Yoko: kindness, generosity, loyalty, more
Tom
>I'm not bothering with quote and sources since, unlike Yoko's negative
>qualities, these will not be questioned.
Why am I afraid that you're wrong?
While this isn't in itself an especially virtuous thing to do, I think it
speaks well of her that she participates in events with the Fluxus artists
who she worked with almost 40 years ago.
Tom
>Well, Diana, you've done it now!
>
>Just wait until the Yoko detractors get a hold of you! <g>
<vision of Fred Seaman ripping the medals off of Diana's uniform and
breaking her sword over his knee>
Amaranth56
weaknesses are both bigger than life. Yesterday, in response to two requests,
I listed things Yoko has done that I don't like. In fairness, today I present
the other side.
I'm not bothering with quote and sources since, unlike Yoko's negative
qualities, these will not be questioned.
- - - -
Yoko paid all the medical bills so for Charlotte Moormann, a long-time friend
who died from cancer.
One example of Yoko's sense of humor: When she found out about a rock group
named Yoko Ono's A**, Yoko sent them a photo of, well, her a**.
Yoko turned her and John's estate into a considerable fortune through wise
investments and business ventures.
In November 1997, Yoko started a John Lennon Scholarship Contest. A wonderful
opportunity for budding songwriters.
In December 1998, Yoko donated 33,000 pounds of food to the Redwood Empire Food
Bank.
(Normally, Yoko doesn't advertise her generous donations, so this is but a
small sample.)
On January 15, 1998, The Imagine Tournament was held, sponsored by Yoko.
Yoko is a major supporter of the Chess-In-The-Schools program for inner city
school children. Last year, Yoko not only attended but allowed for photo ops.
In May 1999, Yoko participated in a concert to aid refugees from Kosovo.
The Spirit Foundation was started by John and Yoko in 1978; Yoko continues to
donate 10% of her earnings.
Yoko has helped keep John's memory alive in positive ways: She made a
statement on the 30th anniversary of the bed-in; Yoko repeated the "Happy Xmas,
War Is Over" billboard on its 29th anniversary; despite problems with a few
sections of the liner notes, Yoko did a stunning job with the Lennon Anthology.
END
Yoko's long-time friend, Norman Seaman, sponsored her back in the 50s. They
remained friends until shortly after John's death. He has this to say about
Yoko:
"There are sides of Yoko. Some will say she's violently self-centered, and
evil in many ways. Others will say she is a generous, concerned human being,
interested in women's rights and loyal to her friends. You know what? It's
all true, every single contradictory bit of it."
chocolate jesus......
news:19990929220712...@ng-fa1.aol.com...
> As an extraordinarily intense and complex person, Yoko's strengths and
> weaknesses are both bigger than life. Yesterday, in response to two
requests,
> I listed things Yoko has done that I don't like. In fairness, today I
present
> the other side.
>
> I'm not bothering with quote and sources since, unlike Yoko's negative
> qualities, these will not be questioned.
well that is a bit pointed diane, but let me just insert a few things you
forgot.....
she loved and married john lennon when he asked her to.
(anyone who chimes in that that was a bad thing, can just fuck off. or as
john said" if that what you think, then fuck you brother or sister. you
don't know me at all")
she had a baby with john lennon.
she heightened awareness about many aspects of art and peace.
she was and still is, whether you like it or not, a 60's icon.
ok that ought to help.........:p
(ps i don't put much stock in the material/monetary stuff. even the nastiest
of evil desposts make charitable donations.)
D 28IF
>
>As an extraordinarily intense and complex person, Yoko's strengths and
>weaknesses are both bigger than life. Yesterday, in response to two
>requests,
>I listed things Yoko has done that I don't like. In fairness, today I
>present
>the other side.
>
>I'm not bothering with quote and sources since, unlike Yoko's negative
>qualities, these will not be questioned.
>- - - -
><snip>
D 28IF
>
>>Well, Diana, you've done it now!
>>
>>Just wait until the Yoko detractors get a hold of you! <g>
>
><vision of Fred Seaman ripping the medals off of Diana's uniform and
>breaking her sword over his knee>
>
>
>
LOL.
Course, I also see no good deed ever goes unpunished, as there have already
been 2 criticisms of Diana's newest list of good things Yoko has done.
chocolate jesus......
Tom <Blac...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:bUAI3.7196$TW3....@news3.mia...
>
> >Well, Diana, you've done it now!
> >
> >Just wait until the Yoko detractors get a hold of you! <g>
>
> <vision of Fred Seaman ripping the medals off of Diana's uniform and
> breaking her sword over his knee>
oh come on now girls, even you got to admit that was funny!
great image tom.........LOL
chocolate jesus......
D 28IF <d2...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990929234603...@ng-fe1.aol.com...
> >From: "Tom" Blac...@msn.com
>
> >
> >>Well, Diana, you've done it now!
> >>
> >>Just wait until the Yoko detractors get a hold of you! <g>
> >
> ><vision of Fred Seaman ripping the medals off of Diana's uniform and
> >breaking her sword over his knee>
> >
> >
> >
>
> Course, I also see no good deed ever goes unpunished, as there have
already
> been 2 criticisms of Diana's newest list of good things Yoko has done.
>
Oakleaves
that she's allowed John's name to be used to sell baby clothes). But what I
like about her is that she is over 60, looks greater than ever, & seems
incredibly cool and hip. Quite an inspiration & role model to some of us who
will soon be getting up there! Plus, she seems to be living her life post-John
in an interesting, full, graceful way.
chocolate jesus ::
their pedestal and proclaimed that:
good points.
:)
Mister Charlie
Epstein and George Martin and all such celebrities, are PEOPLE.
Humans. We are only generally aware of and in hate/love with their
IMAGE. We make them bigger than us; bigger than they are. Heroes are
just humans doing extraordinary things. Not to diminish their
accomplishments, but to put them, as people, into clear view. We THINK
we know them, but of course we really don't. When you approach a
celebrity you already love or hate them, you know all about their work
or public faux pas, and you have an agenda (autograph, critique). But
they don't know you from Adam. Imagine (!) how scary that is: to be
approached by a perfect stranger who treats you like a long lost
relative. They know everything about you and you don't even know their
name. And they want something from you...photo, autograph,
money...it's the downside of fame.
I think Yoko won a special grace when John died, as before that time
she was very very vilifed. (Linda McCartney, too, won immense respect,
mainly posthumously...before that she was criticized almost as much as
Yoko.) As Mrs. Lennon, widow, the world finally sensed the connection,
the long marriage between her and John. And as great as our pain was,
and it was monumental...her's and Sean's was and will always be deeper,
worse.
I met Yoko in Carmel CA around 1988, at an art gallery. I was lucky
enough to get an interview with her in a private room...Elliot Mintz
screened me and let me pass. I was to have only two minutes with her.
I asked a question or two, but it turned into more like a
conversation.
Elliot stood behind Yoko waving his arms for me to wrap it up, which I
began to do. As I stood up, Yoko began talking to me again, and I sat
back down. We had a few more minutes before it was time to go.
The Yoko I met was generous, kind, professional, and in general a very
nice lady.
All of us have dark sides. None of us have them exposed as thoroughly
as some, like Yoko, do. Would you want that. God knows I would not.
I was a vocal, superficial detractor of hers in the 60's and 70's, like
most. I felt bad for her in December 1980, like most of us. And I've
watched her live her life with an attempt at quiet dignity, shy of her
loud art.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
lstoll
nobody has mentioned. Despite the fact that Paul and Yoko were never the
best of buds, Yoko shared good things John had said to her about Paul
with Paul after John was killed. -laura
D 28IF
Ah, good call! That may very well have been the greatest gift she could have
given Paul, at the time.
chocolate jesus......
Mister Charlie <cc...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:7t054o$9jj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
beautiful testimony mr charlie.
and beautiful observations as well.
you are a big asset to this ng as far as i'm concerned.
best
na
--
(who definitely would not want his darker side exposed.......sheeesh)
Nowhere Man
>
> In article <37F3A0...@lstoll.com>,
> lstoll <la...@lstoll.com> wrote:
> > Y'all have already covered most of the things I know of, but here's
> one
> > nobody has mentioned. Despite the fact that Paul and Yoko were never
> the
> > best of buds, Yoko shared good things John had said to her about Paul
> > with Paul after John was killed. -laura
>
> This is another good example of how spin-doctored misinformation has
> become accepted as fact by some (WARNING to all OnoFans: This might be a
> good time to take your Valium, Chlonopin, Vicodin, heroin or whatever is
> your medication of choice...) The unpalatable truth is that JL had
> nothing good to say about Paul in private. Whatever "good things" Y
> "shared" with Paul she made up. She told paul what he wanted to hear. It
> was part of a carefully planned campaign to patch up her relationship
> with Paul, whose support she needed in connection with her future plans
> to become a controlling force re APPLE. In fact, Y suceeded in making
> Paul (& perhaps even more importantly, Lee eastman) her ally. I bet you
> that if you asked paul about it today he'll concede that he was used &
> was duped into playing Y's game.
>
> Re Y's "good deeds", it should be pointed out that most of her
> charitable contributions are not made for altruistic reasons. Y has to
> give away some $$$ for tax reasons, so she's always on the lookout for
> ways to give away money & earn positive press coverage. One particularly
> ingenious example is her contribution to the kids' chess club in harlem
> (?) which coincided with one of her art exhibits that included a piece
> consisting of an all-white chess board; the publicity surrounding her
> contribution to the chess club also helped to hype her art exhibit.
>
> Re The Spirit Foundation: The official party line is that it was
> founded in 1978 by her & JL. In fact it was founded by Yoko *after* JL's
> death. I would also be wary of unquestioningly accepting the
> oft-mentioned 10% allegedly given out. According to the Charities
> Bureau, the Spirit Foundation has disbursed a far smaller percentage.
> Much of the money raised under the auspices of the Spirit Foundation
> goes directly into Y's pocket.
>
> Incidentally, I believe that Diane overlooked one of Y's most
> significant (& most highly publicized) charitable deed: Y's longtime
> support of Hale House, a facility that helps mothers of babies who are
> born drug-addicted (as was Sean). Y's generosity toward Charlotte
> Moorman in her hour of need remains undisputed & is the only genuine
> altruistic act by Y. that comes to mind.
>
> -FRED SEAMAN
Fred,
did John's 1980 diary ever resurface?
Will
freds...@my-deja.com
-FRED SEAMAN
Tammy Loney
Tammy Loney
did John's 1980 diary ever resurface?
Will>>
LOL! Good one!
d.
> In article <37F3A0...@lstoll.com>,
> lstoll <la...@lstoll.com> wrote:
>> Y'all have already covered most of the things I know of, but here's
> one
>> nobody has mentioned. Despite the fact that Paul and Yoko were never
> the
>> best of buds, Yoko shared good things John had said to her about Paul
>> with Paul after John was killed. -laura
>> ===================
>
> This is another good example of how spin-doctored misinformation has
> become accepted as fact by some (WARNING to all OnoFans: This might be a
> good time to take your Valium, Chlonopin, Vicodin, heroin or whatever is
> your medication of choice...) The unpalatable truth is that JL had
> nothing good to say about Paul in private.
He had "nothing" good at all to say about Paul - ever? Care to elaborate on
that?
Not that I'm surprised, mind you - but I do find it hard to believe he was
100% negative all the time. What if anything did he ever say about George,
as well?
--
d.
edc...@postoffice2.bellatlantic.net
freds...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <37F3A0...@lstoll.com>,
> lstoll <la...@lstoll.com> wrote:
> > Y'all have already covered most of the things I know of, but here's
> one
> > nobody has mentioned. Despite the fact that Paul and Yoko were never
> the
> > best of buds, Yoko shared good things John had said to her about Paul
> > with Paul after John was killed. -laura
> > ===================
>
> This is another good example of how spin-doctored misinformation has
> become accepted as fact by some (WARNING to all OnoFans: This might be a
> good time to take your Valium, Chlonopin, Vicodin, heroin or whatever is
> your medication of choice...)
> The unpalatable truth is that JL had
> nothing good to say about Paul in private.
Just replying to this and what your comment about his flinging Back To The
Egg across the room. I'm no huge Yoko fan, but it does surprise me that JL
would have had "nothing" good to say about Paul in private. They knew each
other for a long time and without each other would not have enjoyed the life
they led (or still lead as in some cases). Granted, I realize that people
can be different behind closed doors, but still nothing good to say at all?
Was this business related, or on a personal level?
I find what you say interesting, as it helps to make up the total picture of
a person. It also helps me to decide what to believe, from any one, and take
with a grain of salt. I guess I still can't imagine JL hating Paul. Was this
a view shared by yourself, Yoko, or others?
Thanks.
Ed
Tom
> The unpalatable truth is that JL had
>"shared" with Paul she made up. She told paul what he wanted to hear.
Wow, what a nice thing to do for someone that she supposedly doesn't get
along with at all.
> Re The Spirit Foundation: The official party line is that it was
>founded in 1978 by her & JL. In fact it was founded by Yoko *after* JL's
>death.
Wow again. I never knew Yoko had control over the fabric of time. How else
could she form a charity after John Lennon's death and have that charity
promoted at a Beatlefest I attended while John was alive.
Danny Caccavo
edc...@bellatlantic.net wrote:
> I find what you say interesting, as it helps to make up the total picture of
> a person. It also helps me to decide what to believe, from any one, and take
> with a grain of salt. I guess I still can't imagine JL hating Paul. Was this
> a view shared by yourself, Yoko, or others?
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> Ed
I wonder if "in private" meant "around Yoko"...
DC
--
Danny Caccavo
"Where's Elvis?"
Danny Caccavo
on the contrary, IMHO.
Tom
>I wonder if "in private" meant "around Yoko"...
>
Silly question.
"in private" can only mean "around Fred" in this context. Unless he had John
wired, how would he know what John said when he wasn't around.
Or are you suggesting that Fred is Yoko?
A Pretty Nice Girl
Nowhere Man wrote:
> Fred,
>
> did John's 1980 diary ever resurface?
Pssst, Will, did you ever hear how many pages more-or-less (!!) John had
written in his diary? Boy, would I love to read bits of that. I was
thrilled to see his shopping lists copied in FSs book, particularly the
'bananas' bit. Very funi.
Debs
Nowhere Man
>
> In article <7uiaoi$4eu$0...@208.31.189.12>, "Tammy Loney" <tlo...@jobe.net> wrote:
>
> > <<Fred,
> >
> > did John's 1980 diary ever resurface?
> >
> >
> >
> > LOL! Good one!
>
> on the contrary, IMHO.
Danny, you don't want to hear if the stolen 1980 diary ever resurfaced?
That's a strange take on things. *puzzled look*
Nowhere Man
>
> Nowhere Man wrote:
>
> > Fred,
> >
> > did John's 1980 diary ever resurface?
>
> written in his diary? Boy, would I love to read bits of that. I was
> thrilled to see his shopping lists copied in FSs book, particularly the
> 'bananas' bit. Very funi.
Debs, that is a good question.
I guess it is good to have Fred in here.....one person who did have
access. Fred, did you have a chance to read the diary?
Nowhere Man
> Actually, I found his last interviews -- with Andy Peebles for BBC radio
> and David Sheff for Playboy, to be rather nostalgic and dotted with some
> nice things about his former partner. And more than specific comments,
> there was a general feel that was warm and really nice to see.
Yip Hazel, I got the same impression.
In fact with the Andy peebles interview, and the length of time he spent
with the man, I got the feeling that he was glad to get talking with
someone from his homeland....old times, shared memories, etc.
best,
Will
Nowhere Man
> Or are you suggesting that Fred is Yoko?
interesting idea. :0)
Tracy
>From: "Tom" Blac...@msn.com
>> Re The Spirit Foundation: The official party line is that it was
>>founded in 1978 by her & JL. In fact it was founded by Yoko *after* JL's
>>death.
>Wow again. I never knew Yoko had control over the fabric of time. How else
>could she form a charity after John Lennon's death and have that charity
>promoted at a Beatlefest I attended while John was alive.
Exactly what I was going to say! I bought some items in the auction for The
Spirit Foundation at Beatlefest in 1979!
Trace
chocolate jesus......
>
> > The unpalatable truth is that JL had
> >nothing good to say about Paul in private. Whatever "good things" Y
> >"shared" with Paul she made up. She told paul what he wanted to hear.
>
> Wow, what a nice thing to do for someone that she supposedly doesn't get
> along with at all.
>
>
> >founded in 1978 by her & JL. In fact it was founded by Yoko *after* JL's
> >death.
>
> Wow again. I never knew Yoko had control over the fabric of time. How else
> could she form a charity after John Lennon's death and have that charity
> promoted at a Beatlefest I attended while John was alive.
i've got one word for you tom:
"tardis"
chocolate jesus......
Tracy <tbeat...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991019201156...@ng-ck1.aol.com...
> >>founded in 1978 by her & JL. In fact it was founded by Yoko *after* JL's
> >>death.
>
> >Wow again. I never knew Yoko had control over the fabric of time. How
else
> >could she form a charity after John Lennon's death and have that charity
> >promoted at a Beatlefest I attended while John was alive.
>
The
> Spirit Foundation at Beatlefest in 1979!
dont tell me our fred just makes stuff like this up and then passes it off
as fact?
*shock* *horror*...
welcome to the on-line world fred, where all facts are minutely examined and
challenged.
Hammerwheel Jack
>> Re The Spirit Foundation: The official party line is that it was
>>founded in 1978 by her & JL. In fact it was founded by Yoko *after* JL's
>>death.
>
>Wow again. I never knew Yoko had control over the fabric of time. How else
>could she form a charity after John Lennon's death and have that charity
>promoted at a Beatlefest I attended while John was alive.
>
Me, too.
I donated to the Spirit Foundation, at Beatlefest, in 1979. Seems your facts
are in error. Perhaps other facts are in error, too.
I'd love to know how you know what John said to Yoko about Paul when the two of
them were alone (i.e. in private).
Bob
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"This is the only thing on CBS right now" - David Letterman
huzzlewhat
ric3...@aol.com (Ric325v59) wrote:
> >He had "nothing" good at all to say about Paul - ever?
>
> On certain audio "diary" tapes that have surfaced, John really lashes into
> Paul. He also was pretty hard on him in his last interviews. John basically
> wasn't sentimental.... though he did have a bout with it in 1974.
Actually, I found his last interviews -- with Andy Peebles for BBC radio
and David Sheff for Playboy, to be rather nostalgic and dotted with some
nice things about his former partner. And more than specific comments,
there was a general feel that was warm and really nice to see. Not to say
that there wasn't criticism, too, but John was definitely either feeling
good about Paul, or just having a really good day ...
Hazel
FabFourFan
>>Subject: Re: Yoko: kindness, generosity, loyalty, more
>>From: "Tom" Blac...@msn.com
>
>>> Re The Spirit Foundation: The official party line is that it was
>>>founded in 1978 by her & JL. In fact it was founded by Yoko *after* JL's
>>>death.
>
>>Wow again. I never knew Yoko had control over the fabric of time. How else
>>could she form a charity after John Lennon's death and have that charity
>>promoted at a Beatlefest I attended while John was alive.
>
>Exactly what I was going to say! I bought some items in the auction for The
>Spirit Foundation at Beatlefest in 1979!
>Trace
Shhhhhhhhh, Fred is talking. No reality checks allowed! :)
chocolate jesus......
d. <northcut@mind***spring.com> wrote in message
news:northcut-191...@user-37ka2rc.dialup.mindspring.com...
> In article <19991019192807...@ng-fj1.aol.com>,
> ric3...@aol.com (Ric325v59) wrote:
>
> > >He had "nothing" good at all to say about Paul - ever?
> >
> > On certain audio "diary" tapes that have surfaced, John really lashes
into
> > Paul. He also was pretty hard on him in his last interviews. John
basically
> > wasn't sentimental.... though he did have a bout with it in 1974.
>
> sentimental, and never having any good words for someone, ever.
>
> There are also a couple of people in this newsgroup who could dispute the
> not-sentimental claim, too - but I can't speak for them, so ... ;-)
when has that ever stopped you before?
ooooops sorry, blatant flame tendencies there.....:)
>
> - d.
Kathy
>>
>> On certain audio "diary" tapes that have surfaced, John really lashes into
>> Paul. He also was pretty hard on him in his last interviews. John
>basically
>> wasn't sentimental.... though he did have a bout with it in 1974.
>
>I am aware of all that. But there's a difference between not being
>sentimental, and never having any good words for someone, ever.
>
>There are also a couple of people in this newsgroup who could dispute the
>not-sentimental claim, too - but I can't speak for them, so ... ;-)
>
1) John did have good things to say about Paul in private. Possibly not to
Fred Seaman. I don't dispute that. But he did with his Aunt Mimi; not the least
of which regretting that he no longer had Paul to write with.
2) Again, possibly he was selective when it came to showing his sentimental
side, but he did request any and all of the items from his childhood that Mimi
had kept, as well as old family photographs etc. so he could show Sean the
English side of his family. And in the last year of his life, requested (and
was sent) Mimi's entire set of china because it was something he remembered
from his childhood. And he spent hours and hours on the phone with her
reminiscing about his family in England.
So, IMO anyway, there was a certain degree of sentimentality existing in John
Lennon that didn't simply occur in 1974.
~Kathy
chocolate jesus......
Kathy <taff...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:19991020080629...@ng-ca1.aol.com...
it's preposterous to think that John could have possibly "hated" paul to the
point of never having a good thing to say about him.
good post .
Christine
>huzzlewhat wrote:
>
>> Actually, I found his last interviews -- with Andy Peebles for BBC radio
>> and David Sheff for Playboy, to be rather nostalgic and dotted with some
>> nice things about his former partner. And more than specific comments,
>> there was a general feel that was warm and really nice to see.
>
>
>
>Yip Hazel, I got the same impression.
>
>In fact with the Andy peebles interview, and the length of time he spent
>with the man, I got the feeling that he was glad to get talking with
>someone from his homeland....old times, shared memories, etc.
I agree with both Will and Hazel. The Peebles interview (which I just
*recently* received a copy of), especially, finds him more forthcoming,
positive, *up*, and willing to talk about just about *anything* than almost any
interview I've seen or heard. While I was listening through to it the first
time, I noticed *many* tiny clips that I'd heard before, obviously taken from
*this* source. Small wonder, considering the wealth of information and
memories he shared with him.
Christine
Derek J. Larsson
freds...@my-deja.com wrote:
> This is another good example of how spin-doctored misinformation has
> become accepted as fact by some (WARNING to all OnoFans: This might be a
> good time to take your Valium, Chlonopin, Vicodin, heroin or whatever is
> your medication of choice...) The unpalatable truth is that JL had
> nothing good to say about Paul in private. Whatever "good things" Y
> "shared" with Paul she made up.
........... Go Back To JAIL Fred......
-- Derek
======================================================
Derek J. Larsson EMail: derek_...@3com.com
======================================================
Camatelfoo
Yeah, I guess nobody who's ever been in jail has anything of substance to offer
this group, huh? So if, say, Paul McCartney popped in I'm thinking you'd slag
him off as well. (Lennon too, if he were still with us) Expand your mind, Drek.
John
huzzlewhat
<w.mulholl...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> huzzlewhat wrote:
>
> > Actually, I found his last interviews -- with Andy Peebles for BBC radio
> > and David Sheff for Playboy, to be rather nostalgic and dotted with some
> > nice things about his former partner. And more than specific comments,
> > there was a general feel that was warm and really nice to see.
>
>
>
> Yip Hazel, I got the same impression.
>
> In fact with the Andy peebles interview, and the length of time he spent
> with the man, I got the feeling that he was glad to get talking with
> someone from his homeland....old times, shared memories, etc.
Absolutely. This was a *very* long conversation ... and had wonderfully
delightful sidetracks, with John saying hello to British announcers that
he remembered, etc. Had all the hallmarks of someone who was remembering
his homeland -- and the days in Liverpool, Hamburg, and London, with scads
of affection.
Of course, he could have had affection for everything in England except
Paul McCartney, but somehow I think it unlikely. ;-)
Hazel
--
"John is always just in my soul."
-- PMcC, 1999
Danny Caccavo
> >I wonder if "in private" meant "around Yoko"...
> >
>
> Silly question.
>
> "in private" can only mean "around Fred" in this context. Unless he had John
> wired, how would he know what John said when he wasn't around.
>
> Or are you suggesting that Fred is Yoko?
Not a silly question, but obviously not worded well.
What I meant was this - did "in private" mean (for an example), with or
without Yoko in the room? With Yoko in the room could still be considered
"private".
Danny Caccavo
<w.mulholl...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Danny Caccavo wrote:
> >
> > In article <7uiaoi$4eu$0...@208.31.189.12>, "Tammy Loney"
<tlo...@jobe.net> wrote:
> >
> > > <<Fred,
> > >
> > > did John's 1980 diary ever resurface?
> > >
> > > Will>>
> > >
> > >
> > > LOL! Good one!
> >
> > on the contrary, IMHO.
>
>
> Danny, you don't want to hear if the stolen 1980 diary ever resurfaced?
>
> That's a strange take on things. *puzzled look*
No, I just don't believe that you are asking this because you really want
to know. You just keep nagging him to make a point.
Danny Caccavo
jesus......" <mr...@mcgoo.com.co.uk> wrote:
> it's preposterous to think that John could have possibly "hated" paul to the
> point of never having a good thing to say about him.
>
>
> good post .
Right, I agree- but also, Lennon said a lot of crap - much of the negative
stuff he said about Paul was crap, I'm sure.
There's even that comment in the Playboy interview about Paul "dropping by
all the time", as if it was really an annoyance. Probably B.S. as well...
Amaranth56
of nasty stuff said about Paul. But if John thought nothing good about Paul,
he would not have "suffered" his presence the few times Paul visited John in
the 70s.
>1) John did have good things to say about Paul in private. Possibly not
>to Fred Seaman. I don't dispute that. But he did with his Aunt Mimi;
>not the least of which
>regretting that he no longer had Paul to write with.
>
>2) Again, possibly he was selective when it came to showing his sentimental
>side, but he did request any and all of the items from his childhood that
>Mimi had kept,
>as well as old family photographs etc. so he could show Sean the
>English side of his family. And in the last year of his life, requested (and
>was sent) Mimi's entire set of china because it was something he remembered
>from his childhood. And he spent hours and hours on the phone with her
>reminiscing about his family in England.
>
>So, IMO anyway, there was a certain degree of sentimentality existing in John
>Lennon that didn't simply occur in 1974.
>
>~Kathy
- - -
Every society honors its live conformists and its dead troublemakers.
-- Mignon McLaughlin
I'll probably be knighted, sainted, whatever when I'm dead. They love you when
you're dead. When you're alive you're just an embarrassment. -- JWL
Amaranth56
>> ........... Go Back To JAIL Fred......
Ric wrote:
>He didn't go to jail. He pleaded guilty to avoid a costly trial.
Really. What was Fred making at the time, less than $200 a week for what was
essentially a 24/7 job? That, against Yoko's reported $140 million?
Derek, I don't swallow every single thing Fred writes here, but please read
Jack Douglas' interview in Beatlefan, or look up my post about it from a few
months back. There's another side to the story.
D 28IF
>
>Great post as usual, Kathy! As mercurial as John was, no doubt there was a
>lot
>of nasty stuff said about Paul. But if John thought nothing good about Paul,
>he would not have "suffered" his presence the few times Paul visited John in
>the 70s.
>
Ah, what do you know? John was drunk during those visits!
;-)
Derek J. Larsson
Camatelfoo wrote:
> > ........... Go Back To JAIL Fred......
>
> Yeah, I guess nobody who's ever been in jail has anything of substance to offer
> this group, huh?
Depends on what you go to jail for....
Smoking a joint, for example, doesn't hurt anybody
stealing Lennon's personal possessions to profit
after his murder - is a very sleazy, thing...
If Fred broke into McCartney's house and stole
Linda's personal items - it would be equally as bad.
Nowhere Man
> I read some of it. In my book I describe the contents of John's
> diaries in general terms. Btw, sometime around '83 or '84 Yoko announced
> through Marilyn Goldberg (of Marigold Productions, a company hired by
> Yoko to produce & sell Lennon-related products) that she planned to
> publish John's diaries, but it never happened.
Fred, do you know if John wrote his diary up on a daily basis? Written
in the evenings? Was it mostly mundane stuff?
Will
freds...@my-deja.com
> >
> > > Fred,
> > >
> > > did John's 1980 diary ever resurface?
> >
had
> > written in his diary? Boy, would I love to read bits of that. I
was
> > thrilled to see his shopping lists copied in FSs book, particularly
the
> > 'bananas' bit. Very funi.
>
> Debs, that is a good question.
>
> I guess it is good to have Fred in here.....one person who did have
> access. Fred, did you have a chance to read the diary?
I read some of it. In my book I describe the contents of John's
diaries in general terms. Btw, sometime around '83 or '84 Yoko announced
through Marilyn Goldberg (of Marigold Productions, a company hired by
Yoko to produce & sell Lennon-related products) that she planned to
publish John's diaries, but it never happened.
-FS
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
freds...@my-deja.com
"d." <nort...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> In article <7ui6tg$i9l$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, freds...@my-deja.com
wrote:
>
> > In article <37F3A0...@lstoll.com>,
> > lstoll <la...@lstoll.com> wrote:
> >> Y'all have already covered most of the things I know of, but here's
> > one
> >> nobody has mentioned. Despite the fact that Paul and Yoko were
never
> > the
> >> best of buds, Yoko shared good things John had said to her about
Paul
> >> with Paul after John was killed. -laura
> >> ===================
> >
> > This is another good example of how spin-doctored misinformation
has
> > become accepted as fact by some (WARNING to all OnoFans: This might
be a
> > good time to take your Valium, Chlonopin, Vicodin, heroin or
whatever is
> > your medication of choice...) The unpalatable truth is that JL had
>
> He had "nothing" good at all to say about Paul - ever? Care to
elaborate on
> that?
>
> Not that I'm surprised, mind you - but I do find it hard to believe he
was
> 100% negative all the time. What if anything did he ever say about
George,
> as well?
>
> --
> d.
> ==============
Sorry to disappoint, but during my two years with JL his predominant
feelings toward Paul were anger & jealousy. I don't think he ever
forgave Paul & the Eastmans for the way they treated him & Yoko in the
late 6Os. Also keep in mind that John & Yoko regarded Paul & his in-laws
as business rivals. Attempts at a reconciliation by both Paul & George
were rebuffed. In my book (page 201) I describe how George tried to
contact John by phone in August 1980 & left a message with the concierge
at the Dakota, who handed it to me. The note read: "Please call
George--he's very anxious to talk to you after an absence of ten years!"
When I gave John the message, he grumbled: "Well, it's kind of George to
call me after forgetting to mention me in his book." He asked me to give
the note to Yoko, who presumably returned George's call. John was pissed
off at George for publishing a book (I ME MINE) earlier that year, in
which he did not give John the credit that John felt he was due. Also
around this time, during the Double Fantasy recording session, Paul left
a message for John at the Hit Factory wishing him luck. Yoko ordered me
not to tell John; she was worried that Paul wanted to get in on the
recording session. When I passed along Paul's message to John anyway, he
chuckled gleefully & said something to the effect that Paul had probably
called at the behest of Lee Eastman (Linda's father). Both John & Yoko
regarded Paul as the Eastmans' puppet (in his diary John frequently
referred to Paul as "McEastman"). Until the end, John remained paranoid
about Paul's intentions. He'd never forgiven Paul for (the way John saw
it) stabbing him in the back by releasing a solo LP & announcing that he
was leaving the Beatles after John had been dissuaded (by Paul, among
others), from making such an announcement first). There was also the
very hurtful matter of an anonymous (although Paul subsequently fessed
up to being the author) hate letter that paul had written to John & Yoko
during the Let It Be sessions, plus countless other large & small
incidents, both real and percieved betrayals, insults, etc. that
ultimately destroyed Paul & John's friendship. I can imagine the
emotional turmoil that paul experienced in the wake of John's death, all
that painful emotional baggage that was destined to remain unresolved
now that the door to a reconciliation was permanently shut. Perhaps it
is not surprising that Paul went into denial mode & 9with Yoko's
help) tried to hide the harsh truth by suggesting in interviews that he
had maintained a friendly relationship with John, after all. It wasn't
true, but it made Paul & the fans feel better.
-FRED SEAMAN
freds...@my-deja.com
freds...@my-deja.com
hwhe...@pond.com (huzzlewhat) wrote:
> In article <19991019192807...@ng-fj1.aol.com>,
> ric3...@aol.com (Ric325v59) wrote:
>
> >
lashes into
> > Paul. He also was pretty hard on him in his last interviews. John
basically
> > wasn't sentimental.... though he did have a bout with it in 1974.
>
radio
> and David Sheff for Playboy, to be rather nostalgic and dotted with
some
> nice things about his former partner. And more than specific comments,
say
> that there wasn't criticism, too, but John was definitely either
feeling
> good about Paul, or just having a really good day ...
>
> Hazel
That's a good point. But you have to keep in mind that John's public
statements (e.g. interviews) in 198O were PR & did not necessarily
reflect his true feelings. The "private" Lennon was very different from
the "public" Lennon. You can't believe everything that the "public"
Lennon said. In fact, much of what he said directly contradicted his
true thoughts (as expressed to me & other members of his inner
circle). I was sometimes astounded with the ease with which John
lied in furtherance of his public image, the party line, myth...That is
one of the reasons why there is so much confusion & controversy
surrounding what John really thought, felt, believed, etc. It depends
which lennon you're talking about.
freds...@my-deja.com
hwhe...@pond.com (huzzlewhat) wrote:
> In article <19991019192807...@ng-fj1.aol.com>,
> ric3...@aol.com (Ric325v59) wrote:
>
> > >He had "nothing" good at all to say about Paul - ever?
> >
> > On certain audio "diary" tapes that have surfaced, John really
lashes into
> > Paul. He also was pretty hard on him in his last interviews. John
basically
> > wasn't sentimental.... though he did have a bout with it in 1974.
>
> Actually, I found his last interviews -- with Andy Peebles for BBC
radio
> and David Sheff for Playboy, to be rather nostalgic and dotted with
some
> nice things about his former partner. And more than specific comments,
> there was a general feel that was warm and really nice to see. Not to
say
> that there wasn't criticism, too, but John was definitely either
feeling
> good about Paul, or just having a really good day ...
>
> Hazel
> ===========
You have to keep in mind that John's public statements (e.g.
interviews) in 198O were PR-driven & did not necessarily reflect his
true thoughts. The "private" Lennon was very different from
the "public" Lennon. You can't believe everything that the "public"
Lennon said. In fact, much of what he said directly contradicted his
true thoughts (as expressed to me & other members of his inner
circle). I was sometimes astounded with the ease with which John
lied in furtherance of his public image, the party line, the myth...
Indeed, John delighted in manipulating gullible interviewers. To him it
was a bit of a game. In public, John strictly adhered to the party line
& could get downright nasty if challenged (which happened very rarely,
as most journalists unquestionably accepted John's every utterance as
the Gospel Truth).
Danny Caccavo
Thanks, Fred. It's pretty sad, but not surprising.
Danny Caccavo
northcut@mind***spring.com (d.) wrote:
> In article <7utg4h$br6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, freds...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > That's a good point. But you have to keep in mind that John's public
> > statements (e.g. interviews) in 198O were PR & did not necessarily
> > reflect his true feelings. The "private" Lennon was very different from
> > the "public" Lennon. You can't believe everything that the "public"
> > Lennon said. In fact, much of what he said directly contradicted his
> > true thoughts (as expressed to me & other members of his inner
> > circle). I was sometimes astounded with the ease with which John
> > lied in furtherance of his public image, the party line, myth...
>
>
>
> That is terribly ironic, given that one of the fans' most commonly cited
> "good" or "favorite" personal characteristic of Lennon is his perceived
> 'honesty'.
>
>
> - d.
Yeah - I recall the feeling that John really did try to rationalize some
of his comments by proclaiming honesty...
HeyJude
edc...@postoffice2.bellatlantic.net wrote:
> fThe reunion would have happened, due to a 1980
> deposition released in 1986, according to Allen J. Weiner's Beatles Ultimate
> Recording Guide Volume 1. So, if there were a mid 1980's reunion, wouldn't
> all of them have to had put aside their differences with each other to make
> music?
I'm not trying to back up or refute anything in Fred Seaman's post, as far
as John's attitude in private vs. public, etc, etc. But I beleive that Weiner's
book makes note of the fact that the deposition in which John Lennon stated that
the Beatles did have plans to eventually reunite were only made to show damages
that could be incurred by the Beatles and Apple Corps. by the continuing of the
"Beatlemania" stage show. The deposition he gave was for the suit that they had
filed against that stage show, I beleive. The Beatles had to show potential loss
of revenue and whatnot. If they were broken up and had no intentions of working
together again, it's more difficult (but evidently not impossible considering
the lawsuits that have taken place since) to any potential financial loss. But
if they ever planned on working together again under that name, they could show
that the "Beatlemania" show was profiting off of their name and potentially
taking away revenue. Anyone correct me if I'm wrong. I'd especially like to hear
if Fred Seaman remembers anything about this suit.
Nowhere Man
>
> On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 23:37:49 GMT, freds...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > You have to keep in mind that John's public statements (e.g.
> >interviews) in 198O were PR-driven & did not necessarily reflect his
> >true thoughts. The "private" Lennon was very different from
> >the "public" Lennon. You can't believe everything that the "public"
> >Lennon said. In fact, much of what he said directly contradicted his
> >true thoughts (as expressed to me & other members of his inner
> >circle). I was sometimes astounded with the ease with which John
> >Indeed, John delighted in manipulating gullible interviewers. To him it
> >was a bit of a game. In public, John strictly adhered to the party line
> >& could get downright nasty if challenged (which happened very rarely,
> >as most journalists unquestionably accepted John's every utterance as
> >the Gospel Truth).
>
> can't stand." (or something like that)
yip, a lyric I have always loved......so, so true.
> Beethoven wrote: "never show men the contempt that they deserve, one
> may never know when one may need them".
nice quote.
> Lennon was similar to Beethoven in this regard, both of them singing
> of the brotherhood of man but having problems with human beings as
> individuals. Who doesn't?
yip, we all have similar probs.
> It only becomes a contradiction with artists like Lennon and Beethoven
> who were able, on occasion, to capture and portray the feelings of
> communal love that we all feel in our better moments.
>
> For the remainder, they had feet of clay like the rest of us.
Ian are your feet made of clay? I'd see a doctor. ;3)
Nowhere Man
>
> In article <19991024155420...@ng-fa1.aol.com>,
> ric3...@aol.com (Ric325v59) wrote:
> > >Weiner's
> > >book makes note of the fact that the deposition in which John Lennon
> stated
> > >that
> > >the Beatles did have plans to eventually reunite were only made to
> show
> > >damages
> > >that could be incurred by the Beatles and Apple Corps.
> >
> Levy/Roots
> > vs. Rock N Roll fiasco -- verbal agreements galore, which John would
> later
> > simply deny. He even had a defense against anything he might've
> signed: "I'll
> > just tell 'em I'm crazy or didn't know what I was signing..." Yoko
> tried this
> > one with Jack Douglas and it didn't work out too well.
> >
> > As I previously posted, the only Beatle with any sentimentality (and
> a cautious
> > eye to the future) was Paul. As late as his 1980 contract with
> Columbia
> > Records, he did indeed have a clause giving him free license to
> record with
> > John, George and Ringo individually or collectively as "The Beatles"
> >
> Seven to eight years ago when I was a recording engineer I used to read
> a few industry magazines, and in one of them (it MIGHT have been MIX
> Magazine) they had an article about a showbiz lawyer. Since I'm always
> interested in the background doings of artists I read the article.
> There was no tease, nor was there even a mention of the Beatles until
> the end of the article. Seeing their name made me sit a bit straighter
> and read much more intensely. In it the lawyer was saying something so
> amazing, so fantastic, I was aghast--he said the Beatles, at the time
> of John's death, were getting back together to film a concert! Now I
> had never heard an inlking about their plans for what was to eventually
> become the Anthology Series. So this was like talking Martian to me!
> Now at this point I started wondering about this guy's veracity, but
> his credentials were impeccable. OMG. Not only were they going to get
> back together but film a 'rooftop' type concert as well! I all but
> fell out of my chair!
> The kicker (for me) was he declared he had gotten JOHN'S signature
> agreeing to this just shortly before he died.
> I was despising Chapman for a whole NEW reason! I was thrilled they
> even thought about it, and crestfallen (and that hurts!) that they were
> denied the chance.
> Well, it only took another 15 years but I finally got to see and hear
> so many of the things I had only dreamt about. So many Beatle miracles
> in the last 5 years or so, even now I have YS on the CD as I type and
> amazed at the sound...and here we pick it apart like it was just
> another L7 release...many of us here were blessed to be there in the
> 60's; to have decades to enjoy their music; and now as the millennium
> ends, all these gems from the vaults. There can't be a whole lot left,
> folks, we really oughta enjoy them (or but double-the-price-
> bootlegs)...and as for the Beatlemania suit, ...I dunno nuthin 'bout
> that...
wonderful, wonderful post.
Very interesting magazine article. Yes, they may well have got back
together for the odd project or two.
Huh
>> > >He had "nothing" good at all to say about Paul - ever?
>> >
>lashes into
>> > Paul. He also was pretty hard on him in his last interviews. John
>basically
>> > wasn't sentimental.... though he did have a bout with it in 1974.
>>
>> Actually, I found his last interviews -- with Andy Peebles for BBC
>radio
>> and David Sheff for Playboy, to be rather nostalgic and dotted with
>some
>> nice things about his former partner. And more than specific comments,
>> there was a general feel that was warm and really nice to see. Not to
>say
>> that there wasn't criticism, too, but John was definitely either
>feeling
>> good about Paul, or just having a really good day ...
>>
>> Hazel
>> ===========
>
>statements (e.g. interviews) in 198O were PR & did not necessarily
>reflect his true feelings. The "private" Lennon was very different from
>the "public" Lennon. You can't believe everything that the "public"
>Lennon said. In fact, much of what he said directly contradicted his
>true thoughts (as expressed to me & other members of his inner
>circle). I was sometimes astounded with the ease with which John
>one of the reasons why there is so much confusion & controversy
>surrounding what John really thought, felt, believed, etc. It depends
>which lennon you're talking about.
>
Fred" Lennon?
This isn't to say that I don't believe your take on things. But surely you
agree that people are complex beings, and John may have taken that universal
truth to the extreme. You yourself claim many faces for John.
Doesn't everyone always say hate is not the opposite of love? He had to care
to feel such viciousness towards Paul. And he himself acknowledges having hung
out with Paul a few times.
And isn't it possible that John shared his most sincere and deep feelings only
with Yoko, and not with you? And that Yoko, rather than as you accuse her in
another post of manufacturing a myth concerning John and Paul's relationship,
knew something you didn't?
Thanks for the post. It's nice to get some insight from you. Dont' worry too
much about your detractors here. Some people are curious as to what you have
to say.
edc...@postoffice2.bellatlantic.net
freds...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <hwheaton-191...@ascend1-8.vf.pond.com>,
> hwhe...@pond.com (huzzlewhat) wrote:
> > In article <19991019192807...@ng-fj1.aol.com>,
> > ric3...@aol.com (Ric325v59) wrote:
> >
> > > >He had "nothing" good at all to say about Paul - ever?
> > >
> > > On certain audio "diary" tapes that have surfaced, John really
> lashes into
> > > Paul. He also was pretty hard on him in his last interviews. John
> basically
> > > wasn't sentimental.... though he did have a bout with it in 1974.
> >
> > Actually, I found his last interviews -- with Andy Peebles for BBC
> radio
> > and David Sheff for Playboy, to be rather nostalgic and dotted with
> some
> > nice things about his former partner. And more than specific comments,
> > there was a general feel that was warm and really nice to see. Not to
> say
> > that there wasn't criticism, too, but John was definitely either
> feeling
> > good about Paul, or just having a really good day ...
> >
> > Hazel
> > ===========
>
> You have to keep in mind that John's public statements (e.g.
> interviews) in 198O were PR-driven & did not necessarily reflect his
> true thoughts. The "private" Lennon was very different from
> the "public" Lennon. You can't believe everything that the "public"
> Lennon said. In fact, much of what he said directly contradicted his
> true thoughts (as expressed to me & other members of his inner
> circle). I was sometimes astounded with the ease with which John
> lied in furtherance of his public image, the party line, the myth...
> Indeed, John delighted in manipulating gullible interviewers. To him it
> was a bit of a game. In public, John strictly adhered to the party line
> & could get downright nasty if challenged (which happened very rarely,
> as most journalists unquestionably accepted John's every utterance as
> the Gospel Truth).
>
This definitely answers my earlier questions to you re: J and P. Same can be
said for Paul, and other celebrities as well. Not everything they will say
in public will totally reflect their "private" thoughts and selves. Neither
good nor bad, but that seems to be the way it is.
Saying that, I think after the lawsuits were finally settled in 1989, I
could have seen them working with G, and R, for the whole Anthology thing.
Hell, even a "new" album from all 4 would have been fantastic after all that
time. 25 years after the breakup, Beatles release new album... well we can
dream.
This whole thing really seems to just be a continuation of the whole 1970's
saga of suits. Something tells me that, at least now 20 years later, they
would all be better toward each other than even 1980.
One more thing, do you think John would be as "revered" as he is now if he
were still with us? I don't think so, because we see the other 3 and their
place in these times. The reunion would have happened, due to a 1980
deposition released in 1986, according to Allen J. Weiner's Beatles Ultimate
Recording Guide Volume 1. So, if there were a mid 1980's reunion, wouldn't
all of them have to had put aside their differences with each other to make
music?
Sorry for the long post.
Ed
paramucho
In the beginning an artist needs the material that will grab your
attention and make take an interest. So, the emphasis is on the
material itself which has to grab a potential customer quickly.
After an artist delivers for long enough the focus shifts to the style
etc of the artist him or herself. A mature artist does not need to
deliver the same type of material because he or she has an audience
that is willing to take the time to listen to new works more
patiently.
So, we can think of two definite phases: initially the focus is on the
material, later the focus is on the artist. Think of it as an
efficiency issue.
Come-backs can be are interesting in this regard where an artist feels
the need to revert to attracting an audience. I think we see that with
"Double Fantasy" where Lennon went back to very poppish material.
However, it is possible that having reestablished his market that he
would have relaxed on subsequent albums.
Now, the fascinating thing is that this rule did not seem to apply to
the Beatles over their seven years, even if LET IT BE did seem like
time-out. ABBEY ROAD is just as hungry as PLEASE PLEASE ME was. Could
they have sustained that with further albums?
--
ian
|--paramucho------[para...@hammo.com]---[www.beathoven.com]------|
|----[alt.ato]---[alt.non.sequitur]---[rec.music.beatles]----------|
paramucho
> You have to keep in mind that John's public statements (e.g.
>interviews) in 198O were PR-driven & did not necessarily reflect his
>true thoughts. The "private" Lennon was very different from
>the "public" Lennon. You can't believe everything that the "public"
>Lennon said. In fact, much of what he said directly contradicted his
>true thoughts (as expressed to me & other members of his inner
>circle). I was sometimes astounded with the ease with which John
>lied in furtherance of his public image, the party line, the myth...
>Indeed, John delighted in manipulating gullible interviewers. To him it
>was a bit of a game. In public, John strictly adhered to the party line
>& could get downright nasty if challenged (which happened very rarely,
>as most journalists unquestionably accepted John's every utterance as
>the Gospel Truth).
Lennon sang "You wanna save humanity but it's people that you just
can't stand." (or something like that)
Beethoven wrote: "never show men the contempt that they deserve, one
may never know when one may need them".
Lennon was similar to Beethoven in this regard, both of them singing
of the brotherhood of man but having problems with human beings as
individuals. Who doesn't?
It only becomes a contradiction with artists like Lennon and Beethoven
who were able, on occasion, to capture and portray the feelings of
communal love that we all feel in our better moments.
For the remainder, they had feet of clay like the rest of us.
huzzlewhat
> There was also the
> very hurtful matter of an anonymous (although Paul subsequently fessed
> up to being the author) hate letter that paul had written to John & Yoko
> during the Let It Be sessions
So John and/or Yoko mentioned this note to you? Can you remember how
he/they described the incident?
Thanks --
jake
> You have to keep in mind that John's public statements (e.g.
>interviews) in 198O were PR-driven & did not necessarily reflect his
>true thoughts. The "private" Lennon was very different from
>the "public" Lennon. You can't believe everything that the "public"
>Lennon said. In fact, much of what he said directly contradicted his
>true thoughts (as expressed to me & other members of his inner
>circle). I was sometimes astounded with the ease with which John
>lied in furtherance of his public image, the party line, the myth...
>Indeed, John delighted in manipulating gullible interviewers. To him it
>was a bit of a game. In public, John strictly adhered to the party line
>& could get downright nasty if challenged (which happened very rarely,
>as most journalists unquestionably accepted John's every utterance as
>the Gospel Truth).
>
>
Wow, I actually agree with Fred on that one. I believe John and Yoko
were one of best teams at making the press believe what they wanted
them to believe. After talking with May and others, I must agree with
what Fred said. They totally manipulated almost everyone into
beliieving a fairy tale. I always thought that Paul was somewhat of
an expert at keeping the party line and public face
As for John, I think he was a walking contradiction, he would say one
thing and mean the other. I saw an interview with Liinda, and I still
beliieve deep down, that John cared about him. John even said in
court documents that the Documentry, The Long and Winding Road would
include all the beatles inputs
jake
> called at the behest of Lee Eastman (Linda's father). Both John & Yoko
>regarded Paul as the Eastmans' puppet (in his diary John frequently
>referred to Paul as "McEastman"). Until the end, John remained paranoid
>about Paul's intentions. He'd never forgiven Paul for (the way John saw
>it) stabbing him in the back by releasing a solo LP & announcing that he
>was leaving the Beatles after John had been dissuaded (by Paul, among
>others), from making such an announcement first). There was also the
>very hurtful matter of an anonymous (although Paul subsequently fessed
>up to being the author) hate letter that paul had written to John & Yoko
>during the Let It Be sessions, plus countless other large & small
Brothers fight
paramucho
>> >interviews) in 198O were PR-driven & did not necessarily reflect his
>> >true thoughts. The "private" Lennon was very different from
>> >the "public" Lennon. You can't believe everything that the "public"
>> >Lennon said. In fact, much of what he said directly contradicted his
>> >true thoughts (as expressed to me & other members of his inner
>> >circle). I was sometimes astounded with the ease with which John
>> >lied in furtherance of his public image, the party line, the myth...
>> >Indeed, John delighted in manipulating gullible interviewers. To him it
>> >was a bit of a game. In public, John strictly adhered to the party line
>> >& could get downright nasty if challenged (which happened very rarely,
>> >as most journalists unquestionably accepted John's every utterance as
>> >the Gospel Truth).
>>
>> can't stand." (or something like that)
>
>
>
>> may never know when one may need them".
>
>
>
>> Lennon was similar to Beethoven in this regard, both of them singing
>> of the brotherhood of man but having problems with human beings as
>> individuals. Who doesn't?
>
>
>
>> who were able, on occasion, to capture and portray the feelings of
>> communal love that we all feel in our better moments.
>>
>> For the remainder, they had feet of clay like the rest of us.
>
All us fallen angels have feet of clay Will
ian (thinking of Raglan Road)
--
ian
CBunch1070
from an insider; they make everything more real. Thanks for taking the time to
post it.
Chuck
> Sorry to disappoint, but during my two years with JL his predominant
>feelings toward Paul were anger & jealousy. I don't think he ever
>forgave Paul & the Eastmans for the way they treated him & Yoko in the
>late 6Os. Also keep in mind that John & Yoko regarded Paul & his in-laws
>as business rivals. Attempts at a reconciliation by both Paul & George
>were rebuffed. In my book (page 201) I describe how George tried to
>contact John by phone in August 1980 & left a message with the concierge
>at the Dakota, who handed it to me. The note read: "Please call
>George--he's very anxious to talk to you after an absence of ten years!"
>When I gave John the message, he grumbled: "Well, it's kind of George to
>call me after forgetting to mention me in his book." He asked me to give
>the note to Yoko, who presumably returned George's call. John was pissed
>off at George for publishing a book (I ME MINE) earlier that year, in
>which he did not give John the credit that John felt he was due. Also
>around this time, during the Double Fantasy recording session, Paul left
>a message for John at the Hit Factory wishing him luck. Yoko ordered me
>not to tell John; she was worried that Paul wanted to get in on the
>recording session. When I passed along Paul's message to John anyway, he
>chuckled gleefully & said something to the effect that Paul had probably
>incidents, both real and percieved betrayals, insults, etc. that
>ultimately destroyed Paul & John's friendship. I can imagine the
>emotional turmoil that paul experienced in the wake of John's death, all
>that painful emotional baggage that was destined to remain unresolved
>now that the door to a reconciliation was permanently shut. Perhaps it
>is not surprising that Paul went into denial mode & 9with Yoko's
>help) tried to hide the harsh truth by suggesting in interviews that he
>had maintained a friendly relationship with John, after all. It wasn't
>true, but it made Paul & the fans feel better.
>
Mister Charlie
before)...Your point is well taken, as Beethoven's Ninth is so
incredibly soul-stirring in its affirmation of man's communal glory,
vastly beautiful music and words...which is also representative of a
lot of John's work-- interesting comparison. BTW my feet aren't clay
but they *are* dirty.
-------------------------------------
We would sing and dance around, because we know we can't be found....
Danny Caccavo
> Now, the fascinating thing is that this rule did not seem to apply to
> the Beatles over their seven years, even if LET IT BE did seem like
> time-out. ABBEY ROAD is just as hungry as PLEASE PLEASE ME was. Could
> they have sustained that with further albums?
Hard to say. No rules seemed to apply to The Beatles...
Danny Caccavo
(Huh) wrote:
> > That's a good point. But you have to keep in mind that John's public
> >statements (e.g. interviews) in 198O were PR & did not necessarily
> >reflect his true feelings. The "private" Lennon was very different from
> >the "public" Lennon. You can't believe everything that the "public"
> >Lennon said. In fact, much of what he said directly contradicted his
> >true thoughts (as expressed to me & other members of his inner
> >circle). I was sometimes astounded with the ease with which John
> >lied in furtherance of his public image, the party line, myth...That is
> >one of the reasons why there is so much confusion & controversy
> >surrounding what John really thought, felt, believed, etc. It depends
> >which lennon you're talking about.
> >
> Yes, isn';t that the point Fred? Isn't there a "Lennon who is friends with
> Fred" Lennon?
>
> This isn't to say that I don't believe your take on things. But surely you
> agree that people are complex beings, and John may have taken that universal
> truth to the extreme. You yourself claim many faces for John.
>
> Doesn't everyone always say hate is not the opposite of love? He had to care
> to feel such viciousness towards Paul. And he himself acknowledges
having hung
> out with Paul a few times.
>
> And isn't it possible that John shared his most sincere and deep feelings only
> with Yoko, and not with you? And that Yoko, rather than as you accuse her in
> another post of manufacturing a myth concerning John and Paul's relationship,
> knew something you didn't?
>
> Thanks for the post. It's nice to get some insight from you. Dont' worry too
> much about your detractors here. Some people are curious as to what you have
> to say.
>
True, John seemed to have a hard time "mixing black and white" where his
feelings were concerned. It was either love or hate - if hate came into
his love, it could destroy the relationship.
Danny Caccavo
<blac...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> edc...@postoffice2.bellatlantic.net wrote:
>
> > fThe reunion would have happened, due to a 1980
> > deposition released in 1986, according to Allen J. Weiner's Beatles Ultimate
> > Recording Guide Volume 1. So, if there were a mid 1980's reunion, wouldn't
> > all of them have to had put aside their differences with each other to make
> > music?
>
> I'm not trying to back up or refute anything in Fred Seaman's post, as far
> as John's attitude in private vs. public, etc, etc. But I beleive that
Weiner's
> book makes note of the fact that the deposition in which John Lennon
stated that
> the Beatles did have plans to eventually reunite were only made to show
damages
> that could be incurred by the Beatles and Apple Corps. by the continuing
of the
> "Beatlemania" stage show. The deposition he gave was for the suit that
they had
> filed against that stage show, I beleive. The Beatles had to show
potential loss
> of revenue and whatnot. If they were broken up and had no intentions of
working
> together again, it's more difficult (but evidently not impossible considering
> the lawsuits that have taken place since) to any potential financial loss. But
> if they ever planned on working together again under that name, they
could show
> that the "Beatlemania" show was profiting off of their name and potentially
> taking away revenue. Anyone correct me if I'm wrong. I'd especially like
to hear
> if Fred Seaman remembers anything about this suit.
Yeah, I seriously doubt that they would have done a reunion thing in 1980.
There was still way too much business and personal baggage.
Danny Caccavo
> For the remainder, they had feet of clay like the rest of us.
A good reminder. Something we all seem to forget at times.
Mister Charlie
> >book makes note of the fact that the deposition in which John Lennon
stated
> >that
> >the Beatles did have plans to eventually reunite were only made to
show
> >damages
> >that could be incurred by the Beatles and Apple Corps.
>
-------------------------------------
Look around round round round round, round round round round round, Look
Tom
>"Honesty" was his schtick, so to speak. But, being John & Yoko, there were
>always many people around to see what really happened.
God save us from people who tell us "what really happened." At best, they've
got a skewed version of it which they think is objective and at worst,
they're lying.
Gossip can be fun, or "the Devil's Radio," but no one who knows "what really
happened" has ever told me anything that enhanced my appreciation of the
music. If anything, they take away from it, trying to explain art with
superfical amateur psychological analysis. Haven't you noticed that one
person's "insight" is in direct contradiction to another's, as often as not.
When someone makes a claim to "the truth" what they're doing is reducing a
real person to a characture.
Talking about what John did or felt in a given situation is one thing, but
making a sweeping generalization about his personality, or using that little
bit of information to extrapolate his motives before and after that event,
including those of a hypothetical future that would have extended beyond his
death is something else.
CBunch1070
John's death because JOHN couldn't get over an old grudge, I believe it was
unnecessary guilt on Paul's part. That was John's problem, because he couldn't
find it in himself to forgive. He was being, as George put it, "bitchy."
Chuck
Tom
>> At best, they've
>>got a skewed version of it which they think is objective and at worst,
>>they're lying.
>
>Thanks for the info. This probably explains why John arranged the tickets
for
>Yoko at the Elton John concert in 1974 and then claimed not to know she was
>there.
In other words, since John didn't always tell the truth, everyone else gains
credibility?
I haven't seen one "inside source" who hasn't either told a skewed version
or lied. Have you? (and yes, I'm including Yoko and Elliot Mintz in that.)
Well, maybe Norman Seaman, but I've only read one interview with him.
Tom
>>In other words, since John didn't always tell the truth, everyone else
gains
>>credibility?
>>
>
>No, but I'm suggesting we take them all with the same grain of salt...
Perhaps different grains. Only John knew what went on in his mind. Everyone
else is guessing.
Nowhere Man
> You're acurately quoting from a song titled FACE IT, one of the last
> (& best) honest songs written by JL, as it addressed his own hipocrisy
> as well as one of the central dilemmas in his life: the clash between
> his insatiable ego's need for fame & morbid fantasies of martyrdom vs. a
> conflicting desire for anonimity/ normalcy ("Say you're looking for a
> place to go, where nobody knows your name/ Looking for oblivion with one
> eye on the Hall of Fame...")
> This is why it gets so confusing sometimes. JL, Beethoven, Mozart
> along with other greats artists like Picasso (a monstrous personality
> who destroyed many of those closest to him) embody a harsh
> contradiction. In John's case, his best songs express high & noble
> ideals (e.g. IMAGINE) that he failed to live up to as a man. Of course
> many people are unable to separate the man from his work. They wrongly
> assume that JL was a saintly figure, an image reinforced by John's
> "martyrdom".
Fred, from this posting, you obviously didn't like John (as well as
Yoko).
Were they really THAT bad?
Will
Nowhere Man
>
> >Fred, from this posting, you obviously didn't like John (as well as
> >Yoko).
>
> live up to the ideals he espoused in IMAGINE (remember, he lived in the Dakota,
> took limos, owned many homes?) which most of us knew before Fred's post. And
> because of the manner of John's death, he was elevated into martyrdom status
> (to some degree). Yoko isn't mentioned at all.
Ric, you're joking right?
A blind man would, by now, be aware of Fred's feelings towards Yoko.
freds...@my-deja.com
> >interviews) in 198O were PR-driven & did not necessarily reflect his
> >true thoughts. The "private" Lennon was very different from
> >the "public" Lennon. You can't believe everything that the "public"
> >Lennon said. In fact, much of what he said directly contradicted his
> >true thoughts (as expressed to me & other members of his inner
> >circle). I was sometimes astounded with the ease with which John
> >Indeed, John delighted in manipulating gullible interviewers. To him
it
> >was a bit of a game. In public, John strictly adhered to the party
line
> >& could get downright nasty if challenged (which happened very
rarely,
> >as most journalists unquestionably accepted John's every utterance as
> >the Gospel Truth).
>
> Lennon sang "You wanna save humanity but it's people that you just
> can't stand." (or something like that)
You're acurately quoting from a song titled FACE IT, one of the last
(& best) honest songs written by JL, as it addressed his own hipocrisy
as well as one of the central dilemmas in his life: the clash between
his insatiable ego's need for fame & morbid fantasies of martyrdom vs. a
conflicting desire for anonimity/ normalcy ("Say you're looking for a
place to go, where nobody knows your name/ Looking for oblivion with one
eye on the Hall of Fame...")
> Beethoven wrote: "never show men the contempt that they deserve, one
> may never know when one may need them".
>
> of the brotherhood of man but having problems with human beings as
> individuals. Who doesn't?
>
> who were able, on occasion, to capture and portray the feelings of
> communal love that we all feel in our better moments.
>
> ian
========
This is why it gets so confusing sometimes. JL, Beethoven, Mozart
along with other greats artists like Picasso (a monstrous personality
who destroyed many of those closest to him) embody a harsh
contradiction. In John's case, his best songs express high & noble
ideals (e.g. IMAGINE) that he failed to live up to as a man. Of course
many people are unable to separate the man from his work. They wrongly
assume that JL was a saintly figure, an image reinforced by John's
"martyrdom".
-Fred Seaman
>
> |--paramucho------[para...@hammo.com]---[www.beathoven.com]------|
> |----[alt.ato]---[alt.non.sequitur]---[rec.music.beatles]----------|
>
paramucho
>> Lennon sang "You wanna save humanity but it's people that you just
>> can't stand." (or something like that)
>============>
> You're acurately quoting from a song titled FACE IT, one of the last
>(& best) honest songs written by JL, as it addressed his own hipocrisy
>as well as one of the central dilemmas in his life: the clash between
>his insatiable ego's need for fame & morbid fantasies of martyrdom vs. a
>conflicting desire for anonimity/ normalcy ("Say you're looking for a
>place to go, where nobody knows your name/ Looking for oblivion with one
>eye on the Hall of Fame...")
>============
He is perhaps harsher on himself on Walls And Bridges where he writes:
Hatred and jealousy gonna be the death of me... sing out about love
and peace, don't wanna see the red raw meat, the green-eyed goddam
straight from your heart...
One of two passages which could be interpreted as self-loathing (the
other being the alley cat reference). The reworking of "Make Love Not
War" into "Mind Games" is a possible start of this process, where he
first sounds tired.
>> Beethoven wrote: "never show men the contempt that they deserve, one
>> may never know when one may need them".
>>
>> Lennon was similar to Beethoven in this regard, both of them singing
>> of the brotherhood of man but having problems with human beings as
>> individuals. Who doesn't?
>>
>> It only becomes a contradiction with artists like Lennon and Beethoven
>> who were able, on occasion, to capture and portray the feelings of
>> communal love that we all feel in our better moments.
>>
>> For the remainder, they had feet of clay like the rest of us.
>> --
>> ian
>========
> This is why it gets so confusing sometimes. JL, Beethoven, Mozart
>along with other greats artists like Picasso (a monstrous personality
>who destroyed many of those closest to him) embody a harsh
>contradiction. In John's case, his best songs express high & noble
>ideals (e.g. IMAGINE) that he failed to live up to as a man. Of course
>many people are unable to separate the man from his work. They wrongly
>assume that JL was a saintly figure, an image reinforced by John's
>"martyrdom".
I would restate that just a little: as "unable to separate the man, as
seen in his work, from the man as seen in his private life. Both are
expressions of the same multi-faceted individual, which is basically
unknowable anyway.
Donald Tovey had this to say about Beethoven:
To study the lives of great masters is often a positive hindrance to
the understanding of their works; for it is usually the study of
what they have not mastered, and thus it undermines their authority
in the things which they have mastered.
But yes, had Lennon not written "Imagine" or Beethoven the Ode To Joy,
then we would not measure them up against some uptopian ideal. Could
we handle an imperfect Jesus (or equivalent)?
--
ian
--
ian
Tom
>> Lennon sang "You wanna save humanity but it's people that you just
>> can't stand." (or something like that)
>============>
> You're acurately quoting from a song titled FACE IT, one of the last
>(& best) honest songs written by JL, as it addressed his own hipocrisy
Prehaps "contradictions" would be a better word there.
Nowhere Man
>
> Nowhere Man wrote:
> >Fred, from this posting, you obviously didn't like John (as well as
> >Yoko).
> >
> >
> >Will
>
> assumptions are completely wrong in the first place. Don't be so biased
> about it. Doesn't this prove to you that you jump at anything Fred says
> because you're interpreting in the worst possible way? As for Yoko,
> like I said in a previous post, Fred usually only talks about her coz
> other bring her up. In this post he didn't mention her once, yet you're
> reminding him that he doesn't like her.
Ben,
re: Fred and John - I was going to quote from Fred's book which is
sitting right beside the pc here. But heck why bother, it is up to
others to read the book and make their own mind up.
As for Yoko, sorry I didn't mean to remind Fred that he hates her.
Will
Nowhere Man
> You're acurately quoting from a song titled FACE IT, one of the last
> (& best) honest songs written by JL, as it addressed his own hipocrisy
> as well as one of the central dilemmas in his life: the clash between
> his insatiable ego's need for fame & morbid fantasies of martyrdom vs. a
> conflicting desire for anonimity/ normalcy
let's get this correct now Fred. You are saying that John had an
insatiable ego....saught fame and martyrdom, etc. Some people don't
think those words are insulting to John and his memory.....I do. John
was no more of a hypocrit than any one of us in here.
> John's case, his best songs express high & noble
> ideals (e.g. IMAGINE) that he failed to live up to as a man. Of course
> many people are unable to separate the man from his work. They wrongly
> assume that JL was a saintly figure, an image reinforced by John's
> "martyrdom".
None of us are saints. John never claimed to be one either.
Will
Nowhere Man
>
> Will, sorry to say this but I have to disagree. Of course all of us are
> hypocrites in some way, but John would go onto a talk show and call people
> he didn't know and tell them "I love you",
Henry, when did John ever go and tell a stranger 'I love you'? You may
be privy to some TV clips in the US which I haven't came across. Very
likely probably.
> sing songs about peace and
> tell people about everything wrong in the world.
why can't a person have such ideals, even if they are not attainable?
> But why couldn't he
> call Julian and do the same, or even try to make it look like he cared for
> Julian some way. He took five years off to raise Sean but couldn't give
> Julian hardly any time. To me this is a huge hypocrisy.
John was human....he had his faults. I got mine, you got yours. We all
fall short of what we'd like to be. John did spend time with Julian
<got pics here to back it up>. Obviously he needed to spend more time
with the lad. Not having been in such a situation (ie with a new wife)
I am not sure how easy these scenarios can be. It can't have been too
easy for anyone connected with the situation. Bound to have been
awkward times.
> I love John's
> music, but I don't respect him.
Henry, I can't believe you just said that.
Kind regards,
Will
freds...@my-deja.com
> >> can't stand." (or something like that)
> >============>
last
> >(& best) honest songs written by JL, as it addressed his own
hipocrisy
> >as well as one of the central dilemmas in his life: the clash between
> >his insatiable ego's need for fame & morbid fantasies of martyrdom
vs. a
> >ideals (e.g. IMAGINE) that he failed to live up to as a man. Of
course
> >many people are unable to separate the man from his work. They
wrongly
> >assume that JL was a saintly figure, an image reinforced by John's
> >"martyrdom".
>
> seen in his work, from the man as seen in his private life. Both are
> expressions of the same multi-faceted individual, which is basically
> unknowable anyway.
>
> Donald Tovey had this to say about Beethoven:
>
> To study the lives of great masters is often a positive hindrance to
>
> the understanding of their works; for it is usually the study of
> what they have not mastered, and thus it undermines their authority
> in the things which they have mastered.
>
> But yes, had Lennon not written "Imagine" or Beethoven the Ode To Joy,
> then we would not measure them up against some uptopian ideal. Could
> we handle an imperfect Jesus (or equivalent)?
>
> ==========
Good points... Actually, the historical Jesus was an imperfect man, but
if one dares to point this out in public the Faithful will accuse you of
heresy.
-FS
> --
> ian
>
> |--paramucho------[para...@hammo.com]---[www.beathoven.com]------|
> |----[alt.ato]---[alt.non.sequitur]---[rec.music.beatles]----------|
>
freds...@my-deja.com
Nowhere Man <w.mulholl...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Fred Seaman wrote:
>
> > You're acurately quoting from a song titled FACE IT, one of the
last
> > (& best) honest songs written by JL, as it addressed his own
hipocrisy
> > as well as one of the central dilemmas in his life: the clash
between
> > his insatiable ego's need for fame & morbid fantasies of martyrdom
vs. a
> > conflicting desire for anonimity/ normalcy ("Say you're looking for
a
> > place to go, where nobody knows your name/ Looking for oblivion with
one
> > eye on the Hall of Fame...")
>
> > along with other greats artists like Picasso (a monstrous
personality
> > who destroyed many of those closest to him) embody a harsh
> > contradiction. In John's case, his best songs express high & noble
> > ideals (e.g. IMAGINE) that he failed to live up to as a man. Of
course
> > many people are unable to separate the man from his work. They
wrongly
> > assume that JL was a saintly figure, an image reinforced by John's
> > "martyrdom".
>
> Yoko).
>
> Were they really THAT bad?
>
> Will
No, they were worse! (Just kidding) Still, I did like John (& Yoko at
first...) But that's not the point. It's not about liking or
disliking...It's about UNDERSTANDING. Sometimes to understand one has to
transcend sentimentality, feelings of nostalgia, etc. I can be critical
of John & still love & admire him for his good qualities. But it doesn't
mean I'm blind to his dark side. More than just about anybody I can
think of, John embodied extreme contradictions. I saw him at his best
AND worst. The fans tend to see things in simplistic, black-or-white
terms (i.e. you either love John, or you hate him). But life is a wee
bit more complicated than that. There are many shades of gray...
-FS
JSeraf7064
live up to the ideals he espoused in IMAGINE (remember, he lived in the Dakota,
took limos, owned many homes?) which most of us knew before Fred's post. And
because of the manner of John's death, he was elevated into martyrdom status
(to some degree). Yoko isn't mentioned at all.
He arrives at that conclusion, because as always, he colors other's words with
his own paranoid judgements. He has no interest in reading the words as they
are intended, only as he chooses to see them.
Which is why neither you nor anyone else will ever get through to the fuckwit.
Truth is what he fears the most.
-JS
Gigantor
Nowhere Man <w.mulholl...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:3815F760...@btinternet.com...
> Fred, from this posting, you obviously didn't like John (as well as
> Yoko).
>
> Were they really THAT bad?
Oh, I wouldn't say that this post shows that Fred disliked John.
John Calabro
P.S. - Hey Fred! How are ya, man - remember me? Drummer for "AC 30" Hotel
Syracuse Beatle Convention - remember the Blizzard? Remember Jerry
Sylvanic?
-BEN
>Fred, from this posting, you obviously didn't like John (as well as
>Yoko).
>
>Were they really THAT bad?
>
This post never says or implies anywhere that Fred dislikes John. Your
assumptions are completely wrong in the first place. Don't be so biased
about it. Doesn't this prove to you that you jump at anything Fred says
because you're interpreting in the worst possible way? As for Yoko,
like I said in a previous post, Fred usually only talks about her coz
other bring her up. In this post he didn't mention her once, yet you're
reminding him that he doesn't like her.
-BEN
paramucho
>> But yes, had Lennon not written "Imagine" or Beethoven the Ode To Joy,
>> then we would not measure them up against some uptopian ideal. Could
>> we handle an imperfect Jesus (or equivalent)?
>>
>> ian
>> ==========
>
> Good points... Actually, the historical Jesus was an imperfect man, but
>if one dares to point this out in public the Faithful will accuse you of
>heresy.
It's all marketing Fred. There's quite a good niche market for Jesus
The Man these days. It's all become rather tabloid. In years past I
reserved the Christmas season for reading paperbacks on advances in
physics, astronomy, etc and the latest finds in religous history.
These days the latter area is riddled with conspiracy theories which
defy credibility.
Christmas will never be the same.