> On Nov 2, 2:36 am, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > It's said that the early Beatles, (from their formation to about '66), > > > > > was John's band. But when you look at the old concerts and interviews, > > > > > it really seems as though Paul is the spokesman.
> > > > > In the online documentary of Epstein I posted, it is said that The > > > > > Beatles was John's band until Epstein came along. And Epstein turned > > > > > it into Paul's band. John never was happy with the marketing.
> > > > But Brian was John's partner in changing the credits to Lennon/ > > > > McCartney (who knows in exchange for what!, lol).
> > > > I had always had the impression that Brian would side more with John.
> > > That impression may have been encouraged to make John feel more secure > > > about things. Likewise the songwriting credit thing may have been > > > decided for John for the same reason, to help John save face. But > > > watch a lot of the old footage and it's Paul that seems like the > > > leader.- Hide quoted text -
> > > - Show quoted text -
> > Paul had a handsome face and was good at PR. But I've seen or read > > interviews where Paul is the first to say that "John is the leader." > > Also if you read books about the early days such as Larry Kane's > > Ticket to Ride (or perhaps some others . . . . I can't recall all the > > details) if Paul had a business concern, he would tell John about it, > > and then John would speak to Brian Epstein about it.
> I think your memory is being way too selective and a bit biased. I'd > like to see specific examples. Specific quotes.
> > Larry Kane recounted one specific incident where the Beatles were > > touring the US . . . I forget if it was 1964 or 1965. The Beatles had > > an agreement to do a show (in Chicago I think) and they had agreed to > > do a certain number of songs, which was their pattern throughout the > > tour. Anyway, some big powerful business man (I forget his > > name . . . Wrigley? The owner of the Cubs??) wanted the Beatles do > > to a longer show and was willing to pay them more money. Brian > > brought John in on the negotiations. John said, "No." The business > > guy kept going up and up in his price. John kept saying, "No." I > > don't recall Paul being involved in that.
> This story I absolutely do not believe. Even if there was such a > negotiation, it would be ridiculous for Brian Epstein to bring Lennon > in on negotiations. That story is a fiction.-
IIRC this "story" is mentioned in Larry Kane's Ticket to Ride and repeated in his second book, Lennon Revealed. (Lennon Revealed is one of my favorite Beatle books). Beginning at page 163, Kane writes:
"No situation revealed Lennon's anti-authority streak and outright scorn for the rich and powerful more than an incident in . . . . Kansias City, Missouri. Lennon's one-man protest was launched on the flight to Kansas City when he rejected a powerful plea from Brian Epstein to offer a special compromise to the wealthy promoter. Kansas City was a late entry on the Beatles' tour agenda; added after they received a large cash offer from the eccentric millionaire owner of the Kansas City Athletics baseball team, Charles O. Finley. Finley had offered Brian Epstein $150,000 for the concert, an outrageous sum by the day's standards. Epstein accepted on behalf of the band, but Finley later decided he wanted more for his money.
I stood in the entranceway to the boys' suite in the Muehleback Hotel and watched Finley try to negotiate a sweeter deal with the Beatles. He was negotiating with Brian Epstein, hoping that the boys would play longer than their usual 35 minute concert, and he offered more cash to make it happen. Finley made the offer, as as Epstein watched with his eyes wide open, Lennon, speaking for the group, shook his head, "no." Finley made a larger cash offer; Lennon again shook his head. The promoter, visibly upset, raised the offer a third time; Lennon again rejected it out of hand. Finley, in a rage, stormed out of the room. Later on in the stadium, on the way out of the dressing room, I heard John yell out to Finley, 'Chuck, you shouldn't have spent so much money on us!'
In a rare concession, the Beatles played an extra song: Wilbert Harrison's hit 'Kansas City.' The local fans went wild. But for me, the most remarkable memory of the evening was of the brazen Lennon confronting a powerful illionaire. It was part of the pattern: John staring down the establishment, speaking for the group, bypassing Epstein, and willing to serve as the 'front man' for controversy even though he was doing it with the blessing of Paul and the others. . . ."
> > > > > > > > I get the impression that many of the "Beatles insiders" who've > > > > > > > > written books - and I say this not having read any of them, just from > > > > > > > > what I've read about them - seem to have liked Paul better, or to have > > > > > > > > had a somewhat higher opinion of him than of John.
> > > > > > > It could just be that in the end, Paul was just the more organized and > > > > > > > prepared of the four. Probably also the more intelligent.
> > > > > > > It's said that the early Beatles, (from their formation to about '66), > > > > > > > was John's band. But when you look at the old concerts and interviews, > > > > > > > it really seems as though Paul is the spokesman.
> > > > > > > In the online documentary of Epstein I posted, it is said that The > > > > > > > Beatles was John's band until Epstein came along. And Epstein turned > > > > > > > it into Paul's band. John never was happy with the marketing.
> > > > > > But Brian was John's partner in changing the credits to Lennon/ > > > > > > McCartney (who knows in exchange for what!, lol).
> > > > > > I had always had the impression that Brian would side more with John.
> > > > > That impression may have been encouraged to make John feel more secure > > > > > about things. Likewise the songwriting credit thing may have been > > > > > decided for John for the same reason, to help John save face. But > > > > > watch a lot of the old footage and it's Paul that seems like the > > > > > leader.- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
> > > > Paul had a handsome face and was good at PR. But I've seen or read > > > > interviews where Paul is the first to say that "John is the leader." > > > > Also if you read books about the early days such as Larry Kane's > > > > Ticket to Ride (or perhaps some others . . . . I can't recall all the > > > > details) if Paul had a business concern, he would tell John about it, > > > > and then John would speak to Brian Epstein about it.
> > > I think your memory is being way too selective and a bit biased. I'd > > > like to see specific examples. Specific quotes.
> > Here is an article which claims John was the leader until 1967:
> On Nov 2, 9:16 pm, Crisstti <crissttigalda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2 nov, 04:29, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Based on what I read, I don't think Brian turned the Beatles into > > > Paul's band. I think Brian worked hard to make it John and Paul's > > > band. I think Brian bent over backward to protect John, sometimes > > > from others, and sometimes from himself. e.g. The "we are bigger than > > > Jesus" fall out.
> > > John's personal style was to be a rebel, a rocker and "in your face." > > > Paul was much more middle class and conformist as far as his > > > personality, style and goals in life.
> > Mmm... I wouldn't call Paul a conformist at all.
> I guess things are relative. Compared to John, Paul was pretty > conformist. In school he was an A student, concerned with pleasing > the teacher, pleasing his hard working, middle class parents, etc. As > an adult, he was delighted to play for the Queen, get an MBE; I bet > he's thrilled that he is now Sir Paul.
I don't think that means he's conformist. It probably just means that other people's expectations meant more to him than they did to John. Or that, because he was very probably closer to his parents than John was to anyone in his family, his father's teachings and the values he tought him (probably including some social class issues) meant more to him.
Also, I don't know if he was that concerned with pleasing his teachers, as with getting good grades to get into university. Either to please his parents or because he was thinking in his future (he's said he wanted to be a teacher). Probably both. I remember he said in some interview that he admired a literature teacher, who'd recommend him a lot of plays. That's probably why he wanted to be a teacher. That's not conformism (teaching is a great profession, I'm sure). It's vocation.
> I saw an interview by John's father, Freddy, which I think sums up > things as far as John. Fred claimed that he was upset/ashamed when > John accepted the MBE from the Queen. And one of his proudest moments > was when John returned it.
Mmm... I'm not sure how much Freddy might have known about his son.
Though I certainly agree that "rocking the boat" was more John's thing than Paul's.
> > > Brian came from an upper middle class background and was a salesman. > > > He came from a conformist background and knew what he had to do to > > > market the Beatles and to sell them. Brian knew how to avoid "rocking > > > the boat," and to try to appeal to the mainstream (while hiding his > > > homosexuality and his Jewishness which were two strikes against him) > > > yet, in my opinion, rocking the boat is something John loved to do.
> > > So, yes, the Beatles became famous under Brian's management because > > > Brian molded them to appeal to conformist middle class and upper > > > middle class British and later American parents. This might have been > > > appealing to Paul's style and not John's and in John's mind, he felt > > > they had "sold out." However, I think as far as power goes, Brian did > > > what he could to make sure John had a leadership role.
> > Yeah, I think that is more probably it. That as far as their opinions > > about what should be done to marcket the band, Brian might just have > > agreed more with Paul. But in general he was more John's ally (though > > didn't Francie claim that Brian had written a love letter to Paul...?, > > I don't think I'm inclined to believe her though).
> I agree with you. As far as Brian writing a love letter to Paul, I > would not be surprised if he did. Brian tended to make passes at lots > and lots of young men, not just Paul or John. Pete Shotton reported > Brian made a pass at him. Larry Kane reported Brian made a pass at > him. Poor Brian must have been very lonely and horny.- Ocultar texto de la cita -
> - Mostrar texto de la cita -
But Brian must have known other gay men he'd have made passes at!. I don't think he was wasting his time making passes at lots of straight friends or aquintances of him. Plus, he seemed kinda shy, I really doubt he would.
Did Larry Kane know The Beatles when they were young...?. I thought he was a friend of John's from later on.
> > > > > > > I get the impression that many of the "Beatles insiders" who've > > > > > > > written books - and I say this not having read any of them, just from > > > > > > > what I've read about them - seem to have liked Paul better, or to have > > > > > > > had a somewhat higher opinion of him than of John.
> > > > > > It could just be that in the end, Paul was just the more organized and > > > > > > prepared of the four. Probably also the more intelligent.
> > > > > > It's said that the early Beatles, (from their formation to about '66), > > > > > > was John's band. But when you look at the old concerts and interviews, > > > > > > it really seems as though Paul is the spokesman.
> > > > > > In the online documentary of Epstein I posted, it is said that The > > > > > > Beatles was John's band until Epstein came along. And Epstein turned > > > > > > it into Paul's band. John never was happy with the marketing.
> > > > > But Brian was John's partner in changing the credits to Lennon/ > > > > > McCartney (who knows in exchange for what!, lol).
> > > > > I had always had the impression that Brian would side more with John.
> > > > That impression may have been encouraged to make John feel more secure > > > > about things. Likewise the songwriting credit thing may have been > > > > decided for John for the same reason, to help John save face. But > > > > watch a lot of the old footage and it's Paul that seems like the > > > > leader.- Hide quoted text -
> > > > - Show quoted text -
> > > Paul had a handsome face and was good at PR. But I've seen or read > > > interviews where Paul is the first to say that "John is the leader." > > > Also if you read books about the early days such as Larry Kane's > > > Ticket to Ride (or perhaps some others . . . . I can't recall all the > > > details) if Paul had a business concern, he would tell John about it, > > > and then John would speak to Brian Epstein about it.
> > I think your memory is being way too selective and a bit biased. I'd > > like to see specific examples. Specific quotes.
> Here is an article which claims John was the leader until 1967:
> After John died, Ringo gave an interview. I can't recall the exact > quote . . . . It may have been in response to Paul making certain > statements trying to put John down to elevate his own stature in the > Beatles. Ringo stated something to the effect of that no matter how > one tells the story, the Beatles were John's band.- Ocultar texto de la cita -
> - Mostrar texto de la cita -
Well, uite a rude thing to say if he did. And I opinion I disagree with. John might have been more of a leader than Paul, for a personality thing, but The Beatles were John's and Paul's band. And I think they both knew that.
> On Nov 2, 3:43 pm, Bernie Woodham <birnhamw...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 2, 2:36 am, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > It's said that the early Beatles, (from their formation to about '66), > > > > > > was John's band. But when you look at the old concerts and interviews, > > > > > > it really seems as though Paul is the spokesman.
> > > > > > In the online documentary of Epstein I posted, it is said that The > > > > > > Beatles was John's band until Epstein came along. And Epstein turned > > > > > > it into Paul's band. John never was happy with the marketing.
> > > > > But Brian was John's partner in changing the credits to Lennon/ > > > > > McCartney (who knows in exchange for what!, lol).
> > > > > I had always had the impression that Brian would side more with John.
> > > > That impression may have been encouraged to make John feel more secure > > > > about things. Likewise the songwriting credit thing may have been > > > > decided for John for the same reason, to help John save face. But > > > > watch a lot of the old footage and it's Paul that seems like the > > > > leader.- Hide quoted text -
> > > > - Show quoted text -
> > > Paul had a handsome face and was good at PR. But I've seen or read > > > interviews where Paul is the first to say that "John is the leader." > > > Also if you read books about the early days such as Larry Kane's > > > Ticket to Ride (or perhaps some others . . . . I can't recall all the > > > details) if Paul had a business concern, he would tell John about it, > > > and then John would speak to Brian Epstein about it.
> > I think your memory is being way too selective and a bit biased. I'd > > like to see specific examples. Specific quotes.
> > > Larry Kane recounted one specific incident where the Beatles were > > > touring the US . . . I forget if it was 1964 or 1965. The Beatles had > > > an agreement to do a show (in Chicago I think) and they had agreed to > > > do a certain number of songs, which was their pattern throughout the > > > tour. Anyway, some big powerful business man (I forget his > > > name . . . Wrigley? The owner of the Cubs??) wanted the Beatles do > > > to a longer show and was willing to pay them more money. Brian > > > brought John in on the negotiations. John said, "No." The business > > > guy kept going up and up in his price. John kept saying, "No." I > > > don't recall Paul being involved in that.
> > This story I absolutely do not believe. Even if there was such a > > negotiation, it would be ridiculous for Brian Epstein to bring Lennon > > in on negotiations. That story is a fiction.-
> IIRC this "story" is mentioned in Larry Kane's Ticket to Ride and > repeated in his second book, Lennon Revealed. (Lennon Revealed is one > of my favorite Beatle books). Beginning at page 163, Kane writes:
> "No situation revealed Lennon's anti-authority streak and > outright scorn for the rich and powerful more than an incident > in . . . . Kansias City, Missouri. Lennon's one-man protest was > launched on the flight to Kansas City when he rejected a powerful plea > from Brian Epstein to offer a special compromise to the wealthy > promoter. Kansas City was a late entry on the Beatles' tour agenda; > added after they received a large cash offer from the eccentric > millionaire owner of the Kansas City Athletics baseball team, Charles > O. Finley. Finley had offered Brian Epstein $150,000 for the concert, > an outrageous sum by the day's standards. Epstein accepted on behalf > of the band, but Finley later decided he wanted more for his money.
> I stood in the entranceway to the boys' suite in the > Muehleback Hotel and watched Finley try to negotiate a sweeter deal > with the Beatles. He was negotiating with Brian Epstein, hoping that > the boys would play longer than their usual 35 minute concert, and he > offered more cash to make it happen. Finley made the offer, as as > Epstein watched with his eyes wide open, Lennon, speaking for the > group, shook his head, "no." Finley made a larger cash offer; Lennon > again shook his head. The promoter, visibly upset, raised the offer a > third time; Lennon again rejected it out of hand. Finley, in a rage, > stormed out of the room. Later on in the stadium, on the way out of > the dressing room, I heard John yell out to Finley, 'Chuck, you > shouldn't have spent so much money on us!'
> In a rare concession, the Beatles played an extra song: Wilbert > Harrison's hit 'Kansas City.' The local fans went wild. But for me, > the most remarkable memory of the evening was of the brazen Lennon > confronting a powerful illionaire. It was part of the pattern: John > staring down the establishment, speaking for the group, bypassing > Epstein, and willing to serve as the 'front man' for controversy even > though he was doing it with the blessing of Paul and the others. . . ."- Ocultar texto de la cita -
> - Mostrar texto de la cita -
Thanks for taking the time to post that.
It's interesting, and it sounds very much like John :).
I do think this part is very important: "(...) and willing to serve as the 'front man' for controversy even though he was doing it with the blessing of Paul and the others. . .". Kane's clearly saying that John was being the spokesperson, the frontman, but he did not make the decicion. It was a group decision.
On Nov 3, 8:36 am, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> IIRC this "story" is mentioned in Larry Kane's Ticket to Ride and > repeated in his second book, Lennon Revealed. (Lennon Revealed is one > of my favorite Beatle books). Beginning at page 163, Kane writes:
Oh, of course that's one of your favorite books. But even though it's one of your favorite books your memory of it was pretty poor. First you said it took place in Chicago and thought it was Wrigley, (even though they performed at Comiskey Park), but it turns out it happens in Kansas City. First you said Brian called John into a business negotiation, then it turns out your source said it was demands made in a hallway. First you say you didn't recall that Paul was asked into the meeting, then it turns out that Paul would almost have to have been in that hallway.
So let's make one thing clear: Your memory CANNOT be relied upon. When people doubt what you recall, it's for good reason. The next time you type "IIRC", remember that you don't "RC" very well at all.
Also. This is one of your favorite books because it is a very salacious book. The greasier, the better for you. Which is another reason people tend to discount the things you've read. You like things that cater to your biases.
It's true that Larry Kane toured with The Beatles, but it's also true that he has used that advantage to make some very dodgy claims. For instance, Kane puts out that John Lennon was making out with Jayne Mansfield in the limo on the way to the Whiskey-A-Go-Go. But it's known that Mansfield was being chaperoned by her husband. It's very doubtful that they even rode together to that club, because when The Beatles, (probably just Lennon and Harrison), entered the club they were ushered to a table where Mansfield had positioned herself to get publicity photos taken of her with them. The Beatles may have idolized her before they met her, but it seems they hadn't realized how much she had aged and were turned off by her. But, you wouldn't get that reading Larry Kane's account.
So, likewise, let's contrast Kane's account of the Finley event with the account Lewisohn gives:
"When Finley owned the Kansas City Athletics, he promised the people of Kansas City that he would bring The Beatles to play in Kansas City's Municipal Stadium during the group's first tour of North America in the summer of 1964. Finley visited the group's manager, Brian Epstein, in San Francisco on August 19, 1964, where the Beatles were playing the first date of the tour. He told Epstein that he was disappointed that Kansas City was not among the group's itinerary, and offered first $50,000 and then $100,000 if the Beatles would schedule a concert in the Missouri city. Epstein refused, pointing out that on the only free date available, September 17, the band was scheduled for a day of rest in New Orleans. Finley left disappointed, but again encountered Epstein in Los Angeles a week later. Epstein again rejected Finley's offer of $100,000, noting that the band wanted to use their only day off to "explore the traditional home of jazz." Undetered, Finley tore up the $100,000 check and wrote a new one for $150,000. Astonished, Epstein excused himself to talk to the group. The band told him, "We'll do whatever you want." Satisfied that, in exchange for forfeiting their only day off, the Beatles had earned what at the time was the highest fee ever for a musical concert, a staggering $4,838 per minute, Epstein accepted Finley's check." The Beatles Live!: The Ultimate Reference Book -- pages 168–69
So, this presents a very different perspective! Here's a man that was chasing Epstein for over a year trying to get The Beatles scheduled. Finally offering up what was then an outrageous amount that gave Epstein pause. Epstein HAD to consult with group, (NOT LENNON - THE GROUP), because it was their scheduled day off. And there was no bringing someone into the negotiations, he simply went to them to clear the date. Nor is there any indication that Finley wanted more time from them. OTOH, he seemed quite pleased with himself that he brought The Beatles to Kansas City.
A further reason to doubt Kane's story is that the Kansas City media despised Finley, (as did most of Kansas City). If they got wind of that supposed occurrence in the hallway, (and if it were that public they would have), they would have used it in an effort to shame him. The Kansas City press did make a big deal about the sum involved. The press had a lot to do with the low turnout at The Beatles show.
> > > > > > > I get the impression that many of the "Beatles insiders" who've > > > > > > > written books - and I say this not having read any of them, just from > > > > > > > what I've read about them - seem to have liked Paul better, or to have > > > > > > > had a somewhat higher opinion of him than of John.
> > > > > > It could just be that in the end, Paul was just the more organized and > > > > > > prepared of the four. Probably also the more intelligent.
> > > > > > It's said that the early Beatles, (from their formation to about '66), > > > > > > was John's band. But when you look at the old concerts and interviews, > > > > > > it really seems as though Paul is the spokesman.
> > > > > > In the online documentary of Epstein I posted, it is said that The > > > > > > Beatles was John's band until Epstein came along. And Epstein turned > > > > > > it into Paul's band. John never was happy with the marketing.
> > > > > But Brian was John's partner in changing the credits to Lennon/ > > > > > McCartney (who knows in exchange for what!, lol).
> > > > > I had always had the impression that Brian would side more with John.
> > > > That impression may have been encouraged to make John feel more secure > > > > about things. Likewise the songwriting credit thing may have been > > > > decided for John for the same reason, to help John save face. But > > > > watch a lot of the old footage and it's Paul that seems like the > > > > leader.- Hide quoted text -
> > > > - Show quoted text -
> > > Paul had a handsome face and was good at PR. But I've seen or read > > > interviews where Paul is the first to say that "John is the leader." > > > Also if you read books about the early days such as Larry Kane's > > > Ticket to Ride (or perhaps some others . . . . I can't recall all the > > > details) if Paul had a business concern, he would tell John about it, > > > and then John would speak to Brian Epstein about it.
> > I think your memory is being way too selective and a bit biased. I'd > > like to see specific examples. Specific quotes.
> Here is an article which claims John was the leader until 1967:
> After John died, Ringo gave an interview. I can't recall the exact > quote . . . . It may have been in response to Paul making certain > statements trying to put John down to elevate his own stature in the > Beatles. Ringo stated something to the effect of that no matter how > one tells the story, the Beatles were John's band.
Oh, well here's a site that says Paul was the leader.
On Nov 3, 4:33 pm, Bernie Woodham <birnhamw...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> So let's make one thing clear: Your memory CANNOT be relied upon. When > people doubt what you recall, it's for good reason. The next time you > type "IIRC", remember that you don't "RC" very well at all.
> Also. This is one of your favorite books because it is a very > salacious book. The greasier, the better for you. Which is another > reason people tend to discount the things you've read. You like things > that cater to your biases.
True...on all accounts. As I was reading the McCartney biograpy, MANY YEARS FROM NOW (excellent), Fatty kept telling me how slanted and biased it was towards Lennon. I made it a point to note any "salacious" bits aimed at Lennon. Throughout the book, McCartney always spoke in loving terms about Lennon, though I think he did state he was "a swine" somewhere along the way. Nothing unusual about that...some of my best friends are "swine". :o)
She mis-remembers a great deal of the time...always saying IIRC.
>>>>>>>> I get the impression that many of the "Beatles insiders" who've >>>>>>>> written books - and I say this not having read any of them, >>>>>>>> just from what I've read about them - seem to have liked Paul >>>>>>>> better, or to have had a somewhat higher opinion of him than >>>>>>>> of John.
>>>>>>> It could just be that in the end, Paul was just the more >>>>>>> organized and prepared of the four. Probably also the more >>>>>>> intelligent.
>>>>>>> It's said that the early Beatles, (from their formation to >>>>>>> about '66), was John's band. But when you look at the old >>>>>>> concerts and interviews, it really seems as though Paul is the >>>>>>> spokesman.
>>>>>>> In the online documentary of Epstein I posted, it is said that >>>>>>> The Beatles was John's band until Epstein came along. And >>>>>>> Epstein turned it into Paul's band. John never was happy with >>>>>>> the marketing.
>>>>>> But Brian was John's partner in changing the credits to Lennon/ >>>>>> McCartney (who knows in exchange for what!, lol).
>>>>>> I had always had the impression that Brian would side more with >>>>>> John.
>>>>> That impression may have been encouraged to make John feel more >>>>> secure about things. Likewise the songwriting credit thing may >>>>> have been decided for John for the same reason, to help John save >>>>> face. But watch a lot of the old footage and it's Paul that seems >>>>> like the leader.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>> Paul had a handsome face and was good at PR. But I've seen or read >>>> interviews where Paul is the first to say that "John is the >>>> leader." Also if you read books about the early days such as Larry >>>> Kane's Ticket to Ride (or perhaps some others . . . . I can't >>>> recall all the details) if Paul had a business concern, he would >>>> tell John about it, and then John would speak to Brian Epstein >>>> about it.
>>> I think your memory is being way too selective and a bit biased. I'd >>> like to see specific examples. Specific quotes.
>> Here is an article which claims John was the leader until 1967:
>> After John died, Ringo gave an interview. I can't recall the exact >> quote . . . . It may have been in response to Paul making certain >> statements trying to put John down to elevate his own stature in the >> Beatles. Ringo stated something to the effect of that no matter how >> one tells the story, the Beatles were John's band.- Ocultar texto de >> la cita -
>> - Mostrar texto de la cita -
> Well, uite a rude thing to say if he did. And I opinion I disagree > with. John might have been more of a leader than Paul, for a > personality thing, but The Beatles were John's and Paul's band. And I > think they both knew that.
I don't think that was true at the beginning. I think it gradually evolved, so that by the time of A Hard Day's Night the leadership roles were essentially shared.
> On 3 nov, 04:55, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 2, 9:16 pm, Crisstti <crissttigalda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 2 nov, 04:29, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > Based on what I read, I don't think Brian turned the Beatles into > > > > Paul's band. I think Brian worked hard to make it John and Paul's > > > > band. I think Brian bent over backward to protect John, sometimes > > > > from others, and sometimes from himself. e.g. The "we are bigger than > > > > Jesus" fall out.
> > > > John's personal style was to be a rebel, a rocker and "in your face." > > > > Paul was much more middle class and conformist as far as his > > > > personality, style and goals in life.
> > > Mmm... I wouldn't call Paul a conformist at all.
> > I guess things are relative. Compared to John, Paul was pretty > > conformist. In school he was an A student, concerned with pleasing > > the teacher, pleasing his hard working, middle class parents, etc. As > > an adult, he was delighted to play for the Queen, get an MBE; I bet > > he's thrilled that he is now Sir Paul.
> I don't think that means he's conformist. It probably just means that > other people's expectations meant more to him than they did to John. > Or that, because he was very probably closer to his parents than John > was to anyone in his family, his father's teachings and the values he > tought him (probably including some social class issues) meant more to > him.
> Also, I don't know if he was that concerned with pleasing his > teachers, as with getting good grades to get into university. Either > to please his parents or because he was thinking in his future (he's > said he wanted to be a teacher). Probably both. I remember he said > in some interview that he admired a literature teacher, who'd > recommend him a lot of plays. That's probably why he wanted to be a > teacher. That's not conformism (teaching is a great profession, I'm > sure). It's vocation.
> > I saw an interview by John's father, Freddy, which I think sums up > > things as far as John. Fred claimed that he was upset/ashamed when > > John accepted the MBE from the Queen. And one of his proudest moments > > was when John returned it.
> Mmm... I'm not sure how much Freddy might have known about his son.
> Though I certainly agree that "rocking the boat" was more John's thing > than Paul's.
> > > > Brian came from an upper middle class background and was a salesman. > > > > He came from a conformist background and knew what he had to do to > > > > market the Beatles and to sell them. Brian knew how to avoid "rocking > > > > the boat," and to try to appeal to the mainstream (while hiding his > > > > homosexuality and his Jewishness which were two strikes against him) > > > > yet, in my opinion, rocking the boat is something John loved to do.
> > > > So, yes, the Beatles became famous under Brian's management because > > > > Brian molded them to appeal to conformist middle class and upper > > > > middle class British and later American parents. This might have been > > > > appealing to Paul's style and not John's and in John's mind, he felt > > > > they had "sold out." However, I think as far as power goes, Brian did > > > > what he could to make sure John had a leadership role.
> > > Yeah, I think that is more probably it. That as far as their opinions > > > about what should be done to marcket the band, Brian might just have > > > agreed more with Paul. But in general he was more John's ally (though > > > didn't Francie claim that Brian had written a love letter to Paul...?, > > > I don't think I'm inclined to believe her though).
> > I agree with you. As far as Brian writing a love letter to Paul, I > > would not be surprised if he did. Brian tended to make passes at lots > > and lots of young men, not just Paul or John. Pete Shotton reported > > Brian made a pass at him. Larry Kane reported Brian made a pass at > > him. Poor Brian must have been very lonely and horny.- Ocultar texto de la cita -
> > - Mostrar texto de la cita -
> But Brian must have known other gay men he'd have made passes at!. I > don't think he was wasting his time making passes at lots of straight > friends or aquintances of him. Plus, he seemed kinda shy, I really > doubt he would.
I'm speculating here. I think one big probrlem Brian faced in the 1960's is that being gay was taboo. People did not advertise if they were gay or straight, so how would he know? The best he could do would be to make a pass or drop hints and hope the other guy liked him too.
> Did Larry Kane know The Beatles when they were young...?. I thought > he was a friend of John's from later on.
Back in 1964 or so, Kane was a young reporter (21???) starting out in his career. His boss gave him the assignment to cover the Beatles on their first US tour. At first I don't think Kane was happy. However, he and a small handful of other reporters were lucky enough to ride with the Beatles on their 1964 tour . . . .He would even be on the plane with them and conducted many interviews on the plane, at the hotels, etc. I think he became a big fan.
He later traveled with them on tour in 1965.
Kane went on to become a TV newsman in the Philadelphia area and remained friendly with John. In 1973 or so, his TV station ran a charity event, and John traveled by train from NYC to participate and help raise money. Kane wrote very glowingly about John's generosity and charity work. John was very humble and down to earth.
> On 3 nov, 10:36, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 2, 3:43 pm, Bernie Woodham <birnhamw...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 2, 2:36 am, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > It's said that the early Beatles, (from their formation to about '66), > > > > > > > was John's band. But when you look at the old concerts and interviews, > > > > > > > it really seems as though Paul is the spokesman.
> > > > > > > In the online documentary of Epstein I posted, it is said that The > > > > > > > Beatles was John's band until Epstein came along. And Epstein turned > > > > > > > it into Paul's band. John never was happy with the marketing.
> > > > > > But Brian was John's partner in changing the credits to Lennon/ > > > > > > McCartney (who knows in exchange for what!, lol).
> > > > > > I had always had the impression that Brian would side more with John.
> > > > > That impression may have been encouraged to make John feel more secure > > > > > about things. Likewise the songwriting credit thing may have been > > > > > decided for John for the same reason, to help John save face. But > > > > > watch a lot of the old footage and it's Paul that seems like the > > > > > leader.- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
> > > > Paul had a handsome face and was good at PR. But I've seen or read > > > > interviews where Paul is the first to say that "John is the leader." > > > > Also if you read books about the early days such as Larry Kane's > > > > Ticket to Ride (or perhaps some others . . . . I can't recall all the > > > > details) if Paul had a business concern, he would tell John about it, > > > > and then John would speak to Brian Epstein about it.
> > > I think your memory is being way too selective and a bit biased. I'd > > > like to see specific examples. Specific quotes.
> > > > Larry Kane recounted one specific incident where the Beatles were > > > > touring the US . . . I forget if it was 1964 or 1965. The Beatles had > > > > an agreement to do a show (in Chicago I think) and they had agreed to > > > > do a certain number of songs, which was their pattern throughout the > > > > tour. Anyway, some big powerful business man (I forget his > > > > name . . . Wrigley? The owner of the Cubs??) wanted the Beatles do > > > > to a longer show and was willing to pay them more money. Brian > > > > brought John in on the negotiations. John said, "No." The business > > > > guy kept going up and up in his price. John kept saying, "No." I > > > > don't recall Paul being involved in that.
> > > This story I absolutely do not believe. Even if there was such a > > > negotiation, it would be ridiculous for Brian Epstein to bring Lennon > > > in on negotiations. That story is a fiction.-
> > IIRC this "story" is mentioned in Larry Kane's Ticket to Ride and > > repeated in his second book, Lennon Revealed. (Lennon Revealed is one > > of my favorite Beatle books). Beginning at page 163, Kane writes:
> > "No situation revealed Lennon's anti-authority streak and > > outright scorn for the rich and powerful more than an incident > > in . . . . Kansias City, Missouri. Lennon's one-man protest was > > launched on the flight to Kansas City when he rejected a powerful plea > > from Brian Epstein to offer a special compromise to the wealthy > > promoter. Kansas City was a late entry on the Beatles' tour agenda; > > added after they received a large cash offer from the eccentric > > millionaire owner of the Kansas City Athletics baseball team, Charles > > O. Finley. Finley had offered Brian Epstein $150,000 for the concert, > > an outrageous sum by the day's standards. Epstein accepted on behalf > > of the band, but Finley later decided he wanted more for his money.
> > I stood in the entranceway to the boys' suite in the > > Muehleback Hotel and watched Finley try to negotiate a sweeter deal > > with the Beatles. He was negotiating with Brian Epstein, hoping that > > the boys would play longer than their usual 35 minute concert, and he > > offered more cash to make it happen. Finley made the offer, as as > > Epstein watched with his eyes wide open, Lennon, speaking for the > > group, shook his head, "no." Finley made a larger cash offer; Lennon > > again shook his head. The promoter, visibly upset, raised the offer a > > third time; Lennon again rejected it out of hand. Finley, in a rage, > > stormed out of the room. Later on in the stadium, on the way out of > > the dressing room, I heard John yell out to Finley, 'Chuck, you > > shouldn't have spent so much money on us!'
> > In a rare concession, the Beatles played an extra song: Wilbert > > Harrison's hit 'Kansas City.' The local fans went wild. But for me, > > the most remarkable memory of the evening was of the brazen Lennon > > confronting a powerful illionaire. It was part of the pattern: John > > staring down the establishment, speaking for the group, bypassing > > Epstein, and willing to serve as the 'front man' for controversy even > > though he was doing it with the blessing of Paul and the others. . . ."- Ocultar texto de la cita -
> > - Mostrar texto de la cita -
> Thanks for taking the time to post that.
> It's interesting, and it sounds very much like John :).
> I do think this part is very important: "(...) and willing to serve > as the 'front man' for controversy even > though he was doing it with the blessing of Paul and the others. . .". > Kane's clearly saying that John was being the spokesperson, the > frontman, but he did not make the decicion. It was a group decision.- Hide quoted text -
Yes.
As far as "leadership" perhaps the best way to describe it is that John and Paul had a bad cop/ good cop routine. When needed, John would play the bad cop. Paul was better at public relations, so when needed, he would be the good cop.
> On Nov 3, 9:50 am, Crisstti <crissttigalda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 3 nov, 10:36, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 2, 3:43 pm, Bernie Woodham <birnhamw...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 2, 2:36 am, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > It's said that the early Beatles, (from their formation to about '66), > > > > > > > > was John's band. But when you look at the old concerts and interviews, > > > > > > > > it really seems as though Paul is the spokesman.
> > > > > > > > In the online documentary of Epstein I posted, it is said that The > > > > > > > > Beatles was John's band until Epstein came along. And Epstein turned > > > > > > > > it into Paul's band. John never was happy with the marketing.
> > > > > > > But Brian was John's partner in changing the credits to Lennon/ > > > > > > > McCartney (who knows in exchange for what!, lol).
> > > > > > > I had always had the impression that Brian would side more with John.
> > > > > > That impression may have been encouraged to make John feel more secure > > > > > > about things. Likewise the songwriting credit thing may have been > > > > > > decided for John for the same reason, to help John save face. But > > > > > > watch a lot of the old footage and it's Paul that seems like the > > > > > > leader.- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -
> > > > > Paul had a handsome face and was good at PR. But I've seen or read > > > > > interviews where Paul is the first to say that "John is the leader." > > > > > Also if you read books about the early days such as Larry Kane's > > > > > Ticket to Ride (or perhaps some others . . . . I can't recall all the > > > > > details) if Paul had a business concern, he would tell John about it, > > > > > and then John would speak to Brian Epstein about it.
> > > > I think your memory is being way too selective and a bit biased. I'd > > > > like to see specific examples. Specific quotes.
> > > > > Larry Kane recounted one specific incident where the Beatles were > > > > > touring the US . . . I forget if it was 1964 or 1965. The Beatles had > > > > > an agreement to do a show (in Chicago I think) and they had agreed to > > > > > do a certain number of songs, which was their pattern throughout the > > > > > tour. Anyway, some big powerful business man (I forget his > > > > > name . . . Wrigley? The owner of the Cubs??) wanted the Beatles do > > > > > to a longer show and was willing to pay them more money. Brian > > > > > brought John in on the negotiations. John said, "No." The business > > > > > guy kept going up and up in his price. John kept saying, "No." I > > > > > don't recall Paul being involved in that.
> > > > This story I absolutely do not believe. Even if there was such a > > > > negotiation, it would be ridiculous for Brian Epstein to bring Lennon > > > > in on negotiations. That story is a fiction.-
> > > IIRC this "story" is mentioned in Larry Kane's Ticket to Ride and > > > repeated in his second book, Lennon Revealed. (Lennon Revealed is one > > > of my favorite Beatle books). Beginning at page 163, Kane writes:
> > > "No situation revealed Lennon's anti-authority streak and > > > outright scorn for the rich and powerful more than an incident > > > in . . . . Kansias City, Missouri. Lennon's one-man protest was > > > launched on the flight to Kansas City when he rejected a powerful plea > > > from Brian Epstein to offer a special compromise to the wealthy > > > promoter. Kansas City was a late entry on the Beatles' tour agenda; > > > added after they received a large cash offer from the eccentric > > > millionaire owner of the Kansas City Athletics baseball team, Charles > > > O. Finley. Finley had offered Brian Epstein $150,000 for the concert, > > > an outrageous sum by the day's standards. Epstein accepted on behalf > > > of the band, but Finley later decided he wanted more for his money.
> > > I stood in the entranceway to the boys' suite in the > > > Muehleback Hotel and watched Finley try to negotiate a sweeter deal > > > with the Beatles. He was negotiating with Brian Epstein, hoping that > > > the boys would play longer than their usual 35 minute concert, and he > > > offered more cash to make it happen. Finley made the offer, as as > > > Epstein watched with his eyes wide open, Lennon, speaking for the > > > group, shook his head, "no." Finley made a larger cash offer; Lennon > > > again shook his head. The promoter, visibly upset, raised the offer a > > > third time; Lennon again rejected it out of hand. Finley, in a rage, > > > stormed out of the room. Later on in the stadium, on the way out of > > > the dressing room, I heard John yell out to Finley, 'Chuck, you > > > shouldn't have spent so much money on us!'
> > > In a rare concession, the Beatles played an extra song: Wilbert > > > Harrison's hit 'Kansas City.' The local fans went wild. But for me, > > > the most remarkable memory of the evening was of the brazen Lennon > > > confronting a powerful illionaire. It was part of the pattern: John > > > staring down the establishment, speaking for the group, bypassing > > > Epstein, and willing to serve as the 'front man' for controversy even > > > though he was doing it with the blessing of Paul and the others. . . ."- Ocultar texto de la cita -
> > > - Mostrar texto de la cita -
> > Thanks for taking the time to post that.
> > It's interesting, and it sounds very much like John :).
> > I do think this part is very important: "(...) and willing to serve > > as the 'front man' for controversy even > > though he was doing it with the blessing of Paul and the others. . .". > > Kane's clearly saying that John was being the spokesperson, the > > frontman, but he did not make the decicion. It was a group decision.- Hide quoted text -
> Yes.
> As far as "leadership" perhaps the best way to describe it is that > John and Paul had a bad cop/ good cop routine. When needed, John > would play the bad cop. Paul was better at public relations, so when > needed, he would be the good cop.
Yeah, well they broke up 40 years ago, and Paul is too old to be a cop. Barnaby Jones did it though in his 80's.
On Nov 3, 7:33 pm, Bernie Woodham <birnhamw...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> On Nov 3, 8:36 am, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > IIRC this "story" is mentioned in Larry Kane's Ticket to Ride and > > repeated in his second book, Lennon Revealed. (Lennon Revealed is one > > of my favorite Beatle books). Beginning at page 163, Kane writes:
> Oh, of course that's one of your favorite books. But even though it's > one of your favorite books your memory of it was pretty poor. First > you said it took place in Chicago and thought it was Wrigley, (even > though they performed at Comiskey Park), but it turns out it happens > in Kansas City. First you said Brian called John into a business > negotiation, then it turns out your source said it was demands made in > a hallway. First you say you didn't recall that Paul was asked into > the meeting, then it turns out that Paul would almost have to have > been in that hallway.
I said I wasn't sure. But I did get the key points absolutely correct. Does it really matter if the talks took place in Chicago or Kansas City?
You love to knit pick and put others down don't ya?
.
> Also. This is one of your favorite books because it is a very > salacious book. The greasier, the better for you.
This book is not greasy. One of the less greasy books.
Which is another
> reason people tend to discount the things you've read. You like things > that cater to your biases.
Maybe I have certain "biases" because I learn things from the books I read.
> It's true that Larry Kane toured with The Beatles, but it's also true > that he has used that advantage to make some very dodgy claims. For > instance, Kane puts out that John Lennon was making out with Jayne > Mansfield in the limo on the way to the Whiskey-A-Go-Go. But it's > known that Mansfield was being chaperoned by her husband. It's very > doubtful that they even rode together to that club, because when The > Beatles, (probably just Lennon and Harrison), entered the club they > were ushered to a table where Mansfield had positioned herself to get > publicity photos taken of her with them. The Beatles may have idolized > her before they met her, but it seems they hadn't realized how much > she had aged and were turned off by her. But, you wouldn't get that > reading Larry Kane's account.
> So, likewise, let's contrast Kane's account of the Finley event with > the account Lewisohn gives:
> "When Finley owned the Kansas City Athletics, he promised the people > of Kansas City that he would bring The Beatles to play in Kansas > City's Municipal Stadium during the group's first tour of North > America in the summer of 1964. Finley visited the group's manager, > Brian Epstein, in San Francisco on August 19, 1964, where the Beatles > were playing the first date of the tour. He told Epstein that he was > disappointed that Kansas City was not among the group's itinerary, and > offered first $50,000 and then $100,000 if the Beatles would schedule > a concert in the Missouri city. Epstein refused, pointing out that on > the only free date available, September 17, the band was scheduled for > a day of rest in New Orleans. Finley left disappointed, but again > encountered Epstein in Los Angeles a week later. Epstein again > rejected Finley's offer of $100,000, noting that the band wanted to > use their only day off to "explore the traditional home of jazz." > Undetered, Finley tore up the $100,000 check and wrote a new one for > $150,000. Astonished, Epstein excused himself to talk to the group. > The band told him, "We'll do whatever you want." Satisfied that, in > exchange for forfeiting their only day off, the Beatles had earned > what at the time was the highest fee ever for a musical concert, a > staggering $4,838 per minute, Epstein accepted Finley's check."
I don't doubt what you write, but what Lewisohn says does not contradict what Kane says.
Can't they both be right?
Kane says he was there. He was an eyewitness. Was Lewisohn an eyewitness?
> So, this presents a very different perspective! Here's a man that was > chasing Epstein for over a year trying to get The Beatles scheduled. > Finally offering up what was then an outrageous amount that gave > Epstein pause. Epstein HAD to consult with group, (NOT LENNON - THE > GROUP), because it was their scheduled day off. And there was no > bringing someone into the negotiations, he simply went to them to > clear the date. Nor is there any indication that Finley wanted more > time from them.
Kane was an eye witness. Maybe Lewisohn does not know everything.
OTOH, he seemed quite pleased with himself that he
> On Nov 3, 4:33 pm, Bernie Woodham <birnhamw...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> > So let's make one thing clear: Your memory CANNOT be relied upon. When > > people doubt what you recall, it's for good reason. The next time you > > type "IIRC", remember that you don't "RC" very well at all.
> > Also. This is one of your favorite books because it is a very > > salacious book. The greasier, the better for you. Which is another > > reason people tend to discount the things you've read. You like things > > that cater to your biases.
> True...on all accounts. As I was reading the McCartney biograpy, MANY > YEARS FROM NOW (excellent), Fatty kept telling me how slanted and > biased it was towards Lennon. I made it a point to note any > "salacious" bits aimed at Lennon. Throughout the book, McCartney > always spoke in loving terms about Lennon, though I think he did state > he was "a swine" somewhere along the way. Nothing unusual about > that...some of my best friends are "swine". :o)
> She mis-remembers a great deal of the time...always saying IIRC.
I often say IIRC because I don't have the book or other source right in front of me. I'm the first to say my memory is fvague at times . . . . but I do get the key events correct most of the time.
> On Nov 4, 12:05 am, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 3, 9:50 am, Crisstti <crissttigalda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 3 nov, 10:36, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 2, 3:43 pm, Bernie Woodham <birnhamw...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 2, 2:36 am, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > It's said that the early Beatles, (from their formation to about '66), > > > > > > > > > was John's band. But when you look at the old concerts and interviews, > > > > > > > > > it really seems as though Paul is the spokesman.
> > > > > > > > > In the online documentary of Epstein I posted, it is said that The > > > > > > > > > Beatles was John's band until Epstein came along. And Epstein turned > > > > > > > > > it into Paul's band. John never was happy with the marketing.
> > > > > > > > But Brian was John's partner in changing the credits to Lennon/ > > > > > > > > McCartney (who knows in exchange for what!, lol).
> > > > > > > > I had always had the impression that Brian would side more with John.
> > > > > > > That impression may have been encouraged to make John feel more secure > > > > > > > about things. Likewise the songwriting credit thing may have been > > > > > > > decided for John for the same reason, to help John save face. But > > > > > > > watch a lot of the old footage and it's Paul that seems like the > > > > > > > leader.- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
> > > > > > Paul had a handsome face and was good at PR. But I've seen or read > > > > > > interviews where Paul is the first to say that "John is the leader." > > > > > > Also if you read books about the early days such as Larry Kane's > > > > > > Ticket to Ride (or perhaps some others . . . . I can't recall all the > > > > > > details) if Paul had a business concern, he would tell John about it, > > > > > > and then John would speak to Brian Epstein about it.
> > > > > I think your memory is being way too selective and a bit biased. I'd > > > > > like to see specific examples. Specific quotes.
> > > > > > Larry Kane recounted one specific incident where the Beatles were > > > > > > touring the US . . . I forget if it was 1964 or 1965. The Beatles had > > > > > > an agreement to do a show (in Chicago I think) and they had agreed to > > > > > > do a certain number of songs, which was their pattern throughout the > > > > > > tour. Anyway, some big powerful business man (I forget his > > > > > > name . . . Wrigley? The owner of the Cubs??) wanted the Beatles do > > > > > > to a longer show and was willing to pay them more money. Brian > > > > > > brought John in on the negotiations. John said, "No." The business > > > > > > guy kept going up and up in his price. John kept saying, "No." I > > > > > > don't recall Paul being involved in that.
> > > > > This story I absolutely do not believe. Even if there was such a > > > > > negotiation, it would be ridiculous for Brian Epstein to bring Lennon > > > > > in on negotiations. That story is a fiction.-
> > > > IIRC this "story" is mentioned in Larry Kane's Ticket to Ride and > > > > repeated in his second book, Lennon Revealed. (Lennon Revealed is one > > > > of my favorite Beatle books). Beginning at page 163, Kane writes:
> > > > "No situation revealed Lennon's anti-authority streak and > > > > outright scorn for the rich and powerful more than an incident > > > > in . . . . Kansias City, Missouri. Lennon's one-man protest was > > > > launched on the flight to Kansas City when he rejected a powerful plea > > > > from Brian Epstein to offer a special compromise to the wealthy > > > > promoter. Kansas City was a late entry on the Beatles' tour agenda; > > > > added after they received a large cash offer from the eccentric > > > > millionaire owner of the Kansas City Athletics baseball team, Charles > > > > O. Finley. Finley had offered Brian Epstein $150,000 for the concert, > > > > an outrageous sum by the day's standards. Epstein accepted on behalf > > > > of the band, but Finley later decided he wanted more for his money.
> > > > I stood in the entranceway to the boys' suite in the > > > > Muehleback Hotel and watched Finley try to negotiate a sweeter deal > > > > with the Beatles. He was negotiating with Brian Epstein, hoping that > > > > the boys would play longer than their usual 35 minute concert, and he > > > > offered more cash to make it happen. Finley made the offer, as as > > > > Epstein watched with his eyes wide open, Lennon, speaking for the > > > > group, shook his head, "no." Finley made a larger cash offer; Lennon > > > > again shook his head. The promoter, visibly upset, raised the offer a > > > > third time; Lennon again rejected it out of hand. Finley, in a rage, > > > > stormed out of the room. Later on in the stadium, on the way out of > > > > the dressing room, I heard John yell out to Finley, 'Chuck, you > > > > shouldn't have spent so much money on us!'
> > > > In a rare concession, the Beatles played an extra song: Wilbert > > > > Harrison's hit 'Kansas City.' The local fans went wild. But for me, > > > > the most remarkable memory of the evening was of the brazen Lennon > > > > confronting a powerful illionaire. It was part of the pattern: John > > > > staring down the establishment, speaking for the group, bypassing > > > > Epstein, and willing to serve as the 'front man' for controversy even > > > > though he was doing it with the blessing of Paul and the others. . . ."- Ocultar texto de la cita -
> > > > - Mostrar texto de la cita -
> > > Thanks for taking the time to post that.
> > > It's interesting, and it sounds very much like John :).
> > > I do think this part is very important: "(...) and willing to serve > > > as the 'front man' for controversy even > > > though he was doing it with the blessing of Paul and the others. . .". > > > Kane's clearly saying that John was being the spokesperson, the > > > frontman, but he did not make the decicion. It was a group decision.- Hide quoted text -
> > Yes.
> > As far as "leadership" perhaps the best way to describe it is that > > John and Paul had a bad cop/ good cop routine. When needed, John > > would play the bad cop. Paul was better at public relations, so when > > needed, he would be the good cop.
> Yeah, well they broke up 40 years ago, and Paul is too old to be > a cop. Barnaby Jones did it though in his 80's.- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > On Nov 2, 3:43 pm, Bernie Woodham <birnhamw...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Nov 2, 2:36 am, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > It's said that the early Beatles, (from their formation to about '66), > > > > > > > > > > was John's band. But when you look at the old concerts and interviews, > > > > > > > > > > it really seems as though Paul is the spokesman.
> > > > > > > > > > In the online documentary of Epstein I posted, it is said that The > > > > > > > > > > Beatles was John's band until Epstein came along. And Epstein turned > > > > > > > > > > it into Paul's band. John never was happy with the marketing.
> > > > > > > > > But Brian was John's partner in changing the credits to Lennon/ > > > > > > > > > McCartney (who knows in exchange for what!, lol).
> > > > > > > > > I had always had the impression that Brian would side more with John.
> > > > > > > > That impression may have been encouraged to make John feel more secure > > > > > > > > about things. Likewise the songwriting credit thing may have been > > > > > > > > decided for John for the same reason, to help John save face. But > > > > > > > > watch a lot of the old footage and it's Paul that seems like the > > > > > > > > leader.- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
> > > > > > > Paul had a handsome face and was good at PR. But I've seen or read > > > > > > > interviews where Paul is the first to say that "John is the leader." > > > > > > > Also if you read books about the early days such as Larry Kane's > > > > > > > Ticket to Ride (or perhaps some others . . . . I can't recall all the > > > > > > > details) if Paul had a business concern, he would tell John about it, > > > > > > > and then John would speak to Brian Epstein about it.
> > > > > > I think your memory is being way too selective and a bit biased. I'd > > > > > > like to see specific examples. Specific quotes.
> > > > > > > Larry Kane recounted one specific incident where the Beatles were > > > > > > > touring the US . . . I forget if it was 1964 or 1965. The Beatles had > > > > > > > an agreement to do a show (in Chicago I think) and they had agreed to > > > > > > > do a certain number of songs, which was their pattern throughout the > > > > > > > tour. Anyway, some big powerful business man (I forget his > > > > > > > name . . . Wrigley? The owner of the Cubs??) wanted the Beatles do > > > > > > > to a longer show and was willing to pay them more money. Brian > > > > > > > brought John in on the negotiations. John said, "No." The business > > > > > > > guy kept going up and up in his price. John kept saying, "No." I > > > > > > > don't recall Paul being involved in that.
> > > > > > This story I absolutely do not believe. Even if there was such a > > > > > > negotiation, it would be ridiculous for Brian Epstein to bring Lennon > > > > > > in on negotiations. That story is a fiction.-
> > > > > IIRC this "story" is mentioned in Larry Kane's Ticket to Ride and > > > > > repeated in his second book, Lennon Revealed. (Lennon Revealed is one > > > > > of my favorite Beatle books). Beginning at page 163, Kane writes:
> > > > > "No situation revealed Lennon's anti-authority streak and > > > > > outright scorn for the rich and powerful more than an incident > > > > > in . . . . Kansias City, Missouri. Lennon's one-man protest was > > > > > launched on the flight to Kansas City when he rejected a powerful plea > > > > > from Brian Epstein to offer a special compromise to the wealthy > > > > > promoter. Kansas City was a late entry on the Beatles' tour agenda; > > > > > added after they received a large cash offer from the eccentric > > > > > millionaire owner of the Kansas City Athletics baseball team, Charles > > > > > O. Finley. Finley had offered Brian Epstein $150,000 for the concert, > > > > > an outrageous sum by the day's standards. Epstein accepted on behalf > > > > > of the band, but Finley later decided he wanted more for his money.
> > > > > I stood in the entranceway to the boys' suite in the > > > > > Muehleback Hotel and watched Finley try to negotiate a sweeter deal > > > > > with the Beatles. He was negotiating with Brian Epstein, hoping that > > > > > the boys would play longer than their usual 35 minute concert, and he > > > > > offered more cash to make it happen. Finley made the offer, as as > > > > > Epstein watched with his eyes wide open, Lennon, speaking for the > > > > > group, shook his head, "no." Finley made a larger cash offer; Lennon > > > > > again shook his head. The promoter, visibly upset, raised the offer a > > > > > third time; Lennon again rejected it out of hand. Finley, in a rage, > > > > > stormed out of the room. Later on in the stadium, on the way out of > > > > > the dressing room, I heard John yell out to Finley, 'Chuck, you > > > > > shouldn't have spent so much money on us!'
> > > > > In a rare concession, the Beatles played an extra song: Wilbert > > > > > Harrison's hit 'Kansas City.' The local fans went wild. But for me, > > > > > the most remarkable memory of the evening was of the brazen Lennon > > > > > confronting a powerful illionaire. It was part of the pattern: John > > > > > staring down the establishment, speaking for the group, bypassing > > > > > Epstein, and willing to serve as the 'front man' for controversy even > > > > > though he was doing it with the blessing of Paul and the others. . . ."- Ocultar texto de la cita -
> > > > > - Mostrar texto de la cita -
> > > > Thanks for taking the time to post that.
> > > > It's interesting, and it sounds very much like John :).
> > > > I do think this part is very important: "(...) and willing to serve > > > > as the 'front man' for controversy even > > > > though he was doing it with the blessing of Paul and the others. . .". > > > > Kane's clearly saying that John was being the spokesperson, the > > > > frontman, but he did not make the decicion. It was a group decision.- Hide quoted text -
> > > Yes.
> > > As far as "leadership" perhaps the best way to describe it is that > > > John and Paul had a bad cop/ good cop routine. When needed, John > > > would play the bad cop. Paul was better at public relations, so when > > > needed, he would be the good cop.
> > Yeah, well they broke up 40 years ago, and Paul is too old to be > > a cop. Barnaby Jones did it though in his 80's.- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
> :-)
Barney Fife, Otis, and Barnaby Jones would have made a great team. :-)
On Nov 4, 1:14 am, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I said I wasn't sure. But I did get the key points absolutely > correct. Does it really matter if the > talks took place in Chicago or Kansas City?
> You love to knit pick and put others down don't ya?
Easy for you to say, but I wasted about 1/2 hour trying to find information about a Chicago baseball owner who dealt with The Beatles before I finally determined that you "probably" meant Kansas City. So, yes, where this supposed event took place matters.
> Maybe I have certain "biases" because I learn things from the books I > read.
Now if you could only remember what it is you learned. OH! What you figured to begin with.
> > It's true that Larry Kane toured with The Beatles, but it's also true > > that he has used that advantage to make some very dodgy claims. For > > instance, Kane puts out that John Lennon was making out with Jayne > > Mansfield in the limo on the way to the Whiskey-A-Go-Go. But it's > > known that Mansfield was being chaperoned by her husband. It's very > > doubtful that they even rode together to that club, because when The > > Beatles, (probably just Lennon and Harrison), entered the club they > > were ushered to a table where Mansfield had positioned herself to get > > publicity photos taken of her with them. The Beatles may have idolized > > her before they met her, but it seems they hadn't realized how much > > she had aged and were turned off by her. But, you wouldn't get that > > reading Larry Kane's account.
> Why would Kane lie about that?
Ummmmm... maybe to sell a book?
Who knows. The fact is he did. So, you believe Lennon was making out with Jayne Mansfield in a limo in front of this reporter. Noooooo, that's not greasy.
> Kane says he was there. He was an eyewitness. Was Lewisohn an > eyewitness?
Again, as I said earlier, Kane uses his eyewitness status to make dodgy claims.
Another reason to doubt the story, is that Kane has Finley offering more money for a longer show time. This at 2:00 am in the morning. He was already being criticized badly for the money he paid for the show. At that point in time he was going to lose $40,000 on the show already + a $25,000 charitable donation tied into the show. He wasn't able to sell all the tickets and had printed $2.00 "discount" tickets in an effort to sell more. Why would this man be offering more money for an extra long show?
Kane prints his story in two books. Show me independent confirmation of the story.
But, you know, it's really beside the original point. It's been established that Brian did NOT call John Lennon into a business negotiation. At most what you have is John Lennon being flippant to a man in a suit. And you're calling that leadership.
> Kane was an eye witness. Maybe Lewisohn does not know everything.
Again, you're letting an eye witness status allow the man to make claims that are pretty questionable. Yoko Ono was an eyewitness; so you should believe everything she says also.
> OTOH, he seemed quite pleased with himself that he
> > brought The Beatles to Kansas City.
> And he should have been!
I didn't dispute that. But Larry Kane doesn't seem to think he was pleased with himself.
On Nov 3, 10:05 pm, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> As far as "leadership" perhaps the best way to describe it is that > John and Paul had a bad cop/ good cop routine. When needed, John > would play the bad cop. Paul was better at public relations, so when > needed, he would be the good cop.
More than a dominant personality, public face, or even the ability to lead, a leader must have that intangible quality that allows other talented people to willingly accept his or her leadership. John accepted Paul as his partner, but in the end, the others did not accept the leadership Paul was offering. And without the troops behind you, you have nothing even if Brian Epstein, George Martin, and the Media all meet in a smokey room and officially dub you the official 'Leader'. Instead, John defaulted on his part of the binary star and the whole thing blew apart.
> On Nov 3, 10:05 pm, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > As far as "leadership" perhaps the best way to describe it is that > > John and Paul had a bad cop/ good cop routine. When needed, John > > would play the bad cop. Paul was better at public relations, so when > > needed, he would be the good cop.
> More than a dominant personality, public face, or even the ability to > lead, a leader must have that intangible quality that allows other > talented people to willingly accept his or her leadership. John > accepted Paul as his partner, but in the end, the others did not > accept the leadership Paul was offering. And without the troops behind > you, you have nothing even if Brian Epstein, George Martin, and the > Media all meet in a smokey room and officially dub you the official > 'Leader'. Instead, John defaulted on his part of the binary star and > the whole thing blew apart.
> No wonder Brian Epstein was so stressed out. :-)
I think Lennon was burnt out on drugs by 1967, and he to let Paul take over the band, and we know John wanted to leave the Beatles in 1966.
On Nov 4, 1:59 am, Bernie Woodham <birnhamw...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> On Nov 4, 1:14 am, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I said I wasn't sure. But I did get the key points absolutely > > correct. Does it really matter if the > > talks took place in Chicago or Kansas City?
> > You love to knit pick and put others down don't ya?
> Easy for you to say, but I wasted about 1/2 hour trying to find > information about a Chicago baseball owner who dealt with The Beatles > before I finally determined that you "probably" meant Kansas City. So, > yes, where this supposed event took place matters.
> > > It's true that Larry Kane toured with The Beatles, but it's also true > > > that he has used that advantage to make some very dodgy claims. For > > > instance, Kane puts out that John Lennon was making out with Jayne > > > Mansfield in the limo on the way to the Whiskey-A-Go-Go. But it's > > > known that Mansfield was being chaperoned by her husband. It's very > > > doubtful that they even rode together to that club, because when The > > > Beatles, (probably just Lennon and Harrison), entered the club they > > > were ushered to a table where Mansfield had positioned herself to get > > > publicity photos taken of her with them. The Beatles may have idolized > > > her before they met her, but it seems they hadn't realized how much > > > she had aged and were turned off by her. But, you wouldn't get that > > > reading Larry Kane's account.
> > Why would Kane lie about that?
> Ummmmm... maybe to sell a book?
Kane had lots of other material to sell his book.
> Who knows. The fact is he did. So, you believe Lennon was making out > with Jayne Mansfield in a limo in front of this reporter. Noooooo, > that's not greasy.
Greasy? For John freakin' Lennon? For rock stars in general?
I did not realize you would get so miffed by reading that Lennon and some lady were huggy and kissing in front of a reporter. Call the police!!!
> > Kane says he was there. He was an eyewitness. Was Lewisohn an > > eyewitness?
> Again, as I said earlier, Kane uses his eyewitness status to make > dodgy claims.
If you don't believe him fine. Did you read either of his books?
> Another reason to doubt the story, is that Kane has Finley offering > more money for a longer show time. This at 2:00 am in the morning. He > was already being criticized badly for the money he paid for the show. > At that point in time he was going to lose $40,000 on the show already > + a $25,000 charitable donation tied into the show. He wasn't able to > sell all the tickets and had printed $2.00 "discount" tickets in an > effort to sell more. Why would this man be offering more money for an > extra long show?
> Kane prints his story in two books. Show me independent confirmation > of the story.
> But, you know, it's really beside the original point. It's been > established that Brian did NOT call John Lennon into a business > negotiation. At most what you have is John Lennon being flippant to a > man in a suit. And you're calling that leadership.
You are starting to sound much more "old fashioned" and establishment than I had ever envisioned. All this time I thought you were one of the more revolutionary folks here.
Yes, John was being flippant . . . that was John. According to Kane, that is one of the things he admired about him. John tended to thumb his nose at the rich and powerful. Where others (like Paul) might be impressed, John truly was and wanted to be a down to earth working class hero. I admire that. I guess you don't.
> > Kane was an eye witness. Maybe Lewisohn does not know everything.
> Again, you're letting an eye witness status allow the man to make > claims that are pretty questionable. Yoko Ono was an eyewitness; so > you should believe everything she says also.
If anyone has a motive to make money and retell history to suit his/ her purpose it would be Yoko. Surely you can see that if you can see it in Kane. Yoko has made more money off of John, especially a dead John, than anyone else. Wouldn't you agree?
Her fame, income, legacy, etc. is tied very much to John. If she had never married John, she'd be an unknown except in certain artsy/fartsy circles.
> On Nov 3, 10:05 pm, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > As far as "leadership" perhaps the best way to describe it is that > > John and Paul had a bad cop/ good cop routine. When needed, John > > would play the bad cop. Paul was better at public relations, so when > > needed, he would be the good cop.
> More than a dominant personality, public face, or even the ability to > lead, a leader must have that intangible quality that allows other > talented people to willingly accept his or her leadership. John > accepted Paul as his partner, but in the end, the others did not > accept the leadership Paul was offering. And without the troops behind > you, you have nothing even if Brian Epstein, George Martin, and the > Media all meet in a smokey room and officially dub you the official > 'Leader'. Instead, John defaulted on his part of the binary star and > the whole thing blew apart.
> No wonder Brian Epstein was so stressed out. :-)
As usual, excellent points. Yes, George, Ringo and Paul looked up to John whether he wanted it or not. In that sense he was a true leader, albeit a reluctant or even an unhappy one.
> On Nov 4, 1:33 am, PJ <palejewel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 3, 10:05 pm, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > As far as "leadership" perhaps the best way to describe it is that > > > John and Paul had a bad cop/ good cop routine. When needed, John > > > would play the bad cop. Paul was better at public relations, so when > > > needed, he would be the good cop.
> > More than a dominant personality, public face, or even the ability to > > lead, a leader must have that intangible quality that allows other > > talented people to willingly accept his or her leadership. John > > accepted Paul as his partner, but in the end, the others did not > > accept the leadership Paul was offering. And without the troops behind > > you, you have nothing even if Brian Epstein, George Martin, and the > > Media all meet in a smokey room and officially dub you the official > > 'Leader'. Instead, John defaulted on his part of the binary star and > > the whole thing blew apart.
> > No wonder Brian Epstein was so stressed out. :-)
> I think Lennon was burnt out on drugs by 1967, and he to let > Paul take over the band, and we know John wanted to > leave the Beatles in 1966.-
> On Nov 4, 5:54 am, "who?" <yourimageunre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 4, 1:33 am, PJ <palejewel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 3, 10:05 pm, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > As far as "leadership" perhaps the best way to describe it is that > > > > John and Paul had a bad cop/ good cop routine. When needed, John > > > > would play the bad cop. Paul was better at public relations, so when > > > > needed, he would be the good cop.
> > > More than a dominant personality, public face, or even the ability to > > > lead, a leader must have that intangible quality that allows other > > > talented people to willingly accept his or her leadership. John > > > accepted Paul as his partner, but in the end, the others did not > > > accept the leadership Paul was offering. And without the troops behind > > > you, you have nothing even if Brian Epstein, George Martin, and the > > > Media all meet in a smokey room and officially dub you the official > > > 'Leader'. Instead, John defaulted on his part of the binary star and > > > the whole thing blew apart.
> > > No wonder Brian Epstein was so stressed out. :-)
> > I think Lennon was burnt out on drugs by 1967, and he to let > > Paul take over the band, and we know John wanted to > > leave the Beatles in 1966.-
> On Nov 4, 1:33 am, PJ <palejewel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 3, 10:05 pm, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > As far as "leadership" perhaps the best way to describe it is that > > > John and Paul had a bad cop/ good cop routine. When needed, John > > > would play the bad cop. Paul was better at public relations, so when > > > needed, he would be the good cop.
> > More than a dominant personality, public face, or even the ability to > > lead, a leader must have that intangible quality that allows other > > talented people to willingly accept his or her leadership. John > > accepted Paul as his partner, but in the end, the others did not > > accept the leadership Paul was offering. And without the troops behind > > you, you have nothing even if Brian Epstein, George Martin, and the > > Media all meet in a smokey room and officially dub you the official > > 'Leader'. Instead, John defaulted on his part of the binary star and > > the whole thing blew apart.
> > No wonder Brian Epstein was so stressed out. :-)
> I think Lennon was burnt out on drugs by 1967, and he to let > Paul take over the band, and we know John wanted to > leave the Beatles in 1966.
Which lasted until Magical MysteryTour Movie failed so spectacularly (68?), and they no longer trusted him as completely and started straining to get away. John relates in an interview how he and George were grumbling about MMT, but went along with Paul's idea because he was more or less trying to settle them down and set the direction at that point. And then it becomes their first real failure. That had to leave a mark. In the end, if Paul had truly had the ability to be the dominant and sole leader of the Beatles, they'd still be together. Instead, they all sided against him with the Klein/Eastman situation.
He withdrew with drugs, but never seemed to become a true burn out IMO. I don't know how he managed to escape that fate, but there's so many interviews that make it obvious his mind was still clicking along at its usual excessive clip. I've seen one or two around the full heroin addict years where he's a bit slow and blurry, but still articulate and making sense. If I'd done even a hundredth as many drugs as he, I'd be drooling into a cup with the bunny slippers on. He got more freakish, but it seemed to work for him at least until about 72/3. Even then, it might have been the politics that brought him down more than the drugs.
> On Nov 4, 2:54 am, "who?" <yourimageunre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 4, 1:33 am, PJ <palejewel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 3, 10:05 pm, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > As far as "leadership" perhaps the best way to describe it is that > > > > John and Paul had a bad cop/ good cop routine. When needed, John > > > > would play the bad cop. Paul was better at public relations, so when > > > > needed, he would be the good cop.
> > > More than a dominant personality, public face, or even the ability to > > > lead, a leader must have that intangible quality that allows other > > > talented people to willingly accept his or her leadership. John > > > accepted Paul as his partner, but in the end, the others did not > > > accept the leadership Paul was offering. And without the troops behind > > > you, you have nothing even if Brian Epstein, George Martin, and the > > > Media all meet in a smokey room and officially dub you the official > > > 'Leader'. Instead, John defaulted on his part of the binary star and > > > the whole thing blew apart.
> > > No wonder Brian Epstein was so stressed out. :-)
> > I think Lennon was burnt out on drugs by 1967, and he to let > > Paul take over the band, and we know John wanted to > > leave the Beatles in 1966.
> Which lasted until Magical MysteryTour Movie failed so spectacularly > (68?), and they no longer trusted him as completely and started > straining to get away. John relates in an interview how he and George > were grumbling about MMT, but went along with Paul's idea because he > was more or less trying to settle them down and set the direction at > that point. And then it becomes their first real failure. That had to > leave a mark. In the end, if Paul had truly had the ability to be the > dominant and sole leader of the Beatles, they'd still be together.
I'm sure The Beatles made plenty of money with MMT.....cause even though it was pretty bad, plenty of people watched it out of curiosity...just cause it had the Beatles on it.
> Instead, they all sided against him with the Klein/Eastman situation.
Yep.
> He withdrew with drugs, but never seemed to become a true burn out > IMO. I don't know how he managed to escape that fate, but there's so > many interviews that make it obvious his mind was still clicking along > at its usual excessive clip. I've seen one or two around the full > heroin addict years where he's a bit slow and blurry, but still > articulate and making sense. If I'd done even a hundredth as many > drugs as he, I'd be drooling into a cup with the bunny slippers on. He > got more freakish, but it seemed to work for him at least until about > 72/3. Even then, it might have been the politics that brought him down > more than the drugs.
|
