Paul's break-up with Jane Asher
testy
Has either Paul McCartney or Jane Asher spoken publicly about their
relationship since their break-up? I suspect not, for surely I would
have found something by now if either of them had.
So that leads to another question. Assuming they've both kept mum, is
it because
(a) they're really both that sensitive to each other's feelings and
desire for privacy, or
(b) at least one of them is afraid that if s/he "spilled the beans," the
other would retaliate (by divulging something worse or by suing...)
Testy
Lizz Holmans
writes
>The Linda movie and other reminiscences here have set me to wondering:
>
>Has either Paul McCartney or Jane Asher spoken publicly about their
>relationship since their break-up? I suspect not, for surely I would
>have found something by now if either of them had.
Jane Asher doesn't talk about her relationship with Paul McCartney
because both of them have moved on to other, and arguably better,
things.
If you want to strike up a conversation with Jane Asher, talk about
baking.
Lizz 'At least, that's what I was doing when she struck up a
conversation with me' Holmans
--
Lizz Holmans
Anita
news:vL3DvAA1...@jackalope.demon.co.uk...
> Jane Asher doesn't talk about her relationship with Paul McCartney
> because both of them have moved on to other, and arguably better,
> things.
Certainly goes a long way to explain the way Francie blabs on, doesn't it?
UsurperTom
>Has either Paul McCartney or Jane Asher spoken publicly about their
>relationship since their break-up?
Paul occationally talks about his life with Jane in interviews. In Barry
Miles' "Many Years From Now," Paul actually admitted that he was unfaithful to
Jane. On the other hand, Jane adamantly refuses to talk about Paul publicly.
Tom
fabella
Now available only at this URL for the unbelievably low price of
$6.66!
http://www.rehab.ng.noflame.com
Get 'em while they're hot.
You'll never have to deal with another nasty flame again!
Just spray liberally on your video monitor and watch those frown
lines fade before your very eyes.
(Not recommended for pregnant females or adolescents trapped in
thirtysomething bodies)
With secret ingredient developed by leading edge
biopharmacologists: godisluvandthatsallyouneed! c. 2000-2001
http://sites.netscape.net/fabest/homepage
NEW: Smashing Danny Fields as Mythmaker
'How do we credit this one - Frannie on dance?' -- (Paul McC, May 1968)
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
d.
(UsurperTom) wrote:
> Testy wrote:
>
> >Has either Paul McCartney or Jane Asher spoken publicly about their
> >relationship since their break-up?
>
> Paul occationally talks about his life with Jane in interviews. In Barry
> Miles' "Many Years From Now," Paul actually admitted that he was unfaithful
> to Jane.
Stop the presses! ;)
--
d.
fabella
put it all straight.
He'll surely talk about how he never gossiped about anyone else
(pay no attention to his cracks about Yoko during the LIB tapes
that Sulpy published) or any of the other Beatle's private lives.
Just as likely, he'll explain how I was a two or three night
stand, and meant nothing at all to him.
Yeah, Paul has a real horror of exposure all right.
Don't worry, all your unanswered questions will be dealt with...
for just $60 retail.
Anita
news:051a14dc...@usw-ex0103-019.remarq.com...
> Troll-Be-Gone!
Yes, the harsh realities *do* make you uncomfortable, don't they Grannie?
d.
<waronsex...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> Oh yes, and I'm *sure* that "warts and all" Anthology book will
> put it all straight.
>
> He'll surely talk about how he never gossiped about anyone else
> (pay no attention to his cracks about Yoko during the LIB tapes
> that Sulpy published) or any of the other Beatle's private lives.
>
> Just as likely, he'll explain how I was a two or three night
> stand, and meant nothing at all to him.
>
> Yeah, Paul has a real horror of exposure all right.
>
> Don't worry, all your unanswered questions will be dealt with...
> for just $60 retail.
Francie, go lie down for a while, OK?
--
d.
fabella
globalsearch
their
would
>have found something by now if either of them had.
>
mum, is
>it because
>(a) they're really both that sensitive to each other's feelings
and
>desire for privacy, or
>(b) at least one of them is afraid that if s/he "spilled the
beans," the
>other would retaliate (by divulging something worse or by
suing...)
>
>Testy
>
>
>
globalsearch
recently starred in a fictional film about the 60's. I don't
remember whether there were merely references to the Beatles, or
whether one of the characters was Paul; but at one point, the
filming reportedly had to be interrupted because Jane had a
little breakdown when all the memories came flooding back. That
may account for one reason she avoided discussing the entire
subject of the Beatles (not only Paul). Secondly, Jane wouldn't
have talked about an ex-boyfriend, I believe, because she was
raised in a family (father, psychiatrist and mother, oboe
instructor at a music conservatory) whose social class frowned
upoon that type of self-disclosure. Lastly, there were reports
around 1965 that Jane had reservations about marrying Paul
because she wanted her acting career to advance because of her
ability, not because of who she was dating. So, to seek
attention in the media about her past relationship with Paul
would have been completely contrary to her goal of recognition
for her own talents. Carol
Jamie
> Sometime in the 80's, a friend in London said that Jane had
> recently starred in a fictional film about the 60's. I don't
> remember whether there were merely references to the Beatles, or
> whether one of the characters was Paul; but at one point, the
> filming reportedly had to be interrupted because Jane had a
> little breakdown when all the memories came flooding back.
Jane was only in 3 films in the 80's; none of them, to my knowledge, about the
Sixties.
--
~Jamie
huzzlewhat
> Testy wrote:
>
> >Has either Paul McCartney or Jane Asher spoken publicly about their
> >relationship since their break-up?
>
> Paul occationally talks about his life with Jane in interviews. In Barry
> Miles' "Many Years From Now," Paul actually admitted that he was unfaithful to
> Jane. On the other hand, Jane adamantly refuses to talk about Paul publicly.
Jane has said that she has "a horror" of people who talk about their
private affairs. She's very funny on the subject; in one recent (within
the last five years) interview, she commented that she'd reached a "zen
state" on the McCartney question.
Paul has mentioned Jane, but has never talked about the personal details
of their relationship. In a radio interview a year or so ago, he
commented that he was "supposed to have married Jane Asher," and I
realized it was the first time I'd ever actually *heard* him say her name.
My guess is that it's a mutual respect thing, and a shared belief in
privacy in personal affairs.
Hazel
--
"And Stella the little fairy wore a little hat, that she
could see through! And Mary the little fairy wore a
little shawl, that kept her warm."
UsurperTom
>In a radio interview a year or so ago, he
>commented that he was "supposed to have married Jane Asher," and I
>realized it was the first time I'd ever actually *heard* him say her name.
I was surprised that Paul mentioned Jane's name when I read his Newsweek
interview promoting the Anthology on October 23, 1995. Paul talked about the
Beatles' trip to India and described how the Beatles brought their wives with
them. This was before "Many Years From Now" came out.
Tom
anon...@bigpond.net.au
wrote:
yes, I feel like there's some unfinished vibe going down here man.
Globalsearch
television production (I don't know whether it was a made-for-tv movie, or if
it was an episode of an established series). Carol
huzzlewhat
<waronsex...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> Oh yes, and I'm *sure* that "warts and all" Anthology book will
> put it all straight.
>
> He'll surely talk about how he never gossiped about anyone else
> (pay no attention to his cracks about Yoko during the LIB tapes
> that Sulpy published) or any of the other Beatle's private lives.
>
> Just as likely, he'll explain how I was a two or three night
> stand, and meant nothing at all to him.
>
> Yeah, Paul has a real horror of exposure all right.
>
> Don't worry, all your unanswered questions will be dealt with...
> for just $60 retail.
I would be very surprised if any of the Beatles used their space in the
Anthology book to discuss their past romantic relationships in detail.
fabella
mother was a professor of music, and taught many instruments,
including cornet, which she tried to teach Paul (he told me).
Mrs. Asher was a niece of the poet T.S. Eliot. She was a very
kind and
sympathetic person (as any good mother would be) who treated me
fairly and gently. The second time she came to Cavendish
Avenue, to remove the cooking equipment and cookbooks from the
kitchen, we packed together, and we spoke of our mother-
daughter relationships, and found there was much in common. I
liked her a great deal, and I think she was not surprised to find
me very like her own daughter in many ways: ambitious, creative,
independent and aware of what one deals with when a young
man demands total devotion, but is unable to do the same for his
partner.
Francie
http://sites.netscape.net/fabest/homepage
NEW: Smashing Danny Fields as Mythmaker
'How do we credit this one - Frannie on dance?' -- (Paul McC, May 1968)
UsurperTom
>I would be very surprised if any of the Beatles used their space in the
>Anthology book to discuss their past romantic relationships in detail.
According to press reports, the Anthology book will contain new revelations
about the Beatles' sexual exploits.
Tom
gdn...@my-deja.com
ROTF! So now you're trying to draw a parallel between you and Jane
Asher?! You're a kick.
Didn't you write in rmb that when you met Mrs. Asher all was quiet?
Funny how no conversation was mentioned by you before. I find it hard
to believe you two had a civil, let alone friendly, conversation while
she cleaned out her daughter's belongings.
Somehow I don't think it was Mrs. Asher who thought you were like her
daughter. More like you wanted to be like her. That you even consider
yourself in the same breadth as such a classy lady is insulting to Jane.
-- Zoe
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Tony Cilantro
fabella <waronsex...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote on Thu, 25
May 2000 06:01:39 -0700
>Mrs. Asher was a niece of the poet T.S. Eliot. She was a
>very kind and sympathetic person (as any good mother would
> be) who treated me fairly and gently.
yeah we know how important civility is to you!! fukin lol
>The second time she came to Cavendish Avenue, to remove the
>cooking equipment and cookbooks from the kitchen, we packed
>together, and we spoke of our mother- daughter
>relationships, and found there was much in common. I liked
>her a great deal, and I think she was not surprised to find
>me very like her own daughter in many ways: ambitious,
>creative, independent
or she may have thinking, "who's this jewess paul's gotten
mixed up with???!"
fabella
In article <20000525121905...@ng-fg1.aol.com>,
Right, Tom. Every official statement has included that
titillating bit of promotional bs.
Unless one is a "completist" and feels it is necessary to own
everything put out by Apple, I have a strong suspicion that this
"sexual
exploits" business is a bit ridiculous. Certainly would be
impossible (and fairly undesirable) for each Beatle to "correct"
the
hundreds of different stories contained in the four hundred or
so Beatle books that have been published over the decades. And
knowing as I do that Derek Taylor was the primary "editor" of
this book until he died, his clever and poetically inclined
style of
presenting the Beatles would preclude any sort of sexual
autobiography.
I think it's worth joking about, and I'm sure that if Belushi,
Murray, Radner, Guest, Kenney and the other original National
Lampoon
editor/writers were still around, they would do a smashing
"fake" Beatle Anthology and put it out for less than $10.
We aren't going to learn how many times Paul took Peggy Lipton
to bed, or which Beatle wives slept with George, or who John's
lovers were before Yoko or how many groupies Ringo shagged.
Because it's just really unimportant in the larger sense, to put
this
into a "definitive account" of the Beatles as a group.
Sorry, but for $60 you could buy both Lewisohn books and a
couple other good ones, and you would have a lot more truth about
the Beatles than if you blew it all on this coffee table thingy.
No one can replace Derek Taylor, and I'm sure the book will
suffer greatly from his loss.
fabella
And no, I never wrote that all was quiet on the night Mrs. Asher
came by to pack the kitchen stuff. In Body Count I wrote about
her
pride in her daughter and how much like my own mother's pride in
me it seemed. We spent a good hour talking and pulling
things out of drawers and cupboards. She gave me her note for
Paul. I left the house the following evening (although Paul asked
me why I was going). The upshot was he asked me to "come home"
which meant move in officially. That night he told me that
during his talk with Mrs. Asher, he told her he had met someone
who was offering him something Jane never could. And that's the
way it was.
There are several important ways in which Jane and I are
similar. As women, both of us preferred to make our own way in
the
world as far as career rather than being guided by Paul's; both
of us had broad cultural educations, where art and music were
important parts of home life. Both independent thinkers, both
slow to fall in step with someone else's idea of how life should
be
lived. We were both a bit ahead of our times as far as gender
roles were concerned. In the 60s, women began to imagine and
manifest different roles for themselves within the traditional
context. Women who lived with men without marrying were still
considered "improper" and even premarital sex was frowned upon
by the majority/authorities. We were both risk-takers.
And we were both picked by Paul McCartney.
Now why don't you tell all the nice folks where you got your
email address, "Zoe"?
franny
-
...
>liked her a great deal, and I think she was not surprised to find
>me very like her own daughter in many ways: ambitious, creative,
>man demands total devotion, but is unable to do the same for his
>partner.
>
>Francie
Francie -
I once saw an interview with Paul where he said that Linda was the first
"woman" that he had a relationship with -- all the rest were "girls". I
thought that sounded kind of insulting to the other women but everyone was
so young - maybe it wasn't really an insult.
Do you think Paul was "devoted" to Linda in the manner you were describing
above?
Mariel
p.s. I don't like the nasty way some people have treated you here in this
newsgroup.
--
remove "nospam" to reply
fabella
In article <slrn8iqn3...@amanda.dorsai.org>,>....
>>liked her a great deal, and I think she was not surprised to
find
>>me very like her own daughter in many ways: ambitious,
creative,
>>independent and aware of what one deals with when a young
>>man demands total devotion, but is unable to do the same for
his
>>partner.
>>
>>Francie
>
>Francie -
>
>I once saw an interview with Paul where he said that Linda was
the first
>"woman" that he had a relationship with -- all the rest were
"girls". I
>thought that sounded kind of insulting to the other women but
everyone was
>so young - maybe it wasn't really an insult.
>
>Do you think Paul was "devoted" to Linda in the manner you were
describing
>above?
I don't think he meant the "girls" remark the way it sounded.
When I first read that statement, I had to smile because I've
always
thought Linda's devotion went a long way to making a man out of
*him*, and he behaved more like a boy with previous lovers..
You ask a provocative question. I don't think the problem I was
describing came up for Linda, because unlike Jane or me, Linda's
priorities lined up perfectly with Paul's. He really didn't have
to change or compromise for Linda: she had no conflicts. I don't
think
she *really* wanted to go onstage with him, but she came to
enjoy it at the end. I don't think Jane or I were the type that
needs or
wants to be with her husband 24 hrs a day for 30 years! So it
all worked out in the end. And Paul was as devoted to Linda as he
could be (considering his devotion to the Beatle thing, which
all women who have ever been involved with *any* Beatle had to
deal
with in their time).
>
>Mariel
>
>p.s. I don't like the nasty way some people have treated you
here in this
>newsgroup.
>
Thanks, Mariel. I've been trying to get past all that, and there
are still a few trolls hanging onto their old ideas, but "I've
got to
admit it's getting bettah". I'm lucky, because I always have a
heartful of real Beatle memories to get me through the rough
spots.
Francie
Anita
> There are several important ways in which Jane and I are similar. As
women, both of us preferred to make our own way in >the world
Let's see. . .Jane made her way by pursuing her own career paths that did
not depend on her past connection with the Beatles.
Your "own way," however, seems to completely hinge on blabbing about your
flimsy, brief 30+ years ago connection with the Beatles.
Come on, Francie--do you *really* consider that "making your own way?"
PUH-lease.
d._{northcut@mindspring.com]
re: the upcoming Anthology book ...
>No one can replace Derek Taylor, and I'm sure the book will
>suffer greatly from his loss.
Actually, I've heard the book has been in production since long before his
death, and may even have been *finished* since 1996 or so. Since Derek was very
much involved in other aspects of the Anthology I'd be very surprised if he
wasn't involved in this as well.
--
d.
Lord Tim Brent
wrote:
She does not do that,Anita.Bascically,though,this is what her audience
here in RMB wishes to hear about-what The Summer Of Apple was really
like,from someone who lived it and was part of it.
Tim
-----------------
Duchy Of Grand Fenwick
The Church Beatle will now pass among you
No foreign coins,please.
D 28IF
>
>>No one can replace Derek Taylor, and I'm sure the book will
>>suffer greatly from his loss.
>
>Actually, I've heard the book has been in production since long before his
>death, and may even have been *finished* since 1996 or so. Since Derek was
>very
>much involved in other aspects of the Anthology I'd be very surprised if he
>wasn't involved in this as well.
>
>--
>d.
>
>
>
>
That was my impression, as well. Everything I've heard and read says the book
was finished in 1995-96, ready for release with the Anthology airings. There
was a holdup with all 4 signing off on it, but it was done.
That would mean Derek had more than just a hand in the book, so I'm sure, as
white-washed as it may be, it'll at least be fun. :-)
fabella
it had been planned to come out along with the video, following
the music CD set. Actual work on the text was begun around 1991
when Derek was called back by Neil Aspinall to help with the
relaunch of the record label. It is my understanding that Derek
had not completed editing and "polishing" when he became too ill
to work, and the project was tabled until someone else could
take over. There is no one on the planet who could fill his
shoes, not
only because of his unique style - no one else has first hand
knowledge going all the way back to Liverpool.
d.
<waronsex...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> The Anthology Book was not finished when Derek died. Originally,
> it had been planned to come out along with the video, following
> the music CD set. Actual work on the text was begun around 1991
> when Derek was called back by Neil Aspinall to help with the
> relaunch of the record label. It is my understanding that Derek
> had not completed editing and "polishing" when he became too ill
> to work, and the project was tabled until someone else could
> take over. There is no one on the planet who could fill his
> shoes, not only because of his unique style - no one else has first hand
> knowledge going all the way back to Liverpool.
My point, which stands, is that Derek did work on it, and he probably worked on
it a lot. :) So you heard that the project was tabled because he hadn't
finished it? That's not exactly what I heard, but I'm sure there was more than
one reason for the delay. Several release dates were announced over the years,
indicating that the book has been in a state of at least some completion to
someone's satisfaction, for a good while now.
FWIW, I'll believe this book will ever be released the day I'm actually holding
a copy in my hands.
--
d.
Anita
news:392da2ac...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> She does not do that,Anita.Bascically,though,this is what her audience
> here in RMB wishes to hear about-what The Summer Of Apple was really
> like,from someone who lived it and was part of it.
> Tim
You're so wrong. Every time in the past 6 months or so that Francie has
been asked to give concrete examples of any paid work she's done recently
that did not have a connection to the Beatles in any way, shape, or form,
she "conveniently" disappears from the NG for several days until she thinks
everybody's forgotten about the question.
fabella
In article <8gkmqe$5jd$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>, "Anita"
He's so right, that Tim. As anyone with an adult attention span
remembers, I have been asked many intelligent straightforward
questions in the past few months and I have answered them to the
best of my ability. I've also expressed my opinions. Most people
have been gracious and kind when it came to my posting this kind
of information here. Some of them actually thanked me for
taking the time do think their questions over!
What I've been paid to write in the recent past that has nothing
to do with the Beatles is nobody's business but my own.
And furthermore, if I'd been writing about the Beatles or
something related to the Beatles since August 28, 1968, so what?
I'm not obligated to answer every question, either. Especially
when it comes from someone who has consistently flamed me in the
nastiest possible way.
huzzlewhat
<nort...@mindspring.com> wrote:
Tell me about it. This is becoming the book that wouldn't live, yet
refused to die. According to the fellow I talked to at Genesis three
years ago, it was only waiting on final copyright releases on some of the
photos, but that it was done, and it was "gorgeous." In the meantime,
there were some fallouts between the principals regarding who was going to
get what percentages when, and the book was delayed. And delayed again.
About a year ago, the property was sold to a different publisher, and now
we have a release date.
This, at least, is the chain of events as near as I've been able to piece
it together. But as far as I know, the book was largely Derek Taylor's
baby, as in the last official stuff that I saw, he was still listed as
editor. I'm looking forward to it just to read his introduction, or
whatever. It'll be good to "hear" his "voice" again.
Nancy McClernan
Hey, if I had had an intimate connection with one of the Fabs, I'd be
blabbing about it too! Wouldn't you?
And it's not like nobody wants to hear about it.
Tony Cilantro
"Nancy McClernan" <nan...@goddess-athena.net> wrote on
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 07:37:46 GMT:
>Hey, if I had had an intimate connection with one of the
>Fabs, I'd be blabbing about it too! Wouldn't you?
would you be lying about it? would you be inserting yourself
in situations that in reality you didn't witness? would you
be bitterly whining that your Beatle lover was a racist and
anti-semite?
>And it's not like nobody wants to hear about it.
people want the truth.
fabella
I just typed in this really long and intimate paragraph and it
disappeared!
Anyway Beatlepeople do not necessarily want the truth. They just
want *MORE*...
Soon enough, when the issue comes to court (and it looks like
Danny's book is going to get it there), there will be witnesses.
In most
instances, the only surviving witnesses are myself, Yoko and
Paul. Yesterday one of the lawyers (Gawd, I now have 2 lawyers)
asked if I could get Paul to corroborate.
Which brings up a question that has never occurred to me before,
I swear!
Maybe the reason Paul has never confirmed or denied anything I
wrote 30 yrs ago is *NOT* because I broke the Code of Silence.
Maybe it's because I didn't want to marry him.
Either way, it *is* interesting for me. Will Paul go to his
grave without making a single comment on it?
Hard to say.
But reading the interview from 1982 (link posted yesterday),
there were clear signs of media neurosis... you know if a guy
whose
band broke up 30 years ago is still out there on stage, screen
and television (and now the Internet), he knows there's a price
to
pay. He just can't control *every writer on the planet*...
Another thing that kills me (in a good way) about rmb is when
people assume that I don't know him any more. That is so funny!
Once we connect on a deep level, that never really goes away.
I'm in his music and he's in my book. And boy oh boy, would you
have freaked out if you were me, sitting with Yoko and talking
about how little Paul *has* changed.
A telling anecdote (pardon me, those who have heard me tell this
before) was when I told Yoko I really regretted not having
opened my mouth to say how terrible I thought it was for Paul to
write that hate note, when it was happening. But she understood
completely. She said, "You were with *him*!" She knew I was
standing by my man, letting the horror seep out of the room, but
she
also *now* knew that I had been with her and John that horrid
morning, feeling their pain, but unable to smack my boyfriend
upside the head.
Could I have muscled Paul out of his jealous, racist attitude in
July 1968? Could I have reconciled John and Paul?
Nope. Didn't have it in me. He was in too much pain about
everything because he felt everything was happening to *him*! It
was *
his* Beatles that were breaking up.
Another true quote: John told me "He's too hung up about us
bein' Beatles, y'know."
That was when I asked John why they didn't make Paul do a solo
album to get all the ego crap out of the way.
Yeah, I tell the truth. It's just that I didn't feel the need to
speak out on it until 1999.
I know - you have another question, right?
Franny
fabella
Someone named after an herb just started a whole new thread just
to troll me!
Ooo I feel soooooo special!
Francie
http://sites.netscape.net/fabest
History, after historians have
finished with it, is always too tidy.
Strabbo
fabella <waronsex...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>Another thing that kills me (in a good way) about rmb is when
>people assume that I don't know him any more. That is so funny!
>Once we connect on a deep level, that never really goes away.
>I'm in his music and he's in my book. And boy oh boy, would you
>have freaked out if you were me, sitting with Yoko and talking
>about how little Paul *has* changed.
Sorry Francie, I have to pause on this paragraph. You yourself
commented on how 'people change', even how you have grown and
changed since the Mailing List stuff last year. I believe you,
but I also believe that thirty-two years would have changed Paul
a lot. He met the love of his life and lost her the same way he
lost his mother. I don't claim to know the guy, but I've never
met anybody who would say they're the same person they were 32
years ago.
And as for Yoko, her dealings with Paul in the recent past have
probably been quite few, except for some necessary business-
related stuff for the Anthology project.
I could be wrong, but then again, so could you.
MS
mar...@compusmart.com
"....the hangover this morning had a personality..."
fabella
Of course I could be wrong!
But I'm not (heehee).
I ask you to consider the fact that for the entire 30 years in
between, he and Linda were basically each other's world, that
shielded
from "the public" (especially security-wise since John's death)
by his massive celebrity, and surrounded by loyal and
accomodating staff, Paul has not been motivated to change. He is
still very much the control freak he was at 25 and it shows.With
nobody to call him on his s***, what would change him? Certainly
not Linda. Not the kids - they're all grown now, and probably
wondering about his choice of romantic partner (I've heard).
As far as Yoko's "dealings" with him, you may be underestimating
her perceptiveness. They are tied together by John forever. In
business, they have not been able to avoid one another.
Francie
http://sites.netscape.net/fabest
History, after historians have
finished with it, is always too tidy.
Strabbo
fabella <waronsex...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>I ask you to consider the fact that for the entire 30 years in
>between, he and Linda were basically each other's world, that
>shielded
>from "the public" (especially security-wise since John's death)
>by his massive celebrity, and surrounded by loyal and
>accomodating staff, Paul has not been motivated to change.
But he's also been through the whole family thing, the cancer
thing, the Japan bust, negative press, a whole bunch of stuff he
hadn't experienced before he met you. I'm sorry but I can't
believe that he's the same person he was. I mean, it's possible,
but not likely.
He is
>still very much the control freak he was at 25 and it shows.With
>nobody to call him on his s***, what would change him? Certainly
>not Linda. Not the kids - they're all grown now, and probably
>wondering about his choice of romantic partner (I've heard).
>
>As far as Yoko's "dealings" with him, you may be underestimating
>her perceptiveness. They are tied together by John forever. In
>business, they have not been able to avoid one another.
>
But the face he puts on for Yoko could quite believably be
similar to that of 30 years ago. It's pretty well known that he
didn't like her - that he tolerated her for John, and he
probably (I believe) tolerates her now for the sake of
expediting business.
To get an honest answer to this, I'd have to believe someone who
has known him in a friendly capacity for all that time. I'm
afraid I can't put much stock in speculation, even from (with
all due respect) someone who knew him way back when. Even from
someone who does business with him, who he quite likely doesn't
care for.
I'm never likely going to know the real Paul M., and I can live
with that. Francie, IMHO you don't know for certain who he is
today either.
MS
mar...@compusmart.com
"....the hangover this morning had a personality..."
Nancy McClernan
Have you seen the movie "Being John Malkovich?" If I could be anyone in
history, I might choose to be Jane Asher in 1966, when McCartney was at the
peak of his beauty. You came closer to having that experience than anyone
else, I guess.
I've come across your name in various Beatles bios and I always wondered why
you hadn't written about your experiences.
I think you are probably right about many Beatle fans, in that they don't
want to hear negative things about their idols, although I'm sure there are
many people like me who prefer accuracy whenever possible.
Anita
news:eRpX4.18$p6....@news3.voicenet.com...
>
> Hey, if I had had an intimate connection with one of the Fabs, I'd be
> blabbing about it too! Wouldn't you?
No, I honestly don't think I would. If I were lucky enough to have those
memories, I'd be one HELL of a lot more classy about guarding and sharing
them than Francie is.
The fact is, I *have* had friendships in the past with people who were very
much in the public eye. I *do* know personal details. But I don't think it's
anybody's business but mine and the people involved. My close friends and
family know that I've been friends with certain people, but you won't read
my tell-alls here on the Web, nor will you be able to purchase my tales from
Amazon. Ever.
And BTW, I'd like to point out that Francie AGAIN has dodged the question
about exactly what writing work she's been paid for lately that did not in
any way have any connection to The Beatles. I'm still waiting for Francie to
prove that she does indeed have a life outside of this NG, but she's not
doing much in the way of demonstrating that.
Anita
> What I've been paid to write in the recent past that has nothing
> to do with the Beatles is nobody's business but my own.
> And furthermore, if I'd been writing about the Beatles or
> something related to the Beatles since August 28, 1968, so what?
> I'm not obligated to answer every question, either. Especially
> when it comes from someone who has consistently flamed me in the
> nastiest possible way.
You won't produce any examples, Francie, because you probably *can't.* This
just goes to show that you're the one-trick (DO pardon the pun, Grandma
Groupie) pony you present yourself to be.
Nancy McClernan
know enough about Francie's work to gauge the classiness issue, and I don't
know if I'd agree with you on what is classy or not.
But if you feel that it is classy to have famous friendships and tell nobody
about them, that's OK with me.
R Lapworth
contributes ends up being *about* her?
Ron
fabella
In article <StFX4.2$Dx5...@news2.voicenet.com>, "Nancy
McClernan" <nan...@goddess-athena.net> wrote:
>There's nothing intrinsicly bad about publishing your
autobiography. I don't
>know enough about Francie's work to gauge the classiness issue,
and I don't
>know if I'd agree with you on what is classy or not.
>
>But if you feel that it is classy to have famous friendships
and tell nobody
>about them, that's OK with me.
>
Thanks again, Nancy. Each of us has our own definition of class.
Anita doesn't fit mine, because she's a troll.
>
>
>> "Nancy McClernan" <nan...@goddess-athena.net> wrote in
message
>> news:eRpX4.18$p6....@news3.voicenet.com...
>>>
>>> Hey, if I had had an intimate connection with one of the
Fabs, I'd be
>>> blabbing about it too! Wouldn't you?
>>
People who treat Paul McCartney as if he were somehow above
criticism are precisely the reason for my including him in my
autobiography, which was not about the Beatles. Social history
*is* biography. History *is* people's lives. He was pivotal in
mine.
There is quite a bit more about the Stigma/Blessing of personal
involvement with Beatles in my new book. When I was 26 and lost
my cherry to Rolling Stone's book division, I had no idea of the
extent to which people would eventually go to defend the purity
of
Paul's image. Now that three decades have passed and John's
murder is twenty years gone, it looks like I'm the only one who
talked about what he was actually like before the Breakup.
I'm quite sure Jane Asher would not want to be in a position to
answer the sorts of questions people ask me all these years
later.
But then again, she didn't become a writer.
Francie
http://sites.netscape.net/fabest
History, after historians have
finished with it, is always too tidy.
D 28IF
> Now that three decades have passed and John's
>murder is twenty years gone, it looks like I'm the only one who
>talked about what he was actually like before the Breakup.
Didn't Pete Shotton's book pretty much cover that period (before the Breakup)?
But he went back even further, letting us in on what John was like pre-fame.
JLW44
>answer the sorts of questions people ask me all these years
>later.
>But then again, she didn't become a writer.
>
>
>Francie
She would probably object to that last statement since she has published
several novels and I believe some homemaking books throughout the years. Check
out amazon.uk.
Lizz Holmans
<waronsex...@yahoo.com.invalid> writes
>I'm quite sure Jane Asher would not want to be in a position to
>answer the sorts of questions people ask me all these years
>later.
She doesn't answer those questions. She did get asked.
>But then again, she didn't become a writer.
She is a writer: not only several popular cookery books, but two novels.
Lizz 'By the way, how's the wife, Mr. Scarfe?' Holmans
--
Lizz Holmans
fabella
not a writer of social history.
Jane Asher is a multitalented entrepreneur. Not noted as a
writer of fiction, she certainly proved she could have it her
way *and*
be a wife and mother to a creative man. Which means she made the
right decision when she broke up with Paul, for both of them.
D 28IF
>writer of fiction, she certainly proved she could have it her
>way *and*
>be a wife and mother to a creative man. Which means she made the
>right decision when she broke up with Paul, for both of them.
>
>Francie
>
>
You've often written that you and Jane were too independent for Paul.
But with what the above passage, you pretty much show Jane to be just like
Linda. Linda, too, combined devotion to her family with creativity in outside
interests.
Could it be that, rather than Jane and Linda being so different, they were very
alike, but because Linda was older, she was at a point in her life that Jane
wouldn't reach for a few more years?
fabella
In article <20000527083137...@ng-fw1.aol.com>,
d2...@aol.com (D 28IF) wrote:
>>Jane Asher is a multitalented entrepreneur. Not noted as a
>>writer of fiction, she certainly proved she could have it her
>>way *and*
>>be a wife and mother to a creative man. Which means she made
the
>>right decision when she broke up with Paul, for both of them.
>>
>>Francie
>>
>>
>
>You've often written that you and Jane were too independent for
Paul.
>
>But with what the above passage, you pretty much show Jane to
be just like
>Linda. Linda, too, combined devotion to her family with
creativity in outside
>interests.
>
Just like Linda? No way. They couldn't be more different.
>Could it be that, rather than Jane and Linda being so
different, they were very
>alike, but because Linda was older, she was at a point in her
life that Jane
>wouldn't reach for a few more years?
No. Everything Jane did as an actress, and then as an
entrepreneur, was done independently. Her husband was an artist/
illustrator whose reputation in the art subculture was minuscule
compared to the universal recognition Paul enjoyed. And that was
a very important part of Jane's intuitive distaste for the
public life she knew she would lead as Mrs. Paul. Quite
understandable, in
view of her general demeanor, which was veddy British. I've
believed for a very long time that Paul's "cheating" had very
little to do
with Jane's final; decision. She was thinking long range. And
she knew he would stop playing around as soon as she agreed to
drop everything else and marry him.
Then there's the cultural and class difference. Jane was far
from the upper middle class from which Linda came. Jane was a
cultural blueblood whose parents wholeheartedly approved of her
career choices. Linda's father practically disowned Linda when
she decided to become a photographer following the failure of
her first marriage... incidentally, I think you mentioned Melvin
See's
occupation in another post. He was an archeologist.
JLW44
>very
>alike, but because Linda was older, she was at a point in her life that Jane
>wouldn't reach for a few more years?
>
>
D 28IF
>d2...@aol.com (D 28IF) wrote:
>>>Jane Asher is a multitalented entrepreneur. Not noted as a
>>>writer of fiction, she certainly proved she could have it her
>>>way *and*
>>>be a wife and mother to a creative man. Which means she made
>the
>>>right decision when she broke up with Paul, for both of them.
>>>
>>>Francie
>>>
>>>
>>
>>You've often written that you and Jane were too independent for
>Paul.
>>
>>But with what the above passage, you pretty much show Jane to
>be just like
>>Linda. Linda, too, combined devotion to her family with
>creativity in outside
>>interests.
>>
>
>Just like Linda? No way. They couldn't be more different.
>
>>Could it be that, rather than Jane and Linda being so
>different, they were very
>>alike, but because Linda was older, she was at a point in her
>life that Jane
>>wouldn't reach for a few more years?
>
>No. Everything Jane did as an actress, and then as an
>entrepreneur, was done independently. Her husband was an artist/
>illustrator whose reputation in the art subculture was minuscule
>compared to the universal recognition Paul enjoyed. And that was
>a very important part of Jane's intuitive distaste for the
>public life she knew she would lead as Mrs. Paul. Quite
>understandable, in
>view of her general demeanor, which was veddy British. I've
>believed for a very long time that Paul's "cheating" had very
>little to do
>with Jane's final; decision. She was thinking long range. And
>she knew he would stop playing around as soon as she agreed to
>drop everything else and marry him.
>
Maybe you don't see it because you're looking for the situations to be
identical. They're very similar, though. Linda's photography didn't start out
on the Beatles or Paul. So her first profession apart from Paul didn't really
rest on knowing him, or using him.
>Then there's the cultural and class difference. Jane was far
>from the upper middle class from which Linda came. Jane was a
>cultural blueblood whose parents wholeheartedly approved of her
>career choices. Linda's father practically disowned Linda when
>she decided to become a photographer following the failure of
>her first marriage... incidentally, I think you mentioned Melvin
>See's
>occupation in another post. He was an archeologist.
>
>Francie
>
>
So in a way, Linda overcame even more to forge a career for herself, as a
photographer. I mean, since she had to do it totally on her own, with no
support from her family. Whereas Jane had all the support of her family.
I'm not sure what Mel's occupation has to do with this. And I don't think it
was a post of mine you're referring to, but that doesn't really matter. Thanks
for the information (though I knew it) just the same. :-)
chocolate jesus
R Lapworth <rlap...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:200005271...@zetnet.co.uk...
> Have you noticed that just about every thread to which Francie
> contributes ends up being *about* her?
>
> Ron
and what does that tell you, ron?
fabella
In article <20000527091107...@ng-fw1.aol.com>,
d2...@aol.com (D 28IF) wrote:
>>From: fabella waronsex...@yahoo.com.invalid
>
>>d2...@aol.com (D 28IF) wrote:
>>>>Jane Asher is a multitalented entrepreneur. Not noted as a
>>>>writer of fiction, she certainly proved she could have it her
>>>>way *and*
>>>>be a wife and mother to a creative man. Which means she made
>>the
>>>>right decision when she broke up with Paul, for both of them.
>>>>
>>>>Francie
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>You've often written that you and Jane were too independent
for
>>Paul.
>>>
>>>But with what the above passage, you pretty much show Jane to
>>be just like
>>>Linda. Linda, too, combined devotion to her family with
>>creativity in outside
>>>interests.
>>>
>>
d. is the one who wants them to be alike. Not me.
Please don't start. Linda's first legit assignment *was* to
photograph the Beatles. And the clear conclusion made by many
many
writers (that her photography never would have been so highly
praised if she hadn't been Mrs. McCartney) flies in the face of
your
argument. Plus, it is undeniable that Jane's success as an
entrepeneur had nothing whatever to do with her husband's
notoriety or
his unlimited access to her subject. It is the success that was
dependent upon the husband, not the profession. In fact, I would
go
so far as to say that finding the husband was far more important
than finding the profession in Linda's case. She wanted a family.
>
>>Then there's the cultural and class difference. Jane was far
>>from the upper middle class from which Linda came. Jane was a
>>cultural blueblood whose parents wholeheartedly approved of her
>>career choices. Linda's father practically disowned Linda when
>>she decided to become a photographer following the failure of
>>her first marriage... incidentally, I think you mentioned
Melvin
>>See's
>>occupation in another post. He was an archeologist.
>>
>>Francie
>>
>>
>
>So in a way, Linda overcame even more to forge a career for
herself, as a
>photographer. I mean, since she had to do it totally on her
own, with no
>support from her family. Whereas Jane had all the support of
her family.
>
>I'm not sure what Mel's occupation has to do with this. And I
don't think it
>was a post of mine you're referring to, but that doesn't really
matter. Thanks
>for the information (though I knew it) just the same. :-)
>
>
>
d.
<waronsex...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> In article <20000527091107...@ng-fw1.aol.com>,
> d2...@aol.com (D 28IF) wrote:
> >>From: fabella waronsex...@yahoo.com.invalid
> >
> >>d2...@aol.com (D 28IF) wrote:
> >>>>Jane Asher is a multitalented entrepreneur. Not noted as a
> >>>>writer of fiction, she certainly proved she could have it her
> >>>>way *and*
> >>>>be a wife and mother to a creative man. Which means she made
> >>the
> >>>>right decision when she broke up with Paul, for both of them.
> >>>
> >>>You've often written that you and Jane were too independent
> for
> >>Paul.
> >>>
> >>>But with what the above passage, you pretty much show Jane to
> >>be just like
> >>>Linda. Linda, too, combined devotion to her family with
> >>creativity in outside
> >>>interests.
> >>>
> >>
>
> d. is the one who wants them to be alike. Not me.
Who, me? I haven't even been in this thread.
--
"Love me as if someday you'd hate me." - Tim Buckley
northcut at mindspring dot com
Anita
> Thanks again, Nancy. Each of us has our own definition of class.
> Anita doesn't fit mine, because she's a troll.
I don't troll, Grannie. I just have a real problem with people who have such
little going on for themselves that they elect to be come parasites, like
you have. And I say so.
D 28IF
>>Maybe you don't see it because you're looking for the
>situations to be
>>identical. They're very similar, though. Linda's photography
>didn't start out
>>on the Beatles or Paul. So her first profession apart from Paul
>didn't really
>>rest on knowing him, or using him.
>>
>
>Please don't start. Linda's first legit assignment *was* to
>photograph the Beatles. And the clear conclusion made by many
>many
>writers (that her photography never would have been so highly
>praised if she hadn't been Mrs. McCartney) flies in the face of
>your
>argument. Plus, it is undeniable that Jane's success as an
>entrepeneur had nothing whatever to do with her husband's
>notoriety or
>his unlimited access to her subject. It is the success that was
>dependent upon the husband, not the profession. In fact, I would
>go
>so far as to say that finding the husband was far more important
>than finding the profession in Linda's case. She wanted a family.
>
Really? I thought the Stones were her first professional assignment, albeit a
"stolen" one. I thought those pictures were published and it led to other
assignments.
Didn't she have a "Rolling Stone" cover shot before she and Paul actually
"officially" got together? I wouldn't count if it was after she and Paul met in
1967, since their relationship wasn't known, nor was it hot and heavy yet. So
any work she got couldn't have been as a result of Paul's influence.
As for your last part - about Linda wanting a family more - I definitely agree.
The photography was something she enjoyed and fell into it as a profession. I
agree, that a family was her primary goal, as it was Paul's. That's a good part
of why their relationship worked out - they wanted the same things at the same
time.
Lord Tim Brent
wrote:
>I don't troll, Grannie.
The classic words of a troll.
>I just have a real problem with people who have such
>little going on for themselves that they elect to be come parasites, like
>you have. And I say so.
Ah,yes,your "famous friends" whom you choose not to talk about.
Francie ain't no parasite.
Welcome to the Clown Brigade.
>
Tim
-----------------
Duchy Of Grand Fenwick
The Church Beatle will now pass among you
No foreign coins,please.
fabella
In article <20000527143739...@ng-fb1.aol.com>,
I won't insult you by referring you to my weeklyquote page, but
I have a verbatim transcript of Fields's account of the Rolling
Stones
boat trip, told to him by Bridget Berlin, her best buddy at Town
& Country ("Felicia"? in the movie). When she went off with Mick
to
plan their "date" Linda handed Bridget her camera. Bridget took
most of the photos!
That was not an assignment. The mag Danny was working for was
going to buy pictures from the trip from anyone who would sell
to them at their pay rates.
>Didn't she have a "Rolling Stone" cover shot before she and
Paul actually
>"officially" got together?
Nope. In fact, I have yet to see a pre-1969 cover credited to
Linda.
I wouldn't count if it was after she and Paul met in
>1967, since their relationship wasn't known, nor was it hot and
heavy yet. So
>any work she got couldn't have been as a result of Paul's
influence.
>
Sergeant Pepper was her first assignment for "real money" and it
was not an RS assignment.
>As for your last part - about Linda wanting a family more - I
definitely agree.
>The photography was something she enjoyed and fell into it as a
profession. I
>agree, that a family was her primary goal, as it was Paul's.
That's a good part
>of why their relationship worked out - they wanted the same
things at the same
>time.
>
>
Absolutely. Her gifts were primarily in the domestic arts!
Loving to cook as much as she did, it was only natural she would
make a
big mark with her cookbooks, which will probably remain in print
even longer than her pics of rock stars, as they appeal to a
much broad range of readers. Cookbooks also have the longest
"shelflife" of any category, and the better the cookbook, the
longer the steady sales. Of course her name was a tremendous
help in bringing vegetarianism to the forefront. There have been
vegtarian cookbooks for a hundred years. Hers had a certain
style and "charisma" because of the association with the
McCartney
family lifestyle ("Hey, we're having the same dishes Linda makes
for Paul tonight!").
Francie
PS I remember finding a Scandanavian magazine article in macca-l
about her still life work in Francis Bacon's studio, and
alerting Danny to it. At the time he said he really appreciated
that because he had had no knowledge of her photography outside
of the rock biz. I wish he had pursued this story, because I
believe those pictures of little Christmas trees with doll parts
hanging on
them, shown only in Norway (I think) showed a really fascinating
direction for Linda. There wasn't nearly enough about this side
of
her in the book - and of course there was nothing at all in the
movie to indicate how far she'd gone past the "pastoral" still
life work.
Francie
fabella
In article <39301ac...@news.cis.dfn.de>,
timb...@canada.com (Lord Tim Brent) wrote:
>On Sat, 27 May 2000 09:42:01 -0600, "Anita" <ani...@sprynet.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>>I don't troll, Grannie.
>The classic words of a troll.
Thanks, Tim, but I couldn't help thinking of the chorus of "The
Little Old Lady from Pasadena":
Go granny go granny go granny go!
Vroom vroom!
;-)
D 28IF
>>>Please don't start. Linda's first legit assignment *was* to
>>>photograph the Beatles. And the clear conclusion made by many
>>>many
>>>writers (that her photography never would have been so highly
>>>praised if she hadn't been Mrs. McCartney) flies in the face of
>>>your
>>>argument. Plus, it is undeniable that Jane's success as an
>>>entrepeneur had nothing whatever to do with her husband's
>>>notoriety or
>>>his unlimited access to her subject. It is the success that was
>>>dependent upon the husband, not the profession. In fact, I
>would
>>>go
>>>so far as to say that finding the husband was far more
>important
>>>than finding the profession in Linda's case. She wanted a
>family.
>>>
>>
I read this part over and was struck by the parallel between Linda and Yoko.
I think just as many writers could make the same conclusion that Yoko would
have remained a relative unknown if it hadn't been for her association, and
funding by, John Lennon.
>>Didn't she have a "Rolling Stone" cover shot before she and
>Paul actually
>>"officially" got together?
>
>Nope. In fact, I have yet to see a pre-1969 cover credited to
>Linda.
I thought Linda had a 1968 RS cover shot with Eric Clapton. I'll check on that
and get back to you.
d.
<waronsex...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> >Really? I thought the Stones were her first professional assignment, albeit a
> >"stolen" one. I thought those pictures were published and it led to other
> >assignments.
> >
>
> I won't insult you by referring you to my weeklyquote page, but
> I have a verbatim transcript of Fields's account of the Rolling
> Stones boat trip, told to him by Bridget Berlin, her best buddy at Town
> & Country ("Felicia"? in the movie). When she went off with Mick
> to plan their "date" Linda handed Bridget her camera. Bridget took
> most of the photos!
Funny he didn't put that in the book. Could you post the transcript of at least
that part? It's a funny story, and the first time you told it I remember
thinking, "Linda did know how to party!"
However, even if Christina Berlin (her name wasn't "Bridget" BTW) took a lot of
those photos, it doesn't negate the fact that Linda had been interested in
photography for a couple of years prior to that and that she obtained
professional work from this chance gig.
> >Didn't she have a "Rolling Stone" cover shot before she and Paul actually "officially" got together?
> >
> Nope. In fact, I have yet to see a pre-1969 cover credited to
> Linda.
That is in fact incorrect. Her portrait of Eric Clapton appeared on the cover
of RS 10, May 11, 1968, making her the first female photographer to get a RS
cover. See
http://www.rollingstone.com/sections/gallery/text/bigphoto.asp?afl=&nGalleryID=42
&seq=0&pic_num=6 for verification of this.
> Sergeant Pepper was her first assignment for "real money"
That's a very misleading statement, and it may be totally incorrect as well.
She was in London photographing many bands, not just the Beatles, for the book
"Rock and Other Four Letter Words." That was the paying gig, not the "Pepper"
press event per se. I don't know if "Rock and Other Four Letter Words" was
really her first actual paid assignment. I do know she'd sold photographs
before then.
> and it was not an RS assignment.
That's true enough - RS didn't even exist then.
> Absolutely. Her gifts were primarily in the domestic arts!
Some of her landscape and still photography is breathtaking IMO. She often used
alternative processing methods and came up with interesting effects for her
prints. I suggest the book "Sun Prints" as a starting point to explore this
further.
fabella
Liebovitz. Her photo was of John Lennon.
In article <northcut-4C5A6B...@news.mindspring.com>,
It's posted at http://sites.netscape.net/fabest/weeklyquote
>However, even if Christina Berlin (her name wasn't "Bridget"
BTW) took a lot of
>those photos, it doesn't negate the fact that Linda had been
interested in
>photography for a couple of years prior to that and that she
obtained
>professional work from this chance gig.
>
Sorry, but it was Bridget, Christina's sister. And according to
Danny, she had only taken pictures of horses prior to the boat
trip.
Bridget suggested she take the camera.
>> >Didn't she have a "Rolling Stone" cover shot before she and
Paul actually "officially" got together?
>> >
>> Nope. In fact, I have yet to see a pre-1969 cover credited to
>> Linda.
>
>That is in fact incorrect. Her portrait of Eric Clapton
appeared on the cover
>of RS 10, May 11, 1968, making her the first female
photographer to get a RS
>cover. See
>http://www.rollingstone.com/sections/gallery/text/bigphoto.asp?afl=&nGalleryID=42
>&seq=0&pic_num=6 for verification of this.
>
>> Sergeant Pepper was her first assignment for "real money"
>
>That's a very misleading statement, and it may be totally
incorrect as well.
>She was in London photographing many bands, not just the
Beatles, for the book
>"Rock and Other Four Letter Words." That was the paying gig,
not the "Pepper"
>press event per se. I don't know if "Rock and Other Four
Letter Words" was
>really her first actual paid assignment. I do know she'd sold
photographs
>before then.
>
It was the Beatle part of that job that Linda was most
interested in. ;-) And it was the first time she was paid four
figures.
>> and it was not an RS assignment.
>
>That's true enough - RS didn't even exist then.
>
>> Absolutely. Her gifts were primarily in the domestic arts!
>
>Some of her landscape and still photography is breathtaking
IMO. She often used
>alternative processing methods and came up with interesting
effects for her
>prints. I suggest the book "Sun Prints" as a starting point to
explore this
>further.
>
>--
>"Love me as if someday you'd hate me." - Tim Buckley
>northcut at mindspring dot com
>
>
Francie
fabella
In article <20000527155255...@ng-fb1.aol.com>,
John never put millions into a Yoko project. Paul put up over 5
million to start the frozen food line. Paul took the cookbook
idea to
Little, Brown.
Sure, John supported Yoko - he was her husband. And in the
summer of 1968 when he asked for $30,000 to pay her debts, he was
told be the Apple accountant that he "couldn't use company
funds" for that purpose. That's when he said to me, "Whose
fuckin'
company is this, anyway?" But remember, it was Yoko's one woman
show at Indica Gallery that brought them together. Linda had
no shows at all before she met Paul. Yoko was well known in
avant garde circles for her work in performance art even before
Fluxus. This argument just doesn't hold up. Besides, despite all
that's been said in this forum, Yoko was never after worldwide
recognition. She would have been quite happy (had she not met
John and been sucked into the spotlight,) to go on making her art
and writing her poetry, even if it never got her famous. What
she's doing right now (Australian Biennale live performance) is
completely her own, and the people in the audience never asked a
single John question. It was a really easy, relaxed and fun
performance.
>>>Didn't she have a "Rolling Stone" cover shot before she and
>>Paul actually
>>>"officially" got together?
>>
>>Nope. In fact, I have yet to see a pre-1969 cover credited to
>>Linda.
>
>I thought Linda had a 1968 RS cover shot with Eric Clapton.
I'll check on that
>and get back to you.
>
>
>
>
>
>
d.
<waronsex...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> The first female photographer to do the cover of RS was Annie
> Liebovitz. Her photo was of John Lennon.
Wrongo, oh exalted Schwartzigenarian one. It was Linda Eastman. Perusing the
RS website I see that she may have had an even earlier cover shot, back in the
very early days when they were in a more newsletter-type format than magazine.
RS 4 has a photo of Jimi Hendrix in concert that looks like it could easily be
an alternate shot from the same show from which her famous "extending arm" photo
was taken. But there's no photographer credit so it's hard to tell.
The vast majority of early RS covers were made by Baron Wolman. Linda's is the
sole female name for at least the first two years of the magazine's existance.
The next female cover photographer listed is Annette Yorke, who took the RS 51
photo of John and Yoko. The next female name to appear after that is Linda
again with #57.
The Leibovitz Lennon cover you're thinking of is #74.
> >Funny he didn't put that in the book. Could you post the
> >transcript of at least that part? It's a funny story, and the first time you told it
> >I remember thinking, "Linda did know how to party!"
> >
>
> It's posted at http://sites.netscape.net/fabest/weeklyquote
Thanks- I'll check it out.
> Sorry, but it was Bridget, Christina's sister. And according to
> Danny, she had only taken pictures of horses prior to the boat
> trip. Bridget suggested she take the camera.
Hmmm, the book says nothing about a sister going along, but that doesn't mean it
didn't happen. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here. :)
> It was the Beatle part of that job that Linda was most
> interested in. ;-)
Kind of like you going to London to offer Paul McCartney your film treatment,
right? ;)
> And it was the first time she was paid four figures.
That's great, though. Everyone must start somewhere, and who wouldn't love a
decent-paying gig hanging out with rock stars taking photographs?
d.
<waronsex...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> John never put millions into a Yoko project. Paul put up over 5
> million to start the frozen food line. Paul took the cookbook
> idea to Little, Brown.
>
> Sure, John supported Yoko - he was her husband.
So what's up with this? It's acceptable that John supported Yoko but not
acceptable that Paul supported Linda? Linda was supporting herself with her
photography before she married Paul.
> And in the summer of 1968 when he asked for $30,000 to pay her debts, he was
> told be the Apple accountant that he "couldn't use company
> funds" for that purpose. That's when he said to me, "Whose
> fuckin' company is this, anyway?"
It belonged to four people, didn't it?
> Linda had no shows at all before she met Paul. Yoko was well known in
> avant garde circles for her work in performance art even before
> Fluxus. This argument just doesn't hold up.
What argument are you talking about? All this says is that one was a fine
artist and one was a commerical artist. Both were successful enough in their
own fields to be known and to have had work. Linda supported herself with her
photography, had cover and inside shots published by Rolling Stone, feature
spreads in Town and Country, album covers - that's a successful photographer by
any standard. The difference is that Linda worked in the field of commercial
photography rather than fine art. She wasn't aiming to have shows, making this
statement an irrelevant one.
Anita
news:39301ac...@news.cis.dfn.de...
Well, she seems to make her living and base her entire identity on the fact
that she schtupped McCartney for a few weeks more than 30 years ago. That is
completely parasitic.
Jamie
> In article <08160b80...@usw-ex0107-055.remarq.com>, fabella
> <waronsex...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > The first female photographer to do the cover of RS was Annie
> > Liebovitz. Her photo was of John Lennon.
>
> Wrongo, oh exalted Schwartzigenarian one. It was Linda Eastman. Perusing the
> RS website I see that she may have had an even earlier cover shot, back in the
> very early days when they were in a more newsletter-type format than magazine.
> RS 4 has a photo of Jimi Hendrix in concert that looks like it could easily be
> an alternate shot from the same show from which her famous "extending arm" photo
> was taken. But there's no photographer credit so it's hard to tell.
The official "Rolling Stone Book of Covers," available in most any bookstore, also cites
Linda as the first female photographer to shoot an RS cover (Eric Clapton, #9). According to
Anthony de Curtis in the obituary for Linda he wrote for RS, she began working for Rolling
Stone in 1967, which predates Annie Leibovitz's work.
--
~Jamie
fabella
In article <northcut-918F5B...@news.mindspring.com>,
"d." <nort...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>In article <06da8bdc...@usw-ex0107-055.remarq.com>,
fabella
><waronsex...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> John never put millions into a Yoko project. Paul put up over
5
>> million to start the frozen food line. Paul took the cookbook
>> idea to Little, Brown.
>>
>> Sure, John supported Yoko - he was her husband.
>
>So what's up with this? It's acceptable that John supported
Yoko but not
>acceptable that Paul supported Linda? Linda was supporting
herself with her
>photography before she married Paul.
>
There's a difference between providing food shelter and clothing
(i.e., "supporting one's spouse") and putting up several
millions of
dollars to launch that spouses's business venture. And if you
believe Linda was supporting herself with her photography before
she
met Paul, you've read different books from the ones I read.
"Before she met Paul" she was married to Mel See, and then he
supported her - I don't know for sure, but I'm pretty sure she
got child support from him for Heather. She also worked at Town
and
Country as a receptionist and occasional "stringer" (she
supplied items for the society column, according to the late
Lillian Roxon) -
at the time, receptionists were making about $5000/yr. Which is
why she was living in a single apartment, a walkup. Yes, she was
certainly self-supporting, but not for her photography.
>> And in the summer of 1968 when he asked for $30,000 to pay
her debts, he was
>> told be the Apple accountant that he "couldn't use company
>> funds" for that purpose. That's when he said to me, "Whose
>> fuckin' company is this, anyway?"
>
>It belonged to four people, didn't it?
>
Yes, and each of those four people had a perfect right to ask
for cash from it, for whatever purpose.
>> Linda had no shows at all before she met Paul. Yoko was well
known in
>> avant garde circles for her work in performance art even
before
>> Fluxus. This argument just doesn't hold up.
>
>What argument are you talking about?
Your argument that Yoko and Linda were alike in that neither of
them ever would have become well known if they hadn't married
Beatles.
All this says is that one was a fine
>artist and one was a commerical artist.
This is a dodgy distinction. There really was no such thing as a
professional rock photographer until around 1964. She was not a
professional studio photographer like the commercial
photographers we generally think of as working for publicists and
newspapers.
Both were successful enough in their
>own fields to be known and to have had work. Linda supported
herself with her
>photography, had cover and inside shots published by Rolling
Stone,
I wrote the cover story for Rolling Stone in 1969 (November 15
issue) and I was paid $150 for it. The top price for a cover
story in
1969 was $300. This is hardly enough to support a mother and
child in New York city.
feature
>spreads in Town and Country, album covers - that's a successful
photographer by
>any standard.
Sorry, it's not. The Rolling Stones cover photo for Town &
Country was taken by a leading fashion photographer - Scavullo,
I believe.
The only successful commercial photographers at the time were
men with their own studios who generally worked in the
advertising business. Remember, I was working in NY at that time
myself, and spent many hours in such studios. Fashion
photographers began to command higher prices then - and they had
huge overhead costs. You're inflating Linda's status in order
to support your argument, I understand that. But it just isn't
so.
I wasn't being contrary, by pursuing this discussion, (in fact,
I stand corrected on the RS cover business) but the fact is,
Rolling Stone
started up in 1967, and they paid squat. They weren't even
recognized as a legitimate newspaper until the 70's. So just
taking it
from the perspective that Linda took her first "commercial"
pictures in 1966, and then met Paul in 1967 during her first
commissioned assignment, which included taking pictures of the
Beatles (definitely a plum job), I still cannot agree that she
was
supporting herself with her photography.
There's really no comparison between Yoko and Linda in the
professional realm.
That's the argument we're having.
Francie
d.
<waronsex...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> In article <northcut-918F5B...@news.mindspring.com>,
> "d." <nort...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >In article <06da8bdc...@usw-ex0107-055.remarq.com>,
> fabella
> ><waronsex...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> John never put millions into a Yoko project. Paul put up over
> 5
> >> million to start the frozen food line. Paul took the cookbook
> >> idea to Little, Brown.
> >>
> >> Sure, John supported Yoko - he was her husband.
> >
> >So what's up with this? It's acceptable that John supported
> Yoko but not
> >acceptable that Paul supported Linda? Linda was supporting
> herself with her
> >photography before she married Paul.
> >
>
> There's a difference between providing food shelter and clothing
> (i.e., "supporting one's spouse") and putting up several
> millions of dollars to launch that spouses's business venture.
Hmmm - the difference is in scale, actually. Linda's business venture was to
try to bring vegetarian food to a wider audience. That's not a cheap
proposition. I still don't see how the difference is one to be commented on as
unusual or as less worthy than the other. If one had to comment on it it'd be
commendable that Paul cared so much.
> And if you believe Linda was supporting herself with her photography before
> she met Paul, you've read different books from the ones I read.
Please name your books. I've named places where her work was published, and I
gave the short list. I can give a longer and more detailed one, if needed.
> "Before she met Paul" she was married to Mel See, and then he
> supported her - I don't know for sure, but I'm pretty sure she
> got child support from him for Heather.
She was split from Mel See for two years before she started doing photography.
Sending child support is the responsible thing for a father to do, isn't it?
You make it sound like it's a bad thing.
> She also worked at Town and Country as a receptionist
She had quit that job by early 1967.
> and occasional "stringer" (she supplied items for the society column, according to the late
> Lillian Roxon) -
And?
> at the time, receptionists were making about $5000/yr. Which is
> why she was living in a single apartment, a walkup. Yes, she was
> certainly self-supporting, but not for her photography.
She was not working as a receptionist for Town and Country past early 1967.
> >> And in the summer of 1968 when he asked for $30,000 to pay
> >>her debts, he was
> >> told be the Apple accountant that he "couldn't use company
> >> funds" for that purpose. That's when he said to me, "Whose
> >> fuckin' company is this, anyway?"
> >
> >It belonged to four people, didn't it?
> >
>
> Yes, and each of those four people had a perfect right to ask
> for cash from it, for whatever purpose.
Businesses don't work that simply, I'm afraid, Frannie ...
> >> Linda had no shows at all before she met Paul. Yoko was well
> known in
> >> avant garde circles for her work in performance art even
> before
> >> Fluxus. This argument just doesn't hold up.
> >
> >What argument are you talking about?
>
> Your argument that Yoko and Linda were alike in that neither of
> them ever would have become well known if they hadn't married
> Beatles.
That has never been my argument. My argument has always been, for years now,
that we cannot know what Yoko and Linda would have done without their Beatles
connections. Both of them were talented, resourceful women who made their marks
in their own ways before getting involved with their men. It's silly to suggest
that either of them would or wouldn't have wound up a "nobody" had history not
gone the way it did.
> All this says is that one was a fine
> >artist and one was a commerical artist.
>
> This is a dodgy distinction. There really was no such thing as a
> professional rock photographer until around 1964.
Nope, but there was such a thing as a professional photographer and Linda was a
professional photographer.
> She was not a
> professional studio photographer like the commercial
> photographers we generally think of as working for publicists and
> newspapers.
Hmmm? Journalistic photographer don't generally work in the studio but go where
the action is.
> > Both were successful enough in their own fields to be known and to have had work. Linda supported
> > herself with her photography, had cover and inside shots published by Rolling
> > Stone,
>
> I wrote the cover story for Rolling Stone in 1969 (November 15
> issue) and I was paid $150 for it. The top price for a cover
> story in 1969 was $300. This is hardly enough to support a mother and
> child in New York city.
This was but one job of many. And I never said she was rich. ;)
> > feature spreads in Town and Country, album covers - that's a successful
> > photographer by >any standard.
>
> Sorry, it's not. The Rolling Stones cover photo for Town &
> Country was taken by a leading fashion photographer - Scavullo,
> I believe.
I did not say she took the T & C Rolling Stones cover. I said she did a feature
spread for T & C - and she did, in '68.
> The only successful commercial photographers at the time were
> men with their own studios who generally worked in the
> advertising business. Remember, I was working in NY at that time
> myself, and spent many hours in such studios. Fashion
> photographers began to command higher prices then - and they had
> huge overhead costs. You're inflating Linda's status in order
> to support your argument, I understand that. But it just isn't
> so.
She and people who knew her say otherwise. *shrug*
> I wasn't being contrary, by pursuing this discussion, (in fact,
> I stand corrected on the RS cover business) but the fact is,
> Rolling Stone started up in 1967, and they paid squat. They weren't even
> recognized as a legitimate newspaper until the 70's. So just
> taking it from the perspective that Linda took her first "commercial"
> pictures in 1966, and then met Paul in 1967 during her first
> commissioned assignment, which included taking pictures of the
> Beatles (definitely a plum job), I still cannot agree that she
> was supporting herself with her photography.
Then it's up to you to prove it.
> There's really no comparison between Yoko and Linda in the
> professional realm.
But Yoko *definitely* wasn't supporting herself with her art. No disrespect
here but Lennon wasn't having to beg $30,000 off of Apple for no reason.
fabella
the original thread of this discussion, d.
How would you feel if I said "It's up to *you* to prove that
Yoko Ono wasn't supporting herself through her art before she
got together
with John."
The bottom line here is that these two women, coming from
opposite corners of the globe, were completely different in every
respect, and their marriages were also completely different.
Linda never had to pick from garbage cans to eat as Yoko did in
Japan during WW2.
Linda only attended college briefly, at a middle level college
in the Southwest. Yoko spent several years at Sarah Lawrence, and
studied classical music among other subjects.
Yoko was doing her experiments in sound, image, and words in
1961. She really never pursued any conventional kind of
employment as Linda did. That Yoko had debts in 1968 has nothing
to do with the fact that she was a full-time entirely self-
motivated artist with a dedicated following well before the
Beatles had ever performed in public.
John and Yoko had what is called a "peer marriage" in which
there was much more blending and exchanging of roles than the
traditional marriage of Paul and Linda. Yoko's talent for
investment, management, and business in general made putting her
in
charge of the money a practical choice. John's willingness to
put aside his participation in rock and roll for full time
parenting was
equally practical - it worked. Linda's willingness to travel
with Paul's band(s) and to take the children along worked for
them.
The two women couldn't have been more dissimilar. Each had
exactly the attributes and assets that suited their husbands.
And Linda was not particularly successful as a rock
photographer, nor was she considered very good, compared to Baron
Wollman, Neal Preston, Mary Ellen Mark, or of course Annie
Liebovitz. I knew the Rolling Stone editors and staff quite well
(I
moved to San Francisco in 1973 and literally hung out with them
every day and night while I was living there). Her success had
everything to do with the access to the top stars afforded her
by her marriage.
On the other side of that great divide, Yoko's secondary career
as a songwriter and performer was similarly looked upon as not so
good (and a lot of people just called it "screaming" and left it
at that. All the same, she continued to make art as much as she
could (being the Most Hated Beatle Wife took quite a bit of
energy), and to this day is continuing to strive to get back to
the person
she was before she ever heard of John Lennon. To suggest that
she would not now be showing her art around the world unless she
had married John Lennon is slightly absurd. There is a clear
continuum from the first works she created in the early sixties
to the
multimedia installations and live performances she is doing
today.
d.
<waronsex...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> It's not up to me to prove anything, and you're deviating from
> the original thread of this discussion, d.
>
> How would you feel if I said "It's up to *you* to prove that
> Yoko Ono wasn't supporting herself through her art before she
> got together with John."
The fact that John had to borrow some large amount (for 1968-69) ranging in
estimate from $30,000 to $80,000 for the specific purpose of paying off Yoko's
debts suggests strongly that she was *not* supporting herself with her work.
I have heard of no such problems with Linda. If she was getting money from her
ex or father or whatever, then OK fine. It doesn't mean she was in debt to such
an extent that it was a point of contention for her husband's colleagues. I'm
told that the money John "borrowed" to pay off Yoko's debt has never, to this
day, has never been paid back to Apple and has been a lingering problem among
the four of them. Imagine if you will what the interest on that "loan" must be
at this point!
> To suggest that
> she would not now be showing her art around the world unless she
> had married John Lennon is slightly absurd.
Right - that's why I never suggested it! :)
fabella
far as I knew, they refused him. In view of the fact that all the
parties are now multimillionaires it makes no sense to me at all
that it is "still a point of contention". Do you have a source
on that
point?
francie
fabella
In article <20000527231726...@ng-fq1.aol.com>,>And since I started this line of discussion in this thread, I'd
like to thank
>you for the fact that I don't think you're being contrary. In
fact, I think
>this thread has had some great give-and-take with no animosity
and old feelings
>getting involved. I think all sides have been respectful, and I
appreciate
>that.
>
Me too. Very much.
>
>>Linda never had to pick from garbage >cans to eat as Yoko did
in
>>Japan during WW2.
>>Linda only attended college briefly, at a >middle level college
>>in the Southwest. Yoko spent several >years at Sarah Lawrence,
and
>>studied classical music among other >subjects.
>
>So now Linda's penalised because her family made it to the US
before they were
>persecuted?
Huh? How is this being penalised? All I was saying is that Linda
lived a privileged middle class life in suburban America, wheras
Yoko faced extreme adversity as a young girl in wartime Japan...
If you're saying this just to make the point that the two women
are
>extremely different, you're quite right. But you might want to
tell Yoko that.
>In her obit for Linda in RS, it sounded like she thought they
were more alike
>than anybody thought. ;-)
>
If you're talking about the open letter she wrote to RS, I have
that - actually Danny Fields sent it to me. I can't really think
of it as an
obit, but I didn't get that Yoko thought they were alike at all.
I do remember thinking she wrote beautifully about the "Stigma/
Blessing" of Beatle wifedom she and Linda shared and understood
as only Mo, Patti, Barbara, Olivia, Yoko and Londa could.
>
>While it may be clear that Yoko would be doing the same artwork
today,
>regardless of whether or not she crossed paths with John
Lennon, I don't think
>it's a fair assumption to say she'd having those showcases at
the places she is
>now.
>
>I somehow don't think the Whitney Museum would have included
Yoko, had her path
>continued as it was going prior to John. I also don't think
Israeli museums and
>others would be giving her one-woman shows so readily if she
didn't have the
>name recognition she does now.
>
Have to agree to disagree on that one. It's really impossible to
say. All we can be sure of is that Yoko turned John on to a lot
of art
and he turned her on to a lot of rock and roll. I admit I'm
biased. But I have always dug her stuff, and I knew about it
before I was
introduced to her in May 1968.
Francie
fabella
In article <20000528002925...@ng-ca1.aol.com>,
dible...@aol.com (Peanut Duck) wrote:
>>>I'm quite sure Jane Asher would not want to be in a position
to
>>>answer the sorts of questions people ask me all these years
>>>later.
>>>But then again, she didn't become a writer.
>>>
>>>
>>>Francie
>
>
>uhh...Francie? Jane's written more books than you have...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>alley.
>
>~
>"I'll probably vote whatever my mom or my dad says." - Britney
Spears, on her
>plans for Election Day.
>
>
Uh, Alley? She has written zero nonfiction, and what is it, two
novels?
(We're not counting home decorating and cookbooks here)
And how do you know how many books I've written?
You don't.
Really you need to relax. No one's keeping score here. And I
think I've made it abundantly clear that I think Jane was (and
is)
quite an accomplished person in her own right. Whereas she
functions beautifully in many areas (acting, marketing, home
design, etc.) I have slowly made the transition from advertising
design and copywriting to magazine and newspaper journalism
and finally long form nonfiction (I did sell a novel in between,
but that's a whole nother story) - and it is all I want to do -
write, that
is.
Get with the positive, okay hon?
R Lapworth
from "chocolate jesus" <sod...@japan.accsoft.com.au> contains these words:
I should get out more?
Ron
chocolate jesus
Anita <ani...@sprynet.com> wrote in message
news:8gpg95$srv$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net...
hhm, is that different to those who base their whole identity on running her
down?
me, i like having francie around. whats the big whoop with her anyway? she
doesn't hurt anyone, and i kind of like her take on things (not neccessaily
macca related).
in this "renaissance" period of RMB, those who seem to make a career out of
constantly haranguing francie might be well served by easing up a bit.
just a suggestion....:)
D 28IF
>I wasn't being contrary, by pursuing this discussion, (in fact,
>I stand corrected on the RS cover business) but the fact is,
>Rolling Stone
>started up in 1967, and they paid squat. <>
And since I started this line of discussion in this thread, I'd like to thank
you for the fact that I don't think you're being contrary. In fact, I think
this thread has had some great give-and-take with no animosity and old feelings
getting involved. I think all sides have been respectful, and I appreciate
that.
>Linda never had to pick from garbage >cans to eat as Yoko did in
>Japan during WW2.
>Linda only attended college briefly, at a >middle level college
>in the Southwest. Yoko spent several >years at Sarah Lawrence, and
>studied classical music among other >subjects.
So now Linda's penalised because her family made it to the US before they were
persecuted? If you're saying this just to make the point that the two women are
extremely different, you're quite right. But you might want to tell Yoko that.
In her obit for Linda in RS, it sounded like she thought they were more alike
than anybody thought. ;-)
>Yoko was doing her experiments in >sound, image, and words in
>1961. She really never pursued any >conventional kind of
>employment as Linda did.
I could have sworn Yoko held some "regular" jobs. Didn's she work as a waitress
or hostess at a pancake restaurant? (And no, I'm actually not kidding!)
>The two women couldn't have been more >dissimilar. Each had
>exactly the attributes and assets that >suited their husbands.
I couldn't agree more. Well, I could, but I may have to take it back later. ;-)
>On the other side of that great divide, >Yoko's secondary career
>as a songwriter and performer was >similarly looked upon as not so
>good (and a lot of people just called it >"screaming" and left it at that. All
the >same, she continued to make art as >much as she could (being the Most
>Hated Beatle Wife took quite a bit of
>energy),
Although that's a title she had to share with Linda. In fact, Linda because a
"Hated Beatle Wife" before Yoko did!
>and to this day is continuing to strive to >get back to the person
>she was before she ever heard of John >Lennon. To suggest that
>she would not now be showing her art >around the world unless she
>had married John Lennon is slightly >absurd. There is a clear
>continuum from the first works she >created in the early sixties
>to the multimedia installations and live >performances she is doing today.
While it may be clear that Yoko would be doing the same artwork today,
regardless of whether or not she crossed paths with John Lennon, I don't think
it's a fair assumption to say she'd having those showcases at the places she is
now.
I somehow don't think the Whitney Museum would have included Yoko, had her path
continued as it was going prior to John. I also don't think Israeli museums and
others would be giving her one-woman shows so readily if she didn't have the
name recognition she does now.
I'm also pretty positive Yoko didn't support herself, let alone she and her
husband, through her art work. I have a biography of Yoko, written in the 1980s
by Jerry Hopkins, that I can haul out and quote for you, if you'd like. Who
knows, you may be able to correct some of the info he gives.
Peanut Duck
D 28IF
>lived a privileged middle class life in suburban America, wheras
>Yoko faced extreme adversity as a young girl in wartime Japan...
>
I meant, I thought you were making it seem like Yoko was all the better for
having overcome her adversity to perform her art. Whereas, by virtue of her
birth, Linda didn't have the same unfortunately background.
>If you're talking about the open letter she wrote to RS, I have
>that - actually Danny Fields sent it to me. I can't really think
>of it as an
>obit, but I didn't get that Yoko thought they were alike at all.
>I do remember thinking she wrote beautifully about the "Stigma/
>Blessing" of Beatle wifedom she and Linda shared and understood
>as only Mo, Patti, Barbara, Olivia, Yoko and Londa could.
>
Right. That's the piece I mean. It wasn't an obit, proper, but rather an "in
memorian" piece, maybe.
I also thought it said more about Yoko than Linda. While reading it, I found
that if I inserted "Yoko" in place of "Linda," for most of what Yoko wrote, I'd
find the truth. Yoko was writing more about herself than anything to do with
Linda. And I somehow doubt they had any kind of bond. But that's just my
opinion. :-)
>>I somehow don't think the Whitney Museum would have included
>Yoko, had her path
>>continued as it was going prior to John. I also don't think
>Israeli museums and
>>others would be giving her one-woman shows so readily if she
>didn't have the
>>name recognition she does now.
>>
>
>Have to agree to disagree on that one. It's really impossible to
>say. All we can be sure of is that Yoko turned John on to a lot
>of art
>and he turned her on to a lot of rock and roll. I admit I'm
>biased. But I have always dug her stuff, and I knew about it
>before I was
>introduced to her in May 1968.
Absolutely. And you're not alone.
I enjoy some of her art work. Heck, I think I'm one of the few who wasn't
offended by her "Season of Glass" photo, and thought there was artistic
relevance to what she did with that.
I just don't think she would have the recognition she has today, were it not
for her last name. She didn't even start using the Lennon name until after John
was killed. But I think I recall an interview where she said she was using it
now as a way to honour John.
d.
<waronsex...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> d., are you saying that Apple *did* give up the 30K? Because as
> far as I knew, they refused him. In view of the fact that all the
> parties are now multimillionaires it makes no sense to me at all
> that it is "still a point of contention". Do you have a source
> on that point?
Gimme a few!
Peanut Duck
>Uh, Alley? She has written zero nonfiction, and what is it, two
>novels?
>
yes. i believe that qualifies her as a "writer". thank you for emphasizing my
point.
>And how do you know how many books I've written?
>
>You don't.
granted, you're right. for all i know you've written a hundred of them. i know
of one, maybe there are more. may i amend my words to state that jane asher
comes up with more hits on amazon.co.uk than you do. if you're a writer, so is
she.
>Really you need to relax. No one's keeping score here.
i wasn't looking at scores. i was proving a point. you said jane wasn't a
writer. i proved you wrong. i used you as an example in a non-offensive way,
trying to illustrate your hypocrisy in considering yourself a writer and not
jane. really you need to relax.
>
>Get with the positive, okay hon?
i am with the positive. you apparently aren't. jane asher is a writer.
alley.
Wally Warfield
fabella wrote:
> Mrs. Asher was a niece of the poet T.S. Eliot. She was a very
Beatle factoid. Thanks, Francie. This I did not know, although I get TS
and CS Lewis confused. Don't ask me why. I will have to check in with my
endocrinologist.
Debs
Jamie
> >
> >Uh, Alley? She has written zero nonfiction, and what is it, two
> >novels?
> >
>
> yes. i believe that qualifies her as a "writer". thank you for emphasizing my
> point.
According to the Library of Congress, Jane has six books to her credit, five of
them non-fiction and one novel (they don't list her latest novel, The Question).
> >And how do you know how many books I've written?
> >
> >You don't.
>
> granted, you're right. for all i know you've written a hundred of them. i know
> of one, maybe there are more. may i amend my words to state that jane asher
> comes up with more hits on amazon.co.uk than you do. if you're a writer, so is
> she.
Francie Schwartz has one Library of Congress listing, for Body Count.
--
~Jamie
fabella
six cookbooks, then I am ahead of her in the nonfiction
department.
But then again, Jamie, you conveniently ignore the pertinent
parts of my earlier posts, where I state the fact that Jane
Asher was
and is primarily an entrepreneur whose focus is domestic arts
(she has been called the Martha Stewart of England). Her life has
been that of a classically trained actress who married and
raised children, and at the same time, amazingly, built a small
empire
based around food, entertaining at home, and decoration.
In difrect contrast to my career as a writer of nonfiction and
journalist who began as a graphic designer and art historian, and
became a writer in 1966.
The number of copies I've sold of my autobiography has nothing
whatsoever to do with it. But I have sold over 90,000 copies of
Body
Count since 1972, and have never described myself as anything
but a writer since '66. I don't think Jane would describe
herself as
such.
lstoll
>
> [Linda's] success had everything to do with the access
> to the top stars afforded her by her marriage.
How can that be? She took the photographs that
appear in her book of "top stars" (I think it's
called "Sixties") before she was married to Paul. He
didn't even give her access to her first opportunity
to photograph the Beatles. -laura
KMattson40
>
>> In article <061e3888...@usw-ex0101-005.remarq.com>, fabella
>> <waronsex...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> > d., are you saying that Apple *did* give up the 30K? Because as
>> > far as I knew, they refused him. In view of the fact that all the
>> > parties are now multimillionaires it makes no sense to me at all
>> > that it is "still a point of contention". Do you have a source
>> > on that point?
>>
>athough I believe the person who told me, I can't prove it myself. I'm
>sorry.
>You yourself say John *tried* to borrow the money - it's entirely possible
>that
>he did just this after you were gone. However, I can't point you anywhere
>that backs this up so I respectfuly withdraw it. However the point that Yoko
was deeply in debt still stands.>>--
>
Tony Cox in 1969 (100,000 pounds!) in order to win Yoko's divorce, and that for
tax reasons the payoff was arranged to appear as an Apple Films purchase (for
cameras, etc). Again, Goldman's book. So again, FWIW.
*If* the story is true, that's actually a lotta bucks. I don't know what the
1969 exchange rates were, but if 100,000 pounds equaled around USD 150,000 in
1969, it would also equate to around USD 750,000 today - enough, I would think,
to be an everlasting point of contention with the other Beatles (*if* it
actually was taken from the Apple coffers, which even Goldman's book doesn't
clearly say it was)...
d.
(KMattson40) wrote:
> FWIW, Goldman's book says John agreed to pay all the joint debts of Yoko
> and Tony Cox in 1969 (100,000 pounds!) in order to win Yoko's divorce, and that
> for tax reasons the payoff was arranged to appear as an Apple Films purchase
> (for cameras, etc). Again, Goldman's book. So again, FWIW.
Ah, thanks. This is very similar what I was told - the number I was given was a
bit different but not too far off. However considering that this comes from
Goldman it still has to stay in the "??" category. Francie verifies that the
money was needed and asked for, which is really the point ...
> *If* the story is true, that's actually a lotta bucks. I don't know what
> the 1969 exchange rates were, but if 100,000 pounds equaled around USD 150,000
> in 1969, it would also equate to around USD 750,000 today - enough, I would
> think, to be an everlasting point of contention with the other Beatles
Besides the mere size of such a debt, there'd also be a point of honor involved,
I would think.
--
"Love me as if someday you'd hate me." - Tim Buckley
fabella
In article <393182A6...@lstoll.com>, lstoll
The copyright date on "Linda's Sixties"?
I don't think you would argue with the idea that the Beatles and
especially Paul were the "top" stars from 1969 onward, would you
Laura? Her access was unparalleled.
Her photographs/prints did not fetch top prices until well after
her marriage. Her other photos (landscapes etc) were
automatically
accorded the best possible publicity because of her surname.
The pictures she took of the rock stars prior to her meeting
Paul in 1967 (she was taking these pictures for less than a
year!) were not
noted as exceptional until after her marriage.
It's really not the most important thing to remember, as far as
I'm concerned... but it is a fact. In order to pursue this
argument,
one would have to do a hypothetical, and see how successful she
would have been as a photojournalist had she not married Paul.
Not a very productive line to follow, because what matters is
that she *did* marry Paul - and I think most of us recognize the
fact
that her marriage and children were what mattered - not her
secondary career(s) as a photographer and veggie cookbook
author. I think Linda would probably agree that this was the
success that mattered to her - and not the "worldly" success
that made
all that money and got all that publicity.
d.
28IF) wrote:
> >From: fabella waronsex...@yahoo.com.invalid
>
> >>How can that be? She took the photographs that
> >>appear in her book of "top stars" (I think it's
> >>called "Sixties") before she was married to Paul.
>
> >The copyright date on "Linda's Sixties"?
> >
>
> That doesn't matter. The pictures of other (read: not Paul) celebrities
> were taken pre-1969.
... many of them for a book that was published pre-1969.
Lord Tim Brent
>
>*If* the story is true, that's actually a lotta bucks. I don't know what the
>1969 exchange rates were, but if 100,000 pounds equaled around USD 150,000 in
>1969, it would also equate to around USD 750,000 today - enough, I would think,
>to be an everlasting point of contention with the other Beatles (*if* it
>actually was taken from the Apple coffers, which even Goldman's book doesn't
>clearly say it was)...
>
L100,000 Sterling in 1968/1969 would hyave been $240,000 USD,as at the
time the Pound was fixed at $2.40=L1-0-0(sorry,no Pound sign key on my
keyboard,only a Euro one which I do not know how to access)>
Tim
-----------------
Duchy Of Grand Fenwick
The Church Beatle will now pass among you
No foreign coins,please.
D 28IF
>>How can that be? She took the photographs that
>>appear in her book of "top stars" (I think it's
>>called "Sixties") before she was married to Paul. He
>>didn't even give her access to her first opportunity
>>to photograph the Beatles. -laura
>>
>The copyright date on "Linda's Sixties"?
>
That doesn't matter. The pictures of other (read: not Paul) celebrities were
taken pre-1969.
>The pictures she took of the rock stars prior to her meeting
>Paul in 1967 (she was taking these pictures for less than a
>year!) were not
>noted as exceptional until after her marriage.
I may have lost track here (like that would be a first!), but I think you've
proven the point you were disproving before.
"...[Linda] took pictures of the rock stars prior to her meeting Paul..."
We're not saying they were the best pictures on the face of the earth. But your
original premise was that she gained access to these celebrities via Paul. And
here you're admitting she took the photos prior to Paul.
S.E. Ostrow
who's taught at the Rhode Island School of Design and led seminars on
photography at the Smithsonian, in addition to his portraits of celebs and
photojournalism for major magazines. I asked his professional opinion of
Linda McC's work. He said that she was in the right place at the right time,
knew interesting people and married one of them. I absolutely agree. She
took in-focus pictures of 60s rock stars. I don't think you get the feeling
from her pictures that you get when a really great photographer works and
captures something that somehow lets you know the subject in a new way.
I'm just putting in my two cents on the side of those who think her
reputation has everything to do with her married name.
Teddy
this is the story of a girl named Ted...
Jamie
> I have worked frequently with a very accomplished and respected photographer
> who's taught at the Rhode Island School of Design and led seminars on
> photography at the Smithsonian, in addition to his portraits of celebs and
> photojournalism for major magazines. I asked his professional opinion of
> Linda McC's work.
Stop right there; there are no "professional opinions" regarding art. There are
no "amateur opinions" either. One can have a thousand pictures in a thousand
magazines, and still that person's opinion regarding whether a picture is
"great" is just as valid as, say, the next person you pass on the street,
because opinion a subjective notion. Your own opinion as to which works move
you, etc. is just as valid as whichever art teacher you may come across. I'm
sorry, but I've known and heard of too many artists who disregard their own
emotions (whether about others' art, or their own) because they confuse
credentials with creativity.
--
~Jamie
fabella
In article <39321E22...@ivnet.com>, Jamie
<ang...@ivnet.com> wrote:
>"S.E. Ostrow" wrote:
>
>> I have worked frequently with a very accomplished and
respected photographer
>> who's taught at the Rhode Island School of Design and led
seminars on
>> photography at the Smithsonian, in addition to his portraits
of celebs and
>> photojournalism for major magazines. I asked his professional
opinion of
>> Linda McC's work.
>
>Stop right there; there are no "professional opinions"
regarding art.
Spoken like a true amateur.
There are
>no "amateur opinions" either.
Well not coming from you, anyway. There is such a thing as an
expert opinion on "art photography". Ever looked at an art
magazine, Jamie?
Ostrow makes a good point.
However, the reason I pointed out that the date of publication
of "Linda's Sixties" matters is this:
Hundreds of photographers sold pictures of rock stars in the 60s
and some of these pictures were from lucky amateurs.
Hardbound books consisting primarily of one photographer's work
have historically been for a special niche market. Photography
itself has yet to be fully accepted as fine art, although the
past ten years have shown a remarkably lucrative market for
individual
prints by photojournalists and fashion photographers like Avedon
and Newton.
Linda's photobooks never would have been published if her last
name were anything but McCartney. Her unique access to the
Beatles starting in 1969 (Let It Be sessions) gave her a
distinct advantage when it came to selling these pictures to
magazines.
How we got from Jane breaking up with Paul to the reason for
Linda's popularity and success as a maker of photography books is
anyone's guess.
d.
<seos...@email.msn.com> wrote:
> I have worked frequently with a very accomplished and respected photographer
> who's taught at the Rhode Island School of Design and led seminars on
> photography at the Smithsonian, in addition to his portraits of celebs and
> photojournalism for major magazines. I asked his professional opinion of
> Linda McC's work. He said that she was in the right place at the right time,
> knew interesting people and married one of them. I absolutely agree. She
> took in-focus pictures of 60s rock stars. I don't think you get the feeling
> from her pictures that you get when a really great photographer works and
> captures something that somehow lets you know the subject in a new way.
>
> I'm just putting in my two cents on the side of those who think her
> reputation has everything to do with her married name.
No matter what anyone thinks of her photographs from an aesthetic standpoint -
and there are about as many opinions of that as there would be for any other
artist on the planet (just look at the ongoing debates on the quality of Yoko's
work in this newsgroup) - the *fact* is that before she was associated with Paul
McCartney, she sold her work professionally. She was considered good enough to
be given *specific* assignments by magazines such as Eye, Mademoiselle, Life,
and Town and Country. This is indisputable. It happened.
Whether she'd have had more books published if she hadn't married Paul, or had
her portraits in the National Gallery, or travelling shows of her work - no one
can say. I'd be more inclined to lean on the side of she would have at least
some measure of this kind of success *if* she'd continued to work at it.
Certainly she would not have been a household name, but she did have the talent
to be respected. The fact that she *is* a household name *due to who she
married* shouldn't get in the way of an evenhanded assessment of her work. Your
photographer friend no doubt had never seen the wide range of subjects she
photographed, nor the range of experimental media she employed.
I'm not trying to put it out that Linda Mac was the greatest photographer who
ever lived, god help us. I *am* disputing the claim, made by people who most
likely are a bit jealous of the exposure she got, that she was nothing but a
ditzy chick waving an instamatic.