Revolution 9 signalled the end of the Beatles
Alex
their 6 years long evolutionary path. Starting as a simple rock and
roll/pop band, they progressed toward incorporating all the influences
that contemporary music had to offer. The culmination was reached when
they released Revolution 9 on one of the best albums in history (White
album).
After hitting this landmark creation, the Beatles had nowhere to go
but to disband. McCartney tried to keep the band going by proposing
the only posible course of action, that is, going back to their roots.
But, that was the antithesis of what the Beatles were. They were all
about going forward, progressing, assimilating new stuff, and as soon
as they reached the point where the only way they could proceed was to
turn backwards, to 'unlearn', they imploded.
As the time progresses, we are gaining the necessary distance that
allows us to perceive the meaning and the value of Revolution 9.
Thirty five years ago, it didn't mean much to us. It sounded like pure
aleatoric creation. Something like a blown out of proportion crescendo
from A Day In The Life. But, as the dust slowly settles, we begin to
gradually perceive the magnanimous shape of this epic creation.
There is no doubt today that this composition is indeed a very musical
piece, with many of the clever and intricate formal hooks that afford
us endless enjoyment. So, it definitelly isn't a purely chaotic
segment, a la previously mentioned crescendo from Sgt Pepper, or the
white noise generator at the end of I Want You (She's So Heavy).
It would be up to us now to try and dilligently research this magnum
opus and find hidden meanings in it that have been eluding us for
several decades now. But there is little doubt that with releasing it,
the Beatles had reached a point of no return. They didn't really know
how to top that one, and thus they lost all further interest in
creating music.
Alex
Donz5
>It would be up to us now to try and dilligently research this magnum
>opus and find hidden meanings in it that have been eluding us for
>several decades now.
It's not "up to us"; there are no "hidden meanings" that have "eluded us"; it
was a sound experiment by John and little more. It was more a process of "let's
see what happens" rather than "I've thoroughly mapped this out to create a
tightly controlled structure." Very much an extension in concept of "Walrus,"
with the King Lear broadcast.
Here's how John described the process in 1980 (Playboy, p. 198):
Playboy: What do you remember about "Revolution 9"?
John: Well, the slow version of "Revolution" on the album went on and on and on
and I took the fade-out part, which is what they sometimes do with disco
records now, and just layered all this stuff over it. It has the basic rhythm
of the original "Revolution" going on with some 20 loops we put on, things from
the archives of EMI.
We were cutting up classical music and making differernt-size loops, and then I
got an engineer tape on which some test engineer was saying, "Number nine,
number nine, number nine." All those different bits of sound and noises are all
compiled. There were about ten machines with people holding pencils on the
loops -- some only inches long and some ayard long. I fed them allin and mixed
them live.
I did a few mixes until I got one I liked. Yoko was there for the whole thing
and she made decisions about which loops to use. It was somewhat under her
influence, I suppose. Once I heard her stuff -- not just the screeching and the
howling but her sort of word pieces and talking and breathing and all this
strange stuff, I thought, My god, I got intrigued, so I wanted to do one. I
spent more time on "Revolution 9" than I did on half the other songs I ever
wrote. It was a montage.
[end]
And from in interview from 1975, printed in _Ballad of John and Yoko,_ p. 148:
John: The longest track I personally spent time on was "Revolution 9," which
was an abstract track where I used a lot of tape loops and things like that. I
still did it in one session.
[end]
And this from his appearance on WNEW-FM a year earlier in September 1974:
Q.: How much of "Revolution 9" was accidental, if any?
John: Well, it's like an action painting. I had a lot of loops -- tape loops,
which is just a circle of tape that repeats itself over and over -- had about
10 of them on different mono machines all spinning at once with pencils and
things holding them.
I had a basic track, which was the end of the "Revolution" song where we'd gone
on and on and on and on. And I just played it sort of live into another tape
and just brought them in on faders, like you do as a deejay, and brought them
in like that, and it was accidental in that way. I think I did it twice, maybe,
and the second one was the take.
[end]
Thus, according to the creator of this piece, "Revolution 9" was a montage,
"abstract," its structure was "accidental." There' nothing further to analyze
any "hidden meanings" within it.
>But there is little doubt that with releasing it,
>the Beatles had reached a point of no return. They didn't really know
>how to top that one, and thus they lost all further interest in
>creating music.
I think you're applying far more significance to the track than it merits. If
they "had reached a point of no return," how do you explain "Abbey Road?"
Opticreep
> With Revolution 9, the Beatles have reached the natural conclusion of
> their 6 years long evolutionary path. Starting as a simple rock and
> roll/pop band, they progressed toward incorporating all the influences
> that contemporary music had to offer. The culmination was reached when
> they released Revolution 9 on one of the best albums in history (White
> album).
>
> After hitting this landmark creation, the Beatles had nowhere to go
> but to disband. McCartney tried to keep the band going by proposing
Interesting theory, except for the fact you're dead wrong. The
Beatles wrote some of their best songs after the White Album. "Let it
Be" is arguably the most well-liked Beatles song (for the masses) this
side of "Yesterday". The two best songs George Harrison ever wrote in
his life ("Something" and "Here Comes the Sun") came after the White
Album. Paul's rock opera in Side B of "Abbey Road" remains one of the
highlights of the Beatles' entire discography. If anything, you could
say that Paul, George, and even Ringo had songs after the White Album
that were as good or better than the ones on that double album.
The only thing you can really say is that John Lennon reached his
"natural conclusion" as a Beatle during the White Album sessions.
After that, his musical output suffered a steep downhill slide.
>
> It would be up to us now to try and dilligently research this magnum
> opus and find hidden meanings in it that have been eluding us for
> several decades now. But there is little doubt that with releasing it,
Never try to overanalyze anything John Lennon ever wrote. John
himself has said that he's amused by all the overanalysis... and often
he'd purposely put a lot of ambigious lyrics and other junk for the
sole purpose of confusing people. The words would have no point other
than confuse overly analytical people.
Just face it: John often wrote lyrics just so he'd have words that go
well with the music. More often than not, the meaning of the words is
secondary to the way they sound with the music. He has said that
many, many times. When analyzing a John Lennon song or lyric, always
keep that in mind. As a Beatle, John was fond of randomly saying
words that would sound nice with the song, regardless of the meaning.
When John started to take his "lyricist" thing too seriously... well,
look at his solo career and see what happened.
mike constantine
"Alex" <ale...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f386924f.03122...@posting.google.com...
> With Revolution 9, the Beatles have reached the natural conclusion of
> their 6 years long evolutionary path. Starting as a simple rock and
> roll/pop band, they progressed toward incorporating all the influences
> that contemporary music had to offer. The culmination was reached when
> they released Revolution 9 on one of the best albums in history (White
> album).
What did Paul or Ringo have to do with #9? Nothing. Your theory loses even
more steam when you throw in Abby Road, it was the last album you know.....
The Bee Tells
It was my understanding all the Beatles contributed tape loops to R9.
paramucho
>
>And this from his appearance on WNEW-FM a year earlier in September 1974:
>
>Q.: How much of "Revolution 9" was accidental, if any?
>
>John: Well, it's like an action painting. I had a lot of loops -- tape loops,
>which is just a circle of tape that repeats itself over and over -- had about
>10 of them on different mono machines all spinning at once with pencils and
>things holding them.
>
>I had a basic track, which was the end of the "Revolution" song where we'd gone
>on and on and on and on. And I just played it sort of live into another tape
>and just brought them in on faders, like you do as a deejay, and brought them
>in like that, and it was accidental in that way. I think I did it twice, maybe,
>and the second one was the take.
>
>[end]
Thanks for that one -- I hadn't seen it.
slogan
"The Bee Tells" <thebe...@aol.com>
wrotenews:20031225073102...@mb-m13.aol.com...
> >What did Paul or Ringo have to do with #9?
>
> It was my understanding all the Beatles contributed tape loops to R9.
Not Paul-- I beleive he was in USA or not there for another reason.
not sure about Ringo...
no posessions
nuff said
mike constantine
"The Bee Tells" <thebe...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031225073102...@mb-m13.aol.com...
> >What did Paul or Ringo have to do with #9?
>
> It was my understanding all the Beatles contributed tape loops to R9.
You're thinking of Tomorrow Never Knows....and that may be suspect.
dlarsson
Alex:
Very interesting analysis. Some comments:
I. Revolution #9 did represent the full extension
of Lennon's surrealism and musical experimentalism
that had built-up really from 1964 (guitar feedback)
through Rubber Soul to all of 1966, 1967, and
parts of the 1968 ( "Walrus", "Glass Onion" outro ).
II. I think the Beatles could have still progressed
had they been more unified in what direction
they should pursue ( the "Abbey Road" album
is an illustration of this ) But instead they had
several specific conflicts that they could not
really resolve:
1. McCartney would not agree to the managment
decision made by John, George, and Ringo
setting up an atmosphere of distrust and
uneasy "competition" about Beatles business affairs.
The band became immediately fractured at
the point of all ongoing financial and business issues.
This was a new dynamic and you can't run a ship for
too long that way.
2. McCartney's direction was increasingly "pop"-ish
oddly right at the time of the tumultuous late-60s that
had cried-out for artistic boldness and expression.
Lennon's direction range from rock to surrealism to
making
the Beatles socially & politically relevant to these
times.
He wanted to eschew the pretenses of "commercial"
music in order to have wider and looser artistic
freedom.
Fundamentally, Lennon not only didn't want the band
to be tied down to just "pop" music - he resented the
idea of it.
Lennon, for example, wanted "Revolution" to be
not only an A-side single release but also a "Beatles"
statement ( the same way that "All You Need Is Love"
had been ). Lennon couldn't get the others to back him.
The Beatles started to become dwarfed by bolder
music of the "Woodstock generation". If you
place "Hello Goodbye" or "Maxwell Silver Hammer"
along side Jimmy Hendrix or "Creedence" at the height
of the 1960s - the Beatles then fade away as an
impotent,
irrelevant, meaningless novelty pop act.
While, the Beatles had managed to successfully blend
these separate directions together for a few years
(sometimes even within the same song),
once Lennon felt he really needed to record
"Give Peace A Chance" outside of the band
to avoid another "Revolution-dispute" there
was really no turning back.
At that point, Lennon was about to break free.
3. Harrison's emergence as a strong songwriter
was a good thing musically for the band, but,
it also meant a three-way competition for space
that forced yet more adjustments and made the
weeding-out process even more contentious.
"Abbey Road" showed that they could still make music
together ( if they ceeded control to George Martin and
worked collaboratively ). But the "teamwork" that
had marked the Beatles efforts through their years
became impossible to maintain - with these 3 issues
working to drive them more and more away from each other.
Alex
> Alex wrote:
>
> >It would be up to us now to try and dilligently research this magnum
> >opus and find hidden meanings in it that have been eluding us for
> >several decades now.
>
> It's not "up to us"; there are no "hidden meanings" that have "eluded us"; it
> was a sound experiment by John and little more. It was more a process of "let's
> see what happens" rather than "I've thoroughly mapped this out to create a
> tightly controlled structure." Very much an extension in concept of "Walrus,"
> with the King Lear broadcast.
By 'hidden meanings' I didn't mean John's consciously planned meaning.
I agree with you 100% that Lennon was not plotting and planning any
such material. But even if someone does something spontaneously, in
the spur of the moment, it doesn't necessarily mean that there are no
hidden meanings to be found in there. As you know, producing art is a
complex process that is generated by the complex human psyche, and
only a small portion of that process reaches our consciousness. In
other words, someone could be doing some marvelous, meaningfull things
while being blissfully unaware of it.
Alex
Alex
> Interesting theory, except for the fact you're dead wrong. The
> Beatles wrote some of their best songs after the White Album. "Let it
> Be" is arguably the most well-liked Beatles song (for the masses) this
> side of "Yesterday". The two best songs George Harrison ever wrote in
> his life ("Something" and "Here Comes the Sun") came after the White
> Album. Paul's rock opera in Side B of "Abbey Road" remains one of the
> highlights of the Beatles' entire discography. If anything, you could
> say that Paul, George, and even Ringo had songs after the White Album
> that were as good or better than the ones on that double album.
>
> The only thing you can really say is that John Lennon reached his
> "natural conclusion" as a Beatle during the White Album sessions.
> After that, his musical output suffered a steep downhill slide.
You are right. What I was trying to say was not that the Beatles
stopped producing good music after "Revolution 9"; rather, I wanted to
say that they've ended their self-imposed mission upon hitting that
culmination point. The Beatles had their own internal ethos (as has
been noted in the LIB...Naked liner notes), and that was never to
repeat themselves, and never to do something that others may be
expecting of them. That way, they were on a constant path of progress.
But after "Revolution 9", they seemed to have exhausted their options.
There was nowhere to go but back to just making good music.
And yes, I agree with you -- 1969 saw some of the best music making by
the Beatles. Their instrumental and compositional skills at that time
were awesome. They were definitelly at the top of their game. Still,
one thing was missing -- they stopped breaking new grounds. They
settled into the middle of the road pop perfection. And that was a
kiss of death for them.
That's all I was saying.
> Never try to overanalyze anything John Lennon ever wrote. John
> himself has said that he's amused by all the overanalysis... and often
> he'd purposely put a lot of ambigious lyrics and other junk for the
> sole purpose of confusing people. The words would have no point other
> than confuse overly analytical people.
>
> Just face it: John often wrote lyrics just so he'd have words that go
> well with the music. More often than not, the meaning of the words is
> secondary to the way they sound with the music. He has said that
> many, many times. When analyzing a John Lennon song or lyric, always
> keep that in mind. As a Beatle, John was fond of randomly saying
> words that would sound nice with the song, regardless of the meaning.
> When John started to take his "lyricist" thing too seriously... well,
> look at his solo career and see what happened.
Several months ago I've posted my thoughts on that to this group.
Basically, I was claiming that the Beatles were so blaze with their
incredible fame that they would do foolish things on purpose, just to
see if that would rile the fans and manage to tarnish their spit-clean
image. But, to their endless amusement (and annoyance), nothing seemed
to work. No matter how outrageously they would deviate from the 'norm'
of the day, the fans and even the general public would love it.
That was surely a very unique position to be in.
So I'm not reading anything into Lennon's lyrics. All I'm saying is
that at the subconscious level he was feeding us tons of extremely
interesting material (willy-nilly). For some people, these messages go
right over their heads and don't register on their radars, while some
other people are endlessly intrigued by the work of genius.
Your mileage may vary (add salt to taste).
Alex
Alex
> What did Paul or Ringo have to do with #9? Nothing. Your theory loses even
> more steam when you throw in Abby Road, it was the last album you know.....
While I agree with you that Paul and Ringo had nothing to do with the
actual making of "Revolution 9", I still maintain that this track
wasn't concieved in a vacuum. It was a result of the 7 years of so of
the band's dynamics, living together, travelling together, working
together. So even in absentia, vital members of the band did exert
their tacit influence.
It was a group effort, at that time.
As for Abbey Road, while being one of their best albums ever, it is
not one of their most radical, or innovative ones. My thesis was
strictly focused on the Beatles as the group whose reason d'etre was
innovation, progress, moving forward.
Alex
Alex
Thanks for your thoughtfull analysis. It was valuable to me.
"dlarsson" <derek_...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<TR3Ib.696991$Fm2.600326@attbi_s04>...
> I. Revolution #9 did represent the full extension
> of Lennon's surrealism and musical experimentalism
> that had built-up really from 1964 (guitar feedback)
> through Rubber Soul to all of 1966, 1967, and
> parts of the 1968 ( "Walrus", "Glass Onion" outro ).
Right on!
Many interesting points in there. I'd like to discuss some mildly
controversial issues you've raised:
Are we really sure that Lennon was anti-pop at that time? Seems to me
that he was always interested in producing a chart-topping song.
Lennon had his demons, and he had to deal with them. Usually through
making music, such as "Revolution 9", or "Walrus", or "Mary Jane", or
"You Know My Name". But that does not automatically imply that he was
against making well crafted, hummable songs. He was more than capable
of doing both. And he was doing both, sometimes even marrying the
impossible with the norm of the day, as in releasing "Walrus" on a
single.
You've also hinted at another thesis that claims that by 1969 the
Beatles were at the end of their rope when it comes to holding up to
the juggernauts such as Led Zeppelin, Hendrix, etc. I deeply doubt
that. I think that in 1969, the Beatles were at the very top of their
game. They could play anything. One listen to "I Want You" reveals
that this is what the guys like Hendrix, Plant, Page, et al would kill
to be able to do. No one of these fine players could come even close
to the Beatles' musical sophistication at that time.
> 3. Harrison's emergence as a strong songwriter
> was a good thing musically for the band, but,
> it also meant a three-way competition for space
> that forced yet more adjustments and made the
> weeding-out process even more contentious.
I completely agree. George turned out to be the destabilizing factor.
Too bad.
> "Abbey Road" showed that they could still make music
> together ( if they ceeded control to George Martin and
> worked collaboratively ). But the "teamwork" that
> had marked the Beatles efforts through their years
> became impossible to maintain - with these 3 issues
> working to drive them more and more away from each other.
Excellent and a very insightful analysis (for my money). I just wanted
to point to some things that others may have glossed over, and to
remind people that the Beatles didn't disband because they felt
threatened by other strong groups at that time (they never felt
threatened by the Stones, why should they have worried about Led Zep,
Santana etc.?)
Alex
Chocolate Jesus !!
> "mike constantine" <nume...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<GKKdncDmSa4...@comcast.com>...
> > What did Paul or Ringo have to do with #9? Nothing. Your theory loses
even
> > more steam when you throw in Abby Road, it was the last album you
know.....
>
> While I agree with you that Paul and Ringo had nothing to do with the
> actual making of "Revolution 9", I still maintain that this track
> wasn't concieved in a vacuum. It was a result of the 7 years of so of
> the band's dynamics, living together, travelling together, working
> together. So even in absentia, vital members of the band did exert
> their tacit influence.
erm, thats a really solid idea, but one which will be lost on the
ultra-literates around here.
mike constantine
> "mike constantine" <nume...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<GKKdncDmSa4...@comcast.com>...
> > What did Paul or Ringo have to do with #9? Nothing. Your theory loses
even
> > more steam when you throw in Abby Road, it was the last album you
know.....
>
> While I agree with you that Paul and Ringo had nothing to do with the
> actual making of "Revolution 9", I still maintain that this track
> wasn't concieved in a vacuum. It was a result of the 7 years of so of
> the band's dynamics, living together, travelling together, working
> together. So even in absentia, vital members of the band did exert
> their tacit influence.
>
> It was a group effort, at that time.
I guess this means you disagree with Mr. Larson....
dlarsson
> Are we really sure that Lennon was anti-pop at that time? Seems to me
> that he was always interested in producing a chart-topping song.
A bit of both really. Lennon liked success and was
making commerical friendly songs like "Ballad of J & Y".
But I think he was really put off by McCartney's more
pop-conforming and at times "sappy" approach.
The Beatles had started out as a rock band.
Lennon, "Yesterday" had gone to Paul's head.
McCartney's lack of support towards Lennon's
less "pop" yet more artistically potent projects such
as "Revolution", "Revolution 9", "Don't Let Me Down"
( also demoted to a B-side ) I think were revealing
of the type of conflict between them that existed.
> I think that in 1969, the Beatles were at the very top of their
> game. They could play anything. One listen to "I Want You" reveals
> that this is what the guys like Hendrix, Plant, Page, et al would kill
> to be able to do.
I agree with your point here. "I Want You/She's So Heavy"
was one of the best illustrations that both Harrison & Lennon
could really play guitar and create guitar-based rock
that took a back seat to nobody. John's blistering lead
guitar work in "Revolution" is also another example.
I was making the point that - the "safe-pop" focus of the
Beatles coming from Paul was out of step with the potent
"Woodstock generation". I think John became concerned
about the vitality of the band if he was going to be limited
artistically in one way or another ( taking B-sides,
or having to restrained in "political messages" or his
outspokeness, or having to fight to get the band
to support him ( something he didn't really have to
in the early days ).
> Excellent and a very insightful analysis (for my money). I just wanted
> to point to some things that others may have glossed over, and to
> remind people that the Beatles didn't disband because they felt
> threatened by other strong groups at that time (they never felt
> threatened by the Stones, why should they have worried about Led Zep,
> Santana etc.?)
Thanks ..
- Derek
================================
EMail: derek_...@comcast.net
================================
dlarsson
> > McCartney's lack of support towards Lennon's
> > less "pop" yet more artistically potent projects such
> > as "Revolution", "Revolution 9", "Don't Let Me Down"
> > ( also demoted to a B-side ) I think were revealing
> > of the type of conflict between them that existed.
> "Don't Let Me Down" didn't *deserve* to be an A-side.
According to who?
It's an excellant, bluesy song that fit well with the
mood of late-60s rock and received a significant
amount of airplay even as a B-side. "Revolution"
also charted in the top-ten as a B-side release (very unusual ).
This is a strong indication that, as A-side releases,
these songs would have been clear successes.
Note that "I Am The Walrus", while clearly
"uncommercial" by most conventions also
received a significant amount of airplay as
a B-side and is regarded as a Beatles classic.
Now if Queen can release weird music like
"Bohemian Rhapsody" as an A-side
why couldn't the Beatles with their lofty position
in the music industry have release weird music
like "I Am The Walrus" as an A-side -?
Chocolate Jesus !!
>
> > > McCartney's lack of support towards Lennon's
> > > less "pop" yet more artistically potent projects such
> > > as "Revolution", "Revolution 9", "Don't Let Me Down"
> > > ( also demoted to a B-side ) I think were revealing
> > > of the type of conflict between them that existed.
>
> > "Don't Let Me Down" didn't *deserve* to be an A-side.
>
> According to who?
>
> It's an excellant, bluesy song that fit well with the
> mood of late-60s rock and received a significant
> amount of airplay even as a B-side. "Revolution"
> also charted in the top-ten as a B-side release (very unusual ).
not when its the b side of hey jude, you moron.
Chocolate Jesus !!
"poisoned rose" <pros...@nospam.aol.com> wrote in message
news:prose1283-F3BC0...@news02.west.earthlink.net...
> "dlarsson" <derek_...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > "Don't Let Me Down" didn't *deserve* to be an A-side.
> >
> > According to who?
> >
> > It's an excellant, bluesy song that fit well with the
> > mood of late-60s rock and received a significant
> > amount of airplay even as a B-side.
>
> Beatles' high standards...not so much. Crummy lyrics, sloppy singing.
dont forget the horrifically "out-of-tuneness" of the track
BeatleMac
Hahaha!
Don't Let Me Down has GREAT LYRICS. Check Phoebe Snow's cover... now
there's a great bluesy rendition of one of my all-time favorite John
songs.
GO DEREK
BeatleMac
I agree. Revolution 9 has plenty of other Beatle "noises" on it, such
as Paul's piano slamming right before the end of the released track.
He hits one note about five times, and I go "Shhhhh!" -- can never
forget the first time I listened to the final mix...
frannie
PS I don't think I know you, but in case you're new -- I was in the
studio with Yoko and the Beatles during the first five nights of
recording the WA... #9 was made from the 12 minutes extra of Take 2
plus loops made by John and Yoko with George Martin's technical (NOT
creative) assistance. fhs
goFab.com
<prose1283-F3BC0...@news02.west.earthlink.net>, poisoned rose
stated:
>
>"dlarsson" <derek_...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> > "Don't Let Me Down" didn't *deserve* to be an A-side.
>>
>> According to who?
>>
>> It's an excellant, bluesy song that fit well with the
>> mood of late-60s rock and received a significant
>> amount of airplay even as a B-side.
>
>Beatles' high standards...not so much. Crummy lyrics, sloppy singing.
>change-of-pace.
That pretty much sums it up for this song. The bridge works as a change of pace
but also has this nice, funky syncopation to it -- would have been nice to have
seen it made into something more finished.
The music *is* otherwise mundane, but even so could have been made into
something more interesting if anyone had been inclined to invest a little more
effort in the song. After all, PF's "Great Gig in the Sky" is no more
sophisticated musically than DLMD, with which it shares some similarities -- but
PF managed to make something compelling out of similar raw materials.
Chocolate Jesus !!
"BeatleMac" <fabe...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:4407bf2a.04010...@posting.google.com...
hello dementia my old friend.......
SHERIFF OF HONK HONK
i come to talk with me again....
Donz5
Once one starts looking for "hidden meanings," one enters into "Paul Is Dead"
territory. Usually a tree is just a tree.
Rich Forman
>
> > I think that in 1969, the Beatles were at the very top of their
> > game. They could play anything. One listen to "I Want You" reveals
> > that this is what the guys like Hendrix, Plant, Page, et al would kill
> > to be able to do.
>
> I agree with your point here. "I Want You/She's So Heavy"
> was one of the best illustrations that both Harrison & Lennon
> could really play guitar and create guitar-based rock
> that took a back seat to nobody. John's blistering lead
> guitar work in "Revolution" is also another example.
>
Naturally, Paul's IMO magnificent bass work on IWY (one of his best
performances along with several others on Abbey Road), and his
contribution to the final direction and arrangement of the fantastic
track "Revolution" (John would have left it with the relatively
plodding, bland, unvarying midtempo original style we hear on the
White Album; Paul's idea was to rework it as an upbeat hard-rocker
resulting in one of the best and most dynamic, explosive, all-time
sides)...merit no credit or acknowledgement in mentioning either of
these songs.
John wrote "Revolution" but the Beatles, very much including Paul,
turned it into the great band track it was. It wouldn't have come out
a millionth as good if in an alternate universe it had been a John
solo or POB track.
richforman
Rich Forman
LOL like the highjacking of Derek's signature "quotes."
richforman
Alex
> PS I don't think I know you, but in case you're new -- I was in the
> studio with Yoko and the Beatles during the first five nights of
> recording the WA... #9 was made from the 12 minutes extra of Take 2
> plus loops made by John and Yoko with George Martin's technical (NOT
> creative) assistance. fhs
Fascinating! Would you have some time to describe to us as many
details as you can recall from those historic sessions?
Thanks!
Alex
dlarsson
> > I agree with your point here. "I Want You/She's So Heavy"
> > was one of the best illustrations that both Harrison & Lennon
> > could really play guitar and create guitar-based rock
> > that took a back seat to nobody. John's blistering lead
> > guitar work in "Revolution" is also another example.
> Naturally, Paul's IMO magnificent bass work on IWY
Well, the great guitar riffs and changes were Lennon's
music structure - not McCartney's. The bass line simply
takes its cue and follows, to a large degree, directly from
the song-defining guitar work. McCartney's
"doodling about" at the end of the song, during
the fade-out, is also quite sloppy and not really that musical.
I'm a musician; there are far, far better bass backings I could
think of than the hokey, sloppy type of playing he does at
the end of this song. I'd give his effort a C- at best.
This song foreshadowed hard, Led Zeppelin-esque "blues-rock"
and cried-out for a more serious and professional effort on bass.
> Paul's idea was to rework it as an upbeat hard-rocker
> resulting in one of the best and most dynamic, explosive, all-time
> sides
> Paul turned it into the great band track it was.
Oh what nonsense.
First: It was not "Paul's music arrangement".
This is pure propaganda.
Lennon was 100% responsible for the guitar work
John even plays the lead guitar break (on the record)
on it (as well as the intro). ( Harrison, as similar to
"Get Back", provided complimentary rythmn
reinforcement for this song ).
In addition, the idea of overdriving the recording console
to create the raspy distortion effect was also
Lennon's idea (this is generally never done
as it is technically bad for the recording equipment ).
And, for the record, in case you thought otherwise
Nicky Hopkins ( not McCartney ) played the electric piano.
Second: John said only that paul and GEORGE
( both ) suggested him to do the song at a faster tempo.
In other words John never, at any time, attributed
the tempo change solely to McCartney all by himself
or as just something coming from just McCartney.
Collective feedback ( George + Paul ) accounted
for the re-take at a faster tempo.
So let's be honest here:
The tempo change was a good thing but:
1: Harrison was part of the discussions leading to this.
Trying to portray this as "all McCartney's" doing is inaccurate.
2: The whole instrumental "arrangment" itself came from Lennon.
It was just his own second version ( Revolution "II" ) .
If a damn parakeet had said "do it faster" and
Lennon then reworked it to be faster - it would
still be John's whole music arrangement ... not a "bird's".
So, McCartney had nothing ... zilch ... to do with
the whole instrumental arrangement. He played
the damn bass - and that's all he did on this song.
Whether you like the song or don't like the song
the "credit" belongs to Lennon.
Donz5
[dribble snipped about denying Paul credit for his unforgettable bass playing
on "I Want You (She's So Heavy)"]
> So let's be honest here...
Priceless.
dlarsson
> [dribble snipped about denying Paul credit for his unforgettable bass
playing
> on "I Want You (She's So Heavy)"]
His bass playing is good in spots ( on this song )
but my point is it is quite sloppy and unprofessional
during the fade-out section at the end of the song.
As a musician, I have heard far better bass playing
in my day than this ... thank you.
Chocolate Jesus !!
>
> > [dribble snipped about denying Paul credit for his unforgettable bass
> playing
> > on "I Want You (She's So Heavy)"]
>
> His bass playing is good in spots ( on this song )
> but my point is it is quite sloppy and unprofessional
> during the fade-out section at the end of the song.
that's patently absurd, even by drek's standards.
it's like saying the outro to "son of a preacher man" is bad bass playing
because it lapses into a loose boogaloo feel.
the bass playing on She's So Heavy is *fantastic*, and just what the song
requires, not one wasted or sloppy note anywhere.
> As a musician, I have heard far better bass playing
> in my day than this
oh yeah, i also think it would be great if we just cut and pasted some jaco
pastorious solos onto the end of 'she's so heavy".
way to go drek, ya fuking moron.
mike constantine
Chocolate Jesus !!
where is jseraf when you need him.......;)
From Me To You
Yes! That would be great, and it would make a much better web site than one
for postcard condolences for dead pets.
·.·´¨ ¨)) -:|:-
¸.·´ .·´¨¨))
The Beatles
((¸¸.·´ ..·´
-:|:- ((¸¸ ·.·
mike constantine
Chocolate Jesus !!
>
> fabe...@mac.com (BeatleMac) wrote in message
> news:<4407bf2a.04010...@posting.google.com>...
> >> PS I don't think I know you, but in case you're new -- I was in the
> >> studio with Yoko and the Beatles during the first five nights of
> >> recording the WA... #9 was made from the 12 minutes extra of Take 2
> >> plus loops made by John and Yoko with George Martin's technical (NOT
> >> creative) assistance. fhs
>
> >Fascinating! Would you have some time to describe to us as many
> >details as you can recall from those historic sessions?
she's so deranged, she really wouldn't have a clue.
you're better off reading lewishon or hammond to get a detailed idea of what
went on
Chocolate Jesus !!
totally disagree.
pictures of dead beaver give everyone a very clear picture of
francid........:)
BeatleMac
Hmm. If I put up a website devoted to the Beatles, I'm cashing in on
fifteen minutes with Paul in 1968.
If I put up a website devoted to pet condolences, it's not as good as
one devoted to my affair with Paul.
There's just no pleasing the Sewing Circle, is there?
BeatleMac
I would and I did. Please check the archives, *if you don't mind
sifting through mountains of flame posts from Nick (aka Choccolate
Jesus) and his little group of asshole followers.*
Your best bet is to check ian hammond's site for his notes on
Revolution #9.
Sorry but I won't have any spare time for new Q&A until next summer.
I am working on a new project and only have time for individual
questions...
But thanks for just simply asking.
Frannie or Schwartz
(Please email me for info regarding available CDs of the two radio
interviews I recorded in 1999.
See also True Hollywood Stories: Beatle Wives on E! TV. Check the
listings on eonline.com, they seem to rerun the show about once a
year...)
Chocolate Jesus !!
"affair"?
wouldn't "receptacle" be more appropriate?
HTH.
BeatleMac
>
> >
> > Hmm. If I put up a website devoted to the Beatles, I'm cashing in on
> > fifteen minutes with Paul in 1968.
> >
> > If I put up a website devoted to pet condolences, it's not as good as
> > one devoted to my affair with Paul.
>
> "affair"?
>
> wouldn't "receptacle" be more appropriate?
>
My receptacle with Paul? Oh, you mean our favourite teapot, the one
Jane Asher left in the cupboard at Cavendish Avenue for us to use?
Chocolate Jesus !!
news:<bt8ukt$85m$1...@pita.alt.net>...
> >
>
> > >
> > > Hmm. If I put up a website devoted to the Beatles, I'm cashing in on
> > > fifteen minutes with Paul in 1968.
> > >
> > > If I put up a website devoted to pet condolences, it's not as good as
> > > one devoted to my affair with Paul.
> >
> > "affair"?
> >
> > wouldn't "receptacle" be more appropriate?
> >
>
> My receptacle with Paul?
no, you were pauls sperm receptacle for a few days.
no biggie.
BeatleMac
>
> 1. McCartney would not agree to the managment
> decision made by John, George, and Ringo
> setting up an atmosphere of distrust and
> uneasy "competition" about Beatles business affairs.
> The band became immediately fractured at
> the point of all ongoing financial and business issues.
> This was a new dynamic and you can't run a ship for
> too long that way.
Sad but true.
>
> Lennon, for example, wanted "Revolution" to be
> not only an A-side single release but also a "Beatles"
> statement ( the same way that "All You Need Is Love"
> had been ). Lennon couldn't get the others to back him.
>
As devil's advocate, I'd say that it was never three against one, not
really.
True, John was miffed about Hey Jude being the single, esp cos it
wasn't even on the lp... and the impact of Sgt Pepper as "the first
concept album" wasn't being felt in 1968, the beginning of the James
Taylor-Dylan Unplugged - CSNY-Chicago-period in pop music.
But I don't think he particularly cared if it was "the" Beatle single.
He was just sarcastic about HJ because he thought Revolution was
rocknroll... HJ was in a class by itself, it was so Paul.
True there was a competition, in the office, about money, about
diversification, and about finding a manager. But back then, as Derek
Taylor put it, "Nothing could stop us."
I think each of the four guys were still up for happy Beatle music,
but no one was writing it just then.
francie
Donz5
>True, John was miffed about Hey Jude being the single, esp cos it
>wasn't even on the lp
Once again I believe you're just making stuff up.
Up to 1968, only two of the Beatles singles were on the LPs recorded during the
same time ("A Hard Day's Night" and "Yellow Submarine/Eleanor Rigby").
Singles released in England:
1. Love Me Do - not included on any contemporary LP (was on PPM LP 5 months
later)
2. Please Please Me - not included on any contemporary LP (was on PPM LP 4
months later)
3. From Me to You - no corresponding LP release
4. She Loves You - no corresponding LP release
5. I Want to Hold Your Hand - not on the LP released at the time, "With the
Beatles"
6. Can't Buy Me Love - not included on any contemporary LP (was on AHDN LP 3
months later)
7. A Hard Day's Night - included on corresponding LP
8. I Feel Fine - not on the LP released at the time, "Beatles for Sale"
9. Ticket to Ride - not included on any contemporary LP (was on Help! LP 3
months later)
10. We Can Work It Out/Day Tripper - not on the LP released at the time,
"Rubber Soul"
11. Paperback Writer - no corresponding LP release (though recorded during the
same period as "Revolver," released 3 months later)
12. Yellow Submarine/Eleanor Rigby - included on corresponding LP, "Revolver"
13. Penny Lane/SFF - no corresponding LP release (though it initiated the
beginning of "Pepper," which was released 3 months later)
14. All You Need Is Love - no corresponding LP release
15. Hello Goodbye - not on the EP released at the time, "Magical Mystery Tour"
16. Lady Madonna - no corresponding LP release
17. Hey Jude - no corresponding LP release (though recorded during the same
period as "White Album," released 3 months later)
As a _practice_, singles weren't included on the LPs being recorded at the
time, so this claim that John was miffed "especially because it wasn't even on
the LP" rings hollow.
Rich Forman
.
>
> > Naturally, Paul's IMO magnificent bass work on IWY
>
> Well, the great guitar riffs and changes were Lennon's
> music structure - not McCartney's.
Gee that's a logical response.
> The bass line simply
> takes its cue and follows, to a large degree, directly from
> the song-defining guitar work. McCartney's
> "doodling about" at the end of the song, during
> the fade-out, is also quite sloppy and not really that musical.
This new technique of calling some of Paul's instrumental
contributions "unmusical" is pretty ridiculous. I think even Paul's
detractors, except perhaps for you, would concede that he is
overwhelmingly "musical." What about John's atonal groaning and
screaming toward the end of "Cold Turkey" or "Mother", would you call
those "unmusical"? 'Course not. But Paul's glissandi leading into
the bridge of "Ballad of John and Yoko" and his rumbling, thunderous
basslines adding drama and impact to the fantastic fade-out of "I Want
You" are?
> I'm a musician; there are far, far better bass backings I could
> think of than the hokey, sloppy type of playing he does at
> the end of this song.
Sounds like you're skating perilously close to suggesting that YOU
could have done a better job creating and playing the bass on this
track than Paul McCartney?????
> I'd give his effort a C- at best.
> This song foreshadowed hard, Led Zeppelin-esque "blues-rock"
> and cried-out for a more serious and professional effort on bass.
>
Seems to me that his bass work has usually garnered unqualified praise
from all critics and analysts I've read commenting on this track, and
in fact throughout Abbey Road. You're entitled to your opinion of
course, but you must realize you're far, far in the minority here, and
if you really step back you might see that your overriding inclination
to dislike all things McCartney is coloring your perception.
>
> > Paul's idea was to rework it as an upbeat hard-rocker
> > resulting in one of the best and most dynamic, explosive, all-time
> > sides
> > Paul turned it into the great band track it was.
>
>
> Oh what nonsense.
>
> First: It was not "Paul's music arrangement".
> This is pure propaganda.
Who are you quoting? I didn't say that. I said (and from what I've
read) it was his suggestion to reimagine the song as a scorching
rocker (you said George shared this idea with him or favored it
too)...left to his own devices, John would have put the bland,
comparatively boring and undistinguished White Album version out as an
a-side single. Paul's (ok, and George's) idea was right in my
opinion: the single version is a thousand times version better than
"I," and other Beatles besides John (and besides George) had a big
part in how well it came out.
>
> Lennon was 100% responsible for the guitar work
> John even plays the lead guitar break (on the record)
> on it (as well as the intro). ( Harrison, as similar to
> "Get Back", provided complimentary rythmn
> reinforcement for this song ).
>
> In addition, the idea of overdriving the recording console
> to create the raspy distortion effect was also
> Lennon's idea (this is generally never done
> as it is technically bad for the recording equipment ).
>
> And, for the record, in case you thought otherwise
> Nicky Hopkins ( not McCartney ) played the electric piano.
>
Wow, what a guru, what an expert, to have that specialized, exclusive
knowledge and to magnanimously pass it on the rest of us. What could
possibly make you think that I didn't know Hopkins played the electric
piano part or thought that Paul played it? Obviously Paul couldn't
have played it, it's way beyond anything that's been heard from him on
keyboards, Paul is not a lead/solo keyboard or piano player. Anyway,
now that you brought it up, it's true that the piano solo is one of
many highlights of the track and for my money (I'm a musician too, a
keyboardist as it happens) one of the all-time Beatles highlights as
far as keyboard playing.
>
> Second: John said only that paul and GEORGE
> ( both ) suggested him to do the song at a faster tempo.
>
> In other words John never, at any time, attributed
> the tempo change solely to McCartney all by himself
> or as just something coming from just McCartney.
I thought the idea was Paul's but okay....I'll conceded....it was Paul
and George's idea. What are you going to do now, start a controversy
over what percentage of coming up the idea properly belonged to each?
Anyway, they did a lot more than just speed up the tempo if you
notice. They took the raw material of the song and shaped it into one
of their all time greatest driving rock tracks, adding a number of
exciting and interesting ideas, contrasts, sounds and sections, so
that the original version sounds absolutely dull and undistinguised in
comparison. (For me, a great many of the songs in that category would
be primarily-McCartney songs, but that's another discussion.)
John needed the rest of the Beatles, Paul included, to turn his songs
into the great music they created. That's why none of his solo
material compares to what they created together. To borrow a phrase
of yours, you seem to be implying at times that the Beatles were more
like a "Plastic Ono Band I." But it's not true, they were a band, all
important contributors, ESPECIALLY including McCartney, across the
board, on just about all their songs.
It's interesting to me. Abbey Road has always been my favorite
Beatles album. But I've noticed that some of John's songs on it, my
favorites, "Because," "Come Together," "I Want You," for instance, are
pretty similar in terms of the songs themselves, to stuff from John's
early solo and post-Beatles career....but the end results were (IMO
anyway) way, way, better than anything on Imagine or Plastic Ono Band,
for instance...it's easy to imagine those three songs having ended up
on John's solo albums instead, but it would have been a shame, because
they wouldn't have come out a millionth as good as they did.
richforman
> Collective feedback ( George + Paul ) accounted
> for the re-take at a faster tempo.
>
> So let's be honest here:
>
> The tempo change was a good thing but:
>
> 1: Harrison was part of the discussions leading to this.
> Trying to portray this as "all McCartney's" doing is inaccurate.
You use quotes, who are you quoting? Who said that this was "all
McCartney's" doing?
>
> 2: The whole instrumental "arrangment" itself came from Lennon.
> It was just his own second version ( Revolution "II" ) .
>
It sounds worlds different to me, and as if the arrangment was
completely reapproached from scratch between versions I and II. I
don't think it was "all Lennon's" doing. I think it was a band
effort, like "I Want You (She's So Heavy)."
> If a damn parakeet had said "do it faster" and
> Lennon then reworked it to be faster - it would
> still be John's whole music arrangement ... not a "bird's".
>
...again...the difference between "Revolution I" and "Revolution - the
Masterpiece" amounts to much more than the increased tempo.
> So, McCartney had nothing ... zilch ... to do with
> the whole instrumental arrangement. He played
> the damn bass - and that's all he did on this song.
...and, (according to you, with George, that's fine with me, I'll
concede the point although I don't remember having it read or heard it
before), came up with the idea of reworking it from a plodding
mid-tempo doo-wop parody into an explosive, hard-rocking song. (From
which point, they all, of course including John of course - probably
mainly John for all I know, created the entirely more exciting sounds,
guitar parts, structure, etc., that comprises the finished product.)
>
> Whether you like the song or don't like the song
> the "credit" belongs to Lennon.
>
Why is it so important to you minimize, belittle and deny McCartney's
contributions to great Beatles records? It's not working, everyone
else thinks he was at the very least one of the top two most important
songwriting/singing/arranging/playing members
of the #1 top best pop/rock band of all time.
richforman
BeatleMac
> Francie wrote:
>
> >True, John was miffed about Hey Jude being the single, esp cos it
> >wasn't even on the lp
>
> Once again I believe you're just making stuff up.
>
> Up to 1968, only two of the Beatles singles were on the LPs recorded during the
> same time ("A Hard Day's Night" and "Yellow Submarine/Eleanor Rigby").
>
the same
> period as "White Album," released 3 months later)
>
> As a _practice_, singles weren't included on the LPs being recorded at the
> time, so this claim that John was miffed "especially because it wasn't even on
> the LP" rings hollow.
That's just too bad, Rich. I am not making this up.
After the opening of Apple Records, decisions were made differently,
as the Beatles owned the company. They were all new to the
decision-making process, especially without Brian's guidance, which
was sorely missed. The decision about the lineup of the WA was in
their hands, as was the decision about the first Beatles single
release (HJ/Revolution).
You can look at Lewisohn's book "Chronicles" and there you will find
the documented evidence, in Paul's handwriting, that I was an integral
part of the formation of the company, as Derek Taylor's assistant, and
(parenthetically) as Paul's girlfriend. It's a handwritten chart of
the company's structure, and I'm right there, my name is spelled
correctly, and Paul wrote it. I went to work like a normal person
taking the bus from near Paul's house to Wigmore Street; this all
happened before we moved into Savile Row.
Now.
A few days before the decision was made on the release of the single,
Paul and John and Ringo and I were driving around London in a compact
convertible (I forget the make of the car, so sue me) and John and
Paul were talking about the extreme length of Hey Jude for airplay in
the singles format radio programs of the time... and "MacArthur Park"
came on the radio in the car.
John made some cracks about the song, about Richard Harris, etc... he
was the one who said HJ's length wouldn't matter, because in America
"They'd play it if we read the phone book for seven minutes, so why
not..." Paul was the one who was worried about the length and tempo of
the song for the American market. So I am not saying that John was
being "competitive" about choosing the single... he was very
supportive of Paul even if Paul was dismissing his experiments as
"arty-farty".
Away from Paul (at home with me and Yoko at Paul's) John was very
concerned about the choices the Beatles were being offered as new
company managers/directors. It was his feeling that Revolution should
be a Beatles single, and that it quite possibly could be the A-side
because it was "political" in a time when people were getting beat up
for opposing the war in Vietnam... HJ, which in all its incarnations
(there were about half a dozen acetates before Paul settled on the
final mix) was a classicly beautiful love song in a whole new context
could be the B side -- and both songs could conceivably become No. 1
hits.
I am not making this up. It's the truth as I saw it.
NO MATTER WHAT ANYONE ELSE SAYS OR WRITES
Francie
Donz5
>I am not making this up. It's the truth as I saw it.
Your entire story has utterly nothing to do with your claim that "John was
miffed about Hey Jude being the single, esp cos it wasn't even on the lp."
Nothing, Francie.
Donz5
with:
>You can look at Lewisohn's book "Chronicles" and there you will find
>the documented evidence, in Paul's handwriting, that I was an integral
>part of the formation of the company, as Derek Taylor's assistant, and
>(parenthetically) as Paul's girlfriend. It's a handwritten chart of
>the company's structure, and I'm right there, my name is spelled
>correctly, and Paul wrote it.
I'm looking at it right now, Francie; there's nothing on this list (p. 286)
that substantiates your puffed-up claim that you were an "integral part of the
formation of the company." Your name is included in a list of people that Paul
has arrowed in "Publicity."
The list includes untitled singles for Mary Hopkins, Jackie Lomax, and Black
Dyke Mills and a reference on how to release what was later titled "Two
Virgins." This puts this little memo sometime in June/July, at least a month or
two after the company was actually formed, long before you had become an
"integral member of its formation."
[snip]
>I am not making this up. It's the truth as I saw it.
It's more like the truth as you choose to bend, regardless of the facts.
BeatleMac
> Francie once again elevated herself into a position she never quite occupied
> with:
>
> >You can look at Lewisohn's book "Chronicles" and there you will find
> >the documented evidence, in Paul's handwriting, that I was an integral
> >part of the formation of the company, as Derek Taylor's assistant, and
> >(parenthetically) as Paul's girlfriend. It's a handwritten chart of
> >the company's structure, and I'm right there, my name is spelled
> >correctly, and Paul wrote it.
>
> I'm looking at it right now, Francie; there's nothing on this list (p. 286)
> that substantiates your puffed-up claim that you were an "integral part of the
> formation of the company." Your name is included in a list of people that Paul
> has arrowed in "Publicity."
>
LOL
> The list includes untitled singles for Mary Hopkins, Jackie Lomax, and Black
> Dyke Mills and a reference on how to release what was later titled "Two
> Virgins." This puts this little memo sometime in June/July, at least a month or
> two after the company was actually formed, long before you had become an
> "integral member of its formation."
>
>
Wrong again, Donzie. I think you'd better take another look at the
document.
The way you're describing it makes it sound like "Publicity" was just
a department,
when in fact it was the nerve center of Apple, and was personified in
Derek Taylor.
Apple was an unusual company, in that they opened their doors in
March, 1968 without even an office manager to run the day-today
operations. Tea girls who also read I Ching were hired first.
So your timing is all off. The first mention of "The Apple" was on Sgt
Pepper. The office itself opened with the skeleton crew of Derek
Taylor, Jeremy Banks, Alistair Taylor (former NEMS office mgr), Peter
Brown (Personal Fixer), Peter Asher and of course, Neil Aspinall and
Mal Evans, plus a receptionist and two secretaries. I was hired before
Ron Kass (Apple Records).
I have a tape of Mark Lewisohn interviewing Derek Taylor and Neil
Aspinall that was done prior to the relaunch of the Apple label in
1981. In it, Derek admits that he received a conference call from all
four Beatles early in 1968, and they asked him to "run it" (Apple).
You're just soooo jealous!
paramucho
Interesting stuff. I don't recall you mentioning this event before. Is
my memory failing me...
Donz5
>Apple was an unusual company, in that they opened their doors in
>March, 1968 without even an office manager to run the day-today
>operations. Tea girls who also read I Ching were hired first.
>So your timing is all off.
Once again you're refuting a point that was never argued. My timing was in
reference to that memo, not when Apple opened its doors. How could your name be
included in a memo from March when you hadn't even come in contact with anyone
there until April? How could any mention of John and Yoko's LP be included in a
memo from March when the recording of that LP ("Two VIrgins") hadn't even been
created until late May?
It's these little, inconvenient details of chronology, Francie. Someday you'll
focus on what was posted instead of imagining what it is you think you can
refute.
>You're just soooo jealous!
This from a near-60-year-old.
BeatleMac
> my memory failing me...
>
>
No. I've not mentioned it before.
You could never get it all out of me, in five hours, or five years.
BeatleMac
If you can't put it together, Donz, I'm sorry but I can't (or won't
have time to) put it together for you.
I think it's best you just sit there for the rest of recorded time
with your conclusions.
BeatleMac
Um, I didn't mean that last post to sound so callous.
My more conventional, considered and thoughtful reply to this most
recent utterance is
Bollocks
BeatleMac
> Francie wrote:
>
> >Apple was an unusual company, in that they opened their doors in
> >March, 1968 without even an office manager to run the day-today
> >operations. Tea girls who also read I Ching were hired first.
> >So your timing is all off.
>
> Once again you're refuting a point that was never argued. My timing was in
> reference to that memo, not when Apple opened its doors.
The two events can't be separated. You date the memo differently. I
know exactly when it was written. In July.
Apple existed before the Wigmore office (according to Neil
FuckinAspinall, if you don't mind) was opened,
How could your name be
> included in a memo from March
July.
when you hadn't even come in contact with anyone
> there until April? How could any mention of John and Yoko's LP be included in a
> memo from March when the recording of that LP ("Two VIrgins") hadn't even been
> created until late May?
>
Because he wrote the memo in July. He was "describing" the structure
of the company as he understood it at that point in time. I went on
the record about my work history with Apple in Body Count, and I will
not quote myself in here, ever again.
Face it, Donz, you don't know when things happened because you rely on
secondary sources,
Donz5
>do...@aol.com (Donz5) wrote in message
news:<20040106043644...@mb-m27.aol.com>...
> Francie wrote:
>
>> >Apple was an unusual company, in that they opened their doors in
>> >March, 1968 without even an office manager to run the day-today
>> >operations. Tea girls who also read I Ching were hired first.
>> >So your timing is all off.
>
>> Once again you're refuting a point that was never argued. My timing was in
>> reference to that memo, not when Apple opened its doors.
>The two events can't be separated. You date the memo differently. I
>know exactly when it was written. In July.
Let's review:
1. I wrote, "This puts this little memo sometime in June/July."
2. You said my "timing is all off."
3. You now say it was written in July.
Wow, you're right -- my timing _was_ all off.
re your claim that you were an "integral member of its formation":
With your Derek Taylor citation, you undercut your own claim by mentioning the
formation actually occurring in early '68. You weren't there, Francie.
>Face it, Donz, you don't know when things happened because you rely on
secondary sources,
Your problem is that you rely on a faulty memory, the logic of a 10-year-old,
and puffed-up resumes.
Chocolate Jesus !!
yet in five minutes, we get a torrent of inane bullshit that'd swamp st
louis.
go figure......:)
Chocolate Jesus !!
> do...@aol.com (Donz5) wrote in message
news:<20040105191003...@mb-m21.aol.com>...
> > Francie wrote:
> >
> > >I am not making this up. It's the truth as I saw it.
> >
> > Your entire story has utterly nothing to do with your claim that "John
was
> > miffed about Hey Jude being the single, esp cos it wasn't even on the
lp."
> >
> > Nothing, Francie.
>
> If you can't put it together, Donz, I'm sorry but I can't (or won't
> have time to) put it together for you.
why, are you rushing out the door for another "round of meetings" with yoko?
*snicker*
Tom Hartman
>concerned about the choices the Beatles were being offered as new
>company managers/directors. It was his feeling that Revolution should
>be a Beatles single, and that it quite possibly could be the A-side
>because it was "political" in a time when people were getting beat
up
>for opposing the war in Vietnam... HJ, which in all its incarnations
>(there were about half a dozen acetates before Paul settled on the
>final mix) was a classicly beautiful love song in a whole new context
>could be the B side -- and both songs could conceivably become No. 1
>hits."
Hey Francie! I know I'll be lambasted by some for this but glad to see
you back up here.
Here's how I feel about some of this stuff.
I was there as you know in 68 and 69, on Abbey Road. I got a glimpse
behind the curtain too, but I certainly wasn't an insider like
Francie. Whatever her prejudices, we all have them (good grief, we
tolerate all sorts of them up here) and PERSONALLY...speaking for just
myself....I think it's very cool that Francie shares info up here from
time to time. I don't feel like she goes out of her way to mislead
people and if she CAN be proven wrong on something, who cares? So
could The Beatles themselves (love that discussion of "Paperback
Writer" being done on 8 track in Anthology;:).....Sometimes people
forget and it doesn't mean an intent to mislead.
I used to get into it with Francie when I first "met" her up here
years back over Yoko Ono discussions from time to time, but I've
learned discussing Yoko Ono anywhere is almost like bringing up
politics or religion at the dinner table. ;) I felt like Francie's
worth to the forum was far more valuable than whether we agreed about
that chapter in The Beatles story.
So for what it's worth, good to see you up here again, and please
don't stop sharing the stuff we don't read about in Lewisohn, et al,
regarding their songs and recordings. The more " I was there"
testimonials we have, the better, as far as I'm concerned;)
BeatleMac
associated with Yoko.
Yes, it's true, the only name that gets people as hot as quick as
religion/sexuality discussed in mixed company is Yoko Ono Lennon.
She's still the most despised woman in the world.
Ain't it something?
t...@aerovons.com (Tom Hartman) wrote in message news:<>
> Hey Francie! I know I'll be lambasted by some for this but glad to see
> you back up here.
>
> Here's how I feel about some of this stuff.
>
> I was there as you know in 68 and 69, on Abbey Road. I got a glimpse
> behind the curtain too, but I certainly wasn't an insider like
> Francie. Whatever her prejudices, we all have them (good grief, we
> tolerate all sorts of them up here) and PERSONALLY...speaking for just
> myself....I think it's very cool that Francie shares info up here from
> time to time. I don't feel like she goes out of her way to mislead
> people and if she CAN be proven wrong on something, who cares? So
> could The Beatles themselves (love that discussion of "Paperback
> Writer" being done on 8 track in Anthology;:).....Sometimes people
> forget and it doesn't mean an intent to mislead.
>
Very true... there's no intent to mislead, on the part of any original
"witness", and there's no blame for the mistakes made by people long
dead... but there are fewer and fewer of us left, and of those who are
left, how many are full time professional writers or journalists?
> I used to get into it with Francie when I first "met" her up here
> years back over Yoko Ono discussions from time to time, but I've
> learned discussing Yoko Ono anywhere is almost like bringing up
> politics or religion at the dinner table. ;) I felt like Francie's
> worth to the forum was far more valuable than whether we agreed about
> that chapter in The Beatles story.
>
> So for what it's worth, good to see you up here again, and please
> don't stop sharing the stuff we don't read about in Lewisohn, et al,
> regarding their songs and recordings. The more " I was there"
> testimonials we have, the better, as far as I'm concerned;)
That, dear Tom, is why I returned to this place... because it's still
the best place I know of to release pentup memories, to recall and
reflect on events that happened so long ago. No one in rmb can stop
me from posting... sometimes a thread will trigger a memory I never
even wrote about (!) and it pleases me to think that someday, after
I've gone to the Great Pepperland in the Sky, my flashes of memory for
Beatles fans will be preserved here as well as in my CDs, book(s) and
of course in my private Beatle memorabilia collection.
Funny you should mention Lewisohn... we exchanged books and emails for
a couple weeks during the production of the Beatle Years radio shows.
Fred Lindgren "introduced" Mark and me, and his first admission was
that he had read the Paul chapter of Body Count (xeroxed, of
course...) years earlier (but not when it first came out in 1972, he
was a mere lad back then) but had not ever seen an actual copy of the
book. He apologized for participating in violation of my copyright!
And he gave me a fabulous gift in the 90 minute tape of his interview
with Derek Taylor and Neil Aspinall. It was a great help when I was
writing my two-part tribute to Derek in Beatlefan. (In here the Sewing
Circle were growsing about the fact that I insisted on being paid for
the piece! The nerve of that crazy person Frannie, to demand to be
paid for writing about Derek Taylor! No one else is paid for their
conttributions... well, I hate to break it to you, but I am not a
Beatle Fan. I'm a Beatle friend.
Anyhow, he went on the record with Fred Lindgren AFTER I did - and
slammed Yoko for accepting his notes for the Lennon Anthology (1999)
liner notes etc and then not crediting him... he didn't mention
whether he'd been paid (I'll bet he was paid rather handsomely), but
he sure sounded snippy when talking about the Lennon Anthology... as
if Yoko was violating some unwritten rule by producing her dead
husband's previously unreleased music *her* way...
I do love music especially rocknroll, and I understand that speaking
truth to power (my truth, the fans' power) is a risky business...
But it sure gets my circulation going after a long day of hard work on
a project that doesn't involve the Beatles, but does involve my friend
Yoko.
She will be 70 years young next month... and still taking her lumps!
Donz5
[Passages snipped where "I," "my" and "me" dominated every paragraph]
>I do love music especially rocknroll, and I understand that speaking
>truth to power (my truth, the fans' power) is a risky business...
Your delusions of grandeur are breathtaking.
Teddy
carpet rolled out for her when she shows up around here. It's really
the way she's acted up around rmb and not because we all want to fuss
about the exact minute Ringo belched in 1968.
t...@aerovons.com (Tom Hartman) wrote in message news:<47153260.04010...@posting.google.com>...
BeatleMac
Do yourself a favor, Donzie... exhale.
Donz5
Do us all a favor, Francie -- stop self-inflating your importance.
Frannie
> Francie wrote:
>>
> >Do yourself a favor, Donzie... exhale.
>
> Do us all a favor, Francie -- stop self-inflating your importance.
If my self-importance bothers you, Donz, perhaps your
self-aggrandizement needs to have some of its own hot air let out.
A good general rule is you can pick your friends and you can pick your
nose
But you can't pick your friend's nose.
I'm in the deflation business... deflating twentyfive years of lies
about the Beatles.
And I haven't even begun to work on the lies that don't involve me!
Frannie
> Tom: Check the archives and you'll see why Francie doesn't get the red
> carpet rolled out for her when she shows up around here. It's really
> the way she's acted up around rmb and not because we all want to fuss
> about the exact minute Ringo belched in 1968.
>
>
>
I have it on good authority that Ringo never did belch at all in
1968...
Good God, woman, do you really expect anyone to believe that a red
carpet is rolled out for anybody who shows up here?
The shit coloured carpet was the one you (and the Sewing Circle plus
NickthePrick) unrolled...
it still smells like shit.
No one with any kind of life whatsoever has time to sweep the
archives.
Take my word for it, no one ever "welcomed" me unless they were
angling for an interview.
Chocolate Jesus !!
"Frannie" <franc...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:b8bebffe.04010...@posting.google.com...
> do...@aol.com (Donz5) wrote in message
news:<20040107010929...@mb-m22.aol.com>...
> > Francie wrote:
> >>
> > >Do yourself a favor, Donzie... exhale.
> >
> > Do us all a favor, Francie -- stop self-inflating your importance.
>
> If my self-importance bothers you, Donz, perhaps your
> self-aggrandizement needs to have some of its own hot air let out.
>
> A good general rule is you can pick your friends and you can pick your
> nose
>
> But you can't pick your friend's nose.
you know, if that's the style of "good general rule" you live your life by,
i apologies for being mean to you and for teasing you.
cleary you have had some very bad life lessons early in on childhooh and you
are not to blame for being so messed up.
i'm sorry francie, i really am.
.
>
> I'm in the deflation business... deflating twentyfive years of lies
> about the Beatles.
oh my, now that *is* worthy of a sig file
Chocolate Jesus !!
i think franny's back on the sauce......:)
Donz5
>I'm in the deflation business...
No, you're in the self-inflation business, assigning unmerited significance to
your past.
That you actually bragged about having a book included in the Library of
Congress was a keeper.
Teddy
> hennes...@yahoo.com (Teddy) wrote in message news:<5d47aa5.04010...@posting.google.com>...
> > Tom: Check the archives and you'll see why Francie doesn't get the red
> > carpet rolled out for her when she shows up around here. It's really
> > the way she's acted up around rmb and not because we all want to fuss
> > about the exact minute Ringo belched in 1968.
> >
> >
> >
>
> I have it on good authority that Ringo never did belch at all in
> 1968...
>
> Good God, woman, do you really expect anyone to believe that a red
> carpet is rolled out for anybody who shows up here?
Denial: not just a river in Egypt.
Alex
> > Fascinating! Would you have some time to describe to us as many
> > details as you can recall from those historic sessions?
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Alex
>
> I would and I did. Please check the archives, *if you don't mind
> sifting through mountains of flame posts from Nick (aka Choccolate
> Jesus) and his little group of asshole followers.*
>
> Your best bet is to check ian hammond's site for his notes on
> Revolution #9.
> Sorry but I won't have any spare time for new Q&A until next summer.
So be it. I've got time! Can't wait for you though to become available
to post some more! Next summer, you say? Cool.
> I am working on a new project and only have time for individual
> questions...
>
> But thanks for just simply asking.
Don't mention it. I cannot understand why wouldn't any Beatle fan be
interested in getting a first-hand reminiscences of anyone who's been
in toucch with the fabs? I was too young then to be able to understand
it all, but that doesn't mean that I wasn't fascinated by their scene.
> Frannie or Schwartz
>
> (Please email me for info regarding available CDs of the two radio
> interviews I recorded in 1999.
> See also True Hollywood Stories: Beatle Wives on E! TV. Check the
> listings on eonline.com, they seem to rerun the show about once a
> year...)
Will do... Thanks again!
Donz5
>I cannot understand why wouldn't any Beatle fan be
>interested in getting a first-hand reminiscences of anyone who's been
>in toucch with the fabs?
You will, in time, Alex.
Danny Caccavo
franc...@excite.com (Frannie) wrote:
From my recollection, here's how it went.
When Francie first came up here, she was very friendly, sharing stories.
But very soon, she was attacked - unfairly. Perhaps it was jealousy,
who knows.
Unfortunately, it was all downhill from there. On both sides.
I suppose it's Francie's right to defend herself, but it went way beyond
that, IMHO.
I'm glad to have her here if she's sharing interesting information, but
not if it's personal attacks, or diatribes about Paul. If it's something
about Paul that is substantiated (and sometimes it is), fine.
But unfortunately, Francie has earned her place in my killfile, many
times. Along with some of her attackers.
dc
Frannie
>
> Denial: not just a river in Egypt.
>
How brilliantly original!
Frannie
> fabe...@mac.com (BeatleMac) wrote in message news:> > But thanks for just simply asking.
> Don't mention it. I cannot understand why wouldn't any Beatle fan be
> interested in getting a first-hand reminiscences of anyone who's been
> in toucch with the fabs? I was too young then to be able to understand
> it all, but that doesn't mean that I wasn't fascinated by their scene.
>
It's sad that people who were children when the Beatles were all alive
and together have all these preconceived notions of what happened...
it's because they rely on published accounts that are written by men
who never met the Beatles. Writers who rely on Beatle lore that's
woven out of whole cloth. It's third and fourth hand information, but
these people are locked into a mindset that includes evil Yoko, heroin
addicted John, that sort of lie, ad nauseum.
Most of the books written after 1979 are slanted against John (!) and
blame Yoko... that's why you see so many anti-Yoko threads in here.
Her name alone is enough to inspire flames from at least the most
vociferous posters. And since the release of LENNON LEGEND: The Very
Best of John Lennon, they've been attacking her for creating new
visuals for remastered Lennon songs... it's nuts.
But anyway: if you email me a couple of questions, I can answer you
privately over the weekend, or at the very least, give you links to
the answers I've given to the different Beatle webmasters.
And none of these Blue Meanies will be able to interfere!
Cheers
Frannie or Schwartz
dlarsson
> > The bass line simply
> > takes its cue and follows, to a large degree, directly from
> > the song-defining guitar work. McCartney's
> > "doodling about" at the end of the song, during
> > the fade-out, is also quite sloppy and not really that musical.
> This new technique of calling some of Paul's instrumental
> contributions "unmusical" is pretty ridiculous.
It's not a "technique", sloppy playing is sloppy playing.
Not all the playing falls into that category of course, but
in specific cases - we can find examples of sloppy playing
from Paul, Ringo, John ... (hardly ever with George Harrison however).
> I think even Paul's
> detractors, except perhaps for you, would concede that he is
> overwhelmingly "musical."
Of course Paul and all the Beatles were "musical".
Most of the bass playing in "I Want You/She's So Heavy"
is done very well. My criticism was about the fade-out
section which I do not think was as well done as it
could have been.
> What about John's atonal groaning and
> screaming toward the end of "Cold Turkey" or "Mother", would you call
> those "unmusical"?
That's a different topic (non-sequitor), but yes I do.
I have also been quite critical of John's "Plastic Ono" album.
> 'Course not.
See above ...
> > I'm a musician; there are far, far better bass backings I could
> > think of than the hokey, sloppy type of playing he does at
> > the end of this song.
> Sounds like you're skating perilously close to suggesting that YOU
> could have done a better job creating and playing the bass on this
> track than Paul McCartney?????
I play guitar, piano, drums ( ex-drummer ), and
a little bass. I don't really think of myself as
a bass player although I did sub in as bass player
for a short stint in a part-time band.
The point was, as a musician, I have seen and heard
a whole lot of excellant bass playing through the years.
I could think of far, far better bass backings than the
hokey, sloppy type of playing McCartney does at
the end of this song - whether or not I am the one
performing it or not is irrelevant.
> > This song foreshadowed hard, Led Zeppelin-esque "blues-rock"
> > and cried-out for a more serious and professional effort on bass.
> Seems to me that his bass work has usually garnered unqualified praise
> from all critics
In general that is true and in general I think his bass work is
fine.
> > First: It was not "Paul's music arrangement".
> > This is pure propaganda.
> Who are you quoting? I didn't say that.
Thanks for clarifying. The implication seemed to
be made that it was "reworked by Paul". This
is wrong - it was reworked and rearranged by John,
including the guitar work, with the urging from
both Harrison & Mccartney that the first version
had to slow a tempo.
> > Second: John said only that paul and GEORGE
> > ( both ) suggested him to do the song at a faster tempo.
> >
> > In other words John never, at any time, attributed
> > the tempo change solely to McCartney all by himself
> > or as just something coming from just McCartney.
> I thought the idea was Paul's but okay....I'll conceded....it was Paul
> and George's idea.
Fine.
> (From
> which point, they all, of course including John of course - probably
> mainly John for all I know, created the entirely more exciting sounds,
> guitar parts, structure, etc., that comprises the finished product.)
It is John with the new guitar work and reworked drumming senario
(played by Ringo ) and the decision to get Nicky Hopkins on piano.
> > Whether you like the song or don't like the song
> > the "credit" belongs to Lennon.
> Why is it so important to you minimize, belittle and deny McCartney's
> contributions to great Beatles records?
I think the contribution here was overstated.
"Revolution" whether we're taking I, II, No. 9
fast, slow, or whatever was essentially John's
whole scene.
Teamwork and exchange of ideas was involved
on most all Beatles songs including Paul's, John's,
and George's.
But the point is "Revolution" was John's arrangement.
It was, however, his second arrangment and feedback
from both Paul and George led to the decision to
do a second arrangement.
> But I've noticed that some of John's songs on it, my
> favorites, "Because," "Come Together," "I Want You," for instance, are
> pretty similar in terms of the songs themselves, to stuff from John's
> early solo and post-Beatles career....but the end results were (IMO
> anyway) way, way, better than anything on Imagine or Plastic Ono Band,
I agree and I think the key difference is the George Martin factor.
Martin had great skill at providing musical ideas for the group
and channeling John's energy to maximum effect.
Martin is the underrated "hero" of the Abbey Road side-2
and Sgt. Pepper sequencing and production ideas and he
scored the "A Day In The Life" buildup that we hear.
The "Let It Be"and "White" albums are what the band
sounded like without Martin as a primary collabortive force.
All their other albums reflect a higher role from George Martin
and we can see his effect on the tightness and presentation
on their material. It's a big (positive) difference.
Martin did his most creative stuff from John's ideas and
within the framework of John's songs. John benefited
from Martin by his forcing him to slow down and suggesting
different instruments and approaches. They were a
real good match for each other.
John was, however, able to make well constructed things like
"Mind Games", "Happy Christmas", "No. 9 Dream", "Imagine", etc.
on his own without George Martin but what Martin did I think
is also force John to slow down a little and not just rush the
thing through - resulting in that consistency of excellance that
marked John's Beatles days .. but escaped him during his solo years.
We both agree that the tempo change in Revolution
was a good thing. Paul and George Harrison's feedback
led to that. My point was that the new and improved
arrangement ( guitar work, etc. ) was still John's and
it was his whole bit. This one is pretty darn close
to a John Lennon solo record.
- Derek
================================
EMail: derek_...@comcast.net
================================
Rich Forman
> > > The bass line simply
> > > takes its cue and follows, to a large degree, directly from
> > > the song-defining guitar work. McCartney's
> > > "doodling about" at the end of the song, during
> > > the fade-out, is also quite sloppy and not really that musical.
>
>
>
>
> > Seems to me that his bass work has usually garnered unqualified praise
> > from all critics
>
> In general that is true and in general I think his bass work is
> fine.
>
Just to clarify, here I meant that his bass work ON THIS SONG has been
near-universally praised.
>
> > (From
> > which point, they all, of course including John of course - probably
> > mainly John for all I know, created the entirely more exciting sounds,
> > guitar parts, structure, etc., that comprises the finished product.)
>
> It is John with the new guitar work and reworked drumming senario
> (played by Ringo ) and the decision to get Nicky Hopkins on piano.
>
>
> > > Whether you like the song or don't like the song
> > > the "credit" belongs to Lennon.
>
>
> > But I've noticed that some of John's songs on it, my
> > favorites, "Because," "Come Together," "I Want You," for instance, are
> > pretty similar in terms of the songs themselves, to stuff from John's
> > early solo and post-Beatles career....but the end results were (IMO
> > anyway) way, way, better than anything on Imagine or Plastic Ono Band,
>
> I agree and I think the key difference is the George Martin factor.
> Martin had great skill at providing musical ideas for the group
> and channeling John's energy to maximum effect.
>
Martin was part of the reason but so were Paul, George, and Ringo.
Their instrumental and vocal contributions, and their ideas for the
songs and arrangements, were big parts of what made these tracks as
great as they were.
richforman
mike constantine
news:<f386924f.04010...@posting.google.com>...
> > fabe...@mac.com (BeatleMac) wrote in message news:> > But thanks for
just simply asking.
> >
> > Don't mention it. I cannot understand why wouldn't any Beatle fan be
> > interested in getting a first-hand reminiscences of anyone who's been
> > in toucch with the fabs? I was too young then to be able to understand
> > it all, but that doesn't mean that I wasn't fascinated by their scene.
> >
>
> It's sad that people who were children when the Beatles were all alive
> and together have all these preconceived notions of what happened...
> it's because they rely on published accounts that are written by men
> who never met the Beatles. Writers who rely on Beatle lore that's
> woven out of whole cloth. It's third and fourth hand information, but
> these people are locked into a mindset that includes evil Yoko, heroin
> addicted John, that sort of lie, ad nauseum.
>
> Most of the books written after 1979 are slanted against John (!) and
> blame Yoko... that's why you see so many anti-Yoko threads in here.
> Her name alone is enough to inspire flames from at least the most
> vociferous posters. And since the release of LENNON LEGEND: The Very
> Best of John Lennon, they've been attacking her for creating new
> visuals for remastered Lennon songs... it's nuts.
I agree. If it was film of John in the studio recording #9 Dream and Yoko
inserted herself, i'd understand. But it's not.
Tom Hartman
Yeah, I understand Danny.
I think Francie doesn't like being attacked by some of the larger IQ
members up here...who seem to be unable to respond to ANYTHING without
bathroom humor attacks, etc...and she responds in kind. That may be
her mistake, reducing herself to their level, but then, Lennon didn't
suffer that kind of stuff very patiently either;) Some hit back with
hammers, some with a wry response, some choose to leave the thread.
I'm not the most patient either, and have been rather snippy with some
up here over the years, but I do try not to get into name-calliing,
which I consider fairly fruitless.
Derek's hero worship and denigration of Paul, for instance, is
tolerated on a regular basis by most apparently, as are his and others
constant anti Republican banter and "JFK WAS SHOT BY LBJ AND A GUY IN
A MANHOLE" silliness. So I think it's unfair to single one poster out,
when at least, this poster was an eyewitness to things most of us, if
not all, have never seen. The truth is always hard to pin down....if
Francie's story conflicts with something considered a Beatle "bible,"
like Lewisohn, I'd frankly consider that the "bible" MIGHT be wrong
and the eyewitness correct, after seeing Lewisohn get the facts on
their technical stuff wrong here and there. But no matter. I think
when someone comes up here and a bunch of people think they are full
of it, they should ignore the post. That way, those of us who are
interested, can read a thread pertaining to the subject, rather than
become observers to a street fight.
Teddy
>
> >
> > Denial: not just a river in Egypt.
> >
>
> How brilliantly original!
But absolutely suitable. A golden oldie. The shoe fits. And, as usual,
you've tried the old "look over there!" bit, Cleopatra.
Danny Caccavo
t...@aerovons.com (Tom Hartman) wrote:
Agreed, Tom.
dc
paramucho
Although I don't really think it's true to say that Mad Derek is
tolerated here -- he's regularly responded to in kind.
Yes, I like to hear Francie's on-topic stuff, and I don't take the
Established Truth As Gospel, but Francie's clearly not just some
innocent bystander in the street fighting but rather a long-standing
and regular participant.
Danny Caccavo
i...@beathoven.com (paramucho) wrote:
No, she's not an innocent bystander.
And she keeps changing her email address to get around people's kill
files.
But she'd be a lot more credible now if she had just ignored the (then
unjustified) attacks in the first place instead of getting down in the
mud and flinging it back.
dc
Frannie
> Established Truth As Gospel, but Francie's clearly not just some
> innocent bystander in the street fighting but rather a long-standing
> and regular participant.
As well as a first-hand witness.
Frannie
> >
> No, she's not an innocent bystander.
>
> And she keeps changing her email address to get around people's kill
> files.
>
Wrong. Those are Nick's forgeries. I have not changed my email address
to avoid killfiles.
Killfile me all you like!
> But she'd be a lot more credible now if she had just ignored the (then
> unjustified) attacks in the first place instead of getting down in the
> mud and flinging it back.
>
> dc
That is so easy for you to say...