Fred Seaman's book
Polethene-Man
be believed? I dunno. There's some pretty bizarre claims in there. Ex::
John was a sex maniac whom used to have made available a girl at stage
side for a "knee trembler" ( stand up sex with a woman) before, after
and sometimes during a performance with the Beatles. That he had wild
fantasies of torturing women to death, and that Yoko cast a voodoo spell
on Paul that ultimately she believed caused his arrest for Pot in Japan.
That's just a small taste. Do you think it possible that Fred was out to
sell a few books? Well, I guess I could buy the Yoko part.
Spirit
a copy? Sure sounds fascinating along Goldman lines... Where does the
evidence for all his claims come from?
Polethene-Man wrote in message <373595B0...@Soul.com>...
elsa...@my-dejanews.com
Polethene-Man <Pla...@Soul.com> wrote:
> Fred Seaman's book almost makes Goldman's tame in comparison. Is it to
> be believed? I dunno. There's some pretty bizarre claims in there. Ex::
> John was a sex maniac whom used to have made available a girl at stage
> side for a "knee trembler" ( stand up sex with a woman) before, after
> and sometimes during a performance with the Beatles. That he had wild
> fantasies of torturing women to death, and that Yoko cast a voodoo spell
> on Paul that ultimately she believed caused his arrest for Pot in Japan.
> That's just a small taste. Do you think it possible that Fred was out to
> sell a few books? Well, I guess I could buy the Yoko part.
>
Me wonders if you've actually read my book. Do you really think that JL's
availing himself of willing groupies at the height of Beatlemania is
"bizarre"? One could even argue if such casual sex qualifies JL as a "sex
maniac." And as regards JL's fantasies of torturing women to death, if you
lived with Ms.O, you too might find yourself succumbing to such nasty
thoughts... Oh, btw, the bit about Yoko casting a voodoo spell on Sir Paul:
My book makes it clear that this was simply some BS that she laid on JL while
she, in fact, tipped off Japanese customs officials by phone. Happy Mother's
Day!
-FRED SEAMAN
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
JSeraf7064
availing himself of willing groupies at the height of Beatlemania is "bizarre"?
One could even argue if such casual sex qualifies JL as a "sex
maniac."
Didn't Paul also hint at this in his book?
Why is this 'bizzare'? Why is it unbelievable? What do you think The Beatles
were? Choirboys?
>And as regards JL's fantasies of torturing women to death, if you lived with
Ms.O, you too might find yourself succumbing to such nasty
thoughts...
Fred! Cut it out! Cheap shots like this can only hurt YOU. I'm sure you have
your justification for saying this (I'm SURE), but try not to let your feelings
color the facts. That's the worst 'big-picture' mistake you can make. Stick to
the facts as you know them.
>Oh, btw, the bit about Yoko casting a voodoo spell on Sir Paul: My book makes
it clear that this was simply some BS that she laid on JL while she, in fact,
tipped off Japanese customs officials by phone. Happy Mother's Day!
Yes, it does.
While I've got you on the phone, Jack Douglas hinted that John was considering
writing with Paul again.
While we the fans always 'knew' something MIGHT happen SOMEDAY between them,
this is the first time I've ever heard it said that John and Paul were actually
seriously considering writing together again. Actually, that John was
considering working with Paul again.
At first, I thought it was for what was to be the 'Anthology' project, but the
impression I got from Jack's words that it was not...
Do you know anything of this?
-JS
Ric Napoli
> > Me wonders if you've actually read my book. Do you really think that JL's
> availing himself of willing groupies at the height of Beatlemania is "bizarre"?
My lord! I HOPE it was bizarre at least some of the times.
Daktari
on humanity...a scumbag....a loser posting on usenet....'nuff said....
elsa...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <373595B0...@Soul.com>,
> Polethene-Man <Pla...@Soul.com> wrote:
> > Fred Seaman's book almost makes Goldman's tame in comparison. Is it to
> > be believed? I dunno. There's some pretty bizarre claims in there. Ex::
> > John was a sex maniac whom used to have made available a girl at stage
> > side for a "knee trembler" ( stand up sex with a woman) before, after
> > and sometimes during a performance with the Beatles. That he had wild
> > fantasies of torturing women to death, and that Yoko cast a voodoo spell
> > on Paul that ultimately she believed caused his arrest for Pot in Japan.
> > That's just a small taste. Do you think it possible that Fred was out to
> > sell a few books? Well, I guess I could buy the Yoko part.
> >
> > ===============================
>
> Me wonders if you've actually read my book. Do you really think that JL's
> availing himself of willing groupies at the height of Beatlemania is
> "bizarre"? One could even argue if such casual sex qualifies JL as a "sex
> maniac." And as regards JL's fantasies of torturing women to death, if you
> lived with Ms.O, you too might find yourself succumbing to such nasty
> thoughts... Oh, btw, the bit about Yoko casting a voodoo spell on Sir Paul:
> My book makes it clear that this was simply some BS that she laid on JL while
> she, in fact, tipped off Japanese customs officials by phone. Happy Mother's
> Day!
>
Ronald Raygunz
oppourtunist,thief,liar, self promoting leeching hanger on.
If that is really him posting(and who would lie about that)then read this MR
SEMEN, FUCK OFF SCUM.
YaKnow wrote in message <_wqZ2.193$fd4....@news-west.eli.net>...
>
>Daktari <be...@fairn.com> wrote in message
>news:37361C87...@fairn.com...
>> Convicted felon trying to live off others....spouting lies as
>usual.......a pox
>> on humanity...a scumbag....a loser posting on usenet....'nuff said....
>
>Didn't I just read that Seaman has yet another lawsuit against him for
items
>he stole from Lennon's apartment? I'm sure I read the other day that Yoko
>has taken him to court again for items he didn't return after the last
>lawsuit.
>
>He's scum. How could he be believed in anything?
>
>
Usenet Troll
<Convicted felon trying to live off others....spouting lies as
usual.......a pox
on humanity...a scumbag....a loser posting on usenet....'nuff said....>
Thank's. You flatter me ; )
Polethene-Man
I don't know if it's still in print. Ask Fred. I have a hard cover copy. Fred
worked for John exclusively during the last few years of the former Beatle's
life. The book has a unique insider's view of John's last years.
To Fred: Yes, I read your book and , of course you are quite correct about the
corrections you made. Here are some "teasers" printed on the dust jacket
.
Lennon's virtual imprisonment in the Dakota,
His obsession with food and sex
The Lennon's colossal shopping sprees in New York and Palm Beach
John and Yoko's fascination with the occult
The collapse of the Lennon's sex life
His ongoing rivalry with former Beatles Paul and George
John's premonition of his violent death
Spirit wrote:
> Is Fred Seaman's book still out of print? Does anyone know where I could get
> a copy? Sure sounds fascinating along Goldman lines... Where does the
> evidence for all his claims come from?
>
> Polethene-Man wrote in message <373595B0...@Soul.com>...
Puff Daddy
fan be held in the wings so that he could have sex" befor, after or even between
songs. Don't get me wrong, I'm not pointing fingers. I'm not even making a
judgement. I said all these things and more in Seaman's book are bizarre including
- violent fantasies of "nailing them (women) to a cross, and then disemboweling
them." Page 173 (Seamen). I guess Love is all you don't need. :-)
JSeraf7064 wrote:
> > Me wonders if you've actually read my book. Do you really think that JL's
> availing himself of willing groupies at the height of Beatlemania is "bizarre"?
> One could even argue if such casual sex qualifies JL as a "sex
> maniac."
>
> Didn't Paul also hint at this in his book?
>
> Why is this 'bizzare'? Why is it unbelievable? What do you think The Beatles
> were? Choirboys?
>
> >And as regards JL's fantasies of torturing women to death, if you lived with
> Ms.O, you too might find yourself succumbing to such nasty
> thoughts...
>
> Fred! Cut it out! Cheap shots like this can only hurt YOU. I'm sure you have
> your justification for saying this (I'm SURE), but try not to let your feelings
> color the facts. That's the worst 'big-picture' mistake you can make. Stick to
> the facts as you know them.
>
> >Oh, btw, the bit about Yoko casting a voodoo spell on Sir Paul: My book makes
> it clear that this was simply some BS that she laid on JL while she, in fact,
> tipped off Japanese customs officials by phone. Happy Mother's Day!
>
YaKnow
usual.......a pox
> on humanity...a scumbag....a loser posting on usenet....'nuff said....
Didn't I just read that Seaman has yet another lawsuit against him for items
JSeraf7064
pox on humanity...a scumbag....a loser posting on usenet....'nuff said....
That sounds like you too, doesn't it?
You haven't got enough brains to know not to throw stones at your own glass
house.
Says a lot for you and your thought process, doesn't it?
-JS
CBunch1070
Good to see ya, Fred.
Chuck
Amaranth56
>he stole from Lennon's apartment? I'm sure I read the other day that Yoko
>has taken him to court again for items he didn't return after the last
>lawsuit.
Yes, but this is for a photograph, and some say (fans, not lawyers) that there
may be a legal basis for Fred owning the photo. He did have it copyrighted. I
don't know law and I'm not making any informed statement here. Just saying
what others who have some knowledge of copyrights have posted elsewhere.
Deirdre
> a female fan be held in the wings so that he could have sex"
Heh, pretty wicked cool if he could do it though!
Dee
>>>><<<<>>>><<<<>>>><<<<>>>><<<<>>>><<<<>>>><<<<>>>><<<<>>>><<<<>>>><<<<>>>>
./\.
(~~) I Wish I Was in TiJuAnA ....Eating BaRbEqUeD iGuAnA
<(^^)> I UnDeRsTaNd ....Just A Little...
(^^) No CoMpReNdE ....
<(^^)> iT's A RiDdLe
\/ - WaLL Of VoOdOo
() http://www.wam.umd.edu/~powersd
''
<<<<>>>><<<<>>>><<<<>>>><<<<>>>><<<<>>>><<<<>>>><<<<>>>><<<<>>>><<<<>>>><<<<
lstoll
recently. When you list only the somewhat bizarre bits (below) or the
dust jacket blurbs (from another post), it does make Seaman's book sound
sensationalized, but that's not at the overall feeling I came away with.
While Goldman's book gave me the creeps, Seaman's book seemed to me an
affectionate portrait of John.
I don't quite know what or who to believe, so I soak it up and try to
withhold judgement.
Fred, if you're reading this, Green says that Sean accompanied John on
the boat trip to Bermuda while your book says he didn't. It's not of
earthshaking importance, but...
BTW, I don't think any of these books (or May Pang's Loving John) are in
print, but www.bibliofind.com is a good source. -laura
Polethene-Man wrote:
> Fred Seaman's book almost makes Goldman's tame in comparison. Is it to
> be believed? I dunno. There's some pretty bizarre claims in there. Ex::
> John was a sex maniac whom used to have made available a girl at stage
> side for a "knee trembler" (stand up sex with a woman) before, after
JSeraf7064
even between songs. Don't get me wrong, I'm not pointing fingers. I'm not even
making a judgement. I said all these things and more in Seaman's book are
bizarre
disemboweling them." Page 173 (Seamen). I guess Love is all you don't need.
:-)
Well, Fred was not the first to talk about the female groupies. That was being
written about long before there was a Fred Seaman. To my knowledge, such
'relationships' were even talked about by the Beatles themselves, and hinted at
by others.
Fred was also not the first to alledge John was violent, (or had violent
thoughts) towards women. John himself admitted this, and it has been written
about before.
And, while this hasn't come up in this thread, Fred also wrote of Yoko's
relapse inot heroin addiction, and Yoko later admitted this publicly herself.
In order for Fred to be called a liar, and for his book to be dismissed as
garbage, I personally would like to see something he wrote proven false. All I
have ever heard is people dimissing it simply because they want to... or
looking for convenient excuses to dismiss it. Likely because they would rather
cling to the false whitewashed 'Give Peace A Chance' myths.
As it is, there is precious little in his book that hasn't been hinted at
elsewhere. I have done two decades of reading on the subject. The only
difference is Fred cites specifics. Why not? He lived specifics.
I couldn't care less about pictures, diaries or whaever. I'm a Beatles fan. And
as far as I'm concerned, Fred's book will remain a valuable essay on the REAL
John Lennon, until such time it is proven not to be.
-JS
JSeraf7064
recently. When you list only the somewhat bizarre bits (below) or the
dust jacket blurbs (from another post), it does make Seaman's book sound
sensationalized, but that's not at the overall feeling I came away with.
While Goldman's book gave me the creeps, Seaman's book seemed to me an
affectionate portrait of John.
Me neither. I was fortunate enough to read it without prejudice. (Before I knew
about this NG).
Your impression is the same on I got.
>I don't quite know what or who to believe, so I soak it up and try to withhold
judgement.
I usually believe things that have been said over and over by different
sources. A lot of reading, a lot of time.
>Fred, if you're reading this, Green says that Sean accompanied John on
the boat trip to Bermuda while your book says he didn't. It's not of
earthshaking importance, but...
-JS
bibi
disemboweling them." Page 173 (Seamen)"
FUCKING COOL!!!!!!!!
Deirdre
...*pAtS* bibi on the head =8-|
JSeraf7064
disemboweling them." Page 173 (Seamen)"
Hey, I have similar fantasies every time I'm stuck in traffic on 128 in the
morning.
-JS
Susan A. Juliano
news:19990510194311...@ng-da1.aol.com...
>
> Well, Fred was not the first to talk about the female groupies. [...]
I believe John said it was like Satyricon. That pretty much confesses quite
a lot.
>
> Fred was also not the first to alledge John was violent, [...]
John's tendency toward violence had always been old news.
> In order for Fred to be called a liar, and for his book to be dismissed as
> garbage, I personally would like to see something he wrote proven false.
All I
> have ever heard is people dimissing it simply because they want to... or
> looking for convenient excuses to dismiss it. Likely because they would
rather
> cling to the false whitewashed 'Give Peace A Chance' myths.
If you really want to see something he wrote proven false, then allegations
of sex, violence and drug use are probably the wrong examples to use. Is
there anything else he might have written about that we could work with? Or
was his book so one-sided as to completely ignore the other aspects of
Lennon's personality? Or was his time with Lennon so limited that he would
have no knowledge of those other aspects? I only ask because some people
seem to dismiss the positive aspects and prefer to cling to the false
mudslinging 'Lennon was a wife-beating, heroin-snorting pig' myth.
>
> As it is, there is precious little in his book that hasn't been hinted at
> elsewhere. I have done two decades of reading on the subject. The only
> difference is Fred cites specifics. Why not? He lived specifics.
And it was Lennon himself who spoke and wrote openly about himself. Lennon
citing Satyricon or writing Cold Turkey may be only hinting, but they're
pretty broad hints. The difference between Lennon telling us and Fred
telling us would appear to be a difference of degree and artistry. John gave
us creativity and assumed that we'd understand a reference to Satyricon.
Seaman gave us tabloid copy and asked us if we wanted to see the Polaroids
(figuratively speaking). The best authoirty on "the REAL John Lennon" is,
IMO, John Lennon.
JSeraf7064
sex, violence and drug use are probably the wrong examples to use. Is there
anything else he might have written about that we could work with?
No! Because none of it was really tabloid-y, nor were there any REAL far-out
allegations!
Really, the only thing in it I have doubts about is Fred's involvement with the
diaries. I don't have an opinion as to his innocence or guilt in this matter...
I just don't have enough information. I can say probably what I think, but I
lay into people for their prejudgements, so I won't.
It doesn't make sense to me that he was going to give them to Julian.
It does make sense to me that Yoko stopped at nothing to discredit him, to pay
people to help discredit him (Jack Douglas said she did the same thing to him)
and to have him accused of taking things that were in fact given to him.
So, who knows?
Anyway, Most of the book was "John sat around the house today, watching the
telly, while Yoko sat downstairs in her office on the phone, and Sean was
running around being a brat, and John was pissed because Yoko wouldn't do lunch
with him, And I went out and did some errands for John."
You can see right from this thread how people's points of view on the book (and
others like it) are formed because they are ignorant of the facts. To someone,
the part about the sex was 'absurd', because it didn't fit his or her 'image'
of John, and 'image' likely created by an emotional response to his music,
rather than anything tangible. To me, it was something I had read multiple
times before I ever heard Fred Seaman's name.
>Or was his book so one-sided as to completely ignore the other aspects of
Lennon's personality? Or was his time with Lennon so limited that he would have
no knowledge of those other aspects? I only ask because some people seem to
dismiss the positive aspects and prefer to cling to the false
mudslinging 'Lennon was a wife-beating, heroin-snorting pig' myth.
Not at all. As I said, I was fortunate enough to have read the book without
predjudice. Fred comes off as having nothing but total admiration and respect
for John... which is why I had no serious doubts about the accuracy of the
information presented from the start. He comes off as disliking Yoko completely
though...
When something strange came up like their wierd reliance on astrology or their
intense paranoia came up in the book, it didn't seem to be the kind of thing
one would make up if one was trying to sell books... besides, I knew about it
anyway from other sources.
Stuff about 'Double Fantasy' was re-enforced by Jack Douglas. Ok, Yoko screwed
him over... so let's not believe him either. Is it reasonable they both made up
the same set of lies, independently of each other?
>The best authoirty on "the REAL John Lennon" is, IMO, John Lennon.
Hah! I disagree here!!!! You want to know ME, you ask my friends, my
co-workers, acquaintances, my family, my neighbors... MY view of who I am has
little to do with who 'I' am. We are all misunderstood saints in our own eyes.
I'm thinking about a story in a great book on people... about a dying mobster
who was a cop-killer and murderer, who said of himself that he was "A good
person who never did anyone no harm".
You want to 'know' John? Read Fred's book, Cyn's book, Paul's book, Mal's book
and whoever else knew him. Then you'll be more confused!
-JS
Tom
>It doesn't make sense to me that he was going to give them to Julian.
>It does make sense to me that Yoko stopped at nothing to discredit him, to
pay
>people to help discredit him (Jack Douglas said she did the same thing to
him)
>and to have him accused of taking things that were in fact given to him.
It would make sense if she'd tried to discredit him after the book came out,
but why would she try to discredit him before? Going by her own words, in
the liner notes to Season of Glass and Milk and Honey, she considered him a
friend in 81 and an enemy in 84. What changed?
Jamie
>
> On 11 May 1999 12:00:38 GMT, ric3...@aol.com (Ric325v59) wrote:
>
> >>I only ask because some people
> >>seem to dismiss the positive aspects and prefer to cling to the false
> >>mudslinging 'Lennon was a wife-beating, heroin-snorting pig' myth.
> >
> >her part from the things that she loved...."
> <snip>
>
> Um, 'tis Paulie singing that line, eh?
>
> And I doubt that you should take that lyric literally - IMVHO!
Actually, John admitted to writing that line and also admitted
to hitting women in the Playboy interview.
--
~Jamie
JSeraf7064
The business about the diaries, presumably.
My copy of his book is dated 1991. Is this the first pressing? It seems so,
but I might be wrong.... does anyone know for sure?
Yoko and Fred's relationship went bad way before this, didn't it?
-JS
Michael P Patrick
na
Michael P Patrick <mpat...@voicenet.com> wrote in message
news:3741ce2a...@netnews.voicenet.com...
yeah anyone that cites this lyric as an example of lennon's misogeny, is
totally lost.
D 28IF
>
>> >In addition to the lyric "I used to be cruel to my woman, I beat her and
>kept
>> >her part from the things that she loved...."
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>> Um, 'tis Paulie singing that line, eh?
>>
>> And I doubt that you should take that lyric literally - IMVHO!
>
>yeah anyone that cites this lyric as an example of lennon's misogeny, is
>totally lost.
>
>
Except for the fact that John, his very self, stated in at least one interview,
that that lyric was him admitting how violent he'd been towards women back
then.
Susan A. Juliano
> >The best authoirty on "the REAL John Lennon" is, IMO, John Lennon.
>
> Hah! I disagree here!!!! You want to know ME, you ask my friends, my
> co-workers, acquaintances, my family, my neighbors... MY view of who I am
has
> little to do with who 'I' am. We are all misunderstood saints in our own
eyes.
>
I dunno... I may go to your friends, et al for corroboration or for another
side, but I honestly believe that if I want to know you, then you should be
my primary source, with your wife and parents as secondary sources. Everyone
else has far too limited an exposure.
na
news:19990511230203...@ng-fs1.aol.com...
did john write this song?
D 28IF
>
>> Except for the fact that John, his very self, stated in at least one
>interview,
>> that that lyric was him admitting how violent he'd been towards women back
>> then.
>
>
>did john write this song?
>
>
Just as Paul had the middle 8 for" A Day In The Life", and John wrote the
middle 8 for "We Can Work It Out", John contributed the middle 8 to "Getting
Better".
na
>
> Just as Paul had the middle 8 for" A Day In The Life", and John wrote the
> middle 8 for "We Can Work It Out", John contributed the middle 8 to
"Getting
> Better".
>
ok let me see if i can explain myself a little better:
while i generally tend to stay out of discussions concerning ppls personal
behaviour, i must admit having little a trouble understanding as to why so
many ppl seem to cling to this notion of john as particulary violent towards
women.
please let me say this: yes i'm aware that he admitted on several occasions
that he succumbed to physical domestic violence and that in his youth, he
had a few scraps. and that he was ashamed of his behaviour and even made
mention of it in a song
but it seems that it's forever being dragged up as an example of how john
was a misogynist and was casual with his violence.it's like a black stain
that will forever follow lennon, whenever anyone is
stuck in a argument or seeks to make a point, they'll trot out the "oh well,
john was well known as a wife basher" remarks.
i do not for one moment condone or applaud in any way violence towards
women( in fact i have done some small amount of "intervention" work in this
area), but do
find this niggling suggestion that john was a big mean guy who constantly
backhanded his women friends naive, annoying and ill informed
this seems to me to be, in part at least, a result of the PC society that we
find ourselves in. i dunno, but it seems people expect everyone to act like
the "book"says we should. but of course, no one really can.
we all do things we are ashamed of.
we all have our weaknesses and failings(except maybe shobus:).
john was obviously a thinker and a very aware person. he fought for the
things he believed in, which in turn made us all think that much harder
about our lives. and he wrote some of the most memorable music we will ever
hear.
and with all this, he was one of the most "human" of us all, exposing all of
what he had to us, the public. and that entailed having the guts and honesty
to expose his "not so nice" side to us as well.
i'm not sure what my point is, or that i even have one. but i guess if i
had to say, it might be that:
sure he was "mean and evil, like that lil' old bo-weevil" from time to time,
but for ppl to be carrying around a picture of him as a hateful woman hater
and basher, is too simplistic and down right wrong.
rave over
na
i just got annoyed with this idea, epitomised in that post about the lyics i
think.
but i dont really think you could improve or expand on what susan j said.
Amaranth56
>kept
>>her part from the things that she loved...."
> <snip>
>
>
>Um, 'tis Paulie singing that line, eh?
>
>And I doubt that you should take that lyric literally - IMVHO!
True, it's tricky business assuming every lyric is backed by real life.
However, even Cynthia tells of once when the housekeeper caught John beating
her. It's in Hunter Davies' book.
To everyone who thinks Fred Seaman made wild accusations, have you read
biographies of other celebrities? Some make John and Yoko look positively
tame!
na
Amaranth56 <amara...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990512040346...@ng-cc1.aol.com...
you should hear my next door neighbours...they make "whose afraid of
virginia wolf" look like a pantomine.
D 28IF
>
>D 28IF <d2...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:19990512000307...@ng-fs1.aol.com...
>>
>> Just as Paul had the middle 8 for" A Day In The Life", and John wrote the
>> middle 8 for "We Can Work It Out", John contributed the middle 8 to
>"Getting
>> Better".
>>
>
>ok let me see if i can explain myself a little better:
>
>while i generally tend to stay out of discussions concerning ppls personal
>behaviour, i must admit having little a trouble understanding as to why so
>many ppl seem to cling to this notion of john as particulary violent towards
>women.
<snip>
I must be misunderstanding what you original point was, or I came into this
discussion late. (Actually, I think I *did*.)
I saw someone say that John wasn't misogynistic and it was pointed out that
John wrote the lyric in Getting Better referring to that. Then I was asked why
Paul sings those words if John wrote it. I explained how that sometimes
occurred.
Now you're saying that wasn't what you were asking, but rather that one lyric,
or a few comments in interviews does not mean John was cruel towards women.
Overall, I agree, as I didn't realize that was your point. And his cruel
behavior towards women was something he said he recognized and changed.
Although, OJ only beat his wife a few times in the past and killed her only
once. He hasn't been violent since then. Think that'll dog him for all
eternity? ;-)
(And no, that last part was meant as a joke, I am NOT comparing John's behavior
towards women to O.J.'s. Although, in terms of beating a wife, it would hold
true.)
Susan A. Juliano
news:19990512040346...@ng-cc1.aol.com...
> To everyone who thinks Fred Seaman made wild accusations, have you read
> biographies of other celebrities? Some make John and Yoko look positively
> tame!
NO MORE WIRE COATHANGERS!!!!!!! ;-)
Susan A. Juliano
news:3738f...@news.highway1.com.au...
> did john write this song?
John and Paul both wrote it. Paul wrote the music and provided the title,
then John came over to Paul's house at Cavendish Avenue and they fleshed out
the lyrics together (See the Sgt. Pepper chapter of _Many Years From Now_)
with one of John's contributions being the autobiographical lines about how
he used to treat "his woman" (See _The Playboy Interview_). This is
confirmed in the Hunter Davies authorized biography.
It *does* get a little confusing when you consider that an otherwise
excellent reference like Hertsgaard's _A Day In The Life_ perpetuates the
story about Paul having the song almost complete in the studio when John
simply walks in and adds "It can't get no worse" completely off-the-cuff.
That story is based on one of George Martin's recollections, but Sir George
isn't exactly known for his flawless memory. Hertsgaard writes, "...it's
the kind of story that should be true, even if it's not." Thus the myth
lives on.
Don Rife
news:4Bh_2.307$m83....@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net...
> na <not...@neverland.com> wrote in message
> news:3738f...@news.highway1.com.au...
>
> > did john write this song?
>
> John and Paul both wrote it. Paul wrote the music and provided the title,
> then John came over to Paul's house at Cavendish Avenue and they fleshed
out
> the lyrics together (See the Sgt. Pepper chapter of _Many Years From Now_)
> It *does* get a little confusing when you consider that an otherwise
> excellent reference like Hertsgaard's _A Day In The Life_ perpetuates the
> story about Paul having the song almost complete in the studio when John
> simply walks in and adds "It can't get no worse" completely off-the-cuff.
> That story is based on one of George Martin's recollections, but Sir
George
> isn't exactly known for his flawless memory. Hertsgaard writes, "...it's
> the kind of story that should be true, even if it's not." Thus the myth
> lives on.
>
Maybe George Martin just didn't realize John and Paul had worked on the
song together. Paul is singing the song for George Martin in the studio,
John walks in, sings the response line "couldn't get much worse". George
Martin just assumes it's off-the-cuff. George Martin obviously considered
it a Paul song by the above antedote. I know, pure speculation but makes
sense to me. So maybe George Martin isn't misremembering but just mistaken
in his interpetation of what he had witnessed.
JSeraf7064
middle 8 for "We Can Work It Out", John contributed the middle 8 to "Getting
Better".
Paul was involved with far more than just the middle 8 of 'A Day In The Life',
George suggested the change to 3/4 time in 'We Can Work It Out'...
They were a band, see, and the basic songs were written by one, and usually
finished with help, from the other partner mostly, and the band.
At least, this is the impression I get from the volumes I've read.
-JS
JSeraf7064
that he succumbed to physical domestic violence and that in his youth, he had a
few scraps. and that he was ashamed of his behaviour and even made mention of
it in a song
>but it seems that it's forever being dragged up as an example of how john
was a misogynist and was casual with his violence.
I have never for one second taken it as that.
-JS
na
thats good.:)
na
Ric325v59 <ric3...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990512202412...@ng-fk1.aol.com...
> >xcept for the fact that John, his very self, stated in at least one
> >interview, that that lyric was him admitting how violent he'd been
towards
> women back
> >then
only
> "know John Lennon him thru his lyrics" when it suits the myth. And yeah,
it's
> Paulie that sings it, so what?
so what are you saying?
that john was a smacked out wife beater first and foremost?
D 28IF
>> >xcept for the fact that John, his very self, stated in at least one
>> >interview, that that lyric was him admitting how violent he'd been
>towards
>> women back
>> >then
>> THANK YOU! People only take John's word on John when it suits them -- and
>only
>> "know John Lennon him thru his lyrics" when it suits the myth. And yeah,
>it's
>> Paulie that sings it, so what?
>
>so what are you saying?
>
>that john was a smacked out wife beater first and foremost?
>
NOWHERE do I see that being said. Putting your own spin on things won't change
the facts.
No one has said John was first and foremost a smacked out, wife-beater. If
that's how you prefer to view things, have at it.
All others are doing is showing that, no matter what you want to believe, John
was, at one time, violent towards women, and admitted this.
If we thought that was all there was to him, do you really think there'd be so
many of us discussing him and his work 19 years after his death?
na
> >From: " na" <not...@neverland.com>
>
> >> >xcept for the fact that John, his very self, stated in at least one
> >> >interview, that that lyric was him admitting how violent he'd been
> >towards
> >> women back
> >> >then
> >> THANK YOU! People only take John's word on John when it suits them --
and
> >only
> >> "know John Lennon him thru his lyrics" when it suits the myth. And
yeah,
> >it's
> >> Paulie that sings it, so what?
> >
> >so what are you saying?
> >
> >that john was a smacked out wife beater first and foremost?
> >
>
> NOWHERE do I see that being said. Putting your own spin on things won't
change
> the facts.
hey its ok, no need to shout at me
> No one has said John was first and foremost a smacked out, wife-beater. If
> that's how you prefer to view things, have at it.
actually, it was mentioned earlier.
> All others are doing is showing that, no matter what you want to believe,
John
> was, at one time, violent towards women, and admitted this.
look man, i have ackowledged that.
i am trying to say something a little different.
i'm sorry if it's proven a bit hard to communicate it very clearly.
> If we thought that was all there was to him, do you really think there'd
be so
> many of us discussing him and his work 19 years after his death?
i never said that.
but i dont want to start an argument about it.
'nuff said ok?
:)
na
Susan A. Juliano
news:19990512202412...@ng-fk1.aol.com...
> [...]People only take John's word on John when it suits them -- and only
> "know John Lennon him thru his lyrics" when it suits the myth [...]
Which myth is that? You can know any number of things about Lennon by simply
listening to the man. He was always up front, so if your personal Lennon
myth is that he was a pig you can find plenty of evidence to support that.
If your personal Lennon myth is that he was a saint, there's plenty of that
stuff available too. How about the myth that he was a complex and
interesting person who went through a lot of changes which were documented
in his work and in his interviews? That's the one I subscribe to.
TLennon67
>From: " na"
Nick,
Thanks for a very insightful and much needed post.
Tracy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Turn off your mind, relax and float downstream"
na
TLennon67 <tlen...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:19990513185708...@ng-fz1.news.cs.com...
> >Subject: Re: john and his women (wasRe: Fred Seaman's book)
> >From: " na"
>
> Nick,
> Thanks for a very insightful and much needed post.
> Tracy
i was?
it was?
LOL
ta
trace:)
TLennon67
>From: " na"
>i was?
>
>it was?
>
>
>LOL
>ta
>trace:)
You're welcome! Yes, you were, it was.
I thought you did a fine job of putting the whole issue into perspective in
John's life.
Trace
JSeraf7064
Yoko were about to go househunting in upstate New York -- where John talks
about mundane aspects of his childhood homes -- then goes into a verbal attack
on Paul, Dylan, Jagger and Paul Simon -- then further goes on to debate out
loud whether he should've made a sexual pass at his mother, Julia. Not even
Goldman ever suggested this... but it's unedited John.
As I've said, Seaman's book is about as 'sensationalistic' as a text book.
Most of the people passing judgement on it haven't even read it.
Have you heard this tape?
Can anyone validate it's existence and authenticity?
I wonder what the source of John's anger was. And as far as the last part goes,
I hope he was not that screwed up.
-JS
Amaranth56
>
>Can anyone validate it's existence and authenticity?
A voice specialist tested it and said he was fairly certain, but not 100%
positive, that it is John's voice. I clearly remember reading that, but can't
find the specific article offhand.
William Mulholland
>
> ">A voice specialist tested it and said he was fairly certain, but not 100%
> >positive, that it is John's voice.
It is DEFINITELY John. Funny enough, I found a long lost copy in my
lock up garage too. :0)
Jeepers, creepers, long thin sleepers......I have just uncovered a
handful of long lost unreleased John Lennon tracks too. *true*
Tom
>He goes on for another 10 minutes describing funny incidents between Julia
and
>"Twitchy, or otherwise known as Robert Dykins, the sleazy waiter with the
>nervous cough and the magerine-coated hair."
>
Didn't sister Julia say that John didn't call him Twitchy?
Amaranth56
Just for the record, his name was John Dykin.
Kevin M Lee
Actually I enjoyed Fred Seaman's book for its sympathetic take on
Lennon's situation. His take on things in 1980 re: Lennon seem to
correspond with that of Jack Douglas and comments Julian is parading
these days. It's also easy to tell that Fred had (has) a great deal of
love and respect for Lennon but not for Yoko. Go figure.
Another book which was interesting was May Pang's Loving John. If my
memory serves me correctly she was the 1st to tell the world about
Lennon's lost songs Tennessee and of the 1974 McCartney - Lennon Jam
from 1974.
Its too bad Harry Nilsson didn't live to write a book. He would have
had a story to tell.
elsa...@my-dejanews.com
jsera...@aol.com (JSeraf7064) wrote:
> > Me wonders if you've actually read my book. Do you really think that
JL's
> availing himself of willing groupies at the height of Beatlemania is
"bizarre"?
> One could even argue if such casual sex qualifies JL as a "sex
> maniac."
>
> Didn't Paul also hint at this in his book?
>
> Why is this 'bizzare'? Why is it unbelievable? What do you think The
Beatles
> were? Choirboys?
> ===========================
Aw, c'mon, man, where's yer sense of humour... But, seriously, I did
not mean to imply that it was Y.O. who inspired JL to violent fantasies.
He had them before he met her. Re: JL collaborating w/Sir Macca: I doubt
it...JL had no direct contact w/JL after 78 (regardless of what Paul
sez) & I don't think a collaboration was in the cards. Paul probably
hoped for it, but John was too far gone, sorry to say...
-FS
> >And as regards JL's fantasies of torturing women to death, if you
lived with
> Ms.O, you too might find yourself succumbing to such nasty
> thoughts...
>
> Fred! Cut it out! Cheap shots like this can only hurt YOU. I'm sure
you have
> your justification for saying this (I'm SURE), but try not to let your
feelings
> color the facts. That's the worst 'big-picture' mistake you can make.
Stick to
> the facts as you know them.
>
> >Oh, btw, the bit about Yoko casting a voodoo spell on Sir Paul: My
book makes
> it clear that this was simply some BS that she laid on JL while she,
in fact,
> tipped off Japanese customs officials by phone. Happy Mother's Day!
>
> Yes, it does.
>
> While I've got you on the phone, Jack Douglas hinted that John was
considering
> writing with Paul again.
>
> While we the fans always 'knew' something MIGHT happen SOMEDAY between
them,
> this is the first time I've ever heard it said that John and Paul were
actually
> seriously considering writing together again. Actually, that John was
> considering working with Paul again.
>
> At first, I thought it was for what was to be the 'Anthology' project,
but the
> impression I got from Jack's words that it was not...
>
> Do you know anything of this?
>
> -JS
>
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
elsa...@my-dejanews.com
jsera...@aol.com (JSeraf7064) wrote:
> >Well, I'm no prud but I can still say it's rather bizarre to "demand
that a
> female fan be held in the wings so that he could have sex" befor,
after or
> even between songs. Don't get me wrong, I'm not pointing fingers. I'm
not even
> making a judgement. I said all these things and more in Seaman's book
are
> bizarre
> including violent fantasies of "nailing them (women) to a cross, and
then
> disemboweling them." Page 173 (Seamen). I guess Love is all you don't
need.
> :-)
>
> Well, Fred was not the first to talk about the female groupies. That
was being
> written about long before there was a Fred Seaman. To my knowledge,
such
> 'relationships' were even talked about by the Beatles themselves, and
hinted at
> by others.
>
> Fred was also not the first to alledge John was violent, (or had
violent
> thoughts) towards women. John himself admitted this, and it has been
written
> about before.
>
> And, while this hasn't come up in this thread, Fred also wrote of
Yoko's
> relapse inot heroin addiction, and Yoko later admitted this publicly
herself.
>
> In order for Fred to be called a liar, and for his book to be
dismissed as
> garbage, I personally would like to see something he wrote proven
false. All I
> have ever heard is people dimissing it simply because they want to...
or
> looking for convenient excuses to dismiss it. Likely because they
would rather
> cling to the false whitewashed 'Give Peace A Chance' myths.
>
> As it is, there is precious little in his book that hasn't been hinted
at
> elsewhere. I have done two decades of reading on the subject. The only
> difference is Fred cites specifics. Why not? He lived specifics.
>
> I couldn't care less about pictures, diaries or whaever. I'm a Beatles
fan. And
> as far as I'm concerned, Fred's book will remain a valuable essay on
the REAL
> John Lennon, until such time it is proven not to be.
>
> -JS
>
> =================
Thanx, JS. I o u (& all seriously inquisitive fans) a serious posting
on the subject of JL's violence...FS
elsa...@my-dejanews.com
> >
> > Well, Fred was not the first to talk about the female groupies.
>
> I believe John said it was like Satyricon. That pretty much confesses
quite
> a lot.
> >
> > Fred was also not the first to alledge John was violent, [...]
>
> John's tendency toward violence had always been old news.
>
> > In order for Fred to be called a liar, and for his book to be
dismissed as
> > garbage, I personally would like to see something he wrote proven
false.
> All I
> > have ever heard is people dimissing it simply because they want
to... or
> > looking for convenient excuses to dismiss it. Likely because they
would
> rather
> > cling to the false whitewashed 'Give Peace A Chance' myths.
>
allegations
> of sex, violence and drug use are probably the wrong examples to use.
Is
> there anything else he might have written about that we could work
with? Or
> was his book so one-sided as to completely ignore the other aspects of
> Lennon's personality? Or was his time with Lennon so limited that he
would
> have no knowledge of those other aspects? I only ask because some
people
> seem to dismiss the positive aspects and prefer to cling to the false
> mudslinging 'Lennon was a wife-beating, heroin-snorting pig' myth.
> >
> > As it is, there is precious little in his book that hasn't been
hinted at
> > elsewhere. I have done two decades of reading on the subject. The
only
> > difference is Fred cites specifics. Why not? He lived specifics.
>
Lennon
> citing Satyricon or writing Cold Turkey may be only hinting, but
they're
> pretty broad hints. The difference between Lennon telling us and Fred
> telling us would appear to be a difference of degree and artistry.
John gave
> us creativity and assumed that we'd understand a reference to
Satyricon.
> Seaman gave us tabloid copy and asked us if we wanted to see the
Polaroids
> (figuratively speaking). The best authoirty on "the REAL John Lennon"
is,
> IMO, John Lennon.
> >=================================================================
Yes, but which Jl do you have in mind? (i.e. has it ocurred to you
that there is no "REAL" JL?)
-FS
===============================================================
> > I couldn't care less about pictures, diaries or whaever. I'm a
Beatles
> fan. And
> > as far as I'm concerned, Fred's book will remain a valuable essay on
the
> REAL
> > John Lennon, until such time it is proven not to be.
>
>
elsa...@my-dejanews.com
amara...@aol.com (Amaranth56) wrote:
> >Have you heard this tape? [John's audio diary]
> >
> >Can anyone validate it's existence and authenticity?
>
100%
but can't
> find the specific article offhand.
iT WAS DEFINITELY jl'S VOICE. What's interesting about the tape is J's
derisive remarks about Mick, Macca, Dylan & Simon. He expressed similar
sentiments to those around him at the time. Some of his condescending
comments were unfair & no doubt motivated by jealousy. Other comments
(e.g. the bits about macca et al being "company men" are dead-on...)
The stuff about his incestuous feelings for Julia is quite illuminating,
as are the remarks about the mind dribbling on & on, long after the body
is able to act on the fantasies (this was before VIAGRA, though...)--FS
elsa...@my-dejanews.com
jsera...@aol.com (JSeraf7064) wrote:
> >I read Goldman's, Seaman's, and John Green's Lennon books all fairly
> recently. When you list only the somewhat bizarre bits (below) or the
> dust jacket blurbs (from another post), it does make Seaman's book
sound
> sensationalized, but that's not at the overall feeling I came away
with.
> While Goldman's book gave me the creeps, Seaman's book seemed to me an
> affectionate portrait of John.
>
> Me neither. I was fortunate enough to read it without prejudice.
(Before I knew
> about this NG).
>
> Your impression is the same on I got.
>
> >I don't quite know what or who to believe, so I soak it up and try to
withhold
> judgement.
>
> I usually believe things that have been said over and over by
different
> sources. A lot of reading, a lot of time.
>
> >Fred, if you're reading this, Green says that Sean accompanied John
on
> the boat trip to Bermuda while your book says he didn't. It's not of
> earthshaking importance, but...
>
> -JS
> =========================
Sean did not sail to bermuda w/JL, he flew over with me on June 13,
198O. John Green wasn't around in summer 198O & his book is inaccurate
in many respects (on the other hand, Green did tape many of his phone
"readings" w/YO & much of his stuff about Y's involvement with the
occult is dead-on...)
-FS
=====================================
Ehtue
> Yes, but which Jl do you have in mind? (i.e. has it ocurred to you
>that there is no "REAL" JL?)
>
> -FS
Or maybe several REAL personas, as we all are, depending on the circumstances
and who we're with.
-Ehtue
Tom
>The stuff about his incestuous feelings for Julia is quite illuminating,
>as are the remarks about the mind dribbling on & on, long after the body
>is able to act on the fantasies (this was before VIAGRA, though...)--FS
>
>
For the sword outwears its sheath,
And the soul wears out the breast,
And the heart must pause to breathe,
And Love itself have rest.
Lord Byron "So we'll go no more a-roving" when he was the same age that
John was on the tape,.
Tom
>For the sword outwears its sheath,
> And the soul wears out the breast,
>And the heart must pause to breathe,
> And Love itself have rest.
>
>Lord Byron "So we'll go no more a-roving" when he was the same age that
>John was on the tape,.
>
My math skills have atrophied to an apalling extent. Byron was ten years
younger.
JSeraf7064
on the subject of JL's violence...FS
Ok, but be sure to stick to the facts, Fred!
-JS
na .
<elsa...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
news:7hqfhl$c7k$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> Thanx, JS. I o u (& all seriously inquisitive fans) a serious posting
> on the subject of JL's violence...FS
oh yeah cant wait.
na .
<elsa...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
news:7hqhfu$dc0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > =================================
>
> iT WAS DEFINITELY jl'S VOICE. What's interesting about the tape is J's
> derisive remarks about Mick, Macca, Dylan & Simon. He expressed similar
> sentiments to those around him at the time.
imagine if there was a tape recorder running while you were watching the tv
news tonight, and the comments that we all invaraibly make while doing so
eg.."oh that guy is a lamer"...."i always hated that tv
show/actor/song/building anyway"..."oh cant that guy even catch a fukin
baseball for christ sake"...."that is the biggest pile of buillshit i've
ever heard"..."ally mcbeal is too thin" etc. were then distributed and you
were judged by those comments.
ffs, its everyday conversation.
it's meaningless and meaningful at the same time.
the only difference is that without the person who spoke them able to
explain himself, the true intent of the words will never be known, and
cannot in all fariness be held up as a serious reflection of the speaker.
it's all about context
let he who has never made off hand comments about how crappy a cetain song
or singer or even person is cast the first post.
na .
na . <not...@neverland.com> wrote in message
news:3740d...@news.highway1.com.au...
>
> <elsa...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
> news:7hqfhl$c7k$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >
> > Thanx, JS. I o u (& all seriously inquisitive fans) a serious posting
> > on the subject of JL's violence...FS
>
>
> oh yeah cant wait.
i s'pose i should point out that this was meant light-heartedly, just before
anyone loses their mind over it:)
TLennon67
>let he who has never made off hand comments about how crappy a cetain song
>or singer or even person is cast the first post.
Agreed, Nick. Look at how I started out in rmb? LOL. That shit spewing out of
my mouth should not have been for public consumption!
Trace
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"For the music is your special friend
Dance on fire as it intends
Music is your only friend
Until the end, Until the end, Until the end" - J. Morrison
na .
> >From: " na
>
> >let he who has never made off hand comments about how crappy a cetain
song
> >or singer or even person is cast the first post.
>
> Agreed, Nick. Look at how I started out in rmb? LOL. That shit spewing
out of
> my mouth should not have been for public consumption!
> Trace
he he
you should hear me in the car when some tune comes on, especially if i
happen to know or be friends with the artist.........
i pay the crap out of them...but that doesn't mean i'm seriously panning
them.
a lot of it is jealousy mixed with envy mixed with a little more jealousy.:)
as for the crap i see on tv, man i must sound like a bitter twisted old
bastard by the disparaging comments i make about some of the stuff on
there..........
it just life is all
and it's hard to get it right coming off the printed page or in the third
person
Deirdre
>
> na . <not...@neverland.com> wrote in message
> > oh yeah cant wait.
>
> i s'pose i should point out that this was meant light-heartedly, just before
> anyone loses their mind over it:)
I was tempted to laugh, but ..ya know
...And Ye Shall Marry A Gunner Good, And A Right Fine I'm Sure He'll Be.
And The Very First Shot That E'er He Shoots
Will Kill Both My Young Son And Me.
SiLkiE - Child #113
@)}-,-'-,-'-,---
William Mulholland
>
> >From: " na
>
> >let he who has never made off hand comments about how crappy a cetain song
> >or singer or even person is cast the first post.
>
> Agreed, Nick. Look at how I started out in rmb? LOL. That shit spewing out of
> my mouth should not have been for public consumption!
> Trace
Tracy, we always loved you. :0)
TLennon67
>Tracy, we always loved you. :0)
Thank you! ;-)
I never apologized to you for all that Billy Joel stuff either! I must have
been having a really bad day when I said all that stuff, because I respect
Billy and like a lot of his music.
William Mulholland
>
> >From: William Mulholland
>
> >Tracy, we always loved you. :0)
>
> Thank you! ;-)
> I never apologized to you for all that Billy Joel stuff either! I must have been having a > really bad day when I said all that stuff, because I respect Billy and like a lot of his music.
> Trace
>
Trace, no need to say sorry.....always respected you. Sure I go on
about Oasis and Nirvana - no doubt annoying plenty of good folks ;0)
PS - always thought Nirvana would be a good name for a chainsaw.
Susan A. Juliano
news:7hqfvi$ci0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> [...] The best authoirty on "the REAL John Lennon" is,
> > IMO, John Lennon.
> > >=================================================================
>
> Yes, but which Jl do you have in mind? (i.e. has it ocurred to you
> that there is no "REAL" JL?)
The one I have in mind is the one who was constantly searching for himself
and learning about himself, and continuously redefining himself in the
process. The unpredictable one. The one who was usually honest and
straightforward with people, even if his opinions may have been only the
opinions of the moment. The one who detested phonies, but was able to play
the game with the best of them when it suited him. The deeply religious
sacriligious one. The prideful one, the insecure one. The one who was honest
enough with himself to recognize his own inner demons *and* angels, and able
to bring them both out and show them in his music.
elsa...@my-dejanews.com
Right on, sista!....FS
Susan A. Juliano
news:7hqfhl$c7k$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
[snip]
> Thanx, JS. I o u (& all seriously inquisitive fans) a serious posting
> on the subject of JL's violence...FS
Speaking of violence... Why are you still alive, Fred? Didn't those
bodyguards tell you they would come back and kill you if you told anyone
what happened? You not only told what happened, you named them!