John Lennon & the Dead
Mugwump
I know Lennon knew Leary and respected him. "Come Together" was
originally supposed to be Leary's campaign song when he was going to run
for govenor of California. The phrase "Come together over me" was
thought of by Leary's wife, if I remember right.
I'm sure Lennon must have met Hendrix in London, it would have been
impossible for him not to have, but I've never heard anything about
their meeting.
So did Lennon ever meet Garcia and the Dead? If so, how did that work
out?
HoffmanMR
with Merl Saunders once where he mentioned John Lennon showing up at a
Garcia-Saunders gig in NYC once. I can't remember any details, just a vague
recollection of reading it. Maybe someone else out there can fill us in.
Andrew Pierce
at a Legion of Mary gig in the Fall of 1975 at a NYC club called the Bottom
Line.
Jackson has both Kahn's description and Martin Fierro's description.
Kahn describes Lennon as being drunk and a little belligerent.
Reportedly, Lennon wanted to sit in and asked if there was a guitar louder
than Garcia's - to which Jerry said 'No, fuck him.' The story ends with
Lennon parting with a group of sleazy hell's angels.
Kahn dismissed the encounter as bad circumstances.
That's the story that I read. Not much to it.
Andy
"HoffmanMR" <hoff...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010122121438...@ng-fi1.aol.com...
N. Hayman
There's an interview with Zappa where he talks about John and Yoko joining
him onstage in the early 70's. They jammed off of "King Kong", and this
jam wound up on one of those John and Yoko albums under a different song
name with copyright and everything. Zappa released it on one of the
arhival albums in its full length anyway - and sounds kind of amused with
the whole situation in the interview (though a tad miffed).
N
Liquid Wrench
Lennon showed up backstage after a Garcia/Saunders show in NYC because he
was honored that someone would do a cover of one of his songs shortly after
its release. Apparently Garcia / Saunders and company( Fogerty, Kahn, and
Vitt) had done their studio version of Imagine (found on "Fire Up") just a
couple of weeks after Lennon's version got released. It's in one of those
books.
Sherlock
youth. He was a mouthy wise ass even in the best of moments. Throw in some
alchohol and, at that time, paranoia over efforts to deport him, and he
could be one mean bastard.
I wonder what songs the two of them would've done. Lennon knew a lot of
classic fifties rock n roll. He was also a big rockabilly fan. I bet Jerry
and he could've strung together a hot set.
As far as Zappa goes, the post below sent me scurrying to my older copy of
Sometime in NYC. Lennon took the stage with Zappa in 1971. The record didn't
come out until 1974. I always thought the inner sleeve was the Zappa album
cover with Lennon's markovers in red pen. This would mean that the Zappa
album was out first. I'm pretty sure it was copped with permission. Heck,
there's a picture of the two of them on stage on the inside cover. Besides,
when did Zappa NOT sound amused and a tad miffed?
As an aside, I also found a petition that came with the album that I had
forgotten about. It came with the record and was a request to grant Lennon
permanent US residency.
London players included Jim Bordom, Eric Claptoe, Kief Spoon, Dallas White,
Billy Prestud and Sticky Topkins. Anyone ever heard of these guys? :^)
"N. Hayman" <ni...@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.A41.4.21.010122...@dante12.u.washington.edu...
Andrew Pierce
paraphrase from his book.
Next let me quote directly from the book Garcia: an American Life. Page
252-253 reads as follows:
"The Legion of Mary's music was a slight departure from the past
Saunders-Garcia bands in that Martin Fierro's role was expanded and the jams
sometimes took jazzier turns. Fierro also brought in a few new songs.
Despite Garcia's earlier pledge to keep his solo groups local, he took the
Legion of Mary out on a tour of the fall of 1975, but stuck to clubs and
small theaters exclusively in an attempt to keep low-key. It was at one of
those shows, at a trendy New York rock club called the Bottom Line, that
Garcia got to meet one of his favorite musicians, former Beatle John
Lennon."
He continues:
""He came backstage and Jerry introduced him to us and I couldn't speak,
man,' says Fierro. 'My voice left me. He was one of my biggest heroes and I
couldn't talk. I was like a drugstore Indian. Then he came back with us to
the hotel in the limo. No guards, no Yoko, just him. And he partied with
us for a while.'
"John Kahn's memory of the evening was less starry-eyed, however. 'My
perspective was a little off-base because I'd dropped a TV set on my hand
that morning and I'd gotten a pain pill from the Hell's Angels,' he said.
'So I wasn't in the best shape. Lennon was sort of in disguise and he was
with the really weird guy I didn't know. I heard from Richard Loren, I
think it was, that Lennon asked if there was a guitar there that was louder
than Garcia's. He wanted to sit in. Well, that got back to Jerry, and
Jerry said, 'No, fuck him.' Later Lennon came down to the dressing room and
was there for a long time; a couple hours. He was real drunk and a little
belligerent. He kept referring to Jerry as 'J.C.', which I took to mean
Jesus Christ, like making fun of Jerry. That night Lennon ended up with the
Hell's Angels and we had a particularly sleazy, motley group of Hell's
Angels with us. Years later I got asked to play with him by a guy in his
band, Jesse Davis, but it didn't work out. I would have liked to. I liked
his music a lot. And basically I thought he was really cool, even though he
was not cool when we met him. But I'm sure that sort of thing happens all
the time. You meet a guy under the wrong circumstances.'"
Then, the book continues on to other topics.
Garcia is quoted earlier in the book, on page 67 giving the Beatles very
high praise, which I think they deserve.
Finally - I did not mean to shine a negative light on this be relating this
story - I meant to merely present information from a source which I consider
to be one of the most esteemed, knowledgeable sources of G.D./ Garcia
information.
-Andy
"Mugwump" <jand...@postoffice.swbell.net> wrote in message
news:3A6C3989...@postoffice.swbell.net...
Jeff Lester
}First - Let me say that I apologize to Blair Jackson for oversights in my
}paraphrase from his book.
}
}Next let me quote directly from the book Garcia: an American Life. Page
}252-253 reads as follows:
}
}"The Legion of Mary's music was a slight departure from the past
}Saunders-Garcia bands in that Martin Fierro's role was expanded and the jams
}sometimes took jazzier turns. Fierro also brought in a few new songs.
}Despite Garcia's earlier pledge to keep his solo groups local, he took the
}Legion of Mary out on a tour of the fall of 1975, but stuck to clubs and
}small theaters exclusively in an attempt to keep low-key. It was at one of
}those shows, at a trendy New York rock club called the Bottom Line, that
}Garcia got to meet one of his favorite musicians, former Beatle John
}Lennon."
Minor nitpick to Blair (or Fierro?): since it's Legion of Mary, Martin Fierro,
and the Bottom Line, we know that this was actually spring of '75, rather
than fall of '75.
-Jeff Lester
jeff tiedrich
<sher...@landmarknet.net> wrote:
> Eric Claptoe,
Yeah, I had a bad case of claptoe once.
--
jeff#tiedrich,com <-- figure it out "Get your nose out of
see my Resources For Tape Traders site tiedrich's ass -- he's
at http://www.resourcesfortapers.com/ a jerk!" -- anonymous
mxb
brews at the Sand Dollar (Stinson Beach, CA) c. 1971-1973
mxb
Mugwump
Andrew Pierce wrote:
It's well known that Lennon could be an asshole at times. He would admit that
himself. And if he was drunk and felt like he had been snubbed, that might
explain his behavior.
I don't blame Garcia for not letting Lennon sit in. That just seems like
Garcia's style. Besides, if Lennon was drunk, he might have screwed everything
up. Maybe Lennon was too drunk to realize this himself.
None of this hurts my feelings. I highly respect Lennon, but he could be
difficult at times, to put it mildly. He was a complex character.
If you can find Pete Shottons book, "John Lennon ,the Beatles and Me", read
it. Pete was Lennon's best friend from the time they were both 11 untill Lennon
left for New York with Yoko.
His book seemed to be fair and unbiased to me. According to Shotton, Lennon
had a hot temper and a cruel streak, but he controled himself most of the time.
But he was also a great guy and a creative genius who really cared about people,
and the world. He was a bundle of contradictions in many ways.
John himself decide that his 'dark side' must have grown out of his hurt at
being abandoned twice by his mother; once when she sent him to live with Aunt
Mimi, and again when she was run over and killed.
Allthough John saw his mother almost every day, and had a close relationship
with her, he still felt a abandoned by her. He had enourmous love and respect
for her. He got his sense of humor from her.
She was a real cut-up. John said she used to do things like walk down the
street with a pair of panties on her head, and act like nothing was wrong. Or
she would tilt her glasses so that one earpiece was below her ear, and she was
only looking through one lens, then when her neighbors stopped to chat, she
would act like nothing was wrong and just chat away with them. She was
hilarious, according to Pete Shotton.
Anyway, John had a bit of a chip on his shoulder growing up. It was part of
his personality. He seemed to have finally gotten free of it after Primal
Therapy, but it also seems that some of his drunken years came later. Maybe the
old demons returned.
If a person expects their heroes to be saints, and perfect, they will be
disappointed with Lennon. He was no saint. But his good points far outweigh his
bad points in my opinion. Like most people, Lennon was complex and not easily
explained.
My opinion wasn't destroyed by Shottons book. It wasn't that kind of book. If
anything I only grew to know Lennon better.
Strange character that Lennon. I wish I could have tripped with him once.
Robert Wiersma
the Dead Center made arrangements with the Beatles at Apple to send over to
London a sampling of psychedeloids." The story is called: "Now we know how
many holes it takes to fill the Albert Hall"
Robert
jeff tiedrich <lo...@my.sig.for.address> schreef in berichtnieuws
look-22010...@sdn-ar-001nywplap194.dialsprint.net...
N. Hayman
(at least he said he did in the interview I heard with him on Fresh Air).
N
John Doherty
I don't think JL ever really "got" the psychedelic jamming that is the
core of the Dead experience, which seems odd, since he was personally
responsible for some of the best psychedelic music ever recorded.
In the Lennon Remembers book, (drawn from a Jann Wenner interview done
around the time of the first Plastic Ono Band record with Working Class
Hero) he says something to the effect that "I don't follow that Incredible
Shrinking Grateful Airplane thing", dismissing the whole San Fran sound in
a soundbite.
As for Come Together, originally the lyric was a simple chant : Come
Together/Join the party, (a play on words, written as a campaign theme
song for Leary in 68). But as was often the case, Lennon tired of that
particular guru and used the idea for something else again, the great song
Come Together,(of which an alternate track was released on Anthology #3,
BTW).
I am not aware that Leary's wife contributed "over me", and it does not
appear on the early Leary era chant (which also does not feature the beat
& tune of the later song).
Seeing Phil & Friends in Augusta Me in 99, I thought Come Together was a
great & witty cover, urging the Philbase to "come together, right now,
over me!"
JD
PS, BTW, Lennon would often recycle bits from tunes: the song we all know
as "Jealous Guy" from his solo career was actually written as "Child of
Nature" during the Maharishi trip in 68, featuring these glassy eyed
lyrics:
"On the road to Rishikesh
We were dreaming more or less
And the dream i had was true...."
Likewise, in the 70s he composed a stark tunen called "Real Life" with a
haunting refrain :
"why must we be alone? Why must we be alone?
and later
"why must we be afraid? Why must we be afraid?"
this song later morphed into two other tunes, both more upbeat: Steppin'
Out & Real Love, later done as the second 90s Beatles tune.
Mugwump
John Doherty wrote:
> I'm a huge fan of the Dead, and of Lennon.
>
> I don't think JL ever really "got" the psychedelic jamming that is the
> core of the Dead experience, which seems odd, since he was personally
> responsible for some of the best psychedelic music ever recorded.
I don't think it's odd at all. When John met Paul, he knew almost nothing
about music. Many of the guitar chords he knew weren't even chords. Paul
taught him everything he knew about chords.
Don't get me wrong, I'm no huge admirer of Paul, but he had a way with
chords that no one can deny. John picked that up from him.
John was not a lead player either. George was brought into the group
because he was the first preson they met who could actually play lead breaks.
Even Paul couldn't do that. George turned out to be very good at it.
John learned how to play rhythm guitar and piano. I guess he learned it
from Paul. He didn't know much of that stuff before Paul.
But suprisingly John achieved a fairly high comprehension of basic chord
function. I guess he had it inside him just waiting to come out.
But John was never a soloist or a virtuoso. Far from it. That's why he was
not a good candidate for jamming.
He was a rhythm player, a singer, a song writer, but most of all... he was
a creative genius. If he hadn't of made it in music, I have no doubt that he
would have ended up a counter-culture hero anyway.
John was a force waiting to happen. I doubt he ever even understood
himself.
He was a bundle of energy that could go off in suprising directions. But
when he was at his best, there were very few people who weren't impressed by
him.
Whatever charm and charisma are, he had it in spades. Ever since he was
young people were impressed by him.
He was also an angry person in some ways. And he had an ego subserviant to
none. He could chat with Leary, Garcia, Queen Elizabeth, or godallmighty, and
not be intimidated.
I can hardly think of another person who was as important to the
psychedelic era. What I find unique about him is that he was really one of
'us', and not the leader everyone thought he was.
He had an ego as big as all outdoors, but he never put himself above the
crowd. He used his fame to get messages across, but he never 'preached'.
He could be a huge pain in the ass, but he never tried to tell anyone else
what to be.
He may have offered suggestions, but he didn't bust your ass.
He lived his life in a fishbowl. He bared his soul to the public (as much
as can be expected).
He laid his trip out for all to see, and invited everyone on board.
He never claimed to be a saint. In fact he only claimed to be one of the
crowd...."You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one." He never
claimed to have invented the concept.
In spite of his tremendous ego and enormous fame, he managed to keep a
pretty level head, except for his drunken escapades.
I just can't think of a more interesting character.
The Dead had a movement for inspiration, but John was a singular force.
Probably no person in history made more people comfortable with the idea of
taking psychedelics than John Lennon.
He was trusted by a generation. He seemed to be allright with it, so we we
figured it was allright too.
Lennon caught on to the psychedelic movement better than any of his British
contemporaries. Jagger didn't get it at all. Clapton was a player, not a
leader. Even Hendrix didn't know how reach the general public like John did.
John had a special talent in that regard. John could be his psychedelic
self on the Mike Douglas Show, and be acceptable to almost everyone. He was a
one in a million at the right time in history.
>
>
> In the Lennon Remembers book, (drawn from a Jann Wenner interview done
> around the time of the first Plastic Ono Band record with Working Class
> Hero) he says something to the effect that "I don't follow that Incredible
> Shrinking Grateful Airplane thing", dismissing the whole San Fran sound in
> a soundbite.
That's classic John though. He was a character. My guess is that he could
have stood up to any psychedelic hero at all and matched wits concept by
concept.
Lennon had a "petty" side to him. He wasn't shy at all about telling you
when he thought he had been "slighted". He held grudges to a certain extent.
He seemed to be always demanding a certain type of treatment from people. I
don't consider his demands unreasonable, but maybe some people did.
In Leary's biography I got the sense that Leary tried to turn this around
on Lennon once.
Lennon wrote "Come Together" as Leary's campaign song. Then Leary had all
of his legal troubles. Lennon recorded the song and sold it, on Abbey Road,
although it was inspired by Leary's wife.
I got the idea that Leary was playing a "John Lennon trip" when he objected
to Lennon (in person) about him using the song without Leary's permision.
Lennon's response was,"I'm like a taylor. I made you a suit and you never came
back to claim it. So, I sold it to someone else."
When I read that I thought: Yup, no one can out-Lennon, Lennon himself.
Lets face it, he's just too smart to trick.
What a character.
N. Hayman
a challenge to our beliefs. I still don't quite know how to digest John
into my personal life. Suffice it to say, when I was a teenager and we
were paging through my friend's sister's yearbook, there was a message in
the signed page "remember seeing John Lennon at the Garden", and I
realized then (in '86 or something) that John Lennon would never be really
part of my life. I remember my mother crying in front of our little black
and white TV the night he died. As I watch and listen to documentaries and
music of John Lennon I try to find why Kesey described him as one of the
great forces of peace in our world. Maybe its because he was the perpetual
teenager, rebellious angry, but not angry for anger's sake, but angry that
people didn't find more personal, feeling, apolitical solutions for the
difficulties that arise in life (a Buddhist pretext). We could probably
use a John Lennon about now!
N
_____________________________
Nicholas W. Hayman \
Dept. of Geological Sci., U.W.\ http://www.geology.washington.edu/~hayman
Box 351310, Seattle WA 98195 \_________________________________________
John Doherty
> In Leary's biography I got the sense that Leary tried to turn this around
> on Lennon once.
> Lennon wrote "Come Together" as Leary's campaign song. Then Leary had all
> of his legal troubles. Lennon recorded the song and sold it, on Abbey Road,
> although it was inspired by Leary's wife.
> I got the idea that Leary was playing a "John Lennon trip" when he objected
> to Lennon (in person) about him using the song without Leary's permision.
> Lennon's response was,"I'm like a taylor. I made you a suit and you never came
> back to claim it. So, I sold it to someone else."
> When I read that I thought: Yup, no one can out-Lennon, Lennon himself.
> Lets face it, he's just too smart to trick.
>
> What a character.
>
JD writes:
> >
> > As for Come Together, originally the lyric was a simple chant : Come
> > Together/Join the party, (a play on words, written as a campaign theme
> > song for Leary in 68). But as was often the case, Lennon tired of that
> > particular guru and used the idea for something else again, the great song
> > Come Together,(of which an alternate track was released on Anthology #3,
> > BTW).
> >
> > I am not aware that Leary's wife contributed "over me", and it does not
> > appear on the early Leary era chant (which also does not feature the beat
> > & tune of the later song).
> >
Well, Mugwump, if you heard the earlier version (presumably the one with
leary's input) , which is no more than a silly chant of a bunch of people
in a room saying "come together/join the party" ad infinitum(could be
anybody, or any number of stoned occasions I attended in the 70s & 80s!) ,
you would see that clearly the track on Abbey Road bears little comparison
indeed beyond sharing two words of the English language.
& when I say a bunch of people chanting in a room, I'm sure this will
evoke "Give Peace a Chance" . Believe me when I tell you there is no
comparison. One is music, the other closer to conversation.
I imagine (so to speak!) that Leary & his wife at the time both felt they
had "peed in the soup" artistically, but everything I know about this
song's success & origins is the mind of John Lennon.
Monkey finger!
JD
John Doherty
> I don't think it's odd at all. When John met Paul, he knew almost nothing
> about music. Many of the guitar chords he knew weren't even chords. Paul
> taught him everything he knew about chords.
> Don't get me wrong, I'm no huge admirer of Paul, but he had a way with
> chords that no one can deny. John picked that up from him.
I think that this is a bit simplistic, like saying all the substantial
songwriting that Paul did he picked up from John. Granted, McCartney's
strong suit is largely melody, and Lennon was more forceful, dynamic &
lyrical; but each could do the other thing too. it reminds me of what
Elvis Costello said during his collaborations with Paul: "All the things
you think he wrote, I did, and vice-versa"
There are several Beatle songs where the parts are quite dramatic, such as
We Can Work It Out, where the parts are two musical ideas fused to make
one great song:
Paul: We can work it out (optimistic, enthused, energetic)
John: Life is very short, and there's no time, for fussing & fighting my
friend (world weary, resigned, realistic?)
or Day in the Life:
Paul : Got up, got out of bed, dragged a comb across my head...
John: I read the news today oh boy/ I'd love to turn you on...
> John was not a lead player either. George was brought into the group
> because he was the first preson they met who could actually play lead breaks.
> Even Paul couldn't do that. George turned out to be very good at it.
> John learned how to play rhythm guitar and piano. I guess he learned it
> from Paul. He didn't know much of that stuff before Paul.
> But suprisingly John achieved a fairly high comprehension of basic chord
> function. I guess he had it inside him just waiting to come out.
Not sure why it's surprising. When the Beatles hit it, none of them had
official training. Paul's Dad Jim had been in a band, but even his
training was far from orthodox. Paul later did some official training, but
even then, he didn't go for it much. His later symphonic work shows he's
got it now, though.
> John was a force waiting to happen. I doubt he ever even understood
> himself.
Who of us does? One great attribute of a good marriage is that each
understands the other as much as is fully possible in this world. In a
real sense, my wife knows me better than I know myself, just like you can
see a house truly when you step away from it. Another example is that I
found it's hard to know a town when you live in it. If you move two towns
over, it's much easier to see that hometown clearly.
> He was a bundle of energy that could go off in suprising directions. But
> when he was at his best, there were very few people who weren't impressed by
> him.
Even when he was at his worst! ;-)
> He had an ego as big as all outdoors, but he never put himself above the
> crowd. He used his fame to get messages across, but he never 'preached'.
he realized the huge ego is a flip side of a lack of confidence.
> He could be a huge pain in the ass, but he never tried to tell anyone else
> what to be.
> He may have offered suggestions, but he didn't bust your ass.
Presumably, you are unaware of his constant busting ass on the rest of the
Beatles (paul & George mostly) & the Stones during 60s & 70s interviews?
sample paraphrase:"Mick Jagger, with all his silly faggot dancin' wigglin
his arse, it was just a load of bullshit. & everything the Stones ever did
they copied from the Beatles!"
> He lived his life in a fishbowl. He bared his soul to the public (as much
> as can be expected).
> He laid his trip out for all to see, and invited everyone on board.
Right, he realized the Whole World Was Watching, and thought he should use
this window to the world for some good, thus the bed in for peace.
> I just can't think of a more interesting character.
You & me both. for me, Lennon was the person of the century.
> The Dead had a movement for inspiration, but John was a singular force.
> Probably no person in history made more people comfortable with the idea of
> taking psychedelics than John Lennon.
Garcia is parallel to Lennon in many ways. Each is "the leader" in a group
that claims to have no leader. Each is a charismatic force, and one of two
songwriters that dominate their band's catalog. Each has an early trauma
involving Dad: Lennon's splits when he's 2, Garcia watches his dad die
when he's 5 (or so). Each has a distant relationship with Mom, and is
farmed out to live with relatives (aunt Mimi for John; Jerry with his
grandparents). Each has trouble with parenting, though Lennon makes good
the 2nd time around. Each is a huge force for the use of psychedelics.
Each is a provocative thinker that makes for the oddly intellectual rock
star interview.
> He was trusted by a generation. He seemed to be allright with it, so we we
> figured it was allright too.
> Lennon caught on to the psychedelic movement better than any of his British
> contemporaries. Jagger didn't get it at all. Clapton was a player, not a
> leader. Even Hendrix didn't know how reach the general public like John did.
> John had a special talent in that regard. John could be his psychedelic
> self on the Mike Douglas Show, and be acceptable to almost everyone. He was a
> one in a million at the right time in history.
>
True. It is the underside of "Just Say No": everybody loves the Beatles,
like Mom & Apple Pie. yet we wouldn't have such songs as Strawberry Fields
Forever, I Am the Walrus, Tomorrow Never Knows, or She Said, She Said,
without Lennon's immersion in LSD. At the same time, it's clear this drug
is not for everybody, much like alcohol.
JD
Mugwump
"N. Hayman" wrote:
> Lennon, like Bukowski, like Snyder, like Watts, like.... will always pose
> a challenge to our beliefs. I still don't quite know how to digest John
> into my personal life.
Lennon is not easy to put into a box. He was a bundle of contradictions, but his
good points outweigh his bad points.
He had a dark side to him though. Most of the time he kept it under control. In
spite of that, he was very enlightened. That's the contradiction I guess.
Garcia seems easier to figure out. He just dodn't seem to 'have' a dark side,
although I remember hearing him say that he once lost his temper and pushed Phil
Lesh down the stairs, or was it Bob Weir?
> Suffice it to say, when I was a teenager and we
> were paging through my friend's sister's yearbook, there was a message in
> the signed page "remember seeing John Lennon at the Garden", and I
> realized then (in '86 or something) that John Lennon would never be really
> part of my life. I remember my mother crying in front of our little black
> and white TV the night he died. As I watch and listen to documentaries and
> music of John Lennon I try to find why Kesey described him as one of the
> great forces of peace in our world.
I think that is because he made it his persona. He 'became' peace.
I'm not saying that he was like Buddha or anythingthing; he wasn't a saint. But
he knew that he would always be in the news because of his fame. So he decided to
use his space in the paper as an advertisement for peace.
He decided to put the media to work serving peace instead of their usual masters.
But he never confused his media image with the real John. He never bought that
sainthood crap about himself. He became the personification of peace, but he never
forgot it was just an image.
He never started taking himself too seriously. It was strictly business with him.
He was about the business of peace, and he used his notoriety to get the message
out.
But even Lennon realized he took it too far after a point. In the beginning, all
he had to do was call the media and they would show up and listen to whatever he had
to say. After a while though, they got tired of him. That's when Lennon learned a
media term called "over exposure".
He was using his press power too often. The public and the media became bored and
disinterested.
That's when he backed off a bit. Then he went for years without seeking the
spotlight at all. I guess he figured he had done 'enough' for a while.
But he was one of the biggest forces for peace in this century for several
reasons, much of it was just due to dumb luck and not really something John himself
could, or would, take credit for.
First of all, he was one of the biggest influences on his generation, through his
music.The Beatles were the background soundtrack for an entire era, (though it was a
brief one). They weren't just part of the times, they 'were' the times.
So when LSD came along, and the Beatles used it with apparently no ill effects,
it was the biggest endorsement the drug could have gotten.
If the Beatles had freaked out or started a campaing aginst LSD, people would
have listened to that too. The Beatles didn't 'have' to promote LSD. Just the fact
that they felt 'at ease' with it was enough for many people to feel safe about
trying it. That's because they felt a 'kinship' and trust for thr Beatles.
Then John took things further by using his fame as a perpetual advertisement for
peace. That was really Yoko's idea more than John's, although he imediately saw the
brilliance of it. She doesn't get enough credit for that.
The first time that a satelite link was used to broadcast a message world wide,
so that everyone could get it simultaneously, was The Beatles playing "All You Need
is Love". A lot of it was just being in the right place at the right time, but they
made the best 'use' of that place and time that was humanly possible.
> Maybe its because he was the perpetual
> teenager, rebellious angry, but not angry for anger's sake, but angry that
> people didn't find more personal, feeling, apolitical solutions for the
> difficulties that arise in life (a Buddhist pretext). We could probably
> use a John Lennon about now!
That we could.
John Doherty
> Lennon is not easy to put into a box. He was a bundle of
contradictions, but his
> good points outweigh his bad points.
> He had a dark side to him though. Most of the time he kept it under
control. In
> spite of that, he was very enlightened. That's the contradiction I guess.
> Garcia seems easier to figure out. He just dodn't seem to 'have' a
dark side,
> although I remember hearing him say that he once lost his temper and
pushed Phil
> Lesh down the stairs, or was it Bob Weir?
Garcia had no dark side? Tell that to his kids, who endured a largely
absent (but episodically loving) father. Tell it to the many women in his
life that got the roadie's notice that Jerry was done with them. Tell it
to Owsley & others who warned Jerry that his fondness for Persian wasn't
good for him, his art or his health.
The difference is Lennon served his bile straight up in interviews. BTW,
the previous paragraph may strike some as an "Albert Goldman" treatment of
Jerry, and I want to balance it by saying the Jerry was an amazing guitar
player, writer & stylist, on par with Hendrix in my book for sheer breadth
of style & virtuosity. In interviews I've read & seen, he's invariably
warm, clever, sharp & funny. I just think his dark side wasn't showcased
as publicly as Jerry's.
One image that sticks with me is in Scully's book, at the height of
Jerry's fame, when he's Virtual Elvis, touring stadiums with thousands of
VW microbuses full of kids building their schedules around him, and
between tours, he's living the hermetic life, in the basement of the
building in which Scully lives on the first floor.
Worried for his health, someone convinces Jerry to fianlly answer the
door, and they notice his legs are covered with sores from his neglected
diabetic condition. Self medicating, he didn't seek medical attention,
just smoked more Persian & hid in his hole. How's that for a dark side?
I'm not saying I'd 've handled it any better by the way. I just think it
pays to keep your eyes open about these things.
> I think that is because he made it his persona. He 'became' peace.
> I'm not saying that he was like Buddha or anythingthing; he wasn't a
saint.
I think Garcia & Lennon were both avatars for our age, pushing
consciousness in directions it otherwise would noit have gone.
>But he knew that he would always be in the news because of his fame. So
he >decided to use his space in the paper as an advertisement for peace.
> He decided to put the media to work serving peace instead of their
usual masters.
>
> But even Lennon realized he took it too far after a point. In the
beginning, all
> he had to do was call the media and they would show up and listen to
whatever he had
> to say. After a while though, they got tired of him. That's when Lennon
learned a
> media term called "over exposure".
Can't say I ever recall JL reaching overexposure. The media always loved a
Lennon sighting, whether it was a bag-in or when he was self destructing
with Nilsson on Sunset Strip. It was his decision to pull back from the
spotlight for the birth of Sean & his first five years, not some media
burnout.
> He was using his press power too often. The public and the media
became bored and
> disinterested.
when , exactly are you talking about? I lived those years, and I've read
the Coleman bio & other sources. None of them speak of the media burning
out on Lennon.
> That's when he backed off a bit. Then he went for years without seeking the
> spotlight at all. I guess he figured he had done 'enough' for a while.
>
> But he was one of the biggest forces for peace in this century for several
> reasons, much of it was just due to dumb luck and not really something
John himself
> could, or would, take credit for.
> First of all, he was one of the biggest influences on his generation,
through his
> music.The Beatles were the background soundtrack for an entire era,
(though it was a
> brief one). They weren't just part of the times, they 'were' the times.
> So when LSD came along, and the Beatles used it with apparently no
ill effects,
> it was the biggest endorsement the drug could have gotten.
> If the Beatles had freaked out or started a campaing aginst LSD,
people would
> have listened to that too. The Beatles didn't 'have' to promote LSD.
Just the fact
> that they felt 'at ease' with it was enough for many people to feel safe about
> trying it. That's because they felt a 'kinship' and trust for thr Beatles.
The new anthology book has some further words on acid by the lads. It also
includes Harrison's account of he & John's first dosing by a London
dentist. The two Beatles went to a dinner party with their wives & no one
knew exactly what acid was. The guy dosed them & tried to keep them at his
house, but they went out on their own magical mystery tour!
> Then John took things further by using his fame as a perpetual
advertisement for
> peace. That was really Yoko's idea more than John's, although he
imediately saw the
> brilliance of it. She doesn't get enough credit for that.
Making Peace a product was great art & politics! Like Warhol meets Abbie
Hoffman, but with results!
JD
Joe Marinaro
there somewhere. That man saved my life! And that ain't no joke. As soon
as I realized my life started to parallel the stories he was telling, I
straightened up, and got my life together.
-Joe
My list and useless info-
http://community.webtv.net/Marinaro/BIODTL
Mugwump
John Doherty wrote:
> In article <3A6F681A...@postoffice.swbell.net>, jand...@swbell.net wrote:
>
> > Lennon is not easy to put into a box. He was a bundle of
> contradictions, but his
> > good points outweigh his bad points.
> > He had a dark side to him though. Most of the time he kept it under
> control. In
> > spite of that, he was very enlightened. That's the contradiction I guess.
> > Garcia seems easier to figure out. He just dodn't seem to 'have' a
> dark side,
> > although I remember hearing him say that he once lost his temper and
> pushed Phil
> > Lesh down the stairs, or was it Bob Weir?
>
> Garcia had no dark side? Tell that to his kids, who endured a largely
> absent (but episodically loving) father.
Well, yes I guess that's true. But many successful fathers are distant. It's
almost a guarantee if you make your living on the road. Johnathan Winter was a
distant dad too, but it wasn't a moral lapse, it was because he was laways on the
road.
> Tell it to the many women in his
> life that got the roadie's notice that Jerry was done with them.
Yeah that's pretty cold, if they had a real relationship.
> Tell it
> to Owsley & others who warned Jerry that his fondness for Persian wasn't
> good for him, his art or his health.
I don't consider a heroin problem a moral lapse either. It's foolish and hurtfull
to your family and friends, but it doesn't mean you are a bd guy. believe me, I have
had a few friends end up in the same shape. Yes, they were being selfish and
irresponsable, but after it took over their lives they lost control. I have two very
good friends that that happened too. Both are one of the best friens I could have
ever had. In every other respect they are good honsest moral people.
>
>
> The difference is Lennon served his bile straight up in interviews.
And Lennon had a definite cruel streak. He feared it though, and tried to keep it
under control.
> BTW,
> the previous paragraph may strike some as an "Albert Goldman" treatment of
> Jerry, and I want to balance it by saying the Jerry was an amazing guitar
> player, writer & stylist, on par with Hendrix in my book for sheer breadth
> of style & virtuosity. In interviews I've read & seen, he's invariably
> warm, clever, sharp & funny. I just think his dark side wasn't showcased
> as publicly as Jerry's.
I guess our main disagreement is in terminology. What you are calling Garcias
dark side, I would call his flaws. Maybe it's the same thing. People like allways
seem to have a lot of flaws. Maybe it's because they do 'everything' in a big way,
even screw up. :-)
>
>
> One image that sticks with me is in Scully's book, at the height of
> Jerry's fame, when he's Virtual Elvis, touring stadiums with thousands of
> VW microbuses full of kids building their schedules around him, and
> between tours, he's living the hermetic life, in the basement of the
> building in which Scully lives on the first floor.
> Worried for his health, someone convinces Jerry to fianlly answer the
> door, and they notice his legs are covered with sores from his neglected
> diabetic condition. Self medicating, he didn't seek medical attention,
> just smoked more Persian & hid in his hole. How's that for a dark side?
I meant dark side mainly in a sense of being "mean". Lennon definitely had a mean
streak that he kept supressed. Maybe Garcia did to, but I wasn't aware of it.
>
>
> I'm not saying I'd 've handled it any better by the way. I just think it
> pays to keep your eyes open about these things.
>
>
> > I think that is because he made it his persona. He 'became' peace.
> > I'm not saying that he was like Buddha or anythingthing; he wasn't a
> saint.
>
> I think Garcia & Lennon were both avatars for our age, pushing
> consciousness in directions it otherwise would noit have gone.
>
> >But he knew that he would always be in the news because of his fame. So
> he >decided to use his space in the paper as an advertisement for peace.
> > He decided to put the media to work serving peace instead of their
> usual masters.
> >
>
> > But even Lennon realized he took it too far after a point. In the
> beginning, all
> > he had to do was call the media and they would show up and listen to
> whatever he had
> > to say. After a while though, they got tired of him. That's when Lennon
> learned a
> > media term called "over exposure".
>
> Can't say I ever recall JL reaching overexposure. The media always loved a
> Lennon sighting, whether it was a bag-in or when he was self destructing
> with Nilsson on Sunset Strip. It was his decision to pull back from the
> spotlight for the birth of Sean & his first five years, not some media
> burnout.
That came later. For a while before that he gave up on his public peace mission.
Remember those times when he was only in the press if he got drunk and did something
silly?
>
>
> > He was using his press power too often. The public and the media
> became bored and
> > disinterested.
>
> when , exactly are you talking about? I lived those years, and I've read
> the Coleman bio & other sources. None of them speak of the media burning
> out on Lennon.
Lennon hinself mentioned it. In the beginning he had no trouble getting the media
to show up for his planned peace statements, but after a while, the press stopped
being so interested. Eventually he was having a hard time getting them to show up at
all.
Lennon started trying to find out why, and a media savy person told him he was
just "over-exposed". He had in the press so often that they were beginning to lose
interest in him. So, he pretty much went back to a normal life and started trying to
get Yoko pregnant. But he was out of the press for yers before Sean was born, except
if he got drunk in public, or showed up to jam at some concert.
True. It was a great idea.
>
>
> JD
John Doherty
JD>
>
> > Tell it
> > to Owsley & others who warned Jerry that his fondness for Persian wasn't
> > good for him, his art or his health.
>
> I don't consider a heroin problem a moral lapse either. It's foolish
and hurtfull
> to your family and friends, but it doesn't mean you are a bd guy.
believe me, I have
> had a few friends end up in the same shape. Yes, they were being selfish and
> irresponsable, but after it took over their lives they lost control. I
have two very
> good friends that that happened too. Both are one of the best friens I
could have
> ever had. In every other respect they are good honsest moral people.
>
I take a libertarian position on drugs, but as an artist, I view things a
bit differently. I've heard it said the Buddhists believe if you are born
with a talent & don't use it, you lose it in your next incarnation. Of
course, by this standard, Garcia will be a ferocious guitarist in the next
life! ;-)
But in Jerry's case, there seems to be a consensus among those that knew
him best that the persian diminished him considerably. Anybody who could
compare a 70s show with a 90s show would have to agree.
> I guess our main disagreement is in terminology. What you are calling
Garcias
> dark side, I would call his flaws. Maybe it's the same thing. People
like allways
> seem to have a lot of flaws. Maybe it's because they do 'everything' in
a big way,
> even screw up. :-)
>
Lennon could certainly be nastier on the page or in a room, than Jerry.
But I don't think he had a bigger "dark Side" . Cruel streak, yeah, but
not dark side.
JD
Mugwump
John Doherty wrote:
Oh yes, I agree, but John was sort of commisioned to write the song for Leary, if
I remember right. I don't know if Leary ever paid him anything, but Leary felt a
little attached to it.
I never meant to say that Leary wrote it, just that he inspired it and asked John
to develop it for his gubenatorial campaign.
Damn wouldn't that have been great if Leary had of become govenor?
(This is the first time I'm seeing this message by the way).
>
>
> Monkey finger!
>
> JD