TheDZ
Provocative Operator 
Posts: 435
|
Post by TheDZ on Jan 1, 2005 4:12:38 GMT
This is, I believe, Bill's best performance. I think he really meant what he was singing at the time. He was probably terrified at the prospect of going solo and was trying to convince at least John to stick around and co-operate. Oh! Darling (Lennon/McCartney) Oh! Darling, please believe me I'll never do you no harm Believe me when I tell you I'll never do you no harm Oh! Darling, if you leave me I'll never make it alone Believe me when I beg you Don't ever leave me alone When you told me you didn't need me anymore Well you know I nearly broke down and cried When you told me you didn't need me anymore Well you know I nearly broke down and died Oh! Darling, if you leave me I'll never make it alone Believe me when I tell you I'll never do you no harm When you told me you didn't need me anymore Well you know I nearly broke down and cried When you told me you didn't need me anymore Well you know I nearly broke down and died Oh! Darling, please believe me I'll never let you down Believe me when I tell you I'll never do you no harm www3.telus.net/public/bene8/Beatles%20-%20Oh!%20Darling1.mp3 www3.telus.net/public/bene8/Beatles%20-%20Oh!%20Darling2.mp3 www3.telus.net/public/bene8/Beatles%20-%20Oh!%20Darling3.mp3 www3.telus.net/public/bene8/Beatles%20-%20Oh!%20Darling4.mp3 Check out these short sound bites: One and Two , Bill say s Darling, Three and Four He says Johnny. I'm sure of it.  C'mon John, Let It Be, Ya know Live and Let Die. |
|
|
|
Post by gracemer on Jan 2, 2005 2:15:16 GMT
He sure isn't saying "darling"!
|
|
|
|
Post by joejoe on Jan 2, 2005 2:54:04 GMT
"Oh Darn it" ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Jan 2, 2005 9:19:08 GMT
Well, an English "J" begins at first with a "D", then slides into a sort of "zchuh", and the force of singing so loud and for several minutes, maybe it acquired this "dzchuh" over several takes.
Or, maybe it's a revealing. insightful secret message to John.
Whatever it is, it's remarkable to hear.
|
|
|
|
Post by abbey on Jan 2, 2005 17:16:50 GMT
I agree with Perplexed. It's a very distinct possibility. It's been suggested previously on this Forum that John & Faul might've been a little cozier than John & Paul were. It's been stated in books written about The Beatles that John was bi-sexual. After looking at MANY photos of Faul, I've reached the conclusion that he is also. So, why not ?! Why couldn't John & him have had something going on there for a bit ?!
I just bumped up the Body Language thread so that you can see the photos for yourself. The photos of Faul speak volumes. There's even one photo there of Faul & John in which their body language seems to point towards a VERY close relationship !
|
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Jan 3, 2005 4:50:54 GMT
SMA, actually, I didn't mean that it was a secret "intimate" message, or anything like that. Just a general, two associates in business together, and it bears to reason that Bill and John were rather close as friends for at least a time there..........I am not saying your idea is impossible, but my gut reaction is that there was not anything amorous in that respect between them, IMO. A lot of the bi-sexual fooling around stuff, with some people who wind up married, and more-or-less "straight", tapers off and stops in the late teens/early twenties. College/careers/getting tired of it happens to
guys who are somewhat bi/mainly straight. Completely straight guys never have any interest in it; repulsion is what 90+% of males feel regarding members of their own gender. Rock and roll has its share of bi-curious luminaries----I think most of the Bowie/Jaggar etc (alleged) guys ceased all that long long ago. I think a man who reaches 25 and realizes that he finds male companionship more fullfilling, will seek to sustain it. [Unless he has a good reason to hide it for life---his career, his family ties, his audience, his religious conflicts, peer pressure, a sense of not wanting to live in the "homosexual demi-monde."
What a phrase. Homosexual demi-monde. Like it's a shadowy, dimly-lit world of pre-dawn encounters, late night bars, liqour, drugs and vice, clandestined relationships, pretense, designer labels, a penchant for Judy Garland movies, and thousands of empty one-night stands, venereal disease, track lighting, and the oppresive, ever present effluvium of pricey "eau de colognes".........(avoid Ralph Lauren).....
Let me say this, and not meaning to not give Ms. Ono her due, and I don't know much about the lady, but it's difficult for me to imagine that, if John cared so much, in that particular way, about Paul, how could he so passionately make the "jump" to loving Yoko? I mean, that's a major leap in the kind of direction that defies everything that being "gay" stands for!
Now, I jest to a degree..........but taking stock: Paul vs. Yoko, Yoko vs. Paul; Paul vs. Yoko, Yoko vs. Paul; the whole thing isn't working for me..........
Don't ask me to pick. Personally, I prefer blondes.
So, I really tend to think that (1) James Paul was straight, (2) John was straight, and (3) William was, and continues to be, straight. Acting froofy in the mid 1960's was the thing to do.
I mean, it was. Joe Namath in a dress and a tu-tu. Pretty. And a oversized, bouffant blonde wig. Remember that image?
Personally, I prefer real hair.
|
|
TheDZ
Provocative Operator
Posts: 435
|
Post by TheDZ on Jan 3, 2005 5:47:46 GMT
Perplexed wrote-
"So, I really tend to think that (1) James Paul was straight, (2) John was straight, and (3) William was, and continues to be, straight."
And that pretty much sums up my thoughts as well.
However, if there's compelling evidence otherwise, well, you know...... post it up. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by abbey on Jan 3, 2005 15:12:50 GMT
John was bisexual which was clearly evidenced in Goldstein's book, "The Many Lives of John Lennon".
Bill's poses and the feminine colors he liked and his poses cuddled up with other guys pretty much shows that he was a bi, too, or that Linda was nothing more than a "beard".
James Paul "The Bull" McCartney was 100% male. He liked only women for sexual relations. He definitely had his share!!!!
John loved Paul; Paul loved his women.
|
|
|
|
Post by LUCY on Jan 3, 2005 21:17:13 GMT
It's plausable...and explains Yoko.
|
|
|
|
Post by abbey on Jan 4, 2005 13:42:42 GMT
I'm sure John initially went with Yoko because she was so Avante Garde. She was her own person, & I think that intrigued him. She used his passing interest to get her claws into him. The rest is, as they say, history  |
|
|
|
Post by Mad John on Jan 6, 2005 15:54:46 GMT
I never bought the John & Yoko love affair. That was like some comercial and they made a fortune from being John & Yoko too! Yoko came into John's life completly in line with Faul, to the extent, that it felt like a bad sitcome that had added 2 new actors in mid sesson. The Beatles history certainly works like a play, especially after 1966, when they stoped touring!
I believe that Yoko was a spy and that she was a "Control Handler" to John. I think that Lennon was "Bewitched" under a Satanic spell and that the entire "Give Peace A Chance" period was a fake, and a cover up (as other fish were doing slimy things elsewhere).
Lennon for years after arriving in New York was trying desperatly to get away from Yoko, but she had too much power and control over him! Isin't it a too little ovious when you think about his breakdowns (mental illness) and how he "retired" for five whole years? What do you think THAT was about?
That Decodas no joke! That place really is an Evil piece of realastate. Lennon tried desperatly to express truths about Faul on "Double Fantasy." The title alone should hit you pretty hard! He was warning people finallly about Faul. When Yoko got wind of this, she was furious and had those songs taken out and REPLACED with her own songs (half the album is John, the other, Yoko.)
It was this situation coupled with John mustering up the courage to finally leave Yoko, that lead to his murder, which Yoko was completly behind.
Let the flames begin...........................
Love,
Mad John
|
|
|
|
Post by Winston on Jan 6, 2005 16:44:06 GMT
According to controversial biographer Albert Goldman, "Lennon had a horror of cremation, a practice that he inveighed against and once proposed to protest in a song. Despite his aversion, his widow arranged to have his body burned." And from the Channel 4 documentary "The Real John Lennon", it is clear that none of his family in England were consulted about the perfunctory disposal of his body.
John's 5 year old son Sean wasn't told the awful news until the morning of 10 December. Understandably distraught, he asked to see his father one last time, so Lennon's assistant Fred Seaman rang security man Douglas MacDougal at Ferncliff Mortuary and asked him to hold off on the cremation. It was too late.
But it gets worse.
According to Seaman's account in his book "The last days of John Lennon", MacDougal told him that John's face had been serene and calm until just before the body entered the oven, when suddenly it contorted into a "pained, macabre grin" apparently due to rigor mortis. MacDougal had also warned Yoko a couple of months before the murder that the Lennons were running crazy risks by making their daily routine public and not having proper bodyguards.
Maybe true, maybe not, but I believe there was something profoundly sinister about John's reclusive final years with the Astrology obsessed Yoko Ono. George Harrison once said of visits to the Dakota, "I always felt there was something more that he wanted to say but didn't feel able to. There was a look in his eyes."
|
|
|
|
Post by Winston on Jan 6, 2005 16:52:43 GMT
Parting thought: In the words of Judy Tenuta, "I'm sorry, but if that guy would have aimed a little to the left, he would have been a hero."  |
|
|
|
Post by Mad John on Jan 6, 2005 17:15:50 GMT
John (unfortunatly) was definatly controled. Controled in The Beatles, before The Beatles and in his "adult life." Makes no difference who was in his life (remember his early 70s affair with his asian secratary?) Yoko was a serious pusher of bad events and had a soul purpose while married to John.......watch over him, control him and his public activities and keep the myth going.
How terrifing and horribly discusting is that? Unspeakable actions were taken agaist Lennon all thru out his fricken life! I am sorry with all my heart, that this is the sad case.
|
|
|
|
Post by abbey on Jan 7, 2005 16:55:09 GMT
Winston - It is just disgusting, what Yoko did after John's death ! M.J. , I agree with you about Yoko. She is BAD NEWS. She is definitely into black magic & used it on John even before he ever met her !   |
|
|
|
Post by Mad John on Jan 7, 2005 17:40:17 GMT
It is funny how hard it is to pin Yoko down on anything though! There is very little evidence to support any wrong doings that she has done. For that is just how powerful her backers (for lack of a better word) are. Lets not forget that Yoko was also pushing the public peception as a serious ARTIST (painting furniture white and cutting them in half.)  I wish 60IF had more on Yoko. I am just glad that most of us here do not trust her, or believe that she was good for John!  |
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Jan 8, 2005 7:29:10 GMT
Poor John. Hiding from the world under a cloud of drink, doe, and denial.
Sleeping away days at a time; wasting nearly 5 continuous years not making his music; hard to believe that from a man who so idolized Buddy Holly, well motivated to pull together, in his magnetism and talent, one of the most successful bands in history. If not "THE." From maximum enthusiam and ambition, from youthful, sturdy determination---all the way down the scale to pitiful apathy, disregard, himself sitting fallow in the deep shadows of a New York anonymity SO pervasive that the once heroic rock warrior image is reduced to glimpses of middle age reflections found in some interviews published in Middle-of-the-Road American magazines. And much of that, incoherent and baneful. From "bigger than Jesus", to an obscure and benign quaintness that, in the eyes of those that loved him, challenges reason.
"Why, John, why?"
Life does go on, even for the broken in spirit, sometimes.
Look at John sulk in candid shots of John sitting alone at the "A Day in the Life" video/party shoot. Some party. Whoopi. Toot the noise makers! Toast the clowns!
See his cast down expression, his eyes probing the air for a modicum of comfort. See Keith Richards looking incredulous about something. See Mick Jagger project a certain ambivelence, a cautiously detached air of cool that puts the "freon" back in "freezer". See the hysterical lady come passing thru, shocked and disturbed, but largely ignored, and escorted OUT of the festivities. See the freakishly masked orchestra and strange, motley guests in a heavy-handed, mock celebration of the ambtious proceedings of this evening. See a propundity of Fellini-esque circus masks, and strained, rigid behavior that delivers a hollow thud in terms of "reality", but does serve up an artificial mood that has little to do with the "atmosphere" around the Beatles prior. See an era and a dynasty crumble, and morph into something new and tortured at the same time.
Well, show business. The act must go on, and sometimes you get on stage and smile through your tears and just fr*ggin' do it. You just do it. You just flex a stiff upper lip, decide it's better to move on ahead and really try to build anew, than to give up and give in to the temptation to be miserable. Salvage the day.
Still, the initial tone in those early '67 Beatle videos is dark, and heavy. Creative, oh yes, but weighted down by the cares of a million tears that John, Ringo, and George could never really cry on camera.
And Brian/Frian, blustering nervously through a quick take,with a briefcase, seemingly trying to catch up with his next life.......or past one.
Somehow, George Martin always looks in control of his emotions, always firmly maintaining a good solid grip that the English are so well known for mastering.
Before this video, it seems that it was always just the four lads together playing their best, singing their best, performing their best. No brou-haha.
With this video comes a whole lot of Brou-haha. Rigamarole. Acting happy, and joyous, and high-spirited, and jubilant. Sort of. But, don't think about it anymore. Don't worry about John any more.
I don't wanna think about it anymore tonight. I have to put away all the party hats, champagne glasses, holiday trappings, and left over Christmas
debris, with a smile on my face of course. Or, run around the room all agitated like that lady in the coat (was that Cynthia Lennon?) and finally detain myself with a Melatonin tablet. Salvage the night. Carpe Nocem. or Crappy Nocem. Hmmmmmm....Eeny-meeny-miney-mo.........
|
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Jan 8, 2005 7:33:58 GMT
Ooops. Latin for night is "nox." Sorry.
I should have said, "carpe nox vs. crappy nox."
|
|
|
|
Post by PaulBearer on Jan 9, 2005 2:53:11 GMT
Haven't figured out how to use that "Modify" button yet eh Perplexed? |
|
|
|
Post by abbey on Feb 2, 2005 18:17:22 GMT
I think that Oh, Darling was written by John to Paul. He knew that Paul wanted out. Paul made no bones about it. He wrote it by himself, I'm sure. Paul never would've gone along with John writing such a thing about him. After Paul died, John gave it to Bill to sing. The pain was just too intense for him to sing it |
|
|
|
Post by byrdsmaniac on Mar 10, 2005 1:22:59 GMT
I think that Oh, Darling was written by John to Paul. He knew that Paul wanted out. Paul made no bones about it. He wrote it by himself, I'm sure. Paul never would've gone along with John writing such a thing about him. After Paul died, John gave it to Bill to sing. The pain was just too intense for him to sing it "I begged her not to go, and I begged her on my bended knees You're only fooling around, fooling around with me" (from the One after 909) I'd say you were right on sister, except possibly for the way it was sung, which was like, "Well you know, I nearly broke down AND DIED! ("Dahuhhuuhuhuhuheyeed!") which would suggest that Paul had been singing to John, because he's the one who died. But I think you're right Sis. |
|
|
|
Post by abbey on Mar 10, 2005 17:14:46 GMT
Your right Byrds. John meant that he almost broke down & died. He was DEVASTATED by Paul's death. I don't doubt for a minute that he meant that. I wouldn't be surprised if he added that AFTER Paul's death !
|
|
