Carole King's autobiography

[DianeE]

If you recall (probably not), some months ago I was asking if it was true
that Carole King and Gerry Goffin broke up because he had a baby with
Earl-Jean McCrae. I was advised that Carole King's autobiography would soon
be published, so I looked forward to reading it.

So now I found "A Natural Woman" by Carole King in the library and took it
out.

And the answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind. Earl-Jean is mentioned
in the book but strictly as a recording artist with a "sexy alto voice."

And oddly, her last name is spelled "McCree." Well, that's okay; Whitburn
spells it "McCrea." I can see why she went by her first name.

Carole King attributes her breakup with Gerry Goffin to his bipolar disorder
and drug use.

Marcus, you ought to read this book. I've only just skimmed it so far, but
I think you will like it, because she has a great deal of praise for The
Beatles and particularly for John Lennon as a human being.

She also talks a lot about what the 60s were like for her, and comments on
the way the "spirit of the 60s" is mocked and demeaned today versus the
seriousness of the protest movement back then. I found that part
interesting.

A celebrity autobio "is what it is," of course, but so far this one seems to
be well worth what I paid for it (:^)

(Actually I donate to the Queens Library Foundation, and you're welcome to
join me any time!)

DianeE

[The Bloomfield Bloviator]

On Sep 15, 11:04 am, "DianeE" <TiredOfS...@SorryFolks.com> wrote:
>
> Marcus, you ought to read this book.  I've only just skimmed it so far, but
> I think you will like it, because she has a great deal of praise for The
> Beatles and particularly for John Lennon as a human being.

On the contrary. He doesn't need anymore bullshit about how great
Lennon was. He needs to see more things like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6eV7ZsghCs

[DianeE]

"The Bloomfield Bloviator" <Sav...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:d6dfd35c-34af-4b1c...@e14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...

-------------
It's not bullshit, it's one person's opinion which happens to agree with
his. I think he'd like this book.

I think some parts of it might interest you too, like the descriptions of
West Orange in the early 60s.

DianeE

[The Bloomfield Buddy]

On Sep 15, 12:44 pm, "DianeE" <TiredOfS...@SorryFolks.com> wrote:
> "The Bloomfield Bloviator" <Savo...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:d6dfd35c-34af-4b1c...@e14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...

I've got Fileti for that, he graduated from WOHS in 1960.

[Jeff]

Posting this link is bullshit. We know Lennon wasn't
a good father. What we judge him by is the great
music that he wrote. You seem to want to focus
on the negative aspects of people, for whatever
reason. Whatever, but it won't change our minds
about why we love Lennon. If it weren't for his
music, we wouldn't know anything about his
personal life.

[The Bloomfield Buddy]

On Sep 15, 1:21 pm, Jeff <quickservice...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Posting this link is bullshit. We know Lennon wasn't
> a good father. What we judge him by is the great
> music that he wrote.

That he "wrote?"

So in other words, guys who did not write music, like Elvis, Sinatra,
Jerry Lee Lewis and others, are not great?

[The Bloomfield Buddy]

On the contrary. Some people here, like marcus and tim, want to tell
us about what a great "person" Lennon was, rather than just talk about
the music.

[Jeff]

On Sep 15, 12:23 pm, The Bloomfield Buddy <Savo...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Sep 15, 1:21 pm, Jeff <quickservice...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Posting this link is bullshit. We know Lennon wasn't
> > a good father. What we judge him by is the great
> > music that he wrote.
>
> That he "wrote?"

Yes, that's what I said. Do you expect everyone to
always do your homework for you? Just pay
attention to what people say.

[Jeff]

He was a great person, but all you want to focus on
is black male artists from the past, cause you're
stuck there. You would probably accuse me of
being just stuck with the Beatles, and I could
name quite a number of bands I liked after they
broke up. Even if you got past all this, you're
still stuck with that same sound in the year
2012.

[The Bloomfield Buddy]

So, what's your answer to my follow up?

So in other words, guys who did not write music, like Elvis, Sinatra,
Jerry Lee Lewis and others, are not great?

According to you, we only attach greatness to songwriters?

[Jeff]

You're the one trying to change the subject. We weren't even
discussing Elvis, Sinatra, and Jerry Lee Lewis. You try and
score points and add additional subjects to posts, to come
off as superior, when you feel you are losing the debate.

[The Bloomfield Buddy]

On Sep 15, 1:44 pm, Jeff <quickservice...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 15, 12:24 pm, The Bloomfield Buddy <Savo...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 15, 1:21 pm, Jeff <quickservice...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 15, 11:03 am, The Bloomfield Bloviator <Savo...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 15, 11:04 am, "DianeE" <TiredOfS...@SorryFolks.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Marcus, you ought to read this book.  I've only just skimmed it so far, but
> > > > > I think you will like it, because she has a great deal of praise for The
> > > > > Beatles and particularly for John Lennon as a human being.
>
> > > > On the contrary. He doesn't need anymore bullshit about how great
> > > > Lennon was. He needs to see more things like this:
>
> > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6eV7ZsghCs
>
> > > Posting this link is bullshit. We know Lennon wasn't
> > > a good father. What we judge him by is the great
> > > music that he wrote. You seem to want to focus
> > > on the negative aspects of people, for whatever
> > > reason. Whatever, but it won't change our minds
> > > about why we love Lennon. If it weren't for his
> > > music, we wouldn't know anything about his
> > > personal life.
>
> > On the contrary. Some people here, like marcus and tim, want to tell
> > us about what a great "person" Lennon was, rather than just talk about
> > the music.
>
> He was a great person,

No he wasn't. He was a piece of shit, as a husband, and as a father,
and in general towards many people.

[The Bloomfield Buddy]

YOU SAID "We judge him by the great music he wrote."

I say, we judge him by ALL the music he did, whether he wrote it or
not. Who wrote the songs is of secondary importance AT BEST.

[DianeE]

"The Bloomfield Buddy" <Sav...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:07cc9bd9-19bc-41f0...@u19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...

---------------
Lennon was, in fact, a great songwriter. That's where his greatness lay.
If he'd just been a singer he'd get no more respect than Ricky Nelson.

DianeE

[The Bloomfield Buddy]

On Sep 15, 3:50 pm, "DianeE" <TiredOfS...@SorryFolks.com> wrote:
> "The Bloomfield Buddy" <Savo...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:07cc9bd9-19bc-41f0...@u19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...

I think you're 100% wrong here.

On Rolling Stone's list of the "100 Greatest Singers" Lennon is ranked
at #5. Ricky Nelson is not on the list at all. And this is just for
"singing." It has nothing to do with playing guitar or writing songs.
Other non songwriters were also high on the list.



100 Mary J. Blige
99 Steven Tyler
98 Stevie Nicks
97 Joe Cocker
96 B.B. King
95 Patti LaBelle
94 Karen Carpenter
93 Annie Lennox
92 Morrissey
91 Levon Helm
90 The Everly Brothers
89 Solomon Burke
88 Willie Nelson
87 Don Henley
86 Art Garfunkel
85 Sam Moore
84 Darlene Love
83 Patti Smith
82 Tom Waits
81 John Lee Hooker
80 Frankie Valli
79 Mariah Carey
78 Sly Stone
77 Merle Haggard
76 Steve Perry
75 Iggy Pop
74 James Taylor
73 Dolly Parton
72 John Fogerty
71 Toots Hibbert
70 Gregg Allman
69 Ronnie Spector
68 Wilson Pickett
67 Jerry Lee Lewis
66 Thom Yorke
65 David Ruffin
64 Axl Rose
63 Dion
62 Lou Reed
61 Roger Daltrey
60 Björk
59 Rod Stewart
58 Christina Aguilera
57 Eric Bourdon
56 Mavis Staples
55 Paul Rodgers
54 Luther Vandross
53 Muddy Waters
52 Brian Wilson
51 Gladys Knight
50 Bonnie Raitt
49 Donny Hathaway
48 Buddy Holly
47 Jim Morrison
46 Patsy Cline
45 Kurt Cobain
44 Bobby “Blue” Bland
43 George Jones
42 Joni Mitchell
41 Chuck Berry
40 Curtis Mayfield
39 Jeff Buckley
38 Elton John
37 Neil Young
36 Bruce Springsteen
35 Dusty Sprinfield
34 Whitney Houston
33 Steve Winwood
32 Bono
31 Howlin’ Wolf
30 Prince
29 Nina Simone
28 Janis Joplin
27 Hank Williams
26 Jackie Wilson
25 Michael Jackson
24 Van Morrison
23 David Bowie
22 Etta James
21 Johnny Cash
20 Smokey Robinson
19 Bob Marley
18 Freddie Mercury
17 Tina Turner
16 Mick Jagger
15 Robert Plant
14 Al Green
13 Roy Orbison
12 Little Richard
11 Paul McCartney
10 James Brown
09 Stevie Wonder
08 Otis Redding
07 Bob Dylan
06 Marvin Gaye
05 John Lennon
04 Sam Cooke
03 Elvis Presley
02 Ray Charles
01 Aretha Franklin

[Eric Ramon]

On Sep 15, 1:02 pm, The Bloomfield Buddy <Savo...@aol.com> wrote:

> 12 Little Richard
> 11 Paul McCartney
> 10 James Brown
> 09 Stevie Wonder
> 08 Otis Redding
> 07 Bob Dylan
> 06 Marvin Gaye
> 05 John Lennon
> 04 Sam Cooke
> 03 Elvis Presley
> 02 Ray Charles
> 01 Aretha Franklin

it's Rolling Stone so it has the usual RS bias. Somehow Bob Dylan 5
spots ahead of Little Richard doesn't seem quite right, which is my
way of saying it's fairly ridiculous. Tom Waits ahead of Darlene Love
is laughable.

[Mark Dintenfass]

In article
<d74cf266-f18e-4762...@a11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,

No Clyde McPhatter, no Jackie Wilson. Some list.

--
--md
_________
Remove xx's from address to reply

[marcus60s]

On Sep 15, 11:04 am, "DianeE" <TiredOfS...@SorryFolks.com> wrote:

OK, maybe I will read it one of these days. I am also very concerned
about the mocking of the spirit of the 60s. There were a lot of
forces that have brainwashed those who were born afterwards(and
sometimes those who were alive at the time) into thinking dismissive
thoughts about those times.

The same forces that have coalesced to take over the Republican party,
whose front runner is a child of the Sixties by accident of birth
only...certainly it did not shape his beliefs today.

[The Bloomfield Buddy]

I did not say I agreed with their rankings. I'm only showing it to
prove that Lennon gets loads of respect aside from his songwriting.

[marcus60s]

On the contrary to you, I am more than willing to admit that John
Lennon had flaws, after all he was a human being just like you and me,
but you are unwilling to admit that there were good aspects to John
Lennon and his personality other than his musical abilities. You
actually do, in reverse, what you accuse me of.

C'mon...name three good qualities about John Lennon. I'll bet you
can't, and it won't be because there are none, but rather your
dogmatic prejudice against him.

[BobbyM]

On 9/16/2012 2:44 AM, Jeff wrote:

>You would probably accuse me of
> being just stuck with the Beatles, and I could
> name quite a number of bands I liked after they
> broke up.

If you didn't like any other groups until after the Beatles broke up,
you don't belong in either the 50's or 60's groups. Either go back to
the Beatles group or go to the 70's group, or just go.

[The Bloomfield Buddy]

Here's the bad qualities that I can think of right now.

Rotten husband
Rotten father
Drug abuser
Alcohol abuser
Rude
Conceited
Adulterer
Disloyal
Petty
Smoked cigarettes
Irresponsible
Dirty
Crude
Vulgar


If I think of any more, or if I can can up with any good qualities,
I'll stop back here and post them.

[DianeE]

"The Bloomfield Buddy" <Sav...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:d74cf266-f18e-4762...@a11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...

On Rolling Stone's list of the "100 Greatest Singers" Lennon is ranked
at #5. Ricky Nelson is not on the list at all.

-------------
Exactly my point. No respect.

DianeE

[DianeE]

"The Bloomfield Buddy" <Sav...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:166c0e64-8d39-400b...@a11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...

----------------
Since when are crude and vulgar bad qualities to you?

DianeE

[The Bloomfield Buddy]

On Sep 15, 5:04 pm, "DianeE" <TiredOfS...@SorryFolks.com> wrote:
> "The Bloomfield Buddy" <Savo...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:d74cf266-f18e-4762...@a11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...

> On Rolling Stone's list of the "100 Greatest Singers" Lennon is ranked
> at #5. Ricky Nelson is not on the list at all.
> -------------
> Exactly my point.  No respect.

No respect for Nelson.

Plenty of respect for Lennon as a singer, along with other singers who
did not wrote songs, like Elvis, Tina Tuner and Etta James.

[The Bloomfield Buddy]

On Sep 15, 4:21 pm, Mark Dintenfass <mdintenf...@xxnew.rr.com> wrote:
> In article
> <d74cf266-f18e-4762-9fc9-e1b1dcb13...@a11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,

26 Jackie Wilson

No McPhatter.

[Mark Dintenfass]

In article <WLKdnYpZ-MNGcMnN...@giganews.com>, DianeE

Or rude, conceited, and petty--so long as you raised the subject. :-)

[Bob Roman]

On Sep 15, 5:04 pm, "DianeE" <TiredOfS...@SorryFolks.com> wrote:
> "The Bloomfield Buddy" <Savo...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:d74cf266-f18e-4762...@a11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...

> On Rolling Stone's list of the "100 Greatest Singers" Lennon is ranked
> at #5. Ricky Nelson is not on the list at all.
> -------------
> Exactly my point.  No respect.

If what you are saying is that critics' respect for Lennon's
songwriting influences them to overrate his singing, I agree.

--
BR

[Bob Roman]

On Sep 15, 5:20 pm, Mark Dintenfass <mdintenf...@xxnew.rr.com> wrote:
> In article <WLKdnYpZ-MNGcMnNnZ2dnUVZ_vGdn...@giganews.com>, DianeE
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <TiredOfS...@SorryFolks.com> wrote:
> > "The Bloomfield Buddy" <Savo...@aol.com> wrote in message

> >news:166c0e64-8d39-400b...@a11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> > On Sep 15, 4:29 pm, marcus60s <marcus...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > C'mon...name three good qualities about John Lennon. I'll bet you
> > > can't, and it won't be because there are none, but rather your
> > > dogmatic prejudice against him.
>
> > Here's the bad qualities that I can think of right now.
>
> > Rotten husband
> > Rotten father
> > Drug abuser
> > Alcohol abuser
> > Rude
> > Conceited
> > Adulterer
> > Disloyal
> > Petty
> > Smoked cigarettes
> > Irresponsible
> > Dirty
> > Crude
> > Vulgar
> > ----------------
> > Since when are crude and vulgar bad qualities to you?
>
> Or rude, conceited, and petty--so long as you raised the subject. :-)

In fairness to Bruce, he said nothing against hypocrisy.

--
BR

[Bob Roman]

On Sep 15, 11:04 am, "DianeE" <TiredOfS...@SorryFolks.com> wrote:

> And the answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind.  Earl-Jean is mentioned
> in the book but strictly as a recording artist with a "sexy alto voice."

Is the child, Dawn Reavis, mentioned in the book?

--
BR

[Jeff]

That's your opinion, I have mine.

[Jeff]

Bye.

[Jeff]

I would say a good majority of these things apply to you.
That's why it bothers you so much.

[The Bloomfield Buddy]

Well, for sure none of these apply to me:

> > Rotten husband
> > Rotten father
> > Drug abuser
> > Alcohol abuser

> > Adulterer
> > Disloyal
> > Smoked cigarettes
> > Irresponsible
> > Dirty

That's 9 of 14 who definitely don't apply to me, so you're wrong, a
"majority" of those (14) things do not apply to me.

> That's why it bothers you so much.

Who says that it bothers me?

I'm just stating facts. John Lennon was not a good person.

[Taliesyn]

Bob Roman <robert...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:4d256415-5d2e-4ce2...@u15g2000yql.googlegroups.com:

> On Sep 15, 5:04�pm, "DianeE" <TiredOfS...@SorryFolks.com> wrote:
>> "The Bloomfield Buddy" <Savo...@aol.com> wrote in
>> messagenews:d74cf266-f1

> 8e-4762-9fc9...@a11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...

>> On Rolling Stone's list of the "100 Greatest Singers" Lennon is
>> ranked at #5. Ricky Nelson is not on the list at all.
>> -------------
>> Exactly my point. �No respect.
>
> If what you are saying is that critics' respect for Lennon's
> songwriting influences them to overrate his singing, I agree.
>

I have 8 McCartney/Wings songs on my mp3 player; 2 by Ringo, and 1 by
George. I have no John Lennon solo releases.

[Jeff]

Has nothing to do with him as a musician.

[The Bloomfield Buddy]

On Sep 15, 7:14 pm, Taliesyn <talies...@netscape.net> wrote:

> Bob Roman <robertjro...@gmail.com> wrote innews:4d256415-5d2e-4ce2...@u15g2000yql.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Sep 15, 5:04 pm, "DianeE" <TiredOfS...@SorryFolks.com> wrote:
> >> "The Bloomfield Buddy" <Savo...@aol.com> wrote in
> >> messagenews:d74cf266-f1

> > 8e-4762-9fc9-e1b1dcb13...@a11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...

> >> On Rolling Stone's list of the "100 Greatest Singers" Lennon is
> >> ranked at #5. Ricky Nelson is not on the list at all.
> >> -------------
> >> Exactly my point.  No respect.
>
> > If what you are saying is that critics' respect for Lennon's
> > songwriting influences them to overrate his singing, I agree.
>
> I have 8 McCartney/Wings songs on my mp3 player; 2 by Ringo, and 1 by
> George. I have no John Lennon solo releases.

What is it about his post Beatles things that you don't like?

[Jeff]

On Sep 15, 3:32 pm, BobbyM <masseybNOS...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Stop replying to me and I will.

[Jeff]

You go to all the trouble of posting these lists of what
you don't like about him.

[The Bloomfield Buddy]

Agreed.

[The Bloomfield Buddy]

It's no trouble.

[Taliesyn]

The Bloomfield Buddy <Sav...@aol.com> wrote in

news:8bc77719-0619-425d...@a11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:

> On Sep 15, 7:14�pm, Taliesyn <talies...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> Bob Roman <robertjro...@gmail.com> wrote

>> innews:4d256415-5d2e-4ce2-aad8-f
> c0e3f...@u15g2000yql.googlegroups.com:

>>
>> > On Sep 15, 5:04�pm, "DianeE" <TiredOfS...@SorryFolks.com> wrote:
>> >> "The Bloomfield Buddy" <Savo...@aol.com> wrote in
>> >> messagenews:d74cf266-f1
>> > 8e-4762-9fc9-e1b1dcb13...@a11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>> >> On Rolling Stone's list of the "100 Greatest Singers" Lennon is
>> >> ranked at #5. Ricky Nelson is not on the list at all.
>> >> -------------
>> >> Exactly my point. �No respect.
>>
>> > If what you are saying is that critics' respect for Lennon's
>> > songwriting influences them to overrate his singing, I agree.
>>
>> I have 8 McCartney/Wings songs on my mp3 player; 2 by Ringo, and 1 by
>> George. I have no John Lennon solo releases.
>
> What is it about his post Beatles things that you don't like?
>

Nothing more sinister than none of his releases had much appeal for me.

I think John made a point of not sounding commercial (unlike Paul).
Well, for me, he succeeded! I got nothing from his post Beatles career.

[Jeff]

Why do you care how much respect Lennon gets?

[The Bloomfield Buddy]

On Sep 15, 8:17 pm, Taliesyn <talies...@netscape.net> wrote:

> The Bloomfield Buddy <Savo...@aol.com> wrote innews:8bc77719-0619-425d...@a11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 15, 7:14 pm, Taliesyn <talies...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >> Bob Roman <robertjro...@gmail.com> wrote
> >> innews:4d256415-5d2e-4ce2-aad8-f

> > c0e3fda8...@u15g2000yql.googlegroups.com:

>
> >> > On Sep 15, 5:04 pm, "DianeE" <TiredOfS...@SorryFolks.com> wrote:
> >> >> "The Bloomfield Buddy" <Savo...@aol.com> wrote in
> >> >> messagenews:d74cf266-f1
> >> > 8e-4762-9fc9-e1b1dcb13...@a11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> On Rolling Stone's list of the "100 Greatest Singers" Lennon is
> >> >> ranked at #5. Ricky Nelson is not on the list at all.
> >> >> -------------
> >> >> Exactly my point.  No respect.
>
> >> > If what you are saying is that critics' respect for Lennon's
> >> > songwriting influences them to overrate his singing, I agree.
>
> >> I have 8 McCartney/Wings songs on my mp3 player; 2 by Ringo, and 1 by
> >> George. I have no John Lennon solo releases.
>
> > What is it about his post Beatles things that you don't like?
>
> Nothing more sinister than none of his releases had much appeal for me.
>
> I think John made a point of not sounding commercial (unlike Paul).
> Well, for me, he succeeded! I got nothing from his post Beatles career.

Here's the ones that made my yearly lists:

1970
42 ¦ Instant Karma ¦ John Ono Lennon

1971
57 ¦ Imagine ¦ John Lennon
96 ¦ Oh Yoko ¦ John Lennon

1974
15 ¦ Whatever Gets You Through The Night ¦ John Lennon

[Jeff]

This off your list apply to you.

Rude
Conceited
Petty
Irresponsible
Dirty
Crude
Vulgar

[The Bloomfield Buddy]

> Irresponsible
> Dirty

What makes you think that these two apply to me?

[The Bloomfield Bloviator]

Because YOU said that we care about him for his songwriting. I
disagree that it's only for his songwriting.

[Jeff]

I think Lennon was the best singer for older rock, and
the music he sang.

[Jeff]

> > Irresponsible...cause you add things to a discussion
and argue, that we weren't discussing in the first place.

> > Dirty

> What makes you think that these two apply to me?

See above.


We'll forget the next one.

[Jeff]

I can only speak for why I care about him. Not for you.
I don't like typing up many details about much of
anything, cause my back starts killing me. Nothing
personal towards you.

[The Bloomfield Buddy]

So, when it comes to musicians you only care about them if they were
also songwriters?

You don't care about great players who did not write songs, like Jamie
Jamerson and James Burton, for instance.

[Jeff]

I never said that. You're the one who brought artists
who didn't write music into this discussion. You
keep jumping ahead me, adding things we weren't
even discussing in the first place.

[The Bloomfield Buddy]

Here's what you said:

>>We know Lennon wasn't
> > > a good father. What we judge him by is the great
> > > music that he wrote.

I disagreed and said the we judged him for other aspects of his
musicianship aside from the songs that he wrote.

Do you still say that we judge him (only) for the great songs that he
wrote?

[Bob Roman]

On Sep 15, 10:38 pm, Jeff <yourimageunre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 15, 4:41 pm, Bob Roman <robertjro...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > If what you are saying is that critics' respect for Lennon's
> > songwriting influences them to overrate his singing, I agree.
>

> I think Lennon was the best singer for older rock, and
> the music he sang.

And yet his "Rock 'n' Roll" album was awful, lifeless, and pointless.

--
BR

[Jeff]

Lennon was probably the worst solo artist of them all.
His message was more important than the music.
I was disappointed with his Imagine album. I would
rate all of his albums about a C+. I like Harrison
better, then McCartney.

[Jeff]

I have no idea who "we" is. And, I just made it simple and
listed one thing that "I" judge him for. I judge him for
all things musical, and I don't give a damn about his
personal life. There you go. That covers it.

[Jeff]

The reason it sucked on Vinyl was because his vocals
were buried in the mix of about 50 instruments
playing at the same time. I haven't heard it on CD
yet, to comment.

[The Bloomfield Buddy]

A gold album was "pointless?"

[The Bloomfield Bloviator]

The critics seem to disagree with your first description (awful) here.
The album is ranked #51 for its year on acclaimedmusic.net.

[BobbyM]

When you stop posting here, I'll stop replying to you here. Deal?

[Jeff]

No, it doesn't work that way, but I'll tell you what, I'm only in the
mood for lurking. My email address exceeded their posting
limit at this time, is what they said to me yesterday, so I
have tons of posts to read.

[marcus60s]

Now, Bloomy, you know how much I like Lennon and his musician, but I
tend to concur with that assessment as well. Lennon didn't have his
heart in this effort. It was done primarily to get Chuck Berry's
lawyers off his case about the "here comes old flat top" line and
"similarity" between "Come Together" and "You Can't Catch Me". Also,
Phil Spector took a loaded gun and fired it into the ceiling of the
recording studio while Lennon and others were recording that album.
Ther was a very negative vive to the album being made. It just is a
very dispirited collection of Rock songs that Lennon could have done a
much better job on...if he had been so inclined.

[Len Blanks]

Mark Dintenfass <mdint...@xxnew.rr.com> writes:

> In article <WLKdnYpZ-MNGcMnN...@giganews.com>, DianeE
> <Tired...@SorryFolks.com> wrote:
>
>> "The Bloomfield Buddy" <Sav...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:166c0e64-8d39-400b...@a11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...

>> On Sep 15, 4:29 pm, marcus60s <marcus...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > C'mon...name three good qualities about John Lennon. I'll bet you
>> > can't, and it won't be because there are none, but rather your
>> > dogmatic prejudice against him.
>>
>> Here's the bad qualities that I can think of right now.
>>
>> Rotten husband
>> Rotten father
>> Drug abuser
>> Alcohol abuser
>> Rude
>> Conceited
>> Adulterer
>> Disloyal
>> Petty
>> Smoked cigarettes
>> Irresponsible
>> Dirty
>> Crude
>> Vulgar

>> ----------------
>> Since when are crude and vulgar bad qualities to you?
>
> Or rude, conceited, and petty--so long as you raised the subject. :-)

'Smoked cigarettes' is an amusing entry.
--
Len

The state of California has no business subsidizing intellectual
curiousity -- Ronald Reagon

[The Bloomfield Buddy]

On Sep 16, 12:09 pm, marcus60s <marcus...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 16, 12:03 am, The Bloomfield Buddy <Savo...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 15, 11:36 pm, Bob Roman <robertjro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 15, 10:38 pm, Jeff <yourimageunre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 15, 4:41 pm, Bob Roman <robertjro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > If what you are saying is that critics' respect for Lennon's
> > > > > songwriting influences them to overrate his singing, I agree.
>
> > > > I think Lennon was the best singer for older rock, and
> > > > the music he sang.
>
> > > And yet his "Rock 'n' Roll" album was awful, lifeless, and pointless.
>
> > A gold album was "pointless?"
>
> Now, Bloomy, you know how much I like Lennon and his musician, but I
> tend to concur with that assessment as well.  Lennon didn't have his
> heart in this effort.  It was done primarily to get Chuck Berry's
> lawyers off his case about the "here comes old flat top" line and
> "similarity" between "Come Together" and "You Can't Catch Me".

Doesn't sound "pointless" to me. Sounds like he had a better reason
for making the labum than most acts have for making an album.

 Also,
> Phil Spector took a loaded gun and fired it into the ceiling of the
> recording studio while Lennon and others were recording that album.
> Ther was a very negative vive to the album being made. It just is a
> very dispirited collection of Rock songs that Lennon could have done a
> much better job on...if he had been so inclined.

You mean if he hadn't been drunk all the time (one of his many bad
qualities).

[The Bloomfield Buddy]

On Sep 16, 1:18 pm, Len Blanks <use...@smashcapitalism.com> wrote:
> Mark Dintenfass <mdintenf...@xxnew.rr.com> writes:
> > In article <WLKdnYpZ-MNGcMnNnZ2dnUVZ_vGdn...@giganews.com>, DianeE
> > <TiredOfS...@SorryFolks.com> wrote:
>
> >> "The Bloomfield Buddy" <Savo...@aol.com> wrote in message

> >>news:166c0e64-8d39-400b...@a11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Sep 15, 4:29 pm, marcus60s <marcus...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> > C'mon...name three good qualities about John Lennon. I'll bet you
> >> > can't, and it won't be because there are none, but rather your
> >> > dogmatic prejudice against him.
>
> >> Here's the bad qualities that I can think of right now.
>
> >> Rotten husband
> >> Rotten father
> >> Drug abuser
> >> Alcohol abuser
> >> Rude
> >> Conceited
> >> Adulterer
> >> Disloyal
> >> Petty
> >> Smoked cigarettes
> >> Irresponsible
> >> Dirty
> >> Crude
> >> Vulgar
> >> ----------------
> >> Since when are crude and vulgar bad qualities to you?
>
> > Or rude, conceited, and petty--so long as you raised the subject. :-)
>
> 'Smoked cigarettes' is an amusing entry.

For me, that's one of the worst things that I listed. For Diane too, I
think. She won't even watch TV shows where characters smoke a lot,
like "Mad Men."

[Jeff]

It doesn't make a difference if it was a gold album
or not. It only matters if you like it or not.

[Jeff]

Who cares what the critics say/said?

[Jeff]

I disagree, Marcus. It was a great album, but it was
mixed wrong, with John's voice being too low in
the mix.

[Jeff]

He wasn't drunk all the time, and you yourself ought to
get with the program and quit being so square. Even
I tried pot once, though I don't care for it much.

[DianeE]

"Bob Roman" <robert...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:065d1b07-e8e0-443f...@v15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 15, 11:04 am, "DianeE" <TiredOfS...@SorryFolks.com> wrote:

> And the answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind. Earl-Jean is mentioned
> in the book but strictly as a recording artist with a "sexy alto voice."

Is the child, Dawn Reavis, mentioned in the book?

-------------
Absolutely not! But where did you get the info about this? Who's Dawn
Reavis, when was she born, does Gerry Goffin acknowledge he's her
father....is Earl-Jean still alive???? Repeat, since none of this is in
King's book, where can I get the "real" story?

DianeE

[Eric Ramon]

On Sep 16, 1:22 pm, "DianeE" <TiredOfS...@SorryFolks.com> wrote:
> "Bob Roman" <robertjro...@gmail.com> wrote in message

"Father of Louise Goffin and Sherry Goffin Kondor (with Carole King)
and Dawn Reavis (with Jeanie Reavis)."

that's from IMDB

There's a book called Girls Like Us that talks about it.

[The Bloomfield Buddy]

So if you like it, it's not pointless. If you don't like it, it is
pointless?

[DianeE]

"Eric Ramon" <ramon...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:86a1bd6c-7ea4-490b...@wz4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

On Sep 16, 1:22 pm, "DianeE" <TiredOfS...@SorryFolks.com> wrote:
> "Bob Roman" <robertjro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:065d1b07-e8e0-443f...@v15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 15, 11:04 am, "DianeE" <TiredOfS...@SorryFolks.com> wrote:
>
> > And the answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind. Earl-Jean is
> > mentioned
> > in the book but strictly as a recording artist with a "sexy alto voice."
>
> Is the child, Dawn Reavis, mentioned in the book?
>
> -------------
> Absolutely not! But where did you get the info about this? Who's Dawn
> Reavis, when was she born, does Gerry Goffin acknowledge he's her
> father....is Earl-Jean still alive???? Repeat, since none of this is in
> King's book, where can I get the "real" story?
>

"Father of Louise Goffin and Sherry Goffin Kondor (with Carole King)
and Dawn Reavis (with Jeanie Reavis)."

that's from IMDB

There's a book called Girls Like Us that talks about it.

--------------
Thanks. As it turned out, when I googled the name "Dawn Reavis," the
relevant pages from "Girls Like Us" showed up in Google Books and I was able
to read them. Jeanie Reavis, and Earl-Jean McCree/McCrae/McCrea/whatever,
are the same person. According to what I just read, Carole King not only
accepted Dawn--who was born in 1964--but also supported her financially.
But if she was so accepting, why isn't......oh, well, never mind.

I might also note at this point that "A Natural Woman" also fails to mention
anything about the "Oh Carol"/"Oh Neil" records. Neil Sedaka also is barely
mentioned. She does say that seeing a performance by The Tokens, which at
that time included Sedaka, inspired her to form a doo-wop group of her own
in high school.

DianeE

[F R]

Absolutely not! But where did you get the info about this? Who's Dawn
Reavis, when was she born, does Gerry Goffin acknowledge he's her
father....is Earl-Jean still alive???? Repeat, since none of this is in
King's book, where can I get the "real" story?
DianeE

--------------------------
It's been my experience that 99%....ummm let me change that to 100%, of
autobiographies are self-serving. It's not a real "history" of that
person's life at all; rather how and what that particular individual
wishes to reveal.

I especially enjoy (not!) celebrities who claim to have been sexually
molested as children. Next stop -> the talk show circuit, claiming they
are telling their stories to help others. I always wondered if they
donated all proceeds from the book sales to a worthy cause that truly
helps those who were abused..... or do they just look at it as a quick
way to make a few bucks, often after their careers have already tanked?

Same with the likes of Ryan and Tatum O'Neil's ill-fated "reality" (if
ever a word needed quotation marks around it!) series which they surely
thought was as a chance for 2 has-beens to make some money. If they
really wanted a daughter-father reconciliation as they claim, why show
the insanity to the whole nation, rather than do it wisely and
privately?
Poor, poor cynical me. Poor, poor cynical me.

[The Bloomfield Buddy]

On Sep 16, 6:20 pm, espon...@webtv.net (F R) wrote:
> Absolutely not! But where did you get the info about this? Who's Dawn
> Reavis, when was she born, does Gerry Goffin acknowledge he's her
> father....is Earl-Jean still alive???? Repeat, since none of this is in
> King's book, where can I get the "real" story?
> DianeE
> --------------------------
> It's been my experience that 99%....ummm let me change that to 100%, of
> autobiographies are self-serving. It's not a real "history" of that
> person's life at all; rather how and what that particular individual
> wishes to reveal.

Have you read the Joe Pepitone book?

He revealed a lot of things about himself that we're pretty fucked up.

[F R]

Here's Bud in your eye>

Have you read the Joe Pepitone book?
He revealed a lot of things about himself that we're pretty fucked up.

-------------------------
No I haven't read it....didn't even know he had a book. I'm not saying
that a lot of what they claim isn't true or they are written as kind of
a "confessional" in some (many?) cases. The usual rule of thumb in
publishing is the more of the dark side of your life you expose, the
more likely it will sell more.

I recently read "Sandy Koufax A Lefty's Legacy", by Jane Leavy and it
seemed like a good account of a guy who has lived a pretty quiet life
once he'd retired....as he hoped it would be.
About the only negative thing Leavy could find was Koufax's belief that
Walter Alston kept him out of the rotation for extended periods, even
after he became somewhat established. Koufax believed Alston was an
anti-Semite.

[The Bloomfield Buddy]

On Sep 16, 7:40 pm, espon...@webtv.net (F R) wrote:
> Here's Bud in your eye>
> Have you read the Joe Pepitone book?
> He revealed a lot of things about himself that we're pretty fucked up.
> -------------------------
> No I haven't read it....didn't even know he had a book.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51oHGChIkfL._SS500_.jpg

[F R]

Bud Collier>
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51oHGChIkfL._SS500_.jpg
--------------------
Thanks for that. All of a sudden it piqued my interest seeing the cover.
The next time I read a sports bio, I'll try it, although I always
thought Pepitone was a bit of a jerk...not that it means the book won't
be decent or maybe even good.

[marcus60s]

I haven't listened to the album in a long time, but I remember some of
the songs were done too damn slow. "Do You Wanna Dance?" and "Bony
Moronie" for example. And that has nothing to do with vocals being
buried underneath the music.

I think this may be the first time in Usenet history where I am on the
side stating that John Lennon didn't do a good job on a recording!

However, compared to the craftmanship, ingenuity, and pure musical
genius that he displayed on most of his songs, he can be forgiven. ;-)

[Bob Roman]

On Sep 16, 12:03 am, The Bloomfield Buddy <Savo...@aol.com> wrote:

All that matters is what comes out of the speakers.

--
BR

[The Bloomfield Buddy]

Here's a tidbit.

When he was hanging out with the Goombahs at the Copa in 1962 they
offered to break Skowron's legs so that Pepi could be the starting
firstbaseman.

[The Bloomfield Buddy]

Yes, and what came out of the speakers was liked by enough people to
make it a gold album with a pretty big hit single. It may have been
awful and lifeless to many, but that does not make it "pointless."

Recordings do not have to make a "point" anyway.

[BobbyM]

On 17-Sep-12 9:33 AM, The Bloomfield Buddy wrote:
> On Sep 16, 8:20 pm, Bob Roman <robertjro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 16, 12:03 am, The Bloomfield Buddy <Savo...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sep 15, 11:36 pm, Bob Roman <robertjro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> And yet his "Rock 'n' Roll" album was awful, lifeless, and pointless.
>>
>>> A gold album was "pointless?"
>>
>> All that matters is what comes out of the speakers.
>
> Yes, and what came out of the speakers was liked by enough people to
> make it a gold album

That's an assumption. What do you want to bet a lot of people bought it
without hearing what was coming out of the speakers because it was a
John Lennon record? Then, after hearing what came out of the speakers
didn't necessarily like it?

[The Bloomfield Bloviator]

Good theory, but then how do you explain it going top ten on the LP
chart when other Lennon albums did not even come close to going top
ten?

Rock And Roll - #6
Some Time in NYC - #45
Wedding Album - #178
Two Virgins - #124
Life With The Lions #174

This would seem to indicate that the name "John Lennon" was enough to
get the album ON the charts, but if the music sucked the album was not
guaranteed to go very far UP the charts.

[The Bloomfield Bloviator]

On Sep 16, 8:47 pm, BobbyM <masseybNOS...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Never mind this, I'm more upset now after checking that "Roots" album
and seeing that it's selling now for like $750. I had several copies
of it at the time and I was selling it for what seemed like a lot at
the time, like $30. Wish I had kept a couple copies.

[F R]

Budda Smith>

When he was hanging out with the Goombahs at the Copa in 1962 they
offered to break Skowron's legs so that Pepi could be the starting
firstbaseman.

---------------------
Reading something like that makes me feel it's probably apocryphal. Mkes
a good story, but .....

[marcus60s]

Wow, I've got a an album worth $750!!!!

[The Bloomfield Buddy]

It was widely bootlegged at the time. The bootlegs are worth almost
nothing.

[Jeff]

This is what I said :"It doesn't make a difference if it was a gold

[Jeff]

I don't remember the songs being too slow. I just remember
that there were only 2 songs I could listen to, cause his
voice was buried in the mix: Stand By Me and Ain't that
A Shame.

 "Do You Wanna Dance?" and "Bony
> Moronie" for example.  And that has nothing to do with vocals being
> buried underneath the music.

I should give the songs another listen on CD. I don't remember
Bony Moronie.

> I think this may be the first time in Usenet history where I am on the
> side stating that John Lennon didn't do a good job on a recording!
>
> However, compared to the craftmanship, ingenuity, and pure musical
> genius that he displayed on most of his songs, he can be forgiven. ;-)

I agree.

[Jeff]

With Lennon and Harrison they had to make a point.
They both said so.

[marcus60s]

Who said I had a bootleg?

[The Bloomfield Buddy]

Would you know the difference?

[marcus60s]

I think the original was mail-order only.

[The Bloomfield Buddy]

Unless you had other connections.

But if you saw a copy at a garage sale would you be able to tell if it
was an original or not?

[marcus60s]

I was just pulling your leg. Mine is not an original. It's got blurry
images etc, print is too big, says "greatest" on the album spine.
However the cover itself wasn't just a single sheet past-on. I bought
it sometime in the 80s. I own about 50 vinyl Beatles/Lennon bootlegs.

The only Beatles album I own that is worth a few hundred(maybe) is a
3rd state "Yesterday and Today".

http://marccatone.webs.com/apps/photos/photo?photoid=144135163

Marc

[Michael Pendragon]

On Sep 16, 12:09 pm, marcus60s <marcus...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 16, 12:03 am, The Bloomfield Buddy <Savo...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 15, 11:36 pm, Bob Roman <robertjro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> > > On Sep 15, 10:38 pm, Jeff <yourimageunre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 15, 4:41 pm, Bob Roman <robertjro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > If what you are saying is that critics' respect for Lennon's
> > > > > songwriting influences them to overrate his singing, I agree.
>
> > > > I think Lennon was the best singer for older rock, and
> > > > the music he sang.
>

> > > And yet his "Rock 'n' Roll" album was awful, lifeless, and pointless.
>
> > A gold album was "pointless?"
>

> Now, Bloomy, you know how much I like Lennon and his musician, but I
> tend to concur with that assessment as well.  Lennon didn't have his
> heart in this effort.  It was done primarily to get Chuck Berry's
> lawyers off his case about the "here comes old flat top" line and
> "similarity" between "Come Together" and "You Can't Catch Me".  Also,
> Phil Spector took a loaded gun and fired it into the ceiling of the
> recording studio while Lennon and others were recording that album.
> Ther was a very negative vive to the album being made. It just is a
> very dispirited collection of Rock songs that Lennon could have done a
> much better job on...if he had been so inclined.

Bloomy! Tom's old handle. :-D

[Bob Roman]

On Sep 16, 8:51 pm, The Bloomfield Bloviator <Savo...@aol.com> wrote:

> Good theory, but then how do you explain it going top ten on the LP
> chart when other Lennon albums did not even come close to going top
> ten?
>
> Rock And Roll - #6
> Some Time in NYC - #45
> Wedding Album - #178
> Two Virgins - #124
> Life With The Lions #174

Three albums of experimental noise, and a fourth that was described at
the time as "artistic suicide."

Every Lennon album that produced a top 40 single made the top 10.

--
BR

[The Bloomfield Buddy]

And one that didn't produce a top 40 single also went top ten.

Apple 3372

[The Bloomfield Buddy]

On Sep 17, 12:30 am, Bob Roman <robertjro...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sep 16, 8:51 pm, The Bloomfield Bloviator <Savo...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Good theory, but then how do you explain it going top ten on the LP
> > chart when other Lennon albums did not even come close to going top
> > ten?
>
> > Rock And Roll - #6
> > Some Time in NYC - #45
> > Wedding Album - #178
> > Two Virgins - #124
> > Life With The Lions #174
>
> Three albums of experimental noise, and a fourth that was described at
> the time as "artistic suicide."

Are those four albums also awful, lifeless, and pointless?