anyone else think "freedom" was REALLY cheesy?
Barnaby207
songs off of "driving rain". But "freedom".....was just laughable,
really......it was catchy melodically, but the lyrics were SO bad. The chorus
sounded like something that would be in a Ford Truck commercial. I personally
thought it was even more cheesy than "ebony and ivory". It would be one thing
if the United States truly were a real definite symbol of freedom......but in
reality we're not. That's just something our government likes to tell us.
Maybe back in the 1800's the US truly represented a more free way of life, but
that's far from the truth now. There are many many countries on this earth that
have as much freedom as us....or MORE. How about Holland??....now they've
REALLY got freedom. And actually a large portion of europe is far more
liberated and free than the US......especially with drinking and drug laws. I
would see a song about losing life being more appropriate than a song about
"freedom"......simply because, a huge amount of lives were lost on september
11......but we are nowhere near losing the freedoms we have in the westernized
world
NiteDawg
DOlms17990
terrorism
is all about the freedom loving people putting a stop to terrorists. I think
Pauls song is great and captures the feelings of most Americans and most of the
freeworld.
Vandelay Industries
Can't you tell the difference?
"Barnaby207" <barna...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011021123035...@mb-ct.aol.com...
Ratbaggy
have any responsibilities to help out the rest of the world. Real easy for
them to be isolationists and "nice". They never have to take an unpopular
stand.
As for "Freedom" - the song. No more cheesy than Give Ireland Back to the
Irish or Give Peace a Chance or Power to The People. The whole point of a
song like that is to keep it simple for sing alongs. Not my fave Mac song
thats for sure, but appropriate for the occaisson. And I think Freedom is
the appropriate topic to celebrate.
I did think both of the new songs were really good. We may have our third
excellent Mccartney record in a row.
Steve
"Vandelay Industries" <scottg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:oMFA7.135258$3d2.4...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Claudio Dirani
news:20011021142200...@mb-mg.aol.com...
US is not a free Country? Yeah, probably Afghanistan and Albania are...
And Freedom is what really is. And I bet the victms of the Sept 11 tragedy
didn't think the same about the cheesy factor.
Just imho
Claudio
--
Posted from 200-221-123-175.dsl-sp.uol.com.br [200.221.123.175]
via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
enterprise
catchy, and very appropriate for what this event symbolized. Also, not
everyone lived a "more free way of life" in the 1800s. Not sure why you
think so. Anyway, everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion as
this IS a FREE society.
Barnaby207
countries out there...which technically equals LESS freedom. Groups like the
christian coalition do their very best to keep the united states from being
truly free.....by pushing for censorship laws, and anti-abortion, anti-gay, and
anti-drug laws. I just think this blind patriotism stuff has gone too far. I
don't think people should be saying "god bless america".....more like "god
bless the free and civilized world". Because only having spirit behind the
united states isn't unity......it's isolationist. Unity of the human race is
what we should push......not "america is freedom, we're the best country in the
world....blah blah blah"....because that's a completely ignorant view. Have
the people who claim this visited every country on earth? do they know from
first hand experience that we are BETTER than every other nation. No, they
simply form this opinion based on the garbage CNN shoots at them all day long.
I'm sorry if I've upset people.......I just very much believe in world unity,
rather than individual pride in nations.....patriotism......which seems quite
similar to supporting football teams. Y'know like..."I love canada, who do you
support?" "oh fuck canada man, the US is the best, we're taking the title this
year" What's the point of this competitive attitude? Oh well....that's just
my two cents......something to think about
SWever
You can have both,- they are not mutually exclusive.
Stefan
Wood
the Civil War maybe? We have more freedoms than our ancestors could ever
have dreamed of. And thank God we live in a free society where all are
entitled to their opinions.
Kelli
Nicely said...the simplicity of the message in "Freedom" is what makes
it so special. It conjures up the emotions we are all feeling at this
time. It's no different than other "political" songs of the past. "Give
Peace A Chance" IMHO, is a classic for what it represents to a
generation more so than for it's lyrics (which are not exactly the most
stellar of Lennon's career). I also truly enjoyed Paul's performance
of "Freedom"...very heartfelt.
~Kelli~
Barnaby207
and 1800's the united states WAS more free than most of the world....and that's
why so many immigrated here. Now in present times, there are actually a few
nations with more freedom than us....and large portions of the world has caught
up with us, as far as freedom rights to citizens. We're no longer ahead of the
entire world as far as human rights are concerned......we're simply the most
capitalistic
Bruce Mirken
flag-waving used as a substitute for thinking that is cheesy. "Freedom"
would have been a lovely song had it been around to be sung by people
marching with Martin Luther King of Nelson Mandela. Saturday night, many
seemed to take it as a call to kill more Afghanis, which I find depressing
and sad.
I liked Paul's set, but for me Richard Gere was the highlight of the show.
"Barnaby207" <barna...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011021163705...@mb-fu.aol.com...
mark
<sftr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Thanks, Barnaby. It's comforting to not be alone. It's the incessant
>flag-waving used as a substitute for thinking that is cheesy. "Freedom"
>would have been a lovely song had it been around to be sung by people
>marching with Martin Luther King of Nelson Mandela. Saturday night, many
>seemed to take it as a call to kill more Afghanis, which I find depressing
>and sad.
>
>I liked Paul's set, but for me Richard Gere was the highlight of the show.
Why? Because you can relate to him on the 'hamster' level? Bleeding
heart fags.
Barnaby207
crowd responded so badly to him.....I hate to say it, but it made me embarassed
to be an american to see so many american people booing a man pushing for
appreciation of diversity, and peace....
Rizzo219
I believe in the statement "Peace does not mean the absence of conflict".
Rich Diakun
Holland??....now they've REALLY got freedom. And actually a large portion
of europe is far more liberated and free than the US......especially with
drinking and drug laws.>>
Good old Holland. Free as a bird. The example for all of us in the rest of
the world. Of course, while the Dutch are srunk or stoned and spending the
night with their legal prostitute, enjoying their wonderful freedom, they're
also dealing with the reality of being below sea-level and wondering if the
stupid kid with his finger in the dike is ever going to get tired and just
give up. Could be that the "freedoms" are just a realization that the whole
country could become the next Atlantis at any time and that they might as
well have a good time while they can. Or maybe it's the history of being
run over by whatever little nation on either side of them decides that it
wants to own the other's land and uses Holland as a pre-season game to get
their troops warmed up before the real war season starts. Oh, silly me...
that's never happened before, has it?
If we're so bad over here, why does everyone want to be here? Just curious.
- Rich
Rich Diakun
must be wrong with me that I hated the "Redneck Anthem of the Gulf War".
- Rich
"Vandelay Industries" <scottg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:oMFA7.135258$3d2.4...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Bruce Mirken
"mark" <j...@ber.com> wrote in message
news:b707tt41p9c6g1kce...@4ax.com...
> >I liked Paul's set, but for me Richard Gere was the highlight of the
show.
>
>
> Why? Because you can relate to him on the 'hamster' level? Bleeding
> heart fags.
That's MR. Bleeding Heart Fag to you!!!!!!! Seriously, it is reassuring to
hear that the Moron-American community is represented here.
Brett A. Pasternack
>
> We define freedom by drinking and drug laws? and those small countries dont
> have any responsibilities to help out the rest of the world. Real easy for
> them to be isolationists and "nice". They never have to take an unpopular
> stand.
>
> As for "Freedom" - the song. No more cheesy than Give Ireland Back to the
> Irish or Give Peace a Chance or Power to The People. The whole point of a
> song like that is to keep it simple for sing alongs.
I think all of those songs have more interesting and better-considered
lyrics than "Freedom".
Ratbaggy
What else can we do. I absolutely believe terrorists are the equivalent of
Hitler and must be stopped. I also think most americans
understand that the goal is to get rid of the terrorists and those propping
them up (taliban). I assume Iraq will be part of this soon. I really would
like to hear opinions on options that you think would stop terrorism.
And I still dont understand why you seem to object to the words of Freedom
as not be appropriate. That is what we are trying to preserve here
"Bruce Mirken" <sftr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:C8KA7.917$Sd.8...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
lennon fan
Re: anyone else think "freedom" was REALLY cheesy?
Group: rec.music.artists.paul-mccartney Date: Mon, Oct 22, 2001, 12:56am
(EDT+4) From: sftr...@earthlink.net (Bruce Mirken)
flag-waving used as a substitute for thinking that is cheesy. "Freedom"
would have been a lovely song had it been around to be sung by people
marching with Martin Luther King of Nelson Mandela. Saturday night, many
seemed to take it as a call to kill more Afghanis, which I find
depressing and sad.
I liked Paul's set, but for me Richard Gere was the highlight of the
show.
yeah, Gere made better comedy relief than the comics! It was fun
laughing and booing at the same time! What a jackass he is!...but it's
very important to show these opinions are out there, and to let the
person making that statement know what the vast majority of us thinks
of it:)
-regards from lennonfan
Rufus Leaking
>crowd responded so badly to him.....I hate to say it, but it made me
>embarassed
>to be an american to see so many american people booing a man pushing for
>appreciation of diversity, and peace....
I didn't feel bad at all. At least in America he has the chance to offer his
opinion, as wrong as the crowd felt it was, without fear of prison or worse!!!
Dave
"Hid in the reeds are eyes that peek,
voices I don't understand.
Flamingos fly endlessly,
To the silent sky"
Christian Henriksson
<URDE...@prodigy.net> allt detta:
>Barnaby207 mentioned in a sort-of off-hand manner <<How about
>Holland??....now they've REALLY got freedom. And actually a large portion
>of europe is far more liberated and free than the US......especially with
>drinking and drug laws.>>
>
>Good old Holland. Free as a bird. The example for all of us in the rest of
>the world.
Of course it isn't (or doesn't have to be). It's just generally a more
free country than most others. For better or worse.
>Of course, while the Dutch are srunk or stoned and spending the
>night with their legal prostitute, enjoying their wonderful freedom, they're
>also dealing with the reality of being below sea-level and wondering if the
>stupid kid with his finger in the dike is ever going to get tired and just
>give up. Could be that the "freedoms" are just a realization that the whole
>country could become the next Atlantis at any time and that they might as
>well have a good time while they can. Or maybe it's the history of being
>run over by whatever little nation on either side of them decides that it
>wants to own the other's land and uses Holland as a pre-season game to get
>their troops warmed up before the real war season starts. Oh, silly me...
>that's never happened before, has it?
All fairly valid points. Doesn't mean that the general level of
freedom in the Netherlands is higher than it is in the US.
>If we're so bad over here, why does everyone want to be here? Just curious.
We don't.
Look, the US is probably a great place to be, I don't doubt that. But
please grant us who don't think it's the greatest bastion of freedom
on earth our own free will to think that it isn't.
(BTW, to be truly free is probably nothing to strive for.)
Christian Henriksson
(che...@tiscali.se)
--
I never used to be able to finish anything, but now
keef
1800's was the century of the white land owner in America...
keef
right--freedom of speech and freedom to boo idiots like Richard Gere...
Rich Diakun
what I've read in books. If I offended anyone by the sarcastic remarks that
I wrote last night in response to other comments, I apologize. When I read
today what I wrote yesterday, I was not very happy with myself. I like to
think that I am just a tad more open-minded than I must have seemed.
As for the song "Freedom" and what it may or may not have said about the
U.S. or anywhere else....
I think one of the big things that was made very clear by the Concert For
New York City was that there are many in the world who saw the events of
September 11, 2001 not just as an attack on the United States of America,
but as an attack on "the Western World" in general. That explains the
overwhelmingly international flavor of the artists that volunteered to be on
the bill for that event. While many in this country are draping themselves
in the flag and enjoying their little bout of good old-fashioned US
jingoism, it is pretty obvious to me that the reaction of the world in
general was one that took down some of the barriers of national boundaries
and emphasized the shared heritages that Americans have with so many other
nations in the world. The freedoms and rights that Paul McCartney was
singing about in the song that he admittedly dashed off in the heat of the
moment weren't just "American freedoms and rights" but those that are shared
by the entire "free world." We are nations that fought together and against
each other in some very horrible major world wars in the past several
centuries, and we are nations that have traded not just goods but bloodlines
and futures over those same centuries. We are the nations that have adopted
the democratic principles that were utterly foreign to so many of us only
400 years or so ago, and while we may not share the same exact laws on
specific issues, we do share the western democratic experience and some very
common ideals and goals. Paul's song, "Freedom", was about the rights and
freedoms that we have all grown up taking for granted, and that a lot of
blood was shed for. This is not just an American thing, but a British
thing, a Canadian thing, a German thing, a French thing, a Dutch thing, a
Spanish thing, an Italian thing, etc. and so on down the line. It is
something that goes back to the English Magna Carta, Continental
philosophers, and the American experiment. For some reason, it worked in
our societies when it didn't in others. Whatever it is that we have in
common that makes it all work in its' varying national flavors, Paul was
singing about wanting to keep it and how he preferred it to the other
alternatives he has seen around the world -- particularly the alternative
that perpetrated the attack not just on New York but on all of our common
"free" societies.
Thanks for letting me ramble. It's a deep and complex subject, and I'm sure
I could expound more sensibly if I felt like spending the time to organize
my thoughts a little bitter. I just appreciate the good friends and fine
minds that I have encountered in here that allow me to spout off like this
and who more often than not give me a second chance when I shove my foot
deep in my mouth like I did yesterday. SPeaking of which, I really dug that
version of "Yesterday". The dude still knows how to entertain!
- Rich
"Christian Henriksson" <che...@tiscali.se> wrote in message
news:5539ttcro3s5i17vq...@4ax.com...
Rizzo219
Paul RB
century when bombs were raining down on London nightly as a brave population
slept in subways.
As these type of songs go, it is meant to be a sing-a-long. Not high art, but
meant to raise spirits and unify people. McCartney, whose father was a
fireman during the blitz, is undoubtedly aware of how a very simple tune can
have a positive effect on people.
As for the ridiculous statement that we had more freedomd in the 1800's - What
part of the 1800's?
The part where only white land-owners were allowed to vote or hold office? The
part where women could not be involved in politics or run their own businesses?
The part where slavery spread even more rapidly after the invention of the
cotton gin? The part where we attacked Mexico in a long bloody war in order to
seize land in California and the West? How about the Civil War when Lincoln
wisely suspended habeus corpus? Did you like the part where railroads and big
steel controlled federal and state legislatures, destroying land, the
environment, and people's lives? The deliberate destruction of Native American
cultures? Child Labor? Jim Crow?
More freedoms in the 1800's? Do you know anything about the 1800's?
Paul
Christian Henriksson
> I will also admit that I know absolutely nothing about Holland other than
> what I've read in books. If I offended anyone by the sarcastic remarks that
> I wrote last night in response to other comments, I apologize. When I read
> today what I wrote yesterday, I was not very happy with myself. I like to
> think that I am just a tad more open-minded than I must have seemed.
Kudos to you, Rich! I too probably came off a bit more curmudgeonly
than I wished in my reply.
<snip rant I more or less wholly agree with>
> Thanks for letting me ramble. It's a deep and complex subject, and I'm sure
> I could expound more sensibly if I felt like spending the time to organize
> my thoughts a little bitter. I just appreciate the good friends and fine
> minds that I have encountered in here that allow me to spout off like this
> and who more often than not give me a second chance when I shove my foot
> deep in my mouth like I did yesterday. SPeaking of which, I really dug that
> version of "Yesterday". The dude still knows how to entertain!
On the subject of that, I managed to stumble into this concert on VH1
late at night in the middle of the Who's performance. The video has
come to good use, and I'll try to watch it during this week. Sounds
like it was a good experience!
Christian Henriksson
Brett A. Pasternack
> yeah, Gere made better comedy relief than the comics! It was fun
> laughing and booing at the same time! What a jackass he is!...but it's
> very important to show these opinions are out there, and to let the
> person making that statement know what the vast majority of us thinks
> of it:)
> -regards from lennonfan
This "lennon" you're a fan of...since you obviously don't mean John
Lennon, who would have been apt to say just about the same thing as Gere
said, I'm wondering who you do mean....
Brett A. Pasternack
>
> Freedom seemed to be a very English-style war song, harking back to last
> century when bombs were raining down on London nightly as a brave population
> slept in subways.
> As these type of songs go, it is meant to be a sing-a-long. Not high art, but
> meant to raise spirits and unify people. McCartney, whose father was a
> fireman during the blitz, is undoubtedly aware of how a very simple tune can
> have a positive effect on people.
> As for the ridiculous statement that we had more freedomd in the 1800's - What
> part of the 1800's?
No one said that we had more freedoms in the 1800s. What he said was
that in the 1800s, it may have been true that America was ahead of all
other nations in acknowledging freedoms, but other nations have now
overtaken us.
I'm not saying I agree with that, but that's what was said.
mark
spoke of the need not to act in revenge, it was when he mentioned compassion
that the booing started, also they reacted to the 'beloved' Mayor Of NY like
he was a legend, funny how wearing a hard hat and uttering a few meaningless
platitudes can transform a hated red neck into an international hero- Sir
Rudy? lol
I though Paul was great, didn't personally agree with the tone of his
comments, or the lyrics to Freedom, but it is a catchy, obviously heartfelt
song, the Driving Rain songs sounded great and he was clearly the star.
I suppose the Freedom Paul was singing about relates to the fact that we are
all free to express a point of view.
Rizzo219 <rizz...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011022220654...@mb-cp.aol.com...
Rizzo219
but doesn't the crowd have that same right? And they utilized that right to
show how they disagreed!
lennon fan
Re: anyone else think "freedom" was REALLY cheesy?
From: bret...@erols.com (Brett A. Pasternack)
yeah, Gere made better comedy relief than the comics! It was fun
laughing and booing at the same time! What a jackass he is!...but it's
very important to show these opinions are out there, and to let the
person making that statement know what the vast majority of us thinks of
it:)
-regards from lennonfan
This "lennon" you're a fan of...since you obviously don't mean John
Lennon,
oh yes, I do:))
who would have been apt to say just about the same thing as Gere said,
bullshit. he would have more likely said what paul said. To be a Lennon
fan doesn't mean I have to spend the rest of my life following in
lockstep with his political views circa 1969.
I'm wondering who you do mean....
wondering is a wonderful thing;)
-regards from lennonfan
Barnaby207
classless, and incredibly rude. If they didn't like what he said, they could
have just not clapped. In my life I've been to some shitty live events, with
people saying REALLY dumb things I didn't agree with....but I've never once
booed anyone. It's complete low class, redneck behavior....... Yes free
speech is allowed, but how about having a bit of class, and respect for others.
Barnaby207
views on the matter were the most lennonesque there were at that show. I think
John really would have laughed at Paul's "freedom" song....knowing him and his
sense of humor. Lennon would have probably not appreciated the fact that
paul's song probably wasn't too genuine, and was more of a publicity seeking
attempt. I love paul, but I seriously think that if he didn't have an album
coming out, he wouldn't have played at the gig. He's very much into conveying
the image that he is mr compassionate, nice guy......and this show would make
him look REALLY good to record buyers.
Barnaby207
have overtaken us. But I dont think the united states is this bold beacon of
freedom in an unfree world. Many nations are equally as free as us.....and at
least a handful have more freedoms.
keef
time nor the place for those comments...what did he expect?? What did he hope to
achieve??
Barnaby207
all
Rich Diakun
with easier lyrics to remember.... "Power To The People". Right on!
- Rich
"Barnaby207" <barna...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011023111424...@mb-fw.aol.com...
Rizzo219
starts tossing insults around.
Rizzo219
telling the family members they should have compassion for the killer.
Vandelay Industries
This was for the families of the heroes.
What was the guy thinking?
"Rizzo219" <rizz...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011023225424...@mb-cp.aol.com...
Barnaby207
simply stating that we should have compassion for the afgan people, not the
terrorists, and that bombing the shit out of their country isn't really the
answer. I can't believe paul mccartney has so many right-wing republican,
pro-war....bastard fans. It makes me wonder if these people really understand
what the beatles stood for. Where do you find the time to post here? Shouldn't
you all be listening to rush limbaugh? and searching the bible for reasons to
claim that homosexuality is "evil"? Go dig out your old Pat Boone records,
they'll suit you much better.....
Eva
Re: anyone else think "freedom" was REALLY cheesy?
>Group: rec.music.artists.paul-mccartney
> believe paul mccartney has so many
> right-wing republican, pro-war....bastard
> fans. It makes me wonder if these
> people really understand what the
> beatles stood for. Where do you find the
> time to post here? Shouldn't you all be
> listening to rush limbaugh? and
> searching the bible for reasons to claim
> that homosexuality is "evil"? Go dig out
> your old Pat Boone records, they'll suit
> you much better.....
judge or"stereotype" people with differing opinions. Makes me not want
to admit I'm a liberal, if I'm to be judged by the way you speak to
others. Put some ice in your shorts & chill out, dude.;-)
~Eva
Eva
First of all, how do you presume to speak for a dead man? I guess you
must be the only one he has deemed suitable to recieve his messages from
the grave. Also, the Lennon I know & love would have supported his
friend, Paul, even if he may not agree with all of the sentiments of the
song, I'm sure he would not have laughed at him, he may be cheering him
on now as we speak. Also, do you really think Paul is so hard up as to
just play this benefit for record sales? I'm sure he wouldn't mind a hit
on the charts, but I don't believe money is his motivating factor at
this stage in the game. You sure seem bitter for a peacenik, btw. Oh,
and before you start calling me an uptight right-winger, I believe Gere
had every right to say what he had to say, and the audience had every
right to voice their opinion as well, it's what makes this country worth
fighting for, IMHO.
Back to lurkdom for me;-)
Rock on Paul fans!
~Eva
Barnaby207
weren't that buddy buddy. He got kicks throughout the 70's by making fun of
paul and his music, in private...and even publically. I have no reason to
believe he still wouldn't enjoy the same type of thing, especially if paul made
a cheesy, publicity seeking move. (how many times is he going to brag about his
firefighting dad?) I recommend you listen to "how do you sleep?"....if you
think john and paul would still be best mates. The rift that came between them
in the late 60's was never fully repaired. Also, John and Yoko almost always
tried to voice the same opinion on issues....and Yoko has said some very
negative things about Paul in recent years, so it can somewhat safely be
assumed that John would hold a similar view. If the Lennon you know and love
would always support his friend Paul, then why didn't he support him during the
70's?? Why was paul mccartney basically an ENEMY to him throughout the 70's?
John wasn't a simple, happy-go-lucky guy who would just automatically support
someone was once his friend.......he was a highly complicated and emotionally
disturbed man, who held A LOT of bitterness towards paul mccartney. John even
wrote in his private diaries about how amused and pleased he was that paul was
behind bars in japan for the pot arrest back in 1980.
Maybe I do seem somewhat bitter for a "peacenik". But I'm a guy who's really
frustrated with the bullshit in the press and in the mainstream of this country
since september 11. I liked us as a country much better before the attack,
before we launched into this ignorant psuedo-patriotism thing. I don't like
the fact that firemen and police officers get a benefit concert for simply
doing their job....which they get paid to do. Firemen and policemen are
typically people who aren't skilled enough to do anything else, so they take a
low end job that requires little intelligence or talent. I'll bet a lot of
these "heroes" were the braindead jocks in highschool, who bullied around nerdy
kids. I find it funny that many of the recording artists in our society were
paying tribute to the guys who would have kicked their asses back in high
school, for being "nerds" or "outcasts". These people were simply doing their
jobs....and several of them have actually spoken out about not understanding
the whole "you guys are heroes" craze. I mean, you saw the kind of people that
were at that show in uniform......these guys weren't exactly the classiest,
most intelligent bunch of guys were they? They were pretty much what many
people would call a guido, or even a redneck. There's nothing wrong with these
guys really......but they don't deserve the hype.....they're not heroes,
they're doing a job....a job that's been done for years and years. It's
hilarious how fireman and police officers are now suddenly
heroes.........remember oklahoma city??...they worked there too.....but no one
called them heroes then. They didn't become heroes until the government made
it the "in" thing to say. The only people I consider to be heroes are our
artists who contribute something great to our world......they're the people
that make life on this planet so much better, simply by creating something
eternally beautiful. I know this is going to upset a lot of people...but oh
well, it needs to be said. I'm sick of everyone in this country jumping on the
same pathetic bandwagon. Maybe it's just because I'm a non-conformist, and a
swim upstream kind of guy....but I find all these trends and bandwagons since
september 11 to be just revolting in their fakeness, and absurdity......I have
a feeling that a lot of people have opinions they're afraid to express because
it would seem disrespectful due the tragedy....well I'm all for coming out and
saying it. There's A LOT of bullshit amidst in america right now.....
Eva
his own writings. The part you left out about him laughing at Paul being
busted, you conveniently forgot to add in that same book, he thought
Paul was gonna be held for a little while & let go. When it became
apparent that the Japanese gov't were not just having fun with him, he
was concerned for Paul. And it has been well documented that he & Paul
made their peace with each other, before he was shot. They may not have
been best buddies like they were in the early days, but Lennon seemed to
still have some affection for his former partner. He was hard on Paul,
but if anybody else messed with him, Lennon was one of Paul's biggest
supporters. I know all about "How Do You Sleep" and Lennon even said
that only reflected how he was feeling at that time, after the break-up.
Remember, he was very quick to say how he felt at any given moment, but
would change his mind very quickly. And how Paul & Yoko are getting
along now has no relevance whatsoever, I think John could think for
himself, unless you seem to think he was Yoko's puppet. As for the rest
of your post- I've always regarded firefighters as heroes, and I believe
people thought so after Oklahoma city, too. Maybe it's just because this
tragedy has brought out a lot of good in people, obviously something you
can't see. You seem to have a very pessimistic view of the world, and
that has nothing to do with being a "nonconformist"
~Eva
lennon fan
Re: anyone else think "freedom" was REALLY cheesy?
(EDT-3) From: E-P...@webtv.net (Eva)
right on, Eva! Peaceniks can be some of the most vicious people I know:)
I get sick of How Do You Sleep being used as the definitive statement by
Lennon on how he felt about Macca for all of eternity. He was bitter in
-1971- (30 years ago, folks) just after the breakup. So what? It's also
been said he liked Band On The Run. There's a photo of them together
having a good time in 1974. Lennon could change his mind on an issue
from one -day- to the next, let alone how he would feel -30 years later-
at the age of -61-!
It also infuriates me that to be a fan of Lennon you have to subscribe
to every belief he ever held. He did Heroin, does that mean I should
too? He took hundreds of LSD trips, does that mean I can't be a fan if I
don't follow suit?
I could go on with this, but I think you catch my drift.
To take what JL said in 1969-1972 and typecast him with that for all
time is a disservice to his memory, IMO.
remember:
'but if you talk about destruction, don't you know that you can count me
out/in'
-regards from lennonfan
edc...@bellatlantic.net
terrorists who did this will never stop. They would kill you, me, the stars of the
concert, without even thinking about it. They hate what we all stand for. In a free
society you can say what you think. You are doing it right now. The people who did
this hate what we all stand for. They hate the fact that we are not legally allowed
to treat our women like shit. They hate people of any different background. They
will also kill again. I have the feeling you might feel different if it was one of
your family that perished on that tragic day. I am not wishing this on any body.
All I say is that you would also be more emotionally attached. This act can't go
unchecked.
As far as John and Paul, I agree with lennonfan. John was not the same "bitter"
guy from the early 70's that he was in 1980. People change and grow. John also had
positive things to say about Paul. What seems to get me is that many people refuse
to let the image of John Lennon go when it comes to the 1969-1973 period.
Everything he said then is taken as blind gospel truth on how he felt for his
entire life. Everybody seems to quote Give Peace A Chance or Imagine, but what
about Starting Over, Woman, or Watching The Wheels. To me at least (warning
subjective opinion coming up, come to think of it all music and opinions are
subjective), I Don't Wanna Face It is a far more accurate song of who John was as a
person than Give Peace A Chance. John saw that the world is not simple cut and
dried, black and white. And it isn't. Someone posted that John was likely to change
his opinion many times during the year, month, week, day, etc. John was human. Just
my .02.
Ed
lennon fan
We're dealing with religious fanatics that cannot be reasoned with. They
had the chance to avoid all of this, but nooooooo!
What the Taliban have done to their people is criminal, so I'm glad they
will be removed from power.
Paul's new song rawks, BTW.
:)
-regards from lennonfan
Barnaby207
until the day he died......he was still a pretty emotionally disturbed person.
He probably had a few undiagnosed mental problems. And he also felt jealousy
and bitterness towards paul, in a very human way. I simply was saying that if
John was around he wouldn't automatically support Paul, simply because he was
friends with him.....he would need a legitimate reason for it. In the past, if
John thought a song of Paul's was crap, he would say it.......and if he was
around today, I'm sure he'd STILL say it. And I believe that he would think
"freedom" was a crap song.....that it lacked any edge, that it was too cheesy.
Lennon wrote tons of sentimental songs.......but they still were
edgy.....that's the difference between Paul's soft side, and John's soft side.
Perhaps, if John was around......maybe he would have said in regard to the
"freedom" song..."ok paul, i like the idea......but the lyrics are shit.....let
me have a go". John wouldn't put up with crap lyrics.....and I think that
would have been his major beef with the song
Herb O'Brien
about the rest of John's solo lyrics? On close examination, in many instances they
are worse than Paul's. Listen to "Well, Well, Well," "Woman is the Nigger of the
World,"Steel and Glass,"and much of John's solo material is downright painful to
listen too, please let's stop making John something he wasn't. I love both these
guys, but John needed Paul.
Eva
had mellowed a bit in his later years;-)
~Eva
Barnaby207
more adventurous production wise, and musically. But John's stuff has ALWAYS
had better lyrics, take it or leave it. All those songs you listed still had
better lyrics than a lot of Paul's songs.....John was just a more clever guy,
better with words......he was brilliant at lyrics, and writing great left of
center songs, that always had an edge to them. His stuff was more emotionally
driven. Paul possesses the god given ability to churn out incredible melodies
in a very prolific manner.....ala mozart. There ya go....I see Paul sort of as
the Mozart (insanely talented, prolific, happy-go-lucky, very "pop" sounding,
and John as the Beethovan type (less god given musical prodigy like talent, but
more deeply emotional music, slightly mentally ill, darker, moodier music)
Barnaby207
his stuff always came straight from the heart.....he felt his music deeply.
Whereas Paul often writes songs simply for fun....or for a laugh, and then says
"hey that's alright, I think I'll release it." John was much, much "deeper"
Barnaby207
lennon as far as being completely emotionally driven, and moody. Those things
never change about a person......He still had bitterness towards paul as is
evident by his diary entries in 79-80, BUT he'd also warmed up to him a lot
more than in say....1970.
lennon fan
Re: anyone else think "freedom" was REALLY cheesy?(LennonFan)
Group: rec.music.artists.paul-mccartney Date: Wed, Oct 24, 2001, 10:43am
(EDT-3) From: E-P...@webtv.net (Eva)
had mellowed a bit in his later years;-)
~Eva
of course Eva! Everything on Double Fantasy was just as pure pop as
anything Macca ever did!
sheesh!
Herb O'Brien
album was the greatest. Now, it is almost a laugher. To me it is immature
lyircally, damn right sloppy musically, and has not aged well. Give me RAM
anytime. I work with a bunch of younger people. They will listen to McCartney
without a complaint. When I put on Lennon's greatest hits, all I get is bitching
and moaning. I do not believe John was much deeper at all, that is the Lennon
myth, but of course I respect your opinion. I like both guys equally but I hate
seeing Paul slammed all the time.
lennon fan
Re: anyone else think "freedom" was REALLY cheesy?
(EDT+4) From: barna...@aol.com (Barnaby207)
He needed paul for both, IMO. Otherwise he could have just written books
of poetry.
Paul's music in the 70's was far more adventurous production wise, and
musically. But John's stuff has ALWAYS had better lyrics, take it or
leave it.
I'll leave it. I don't think John's lyrics were especially better than
Paul's. John was more confused, Paul knew exactly where he stood.
All those songs you listed still had better lyrics than a lot of Paul's
songs.....John was just a more clever guy, better with words......he was
brilliant at lyrics, and writing great left of center songs, that always
had an edge to them.
Like Bless You? Beef Jerky? Nutopian National Anthem? LOL.
His stuff was more emotionally driven. Paul possesses the god given
ability to churn out incredible melodies in a very prolific
manner.....ala mozart. There ya go....I see Paul sort of as the Mozart
(insanely talented, prolific, happy-go-lucky, very "pop" sounding, and
John as the Beethovan type (less god given musical prodigy like talent,
but more deeply emotional music, slightly mentally ill, darker, moodier
music)
Interesting that Yoko thought that John was the Mozart:))
anyway, Paul wrote songs that appeal to people of all ages, not just the
mentally ill dysfunctional confused 'fans' that make up most critics and
people on many Usenet boards.
Paul wrote songs that celebrate love, home and family....but gee, I
guess that's just not very 'rock and roll', now, is it?
-regards from lennonfan
Barnaby207
emotions....simple as that. He wrote what he felt....that is as honest as it
gets. Paul writes "monkberry moon delight"....what the fuck is that?? It's a
comedy song, that's what it is. And a lot of paul's songs are like
that.....that's why I don't like about hit. I'm not buying into any press
about john. It's obvious by reading interviews and listening to the music.
Paul very very often makes up songs just for fun.......he even says this
himself, that's how I know. That is not deep artistic
expression...no.......it's happy-go-lucky entertainment. John put his heart
into his songs.....he just openly and honestly expressed himself......that's
all I ask from the artists I listen to. And MANY MANY people would disagree
with you about plastic ono band....including me. It's meant to be
simple......it's the least pretentious album ever made. It's pure fucking
emotion.....no sugar, no icing. John didn't go out of his way to make his
lyrics sound more witty, or clever.....he just wrote what he felt. And he
didn't go out of his way to make the instrumental arrangements complex or over
the top.....he simply played what he felt. It's album of pure feeling and
emotion....that's all....unfiltered artistic expression. You obviously never
understood the punk movement if you criticize a record for it's simplicity.
Barnaby207
yeah....he knew exactly where he stood....making bubble gum. All the best
artists since the beginning of time have been confused, and troubled....that's
where the only lasting art comes from....because it's real and genuine emotion.
Barnaby207
music. I think he will forever be more musically talented than john. I just
wish he was more genuine.......he often comes across to me as fake in a very
showbiz kind of way
Eva
I choose not to believe what those hacks Giuliano, Rosen, and sometimes
Seamen have regurgitated over the years. After all, they were looking at
stolen material, and I for one have serious doubts about their
credibility. Yoko is the only one who can tell us what's in those
diaries for sure, and I doubt that will ever happen. Especially with
that outrageous claim about that guy that John supposedly wanted to have
a homosexual affair with. I wonder why he kept it to himself all these
years?
~Eva
Glad you finally see it my way;-)!
Eva
> stood....making bubble gum. All the best
> artists since the beginning of time have
> been confused, and troubled....that's
> where the only lasting art comes
> from....because it's real and genuine
> emotion.
you say, maybe you ought to go to the rec. artists. Lennon group. I
happen to enjoy BOTH ARTISTS( yes, Paul is considered an artist) and
refuse to condem either like you seem to be so fond of. The whole John
vs Paul is pretty tired in my book, and I for one love what both of them
have to say. Also, it's only YOUR opinion that troubled people are the
only ones who create great art, it's not a <fact>.
~Eva(last post on this subject, as everyone cries, THANK
GOD!) ;-)
Rizzo219
Laden to justice as we are, doesn't mean I'm "pro-war", I just believe there is
a different road to peace than just laying down our weapons, doing so will
beget more violence, against us! Of course there are mistakes and they are
unfortunate, but we are not bombing the AFgan public, we are targeting the
terrorist bases (should we feel "compassion and understanding" for them?),
military bases and airports. Yes some bombs will miss their targets and that's
unfortunate. But why do we have to be "liberal" or let the other side kick the
crap out of us in order to be a Beatle fan? Imagine is one of my favorite songs
and I hope that we do attain that some day.
Rizzo219
huge Beatle fan. There blows your stereotypes listed below all to hell.
Barnaby207
only ones who create great art, it's not a <fact>.>>
it's not my opinion.....it's what history has taught us.
all deeply troubled people--
Picasso, Dali, Shakespeare, Bach, Oscar Wilde, Dickens, Van Gogh, Beethovan,
Mozart, Brian Wilson, John Lennon, Phil Spector, Stanley Kubrick, Marlon
Brando, Anthony Hopkins, Orson Welles, Andy Warhol, Henry Mancini, Claude
Debussey, Jackson Pollock, Elvis Presley, Frank Sinatra, Walt Whitman, Dylan
Thomas, T.S. Elliot....and the list goes on and on
It's curious that pretty much 99% of all great art has been made by troubled
souls. Who knows why......but perhaps it's that one must fully know true pain
before one can fully appreciate true beauty and then create it..... It also
could because the great artists have always been deeply sensitive people, who
are more easily hurt and depressed than most......but are more attuned to
emotions than most, and can express them more fully
Barnaby207
them, or what they stood for. I know there are exceptions to my republican
stereotypes....but they are few and far between. Unfortunately the beatles,
dylan and others like them in the 60's weren't able to wipe the world clean of
right-wing republican thinking......it's a shame. Maybe the world would soon
be like john describes in "imagine" if we were all democrats ;) har har har
Rizzo219
or movie actor because of what they stood for, I'd never listen to a record or
go to a movie. Tom Hanks is my favorite actor, but he is one of the Democratic
party's biggest backers. I love Springsteen (ultra liberal), Don Henley (even
more liberal) the Beatles, Elton John, U2 and Billy Joel. The only one amongst
that list that could even be debatable is Joel and I think he is more liberal
than conservative and the rest are liberal. I think everyone on both sides of
the spectrum want the same thing, but have a differing view of how to attain
it. I want peace, but don't believe it can be attained as long as there are
groups like the Al Queda that don't want it out there. Peace only works when
all parties wants it which is why we've never had it.
Vandelay Industries
I am gay, by the way.
And here's a great article from Salon.com that sums up my feelings about the
concert.
Link:
http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2001/10/23/ny_concert/index.html
Salt of the earth
New York's finest got the party they deserved on Saturday night -- and if
you don't think so, you know what you can kiss.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Joan Walsh
Oct. 23, 2001 | I loved Saturday night's VH1 Concert for New York, in all
its loopy, poignant, working-class excess. And anyone who didn't --
including Salon's Jim DeRogatis -- can kiss my royal Irish ass.
Did I wince at some of the macho bluster from the grieving, beer-drinking
cops and firemen and paramedics in the crowd? You bet I did, and then I
remembered to check my luxurious left-coast snobbery. The politics, the
posturing, even the music were beside the point. I've been to enough Irish
wakes to understand the tears and laughter, and the crazy ranting that keeps
the worst feelings at bay. Paul McCartney and Harvey Weinstein and the other
show business mensches threw a party to help the grieving get on with their
lives, to remember the dead and celebrate them too, to say it's OK to live.
And they did a great job.
The events of Sept. 11 have been hard for the simple-minded on the right and
the left, who want their heroes perfect, their villains all-evil, their
causes easy to understand. Who do we think died trying to save the World
Trade Center victims that morning, Richard Gere and Ralph Nader? Snotty rock
critics? No, they were working-class guys, a vast number of them Irish and
Italian, from Queens and Brooklyn and Long Island. Some of them drink too
much and vote Republican and lots of them apparently hate Sen. Hillary
Clinton, who got roundly booed when she came onstage to feel their pain. But
they're heroes nonetheless. They deserve our unqualified gratitude. They
deserved a big, sentimental, over-the-top party without any preaching, and
they mostly got it.
They're also my family. I grew up in New York, the niece of three NYPD
officers and a city fireman. As I got older I couldn't get through a holiday
without arguing with them about Vietnam, Watergate, Ronald Reagan and always
race, crime and American cities. I moved as far away from them as I could as
soon as I could, but in adulthood, as they softened a little and I softened
a lot, I've found myself moving back, learning to respect their values,
their work ethic, their tribal loyalty and their love -- for their families,
their neighborhoods, their brothers (and sisters) at police stations and
firehouses, and their country.
One of my favorite cousins, a Grateful Deadhead and an amazing artist,
followed his father into the NYPD. I still don't like all of his attitudes
about race and politics. But at his daughter's christening I was surprised
to see black officers -- especially since I still go to so many groovy
liberal gatherings that are entirely white. But I shouldn't have been; he's
colorblind when it comes to his brothers. After every fight -- and we still
fight -- my cousin tells me, "I'd do anything for you," and he means it. And
if you were in trouble, he'd do anything for you. Guys like him proved it
Sept. 11.
The New Left screwed up American politics because it was disproportionately
run by elitist college kids who sneered at the working class, at the guys
who weren't fortunate enough to hide from the war in universities (or, like
the privileged sons of the right, in the National Guard) -- the ones whose
families sent them to the police academy, not Harvard. Celebrating the Sept.
11 heroes doesn't mean we forget about police abuses like the killing of
Amadou Diallo, or relax efforts to diversify departments that are still too
much of an Irish and Italian enclave. But lefty cultural elitists are wrong
when they reduce police and fire departments to those flaws, when they
forget about the heroism it takes to do those jobs every day, not just Sept.
11.
So I loved Saturday's concert for helping us to remember exactly who died
saving lives at the World Trade Center. We needed to see their widows and
children weeping onstage. I'll never forget the Stackpole family, the mom
and daughter wiping away tears and the little boys too young to entirely
understand but trying to be brave like their dad; or the amazing Yankees
manager Joe Torre hugging another little boy who will never again feel his
dad's big arms.
The musical high points of the evening were Mick Jagger and Keith Richards'
"Salt of the Earth," which hit just the right note, and of course the
reunited Who tearing the place apart, with those middle-aged, uniformed men
on the arena floor dancing to the music of boy rebellion they grew up with,
when maybe they had bigger dreams than just following their dads into the
force. Now, of course, they've become the heroes they always dreamed of
being. And then there was my crazy homeboy, the beefy fireman who saluted
his fallen brothers and then said, on behalf of all Irish Americans, "Osama
bin Laden can kiss my royal Irish ass," and called the Saudi rich-boy
terrorist a "bitch." I winced, I laughed and then I cried. Only a cynic
could simply sneer.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
About the writer
Joan Walsh is the editor of Salon News.
Rich Diakun
were. Here I was trying to brush it all off as the news media with a ton of
time to fill and not much substance to really report, and thus digging into
things to the point of scaring the crap out of people. I guess under the
surface of it all, it really is just about the scariest thing I've ever had
to deal with in my lifetime. When I was younger, it was always "The
Commies" and "The Nukes". I never really had any bad dreams or anything
about it all, like I've read some kids did during that time. There was
always the comforting thought of "it'll never happen here."
Damn. It did happen "here," and we're all doing our best to wear "the brave
face." It isn't working too well, is it. Jeez, we're all set with just the
right phrases to set one another off and just as set to dive into the fray
and work off some pent-up frustration and energy if someone were to say
something that could be even loosely construed as touching too close to the
bone. I hope to God this finds some sort of resolution, and quickly. The
aggregate stress in us all is really boiling over sometimes.
I'm all in favor of venting. Venting is good when done constructively. But
when we get mean and snitty with each other -- hell, I ran the risk of
saying some prety stupid stuff and ticking off some people in here that I've
considered my "friends" in the newsgroup -- and start down the ugly road of
name-calling and getting waaaaay too politically divisive, we're in trouble.
Remember how this supposedly "brought us together"??? Let's back off a bit
on some of the sore topics -- from all sides -- and give us time to cool off
before we start brawling like a drunken mob in here. Dammit, I like you
people, and I'm just as freaked out by all of this as you are. But we've
got to keep it together or "they" win. That would really suck.
- Rich
"Rizzo219" <rizz...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011023225506...@mb-cp.aol.com...
> Yup, that's what alot the peaceniks I hear do when someone disagrees with
them
> starts tossing insults around.
>
> >From: barna...@aol.com (Barnaby207)
>
> >
> >you wouldn't understand I guess.....obviously being a conservative
redneck
> >and
> >all
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Brett A. Pasternack
>
>
> Re: anyone else think "freedom" was REALLY cheesy?
>
> From: bret...@erols.com (Brett A. Pasternack)
> lennon fan wrote:
> yeah, Gere made better comedy relief than the comics! It was fun
> laughing and booing at the same time! What a jackass he is!...but it's
> very important to show these opinions are out there, and to let the
> person making that statement know what the vast majority of us thinks of
> it:)
> -regards from lennonfan
>
> This "lennon" you're a fan of...since you obviously don't mean John
> Lennon,
>
> oh yes, I do:))
>
> who would have been apt to say just about the same thing as Gere said,
>
> bullshit. he would have more likely said what paul said.
Give me ONE example of him saying anything like that.
> To be a Lennon
> fan doesn't mean I have to spend the rest of my life following in
> lockstep with his political views circa 1969.
Of course not, but it should mean that you have respect for his views,
which were consistant from at least 1966 or so until his death. I
certainly don't agree with everything John believed, but I wouldn't look
at someone saying similar things and call him a jackass.
Y'know, Gere never said that he was opposed to the war (at least, while
onstage...I have no idea what he's said before or since). He simply said
that we should look to respond to tragedy with compassion rather than
vengeance. If you don't think John would have said "right on" to that,
you don't know John Lennon at all.
Brett A. Pasternack
>
> I enjoy Elton John's music. Doesn't mean I'm gay. I am in favor of bring bin
> Laden to justice as we are, doesn't mean I'm "pro-war", I just believe there is
> a different road to peace than just laying down our weapons, doing so will
> beget more violence, against us! Of course there are mistakes and they are
> unfortunate, but we are not bombing the AFgan public, we are targeting the
> terrorist bases (should we feel "compassion and understanding" for them?),
> military bases and airports. Yes some bombs will miss their targets and that's
> unfortunate. But why do we have to be "liberal" or let the other side kick the
> crap out of us in order to be a Beatle fan?
Where in the simple statement that we should respond to the attacks with
compassion do you get the idea that we should let the other side kick
the crap out of us, or that we should lay down our weapons?
Sometimes violence is necessary. But it should always be because it IS
necessary to protect ourselves, not out of hatred and vengeance.
Reasonable people can disagree about whether violence in necessary
here--I'm not 100% sure how I feel myself--but I certainly feel that the
most important thing that should come out of Sept. 11 is our compassion
for the victims of terrorism, both in this instance and elsewhere.
Bruce Mirken
"Brett A. Pasternack" <bret...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:3BD790...@erols.com...
> Where in the simple statement that we should respond to the attacks with
> compassion do you get the idea that we should let the other side kick
> the crap out of us, or that we should lay down our weapons?
>
> Sometimes violence is necessary. But it should always be because it IS
> necessary to protect ourselves, not out of hatred and vengeance.
> Reasonable people can disagree about whether violence in necessary
> here--I'm not 100% sure how I feel myself--but I certainly feel that the
> most important thing that should come out of Sept. 11 is our compassion
> for the victims of terrorism, both in this instance and elsewhere.
Well said, Brett. Here is a perspective folks might find interesting--a
link to a column from the Oct. 24 Irish Times--
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1024-10.htm
SWever
>coming out, he wouldn't have played at the gig. He's very much into
>conveying
>the image that he is mr compassionate, nice guy......and this show would make
>him look REALLY good to record buyers>>barnaby
That's one of the most cynical, ridiculous statements I have ever heard. Paul
didn't jump on this bandwagon...he was begged to do it because people knew that
only a man of his reputation could pull together so many artists. Many of the
artists that appeared, most notably Billy Joel, said that it would never have
happened without Paul. For heaven's sake...he was on a runway in NYC when the
Trade towers were blown up! Your comment sickens me.
Stefan
SWever
>weren't that buddy buddy. >>barnaby
You're showing your ignorance here. Paul and John were best friends/brothers
until the very end. They both admitted it, but no one more than John. You
should spend less time reading Goldman and more time searching for the truth.
Stefan
SWever
> John wouldn't put up with crap lyrics....>>barnaby
I have three words (again)...Well, Well, Well.
Stefan
SWever
I'll leave it. John's genius wasn't in his lyrics...the words he chose, for
the most part, were very ordinary. It's just that he chose to bare his soul
and be the tortured artist whereas Paul always felt uncomfortable with that.
Even a song like "Working Class Hero" has pretty sophomoric lyrics...it's the
sentiment he expresses which is brilliant.
Stefan
SWever
>artists since the beginning of time have been confused, and
>troubled....that's
>where the only lasting art comes from....because it's real and genuine
Of course...because true love, joy, and happiness are not real and genuine
emotions. You have turned stereotyping into an art form.
Stefan
SWever
>with you about plastic ono band....including me. It's meant to be
It's just a different type of art. It's like comparing Monet to Picasso.
Besides, if POB is so unpretentious, then why did it take numerous takes to
record "Mother"? Didn't he get the emotion qute right the first time?
Stefan
SWever
>right--freedom of speech and freedom to boo idiots like Richard Gere...>>lucas
More like American ignorance. Gere is a Buddhist. No more need be said about
his motives.
Stefan
SWever
>them, or what they stood for. I know there are exceptions to my republican
As clearly as I am a liberal Democrat, and as clearly as I believe that those
who booed Hillary and Gere lacked class at that moment, I also believe that you
are way off target here (pardon the war analogy). The booing, as well as your
comments, were classless, divisive, unneccesary, and a result of base
instincys. Our future depends on positive, productive dialogue...not
name-calling and derisiveness.
Stefan
lennon fan
Re: anyone else think "freedom" was REALLY cheesy?
From: bret...@erols.com (Brett A. Pasternack)
lennon fan wrote:
Re: anyone else think "freedom" was REALLY cheesy?
Group: rec.music.artists.paul-mccartney Date: Tue, Oct 23, 2001, 3:58am
From: bret...@erols.com (Brett A. Pasternack)
lennon fan wrote:
yeah, Gere made better comedy relief than the comics! It was fun
laughing and booing at the same time! What a jackass he is!...but it's
very important to show these opinions are out there, and to let the
person making that statement know what the vast majority of us thinks of
it:)
-regards from lennonfan
This "lennon" you're a fan of...since you obviously don't mean John
Lennon,
oh yes, I do:))
who would have been apt to say just about the same thing as
Gere said,
bullshit. he would have more likely said what paul said.
Give me ONE example of him saying anything like that.
'but when you talk about destruction, don't you know that you can count
me out/in'
White album, side 4 (for the vinyl afficionado);)
To be a Lennon
fan doesn't mean I have to spend the rest of my life following in
lockstep with his political views circa 1969.
Of course not, but it should mean that you have respect for his views,
which were consistant from at least 1966 or so until his death.
his views were -not- consistent. He often spoke of how his views on any
particular issue could change minute-to-minute. Example, from Lennon
Remembers (1971) National Lampoon put these quotes on an album under the
title Magical Misery Tour:)
'I resent the tone of all you fuckers tell me what do you know? A lot of
faggot middle class kids wearing long hair and trendy clothes! Look, I'm
not your fuckin' parents and I'm sick of uptight hippies comin' knockin'
on me door with a fuckin' peace symbol- get this: fuck that, I don't owe
you fuckers anything and all I've got to say is FUCK YOU!
I certainly don't agree with everything John believed, but I wouldn't
look at someone saying similar things and call him a jackass.
Y'know, Gere never said that he was opposed to the war (at least, while
onstage...I have no idea what he's said before or since). He simply said
that we should look to respond to tragedy with compassion rather than
vengeance. If you don't think John would have said "right on" to that,
you don't know John Lennon at all.
I don't think John Lennon had a whole lot of 'compassion' for the drunk
officer that ran over and killed his mother.
To Gere's credit, he had the common sense to change tack midstream when
the boos became deafening. I still think he had a political agenda
based on his starry-eyed Buddhist belief which he seemed hell bent on
pushing in the media, as well as this concert. I still think his
approach was rude, and I'm glad the audience let him know it. I thought
the boos for Hilary were out of place, but that's another issue. I saw a
report this evening that at the post concert party, Gere was approached
by a firefighter who offered his hand, and Gere was moved, and explained
profusely that he supported our police and firefighters' efforts....but
that still sidesteps the issue he was booed for. Any close examination
of Buddhist views clearly points out that some of them are simply not
workable, or true, in the real world. Gere is a fairly recent convert to
the faith and became starry-eyed when he met the Dahli Lama a few years
back. Everybody wants peace, but they don't go to the victims of
atrocities asking for compassion for the perps.
It's like asking the concentration camp Jewish victims to have sympathy
for Hitler.
and BTW, I don't think Lennon had a lot of sympathy for -him- either.
regards from lennonfan
Barnaby207
until the very end. They both admitted it, but no one more than John. You
should spend less time reading Goldman and more time searching for the truth.>>
I suggest you do some more reading, moron....before write again. John NEVER
admitted that he and paul were best friends until they end.....maybe paul
claims that now, as he loves to rewrite history. Yoko was John's best friend
and soulmate up until the day he died. John and Paul still had mutual respect
for each other, and got together once in a blue moon (at paul's request)...but
that's it. There was A LOT of bitterness there, which you're just trying to
hide from and ignore because you want to believe in your little dream world
than john and paul were best mates until the end. Your posts have made it
obvious that you're a complete idiot......I suggest you pursue a brain
transplant with a slug....you might gain some intelligence.
Rizzo219
entitled to his beliefs (or even what I call everyone's right to be stupid) and
say them there. What I was saying is this wasn't an audience of Rush Limbaugh
listeners, this was a room of people where every guest (the 6,000 emergency
workers) lost someone close to them. No one should be surprised at the
response. Remember the frame of mind they are in. Not the same as you and I!
Rich Diakun
idiot......I suggest you pursue a brain transplant with a slug....you might
gain some intelligence.>>
Uncool. Of all the people who regularly post here, Stefan has earned his
stripes with consistently intelligent posts. You might not agree with what
he says, but there's no reason to stoop to such a childish level. If you
can't disagree with someone intelligently, exercise that part of the right
to free speech that is the right not to speak up.
- Rich
Matthew R. Mora
Eva wrote:
> Ok, this post has brought me out of my perpetual lurkdom.
> First of all, how do you presume to speak for a dead man? I guess you
> must be the only one he has deemed suitable to recieve his messages from
> the grave. Also, the Lennon I know & love would have supported his
> friend, Paul, even if he may not agree with all of the sentiments of the
> song, I'm sure he would not have laughed at him, he may be cheering him
> on now as we speak. Also, do you really think Paul is so hard up as to
> just play this benefit for record sales? I'm sure he wouldn't mind a hit
> on the charts, but I don't believe money is his motivating factor at
> this stage in the game. You sure seem bitter for a peacenik, btw. Oh,
> and before you start calling me an uptight right-winger, I believe Gere
> had every right to say what he had to say, and the audience had every
> right to voice their opinion as well, it's what makes this country worth
> fighting for, IMHO.
> Back to lurkdom for me;-)
>
> Rock on Paul fans!
> ~Eva
Hey - great post! Stop lurkin'!!!! Yuh hit the nail square on the head.
Matt
>
>
>
> >From: barna...@aol.com
>
> >actually john would have said something
> > VERY similar to Richard Gere. His
> > views on the matter were the most
> > lennonesque there were at that show. I
> > think John really would have laughed at
> > Paul's "freedom" song....knowing him
> > and his sense of humor. Lennon would
> > have probably not appreciated the fact
> > that paul's song probably wasn't too
> > genuine, and was more of a publicity
> > seeking attempt. I love paul, but I
> > seriously think that if he didn't have an
> > album coming out, he wouldn't have
> > played at the gig. He's very much into
> > conveying the image that he is mr
> > compassionate, nice guy......and this
> > show would make him look REALLY
> > good to record buyers.
runninman
person at times, a phoney. It was not always Dr. Martin Luther John.
Both Sean and Julian have said that. Check your Beatle history and maybe
I'll research the punk movement.
PS-Monkberry Moon Delight is a great song! Love the imagery!!! Try a
piano up your nose!
Barnaby207 wrote:
>
> you really don't think john's stuff came from the heart? he wrote about his
> emotions....simple as that. He wrote what he felt....that is as honest as it
> gets. Paul writes "monkberry moon delight"....what the fuck is that?? It's a
> comedy song, that's what it is. And a lot of paul's songs are like
> that.....that's why I don't like about hit. I'm not buying into any press
> about john. It's obvious by reading interviews and listening to the music.
> Paul very very often makes up songs just for fun.......he even says this
> himself, that's how I know. That is not deep artistic
> expression...no.......it's happy-go-lucky entertainment. John put his heart
> into his songs.....he just openly and honestly expressed himself......that's
> all I ask from the artists I listen to. And MANY MANY people would disagree
> with you about plastic ono band....including me. It's meant to be
> simple......it's the least pretentious album ever made. It's pure fucking
> emotion.....no sugar, no icing. John didn't go out of his way to make his
> lyrics sound more witty, or clever.....he just wrote what he felt. And he
> didn't go out of his way to make the instrumental arrangements complex or over
> the top.....he simply played what he felt. It's album of pure feeling and
> emotion....that's all....unfiltered artistic expression. You obviously never
> understood the punk movement if you criticize a record for it's simplicity.
Eva
> the nail square on the head.
>Matt
<Blush!> Thankuverymuch, Matt. I will post a bit, but I don't want to
go on with this subject, since some people seem to have a direct line to
Mr Lennon's mind. I surely can't compete with that!;-)
~Eva
SWever
Nice namecalling. Anyway, I suggest you speak with some of the people who
actually knew John, instead of reading books by authors with various agendas.
Those people really close to John insist that John loved Paul like a brother
'til the day he died. He just would never admit it in public. BTW, chill out!
;)
Stefan
Barnaby207
what I've read......John didn't have a lot of contact with many of his friends
during the 70's simply because he spent so much time with yoko. It seems like
the only people very close to him were elliot mintz, yoko, and sean. I know
from what I've read from Yoko, who arguably knew john better than
anyone......she never said anything about john loving paul like a brother, but
more having a mutual respect, and yet still a rivalry, and some bitterness. I
think that if John really loved Paul so much, then perhaps Yoko would make more
of an effort to befriend Paul, out of respect to john. But as it stands now,
according to paul.....they're not getting along very well at all. I think deep
down John did care quite a lot about Paul in the end, but they had a lot of
problems and issues between them that I don't think were all sorted out before
John's death, unfortunetely
Brett A. Pasternack
How did you know? B^) But the kind of "destruction" he was talking about
wasn't a war and certainly wasn't being done by a government.
> To be a Lennon
> fan doesn't mean I have to spend the rest of my life following in
> lockstep with his political views circa 1969.
> Of course not, but it should mean that you have respect for his views,
> which were consistant from at least 1966 or so until his death.
>
> his views were -not- consistent. He often spoke of how his views on any
> particular issue could change minute-to-minute.
Actually, I left the impression that *all* of his views were consistant,
and that was an error on my part. But he *was* consistant in opposing
war and government-sanctioned violence, and in looking for compassion
and peaceful solotions when they were in short supply.
Example, from Lennon
> Remembers (1971) National Lampoon put these quotes on an album under the
> title Magical Misery Tour:)
> 'I resent the tone of all you fuckers tell me what do you know? A lot of
> faggot middle class kids wearing long hair and trendy clothes! Look, I'm
> not your fuckin' parents and I'm sick of uptight hippies comin' knockin'
> on me door with a fuckin' peace symbol- get this: fuck that, I don't owe
> you fuckers anything and all I've got to say is FUCK YOU!
>
> I certainly don't agree with everything John believed, but I wouldn't
> look at someone saying similar things and call him a jackass.
> Y'know, Gere never said that he was opposed to the war (at least, while
> onstage...I have no idea what he's said before or since). He simply said
> that we should look to respond to tragedy with compassion rather than
> vengeance. If you don't think John would have said "right on" to that,
> you don't know John Lennon at all.
>
> I don't think John Lennon had a whole lot of 'compassion' for the drunk
> officer that ran over and killed his mother.
"In spite of this, I don't have a 'hate-the-pigs' attitude." -- JL
> To Gere's credit, he had the common sense to change tack midstream when
> the boos became deafening. I still think he had a political agenda
> based on his starry-eyed Buddhist belief which he seemed hell bent on
> pushing in the media, as well as this concert. I still think his
> approach was rude, and I'm glad the audience let him know it. I thought
> the boos for Hilary were out of place, but that's another issue. I saw a
> report this evening that at the post concert party, Gere was approached
> by a firefighter who offered his hand, and Gere was moved, and explained
> profusely that he supported our police and firefighters' efforts....but
> that still sidesteps the issue he was booed for. Any close examination
> of Buddhist views clearly points out that some of them are simply not
> workable, or true, in the real world.
Any close examination of ANY religious views will find the same thing.
I'm not defending everything Gere believes, or even everything he's said
about the tragedy--just what he said onstage that got him booed.
>Gere is a fairly recent convert to
> the faith and became starry-eyed when he met the Dahli Lama a few years
> back. Everybody wants peace, but they don't go to the victims of
> atrocities asking for compassion for the perps.
He *didn't*. He asked for compassion, but he never said compassion *for
the perpetrators*, and there's no reason to think he meant that. You
*could* argue that he meant compassion for the Afghani people, but he
didn't say that either. He could as easily have meant that we should
concentrate on our compassion for the victims and their families.
Brett A. Pasternack
>
> <<John was more confused, Paul knew exactly where he stood.>>
>
> yeah....he knew exactly where he stood....making bubble gum. All the best
> artists since the beginning of time have been confused, and troubled....that's
> where the only lasting art comes from....because it's real and genuine emotion.
Are contentment, love, and brotherhood not "real" emotions?
lennon fan
Re: anyone else think "freedom" was REALLY cheesy?
Obviously, you don't know this, because JL didn't know either, which is
the point of the 'out/in' comment. He said it would depend on the
circumstances.
To be a Lennon
fan doesn't mean I have to spend the rest of my life following in
lockstep with his political views circa 1969. Of course not, but it
should mean that you have respect for his views, which were consistant
from at least 1966 or so until his death.
his views were -not- consistent. He often spoke of how his views on any
particular issue could change minute-to-minute.
Actually, I left the impression that *all* of his views were consistant,
and that was an error on my part. But he *was* consistant in opposing
war and government-sanctioned violence, and in looking for compassion
and peaceful solotions when they were in short supply.
I never heard him say we shouldn't have fought the Germans in WW2.
I -did- hear him say (along with Yoko) that we should release all the
prisoners, and 'love' them back into society....which should get an
award for 'crackpot opinion'.
Example, from Lennon
Remembers (1971) National Lampoon put these quotes on an album under the
title Magical Misery Tour:)
'I resent the tone of all you fuckers tell me what do you know? A lot of
faggot middle class kids wearing long hair and trendy clothes! Look, I'm
not your fuckin' parents and I'm sick of uptight hippies comin' knockin'
on me door with a fuckin' peace symbol- get this: fuck that, I don't owe
you fuckers anything and all I've got to say is FUCK YOU!
I certainly don't agree with everything John believed, but I
wouldn't look at someone saying similar things and call him a jackass.
Y'know, Gere never said that he was opposed to the war (at least, while
onstage...I have no idea what he's said before or since). He simply said
that we should look to respond to tragedy with compassion rather than
vengeance. If you don't think John would have said "right on" to that,
you don't know John Lennon at all.
I don't think John Lennon had a whole lot of 'compassion' for the drunk
officer that ran over and killed his mother.
"In spite of this, I don't have a 'hate-the-pigs' attitude." -- JL
This still doesn't address how he felt about the particular 'pig' in
question;)
To Gere's credit, he had the common sense to change tack midstream when
the boos became deafening. I still think he had a political agenda based
on his starry-eyed Buddhist belief which he seemed hell bent on pushing
in the media, as well as this concert. I still think his approach was
rude, and I'm glad the audience let him know it. I thought the boos for
Hilary were out of place, but that's another issue. I saw a report this
evening that at the post concert party, Gere was approached by a
firefighter who offered his hand, and Gere was moved, and explained
profusely that he supported our police and firefighters' efforts....but
that still sidesteps the issue he was booed for. Any close examination
of Buddhist views clearly points out that some of them are simply not
workable, or true, in the real world.
Any close examination of ANY religious views will find the same thing.
I'm not defending everything Gere believes, or even everything he's said
about the tragedy--just what he said onstage that got him booed.
The reason he was booed is because of his 'convert anger into
compassion' statements as well as what he had previously said in the
media. He wasn't warmly received even before he opened his mouth, which
tells you that they already know some of what he said.
Gere is a fairly recent convert to
the faith and became starry-eyed when he met the Dahli Lama a few years
back. Everybody wants peace, but they don't go to the victims of
atrocities asking for compassion for the perps.
He *didn't*. He asked for compassion, but he never said compassion *for
the perpetrators*, and there's no reason to think he meant that.
He spoke of turning the anger into compassion. There is no reason to be
angry at the Afghani people. He could -only- have meant the
perpetrators.
You *could* argue that he meant compassion for the Afghani people, but
he didn't say that either. He could as easily have meant that we should
concentrate on our compassion for the victims and their families.
but that would have nothing to do with what he actually said.
Brian Fried
Barnaby207 <barna...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011024184109...@mb-ce.aol.com...
> << it's only YOUR opinion that troubled people are the
> only ones who create great art, it's not a <fact>.>>
>
> it's not my opinion.....it's what history has taught us.
No, it isn't.
The idea of the suffering artiste first appeared in France in the late 19th
century, as an explanation for how the Impressionists and
Post-Impressionists could produce art which was both creatively exciting and
purse-draining. Closer inspection of the "great artists" you list in your
post reveal many of the historical figures served the court (and, therefore,
were not poor by the common standard of that day). Also, in the case of the
great artists OF the art world, the theory falls flat because many of the
less-celebrated artists like Cezanne, Matisse, etc. lived stable family
lives.
Trust me: Picasso died a multi-millionaire. He didn't suffer for physical
needs. And he had lots of friends, married more than once (IIRC), and
probably had his share of affairs. Plus he was the least political artist of
his day (he made ONE painting of a political nature, that's it!). Same goes
for Warhol, too. And Dali.
The myth,. though, is what's important. Because lazy critics in the 20th
century -- the guys who are informing your ill-informed opinion on the
matter -- need something to define the artiste above the average person.
They want the Van Goghs and Pollacks, who's art can only be fathomed through
a critic.
Problem is, this is rock and roll we're talking about. It doesn't take a
genius to figure 99% of it out.
Since this came out of a discussion of John & Paul, look at the comparison
closely for a moment. According to the "urban myth" of John Lennon -- the
one the critics are using of him -- John came from a poor background, was
ever discontent, spoke out against war, became an avant-garde artist, turned
to drugs, and eventually paused form music altogether only to get killed
before his big comeback. Never in that narrative are: the fact that he came
from the wealthiest of Beatle families (remember that Aunt Mimi considered
Paul lower), the fact he married Cynthia and lived a normal suburban life,
the fact that he was happiest once he embraced the life outside of the
media, and the fact that he married an avant garde artist who's entire
livelihood was making public statements.
In comparison, Paul "the cute one" McCartney was middle class, barely took
drugs, found the girl of his dreams, settled down and wrote fluff. In truth,
Paul worked as hard as John, took more drugs than Ringo and continued to do
so well into the 80s, was a spoken advocate for drug use (more than John, at
any rate), hung out with the art crowd in London, was part owner of an avant
garde bookstore, was the first Beatle to experiment in film, and has
constantly challenged himself to do something he hasn't done before
artistically.
But this is the music critic. Paul's greatest torture is that he can't
produce ENOUGH. That's bad. John's greatest torture was that he didn't know
who he was for years. That's good.
It's a stereotype. Plain and simple. And you fell for it, hook line &
sinker. Because you wrote:
> It's curious that pretty much 99% of all great art has been made by
troubled
> souls. Who knows why......but perhaps it's that one must fully know true
pain
> before one can fully appreciate true beauty and then create it..... It
also
> could because the great artists have always been deeply sensitive people,
who
> are more easily hurt and depressed than most......but are more attuned to
> emotions than most, and can express them more fully
When in truth the reality is that great art has the power to move you
emotionally. Especially music, which is the transmission of ideas that
cannot be expressed in words.
A critic will tell you it's great art. A real person will tell you that a
pile of excrement on the floor is a pile of excrement on the floor.
And if "the great artists... are more attuned to emotions than most, and can
express them more fully" then McCartney has certainly validated that with
his songs about love and happiness in ways that are not personal but rather
adaptable to anyone's circumstance.
lance
On Fri, 26 Oct 2001 14:45:14 GMT, "Brian Fried" <brian...@home.com>
wrote:
Barnaby207
don't you?? That's what you've emphasized throughout your post. I never meant
at all to equate "troubled" with having no money.....I meant to equate it to
mental or emotional problems ala depression, ocd, anxiety problems,
schizophrenia, etc. Because Picasso was rich, does that mean he was perfectly
happy and not troubled?? No the guy was a nutcase, who was depressed for most
of his life. Because Lennon had more money than the other beatles growing up,
does that mean that he was the least troubled?? no, absolutely not. He had
more problems mentally and emotionally than any of the other beatles. Money
has NOTHING to do with happiness, and in fact......it's quite often the case
that working class people are generally happier, more up beat people....than
wealthy folk. A large portion of suicides come from wealthy people.....who
knows why. But it's pretty clear that money is not the key to happiness. When
I referred to troubled artists in my original post, I was not at all referring
to poor artists. I was talking about the artists who've had mental and
emotional problems.......they, for seem reason.....seem to be the ones that
have made the greatest art contributions to our society.