Beatles = Gay Liberation
pqc...@acfcluster.nyu.edu
we all know the Beatles are straight (only John had a brief fling with
Brian Epstein, or so I've hear.
But for me, and for many others, I think the Beatles image back
in 1964 when they burst on the American scene was conducive to Gay
Liberation.
I was only five years old when I saw them perform on the Ed
Sullivan Show. But I'll never forget it!! Although of course I
had no conscious realization I was gay then, the Beatles broke all
the "masculine" stereotypes I had been taught!! They had that long
soft hair, they shook their heads and sang "ooooh!." They were
cuddly and huggable, unlike Elvis and theothers. And they were all
performing together in a group which seemed so cohesive - like they
really grooved together.
I remember hearing stories when I was a child that the Beatles
were "sissies" - in fact there's even a reference to that in the
film "A Hard Day's Night" by Paul's "grandfather."
Even if you're not gay you must admit that the Beatles changed
the idea of "masculinity" and contributed to the liberation of men
from a very straitjacketed identity.
Of course I *love* the Beatles' music and the Beatles were
primarily musicians and not cultural subversives. But what do you
think about my opinions? Any responses appreciated. . .
Mark
saki
> I don't mean to offend all you straight Beatlemaniacs out there -
>we all know the Beatles are straight (only John had a brief fling with
>Brian Epstein, or so I've hear.
John himself said that this was "almost an affair" (Playboy 1980) but
that it was unconsummated. I supose you could categorize it as a
"fling", even though it was mostly mental. John, we should note for
the record, was decidedly heterosexual. Brian was gay, but kept
his identiy a secret due to the illegality of homosexuality in
Britain at that time.
> I was only five years old when I saw them perform on the Ed
>Sullivan Show. But I'll never forget it!! Although of course I
>had no conscious realization I was gay then, the Beatles broke all
>the "masculine" stereotypes I had been taught.
The hair caused a great deal of concern at first; it was not understood,
particularly in American society, how a man could have a Beatle haircut
and yet still be "straight". Hair was once one of absolute gender
markers, and men with long hair prior to the Fabs were considered
either "artistic" (which whatever euphemism one understood it to
mean) or revolutionary...or downright feminine. Historical views
of personal grooming will indicate that men with long hair had
existed in numerous other cultures over time, but in the early
sixties this seems to have been forgotten, until the Beatles'
popularity made men free once again to chose hair length independent
of their sexual direction.
> Even if you're not gay you must admit that the Beatles changed
>the idea of "masculinity" and contributed to the liberation of men
>from a very straitjacketed identity.
In clothing as well! Although the Fabs did not invent the style,
they popularized colors and materials not traditional to Western
male sartorial fashion. This too was a great development.
I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say the Fabs were responsible for
gay liberation. As John said, they were like flags waving in the
zephyrs of change, but did not originate change itself. Their own
musical revolution---if not stylistic too---was significant enough.
I think other groups (women, gays, minorities) found strength and succor
in the Beatles' music but established their own parallel revolt,
which fed upon the music of those times but which was built from
numerous other cultural and political factors.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"When you play the game of life/You've got trouble, you've got strife...."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
sa...@evolution.bchs.uh.edu
Paul S. Bodine
In their 1965 Playboy interview, the Fabs committed the following
indiscretions regarding their attitudes toward homosexuality:
PLAYBOY: "Seriously, is there more homosexuality in England than elsewhere?"
JOHN: "Are you saying there's more over here than in America?"
PLAYBOY: "We're just asking."
GEORGE: "It's just that they've got crewcuts in America. You can't spot
'em."
PAUL: "There's probably a million more queers in America than in England.
England may have its scandals--like Profumo and all--but at least
they're heterosexual."
JOHN: "Still, we do have more than our share of queers, don't you think?"
PAUL: "It just seems that way because there's more printed about them
over here."
RINGO: "If they find out somebody is a bit bent, the press will always
splash it about."
Granted, they were being interviewed by a bastion of heterosexual culture, so
they may or may not have answered the question accordingly. What this has to
do with the liberating spirit of the Beatles' music, however, I don't know . .
.
Charles A. Eckert
: I don't mean to offend all you straight Beatlemaniacs out there -
: we all know the Beatles are straight (only John had a brief fling with
: Brian Epstein, or so I've hear.
JOHN and BRIAN! My mind has now been blown! Can this be true? Anybody
with more information on this, please post!
thanks...i guess, my mind is still reeling from the shock!
--
*******************************************************************
* Charles A. Eckert * "What in hell are people *for*?" *
* cec...@epix.net * --Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. *
* Mac dude with an attitude * in God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater *
*******************************************************************
Robert Daly
me. I'm straight myself, but I was 14 and in Texas when the the Beatles
appeared on the Ed Sulivan show, and I remember a lot of anti-Beatles
sentiment that seemed to be directly correlated to the local homophobia.
Styles took more than a month to change in 1964 Texas, and I remember
most of the guys who had the nerve to stop shaving a ring above their
ears were accused of being gay. The Beatles' irreverent and shocking
style of humor also allowed those first pioneers who let their hair grow
to take a "Maybe I *am* gay - so what!" attitude toward their detracors.
I wasn't gay, but I found myself thinking, "So what if someone is gay. I
don't care." They certainly liberated *my* attitude.
By the way, I've always thought of John as feeling bad because he
could not return his friend, Brian Epstein's, unrequited love for him.
-
ROBERT DALY LPE...@prodigy.com
Edward J. Igoe
> I don't mean to offend all you straight Beatlemaniacs out there -
>we all know the Beatles are straight (only John had a brief fling with
>Brian Epstein, or so I've hear.
>
I've never heard before. I plan on discussing them with a gay friend of
mine as soon as I can. One thing you may get flamed about is that it's
never been confirmed that John and Brian ever had a "Fling".
It's well documented that Brian was gay, and much speculated that his
prediliction to young men was the driving force behind his becoming The
Beatles' manager, but whether the "Relationship" was ever more than that
is unknown. John and Brian did go to Spain together one summer, but
when someone, at one of Paul's birthday parties, accused John of what
many were assuming happened, a fistfight broke out.
I have read some rather lurid details attributed to John in which Brian
finally made "The pass" and John capitulated, only to have Brian reject
him, but I can't recall the source, nor was I impressed with its'
accuracy at the time I read it.
Since neither of them is alive any more, whether it happened or not will
always be confined to the realm of speculation. I guess it's a matter
of personal beliefs.
-Ed
--
---------------------------------------
|Ed Igoe, aliases: EJI...@IX.NETCOM.COM |
| ~ EJI...@DELPHI.COM |
| O,o Ed Near Balmer |
| \-/ |
---------------------------------------
Paul S. Bodine
admited to him that he had allowed Epstein to "have his way" in a limited
sense with Lennon while they were in Spain; that Lennon told Shotton that he
felt sorry for Epstein . . . .
By the way, I think the story about a fistfight breaking out after Lennon was
accused of carnal knowledge with Epstein is inaccurate: I had read that
Lennon went after the accuser, Bob Wooler, with something a little more
substantial than his fists . . .
saki
>In his memoir, Lennon's childhood friend Pete Shotton claimed that Lennon
>admited to him that he had allowed Epstein to "have his way" in a limited
>sense with Lennon while they were in Spain; that Lennon told Shotton that he
>felt sorry for Epstein . . . .
John himself contradicted Shotton in the 1980 Playboy interview, where
he describes the event as a sort of exploratory, unconsummated flirtation,
and nothing else. I tend to trust Lennon here; Shotton has been known
to get his facts wrong.
>By the way, I think the story about a fistfight breaking out after Lennon was
>accused of carnal knowledge with Epstein is inaccurate: I had read that
>Lennon went after the accuser, Bob Wooler, with something a little more
>substantial than his fists . . .
Goldman spread an unsubtantiated story that the implement was a shovel
and that Lennon almost killed Wooler. Codswallop...and you may quote
me.
Lennon was indeed drunk and somewhat out of control at Paul's 21st
birthday party when Wooler made an inopportune comment about the so-called
"Spanish Holiday". Lennon blackened Wooler's eye, bruised his ribs
via some well-placed kicks, and was pulled from the unfortunate Wooler
by members of the Fourmost. Brian Epstein, who was a guest at the
party, drove Wooler to the hospital and arranged for a settlement to
be paid to him later. Fences were mended and Wooler and John became
friends again.
Wooler, it should be noted, remained one of the biggest champions of
the Beatles, Lennon included.
Walters, Gina
> In <3jqv1p$7...@cmcl2.NYU.EDU> pqc...@ACFcluster.nyu.edu writes:
> > I don't mean to offend all you straight Beatlemaniacs out there -
> >we all know the Beatles are straight (only John had a brief fling with
> >Brian Epstein, or so I've hear.
> >
> Mark, your observations are quite interesting, and I must admit, some
> I've never heard before. I plan on discussing them with a gay friend of
> mine as soon as I can. One thing you may get flamed about is that it's
> never been confirmed that John and Brian ever had a "Fling".
>
> It's well documented that Brian was gay, and much speculated that his
> prediliction to young men was the driving force behind his becoming The
> Beatles' manager, but whether the "Relationship" was ever more than that
> is unknown. John and Brian did go to Spain together one summer, but
> when someone, at one of Paul's birthday parties, accused John of what
> many were assuming happened, a fistfight broke out.
>
> I have read some rather lurid details attributed to John in which Brian
> finally made "The pass" and John capitulated, only to have Brian reject
> him, but I can't recall the source, nor was I impressed with its'
> accuracy at the time I read it.
>
> Since neither of them is alive any more, whether it happened or not will
> always be confined to the realm of speculation. I guess it's a matter
> of personal beliefs.
May - do you think you could clear this controversy up for us? THanks!
Abby Dees
: pqc...@ACFcluster.nyu.edu wrote:
: : I don't mean to offend all you straight Beatlemaniacs out there -
: : we all know the Beatles are straight (only John had a brief fling with
: : Brian Epstein, or so I've hear.
: {snip}
: JOHN and BRIAN! My mind has now been blown! Can this be true? Anybody
: with more information on this, please post!
Albert Goldman insisted that J and B had a brief fling while the two were
vacationing in Spain(I think there). It's pretty clear that much of
Epstein's attraction to the Beatles had to do with his personal
attraction to John, but Goldman is definately not to be trusted about
anything Beatle-related. I recall that in some interview, John said that
he was curious about Brian's homosexuality, knew about Brian's feelings
about him, and had some sort of small erotic encounter with him (I think
Brian gave him a blow job, I'm not sure). This would make sense
regardless of John's sexual orientation -- he was curious about life, not
afraid of questioning things, and felt very warm towards Brian (he had
very intimate friendships with men in his early days -- Stu Sutcliffe,
Paul, for example, so it shouldn't come as a surprise that he'd explore
those relationships). There was a film made a few years ago called the
Hours and the Times which was based on this trip J and B took together --
the star, incidently, was the same guy who later played John in Backbeat.
But anyway, the original post was about how the Beatles loosened up our
obsession with rigid gender roles, and the connection to the later gay
liberation movement. This makes a lot of sense, since both the women's
movement and tha gay rights movement came to the fore out of an explosion
of reconsideration about our gender roles in the '60's. The Beatles
represented a whole new kind of sexuality -- one that bothyoung men and
women could relate to on some level. But androginy has *always* been a big
part of rock and roll, so I disagree with the original poster
that this was a totally new thing. Elvis and Little Richard already set
to work on dismanteling the uptight gender mores of the fifties with
their flashy suits,long hair, makeup, and ambiguous sexuality (Jailhouse
Rock come to mind right now). The interesting thing about all of these
performers was that in their shirking of the traditional trappings of
gender, they seemed, in some ways, even more masculine. Big hair does
not a woman make, I always say:)
Abby
--
_______________________________________________________________________________
Abby Dees ab...@netcom.com
NETCOM, the West Coast's Leading Internet Service Provider. (408) 554-8649
ABBYVISION, the Bay Area's Leading Leisure Provider (510) 555-LAZY
Laura J Valentine
[snip]
>
> But anyway, the original post was about how the Beatles loosened up our
> obsession with rigid gender roles, and the connection to the later gay
> liberation movement. This makes a lot of sense, since both the women's
> movement and tha gay rights movement came to the fore out of an explosion
> of reconsideration about our gender roles in the '60's. The Beatles
> represented a whole new kind of sexuality -- one that bothyoung men and
> women could relate to on some level. But androginy has *always* been a big
> part of rock and roll, so I disagree with the original poster
> that this was a totally new thing. Elvis and Little Richard already set
> to work on dismanteling the uptight gender mores of the fifties with
> their flashy suits,long hair, makeup, and ambiguous sexuality (Jailhouse
> Rock come to mind right now). The interesting thing about all of these
> performers was that in their shirking of the traditional trappings of
> gender, they seemed, in some ways, even more masculine. Big hair does
> not a woman make, I always say:)
I would tend to agree with this...I've always found (young) Elvis
almost overwhelmingly male, but I have straight,gay, and bi acquaintances who
find him feminine, and also many who find him androgynous, and many
who are like me, and find him very male indeed. The Beatles strike me
as on the masculine side of androgyny, in case anyone is wondering.
--Random
"Twinkle's a nice word. So's viridian." --Delirium
"Do you want it?" --Jareth
Eddie Elrod
: I've never heard before. I plan on discussing them with a gay friend of
: Beatles' manager, but whether the "Relationship" was ever more than that
: is unknown. John and Brian did go to Spain together one summer, but
According to Peter Brown's book "The Love You Make" there was a one night
stand between the two. Can't quite recall the details but it's in there.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
> eel...@st6000.sct.edu "[witty phrase or quote]" <
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Dumes
Edward J. Igoe <EJI...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>It's well documented that Brian was gay, and much speculated that his
>prediliction to young men was the driving force behind his becoming The
>Beatles' manager, but whether the "Relationship" was ever more than that
>is unknown. John and Brian did go to Spain together one summer, but
>when someone, at one of Paul's birthday parties, accused John of what
>many were assuming happened, a fistfight broke out.
>
>I have read some rather lurid details attributed to John in which Brian
>finally made "The pass" and John capitulated, only to have Brian reject
>him, but I can't recall the source, nor was I impressed with its'
>accuracy at the time I read it.
>
More than likely, you've read the Pete Shotten account. Personally, I
have many problems with Pete's book, and take it with many grains of
salt.
The incident as reported by Pete was a bit different from your account.
If you're curious to read it, I believe Beatlefest has copies of this
pretty inexpensively. My recommendation would be to get the Coleman
book, if you are looking for accuracy.
By the way, it's documented quite well, that he attacked Bob Wooler
at Paul's 21st birthday party after Bob made a joke hinting that John
and Brian had an affair.
Bruce
--
Bruce Dumes | "Edgar Allen Poe. Does he go to our school?"
b...@sw.stratus.com | Merideth Libman - 8th grader at Coehlo Middle School
Philip M Reynolds
I say good on them. Despite Lennon's alleged shout of "Paul's a poof" in
Yellow Submarine, they, and in particular, John, must have been really
supportive in order to have Brian as manager. That's why I want to be in
their band in heaven.
Mind you, I did once hear someone say that "I'll Get You" was in fact Brian's
song about John!
Philip M Reynolds
o ____ Home Internet: ph...@hedgford.demon.co.uk
|L_ \ / Work Internet: P.M.Re...@bham.ac.uk
(_)- \/ If it doesn't say otherwise, the expressed view is mine.
Edward J. Igoe
>Brian's song about John!
>Philip M Reynolds
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned before, but I'd heard that many
consider "You've Got To Hide Your Love Away" as the first Gay Liberation
song... What do y'all think?
Orngyrf Sberire!
--
/---------------------------------------\
|Ed Igoe, aliases: EJI...@IX.NETCOM.COM |
| ~ EJI...@DELPHI.COM |
| O,o Ed Near Balmer |
| \-/ |
\---------------------------------------/
SulfurFury
However I think they proved it to themselves and the world when they got
married to women and even brought them out on stage with them, citing
reasons like she's my best friend so why not.
With the long hair bit, I'm sure it appealed to the side you speak of in
people but the Western world was changing in a broad sense and the boys
were just one part of many of these changes, probably more of an
affirmation.
Most of all I think it helped prove to the masses it was okay to be
different, and that no matter who you are, or what you do to live, strive,
and survive, there's one thing that makes us all the same. You, me,
everybody...
.::...:..::..:..
/----------------\
| Sulfur Fury|
\----------------/
Christopher Andrew Dunn
show. No one told me the "FAB(FAG) FOUR" were breaking down the
"masculine" barriers of that time.
--Dunn
Paul S. Bodine
Long before the Ed Sullivan show, the Beatles themselves were acknowledging
that they drew a mixed crowd: the girls for McCartney's looks, "Paul Ramone"
stage presence; the "guys" for Lennon's Teddy Boy sneer . . .
Brad Thompson
think the Beatles certainly toyed with sexual identity, enough so that the
playwrite Joe Orton, who was writing the screenplay for the follow-up to
HELP! (which was never made), assumed The Beatles were gay simply because
they "are so pretty." In his script UP AGAINST IT, he even had the fab
foursome share a bed, which was nixed by Brian Epstein. Anyway, it should be
worth nothing that John actually submitted a short piece of verse to a gay
liberation handbook in the 70s, and that one of George's best friends and
companions is homosexual. So, now here's some quotes on the subject from
the fab four:
PRESS: Time magazine recently stated that Day Tripper is about a
prostitute and Norwegian Wood about a lesbian, care to comment
on this?
JOHN: We were just trying to write songs about prostitutes and
lesbians.
PRESS: What was the motivation for Eleanor Rigby?
JOHN: Two queers, two barrel boys.
Anyway, let's not forget that the skit John contributed to OH! CALCUTTA
involved a group of men masturbating together, and was drawn from his
childhood experiences of masturbating with his male friends. And, of course,
Ringo and Barbara Bach were supposed to star in a movie in the mid-80s that
cast them as a bi-sexual couple (I don't think it ever got made). So, yes,
I think the Beatles were hip and cool with the sexual version of "the other
half of the sky." I mean, when Paul was busted for pot one time he was
quoted as saying something like, "Pot should be like homosexuality...legal
for adults." Anyway, Mark, the great thing about the Beatles is that they
can mean so many different things to so many different people, so to equate
the Beatles with gay liberation is just another aspect of the freedom and
power of the Beatles message (whatever that may be!). Keep on keepin' on,
Mitch.
__________________
7530 Brompton Rd. #823
Houston, TX 77025
(713) 661-6289
Edward S. Chen
Brad Thompson <brad...@owlnet.rice.edu> wrote:
>
>Anyway, let's not forget that the skit John contributed to OH! CALCUTTA
>involved a group of men masturbating together, and was drawn from his
>childhood experiences of masturbating with his male friends.
Of course, the circumstances in all cases were decidedly heterosexual, and
the mention of "The Lone Ranger" was meant to deflate the event. :-)
>And, of course, Ringo and Barbara Bach were supposed to star in a movie in
>the mid-80s that cast them as a bi-sexual couple (I don't think it ever got
>made). So, yes,
The NBC mini-series "Princess Daisy" (based on the novel of the same name).
It is rarely remembered, but *is* available on video.
<ESC>
--
... The cats were catting, the dogs were dogging, the birds were birding, and
the fish were fishing ...
--- John Lennon
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan D. Woolley
><<Beatles and Gay Liberation>>
>
>In their 1965 Playboy interview, the Fabs committed the following
>indiscretions regarding their attitudes toward homosexuality:
>
>PLAYBOY: "Seriously, is there more homosexuality in England than elsewhere?"
>JOHN: "Are you saying there's more over here than in America?"
HEY! I've been looking for the issue of Playboy with the Beatles
interview for years. Any chance of you posting the whole inter-
view? Granted it would take a lot of time, but I SURE would
appreciate it. Anybody else want to second a motion...? :)
Bryan
no e-mail please
saki
>HEY! I've been looking for the issue of Playboy with the Beatles
>interview for years. Any chance of you posting the whole inter-
>view? Granted it would take a lot of time, but I SURE would
>appreciate it. Anybody else want to second a motion...? :)
Sorry, can't be done. Playboy still holds the copyright on the interview,
and uploading it here would violate that right to distribution, should
Playboy ever elect to reissue it.
Now *that's* not a bad idea. Why not write to Christie Heffner, current
editor, and ask her to consider "The Collected Beatles from Playboy"?
That should include the 1965 interview plus the 1980 Lennon and 1984
McCartney interviews.
Edward S. Chen
Please don't. Playboy Enterprises is on the net, and are starting to
get quite protective of their copyrights. I would suggest a polite
letter to them (arti...@playboy.com) asking for electronic publication
of the 1965 Beatles interview, the complete David Sheff John Lennon interview,
or both. When asked, they said they have "no current plans" to make these
materials available, but a minor netswell might change their mind. (They
have started to put "classic" interviews on-line. Last month they had
their 196X Malcolm X interview on the Web)
Paul S. Bodine
interview. Does anyone now what the allowable limit for quotations from
copyrighted material is--i.e., how much if any is OK to quote?
saki
You may quote a paragraph or less under "fair use" regulations for
analytical or review purposes. Fair use does not violate copyrighted
material, but you (as author of your critical piece) must determine
what you believe to be fair use for illustration of your point.
In a court of law, it's unlikely that anyone could support quoting
an entire article---or half of one, or even a quarter---and expect
to be exonerated on the basis of fair use. You might be able to
get away with as much as two paragraphs under certain circumstances,
but you'd have to prove why it was necessary.
Ted Barret
-> However I think they proved it to themselves and the world when they
-> married to women and even brought them out on stage with them, citing
-> reasons like she's my best friend so why not.
-> With the long hair bit, I'm sure it appealed to the side you speak of
-> people but the Western world was changing in a broad sense and the bo
-> were just one part of many of these changes, probably more of an
-> affirmation.
-> Most of all I think it helped prove to the masses it was okay to be
-> different, and that no matter who you are, or what you do to live, st
-> and survive, there's one thing that makes us all the same. You, me,
-> everybody...
Get the fag bit out of here! WE'll kick yer a$$ for saying this shit
in such a hallowed conference..
David Haber
: -> Most of all I think it helped prove to the masses it was okay to be
: -> different, and that no matter who you are, or what you do to live, st
: -> and survive, there's one thing that makes us all the same. You, me,
: -> everybody...
: Get the fag bit out of here! WE'll kick yer a$$ for saying this shit
: in such a hallowed conference..
How you can you be a Beatles fan and think that way? Didn't you learn
ANYTHING from them? They openly didn't care that Brian was homosexual,
and they, and especially John, taught LOVE above all else, for everyone or
everything, or we all should perish.
I feel sorry for you, but I still love you. I hope someday you can put
aside your hatred and love us all, too.
-Dave
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
dha...@primenet.com
WWW Pages: The Beatles - http://www.primenet.com/~dhaber/beatles.html
The Rutles - http://www.primenet.com/~dhaber/rutles.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be" - John Lennon
"Love is the meaning of life, life is the meaning of love" - Ron Nasty
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
M. Burtch -- Internet Flunky
I have had no doubts about John's sexuality and his preference
for the female population.
May Pang
May, I'd like to ask a question sort of related to this. I hope that
my question isn't out of line.
My friend (who's Asian American) and I were wondering if John had a
preference (or "thing" or "fetish" or whatever the proper word would
be) for Asian women. She says that this isn't uncommon, and cited a
few rockers who really like Asian or Asian American women (Chris Isaak
and Perry Ferrell being the only two I can recall). For the record, my
friend didn't think this was a bad thing; she was entirely neutral
about it.
Again, I hope I haven't offended anyone by asking. My apologies if
I've said anything untoward.
Thanks,
Matthew
Aaron Bucky
Barret) wrote:
> Get the fag bit out of here! WE'll kick yer a$$ for saying this shit
> in such a hallowed conference..
Get the homophobic bigotry out of here, please. I'm sure most people here
find your comments much more offensive than the ones you were responding
to. Most peole on this newsgroup, by the way, are not the sort who would
go around kicking people's asses just because they are a bit different
from others--let alone people who just mentioned one of the ways some
people are different (namely, homosexuality).
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron "Yes, I _do_ change my .sig from time to time" Bucky
"Arthur." --George Harrison (abu...@haverford.edu)
Gm7add11 "Give us a kiss." --John Lennon
EADGBE "Well, no, actually we're just friends." --Paul McCartney
353533 "It's my active compensatory factor." --Ringo Starr
Dener
>
> But for me, and for many others, I think the Beatles image back
> in 1964 when they burst on the American scene was conducive to Gay
> Liberation.
>
Well, we think that Beatles were the initiating event of many many
things, however not intentionally.
Their impact on modern society has been sooo deep and wide that maybe
they could have done this too.
However, their attitude toward gays was not so modern, see for instance
how Lennon used to joke Brian Epstein about him being gay.
We think that people may do good things unintennionally, however...
Max and Val
zucc...@polito.it
Brian Fulgham
>In article <D5HLw...@tc.fluke.COM> vg...@tc.fluke.COM (Bryan D. Woolley) writes:
>Sorry, can't be done. Playboy still holds the copyright on the interview,
>and uploading it here would violate that right to distribution, should
>Playboy ever elect to reissue it.
Have you ever made a copy of a tape or CD? I think that is also a
copyright violation (of course you don't make it available to thousands
of people) but thats what the anon service is for! Someone post it!
saki
Copies of CDs or tapes can be made without copyright violation for *home
use only*.
Copies of such material, as well as published articles (which have been
researched, composed, edited, and sweated over by some hard-working
author), are protected by the very copyright regulations you're telling
us to break. Do you see a point in respecting an author's or artist's
work, and his/her rights to that work?
If not, I wouldn't expect you to understand the distinction. :-)
And it should also be mentioned that the "anon" services are not
intended for fraudulent use. Maintainers of those services would
run afoul of international property rights if they knowingly
permitted such transgressions.
The Internet is a curious hotbed of interconnections, and its users
all have implied rights to their own on-line work. I'm sure if you
wrote a piece and labored mightily to bring it to electronic fruition,
you would likely expect the same courtesy from all of us.
Edward S. Chen
Thousands? Try hundreds of thousands. Copyright is a *very* serious
matter on the net. Those of us who take the time to write articles
of significance (such as rmb's generally well-acknowledged FAQ series)
like the credit they are due, and want the ability (should we see fit)
to possibly publish our works some day. The only way that is possible is
via adherence to copyright law.
Abby Dees
: Get the fag bit out of here! WE'll kick yer a$$ for saying this shit
: in such a hallowed conference..
I'm just going to assume that this is a wry joke.
--
_______________________________________________________________________________
Abby Dees ab...@netcom.com
NETCOM, the West Coast's Leading Internet Service Provider. (408) 554-8649
ABBYVISION, the Bay Area's Leading Leisure Provider (510) 555-LAZY
Abby Dees
: I am the person who quoted a few lines from the 1965 Playboy Beatles
: interview. Does anyone now what the allowable limit for quotations from
: copyrighted material is--i.e., how much if any is OK to quote?
Just like school -- give citations, and don't take credit for it if it's
not yours. I think you passed.
Paul S. Bodine
library would have this on microfilm: feb 1965, pp. 51-60.
Playboy: OK, we're on. Why don't we begin by . . .
Lennon: Doing Hamlet.
(laughter)
Paul S. Bodine
format--referred to as "electronic rights"--is currently a hot issue in
publishing because of the trend toward transferring printed pieces to formats
such as CD-ROM. Some publishers have used print pieces in electronic media
without taking into account compensation for the author . . .
Stevemarin
in its entirety (with pictures) in the CD-ROM "The Playboy Interview:
Three Decades", which includes not only that but the first 352 interviews
Playboy published. That includes the ones with John and Yoko, Paul and
Linda, Allen Klein, the '60s one with Dylan, David Bowie, Groucho Marx,
Keith Richards and the list goes on. I paid $30 for this (at Comp USA) and
have gotten a lot of enjoyment out of this... it's well worth the price.
Far as I know, it's only available in a Windows version. The disc has
hyperlinks between the different interviews, too. Only downside is you
can't make printouts of the complete interviews, though you can save
selected excerpts to text files. The disc also has audio clips from some
of the interviews, including a clip from the John and Yoko interview.
"I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together"
Highlander
>
> pqc...@ACFcluster.nyu.edu wrote:
> : I don't mean to offend all you straight Beatlemaniacs out there -
> : we all know the Beatles are straight (only John had a brief fling with
> : Brian Epstein, or so I've hear.
> {snip}
>
>
> JOHN and BRIAN! My mind has now been blown! Can this be true? Anybody
> with more information on this, please post!
>
> thanks...i guess, my mind is still reeling from the shock!
> --
> *******************************************************************
> * Charles A. Eckert * "What in hell are people *for*?" *
> * cec...@epix.net * --Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. *
> * Mac dude with an attitude * in God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater *
> *******************************************************************
I have read about this but the only book that I remember reading this
in was Goldman's book. From what everybody says about Goldman I no
longer know if I should believe this to be true.
Michael
Fred Gurzeler
Fulgham) wrote:
A verbatim post might be illegal, but a paraphrasing isn't or even short
excerpts.
Fred
Aaron Bucky
<high...@wchat.on.ca> wrote:
> cec...@news.epix.net (Charles A. Eckert) wrote:
> >
> > pqc...@ACFcluster.nyu.edu wrote:
> > : I don't mean to offend all you straight Beatlemaniacs out there -
> > : we all know the Beatles are straight (only John had a brief fling with
> > : Brian Epstein, or so I've hear.
> > {snip}
> >
> >
> > JOHN and BRIAN! My mind has now been blown! Can this be true? Anybody
> > with more information on this, please post!
I believe that (to steal a phrase from George) "It's just a ruuumor."
Debby Nowicki
thing is that there are really only 2 people who really know
what did or didn't happen and they are both dead.
Robert Young
Nowicki) wrote:
Edgar Cayce and The Amazing Kreskin?