McCartney no Mozart-Says Yoko
Tom Hartman
In article <19971229000...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
jnash...@aol.com (JNash33040) wrote:
>PAUL McCARTNEY may just have composed his first symphony but, according to Yoko
>Ono, he is no Mozart. She has described him as a musician whose true genius was
>for organising John Lennon's talent.
>Ono, who as Lennon's wife went down in history as the woman who broke up the
>Beatles, has reopened hostilities with McCartney by comparing his rift with
>Lennon to the celebrated feud between Mozart and Antonio Salieri.
Her remarks, like her work and entire presence among The Beatles, are
unfortunate (JMHO, of course;))
JNash33040
PAUL McCARTNEY may just have composed his first symphony but, according to Yoko
Ono, he is no Mozart. She has described him as a musician whose true genius was
for organising John Lennon's talent.
Ono, who as Lennon's wife went down in history as the woman who broke up the
Beatles, has reopened hostilities with McCartney by comparing his rift with
Lennon to the celebrated feud between Mozart and Antonio Salieri.
Salieri, a technically superb composer whose talents were overshadowed by
Mozart's inherent genius, was so enraged by feelings of inferiority that he
plotted against his rival at the Vienna court and may even have schemed to
poison him.
Ono said McCartney was wrong to claim creative leadership of the Beatles. He
seemed to think he had played a vital role by ringing around the other band
members to make sure they turned up at the studio. "John did not make the phone
calls," she said. "He was not on that level as a leader - he was on the level
of a spiritual leader.
"He was the visionary and that is why the Beatles happened. [Paul] is put in
the position of being a Salieri to a Mozart."
She said Lennon's murder in 1980 had exacerbated the discomfort felt by
McCartney, who recently premiered his first symphonic work, Standing Stone, to
mixed reviews.
"Because John passed away, naturally people have this incredibly strong
sentiment for him. Paul is encountering people not giving the same kind of
compassion," she said.
Ono's attack, in a BBC programme Ballad of Yoko and John to be broadcast on
January 6, ends the brief ceasefire agreed with McCartney during the
compilation of the Beatles anthology albums.
Earlier this year McCartney claimed he was responsible for initiating a
reconciliation between Lennon and Ono after their 18-month separation in the
mid-1970s. But Ono is dismissive of his claims. "I know we didn't come back
because Paul said a few words. Let him say what he wants to say. I feel sad he
needs to say it but if he wants to get credit for it, why not?"
Beatles fans fear that a forthcoming biopic about Lennon and Ono will be used
to settle the scores. The £40m Columbia Pictures film, starring Ewan McGregor
as Lennon, will portray Ono as a peacemaker trying to save the Beatles by
healing the rift between her husband and McCartney.
PAUL McCARTNEY may just have composed his first symphony but, according to Yoko
Ono, he is no Mozart. She has described him as a musician whose true genius was
for organising John Lennon's talent.
Ono, who as Lennon's wife went down in history as the woman who broke up the
Beatles, has reopened hostilities with McCartney by comparing his rift with
Lennon to the celebrated feud between Mozart and Antonio Salieri.
Salieri, a technically superb composer whose talents were overshadowed by
Mozart's inherent genius, was so enraged by feelings of inferiority that he
plotted against his rival at the Vienna court and may even have schemed to
poison him.
Ono said McCartney was wrong to claim creative leadership of the Beatles. He
seemed to think he had played a vital role by ringing around the other band
members to make sure they turned up at the studio. "John did not make the phone
calls," she said. "He was not on that level as a leader - he was on the level
of a spiritual leader.
"He was the visionary and that is why the Beatles happened. [Paul] is put in
the position of being a Salieri to a Mozart."
She said Lennon's murder in 1980 had exacerbated the discomfort felt by
McCartney, who recently premiered his first symphonic work, Standing Stone, to
mixed reviews.
"Because John passed away, naturally people have this incredibly strong
sentiment for him. Paul is encountering people not giving the same kind of
compassion," she said.
Ono's attack, in a BBC programme Ballad of Yoko and John to be broadcast on
January 6, ends the brief ceasefire agreed with McCartney during the
compilation of the Beatles anthology albums.
Earlier this year McCartney claimed he was responsible for initiating a
reconciliation between Lennon and Ono after their 18-month separation in the
mid-1970s. But Ono is dismissive of his claims. "I know we didn't come back
because Paul said a few words. Let him say what he wants to say. I feel sad he
needs to say it but if he wants to get credit for it, why not?"
Beatles fans fear that a forthcoming biopic about Lennon and Ono will be used
to settle the scores. The £40m Columbia Pictures film, starring Ewan McGregor
as Lennon, will portray Ono as a peacemaker trying to save the Beatles by
healing the rift between her husband and McCartney.
cThe Times Newspapers Limited
JSeraf7064
You know what McCartney did? He met Yoko first, and suggested she get in touch
with John. He deserves to be flogged, and flogged good for that. Because if he
hadn't... maybe, just maybe the world wouldn't know this f***ing bitch, and our
memories of John and the Beatles would be a little less painful.
Who is this bitch, that she can offer criticism of someone else's talent? Does
she even KNOW what talent is? Does she think she is a world-renowned artist and
musician because John let her scream and whine and shriek in an orgasmic frenzy
on his records? Yea! That's art in my book. The sad part, is that it is to
some.
Hey... how would we all feel if Linda McCartney publicly trashed something
JohnAndYoko released? The lot of us would be saying who the fuck does she think
she is?
Hey Yoko... I've got some news for you... Your husband's solo musical career
was nothing to sing about, even if you could sing. It's hard to argue that
someone is the dominant talent when his solo records are BORING! At least
McCartney was listenable, and had some VARIETY in his music. And he had enough
horse sense not to give his wife half the songs on the albums. And she had the
sense not to try to take them.. Hey, don't let him fool you. John was TRYING to
sell records. Why do you think he got Elton John to help him (get his only #1
single)?
McCartney Jealous of Lennon? What for? Lennon's enormous popularity and record
sales? (McCartney was the second highest selling act of the 70's...guess what?
Lennon wasn't the first.) Lennon's mega-record-setting world tours? (Two of
McCartney's world tours set records) His constant stream of #1 albums and
singles? (Does he still hold the worlds' record for that?) His prolific
songwriting? (According to the Guiness Book of world Records) His musicianship?
(John barely played on some of his albums, McCartney often played several or
all instruments on each song). The only thing McCartney could ever be jealous
of Lennon for was Lennon's gift for words. McCartney's talent in that area
wasn't even close.
But maybe... It's YOU Yoko... That's it! Paul is jealous of John because he
wanted to marry YOUso you could fuck up HIS life!
Honey, all you did for John was help him get hooked (and keep him hooked) on
heroin. Don't try to claim his talent for your own. You might OWN the music,
but it was John that created it. I do believe you were getting ready to
divorce him when he was shot. And, You know what? I'd believe Goldman's book
before I'd believe a movie YOU had anything to do with. So, you 'reopened'
hostilities with McCartney? It's sad that someone of McCartney's caliber has
to even acknowledge your existence, you fuck. It's sad that we have to
associate John's memory forever with the sickening likes of YOU. You want the
truth to be told? Shove the goddamned movie straight up your ass, and PUBLISH
HIS FUCKING DIARIES UNTOUCHED, you bitch.
Yeah, that'll happen.
I just had a thought.... It would be just like McCartney to have a 50%
financial stake in this movie, and this whole thing is a big publicity gimmick.
Susan Juliano
On 29 Dec 1997 00:06:42 GMT, jnash...@aol.com (JNash33040) wrote:
>PAUL McCARTNEY may just have composed his first symphony but, according to Yoko
>Ono, he is no Mozart.
Of course he isn't. He's McCartney, and that's OK by me.
>Ono's attack, [...]
Gawd, the press loves this stuff. I don't think Yoko was attacking at all.
She said Paul was *"put in the position"* of being a Salieri. It's just a
metaphor. Asking Yoko about Paul is just like asking Paul about John.
You're bound to get fuel to feed a feud, even if you have to slant the
story, quote selectively, and inflate a metaphor into a dinosaur.
>Earlier this year McCartney claimed he was responsible for initiating a
>reconciliation between Lennon and Ono after their 18-month separation in the
>mid-1970s. But Ono is dismissive of his claims. "I know we didn't come back
>because Paul said a few words. Let him say what he wants to say. I feel sad he
>needs to say it but if he wants to get credit for it, why not?"
If this is an attack, it's pretty mild. I've always had trouble with that
story myself, so I would have appreciated a more direct answer to it from
Yoko. Looks like she doesn't want to fight at all. She's just answering the
questions posed by people who *do* want to see a fight. Guess it isn't news
otherwise.
>
>Beatles fans fear that a forthcoming biopic about Lennon and Ono will be used
>to settle the scores. The £40m Columbia Pictures film, starring Ewan McGregor
>as Lennon, will portray Ono as a peacemaker trying to save the Beatles by
>healing the rift between her husband and McCartney.
Now I just read about two or three weeks ago that the biopic was not going
to happen and that it was never even under consideration! What's the scoop?
====================================================================
Susan Juliano "Happy Xmas. War is over (if you want it)"
sjul...@gte.net --Yoko Ono/John Lennon
Justyn909
>Hey Yoko... I've got some news for you... Your husband's solo musical career
>was nothing to sing about, even if you could sing. It's hard to argue that
>someone is the dominant talent when his solo records are BORING! At least
>McCartney was listenable, and had some VARIETY in his music.
After he left the Beatles, Paul stopped trying to push the barriers of rock,
something he did frequently as a Fab. As a result, while his albums are often
very listenable, they are rarely (if ever) as experimental as Lennon's.
John's works, regardless of whether they are listenable to you or not, did
push the barriers. There is no other album that reveals the artist's raging
soul as clearly and poignantly as John Lennon/POB. This album is widely
regarded as one of the greatest works rock'n'roll ever produced. Critics
continue to highly regard much of Lennon's solo work, for good reason IMO.
Now look at Paul. After his first solo album, virtually all traces of the
avant-garde leave his work. He's continued to produce some very well-crafted
music that, while it has its merits, falls far short of the expectations
created by the immortal songs of the Beatles. It has to be said that, with a
few notable exceptions (BOTR, TOW, FP), he's been the boring one as far as solo
work goes.
Maybe this goes off the topic of what Yoko was saying, but after reading this,
I had to say it. I like a lot of Paul's solo work, love some of it, but there's
a reason he still looks up to John as a friend and a brilliant songwriter who
once inspired him to great heights. Without John, Paul lost his direction as a
songwriter. Without Paul, John held his own until around his third album, when
he began to miss his partner's melodic genius. And after that, he still went on
to do two albums (WAB and DF), both of which are considered by many to be his
best solo works.
Personally, I doubt Paul is jealous of what John's done. He has his own music,
and I'm sure he doesn't regard it as mediocre compared to John's. He's the most
popular songwriter of all time, he's dne several record-setting world tours,
he's even managed to successfully veer into classical music. There's no doubt
in my mind that he's a far greater artist than Yoko Ono ever was. It's just
that, for me, his solo music does not equal Lennon's work.
-Justyn
Jeff Mills
In article <oceandig-281...@dfbfl2-116.gate.net>,
ocea...@gate.net (Tom Hartman) wrote:
>
> In article <19971229000...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
> jnash...@aol.com (JNash33040) wrote:
>
> >PAUL McCARTNEY may just have composed his first symphony but, according to
Yoko
was
> >for organising John Lennon's talent.
> >Ono, who as Lennon's wife went down in history as the woman who broke up the
> >Beatles, has reopened hostilities with McCartney by comparing his rift with
> >Lennon to the celebrated feud between Mozart and Antonio Salieri.
>
> unfortunate (JMHO, of course;))
Yoko and John both though that racism and/or sexism was the reason why
the other Beatles and studio people didn't like Yoko. It had nothing to
do with her being Japanese and female; it was the fact that here was an
outsider who sat in on sessions and distracted John from doing his job.
She had every right to her opinion, sure. But she was rude and
condescending, I think, in the way she would criticize the others' songs.
I'm not a Yoko-basher. I just speak the truth.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Tom
Jeff Mills wrote in message <883424703....@dejanews.com>...
>In article <oceandig-281...@dfbfl2-116.gate.net>,
> ocea...@gate.net (Tom Hartman) wrote:
>>
>> In article <19971229000...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
>> jnash...@aol.com (JNash33040) wrote:
>>
>> >PAUL McCARTNEY may just have composed his first symphony but, according
to
>Yoko
>> >Ono, he is no Mozart. She has described him as a musician whose true
genius
>was
>> >for organising John Lennon's talent.
>> >Ono, who as Lennon's wife went down in history as the woman who broke up
the
>> >Beatles, has reopened hostilities with McCartney by comparing his rift
with
>> >Lennon to the celebrated feud between Mozart and Antonio Salieri.
>>
>> Her remarks, like her work and entire presence among The Beatles, are
>> unfortunate (JMHO, of course;))
>
> Yoko and John both though that racism and/or sexism was the reason why
>the other Beatles and studio people didn't like Yoko. It had nothing to
>do with her being Japanese and female;
That was their explanation of the reaction of the press and fans, and to
some degree, it was true. (For example, the article calling her "John
Rennon's excrusive gloupie.") The fact that she was a woman probably did
color the reactions of the Beatles somewhat. Consider the time, the fact
that there were no important female musicians in their mileu, or any other
prominent women around them. The Beatles lived in a very macho world and
Yoko was foreign to that. As for racism, I wouldn't be surprised if it
applied in some individual cases, but there's no reason to assume that was
part of anyone's makeup necessarily.
> it was the fact that here was an
>outsider who sat in on sessions and distracted John from doing his job.
What job would that be? Making music? He made 5 albums and several singles
above his Beatles work during the 68-70 period and he contributed more to
the white album than he did to Sgt. Pepper or Magical Mystery Tour.
>She had every right to her opinion, sure. But she was rude and
>condescending, I think, in the way she would criticize the others' songs.
In other words, she was allowed to have an opinion but not to express it? I
haven't seen a transcript of what she said in the studio. have you? If you
have, I'd love to read it.
> I'm not a Yoko-basher. I just speak the truth.
>
No, actually you speak your interpertation of history. There's a difference
though I admit not many people make that distinction including myself at
times. You aren't necessarily wrong. I'm just pointing out that events can
be interperted differently if you look at them from another perspective.
Barry & Dawn Barrett
I know... . we should all just agree that John was better (and best).
Paul's good but George is better and Ringo is hard to take seriously.
Barry & Dawn Barrett
JSeraf7064 < this guy is an idiot. "Some" of lennon's music had emotion,
"sometimes" paul's music was overly sappy this guy is living in some
parrall universe or something. Some of lennons music wasn't emotional
and sometimes paul's music wasn't overly sappy is a more correct
statement. What's your problem with john lennon? your actaully made
because he's better than paul. yoko onos talent defintly excedded pauls.
paul was just put in a position were he could live off other peoples
talent. how could you say he is even equal it is so obvouis he isn't
I doubt he even thinks that. John's in the rock and roll hall of fame
as an artist TWICE .(i'm not saying that that's why he's better
that's just the result).
Tom
Runnnerr wrote in message <19971230031...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
>World says Yoko no talent. Period. End of arguement
Maybe your world, but I'm lucky enough to live on one full of intelligent,
talented people who disagree. Boy, it must suck living on a world without
David Bowie or Harry Nillson. Hey, who played guitar in Cream on yours since
you don't have an Eric Clapton? For that matter, who was in the Beatles? It
must be nice going to a Yoko show there since they must be empty. Here I
have to contend with sold out crowds.
Carol Jude >
As if this needed discussion. I think I'd pay more attention if someone
of the expertise of a George Martin made this comment. I realize I'm
going against myself here, but why not leave this to Norm Macdonald and
'Weekend Update' than give it any more (unwarranted) attention here?
I think Paul's track record supports the *opposite* opinion. I don't
even want to go into their personal lives, but a quick comparison might
show that the McCartneys seem fairly together whilst the Lennons seem to
be/have been COMPLETELY NUTS.
I don't put too much importance on the views of a woman who would sell
one of my favorite songs to the company that makes my favorite talcum
powder and ear hygeine products. When Linda sells 'My Love' to Taster's
Choice, then perhaps I'll be more interested in what Yoko has decided to
concern herself with.
-CarolJude, mildly annoyed at the (silly) woman although I do like
a lot of her music - really!
Danny Caccavo
> In article <19971229000...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
> jnash...@aol.com (JNash33040) wrote:
>
> >PAUL McCARTNEY may just have composed his first symphony but, according
to Yoko
> >Ono, he is no Mozart. She has described him as a musician whose true
genius was
> >for organising John Lennon's talent.
> >Ono, who as Lennon's wife went down in history as the woman who broke up the
> >Beatles, has reopened hostilities with McCartney by comparing his rift with
> >Lennon to the celebrated feud between Mozart and Antonio Salieri.
>
>
> Her remarks, like her work and entire presence among The Beatles, are
> unfortunate (JMHO, of course;))
Agreed. Yoko never understood personal politics and diplomacy. Bad move,
Yoko...
DC
--
Danny Caccavo (dan...@interport.net)
http://www.users.interport.net/~danielj/
"Hey, Bee-atle - we shall have fun, eh?"
(delete the xx from my return address for replies.....)
Tom
Has anyone noticed the irony here that Yoko's melodic sense has much more in
common with Paul's than it does with John's? It's especially obvious in her
music from 72-74, and as far as melodies go I"ll take "Winter Song" over
"Imagine" or "The Long and Winding Road" anyday.
Hope
Barry & Dawn Barrett wrote:
>
> I know... . we should all just agree that John was better (and best).
> Paul's good but George is better and Ringo is hard to take seriously.
Just my 2 cents worth....The Beatles were a gift to all of us...and all
4 gave 100% of themselves...I feel all of the lads are equally gifted
and gave us all much love and laughter through their music, movies,
press concerts etc. And as for John being better....I do believe even
John would have a hard one with that...Lennon & McCartney complimented
each other that without the competition between them...I do believe many
of the songs would still remain unwritten to this day.
Many thanks to John, Paul, George & Ringo:-)
FR
JNash33040 skrev i meldingen
<19971229000...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
>PAUL McCARTNEY may just have composed his first symphony but,
>according to Yoko
>Ono, he is no Mozart.
What about Beethoven? or Grieg?
RasMaster
In article <19971229020...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, jsera...@aol.com
(JSeraf7064) writes:
>You know what McCartney did? He met Yoko first, and suggested she get in
>touch
with John. He deserves to be flogged, and flogged good for that.
>Because if he
hadn't... maybe, just maybe the world wouldn't know this
>f***ing bitch, and our
memories of John and the Beatles would be a little
>less painful.
<snip>
Well, this long post makes your comments about liking John's
material progressively less from late '66 on much more
understandable. Apparently, the better and longer he knew Yoko,
the less you like John's music.
I guess the fact that John felt she was the person he needed is
irrelevent.
You might also want to check out another thread that is starting
to discuss this issue, which indicated that the article in question
appeared to have very little in the way of quotes from Yoko, and
may have been a case of an interviewer looking for an angle, and
stating things far differently than the interviewee said them.
I don't know which it is, but will wait until more information becomes
available before I decide. You appear to have decided sometime ago
what the truth is about Yoko.
FWIW, my local paper also had a blurb about this today, in which
we were told what Yoko said. There were no quotes, and the
blurb did not appear to even be an attempt to paraphrase, yet
somehow it was written as if Yoko had deliberately started
hostilities ("again", yet - when was the last time????). Yellow
Journalism lives.
Bob Purse
JSeraf7064
>Well, this long post makes your comments about liking John's material
progressively less from late '66 on much more understandable. Apparently, the
better and longer he knew Yoko,
the less you like John's music.
No, no, no! I don't dislike either John or his music!!!!! I own every Lennon
album on CD that is out on CD. I also own every McCartney CD. (I do despise
Yoko, though.)
I'm just sick of this "Lennon VS McCartney" mentality that gets us nowhere.
There are those, caught up in the romanticism of John's 'pained' life and his
murder, that choose put him on a pedistal, and give him complete credit for
everything the Beatles did. This is complete bull.
John's solo career does not give evidence to that. John the Beatle never
bored me. John the solo artist rarely excited me. He wrote a few good songs.
SOMETIMES McCartney was overly sappy. Sometimes Lennon was musically boring.
Sometimes a glimmer of thier former status peeked through, Such as POB or Band
On The Run. But both of these albums would have been better with the other's
influence.
The point is, you can't say this one was a genius, but that one wasn't
because the SOLO material DOES NOT SHOW IT! Both of them had thier strengths
and weaknesses, and those weaknesses showed in full force when they went solo.
Some of Lennon's music had a lot of emotion behind it, and there were songs
with deep messages... He was a lyricist par excellence. But I don't consider
his solo music to be even remotely innovative. Lennon wasn't breaking any new
ground. McCartney wasn't breaking any new ground either, but writing good
melodies and solid hits was always what he did best, and as a hit writer, he
was the top.
These guys BOTH were at thier best when they were competing with each other,
and helping to shape each other's ideas. They most certainly needed each other.
Thats why they were the greatest songwriting team in history. Giving one or
the other more or less credit is just plain stupid. Especially, when on thier
own, NEITHER of them wrote on par with the Beatles, or even close.
>I guess the fact that John felt she was the person he needed is irrelevent.
He also felt Heroin was what he needed, too.
Runnnerr
World says Yoko no talent. Period. End of arguement.
BEAUVALLET
No question that John was a great artist, as is Paul. It serves no purpose to
praise John by trashing Paul, or vice-versa. Their work displayed different
strengths. I thank God every day for giving us all 4 Beatles. I don't thank
Him quite so often for Yoko, especially when she has a relapse of foot-in-mouth
disease. But John was so smart, he must've seen >something< in her, hm?
Naomi
"Don't need a watch to waste your time." J. Lennon
RasMaster
In article <19971230031...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, runn...@aol.com
(Runnnerr) writes:
>World says Yoko no talent. Period. End of arguement.
yes, here it is. The winner of the most worthless post of the month
award. Here's your cheesehead hat, Runnerr. Wear it with pride.
And it's spelled "argument", by the way.
Bob
JNash33040
I'm not sure why she feels she still needs to defend John. I could understand
Linda defending Paul, since he still takes a good bashing from the
press/critics quite frequently, and IMO will be justifying himself till the day
he dies. But John is held in the highest regard-I don't think she has to
justify him or his music.
TFred5star
Who knows if she really said this. Words have a way of magically appearing.
Runnnerr
Hey Boob,
It's spelled Cheese Head. Look in your dictionary and you'll see there's no
such word as "Cheesehead".
Winner of the dumbest post I've ever seen. Congratulations Boob. You're
pathetic.
Ian Strung
In article <689pfc$l...@mtinsc05.worldnet.att.net>, mar...@worldnet.att.net
wrote:
>John's in the rock and roll hall of fame
>as an artist TWICE .(i'm not saying that that's why he's better
>that's just the result).
And we all know how credible the Hall of Fame is.
--
Ian Strung, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
E-Mail: ist...@rogers.wave.ca
Danny Caccavo
In article <689qmh$nvs$1...@usenet11.supernews.com>, "Tom"
<Blac...@msn.com> wrote:
The answer may lie somewhere in the middle. I feel that most of Yoko's
popularity is due to her association with John, not her musical talent.
Many people unwittingly forgive much of her music because "she's Yoko"....
Harsh, yes. But also just my opinion, keep in mind...<g>
Calvin MacLean
Grace Millar <gr...@sans.vuw.ac.nz> wrote, something very apt:
>Is there anyone out there who actually listened to this interview so we
>can have a vague idea of what she actually said? Maybe that might end
>the hysteria which is building - but then again probably not.
>Grace :)
>--
>Objectivity? I practice objectivity, I always have an objective.
>Jessica Mitford
Hee, hee.
Bruce Dumes
Danny Caccavo (xxda...@interport.net) wrote:
: The answer may lie somewhere in the middle. I feel that most of Yoko's
: popularity is due to her association with John, not her musical talent.
: Many people unwittingly forgive much of her music because "she's Yoko"....
I basically agree with Danny, though I might phrase it a little
differently.
I didn't even know that Yoko is considered "popular". She was
regarded as an artist in her own right (ho ho ho) before she met John.
He did meet her at a gallery showing of her art, after all. This has
nothing to do with whether or not you like her work or not.
Personally, I don't like her work very much, but I respect her as a
person. She may have said or done some inopportune things; she's a
human being. I sure wouldn't want to have my life judged by the
masses.
Yoko's visibility certainly increased by virtue of being married to
John. I don't know if she would really consider this to have been a
good side effect of the marriage. I'd be interested to hear her
answer to this if anyone reading this gets a chance to ask her
sometime.
But as to the question, "Would we have ever heard of Yoko Ono if she
hadn't married John Lennon?" Well, would we have ever heard of George
Harrison or Ringo Starr if not for The Beatles? I have great
admiration for both of these gentlemen's talents, but I suspect that
if Ringo had stayed with Rory Storm, and George had stayed with his
first group (my Pete Frame book is at home, I can't remember the name
of the group), they would not be known outside Liverpool. Ringo might
be two hairdressors, and George an electrician or a shopkeeper.
Bruce
RasMaster
In article <19971230105...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, runn...@aol.com
(Runnnerr) writes:
>Hey Boob,
Hey!!! It's a joke on my name, from someone who can't bring him or
herself to reveal his or her own name! And what a funny joke too!
Yep, it was sooooo funny! And the last time I heard that particular
joke, at age 13, all the 7th graders thought it was a stitch! But most
of us outgrew that. Yep. Most of us.
It's spelled Cheese Head. Look in your dictionary and you'll see
>there's no
such word as "Cheesehead".
You don't live near Wisconson, do you...... You have made a
serious error here. Any dictionary without "cheesehead" is far
behind the times. But you appear to inhabit a world in which
not only does no one recognize Yoko's artistic talent, no one
is even allowed. Perhaps in that world, Cheesehead isn't a
word yet.
Winner of the dumbest post I've ever
>seen. Congratulations Boob. You're
pathetic.
Well, I take everything back. Rather than come up with anything
new, you've resorted to imitation. And of course, imitation is
the sincerest form of flattery. I'm flattered. Now if you can only
figure out how to use that pesky AOL to quote what you are
referring to, your posts will almost make sense......
Kiss kiss,
Bob Purse
SedatedApe
>Hey!!! It's a joke on my name, from someone who can't bring him or
>herself to reveal his or her own name!
Not that it matters much, but on AOL we don't get the option of putting our
real names in the header. Unless your real name is you screenname too. This is
unlikley because you only 10 letters/numbers. Besides lots of times your real
name will have been taken by another AOL member. There's lots of us, we breed
quick.
I guess you could put it in the sig file, but I don't like those. Seem to
cutsey.
Besides, it might mot be a good idea to let the internet loonies know who you
are anyway.
But, it just so happens that my real name is Sedated Ape.
Tom
>The answer may lie somewhere in the middle. I feel that most of Yoko's
>popularity is due to her association with John, not her musical talent.
>Many people unwittingly forgive much of her music because "she's Yoko"....
>
I think you might mean unconsciously here.
>Harsh, yes. But also just my opinion, keep in mind...<g>
>
Not harsh at all, you dislike it so you don't see the merit in it. I have my
own blind spots where I can't understand what the appeal is in certain
artists who are revered by people I respect. Just for the record, you're
wrong in my case and I do know a few people whose main interest in the
Beatles is that Yoko's husband was once a member. From what I've seen her
music may not appeal to large audiences, (Part of the reason for that is
also "she's Yoko" so it works both ways) but I've noticed that the people
who do like her appreciate her more deeply than the average fan of a snger.
Not to say the Beatles didn't have that same effect on more of their fans
but they had that effect on 50% of their audience where Yoko has it on 90%
of hers. (all numbers were reached unscientifically and are used for
illustrative purposes only)
DamnYankee
APPLAUSE APPLAUSE APPLAUSE!!!
*wonders where Yoko would be if not married to John
Lennon...hmmm...maybe shopping around a Paula Jones-type book, trying to
snare her 15 minutes of fame*
DamnYankee
All 4 were better (and best)...they were the Beatles for Pete's Sake!!!
DY
DamnYankee
Uhhhh....how does the statement of Yoko having no talent tie into no
David Bowie, Harry Nillson, Cream, Eric Clapton, or the Beatles?
Just wondering...
DY
DamnYankee
"Don't eat it Elmer, it's horseshit!!!" <laughing out loud>
Actually, Yoko did mean it in a mean spirited way.
Here is an article from the New York Post dated 11/25/97:
JOHN & YOKO TALE BOUND FOR SCREEN
_________________________________
ALL you need is love, and, if you're Yoko
Ono, a reason for revenge.
The romance of John Lennon and Ono may
finally come to the big screen, years after
Columbia Pictures first approached Lennon's
widow about making a film based on her
version of their relationship from their first
meeting all the way up to his murder in
December, 1980.
Studio sources tell PAGE SIX's Braden Keil
that a deal is close to being inked with the
screeching vocalist.
Beatles fans, however, are gasping a
collective "Oh, no!," at the prospect of Yoko,
64, using the proposed $65 million movie to
settle old scores with critics who claim she
was the driving force behind the band's
break-up.
Friends of Ono's feel the film is her chance to
discredit supposed myths perpetuated
bywriters such as the late Albert Goldman,
who wrote in his scathing 1988 biography
"The Lives of John Lennon" that Lennon was
"an autistic, schizophrenic, bisexual (an
alleged affair with Beatles manager Brian
Epstein), manic depressive, as well as a
child-abusing, wife-beater whose marriage
was a sham."
The movie will show how John and Yoko fell
in love while the lead singer was still married
to his first wife, Cynthia, but will claim they
didn't consummate their relationship until two
years later, after Lennon had already left
Cynthia. Yoko will likely be portrayed as a
peacemaker who would often soothe
tensions between Lennon and Paul
McCartney during recording sessions at the
band's Apple Records studio, and tried
single-handedly to save the Beatles.
Columbia has expressed interest in
castingBritish actor Ewan McGregor, who
starred in "Trainspotting," to play the role of
Lennon, or Ian Hart, who played the Beatle
as a young man in the 1993 film "Backbeat."
McCartney, now a knighted royal subject,
had a brief cease-fire with Ono during the
editing of the Beatles Anthology albums. But
battle lines were drawn again before Paul
was about to release his current CD, when
she objected to the title, "Flaming Pie,"
claiming it was based on an idea of John's.
McCartney is reportedly follwoing the
Yoko-Columbia talks with "cynical interest."
The deal would also include Ono's handing
over the rights to Columbia of such Lennon
classics as "Imagine" and "Give Peace a
Chance" as well as lifetime rights to Ono's
story, which would add at least $80 million to
her fortune, already estimated at $480
million.
________________________________________________
You can read it for yourself at http://206.15.118.165/query.htm
Enter Yoko Ono at the search, then it is the first article to appear.
Funny tho...I would never sell any rights away of my wife for no amount
of money...once it is gone, I could never get it back...Again, it just
further personifies Yoko as a dark, selfish person.
DY
DamnYankee
APPLAUSE APPLAUSE APPLAUSE!!! AMEN CAROL JUDE!!!
*bows down to Carol Jude and chants, "I am not worthy! I am not
worthy!"*
THAT couldn't have been said any better!
DY
Tom
DamnYankee wrote in message <34A98A...@hotmail.com>...
>Uhhhh....how does the statement of Yoko having no talent tie into no
>David Bowie, Harry Nillson, Cream, Eric Clapton, or the Beatles?
>
>Just wondering...
>
It's an incomplete list of the people who disagree with that statement. A
world in which it was a given that Yoko had no talent would be a world
without those people.
Danny Caccavo
In article <34a92...@argo.hks.com>, du...@nospam.hks.com wrote:
> Danny Caccavo (xxda...@interport.net) wrote:
>
> : The answer may lie somewhere in the middle. I feel that most of Yoko's
> : popularity is due to her association with John, not her musical talent.
> : Many people unwittingly forgive much of her music because "she's Yoko"....
>
> I basically agree with Danny, though I might phrase it a little
> differently.
>
> I didn't even know that Yoko is considered "popular". She was
> regarded as an artist in her own right (ho ho ho) before she met John.
> He did meet her at a gallery showing of her art, after all. This has
> nothing to do with whether or not you like her work or not.
I mentioned her "popularity". I didn't say HOW popular...<g>
>
> Personally, I don't like her work very much, but I respect her as a
> person. She may have said or done some inopportune things; she's a
> human being. I sure wouldn't want to have my life judged by the
> masses.
>
> Yoko's visibility certainly increased by virtue of being married to
> John. I don't know if she would really consider this to have been a
> good side effect of the marriage. I'd be interested to hear her
> answer to this if anyone reading this gets a chance to ask her
> sometime.
>
> But as to the question, "Would we have ever heard of Yoko Ono if she
> hadn't married John Lennon?" Well, would we have ever heard of George
> Harrison or Ringo Starr if not for The Beatles? I have great
> admiration for both of these gentlemen's talents, but I suspect that
> if Ringo had stayed with Rory Storm, and George had stayed with his
> first group (my Pete Frame book is at home, I can't remember the name
> of the group), they would not be known outside Liverpool. Ringo might
> be two hairdressors, and George an electrician or a shopkeeper.
>
> Bruce
But Bruce, George and Ringo had great chemistry with John. With Paul, all
of them were stronger with each other. Yoko and John never had that kind
of musical chemistry. Her association with John is not like George or
Ringo's association with John.
FWIW, when Yoko would do her vocals back in the early '70s, John,
listening in the control room, used to duck behind the console so Yoko
wouldn't see him laughing. No kidding!
DC
Danny Caccavo
> All 4 were better (and best)...they were the Beatles for Pete's Sake!!!
>
> DY
Well, I wouldn't say for *Pete's* sake...<g>
jweb
Please let us know who you are responding to in your post. It would
be much easier to follow these threads.
SMS or AAS wrote:
>
> >
> >After he left the Beatles, Paul stopped trying to push the barriers of rock,
> >something he did frequently as a Fab. As a result, while his albums are often
> >very listenable, they are rarely (if ever) as experimental as Lennon's.
> >
> >
>
> Lennon's albums were experimental?
>
> Most of his stuff is warmed-over schlocky flower child mumbo.
--
-John W.
"If you play "Maybe I'm Amazed" backwards, you'll hear a
really ripping recipe for lentil soup." - Paul McCartney
Tom
>
>But Bruce, George and Ringo had great chemistry with John.
When was there a Beatle named Bruce and what did he play?
> With Paul, all
>of them were stronger with each other. Yoko and John never had that kind
>of musical chemistry. Her association with John is not like George or
>Ringo's association with John.
>
I disagree here. After listening to the interplay between her voice and
John's guitar on POB and the tapes of her singing to his acoustic guitar,
I'm very impressed by the musical chemistry between them. It takes a high
level of musical sympathy to improvise together the way they did. In another
way, Double Fantasy is an example of chemistry since their songs complement
each other in a way that make them rise above their occasional mediocrity.
>FWIW, when Yoko would do her vocals back in the early '70s, John,
>listening in the control room, used to duck behind the console so Yoko
>wouldn't see him laughing. No kidding!
You've come across as pretty intelligent and reasoned in your posts so far.
don't spoil it by acting like a troll now. (that's obviously untrue since he
was playing guitar behind her in a jam session setting, and even if there
was a console handy, ducking behind it would have thrown his playing off)
Tom
Danny Caccavo wrote in message ...
>In article <34A98E...@hotmail.com>, DamnYankee <stev...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>
>> All 4 were better (and best)...they were the Beatles for Pete's Sake!!!
>>
>> DY
>
>Well, I wouldn't say for *Pete's* sake...<g>
>
Well, Pete was Best.
Besides, do you know the story of Pete's sake? In the 70s John and Yoko felt
sorry for him so when they went to Japan they bought him a big case of it so
he could drown his sorrows.
DamnYankee
An axe to grind??? SHUH!
Now, why would Columbia Pictures, a corporate giant, make false
statements? And according to Saki, what they say is copyrighted and
cannot be printed without expressed written consent of Columbia
Pictures; or litigation proceedings will begin...
So, if they are false, why doesn't Ono threaten litigation against
Columbia Pictures for expressing her copywritten statements without her
permission, or threaten litigation for spreading untrue stories? And
why doesn't Columbia Pictures threaten libel against everyone in the
media for printing their copywritten statements without their permission
or threaten litigation for spreading untrue stories?
Hmmm...sounds like horseshit to me...
If the movie doesn't happen, it's because Ono is had second thoughts of
permanently selling away her rights to Lennon's work.
DY
DamnYankee
Let me rephrase it in plain talk:
Yoko has NO talent; she doesn't play an instrument, and screeches when
singing...but, then again, in the words of Billy Joel about musicians of
today, "you can't write, you can't play, and you can't sing...HEY!
You're our guy!!!"
And lest we forget, Yoko couldn't buy lunch from her artwork before
Lennon; remember her taking her (ahemmm...) works out to the parks in
New York to show thousands of disinterested people??? Yeah, that's
talent at it's finest!
DamnYankee
Geez Bob...I didn't know Yoko had talent...please enlighten me :)
DY
DamnYankee
Allow me to say this plainly:
First, Yoko is a horse's ass, plain and simple -- always was, and always
will be. I think she has penis envy myself; and i believe it is Yoko
who is jealous of Paul's success, not Paul's of John's. Yoko couldn't
sell shit or shinola let alone record wax. (I still wonder what kind of
drugs John was on when he hooked up with her...there isn't a man in his
right mind who could stick his manhood into something like her; I didn't
think possible one could drink that many beers, but then again, John
wasn't much of a beer drinker...)
Second, the arguement of Paul vs. John is pure bullshit! Two different
men, two different styles of music. I personally prefer music with a
melody, which is why I like most of Paul's stuff and John's Double
Fantasy Album. I'd listen to Band on the Run than Cold Turkey anyday.
But there are others who like John's style more than Paul's. That's
cool!
But, more importantly, neither one achieved the stellar success as they
did when they worked together (as with the case of Frey & Henley of
Eagles fame)...they combined both styles and it was an incredible
combination.
Case closed!
DY
jweb
DamnYankee wrote:
>
> Allow me to say this plainly:
>
> First, Yoko is a horse's ass, plain and simple --
well, if YOU said so, it must be true.
always was, and always
> will be. I think she has penis envy myself;
You have ZERO credibility with that statement. did you get your
first computer for Christmas?
Damn Yankee- "Mommy, Mommy, I learned how to flame today!!"
K. Dunning
As I was perusing the negative energy here at RMB I wondered what could
lighten my mood. National Lampoon's Radio Dinner album. It came out in
the early 70's and had a halarious parody of John singing "Genius is Pain"
and a few "shots" at "Give Ireland Back to the Irish". (Also, a
beautifully irreverant and politically incorrect song by a Joan Baez
sound-alike.)
If someone has this album in their posession, I'd love to have a
taped copy. Email me or post here. Ta'
Karrie Dunning
A Native Seattle-ite
*****
Kar...@u.washington.edu
"None of your five-bar gate jumps and over sort of stuff."
********************
K. Dunning
I'd happily sell or trade these comics. They are in pristine condition:
no finger prints or eye tracks;) I bought them to fill out my ratty old
series that I actually handle and read. There are eight issues in the
series and I have all but Number 6 available.
If you haven't seen them, or aren't into comics...well, the
history often takes the alternative or controversial road. The artwork is
good. Not great, but not gross. The best part of these books is the
time-line format; each page is framed by the music released in that month
and year, the newspaper headlines and the events in the lives of the lads.
Comments, questions, and offers? Email me or post here. Ta'
DamnYankee
Point taken on the powerhouse slamming songwriting duo!
However, I'd like to make a point on John's "pained" life...
His tragedies in life are no different than what other people go thru in
their everyday life...at least he had his health, which is more than
what millions of people can say. Secondly, he owned up responsiblity
for all he did; and admittedly he didn't always use the best judgements
and endured responsibility for what he said/did; he never had the "feel
sorry for me" mentality...so I would hope the bleeding heart Lennon fans
will look at John the man and not John the Beatle and understand he
didn't let any anchors drag him down (other than Yoko).
Lastly; for his drug use of heroin, he was physically addicted...just as
many of you are to cigarettes; it wasn't a choice, it was an addiction.
DY
DamnYankee
I'll stand front and center with you! You are definitely not alone in
your opinion; most Beatles fans who lived in that era will agree with
you.
DY
DamnYankee
Probably; as we all know, there's a sucker born every minute...
But, usually they don't go public with it...
:)
DY
DamnYankee
OOPS!!! ROTFLMAO!!!
You made your point!!! LOL TOUCHÉ!!!
DY
RasMaster
In article <19971230215...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, sedat...@aol.com
(SedatedApe) writes:
>>Hey!!! It's a joke on my name, from someone who can't bring him or
>herself
>to reveal his or her own name!
Not that it matters much, but on AOL we
>don't get the option of putting our
real names in the header. Unless your
>real name is you screenname too. This is
unlikley because you only 10
>letters/numbers. Besides lots of times your real
name will have been taken by
>another AOL member. There's lots of us, we breed
quick.
Um, you can make an entry in the member directory,
which I'm guessing our friend has not done, and you can
certainly sign off your post with your real name, as I do
95% of the time, without using a sig file, which I have
never done.
Is that Mr. or Ms. Ape?
Bob Purse (that wasn't hard, was it).
JNash33040
>>Is there anyone out there who actually listened to this interview so we
>>can have a vague idea of what she actually said?
She got her digs in, and that was she intended to do.
SMS or AAS
SedatedApe
The following is a partial list of famous people who Paul McCartney also is
not:
Aaron Burr
Hank Aaron
Tommy Arron (Hank's brother...also a Brave)
Kinky Friedman
Roger Moore
Tom Brokaw
Pope John Paul
John the Babptist
Ike
Tina Turner
"Macho Man" Randy Savage
Lavar Burton
Shecky Greene
Loni Anderson
Art Carney
that "hey vern" guy
the entire cast of CATS
Mel Blanc
John Wilkes Booth
Joe Frazier
Micheal Buffer
Woody Allen
Alan Alda
Hugh Beaumont
Zazu Pitts
Andy Rooney
ANN JILLIAN
James Thurber
Henry Thoreau
Bing Crosby
Howard Cossell
Carott Top
Edwin Meese
RasMaster
In article <19971231013...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, smso...@aol.com
(SMS or AAS) writes:
>Lennon's albums were experimental?
Most of his stuff is warmed-over schlocky
>flower child mumbo.
And here I thought that was Sting's job.
Bob
RasMaster
In article <34A999...@hotmail.com>, DamnYankee <stev...@hotmail.com>
writes:
>You can read it for yourself at http://206.15.118.165/query.htm
Enter Yoko
>Ono at the search, then it is the first article to appear.
Funny tho...I
>would never sell any rights away of my wife for no amount
of money...once it
>is gone, I could never get it back...Again, it just
further personifies Yoko
>as a dark, selfish person.
Interesting that you failed to provide the widely distributed
follow-up information, which is that Yoko says there is
no film deal, and that this report is false.
Time will tell which version is the truth. You obviously have
an axe to grind, which makes your reportage of the
situation very unreliable.
Bob Purse
JSeraf7064
>What's your problem with John Lennon? Are you actually mad because he's
better than Paul. Yoko Onos talent definately exceeded Paul's.
I corrected your spelling, grammar and punctuation for you.
With statements like this, how can you expected to be taken seriously? When you
write a letter and post it, and can't even punctuate it and spell the words
correctly, how can you expect to be taken seriously? When you conveniently
ignore sales figures, concert attendance, grammy awards, longevity, et al, to
make a point, how can you expect to be take seriously?
Answer: You can't.
Go listen to your Yoko records.
SedatedApe
>Is that Mr. or Ms. Ape?
>
But, the Biggest reason is privacy. You've been reading this grour long enough
to know that there are plenty of loonies on the net, and how flame wars get
started. Heck, if I remember right, you've been in a couple doozies. Does it
seem smart to you to make it easier for the loonies to find out more about you?
Mr. Sedated Ape Esq.
Runnnerr
Boob, the cheese between your toes has gone to your head you pathetic little
worm of a man. Thank goodness I don't live in or near Wisconson if you are
representative of the empty headed, scratching their balls all day type of men
that live there.
Get a life you loser.
Runnnerr
Maybe someone could translate for us earthings what this individual is trying
to say.
RasMaster
In article <19971230022...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, jsera...@aol.com
(JSeraf7064) writes:
>>I guess the fact that John felt she was the person he needed is irrelevent.
>
>He also felt Heroin was what he needed, too
ya know, I can't begin to understand what John went through, but
I know pretty well what he said it felt like. He felt he was an artist,
but was treated as a "mop-top". He tried to expand his creativity and
was questioned at every turn. He made an insightful comment in an
interview, and was branded an heretic, with death threats against him
and a near witchhunt (of course, John's murderer was deeply affected
by this witchhunt, and most likely would not have done what he did
without the influence of the haters of 1966 - the effect of this incident
were certainly far reaching).
He felt bored and trapped, and actively considered suicide, and then
he met someone who, he felt, was perfect for him. He no longer felt
suicidal, and felt he had met another artist that was his equal. He
felt it was natural to share her with his compatriates and the world.
His bandmates did not agree, and, while not totally rejecting her,
did not fully accept her, as he had hoped or expected.
The outside world was apoplectic. Surely other men had left their wives,
publicly, before. Somehow, because Yoko was outspoken, avant-garde
and Oriental (don't let that other post fool you, there was a lot of
Japan bashing to blame for the Yoko hating. Japan was still the enemy.
Had John left his wife for a beautifal Caucasion, the outcry would have
been minimal), the press went nuts.
John and Yoko were set up on a phony drug bust, the apparent reason
being that the police sought to punish them for being a public couple.
how dare he. The stress of this incident appeared to have directly led
to Yoko's miscarraige shortly thereafter.....
I never walked in the man's moccasons. He already had a need to
artificially enhance himself, and had since he was a teen. Personally
I can't believe ANYONE uses heroin (but then again, the appeal of alcohol
and pot are lost on me, too). But the above experiences might help
explain why someone like John felt the need to sink into Heroin use.
And the fact that there are still people bashing her after all these years
is a continuing tragedy. Or are you one of the few other people in this
world who have also witnessed your spouse gunned down in front of you.
If not, then you might want to avoid attacking someone you cannot
possibly understand.
Bob Purse
RasMaster
In article <19971231022...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, runn...@aol.com
(Runnnerr) writes:
Apparently I struck a nerve. How about that. You didn't seem the
sensitive type!
And I don't live in Wisconson, by the way. Just more "wordly" than
some people I guess!
My life is good. How's yours? You seem all tense. Are things okay
at home? Perhaps I could recommend a good therapist or
counselor. Let me know. Please write again. I care.
Bob "Ann Landers, Jr." Purse
Denofspice
>I just had a thought.... It would be just like McCartney to have a 50%
>financial stake in this movie, and this whole thing is a big publicity
>gimmick.
The above statement may be the singular most intellegent thing I've ever read
on a computer screen.
Gil Neal is at Murk...@aol.com. Yer Mutha!!!!!!
Denofspice
>The following is a partial list of famous people who Paul McCartney also is
>not:
>
>Aaron Burr
>Hank Aaron
>Tommy Arron (Hank's brother...also a Brave)
>Kinky Friedman
>Roger Moore
>Tom Brokaw
>Pope John Paul
>John the Babptist
>Ike
>Tina Turner
>"Macho Man" Randy Savage
>Lavar Burton
>Shecky Greene
>Loni Anderson
>Art Carney
>that "hey vern" guy
>the entire cast of CATS
>Mel Blanc
You forgot BeBe Robozo
As I sit and listen to the White Album, I remember "Morse Moose and the Grey
Goose", and "Do the Oz" and think, why is it so hard to come to terms with the
fact that the main reason they were so great is because they moderated
eachothers weaknesses which everyone here knows, I'm sure. So Yoko's a troll
who sucked out Johns soul. (If he woulda met Charro before Yoko, I wonder what
we'd be hearing on the Wedding Album). Anything they did afterwards was
irrelevant. Except that TV special Ringo did, which I thought was kinda neat.
Denofspice
I won't yoko bash. The reason John is revered is because he's DEAD DEAD DEAD
DEAD DEAD DEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!Don't forget, when he died, Doble Fantasy peaked at
#8, and began it's decline. Then he died. McCartney 2 went to #1 in 1980. Who
was revered? Who was forgotten? As important as he was as a Beatle or social
icon (who vacillated on a wide range of topics on a regular basis, and i know I
mispelled that v word, so don't be petty), McCartney in 1976 could've owned the
world. And 1980, and 1983. As much as i think his solo output is so much fluff,
don't forget who had the hammer. McCartney did. Someone on this group mentioned
that macca was together, and jl wasn't. There's something to be said for that.
It wasn't any easier for macca, who had the same temptations, who had a poorer
upbringing, who was regularly BLASTED by the press and critics. He's kept his
dignity while the world keeps telling him that Lennon was all. That's gotta be
harder than we can imagine. He hasn't hit back. He's gracious, and always very
generous with his praise for John and Yoko..............still, he DID record
London Town.....yech.
Jkelly04
>Bob Purse wrote, in part:
>Somehow, because Yoko was outspoken, avant-garde
>and Oriental (don't let that other post fool you, there was a lot of
>Japan bashing to blame for the Yoko hating. Japan was still the enemy.
>Had John left his wife for a beautifal Caucasion, the outcry would have
>been minimal), the press went nuts.
Well said. I've always thought that a big reason, though unspoken, for some of
the Yoko-bashing is racism. John was obviously deeply in love with Yoko. And
he loved her for reasons that most of us do not understand. Yoko did not cause
the breakup of the Beatles. Boredom, ego and financial mismanagement did the
group in. John always had a fragile psyche. If he had not met Yoko, he might
not have survived until 1980. He obviously felt that Yoko was his soulmate.
I, for one, have to defer to his judgement, which, after all, was the only
judgement that mattered.
saki
In article <34A9B5...@hotmail.com>,
DamnYankee <stev...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Now, why would Columbia Pictures, a corporate giant, make false
>statements? And according to Saki, what they say is copyrighted and
>cannot be printed without expressed written consent of Columbia
>Pictures; or litigation proceedings will begin...
I think you misunderstand the nature of copyright; but that's okay with
me. :-)
Statements made and distributed on the Internet need not be assumed to
have come from the source indicated. We all know how easy it is to jump to
conclusions from information that has not been verified.
First step would involve checking with Columbia to see if they were indeed
the source of the information. If they were not, we have our answer.
>So, if they are false, why doesn't Ono threaten litigation against
>Columbia Pictures for expressing her copywritten statements without her
>permission, or threaten litigation for spreading untrue stories?
Is Columbia Pictures the source of the rumor? Or are they a victim? Or
does the tale reflect a broken agreement for a propose (but now defunct)
movie? Bringing suit against an entity not responsible for the
dissemination of a false story is a waste of legal resources, and Yoko is
a perspicacious business-person not inclined to waste funds.
>Why doesn't Columbia Pictures threaten libel against everyone in the
>media for printing their copywritten statements without their permission
>or threaten litigation for spreading untrue stories?
If Columbia didn't make the statements, they have no copyright. If they
cannot locate the perpetrator of the rumor, they cannot sue. Just a
suggestion.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"'So this is America!' says Ringo. 'They all seem out of their minds.'"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
dl...@midway.uchicago.edu
saki
In article <Pine.A41.3.95b.97123...@homer28.u.washington.edu>,
K. Dunning <kar...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>As I was perusing the negative energy here at RMB I wondered what could
>lighten my mood. National Lampoon's Radio Dinner album. It came out in
>the early 70's and had a halarious parody of John singing "Genius is Pain"
>and a few "shots" at "Give Ireland Back to the Irish". (Also, a
>beautifully irreverant and politically incorrect song by a Joan Baez
>sound-alike.)
> If someone has this album in their posession, I'd love to have a
>taped copy. Email me or post here. Ta'
I no longer own it, alas, but I might direct you (when you find a copy for
yourself) to the wonderful ersatz history of the Fabs, which (if memory
serves) is narrated by the inimitable Christopher Guest by way of the
Goons (specifically Bluebottle, for fans who know what I mean....)
Wonderful work!
Susan Juliano
On Tue, 30 Dec 1997 01:03:32 +0100, "FR" <f...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>JNash33040 skrev i meldingen
><19971229000...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
>>PAUL McCARTNEY may just have composed his first symphony but,
>>according to Yoko Ono, he is no Mozart.
>
>What about Beethoven? or Grieg?
Nope. They're no Mozarts either. ;-)
=====================================================================
Susan Juliano <sjul...@gte.net> "We all shine on." -John Lennon
Strawberry Fields Forever at http://home1.gte.net/sjuliano/index.html
Susan Juliano
On 31 Dec 1997 05:32:18 GMT, denof...@aol.com (Denofspice) wrote:
>I won't yoko bash.
Thank you.
>The reason John is revered is because he's DEAD DEAD DEAD
>DEAD DEAD DEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!
I revered John when he was ALIVE ALIVE ALIVE ALIVE ALIVE ALIVE!!!!!!!!!!!!
A few million other people also did.
Susan Juliano
I believe that was what the interviewer *wanted* her to do and I believe
questions were asked with the intention of fanning flames better left
dormant. Perhaps it would have been wiser for her to respond with "No
comment".
Susan Juliano
On Tue, 30 Dec 1997 20:02:38 -0500, DamnYankee <stev...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>Here is an article from the New York Post dated 11/25/97:
>
> JOHN & YOKO TALE BOUND FOR SCREEN
I've seen this literally dozens of times and it's no more believable now
than it was the first timne I read it.
> ALL you need is love, and, if you're Yoko
> Ono, a reason for revenge.
That's not reporting. That's editorializing.
>
> The romance of John Lennon and Ono may
> finally come to the big screen,
It "may". Latest word is that this story is not true at all.
> Studio sources tell PAGE SIX's Braden Keil
> that a deal is close to being inked with the
> screeching vocalist.
What sources? How close is close? "Screeching" is editorizing again, *not*
reporting.
> Friends of Ono's feel the film is her chance to
> discredit supposed myths perpetuated
Name one.
> McCartney is reportedly follwoing the
> Yoko-Columbia talks with "cynical interest."
Reportedly? By whom?
> The deal would also include Ono's handing
> over the rights to Columbia of such Lennon
> classics as "Imagine" and "Give Peace a
> Chance"
I'll grant that I wouldn't know, but I honestly can't imagine that ever
happening. It's as silly as believing Paul would hand over the rights to
"Yesterday"
====================================================================
Susan Juliano "Happy Xmas. War is over (if you want it)"
sjul...@gte.net --Yoko Ono/John Lennon
Susan Juliano
On 30 Dec 1997 02:22:02 GMT, jsera...@aol.com (JSeraf7064) wrote:
>He also felt Heroin was what he needed, too.
>
I can't figure out if you're blaming heroin for music you don't like or
deciding you don't like the music because you know about the heroin use.
Good thing the other three never admitted to using heroin. Apparently that
would automatically turn good music into bad. I realize I'm probably
stretching things here, but you do seem to be placing extraordinary
emphasis on the drug. Sometimes I think we let what we know about their
personal lives interfere with our appreciation of the music rather than
enhance it.
David Goodwin
On 30 Dec 1997 21:57:42 GMT, largely a fun day, sedat...@aol.com
(SedatedApe) wrote:
>But, it just so happens that my real name is Sedated Ape.
I bet your gym teachers always mispronounced it <nods
sympathetically>.
David
David Goodwin
On 31 Dec 1997 05:32:18 GMT, largely a fun day, denof...@aol.com
(Denofspice) wrote:
>Who was revered? Who was forgotten?
No. Who were neither revered nor forgotten. Face Dances was pretty
good, but...
Oh?
Sorry...wrong group.
David
Look, if someone can get away with "Pete's Sake"...:)
DamnYankee
Don't let Pithers know you are shoplifting Yoko's pooty...he thinks I'm
the one who's doing her...
DY
Richard Joly
DamnYankee <stev...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Let me rephrase it in plain talk:
>Yoko has NO talent; she doesn't play an instrument, and screeches when
Here's a list of credits :
1969 - FREE LIVE JAM / Sometime In New York City double lp / bag
1970 - POB/ John Lennon ; wind
1971 - THE PATH / Onobox;disc1 / john and yoko all instruments
1971 - IMAGINE / John Lennon / whip and mirror
1971 - AIRMALE, DONT COUNT THE WAVES / Fly / claves
1972 - see below /Sometime In New York City / lead vocal, drums
1972 - SISTER O SISTER / Sometime In New York City / drums {*}
1972 - ATTICA STATE / Sometime In New York City / drums {*}
1972 - SUNDAY BLOODY SUNDAY / Sometime In New York City / drums{*}
1972 - LOOKING OVER MY HOTEL WINDOW / AIU / piano
1972 - LOCAL PLASTIC ONO BAND / Elephant's Memory / breath rhythms
1972 - LIVE IN NEW YORK CITY / John Lennon with E.Memory / keyboards
73/74 - NAMYOHORENGEKYO / Onobox;disc6 / piano
1971 - IMAGINE / John Lennon / whip and mirror
1973 - I LEARNED TO STUTTER / Feeling The Space bonus reissue /
piano live performance
1974 - SHE GETS DOWN ON HER KNEES / AIU reissue bonus track / piano
1980 - LET ME COUNT THE WAYS / Milk and Honey / piano
1980 - GROW OLD WITH ME / Milk and Honey / rhythm box
DKTA - BEAUTIFUL BOYS/ It's Alright reissue bonus track / piano
DKTA - ANATANO TE / YOUR HANDS / A Story CD issue bonus track / piano
DKTA - EXTENSION 33 / A Story CD issue bonus track / piano
1981 - THERE'S NO GOODBYE / Onobox;disc4 / piano
1987 - I GOT YOUR MESSAGE / the Epidemics / sampled vocals
1990 - ASIAN FLOWERS/ Motoharu Sano / background vocals
86/93 - GEORGIA STONES / A Chance Operation / studio and tapes
--
rj...@cam.org
ONOWEB: http://www.cam.org/~rjoly/yoko/onoweb.html
RasMaster
In article <19971231053...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, denof...@aol.com
(Denofspice) writes:
>I won't yoko bash. The reason John is revered is because he's DEAD DEAD
>DEAD
DEAD DEAD DEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!Don't forget, when he died, Doble Fantasy
>peaked at
#8, and began it's decline. Then he died. McCartney 2 went to #1 in
>1980. Who
was revered? Who was forgotten?
Just a correction from a chart fanatic. The relevant Billboard charts
that reflected sales (or, in the case of the Hot 100, airplay and sales)
for the week before John was killed, showed Double Fantasy at # 11,
and rising (this was it's current peak, and it would certainly have
gone higher, as it was "starred"), and the Starting Over single at
#3, and very likely to go to #1, as the two songs above were old
and their popularity had peaked.
Just wanted to clear that up.
Bob Purse
RasMaster
In article <34A9D2...@sans.vuw.ac.nz>, Grace Millar <gr...@sans.vuw.ac.nz>
writes:
>I would agree that a lot of people's knowledge about Yoko is because of
her
>association with John. I don't think this is in any way a slur on
Yoko's
>art. It's just that what she does isn't the kind of thing which
usually gets
>much publicity.
Exactly. If it wasn't for Frank Zappa, I never would have heard of
Captain Beefheart, and neither would a lot of other people. Does
that mean Beefheart is not an artist, or that his music and art is
not worth experiencing.
Yes, John brought Yoko a larger audience, and for that I am grateful.
If it is good (and it IS), why debate HOW it became well know.
Sheeeesh.
Bob Purse
huzzlewhat
In article <34A885...@sans.vuw.ac.nz>, Grace Millar
<gr...@sans.vuw.ac.nz> wrote:
> Is there anyone out there who actually listened to this interview so we
> can have a vague idea of what she actually said? Maybe that might end
> the hysteria which is building - but then again probably not.
Probably not, is right, since the interview hasn't even aired yet. The
furor is being caused by three quotes, perhaps accurate, perhaps
incomplete, surrounded by a bunch of sentences saying, "Yoko said Paul
sucks," basically.
I'm waiting until next week until I start throwing tomatoes. ;-)
--huzzlewhat--
--
"Music and singing do not produce in the heart
that which is not in it."
K. Dunning
From what I've read, Micheal Jackson owns the rights to "Yesterday".
Ironic, eh wot?
Karrie Dunning
A Native Seattle-ite
*****
Kar...@u.washington.edu
"None of your five-bar gate jumps and over sort of stuff."
********************
Cathy D888
>From: sjul...@gte.net (Susan Juliano)
>
>On 31 Dec 1997 01:31:43 GMT, jnash...@aol.com (JNash33040) wrote:
>
>>>>Is there anyone out there who actually listened to this interview so we
>>>>can have a vague idea of what she actually said?
>>
>
>I believe that was what the interviewer *wanted* her to do and I believe
>questions were asked with the intention of fanning flames better left
>dormant. Perhaps it would have been wiser for her to respond with "No
>comment".
I think it is more likely that the interviewer put a "spin" onto what Yoko said
well knowing how Beatles' fans would interpret her remarks. Note that quotes
aren't provided for most of what was reported in the article. They are playing
to an audience that is already (mostly) anti-Yoko and they know what is going
to sell.
Mcgbjk
Wow! Finally, a thread to beat Cranberry Sauce!
JNash33040
>> Is there anyone out there who actually listened to this interview so we
>> can have a vague idea of what she actually said? Maybe that might end
>> the hysteria which is building - but then again probably not.
... She has described him as a musician whose true genius was
for organising John Lennon's talent...
Obviously this was not a direct quote, just interpreted by the writer.
... "John did not make the phone calls," she said. "He was not on that level as
a leader - he was on the level
of a spiritual leader...."He was the visionary and that is why the Beatles
happened. [Paul] is put in the position of being a Salieri to a Mozart..."
Bu this was, and it could go either way as to whether it is a "slam" at
McCartney or not. I do agree that without John the Beatles would never have
happened, but to compare him to Mozart??(I wouldn't compare McCartney to Mozart
either). I also feel that without McCartney, there would have been no Sgt.
Pepper, MMT, and Abbey Road. And it involved a lot more than "making phone
calls".
JSeraf7064
>DamnYankee wrote:
>> Allow me to say this plainly:
>> First, Yoko is a horse's ass, plain and simple --
> well, if YOU said so, it must be true.
I say so, too.
>>ways was, and always
>> will be. I think she has penis envy myself;
> You have ZERO credibility with that statement. did you get your
first computer for Christmas?
Yoko didn't envy John's penis. She envied his talent, his creativity. This was
written in books by people close to them. From what I've read, I do believe
Yoko 'envied' John in a 'not to healthy manner' for having what she would
never have. Namely talent.
>Damn Yankee- "Mommy, Mommy, I learned how to flame today!!"
> -John W.
You sound more inflammatory than he. His attack was on Yoko. Your attack was on
him. The topic of this newsgroup isn't him.
JSeraf7064
>>He also felt Heroin was what he needed, too.
>I can't figure out if you're blaming heroin for music you don't like or
deciding you don't like the music because you know about the heroin use. Good
thing the other three never admitted to using heroin. Apparently that would
automatically turn good music into bad. I realize I'm probably stretching
things here, but you do seem to be placing extraordinary emphasis on the drug.
Sometimes I think we let what we know about their personal lives interfere with
our appreciation of the music rather than enhance it.
Susan, I never said I didn't like the music. I own every Beatle and Solo Beatle
CD, and listen to them all.
Lennon is very often given credit by some for anything and everything different
or that 'pushed the barriers' in the Beatles music. I maintain it was the
BEATLES that pushed the envelope... not John, Paul George or Ringo, but the
four of them.
Why do I have this opinion? Because John's solo music was often boring Yes,
there were some good songs, and some great moments... but without Paul and
George Martin to help shape the ideas, those great moments were often (NOT
ALWAYS) surrounded by a dud song. ('Mind Games' springs to mind...) Paul is the
same, IMO. Lots of good songs, and great musical ideas that needed John's
heavier (and much better lyrics) treatment. Paul could write hits. But imagine
Band On The Run with Lennon's and Martin's influences.
John was not 'The Beatles'. Every time I put on Walls and Bridges or Imagine, I
know this to be true. I'm not saying they're bad albums by any means... but I
don't hear something that is seven orders of magnitude better than anything on
Paul's records, or something that makes me think Lennon was THE talent in the
Beatles, like some like to say he was.
As far as the dope goes, I can see and hear John's interest in just being a
musician (and being a Beatle) wane as his drug use dragged on. As far as I'm
concerned, John left during The White Album, and didn't return until Double
Fantasy.
Runnnerr
You are SO right. She's one of the major no talents of all time.
JSeraf7064
>>I guess the fact that John felt she was the person he needed is irrelevent.
>He also felt Heroin was what he needed, too
>ya know, I can't begin to understand what John went through...
>He felt bored and trapped, and actively considered suicide, and then
he met someone who, he felt, was perfect for him. He no longer felt
suicidal, and felt he had met another artist that was his equal. He
felt it was natural to share her with his compatriates and the world.
His bandmates did not agree, and, while not totally rejecting her,
did not fully accept her, as he had hoped or expected.
The Beatles WERE musical artists, and they had shed the 'moptop' persona with
the help of Sgt Pepper, MMT and The White Album. Lennon 'felt trapped' because
his head was not on straight.
>The outside world was apoplectic. Surely other men had left their wives,
publicly, before. Somehow, because Yoko was outspoken, avant-garde
and Oriental (don't let that other post fool you, there was a lot of
Japan bashing to blame for the Yoko hating. Japan was still the enemy.
Had John left his wife for a beautifal Caucasion, the outcry would have
been minimal), the press went nuts.
I have never blamed John for his choice of an oriental woman. Yoko is a
talentless wannabe 'artist'. Therefore, her involvement in John's music will
always be met with mistrust. 'Avant Garde' expression CANNOT be appreciated the
same way conventional art is appreciated. There are no boundaries, no rules,
nothing to measure it by. So people will always be skeptical of thet 'art form'
and the 'artists' that create it. There is a very small number of people in the
world who could create an original piece of art like the Mona Lisa, a greater
number who could copy it, but millions who could create 'Avant Garde' art.
There is a very small number of people in the world who could write an original
song like Penny Lane or A Day In The Life, a greater number who could copy
them, but millions that could create sounds like Revolution #9.
>I never walked in the man's moccasons. He already had a need to
artificially enhance himself, and had since he was a teen. Personally
I can't believe ANYONE uses heroin (but then again, the appeal of alcohol
and pot are lost on me, too). But the above experiences might help
explain why someone like John felt the need to sink into Heroin use.
He had the world at his feet. He was a musician, a 'mop top' an artist, a
poet... The Beatles could be respected by any group of people because they WERE
all kinds of different things to different people. That's why people took apart
his words... because they WERE art. And People bought them by the millions
because they WERE pop. He sank to the level he did because his head wasn't on
straight. Apparently, he was his own worst enemy.
>And the fact that there are still people bashing her after all these years
is a continuing tragedy. Or are you one of the few other people in this
world who have also witnessed your spouse gunned down in front of you.
If not, then you might want to avoid attacking someone you cannot
possibly understand.
Bob, people allege that she was about to divorce her 'spouse'. If you like Yoko
and appreciate her 'talent' fine. The surprising thing is that if a person
stays in the public eye long enough... he or she will amass fans. Everything
comes into (and out of) style.
A lot of people in this world feel OJ didn't do it, despite the fact his blood
was found at the scene of the crime, despite the fact that thier blood was
found at his house and in his car. Despite the fact that he wrote a suicide
note, despite the fact that he tried to flee, despite the gash on his hand,
despite the fact he was seen sneaking into his house. Despite the duffel bag,
despite his own contradictions in his alibi, despite the shoe prints, and a
host of other clues. But most people know that if it looks like a duck, and
quacks like a duck, it's a duck.
Don't be surprised that the world still hates Yoko. We do so for good and sound
reasons, that we choose not to ignore.
jweb
JSeraf7064 wrote:
>
> You sound more inflammatory than he. His attack was on Yoko. Your attack was on
> him. The topic of this newsgroup isn't him.
I have every right to attack him. He's an obvious troll on rmb that
is clearly annoying alot of people with his deliberate and
non-fact-based insults on Yoko.
--
-John W.
"If you play "Maybe I'm Amazed" backwards, you'll hear a
really ripping recipe for lentil soup." - Paul McCartney
Bob Stahley
DamnYankee (stev...@hotmail.com) wrote:
: And why doesn't Columbia Pictures threaten libel against everyone in the
: media for printing their copywritten statements without their permission
: or threaten litigation for spreading untrue stories?
Probably because they're not Mattel, Inc., and it didn't involve
Barbie(tm). :)
(if there's two .sigs, it just means there's still a few bugs in the
system :) )
______
______ bo...@primenet.com
__ __ tosa, witzend Why is a raven like a writing-desk?
--
______
______ bo...@primenet.com
__ __ tosa, witzend Why is a raven like a writing-desk?
Bob Stahley
Susan Juliano (sjul...@gte.net) wrote:
: On Tue, 30 Dec 1997 20:02:38 -0500, DamnYankee <stev...@hotmail.com>
: wrote:
: > discredit supposed myths perpetuated
: Name one.
: > McCartney is reportedly follwoing the
: > Yoko-Columbia talks with "cynical interest."
: Reportedly? By whom?
This is, of course, classic supermarket tabloid "reporting:" "DREW CARREY
ON VERGE OF SUICIDE (friends fear)."
Bob Stahley
JSeraf7064 (jsera...@aol.com) wrote:
: Lennon 'felt trapped' because his head was not on straight.
"(friends fear)" :)
Tom
>Here's a list of credits had Yoko not married John:
She'd already worked with Ornette Coleman and John Cage, arguably the most
important names in post war Jazz and Classical music, before she'd met John.
Besides, she'd studied classical piano so she had at least the same basic
level of instrumental technique that, for instance, George Harrison had on
guitar.
Tom
There is a very small number of people in the
>world who could create an original piece of art like the Mona Lisa, a
greater
>number who could copy it, but millions who could create 'Avant Garde' art.
>There is a very small number of people in the world who could write an
original
>song like Penny Lane or A Day In The Life, a greater number who could copy
>them, but millions that could create sounds like Revolution #9.
This is a fallacy. If you can't don't enjoy that type of music, you think
it's easy to create Revolution #9 because you can't differentiate between
good or bad in that genre. It's the same as a jazz musician who doesn't like
pop or rock saying that anyone could write "She Loves You."
DamnYankee
DAMN JOHN!!!
Don't tell Pithers you are shoplifting Yoko's pooty too!!! He'll be
pissed!!!
Oh yeah, that's right...can't shoplift pooty when your dickless...or can
you???
DamnYankee
and let's list how many of those reached to the top 10:
enough said :)
DamnYankee
uh huh...I thought Mel Torme, Frank Sinatra, & Tony Bennett were the
most important names in post war jazz...
Mel Torme was the big teen idol before Elvis in the 40's; and still is
one of my favorite composers/singers
Chris Dashiell
My $.02:
As a visual artist, Yoko was actually quite interesting and
ahead of her time. (I daresay this is an area that most pop
music fans don't know or care about.)
Her strength was never in music, to put it mildly, and she
probably never would have tried it, especially rock, if not for
her marriage to John.
Although I have never been an admirer, and I think her latest
statements are consistent with her talent for saying the wrong
things, I have never thought that the vitriolic hatred felt towards
her by many was justified. It always seems to have been con-
nected to a general bemoaning of the Beatles' breakup, which
I would maintain was inevitable even if Yoko had never been on
the scene.
Dashiell