Hunter Davies: John & Brian had one-nighter

Diana

unread,

Mar 25, 2001, 4:40:23 AM3/25/01

to

>The Quarrymen" also corroborates previous books that asserted that
>John had a brief affair with Brian Epstein. Davies says that John told
>the author personally about the one-night stand in Spain and Pete
>Shotton later confirmed the story to Davies.

Slowly, slowly, all the myths are being burst like bubbles. Here's the
article:

Sunday Times (London) -- March 25 2001

How the Beatles nearly split up before they began
Nick Fielding

ONE of the greatest partnerships in musical history nearly split up within
weeks of John Lennon and Paul McCartney first meeting each other, according to
an original member of Lennon's first band.

Lennon feared that his teenage skiffle group, the Quarrymen, was being taken
over by the "precocious" McCartney - but was dissuaded from throwing him out by
Eric Griffiths, a schoolfriend who played in the band.

"I like to think that was my greatest contribution to the history of the
Beatles - not letting John chuck Paul out of the Quarrymen," Griffiths told
Hunter Davies, the Beatles biographer, who has now written the story of the
original band.

His new book, The Quarrymen, also reveals that Lennon told his closest friend
about a one-night stand with Brian Epstein, the homosexual manager of the
Beatles. Their "gay fling" has long been rumoured, but never confirmed.

Lennon was 16 when the 15-year-old McCartney was introduced to him in July 1957
at a church fete where the Quarrymen were playing; one of the most famous
meetings in modern musical history.

Although he was leader of the group, Lennon had not learnt to play his guitar.
McCartney took the instrument and showed off with a performance of Twenty
Flight Rock, his party piece.

Impressed, Lennon invited him to join, but began worrying about losing control
of his band, according to Griffiths.

"Paul was very good," Griffiths told Davies. "We could all see that. He was
precocious in many ways. Not just in music, but in relating to people."

Lennon became particularly incensed listening to his best friend, Pete Shotton,
who played washboard in the group, being charmed by McCartney as they walked to
a rehearsal.

Griffiths remembered: "I was walking ahead with John. John suddenly said:
'Let's split the group, and you and me will start again.'

"We could hear Paul behind us, chatting to Pete as if he was Pete's best
friend. John knew we were all his pals, but now Paul was trying to get in on
us. Not to split us up, just make friends with us all. I'm sure that was all it
was, but to John it looked as if Paul was trying to take over, dominate the
group.

"I said to him: 'Paul's so good. He'll contribute a lot to the group. We need
him with us.' John said nothing. But after that the subject was never mentioned
again."

Even so, according to Griffiths, Lennon was worried when McCartney said he was
going to wear a "white sports coat" for his debut performance. Fearing that the
young newcomer might look like the leader of the band, Lennon managed to
acquire a similar jacket.

Once the musically gifted George Harrison joined, the original members of the
group began to leave and the Quarrymen eventually became the Beatles. But
Shotton remained Lennon's closest friend and has provided Davies with his own
account of the relationship between the star and Epstein.

"Lennon first told me this story in 1968," said Davies yesterday. "He told me
how he had gone to Spain in April 1963 with Epstein, just after his wife,
Cynthia, had given birth to their son, Julian. He said he'd had a one-night
stand with Epstein."

Davies said he decided not to include the story in his 1968 Beatles biography
because he knew that Lennon was not a homosexual and he simply did not believe
it. "It was only when I interviewed Pete Shotton for the book on the Quarrymen
that I found out the truth.

"Brian had kept on at John so much that one evening John had dropped his
trousers." He had taunted his manager about having sex, and had finally allowed
him to do so.

"John said Brian was just a sad bastard who'd been having a hard time," Shotton
told Davies. "There were stories in Liverpool about him trying to touch up
sailors and as a result getting himself beaten up or robbed. John felt sorry
for him.

"He felt no harm had been done. He couldn't help the way he was. I told him I
agreed. I couldn't see the harm either."

A Mercedes-Benz 600 Pullman bought by Lennon in 1970 will be auctioned on
Tuesday by the fleetwood-owen.com auction site. The car was the most expensive
in the world in its day.

- - - - - -
If you can't answer a man's argument, all is not lost;
you can still call him vile names. ~ Elbert Hubbard

He who fights with monsters might take care lest he
thereby become a monster. ~Nietzsche

Francie HSchwartz

unread,

Mar 25, 2001, 5:27:36 AM3/25/01

to

Diana wrote:

>
>
> Slowly, slowly, all the myths are being burst like bubbles. Here's the
> article:
>
> Sunday Times (London) -- March 25 2001
>
> How the Beatles nearly split up before they began
> Nick Fielding
>
>

<snip>

Even the London Times has become part of this morbid feeding frenzy.

I don't believe John ever told Davies such a thing in 1968 or any other year.

Hunter Davies must be desperate. Poor old sod.

Francie

--
http://sites.netscape.net/fabe9131944
FRANCIE'S BOOT CD: Live Stories of 1968

"If art is to nourish the roots of our culture,
society must set the artist free to follow
his vision wherever it takes him."
- President John F. Kennedy,
Amherst College, October, 1963

skippy the bush kangaroo

unread,

Mar 25, 2001, 6:31:46 AM3/25/01

to

"Diana" <amara...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010325044023...@nso-cu.aol.com...

> Slowly, slowly, all the myths are being burst like bubbles. Here's the
> article:

slowly slowly my stomach turns and i hurl my cookies

especially when i imagine someone so full of glee, wringin their hands over
their screens, so eager to promote this sort of bullshit. really, you just
dont care anymore do you, di? it's fangs and claws out and broomstick at
the ready...:)

i particularly like the juxtaposition of the dropping of trowsers in one
sentence, then the appropos of nothing refence to an expensive motor car.
sex sells.

Runnnerr

unread,

Mar 25, 2001, 7:04:39 AM3/25/01

to

Yawnnnnnnnnnnnn.... Will these assholes who had only a tangental relationship
with the Beatles never stop slithering from out under their rocks and trying to
make themselves more important in the Beatles story than they really are?? Get
a life you losers. You weren't in the Beatles and you never will be. Sorry.....

nowhere man

unread,

Mar 25, 2001, 9:04:05 AM3/25/01

to

Runnnerr wrote:

> Yawnnnnnnnnnnnn.... Will these assholes who had only a tangental relationship
> with the Beatles never stop slithering from out under their rocks and trying to
> make themselves more important in the Beatles story than they really are?? Get
> a life you losers. You weren't in the Beatles and you never will be. Sorry.....

5 mins of potential fame will bring these 'old school friends' out of the cupboard.

Funny that a 'new book' always finds 'new stories' in a story which has been
covered a thousand times by various authors.

Will

PS - maybe some day Diana will initiate a thread about how great a particular
beatles song was, as oppposed to this usual shite.

齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,

Never understood a word.

Am D7 Em
But you were always there with a smile.

Em/C# F7/C
And if I say I really loved you

G G Em
And was glad you came along.

If you were here today.

Eb F* Cm G D7 G
Ooh- ooh- ooh- For you were in my song.

Eb F* Cm G D7 G
Ooh- ooh- ooh- Here to - day.

齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,

Philip Sondericker

unread,

Mar 25, 2001, 2:04:43 PM3/25/01

to

Diana wrote:

>
> Slowly, slowly, all the myths are being burst like bubbles. Here's the
> article:
>

Let's remember that we're talking about 15 and 16-year-olds here--it seems absurd
to treat the petty intrigues of a couple of barely-adolescent boys as some sort of
momentous scoop or dirty scandal--whether or not they later became world famous.
The whole thing is on a par in importance with Marcia Brady having a crush on Davy
Jones.

As for the Lennon-Epstein thing--I suppose it might possibly be true, but it's not
very interesting either.

ejEY...@ix.netcom.com

unread,

Mar 25, 2001, 2:08:38 PM3/25/01

to

Diana wrote:
> "I like to think that was my greatest contribution to the history of
> the Beatles - not letting John chuck Paul out of the Quarrymen,"
> Griffiths told Hunter Davies, the Beatles biographer

> Griffiths remembered: "I was walking ahead with John. John suddenly

> said: 'Let's split the group, and you and me will start again.'
>

> "I said to him: 'Paul's so good. He'll contribute a lot to the
> group. We need him with us.' John said nothing. But after that the
> subject was never mentioned again."

So, that was IT? One question and one answer? That's how Griffiths
"SAVED" The Beatles? Oh, yeah! I really DO believe that was a
turning point in the group's history :~{

> His new book, The Quarrymen, also reveals that Lennon told his
> closest friend about a one-night stand with Brian Epstein, the
> homosexual manager of the Beatles. Their "gay fling" has long
> been rumoured, but never confirmed.
>

> "Lennon first told me this story in 1968," said Davies yesterday.
> "He told me how he had gone to Spain in April 1963 with Epstein,
> just after his wife, Cynthia, had given birth to their son, Julian.
> He said he'd had a one-night stand with Epstein."

> Davies said he decided not to include the story in his 1968 Beatles
> biography because he knew that Lennon was not a homosexual and he
> simply did not believe it. "It was only when I interviewed Pete
> Shotton for the book on the Quarrymen that I found out the truth.

Oh, now we see. Davies is relying on the one and ONLY one source that
has ever contended they had a fling: Pete Shotton. And Pete WASN'T
THERE, was he?

This is second-hand hearsay from an unreliable source about an event
witnessed by neither. Believe what you want, but I believe John
Lennon told a lot of strange stories to a lot of gullible folks with
now failing memories.

-Ed
Change "EYE" with "i" to reply

DEnglE3

unread,

Mar 25, 2001, 3:17:44 PM3/25/01

to

>
>As for the Lennon-Epstein thing--I suppose it might possibly be true, but
>it's not
>very interesting either.

Are you kidding?!?!?!?!?! Not very interesting?!?!?!?!?!?

How can you ignore this (if it's true?)?

I guess for all the people who worship Lennon, they would ignore it, but, Come
on! If John Lennon had Sex with Brian Epstien, are you saying it wouldn''t be
news worthy?

skippy the bush kangaroo

unread,

Mar 25, 2001, 3:18:30 PM3/25/01

to

"Runnnerr" <runn...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010325070439...@ng-fe1.aol.com...

> Yawnnnnnnnnnnnn.... Will these assholes who had only a tangental
relationship
> with the Beatles never stop slithering from out under their rocks and
trying to
> make themselves more important in the Beatles story than they really are??
Get
> a life you losers. You weren't in the Beatles and you never will be.
Sorry.....

exactly right.

of course poor little uslurper tom and his bum buddy nyny will no douibt
have hard ons( if theyre old enough to get 'em) and be salivating waiting to
read such "brilliantly researched" material as this new kiss and tell
bullshit.

ROFLOL!

skippy the bush kangaroo

unread,

Mar 25, 2001, 3:21:23 PM3/25/01

to

<ejEY...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3ABE4236...@ix.netcom.com...

> Diana wrote:
> > Davies said he decided not to include the story in his 1968 Beatles
> > biography because he knew that Lennon was not a homosexual and he
> > simply did not believe it. "It was only when I interviewed Pete
> > Shotton for the book on the Quarrymen that I found out the truth.
>
> Oh, now we see. Davies is relying on the one and ONLY one source that
> has ever contended they had a fling: Pete Shotton. And Pete WASN'T
> THERE, was he?

but thats more than enough for sick little pups like danny and diana and
utom......:)

skippy the bush kangaroo

unread,

Mar 25, 2001, 3:20:10 PM3/25/01

to

"Philip Sondericker" <phil...@icehouse.net> wrote in message
news:3ABE41AF...@icehouse.net...

> Diana wrote:
>
> >
> > Slowly, slowly, all the myths are being burst like bubbles. Here's the
> > article:
> >
>
> Let's remember that we're talking about 15 and 16-year-olds here--it seems
absurd
> to treat the petty intrigues of a couple of barely-adolescent boys as some
sort of
> momentous scoop or dirty scandal-

of course its absrud.

unread,

Mar 25, 2001, 4:23:04 PM3/25/01

to

ejEY...@ix.netcom.com writes:

>Oh, now we see. Davies is relying on the one and ONLY one source that
>has ever contended they had a fling: Pete Shotton. And Pete WASN'T
>THERE, was he?

John told Hunter Davies. Davies thought John was making it up.

>This is second-hand hearsay from an unreliable source about an event
>witnessed by neither. Believe what you want, but I believe John
>Lennon told a lot of strange stories to a lot of gullible folks with
>now failing memories.

All of a sudden Hunter Davies is an unreliable source? People here put him
second only to Lewisohn. Now he's just a gullible old man with a fading
memory? Don't you think he took and kept his notes for his 1968 book?

After A THIRD OF A CENTURY of his book being considered the best Beatles
biography ever, OVERNIGHT the man's becomes dogmeat? A disreputable
biographer?

Diana

unread,

Mar 25, 2001, 4:23:05 PM3/25/01

to

Philip Sondericker <phil...@icehouse.net> writes:

>> Slowly, slowly, all the myths are being burst like bubbles.
>>
>

>Let's remember that we're talking about 15 and 16-year-olds here--it
>seems absurd to treat the petty intrigues of a couple of
>barely-adolescent boys as some sort of momentous scoop or dirty
>scandal--whether or not they later became world famous.

Agreed. It's not easy to get away from the fact that they did become a musical
phenomenon. The Beatles as a group is unthinkable without Paul. It's like
Paul almost met the same fate as Pete Best. But you're right, of course. At
the time, they were one of dozens of skiffle groups.

>The whole thing is on a par in importance with Marcia Brady having
>a crush on Davy Jones.

I don't know about that. Marcia Brady is not only fictitious, but was a
character in a TV show I never liked in the first place. I enjoy learning
about the history of the Beatles, and the closer to the truth we get, the
better (IMO).

>As for the Lennon-Epstein thing--I suppose it might possibly be true,
>but it's not very interesting either.

I think it's interesting, to have it validated by as highly-respected a Beatles
biographer as Hunter Davies. After all, whenever someone asks what the best
Beatles biography is, Davies' tops the list. But certainly it doesn't change
my opinion of John. He was an artist, and artists need to experience various
facets of life. Many people have had 1 or 2 sexual experiences opposite to
that of their nature, just to see what it's like.

Lee

unread,

Mar 25, 2001, 4:35:27 PM3/25/01

to

Who someone sleeps with shouldn't be newsworthy at all. It's no one's
business. Whether John slept with Brian or not is, or rather should
be, of no interest except to thise who dwell at the Jerry Springer
Show level.

Are you one of them?

Lee
%
The world indeed needs sweeping.
%

Philip Sondericker

unread,

Mar 25, 2001, 4:52:32 PM3/25/01

to

Diana wrote:

> Philip Sondericker <phil...@icehouse.net> writes:
>
> >> Slowly, slowly, all the myths are being burst like bubbles.
> >>
> >
> >Let's remember that we're talking about 15 and 16-year-olds here--it
> >seems absurd to treat the petty intrigues of a couple of
> >barely-adolescent boys as some sort of momentous scoop or dirty
> >scandal--whether or not they later became world famous.
>
> Agreed. It's not easy to get away from the fact that they did become a musical
> phenomenon. The Beatles as a group is unthinkable without Paul. It's like
> Paul almost met the same fate as Pete Best. But you're right, of course. At
> the time, they were one of dozens of skiffle groups.

And they were the equivalent of sophomores in high school. Analyzing someone's
behavior when they were still a child is perhaps instructive when dealing with
serial killers, but with anybody else it needs to be taken with an enormous grain
of salt.

>
> >As for the Lennon-Epstein thing--I suppose it might possibly be true,
> >but it's not very interesting either.
>
> I think it's interesting, to have it validated by as highly-respected a Beatles
> biographer as Hunter Davies. After all, whenever someone asks what the best
> Beatles biography is, Davies' tops the list.

Not by my reckoning. I always thought Philip Norman's "Shout" was far better. I
like Davies' book as well, but keep in mind that it was the "official" biography,
meaning that it was probably subject to heavy censorship by group members and
their families. Not that they aren't entitled to their version of events, mind
you.

Ltb3105

unread,

Mar 25, 2001, 4:59:31 PM3/25/01

to

Also funny is how all these so called know-it-all's always come up with "new
stories" when the victims they are writing about are no longer with us to
defend themselves.......

Sigh.....

Laura B.

Ltb3105

unread,

Mar 25, 2001, 5:01:56 PM3/25/01

to

>It's been no secret that John & Brian did spend some romantic time together.
>John said so in that 1980 Playboy interview. Although he did say in that
>interview the relationship wasn't "consummated".

What gets me is how John could be so insensitive as to go away with Brian when
his wife needed him the most?!

I adore John, but he really treated Cyn and Julian like shit.....

Laura B.

John for me was the greatest composer of a generation, frig, maybe even of all
time....but he did treat Cyn very badly. She is on TV every so often here in the
UK....and heck, you couldn't hope to see a more down to earth classy lady.

John's quote in 1980 about Julian being concieved after a Saturday night special
(bottle of whiskey) was way way way below the belt.

No father or mother should ever say such a thing in public. Just isn't right.

I don't dig those people like nyar, danny, etc who glory in rumour and
gore.....but on the otherhand I don't have anything in common with those (like
Derek) who make John out to be a God. He wasn't a God and would even take umbrage
at that very notion himself. He was a man of skin and bone who just happened to
be a genius when it came to word-play and music. No more, no less.

Will

skippy the bush kangaroo

unread,

Mar 25, 2001, 8:08:43 PM3/25/01

to

"J. Juls" <jj...@tbc.net> wrote in message
news:tbt13ve...@corp.supernews.com...

but gee, according to the intelligencia around here, you cannot FULLY
appreciate jonh lennon's music without FULLY appreciating (read: snooping,
gossiping, giggling, smirking about) his private life.

>
> Julie
>
>

skippy the bush kangaroo

unread,

Mar 25, 2001, 8:13:22 PM3/25/01

to

"J. Juls" <jj...@tbc.net> wrote in message

news:tbt13u3...@corp.supernews.com...

> Just for fun, pretend John and Brian did have a one-nighter...what would
> be so wrong with it? Sure is a lot of homophobia around here.

i agree.

uslurper tom sounds like a KKK stalwart who has just found a new target for
his bigotry.

> Maybe it's
> lying, maybe it's not, but I don't think it's "denigrating" anyone, or
> that anyone has to "defend" himself.

again agreed. yet of course thre are plenty here who are drooling over this
latest (in fact quite old) bit of gossip.

watch them howl and cry about how davies is such a great author, he couldnt
possibly have published anyhting that is incorrect or unsubstantiated,
seeing as the two principles havebeen dead for over 20 years....:)

of course a tiny fact like that wont stand in the way of those who thrive on
this sort of gossip driven rubbish.

Steve Marinucci

unread,

Mar 25, 2001, 9:04:14 PM3/25/01

to

To those criticizing the posting of the note about this story, which
was carried in two separate stories in the UK Sunday Times (which,
you'll note, is not a tabloid like Sunday People or News of the
World), you should direct your flames toward Hunter Davies for writing
the book.

As for what he wrote...while what may have happened before the Beatles
doesn't carry the weight or significance of what happened later, you
can't dismiss it. As limited as their relationship was, the Quarrymen
were witnesses to an important point in Beatle history. You'll note
that only in recent years have the group done anything together. They
could have cashed in since the '60s and didn't.

As far as the Brian-John thing, no, so what? With neither of them
around to defend themselves now, it's a lot of noise about nothing.

steve
----------------------------
ABBEYRD'S BEATLES PAGE
http://www.best.com/~abbeyrd
The most up-to-date Beatle news
on the Internet
-------------------------------

jennielegs

unread,

Mar 25, 2001, 9:00:39 PM3/25/01

to

<< What gets me is how John could be so insensitive as to go away with Brian
when
> his wife needed him the most?!
>
> I adore John, but he really treated Cyn and Julian like shit.....

so what?
>>

People need to not be so wrapped up in other peoples personal lives. No one
really knows what goes on behind closed doors, and frankly, it's none of our
business.

~jennie~

UsurperTom

unread,

Mar 25, 2001, 9:15:05 PM3/25/01

to

Francie wrote:

>I don't believe John ever told Davies such a thing in 1968 or any other year.

According to Peter Brown's "The Love You Make," John told Davies that he slept
with Brian because he "wanted to see what it's like to fuck with a guy."
Tom

skippy the bush kangaroo

unread,

Mar 25, 2001, 9:26:29 PM3/25/01

to

"Steve Marinucci" <abb...@best.com> wrote in message
news:3abe991d...@ca.news.verio.net...

> You'll note that only in recent years have the group done anything
together. They
> could have cashed in since the '60s and didn't.

maybe because they werent a "group" at all. they were just a bunch of blokes
who went on into ordinary life. it's not like they were still playing pubs
and trying to get a break. >

and i doubt they could have cashed in on it in the sixties the way they can
now. now they have the nostalgia vote on their side and they have an easily
accessible mass media.

> As far as the Brian-John thing, no, so what? With neither of them
> around to defend themselves now, it's a lot of noise about nothing.

exactly my point.

but i'd go futher and describe it as grubby piece of rumour mongering.

Leroy Dsomething

unread,

Mar 25, 2001, 11:53:04 PM3/25/01

to

nowhere man wrote in message ...
> Runnnerr wrote:
>
> > Yawnnnnnnnnnnnn....
>

A persuasive argument. But what I really want to know is, what is this
sig?

paramucho

unread,

Mar 26, 2001, 12:09:39 AM3/26/01

to

On 25 Mar 2001 09:40:23 GMT, amara...@aol.com (Diana) wrote:

>usurp...@aol.com (UsurperTom) writes:

>Sunday Times (London) -- March 25 2001

>Griffiths remembered: "I was walking ahead with John. John suddenly said:
>'Let's split the group, and you and me will start again.'
>
>"We could hear Paul behind us, chatting to Pete as if he was Pete's best
>friend. John knew we were all his pals, but now Paul was trying to get in on
>us. Not to split us up, just make friends with us all. I'm sure that was all it
>was, but to John it looked as if Paul was trying to take over, dominate the
>group.
>
>"I said to him: 'Paul's so good. He'll contribute a lot to the group. We need
>him with us.' John said nothing. But after that the subject was never mentioned
>again."

If John had wanted Paul out at that point then all he had to do was
tell Macca not to show up for the next rehearsal. There was no need to
start over.

>Even so, according to Griffiths, Lennon was worried when McCartney said he was
>going to wear a "white sports coat" for his debut performance. Fearing that the
>young newcomer might look like the leader of the band, Lennon managed to
>acquire a similar jacket.

Really? The jackets and ties seem to be a little too coordinated to be
arrived at by chance.

>"Lennon first told me this story in 1968," said Davies yesterday. "He told me
>how he had gone to Spain in April 1963 with Epstein, just after his wife,
>Cynthia, had given birth to their son, Julian. He said he'd had a one-night
>stand with Epstein."

There's nothing new here. Shotton reported on this years ago, and in
more detail -- not as a "one night stand" but rather as about a minor
event. If he told Shotton about it, then he may just has likely have
told Davies.

It could well be true, but who cares? There's a limit of what I need
to know about people. This has nothing to do with "undoing then
mythmaking" but with squalid, voyeuristic gutter-level journalism:
what does it matter, one way or the other?

Why would one want to reawaken the topic thirty years later after both
gents are dead? Somehow I don't think it's the accuracy of the
historical record which is playing a core role here...

Sounds to me more like someone is trying to squeeze the last little
drop out of the story here... unfortunately. Nevertheless, I'll read
the book with interest for the less salacious details.

Ian

WildHoneyPie

unread,

Mar 26, 2001, 2:32:42 AM3/26/01

to

"J. Juls" <jj...@tbc.net> wrote in message
news:tbt13u3...@corp.supernews.com...

Julie, you are dead on. I imagine the one night stand probably did happen,
for a number of reasons, but who gives a crap! With all the sexual
experimentation that went on in the 60's, if John only had one experience
with a man, he was way behind most others!

Eleni

skippy the bush kangaroo

unread,

Mar 26, 2001, 2:39:05 AM3/26/01

to

"WildHoneyPie" <WildHo...@starband.net> wrote in message
news:ugCv6.6$br4.3...@twister2.starband.net...

and you greek girls would know about that......:)

Francie

unread,

Mar 26, 2001, 4:51:58 AM3/26/01

to

On 25 Mar 2001 21:23:04 GMT amara...@aol.com (Diana) wrote:

>All of a sudden Hunter Davies is an unreliable source? People here put him
second only to Lewisohn.

Hunter Davies is neither a historian in the same sense as Mark
Lewisohn, nor a researcher. When he wrote the squeaky clean
"biography" of the group that arrived in 1968, he was working
from 唄e most polite and non-confrontational persperctive possible.

As the joey said, "It's in the music," NOT in the mouths
of desperate scandalmongering former "friends".

I met Pete Shotton (the only source who insists on this silly
Brian-and-John legend as gospel) - he was never at a studio
session and spent little or no time in the office. He was kept
on as John's "secretary" and probably has a slight axe to
grind because he was supplanted by Yoko Ono.

John was straight. Whoever says there was a lot of
"sexual experimentation" in the 60s simply doesn't
remember. It was about free love and it was about
sharing... but there was nothing like the homosexual
"adventures" among the Beatles some people here would
like to imagine.

John was a pussyhound when he was young. By the time
he got together with Yoko, he was ready to stop tomcatting
around and have some real intimacy.

He was a flaming heterosexual.

Hunter Davies is desperate to get back into the
Beatle spotlight. There can be no reason but
pure greed for him to float this rumor at this time.
Whatever cred he once had, he has sold.

Same for the Griffith bit.

And as others have said... "Who Cares?"

--
"No man but a blockhead ever wrote,
except for money." (Samuel Johnson)

Francie's Boot CD: Sayin It Out Loud
http://sites.netscape.net/fabe9131944

Diana

unread,

Mar 26, 2001, 4:52:09 AM3/26/01

to

abb...@best.com (Steve Marinucci) writes:

>To those criticizing the posting of the note about this story, which
>was carried in two separate stories in the UK Sunday Times (which,
>you'll note, is not a tabloid like Sunday People or News of the
>World), you should direct your flames toward Hunter Davies for
>writing the book.
>
>As for what he wrote...while what may have happened before the Beatles
>doesn't carry the weight or significance of what happened later, you
>can't dismiss it. As limited as their relationship was, the Quarrymen
>were witnesses to an important point in Beatle history. You'll note
>that only in recent years have the group done anything together. They
>could have cashed in since the '60s and didn't.
>
>As far as the Brian-John thing, no, so what? With neither of them
>around to defend themselves now, it's a lot of noise about nothing.

Thank you, Steve, for being the voice of reason. We're mostly adults here --
at least age-wise. The only people who seem upset by this news are the ones
arguing that it should never have been posted. Though it's an interesting part
of Beatle history, in my mind, John is the same today as he was 48 hours ago.
No difference.

Francie

unread,

Mar 26, 2001, 5:08:16 AM3/26/01

to

On 26 Mar 2001 09:52:09 GMT amara...@aol.com (Diana) wrote:

>Though it's an interesting part
of Beatle history, in my mind, John is the same today as he was 48 hours ago.
No difference.

Now *there's* a profoundly stupid and meaningless statement...

You're such a jerk, Diana, you even think
you can twist Steve's purely factual post
into an argument for your shitforbrains theory.

It won't fly.

The one night stand you're dreaming of
never happened. It is NOT part of
Beatle history.

It's part of tabloid gossip.

Francie

Runnnerr

unread,

Mar 26, 2001, 5:12:37 AM3/26/01

to

I guess this idiot Eric Griffths should be inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall
Of Fame. After all, without him, we wouldn't have such classic albums as Sgt.
Pepper, Abbey Road, etc.

Eric Griffiths WAS The Beatles.

D 28IF

unread,

Mar 26, 2001, 7:02:52 AM3/26/01

to

>From: "skippy the bush kangaroo" ga...@budgie.com

>> >It's been no secret that John & Brian did spend some romantic time
>together.
>> >John said so in that 1980 Playboy interview. Although he did say in that
>> >interview the relationship wasn't "consummated".
>>
>> What gets me is how John could be so insensitive as to go away with Brian
>when
>> his wife needed him the most?!
>>
>> I adore John, but he really treated Cyn and Julian like shit.....
>
>so what?
>

Glad this stuff doesn't bother Nick. Curious, though, that I don't see him
voice the same complaints when there are "insider" stories made about Paul.

Oh, maybe he doesn't like when the odd article about Paul is posted. But when
an "insider" posts here about John, they're shite. Yet when one does so about
Paul, no comment. Or better yet, he sticks up for them.

ejEY...@ix.netcom.com

unread,

Mar 26, 2001, 8:50:26 AM3/26/01

to

Diana wrote:
> All of a sudden Hunter Davies is an unreliable source? People here

> put him second only to Lewisohn. Now he's just a gullible old man
> with a fading memory? Don't you think he took and kept his notes
> for his 1968 book?

Read it again. Shotton is the unreliable source.
Change "EYE" with "i" to reply

nowhere man

unread,

Mar 26, 2001, 9:58:03 AM3/26/01

to

Leroy Dsomething wrote:

> nowhere man wrote in message ...
> > Runnnerr wrote:
> >
> > > Yawnnnnnnnnnnnn....
> >
>
> A persuasive argument. But what I really want to know is, what is this
> sig?

first of all you are not quoting me above.....Runnnerr yawnnnnnnnned, not me!

Okay the sig......well it is from one of Paul's most beautiful songs called
'Here Today' from 1982 or so. It was written to John....and is
heartbreakingly candid.

Will

lstoll

unread,

Mar 26, 2001, 12:54:50 PM3/26/01

to

Francie wrote:
>
> As the joey said, "It's in the music," NOT in the mouths
> of desperate scandalmongering former "friends".

Chortle (considering the source!).

> [John] was a flaming heterosexual.

I agree. However it doesn't mean he didn't have a
sexual experience with Brian.

> And as others have said... "Who Cares?"

It's at least as much worth taking notice of as some
gossip about McCartney that you like to hint around
at. -laura

lstoll

unread,

Mar 26, 2001, 1:19:36 PM3/26/01

to

paramucho wrote:
>
> If John had wanted Paul out at that point then all he had to do was
> tell Macca not to show up for the next rehearsal. There was no
> need to start over.

It sounds to me like an indirect comment made out of
momentary insecurity, so it didn't necessarily have
to make sense. It's interesting that Griffiths
responded in such a direct way (that is if
Griffith's recollection is accurate).

> >Even so, according to Griffiths, Lennon was worried when

> >McCartney said he was going to wear a "white sports coat"...

>
> Really? The jackets and ties seem to be a little too coordinated
> to be arrived at by chance.

According to another Quarrymen, Len Garry, It was
Paul's idea for both he and John to wear white
jackets. -laura

lstoll

unread,

Mar 26, 2001, 1:20:16 PM3/26/01

to

ejEY...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> Diana wrote:
> > All of a sudden Hunter Davies is an unreliable source?
>

> Read it again. Shotton is the unreliable source.

As I read it both Shotton and Davies are now
unreliable sources since they both say John told
them the story. -laura

AppleCorp3

unread,

Mar 26, 2001, 1:54:08 PM3/26/01

to

> You weren't in the Beatles and you never will be. Sorry.....
>
>5 mins of potential fame will bring these 'old school friends' out of the
>cupboard.

Yeah - like how John said to split the group and start again - just him and
Eric. Makes you wonder a bit, doesn't it?

nowhere man

unread,

Mar 26, 2001, 2:09:35 PM3/26/01

to

AppleCorp3 wrote:

spot on.

yes and how come these 'revelations' are only coming out now and taking on such
significance.

The story was old news.......it has just been heated up a bit to sell the
latest book.

unread,

Mar 27, 2001, 8:48:23 AM3/27/01

to

YAWNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
NNNNNNNNNNNN

>& Brian had one-nighter
>From: "Leroy Dsomething" ler...@communityweb.net
>Date: 3/27/01 4:36 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <tc0nomt...@corp.supernews.com>

nowhere man

unread,

Mar 27, 2001, 11:55:32 AM3/27/01

to

hang on folks, the 'zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz' always comes after the
'YAWNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN'

:3)

Runnnerr wrote:

--

CYBERFLOYD

unread,

Mar 27, 2001, 1:42:05 PM3/27/01

to

Let's not forget in his book Paul McCartney says the Quarry Men used to get
together for circle jerks and John Lennon would shout out "WInston Churchill"
to try and deflate everybody.

Francie

unread,

Mar 27, 2001, 2:50:19 PM3/27/01

to

Hmmm. Now that's about right for your
comprehension level... lol

--
Watch this space.

Francie's Boot CD: On Its Way to Beatle ears!
http://sites.netscape.net/fabe9131944

Message has been deleted

D 28IF

unread,

Mar 27, 2001, 5:19:52 PM3/27/01

to

>From: cyber...@aol.com (CYBERFLOYD)

>Let's not forget in his book Paul McCartney says the Quarry Men used to get
>together for circle jerks and John Lennon would shout out "WInston Churchill"
>to try and deflate everybody.

I thought that story was first told by Pete Shotton in his book.

Ltb3105

unread,

Mar 27, 2001, 7:16:56 PM3/27/01

to

>Let's not forget in his book Paul McCartney says the Quarry Men used to get
>together for circle jerks and John Lennon would shout out "WInston Churchill"
>to try and deflate everybody.

Gee, I thought it was Doris Day!!!

Laura B.

Mugwump

unread,

Mar 28, 2001, 1:57:18 PM3/28/01

to

The way I remember the story in Pete Shottons book is that John went to Spain
woth Brian just to get away for a few days. I have no doubt that Brian had a crush
on John. That wouldn't be suprising at all.
According to Pete, John allowed Brian to give him a hand-job. And that was it.
He said John did it more or less because he felt sorry for Brian.
I have no idea if the story is true or not, but outside of a few stories that
were a little hard to believe, for example the orgies that were supposedly going on
in the Beatles hotel rooms when they were on tour in the US, the rest of Pete's
book was believable. According to Pete the reporters and all kinds of people were
involved and people were having sex all over the place. It doses sound a little far
fetched when you think of it.
Pete's book seemed to be well balanced other that that. It definitely didn't
seem like he was out to get John. I really liked his book. Most of it rang true to
my ears.
I don't know about the hand-job part though. I guess it's anybody's guess, but
it is old news anyway. I believe Pete's book came out about 16 years ago.

Lee

unread,

Mar 28, 2001, 7:18:31 PM3/28/01

to

On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 12:57:18 -0600, Mugwump <jand...@swbell.net>
wrote:

>
>
> The way I remember the story in Pete Shottons book is that John went to Spain
>woth Brian just to get away for a few days. I have no doubt that Brian had a crush
>on John. That wouldn't be suprising at all.
> According to Pete, John allowed Brian to give him a hand-job. And that was it.
>He said John did it more or less because he felt sorry for Brian.
> I have no idea if the story is true or not, but outside of a few stories that
>were a little hard to believe, for example the orgies that were supposedly going on
>in the Beatles hotel rooms when they were on tour in the US, the rest of Pete's
>book was believable. According to Pete the reporters and all kinds of people were
>involved and people were having sex all over the place. It doses sound a little far
>fetched when you think of it.

Not at all. John eluded to the tours as being "fucking Satyricon".
Being in just about any band is a sure fire ticket to getting laid,
and this was the biggest band in history. They had lots of sex on the
tours. No big deal, it's part of the game.

Lee
%
The world indeed needs sweeping.
http://members.home.net/tek337/weightless.mp3
%

CYBERFLOYD

unread,

Mar 29, 2001, 12:46:01 AM3/29/01

to

Mugwump jand...@swbell.net writes:

<< According to Pete, John allowed Brian to give him a hand-job. And that was
it.
He said John did it more or less because he felt sorry for Brian. >>

What person who is not inclined to have a same sex encounter does so out of
pity? No...No...Nooooo....!!

This sounds like something someone would say when they wanted to admit
*something* happened and still save some face. Possibly minimize what occurred
and change the reason for it.

If the story is phony, hats off to Pete Shotton or his collaborator for coming
up with some psychologically astute fictionalizing....

Roy Orbitson

unread,

Mar 29, 2001, 12:55:31 AM3/29/01

to

"CYBERFLOYD" <cyber...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010329004601...@ng-mp1.aol.com...

> Mugwump jand...@swbell.net writes:
>
> << According to Pete, John allowed Brian to give him a hand-job. And
that was
> it.
> He said John did it more or less because he felt sorry for Brian. >>
>
> What person who is not inclined to have a same sex encounter does so out
of
> pity? No...No...Nooooo....!!
>
> This sounds like something someone would say when they wanted to admit
> *something* happened and still save some face. Possibly minimize what
occurred
> and change the reason for it.

or possibly simply be exactly as stated.

Mugwump

unread,

Mar 29, 2001, 6:22:00 AM3/29/01

to

Lee wrote:

Yes, I realize that, but Pete's description of it was that there were people all over
the place screwing each other in the hotel rooms. He said everyone was involved, even
the reporters who followed the show. I believed it in the beginning, but it also sounds
like the kind of juicy gossip that publishers expect to be in biographies. It really
didn't sound any more far-fetched than the stories about Hollywood in the early years,
but I wasn't sure if it was true.
Other than those kinds of stories though, I think his book sounded very reliable. It
seemed like it was written from the perspective of a friend. It wasn't always
flattering, but it seemed well balanced and in no way an attempt to rake Lennon or the
Beatles over the coals.

Mugwump

unread,

Mar 29, 2001, 6:26:43 AM3/29/01

to

CYBERFLOYD wrote:

> Mugwump jand...@swbell.net writes:
>
> << According to Pete, John allowed Brian to give him a hand-job. And that was
> it.
> He said John did it more or less because he felt sorry for Brian. >>
>
> What person who is not inclined to have a same sex encounter does so out of
> pity? No...No...Nooooo....!!

It's just as possible as any other explanation.

>
>
> This sounds like something someone would say when they wanted to admit
> *something* happened and still save some face.

Yes, it does, but it equally sounds like something that could be true, in my
opinion.

> Possibly minimize what occurred
> and change the reason for it.

That's possible, but the other explanation is equally possible in my opinion. I
certainly will never claim I *know* what happened. There are only two people who
know that, and they are both dead.

>
>
> If the story is phony, hats off to Pete Shotton or his collaborator for coming
> up with some psychologically astute fictionalizing....

That's just a guess. You don't know what happened any more than I do.

Lizz Holmans

unread,

Mar 29, 2001, 2:54:46 PM3/29/01

to

>
>
>CYBERFLOYD wrote:
>
>>
>> What person who is not inclined to have a same sex encounter does so out of
>> pity? No...No...Nooooo....!!

You've never heard of a 'mercy fuck'?

Lizz 'What a sheltered life you must have led' Holmans

--
Lizz Holmans

Bob Stahley

unread,

Mar 29, 2001, 4:16:34 PM3/29/01

to

Francie HSchwartz <waro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
: Even the London Times has become part of this morbid feeding frenzy.

Yup. I've come to the conclusion that there's really no such
thing as "journalistic integrity" anymore.

'Course, I'm coming (kicking and screaming) to the sad conclusion that
there really wasn't any such thing in the first place.

It's a gross understatement to say that I'm disappointed that Davies has
chosen to become an ethical pigmy.

And before the hatemongers paint me otherwise: No, it's _not_ the
information that "troubles" me. The information has always been
available. Davies "exposes" nothing new, and absolutely nothing that's
been reported is in any way suprising or "hard to accept."

What's makes it all so very sad is that Davies seems to care so little of
his own reputation that he'd just ignore the limits of common human
decency and willingly join the ranks of "tabloid journalists," those
scum-suckers who belive that there's nothing too "lurid," that everything,
no matter how vile, is "fair game." The ends justify the means. As long
as "the people" want to wallow in filth, give them what they want. As
long as it's sensational and exploitable, it's "good reporting."

I really am a naive sumbitch. Still, after decades of trying to convince
myself otherwise even in the face of _daily_ evidence to the contrary, yet
once again must I admit that people truly are slime.

And once again, it's proven: the "bad guys" always win.

Barnum was right: Given the right price, _anyone_ will geek.

--
__ __
_) _) Watch This Space! Why is a raven like a writing-desk?
__)__) 'Tosa, Witzend http://www.gildasclub.org/

Bob Stahley

unread,

Mar 29, 2001, 4:22:25 PM3/29/01

to

DEnglE3 <den...@aol.com> wrote:
: >As for the Lennon-Epstein thing--I suppose it might possibly be true, but
: >it's not very interesting either.
: Are you kidding?!?!?!?!?! Not very interesting?!?!?!?!?!?
: How can you ignore this (if it's true?)?
: I guess for all the people who worship Lennon, they would ignore it, but, Come
: on! If John Lennon had Sex with Brian Epstien, are you saying it wouldn''t be
: news worthy?

I find my own sex life interesting. I really don't care about the
rest of the world. I'm guessing only those without sex lives of their own
would find the sex lives of others in any way "newsworthy."

I'm also guessing that my first guess explains quite a lot.

Bob Stahley

unread,

Mar 29, 2001, 4:33:27 PM3/29/01

to

Diana <amara...@aol.com> wrote:
: After A THIRD OF A CENTURY of his book being considered the best Beatles
: biography ever, OVERNIGHT the man's becomes dogmeat? A disreputable
: biographer?

It was his choice to suddenly up and trash his own reputation. Why he
chose to do so is a matter of speculation. I suspect he believes that
more people wont care than do care, and that the "sensational"
pre-publicity will sell vastly more copies of this book to the former
group, offseting the sales lost to the latter group.

But that's just a speculation.

I'm sure, tho, given your penchant to do so, you won't hesitate to make
speculations of your own, Diana, and then just treat them as if they were
fact.

nowhere man

unread,

Mar 29, 2001, 4:29:34 PM3/29/01

to

Bob Stahley wrote:

> What's makes it all so very sad is that Davies seems to care so little of
> his own reputation that he'd just ignore the limits of common human
> decency and willingly join the ranks of "tabloid journalists," those
> scum-suckers who belive that there's nothing too "lurid," that everything,
> no matter how vile, is "fair game." The ends justify the means. As long
> as "the people" want to wallow in filth, give them what they want. As
> long as it's sensational and exploitable, it's "good reporting."

spot on.. It is truly depressing when authors, who one might have expected
much more of, finally make a late grab for the easy money to be had by
catering to the lowest common denominator.

There is nothing new in this story..........and anything that is new in
someone's memory after having nearly 40 years to recall it, must be regarded
as extremely suspect.

Will

Bob Stahley

unread,

Mar 29, 2001, 4:37:37 PM3/29/01

to

skippy the bush kangaroo <ga...@budgie.com> wrote:
: watch them howl and cry about how davies is such a great author,

What I'm finding fascinating is how these are the same people who've been
trashing Davies' _The Beatles_ for years, saying that it was a
"whitewash."

Lizz Holmans

unread,

Mar 29, 2001, 4:44:12 PM3/29/01

to

In article <9a08ni$sob$2...@nnrp2.phx.gblx.net>, Bob Stahley
<bo...@primenet.com> writes

>Francie HSchwartz <waro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>: Even the London Times has become part of this morbid feeding frenzy.
>
>Yup. I've come to the conclusion that there's really no such
>thing as "journalistic integrity" anymore.

'You cannot hope to bribe or twist
Thank God, the British journalist,
But seeing what the man will do
Unbribed, there's no occasion to.'

Humbert Wolfe

Lizz 'Mark Waugh is obviously a different matter' Holmans

--
Lizz Holmans

Francie

unread,

Mar 29, 2001, 5:18:20 PM3/29/01

to

ROTFLMFAO! Thanks for the giggle, Lizz!

D 28IF

unread,

Mar 29, 2001, 5:48:10 PM3/29/01

to

>From: nowhere man william_m...@lineone.net

>Bob Stahley wrote:
>
>> What's makes it all so very sad is that Davies seems to care so little of
>> his own reputation that he'd just ignore the limits of common human
>> decency and willingly join the ranks of "tabloid journalists," those
>> scum-suckers who belive that there's nothing too "lurid," that everything,
>> no matter how vile, is "fair game." The ends justify the means. As long
>> as "the people" want to wallow in filth, give them what they want. As
>> long as it's sensational and exploitable, it's "good reporting."
>
>spot on.. It is truly depressing when authors, who one might have expected
>much more of, finally make a late grab for the easy money to be had by
>catering to the lowest common denominator.
>
>There is nothing new in this story..........and anything that is new in
>someone's memory after having nearly 40 years to recall it, must be regarded
>as extremely suspect.
>
>Will
>

Is it at all possible that playing up the story isn't down to Davies, but
rather whoever is handling publicity for his book, or the newspaper itself?

Remember when the Anthology was getting pre-pub press, and a story making the
rounds was how George lost his virginity while the others watched? Do you think
George and others sat down and decided that would be the story they'd focus on
to stir up interest?

So I'm saying, is it possible Davies gave an interview and they picked out the
parts pertaining to the two most interesting items they thought would sell
papers - John with Brian and John wanting Paul out of the group?

Francie

unread,

Mar 29, 2001, 5:57:33 PM3/29/01

to

On 29 Mar 2001 22:48:10 GMT d2...@aol.com (D 28IF) wrote:

>Is it at all possible that playing up the story isn't down to Davies, but
rather whoever is handling publicity for his book, or the newspaper itself?

No, my dear. Publicity starts with the book itself.

What's juicy? What'll get the public's attention?

The marketing department of the publishing house sends out the press package after deciding what "hooks" they have available to them.

Just for the amusement of it all, here's a quote from a WIRED article about POPBITCH, the Brit newsletter:

"Celebrities are there to be laughed at instead of worshipped," Anon said. "The whole world of celebrity is there to amuse us, the public. They are promoted as paragons of humanity but in the most part, they're anorexics with personality disorders and big heads."

Popbitch is written by Anon, an ex-music journalist, and a female friend. Both are "thirtyish" and work in new media in London's trendy East End.

Hmmmm. Anon?

UsurperTom

unread,

Mar 29, 2001, 6:31:08 PM3/29/01

to

Bob Stahley wrote:

>It was his choice to suddenly up and trash his own reputation.

For those of us who did our homework, Hunter Davies has been quoted as early as
1983 saying that John and Brian had a fling in Spain. Davies' latest book
shouldn't surprise us.
Tom

Roy Orbitson

unread,

Mar 29, 2001, 6:38:38 PM3/29/01

to

"Francie" <waro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3291457....@corp.supernews.com...

>
>
> On 29 Mar 2001 22:48:10 GMT d2...@aol.com (D 28IF) wrote:
>
> >Is it at all possible that playing up the story isn't down to Davies, but
> rather whoever is handling publicity for his book, or the newspaper
itself?

poor deena.

so wishy washy all the time.

it must be sad going thru life scavenging for nits.

Bob Stahley

unread,

Mar 29, 2001, 6:41:24 PM3/29/01

to

D 28IF <d2...@aol.com> wrote:
: Is it at all possible that playing up the story isn't down to Davies, but

: rather whoever is handling publicity for his book, or the newspaper itself?

Granted. We really ought to wait for the book itself before we start
trashing Davies, oughtn't we?

Thanks for the reality check.

nowhere man

unread,

Mar 29, 2001, 6:52:46 PM3/29/01

to

D 28IF wrote:

yes, fair points.....and ones that I had thought about myself over the last few
days.

Pre-publicity aims to shock and titillate. We need to wait and see what the book
says before we make judgements.

After all it was the very Beatles publicity machine itself which told us the big
lie a couple of years ago about the new Beatles, never before heard, single. As it
turned out, it was merely John's officially released Hey Bulldog. I love that
song...but new? Nope...not new unless one was living on the moon for the last 35
years.

Will

D 28IF

unread,

Mar 29, 2001, 7:27:50 PM3/29/01

to

>From: Francie waro...@yahoo.com

>>Is it at all possible that playing up the story isn't down to Davies, but
>rather whoever is handling publicity for his book, or the newspaper itself?
>
>
>
>No, my dear. Publicity starts with the book itself.
>
>What's juicy? What'll get the public's attention?
>
>The marketing department of the publishing house sends out the press package
>after deciding what "hooks" they have available to them.
>

I understand all that, and you're quite right. But isn't it possible the
John/Brian story was hardly one that Davies wanted to push?

For instance, you've often stated that the publicity done for your book was out
of your hands. The Paul/Beatles angle was played up. You've said that wasn't
your choice.

Wouldn't the situation be similar for Davies? The publisher/publicity
department decides the gay story is what'll nab the attention. It's not Davies
who's pushing it as *the* selling point.

And as others, including myself, have stated before - there's nothing
revelatory in the story anyway. Davies has mentioned it before, as well as Pete
Shotton, whom Davies is using as his confirmation for the story. (Although how
he can confirm the affair, I don't know. Obviously he's just using him to
confirm that John told the story.)

R.A.G. Seely

unread,

Mar 29, 2001, 8:29:19 PM3/29/01

to

d2...@aol.com (D 28IF) wrote in
<20010329192750...@ng-fw1.aol.com>:

>And as others, including myself, have stated before - there's nothing
>revelatory in the story anyway. Davies has mentioned it before, as well
>as Pete Shotton, whom Davies is using as his confirmation for the story.
>(Although how he can confirm the affair, I don't know. Obviously he's
>just using him to confirm that John told the story.)

This is ultimately the point: there is only one source for this story, as
we have been told it, and that is John himself. A story does not become
more credible just because more folks relate it - there has to be some
independant corroboration before the likely truth value changes. In this
case, there is no advance over what was known decades ago. Still the same
story from the same source (I'm surprised Hunter didn't comment on that!
Why should the same story repeated by Pete have seemed more reliable, when
Pete got it from the same source he did?) The additional problem here is
that this is not a source one can verify unfortunately, and although there
is one regular poster here who cannot imagine any other choice in such a
case than (1) he lied or (2) the story is the literal truth, the rest of us
are perhaps more nuanced and can imagine other scenerios...

Then there is the other issue I have addressed before, and that is how the
claim is treated (either as part of a serious attempt to understand John
and his art or, as seems to be the case, as an isolated piece of gossip).
The former may be impossible, with the principals no longer with us (though
I can imagine lines of research that might be worth following up, should
one wish to do that), but regardless, the latter is just a waste of our
time. If this is a passing remark in Davies text, then we might blame the
PR dept, but if he makes a lot of this, without any serious attempt to
understand it, then his standards have declined since his last Beatle tome.

We'll see ...

-= rags =-

--
To reply by email, use "@" not "__A@T__"
<rags AT math.mcgill.ca>
<http://www.math.mcgill.ca/rags>

CYBERFLOYD

unread,

Mar 29, 2001, 8:55:55 PM3/29/01

unread,

Mar 30, 2001, 12:45:44 AM3/30/01

to

>>"Roy Orbitson" ga...@budgie.com << writes:

<< CYBERFLOYD wrote:That's why I posted that

I
> think his recollection of the conversation is probably true. Sounds
like
> a face-saving story.

no it doesn't...:) <<

I hadn't looked at the book in years so I dug it out and read the passage
again. John's explanation to Pete seems preposterous to me. Just doesn't ring
true. Of course if other people have a different interpretation that's fine by
me...:)

CYBERFLOYD

unread,

Mar 30, 2001, 2:05:46 AM3/30/01

to

Lizz Holmans di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk writes:

<< ><< CYBERFLOYD wrote: >>
No, I'm not an expert on mercy fucks. Are you? <<>>

>>I have a feeling I'm supposed to be insulted by this line.<<

If you don't know, I'm not telling you..;)

>>I *think* the insult is based on the fact that as a woman, I shouldn't
admit to fucking. Well, fuck that.<<

I'm all for equal rights when it comings to fucking, talking about fucking, or
just saying fuck.

>>Straight guys might feel sorry for somebody too, you know. <<

Not that damn sorry...lol

>>Lizz ' "Anybody can get laid if you set your standards low enough"
Michael Stipe' Holmans<<

They have a great new song out. Just saw the vid on MTV.

Leroy Dsomething

unread,

Mar 30, 2001, 1:07:40 PM3/30/01

to

Lizz wrote

Sure, I've given my share of mercy fucks--

This is much, much worse - you may have created the mercy reply. It's the
post we can always deny because it was meaningless when we sent it.

Bob Stahley

unread,

Mar 30, 2001, 3:50:03 PM3/30/01

to

D 28IF <d2...@aol.com> wrote:
: And as others, including myself, have stated before - there's nothing

: revelatory in the story anyway. Davies has mentioned it before, as well as Pete
: Shotton, whom Davies is using as his confirmation for the story. (Although how
: he can confirm the affair, I don't know. Obviously he's just using him to
: confirm that John told the story.)

One hopes that this is how Davies will narrate his account: that John
told him a story about an alleged event (if, indeed, John did tell him
such a story), not instead claim that the event that John told him about
actually did, in fact, happen (yes there's a difference, and no, it's not
subtle at all).

And it'd certainly help Davies' credibility if, at the point of his
narrative where he makes mention of this exchange, he also notes both
John's seemingly sincere repeated public denials of the alleged event and
the oft-mentioned penchant of John's to make up stories to shock people in
private conversations.

Bob Stahley

unread,

Mar 30, 2001, 3:58:43 PM3/30/01

to

CYBERFLOYD <cyber...@aol.com> wrote:

: Lizz Holmans di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk writes:
: << CYBERFLOYD wrote:
: >> What person who is not inclined to have a same sex encounter does
: so out of
: >> pity? No...No...Nooooo....!!
: You've never heard of a 'mercy fuck'?
: Lizz 'What a sheltered life you must have led' Holmans

: >>
: But I've never heard of a predominately straight guy participating

: in one with a gay guy other than Pete Shotton's account.

I agree with Lizz: you _have_ lead a sheltered life. :)

--
__ __
_) _) Watch This Space! No, I'm not gay, but I've played with some on TV.

Steve Hawk

unread,

Mar 30, 2001, 6:06:55 PM3/30/01

to

too many damned books about alleged this an alleged that when the
principles say it isn't so.

Glad Anthology book came out.

Steve
"Returning from the dead can have a profound effect on a person's outlook."
http://artists2.iuma.com/IUMA/Bands/Steve_Hawk/

CYBERFLOYD

unread,

Mar 30, 2001, 6:48:44 PM3/30/01

to

Bob Stahley bo...@primenet.com writes:

<<
I agree with Lizz: you _have_ lead a sheltered life. :)

--
__ __
_) _) Watch This Space! No, I'm not gay, but I've played with some on TV.
>>

Ahh..so you're not gay but you know how gay seductions work? ...;)

Mister Charlie

unread,

Mar 31, 2001, 12:48:46 PM3/31/01

to

Think about John, how he made contradictory statements enough to make nailing
the truth about him rather maddening. This was just his make-up.

Now, how would he tell this story to Pete, an old buddy (two guys shooting the
shit) vs. how he might explain it to an interviewer (Playboy). Being a guy I
imagine he rather embellished the story to Pete, and downplayed it to Sheff.
Just shootin the shit.

I think I still shoose after all these years not to believe it, but obviously
that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Since Pete Shotton was the only one saying
it for a long time, I figured he was full of shit.

Now it comes up (again!), and as the two only witnesses are indeed gone, it is
yet another Beatle fact we'll never know. Period.

So conjecture aside, it's all just more words.

UsurperTom

unread,

Mar 31, 2001, 2:54:03 PM3/31/01

to

Mister Charlie wrote:

>Since Pete Shotton was the only one saying
>it for a long time, I figured he was full of shit.

Peter Brown and Steven Gaines wrote it in "The Love You Make." Brown, a lover
of Brian's, heard it from Brian, himself. In addition, Davies corroborated the
story to Brown. John told Davies that he "wanted to see what it's like to fuck
with a guy."
Tom