[dar-list] Yoko Ono Admits She Wrecked Beatles

[RitesofPassage04 at netscape.com]

I don't care if there's "evidence" or not.You can't do drugs and have it not affect your work. ....it always does in one way or another.As for evidence....studies show that using drugs (no matter how long be a month or a year.) DOES AFFECT YOUR JOB PERFORMANCE why would music be any different? As for how they dealt with Beatlemania? It sure wasn't dealt with very well was it?They wouldn't have broken up so soon....and rock groups break up so much it's because they're tour schedules and the workload force them to spend WAY TOO MUCH TIME TOGETHER....   


Look I don't appreciate you're label of my opinion as "ridiculous." Let's talk about something else. Hear about Falewell's death?

--- ronsopas at earthlink.net wrote:

From: "Ron  Rosen" <ronsopas at earthlink.net>
To: "Dar Williams Discussion List" <dar-list at folkserv.net>
Subject: Re: [dar-list] Yoko Ono Admits She Wrecked Beatles
Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 17:16:43 -0700

>I was watching a History Channel two-hour documentary on The Hippies, and 
>The Beatles did a lot of drugs (and my opinion is always that drugs are a 
>person's downfall, and they were together so much and the Beatle Mania and 
>the drugs together,plus the pressure of being The Fabulous Four,must have 
>made for a lot of tension,bickering,along with John seeing himself (and 
>this in the TV special) as Jesus.
>
> My take is that they were SO BIG,and I don't think you can be that big and 
> NOT suffer from it, especially if you're in a band and spending your life 
> living out of each other's back pocket, which is what The Beatles were 
> sort of doing isn't it?

This is ridiculous.  The Beatles did do some drugs, but there was never any 
evidence that it interfered with their career.  The pressure of Beatlmania 
and fame was something they dealt with.  There was never any evidence that 
it caused problems that were out of their control.  This is just conjecture 
on your part.  There are plenty of young celebrities today who have shown 
evidence of cracking under the pressure of fame, but the Beatles never did.

Finally, if you actually think that John saw himself as Jesus, you are 
seriously mistaken.  John made the comment one day that the Beatles were 
more popular than Jesus.  When he said this he was making a comment on 
Western society.  He was saying that more people were making more of a fuss 
over the Beatles than they were paying attention to their religions.  He was 
essentially saying that society was not very religious.  It was the same as 
if someone were to say, "Americans care more about the almighty dollar than 
they do about God."  That's all he meant.

This was misinterpreted, particularly in the South, so you had all kinds of 
DJs promoting burning Beatle albums.  John never said that the Beatles were 
better than Jesus, or that they were Jesus.  He was saying that they were 
having more of an impact on the culture than Jesus.  The accuracy of John's 
statement is certainly subject to debate, but it was not intended as a 
complete sociological analysis.  It was an off-the-cuff statement intended 
as humorous commentary by a master of humorous commentary.

If the show portrayed John as believing he was Jesus, it was wrong.

Yes, the Beatles were having tension and bickering at the end, but those are 
just natural.  Most rock groups ultimately broke up.  Yoko didn't help the 
situation because she took John in a different direction and changed the 
dynamic of the band.  Then Linda Eastman's father started looking at the 
finances and that led to a split in financial outlook among the band 
members. 
_______________________________________________
dar-list mailing list
dar-list at folkserv.net
http://folkserv.net/mailman/listinfo/dar-list




_____________________________________________________________
Netscape.  Just the Net You Need.