Question re John Lennon's Death
Miguel B. Good
what kind of funeral John Lennon had; she was saying he should have
had some big to-do like other celebrities have... and she wanted to
know if Paul, Ringo, and George attended the funeral.
I was very much tuned-in to the media at the time, I remember all the
people gathering in Central Park and the candlelight vigils and
flowers and crying and all that.
But I don't remember anything about a funeral that the other Beatles
or anyone might have attended.
I remember a silent vigil...
Can someone refresh my memories about what kind of official funeral or
how the other Beatles "paid their respects" after John's death?
Beatall
ceremony or anything. Yoko reputedly keeps the ashes under her bed!
"Miguel B. Good" <migue...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:uk7931letanhl6dnn...@4ax.com...
Cupid Stunt
"oh, hi John".
don freeman
cover of the National Enquirer.
UsurperTom
> she wanted to know if Paul, Ringo, and George attended the funeral.
Larry King asked Ringo that question which is proof that King doesn't
do his homework.
Tom
Cupid Stunt
Frank from Deeeetroit
remaining Beatles did, however pose for a picture a month or two later at
Ringo and Barbara Bach's wedding.
"Miguel B. Good" <migue...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:uk7931letanhl6dnn...@4ax.com...
fatt...@yahoo.com
Yoko had his remains quickly cremated, before Julian or Sean could see
the body.
Yoko then announced a silent 10 minute vigil would take place on, I
believe, December 14. She then issued a statement that she saw John
smiling down from the sky or some such bull.
Almost immediately, her decorator, Sam Havadtoy, moved into the Lennon
apartment in the Dakota. He stayed for 20 years.
According to many reports, within a few weeks, Sam and Yoko became
lovers. A photo appeared in the British press in September or October
2001 of Yoko and Sam walking happily arm in arm in Central Park.
Also, by late December, early January, Yoko became a one woman
promotional machine, giving interviews, releasing videos, Lennon
records, etc. By April, she returned to the recording studio to record
Season of Glass, her album depicting John's bloody glasses on the
cover.
Yoko finally achieved her dream: she had John's money, fame and the
pity of the world. Before John died, she had been almost universally
scorned. Now Yoko became famous in her own right . . . . after all, it
seemed unkind to criticise this "grieving" widow.
who
fatt...@yahoo.com shat:
> ...She then issued a statement that she saw John
> smiling down from the sky or some such bull.
>
Pardon me while I puke.
fatt...@yahoo.com
You have my permission to puke. You can puke all you wish. Just
turn away from me.
Actually, here is the exact quote:
"Bless you for your tears and prayers. I saw John smiling in the
sky. [huh?] I saw sorrow changing into clarity. [Huh?] I saw all of
us becoming one mind. Thank you. Love. Yoko.
fatt...@yahoo.com
for a photo at Ringo and Barbara's wedding in April 1981. Yoko was not
even invited.
I guess that shows you what they think of her . . . . Ironically, Ringo
was just at the Dakota over Thanksgiving, days before John died, and
flew there to pay a condolence call on December 8 or 9, 1980.
UsurperTom
> Ringo was just at the Dakota over Thanksgiving, days before John
died, and flew there to pay a condolence call on December 8 or 9, 1980.
Not only that, but Yoko initially wouldn't let Barbara enter the Dakota
until Ringo threatened to leave. Yoko also claimed that she called
Julian, Mimi and Paul to give them the tragic news that John had been
shot as soon as she got back from the hospital, but they all said they
didn't find about it from Yoko.
Tom
fatt...@yahoo.com
So true. As usual, Yoko is writing her own version of history.
I guess Francie and other Yoko fans believe that Paul, Mimi and Julian
all lied.
It is my understand that Yoko asked her accountant, Richard
DiPalma, to call various people.
Don Cooper
fatt...@yahoo.com wrote:
> As usual, Yoko is writing her own version of history.
> I guess Francie and other Yoko fans believe that Paul, Mimi and Julian
> all lied.
"Other Yoko fans"?
Gibson Vendettuoli
even-handed, not stepping on anyone's toes, but still including all the
facts, can receive $400 from me...if they send it.
fatt...@yahoo.com
Here is my outline of a Yoko biography:
1. Born in Tokyo, 1939 to an immensely wealthy family. Lives in
a palace with family and 30 servants. Yoko's mother surrounds herself
with furs, jewels and Toyko's aristocratic elite while Yoko is raised
largely by servants. Yoko's father is overseas, working as the
president/CEO of a major bank. Yoko's other is very materialistic and
has little to do with her children. Instead she loves her possessions.
2. World War II breaks out. Tokyo is bombed, most of Yoko's
servants flee, and the family escapes with one or two servants to a
rural area. The people in the rural area make fun of the Ono family
because they have high society accents, dress well, etc. Yoko's mother
has to barter her jewels and other material things for food. Yoko and
her family go hungry at times. Yoko decides she likes being rich much
better than being poor. Yoko also decides she does not like being
teased and is more determined than ever to show the world how great she
is.
3. Eventually moves to the US with her family. Attends Sara
Lawrence College where she is a loner. Meets Toshi something, a
Japanese avante garde musician, and runs away against her parents
wishes to marry him. Her parents do not give her much financial
support, so Yoko and Toshi live in poverty in New York. However, Toshi
and Yoko do not get along, and their marriage starts to crumble. Yoko
apparently believes that open marriages are acceptable. Yoko has many
affairs and several illegal abortions.
4. Yoko gets involved in Fluxus and her art "happenings" but she
can't earn much of a living from it. At some point she returns to
Tokyo. One of her art shows there gets terrible reviews, and she
becomes so depressed, she is put in a mental institution. Some say she
attempted suicide.
5. Tony Cox, an American drifter and fast talker, hears about Yoko
from a friend and is so impressed, he travels to Tokyo to meet her. He
persuades the mental hospital to release her, and Tony lives with Yoko
and Toshi.
6. While the three of them are living together, Yoko has sex with
Tony, and gets pregnant with Kyoko. Yoko marries Tony before her
divorce to Toshi is finalized. Yoko then divorces Tony, divorces Toshi
and marries Tony.
7. Yoko tells Tony that it is his job to raise Kyoko who is born
in August 1963. After all, she is an artist. Tony does the best he
can to raise Kyoko and, at the same time, supports Yoko in her artistic
endeavors.
8. Yoko, Tony and Kyoko move to NY where Yoko continues to pursue
her art, but the family still lives in poverty, moving ever few months
to avoid paying the rent. Yoko and Tony decide they are tired of being
poor, and are often thinking of ways to raise money to fund Yoko's work
and to live on.
9. At some point Yoko and Tony decide they need to find a rich
sponsor or sponsors. Yoko decides it would be a nice idea to have the
Beatles sponsor her art. (I am not making this up . . . this is
reported in the biography by Hopkins)
10. Yoko is invited to the destruction of art symposium in London,
and is invited to put on an exhibit at the John Dunbar gallery. Tony,
as always, is loyally by her side promoting her, helping her with her
work, etc.
11. At some point Yoko visits Paul McCartney asking to get a music
score so she can give it to an artist friend. Paul refuses, but
suggests she ask John Lennon. It is unclear if she tries to contact
John at this time.
12. Yoko's exhibit at the Dunbar gallery is almost ready. The day
before it is due to open, John Lennon drops in to see the exhibit,
believing the artist is a man. He has been heavily into drugs and has
not slept in several nights.John is interested in attending because he
thinks he will have the chance to have sex with someone. Instead, he
climbs up a ladder and sees the words "yes" on the ceiling. He finds it
very positive.
13. Yoko hands him a card which says "Breathe." He pants.
14. John then sees a piece of wood, a hammer and a nail. Patrons
are invited to hammer a nail into the wood. John wants to hammer in a
nail, but Yoko refuses because her show has not yet opened officially
and she wants it to be pristine on opening day. Dunbar takes her aside
and tells Yoko, "Do you know who that is? That is John Lennon. He is a
very wealthy man." Yoko's eyes light up like a cash register. She takes
John by the arm and says you can hammer in a nail if you pay 5
shillings. John thinks this is ridiculous and says How about if I
hammer in an imaginary nail in and pay you an imaginary 5 shillings?
Yoko is impressed.
15. John eventually leaves. While he exits, he sees another
exhibit: an apple on a stand with a price tag of something ridiculous
($200?? I forget the price). John thinks it is silly, and John being
John, takes a bite of the apple, puts it back on the stand and leaves.
Yoko says to herself "Oh dear." She leaves the apple there as part of
her exhibit. Patrons come in the next day to see the rotting apple.
16. Yoko now goes after John in hot pursuit. She bombards him
with letters asking for financial support (and gets some from Pete
Shotton at Apple to the tune of several thousand Apple dollars). At
tiems she threatens suicide. She drops by John's house looking for him
and "accidentally" leave her ring so she can use it as an excuse to
come back. John secretly sponsors one or two of her shows.
17. When John and Cynthia go to see the Maharishi in England,
Yoko coincidentally is at the show and bums a ride with them.
18. When John and Cyn are in India, Yoko sends him letters and
post cards. John is fascinated.
19. Some time in 1968 Cynthia is out of the country on
vacation. John is stoned and his friend Pete is visiting at John's
home. John invites Yoko over. They talk. Pete retires to bed. John
and Yoko stay up all night experimenting with tape loops. John is
impressed. John and Yoko have sex, and John is now completely hooked.
He tells Pete in the morning "Ths is it. I want a bigger house for me
and Yoko."
20. At first, Yoko appears to be a demure pussy cat. However,
once she is confident in her control over John, she is soon bossing
Pete and other Apple employees around. Nothing is good enough for
Yoko. She tells people at Apple that there are two people in life
"Chauffeurs and people who hire them. John is a man who has chauffeurs
working for him" To her, the world is full of servants.
21. Yoko realizes John likes drugs. She herself had tried heroin
in Paris. She tells John that heroin is nice. John and Yoko start
using heroin.
22. John and Yoko become inseparable. John loves her madly. John
takes her into the recording studio when he is recording the White
Album, Let it Be, etc. She follows him around, even to the toilet. She
has her bed moved into the studio and a microphone set up over the bed
so she can give the Beatles directions and make comments.
23. At some point the Beatles are talking and someone mentions
that they had done concerts at Shea Stadium in Queens, NY. Yoko asks,
"Why would you do a concert in a baseball stadium?" She then proceeds
to tell the Beatles that she is famous too. After all, she performed at
Carnegie Hall where she had the audience cut off her clothes. She also
performed some music piece which included the sound of a flushing
toilet. At some point during Let it Be George tells John that Dylan
says bad things about Yoko. John is insulted. George is in a bad mood.
Paul insults George about his guitar playing. George walks out for
several days.
24. Yoko told Mike Wallace during a 60 minutes interview after
John died that she felt that her creativity was being stiffled while
she was in the studio with the Beatles.
24 a. John divorces Cynthia giving her a mediocre settlement.
Yoko divorces Tony. Prior to the divorce, Yoko had a written agreement
with Tony that if she got money from Lennon, she would give half to
Tony as a reward for his undying love and support of her career. (ths
is reported in the Hopkins book and elsewhere) However, John's lawyers
deem this to be unenforceable, so instead, John pays Tony some
ridiculous sum (like $100,000 or more) to buy him off)
25. At some point Yoko hears that Alan Klein would be a good
manager. She speaks with the Rolling Stones and hears good things.
Klein promises Yoko that he will make her famous and will get her lots
of money for her films like her film called Bottoms featuring 365
asses. She convinces John that Klein is the man for him. Paul marries
Linda, John marries Yoko.
26. John tells Paul he wants a divorce, Paul sues John, Klein and
the others, etc. The Beatles are over.
27. Yoko gets involved in a bitter custody battle over Kyoko.
Yoko convinces John to move to New York City because "everyone" in
England is racist, sexist, etc. and no one understand Yoko or her art.
Everyone is picking on poor Yoko.
28. Yoko spends thousands upon thousands of John's money chasing
Kyoko and her father all over the world but never reunites with Kyoko
until after John dies. In the mean time, Yoko is jealous of Julian,
and does whatever she can to keep Julian and John apart. She tells May
Pang and others that if she can't find Kyoko, John should not be with
Julian. After all, fair is fair.
29. I could go on and on, but in a nutshell, John ends up in a
long immigration battle, costing him tens of thousands of dollars, his
career suffers, he and Yoko continue to battle heroin and other drugs,
etc. In 1970 or 1971 George Harrison asks John to join him at the
concert for Bangla Desh. John would like to play, but Yoko insists that
she play too. George says absolutely not. John tells Yoko she can't
join them. Yoko is furious. They have a fight. John skips the concert.
30. Every time John releases an album, Yoko releases a companion
album in the hopes that John's fame will carry her. Her albums fail
miserable and are genuinely awful. Yoko is very unhappy. She keeps
telling everyone she meets that she was and is a famous artist. She is
tired of playing second fiddle to John. Can't the world see her talent?
She is convinced that John's fame is hurting her career. She is
tired of being criticized by the public and being blamed for breaking
up the Beatles. John and Yoko are not getting along. After all, much
of this is John's fault. If it werent' for John's fame and his
involvement with that terrible group the Beatles, who made that awful
rock and roll music, Yoko would be very famous. Can't the world see
this???
31. In November 1972 Nixon wins re-election and John gets very
depressed. After all, his Sometime in New York City album sucked, Nixon
won, he hasn't seen Julian, he is isolated from his friends, lives in a
new country, his career is on the decline, and he is married to Yoko,
the pushy shrew. He gets very drunk at a party at Jerry Rubin's house
and has sex with a woman at the party. Everyone there, including Yoko,
can hear the couple moaning, groaning, etc. Yoko feels very bad. She
decides to punish John.
32. Although John and Yoko are reunited, their relationship is
stormy. They move from their inexpensive small apartment on Bank
Street, to a large, fancy apartment at the Dakota. Yoko spends several
months thinking what she should do to punish John. She eventually tells
him they should try a trial separation. After all, just because they
are married does not mean they have to be loyal. They can have an open
marriage and screw other people. At first John is happy because how he
can have sex (which he apparently was not getting from Yoko too often).
33. Yoko arranges for John to have sex with May Pang. John and
May move out to California, having sex every day, sometimes twice a
day. In her book, Loving John, May writes that John made her very
happy, and she fell in love with him. However, he has crazy drinking
binges and can become very violent. Yoko in the meantime has sex with
whoever she can find (like DAve Spinoza?) and now feels happy because
she is out from John's shadow and has the chance to shine as an artist
in her own right.
34. Yoko gives concerts to small audiences including a
disasterous tour of Japan, makes records, does her art, etc. She tells
the press she plans to divorce John. She tells their lawyers she wants
a divorce. Yoko wants the world to know she is her own woman. She is
finally free of that male chauvenist pig.
35. John, in the meantime, releases Walls and Bridges (a number
one album), two top ten singles from it (including Whatever Gets You
Through the Night) which went to number 1) , and works with Elton John,
David Bowie, Ringo and George. He co writes "Fame" with Bowie (which
was Bowie's first number one hit). He also works with drinking buddy
Harry Nilsson, writing with Nilsson and producing his album.
36. In 1974 (?) makes a surprise appearance with Elton John at
Madison Square Garden performing 3 songs. John took some cocaine
before going on and feels ill, and his singing is not the greatest but
the applause are incredible. John gets an amazing ovation. Yoko is in
the audience and is very impressed. No one ever clapped like that for
her. Yoko realizes that without John, her career , money and stardom
are in deep trouble. She decides she wants him back. A divorce is not
a good idea after all.
37. In January 1975 John and Yoko are reunited. Yoko tells the
world they reuinited because John looked lonely at the concert and he
needed her. She felt sorry for him so she took him back. They have sex
for the first time in God knows how long and she is pregnant. She
wants an abortion, but John really wants the baby. Yoko decides that
she will have the baby to please John and keep him in her debt.
38. Sean Ono Taro Lennon is born on October 9, 1975. John is
thrilled. He also learns that he succeeded in his immigration appeals.
The Beatles lawsuits have long been settled. Life looks good.
39. Yoko has as little to do with Sean as possible, telling John
that she has no maternal instincts. She tells John that she carried
the baby for 9 months and her work is done. How it is his turn to care
for the baby. After all, what is fair is fair. Yoko convinces John
that she can make him money by running his business and he can be a
househusband. Yoko becomes responsible for all things business,
including providing security.
40. John agrees, spending time with Sean, although the family now
has about 5 servants, including a full time nanny. Yoko in the meantime
handles business, attending meetings at Apple, selling cows, buying
houses, gold, etc. She relies heavily on the advice of tarot card
readers, numerologists, directionalists, etc. and pays these people
thousands upon thousands of dollars. Yoko visits South America to see a
witch at a cost of $60,000. She pays thousands of dollars for an
Egyption mummy because she believes the mummy would look like her, but
it doesnt and she is upset. How could this powerful queen mummy from
2000 years ago not look like the beautiful Yoko!!!????
She hardly sees John or Sean except when the family goes on
vacation. He lives on the 7th floor of the building. She essentially
lives in her first floor office.
41. Yoko claims to have made John lots and lots of money but
offers no proof. As a matter of fact, one family vacation to Japan cost
about $1 million, leaving the supposedly rich Lennons without enough
cash to pay their taxes. John complains he did not like visiting Japan
and it cost him too much money. Yoko makes sure John meets her parents
or mother. This way Yoko can show her mother the trophy she brought
home and convince her mother once and for all that Yoko is not the
black sheep of the family, but is successful. After all, although her
husband is white and has round Occidental eyes, he is rich and
cultured!!! See how successful I am, Mother. Love me, please love me.
42. John, Yoko and Sean and their servants return to New
York. However, Yoko is tired of being with John so much, so she sends
him on trips such as trips to the house in Long Island or the house in
Florida while Yoko stays in New York to carry on her business. Yoko in
the meantime is having at least one adulterous affair. She is happy
because she controls John's money.
43. In November 1989 John signs a will leaving half his estate
to Yoko and the rest to a trust. There is some provision for his sons
Julian and Sean. In 1979 or 1980 John develops an interest in sailing.
He learns to sail. With Yoko's urging, he buys a boat (the Isis),
hires a crew, and in 1980 goes on a sailing trip. Yoko supposedly
contacts her directionalist who tells her the luckiest direction for
John. He sets sail for Bermuda (or was it the Bahamas?) as Yoko directs
but almost gets killed. The boat and crew get caught in a terrible
storm for several days, and John almost single handedly steers the
boat. The rest of the crew is too busy vomiting. In the meantime, Yoko
is happy because she is carrying on an affair with a Mr. Green. While
John is away, she even tells people she wants a divorce and at one
point, without John's permission, moves his belongings out of their
apartment like throwing out the trash. I never figured out whether she
did this before or after John almost died inthe storm.
44. Following the storm,John begins writing songs again. He is
very happy. He tells Yoko. She thinks his music is not very good. Yoko
has even told people like May in the past that she is the true composer
in the family, not John. She begins writing songs and thinks most of
her songs are number one hits. Yoko devises a scheme for her songs to
be on John's album. John resists at first, but Yoko persists. She
insists that the songs alternate so people cannot easily skip her
music. After all, if the world would just hear the great Yoko, they
would see her talent.
45. Now that John and Yoko are working in the recording studio
in August and September 1980, Yoko is rethinking her divorce plans.
However, she continues to meet Mr. Green in hotels, using John's money
to shower him with gifts, caviar, etc. By October or so, she dumps Mr.
Green. Also of note, in September or so 1980, Yoko's security expert,
Doug MacDougal (I think that was his name . . . my memory fails me)
takes a leave of absence in protest. He tells Yoko he disagrees with
John and Yoko's behavior. They should not be telling the press and
public where they are going or doing all the time. It is dangerous and
may attract a nut. They should have body guards. She refuses to listen.
46. As John's manager, Yoko must find a record company who will
distribute this album. She turns down possible lucrative deals with
various companies such as Atlantic Records because they are not
interested in Yoko's material. Rather, they want a John album, and are
prepared to pay a high price for it. Yoko is insulted. Can't they
understand how talented she is? Why are they focusing on her stupid
husband who she is supposed to representing? Finally, she inks a deal
with DAvid Geffen, who has a small label and can't possibly offer the
money Atlantic Records would. David convinces Yoko to sign with him
because he tells her, "By signing you and John I am getting 2 talented
artists, not one." Yoko is very happy.
47. In NOvember 1980 Double Fantasy is released to mixed
reviews. One review states that Yoko's songs are better than John's!!!
Yoko and John are thrilled. After all, Yoko is now being recognized as
the creative genius. During the past several months John and Yoko give
many interviews, pose for pictures, etc. In the public eye they are
inseperable. John seems very happy, and is talking about a tour. They
also have some material recorded for their next album.
48. In November 1980 an article is published in a local New
York City paper called Yoko Only. The article focuses on Yoko and a
possible solo career. John and Yoko are thrilled that Yoko is getting
attention apart from John. John wants her to be happy and loves her
very much.
49. On December 3 and 8, 1980, famous photographer Annie
Liebowitz visits John and Yoko at their apartment to take photos for
Rolling Stone. The cover photo that is chosen for their January 1981
shows John nude, kissing and clinging to Yoko passionately. Yoko lies
there with her arm outstretched staring into space as if she is bored.
50. Sometime between December 6 and 8, John gives several
interviews. He tells the world he loves living in New York. He loves
the freedom to walk around and go into a restaurant and not be
hasseled. He tells the world in this interview (or perhaps it was an
older one) that Yoko convinced him New York was safe. John also tells
the world he is looking forward to the future and he has many plans
before he dies and he hopes it won't be "for a long long time." This
last statement is made during the late afternoon or evening of December
8, 1980.
51. During the evening of December 8, 1980, John, Yoko and
producer Jack Douglas finish working on Yoko's song, "Walking on Thin
Ice" They are very pleased with the results. John tells her it will be
a number one hit. They want it released in time for the Christmas
market but it is too late in the year. John tells Jack Douglas
secretly with a smaile and wink, "I want Yoko to finally have a hit
record. Maybe if she has a hit record, I will then be able to work with
'the boys.'" Jack Douglas usually takes the same limo home with John
and Yoko, but this night he can't because he must work late.
52. John and Yoko leave the studio and return home to the
Dakota. Yoko walks ahead first and is about the enter the building.
John is several paces behind her carrying the recordings. Mark David
Chapman comes out of the darkness and fires five bullets at Lennon's
back. It is believed 4 hit their target, destroying major blood vessels
and parts of his esophogous. John clutches the recordings including
Yoko's Walking on Thin Ice, and stumbles up the steps into the
building, stating, "I'm shot." He collapses on the floor. He coughs up
blood and fleshy material. A pool of blood is soaking his shirt and
the floor. Yoko screams.
53. A police car arrives but instead of attending to John, they
waste time arresting Chapman who is standing there reading a book.
54. Another police car arrives, turn John over (Yoko protests),
determine that John is probably dying, and lift him into the police
car. During the ride, the police speak to John to try to keep him
conscious. They ask him how does he feel and he says, "I am in pain."
They ask him is he John Lennon and he groans. About 15 minutes later
they arrive at Roosevelt Hospital. Yoko arrives in a different police
car. She calls the Dakota to check on Sean. An ambulance never arrived
at the Dakota.
55. In the emergency room, doctors open up John's chest and
massage his heart directly, to no avail. Several minutes later they
tell Yoko that he is dead and probably died almost instantly. They give
Yoko his wedding band. She says, "You mean to tell me he is sleeping?"
56. Yoko returns to the Dakota. Fans gather. Detectives
interview Yoko. Ringo arrives. Someone calls Julian to tell him. Yoko
tells Julians mother that the boy must come alone. She will not allow
Cynthia to travel with grief stricken Julian. She tells Cynthia if
Cynthia comes, Julian can stay home.
57. Yoko has John cremated almost immediately. By the time she
tells Sean what happened and by the time Julian arrives, John's body is
in ashes. Julian and Sean never get to say goodbye to the body. She has
the box or urn of ashes placed on the floor.
58. Yoko complains that the fans outside are bothering her. She
is tired of hearing them sing John's songs.
59. Yoko is joined by Sam Havadtoy, her decorator. He comes to
the apartment and from then on, almost never leaves. By March or April,
they are lovers. She gets a call from her long lost daughter, Kyoko.
60. In just two or three days, John's will is probated, making
Yoko very wealthy.
61. There is no funeral for John. Yoko asks the world for ten
minutes of silence and the world listens. Yoko issues press releases
about the murder. The world listens. Now Yoko realizes the world is
listening to her.
62. In December and January, Yoko is hard at work, planning
videos, press releases, giving interviews, writing music, negotiating,
etc. Yoko is now very busy and very important. John's death has not
only made her rich, but she is the most famous widow since Jackie
Kennedy. Not only that, critics and the public no longer heap scorn
upon her. Yoko plans, writes and records an album in April 1981 called
Season of Glass which shows John's blood stained glasses. Critics are
kind and the album does decently (cracking the top 100).
63. Yoko gives an interview to Rolling Stone that she misses
John, but she doesn't want to be known forever as "The grieving widow."
She speaks with Paul McCartney and tells him that "She does not want to
be known as widow of the century." After all, she is a great artist and
she wants to world to see that. She is tired of being under John's
shadow. Who does he think he is? An icon or something? By October 1981
she is photographed walking arm in arm with Sam in Central Park with a
big smile on her face. She is very happy.
64. In the years that follow, she releases and rereleases as
much Lennon material as possible in addition to her own albums. Yoko's
albums generally sell very poorly, but receive some decent reviews.
Sometime later, Yoko attempts a disasterous world tour. Planned dates
in the US must be cancelled due to lack of interest. Yoko hawks John's
work in Carter's baby clothes. She approves the use of John's songs
for commercials. She approves the use of the Two Virgins album cover
for a Vodka ad. She also pursues her own art work and pushes John's
art. Yoko becomes very very rich. She is very very happy.
65. Yoko is also involved in varous book projects concerning
John, and whenever possible downplays the existance of Julian and
Cynthia. She does whatever she can to make sure Julian gets little
under John's will. She refuses to give Julian John's personal
belongings such as his clothes, books, records, etc. After all, Sean
is the son that counts. And she would rather have Sam wear John's
clothing.
66. In 2001 or so, after 20 years together,Yoko throws Sam out.
Hey, why share the limelight. She doesn't need him anymore. He
comforted her when she needed him, but she doesn't need him now. After
all, she is over John and wants to make sure the world gives Yoko her
rightful place in history. And besides, both her wealthy parents have
now died, and Yoko has inherited additional millions from her Japanese
family. Why share this with anyone? And guess what? Her daughter
Kyoko, who disappeared 25 years ago, suddenly reappears, forgives her
mother, and moves into the Dakoto to live with her. I guess money does
help sometimes. Isn't it wonderful how everything worked out for Yoko,
the misunderstood artist?
67. In 2004 Yoko does an art show in Liverpool. She calls it "My
Mommy was Beautiful." She hangs large pictures all over town of breasts
and vaginas. The people of Liverpool are horrified. Why is there a huge
breast hanging on our church? Yoko says it is art. She dedicates this
art to "John's mother." John's half sister Julia is angry. Whenever
possible, when Yoko creates a record or does her art, she mentions
John's name, has his picture, etc.
68. Over and over, Yoko tells the world she loved John. Yoko
tells the world she and John were soul mates. Whenever Yoko writes a
book or is involved with a play or show, she downplays John's Beatle
years and stresses his post Beatle years, the ones with Yoko. Indeed,
you can catch one such new play called Lennon in just a few weeks.
After all, Yoko loved John and she helped make him the great artist and
icon that he is. Without Yoko, John would not be famous. Without Yoko,
John would not have been a creative genius. Yoko made John and she
wants the world to remember JohnandYoko. And if you believe this last
paragraph, I have a bridge in New York that I can sell you . . .
Mister Charlie
fatt...@yahoo.com wrote:
> To answer the question posted, there was no funeral for John at all.
> Yoko had his remains quickly cremated, before Julian or Sean could
see
> the body.
>
> Yoko then announced a silent 10 minute vigil would take place on, I
> believe, December 14. She then issued a statement that she saw John
> smiling down from the sky or some such bull.
Whos to say what the woman did or didnt see. She says she saw John in
the sky and thats enough for me. I trust this woman. Thats what John
would of wanted.
Mister Charlie
fatt...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Dear Francie (who)
>
> You have my permission to puke. You can puke all you wish.
Just
> turn away from me.
>
> Actually, here is the exact quote:
>
> "Bless you for your tears and prayers. I saw John smiling in
the
> sky. [huh?] I saw sorrow changing into clarity. [Huh?]
It makes sense to me. Have you never had a loved one die? You go
through whats called "greeving". A phaze of sorrow, a phaze of clarity
ect.
Now stop mocking this woman. Her husband died. Let her deal with it
in her own way.
fatt...@yahoo.com
I can agree somewhat with what you write about grieving and a
phase of sorrow. I don't mean to sound cruel. However, as I have
written elsewhere, I will never be convinced that Yoko really loved
John or is deserving of his great wealth, fame, etc. I think when John
was alive she was a self centered, over ambitious bitch who cheated on
John, lied to him, manipulated him, etc. and would stop at almost
nothing to achieve money, power, fame and glory.
Ironically, when John died, Yoko achieved her life long dream.
John's death was the best thing that happened to her. She got lots of
money and it was hers to control. All of a sudden, the world stop
picking on her. Now they pitied the grieving widow, much as you do.
Now they admired her strength during adversity, much as you do. Even
her Japanese family who had for years treated her like a wierdo called
her on the night John died to offer support. Even Kyoko, the missing
daughter, called or sent a telegram on December 9, 1980!!!! Yoko heard
from her long lost daughter!!
All of a sudden, Yoko's awful singing and artistic endeavors
received some positive reviews from the critics. Plus she didn't have
to worry about cheating on John. He was dead. Yoko was free to slap
his picture or name on various projects like her album covers, an
Absolute Vodka ad, etc. and make lots of money. She was free to rewrite
history. Calls and letters poured in from around the world for
permission to write a book or a play about John. Permission was given
as long as YOKO approved the content.
Yoko was asked for many interviews. Yoko became the Queen. She
was now the world's most famous widow. And she loved being in the
spotlight.
Do you know that just a few weeks after John died, she was
romantically involved with Sam Havadtoy? Who knows, perhaps it was
sooner. Sam moved in around December 1980. A photo appeared in the
British press in October 1981 or so showing Yoko and Sam walking
happily arm in arm in Central Park. The British public was angry. How
dare she? John isn't dead a year yet, and already she's smiling arm in
arm with her decorator, looking like the cat that swallowed the canary.
They were together 20 years.
So, Mr. Charlie, before you feel sorry for this "grieving widow"
I think it would be wise to take a look at the big picture. I don't
pity Yoko at all. I pity Julian who got screwed royally. And I pity
Lennon fans and Beatles fans. And I pity people who fall for Yoko's
bulls--t. But I don't pity Yoko.
Black Pearl
<fatt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1111931808.9...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Your view is as one-sided as any Yoko fan. Every time you bring up the
subject you regurgitate the same tired stories and rumors and how much you
hate this and that.
Your sources, whatever they may be, are flawed to begin with, but it buys
into your view so you run with it.
I do not believe she is evil incarnate nor do I believe she is a saint.
>
fatt...@yahoo.com
some sources will be inaccurate. However, much of my opinion is based
upon interviews given by John, Yoko, Julian and others. These cannot
be ignored. Most of what I state is not the same tired stories or
rumors at all but facts.
For example, my prior statements about Yoko's abortions and
indifference to her own children are based upon statements by John and
Yoko as well as May Pang and Mr. Green, her tarot card reader. In many
interviews Yoko complained that her mother hardly had anything to do
with her. Her mother was very materialistic and arrogant. Yoko gives
one example where she was crying and her mother refused to hold her
because she was wearing a mink coat and she was afraid it would be
dirtied. Yoko also complained that she would have to eat all her meals
either alone or with the servants. Don't you see Yoko treated John and
Sean the same way? Why is that so implausible to you?
Furthermore, Yoko's self centered and arrogant attitude is not only
supported by her own interviews, but by statements made by many
independent sources such as May Pang, Fred Seaman, Pete Shotton. For
example, if you read the booklet included in the Lennon Anthology, you
will see there is a long essay written by Yoko. In it she describes
John as very humble. This is supported by many statements made by
others such as Elton John and their immigration lawyer who, by the way,
has along beautiful article about John and Yoko on the internet (I
forget his name right now). In this very same essay, Yoko admits that
at the time she was proud. Wouldn't you agree there is a fine line
between proud and arrogant? She calls herself "proud." Others call
her arrogant.
If you read enough interviews, books, essays, listen to their own
music, etc. a very unflattering picture develops of Yoko. I just wish
more people would see it.
After John died, Yoko has given countless lovely interviews about John
and written loving songs, etc etc. So what? He's dead. Maybe she
feels guilty because she knows she cheated on him. She knows she lied
to him. Maybe she knows she hurt his career and pushed herself on the
world. Perhaps Yoko regrets some of what she did. But that will not
change anything. She mistreated John when he was alive, and in my
opinion, utterly mishandled their security arrangements which was her
job.
Yoko told John he would be safe in New York. She made him feel
comfortable in his surroundings and did not have body guards even
though John had had death threats in the past and even though there had
been threats against Sean. Yoko had been told by their security expert
to beef up security several months before John was shot. After John was
murdered, then she hired loads of body guards for herself and Sean. Of
course, now it was too late Perhaps she feels guilty. But it is too
late. Her feeling guilty won't bring him back.
marc...@yahoo.com
Of course Charlie, all of these posters are forgetting some very
important things that Yoko also has done.
1. Telling millions of children that there is no Santa Claus
2. Her world record of how many wings she can tear off flies in a five
minute period.
3. Harboring weapons of mass destruction in the basement of the Dakota.
4. Laughing when the two towers fell.
5. Importing strains of the avian flu to unleash on an unsuspecting
America.
6. Bitch slapping May Pang
7. Calling Princess Di on the phone while the latter was just about to
enter a tunnel in Paris...obviously some signal for something to
happen.
8. Making prank phone calls to Julian, asking him if he has "Prince
Charles in the can".
9. Rolling bums in alleys down in the Village.
10. Using John's millions to develop a better mouse trap.
Is there no end to what this terribly evil woman is capable of?
whoa oh oh@aol.com Sun
<marc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1111945717....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
LOL!
She really is dethpicable!
fatt...@yahoo.com
Your post is very funny and shows a good sense of humor. I
like that.
I can tell you what she did when the Twin Towers fell . . . I
read it in an interview given by either Yoko herself or her son, Sean.
She gathered up her family and hi tailed it out of the City to her farm
upstate as fast as her chauffeur could drive the stretch limo. What a
brave woman!
Then she took out ads in major American news papers and
slapped billboards in the US all over the place announcing "War is over
if you want it." Wow, what courage!! Let's elect her president.
If Yoko really wants peace, let her go to the Middle East,
Pakistan, Afghanistan or some other Muslim part of the world and try
slapping those billboards in the native language. Let her hold a one
woman bed in Bin Laden territory. Then we'll see how committed brave
Yoko is to peace.
Did you ever read or hear the interview John and Yoko gave
for peace back iin 1968 or 1969 in Denmark (I think it was Denmark?)
Yoko told a packed room full of press that if she had slept with Adolph
Hitler, she would have stopped him. Ten minutes with Yoko in the sack
would have convinced Hitler to stop killing people, stop invading other
countries, etc. To think all Hitler needed was a blow job from Yoko.
So when is she going to find Osama Bin Laden and give him one?
Where is Yoko when you really need her?
You know what one of her latests art shows was? Last year
Yoko had huge photos made of a woman's tits (and they were not even
pretty looking tits) and vagina, and slapped it all over Liverpool.
Unsuspecting people would be entering their old, honorable church and
right on the church was this huge picture of saggy tits and a vagina.
Children would point to the church and say, "What is that Mummy? Is
that a twat?"
These wonderful pictures were in the middle of the business
district. As the business men discussed business or ate lunch, they
could see huge tits and vaginas blowing in the wind. Too bad Yoko did
not play her wonderful song "Open Your Box."
School children going back and forth to school could get a
free biology lesson, all thanks to genius Yoko.
And what was the name of this priceless, brilliant exhibit?
"My Mummy was Beautiful." And Yoko announced to the world that she
dedicated it to John's mother. Most people in Liverpool were angry and
disgusted. "Why does our church have tits?" and "Who's hairy vagina is
that?" they arsked. But Yoko had no answer. John's mother had two
daughters (John's half sisters) One of them, Julia, told the press she
was angry and upset by this display.
Yay YOKO!! What a genius. Move over Mona Lisa. Here comes Yoko.
Fourteen Or Fight
<fatt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1111955865....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Man. You REALLY have a stick up your ass about her, don't you? Go outside
and try to live your own life a bit.
>
Gibson Vendettuoli
I am afraid that what you presented me with was neither fair and
balanced, nor even-handed as I requested. The terms were, "Any
anti-Yoko fans willing to give me their own biography of her,
even-handed, not stepping on anyone's toes, but still including all the
facts, can receive $400 from me...if they send it."
Since Mr(s). Tuchus has failed, I am now also extending the offer to
pro-Yoko fans and lessening the amount to $100.
G
fatt...@yahoo.com
I am broken hearted. Boo hoo boo hoo. (just kidding)
fatt...@yahoo.com
I guess you could say I have something up my ass about Yoko (I
don't know if I would call it a stick). I am a big Beatles fan (and
especially a Lennon fan) and read a lot about them. I also have a very
good memory for certain things.
And yes, you could say I do not like her. Certain people rub me
the wrong way: Hitler, Osama Bin Laden, Yasser Arafat, Yoko.
For example, if someone wrote something pleasant about Hitler or
Bin Laden, I would probably have a desire to respectfully disagree and
try to convince them otherwise.
Mike Smith
<fatt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1111961118.8...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
To equate her with either of those two just shows how out of touch with
reality you are. All the books in the world are never going to make her out
to be as bad as you want her to be. It's a stick alright.
>
marc...@yahoo.com
read it in an interview given by either Yoko herself or her son, Sean.
She gathered up her family and hi tailed it out of the City to her farm
upstate as fast as her chauffeur could drive the stretch limo. What a
brave woman! "
About a million other people would have done the same thing, including
yours truly.
She was probably thinking back to when she turned 12, living in Japan,
and had to take herself and her younger brother away from the city and
the American bombs. They lived in the hills for weeks with barely
anything to eat, and no adult supervision. It's funny what bombing
one's city will do to the mind, ain't it?
Not Herbert
read it in an interview given by either Yoko herself or her son, Sean.
She gathered up her family and hi tailed it out of the City to her farm
upstate as fast as her chauffeur could drive the stretch limo. What a
brave woman! "
Yeah, stupid woman. Planes crashing, flaming syscrapers falling, and
all she can think of is getting away. Could you be a little more
judgemental?
BTW, since you're so well-versed on this interview (Yoko? Sean? Can't
remember?), you might at least cite the reference. Give a link, name
the magazine, or newspaper, or TV show, or dream where this interview
occured. It's easy to throw bombs, not so easy to back up your OPINIONS
with facts.
Don Cooper
> concert for Bangla Desh.
1971
> 36. In 1974 (?) makes a surprise appearance with Elton John at
> Madison Square Garden performing 3 songs.
1974
> 43. In November 1989 John signs a will leaving half his estate
> to Yoko and the rest to a trust.
?
fatt...@yahoo.com
Woops. You caught me in an obvious typo. He signed his will
in 1979, about one year before he died. It is on the internet.
fatt...@yahoo.com
You do have a point regarding the interview, but I did read it on
the internet. I believe it was an interview with Sean.I don't know if I
can find it at this time but I don't blame you for being skeptical.
I believe escaping New York at its time of need is an act of
cowardice. I was in New York at the time the planes hit. I had a
friend who worked in the World Trade Center. I spent time on the phone
and on the computer trying to contact her and her family to see if she
was alive. I also received a call from family in up state New York. A
neighbor there was desperately looking for his mother . . . she also
worked in the World Trade Center. I was busy calling hospitals to see
if the poor woman was brought some place.
I know hundreds of people who lived, worked or were in the 5
boros of New YOrk on September 11, 2001. Not one of them tried to
"escape" the City or even talked about it. As a matter of fact I know
of people who were calling me from long distance asking how they could
get INTO the city to look for missing family members. Of course the
tunnels and bridges were closing. And let's not forget the 300 fire
fighters as well as the police officers, court officers, ambulance
workers, Mayor Guiliani, and good Samaritans who rushed to the scene to
try to help people. See, to me, these are the real heroes.
By the way,you may not be familiar with the lay out of New York
City. The Twin Towers stood about 1/4 mile from the southern tip of the
island of Manhattan. Yoko lives at 1 West 72 Street which is at 72
Street and Central Park. If you were standing at the World Trade
Center you would have to walk about 1/4 mile or 1/2 mile north before
the streets become numbered. In other words, eventually you would walk
past 1st street, 2nd Street, 3rd Street, etc. Then follow that all the
way up to 72nd Street. YOu see, courageous Yoko lived more than 80
city blocks north of the World Trade Center. I can understand someone
running if they were in the immediate area since the building collapsed
and there was horrible smoke and poisonous gas. Of course that is
justified. But the Dakota is quite a distance away.
I stand my ground. I think she is a coward.
D Carey
marc...@yahoo.com
want to live through it another time.
btw, do we really know that she "ran"? Not that I would blame her.
fatt...@yahoo.com
According to the interview that I read, she was driven by car.
The interview made clear she was "escaping." I can't blame someone for
running, but I don't think her behavior is admirable.
Jeff -
>>Dear
>>about grieving and a phase of sorrow. I don't
>>mean to sound cruel. However, as I have
>>written elsewhere, I will never be convinced
>>that Yoko really loved John or is deserving
>>of his great wealth, fame, etc. I think when
>>John was alive she was a self centered,
>>over ambitious bitch who cheated on John,
>>lied to him, manipulated him, etc. and would
>>stop at almost nothing to achieve money,
>>power, fame and glory.
No offense, but you don't know anything about
John and Yoko's marriage, other than what you have heard other's say.
Anybody can make up dirt about somebody, but that doesn't make it true.
>>Ironically, when John died, Yoko achieved
>>her life long dream. John's death was the
>>best thing that happened to her. She got lots
>>of money and it was hers to control. All of a
>>sudden, the world stop picking on her. Now
>>they pitied the grieving widow, much as you
>>do.
You don't know that this was Yoko's Life long dream either...unless you
were there?
>>Now they admired her strength during
>>adversity, much as you do. Even her
>>Japanese family who had for years treated
>>her like a wierdo called her on the night
>>John died to offer support. Even Kyoko, the
>>missing daughter, called or sent a telegram
>>on December 9, 1980!!!! Yoko heard from
>>her long lost daughter!!
>>All of a sudden, Yoko's awful singing and
>>artistic endeavors received some positive
>>reviews from the critics.
False. John's death did nothing to help her out
with their critics. Besides, Nobody can win over all of the critics.
>>Plus she didn't have to worry about cheating
>>on John. He was dead. Yoko was free to
>>slap his picture or name on various projects
>>like her album covers, an Absolute Vodka
>>ad, etc. and make lots of money.
It's has always been her right...to do these things...and who says that
she didn't just want
to keep John's name alive? You don't know what her agenda ever was. No
matter what she does, she gets criticized. Put yourself in her shoes for
a minute.
>>She was free to rewrite history.
She couldn't/can't rewrite history. Look at the way that you feel about
her as an example. It's the same old tiring things we've heard about her
forever.
>>Calls and letters poured in from around the
>>world for permission to write a book or a
>>play about John. Permission was given as
>>long as YOKO approved the content.
So what?
>>Yoko was asked for many interviews. Yoko
>>became the Queen. She was now the
>>world's most famous widow. And she loved
>>being in the spotlight.
>>Do you know that just a few weeks after John
>>died, she was romantically involved with
>>Sam Havadtoy? Who knows, perhaps it was
>>sooner. Sam moved in around December
>>1980. A photo appeared in the British press
>>in October 1981 or so showing Yoko and
>>Sam walking happily arm in arm in Central
>>Park. The British public was angry. How
>>dare she?
Right. How dare she go on with her life! (Sarcasm intended)
>>John isn't dead a year yet, and already she's
>>smiling arm in arm with her decorator,
>>looking like the cat that swallowed the
>>canary. They were together 20 years.
Great! They had a happy life together.
>>So, before you feel sorry for this "grieving
>>widow" I think it would be wise to take a look
>>at the big picture.
I think it would be a good idea not to make up your mind about somebody
you never met in your entire life.
>>I don't pity Yoko at all. I pity Julian who got
>>screwed royally. And I pity Lennon fans and
>>Beatles fans. And I pity people who fall for
>>Yoko's bulls--t. But I don't pity Yoko.
Jeff
--
Check out: The Jeff Lorber Fusion
"Wizard Island"
http://www.lorber.com/discography/04_wiz.html
charles...@yahoo.com
Jeff - wrote:
> >>fatt...@yahoo.com
> >>Dear
> >>I can agree somewhat with what you write
> >>about grieving and a phase of sorrow. I don't
> >>mean to sound cruel. However, as I have
> >>written elsewhere, I will never be convinced
> >>that Yoko really loved John or is deserving
> >>of his great wealth, fame, etc. I think when
> >>John was alive she was a self centered,
> >>over ambitious bitch who cheated on John,
> >>lied to him, manipulated him, etc. and would
> >>stop at almost nothing to achieve money,
> >>power, fame and glory.
>
> No offense, but you don't know anything about
> John and Yoko's marriage, other than what you have heard other's say.
> Anybody can make up dirt about somebody, but that doesn't make it
true.
Anyone can report a fact. Just called it made up dirt doesn't make it
that.
Jeff -
who
such bull" and [huh?].
I remember reading Yoko's statements in the print press. I lived about
ten blocks away from the Dakota from 1979-81.
"HUH?"
"Shut up, willya? You're making the children cry."
who
UsurperTom
> John's death did nothing to help her out with their critics.
There was a brief period of good will toward Yoko after John's murder.
Philip Norman even wrote in his 1981 book, Shout, that Yoko is no
longer hated by the public.
Tom
who
fatt...@yahoo.com
Usurper Tom is correct. Once John died, there was a lot of good
will toward Yoko. She even admitted it. THis is quoted in the Hopkins
biography on Yoko.
Not only that, if you think my point is incorrect, just read the
critics' reviews from the time. Compare the critic reviews from let's
say 1969 to 1970 with the reviews 15 years later. You will see there
was a great shift in opinion.
If you disagree with what I write, fine. But I find it hard to
believe that people here want to ignore thousands of pages of printed
material written or stated by insiders.
Another question I have for all you "Yoko Fans" . . . do you
believe Yoko was cheating on John and threatened him with divorce just
months before he died? Do you really believe that is all made up?
There is no question in my mind she was carrying on a serious
relationship with Mr. Green (I always forget if it was Sam or John
Green). Yoko was constantly sending John Lennon away on "directional
trips" to Hong Kong, the Caribbean, etc or telling him he had to go to
their house in Florida or on Long Island.
Does this sound like a happy marriage to you? If you were in a
happy marriage or happy relationship, would you send the man or woman
of your dreams away for weeks or months at at time?
When John and Yoko first met, they were almost inseperable.
Something detrimental happened. Can't you see that? Yoko was
constantly trying to get rid of John. They couldn't even work together
in the recording studio when they did Double Fantasy. (read the
interviews by Jack Douglas the producer)
Do you really think this is all made up? You really believe that
everyone is lying? Fred Seaman is lying? Jack Dougls is lying? May
Pang is lying? Green is lying?
I believe that where there is smoke there is fire. If one person
said something derogatory about Yoko, I would shrug. If two people said
something derogatory, I would be curious. But when you hear similar
tales from several independent sources . . . . and when some of this is
supported by John and Yoko's own interviews, then you know it is
largely true.
PapaNate
> But when you hear similar
> tales from several independent sources . . . . and when some of this is
> supported by John and Yoko's own interviews, then you know it is
> largely true.
Well I can dislike her just as much as the next guy/gal...but...and it is a
big *BUT* despite what people say I always believe that people are in
charge of their won lives, and the decisions they make.
To make out John as the victim is an erroneous conclusion. He choose to
stay in whatever circumstance he was in. If he wanted to leave, he
obviously was capable of it ( re: Cynthia...took him about a minute); If he
felt abused by Yoko he was certainly capable of responding ( re:
McCartney...nuff said); If he didn't have the where-with-all to leave,
then his *friends* should of helped him leave. The only problem is that he
alienated most of his real friends with his post Beatle Yoko deification
behavior. He was a hard guy to like in the 70's.
I'm not saying that Yoko was anything but what she was. I am saying Lennon
had issues his whole life, and was incapable as it turns out, of self
actualizing his true path. In his later days where was the fire? Where
was his displayed purpose of the early Beatles? What actually interested
him overtime? Whatever it was he seemed to have given up on it by Double
Fantasy (unfortunately).
As it turns out for me, despite all me rants about Lennon, I really liked
the guy. There was something in him that could touch many people inside
just like he were a well loved brother.
It is sad to think about to this day that Lennon who could be so intuitive
about people couldn't discern his own existence.
PapaNate
who
pretentious I HAD too say something. It's all about you, innit.
"Couldn't discern his own existence" = a big pile of Bullshit. EVen
John would have laffed.
fatt...@yahoo.com
Contrary to Francie, I think your post was very well said. I
am so pleased by your analysis.
However, I think Double Fantasty was a really good album, and
very poignant given John's murder. Many people, I believe, type cast
John. They seem to be happiest when he is complaining about something
or being sarcastic or protesting, etc. In short, John is at his best
when he is miserable. For many fans it is hard to accept an album where
he sounds really happy and is writing about something dear to his
heart: his family. I think Double FAntasy (especially John's work) is
a very good album.
I agree that John could not discern his own existence. He
seemed to go through periods of being very lost. In a way, that is one
of the things I admire about him. You see, unlike so many other "stars"
John was very human. He wore his faults on his sleeve. He basically
said to the world, "Here I am warts and all. Love me or hate me, but
just don't interfere too much with my private life. This is the way I
am. I can be myself and you can be yourself. I really don't care if
you like my hair and hate people who wear glasses."
The book by Pete Shotton (In My Life) explains how lost John
was. At first he was thrilled with the fame, but after a couple of
years, he really became lost. George Harrison said it best, I think . .
. he once commented that there they were, in their mid twenties, having
achieved incredible wealth and fame that most people work a life time
to achieve and it left George wondering, is this all there is to life?
That is why George turned to religion. Pete Shotton indicates John had
a similar dilemma.
PapaNate
> Jesus H Christ, gimme a fucking break!
Okay...you got a break.
> Papa Nate, that post is sooooo
> pretentious I HAD too say something. It's all about you, innit.
> "Couldn't discern his own existence" = a big pile of Bullshit. EVen
> John would have laffed.
I see a guy who is lost most of the time, and at best miserable about who
and what he was. He says so himself. Nowwhere Man couldn't see the Forest
for the Tree's.
And as always, I'm sure you think you know exactly how the Beatles
were...being connected to them so *intimately* and all. Perhaps you need
to rethink who it is you are talking to first when you respond. And
perhaps you need to rethink that sex has nothing to do with intimacy,
expecially when it's about you having sex.
PapaNate
PapaNate
fatt...@yahoo.com wrote:
> However, I think Double Fantasty was a really good album, and
> very poignant given John's murder.
As always, music's value is in the ear of the beholder.<g>
> Many people, I believe, type cast
> John. They seem to be happiest when he is complaining about something
> or being sarcastic or protesting, etc. In short, John is at his best
> when he is miserable.
He was also his funniest and most sarcastic. When he was in New York in
early 75, he tended to be sharp as a tack scratching on a chalkboard. By
DF, I couldn't tell from the outside, but he sure seemed to
be...uhhh..blunted. Hitting the wall as it were. The Double *Fantasy*
wall....although I think the *Double* part refers to what he told people he
felt versus what he was really thinking.
> You see, unlike so many other "stars"
> John was very human.
Well he wasn't really a star so much as an explorer scout. <g> That's also
why it is all love and kisses with him no matter what he did.
> The book by Pete Shotton (In My Life) explains how lost John
> was.
And interesting man with a unique perspective on the *real* Lennon.
> That is why George turned to religion. Pete Shotton indicates John had
> a similar dilemma.
George and John are enigma's walking in a mirage.
Papanate
marc...@yahoo.com
Wow, I couldn't disagree with you more about John in the 1970s. He was
a very brave man, who turned his back on fame to discover himself. By
"Double Fantasy", he had discovered and was comfortable with himself.
His many interviews in 1980 showed a "self-actualizing" individual.
How this fact can escape attention is beyond me.
Oh well, as John once said(and I am paraphrasing), "If you think so
little of me, that you think Yoko can control me, then 'screw you' "
fatt...@yahoo.com
YOur statement that John was an "explorer scout" was
interesting. I did not think of him that way, but your choice of words
makes me think . . . Perhaps you can say he was an explorer because he
certainly was very adventurous, trying to push the limits as far as
music, "art", his reputation, (like posing naked or using four letter
words on a record) etc. What made John so interesting is he did it in
public and took us all along for the ride.
As I wrote earlier, he had an attitude of "here I am world,
naked and up front. Love me or hate me. I don't care." He not only had
balls, but he as willing to show them to the world. Ha ha.
PapaNate
> Wow, I couldn't disagree with you more about John in the 1970s. He was
> a very brave man, who turned his back on fame to discover himself. By
> "Double Fantasy", he had discovered and was comfortable with himself.
Well you could disagree with me more if you were up to it!<G> I restate: In
New Yawk in the late 70's, Lennon was not that dynamic in person, not in
the way you describe him. And I'm not so sure he turned his back on fame so
much he was redirected. Fame kind of ran away from him during the Yuk-O
era, while he disassociated himself ( as best he could) from Beatle Lennon.
All in All perhaps you are right then.
> His many interviews in 1980 showed a "self-actualizing" individual.
> How this fact can escape attention is beyond me.
I don't know who you know, but if you are connected as you seem to indicate
then you might ask Cheap Trick's Rick Nielson and/or perhaps Jack Douglas,
and/or Andy Newmark (the Drummer). Something was going on in 1980, and not
in a good way.
> Oh well, as John once said(and I am paraphrasing), "If you think so
> little of me, that you think Yoko can control me, then 'screw you' "
That's the beauty of it isn't it. My Opinion, and my experiences don't mean
Jack S**t in the face of the kind of spin doctoring that went on over at
the O-NO-ITS-LENNON camp.
And as I said in a previous post, no matter what I still liked the
guy...just not the company he kept.
PapaNate
PapaNate
fatt...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Contrary to Francie, I think your post was very well said. I
> am so pleased by your analysis.
I's a bits confusid by the email addy's thrown around here. Would you like
to volunteer which name(s) go with which character?
BTW note to Francie...or whomever you think you are this day...Shotten
wants a call from you today.
PapaNate
fatt...@yahoo.com
I do agree that Lennon was a brave and that is one of the things
I admired. When he announced his "retirement" in 1975, I, like many
people were disappointed and surprised. I am sure many people thought
he was really lost or lazy or had run out of his creativity. HOw many
men out there who have high paying prestigious jobs are willing to
just quit and say, I want to stay at home, supervise the house and
spend more time with my child? Few people would have the guts
(although somehow women are much more expected to do this all the time)
Nowadays, sometimes you do hear of househusbands and it is more
acceptable, but to do this in 1975 which was a "me" decade . . . a
decade of yuppies and high flying stocks? John really swam against the
tide . . . he marched to his own drum.
Kato Dakota
Yeah, that would be really tough. Millions in the bank, millions coming in
yearly to no end. Maids and servants, too many to count. It would be tough to
quit my job too under those circumstances. The hardest thing for me to do would
have been to keep a job and a loving woman.
abe slaney
However, I think Double Fantasty was a really good album
I haven't listened in a long time - I suspect I would like it a lot less
than I once did. But, for some strange reason "I'm Your Angel" was in my
head a few days ago (that doesn't happen much!), when something occurred
to me that I guess I just never thought about before. Namely, isn't the
more commonly expressed sentiment "you're *my* angel"? I found it
curious. Not because it's uncommon, but because it's revealing. Like
John said, love means having to say you're sorry about a million times a
day - unless, I suppose, you're an angel, in which case you don't owe
anybody a damn thing. If I told my wife "I'm your angel" she might die
laughing!
Jeff -
>>John's death did nothing to help her out with
>>their critics.
>>There was a brief period of good will toward
>>Yoko after John's murder.
I remember that.
>>Philip Norman even wrote in his 1981 book,
>>Shout, that Yoko is no longer hated by the
>>public.
>>Tom
I wonder how he would know how the public would feel..and why he felt
able to speak for people? That's funny.
Jeff
Jeff -
>>Another question I have for all you "Yoko
>>Fans" . . . do you believe Yoko was cheating
>>on John and threatened him with divorce
>>just months before he died?
I'm neither a fan of Yoko's, nor do I dislike her.
I wouldn't know what to believe about their marriage. I didn't live with
them, and neither did you.
>>Do you really believe that is all made up?
Who knows what happened?
>>There is no question in my mind she was
>>carrying on a serious relationship with Mr.
>>Green (I always forget if it was Sam or John
>>Green).
I've never heard of him. Yoko has always had a personal life too. just
like anyone else.
>>Yoko was constantly sending John Lennon
>>away on "directional trips" to Hong Kong, the
>>Caribbean, etc or telling him he had to go to
>>their house in Florida or on Long Island.
You would have no way of knowing this. You weren't there.
>>Does this sound like a happy marriage to
>>you?
How do you know, she did all this? You don't.
>>If you were in a happy marriage or happy
>>relationship, would you send the man or
>>woman of your dreams away for weeks or
>>months at at time?
No..but..
>>When John and Yoko first met, they were
>>almost inseperable. Something detrimental
>>happened. Can't you see that?
All I know is, John got killed. I didn't keep up with what went on in
their marriage when he was still alive.
>>Yoko was constantly trying to get rid of John.
You don't know anything about this to say it's a fact.
>>They couldn't even work together in the
>>recording studio when they did Double
>>Fantasy. (read the interviews by Jack
>>Douglas the producer)
>>Do you really think this is all made up?
I'm just reading what you write.
>>You really believe that everyone is lying?
>>Fred Seaman is lying? Jack Dougls is lying?
>>May Pang is lying? Green is lying?
Stories are made up quite a bit to sell books.
>>I believe that where there is smoke there is
>>fire. If one person said something
>>derogatory about Yoko, I would shrug. If two
>>people said something derogatory, I would
>>be curious. But when you hear similar tales
>>from several independent sources . . . . and
>>when some of this is supported by John and
>>Yoko's own interviews, then you know it is
>>largely true.
Yoko couldn't possibly be the witch she is made out to be. It could
have been any woman that married John....that you would hear so many
rumors about. The same thing would have happened to George's wives...had
they not mostly kept their personal lives private.
fatt...@yahoo.com
You write, "Yeah, that would be really tough. Millions in the
bank, millions coming in yearly to no end . . . ."
Of course I get your point. I am sure many agree with you. But
everyone is different. There are many people out there, especially
men,who define themselves by their occupation or career. Without their
work they are lost.
I believe many people in the entertainment field love the
attention, the limelight, etc. (heck, look at Paul McCartney, Yoko Ono
or Madonna). Most people who end up very famous are driven by big
egos. I have seen statements by John that one of the purposes of
taking LSD is ego destruction. In other words John (and probably
George) were unusual in that once they made it and could live a
comfortable life, they tended to be reclusive. They did always not
want to be seen in "all the right places" or have their names in the
headlines, etc. To them music was a job, something they did part time
to earn some money in addition to personal interests like family or
religion.
I think John was unusual that way . . .and quite humble at
times, not a prima donna.
BlackMonk
<charles...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1112055744.7...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>> No offense, but you don't know anything about
>> John and Yoko's marriage, other than what you have heard other's say.
>> Anybody can make up dirt about somebody, but that doesn't make it
> true.
>
> Anyone can report a fact. Just called it made up dirt doesn't make it
> that.
>
Anyone can call anything a fact, just calling it one doesn't make it so.
BlackMonk
"abe slaney" <abesl...@itagain.com> wrote in message
news:pan2e.2053$kC3...@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
Didn't you listen to to rest of the lyric?
BlackMonk
"Jeff -" <Yourimag...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:26132-424...@storefull-3335.bay.webtv.net...
> >>You really believe that everyone is lying?
> >>Fred Seaman is lying? Jack Dougls is lying?
> >>May Pang is lying? Green is lying?
>
> Stories are made up quite a bit to sell books.
>
What a coincidence, those are all people who Yoko prevented from making
money off of John.
PapaNate
BlackMonk wrote:
> I've notice that a lot of people tend to think there was something wrong
> with John's life because he wasn't doing what they think he should have been
> doing.
That's not what they talk about when asked about Lennon ( and/or when they will
even talk about it). Just for the record everyone who walked into the studio
signed a NDA, produced by YUK-O's *Lawyers*. Partly driven by YUK-O's fear that
Lennon didn't *have it* anymore and preferred no one to talk about it if he
didn't, and partly because YUK-O understood how universally she was disliked in
the business. And that is from the horse a**...I mean mouth of people who were
there.
Despite that at low key parties some of them would talk about a guy who seemed
hard pressed to think clearly, in a malnourished almost starved state of being.
One of the drummers said a bunch of times that Lennon would secretly order Pizza
in when Yuk-O left for the night, because *he hadn't has a good meal in 5
years*. And then Lennon also sent the lackey's out for some Coke (and I don't
mean the softdrink) because *YUK-O* wouldn't *let me have me fun anymore*.
> Actually, your opinion about what was going on in his life doesn't mean Jack
> S**t in the face of the words of the person who was actually living that
> life.
I thought that was what I said?? Although I stand by the fact that that group
worked hard at putting a spin on every piece of publicity that came out. They
would of made McCartney proud.
> You say "John was being controlled."
> John says he wasn't being controlled.
> You say that you're right and that what John said about his own life is
> proof that he was being controlled.
I never said he was being controlled. I never said I am right about anything to
do with Lennon. I did say that I really liked the guy just not the company that
he kept. And I stand by what people have told me in confidence.
PapaNate
BlackMonk
"PapaNate" <nospa...@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4249D273...@nc.rr.com...
> marc...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > I don't know who you know, but if you are connected as you seem to
> > indicate
> then you might ask Cheap Trick's Rick Nielson and/or perhaps Jack Douglas,
> and/or Andy Newmark (the Drummer). Something was going on in 1980, and not
> in a good way.
>
I've notice that a lot of people tend to think there was something wrong
with John's life because he wasn't doing what they think he should have been
doing.
>> Oh well, as John once said(and I am paraphrasing), "If you think so
>> little of me, that you think Yoko can control me, then 'screw you' "
>
> That's the beauty of it isn't it. My Opinion, and my experiences don't
> mean
> Jack S**t in the face of the kind of spin doctoring that went on over at
> the O-NO-ITS-LENNON camp.
Actually, your opinion about what was going on in his life doesn't mean Jack
S**t in the face of the words of the person who was actually living that
life.
You say "John was being controlled."
abe slaney
bad song memories. All I could remember is the chorus, and something
about pumpkins turning into princesses (???!) and frogs turning into
princes. I figured she meant the frog was John before she princed him. I
looked the lyrics up after I saw your question, and it doesn't read
nearly as sinister as it sounded in the bathroom that dark day. I still
do question the pumpkin>princess formula, however!
marc...@yahoo.com
Big whoop. I've been told lots of things in confidence, only to find
out that it was a prejudiced view, or an outright lie said to make
someone look bad.
What you were told was hearsay...gossip. There might be a few grains
of truth, but again, based on my almost fifty-five years of living on
this planet, gossip and hearsay are either outright lies or major
embellishments of the facts.
John wasn't that good of a liar...his mouth usually got him
trouble...he had a hard time not telling the truth, or the honesty of a
situation. His word, given in interview and in verse, is a more
reliable testament.
PapaNate
marc...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Big whoop. I've been told lots of things in confidence, only to find
> out that it was a prejudiced view, or an outright lie said to make
> someone look bad.
Well you got something there.
> What you were told was hearsay...gossip.
I'll just say this: None of what I talked about with people was hearsay or
gossip. Some of it is recorded conversations and some of it is through
diary entries while things happened. As it was both Lennon's were quite
suspicious of people recording them on the sly, taking pictures, and that
sort of media interference. YUK-O had people sign NDA's. Mostly to prevent
any taped music from leaking out or people speaking about the sessions.
But I suppose even Lennon would of been surprised at the amount of
clandestine recording that went on. Pocket Recorders, Dictation thingy's
that sort of thing. The thing is most wanted it for a keepsake and not to
make money from the press or some such cretins. My impression from my
friends is they wanted to preserve a very special once in a lifetime
moment.
> John wasn't that good of a liar...his mouth usually got him
> trouble...he had a hard time not telling the truth, or the honesty of a
> situation. His word, given in interview and in verse, is a more
> reliable testament.
Well you got something there as well. I just saw the *Christ Remark
Apology* press tape, and John really couldn't bring himself to lie about
what he meant...given that it looked and sounded like he believed what he
said wasn't wrong. Maureen (Cleeve?) foolishly let quotes from her article
be taken out of context and he couldn't bring himself to say *sorry* for
it. So perhaps you are right about him.
PapaNate
fatt...@yahoo.com
With regard to May Pang, how did she really make money off a
John? Publishing a little book? And how about Jack Douglas? Douglas
was one of her biggest fans!!! He gave her great support in the studio
and worked his butt off for her. Douglas stated many times he liked her
work. Yoko's singing on Double Fantasy was so bad, Douglas had her
sing her songs many times so he could then piece them together note by
note so the finished product sounded like she could carry half a tune.
How does Douglas make a lot of money? By giving a handful of
interviews to minor publications?
Yoko is the one who did not want to pay him for his work on
Double Fantasy even though he had a contract!!! She sued him, he sued
her, and I understand it took the jury about 5 minutes to award Jack $2
or 3 million dollars against Yoko.
I believe these people are telling the truth. As I said before,
when you read enough books and enough interviews, a certain "flavor"
emerges. They all paint a similar picture of Yoko as overly
ambitious, self centered, demanding, bossy, and jealous of John.
fatt...@yahoo.com
What you wrote is interesting. Are you in the music industry?
Did you ever meet Lennon or work in the recording studio ? Are you are
liberty to tell us how you know what you know?
fatt...@yahoo.com
Agreement and how Yoko wanted things to be so secretive, in all
fairness to Yoko, Jack Douglas gave a number of interviews where he
stated over and over that John felt very insecure and was uncertain if
he "had it" anymore. It was John who wanted things to be kept secret.
John had Yoko give Douglas some rough demo tapes to first get an
opinion if John should even try to record this material. Douglas
thought the demos were good. Then John asked Douglas to round up some
studio musicians, but directed Jack not to tell the musicians who
they would be working with. When the musicians were initially
introduced to the music, Douglas played and sang the songs to them. At
one point, the studio musicians told Douglas, "No offense, but you
can't sing!" Eventually Douglas took the musicians to the Dakota to
meet with John.
There are two fascinating radio interviews by Douglas which were
available on the web at www.wfmu.com or .org. WFMU is a small NYC
radio station. The DJ for the program is named Jones or Jonesy, so to
get to the interview, you must go into the archives for Jonesville
Station. Both of the Douglas interviews were given on or around
December 8. I think one as in 2003 or 2004 (I forget the exact date) I
have not visited the site in a while so I don't know if it still
available.
fatt...@yahoo.com
3 interesting interviews with Douglas in 2002 and 2003. They were
conducted by Glen Jones. Two of the interviews were in December. Just
do a word search for "Jack Douglas" and you will get to them.
PapaNate
PapaNate
Danny Caccavo
fatt...@yahoo.com wrote:
Actually, Jack used that technique for John's vocals as well, but
obviously he didn't have to work as hard <g>.
Earlier in the '70s, it was more common to "punch in" on a track to fix
vocals, but with more tracks being made available, it was now possible
to do "composite vocals." Jack was an early user of this technique
(listen to the guitar solo on "Walk This Way" and if you're a guitar
player, you'll realize that some of the jumps are completely unnatural).
John's least favorite part of the process was recording vocals, and
especially hated punching in - so Jack made it easy for him - "Hey John,
just sing it through a few times and go home." And when John left, Jack
would make a roadmap, pick the best lines from each performance, and
bounce them together onto one track.
I believe Yoko's "reason" for witholding Jack's money was that he
appeared on some late night tv show shortly after John's death. Yoko
used this as evidence that Jack was exploiting John's death, and the
wars started.
The money Jack won, I believe, was the money he was contracted to
receive (fees and producers royalties) - I don't think he won anything
beyond that.
dc
Danny Caccavo
fatt...@yahoo.com wrote:
Earlier that year, Yoko demo'd her songs at the Record Plant in NYC with
their "house band, " with Roy Cicala at the helm. They weren't "rough"
by any means, but yes, they weren't meant to be finished released
product either. I don't know if John knew about the sessions or not,
but he certainly wasn't present at any of them.
dc
fatt...@yahoo.com
With regard to the money that Jack won, I do believe it was
money he was entitled to under his contract. However my point is to
show the lengths to which Yoko will go . . . here she had a valid
contract and refused to pay him and was willing to hire a lawyer and go
to trial over this . . . . Further when she released Milk and Honey,
she did not ist Jack as producer even though he produced some of those
songs.
Jack was a fan of Yoko's and really worked hard to help her and
this is how she rewarded him.
saki
news:424B5A7D...@nc.rr.com:
> Maureen (Cleeve?) foolishly let
> quotes from her article be taken out of context and he couldn't bring
> himself to say *sorry* for it.
Just to be fair to Maureen Cleave, she didn't allow quotes from her
article to be taken out of context. She wasn't in control of
distribution; the paper she worked for, The Evening Standard, distributed
it. And you can't really blame Cleave for how people subsequently misread
her work.
Interestingly, her complete article on John caused no controversial stir
when it was published in London in March 1966. Even the New York Times
magazine picked up a version of it in July 1966 and that created no
ruckus either.
It wasn't until a U.S. teen magazine, Datebook, got hold of it that
trouble emerged. I don't have a copy of the Datebook version so I can't
say for certain whether the article was abridged or not (perhaps someone
who's seen it will chime in). But the original article is pretty well
suffused with an ironic tone, which should have been a clue to readers
that John was being deliberately (if playfully) provocative. If it had
been heavily edited by Datebook, that crucial part of the context may
have been lost even though John's words were accurately quoted.
Cleave also wrote a companion article on McCartney for the same series in
the Standard, but it didn't ruffle any feathers, either in the UK or U.S.
----
sa...@ucla.edu
PapaNate
saki wrote:
> And you can't really blame Cleave for how people subsequently misread
> her work.
I would agree that she was not solely responsible for the outrage by the
conservative bible belt south. I would add that while Lennon was being wry,
he sadly underestimated the power of his comments could have. Witness the
cheap shot McCartney took in trying to make himself look hip with the * yea
we took acid* comments. You'd think they would of learned quicker.
> Interestingly, her complete article on John caused no controversial stir
> when it was published in London in March 1966. Even the New York Times
> magazine picked up a version of it in July 1966 and that created no
> ruckus either.
This is true.
> t wasn't until a U.S. teen magazine, Datebook, got hold of it that
> trouble emerged.
Then perhaps that whimp of a manager Epstien should of let loose the wolves
on Datebook for misrepresenting a *Branded* image like the Beatles. For
being a *businessman* he sure didn't know crap all about handling business
nor anything about preventing PR debacles.
Anyone with an ounce PR Common sense would of been able to discredit the
slant of the story in a New York Minute. Maybe the Beatles needed Peter
Grant...<G>...Now there's a guy who could beat the crap out of a Promoter one
day, and then get him to apologize in the press the next day for being in the
way of Grant's fist.
> Cleave also wrote a companion article on McCartney for the same series in
> the Standard, but it didn't ruffle any feathers, either in the UK or U.S.
I have heard that for years, but have never actually found a copy of it.
Anyone have one?
PapaNate
Elementary Penguin
>
>
> saki wrote:
>
>> And you can't really blame Cleave for how people subsequently misread
>> her work.
>
> I would agree that she was not solely responsible for the outrage by the
> conservative bible belt south. I would add that while Lennon was being
> wry,
> he sadly underestimated the power of his comments could have.
Balderdash. He is in no way responsible for the collective madness of
fanatics of any stripe, religious or Beatle.
>> t wasn't until a U.S. teen magazine, Datebook, got hold of it that
>> trouble emerged.
>
> Then perhaps that whimp of a manager Epstien should of let loose the
> wolves
> on Datebook for misrepresenting a *Branded* image like the Beatles. For
> being a *businessman* he sure didn't know crap all about handling business
> nor anything about preventing PR debacles.
> Anyone with an ounce PR Common sense would of been able to discredit the
> slant of the story in a New York Minute. Maybe the Beatles needed Peter
> Grant...<G>...Now there's a guy who could beat the crap out of a Promoter
> one
> day, and then get him to apologize in the press the next day for being in
> the
> way of Grant's fist.
Yeah, right. What a prick bully that guy was, and you find that admirable?
>
Papanate
Elementary Penguin wrote:
> Balderdash. He is in no way responsible for the collective madness of
> fanatics of any stripe, religious or Beatle.
Learn to read please. I said he underestimated the power of his comments*.
> Yeah, right. What a prick bully that guy was, and you find that admirable?
If you have an agenda why don't you just state it instead of the giving the
dodgy comments?
The point was that Epstein wasn't a good business manager. Try starting there.
Papanate
saki
news:424CA2D6...@nc.rr.com:
>> Cleave also wrote a companion article on McCartney for the same
>> series in the Standard, but it didn't ruffle any feathers, either in
>> the UK or U.S.
>
> I have heard that for years, but have never actually found a copy of
> it. Anyone have one?
Someone used to have it online but I can't locate it anymore. However,
Cleave's article on Lennon plus one on all four Beatles can be seen here:
http://www.geocities.com/nastymcquickly/articles/
----
sa...@ucla.edu
4-G
"Papanate" <nospa...@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:424DB92F...@nc.rr.com...
>
>
> Elementary Penguin wrote:
>
>> Balderdash. He is in no way responsible for the collective madness of
>> fanatics of any stripe, religious or Beatle.
>
> Learn to read please. I said he underestimated the power of his comments*.
Whatever.
>
>> Yeah, right. What a prick bully that guy was, and you find that
>> admirable?
>
> If you have an agenda why don't you just state it instead of the giving
> the
> dodgy comments?
What the hell agenda? The guy was an asshole and well known bully. SInce
when does protesting about that kind of behaviour an agenda?
> The point was that Epstein wasn't a good business manager. Try starting
> there.
He was good at some things, awful at others. No mater what, he was vitally
important to launching them. Why not start at why you would hold Grant up
to some sort of honor for being a prick?
>
> Papanate
>
>
Papanate
> He was good at some things, awful at others. No mater what, he was vitally
> important to launching them. Why not start at why you would hold Grant up
> to some sort of honor for being a prick?
Maybe you think that people are all nice and sweet, and can offer them a cup of
tea and biscuit over a deal...Right. Epstein although part of the scene as a
matter of history, was not a good business manager for the Beatles. He sucked at
it and in the process lost them millions upon millions of dollars in endorsement
deals, merchandising deals, and touring money. And he didn't set the business up
to survive, nor did he have any subordinates that could step in if a crisis
developed.
You ever watch *That Thing You Do*? You know the scene where the owner of
Playtone Records blows a gasket over the Wonders guy talking to him? That is so
close to reality it hurts. Sorry to wake you up, but the business isn't a nice
one to be in. Nice guys don't get promoted.
And aside from that, I was joking about Grant managing the Beatles. That's why
the little <g> was there weirdo. Maybe you need to lay off the coffee or speed
or whatever it is gets you all amped up.
PapaNate
4-G
Yeah, yeah, so be a prick and pound the shit out of people and you go
places. Park Avenue and then hell.
Nevertheless you simply focus on one aspect of the job and the man. He was
effective in some ways, and horribly inneffective in others (something I
already alluded to).
>
> And aside from that, I was joking about Grant managing the Beatles. That's
> why
> the little <g> was there weirdo. Maybe you need to lay off the coffee or
> speed
> or whatever it is gets you all amped up.
>
I did see the <g>, not really believing you were entirely joking, but if so
I apologize for making more of the comment than it merited.
fatt...@yahoo.com
presented the Beatles very well and got them a lot of wonderful
publicity which made their career. He was a good salesman . . . Look at
his background. He worked in h is familys department store.
The problem with Brian is that he was naive when it came to big money
deals and allowed more sophisticated business people to walk all over
him and all over the Beatles. He did agree to some really stupid deals
like a merchandising deal where the Beatles got 0 or almost 0 while the
person (I forget his name) who made and sold the merchandise got 90%.
He also had some serious personal problems (depression, drugs,
gambling, wild sex parties, etc)
Papanate
> I believe Brian Epstein was a good manager in certain ways. He
> presented the Beatles very well and got them a lot of wonderful
> publicity which made their career.
Yes he was a good PR man at first. But even there he blew it...the comment
about the *Bigger Than Jesus* bit should of been handled. It wasn't and he
was a major driver in trying to get his client (Lennon) to fricking
apologize. That was an embarrassment and disservice to both Lennon and the
Beatles. Any real upper end manager would of gone on the offensive and made
it a press bonanza for the Beatles and Lennon.
Honestly look at the people who were *protesting* the comment..amoung them
KKK heads and other fringe element lunatics mixed with Southern Bible Belt
conservatives. Easy targets to manipulate in the press, and easy to turn
the tables on. He should of chewed them up.
Secondly Epstein didn't see that the very people who wanted the apology or
whatever it is they wanted, that these very people wouldn't be buying the
Beatles anymore anyway. Look where they were going at that time...did he
really think they would buy more Beatle stuff? They weren't buying much of
it then anyway.
> He was a good salesman . . . Look at
> his background. He worked in h is familys department store.
He didn't end up running the NEMs store because of business acumen. It was
his last resort to *make something* of himself. That being according to his
mother and Epsteins own words.
> He also had some serious personal problems (depression, drugs,
> gambling, wild sex parties, etc)
Yea...and those are just the positive aspects.<g> Seriously, I'm not so
sure he had real problems to the degree that people report now. I'd bet
dollars to donuts the conflicts were byproducts of being Homosexual in a
culture that was distinctly anti Gay. Covering up his lifestyle had to be
very difficult for him. I'd bet without that monkey on his back would of
been much more successful....and alive.
PapaNate
4-G
<fatt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1112463029.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>I believe Brian Epstein was a good manager in certain ways. He
> presented the Beatles very well and got them a lot of wonderful
> publicity which made their career. He was a good salesman . . . Look at
> his background. He worked in h is familys department store.
>
> The problem with Brian is that he was naive when it came to big money
> deals
Most people shy of possibly mobsters had no idea about what big money was or
how to handle it if acquired.
and allowed more sophisticated business people to walk all over
> him and all over the Beatles.
"Sophisticated"....crooks.
He did agree to some really stupid deals
> like a merchandising deal where the Beatles got 0 or almost 0 while the
> person (I forget his name) who made and sold the merchandise got 90%.
>
> He also had some serious personal problems (depression, drugs,
> gambling, wild sex parties, etc)
Who doesn't? Good Lord, we are holding these people to standards we
ourselves cannot be held to and we would severely resent someone trying.
>
Papanate
> Most people shy of possibly mobsters had no idea about what big money was or
> how to handle it if acquired.
That was hardly true in the 60's. Plenty of people and corporations handled *Big
Money*.
And Epstein came from a very well off background.
> "Sophisticated"....crooks.
Si Caveat Emptier. If you don't know how to swim, don't learn by swimming with
sharks.
> Who doesn't? Good Lord, we are holding these people to standards we
> ourselves cannot be held to and we would severely resent someone trying.
That is the point isn't it...the expectation of people is extraordinary.
PapaNate
4-G
> 4-G wrote:
>
>> Most people shy of possibly mobsters had no idea about what big money was
>> or
>> how to handle it if acquired.
>
> That was hardly true in the 60's. Plenty of people and corporations
> handled *Big
> Money*.
So you say.
> And Epstein came from a very well off background.
Which means nothing about his ability to handle it. It was his forebearers
who made the money, not he.
>
>> "Sophisticated"....crooks.
>
> Si Caveat Emptier. If you don't know how to swim, don't learn by swimming
> with
> sharks.
Ridiculous.
Papanate
> Ridiculous.
Really? So experience, knowledge and talent are useless commodities..
Riigghhttt...I forgot...the problem with all business is not that you don't know
what to do, but that people out there do. Oh and it's there fault that your
ignorant about business practices...Wow it all so clear now..especially why the
biggest moment of your life is saying ..."Want fries with that?"
PapaNate
4-G
> 4-G wrote:
>
>> Ridiculous.
>
> Really?
Yes, really.
So experience, knowledge and talent are useless commodities..
I certainly do not recall saying that. But pray continue...
> Riigghhttt...I forgot...the problem with all business is not that you
> don't know
> what to do, but that people out there do.
Ah, *I* don't know what to do ... riiiiight.
Oh and it's there fault that your
> ignorant about business practices...
Ah the gloves come off. And it's "their". But then, I don't know what to
do.
Wow it all so clear now..especially why the
> biggest moment of your life is saying ..."Want fries with that?"
Please be clever if you're going to go for the big finish insult. That was
pathetic.
So you always react this way when your views are challenged? How mature.
The fact is you made a point to glorify Peter Grant, a thug, and I disagreed
with that. The rest of your tirades are meaningless. I apologized for not
having trusted your grinnie symbol, and it's clear to me there was no joke
intended at all, you believed every word you said.
One can only hope Grant calls you up one day to do 'business'. I'm sure you
soiling yourself will be most amusing to him.
>
> PapaNate
>
>
fatt...@yahoo.com
of his business dealing, and whether it was the 1950's, 1960's or any
other decade, there are experienced lawyers, managers and others around
who could have made the Beatles a lot more money. Brian was too
trusting and too nice.
It is sad to say, but sometimes in business in order to be successful,
you have to be backstabbing. It is the nature of the beast.
For example, look how Lennon and McCartney lost the publishing rights
to their own songs. Dick James, their supposed partner, sold his large
stake in Northern Songs to Lew Grade without telling John or Paul and
that was that. Brian encouraged Paul and John, two youngsters at the
time, to sign that deal where James and his partner would have a
controlling interest and would have the power to do that. Apparently,
Paul and John did not understand the meaning of the contract they
signed with Dick James.
Years later, Paul became friendly with Michael Jackson, and mentioned
to Jackson that he had learned that one of the most lucrataive things
to invest in is music publishing. So what did Jackson do? A short time
later, Jackson, along with Sony, bought the Lennon/McCartney
catalogue!! Paul still is bitter about it.
And I would like to add, if you read Peter Brown's wonderful book The
Love You Make, when the Lennon/McCartney song catelogue was still owned
by Northern Songs (which was controlled by Dick James, Paul, John and I
think maybe one other person) Paul, without telling the other Beatles,
had Brown secretly buy up over 100,000 shares of stock in the company
so Paul would have a larger interest than John. (originally John and
Paul were equal). When John and the other Beatles found out about it,
they were pissed. John told Paul, "That is the first time any one of
us went behind the other's back!!" Paul responded, "I had a few beanies
and I wanted more for myself." Thus, when Paul was pushing for Eastman
as manager and John pushed for Klein as the manager, George and Ringo
sided with John. The no longer trusted Paul.
Unfortunately, this is the way it is in business.
Papanate
> It is sad to say, but sometimes in business in order to be successful,
> you have to be backstabbing. It is the nature of the beast.
Sometimes it is. More often than not though, you have to know what you are
doing in business.
Things like taxes have nothing to do with other business's, but if you
don't understand them or pay someone who does, then you can get screwed.
The point being that is more often ignorance of the business practices
rather than backstabbing intent is what gets people into trouble. In
Epstein's case, the contracts were written out for the merchandising. I
don't know about you, but when I sign legal paperwork I read it. If I was
handed a contract for anything that said I get 10% and some schmoe gets
90%, every red flag on earth would fly off. That's why I wonder about his
thinking process.
> For example, look how Lennon and McCartney lost the publishing rights
> to their own songs. Dick James, their supposed partner, sold his large
> stake in Northern Songs to Lew Grade without telling John or Paul and
> that was that.
That actually isn't true. Of the Beatles insiders Dick James was probably
the most financially astute. When he first signed the Beatles, the deal he
struck was very generous for unknown writers without a proven history.
After it became apparent that the Beatle's were a humoungous cash cow,
James looked for ways to convert the huge amounts of incoming revenue into
something less taxable (ie..a Tax Shelter). As it was the residuals the
Beatles were getting were considered Capital Gains, which in England was
taxed at the highest rate ( something like 70%).
In selling the catalog to Sir Lew Grade, James assured the Beatles futures.
I think he had the Beatles best interest at heart myself. That said, James
owned a 51% controlling interest and didn't have to consult anyone
regarding his actions.
The Beatles were not business managers by any means, so I think that
telling them in advance where they could of raised objections and thus
cost them enormous amounts in taxes by delaying the sale, would of been
detrimental. Asking forgiveness after the fact was a better move for
everyone...at least I think so.
> Years later, Paul became friendly with Michael Jackson, and mentioned
> to Jackson that he had learned that one of the most lucrataive things
> to invest in is music publishing. So what did Jackson do? A short time
> later, Jackson, along with Sony, bought the Lennon/McCartney
> catalogue!! Paul still is bitter about it.
I have no idea how that deal went down...since everything said is hearsay,
and the real facts are locked up in Wacko's and McCartney's brains. As for
McCartney...it appears odd that he didn't do it as he had more than enough
credit available to outbid anyone. Perhaps there had to be an agreement
between himself and Lennon's estate before purchasing. Either way it would
appear that something more went on than just Wacko undercutting McCartney.
> Thus, when Paul was pushing for Eastman
> as manager and John pushed for Klein as the manager, George and Ringo
> sided with John. The no longer trusted Paul.
>
> Unfortunately, this is the way it is in business.
I have no idea...perhaps Brown is right in his assessment. As a matter of
business though, I think that the combination of the Eastman's advising
McCartney and Lennon's rather vitriolic attitude towards him, resulted in
McCartney no longer trusting Lennon either. Perhaps his motivation was
oriented towards his family's future and not a angry music partner. All in
all it's really difficult to tell isn't it.
PapaNate
fatt...@yahoo.com
YOur post was interesting. With regard to Paul and Michael
Jackson, I read a McCartney interview somewhere where Paul claims the
following: Paul allegedly had lunch with Lew Grade (or someone else in
control of the music) and found out Grade was willing to sell to Paul
if Paul acted fast. Paul decided to be a gentleman and allegedly called
Yoko to say the music was up for sale at a certain price and Yoko
responded that the price was too high. Yoko confidentally told Paul
that she could get it for a much lower price. Apparently she either
acted too slowly or grade was not happy with whatever price Yoko had in
mind because he quickly sold to Michael Jackson and Sony. Paul was
very angry.
With regard to your point that
I think that the combination of the Eastman's advising McCartney and
Lennon's rather vitriolic attitude towards him, resulted in McCartney
no longer trusting Lennon either, etc.,
based upon what I read, Paul and John were doing a number of things to
anger each other, but I can understand John not trusting Paul or the
Eastmans. Further, the Beatles had agreed at some point for the
Eastmans to be their lawyers . . . . it's not as if they were not given
anything. Paul would not compromise. He claims he took his position
because he did not trust Klein and Klien was evil, etc. but I think
Paul just wanted to take over and wanted his in laws at the helm.
Paul's position was untenable. To me the Eastmans should not have been
the Beatles' lawyers because there is an obvious conflict of interest
here. For example, according to the Peter Brown book, when Paul and
the other Beatles had a meeting where Paul essentially was forced to
show his hand and announce he had secretly bought 100,000 shares of
Northern Songs, the Eastmans told Paul to lie about it and not tell the
others. I believe it was the Eastmans who encouraged Paul to buy the
stock in the first place (this last point is my educated guess) If the
Eastmans want to give Paul advice, that is fine, but if they are
supposed to represent all 4 Beatles, it is improper for an attorney to
give advice that pits one client against another.
UsurperTom
> To me the Eastmans should not have been the Beatles' lawyers because
there is an obvious conflict of interest here.
Both Klein and Eastman were bad choices to manage the Beatles. It's
like having to choose between the electric chair and the gas chamber.
Tom
fatt...@yahoo.com
I agree completely. Both Klein and Eastman were bad choices,
although the Beatles did choose Eastman and Eastman to be their general
lawyers.
Part of the problem, I believe, is that Paul was very enamored of
the EAstmans and for good reason. Not only did they give him some good
advice, they were his family. The problem is once he decided he wanted
the Eastmans, he was in a very embarassing position. He could not back
down. He understandably wanted to show Linda "he was the Man." What is
he going to say, "Gee Linda, I don't want your family to manage u s?"
By choosing the Eastmans, Paul was now forced to choose between the
Beatles and his new family and new wife.
A split was inevitable unless the other three Beatles chose the
Eastmans, but they weren't goiing to do that because they did not trust
Paul, and they did not trust the Eastmans to represent their interests.
After all, they would favor Paul.
J.
<fatt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1112553077.8...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Dear Papa,
>
> YOur post was interesting. With regard to Paul and Michael
> Jackson, I read a McCartney interview somewhere where Paul claims the
> following: Paul allegedly had lunch with Lew Grade (or someone else in
> control of the music) and found out Grade was willing to sell to Paul
> if Paul acted fast. Paul decided to be a gentleman and allegedly called
> Yoko to say the music was up for sale at a certain price and Yoko
> responded that the price was too high. Yoko confidentally told Paul
> that she could get it for a much lower price. Apparently she either
> acted too slowly or grade was not happy with whatever price Yoko had in
> mind because he quickly sold to Michael Jackson and Sony. Paul was
> very angry.
>
> the other Beatles had a meeting where Paul essentially was forced to
> show his hand and announce he had secretly bought 100,000 shares of
> Northern Songs, the Eastmans told Paul to lie about it and not tell the
> others. I believe it was the Eastmans who encouraged Paul to buy the
100,000 shares? How are you coming up with this figure? It was 1,000 shares
and Paul says it was not done on the sly. It was Brown who suggested it and
arranged the purchase. Both John and Paul began with 750,000 shares. John
ended up with far fewer because he reportedly signed some over to Cynthia
and Julian in trust (and also reportedly had them sign the shares back to
him). It's possible that John forgot or wasn't paying attention, and then
over-reacted.
-J.
Papanate
> and Paul says it was not done on the sly. It was Brown who suggested it and
> arranged the purchase.
Still curious as to why Brown didn't make the same suggestion to John...unless
of course it was because John was incommunicado and wouldn't talk to
Brown...which is very possible.
> It's possible that John forgot or wasn't paying attention, and then
> over-reacted.
Agreed. It could also be just another Lennon jab at *Wee McCartney*....just
another thing to hang McCartney on, in Lennon's pursuit to discredit him in the
early 70's.
PapaNate
fatt...@yahoo.com
that Brown indicated it was 100,000 share, not 1000. Paul has
repeatedly stated in interviews that it was a small number, like 200,
but Brown disagrees. Bown should know. According to Brown, it was Paul
who asked Brown to buy up the shares SECRETLY. I never read anywhere
that Brown suggested this to Paul. It is logical to me that Paul's
father in law suggested it to him because this was his style.
I never heard about shares being given in trust to Cynthia or anyone.
However Brown states clearly in his book that when John and Paul each
counted up their shares, Paul had more than 100,000 more. If you
insist, I will try to find the book and the cite.
fatt...@yahoo.com
You claim that this could be another Lennon efforst to
discredit McCartney . . . However, it is important to note that the
info is in Peter Brown's book, written after John died, not in a book
by Lennon.