What Killed Albert Goldman?
aubad...@my-deja.com
by Victor Bockris, renowned biographer of Andy Warhol, Keith Richards
and Lou Reed, among others. I thought it was a fascinating read, even
if you don't agree with Bockris. I couldn't find any discussion of it
in this newsgroup, so I figured it'd been passed over:
http://www.gadfly.org/1999-07/goldman.asp
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
E. Penguin
el...@webtv.net
interest in reading the book.
Gavin
Mister Charlie
"E. Penguin" <pen...@NOSPAM.com> wrote:
> I'm pretty sure he died of shame.
>
>
--
"...don't you know who's a 2000 man? And your kids they just won't
understand you at all..."
Jagger/Richards 1967
Sitting Stoned
>
>
Don't forget his huge contempt for himself. I'd call it auto-revulsion.
--
Francie
--
One is not born a woman,
One becomes one.
~Simone de Beauvoir~ French writer/philosopher (1908-1986)
http://sites.netscape.net/fabe9131944/gogo
NEW PAGE: The Last Beatle Interview CD
Diana
book.
- - - - - -
And in my heart you'll always stay
Forever young, forever young.
~ JOHN LENNON ~
1940-1980
There has never been a great spirit without a touch of insanity.
brilton
"Identity Crisis", where they would interview some person or other
(journalists, photographer, etc) about some brush with a famous person
related to popular music.
In the April 1996 issue (#29), they interview a BBC television producer
named Nigel Leigh who had arranged for Albert Goldman to fly over from
America to appear on a BBC Late Show program hosted by Melvyln Bragg.
He apparently died of a heart attack en route from Miami to London in
March 1994, in first class. His body spent most of a week in a freezer
cabinet near Heathrow before being cremated and (this is the best part)
the ashes Fed-Ex'd back to the USA.
This producer says in the article that people come up to him to shake
his hand sometimes, as if he himself is somehow responsible (although
indirectly) for Goldman's demise.
But what I myself disliked most about Albert Goldman's boook on Lennon
though...it wasn't the cereal-box psychology, or the assertions that
Pete Best was a better drummer than Ringo. Oh no. It was how he
mistakenly called Rolf Harris RALPH Harris!!
The bastard!
Actually I must openly declare myself as a complete hypocrite because I
thought both the Lennon and Elvis books were a good read, no matter how
notorious or questionable in the facts they might be. Sorry about that.
DavisK
bri...@highway1.com.au wrote:
>
> He apparently died of a heart attack en route from Miami to London in
> March 1994, in first class. His body spent most of a week in a freezer
> cabinet near Heathrow before being cremated and (this is the best
part)
> the ashes Fed-Ex'd back to the USA.
Same day delivery? I would have loved it if it was lost in the mail.
LOL!
--
/-------|
}:^)7 -<///////}
- \-------|
Bob Stahley
: Actually I must openly declare myself as a complete hypocrite because I
: thought both the Lennon and Elvis books were a good read, no matter how
: notorious or questionable in the facts they might be. Sorry about that.
Not hypocritical at all. Some people like Harlequin romance novels;
nothing wrong with that.
It's when one starts actually believing that some rich prince or pirate in
period garb's gonna sweep one out of one's housewife doldrums and take one
back to the Golden Hind for a life of Romance and Adventure, well, then we
got a problem.
--
__ __
_) _) bo...@primenet.com Deck us all with Boston Charlie
__)__) 'Tosa, Witzend Walla-Walla, Wash, and Kalamazoo!
Assia
Bob Stahley <bo...@primenet.com> wrote:
> brilton <bri...@highway1.com.au> wrote:
> : Actually I must openly declare myself as a complete hypocrite
because I
> : thought both the Lennon and Elvis books were a good read, no matter
how
> : notorious or questionable in the facts they might be. Sorry about
that.
>
> Not hypocritical at all. Some people like Harlequin romance novels;
> nothing wrong with that.
Well I read Lewisohn.
Often.
> It's when one starts actually believing that some rich prince or
pirate in
> period garb's gonna sweep one out of one's housewife doldrums and
take one
> back to the Golden Hind for a life of Romance and Adventure, well,
then we
> got a problem.
That's so stupid. I don't think that way.
I think thay Yoko Ono in a White Bag is gonna bowl over the Art World.
Assia
>
> --
> __ __
> _) _) bo...@primenet.com Deck us all with Boston Charlie
> __)__) 'Tosa, Witzend Walla-Walla, Wash, and Kalamazoo!
>
aubad...@my-deja.com
an article by Barry Miles (yes, as in Many Years From Now) arguing that
The Lives of John Lennon "gets closer to the real Lennon than any of
the hagiographies - providing you read it with a critical eye." Most of
the article is an interesting account of A.G. with a few things I
didn't know - apparently some crazed Elvis fan once tried to
assassinate Goldman, and the publishers insisted on removing 81,000
words of mostly "positive, enthusiastic...Lenny Bruce-style Jewish
comic stuff" from the Lennon bio to make it more controversial. Yoko
Ono, for the first time ever, responds to Goldman. Over a decade too
late, but that's the way it goes I guess.
Some of the more interesting Goldman quotes, apparently never published
before:
"I Am The Walrus to me was probably his greatest achievement. It's a
song I feel that's great on many levels. It's very powerful. It's
radioactive with rage, thundering with rhythm, the voice hard as nails,
imagination and emotion all fused at the highest pitch. I think it
represents his most characteristic style of utterance, which is angry,
surrealistic and very fierce, like satire. At his best John is like a
punk Beethoven. He's bellicose, he's tough, he's virile, he's
threatening. John is a brutalist. But he has this nursery side too; in
Julia and Dear Prudence, he's infantile."
"People were scandalized by my use of humour and ridicule in Elvis.
Elvis was someone they were accustomed to taking in a very sentimental
way. But I feel he was a figure of the most bizarre and grotesque
character. A lot of people took it as simply my desire to deride him. I
don't say I'm free of that impulse, because I think there's a lot that
should be derided. The humour is a mode of perception. Of making things
vivid."
"No writer who has spent years labouring over a book in the attempt to
re-focus a whole era in popular culture wants to see his work blown
away in a stinking cloud of public rancour. Violent controversy renders
rational discussion impossible."
"My interest in Lennon was entirely a product of my admiration for him.
And my admiration wasn't confined to his work. It was also his
character. He had the bravery to come out and say those things that run
against the current of his profession, which is always to talk bullshit
and butter people up and smile and fawn and so forth. He didn't do
that. He stood up like a man and said 'This is bullshit!' That was one
of the things I most admired. That he was that rare, one-in-a-million
pop star who doesn't give a damn. He just comes up and tells the truth.
And if they don't like it, too bad. It's that feeling that he was such
a great believer in candour, about his own life, that was really my
mandate, it seemed to me, as a biographer. When you tell the truth
about John Lennon, you don't betray John Lennon. Quite the contrary.
You fulfill the mandate John Lennon has given you."
"The most shocking thing to me is that Lennon was such a violent
person. The Prince of Peace was a man of war. That's very startling. Of
course, once you get it into perspective, you see that peace to him was
not a political issue. He wasn't talking about peace the way a
politician would. He was saying that violence is a terrible thing
because I'm a violent man, and I regret the violence. He said it over
and over again but nobody listened to him."
"The other shocking thing is his extreme passivity, the submissiveness.
I mean, anybody could get a hold of John Lennon and just lead him along
like a child into the most bizarre beliefs, into the most destructive
practices, into the craziest financial swindles, into all sorts of
terrible things. He was so gullible."
"He was passive. Yoko was dynamic. He came to rely more and more on her
energy and her dynamism. Their relationship was, I think, a classic
example of mutual dependency. He needed his Aunt Mimi; that mother
surrogate who would be very firm and very strong and who would be very
dominating and who would really provide him on the one hand with the
protection he craved, and on the other hand with the direction he
craved. And also would relieve him of everything he disliked in terms
of nuisance, business, responsibility. So that's what she provided him
with and it's worth anything to someone like John Lennon. And he gave
her what she'd most craved in the world. Which was fame, power,
celebrity. She's dedicated her life to self-promotion. And very
successfully, because Yoko Ono is universally known."
"The truth is that if I could have confirmed through exhaustive
research all the wonderful things that everybody believed about John
Lennon, we would have made vastly more money. Anybody who tells you
controversy makes money is out of his kugel."
Also, from Salon, Jim DeRogatis (biographer of Lester Bangs and author
of a very strange book about psychedelic rock that spends about two
pages on the San Francisco scene) picks five great rock biographies,
including Goldman's Lennon book:
http://www.salon.com/books/bag/2000/06/19/derogatis/index.html
--
"It takes a genius to make a fake the standard by which we come to
judge the genuine." - Richey James Edwards
gri...@my-deja.com
analysis of Lennon published. As for the some of the facts in the book,
what can clearly be shown to be false? Nothing was challenged
legally...I never saw any statements from Yoko Ono that directly
refuted any particular issue raised in the book...Is there any clear,
hard evidence to refute some of Goldman's assertations???
Bob Stahley
: Is there any clear, hard evidence to refute some of Goldman's
: assertations???
From Allan Kozinn's article, published here on 22 Feb 1995:
"Here are just a few of Goldman's howlers: that 'Love Me Do' was released
on a 10" 78rmp disc, that McCartney was the composer of 'Hello Little
Girl' (Lennon's first song), that the Feb '64 Sullivan Shows took place at
the Maxine Elliott Theater in Times Square (!-- as with the Peter Brown
errors, all one has to do is watch the videotape of the show; Sullivan
actually gives the address of the theater, which was not in Times Square);
that Pete Best was a far better and more interesting drummer than Starr
(again, all you have to do is listen to the Decca auditions, the early BBC
performances and the Sheridan recordings); that 'Any Time At All' is 'the
most exciting song in the Beatles first filmscore,' ... and so on. When I
read the book I came up with 10 typed pages of this kind of error, and
other writers have found other mistakes. [...]
"His musical analysis is absurd -- he claims that 'A Hard Day's Night' is
entirely in the mixolydian mode, which isn't at all true, and he uses
terms like major and minor, modal and tonal as though they are
'opposites,' rather than merely different, which is something no musician
would do. At one point he suggests that Lennon was such an incompetent
guitar player that you can't even hear him on the Beatles recordings."
E. Penguin
You mean common sense isn't good enough?
Lizz Holmans
Paging Alan Kozinn. Paging Alan Kozinn to the white courtesy phone,
please.
Lizz 'And bring your list' Holmans
--
Lizz Holmans
Duchess of Earle
aubad...@my-deja.com wrote:
> More Goldman...in the special winter '00 Lennon issue of MOJO, there's
> an article by Barry Miles (yes, as in Many Years From Now) arguing that
> The Lives of John Lennon "gets closer to the real Lennon than any of
> the hagiographies - providing you read it with a critical eye."
Well, since Barry Miles sold his soul to Paul McCartney for MYFN, I guess
he has put his foot even further down his throat than before. MYFN is a
bogus "autobiography" and "the real Lennon" as depicted in Goldman's
abomination, is nowhere near "real", so lie down with dogs and get up
with fleas, Barry.
Most of
> the article is an interesting account of A.G. with a few things I
> didn't know - apparently some crazed Elvis fan once tried to
> assassinate Goldman,
Great leaders and saints are assassinated. Goldman would have been better
off murdered.
and the publishers insisted on removing 81,000
> words of mostly "positive, enthusiastic...Lenny Bruce-style Jewish
> comic stuff" from the Lennon bio to make it more controversial.
Goldman sucked on Lenny Bruce's bones. This must have been some leftover
riffs on his evisceration of the dead Lenny Bruce, because it wouldn't
have changed the allover shittiness to include a bunch of Jewish humor.
Yoko
> Ono, for the first time ever, responds to Goldman. Over a decade too
> late, but that's the way it goes I guess.
Huh?
>
> Some of the more interesting Goldman quotes, apparently never published
> before:
>
><snip>
>
> "The other shocking thing is his extreme passivity, the submissiveness.
> I mean, anybody could get a hold of John Lennon and just lead him along
> like a child into the most bizarre beliefs, into the most destructive
> practices, into the craziest financial swindles, into all sorts of
> terrible things. He was so gullible."
>
Utter and complete bullshit, this pompous ass, self-important liar and
exploiter actually believes his own bullshit. That's enough to kill him
all by itself.
> "He was passive. Yoko was dynamic. He came to rely more and more on her
> energy and her dynamism. Their relationship was, I think, a classic
> example of mutual dependency. He needed his Aunt Mimi; <snip>
Here's where the Stumpies will be applauding. This is what they want to
believe. Goldman never got past Freud 101, and he completely misses the
mark with this particular theory. John, passive? Bwahahahahaha!
>
> "The truth is that if I could have confirmed through exhaustive
> research all the wonderful things that everybody believed about John
> Lennon, we would have made vastly more money. Anybody who tells you
> controversy makes money is out of his kugel."
>
Boyoboy, if you believe this crapola, you should put a down payment on
that seaside property in Las Vegas you've been dreaming of. Anyone in
publishing knows that in the 80's controversy (read: Dirty revelations of
a gossipy tongue-clucking nature) was just about the only sure thing.
> Also, from Salon, Jim DeRogatis (biographer of Lester Bangs and author
> of a very strange book about psychedelic rock that spends about two
> pages on the San Francisco scene) picks five great rock biographies,
> including Goldman's Lennon book:
>
There are idiot rock critics and biographers jst as in every walk of
life. Goldman's talents as a "hot" writer were wasted on his subjects,
and tell subsequent generations nothing of importance at all about
Lennon. If you want to read a biography of John Lennon, listen to his
music. It's all there.
Don't waste your time or your money reading this piece of shit calling
itself a biography. It's a bad book written by a sick fuck of a man.
Without Goldman, there could be no Giuliano, no Seaman, and no Rosen. He
made pissing on John's grave semi-respectable. This is why he has been
relegated to eternal damnation without relief.
Francie
--
“To live is so startling
It leaves little time
for anything else.”
-- Emily Dickinson (1830-1886)
http://sites.netscape.net/fabe9131944
Updated Decon Paul • More CD Info
je...@firemail.de
<frn...@netscape.net> wrote:
MYFN is a
>bogus "autobiography"
For the umteenth time: It was never meant to be a full blown
biography, never mind an *auto*biography.
Duchess of Earle
Pardon me while I belch. Who gives a shit, Jesse?
There's no excuse for MYFN no matter what you call it.
gri...@my-deja.com
> "The other shocking thing is his extreme passivity, the
>submissiveness.
> I mean, anybody could get a hold of John Lennon and just lead him
along
> like a child into the most bizarre beliefs, into the most destructive
> practices, into the craziest financial swindles, into all sorts of
> terrible things. He was so gullible."
Actually, I think this is fairly accurate. John was led about from
one "father figure" to the next. Yoko and he admitted it in the Playboy
Interviews I believe, that were conducted shortly before his death.
From the Maharishi, to Janov, to the political radicalism
around 'Sometime in New York City', etc. etc.
>"He was passive. Yoko was dynamic. He came to rely more and more on her
> energy and her dynamism. Their relationship was, I think, a classic
> example of mutual dependency. He needed his Aunt Mimi; <snip>
I also think this is pretty accurate. Again, from John's own
words...after the famous picture of John and Yoko taken by Annie
Leibovitz--the one with John, naked, clutching a clothed Yoko from the
side--he remarked that that picture captured their relationship
perfectly. Not only that, he referred to her many times as his teacher,
how she taught him almost everything...not to mention The Lost Weekend
and how he brokedown without her around.
And no, common sense IS NOT enough. We didn't know John...We may have
ideas about what he was like, but the best resources are the records
John left himself, and the accounts of those who knew him without a
profit to gain from providing either too saintly or too grim a portrait
of John.
aubad...@my-deja.com
> aubad...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > More Goldman...in the special winter '00 Lennon issue of MOJO,
there's
> > an article by Barry Miles (yes, as in Many Years From Now) arguing
that
> > The Lives of John Lennon "gets closer to the real Lennon than any of
> > the hagiographies - providing you read it with a critical eye."
>
> Well, since Barry Miles sold his soul to Paul McCartney for MYFN, I
guess
> he has put his foot even further down his throat than before. MYFN is
a
> bogus "autobiography" and "the real Lennon" as depicted in Goldman's
> abomination, is nowhere near "real", so lie down with dogs and get up
> with fleas, Barry.
You realize of course, Francie, that if you were ever to write a
biography of Paul McCartney, you'd be even more of a pariah than
Goldman.
> Most of
> > the article is an interesting account of A.G. with a few things I
> > didn't know - apparently some crazed Elvis fan once tried to
> > assassinate Goldman,
>
> Great leaders and saints are assassinated. Goldman would have been
better
> off murdered.
You don't have to be a great leader or a saint to be assassinated -
Mussolini, for example, was neither. (Nor was John Lennon)
> and the publishers insisted on removing 81,000
> > words of mostly "positive, enthusiastic...Lenny Bruce-style Jewish
> > comic stuff" from the Lennon bio to make it more controversial.
>
> Goldman sucked on Lenny Bruce's bones. This must have been some
leftover
> riffs on his evisceration of the dead Lenny Bruce, because it wouldn't
> have changed the allover shittiness to include a bunch of Jewish
humor.
Did you read the same book I did? Goldman worshipped Lenny Bruce and it
was probably the only positive biography he ever wrote. He went into
great detail about the sordid side of the man (which, incidentally,
doesn't automatically make a biography 'tabloid' and worthless - some
people just lead sordid lives, after all), but the overall tone was
enthusiastic, and I think it's by far the best book on Bruce.
That said, I can't see how Jewish comic stuff would fit into the Lennon
story, but I guess if he'd tried to immerse himself in the world of
British humor, the Goons and all that, before writing, the book still
wouldn't be finished.
> Yoko
> > Ono, for the first time ever, responds to Goldman. Over a decade too
> > late, but that's the way it goes I guess.
>
> Huh?
In my opinion, it's ridiculous to wait over a decade before responding
to a book, and then expect to be taken seriously when you say things
like this:
"The effect of the book can be compared to those Nazi propaganda films,
juxtaposing rats and the Jews....No, I'm not aware that there were
81,000 words of positive material removed from the book at the editing
stage. That's like saying that Chapman had some very positive things to
say about John which were not reported. A man can be killed with a gun
or a pen. Obviously some people thought, and probably still think, that
it was not enough to kill John with a gun."
I nearly dropped the magazine when I read the first sentence of that.
Aside from the obvious ridiculousness of equating an aging biographer
with goofy hipster pretentions and no respect for rich, beloved
celebrities with the Nazis, it's repulsive to compare the effect of a
book, any book, to propaganda films that contributed to the worst
tragedy in human history. No, Yoko Ono, the bad PR you suffered as a
result of Albert Goldman's book is not remotely comparable with the
suffering of the victims of the Nazis, and the very fact that you could
say such a thing, more than anything said by any of your detractors,
has made me question your character.
> > "The truth is that if I could have confirmed through exhaustive
> > research all the wonderful things that everybody believed about John
> > Lennon, we would have made vastly more money. Anybody who tells you
> > controversy makes money is out of his kugel."
> >
>
> Boyoboy, if you believe this crapola, you should put a down payment on
> that seaside property in Las Vegas you've been dreaming of. Anyone in
> publishing knows that in the 80's controversy (read: Dirty
revelations of
> a gossipy tongue-clucking nature) was just about the only sure thing.
>
The Goldman book was a commercial disappointment, and is out of print.
Wasn't Coleman's book a bestseller? And also, come to think of it,
published in the '80s.
> Goldman's talents as a "hot" writer were wasted on his subjects,
> and tell subsequent generations nothing of importance at all about
> Lennon.
Goldman's fatal mistake was to question the wrong idol. He had already
taken quite a risk by telling the truth about Elvis, but then, Elvis
isn't really respected everywhere. John Lennon has fans virtually
everywhere, and is possibly the most beloved person in rock history. If
he'd written his book about Phil Spector, no one would have blinked an
eye.
If you want to read a biography of John Lennon, listen to his
> music. It's all there.
Thanks, I'm sure quite a few people found that suggestion helpful.
> Don't waste your time or your money reading this piece of shit calling
> itself a biography. It's a bad book written by a sick fuck of a man.
>
> Without Goldman, there could be no Giuliano, no Seaman, and no Rosen.
He
> made pissing on John's grave semi-respectable. This is why he has been
> relegated to eternal damnation without relief.
Forced to watch all those Lennon-Ono experimental films and then
every '60s Elvis movie on repeat until the universe ends?
> Francie
>
> --
> “To live is so startling
> It leaves little time
> for anything else.”
> -- Emily Dickinson (1830-1886)
Incidentally, I have to wonder what you'd say to Camille Paglia's
theory that Emily Dickinson was in fact "the female Sade", and that her
poetry betrays an overwhelming obsession with blood and guts and death
in general.
--
"It takes a genius to make a fake the standard by which we come to
judge the genuine." - Richey James Edwards
E. Penguin
E. Penguin
E. Penguin
Duchess of Earle
aubad...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <91906u$gbc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Duchess of Earle <frn...@netscape.net> wrote:
> > In article <917mj6$b66$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > aubad...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > More Goldman...in the special winter '00 Lennon issue of MOJO,
> there's
> > > an article by Barry Miles (yes, as in Many Years From Now) arguing
> that
> > > The Lives of John Lennon "gets closer to the real Lennon than any of
> > > the hagiographies - providing you read it with a critical eye."
> >
> > Well, since Barry Miles sold his soul to Paul McCartney for MYFN, I
> guess
> > he has put his foot even further down his throat than before. MYFN is
> a
> > bogus "autobiography" and "the real Lennon" as depicted in Goldman's
> > abomination, is nowhere near "real", so lie down with dogs and get up
> > with fleas, Barry.
>
> You realize of course, Francie, that if you were ever to write a
> biography of Paul McCartney, you'd be even more of a pariah than
> Goldman.
>
First of all, why would I want to? Second, McCartney's covered his tracks
so well that it would be close to impossible to get a decent number of
interviews... so many are sworn to silence. He probably has some
provisions written into *their* wills prohibiting them from walking about
their former employer.
> > Most of
> > > the article is an interesting account of A.G. with a few things I
> > > didn't know - apparently some crazed Elvis fan once tried to
> > > assassinate Goldman,
> >
> > Great leaders and saints are assassinated. Goldman would have been
> better
> > off murdered.
>
> You don't have to be a great leader or a saint to be assassinated -
> Mussolini, for example, was neither. (Nor was John Lennon)
>
"Great" doesn't mean good. John Lennon was a great leader of youth in
many countries, most notably the USA. Lennon was assassinated.
> > and the publishers insisted on removing 81,000
> > > words of mostly "positive, enthusiastic...Lenny Bruce-style Jewish
> > > comic stuff" from the Lennon bio to make it more controversial.
> >
> > Goldman sucked on Lenny Bruce's bones. This must have been some
> leftover
> > riffs on his evisceration of the dead Lenny Bruce, because it wouldn't
> > have changed the allover shittiness to include a bunch of Jewish
> humor.
>
> Did you read the same book I did? Goldman worshipped Lenny Bruce and it
> was probably the only positive biography he ever wrote. He went into
> great detail about the sordid side of the man (which, incidentally,
> doesn't automatically make a biography 'tabloid' and worthless - some
> people just lead sordid lives, after all), but the overall tone was
> enthusiastic, and I think it's by far the best book on Bruce.
>
With all due respect, Goldman's Lenny is nothing like the real man. There
were many good sections (particularly the opening) that were highly
colorful writing - but they could have been about any number of famous
addicts. Lenny was never sordid. Yes I read the same book - several
times. I wondered who would be roasted in Goldman's overheated oven of a
mind. I read his Elvis book with mounting disgust. I don't believe it
because I have a broader and more positive world view. This doesn't make
me a romantic or a sycophant. I've read hundreds of biographies, and none
of Goldman's hatchet jobs measure u as true biographies. There is much
too much Goldman and nowhere near enough of his subjects. He burnt
himself out, a self-hating Jew, a hanger-on who loved getting down in the
dirt with people like Seaman - vicariously getting "close" to John and
Yoko from the perspective of kitchen vermin.
> That said, I can't see how Jewish comic stuff would fit into the Lennon
> story, but I guess if he'd tried to immerse himself in the world of
> British humor, the Goons and all that, before writing, the book still
> wouldn't be finished.
>
Why make excuses? He had a mainstream publisher on the hook so why not?
> > Yoko
> > > Ono, for the first time ever, responds to Goldman. Over a decade too
> > > late, but that's the way it goes I guess.
> >
> > Huh?
>
> In my opinion, it's ridiculous to wait over a decade before responding
> to a book, and then expect to be taken seriously when you say things
> like this:
>
> "The effect of the book can be compared to those Nazi propaganda films,
> juxtaposing rats and the Jews....No, I'm not aware that there were
> 81,000 words of positive material removed from the book at the editing
> stage. That's like saying that Chapman had some very positive things to
> say about John which were not reported. A man can be killed with a gun
> or a pen. Obviously some people thought, and probably still think, that
> it was not enough to kill John with a gun."
>
> I nearly dropped the magazine when I read the first sentence of that.
> Aside from the obvious ridiculousness of equating an aging biographer
> with goofy hipster pretentions and no respect for rich, beloved
> celebrities with the Nazis, it's repulsive to compare the effect of a
> book, any book, to propaganda films that contributed to the worst
> tragedy in human history. No, Yoko Ono, the bad PR you suffered as a
> result of Albert Goldman's book is not remotely comparable with the
> suffering of the victims of the Nazis, and the very fact that you could
> say such a thing, more than anything said by any of your detractors,
> has made me question your character.
>
Wow. I'm sure your questioning of Yoko Ono's character will be a
shattering loss to her self-esteem.
I don't know where you get the idea Yoko hasn't spoken out against
Goldman before this. Through her spokesmen she has objected strenuously
to the project... and I agree with her when she compares Goldman to the
creators of the Nazi propaganda films of the 30's and 40's. Those films
are historical documents of the ugliest campaign against a people in
memory. By being bigger and louder and more fashionably pathogenic than
any other book about a Beatle in his own time, Goldman's work is a
permanent stain on the literature of rock & roll.
I wonder how it is you dismiss Yoko's emotional response (especially
without vetting the quote or the interview or the circumstances) with sch
ease... Linda McCartney once compared the eating of lobsters on Long
Island to the Holocaust. So what?
> > > "The truth is that if I could have confirmed through exhaustive
> > > research all the wonderful things that everybody believed about John
> > > Lennon, we would have made vastly more money. Anybody who tells you
> > > controversy makes money is out of his kugel."
> > >
> >
> > Boyoboy, if you believe this crapola, you should put a down payment on
> > that seaside property in Las Vegas you've been dreaming of. Anyone in
> > publishing knows that in the 80's controversy (read: Dirty
> revelations of
> > a gossipy tongue-clucking nature) was just about the only sure thing.
> >
>
> The Goldman book was a commercial disappointment, and is out of print.
> Wasn't Coleman's book a bestseller? And also, come to think of it,
> published in the '80s.
>
Disappointment? It sold many many copies over a much longer period than
the standard mass market celeb bio. The point was not how much money the
book made - it's the influence it had on so many gullible fans... plus it
fueled the world-wide universal hatred and misunderstanding of John's
widow. Goldman hurt Yoko and Sean and Julian, too. I wonder if you were
in Yoko's position whether you would think it's outrageous to compare
Goldman's book to Nazi propaganda.
> > Goldman's talents as a "hot" writer were wasted on his subjects,
> > and tell subsequent generations nothing of importance at all about
> > Lennon.
>
> Goldman's fatal mistake was to question the wrong idol. He had already
> taken quite a risk by telling the truth about Elvis, but then, Elvis
> isn't really respected everywhere. John Lennon has fans virtually
> everywhere, and is possibly the most beloved person in rock history. If
> he'd written his book about Phil Spector, no one would have blinked an
> eye.
>
Precisely my point. He was a culture vulture. He fancied himself an
iconoclast, but he was more of a plain cynic, with the dash of bitters
known as self-hatred. There's nothing more amusing to the swells than a
self-hating Jew... and Goldman wanted to be accepted into the A-List but
he never was.
> If you want to read a biography of John Lennon, listen to his
> > music. It's all there.
>
> Thanks, I'm sure quite a few people found that suggestion helpful.
>
Wow. You dabble in sarcasm, too?
> > Don't waste your time or your money reading this piece of shit calling
> > itself a biography. It's a bad book written by a sick fuck of a man.
> >
> > Without Goldman, there could be no Giuliano, no Seaman, and no Rosen.
> He
> > made pissing on John's grave semi-respectable. This is why he has been
> > relegated to eternal damnation without relief.
>
> Forced to watch all those Lennon-Ono experimental films and then
> every '60s Elvis movie on repeat until the universe ends?
>
Ah, the true colours are revealed. I love Yoko's films. They're as good
as Warhol and in many cases just as inventive. That you equate them with
Elvis's mass-produced quickies says more about your genuine bias than
anything that preceded it.
> >
> > --
> > “To live is so startling
> > It leaves little time
> > for anything else.”
>
> > -- Emily Dickinson (1830-1886)
>
> Incidentally, I have to wonder what you'd say to Camille Paglia's
> theory that Emily Dickinson was in fact "the female Sade", and that her
> poetry betrays an overwhelming obsession with blood and guts and death
> in general.
>
Camille Paglia has a tendency to spout off her opinions as if she were
the oracle to the backlash feminists. She's a very stylish academic who
has reinvented herself once or twice too often. Sexual Personae is a
terrific reference book, but if I were going to the college where she now
teaches (and I know she's moved about since she "came out") I wouldn't
sign up for her course. Too much selfserving pr and not enough sound
philosophy. Let's not get started on Emily...
> --
> "It takes a genius to make a fake the standard by which we come to
> judge the genuine." - Richey James Edwards
>
Your sig line indicates you just might think Goldman was a genius,
because my major point about the scumbag's work was that it influenced
the thinking on John Lennon as expressed by many in the then-new
journalism circles. His credentials were mediocre and so was his
intellect.
If Norman Mailer had undertaken the project, I'll wager he wouldn't have
slimed Yoko the way Goldman did. Hey, he was a bigoted burnout whose
values were pickled in Dewar's and water. He never "got it" about the
Beatles or Elvis or Lenny. He failed upward, then died. The sooner his
book is forgotten, the better.
Francie
--
“To live is so startling
It leaves little time
for anything else.”
-- Emily Dickinson (1830-1886)
http://sites.netscape.net/fabe9131944
Updated Decon Paul • More CD Info
je...@firemail.de
<frn...@netscape.net> wrote:
>In article <3a38172a...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>,
> je...@firemail.de wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 23:20:04 GMT, Duchess of Earle
>> <frn...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>
>> MYFN is a
>> >bogus "autobiography"
>>
>> For the umteenth time: It was never meant to be a full blown
>> biography, never mind an *auto*biography.
>>
>>
>
>Pardon me while I belch. Who gives a shit, Jesse?
You do, it seems, or you wouldn't always make a point of calling it an
autobiography.
UsurperTom
>Without Goldman, there could be no Giuliano
Giuliano has written controversial biographies of every Beatle except for
Ringo. John is just one of many targets for Giuliano.
>no Seaman
Fred was working on his book before Goldman did.
>He made pissing on John's grave semi-respectable.
If Goldman didn't "piss on John's grave," somebody else would have. Being a
rock star invites tell-all books. Rolling Stones' fans don't lose any sleep
over the books about their heroes. How come so many Beatle fans are
Puritanical?
Tom
UsurperTom
>There's no excuse for MYFN no matter what you call it.
If you have a problem with MYFN, don't fucking read it. Every celebrity is
entitled to their one whitewash biography (such as Coleman's "Lennon").
Tom
UsurperTom
>You don't have to be a great leader or a saint to be assassinated -
>Mussolini, for example, was neither. (Nor was John Lennon)
Recent evidence indicated that Stalin was killed by his secret police chief
Lavrenty Beria. That's another one. Don't forget Julius Caesar.
Assassination is a term that only applies to political leaders. John was not a
saint nor was he assassinated.
>Goldman worshipped Lenny Bruce and it
>was probably the only positive biography he ever wrote.
Goldman also used to hang out with Lenny Bruce. His book on Lenny Bruce was
widely acclaimed. The essays about Bruce in "Freakshow" are great too.
Goldman also advocated marijuana legalization in "Grass Roots."
>In my opinion, it's ridiculous to wait over a decade before responding
>to a book, and then expect to be taken seriously when you say things
>like this:
Yoko did respond to Goldman as soon as the book was excerpted in People. She
and Elliot Mintz convened a press conference where twelve-year old Sean claimed
that his father never hit him. Ten years later, Sean contradicted that
statement in an interview promoting "Into the Sun." Yoko was also interviewed
in Rolling Stone's October 20, 1988 cover story attacking "The Lives of John
Lennon."
>He had already
>taken quite a risk by telling the truth about Elvis, but then, Elvis
>isn't really respected everywhere.
Also, Rolling Stone excerpted "Elvis."
Tom
UsurperTom
>McCartney's covered his tracks
>so well that it would be close to impossible to get a decent number of
>interviews...
Geoffrey Giuliano got a hold of all of Paul's interviews when he wrote
"Blackbird." Paul wasn't able to stop Giuliano.
>I read his Elvis book with mounting disgust. I don't believe it
>because I have a broader and more positive world view.
Elvis didn't have a positive view of the Beatles, especially John.
>Linda McCartney once compared the eating of lobsters on Long
>Island to the Holocaust.
I condemn that statement. I've been consistent in condemning Paul and Linda's
shenanigans just as much as I condemn John and Yoko's. That's the reason why
watchdogs such as Goldman and Giuliano are needed. There's nothing wrong with
a healthy dose of iconoclasm.
> it
>fueled the world-wide universal hatred and misunderstanding of John's
>widow. Goldman hurt Yoko and Sean and Julian, too.
and Paul. Paul made the outlandish claim that John was off "all drugs" during
the last five years of John's life in Paul's statement denouncing Goldman.
>I wonder if you were
>in Yoko's position whether you would think it's outrageous to compare
>Goldman's book to Nazi propaganda.
If most of us were Yoko, we'd be content with our money and fame. Part of
being a public figure is the fact that not everybody's going to a fan of you.
>I wouldn't sign up for her course.
I attended a lecture of her's once.
Tom
Duchess of Earle
usurp...@aol.com (UsurperTom) wrote:
> Francie wrote:
>
> >McCartney's covered his tracks
> >so well that it would be close to impossible to get a decent number of
> >interviews...
>
> Geoffrey Giuliano got a hold of all of Paul's interviews when he wrote
> "Blackbird." Paul wasn't able to stop Giuliano.
>
Apparently GG makes up a lot of his stuff out of thin air. He uses the
Hitler technique of telling the Big Lie loud enough and often enough that
his idea of "watchdog" seems reasonable. It works on a small number of
dysfunctional filth-junkies. GG is no watchdog. He's like the dog that
eats its own vomit. He has no honor and no cred. So what?
> >I read his Elvis book with mounting disgust. I don't believe it
> >because I have a broader and more positive world view.
>
> Elvis didn't have a positive view of the Beatles, especially John.
>
Non sequitor, anyone? Tom, this is completely irrelevant. If E hadn't
died three years before John was assassinated, he might have changed his
mind... if he could ever get it out of prescription limbo.
> >Linda McCartney once compared the eating of lobsters on Long
> >Island to the Holocaust.
>
> I condemn that statement. I've been consistent in condemning Paul and Linda's
> shenanigans just as much as I condemn John and Yoko's. That's the reason why
> watchdogs such as Goldman and Giuliano are needed. There's nothing wrong with
> a healthy dose of iconoclasm.
>
These guys are purveyors of their own twisted inner demons in tabloid
style. They are NOT iconoclasts because their research is shoddy and
slapdash, they don't bother to vet their quotations, and they are
generally in the same class as thieves. They are soulless maggots on the
corpses of dead innovators. There is nothing healthy about the morbid
interest in pathographers like these assholes. That, in fact, is what I
am all about: exposing the fatal addiction our society has to celebrity.
> > it
> >fueled the world-wide universal hatred and misunderstanding of John's
> >widow. Goldman hurt Yoko and Sean and Julian, too.
>
> and Paul. Paul made the outlandish claim that John was off "all drugs" during
> the last five years of John's life in Paul's statement denouncing Goldman.
>
Well, if you could give me a reliable citation for that, I could use it
to show the 180 degree turn Paul made when the Goldman period faded. He
mentioned John's addiction as recently as September 29th - in connection
with his art exhibition! He alludes to drugs being the cause of the
breakdown in communications between himself and John... the height of
hypocrisy. I compare it to Elvis's famous photo-op with Nixon for his
help with the war on drugs.
> >I wonder if you were
> >in Yoko's position whether you would think it's outrageous to compare
> >Goldman's book to Nazi propaganda.
>
> If most of us were Yoko, we'd be content with our money and fame. Part of
> being a public figure is the fact that not everybody's going to a fan of you.
>
Dear Tom, you were reasonable until the end. What would you know about
the contentment of money and fame? There's no comfort in a mountain of
money and worldwide name recognition. Not when the man you love is dead
and you are the world's link to his artistic legacy.
Yoko has never wanted to be a star. That's not where she comes from at
all. She comes from an aristocratic banking family, has an extensive
education, and has been performing as a pianist since she was 5 years
old.
I still have hopes for you, Tom. Eventually you will see you have been
sold a bill of goods by the fiends Goldman, Seaman and Giuliano, and your
eyes will open for the first time.
I hope you get to Cleveland to see the Lennon installation there.
Áine Nic an Fhilidh
20001214071948...@ng-cl1.aol.com, "UsurperTom"
<usurp...@aol.com> wrote:
> Francie wrote:
>
>> McCartney's covered his tracks
>> so well that it would be close to impossible to get a decent number of
>> interviews...
>
> Geoffrey Giuliano got a hold of all of Paul's interviews when he wrote
> "Blackbird." Paul wasn't able to stop Giuliano.
I recommend a now out-of-print unauthorized bio of Paul by Chris Welch,
which was published in the mid-80's. It's one of the only *truly* objective
bios of Paul, meaning that the author had great respect for Paul's music and
accomplishments but at the same time wasn't afraid to comment on his
shortcomings, personality quirks, inconsistencies and musical misfires. The
fact is that Giuliano got a lot of his source material from Welch's book,
and edited it carefully to support his own theses (if "theses" is the right
word!) Particularly eye-opening to me is former Wings drummer Geoff
Britton's comments: Welch presents them largely unedited and thus in
context. Britton was said something quite different from what Giuliano
would have you think he said.
- d.
JLW44
>which was published in the mid-80's. It's one of the only *truly* objective
>bios of Paul, meaning that the author had great respect for Paul's music and
>accomplishments but at the same time wasn't afraid to comment on his
>shortcomings, personality quirks, inconsistencies and musical misfires.
I agree, good book. I believe he was a former writer for Melody Maker.
Bob Stahley
: Actually, unlike Goldman's tome, MYFN is considered by most to be a very
: important and valuable book. Not infallible, but certainly not utter tripe.
Agreed. Unlike Goldman, who attempted, and failed miserably, to don a
cloak of journalistic impartiality, Barry Miles' book makes no attempt to
be anything other than an outlet for Paul's thoughts and views, offering
exact quotes by Paul himself. It's, imho, perhaps one of the most honest
books ever written about the Beatles, even more honest than if, say, Paul
chose to get a "ghost" to write an "autobiography" (as Brian did with _A
Cellarful of Noise_).
No, of course: it can't be taken as "fact." Tho I won't fault and must
point out Miles' well-researched reporting of historical facts, Paul's
statements are just that: his opinions. And, most importantly, not
purported to be anything else.
Given the honesty in its presentation, that, in itself, makes it important
and valuable.
Bob Stahley
: And no, common sense IS NOT enough. We didn't know John...We may have
: ideas about what he was like, but the best resources are the records
: John left himself, and the accounts of those who knew him without a
: profit to gain from providing either too saintly or too grim a portrait
: of John.
This, of course, is the key problem: sifting though these so-called
"accounts of those who knew him" and analyzing them to determine which
accounts to acccept as credible and which to exclude, not just for the
reason you mention but other qualitative reasons as well, from the greater
examination.
Some people seem not to understand how exacting that need is, and how
demanding it actually is to do.
D 28IF
> That, in fact, is what I
>am all about: exposing the fatal addiction our society has to celebrity.
LOL!
>Yoko has never wanted to be a star.
Now who's delusional?
UsurperTom
>These guys are purveyors of their own twisted inner demons in tabloid
>style.
Would you be happier if another author wrote these books instead of Goldman and
Giuliano?
>They are soulless maggots on the corpses of dead innovators.
Giuliano (who I'm no big fan of) has written books on Paul, George and Pete
Townshhend. Only one of his subjects is dead. If I have a choice among
Giuliano, Mintz and Baker, I'd take Giuliano as the lesser of three evils.
>if you could give me a reliable citation for that, I could use it
>to show the 180 degree turn Paul made when the Goldman period faded. He
>mentioned John's addiction as recently as September 29th - in connection
>with his art exhibition!
It's in the introduction to the 1992 edition to Coleman's "Lennon." I'd love
to see Paul's exact September 29 quote. Paul has said that he used drugs too.
I wonder what drugs Yoko offered Paul to denounce the Goldman book.
>Not when the man you love is dead
>and you are the world's link to his artistic legacy.
I know that nobody is immune from tragedy. However, Yoko has moved on since
John's murder (much to her credit, I add). Conversely, Paul has never gotten
over losing Linda. Paul is now out of touch with reality and he's deader than
John is. If I shared your overly negative assessment of Paul, I'd be
celebrating his demise. You have no need to worry about the evil Paul
McCartney anymore.
Tom
Assia
Bob Stahley <bo...@primenet.com> wrote:
> gri...@my-deja.com wrote:
> : And no, common sense IS NOT enough. We didn't know John...We may
have
> : ideas about what he was like, but the best resources are the records
> : John left himself, and the accounts of those who knew him without a
> : profit to gain from providing either too saintly or too grim a
portrait
> : of John.
>
> This, of course, is the key problem: sifting though these so-called
> "accounts of those who knew him" and analyzing them to determine which
> accounts to acccept as credible and which to exclude, not just for the
> reason you mention but other qualitative reasons as well, from the
greater
> examination.
>
> Some people seem not to understand how exacting that need is, and how
> demanding it actually is to do.
Yes, some people do. Also they need to understand that an account can
be painful but still accurate. Lewisohn is fine, but hes not the Bible
of Beatleology. Theres more to the story than what he says.
Assia
> --
> __ __
> _) _) bo...@primenet.com Deck us all with Boston Charlie
> __)__) 'Tosa, Witzend Walla-Walla, Wash, and Kalamazoo!
>
Assia
Bob Stahley <bo...@primenet.com> wrote:
> nort...@mindspring.com wrote:
> : Actually, unlike Goldman's tome, MYFN is considered by most to be a
very
> : important and valuable book. Not infallible, but certainly not
utter tripe.
>
> Agreed. Unlike Goldman, who attempted, and failed miserably, to don a
> cloak of journalistic impartiality,
Goldmans mistake was he wasn't Lewisohn. Also he forgot to mention
what a great artist Yoko is. She is Dali and Picasso and Da Vinco all
wrapped up in one. But they dont give her credit all because shes
Japanese. And female. They are misogynists!!! (sp) And Goldman
talked about Johns and Yokos sex lives. Which must have been hard,
because they had such an ideal relationship; Lewisohn would never do a
thing like that!!! Obviously if Goldman writes about such personal
things, hes not impartial. And he has to be wrong. He just has to!
Assia
Barry Miles' book makes no attempt to
> be anything other than an outlet for Paul's thoughts and views,
offering
> exact quotes by Paul himself. It's, imho, perhaps one of the most
honest
> books ever written about the Beatles, even more honest than if, say,
Paul
> chose to get a "ghost" to write an "autobiography" (as Brian did with
_A
> Cellarful of Noise_).
>
> No, of course: it can't be taken as "fact." Tho I won't fault and
must
> point out Miles' well-researched reporting of historical facts, Paul's
> statements are just that: his opinions. And, most importantly, not
> purported to be anything else.
>
> Given the honesty in its presentation, that, in itself, makes it
important
> and valuable.
>
> --
> __ __
> _) _) bo...@primenet.com Deck us all with Boston Charlie
> __)__) 'Tosa, Witzend Walla-Walla, Wash, and Kalamazoo!
>
Assia
Assia <ass...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <91b1j9$ah$4...@nnrp2.phx.gblx.net>,
> Bob Stahley <bo...@primenet.com> wrote:
> > nort...@mindspring.com wrote:
> > : Actually, unlike Goldman's tome, MYFN is considered by most to be
a
> very
> > : important and valuable book. Not infallible, but certainly not
> utter tripe.
> >
> > Agreed. Unlike Goldman, who attempted, and failed miserably, to
don a
> > cloak of journalistic impartiality,
>
> Goldmans mistake was he wasn't Lewisohn. Also he forgot to mention
> what a great artist Yoko is. She is Dali and Picasso and Da Vinco all
> wrapped up in one. But they dont give her credit all because shes
> Japanese. And female.
Oh, I forgot to mention. Yoko is one of the principal (sp) flounders
of Feminism.
And she introduced it to Japan. Before Yoko, Japanese Women were in a
Dungeon of Domination. They Slaved in Suppression, and were beginning
to lose all hope. The men would beat them, and abuse them, and tie
their feet so they couldnt walk. And then send them into the rice
fields. And demand cooking, such as teriyaki and eggrolls. Then Yoko
came with her Feminism. Woman Power!!! Woman Power!!! She sang. Or
screamed. And the great Cloud of Oppression passed. Nothing remained
but the scent of sweet cherry blossums and peach orchards. Japan was
never the same.
Assia
Assia
Its true that before Goldman everyone loved and understood Yoko. But
Truth is like God. It is Eternal. Goldman will fade. But Yoko's art
and music and poetry and contributions to Peace and Love and Drug Free
Living shall live eternally.
True. Fame was thrust onto Yoko. Hers is talent the world cant
ignore. Some might say for her marriage to Lennon. But they would be
wrong...She was famous for her art before ever hearing of Beatles.
Somemight say for her art. Theyd be wrong...She was famous for her
piano concertos well before she heard the word America.
Assia
Duchess of Earle
Assia <ass...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>
> Its true that before Goldman everyone loved and understood Yoko.
I hope it's your youth talking, Assia, because *everyone* (strangers only
) did NOT love or understand Yoko from 1968 to 1980. Were you joking?
> > >
> > > and Paul. Paul made the outlandish claim that John was off "all
> drugs" during
> > > the last five years of John's life in Paul's statement denouncing
> Goldman.
>
>
>
> > Yoko has never wanted to be a star. That's not where she comes from at
> > all. She comes from an aristocratic banking family, has an extensive
> > education, and has been performing as a pianist since she was 5 years
> > old.
>
> True. Fame was thrust onto Yoko. Hers is talent the world cant
> ignore. Some might say for her marriage to Lennon. But they would be
> wrong...She was famous for her art before ever hearing of Beatles.
> Somemight say for her art. Theyd be wrong...She was famous for her
> piano concertos well before she heard the word America.
>
> Assia
>
So you do understand that Yoko was never taught to be the "retiring"
"demure" and most importantly "seen but not heard" wife that the world
wanted for its Beatle Boys. Should she go around acting as if she weren't
brilliant, talented and sexy? And now that she's almost 68 years young,
should she suddenly look to the American Dream for her priorities?
Assia
> Assia <ass...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Its true that before Goldman everyone loved and understood Yoko.
> <snip>
>
> I hope it's your youth talking, Assia, because *everyone* (strangers
only
> ) did NOT love or understand Yoko from 1968 to 1980. Were you joking?
I was talking about the Avant Garde Art Word. And the Leaders of the
Feminist Movement. We understood her. We admired her. We gave in to
her greatness and became inspired. Her greatness cant be denied. Not
by Goldman, not by misogynists, not by the millions who would drop
atomic bombs on the Land of the Rising Sun.
Yoko is the Rising Sun.
> > > >
> > > > and Paul. Paul made the outlandish claim that John was off "all
> > drugs" during
> > > > the last five years of John's life in Paul's statement
denouncing
> > Goldman.
> >
> >
> >
> > > Yoko has never wanted to be a star. That's not where she comes
from at
> > > all. She comes from an aristocratic banking family, has an
extensive
> > > education, and has been performing as a pianist since she was 5
years
> > > old.
> >
> > True. Fame was thrust onto Yoko. Hers is talent the world cant
> > ignore. Some might say for her marriage to Lennon. But they would
be
> > wrong...She was famous for her art before ever hearing of Beatles.
> > Somemight say for her art. Theyd be wrong...She was famous for her
> > piano concertos well before she heard the word America.
> >
> > Assia
> >
>
> So you do understand that Yoko was never taught to be the "retiring"
> "demure" and most importantly "seen but not heard" wife that the world
> wanted for its Beatle Boys.
I understand.
Should she go around acting as if she weren't
> brilliant, talented and sexy?
How could she deny her true essence?
> And now that she's almost 68 years young,
> should she suddenly look to the American Dream for her priorities?
68 years young.
Assia
aubad...@my-deja.com
You can get interviews about virtually anyone, no matter
how 'secretive' they're supposed to be. Witness Paul Alexander's recent
biography of J.D. Salinger, who was once considered an impossible
subject. Now with the tell-all books by his ex-lover and estranged
daughter, it seems like we know all too much about the man. (I haven't
read it because I know from his bios of James Dean - which read like a
badly-written piece of gay fan fiction- and Sylvia Plath that Alexander
is the worst kind of hack, worse even than Giuliano.)
> > You don't have to be a great leader or a saint to be assassinated -
> > Mussolini, for example, was neither. (Nor was John Lennon)
> >
>
> "Great" doesn't mean good. John Lennon was a great leader of youth in
> many countries, most notably the USA. Lennon was assassinated.
In the UK, Lennon on his own was little more than an eccentric old ex-
Beatle. In the USA, of course, he was a countercultural hero, a man of
peace. It's a telling detail that after his death the mourners
sang "She Loves You" in England and "Give Peace a Chance" in America.
One side mourning for the lost innocence of Beatlemania, the other for
the lost dreams of the radical Sixties.
I'm not sure whether or not the term 'assassination' would be
appropriate. While Lennon was not a politician, I believe that murders
committed for political or religious reasons could reasonably be
referred to as assassinations. Example: if Salman Rushdie had been
killed by one of the fanatics who were after him after the Ayatollah
called for his death, it couldn't really be classified as an ordinary
murder.
> > Did you read the same book I did? Goldman worshipped Lenny Bruce
and it
> > was probably the only positive biography he ever wrote. He went into
> > great detail about the sordid side of the man (which, incidentally,
> > doesn't automatically make a biography 'tabloid' and worthless -
some
> > people just lead sordid lives, after all), but the overall tone was
> > enthusiastic, and I think it's by far the best book on Bruce.
> >
>
> With all due respect, Goldman's Lenny is nothing like the real man.
There
> were many good sections (particularly the opening) that were highly
> colorful writing - but they could have been about any number of famous
> addicts. Lenny was never sordid.
Since I didn't know the man, I can't say how accurate the book was. But
from all I've read elsewhere, I think Goldman got far closer to
capturing the essence of Lenny Bruce than, say, that film with Dustin
Hoffman.
> I read his Elvis book with mounting disgust. I don't believe it
> because I have a broader and more positive world view. This doesn't
make
> me a romantic or a sycophant.
Having a 'broader and more positive world view' has nothing to do with
it. Goldman's Elvis book was the least of his books (the 1981 one - I
haven't read his later one about Elvis' last 24 hours) because Goldman
really didn't 'get' Elvis as a musician or a creative force; he just
considered him a particularly bizarre character (which he was,
regardless of what you think of his music) who deserved to be written
about in detail and without the kind of sentimentality that clogs
virtually every other book about the man. So I wouldn't recommend his
book to Elvis fans, but I don't dismiss it altogether. After all, I
don't think anyone got angry when Goldman told the truth about Colonel
Parker.
I've read hundreds of biographies, and none
> of Goldman's hatchet jobs measure u as true biographies. There is much
> too much Goldman and nowhere near enough of his subjects. He burnt
> himself out, a self-hating Jew, a hanger-on who loved getting down in
the
> dirt with people like Seaman - vicariously getting "close" to John and
> Yoko from the perspective of kitchen vermin.
I don't get the 'self-hating Jew' part, since I've seen no evidence of
that in any of his writings. As for Fred Seaman, I'd take everything he
says about Yoko Ono with a grain of salt since he has personal reasons
for disliking her, but I see no reason to disregard everything he says
about John. His book contains a lot of great detail you won't find
anywhere else (except Goldman, and he got it from Seaman) - stuff on
John's trip to Bermuda, his admiration for Bob Marley, and his thoughts
on the death of Peter Sellers - that I found fascinating. Even Ray
Coleman said that Seaman's book was worth reading.
> Wow. I'm sure your questioning of Yoko Ono's character will be a
> shattering loss to her self-esteem.
If Yoko Ono really doesn't give a damn about what we write here on this
newsgroup, why do some people react to any criticism of her as if it's
equivalent to slapping her in the face?
> I don't know where you get the idea Yoko hasn't spoken out against
> Goldman before this. Through her spokesmen she has objected
strenuously
> to the project... and I agree with her when she compares Goldman to
the
> creators of the Nazi propaganda films of the 30's and 40's. Those
films
> are historical documents of the ugliest campaign against a people in
> memory. By being bigger and louder and more fashionably pathogenic
than
> any other book about a Beatle in his own time, Goldman's work is a
> permanent stain on the literature of rock & roll.
Whatever that means - and of course it means nothing at all. I have no
idea what 'pathogenic' means. It sounds like you confused 'pathography'
with 'photogenic' and came up with a warped, but appropriate,
portmanteau. As for the "literature of rock & roll," there are maybe a
dozen books in the field in over three decades that I would consider
remotely worthwhile, and Goldman's book is among them. But even if it
weren't, and even if it were as terrible as you say it is, I don't weep
for the stained legacy of rock writing - the majority of it, after all,
is awful.
> I wonder how it is you dismiss Yoko's emotional response (especially
> without vetting the quote or the interview or the circumstances) with
sch
> ease...
This didn't come from an interview. Mojo magazine, having commissioned
Barry Miles to write about Goldman, asked Yoko Ono to respond. Since
the response was written, not spoken, she had plenty of time to
consider her statement, and get past any 'emotionalism' that might
excuse her crassness. I'll type up the rest of her response if you
like; that was just the part that struck me the most.
> Linda McCartney once compared the eating of lobsters on Long
> Island to the Holocaust. So what?
So what? I suppose what you really mean is that Yoko's statement is
excusable because she was responding 'emotionally' and Linda
McCartney's is not because you dislike Linda McCartney. And you, no
doubt, expect me to respond by defending Linda and putting down Yoko.
As it happens, both of those comparisons are equally stupid. (I'd like
to see the exact quote from Linda, though)
> > The Goldman book was a commercial disappointment, and is out of
print.
> > Wasn't Coleman's book a bestseller? And also, come to think of it,
> > published in the '80s.
> >
>
> Disappointment? It sold many many copies over a much longer period
than
> the standard mass market celeb bio.
From Victor Bockris' article:
"Despite appearing on the New York Times bestseller list, the Lennon
book was a disappointment, only reaching number eight and falling off
after a few weeks. As far as the editors were concerned, he was a
Judas, and now that he had done his work they washed their hands of
him."
The point was not how much money the
> book made - it's the influence it had on so many gullible fans...
plus it
> fueled the world-wide universal hatred and misunderstanding of John's
> widow. Goldman hurt Yoko and Sean and Julian, too.
Virtually every fan I know hates the book and considers Albert Goldman
the anti-christ. If anything, Goldman hurt himself more than anyone
else when he wrote the book. Yoko Ono has gone from being one of the
most hated women in the world to being someone you can't criticize
(even on an artistic level) without being accused of sexism or racism.
Albert Goldman ended his life as the most hated writer in America,
apparently friendless except for a few fellow biographers who
understood what he was striving for in his work, while hacks like Kitty
Kelley and Geoffrey Giuliano continue to walk the earth.
> I wonder if you were
> in Yoko's position whether you would think it's outrageous to compare
> Goldman's book to Nazi propaganda.
I can't say, but I hope I'd be aware enough to recognize that comparing
the effect of some book to the horrors visited upon the victims of the
Holocaust is odious.
> > If you want to read a biography of John Lennon, listen to his
> > > music. It's all there.
> >
> > Thanks, I'm sure quite a few people found that suggestion helpful.
> >
>
> Wow. You dabble in sarcasm, too?
Sarcasm? What's that?
> > Forced to watch all those Lennon-Ono experimental films and then
> > every '60s Elvis movie on repeat until the universe ends?
> >
> Ah, the true colours are revealed. I love Yoko's films. They're as
good
> as Warhol and in many cases just as inventive. That you equate them
with
> Elvis's mass-produced quickies says more about your genuine bias than
> anything that preceded it.
As good as Warhol's films isn't much of a compliment. I like Warhol and
think he was a great anti-artist, but I think one could get just as
much out of staring at one of his prints for an hour as watching one of
his films.
As far as John and Yoko's films, I didn't mean it as a serious put-
down; it was a lighthearted response to your comment about Albert
Goldman being condemned to eternal suffering. I have no 'bias' against
Yoko Ono; the fact that I don't think her films are as brilliant as you
do doesn't mean I'm doomed to burn forever in the seat next to Goldman
in that purgatorial movie theater.
> > > --
> > > “To live is so startling
> > > It leaves little time
> > > for anything else.”
> >
> > > -- Emily Dickinson (1830-1886)
> >
> > Incidentally, I have to wonder what you'd say to Camille Paglia's
> > theory that Emily Dickinson was in fact "the female Sade", and that
her
> > poetry betrays an overwhelming obsession with blood and guts and
death
> > in general.
> >
> Camille Paglia has a tendency to spout off her opinions as if she were
> the oracle to the backlash feminists. She's a very stylish academic
who
> has reinvented herself once or twice too often. Sexual Personae is a
> terrific reference book, but if I were going to the college where she
now
> teaches (and I know she's moved about since she "came out") I wouldn't
> sign up for her course. Too much selfserving pr and not enough sound
> philosophy. Let's not get started on Emily...
I agree entirely. I first read Paglia when I stumbled across her Salon
column a couple years ago and for a while thought she was brilliant.
Having read her books since then, though, I feel a bit let down. For
all her supposedly controversial statements, she's really not that
radical or original a thinker. Still, always interesting to read her
views on current events.
> > --
> > "It takes a genius to make a fake the standard by which we come to
> > judge the genuine." - Richey James Edwards
> >
>
> Your sig line indicates you just might think Goldman was a genius,
> because my major point about the scumbag's work was that it influenced
> the thinking on John Lennon as expressed by many in the then-new
> journalism circles. His credentials were mediocre and so was his
> intellect.
No, my sig line has nothing to do with Goldman, and I doubt you know
who Richey Edwards is. (Not a slight, since he's an extremely obscure
figure in the U.S., and extremely famous in the U.K.)
> If Norman Mailer had undertaken the project, I'll wager he wouldn't
have
> slimed Yoko the way Goldman did.
No, he would have done it in his own way. I'm sorry Mailer hasn't
written a book about Lennon. I'm sure it would be fascinating to read,
and I think he would have arrived, ultimately, at the same conclusions
Goldman did. In fact, such a book would have been far more harmful to
Lennon and Ono's reputations, since Mailer is viewed as a serious
writer and Goldman as a grave-robbing hack. But to me, Goldman's best
is comparable with Mailer's best, and his worst (that I've read) is at
least more readable than Mailer's worst.
> Hey, he was a bigoted burnout whose
> values were pickled in Dewar's and water. He never "got it" about the
> Beatles or Elvis or Lenny. He failed upward, then died. The sooner his
> book is forgotten, the better.
>
We've reached a time when virtually every rock writer has been rescued
from the dustbin of history, whether as brilliant as Lester Bangs or
lame as Richard Meltzer (sorry), and awarded their own official cult
and 600-page anthology. Stanley Booth's book on the Rolling Stones is
considered a literary classic. Even someone as strident and uninspiring
as Dave Marsh receives critical respect. But Albert Goldman remains
either ignored or scorned, because he didn't like Elvis and found John
Lennon disappointing as a person (not as an artist). And yet he could
outwrite anyone on the staff of Rolling Stone or Spin today. Sorry, I
just don't get it.
--
"It takes a genius to make a fake the standard by which we come to
judge the genuine." - Richey James Edwards
Ehtue
>In the UK, Lennon on his own was little more than an eccentric old ex-
>Beatle. In the USA, of course, he was a countercultural hero, a man of
>peace. It's a telling detail that after his death the mourners
>sang "She Loves You" in England and "Give Peace a Chance" in America.
>One side mourning for the lost innocence of Beatlemania, the other for
>the lost dreams of the radical Sixties.
Interesting take. I hadn't know that about the British mourning expression.
-Ehtue
UsurperTom
>I don't get the 'self-hating Jew' part, since I've seen no evidence of
>that in any of his writings.
Point well-taken. What does Goldman's Jewishness have to do with his
credentials as a biographer?
>I don't weep
>for the stained legacy of rock writing - the majority of it, after all,
>is awful.
Frank Zappa summed it up perfectly when he said, "Rock writers are people who
can't write who write articles for people who can't read by interviewing people
who can't talk."
>I'll type up the rest of her response if you
>like; that was just the part that struck me the most.
I would like to see more of Yoko's response. I wonder how much of it
contradicts other statements Yoko made over the years.
>And yet he could
>outwrite anyone on the staff of Rolling Stone or Spin today.
Rolling Stone actually excerpted "Elvis" in 1981 because Elvis wasn't hip
enough for them. They didn't turn against Goldman until "The Lives of John
Lennon" came out seven years later.
Tom
Eleanor Roosevelt
usurp...@aol.com (UsurperTom) wrote:
> aubade1984 wrote:
>
> >I don't get the 'self-hating Jew' part, since I've seen no evidence of
> >that in any of his writings.
>
> Point well-taken. What does Goldman's Jewishness have to do with his
> credentials as a biographer?
>
If somebody took both your brainpans and scooped them out into a bowl,
there still wouldn't be enough gray matter to comprehend this concept.
> >I don't weep
> >for the stained legacy of rock writing - the majority of it, after all,
> >is awful.
>
Well, that's looking at it bassackwards. It was the invaders like Goldman
who sold a couple pieces to LIFE magazine (but he couldn't touch Richard
Goldstein, whose Sgt Pepper essay was a classic.
The point was the straight journalists were older and they knew how to
write, but the excitement was in the advent of gonzo jornalism as
practiced by Hunter S. Thompson.
> Frank Zappa summed it up perfectly when he said, "Rock writers are people who
> can't write who write articles for people who can't read by interviewing people
> who can't talk."
>
He's right about that. Goldman wasn't even a real *rock* writer. Of
COURSE RS excerpted the Elvis book. You don't know what the fuck you're
talking about when you say E wasn't hip enough for RS. In 1977 when he
finally died, it was covered from a number of different angles, including
the books written by E's friends, set to be published around his death,
to maximize the profit for the cronies. They would split their profits
50-50 with the ghosts.
> >I'll type up the rest of her response if you
> >like; that was just the part that struck me the most.
>
> I would like to see more of Yoko's response. I wonder how much of it
> contradicts other statements Yoko made over the years.
>
If you are human, you contradict yourself. So fucking what.
> >And yet he could
> >outwrite anyone on the staff of Rolling Stone or Spin today.
>
Maybe he could outwrite today's staff - but that ain;t sayin' much. RS
has changed into a buyer's guide. But Goldman couldn't hold a candle to
the real rock critics and essayists like Thompson, Eszterhas, Landau,
Grover Lewis and Ben Fong Torres. Goldman only wished he could shoot the
shit with the boys in the back of that bus.
> Rolling Stone actually excerpted "Elvis" in 1981 because Elvis wasn't hip
> enough for them. They didn't turn against Goldman until "The Lives of John
> Lennon" came out seven years later.
> Tom
>
>
Again, you are 180 degrees off the mark there, UTom. Elvis was always the
King and the only reason Wenner didn't do more to promote his 72 comeback
was he was obsessed with Lennon. The subsidiary rights sale of the book
was a lucky break for Goldman, but it was a standard deal, no agent worth
his salt would fail to make that deal. I know Wenner. He probably paid
less than $10K for the rights - and Goldman would have to split the fee
with his book publisher. It was No Big Whoop.
Francie
--
No one is perfect.
No, but by the flaws
in the picture the truth
will emerge.
-- William S. Burroughs
~~
http://sites.netscape.net/fabest/homepage
INSIDE LIFE AFTER PAUL McCARTNEY
Lizz Holmans
<usurp...@aol.com> writes
>Rolling Stone actually excerpted "Elvis" in 1981 because Elvis wasn't hip
>enough for them. They didn't turn against Goldman until "The Lives of John
>Lennon" came out seven years later.
Not 'xactly true. The first time I heard about Goldman's book on Lenny
Bruce was Ralph Gleason's editorial in Rolling Stone denouncing it as
inaccurate and immoral.
Lizz 'Now tell me who Ralph Gleason was for the grand prize' Holmans
--
Lizz Holmans
aubad...@my-deja.com
Eleanor Roosevelt <frn...@netscape.net> wrote:
> > Point well-taken. What does Goldman's Jewishness have to do with
his
> > credentials as a biographer?
> >
> If somebody took both your brainpans and scooped them out into a bowl,
> there still wouldn't be enough gray matter to comprehend this concept.
Lighten up, Eleanor. Maybe this is a personal vendetta for you, but the
rest of us aren't half as impressed by your cleverness as you are.
It was the invaders like Goldman
> who sold a couple pieces to LIFE magazine (but he couldn't touch
Richard
> Goldstein, whose Sgt Pepper essay was a classic.
A 'couple pieces'? According to Bob Stahley's much-reposted (and
reposted, and reposted...) 'definitive' post on 'the tell-all books',
Goldman was "a popular music critic for Life magazine from 1970
to '73." It's unclear whether he means that Goldman was popular as a
critic, or that he only reviewed pop music, or 'popular' music.
> The point was the straight journalists were older and they knew how to
> write, but the excitement was in the advent of gonzo jornalism as
> practiced by Hunter S. Thompson.
>
> > Frank Zappa summed it up perfectly when he said, "Rock writers are
people who
> > can't write who write articles for people who can't read by
interviewing people
> > who can't talk."
"Music journalists are a species of foul vermin. I mean, I wouldn't
hire people like you to guard my sewer." - Lou Reed
> He's right about that. Goldman wasn't even a real *rock* writer.
Of
> COURSE RS excerpted the Elvis book. You don't know what the fuck
you're
> talking about when you say E wasn't hip enough for RS. In 1977 when he
> finally died, it was covered from a number of different angles,
including
> the books written by E's friends, set to be published around his
death,
> to maximize the profit for the cronies.
If you're referring to "Elvis: What Happened?" by the former members of
the Memphis Mafia, it was published before Elvis's death. The authors
had no idea Elvis was about to kick the bucket.
>
> Maybe he could outwrite today's staff - but that ain;t sayin' much. RS
> has changed into a buyer's guide. But Goldman couldn't hold a candle
to
> the real rock critics and essayists like Thompson, Eszterhas, Landau,
> Grover Lewis and Ben Fong Torres. Goldman only wished he could shoot
the
> shit with the boys in the back of that bus.
I'm not terribly familiar with most of these people, except for Hunter
Thompson, who wasn't a rock critic. In any case, Goldman's work in
the '80s was far superior to that of HST, who'd been sold on his own
myth by that time and had become a virtual self-parody. Read his book
on the '92 election, Better Than Sex, and compare it to what he wrote
about the '72 campaign. The one exception to this is probably the best
piece he's ever written, his obituary for Richard Nixon. His words
should have been on Nixon's tombstone, except that HST wanted his body
launched into a "sewage canal" or "burned in a trash bin." Speak no ill
of the dead? Well, as HST said, "Why not?"
The only rock writers consistently worth reading were Nik Cohn, Greil
Marcus, and Lester Bangs. Goldman, erratic as he was, was among the few
who approached their greatness on occasion.
> Again, you are 180 degrees off the mark there, UTom. Elvis was always
the
> King and the only reason Wenner didn't do more to promote his 72
comeback
> was he was obsessed with Lennon. The subsidiary rights sale of the
book
> was a lucky break for Goldman, but it was a standard deal, no agent
worth
> his salt would fail to make that deal. I know Wenner. He probably paid
> less than $10K for the rights - and Goldman would have to split the
fee
> with his book publisher. It was No Big Whoop.
Who cares how much anyone was paid? The point was they printed excepts
from a book so negative about the King that Robert Christgau called
A.G. "a dangerous person who really ought to be stopped." In the case
of Elvis, apparently, they were willing to hear all sides of the story.
Not so in the case of John Lennon.
--
"It takes a genius to make a fake the standard by which we come to
judge the genuine." - Richey James Edwards
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Eleanor Roosevelt
aubad...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <91eq19$699$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>
> Lighten up, Eleanor. Maybe this is a personal vendetta for you, but the
> rest of us aren't half as impressed by your cleverness as you are.
>
> It was the invaders like Goldman
> > who sold a couple pieces to LIFE magazine (but he couldn't touch
> Richard
> > Goldstein, whose Sgt Pepper essay was a classic.
>
> A 'couple pieces'? According to Bob Stahley's much-reposted (and
> reposted, and reposted...) 'definitive' post on 'the tell-all books',
> Goldman was "a popular music critic for Life magazine from 1970
> to '73." It's unclear whether he means that Goldman was popular as a
> critic, or that he only reviewed pop music, or 'popular' music.
>
Goldman was not a reviewer at all. He wrote occasional essays on pop
culture which appeared sporadically over the period Stahley describes. He
was part of the "second wave" of Beatle era journalists, but by no means
the best writer or thinker. Look him up some time. His stuff doesn't
stand up at all. It's too subjective and as much about the writer as they
are about "his times".
> > The point was the straight journalists were older and they knew how to
> > write, but the excitement was in the advent of gonzo jornalism as
> > practiced by Hunter S. Thompson.
> >
> > > Frank Zappa summed it up perfectly when he said, "Rock writers are
> people who
> > > can't write who write articles for people who can't read by
> interviewing people
> > > who can't talk."
>
> "Music journalists are a species of foul vermin. I mean, I wouldn't
> hire people like you to guard my sewer." - Lou Reed
>
Duh. Rock musicians didn't like the vermin who scurried around them on
the road. Writers hate their publishers. I hated Wenner. So did everyone
who worked at the RS offices.
> > He's right about that. Goldman wasn't even a real *rock* writer.
> Of
> > COURSE RS excerpted the Elvis book. You don't know what the fuck
> you're
> > talking about when you say E wasn't hip enough for RS. In 1977 when he
> > finally died, it was covered from a number of different angles,
> including
> > the books written by E's friends, set to be published around his
> death,
> > to maximize the profit for the cronies.
>
> If you're referring to "Elvis: What Happened?" by the former members of
> the Memphis Mafia, it was published before Elvis's death. The authors
> had no idea Elvis was about to kick the bucket.
How stupid do you really think these people were? Sheesh.
> >
> > Maybe he could outwrite today's staff - but that ain;t sayin' much. RS
> > has changed into a buyer's guide. But Goldman couldn't hold a candle
> to
> > the real rock critics and essayists like Thompson, Eszterhas, Landau,
> > Grover Lewis and Ben Fong Torres. Goldman only wished he could shoot
> the
> > shit with the boys in the back of that bus.
>
> I'm not terribly familiar with most of these people, except for Hunter
> Thompson, who wasn't a rock critic. In any case, Goldman's work in
> the '80s was far superior to that of HST, who'd been sold on his own
> myth by that time and had become a virtual self-parody. Read his book
> on the '92 election, Better Than Sex, and compare it to what he wrote
> about the '72 campaign. The one exception to this is probably the best
> piece he's ever written, his obituary for Richard Nixon. His words
> should have been on Nixon's tombstone, except that HST wanted his body
> launched into a "sewage canal" or "burned in a trash bin." Speak no ill
> of the dead? Well, as HST said, "Why not?"
>
> The only rock writers consistently worth reading were Nik Cohn, Greil
> Marcus, and Lester Bangs. Goldman, erratic as he was, was among the few
> who approached their greatness on occasion.
>
Bullshit. First you say you don't recognize the names of the rock
journalists I cited. Then you name three writers you are familiar with
and decide they were the only ones worth reading. Who died and appointed
you the expert? That's your opinion, and it means almost nothing to the
people who frequent this newsgroup. And what does HST's writing in the
90's have to do with this discussion? Nothing. Thompson was reporting on
the world of rock in the Sixties. He was the first to write about
American politics as if it were some drug-infused music festival and
freak show combined.
You can perpetrate a vendetta against a dead guy, y'know.
I will continue to fight for what I know to be the truth. If you don't
like that, tough.
Francie
Remember, In 1971-74 I was part of Rolling Stone, too. I sold them a
couple of pieces, including one about the Los Angeles Lakers, who had
many fans among rock n rollers (McCartney excluded). They published my
first book. I hung out with these guys for a long long time and I know
what I'm talking about when I say Goldman was NOT a respected rock
critic. He was just another bozo on the bus.
Francie
--
No one is perfect.
No, but by the flaws
in the picture the truth
will emerge.
-- William S. Burroughs
~~
http://sites.netscape.net/fabest
INSIDE LIFE AFTER PAUL McCARTNEY
Eleanor Roosevelt
a dead guy..." but then I read the post and I see that Goldman's
vendettas against dead guys Lenny, Elvis and John was relatively
successful in that he tainted the images people held in their hearts...
this is not iconoclastic literature at all.
Let's face it, kiddies. Albert Goldman was a blight on the medium of
biography. He was not the first pathographer (a term coined by Joyce
Carol Oates, a *real* writer) nor was he the first to break gossipy
stories speculating about personal details of his "icons" private lives.
That has been going on for hundreds of years. At first the word was
spread by servants who were bribed or otherwise fucked by higherups and
Machiavellian middlemen in service to the feudal lord.
Are Ted Turner, Steve Case and Bill Gates any different from Elvis,
Lenny, or John? One big change in the last fifty years: Back in the day,
we were enamored of cultural icons. Now we are controlled by Deep
Pockets' moguls who really know nothing about rock & roll (what it was)
or art (what it is).
I didn't mean to sound so angry yesterday. But I am taking some heavy
incoming shots in other threads and other forums (or fora, for the anal),
and I was both stoned *and* fatigued.
Anyway, please carry on if you think you have some original theories
about what killed Albert Goldman, and/or how Goldman wedged himself into
Beatle history. I welcome anyone's contrary opinions of what I post here.
But I am not accepting flames and I am not responsible for replies to
others who attack me personally or bring in ancient posts in other
groups.
marcu...@webtv.net
1. Guilt
2. Negativity from what goes around comes around.
3. Literary parasitism
I usually don't like to say bad things about those who have passed over,
figuring that they must now be dealing with judging themselves for their
good and bad traits while on Earth, but with Goldman I'll make an
exception. He was a character assassin, unable to confront those he
disliked while alive, he waited until they could not refute him before
unleashing his bile-filled prose. I first encountered his venom when
reading his book about Lenny Bruce.
There was an excellent Rolling Stone article refuting much of Goldman's
book on Lennon. It's in Issue 537, 10/30/88, a special Rolling Stone
Issue abut John when the movie "Imagine:John Lennon" came out. The
article is entitled: "Imaginary Lennon: The True Story Behind Albert
Goldman's Character Assassination Of John Lennon" by David Fricke and
Jeffrey Ressner. I have that issue sitting on my lap, but it is much
too lengthy for me to post here. Suggest you visit the archives at
Rolling Stone's website.
marcus1950
-------------------------------------
"I think, therefore I am."
Descartes
"I am what I am."
Popeye
"I am whatever you say I am."
Eminem
Progress?
D 28IF
>There was an excellent Rolling Stone article refuting much of Goldman's
>book on Lennon. It's in Issue 537, 10/30/88, a special Rolling Stone
>Issue abut John when the movie "Imagine:John Lennon" came out. The
>article is entitled: "Imaginary Lennon: The True Story Behind Albert
>Goldman's Character Assassination Of John Lennon" by David Fricke and
>Jeffrey Ressner. I have that issue sitting on my lap, but it is much
>too lengthy for me to post here. Suggest you visit the archives at
>Rolling Stone's website.
It's been a long time since I read that issue. How many of the things written
to refute Goldman come from Mintz? How many of those things have been found to
be nothing more than PR, with people later speaking out, giving different
stories? Isn't Sean one of them? Didn't he used to say his father was next to a
saint when raising him, only to come out, during promotion for an album, and
declare what a bastard he could be back then?
Eleanor Roosevelt
marcu...@webtv.net wrote:
<snip>
>
> There was an excellent Rolling Stone article refuting much of Goldman's
> book on Lennon. It's in Issue 537, 10/30/88, a special Rolling Stone
> Issue abut John when the movie "Imagine:John Lennon" came out. The
> article is entitled: "Imaginary Lennon: The True Story Behind Albert
> Goldman's Character Assassination Of John Lennon" by David Fricke and
> Jeffrey Ressner. I have that issue sitting on my lap, but it is much
> too lengthy for me to post here. Suggest you visit the archives at
> Rolling Stone's website.
>
Think I'll mosey on over there... thanks, marc!
Frannie or Schwartz
OBC: On Time-Life's website the archives hold RS's original review of
Imagine. The rock writers of that time sure sang a different tune back
then...
Camouflage
<marcu...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:18272-3A...@storefull-615.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> I usually don't like to say bad things about those who have passed over,
> figuring that they must now be dealing with judging themselves for their
> good and bad traits while on Earth, but with Goldman I'll make an
> exception. He was a character assassin, unable to confront those he
> disliked while alive, he waited until they could not refute him before
> unleashing his bile-filled prose
exactly. and these nitwits like uTom and ny who quote him are also low life
parasites.
Nyarlathotep
>
> 1. Guilt
> 2. Negativity from what goes around comes around.
> 3. Literary parasitism
Very mystical. My understanding is that he actually died of a rare
form of cancer.
> I usually don't like to say bad things about those who have passed
over,
> figuring that they must now be dealing with judging themselves for
their
> good and bad traits while on Earth,
My own view is that, when a person is dead, he is dead.
> but with Goldman I'll make an
> exception. He was a character assassin, unable to confront those he
> disliked while alive,
He actually did confront Lennon -- and in depth. (His interview
w/Lennon appeared in Charlie magazine in 1970 or so.)
And you can't just assume that, because Goldman's portrait of
Lennon is contrary to the official fairytales, that Goldman is a
character assassin.
You'd be better off addressing Goldman's claims specifically.
Which claims of Goldman do you believe to be incorrect? Why?
>he waited until they could not refute him before
> unleashing his bile-filled prose.
Most of the key players in Goldman's Lennon bio are still alive. Most
of them stand by Goldman's statements.
I first encountered his venom when
> reading his book about Lenny Bruce.
>
> There was an excellent Rolling Stone article refuting much of
Goldman's
> book on Lennon. It's in Issue 537, 10/30/88, a special Rolling Stone
> Issue abut John when the movie "Imagine:John Lennon" came out. The
> article is entitled: "Imaginary Lennon: The True Story Behind Albert
> Goldman's Character Assassination Of John Lennon" by David Fricke and
> Jeffrey Ressner. I have that issue sitting on my lap, but it is much
> too lengthy for me to post here. Suggest you visit the archives at
> Rolling Stone's website.
Actually, that RS article is a disgusting piece of scribble.
Newsweek magazine exposed many (though not all) of the serious flaws in
the article in an article of their own from '88 or so.
UsurperTom
>The point was they printed excepts
>from a book so negative about the King that Robert Christgau called
>A.G. "a dangerous person who really ought to be stopped."
Also, Greil Marcus denounced Goldman's "Elvis" as "cultural genocide."
Tom
Nyarlathotep
d2...@aol.com (D 28IF) wrote:
> >From: marcu...@webtv.net
>
> >There was an excellent Rolling Stone article refuting much of
Goldman's
> >book on Lennon. It's in Issue 537, 10/30/88, a special Rolling Stone
> >Issue abut John when the movie "Imagine:John Lennon" came out. The
> >article is entitled: "Imaginary Lennon: The True Story Behind Albert
> >Goldman's Character Assassination Of John Lennon" by David Fricke and
> >Jeffrey Ressner. I have that issue sitting on my lap, but it is much
> >too lengthy for me to post here. Suggest you visit the archives at
> >Rolling Stone's website.
>
> It's been a long time since I read that issue. How many of the things
written
> to refute Goldman come from Mintz?
Most of 'em. It's a very feeble article. It was obviously written
with the intention of consoling people. The problem is that one would
have to lack a critical faculty in order to derive any consolation from
it.
> How many of those things have been
found to
> be nothing more than PR, with people later speaking out, giving
different
> stories?
Most of 'em.
Isn't Sean one of them? Didn't he used to say his father was
next to a
> saint when raising him, only to come out, during promotion for an
album, and
> declare what a bastard he could be back then?
Yep. I think that Yoko has undergone a comparable 180.
Much of what has emanated from Mintz (and thus ultimately from
Yoko) *after* JL's death, BTW, has been intended to subtlely (sometimes
not-so-subtlely) diminish John Lennon and, on the other hand, aggrandize
Yoko.
On occasion, Mintz has compared Sean Ono to John Lennon, and if we
are to take Mintz at his word, Sean is the far more impressive human
being. Mintz says, e.g., that Sean is far more grounded than John
Lennon ever was.
I wonder if, in pointing out the stark contrasts between Sean and
John, Mintz reveals more than he intends to.
UsurperTom
>Newsweek magazine exposed many (though not all) of the serious flaws in
>the article in an article of their own from '88 or so.
They sure did. Newsweek's cover story, "John Lennon: The Battle Over His
Memory," appeared in the October 17, 1988 issue.
Tom
Nyarlathotep
Yes. Anyone who's genuinely interested in the debate over Goldman
should read this article. Someone (Lisa?) was good enough to post it to
RMB a while back, so it's in the archives.
Eleanor Roosevelt
And you are fulla crap as usual.
I'm sure you believe that Yoko's efforts on behalf of her murdered
husband have been half-hearted...
But that's because you haven't got a fuckin clue.
Guess you think the Lennon Museum, about which a detailed account of a
recent visit, was meant to diminish John's memory and elevate Yoko's
image...
But that's because you're a full-on idiot asshole.
People can read Rolling Stone all by themselves. And they can decide the
value of the article dissecting Goldman's hatchet job.
So shut the fuck up and go back to your endless thread which nobody wants
to plow thru to read any more. No matter how many times you add to it,
you're not going to fool anyone.
You have one story to tell and one note to play.
They're both about as enightening as bucket of horse piss. And about as
smart.
Get a clue.
Nighty-nite.
Francie
--
No one is perfect.
No, but by the flaws
in the picture the truth
will emerge.
-- William S. Burroughs
~~
http://sites.netscape.net/fabest
INSIDE LIFE AFTER PAUL McCARTNEY
Nyarlathotep
Eleanor Roosevelt <frn...@netscape.net> wrote:
> Nyny, the young man's name is Sean Lennon. Not Sean Ono.
Well, yes. That's his name.
> And you are fulla crap as usual.
You're fecally fixated, as usual (perhaps as a result of your
behavior towards Yoko). If you genuinely believe that anything I've
ever said about Yoko is incorrect, let's see your evidence to that
effect.
> I'm sure you believe that Yoko's efforts on behalf of her murdered
> husband have been half-hearted...
Which supposed efforts "on behalf" of John do you have in mind?
I don't dispute that her money-making efforts using JL's name were
perfunctory; no, she is truly into that!
As for her eternally-grieving widow act, *that* is certainly
phony.
> But that's because you haven't got a fuckin clue.
If anything I've ever said about her is incorrect, let's see your
evidence. Your spastic displays of vulgarity carry no weight with me.
> Guess you think the Lennon Museum, about which a detailed account of a
> recent visit, was meant to diminish John's memory and elevate Yoko's
> image...
It was probably intended to enhance Ono's ever-grieving widow
charade.
> But that's because you're a full-on idiot asshole.
I stand by my earlier statements re: your fecal fixation & general
vulgarity.
>
> People can read Rolling Stone all by themselves. And they can decide
the
> value of the article dissecting Goldman's hatchet job.
One reader isn't necessarily as sharp or well-informed as the next.
One assessment of the RS sycophantic-scribble isn't accurate good as
the next.
>
> So shut the fuck up and go back to your endless thread which nobody
wants
> to plow thru to read any more.
The vitality of that thread astonishes me. I've been away for 6
days, and it's still active. Obviously, people find that stuff
interesting; obviously, there's interest in the truth of John & Yoko's
relationship versus the fairytales.
>No matter how many times you add to it,
> you're not going to fool anyone.
Uh, I'm not going to "fool anyone" with regard to *what*?
> You have one story to tell and one note to play.
Have no fear, there are more (and diverse) stories on the way.
> They're both about as enightening as bucket of horse piss.
I don't purport to offer "enlightenment" (or even "enightenment").
I have got some information to pass on.
>And about as smart.
A devastating appraisal, coming from somone who worships money,
fame, and Yoko "Magic is logical," "Everything is addictive," "Destroy
all the men you've slept with" Ono.
> Get a clue.
Get a better psychiatrist.
Nyarlathotep
Nyarlathotep <nyarla...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> I don't dispute that her money-making efforts using JL's name
were
> perfunctory; no, she is truly into that!
Oops, make that, "I don't *contend* that her money-making efforts
using JL's name are perfunctory..."
Camouflage
"Nyarlathotep" <nyarla...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:91he9j$164$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> The vitality of that thread astonishes me. I've been away for 6
> days,
you been at a cross burning?
Camouflage
> In article <91he9j$164$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Nyarlathotep <nyarla...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't dispute that her money-making efforts using JL's name
> were
> > perfunctory; no, she is truly into that!
>
> Oops, make that, "I don't *contend* that her money-making efforts
> using JL's name are perfunctory..."
LOL! love it when megalomaniacs like nylar obviosly re-read their lamer
posts in some sad self congratulatory way!
way to go nyny, you clown!
Steve Hawk
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Karma killed him.
aubad...@my-deja.com
Subject: Newsweek article
Date: 08/06/2000
Author: Lisa <ba...@azstarnet.com>
<snip>
Newsweek, October 17, 1988, pp. 64-73
Lennon
The Battle Over His Memory
Quick question. Why, after all these years, is there still such an
uproar over John Lennon? He would have turned 48 last weekend, and the
faithful, as usual, turned up again at Central Park’s Strawberry
Fields, across the street from the Dakota apartment building where he
lived—and where he died, eight years ago come December. His
assassination wasn’t martyrdom exactly, but it elevated him from an
aging rocker attempting a less-than-promising comeback to a secular
saint. This birthday has, of course, received the usual treatment:
extended Lennon tributes on MTV and VH-1, a Cinemax special, Beatles
Blowouts on local radio stations all over the country. Last Friday was
also the première of a worshipful new film documentary, “Imagine: John
Lennon,” with twin tie-ins: a double soundtrack album and a $39.95
coffee-table book. “Jealous Guy,” a song from the soundtrack, has hit
the Billboard chart and gone into “power rotation” on radio stations
coast to coast, stations are also broadcasting a syndicated series
called “The Lost Lennon Tapes,” a hodgepodge of informal recordings.
His music, and, as important, his politics and his personality,
continue to win him new fans year after year among kids too young to
remember him. But this year the birthday festivities had an unfamiliar
undertone of urgency—and even outrage.
It’s because of that book. You know, that book. The second-best-
selling book in the country. The one the real John Lennon fans can’t
even check out because that would be putting money in the pockets of
its author, Albert Goldman. “The book sucks,” says Larry Loprete,
Beatles maven at radio station WBCN in Boston. “I haven’t read it.”
In Lakeville, Mass., two inmates of a teen detention center announced
they’d begun a hunger strike to mobilize a boycott. In New York, WNEW
deejay Scott Muni won’t do TV interviews about Goldman, for fear of
goosing sales still further. Is this book really such hot stuff? So
Lennon did drugs. When was the last time anybody doubted it? And Yoko
Ono comes across as a dragon lady. Haven’t we heard this somewhere
before, too?
Certainly The Lives of John Lennon (719 pages. William Morrow.
$22.95) is guaranteed to stimulate the most jaded palate. From its
ungallant opening scene of Yoko snorting heroin and retching behind a
bathroom door to its parting glimpse of Lennon’s gift-wrapped ashes—
which gives Goldman’s informant “a wave of nausea”—it dishes up a
surfeit of unsavory detail. Goldman treats his subjects with Swiftian
contempt; he seems to have a particular problem with the naked body of
the “simian-looking” Ono, and her “pendulous breasts.” The famous
Rolling Stone memorial cover, showing a naked Lennon embracing a black-
clad Ono, strikes him as “the image of an impassive bitch and her
blindly sucking whelp.”
Well, fine. Albert Goldman didn’t like John and Yoko. Goldman says he
began his research as “the ultimate loyalist,” but anyone who read his
1981 Elvis Presley biography (in which he said the recumbent King
resembled “a big fat woman recovering from some operation on her
reproductive organs”) could have predicted where he’d end up. Paul
McCartney did: Goldman admits McCartney’s distaste for the Elvis book
cost him and interview. Nor did Goldman talk to George and Ringo, or
to Lennon’s first wife and son, Cynthia and Julian, or to his second,
Yoko and Sean. The equally misanthropic tone of “The Lives of John
Lennon” should make even the least dainty reader question its fairness;
and its small, careless errors of fact cast doubt on its overall
accuracy. So why should anyone be taking this book seriously?
Mostly because of the sheer boldness of its allegations—and because
it’s possible some could be true. It’s a little hard, after all, to
ignore a book from a reputable publisher accusing Beatle John of being
a junkie, a homosexual, anorexic, a clinical case of multiple
personalities, and possibly a killer. People magazine has printed
excerpts, critics have done lengthy reviews—mostly pans—and fans have
trashed it in irate phone calls to radio stations. Most recently
Goldman’s book has become the occasion for an overwrought cover package
in Rolling Stone, juxtaposing the results of an “intensive
investigation” of Goldman’s sources with a “special photo album” of
heartwarming pictures from the book “Imagine: John Lennon”—John
sledding with Yoko and Julian, John showing a rapt Sean around a
recording studio. “John Lennon did not live his life as a myth or a
monster,” the accompanying text begins. “He was an artist and a man.”
Yoko Ono hopes “Imagine: John Lennon,” in its several forms, will be
the official counterdocument to the Goldman biography, as well as to
previous books by indiscreet former Lennon-Ono employees May Pang (who
was John’s lover during his 15-month separation from Ono) and John
Green, Ono’s former tarot reader. She offered some 200 hours of home
movies, half of them shot by professionals, to David Wolper, producer
of more than 400 documentaries. Wolper—after consulting his kids—
agreed to do the film, but only on condition she not meddle with its
content. Not to worry: basically, Wolper saw it her way, anyhow. His
film’s three main themes, he says, are Lennon’s musical genius, his
social consciousness—though Wolper thinks the bed-ins were a little
wacky—and his enduring love for Yoko Ono.
Wolper is sensitive to charges that he’s part of a whitewash operation—
and, indeed, before Goldman no one would have called “Imagine” anything
worse than excessively harmless, and sometimes inadvertently funny.
(Like that scene in which Lennon makes producer Phil Spector,
manifestly mortified, sing harmony on “Oh Yoko.”) But now Wolper’s
backed into having to claim that the film is evenhanded, and sometimes
tough on Lennon. The evidence he cites, though, is the sequence in
which the late cartoonist Al Capp incoherently berates John and Yoko at
a bed-in; they never looked saner. Why, Wolper is asked, was Pang
trotted out for a sound bite but introduced so coyly that you’d need to
read Goldman—or her own “Loving John”—to understand her role in his
life. “There can be no doubt in anyone’s mind what we’re saying,” says
Wolper. “I’m not doing a National Enquirer.”
What he’s doing is the definitive version of the John Lennon myth. In
this familiar saga, John begins as an insouciant but unthreatening teen
idol, gets a little weird behind drugs and Eastern mysticism, goes
through a phase where he’s going to save the world, bags that and turns
party animal and finally settles down to domesticity, even putting his
career on hold to become a bread-baking househusband. “Family Ties”
and “thirtysomething” have now packaged this myth for home consumption;
but the baby-boom generation (a term virtually synonymous with “Beatles
fans”) watched John Lennon live it. “The ‘60s and ‘70s were reflected
through his life to such an extent that people can’t help but identify
with him,” says Andrew Solt, coproducer and director of “Imagine.”
Jovi Carlyle, 37, who came from Atlanta to be in Strawberry Fields on
John’s birthday, says it in boomerspeak: “It seems like everything he
got into, I got into at about the same time.”
This is the myth Yoko Ono wants graven in stone and handed down to
posterity. And it’s the myth Goldman has blasphemed. His book and
Wolper’s film represent a battle not only over the image of John
Lennon, but, implicitly, over how a generation sees its own history.
Simply put, if John Lennon was a fraud, where does that leave the
values he was thought to embody? The face-off between the Goldman book
and “Imagine” is also a referendum on Lennon’s legacy. Let’s look at
some key issues in the debate.
How reliable are Goldman’s sources? You mean the ones rock writer Dave
Marsh calls “dope dealers, felons, madhouse inmates and disgruntled
former associates.” Goldman sensibly points out John and Yoko “didn’t
live in the company of Supreme Court justices or Mother Teresas,” and
that he sifted carefully the information he was given in some 1,200
interviews. “Distrust him? Question him? Check him out?” he says of
one controversial informant. “You better believe it, man. I’m not
crazy.” This was the source Rolling Stone’s cover story pointed out
had pleaded guilty to stealing Lennon’s diaries. Shouldn’t Goldman
have mentioned that in his book, if only to preempt criticism for
suppressing it? “Valid point,” he says.
Rolling Stone attacked the credibility of another source named Marnie
Hair, the mother of a playmate of Sean’s, by saying she’d won an
$18,000 insurance settlement after a dispute with Ono over an injury to
her child. But this doesn’t mean she was lying; only that she might
have a grudge against Ono. Goldman says he checked her out, too, and
found her “a woman of exceptional character.”
How devastating was Rolling Stone’s “intensive investigation”? Not
very. The article doesn’t mention other sources who told Goldman tales
as startling as the ones told by Marnie Hair. Like art dealer Sam
Green, with whom Goldman alleges Ono was having an affair the summer
before Lennon’s death. The magazine counters Hair’s testimony with
testimony from the husband of Sean’s former nanny. If financial
dealings with Ono taint a source, why is he any more credible than
Hair?
One of the magazine’s investigators, writer David Fricke, told Newsweek
of catching Goldman in egregious factual errors and cited his reference
to “Harlem’s Little Italy.” “Now any nitwit can tell you,” says
Fricke, “that Little Italy is in Soho.” Manhattan’s Little Italy
indeed is in Soho, but up in East Harlem there’s a small, though pretty
well-known, Italian community. Fricke’s been talking with the wrong
nitwits.
Rolling Stone debunked Goldman’s image of Lennon isolated in a tomblike
room by visiting the room. Why, you could hear the rumble of the
subway and “the lively noise of city life.” There was even a window
where Lennon could “relish the view as the sun rose in the morning.”
But back in 1982, in Rolling Stone’s own book, “The Ballad of John and
Yoko,” journalist Chet Flippo’s account of “The Private Years”
describes Lennon’s room as a “quiet, dark sanctum.”
Why is Rolling Stone even deigning to get into this whole thing?
Because, says Jann Wenner, the book offended him “on every level. As a
professional, as a friend of Yoko’s and as editor of Rolling Stone.”
It’s that second level that makes you wonder. Wenner admits those two-
family vacations in Europe, the country weekends (sometimes at his
house, sometimes at Ono’s) and Thanksgiving dinners don’t make him a
neutral party. “But my friendship with Yoko does not undermine the
credibility or the authenticity of the reporting.” On the other hand,
he says, “I’m not about to print anything mean or nasty” about Lennon.
Why not? “There is nothing mean or nasty in John’s life.”
Specifically now. Was John Lennon ever a heroin addict? Yes. Lennon,
whose 1969 song “Cold Turkey” was about his own withdrawal, admitted it
publicly. Ono doesn’t deny it.
And Yoko? Yes. That was no secret, either. But if they both cleaned
up early on in their marriage, what about Goldman’s opening scene of
Ono snorting up in 1979? Overwritten, yes. (In fact,
Goldman’s “hideous noise of retching” is amended to “noise of retching”
in the People excerpt.) But Ono admitted to Rolling Stone that
her “problem” had flared up again that year.
Was John Lennon a homosexual? We’ve heard this one before, too.
Lennon himself said something “almost” happened that time in 1963 when
Brian Epstein, about whose sexual orientation there was no doubt, took
him on a trip to Spain. It’s previously been alleged that something
did happen. Where Goldman’s on shakier ground is his claim that
Epstein was the love of Lennon’s life. (Lennon may have been the
unrequited love of Epstein’s life.) Where Goldman is out of line is in
his gratuitous suggestion that Lennon might have patronized both male
and female prostitutes on a visit to Bangkok. His evidence: brothels
there have both. Was Lennon genuinely bisexual? Doubtful.
And so what if he was? Exactly. It seems odd that Lennon’s rigorously
tolerant following has gone ballistic over claims that Lennon was doing
stuff they don’t think is wrong in the first place. Yoko Ono says that
if he had really been caught in the act with Brian Epstein, Lennon
himself would have been the first to tell the story. (In fact,
Lennon’s anxieties probably ran a little deeper than that; he wasn’t
above mocking Epstein’s homosexuality.) Goldman’s underlying thesis is
that Lennon was a fraud; if he could prove this apparently flamboyant
heterosexual was gay in his heart of hearts, he’d have Exhibit A.
Since belief in John’s unflinching honesty is one of the prime articles
of faith among the Lennon Left, the allegation that Lennon was gay is
deeply worrisome.
Was John Lennon anorexic? Again, dubious. Lennon was always anxious
about getting pudgy, and in later years turned to various forms of food
crankery. But the footage in “Imagine” of Lennon in bed with Yoko
shortly before his death simply shows that John—drugs or no drugs—
didn’t have Ben Johnson’s muscle tone. But he’s quite a few pounds
from anorexia.
Did John Lennon kill a sailor in Hamburg in 1960? Goldman tells a
murky story about Lennon beating a sailor so severely that the man
might have been left for dead, and subsequently living “with the stain
of murder on his soul.” But Goldman himself could find no record of
such an event.
Was John Lennon responsible for the death of Stu Sutcliffe, who died in
1962 of a brain tumor? Goldman says Lennon kicked Sutcliffe in the
head and later worried that this might have led to the fifth Beatle’s
death many months later. Goldman’s source for this one story is Marnie
Hair, who says she heard it from Yoko. Yoko says it’s a new one on her.
Was Lennon really a bread-baking, child-rearing househusband?
Propaganda, says Goldman; John may once have baked a loaf of bread, but
he vegetated in his room for most of the day instead of tending to
Sean, whom he failed to teach “even the most elementary lessons in self-
control.” Chet Flippo’s “The Private Years” quotes Elliot Mintz, now
Ono’s publicist and assistant keeper of the flame, as saying that
Lennon may have oversold his apparently brief “cooking period”: “the
bread was great; the eggs were a little watery.” But either the
preternaturally bright and well-spoken Sean, now 13, somehow
transcended his permissive upbringing—or there’s something to be said
for a permissive upbringing. Since even Goldman grants that Sean loved
his father, the old man must have been doing something right.
To hear Albert Goldman tell it, no one was more shocked than he to find
out that John Lennon was a monster. “When he died,” says Goldman, “I
appeared on CBS and eulogized him in precisely those terms that
everybody’s fighting about today. That he was a househusband, that he
spent his later years dedicated to that child...I mean, man, I
testified to that on network television. And as long as I talked the
rock and roll party line, I was OK with Rolling Stone. They published
excerpts from ‘Elvis.’ I was Mr. OK.” But his six-and-a-half years of
research into the life of John Lennon, he says, distanced him
irretrievably from the rock and roll establishment. “I went on and
they didn’t,” he says. “I went deeper and deeper into the true
character of the rock and roll hero.”
Pop stars, in Goldman’s view, “live the life of Caesar. And we know
where the life of Caesar leads: it leads to blankness, it leads to
despair. That’s the real message of these rock stars’ lives. To the
public, they represent vitality, youth, innocence, joy. But in private
life they represent despair and an infatuation with death.” This, says
Goldman, is hardly what Rolling Stone or the big-name critics want to
hear. “Rock and roll has been around long enough to form its own
system of beliefs. These people feel their value system is under
attack and they’re consolidating like a tribe, they’re joining
together. They’re going to stamp this thing out if they can do it.
All the other books have disappeared. May Pang’s, John Green’s. Now
my book they couldn’t make disappear. So they decided to beat it to
death.”
Big Three: Some impish observers, like the reflexively iconoclastic
British rock writer Julie Burchill, admire Goldman simply for making
aging Aquarians sputter. “The Beatles were proud of debunking their
elders, and Goldman did an excellent job of debunking the debunkers,”
she says. “He proved the ‘60s generation had their own sacred cows.
When they were stuck, they squealed as loudly as their elders had.”
But a consensus is forming in the rock establishment that Goldman is at
best and unwitting party to a widespread conspiracy to hell-bent on
returning America to the age of Sammy Kaye. AIDS and crack have pretty
well taken care of sex and drugs—rock and roll’s the only one of the
Big Three left. So what better ammunition than the information that
rock’s patron saint was an anorexic bisexual junkie head-kicker? The
anti-rock right’s true agenda, they believe, is to shrivel the utopian
expansiveness expressed in songs like Lennon’s “Imagine,” and, as Dave
Marsh says, to “shrink the American mind.” He’s alluding, of course,
to University of Chicago professor Allan Bloom’s improbable best-
seller “The Closing of the American Mind,” a brief for cultural
conservatism whose rockophobic fulminations read like a slightly more
elegant version of Goldman.
It’s possible that Goldman’s book will be cited as yet another reason
to rethink the ‘60s. He certainly hopes so. “The ‘60s,” he
says, “have become the Garden of Eden. What I’m telling you is that,
hey, there was the Fall, there was the serpent, there was sin.”
But ‘60s culture heroes could teach Ronald Reagan a thing or two about
Teflon images—the knowledge of John Kennedy’s epic infidelities didn’t
deter one vice presidential candidate from invoking his name last week,
and another from claiming his friendship. Either the mechanism of
denial or old-fashioned common sense will do the same thing for John
Lennon. In his eagerness to expose the “truth” about Lennon, Goldman
has forgotten that, except to the relatively few people who actually
had to deal with the man himself, an image is all that ever mattered
anyway. That and the music.
Goldman won’t even put a dent in the popularity of the records Lennon
made alone and with the Beatles. Radio stations still play them
regularly, record stores keep them on hand for stockbrokers and stock
clerks alike who’ve worn out another copy of “Abbey Road.” Most
remarkably—especially to baby boomers who live in dread that they and
their music might be getting outmoded—is that the Beatles keep
attracting kids, just as they did in 1978 and 1968. “I still feel
something from the music even though I hadn’t been born then,” says
Jackson Burks, 17, of San Francisco, who plays drums in a band called
Dung Incorporated. “I still feel what they were putting across.
Like “Revolution”—that’s a real teenage song.” In Los Angeles, Johnny
Wiley, nine, plays Beatles songs on a guitar like John Lennon. And in
Newton, Mass., 17-year old Max Brody, who’s been a Beatles fan since he
got a scratched copy of “Yellow Submarine” at the age of four, explains
that “every childhood has a Beatles period.” Brody, who wears round
granny glasses like Lennon’s and collects his albums and drawings,
credits him as the prototype of today’s Live Aid and Amnesty crowd. He
won’t go so far as to say John is his hero—he shares Lennon’s low
threshold for such talk—but he will say that Lennon seems to have
been “a neat and special guy.” What does he think of the Goldman
book? “I’m trying to tell people not to buy it,” he says.
Human or icon? “These people,” says Albert Goldman of his many
enemies, “will not be content until they have their original John
Lennon back, gilded, intact, just the way he was before the book was
published. But it ain’t going to happen. The jack is out of the box,
and no matter what they say or what they do or how much hell they
raise, there will be a different John Lennon from now on.” In Rolling
Stone, Yoko Ono predicts that eventually people will come to see
Goldman’s book “in perspective”—and the “Imagine” film gives us an idea
of what kind of perspective she has in mind. Dave Marsh says they
should both give it a rest. “Yoko is not the keeper of the flame,” he
says. “She’s the keeper of her version of the flame. For both Goldman
and Yoko, John is not a human but an icon. They are falsifying history
on both sides—neither is telling the truth. The truth is in the music.
You want the truth, go listen.” Last week, especially, you didn’t have
to go out of your way. All you had to do was turn on the radio. As
the angry widow and the angry biographer brandished myth and
countermyth, the man who could no longer speak for himself was singing,
everywhere.
--
"It takes a genius to make a fake the standard by which we come to
judge the genuine." - Richey James Edwards
Camouflage
<aubad...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:91hquo$9n4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>So why should anyone be taking this book seriously?
>
> it's possible some could be true.
sounds like danny's madcap "theory" of a few weeks ago.....
> It's a little hard, after all, to
> ignore a book from a reputable publisher accusing Beatle John of being
> a junkie, a homosexual, anorexic, a clinical case of multiple
> personalities, and possibly a killer
and i think this encapsulates the goldmans, uToms, nynys and dannys of this
newsgroup beautifully.
if you believe that stuff guys, you've never been out for a really good
friday night on the tiles with some likely lads.
translated to american college geek lingo for nyny and uTom: "you need to
get out a bit more"......:)
UsurperTom
Tom
Eleanor Roosevelt
"Camouflage" <fa...@beatles.com> wrote:
>
>
> > It's a little hard, after all, to
> > ignore a book from a reputable publisher accusing Beatle John of being
> > a junkie, a homosexual, anorexic, a clinical case of multiple
> > personalities, and possibly a killer
>
> and i think this encapsulates the goldmans, uToms, nynys and dannys of this
> newsgroup beautifully.
>
> if you believe that stuff guys, you've never been out for a really good
> friday night on the tiles with some likely lads.
>
> translated to american college geek lingo for nyny and uTom: "you need to
> get out a bit more"......:)
>
>
Dave Marsh says they should both give it a rest. “Yoko is not the keeper
of the flame,” he
says. “She’s the keeper of her version of the flame. For both Goldman
and Yoko, John is not a human but an icon. They are
falsifying history on both sides—neither is telling the truth."
Dave Marsh [another egotistical rock-crit vermin] says they should both
give it a rest. “Yoko is not the keeper of the flame,” he
says. “She’s the keeper of her version of the flame. For both Goldman
and Yoko, John is not a human but an icon. They are
falsifying history on both sides—neither is telling the truth."
I find this outrageous pronouncement to be the prefect example of the
delusions these journalist suffer.
They talk as if they had some sort of authority to declare Rolling Stone
(or in this case, Newspeak) the "official" keeper of the flame.
I guess Jackie Kennedy wasn't the keeper of her husband's flame, either.
As if her arrangements for JFK's funeral were just lucky guesses, and the
way she comported herself for the rest of her life entitles pathographers
to get fat on their toxic revisionism.
For Marsh to compare Yoko Ono to Goldman in relation to John Lennon is an
abomination.
Francie.
--
No one is perfect.
No, but by the flaws
in the picture the truth
will emerge.
-- William S. Burroughs
~~
http://sites.netscape.net/fabest
INSIDE LIFE AFTER PAUL McCARTNEY
D 28IF
And that's one of your lamest flames yet, Nick. Many people look over what was
posted, and some like to correct themselves.
Hell, Francie did it last night. Guess I musta just missed the post where you
told her she was a meglomaniac who loved to read her own words. I'll have to
check deja for that.
Nyarlathotep
Lizz Holmans <di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <20001215221830...@ng-fs1.aol.com>, UsurperTom
> <usurp...@aol.com> writes
> >Rolling Stone actually excerpted "Elvis" in 1981 because Elvis wasn't
hip
> >enough for them. They didn't turn against Goldman until "The Lives
of John
> >Lennon" came out seven years later.
>
> Not 'xactly true. The first time I heard about Goldman's book on Lenny
> Bruce was Ralph Gleason's editorial in Rolling Stone denouncing it as
> inaccurate and immoral.
And his reasons for deeming the book "immoral" were probably as
compelling as the reasons offered by Yoko sycophants in this NG for
supposing that TLoJL is "immoral" -- i.e., Gleason probably couldn't
stand to have his myths shattered.
Nyarlathotep
Thanks, Lisa! Good to see you again, BTW.
The Newsweek piece is excellent. It's heartening that *someone*
wasn't afraid to genuinely check Goldman out (as opposed to dismissing
him out of hand because he didn't merely reinforce the PR BS a la
Coleman).
Nyarlathotep
> Eleanor Roosevelt <frn...@netscape.net> wrote:
> > > Point well-taken. What does Goldman's Jewishness have to do with
> his
> > > credentials as a biographer?
> > >
> > If somebody took both your brainpans and scooped them out into a
bowl,
> > there still wouldn't be enough gray matter to comprehend this
concept.
>
> Lighten up, Eleanor. Maybe this is a personal vendetta for you, but
the
> rest of us aren't half as impressed by your cleverness as you are.
>
> It was the invaders like Goldman
> > who sold a couple pieces to LIFE magazine (but he couldn't touch
> Richard
> > Goldstein, whose Sgt Pepper essay was a classic.
>
> A 'couple pieces'? According to Bob Stahley's much-reposted (and
> reposted, and reposted...) 'definitive' post on 'the tell-all books',
> Goldman was "a popular music critic for Life magazine from 1970
> to '73." It's unclear whether he means that Goldman was popular as a
> critic, or that he only reviewed pop music, or 'popular' music.
Good points, Aubade. I've read some of the criticism Goldman did
for Life magazine; it's good stuff. I posted Goldman's review of The
Who's _Tommy_ to this NG a few months back.
Nyarlathotep
Eleanor Roosevelt <frn...@netscape.net> wrote:
> Let's face it, kiddies. Albert Goldman was a blight on the medium of
> biography.
No, he was not. And you wouldn't be contending any such if it
weren't for your worship of the venal Yoko.
> He was not the first pathographer (a term coined by Joyce
> Carol Oates, a *real* writer)
I like Joyce Carol Oates's stuff, and it needs to be pointed out
that she wasn't discussing Goldman when she invented the term
"pathography."
It was Kozinn who first invoked "pathography" while commenting on
Goldman. Naturally, a bunch of hacks copied him in that regard, perhaps
on the assumption that the invocation of a famous writer would give
their flimsy cases the appearance of credibility.
Of course, the reason these hacks trot out the "pathography"
routine is that they can't refute Goldman's charges (e.g., that Yoko
nearly divorced John to marry Sam Green; that JL was physically abusive;
that, immediately after JL's death, Yoko had gay interior decorator
Samuel G. Havadtoy move into the Dakota).
> nor was he the first to break gossipy
> stories speculating about personal details of his "icons" private
lives.
Who claimed otherwise? Certainly not Goldman himself.
Nyarlathotep
Eleanor Roosevelt <frn...@netscape.net> wrote:
> Goldman was not a reviewer at all.
Yes, he was. Several of his Life magazine articles are music
reviews. I posted his review of Tommy to this NG a while back.
>Look him up some time. His stuff doesn't
> stand up at all. It's too subjective and as much about the writer as
they
> are about "his times".
Francie, you're engaging in projection again. These comments don't
apply to the Goldman articles I've read. They do, however, apply to the
Francie articles I've read.
UsurperTom
>it's far from a ringing endorsement of Goldman's book.
Nobody's denying that. However, Ny and I only brought it up because there are
sycophants who believe that the Fricke and Ressner article "discredited"
Goldman. The Newsweek article pointed out serious flaws in Rolling Stone's
rebuttal to Goldman. For example, Rolling Stone focused their attack on Fred
and Marnie Hair without acknowledging the existence of Sam Green, a man Yoko
had an extramarital affair with. Newsweek noticed Fricke and Ressner's
selective choice of sources to attack.
>You can smell Goldman's bias from miles away.
There's nothing wrong with an author being analytical. Every Beatle biography
has a "bias" attached to it. I personally disagree with Goldman's musical
analysis, but he's entitled to his opinion that jazz is superior to rock music.
That doesn't tarnish any biographical information in "The Lives of John
Lennon."
>There's not a lot to be said for only talking to
>people who have negative things to say about your
>subject and making a lot of errors
Goldman tried to talk to these people, but they all refused to be interviewed.
In retrospect, Yoko's probably lucky that Paul, George, Cynthia and Julian
chose not to be interviewed.
>I do believe he failed to mention the lawsuit.
Most of what Fred and Marnie Hair said has been backed up by May Pang, Harold
Seider (John's lawyer who negotiated the dissolution agreement), Sam Green,
John Green and Jack Douglas. These sources were also interviewed by Goldman.
>Downright laughable.
Most of Goldman's supporters say that their only disagreement with the book was
the claim that John was bisexual. However, John enjoyed spreading rumors that
he and Brian had a liaison. May Pang said that John was definitely straight,
but he occasionally flirted with men as a prank.
>Which didn't stop him from saying it happened.
He DIDN'T say it happened. All Goldman said was that Jesse Ed Davis told him
that John confessed the story to him in a recording studio one day. Everbody
neglects to mention that the account in the book alleged that Paul, George and
Pete were accomplices to the murder. Supposedly, Pete helped John beat up the
sailor, while Paul and George, who were both too weak to join in the fight,
were laughing in the background while John and Pete were beating the sailor to
death. Finally, the Beatles left the sailor for dead. It is interesting to
note that Paul, George and Pete never contested this particular allegation.
Likewise, Paul and George never confronted the story that John kicked Stu in
the head and Paul and George then yelled at John and called him a "bloody
bastard" as John ran away in guilt. Ray Coleman wrote in the 1992 edition of
"Lennon" that Stu's sister, Pauline, denied that John kicked Stu. However,
somebody posted in the thread titled "John killed Stu?" two September 28
articles (I believe one was in musicnews.com if my memory serves me correctly)
that Pauline broke her forty-year silence. Pauline now says that John was
responsible for Stu's death by kicking Stu in the head. She also discussed
John's cruelty to other people.
Similarly, Paul, George and Ringo never addressed Barry Miles' revelation to
Goldman all four Beatles snorted speedballs during the Sgt. Pepper sessions.
There were also tales of statuatory rape on the road, including one where Paul
provides a fake ID for a girl in Minneapolis because there were cops waiting
outside his hotel room. Paul has never denied this story.
There's another anti-Goldman myth that's been debunked in recent years. When
excerpts of "The Lives of John Lennon" first appeared in People, Yoko and Mintz
held a press conference attacking Goldman. An obviously coached Sean spoke and
said that his father never hit him. Ten years later, Sean said in an interview
promoting his debut album that John had a violent temper.
There's no sufficient evidence that would entail dismissing Goldman's work as
fiction.
Tom
UsurperTom
>I posted Goldman's review of The Who's _Tommy_
That was a good article. I recommend "Freakshow" and "Sound Bites" for those
who aren't familiar with Goldman's work.
Tom
my uncle wilbur
"UsurperTom" <usurp...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001218231553...@ng-fs1.aol.com...
> Laura wrote:
>
> >it's far from a ringing endorsement of Goldman's book.
>
> Nobody's denying that. However, Ny and I only brought it up
so forget all that stuff uTom, what we all want to know is, have you and ny
had your first kiss yet?
Bob Stahley
: It was Kozinn who first invoked "pathography" while commenting on
: Goldman.
False.
--
__ __
_) _) bo...@primenet.com Deck us all with Boston Charlie
__)__) 'Tosa, Witzend Walla-Walla, Wash, and Kalamazoo!
Bob Stahley
: Most of what Fred and Marnie Hair said has been backed up by May Pang,
: Harold Seider (John's lawyer who negotiated the dissolution
: agreement), Sam Green, : John Green and Jack Douglas. These sources
: were also interviewed by Goldman.
False. _Some_ of what Fred and Marnie Hair has been backed up by Pang
_or_ Seider _or_ Green _or_ Douglas. Unless she's contradicted herself
from what she claimed in '88, May was _not_ interviewed by Goldman, nor,
to my knowledge, was Douglas.
: There's no sufficient evidence that would entail dismissing Goldman's work as
: fiction.
For you, UTom, only for you. But then, you probably believe John didn't
play on any of the records (as Goldman claimed), don't you?
Assia
Bob Stahley <bo...@primenet.com> wrote:
> UsurperTom <usurp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> : Most of what Fred and Marnie Hair said has been backed up by May
Pang,
> : Harold Seider (John's lawyer who negotiated the dissolution
> : agreement), Sam Green, : John Green and Jack Douglas. These sources
> : were also interviewed by Goldman.
>
> False. _Some_ of what Fred and Marnie Hair has been backed up by Pang
> _or_ Seider _or_ Green _or_ Douglas. Unless she's contradicted
herself
> from what she claimed in '88, May was _not_ interviewed by Goldman,
nor,
> to my knowledge, was Douglas.
>
> : There's no sufficient evidence that would entail dismissing
Goldman's work as
> : fiction.
>
> For you, UTom, only for you.
Thats right. Only UTOM believes Goldman, no one else. Goldman is
completely unbelievable, anyone can see that, its perfectly clear, oh
well I dare say, perfectly clear to anyone who is mature and capable of
making this obvious blatent perception though I do not, once again, and
hopefully once and for all, though I doubt they can understand this,
despite its blatent clarity (to me, that is, to me; and I do not judge
those who fail in this regard for they are only human, and if they are
such surely they can be forgivin this mortal failing), that Fred took
the diaris, therefore everything Goldman writes is false.
Simple, really.
And thats why Yoko sued Goldman for libel and won. Because its all
false.
Johns best friend Elliot Mintz also disagreed with Goldman, saying John
would never beet Yoko, and they had the romance of the century. Of
course he didnt beat her. He stood for peace and love. And besides he
as to busy baking bread to photograph and share with Elliot. so
obviously everything Goldman says is completely wrong.
I cant believe that UTOM fails to see this. Its just amazing. Again, I
do not judge him. I just perceive how amazing it is that he would
actually believe some of Goldman, when everything in it was proven wrong
in a Court of Law.
Assia
"A book without an index is like wine without a meal"
- Bill Safire
But then, you probably believe John
didn't
> play on any of the records (as Goldman claimed), don't you?
Thats right, Goldman says John never played on any of the records. He
also says Tony Cox perfoemed a Caesarian (sp)? on Yoko. And that John
and Yoko took drugs.
>
> --
> __ __
> _) _) bo...@primenet.com Deck us all with Boston Charlie
> __)__) 'Tosa, Witzend Walla-Walla, Wash, and Kalamazoo!
>
UsurperTom
>May was _not_ interviewed by Goldman
Yes, she was, Sobbin' Bob. May said that she initially refused the interview,
but changed her mind when Goldman honestly told her that she wasn't going to
agree with everything that would appear in the book.
>nor, to my knowledge, was Douglas
He was, Sobbin' Bon. Goldman cited his sources in the end. Douglas also
supported Fred's book (as you previously denied) and Fred thanked Douglas is
the introduction to "The Last Days of John Lennon."
>you probably believe John didn't
>play on any of the records (as Goldman claimed), don't you?
Goldman never made such an assertion, Sobbin' Bob, just like he never claimed
that Tony Cox performed a C-section.
Tom
my uncle wilbur
> Yes, she was, Sobbin' Bob
uSlurper Tom, have you always been such a hysterical shrieking fishwife, or
did you have to work at it?
UsurperTom
>Did Goldman interview anyone who had anything good
>to say? If so, did he quote them? There may be one
>or two things but they're overpowered by relentless
>negative recollections.
He interviewed Pete Shotton, John Dunbar (who joked that he destroyed John by
introducing him to Yoko), Barry Miles (a biographer I believe you're a fan of!)
and almost all of John's surviving aunts, uncles and cousins. It's laughable
that Paul, George, Ringo, Cynthia, Julian, Yoko, George Martin, Neil Aspinall
and Peter Brown all pretended to be one, big happy family when they spoke out
against Goldman. These people all refused to be interviewed by Goldman and
have themselves to blame if their point of view wasn't represented. On the
other hand, Goldman utilized all available sources regarding John's post-Beatle
years. His account of that period is the strength of "The Lives of John
Lennon." Isn't it funny that so many people who knew and worked for Yoko have
reached the same conclusion about her?
>I'm not saying there's nothing bad to be said about John
Well, that's what Jann Wenner said about John.
>I believe the
>story Goldman relates before bringing up Davis's
>allegations (which involve only John) comes from
>Pete Best.
As far as I recall (I just returned the book to the library yesterday!),
Goldman didn't mention Pete Best as one of his sources and claimed that Paul
and George avoided the fight because they were physically weak. By watching
John and Pete initiate a botched mugging that resulted in the victim's death,
Paul and George were incriminated as assessories to the murder. My guess is
that John told Davis one of his legendary tall tales (such as the affair with
Brian). The main reason I brought up this account and others is because the
same sycophants who attack Goldman only care about John and Yoko. Likewise,
they were quick to denounce Giuliano's "Lennon in America," but they never
condemned "Blackbird" and "Dark Horse." They don't give a shit about the other
Beatles. You're a Paul fan, Laura. You know these people are irrational!
That's why Goldman's iconoclasm is necessary. Many John fans need serious
deprogramming.
Tom
my uncle wilbur
>Paul and George avoided the fight because they were physically weak. By
watching
> John and Pete initiate a botched mugging that resulted in the victim's
death,
> Paul and George were incriminated as assessories to the murder
>. Many John fans need serious deprogramming.
whereas you need serious therapy tom.
"murders'? "accessories" ?
did you realise what total moron you look like relaying goldmans bullshit
as truth?
Trompe L'Oeuil
usurp...@aol.com (UsurperTom) wrote:
> That's why Goldman's iconoclasm is necessary. Many John fans need serious
> deprogramming.
You're the one who needs a deprogramming, Tom.
Goldman has been thoroughly discredited, and since we know the character
of Fred Semen is completely worthless; we know what his agenda was (to
make money and destroy Yoko) we can judge him by his actions. It is the
folks who fell for Goldman's classic hatchet job who need to re-evaluate
the conclusions they've reached.
There is no icon to smash. Real fans know John was human with all the
foibles and faults that implies. We also know he loved Yoko with all his
heart to the day he died.
Goldman was nothing more than a culture vulture feeding off the bones of
dead men whose true friends refused to talk to him. His reputation as a
destroyer and slanderer preceded him.
And when you repeat that stupid "Isn't it funny how all these people
agree with him" bullshit, it's as meaningless as Semenboy's word. Six or
seven disaffected jerks who couldn't get as close to John as they would
have liked, or ran afoul of the very strong and confident woman he loved
when they tried to capture John's ear.
Less than zero, Tom. Iconoclast means idol-smasher. Goldman never
succeeded in destroying the love millions of people had and still have
for Lenny and Elvis and John. None of his shitty little tales can ever
change that.
Have you ever really listened to a Lennon record without referring to
your little murderer's row of a library?
Francie
--
"Didn't you just say
You got off being juked
with a baby octopus
And spewed upon
with creamed corn?"
("Willy the Pimp" MOTHERS LIVE
AT THE FILLMORE, June 1971. by
Frank Zappa)
~~
http://sites.netscape.net/fabest
Special Greeting to RMB! And MORE!
Kathy
>introducing him to Yoko), Barry Miles (a biographer I believe you're a fan
>of!)
>and almost all of John's surviving aunts, uncles and cousins.
Just for the record, he did not interview John's Aunt Mimi. The only other
surviving aunt at the time was Anne and, AFAIK, she has never been interviewed.
I would be most interested in knowing which cousins agreed to talk to Goldman.
To the best of my knowledge, no one in the family talked to him other than to
refuse his requests to be interviewed.
~K
Brian Temple
"Kathy" <taff...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20001219235317...@ng-fn1.aol.com...
LOL! more brilliant research from uSlurperTom shot down in a blaze of
mediocrity!!
another pack of lies goes by the wayside, but of course tom will reply with
" I DIDNT say THAT!"
tom when are you going to realise that you and your hysterical beatles
"history" are just total flakes and fakes respectively??
ROFLOL!
JackStar74
shit alone
UsurperTom
>Have you ever really listened to a Lennon record without referring to
>your little murderer's row of a library?
Yes, I enjoy John's music. I separate the art from the artist. I have the
same view of Paul too.
>Goldman was nothing more than a culture vulture feeding off the bones of
>dead men whose true friends refused to talk to him.
The fact that some of the people who denounced the book remain on your shit
list should make them reconsider their actions 12 years ago.
Tom
UsurperTom
>I would be most interested in knowing which cousins agreed to talk to
>Goldman.
I stand corrected regarding Mimi Smith. Among the relatives who spoke to
Goldman were Norman Birch, the uncle Yoko tried to evict, and Stan Parkes, a
cousin who recently said that John's killer should have been fried. I'll check
some of the other names.
Tom
Brian Temple
yeah you do that uSlurperTom, 'cos you and your hysterical idiotic
proclamations look to be pretty shaky from here..:)
Trompe L'Oeuil
Since no one among the Beatles or Apple is on my "shit list" I'd like to
know who you think *is*.
UsurperTom
>Since no one among the Beatles or Apple is on my "shit list" I'd like to
>know who you think *is*.
Paul, Peter Brown (you and Paul have a common enemy here), Cynthia and Julian
Tom
aubad...@my-deja.com
Why not simply check the "Sources" section at the end of Goldman's
book? As you can see, he did interview both aunts, as well as most of
Lennon's surviving family.
"All the surviving members of the Stanley family were interviewed,
including Lennon's aunts, Mrs Mimi Smith and Mrs Anne Cadwallader; his
half-sisters, Mrs. Julia Bird (sic) and Jacqui Dykins; his first
cousins, Stanley Parkes, Leila Harvey, M.D., Michael Cadwallader, and
David Birch, and his uncle by marriage (to Harriet Stanley), Norman
Birch. Further details were obtained from friends and neighbors,
schoolmates and teachers. Mrs Pauline Stone, formerly Mrs Alfred
Lennon, provided an abundance of information concerning her late
husband's life drawn from her unpublished biography of Freddie, which
is based in turn on his 125,000-word manuscript autobiography: this
account was supplemented by Freddie's brother, Charles Lennon. Other
sources include John Dykins's brother and sister-in-law, Leonard and
Evelyn Dykins; his second wife, Mrs Veronica (Rona) Parry; Meg
Dogherty; Barbara Baker, and William Pobjoy. Several of the original
Quarry Men - Rod Davies, Colin Hanton, Len Garry, and Nigel Whalley -
plus Charles Roberts described the group's early days. Art college was
the theme of interviews with Ann Mason, Helen Anderson, Ian Sharp, June
Furlong, Arthur Ballard, Rod Murray, Thelma Pickles, Veronica Murphy,
Adrian Henri, Mike Kenny, Sam Walsh, and Mike Evans. Cynthia Lennon
declined to be interviewed, but she has recounted the history of her
relationship with Lennon three times in print: in A Twist of Lennon
(London: W. H. Allen, 1978) and in the books of Peter Brown and Ray
Coleman."
Later on, he also credits John Dunbar and Barry Miles, but I don't see
any mention of Pete Shotton.
--
"It takes a genius to make a fake the standard by which we come to
judge the genuine." - Richey James Edwards
aubad...@my-deja.com
>
> : Most of what Fred and Marnie Hair said has been backed up by May
Pang,
> : Harold Seider (John's lawyer who negotiated the dissolution
> : agreement), Sam Green, : John Green and Jack Douglas. These
sources
> : were also interviewed by Goldman.
>
> False. _Some_ of what Fred and Marnie Hair has been backed up by Pang
> _or_ Seider _or_ Green _or_ Douglas. Unless she's contradicted
herself
> from what she claimed in '88, May was _not_ interviewed by Goldman,
nor,
> to my knowledge, was Douglas.
>
> : There's no sufficient evidence that would entail dismissing
Goldman's work as
> : fiction.
>
> For you, UTom, only for you. But then, you probably believe John
didn't
> play on any of the records (as Goldman claimed), don't you?
This entire post is complete tripe, Bob. You're entitled to your
opinion that Goldman's book is evil, and that anyone who defends it in
any way whatsoever is beyond hope. But not only did Goldman not claim
that John didn't play on any of the records, he did in fact interview
both May Pang and Jack Douglas, who were major sources for his book.
And if you'd bothered to check that book yourself, you'd know that.