to be an
outcast? To be barfed, for eternity?
BlackMonk
<fatt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1173430412.7...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
Unless she somehow was born with that knowledge, she had to first learn it
at some point. Why couldn't she be surprised then? She doesn't say "I didn't
know John wanted to quit until I read a newspaper article about the breakup
and was surprised then."
BlackMonk
"Jimbace" <smoker...@myway.com> wrote in message
news:q7fIh.12736$g24....@newsfe12.phx...
>
> Fatt, I lost a sock, a purple argyle from the 50's (used to be my dad's).
> I really miss it and so I wonder if you can tell me where it might be?
Keep reading this group. You wouldn't be the first to have a sock turn up
here.
Jimbace
Sean Carroll
> I've seen the Lennon "doll" in person.
You ... *do* realise it's not actually a *person*, right?
--
--Sean
http://spclsd223.livejournal.com/
'Who da man? I da man. I always suspected.' --Dr Gregory House
fatt...@yahoo.com
What is your problem? Do you realize that much of the quote you cite
above was not said by me? All I did was provide a link and comment
that I thought the baby things were nice and had positive reviews were
consumers..
fatt...@yahoo.com
> fattuc...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > I've seen the Lennon "doll" in person.
>
> You ... *do* realise it's not actually a *person*, right?
>
> --
> 'Who da man? I da man. I always suspected.' --Dr Gregory House
Really!! I thought it was really him!!!
Salvador Astucia
> > Yoko claimed in an interview in approx. September 2005 that she was
> > surprised that John quit the Beatles. She makes it sound as if she had
> > no idea.
>
> > She has been putting out this spin in recent years. She wants to make
> > sure the world knows she did NOT break up the Beatles.
>
> It is not spin.
>
> John Lennon -himself- always, always said that she had nothing
> directly to do with the Beatles splitting. He said this in Interviews
> during 1971, and also on the David frost show and the Dick Cavett show
> and in every interview including his last one in 1980.
>
> And it is the truth.
> John made the decision to quit because he felt that the Beatles
> were too caught up in serving purely commerical or corporate aims:
> official (A-side) single fearing that it would be "too controversial" ],
> and because of the legal wrangling, mistrust, and complications that
> arose from McCartney defying the other three and insisting on separate
> management representation using his in-laws (the Eastmans). He was
> tired of Paul's self-serving attitude in trying to usurp control of the
> group
> away from him and he thought that the "Let It Be" film was just a phony
> contrivance which he resented and felt that the Beatles, as a band, just
> weren't really going anywhere anymore.
>
> Once he had recorded "Give Peace A Chance" as a solo artist
> (1969) and scored a hit with it that gave John the confidence to make the
> break.
> Had the Beatles been more supportive with his 'movement songs' like
> "Revolution", Lennon might have recorded "Give Peace A Chance" as
> a Beatles single - but by then he felt it would have never been allowed
> to go out as a single with The Beatles. He then made the announcement
> to quit after first doing a live concert at the Toronto Peace Festival
> with
> Eric Clapton, Klaus Voorman, and Jim Keltner as his band. He was
> ready for something new.
>
> Yoko had nothing to do with these developments and these conflicts.
>
> John also had always been interested in Art and had various 'Art' friends
> all his life. Art genuis Stu Sutcliff had been his closest and most
> intense
> friendship. 'The Beatles' was his greatest accomplishment but he never
> looked at the band as though it was his whole purpose and identity in life
> or as his life raft the way that Paul McCartney does.
>
> - Derek
Technically John never literally *quit* the band. It was Paul who
first publicly announced that he was leaving, and Paul later filed a
law suit to dissolve the band. Yoko and the other three Beatles were
obviously very surprised to learn about this. Plus Paul married into
the Eastman family, and his entertainment father-in-law, Lee Eastman,
was aggressively trying to take over the band. It was these kinds of
hidden agendas that had more to do with the collapse of the Beatles
than anything Yoko did.
Salvador
Jose Perdoorman
> Yoko and the other three Beatles were
> obviously very surprised to learn about this.
I think you misspelled "Patty".
Manfred Noland
haired pubic crop after lovingly performing oral sex on her for hours on
end ?
Sean Carroll
I'm thinking Al Capp probably wouldn't.
--
--Sean
Manfred Noland
)Manfred Noland wrote:
)And who wouldn't nestle their head to )rest on Yoko's downy soft raven
haired )pubic crop after lovingly performing oral )sex on her for hours
on end ?
I'm thinking Al Capp probably wouldn't.
--
--Sean
***********************************************
Ha ! If Al thought no-one would EVER find out he'd lay beneath Yoko who
would be clad only in thigh high leather boots and Al would willingly
open his expectant mouth as she bathed his face with her hot frothing
stream of liquid gold ! He'd try to catch every drop as the steaming
rivulets ran down his face and throat.Then he's sigh in ecstasy as she
lowered herself on his rigid extremity !
dlarsson
>
> - Show quoted text -
This is actually not true and even Paul McCartney
himself later admitted that John was the one who
indeed 'quit' the Beatles.
After Abbey Road had been completed in the fall
of 1969 (and also after the "Let It Be" material & film
were made though not yet released), John announced
that he was leaving. He had told Eric Clapton and
Allen Klein on the plane ride back from his Toronto
concert that he was ending the band. The words that
he used to the others was "The group's over. I want
a divorce, just like my divorce with Cynthia".
John described this in several of his Interviews and
also in his book "Skywriting By Word Of Mouth".
"Unlike George & RIngo when they pretended to leave
(for attention), they knew that this was serious and
it was real and that I meant it", wrote John.
John was persuaded by Allen Klein not to "say
anything publically" about the breakup because
The Beatles new royalty contract ($$) with EMI
was still being finalized. John obliged to not
rock the boat while their finances were settled.
Oddly, Paul also made a separate plea for him not
to say anything to the press.
As 1970 came in, the band cooperated on various
decisions about the final packaging of the "Let It Be"
release, but the 4 of them were never in the studio all
at the same time and they never recorded any new
material together as a band or had any plans to again.
The group was, in fact, disbanded as far as any new
material or new projects (not related to the already
behind schedule 1969 "Let It Be" debacle).
Lennon was already pursuing a solo career at
this time with "Give Peace A Chance" already
somewhat of a commerical success and "Instant Karma"
now also released and a top-5 hit. When McCartney
got ready to put out his first solo album, he had then
a written "fake question & answer" style press conference
inserted for distribution with the album. This release out
to the media announced, falsely, that Paul made the
decision to "leave the Beatles".
Lennon was furious at Paul for falsely misrepresenting
the situation and also mad at himself for allowing himself
to be talked out of saying anything. He called up journalist
Ray Coleman and said: "Paul hasn't left, I sacked him!"
A lot of the bitterness that Lennon (a guy who hated phoniness)
held toward McCartney was because of this incident. McCartney
later admitted, as reported in Ray Coleman's biography "Lennon",
and in an 1984 magazine interview, and also in the Beatles
(or Threetles) Anthology book that, in fact, John had been the
one to leave and that "it was a big act for us to just break up
like that".
McCartney tried to justified his lie (portraying himself
as the decision maker) to the media by saying
"well, someone had to say something sometime..."
That is true, but an honest statement from Paul was
possible. An honest statement would have been
to say that "John left and here's my new album".
Instead Paul duped the whole world into thinking he
was 'the leader' and the one who called the shots
and had disbanded "The Beatles".
But John had done that...
"I started the band and I ended it. It's that simple."
-John Lennon
A few minor details and Lennon's glibness aside,
-that- was the true history.
BlackMonk
John Lennon couldn't have ended the band by himself. If the others had
really wanted to remain Beatles, they would have either replaced him or
carried on as a trio.
dlarsson
>
> You raise some good points . . . . however my point was that Yoko was
> SURPRISED by John's decision. I find this claim odd. Don't you think
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yoko knew of John's frustration and weariness with The Beatles.
She also encouraged John to be independent by being supportive
of his non-Beatle artistic interests. John even said, that Yoko
would say to him that "you don't have to do this if you don't want
to"
But Lennon was resistent for a long, long time. He knew
back in 1966, that he didn't want to carry on being "A Beatle"
forever and, after Brian Epstein died (and before he got
heavily involved with Yoko), he almost had quit then.
But he carried on partly because of the music and
partly because it is always easier doing what you're
doing rather than to make a radical change.
I think 3 events pushed John to make the big break:
1. The blocking of his plan to release 'Revolution' as
an A-side single, made him feel neutered artistically.
Any band in the world would have been proud to have
that great guitar mayhem and political protest as
a 'single'. It only went out as a B-side (in spite of
this it was a top-10 or top-15 hit on the charts, had
it received the A-side treatment it would have been a #1.
In the old days, if John wanted a single out - it'd go out.
2. Because of 1, he recorded "Give Peace A Chance" as
a solo song instead of with The Beatles. This was John's
trial run at a solo career. He was shy about this, both
putting
the song out under an obscure alias: "Plastic Ono Band'
(rather than as "John Lennon") and also failing (either by
accident or choice) to claim 100% of the songwriting. It
was
like he was intentionally handicapping the record to see if
it
could succeed on it's own merits anyway without any "PR".
It did. This then gave John the extra confidence to say
to himself that he didn't need the others anymore.
3. McCartney insistence on having separate management
representation (Eastmans) apart from the others. This
complicated all the band's business issues and created
an atmosphere of mistrust and pettiness that led to
infighting.
For the first time, the Beatles stopped enjoying hanging out
together with other and for John wasn't 'fun' or
artistically
empowering anymore.
dlarsson
That's, of course, total nonsense.
Lennon wrote and sang 50% of the material and
his whole authority-distrusting, politcially-aware,
iconoclastic personality, humor, and intellectual edge
defined not only just the spirit and image of the
whole band, but of the 1960s decade itself.
"There will be no 'Beatles' as long as John Lennon remains
dead."
-George Harrison, Musician Magazine
That also was the case with Lennon having walked away.
BlackMonk
"dlarsson" <derek_...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1174088422....@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
That's because he didn't want to be a Beatle any more. If they wanted to
keep on being Beatles, they would have gone on.
John Lennon wasn't as important to The Beatles as, for example, Syd Barrett
to Pink Floyd and they carried on without him.
Revenge of Sith
> John Lennon wasn't as important to The Beatles as, for example, Syd Barrett to Pink Floyd and they carried on without him.
Pink Floyd was not the cultural phenomenon that the Beatles were.
They only released one album with Syd Barrett and none of the
individual members of Pink Floyd were as beloved by the public as the
four personalities of John, Paul, George and Ringo. Most people who
bought Pink Floyd's albums can't even name the members of the group.
Pink Floyd losing Syd was closer in significance to the Beatles losing
Stu Sutcliffe and Pete Best.
BlackMonk
"Revenge of Sith" <reveng...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1174103682.9...@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Are you familiar with Pink Floyd at all? Syd Barrett was the lead singer,
primary songwriter, and most prominant instrumental voice. He wrote all of
their singles and was the focal point of the group.
Comparing him to members of The Beatles who left the band before they
recorded and who didn't contribute significantly to the sound of The Beatles
is just foolish.
As for them "only releasing one album with Syd Barrett," that's not only
untrue (aside from the singles, he also played on several tracks on the
second album), but it ignores the fact that when Syd Barrett left, he'd been
on everything they'd released up to that point.
I'd also be interested in knowing how you came to your conclusion that most
people who bought Pink Floyd's albums can't even name the members of the
group. I don't know of any such surveys taken, but going by empirical
evidence, every Pink Floyd fan I've ever talked to knew the names of the
members.
Sean Carroll
> 1. The blocking of his plan to release 'Revolution' as
> an A-side single, made him feel neutered artistically.
> Any band in the world would have been proud to have
> that great guitar mayhem and political protest as
> a 'single'. It only went out as a B-side (in spite of
> this it was a top-10 or top-15 hit on the charts, had
> it received the A-side treatment it would have been a #1.
> In the old days, if John wanted a single out - it'd go out.
After some of the double singles they had (Day Tripper/We Can Work It
Out, Strawberry Fields Forever/Penny Lane, Hello Goodbye/I Am the
Walrus), the Beatles were generally of the opinion that the
A-side/B-side distinction was pretty meaningless. I always thought of
Hey Jude/Revolution as a double-A side, and it's my impression they did,
too.
As I recal, the issue that bugged John was not whether Revolution was an
A-side or a B-side, but the fact that the others refused to put out the
slow version that's on the White Album as the single, forcing him to
make it faster and more rock-'n'-roll. John said he was more concerned
about getting people to understand the statement in the lyrics than
making a hit record.
And as much as I generally agree with John on most things, I have to say
in this case the others were right. Everyone had no trouble
understanding the lyrics anyway, and the fast version was simply a much
better song. IMO, it wouldn't have become the iconic element of
pop-culture it is if they'd put out the White Album version as the single.
--
--Sean
http://spclsd223.livejournal.com/
'I love when you do both sides of the conversation. It's like white
noise, it's very peaceful.' --Dr Gregory House
Sean Carroll
> That's because he didn't want to be a Beatle any more. If they wanted to
> keep on being Beatles, they would have gone on.
> John Lennon wasn't as important to The Beatles as, for example, Syd Barrett
> to Pink Floyd and they carried on without him.
I guess I agree with you to some extent, but I don't think the Syd
Barrett example is applicable. He may have been crucial to the original
Pink Floyd, but he left after only two albums, long before they were
really famous. John had been a driving force for the Beatles through
more than a decade, and through the greatest firestorm of fame any group
had ever experienced. A Beatles without John would be much more like a
Rolling Stones without Mick Jagger, or a Mamas and Papas without Mama
Cass, or a Grateful Dead without Jerry Garcia, than a Floyd without Syd.
Revenge of Sith
> Are you familiar with Pink Floyd at all?
Fuck yeah, I'm a diehard fan of Pink Floyd. However, Floyd still
hadn't established their identity yet in 1968. They were still an up
and coming group.
> every Pink Floyd fan I've ever talked to knew the names of the members.
Pink Floyd released not one, but two of the biggest selling albums of
all time. The overwhelming majority of "fans" who buy records are
known as "casual" fans. Saying that you spoke to "Pink Floyd fans" is
not indicative of the general population. Millions of people who have
only a passing interest in Pink Floyd bought "Dark Side of the Moon"
and "The Wall" and both of those albums were long after Syd left the
group. The Pink Floyd that Syd Barrett left was nothing more than a
cult band while the Beatles were icons. The Beatles' place in history
was well established by the time John quit in 1969 and they were all
household names for over five years before that.
Revenge of Sith
> he left after only two albums, long before they were really famous.
And his contribution to the second album was miniscule as he was
drugged out.
Jeff
The Beatles would have never recorded "Give peace a chance." 8 words
to this repetative (sp?) song, if you want to call it a song. LOL
BlackMonk
> On Mar 16, 11:31?pm, "BlackMonk" <BlackM...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
>> Are you familiar with Pink Floyd at all?
>
> Fuck yeah, I'm a diehard fan of Pink Floyd. However, Floyd still
> hadn't established their identity yet in 1968. They were still an up
> and coming group.
>
You mean they hadn't established the identity they later had.
You're talking in hindsight, but in 1967, they had established a different
identity.
>> every Pink Floyd fan I've ever talked to knew the names of the members.
>
> Pink Floyd released not one, but two of the biggest selling albums of
> all time. The overwhelming majority of "fans" who buy records are
> known as "casual" fans. Saying that you spoke to "Pink Floyd fans" is
> not indicative of the general population. Millions of people who have
> only a passing interest in Pink Floyd bought "Dark Side of the Moon"
> and "The Wall" and both of those albums were long after Syd left the
> group.
Again, you're talking in hindsight.
How did you come up with your assertion that most people who bought their
records didn't know the names of the members?
> The Pink Floyd that Syd Barrett left was nothing more than a
> cult band while the Beatles were icons.
Actually, "See Emily Play" was a top ten UK hit, they'd toured with Hendrix
and appeared on Top of the Pops. They were more than a cult band.
And you've ignored the fact that Barrett was even more of a force behind
Pink Floyd's music than John Lennon was behind that of The Beatles.
BlackMonk
"Sean Carroll" <sean...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7HKKh.3039$nh4....@newsfe20.lga...
> BlackMonk wrote:
>
>> That's because he didn't want to be a Beatle any more. If they wanted to
>> keep on being Beatles, they would have gone on.
>
>> John Lennon wasn't as important to The Beatles as, for example, Syd
>> Barrett to Pink Floyd and they carried on without him.
>
> I guess I agree with you to some extent, but I don't think the Syd Barrett
> example is applicable. He may have been crucial to the original Pink
> Floyd, but he left after only two albums, long before they were really
> famous. John had been a driving force for the Beatles through more than a
> decade, and through the greatest firestorm of fame any group had ever
> experienced. A Beatles without John would be much more like a Rolling
> Stones without Mick Jagger, or a Mamas and Papas without Mama Cass, or a
Or a Beach Boys without Brian Wilson, and they carried on with minimal
contributions from him during most of the 70s.
Or a Small Faces without Steve Marriott. They replaced him and carried on
for another album before changing the name slightly. The rest of the group
stayed together, which didn't happen with The Beatles.
Or Aerosmith without Joe Perry.
Or Van Halen without David Lee Roth.
BlackMonk
"Jeff" <yourimag...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1174139402....@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> The Beatles would have never recorded "Give peace a chance." 8 words
> to this repetative (sp?) song, if you want to call it a song. LOL
>
There are verses, too, you know.
Sean Carroll
> The Beatles would have never recorded "Give peace a chance." 8 words
> to this repetative (sp?) song, if you want to call it a song. LOL
'Give Peace a Chance' had many more lyrics than 'Hello Goodbye'. And
they were much more meaningful.
Sean Carroll
> "Sean Carroll" <sean...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>I guess I agree with you to some extent, but I don't think the Syd Barrett
>>example is applicable. He may have been crucial to the original Pink
>>Floyd, but he left after only two albums, long before they were really
>>famous. John had been a driving force for the Beatles through more than a
>>decade, and through the greatest firestorm of fame any group had ever
>>experienced. A Beatles without John would be much more like a Rolling
>>Stones without Mick Jagger, or a Mamas and Papas without Mama Cass, or a
>>Grateful Dead without Jerry Garcia...
> Or a Beach Boys without Brian Wilson, and they carried on with minimal
> contributions from him during most of the 70s.
> Or a Small Faces without Steve Marriott. They replaced him and carried on
> for another album before changing the name slightly. The rest of the group
> stayed together, which didn't happen with The Beatles.
> Or Aerosmith without Joe Perry.
> Or Van Halen without David Lee Roth.
Some other examples I've thought of to support your case are The Doors
without Jim Morrison, and Black Sabbath without Ozzy. There *is* a Pink
Floyd relevance, but IMHO it was after *Roger Waters* left, not Syd,
that is much closer to what a Johnless Beatles would be like.
Sean Carroll
> Some other examples I've thought of to support your case are The Doors
> without Jim Morrison, and Black Sabbath without Ozzy. There *is* a Pink
> Floyd relevance, but IMHO it was after *Roger Waters* left, not Syd,
> that is much closer to what a Johnless Beatles would be like.
Another one: Big Brother and the Holding Company without Janis.
dlarsson
> After some of the double singles they had (Day Tripper/We Can Work It
> Out, Strawberry Fields Forever/Penny Lane, Hello Goodbye/I Am the
> Walrus), the Beatles were generally of the opinion that the
> A-side/B-side distinction was pretty meaningless.
This is not true.
John complained in his well known "Lennon Remembers"
interviews that he was (quote:) "sick and tired of taking B-
sides".
Even in 1980 during his famous "Playboy" interviews, John
brought up the complaint all over again, saying that he
wanted the record ("Revolution") to go out as an A-side
(quote:) "whether it was a gold record or a wooden record"
and he was still angry about it.
The distinction is very significant. An A-side single release
is treated as "the material" and whatever is on the reverse side
often gets no airplay whatsoever. In the case of The Beatles,
DJs would on their own initiative sometimes play the B-sides
since the band was so popular anyway, but all the record marketing,
the promotion, and the Radio format itself revolved around
"hit records" (A-sides). A-sides got played. B-sides few people
even knew about unless you actually bought the record.
For example, "Old Brown Shoe" (Harrison) was a B-side.
Can you recall what was the B-side to: "Lady Madonna"?
I can't. Whatever it was ("Inner Light"), it didn't get played
much.
> the others refused to put out the
> slow version that's on the White Album as the single, forcing him to
> make it faster and more rock-'n'-roll. John said he was more concerned
> about getting people to understand the statement in the lyrics than
> making a hit record.
That is true, (John originally lobbied for the slow version to
be put out) but once the fast version was made he wanted
that one out as well. "Please Please Me" had the same history
in that a slow version was made originally and, in that case,
George Martin said it sucked and didn't even want to record it
unless they sped it up. They did (and it became their 1st
number one song).
> and the fast version was simply a much
> better song. IMO, it wouldn't have become the iconic element of
> pop-culture it is if they'd put out the White Album version as the single.
I agree, Lennon's guitar playing made the "fast" version
memorable and "a classic". But I think the big thing here
is that "Revolution" was a message song during the turbulent
year of 1968. John wanted the Beatles "to say something about
the War" on the record. Fast or Slow, John was most concerned
about getting the message out and the artistic value of the song.
His desire for the "Beatles to say something about the War"
was not shared by the others (Paul & Ringo mostly)
This experience demoralized John. He felt as if pure
commerical
concerns were overwhelming what was really important.
My feeling on this is that if the band had supported John more
on getting Revolution out as an A-side, he then would have also
recorded "Give Peace A Chance" as a Beatles single and not
made the move to go solo (first solo single by anyone in the
band).
But once John did that, he then had little reason to remain
'trapped' in the Beatles where his music was subject to
"pop" friendly commercial objectives and artistic considerations
were taking a back seat.
dlarsson
> John Lennon wasn't as important to The Beatles as, for example, Syd Barrett
> to Pink Floyd and they carried on without him.
Funny, the Beatles themselves don't agree with you.
Better re-think that one......
________________________________
"There will be no 'Beatles' as long as John Lennon remains dead."
-George Harrison, Musician Magazine
"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
I started the band and I ended it. It's that simple."
-John Lennon
"People say you should do something with Julian, but
it wouldn't be the Beatles without John."
-Paul McCartney
Sean Carroll
>>After some of the double singles they had (Day Tripper/We Can Work It
>>Out, Strawberry Fields Forever/Penny Lane, Hello Goodbye/I Am the
>>Walrus), the Beatles were generally of the opinion that the
>>A-side/B-side distinction was pretty meaningless.
> This is not true.
> John complained in his well known "Lennon Remembers"
> interviews that he was (quote:) "sick and tired of taking B-
> sides".
> Even in 1980 during his famous "Playboy" interviews, John
> brought up the complaint all over again, saying that he
> wanted the record ("Revolution") to go out as an A-side
> (quote:) "whether it was a gold record or a wooden record"
> and he was still angry about it.
Rereading the part of the Anthology relevant to this, I see you're right.
I was thrown off by this comment that Ringo made in regard to SFF/PL:
'I don't think it was important to categorise the songs into A and B
sides any more. We just felt: "This is the record." The other attitude
was an old trap that people were put into when they made records.'
I erroneously assumed that all of them agreed with Ringo on that.
BlackMonk
>
>
>> John Lennon wasn't as important to The Beatles as, for example, Syd
>> Barrett
>> to Pink Floyd and they carried on without him.
>
> Funny, the Beatles themselves don't agree with you.
> Better re-think that one......
> __
Better look at the facts. Syd had more to do with what Pink Floyd sounded
like than John did with what The Beatles sounded like.
Better start listening to the music and thinking analytically rather than
cherry-picking quotes that say what you want to hear.
People say things for all sorts of reasons. It doesn't change facts about
who did what.
Revenge of Sith
> How did you come up with your assertion that most people who bought their records didn't know the names of the members?
I know MANY people who listen to classic rock radio and own Pink Floyd
records who can't name the members. Most fans can't even name all the
members of the Rolling Stones and the Stones are way more famous than
Pink Floyd. Pink Floyd did have hits on the pop charts in 1967, but
they weren't superstars like the Beatles.
fishandchips
> Sean Carroll wrote:
> > Some other examples I've thought of to support your case are The Doors
> > without Jim Morrison, and Black Sabbath without Ozzy. There *is* a Pink
> > Floyd relevance, but IMHO it was after *Roger Waters* left, not Syd,
> > that is much closer to what a Johnless Beatles would be like.
>
> Another one: Big Brother and the Holding Company without Janis.
>
> --
> 'I love when you do both sides of the conversation. It's like white
> noise, it's very peaceful.' --Dr Gregory House
Don't forget RMB without IBen or Astucia
BlackMonk
> On Mar 17, 9:27?am, "BlackMonk" <BlackM...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
>> How did you come up with your assertion that most people who bought their
>> records didn't know the names of the members?
>
> I know MANY people who listen to classic rock radio and own Pink Floyd
> records who can't name the members.
Ok, you have your anecdotes, I have mine. Anecdotes are meaningless as
support for a definitive statement.