Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
selenak: (Brian 1963 by Naraht)
It's been years since I read my last Beatles related book, but Get Back last November evidently meant that bookstores now place more recent publications where passers by like yours truly can spot them, and thus I ended up with Craig Brown's One, Two, Three, Four: The Beatles in Time, which I think is best described as an entertaining collection of vignettes dealing not just with the Beatles but various people flitting in and out of their lives, with fandom, with hatedom, and with (some) biography. How it would feel to someone new to Beatles lore, I couldn't say. Occasionally, when recognizing from which previous biography or even interview some quotes hail from, I thought, good lord, I know way too much about these people. Otoh, there were some stories I hadn't come across before, or had not connected to the Beatles, like "the Singing Nun", Sister Luc-Gabrielle, aka Jeannine Deckers, who had appeared on the same Ed Sullivan show the Beatles made their American debut on. (Not a story with a happy ending, that one. But remarkable.)

Nitpicks first: Craig Brown can tell a story, and most of the chapters I enjoyed reading, regardless as to whether there was new content or not. Unfortunately, the exceptions to this rule happen relatively early in the book, though not to a degree that they stopped me from reading further. But they did irritate me. As I said, this is also a book about fandom, and two chapters have Brown himself taking the tour in Liverpool that includes the childhood homes of John and Paul. The description of the somewhat self important (in his telling) guides with their insistence that the stuff they rattle off to 130 000 visitors a year is "confidential, private information" that must not be recorded comes across as somewhat snooty, but it's nowhere as irrating as the "Brown takes a tour in Hamburg" chapter where he decides to write the dialogue of every German he meets phonetically, in "accent". I hate it when writers do that - not just when it's supposed to be a German accent, it's just as annoying when it's supposed to be a French one, a Scottish one, for for that matter Scouse - because it makes comprehending what each word is supposed to mean really hard for me, no matter how fluent I am in English. Also, I just don't think it's funny, which evidently it's meant to be.

(I should add here that later chapters, where he's letting various female fans talk, come across very differently - with affection for the women, who do most of the talking and looking back, and when they make a bit fun of their younger selves, it's a case of "laughing with", not "laughing about". But the Mendips, Forthlin Road and Hamburg tour chapters really annoyed me.)

On to the praise: Craig Brown often hits on hilarious, eminently quotable tales, and not just when he's quoting the Beatles themselves in full snarky, goofy glory. As I said, he also devotes some chapters to dedicated haters of the Fab Four, and none was more so than Anthony Burgess (yes, A Clockwork Orange Burgess), who wasn't just seething throughout the 60s but was still ready to fire off Beatles-loathing sallies decades after the band was no more, which tells you a lot about Burgess. (And yes, the over the topness of his hatred does make it funny.) Stories like the one about Ms Deckers which end unhappily are written with a matter of fact compassion, while he comes across as pretty even handed in his depiction (and selection of quotes by and on) such vivid yet controversial characters as John's aunt Mimi. (Opinions on Mimi vary from "Stern yet loving" to "vicious control freak from hell", with the later two voiced memorably by both Julia Baird - John Lennon's younger sister - and Cynthia Lennon (John's first wife).) He's also pretty good in showing how inevitably skewered everyone's memories inevitably are - as with the "Beatles meet Elvis" encounter which everyone involved later described somewhat differently from each other, or the "John beat up Bob Wooler at Paul's birthday party" tale, where the description of the reason for the violence and the extension of the injuries greatly varies not just with the describer, but also with the times (i.e. John Lennon himself gave various different descriptions of this incident to different people over the years) , with the biographers, depending on their own agenda, often adding to it (so unsurprisingly the version where it's a miracle Wooler survived is the one in Albert Goldman's biography).

Interestingly, Brown entirely avoids the question most people writing books about the Beatles get asked - "who's your favourite Beatle?" - but instead answers one for himself which I haven't seen asked before in fandom, to wit, if you could be any Beatle at any point in their lives, which one and when would you want to be? (Craig Brown would like to be Paul during his years of living with the Asher family at Wimpole Street ("living with Jane, cossetted by her family, blessed by luck, happy with life, alive to culture, adored by the world, and with wonderfull songs flowing as if my magic from my brain and out through the piano: I want to hold your hand, I'm looking through you, The Things we said today, And I love her, We can work it out, Here, there and everwhere, Yesterday") (Put like that, I can see his point.) Generally speaking Brown keeps a good balance between the four in the stories he chooses to tell - there are far more George anecdotes, for example, than in anything penned by Philip Norman - except in the last section, ca. 1968-1970, which is very Lennon centric, but very much not in a Philip Norman way. Chapter 140, which tells the tale of John and Yoko's encounter with Gloria Emerson (transmitted by the BBC), utterly skewers the former two simply by using their own words. It does some across as perhaps the most cringe worthy John and Yoko event ever, as they proceed to lecture Emerson, who had been a foreign correspondent in Saigon, was by no means a pro establishment figure and would return to Saigon to cover such subjects as the false American body count, the use of hard drugs by G.I.s and the effect the war has on the Vietnamese civilian population, on Vietnam and the effectiveness of their peace protests, and listen not to a single thing Emerson had to say. And the conclusion of that chapter is absolutely lethal. The most Yoko hating rant by a 1960s fan does not compare with ths effective dagger-by-quote without any bashing at all:

Years later (Gloria Emerson) said that, by the end of her time there, she had lost count of the number of young American soldiers she had comforted in their final moments.
Nineteen years later, in the December 1988 issue of Q magazine, Yoko spoke to the journalist Tom Hibbert about the legacy of the bed-ins, in which she and John had stayed in bed 'for peace'.
HIBBERT: Are those bed-ins something you look back on with pride?
YOKO: Oh yes. Pride and great joy. Those things we did were blessings. At the time we were doing it peopole used to sort of laugh at us - we were hoping that they would laugh with us but it didn't work out that way. But in the end, you see, it did have an effect. Last year when Reagan and Gorbachev had their summit and shook hands, I sort of felt, well, John and I did have an effect.


End of chapter. He's made his point.

On the joyful side of things, he's also really good at getting across the excitement of the concerts, the reason why those early press interviews with the Beatles felt so refreshing, witty and new, and the marvel of the ever changing music. (And is not above making fun of himself; teen him way very unimpressed by the Abbey Road cover, considering it a let down compared to previous covers, and had no idea it would be the most recognizable, most imitated and parodied Beatles album cover of them all.) And he finds some unexpected angles that do manage to paint a portrait of an era and a place through a single chapter, as in the one that compares and contrasts the 1963 - 1969 Christmas messages from the Queen to the ones recorded by the Beatles for their fan club. The framing Brown chooses to open and finish his book with also is new - well, not the opening, but the ending to correspond with it. The first chapter describes record store owner Brian Epstein using his lunch break to visit, with his employee Alistair Taylor in tow, the Cavern, where he sees the Beatles for the first time. The last chapter starts with the aftermath of Brian Epstein's funeral in 1967, and then goes back in time through Brian's life, each section earlier than the previous one, ending on that moment of the opening chapter where he tries to verbalize for the first time the impact the Beatles have had on him to Taylor. Brian Epstein is of course present in many a chapter other than these two, but by placing him in this way Brown doesn't just underscore his importance to the saga but also in a way makes him the pov. Which, given that moment in one of the Beatles concert movies where Brian says that everything the fans felt for them, he's felt for them - and there you have the key difference between Brian Epstein and, say, Elvis' manager Colonel Parker, to say nothing of Allen Klein - , strikes me as an inspired choice.
selenak: (JohnPaul by Jennymacca)
So, guess how I spent Friday night?

Lady Madonna photo 2016_0610PaulMcCartney0040_zpsbojrwubb.jpg


Read more... )
selenak: (JohnPaul by Jennymacca)
So here I am, sitting in a train, idly reading the "Literary Review" from November, when lo and behold, I come across an article opening with the following lines:

"If Tolkien and C.S. Lewis were the Lennon and McCartney of the Inklings, then Charles Williams was the George Harrison. (And their Ringo? Possibly Owen Barfield. Another story.)"

My both Beatles and Inklings interested mind, it boggled. Also, considering their lifetimes overlapped, I wonder what Tolkien & Lewis would have made of the comparison. Anyway, the article writer, one Kevin Jackson, makes a good case for Charles Williams as George, not just because of the fame factor("Williams's considerable, highly ideosyncratic achievement have long since been overshadowed by those of his two world famous Oxford pals, and no doubt always will be", but also because of the minus and plus sides of Williams' character (on the minus side: neglectful husband, obsession with pretty muse figures, given to jealous; on the plus side, inspiring, sometimes even life changing teacher, ardent scholar, one of the great all round autodidacts, and no less a person than W.H. Auden raved about Williams "personal sanctity"; on the neutral side, he was famously a practicing occultist). But where I'm currently stuck is: between Tolkien and Lewis, who gets to be who? Jackson by the order of names seems to be casting Tolkien as John, but Tollers strikes me as not nearly aggressive and quarrelsome for that, not to mention that he loved to work and had endless patience, both very un-Lennonian traits. But on the other hand Lewis also was a workoholic, and certainly once the Narnia novels took off in rapid succession while Tolkien painstakingly labored and was annoyed by both Lewis' shoddy worldbuilding and commercial appeal, you can see some McCartney parallels there. Then again, Joy Gresham works better as Yoko than Edith Tolkien does.

Nah, I can't decide. Anyway, Jackson was probably just thinking of their standing in the group vis a vis that of Williams, I know, but it's still fun to wonder. If they'd been born two generations later and in very different social circumstances, how would Tolkien and Lewis have fared in a rock group?
selenak: (LennonMcCartney by Jennymacca)
[personal profile] onyxlynx has reminded me that it was 50 years ago that the Beatles recorded She Loves You, which is perhaps THE song that defined them in the first stage of Beatlemania. Its history from the moment of composition to the recording is also very well documented; Slate put up an article which is an excerpt of Ian McDonald's Revolution in the Head.

We also have, courtesy of Paul's younger brother Mike, a photo of Lennon & McCartney when they were finishing composing this song at the McCartney house in Forthlin Road (note the school exercise book with the lyrics on the floor in front of them - they were so freakin' YOUNG - and John wearing glasses, which at this point he only did when not in public):


 photo Paulshouseguitar.jpg


And here's a bit Ian McDonald doesn't quote in his notes but which I already mentioned in an earlier post of mine, because it's a story that still amuses me, a Paul quote:

We sat in there one evening, just beavering away while my dad was watching TV and smoking his Players cigarettes, and we wrote 'She Loves You'. We actually just finished it there because we'd started it in the hotel room. We went into the living room - 'Dad, listen to this. What do you think?' So we played it to my dad and he said, 'That's very nice, son, but there's enough of these Americanisms around. Couldn't you sing, "She loves you. Yes! Yes! Yes!"' At which point we collapsed in a heap and said, 'No, Dad, you don't quite get it!' That's my classic story about my dad.

Also qoted by me before, though in a different post, and yet apropos for a requote here, is a story about the recording the song, from their later engineer Geoff Emerick who at this point was still lower in the ranks at EMI (the "Norman" in the story is the actual engineer for She Loves You) :

As John, Paul and George tuned up in the studio, Norman noticed that the microphone on the bass amplifier was distorting, so he asked me to go downstairs and move it back a few inches. Out of the corner of my eye, I saw Mal and Neil go out of hte studio door, no doubt heading for the canteen to fetch the first of an endless tream of cups of tea for the four musicians. On this day, though, they wouldn't be gone for long.
"FANS!"
There was no mistaking Big Mal's booming voice as he shot back through the door, tailed closely by a breathless Neil. The four Beatles stopped what they were doing and stared at him.
"What the bloody hell are you on about?" Lennon demanded.
Before Mal could get the answer out, the studio door flew open again and a determined teenage girl sprinted in, heading straight for a bewildered-looking Ringo hunched behind his drum kit. Instinctively, Neil launched himself at her in a perfect American football-style tackle and brought her to the ground before she could reach her quarrry. It all seemed to be happening in slow motion before my widened eyes.
As Mal dragged the sobbing teenager out the door, Neil caught his breath and broke the news: somehow the huge crowd of girls that had been gathered outside had overpowered the police and broken through the front door. The canteen was swarming with them, and dozens of rabid fans were racing around the EMI facility in desperate search of the Fab Four.
"It's a bloody madhouse out there," Neil shouted. "You've got to see it to believe it!"
I stood rooted to the ground, not sure what do do. Looking up at the control room, I could see George, Norman, and Brian staring down at us with great concern. Brian was the first down the steps. (..) Curious as to what the fuss was all about, I poked my head out the door. What I saw astounded, amazed and frightened me - but it also made me burst out in laughter. It was an unbelievable sight, straight out of the Keystone Kops: scores of hysterical, screaming girls racing down the corridors, being chased by a handful of out-of-breath, beleaguered London bobbies. Every time one would catch up with a fan, another two or three girls would appear, racing past, screeching at the top of their lungs. The poor coppers wouldn't know whether to let go of the nutter he was struggling with and go after the others, or whether to keep his grip on the bird in hand.
As I wandered down the hallyway, I could see the scene being repeated everywhere. Doors were opening and slamming shut with alarming regularity, terrified staffers were having their hair pulled (just in case they happened to be a Beatle in disguise), and everyone in sight was running at top speed. The fans were totally out of control - Lord knows what they would have done to the four Beatles if they had actually gotten their hands on them. The grim determination on their faces, punctuated by squalls of animal-like screaming, made the whole thing even m ore bizarre.
I returned to the studio, which seemed strangely calm in comparison, like the eye of the hurricane; things did seem to be somewhat more in control there. Neil had decided to do reconnaissance, prmising to keep us informed, and a grim Mal was stationed at the doorway, literally standing there with arms crossed; he reminded me of one of the Queen's guards at Buckingham Palace. Ringo, still on his drum stool, seemed a bit shaken, but John, Paul and George Harrison soon began taking the piss, racing around the room, giggling and screeching in imitation of the poor fan who had launched herself at him.
George Martin, flustered at first, finally regained his schoolmasterly disposition and, with a good deal of formality, announced that the nonsense was over and that the session would now begin.


So what is it about She Loves You? To go all often repeated cliché on you, it's bursting with vitality, it tells an inclusive story (instead of one singer declaring/mourning his love, as was usual until that point, you have a friend talking to anothe - talking sense into each other, you could say - and the song is also sung by not one singer but John and Paul harmonizing and almost creating a third voice like that) , and it's damn near irresistable as a cheering up method. Also? It has the most bizarre real life repetition in Beatledom when it comes to its composers' lives. Because what else is that tale, told by both Yoko Ono and Paul McCartney, of how during John's 18 months lasting "Lost Weekend" in the mid 70s Paul played least likely marriage guidance counsellor ever?

(The one thing Paul and Yoko disagree on is who came to whom asking/offering help, which cracks me up, because that is, err, very them.)


So, real life "She Loves You", Yoko Ono version:

"Paul told me he was going to see John in L.A. He asked what it would take for me to go back to John, and I said, 'Well, maybe if he courted me.'

"I want the world to know that it was a very touching thing that he did for John. He'd heard the rumours that John was in a bad way, in a rough situation, and he was genuinely concerned about his old partner... It was so sweet that he wanted to save John. Sure, they were two macho, very talented guys who had strong opinions, arguments, like most brothers. But when it came to the crux of the matter, when Paul thought John was in dire straights, he helped... John often said he didn't understand why Paul did this for us, but he did.

"John told me later he'd said, 'You want to know how to get Yoko back?'... The fact that John immediately tried to court me, and came back to New York, had some meaning."


Real life "She loves You", Paul McCartney version:

“When they split up, Yoko came to London, a little diminutive sad figure in black. She came round to Cavendish, and she said, ‘John’s left, he’s off with May Pang.’ So, being friendly and seeing her plight, Linda or I said to her, ‘Do you still love him? Do you want to get back with him?’ She said, ‘Yes’. We said, ‘Well, what would it take then?’ because we were going out LA way. I said, ‘I can take a message. What would I have to tell him?’. And she gave me this whole thing: ‘He would have to come back to New York. He can’t live with me immediately. He’d have to court me, he’d have to ask me out. He’d have to send me flowers, he’ll have to do it all again. (...) (In Los Angeles) I took John in the back room of the house, and I said, ‘Yoko was through London and she said she wouldn’t mind getting back together. How about you. Would you be interested in that?”

In conclusion: "...and you know you should be glaaaaaaad..."
selenak: (JohnPaul by Jennymacca)
A certain Liverpudlian I'm quite fond of turns 70 today. Now I've written a lot of posts about him and his music before, but I can't let the day pass without making another. For a start, have the best summing up of Paul McCartney's life so far, both hilarious and touching, as given by Alec Baldwin two years ago when they were honouring him at the Kennedy Centre. (So much better when comedians do interviews with or summations about any of the former Beatles; biographers and rock journalists tend to either get in overawe or unfunny hostility.)



Aside from chortling over the funny bits, I love the phrase "he married rock'n roll to beauty".

Beneath the cut are a few examples of how he did that )
selenak: (Sternennacht - Lefaym)
A good new interview with Marianne Faithfull apropos an art exhibition at Tate Liverpool she's curating, together with her first husband, John Dunbar. (Some paintings from the exhibition.) I've been recently rereading some biographies in which Marianne, Dunbar and the Swinging London art scene show up a lot (Groovy Bob by Harriet Vyner about art dealer Robert Fraser, Barry Miles' Paul McCartney biography), and it's always a bit of an odd sensation when you encounter various characters from said biographies alive and well as contemporaries still very much continuing their life story.

(Also, I have an admitted soft spot for evidence that people get along well with their exes instead of feuding with them or being on non-speaking terms, even if they are complete strangers whom I only know via their records and biographies, so the idea of Marianne Faithfull and John Dunbar putting up this exhibition together appeals to my inner sentimentalist.)

More on an amused note: someone vidded Live and Let Die to show Peter Wingfield's "transition of a young leading man in the UK to the 'bad guy of the week' in American tv", making a point about how British actors are used. Aside from enjoying the mixture of Peter Wingfield footage with Paul McCartney's voice and music, I have to say that being a German, my sympathy for British actors and their typecasting in Hollywood is a tad limited. Seeing as our lot are getting even more typecast and have been since decades. (One moment, you're a dashing leading man of German films; the next you're Major Strasser in Casablanca...) I would say the ultimate fatal combination dooming an actor to an eternity of villainous typecasting is to be both German and British, except, well: Michael Fassbaender. Who is of Irish and German parentage and currently making a career of beating the odds. All due to the Celtic heritage?

Incidentally, another example of Hollywood-meets-Brits clash would be the anecdote about Life and Let Die George Martin tells in his memoirs. So: early 70s, the Beatles are dissolved, but not that long ago. Paul gets a commission for the title song for the newest James Bond film, and in their first post-Beatles cooperation, his old producer orchestrates and records it for him. (Sidenote: the fact that George Martin did the occasional post-Beatles project with Paul but not with the other three may or may not support John's accusation that Uncle George had a favourite.)

After the producers, Albert 'Cubby' Broccoli and Harry Saltzmann, had heard it, I got a call from Harry's assistant, Ron Cass, saying that they would like to meet me. (...) (My) first meeting with Harry was straight to the point. He sat me down and said, 'Great. Like what you did. Very nice record. Like the score. Now tell me, who do you think we should get to sing it?' That took me completely aback. After all, he was holding the Paul McCartney recording we had made. And Paul was - Paul. But he was clearly treating it as a demo disc.
I don't follow. You've got Paul McCartney...,' I said.
'Yeah, yeah, that's good. But who are we going to get to sing it for the film?'
'I'm sorry. I still don't follow,' I said, feeling that maybe there was something I hadn't been told.
'You know - we've got to have a girl, haven't we? What do you think of Thelma Houston?'
'Well, she's very good,' I said. But I don't see that it's necessary when you've got Paul McCartney.'
Perhaps I was being a bit obtuse. The fact was that he had always thought of a girl singing the lead song in his films, like Shirley Bassey in Goldfinger, and Lulu; and whoever it was, he wanted a recognisable voice rather than Paul's.
As gently as possible, I pointed out that, first of all, Paul was the ideal choice, even if he wasn't a black lady, and that, secondly, if Paul's recording wasn't used as the title song, it was very doubtful whether Paul would let him use the song for his film anyway.


Oh brave new world. Actually given that Paul McCartney had written songs for female singers repeatedly in the 60s (notably It's for You for Cilla Black, Goodbye Love for Mary Hopkin, and arguably Let It Be for Aretha Franklin who was allowed to record it before the Beatles did), I don't think Harry Saltzman's assumption was entirely due to the tradition of letting the title song of a Bond movie be sung by a female singer. But what the ever tactful George Martin doesn't mention in his memoirs was that at this point in the very early 1970s, Paul between pummelled by the critics, blamed by the rock media for the break-up and underperforming in the sales (compared with his earlier and also later successes, that is) needed a resounding personal success. Which Live and Let Die, as it turned out, most definitely was. (He still plays it at his concerts.)

Sidenote: there are are limits to George Martin's tactfulness, mind you. All you need is ears, the memoirs I was quoting from, is from 1979 (which also is important in that anything written and published before John Lennon's death doesn't carry the baggage of said death and the radical change of public status for John that came with it). Now, in more recent interviews (more recent meaning anything from the 90s onwards), George Martin repeatedly stated remorse about neglecting George Harrison as a composer due to being entirely focused on the two main songwriters of the group. This remorse is nowhere evident in 1979, where, with only a decade apart from the Beatles days and the other George alive instead of dead, he's still less than impressed by George H's efforts. Typical quote: "Again, George's contribution, 'Within You Without You', was, with all deference to George, a rather dreary song" (note the "again"). And then there's his assessment of the group and his own role as producer of the Beatles near the end of the book, where he talks about the most debated point of all: "I must emphasise that it was a team effort. Without my arrangements and scoring, very many of the records would not have sounded as they do. Whether they would have been any better, I cannot say. They might have been. That is not modesty on my part; it is an attempt to give a factual picture of the relationship. But equally, there is no doubt in my mind that the main talent of that whole era came from Paul and John. George, Ringo and myself were subsidiary talents. We were not five equal people
artistically: two were very strong, and the other three were also-rans. In varying degrees those three could have been other people."


***

Moving on from the 60s and the survivors of that era: I might not be a Games of Thrones/Song of Ice and Fire fan, and I do think later Tyrion is a good example of why authors should not fall in love too much with their characters, but there's no doubt Peter Dinklage's performance in the tv version has been one of the standout highlights. Here is a terrific new interview and profile of him, which also deals extensively with the challenges, to put it mildly, a dwarf actor faces in the industry.

***

Doctor Who/Sherlock crossover: Preludes, in which pre-series D.I. Lestrade meets pre-11th Hour Amy Pond. Delightful, and very in character for Amy and Lestrade.
selenak: (Dragon by Roxicons)
Shezan and Maia, thank you so much for the adorable dragons!

(Once The Hobbit hits the big screen, I predict a great uprise in dragon popularity again. Not that they're ever entirely out of fashion, but, you know...)

I'm still marathoning Breaking Bad and well into the third season now, when up comes this little scene:

Jesse: has been beaten up again; this is not a spoiler, because when one two main characters gets beaten up on this show, it's always Jesse. Reboot!Kirk has nothing on him in this regard.

Walt: awkwardly enters room for plotty reasons. Can't think of anything to say.

Saul (drug dealer lawyer extraordinaire, trying to break awkwardness, to Walt): Well, you're the cute one now. Paul, meet Ringo. Ringo, meet Paul.


Guys, I liked the show already, you didn't have to bribe me with this!

Btw, I can see Jesse as Ringo, especially a Ringo who instead of using his musical talent to drum runs around with the gangs and the drinks that fatal bit too long. But any attempt to cast Walter White as Paul is met with swift and abject failure. Then again, Paul did think of becoming a teacher as a kid before the music got him for good...

And so....

Dec. 20th, 2011 03:54 pm
selenak: (Ray and Shaz by Kathyh)
So Dexter's sixth season has ended, and for me, the show.

A few spoilery observations )

This was once a very good show, with a great character ensemble, and I'll always remember that show with fondness. I won't continue watching it's pale successor anymore. Ah well, it'll free up some icon space.

On the brighter side of things, the beta of my Yuletide story came back, and I posted it, discovering on the occasion there were several stories in the fandom in question posted already for Yuletide (and of course still disguised); this makes me happy and even more looking forward to the reveal. My own story I think will be very easy to guess if you're familiar with my stuff, but then, I thought this last year, and [personal profile] bimo was nice enough to reccomend last year's effort to me before the reveal, which tickled me to no end. :)

Speaking of stories, here's a good one from Harry Potter fandom: For the Greater Good, which fleshes out Dumbledore's friend Elphias Dodge from Deathly Hallows and is a great example of a writer pulling off the trick of getting across things to the reader which the limited pov character does not realise himself. A great portrayal of Dumbledore developing from flashback into Potter era Albus, too.

Also something guaranteed to cheer me up after my Dexter blues: ye olde English musicians from the 60s. Seems Paul McCartney has taken to hanging out more and more with members of The Other Band. Here's Ronnie Wood (he of the Rolling Stones, young padawans) joining him for a rendition of Get Back at a concert two weeks ago:



Sidenote: ever since Keith Richards wrote in his memoirs that the northern guitarists hold their guitars closer and higher than he and his Southern pals, I can't get that out of my head and checked in the vid above, and it's definitely true for Ronnie W. and Paul. Who has also been busy indulging his penchant for classics from the 30s and 40s and will release an album with standards from Arlen, Loesser, Berlin etc. (first I heard of it was from Elvis Costello who mentioned it in an interview, as his wife, Diane Krall, is also on it) in February, plus two new compositions of his own. One of which has just hit the net. It's a lovely melancholy ballad called My Valentine. A bit jazzy, and what Peter Carlin would call an autumnal love song. With Eric Clapton on guitar.



Most annoying comment spotted on the net so far: "a song for grandfathers". You know, first of all, he is a grandfather (turning 70 next year and with six grandchildren so far), and secondly, one of the many reasons why I appreciate the man is that he liked these kind of songs already when he was a teenager, along with rock'n roll. Being a both/and rather than an either/or person myself - meaning I like rock, I like melodious crooning, and I never understood why this should be mutually exclusive anymore than liking, say, DS9 and Babylon 5, TNG and DS9, Spike and Angel, the Third and the Seventh Doctor... you get the picture. So boo to partisans; I'll sit back and enjoy the music.

ETA: I hasten to add there is nothing wrong with simply disliking certain styles of music.(For example, I'm not into techno.) It was the "grandfather" bit I found annoying, as if this was either news or something wrong for a 69 years old to enjoy singing and composing. (Or a 20 years old, for that matter.)

Multilinks

Dec. 8th, 2011 08:28 am
selenak: (LennonMcCartney by Jennymacca)
One of these days I'm going to write a guide to German railway stations, and in it, Essen will get a bad mark for having the tracks for the local lines miles away from the ones for the regional trains, so there. Meanwhile, have some multifandom links:

Torchwood:
Meta about Tosh and Jack, investigating an often overlooked relationship.

Battlestar Galactica:
Beginnings, a charming series of glimpses of Kara and Sam during the New Caprica year. Sometimes I wonder how I developed into an accidental Kara/Sam shipper to the point where the "my Sam" scene in the finale made me misty eyed. I think it's probably due to them NOT being a couple of destiny (tm), and Sam being one of the few examples of how a character originally probably meant as nothing more than a temporary obstacle instead gained narrative dignity, three dimensionality and an endearing everyman decency in an increasingly dark world.

Feminism on tv:
Great article about the 80s show Cagney and Lacy and the actresses playing the leading roles (and where they are today). Of course, the most depressing aspect about this is that what made C & L revolutionary then - a buddy cop show where the two buddies in question are women, with the bond between them treated as intensely and importantly as in the male variations of the concept - still makes it unusual now, decades later. Also, don't read the comments. There are some incredibly annoying oafs represented there.

BeatlesAlice Cooper about Lennon and McCartney.  The words " Alice Cooper" and "awwwww" usually aren't associated (by me) in the same sentence, but they are in this excerpt from a longer interview where the interviewer, Kim Mitchell, is evidently baiting him for some negative stories and instead Cooper comes up with some great 70s tales of how they would defend the respective other even at the worst of times if anyone but themselves dared to attack, and  is full of affection and respect for both of them. Add some stories about John in Los Angeles and babysitting Keanu Reeves, and you have a very entertaining take from someone who was actually around, as opposed to many a journalist.
selenak: (JohnPaul by Jennymacca)
Older photo:


http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lfs7lyczDL1qa5yvio1_500.jpg


Newer photo:


http://i1131.photobucket.com/albums/m546/nosmokingpistol/David/CiN%20snips/rhthht.jpg


Now the only remaining question is, given he has mop top era Beatles and Sgt. Pepper era Beatles t-shirts, will David Tennant's next Beatles t-shirt present the break-up era Feb Four? On second thought, by all accounts he's a sweet-natured guy so probably shies away from the fascinating bloody mess that is the last two years of Beatledom, look included. Also, none of them were at their best then looks-wise, though still miles away from the stylistic horror of the 70s.

Meanwhile, feminist writer Caitlin Moran, whose book How to be a woman? I'm looking foward to read, is supposed to review Martin Scorsese's George Harrison documentary for the Times but in said review makes a poetic detour into summing up the late George's bandmates thusly:

John and Paul are essentially a legendary world-changing love affair that ends in heartbreak — like Burton and Taylor, but with no touching. They are the thing the other was looking for. A major part of their lives was settled the day they met at Woolton fair — they were completed, reborn and undone with each other.


Bless. If Lennon/McCartney = Burton/Taylor, who is who? My first instinct is to say John makes a good Richard Burton (very talented but also very self destructive, bottle brings out worst in same, tragic death) and Paul a good Elizabeth Taylor (survivor through the decades, for a long time treated by condescending critics as lighter of the duo because of greater commercial success, later critical revision). But then again, there's one key difference in that both Burton and Taylor were already famous in their respective fields, theatre and film, before they ever met, whereas Lennon & McCartney grew famous together. And of course, neither Sally Burton nor E.T.'s subsequent husbands qualify as Yoko and Linda in the sense of alternate life changing partnership. (If anyone, Sally is May Pang. Larry Fortensky probably qualifies as Heather Mills.) Anyway, this description has now entered my collection of most memorable descriptions of the Lennon/McCartney partnership, currently vying with Kenneth Womack's Long before Sgt. Pepper taught the band to play - long before the pressures of real life had reached their fever-pitch - there were two boys in love with music, gazing upon a brave new world, and upon each other's imaginations, under the blue suburban skies of a Liverpool churchyard. In many ways, the narrative of the Beatles is - and always will be - their story (from his introduction to the Cambridge Guide To the Beatles) for top unabashed emotionalism I'm completely in tune with.
selenak: (JohnPaul by Jennymacca)
This cd (the label is Ace) is, to coin a 60s phrase, groovy. I was familiar with some but not many of the covers, as the people at Ace did not go for the obvious (no Motown, no Tina Turner) and include some rarities instead, like Chubby Checker's take on Back in the USSR, though yes, they do include (and indeed end with) the one and only Aretha Franklin singing Let it Be. (As is proper, considering Paul had her voice in mind when he wrote it.) (Alas, Ace couldn't get permission to use any Ray Charles covers, which is a pity because his voice also was an inspiration, for another song, The Long and Winding Road, about which Paul said: It doesn't sound like him at all, because it's me singing and I don't sound anything like Ray, but sometimes you get a person in your mind, just for an attitude, just for a place to be, so that your mind is somewhere rather than nowhere, and you place it by thinking, Oh, I love that Ray Charles, and think, Well, what might he do then? So that was in my mind, and would have probably had some bearing on the chord structure of it, which is slightly jazzy.) I am amused by the anxious disclaimer in the footnotes that the choice of songs "is not intended to be a slight on the words and music of George Harrison"(because there are none present, which is why the cd isn't called "Black America sings The Beatles"). George gets the Scorsese documentary later this year, he can do without a cover compilation.

Given that John and Paul both loved and were hugely influenced by black American singers and songwriters when learning their trade as teenagers, the fact their own songs later were enthusiastically covered by black singers, sometimes even the very ones who inspired them, is a great example of transatlantic to and thro. Most of the interpretations on the cd boast amazing vocal performances; I'm not always keen on the intrumental arrangements, but there is no doubt none of the examples are just lazy copies of the originals, au contraire, each of the singers and groups tried to make the songs their own. This sometimes can be a revelation, as when Fats Domino sings Everybody Has Something To Hide (Except Me and My Monkey), which in the original version on the White Album is aggressive heroin-fueled John Lennon paranoia turned to the max, but as sung by Fats is just pure joie de vivre. To coin another 60s phrase, dig it. (And I never liked that song before.) Or when Mary Wells (not just the first black but one of the very first American artists to cover the Beatles) sings Please Please Me, gender pronouns changed, so what what used to be youthful tongue-in-cheek male exuberance suddenly is a confident woman telling her lover he'd better get more sophisticated in bed. On the other hand, it can also go over the top - Gene Chandler's version of Eleanor Rigby is even more bleak than the original because it's stripped of any of the melodic beauty and just cuts, cuts, cuts. (As with everything, any opinion is personal and thus subjective; your mileage may differ.) Or: Linda Jones delivers a stand-out, soaring vocal on Yesterday but the problem for me there is that Yesterday is a song where less is more and which should be delivered understated rather than going for orchestra (note: the famous combination of strings and guitar in the original actually is limited to a quartet and one guitar, which is all the difference between George Martin and Phil Spector producing) and operatic vocals.

Sometimes the interpretation makes you feel the difference neither as a revelation nor as a lessening but simply as a great alternate interpretation, as with Roy Redmond singing Good Day Sunshine; the slowed down tempo and his voice associate a long hot day in the American South rather than a brisk British breeze which is the impression the original gives me. And the Caribbean accent in R.B.Greaves' voice when he sings Paperback Writer (a song with a lot of very British allusions, from the Daily Mail to a man named Lear, not to mention the whole "Dear Sir or Madam" address) give the spoof/satire of the song a different kind of boost. And whether you see We can work it out like John did ("In We Can Work It Out, Paul did the first half, I did the middle eight. But you've got Paul writing, 'We can work it out / We can work it out'—real optimistic, y'know, and me, impatient: 'Life is very short, and there's no time / For fussing and fighting, my friend.') or notice that actually the Paul passages aren't optimistic, they're rather bossy and firm on the point that the singer is right and the other person is wrong, and unwillingness to budge from that point and interpret the song as Poppy Z. Brite did instead ("'We can work it out' is a love song to a hot-tempered friend, but it's also a warning to cut the crap if the relationship is to continue. We can get it straight or say goodnight. I love you dearly, but quit fucking with me. Beneath his benign nature and his pretty face Paul has a core of steel. John needed that"), the effect when instead of a duet you have the song sung by a single voice, and a female one instead of two males, as is the case here with Maxine Brown singing, is startling. It becomes far more a wooing attempt to convince the other person instead of an argument. And Al Green turning I want to hold your hand, aka the very song that die hard Rolling Stones fans keep quoting as an example of the early Beatles being asexual (conveniently ignoring the even earlier I Saw Her Standing There and Please Please Me, and of course that little ditty J & P wrote for their heroes) into what the leaflet calls "a steaming hunk of Memphis funk" is pretty amazing.

Speaking of the footnotes in the leaflet of the cd, they are generally well written and informative, and occasionally make me smile, as when they're talking about Little Richard's version of I Saw Her Standing There (other than I'm Down undoubtedly the most L.R.-esque song Paul McCartney ever wrote): McCartney wears his admiration for Little Richard like a favourite shirt, and is always happy to admit that the group nicked their falsetto 'ooooooooooh's from the Georgia Peach (who had, in turn, appropriated them from one of his few idols, the gospel singer Marion Williams). Because this is music and not gossip, the tale of Ringo being chased by Little Richard is missing, but we do get the photo of four fanboys (if you're into Doctor Who, think David Tennant in the presence of Lis Sladen) using the opportunity when they're opening for their hero in Hamburg to get their picture taken with him:

http://www.gregwilson.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Little-Richard-and-the-Beatles.jpg

(Note Ringo only just shaved his pre-Beatles beard, combed his hairs forward but hasn't dyed yet his white streak. This was just after they fired Pete Best and hired him.)

However, at one point the leaflet contains a true clunker, to wit, when it gets to cover songs from the White Album (Back in the USSR as done by Chubby Checker, Blackbird as done by Billy Preston, Rocky Raccoon as done by The Moments, Everybody's got something to hide (except for me and my monkey) as done by Fats Domino and Why don't we do it on the road as done by Lowell Fuson) and confidently states that all of those were "predominantly or completely composed by McCartney". Four of them were, my friend, but Everybody's got something to hide is pure Lennon. Brush up your Ian McDonald.

Speaking of the John side of the Lennon/McCartney force, Chairmen of the Board manage to make Come Together sound positively sinister, which is intriguing. Otoh Donald Height's take on Don't let me Down to me is missing the passion of the original, but then Don't Let Me Down is one of my favourite John vocals, so admittedly it's hard to match. However, as mentioned before, the album concludes on a triumphant note, because frankly, who or what can top Aretha? I mean:



***


Lastly, on a related note of nice things you find on the internet: this very charming and endearing article in which the author, apropos a recent Paul McCartney concert, muses about musical fantasies and father figures.
selenak: (Mystique by Supergabbie)
Two X-Men recs, both Mystique/Raven-centric (which makes me happy indeed), set post First Class, with excellent ensemble use:

Puzzle Pieces: Magneto's team realises that Darwin might still be alive and attempts to find him. When they are caught in an ambush and half the team is captured, Mystique has to lead the rescue effort. Darwin calls in the kind of help that Mystique doesn't want, but does need. Great Raven-becoming-Mystique arc, Angel is fleshed out more and given plausible motivations, and the eventual joining of teams for the rescue has just the right amount of tension and effectiveness you'd hope for.

Faceless in our dreaming state: this one also presents a different yet also plausible version of how Raven and the rest of the newly formed team around Magneto might adjust to each other (excellent characterisation of Emma!), and of how they might interact with Charles, Hank & Co. post film.


Recently watched on dvd:


Howl: an oddity which defies definition and might be a genre of its own, though Cronenberg's Naked Lunch goes a bit (but only a bit) in the same direction, taking as it did a basically unfilmable classic by a Beat poet and interspersing it with the author's life. However, Cronenberg's film is still fiction with a plot (of sorts) and alternate names, whereas Howl, directed by Rob Epstein and Jeffrey Friedman (whose most famous film so far was the documentary The Celluloid Closet), mixes animated sequences to the sound of Allen Ginsberg's poem Howl with sequences of a young Ginsberg (played by James Franco) reciting, sequences of slightly older Ginsberg (still James Franco) being interviewed about his life, and scenes from the obscenity trial against Lawrence Ferlinghetti (who published Howl) (showcase of spot-that-famous-actor, for example Jon "Don Draper" Hamn as Ferlinghetti's and Ginsberg's lawyer). Not a biopic, because the acted interview and trial scenes are a) more in the style of reenactment, as sometimes now is the custom in documentaries , and b) just about one third of the film; the other two thirds are really the poem recitation and animation. So basically this is a film both of and about a poem. Which I haven't seen done before.

Now, I actually met Allen Ginsberg once. In the usual way one meets a world famous poet, i.e. I went to a reading/recitation evening of his in Munich and had one of his books signed for me. It was a great experience (he was an old man by then of course, but it was amazing how vibrant and alert he came across). It did make seeing Franco as Ginsberg a bit disconcerting because they don't look much alike, and for the first few minutes of the film, don't much sound alike, either. Then Franco gets into Ginsberg's very distinctive way of reciting (and the animated sequence capture the jazz rhythms of it all very wellL), shows the body language and mannerisms, and once he acquires a beard for the interview sequences it's a dead-on impersonation, so that at the very end of the film when you see brief footage of old Allen G. reciting (just as I've seen him) it's not a jolting experience but transitions very well. The animation didn't go for a literal 1-to-1 translation of Ginsberg's imagery but for the most part was really well done and inventive. When I watched the Making of documentary on the dvd I found out this was originally inspired by Ginsberg's publisher wanting something to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Howl (as it turned out the film was released on the 55th anniversary instead), and I suspect Ginsberg would have enjoyed this war more than an actual biopic.


Unconnected to the film: my favourite Ginsberg anecdote is probably the one about him visiting Ezra Pound in 1967 and playing Revolver and Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band for him. Supposedly the line "no one was saved" in Eleanor Rigby made Pound smile a little, which is Ezra Pound for you. The whole encounter is one of those bizarre-wouldn't-dare-to-invent-it things because Pound did some truly awful things during the war, including antisemtic propaganda broadcasts, and Allen Ginsberg knew this but also regarded Pound as one of the poets whose poetry most shaped him as a writer, so he literally reached out a hand, and Pound responded with the only bit of remorse he ver expressed on the subject to the Jewish-American poet who came armed with Beatles, Dylan and Donovan records and the declaration that "Your cantos were very important to me": “My worst mistake was that stupid suburban prejudice of anti-Semitism – spoiled everything.”

Ginsberg had met the Beatles in person in 1965 and then re-met Paul McCartney via mutual friend Barry Miles in 1967, which led to a long term transatlantic friendship and Paul backing him up on guitar when Ginsberg recited his Ballad of the Skeletons at the Royal Albert Hall on October 16th, 1995. (Conversely, Electric Arguments, the title of the third Fireman album, is taken from an Allen Ginsberg poem.) Behold:


selenak: (JohnPaul by Jennymacca)
It's one of those occasions that made it into pop legend, and, as quoted at length in this post, inspires a lot of rock biographers to vent their inner purple prose stylist to this day: July 6th, 1957, aka The Day John Met Paul. Now I've quoted the most florid best descriptions of the meetings itself already, plus in Bad Brückenau I'm far from most of my trusty books, but in between gymnastics and medical baths, I had to do a celebratory post nonetheless.

You know you should be glad... )
selenak: (LennonMcCartney by Jennymacca)
During my visit to London a few weeks ago, I acquired among other things a collection of Ted Hughes' radio essays about poetry (which include, of course, a lot of recited poems, both his and from other poets) which the British Library edited under the title "The Spoken Word". Back in the 60s, he's been comissioned by the BBC to write and present a series of radio programmes called "Listening and Writing". (If you're familiar with the Plath-Hughes saga you might remember this was one of their principal sources of income in the early 60s.) A word about Hughes' theoretical writing in general: he's one of those rare poets who can talk about the craft without getting incomprehensible or condescending, BUT only in his essays. Not, alas, in the big Shakspeare book. Stay away from Shakespeare and the Goddess of Being, which is what happens when Ted rambles on too long and has too much Robert Graves on the brain. However, the essays, both the written ones and now the radio ones, are great. The short form brings out the best in him, and you can tell why the BBC kept asking him back - not only has he a great voice, but he's a good narrator in both senses, and can recite poetry (both his own and other peoples') with the best of them. (By no means that common for poets. I don't know whether you've ever listened to a T.S. Eliot recording of him reading from The Waste Land - it's painful.) Now I have other audio books of Hughes, but they were made in the 80s and 90s, so what surprised me most about those 60s radio programmes is that the voice remained identical. Meaning: other than in the earliest radio essay, "Capturing Animals", still sounding a bit more declaring and ringing as young people do, as opposed to the later broadcasts where he's relaxed more into the medium, you couldn't tell a difference between these recordings and the ones done decades later by voice alone. Apparently he had this deep Yorkshire voice even in his 20s.

Of his own poems, a lot of the ones he recites are the ones written for children, like the Moon Creature poems from The Earth Owl and other Moon People and from Meet My Folks, where there is a lot of humour which there isn't in his adult poems, though occasionally the ones for children have the same intensity. The selection of other poets occurs in the programm titled "Writing about Landscape" (from 1964), and is interesting not only for the content but about what it says re: Hughes' taste: Edward Thomas The South Country, T.S. Eliot Virginia, Gerard Manley Hopkins Inversnaid and Sylvia Plath Wuthering Heights. (He does not let on he had a personal connection to the last in the programm. This was not yet two years after her death, and she hadn't become world famous yet, but he's nonetheless very careful to present her as he does the other authors.)

His own observations about the way poems can be created and what they attempt to capture, as I said, manage to never talk down or be obscure, which is rare in the field, and though you can tell the subjects move him deeply, he's very matter of fact, with the occasional wry aside, like this one from Capturing Animals about his family moving when he was ten: "The cat went upstairs in my bed and moped for a week; it hated the place."

All in all, probably my favourite audio book among those I bought in London (sadly, the DW audios were a bit of a mixed bunch; I'll write about them some other time) and excellent distraction when relaxing after various gymnastics, medical baths, hikings and so forth.

*

One downside of being stuck here in Bad Brückenau is that in Munich I would be able to buy the newest MOJO which, I hear, is all about my favourite Beatle, but a small town in Franconia doesn't have English magazines. Ah well. Maybe it'll still be in the kiosks of Munich ten days from now? Anyway, something they kindly put online is Elvis Costello's essay about Paul McCartney, which is basically a love declaration. (Not that surprising considering what Elvis Costello did last year at the White House, but very enjoyable to read nonetheless. Even without personal bias, I love it when people in the same field are enthusiastic about each other (especially when it comes without the pressure of needing accolades for yourself in return, and while Costello is a rock generation later, he's by now a senior legend in his own right). It's also interesting because critics and biographers declared Elvis Costello among all the people Paul wrote songs with post-John to be the only "Lennonesque" one. (By which they presumably mean he's politically engaged and snarky? And/or wears glasses?) Anyway, two choice quotes from the essay:

"The last song we wrote was That Day Is Done. Again, I had a fair opening statement of it and had all these images. It was from a real thing. It was about my grandmother's funeral. It was sort of serious. He said, "Yes that's all good, all those images." But quite often when you're writing a song about something personal, what it means to you can sometimes get in the way of what it can possibly mean to somebody else. It needed a release. He said, "It needs something like this..." and he just sat down and played the chorus. It was sort of like a moment, like Let It Be, the creation of a semi-secular gospel song. It was quite shocking when he did that bit. Then you realise that's what he does. Then he sung the hell out of it. That's him, really."

And "He's got a couple of voices. He's got that killer Little Richard-influenced voice, and very few people can sing like that. Then that very plaintive ballad delivery like Yesterday or For No One. When you think about it, what other people sound like that? Gene Kelly sounds like that. So does Jimmie Rodgers, except for the twang. It's like all the world is in his voice. When you get down to why people react to him, it's that."

And he likes Ecce Cor Meum, which since I discovered it for myself only a few months ago makes me very happy indeed. In conclusion: aw.
selenak: (JohnPaul by Jennymacca)
It's someone's 69th birthday today. Since I have a soft spot for the man in question, I can't let the occasion pass unremarked.


50years


Birthday spam below the cut )

ETA for überawesome artwork which I found here.

How great is this? )
selenak: (Hank by Stacyx)
Fandom: I'm so jaded observations of the day:

1.) I watched and enjoyed Thor, and watching it, I knew already that this version of Loki was going to prove fangirl catnip, resulting in cries of woobie! and mass adoption, complete with Loki/everyone pairings. So colour me completely unsurprised that this is exactly what happened. (What did me surprise me a little is that this includes lots of Loki/Sif, because "hey, I like X who is nifty, and Y who is nifty, and never mind they didn't have much screen interaction, they should totally shag!" is more likely to happen on the slash side of the force - case in point: those two guys from Inception whose names I can't even remember anymore -, so hooray for equality there.) I think in ye olde days of my personal fandom I probably would have gone the same way, but in my current mood I'm more inclined to be cynical and demand an equally cynically minded vidder vid woobies from several fandoms - Loki, Lex, maybe Lindsay from Angel to the tune of "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good, pleaaaaase don't let me be so misunderstood". In lack of that, I'm tempted to rewatch some of Being Human season 3, or, as I personally subtitle it, Revenge on the Woobies.

2.) Speaking of equality: the way Ursula from The Borgias immediately became the most hated character of the show in fandom was a good demonstration that vilification and bashing of a female character for the perceived sin of coming between a popular couple works with het couples as well as slash couples. Complete with bashing of the actress for her perceived lack of prettiness. I mean, I knew that, of course, but I find it especially annoying in my shiny new fandom because the source text has been ever so good to avoid pitching women against each other. Bah.

Fandom: I'm so gleeful observations of the day:

1.) Yesterday [personal profile] andraste posted a link to a new clip from X-Men: First Class, which made me even happier on the Mystique and Xavier front, today I find yet more goodness in that regard. The First Class scene, for those of you not reading Andraste's journal:



I love the linked exchange between the adult versions and Erik as well and yet again am so glad about this idea of making little Raven and Charles each other's first other mutants, as well as giving them a relationship in their own right before either establishes one with Erik. As I said to [profile] artaxastra, borrowing a comparison to another fandom, if before Mystique was Saavik as far as we knew, now she's Leonard McCoy. Not that Saavik isn't a great character in her own right, but McCoy simply has another status in the narrative. (Also, the dialogue which [Bad username or unknown identity: Quigonejinn"] quotes in the post I linked above sounds like OT3 bait. I'm trying to resist. Actually, no, scratch that, I don't.)

2.) So, once upon a time (1965, to be precise), David Bailey, star photographer in 60s London, famous enough to be an icon in his own right (and to be the model of the photographer from Blow Up), was supposed to photograph the 50 most influential people in England. Bailey included himself in this as well as all five Rolling Stones but only wanted John Lennon of the Beatles, on the ground of considering them a silly boy band (though he later admitted he liked the late music from the White Album onwards), being a die hard Stones fan, and according to rumour being somewhat interested in John. John insisted on bringing Paul along for the sessions, which means we have the iconic moptop era Lennon/McCartney photographs from David Bailey. Who said he felt "a tension, an animosity" between them during the session and asked them to look away from each other to convey that in photo. What tickles me every time I think of it is that the Bailey photographs convey anything but animosity to each other as published then, and every time Bailey releases yet new prints from that session where they're all over each other and can't keep to the "look away, damm it!" instruction for longer than two pictures, his statement becomes even more hilarious. Now you'd think after a few decades we know even the most rejected print from that session, but no. Due to tumblr, I saw today David B. has released even more outtakes. The animosity, it is burning, I tell you. Burning.

Also below an lj cut to protect your innocent eyes )

So that was fun to look at. (Btw, considering Bailey was one of the people who spoke at Linda McCartney's memorial service, I assume he and Paul made up later.) I do suspect that must have been the most interesting of the scheduled photo sessions, other than the ones Astrid Kirchherr did with them in Hamburg, that is. (Linda's photos of them were snapshots which is something else again.)
selenak: (Band on the Run - Jackdawsonsgrl)
Two different ways to induce a fannish aww from me. This, because it's funny and it showcases how young they were.

Photobucket


And this one because it's one of the most beautiful photos in the recently published collection of Linda McCartney's photos. I must confess that "men & babies" works most times for me, no matter who they are, but in this case the effect is heightened by the fact that Paul being a great father is one of the non-musical reasons why he's my favourite of the four:

Photobucket

Ah well...

Apr. 10th, 2011 10:13 am
selenak: (Nina by Kathyh)
Being Human fanfic rec:

The Vampire Lestat Lied To Me (And So Did Edward Cullen) . The content of which can't be described without spoilers for the s3 finale, so I shall hide it under a cut ) Delightful to read, as is this author's wont.

60s anecdote to make you go faceapalm of the day: Bob Dylan's way of responding to being turned down. Quoth Marianne Faithfull:

“Apparently Bob Dylan spent days and days writing a poem for me in 1964 and I think it was understood in his circle that I would go to bed with him. I mean, I presume that’s the intention when you’re a very pretty girl and you go to a big star’s bedroom, isn’t it? But I didn’t realise this at the time because I was just a silly teenager and it was all a bit much. Actually I very much wanted to go to bed with him, but I was pregnant and about to get married [to John Dunbar] at the time. I told him all this and he was furious and ripped the poem up in front of me. We are still very fond of each other and still talk about that night. I’ll always say to him, ‘But Bob, I was only 17’ and he always says, ‘Yeah, but I was only 22 myself!’” The sad thing for me was not that we didn't go to bed together, but that I never got to see that poem."


Now, one could make observations about the sexual standards of the day and/or Dylan's passive-aggressiveness, but what I'd rather ask a question of conscience: would you, dear reader, have had sex with Bob Dylan at age 22 if you got your very own Dylan poem/song out of it?

Unsolved Beatles mystery of the day with theory of solution presented by yours truly:

http://beatlephotoblog.com/photos/2011/03/1164.jpg

What you see here, faithful viewers, is one Paul McCartney with Linda at one side and Denny Laine on the other, in 1975, holding... the John Lennon/Yoko Ono Two Virgins album from 1968 in his hand. (You know, the one with the nude cover and recorded during their first night together.) Now, Paul depicted holdling a new Lennon album would make some sense (they kept an eagle eye on each other's output post break-up at the worst of times, and by 1975 they were on visiting and hanging out with terms again). But Two Virgins? Which wasn't even released in large quantities so that by 1975, you really had to do some detective work to get a hold on a copy? The hell?

Boring solution: a fan gave it to him to sign. Either because the fan had a dark sense of humour or because, well, there is a Paul quote printed on the cover of this John/Yoko event. ("When two great saints meet, it is a humbling experience.")

More interesting solution: May Pang mentions in her memoirs that John had her go to Beatle conventions, specifically tasking her to buy up Two Virgins albums "to get them out of circulation". (This proved fortunate because at the first convention she visited, she encountered John's old Hamburg buddy Jürgen Vollmer who was selling his photos of the young Beatles in Hamburg. Thus Vollmer reestablished contact with John, and his photo of a young John Lennon leaning against a door became the cover of John's Rock'n Roll album.) Never mind fans having a wicked sense of humour, John definitely had one. Do I believe him capable of presenting Paul with one of those out-of-circulation albums? You betcha.
selenak: (Arthur by Voi)
1.) Camelot: watched the first two episodes. Eva Green is great as Morgan, Joseph Fiennes a good ambiguous!Merlin, but alas, the youngster they've cast as Arthur seems to be capable of only one (slightly suprised) expression. This is a problem in a show where he has lots of screentime. (See, this is where underestimated Bradley James is underestimated, because he's really good not just at the comedy stuff, which Merlin especially in ye early days used Arthur a lot for, but also in giving the impression there's a lot going on inside in the angsty scenes.) And if virtually other actor is better than your leading man and some are genuine heavy weights, the problem is even stronger. Writing-wise, well, I'm biased but I think Chris Chibnall's contributions are evident. (Am I ever glad he's not working on Torchwood season 4...) In conclusion: could be worse, could be better, didn't grab me as much as The Borgias.

2.) Via Leviathan: one of my favourite scenes from Deathly Hallows was actually filmed but didn't make the cut, which is a shame because it's really well done - Dudley saying goodbye to Harry. This in a way completed Dudley's mini arc from caricature bully via the shock Dementor experience in Order of the Phoenix to human being, and it's played just right. Also, having seen Dudley's actor as Gilly the last season of Merlin, you can doubly appreciate what good work he does:



3.) Tumblr reminded me today of one of the passages in Philipp Norman's John Lennon: The Life which I found absolutely hilarious on Philipp Norman's behalf and sad on John's, to wit: "In contrast with John and Yoko’s low-key comings and goings, Paul liked to make an entrance with Linda, usually carrying her little girl, Heather, on his shoulders. “Here comes the Royal Family,” John would mutter. Bear in mind this is actually from the book where Norman tries to be more objective. :) I don't know who his editor was, but had it been me, I'd been tempted to say: "Philipp, dear, I've seen footage of John and Yoko in the late 60s. Come to think of it, I've seen footage of John and Yoko in the 70s, too. And in 1980. When were they ever low-key? I know you have the man crush of the ages on John Lennon, but let's try to make it a little less obvious, shall we?"
Leaving aside amusement, where it gets interesting and a little sad is when you wonder who Norman's source for this contrast and compare of John & Yoko versus Paul, Linda & Heather was, because it has to be either Yoko (whom Norman interviewed extensively for the book) or, even more likely, John and his gazillion early 70s interviews. (Which are certainly full of "she (Linda) came with a ready-made family, and he always wanted the family life" type of statements.) John in general on the subject of Paul & children is a psychological minefield, from suspecting Julian would rather have Paul as a father in a 1975 interview to insisting that Hey Jude was for him, damn it, not for Julian in 1980, and in the same interview going "he (Paul) has 25 children and million records coming out, when does he have time to talk?" And now let's look at that quote again. What is the "big production" the "royal" element of the McCartneys showing up? That Paul carries Heather on his shoulders. That he gets along with Heather. The thing is, Linda wasn't the only one who came "with a ready-made family". So did Yoko. So did John. Heather, Kyoko and Julian are all exactly the same age. John and Paul in the late 60s both fall in love with women with daughters from previous marriages. And from John's pov, it must have looked as if he was being continuously outdone in the parenting department. John manages to scare Yoko's previous husband so much that Tony Cox disappears with Kyoko and Yoko does not see her daughter again during John's life time; Paul manages to get permission from Linda's previous husband to adopt Heather within a year. John has difficulties talking to Julian when they're in the same room together, let alone play with him even in the 60s but tries to explain it by the fact he missed so much of Julian's early childhood due to the Beatles being on tour all the time. Except that Paul, who sees even less of Julian (what with not being the father) during the 60s, still has no problem playing with him whenever they meet and gets adored in turn. Both Yoko and Linda get pregnant in the late 60s; Yoko has two misscarriages, Linda gives birth to one healthy child after another. Finally in 1975 John and Yoko get Sean and John makes the big gesture of giving up his career for some years so he can devote himself to raising Sean, getting the father thing right this time, but he still needs a full time Nanny for that who does the actual primary care-taking; meanwhile, Paul and Linda somehow manage three, then four children without any Nanny and with going on tour and making succesful records at the same time, and without those children ever being neglected. It's enough to make someone less neurotic and competitive than John Lennon gnash their teeth.

Incidentally: in 1998, about half a year after Linda McCartney's death, Chrissie Hynde of the Pretenders (who was friends with Linda) interviewed Paul; in the resulting 14 pages interview (which is mostly about Linda), the subject of raising children and how to do that if you're simultanously a rock star and one of the world's most famous people came up, and here's what he had to say:

CH: With your money and prestige you could have sent your children to any school in the world. And yet you'd drop them off and pick them up every day at the same local school -- what the Americans would call the public school -- along with the local shopkeepers, farmers, and the other people in your village. Why?

PM: We'd seen a lot of people go through the expensive schooling route with their kids, and we understood why they did it, because they wanted the best for their children -- that's normally the reason people say. But we'd seen a lot of heartache happen, when the kids would be devastated to leave, for instance, Mummy at the age of eight. Whenever we saw anything like that, Linda and I instinctively would look at each other and register the fact that that wasn't how we were going to do it.
The other thing was nannies -- and [what] put us off that was when one of our friends' kids ran to the nanny and said, "Mummy!" The kid had forgotten who the mummy was, and it shocked us. So we decided not to go that route. The nice thing was that because Linda was from money, she knew that it wasn't the be-all and end-all. She used to talk to me about a lot of loneliness she'd seen in a lot of these big houses and a lot of unpleasantness in families, because they weren't close, they weren't truthful, they weren't honest, because they didn't spend much time together.
So even though people would say, "You've got to send your son to Eton," we just said, "No way, they'll end up being like a different race from us, and we won't just won't relate to them." We decided that even if we were going on tour we'd take them with us. People thought we were mad, they used to be after us about "dragging our children around the world." But we said, "Well, they are close to us and if ever they get the flu, then we're not in Australia and they're not in England, desperately worrying." Instead, Linda would be there, with the medicine. Or I would be there to tuck them into bed. We just decided that that was more important to us. (...)
So we didn't send them to the paying schools, we did send them to the little local school. We'd moved out of London because London was getting a bit too much the fast lane. (...)

CH: Did you ever take a vacation together without the kids? Most couples, they want to get away and have a little second honeymoon. Did you ever go off on your own without them?

PM: No, we even took Heather [Linda's daughter from her first marriage] on our honeymoon. People are little surprised at that. We've met people who say, "Oh I like children, but I only like them when they get to be about three years old, when you can talk to them." Linda and I would look at each other and say, '"But don't you like them when they're little babies?" And they just gasp a little bit. I think it was just always such a mystery to us. I [come] from a very strong Liverpool family. And when Linda and I met, she was a single parent happening to get on with her life. So we just kind of pulled it together between us and just said, "Well you know, we'll just do it in a certain way." And we stuck to it. (...) And this idea that babies are only good when they're three -- when James was really little I remember sitting on the sofa with him. He's just a baby and he was sitting with me like we were grown-ups and he was just sort of gaggling and going, "Ah goo, ah goo." So I just said, "Ah goo." Like agreeing with him in his language. He looked at me like, "You speak this language?" We're sitting there for hours just "ah goo." I just mimicked him because kids mimic their parents -- but its actually a lot of fun the other way around. Then I said, "Pa, Pa, Pa," and he'd just go, "Um, hum, Pa, Pa, Pa." They see you like using their words and it's oddly so exciting. From the second they were born to this day, I think you learn so much off kids -- if you're willing to be open and you don't close your mind and say, "Oh, I know how to be a parent." I always said to Lin that being a parent is the greatest ad-lib you're ever involved in. You make it up as you go along, you have no idea what the script is, you have no idea how these kids are going to turn out but if you're just with them a bit and listen to them a bit and let them talk to you instead of talking to them all the time, then natural things occur a bit more easily. We don't give them anything near the amount of credit they should have. They teach you in the end.


Considering those children are well into their 30s (or, in Heather's case, 40s) by now, without any of the usual celebrity kid episodes (i.e. getting into rehab by the time they're teens, bashing it out with photographers, writing tell-all Daddy Dearest or Mummy Dearest stories, etc.) and never complained about more than dad's annoying habit of tinkering on his guitar when everyone wanted to watch tv and Mum's striped socks, I'd say the method worked. This month there was a lovely article by Stella and Mary McCartney about their mother and her photography (on the occasion of another collection of her photographs coming out) in Harper's, and their childhood memories present the other side of the above mentioned quotes. It's a good one. The new Linda photos printed in advance are great, too, btw; below the cut are some of John, and of McCartneys in various combinations.

Demonstration of why dismissing Linda's photography gets me mad )
selenak: (JohnPaul by Jennymacca)
[profile] ponygirl2000 kindly pointed this out to me: Chuck Berry's song Brown-eyed Handsome Man as covered by John Lennon on a tape in the late 70s. It's a good cover anyway, but, as Ponygirl says, the thing that pushes it into squee territory is that John randomly mashes it with Get Back, of all the songs. (Thus outranking the tape where he sings Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on his 31st birthday, but not the clip for Sean sings With a little help from my friends for him, calls it his favourite song and John is glowing in nostalgia about how he and Paul sang back-up for Ringo on that one while simultanously giving interviews denying Sean ever heard a single Beatle tune.)

Speaking of rarities, YouTube has Soily, which was the hard rock number with which Wings used to end their concerts and which was strictly a "live" song, meaning it's not on the regular records except the live "Wings over America" album from 1976. It's a screamer in the tradition of "Long Tall Sally" or "I'm Down" and very handy if someone comes up with the old "Paul only wrote silly love songs in the 70s" cliché.



One thing that I find striking (in a positive way) about the 60s generation of musicians - especially the survivors - is that yes, flawed as hell as people, but how really generous and supportive they were/are of each other, in addition to the more expected competition with each other.

Stories and quotes from and regarding The Who, Brian Wilson, Marianne Faithfull, Bob Dylan and David Bowie )

Profile

selenak: (Default)
selenak

June 2025

S M T W T F S
1 23 456 7
89 1011121314
15161718192021
22 232425 262728
2930     

Most Popular Tags

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Style Credit

Page generated Jun. 27th, 2025 03:30 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios