Presidential options / Blasphemous rumors

Thanks for your attempt at popping and deflating my balloon, but the story I wrote is a true story.
How long has it been since Rolling Stone reported the truth?
In the meantime, it is awesome to read discussions about the Beatles that have gone on.
 
Man I'm loving this off topic left turn! It is a oasis in a time of great discomfort and angst...GT thanks for sharing your personal insights into the boys..cool perspectives!

Man I love the Beatles. About 15 years ago a friend passed onto me a bunch of recordings of the boys rough drafts / births of many of their songs...As a very worldwide unknown and so very not successful song writer/ lyricist it sure gave me a boost in confidence that I have always been on the right track and just because none of my stuff will ever be loved and adored by the world like there's is.... it's still very cool that I get to do what I do just like they did. I really love playin n singin all alone in my room. As I explain to my wife who hates that I am addicted to slipping out into that room and getting "lost" as she puts it ...babe I'm just "honing my craft"...What she doesn't get is that as much as I love doing that, where the magic happens is when I get to go out and do my thing (however rare that may be) and get showered with love from people who dug what I just performed for them...That my love of making music comes full circle with that love coming back at me....priceless....I played in a great band as a young man and got that huge crowd love...it's like heroine, intoxicating yet humbling. To get the accolades, to get validation that all that time and energy spent "honing my craft" "practicing" paid off... is sweet....that love you get from people that dig where you took them musically is such a hoot ....now all that love and a dollar might get me a cup of coffee...maybe...but the love...that's currency of a much more infinite quality.
 
Thanks for your attempt at popping and deflating my balloon
I wasn't attempting any such thing. If we were having a chat during a meal or during a drink at some bar and you related the story, I'd've said something like "it's commonly assumed that she was part of the Eastman~Kodak empire family but that may not be true." Same way if you said to me "That footballer Gordon Hill was a really cheeky cockney" I'd've said to you "actually, he's not a cockney at all. He's not even a Londoner as such ~ he's from Sunbury which, at the time he was growing up was outside London" or "the OPD badge Paul wears on the cover of Sergeant Pepper doesn't mean officially pronounced dead and isn't proof that he died in '66 ~ it was given to him by a Canadian cop and it stands for Ontario Police Dept."
but the story I wrote is a true story.
I didn't actually comment on the story. I have no reason to disbelieve it in essence and I don't.

How long has it been since Rolling Stone reported the truth?
I've no idea. There again, I've no idea that their stock-in-trade has been to not report the truth.
However, from Paul's authorized biography, Many Years From Now comes this when talking about 1968:
Paul's relationship with Linda was finally discovered by the newspapers, who immediately invented one of the most enduring myths about Linda of all: that she was in some way related to the Eastman Kodak family. This was presumably concocted by Fleet Street tabloids connecting her name with the fact that she was a photographer. Paul: "We were once in a Los Angeles disco and this bloke crept up, kneeling in front of us, and he said 'Are you Eastman-Kodak ?' She said no and he said 'I'm glad you said that, because I am.'" No matter how many times Linda denied it, it became part of McCartney mythology that he had married an heiress.
I have a vague memory of reading back in 1979 in the 1978 edition of the Hunter Davies biography of the Beatles that she wasn't part of that empire so it kind of tweaked my head when I read your story. But I wasn't casting aspersions ~ for all I know she might have told you that she was part of that family.
Let's face it, we people are strange and kids can be even stranger.
 
About 15 years ago a friend passed onto me a bunch of recordings of the boys rough drafts / births of many of their songs
You know, when I got "Anthology 2" I was actually quite disappointed. Primarily because I'd read Mark Hertsgaard's book {A day in the life} and Mark Lewisohn's book {Recording sessions} in which, having heard outtakes, demos and alternate takes of all these songs that at that point I'd loved for 20 years {this was '96}, they had so much great stuff to say about them and they did not live up to what my imagination had concocted.
Anthology 3 was even more annoying.
However, once these alternates had sunk in, something struck me about the Beatles that I'd not ever considered before and that was just what a band they were and how they pushed each other, even when they were fighting, falling apart and losing interest. They would not settle for those early takes. They'd say, we can make these better and they did. Listening to their early takes on the "Revolver" album for example, if the songs had come out the way those early takes were, it wouldn't be one quarter of the album it actually is. It would be a drug slopped lamefest. But they were great at improving each other's songs, all the more remarkable because on the fly, they'd have to come up with new ideas and present them to the band who then had to come up with new parts to go with the revisions. On film we have one of the great examples of the evolution of a song when the Rolling Stones go through the stages of "Sympathy for the Devil" in the Jean Luc Godard film of the same name. But those anthology albums show that for the Beatles, this was pretty much standard practice. George's "Not guilty" took 102 takes and still didn't make it onto the White album ! Before "Helter skelter" made it in the form it did, there included a 12 and 27 minute version of the song !!
 
Back
Top