Folks, so sorry for the lack of updates this last week. Things have been very hectic in the real world and the blog has suffered a bit.
It’s been interesting following the stories surrounding the upcoming blockbuster book about our faled Beatle leader, John Lennon. The book is filled with many small stories in the life of John that we have heard glimpses of before (John lusting after his mom was first heard in the Lost Lennon Tapes radio series), and those that we have not heard about previously (John playing for the “other team” with noneother than Paul McCartney). These sordid tales have created lots of opinion and talk on the web about the validity of Philip Norman’s upcoming book, but perhaps that just makes for good publicity. We’ll have to see once the book comes out.
On of the most intersting pieces in the book for me, is the afterward with Sean Lennon. In a recent article at the Huffington Post, Sean describes life at the Dakota during John’s house-husband period. It’s hard to relive this time period through Sean’s description. We get a portrait of his childhood, and it is told almost through the filter of a 5-year old. It’s all the more tragic knowing the result.
I find it fascinating that Sean is choosing now to speak about his father. It must have been very difficult, and I think the world is much better for getting to know John in a much more intimate way. I just find it a little strange that Yoko would allow Sean to comment on a book, that she once approved of, and has since claimed is unauthorized.
For now, though, Norman has defended his claims on the book. Read some of his defenses below.
Here’s what we’ve read.
Noted rock author Phillip Norman is amazed that Yoko Ono has disapproved of his upcoming 800-page biography on John Lennon: The Life, calling the book “too mean” to Lennon’s memory. As with Norman’s 1981 book, Shout! The Beatles In Their Generation, Yoko worked closely with Norman, and only after reading the finished manuscript has she disowned the project.
Norman, who is among the most revered of rock authors, can’t believe that Ono is upset over the book contents, when it was the late Beatles’widow who supplied so much of the revealing content: “In the end, it was the spirit of the book, I think, that she didn’t like. And it was surprising to me, because the book was written in the way that I’d always written about John (which was) through Yoko talking to me, which is always in this very loving but kind of exasperated sort kind of tone: ‘Oh that was so John’kind of thing — so I was astonished when she just seemed to dislike it in such totality, but I do hope that she’s going to change that view.”
Both Yoko and Paul McCartney are reportedly up-in-arms about a very brief aside in the book in which Yoko reveals that Lennon mulled over having a gay fling with McCartney. Norman contends that Yoko was very direct and forthcoming about Lennon’s willingness to explore both straight and gay sex — including a possible affair with the Beatles’manager Brian Epstein — although there is no concrete documentation that he ever acted on it: “Y’know Yoko was willing to go into this territory, to say that there was a time when John was so ambitious that he realized that John was gay, and he more or less said to Brian that if it will help, ‘You manage the group to your utmost abilities, I’m willing to go along with that.’Brian then wouldn’t take advantage of that, being innately decent and gentle as he was.”
Yoko was interviewed extensively for the book — which is the most exhaustive Lennon biography in almost 25 years — leading the way for Norman to interview McCartney, longtime Beatles right-hand man, the late Neil Aspinall, Lennon’s first cousins, his father’s second wife, and Sean Lennon.
Phillip Norman has written numerous books on the Rolling Stones, Elton John, and the Beatles. John Lennon: The Life will be released on October 8th, the day before what would have been Lennon’s 68th birthday.
Source: KBS radio
Filed under: Beatle Children, Beatles News, Beatles in Print, Celebrity Sightings, John, Yoko
Now, about Johns homosexuality, he said a lot about how he feels about that rumor in the 6 of december 1980 interview he made for bbc one, with Andy Peebles. He said that the rumor started when he went to spain with Brian Epstein. And in Paul´s 21 birthday party a Disc Jokey from the cavern suggested that he an Epstein had a relationship. John went mad on him and beat him up, braking his ribs. Now the intresting part of this interview is that he said something like: “Because of my reaction when somebody said i was homosexual, i think maybe i was”. Now im not saying that he is. Im saying that john was aware of that thing, and in some point in his life he thought about it…dont you think?
To me he wasn´t.
And the thing with Paul is just ridiculus, there is no clue that suggested that.
p.s You can find that interview in the internet.
Well, rock stars of the 60’s and 70’s used a lot of drugs and said a lot of strange things. It was the psychedelic era, artists were expected to be extreme and experimental. To push the boundaries. John Lennon died in 1980. If he was alive today, he sure would have moved with the times and changed as a person. And viewed life, present and past, with a different perspective. Like all pop/rock-survivors of that period. To paint a new face on a dead person who lived in an era that’s dead and gone, is just rubbish. Lennon can’t even defend himself. And that’s just cruel. – Half of what I say is meaningless, he sang in 1968. Believe it.
As I’ve said before, none of this is new to me. If you’ve ever read Albert Goldman’s Book “The Lives of John Lennon.” written in the 1980s, it also paints John in a negative light, so nothing after reading that book surprises me. John was a rock star and he was willing to try alot of different things including drugs, and yes, he probably tried experimental sex whether it be straight or gay. He was one to wonder “What if I….” Whatever… It was the 60s, the time of free love, sexual experimentation and so forth as well as using drugs to expand the mind or add to the sexual experimentation. Plus he had women and men who threw themselves at him on a regular basis. Who is to say what really happened? As far as his behavior goes towards his wives, and children, I’m leaving that one alone. There have been parents in this world that have been far worse in their offenses towards their families, but it doesn’t excuse abuse of any form in my eyes, however John suffered from depression, bulimia, malnutrition, alcohol, cocaine and heroin addiction. He didn’t handle alcohol well from reports. He was still dealing with confusion from his childhood and loss of his mother and other close friends like Stuart Sutcliffe. And if that isn’t enough to cause someone to act out or change moods erratically, I don’t know what is. Now, I’m not defending bad behavior on anyone’s part but part of John’s redeeming qualities was that he realized that he could be a bastard at times and tried to make it up to people. He just really wanted to be loved unconditionally but often made it hard for those closest to him to do that at times. It seems the people who are closest to you are often the people you treat the worst and push away sometimes. Its sad, but it happens.
As I mentioned in another post, I would have liked to have met him in his forties because I think, age matures people and gives them insight. Of course, that never was going to happen because someone shot him that December night in 1980. So, in closing, just remember that John can’t be here to rebuke any of this or confirm it. But I think he would be honest in any case and that is another quality that was endearing about him to his close friends, bandmates, family and associates from reports. I think he would have taken care of his family much better (English and those in the states) had he lived. I think he would have made amends to those he had wronged in some way. I firmly feel his life would have gone in that direction. Sadly, I never met the man but I get the sense that this would have happened. You can take it or leave it. I’ll still listen to his music and remember him as a musician who brought great music into my life as a Beatle and as a solo artist.
I never heard of PN –john wrote good songs, period.
I have the exact quote from John’s BBC interview with Andy Peebles referred to above, and John’s words were much vaguer than xyzman implies. Here’s John’s quote: “I mean the Beatles first national coverage was me beating up Bob Wooller, at Paul’s 21st party because he intimated I was homosexual. I must have had a fear that maybe I was homosexual to attack him like that and it’s very complicated reasoning. But I was very drunk and I hit him and I could have really killed somebody then. And that scared me.”
hello it is test. WinRAR provides the full RAR and ZIP file support, can decompress CAB, GZIP, ACE and other archive formats.
Hi, Philip. Wow! what a book and what a good read. I’m 58 and I remember the Beatles thoroughly through the life of the band especially from ‘65 on. Thank you for this book. I’ve been reading it since Christmas Day and as soon as I started I told my wife that it is well written.
I agree with Yoko that John does appear mean in the book but I believe you in that I think he had his mean moments. Yoko is probably filled with sentimental nostalgia. The homo things well, I just don’t know what to think about that although you didn’t come right out and say he had flings with men. He probably did though because the old adage ‘where there’s smoke there’s fire’ is relative I think. I loved the little bit about the boat ride he had to Bermuda in June 1980. That was rich material I thought.
I was a fan and am one still of the Beatles and of John and am wondering if you will attempt a bio on George Harrison now? Anyhow, take care Philip and thank you so much I enjoyed it from cover to cover.
Duane Graves.
I’m reading the book now, it’s a damn good read about the most influential human of our lifetime
an excellent read. lennon was both a genius and an extrovert. together with his wicked sense of humour it will be a while before we see another character like him come along.
I’m confused! Throughout this book I read over and over how John had such a terrible early life which was influential in establishing his character. He didn’t have such a bad youth. He was adored, pampered, indulged and from this spoilage he “matured” (and I use the word ever so sarcastically) as an abuser. He was tolerated because he was feared. What I find so incredulous is that we have all but deified this person when in reality he was a spoiled brat for the vast majority of his life (and to think that I once admired this guy and wept like a child when the news of his death reached me). He was unethical, immoral and lacked even the shreds of decency. Considering the Eastern Mysticism he supposedly studied he sure as hell missed the finer points and manipulated the remainder to suit his own wants. Throughout his life he did not possess an honorable bone in his body. The way he treated Cynthia and his first born was abominable, yet he justified his behavior and everybody forgave him, La-De-Da, because he was John Lennon. Sad!
I grew up in the ghetto of Brooklyn New York. Evicted as a child by insensitive parents I slept in alleys and ate out of trash cans. I finally enlisted in the military at the tale end of ‘Nam simply as a means to survive. I’ll match the adversities of my youth against Lennon’s cushy existence anyday and I grew out of this environment without drugs, or addictions of any sort. Why do we tend to idolize drug experiementation and excessive usage amongst our dubious “heroes” when all that nonsense is nothing more than a crutch to escape from reality and then blame whatever occurs as a result on the usage itself? Cowardice, plain and simple!
Then along comes Yoko; another pampered child who honestly believes that her irritating singing voice, illogical life views, input and impressionistic “art” had any redeeming value whatsoever. The two of these people come together and compliment each other perfectly because they are cut from the same cloth.
I will continue to admire the musical artist/poet who in his later life produced classic songs of immortal heart wrenching noteworthiness, however I have ceased to respect the person who could find humor in the physical disabilities of another human being or yell in the face of a child seeking his father’s loving attention. This man was a scoundrel, plain and simple and the total opposite of the characters he portrays in his work.
Mr. Norman, enjoyed reading your book while recovering from surgery. You must have spent years doing the research, don’t you think ecco could have been more careful proofreading your work before sending it out? I found 5 copy mistakes that they ought to correct for the next printing. Mistakes:
1. p. 8, 4th paragraph, 4th line reads: it was merely for an dull job. Should be “a” dull.
2. p. 329, 1st para, 4th line reads: John, and a female third party ended up bed together, should be “in” bed together.
3. p. 539, 2nd para, 9th line reads: parents home, Julian was packed off stay with Dot, the housekeeper. Should be: packed off “to” stay with Dot, the housekeeper.
4. p.638, 2nd para, 9th line reads: teens,he sometimes used be in Julia’s room with her when she had a. Should be used “to” be.
5.p. 701, 2nd line reads: John put on record, he urged him soften his persona by public. Should be: urged him “to” soften.
I wouldn’t doubt there are probably more errors and if ecco would like to hire me to go through the book with a finer tooth comb, please contact me.
Mr.Norman, hope you read this. I just thought you should know about their sloppy work.
Mr. Norman,
You mention ‘meet the wife’ in Good Morning,Good Morning but assume it means tea in the morning, whereas it’s clear that the day has been gone through by the time this line appears and Meet the Wife refers to a sitcom in the early evening on TV starring Peggy Mount.