The Avant Garde Beatle
fabella
Taylor and Neil Aspinall, (by Mark Lewisohn), in the section
where they
are describing the very beginning of Apple Records, I just came
across this interesting quote. Since the question being asked was
not about which Beatle was avant garde in the sense it has been
debated here, I found it even more revealing.
Mark: So they were pretty involved in the record label at the
first...
Derek: They crossed over a bit too ...if one of them... wasn't
making a lot of progress then another would take over. That
happened with Jackie Lomax. I'm sure Jackie Lomax was produced
by George and Paul. And memos would come in with long
suggestions as to how Jackie could be promoted, from Paul... I
mean this was a busy man, not only making Beatle records...
Neil: At the same time, we had John and Yoko on the ground floor
with all their projects, with John's wedding album and Two
Virgins and Life With the Lions and Bagism and *all the rest of
the avante garde stuff John was into.*
Just thought the participants in the "revisionist" debate would
sind this interesting.
Francie
http://sites.netscape.net/fabest
"Frantic orthodoxy is never rooted in faith, but in doubt. It is when
we are not sure that we are doubly sure." -- Reinhold Niebuhr
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
lstoll
>
> Neil: At the same time, we had John and Yoko on the ground
> floor with all their projects, with John's wedding album and
> Two Virgins and Life With the Lions and Bagism and *all the
> rest of the avante garde stuff John was into.*
>
> Just thought the participants in the "revisionist" debate
> would sind this interesting.
Now, Francie, don't be silly. Even though Paul is a real pain on this
subject he hasn't said that John was never into such things, just that
he was interested before John was and that John didn't really dive into
it until he met Yoko. -laura
fabella
In article <38F687...@lstoll.com>, lstoll <la...@lstoll.com>
wrote:
Sorry, no sale. If Paul had been into anything that could be
described as avant garde, he would have been producing it the day
Apple opened its doors. I never said Paul denied John was *ever*
into avant garde stuff. I don't buy "he was interested before
John
was" and I surely don't buy that John didn't 'dive in' until he
met Yoko. Part of what made the meeting of John and Yoko so great
for John was a *shared interest* in experimental art, music and
performances.
It's very clear in all the descriptions of the Beatles by Derek
and Neil (both of whom knew them from Day One) in this 90 minute
interview that Paul was much more on the commercial side as far
as art and music were concerned, and that John was the
"wacky far out one". It makes a lot more sense that Paul would
put me to work with Derek because he picked up on my
commercial art and design education, and that we shared an
interest in applied arts and art direction. Two plus two will
never
make five, Laura.
d.
<waronsex...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> Sorry, no sale. If Paul had been into anything that could be
> described as avant garde, he would have been producing it the day
> Apple opened its doors.
Well, there was Zapple, the label introduced in early 1969. In the end it only
wound up releasing John and Yoko and George's "Electronic Sound" but it
initially had much more wide-ranging goals, including spoken word recordings by
Lawrence Ferlinghetti and Michael McClure, as well as musical 'esoterica.' Paul
was very much involved in the conception and execution of the idea to have such
releases coming out under Apple. The head of the label was Paul's friend Barry
Miles.
> I never said Paul denied John was *ever*
> into avant garde stuff. I don't buy "he was interested before
> John was"
However, that he *was* interested in things arty and unusual, and as far back as
1964-65ish, is irrefutable. All it takes, Francie, is an open mind and a little
research. For instance, were you aware that in spring of 1966 Paul set up a
recording studio in Ringo's Montagu Square apartment for the purposes of letting
artists work on experimental pieces? William Burroughs used the studio a lot.
Now, no GREAT recordings were made there, and Paul didn't pursue this actively
at Apple a couple of years later aside from setting up a couple of divisions of
Apple which dealt with , but that may just have been that Paul realized his
particular talent was in doing what he knew best. Doesn't mean he didn't
experiment himself and it doesn't mean he had no interest in the fine arts.
> and I surely don't buy that John didn't 'dive in' until he
> met Yoko. Part of what made the meeting of John and Yoko so great
> for John was a *shared interest* in experimental art, music and
> performances.
What constantly amazes me with you and a few other people here is the almost
religious embracing of absolutes. Of course John was interested in the cutting
edge; he was John Lennon for Christ's sake.
> It's very clear in all the descriptions of the Beatles by Derek
> and Neil (both of whom knew them from Day One) in this 90 minute
> interview that Paul was much more on the commercial side as far
> as art and music were concerned, and that John was the
> "wacky far out one".
Tell us something new, please. But once again we run up against this
absolutism.
> It makes a lot more sense that Paul would
> put me to work with Derek because he picked up on my
> commercial art and design education, and that we shared an
> interest in applied arts and art direction.
And this is relevant *how*?
It's funny, you're always lecturing on how Paul could never have any *real*
interest in the fine arts - a demonstrably incorrect claim, as anyone who does
the most minute bit of research into his life and work could discover - and the
reason you give here is that his primary focus was/is applied art and that his
released work is largely mainstream. What kind of logic is that, Francie?
You're basically saying that it's impossible for people (or perhaps just
McCartney) to have outside influences and interests.
--
d.
fabella
In article <northcut-E285B4...@news.mindspring.com>,
"d." <nort...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>In article <0ce12faa...@usw-ex0104-033.remarq.com>,
fabella
><waronsex...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Sorry, no sale. If Paul had been into anything that could be
>> described as avant garde, he would have been producing it the
day
>> Apple opened its doors.
>
>Well, there was Zapple, the label introduced in early 1969. In
the end it only
>wound up releasing John and Yoko and George's "Electronic
Sound" but it
>initially had much more wide-ranging goals, including spoken
word recordings by
>Lawrence Ferlinghetti and Michael McClure, as well as musical
'esoterica.' Paul
>was very much involved in the conception and execution of the
idea to have such
>releases coming out under Apple. The head of the label was
Paul's friend Barry
>Miles.
>
Both Neil and Derek make no mention of Barry Miles, (where did
you read this, in MYFN?) although they do talk about Zapple in
detail. They do not credit anyone in particular with the
concept, but Neil says nothing very much happened. A minor
point, at
best, since Allen Klein wiped it out because of its unlikely
profit potential.
>> I never said Paul denied John was *ever*
>> into avant garde stuff. I don't buy "he was interested before
>> John was"
>
>However, that he *was* interested in things arty and unusual,
and as far back as
>1964-65ish, is irrefutable.
Irrefutable? In what way? He bought the Rene Magritte paintings
that gave him the inspiration for the name of the company in late
1967 or early '68 according to Neil Aspinall: There were *no*
art books in his house, and he never mentioned even the idea of
going to a gallery or a museum in the entire 5 months I knew
him. He was no more interested in 'arty and/or unusual things'
than
the average person on the street. He learned nearly everything
he knew about modern art from Jane Asher. Owning a few
paintings is hardly any indication of a genuine interest.
All it takes, Francie, is an open mind and a little
>research.
Again, it doesn't surprise me to hear you suggesting that I do a
little research. In which books did you find these verifications
of his
interest?
For instance, were you aware that in spring of 1966 Paul set up a
>recording studio in Ringo's Montagu Square apartment for the
purposes of letting
>artists work on experimental pieces?
Did you read this in Barry Miles's book on Burroughs?
William Burroughs used the studio a lot.
For what? Again, is this according to Miles?
>Now, no GREAT recordings were made there, and Paul didn't
pursue this actively
>at Apple a couple of years later aside from setting up a couple
of divisions of
>Apple which dealt with , but that may just have been that Paul
realized his
>particular talent was in doing what he knew best. Doesn't mean
he didn't
>experiment himself and it doesn't mean he had no interest in
the fine arts.
People who are interested in modern art usually have at least
one or two magazines or books in their homes indicating such
interest; Paul had none. Your vague statement about divisions of
Apple set up by Paul must have come from MYFN or interviews
since John's death, but I was working at Apple during its
formation, and Paul was never more than a good talker as far as
the fine
arts were concerned, in the office. The art department consisted
mainly of the Fool, who had been connected to a theatre Brian
Epstein had once owned. Paul had a good eye for design, and good
taste in commercial art, but the mid-sixties were explosively
artistic in advertising and design: he picked up a great deal as
most of us did, through advertising and promotions.
>
>> and I surely don't buy that John didn't 'dive in' until he
>> met Yoko. Part of what made the meeting of John and Yoko so
great
>> for John was a *shared interest* in experimental art, music
and
>> performances.
>
>What constantly amazes me with you and a few other people here
is the almost
>religious embracing of absolutes. Of course John was
interested in the cutting
>edge; he was John Lennon for Christ's sake.
>
What absolutes are you referring to? Paul's absolute need to
reinvent himself retrospectively? I'd say you're missing the
main point
at which Paul's interest in art sprang forth: he married Linda,
whose father represented some of the top modern artists in the
world,
and learned about modern painting through her.
>> It's very clear in all the descriptions of the Beatles by
Derek
>> and Neil (both of whom knew them from Day One) in this 90
minute
>> interview that Paul was much more on the commercial side as
far
>> as art and music were concerned, and that John was the
>> "wacky far out one".
>
>Tell us something new, please. But once again we run up
against this
>absolutism.
>
Specifically what absolutism are you talking about? Do you know
what absolutism means?
>> It makes a lot more sense that Paul would
>> put me to work with Derek because he picked up on my
>> commercial art and design education, and that we shared an
>> interest in applied arts and art direction.
>
>And this is relevant *how*?
Paul was a sponge when it came to his close relationships. He
knew how to put me in a position where I could make the best
contribution to the building of his company. I knew how his mind
worked, and we talked about his ideas quite a bit. None of them
had anything to do with fine arts. That's how it's relevant.
>
>It's funny, you're always lecturing on how Paul could never
have any *real*
>interest in the fine arts - a demonstrably incorrect claim, as
anyone who does
>the most minute bit of research into his life and work could
discover - and the
>reason you give here is that his primary focus was/is applied
art and that his
>released work is largely mainstream. What kind of logic is
that, Francie?
>You're basically saying that it's impossible for people (or
perhaps just
>McCartney) to have outside influences and interests.
>
I'm not *basically* saying anything of the sort. Paul's released
work *is* largely mainstream. Even his paintings are mainstream,
as
his primary influences (deKooning, Bacon, Kandinsky, Chagall
etc) are mainstream twentieth century painters, who were avant
garde before Paul was born. Please don't generalize about what I
have to say on this subject. Just go out and buy the upcoming
book of his artwork, sit down with a good art history book, and
open your eyes.
Jeff Mills
way, I don't think any less of Paul being more commercial than John. And I
think John kind of resented it because he was afraid that Paul had eclipsed
his popularity as the leader of the Beatles. Even into his solo career,
Paul was getting the #1's while John's greatest songs like "Imagine" didn't
even make #1. The first #1 for John was "Whatever gets you thru the night"
in 1974.
From what I know of him, John was very hard on himself. He had a very
strange personality, I think. One side of him had a big ego and was very
confident and somewhat arrogant, the other side was this insecure person who
was often his own worse critic. But as far as these discussions go on "Who
was more commercial?" or "Who was the avant garde Beatle"? I'd say that
John was much more involved than Paul. I believe Paul said in that "Many
years from now" book that he didn't get too into it but that he liked avant
garde stuff. So, perhaps he liked it but John was more involved? Either
way, both men were great and a hundred years from now no one will care about
which one was more avant garde. The music speaks for itself.
d.
<waronsex...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> In article <northcut-E285B4...@news.mindspring.com>,
> "d." <nort...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >Well, there was Zapple, the label introduced in early 1969. In
> the end it only
> >wound up releasing John and Yoko and George's "Electronic
> Sound" but it
> >initially had much more wide-ranging goals, including spoken
> word recordings by
> >Lawrence Ferlinghetti and Michael McClure, as well as musical
> 'esoterica.' Paul
> >was very much involved in the conception and execution of the
> idea to have such
> >releases coming out under Apple. The head of the label was
> Paul's friend Barry
> >Miles.
> >
>
> Both Neil and Derek make no mention of Barry Miles, (where did
> you read this, in MYFN?) although they do talk about Zapple in
> detail. They do not credit anyone in particular with the
> concept, but Neil says nothing very much happened. A minor
> point, at best, since Allen Klein wiped it out because of its unlikely
> profit potential.
Oh, the irony there. Who wanted Allen Klein in there in the first place? Hint:
it wasn't Mr. Commercial.
As usual you sidestep the point, which was that the label did exist, and that it
existed with very high-minded goals.
> >> I never said Paul denied John was *ever*
> >> into avant garde stuff. I don't buy "he was interested before
> >> John was"
> >
> >However, that he *was* interested in things arty and unusual,
> and as far back as
> >1964-65ish, is irrefutable.
>
> Irrefutable? In what way?
Must I go through this again? If you don't want to take the word of readily
available books such as Schaffner's "The Beatles Forever" which discuss his
involvement and interest, and if you want to discount "Many Years From Now" as
100% fiction, then you can take the time to go to contemporary sources: books,
magazines and newspaper articles from the mid-60's. I've got a friend with a
fantastic collection of cuttings scrapbooks from Britain, made at the time. I'm
sure she'd be happy to let you visit her and go through them.
> He bought the Rene Magritte paintings
> that gave him the inspiration for the name of the company in late
> 1967 or early '68 according to Neil Aspinall:
Neil was probably not adhering to strict dating here. :) McCartney began buying
Magrittes in 1966. He had at least one in late spring of 1967 when he first met
Linda.
> There were *no* art books in his house, and he never mentioned even the idea of
> going to a gallery or a museum in the entire 5 months I knew
> him.
Busy making the White Album, running Apple, etc.?
> He was no more interested in 'arty and/or unusual things'
> than the average person on the street.
*sigh* So where did "Sgt. Pepper" come from, Francie?
> He learned nearly everything
> he knew about modern art from Jane Asher.
<stares at Francie>
His "minor" (for lack of a better term) at school was art. There are paintings
and drawings done by him, reproduced in Mike McCartney's books. Jane introduced
him to people actually making the cutting-edge stuff but to say he had no prior
knowledge or interest in art is complete, total and utter rubbish. Besides his
own *documented* interest, he was in the Beatles. You know, that same band with
Stu Sutcliffe and John Lennon; that band who hung out with the Exis in Hamburg.
You're the one doing revisionism here, and I can't quite figure out why. What
you're doing is going beyond revisionism - you're trying to further the myth
that McCartney was an empty-headed prettyboy with nothing but an eye on the
charts. This goes against even your own book. You're contradicting *yourself*
here.
> Again, it doesn't surprise me to hear you suggesting that I do a
> little research.
And I will keep suggesting it, although I know you won't do it because it will
not support your version of the "truth."
> In which books did you find these verifications
> of his interest?
*any* decently-researched Beatles book will contain at least some references to
this; if you want to verify what these books say, then I suggest again you turn
to contemporary sources. This would be the case for anything.
> >For instance, were you aware that in spring of 1966 Paul set up a
> >recording studio in Ringo's Montagu Square apartment for the
> >purposes of letting artists work on experimental pieces?
>
> Did you read this in Barry Miles's book on Burroughs?
>
> > William Burroughs used the studio a lot.
>
>
> For what? Again, is this according to Miles?
To make experimental-sound tapes, woman. What do you think? And yes, it's
according to Miles - if you say this is untrue, can you please point me in the
direction of something to verify that?
> People who are interested in modern art usually have at least
> one or two magazines or books in their homes indicating such
> interest; Paul had none.
My friends run one of the most cutting-edge galleries in this city, Eyedrum.
They are aritists and musicians themselves. Their homes are not filled with
modern art magazines. Some people *do* and *are*, Francie, and don't have to
try to impress people by putting out "proof" on their coffee tables.
> What absolutes are you referring to? Paul's absolute need to
> reinvent himself retrospectively? I'd say you're missing the
> main point at which Paul's interest in art sprang forth: he married Linda,
> whose father represented some of the top modern artists in the
> world, and learned about modern painting through her.
I can't even believe you're saying this. Earlier, you said Jane got him into
art. Now, you're saying Linda did. You don't even know what you're talking
about. You're just arguing.
> >> It's very clear in all the descriptions of the Beatles by
> Derek
> >> and Neil (both of whom knew them from Day One) in this 90
> minute
> >> interview that Paul was much more on the commercial side as
> far
> >> as art and music were concerned, and that John was the
> >> "wacky far out one".
> >
> >Tell us something new, please. But once again we run up
> against this
> >absolutism.
> >
>
> Specifically what absolutism are you talking about? Do you know
> what absolutism means?
Yes, it's the principle of absolute power of government. In your case I threw
it out there as a way of saying that you have a very narrow, absolute,
unyielding way of viewing things. You won't see that there are shades of gray.
> >> It makes a lot more sense that Paul would
> >> put me to work with Derek because he picked up on my
> >> commercial art and design education, and that we shared an
> >> interest in applied arts and art direction.
> >
> >And this is relevant *how*?
>
> Paul was a sponge when it came to his close relationships. He
> knew how to put me in a position where I could make the best
> contribution to the building of his company. I knew how his mind
> worked, and we talked about his ideas quite a bit. None of them
> had anything to do with fine arts. That's how it's relevant.
Of course it had nothing to do with fine arts. Must *everything* in his life
have had to do with fine arts in order for there to be an interest there? I
still see nothing relevant in this little tidbit aside from you throwing it in
there to remind everyone that you were there.
oh, and about your new claim that you were employed by Apple in May of '68 - you
ribbed me for going by the timeline in your book. I suppose now this is an
admission that "Body Count" contains outright fabrications.
> >It's funny, you're always lecturing on how Paul could never
> have any *real*
> >interest in the fine arts - a demonstrably incorrect claim, as
> anyone who does
> >the most minute bit of research into his life and work could
> discover - and the
> >reason you give here is that his primary focus was/is applied
> art and that his
> >released work is largely mainstream. What kind of logic is
> that, Francie?
> >You're basically saying that it's impossible for people (or
> perhaps just
> >McCartney) to have outside influences and interests.
> >
>
> I'm not *basically* saying anything of the sort. Paul's released
> work *is* largely mainstream. Even his paintings are mainstream,
> as his primary influences (deKooning, Bacon, Kandinsky, Chagall
> etc) are mainstream twentieth century painters, who were avant
> garde before Paul was born.
And these painters are *still* controversial in some quarters. deKooning and
Bacon were not avant garde before Paul was born; they were vibrant, alive and
"avant garde" in their own time, which overlapped Paul's time. Bacon is *not*
mainstream to this day, and the suggestion that anyone considers Chagall or
Kandinsky "safe" is mind-blowing. I do give you credit for realizing and
admitting that Paul's own paintings do have the influence of these painters.
> Please don't generalize about what I
> have to say on this subject. Just go out and buy the upcoming
> book of his artwork, sit down with a good art history book, and
> open your eyes.
Which one would you suggest? I do have a BFA: it was a multimedia major with a
an equal exposure of drawing/painting and new media such as computer graphics
and video. I had four years of art history classes as well, and I have kept all
of my textbooks.
--
d.
Lord Tim Brent
>However, that he *was* interested in things arty and unusual, and as far back as
>1964-65ish, is irrefutable. All it takes, Francie, is an open mind and a little
>research. For instance, were you aware that in spring of 1966 Paul set up a
>recording studio in Ringo's Montagu Square apartment for the purposes of letting
>artists work on experimental pieces? William Burroughs used the studio a lot.
>Now, no GREAT recordings were made there, and Paul didn't pursue this actively
>at Apple a couple of years later aside from setting up a couple of divisions of
>Apple which dealt with , but that may just have been that Paul realized his
>particular talent was in doing what he knew best. Doesn't mean he didn't
>experiment himself and it doesn't mean he had no interest in the fine arts.
>
My problem with Paul and the fine arts is that I've always wondered whether he
was interested in it because he liked it or if it was part of his need to be a
social climber,i.e.,appear to have an interest in the fine arts to impress those
in the social stataus he wished to be in,i.e. your drawing-room society/longhair
types,such as Jane's folks.
By this,I mean of the four he has always seemed the most embarassed about his
background(living in a council house,etc.),whereas the other three seem
comfortable about their background of lower-middle class/working class.After
all,he worked hardest on stuff like getting a RP accent,instead of his natural
Scouse accent.Has always seemed to need to be seen as upper-crust.Of the four,he
is the one that needed stuff like the MBE and his knoghthood more,so as to be
seen to be 'respectable',i.e. upper-class.
Tim
----------------------
Duchy of Grand Fenwick
fabella
illogical you appear.
I have no desire to ridicule you; it would be far too easy.
Suffice it to say, your "well-researched" opinions of Paul
McCartney's deep interest in modern art come from third and
fourth-hand
sources... and your knowledge of deKooning, Bacon, and certainly
Chagall is woefully lacking.
By the time Paul McCartney even knew who DeKooning *was*, the
painter was part of the abstract expressionist establishment.
And no offense intended, but Paul was a high school dropout.
People who love modern art usually read art criticism and
history.
When I spoke of the fact that he owned no art books and
subscribed to no magazines (and there were many many great
magazines during the mid-Sixties) I was not talking about what
was on his coffee table.
You prefer to contradict Neil Aspinall's memory in order to
support your informed opinion? Fine. It makes no difference when
Paul
McCartney bought his first Magritte: at the time, he was under
the influence of Jane Asher, a woman of fine tastes and a superb
education.
But please, say no more about your knowledge of Paul McCartney.
The more you argue the point, the more you sound like you are
either a conflicted soul, or an incredible jerk.
fabella
In article <38f717e4...@news.cis.dfn.de>,
Bang on, Lord T! I have been reluctant to write about Paul's
inverse snobbery and social-climbing. This aspect of his
personality is
so unseemly. And it informs his recent reinvention of himself as
the "deep" Beatle in matters of culture. He was never comfortable
in his own skin.
lstoll
>
> There were *no* art books in his house,
> and he never mentioned even the idea of
> going to a gallery or a museum in the entire
> ested in 'arty and/or unusual things' than
> the average person on the street. He learned
> nearly everything he knew about modern art
> from Jane Asher. Owning a few paintings is
> hardly any indication of a genuine interest.
> What absolutes are you referring to? Paul's
> absolute need to reinvent himself retrospectively?
> I'd say you're missing the main point at which
> Paul's interest in art sprang forth: he married
> Linda, whose father represented some of the top
> modern artists in the world, and learned about
> modern painting through her.
Francie, you seem to be saying that Paul never had much of an interest
in fine art (modern or otherwise) Jane and Linda introduced him to it.
You also seem to believe that, unlike John and George, Paul was never
interested in avant garde/experimental/electronic music.
You're entitled to believe that such interests have been fabricated by
him in recent years, however there's considerable evidence from mid-60s
sources and people other than Paul or Miles that you're mistaken.
Although I don't have the link many here read the old George Martin
interview that's now online. In it he mentioned that Paul was the first
Beatle to experiment with tape loops before or at the latest during the
time Revolver was being recorded.
Here's an excerpt from a series of articles by Mike McCartney about his
brother:
Woman, August, 1965
PORTRAIT OF PAUL
What interested him most was art - he was crazy about painting. Still
is, in fact. At times we thought we had a boy Michelangelo on our
hands.
Paul is still very serious about his painting and his room at home is
decorated with his efforts. His most ambitious work is an eight foot
tall portrait of a bizarre, cubist-looking woman, done in different
sections.
___
From a 1966 story/interview by Maureen Cleave:
He is fascinated by composers like Stockhausen and Luciano Berio; he is
most anxious to write electronic music himself, lacks only the machines.
He is fascinated by the work of the French playwright Alfred Jarry (Ubu
Cocu, Ubu Roi) and keeps urging Brian Epstein to stage them here. He
would like to paint, he would like to write. Indeed, heaven knows what
he is painting and writing and in what disguise at this very moment.
___
William Burroughs had already done a lot of tape experimentation
elsewhere before Paul set up the Montagu Square studio, but while there
Burroughs worked on some stereo experiments referred to as "Hello, Yes,
Hello" with Ian Sommerville who was the person Paul had managing the
place and who had previously been Burroughs's partner and lover. This is
all according to MYFN, but Burroughs is quoted as saying that he saw
Paul at the studio several times and that the three of them (Sommerville
being the third) discussed the possibilities of the tape recorder.
___
Some admittedly rambling excerpts from a McCartney interview for the
inaugural issue (January 1967) of International Times:
...my aim seems to be to distort it, distort it from what we know it as,
even with music and visual things and to change it from what it is to
see what it could be. To see the potential in it all. To take a note and
wreck it and see in that note what else there is in it, what that a
simple act like distorting it has caused. To take a film and to
superimpose on top of it so you can't quite tell what it is any more...
To bang one note on the piano, instead of trying to put millions of
notes into it, and just to take the one note of the piano and listen to
it, shows you what there is in one note. There's so much going on in one
note, but you never listen to it! So many harmonics buzzing around...
If a film comes on that's superimposed and doesn't seem to mean anything
immediately it's weird
or it's strange or it's a bit funny to most people, and they tend to
laugh at it. The immediate reaction would be a laugh and that's wrong...
We've been in the lucky position of having our childhood ambitions
fulfilled. We've got the big house and big car and everything. So then,
you stand on the plank having reached the end of space, and you look
across the wall and there's more space... a complete different scene
there...
This is the gap in electronics. There are quite a few people that are
prepared for the next sound, they are ready to be led to the next move.
The next move seems to be things like electronics because it's a
complete new field and there's a lot of good new sounds to be listened
to in it...
But you've got to [search] out these people, you've got to look much
more, because Stockhausen isn't played on Radio London every day...
I don't think it would be very easy to say to people, "Don't you think
it's possible that the scene that someone like Albert Ayler or
Stockhausen is getting into isn't necessarily a bad scene. It's not
necessarily what you think it is, isn't necessarily weird. Why is it
weird? It's weird because you don't know about it, because it's a bit
strange to you.
____
-laura
fabella
In article <38F767...@lstoll.com>, lstoll <la...@lstoll.com>
wrote:
This thread was about "avant garde" as used by Neil Aspinall. I
have never said Paul wasn't "interested" in experimental music.
Like most Geminis, he was "interested" in *everything* that
might be discussed at a chic, in-crowd party. He was
*interested* in the
clarinet when he was 20. Let's not weave all over the pond, here.
>You're entitled to believe that such interests have been
fabricated by
>him in recent years, however there's considerable evidence from
mid-60s
>sources and people other than Paul or Miles that you're
mistaken.
>
>Although I don't have the link many here read the old George
Martin
>interview that's now online. In it he mentioned that Paul was
the first
>Beatle to experiment with tape loops before or at the latest
during the
>time Revolver was being recorded.
>
Tape loops and who went first is really not much of a point of
discussion here. That's been beaten to death, Laura. I say look
and
listen to the music that was released under the aegis of the
Beatles. And if one more person brings out that tired old
"Celebration
of Light" thingy, I'm gonna hurl!
>Here's an excerpt from a series of articles by Mike McCartney
about his
>brother:
>Woman, August, 1965
>PORTRAIT OF PAUL
> What interested him most was art - he was crazy about
painting. Still
>is, in fact. At times we thought we had a boy Michelangelo on
our
>hands.
> Paul is still very serious about his painting and his room at
home is
>decorated with his efforts. His most ambitious work is an
eight foot
>tall portrait of a bizarre, cubist-looking woman, done in
different
>sections.
>___
Clearly, Mike is talking about Paul's childhood interest in
drawing and painting. So?
>
>From a 1966 story/interview by Maureen Cleave:
>He is fascinated by composers like Stockhausen and Luciano
Berio; he is
>most anxious to write electronic music himself, lacks only the
machines.
>He is fascinated by the work of the French playwright Alfred
Jarry (Ubu
>Cocu, Ubu Roi) and keeps urging Brian Epstein to stage them
here. He
>would like to paint, he would like to write. Indeed, heaven
knows what
>he is painting and writing and in what disguise at this very
moment.
>___
And who do you think told Maureen Cleave about all this? A very
poor bit of "evidence" - reads like she wants to get a little
closer
to the cute Beatle, who knows how to charm the pants off of any
woman when he wants.
>
>William Burroughs had already done a lot of tape experimentation
>elsewhere before Paul set up the Montagu Square studio, but
while there
>Burroughs worked on some stereo experiments referred to as
"Hello, Yes,
>Hello" with Ian Sommerville who was the person Paul had
managing the
>place and who had previously been Burroughs's partner and
lover. This is
>all according to MYFN, but Burroughs is quoted as saying that
he saw
>Paul at the studio several times and that the three of them
(Sommerville
>being the third) discussed the possibilities of the tape
recorder.
>___
They discussed... Paul delegated studio management to Burroughs'
lover... Burroughs is quoted (by?) as saying he saw Paul at the
studio... fluffy at best, and at worst, this could easily be
interpreted as more "Beat" social climbing. Paul would have
driven
Burroughs to distraction, as Old Bill was very into cute boy
butts and heroin at the time... Incidentally, I am reading
Burroughs final
diaries right now, and have read everytrhing he has ever
written. In fact, a British artist I was living with in San
Francisco in the early
70s was Burroughs' protege for an illustrated novel that never
came to pass. I doubt Paul ever read "Naked Lunch" and even
further, doubt he would have dug it, in part or overall. We're
arguing about a basically conservative Northern bloke here!
>
>Some admittedly rambling excerpts from a McCartney interview
for the
>inaugural issue (January 1967) of International Times:
>
<snip wonderful bullshit>
He must have smoked some really good shit before he gave the IT
interview, hahahahaha!
What a person "discusses" (or let's just say when a great
bullshit artist gets into a groove) may bear no relation to what
that person *
loves*. Whenever I hear someone, anyone, say "Oh, I'm really
interested in modern art - I love Picasso" I know I'm dealing
with a
pretender.
Reading all those interviews and esepcially plowing through the
whole of MYFN seems like an exhausting way of ingesting thirty
years of image polishing. Take it from one who has lived with
the man. He did what he wanted with his days off. None of it
indicated any interest in art, avant garde or otherwise.
BTW, none of this is to say that John Lennon made tape loops
first. This is about the masterful way Paul has BS-ed his way
into the
image most people have of him.
Why not be satisfied with the fact that he has written some
immortal songs and lyrics, and that he is probably the greatest
and
most universally loved live performer since Elvis and Sinatra?
This is a question that may never be answered. I don't see Paul
going into therapy.
I do believe Neil Aspinall and Derek Taylor, and I believe in
what I saw with my own eyes.
d.
waronsex...@yahoo.com.invalid wrote on 4/14/00 9:12 AM:
> d., the more you write, the more ignorant, undereducated, and
> illogical you appear.
wail itz true i look rail stoopid nextin a genu-ine inteelleckshul lahk yew
> I have no desire to ridicule you; it would be far too easy.
I see. Well, thanks for going light on me, ma'am, an' I do appreciate you
taking time out in your busy, glamorous life to speak to an ol' redneck like
me.
> Suffice it to say, your "well-researched" opinions of Paul
> McCartney's deep interest in modern art come from third and
> fourth-hand sources...
Mike McCartney, Barry Miles and Maureen Cleave are not third and fourth-hand
sources.
> and your knowledge of deKooning, Bacon, and certainly
> Chagall is woefully lacking.
Could you please explain how? Chagall risked his very life for his art.
And do you really consider Bacon's work to be safe? How so? I'm seriously
interested in what you have to say about this.
> By the time Paul McCartney even knew who DeKooning *was*, the
> painter was part of the abstract expressionist establishment.
Abstract expressionism is *still* not accepted by some segments of the art
community, and is definitely still considered subversive by religious
fundamentalist types.
> And no offense intended, but Paul was a high school dropout.
Incorrect. In the first place, British education in the 50's had no such
thing as a "high-school dropout." The British system was not set up like
the US system where students either stayed through graduation or dropped
out. George, Paul and John stayed in school to sit O levels. After this,
George left school, and John as we know moved from grammar school to art
college. Paul attended two more years and sat A levels. In those two years
he studied English lit and art as a secondary course. Now how good a
student he was is another matter - but the fact is he stayed in, sat his A
levels and if I'm not mistaken (going entirely by memory - I don't have any
references around here) he took at least one of those, and maybe two. It's
not an academic record that would have won him any prizes, but neither is it
anything to be ashamed of, and it certainly wasn't dropping out.
> People who love modern art usually read art criticism and
> history.
You've offered no proof that he never did. No one's claiming that he was
anyone's scholar. One can be interested and informed and even involved
without sitting around reading about it. Did he have stacks of books about
musical composition around, either? I repeat what I said about my Eyedrum
friends, and I think it applies to a great many exceptionally creative
people: they are doers, not readers.
[snip]
> You prefer to contradict Neil Aspinall's memory in order to
> support your informed opinion? Fine.
If there are multiple accounts which agree with each other but don't agree
with Neil, including Paul McCartney's himself, yes. I'm sure Neil's a great
guy, though. ;)
> It makes no difference when
> Paul McCartney bought his first Magritte: at the time, he was under
> the influence of Jane Asher, a woman of fine tastes and a superb
> education.
Ah yes, shallow prettyboy Paul, who only did what his babes told him to do.
;)
- d.
fabella
this gem:
Abstract expressionism is *still* not accepted by some segments
of the art community, and is definitely still considered
subversive
by religious fundamentalist types.
What art community? Even Holiday Inn has "Ab-Ex" fakes in most
rooms. What kind of degree did you say you had? This really
cracks me up: "subversive"? Where in the Bible does it say "Thou
shalt not spatter, smear, or splash paint in an
unrepresentational
manner?" I'm hahahahahahahaha falling off the chair!!!!!
Christ almighty, Clown, learn how to read.
Frannie
Derek J. Larsson
lstoll wrote:
> just that
> he was interested before John was and that John didn't really dive into
> it until he met Yoko. -laura
John was only interested in Yoko precisely because
he found in her (rather than the other band members)
someone that could really relate with his own music,
art, writing, and film experiments more closely.
John, and not Paul , was the Liverpool Art College
student who had painter-genius Stu Sutclif as his
very best friend. John, and not Paul, wrote
"In His Own Write" and "A Spanaird in The Works".
books in his spare time. John's songs,
and not Pauls, contain all the backwards mixing,
bizarre sounds, tape loop experimentation, and
unique surrealistic conceptual framework.
Paul's own songs don't do this...never in just one
song does he come close to anything Lennonesque.
All the public, demonstratable evidence shows
John operating in this arena
(both before the Beatles and before Yoko).
All Paul has to support his own mythology is a bunch
of stories about meeting and socializing with various
'artsy' people which he did (probably to score some pot
more than anything else) - but there was NO PRODUCT
- LENNON ALWAYS HAD PRODUCT.
The best McCartney has is a story about a so-called
'carnival of light' which he himself has not been able
to demonstrate ever truthfully existed in the first place.
It is just "vapor-ware" ... propaganda .... 'hype'... spin.
Lennon, on the other hand, always had real PRODUCT,
and tangible material from Art school days through 1966
prior to ever meeting Yoko.
-- Derek
======================================================
Derek J. Larsson EMail: derek_...@3com.com
======================================================
Doug Campbell
Lord Tim Brent wrote:
> My problem with Paul and the fine arts is that I've always wondered whether he
> was interested in it because he liked it or if it was part of his need to be a
> social climber,i.e.,appear to have an interest in the fine arts to impress those
> in the social stataus he wished to be in,i.e. your drawing-room society/longhair
> types,such as Jane's folks.
You can second-guess anybody's motives for their "apparent" interests or loves until
you are blue in the face, as is currently being evidenced by some of our blue-(or
should I say green) faced correspondents in the "Heather Mills" thread. And you
know what? It will get you nowhere because the bottom line is - you _do _not
_know_.
What were the Beatles' motives for wanting to have a rock and roll band? To
compensate for deep-seated insecurities? to impress the girls? To piss off their
families? Do you presume to know the answers to these questions?
Go to any gallery opening. For that matter, go to the big Whitney retrospective
recently touted in here as some kind of ultimate conferral of legitimacy. Look
around the room. You will never see a more highly charged collection of
questionable motives and insecurity-driven pretensions. And everybody artist thinks
they are the most legitimate person there. So you can parse that question of
whether somebody's interest is 'real' or not as finely as you like, but the old
peeling an onion analogy is going to hold - you will never reach the center, because
all it is is layers of skins.
Doug C.
Doug Campbell
time for his songs, that Paul wanted to get all experimental on him? I
think that was his take on 'Strawberry Fields Forever' in the 1970
interview. When Paul was recording one of his songs, it was all business,
but when it was one of John's it was experiment time? That was a complaint,
John's complaint. So what happens to your argument in that context?
DC
fabella
In article <38F7A8B...@maine.rr.com>, Doug Campbell
Reverse snobbery at its best, Doug. Go ahead and diss the
Whitney all you like. Why not throw in MoMA and the Guggenheim
while you're at it?
You're missing out on a great experience and a whole world of
people who *do* what the majority of middlebrow Americans (and
Brits like McCartney) can only make cocktail party chatter about.
Bet you're the type who sees a Jackson Pollock and says "My dog
could do better than that."
Funny, the way you feel about the people who line up for
exhibits like the Whitney's "Twentieth Century" is exactly the
way I feel
about people who spend $25 to go to a Beatlefest. There's just
no accounting for taste, is there...
It must have about killed you to see Yoko Ono included among the
greatest living artists.
John would have been so proud!
(and just to add a little zetz, I betcha Paul was green with
envy... hell, I bet he didn't bother to send her a note of
congrats.)
Francie
fabella
d.
<waronsex...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> The only part of your post that was clear enough to reply to is
> this gem:
>
> Abstract expressionism is *still* not accepted by some segments
> of the art community, and is definitely still considered
> subversive
> by religious fundamentalist types.
>
> What art community? Even Holiday Inn has "Ab-Ex" fakes in most
> rooms. What kind of degree did you say you had? This really
> cracks me up: "subversive"? Where in the Bible does it say "Thou
> shalt not spatter, smear, or splash paint in an
> unrepresentational
> manner?" I'm hahahahahahahaha falling off the chair!!!!!
>
> Christ almighty, Clown, learn how to read.
Fine, you think abstract expressionism is old hat. I disagree. I think the
greats of that genre are still incredibly powerful and will continue to speak to
those who understand what it means to push the limits of a culture. These are
not just pretty designs but explorations into the very roots of the human
psyche. I suppose you've never actually stood in a room full of DeKoonings ...
or in front of one massive Pollock. How someone who claims to be educated in
art history can compare DeKooning's work to that of what hangs in Holiday Inn
... well, I'll try to keep an open mind here. I suppose you have your reasons.
I take it you're conceding ever other point I made, since you have no comment on
Paul's education, or whether or not such folks as Barry Miles and Mike McCartney
are first-hand witnesses.
I'm also still really curious as to how you can dismiss Bacon, in particular, as
"safe".
--
d.
Doug Campbell
remember where I put the damn book!
fabella
was that by the time Paulie got interested in abstract
expressionists like
deKooning, Kandinsky, Pollock, and the gang, they were
establishment. I never said Francis Bacon was "safe" either -
but when he
was recognized by the art critics, he too joined the
"establishment". That's the way it goes in the world of art. By
the mid-70's, the
"new establishment" was dominated by Andy Warhol, Roy
Lichtenstein, Rauschenberg, Stella and Op/Pop art. They in turn
were
overthrown by the Julian Barnes school (smashed crockery
embedded in canvas).
I recommend you read the classic text of contemporary art
criticism "The Tradition of the New."
At the age of four, I could tell Degas from Renoir...I was
standing in rooms full of Dekoonings when you were still
learning how to
pronounce "Van Gogh" you little snot.
Francie
(I *taught* the German Expressionism section of Art History at
Chouinard Art Institute in 1964. Don't sword fight with Zorro!)
Doug Campbell
they do or don't genuinely appreciate.
For what it's worth, and only since you question it, I have a masters degree in
painting from Hunter College. I spent more years in art school listening to
people 'talk' about painting than I care to recall. I've been painting for 20
years. I love Jackson Pollock's paintings. I used to take my lunch hours from
a dreary office job on 55th street at the Modern and pick one painting each day
to spend the hour in front of. Mondrian, Monet, whoever called.
But I've zero interest in openings, receptions, or the latest deconstructive
critical theory. As Robert Fripp said "It's all talk". Babble, blurble,
broohaha. I've done the Biennials, Francie and they are no different than the
Grammys - it's the big sellers and all the hype surrounding them. What middle
America do you live in? They don't make cocktail party chat about the Whitney!
People who go to the Whitney make cocktail party chat about the Whitney.
Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of genuine artists making real
substantial, felt work out there. But contrary to YOUR brand of snobbism, most
of them ARE in the middle America which you so handily disdain.
Now look, you've gone and gotten me dander up!
Doug C.
fabella wrote:
fabella
Doug Campbell
Z
fabella
In article <38F7B41E...@maine.rr.com>, Doug Campbell
Well thank you very much indeed. I stand corrected... have you
been lurking in Soho???
;-)
d.
<waronsex...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> Poor pitiful 'd' (does it really stand for dumb?)... What I said
> was that by the time Paulie got interested in abstract
> expressionists like deKooning, Kandinsky, Pollock, and the gang, they were
> establishment.
As opposed to ... ? whatever was hip in the 60's, concept art and the like?
OK, I'll buy that. Of course, we're just addressing visual art here, when in
fact I believe when Paul claims interest in the "avant garde" he is referring to
the underground/cutting edge movement as a whole, that he was checking it all
out. That he dared express a real interest in the forefathers of the avant
garde is rather cool, I think. Those paintings have serious lasting worth.
> I never said Francis Bacon was "safe" either -
> but when he was recognized by the art critics, he too joined the
> "establishment". That's the way it goes in the world of art. By
> the mid-70's, the "new establishment" was dominated by Andy Warhol, Roy
> Lichtenstein, Rauschenberg, Stella and Op/Pop art. They in turn
> were overthrown by the Julian Barnes school (smashed crockery
> embedded in canvas).
Yep. That's all very interesting, Frankie ... thanks for the little lesson
there.
> I recommend you read the classic text of contemporary art
> criticism "The Tradition of the New."
Hmmmm, isn't it "The Shock of the New," by Robert Hughes? Excellent PBS series
as well.
> At the age of four, I could tell Degas from Renoir...
At the age of four, I was transitioning from my Theodor Geisel phase into my
Charles M. Schulz phase. I've always had a tendency towards minimalism, you
see. ;-)
> I was standing in rooms full of Dekoonings when you were still
> learning how to pronounce "Van Gogh" you little snot.
I see.
> (I *taught* the German Expressionism section of Art History at
> Chouinard Art Institute in 1964. Don't sword fight with Zorro!)
There was no Chouinard Art Institute in 1964. :)
--
d.
Doug Campbell
:)
fabella
In article <northcut-161DE7...@news.mindspring.com>,
"d." <nort...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>In article <10eb35e7...@usw-ex0105-035.remarq.com>,
fabella
><waronsex...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>>What I said
>> was that by the time Paulie got interested in abstract
>> expressionists like deKooning, Kandinsky, Pollock, and the
gang, they were
>> establishment.
>
>As opposed to ... ? whatever was hip in the 60's, concept art
and the like?
>OK, I'll buy that. Of course, we're just addressing visual
art here, when in
>fact I believe when Paul claims interest in the "avant garde"
he is referring to
>the underground/cutting edge movement as a whole, that he was
checking it all
>out.
Paul loves to talk about what he was doing twenty and thirty
years earlier. Especially since most of the people who still
have the
guts to laugh at his pretentions to intellectuality and
experimentation are dead. "Checking it out" is just about the
right descriptive
phrase. He wanted so badly to overcome his humble beginnings and
"make it" with the upper class folks who got invited to
Princess Margaret's private bashes. Of all the coolest, cutest
and most talented people in the world, who'da thunk it, Paul
McCartney wanted to fit in, and didn't realise all of *them*
wanted to fit in with him.
Oh I almost forgot, since Paul had no desire to learn musical
notation (why should he when he had George Martin at his beck and
call) there were no books about music in his house, either. And
no contemporary jazz lp's and nary a classical disc in sight. He
did
have some Rupert Bear books, however...
>
>> I recommend you read the classic text of contemporary art
>> criticism "The Tradition of the New."
>
>Hmmmm, isn't it "The Shock of the New," by Robert Hughes?
Excellent PBS series
>as well.
>
No, it's the *Tradition of the New* by Harold Rosenberg. It has
never been made into a television series.
>
>There was no Chouinard Art Institute in 1964. :)
>
You're kidding around, right? Hard to tell... Chouinard Art
Institute, which became Cal Arts in 1966, was founded by Nelbert
Chouinard in 1928, and during the Great Depression was funded in
part by the WPA.
frannie
d.
<waronsex...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> >> I recommend you read the classic text of contemporary art
> >> criticism "The Tradition of the New."
> >
> >Hmmmm, isn't it "The Shock of the New," by Robert Hughes?
> Excellent PBS series
> >as well.
> >
>
> No, it's the *Tradition of the New* by Harold Rosenberg. It has
> never been made into a television series.
You're right; that's a newer one that I have missed. Thanks for the tipoff. I
recommend Hughes' book to you as well.
> >There was no Chouinard Art Institute in 1964. :)
> >
>
> You're kidding around, right?
No.
> Hard to tell... Chouinard Art
> Institute, which became Cal Arts in 1966,
It became Cal Arts in 1961. :)
> and during the Great Depression was funded in
> part by the WPA.
What? You mean it was WELFARE ART? *just kidding*
--
d.
lstoll
>
> Francie
Your memory doesn't deceive you, Doug. One place John said that was in
the Playboy interview. It may not be in the article as it was printed in
Playboy, but it's in the book version. -laura
fabella
In article <northcut-2BFFE2...@news.mindspring.com>,
"d." <nort...@mindspring.com> wrote:
.
>
>You're right; that's a newer one that I have missed. Thanks
for the tipoff. I
>recommend Hughes' book to you as well.
>
No again, it's a much older book. And I've seen the PBS series.
I like Hughes, but preferred the nun.
>> >There was no Chouinard Art Institute in 1964. :)
>> >
>>
>> You're kidding around, right?
>
>No.
>
>> Hard to tell... Chouinard Art
>> Institute, which became Cal Arts in 1966,
>
>It became Cal Arts in 1961. :)
I beg your pardon... in 1961 I received my first scholarship
from Chouinard to attend special Saturday drawing classes for
advanced high school students. I entered as a full-time student
in January of 1962. The *idea* of Cal Arts wasn't even a twinkle
in
Roy Disney's eye until 1964, when he first floated the idea of a
super-art-university with the Board of Directors. "Mary Poppins"
world
wide debut was a benefit to raise funds for Cal-Arts. The Dean,
Gerald Nordland, who went from there to become the longtime
director of Art galleries at UCLA, saw the writing on the wall.
Many of the full-time students protested what they knew would be
the
Disney-fication of our beloved school, including myself. I was
among the last class to graduate from Chouinard, in January of
1966. Cal-Arts was then in the planning stages. As we had
feared, all the applied arts departments were done away with,
including Animation, Advertising Design, Illustration,
Photography, and Film. Teachers were fired across the board.
What was
created was a "fine arts" ivory tower school, merging with the
L.A. Music Conservatory and the Los Angeles Ballet School. It
failed
miserably and destroyed one of the finest institutions in
southern California.
Francie ("Be True To Your School") Schwartz
d.
<waronsex...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> In article <northcut-2BFFE2...@news.mindspring.com>,
> "d." <nort...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> .
> >
> >You're right; that's a newer one that I have missed. Thanks
> >for the tipoff. I recommend Hughes' book to you as well.
> >
>
> No again, it's a much older book.
Well, I certainly missed it. Amazon lists it as being published in 1994, but
that must be a reprint. I spend less time reading about art and more time
creating and experiencing it. ;) There's a killer book called "Art In Theory"
that I refer to time and again, though.
> >It became Cal Arts in 1961. :)
>
> I beg your pardon... The *idea* of Cal Arts wasn't even a twinkle
> in Roy Disney's eye until 1964,
That goes against the history of Cal Arts as posted on their website, but I'll
take your word for it.
> As we had
> feared, all the applied arts departments were done away with,
> including Animation, Advertising Design, Illustration,
> Photography, and Film.
Hmmm. I never knew that. Well, those departments have been reinstated in the
interim, I'm sure you'll be glad to know.
--
d.
lstoll
>
> lstoll <la...@lstoll.com> wrote:
> >fabella wrote:
> >> There were *no* art books in his house,
> >> and he never mentioned even the idea of
> >> going to a gallery or a museum in the entire
> >> 5 months I knew him. He was no more inter-
> >> ested in 'arty and/or unusual things' than
> >> the average person on the street. He learned
> >> nearly everything he knew about modern art
> >> from Jane Asher. Owning a few paintings is
> >> hardly any indication of a genuine interest.
> >> ...
> >> What absolutes are you referring to? Paul's
> >> absolute need to reinvent himself retrospectively?
> >> I'd say you're missing the main point at which
> >> Paul's interest in art sprang forth: he married
> >> Linda, whose father represented some of the top
> >> modern artists in the world, and learned about
> >> modern painting through her.
> >
> > Francie, you seem to be saying that Paul never
> > had much of an interest in fine art (modern
> > him to it. You also seem to believe that, unlike
> > John and George, Paul was never interested in
> > avant garde/experimental/electronic music.
>
> This thread was about "avant garde" as used by Neil Aspinall.
> I have never said Paul wasn't "interested" in experimental
> music. Like most Geminis, he was "interested" in *everything*
> that might be discussed at a chic, in-crowd party. He was
> *interested* in the clarinet when he was 20. Let's not
> weave all over the pond, here.
Pardon me, Francie, but you're the one weaving all over the pond. As you
can see from the parts of your previous post (above), you said McCartney
was no more interested in "'arty and/or unusual things' than the average
person on the street", and that he wasn't even interested in painting
until after he met Jane and Linda.
> Tape loops and who went first is really not much of a point of
> discussion here. That's been beaten to death, Laura. I say look
> and listen to the music that was released under the aegis of
> the Beatles. And if one more person brings out that tired old
> "Celebration of Light" thingy, I'm gonna hurl!
Well, even though it'll make you hurl (I'm sure you were exaggerating),
here's an excerpt from George Martin's 1971 Melody Maker interview:
"They discovered Stockhausen for themselves. I guess we talked a lot
about things and it's very difficult to put your finger on who
discovered what... they'd bought themselves tape-recorders and they'd
started playing with them in their own homes ... I think Paul discovered
it first... they got into making little loops for themselves."
I'm not sure why this is irrelevant to the discussion since your
position is that McCartney was never involved in such things.
> Clearly, Mike is talking about Paul's childhood interest
> in drawing and painting. So?
Not just as a child. The piece was written in 1965 and Mike mentions a
recent painting of Paul's. It contradicts your assertion that he wasn't
interested in art until he met Jane and Linda.
> And who do you think told Maureen Cleave about all this? A very
> poor bit of "evidence" - reads like she wants to get a little
> closer to the cute Beatle, who knows how to charm the pants
> off of any woman when he wants.
Paul told her and he told her in the mid-60s. It contradicts your claim
that he only began spouting off about such interests in a later years.
> They discussed... Paul delegated studio management to Burroughs'
> lover... Burroughs is quoted (by?) as saying he saw Paul at
> the studio... fluffy at best, and at worst, this could easily
> be interpreted as more "Beat" social climbing. Paul would have
> driven Burroughs to distraction, as Old Bill was very into
> cute boy butts and heroin at the time... Incidentally, I am
> reading Burroughs final diaries right now, and have read
> everytrhing he has ever written. In fact, a British artist
> I was living with in San Francisco in the early 70s was Burroughs'
> protege for an illustrated novel that never came to pass.
> I doubt Paul ever read "Naked Lunch" and even further, doubt
> he would have dug it, in part or overall. We're arguing about
> a basically conservative Northern bloke here!
Their may be facets of McCartney's complex personality with which you're
unfamiliar.
> > Some admittedly rambling excerpts from a McCartney interview
> > for the inaugural issue (January 1967) of
> > International Times:
> >
> <snip wonderful bullshit>
>
> He must have smoked some really good shit before he gave the
> IT interview, hahahahaha!
Clearly. However it's apparent that he was interested in such things. If
you believe that he only feigned interested as asn act of
social-climbing that's your prerogative. Personally, I think he was
interested but that such things didn't grab him on the level that they
grabbed John.
> What a person "discusses" (or let's just say when a great
> bullshit artist gets into a groove) may bear no relation
> to what that person *loves*.
Then again, it may. Actually, I'm not arguing that he loved avant garde
music. He's said himself that he didn't enjoy listening to it for any
length of time except in a social situation (getting high with friends).
I think he was interested in the concepts though and enjoyed it in samll
doses. He liked the idea of bringing bits of into the Beatles recordings
but wasn't in favor of a full-length piece (R#9) being released as a
Beatles track.
> Whenever I hear someone, anyone, say "Oh, I'm really
> interested in modern art - I love Picasso" I know
> I'm dealing with a pretender.
>
> Reading all those interviews and esepcially plowing through the
> whole of MYFN seems like an exhausting way of ingesting thirty
> years of image polishing. Take it from one who has lived with
> the man. He did what he wanted with his days off. None of it
> indicated any interest in art, avant garde or otherwise.
McCartney started painting when he was about 40 but it wasn't something
he talked about until he'd been doing it for about 15 years. You're
certainly free to believe that he did all of that painting in
preparation for an upcoming revisionism expedition. Hoever, the fact
that his own brother said he was very interested in art and painting
from the time he was a boy and the fact that when he won a school prize
entitling him to a free book he chose a book on modern art indicates
otherwise.
Many people go through phases where they don't bother with one interest
or another and it's possible that he had too much on his plate to spend
time painting or visiting museums when you were staying with him. You
probably didn't get to know him very well in the short time (about two
months) that you stayed at his house. That's really not long enough to
get to know anyone. Also, he hadn't been living at Cavendish for very
long when you were staying there so all of his interestes may not have
been reflected in its contents.
> I do believe Neil Aspinall and Derek Taylor, and I believe in
> what I saw with my own eyes.
The portion of the interview with Neil and Derek that you posted said
nothing to support your belief that McCartney only showed an interest in
avant garde/experimental/electronic music in order to impress others.
-laura
fabella
lived with Paul.
I never said Paul wasn't interested in painting until he met
Jane (or Linda). The subject here is Paul's claim of being "the
avant
garde" Beatle, of doing experimental, edgy work before John did.
The degree to which he was involved in these things as
compared to John, is pure and simple hairsplitting on your part.
Paul learned from people, he was a sponge, and he has always
been able to bullshit beautifully, to suit the interviewer's
curiosity.
Contrary to your biased view of how perceptive I was about Paul,
and how well I knew his mind, or in your terms, the facets of
that
personality I "missed", I spent those five months of my life
immersed in the Beatle world, which was beginning to come apart
as
soon as they started their business trip. The day we met, he
told me he wanted to be able to reach me 24 hours a day. In our
first
meeting at the office, he literally picked my brain about
movie-making. In the cab afterwards, he told me why he hated LSD
(because it made him lose control). I saw what he was about
during the Revolution sessions, got high with him, and spent
several
nights with him well before he asked me to move in. Even if I'd
been counting the days and nights (which I wasn't) I wouldn't
argue
with you about exactly how much time I spent alone with him; in
1968, a summer spent with him was the equivalent of a year of
"normal" getting-to-know-you with any other guy. I knew Paul
better than I knew my husband, with whom I spent five years.
That's
just the way it was. It was intense on both sides. If it hadn't
been, he would have committed to Linda and taken her home to meet
his dad instead of sleeping with her a couple times then coming
back to London and pursuing me as well as installing me as
Derek's assistant. No blame, and no bitterness, that's just what
happened.
That Paul started painting after John's death is no coincidence.
That competition, the clash, the ebb and flow of *that*
relationship,
was so central to Paul's being, the only love that comes close
to being a reasonable comparison is his marriage to Linda and the
births of his children. I witnessed the breakup of Paul and John
up close and personal. In the studio, at home, in the office, and
everywhere. I've never denigrated Paul's natural intelligence,
nor have I ever been less than respectful of his musical talent.
But there is no amount of evidence in the form of interviews,
biographies, or gossip that you can produce to convince me that
his
passion for the avante garde in any form was more than
intermittent, fleeting, or superficial. Every kid with a
creative bent makes
drawings and paints pictures. Mike loved his brother. But except
for Mike's wedding, Paul had virtually no contact with Mike
during
the summer of 68. The art he loved the most, the art that hung
on the living room walls, was fan art. Some charcoal portraits
of the
Beatles done from photos, some naive paintings of Paul solo, a
postcard portrait of what the Beatles would look like at age 64 -
and the small Magritte green apple with the words "au revoir"
written across it. That's what he chose to put on his walls.
Jane had completely equipped the kitchen, and even chosen the
dishes. The bedroom was "decorated" by Jane, as were the
living room, dining room (which we never used) and the upstairs
guest rooms. It was cozy and chic, not at all "newly moved into,"
and Paul was not too busy running Apple and being a Beatle to
change it if he wanted to. But Paul was looking for a partner,
Jane was away pursuing a career she loved, and I was the one he
chose... I was extremely perceptive and funny and sexy and
smart and it didn't take long to see what he *was* interested
in. It wasn't art, although he understood the value of the
Magrittes he
then owned. It wasn't experimental music or performance art,
although he'd certainly been exposed to some theatre during the
five years he'd been with Jane. When those rare free hours came
along, or on the long drives to Liverpool, he was passionate
about finding himself. And he wasn't the sort of person who
searches within. He looks for answers in others, in
conversation, in
stoned rap sessions.
I don't always agree with Derek (Larsson), but he has made some
excellent points in this thread. Indeed, the music that was
written
speaks volumes about Paul's creative persona, which was based
more on old influences (vaudeville, ragtime, Elvis, Chuck Berry,
and so on) than any far out sounds he was exploring during the
mid-sixties. His interest in *owning* Magritte was to his
credit... but
that's smart investing, and a classy way of personalizing one's
home... not being "into art". Paul picked up concepts and visual
ideas on the fly, and internalized those ideas beautifully. But
in 1968, I saw Paul with John and without John -- and John was
the
avant garde edgy one - Paul was the old-fashioned guy in a deep
muddle, who romanticized his self-image in his music and
wanted a very old-fashioned partner to back him up and have his
children. Paul was the astute businessman and John was the
freewheeling artist who didn't give a damn about preserving the
golden goose if it meant he would become set in a soullness
universe of contracts and publicity and sales.
This whole avante garde thing, which Paul's worshippers claim is
only natural because people were saying Paul was the melodious
romantic side and John was the edgy rocker is such a crock. Paul
knew he rocked at times, and he knew John could be as soft as
goosedown and just as sentimental. He wasn't *that* insecure.
After all, the great new tunes were still coming to him, as was
amply
demonstrated with Abbey Road and Let It Be.
When John was murdered, Paul lost his compass. And for God knows
what reason, he began to rewrite the oral history. Part of it
was this thing about who was arty. It's just not real. And it's
certainly not necessary.
He may become a decent painter someday, he may not. His first
love will always be performing live, and he has no peer in that.
Long may he rave, rock and croon. But he's still not at peace
with his place in history, and that's a shame. What good will it
do to
have this transparent self-aggrandizing shelf full of of books
about what John *wasn't* and how they "got it wrong" back then,
after
he's gone? No one needs to let it be more than Paul. He needs to
shut up and write something new. Something edgy, maybe.
d.
<waronsex...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> That's just the way it was. It was intense on both sides. If it hadn't
> been, he would have committed to Linda and taken her home to meet
> his dad
He did commit to her and take her home to meet his dad.
--
d.
paramucho
<waronsex...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
Great summary of your position Francie.
<snip>
>But
>in 1968, I saw Paul with John and without John -- and John was
>the
>avant garde edgy one - Paul was the old-fashioned guy in a deep
>muddle, who romanticized his self-image in his music and
>wanted a very old-fashioned partner to back him up and have his
>children. Paul was the astute businessman and John was the
>freewheeling artist who didn't give a damn about preserving the
>golden goose if it meant he would become set in a soullness
>universe of contracts and publicity and sales.
There's a key difference in walking down a street and living in that
same street. McCartney was a visitor who just looks around. Lennon
lived there.
Ian
d.
> There's a key difference in walking down a street and living in that
> same street. McCartney was a visitor who just looks around. Lennon
> lived there.
Massive oversimplification - but if it's the only way that you can deal with the
facts in this case so you're forgiven. McCartney absorbed, Lennon exploited.
Lennon was at his worst when trying to be "avant garde." Lennon was at his best
when being John Lennon - the John who understood what he was and where he was.
The raw John Lennon didn't need the avant garde because he had them beat from
the starting gate.
This whole argument is so ironic, and the irony is lost on so many people ...
--
d.
paramucho
wrote:
>In article <258e9cc0...@usw-ex0101-006.remarq.com>, fabella
><waronsex...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> That's just the way it was. It was intense on both sides. If it hadn't
>> been, he would have committed to Linda and taken her home to meet
>> his dad
>
>
>He did commit to her and take her home to meet his dad.
d. you really don't give you do you? The sentence clearly meant
"instead of taking me home to meet his dad", and thus you have not
countered her primary point (that it was intense on both sides).
Ian
d.
> On Sat, 15 Apr 2000 00:46:47 -0400, "d." <nort...@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <258e9cc0...@usw-ex0101-006.remarq.com>, fabella
> ><waronsex...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> That's just the way it was. It was intense on both sides. If it hadn't
> >> been, he would have committed to Linda and taken her home to meet
> >> his dad
> >
> >
> >He did commit to her and take her home to meet his dad.
>
> d. you really don't give you do you? The sentence clearly meant
> "instead of taking me home to meet his dad", and thus you have not
> countered her primary point (that it was intense on both sides).
No, it doesn't mean that. It means what it means: the building up of whatever
myth Francie can cobble together for herself with the support of drooling
fanboys such as yourself.
--
d.
dlarsson
Doug Campbell <do...@maine.rr.com> wrote in message
news:38F7AA10...@maine.rr.com...
> Don't I recall Lennon actually complaining that he felt that when it was
> time for his songs, that Paul wanted to get all experimental on him? I
> think that was his take on 'Strawberry Fields Forever' in the 1970
> interview. When Paul was recording one of his songs, it was all business,
> but when it was one of John's it was experiment time? That was a
complaint,
> John's complaint. So what happens to your argument in that context?
>
> DC
The full text of John's complaint indicates that it was about the
atmosphere and attitude in the studio - not specific recording concepts.
"With Paul's songs we'd spend hours on little details doing
tiny cleanups but when it was mind somehow this atmoshpere
of casualness and looseness would creep in."
-John Lennon, 1980
John was complaining about essentially an unprofessional or
unserious attitutde creeping during the recording of his songs.
He was very disappointed with the way the recordings for
Across The Universe and Strawberry Fields went.
I don't think John would be doing things like asking George Martin
to hang himself from a ceiling and be spun around (Tommorrow Never
Knows - this idea was dropped in favor of using a Leslie rotating
speaker)
and at the same time complaining about experiments of any merit from
Paul or the others. John's complaint is about something different.
It is about an out-of-control or sloppy atmosphere during the recording
of some of his songs.
Recall, that after numerous takes of Strawberry Fields Forever
Lennon, in frustration, went to Martin and had him do a
complete score by himself (the two versions were later joined).
Lennon appears to have for some reason lost confidence in
his bandmates by themselves. As it turned out the combined
version turned out to be quite a success.
All of this has nothing to do with the facts made in the
earlier post - about which Beatle created product-after-product
and which one only has produced sidebars and stories (and
no product).
-Derek
=====================================
Derek Larsson EMail: dlar...@erols.com
=====================================
Doug Campbell
think he's wrong, at least about SFF. The first takes sound very professional
to me and I don't hear anything sloppy or out-of-control about them. Lennon
wasn't happy with them, but that was the artist in him - I don't see that one
can point at the band in that instance and say they weren't 'serious' enough.
As to your final point:
All of this has nothing to do with the facts made in the
earlier post - about which Beatle created product-after-product
and which one only has produced sidebars and stories (and
no product).
I must have missed that one. You don't mean Lennon vs. McCartney do ya?
You're not really THAT polarized are ya? If you are, then I'm sorry, you've
missed some great work. I always considered myself a Lennon fan primarily, but
I can't and won't minimize McCartney's genius. Hey, Lennon picked him. Why do
you have such a bug up your ass about him?
Doug C.
paramucho
wrote:
>In article <38ff0128...@news.supernews.com>, i...@hammo.com wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 15 Apr 2000 00:46:47 -0400, "d." <nort...@mindspring.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <258e9cc0...@usw-ex0101-006.remarq.com>, fabella
>> ><waronsex...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>> >
>> >> That's just the way it was. It was intense on both sides. If it hadn't
>> >> been, he would have committed to Linda and taken her home to meet
>> >> his dad
>> >
>> >
>> >He did commit to her and take her home to meet his dad.
>>
>> d. you really don't give you do you? The sentence clearly meant
>> "instead of taking me home to meet his dad", and thus you have not
>> countered her primary point (that it was intense on both sides).
>
>
>No, it doesn't mean that. It means what it means: the building up of whatever
>myth Francie can cobble together for herself with the support of drooling
>fanboys such as yourself.
LOL. Good old d. And so quickly too!
So, just because you don't like the position I take I've become a
"drooling fanboy". That's no substitute for a reasoned argument --
more a declaration of bankrupcy in that department.
Are you claiming that Paul did not take Francie home to meet his
family?
Ian
paramucho
wrote:
>In article <38fbfa07...@news.supernews.com>, i...@hammo.com wrote:
Then explain it...
I don't know why you even bother arguing this point. In the years
1966-1970 Lennon continually produced avant garde works, some
privately and some publically. He is recognised by Stockhausen as the
most important mediator between rock and experimental music.
In that same period McCartney published nothing of a sort and has no
private works to show either. The one exception is a jam session for
the Carnival Of Light which involved all four Beatles.
Lennon lived there. McCartney visited. An aside about your impression
of Lennon's "true nature" does not alter that. In any case, your aside
does not explain why Lennon was privately recording avant garde works
between 1966 and 1968, some of which he had Ono listen to before they
recorded TWO VIRGINS.
Ian
JLS
fabella skrev i meldingen <024af80e...@usw-ex0105-036.remarq.com>...
>
>>Here's an excerpt from a series of articles by Mike McCartney
>about his
>>brother:
>>Woman, August, 1965
>>PORTRAIT OF PAUL
>> What interested him most was art - he was crazy about
>painting. Still
>>is, in fact. At times we thought we had a boy Michelangelo on
>our
>>hands.
>> Paul is still very serious about his painting and his room at
>home is
>>decorated with his efforts. His most ambitious work is an
>eight foot
>>tall portrait of a bizarre, cubist-looking woman, done in
>different
>>sections.
>Clearly, Mike is talking about Paul's childhood interest in
>drawing and painting. So?
was Paul a child in 1965???
JLS
fabella
In article <northcut-FBC4D3...@news.mindspring.com>,
"d." <nort...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>In article <258e9cc0...@usw-ex0101-006.remarq.com>,
fabella
><waronsex...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>
it hadn't
>> been, he would have committed to Linda and taken her home to
meet
>> his dad
>
>
>
>--
>d.
>
>
After he did the same with me...
fabella
In article <JnWJ4.4950$r6.5...@juliett.dax.net>, "JLS"
In many ways, yes, Jesse...
hello to you, too!
Francie
huzzlewhat
<waronsex...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> And no offense intended, but Paul was a high school dropout.
> People who love modern art usually read art criticism and
> history.
Hmm? Does that mean that John couldn't really have been interested in
film making, because he studied lettering at Art College, and didn't
finish the course? Or that George couldn't really have been interested in
Eastern philosophy, because he never went to school and studied
comparative religion? Doesn't seem to hold up, imo ... I can't really
see any of these guys sitting and reading criticism about the subjects
they were into. If John's personal library contained well-thumbed copies
of books on filmmaking or literary criticism of absurdist writing, I'd be
surprised -- but he certainly did both these things, and I've never
questioned the sincerity of his interest. Due to their positions, they
had the opportunity to meet the people they wanted to meet (as George said
in an Anthology interview, about getting in to meet the Maharishi), and to
talk things and learn by direct lesson -- I think John learned more from
talking to and being with Yoko than he ever did by reading about the avant
garde. They spent more time *doing* than they did *studying* -- all of
them.
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."
D 28IF
>I don't know why you even bother arguing this point. In the years
>1966-1970 Lennon continually produced avant garde works, some
>privately and some publically. He is recognised by Stockhausen as the
>most important mediator between rock and experimental music.
>
>In that same period McCartney published nothing of a sort and has no
>private works to show either. The one exception is a jam session for
>the Carnival Of Light which involved all four Beatles.
>
Oh, you've heard all of Paul's private works from that period?
fabella
Larry Rivers came to Chouinard (we had a different artist every
other week) and packed the Painting Lab, which wasn't difficult
since there were fewer than 400 full-time students in the entire
school (!). Department Head Emerson Woelffer was horrified when
Rivers said, "If you're really painters, what the hell are you
doing here? No one can teach it. Go paint!" That was the extent
of the
lecture, and the rest of the hour, Rivers took questions,
several of them from Emerson, who was almost apoplectic.
Actually I now live in an art community on the Left Coast, and
it's noted for its glass artists and painters and writers, some
of whom
are nationally known. I've also lived in New York, San
Francisco, London and El Lay <blush>. I suppose I've always been
something of a misfit, because I grew up in a family to whom
art, writings about art, and museum attendance were central
activities from early childhood on. My mother had majored in
interior architecture at Cooper Union, (and studied with George
Rickey and a couple of "Ashcan School" painters; her sister was
a producer and director of children's theater for UNICEF, and we
subscribed to all sorts of art magazines and collected art
books. I realise we were in the minority and in particular,
because I went
to a four year art college, my interest has never wained.
My last trip to New York before my mother died, the big event
for us was a day trip to Manhattan to see the Rothko
retrospective at
the Whitney, which was my favorite museum once it opened its
"new" doors in the 60's. Sure, we sneered at the "guided tours"
with
the headphones, and the chartered buses full of cackling ladies
from the burbs... we needed no narration. But both of us hoped
that more Americans would become involved with modern art, and
were glad to see attendance up in all the major museums.
I know who you're talking about when you say "It's all talk,"
and that sort of snobbery, the New Yorkers who go to these shows
are
not deeply involved in any of it. But for my mother and me, it
was as necessary as food, water and sunlight. We weren't rich
enough to buy up the artists we loved (although I've inherited
an original Albers print, which I love because *she* found it in
Europe)
but neither were we "talkers". It was just part of life, a part
of our family.
So please don't think I was dissing your views on the Whitney.
And I agree with you about the Biennialles... never cared much
for
the trendy stuff. I'm that way about rock & roll as well.
Cheers
Frannie
lstoll
>
> More cockydoody, especially the part about the "two months"
> I lived with Paul.
According to your own book your stay at Cavendish lasted about two
months from mid/late June to late August.
> I never said Paul wasn't interested in painting until
> he met Jane (or Linda).
Sure you did:
> >> He was no more interested in 'arty and/or unusual
> >> things' than the average person on the street.
> >> He learned nearly everything he knew about modern
> >> art from Jane Asher. Owning a few paintings is
> >> hardly any indication of a genuine interest.
> >> ...
> >> I'd say you're missing the main point at which
> >> Paul's interest in art sprang forth: he married
> >> Linda, whose father represented some of the top
> >> modern artists in the world, and learned about
> >> modern painting through her.
> The subject here is Paul's claim of being "the avant
> garde" Beatle, of doing experimental, edgy work before
> John did. The degree to which he was involved in these
> things as compared to John, is pure and simple hair-
> splitting on your part.
Therein lies at least part of the problem. Paul has never claimed to be
"the avant garde Beatle". He says that he was *also* interested in in
avant garde music and that he was interested in it before John was.
Obviously John became more involved than Paul did as Paul himself
acknowledges.
I agreed from the get go that Paul is a pain on this subject and I
haven't been splitting any hairs. You posted a comment from Neil and
Derek about how involved John was in avant garde music in 1968 and
suggested that "revisionists" should take note. I replied that Paul
never said anything to contradict what Neil and Derek said.
You then opined that Paul was never interested in 'arty and/or unusual
things' and that any interest he displayed in such things was feigned to
impress others. I said you're entitled to your opinion but there's
evidence that shows otherwise. You weren't swayed by it just as I'm not
swayed by your point of view.
> ...he literally picked my brain about movie-making.
Eeeeoow
> But there is no amount of evidence in the form of interviews,
> biographies, or gossip that you can produce to convince me
> that his passion for the avante garde in any form was more
> than intermittent, fleeting, or superficial.
Interviews (including MYFN) readily make it apparent that he wasn't
deeply in love with this stuff. If you wish to insist that I'm arguing
that Paul was 'the avant garde Beatle' or even that he had a passion for
such things it would appropriate for you to illustrate how I've done so.
Or, for that matter, how he's done so.
> on the long drives to Liverpool, he was passionate
> about finding himself. And he wasn't the sort of person
> who searches within. He looks for answers in others,
> in conversation, in stoned rap sessions.
I think this is probably true.
> I don't always agree with Derek (Larsson), but he has
> made some excellent points in this thread. Indeed,
> the music that was written speaks volumes about Paul's
> creative persona, which was based more on old influences
> (vaudeville, ragtime, Elvis, Chuck Berry, and so on)
> than any far out sounds he was exploring during the
> mid-sixties.
And I've never argued otherwise. I've said only that he was also
interested to some degree in experimental music. My take on him is
similar to yours in that I think he's interested in and soaks up a
little bit of a lot of different influences. Unlike you, I don't think
it's all for show (at least that's what you seem to be saying about half
the time), though that may be part of his motivation.
> His interest in *owning* Magritte was to his credit...
> but that's smart investing, and a classy way of
> personalizing one's home... not being "into art".
I simply disagree that he's not into and never has been into art. I
don't think you've supported your opinion, but (as I've said all along)
you're entitled to hold it. Be my guest. Please allow me the same
courtesy.
> John was the avant garde edgy one - Paul was the
> old-fashioned guy in a deep muddle, who romanticized
> his self-image in his music and wanted a very old
> -fashioned partner to back him up and have his
> children. Paul was the astute businessman and John
> was the freewheeling artist who didn't give a damn
> about preserving the golden goose if it meant he
> would become set in a soullness universe of contracts
> and publicity and sales.
Although it's oversimplified, there's certainly something to your
assessment of Paul. In fact, I'd say your take on Paul is far closer to
reality than your take on John and Yoko. You've romanticized them beyond
recognition.
You and Paul actually have a lot common. He likes to speak of his past
accomplishments, tends to exaggerate his importance, and wants others to
know that he's artistic. These are all things that you do yourself
though I won't be so discourteous as to presume that your only
motivation for talking about art and literature is to impress others.
> This whole avante garde thing, which Paul's worshippers
> claim is only natural because people were saying Paul was
> the melodious romantic side and John was the edgy rocker
> is such a crock. Paul knew he rocked at times, and he knew
> John could be as soft as goosedown and just as sentimental.
Yes, he knew that. He's concerned that others know.
You're misrepresenting what this Paul "worshipper" claims. I never said
it's only natural and that anyone would feel as he does. I've only said
that *he* feels this way. I've certainly never said he isn't a pain in
the ass about it and I'm surprised at his insecurity.
By calling people "Paul's worshippers" you're saying exactly what Fred
says to those who don't see John and Yoko the way he does.
> When John was murdered, Paul lost his compass. And for
> God knows what reason, he began to rewrite the oral history.
> Part of it was this thing about who was arty. It's just
> not real. And it's certainly not necessary.
He doesn's say John wasn't arty only that he was and is also arty. As I
said, he's a real pain on the subject but whatever he's doing apparently
seems necessary to him.
> He may become a decent painter someday, he may not. His
> first love will always be performing live, and he has no
> peer in that. Long may he rave, rock and croon. But he's
> still not at peace with his place in history, and that's
> a shame.
It *is* a shame.
> What good will it do to have this transparent self-
> aggrandizing shelf full of of books about what John *wasn't*
> and how they "got it wrong" back then, after he's gone?
What good will it do you to have have your books about how Paul *wasn't*
and how they "got it wrong" back then, after you're gone?
> He needs to shut up and write something new. Something
> edgy, maybe.
You might consider taking your own advice. -laura
fabella
In article <38F8B0...@lstoll.com>, lstoll <la...@lstoll.com>
wrote:
>fabella wrote:
>
>> I never said Paul wasn't interested in painting until
>> he met Jane (or Linda).
>
>Sure you did:
>
>> >> He was no more interested in 'arty and/or unusual
>> >> things' than the average person on the street.
See above.
>> >> He learned nearly everything he knew about modern
>> >> art from Jane Asher. Owning a few paintings is
>> >> hardly any indication of a genuine interest.
>> >> ...
Learning about art is not the same as being interested in it, as
the average person is. Which is what I said (indeed) about Paul.
>> >> >
>You and Paul actually have a lot common. He likes to speak of
his past
>accomplishments, tends to exaggerate his importance, and wants
others to
>know that he's artistic. These are all things that you do
yourself
>though I won't be so discourteous as to presume that your only
>motivation for talking about art and literature is to impress
others.
>
Well thanks for that much. I haven't needed to "impress" anyone
for nearly ten years.
And as for your observation about our having a lot in common -
well if we hadn't, we never would've got together in the first
place.
As for *what* we have in common now, I'm not so sure it's
*possible* for Paul to exaggerate his own importance - it's just
unseemly
when he does, because of his universal recognition. However, it
doesn't make him any *less* important. He is still one of the
world's
richest men, and still commands the attention of the world
press, the moment he shows his face or give a direct statement,
on
virtually any subject.
>> >
>> He needs to shut up and write something new. Something
>> edgy, maybe.
>
>You might consider taking your own advice. -laura
>
>
You're right. I'm off to finish my Derek Taylor piece, which, I
believe, you will find both edgy and very new indeed.
Derek J. Larsson
Doug Campbell wrote:
> I'll buy your interpretation of Lennon's particular quote cited. Although I
> think he's wrong, at least about SFF. The first takes sound very professional
> to me and I don't hear anything sloppy or out-of-control about them.
The thing is, we don't know what the scope of rehearsal effort was
or how many actual 'takes' were required to get even that far ("first" take)
and what was edited out of the 'takes' that were used. Unhelpful
suggestions or bad attitudes may have ultimately been kept in
check but only after a battle or much expended effort. Lennon's
complaint is about behind the scenes stuff most of which is probably
not apparent in the final product.
What we hear is the beginning of one version and the end of
another entire arrangement - with a lot of submix work to make
them sound similar. That, in of itself, says something about the
difficulty in recording this track.
> As to your final point:
>
> All of this has nothing to do with the facts made in the
> earlier post -
>
> I always considered myself a Lennon fan primarily, but
> I can't and won't minimize McCartney's genius. Hey, Lennon picked him. Why do
> you have such a bug up your ass about him?
>
> Doug C.
I do not minimize McCartney's own gifted qualities and music skills.
But I reject claims made by him (Many Years From Now + interviews)
and by others that HE was doing a lot of 'artsy', 'avant garde'
stuff before Lennon or in greater proportion than Lennon
-or- that Lennon never got into this stuff until he met Yoko or
until he 'learned it from Paul.
These repeated claims are false by inspection of their own
products created (as well as their personality traits and history).
John, and not Paul , was the Liverpool Art College
student who had painter-genius Stu Sutclif as his
very best friend. John, and not Paul, wrote the mad
"In His Own Write" and "A Spanaird in The Works".
books in his spare time. John's songs,
and not Pauls, contain all the backwards mixing (guitars, drums, voices),
bizarre sounds, tape loop experimentation, and
unique surrealistic conceptual framework.
Paul may have contributed some input for one or two of these
but Lennon always had that anti-pop, surrealistic sensibility and
they were his song frameworks.
Paul's own initiated song efforts never did this...never in
just one song did he come close to anything Lennonesque.
That does not mean his music is bad ... it just was not so 'experimental'
All the hard, demonstratable evidence shows John operating in this
arena (both before the Beatles and before Yoko). Lennon always had
real PRODUCT and tangible material from Art school days through 1966
prior to ever meeting Yoko.
Paul, on the other hand, did not have any tanglible product. All Paul
has to support his 'avant garde' claims of stories about socializing
and meeting with various 'artsy' people which he did - but
there was no PRODUCT (e.g.,
'carnival-of-why-didn't-we-hear-it-then-or-now-for-christsakes')
- Lennon always had generated avant garde products that can be seen or heard.
McCartney does not need to false advertise himself to be remembered.
But he does and has - and in a way that also serves to distort the
big impact Lennon actually had (obvious) in this area ... before or after Yoko.
In my opinion, the 'avant garde' Beatle is the one with the
drawings, poems, books, music, and music outlook that are
physical and can be heard and seen (both then and now).
John Lennon had all that (original) material.
Paul mostly had just some cool socializing.
-- Derek
======================================================
Derek J. Larsson EMail: derek_...@3com.com
======================================================
d.
28IF) wrote:
> >From: i...@hammo.com (paramucho)
> >In that same period McCartney published nothing of a sort and has no
> >private works to show either. The one exception is a jam session for
> >the Carnival Of Light which involved all four Beatles.
> >
>
> Oh, you've heard all of Paul's private works from that period?
Of course he hasn't. But it's easy to see how he'd make his mind up that way.
We have multiple witnesses ranging from Barry Miles to Michaelangelo Antonioni
who saw and heard his home experiments and have described them. That's of
absolutely no account, though. After all, we have Francie Schwartz here, who
crashed at Cavendish for a couple of months and claims that she never saw
anything.
--
d.
paramucho
>
>>I don't know why you even bother arguing this point. In the years
>>1966-1970 Lennon continually produced avant garde works, some
>>privately and some publically. He is recognised by Stockhausen as the
>>most important mediator between rock and experimental music.
>>
>>private works to show either. The one exception is a jam session for
>>the Carnival Of Light which involved all four Beatles.
>>
>
>Oh, you've heard all of Paul's private works from that period?
I'm talking about those that have been reported that I know of.
Do you have reports of any others?
Ian
paramucho
>28IF) wrote:
>
>> >From: i...@hammo.com (paramucho)
>
>> >private works to show either. The one exception is a jam session for
>> >the Carnival Of Light which involved all four Beatles.
>> >
>>
>> Oh, you've heard all of Paul's private works from that period?
>
>We have multiple witnesses ranging from Barry Miles to Michaelangelo Antonioni
>who saw and heard his home experiments and have described them. That's of
>absolutely no account, though. After all, we have Francie Schwartz here, who
>crashed at Cavendish for a couple of months and claims that she never saw
>anything.
Don't get your hackles up. I wasn't referring to the films at all. I understand
that they all made home movies.
Regarding the music, I'll look at the Miles book again. I haven't heard anything
about an Antonioni report or those of others. Perhaps you'd care to tell us.
To be precise, I said he published nothing and had nothing to show. Did I get
that wrong? Did he publish anything or does he have anything (musical) to show
from the period (apart from the Beatle jam session)?
Ian
fabella
In article <northcut-268F1F...@news.mindspring.com>,
"d." <nort...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>In article <20000415101915...@ng-fw1.aol.com>,
d2...@aol.com (D
>28IF) wrote:
>
>> >From: i...@hammo.com (paramucho)
>
>> >In that same period McCartney published nothing of a sort
and has no
>> >private works to show either. The one exception is a jam
session for
>> >the Carnival Of Light which involved all four Beatles.
>> >
>>
>> Oh, you've heard all of Paul's private works from that period?
>
>Of course he hasn't. But it's easy to see how he'd make his
mind up that way.
>We have multiple witnesses ranging from Barry Miles to
Michaelangelo Antonioni
>who saw and heard his home experiments and have described them.
That's of
>absolutely no account, though. After all, we have Francie
Schwartz here, who
>crashed at Cavendish for a couple of months and claims that she
never saw
>anything.
>
>d.
>
>
And of course, we have 'd.' here, who *must* believe in
something so smashingly presentable that Paul never bothered to
present
any of it for distribution by his very own company, Apple.
Francie Schwartz, here, who worked for Apple in the Press Office
(see documentation in Paul's own handwriting at http:/
sites.netscape.net/fabest/weeklyquote), organized and art
directed Mad Day Out (see photos on web site), wrote James
Taylor's first
record company bio, and who, after leaving McCartney's home the
first time, was told by McCartney, "You can come home now,"
after which she was taken to Liverpool to meet his father, not
to mention attending many White Album sessions, participating as
backup vocialist on Revolution 1, Hey Jude, and sound effects
contributor on Revolution 9; see Video Anthology Vol. 8, first
few
minutes, film footage of the recording of 'Blackbird', still
photo on web site, and plenty more...
D 28IF
>>>In that same period McCartney published nothing of a sort and has no
>>>private works to show either. The one exception is a jam session for
>>>the Carnival Of Light which involved all four Beatles.
>>>
>>
>>Oh, you've heard all of Paul's private works from that period?
>
>I'm talking about those that have been reported that I know of.
>
>Do you have reports of any others?
>
>
>Ian
>
>
Since I don't know which reports you know of, I can't answer that question.
I'm simply saying, just because the public -at-large hasn't heard it, doesn't
mean it doesn't exist.
I don't think anyone denies the fact that, experimenter or not, Paul prefered
to have more commercially appealing tracks released on official albums. That's
got nothing to do with what home tapes he made.
_______________________
You are educated when you have the ability to listen to almost anything without
losing your temper or self-confidence -- Robert Frost
d.
<waronsex...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> And of course, we have 'd.' here, who *must* believe in
> something so smashingly presentable that Paul never bothered to
> present
> any of it for distribution by his very own company, Apple.
>
> Francie Schwartz, here, who worked for Apple in the Press Office
> (see documentation in Paul's own handwriting at http:/
> sites.netscape.net/fabest/weeklyquote), organized and art
> directed Mad Day Out (see photos on web site), wrote James
> Taylor's first
> record company bio, and who, after leaving McCartney's home the
> first time, was told by McCartney, "You can come home now,"
> after which she was taken to Liverpool to meet his father, not
> to mention attending many White Album sessions, participating as
> backup vocialist on Revolution 1, Hey Jude, and sound effects
> contributor on Revolution 9; see Video Anthology Vol. 8, first
> few
> minutes, film footage of the recording of 'Blackbird', still
> photo on web site, and plenty more...
... and for whom that is not enough.
--
d.
paramucho
>
>>>>In that same period McCartney published nothing of a sort and has no
>>>>private works to show either. The one exception is a jam session for
>>>>the Carnival Of Light which involved all four Beatles.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Oh, you've heard all of Paul's private works from that period?
>>
>>I'm talking about those that have been reported that I know of.
>>
>>Do you have reports of any others?
>>
>>
>>Ian
>>
>>
>
>Since I don't know which reports you know of, I can't answer that question.
>
>I'm simply saying, just because the public -at-large hasn't heard it, doesn't
>mean it doesn't exist.
>
>I don't think anyone denies the fact that, experimenter or not, Paul prefered
>to have more commercially appealing tracks released on official albums. That's
>got nothing to do with what home tapes he made.
Then my assertion stands: no published works or works to show from the
period of an avant garde musical style (except the jam).
Ian
paramucho
... it tolls for thee.
Ian
Doug Campbell
avant-garde proclivities. He is justifiably famous because he was a brilliant popular
songwriter. He's the one who said 'we were just a band that made it very, very big'.
I don't believe he took his books or drawings seriously. They were scribbles that
only got into the public world because he was a celebrity - which is not to say that
they didn't reveal something about the unique mind behind them - but I think you're
pushing it to call them 'product'. He dabbled in experimental music, just as he
dabbled in drawing. He was by no means committed to spending his life exploring it.
His lifelong commitment, as evidenced by his total body of work, was to popular music,
which was where he _was_ a genius.
Revolution 9 is only groundbreaking in that it reached millions of people who would
otherwise never have heard music like that, whereas similar explorations by people who
lacked the advantage of having a legion of fans hanging on every track have
disappeared from never having been in view in the first place. So, I don't know if I
can agree with your assessment that Lennon's impact in this area was huge and
obvious. Maybe, insomuch as it led kids like me to give the stuff a listen with an
open mind, since 'if it's ok with Lennon, it's ok with me'. But that's a different
role than the one you claim for him. He legitimized music that you and I might never
have heard - by virtue of the fact that he was the one who wrote Please Please Me. I
Should Have Known Better. I'll Cry Instead.
Doug C.
fabella
prove a negative. Has a familar ring to it.
http://sites.netscape.net/fabest
''Whoever or whatever you are, what matters is
that you lead your life with pride and dignity." (Judd Marmor)
fabella
Besides, I was only guessing about what he was actually doing in
that
apartment, and he never said he was having sex, or whether the
person in the apartment was male or female.
You *would* fix on that, wouldn't you Jesse.
While conveniently ignoring the fact that he made a major play
for me well after he'd bedded Linda - twice.
You're in a silly mood tonight.
Francie
d.
<waronsex...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> Besides, I was only guessing about what he was actually doing in
> that apartment, and he never said he was having sex, or whether the
> person in the apartment was male or female.
Then it was mighty, mighty dishonest of you to lead your readers to believe that
was what he was doing, wasn't it?
--
d.
fabella
In article <northcut-61AC45...@news.mindspring.com>,
Mighty mighty mousie reaction, d. Who leads and who follows
willingly where their minds would take them? Remember the
following sentences, where I asked him, "Why did you do that?"
and he answers, "I don't know."?
Like it says in the preface, the book is a vending machine. Pay
your money and get out of it whichever flavor candy bar you
desire.
And above all, please don't understand it too quickly.
Notwithstanding your righteous indignation, I'm flattered you
are still so involved in my little book, sentence by sentence.
fabella
In article <20000415233649...@ng-cl1.aol.com>,
d2...@aol.com (D 28IF) wrote:
>>From: paramucho i...@hammo.com
>
>>>Typical D28 tapdancing. Ian's no fool. Challenging someone to
>>>prove a negative. Has a familar ring to it.
>>
>>face.
>>
>>
>>Ian
>>
>
>
>I can see why you chose "Clown Brigade," Ian, as you and
Francie are quite the
>tag-team. Hitting the Catskills next, are you?
>
>I've got nothing to prove - negative or otherwise. I'm not the
one who made an
>assertion that Paul has no unpublished works that are avant
garde.
>
>You two may try again when you come up with an original way to
turn this
>around.
>_______________________
>You are educated when you have the ability to listen to almost
anything without
>losing your temper or self-confidence -- Robert Frost
>
>
>
Ooh, Ian and I *have* been naughty, haven't we.
Raise, call or fold, 28.
mozfan
>Francie
>(I *taught* the German Expressionism section of Art History at
>Chouinard Art Institute in 1964. Don't sword fight with Zorro!)
Strange how "Zorro" spends most of her days debating who was the
more avant-garde beatle.
Ok, you don't like paul, we get the damn point.
lstoll
>
> And varying degrees of utter scumbaggery.
True, however despite Francie having clearly said in BC that McCartney
kept her waiting in the car while he went in and sex with another woman,
she now says that she had no idea if he did that (but it made for a good
story). -laura
fabella
In article <northcut-7AB994...@news.mindspring.com>,
"d." <nort...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>In article <05c296b0...@usw-ex0104-026.remarq.com>,
fabella
><waronsex...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Mighty mighty mousie reaction, d. Who leads and who follows
>> willingly where their minds would take them? Remember the
>> following sentences, where I asked him, "Why did you do that?"
>> and he answers, "I don't know."?
>
>
>'He left me sitting in the car while he went upstairs to fuck
her. I wanted
>to rip off the Aston Martin and drive until it broke down. I
was stockpiling
>humiliation.
>
>When he returned, about fifteen minutes later,
>
> [is that a record? - d.]
>
>'"I was burning.
>
>"Why did you do that? Why the hell couldn't you take me home
first?"
>
>"I don't know," he answered, and I could tell he was a little
sick inside
>about it too.'
>
>
>It's pretty clear what you wanted readers to think.
>
>
>> Like it says in the preface, the book is a vending machine.
Pay
>> your money and get out of it whichever flavor candy bar you
>> desire.
>> And above all, please don't understand it too quickly.
>
>
>--
>d.
>
>
Apparently, you are quite obsessed with what is apparently full
of truth, which is neither totally untrue nor totally true.
That's the way human beings are, you know, a little bit of both.
In some quarters, it is believed that McCartney enjoys having
people think of him as quite the swinging bachelor. If they are
correct, then he would probably say this little sequence was
more true than I'd realised when I wrote it.
Put that in your little cuisinart of a mind and mince it.
Francie
http://sites.netscape.net/fabest
''Whoever or whatever you are, what matters is
that you lead your life with pride and dignity." (Judd Marmor)
fabella
In article <38F93D...@lstoll.com>, lstoll <la...@lstoll.com>
wrote:
I think Ian was referring to Paul's having left the motor of the
Aston running. Which tells you how long it took to do whatever
it is he
did in that apartment. I was flattering Paul by not mentioning
the actual time expended. That he left me in his beloved DB-6 is
telling: he trusted me not to drive off and leave him to walk
home.
I think you, Laura, are putting words in my mouth again.
So for you, I recommend the puree speed. (see my reply to the
intrepid d.)
Suck that up! (Yes, a South Park reference!)
frannie
fabella
In article <northcut-E27552...@news.mindspring.com>,
"d." <nort...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>My interest in McCartney lies entirely in what he has produced
as a
>composer/artist.
If that is the case, then you have no business whatsoever asking
me to explain my motivations for writing what I wrote.
'Scuse me while I pick myself up off the floor, where my bawdy
guffaws catapulted my menopausal body.
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
jess...@my-deja.com
In article <northcut-FBC4D3...@news.mindspring.com>,
"d." <nort...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>In article <258e9cc0...@usw-ex0101-006.remarq.com>,
fabella
><waronsex...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> That's just the way it was. It was intense on both sides. If
it hadn't
>> been, he would have committed to Linda and taken her home to
meet
>> his dad
>
>
>He did commit to her and take her home to meet his dad.
>
>--
>d.
>
>
After he did the same with me...
However, I don´t recall anyone ever suggesting he took her to another
girl´s apartment and letting her wait in the car while getting it on
with that other girl - or any similar incident. Obviously, there are
varying degrees of commitment......
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
D 28IF
>doesn't
>>mean it doesn't exist.
>>
>>I don't think anyone denies the fact that, experimenter or not, Paul
>prefered
>>to have more commercially appealing tracks released on official albums.
>That's
>>got nothing to do with what home tapes he made.
>
>Then my assertion stands: no published works or works to show from the
>period of an avant garde musical style (except the jam).
>
>
>Ian
No, it doesn't. What you even mean by "...or works to show from the period..."
is a mystery. Are you trying to reword your assertion to better fit with your
lack of knowledge? You don't know what Paul has in his collection of unreleased
tapes.
Your original assertion was:
>>>From: paramucho i...@hammo.com
>>
>>>>>In that same period McCartney published nothing of a sort and has no
>>>>>private works to show either. The one exception is a jam session for
>>>>>the Carnival Of Light which involved all four Beatles.
"...and has no private works to show either" is an allegation you can't prove.
The fact that you've tried to reworked your original assertion doesn't change
the fact that you can't prove Paul doesn't have any private avant garde works
from that period.
paramucho
>>doesn't
>>>mean it doesn't exist.
>>>
>>>I don't think anyone denies the fact that, experimenter or not, Paul
>>prefered
>>>to have more commercially appealing tracks released on official albums.
>>That's
>>>got nothing to do with what home tapes he made.
>>
>
>>Then my assertion stands: no published works or works to show from the
>>period of an avant garde musical style (except the jam).
>>
>>
>>Ian
>
>
>No, it doesn't. What you even mean by "...or works to show from the period..."
>is a mystery. Are you trying to reword your assertion to better fit with your
>lack of knowledge? You don't know what Paul has in his collection of unreleased
>tapes.
>
>Your original assertion was:
>
>>>>From: paramucho i...@hammo.com
>>>
>>>>>>In that same period McCartney published nothing of a sort and has no
>>>>>>private works to show either. The one exception is a jam session for
>>>>>>the Carnival Of Light which involved all four Beatles.
>
>"...and has no private works to show either" is an allegation you can't prove.
>
>The fact that you've tried to reworked your original assertion doesn't change
>the fact that you can't prove Paul doesn't have any private avant garde works
>from that period.
Of course I can't prove that he hasn't any such works, just as you are unable
to prove that he has. Or do you have evidence to suggest that he does have
private unpublished works from the period?
My questions, however unloved and unanswered, are as follows:
1. Are there any published avant garde McCartney works from the period?
2. Are there any known but unpublished avant garde McCartney works from
the period (except the Beatle Carnival Of Light jam)?
Ian
paramucho
> After he did the same with me...
>
>However, I don´t recall anyone ever suggesting he took her to another
>girl´s apartment and letting her wait in the car while getting it on
>with that other girl - or any similar incident. Obviously, there are
>varying degrees of commitment......
And varying degrees of utter scumbaggery.
Ian
paramucho
D 28IF
I can see why you chose "Clown Brigade," Ian, as you and Francie are quite the
tag-team. Hitting the Catskills next, are you?
I've got nothing to prove - negative or otherwise. I'm not the one who made an
assertion that Paul has no unpublished works that are avant garde.
You two may try again when you come up with an original way to turn this
around.
Wally Warfield
fabella wrote:
>wrote James
> Taylor's first
> record company bio
Ah, Sweet Baby James, so so pretty. That's all I wanted to say. Thank you
for this airtime in cyberland. I'll leave you as I found you, only later
(per John).
Debs
d.
paramucho
>I've got nothing to prove - negative or otherwise. I'm not the one who made an
>assertion that Paul has no unpublished works that are avant garde.
That's not what I said at all. This is what I said:
In that same period McCartney published nothing of a sort and has no
private works to show either. The one exception is a jam session for
the Carnival Of Light which involved all four Beatles.
Now, I said "private works to show", now as far as I know there are none
available for listening (i.e. "known"). Perhaps he has some which are not
available (i.e. "unknown"), but that's a different thing. Of course I do
not pretend to know that there are no unknown works available.
It doesn't matter how much you twist in the wind, my assertions stand,
which I will restate again in a more precise form:
In the same period McCartney published nothing of a sort and, as far
as I know, there are also no known unpublished works from the period
extant except for a jam session with the Beatles.
Ian
paramucho
>>
>> And varying degrees of utter scumbaggery.
>
Agreed.
>however despite Francie having clearly said in BC that McCartney
>kept her waiting in the car while he went in and sex with another woman,
>she now says that she had no idea if he did that (but it made for a good
>story). -laura
Irrelevant to the point.
Ian
d.
<waronsex...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> Apparently, you are quite obsessed with what is apparently full
> of truth, which is neither totally untrue nor totally true.
>
> That's the way human beings are, you know, a little bit of both.
This particular story is cut and dried. You wrote that he did something very
wrong and very cruel to you. Now you're saying it probably didn't happen and
trying to justify why you wrote that it did.
> In some quarters, it is believed that McCartney enjoys having
> people think of him as quite the swinging bachelor. If they are
> correct, then he would probably say this little sequence was
> more true than I'd realised when I wrote it.
So, it's more important to you to uphold what you hear McCartney wants his image
to be, rather than to be true to yourself and your own story? I don't get that
line of thinking.
> Put that in your little cuisinart of a mind and mince it.
I'll be glad to. :)
My interest in McCartney lies entirely in what he has produced as a
composer/artist. Interest in his private life is ancillary to that. If I
didn't think his music was excellent and vastly important, well, I wouldn't be
here, no matter how hot I thought he looked. It's as simple as that.
Whether McCartney wants the world to think he was Mr. Studmuffin has little
bearing on what I know of his music. In MYFN he drew a line between "work
songs" and heartfelt pieces, as did John in his respective interviews. But
unlike John, Paul is notoriously closed-mouthed about his real, close, personal
motives for writing. It seems as if the songs that may have been the most
meaningful to him personally are the ones about which he is the most evasive,
and even deceptive. Therefore if you care to try to figure some of it out, you
have to approach it as piecing together a large puzzle.
As a whole one does not get an impression of an exhortation of the joys of
unbridled promiscuity from McCartney's music. I don't get this impression from
*any* of the Beatles' music, together or solo, actually. They sing about sex
and pleasure but these songs are always personalized, as opposed to say songs by
the Who or the Rolling Stones which are all about guys boasting to other guys.
Given all this, I have no trouble with the idea that McCartney may have been a
bit more picky with his dalliances than he allegedly likes the public to think.
It's not something that affects my life personally, after all.
But after all this, I still want to know why you *intentionally* misled your
readers by saying flat-out that McCartney drove you to a place, left you in the
car, and went inside to have sex with someone. Any reasonable explanation for
why *you* wrote this *after* your relationship eludes my powers of guesswork.
--
d.
D 28IF
>>True, however despite Francie having clearly said in BC that
>McCartney
>>kept her waiting in the car while he went in and sex with
>another woman,
>>she now says that she had no idea if he did that (but it made
>for a good
>>story). -laura
>Which tells you how long it took to do whatever
>it is he
>did in that apartment. I was flattering Paul by not mentioning
>the actual time expended. That he left me in his beloved DB-6 is
>telling: he trusted me not to drive off and leave him to walk
>home.
>
>I think you, Laura, are putting words in my mouth again.
>
Which words did Laura put in your mouth? The ones you published in your book,
or the ones you're trying to twist, a la Ian in this same thread, right now?
So now, not only do you not like people pulling out your own quotes from old
posts, you also don't like people quoting from your published works.
>
>Suck that up! (Yes, a South Park reference!)
>
>frannie
>
>
Yeah, that'll make you hip with the young kids around here.
Lord Tim Brent
wrote:
>Like it says in the preface, the book is a vending machine. Pay
>your money and get out of it whichever flavor candy bar you
>desire.
>And above all, please don't understand it too quickly.
>
>Notwithstanding your righteous indignation, I'm flattered you
>are still so involved in my little book, sentence by sentence.
>
>Francie
It's her personal Warren Report.She is trying to find something to nail you
on,but there are no smoking guns.
Tim
----------------------
Duchy of Grand Fenwick
fabella
RAISE, CALL or FOLD.
Francie
fabella
In article <38f9b2a4...@news.cis.dfn.de>,
Yeah yeah yeah... and she's probably seen too many Oliver Stone
movies as well...
;-)
fa bella
John Serafino
>
> While conveniently ignoring the fact that he made a major play
> for me well after he'd bedded Linda - twice.
>
> You're in a silly mood tonight.
>
> Francie
Something which you obviously never have gotten over, huh?
Does Paul still know or like you? I want to give you the permanent nickname
"cunt", but I don't want to go around calling a friend of Paul's names.
-JS
John Serafino
>>My interest in McCartney lies entirely in what he has produced as a
composer/artist.
> If that is the case, then you have no business whatsoever asking
> me to explain my motivations for writing what I wrote.
>
> 'Scuse me while I pick myself up off the floor, where my bawdy
> guffaws catapulted my menopausal body.
>
> Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
Hey, I don't give a shit what you wrote, as long as it was you observed, and
is factual.
That's the same thing I feel about Fred Seaman.
As long as you told what you saw, and I have no reason to believe you are
fabricating, what you wrote is OK by me.
I don't live in fantasyland, and these guys, while they were incredibly
gifted and extrordinarily talented artists, composers, performers,
whatever... they were nothing but the same people as you and me when they
went home at night.
-JS
fabella
>
>True, however despite Francie having clearly said in BC that
McCartney
>kept her waiting in the car while he went in and sex with
another woman,
>she now says that she had no idea if he did that (but it made
for a good
>story). -laura
>
>
Show me where I said anything remotely resembling "but it made
for a good story."
This is what I was talking about when I said you put words in my
mouth.
Francie
fabella
In article <%JjK4.52060$YU2.8...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>,
"John Serafino" <johnse...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>> You *would* fix on that, wouldn't you Jesse.
>>
>> While conveniently ignoring the fact that he made a major play
>> for me well after he'd bedded Linda - twice.
>>
>> You're in a silly mood tonight.
>>
>> Francie
>
>Something which you obviously never have gotten over, huh?
>
Nope - it's the new writers of the "Warren Report on Francie and
Paul" who can't get over it.
>Does Paul still know or like you? I want to give you the
permanent nickname
>"cunt", but I don't want to go around calling a friend of
Paul's names.
>
>-JS
>
>
To your question: none of your beeswax.
We've discussed the application of the word "cunt" in the
context of my 1972 autobiography at great length. The title of
Chapter 8,
which has been extensively plagiarized in the US and UK for more
than 25 years, and illegally photocopied by certain Paul fans,
was "Don't Cry, I'm a Cunt" - a verbatim quote from Paul, August
27th, 1968.
You're not funny, JS.
D 28IF
>Show me where I said anything remotely resembling "but it made
>for a good story."
>
>This is what I was talking about when I said you put words in my
>mouth.
>
Since I didn't realise that's what you were referring to, I'd like to apologise
for thinking you meant something else.
But it still doesn't answer the question, why write, plainly, in your book that
Paul left you in a car to screw another woman, when you now claim you don't
know what he did.
D 28IF
> where my bawdy
>guffaws catapulted my menopausal body.
That explains so much.
D 28IF
>
>Again, D28:
>
>RAISE, CALL or FOLD.
>
>Francie
>
And once again, Francie:
TELL THE TRUTH, ADMIT YOU'RE EXAGGERING/LYING ABOUT STORIES or FOLD.
Wow, that does look impressive.
Go back to your hormone replacement therapy.
fabella
Either prove I was lying about Mark Lewisohn by showing us all
verifiable sources, or fold up your tent and sod off.
Raise, call or fold.
d.
<waronsex...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> In article <northcut-E27552...@news.mindspring.com>,
> "d." <nort...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >My interest in McCartney lies entirely in what he has produced
> as a
> >composer/artist.
>
>
> If that is the case, then you have no business whatsoever asking
> me to explain my motivations for writing what I wrote.
You've answered my query well enough. Can we say "pathological liar," boys and
girls?
--
d.
d.
28IF) wrote:
> >From: fabella waronsex...@yahoo.com.invalid
>
> >
> >Again, D28:
> >
> >RAISE, CALL or FOLD.
> >
> >Francie
> >
>
> And once again, Francie:
>
> TELL THE TRUTH, ADMIT YOU'RE EXAGGERING/LYING ABOUT STORIES or FOLD.
She has.
--
d.
Zenarus
AH.......I love a woman with a great laugh..
zen~67
d.
<waronsex...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> In article <%JjK4.52060$YU2.8...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>,
> "John Serafino" <johnse...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> >> You *would* fix on that, wouldn't you Jesse.
> >>
> >> While conveniently ignoring the fact that he made a major play
> >> for me well after he'd bedded Linda - twice.
> >>
> >> You're in a silly mood tonight.
> >>
> >> Francie
> >
> >Something which you obviously never have gotten over, huh?
> >
>
> Nope - it's the new writers of the "Warren Report on Francie and
> Paul" who can't get over it.
Someday, someone will write a book in which you are a major figure. The author
will fabricate and distort things about your life and character, and he or she
will do it in the name of "poetic license."
However, there will be no interest from publishers since nobody gives damn, and
it will only be available through selfpub.com. No one will ever read it because
you'll buy up all the copies for yourself.
THE END
--
d.
fabella
In article <northcut-F44945...@news.mindspring.com>,
Coda: To sleep, perchance to dream.
"So hateful of anyone who is happy or free,
They live all their lives without looking to see
The light that has lighted the world..."
(GH)
frannie "Old Brown Shoe" Schwartz
"When's the next show start, d.?"