Interesting interview with Tony Bramwell
Fattuchus
He wrote a great book:
topaz
> He wrote a great book:
>
> http://www.earcandymag.com/tonybramwell-2005.htm
Great interview..Thanks for sharing this Fatts.
AllaBest
Yeah, thanks! It was a good interview!
I liked that the author capitalized the "the" in The Beatles also!
crazytimes
Interesting interview... I hope the 1,700 page version of his book
comes out one day...
Bramwell misses the Pet Sounds influence on the Beatles, though -
proving that not one person was around the Beatles enough to ever have
gotten the full picture on them... - thus, the rash of books about
them from all angles, necessarily so...
Bruce Johnston of the Beach Boys writes somewhere that John and Paul
visited him at his hotel when he visited London in 1966 with an
acetate of Pet Sounds... He played it for them and they listened to
it over and over and were in awe...
On Johnston's London visit...
http://tinyurl.com/bboysjohnst
In the 'Influence' section, of the article below, it has Paul quotes
and Clapton's thoughts on Pet Sounds... says Paul played it for John
all the time...
LookingGlass
>
> Bramwell misses the Pet Sounds influence on the Beatles, though -
> proving that not one person was around the Beatles enough to ever have
> gotten the full picture on them... - thus, the rash of books about
> them from all angles, necessarily so...
Even The Beatles don't know (or don't/mis-remember) the full story of
The Beatles. They rode the crest of the wave. There was lots of water
passing under the bridge while they were floating upstream.
It's all too much...
Crisstti
I get the impression that many of the "Beatles insiders" who've
written books - and I say this not having read any of them, just from
what I've read about them - seem to have liked Paul better, or to have
had a somewhat higher opinion of him than of John. Tony Bramwell,
George Martin, Geoff Emmerick, even Pete Shotton (and another guy
who's name I can't remember... the one who was very close to the
Beatles but was not included in the Anthology, he wrote a book as
well).
BLACKPOOLJIMMY
Bramwell loved John. Told me so, over beers at May's.
Very likable fellow, that Bramwell.
Bernie Woodham
>
> I get the impression that many of the "Beatles insiders" who've
> written books - and I say this not having read any of them, just from
> what I've read about them - seem to have liked Paul better, or to have
> had a somewhat higher opinion of him than of John.
It could just be that in the end, Paul was just the more organized and
prepared of the four. Probably also the more intelligent.
It's said that the early Beatles, (from their formation to about '66),
was John's band. But when you look at the old concerts and interviews,
it really seems as though Paul is the spokesman.
In the online documentary of Epstein I posted, it is said that The
Beatles was John's band until Epstein came along. And Epstein turned
it into Paul's band. John never was happy with the marketing.
Crisstti
But Brian was John's partner in changing the credits to Lennon/
McCartney (who knows in exchange for what!, lol).
I had always had the impression that Brian would side more with John.
Bernie Woodham
That impression may have been encouraged to make John feel more secure
about things. Likewise the songwriting credit thing may have been
decided for John for the same reason, to help John save face. But
watch a lot of the old footage and it's Paul that seems like the
leader.
Fattuchus
You should read his book. He tears her apart, and dispells or tries
to dispell much of the "JohnandYoko" myth. I can't recall the exact
words, but he calls her a "force of destruction" or something like
that.
When John and Yoko first got together and became a couple, they were
fond of going on interviews, telling the world that Yoko never hardly
heard of the Beatles, etc. Bramwell destroys that myth. He gives
examples of how Brian Epstein helped her with some of her shows/
performances BEFORE she supposeldy met John in Sept. 1966. Yoko got
herself heavily involved with people all around the Beatles and even
went to Paul allegedly for a song manuscript BEFORE she met John at
Dunbar's gallery.
Bramwell also talks about the so called famous first meeting at
Dunbar's gallery where John wanted to hammer a nail into Yoko's
exhibit and she at first said "No" and that she wanted the show to be
pristine on opening day. Bramwell writes that Yoko claimed that she
did not know who John was, but Bramwell says that the truth was she
knew exactly who John was and that he was rich. IIRC Bramwell
suggests that Yoko asked Dunbar to call John to invite him to the
gallery in the first place.
IMO if you really want to read the truth about J & Y and to see how
the myth is partially a crock of bull poop, read Bramwell's wonderful
book.
I get the impression that Bramwell was fond of John, but that in his
opinion, John was like a moth drawn to a candle, and could often
engage in self destructive and damaging behavior. IIRC Bramwell
refers to a young John as a charismatic figure, but a local juvenile
delinquent. Bramwell suggests that in the end, it was John (with
Yoko's constant encouragement and help) who destroyed Apple, brought
in Klein, caused many long term Beatles friends to be fired, etc.
For the most part, Bramwell writes kindly about almost everyone he
mentions, even John. But he holds little back as far as Yoko. And I
really think the question some readers should be asking is "why"? Why
would Bramwell dislike her so much when he is pleasant to just about
everyone else?
I believe she did some awful things and Bramwell is being straight
about it. But the Yoko-worshippers here won't believe it.
Fattuchus
Well, there ya go.
But, based on his book, he felt John made a mistake hooking up with
what's her name.
Fattuchus
Based on what I read, I don't think Brian turned the Beatles into
Paul's band. I think Brian worked hard to make it John and Paul's
band. I think Brian bent over backward to protect John, sometimes
from others, and sometimes from himself. e.g. The "we are bigger than
Jesus" fall out.
John's personal style was to be a rebel, a rocker and "in your face."
Paul was much more middle class and conformist as far as his
personality, style and goals in life.
Brian came from an upper middle class background and was a salesman.
He came from a conformist background and knew what he had to do to
market the Beatles and to sell them. Brian knew how to avoid "rocking
the boat," and to try to appeal to the mainstream (while hiding his
homosexuality and his Jewishness which were two strikes against him)
yet, in my opinion, rocking the boat is something John loved to do.
So, yes, the Beatles became famous under Brian's management because
Brian molded them to appeal to conformist middle class and upper
middle class British and later American parents. This might have been
appealing to Paul's style and not John's and in John's mind, he felt
they had "sold out." However, I think as far as power goes, Brian did
what he could to make sure John had a leadership role.
When Brian died, IMO John knew he had lost an ally and good friend and
had lost someone who ran the business end of things. John felt that
Paul was now really trying to take over and resented it. IMO that was
the beginning of the end of the Beatles.
Bernie Woodham
He probably wanted to fuck her and she wouldn't let him. Now he's
getting his revenge.
Fattuchus
I agree with you. For example, if you read George Martin's book, IIRC,
Martin himself says that in the beginning, Martin mentioned to Brian
that many groups in those days had an obvious single leader such as
Gerry and the Pacemakers. Martin said he favored Paul. Brian stood
up for John and told George Martin that there were two leaders, John
and Paul, and that was the way it was going to be.
Fattuchus
>
> - Show quoted text -
Paul had a handsome face and was good at PR. But I've seen or read
interviews where Paul is the first to say that "John is the leader."
Also if you read books about the early days such as Larry Kane's
Ticket to Ride (or perhaps some others . . . . I can't recall all the
details) if Paul had a business concern, he would tell John about it,
and then John would speak to Brian Epstein about it.
Larry Kane recounted one specific incident where the Beatles were
touring the US . . . I forget if it was 1964 or 1965. The Beatles had
an agreement to do a show (in Chicago I think) and they had agreed to
do a certain number of songs, which was their pattern throughout the
tour. Anyway, some big powerful business man (I forget his
name . . . Wrigley? The owner of the Cubs??) wanted the Beatles do
to a longer show and was willing to pay them more money. Brian
brought John in on the negotiations. John said, "No." The business
guy kept going up and up in his price. John kept saying, "No." I
don't recall Paul being involved in that.
Bernie Woodham
like to see specific examples. Specific quotes.
> Larry Kane recounted one specific incident where the Beatles were
> touring the US . . . I forget if it was 1964 or 1965. The Beatles had
> an agreement to do a show (in Chicago I think) and they had agreed to
> do a certain number of songs, which was their pattern throughout the
> tour. Anyway, some big powerful business man (I forget his
> name . . . Wrigley? The owner of the Cubs??) wanted the Beatles do
> to a longer show and was willing to pay them more money. Brian
> brought John in on the negotiations. John said, "No." The business
> guy kept going up and up in his price. John kept saying, "No." I
> don't recall Paul being involved in that.
This story I absolutely do not believe. Even if there was such a
negotiation, it would be ridiculous for Brian Epstein to bring Lennon
in on negotiations. That story is a fiction.
Crisstti
> On Nov 1, 12:48 pm, Crisstti <crissttigalda...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Wow, Tnoy Bramwell really disliked Yoko!.
>
> You should read his book. He tears her apart, and dispells or tries
> to dispell much of the "JohnandYoko" myth. I can't recall the exact
> words, but he calls her a "force of destruction" or something like
> that.
>
> When John and Yoko first got together and became a couple, they were
> fond of going on interviews, telling the world that Yoko never hardly
> heard of the Beatles, etc. Bramwell destroys that myth. He gives
> examples of how Brian Epstein helped her with some of her shows/
> performances BEFORE she supposeldy met John in Sept. 1966. Yoko got
> herself heavily involved with people all around the Beatles and even
> went to Paul allegedly for a song manuscript BEFORE she met John at
> Dunbar's gallery.
>
"Allegedly"?, I think it's a well established fact.
> Bramwell also talks about the so called famous first meeting at
> Dunbar's gallery where John wanted to hammer a nail into Yoko's
> exhibit and she at first said "No" and that she wanted the show to be
> pristine on opening day. Bramwell writes that Yoko claimed that she
> did not know who John was, but Bramwell says that the truth was she
> knew exactly who John was and that he was rich. IIRC Bramwell
> suggests that Yoko asked Dunbar to call John to invite him to the
> gallery in the first place.
>
Paul said pretty clearly - in the speech he did at John's induction
into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame - that Yoko met John because he
told her to ask him for a manuscript. Ald after that Yoko and Paul
hugged (so she didn't object at all), so I think that is when John and
yoko met...
> IMO if you really want to read the truth about J & Y and to see how
> the myth is partially a crock of bull poop, read Bramwell's wonderful
> book.
>
Well, I'm spending so much money I don't have in buying books online
for my thesis, that I don't have money to spend on other books :).
But when I do have it, his will be one of the books I'll buy.
(Actually, I might buy a Beatles book along with the others, from
Amazon, if it "fits" in the same shipping package, but it will be Many
Years From Now).
>
>
> > I get the impression that many of the "Beatles insiders" who've
> > written books - and I say this not having read any of them, just from
> > what I've read about them - seem to have liked Paul better, or to have
> > had a somewhat higher opinion of him than of John. Tony Bramwell,
> > George Martin, Geoff Emmerick, even Pete Shotton (and another guy
> > who's name I can't remember... the one who was very close to the
> > Beatles but was not included in the Anthology, he wrote a book as
> > well).
>
> I get the impression that Bramwell was fond of John, but that in his
> opinion, John was like a moth drawn to a candle, and could often
> engage in self destructive and damaging behavior. IIRC Bramwell
> refers to a young John as a charismatic figure, but a local juvenile
> delinquent. Bramwell suggests that in the end, it was John (with
> Yoko's constant encouragement and help) who destroyed Apple, brought
> in Klein, caused many long term Beatles friends to be fired, etc.
>
Well, but when we discuss about it you insist on blaming Paul :).
Crisstti
> On Nov 1, 1:25 pm, Bernie Woodham <birnhamw...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 1, 12:48 pm, Crisstti <crissttigalda...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Wow, Tnoy Bramwell really disliked Yoko!.
>
> > > I get the impression that many of the "Beatles insiders" who've
> > > written books - and I say this not having read any of them, just from
> > > what I've read about them - seem to have liked Paul better, or to have
> > > had a somewhat higher opinion of him than of John.
>
> > It could just be that in the end, Paul was just the more organized and
> > prepared of the four. Probably also the more intelligent.
>
> > It's said that the early Beatles, (from their formation to about '66),
> > was John's band. But when you look at the old concerts and interviews,
> > it really seems as though Paul is the spokesman.
>
> > In the online documentary of Epstein I posted, it is said that The
> > Beatles was John's band until Epstein came along. And Epstein turned
> > it into Paul's band. John never was happy with the marketing.
>
> Based on what I read, I don't think Brian turned the Beatles into
> Paul's band. I think Brian worked hard to make it John and Paul's
> band. I think Brian bent over backward to protect John, sometimes
> from others, and sometimes from himself. e.g. The "we are bigger than
> Jesus" fall out.
>
> John's personal style was to be a rebel, a rocker and "in your face."
> Paul was much more middle class and conformist as far as his
> personality, style and goals in life.
>
Mmm... I wouldn't call Paul a conformist at all.
> Brian came from an upper middle class background and was a salesman.
> He came from a conformist background and knew what he had to do to
> market the Beatles and to sell them. Brian knew how to avoid "rocking
> the boat," and to try to appeal to the mainstream (while hiding his
> homosexuality and his Jewishness which were two strikes against him)
> yet, in my opinion, rocking the boat is something John loved to do.
>
> So, yes, the Beatles became famous under Brian's management because
> Brian molded them to appeal to conformist middle class and upper
> middle class British and later American parents. This might have been
> appealing to Paul's style and not John's and in John's mind, he felt
> they had "sold out." However, I think as far as power goes, Brian did
> what he could to make sure John had a leadership role.
>
Yeah, I think that is more probably it. That as far as their opinions
about what should be done to marcket the band, Brian might just have
agreed more with Paul. But in general he was more John's ally (though
didn't Francie claim that Brian had written a love letter to Paul...?,
I don't think I'm inclined to believe her though).
But I do find Bernie's theory interesting... it would explain JOhn's
need to do that power grab thing (of going to Spain with Brian), at
least that is what Paul thinks it was...
> When Brian died, IMO John knew he had lost an ally and good friend and
> had lost someone who ran the business end of things. John felt that
> Paul was now really trying to take over and resented it. IMO that was
> the beginning of the end of the Beatles.- Ocultar texto de la cita -
>
> - Mostrar texto de la cita -
Yeah, well, I think he resented not winning in his always ongoing
competition with Paul. He himself sais as much in some interview.
Crisstti
There's some interview in which the interviewer asks who is the leader
- what an uncomfortable question for a band... - and they say that
there isn't really a leader (or something like that) and then Paul
says that if there's a leader, it's John.
> Larry Kane recounted one specific incident where the Beatles were
> touring the US . . . I forget if it was 1964 or 1965. The Beatles had
> an agreement to do a show (in Chicago I think) and they had agreed to
> do a certain number of songs, which was their pattern throughout the
> tour. Anyway, some big powerful business man (I forget his
> name . . . Wrigley? The owner of the Cubs??) wanted the Beatles do
> to a longer show and was willing to pay them more money. Brian
> brought John in on the negotiations. John said, "No." The business
> guy kept going up and up in his price. John kept saying, "No." I
> don't recall Paul being involved in that.- Ocultar texto de la cita -
>
> - Mostrar texto de la cita -
I seem to remember reading about similar situations... maybe JOhn was
just better at that kind of thing...
Did John say "yes" in some moment?, I imagine he should have!.
Crisstti
I remember some story about some of the early tours (before they were
that famous at all) and JOhn calling the guy who had hired them to ask
for their money... don't know where I read it though. Sorry, don't
have time right now to look for quotes...
> > Larry Kane recounted one specific incident where the Beatles were
> > touring the US . . . I forget if it was 1964 or 1965. The Beatles had
> > an agreement to do a show (in Chicago I think) and they had agreed to
> > do a certain number of songs, which was their pattern throughout the
> > tour. Anyway, some big powerful business man (I forget his
> > name . . . Wrigley? The owner of the Cubs??) wanted the Beatles do
> > to a longer show and was willing to pay them more money. Brian
> > brought John in on the negotiations. John said, "No." The business
> > guy kept going up and up in his price. John kept saying, "No." I
> > don't recall Paul being involved in that.
>
> This story I absolutely do not believe. Even if there was such a
> negotiation, it would be ridiculous for Brian Epstein to bring Lennon
> in on negotiations. That story is a fiction.- Ocultar texto de la cita -
>
> - Mostrar texto de la cita -
Yeah, it would not make much sense, it's true...
Fattuchus
Sorry, I don't have all of the books since some I borrowed from a
library. Even if I did, it would take time for me to dig up all the
quotes.
Fattuchus
> On 2 nov, 04:29, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Based on what I read, I don't think Brian turned the Beatles into
> > Paul's band. I think Brian worked hard to make it John and Paul's
> > band. I think Brian bent over backward to protect John, sometimes
> > from others, and sometimes from himself. e.g. The "we are bigger than
> > Jesus" fall out.
>
> > John's personal style was to be a rebel, a rocker and "in your face."
> > Paul was much more middle class and conformist as far as his
> > personality, style and goals in life.
>
> Mmm... I wouldn't call Paul a conformist at all.
I guess things are relative. Compared to John, Paul was pretty
conformist. In school he was an A student, concerned with pleasing
the teacher, pleasing his hard working, middle class parents, etc. As
an adult, he was delighted to play for the Queen, get an MBE; I bet
he's thrilled that he is now Sir Paul.
I saw an interview by John's father, Freddy, which I think sums up
things as far as John. Fred claimed that he was upset/ashamed when
John accepted the MBE from the Queen. And one of his proudest moments
was when John returned it.
>
> > Brian came from an upper middle class background and was a salesman.
> > He came from a conformist background and knew what he had to do to
> > market the Beatles and to sell them. Brian knew how to avoid "rocking
> > the boat," and to try to appeal to the mainstream (while hiding his
> > homosexuality and his Jewishness which were two strikes against him)
> > yet, in my opinion, rocking the boat is something John loved to do.
>
> > So, yes, the Beatles became famous under Brian's management because
> > Brian molded them to appeal to conformist middle class and upper
> > middle class British and later American parents. This might have been
> > appealing to Paul's style and not John's and in John's mind, he felt
> > they had "sold out." However, I think as far as power goes, Brian did
> > what he could to make sure John had a leadership role.
>
> Yeah, I think that is more probably it. That as far as their opinions
> about what should be done to marcket the band, Brian might just have
> agreed more with Paul. But in general he was more John's ally (though
> didn't Francie claim that Brian had written a love letter to Paul...?,
> I don't think I'm inclined to believe her though).
I agree with you. As far as Brian writing a love letter to Paul, I
would not be surprised if he did. Brian tended to make passes at lots
and lots of young men, not just Paul or John. Pete Shotton reported
Brian made a pass at him. Larry Kane reported Brian made a pass at
him. Poor Brian must have been very lonely and horny.
Fattuchus
Here is an article which claims John was the leader until 1967:
http://aboutthebeatles.com/biography_johnlennon.php
After John died, Ringo gave an interview. I can't recall the exact
quote . . . . It may have been in response to Paul making certain
statements trying to put John down to elevate his own stature in the
Beatles. Ringo stated something to the effect of that no matter how
one tells the story, the Beatles were John's band.
Jeff
Ringie?
Fattuchus
> in on negotiations. That story is a fiction.-
IIRC this "story" is mentioned in Larry Kane's Ticket to Ride and
repeated in his second book, Lennon Revealed. (Lennon Revealed is one
of my favorite Beatle books). Beginning at page 163, Kane writes:
"No situation revealed Lennon's anti-authority streak and
outright scorn for the rich and powerful more than an incident
in . . . . Kansias City, Missouri. Lennon's one-man protest was
launched on the flight to Kansas City when he rejected a powerful plea
from Brian Epstein to offer a special compromise to the wealthy
promoter. Kansas City was a late entry on the Beatles' tour agenda;
added after they received a large cash offer from the eccentric
millionaire owner of the Kansas City Athletics baseball team, Charles
O. Finley. Finley had offered Brian Epstein $150,000 for the concert,
an outrageous sum by the day's standards. Epstein accepted on behalf
of the band, but Finley later decided he wanted more for his money.
I stood in the entranceway to the boys' suite in the
Muehleback Hotel and watched Finley try to negotiate a sweeter deal
with the Beatles. He was negotiating with Brian Epstein, hoping that
the boys would play longer than their usual 35 minute concert, and he
offered more cash to make it happen. Finley made the offer, as as
Epstein watched with his eyes wide open, Lennon, speaking for the
group, shook his head, "no." Finley made a larger cash offer; Lennon
again shook his head. The promoter, visibly upset, raised the offer a
third time; Lennon again rejected it out of hand. Finley, in a rage,
stormed out of the room. Later on in the stadium, on the way out of
the dressing room, I heard John yell out to Finley, 'Chuck, you
shouldn't have spent so much money on us!'
In a rare concession, the Beatles played an extra song: Wilbert
Harrison's hit 'Kansas City.' The local fans went wild. But for me,
the most remarkable memory of the evening was of the brazen Lennon
confronting a powerful illionaire. It was part of the pattern: John
staring down the establishment, speaking for the group, bypassing
Epstein, and willing to serve as the 'front man' for controversy even
though he was doing it with the blessing of Paul and the others. . . ."
Fattuchus
>
> - Show quoted text -
I made a typo.
Crisstti
> On Nov 2, 9:16 pm, Crisstti <crissttigalda...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 2 nov, 04:29, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Based on what I read, I don't think Brian turned the Beatles into
> > > Paul's band. I think Brian worked hard to make it John and Paul's
> > > band. I think Brian bent over backward to protect John, sometimes
> > > from others, and sometimes from himself. e.g. The "we are bigger than
> > > Jesus" fall out.
>
> > > John's personal style was to be a rebel, a rocker and "in your face."
> > > Paul was much more middle class and conformist as far as his
> > > personality, style and goals in life.
>
> > Mmm... I wouldn't call Paul a conformist at all.
>
> I guess things are relative. Compared to John, Paul was pretty
> conformist. In school he was an A student, concerned with pleasing
> the teacher, pleasing his hard working, middle class parents, etc. As
> an adult, he was delighted to play for the Queen, get an MBE; I bet
> he's thrilled that he is now Sir Paul.
>
I don't think that means he's conformist. It probably just means that
other people's expectations meant more to him than they did to John.
Or that, because he was very probably closer to his parents than John
was to anyone in his family, his father's teachings and the values he
tought him (probably including some social class issues) meant more to
him.
Also, I don't know if he was that concerned with pleasing his
teachers, as with getting good grades to get into university. Either
to please his parents or because he was thinking in his future (he's
said he wanted to be a teacher). Probably both. I remember he said
in some interview that he admired a literature teacher, who'd
recommend him a lot of plays. That's probably why he wanted to be a
teacher. That's not conformism (teaching is a great profession, I'm
sure). It's vocation.
> I saw an interview by John's father, Freddy, which I think sums up
> things as far as John. Fred claimed that he was upset/ashamed when
> John accepted the MBE from the Queen. And one of his proudest moments
> was when John returned it.
>
Mmm... I'm not sure how much Freddy might have known about his son.
Though I certainly agree that "rocking the boat" was more John's thing
than Paul's.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Brian came from an upper middle class background and was a salesman.
> > > He came from a conformist background and knew what he had to do to
> > > market the Beatles and to sell them. Brian knew how to avoid "rocking
> > > the boat," and to try to appeal to the mainstream (while hiding his
> > > homosexuality and his Jewishness which were two strikes against him)
> > > yet, in my opinion, rocking the boat is something John loved to do.
>
> > > So, yes, the Beatles became famous under Brian's management because
> > > Brian molded them to appeal to conformist middle class and upper
> > > middle class British and later American parents. This might have been
> > > appealing to Paul's style and not John's and in John's mind, he felt
> > > they had "sold out." However, I think as far as power goes, Brian did
> > > what he could to make sure John had a leadership role.
>
> > Yeah, I think that is more probably it. That as far as their opinions
> > about what should be done to marcket the band, Brian might just have
> > agreed more with Paul. But in general he was more John's ally (though
> > didn't Francie claim that Brian had written a love letter to Paul...?,
> > I don't think I'm inclined to believe her though).
>
> I agree with you. As far as Brian writing a love letter to Paul, I
> would not be surprised if he did. Brian tended to make passes at lots
> and lots of young men, not just Paul or John. Pete Shotton reported
> Brian made a pass at him. Larry Kane reported Brian made a pass at
> him. Poor Brian must have been very lonely and horny.- Ocultar texto de la cita -
>
> - Mostrar texto de la cita -
But Brian must have known other gay men he'd have made passes at!. I
don't think he was wasting his time making passes at lots of straight
friends or aquintances of him. Plus, he seemed kinda shy, I really
doubt he would.
Did Larry Kane know The Beatles when they were young...?. I thought
he was a friend of John's from later on.
Crisstti
>
> - Mostrar texto de la cita -
Well, uite a rude thing to say if he did. And I opinion I disagree
with. John might have been more of a leader than Paul, for a
personality thing, but The Beatles were John's and Paul's band. And I
think they both knew that.
Crisstti
>
> - Mostrar texto de la cita -
Thanks for taking the time to post that.
It's interesting, and it sounds very much like John :).
I do think this part is very important: "(...) and willing to serve
as the 'front man' for controversy even
though he was doing it with the blessing of Paul and the others. . .".
Kane's clearly saying that John was being the spokesperson, the
frontman, but he did not make the decicion. It was a group decision.
Bernie Woodham
>
>
> IIRC this "story" is mentioned in Larry Kane's Ticket to Ride and
> repeated in his second book, Lennon Revealed. (Lennon Revealed is one
> of my favorite Beatle books). Beginning at page 163, Kane writes:
>
one of your favorite books your memory of it was pretty poor. First
you said it took place in Chicago and thought it was Wrigley, (even
though they performed at Comiskey Park), but it turns out it happens
in Kansas City. First you said Brian called John into a business
negotiation, then it turns out your source said it was demands made in
a hallway. First you say you didn't recall that Paul was asked into
the meeting, then it turns out that Paul would almost have to have
been in that hallway.
So let's make one thing clear: Your memory CANNOT be relied upon. When
people doubt what you recall, it's for good reason. The next time you
type "IIRC", remember that you don't "RC" very well at all.
Also. This is one of your favorite books because it is a very
salacious book. The greasier, the better for you. Which is another
reason people tend to discount the things you've read. You like things
that cater to your biases.
It's true that Larry Kane toured with The Beatles, but it's also true
that he has used that advantage to make some very dodgy claims. For
instance, Kane puts out that John Lennon was making out with Jayne
Mansfield in the limo on the way to the Whiskey-A-Go-Go. But it's
known that Mansfield was being chaperoned by her husband. It's very
doubtful that they even rode together to that club, because when The
Beatles, (probably just Lennon and Harrison), entered the club they
were ushered to a table where Mansfield had positioned herself to get
publicity photos taken of her with them. The Beatles may have idolized
her before they met her, but it seems they hadn't realized how much
she had aged and were turned off by her. But, you wouldn't get that
reading Larry Kane's account.
So, likewise, let's contrast Kane's account of the Finley event with
the account Lewisohn gives:
"When Finley owned the Kansas City Athletics, he promised the people
of Kansas City that he would bring The Beatles to play in Kansas
City's Municipal Stadium during the group's first tour of North
America in the summer of 1964. Finley visited the group's manager,
Brian Epstein, in San Francisco on August 19, 1964, where the Beatles
were playing the first date of the tour. He told Epstein that he was
disappointed that Kansas City was not among the group's itinerary, and
offered first $50,000 and then $100,000 if the Beatles would schedule
a concert in the Missouri city. Epstein refused, pointing out that on
the only free date available, September 17, the band was scheduled for
a day of rest in New Orleans. Finley left disappointed, but again
encountered Epstein in Los Angeles a week later. Epstein again
rejected Finley's offer of $100,000, noting that the band wanted to
use their only day off to "explore the traditional home of jazz."
Undetered, Finley tore up the $100,000 check and wrote a new one for
$150,000. Astonished, Epstein excused himself to talk to the group.
The band told him, "We'll do whatever you want." Satisfied that, in
exchange for forfeiting their only day off, the Beatles had earned
what at the time was the highest fee ever for a musical concert, a
staggering $4,838 per minute, Epstein accepted Finley's check."
The Beatles Live!: The Ultimate Reference Book -- pages 168–69
So, this presents a very different perspective! Here's a man that was
chasing Epstein for over a year trying to get The Beatles scheduled.
Finally offering up what was then an outrageous amount that gave
Epstein pause. Epstein HAD to consult with group, (NOT LENNON - THE
GROUP), because it was their scheduled day off. And there was no
bringing someone into the negotiations, he simply went to them to
clear the date. Nor is there any indication that Finley wanted more
time from them. OTOH, he seemed quite pleased with himself that he
brought The Beatles to Kansas City.
A further reason to doubt Kane's story is that the Kansas City media
despised Finley, (as did most of Kansas City). If they got wind of
that supposed occurrence in the hallway, (and if it were that public
they would have), they would have used it in an effort to shame him.
The Kansas City press did make a big deal about the sum involved. The
press had a lot to do with the low turnout at The Beatles show.
Bernie Woodham
Oh, well here's a site that says Paul was the leader.
http://cameraluc.blogspot.com/2009/07/paul-mccartney-leader-of-beatles.html
Your site doesn't give a reason for the claim. Mine does. So mine wins
regardless of how lame a rationale they use.
LookingGlass
>
> So let's make one thing clear: Your memory CANNOT be relied upon. When
> people doubt what you recall, it's for good reason. The next time you
> type "IIRC", remember that you don't "RC" very well at all.
>
> Also. This is one of your favorite books because it is a very
> salacious book. The greasier, the better for you. Which is another
> reason people tend to discount the things you've read. You like things
> that cater to your biases.
True...on all accounts. As I was reading the McCartney biograpy, MANY
YEARS FROM NOW (excellent), Fatty kept telling me how slanted and
biased it was towards Lennon. I made it a point to note any
"salacious" bits aimed at Lennon. Throughout the book, McCartney
always spoke in loving terms about Lennon, though I think he did state
he was "a swine" somewhere along the way. Nothing unusual about
that...some of my best friends are "swine". :o)
She mis-remembers a great deal of the time...always saying IIRC.
RichL
I don't think that was true at the beginning. I think it gradually
evolved, so that by the time of A Hard Day's Night the leadership roles
were essentially shared.
Fattuchus
I'm speculating here. I think one big probrlem Brian faced in the
1960's is that being gay was taboo. People did not advertise if they
were gay or straight, so how would he know? The best he could do
would be to make a pass or drop hints and hope the other guy liked him
too.
>
> Did Larry Kane know The Beatles when they were young...?. I thought
> he was a friend of John's from later on.
Back in 1964 or so, Kane was a young reporter (21???) starting out in
his career. His boss gave him the assignment to cover the Beatles on
their first US tour. At first I don't think Kane was happy. However,
he and a small handful of other reporters were lucky enough to ride
with the Beatles on their 1964 tour . . . .He would even be on the
plane with them and conducted many interviews on the plane, at the
hotels, etc. I think he became a big fan.
He later traveled with them on tour in 1965.
Kane went on to become a TV newsman in the Philadelphia area and
remained friendly with John. In 1973 or so, his TV station ran a
charity event, and John traveled by train from NYC to participate and
help raise money. Kane wrote very glowingly about John's generosity
and charity work. John was very humble and down to earth.
Fattuchus
Yes.
As far as "leadership" perhaps the best way to describe it is that
John and Paul had a bad cop/ good cop routine. When needed, John
would play the bad cop. Paul was better at public relations, so when
needed, he would be the good cop.
who?
Yeah, well they broke up 40 years ago, and Paul is too old to be
a cop. Barnaby Jones did it though in his 80's.
Fattuchus
> On Nov 3, 8:36 am, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > IIRC this "story" is mentioned in Larry Kane's Ticket to Ride and
> > repeated in his second book, Lennon Revealed. (Lennon Revealed is one
> > of my favorite Beatle books). Beginning at page 163, Kane writes:
>
> Oh, of course that's one of your favorite books. But even though it's
> one of your favorite books your memory of it was pretty poor. First
> you said it took place in Chicago and thought it was Wrigley, (even
> though they performed at Comiskey Park), but it turns out it happens
> in Kansas City. First you said Brian called John into a business
> negotiation, then it turns out your source said it was demands made in
> a hallway. First you say you didn't recall that Paul was asked into
> the meeting, then it turns out that Paul would almost have to have
> been in that hallway.
I said I wasn't sure. But I did get the key points absolutely
correct. Does it really matter if the
talks took place in Chicago or Kansas City?
You love to knit pick and put others down don't ya?
.
>
> Also. This is one of your favorite books because it is a very
> salacious book. The greasier, the better for you.
This book is not greasy. One of the less greasy books.
Which is another
> reason people tend to discount the things you've read. You like things
> that cater to your biases.
Maybe I have certain "biases" because I learn things from the books I
read.
>
> It's true that Larry Kane toured with The Beatles, but it's also true
> that he has used that advantage to make some very dodgy claims. For
> instance, Kane puts out that John Lennon was making out with Jayne
> Mansfield in the limo on the way to the Whiskey-A-Go-Go. But it's
> known that Mansfield was being chaperoned by her husband. It's very
> doubtful that they even rode together to that club, because when The
> Beatles, (probably just Lennon and Harrison), entered the club they
> were ushered to a table where Mansfield had positioned herself to get
> publicity photos taken of her with them. The Beatles may have idolized
> her before they met her, but it seems they hadn't realized how much
> she had aged and were turned off by her. But, you wouldn't get that
> reading Larry Kane's account.
Why would Kane lie about that?
>
> So, likewise, let's contrast Kane's account of the Finley event with
> the account Lewisohn gives:
>
> "When Finley owned the Kansas City Athletics, he promised the people
> of Kansas City that he would bring The Beatles to play in Kansas
> City's Municipal Stadium during the group's first tour of North
> America in the summer of 1964. Finley visited the group's manager,
> Brian Epstein, in San Francisco on August 19, 1964, where the Beatles
> were playing the first date of the tour. He told Epstein that he was
> disappointed that Kansas City was not among the group's itinerary, and
> offered first $50,000 and then $100,000 if the Beatles would schedule
> a concert in the Missouri city. Epstein refused, pointing out that on
> the only free date available, September 17, the band was scheduled for
> a day of rest in New Orleans. Finley left disappointed, but again
> encountered Epstein in Los Angeles a week later. Epstein again
> rejected Finley's offer of $100,000, noting that the band wanted to
> use their only day off to "explore the traditional home of jazz."
> Undetered, Finley tore up the $100,000 check and wrote a new one for
> $150,000. Astonished, Epstein excused himself to talk to the group.
> The band told him, "We'll do whatever you want." Satisfied that, in
> exchange for forfeiting their only day off, the Beatles had earned
> what at the time was the highest fee ever for a musical concert, a
> staggering $4,838 per minute, Epstein accepted Finley's check."
I don't doubt what you write, but what Lewisohn says does not
contradict what Kane says.
Can't they both be right?
Kane says he was there. He was an eyewitness. Was Lewisohn an
eyewitness?
>
> So, this presents a very different perspective! Here's a man that was
> chasing Epstein for over a year trying to get The Beatles scheduled.
> Finally offering up what was then an outrageous amount that gave
> Epstein pause. Epstein HAD to consult with group, (NOT LENNON - THE
> GROUP), because it was their scheduled day off. And there was no
> bringing someone into the negotiations, he simply went to them to
> clear the date. Nor is there any indication that Finley wanted more
> time from them.
Kane was an eye witness. Maybe Lewisohn does not know everything.
OTOH, he seemed quite pleased with himself that he
> brought The Beatles to Kansas City.
And he should have been!
Fattuchus
I often say IIRC because I don't have the book or other source right
in front of me. I'm the first to say my memory is fvague at
times . . . . but I do get the key events correct most of the time.
Fattuchus
>
> - Show quoted text -
:-)
who?
Barney Fife, Otis, and Barnaby Jones would have made a great
team. :-)
Bernie Woodham
>
>
> I said I wasn't sure. But I did get the key points absolutely
> correct. Does it really matter if the
> talks took place in Chicago or Kansas City?
>
> You love to knit pick and put others down don't ya?
>
information about a Chicago baseball owner who dealt with The Beatles
before I finally determined that you "probably" meant Kansas City. So,
yes, where this supposed event took place matters.
>
> Maybe I have certain "biases" because I learn things from the books I
> read.
>
Now if you could only remember what it is you learned. OH! What you
figured to begin with.
>
>
> > It's true that Larry Kane toured with The Beatles, but it's also true
> > that he has used that advantage to make some very dodgy claims. For
> > instance, Kane puts out that John Lennon was making out with Jayne
> > Mansfield in the limo on the way to the Whiskey-A-Go-Go. But it's
> > known that Mansfield was being chaperoned by her husband. It's very
> > doubtful that they even rode together to that club, because when The
> > Beatles, (probably just Lennon and Harrison), entered the club they
> > were ushered to a table where Mansfield had positioned herself to get
> > publicity photos taken of her with them. The Beatles may have idolized
> > her before they met her, but it seems they hadn't realized how much
> > she had aged and were turned off by her. But, you wouldn't get that
> > reading Larry Kane's account.
>
> Why would Kane lie about that?
>
Ummmmm... maybe to sell a book?
Who knows. The fact is he did. So, you believe Lennon was making out
with Jayne Mansfield in a limo in front of this reporter. Noooooo,
that's not greasy.
>
> Kane says he was there. He was an eyewitness. Was Lewisohn an
> eyewitness?
>
Again, as I said earlier, Kane uses his eyewitness status to make
dodgy claims.
Another reason to doubt the story, is that Kane has Finley offering
more money for a longer show time. This at 2:00 am in the morning. He
was already being criticized badly for the money he paid for the show.
At that point in time he was going to lose $40,000 on the show already
+ a $25,000 charitable donation tied into the show. He wasn't able to
sell all the tickets and had printed $2.00 "discount" tickets in an
effort to sell more. Why would this man be offering more money for an
extra long show?
Kane prints his story in two books. Show me independent confirmation
of the story.
But, you know, it's really beside the original point. It's been
established that Brian did NOT call John Lennon into a business
negotiation. At most what you have is John Lennon being flippant to a
man in a suit. And you're calling that leadership.
> Kane was an eye witness. Maybe Lewisohn does not know everything.
>
Again, you're letting an eye witness status allow the man to make
claims that are pretty questionable. Yoko Ono was an eyewitness; so
you should believe everything she says also.
> OTOH, he seemed quite pleased with himself that he
>
> > brought The Beatles to Kansas City.
>
> And he should have been!
I didn't dispute that. But Larry Kane doesn't seem to think he was
pleased with himself.
who?
> On Nov 3, 10:05 pm, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > As far as "leadership" perhaps the best way to describe it is that
> > John and Paul had a bad cop/ good cop routine. When needed, John
> > would play the bad cop. Paul was better at public relations, so when
> > needed, he would be the good cop.
>
> lead, a leader must have that intangible quality that allows other
> talented people to willingly accept his or her leadership. John
> accepted Paul as his partner, but in the end, the others did not
> accept the leadership Paul was offering. And without the troops behind
> you, you have nothing even if Brian Epstein, George Martin, and the
> Media all meet in a smokey room and officially dub you the official
> 'Leader'. Instead, John defaulted on his part of the binary star and
> the whole thing blew apart.
>
> No wonder Brian Epstein was so stressed out. :-)
I think Lennon was burnt out on drugs by 1967, and he to let
Paul take over the band, and we know John wanted to
leave the Beatles in 1966.
Fattuchus
> On Nov 4, 1:14 am, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I said I wasn't sure. But I did get the key points absolutely
> > correct. Does it really matter if the
> > talks took place in Chicago or Kansas City?
>
> > You love to knit pick and put others down don't ya?
>
> Easy for you to say, but I wasted about 1/2 hour trying to find
> information about a Chicago baseball owner who dealt with The Beatles
> before I finally determined that you "probably" meant Kansas City. So,
> yes, where this supposed event took place matters.
Gee, sorry.
> > > It's true that Larry Kane toured with The Beatles, but it's also true
> > > that he has used that advantage to make some very dodgy claims. For
> > > instance, Kane puts out that John Lennon was making out with Jayne
> > > Mansfield in the limo on the way to the Whiskey-A-Go-Go. But it's
> > > known that Mansfield was being chaperoned by her husband. It's very
> > > doubtful that they even rode together to that club, because when The
> > > Beatles, (probably just Lennon and Harrison), entered the club they
> > > were ushered to a table where Mansfield had positioned herself to get
> > > publicity photos taken of her with them. The Beatles may have idolized
> > > her before they met her, but it seems they hadn't realized how much
> > > she had aged and were turned off by her. But, you wouldn't get that
> > > reading Larry Kane's account.
>
> > Why would Kane lie about that?
>
> Ummmmm... maybe to sell a book?
Kane had lots of other material to sell his book.
>
> Who knows. The fact is he did. So, you believe Lennon was making out
> with Jayne Mansfield in a limo in front of this reporter. Noooooo,
> that's not greasy.
Greasy? For John freakin' Lennon? For rock stars in general?
I did not realize you would get so miffed by reading that Lennon and
some lady were huggy and kissing in front of a reporter. Call the
police!!!
>
>
>
> > Kane says he was there. He was an eyewitness. Was Lewisohn an
> > eyewitness?
>
> Again, as I said earlier, Kane uses his eyewitness status to make
> dodgy claims.
If you don't believe him fine. Did you read either of his books?
>
> Another reason to doubt the story, is that Kane has Finley offering
> more money for a longer show time. This at 2:00 am in the morning. He
> was already being criticized badly for the money he paid for the show.
> At that point in time he was going to lose $40,000 on the show already
> + a $25,000 charitable donation tied into the show. He wasn't able to
> sell all the tickets and had printed $2.00 "discount" tickets in an
> effort to sell more. Why would this man be offering more money for an
> extra long show?
>
> Kane prints his story in two books. Show me independent confirmation
> of the story.
>
> But, you know, it's really beside the original point. It's been
> established that Brian did NOT call John Lennon into a business
> negotiation. At most what you have is John Lennon being flippant to a
> man in a suit. And you're calling that leadership.
You are starting to sound much more "old fashioned" and establishment
than I had ever envisioned. All this time I thought you were one of
the more revolutionary folks here.
Yes, John was being flippant . . . that was John. According to Kane,
that is one of the things he admired about him. John tended to thumb
his nose at the rich and powerful. Where others (like Paul) might be
impressed, John truly was and wanted to be a down to earth working
class hero. I admire that. I guess you don't.
>
> > Kane was an eye witness. Maybe Lewisohn does not know everything.
>
> Again, you're letting an eye witness status allow the man to make
> claims that are pretty questionable. Yoko Ono was an eyewitness; so
> you should believe everything she says also.
If anyone has a motive to make money and retell history to suit his/
her purpose it would be Yoko. Surely you can see that if you can see
it in Kane. Yoko has made more money off of John, especially a dead
John, than anyone else. Wouldn't you agree?
Her fame, income, legacy, etc. is tied very much to John. If she had
never married John, she'd be an unknown except in certain artsy/fartsy
circles.
Fattuchus
> On Nov 3, 10:05 pm, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > John and Paul had a bad cop/ good cop routine. When needed, John
> > would play the bad cop. Paul was better at public relations, so when
> > needed, he would be the good cop.
>
> lead, a leader must have that intangible quality that allows other
> talented people to willingly accept his or her leadership. John
> accepted Paul as his partner, but in the end, the others did not
> accept the leadership Paul was offering. And without the troops behind
> you, you have nothing even if Brian Epstein, George Martin, and the
> Media all meet in a smokey room and officially dub you the official
> 'Leader'. Instead, John defaulted on his part of the binary star and
> the whole thing blew apart.
>
> No wonder Brian Epstein was so stressed out. :-)
As usual, excellent points. Yes, George, Ringo and Paul looked up to
John whether he wanted it or not. In that sense he was a true leader,
albeit a reluctant or even an unhappy one.
Fattuchus
All good points, Jeff.
who?
Thanks, Fatt
who?
> (68?), and they no longer trusted him as completely and started
> straining to get away. John relates in an interview how he and George
> were grumbling about MMT, but went along with Paul's idea because he
> was more or less trying to settle them down and set the direction at
> that point. And then it becomes their first real failure. That had to
> leave a mark. In the end, if Paul had truly had the ability to be the
> dominant and sole leader of the Beatles, they'd still be together.
I'm sure The Beatles made plenty of money with MMT.....cause
even though it was pretty bad, plenty of people watched it out
of curiosity...just cause it had the Beatles on it.
> Instead, they all sided against him with the Klein/Eastman situation.
Yep.
> He withdrew with drugs, but never seemed to become a true burn out
> IMO. I don't know how he managed to escape that fate, but there's so
> many interviews that make it obvious his mind was still clicking along
> at its usual excessive clip. I've seen one or two around the full
> heroin addict years where he's a bit slow and blurry, but still
> articulate and making sense. If I'd done even a hundredth as many
> drugs as he, I'd be drooling into a cup with the bunny slippers on. He
> got more freakish, but it seemed to work for him at least until about
> 72/3. Even then, it might have been the politics that brought him down
> more than the drugs.
Well said.
Bernie Woodham
>
>
> Greasy? For John freakin' Lennon? For rock stars in general?
>
"know" John Lennon. This is as good as a confession of your biases.
Oh, of course John Lennon HAD to making out with her because that fits
in with what you "KNOW" about John Lennon. There's John Lennon
jerking off with his friends, and there's John Lennon squeezing his
goo all over Jayne Manfield's tits. No doubt about it. What a leader!
Impulsive. Brash. Lewd. Just the kind of guy you want to call in to an
important business negotiation. The verdict is in. The judge, jury and
hangman have spoken. No need for any other facts or considerations.
You KNOW John Lennon.
As though because it's rock star, therefore it's not greasy. What a
stooge.
> I did not realize you would get so miffed by reading that Lennon and
> some lady were huggy and kissing in front of a reporter. Call the
> police!!!
>
I'm not saying it's right or wrong morally. I'm saying that's it's a
greasy, sensationalist thing to be reading about and that's why it's
your favorite book on Lennon. And I'm also saying that it's
questionable that it really happened. But, oh no, fuck the rest of
circumstances, you KNOW John Lennon. Yes, he had to all over her right
there.
>
>
> > > Kane says he was there. He was an eyewitness. Was Lewisohn an
> > > eyewitness?
>
> > Again, as I said earlier, Kane uses his eyewitness status to make
> > dodgy claims.
>
> If you don't believe him fine. Did you read either of his books?
>
>
I can disremember his books as well as you can without reading them.
>
>
>
> > Another reason to doubt the story, is that Kane has Finley offering
> > more money for a longer show time. This at 2:00 am in the morning. He
> > was already being criticized badly for the money he paid for the show.
> > At that point in time he was going to lose $40,000 on the show already
> > + a $25,000 charitable donation tied into the show. He wasn't able to
> > sell all the tickets and had printed $2.00 "discount" tickets in an
> > effort to sell more. Why would this man be offering more money for an
> > extra long show?
>
> > Kane prints his story in two books. Show me independent confirmation
> > of the story.
>
> > But, you know, it's really beside the original point. It's been
> > established that Brian did NOT call John Lennon into a business
> > negotiation. At most what you have is John Lennon being flippant to a
> > man in a suit. And you're calling that leadership.
>
> You are starting to sound much more "old fashioned" and establishment
> than I had ever envisioned. All this time I thought you were one of
> the more revolutionary folks here.
>
How the fuck is any of this "old fashioned". What I want confirmation
of facts and that's old fashioned. I don't believe spurious rumors
and that makes me old fashioned? I use logic and try to ascertain
facts and that makes me "establishment"? I'm really pretty proud of
myself for breaking through your narrow minded stereotypes, but you
are not making any sense at all. As usual.
> Yes, John was being flippant . . . that was John. According to Kane,
> that is one of the things he admired about him. John tended to thumb
> his nose at the rich and powerful. Where others (like Paul) might be
> impressed, John truly was and wanted to be a down to earth working
> class hero. I admire that. I guess you don't.
>
I am discussing the claims made by an author - not approving or
disapproving Lennon's character. Lennon was flippant. I know that.
And I don't care. But trying to make that a leadership characteristic
is a bit on the looney side.
And that Kane admires this trait in Lennon also means he is more than
likely to exaggerate it to make his case.
As far as Lennon being a "working class hero", I don't believe that
has anything to do with the discussion. Sounds to me like you're
taking this discussion beyond it's original point because you realize
what idiocy you were typing.
>
> If anyone has a motive to make money and retell history to suit his/
> her purpose it would be Yoko. Surely you can see that if you can see
> it in Kane. Yoko has made more money off of John, especially a dead
> John, than anyone else. Wouldn't you agree?
>
I would neither agree or disagree. You are inferring a motive that I
will not infer because, (unlike you), I do not KNOW Yoko Ono.
RichL
>> John and Paul had a bad cop/ good cop routine. When needed, John
>> would play the bad cop. Paul was better at public relations, so when
>> needed, he would be the good cop.
>
>
>
> lead, a leader must have that intangible quality that allows other
> talented people to willingly accept his or her leadership. John
> accepted Paul as his partner, but in the end, the others did not
> accept the leadership Paul was offering. And without the troops behind
> you, you have nothing even if Brian Epstein, George Martin, and the
> Media all meet in a smokey room and officially dub you the official
> 'Leader'. Instead, John defaulted on his part of the binary star and
> the whole thing blew apart.
>
> No wonder Brian Epstein was so stressed out. :-)
Yes, I believe you've put your finger on it.
Somehow I'm reminded of Al Haig's "I'm in charge here" when Reagan was
shot.
Fattuchus
> On Nov 4, 6:27 am, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Greasy? For John freakin' Lennon? For rock stars in general?
>
> And there, in a nut shell, is your entire argument in this thread. You
> "know" John Lennon. This is as good as a confession of your biases.
> Oh, of course John Lennon HAD to making out with her because that fits
> in with what you "KNOW" about John Lennon. There's John Lennon
> jerking off with his friends, and there's John Lennon squeezing his
> goo all over Jayne Manfield's tits.
You are changing the subject. It was reported that Lennon and
Mansfield were hugging and kissing. Period. I was surprised by your
reaction. You sounded so "prim and proper."
No doubt about it. What a leader!
> Impulsive. Brash. Lewd. Just the kind of guy you want to call in to an
> important business negotiation.
I didn't say I would want to call Lennon in to an important business
negotiation. But according to Kane, that IS what happened. And John
did what John seemed to do best: thumb his nose at the rich and
powerful.
> > I did not realize you would get so miffed by reading that Lennon and
> > some lady were huggy and kissing in front of a reporter. Call the
> > police!!!
>
> I'm not saying it's right or wrong morally. I'm saying that's it's a
> greasy, sensationalist thing to be reading about and that's why it's
> your favorite book on Lennon.
But let's say it IS the truth? So if something is sensationalist" it
should not be reported? So you prefer a book like the Hunter Davies
biography? At the time it was released the Davies book was quite
acclaimed, but in later years we learned that it was very, very
watered down, very pristine. A real public relations job. You prefer
that?
> I can disremember his books as well as you can without reading them.
Well, if you never read either of Kane's books . . . . how can you
make a valid criticism of them?
Crisstti
> Crisstti<crissttigalda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 3 nov, 05:00, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Nov 2, 3:43 pm, Bernie Woodham <birnhamw...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Nov 2, 2:36 am, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> On Nov 1, 1:38 pm, Bernie Woodham <birnhamw...@insightbb.com>
> >>>> wrote:
>
>
> >>>>>> On 1 nov, 15:25, Bernie Woodham <birnhamw...@insightbb.com>
> >>>>>> wrote:
>
>
> - Mostrar texto de la cita -
Yeah... but then how do you explain the McCartney/Lennon credits?.
In any case, when I say The Beatles were John's and Paul's band, I'm
not necessarily talking about leadership, which I'm willing to concede
John had more of, for a personality thing...
Crisstti
> On Nov 3, 9:44 am,Crisstti<crissttigalda...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 3 nov, 04:55, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
Well, to drop hints seems quite different to me than making a pass, so
I doubt he did the latter... at least not with so many of his straight
friends or aquintances. Also, one thing is to not advertainse it, and
another to be in the closet. Brian was not in the closet, and I'm
sure he must have assumed John, Paul, Pete Shotton, Larry Kane were
straight, at least probably. Also, I guess Brian was part of the gay
subculture, if we could call it like that?. And there must have been
gay bars and all... I just think there were places for a gay man to
know other men, instead of him hitting (continuosly) on his straight
frinds. I just find it hard to believe. Plus, Paul has said
otherwise.
Did Pete Shotton really say Brian had made a pass at him?.
>
>
> > Did Larry Kane know The Beatles when they were young...?. I thought
> > he was a friend of John's from later on.
>
> Back in 1964 or so, Kane was a young reporter (21???) starting out in
> his career. His boss gave him the assignment to cover the Beatles on
> their first US tour. At first I don't think Kane was happy. However,
> he and a small handful of other reporters were lucky enough to ride
> with the Beatles on their 1964 tour . . . .He would even be on the
> plane with them and conducted many interviews on the plane, at the
> hotels, etc. I think he became a big fan.
>
> He later traveled with them on tour in 1965.
>
> Kane went on to become a TV newsman in the Philadelphia area and
> remained friendly with John. In 1973 or so, his TV station ran a
> charity event, and John traveled by train from NYC to participate and
> help raise money. Kane wrote very glowingly about John's generosity
> and charity work. John was very humble and down to earth.- Ocultar texto de la cita -
>
> - Mostrar texto de la cita -
Oh, I see. Than you. Is Larry Kane the guy who claimed that John was
sure he was responsible for Stuart Sutcliff's death?. I thought the
guy who had said that in his book was a photographer who had become
friends with him in the 70's...
Crisstti
>
> - Mostrar texto de la cita -
I actually think that could have been the case, yeah.
Crisstti
>
> - Mostrar texto de la cita -
Oh, I don't think we know that.
Crisstti
I don't know... I'd say he more wanted to be, liked the idea of being,
than was.
While it's true that Paul seemed to be impressed by certain "class"
things, at least for a while, let's remember it was Paul who later on
was living in a simple house in the country, with sheep and horses;
while John was living in a luxury apartment with a special room (or
more than that) for fur coats...
(Not trying to bad mouth John, I love him, but I think you're
overlooking certain facts...).
>
>
>
> > > Kane was an eye witness. Maybe Lewisohn does not know everything.
>
> > Again, you're letting an eye witness status allow the man to make
> > claims that are pretty questionable. Yoko Ono was an eyewitness; so
> > you should believe everything she says also.
>
> If anyone has a motive to make money and retell history to suit his/
> her purpose it would be Yoko. Surely you can see that if you can see
> it in Kane. Yoko has made more money off of John, especially a dead
> John, than anyone else. Wouldn't you agree?
>
> Her fame, income, legacy, etc. is tied very much to John. If she had
> never married John, she'd be an unknown except in certain artsy/fartsy
> circles.- Ocultar texto de la cita -
>
> - Mostrar texto de la cita -- Ocultar texto de la cita -
Fattuchus
I'm not sure what you mean. Paul gave a couple of interviews about
that. I believe in England there were a couple of very early Beatles
releases where the credits were McCartney/Lennon. Paul reported that
there came a time when he went to speak with Brian and John, who
suddenly told Paul that all future songs would be credited Lennon/
McCartney. Paul claimed he was not thrilled about that but it was
presented to him as a done deal and he did not make a stink at the
time.
Some where along the line, Paul and John named their company, "McLen
Music" so Paul had his name first there.
Fattuchus
> On 4 nov, 03:03, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
-
>
> > > But Brian must have known other gay men he'd have made passes at!. I
> > > don't think he was wasting his time making passes at lots of straight
> > > friends or aquintances of him. Plus, he seemed kinda shy, I really
> > > doubt he would.
>
> > I'm speculating here. I think one big probrlem Brian faced in the
> > 1960's is that being gay was taboo. People did not advertise if they
> > were gay or straight, so how would he know? The best he could do
> > would be to make a pass or drop hints and hope the other guy liked him
> > too.
>
> Well, to drop hints seems quite different to me than making a pass, so
> I doubt he did the latter... at least not with so many of his straight
> friends or aquintances. Also, one thing is to not advertainse it, and
> another to be in the closet. Brian was not in the closet,
I don't know what you mean by "in the closet." I thought Brian tried
to be quite secrative about his life style. He certainly was not
totally open about it except for those closest to him.
and I'm
> sure he must have assumed John, Paul, Pete Shotton, Larry Kane were
> straight, at least probably.
I don't know.
Also, I guess Brian was part of the gay
> subculture, if we could call it like that?. And there must have been
> gay bars and all...
In a working class town like Liverpool? Back in the 1950's and
1960's? I doubt it. Homosexuality was a felony back then.
I just think there were places for a gay man to
> know other men,
Sure . . . . the Liverpool docks and other seedy places.
instead of him hitting (continuosly) on his straight
> frinds. I just find it hard to believe. Plus, Paul has said
> otherwise.
>
> Did Pete Shotton really say Brian had made a pass at him?.
Sometimes my memory is off, but yes, I'm pretty sure he did say that.
Shotton wrote a book called John Lennon In My Life . . . it may be in
there. I don't remember.
>
>
>
>
>
> Oh, I see. Than you. Is Larry Kane the guy who claimed that John was
> sure he was responsible for Stuart Sutcliff's death?.
No no no. You are thinking of Albert Goldman who wrote a book that
many rejected as very sleezy and nasty.
Kane's book Lennon Revealed is a lovely book; he obviously admires
John. BTW, for Lennon Revealed Kane got a lot of information from
Yoko, May and Stu's sister Pauline Sutcliff. Kane made the claim
(which I think is a stretch) that there were three people of paramount
influence on John: Yoko, May and Stu Sutcliff.
Fattuchus
> On 4 nov, 08:27, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Yes, John was being flippant . . . that was John. According to Kane,
> > that is one of the things he admired about him. John tended to thumb
> > his nose at the rich and powerful. Where others (like Paul) might be
> > impressed, John truly was and wanted to be a down to earth working
> > class hero. I admire that. I guess you don't.
>
> I don't know... I'd say he more wanted to be, liked the idea of being,
> than was.
>
> While it's true that Paul seemed to be impressed by certain "class"
> things, at least for a while, let's remember it was Paul who later on
> was living in a simple house in the country, with sheep and horses;
> while John was living in a luxury apartment with a special room (or
> more than that) for fur coats...
>
> (Not trying to bad mouth John, I love him, but I think you're
> overlooking certain facts...).
Actually, you are correct. IMO John was very much influenced by Yoko
who came from a very rich, powerful family in Japan. She was used to
and loved a spoiled/pampered lifestyle.
I believe he was an insecure individual and allowed Yoko at times to
walk all over him and influence him. Because he was insecure, he
wanted to impress Yoko and thought that if he spent gobs of money and
mansions, servants, furs, etc., she'd like him more. This was the
lifestyle that Yoko grew up with.
Phillip Norman wrote a recent bio called John Lennon A Life. He
interviewed Yoko quite a bit and got lots of information from her, yet
in the end, she refused to approve his book, claiming that the book
was mean to John. Anyway, in that book, Norman quotes Yoko as telling
him that when John and Yoko were "dating" and thinking of being
together, John made some remark to her to the effect of, "This is
going to be great. You're an artist and I'm rich." This is the
closest I've seen to an admission from Yoko that John's great wealth
was a factor in sealing their relationship.
who?
> On Nov 6, 7:57 am, Crisstti <crissttigalda...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 4 nov, 08:27, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Yes, John was being flippant . . . that was John. According to Kane,
> > > that is one of the things he admired about him. John tended to thumb
> > > his nose at the rich and powerful. Where others (like Paul) might be
> > > impressed, John truly was and wanted to be a down to earth working
> > > class hero. I admire that. I guess you don't.
>
> > I don't know... I'd say he more wanted to be, liked the idea of being,
> > than was.
>
> > While it's true that Paul seemed to be impressed by certain "class"
> > things, at least for a while, let's remember it was Paul who later on
> > was living in a simple house in the country, with sheep and horses;
> > while John was living in a luxury apartment with a special room (or
> > more than that) for fur coats...
>
> > (Not trying to bad mouth John, I love him, but I think you're
> > overlooking certain facts...).
>
> Actually, you are correct. IMO John was very much influenced by Yoko
> who came from a very rich, powerful family in Japan.
There! You finally said it, which means she did not need John's money.
She was used to
> and loved a spoiled/pampered lifestyle.
And you don't believe that John wasn't the same way as she was,
after she met him?
Jeff
Crisstti
> On Nov 4, 2:54 am, "who?" <yourimageunre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> (68?), and they no longer trusted him as completely and started
> straining to get away. John relates in an interview how he and George
> were grumbling about MMT, but went along with Paul's idea because he
> was more or less trying to settle them down and set the direction at
> that point. And then it becomes their first real failure. That had to
> leave a mark. In the end, if Paul had truly had the ability to be the
> dominant and sole leader of the Beatles, they'd still be together.
>
You make it sound as if it was Paul's fault - and not just about the
movie -. He proposed an idea, the others had none, so they went
along.
I'm not very John nor Paul wanted Paul to be the sole leader of The
Beatles.
> He withdrew with drugs, but never seemed to become a true burn out
> IMO. I don't know how he managed to escape that fate, but there's so
> many interviews that make it obvious his mind was still clicking along
> at its usual excessive clip. I've seen one or two around the full
> heroin addict years where he's a bit slow and blurry, but still
> articulate and making sense. If I'd done even a hundredth as many
> drugs as he, I'd be drooling into a cup with the bunny slippers on. He
> got more freakish, but it seemed to work for him at least until about
> 72/3. Even then, it might have been the politics that brought him down
> more than the drugs.- Ocultar texto de la cita -
>
> - Mostrar texto de la cita -
When were supossedly his full heroin addict years?.
Fattuchus
> On Nov 6, 8:10 am, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 6, 7:57 am, Crisstti <crissttigalda...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 4 nov, 08:27, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Yes, John was being flippant . . . that was John. According to Kane,
> > > > that is one of the things he admired about him. John tended to thumb
> > > > his nose at the rich and powerful. Where others (like Paul) might be
> > > > impressed, John truly was and wanted to be a down to earth working
> > > > class hero. I admire that. I guess you don't.
>
> > > I don't know... I'd say he more wanted to be, liked the idea of being,
> > > than was.
>
> > > While it's true that Paul seemed to be impressed by certain "class"
> > > things, at least for a while, let's remember it was Paul who later on
> > > was living in a simple house in the country, with sheep and horses;
> > > while John was living in a luxury apartment with a special room (or
> > > more than that) for fur coats...
>
> > > (Not trying to bad mouth John, I love him, but I think you're
> > > overlooking certain facts...).
>
> > Actually, you are correct. IMO John was very much influenced by Yoko
> > who came from a very rich, powerful family in Japan.
>
> There! You finally said it, which means she did not need John's money.
Of course she needed John's money at the time she met him. Her family
had dumped her. Yoko and Tony needed large amounts of money to
promote her art, to travel, etc. She was desperate for a financial
sponsor.
>
> She was used to
>
> > and loved a spoiled/pampered lifestyle.
>
> And you don't believe that John wasn't the same way as she was,
> after she met him?
>
> Jeff
I don't think John was anywhere in her league. As a young woman, Yoko
was used to living on an estate, having servants all around, attending
exclusive private schools, living like an aristocrat. Her family was
like the Rockefellers of Japan.
Fattuchus
>
> - Show quoted text -
I thought John was addicted from about 1968 to 1969 or 1970.
JohnB
> On Nov 6, 9:50 am, Crisstti <crissttigalda...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > When were supossedly his full heroin addict years?.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I thought John was addicted from about 1968 to 1969 or 1970.
It must have been around 68-69 if Cold Turkey was about coming off it.
Crisstti
>
> - Mostrar texto de la cita -
What I mean is that Paul having had his name first in the credits
originally, doesn't go much with the idea that at the beginning John
was the leader.
Paul has said that John's travel with Brian to Spain was done on his
part as a "power grab" on his part, to make the change in the credits.
Mack A. Damia
wrote:
>On Nov 6, 6:50�am, Crisstti <crissttigalda...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 4 nov, 14:59, PJ <palejewel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> You make it sound as if it was Paul's fault - and �not just about the
>> movie -. �He proposed an idea, the others had none, so they went
>> along.
>
>
>True. They didn't have anything. They had to be prodded. That's what I
>meant by John "defaulting on his part" in an earlier post. If you
>haven't heard the interview I was referencing where John talks about
>it, here it is:
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNbPlNG653U
>
>
>>
>> I'm not very John nor Paul wanted Paul to be the sole leader of The
>> Beatles.
>
>
>I feel a bit sorry for Paul at times during the "Let it Be" movie.
>He's trying to get something going and the others refuse to be
>motivated. They just sit there and glower at him like he's a
>consultant called in from Human Resources to lead an exercise in
>Corporate Team Building. It's so awkward that it's funny - but I can
>have a dark sense of humor in that way. That kind of "Come On, Lads!"
>enthusiasm seems out of place in the late-60s.
Lots of tension and arguments between Paul and George on the set of
"Let it Be". George felt that Paul was belittling him, and he
actually left for a few days when Yoko started her screeching routine.
--
mad
Jeff
That are going on 50 years old!
Bernie Woodham
> John Lennon squeezing his
> > goo all over Jayne Manfield's tits.
>
> You are changing the subject. It was reported that Lennon and
> Mansfield were hugging and kissing. Period. I was surprised by your
> reaction. You sounded so "prim and proper."
>
Oh, bullshit. Prim and proper because I question Kane as a reliable
source? Because I said the idea of Lennon making out with Jayne
Mansfield in the back of a limo in front of a reporter was greasy?
Hell yes, it's greasy. What the fuck are you, an exhibitionist? Do
you go out for sex in public, Fatts? If not, why not? Because you're
old fashioned? You don't have sex in public because you are just so
prim and proper? I don't know that Abbie Hoffman ever performed any
sex acts in public: I guess that makes him establishment. How often
did Karl Marx have sex in public? Hey, Obama hasn't been seen having
sex in public: I guess that PROVES he's not socialist.
But, I'm not disputing that Lennon did that because it's too greasy
for Lennon. I'm saying it is doubtful it happened because 1) it is
unverified, and 2) there are other, conflicting accounts. Chris
Hutchins was also an eye witness and his account is radically
different from that of Kane's. May Mann wrote a biography of Jayne
Mansfield and her account of the event doesn't jibe with Kane. There
are numerous comments by The Beatles belittling Jayne Mansfield. They
might have fantasized about her before meeting her, but were extremely
disappointed. Just because Lennon got his rocks off on those tours
does not mean he had to get it on with a woman he saw as "over the
hill".
>
> I didn't say I would want to call Lennon in to an important business
> negotiation. But according to Kane, that IS what happened. And John
> did what John seemed to do best: thumb his nose at the rich and
> powerful.
>
And already you are disremembering again. You just corrected yourself
and forgot what you corrected yourself for! John Lennon was NOT
called into a business negotiation. From Kane's report, (which is
still unverified), Finley confronted them at the hotel which gave
Lennon an opportunity to get mouthy. A far cry from being "called in
to a business negotiation."
Oh, and so that's what Lennon did best. I always thought it was his
music. But, hey, you KNOW John Lennon.
> > > I did not realize you would get so miffed by reading that Lennon and
> > > some lady were huggy and kissing in front of a reporter. Call the
> > > police!!!
>
> > I'm not saying it's right or wrong morally. I'm saying that's it's a
> > greasy, sensationalist thing to be reading about and that's why it's
> > your favorite book on Lennon.
>
> But let's say it IS the truth? So if something is sensationalist" it
> should not be reported? So you prefer a book like the Hunter Davies
> biography? At the time it was released the Davies book was quite
> acclaimed, but in later years we learned that it was very, very
> watered down, very pristine. A real public relations job. You prefer
> that?
>
IF it were the truth. It would be no worse than Lennon wearing a
toilet seat around his head or screwing a whore in Hamburg.
Undoubtedly things that happened. But the issue is that you make this
your favorite book BECAUSE of the greasy things it reports - things
that you believe unquestionably even though there are good reasons to
doubt. You need to believe all the greasy stuff so much that you
alter your recollections of the book to fit your theories. (ie; Brian
Epstein CALLED John Lennon into a business negotiation, when in
reality it was a confrontation in front of the hotel room -- at 2:00
am in the morning when The Beatles were undoubtedly looking forward to
calling it quits for the day.)
> > I can disremember his books as well as you can without reading them.
>
> Well, if you never read either of Kane's books . . . . how can you
> make a valid criticism of them?
Very simple. I look at the claims it makes. I compare those claims to
other sources and facts that are known. Not that hard to evaluate
those individual claims. What I have to ask is: why is it that you,
having read those books, cannot make a valid criticism of them? Why do
you blindly accept claims that really very doubtful?
Fattuchus
Logical point. Cold Turkey was about coming off of H.
However, I don't know how successful John was at kicking the habit
and exactly when he did it successfully.
Fattuchus
> On Nov 5, 2:06 am, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > John Lennon squeezing his
> > > goo all over Jayne Manfield's tits.
>
> > You are changing the subject. It was reported that Lennon and
> > Mansfield were hugging and kissing. Period. I was surprised by your
> > reaction. You sounded so "prim and proper."
>
> Oh, bullshit.
No need to get excited.
More info re John and Jayne, FYI.
http://triumphpc.com/mersey-beat/beatles/johnlennon-jaynemansfield.shtml
Bernie Woodham
Nice that you cut out the rest of the discussion.
Telling you that you're full of shit is not getting excited. It is
just honesty.
Now that you have that link, explain how Larry Kane's account fits in
with it.
Fattuchus
>
> - Show quoted text -
I did not say that it did. I just thought it was an interesting link
that mentioned John and Jayne.
BTW, you mention that Chris Hutchins has a story about John and Jayne.
Do you have a link? Or care to give us a quote and a source?
Bernie Woodham
You HAVE the link. Why don't read the things you post before you post
them?
Crisstti
> On Nov 4, 6:27 am, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> "know" John Lennon. This is as good as a confession of your biases.
> Oh, of course John Lennon HAD to making out with her because that fits
> in with what you "KNOW" about John Lennon. There's John Lennon
> goo all over Jayne Manfield's tits. No doubt about it. What a leader!
> Impulsive. Brash. Lewd. Just the kind of guy you want to call in to an
> important business negotiation. The verdict is in. The judge, jury and
> hangman have spoken. No need for any other facts or considerations.
> You KNOW John Lennon.
>
> As though because it's rock star, therefore it's not greasy. What a
> stooge.
>
> > I did not realize you would get so miffed by reading that Lennon and
> > some lady were huggy and kissing in front of a reporter. Call the
> > police!!!
>
> I'm not saying it's right or wrong morally. I'm saying that's it's a
> greasy, sensationalist thing to be reading about and that's why it's
> questionable that it really happened. But, oh no, fuck the rest of
> circumstances, you KNOW John Lennon. Yes, he had to all over her right
> there.
>
>
>
> > > > Kane says he was there. He was an eyewitness. Was Lewisohn an
> > > > eyewitness?
>
> > > Again, as I said earlier, Kane uses his eyewitness status to make
> > > dodgy claims.
>
> > If you don't believe him fine. Did you read either of his books?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > more money for a longer show time. This at 2:00 am in the morning. He
> > > was already being criticized badly for the money he paid for the show.
> > > At that point in time he was going to lose $40,000 on the show already
> > > + a $25,000 charitable donation tied into the show. He wasn't able to
> > > sell all the tickets and had printed $2.00 "discount" tickets in an
> > > effort to sell more. Why would this man be offering more money for an
> > > extra long show?
>
> > > Kane prints his story in two books. Show me independent confirmation
> > > of the story.
>
> > > But, you know, it's really beside the original point. It's been
> > > established that Brian did NOT call John Lennon into a business
> > > negotiation. At most what you have is John Lennon being flippant to a
> > > man in a suit. And you're calling that leadership.
>
> > You are starting to sound much more "old fashioned" and establishment
> > than I had ever envisioned. All this time I thought you were one of
> > the more revolutionary folks here.
>
> of facts and that's old fashioned. I don't believe spurious rumors
> and that makes me old fashioned? I use logic and try to ascertain
> facts and that makes me "establishment"? I'm really pretty proud of
> myself for breaking through your narrow minded stereotypes, but you
> are not making any sense at all. As usual.
>
> > Yes, John was being flippant . . . that was John. According to Kane,
> > that is one of the things he admired about him. John tended to thumb
> > his nose at the rich and powerful. Where others (like Paul) might be
> > impressed, John truly was and wanted to be a down to earth working
> > class hero. I admire that. I guess you don't.
>
> disapproving Lennon's character. Lennon was flippant. I know that.
> And I don't care. But trying to make that a leadership characteristic
> is a bit on the looney side.
>
> And that Kane admires this trait in Lennon also means he is more than
> likely to exaggerate it to make his case.
>
> As far as Lennon being a "working class hero", I don't believe that
> has anything to do with the discussion. Sounds to me like you're
> taking this discussion beyond it's original point because you realize
> what idiocy you were typing.
>
>
>
> > If anyone has a motive to make money and retell history to suit his/
> > her purpose it would be Yoko. Surely you can see that if you can see
> > it in Kane. Yoko has made more money off of John, especially a dead
> > John, than anyone else. Wouldn't you agree?
>
> will not infer because, (unlike you), I do not KNOW Yoko Ono.
>
>
>
> > Her fame, income, legacy, etc. is tied very much to John. If she had
> > never married John, she'd be an unknown except in certain artsy/fartsy
> > circles.- Ocultar texto de la cita -
>
> - Mostrar texto de la cita -- Ocultar texto de la cita -
>
> - Mostrar texto de la cita -
I think you're getting too upset about this.
Fattuchus
>
> - Show quoted text -
So how does Chris contradict what Kane says?
Crisstti
> On Nov 5, 2:06 am, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > John Lennon squeezing his
> > > goo all over Jayne Manfield's tits.
>
> > You are changing the subject. It was reported that Lennon and
> > Mansfield were hugging and kissing. Period. I was surprised by your
> > reaction. You sounded so "prim and proper."
>
> Oh, bullshit. Prim and proper because I question Kane as a reliable
> source? Because I said the idea of Lennon making out with Jayne
> Mansfield in the back of a limo in front of a reporter was greasy?
> Hell yes, it's greasy. What the fuck are you, an exhibitionist? Do
> you go out for sex in public, Fatts? If not, why not? Because you're
> old fashioned? You don't have sex in public because you are just so
> prim and proper? I don't know that Abbie Hoffman ever performed any
> sex acts in public: I guess that makes him establishment. How often
> did Karl Marx have sex in public? Hey, Obama hasn't been seen having
> sex in public: I guess that PROVES he's not socialist.
>
As far as I know, to make out does not mean having sex. So I don't
think anyone said John was having sex in public. Am I wrong?.
Crisstti
> On Nov 6, 11:28 am, JohnB <johnbo...@tinyworld.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > On 6 Nov, 16:19, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > > When were supossedly his full heroin addict years?.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > I thought John was addicted from about 1968 to 1969 or 1970.
>
> > It must have been around 68-69 if Cold Turkey was about coming off it.
>
> Logical point. Cold Turkey was about coming off of H.
>
> However, I don't know how successful John was at kicking the habit
> and exactly when he did it successfully.
Paul said in some interview that he never saw John using heroin. He
probably thought he shouldn't say he did, that it'd make John look
bad...?.
Fattuchus
You are correct. "Making out" means hugging and kissing.
I guess if people hug and kiss in public, Bernie gets alarmed. I
don't think this is such surprising conduct when it involves a
character like Lennon and an actress like Mansfield.
Fattuchus
I imagine Paul is telling the truth. In other words, John probably
did use heroin . . . he just didn't do it in front of many other
people such as Paul.
Crisstti
>
> - Mostrar texto de la cita -
Well, I don't know... Paul did say as well that he hadn't ever used
heroin, but he later said he had.
Bernie Woodham
Excuse me?
You didn't read his claim that Lennon threw both Mansfield and her
friend out?
You didn't read that he pissed in her drink?
You didn't read that they arrived at the club separately?
How can you make these things consistent with what Kane reports?
Two eye witnesses. Two different accounts.
Guess you need more information.
How about page 2 with Derek Taylor?
Now we have Jayne Mansfield begging, trying to arrange a publicity
shot with The Beatles.
George's statement:
“Somebody conned us into going to the Whiskey A Go Go."
How about the Beatles Playboy '65 interview:
PAUL: "Yeah, Some of those American girls have been great."
JOHN: "Like Joan Baez."
PAUL: "Joan Baez is good, yeah, very good."
JOHN: "She's the only one I like."
GEORGE: "And Jayne Mansfield. PLAYBOY made her."
PAUL: "She's a bit different, isn't she? Different."
RINGO: "She's soft."
GEORGE: "Soft and warm."
PAUL: "Actually, she's a clot."
RINGO: "...says Paul, the god of the Beatles."
PAUL: "I didn't mean it, Beatle People! Actually, I haven't even met
her. But you won't print that anyway, of course, because PLAYBOY is
very pro-Mansfield. They think she's a rave. But she really is an old
bag."
http://www.beatlesinterviews.org/db1965.02pl.beatles.html
How about the statement in "Many Years From Now":
"Their great fame gave the Beatles access to many of the most famous
figures of the time: they were introduced to the royal family and the
prime ministers of their day; they met the winning English World Cup
football team, Elvis Presley, Cassius Clay and Jayne Mansfield, though
John got worried when she put her hand on his thigh."
Page 126 -- you can find it on Google Books.
WHAT? Freakin' John Lennon? Worried about her hand on his thigh!!!
How establishment. How old fashioned!
Preponderance of the evidence. It weighs heavily against the story
told by Larry Kane. It doesn't speak well for the credibility of an
eye-witness.
Crisstti
"Jayne was killed in a road accident two years later, although not
actually decapitated as rumours persist. John remembered the Tarot
reading and was alarmed. He was then obsessed with numerology and, in
particular, the number nine. He told Hutchins: “Jayne was born on 19
April and she died on 29 June. April is the fourth month and June is
the sixth. Add them together and you get ten. I was born on 9 October,
the ninth day of the tenth month. She died two months after her
birthday, which means I’m going to die on a day with a nine in it, in
December.”"
Interesting, I wonder if it was indeed then that John's interest in
numerology started....
Crisstti
Derek Taylor, the Beatles’ press officer suggested it was Mansfield,
not John or Paul, who suggested the meeting. At the time he recalled,
“This evening I got a phone call from the actress Jayne Mansfield, who
wanted to meet the Beatles and be photographed with them. She hassled
me and she very badly wanted to meet them, at her place, then our
place, at any place. I told her that we had a ‘no photographs with
celebrities’ rule, and that I had already turned down even my own
friends. She was most annoyed.”
The Mansfield episode shows how incidents in the Beatles lives are
interpreted differently by various people, some witnesses, some not.
Did they request to meet her or was she the one who insisted on the
meeting? Was John alone when she called or was Ringo there? Did John
travel to the Whiskey with her, or was she with her husband or a boy
friend? Was it just John and George at the Whiskey or was Ringo there
too – and where was Paul?
However, the basic fact remains that she did turn up at the house on
that date and she was with them that evening at the club.
George himself was to recall the incident: “Somebody conned us into
going to the Whiskey A Go Go. It seemed to take us twenty minutes to
get from the door to the table and instantly the whole of Hollywood
paparazzi descended. It was a total set up by Jayne Mansfield to have
pictures taken with us. John and I were sitting either side of her and
she had her hands on our legs, by our groins – at least she did on
mine. We’d been sitting there for hours, waiting to get a drink, we
had glasses with ice in them, and the ice had all melted. A
photographer came and tried to get a picture and I threw the glass of
water at him. He took a photo of the water coming out of the glass and
soaking the actress Mamie Van Doren, who just happened to be passing.
We got out of there, it was hell. We left town and the next day, I
remember sitting on the plane, reading the paper and there was the
photo of me throwing the water.”
Bernie Woodham
> think anyone said John was having sex in public. Am I wrong?.
sex or not, making out with a total stranger in front of others I
would say is pretty sleazy.
But the point was it is "greasy" details like these that makes Fatts
so dedicated to the book.
Bernie Woodham
>
>
> I think you're getting too upset about this.
I'm not uspet, but I am certainly going to speak my mind. Especially
when someone tries to change the subject with a bunch of ad hominen
bullshit.
Fattuchus
> On Nov 6, 3:07 pm, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 6, 2:46 pm, Bernie Woodham <birnhamw...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 6, 2:44 pm, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > More info re John and Jayne, FYI.
>
> > > > > >http://triumphpc.com/mersey-beat/beatles/johnlennon-jaynemansfield.shtml
>
> > > > > Nice that you cut out the rest of the discussion.
>
> > > > > Telling you that you're full of shit is not getting excited. It is
> > > > > just honesty.
>
> > > > > Now that you have that link, explain how Larry Kane's account fits in
> > > > > with it.--
>
> > > > I did not say that it did. I just thought it was an interesting link
> > > > that mentioned John and Jayne.
>
> > > > BTW, you mention that Chris Hutchins has a story about John and Jayne.
> > > > Do you have a link? Or care to give us a quote and a source?
>
> > > You HAVE the link. Why don't read the things you post before you post
> > > them?-
>
> > So how does Chris contradict what Kane says?
>
> Excuse me?
>
> You didn't read his claim that Lennon threw both Mansfield and her
> friend out?
>
> You didn't read that he pissed in her drink?
>
> You didn't read that they arrived at the club separately?
>
> How can you make these things consistent with what Kane reports?
>
> Two eye witnesses. Two different accounts.
>
> Guess you need more information.
>
> How about page 2 with Derek Taylor?
SNIP
I don't have the Ticket to Ride book to compare each tiny detail
although I appreciate your efforts. If you have a link or an exact
quote concerning John and Jayne, I'd like to see it and compare it to
Bill Harry's article.
Fattuchus
I have that book . . . . somewhere.
Let's say John did get nervous and worried . . . . does that mean he
did not hug and kiss her later?
I'm curious . . . was Jayne's husband present while she was
putting her hand on John's thigh?
Fattuchus
> (From the link Fattuchs posted...)http://triumphpc.com/mersey-beat/beatles/johnlennon-jaynemansfield.shtml
>
> "Jayne was killed in a road accident two years later, although not
> actually decapitated as rumours persist. John remembered the Tarot
> reading and was alarmed. He was then obsessed with numerology and, in
> particular, the number nine. He told Hutchins: “Jayne was born on 19
> April and she died on 29 June. April is the fourth month and June is
> the sixth. Add them together and you get ten. I was born on 9 October,
> the ninth day of the tenth month. She died two months after her
> birthday, which means I’m going to die on a day with a nine in it, in
> December.”"
Actually, the above quote is what caught my eye more than anything in
Bill Harry's article. Pretty amazing.
If you read Fred Seaman's book and/or interviews given by Jack
Douglas, during the last few months of his life, John would
philosophize about death and say, among other things, that he expected
to die a violent death because he had been violent as a young man.
Fattuchus
You call it greasy. I find it interesting.
Bernie Woodham
You answer this thread. Why don't you answer the thread that examines
Kane's claim?
Fattuchus
I thought I did. I don't have Kane's book Ticket to Ride and would
like to see his exact description of events between John and Jayne. I
have little to compare to the details of Bill Harry's article.
Bernie Woodham
>
>
> Let's say John did get nervous and worried . . . . does that mean he
> did not hug and kiss her later?
>
Later??? kane says he made out with her on the way to the club. Now
you are just inventing history.
> I'm curious . . . was Jayne's husband present while she was
> putting her hand on John's thigh?
I do not believe her husband was there. She had a divorce that became
recognized in the U.S. on August 26, 1964. The Whiskey-a-Go-Go
incident happened the day before that.
But if you're trying for "John was nervous because her husband was
there", then you have to explain where he was during the trip to the
club.
Not to mention a lot of other loose ends that Kane's account brings
about.
Why did John say in Playboy that Joan Baez was the only one he liked?
How did Paul form his opinion of Jayne Mansfield if he never met her?
Again, if Jayne Mansfield and Lennon drove to the club together, then
why did they arrive separately as George describes?
To me much of what happened is obvious: Mansfield was trying to get
publicity photos. She was notorious for publicity stunts. So she was
able to use them to that end, (George: someone conned us into going to
the Whiskey-a-Go-Go), and they resented her for it.
The only reason you're holding onto Kane's nonsense is because it
tantalizes you. Period.
Crisstti
> George himself was to recall the incident: “Somebody conned us into
> going to the Whiskey A Go Go. It seemed to take us twenty minutes to
> get from the door to the table and instantly the whole of Hollywood
> paparazzi descended. It was a total set up by Jayne Mansfield to have
> pictures taken with us. John and I were sitting either side of her and
> she had her hands on our legs, by our groins – at least she did on
> mine. We’d been sitting there for hours, waiting to get a drink, we
> had glasses with ice in them, and the ice had all melted. A
> photographer came and tried to get a picture and I threw the glass of
> water at him. He took a photo of the water coming out of the glass and
> soaking the actress Mamie Van Doren, who just happened to be passing.
> We got out of there, it was hell. We left town and the next day, I
> remember sitting on the plane, reading the paper and there was the
> photo of me throwing the water.”
Anyone knows from around when is that quote from George?, from after
she had died?.
Bernie Woodham
No, you don't have the Ticket to Ride book, but you do have Lennon
Remembers where Kane goes as far as to describe Lennon and Mansfield
as having a "tryst". Now, where is the evidence for that?